Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-19 Board of Public Works Minutes September 19, 1977 Meeting of the Board of Public Works opened at 7:30 P.M. in 1 Room 16, Municipal Building. Present were Chairman Dustin,- Board Members Russell and Botka, Superintendent Louanis and Finance Committee Members Hewitt and Cowell . Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted as written. Read memorandum from the Superintendent stating that the sewer main construction program is nearing an end and there re— main approximately 1 ,500 houses within the Town that are not pre— sently serviced by the sewer. One hundred and sixty—one applica— tions are on file and at the present rate of progress it will take the Town two years to complete these installations. The Superin— tendent recommended the Board adopt a new policy on sewer construc— tion, as follows: 1 . The Town accept no more applications for sewer house connec— tions. 2. The Town construct the sewer house connection to the sideline only. I 3. The homeowner be assessed for that construction in December on the 31st in the year the construction is completed. 4. The homeowner be responsible for contacting a Licensed Drain Layer for the construction on private property. 5. The cost to the homeowner for the sewer house connection con— struction within the street be based on an average of all house connections constructed during the calendar year. This policy would allow the Town to better coordinate sewer house connections with highway maintenance and it was recommended the program be funded to a level to provide 150 connections to the street line and spread over a ten year period. The matter was discussed at length and although the Board's reaction was favorable it was recommended the matter be tabled and brought up again at budget time. Mr. Russell read Notice of Public Hearing regarding the pro— posed extension of the main sanitary sewer in Barbara Lane southerly of Colonial Drive. Owners of five separate properties were present. Corner lot properties owned by Brown and Sumner were assessed pre— viously on Colonial Drive and no further assessment will be made. Attorney Vigeant, representing Mr. Fernekees, reviewed Agreement approved by Town Counsel , between Town of Reading and Mr. Fernekees owner of Lot 24 Barbara Lane, wherein it is agreed that Mr. Ferne- kees will pay betterment assessments to the Town on Lots 23 and , 29 owned by Prew and Bittrick. A lengthy discussion ensued and it was established there would be no cost to property owners down- stream from Fernekees and Bliss for the installation of the sewer and although Mr. Bittrick who was present at the meeting was opposed to the sewer he did not care to state his reasons. Mr. Bliss was in favor of the sewer and was willing to pay his individual assess- ment. It was moved, seconded and voted to close the Hearing. It was moved, seconded and voted to extend the sewer in Barbara Lane to service the four lots in question stopping short of the last two lots, install laterals to the four lots and to assess, with approval of Town Counsel , Mr. Fernekees for Lot 24, Lot 23 and Lot 29 and assess Mr. Bliss for Lot 28. Since the acceptance of Federal Funds for the construction of street sewers imposes the requirement that only 10% of the cost of the total project may be recovered from the abutting pro- perty owners through sewer frontage assessment, and the total cost , divided by the number of feet gives a frontage assessment of $4.10 a lineal foot it would appear there is no problem in con- tinuing the assessing of the abutting property owners at $4.00 a lineal foot. Further if there were a problem the Super- intendent felt that it would be defendable that a portion of the cost of the interceptor sewer could be charged aginast the property owners since it would not be possible to construct a sewer in the area without the interceptor. Read memorandum from Finance Committee concerning the Data Processing Steering Committee's meeting September 27th in Room 2 at 7:30 P.M. It was agreed that Superintendent Louanis and Mr. Russell would represent the Board of Public Works at this meeting. Letter dated September 13, 1977 from Commissioner John J. Carroll regarding salt storage shed was accepted as a point of information. , The Superintendent reviewed briefly proposal of Tital Environ- mental Services with regard to the disposition of solid waste. The Superintendent was directed to write expressing the Board's Minutes - continued September 19, 1977 interest in their program. ' The Board reviewed bids received on Sealing Cracks in Bituminous Pavement, as follows: Sealcoating, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.48 per gallon in place F.L.Fox Construction Corporation. . . . . . . . . . 9.95 " " 11 11 It was moved, seconded and voted to award the contract for Sealing Cracks in Bituminous Pavement to Sealcoating, Inc. as per their bid of August 25, 1977, $8.48 per gallon in place. The Board met with the Finance Committee Chairman, Charles Hewitt and Douglas Cowell , Committee Member, to discuss the Depart- ment's Capital Expenditure Program. The Superintendent was asked to outline the Capital Expenditures as he has proposed them to the Board and after a detailed discussion of several of the items, it was concluded that this detailed analysis would be too time con- suming in the light of the remaining time in the meeting. Mr. Hewitt explained that the Finance Committee was in process of pre- paring a comprehensive Capital Expenditure Program for the whole Town in which each departments projects would be scheduled so as to avoid substantial increase to the tax levy. Therefore, the Finance Committee needs the Capital Expenditure Program of each department as already submitted by the Board of Public Works, plus an evalua- tion of each project to indicate whether it could be postponed, or stretched out over a longer period of time. The Board instructed the Superintendent to review each capital project with an evalua- tion of the effect of the postponement or delay to the Town. The Superintendent recommended to the Board that two Articles be inserted in the Special Town Meeting Warrant: one, authorizing the Board of Public Works to apply for Federal Funds for sewer construction and two, an Article to authorize the Town to bond $1 ,500,000, for sewer construction. After considerable discussion of the funds already authorized by the Town Meeting, it was agreed that the Article for $1 ,500,000. not be placed in the Warrant at this time. The Superintendent reported that the Departmentsrequest to place the sewer project on the Federal Priority List for FY-78 was not successful but there was still a 40% chance that the Town of Reading might be included if some other communities did not move ahead with this project and therefore the Town should con— tinue seeking the Federal Funds. If we were included on the , priority list at a later date we would have to file an Environmental Assessment and Facilities 'Plan Update at a cost of approximately $13,800. and Design of Street Sewer Extensions and Pump Stations at an estimated cost of $104,800. Mr. Russell suggested funds were already available from previous bond issues for the engineer— ing work necessary. It was the Superintendent's opinion that funds already authorized would not be available for this type of engineering since engineering services for plans and specifi— cations authorized separately from other debt related projects can only be bonded for five years. It was agreed the Superin— tendent would investigate the use of available funds, or funding methods prior to submitting the Article for the Special Town Meeting Warrant. The Board reviewed letter from Eloisa Grant, 4—H Mac's Pac and James Campbell 4—H Stablemates (copy attached) and following , a discussion it was moved, seconded and voted to approve the requests as set forth in the letter of September 17th for the show of September 25th only. The Board signed the Pay Roll for the period ending Septem— ber 16th and the Bill Roll dated September 23d, 1977. Meeting adjourned at 11 :00 P.M. R ectfully submitted, S Cro//l�NiJ , ry ,4,vc J September 17, 1977 Board of Public Works Town Hall Reading, Massachusetts Dear Sirst As interested and active users of the field and horse ring at Batchelder Field the 4-H Stablemates and 4-H Mae 's Pae are most desirous of cooperating with the Board of Public Works and the Department of Public Works. For the past two years several exhibitions and clinics have been held attracting large crowds at the Batchelder facility. The 4-H Clubs have made great efforts to comply with the Board's wishes regarding parking, policing and maintaining the area. At the winter public hearing on recreational needs, the 4-H Clubs presented to the Board our concerns dealing with the future utilization of the area. Our recent request to meet with the Board resulted from more immediate concerns, in particular those relating to the use of the Batchelder Field area for the up coming horse show September 25. Listed below are the concerns and requests of the 4-H Clubs for your consideration. To restate our original position of desired cooperation, please, also find a state- ment of committment and hopeful resolution to each concern. CONCERN, number of vehicles exceeds parking lot capacity . overflow on Franklin Street and Haverhill Street cause safety problems as well as emergency vehicle access concern - REQUEST: request permission to utilize grassed area for exhibitors parking only - 25-35 trailors and trucks are anticipated - parking lot used for all specators - Police officer and parking attendent will carry out this parking system. All drivers of vehicles not utilizing parking area will be required to sign a disclaimer form releasing the Town of Reading from liability for any property damage. (see attached form) . The 4-H Clubs realize that the Board's actions in this matter do not establish a precedent but rather that each future request will be reviewed independently. CONCERN: time allotment for use of Field on September 25; 7:30 am - 6:00 pm - REQUEST: request permission for extended hours to allow for set up (sanitary facilities, course obsticlis, sound system, and refreshment stands and clean up - request 6:00 am to 8:00 pm - The 4-H Club would be responsible for closing area if this would be helpful. CONCERN: water tap closed - REQUEST: request water be turned on - CONCERN: extreme dust condition of ring causing health and safety concerns to animals and riders as well as nuisance. to abutting property owners - REQUEST: request oil treatment or other suitable correction of this condition - The 4-H Clubs have in the past offered to make arrangements for oil treatment. The cost was $100 (last year - reduced cost because of 4-H affiliation) . The 4-H Cubs offer to assume $25 aQ" for this treatment. 'SY'w/Iud6 CONCERN: safety of youngsters and animals exiting from Batchelder Field on to Franklin Street - REQUEST: request permission to erect movable gate controlling exiting animals on to Franklin Street from Batchelder Field - The 4-H Clubs and concerned citizens will incur costs and erect this project with design subject to review by Depart- ment of Public Works. We hope that our aforestated expectations in dealing with safety, operational and "good neighbor" concerns in- volving Batchelder Field have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with your Board. Any consideration your Board will give to these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 4xt.�... j�a� -Core James Campbell 4-H Stablema es I, the undersigned, hereby release the Town of Reading, the 4-H Stablemates and the 4-H Mac's Pao from any responsibility resulting from any property damage or loss, sustained at the Batchelder Field facility. PAUL C. DUSTIN, Mirman TOWN OF READING OFFICE OF JOHN W. PRICE. Secretary LAWRBNCR R. BLOOD JOHN H. RXJ R L BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ALEXANDER T. BOMA MUNICIPAL BUILDING E. ROGER LOUAMS, Sayetlnt .d.n Ken�py READING, MASS 01887 MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. The undersigned, Board of Public Works of the Town of Reading, in compliance with the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 80, as amended by Chapter 63 of the Acts of 1933, here- by Certify that the lists herewith contain the names of per- sons against whom we have made betterment assessments, to- gether with the location of the land benefited by the improve- ment and the nature and amount of such betterment assessment. �w Sewer House Connection Construction $303.75 Such list is certified to you for the purpose of committing the same to the Tax Collector, as provided by law. WITNESS our hands this thir.dday -.of October A.D. 1977. AV See Commitment Sheets For Lists es P1r ECL 1'k�Fz 2sg .C<?Lµlri �,uFut 2N�F? Mxlv�:22 OnL }�ruq' Fk�12 «tx}l.6� .�'� a7,etoFaL •a 'i}'.:.J��.�, -. ccwuj f.ri va iEre:.apu [o .rps'igx I scrc,, 3a .b>_on{Qa4 pk jgm' ^RGia:: J1 ?f: CGL�1-{1SlT;,M A-Fk taL rpc httLbo•2s .0 ,W(?CPytd C[1SIJ u2GLMC�I4.J I•.j '12 u*ur qaq lVc LiwmL6 gQq`eq?gln 0,4. 4figo pFci:f"tjr s=zszzu'sig, wE :. doqj, �L A4 Flj GNs ioceClru 01 c c. Jg+ jfrs .lwhLpns_ t _ aoua va51U?F .n pOW Mr E,SABtt p€�!;¢LlhsuL',92SF•`22u;s�p si C PA, Cei:�i4-A 4:090 cp p�,? }IBLC:A ;. .i .cop� piu .CHc usnoa r .. cNv6cst, jyo1 92 6. ou :.Q-< p!' C1J�� °k r VCC2' o6 1,1 Qt l5'�sri .iij' 11 cb'O^ „O-sYNFKaP� t'dWIritc '? J roma line nN4gz-;;O 9 ppt}`� o dsc �q�Lp ?�.g t; e L au cw4oix4ev%i4. ot.. v, �tvcPIMZEtiz"' , — �sro,�a?wva� c,va� WlikEt,bVT' -84irOIh4 m uOUi.'9,t'Onv�.f' arawP9w7a•. . HSYI<�? C*. ot1$i3C AlkfiKB vreavn:s1 per+ aa, TI �a�.e"Ivi.til�LuuL LSNYLY.iau.l•.i�u...�. . YF kv tel. maps Metropolitan Area Planning Council WaterQualit Project IPSWICH RIVER BASIN REPORT ACTION HANDBOOK METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL 44 SCHOOL STREET &STON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 George B. Bailey, President Richard D. Dimes, Vice President Robert B. Chase, Secretary Harry A. Kelleher, Treasurer 4 Carla S. Johnston, Executive Director ,LATER :DUALITY PROJECT 11 3EACON STREET . OSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 Andrew C. Paton, Project Manager H. Calvin Cook, Basin Team Leader Ann Conway, Public Participation Coordinator This report. has been financed with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under grant number Po of 055 of as part of section 206 of Public Law 92-500. September, 1977 ACTION HANDBOOK FOR THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN REPORT The ACTION HANDBOOK should be used in conjunction with the Ipswich River Basin Report. It is intended as an accessory to that larger report. After you read the Basin Report, there are a series of questions to answer in these pages. You need only respond to the set for your own community, although you may - and in fact are encouraged - to answer as many other questions as you wish. The purpose of the Action Handbook is to solicit your views on important community and major basin-wide issues. The issues as drawn here by staff of the MAPC's Water Quality Program are the result of two years of intensive professional work punctuated by periodic public involvement. The preliminary basin report and its accompanying action handbook represent one of the last opportunities for participation by local officials, citizens and the general public. We welcome and need your input. (Please see Basin Report cover letter dated August 31 for details of the review process.) Within two weeks, please send your responses including your name and address, to: Public Participation Team Leader MAPC Water Quality Project 11 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE BASIN REPORT The Ipswich River Basin Report is divided into six chapters. For purposes of responding to the questions in the handbook, Chapter 3 on overall basin and community problems and Chapter 4 on optional solutions are of prime importance. In terms of understanding the major issues, Chapter 5 on the impacts and implications of combining such solutions into a planning program is also important. Chapter 6 on legal, institutional, and other management implications and Appendix C, which defines the various technical solutions in general terms, are important to the reader primarily as resource material. Chapters 1 and 2 are brief and of an essentially introductory nature. (A map of the Ipswich River Basin is included here for handy reference to the eight communities in the basin.) a / tri / o ii \ Ple Brook 97 TOPSFIELD eso� f BrO°k HAMILTON ' 114 I Pleasantr s Pond � St`�1e J I chebacco 97 WENHAM � d. \Lake \ MIDDLETON ( Wenham hGravelly Swan \ Loke Round C �Pord Martins Middleton 0 1 Pond Pond \\on 62 _ _ se�ha DANVERS 128\� \ � voJr- 62 NORTH READING BEVERLY \ 62 J River e s f.\ Bubb I Ipswich__..✓ Silver w Lake o \ x I � \ / 129 \\ / LYNNFIELD ' \ WILMINGTON I 28 PEABODY I RIVER R IPSWICH 1 BASIN READING / \ 1 38 2 / J / 62128 , BURLINGTON I _ r 07, 3A / 2 0 4000 8000 16000 C \ 3 t° f/ SCALE IN FEET NORTH \ o SOURCE: BASE MAP,U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. -2- Major Basin Issues Unlike its neighbor, the North Coastal Basin, the Ipswich River Basin is relatively undeveloped. The water quality of the river is relatively good, and only the towns of Burlington, Reading and Wilmington are presently sewered. The major issue, therefore, is the prevention of future problems. Non-structural solutions in the form of land development controls are highly recommended for all basin communities. The enactment of wetlands/floodplain zoning in Burlington, expansion of Wilmington's floodplain district to include more wetland areas, aquifer recharge zoning in Wilmington and North Reading, and use and density zoning changes in Middleton, North Reading, and Wilmington head the list of recommendations. (For details see the community write-ups taken from Chapter 4 of the basin report, as well as the summary matrix, both of which are reproduced here on pages 36 to 46.) Topsfield has no identified areas of existing septic system problems, nor does Wenham. However, the latter community does have a few small scattered areas adjacent to septic system problems in Hamilton and Beverly. Hamilton has both existing problem areas, as well as existing and future land development classified as being potential sewer service areas. (See methodology for delineating sewer service areas in Chapter 4 of the Ipswich River Basin Report, pages 4-2 to 4-5 and Figure 5. ) Therefore, Hamilton has several sewering options. One would be that the community construct and manage five small package treatment plants; another would be to connect to the SESD Danvers-Beverly interceptor and join the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) ; and a third involves the construction and maintenance of its own advanced sewage treatment plant on the Ipswich River. (See the basin report, Chapter 4, .ages 4-5 to 4-12 including Tables 4-1 and 4-2 and Figures 6, 7 and 8 -the three sewerirg concepts.) Obviously, Hamilton has some basic planning decisions to make concerning its future. The reconstruction of individual communal septic systems with limited sewerage are more realistic management proposals for the immediate future, coupled with the initiation and continuance of amunicipal program for management and maintenance of existing and future septic systems. Middleton is another community faced with some hard choices ahead. Unlike Hamilton, its existing septic system problem areas are too small and too scattered to be effectively handled by small package treatment plants. Moreover, the soils in Middleton are not generally as suitable for subsurface sewage disposal as are some of the soils in Hamilton. Therefore, other than the reconstruction of individual on-lot septic systems, coupled with a vigorous municipal program of septic system