u

L r i L

L

LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INC

600 CHARLTON STREET MASSACHUSETTS 01 550 I I

Prospect Lake I Diagnostic/Feasibility Study I Egremont, Massachusetts I I Project No.: D-705-88 I Submitted : September 5, 1991 I I I I AUTHORS: Thomas J. Lowkes I Daniel W. Smith, PhD, Ruth A. Anderson Hamer D. Clarke I Lee D. Lyman I PROJECT MANAGER; Lee D. Lyman I LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INC. 600 CHARLTON STREET I SOUTHBRIDGE, MA 01550 I I I I I I I DISCLAIMER I This report was funded under a cost sharing Substate Agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through its Division of Water Pollution Control (Division), Clean • Lakes Program (Chapter 628, Acts of 1981), and the Town of | Egremont. As Stated in the Substate Agreement (Paragraph A. 3.4), the Town is required to submit a draft Final Report — for the Division's review and comment. Subsequently, the • Town must submit a Final Report that incorporates the I Division's comments and corrections. Final payment of a 10% retainage would be released upon acceptance of the Final • Report by the Division (Paragraph 1.7 of the Substate I Agreement). — Prior to the completion of this Phase I project, most of the • resources and staff of the clean Lakes Program were | reallocated by the Department of Environmental Protection. As one consequence of these actions, a thorough and timely review of this report was not feasible. Since the Town and • its subcontractor, Lycott Environmental Research, Inc., | should not be burdened unduly, the Division adopted an interim procedure of checking draft final reports solely to _ determine whether the scope of work (Appendix A of the • Substate Agreement) has been met. This Draft Final Report • has been checked by the Division and, at a minimum, it does fulfill all requirements specified in the scope of work. The • Division has therefore, accepted this report in accordance • with Paragraphs 1.7 and A.3.4 of the Substate Agreement and m it has released the 10% retainage to the Town for subsequent reimbursement to Lycott Environmental Research, Inc. • It should be emphasized, however, that this report has not been subjected to a full and thorough review by the Division as in the past and, therefore, the quality and completeness • of this report, and the assessments and recommendations I contained therein, represent primarily the work and judgements of Lycott Environmental. • i 037tx:DISCLAIM i i LYCOTT! . I I I Table of Contents Page I DISCLAIMER PROJECT SUMMARY I DIAGNOSTIC STUDY Historical Information * 1 I Review of Reports 1 Watershed and Sub-Basins 2 Watershed Description 2 Sub-Basins 3 I Land Use 4 Geology and Hydrogeology of the I Prospect Lake Watershed. . 5 Soil Types 5 Surficial Geology * 9 Bedrock Geology . . , 9 I Hydrologic Setting. 10 Groundwater Monitoring 10 Well Installation Procedures 10 I Well Locations 11 Groundwater Quality 13 Hydrologic Budget 13 I Methodology 14 Storm Flow 14 Tributary and Sub-surface Flow 14 I Lake Surface Precipitation and Evaporation. ... 15 Surface Water Outflow 16 Long-Term Versus 1988 Budget 16 Results 17 I Comparison to Field Measurements 18 Limnological Data 19 Morphometric Data 19 I Calculation of Flushing Rate and Residence Time . 21 Calculation of Averages 22 Water Quality Parameters 23 I Macrophyte Evaluation 34 Status of Fishery Resource . 34 Storm Drains and Storm Sampling 35 I Storm Drain Mapping 35 I Storm Sampling 35 I I LYCOTT I I Table of Contents cont'd. Page I Wastewater Disposal Practices 37 Leachate Sampling 37 I Sediment Analysis 38 Limiting Nutrient Analysis 41 I Trophic state of Prospect Lake 43 Annual Phosphorus Budget 44 I Wet and Dry Precipitation 44 Internal Phosphorus Loading from Sediment Release. 44 Loading from the Watershed 44 Land Use Associated Phosphorus Export 45 I Septic System Phosphorus Sources 46 Long-Term Phosphorus Budget Summary 47 Tributary Phosphorus Inputs 48 Stormflow Inputs 49 I Groundwater Inputs 49 Total Short Term Phosphorus Budget 49 Comparison of Short Term and Long Term Loading . . 50 I Modeling Phosphorus Concentrations 50 Interconversion of Nitrogen Compounds 53 I I FEASIBILITY STUDY I Summary 55 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives 56 I Methods to Manage Macrophyte Biomass 56 Drawdown vs. Harvesting vs. Herbicides 60 I Feasibility of Lake Drawdown 68 Methods to Control Loading From Agricultural Areas. . .70 I Watershed Management 71 I Engineering Recommendations 76 Predicted Affects of Remediation 77 I I LYCOTT I I I Table of Contents cont"d. I Page I Effects Upon Associated Wetlands 77 Effects on Fish and Wildlife 78 I Public Education Program 79 Phase II Monitoring Program 80 I Sources of Funding 81 Necessary Permits and Licenses 82 I Public Participation 83 Historical Commissions 84 I Cost Analysis 84 I Milestone Work Schedule 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY I GLOSSARY OF TERMS I I I I I I I I CO! I LYCOTT < i i LIST OF TABLES i Table Title Page

1 4 i 2 Land Use in the Prospect Lake Watershed .... 5 3 Description of Soils in the prospect Lake Watershed i 6 Soil Limitations for Septic Tank i Absorption Fields 8 5 Groundwater Monitoring Wells...... 12 i 6 . 18 7 Annual Water Budget Long Term . 18 i 8 Morphometric Data ... . 20 9 Volume as a Function of Depth . 20 i 10 Area of Sediments as a Function of Depth. . . . 21 11 . 24 i 12 Mean Phosphorus in Prospect Lake Tributaries. . 28 13 Prospect Lake Creel Census . 34 i 15 Deep Hole Sediment Analysis . 39 16 Ratios of Nitrogen to Phosphorus . 42 i 17 Trophic State Classification . 43 i 18 Land Use Associated Phosphorus Export .... . 46 19 . 47 i 20 Phosphorus Loading Estimated From Stream Flow . 48 21 . 49 i 22 Models To Predict Phosphorus Concentrations - . 52 i i mm ' £*> LYCOTT • 1 I I

LIST OF TABLES cont'd. Table 1 Title Page

23 Models to Predict Phosphorus Concentrations Short Term ...... 52 I 24 Long-Terra Phosphorus Loading vs. Condition ... 77

I 25 Required Permits and Approvals ...... 82 i i i i i i i i i i i i • LYCOTT I I LIST OF APPENDICES I APPENDIX A List of Figures I Figure i Title 1 Site Location Map J 2 Watershed Boundary 3 Watershed Boundary & Drainage Sub-Basins I 4 Land Use Map « 5 Soils Map B 6 Surficial Geology • 7 Monitoring Well Locations 8 Bathymetric Profile • 9 Sediment Depths 10 Sampling Station Locations • 11 Total Phosphorus vs. Time 12 Total Nitrogen vs. Time I 13 Total Nitrogen to Total Phosphorus Ratio 14 Storm Drain Sampling Locations I 15 Leachate Sampling Locations 16 Sources of Phosphorus | 17 Aquatic Nitrogen Cycle _ 18 Macrophyte Distribution 19 Macrophyte Coverage Map 20 Sources of Water I APPENDIX B I Boring Logs I I LYCOTT . I I I APPENDIX C Hydrologic Budget Calculations I APPENDIX D Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Temperature and Relative Thermal Resistance (RTR) I APPENDIX E I Water Quality Data: Tributaries and In-lake Sampling APPENDIX F I Water Quality Data: Groundwater Sampling APPENDIX 6 I Stormwater Quality Data APPENDIX H I Fishery Analysis APPENDIX I I Leachate Sampling APPENDIX J I Laboratory Methods APPENDIX K I Calculation of Averages APPENDIX L I Environmental Notification Form I APPENDIX M Cost Analysis/Milestone Work Schedule I APPENDIX N Historical Water Quality Data I APPENDIX O I Septic System Survey I I LYCOTT I I I PROJECT SUMMARY Prospect Lake is a small, moderately deep lake located within the Town of Egremont, Massachusetts. In many ways, this man-made lake is typical of many lakes and ponds in I Massachusetts and the nation as a whole. Originally pristine, rural, and surrounded by a number of summer camps, the shoreline of Prospect Lake now supports a more dense I concentration of permanent residences which probably contributed to the accelerating eutrophication of the lake. Lycott Environmental Research, Inc. of Southbridge, I Massachusetts was contracted to perform a Diagnostic / Feasibility study of the lake. The study consisted of a Diagnostic Phase — a detailed study of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the lake and its I watershed, — and a Feasibility Phase — in which methods of rehabilitation and remediation were evaluated and recommended for implementation. I The results of the Diagnostic Phase indicate that the Lake undergoes nutrient input from land use characteristics, particularly agricultural land use, and nuisance growths of I aquatic plants. The outlets structure was determined to be in need of moderate repairs. To remedy the amount of nutrients moving into the pond I and levels of aquatic plant growth, Lycott has proposed a series of management techniques to improve water quality in the pond. Specifically, Lycott has proposed a five step management program aimed at reducing nutrient inputs and the I growths of nuisance aquatic plants. 1. Implementation of Water Level Drawdown - This method I should be used to control the level of plant growth in the shoreline areas of the pond. Nuisance aquatic plants in the pond reduce recreational, aesthetic, I and property values. 2. Construction of an Infiltration/Nutrient Filter - The placement of a ten foot filter would reduce nutrient inputs from agricultural lands within the Prospect I Lake watershed. According to Lycott*s calculations, agricultural runoff is a major source of phosphorus to the lake. I 3. Watershed Management Program -. The Watershed Management Program would reduce nutrient input to the lake through improved land use planning, a reduction I of nutrient input by home owners, and a public education program aimed at teaching residents basic lake and pond dynamics and methods of lake and I watershed management. I I 4. Repair of the Outlet Structure - The repair of the current outlet structure would increase the safety of the structure, at the same time assisting in the ability to conduct water-level drawdown. 5. Phase II Monitoring Program - The Monitoring Program, including the analysis of lake water and several surveys of aquatic plants and fisheries, would be done throughout the year to determine the success of drawdown and of the other remediation techniques.

Before any decision can be made about which management/ restoration options should be pursued, the residents and users of Prospect Lake, and the Town of Egremont, must establish the ultimate goals of the restoration or management operation. The advisability of a technique can be evaluated and ranked only in reference to these predetermined objectives. DIAGNOSTIC STUDY

LYCOTT I I HISTORICAL INFORMATION / REVIEW OF REPORTS I Prospect Lake, located in Egremont, Massachusetts, is an important resource for the residents of Egremont and the surrounding towns. The lake is located just north of Hillsdale Road, approximately 3/5 mile from the town of North I Egremont (see Figure 1) . A survey of Inland Waters, conducted by the State of I Massachusetts in 1911, indicated that the lake was used primarily for fishing (Appendix N) . The secchi disc depth was 9.5 feet, with no oxygen depletion found in the bottom of the lake. According to a resident of the pond, the water I level during 1911 was 4 feet below normal. According to the 1911 Fishery Survey, the pond was once called Winchell Pond, No date or purpose was found in the change to the current I name. In 1947 a privately-owned recreation and picnic area was constructed on the eastern shoreline of the lake. This site I is now occupied by the Prospect Lake Park Campground. Stocking records were obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) . According to I these records (Appendix N) , Prospect Lake was stocked with largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, brown bullhead, pike, perch, yellow perch, white perch, pickerel, crappies and golden shiners intermittently from 1909 to 1957. The report I in 1957 stated that the Prospect Lake fish population exhibited above-average growth, good reproductive success, and good species and size distribution. The report also stated that the lake was especially good for pickerel due to I the weed beds, which provide a suitable habitat for spawning. An inspection report for the Prospect Lake Dam dated September 26, 1976 was obtained from the Massachusetts I Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety. This report classified the Prospect Lake dam as safe, but with minor repairs needed. The following deficiencies were I noted in the report: growth of trees and bushes on the dam, cracked and damaged masonry, and evidence of seepage. The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control I (MDWPC) did baseline surveys of water quality in Prospect Lake on June 29, 1978, and on July 8, 1985 (Appendix N) . Unfortunately, the data from 1978 does not appear to be complete. A review of the 1978 baseline data collected by I MDWPC suggests that Prospect Lake is an oligotrophic water body. Dissolved oxygen levels in the hypolimnion indicated that the bottom waters did not become depleted of oxygen I during the summer months. Water hardness was moderately I high, approximately 200 mg/1. There was no fecal I I LYCOTT contamination found, and a total algae count of 300 cells/ml was not considered to pose a threat to the recreational use of the lake. The 1985 MDWPC report indicated that the lake was on the borderline between a oligotrophic and a mesotrophic lake. Dissolved oxygen levels remained moderately high in the hypolimnion. The hardness of the lake water had dropped since the 1978 survey, to approximately 70 mg/1. According to the weed map done for the 1985 survey (see Figure 17 of Appendix A), vegetative growth was dense along the entire shoreline. The most frequently observed nuisance macrophytes were Potamogeton sp. , Elodea sp. , Naias sp., and Ranunculis sp_. A public access to the lake is located in the Prospect Lake Campground, on the eastern shoreline of the lake. The campground offers a dock, boat ramp, a picnic area, water slide, tennis courts, snack bar, and paddle boat, row boats, and canoe rentals.

WATERSHED AND SUB-HASINS Watershed Description - Prospect Lake and its watershed are located in the Town of Egremont, Berkshire County, Massachusetts, at approximately 42 degrees 12' 00" latitude and 73 degrees 27' 30" longitude. Both the lake and the watershed lie within the Housatonic Major River Basin. Prospect Lake empties into the Green River, which flows to the Housatonic River. The Housatonic River empties into the Atlantic Ocean near Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Prospect Lake watershed is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix A, which represents portions of the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map for the Egremont, MA-NY quadrangle. The watershed encompasses an area of 812 acres, of which 55 acres are occupied by Prospect Lake. Thus, the land area that contributes surface water and groundwater to Prospect Lake measures approximately 757 acres, which is 13.8 times greater than the area of the pond. To the north and west of Prospect Lake, the topography extends up a steep hillside, reaching an elevation of 427 meters (1,394 feet). The remainder of the watershed (to the south and east of the lake) is characterized by low hills and ridges that rise to heights of over 303 meters (1,000 feet), or about 37 meters (123 feet) higher than the lake surface (at 265 meters, or 877 feet). In these areas, topographic divides are clearly defined, and the watershed boundary has been shown in Figure 2 with a solid line. Prospect Lake receives water from five tributaries (see locations #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 in Figure 10). Three small brooks enter from the north and west while two larger

LYCOTT I I tributaries enter Prospect Lake from the south. In addition, I a substantial portion of inflow to the pond takes the form of groundwater flow and overland stormflow. Outflow from the pond is eastward, entering into the Green River approximately I 1,210 meters (4,000 feet) from the lake. Sub-Basins - The Prospect Lake watershed has been divided into eight sub-basins, based on a combination of topography, drainage patterns, and land use. The sub-basins, shown in I Figure 3, are as follows: 1. Western Slope — This sub-basin encompasses a largely un-developed and forested area that extends eastward I to sub-basins #4, #5, and #7. Sub-basin #1 contains a stream which flows through sub-basin #7 before entering Prospect Lake. Contained in this sub-basin I is a small amount of agricultural land. 2. Southeast of Prospect Lake —This sub-basin is defined as the approximate total area drained by two I culverts located under Hillsdale Road. Although much of the sub-basin is wooded, the northeastern section contains the Prospect Lake Campground. I 3. Northern slope — Groundwater and tributary flow from this slope drain southeastward into Prospect Lake. A centrally located channel drains the sub-basin, discharging into the northwest section of the lake. I Like sub-basin #1, this sub-basin is largely un- developed and heavily forested. I 4. Southern sub-basin — Sub-basin #4 is defined as the area that drains the wetland to the southwest of Prospect Lake. Most of the sub-basin drains into the wetland, out of which a stream emerges. The I stream crosses under North Egremont Road and . intersects the stream which drains sub-basin #1. The sub-basin contains forested, agricultural, and I wetland areas. 5. Southwestern shore — This area consists of the residential and forested area along the southwestern I shoreline of the lake. Runoff to the lake occurs as direct groundwater flow and a small tributary located in the center of the sub-basin. I 6. Northwestern Shore — This sub-basin includes the northwestern shoreline of Prospect Lake. Like sub- basin #5, this area contains both residential and forested land, and is drained by a small stream and I groundwater. I I I LYCOTT 7. Southern Shoreline — In this sub-basin, groundwater, stormflow, and a tributary drain northward into the lake. The streams that merge from sub-basins #1 and #4 flow through this sub-basin before entering the lake. Most of this area is agricultural land, with areas of residential and forested land in the northern section of the sub-basin. 8. Northeast Shoreline — Sub-basin #8 defines the area from which water flows southwestward into Prospect Lake. This small, relatively flat area contains agricultural and forested areas. The sizes of the eight sub-basins, together with the I corresponding tributary numbers, are summarized in Table 1. I TABLE 1 WATERSHED SUB-BASINS I Sub-basin Tributary Sub-basin Size (acres) 1 2 337 2 47 I 3 6 132 4 3 79 5 4 68 I 6 5 40 7 2,3* 45 8 9 I * - Sub-basin #7 contains the confluence of tributaries #2 and #3. I Land Use - Land use is depicted in Figure 4 and is detailed in Table 2. I I I I I I LYCOTT I I I I TABLE 2 I LAND USE IN THE PROSPECT LAKE WATERSHED ACRES Agriculture Agriculture I Sub-Basin Forest (Row Crops) (Pasture) Residential 1 328 6 0 3 2 36 0 0 11 I 3 132 0 0 0 4 51 26 0 2 5 54 0 0 14 6 30 0 0 10 I 7 17 11 13 4 8 5 0 4 0 I TOTAL 653 43 17 44 I GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE PROSPECT LAKE WATERSHED In order to understand hydrologic processes which are important to Prospect Lake, the geological setting must be I identified and described. Information relative to the soils, surficial geology, and bedrock geology of the Prospect Lake I watershed is presented below. Soil Types - The soil types that occur within the Prospect Lake watershed are described in Table 3 and shown in Figure 5 of Appendix A. Because the Prospect Lake watershed extends I into the State of New York, two different soil maps were used to compile this information. The soils in Massachusetts were obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Berkshire County Soil Survey, and the soils from New York were obtained I from New York's Soil Survey of Columbia County. Where state lines are crossed, soil units are sometimes abruptly discontinuous, indicating that the individuals who mapped I these areas did not always agree on soil identifications. Such differences in interpretation are to be expected in soils mapping and, in this case, do not significantly affect the overall evaluation of the characteristics of the I watershed. A dashed line was placed on the soils map I (Figure 5) where a questionable boundary occurs. I I I LYCOTT I I

TABLE 3 I DESCRIPTION OF SOILS IN THE PROSPECT LAKE WATERSHED Soil Type Description I Tm: These soils are shallow to moderately Taconic-Macomber deep, generally located on very steep I Association slopes, well-to excessively well-drained, somewhat acidic, and typically form in glacial till. Based on available soil information for Columbia county in New I York State and for Berkshire County in Massachusetts, steep slopes may impose severe limitations on siting of septic systems and alternate design septic I systems may be needed in these soils. Furthermore, the shallow depth to bedrock, which is common beneath these soils, imposes I severe limitations on soil for homesites and alternative septic systems may not be effective. I LdE: This soil unit consists of very deep, Lanesboro- well-drained Lanesboro and Dummerston Dummerston soils, which occur on the sides of hills I Association and mountains and are most often found in woodland. Lanesboro soils are typically on lower, less steep slopes, and Dummerston soils are on the higher, steep I slopes. The main limitations to use of these soils as sites for septic tank absorption fields is slope, and for Lanesboro soils, the slow permeability is I also a limitation. FwC: This map unit consists of very deep, I Fullam-Lanesboro moderately well-drained Fullam soils and Association very deep, well-drained Lanesboro soils. These soils are on the sides of hills and mountains, with Fullam soils generally on I the lower part of side slopes and Lanesboro soils typically on the upper parts of side slopes. Permeability of Fullam and Lanesboro soils is moderate in I the subsoil and slow in the substratum. These soils have a seasonal high water table that is perched above the I substratum of both soils for brief periods in winter and spring, and after prolonged rains. The main limitations to I I LYCOTT I I I use of these soils as sites for septic tank absorption fields are the seasonal I high water table in Fullam soils and the slow permeability in Fullam and Lanesboro soils. I BrB: This is a nearly level and gently Bravton Silt Loam sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly- drained and poorly-drained soil on foot I slopes and drainageways. Permeability of the Brayton soil is moderate to moderately rapid above the substratum and very slow or slow in the substratum. I These soils have a seasonal high water table that is perched above the substratum in winter and in spring after prolonged rains. Soil limitations 1 relative to septic tank absorption fields are primarily related to the seasonally high water table and the very slow or I slow permeability. Amen i a Silt The Amenia Silt Loam is located on Loam uplands comprised of glacial till, and is I very deep and moderately well-drained. Permeability in this soil is moderate in the subsoil and slow in the substratum. The seasonable high water table is at a I depth of about 24 inches in winter and early spring. The main limitations to use of the soil as sites for septic tank absorption fields are the seasonal high I water table and the slow permeability Kv: Kendaia Silt These soils, found in depressions, low I Loam areas, drainage ways, and on the lower side slopes, are poorly- to very poorly- drained. Permeability is moderate in the subsoil arid slow in the firm substratum. I In the winter and early spring, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Most areas of the soil are woodland. The seasonal high I water table and slow permeability are the main limitations for using the soil as sites for septic tank absorption fields. I Fc: Farmington- These map units consists of Farmington Rock Outcrop soil and areas of rock outcrop, and are Complex found in woodland. The Farmington soil I Fac: Farmington is gently sloping to strongly sloping, Loam. Rockv shallow and well-drained. Mostly formed on the upper slopes of glaciated uplands, I the Farmington soil is situated between I I LYCOTT I I rock outcrops and rock ridges. Rock _ outcrops and rock ridges are primarily I limestone. Permeability of the • Farmington soil is moderate. The main limitations for use of the Farmington mm soil for septic tank absorption fields • are the shallow depth to bedrock and • slope. PC: Palms and This map unit consists of moderately B Carlisle Mucks deep, very poorly-drained Palms soils and very deep, very poorly-drained Carlisle soils. These soils form organic material • on the low-lying glacial till and outwash | plains throughout the central part of the county, and are subject to frequent — ponding. Permeability is moderately slow • to moderately rapid in the organic layer • of Palms and Carlisle soils, and the water table is near the surface year • round. Because the year round high water • table and ponding, these soils are not * suitable for septic tank absorption fields. •

Of the eight soil types identified, all are formed in glacial till on upland slopes. However, the soil "type • found in the southern and southeastern sections of the I watershed (the Palms and Carlisle Mucks) are formed in sand and gravel deposited by glaciofluvial outwash processes. ^ These areas of glacial outwash are discussed further below • under "Surficial Geology". • All of the eight soil types are considered to have • severe limitations for septic-tank absorption fields. I Reasons .for the limitations are listed in Table 4, shown — below. Table 4 i SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS Soil Type Degree and Kind of Limitations for I Septic Tank Absorption Fields Taconic-Macomber Severe : Depth to Rock. I Lanesboro-Dummerston Severe : Slope, Peres Slowly. Fullam-Lanesboro Severe : Wetness, Slope. I Brayton Severe : Wetness, Peres Slowly. I LYCOTT I I I I Amenia Severe : Wetness, Peres Slowly. Kendaia Severe : Wetness, Peres Slowly. I Farmington Severe : Depth to Rock. Palms and Carlisle Severe : Subsides, Ponding. Surficial Geology - Information on the surficial geology of I the Prospect Lake watershed was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey Map of stratified Surficial Deposits for the Egremont Quadrangle (1956) . As is typical of the New England landscape, surficial deposits of the Prospect Lake I watershed are chiefly of glacial origin. These deposits may be broadly divided into stratified and unstratified sediments; the former were laid down by glacial meltwaters I and are commonly termed "stratified drift", and the latter— referred to as glacial "till" —originated by direct deposition from the glacial ice. In contrast to the relatively well-sorted sand and gravel of stratified I deposits, glacial till is characterized by poor sorting and a broad spectrum of sediment sizes, ranging from clay to boulders. I According to the U.S.G.S. map (Figure 6), the majority of the surficial geology is composed of glacial till, a heterogeneous mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and boulders with minor clay. The till occurs as a discontinuous mantle I over bedrock hills and may occur locally overlying glaciofluvial deposits, particularly adjacent to steep valley hills. The thickness of the till ranges from 0 to 90 feet. I Areas of stratified drift occur approximately 1/2 mile to the north and east of the Prospect Lake watershed. Bedrock Geology - Information on the bedrock geology of the I Prospect Lake area was found both in the U.S. Geologic Survey Map Showing Generalized Bedrock Geology for the Egremont Quadrangle (1956), and in the "Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts" edited by E-an Zen (1983) . Both sources I divide the bedrock in the Prospect Lake into two areas. The western section of the watershed is composed of shistose rocks, while the eastern section of the watershed is composed I of carbonate rocks. The geological contact between the two types of rocks occurs along a line that runs roughly north- south at a point roughly one hundred meters to the western shoreline of the lake. Prospect Heights Road would appear to I lie near the intersection of the two types of bedrock. The schistose bedrock in the western portion of the watershed are composed of quartz-mica schist with some I garnetiferous schist. This bedrock includes the Berkshire I schist of the Ordovician age. I I I I The carbonate bedrock in the eastern section of the I Prospect Lake watershed consists mostly of limestone, • dolomite, and marble. It includes bedrock of the Stockbridge group of Cambrian and Ordovician age, as well as • bedrock of the Coles Brook Limestone from the Precambrian • age. m Hydrogeologic Setting - The surficial blanket of • unconsolidated material that covers most of the Prospect Lake J watershed acts as a groundwater aquifer contributing water to the lake. This material is composed of glacial till, which tends to have lower infiltration rates and lower • permeability. I In terms of their hydrogeologic properties, the two _ bedrock units have no significant differences and may be • considered together. Both are much less permeable to • groundwater flow than the overlying unconsolidated materials; thus, bedrock acts more or less as an impermeable boundary, • inhibiting downward movement of groundwater. I Since the surficial groundwater system is shallow, extending only to bedrock, flow directions are inferred to be • controlled by local topography (i.e., a groundwater divide is | assumed to be roughly coincident with the surface-water divide) . Thus, precipitation that falls within the watershed and infiltrates to the water table will move downslope • through the till or sand-and-gravel, discharging either into • a tributary to Prospect Lake or directly into the lake itself, a process termed groundwater recharge. « In order to learn more about the hydrocjeology and water B quality of the Prospect Lake watershed, available information on soils and geology was supplemented by data gained from • drilling and installation of seven monitoring wells. Boring • logs for these wells, included in Appendix B of this report, provide specific information on local surficial geology. In addition, the wells were used for collection of | water-level data and water-quality samples throughout the study year. The seven wells were installed on June 21 and _ 22, 1988, by Soil Exploration Corporation of Stow, • Massachusetts, with all procedures closely supervised by • Lycott personnel .

GROUNDWATER MONITORING i Groundwater Well Installation Procedures - All groundwater • monitoring wells were installed in borings drilled by hollow- | stem and sufficient user pipe augers. Ten-foot lengths of 1.5-inch diameter PVC screen were placed in boreholes of an appropriate depth for the intended purpose and location • 10 I LYCOTT • I I

I (discussed below). Boreholes were backfilled with silica sand to at least one foot above the screened interval and a one-foot thick bentonite seal was placed above the silica sand backfill to prevent the vertical migration of water I along the borehole. The remainder of the borehole was backfilled with materials brought to the surface during the drilling process. Finally, a protective casing was cemented in place over the well and set flush with ground surface in I some locations and raised above the ground in others. The actual depths to which wells were installed was I determined at the time of drilling, as it was dependent on various factors that became evident at the time of drilling. Well depths ranged from approximately 7 feet (well MW-6) to 20 feet (well MW-1) below the surface. The installation of I single-level wells in particular locations is discussed in the section related to well placement. Factors that were taken into account in the determination of well depth included groundwater level, depth of refusal, and nature of I the materials encountered during the drilling process. Split-spoon samples of surficial material encountered during the drilling process were collected at five-foot intervals. I Well Locations - To identify potential groundwater quality problems and to understand the characteristics of groundwater flow around the lake, six wells were installed during June 21 I & 22, 1988. A letter was submitted to Mike Ackerman of the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control requesting review and approval of proposed well locations, and all well locations were approved. On June 21 and 22, Soil Exploration I Corporation of stow, Massachusetts, completed the drilling of these wells, under the supervision of Lycott's hydro- geologist. I The chosen locations for the monitoring wells, as well as reasons for location selection, are outlined below. Each well location, designated MW-1 through MW-7, is shown in I Figure 7 of Appendix A. MW-1 : Well MW-1 is located at the southern end of the lake, east of inlet #3, and near the area where water of I questionable quality is flowing into the lake. This location will be useful to determine whether Hillsdale road and the pasture land on the south side of Hillsdale road present significant problems in regard to the quality of the lake at I the south end. Well MW-1 will also allow an assessment of the groundwater-lake interaction in that vicinity. MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 : Wells MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 were located on I the western edge of the lake, where several older houses are located. Many of these houses have older septic systems (pre-Title 5} , and there has been concern that some of the I older systems may be impacting the lake. One of these wells I 11 I I I (MW-2) was placed southwest of the lake in order to sample background groundwater unaffected by leachate. The other two I wells were placed to intercept a septic leachate "plume" extending towards the lake. In addition to indicating whether these septic systems may be impacting the lake water, these wells will provide information regarding the I interaction of the ground water with the lake along the western edge. MW-5, MW-6 : The location of wells MW-5 and MW-6 were chosen B to determine the groundwater flow pattern from the eastern portion of the lake and to determine whether the campground's leachfields were affecting the quality of the lake water. I MW-7 ; Well MW-7 was placed at the northern end of the lake, east of inlet #6. This location will permit analysis of the groundwater flow and chemistry of the water draining from the I undeveloped area north of the lake, and will also provide background groundwater information. The data obtained from water level measurements in monitoring wells and from survey data of well elevations with respect to the lake-level are given in Table 5, below: i TABLE 5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS i Well* Well water Distance to Average Depth to level above Lake (feet) permeability Bedrock lake (feet) gal/(day-ft2) i 1 30.1 950 21 >20 • 2 4.60 600 30 13 • 3 well dry 200 30 4 i 4 3.9 200 40 8 5 0,51 500 30 13 i 6 -0.23 50 30 8 7 1.88 50 19 >16 i Figure 7 gives the location of the monitoring wells. Groundwater quality data is given in Appendix F. i i 12 * ,

Groundwater Quality - Groundwater from Lycott' s monitoring I wells was sampled on July 25, 1988, December 19, 1988, and February 17, 1989 (Appendix F) . Water levels in monitoring wells were also measured on October 17, 1988 and November 21, I 1988. In terms of phosphorus, groundwater was un- contaminated. Dissolved phosphorus was undetectable for all samples except Well #4, which had a reading of 0.020 mg/1 on I July 25. In contrast, nitrate levels were elevated in all the wells. Average nitrate values ranged from 1.87 for Well #2 to 0.78 mg/1 nitrate in Well #3. The EPA (1985) suggests I that background levels of ground water nitrate should be .05 mgy/1 or less. The presence of detectable ammonia is also evidence of human contamination, and most of the well samples I had significant concentrations of ammonia. Ammonia was elevated in all wells, and demonstrated a temporal trend in all wells — high in July and February and low in December. I The moderately high levels of nitrogen co-occuring with low levels of phosphorus suggests the latter is being preferentially adsorbed by the soil particles. Nitrogen is usually much more mobile in groundwater. Thus, samples I suggest that groundwater could be a major source of nitrogen to the lake, but not phosphorus. I HYDROLOGIC BUDGET An annual hydrologic budget for Prospect Lake must take into account all of the significant inputs to the lake and I all of the significant losses. Assuming that the volume of the lake stays approximately the same (as appears to have been the case during Lycott*s study year), the inputs should balance the outputs. For Prospect Lake, there are four I significant inputs: tributary flow, precipitation on the lake surface> direct subsurface flow (groundwater), and storm runoff. Each of these is discussed in more detail below I under "Methodology". The most significant losses from the system are evaporation from the lake surface and flow out the outlet. It is believed that little or no water is being lost via I subsurface seepage out of the lake, since the underlying sediments — glacial tills — are not very permeable to I groundwater. Thus, the equation describing the hydrologic budget is: I TR + GR + ST + P(l) = OU + E(l) where TR represents tributary flow, GR represents direct subsurface inflow (groundwater and interflow), ST represents I storm flow, P(l) represents precipitation on the lake, OU I 13 I LYCOTT I I represents flow from the outlet, and E(l) represents I evaporation from the lake surface. • Methodology - The major components of the water-budget m equation are discussed below, together with the methodology • used for volume calculations. Necessarily, these procedures • have a significant potential for error due to limitations inherent in mathematical modeling and due to a lack of • detailed, day-to-day data for the Prospect Lake watershed. | However, the results provide an approximate picture of the lake's water sources and water losses and a framework for interpretation of the field data collected for this study. I Storm Flow - storm flow may be defined as that portion of runoff that reaches a stream shortly after a storm event, _ causing the volume of stream flow to rise above its "base • flow" level. Predominantly, storm flow reaches streams via • small rivulets and/or thin, even layers of surface flow ("overland sheet flow"). In sub-basins without major • tributaries, such flow may be discharged into small, • temporary streams or directly into the lake. m To estimate storm flow, Lycott used a method developed • by T.R. Schueler for the Washington Metropolitan Water | Resources Planning Board (1987). This method treats the percent of impervious surface in a watershed as a predictor of the "runoff coefficient" Rv (fraction of rainfall • converted to storm flow), based on the results of many I studies throughout the United States. For a forested watershed, Schueler recommends that imperviousness (I) be set _ at 2%. In the case of the Prospect Lake watershed, which is I largely but not entirely forested, Lycott estimated I at 4.8 • %, yielding an Rv of 0.093 [where Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(1)]. Total storm flow was then calculated as •

P * Pj * Rv * A * where P represents annual rainfall depth, Pj is a correction • factor for storms that produce no runoff (set at 0.9), Rv is | the runoff coefficient, and A is the area of the watershed. Monthly and annual storm flow results are summarized in _ Appendix G. • Tributary and subsurface Flow - Not all the incident precipitation that remains after storm flow has been • subtracted will be available to travel through the subsurface • and discharge into tributaries or directly into the lake. A * large portion is lost from the land surface via "evapotranspiration" (evaporation of water from soil and • plant surfaces and transpiration of water by living plants). | Lycottfs procedure for calculating evapotranspiration and water available for runoff used a method developed by I

14 LYCOTT i I I I C.W. Thornthwaite and J.R. Mather (Publications in Climatology, 1957). This method takes into account the climatic regime of the area, as well as the nature of the predominant soils and vegetative cover, in order to calculate I both potential and actual evapotranspiration. Once actual loss due to evapotranspiration is known, the volume of water available for runoff to the lake can be calculated by multiplying the area of land in the watershed times the depth I of "available precipitation" (incident precipitation minus storm-flow runoff minus evapotranspiration). Finally, this total for available water can be divided I into "tributary flow" versus "direct subsurface flow". Within the topographically-defined drainage area of a given tributary, the assumption is made that all available I precipitation is eventually discharged via the tributary. Direct subsurface flow, on the other hand, represents runoff from land outside of the tributary drainage areas; thus, it can be estimated by subtracting total tributary runoff from I the calculated (post-stormflow) runoff total for all land in the watershed. The phrase "direct subsurface flow", as used by Lycott, includes both groundwater flowing within the surficial sediments and what is commonly termed "interflow", I referring to lateral subsurface flow along relatively impermeable soil horizons above the water table. In sub-basins #1, #4, and #3 at Prospect Lake (Figure 3) I all of the available water is discharged as tributary flow, since those sub-basins are defined as the drainage areas of tributaries #2, #3, #6 respectively. Sub-watersheds #2 and I #3 have no tributaries, and all of the available precipitation drains as subsurface flow directly into the pond. I In the remaining sub-basins, both tributary flow and direct subsurface runoff occur. Sub-basins #5 and #6 each has a small tributary that drains approximately half of the total watershed, with the rest discharging directly into the I lake as groundwater. Similarly, part of sub-basin #7 is drained by the large tributary flowing through this sub-basin from upstream sub-basins #1 and #4. The tributary flow has I been crudely approximated by estimating the area within these sub-basins that is drained by tributaries: 67% of Sub-basin #5, 50% of sub-basin #6, and 33% of sub-basin #7. Water from the remaining area of these sub-basins was assumed to I discharge directly as groundwater or as overland run-off. Lake-Surface Precipitation and Evaporation - An important input to the lake is precipitation falling directly on the I lake's surface. Total for the year was obtained by multiplying the annual depth of precipitation times the surface area of the lake. Adding this figure to the I calculated volumes for tributary flow, storm flow, and direct I 15 I LYCOTT I subsurface flow yields the total volume of inputs to the lake B from all sources (the left-hand side of the budget equation). • Prior to calculation of the lake's flushing rate, this _ total must be reduced by the volume of water evaporated off B of the lake surface. The remainder represents total water • actually supplied to the lake in the study year. To estimate total evaporation from the lake, Lycott used the • relationship: evaporation = 0.7 x pan evaporation (Sharp and B Sawden, 1984). Surface-water outflow - Assuming that Prospect Lake had B approximately the same volume at the end of the study year as | at the beginning, total water supplied to the lake should approximately equal total outflow for the year, that is: TR + GR + ST + P(l) - E(l) = OU. Lycott calculated total B outflow by inserting values into the left-hand side of this B equation, and then compared the result to measured surface outflow for the study year (see "Comparison to Field • Measurements"). B Long-Term Budget Versus 1988 Budget - The hydrologic budget for Prospect Lake was calculated using both long-term • (average) data and data obtained during the current year of B study (November, 1988 through October, 1989). The latter was used to produce a nutrient budget based on the results of Lycott's groundwater and surface-water analyses. The long- B term budget, on the other hand, illustrates differences in | "average" conditions as compared to the hydrologic regime for the current year. _ Calculation of the long-term budget is important for B several reasons. First, the effects of nutrient loadings depends in the long run on the average rate of water supply; • the lower the average flushing rate (the rate at which the B volume of water in the lake is replaced by new water) , the " lower the levels of nutrient loading that can be tolerated without promoting nuisance growths of plants and algae. • Second, the long-term water budget is important in assessing | treatment options; the feasibility of options based on the current year might be assessed differently if long-term information were considered. B To calculate both the long-term and current-year hydrologic budgets, data on precipitation and temperature _ must be obtained from the closest National Oceanic and B Atmospheric Association (NOAA) weather station(s) having B topographic and climatological characteristics similar to the study area. For the long-term budget, the weather station(s) • must also have a long enough period of record to provide data B in terms of departure from average (calculated by NOAA for the years 1951 through 1980). — i LYCOTTI m I I I In the case of Prospect Lake, only one weather station, Norfolk, Connecticut met these criteria. All temperature and precipitation data for this station are listed in Table I 1 of Appendix C. Results - The results obtained using the methodology outlined above are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. In addition, more detailed information concerning climatological data, storm I flow calculations, and Thornthwaite and Mather calculations are provided in Appendix C. The following observations may I be made on the basis of the hydrologic data and calculations: 1) Precipitation for the study year was 26% lower than during an average year, totaling 39.73 inches as compared to the average yalue of 53.69 inches. Rainfall was below I average on nine of twelve months, and less than 50% of normal during September '88, December '88, January '89, April '89, and June '89. Temperatures were higher than average during I through much of the growing season of the study year. 2) Of the precipitation that fell on land within the watershed (after storm flow was subtracted), 59% was lost to evapotranspiration during the study year as compared to 44% I in an average year. This change contributed to a decrease in total water supplied to the lake from the watershed; 2,658,800 m3 in an average year compared to 1,538,800 m-3 in I the study year. 3) During the study year, total water supplied to the lake was divided as follows among the four principal sources: I 13% direct subsurface flow, 9% precipitation on the lake (less evaporation), 61% tributary flow, and 17% storm flow. The percentages for an average year were similar: 14% direct subsurface flow, 8% net precipitation on the lake, 65% I tributary flow, and 13% storm flow. I I I I I I 17 I i i TABLE 6 i ANNUAL WATER BUDGET, STUDY YEAR (Mar. '88 - Feb. «89) -3 TR - Water from tributary flow: 953,500 mj GR - Water from direct groundwater flow: 203,500 m3 Tj i ST - Water from storm flow: 260,600 m P(l) - Water from precipitation on lake: 224,700 m3 3 i E(l) - Evaporation from lake surface: -86,900 m TOTAL SUPPLIED TO THE LAKE: 1,555,400 m3 i Budget Equation: TR + GR + ST + P(l) = OU + E(l) = 1,555,400 m3 i TABLE 7 i ANNUAL WATER BUDGET, LONG-TERM TR - Water from tributary flow: 1,759,700 m3 3 i GR - Water from direct groundwater flow: 375,600 m ST - Water from storm flow: 351,900 m3 i P(l) - Water from precipitation on lake: 303,500 m3 E(l) - Evaporation from lake surface: -100,000 m3 i TOTAL SUPPLIED TO THE LAKE: 2,690,700 m3 Budget Equation: TR + GR + ST + P(l) - OU + E(l) = 2,690,700 m3

