M P)9f. E.A i e> ■ £,: ' \a> 2-7 UMASS/AMHERST FINALJ^Dbb 0E7D 6210 S 1986 In IS - ® ' GO "O 1 D m&5HGMr®Q > ® ■ff BERKSHIRE COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS USDA-SCS-EIS-WS-(ADM)-81-01-(F)-MA WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED Berkshire County, Massachusetts FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Sherman L. Lewis, State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service - SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS - Berkshire Conservation District 78 Center Street (Arterial) Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (MWRC) Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Town of Lee Lee, Massachusetts 01238 AUGUST 1981 PREPARED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service 451 West Street Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (MWRC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project Berkshire County, Massachusetts Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2)(C) of P.L. 91-190 and (Chap. 30, Sec. 62, Massachusetts G.L.) SUMMARY SHEET I. Final II. Soil Conservation Service III. Administrative IV. Description of Action: A watershed project to be carried out in Berkshire County, Massachu- setts by the sponsoring local organizations, with federal assistance under the provisions of Public Law-566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended. The purposes of the project are flood prevention, stream- bank stabilization and sediment control, recreation, and municipal water supply storage. The project will be carried out in accordance with a watershed plan and consists of conservation land treatment, three multiple-purpose reservoirs and channel work. The channel work consists of approximately 50 feet of concrete channel; removal of sediment and debris; installation of bridge wingwalls; and construction of concrete sediment control facilities with a combined capacity of 7,600 cubic yards. V. Summary of Environmental Impacts: Average annual floodwater damages to existing property, including roads, bridges and 22 residences will be reduced by 93 percent or $82,780. Annual deposition of sediment on the alluvial fan will be reduced by about 57 percent or 2,300 cubic yards. Surface storage of municipal water will be provided for the towns of Lee and Lenox. This represents an increase of 2.45 million gallons per day in the safe yield of the local water wupply. A total of 298 acres of open water and 55 acres of wetlands will be created, of which 314 acres will provide 18,840 fishing activity days annually for public use. A total of about 391 acres of land will be required to complete the project. The effect on existing resources include: loss of 129 acres of forest land and associated wildlife habitat; loss of 65 acres acres of wetland and associated wildlife habitat; loss of 5,400 feet of perennial stream and 1,500 feet of intermittent stream; alteration of about 600 feet of a previously modified perennial stream; occasional temporary inundation of 300 feet of intermittent stream; and 300 feet of ii perennial stream and associated habitat; impaired value of wild- life habitat on 41 acres of forest land. There will be an increase in noise, air and water pollution during the project life. Temporary effects during construction activity include an increase in noise, air pollution, erosion and sedimentation. VI. Alternatives: Alternative plans have been considered with particular attention to those actions that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects of completing the planned project, and reasonable alternatives that have been suggested by others. These alternatives are: Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (3), Ground Water Development, Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (2), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Ground Water Development, Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Water Supply Structure (1), Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Extensive Channel Work, Ground Water Development Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Nonstructural, Ground Water Development Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structures (2), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention, Water Supply and Recreation Structure (1), Channel Work No Project VII. Agencies and organizations from which written comments have been requested: Department of the Army Department of Commerce Department of Health, and Human Services Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in' J I r Office of Equal Opportunity Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (Designated State Agency) Executive Office of Communities and Development (State Clearinghouse) Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission (Regional