management and maintenance to prevent more extensive problem areas in the future, -3- reliance on communal subsurface sewage disposal is not recommended for Middleton. Under sewering Concept 1, it is proposed that the town join with Lynnfield and North Reading and construct an advanced sewage treatment plant in the latter community on the Ipswich River. Under sewering Concept 2, it is proposed that Middleton connect to the SESD Danvers-Beverly interceptor and join the South Essex Sewerage District. Concept 3 contains the proposal that Middleton construct and operate its own sewage treat- ment plant with nutrient removal discharge into a suitable swamp adjoining the Ipswich River. (See the Ipswich River Basin Report, Chapter 5, pages 5-23 and 5-24 for a discussion of management impacts.) North Reading is the other community in the basin with a difficult decision to make: whether or not to sewer. Since existing population levels and expected future pressures for growth and development are greater in North Reading than in either Hamilton or Middleton, such choices will probably have to be made sooner rather than later. Sewering Concept 1 recommends the construction of an advanced treat- ment plant with discharge into the Ipswich River; Middleton and Lynnfield would also use such a new treatment plant. Concept 2 recommends that North Reading join the MDC and connect to the trunk sewer at the Reading-Wakefield boundary as well as to the new MDC interceptor scheduled for construction in Wilmington; since the community already has an option to join the SESD via the new West Peabody inter- ceptor, such an alternate possibility is also part of this concept. Concept 3 recommends that two small package plants be built in North Reading to take care of existing problem areas only. Coupled with the last approach, a formal septic system management program would have to be instituted; the reconstruction of appropriate on-lot septic systems is also a proposed option for North Reading. Of the three existing AIDC members in the basin, Wilmington has a relatively small area already planned to be sewered, as compared to both Reading and Burlington. Therefore, Wilmington still has certain options open to it. If the town rezoned some areas from smaller to larger minimum residential lot sizes, the reconstruction of future septic systema becomes a more feasible alternative - coupled of course with a municipal program of septic system maintenance. Package treatment plants with limited sewerage are also proposed options for Wilmington. (For details see the summary matrices of structural and non-structural solutions, as well as the accompanying community write-up from Chapter 4 of the basin report, all of which are reproduced later in this handbook.) _4_ Important Community Issues The following sections of the handbook are the "community profiles" taken from Chapter 3 of the Ipswich River Basin Report, together with the summary matrices from Chapter 4. The matrices indicate staff ratings of structural (largely sewage disposal) , non-structural (primarily land development controls) , and solid waste management options; stormwater management recommendations for each community as found in Chapter 4 are also included. The reason for reproducing this material here is to allow you to make your own ratings, if you think ours should be improved or modified. Simply use a pen or dark pencil and write in your own preferences on the matrix - after having read the accompanying material and as much of the basin report as you can. Space is provided after each question for you to write in your reasons for making each change. Additional questions on your preferences for the various sewering concepts and alternative sewering/land use schemes are included. (An index of page numbers in order to find community specific information and the summary matrices follows.) At the end of the handbook on pages 63 to 66 three additional questions of a special nature for your considered response. Please tear out the pages on which you have responded, or make a copy of them, and return them as explained on page 1. i COMMUNITY PAGE INDEX SUMMARY OF SUMMARY OF SUMMARY OF SUMMARY OF NON- SOLID WASTE STOIUMATER "PROFILE" OF STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY PROBLEMS SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS Burlington pp. 5 - 6 pp. 32 - 35 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 - 55 & Table 1 p. 39, Table 2 p. 52, Table3 Hamilton pp. 7 - 9 pp. 36 - 38, pp. 47 - 50, pp. 53 and 56 P. 40, Table 2 p. 52, Table 3 Middleton pp. 10 - 13 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 57 P. 41, Table & Table 3 North Reading pp. 14 - 18 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 58 p. 42, Table 2 & Table 3 Reading pp. 19 - 22 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 59 P. 43, Table 2 p. 52, Table3 Topsfield pp. 23 - 25 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 60 p. 44, Table 2 & Table 3 Wenham pp. 26 - 27 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 61 p. 45, Tablet & Table 3 Wilmington pp. 28 - 31 pp. 36 - 38 pp. 47 - 50 pp. 53 and 62 P. 46, Table 2 6 Table 3 Labe L i1 -5- ■ BURLINGTON : EXISTING PROBLEMS ■!r Storm Drainage Discharges - The headwaters of the Ipswich River are found in northeastern Burlington where it drains 3.5 square miles. Nine major discharges of stormwater are found in the area, and all drain either into Maple Meadow Brook or its tributary. (The Mystic and Shawsheen Rivers drain 6.4 and 2 square miles, respectively, of the town. Nine storm drainage discharges occur in the Shawsheen River portion, and eight in the Mystic River part of Burlington. Vine Brook drains a substantial portion of the Shawsheen watershed, and receives discharge from five of the nine storm drains. The community has a number of water supply wells near the confluence of Vine and Sandy Brooks.) S_eptage Disposal - Although So percent or approximately 19,500 persons are presently served by the MSD sewerage system, the remaining 20 percent of the population is served by on-site subsurface systems. Based on an existing population of 4,900 persons still on septic systems, an estimated 610,000 gallons of septage are generated per year (1,700 gpd) . Four pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul septage within Burlington. Septage is disposed of into a municipal sewer manhole, which is surrounded by a fence and located on Beacon Street near Route 126. Salt - Burlington uses water from the Shawsheen River and ground water pumped from wells for its public water supply. Raw water from the river and finished water leaving the treatment plant usually is monitored by the State three times annually. water samples from about ten wells are checked at the same time, although some wells may not be in production due to low consumption, well maintenance, or excessive iron or manganese concentrations. Chloride content of treated river water fluctuated about an average concentration of 62 mg/l in 1974 and 1976; sodium content always exceeded 20 mg/l. Long-term changes in chemical composition of Burlington's groundwater, s).own previously on the graph, indicate that dramatic increases in chloride content occurred in the middle and late sixties. Although the upward trend has been arrested, there has not been significant reduction in chloride levels since 1972. Because the data for Burlington does not include analyses from the severely contaminated well field at Great Meadow Road, the curve reflects a conservative estimate of average quality of ground water supplies. In 1960, chloride content was about 8 mg/1, a natural background level attributable dominantly to atmospheric precipitation. By 1965, analyses from five wells indicated that chloride had tripled; by 1970, data from eight wells shows that chloride content again tripled, reaching highs ranging from 60 mg/l to 85 mg/1. In 1970, all wells were producing water that contained more than 20 mg/l sodium. Burlington stopped using salt on highways in 1970 when the chloride content atone well field (not included in calculations `. of averages here) reached 272 mg/l, a figure exceeding the Federal limit of 250 mg/l in July of 1970. In one year salt ( -6- content dropped to half its former level, but this Wall field still has salt levels two to three times above those measured at most other wells. Chloride levels have decreased slightly during the past six years in seven of the eight wells used in the Burlington analysis. The average chloride content in 1976 was about 61 mg/1. All eight walla exceed the sodium warning standard; their 1976 average was about 30 mg/1 sodium. About 150 tons of municipal road salt were stored at the highway department yard across from Burlington Mall. Due to serious water quality problems in down stream wells, the storage site was moved last year to a temporary site on Wayside Road where storage "in the open" was used. The Highway Department is now planning a permanent, protected storage facility, but no site has as yet been selected. Town wells in the Vine Brook basin are located downstream from major road salt sources. The State maintains a large salt storage depot west of the intersection of Winn and Cambridge street. Sodium runoff from this site will drain to Sandy Brook, a tributary to Vine Brook. Major road salt problems originate due to runoff from Route 128, parts of 3A, and the snow dump at the Burlington Mall parking area. BURLINGTON : POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - The area of Burlington drained by the Ipswich River is approximately 75 percent sewered; the remaining undeveloped land consists of thin soils over bedrock, shallow hardpan, wet soils and wetlands. Since the area is expected to be subject to pressure for growth and is zoned for 20,000-square foot residential lots, failing septic systems would probably result if future development were not sewered. Town regulations for sewage disposal require that buildings connect to the municipal collection system when a septic system fails or becomes a nuisance. The Board of Health is currently enforcing such connections within 14 days; about 20 properties which reported septic system failures in 1976 were required to connect to the sewer system. All newly constructed buildings must connect to accessible public sewers. (In that part of Burlington drained by the Mystic and Shawsheen Rivers, areas zoned for industrial uses near Routes 128 and 3 would have to be sewered in order to be developed in the future.) Stormwater Runoff - The town is presently undertaking a compre- hensive drainage study by its consulting engineers. Wetlands and floodplain maps for zoning purposes are included within the in-depth study. (Burlington is presently the only community of eight in the basin which does not have some form of wetlands or floodplain zoning.) Channel improvements, retention basins, and other structural solutions are also being included in the drainage study. -7- HAMILTON: EXISTING PROBLEMS Storm Drainage Discharges - The town has nine major dis- charges of stormwater. Four drain into the Miles River or its tributary, and five drain into a tributary of Idlewild Brook; all are within the watershed of the Ipswich River. Two of the cosmunities' four water supply wells are located downstream of these stormwater discharges, but no water quality problems have been reported in connection with Ham- ilton's drinking water from this or any other possible source. Failing Septic Systems - The health agent of the Hamilton- Essex-Manchester (HEM) Regional Health District in conjunc- tion with the Hamilton Board of Health has reported several septic system problem areas. The Asbury Grove and Pleasant Pond areas located between Highland Street and the Wenham Swamp are both areas of former seasonal houses now inhabited year-round. A high water table and relatevely small lot areas are the principal reasons for failing septic systems in these areas. Two other areas of converted summer cottages into year-round residences are located on Chebacco Lake off Gregory Island Road and Shore Drive. In addition to insuf- ficient leaching areas on small lots, a high water table and bedrock create severe soil limitations for on-site systems on the lake. Four other septic system problem areas are: (1) Howard and Linden Streets caused by a high water table; (2) Postgate Road area off Route 22 due to old systems with inad- equate capacity; (3) Gardner Street near the Ipswich town line caused by clay or hardpan in the subsoil; and (4) Miles River Road near Bridge Street (no reported cause) . About 45 septic system failures were reported in Hamilton during the last year. Septage Disposal - Nine pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul septage within Hamilton. The town maintains septage disposal facilities for septage originating within its borders. A fee of $2 is assessed for each septage load, but these regulations are not strictly enforced, and limited dumping from other towns is suspected. Based on an existing population of 6,700 served by septic systems, an estimated 990,000 gallons of septage would be generated per year (2,700 gpd) . Hamilton's septage disposal facility consists of three shal- low pits., each 50 feet wide by 150 feet long, located at the town's solid waste landfill off Chehacco Road. Septage is pumped directly from the hauling vehicle to any one of the pits. The soil at the site is a well-draining gravel which allows percolation of the liquid. When dried septage solids accu- mulate to depth of 1 to 1 1/2 feet, a pit is backfilled and r abandoned. Three new pits have been constructed in the last five years. The state has ordered that improvements be made in existing disposal methods, and this may lead to the closing of the site. -E- Nearby Gravelly Pond, one of two sources of Manchester's water supply, has not exhibited any water quality problems. Text wells recently dug between the disposal site and the pond indicate no underground flow in that direction. To the contrary, all indications are that both surface and subsur- face flows are to the north in the direction of Chebacco Leks. Leachate from landfill - Hamilton operates a landfill off Pine Street adjacent to the Essex and Manchester town lines. The site is in a hilly, forested area with a wetland 100 feet to the south and a public water supply of Manchester (Gravelly Pond) located approximately 500 feet to the west. The drainage in the area appears to be primarily to the subsurface through the surficial deposits of fine sand. The site rests upon a high yield aquifer that extends west of Gravelly Pond. The nearest municipal well lies roughly one mile to the northwest between Chebacco lake and Bound Pond. A consultant's study paid for by Hamilton determined that contaminated groundwater is not flowing west from the facility toward Gravelly Pond or the public well. At the time of the site visit (December, 19761 the landfill was well-graded into a mound shape, and was well-covered with an impermeable layer of clay and a surface layer of sand. There was no evidence of leachate, nor of conditions that would promote leachate. The wetland to the south of the site was seriously contami- nated, most likely as a result of deficiencies at the Man- chester landfill to the south, which encroaches upon this same wetland. Engineering plans for the continued operation of this site are being prepared. Approximately 15 more years of operation at this site would be possible, according to estimates by the Mass. DEQE. Particularly in view of the presence of public water supplies in the area, Hamilton should take great care in maintaining high operating standards at this site, including placement of clay over each lift and careful grading in order to maintain slopes. Periodic testing of groundwaters around the periphery of the site would be advisable as a check on the effectiveness of the operation. Salt - Three well sites supply water to Hamilton residents. Samples from two wells in production in 1960 show that chloride levels were about 10 mg/1, a concentration equiva- lent to natural background levels. By 1972 average chloride concentration in the three wells had increased to 32 mg/1. Since then, no significant change in chloride levels has occurred although the School Street well has been producing water with more than 20 mg/l sodium since 1979. r -g- No problems originate from improper storage because the Has- ilton DPW stores road salt in a covered shed behind the Tom Hall and because there are no State depots. Chloride and so- dim in the School Street and Pleasant Pond wells most likely originates from both road salting and domestic septic systems in those areas. HAMILTON; POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - Hamilton is entirely served by septic systems. Future pressures for growth in areas zoned for 20,000 square foot residential lots may lead to more failing septic systems due to severe soil limitations. Such would be the case especially between Route lA (Bay Street) and the Miles River where wet soils with a high water table predominate. Even small areas zoned for 40,000-square foot lots located between Route IA and Highland Street and along Route 22 in eastern Hamilton may be susceptible to future septic system problems due to a high water table where wet soils predominate. Only in the 2-acre residential zoning district are no poten- tial problems predicted. This is because the probability of water pollution from septic systems is decreased as minimum lot sizes are increased. Larger lot sizes afford the greater possibility of finding suitable soils with adequate percola- tion rates, provide for alternate or future areas for new leaching fields, and allow generally for more infiltration of precipitation to the groundwater table. When a private well is also found on the same lot, the probability of drinking water contamination decreases with increased dis- tance from septic systems based on increased minimum lot sizes under zoning. Surface and Groundwater Protection - Most of the larger ponds in Hamilton are protected by public or quasi-public open space. Manchester owns the land around Gravelly Pond for water supply protection purposes, and Gorden College owns much of the land around Round and Beck ponds. Only Chebacco Lake, located largely in Essex, remains relatively unprotect- ed by public or private ownership. A zoning conservancy dis- trict protects all wetlands and floodplains except along a stretch of the Ipswich River, which also serves as the border between Hamilton and Ipswich. A great deal of Hamilton serves as an aquifer recharge area for groundwater with a high yield potential. The town re- ceives all of its water supply from underground wells. While pressures for future growth and development do not appear to be so great as to put this groundwater supply in jeopardy, land use regulations which are sensitive to the need to max- imize this natural recharge function should be considered by the town for future adoption. (See Appendix C for a general discussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for particular refer- ence to Hamilton. ) I i -1D- MIDDLETON : EXISTING PROBLEMS Sewage Treatment Systeme - One of the five non-municipal sewage i treatment plants in the basin is located in Middleton. The facility is an activated sludge package plant with effluent disposal to sand infiltration beds and separate cooling water discharges. It is operated by the USM corporation, Hostik Division, and is located in southwestern Middleton adjacent to the Ipswich River. It reportedly treats both sanitary and industrial wastewater. Special state legislation was passed in 1972 that permitted Middleton to became a member of the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) ; however, only that portion of the town occupied by the Ferncroft Village development was allowed to discharge wastewater to the SESD