Comparison to Field Measurements - Tributarv and outlet flow measurements taken during Lycott's study can be used to • estimate total annual flows. However, flow volumes derived • in this manner should be viewed as crude approximations only, — since they are based on few measurements and since daily flows can vary significantly. i i 18 _ ift^t LYODTT m 1 I I

Since samples were taken more or less randomly with I respect to precipitation, Lycott's samples could be assumed to be representative of average tributary flow, which includes both storm water and base-flow. Using this method, I total tributary flow was calculated to be about 1,259,000 cubic meters during the sampling year. This is extremely close to the sum (1,214,100 cubic meters) of storm-water runoff and tributary base-flow predicted by the hydrological I modeling (Table 6). Extrapolation of field measurements for flow out the outlet stream produce an estimate of 2,040,000 m3 of total I outflow during the study year. This value is about 31% higher than the calculated total of 1,555,400 m3. The latter is thought likely to be more accurate. However, since both methods of arriving at total outflow values have inherent I sources of error, the two numbers may be thought of as I representing a range containing the true value. LIMNOLOGICAL DATA I Morphometric Data - A bathymetric survey was performed using both a sonar depth finder and a lead-sounding line on August 29, 1988. The resulting bathymetry is given in Figure 8. From these data the lake volume was calculated. Muck I sediment thicknesses, determined by driving a one inch probe to refusal, are given in Figure 9. The entire lake bottom at water depths greater than three to four feet is underlain by more than 10 feet of highly organic muck. It is likely that I this material was deposited over a period of hundreds of years in the shallow pond which was enlarged by the man-made I dam. Surface area, maximum length, maximum width, shoreline length, and shoreline development values were calculated from values obtained from the Egremont Quadrangle of the U.S.G.S. I series of topographic maps. These values can be found in I Table 8. I I I I 19 I i i

TABLE 8 i Prospect Lake Morphometric Data Surface Area 22.3 hectares (55.1 acres) Maximum Depth 4 . 3 meters (14.0 feet) Mean Depth 1.72 meters (5.63 feet) Volume 382,000 m3 (13.50x10° ft3) Maximum length 865 meters (2,838 ft) Maximum Width 370 meters (1,214 ft) Shoreline Length 2,256 meters (7,400 feet) Shoreline Development Index 1.35 Response Time 1.48 hours

The shoreline development index is defined as the ratio of the length of the shoreline to the circumference of a circle of equal area to that of the lake. Since a circle has the minimum circumference for a given area, the shoreline development index measures the amount of shoreline compared to the minimum possible. Extra shoreline, or a shoreline development index greater than 1.0, indicates potential for greater development of littoral communities. Response time is defined as the amount of time required to record a hydraulic event within the lake from the i beginning of an hydraulic event within the watershed. Since many lake treatment options depend on the area of the sediments or the volume of water below a certain depth, i these data were also estimated from the bathymetric mapping and are presented in Tables 9 and 10. i• TABLE 9

VOLUME AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH DEPTH (m) VOLUME 1^•v Surface - 1.2 m (4ft) 240,000 m3 (8.47 x lof ft3) 1.2 m - 1.8 m (6ft) 83,000 m3 (2.93 x 10° ft3) 3 3 i 1.8 m - 2.4 m (8ft) 39,000 m (1.36 x 10° ft ) 2.4 m - 3.0 m (10ft) 13,000 m3 (0.46 x 10° ft3) 3.0 m - 3.7 m (12ft) 6,000 m3 (0.21 x 10° ft3) 3.7 m - 4.3 m (14ft) 2,000 m3 (0.06 x 10° ft3) Total Volume 383,000 m3 (13.49 x 106 ft3) i i 20 *-- A I A. I LYODTT _ 1 I I I TABLE 10 AREA OF SEDIMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH Area.of Sediments; I Depth (ft) m* acres 0 222,982 55.1 4 176,848 43.7 I 6 98,743 24.4 8 29,137 7.2 10 14,163 3,5 I 12 6,070 1,5 Calculation of Flushing Rate and Residence Time - The long- I term (average) flushing rate of the lake is calculated as the following ratio: I total water supplied to the lake per year volume of the lake I The numerator of this ratio is also the same as the total outflow per year, assuming that the lake does not undergo a net loss or net gain of volume. Flushing rate may I be thought of as the rate at which the total volume of the lake is replaced by new water. The total volume of Prospect Lake, calculated from the bathymetric contours shown in Figure 8, is 382,000 cubic I 6 meters or 13.50xl0 cubic feet. According to the Water Budget, the water available during an average year is 2,690,700 m3. Thus, the flushing rate for an average year I is: 2,690,700 / 383,000 = 7.0 lake volumes per year I This corresponds to a mean residence time of 0.14 years (1.7 months) , where the residence time is calculated as the I inverse of the flushing rate. Because of the reduced rain during the study year, flushing was also much reduced. Total estimated outflow during the study year was 1,555,400 m3' producing a flushing I rate of 4.1 times for the study year. Residence time during the study year was, therefore, increased to 0.25 years or 2.9 I months. I 21 mm ^ I *• -^n $k SK I LYCOTT I I Calculation of Averages - For the purposes of data analysis, _ Lycott calculated several different types of averages, also • called means. For the most part, reported averages were • simply the sum of all observations divided by the number of observations. This result was termed the "simple average." • However, for means that were used to estimate total flows or • nutrient loading over the year, means were "flow-weighted" ™ and/or "time-weighted" to remove the bias of irregular sampling or irregular flows. • The rationale for this is the following. Because samples were taken once each month from October to March, and twice each month from April to September, calculating a I simple average would bias the average toward conditions found • from April to September. This could underestimate the yearly flow, because the summer and fall tend to have much lower — flow than the winter. I Time-weight ing consisted of taking an average flow for each month, and then taking an average for the two samples • for bimonthly sampling periods, and using this average I monthly flow to calculate a yearly average Time-weighted mean = (Jan. flow + Feb. flow + Average • March flow + Average April flow + | + Dec. flow) / 12 Flow-weighted averages were calculated such that sample • concentrations were weighted by the amount of water I associated with that concentration. Flow-weighted = [concentration of sample 1 * sample 1 flow + I average concentration of sample 2 * sample 2 flow + * .... ] / total flow of all samples A special mean, the geometric mean, was calculated for I the Secchi disc and bacterial numbers. This mean is the product of all observations taken to the nth root, where n is the number of observations. The formula is below. • n Geometric - [Sample]^ * Sample2 * ... * Samplen] ~ (V ) When calculating any mean, samples whose concentrations I were below the level of detection were set equal to the limit • of detection. For example, samples whose phosphorus concentrations were less than the detection limit 0.005 mg/1 • were set equal to 0.005 mg/1. However, for calculation of • geometric means, samples whose values were less than the — limit of detection were set equal to 1. i i 22 i LYCOTT . I I Water Quality Parameters - Data from Lycott's limnological sampling are found in two types of tables. All the data are I presented in single parameter tables in Appendix E. In addition, averages are presented in Table 11. Sampling I locations are depicted in Figure 10. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23 I LYCOTT TABLE 11

AVERAGES OF LIMNOLOGICAL DATA

STATION

UNIT OF PARAMETER MEASURE 1 1A

TEMPERATURE DEGREES C 15.0 14.3 10.5 10.7 7.3 8.5 10.6 15.6

: 1 •DISSOLVED OXYGEN; ;yy£;;mg/Vr>^||: il^MpJB: M!^;8.9:: •|i|;i:v;fi: ^||if9.6; liSs';*- l^^lpiS'' ppiolp'j lil'liloipi

PH SU 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.) 7.7

v ; : : •':;:> ;SECC HI DISC y^ FMETERS'.f :;.•;": :'2:5S' •-V;;:,^-. ;(:.•';'•;;—-; >:ffi:':~| ^-~: V::h-S~. ^• -^iffiI lliellS

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS mg/l 0.018 0.033 0.041 0.084 0.028 0.032 0.022 0.028

: ; : : "NITRATE NITROGEN. . . ;:• : 'mg/i. ' -^ ••H? ,.6; i'9" ^.••!:'o,-39 • ''4^9 '33 •;-^-, 6.95;?;v':-:; 6.67; /:;•-• ;;:%44 vi^;;o.;25,;: i;;-;;;;':;;:<);54::

AMMONIA mg/l 0.030 0.066 0.02S 0.020 0.026 0.021 0.019 0.032

: : •.i ;V;-VVTwv.^;V£5; ' "%:':- frig/'.. V;: :;U'.. ;d;2a' 0.36 0.15 '.'o;29 • 0.13 -^0.20" .'S^T3/ I^^PIS^;

ALKALINITY mg/l 69 75 87 140 95 6* 80 79

: : : : ; : : ; : : : : : : -..,;••;; CHLORIDE mg/i" .•.,;.',' :-:• • ilO.';::': ;-:- ":ii ; •;-•' 10 ' B :. .:l23 X^i;^ .»;',- :"-••'•'?; --7 .^•:;.:;::||9:: t!!!l $ ;

CONDUCTANCE hmos 143 155 170 304 176 126 164 147

m : : : .SUSPENDED SOLIDS : 1 9 ; : : ;-;; •;;.:';; ;;,'27' ;::'-:;::|:iia- •'.. : 9" :V' - . ••' V . . ; 57 . ' ;:••" 10 •-' : .'?- : ."\.70 : : 1:^SS

TURBIDITY NTU 3.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 5.1 4.2 3.3 3.4

: : :: : •! FECAL COLIFORM ' . ^y#nQQ'm\ '-,'.';• :V/:'i-;4- • •; •".' -j. .,.-.-.-. :• • ^"2.2- :£V- -'& .5. XvV^-Z.O' ..•>: ^2;3. •i;::;^::pi^ |il:ll-l i

FECAL STREP. ' #nooml 20.5 29.6 80. 3 30.4 39.0 34.7 24.9

"".: :;;__ .il.yCHLORbPYHLUa : mg/m3 '• ; 11.34 '•:- — ~'^^~: ^Sr~-: •;•'—-. "•^•S; ^^'(-^^

FLOW" cfs — 1.02 0.10 0.02 0.26 0.37 2.31 .

STATION: 1- DEEP-HOLE SURFACE '-GEOMETRIC MEAN 1A- DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM " -TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE 2- SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3- INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSONG PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROA 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 1 6- NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7- OUTLET I I Temperature and Stratification - Temperature gradients are set up in lakes as upper layers of water are warmed by I radiant energy from the sun and thermal energy from the air. Because the density of water decreases as water temperature rises above 4° C, colder water near the bottom tends to I remain below warmer water near the surface, setting up a temperature-density gradient called stratification. (Swimmers should recognize this phenomenon. Deeper waters tend to be much cooler than those near the surface) . I Stratification usually begins in early spring, intensifies in summer, and breaks down in the fall as sunlight wanes and air temperatures fal1. I Wind tends to counteract the formation of stable temper- ature gradients by mixing and stirring the water column. However, if the wind is too weak or the density gradient too I strong or too deep, wind-mixing will be unable to stir the entire water column. In this case, long-term stratification can occur, dividing the lake into a warm, upper layer — the epilimnion — and a cold, bottom layer — the hypolimnion. I The zone of transition between the two strata is called the thermocline. Lakes that remain stratified for periods longer than several months are said to undergo stable I stratification. Because more energy (i.e., higher wind velocity) is required to stir deeper columns of water, stratification tends to be more long-lived in deeper lakes compared to I stratification in shallow lakes. Deep temperate lakes generally stratify from spring to fall, and mix completely during early spring and late fall when winds are strong and I thermal-density gradients are weak. Shallow lakes and ponds, on the other hand, tend to mix more or less completely throughout the summer. They may become stratified for short periods, especially during warm, calm days, but this I stratification soon breaks down as the epilimnion cools and/or the wind rises. (While definitions vary from region to region, the propensity to stratify stably determines whether a body of water is called a lake or a pond. Bodies I of water that undergo stable stratification are called lakes; those that do not stratify for long periods are called ponds). I Stratification is important, because physical and biological processes behave quite differently in warm, sun- lit epilimnia compared to these processes in cold, dark I bottom waters. Consequently, the water column, which starts out essentially homogeneous from spring mixing, soon becomes divided into two strata with very different water chemistry and biology. For example, while the epilimnion is usually I nearly saturated with oxygen, dissolved oxygen tends to become depleted in bottom waters. If the hypolimnion becomes completely anoxic, game-fish that require cold water (e.g., I trout and salmon) may be unable to survive in the lake. In I 25 I LYCOTT I I addition, nutrient dynamics in anoxic waters differ from • those in oxygenated waters. Oxygen-depletion promotes the • release of phosphorus from the sediments, which may I exacerbate eutrophication and impede efforts to redress excessive nutrient loadings. _ Due to its shallow nature, temperature stratification H never fully developed at Prospect Lake during the summer of 1988. (Sampling stations are depicted in Figure 10, oxygen- • temperature data is found in Appendix D) . Occasionally, on • hot, calm summer afternoons, e.g., July 15 and July 22, the • water column at the deep hole would stratify thermally. On these dates, the water temperature dropped by about 4D C • between the two meters and four meters (bottom water). These | were the only two dates showing any evidence of thermal stratification during the summer. Moreover, this stratification was probably short-lived. Most likely, it • broke down during the next couple days or during the night • when cooling of upper waters would occur and/or when the wind would overcome the thermal stability. g Since ice-cover prevents wind-mixing, lakes may also B stratify under the ice. The consequences of winter stratification are usually less severe than in the summer, • since the biological and chemical processes that promote I differentiation of upper and lower strata proceed more slowly in the much colder water below the ice. Prospect Lake undergoes stratification under the ice, and this • stratification is accompanied by some degree of oxygen | depletion at the lower depths. Relative thermal resistance (RTR) is a measure of the I stability of the water column or its resistance to vertical • mixing. it is defined below: (density of top) - (density of bottom) • RTR = • (density at 5°) - (density at 4°) where density of the top refers to the density of water at | the top of the water stratum, and the density of the bottom refers to the density of the water at the bottom of the water stratum. RTR values were calculated for Prospect Lake in 1 • meter intervals and can be found in Table 1 of Appendix D. |

Relative thermal resistance values greater than 35 B generally indicate the presence of a metalimnion (a change in • water temperature greater than 1°C per meter depth), which • usually precludes mixing through that stratum. During summer stratification, the metalimnion typically divides the warm, • oxygenated epilimnion from the cooler, anoxic hypolimnion. • i 26 n i i I I According to relative thermal resistance values. Prospect Lake underwent periods of thermal stratification I from July 15, 88 to August 11, 1988. Temperature and dissolved oxygen values (Appendix D) also indicate that the lake was somewhat stratified and the bottom water was had I reduced levels of oxygen during the stratification period. As stated earlier, this stratification was probably short lived. The stratification probably broke down during the next couple of days or when the wind overcame the thermal I stability. Had thermal stratification been more stable, temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels in the hypolimnion would have been substantially reduced. I Dissolved Oxygen - Dissolved oxygen may be the most critical lake chemistry parameter. During prolonged periods of low oxygen concentrations (less than approximately five I milligrams per liter), cold-water fish (trout, salmon) may die of asphyxiation. Warm water fish are generally more tolerant of oxygen depletion, surviving well until oxygen falls below 2 mg/1. Dissolved oxygen dynamics also I dramatically affect nutrient dynamics in lakes. The solubility of phosphorus increases dramatically in the absence of oxygen; thus, anoxia can promote release of this I vital nutrient from the sediments. Oxygen concentrations in lakes are affected primarily by the physical processes of dissolution from the atmosphere (called re-aeration) and by the biological processes of I photosynthesis and respiration. During daylight hours, oxygen is produced by plants and phytoplankton in the euphotic zone, the upper strata in which light is adequate I for photosynthesis. (The depth of the euphotic zone can be approximated by multiplying secchi disc depth by 3.) Since surface waters can also become oxygenated by contact with the air, upper strata generally contain high amounts of dissolved I oxygen. The development of thermal stratification plays a key role in controlling the distribution of oxygen with depth. I In shallow lakes without stable stratification, mixing continuously brings bottom waters to the surface where the oxygen is replenished through re-aeration and photosynthesis. I Under conditions of thermal stratification, however, bottom waters can become depleted of oxygen because they have no access to atmospheric or photosynthetic oxygen to meet the needs of biological respiration. The bottom water of I Prospect Lake did show some evidence of oxygen depletion from July 25, 1988 to August 23, 1988. Similarly, bottom waters were depleted of oxygen during winter stratification (January 19, 1989), and the entire water column was somewhat depleted I of oxygen as the ice-cover prevented reaeration and slowed I photosynthes is. I 27 I I I Phosphorus - Samples from the deep-hole surface averaged 0.018 mg/1 phosphorus over all samples (Appendix E). These data are consistent with the mesotrophic-eutrophic nature of I Prospect Lake (Figure 11). Bottom samples from the deep hole were considerably high, averaging 0.083 mg/1. Average values for all in-lake I samples averaged 0.051 mg/1, which is well above the EPA criterion — 0.025 mg/1 — for lakes. Above this limit, lakes are prone to excessive plant growth. Average for the outflow, 0.028, was close to the average for the surface I water samples. One of the Prospect Lake tributaries (Table 12) often I had total phosphorus values that exceeded the EPA criterion for flowing water — 0.050 mg/1. Tributary #3 exceeded this level, averaging 0.084 mg/1 total phosphorus. High phosphorus concentrations tended to coincide with low flows, I however, so the flow-weighted averaged were lower than straight averages, with the exception of Tributary #2. The flow-weighted averages for all tributaries was 0.031 mg/1. I Results for the mean phosphorus concentrations measured in the tributaries and outlet are given in Table 12 below. TABLE 12 I Mean Phosphorus in Prospect Lake Tributaries March 28, 1988 through February 17, 1989 I Mean Flow-Weighted Tributary Phosphorus Phosphorus Station # nig/liter mg/liter I 2 0.041 0.057 3 0.084 0.049 I 4 0.028 0.021 5 0.032 0.022 I 6 0.022 0.019 I 7 (outlet) 0.028 0.019

Phosphorus readings in the tributaries will be used in I conjunction with flow data to estimate stream loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus to Prospect Lake. To calculate the base-flow loading, stream flows are multiplied by the corresponding concentrations of nutrients, and then these I instantaneous loading values are averaged for the entire sampling year. I 28 ^ j£s, &* I a** LYCOTT I I I pH and alkalinity - The pH of a lake is a measure of the acidity of the water. A pH of 7.0 is neutral. Values below I 7 denote acidic waters, and values above 7.0 denote basic waters. Massachusetts water quality standards for Class B waters, which are applicable to Prospect Lake, specify that the pH should range from 6.5 to 8.0 pH units (Commonwealth of I Massachusetts, 1984) . The in-lake surface values for pH in Prospect Lake ranged I from 6.0 to 9.7 pH units, averaging 6.9 for the deep-hole- surface while samples from the deep-hole-bottom averaged 7.2 (see Appendix E) . (Note: all average pH values represent the negative log of the average of the hydrogen ion I concentrations at each date.) Although some samples were outside the class B standard for pH, the average values were within this standard. The average for the outlet was 7.7 pH I units. The pH values for the tributaries were slightly higher than those for the lake itself, averaging 7.25 over all tributaries over all dates. There was little difference I among tributaries: Tributary # 6 had the lowest average pH — 7.08 — but the rest of the tributaries had average pH values I of 7.28 to 7.35. The pH and alkalinity of an aquatic system are closely related. The alkalinity measured in a pond represents the water body's buffering capacity or its acid neutralization I capacity (ANC) , which is measured in mg/1 of CaCO3. Low levels of alkalinity suggest either that a lake has undergone acidification and/or that it is prone to acidification. If a pond's alkalinity is less than 20 mg/1 CaCO^, it can be I considered "sensitive" to acidic precipitation (Godfrey et al., 1985). Prospect Lake's alkalinity averaged 72 mg/1 CaCO3 for all in-lake samples while the outlet averaged 79 I mg/1. Both values suggest that this lake is well buffered and not sensitive to acidic precipitation. Data from the tributaries presents a similar picture. I Average alkalinity for all tributary samples average 93 mg/1 CaCO3, and ranged from a low of 4 mg/liter for Tributary #2 I to a high of 220 mg/liter, also found in Tributary #2. Chloride and Conductivity - The primary natural sources of chloride are from the weathering of soils and rocks and from wet and dry precipitation. The latter can be a particularly I important source of chloride, especially in areas near the ocean. Human impacts can also be significant sources of I chloride, primarily from roadway salts and waste-waters. The mean value for the in-lake samples was 10.75 mg/1, which was close to average for unpolluted fresh waters (8.3 I mg/1; Wetzel, 1975). The tributaries were similarly low in I 29 I I I chloride, ranging from 7 to 10 mg/1 Cl, except for tributary #3, whose waters had an average chloride concentration of 23 mg/1. This average falls below the average of the river I content of the world's major rivers, 15.4 mg/1 (Livingstone, 1963). Conductivity is the ability of a water sample to conduct I electricity, and it measures the presence of ions in solution. Since chloride is often a predominant ion in surface waters, conductivity values for water samples will often show similar patterns to concentrations of chloride. I The mean conductivity for Prospect Lake in-lake samples was 149 micromhos, which is typical for "hard-water" lakes in limestone bedrock terrain. Average conductivity for the I tributaries ranged from 126 micromhos for Tributary #5 to 304 micromhos for Tributary #3. The higher conductivity is probably mostly due to CaCO3 (calcium carbonate), since Tributary #3 drains terrain with limestone bedrock whereas I the other tributaries tend to drain areas of shistose bedrock. Nitrogen - After phosphorus, nitrogen is the most important I nutrient essential for plant growth in aquatic systems. Three forms of nitrogen compounds were measured in Prospect Lake; nitrate, ammonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Levels of TKN and ammonia in surface water at the in-lake I station averaged 0.28 and 0.030 mg/liter compared to TKN and ammonia values of 0.30 and 0.066 mg/1 from the deep-hole bottom. I Especially during the summer and fall, the concentration of nitrate was often below the limit of detection in both surface and bottom waters. In surface water with adequate I light and other nutrients, nitrate is rapidly taken up by algae and rooted aquatic plants. Levels of nitrate from in- lake surface waters ranged from undetectable (i.e., less than 0.1 mg/1) to 0.60 mg/1. In bottom waters under winter ice, I nitrate is high, because oxygen is adequate to oxidize the ammonia. On March 28, 1988, the bottom water had 1.7 mg/liter nitrate, which was the highest in-lake result for nitrate during the sampling period, although the sample from I February 16, 1989 was comparable — 1.50 mg/1 nitrate. Values of the nitrogen species in the tributaries varied I greatly. Nitrate ranged from undetectable to 3.5 mg/liter for Tributary #3. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Tributary #3 ranged from less than the limit of detection (0.1 mg/liter) to 0.76 mg/liter on August 11, 1988, Ammonia ranged from I 0.007 mg/liter in Tributary #3 on March 28, 1988 to 0.089 mg/liter for Tributary #2 on August 11, 1988. Average values of TKN in tributaries ranged from 0.129 I mg N/liter for both Tributary #4 and Tributary #6 to 0.15 mg N/liter for Tributary #2. Average ammonia values were fairly I 30 I LYCOTT I I I consistent from tributary to tributary/ ranging from a low of 0.019 mg/liter in Tributary #6 to a high of 0.026 mg/liter in I Tributary #4. Average values of nitrate in tributaries ranged from 0.245 mg/1 NO3 for Tributary #6 to 0.95 mg/1 NO3 for Tributary #3. The outlet averaged 0.24 mg/1 NO3, 0.24 I mg/liter TKN, and 0.032 mg/1 ammonia. According to Wetzel (1983) , average nitrate values for unpolluted fresh water ranges from 0 to 10 mg/1. Average I ammonia values for unpolluted fresh water ranged from 0 to 5 mg/1. Some sources of nitrogen include direct precipitation, I inputs from surface and groundwater, and nitrogen fixation in the water and sediments. The loss of nitrogen can occur by outflow from the outlet stream, sedimentation of nitrogen rich compounds to the sediments, and the return of gaseous I nitrogen to the atmosphere through bacterial denitrification. Suspended Solids - Suspended solids is a measure of the I amount of particulate matter that can be filtered out of the water. Suspended solids include living and non-living matter that may originate within the pond (autochthonous material) or outside the pond (allochthonous material) . Autochthonous I suspended solids are primarily phytoplankton or organic particles in some state of decay. Allochthonous particles may be a mixture of organic and non-organic particles that I are washed or blown into the lake. When applied to tributaries, high suspended solids can be an important indicator of erosion and potential for sedimentation. The tributaries averaged 12.5 mg/1 suspended I solids over the year. Tributaries #4 and #5 had the higher values, averaging 27 and 20 mg/1. The other tributaries I averaged from 9 to 10 mg/1. In contrast, the motley nature of the particles that make up suspended solids decreases its information value when used for in-lake values. If the suspended solids are I primarily mineral solids washed into the watershed, high suspended solids could signify excessive erosion and a potential for filling of the lake basin. In contrast, if the suspended solids are primarily biodegradable organic I materials produced within the lake itself, high values for suspended solids would not necessarily suggest the above condition. Suspended solids averaged 33 mg/1 in the in-lake samples: 9 at the deep-hole surface, and 57 mg/1 in the deep- I hole-bottom. The outlet was similar to the surface, averaging 10 mg/1 suspended solids. I Turbidity - Turbidity is the term used to describe the organic and inorganic particulate matter in water. This is an important factor in municipal and industrial water supply I practices. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and I 31 I LYCOTT I I Urban Development (1970), the drinking water standard is 5.0 turbidity units. As shown in Appendix E, all sampling stations, except for Tributary 4, fell below the 5.0 NTU I (national turbidity units) level. Tributary 4 was slightly elevated, averaging 5.1 NTU during the sampling period. Turbid water also interferes with recreational use and I aesthetic enjoyment of the water body. The less turbid the water, the more desirable it becomes for swimming and other water contact sports. I The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (1965) indicated four ways in which elevated turbidity values may effect fish populations. I 1. By acting directly on the fish swimming in the water in which solids are suspended, either killing them or reducing their growth rate, resistance to disease, I etc. 2. By preventing the successful development of fish eggs and larvae. 3. By modifying the natural movements and migrations I of fish. 4. By reducing the abundance of food available to the fish. I Plankton and other suspended materials may reduce light penetration into the water column, reducing the depth at which photosynthesis can occur. This may result in reduced I phytoplankton or macrophyte growth.

Chlorophyll a - Chlorophyll a., the primary pigment used by I phytoplankton for photosynthesis, serves as a measure of algal biomass. Algal biomass, in turn, is an important indicator of a lake's trophic state. Prospect Lake averaged 11.34 mg/m3 Chlorophyll a. for the entire year sampling from I March 28, 1988, to February 17, 1989. According to the U.S EPA (1979), a typical mesotrophic lake contains 7-12 mg chloropyhll a per cubic meter, while a eutrophic lake contains greater than 12 mg chlorophyll a per cubic meter. I This value is consistent with the mesotrophic-eutrophic condition estimated on the basis of the mean in-lake total phosphorus. However, chlorophyll a, like total phosphorus, I may underestimate the trophic state of Prospect Lake, because the lake is primarily littoral zone that has dense aquatic macrophytes. I Secchi Disc Transparency - Secchi disc is a simple method used to gauge water clarity. A black and white disc (the Secchi disc) is lowered into the water until the disc disappears. The depth of disappearance is the secchi disc I depth. Because one's ability to see through water depends on ambient light, secchi disc measurements depend on weather I 32 I LYCOTT I I I conditions and time of day as well as on factors affecting I water clarity: suspended solids, phytoplankton density, and concentration of some dissolved solids, especially dissolved organics. Secchi disc readings typically exhibit an inverse relationship with chlorophyll a values. As chlorophyll a. I values increase as the weather becomes warmer, the secchi disc readings tend to decrease. Secchi disk readings in Prospect Lake (Appendix E) I ranged from 1.1 to 4.5 meters with an average of 2.55 meters. Prospect Lake visibility was well above the 1.2 meter (4 feet) standard set for bathing beaches by the Massachusetts I Sanitary Code (310 CMR 17.00) on 12 out of 13 sampling dates. Bacteria - Bacteria data from Prospect Lake indicates no significant bacterial contamination. The state Division of I Water Pollution Control standard for allowable fecal coliform bacteria in swimming waters (Class B) is a log mean of 200 organisms per 100 milliliters of water for a set of samples. This standard was never exceeded in the lake or the I tributaries. The highest bacterial count (400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml) were observed on July 25, 1988 at the deep-hole surface. I Elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria could suggest the presence of sewage imports to the lake system. However, ducks, geese, and sea gulls are possible sources of I fecal coliform bacteria to surface waters. Phvtoplankton Taxa - The phytoplankton community is a collection of very small plants and animals that float, I drift, of move slowly about in the water column. Because individual phytoplankton cells from different taxa can differ in mass by several orders of magnitude, phytoplankton density (cells/ml) is a poor indicator of total algal biomass. I Chlorophyll a offers a much better index of algal biomass. Both sets of data are presented in Appendix E. However, phytoplankton populations typically follow an I annual cycle of species dominance. According to Cole (1983), lakes in north temperate regions are dominated by diatoms during the spring, become dominated by green/blue-green I phytoplankton during the summer, and cycle back to diatom predominance during the fall and winter. This "cycling" was observed at Prospect Lake during the 1988 sampling period (Appendix E) . During the spring, the lake was dominated by I diatoms including Tabellaria and Fragilaria. As the summer passed, the phytoplankton community was dominated by the green algae Chlorococcum and the blue-green algae Coelosphaerium. The diatom and green algae dominated the I fall and winter months. I I 33 I I I Aquatic Macrophvtes - Aquatic macrophytes in Prospect Lake were mapped from a boat on August 12, 1988 using a grapple to sample weeds in deep water. The maps of species I distribution and density of coverage are presented in Figures 17 and 18 of Appendix A. The two dominant weeds were Elodea canadensis and, to a lesser degree, Potamoaeton robbinsi. Other aquatic macrophytes identified in Prospect Lake I included Potamogeton alpinus. Naias flexilis, Chara sp., Vallisneria americana and Saaittaria sp. Shoreline growth out to a depth of five feet was very dense, but Elodea and Potamoaeton robbinsi were distributed widely throughout I deeper areas as well, out to an approximate depth of 14 feet. At the time of the macrophyte survey, freshwater snails and mussels were observed in abundance near the shoreline. I Status of Fishery Resource - Results from the on-site fishery analysis which were generated by Mr. Sandy Mason of Prospect Lake Park are given in Appendix H. Prospect Lake is I moderately fished throughout the summer and winter months. Angling supplies and fishing licenses are available at the Prospect Lake Park Campground. I A creel census of the fish species present in Prospect Lake was conducted from July 8, 1988 to August 4, 1988. Fish species found in the lake included pumpkin seeds, bluegills, yellow perch, chain pickerel, rock bass, crappies, blue gills I and bullheads. Results of the census are found in Table 13, below: I TABLE 13 CREEL CENSUS - JULY 8, 1988 - AUGUST 4, 1988 I

percent weight percent Species Number by number (Ibs.) by weight I yellow perch 29 29 7.0 18.3 Brown bullhead 1 1 0.25 0.7 Rock Bass 7 7 2.1 5.5 I Blue gill 14 14 4.1 10.7 Small mouth bass 8 8 13.5 35.2 Chain Pickerel 11 11 3.3 8.6 I Black Crappie 1 1 0.6 1.6 Pumpkin seed 29 29 7.4 19.4 N = 100 38.3 I (weights in part were derived from L/WT Tables) I I 34 I I I I The sport fishery is dominated by small mouth bass (8.9% I by number and 35% by weight of the total sample) . Chain pickerel, another game fish, was present in significant amounts, 3.2% by number and 8.3% by weight. The major forage species was pumpkin seed which comprised 30.7% by number and I 21.8% by weight of the sample. Another forage fish abundant in Prospect Lake was yellow perch, comprising 30% by number and 18% by weight of the sample. I Predators (smallmouth bass and chain pickerel) comprise 43.3% of the weight sample with smallmouth bass dominating. Thus, these predators are lightly fished. According to L/WT I ratios, the condition factor is good for smallmouth bass. STORM DRAINS AND STORM SAMPLING I Storm Drain Mapping - Storm drains were mapped and assessed by Hamer Clark, P.E. on May 27, 1988 (Figure 14). Eight storm drains divert storm flows into Prospect Lake. Drain #1, an 18 inch culvert, drains the wooded area of Prospect I Heights Road. Drain #2, a 21 inch culvert, drains a small wetland area of Hillsdale Road. Drains #3 and #4, a pair of 18 inch culverts, drain the sloped cow pasture on Hillsdale Road. Drains #5 and #6, a pair of 18 inch culverts, drain I the grassed pasture located on Hillsdale Road. Drains #7 and #8, both 18 inch culverts, drain the wooded area found on I Hillsdale Road. Drain #2 shares an outlet with a tributary. The wetland across Hillsdale Road was tributary sampling station |3. Therefore, storm flow and water samples from this drain were I taken at points that include tributary flow; hence, storm samples included tributary storm flow as well as the flow from the streets. Since the storm drain drained a relatively small area, tributary flows probably formed the bulk of the I flow coming out of the storm flow exit. One of the proposed storm drains, #3, was eliminated from the sampling program because the outlet of the pipe was I so badly deformed that it caused a very significant restriction in the flow at that point. Most of the flow was I sent downstream to stormdrain #4. Storm Sampling I Storm sample 1, July 9, 1988 On July 9, Lycott personnel attempted to sample the storm water of the seven storm drains entering Prospect Lake. A gentle, constant rain began at about 6:00 AM, and drains #4 I and #8 began to flow at about 6:30 AM. The other stormdrains never flowed. Four samples were taken from each drain at 30 minute intervals (0, 30, 60, and 90 minutes) from each drain. I As each sample was taken, water flow was measured. I 35 I LYCOTT I I Samples were taken back to Lycott and mixed together into flow-weighted composites. That is, the proportion that • a sample made up of the final composite was equal to the I proportion that its flow made up of all flow measure coining from that drain. Samples were analyzed for fecal coliform _ and fecal streptococci bacteria, chloride, conductance, • turbidity, suspended solids, nitrate, ammonia, TKN, and total • phosphorus. Results from the stormwater sampling program are found I in Appendix G. Storm waters from both drains contained more nitrogen and phosphorus than average for the tributaries or the lake itself. The relatively high values are most likely • due to the nature of the watershed (agriculture and forest) | and the leaf litter and debris that collects upon road surfaces. Both drains did have fairly high fecal _ streptococci bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria levels. I The ratio of Fecal coliform bacteria to fecal strepptococci • bacteria at drain #4 suggests that the bacteria are not of human source, while the ratio at drain #8 may indicate « possible human waste contamination. I A second storm was sampled on July 12, 1988. One inch of rain fell between 5:25 and 5:55 PM. During the next 20 • minutes (5:55 to 6:15 PM), another 0.2 inches of rain was I recorded. Sampling began at 6:00 PM at Drains #2, #4, and #8. Storm Drain #2 was flowing at about .063 cfs. Drain #4 was flowing at .05 cfs, and the flow at Drain #8 was recorded • as 0.05 cfs. Samples were taken at first flush (time 0), and | 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after first flush. Composite results of samples from this second storm were I very similar to those from the first storm. Total phosphorus • values were moderate, with drain #4 having the higher value of the three storm drains. Nitrate values in all three storm • drains were quite lower than the first storm sample, while • TKN concentrations were slightly elevated in the second storm * sample. Turbidity and suspended solids were elevated over average tributary flow, most likely due to the speed and flow • paths of stormwater. Bacteria levels in all three drains | indicated that the source was non-human. The average coliform to streptococci ratio, 0.16, is very close to the ratio produced by cows, 0.2. • During both storm events, several storm drains did not release storm water. This could be due to the amount and _ flow of water into the drain, the construction of the system I (large storage basin) , or the extent of siltation that has • occurred in each. During Lycott!s storm drain mapping, it was recorded that the exit pipe from all storm drains except • drain #2 were 1/4 silted in on the bottom of the pipe, I effectively creating a "dam" that may not allow water to exit.