Clearinghouse) Massachusetts Historical Commission Berkshire Natural Resources Council Massachusetts Audubon Society Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Conservation Law Foundation Appalachian Mountain Club VIII. Draft Statement transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency September 9, 1980. IV L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY OF THE PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS 1 PLANNED PROJECT (Selected Plan) 3 Land Treatment 3 Structural Measures 4 Mitigative Features 16 Operation and Maintenance 20 Project Costs 22 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 23 Physical Resources 23 Plant and Animal Resources 43 Social and Economic Resources 64 Recreational Resources 66 Archaeological, Historical and Unique Scenic Resources 69 Soil, Water and Plant Management Status 70 Nonstructural Measures 71 Water Resources Development Projects 71 WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE PROBLEMS 73 Floodwater and Sediment Damages 73 Erosion Problems 80 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Problems 80 Recreation Problems 92 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS 93 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 94 General 94 Conservation Land Treatment 94 Structural Measures 95 Economic and Social 103 Summary of Favorable Environmental Effects 105 Summary of Adverse Environmental Effects 106 ALTERNATIVES 107 General 107 Summary of Alternatives 119 SHORT-TERM VS LONG-TERM USE OF RESOURCES 121 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 122 CONSULTATION AND REVIEW WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES and OTHERS 122 General 122 Draft EIS 127 LIST OF PREPARERS 140 LIST OF APPENDICES 142 WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED Figures No. 1 Project Map 2 Plan - Washington Mountain Lake 3 Plan - October Mountain Lake 4 Plan - Schoolhouse Lake 5 Multipurpose Plan 6 Plan View - Channel Work (Reach 1) 7 Plan - Channel Work (Reach 3) 7A Location of Water Supply Facilities 8 New England Region 9 Bedrock Geology 10 Surficial Geology 11 Lowland Soils 12 Upland Soils 13 Stream Gradient Profile of Washington Mountain Brook 14 Stream Order 15 Stream Flow & Water Quality Stations 16 Plant Communities and Land Use Map 17 Vegetative Cover - October Mountain Lake 18 Vegetative Cover - Schoolhouse Lake 19 Benthic and Fish Survey Stations 20 Fish Distribution 21 Land Use and Recreation Map 22 Flood Damage Photograph 23 Location Map, Flood Damage Photographs 24 Flood Damage Photograph 25 Flood Hazard Map 26 Ground Water Map 27 Anticipated Plant Communities and Land Use Map - With Planned Project Page No. or Follows Page 4 6 6 6 8 11 12 14 24 28 29 32 34 37 38 39 44 50 53 61 * 62 66 74 74 75 80 90 102 VI WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED Tables No. Page 1 Structure Data 5 2 Project Costs 22 3 CI imato logical Data 25 4 Soils 35 5 Stream Flow Measurements 41 6 Water Quality 42 7 Vegetative Cover - October Mountain Lake 51 8 Vegetative Cover - School house Lake 54 9 Birds Found in the Watershed 57 10 Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles Found in the Watershed 58 11 Summary of Fish Survey 63 12 Population 64 13 Industries 65 14 Present Frequency-Discharge Reach 2 78 15 Present Frequency-Discharge Reach 1 79 16 Water Demand and Supply Data - Lee 85 17 Water Demand and Supply Data - Lenox 89 18 Frequency-Discharge Comparative Summary 97 19 Summary of Land Use Changes 100 20 Summary of Alternative Plans 120 vn USDA, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MWRC, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Berkshire County, Massachusetts AUTHORITY Installation of the project constitutes an administrative action. Federal assistance will be provided under authority of Public Law-83-566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended. SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Berkshire Conservation District Town of Lee Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (formerly Natural Resources) Massachusetts Water Resources Commission PROJECT PURPOSES AND GOALS 1. To provide protection to residences, roads and bridges in the flood plain of the Washington Mountain Brook from floodwaters resulting from a 100-year storm; 2. To stabilize the stream channel and banks, and control sediment deposition; 3. To provide water impoundments for recreational use to enhance the recreational potential of the October Mountain State Forest; and 4. To provide municipal water storage for the town of Lee (with the capability of supplying the adjacent town of Lenox). vi n SUMMARY OF THE PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS Washington Mountain Brook Watershed project was planned under the authority of Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act administered