system. Middleton is assessed by the SESD for operation and maintenance costs associated with the collection and disposal of sanitary waste from the development, and the town in turn assessed these costs to Ferncroft Village. State and county institutions located in Middleton are also members of the South Essex Sewerage District. A small portion of Danvers State Hospital is served by the SESD. However, the buildings at both the Essex County Sanitorium and the Essex County Industrial Farm have been demolished, and therefore no wastewater is currently discharged from them. Storm Drainage Discharges - Although information on the town's _ stormwater collection system is incomplete, there are at least two major discharges. One drains the center of town and discharges into a small tributary of the Ipswich River, while the other discharges directly into the Ipswich Fran Route 62 (Maple Street) . Failing Septic Systems - Locations and causes of septic system failures as reported by the Middleton health agent include the following: (1) Central Street and Washington Street area near the Howe Manning School caused by a high water table; (2) Route 114 near the intersection with Essex Street without a reported cause; (3) Brigadoon Village area due to clay or hardpan; (4) Route 62 south of South Main Street due to clay or hardpan; (5) Hilldale Street in the Riverview Drive area near the Ipswich River with no reported cause; (6) Maple Street and Liberty Street area due to clay or hardpan soils; (7) Johns Avenue area near Mill Pond due to a high water table; and (8) Arrow Street area caused by a high water table. In addition to the problem areas noted above, many summer homes in the area of Middleton Pond are served by septic systems which have an inadequate capacity and insufficient leaching area to support year-round occupancy. The Board of Health has therefore restricted residence in this area to the summer months in order to prevent possible contamination of the pond, which serves as a reservoir for the Danvers water system and which in turn also supplies Middleton. -11- Septage Disposal - Middleton is entirely served by septic systems, except for Ferncroft Village and the institutions mentioned previously. Two pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul eeptage within the town. There are no eeptage disposal facilities currently provided within Middleton, and septage is reportedly hauled to neighboring communities for disposal. Evidently, a former disposal area on Essex Street near Boston Brook, which was closed nearly ten years ago, reportedly continues to leach into an adjacent wetlands area. Based on an existing population of 3,950 served by septic systems, an estimated 620,000 gallons of eeptage would be generated per year (1,700 gpd) . Leachate from Landfills - Middleton presently disposes of its solid waste at a public landfill off River Street in the southern section of town adjacent to the Ipswich River. This facility is reaching capacity and is scheduled to be closed during the summer of 1977 in conformance with DEQE orders. The landfill is located adjacent to the river's floodplain in an area of former sand and gravel pits. Drainage in this sandy area is primarily subsurface with a number of poorly connected ponds and pits in the area. Groundwater appears to rise to the surface seasonally, saturating the base of the landfill nearest the river. The groundwater beneath the site is classified as a high yield aquifer. There exists two wells adjacent to the river - one in Middleton, roughly one mile downstream, and another in Danvers, about one-half mile downstream. The Danvers well is reported to suffer water quality problems and is used only during August. At the time the landfill was visited (March, 1976) the surface grading was not sloped as prescribed in regulations. Daily cover was sandy, yet adequate, but intermediate cover with impermeable material was not evident. Given these covering and grading conditions which would allow rainfall to infiltrate, together with the high groundwater conditions, it is likely that leachate is formed and that it migrates with the groundwater through the sandy deposits to the Ipswich River. Although the impact of this contaminated groundwater is uncertain, it is probably not significant to the Ipswich River due to the factor of dilution. Groundwater monitoring would, however, be advisable in order to assess the likelihood of the impact on either of the downstream wells. The final closing procedure at this site should include re-grading and covering with impermeable material, with a surface cover of 2 feet of seeded, compacted loam; such measures would prevent rainfall/infiltration and leachate formation. Middleton plans to develop a new landfill adjacent to the old site for future disposal needs. The new facility will be a minimum of 100 feet from the Ipswich River with a harrier to i -12- protect 2protect the operation from a 100 year flood. The facility should be developed and operated to avoid the problems at the old site. Groundwater monitoring downgradient of the site would be advisable from the outset as a check on operating conditions. A former private demolition material landfill in the northeast section of town near Nichols Brook was closed by the DEQE in the spring of 1976. The facility, which had experienced problems with fires in the refuse, is in the process of being capped with a planted layer of loam. Although this facility was reported to have dumped refuse below groundwater level in some areas, it apparently did not affect the quality of the Ipswich River to the extent of interfering with downstream diversions of Ipswich water to Wenham Lake by the Salem and Beverly Water Supply Board. This facility is also on a high yield aquifer, and therefore should be carefully closed and capped to prevent interference with future uses of the groundwater. There were also reported to be two unassigned dumps in Middleton along Route 114 which have been closed in recent years by the town board of health. Although the conditions of closing and the possible effects are unknown, both sites are believed to be located adjacent to wetlands but not over aquifers. One of the sites was near Emerson Brook which flows to Middleton Pond and serves as a water supply. Sampling of this brook would be advisable to assess continuing impacts and the need for remedial measures. Salt - Middleton obtains water through a joint supply system with the town of Danvers. Water analyses taken from a tap in the Middleton distribution system indicate chloride content in 1976 was less than 16 mg/1 and the sodium content was less than 10 mg/1. Monitoring since 1970 shows no significant increase in either chloride or sodium in water delivered to Middleton. The town stores road de-icing salt near Middleton Pond, a reservoir of the Danvers system. In 1976 the site was not covered. The state maintains no storage sites in town. MIDDLETON: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - In the context of pressures for future growth and development, Middleton has a number of potential problem areas with septic systems. Large areas of the town have severe soil limitations for on-lot subsurface systems, including wet soils with a high water table, hardpan or clay, bedrock, and steep slopes. Areas presently zoned for 20,000-square foot single-family lots in and around the center of town seem particularly vulnerable to future septic system failures. There are also areas of 40,000-square foot minimum lots in the Gould Hill area between the Ipswich River and Nichols Brook, as well as in more scattered locations of town, which may also be susceptible to future problems -13- with on-lot systems. In addition, a large area zoned for industrial and commercial uses on Route 114 in southern Middleton not far from the Ipswich River would probably have to be sewered in order to be developed in accord with existing zoning. An alternative would be to rezone the area for less intensive land uses, especially since it is also the town's only area of high groundwater favorability and since well fields in both Middleton and Danvers are found on the nearby Ipswich. Surface Water Protection - As previously mentioned, Middleton Pond is a water supply reservoir for the Town of Danvers from which Middleton buys its water. The pond is protected by public ownership of most of the land surrounding it. Emerson Brook is also a source of water supply at certain times of the year, and it is protected by a deed restriction in certain parts, as well as by a conservancy district for most of its length. The conservancy district protects almost all of the wetlands and floodplains in town, with the exception of two stretches of Boston Brook. Since Boston Brook may serve as an impoundment for the Danvers and Middleton water systems in the future, it needs some added measure of protection. (See Appendix C for a general discussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for particular reference to Middleton.) -14- NORTH READING: EXISTING PROBLEMS Non-municipal Sewage Treatment Plants - Three of the five non-municipal sewage treatment plants are located in North Reading. The Park Colony treatment facility, constructed in 1972, serves 150 units with approximately 450-500 residents in the Park Colony Garden Apartments. It is located on Route 28 (Main Street) just north of the Ipswich River. The plant provides secondary treatment, employing a field-erected Smith and Loveless package activated sludge plant operating in the extended aeration mode. The treatment facilities cannot be bypassed. Since the plant effluent is discharged to the ground an NPDES permit is not required. Data Realty Management Corporation is responsible for operation of the treatment facilities. The plant is not an existing problem; it provides a high degree of treatment, achieving BOD and TSS removals of 98 percent. The Greenbrier Apartments wastewater treatment plant serves seven apartment buildings containing 187 units with approxi- mately 350-400 residents. The facility is on Route 28 to the north of the Park Colony. Treatment facilities were designed for 247 units, but plans to expand the Greenbriar Apartment complex have been abandoned. The plant, which began operation in 1973, provides secondary treatment employing a field-erected Davco package activated sludge plant operating in the extended aeration mode. The treatment facilities cannot be bypassed. low NPDESthe plant effluent is discharged to the ground, an NPDES permit is not required. The facilities are operated and maintained by the Greenbrier Apartments' superintendent. The plant is not an existing problem; it is providing a high degree of treatment,achieving BOD and TSS removals of 98 percent. The John T. Berry Rehabilitation Center, located off Route 62 near Martins Brook and the Wilmington town boundary, has a primary treatment facility to treat its sanitary wastes. Unlike the two private facilities described above, the existing treatment plant is in very poor condition. It is odoriferous, the sand filters are in need of rehabilitation or reconstruction, and some of the underdrains are plugged. Only one of the 15 sand filters is currently in use. Raw and untreated wastewater characteristics and volumes were not available. The Massachusetts Department of Mental Health is responsible for the operation of the plant, which serves 310 persons. This treatment facility was originally constructed in 1905 to serve the North Reading State Sanatorium. In 1932, the facility was reconstructed and upgraded to serve approximately 2,000 persons. A manually-cleaned bar screen, two primary settling tanks, a dosing chamber, seven sand filter beds, and two sludge drying beds were constructed at that time. During the 1950's, an additional eight sand filter beds were constructed, chlorination facilities added, and one of the primary settling -ls- tanks compartmentalized into two smaller tanks. When the North Reading Rehabilitation Center opened in 1964, the former state Sanitorium treatment plant was used to treat its wastewater. Incoming raw wastewater is passed through a manually-cleaned bar screen, settled in the primary clarifiers, passed through sand filters, chlorinated, and dishcarged to an effluent ditch leading to Martins Brook. The effluent ditch is approximately 8 feet wide, 5 feet deep, and 1,200 feet long. Boiler blowdown water is also discharged to this ditch. Flow through the treatment plant is entirely by gravity; the plant cannot be bypassed. The plant has an NPDES discharge permit. Sludge Disposal - Sludge from the first private treatment plant described above, the Park Colony treatment facility, is hauled to an unknown disposal point. About 800 to 1,000 gallons of sludge are wasted daily from the extended aeration process to the aerobic digester. The contents of the aerobic digester are pumped out every 6 to 8 months. Approximately 43,000 gallons of sludge per year are generated from the treatment plant at the Greenbrier Apartments. Excess activated sludge is wasted to the aerobic digester 2-3 times per week. Aerobically digested sludge is pumped monthly and reportedly hauled to a disposal site in Reading. At the John T. Berry Rehabilitation Center treatment plant, sludge is emptied from the primary clarifiers and placed on drying beds 3-4 times per year. Each drying bed has an area of 1,200 square feet and underdrain piping. Underdrainage is mixed with the effluent from the sand filters, chlorinated, and discharged. Dewatered solids are buried on-site with the screenings. Storm Drainage Discharges - North Reading contains 15 major discharges of stormwater. At least six drain the town center; seven drain directly into the Ipswich River; and one drains into a tributary of the Ipswich. Four major discharges are found near the Skug River, which in turn drains into Martins Pond. Three major storm drainage discharges are on or near Martins Brook. Some flooding problems occur in North Reading's stormwater collection system. Often these problems are due to inadequate pipe sizes or flat terrain. Failing Septic Systems - Except for the apartment complexes and rehabilitation center served by the treatment plants described above, the entire community relies on septic systems. The two main areas reported by the Health Department to have chronic problems with septic systems are on the western shore of Martins Pond• and in the Marshall Street-Hickory Lane area. The first area has wet soils as well as bedrock near the surface. In addition to these two specific areas, there are many unspecified *Professional consultants have just recently prepared a eutrophi- cation study of Martins Pond which recommends the town pursue a reclamation program. -16- problem areas scattered throughout the town. Approximately 35 to 45 septic system repairs are required per year, however, there has been no evidence of ground or surface water contamination from failing septic systems according to local health officials. A North Reading Sewer Study Committee conducted an investigation of septic system problems in the community in the early 1970'x• Of 1,027 responses to a questionnaire, 29 percent indicated that they had experienced some problems with their septic systems, and about half indicated that they had problem at least once per year. Twenty-nine percent of those responding indicated that their septic system has been replaced or rehabilitated within the past 10 years. Responses to the question on how often septic systems were pumped are presented below in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 FREQUENCY OF SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPINGS (percentage) 3 months 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years no or less or more response 1.4 3.0 11.1 16.7 10.6 57.2 SOURCE: North Reading chapter of "North Coastal and Ipswich Basins, Inventory and Evaluation of Public Wastewater .m/ and Stormwater Facilities" - Camp, Dresser 6 McKee, 1977. Stage Disposal - The Board of Health recommends, but does not require, that septic systems be pumped out every two years. Seven pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul septage within the town. There are no septage disposal facilities, public of private, in North Reading. Most of the septage is thought to be disposed of into an MSD sewer in Reading. Based on an existing population of 11,300 served by septic systems (excluding the 800 people living in the two apartment complexes) , an estimated 1,500,000 gallons of septage would be generated per year (4,200 gpd). Salt - Four gravel-packed wells are the primary source of groundwater supplying North Reading. In 1960 two wells were producing water with an average chloride content of 6 mg/l. By 1965 three wells were in production, and average chloride levels had risen to 15 mg/l. Chlorides increased steadily by about 4 mg/l annually there after, reaching a high of 49 mg/l in 1974; two wells also had sodium levels greater than 20 mg/1. The three wells in use in 1976 showed a slight decline in chloride levels to 42 mg/1. Of the three, the Skug River well field has consistently produced the best quality water, and its sodium content has never exceeded 15 mg/l. -17- About 90 tons of municipal road salt are stored in a covered shed with an impermeable floor located on Chestnut Street. The State Highway Department now stores salt in a newly-constructed building at 75 Main Street (Route 28) . No salt contamination problems should be expected from either storage site. Increases in salt content of well water are due primarily to road salting, with perhaps some addition from residential septic systems within parte of the drainage basins of these wells. The town DPW has instituted a salt-conservation effort that may be in part responsible for reversing increases in the chloride content of its drinking water since 1974. NORTH READING : POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - In the context of pressures for future land development, North Reading has numerous potential problem areas with septic systems. Soils with severe limitations for on-lot sewage disposal predominate in the town. Wet soils with a high water table, bedrock on or near the surface, hardpan or clay soils, and steep slopes are the reason. Much of the town is zoned for 40,000-square foot single-family lots, and based on expected growth pressures over large areas with } severe soil limiations, Future septic system failures may result. LA 120,000-square foot minimum lot district in the vicinity of Swan Pond, where bedrock and wet soils are found in abundance, serves to protect water quality. This is because the probability of water pollution from septic systems is decreased as minimum lot sizes are increased. Larger lot sizes afford the greater possibility of finding suitable soils with adequate percolation rates, provide for alternate or future areas for new leaching fields, and allow generally for more infiltration of precipitation to the groundwater table. When a private well is also found on the same lot, the probability of drinking water contamination decreases with increased distance from septic systems based on increased minimum lot sizes under zoning. Surface and Groundwater Protection - Swan Pond, which serves as a reservoir for the Danvers-Middleton water supply system, is protected by the 120,000 square foot residential district that surround it. North Reading employs both wetlands and floodplain zoning districts. Except for a few wetland areas and a short _ stretch of the Ipswich River, surface water bodies and courses are protected both by such zoning and by public ownership of land in selected areas. North Reading receives all of its water from groundwater sources. The area generally located west of Route 28 (Main Street) and north of North Street is considered to be an area of high groundwater favorability. In order to protect this underground I source