36 *££. *•A- *» i LYCOTT i I I Thus, data from the two storms suggest that storm water I quality varies considerably. This is consistent with the tributary data for the nearby sampling stations (#2 and #3), which also showed a wide range of values from sample to I sample. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PRACTICES Wastewater disposal practices for residences near the I shoreline of Prospect Lake were inventoried by a combination of on-site visits by Lycott personnel and mailed-out questionnaire surveys. Approximately 60 forms were I distributed, with only 28 being returned to Lycott. Water quality samples were also obtained from shore-line areas of the lake near three residences. These samples were obtained to check for any possible impact of leachate "plumes" on lake I water. Discussion of this sampling is described in the "Leachate Sampling" section and results are given in Appendix I. I Of the 28 responses to our survey, the period of occupancy of the shorefront homes ranged from 4 weeks per year to year-round. The most frequent period of occupancy was 8 to 20 weeks per year, with the average response at 16.4 I weeks. Persons per household ranged from 1 to more than 6 with the average response being 3.0 people. Roughly half of the homes now being occupied year-round were originally built I for seasonal use. Homes typically have 2 to 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. Commercial fertilizer is used by 10% of the shorefront residents. The most common class of a wastewater disposal system is a septic tank and leaching area, which is I used by 93% of the respondents. Of the on-site disposal systems, 31% are over 20 years old and 58% have never been repaired or re-built. Distances of leach fields to the lakeshore varied between 60 and 750 feet; responses clustered I in the range of 100 - 200 feet (28% of responses) Septic systems were generally located a significant distance above the water level; only 17% were less than 10 feet above the I water level. Lack of any recurrent problems with the on-site wastewater system was noted by 79% of respondents. Leachate Sampling - During trips to Prospect Lake, Lycott I personnel occasionally noticed an oil-like film on groundwater leaking out of the ground near houses on Prospect Heights Road. This sheen is formed by reduced iron and manganese and signals the presence of anoxic groundwater. I Malfunctioning septic tanks can deplete groundwater of oxygen, so lake water near these sites were sampled for evidence of septic leachate. These samples were obtained to check for any possible impact of leachate "plumes" on lake I water. Sites of leachate samples are presented in Figure 15. I I 37 I I I The samples were analyzed for total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, and fecal streptococci bacteria, all • of which are indicators of human wastewater. Water was also | analyzed for sodium (another indicator of human waste), total phosphorus, and various forms of nitrogen. _ The results from leachate sampling are presented in • Appendix I. Results indicate no impact of wastewater on levels of sodium, nitrate, ammonia, total and fecal coliform, • and fecal streptococci. Near-shore sampling from station #3 B did indicate somewhat elevated levels of phosphorus: 0.166 m mg/1 compared to the concurrent deep hole surface value that was less than the limit of detection, 0.020 mg/1. However, • phosphorus values at sampling sites #2 and #3 were less than | the limit of detection, indicating that the soils near these septic systems are removing phosphorus from the leachate before it enters Prospect Lake. • Thus, these data do not provide evidence of significant septic contamination in Prospect Lake. However, contaminated « groundwater could be dispersed too quickly to be noticed by • this technique. Thus, these negative results do not • constitute strong evidence that such contamination does not occur. • SEDIMENT ANALYSIS * Bottom sediment at the deep hole of Prospect Lake was • sampled using a Ponar clamshell-type sampler on September 14, | 1988. Results of the deep hole sediment analysis, together with "guideline" concentrations for unpolluted sediments _ (U.S. EPA, 1988), are given in Table 15. • i i i i i i 38 i LYCOTT i I I I TABLE 15 DEEP HOLE SEDIMENT ANALYSIS Prospect Lake I Para- Deep Hole EPA Guidelines for meter Sediment Analysis Non-Polluted Sediments I concentration mg/kg concentration mg/kg Percent Volatile 40 I Solids Total Kjeldahl 11.8 I Nitrogen Total Phosphorus 61.3 <420

I ^ —^ —<—^ —^ —•—— — ^ —-•^••^^^••••^—»^«^»«^,—— ^^^^ —^^^ —— — — ^ —^^ —^< Iron 30,000 <17,000 I Manganese 6,400 <300 Arsenic 16.7 <3 I Chromium 7 <25 Copper 38 <25 I Lead 54 Mercury 0.322 <1 I Zinc 153 Cadmium 1.0 <6 I Barium 13.7 <20 I Selenium 0.5 — Silver 1.0

I From these results, arsenic and copper were relatively high; phosphorus and nitrogen were relatively low. The elevated concentration of arsenic and copper may be I due to the use sodium arsenite and copper based algecides and herbicides in the past. Although the lake association could not recall the use of these compounds during the past 17 I years, it is possible that the compounds were applied I 39 n I LYCOTT I I earlier, remaining in the sediments. The compound lead arsenate was used as a fungicide in orchards. It is possible that this compound was used within the watershed and found I its way into the water body. The concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus are relatively low for a mesotrophic-eutrophic I water body. For a sediment which is 40% organic, the expected values of total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen would be considerably higher. One possible explanation is very efficient recycling of sediment I phosphorus and nitrogen by rooted aquatic macrophytes which grow at all depths in Prospect Lake. I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I LYCOTT I I I LIMITING NUTRIENT ANALYSIS I According to what is called Liebig's "Law of the Minimum", the productivity of aquatic systems is controlled by the nutrient that is in lowest supply compared to the nutritional requirements of aquatic plants and algae. This I nutrient, called the limiting nutrient, is the component that most constrains plant production and growth. In fact, the need for nutrients varies somewhat among different plant species; therefore, current theory suggests that several I nutrients can be limiting at the same time, although for different species of aquatic plants. Nevertheless, in most freshwater lakes, a single nutrient constrains most plant I growth. Most often, phosphorus limits algal growth in freshwater systems. In fewer cases, other nutrients, primarily nitrogen, may also limit plant growth. (This discussion pertains mostly to phytoplankton growth, because I macrophytes may derive most of their nutrients from the nutrient rich sediments. Macrophyte growth may be controlled by other factors, especially light; therefore, TN:TP ratios from the water column may have little or no relevance to I macrophyte growth.) Because the types of control measures and their ultimate I success depend on the nutrient that must be managed (e.g., nitrogen is more difficult to control than phosphorus) , lake management programs must first identify the limiting nutrient. Since either nitrogen or phosphorus limit I production in almost all freshwater lakes, a simple and reliable method to determine the limiting nutrient is to compare the relative concentrations of these two nutrients (Sakamoto 1969; EPA 1976; Smith 1979). A ratio (by weight) I of total nitrogen (TN) to total phosphorus (TP) exceeding 17 indicates that nitrogen occurs in excess as compared to the supply of phosphorus, further suggesting that phosphorus limits plant growth in the lake. (The lower TN/TP criterion I for Phosphorus limitation varies from 20 in Smith (1979) to 13 according to the EPA. Lycott will use the mid-range value of 17 reported by Sakamoto.) Ratios of TN/TP between 10 and I 17 imply that plant growth is limited by both nitrogen and phosphorus or both, while ratios less than 10 suggest that nitrogen is limiting. (At very high nutrient densities, no nutrient is limited, and nitrogen to phosphorus ratios I indicate which nutrient would be taken up first. I I I I 41 I LYCOTT I I TABLE 16 Ratios of N to P as Indicators of Nutrient Limitation I N;P Ratio Limiting Nutrient _ Greater than 17 Phosphorus • 10-17 Phosphorus and/or Nitrogen • Less than 10 Nitrogen

Because nitrogen and phosphorus compounds vary | considerably throughout the year as nutrients are gained or lost to the system (see Figures 11 and 12) , the ratio of TN _ to TP will also vary considerably throughout the year (Figure • 13) . Most experts suggest, however, that this ratio should • be calculated for data gathered during spring mixing or during summer stratification. The TN:TP ratio at spring • turnover provides information about the maximum availability • of these nutrients in the lake basin and serves as a measure • of the basin-wide limitation (Wetzel, 1975). On the other hand, summer values of TN/TP are important indicators of • nutrient status, because nutrients are most likely to become | limiting during the summer when growth and biological uptake is most rapid. Values of the N/P ratio (by weight) from in-lake samples I collected from March, 1988, through February, 1989, are depicted in Figure 13. Since nutrient limitation at Prospect _ Lake may occur throughout the water column (sunlight • penetrates to the bottom), data from both deep-hole surface • and bottom are presented. However, nutrient limitation should be most severe at the surface where light and • photosynthesis are most intense, so data from the surface are • more important indicators of nutrient limitation. The sequence of TN:TP suggests that phosphorus limits • plant growth in Prospect Lake during most of spring and | summer. However, nitrogen is also limiting at certain times during mid and late summer. For all samples from the deep- hole surface, phosphorus alone is limiting on 9 of 18 dates, • both nutrients limit phytoplankton growth on 5 occasions, and • nitrogen alone is limiting on 4 of 18 sample dates. Thus, these data suggest that algal growth in Prospect Lake is _ limited by phosphorus but not overwhelmingly so. Plant and • algae growth in Prospect Lake may occasionally be limited by • nitrogen as well as by phosphorus. i i 42 *• ^ '^k >* i LYCOTT i I I I Trophic state of Prospect Lake The relationship between phosphorus concentration and trophic state / recreation potential is given in Table 17. When one considers data from the bottom, middle, and top I samples, it is apparent that Prospect Lake can be classified as a mesotrophic or slightly eutrophic lake according to total phosphorus levels. Using only data from the deep-hole surface (average total phosphorus = 0.018 mg/1), however, I would suggest that Prospect Lake is moderately mesotrophic. TABLE 17 I TROPHIC STATE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME (adapted from Reckhow et al., 1980) I Phosphorus Concentration Trophic Lake Use I (mg/liter) state <0.010 Oligotrophic Suitable for water-based recreation and propagation of cold water fisheries such as I trout. Very high clarity and aesthetically pleasing. I 0.010 - 0.020 Mesotrophic Suitable for water-based recreation but often not for cold water fisheries. Clarity less than I Oligotrophic lake. 0.020 - 0.050 Eutrophic Reduction in aesthetic properties diminishes I enjoyment for body contact recreation. Generally very productive for warm water I fisheries. > 0.050 Hyper- A typical "old-aged" lake in eutrophic advanced succession. Some I fisheries, but high levels of sedimentation and algae or macrophyte growth may be diminishing open water I surface area. I I I 43 I LYCOTT ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS BUDGET Since phosphorus (P) limits plant growth some of the time in Prospect Lake, it would be useful to determine the major sources and sinks for phosphorus. A phosphorus budget for a pond or lake measures the annual phosphorus inputs to and exports from the lake or pond. Assessment of these inputs and exports determines the major sources of this limiting nutrient and permits estimation of the impact and • efficacy of proposed management measures. Q Phosphorus comes into a lake from precipitation, from lake sediments, and from the watershed in runoff, stormflows, • and groundwater. The following section accounts for these • sources and estimates the total phosphorus available to the reservoirs from all sources. « Wet and Dry Precipitation - Phosphorus inputs due to wet and • dry precipitation were estimated on the basis of a rainfall- phosphorus concentration of 0.006 mg P per liter, a value • used by McVoy (1982) for a study on East Lake Waushakum. The • total volume of rain falling on Prospect Lake is usually m about 303,000,000 liters, producing an estimate of 1.82 kg P per year. However, this only includes the phosphorus falling • in rain, and phosphorus is always raining down in dust and | other forms of dry deposition. Uttormark et al. (1974) estimate that dry deposition totals about three times the total phosphorus in wet precipitation. Thus, the phosphorus • delivered to the lake frotti wet and dry precipitation is about • 7.27 kg per year. Internal Phosphorus Loading from Sediment Release - Dissolved I oxygen was abundant at the bottom of Prospect Lake. Thus, • internal loading from anoxic sediments should have been minimal and was assumed to be zero. • Loading from the Watershed l. Long-Term Phosphorus Export Calculated from Land-Use Patterns i A phosphorus budget from the watershed may be obtained _ in two ways. The more involved method, described in detail • by Cooke et al. (1986) and by Reckhow et al. (1980), involves • extrapolations from actual measurements of all sources of water and phosphorus inputs and outputs over a year. This • first method is more accurate for any one year, but may be • unduly influenced by aberrant weather conditions and by an • insufficient number of samples. This method will be called the short-term phosphorus budget. It is discussed in the next section. I I 44 I LYCOTT! • I I A second method, hereafter called a long-term or land- I use phosphorus budget, is also discussed by Cooke et al. (1986) and by Reckhow et al. (1980). This method estimates total P loading from an area by multiplying that area by appropriate export coefficients. Export coefficients are I derived from measurement of rates of export from many watersheds having that land use. Because this method can be applied without field sampling, its major strength lies in its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. However, because the I method relies on data generated from other watersheds at other places, it may not apply to the particular watershed being studied. Thus, the land-use P budget should be used as a guide for what is average, not necessarily for what I pertains to any particular lake or pond. Land Use Associated Phosphorus Export - The Prospect Lake watershed is overwhelmingly (86%) forest with small amounts I of residential land and agricultural land. In calculating phosphorus loading from forest in the Prospect Lake watershed, Lycott used a phosphorus export coefficient based ( on values measured in nearby Connecticut (Frink et al. 1979): 0.10 kg I> ha -1 yr -1. By way of comparison, 25% out of 26 _ reported phosphorus export coefficients for forested lands • fall below 0.098 kg P yr 1ha -1 and 75% of the reported export • coefficients fall below 0.314 kg P ha xyr -1 (Reckhow et al., 1980) . The phosphorus export coefficients describing I residential land exhibit a high degree of variability depending upon the type of urban activity (i.e., low-density residential, heavy industrial, etc.) and the associated I percentage of impervious surface area. The following factors also affect the nutrient loading from residential areas: 1) presence and effectiveness of on-site septic systems; I 2) housing density; 3) grass and vegetative cover; 4) fertilizer applications; I 5) pet density and type (dogs, cats, etc.) Grass and housing density affect the infiltration/runoff ratio; fertilizers, septic tanks, and pets are additional I nutrient sources. The nutrient loading from the residential areas of the Prospect Lake watershed was considered to be on the low end I of the scale. According to Lycott's survey, very few residents ever fertilize their lawns. In addition, although the density of houses along the shoreline is fairly high, the stormwater runoff from the watershed is, for the most part, I not channelized into storm drains. Thus, the vast bulk of stormwater from residential areas filters through vegetated I areas before reaching the lake. Because of this, the I 45 I nutrient loading, exclusive of septic tank inputs, was assumed to be at the low end of those values reported in the literature, approximately 0.7 kg P/ha/yr (Reckhow et al, 1980) . Loadings due to septic disposal will be treated in a subsequent section. ^ Loading from agricultural lands are similarly variable • depending on the type of cultivation, the degree of fertilization, the type of soil, and the amount and timing of • rainfall. In terms of these factors, the agricultural land B in the Prospect Lake watershed appears most like agricultural m areas of Southern Ontario having a mix of pasture and row crops (Cooke et al. 1978 as reported on pages 79-82 of • Reckhow et al. 1980). The area most like Prospect is a bit | of mixed farmland on "calcerous loamy till11 that had an export rate of 1.53 kg/ha/yr of phosphorus. (In reality/ the m areas planted in corn could have export rates 2 to 10 times • the export rates of the pasture. For the analysis below, I however, the pasture and corn fields were lumped together into a single grouping as in the site referenced in Reckhow ^ et al.) •

TABLE 18 LAND-USE ASSOCIATED PHOSPHORUS EXPORT I EXPORT AREA IN PHOSPHORUS LAND USE COEFFICIENT WATERSHED EXPORT x 1 1 I (kg P ha~ yr" ) (ha) (kg P yr" )

Forest 0.10 264.7 26.5 I Residential 0 .70 17.8 12.5 Agriculture l . 53 24.2 37.0 I Total 306.7 76.0 I Septic System Phosphorus Sources - Septic tank effluents from I near-shore dwellings can be major contributors to a lake's | phosphorus loading. The amount of effluent phosphorus which enters the lake system depends upon factors such as lake- _ shore lot sizes, soil retention coefficients, seasonal versus • permanent residency, and use of appliances such as garbage • disposals, dishwashers, and washing machines. Septic system inputs will be estimated based upon I literature values and the characteristics of the Prospect m Lake watershed. According to the EPA (1988), septic tanks 46 i i I I and leach fields can, on average, be expected to adsorb about I 80% of the phosphorus. Since per capita production of total P totals about 0.80 kg/yr (Vollenweider 1968), septic fields should release about 0.16 kg of P per capita per year. Generally, only those septic tanks close to the lake I contribute to loading of the lake, so Lycott assumed that only houses within 100 meter swath around the lake would have an impact. I According to the USGS map and aerial photos, there are approximately 35 houses in this 100 meter swath around the lake. According to Lycott's septic survey, which I concentrated on houses within this band, very few of the houses are occupied year-round. The average stay per household was 16.4 weeks or 0.32 yr. Since the average number of persons per household was 3.0, this following I equation produces the average number of people per year in the 100 meter band around the lake: I 35 houses * 0.32 yr * 3.0 persons/house = 33.60 people yr. Since per capita production of phosphorus was estimated at 0.8 kg/yr, estimated annual loading from septic tank to leach fields should total 26.9 kg P. Due to limitations of I soil at the site, leach fields were assumed to adsorb an average of about 60% of this, leaving an estimated loading of I about 10.8 kg per year arriving from septic tank inputs. Loner-Term Phosphorus Budget Summary - The table below gives an estimate of long-term phosphorus loading to Prospect Lake. I TABLE 19 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS BUDGET - LONG TERM I SOURCE LOAD TOTAL (KG/YR) (%) Septic Systems 10.8 11.5% I Precipitation 7.3 7.7% Land-Use Forest 26.4 28.1% I Residential 12.5 13.3% Agriculture 37.0 39.4% I Totals 94.0 100% Most (about 80.8%) of total loading comes from land-use, with the bulk of that coming from the agricultural land. I Septic tanks are a lesser contributor to phosphorus levels in the pond, about 11.5% of the whole. The contribution of I agriculture totaled about 40% of the whole, while the I 47 I LYCOTT I contribution due to residential (residential land-use plus _ septic tank inputs) was about 25% of total loading. • 2. Short-Term Phosphorus Budget Calculated from Field Data The second method to calculate the phosphorus budget I relies on field data collected by Lycott during the year of B sampling. Tributary Phosphorus Inputs - According to Lycott's B hydrolocfical budget, total water coming into Prospect Lake was divided into portions coming from rain on the lake itself, from overland flow after storms, from tributaries • during base flow, from groundwater, and from septic tanks. | In the sub-basins with tributaries, however, tributaries intercept much of the overland flow, most of the groundwater, _ and most or all of the inputs from septic tanks. In • addition, as noted in the section on Hydrologic Budget, • Lycott*s sampling of the tributaries also included storm flows. Thus, the tributaries in sub-basins with tributaries • were assumed to intercept all flows going into the lake, and • the Lycott's samples were assumed to be representative of the m water quality of all inflows from these sub-basins. To estimate total phosphorus loading from these sub- | basins, phosphorus concentrations and instantaneous discharges from Lycott's sampling were flow-weighted and time-weighted to remove biases of the sampling schedule. I These values were extrapolated over a year, producing the I following values for total phosphorus inputs from tributaries for the sampling period. »

TABLE 20

PHOSPHORUS LOADING ESTIMATED FROM STREAM FLOW- Tributary Total P Loading I (kg/yr) 2 51.6 I 3 4.1 4 0.3 5 0.4 6 6.3 I Total 62.7 I Includes storm flows and base flows. I I 48 I LYCOTT - I I Storm-Flow Inputs - in the calculations of tributary I inputs above, Lycott's samples were assumed to include storm flows. Thus, the storm-water contribution from areas drained by tributaries was included in the total above. (The rationale for this inclusion is justified in the Hydrologic I Budget). However, storm flows from areas that would not drain into a tributary would still represent a source of nutrients to the lake. I According to the Annual Water Budget, the total storm water coming into the lake was estimated to be 260,600 m3. Areas that are not drained by tributaries make up about 17% I of the total watershed and should contribute a similar proportion of the storm water, or about 44,450 cubic meters per year (i.e. 17% of 260,600). According to the storm samples taken by Lycott, storm water had an average I phosphorus concentration of about 0.25 mg/1 of total phosphorus, producing an estimate of about 11.13 kg of phosphorus coming in storm water from watershed areas without I tributaries. Groundwater Inputs - The phosphorus concentration of groundwater can be estimated by samples taken in Lycott's monitoring wells. Monitoring well samples had an average I concentration of about 0.017 mg/1 phosphorus. According to the hydrologic budget, about 203,500 m3 of groundwater should have flowed into Prospect Lake during the study year (Table I 6). This estimate produces a total loading from groundwater of about 3.460 kg of phosphorus. Total Short-Term Phosphorus Budget - The remaining budget I item, loading from precipitation, was taken from the Long- term P budget. A summary of the budget can be found in the Table 21 below. I TABLE 21 SHORT-TERM PHOSPHORUS BUDGET SUMMARY I kg P yr"1 % of total Tributary Inputs 62.7 74.1 I Storm flows* 11.1 13.1 Groundwater 3.5 4.1 Precipitation 7.3 8.6 I Total 84.6 100.0 Does no>tt includinc e storm flows in those sub-basins with I tributaries. I I 49 I LYCOTT I Comparison of Short-term and Loner-term Loading Estimates - The two methods yielded very similar predictions of total • loading — 94.0 kg/yr for the long-term model and 84.6 for | the short-term model. Given errors inherent in the processes, this is very close agreement. Moreover, one would _ expect the short-term loading to be less than the long-term, • because of the reduced rainfall during the study period. • While the gross agreement between methods is very good, mm several of the parts do not appear consistent between the two B models. For example, over 80% of the total tributary loading m in the short term model comes from Tributary 1, which is almost entirely undisturbed forest. According to land-use, • this tributary should introduce less than 20 kg/yr of | phosphorus, compared to an estimated 51 kg calculated from field data. The discrepancy results primarily from one sampling data — March 28, 1988, when total phosphorus and • flow were both very high. Eliminating this date from the I analysis reduces loading from Tributary #2 to about 20 kg per year, what probably represents the actual loading. _ Another salient difference between the long-term and the B short-term model is the estimation of loading from Tributary #3. According to Lycott's data, total loading from this • tributary was about 4.1 kg phosphorus. The expected loading • for this sub-basin is about 19 kg phosphorus per year, due primarily to the 26 acres of farmland. This difference can be attributed to 2 factors. First, | the wetland at the base of sub-basin #4 must effectively trap much of the pollution coming from the agricultural areas. Second, the agricultural areas around Prospect Lake are well • managed with respect to pollution. Thus, the estimate of • 1.53 kg of phosphorus per hectare of farmland probably overestimates the phosphorus loading to Prospect Lake. _

MODELING PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS Because the concentration of phosphorus generally limits | plant growth in aquatic systems, simple models have been developed to predict the concentration of phosphorus in the water column. The models can be used to test the validity of • data and assumptions, because a large difference between an | observed and predicted value would suggest either that the data put into the model or the observed in-lake _ concentrations were wrong, or that the lake was acting • atypically. The models can also assess the potential success • of a proposed management technique, because they can predict water quality under different rates of phosphorus loading. • (The second property will be used later in the Feasibility • section on Predicted Effects of Remediation.) ™ I 50 ,= *A w i LYCOTT i I I I The phosphorus models are based on regression equations of data from many lakes. Several slightly different models have been generated, since different authors used slightly different statistical techniques and/or data from different I lakes and different times of the year. Generally, however, their predictions are quite similar (see Table 22). The models predict average surface water phosphorus over I the "growing season", and assume the following: 1. The lake behaves, on a long-term basis, as a completely mixed system. Prospect Lake mixes I completely during spring and fall, so this assumption is satisfied. I 2. Lake volume remains constant. This is roughly true for Prospect Lake. 3. The influx of phosphorus is constant, losses occur I through deposition and outflow, and the net internal loss is proportional to phosphorus concentration in the lake. This description fits Prospect Lake I moderately well. The models are based on several parameters: P, Lp, and qs. P is the phosphorus concentration of surface water during the growing season; Lp is the phosphorus loading rate, in I g/mvyr, the total amount of phosphorus available to the lake from all sources divided by the surface area; and qs is the areal water load, which is the flushing rate times tne I mean depth. From the Sections on Morphometry and the Hydrologic Budget, the long-term flushing rate of Prospect Lake is about I 7.0 volumes per year, and the average depth is about 1.72 m (5.64 ft). This produces an areal water load (qs) equal to 12.0 m/yr. For the study year, the flushing rate was only I 4.1 times per year, yielding an areal water load of 7.1 m/yr. I I I I I 51 I i i TABLE 22 MODELS TO PREDICT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS i LONG-TERM OR AVERAGE YEAR P loading = 94 kg/yr, flushing rate = 7.0 times per year. AUTHOR MODEL PREDICTED mg/1 Reckhow P = Lp / (11.6 + 1.2 * gs) 0.016 Vollenweid^r i P = Lp / (10 + gs) 0.019 Dillon-Kirchner P = Lp / (13.2 + gs) 0.017 i Chapra P = Lp / (16 + gs) 0-015

TABLE 23

MODELS TO PREDICT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SHORT-TERM BASED ON STUDY YEAR i P loading =84.6 kg/yr, flushing rate =4.1 times per year. AUTHOR MODEL PREDICTED mg/1 i Reckhow P = Lp / (11.6 + 1.2 * gs) 0.019 VolTenweider P = Lp / (10 + gs) 0.022 Dillon-Kirchner i P = Lp / (13.2 + qs) 0.019 Chapra P = Lp / (16 + gs) 0.017 i Lp is the phosphorus loading rate, gram P per meter sguared per year; z is the average depth, meters ; gs is the areal water load, which is the mean depth times the flushing rate i i 52 *•A I '"Mt^ • LYOOTT 1 I 1 The average of the predictions for the sampling period, I 0.019 mg/1, provides a very good fit to the average of data for the deep-hole surface samples — 0.0185 mg/1. The close fit between predicted and measured values suggest that long- term phosphorus budget can be applied to Prospect Lake. The I models predict that the study year had fairly normal phosphorus concentrations despite the much reduced rainfall. According to the long-term data the lake should have an I average phosphorus concentration of about 0.017 mg/1. INTERCONVERSION OF NITROGEN COMPOUNDS I Nitrogen gas (N ) is the most common element of air, and 2 natural waters are generally saturated with this gas (Birge and Juday 1911). Despite its widespread and plentiful I distribution in natural waters, however, nitrogen is the second most common limiting nutrient (after phosphorus) in freshwater aquatic systems, because elemental nitrogen is I unavailable to all but a few biological organisms. Some organisms, known as nitrogen fixers, do convert molecular nitrogen to biologically useful nitrogen in a process called nitrogen fixation (Figure 17). When I phosphorus is plentiful and nitrogen is limiting, some aquatic organisms, notably the blue-green algae and some acjuatic bacteria, fix nitrogen and incorporate this fixed nitrogen into bacterial and algal biomass. When these I organisms die or are consumed, their nitrogen becomes available to other consumers, usually in the form of ammonia I (NH3). Nitrogen infrequently limits freshwater systems, however, so in-situ nitrogen fixing rarely constitutes a major source of nitrogen to lakes and ponds. Even in those I lakes where nitrogen limitation occurs, in-situ nitrogen fixing rarely produces a significant proportion of the total nitrogen used by aquatic plants (Wetzel 1985). Most biologically-available nitrogen in lakes and ponds originates I from nitrogen fixed by man or by bacteria in terrestrial ecosystems, especially by bacteria associated with legumes I like clover and alfalfa. Ammonia (NH3) is the primary breakdown product of organic nitrogen, generated by bacteria as they oxidize organic matter. Ammonia is also produced as an excretory I product by animals, but this is usually much less significant than bacterial production. In the presence of oxygen, ammonia is converted first to nitrite (NOp) and then to nitrate (NO3) in a process known as nitrification. Thus, the I presence of high concentrations of ammonia denotes that the I rate of decomposition exceeds the rate of nitrification. I 53 I I I occurring as a result of an intense rate of decomposition and/or a reduced rate of nitrification due to low dissolved • oxygen levels. Since organic decomposition produces ammonia • and consumes dissolved oxygen, ammonia often becomes concentrated in the hypolimnia of eutrophic lakes, especially _ when bottom waters become depleted of oxygen in the summer. • In contrast, nitrate (NO3) predominates in surface waters • where oxygen is plentiful. Both nitrate and ammonia are readily available to plants, and these two species constitute • the major source of nitrogen for plant growth. Even in cases B where nitrogen fixing does occur, most of the nitrogen used m for plant growth comes from that already fixed as ammonia and nitrate (Wetzel 1975). • With excess fixed-nitrogen and the absence of oxygen, which may occur in lake sediments, some bacteria break down nitrate to elemental nitrogen, completing the cycle. This • process is called devitrification. The nitrogen cycle, as • described above, is influenced considerably by humans. Humans fix nitrogen gas artificially, producing ammonia and • nitrate for use as fertilizer for crops and lawns. Nitrogen • from septic tanks or sewage can be a major source of nitrogen ™ to groundwater and then to lakes. Lastly, a major source of biologically available nitrogen is wet and dry precipitation • of particulate nitrogen (Wetzel 1975). For example, acids of • nitrogen (NOX) are a major component of acid precipitation, and these nitrogen compounds fertilize waters as well as acidify them. • Precipitation of nitrogen may be the major source of biologically-available nitrogen in some aquatic systems _ (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). Large atmospheric contributions make • controlling nitrogen availability very difficult. Due in • part to the great amount of nitrogen literally falling from the air, it is generally not feasible to control • eutrophication by controlling nitrogen (Wetzel 1975; EPA I 1988). The mobility of nitrate and ammonia in groundwater — also makes controlling nitrogen availability difficult. In contrast to phosphates which are tightly bound to soil • particles, nitrate and ammonia move relatively freely through | the soil in groundwater. Thus, the nitrogen from fertilizer and from naturally fertile soils moves readily from the watershed to the lake via groundwater or surface flow. • For these reasons, most eutrophication control concentrates on restricting phosphorus even in those systems _ in which nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. Given the I difficulty of controlling nitrogen inputs to lakes and • watercourses, it is often easier to restrict phosphorus inputs to the point where it, not nitrogen, becomes the limiting nutrient. i i 54 ^ A ii; ME i LYCOTT i I I FEASIBILITY STUDY I Summary The following is a short synopsis of the management I program proposed by Lycott. A. Methods to Manage Macrophytes I 1. Water level drawdown should be started to control weeds in the nearshore area. B. Methods to Reduce Nutrient Loading from Agricultural I Areas 1. A buffer strip of approximately 10 feet should be I placed between the ditch along Hillsdale Road and the agricultural areas uphill from the road. The area should undergo moderate leveling and long-term flow spreading devices should be emplaced to promote I sheet flow across the buffer strip. C. Methods to Reduce Nutrient Loading from Residential Areas I 1. A septic tank inspection and maintenance program should be implemented to reduce potential impacts of septic tank leachates to Prospect Lake. Residents in the watershed within 100 meters of the lake I should be educated about the potential impacts of poorly maintained septic tanks and should be encouraged to maintain septic tanks and septic leach I fields in good condition. 2. Future development in the watershed should use methods to minimize impacts of storm water and I septic tanks. With respect to the former, emphasis should be given to mitigation of phosphorus loading and reduction of sediment inputs. Best management practices should be built into the developments to I reduce storm water runoff and to reduce the nutrients associated with that runoff. Septic tanks should be sited and sized such that nutrient loading I is minimized. 3. The buffer strips surrounding the tributaries coming into Prospect Lake should be protected and, when I possible, enhanced. 4. Lawn and garden fertilization with phosphorus should be discouraged in lots near the lake or its I tributaries. I I 55 I LYCOTT 5. A public education program should set up to teach residents basic lake and watershed management techniques. D. Miscellaneous engineering suggestions 1. Repairs should be made to the spillway and slide gate of the current outlet structure. A new spillway should be constructed. The slide gate requires complete replacement with a pre-assembled gate. The extensive growth of brush and trees along the outlet structure should be removed immediately. I PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES Techniques available for lake and watershed management I can be divided into those dealing with the causes of water I quality problems and those attempting to alleviate the symptoms. Techniques dealing with the causes of _ eutrophication usually restrict inflow of nutrients by • managing the watershed. Amelioration of symptoms usually • includes in-lake methods of controlling plant biomass, either macrophytes or phytoplankton. These methods can be applied m at different levels of intensity and in combination with I other techniques; thus, there are many possible management — approaches. Since each lake is a unique ecosystem, a restoration and management program must be tailored to the • site-specific needs and characteristics of the lake or pond. | According to the Diagnostic section, the following are the major sources of nutrients, in order of importance: I loading from the watershed, primarily associated with runoff I from agricultural areas; and loading from septic tanks and residential areas. The major water quality problem at the _ lake is excessive macrophyte growth, although algal growth is • also somewhat high. ' METHODS TO MANAGE MACROPHYTE BIOMASS i Because rooted macrophytes can derive nutrients from the sediments, methods that control nutrients in the water column • may have little or no effect on weed growth. Thus, methods | that reduce nutrient inflows from the watershed probably will have no noticeable effect on macrophyte densities in Prospect Lake. Instead, in-lake management of macrophytes must be • practiced. •i i 56 i LYCOTT i I I

The following lists the methods of macrophyte control I that were considered for application in Prospect Lake, Several largely experimental techniques (diver-operated dredging, rototilling, shallow-water cultivation, and I hydraulic washing) were eliminated from consideration because of their largely untested nature. Lycott considered several in-lake management techniques I to control macrophyte growth: - benthic barriers - biological control I - dredging - herbicidal treatment hydroraking I lake-level manipulation (drawdown) - mechanical harvesting The following section lists those options that were I considered with an explanation for their selection or rejection.