by the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conserva- tion Service. Enacted by Congress in 1954, P.L. 566 was designed to prevent erosion, flood- water, and sediment damages; to further the conservation, development, utiliza- tion and disposal of water; and the conservation and utilization of land. Since 1954, many communities, with the assistance of P.L. 566, have demonstrated that they can halt soil erosion and excessive water runoff, reduce destructive floods, improve drainage conditions on agricultural land, provide for more efficient irrigation, supply water for growing municipal needs, attract new industries, enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide developments for recreation. These small watershed projects are based on (1) local initiative and responsi- bility, (2) federal technical, financial cost-sharing, and credit assistance, and (3) state review and approval of local proposals and the opportunity for state financial and other assistance. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed project was approved by Congress in 1968; and federal assistance was authorized by the Administrator of SCS in April 1969. The original watershed plan, which outlined the project components was developed between 1963 and 1968. Formulation of the plan was more difficult and time consuming than normal owing to the unique features of the project. These features included: 1. The nature of the flooding problem in the town of Lee. The flooding is occur ing on a dynamic alluvial fan and the damages were caused by flood- water together with large debris loads (boulders). 2. Approximately 90 percent of the watershed was public land, owned and administered by the Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks. 3. The watershed was also a public water supply for the town of Lee, which controlled the water rights. Development of this drainage area for water supply was authorized in 1897 by the General Court of Massachusetts via Chapter 234. 4. The objective of including recreation storage in the flood control reservoirs in a water supply watershed. In formulating alternative plans to alleviate the flooding and reduce damages, the destructive nature of the flooding and hazard involved imposed constraints on the type of measures that would be both technically and cost effective. An effective solution required controlling the movement of debris (boulders and smaller sediments) as well as the volume of floodwater. Simple dikes or levees, realignment of bridge abutments, or increased capacity of bridges would not afford any control on the movement of debris or prevent the ultimate danger, the formation of debris dams. While relocation of the residences considered to be susceptible to major damage would reduce some of the existing damage and hazard, these residential damages represented only a small portion of the total flood damages. Floodproofing could be utilized to prevent water damage, but these measures would not withstand the powerful impact of the waterborne debris, tumbling boulders and excessive velocities. Ultimately, the only technically effective means of flood control consisted of (1) building upstream reservoirs to reduce the volume of water and debris, together with a sediment and debris basin to trap the remaining debris, or (2) building a larger debris basin coupled with a concrete channel that would convey the floodwaters through the entire flood damage reach to the Housatonic River. The objective of providing expanded fishing opportunities in a watershed approved for water supply development (and currently utilized by the town of Lee) resulted in a compromise trade-off between the Commonwealth and the town of Lee. In exchange for the right to develop recreation reservoirs in the watershed, the Commonwealth would provide water supply storage of 200 million gallons in one of the reservoirs for the town of Lee. The compromise was acceptable because Lee currently extracts water from the watershed at a point downstream of the planned recreation reservoirs; but with the storage provided upstream, Lee could convey the water to their primary reservoir via a pipeline and abandon this instream intake. This arrangement prevailed until 1977, when it was suggested that the project be expanded to provide municipal water supply for the town of Lenox as well as the town of Lee. In assessing this proposal, both communities in 1978 updated their analysis of water supply needs for both the present and the near future. The reformulated plan, which now included water supply storage in two reservoirs (one together with recrea- tion storage) and one recreation reservoir, all with complementing flood control storage was preferred by the project sponsors to all other suggested plans. However, the new watershed plan, outlined in Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 4, effective July 16, 1980 (see Appendix A), required several more compromises and agreements. Foremost of these compromises involves Article 97 of the State Constitution which concerns dedicated state parkland. Some people feel that the water supply reservoirs are a diversion of public land covered by this Article, while others regard it as a previously granted right under the Acts of 1897. The second area of disagreement centered on the utilization of the water supply storage. The impoundments had been proportioned to accommodate the projected needs of Lee and Lenox through the year 2020. However, Lee held the water rights and the right to develop the watershed for water supply. In turn, Lenox was considering other (although not necessarily more advantageous) options in lieu of actively pursuing the Washington Mountain Brook project. Lenox has now opted for the Washington Mountain Brook project and signed an agreement with the town of Lee on November 26, 1980 (see Appendix A). In essence, the two towns have agreed to cooperate in developing a permanent regional water supply based on the present watershed plan. PLANNED PROJECT (Selected Plan) The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is in Berkshire County, Massachusetts (New England Region, 01100005) and is situated in the towns of Lee, Becket and Washington (Figure 1). The watershed is included on the USGS East Lee quadrangle. The watershed has a total drainage area of 5,740 acres, of which 5,150 acres are in the October Mountain State Forest. Washington Mountain Brook is a tributary of the Housatonic River. Principal uses of the water- shed are recreation, timber production and water supply. Lenoxdale, a small village, is located at the outlet of the watershed. The watershed is located approximately 105 miles west of Boston and 45 miles northwest of Hartford, Connecticut. Principal water resources problems in the watershed and vicinity are: flood damages to residential buildings, roads and bridges; sediment damages; lack of adequate recreational facilities; and lack of adequate municipal water supply for the towns of Lee and Lenox. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project is described in a watershed plan authorized in 1969 and supplemented in 1969, 1971, 1973 and 1980. The project provides for watershed protection, flood prevention, municipal water supply, and recreation. The watershed plan, as supplemented, includes con- servation land treatment, one flood control and recreation structure, one flood control, water supply and recreation structure, one flood control and water supply structure, and channel work. The flood control and recreation structure (Washington Mountain Lake, dam and dike) was installed in 1973. However, this dam is functioning only as a flood control structure, due to remaining land rights considerations (utility relocation). There is presently no permanent pool behind the structure. This report deals only with the remaining works of improvement planned for installation within the scope of the watershed plan, as supplemented. Land Treatment Land treatment measures are limited to forested areas in the October Mountain State Forest, and will be installed by the Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks through ongoing programs. No land treat- ment measures are proposed for private land. Application of land treatment measures is designed to reduce runoff and erosion, and to increase infiltration of water into the soils. These measures will contribute to the flood control benefits by supplementing the structural measures. The land treatment measures are hydrologic-cultural operations, and skid trail and logging road erosion control. Hydrologic-cultural operations are designed to improve hydrologic conditions by manipulation of forest stand composition to create favorable conditions for maximum production and protection of litter, humus and forest cover. These operations will be carried out on approximately 600 acres of the watershed. Skid trail and logging road erosion control measures divert water from skid trails and logging roads to reduce the volume of rapid runoff and control soil erosion. Water bars (ditches with poles or earthen diversions) are the usual measures used to reduce the velocity and divert runoff which causes erosion. Some eroding areas will be vegetated to hold the soil in place. Erosion control measures will be carried out on 2 miles of skid trails and logging roads. Structural Measures Structural works of improvement consist of one flood control and water supply structure (Schoolhouse Lake); one flood control, recreation and water supply structure (October Mountain Lake); completion of the Washington Mountain Lake site to serve as a flood control and recreation structure; and channel work. The location