of water supply, land use regulations which are sensitive to the need to maximize the natural recharge function should be considered for adoption by the town. In particular, the area along and to the west of Route 28 which is presently zoned for highway business uses needs to be regulated differently. (See Appendix C for a general discussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for particular reference to North Reading. ) Stormwater Runoff - Existing levels, together with expected levele of population and land development in the town will no doubt create more potential pollution problems due to increased levels of stormwater runoff from urban development. f� READING : EXISTING PROBLEMS LSanitary Sewer Overflows - Reading has a separate Sanitary sewer system that is tributary to the MSD, and the town expects all of the present population to be serviced by sewers by 1980. The existing collection system consisted of approximately 73 miles of sewers in 1975 and six pumping and ejector stations. There are two points of overflow in separate sanitary sewer manholes,one at King and Hancock streets, and one at Eaton and Elm streets. (The latter overflow is located outside of the Ipswich River basin in the North Coastal Basin. It discharges to a brook and marsh, which is drained by canals that bypass Lake Quannapoint in Wakefield and enter the Saugus River upstream of Lynn's surface water supply intake. Wakefield also has a groundwater supply well in this area; it is located about 7,000 feet below the sewage overflow. There are no reported instances of contamination by the overflow at either supply source.) Reading's collection system is extensively surcharged at times because of inadequate capacity at both the Willow Street pumping station and the MSD pumping station in Wakefield. Surcharging is most intense during the spring when high rates of infiltration/inflow cause overflows to occur for 3 or 4 days. Excessive surcharging at the overflow manhole at Hancock .and King streets occasionally causes flooding of the local area. A relief sewer from the western side of Reading to the MSD system in Woburn, in order to accommodate half of Reading's wastewater, is scheduled to be constructed during the spring of 1977. This relief sewer is expected to alleviate present surcharging conditions. Storm Drainage Discharges - There are eleven significant storm drainage discharges in Reading, and they occur in the drainage basins of three major rivers. The Ipswich River drains northern Reading, which contains four discharges into tributaries of the Ipswich. (Four stormwater discharges are located in southeastern Reading, which is drained by the Saugus River. Three discharges are found in southwestern Reading, which is drained by the Aberjona River, a tributary of the Mystic River.) That part of the town drained by the Ipswich is the least developed part of town, and therefore should generate less contaminated stormwater than the more urbanized south-central portion of the community. Failing Septic Systems - Only about 15 percent of the town's population is served by septic systems, and this number decreases each year as the sewer service area is expanded under a program to service the entire town by 1980. The Board of Health reports no persistent problem areas, although forty septic tank overflows were reported in 1975. The few problems that do occur are attributed to inadequate capacity of old systems under currently increased waste loads. New subdivisions are provided with municipal sewer service, and there have been -20- very few new applications for septic systems. When new sewers are built, properties with disposal problems are required to connect immediately; other properties must connect within » 5 years. Septage Disposal - Eight pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul septage within Reading. Septage is disposed of into an MSD sewer manhole off John Street near its inter- section with Route 129. Based on an existing population of 3,550 serviced by septic systems, an estimated 507,000 gallons of septage would be generated per year (1,400 gpd) . Leachate from Landfill - Reading presently incinerates its refuse at a facility off John Street in the southeastern portion of town near the Wakefield border. The incinerator residue is landfilled at a site opposite the incinerator on the north side of John Street. Much of the site used for ash dumping appears to have been originally wetland areas that have been filled over the years. The site is drained by several channelized branches of a stream which flows through the site and then northeast around Lake Quannapowitt, before joining the Saugus River just downstream of the lake outlet. The aquifer underlying the site is rated moderate in yield, with a Wakefield town well located slightly over one mile downgradient on a high yield aquifer. The disposal site is roughly 10-15 acres in area, with depths in some former wetland areas of 20-30 feet. Grading contours were too level for optimal runoff, and depressions excavated in previously filled areas served as ponding and infiltration points. Although present filling is above water level, past dumping filled the wetlands. Cover mdterial was applied less than daily and appeared (May 1976) too sandy to prevent infiltration. No impermeable intermediate cover was evident, nor was final, vegetated cover on any sections where landfilling is complete. Although incinerator residue lacks the organic constituents of unburned refuse, it does contain heavy metals, some of which are subject to leaching to surface and groundwaters. Although water analyses were not performed at this site, there was very little visual evidence of leachate formation and contamination of the streams flowing through the site. A town-wide water quality survey scheduled by the town in the near future should nevertheless evaluate drainage from the site for water quality problems. If possible, groundwater downgradient of the site should also be analyzed to assess the possibility of detrimental impacts to the Wakefield well on the Saugus River. The ash disposal is expected to reach capacity by 1980. If the incinerator remains in operation bevond that date, a new disposal area will have to be located and developed. Any new site should be selected in an area which avoids the deficiencies of the old site - wetlands, aquifers and adjacent streams. -21- When capacity at the existing site is reached, it should be covered promptly in the manner prescribed by the DEQE. Final cover specified by the DEQE consists of 2 feet of material graded to a minimum slope and planted. Salt - All public water supplied to Reading in 1976 was obtained from groundwater supplies at two well fields. Most drinking water is produced at the Hundred Acre Meadow site in the Town Forest, but gravel-packed wells at the amaller Revay Meadow site are also an important part of the supply system. Both well field areas are in the Ipswich River drainage basin. At the larger well field natural iron levels are high, and pH is sufficiently low to warrant treatment to remove iron and neutralize acidity. The methods used cause chloride content of finished water to be two to three times higher than that of raw groundwater. Chloride content of treated water was used in calculations for the graph showing trends in the quality of Reading municipal water. However, at the Hundred Acre field average chloride levels in raw groundwater rose from 11 mq/1 in 1960 to nearly 63 mg/l by 1970. Three analyses in 1970 indicated that an average chloride content of the treated water was 125 mg/1. Since 1970, chloride in raw water has fluctuated irregularly between 60 and 72 mg/1; treated water has remained between 92 mg/l and 115 mg/l. Sodium levels have exceeded 20 mg/l since 1970 in both raw and finished water. m1mr Wells at this field produce water both by induced infiltration from the Ipswich River and by intercepting groundwater moving toward the river from a recharge area in the vicinity of Grove Street. Local officials indicate that municipal crews do not salt roads near wells. However, raw water at the wellfield has been persistently deteriorating since the early sixties. In 1976 groundwater contained about twice the chloride level of river water. Interstate Highway 93 crosses the Ipswich approxi- mately 3,000 feet upstream of the well field. Runoff and roadside infiltration from about 10,000 feet of main highway and two cloverleaf interchanges (826 and 827) is probably exerting adverse effects on well water quality, although the magnitude is difficult to assess. At the Revay Meadow field, water from a gravel-packed well has been adversely affected by road salt. Likely responsible sources are a previously ill-protected State salt storage depot at Causeway Road, heavy salt application by State crews at Interchange 826 (Route 129 and I-93) , and salting along Lowell Street just east of the interchange. Groundwater chloride concentration at the well site in 1960 was 12 mg/1. Analyses show nearly a ten-fold increase occurred between 1960 and 1965. By 1970, average concentration was 140 mg/l, and it continued rising to 170 mg/l in 1974. A slight decrease to 153 mg/l chloride occurred in 1976. This well has greatly exceeded the sodium warning level of 20 mg/l since 1965. Increased effort to reverse the rising trend at this well field is certainly warranted. F-22- An a result of treatment methods at the Hundred Acre field and road salt contamination at the Revay Meadow site, muni- cipal drinking water in Reading has consistently exceeded that of other towns in the basin with respect to chloride concentration. Although the data is not as complete, sodium levels in Reading water probably follow similar trends and have exceeded 20 mg/l since the mid-1960's. READING: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - Given the community's policy to sewer new subdivisions, potential problems with septic systems may not materialize. If certain areas to the south of the Ipswich River with wet soils and hardpan were to be developed without sewers under current zoning regulations of 20,000-square foot single-family lots, then septic system problems might well occur. Surface and Groundwater Protection - All wetlands in town are protected by existing wetlands and floodplain districts. A high groundwater favorability area in northeastern Reading is protected due to its status as public and quasi-public open space. A similar high yield aquifer in northwestern Reading, other than the town forest and wellfields, is now zoned for single-family lots of both 20,000 and 40,000 square feet. Consideration should be given to various land use regulations which are sensitive to the need to maximize !w natural recharge. (See Appendix C for a general discussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for particular reference to Reading.) The Drinkwater Realty Trust's activity on the northern banks of the Ipswich River in North Reading across from Reading's wells has been a continuing cause of concern to local officials. Although no specific water qulatiy impacts have yet been demonstrated, filling and rip-rap would probably be detrimental to flood control in more than one community along the river. Stormwater Runoff - The community has a fairly comprehensive stormwater collection system. At the present time, Reading has consulting engineers making an in-depth study of storm drainage. Existing levels, together with expected future levels of population and land development in the town will no doubt create more potential pollution problems due to increased levels of stormwater runoff from urban development. -23- 1 TOPSFIELD( EXISTING PROBLEMS Package Treatment Plant - One of the five non-municipal sew- age treatment plants in the basin is located in Topsfield. The facility is a package treatment plant that was designed about 20 years ago to treat wastewater flows from approxi- mately 200 persons, but which now serves about 65 persons who live in 16 military residences on an abandoned O.S. Army Nike Missile facility. The site is located east of Route 1 (New- buryport Turnpike) , just outside of the watershed of the Putnamville Reservoir in Danvers. The plant's treatment processes include comminution, aeration, clarification and chlorination, with ground disposal of the effluent through three infiltration beds. There is no full-time operator, and detailed information on the facility and its operation is lacking. Storm Drainage Discharges - Topsfield has eight major dis- charges of stormwater: three into the Ipswich River itself, three into Fish Brook, and two into Mill Brook - both tribu- taries of the Ipswich. Maps of the stormwater collection sys- tem were not available, so this information may be incomplete. Failing Septic Systems - Topsfield is the only community without a sewerage system on the whole North Shore which has no reported septic system problem areas at the present time. The health agent of the Boxford-Topsfield-Wenham (BTW) Re- low gional Health District in conjunction with the Topsfield Board of Health notes that existing system failures occur at a rate of less than one percent per year, and that failures are primarily attributable to older systems with exhausted capacity. Septage Disposal - Except for the package treatment plant serving the military facility, the town is entirely served by septic systems. Topsfield neither licenses pumpers nor oper- ates municipal septage disposal facilities. Prior to 1976, a state-approved private septage disposal area (drying beds) was maintained, but the area is now closed, and the town op- poses similar private operations. Based on an existing pop- ulation of 5,900 served by septic systems, an estimated 800,000 gallons of septage would be generated per year (2,200 gpd) • Topsfield operates a sanitary landfill off Bare Hill Road in the northwestern section of town near the Boxford line. The site occupies an area of former gravel pits approximately 1,000 feet to the west of Pye Brook. The area drains primar- ily via the subsurface through highly permeable sands and gravels. Groundwater flow in the moderate yield aquifer be- neath the site is probably toward the east and south to the adjacent high yield aquifer underlying Pye Brook and Howlett Brook. Municipal wells are located between one-half and one mile to the east and south. 1 -24- The Topsfield landfill receives primarily household waste from Topsfield and Wenham. The remaining life of the site is estimated to be in excess of 15 years. Although the facility was not visited as a part of this project, the Mass. DEQE re- ports that it is an excellent operation and that it meets sanitary landfill standards. Filling has apparently not taken place in wetlands nor below groundwater. Engineering plans for future operation are presently being developed. Since the locally available cover material and the subsurface de- posits are highly permeable, the potential for leachate for- mation and migration to the groundwater should be investigated as a part of the preparation of plans. Although the Mass. DEQE does not suspect that local surface and groundwaters are being affected at this site, it is rec- coamiended that regulations for application of impermeable in- termediate cover be carefully observed to minimize the po- tential of leachate production. Salt - Drinking water in Topsfield is now obtained from three well sites, one of which is operated by the Wyledwood Water Works. Town wells at Perkins Row and the Wyldewood system were in operation in 1960 and at that time produced water with an average chloride content of 8 mg/1, a level equiva- lent to natural background sources. Chloride content tripled at both sites by 1970. A new site was developed at Pumphouse Lane by 1972, but the average chloride level from it was nearly equal to that in the two older well fields. Between 1� 1970 and 1976, no significant changes in chloride content have occurred. Sodium levels in all Topsfield groundwater supplies are well below 20 mg/l. Topsfield stores municipal road salt at the School Street depot without protection from precipitation. A small brook draining the area flows to the Ipswich River about 5,000 feet south. No wells are threatened by the storage facility. Water quality data from the brook is not presently available. TOPSH ELD: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot sewage Disposal - Topsfield relies almost exclusively on on-lot septic systems. Expected pressures for future land development in parts of the 40,000-square foot lot residen- tial district just to the north, east and west of the town center might lead to septic system failures in the future due to the predominance of hardpan and wet soils. Similarly, pressures for future growth in parts of the 20,000-square foot lot district surrounding the town center, as well as in the commercial district itself, may lead to future problems with septic systems. R -25- Potential problems are not anticipated in the outlying areas of Topsfiend due primarily to the existence of a 2-acre resi- dential lot district. This is because the probability of water pollution from septic systems is decreased as minimum lot sizes are increased. Larger lot sizes afford the greater possibility of finding suitable soils with adequate perco- lation rates, provide for alternate or future areas for new leaching fields, and allow generally for more infiltration of precipitation to the groundwater table. When a private well is also found on the same lot, the probability of drinking water contamination decreases with increased dis- tances from septic systems based on increased lot sizes under zoning. Surface and Groundwater Protection - Through a combination of public and quasi-public open apace and a floodplain zoning district, most of the water bodies, water courses, wetlands and floodplains are protected in Topsfield. A few wetlands are not included in the zoning district, as well as Hood Pond, which is in Ipswich. The Salem and Beverly Water Supply Board has recently acquired land in Topsfield for a new reservoir located just to the northwest of their Putnam- ville Reservoir in Danvers, and in the former's 2-acre mini- mum lot residential district. Much of Topsfield in underlain with groundwater of a high %► potential yield. The town relies upon groundwater supplies for all of its drinking water, and its two well fields are also located in the 2-acre lot single-family district. While pressures for future land use development do not appear to be so great as to put this groundwater in jeopardy, develop- ment regulations which are sensitive to the need to maximize the natural recharge function should be considered by the town for future adoption. (See Appendix C for a general dis- cussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for reference to Tops- field.) 