I Benthic Barriers - A variety of opacjue materials has been used for localized control of aquatic vegetation in shallow lake shorelines. Porous materials with negative buoyancy have proven most effective, and common burlap is the least I expensive (Armour et al. 1979). Bottom barriers are expensive — material costs range from $1,827 to $23,490 per acre with installation costs ranging from 50% to 400% of I material costs (DNR 1989). Therefore, benthic barriers are applicable only in very small areas, like beaches, and they I will not be recommended for use in Prospect Lake. Biological Controls - Encouraging survival of phytophagious insects and fish and manipulating food webs to enhance grazing on algae are among the newest lake improvement I techniques. Except for some successes with plant eating insects in the South, biological control of algae or macrophytes has not worked well (see Smith 1988 and Cooke et al. 1986). Introduction of grass carp into Massachusetts is I currently illegal, and the fish have proven difficult to manage; they tend to produce no effect or too much effect. Sometimes they eliminate all macrophytes from a lake. Other I techniques for biological control are experimental or largely ineffective. For these reasons, biological control will not be considered to control macrophytes or phytoplankton in I Propsect Lake. I I 57 I LYCOTT I I Dredging - Dredging can manage macrophyte biomass by removing the nutrient-laden sediments in which the plants grow and by deepening the pond so that the bottom becomes too dark to I allow macrophyte growth. In addition, over the short-term, dredging removes plant rhizomes and storage organs, preventing regrowth of perennial plants the next spring. Future growth must come from reinvasion by new plants. I There are two types of dredging or sediment removal techniques. Dry dredging occurs after water has been drained from the pond/lake, allowing the sediments to dry out. Then I the dried sediments are removed with heavy equipment. The second method, wet dredging, involves the removal of sediments with either a drag line (bucket) or with heavy I equipment such as a Mud Cat (hydraulic dredge). This method of sediment removal is accomplished without altering the water level in the pond/lake. I Because Prospect Lake cannot be completely drained, dry dredging is not feasible. Wet dredging costs between $7 and $20 per cubic yard. Assuming, for illustration, that the sediment depth averages one yard, dredging would cost from I $40,000 to $100,000 per acre. Dredging the entire lake would, therefore, cost from 2.2 to 5.0 million dollars. In addition to cost, dredging has other salient I disadvantages. Dredging may cloud the water with sediments, producing a temporarily turbid lake that can discourage swimming and fish growth. It also disrupts reproduction of I aquatic fauna that rely on bottom nests. The use of the pond/lake for human activities is precluded during dredging. Disposal of the dredged spoils is costly and may pose environmental impacts. Worse, dredging does not always solve I aquatic weed and algae growth problems. Weeds sometimes regrow within a short time. Also, deepening is inconsistent with some recreation uses, especially swimming. I Dredging will not be proposed to manage macrophytes in Prospect Lake for the following reasons. Deepening will have only a moderate impact on macrophyte growth, dredging is also very expensive and, over the short-term, ecologically I disruptive. Harvesting - Specially designed machinery has been developed I by various manufacturers to cut, capture, and remove aquatic plants from ponds and lakes. Harvesting functions like a lawn mower, clipping and removing the top portion of the plants, usually down to a maximum depth of six feet. Since I the lower portion of the plant remains, plants regrow after cutting. In some lakes, weeds must be harvested several times per year. Costs of weed harvesting range from $350 to $1,000 per acre. Harvesting could be applied at Prospect I Lake and will be given detailed consideration in the next section. I 58 I I I I

Herbicidal Control - Herbicides are an inexpensive and I effective method to manage macrophyte biomass. When applied correctly, currently registered herbicides pose little if any health risk to man or the environment. Herbicide application I is also not restricted by water depth or physical obstructions. Herbicides exert control before the weeds reach nuisance densities. Also, the experienced applicator can often manage macrophytes with some degree of selectivity, I preferentially eliminating certain species without disturbing more-preferred macrophytes. Cost depends upon the local conditions and species to be managed, but it usually ranges from $500 to $800 per acre. Herbicides will be considered in I detail in the section below. Hvdroraking - The major mechanical control method used to clear shoreline areas of emergent macrophytes is called I hydroraking. The hydrorake is essentially a floating, paddle-wheel propelled back-hoe with a wide, stiff rake attached to the end of the hydraulically-powered mechanical I arm. This arm is operated with a diesel engine and hydraulic system. The sediment of the plant bed is scoured with the rake, and the uprooted plants, rhizomes, and attached sediments are put on a barge for later disposal. Cost ranges I from $1,500 to $2,500 per acre. Hydroraking is more expensive than alternative measures, and will not be recommended for use at Prospect Lake. I Lake-Level Drawdown - Drawdown is when a lake is drawn down, dryincf exposing weed beds to the air and the elements. Exposing rooted aquatic plants to dry, freezing, or hot conditions effectively controls many species of macrophytes, I does not affect others, and stimulates a third group of species (Cooke et al. 1986). I Drawdown is used primarily to control macrophyte densities, but this method also serves several purposes in lakes and impoundments. During drawdown, near-shore sediments can be removed, dock and break-walls can be I repaired, benthic screens can be put in place, and the I fisheries can be managed. I I I I 59 I I DETAILED EVALUATION: DRAWDOWN VS. HARVESTING VS. HERBICIDES I Prospect Lake is very shallow, and macrophytes grow at excessive densities almost throughout the lake. However, the weeds growing at depths less than about 6 feet-deep cause • the most problems. Macrophytes also comprise an important | component of the aquatic ecosystem, so they should be protected in areas where they do not cause problems. Thus, _ Lycott's analysis will compare management options for only • those weed beds less than 6 feet deep, a potential treatment • area of about 25 acres. 1. Drawdown i Benefits: Costs are primarily one-time capital costs for dam repair or retrofitting. Once the dam structure is in place, drawdown is I the least expensive method for aquatic weed • management. Control is achieved naturally, without large I machinery or introduction of foreign substance. * Organic sediments can be oxidized and other sediments • may be compacted. • Silty organic matter that provides habitat for weeds may migrate too thee pond/lake center via rain and its • associated erosion. Home owners and pond/lake residents can clean out _ their shoreline areas by raking, etc. I Drawdown can help manage fish stocks. Small "pan" fish are less able to avoid predation by large game • fish when concentrated into the smaller area. Weed • reduction can also improve fish production and * angling. Detriments: Satisfying State and Local regulatory agencies can be an expensive process. i Only certain bodies of water are conducive to lake level drawdown. _ Only those sediments that are exposed to the • disruptive activities during the Fall and Winter will produce negative effects on the aquatic plant growth. • 60 i LYCOTT! I I I - Drawdown will not control certain species of plants. - Amphibians and other aquatic fauna that use the mud for hibernation can be killed during drawdown. (This I impact can be greatly reduced if drawdown is done early in the Fall.) - If private or public drinking water supplies rely on I the head pressure of the pond/lake's water, these wells may go dry. - Aesthetically, the bottom of the pond/lake, I especially during the Fall, is not very pleasing. - Odors, such as hydrogen sulfide, can be produced I during the drying out of the sediments in the Fall. - Adverse effects on associated wetlands must be I evaluated and mitigated. While water can be drawn down at any time, winter I drawdown would be most practical for Prospect Lake. Recreational impacts of drawdown are less during the winter. Drawdown also functions best when the exposed sediment freezes completely. Freeze-thaw cycles disrupt the I sediments, destroying root tissue. In addition, water is generally most available to a watershed during spring, so the lake can refill most quickly and reliably after winter drawdown (Drawdown, therefore also increases the lake's I potential for flood control). In addition, rapid refilling severely disrupts the sediments, especially when they are frozen, because the frozen hydrosoil often floats to the I surface. Since it is dark colored, this material rapidly heats up and drops back to the bottom. Water level drawdown can also be used to manage fish I populations. As fish are concentrated in the deeper waters, small "pan" fish are less able to avoid predation by large game fish. The overall effect can be to remove a portion of the less desirable pan fish and to increase the growth rates I of predatory fish prized by anglers. Based on their study of three Louisiana lakes, Lantz et al. (1964) found that over- winter drawdown resulted in less turbid water, better I spawning and survival of the sunfishes, and increased growth rates and survival of the bass population. Several of the negative aspects could be important at I Prospect Lake. Most of the nuisance species in Prospect Lake will be negatively affected and well-managed by drawdown. The species dominating the lake — Elodea. Potamocreton sp., I and Naias — are usually controlled. It should be noted, I 61 • I I I however, that drawdown occasionally fails to control these aquatic plants and sometimes apparently increases their • growth (Cooke et al. 1986). Other potential disadvantages of | drawdown include stimulation of algal blooms, oxygen depletion, reservoir user dissatisfaction during drawdown, m failure to refill after drawdown, invasion of undesirable • plant species, and lowering of water levels in nearby wells • (Nichols, 1975; Cooke, 1980). If level adjustment reduces the growth of shoreline vegetation, a greater percentage of • the nutrients in the water column will be available to • support phytoplankton growth, and algal blooms could result. • However, it should be noted the macrophyte control may substantially reduce internal cycling of nutrients and • release of organic matter (e.g., Carpenter, 1983), thereby | helping to reduce algal growth. None of the potential problems are likely to be severe in Prospect Lake. Two other problems may make drawdown more difficult at | Prospect Lake. First, the dam is on private land, and it may not be possible to fix the dam with public funds. Some ^ arrangment must be worked out with the town and the dam • owner (Mr. Sandy Mason) before public funds can be expended • on the dam. Additionally,, the regulatory climate demands extensive data gathering that amounts to a small scale • Environmental Impact Analysis (see Appendix L). The entire • process could cost as much as $10,000 per application. And — the permit could be denied. The greatest advantage of drawdown at Prospect Lake | would be the cost and ease of implementation. Lycott estimates that the permitting will cost about $10,000 for information gathering required by the Conservation • Commission. This would be a one-time cost. Drawdown will | increase the need that the dam be repaired, so the cost of dam repair can also be added the drawdown cost . Lycott • estimates dam repair at approximately $9,385. After these • expenditures, there should probably periodic weed surveys, • which should cost about $500 per survey. Thus, drawdown would cost a initial cost of $20,000 with a subsequent yearly • annual cost of about $500. This produces a equivalent annual I cost of about $1,620 (using an interest rate of 8% and an assumed lifetime of 20 years). 2. Harvesting |

Benefits: m Aquatic plant harvesting has several advantages I including: - Mechanical harvesting is not inhibited, as herbicidal • control may be, by local regulations, adverse public • opinion, or requirements to ban the use of the water for periods after treatment. • 62 i i I I

- Harvesting is fully controlled by the machine I operator, and the size of treatment areas may be determined and readily limited. I The main nuisance is removed immediately without the addition of potentially deleterious substances, and the nutrients incorporated in this biomass are I removed. Harvesting removes biomass that otherwise will release nutrients at senescence and will contribute to an oxygen depletion that could stimulate further I nutrient release from reduced sediments. Harvesting before herbicide treatments may increase I the susceptibility of the plants to herbicides. Multiple use of the water body may continue with I minor interference during harvesting. - Harvesting activities pose little hazard to non- target organisms other than those inadvertently I removed with the cut vegetation. Harvested vegetation may be a beneficial product, sought after by farmers and gardeners. I Detriments: Cut vegetation must be collected and removed from the I water; these steps may be energy or labor-intensive and relatively costly. I Effective harvesting in temperate waters is seasonal. - Harvesting is reactive, i.e., it works best after growth has peaked and plants are at nuisance I heights and densities. Unless several harvesters are used concurrenlty, only small areas can be harvested per day. Nuisance conditions may require simultaneous treatments over I large areas in a short period. In locations where a short operating season prevails, I a high capital outlay is needed for the required machine capacity, which is used only for brief time periods. I By producing many fragments, harvesting may encourage dispersal of those species that propagate by I cuttings. I 63 I LYCOTT I I - Harvesters may inadvertently kill small fish, • turtles, snakes, and other aquatic organisms that use | the weed beds as cover or for food. Operating depths are usually limited if cutting units I incorporate collection and storage functions. • Favorable weather is essential to safe and effective H operations. I The following physical conditions limit harvesting operations: confined spaces that limit movement, • obstacles such as docks, breakwaters, submerged | rocks, stumps, and other bottom irregularities. - Because harvesting can be a slow operation, I this technique may dissatisfy the public and engender | disputes over which treatment areas have priority. Of the disadvantages, several are germane to Prospect I Lake. Harvesting is less effective than herbicides; weeds • are allowed to become a problem before harvesting is started and they remain after harvesting, albeit at a less noxious • density and height. Harvesting is also a slight problem at I Prospect Lake, because some shorefront owners have docks that * will interfere with the harvester. Harvesting Elodea also can cause problems, because fragments of this plant may • survive as a floating mat of vegetation. J With respect to the advantages, nutrient export could be an important asset at Prospect Lake. Because harvesting • captures plant fragments and disposes of them onshore, I harvesting operations are seen as a method to export nutrients from the lake. An average harvesting operation in « the northern U.S. removes 0.675 g of phosphorus per m2 I harvested (Cooke et al. 1986). Harvesting 25 acres of * Prospect Lake with nuisance aquatic vegetation would, therefore, export about 68.3 kg of phosphorus from the lake • per year. Given the total external loading to the lake of • about 90 kg/yr, this harvesting would represent a substantial export of phosphorus from the lake. This amount can be obtained with a moderately intensive harvesting program. • According to the literature (Burton et al. 1979), a more | intensive harvesting effort could export about twice this amount. _ Harvesting may also help control eutrophication in lakes I where the rate of nutrient export due to harvesting significantly reduces total nutrients in the sediments. M According to Lycott's data, Prospect Lake sediments are • relatively clean with respect to nutrients: each kg of • sediment contains only about 0.061 grams of phosphorus. If one assumes that Prospect Lake sediments have a density of •

64

mm ! ik*9M^ 1 LYCOTT 1 I I about i.o and that the roots of aquatic plants can obtain I nutrients from the top 10 cm of sediment, this means that macrophytes within each square meter of sediment have access to about 0.06 g P per kg sediment * 0.1 m3 of sediment I m3 * 1000 kg per of sediment = 6 grams of P. Given an export rate of 0.675 g/m2/yr, it would take I less than a decade to deplete the sediments of phosphorus, assuming, somewhat unrealistically, that no more phosphorus was added to the sediments. As estimated by the difference between the total phosphorus inflow and total outflow, almost I 45 kg of phosphorus per year is retained in the Prospect Lake, which produces an areal sedimentation rate of about 0.2 g/m*yyr. Thus, the net export rate for harvesting would I still be about 0.5 g/m2/yr. This rate of nutrient export should produce significant reductions in sediment nutrient levels over the short-term (i.e., less than 20 years). As sediment nutrients become depleted, harvesting will be I required less often. The nutrient-export due to harvesting can also be an important component of short-term nutrient control. I Senescent and dying plants can be an important source of nutrients to the water column (Landers and Lottes 1983), although the importance of this nutrient pulse is somewhat exaggerated since it usually occurs in late summer or fall, I when light limitation becomes important. However, nutrients from dying and rotting macrophytes may contribute to the fall phytoplankton bloom, which can occur at Prospect Lake. Thus, I harvesting would probably have additional benefits with respect to curtailment of internal nutrient cycling. Costs of harvesting range from $350 to $1,000 per acre. I Using a recent estimate from Wisconsin (DNR 1989) of $540 per acre suggests that the cost of harvesting 25 acres would total a.bout $13,500 per year. Harvesting would have to be done every year, so this produces an annual cost of about I $13,500 per year. This cost may fall as much as 25% with competitive bidding, to about $10,000 per year. If harvesting were to be undertaken, approximately 2 I acres C;ould be harvested per day. This means that the 25 acres Could be harvested within a two week period. I 3- Herbicidal Control: With respect to Prospect Lake the major advantages and I disadvantages of herbicides are as follows: I I 65 I LYCOTT I I Benefits - Used properly, herbicides will not adversely affect | the vast majority of fish or other aquatic fauna. - In certain cases, specific plant species can be I managed while not affecting other more desirable • aquatic plants. - With some herbicides, the technique is somewhat I spatially specific. With proper application of some • herbicides, only target areas will be affected. In most instances, application causes little | disruption of recreational activities in the pond/lake. There is no disruption or detrimental effects to the | reproductive activities of aquatic fauna. - The technique is pro-active. One can apply the I herbicides before the plants grow to nuisance heights • and/or densities. - The application and effect of herbicides are fairly I quick. Residents need not tolerate long periods m between effective management. Detriments Caution must be used by the applicator. These compounds in high concentrationconcentrationss can be toxic I to the user and other living organisms. There may be some restrictions to the pond/lake's ^ water usage for a short period. Herbicide I application can also produce problems, because of the • threat of contamination of drinking wells. Herbicide application may secondarily cause fish I kills, because the decay of dense weeds may deplete dissolved oxygen. This does not, however, normally occur in larger ponds/lakes in the Northeastern • United States. The chances of fish kills due to | oxygen depletion can be further minimized by proper herbicide application. — Some herbicides leave residues that remain in the I ecosystem for many years, although most currently registered herbicides break down relatively quickly. H Many people fear the use of chemicals and would feel • uncomfortable with their use. I 66 I LYCOTT I I I Given the plant species growing at Prospect Lake, Lycott would recommend the use of the herbicide Diquat. Of the major aquatic macrophytes identified in Prospect Lake, Diquat is effective in controlling the following: I * Elodea fElodea spp.) Najas (Najas spp.) I Pondweed fPotamogeton spp.} If only the 25 acres of residential shoreline were treated, the cost would be approximately $7,000, an areal I cost of about $275 per acre. Weeds would need to be retreated every year, but they usually grow back at reduced densities that require less herbicide. Subsequent retreatments were estimated to cost 75% of the original I treatment, or about $5,250 per year. In Massachusetts, herbicide treatments must be approved by conservation commissions, so there would be an additional I cost for preparing a petition before the Egremont Conservation Commission. This process can vary greatly in time and commitment depending upon local sentiment and experience of the Commissions. Lycott estimates that the I entire application process would cost another $2,000. Assuming the application is approved, this approval must be I obtained every three years. Permits must also be gotten from the Massachusetts DEP each year that herbicides are applied. The permitting procedure costs about $500 per year for fees and information I gathering. Hence, if only the areas less than 6 feet deep were treated, the total cost for a herbicide treatment should be I about $21,000 for a three year period, or about $7,000 per year. Conclusion; Drawdown and/or harvesting should be used I to control macrophytes at Prospect Lake The alternatives should be evaluated in terms of five I criteria: effectiveness at managing weeds, cost, potential good and bad side-effects, and community sentiment concerning herbicide applications. I With respect to effectiveness, herbicides use is the best method. Weeds can be completely removed before they become a nuisance. Even including the dam repair, which should be done even if drawdown is not employed, drawdown is I by far the cheapest: about 1/3 of the cost of herbicides and about 1/4 the cost of harvesting. However, due to its potential for damage to aquatic fauna and nearby wetlands, I drawdown has become fairly expensive process in terms of I 67 I LYCOTT I I permitting. The DEP could require an Environmental Impact Report, and the Conservation Commission requires a $750 fee • for drawdown. Despite this, drawdown is still the least I expensive option, especially if the dam repair is undertaken for other reasons. — In terms of good side-effects, the potential for • nutrient control by harvesting would recommend this method. According to Lycott's calculations, extensive harvesting • could significantly reduce sediment-bound nutrients, which • would eventually curtail macrophyte growth over the long term. Drawdown and harvesting can kill invertebrates, | amphibia, and small fish that are associated with the sediments or the weeds. However, very little data exists on the magnitude or significance of this mortality to the • affected populations or to the lake ecosystem as a whole. In • contrast, a substantial data base does exist concerning the environmental effects of herbicides, due to extensive testing • during product licensing and greater scrutinizing after use. • Based on this data base, it can be concluded that herbicides • probably cause minimal damage to non-target organisms. Probably the most important component in this decision | process — community sentiment regarding herbicide treatments — is also the hardest to evaluate. Assessment of community reaction to herbicide application can only be done internally • in the local political process. Generally, however, most | communities and state agencies prefer other methods of weed control, especially when the costs of alternatives are _ comparable to herbicide treatment. I Based on these criteria and the discussion above, Lycott recommends that drawdown be employed at Prospect Lake. •

FEASIBILITY OF LAKE-LEVEL DRAWDOWN In order to determine the feasibility of lake-level | drawdown as a treatment option, Lycott has addressed five major issues: 1. Can the water level be drawn down enough? I 2. Can the water level be raised back up? 3. Will the drawdown affect adjacent surface wells? _ 4. Will drawdown affect contiguous wetlands? • 5. Will drawdown and refilling affect downstream flow • requirements? The first issue does not pose a problem at Prospect I Lake. Due to the proposed outlet/spillway repairs and replacements, the level of the water will be controlled with the slide gate. • 68 i i I I I To address the second issue, Lycott calculated both the volume of water that would be lost from the lake during a six foot drawdown and the volume of water available for refilling the lake. The latter was derived from average (long-term) I precipitation values for the months of January, February, and March. These months were used because drawdown would be accomplished in the late fall, and because normal lake levels should be re-established by the spring. During the winter I months, loss of precipitation to evapotranspiration would be minor; thus, nearly all of the precipitation would be I available to replenish the lake. If Prospect Lake were drawn down six feet, the volume of water needed to refill it would be approximately 323,000 cubic meters. During an average winter (January-March), the I Prospect Lake watershed would recieve 904,169 cubic meters of water. This amount would be sufficient to refill the lake during the 3-month refilling period. I During a drought year, the available water would be reduced substantially. Lycott's calculations for a drought year assume a 50% reduction in the water available to the lake for refilling. For Prospect Lake, this would reduce the I available water to 452,084 cubic meters. Thus, even in a drought year with a 50% reduction in rainfall during January, February, and March, there would be adequate water to re-fill I the lake. The third issue may be a problem at Prospect Lake. According to Lycott's inventory of water homeowner water I sources, six out of twenty seven respondents had shallow surface water wells. Although it is unlikely that these wells will be affected by the drawdown, it is possible. The drawdown depth is moderate and the surficial materials around I the lake, till, does not transmit water very well. However, the only sure way to determine whether the wells will be impacted is to conduct the drawdown and observe the water I levels in the wells. Although there are small wetlands adjacent to the Prospect Lake tributaries, there should be no impacts (Issue I #4). These streams should not be affected by drawdown, since drawdown will occur during the winter when water tables are high and wetland plants are dormant. I Downstream flow retirements (Issue #5) should also not be a problem, since refilling will take place during the winter when wetland plants are dormant. Moreover, there are no large areas of wetlands found along the outlet stream of I Prospect Lake. I I 69 I I I

METHODS TO CONTROL LOADING FROM AGRICULTURAL AREAS I Manncuiy methodlueuuoass havnave beeceen deviseaevj.s>edu tL.oU reducieuu^e« loadin-njau.niyg froJ.LUImU M agricultural areas. These methods, called agricultural Best • Management Practices (BMPs), include such methods as contour • plowing, terracing, no-till farming, and appropriately-timed spreading of manure. Mr. Charles Proctor, the farmer with • land in the southern part of the watershed, already uses many B of these techniques, and according to Lycott's sampling data, m these techniques are apparently moderately successful in controlling pollution. Storm water below agricultural fields • was only moderately higher than what would be expected from a | forested watershed. Measured phosphorus loading from Sub- basin 4, which contains the bulk of the agricultural areas, _ was much lower than would be expected from the land-use. • While some of the credit for the latter should go to the wetland at the mouth of sub-basin 4, the low nutrient export • from this sub-basin must also be due to Mr. Proctor's • management of his agricultural areas. Lycott's first • recommendation is that Mr. Proctor continue his good work with respect to erosion and nutrient control. • Despite this good performance by Mr. Proctor, the agricultural areas do represent a major source of nutrients to Prospect Lake. Even with the best management practices, • agriculture, especially row crops, will tend to export more | nutrient than forest. (Although the agricultural land now exports more phosphorus than forest, it should be stressed — that its current loading rates are similar to or lower than • those that would probably occur with residential • development.) The impact of this export can be significantly reduced, I however/ by adding buffer strips between the agricultural u land and the receiving waters. Buffer strips can be very effective in capturing pollutants, especially particulate • phosphorus that comprises the overwhelming bulk of pollution | from row crops. The Federal Government has several mechanisms to I encourage farmers to use buffer strips. For example, the I Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) will pay farmers to construct and maintain 60 to 99 feet buffer strips. . Unfortunately, the payment is woefully small, currently only • about $60 per acre for a 10 year fallow period, which • wouldn't even cover maintenance costs. And after 10 years, the land could be put back into cultivation. • Thus, Lycott considered three options. First, the town of Egremont (or the Prospect Lake Association) could augment the payment of the Conservation Reserve Program to provide an • 70 i LYCOTT - I I package should approximate the average return on investment I for agricultural land. A second alternative would be to buy the land outright from Mr. Proctor. Some of the land overlooks the lake, I raising its value to $20,000 to $40,000 per acre (according the estimates of local sources). For a 100-feet buffer strip between the agricultural areas and the storm drains on Hillsdale Road, this would total about 2 acres of land, I yielding a purchase price of $40,000 to $80,000. Flow- spreading devices would have to be installed on the strip to prevent channel flow across the filter strip, and these could I cost another $20,000 to $30,000. Instead of a 100-buffer, the buffer could be downsized to only 20 feet, and the town could buy an easement instead of the land outright. While the price for an easement can I only be determined empirically, Lycott believes that the easement could be bought for 10% to 30% of the outright purchase price. Assuming the easement could be bought for I 20% of the purchase price and that only a 20-feet buffer was employed, total land costs would be reduced by 95% compared to outright purchase of a 100-foot buffer, from $2,000 to $4,000. Instead of expensive, long term flow spreading I devices, the slight depression at the base of the hill could be filled with permeable materials that are graded flat across the slope. This wedge would filter most run-off coming to the filter strip or promote sheet flow and I infiltration across the top of the buffer strip. Lycott estimates that this could be accomplished for about $4,000. Lycott would recommend the third option. Total I phosphorus coming off the agricultural area above Hillsdale Road totals only about 10 kg per year. Assuming that a 100 feet wide buffer would remover 100% of the phosphorus coming I off these fields would still yield only a 10% decrease in loading at a rather large cost. Adding a 20 feet buffer strip could reduce total phosphorus by as much as 50% or more depending on the infiltration rate, for a cost that less than I one-tenth of the cost of the 100 feet buffer strip. I WATERSHED MANAGEMENT When possible, the most effective method of managing a lake is generally managing the watershed. Many methods can I be used to manage the nutrients coming into a lake from the watershed. Each will be addressed with applicability to I Prospect Lake. I 71 I Sjl I LYCOTT I I

METHODS OF WATERSHED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT I Physical Methods 1. Zoning/Land Use Management of land to minimize I Planning deleterious impacts on water 2. Stormwater Routing of pollutant flows away Diversion from a target water body 1 3. Detention/ Lengthening of time of travel Infiltration for pollutant flows and facilitating I Basins of natural purification processes 4. Provision of Community level collection and Sanitary Sewers treatment of wastewater to remove I pollutants 5. Maintenance and Proper operation of localized systems Upgrade of On-Site and maximal treatment of wastewater I Disposal Systems to remove pollutants 6. Agricultural Application of techniques in I Best Management forestry, animal, and crop science Practices intended to minimize impacts 7. Bank and Slope Erosion control to reduce inputs of I Stabilization sediment and related substances 8. Increased Street Frequent removal of potential runoff Sweeping pollutants from roads I Behavioral Changes I a. Use of Non- Elimination of a source of Phosphate Deter- phosphorus in waste-water gents I b. Eliminate Garbage Elimination of a source of Grinders phosphorus to waste-water I c. Minimize Lawn Reduce potential for nutrient Fertilization loading to a water body I Physical Methods 1. Zoning/Land Use Planning. With respect to development in I the watershed, special attention should be paid to development close to the pond or close to its tributaries. Buffer zones of at least fifty feet should be maintained I 72 I LYCOTT I I I Buffer zones of at least fifty feet should be maintained I between developed areas and these sensitive areas. Future development in the watershed should be modified so that net nutrient loading to the pond remains at its current level. Future development should also pay special attention to storm I water management. Best Management Practices should be employed to prevent any increase in nutrient loading due to changes in hydrology after development. I A concern is the transformation of part-time summer camps into year-round residences. This would increase the volume of material entering the present septic systems, most likely increasing nutrients in the surrounding groundwater. I An increase in phosphorus similar to this situation could have moderate affects on the water quality of Prospect Lake. I 2. Stormwater Diversion. Water coming off impermeable surfaces, especially residential streets, can be a major source of nutrients. A simple method to deal with excessive nutrients is to divert stormwater out of the watershed. This I can not be recommended at Prospect Lake since the stormwater collection areas at the southern end of the lake, along Hillsdale Road, lie towards the center of the watershed. The costs associated with the diversion of this water would be I prohibitively expensive. 3. Detention/Infiltration Basins for Stormwater. Detention/ Infiltration basins cleanse storm water by slowing the water I flow and permitting suspended pollutants to drop out of the water column. Basins are best placed immediately at the bottoms of storm drain systems }ust before storm water flows I into the receiving body. The current layout of the Prospect Lake watershed does not require the use of these structures. Stormwater flows through vegetated lands before reaching the I lake. However, both conventional storm drainage and innovative retention/filtration basins should be considered on future watershed development and highway projects. Incorporation of I both standard sedimentation engineering criteria and an understanding of the natural "filtering11 and nutrient uptake capabilities of emergent macrophytes are important in basin I design. Some stormwater discharge could be handled by more conventional stormwater drainage and roadway improvements, such as catch basins/sumps, piping, berming, and paving of I gravel roadways. 4. Provision of Sanitary Sewers - The provision of sanitary sewers would consist of a pressurized collection system around the lake, with pressure or gravity feed with tie in to I a new treatment plant. I I 73 I LYCOTT I I 5. Maintenance and Upgrade of On-Site Disposal Systems. As • discussed in an earlier section, all septic systems • surrounding the pond should undergo a regular inspection conducted by the Board of Health. g 6. Agricultural Best Management Practices. According to ' Lycott's interviews, agriculturalists in the watershed are already using BMPs. • 7. Bank and Slope stabilization. Areas undergoing bank erosion should either be paved, or preferably curbed, to prevent runoff from the road to the lake. • 8. Street Sweeping. Street sweeping has negligible benefits on unimproved roads without curbs. However, during late _ winter, sweeping would remove excess sand left from winter • sanding. Thus, Lycott recommends that sweeping be done once I per year at the end of the winter to remove debris left from winter sanding. •

Behavioral changes A. Use of Non-phosphate Detergent. There are many non- | phosphate detergents on the market that allow the individual homeowner with septic systems to reduce phosphorus inputs into the groundwater. The purchase and use of these products • would most likely decrease the level of phosphorus entering | Prospect Lake. B. Eliminate Garbage Grinders. These practices are I especially important for residences with septic systems, such • as those surrounding Prospect Lake. Many name brand detergents without phosphates are produced and are available • in many areas. Garbage grinders could allow nutrients found • in food .to be mobilized in the leachfield. Elimination of this practice reduces possible nutrient inputs to the pond. C. Minimise Lawn Fertilization - Shore-front residents or | those living very near tributary locations should use low- phosphate fertilizers, no fertilizer, or no fertilizer within fifty feet of the these water bodies. •

Sewering will not be recommended for the Prospect Lake « watershed for the following reasons. No communal system of • waste collection, whether traditional sewer-treatment plant • or alternative package plant, would be cost-effective at Prospect Lake. Most of the houses are occupied only part of • the year, and the density of houses cannot justify the cost || of laying sewer pipe. Problems with potential pollution from sub-surface waste disposal can be better handled with a septic tank inspection program. • 74 i LYCOTTI - I I I The following methods will be recommended for the Prospect Lake watershed. 1* Zoning/Land Use Planning. With respect to development in I the watershed, special attention should be paid to development close to the lake or close to its tributaries. Buffer zones of at least 50 ft should be maintained between developed areas and these sensitive areas. Future I development in the watershed should be modified so that net nutrient loading to the lake remains at its current level. Future development should also pay special attention to storm I water management. Best Management Practices should be employed to prevent any increase in nutrient loading due to changed in hydrology after development. I 2. Maintenance and Upgrade of On-Site Disposal Systems* When properly sites and well maintained, septic tanks should provide good to very good treatment of nutrients in septage. However, a small number of failing systems can have I a significant negative impact on water quality. Thus, Lycott recommends a septic-system inspection and maintenance program be instituted for homes in the watershed. I 3. Agricultural Best Management Practices. According to Lycott's interviews, agriculturalists in the watershed are I already using BMPs. 4. Provision of Buffer Strips. No matter how well they are managed, agricultural areas, especially row crops, will tend to export more nutrients than forest. (The same is also I true of residential areas.) However, the impact of this export can be greatly reduced by buffer strips between the agricultural area and the nearest stream course. According to Lycott's data, there are three areas when buffer strips of I 50 ft should be made. This aspect is discussed more fully in the section on Buffer Strips. I 5. Street Sweeping. Street sweeping has negligible benefits on unimproved roads without curbs and will not be recommended for the Prospect Lake watershed. I 6. Behavioral changes or residents. The use of non- phosphate detergents and restriction of garbage disposals apply to those residences on septic systems. Since many residents shop in New York, which has banned phosphate I detergents, most residents probably already use non-phosphate detergent. This should be encouraged with a public education program (see next section). According to Lycott's survey, few residents use any fertilizer. This trend should also be I encouraged. Those residents who do use fertilizer be encouraged to use low phosphate fertilizers, no fertilizer, or no fertilizer within 50 feet of the lake or its I tributaries. I 75 I I I

ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS I 1. Outlet Control Structure - Lycott recommends that repairs _ made to the spillway and slide gate of the outlet control • structure. The spillway apron is currently being undermined • by turbulence and backflow during high discharge periods. These repairs are best made by removing the undercut spillway • and replacing the support material. A new spillway should be B constructed and keyed into the underlying soil in the channel bottom. The water velocity can be slowed by the placement of large (2' diameter) stones in the channel and approximately • half way up the spillway. | The slide gate requires complete replacement with a _ pre-assembled gate. The existing concrete requires repair • with grout. Cracks in the concrete around the drawdown • channel should be sealed with 3M grout sealant. The approach channel should be cleared of all debris. Both bed cleaning • and concrete repair will provide the proper sealing of the • gate to control the existing leaking. ™ The drawdown outlet channel is filled with sediments and • debris. Cleaning prior to drawdown will protect the | downstream channel from potential sedimentation. The extensive growth of brush and trees requires • immediate removal. The root systems associated with these | growths could cause unnecessary weakening of the dam, even though it has a concrete core. The area should be regraded — to cover the core and then planted with grass. The grass • should be mowed at least three times a year to prevent the • regrowth of brush, trees, or other woody materials. More frequent mowing for aesthetic reasons is encouraged. • 2. Construction of a Nutrient Filter - As discussed in the * section to reduce agricultural loading, Lycott recommends the construction of an infiltration/nutrient filter along • Hillsdale Road. The surface drainage nutrient loadings from | the agricultural lands should be reduced by the construction of such a filter. The filter is narrow (10 feet) and it is recommended that it be placed on the privately owned side of • the Hillside Road layout limit. While an easement would be I required, it is anticipated that the intrusive nature and location within the setback area will eliminate financial _ impact. I The nutrient filter will intercept surface water runoff and recharge it into the existing subsoil. These soils are • fine grained and will help absorb the phosphorus currently • reaching Prospect Lake through the ditch and the cross culverts. i 76 1-gH i LYCOTT i I I I PREDICTED AFFECTS OF REMEDIATION As noted in the section on phosphorus modeling, models can predict water-quality improvements expected to result from remediation. This section will try to predict the I impacts of the proposed remediations on Prospect Lake. According to the long-term phosphorus budget, loading I for the different conditions can be summarized in Table 24. TABLE 24 I LONG-TERM PHOSPHORUS LOADING VS. CONDITION Agriculture Land Use I Runoff Associated Total Estimated Condition Loading Loading Loading P cone. kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr* mg/1 I Current 37.0 49.7 94.0 0.016 ** 50 % Reduction of Agricultural 18.5 49.7 68.2 0.012 ** I Runoff ** 50 % Reduction 18.5 37.3 55.8 0.010 I of Agricultural Runoff and 25% Reduction of Land Use I Associated Import Includes 7.3 kg/year for precipitation inputs I Reckhow oxic model Thus, if 50% of the agricultural runoff and 25% of the land use derived phosphorus is eliminated, Prospect Lake I would be on the oligotrophic-mesotrophic border defined earlier in the section "The Trophic State of Prospect Lake." The model predicts that Prospect Lake will be a moderately I mesotrophic lake until these conditions are met. I EFFECTS ON ASSOCIATED WETLANDS According to Lycott's land-use calculations, there are very little wetland areas in the watershed. The area of contention is on the southern edge of the lake, is very small I would not be impacted by any of Lycott's recommendations. I I 77 I LYCOTT I I The ephemeral tributaries to the lake do represent very I small wetland areas upstream of Prospect Lake. Drawdown • would be very unlikely to affect any of these, because it will occur during winter when plants are dormant and water « tables are highest. Flow out of the lake will be stopped • during the refilling period (from January to March), but this • also should have no impact on the wetlands downstream. The outlet tributary bed is a groundwater discharge point as well • as a conduit for upstream flow; thus, the area would remain B wet from groundwater inflow despite the cessation of upstream flow. Moreover, the refilling period occurs during later winter, when wetland plants are dormant and unlikely to • respond to slight changes in hydrology. | EFFECTS ON FISH AND WILDLIFE i Implementation of Lycott's recommendations should improve the fisheries in Prospect Lake. Drawdown will • provide an area of sparse vegetation near the shore that some • fish can use as nesting sites. The habitat diversity of — Prospect Lake's littoral zone should also be enhanced by this shallow, sparsely vegetated area. Drawdown should also • moderate densities of macrophytes within the lake, and fish | production peaks at intermediate densities of macrophytes (Crowder and Cooper 1982). The potential impact to the fish community from a winter | drawdown could be significant if there were an actively photosynthesizing aquatic vegetation bed under the ice. _ Since ice accumulation in Berkshire county lakes ranges from • two to three feet and is generally overlain and intermixed • with snow, the penetration of light through the ice should be minimal until just before ice-out. Basal respiration by the • root zone and associated organic matter would be expected to • deplete the bottom one foot of water. According to Mr. Joe m Bergen of the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife, an oxygenated layer of two to three feet between the bottom of • the ice cover and the top of the anoxic water should provide | sufficient habitat for the fish population in Prospect Lake. If Prospect Lake were drawn down during the winter, the I timing of the drawdown would be prior to the accumulation of • maximum ice thickness since the snow on the exposed hydrosoil would insulate it enough to impair the effectiveness of the _ freezing/dessication on the survivability of plant fragments. • If the drawdown were five feet, and the anoxic layer was two • feet at the bottom, there would remain up to five feet of oxygenated water as available habitat below a two foot ice • thickness. Unless our field measurement program indicates | more significant oxygen depletion under the ice layer, no significant winterkill of fish due to anoxic conditions or loss of critical habitat is expected. •

78 N^EJ ' i LYCOTT i I I

I PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM Prospect Lake suffers from a process called "cultural eutrophication", which really means that the lake's water I quality has been degraded by human activities in the watershed. Ironically, in this and many other cases, despoliation of a lake occurs, not because residents don't I care about their lake, but because they care enough to want to be very close to the lake. Prospect Lake's water quality was degraded primarily because residents did not understand the relationship between their activities and the health of I the lake. Thus, Lycott believes that a public education program should be instituted by the town of Egremont. The program I should present a basic, layman's view of the dynamics of lake-watershed interactions and methods of watershed and lake management. Lycott recommends that the materials be produced in informational pamphlets that should be mailed to I watershed residents and kept at the town hall. Besides a general overview of limnology, the program I should be specifically tailored to the watershed of Prospect Lake, detailing the history of the lake, and current and past activities that have impacted or could impact water quality. Thus, special attention should be paid to potential pollution I from storm water and the potential impacts of storm water from future development. The education program should inform watershed residents not only of the potential pollution from storm water but also of their ability to control storm water I discharges via the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Conservation Commissions. I The educational brochure should also focus on things the individual homeowner can do to prevent pollution of the lake. Keeping phosphorus fertilizer to a minimum, maintaining buffer strips at the lakeshore and tributary banks, keeping I pollutants out of streets and storm drains, and insisting upon regular cleaning of catch basins are just a few of the simple things homeowners can do to reduce pollution from I residential areas. A special section of the educational pamphlet should be directed to maintenance of septic tanks. The program should I include a description of the following: 1. effective septic system maintenance 2. methods of optimizing septic system performance with I respect to phosphorus pollution I 3. consequences of failing to follow 1 and 2 above. 79 • , I Til I LYCOTT I I Lycott estimates that production of this education package should cost about $3,000 to produce. However, given I volunteer labor and the emergence of desktop publishing, much of the program could be completed at reduced cost to the community. I PHASE II MONITORING PROGRAM I/ycottfs major remedial program involves drawdown, the I construction of an overland flow interceptor, and watershed management practices. Monitoring the success of these ventures is straightforward. Macrophyte densities should be I mapped twice per year for the year preceding drawdown, and for three years after drawdown has been started. Both densities (% cover) and species composition should be mapped during June and August of each year. The goal of the I macrophyte survey would be to assess the effectiveness of drawdown, so special effort should be geared to measuring the impact in the area immediately inside and outside the drawdown area. Each survey should cost about $500 — I including field time, data interpretation, and data reporting. The eight surveys should total about $4,000. I Impacts of drawdown on fish resources should be assayed with yearly fish surveys, beginning before drawdown begins. A combination of gill netting and creel census should be used. Gill nets should be place at the same spot each year I in the spring for four consecutive years, one year before and 3 years of drawdown. Fish should be analyzed for size, weight, species composition, and species diversity. If significant negative impacts occur, then remediation measures I should be taken. If private consultants are contracted, these surveys should cost about $1,600 per year, or about $6,400 over the five year period. I Monitoring the success of overland flow management and watershed management practices can be performed with monthly samples of the water column at the top and bottom of the I deep-hole during the entire year. Oxygen and temperature readings should be taken at each meter interval and water samples from the top and bottom of the deep hole should be sampled for the nitrogen series (ammonia, nitrate, and total I Kjeldahl Nitrogen) and phosphorus. Chlorophyll a and phytoplankton should be depth integrated samples taken from the epilimnion and taken from the metalimnion. (If the metalimnion is 2 to 3 meters wide, the metalimnetic sample I should also be depth integrated.) These samples should be taken for each of three years after implementation. Total costs for each sample should be I about $650 including sampling, analysis, interpretation and reporting. Samples would be taken once per month during I 80 I I I I June, July, August, and September and once each during February and March. Samples would for three years after I after implementation for a total of 18 samples. Thus, the total sampling budget should be about $11,700. I The total costs of the proposed Phase II sampling are $23,700 ($11,700 + $4,000 + $8,000).