of these measures is shown on Figure 1. Multiple-Purpose Structures (Dams) Permanent impoundments will be created at three locations within the water- shed. This will require two additional dams constructed of compacted earth, each with a principal spillway and an emergency spillway. The prin- cipal spillways will consist of a reinforced concrete riser and conduit to control the elevation of the permanent pools. The emergency spillways will be cut into an earth abutment at one end of the dam and then vegetated. The surface of the embankments will be protected from erosion by rock riprap or vegetation. The three impoundments will have a total storage capacity of 6,622 acre- feet, of which 1,612 acre-feet is planned for flood control, 3,713 acre- feet for recreation, 1,234 acre-feet for municipal water supply and 63 acre-feet for sediment accumulation. (The total storage capacity of the Washington Mountain Lake site is 3,910 acre-feet, of which 3,896 acre-feet is presently available for flood control.) The two remaining structures planned for installation will control runoff from 4.55 square miles of drainage area (about 51 "percent of total watershed) increasing the con- trolled portion of the watershed to about 65 percent. The flood control storage capacity of the impoundments will control the 10-day, 100-year frequency volume of runoff from the area draining into each site. The sediment storage allowance is based on the estimated accumulation during a 100-year period. The permanent water storage varies from site to site to make the best use of individual sites for flood control, recreation and water supply. Selected characteristics of the impoundments are summarized in Table 1. The Washington Mountain Lake (Figure 2) structure was installed in 1973. The structure was designed as a flood control and recreation structure and has a total storage capacity of 3,910 acre-feet which is presently used only for flood control and sediment accumulation. The capacity of 3,910 acre-feet • ♦ ♦ • # crr~i K-3-H LEGEND Watershed Boundary Town Boundary Streams Railroad Power —Transmission Line Construction Access Road Forest Boundary Roads Structure Drainage Area Primary Area Benefited Damage Reach Channel Work Multi — Purpose Structure Proposed Pipeline Route WOODLAND STREET 2.5 Miles UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE PITTSFIELD ROAD 1.6 Miles MASS. ROUTE S 3.0 Miles FIGURE 1 PROJECT MAP WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS -i* USDASCS LANHAM, MD 1979 L < CC OO ro en CO ID OO i^ o LU O I— 1 OO C£ O OQ LU CL. _1 c£ 2: CO =D •— i < Q_ OO "=3" CM co C 1—1 o i— 1 <3- t— 1 CO i— 1 1 'I— cr> i i i ro r--. r-v c\ji£i 03 03 _i*£ #\ i i i A ** «\ #\ r -t-> E S- CM cr> CM CO «— l r- 1 0)0 LO t— C£ 3 CM CO "d" lo cr> co co c: o c 4_> -r- CO "3 O) e +j -^£ •i- c 03 J= 3 _l CO o 03 SI 3 CM CO 00 — . .oo -~-^-~* ■*OCOOU) oooion coco rv o > — #\ €\ €\ f\ HHHQ O ^l* r— I O LO i— I t-H r— I 00 OO CM LO co j- co i— I CM co co CU CO 3 o -C CU 1 — ^c o 03 o _J jr cj oo OO CT) O CM fOO^OfO i— I r-H CTt O LO r-* r- lo o r, t\ r\ r> i— I t-H i— I LO LO Kt LO CO CO CO OOOl CM <=3- LO LO cn lt) CO LO cr> LO • • lo r~- .—I CO a; T- _Q 03 CU O +-> -^ ■P C (O U 3 J o o o CM CO LO CM CO o lo NNUD OCO r*» r^ r-. co CO «3- cm ^- co o i— i o f-H r — «n1- lo lo cm co LO CTi CT> <* o • • CM CO i— I CM CO CO CO CO E E E -a +J 4-> -M +-> +-> CO v x^-^^^-* >- U_ U_ U_ U_ U_ CO CO cu cu a> S- S_ £_ cj 4-> -t-> +-> rs 4-> cj o o o o o u +-> c .— o O •1 — 1 — O +-> O CL. s- 03 O +J rs c 03 ■— E CU CU 3: O 3 1 — CO i— c O r— a >> o => O 03 03 jc o_ i— E o r— i- S- E CU E cr> •r- 03 < c CL+J 03 1 — +J s- i- 03 -t— +J u_ Q o o_ c CU 03 c cu < O IE C +j •r— Z3 O i. »i— O o_ c O) 4- 4- c 4-> 00 CO e CJ CO > cu 03 •r— 4- co ■1— O CO 03 +-> i — ~ cu S_ T3 a> M- -a o 03 +J •r- E CU 4-> '¥— 03 •p™ S- CU O u CU O c 03 aw i- E JC o +-> -a o -!-> O 03 C O -C •f— > o cu O) 3 CO 03 o cu cu 03 i — <+- CU i— 4-> 03 CU 1— O D_ r— •r™ Q.h- OO Cd S Ll_ i- CO Ll_ Q. J- 1— o cu 03 3 cu Q LU > IC CO OO Q C -r- 03 X CU 03 CO 03 CU 4-> 03 O ■I— -o CO •r— CO cu cu &- 03 CO cr> CM 1—1 • LO CU CT> JO ^H +-> a CU ,r ~> O S- Q. ~o cu c: c 03 CU +-> CU O CJ cu M 4- O Z3 E CU > o CM "O cu CU -Q CU > O CU o_ 03 CU S- O +-> -a cu •i- o Z3 -r- CU 03 s- o O CO i — c cu O i- +^ >^ 03 +J S_ -i- CU i— -a -i- •r- +j CO 13 C O O CO +-> • i- JZ O CO i- o -a 03 coi— c •I- (+_ c o I o o cu > 03 o o • 4- 4-> CO CO cu S- o O +J >> cu 03 =3 r— -a •r- cu Q- S co O >>^ U 03 CU CO CO 03 cu E +-> CU co cu • 4- S- o o O 03 • r— ^ +-> r— 03 i— > •!