4' II f -26- WENHAM7 EXISTING PROBLEMS Stomp Drainage Discharges - Two major discharges into Wenham Swamp were reported by the highway superintendent, but maps of the collection system were unavailable and information on storm drainage in the town is incomplete. However, there are plans to install a new drainage system in School and Cabot streets with discharge to the wetland area near the head of Pleasant Pond. Failing Septic Systems - An area of failing septic systems on Lord's Hill, caused by hillside springs, has been allevi- ated by the construction of perimeter drains around the leaching fields. The health agent of the Boxford-Topsfield- Wenham (BTW) Regional Health District also has reported that there is concern in Wenham with the possible contamination of Pleasant Pond from septic systems on Pleasant Street. The town's only well field is located at the head of the pond, but there has been no water supply contamination. Conversion of seasonal properties to year-round residences is prohibited near Pleasant Pond, unless sufficient leaching area beyond .. that available on standard small lots is available. Wenham has plans to develop a small municipal beach at the pond. Gordon College in the southeastern section of town near Route 128 has been expanding its campus septic systems, but it now plans to connect to the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) system through Beverly. The proposed connection will consist of a pumping station at Gordon College, a force main into Beverly along Grapevine Road and Hall street, and a short section of gravity sewer to connect to the Beverly collection system at Arbella Drive. These improvements have been de- signed, and construction is scheduled for this spring. There has been no evidence of septic system failure at the college, but the town imposed a moratorium on the future expansion of septic systems in the area and favors the SESD connection. Septage Disposal - The Board of Health neither issues pumping licenses nor maintains records on septage disposal. Based on an existing population of 3,400 persons served by septic sys- tems, an estimated 425,000 gallons of septage would be gen- erated per year (1,200 gpd) . Salt - Two gravel-packed wells supply groundwater to Wenham. Both were in operation in 1960. Although there is no difference in quality of water produced, the #2 well is presently relegated to stand-by and emergency status. Analyses of water samples indicate that chloride levels nearly tripled between 1960 and 1970. No significant improvement in quality has occurred since then, but the rising trend in chloride content appears to have been arrested. Neither well has ever yielded water that exceeded 20 mg/l sodium. About thirty tons of municipal de-icing salt is stored in a covered shed at 138 Main Street (Route IA) . No State depots -27- exist in town. No well water quality problems originate from municipal storage facilities. The small increase in chloride level of well water at the Pleasant Street field probably re- flects input both from road salt and domestic subsurface wastewater disposal in the drainage basin southeast of the field. WENHAM; POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - The whole town relies on septic sys- tems and, except for a Small commercial area, is zoned for single-family residential use on 40,000-square foot minimum lots. Expected pressures for future land development in areas of hardpan and wet soils in southwestern Wenham off Route 97 (Topsfield Road) and in areas of bedrock and wet soils in eastern Wenham might lead to future problems with septic systems. Surface and Groundwater Protection - The Salem 6 Beverly Wa- ter Supply Board's reservoirs (Wenham Lake and Longham Res- ervoir) in Wenham are protected by the land around them being owned by the board. Wenham Lake's only potential problem is with salt contamination from Route 1-A; however, due evident- ly to some recent roadside drainage improvements by the state, ` the level of chlorides reportedly has gone down in the lake. The land around Coy Pond is owned by Gorden College. Nearly all water courses and wetlands in the town are protected by a floodplain zoning district. The large majority of Wenham serves as an aquifer recharge area for groundwater with a high potential yield. The town relies on this groundwater for all of its water supply. While pressures for future growth and development do not ap- pear to be so great as to put this groundwater supply in jeopardy, land use regulations which are sensitive to the need to maximize the natural recharge function should be con- sidered by the town for future adoption. (See Appendix C for a general discussion of solutions and Chapter 4 for particu- lar reference to Wenham. ) _28_ WILMINGTON: EXISTING PROBLEMS Cooling Water Discharges - Two industrial seasonal cooling water discharges are located in Wilmington. One empties into Maple Meadow Brook from AVCO Systems Division, and the other discharges into the Ipswich River from General Electric Aerospace. The daily average temperature of the former as allowed in the discharge permit in 720 F, while that of the latter is 830 F. Storm Drainage Discharges - Nine major storm drainage discharges are located in Wilmington, seven of which discharge into the Ipswich River or its tributary, Lubber Brook. (Two discharges are found in the Shawsheen River basin, which drains the western and northern tips of Wilmington.) Lubber Brook drains 5 square miles of the central part of the community and includes Silver Lake. Two stormwater discharges are into this lake from collection systems on Route 38 (Main Street) : and three other discharges drain into Lubber Brook. Failing Septic Systems - Except for a small sanitary sewer system that is tributary to the NSD and that serves industries and a small number of residences in the southeastern corner of town, 97 percent of Wilmington's population is sewed by septic systems. According to the town's sanitarian, the only area which presently experiences septic system problems is north of Silver Lake. System failures have occurred not only because of a high water table, but because summer homes on small lots have been converted to year-round residences. (Wilmington has recently voted major sewer extensions to serve the Silver Lake area, as well as other areas of the com- munity, and these extensions are discussed in the next chapter.) Septage Disposal - The Board of Health requires that septic tanks have a minimum capacity of 1,250 gallons (higher than the 1,000 gallon capacity used as a standard size by CDM for purposes of calculating the generation of septage) . Based on an existing population of 17,000 sewered by septic systems and a minimum tank capacity of 1,250 gallons, an estimated 2,720,000 gallons of Septage would be generated per year (7,500 gpd) . Twelve pumpers are currently licensed to pump and haul septage within Wilmington. Septage is disposed of at a locked sewer manhole on Woburn Street near the Woburn town line. Use of the septage depository is restricted to working days and Saturdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Septage from Billerica and Tewksbury is also deposited there under one-year contracts with Wilmington and the MSD. Each town annually pays $1.25 per non-sewered person to the MSD and $10,000 to Wilmington for disposal privileges.) _29- Leachate from Landfill - A private landfill off Lower Main Street in southern Wilmington accepted the town'a refuse until 1975-76, when it was closed by order of the Mass. DEQE. The landfill is located in an area of wetlands and former gravel pits above a high yield aquifer. Past dumping has filled wetlands drained by Maple Meadow Brook, which flows through the site. A section of the Brook has been culverted to provide separation from the refuse. At the time the site was visited (December, 1976) the large area to the west of the brook contained uncovered and ungraded demolition waste with an abundance of asphalt shingles. The section to the east of the brook contained residential waste which was poorly graded to an irregular contour and covered with a permeable stoney material. The past dumping of refuse in wetlands together with the inadequate cover and grading practices guarantees the production of leachate which has visibly affected Maple Meadow Brook. Depending upon the nature of subsurface materials, leachate could also migrate down to contaminate the underlying aquifer. A town well located less than a mile downstream in the probable path of groundwater flow could be affected. Leachate impacts on groundwater would include aggravation of an existing problem with high natural levels of iron. and manganese. The facility is reported to have been capped with loam and then seeded as prescribed by the DEQE. This final cover should greatly reduce the amount of rainfall infiltrating through the refuse and should therefore reduce the amount of leachate production. Leachate will, however, continue to seep from the landfill for years since refuse was originally placed below water level. To determine the significance of the continuing impact, and the need for additional remedial measures, monitoring should be conducted in Maple Meadow Brook and in the groundwater down-gradient of the landfill. At the present time, Wilmington's refuse is hauled to the B.F.I. commercial landfill in Chelmsford. A proposal to develop a new town landfill on public land adjacent to the old site was defeated in town meeting in March of 1975. A subsequent Solid Waste Disposal Committee report identified several alternatives for future disposal including out-of-town hauling, town landfilling, and the state regionalization plan. If, after expiration of the three year contract for disposal with B.F.I. it is decided to develop the proposed new town landfill site, measures should be taken to avoid the surface and groundwater problems experienced at the old site. Salt - Groundwater supplied to Wilmington residents is pumped from up to six well sites, two of which were in production in 1960. At that time chloride content of subsurface aquifers was 10 mg/l or less. A dramatic change in chloride occurred in -30- these two wells between 1960 and 1970 that resulted in about an eight-fold increase in salt levels. One of the older wells at Browns crossing has shown a continuous increase. in chloride and sodium content through 1976, when chloride levels reached 82 mg/1. Sodium levels have exceeded 20 mg/l since the first sodium monitoring in 1969-70. The older well at Barrows Crossing experienced continuing salt consentration increases to 93 mg/l in 1974 and a sharp drop to 58 mg/l in 1976. During the late sixties and early seventies six additional well sites were developed, although the Aldrich and Butters wells were shut down due to iron problems. Of four sewer wells in production in 1976, all were producing water with more than 20 mg/l sodium; chloride levels ranged from 31 mg/l to 65 mg/1. Only one of the four showed significant decrease in chloride level in the past two years, two experienced slight increases, and the one with the highest chloride level at Chestnut Street showed no change. Municipal road salt is stored at Federal Street east of Wildwood Cemetery. There is no State depot in town. At the town site, salt is stored on permeable material about 2,000 feet from the Ipswich River and is not protected from precipitation or in- filtration. Saline leachate certainly affects the marshland between the site and the river. Because chloride is an ion not utilized by biologic systems and not greatly subject to immobilization or precipitation by natural or chemical actions, chloride enrichment of the river is also likely. Approximately '00 6,000 feet downstream on the river, Reading's Hundred here well field has shown persistently rising chloride levels in the past twelve years. Wilmington wells are not affected by the town storage facility. Changing chloride levels in groundwater at Browns and Barrows Crossing fields reflect road salt impacts from interchange 428 ant #29 on Interstate Highway 93. Drainage from both inter- changes flows directly past the Browns Crossing field just downstream from Woburn Street. Runoff from about 3,000 feet of state highway and adjacent Woburn Street flows past the Bar- row's site. Within Wilmington, reduced salting On Mill and Chestnut Streets may improve chloride levels at the Chestnut Street well. WILMINGTON: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS On-lot Sewage Disposal - In terms of pressures for future growth and development outside of these areas to which sewers are to be extended, Wilmington has a number of potential problem areas with septic systems. Much of the town has a high water table and wet soils, and therefore severe limitations for septic systems; numerous areas of bedrock and hardpan are also there. In particular, areas presently zoned for industrial uses near Route I-93 in the north Of Wilmipcton s ould either be sewered or rezoned to a less-intensive, rest ential -31- district. Areas to the southwest of Route 28 (Main Street) y, with high or moderate pressures for future land development, a✓ which are now presently zoned for single-family lot sizes of 22,500 square feet, should also probably be either severed or rezoned to larger minimum lot sizes. (See Chapters 4 and 6 and Appendix C for further discussion related to such choices) . Surface and Groundwater Protection - Practically the whole town, except for the southwestern portion mentioned above, is in a high groundwater favorability, class. Not only does Wilmington rely exclusively on wells for its water supply, but it serves as the headwaters of the Ipswich River. Other than those areas located along Route 28 to Silver Lake and north to I-93, to which MSD sewers are to be extended, properly functioning septic systema would be beneficial to recharge of this groundwater supply. Wilmington should consider enlarging its minimum lot size of 22,500 square feet in order to protect the recharge function by decreasing impermeable, urban surfaces; residential cluster options in areas with adequate soils for septic systems should also be considered in conjunction with this basic change. The town also needs to extend its flood plain zoning district to include all wetlands, since in Wilmington most of these constitute part of the groundwater table. (See Chapter 4 and Appendix C for a more detailed discussion of these kinds of land use regulations for surface and groundwater protection) . Stormwater Runoff - Wilmington already suffers from bad drainage problems during heavy rainfalls. The town does not have a comprehensive stormwater collection system, but rather a number of small piped systems dishcarging to one of the numerous streams or wetlands. (Such storm drainage discharges were previously discussed.) Existing levels, together with expected future levels of population and land development will no doubt create more potential pollution problems due to increased levels of stormwater runoff from urban development. i -32- Summary Matrix of Structural Solutions The accompanying matrix attempts to summarize by community the alternative structural solutions presented in Chapter 4 (and more generally described in Appendix C) of the Ipswich River Basin Report. Among the options included in the matrix (Table 1) are traditional sewerage with either local or regional treatment plants, as previously discussed under the sewering concepts; package plants, or communal subsurface systems with limited sewerage; and individual on-lot septic systems. Septage management options are limited to a formal program for the management and maintenance of septic systems and to disposal of septage at existing wastewater treatment facilities In the structural matrix, wastewater management options are assessed for the existing and potential problem areas in each community. Two ratings are used to indicate the relative appropriateness and perceived urgency as judged by the MAPC's 208 staff at the present time. Letters are used to denote whether the proposed option is appropriate to solve existing or potential problems. The letter A means that the option is very appropriate; the letter B means that the option is appropriate and the letter C means that the option is inappropriate to deal with the problems. A rating of "very appropriate" (A) indicates that the option MR is likely to be technically and economically feasible, and environmentally and politically acceptable to the community. A rating of "appropriate" (B) indicates that the MAPC staff assessmert identifies possible difficulties (i.e. , economic, social, political, etc. ) in implementing this option. Numbers indicate the time interval within which the management option could reasonably expect to be implemented. A number 1 denotes that the option is likely to be implemented in the short-range future (0-5 years) ; a number 2 indicates that the option may be implemented within the medium-range future (5- 10 years) ; and a number 3 denotes options that should be studied for implementation in the long-range future (10-20 years) . (The additional letter P indicates options presently in use, under construction, or in the planning stage. ) In developing the summary matrix, existing and potential problem areas within a community were rated according to; the technical feasibility of each alternative; geographic proximity to existing sewer systems or to those extensions now programmed; • general physical features of the problem area; and estimated peak daily wastewater flows generated from all dwellings within the problem area. . C7 Table 1 STRUCTURAL OPTIONS FOR THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN G 5 OPTIONS F o55 pF5 2 W 5 M $ 5 m o s a a S4 Sewage Disposal m x E z �9a ; ; Brief Comments 1. Traditional Sewerage P/A 3B 2B 2B P/A - - 2B See previous discussion of sewage disposal and severing concepts for 2. Package Plants C 2A 2B IA C - - 2B explanation of traditional sewerage with limited sewerage and package plants. 3. Communal Septic Systems C 2A C C C - - C .Soils on the North Shore are gmer- with limited sewerage ally unsuitable for communal sys- tems. 4. Reconstruction of Individual C lA lA 2B C - - 2B -No present or future problems ars On-lot Septic Systems foreseen in Topsfield. Wenham has and is expected to have few if any problems; see end of Chapter 3 and remainder of Chapter 4 for details Septage Management- on these two and other communities. 1. Management and Maintenance of - IA lA lA - IA IA IA - See Appendix C for general descrip- Septic Systems tion of such a program. 2. Disposal at Existing Waste- P/A P/A P/A • Recommendations for Hamilton, Mid- water Facilities dleton, North Reading, Topsfiald, and Benham are deferred pending separate study of septage manage- ment. Key: A: Very Appropriate 1: Short-Range Future (0-5 years) 'The MAPC 208 Project is preparing a separate planning study of regional sep- B: Appropriate 2: Medium-Range Future (5-10 years) tage treatment and disposal options, including the need for new treatment C: Inappropriate 3: Long-Range Future (30-20 years) facilities; this study report is expected to be completed and available late in the Not Applicable P: Present Circumstances year. -33- PLEASE INDICATE YOUR REASONS FOR WRITING IN CHANGES, IF ANY, ON THE PRECEDING MATRIX (Structural Options) : No change. -34- FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, WHICH OF THE THREE SEWERING CONCEPTS (as described in Chapter 4 and on Figures 6, 7 and 8 of the basin report) DO YOU PREFER: MOST LEAST PREFERRED PREFERRED CONCEPT 1 "Maximized Sewer Service: Addition of New Treatment Facilities" CONCEPT 2 "Maximized Sewer Service; X Utilization of Existing Treatment Facilities" CONCEPT 3 "Minimized Sewer Service: Abatement of Existing Problems Only" The reasons reasons for my preferences are: The Town of Reading will be virtually 100% sewered by 1980. r -35- FOR THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN AS A WHOLE, WHICH OF THE SAME THREE SEWERING CONCEPTS DO YOU PREFER MOST AND WHICH DO YOU PREFER LEAST (see preceding question) : MOST LEAST PREFERRED PREFERRED CONCEPT I x CONCEPT Z CONCEPT 3 x My reasons for these preferences are: The Town of Reading recognizes that groundwater recharge is a very mportant aspect of the water supply facilities of down stream communities nd the continued transport of potential recharge water out of the basin ill have devestating impacts on the future water supply of communities ithin the basin. Wherever possible, non—structured solutions and protective measures hould be implemented to improve, protect and provide future water supplies A possible addition to any of the concepts for communities will be ewered would be the implementation of an all—out program for water conser— ation. Reading, for example, is an MDC member community and all of the ater discharged into it is derived from the Ipswich River Basin. It herefore follows that the downstream communities will benefit from a water onservation program in Reading. It should be the duty of the towns sewered (due to soil conditions, et . ) o implement water conservation programs if we are to expect other communit es o provide zoning changes which will protect existing water recharge areas. -36- Summary Matrix of Non-Structural options The accompanying matrix attempts to summarize by community the alternative land development controls, which are presented in this section and which are more generally described in Appendix C at the back of the report. These non-structural options are intended to prevent future water quality or water quality related problems, as discussed previously in Chapter 3 under "community profiles". They should not be considered mutually exclusive of the sewering concepts and structural options presented in the first part of Chapter 9. Rather, a community should try to pick and choose from among the various solutions in order to arrive at what is considers to be the best and moat realistic set. As a general rule, moat of the structural and non-structural options described in the regional or basin-scale report will need a considerable amount of fitting or tailoring to the local or site-scale level of specificity before they can be implemented. (Chapter 5 of the Ipswich River Basin Report sets out two combinations of land development controls, one which minimizes their geographical application and another which maximizes their extent; at the same time, Alternatives I and II also combine the various sewering concepts - see Figures 9 and 10 in the basin report.) f Table 2 NON-STRUCTURAL OPTIONS FOR THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN u Z LOCAL OPTIONS z z a o z Land Development Controls ZDy w £¢ SaS 0 E O N Y Z 1. Zoning Regulations m g z p µZj 3 Brief Comments A. Natural Resource Districts F a 1. wetlands district 1 1 - Burlington is the only town in the basin currently without some form of wetlands or 2. floodplain district 1 floodplain zoning; Wilmington's floodplain district excludes many wetland areas. 