I SOURCES OF FUNDING Funding for the implementation of the recommendations put forth in this section of the report can be pursued I through the following agencies: . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Lakes I Program , Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollution Control in Westborough. I Phase II Funding , Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management I Rivers and Harbor Division , Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Heritage Park Restoration Program I Unfortunately the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program does not have funding available at the current time for the implementation of lake restoration projects. However, there are several other state agencies that could be approached for I possible funding, these include: the Department of Environmental Management, the Division of Water Ways, and the Department of Urban Development and Resources. The E.P.A. I 314 Clean Lakes Program, although still funding various projects in the Northeast, may also be a remote possibility for funding Prospect Lake. I Other communities in the Commonwealth have had success by requesting their legislators to submit specific bills to designate funds for their lake restoration projects. Federal funding for restoration of Prospect Lake is very limited due I to the fact that there is no real public land associated with the lake. The Federal Government recently provided funding for various types of parks with related water-body I activities. Regarding private funds that might be available, there may be environmental endowments that could be investigated I for funding sources. I 81 I n I LYCOTT I I Acquiring federal, state, and other funds for lake restoration is highly technical and varies from month-to- I month and year-to-year depending on when funds are available with various federal and state agencies, Lycott would be happy to meet with the Town of Egremont to discuss the current status of various funding sources. I NECESSARY PERMITS AND LICENSES I The remediation plan proposed above has many elements; therefore, many state and local agencies will have to be notified or asked for review and approval of the proposed I remediation. The following are the agencies that must be contacted: TABLE 25 I REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Requirements Agency/Contact I Approval needed from: Donald Ng Mass. Commission Against Commission Against Discrimination I Discrimination 1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-7309 I Approval needed from: Executive Office of Communities & Executive Order 215 Development Fair Housing order) 100 Cambridge Street, Rm 1404 Boston, MA 02202 I (617) 727-7130 Approval needed from: Historical Commission Historical Commission 294 Washington Street I Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-8470 I Certification of Title DEQE, DWPC to Project Site Westview Building Lyman School Grounds Westborough, MA 01581 I (617) 366-9181 Notification of: Field Headquarters Division of Fisheries and Westborough, MA 01581 I wildlife (508) 366-4470 Notice of Intent Egremont Conservation I Commission Post Office Box 368 South Egremont, MA 01258 I 82 I I I I I Review by: Natural Heritage Program Natural Heritage Program 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 I (617) 727-9194 Review by: Executive Office of Environmental Mass. Environmental Affairs Policy Act MEPA Unit I 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor (617) 727-5830 I License needed from: Division of Waterways/Wetlands Chapter 91 Waterways DEQE License 1 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 I (617) 292-5517 Water Quality Certificate Permits Section DWPC I 1 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 I (617) 292-5673 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I During the Diagnostic/Feasibility Study there were numerous occasions for public participation by residents of the lake, community, and State. An initial public hearing I was held on June 16, 1988 at the Egremont town hall. The public hearing was attended by approximately twenty-six residents. The Board of Selectmen, Board of Health, Conservation Commission and Lake Association were all I represented. A presentation was made by Lee Lyman, President of Lycott, to outline the scope of the project and to discuss the objectives of the Diagnostic/Feasibility I Study. During the study there were communications between the consultant and representatives of the Town and Lake I Association to implement various aspects of the project. The key contact person for the Lake Association was Sandy Mason. Mr. Mason worked with Lycott to conduct the creel census and coordinate the authorization for installing I groundwater monitoring wells. A second public hearing was recently held on April 9, 1991 to summarize the findings of the Diagnostic/Feasibility I Study and to verbally address the comments received as a result of the draft report which was submitted on December 7, 1990. This meeting was attended by approximately thirty I residents which included representatives of the Boards of 83 I mm _i_ • A--!*' v I LYCOTT I I Health, Selectmen, Conservation Commission and Lake Association. Lycott, represented by Lee Lyman and Hamer Clarke, P.E., presented the overall scope of studies and I reviewed in detail the recommendations that were put forth in the draft report. I HISTORICAL COMMISSIONS This Draft Final Report will be sent to local and state historical commissions.

COST ANALYSIS I Costs calculated for the remediation of Prospect Lake can be found in Appendix M of this report. I MILESTONE WORK SCHEDULE A milestone work schedule for the proposed activities can be found in Appendix M of the Final Report. I I I I I I I I I I 84 mm j£-- :*» I LYCOTT I I I I BIBLIOGRAPHY Amour, G. , D. Brown, K. Marsden, 1979. Studies on Aquatic Macrophytes. Part XV. Bottom Barriers to Aquatic Weed I Control, Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, Water Investigations Branch Report, No. 2801. Carpenter, S. R. 1983. Submersed macrophyte community I structure and internal loading: relationship to lake ecosystem productivity and succession. Lake Restoration, Protection, and Management, 1983. I Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, 1971. Land Use and Vegetative I Cover Map. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control, 1987. 314 CMR 9.00 Certificates for dredging, I dredged material disposal and filling in waters. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1984. Massachusetts Water Quality Standards D.E.Q.E., Division of Water Pollution I Control, Boston, MA Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S. A. Peterson, and P. R. Newroth, 1986. Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Butterworths, I Inc., Boston, MA. Crowder, L.B., and W.E. Cooper, 1982. Habitat Structural Complexity and the Interaction Between Blue Gills and I Their Prey. Ecology 63:1802-1813. Godfrey, P.J., A. Ruby III, and O.T. Zajicek, 1985. The Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Project A.R.M.: Phase I I. Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Publication No. 147. Livingstone, D.A., 1963. Chemical composition of rivers and I lakes. Chap. G. Data of Geochemistry. 6th ed. Prof. Pap. U.S. Geol. Surv. 440-G, 64 pp. I McVoy, R.S., 1982. Johns Pond 1978-1980. Diagnostic/ Feasibility Study. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, DWPC/TSB, I Westborough, MA. Mesner, N., and R. Narf, 1987. Alum Injection into Sediments for Phosphorus Inactivation and Macrophyte Control. Presented at 6th North American Lake Management Society I Meeting. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I Climatological Data: New England. I I i Bibliography Cont'd Nichols. S.A.. 1975. Mechanical and Habitat Manipulation for i Acruatic Plant Manacrement. A Review of Technicrues. Tech. Bull. No. 77, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Norvel, W.A. , C.R. Frink, and D.E. Hill, 1979. Phosphorus in Connecticut Lakes Predicted by Land Use. e Reckhow, K.H., and J.T. Simpson, 1980. A Procedure Using Modeling and Error Analysis for the Prediction of Lake Phosphorus Concentration From Land Use Information. Sakamoto, M. , "Primary Production by the Phytoplankton Community in Some Japanese Lakes and its Dependence on Lake Depth", 1966. Arch. Hydrogial. 62:1-28. Schueler, Thomas R. , 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMP's. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington , D . C . Sharp, J.J. and Sawden, P. 1984. Basic Hydrology. Butterworth and Company Smith, D.W., and R.H. Piedrahita, 1988. The Relationship Between Phytoplankton and Oxygen in Fish Ponds. Aguaculture, 68:249-265. Smith, Val. H. "Nutrient Dependence of Primary Productivity in Lakes." 1979. Limnological Oceanography, Vol. 24 (6) . American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc. Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957. Instructions and i•• Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Laboratory Water Balance. Publications in Climatology, Laboratory of Climatology, Vol. 10, No. 3. i U.S. EPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA, Washington,

D.C. ,r 055-001-01049-4. U.S. EPA, 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. March, 1979. EPA-600/4-79-020. U.S. EPA, 1988. The Lake and Reservoir Restortion Guidance i Manual, First Edition. EPA 440/5-88-002. • U.S. Geological Survey Map, 1956. Bedrock Geologic Map. i U.S. Geological Survey Map, 1956. Map of Statified Surficial Deposits for the Egremont Quadrangle.

^£ avH g^y LYCDTT - 1 I I I Bibliography Contfd U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1967. Soil Survey of I Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Uttormark, P.O., J.D. Chapin, and K.M. Green, 1974. Estimating Nutrient Loading of Lakes From Nonpoint I Sources. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., EPA 660/13-74-020 Vollenweider, R.A., 1968. The Scientific Basis of Lake and Stream Eutrophication with Particular Reference to I Phosphorus and Nitrogen as Eutrophication Factors. Tech. Rep. OECD, Paris, DAS/CSI/68, 27:1-182. I Wetzel, R.G., 1975. Limnology, Saunders, NY. State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), February, 1989. Environmental Assessment Aquatic Plant I Management (NR 107) Program. I Zen, E-an, 1983. Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts. I I I I I I I I I I LYCOTT I I Glossary of Lake and Watershed Management Terms (Modified from US EPA C.L.P.G. Manual 1980) I

Aeration - a process in which water is treated with air or other gases, usually oxygen. In lake restoration, aeration I is used to prevent anaerobic condition or to provide artificial destratification. Algal bloom - a high concentration of a specific algal 0 species in a water body, usually caused by nutrient enrichment. I Artificial destratification - the process of inducing water currents in a lake to produce partial or total vertical circulation. I Benthos - organisms living on or in the bottom of a body of water. Best management practices (BMP) - practices, either I structural or non-structural, which are used to control non-point source pollution. I Biochemical/biological oxygen demand (BOD) - the amount of oxygen used by aerobic organisms to decompose organic material. Provides an indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degradable material present in water or I wastewater. Additionally, "5-day BOD" is the amount of oxygen required over a period of 5 days to oxidize the organic and inorganic (NH3, PO^, etc.) compounds present. I Biomass - the total mass of living organisms in a particular volume or area. I B_iota - -all living matter in a particular region. Blue-green algae - the phylum Cyanophyta, characterized by the presence of blue pigment in addition to green I chloro-phyll, which usually have the ability to fix nitrogen Catch basin - a collection chamber usually built at the curb line of a street, designed to admit surface water to a sewer I or subdrain and to retain matter that would block the sewer. Catchment - surface drainage area. I Chemical control - a method of controlling pest organisms through exposure to specific toxic chemicals. I Chlorophyll ("chlorophyll a") - green pigment in plants and algae necessary for photosynthesis. It is used as an indicator of algal biomass. I

,-n-- I LYCOTT I I I Combined sewer - a sewer receiving both stonnwater runoff and I sewage. Detention - managing stonnwater runoff or sewer flows through I temporary holding and controlled release. Dissolved oxygen

ILYCOTTI SCALE: 1 = 25,000

0 meters 635

DATE: October 1990 Site Location Map Prospect Lake Egermont Mass. ILYCOTTI SCALE: 1 - 25,000

0 meters 635

DATE: October 1990 Watershed Boundary A Prospect Lake *r A~ a^ Egermoiit Mass, LYCOTT

T?; ^-, -.,. ^ o SCALE: 1 = 25,000

DATE: October 1990 Sub-Basin Map Prospect Lake Egcrnioiit Mass. LYCOTT LEGEND

Sub-Basin Forest Urban SCALE: 1 = 25,000 Row Crops 0 meters 635 1270 Pasture DATE: October 1990 (N[ Land Use Map Prospect Lake *•t.f..A'^' s^H iK Egermont Mass. LYCOTT LdE

FwC

-Kv

Am

LEGEND Tm Taconic-^- Macomber LdE Lanesboro—Dummerston FwC Fullam-Lanesboro Fc Farmington-Rock Outcroop Complex Fac Farmmgton-Loam, Rocky PC Palm arid Carlisle Mucks Kv Kendaia Silt Loam BrB Brayton Silt Loam SCALE: 1 = 25,000

Am Amenia Silt Loam 0 meters 635 1270 DATE: October 1990 Soil Map Prospect Lake Egermont Mass. LYCOTT Stratified surficial deposits mostly silt, sand, gravel, and boulders with some clny

Till heterogeneous mixture of silt, gravel, and boulders with minor clay

Hachures denotes areas most favorable for ground water exploration

SCALE: 1 = 125000

0 meters 3174 634U

DATE: October 1990 (Ml Surficial Geology Prospect Lake Egermonl Mass. LYCOTT I I I I I ®MW-7 I I OUTLET 4 I PROSPECT LAKE I MW-4 © CAMPGROUND I

IMW-3 I I I I © Monitoring Well Location SCALE: i" = 400' I 0 meters 122 244 I DATE: October 1990 Monitoring Well Location I Prospect Lake Egermoiit Mass. I LYCOTT OUTLET

Contours shown in one meter intervals.

SCALE: 1" = 400'

0 meters 122 244

DATE: October 1990 Bathymetric Contours Prospect Lake M, ^il »* Egermont Mass. LYCOTT

A INLET

076,

025

OUTLET

.305

Note: Sediment depths shown in one meter intervals

SCALE: 1" = 400'

0 meters 122 244

DATE: October 1990 Sediment Depths Prospect Lake Egermoiit Mass. INLET

PROSPECT LAKE

CAMPGROUND

Location of sampling stations

SCALE: 1" = 400'

0 meters 122 244 DATE: October 1990 Water Quality Sampling Locations Prospect Lake Egermont Mass.

1?» rfYll 1-^. 1 A TOTAL PHOSPHORUS VS PROSPECT LAKE, 1988-1989

1.000

0.631 -i

0.398 -

-^•••-o;251- - o>

EUTROPHIC

MESOTROPHIC

0.006 OLIGOTROPHIC

0.004 03/28 04/28 05/24 06/28 07/25 08/23 09/28 11/21 01/20

DATE

DEEP-HOLE SURFACE DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM TOTAL NITROGEN VS. TIME PROSPECT LAKE, 1988-1989

1.26

0.13

0.10 03/28 04/28 05/24 06/28 07/25 08/23 09/28 11/21 01/20

DATE

O DEEP-HOLE SURFACE + DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM TROGEN VS. TOTAL PROSPECT LAKE, 1988-1989

P LIMITATION

Q. LIMITATION H-

N LIMITATION 3 -

2 -

03/28 '04/28 05/24 06/28 07/25 08/23 09/28 11/21 01/20 DATE 1 a DEEP-HOLE SURFACE + DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM LEGEND Location of sampling stations

SCALE: 1 = 400 Approx

0 meters 122

DATE: October 1990 Storm Drain Sampling Locations Prospect Lake Egermont Mass, LYCOTT

Pi mi r DATE: October 1990 Leachate Sampling Location Prospect Lake ,&. A Egermont Mass. *wmt LYCOTT PROSPECT LAKE SOURCES OF PHOSPHORUS - LONG TERM

SEPTIC SYSTEMS (11.5%)

PRECIPITATION (7.8%)

AGRICULTURE (39.4%)

FOREST (28.1%)

RESIDENTIAL (13.3%) c m33 A I _A o o> I I I The Aquatic Nitrogen Cycle

I Atmospheric I N,2

I air/water interface

I Dissolved I N2 ie nitrification nitrogen i Nitrate fixation NOo i o •nitrification v. Organic N in assimilation i living tissues Nitrite by plants i NO 2-"- death nitrification i Ammonia Organic N i in sediments ammonification (decay)

LYCOTT i FIGURE 17 INLET

OUTLET

LEGEND

A Elodea canadensis B Potamogeton robbinsi C Potamogeton alpinus D Najas flexilis E Chara sp. F Vallisiieria americana G Sagittaria sp.

SCALE: 1" = 400'

0 meters 122 244

DATE: October 1990 TNI Aquatic Macrophyte Survey Prospect Lake Egermont Mass. LYCOTT

10 INLET

LEGEND

Elodea canadensis Potamogeton robbinsi C Potamogeton alpinus D Najas flexilis E Chara sp. F Vallisneria americana G Sagittaria sp. )50 - 75% Coverage "75 - 100% Coverage

SCALE: 1" = 400'

INLET 0 meters 122 244 DATE: October 1990 Macrophyte Coverage Map Prospect Lake Egermont Mass. PROSPECT LAKE SOURCES OF WATER - LONG TERM

PRECIPITATION (10.9%)

STORM FLOW (12.6%)

GROUNDWATER(13.5%) TRBUTARIES(63.1%)

-n 5 c m o ro o APPENDIX B

LYCOTT Geptechnical Drilling I Groundwater Monitor Wells

I LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 06/28/88 88-404 PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMpNT, MASSACHUSETTS • MW-1 to MW-7

DRILLING DATES: 0£/21/88 and 06/22/88 • DRILLING FOREMAN: Jim Campbell

BORING NUMBER END 0F BORING WELL POINT 11" or 2" WATER LEVEL DATE

1 =:j= MW-1 ' 20'6" 20'0" 11" No Water 06/21/88

SOIL MW~2 Refusal: 15'0" 15'0" 11" No Water 06/21/88 oleration t CORP. MW-3 Refusal 11 '0" 11 '0" 11" No Water 06/21/88 • MW-4 Refusal 10 '6" 10 '0" 11" 4'0" 06/21/88

MW-5 Refusal 12fO" 12'0" 2" lO'O" 06/22/88

1 MW-6 Refusal 7*6" 7 ' 6" 2" 4'0" 06/22/88

MW-7 15*6" 15 '0" 11" 7*0" 06/22/88

! ITOTALS 7 Borings Done 92 0" 90 '2" I I I I I I I 148 Pioneer Drive Leominster, MA 01453 I (617) 840-0391 23 Ingalls Street _ Nashua, NH 03060 • (603) 882-3601 —!— 148 Pioneer Dr. SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION f 3 =:= Leominster, MA 01453 Nashl a SajT {617} 840-0391 Geptechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells (eos) 882-3601

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Date 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 Location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMQNT, MASSACHUSETTS Date Drillin BORING .„, , Ground t Date nA/oi/flft nfi/91 /fift 9 T r Eng./Hydrol. R TL NO. nw"i Elev. start 06/21/88 ^^ Ub//l/«e R)rernan J.u. Geologist *" ' Sample Data Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions P Sample Blows -'. Rec. Casing Strata T No. Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration nches Blows Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata H Per ft. Depth 1 O'O"- 1'6" 1-1-3 ': (Topsoil) , trace of fine Co coarse gravel.

2 '6" Stiff, moist CLAY, some fine to coarse gravel, and inorganic silt, trace 5 2 4*0"- 5*6" 9-15-13 cobbles. -f

10 3 9*0"- 10'6" 7-14-14 '•-*

15 4 14'0"- 15'6" 6-8-12

20 5 19'0"- 20'6" 12-12-12 20' 6" End of boring at 20'6" Set well point at 20'0" No water encountered upon completion

25 Well Materials; 1 1J" PVC end plug ''• 2 - 10' x 1|"PVC screen 1 - buffalo box 30 1 bag - sakrete sand 8 bags - silica sand 1 pail - bentonite pellets

35 .-• '..

•"•" 40

Type of Boring Casing Size: '•;' Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 J

Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% 0 tp 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 jo 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blob's are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" I.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted. The terms and percentages used to describe soil and or rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected by time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the borng was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • 148 Pioneer Dr. SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION 2 3 I Leominster, MA 01453 Nashu a (617) 840-0391 Geotechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells 882-3601

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL;' RESEARCH Dale 06/28/88 -Job No. 88-404 Location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS Drillin BORIN G MWMTJ2 o Ground % Date 06O^/OI/Q2 Q Date nA/9i/RR 9 T r Eng./Hydrol. R T NO. ~ Elev. Start / l/88 c^,^ 06/21/88 ^^ J.C. Geo|ogis, R.T. T.. , ...... „..._, _., I D Sample Data Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions Sample Blow§ Rec. Casing Strata No Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration Inches Blows Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata I Per ft. Depth 1 O'O"- 1'6' 3-2-2- TOPSOIL.

3'0" Medium dense, moist, fine SAND, n 5 2 4'0 - 5'6' 7-5-7; inorganic silt, some weathered rock, '..• and clay.

„ 3 9'0"- 10'6" 12-165-16

13*0" Very dense, dry weathered ROCK. 15 4 14'0"- 14'2" 120/2" 15 '0" Refusal at 15'0" with hollow stem auger Set well point at 15*0" No water encountered upon completion

20 Well Materials; 1 - 1J" PVC end plug 1 - 10' x H" PVC screen' 1 - 5' x H" PVC screen 25 1 - buffalo box 6 bags - silica sand

30

35

'

40

Type of Boring Casing Size: - Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 \

Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft. Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% Oto 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 )p 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blows are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" l.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted.

The terms and percentages used to describe soil and or rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected by time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the boring was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • 148 Pioneer Dr. 3 SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION Naghlfa Leominster, MA 01453 (617) 840-0391 GQptechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells (603) 882-3501

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dale 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 Location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS BORING _ Ground Date Dfil!in m 3 t- Date Ubnfi/9l/fii b8a UD/Zi/006/21/88 9 JJ Cu Eng./Hydrol . KR iT< NO. Elev. . Start // / Complete ° Foreman * ' Geologist ' Sample Data Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions P Sample Blows - Rec. Casing Strata Inches Blows Change T No Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata H Per ft. Depth 1 OfOIf- I1 6" 7—8-8 : Medium dense, dry, fine to medium SAND, some inorganic silt, and fine to medium gravel.

5 2 4'0"- 4'3" 120/3" 4I0" Very dense, dry, weathered ROCK.

:;

10 3 9'0"- lO'O" 40-48-120/0"

H'O" Refusal at 11 '0" with hollow stem auger Set well point at ll'O" No water encountered upon completion 15

Well Materials; 1 - 1J" PVC end plug 1 - 10' x 1|" PVC screen 20 1 - 2' x 1J" PVC screen 1 - buffalo box 1 bag - sakrete sand 4 bags - silica sand 1 pail - bentonite pellets ?S

30

/"

35

40

Type of Boring Casing Size: • Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 J

Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% 0 to 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 tg 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blows are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" I.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted. The terms and percentages used to describe soif and or rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected by time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the boring was taken, i The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • 148 Pioneer Dr. 3 Leominster, MA 01453 SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION Nashlfa (617) 840-0391 Geotechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells 882-3601 fcent LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Date 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 Plocation PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMO^IT, MASSACHUSETTS Drillin L^ORIN G mMT J4 / Ground Z. Date nfi/9T/BQ Date nfi/91/RR 9 T r EngJHydral. R T BO. Elev. , Start 06/21/88 ^^^ 06/21/88 Foreman J.C. Geologjst R.T. Sample Data '-•-. Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions Sample Blows Rec. Casing Strata No Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration Inches Blows Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata

X-l-om o Per ft. Depth 11 1 O'O - 1'6' 6-7-9 * TOPSOIL.

?;/ 3'0" Medium stiff, wet CLAY, some inorganic L_5 i 4'0"- 5'6' 5-7-11 silt, and fine to medium gravel.

!•-•

8?0" Very dense, wet, weathered ROCK, some clay, and inorganic silt. '- lO'O"- 10'6" 120/6" 10 ' 6" Refusal at 10*6" with, hollow stem augei Set well point at lO'O" Water level at 4*0" upon completion

Well Materials; 1 - 1J" PVC end plug 1 - 10' x Ij" PVC screen 1 - buffalo box KO "- 4 bags - silica sand

^ -

[35

L no uTypF-e of Boring Casing Size: Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 j

1 Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) \ Trace 0 to 10% 0 to 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff I Some 10 to 40% 4 to 10 loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff • And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard penetration test (SPT) = 1400 hammer falling 30" Blows are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" ID. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted. • The terms and percentages used to describe soil and orroc kar e based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected • by time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the ™ boring was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • 148 Pioneer Dr. SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION 2 3 Leominster, MA 01453 Nashu a (617) 840-0391 Geotechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells (603) as2-360i

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dale 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 Location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMON'f, MASSACHUSETTS Date Driilin BORING MTJ s Ground Gate ns/99/flfl nfi/??/flfl 9 T r EngJHydrol. R T NO. m 5 Elev. Start °6/22/88 Complete Ud/^/SH Foreman J'L' Geologist R'i' D Sample Data Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions E P Sample Blows Rec. Casing Strata T No. Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration Inches Blows Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata H Peril. Deptn • 11 )MH< 1 .- I 0'6"- 2'0" 4-7-4 '•' 0'3" Medium dense, dry, fine SAND, some inorganic silt.

3'0" Medium dense to very dense, dry to 5 2 4'0"- 5'6" 6-6-6 moist, fine SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, and inorganic silt, trace to some cobbles.

rt 10^ 3 9'0 - g'Q" 27-120/3"

"_ 12'0" Refusal at 12 '0" with hollow stem augei Set well point at 12'0" 15 Water level at lO'O" upon completion

Well Materials; 1 - 2" PVC end plug 20 1 - 10' x 2" PVC screen 1 - 5! x 2" PVC riser 1 - buffalo box 1 bag - sakrete sand 4 bags - silica sand 25 1 pail - bentonite pellets

30

>

35

1 40

Type of Boring Casing Size: Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 j

Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% 0 to 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 to 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard 'penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blows arg per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" I.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted. The terms and percentages used to describe soil and pr rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected by time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the boring was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • 148 Pioneer Dr. 23 Ingalls St. Leominster, MA 01453 SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION Nashua, NH 03060 (617) 840-0391 Geotschnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Weils (603) 882-3501

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Date 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 Location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMON?, MASSACHUSETTS

BORING WTJ (• Ground (fate nfi/99/ftft Date nfi/99/ftR Drilling T r Eng./Hydrol. R T NO. MW~6 Elev. §iart °6/22'88 Complete °6/22'88 Foreman J*C* Geologist R'T' D Sample Data ; Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions P Sample Blows % Rec. Casinc Strata 6" Penetration - Inches Blows T No Depth (ft.) Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata H Per ft. Depth 1 0'6"- 2'0' 6-7-7 ASKHAI •r. 0'3" Medium dense, dry to wet, fine SAND, some medium to coarse sand, and inorganic silt, some fine to coarse 5 2 4'0"- 5'6' 5-6-8 gravel, trace cobbles.

7'6" Refusal at 7*6" with hollow stem auger Set well point at 7I6" 10 _ Water level at 4*0" upon completion

' •' Well Materials; 1 - 2" PVC end plug 15 1 - 10* x 2" PVC screen 1 - buffalo box 3 bags - silica sand

20

25

•- 30

35

.'

40

Type of Boring Casing Size: Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 1

Proportion Percentages . Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohestve Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% 0 to 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 to 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard Standard penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blows are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" I.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted. The terms and percentages used to describe soil and pr rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected ay time of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the boring was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • ^=-&=- 148 Pioneer Dr. SOIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION 23 Ingalls St. ==:== Leominster, MA 01453 Nashua, NH 03060 ^^ (617) 840-0391 Geotechnical Drilling and Groundwater Monitor Wells (603) 882-3601

Client LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Dale 06/28/88 Job No. 88-404 location PROSPECT LAKE, EGREfrlONT, MASSACHUSETTS Drillin BORING MTT7 Ground $ Date nA/oo/«R Date nfi/99/ftft 9 T r Eng./Hydrol. T NO. m~7 Elev. ; Start °6/22/88 Complete 06/2^/bb Foreman J'C' Geologist *•*•'

D Sample Data Soil and/or bedrock strata descriptions P Sample Blows Rec. Casing Strata T No. Depth (ft.) 6" Penetration hches Blows Change Visual Identification of Soil and/or Rock Strata H Pertt. Depth 1 0'6fl- 2'0" 7-8-6- Tnp«m'.. 0'3" Mediura dense, dry, fine SAND, some inorganic silt, trace of root matter. , ' 3'0" Medium dense, moist to wet, fine to n 5 2 4'0 - 5'6" 5-12-13 medium SAND, some inorganic silt, and fine to coarse gravel, trace to ? some cobbles, and clay.

10 _ 3 9'0"- 10'6" 12-8-11

15 _ 4 14'0"- 15'6" 9-12-16

15 '6" End of boring at 15 '6" Set well point at 15 '0" Water level at 7'0" upon completion

20 _

Well Materials; 1 - 1J" PVC end plug 1 - 10' x 1J" PVC screen 1 - 51 x 11" PVC screen 25 1 - protective locking casing 1 bag - sakrete sand 6 bags - silica sand 1 pail - bentonite pellets

30 i

35 __

v_*

40 __

Type of Boring Casing Size: .'': Hollow Stem Auger Size: 4 j

Proportion Percentages Granular Soils (blows per ft.) Cohesive Soils (blows per ft.) Trace 0 to 10% Q to 4 Very Loose 30 to 50 Dense 0 to 2 Very Soft 8 to 15 Stiff Some 10 to 40% 4 to 10 Loose Over 50 Very Dense 2 to 4 Soft 15 to 30 Very Stiff And 40 to 50% 1p to 30 Medium Dense 4 to 8 Medium Stiff Over 30 Hard

Standard penetration test (SPT) = 140# hammer falling 30" Blows are per 6" taken with an 18" long x 2" O.D. x 1 3/8" I.D. split spoon sampler unless otherwise noted.

The terms and percentages used to describe stjrl and or rock are based on visual identification of the retrieved samples. • Moisture content indicated may be affected by t me of year and water added during the drilling process. • Water levels indicated may vary with seasonal fluctuation and the degree of soil saturation when the boring was taken. • The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, the actual transitions may be gradual. • APPENDIX C

LYCOTT Table 1 Temperature and Precipitation Data

PRECIPITATION DATA. LONG-TERM

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTALS

NORFOLK, CT 3.81 3.37 4.42 4.16 3.62 3.88 3.74 4.56 4.41 3.90 4.31 4.43 48.61 in

Converted to mm 96.78 85.60 112.36 105.62 91.89 98.64 94.92 115.85 111.89 99.10 109.57 112,59 1,234.81 rrm

NORFOLK, CT 25.0 22.1 31.0 42.5 55.1 60.0 65.0 65.0 56.9 43.4 33.3 23.5

Converted to degrees C -3.9 -5.5 -0.6 5.8 12.8 15.6 18.3 18.3 13.8 6.3 3.5 -4.7

PRECIPITATION DATA. NOVEMBER. 1988 - OCTOBER. 1989

NOV DEC JAM FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT TOTALS

NORFOLK, CT 1.17 1.93 2.03 2.11 3.32 1.12 8.92 3.86 1.54 2.13 7.10 1.17 36.40 in

Converted to mm 29.77 49.08 51.65 53.51 84.45 28.38 226.58 97.94 39.08 54.20 180.29 29.78 924.71 urn

TEMPERATURE DATA. NOVEMBER. 1988 - OCTOBER. 1989:

GREAT BARR1NGTON 26.1 23.6 32.9 44.0 56.8 60.0 65.0 65.0 57.7 44.3 39.4 25.3

Converted to -3.3 -4.7 0.5 6.7 13.8 15.6 18.3 18.3 14.3 6.8 4.1 -3.7 degrees C

aA *<*3fe1 I Table 2 Long-Term Water Budget

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL

Temperature (C) -3.9 -5.5 -0.6 5.8 12.8 15.6 18.3 18.3 13.8 6.3 3.5 -4.7

Heat 'index (i) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 4.40 6.44 9.24 8.78 4.78 1.52 0.66 0.00 37.23

Unadjusted PE* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 2.10 2.60 3.00 3.00 2.20 1.00 0.60 0.50

Correction Factor 24.60 24.60 30.90 33.60 37.80 38.10 38.40 35.70 31.20 28.50 24.60 23.70

Adjusted PE (rim)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.24 79.38 99.06 115.20 107.10 68.64 28.50 14.76 11.85 554.73

Precipitation (mm) 96.78 85.60 112.36 105.62 91.89 98.64 94.92 115.85 111.89 99.10 109.57 112.59 1234.81

Precipitation - PE (mm) 96.78 85.60 112.36 75.38 12.51 -0.42 -20.28 8.75 43.25 70.60 94.81 100.74

Soil Storage (mm) 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 153.00 181.00 189.70 233.00 200.00 200.00 200.00

AE (mm)1 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.24 79.38 99.06 113.90 107.10 68.64 132.10 14.76 11.85 657.03

*PE = potential evapotranspiration AE = actual evapotranspiration

Calculations follow the method developed by Thornethwaite and Mather (1957).

Temperature and precipitation data are for the Norfolk, Connecticut weather station; see Table 1 of this appendix.

I Q i Table 3 Short-Term Water Budget

HOV DEC JAN FEB HAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT TOTALS

Temperature (C> -3.28 -4.67 0.50 6.67 13.78 15.56 18.33 18.33 14.28 6.83 4.11 -3.72

Heat index (i) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 4.40 6.44 9.24 8.78 4.78 1.52 0.66 0.00 37.23

Unadjusted PE (mm)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 2.10 2.60 3.00 3.00 2.20 1.00 0.60 0.50

Correction factor 24.60 24.60 30.90 33.60 37.80 38.10 38.40 35.70 31.20 28.50 24.60 23.70

Adjusted PE (mm)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.24 79.38 99.06 115.20 107.10 68.64 28.50 14.76 11.85 554.73

Precipitation (mm) 29.77 49.08 51.65 53.51 84.45 28.38 226.58 97.94 39.08 54.20 180.29 29.78 924.71

Precipitation - PE (mm) 29.77 49.08 51.65 23.27 5.07 -70.68 111.38 -9.16 -29.56 25.70 165.53 17.93

Soil Storage (mm) 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 181.00 171.90 142.40 200.00 200.00 200.00

AE (mm)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.24 79.38 99.06 245.57 107.10 68.64 28.50 14.76 11.85 685.10

*PE = potential evapotranspiration AE = actual evapotranspiration

Calculations follow the method developed by Thornethwaite and Mather (1957).

Temperature and precipitation data are for the Norfolk, Connecticut weather station; see Table 1 of this appendix.

A Q APPENDIX D

LYCOTT PROSPECT LAKE -TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, % OXYGEN SATURATION, AND RELATIVE THERMAL RESITANCE

DATE

PARAMETER DEPTH MAR APR" APR ;•: "'MAY MAY '-'JUNE. JUNE JULY JULY . AUG AUQ " SEPT SEPT OCT NOV iv'.^.-'bec JAN .:, FEE : 20 13. 28 •: 17 24 • 9 28 15 25 11 23 •• 12 3B : 17 21 '-•- : !9 19 -:.: 16

: TEMPERATURE SURFACE 1.0 10,5 11.0 - - i'/jl.O 19.5 18,3 24.2 .. 27.9 25. B . 28.6 22.6 - •19.7 18.1 . 1J.S 5.7 '".* 1,4 3.1 • 0.5 : (DEGREES C) 1m "' -.:".•..;'. 11.0 11,0 19,0 18.0 23.7 --. 2B.O 24.8 27.9 22.3 ••16.8 18.3 •':... 12.8 5,7 '3 4,5 4.2 2rn 11.0 11.0 18.7 1S.O 23.6 38.0 24.3 25,3 32.1 - 19,6 17,6 .-- 12.7 5,6 '. . 3.0 5,0 - 4.2 3m :; .;,:...' 11.0 .-• 10.0 16,1 ' 17,8 23.0 26.0 23.0 25,3 22.0 -- 19.5 17.0 .: 13.7 . 5.7 .;.:.. 3,4 5.3 . 4.0" 4m 6,5 10,0 10.1 . -.:- 17.2 22.8 24.4 20.5 WEEDS 31.7 .19.0- WEEDS 12.5 5.3 . ••:.;; ' .- 6,4 ••'5.2

;:: DISSOLVED SURFACE 11.9 u.o 11.1 11.1 DO 9.7 9.5 ""-6.8 8.6 .10.6 s.e :" .14.4.;: 9.1 :' .. ..11-S 12,1 > 12.0 11,6 " 12.5 : : : OXYGEN 1 m - 11.1 . 11.1 PROBE • '9.5 9.4 . '""".8.5 6.7 .•:"ii.e 10.2 •: 13.* 7.7 .•••' •; 4.0 12.1 . . 10.7' 10.3 j 13.7 : ; (mgfl) t m - ' 11.1 - . '11.1 FAILURE ':' 9.4 10.5 : -'-'7.0 7.4 . "

1 % OXYGEN SURFACE 83,5 9S.9 101.0 101.0 DO 103.9 115.2 89,1 81.5 140.4 112.2 • 159.2 97.3 109.2 . 96.5 84.3 85,2 • . 8B.S SATURATION i m 101,0 101.0 PROBE 101.3 112.8 84.9 81.9 ISO. 9 119,0 148,1 B3.B 38.0 96.2 ' ' 77,3 79.1 104.9 2m 101.0 101.0 FAILURE 100.3 125,5 91,1 39.2 11 S.3 116.7 153.3 106.7 116,2 95.1 ' ' '65,9 66.6 100.3 3m 101.0 105.7 • 99,8 129.7 135.1 71,9 93.5 96.8 1 143.3 68.5 . 117.7 95.8 . 47.4 57.8 . 89.7 4m 93.6 97.7 105.9 119.5 128,4 130,8 42,9 lA^EDS 19.8 133.7 WEEDS ••• 113,1 98.4 7.4 ., .79.4.