— D_ CO O o -a cu C 4-> O cu ■»-> 'a. O E rs o s- o +-> co cu O -r- O CO E 4- 03 O CD i— l -i- CM CO *3- S- 03 CU CO CU "cu >> cu o +-> cu co >^ i- X5 CU E -a cu cu c: -a •i— c: E t3 s- CU i— 4-> O cu o "D CL. CO i — •r- 03 £Z CU o 03 +-> 13 E C n- cu CU o S- E > cu ^£o £Z +J S- O CU -l-> CO c CO o cu CO o -a cr rs -r- -o i— -a o o e o c cu r— I— I o_ u_ +-> 03 cu S- o cu s- cu CO cu cu +-> £T CU o +-> 4_> 03 CU i- cu CU 4- -a CO CO was proportioned in design as follows: flood control, 685 acre-feet; recreation, 3,211 acre-feet; and sediment accumulation, 14 acre-feet. The design surface area of the recreation pool is 224 acres and the flood pool is 243 acres. The recreation pool will have an average depth of 14.3 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 23 feet. Approximately 144 acres of the lake will have a depth exceeding 15 feet. The riser incorporated within the dam has an automatic release for bottom water. Flows of approximately 1.3 cfs (1 csm) or less will originate from near the bottom of the lake where the water is cooler. Flows in excess of 1.3 cfs will be a mixture of bottom and surface water. An additional release feature will allow up to 1.0 cfs discharge originating at a depth of 1 to 2 feet. This will provide a discharge even through prolonged periods of drought. (Ninety days discharge would lower the recreation pool by 0.8 feet.) Filling of Washington Mountain Lake requires the relocation of 3,100 feet of underground telephone cable owned by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (AT&T). The cable traverses the planned recreational lake area (see Figure 2). Initially, the cable was to be inundated at its present location. How- ever, following completion of the dam, AT&T realized that a cable splice located beneath the lake could pose a maintenance problem. It is now proposed to relocate the cable in such a way that no cable splices will be within the lake area. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife will stock and manage the lake as a combination cold and warm-water fishery. The reservoir will support a self-sustaining warm-water fishery. October Mountain Lake (Figure 3) will have a total storage capacity of 1,408 acre-feet, with 502 acre-feet for recreation, 14 acre-feet for sedi- ment accumulation, 614 acre-feet for municipal water supply, and 278 acre- feet for flood control. The combined surface area of the recreation pool and the water supply pool will be 90 acres. The flood pool surface ared will be 96 acres. The maximum depth of the lake will be 28 feet with 50 acres at least 15 feet in depth. Two separate embankments will be constructed at October Mountain Lake. The principal dam will have a maximum height of 36 feet and will contain 114,300 cubic yards of fill. A principal spillway, pool drain with gate, an emer- gency spillway, and gated water supply intake pipe will be provided at the principal dam. An automatic continuous release feature will be incorporated into the principal spillway . This feature will provide a continuous release of 0.30 cfs (.23 csm). This flow will originate at a depth of about 8 feet, which provides for flows other than the warmer surface waters, especially during periods of drought. A mixed release of mid-depth and surface water will occur when the reservoir is full, with water flowing over the princi- pal spillway riser crest. An upstream dike is necessary to provide the required storage volume at October Mountain Lake. This dike is located downstream from the natural drainage area divide to exclude a 42-acre organic soil - wetland area from the permanent pool. This was desirable to avoid a potential reduction of water quality in the water supply pool, and to minimize the acreage of \ NAVIN ROAD A DIKE \ tits'- n \\o \\o v\» \^th WVK \\-J> \VS v-* ^1 WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN LAKE \\ DAM\ \\ \ ACCESS r-t^^S^^^^ <& & EMERGENCY SPILLWAY Figure PRELIMINARY PLAN WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN LAKE WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED ' BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 1,R-10,869 JULY , 977 USDA-5CS HYATTSVILLE. MO 1979 L EMERGENCY SPILLWAY \CONSTR ACCESS Figure 3 PRELIMINARY PLAN OCTOBER MOUNTAIN LAKE WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE l.R-10,869 USDA-SCSLANHAM. MD 1979 DESIGN HIGH WATER ELEV 1710.0 \V>„ * x % CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ^^s e w --r~- n \ ~:~/j>Ao Figure 4 PRELIMINARY PLAN SCHOOLHOUSE LAKE WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS U. S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE JULY 1977 USOA-SCS LANHAM. MO 1979 i s wetlands affected at this site. A waterway (Waterway "A", Figure 3) will be installed upstream of the dike to prevent excessive backwater flooding and maintain the Types 2, 3, 6, and 7 wetlands occurring above the dike. The area disturbed by installation of this waterway will be vegetated with a suitable grass. About 2 acres of existing softwood woodland will be cleared to accommodate the channel, channel excavation and disposal of cleared material . The permanent pool area will be cleared of trees and brush. Where the depth of the pool is 3 feet or less, all trees and brush will be cut flush with the ground. In the deeper water, a 12-inch (maximum height) stump will be left. All material will be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Division of Air Pollution Control of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Recreational use of October Mountain Lake will be provided by a self- sustaining warm-water fishery and stocking of cold-water species. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife will be responsible for fishery management. The volume of municipal water storage in October Mountain Lake needed to replenish Lee's Codding Brook Upper Reservoir will be withdrawn during the months of December through March until such time as local demand warrants a change in management to allow year-round use of the water supply storage. This withdrawal will not cause the water level in October Mountain Lake to fall below the designed level of the recreation storage pool. Withdrawal of 614 acre-feet of water is equivalent to 0.5 million gallons per day mgd per year. Continuous daily withdrawal from the 614 acre-feet storage repre- sents a safe yield of 0.88 mgd. When withdrawal is only during the December- March period, the municipal water supply pool will usually be replenished by surface runoff during April and May. Therefore, the maximum beneficial pool would normally be available for fishing purposes during the summer. Therefore, the water supply intake will be set at the base of the water supply storage pool and above the recreation storage pool. The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission will provide a chlorinator, gated water intake and facility shelter at October Mountain Lake. The town of Lee will install additional facilities to transmit water to Codding Brook Upper Reservoir and treatment facilities and will abandon the present water supply intake near the outlet of the watershed. Schoolhouse Lake (Figure 4) will have a total storage capacity of 1,304 acre- feet, with 620 acre-feet for municipal water supply, 35 acre-feet for sedi- ment accumulation, and 649 acre-feet for floodwater retention. The surface area of the water supply pool will be 39 acres and the flood pool will be 55 acres. The water supply pool will be cleared of trees and brush in a manner similar to October Mountain Lake. The maximum depth of the water supply pool will be 37.5 feet. The dam will have a maximum height of 63 feet and will contain 155,000 cubic yards of fill. The principal spillway will be designed to provide a release of 0.2 cfs from the colder bottom level of the lake. The 614 acre-feet of storage will provide a safe yield of 1.57 mgd for municipal water supply. A gated intake will also be installed, as well as a connection to the pipeline leading from October Mountain Lake. TYPICAL MULTIPLE-PURPOSE STRUCTURE ^—WATER FOR BENEFICIAL USES !«^^^>>>kA^k>kAA^V>HAaAaA H A>k H A>^k^kA>k^k><,A^lt^kJkMh>kAA "w-^>— *~*_*— ^—i-*-— A_A_A— -S_>— *— t_*_A_* v * v « v *. IMPACT STRUCTURE SECTION PLAN FIGURE 5 CROSS-SECTION AND PLAN VIEWS OF MULTIPLE PURPOSE STRUCTURE. 8 The watershed areas and reservoirs of October Mountain and School house Lakes, which are totally within the October Mountain State Forest, will be managed according to appropriate health regulations for surface water suppl ies. Dam Designs and Safety Final designs of the October Mountain and School house Lake sites will conform with Soil Conservation Service engineering criteria. Both sites are classi- fied as Class C dams, which are "dams located where failure may cause loss of life, serious damage to homes, industrial and commercial buildings, important public utilities, main highways, or railroads." Consequently, the strictest set of criteria applies in designing these dams. Design considerations for the dams include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Relatively minor (Zone 1) seismic hazard; 2. Height of dams established by runoff from 22.7 inches of rainfall over a 6-hour period; 3. Embankment slopes having factors of safety of two or greater; 4. Upstream embankment slopes protected by riprap to prevent wave erosion; 5. Crest of emergency spillways set above expected wave heights on permanent or normal pools; 6. All unstable soils removed from foundation areas; 7. Cutoffs to prevent direct access of pool water to permeable zones; 8. Inclined chimney drains installed to handle seepage, and to prevent piping. The geology of both sites is yery similar. The bedrock is hard, grani- tic gneiss. Locally (pockets), the rock is soft and partially weathered and has broken zones with relatively high permeability. However, the bedrock is overlain by \/ery dense glacial till with relatively low per- meability. The till forms a fairly