3. aquifer recharge district- 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 -North Reading and Wilmington have relatively large areas of high groundwater favorability subject to considerable pressures for future development; Burlington and Middleton have relatively small areas of high groundwater favorability. 4. stream/pond buffer district 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 -Part of Chebacco Lake in Hamilton is unprotected (it contains wells which serve as Essex's sole water supply) ; Middleton has a couple of brooks, portions of which are currently unprotected, which are either used or likely to be used for surface water supply. 5. watershed protection district 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 -North Reading, Middleton, Topsfield, and Wenham have or will have water supply reser- voirs which while not currently unprotected may need further protection of their watersheds. 6. water resource protection district 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 -Burlington and Wilmington may want to consider a more comperhensive water resource protection district in the process of enacting wetlands/ floodplain zoning. B. Use and Density Regulations 2 2 11 1 2 2 2 1 -Wilmington and North Reading have need for C. Cluster, PUD Regulations 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 increased minimum lot sizes in certain areas D. Site Plan Review Powers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 from the point of view of severe soils limita- tions for septic systems and in the context of protecting the recharge function; Middleton needs larger minimum lots in certain area due to severe soils limitations for on-lot sewage disposal. All three towns are expected to have COO" Table 2 (cont.) u OW �a u ❑ Z z = 4 ❑ O 3 3 m x s z E. Site Development Regulations (comment cont.) 1. grading and slope regulations 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 considerable pressures for future land 2. minimum open space requirements 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 development. (North Reading already has 3. parking area regulations 3 ' 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 cluster zoning and PUD regulations.) 2. Subdivision Rules and Regulations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -Local rules and regulations should contain requirements for sedimentation and erosion control plan as part of drainage requirements. 3. Innovative Dew to ment Controls 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -performance standards, growth management techniques, or transfer of development rights say or may not be appropriate in the context of a community's total regulatory system. Other Local Controls 1. Health Codes 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 -Burlington, Middleton, and Wilmington currently require only 25 feet as a minimum distance between leaching fields and water bodies or courses. 2. Land Acquisition .212 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 means appropriate to deal with problems immediately 2 means appropriate to deal with problems in the short-run 3 means appropriate for future consideration - means currently in use or otherwise not applicable The adoption of an aquifer recharge district is closely related to (a) adequate minimum lot sizes; (b)cluster provisions for residential uses; and (c) site plan review powers. (See Appendix C for a more complete discussion.) -37- PLEASE INDICATE YOUR REASONS FOR WRITING IN CHANGES, IF ANY, ON THE PRECEDING MATRIX (Non-Structural Options) : Table 2 Non—Structural Options. Possibly add water conservation practices as an additional option. Board discussion on the matter — perhaps should include the various items reflecting Board and Town policies . Also explained in Appendix C. J a -38- PLEASE VOTE FOR EITHER: ALTERNATIVE I "Maximized Reliance on Sewerage" (See Figure 9 and Table 5-2 in Chapter 5 of the basin report) based on either Concept I or Concept U , or a combination thereof, and including wetlands/floodplain and stream buffer zoning districts; OR ALTERNATIVE Ir - "Minimized Reliance on Sewerage" (See Figure 10 and Table 5-3 in Chapter 5 of the basin report) based on sewering Concept IE and the same land development controls as noted above, plus certain zoning use and density changes. Check Favorite ALTERNATIVE I X ALTERNATIVE II i� My reasons for voting as I did are: Same reasons as stated on page 34. w BURLINGTON Wetlands/Floodplain Zoning Districts - Burlington is the only town in the basin which does not presently have some form of y wetlands or floodplain zoning. Accurate maps of floodplains are already being compiled as part of the conmtunity's comprehensive drainage study. Therefore, a floodplain/wetlands zoning district should be delineated and adopted by the town within the next year or so. Use and Density Zoning Regulations - Two basic choices that face Burlington are: (a) whether to sewer areas zoned for industrial uses near Route 128 and Route 3, or whether to rezone the areas to less intensive uses (relatively large single-family lots) ; and (b) whether to sewer areas zoned for 20,000-square foot single-family lots in eastern and southern Burlington, or whether to rezone them to 1-acre to 2-acre single-family lots. (See the section of this chapter on structural solutions for a more complete discussion of sewering options.) Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Burlington should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as part of all approved subdivision plans. Local Health Code - Burlington should increase the minimum distance of 25 feet between septic tanks or leaching fields and watercourses or bodies of water permitted under its lcoal health code. (Under Title V of the New State Environ- mental Code, this distance must now be at least 50 feet, although it can be mors, as local conditions warrant. ) -40- HAMILTON Buffer Zoning District - A buffer zoning district of at least 100 feet should be established along the southeastern shore of Chebacco Lake. This is the only undeveloped and unprotected part of the lake in Hamilton, which is located largely in Essex and which has gravel-packed wells as the only water supply of that community. Density Zoning Regulations - Areas between the Miles River and Route lA (Bay Street) currently zoned for single-family lots of 20,000 square foot will either need to be re-zoned to at least 40,000 square foot lots or may need to be sewered, either with conventional systems or with package treatment plants or communal subsurface systems. (See the section of this chapter on structural solutions for a more complete discussion of sewering options. ) Cluster Zoning/Site Plan Review - Much of the aquifer recharge area which protects the high yield groundwater supply underlying Hamilton is already zoned for single- family lots of either 40,000 square feet or 2 acres. A cluster option should be adopted in these two zoning districts, along with the contingent site plan review powers. The idea is to minimize interruption of the aquifer's recharge function by controlling the siting of structures and other impervious surfaces. However, soils for on-lot sewage disposal or communal subsurface systems must be adequate in the area pro- posed for clustered development, otherwise sewering of some sort would be needed. Subdivision _Rules and Regulations - Hamilton should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. -41- MIDDLETON Buffer zoning District - Those portions of Emerson Brook and Boston Brook not included in Middleton's conservancy district should be protected either by extending the existing zoning district, or by adopting a new stream buffer district of at least 100 feet from each brook's banks. Use and Density Zoning Regulations - Areas currently zoned for single-family lots of 20,000 square feet in and around the center of town should either be re-zoned to at least 40,000 square foot lots, or should be provided with some type of sewage disposal other than on-lot septic systems. Industrially and commercially zoned areas along Route 114 (South Main Street) between the town center and the Ipswich River will either have to be re-zoned to less intensive residential uses or sewered, either by a conventional collection system or by package treatment plants. (see the section of this chapter on structural solutions for a more complete discussion of sewering options. ) Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Middleton should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. 3 Local Health Code - Middleton should increase the minimum distance of 25 feet between septic systems or leaching fields and watercourses or bodies of water permitted under its local health code. (Under Title V of the State Environmental Code, this distance must now be at least 50 feet, although it can be more, as local conditions warrant. ) i -42- NORTH READING Aquifer Recharge Zoning District - An aquifer recharge protection district should be adopted in areas of high groundwater favorability. These areas are generally located west of Route 28 (Main Street) and north of North Street from Haverhill Street on the east to Martins Pond on the west. (More accurate maps than are currently available from MAPC's Water Quality Project would be necessary. See appropriate section in Appendix C for more background information on an aquifer recharge district. ) In particular, the area to the west of Route 28 presently zoned for highway business should be rezoned to single- family lots of at least 400000 square feet. The current cluster residential development, along with contingent site plan review powers, would then pertain. The idea is to minimize interruption of the aquifer's recharge function by controlling the siting of structures and other impervious surfaces. However, soils for on-lot sewage disposal or communal subsurface systems must be adequate in the area proposed for clustered development, otherwise sewering of some sort would be needed. Density Zoning Regulations - Areas east of Route 28 (Main Street) and Haverhill Street, and north of the Ipswich River currently zoned for residential lots of 40,000 square feet should be rezoned to lots of 80,000 square feet; otherwise, many of these areas may require conventional sewers or package treatment plants. Subdivinion Rules and Regulations - North Reading should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan he required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. -43- READING Aquifer Recharge Zoning District - Part of nnrthweetern Reading is classified as an area of high groundwater favorability. In conjunction with the existing zoning of single-family lots of 40,000 square feet in the area, provisions for clustered residential developments along with contingent site plan review powers should be adopted. (lore accurate maps than are currently available from the NAPC's Water Quality Project would be necessary. see the appropriate section in Appendix C for more background information on an aquifer recharge district. ) Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Reading should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. _44_ TOPSFIELD Cluster Zoning/Site Plan Review - Much of the aquifer recharge 7 area which protects the high yield groundwater supply under- lying Topsfield is already zoned for single-family lots of either 40,000 square feet of 2 acres. A cluster or PUD option should be adopted in these two zoning districts, along with the contingent site plan review powers. The idea is to minimize interruption of the aquifer-a recharge function by controlling the siting of structural and other impervious surfaces. However, soils for on-lot sewage disposal or communal subsurface systems must be adequate in the area proposed for clustered or planned residential development, otherwise sewering of some sort would be needed. Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Topsfield should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. -45- WENHAM _cluster Zoning/Site Plan Review - The aquifer recharge area which protects the high yield groundwater supply underlying Wenham is currently zoned for single-family lots of 40,000 square feet. A cluster option should be adopted, in this zoning district, along with the contingent site plan review powers. The idea is to minimize interruption of the aquifer's recharge function by controlling the Siting of structures and other impervious surfaces. However, soils for on-lot sewage disposal or communal subsurface systems must be adequate in the area proposed for clustered residential development, otherwise sewering of some sort would be needed. Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Wenham should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. Table 3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS p p �Zp mZ Z z O F F 6 y Landfills m x E E E i 2 3 3 1. Monitor - A A A A - A A - A 2. Upgrade - IA C - - - C C - - 3. Close and Seal - 2A IA 3A P/A - IA 3A - P/A Future Disposal 1. Municipal Landfill C P - P - C C B C C 2. Regional Landfill P 2B - C - P 2B P P P 3. Regional Resource Recovery - 2A 2A - 3A - 2A 2A 3A 3A 2A 4. Incineration C C - C - C P C C C 5. Recycling P P - A - A P P A A Key: A: Very Appropriate 1: Near Future (0-5 years) B: Moderately Appropriate 2: Intermediate Future (5-10 years) C: Inappropriate 3: Distant Future (10-20 years) Not Applicable P: Present Circumstances Footnotes: • Present Middleton landfill Note: See accompanying text for explanation •• Planned Middleton landfill of option ratings. ••• Former private demolition material landfill in Middleton _48- cost-effectiveness • secondary effects • severity of water quality problems Landfills - Presently, seven of the eight basin communities dispose of their municipal solid waste in landfills. Hamilton and Middleton operate individual town landfills; Topsfield operates a facility which also accepts refuse from Wenham. The estimated remaining life at these facilities is 5 years at Hamilton, 20 years at a new site in Middleton, and 15-20 years at the Topsfield landfill. The towns of Burlington and Horth Reading utilize the private Shaffer landfill in Billerica, while Wilmington is served by the Browning - Ferris Industries disposal company, which dumps at a private facility in Tewksbury. A third private regional landfill, which is potentially available to basin towns, is operated by the SCA disposal company in Amesbury. Estimating remaining life at these private facilities is difficult in that significant changes may occur in daily tonnage received, land area available and number of lifts or levels used. Despite these uncertainties, these facilities could be limited to several remaining years of operation, unless circumstances favorable to their existince prevailed. Reading is the only town in the basin which does not directly dispose of refuse in a municipal or regional landfill. Refuse is burned at the town incinerator, and the remaining ash is landfilled at a nearby site. The ash disposal facility is nearing capacity and will have to be closed in several years. water quality monitoring of each site in the basin is recommended as a first, necessary step in assessing the degree to which present and former landfills in the basin are affecting water resources. The time period during which monitoring is appropriate has not been indicated, since this determination depends upon the results of sampling at each site. Where a closed landfill gives evidence of continuing impact, monitoring should continue after remedial measures have been taken and should proceed until measurements indicate that a permanent abatement has been achieved. Similarly, monitoring should be conducted at present operating facility as a check on the operation of the facility, and should continue beyond the closing of the facility to determine the adequacy of the capping procedure. In addition to providing information to assess impacts and operations, monitoring provides basic data necessary for the preparation of upgrading or closureplans. The type and intensity of monitoring required will vary both with the purpose and with the site. A further discussion of monitoring procedures and costs is presented in Appendix C. _46- WILMINGTON Wetlands/Floodplains Zoning District - Many large wetlands are currently unprotected by a separate zoning district in Wilmington. The town needs either to extend its present form of flood- plan zoning to protect all wetlands, or to enact a separate wetlands district. (See the appropriate sections in Appendix C for a more complete discussion of wetlands, flood- plain and other forms of natural resource zoning district. ) Aquifer Recharge Zoning District - Nearly all of Wilmington serves as an aquifer recharge area for a high yield supply of groundwater. The only areas currently zoned for single- family lots of 60,000 square feet are situated on the outskirts of town. In conjunction with this existing low density residential district, the community should adopt zoning provisions for cluster developments along with contingent site plan review powers. The idea is to minimize interruption of the aquifer's recharge function by controlling the siting of structures and other impervious surfaces. How- ever, soils for on-lot sewage disposal or communal subsurface systems must be adequate in the area proposed for clustering, otherwise sewering of some sort would be needed. Use and Density Zoning. Regulations - Undeveloped areas, particularly to the southwest of Route 26 (Main Street) , which are currently zoned for single-family lots of 22,500 square -ft.. feet should either be re-zoned to at least 40,000 square foot lots (with a cluster option) , or should be provided with some type of sewage disposal other than on-lot septic systems. Industrially zoned areas, especially in the northern part of town near Route I-93, should be sewered if they are to be developed; otherwise they should be re-zoned to relatively low density residential lots. (See the section of this chapter on structural solutions for a more complete discussion of sewering options. ) Subdivision Rules and Regulations - Wilmington should amend its local rules and regulations to require that an erosion and sedimentation plan be required as a part of all approved subdivision plans. Local Health Code - Wilmington should increase the minimum distance of 25 feet between septic tanks or leaching fields and watercourses or bodies of water permitted under its local health code. (Under Title V of the new State _ Environmental Code, this distance must now be at least 50 feet, although it can be more, as local conditions warrant. ) -47- Solid Waste Management ; The solid waste management heading is divided into two sections: .