RELATIVE 0-1 METER 0 . 0 0 " .0 DO " '4 ' 14 . '-'• 3 30 23 8 2 4 3 • 0 1 0 0 THERMAL 1-2 METERS 0 • 0 PROBE 0 3 0 15 67 3 : • 0 15 •• 2 : 1 4 0 . 0 RESISTANCE 2-3 METERS 0 13 FAILURE 4 17 64 37 15 3 2 12 •'., o 1 2 0 a : 3-4 METER 0 o o , 0 13 • ' - -' 48 65 0 3 '• 12 0 . 3 ! - 0 0 0

§|IBP APPENDIX E

LYCOTT PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - ALKALINITY (mg/l)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 19 ^:|:;:|iW'7:;:: 55 £-'-'S^ 59 IllllSil 55 |::f|g|9|| QO : '-: ^ -I OQT : : 04/13/88 86 •':-'• :ff '^85''-. 61 V; 3l'34.':;. 17^ • -:-.:-.:: LAJO I .... 77 ||li:;i 84^ : : 04/28/88 83 ^ K 102 :; 63 ::: :;;:105' 67 %Hi38;.' 71 >,i'^£i82;J 05/17/88 92 •^ji^QB''-- 51 ll^Xflt.SQ^ 110 g||li;55::;:i 84 .^I^^S^ ; ; v -05/2^88 -• '• •"••-• ••-' 92' $£;S3?53 - ^'101 V^::|pErS; ' •'•' "*vis '-SBSS^s- ' • '-- -86 ' :^i!Il?S2!': 06/09/88 53 ;^^-£S97$ 70 IF^-Vd: !185| DRY i||j!|57;| 77 IglllEd-:;: : 06/28/88 55 's=; :;-•''; b-;: 86;;': 88 |P//^::;194'K DRY ffiSJpRY! 103 M??||64J: : ; 07/15/88 48 i:%^;|:S62;;;:; 190 |P. •--::;;:l:;'92.^ DRY fSlpRVl; 22 :::::::ll-LGtST-':: 07/25/88 68 -'iS^'S.^b^ ' 72 ;|:r /1fi2bO:>: DRY 1WII78 ;:• 1 1 o ?j'MSjK : ; 08/11/88 150 - £x |fe|20:| 220 K\ ..;-|l;20> DRY .%ft;ipBy,s" 78 liJiHlsd^; ; 08/23/88 68 >i;|;f|;76:^ 4 ^/ "DRY:; DRY i:;;i|:pRYv 1 02 •-:|§|1|66J: 09/14/88 72 >t^^i'72^ 204 ]'l-- .. '-"^BB-i DRY v;.;:|l:;DRYi DRY ff^lffiS^ 09/28/88 76 i=^|^76^ DRY :.;f^:";VDRY:::;; DRY :-^;;|:DRY DRY ;S;;S;gi76-;; : :: : : 10/17/88 80 ::' ;;;:; :: :76 ; 100 ;;: DRY;.:: DRY :.-• :•- WRY •: DRY ^^g^pR^.;- ; : 11/21/88 80 :V.^.80J- 36 : .130; 100 ':;;j;;:::y:f;:.40.,. 82 ^^l^8tfii '• : : 12/20/88 92 '.0M "86.. 63 ;::; 4l60 ':• DRY ^^]^7.; 90 ^:||::;1;|88:'.- 01/20/89 14 ^MJ; 53'= 63 ^. ''fiSO..^ DRY -':?:; M53;;! 88 U|v-i;i::^;:;!|.92:: : : : 02/17/89 20 ••Bf i \62':: 42 ";•;'- ..-•"•:;•;•;•. 5 ri; 120 V:|:g:'DRY-:;; 80 ^§M^8'6. ;;

AVERAGES 69 75 87- 140 95 . 64 80 ^.:'S>.79 ••

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A - DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 - SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

J^l"? I VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION -H 1 W* PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - AMMONIA (mg/1)

STATION

DATE 1 •TA

03/28/88 0.009 i^: tip. 0091 0.008 Soot;;: 0.007 SI ill 0.024 g illi:^ 04/13/88 0.061 ^v^-^O.'bw 0.029 0.02f.i 0.022 :S|: :jj);056:; 0.033 § i^:df033?- 04/28/88 0.019 :i;:;:M::pi017;;; 0.015 0.014:; 0.083 51Kb20;; 0.014 g ||b;bil| 05/17/88 0.028 ::i;||:'0.pl9S 0.015 o.ofe;: 0.015 3f v.Q 'Ql 4" 0.012 ;;1:|;P'P.14:::: -t ,-65/24/88 - . .... ,omg ;^f|^4j:-'-. &Q12- UX322;;' : &&ia -M 'jO'x}-!"^? • ' ^fois-^;l^MC: 06/09/88 0.036 .;m 0.048;:: 0.012 0.014:? DRY ;J|;;0;0l5 0.015 f;^- p:.l33,';: : : : : : 06/28/88 0.020 3 i b-025''- 0.021 0.020 ; DRY ;;g : :DRY 0.017 ^ ^•pid'iW ; 07/15/88 0.015 u;:v;?;;0;bi7;i 0.031 0.025 DRY ;;:gS:PRY: ^ 0.021 ^ 80.020.! 07/25/88 0.072 ::g|o:045v 0.036 0.033 DRY ;f i :::p;038 •: 0.029 H ;I;p;o29^ : ; : ; 08/11/88 0.011 ;;ip;p;:t77;; o.osg 0.059 : DRY ;;;:;:::: ; |;DRYv 0.022 g ::Sb-b37;:: :: : 08/23/88 0.016 V:S:6;b49; ; 0.027 DRY^,; DRY SI IDRY;,; 0.016 |: f:^.b3p;;; : 09/14/88 0.021 ;:;;-S:;6:oi5 :! 0.017 0.014 • DRY '-p jDRYi: DRY 1; ;16;b29-i 09/28/88 0.032 -:;;:;;; 6:040^1 DRY DRYi DRY :;Q: JbRY:? DRY I; ^;b;p36: ; : : 10/17/88 0.029 : :-g-p;021v:- 0.011 DRY DRY <; :fDRY^ DRY S BPRY':; ; ; 11/21/88 0.020 :;;:2o;021 •: 0.018 0.018; 0.020 f| lb.bi8. 0.017 K :I :b.bi7§ 12/20/88 0.013 53-0.004 ; 0.004 0.006.: DRY tfl|b:bo6:; 0.007 $ :::b.007: : 01/20/89 0.035 ;S6;b49, 0.049 : 0.007: DRY |: ;:0^bi2/ 0.004 ::; ; 0.005 : ; 02/17/89 o.oso 5f|b:p87: 0.024 4, 0:018 , 0.019 :•;;: :;|;DRY 0.029 ;:;v 0.036 ; AVERAGES 0.030 .550.066: 0.025 =.: ... 0.020. 0.026 . :; :b.b2i ; 0.019 i: 0.032

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET £to | n«" 1 VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION -3< 1ii" 1- PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - CHLORIDE (mg/l)

STATION : ; : DATE 1 ||i;i:i::Af:|g: 2 gi:;|:3|pi| 4 lllllSfi^! - 6 mKi9^

: 03/28/88 8 ilillllPI 17 |;li;J|:i;:2o!: 12 Si;!!!!|ay 1 2 ||ii|;:ll8::? 04/13/88 10 MiiSjfi s ili|:B|3|3l 15 l|i®ST;:;. 13 il|||f50::-|; 04/28/88 8 IllllltSl 6 |:l|^i;ii;|2^ 8 25 gl!||i6g8|- 05/17/88 9 •^i-;:i:j:'S^:1;'::i::::i;v: '9 3 6 ;:-x-: ^ "£X':c&::20 ;L:': & llilili 5 lilS;!!!":: 1 1 : : 05/24/88 6 ^Xv;;:. ;:-': V ';'|;'; .6 •:• 4 :^SIfll;l9^ :8 ||||l||oi ;/ 5 |lf;|il|iS 1 '^'06/09/83 •'''-• s SlSllft^. ' '"-^-SftffiS^v "•'' ;ORY '^yiS^, •" ^B^SPI^Hfe.; 06/28/88 12 l§|i:'!|3p| 8 ^Ijpl&li DRY ftSJDRW 5 |oi^;ix:^.:ib^ : : 07/15/88 12 '£3§pvi5^ 25 •P/^/ilip::, DRY gSiiDRV^ 10 ;1:1:I:LOST:: 4 O X'-^V.^-^S''-^'/^' " C •-' -•••'•*' •:-"':':fi'4-Q :'• : ; : ; 07/25/88 i £. "!..:;i,;,:.:,;::;::vi:i;:'1 U.i;: O •.: ^:i::::iv :•:.>•: ;-:] o^ DRY ,3|§||;"5; 5 :;:;;:;3:l: OC••;;.. •• vioQ "•. v DRY ^if|l:DRY '| DRY lllilllQ? 1 : :: : -1 C ^v:-:::.:-. :;.:..?;':^^-^-: : ^ HDV '-' ^'.-•..li-'r-iDV-- 09/28/88 1 o ; . •: - • : ; - ;: y :::::;/l ^ - : ; U H Y ,> -it.- ; •••;•• LJ H \^ DRY :^^PPY^ DRY ::!:;il||il2^ : ; 10/17/88 8 ^l.l^llp:? 5 K'-:,:::--DRY^ DRY ||g DRYx: DRY IjgpRY:;: : :• '.-.-"•.-: ' '- '--'f- - -•.• '-Q ~-~ 11/21/88 12 ^;:'P^Sf9;' 9 fe^i^o"! 8 -•.'•'•-.• • •-: ' : •"• :"•-• O 5 l^^i^'il'O; : : : : 12/20/88 17 tfi-^ :B36 i 15 l;;:"-:Sf62: DRY 'jllliljr 12 Ifil^fis": '"j. ''''••'' •'• -1 .'-.•'-.'.'-.'- "-':-'- & \ •' & .'.-:.. '• ''.••' OO : 01/20/89 8 .-:!-. L: ' V1 .::I^LI': '"!•:": ':•••' ':-.D --• O vX '•:•!- . '1':---"OO • DRY ..v;;;;g;;f:|3:.- 4 ;i||||g:6,: ; : : 02/17/89 10 •^^§|f.i;;3 8 ft-;-c;' g| 2t; .; 8 .%v^^>1 0 'V 9 lllfll'^ : AVERAGES 10 ^••^,.:^jTT':"i 10 •%.'£•'• .;¥ 23-. 9 >fiv:S> 9 ".';-V;.;;;S|i3';

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A - DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 - NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET l~~ n. lH e§ D*3 I VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION

§""* 01 > PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - CHLOROPHYLL a

DATE

03/28/88 04/13/88

05/17/88 05/24/88 06/09/88 06/28/88 07/15/88 07/25/88 08/11/88 08/23/88 09/14/88 09/28/88 10/17/88 11/21/88 12/20/88 01/20/89 02/17/89

AVERAGE y11.34-

I PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - CONDUCTANCE (mhos)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 57 I|ISP24| 1 41 i||f §35§ 1 114 SSpI'lS: 04/13/88 1 38 gfpl^fsn 1 04 :::1;J;||^34;;': 154 §::|-SSTj 117 igllMj : J : 04/28/88 149 5|;|::|:142;!i 1 1 1 :5Sj|iO?:; 118 §li^£64£ 131 i|§p 40;''; : : 05/17/88 1 66 :::|||;:>|::1'84;;: 94 o;^§3'.21.^ 202 g^Sllpill 143 ||||jl5f ;; ; : : ; •J HO :.':"':1:-:-:-i1i:-..1::.::V«Q::V '••.v05/S4#83 •;. j -.v*.ts9 ^JSr:^<3 r- •. --3438 •&:;SIS73;;! - * • ^jsa : ?g;Sffi^ •• • i-iitO. ••••_. •..; r -.-••.« J-D •;- : 06/09/88 1 00 ^f'SSlp^ 1 02 ^^:^-241^ DRY I!||;!::l99:.^ 1 1 5 S|^§S;"2f| : : 06/28/88 1 1 0 :. ^^fi;;:S't 0 1 1 70 ; |;: ;|S 320 :';' DRY g^BRg 160 ^fflKM ; 07/15/88 1 40 fl^ltSi 90.| 450 ;;|;:Kli;240.| DRY ||:|;;DRY| 250 M;JLO^l| 5 ; : 07/25/88 1 60 %y£Sl 50: ; 1 60 ^ §S;4bb'^ DRY i|§;fSl60^ 210 :i;j:ll ;1;4b^ 08/11/88 1 20 fey^Ilijsb^ 1 70 li:;:C::;::;:M7o!;; DRY lil'DFlY::: 200 -SiiSllt^b;:" 08/23/88 1 30 V^^xI'SJp^ 1 50 -pil^bRYl: DRY |g||bR^| 170 ^ilillifb^ :: : : i:; : : : : : i qn ::V::" -:1 i" 1iii:-|:2b'.-' qon —- M^f'^ kn 09/V*7/ 11 "T/O4/8O8 1 %Jw -. . .-::- -:-.': :- 1 ^w •--- w^U ' . .- '..:-..-:'" I *Jw -. DR!•/ ll Y1 '.:-"-:'-:.:^; :S'. -.•:*-'l'ibRY* *.^ .•. DRL^ i lY I ^^HS^Jtpo'-'-'••_• :-•-:.• -...vj.v I. fcW--'i : : 09/28/88 1 40 Kg|gl50. | DRY ^y^DRV^ DRY JifjjjiDFi^ L-TDRi Y1 ^^••^•^ixn>:-•"' ::•:>'• ••>:-:• .-:•-( wv ^: 10/17/88 190 "^.fgliSb^ 240 t^'^llPRY-- DRY ISi^RY;:; DRY tl:SpRY.^ ; v; : : 11/21/88 1 90 ::li!Kl 9° ^ 110 :: :0:;:|;41 0 -: DRY |li|||;t.50;;: : 200 |:p;1^2lb^^ 01/20/89 170 .gKieo^ 150 ;VM;4"ip DRY KSipfflsb:'; 180 tpiiyp,:^ : 02/17/89 1 30 ^/llfgl-Sp:;::; 1 50 ;.^-.v'-''f ^340^ 230 p^|;fbRY':;; 160 ^^5§|f: 8^

: ; AVERAGES 143 ;:;:':;:155; 170 : ":304. 176 ^ : ^S:126 164 ^;r li;47 :i

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET r~ 12 ^1^1 VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION

3 1^ PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)

STATION

DATE 1 IA:

:: 03/28/88 11.9 ftft':.il';5^ 11.8 I||l:::|j'l;9:!: 10.1 - ft|PM! 11.2 :ift.Sib.7::; ; 04/13/88 1 1 -0 iftftj I'M 1 0.2 BftSl CJ;8,:! 8.5 ftftl:TO;&;; 10.1 ft|S;^i;6| ; 04/28/88 11.1 Pftftj.9^ 11.1 |r:ft:l:;9;:2;:: 8.3 ^ftj^l'P';' 9,9 ^^•^•l 0:5 05/17/88 .. io.4.;ftft::.;i4l6:l , .10.0 pftftK . . .6,5 ';ppi&9": 9,9 •:•: ^^iy^io'l 0.0'^

05/24/88 LOST :;:!'.;f:;::';;;:"LOSTr-; LOST 'liiLOST;:;:; LOST :f SLOST:;.;; LOST illlilbST;:; : 06/09/88 9 - 7 ;:;:;;;-::;;':H 1 1 ^4| 9 . 7 liiJ^O^e | DRY g|f|flp.8.^ 10.0 ilift7.8';:i! V: ; 06/28/88 9.5 :;;.":;.. -.10;'9';:; 9.3 ftftfts.4 '- DRY i^lipRY?; 9.2 ;!;;;ftli7:8-; : : : ; : : 07/15/88 6.8 i.;;>;:::^i':i6^8;: 5.1 ftS ;5; 5; 2 . DRY -^Jl&^ff: 9.6 fg:ft'5.3.- : ; 07/25/88 6.5 ^>.-.'.'3.8' 8.8 ; '^^9:4. DRY '• ""7^7:4; 7.9 ':;; .':;-.;.; f i 7: ^; 1 2. 9 ; :IIS: D R V • DRY .{;:::ft;DRY| 14.0 Iftj'ft^O'.-:

09/14/88 14.4ft:;;:-:.'.;; -12.3= ; 12.8 ft;:fti3.6- DRY "-'r.^E?R§ DRY ;:H;;;tc11:2''; J 09/28/88 9.1 l^, r.iv"6:e=; DRY ?H^^.bRY^ DRY !; ;f:;::::6RY^ DRY ftPKS-^ 10/17/88 11.5 :t;f ;'.•••• i 2.6 ': 12.0 -ft' 'DRY: DRY vf-DRYf DRY ^^0RY:! 11/21/88 12.1 ;;:>:VT 11,9 V 11.7 • .;;;: ;11.6^ 13.0 ft12;1;;:; 11.6 l/-;^]2l\} 12/20/88 12.0 ft::ft;:6:3;; 10.7 ftftft6;2 DRY :- ••:/;' •ft6'8;:; 7.3 ;Sijfio;7.:; 01/20/89 11.5 ^v' 0.9; 16.6 ft;::ft;1i;9 DRY 'fttl5-.i$ 9.7 ft;^Bl7.6"- : ; : 02/17/89 1 2.5 ^^1 6:i j 14.1 gft: :ii^6 ;- 9.9 ".•..•:;:;;:.:;:-'bRY:'^ 10.2 :{ftftl^T;i

; : ; AVERAGES 10.6 ft: 8.9 -i 11.1 : ft:::;^'9.6 9.4 ;: fl6.5 :; 10.0 '4:i/- ^10.6 ••

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET S ill" i rO\ T1BKT ^™^ WAVALUCI t ir° o IUMNPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION W • jh.'

""" 1 PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - FECAL COLIFORM (#/100ml)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 (1 0) !$!pf$ NOT^ (10) Iff ill (lOjglJIpb); : 04/13/88 (lOj^ivboNE::: (10) piill);! (io)iil|lp);; (10);::::f%|(10): 04/28/88 (1 0) ^^--^I;M : :M35;; 152 :>-.>g^(-1.6)"; (10)'^5f(10):; (10) •!;; : ; ; ; 05/17/88 :l;;;|2ps:: (1 o) P$:ti(ib); (10):|::i<;illo1 wijiim no) ii : 05/24/88 (10)-T^%/;?£$H ., (10) M::f :S(1P)' , . .(10)^1^:47^ . . . . |lp)^|:>D;ffj,6; ; 06/09/88 (1 0) ^it^-'M-M 00)^! ?::i::'[10); DRY ^M^.1-0):i 18 ^^{10)1 06/28/88 (1 0) '\M^;\?9i 10 ;g;;;|:g'37:! ? DRY ^Ii?Mi (io)^"^|^io)' ; 1 07/15/88 (10)i^1^^^^ (10) -If tfQtO);- DRY I^-^^p'RY ! (1 0) ^;^| LOSta : 07/25/88 400 ^iJl^illl 250 111;€-v^6^ DRY ^r^^ibd^ 90 f:t^&Wl'£G% ;: 08/11/88 (\Q)1&^'^^' 10 -S IIJSOJ:: DRY ;f J^'DRVI:: (io)i|S:;(ib):; i :: : •:; ;' n\ D v L n> D v -•"' • • • • ""' "'.' n D v / '. 08/23/88 (10)-;f;H;.C:. :B'!:'ll (10) i;§ ::>:LJrf T;. < Ur\ T :;. r-v..;o:-:: UO T.;..::: 40 ;g;;|i;|::;.l(tb)^ : : : nvnv •'•••:•'••'. ::•'•• •'•••'••'^' /-t t\\"- 09/14/88 (10)g^Sfe 20 ^S 1^(10) DRY ^ ;-: :;DRYf: UHY : : :: - (l "J 09/28/88 (10)-:^; '•,:;;¥: DRY :•., ::;;DRY DRY , ;DRY: DRY ^&.^4Q:, : ;: : J : : ..' (~i DV' nD V :: - : ' :; . PiD V 10/17/88 (10) f :.: 'Uri I...;.- Ur( T . : ..-;. UriT. ; DRY :i:i^DRYv: (1 o) ;;:;:;i;f - •:• ^ ; :: ;:^20: (10) :?%(10j: 11/21/88 (10) .SI'." ::X" (10) : : : (10) £f:i;(io) ; A 12/20/88 (10):^^".' ":vS ::; (10) l:-:- ;;;•:•:: 00) DRY • ^^(lO): (10)¥;:^:(l6) : 01/20/89 (10) Hp"-S (10) "^ ?:|:(10) DRY v^SciOJ: (10)S? ^'(fO)^ 02/17/89 (10) (10) II||(10) (10) : : ;;g;PRY:;:;; (10)^^::ii(iO)i ;||i;:lii| : :

:; : : : v: ; c on •'•'•-• 9 *^ AVERAGES 1.4 •••1 i :.'-' 'S ' 2.2 '!$; 3.O -. fc.U . •-: .: ;.fc.O .. 2.1 •g;;^?M2J -:

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 -SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

Sllhr-111 , ffi •S" —" •-? • 1\n\ VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION

%"•HiMH^J ^1B ! I*!»"" < PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (#/100ml)

STATION DATE 1 MH$tiAt 2 miimizi- 4 M^ii&

03/28/88 50 |||iNOf:| 10 ill iilSl 0| 1 0 |;|^?:::.|i:;|20^ 10 !il!ll!'b;ii 04/13/88 (10)iibt)NE;; (10)!!S! ?il;(:i"6)fr 10 i::;:--:nV'i'i::ill.O)^ (I0)|i;|iglp|: 04/28/88 610 ;C-^Si® 40 m. ^^•240 ii:' 440 / S;|:: vH; S^l 0 • • 1 oo 'ff^yyiMi 05/17/88 (lOJ^'-i^rS/'Vf^ (10)11^::;:J::/26::C 20 •;:%:\::K-::l;'26r (lojllii^ib)^ : 05/24/88 (10)iiiii:i ' 20 III y-.':-1''1:-! ^U .-.' ^?U :-. ::v:o.:. •:•.".•. ;~ .v. •'/ Ov •••• LOST |i;||:a5b| ":"• "•':-' ':'•': Cf\ :'• OR Y ^---1-'--"i---:^>-v^--/H A\" 06/09/88 . ., ..IJD. ^t'^r.^-^5- --. _(Xp).ii . . .2D..p;P^Sflp)i : : 06/28/88 (10) £V;A'|;;;:^%C;'; 40 :;!!iftiSF DRY |i|DRY:;:i wW^iSffM 07/15/88 (iO):^r.-^H^^- 850 |1; ;S370 1 DRY |;3|:fDRY;.; 570 liiLOSli 07/25/88 (lO).^M--.:;-'^i^:-:'-:: 160 fi; •!;;l;i:1^C);l DRY J;S;i';!H'6p:^: 50 ||yiiHO:.;::: : 08/11/88 (10) ^-^^.•^.^X 70 fi^ ; Ml 00t : DRY ?|;^ I'D R Y ! 260 :|:;f:^!:!;;3;20'| : :.'^nDV'-' nDV -?1:':'." L r\DV.:-.: ; 08/23/88 (10) >- ''iiii:i so ;|||:..;. UP! T:' LJrt I •::.:.•;..:.: y :..•.:•: L/ n I. ; 90 ||||;||580| : 09/14/88 (10)3^f ?*Vr%£ 560 :i:|Ilieol DRY ;:;||:;i;bRY:>;; DRY |:;'|;il'£!pbS 09/28/88 (10):^^i:"ii'^^ DRY ifi:'QD R Y ? D R Y !• ^.^ D RY :v DRY ;!|Ilg:i:;;::4Q:;::;; : 1 1 1 : '•"'•••r^DX/- '" :- P^ D V 'V:- -.- -."-:-:'. •-• F^DV '- 10/17/88 60 xiti::ii:::i no) i|: .::;rU rl T: •- LJ Ft 1 :: :;•:.:.: :..-:-.-• : . L* Fl . T.. . -: . DRY ||f?|DRY l : 11/21/88 60 ^S^B' 20 %«& ilsso^ so ^Pn-^i^6"-- so i|l|: iifbS 12/20/88 360 i,i;ii.ii i;;i76:: DRY ^i-'Vi^ip)' " (lojiiiiltp): ; no) ii 01/20/89 10 iiiii:i?; 10 ;-:.;•:;:-;!:; ^;:;.j;:;-;.40::':' DRY t??&$2$&£. (iO);i;;i||i;:(i.6):| 02/17/89 (10)!:|| 10 (10)||M||J |g.10;;: ( )i|fr£ifo 1° SiiliBib)';

: v JDfj -Q - OA A >':'-.•'- -'-'-':'-- '- OQ A"> : : : AVERAGES 20.5 iiv^iii 29.6 S§ .; OU.O ->- Ow-H* '.'.-•' -'.:-'. •'•..- O^7i \J - 34.7 ;i;l;:;S;24;^|

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A - DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 -SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 - OUTLET

^nii I^ALUESIN PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION 81* PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (mg/l)

STATION

DATE 1 l;S;|l'At>|;i 2 ill; 4 6 Ilil^iill

03/28/88 (O.io)|||f(d":ib);; (0.10)31|(oSpl (o.io)||ftf(b3b)^ (o.io)||||i;ro : : : 04/13/88 0.14 ;glf;(byiO);:; (o.io)ill |(0;l p);; (O.i0);|l; f i;p::(p): (0.10);£ii{Klp|; 04/28/88 (o.io)fli;l;b.:ri;;;; 0.19 fi .||p722g 0.21 |f|8(bfb)S (o.io):;;;;S:;|(bfip);; :; 05/17/88 0.12 ;:||J|at3: (0.10) gig; |'0l|3| (o.iO)l;;|:S;(b;;ip);; (0.10):ft|||:py13:.^ 05/24/88 0.34 Ifi3b.52o 0.10 |;i '|;:b';72'/': 0.1 9 ;;:i:i:£|'0;46^ 0.12 ISJb^S® 06/09/88 (0.10) 'Ilib.40,;: (0.10)ig l;Pi:1.4^: DRY *;E^}^ (o.io)|||Bpft^ 08/11/88 0.68 ^^I^i^O"^ 0.28 W/i'$&7ffi DRY ;;;:ppH;DRY|;' 0.11 ;;!;|-i;:;-:I|.6;35^ ; 08/23/88 (O.l0);:;llltp.38:; 0.17 }^r - f p R Yl D R Y ;i; ; ^ ;A;;:D R fe ; (o.io):S||;M2';;;:; 09/14/88 0.15 -:!^%:12:- 0.25 ^g: £(oH 6):; DRY ^;f WDRYI DRY ;::Jg§'di2p:: : : 09/28/88 0.33 Spf g b;29 DRY ^ i :" b Rl Y ; D R Y :; -- ''*/• ;? : DR Y^; DRY •'ftvlb.ia^ 10/17/88 0.11 p;Sfb,24:; (0.10)4;^ ::pRY:;;; DRY |^:;DRY:" DRY ftS^DRY-;; : 11/21/88 0.18 ^: p:b;2l - (0.10). ft ::.;b-i5;: (0.10) •^'•'(O/iO)- (0.10): :;^;0;14 : : : 12/20/88 0.74 g! .;v::;;;:;;;;.o,82 (0.1 0) ;m;i-;;:;:;;:;p;40> DRY :;;;;/ ;;:^,p.29:; 0.34 >:k;;::;;:; 1:0.34:5: 01/20/89 0.84 f^ij§-QM':. 0.25 8y|:li'6^76; ^ DRY •::;!;::i::.::^:'-0;39:-:: 0.21 ||||;b45;:; : : :: : 02/17/89 0.24 .:-ft;|;a25.; 0.12 ftl;;|biS5;-;' (o.io) fft DRY;" 0.12 i-M3rb^33.;::

i; ij AVERAGES 0.28 ••:M::;;;;^;:b.36/:: 0.15 :v^.^•-b;29;T ; 0.13 IP : 0:20.;: 0.13 ^d;p"di24; ;

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

r- H. E' /ALLIES IN PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION ^ P3 1 £-} j ^ i**3ii i> i PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - NITRATE (mg/l)

STATION

DATE 1 1A:

03/28/88 0.12 llliMfpl o.6i ;||PSpt; 0.81 |i||b;^;|; (0.10)li; : : : Sill 04/13/88 0.10 ;lllbr i o.:: (o.io)i||Si.;:2b;;> 0.20 £&£ :^:^;::b ^36^ (0.10)::::| Spy oi| : 04/28/88 0.30 |:|:>:^:;^b.36:.;i o.eo ||:|i^ft4p>;: 0.60 .^^1^0750^ 0.10 ::g: =!§);s® 05/17/88 0.10 iii^rp?fo^ 0.14 !|;:il::;:!p;60::::: 0.25 IllfpSi^ (0.10)??;fill : ; 05/24/88 0.10 iiibi'ib. < 0.22 ;:::;|l|bf74;:;!: 0.49 :^::;:^--:::L0;33-" (0.10) II3;::(p^p):: ; . . . Q6/Q9/S8 . .,0..,11 g| l:vijQili-- 0.16 ft:Splb^i§- DRY gi^fbrtsJ .0.12 !;•;•:• :lbSlf 06/28/88 0.20 lR.i:::pi20::: 0.21 SS^Q^'20^ DRY 'lll-DRY^ 0.18 S; ;la;:iO;x:: ; 07/15/88 0.60 lPlp;60:' : 0.50 xj^il^b.'SO^ DRY ^:ifSbRY| 0.50 11^i3st| 07/25/88 0.10 llloMbi 0.22 ;v::li;'ib'8b^ DRY il||:b;i:J|| (0.10)|1l:(bi:;i b) : 08/11/88 0.10 |::-::::f:;:lbi:;i"6.::: (O.i0):||;i:(p;'i6); DRY S&SljDft^ (o.io)$g ;:;:.(ti;lb)- : : ; 08/23/88 0.10 :|l^F?:|:b;tb' (0.10);Si|bRY -'::| DRY ||SbRY:| ; : : (0.10)1:: 1S^- 09/14/88 0.10 ll:lb;1p.'';: (0.10)||:||^J.-1P)^ DRY ilS|b'RY::::: DRY 1 • 5(0; 1 0) : 09/28/88 0.10 lllbilb^ DRY ||i|lDRt l DRY IflSfbRY?:; DRY |: t^-'T;bP;:: : : 10/17/88 0.10 il||bHb:; (0.10)^^5)^: DRY ^PiibRYi:- DRY 1:;: :|b'RYl : 11/21/88 0.10 (11: .0.10 0.32 lj|3:'t:40-'.:' 0.42 |lt!b;2l! (0.1 0) M '* (b^ipj;;: :: ; : : 12/20/88 0.14 |ll^;1:b-;: 0.15 |; M|b;36":! DRY ii;||:|^pl: 0.48 ;;i :|(0;10)-: : : 01/20/89 0.50 III -ipSiS; 0.30 .:;:::^Ml.;50:v: DRY l;|ib;52^ (0.10)!:1^(0/ib) 0.47 ll:;|t}.50; 1.90 ^^RY'j 1.40 :; ; 02/17/89 1.60 Ii;l3.50:: Sl^-l

QO ::-•-.-; j''^'.-.\;-{\ QC : : AVERAGES 0.19 ii-;^ ., 0.39 O . OO -...-::.;:.:;>.- . v« ?O 0.67 •;::;> :'0.44 : 0.25 ;:: : 'MM

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A - DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 -SOUTHERN TRIBUTARYCROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

qm I' /ALUESIN PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION

—4 M vjffi1 ™"i nit PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - pH (SU)

STATION

DATE 1 2 4 llSpiSll 6 IllSlIlili

03/28/88 7-0 X^Kff^ 7.4 lil|||7^;i 7.3 i;ilii||S.I 7.6 3i|iii'S| 04/13/88 7.6 |r:W\-:Kl| 7,7 lililpsf 7.4 gjl !;t:C)ST{; 7.9 IflllBiil 04/28/88 7.0 |&i,;V7:o| 7.2 iiiiS^ 7.0 i|K|i|l3| 7.6 !J:ijK!:::|:::;S;0| -H .V^":1:1:'0^ ":",v •: o" £ --• : : 05/17/88 8.6 fflpt8;7;.I 7.0 ifiifii^ 7.4 iiiilll^lf 8, 1 i v ;:|vX-:- ':':0>: UiD :::f : ; : '"05/24/88 ' "'•" ^U'3 i^ ¥.?Si2 V ' •-'T:7 -^5?3'i7;7:^ ' " '"7^2 ^MS^SV' •••-••7;6 ;gy@B:4j: 06/09/88 7.3 :|:Si|;|6;7^ DRY y-gjffM 7.2 Si|||7'6:.i 7.5 ^^&7^ : : : 06/28/88 8.5 ^;;|&2£ 6.9 --••'••iC.ife^Si'S •• DRY |;||;;;p|Y:;: 6.3 vH6:ll^:'8^:-: 1 : J : ; ; 07/15/88 9 , 7/ ':••":;'.. I":".;.;:-.."']- •-'•--_•_.:\ Q• Q,\J "',: Q :-" 7.9 P|||Bg:fe:;i DRY fc;;| - i|DRY| 6.5 |;5;|;;|:|-9.5'i ; : 7 n -Cr^S'^Q:'^'-':1 07/25/88 8.5 &^.^8?63 7.6 1|p|S;7:3;: ' DRY ;;:|B;i7:a:: / .U ;::.,:..:.-;::•:•:;..:.,:. p. U.1:1: : : 08/11/88 9.4 :;:;K^;8:i| 8.4 :-:::x;.g;:;|;7;&:: DRY i-^bRY^ 8.3 ^yj^'S.fel : 08/23/88 8.5 ^ro^'LQST^ LOST ;SHbRY' :: DRY ^:.:::]J|pRY::: LOST |Si;:;LOST| 09/14/88 7.2 "iS)|->^;l4;| 7.3 ;|:fll7;3;.; DRY IfiSDRYi: DRY :;i|KS7v3j; • 09/28/88 6.7 "t^'^v6j9.'-:!i DRY pf|DRY::. DRY ISJIiS'DRYil DRY i^SSI^'Sl ; : ; : : : : 10/17/88 6.9 •^^\: ;:;.Q.8^ 6.8 •iS:;;;.^DFlY-: DRY |;l|:;;pRY:| DRY lfS;pRr:::i O : •- " ...... :. ..-'; Q'1 f\ ••'• : : 11/21/88 8 .O v. -'.-I.' \-~ •:-'-;-:-O.U "•:• 8.3 ;:lll;z6; 7,7 -^s^MQAt 8.0 S:::i;S.8^8> : 12/20/88 8.0 ^i'LOSTl 7.9 ^•ifli4': DRY :;|p|3f:5:; 7.9 S-i^S'^dl 01/20/89 6.6 ;M^::7&:. 7.6 :%i;;iS|7:5' DRY i.5;:iS;Z3| 7.7 !::ili8:2t

02/17/89 6.0 MM:;::K& 7.6 gf|||;4:: 7.3 ;.|::I||DRY| 7.6 iiiiiipi

f AVERAGES 6.9 ::.. 7.2?i 7.3 ;:$ft%7;3': 7.3 ^"•' ::-&& 7.1 M^7M

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 -INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 - NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

VALUES IN PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION I PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (mg/1)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 0.013 ;:|;p:;:p;628;:| 0.149 ;S;(6:005)| : (0.005) S!p;p06| 0.022 II 04/13/88 : 0.042 |:;i:;|6."b45| (0.005) " (0.005) * ' ' E'B:^'^^ * ' ' :'--t-:A (0;d(35) 04/28/88 0.010 K^O.OOS::: 0.076 f.-^.- :b.b4i:;;:: 0.063 i||i:blbl3| 0.008 (0,005) 05/17/88 0.012 :$&&:-d;028^ 0.023 %££ 0.011 f|;;|pipl2| 0.013 0,011 : : 05/24/88 (o;oo5)l;;;^o.o2i;;;:; 0.015 IfeSbiS 0.035 ;||:m;b;'044:;i 0.005 o!oo9 06/09/88 0.058 %|0bfp55f 0.014 ;|| DRY ll^ipSB 0.050 0.156 ' rt ' f\ "t Q' :- : : : 06/28/88 0.016 ;;:::;:;;%0.b5b;;;: 0.019 '&& r \J t\J I O • '• DRY ;:;:|;;;;l;:::pRY..i 0.012 0.016

07/15/88 (0.005) |||::;:;p.p29.p 0.012 gl :0-051| DRY SISORYl 0.100 (0.005) ? 07/25/88 0.008 ||;|0.009:| (0.005) |;;;| :ao23| DRY ^1:1(0:005)^ 0.028 0.008 08/11/88 0.008 f||;0.052'i 0.050 ;fe| 0^01.1;;: DRY SflspRY:;; (0.005) 0.009

08/23/88 0.058 j|||p-082:;:;: 0.107 |;:|i-;DRY:;;; DRY IgiDRY;; 0.008 0.031 r : : :;; 09/14/88 0.014 Hi 0.072 | 0.123|::| fb'737:" DRY 1||' 'DRY:^ DRY 0.090 : : ; 09/28/88 (0.020) :Vf|"(b!02b)' DRY ||; llDRYf: DRY |::|"!.bRY;: DRY (0.020) : 10/17/88 (0.020) ;i;l|o;iiO; : (0.020)7! •'DRY; DRY ©:': :DRY:;; DRY DRY 11/21/88 (0.020) ;;;;;;;::i(b:o20)' (0.020) g.;;- (0.020): (0.020) x|;|:(b.02b): (0.020) 0.038 12/20/88 (0.020) 4? :. 0-862;: (0.020) '•'••' 0^225 : DRY :;||:; 0.047;;^ (0.020) (0,020) : 01/20/89 (0.020) |!: (0!020); (0.020)^: (0.020) DRY |:;:::; (0.020): (0.020) (0.020)

02/17/89 (0.020) |;|::;(0.020);! (0.020) : ; (0.020): (0.020) ;:||:-;;DRY;I (0.020) (0.020)

AVERAGES 0.018 :^^SO'.083^ 0.041 • "0:084 : 0.028 ^:L^O;b32^ 0.022 0.028

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

%*> i1 VALUES INPARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION 31 1 1 PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - SECCHI DISC DEPTH 1 ffliDEPTHJ DATE (METERSyJ

03/28/88 ftJ-.icE'.: 1 :; ; 04/1 3/88 %;. ' -4-5/:, 04/28/88 •:"---:v-- • 4.5;^ 05/17/88 iffi-LOST? 05/24/88 --:/': : :. 4.0 06/09/88 •'--" •. 3.7 06/28/88 fy:- 2.9 07/15/88 -;.--;•"•'•. 2.0 x: 07/25/88 •:"v"" .2-1- 08/11/88 ,1.7 08/23/88 :^r' 1.1 ; : 09/14/88 si- v:. 3 o\ 09/28/88 y;: 2.7 1^^v 10/17/88 2.1 11/21/88 ... 1.7 1 2/20/88 ;• ICE 1^W 01/20/89 -;•:, ; 'JOE : : 02/17/89 .. ;;• .'icE--.

I^B AVERAGE •}. -.'.; 2.55 I I I I I I I I I LYCOTT PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/t)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 4 W^jgji 17 iii^ll 3t^^^ 9 IS:i||-;|l:5;i: 04/13/88 4 SlS|i:1:9;f 5 :;;!i' J:r.::^:-7fl 15 ^gjjMMM 4 lliS^fisI 04/28/88 6 j^:|^S0£| 6 •i;ii g-i'lS 12 |;:if|;i|;5;:;l 7 iSll^Ile^ : : ; 05/17/88 6 :H:;:;:;:;;:;:-!;|:;^£:;0| 6 SiS: -:vS:;" 6:l 3 ^&jjj$2'l 4 •:?;8;!!:!;;2;;;: : 106 ; : : : : 05/24/88 1 i&:§|Xf2£ 5 ;5I?&'i?4 •i-IIIp5.'^ *5 J!v:'!i.v!':'M':: ':^-'. ?' -QJ' : : 1 1 ; : r : 1;:i ; ,....06/09/88 . " , " - -- ,6.^pSP ,H. .-3..^ •"ji ' ' . 7' - •.- 'J3f?Y .i>---''.:. ':V v:i^9 ' ,'.•--5 WM&^!- :: 06/28/88 2 W§iJ3p!i 8 ;f :| '^'•'••-•-•,:... •••. ;...£...- '>•'•':• np\Jv\v \ •-^.•"'''i^hRV'':...':'. :'.-..:-.->-. VWrlT -'-•'-: 7 ||||ll/iM|;; ; : 07/15/88 e iSSBoal 25 ;|;;:l S&".15-i.; DRY iSilBRy^ 42 hlJlSbSTil ^-'W'i1:. 07/25/88 12 g©|i|l^| S ;>': i;--'!';- J^'S-I DRY :;||||iii;: 8 !ifl^=2l 08/11/88 £ '-••'.••'- :-•-••_ :•:'.• '-'.•''.•'',• '-:-'-tj •.•;•; 7 Ili |«:.'-6^ DRY !!:|!g^D'K;.: 2 |l5!l|^l2i; > 1 i: 1 1 : : 1 :: 08/23/88 2 : ' ' ! !- ': " 'l- '^••^l? •:••:: Q ':•"•: 7 K ••i'DRYl DRY IlllDRY' 28 ::|||ll:i|;13. i: : : : 09/14/88 96 ;;|^S;|276| 26 If ||v;4: :: DRY :|Si|pRY;;:; DRY iill^llilliv; .'-:' F^D V::' ^DV "• '"'•-" • '-•.•'-•''•'-•'.'"-• fm\O\/ .: 09/28/88 4 SiSilS^S':!:: DRY :!|:^ :;;.; Url-T : : Ur\ T : •].>•::• >::| ' :-•-:';•. U/ rl T.: ' DRY Hl||^i72'5 10/17/88 4 ?W8fIlS:fri 5 y |^::b RY1; D R Y HSll^PB fe DRY i:||ISpRYl o •::;::.;?:":: '::;'•; :;-':;::?:::1b,:'. 1 11/21/88 " •:":'!:.'!' ..":!'."•' ::'.V::! :- " •". ' 9 tH ji^-20/:' 4 l^^^yi^ 14 ;;1III;S®^ 12/20/88 4 l^'i^vrt'-TO^ 15 Sg ;:|V-:3:;:: DRY i^lllsga::: 10 i&K& : 01/20/89 3 ••y/vS^;^3^ 5 5K' ^'•"15^ DRY ^ffMK& 3 =^^K3'i 02/17/89 3 8 ':'.;< J 14 50 :%;S;P'RY'!. :l:;;;;:|i|:;3 2 :^^^J1 :; AVERAGES 9 --^^•;;II'S7!; 10 :'-;: ^ •••'..: 9 :; 27 ||f^S;|:;;;'20'^ 10 TSiSio"^

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 -SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 -CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION Q^l^ in, ™i 'ALUESIN —9 ( Ii Jin PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - TEMPERATURE (DEGREES C)

STATION

DATE 1

03/28/88 1.0 Il||p5:| 4.8 i||||||f9| 5.0 ll^:||ll|; 6.0 ll!f:l|lG;fl : 04/13/88 10.5 '|;ll;ltb;0| 7.5 :;l|l|;i2;Q^ 10.0 ;|l;"lii:is:'- 11.0 illlHsl 04/28/88 11.0 fffljSoi^ 7.2 f ^41^18; 0)1 8.1 ::-:ilj:i|i:i.| 7.9 il|jgi:I|oj; "f O O •K.:':-1':^'.:''iV"j^i;'-1o':-'': : : 1 05/17/88 19.0 llpislM 1 *^'^ ^'•••i:!':!lr:.-"i7;4.2::. ;: 9.0 ||:- ^613;5H 12.0 :lll::i:9;0;::.: :; : 05/24/88 19.5 :::§lli6i:i;l LOST IJl^OSTl LOST tl;: --llQSTl LOST |||||c)s;r!! -, 06/09/S8 - . --. ..ifl.0 I'^Siza^; . 10.5 :;-p:i:;10:5l DRY ll^'-'Ko-: 9.9 yjjjffr'.^ 06/28/88 24.2 l^ll^S); ' 16.61il;;;l35;4|: •DRY ai IDRY-:; "17.5 11:;:|:;:;24;5;:.: : :: i 1 1 ?7 Q :::-..: ^*-r, *+:-:: 11 RO. Un -.-. ::":;:"!iH:pT: ..•-:•: .-;-- 1 1:'n i w^ ..- nov ^- •:- nRY ^ 11 O fl» w0 -fe^^Si^fl-'Q -: ,:: :.:-:- ;--:x-*-Oi J -- " "-:

OC D '.'•'^''•-.'.•-^•••''^n -C'::''. : Q i^M-vip^QH'; 07/25/88 *ID.O :-..-:.V-:S:;:.;-•>.':•:• yi'.:. ;.^^. ^.i:'. : ::: : Jp 7 ^—WKSv/iOQ11;-?:1: 08/11/88 29.3 1;'U;'25.3'-:.: 21.0 |l:;li6r5 .! DRY ll; '-bhY,- TO./ ;•; -;..;-•. •••:•:;;-•: :£.?,/

08/23/88 22.6 V4V&?ti'7:£ 14.9 •l^^.jDRY:;;: DRY 11- DRY^ 14.9 ;^.^22;2-.^ 09/14/88 19.7 :V-1:;1;:|9;P::: 15.4 |;l:vll5;4:;. DRY ;^>: DRY"' DRY :lllli:8^9':::: : : : 09/28/88 18.1 {:^;yS7i6:::: DRY ;:l|ISpRY;:;' DRY ::; .) DRY . DRY illlllS;!!; 10/17/88 12.8 ::;:l;::;i||2;5'^ 12.1 lllpRW DRY :l:v; DRY;: DRY lllllplp^ :; : 7 c vi'vii^S'RVq::; 11/21/88 5-7 illlllslsl 6.9 illllitb-^ 8.1 !l -: }:7:5"" * -w •::•.-.. •. •-•::::-: ...-'-...wi & •-.• 12/20/88 1.4 ll;:;;||^4l 0.5 g;||ll:;Ci;7;;i: DRY li:l::v:!i.O::;. 3.0 l::l;';S:pi2;6:l 01/20/89 3.1 lllg&P; 2.5 |:|11IW::2;:': DRY ;l:;£li2.4: 4.3 |||i||i|::;:

: : O • ' - >''"-:'' -'"-•' ' ••'•i:' ::O '' O • •• 02/17/89 0.5 :..:.:v::;:l;5:2.'':- 1.3 |I"'-;110.5' :- 3.6 i •: DRY 3.ji - ;.;.:-; ••:.;:r.'; i ;0-O:

: AVERAGES 15.0 Iil;i4 .3j 10.5 I;">::'ll0.7 : 7.3 Il''a8;5^ 10.6 iSfffieS

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A -DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 - SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

^nn I VALUESIN PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION §i» PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS - TURBIDITY (NTU)

STATION

DATE 1 TO;

: C v? •:-:•-: •: '" • •-•'^'"o'-o'-v: . 03/28/88 2.4 |Ei| :i:3;5ii 2.4 Wiff£m 3 .D :;-:::;::.:.::\.::-:.::v;;:;ti;i::;; : : : ; q c ::;-;1 '- ^''-^: 'v:q-;n :v 04/13/88 2.5 8|i:|;|;5:!: 2.2 MiMM O * v -•- r •-- - '-• !•:•:•-. O •»!/-•• 2.5 jjj&'Zm 04/28/88 2.0 mmm'.^. 10.0 !;^!Q7p|; 7.5 i83i2&£ 2.3 SlSillsl 2 A •'•-•••'•.• ''-:':':'::!::--:: in.-.H-!-:.:! 05/17/88 2.6 ^ft^S^ .0 ;:;-•;:;:••;;• x>:;:;: 3 ;T.;;-. 2.2 ^l;::;gf;6;5:;;;.' 3.9 iiiitii H '•'-:••: •:-• '':••':• •-".''. "••••'"-.• O:"."T v : 05/24/88 4.1 W;;:* ••::•; 0 ?.£*:. 5.4 ilSlllle^y 10.0 :|-:{y^:;:;;:;;8;8^ 4.1 ii^^fiS^ > : :; O H ;•.•>:;.•>''.•:•:•.' L^LI'.':": Q j Q ':" ': 1 g :^Ki:i!l:::-/?i;:'-Q"i:f^:- j 06/09/88 r ; r •^,20'.*...'W- •?^^i-2'; ; • .- -.-.^j*—»*2^~ .^ ^ • . •- .j .DR•Aff'3 fYt • '' •.-.-.,.^^''&-2', ,>'. '>AvrA-^. . "' " "' ' ^:;:'.-.' :'v'.',.. **..'-.:. : : : : : o a ^•••:-V\:'.'.i:".^'0.!" 06/28/88 3.1 i-;^:?;:^:l:iL;7i:i5::; 3.4 illil:;-^'^:? DRY llfliDRy;:.;' (i. 3 -;;: ,;;.;-: y--;...-...:.;-.^ •*-. •- •• C X:. X-i: V'i'Vii'fi "•?•- : 07/15/88 2.O :;:;:-;-:- ;:::.::. ,;;..p;/:.;,. 3.1 ;:%:iiii2.8;::: DRY gJ;;J-;pRYJ: 5.4 ;i;:|;|:-L6ST.;:; 1-1 ';-::i:.'O'vi|:' 'X^q 'irrt':v: 07/25/88 3,U liii;:;:-1- K I'^.-l-jO. <&:.-: 3.1 :|;l|i:2;7| DRY l^lSllisi;! 3.4 ^'Jijj&Q^ : 08/11/88 3.2 lllllS^I 4.9 ^:M^t4:&t DRY :;;;:i:iSMRYl 2.5 |fi;ft3;2:; : 08/23/88 4.2 ^lp$4$3 2-4 ^IIIIpRYi DRY ;::;;ff;:pRY|i 3.4 Ill|;|'3i2 | : 09/14/88 2.9 ||;i}|:;3gi 3.5 :4iyt|i;'|;;2.6:| DRY ^;!:gidBY:| DRY i|||||2;7;1 09/28/88 3.5 ii:SS|:;;3;9i • DRY :::iS|!DRY:y; ' DRY Wji$PXf DRY l|yi|li:|;|;c)^ O •:'•:. :-:::::r.::.-.':f*>DV :-:-: : : 10/17/88 2.9 Ili:;fl2;7;i 2.O . ;:-•:::-::;: ::.vUn.T-.::.; DRY !;;SIS;DRY:i DRY llB|fpRY-H : 1 •".;:; v::?':v.'^;::".q O?:- 11/21/88 3.5 y^§j$M 3. I -.•:.:.!: ..:::/.•:.;-..;; ..O.O..::;| 2.9 §fiP:SS:7£ 3.9 ||lft^3;4;:;:; 12/20/88 4.3 |;|;i;;iS9,4:x:; 2.5 .;;lS.;:v;:3,2'!;;;; DRY JS'lii^. SO- 4.1 iii^^'A : :: -t £-.:y.:-'f. :••'.*•'• •:'• n. O1 :': 01/20/89 3.1 iRSSlS^ 3.3 g;i?;il; 5.^: DRY ;gl:^S|i;4;5-;;; 3 .1 :.;:;,;•••. •:•:::••;•:-,_;,:• OiDi.;;: ; / q q V.;. '-. '.•-.; ::>• q'c •• 02/1 7/89 3.0 !V"-:''-v:;-6.7:;; 3.1 '•- ftr;5.r:- 5.7 DRY O.O ....:.-: ..: .:-:-:.; O.O .; ; : ; ; ; : q o H:v:::\vv>*:;.>i".q 4-..;: AVERAGES 3.0 ;:Svi!--:t 4;5:l 3.5 ;i:il.::>::3;5-x 5.1 ;S M^2^ O.O .:.•..-•:..•.•:•:•: :.O. *+,::-:

STATION 1 -DEEP-HOLE SURFACE 1A - DEEP-HOLE BOTTOM 2 -SOUTHWEST TRIBUTARY 3 - INLET FROM HILLDALE ROAD 4 -SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 5 - CENTRAL TRIBUTARY CROSSING PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD 6 -NORTHWESTERN TRIBUTARY 7 -OUTLET

PARENTHESES INDICATE THAT THE VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF DETECTION Trr^ niim*-, ^ |H VALUES IN £} i ™ zQj I|P KIh 1 PROSPECF T LAKE - EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS 1 PHYTOPLANKTON TAXA 1 DATE TAXA CELLS/ml MAR-29-88 DIATOMS 1 TABELLARIA 10.0

APR-04-88 DIATOMS 1 FRAGILARIA 5.6 TABELLARIA 45.1 1 SYNEDRA 5.6

APR-13-88 DIATOMS 1 FRAGILARIA 2.7 TABELLARIA 2.7 1 SYNEDRA 2.7

APR-28-88 DIATOMS 1 F-PAGILARIA 8.0 NAVICULA 2.7 TABELLARIA 5.4 1 spRIRELLA 8.0 GREENS 1 CHLORELLA 18.8

MAY-13-88 DIATOMS 1 NAVtCULA 3.6 SYNEDRA 5.4 CYMBELLA 3.6 1 PJATOMELLA 5.4 TABELLARIA 1.8 BLUJE-GREENS 1 GOMPHOSPHAERIA 1.8 C^ROOCOCCUS 3.6 GREENS 1 CHORELLA 76.8 1 LJlOTHRIX 7.1 MAY-24-88 DIATOMS QOCCONEIS 2.0 1 GREENS 1 ULOTHRIX 2.0 1 LYCOTT PROSPECT LAI

DATE TAXA CELLS/ml I

JUN-10-88 DIAJOMS SYNEDRA 3.6 I IS A VICU LA 1.8 TABELLARIA 3.6 I

JUN-28-88 DIATOMS QjATOMELLA 2.7 I STAURONEIS 2.7 TABELLARIA 8.1 MERIDION 2.7 I F^AGELLARIA 2.7 COCCONEIS 2.7 GREENS I d'ERATlUM 5.4 I JUL-15-88 DIAJOMS FRAGELLARIA 8.1 BLUE-GREENS I ANABAENA 2.7 GREENS QHLAMYDOMONAS 69.9 I CERATIUM 5.4 I JUL-25-88 DIAJOMS SYNEDRA 5.4 RpAGELLARIA 21.4 I E'UNOTIA 5.4 QPCCONEIS 8.0 GREENS I CERATIUM 8.0 MALLOMONAS 58.9 I

AUG-11-88 DIATOMS TABELLARIA 1.8 I F^AGELLARIA 1.8 BLUp-GREENS QOELOSPHAERIUM 271.7 I QOMPHOSPHAERIA 10.7 ANABAENA 12.5 GREENS I CHLOROCOCCUM 48.3 CERATIUM 19.7 .A TRACHELOMONAS 3.6 ^fjn^ av I LYCOTT I 1 FPROSPECT LAK| - EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS PHYTQPLANKTON TAXA

1 DATE TAXA CELLS/ml

AUG-23-88 DIATQMS 1 NAVICULA 3.8 FR'AGELLARIA 3.8 TAJ3ELLARIA 3.8 1 BLUETGREENS CQELOSPHAERIUM 118.8 CHROOCOCCUS 222.3 1 GREEKS CHLOROCOCCUM 168.7 1 CEftATIUM 7.7

SEP-14-88 DIATQMS 1 DIATOMA 5.4 TABELLARIA 10.7 GREENS 1 COELOSPHAERIUM 198.7 CEJj^ATIUM 32.2 1 CHRYSOCOCCUS 85.9

SEP-29-88 DIATOMS 1 COpCONEIS 8.1 TA^ELLARIA 2.7 MEplDION 2.7 1 NAVICULA 8.1 1 CYgLOTELLA 21.5 OCT-18-88 DtATQMS CY^LOTELLA 2.7 1 ACHNANTHES 10.7 TA§ELLARIA 18.8 EUj-JOTIA 8.1 1 COPCONEIS 5.4 CY^IBELLA 2.7 1 NAVICULA 2.7

NOV-22-88 GREENS 1 ANJ

* I *** LYCOTT I APPENDIX F

LYcorn PROSPECT LAKE - MONITORING WELL DATA

WELL DATE CONDUCTANCE TKN AMMONIA DISSOLVED NITRATE CHLORIDE FECAL FECAL NUMBER NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS COLIFORM STREP (mlios) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/l) (WlOOml) (SI 100ml)

i 07/25/88 450 0.12 0.014 (0.005) 1.70 80 10 ! 12/20/88 250 (0.10) 0.006 (0.005) (0.10) 38 (10) (10) 1 02/17/39 170 0.33 0-040 (0.005) 2.00 42 (10) (10) AVERAGE 290 O.IS 0-020 0.005 %27 53 lllft % jtt 10 2 07/25/38 230 0.22 0-035 -(0.005) '2.60 12 •no) 40 2 12/20/38 240 (0.10) 0.005 (0.005) (0.10) [S (10) 10 2 02/17/89 200 0.37 0.076 (0.005) 2.90 56 (10) (10) AVERAGE 223 0.23 0.039 0.005 1.87 29 10 0 -^ 20 3 07/25/88 420 0.37 0.013 0.25 12 2,200 10 3 12/20/88 320 (0.10) 0.003 (0.005) 1.30 12 (10) 10 3 02/17/89 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY ? .AVERAGE !•:]:;,'' 3 0 0,24 0.003 0.005 0.78 12 ;;i.;.:;. ..'" 1,105 . . .• .10 4 07/25/83 350 0.48 0.117 0.020 0.34 a (10) ' (10) 4 12/20/88 280 (0,10) 0.007 (0.005) 1.70 12 (10) 10 4 02/17/89 250 0.50 0.091 (0.005) 1.60 32 (10) (10) : : 1 AVERAGE 293 0.36 0.072 0.010 : ' ;i'.2i' 17 " V!. ": ' 10 10 5 07/25/SS 650 0.14 0.039 (0.005) 2.10 12 (10) 60 5 12/20/38 670 0.16 0.003 (0.005) 0.17 21 (10) '(10) 10 5 02/I7/S9 490 0.60 0.035 (0.005) 1.60 93 < > (10) AVERAGE 603 0.30 0.026 0.005 1.29 42 '\, ,::.- 10 ^•p ;;;.,,,: 27 6 07/25/38 540 0.50 0.183 1.70 20 1.470 5,740 6 12/20/83 590 0.23 0.003 (0.005) 1. 10 15 (10) (10) 6 02/1 7/S9 DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY DRY : AVERAGE 565 0.39 0-093 0.005 1.40 18 fpib 2,875 7 07/25/38 ISO 0.53 0.016 (0.005) O.IS 20 120 3,200 7 12/20/33 89 (0.10) 0.006 (0.005) 1.70 12 (10 40 7 02/1 7/S9 120 0.19 0.047 (0.005) 1.40 75 (10 (10) AVERAGE 120 0.29 0.023 0.005 1.09 j 36 : 47 ,v :•;>/. 1,083 r~ ~ -~ L §1 s—i if Ml ™ APPENDIX G

ILYCOTTI PROSPECT LAKE - STORM WATER QUALITY

DATE SAMPLE FECAL FECAL CHLORIDE CONDUC- TURBIDITY SUSPENDED NITRATE AMMONIA TKN TOTAL LOCATION COLIFORM STREP TANCE SOLIDS NITROGEN NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS (#/100ml) (#/100ml) (mg/l) (mhos) (NTU) (mg/l) _ fmg/l) _ (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

07/09/88 DRM (10) 41,400 6.8 123 15 400 1.00 0.318 0.43 0.407 : 07/09/88 DR#8 . 2.140 ':- .-1,500 20 224 >:,-- 13 ••;.% 233 ;•;•..• f - ')i;iO -":',:'.. °-^5 ;••..,; -."0.36. 'v- 0;169

07/12/88 DR#2 . 3.100 12,200 15 240 12 290 0.27 0.166 0.90 0.247 07/12/88 v DR ff4 920 ;;7.io

I APPENDIX H

LYCOTT 1 1

!"V'-,spr..r:t I.. 3 ho Area 1 K i ;sh :i. rtrj L :i. c (-»n '•:•-. £••<••;

1 87 Lenox; (Loretts Bosworth - (413) 637-1511) r« | SIci-r 70 s IS <-::(" 70 : PA '! -f'i r.;:-hinu ) 1 <:•>'.: i •'•'-? r, 6 <*f i Hsii ing ) N .i. sc: .- ;: :! < f 3 Eh i Vin ) "i ,- Hi;~> - r- ciO > "i1 j. F!('5 i nQ > " 7 day-? " 13 < 'f'i. sl'ii -nq )

£„ citi^evs ;•• GS ? =sport inq 5 - 67 «. IP (sporting) 1 •;38 Lse: (Pat Car lino (413) 'S43-S1OO)

19 38 Eqremont :

1 ' " '-.if (li.- J. <-_• i.- <..<-:l J. .' i.V. //•':! T

« 1988 West Stocktvridqe :

Bp :::> .(. d'v-l E 1, i .1 '--; ; i ; -,(.| " 49 fii i "io i'" 'S- j c IriOi i-resident r. S F. ~\ r-i ^ 1 1

gig A ^./•K I LPt >03:1 tL LYCOTT APPENDIX I PROSPECT LAKE, EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS LEACHATE SAMPLING OCTOBER 17, 1988

TOTAL FECAL FECAL TOTAL SAMPLE NITRATE AMMONIA SODIUM COLIFORM COLIFORM STREP. PHOSPHORUS LOCATION (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (#/100ml) (#/100ml) (#/100ml) (mg/i)

#1 (0.10) 0.014 3.59 410 8 110 0.166 #2 (0.10) 0.015 3.56 40 3 80 (0.020) #3 (0.10) 0.015 3.72 30 0 150 (0.020)

SAMPLE LOCATION #1- SOUTHERN STATION - PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD #2 - CENTER STATION - PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD #3 - NORTHERN STATION - PROSPECT HEIGHTS ROAD APPENDIX J

LYCOTT I I I ANALYTICAL METHODS Analytical methods used are found in either 40 CFR 136 Oct. 1984, for organic priority pollutants (600 series), the EPA 500 series, SW*846 3rd ed. (8000 series), or EPA Methods I for Chemical analysis of Water and Wastes, March 1983. Sample preservation techniques in each manual are followed.

I ACCURACY AND PRECISION Lycott follows the philosophy and procedures in the EPA I manual "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories" EPA 600 / 4-79-019. For those analyses performed'under 40 CFR 136 i.e. organic priority pollutants, the Quality Control procedures in paragraph 8 for I each method are employed. For those analyses in SW-846 3rd ed., the procedure^ under each method's Quality Control section are followed. I For those analyses from "Standard Methods" and "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", March 1983, 10% of all samples are .repeated, and 10% are spiked and re-analyzed. All Accuracy and precision data are kept in I laboratory notebooks. These data are then plotted on quality control charts witt) each successive analysis being compared I with the existing tipper and lower control limits. Lycott also analyzes blind samples from a commercial supplier, and samples from EPA in addition to the EPA external Quality Assurance Program. The commercial QC I samples are analyzed monthly, and the EPA QC samples are analyzed quarterly? Each analyst is provided monthly with a I performance assessment on these samples. I I I I I I I LYCOTT I I LABORATORY INSTRUMENTATION GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPECTROMETER - Hewlett Packard 5995C ^ Valveless. Packed^or Capillary operation. Accuracy: +/-0.1 amu Detection Limit: microgram range to picogram range. •

GAS CHROMATOGRAPH -? Tracer 560 Equipped with Hali;/700A Electolytic Conductivity Detector and Tracer Flame lonization Detector. I Sensitivity: 5 x 10 - 13 Cl/sec (Hall) • 4 x JO - 11 amps (FID)

GAS CHROMATOGRAPH ^ Tracor 550 I Equipped with dual"Nickel - 63 electron capture detectors ™ Detection Limit: picogram range SAMPLE CONCENTRATORS - (2) Tekmar LSC - 2 I For purging volatile organics onto gas chromatographs

AUTOMATED SAMPLE PURGER - Tekmar ALS • ? I AUTOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETER - Perkin-Elmer 1100B Single beam instrument with air/acetylene and nitrous _ oxide/acetylene capability. Also equipped for cold vapor • mercury determinations. • FURNACE - Perkin-Elmer HGA 700 / AS 70 Autosampler • Graphite furnace f-^r picogram level determinations. Also I equipped with As ajid Se electodeless discharge lamps. SPECTROPHOTOMETER *- Bausch & lomb Spectronic 88 • Single beam instrument. Accuracy: <1.0 nm | Sensitivity: 0.002;. abs Detection limit: microgram range. PH/ION METERS - Fisher models 825MP and 915MP • Microprocessed units with digital readouts. Equipped with • Nitrate sensing electrode. Orion model 9307 ammonia sensing electrode. Orion-model 9512, and Fisher AccupHast electrode. « Accuracy: +/- 0.2:mV Sensitivity: 0.1 mV I ANALYTICAL BALANCE - Mettler H31AR Range: 0.160 g • Accuracy: 0.1 mg | Sensitivity: 0.05 mg Detection Limit: 0.1 mg _ CONDUCTANCE METER r- Yellow Springs Instruments Co. Model 35 • All glass probe. Digital readout. Accuracy: 0.05 umho H Sensitivity: 0.01.umho I i i i I I FLASH POINT TESTEg - Boekel Model 152800 I Closed cup with two speed stirrer. Accuracy: +/- IF Sensitivity: +/4 0.5F I LABORATORY OVEN V Precision Scientific Model 18 Accuracy: +/- 2C Sensitivity: +/-; 0.5C I AUTOCLAVE - Peltqn and Crane Model OCR Steam or dry sterilization INCUBATOR - Precision Scientific Model 2 I Sensitivity: 0.1C INCUBATOR BATH -.precision Scientific Model 66850 I Accuracy: +/- 0.2C TURBIDITY METER ~. HF Instruments Model DRT 15 Accuracy: +/- 1% I Sensitivity: 0.02 NTU DISSOLVED OXYGEN METER - Yellow Springs Instruments Model 57 Accuracy: +/- 0.05 mg/1 I Sensitivity: 0.03 mg/1 FURNACE - Thermolyne Model 1500 I Range: 100-1200 C I INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION PROCEDURES GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS. SPECTROMETER - All runs made with internal standards for calibration. Instrument tuned to DRTPP daily. Benzidine and I Pentachloropherjpl tailing factors checked daily. Response factors updated" regularly. All calculations performed by data system. Standards are from high purity (>95%) neat I compounds, volatiles replaced monthly, semi-volatiles replaced every #ix months.

GAS CHRQMATOGRRPHS - I All standard solutions are from high purity (>95%) neat compounds. Vol'atiles replaced monthly, and semi-volatiles replaced every six months. Instruments calibrated with standard solutions every eight hours. External standard I calibration method used. . t ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETER - I All standard solutions are from certified concentrates and checked against EPA Quality Control samples. Instrument calibration performed prior to every element determination, Recalibration i£ every fifteen minutes for each element. I Five point calibration curves used. I I LYCOTT I I SPECTROPHOTOMETER - • All standard solutions made from ACS reagent grade or p better. All analyses immediately preceded by standard curve determination. Five point calibration is updated every four hours. •

PH MEASUREMENTS -j Two point calibration on pH 4 and pH 10 certified buffers. _ Calibration updated every two hours. •

SPECIFIC IONS WITH METERS - Multipoint calibration with standard solutions made from • ACS reagent graide or better. Calibration updated every two •

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE - • Electronics faqtory calibrated. Probe constant calculated | with EPA Quality Control Solutions. Calibration checked with EBA Quality Control Solutions regularly.

FLASH POINT - NBS traceable thermometers used. Xylene standard solution used for quality control. «

ANALYTICAL BALANCE - ™ Calibrated by pettier annually. Calibration checked with NBS every six n^onths. •

LABORATORY OVEN AND INCUBATORS - Temperature recorded daily. Thermometers checked against I NBS every six months.

AUTOCLAVxwyijjA vE £ i -— • Temperature recorded from each usage. •

TURBIDITY METER - Calibrated in EPA certified solutions every two hours. i i i i i i LYCOTT i I I I CALCULATION PROCEDURES GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPECTROMETER - All calculations;^are performed by the data system based on I input information. Data are retained on disc file. GAS CHROMATOGRAPHS - All calculations, are performed by a Hewlett-Packard reporting integrator based on input information. I Chromatograms ar^ retained in laboratory notebooks. ATOMIC ABSORPTION &PECTROPHOTOMETER - All calculations^are performed from a linear calibration I curve using linear regression analysis internal in the instrument. All--data are retained in laboratory notebooks, I SPECTROPHOTOMETER ~ Same as the Atomic Absorption above except that the regression is done on a calculator. I ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE - Readings are tak|n directly by the instrument which also I performs the necessary calculations. I I MSOO2B I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX K fl LYCOTT I I Calculation of Averages - For the purposes of data analysis, Lycott calculate^ several different types of averages, also I called means. For the most part, reported averages were simply the sum of all observations divided by the number of observations. TJiis result was termed the "simple average." However, for means that were used to estimate total flows or I nutrient loading: over the year, means were "flow-weighted" and/or "time-weighted" to remove the bias of irregular I sampling or irregular flows. The rationale for this is the following. Because samples were taken once each month from October to March, and twice each month"= from April to September, calculating a I simple average would bias the average toward conditions found from April to September. This could underestimate the yearly flow, because th£ summer and fall tend to have much lower I flow than the winter. Time-weighting consisted of taking an average flow for each month, and then taking an average for the two samples I for bimonthly sampling periods, and using this average monthly flow to calculate a yearly average Time-weighted mean = (Jan. flow + Feb. flow + Average -, v I March flow + Average April flow + + Dec. flow) / 12 Flow-weighted averages were calculated such that sample I concentrations were weighted by the amount of water associated with that concentration. I Flow-weighted = [concentration of sample 1 * sample 1 flow + average '-concentration of sample 2 * sample 2 flow + .... ] / total flow of all samples I A special mean, the geometric mean, was calculated for the Secchi disc find bacterial numbers. This mean is the product of all observations taken to the nth root, where n is I the number of observations. The formula is below. Geometric = [Sample1 * Sample2 * ... * Samplen] " (Vn) I When calculating any mean, samples whose concentrations were below the level of detection were set equal to the limit of detection. For example, samples whose phosphorus concentrations were less than the detection limit 0.005 mg/1 I were set equal t6 0.005 mg/1. However, for calculation of geometric means,^samples whose values were less than the I limit of detectipn were set equal to 1. I I I APPENDIX L

LYCOTT I ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM I I SUMMARY A. Project Identification 1. Project Name Prospect Lake I Address/L.ocalion Egremont Hillside Road City/Towi} Egremont, MA 2. Project Proponent Town of Egremont I Address J Town Hall 3. Est. ComMiencemenl Sept. 1, 1991 . £sl. Completion Sept. 1, 1994 Approx. Cost $ 39.560.00 . Status of Project Design 50 % Complete. I 4. Amount (ij any) of bordering vegetated wetlands, salt marsh, or tidelands to be dredged, filled, remyved, or altered (other than by receipt of runoff) as a result of (lie project. ~ o 0 acres u square leet. I 5, This project is categorically included and therefore requires preparation of an E1K. Yes X j:. No ? I B. Narrative Project Description Describe project anil site.

I See Attached I I I I I I I Copies of (he complete IiNF may he obtained from (proponent or agent): I Name: Lee Lyman,. President Firm/Aqcncy: Lycott Environmental Research, Inc Address: 600 CharUon Street, Southbridgpi ,' . No. (508) 765-0101 i irt lt I 1987 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED. I For Information, call (617) 727-5830 P.2 I 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. I D.E.P. Wetlands Division Order of Conditions

Springfield *3 I { ' ™ Division of Waterway! Dam Safety Permit I D. List any government agencies or programs from which the proponent will seek financial assistance for this project: : • Agency Name Funding Amount I

None • I E. Areas o( potential impact (complete Sections II and III first, before completing this section). 1. Check all areas in whjch, in the proponent's judgment, an impact of this project may occur. Positive I impacts, as well as adverse impacts, may be indicated. B

Construction Long Term Impacts Impacts I Inland Wetlands ...... _ £ _ _ £ _ Coastal Wetlands/Beaches...... _ - Tidelands...... _ - Traffic...... ,...... _ - Open Space/Recreation ...... _ X _ - X - _ Historical/Archaeological ...... _ - I Fisheries/Wildlife...... _ X _ _ X _ • Vegetation/Trees ...... _ X _ _ - - Agricultural Lands...... _ - I Water Pollution ...... _ - ' Water Supply/Use...... _ _. _ - Solid Waste ...... _ _ , Hazardous Materials...... --- - _ - I Air Pollution...... _ - Noise...... _ - Wind/Shadow...... _ - l Aesthetics...... _ X _ - X - Growth Impacts ...... , ...... _ - : - • Community/Housing and the I Built Environment ...... - - Other (-Specify)— Human ftealth and safety as well as insect life.

2. List the alternatives whjch have been considered. I See attached- I I I I I PROJECT SUMMARY Prospect Lake is a small, moderately deep lake located within the Town 6f Egremont, Massachusetts. In many ways, I this man-made la)£e is typical of many lakes and ponds in Massachusetts ancj the nation as a whole. Originally pristine, rural, -and surrounded by a number of summer camps, the shoreline of -Prospect Lake now supports a more dense I concentration of permanent residences which probably contributed to the accelerating eutrophication of the lake. I Lycott Environmental Research, Inc. of Southbridge, Massachusetts was contracted to perform a Diagnostic / Feasibility study of the lake. The study consisted of a Diagnostic Phase'— a detailed study of the physical, I chemical, and biological aspects of the lake and its watershed, — an4 a Feasibility Phase — in which methods of rehabilitation and remediation were evaluated and recommended I for implementation. The results :of the Diagnostic Phase indicate that the Lake undergoes nutrient input from land use characteristics, I particularly agricultural land use, and nuisance growths of aquatic plants. 'The outlets structure was determined to be in need of moderate repairs. I To remedy tl^e amount of nutrients moving into the pond and levels of aquatic plant growth, Lycott has proposed a series of management techniques to improve water quality in the pond. Specifically, Lycott has proposed a five step I management progr4m aimed at reducing nutrient inputs and the growths of nuisance aquatic plants. I 1. Implementation of Water Level Drawdown - This method should b4 used to control the level of plant growth in the shoreline areas of the pond. Nuisance aquatic plants ir) the pond reduce recreational, aesthetic, I and property values. 2. Construction of an Infiltration/Nutrient Filter - The placement* of a ten foot filter would reduce nutrient I inputs from agricultural lands within the Prospect Lake watershed. According to Lycott!s calculations, agricultural runoff is a major source of phosphorus I to the lake. 3. Watershed Management Program - The Watershed Management Program would reduce nutrient input to the I lake through improved land use planning, a reduction of nutrient input by home owners, and a public education!program aimed at teaching residents basic lake and pond dynamics and methods of lake and I watershed'management. I I 4. Repair of the Outlet Structure - The repair of the • current outlet structure would increase the safety of • the structure, at the same time assisting in the • ability to conduct water-level drawdown.

including the analysis ot lajce water ana several surveys qf aquatic plants and fisheries, would be done throughout the year to determine the success of • drawdown and of the other remediation techniques. B

Before any decision can be made about which management/ B restoration optiqns should be pursued, the residents and • users of Prospect Lake, and the Town of Egremont, must establish the ultimate cfoals of the restoration or management • operation. The advisability of a technique can be evaluated B and ranked only |.n reference to these predetermined objectives. •;. I I I i I I I I I i i i I I I Prospect Lake, Town of Egremont 2. List the alternatives which have been considered. I A. No Action - would mean the lake would continue to silt i£ and vegetation/eutrophication will continue to escalate which will render the lake unuseable by I the citizens of the Commonwealth for fishing, swimming, boating and other activities related to I open waiter bodies and land under water. B. Dredging - will not necessarily solve aquatic vegetation problems—regrowth of aquatic vegetation will likely occur. This would destroy significant I numbers of fish, wildlife and other benthic organisms. I C. Mechanical Methods - would adversely affect non- target ;plants and other aquatic organisms. It would also cause fragmentation of the weeds together with I increasing the turbidity of the water downstream. D. All otj^er in-lake and long-term watershed management alternatives have been assessed and are outlined in I the Diagnostic/Feasibility Study conducted on this I lake. I I I I I I I I P.3 I F. Has lliis project been filed with EOEA before? No Yes EOEA No. I I G. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS 1. Will an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (c.131s.40) or a License under I the Waterways Act (c.91) be required? Yes X NO j; 2. Has a local Ordei of Conditions been: a. issued? Date of issuance No ; DEQE File No b. appealed? Yes? ; No x . 3. Will a variance from the Wetlands or Waterways Regulations be required? Yes —, ; Nn Y I I II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Map; site plan. Include an original 8'/2 x 11 inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S. I 7.5 minute series scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly shown. If available, attach a site plan of the proposed project. Attached I

B. State total area of project: 55 acres. Estimate the nunjber of acres (to the nearest 1/10 acre) directly affected that are currently: I 1. Developed .. . , ...... _ Q _ acres 6. Tidelands ...... _ Q_ acres 2. Open Space/ 7. Productive Resources Woodlands/Recreation 55 acres Agriculture acres I Wetlands 55 acres Forestry acres 4. Floodplain .. acres 8. Other ...... *•'*• acres 5. Coastal Area acres I I C. Provide the following dimensions, if applicable: Existing Increase Total Length in miles .6 Number of Housing Units N/A I Number of Stories N/A Gross Floor Area in square feet N/A Number of parking spaces N/A I Total of Daily vehicle trips to and from site (Total Trip Ends) N/A Estimated Average Daily Traffic on road(s) I serving site N/A 1, N/A 2; N/A 3. N/A I I D. TRAFFIC PLAN. If the proposed project will require any permit for access to local roads or state highways, attach a sketch showing the location and layout of the proposed driveway(s). I I P.4 I III. ASSESSMENT OF PQTENTIAL 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 ijplikely 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.