� landfills and future disposal. The first section on landfills lists measures to assess and correct water quality problems due to landfill leachates. Included are upgrading, closing and sealing, and water quality monitoring. Future solid waste disposal options include regional sanitary landfills (public or private) , regional resource recovery, town landfills and recycling. In Table 3, solid waste management options are rated by community according to their appropriateness for the specific problems discussed in the previous chapter. Also indicated is the future interval during which considerations of each alternative is deemed pertinent. These intervals are approximate and include: (1) near future (0-5 years) ; (2) intermediate future (5-10 years) ; and (3) distant future (10-20 years) . Also indicated as a (P) for present circum- stances, which include existing situations, actions in the process of implementation, and facilities under construction. Ratings of appropriateness are not necessarily given to present circumstances, since these conditions have evolved from past trends and factors which preceded the mandate of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Future alternative solutions may be more fairly evaluated in light of recent water quality goals. The appropriateness ratings include (A) very, (H) moderately, and (C) inappropriate. The staff ratings are judgmental and . are based upon subjective weighing of numerous factors in addition to water quality enhancement. The assessments in the matrix are presented as a tabular summary of, and an adjunct to, information concerning community problems in Chapter 3, and structural solutions in Appendix C. To avoid the over- simplification inherent to tabular summaries, the text which accompanies attempts to explait. the ratings and the factors involved in the evaluation. Solutions to existing landfill problems or future disposal problems are considered and rated for the future time period in which they are considered relevant, given the adequacy of existing facilities, their life expantancy, and the lead time required for planning and implementing a given alternative. General factors involved in the rating of appropriateness of a solution to a landfill or solid waste problem include: water quality enhancement • technical feasibility regulatory constraints '� _49_ The summary matrix indicates that the Hamilton landfill is the only facility recommended for upgrading. Although operating conditions were good at the time of the site visit, the proximity of water supplies requires that the highest standards of operation be maintained at this site. For the same reason, it is recommended that the groundwater surrounding the site be monitored on a continuing basis, and that the site be carefully sealed and closed in the intermediate future when site capacity is reached. The landfills expected to operate into the distant future in Topsfield and Middleton are not recommended for upgrading, since the former is presently well run and the latter is not yet in operation. Both sites should, however, amintain excellent operating practices and provide groundwater monitoring to insure that local aquifers and wells remain uncontaminated. When site capacity is reached, these sites should also be promptly and carefully sealed. Near future closing and sealing of the Reading ash disposal site and the Middleton municipal landfill is recommended, as capacity has been reached at the former and soon will be at the latter. Water quality monitoring should precede the preparation of closing plans in order to assess the problem and the degree of control required. The former Wilmington landfill and the private demolition dump in Middleton have been, or soon should be sealed. Future Solid Waste Disposal - The second part of the solid waste management matrix evaluates future disposal options for the basin' s communities. Each option is discussed and assessed on ageneral level in Appendix C. New disposal facilities will be required by five basin communities, possibly within 5 years, due to limited town disposal facility capacities and uncertainties surrounding the future operation of private regional landfills. Topsfield, Wenham, and Middleton are the only basin communities which are likely to meet their disposal needs in the distant future with existing or planned local facilities. Since the Topsfield landfill serves two towns, it is considered a public regional landfill for Topsfield and Wenham in the summary matrix. This present facility is deemed very appropriate for both communities, in that it represents a well-run facility with costs shared by two towns of rural character with low population and adequate land availability. The planned Middleton landfill, although strictly a municipal facility, offers similar long-term service to an area of similar characteristics. The absence of a more favorable option to these towns, at least into the intermediate future, certainly enhances the appropriate use of these facilities. The towns utilizing private regional landfills (Burlington, North Reading and Wilmington) may require alternative facilities within 5 years, as remaining capacities at these facilities are questionable and expansion to new areas may be problematic, given growing local opposition and increasing enforcement of -50- anviromental regulations. Hamilton and Reading may also be seeking disposal alternatives in the near or intermediate future: Hamilton, due to limited landfill capacity, and Reading, due to the increasing cost of incineration and the need for a new ash disposal area. Although present facilities used by these five communities are not optional from a water quality perspective, appropriatenessis not rated due to the lack of practical, more favorable alternatives in the near future. Future disposal at new town landfills in communities presently without such facilities (Burlington, North Reading, Reading and Wilmington) is rated inappropriate, as these communities are more developed, generate more waste, and have less available land for site selection than do towns such as Topsfield and Middleton, which intend to continue long- term landfilling. New landfills in these four towns would represent a costly duplication of facilities, which should become increasingly expensive and environmental regulations become more stringent or become more strictly enforced. Future disposal by landfilling in these communities is also less appropriate because of the availability of potentially more favorable resource recovery alternatives in the near to immediate future. Currently, the only operating resource recovery facility in the region is the plant in Saugus, which is a 1,200 ton per day (tpd) mass-burning operation utilizing two refuse-fired 1 steam generators. The steam produced is used by the nearby �/ G.E. plant in Lynn for electricity, heating and cooling, and manufacturing. A materials recovery subsystem extracts ferrous materials from the post-combustion residue. The total process reduced the solid waste to about 10 percent of its original volume. The plant is now processing about 1,000 to 1,150 tpd, 75 percent of which comes from area communities, with the remainder coming from various commercial establish- ments. The plant design includes provision for possible addition of two more boilers in order to double capacity. Air quality standards are being met, and all water used is self- contained and treated within the facility. Residue disposal at the adjacent landfill is subject to the same requirements as landfilling of raw refuse. Current disposal charges as RESCO vary with the length of the contract as follows: 20 year contract - $13/ton 10 year contract - $14/ton 5 year contract - $15/ton Contracts also specify an escalation formula for the adjustment of disposal fees according to certain economic indices. ^51- +. Several other resource recovery facilities are in the planning `}. stage in the region. Theme include the South Essex Solid Waste Council (SESWC) facility in Peabody, the Tri-City plant in Beverly, and the Northeast Solid Waste Committee NESWC) plant in North Andover. The South Essex Solid Waste Council (SESWC) , which presently consists of 15 Northshore communities, is planning a two- phase facility to be constructed and operated by Combustion Engineering at the site of the present Peabody landfill. Phase I would consist of a shredding operation with magnetic separation of ferrous materials and landfilling the shredded waste in an expanded and upgraded Peabody landfill. Phase II would involve the production of a refuse derived fuel. Implementation of phase II would procede once a fuel-user is secured. Estimated disposal fees at a 1400 tpd facility are $9.78/ton during phase I, and $7.11/ton during phase II. Actual costs may be affected by problems concerning the capacity and water quality impacts of the present landfill at the site. Costly remedial measures may be required to prevent long-term degradation of surface and groundwater, due both to past operations and planned disposal of shredded waste or process residue. A recent project timetable indicated phase I beginning in 1980 and phase II implementation by 1983-1987. The Northeast Solid Waste Committee (NESWC) project is being planned with the technical and financial assistance of the Massachusetts Bureau of Solid Waste. The facility presently proposed for a site in North Andover is one of seven facilities proposed under the state solid waste management plan, whose aim is to provide statewide coverage. The NEWSC facility would be privately designed, constructed, owned and operated by Universal Oit Products (UOP) of Des Plaines, Illinois. The facility is planned to process 3,000 tons of refuse per day in 3 steam generating combustion units, which will drive a turbine generator for producing electricity. Post-incineration ferrous metal scraps would be recovered for sale. Residue consisting of 8 percent of original refuse volume will have to be land- filled, but efforts are underway to investigate profitable residue uses, including roadbed or other construction purposes. Disposal fees at full utilization of capacity are estimated by the state at $5.50/ton. Costs could escalate to $10.60/ton, if the facility is operated at two-thirds capacity. Disposal fees at this facility and the other proposed facilities would be adjusted according to economic indices. A transportation cost-sharing plan is being considered by the NESWC communities to equalize the burden among participating communities. The large size of the geographic area required to provide 3,000 tons of refuse per day requires that the more distant communities be encouraged to participate through such a subsidy. The earliest possible date for beginning operation of this facility is mid-1981. This schedule assumes that the present -52- site is acceptable, and that contract negotiationsbetween Uop and the communities will be concluded within one year. In addition, the 1981 date requires that the construction Period be limited to 3 years as presently scheduled. �j The facility itself will exert minimal impacts on water quality, as the plant's evaporative cooling system does not entail a discharge into receiving waters. Landfilling of residue could, however, be a potential impact depending upon the procedures and controls utilized. A fourth resource recovery project, Tri-City, is being planned by the City of Beverly and the United Shoe Machinery Company (USM) . A five-acre site on Elliot Street in Beverly is being considered for the plant, which would process 500 tons of refuse per day to provide steam for USM and the local hospital. Electricity would be generated in the existing USM power pland and sold to both USM and the New England Power Company. Recent cost analysis show a disposal fee of approximately $12/ton, which is adjustable according to costs and revenues. A late-1980 operational date is scheduled, although the project is still at an early planning stage. Potential water quality impacts are limited to the manner of disposal of unit tons/day of residue, which the City of Beverly hopes to sell as road base aggregate, if granted state approval. These resource recover o were y tions p compared in a planning workshop report by the Harvard University Department of City and Regional Planning (An Evaluation of Solid Waste Disposal options for Rockport, Mass. , Feb. 1977.) Evaluation criteria included financial, time factors, reliability, environment, and institutional/legal. The results of this evaluation will not be reported here as factors pertinent to such a comparison are subject to rapid change when each of these projects is in the planning stage. It is evident, however, that the region cannot provide the tonnage required to support all of the existing and proposed facilities. Basin communities in need of new disposal facilities in the near- to intermediate-future should initiate or continue active participation in these projects and work towards the implementation of the proj ect(s) which offer the most favorable solution to their mutual long- term solid waste disposal needs. Incineration, as a future disposal method, is rated inappropriate in the summary matrix for all basin communities except Reading, which is presently using this method. Incineration is not expected to be competitive with resource recovery in the future, since the former method sacrifices the energy value of refuse. Recycling programs exist in Burlington, Hamilton, Reading and Topsfield. These programs are voluntary and generally accept paper, glass, and cans. According to a 1977 recycling survey conducted by the Mass. Bureau of Solid Waste, the Hamilton and Reading programs receive roughly 572 and 334 tons, -53- respectively, of material annually. Corresponding revenues, not including disposal cost savings, amount to $7,248 in Hamilton and $4,821 in Reading. In addition to the financial !l and resource conservation benefits, water quality may also be +�? served through recycling programs by reducing the tonnage of waste landfilled. For these reasons, active recycling programs are viewed as very appropriate in all basin communities. Stormwater Management The purpose of this section is to apply alternative solutions (described in Appendix C) to the specific stormwater runoff problems identified in the Ipswich Basin. Due to the data problems discussed in Chapter 3 for both stormwater discharges and receiving water quality, this analysis is limited in terms of the solutions which can reasonably be considered. At this time, there is no basis for evaluating the relative impact and cost-effectiveness of one solution over another. until such data is generated, there will be no criteria or basis upon which to justify structural solutions or other capital-intensive, high operation and maintenance-dependent solutions. The emphasis of this preliminary report is therefore on the application of non-structural solutions or "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) for controlling pollution from stormwater runoff. Best Management Practices for stormwater runoff control generally fall under three of the four possible control areas as described in Appendix C. They are at the land surface,on the road surface, and in the storm drainage system. Controls applied to the land surface, such as erosion and sedimentation regulations, are most typically applied in new or developing areas and are not well suf [ed for controlling existing problems. Examples of road surface and in-system controls are street-sweeping, street vacuuming, catch basin cleaning or vacuuming, neighborhood sanitation, and brook channel maintenance. f� -54- BURLINGTON - As described in the previous chapter, Burlington has an extensive stormwater collection system. The inventory of stormwater facilities performed by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) located twenty-six stormwater systems and their tributary drainage areas. The majority of these systems serve fairly small tributary areas. Only four areas are over 100 acres in size. Of more significance is the fact that all these systems discharge to tributaries of the Ipswich, Shawsheen and Mystic Rivers. In the Ipswich Basin, nine systems discharge to Maple Meadow Brook. Four of the systems located in the Mystic Basin discharge to Little Brook. Four others discharge to Cummings Brook. Five of the nine systems in the Shawsheen discharge to Vine Brook. Three others discharge to Sandy Brook, and the last to Long Meadow Brook. The largest and possibly the most significant is the drainage area consisting of the Burlington Mall and upstream tributaries including Long Meadow Brook. The total area of this system is 3658 acres and includes the head- waters of Vine Brook. This inventory and identification should serve to focus the attention of the Department of Public Works. the Town Planning Board and the Conservation Commission in the on-going operation and maintenance of the existing system and the planning and design of additions to the existing system. This survey should also serve to focus the implementation of BMP's (as described in the previous chapter and in the appen- dix) geared toward maintaining water quality in these small receiving streams. The Town's Department of Public Works is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. Presently, regular catch basin cleaning is the only practice used by the DPW. The following recommendations are intended to be imple- mented in the near future by the town and to guide the town's officials in their stormwater management program for the next five to ten years. DO YOU AGREE? In addition to regular catch basin cleaning, the DPW should institute a semi-annual program of inspecting outfalls and receiving streams to determine the need for instituting stream maintenance programs and the need for installing grates or other structural devices YES NO to control sediment build-up and channel erosion on — and around outfalls. Future land development, where possible, should make maximum use of existing drainage structures. Other development should, to the greatest extent possible, make use of natural drainage patterns and new facilities should be designed accordingly. -55- The drainage system serving the Burlington Mall should be studied to determine the characteristics of the system (plans are not available) so that alternative measures can be investigated to control oils and grease and sediment YES NO associated with extensive paved areas used for transportation related purposes from having a negative impact on Vine Brook. The foregoing recommendations are general in nature and are not meant to take the place of - but rather are intended to complement - the comprehensive drainage study currently being undertaken by Burlington's consulting engineers. My reasons are: -56- HAMILTON - Hamilton is one of the less urbanized communities in the Ipswich Basin. As such, stormwater runoff is not con- sidered to be a problem at the present time. Nine small