I A. Open Space and Recreation 1. Might the project affect the condition, use, or access to any open space and/or recreation area? Yes; I Explanation and. Source: During drawdown in the fall most recreational activities on the lake I will be hampered. 2. Is the project site within 500 feet of any public open space, recreation, or conservation land? Explanation an$Source: Yes, The entire 55-acre lake is open space and is used I for recreation. I B. Historic and Archaeological Resources 1. Might any site^or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? (Prior I consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) Expfanafion ami Source:

I No

I 2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) Explanation anil Source: I No. Other th^n the 1/2 acre of nutrient filter which will be constructed on a roadside area. (See D/F Study) There will be no additional alteration I of land. 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). Expfanafion aniJ Source; I No. There are no known wetland species associated with this lake. I I I P.5 I

2. Might the project sjgnificantly affect vegetation, especially any rare or endangered species • of plant? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised.) • (Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: _ ) Exp/anation and Spurce; I

Yes. There will be approximately five to ten trees removed during the construction of the nutrient filter. The only other vegetation that will _ be altered is the aquatic vegetation that is growing in Prospect Lake. H There are no knqwn endangered species involved according to the Natural Heritage Foundation.

3. Agricultural Land. Has any portion of the site been in agricultural use within the last 15 years? ~ If yes, specify use end acreage. Explanation and Spurce: I Yes. A substantial portion of the watershed for Prospect Lake is, and has been agricultural land. This is the primary reason for the mm nutrient filter to be constructed. I I D. Water Quality and Quantity 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns? • Explanation and • No I I 2. Might the project result in the introduction of any pollutants, including sediments, into marine waters, surface frqsh waters or ground water? I Explanation and Source: No I I 3. Does the project involve any dredging? No v- Yes Volume If 10,000 cy or more, attac|i completed Standard Application Form for Water Quality Certification, Part I (314 CMR 9 02(3), 9.90, DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control). : I i I I I P.6 4. Will any part of the project be located in flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other 1 waterways? (Prior consultation with the DEQE and CZM is advised.) Explanation and* Source: • Yes. Prospect Lake is a great pond. I

5. Will the project generate or convey sanitary sewage? No v Yes ; I If Yes, Quantity: :; gallons per day Disposal by: (a) Qnsite septic systems Yes No (b) public sewerage systems (location; average and peak daily flows to I treatment works) Yes No - Explanation and Source: I I

6. Might the project result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a sole source I aquiler or an aquifer.recognized as an important present or future source of water supply? Explanation and Source: I No I

I 7. Is the project in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply?' Explanation and Soprce: I No I

8. Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a 1/2-mile radius of the proposed I project? Explanation and Source: I Yes. The entire shoreline (all the residents have private wells). According to a questionnaire which was distributed, only six of the wells are shallow and I may be affected as a result of the proposed water-level drawdown. I I P.7 I

9. Does (he operation of the project result in any increased consumption of water? NO I Approximate consumption gallons per day. Likely water source(s) Explanation and Source: • I

E. Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials i• 1. Estimate types an^l approximate amounts of waste materials generated, e.g., industrial, domestic, hospital, sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures. How/ • where will such waste be disposed of? I Explanation and Source:

No I I

2. Might the project involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, release, or disposal I of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and Source; I No I

3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release, I or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and ^ource: •

No I

F, Energy Use and Air Quality I 1. Will space heating be provided for the project? If so, describe the type, energy source, and approximate energy consumption. • Explanation and £>ource: No I I I I P.8 2. Will the project require process heat or steam? If so, describe the proposed system, the (uel I type, and approximate fuel usage. I Explanation and Source; I No 3. Does the project include industrial processes that will release air contaminants to the I atmosphere? If so, describe the process (type, material released, and quantity released). Explanation and Source; I No I I 4. Are there any other spurces of air contamination associated with the project (e.g. automobile traffic, aircraft traffic, volatile organic compound storage, construction dust)? Explanation ana* Source:

I No I

I 5. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g. hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by air contamination caused by the project? I Explanation and Source; I No I G. Noise 1. Might the project result in the generation of noise? I (Include any source of noise during construction or operation, e.g., engine exhaust, pile driving, traffic.) I Exp/anad'on and Source; Only during the construction of the nutrient filter. This will involve I the use of smal^ construction equipment for a period of one week. I I P.9

2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be • affected by any noise caused by the project? Explanation anc( Source: I

The local residents may be affected by the noise associated with _ the construction of the nutrient filter. I

3. Is the project a sensitive receptor, sited in an area of significant ambient noise? ™ Explanation ancj Source: _ No I

H, Wind and Shadow I 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties? Explanation ana* Source; I No 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 • significant differences in land use? | Expfanaf/on an.$ Source: No I I

2. Might the project impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas? • Exp/anafion and Source: • Yes. During the drawdown in the fall there will be a negative visual _ impact for water-front residents. However, these residents will benefit • from the management program as a result of the reduction of excessive aquatic vegetative growth. I I 1 P.10 1 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING

1 Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space, recreation and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning 1 authorities where appropriate. 1 Under the Wetlands Regulations, the management of excessive • vegetative growth in lakes and ponds is definitely allowed. 1 We refer to' 310 CMR 10.54 through 1057. . 1 1 1 V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION

1 A. The public notice of environmental review has been/will be published in the following 1 newspaper(s): (NAMF) The Berkshire Record (Hat*>\ 1 Great Barrington, MA 1 1 B. This form has been circulated to all agencies and persons as required by 301 CMR 11.24.

1 v^ ~f ///Z^• v^.~ f 9TllSsbtf •%? r S-•- —^Sst * * —, 1 Date Signature of Responsible Officer Date Signature/of person preparing • or project Proponent ENF (if'Qifferent from above) Lee Lyman Naime (print or type) Name (print or type) Lycott Environmental Research AHHrp« A«4Hr«>« 600 Charlton Street Southbridee, MA 01550 1 Tolpphonp Niimhpr TolpphonP Number 508-765-0101 I FORMS OF NOTICE | (1) PUBLIC NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PROJECT: Management of aquatic vegetation in Prospect Lake _ ' (Brief description of project) I

LOCATION: Egremont Hillside Road, Town of Efiremont, MA

PROPONENT: Town of ggremont • The undersigned is submitting an Environmental Notification Form ("ENF") to the Secretary of Environmental I Affairs on or before ! (Date) This will initiate review of the abpve project pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA", •

G.L. c. 30, sees. 61, 62-62H). Copies of the ENF may be obtained from: •

Environmental Research, Inc. 600 Charlton St.. Southhridge. MA 01SSD (Nanie, address, phone number of proponent or proponent's agent) _

Copies of the ENF are also being sent to the Conservation Commission and Planning Board of Egremont , m (Municipality) where they may be inspected. I The Secretary of Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor, will receiver public comments on the project (or twenty days, and will then decide, within ten days, if an Environmental Impact I Report is needed. A site visit and consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. AH 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, reierencing I the above project. *

By : : • (proponent) • I I I I I I SCALE: 1" = 2050'

0 feet 2050 4100 DATE: November 1990

E/COfT MILESTONE WORK SCHEDULE

ITEM YEAH 1992 1931 139S

QUARTER 1 ! 3 1 1231 1 2 3 • 1231 1 2 3 1 DAM REPAIRS

SLUICE GATE REPAIRS XXXXX ".'•-.? -::- --:::-.--•*.•.• ------"v, f flEE AWO'flFUSH H£MOV*i !y'V ... '»bbc.i '" :":". '• i1:. .-•.••/-^ - .: r/' 'i'i':.1'.' ! : ,?• c:^

IN -CAM MANAOEUENT

WATER LEVEL DRAWDOWN xxxx»cyxx xxxxxxx»axx losceecoomx wccccoeo5«X JQGCOOOOl

NU1BIINT LOADINQ REDUCTION -

INSTALL BUFFER STRIP XXXJO EgfTic ^^xn INSPECTION ;..';' ^*. :-••<& &•:-- ^ • •-. JTilUfeJK

PHASE II MONITORING PROGRAM

UACHOPHYTE SURVEYS X X X X X X X X f : pwsiiHVEY ::-;*: ji^iiHl ':!.....:.¥..." . . ~'.[. -ffi ••';'$'•''• ..'*;-:- : .:;,. •// ''" -?- -

STREAM MOWIOHING xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXX IXXXXXXXXI y x x x x x x

PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM xxwotxxwooot APPENDIX H

LYCOTT I MASSACHUSETTS pIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH I WESJVIEW BLDG., LYMAN SCHOOL I ROUTE 9, WESTBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01581 I ROUTING AND TRAMSMITTAL SLIP I I i i i Information requested For your file For appropriate action (^ J For review i fj Please reply (f J Note and return fj For signature Comments requested

i fj For your information r J Respond as soon as i possible •i "' REMARKS: i i i i i i i i f*

' IL ' - • -^ ' - ." ' \ ' HP

*#^^Tim^^^^^«^^ KB^e«W!p^B¥«M|«W«WW«B??!»^^ ] . Division of Wateif Pollution Control •Technical Services Branch- v • -.-..-.-.;..••, -.--•. .1 .- ,.... v .,V:--.,.,-,^;,^,,v^^^ ! -"SURVEY SHEET--.-"-:v f:-..-,.-./.-i, <:-.--^,, -^,, ......

TYPE OF SURVEY' Kl^'y/'''! \?Y

/-~^x " -,,V J ; . - '. C ' -^J- f LAKF/POND/IUP. • i -- l OCATION 7" m •* f-* ^» '

^*— • •" . -~,H ORAINAfiF RASIN -:" ' S: — ••— - : j. ' pATF ^ "M ^ 1 5 5

COLtFCTORfSJ U-V/ £^4/f aeccHi DISK: 1 ^ *. A ,. WEATHER: Time ' ^ • ' ' ' ' ' • • 'N i : y i^- Air Temperature _ Transparency ^ - '^ /'•i

WJnd *> L*J> ^ '- / " A- 0-> Water Surfacs T '^ - f ' -s^ '-*

: Cloud Cover '"75 Water Color ^r Ot ^ • '^ - '-' ^ -t \f. t ^

ota. Water Dfssolved Spec. Metal Chemical Bfofogfcaf Depth (M) PH Othor Temp.( C) Oxygen Cond. Samples Samples Samples I

3 O R-4 <,9- jf.,2 ^S'^7 U- <^ ^ TJF , 9-'.-'- o?^.^ r'.?' 9,^ /-T"7 ^ u- u- T-/r qfcrot I //n • 53/c/ f^<^- ?/5 T7 O( A a^-^ T-V 9. ^ K7 M I JO). cP^, 7 1ft £\ a /?7 i^- L- ^•Al. 19.5" ")'^ "7-0 1T*=? I J .6^ /r,s ^'T? "7'V- tfo ^ t^ i^ Tf-^" 0/>1 ^ «/,^ p-J "7' 6? Ibl ^\~s (^ T-tF ^ I

•• . 1 ' -' t t I

- - . I •'-(' .' : '• ' * '

v I

- I ;:; REMARKS: V , : '?•• ;'•;••'_• /;; ": •-,-•-: v I •:•/*..-•

.-:> fLOW 5HEETS-AI /ACHhOf ti tatjonta; - preserved with H2SO4 i - :•- HYDROLAB pH. temp.. D.O*.speclllc conductivity I I ... I *J" /; a^t : >{..'LES: alkallr orlde.^total collform. (ecal colilorrn. TKN. NO3. NH3. JP. TS. SS, "••'-'• VldrJ " ": '• "'"""••" I iiia^^

OEQ£-DWPC* Technical Services Branch '^^^^^^jt^^^^i^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!^^

P. i t;^,\t r i

PHWC- Technical Services Branch plfii*^^ 1 .-• • • . wAS7E W^Trtl "iX AiiALXSIS "~ • {mo. per. .liter) . •. ."•..- •' V' • -.: •"-..-.- . " ^' : : "•"-'i-i •'' '•- ••' '•'••'- '•'--,-/.. i;J'A;^>:--. ' ;; -/l'-^v;V;iV; j 'f i'"'^':' J 1 ry*Hf**S!Tp'?'lft^ (S ^"*j* *W3&?FSWi' %w V• • mw ^e^raw^w?^^^ ] i 1 •'*• ....SOURCE A Egreraont Prospect Lake, Sta. 1 surface „ , . SOURCE 3 Egrenont , Progpect , Sta.1 surface SOURCE C Egremont , Prospect Lake , Sta.1; (1^3. 75 neters SOURCE D Egremont , Progpect Lake , Sta. 1; u-3.75 meters SOURCE E Egreqont , Prospect Lake , Sta.2 1 3OUP.CE F Egrenont , Prospect Lake , Sta. 2 1 A 3 c D E" r i i , t SAMPLE ;JO . R9876 R9377 1 R9878 ! R9879 i RQ880 RQ^8l '

I DACZ CF CCt-lZCTIOM 7/8/85 - | , X, TT't^: DF cr^-,~c^~r,^ t T "" T .. --Trp_X, 1 ? I : S V (•' • % •• / i - : 7/Q/Ar i .'- • •. r* 2^^_L_Li• . , • -O^ ^" I 1 f L ii **" • COO ; t> : v '- ;- • -BCD ru E i I v: r.-, l? ; , r,V> i ,M n v • —,, — ,_., ! H1 o?H« .- m i ALI-CVLI^IITY, TOTAL 39 85 77 pHTR Alkalinity 3.0. sus?H:roEo SOLIDS 1.0 9.0 U.5

TOTAL SOLIDS 120.' 160 120 Srec . Conducttvit r #0 166 150 I "• Hardness *' 50 76 71 TOTAL -CliLDAHL - M 1.3 1.6 1.2 • AMKCNIA - M 0.30 0.20 0.07

NITHATZ - M o.o .. 0.0 0.0 f- — TOTAL ? 0.0? o.ou 0.03 1 TOTAL COLIFORM | FECAL CCLIFCRM - '.

CHLORIDE 1.0 2.0 0.0 • ' . ... . i

5 • ! ".- '-.i"""-'-. ' " ' ';••-••.- .-•:. ' 1 " ,,-,- .: _-; • --, •-.'.-"••• 1

I ; •;•. v'» te'•'.IV-it^ s«.*••*.': ; I x EKIME rr STAT E •^E''^^-'^^ ,v--^-lvv,^^w^- C-.,- ^ - - SLrt^-'^ ereaont•- Lakes >U>;^i7-Vv;^^.— y$&0$$^ —.;., r,..,,^,^;.;^,;.::^ .;:Y,;;yl| J - "''"•' (me. per liter) • ". • " • v ?^'']^^'$f^ttn1^ H ...... -.•.-:-.-: ..:•••::...",..:.•.. Collector :.,.. .icvoy ••ifci- 1 -'^iii" "; ^"^''a'-'V'"^- •"''- "•-•' -•'•'•• ;i:- ^^fi|^?Sfe^l^i!§®^^S^ *^^^S^§^5^^^P^^?^^^lE^.^i^|^ • •--•.) SOURCE A ,,>,,Egremont» Prospect Lake, #3 ...... : r :; .,..-, #3 ,.:..'?': .'" • ,;;;.".. ,....' - - ^ ' ^--- ' - •.-•'-.-•".* -souses c " . !! » #**' outlet " tl if)< " SC'TRCE D * ;' » ff11 SGU3CH E V SOURCE ? - 1

A BCD 1 ! SAMPLE NO. I R9832- R9633 R988U i H9^85 • DATE OF COLLECTION 7/R/Ac ._ ..... ' *x ; 1 T-"*- nr -~.7--r-'^M (Trnh ;v... ! i 1 . , ."^ 1 | - COD " -SOD ' 1 pK " ' i ; ALKALINITY, TOTAL 8U . * 1 i '" _ SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1 Q.O ( * ) ^ -h 5.0 1

TOTAL SOLIDS lUO - (^T -4 no Conductivity 171 •' 1 -- i ! Hardness T8 66 1 TOTAL XISLDAHL - M 0.95 l.b AT^MCNtA - N 0.16 0.31 1

SIT3ATS - M | 0.1 0.5 - TOTAL P 6*. 03 0.03 1

? 1 ; ; TOTAL COLIFOR.M i * -^ r^ c"- '? ^ « - '1 ^ « i rv- - : 7i ^ ".'; f ; '.•. \~- -'•.' FECAL CCLIFCP.M ,, i J-""' £'T V :^ - -' V .' ;'J 1 CHLORIDE 2.0 ;/: » 1 K •••- V <. ) -:. -, •.-.">•'. • ." v ' :-• ! l-r-.^-./ ". i •• ' ? A "i ^ ' 1 * * *" ' ~ * '••1 L .'.,::/ ™* ' * Improperly Preserveld (acidified) 1; . . .L -. ..-. - - •-• -.- ••-..••,,--• ,- .-,.-,'-!! .;. , 1i ..,..,.-I . 1 ... 1

: : : : : ; -^'^-^S^^^ ^•-?-^S: ^:: ^-:^"'^.:>^^': ,.:;-V"-' .. -J.V"- V-: -!•"'•"'•-' / ^^V'/--^" -^'yW'-;>^^":'.ll &3&fer*^ I f •,-••-•-":•'. - •''V^fJ^'^^^>.^^-^'g5r---v 'V-wAs7S'HRTEa ANALYSIS '""'''•<•'• — ! (mo. cer liter) •fc Collector: McToy SOURCE A ""Effeemout Proepept Lake, Sta. #1 SOURCE 3 --. -.- .t •,-•• '•.-- » • -,-V" " « - , sta. #2 ISOURCE C •; it SO'JRCE 3 « .1 t, I30CP.CS ? I • SA-MPLS NO. ' \ R98?2 R9873 R987U i R9875 I i DATE C5* COLZ-fiCTZOT 7-8-8$ -- —————_i . > • TI:E CF COLLECTION Grab ..i—i. „______—— 1 ______„_ _x B ^ DATE RECEr/EO 7-8-85- —i i ' COD • •SCO -

|?H - " AU

' ',: 1 TOTAL SOLIDS • | : :' £* f -,'\ ;-) r) _:-,•" ! i r-:r ^'• -»- ^ """ ^ t* f": ; \- '•, ,- i : . •' • " i f'" ' •- ' • • '.; :_. : -. ,-' ; TOTAL KIELDAHL - N i (/ < • '.-1. ; i 1 AiMMCNIA - N t • > : 1 , . • ... -. ' '-. .- i ! I i '-. ;.'.'" ~ • NITRATE - M *» < . '. I TOTAL P | TOTAL COLIPORM 10 700 600 Uo FECAL COLI?CP_M <^ 30 10 30 1CHLORIDE

1

,'J i I • • • • - --..-. ... -. .... -.;-:.,- ._•-.. , •"'... "..,:.--. -•" I • i . . - . . • ,-.^, •.-:;: -' - ^.:.".---^:3i\-^ -'..'. ^;fS^ VK-:'-.? !."::. '.'.•.•"•;" .:'-'.'. :; ••"•'.• '•'. •:>.•"!"••• -^rv'-^:^?S^ ;.- Station OoN Ub No. I 1 *^^^^

/

/-. LL Z. / O

II (

17 3hycto« / i / i "Brownt) Ohio /&•<•<. I? ?

>hycto« '•'-* ^ ^ X V i 7 monodi)

hyii a/in Tot. livt olgat (c/ml) I Jg?, f y *^^-—* SR= t 7 Ouatit* Coohd ^if$&'?£N*H;b^^^

g($£&4| ^!^^*fc.J pJ 1 f i

FOR REVi

OEOE- DWPC- Technical Services Branch WASTE WATER ANALYSIS - (ma. per liter) Collector: McVoy |

souses A Egremont Prospect Lake, Sta. #1 SOURCE 3 " »i •' ft Sta. #2 i f souses c " » H t st£U fa SOURCE 3 » it : H f sta. #U souses s i SOURCE ? i

A 3 C D s r I SAMPLE NO. R9872 R9873 R987U R9875 f jj T DACE OF CCLLECriOM 7-8-8S r •"•—" — -p \ \ • Ti:-ffi CF COIJ^&CTrCN Gtab V^>. ;- D A.TE RECE "TED 7-8—85 -" -hrr-n r..--.i t— --,„---„--— n, ^ i I

CCD '

-SCO ,' '

?H AJJCVLmiTY , TOTAL !

SUSPENDED 3OLIDS . TOTAL SOLIDS t

i

TOTAL KIELDAHL - *I AMMONIA, - N I • MXTRA11*5* — "I •« • TOTAL P 1 i1 TOTAL COLIFOR.M 10". 700 600 Uo I FECAL COLIFORM

1 (ma. ner liter) I Collector: McVoy

soes.cs A. Egreraout, PrpsBect Lake, #3 i > I SOURCS 3 " •,-;-" , #3 SOUSC2 C outlet scrjRcs D I SOUSCS £ I souses r

R9882 R9883 R988U 1 — — T — "! ••" •"• ' "• '•" — • T/R/flS 4- / - ' _, - ^s i ; ! -A— I OF COLLECTION ;•-; • i i i - -, Grnh 1 i i ^s ! ! D^TE orrCZ_ 7ZD | 7/9/«5 ' T -> ! I i CGD i -BCD i pK ?. i ALKALINITY, TOTAL 1" 8U " * 1 1 1 1 ': ' \ I SUSPSIDE3 30LI^S o.o; ( * J^ -±> 5.0 . TOTAL SOLIDS lUo:- 7 (V - ^1 no Conductivity j 171'' 1

*" ' |{ardness 73 66' ™ TOTAL KIZLDAHL - S 0.95 l.U .t'1 AJ^MCNIA - N I 0.16 0.31 i >iT*»^3 STT* _ »t -* — -^rt_— ~ .1 I J, 0.1 0.5 1 TOTAL ? 6*. 03 0.03 i

| TOTAL COLIFORM *- r^CAL CCLIFCRM i ( CHLORIDE 2.0,-^ * i

* Igiproperly Preserveld (acidifiei) 1 1 ! ' 1 WASTE WATER ANALYSIS • (ma. per liter) Collector; McVoy • SOURCE A Egreraont Prospeqt Lake, Sta. 1 surface i SOURCE 3 Egreniont, Prospect Lake, Sta. 1 surface SOURCE c Egremont, Prospect Lake, Sta. 1; (5^3-75 neters SOURCE 3 Egremont, Prospgct Lake, Sta. 1; 0.-3.75 meters SOURCE E Egremont, Prospect Lake, Sta. 2 i souses ? Egremont, Prospect Lake, Sta. 2 i

A 3 C D E J1 i SAMPLE MO. R9876 R9877 R9878 R9879 R9880 RQASl ™)A'**^* i^F '""T " ~f"'"""''Vr 7/8/85 - 1 1 , i. X i TT-2 OF CQLLECTZCN 1 DA-- p-EczrvEo 7/9/8*5 — i 4 ; i I COD

•SCO i i i pK • i i |M AL;

TOTAL SOLIDS 120 . 160 120 Spec. Conductivity' 130 '. 166 150 1 ' Hardness 50 76 71 1 TOTAI, KIELDAHL - N 1.3 1.6 1.2 AJ^MCNa - N 0.30 0.20 0.07 1

lllTSATS - H 0.0 «. 0.0 0.0 TOTAL ? o.m o.ou 0.03 1

TOTAL COLIFORM FECAL COL1FOSM CHLORIDE 1.0 -' 2.0 0.0

" " 1 1 I 1

1 Technical Services Branch 1 r-^-i &7i J? *_/ne ~\£)cffl#no4tweautv o/£ ^/M&A&oMiaAetfa 'Ctt&ve (Jiftee of (bnwwywm&ntab oyvng- I "J7\ • • • 0 /Y/'/" f- (M~> // /-• ^ /- / 1£,'(/in6i&n- of rr&ley ^sotdufaoW' \£}O#tl'WM' • S. RUSSELL SYLVA £5W/«

Mr. Manuel Fernandez Prospect Heights Association 250-20 41 Drive Little Neck, NY 11363

Dear Mr. Fernandez:

Enclosed is a copy of the data from the baseline survey of Prospect Lake which was conducted on July 8, 1985, Also enclosed is a copy of the Massachusetts Lake Classification Program wljich explains the classification system (pages 16-17) the Division of Water Pollutiqn Control uses. The numbers used in the classification system have been circled in red on I the data sheets. The are as follows : •

PARAMETER i CONCENTRATION POINTS

Hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen 7.0 mg/1 0 Transparency 3.6 meters 1 1 Phytoplankton 319.7 cells/ml 0

Epilimnetic NH -f NO, - tl 0.30 mg/1 2 Epilimnetic total phosphorus 0.03 mg/1 1 1 Aquatic vegatation Dense 2

Total Severity Points 6 Accordingly, Prospect Lake is on the borderline between oligotrophic and 1 mesotrophic. Also enclosed is information on the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program which 1 was established to help preserve and restore the Commonwealth s lakes and ponds. • I i 1 I Massachusetts pepartment of Environmental Quality Engineering I Division of Water Pollution Control • Technical Services Branch I LAKE SURVEY SHEET TYPE OF SURVEY:. I(LAKE/POND/IMP. _ DRAINAGE BASIN _ DATE "7 ICOLLECTOR(S) i 8ECCH1 DlSrC WEATHER: Time I Air Temperature . Transparency Wind ^ ' Water Surface Cloud Cover ""? -^ •' ^ ' Water Color :Tr _; ' I 1/-V.; r U^t'

Water Dissolved Spec. Metal Chemical Biological Depth (M) Other rr Temp.C C) PH Oxygen Cond. Samples Samples Samples ! i'-'l ^ 7-r O ! ^ - '4- <,? ?.5 ^L^- P = ~> 2 ^f / " - 1 • -• -•<-• , 1 - . i 9. .2 :<-> l^ *>*^ c- T-f f-" ?!«^. r. .' Q i /«> . o, - r / r.y ?,? T7 o? A ^?-.-r T .V 9.^- K7 *s _?'>', .P.J, 7 -?. '•? r, ^ /?7 P ^--n - 17, r -).r "7.0 IT<=? L-' l~-~" 4 L,I .A ;-^> /•r,c) T ,.'") 7-V- tfo (^ I.- tv T '^' CAT ^~^ L^-" t^ T-tf iv ^ V,-? ^./ ~7~C, HI I L

;•

1 1 1 fi* 1

REMARKS:

~S*tatTon<3) preserved with HYDROLAB: pH, temp., D.p.. specific conductivity

LES: alkalinity, hardnairq. chloride,'-total colllorm. lecal collform, TKN, NO3. NH3. TP. TS, SS PROSPECT LAKE

EGREMONT 55ACRES

PONTOOSUC LA^E LANESBOROUGH ' 480 ACRES

RUGGLES POND WENDELL ' 19 ACRES RICHMOND POND : .A^F. /ft>NE>: W o^. Pt - <" t" I * \' op X loo

o- •21- Vo

£ X Vo-|-n_^^.i-./- ^ -'• ^. X f 6

I- \ (> (3 -(v^ f i> x

10 X / 11 i^tf; x ( 2£ _13 _14_ _15 J6

-II JB _19 20 ^21 22 23 24 _25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .APR 0 5 1988.. I MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL fi TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH WESTVIEW BLDG., L?MAN SCHOOL I ROUTE 9, WESTBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01501 I ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP I TO: FROM: I DATE: RE: I Information requested r"~) For your file I For appropriate action ("j For review Please reply Note and return I rJ For signature Comments requested r J For your information Respond as soon as I possible I REMARKS:. I I I I I I I I I m F ^ f"^~t f. '- '! ^. * ^ * ^^-/ '

:JSUC PROSPECT LAKE

EGREMONT MASSApHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL * :;<; WATER QUALITY A*JD RESEARCH SECTION LAKE SURVI^ DATA SHEET •

"rvx-c- ''i->- r r l/t/l ^LAKE/POND > tccc^ r£ LOCATION " ^-i;.i^S £"<^7c'£ <^>^( • x DRAINAGE *ffr< '<5TCnj v <^ DATE ^'/r9/7f I ^~ ,*- f • A ' ' * COLLECTOR(s) > ^-//M n . rU f-\ < TIME _. . /"VOO _ ,y WEATHER: SECCHI DISC: _ J Air Temperature '^ 'l~ Transparency l^C^J /CV1^^ Wind -^"-^rh. Wa,ter -Surface (-''//'^"-, (?&\G?-/''Z4 £ } • Cloud Cover ///- Waiter: dciioV^ ? •>! H :^ -'"-v • - ,' "•' 1 ; . . . ' •' . r.- OPEN WATER SAMPLING STATION (s) ! .. . vV., \- •;•:;". ' : ; \ Iniirvi • DEPTH WATER DISSOLVED CHEMICAL ^-.-•i .OTHER ' • IN FEET TEMPERATURE OXYGEN COLLECTION ' COLLECTION COLLECTION • C? ^3"tfd ' Y'S feJ6' ^P/./' ^ «^--r

^ /O -O V ^ 5" ° (^A|6^b, x 1 / I.S ) ? 1 /o ^ I/ ^7 'r 0 /z. «»-^ ' — 1 1 1 1 i TRIBUTARY AND ff.o 2>fT^

// ^? ^> ' / O o* _— |

^rf | I

I LAWRENCE EXPERIMENT STATION LAKE STUDY WASTE WATER ANALYSIS (rag. per liter) I ; Collector: G.V./A.V.A. SOURCE A Egremont, Prospect Lake So. Inlet £_ SOURCE IJ " " =•; " No. Inlet 3 Roimcn c " " Deephole Eta, $1 Surf. SOURCE D " " Deephole Sta. §1 Bottom, ....: - SOURCE E " Outlet ' KOURCE F 3 B *U: t • . :' . '• t- | SAMPLE NO. R73521 ; P.72522 R73523 / 1 (- £'n?35-25 ; . * - N??fi- 1 0\TF. OF COLLECTION 6/29/7D -*- v.,.^,? Ui^i V • •• ~ • • s : . -' >- .--., / 24 hr. -. - ... .-. , . . . •-..-..,•— — ^.a , ' UMh RiiC.IiIVED 6/3b/78 1 ^ m COD , B on .I_ PM 7-o; 6.7 6.9 7.5 6.3 ^ ALKALINITY, TOTAL 71 '•'- 60 47 51 51 • KTJRDIIESS : 85 ' 81 217 104 217 j SUSPENDED SOLIDS

F TOTAL SOLIDS

• SILICA 6.0' 7.3 1.3 2.0 1.6 | IKON 0.00 0.09 0.04 O.OP 0.15 I MANGANESE o.dj. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 P TOTAL KJELDAJIL - N [ A^fMON^A - N o.qp 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.55 i 1 CONDUCTIVITY ISO 165 135 130 135 r NITRATE - N 0.1. L. _.. yrt 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 f' | TOTAL P C \

F 10 L TOTAL CO LI FORM S 60 10 ^ SKAMR LAB. NO. •

• / A ; ,H ^/ /-7> •r/Loka. *— • l \ O~ £)<.£<* Station Dots 3 f f / f f/-' | alycic bv rL r?? r ' ~M) Count ' ^-^-vt-Ti--* Data n ' - '? - ' *

CELLS^ P TYPE ORGANISM CODE TALLY TOT • 'ML o • z ->T DC ^ . . - • - -- 1— --.. r i~;> :J UJ ' .,.--„. ,,;.._. ',-'-^ -, •*. P- o - O i ^ •; '-- "• \- -- rv .• •' : ; ' * '',.'. ' :• '' ••= v •'•.'- ,' ~. i ' ••.r"j /* v.; •if r :!-' ; V t- "«: * J-~ 2 ^> t V "•'" 1 •

PENNAT E ^ J -

o '-;,,-. .. -.- '- --... --••' ... - . : • • • • . o 7! - - o o — 'A <7<7 / r ;----cr o ' l to o t

UJ 5 i _J u- • — '. - ' - f ' S i ' _, ,// .jf s ^ /x 1 "1'^L //N /y// '' [ 3k o o o K: 1 o o ' " ".•' '* 1 i i tn - Q I to '-'- UJ • Q

L£ CO 1 18 u_ j ' .yr- T^^L ' („

~-)(*c s -( ^|- PROTOZOA : i*d7' SR= IH 3 i ^ ROTIFERA DIATOM CENTRIC SHELLS CRUSTACEA PENNATE 1 Iic-SSEX Commqnwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Management

June 22, 1988 I P.O. Box 173 •Old Common Road Mr. Alex Duran (Lancaster, MA Lycott Environmental Research 01523 600 CharJton St. |(617) 727-0627 Southbridge, MA 01550 RE: Prospect Lake Dam, No. 1-2-90-1 ^Office of Dam Safety Dear Mr. Duran, I am sending you a copy of the inspection report for the above referenced dam as per our conversation this date. I If you have any questions or need assistance in the future, don't hesitate to call or write. I Sincerely,

I David C. Thoen, S.C.E I Project Manager I DCT/ad I Enclosure I I I I I I •. I_'-1G£ INSPECTION REPORT - DAMS AND RESERVOIRS . '. ' ' •

.1 . Location: WBC/Tov/n EGREMONT Dam No. 1-2-90-1 . , • I Name of Dam. Prospect l^ke . ... Inspected by: RpJordan - BJSpajii.ol

Date of Inspection 9-28-T6 ." |

2. Prev. Inspection x ; _ Owner/ s: per: Assessors I

Reg. .'of Deeds Pers. Contact •

."1 t Mrs. William Carrol], Egremont, MA | Name S^, & No. City/Tovn State Tel. No. 2. I Name St. 2-. 'No. City/Tovn State Tel. No. "" 3. '- 1 Mame St. ft No. City/Town State Tel. No. »

3. ; • Caretaker [if any] e.g, superintendent, plant manager, appointee by absontcn | owner, appointed by mu]ti owners.

— ': - • Name St. & Mo. City/Town State Tel. f-:c. | 4. Mo. of Pictures taken 2 1 5 . • Degree of Hazard: [if (jam should fai 1 completely]* •

1 . '"inor x " 2. f'ods rate

3. Severe 4. Disastrous . I

*This rating may changq as land use changes [future -development] >'"6. ^ I Outlet Control: Automatic Manual x

Operative X ycst no. - 1

Conrnents :

';• " T

upaLri=am ^acc of Daro;;T..K. -v.Co'h'.'il tion; 1 ^

1. Good . 2. Minor Repairs y. -. | I 3. f'ajor Reoairs . 4. Urgent Rop.iir:; Comments: I I DAM HO.1-2490-1 I Downstream Face of Dam: Condition: 1. Good_ , Minor Repairs I 3. Major Repairs 4. Urgent Repairs Comments:

I ,J»"

Emergency Spillway: Condition: 1. Good 2. Minor Repairs I 3. Major Repairs A, Urgent Repairs Comments; I I - 1C, i Hater level @ time- of inspection: p.i' . ft. above_ below too of cicrri i nrir.c.-lp/a. sui: i'-;;;'_._._x_ otht-.r in. I Su-nmavy cf Di-ficlenci'-s NoteO: Growth [Trees and Brush] on Embankment I Anircsl Burrows p.nd Washouts Damage to slopes or top of detn I Cracked or Damaged.'Masonry I Evidence of Seepage X Evidence of Piping I Erosion Leaks I Trash and/or dc-bnj impcdinci flow I Clogged or blocked spillv^ay I Other DAM HO. l~2-£Q^> *,'•'• . .'!•'• '-'*„• 12. Rsmarks & Recommendations; [i-ulTy Explain] PREVIOUS INSPECTION DATE; 11-25-7** •

The brush and trees reported in 197U have not been removed. Inspection of the dam I is difficult due to .the heavy growth. • The draw down gate head v^ll is badly cracked and will continue to deteriorate unless repaired. The top of the dam appears to be stable, no settlement was noted. The • stone masonry spillway is in good condition, some minor spoiling was noted on the

For location see Topo Sheet 3-a. i i i i i i i ;*"•' : ^ - i Overall Condition: -. .

1. Safe y . . I 2. Minor repairs nee-dad X _ 3. Conditionally safe - major repairs needed __^._-• is - •' . • 4. Unsa fe . - • -; . :.• | 5. Reservoir impoundment no longer exists [explain] d removal from inspection list ; . I APPENDIX O

ILYCOTT I

LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INC

^^^

PROSPECT LAKE - EGREMONT, MASSACHUSETTS i DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY i QUESTIONNAIRE Lycott Environmental Research, Inc. is currently preparing an in-depth study of Prospect Lake ufider contract to the Town of Egremont. As part of this stud^, it is i important for us to collect information from r&sidents on water supply, sewage disposal, and local involvement with the lakes. i We have prepared a questionnaire which we hope you will complete as accurately as possible and return. . Your response will greatly assist us in developing the most acceptable, i long-range management plan for the lakes area.;. Any specific resident information given will not be released for public review. A public meeting to discuss the results of this i survey and preliminary study recommendations will be held. Please return your reply as soon as possible. Thany you i for your assistance in this important project. i i i i i i i i i I LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INC. d I I PROSPECT LAKE - EGREMONT MASSACHUSETTS DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY I QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Address I 2. How many weeks per year is your home or cottage I occupied? Weeks How many occupants? Average Maximum I 3 . If you are a permanent resident, was your hdme or cottage originally built for seasonal use? _.. Yes No How many of the following do you have in your home or I cottage? Bedrooms Bathrooms I 5. Do you use commercial fertilizer on your lawn? Yes No I Water Supply 1. I Where does your drinking water come from? Dug well Artesian well Driven well & pump Community supply Stockbridge Town Water I Other (please explain)

Sewage Disposal - I 1. What type of sewage disposal system do you have? I Cesspool Holding tan]c Septic tank & leaching area Communal system I Other (Describe) : How old is your sewage disposal system? I 0-5 yrs. _5-10 yrs. 10-20 yrs. JDver 20 yrs Have you ever had your sewage disposal system repaired or rebuilt? Yes No If yes, how idng ago? I What was done? I I I I About how far is your sewage disposal system from: ft. The nearest swamp or brook? I ft. The lake shore? About how high is your sewage system above the lake water level? I 0-10 ft. _10-20 ft. 20-50 ft. over 50 ft. How many times has your sewage system been pumped in I the past 2 years? past 5 years? Do you have repurrent problems with your sewage disposal I system? Yes No If yes, what problems': Repeated pump-outs needed System backs up or drains slowly I High water table Sewage flows on ground Odors I Other (describe) ^ What appliances are connected to your sewagtS system? Dishwasher Dehumidifier drain I Washing machine Sump pump I Garbage disposal Floor, roof, or pavement drains Have any of thq following problems interfered with your use of the lake? Weed growth _Algae growth Odor I Color Lake Level ^Purity of water Transparency (clarity) Other (specify) ;, I If so, how? I Sketch of on-site disposal system: I I I I I I LYCOTT MlW. I2- [2-eMAlM

LYCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INC