storm- water systems were identified in the town. Five of these dislow - charge to Idlewild Brook. The remaining four discharge to the Miles River. As the town continues to develop and grow, however, stormwater can be expected to require careful consideration. Presently, catch basin cleaning is done on an annual basis by the Highway Department. Recommendations to the town include: YES NO DO YOU AGREE? outfalls and receiving streams should be inspected on an annual basis and cleaned or repaired as necessarv. In site planning for future land development, maximum use should be made of natural drainage and non-structural runoff control measures. My reasons are; -57- 14IDDLETON - As discussed in the previous chapter, the Ipswich- Parker River Basin water Quality Management Plan (DWPC 1976) , indicates that stormwater runoff from the center of Middleton could contribute to the coliform bacteria and nutrient levels in the Ipswich River. Information was only available for two stormwstar systems as plans have not been maintained by the town. One collection system drains an area of 13 acres and discharges to the outlet of Middleton Pond. The other system drains a 39-acre area and discharges through a 12-inch pipe to the Ipswich River at Route 62. Middleton itself is not a very urbanised community, which suggests that runoff from Middleton Center may not be the source of the coliforms and nutrients referred to in the Basin Plan. (A more likely candidate is the Norris Brook drainage area, which drains an area of 4.8 square miles in Peabody and Lynnfield and which joins the Ipswich River just as the river turns northward in southern Middleton. This drainage area will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the North Coastal Basin report under Peabody.) Operation and maintenance consisting of annual catch basin cleaning is done by the Highway Department. Based on the pre- ceding discussion, the following recommendations are made to the town: DO YOU AGREE? Effort should be made by the town to update its data YES NO base on the location and characteristics of stormwater drainage systems located within the town for which plans �. have not been maintained. In site planning for future land development, maximum use should be made of natural drainage and non-structural runoff control measures. My reasons are 58- NORTH READING - The Ipswich and Parker Rivers Basin Water Quality Management Plan (DWPC 1976) states that urban runoff from portions of North Reading may contribute to the coliform bacteria and nutrient pollutant levels in the Ipswich River. The inventory of stormwater collection systems performed by CDM identified fifteen systems. Of these systems, seven discharge to Martins Brook, seven discharge directly to the Ipswich River, and one discharges to a tributary of Bear Meadow Brook. As stated in CDM's report to MAPC, street drainage systems are scattered throughout the town and usually drain small areas to a nearby watercourse or wetland. Drainage areas at the systems identified range in size from 7 to 74 acres, with only one system being larger than 43 acres. The Highway Department currently performs catch basin cleaning once a year. Recommendations to the town are: DO YOU AGREE? Inspections of both catch basins and outfalls should be undertaken by the Highway Department to determine: a) the need for more frequent catch basin cleaning; and, YES NO b) the need for outfall and stream maintenance at the same time as (a) above. A study should be undertaken in the Skug River-Martins Pond drainage area to develop solutions to the flooding problems which occur in those areas due to inadequate pipe sizes, topography or both. Any solution investigated should oaf be multi-purpose in nature, addressing both the flooding problem and the water quality of the receiving water. In site planning for future land development, maximum use should be made of natural drainage, the existing drainage systems, and non-structural runoff control measures. My reasons are; t _59- READING - The inventury of stormwater collection systems prepared by CDN for the 208 program identified eleven systema in the town of Reading. Four of these systems discharge to a wetland tributary to the Ipswich River. Three systema discharge directly to the Aberjona River at its headwaters. The remaining four, and the largest of the stormwater systems, discharge to the headwaters of the Saugus River above Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield. The Highway Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. Catch basins are cleaned at least twice per year. Additionally culverts and ditches are cleaned as needed to prevent flooding. Recom- mendations to the town are: YES NO DO YOU AGREE? A program of outfall and receiving stream inspection X and maintenance should be developed and implemented. — In site planning for future land development, maximum use should be made of existing drainage systems, natural drainage patterns, and non-structural runoff control measures (in areas where no drainage system presently exists) , X — My reasons are Measures to protect public property from potential flooding condition and to help avoid causing drainage problems due to the combination of in- creased runoff of upstream basins. i TOPSFIELD - plane of the stormwater collection system have not been maintained by the town. However, CDM was able to identify eight stormwater systema through verbal communica- tion with the Highway Superindent. Of these eight systems three result in discharges to Fish Brook, two to Mile Brook, two discharge to the Ipswich River, and one discharges to an unnamed tributary to the Ipswich. Seven of these systems range from 10 to 37 acres in size, with one system draining 90 acres. Catch basin cleaning is done twice a year by the town's Highway Department. Stream and culvert maintenance is also done at the same time. As stormwater is not considered to be a problem in Topsfield at this time, recommendations are limited to the following: DO Y00 AGREE? YES NO In site planning for future land development, utilization of natural drainage and non-structural runoff control measures should be maximized. My reasons are: 1 J -63- Scenic Rivers Designation (See page 6-47 and 6-48 of the basin report for details) . Would you favor designation of the Ipswich River as a "scenic river" by the state? Yes. Would your coimsunity favor such a designation? - Yes . �I -64- Water Conservation (See pages C-24 and C-25 of the basin report for information on such a program) If your community is already sewered, expects to be sewered, or has any prospects of becoming sewered within the foreseeable future - particularly if the treated wastewater is discharged into the ocean - would you and your family be interested in participating in a local water conservation program? Yes. • Under the same conditions as described above, would a civic organization or municipal body (board, commission, committee or department) in your community be interested in instituting a voluntary water conservation program? Yes. • If so, which local organization or body? Board of Public Works - Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Paul C. Dustin, Chairman John W. Price, Secretary Lawrence R. Blood John H. Russell Alexander T. Botka E. Roger Louanis, Superintendent -61- WENHAM - Stormwater runoff is not considered to represent a threat to water quality in wenham, as it is essentially still unurbanized in character. No plans of the stornrvater system in town have been maintained. Discussions with the Highway Superintendent indicated that most drainage is natural with few piped systems. Two small systems were identified; a 9-acre and a 7-acre area discharge to the Wenham Swamp. The Highway Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater collection system. The depart- ment flushes plugged lines in the spring. A private con- tractor is hired to clean catch basins in problem areas twice a year. Recommendations to the town are: DO YOU AGREE? YES NO The town should initiate a program of identifying problem areas requiring catch basin cleaning and of identifying the outfall and receiving stream associated with problem catch basins. Care should be taken to capture solids flushed from drain lines during the town's spring flushing program in order to prevent slug loads from building up and settling in receiving streams. Receiving streams should be inspected, solids deposited from past flushing activi- ties should be cleaned out, and other channel maintenance _ should be performed as necessary. ' in site planning for future land development, maximum use should be made of natural drainage and non-structural runoff control measures. My reasons are: -62- WILMINGTON - The Ipswich and Parker Rivers Basin Water Quality Management Plan (DWPC 1976) suggests that stormwater runoff might be contributing to the nutrient and coliform bacteria levels in the Ipswich River. The inventory of stormwater collection systems done by CDM for the NAPC's 208 program revealed that the town is not served by a comprehensive collection system, but rather by a number of small systems discharging to streams and wetlands. Nine systems were identified throughout the town. Two systems discharge into the Shawsheen River. Two discharge to Silver Lake at the headwaters of Lubber Brook, a major tributary of the Ipswich River. Three Other systems discharge directly to Lubber Brook. One system discharges to Maple Meadow Brook, another tributary to the Ipswich, and the last system discharges to a tributary of Martins Brook. These drainage system areas range in size from 4 to 31 acres. As mentioned in the previous chapter, sampling and monitoring stations have been set up on Lubber Brook at Concord Street and on the mainstream of the Ipswich at Woburn Street in Wilmington to determine water quality conditions under a variety of seasonal conditions. This information will be made available as part of a final basin report. The Highway Department presently performs annual catch basin cleaning and stream maintenance programs. Recommendations to the town include the following: DO YOU AGREE? In site planning for future land development, maximum YES NO use should be made of the existing drainage systems, and the use of natural drainage and non-structural runoff control measures. My reasons are: -65- Ipswich River Watershed District: The District includes the communities of Andover, Beverly, Boxford, Burlington, Danvers, Essex, Gloucester, Hamilton, Ipswich, Lynn, Lynnfield, Manchester, Middleton, North Andover, North Reading, Peabody, Reading, Rowley, Salem, Topefield, Wenham and Wilmington. (Por details see page 6-29 of the basin report.) • Without having read the basin report, would you know what the District is or what it does? Yes • Given the significant water resources in the Ipswich River Basin, but little or no coordination, do you think the District should and/or could play a stronger role in water quality and resource management in the Basin? Yes Please respond to each of the following parts in answering the general question just posed. (a) evaluating competing uses of water and in developin criteria or guidelines for their allocation? ?es (b) re-evaluating minimum flows? Yes (c) monitoring municipal pusping? Yes (d) monitoring state and local efforts having to do with protection of critical and fragile environmental areas (wetlands, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, and the banks of rivers, streams or ponds)? Yes (e) studying the impacts of existing groundwater law on these water resources and suggesting ways in which groundwater law can be changed to provide more control over the private pumping of groundwater supply? Yes r i -66- (f) allowing more representation from, or liaison with, interested groups such as local conservation commissions and the private, non-profit Ipswich River watershed Association? Yes • In general, should the District have more authority; should it be advisory, supervisory, or regulatory? Advisory 1'1� IPSWICH RIVER BASIN All maps listed below are available at the scale of 1 inch equals 3000 feet for reference at the MAPC Water Quality Project Office, 11 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. ENVIRONMENTAL PATTERN: Maps used to develop it are - Wetlands General Soils Soil Limitations for Septic Systems Topographic Slope Groundwater Favorability Flood Hazard Areas Critical/Fragile Areas (composite of environmental data maps) Land Development Capabilities DE FACTO PATTERN: Maps used to develop it are - Existing Land Ose Zoning Districts Zoning Overlay Districts Public and Quasi-Public Lands Landscape Analysis Soil Limitations for Homesites Suitability for Development (composite of De Facto data maps) CONFLICTS BETWEEN EXISTING ZONING AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PATTERN EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT FACILITIES k I1APC 208 Papers Available for Review previous distribution to 6/6/77 (1) Technical !lean. M1 4/18/75 G .� Describes lister Quality and Pollution Problems from a Basin-wide Perspective (2) Technical Memo. M2 (revised) 9/3/15 G Describes Water Quality and Pollution Problems by River Segments (3) Water Quality Project - A Summary 10/10/75 G Background and Proposed Coverage of the Study (4) Summary of Municipal Sewerage Needs 11/10/75 0 as perceived in Meeting of DUPC and 208 staffers (5) N.R.C.S. Population Projections vs. Costs 10/27/75 0 Estimated Costs of Certain Hypo- thetical Configurations of Sewerage and Treatment (6) Summary of the Implementation Schedules 11120/75 0 for Municipalities under NPDES Permits (7) Significance of Recreational Vessel Haste 10/29/75 0 In Marblehead Harbor (8) The 208 Planning Process 11/13/75 G (9) Glossary of Terms 1/6/76 G (10) Legal Authority for Guiding Growth (OSP) 11/75 0 Analysis of Existing Mechanism for Managing Growth to Promote !later Quality (11) Town Profiles 1975 0 Demography, Housing. Amenities Utilities: - a. Duxbury b. Hanover c. Uarshfield d. Norwell e. Rockland f. Scituate - 2 - previous MAPC 203 Papers distribution to 6/6/77 (12) lister Supply 12/31/75 0 1990 Projected !feeds with Comments �. Re SENE and CDM 1969' Studies (13) Visual Inspection of River Segments 1975 0 Reports of Observations and Lists of Photos Assabet Sudbury Lower Mystic Lower Charles Neponset Upper Charles Aberjons to Upper Middle Charles Mystic Ileymouth Fore Upper Ipswich (14) Potential Land UselCbntrols 1/12/76 0 (15) Analysts of Nater Quality Impact 1/12/76 0 of Landfills (16) Agricultural Runoff in the North/South 1/12/76 0 Basin , (17) Management Alternatives (OSP Draft) 3/76 0 A of Possible Institutional Formsrms and Activities for Areawlde liastewater Management (18) Interim Output I 4/6/76 G Part 1 - Sewer Service Areas " 2 - Preliminary Recommendations for Priority Construction Grant Projects 1976-1981 " 3 - Existing and Projected Population, Employment and Land Use 4 - Preliminary Masteload Estimations 5 - Recommendations on the basis for Revision of tiasteload Allocations. NPDES Permits and Industrial Discharges to Municipal Systems " 6 - Preliminary Alternative Implementation Mechanisms and Institutions (19) Interim Output i - Summary 6/29/76 A.C.X Parts 1 thru 6 as above (20) Interim Output I - Final Draft 10/14/76 A.C,D.T.X Addendum to Part I Revision to Part 2 Supplement to Part 3 Partial Revision of Part 4 Revision of Part 5 Supplement to Part 6 f - 3 - previous NAPC 200 Papers distribution to 6/6/77 (21) Preliminary Alternative Implementation 5/10/76 G Mechanisms and Institutions Constitutes Part 6 of interim Output I and is Designed to Supplement OSP Report of Nov. 1975 (22) A case Study of the North/South River Basins 5/28/76 D Part 1 Demography and Land Use I1 De Facto Pattern Projection IIi Environmental Pattern Projection IV Structural Solutions " V Non-Structural Solutions VI Legal and Institutional Implications (23) Summary of Case Study of N/S River Basins 6/1/76 A,C,T (24) Phase 1 Sampling Program 4/76 A,C,T.X Description and Cost Estimates of Program to Fulfill Requirements of PCP Tasks 05101 and 05202 (25) Future Land Development A Water*Quality 5/76 0 Basis of Discussions at Basin Meetings:- a. Weymouth e. Mystic b. Neponset f. Ho. Coastal c. Lower Charles g. SuAsCo d. Upper Charles h. Ipswich (26) later Quality Classifications 6/28/76 G P.iPC's Classifications of hater Quality and Categories of Assimilative Capacity (27) The E141A Study 6/29/76 0 In-House Memo describing Relationship of EMMA to 208 (28) Phase DescriptionSampling and CostProgram 8/20/76 A,L,T,X Estimates of Program to Fulfill Requirements of PCP Tasks 03108. 03203, 04106, 05103, 05107, 05108 (29) Land Use Regulations (Existing) Fall 76 0 North/South Basin Upper Charles Basin teymouth " teponset " Ipswich Lower Charles " No. Coastal " Mystic " SuAsCo " (30) Public Participation Program 12/6/76 A,C.T '40 previous MAPC 208 Papers 4 - distribution to 6/6/77 (31) Governmental Assistance for Financing 1/77 0 _ Pollution Control Systems and 208 Management Discussion Ilays inIlhich Incentive Programs could he,Combined with Regulatory Programs for Maximum Effectivennss (32) Metcalf I. Eddy Reports re Industrial Discharges a. Preliminary Listing of Significant 10!26/76 0 Industrial Discharges 1/28/77 b. Industries in Unsewered Areas without NPDES Permits c. Industries with unknown SIC Odes 3%22%77 d. Interim Report e. Industrial Discharges Survey Cont. (charts in 5 volumes) (33) Executive onS203aAreawideInterim IndustrialReport to 3/23/77 E Discharge Project In-Nouse Summary of [1,E Report Above (34) Camp, Dresser F,, McKee Inventory and Evaluation E,'!' of Public 11astewater and Stonmwater Facilities /71 a. North/South and lleymouth 3/ /77 �. b. SuAsCo Basin c. No. Coastal and Ipswich Basins 4/ /77 (35) Primary Sedimentation a Deer Island 2/ /77 0 Discussion of Certain EMM1A Study Recommendations (36) 208 Management Elements 3/23/77 A,C,P,T,Y includes Legal Requirements and Integration Problems; offers 3 Management Alternatives Encompassing a Broad Range of Possible Management Frameworks (37) Eff`Iatercts oResidential ofiSmallllvStreamss int nn 77 y the North River Area (38) Environmental Pattern Methodology ' 77 v Purpose, Rationale, Data Sources; Defines 'Critical" and "Fragile" Areas; Identifies 'Development Capabilities" . Previous r7 5 _ distribution IIAPC 208 Papers to 6/6/77 (39) Sources of .later Pollution 5/77 P Graphic and Verbal Description of Ten Major Sources var (40) DeFacto Projection 4/77 0 Methodology and Projection (41) Impact Assessment 4/77 0 Categories and Methodology (42) Construction, Agriculture and Sedimentation '77 0 (43) Landfill Sampling Analysis X77 0 (44) Institutional Framework: Changing to 6/77 0 beet Present and Future Mends A Part of the North/South River Basin Report (45) Resource Mapping Systems. Inc. Reports '77 0 Area Measurement of Suitability for Development and Environmental Pattern a. Gorth/South Basin b. Vie vmouth " c. No. Coastal " d. Ipswich " e. Ileponset f. SuAsCo " g. Charles (46) Analysis of the Impact of Septic Systems '77 Town on the Surface of Groundwater in Acton, IV! (47) Policy Positions of CAC V a. 201-208 Relationship 2/15/77 b. Plater Supply 3/15/77 3/15/77 c. Ocean Outfall (48) North and South Rivers Preliminary 6/77 A,C,D. E ,G L. Basin Report P,S,T, I:, X (49) Water Quality Profiles (Aug. #3) 8/29/77 D,E,S (50) Landfill Sampling Analysis (Aug. #4) 8/29/77 D.E,S (51 ) Treatment Plant Sampling Data (Aug. #5) 8/29/77 D,E,S (52) 208 Management Elements - Comments 8/31/77 D,E.S and Revisions 8/28/77 (Aug. #6) 6 - distribution (53) Leachate Formation in Solid Waste Disposal Sites 6/1/77 0 (54) Weymouth Preliminary Basin Report 6/77 A,C,D E,G,L, P,S,T W Key to Distribution A. APAC C CAC D Executive Director E EPA G General L Local Government 0 No External Distr. P Public S DEQE T Technical Subcommittee V Various Individuals W DWPC X Executive Committee Z Full Council 40 A