uniform, impervious blanket over the bedrock in both the pool and foundation areas of both dam sites. The foundations of the dams will be keyed into sound, unweathered till. The dam foundations were investigated by drilling, testpitting, and sub- jecting samples to numerous soil tests. The location and number of test- holes and samples varied according to geologic conditions discovered at each site, and to insure that enough information would be available to design the dams. The SCS Soil Mechanics Laboratory performed tests on soil samples, and provided appropriate recommendations for design of the dams. Seismic hazards were evaluated by a review of published data and by an examination of the watershed and dam sites for evidence of faulting. The records indicated a very low level of earthquake activity in western Massachusetts, and no damaging earthquakes with epicenters lying within the watershed have been reported. An ancient fault might exist in the bedrock near the downstream end of the watershed. However, no earthquakes have been associated with this fault, and there is no evidence of any recent ground rupturing caused by faulting in this area. In fact, the existence of even an ancient fault is not a well established fact, and is subject to interpretation. No recent, active faults were discovered in the watershed. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be the owner of all the multiple- purpose structures, and will be responsible for their maintenance and the integrity of the dams. The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (Division of Water Resources) will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the impoundment structures (see Operation and Maintenance section, page 20). The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) is responsible for reviewing the designs and specifi- cations of the structures. Approval of the design and specifications for a structure must be obtained from DEQE before an Invitation to Bid for construction can be issued. Channel Work Study of the unstable streambanks in Reach 3 resulted in the determination that an onsite solution for stabilization cannot be economically formulated. Therefore, the partial stabilization of these areas will be addressed through reducing peak flood flows by completion of the upstream structural measures. Sediment and debris control facilities will be installed in the lower portion of Reach 3 to reduce the movement of materials into Reaches 1 and 2, thereby maintaining the capacity of the stream channel and bridges. The channel work will consist of: 1. Removal of sediment and debris from the bridge openings of all bridges in Redches 1 and 2 as necessary, (Conrail Railroad, Mill Street, Washington Mountain Road, Woodland Street and Newton Bridge). 2. Construction of a concrete channel between the Conrail Railroad and Mill Street bridges, including concrete paving of the bridge floors (Figure 6) . 3. Installation of riprap wingwalls at the entrance to the Mill Street bridge. 4. Clearing and shaping the channel immediately upstream of Mill Street for a distance of about 100 feet. 10 PLAN VIEW 940 935 930 925 920 PROFILE HUNDRED FOOT STATIONS 915 910 — Q < O ac z . z O z z o K z X CO t — — UJ < a. z o o — = lit K K 10 -1 -I 2 — m V/ ///y — WA — L PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK w — PRESENT CHANNEL B0TT0M- 1"* — — 172+00 173+00 174+00 175+00 176+00 FIGURE 6 WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK PRELIMINARY PLAN REACH 1 CHANNEL WORK 11 5. Removal of sediment and debris from the stream channel within Reaches 1 and 2 at locations where the 100-year flood is to be confined to the stream channel. The appropriate locations and required volumes of sediment to be removed will be determined by onsite inspections following installation of upstream struc- tures. This volume is currently estimated to be between 100-300 cubic yards. 6. Construction of sediment control facilities above Newton Bridge with a combined capacity of approximately 7,600 cy. The design of the channel and modifications to bridge openings is to be based on the capacity to safely pass the peak flood flow of the 100-year flood with the completion of the upstream floodwater retarding structures. The channel work at Mill Street (Figure 6) will consist of removal of sedi- ment and debris to design grade and installation of approximately 50 feet of reinforced concrete channel between the Conrail Railroad bridge and the Mill Street bridge. This vertical-walled channel will \/ary from 28-20 feet in width, the respective widths of the Mill Street and railroad bridges. In addition the bridge floors (streambed) will be paved with concrete. New riprap wingwalls will be installed at the entrance to the Mill Street bridge, and the channel will be cleared and shaped for a distance of about 100 feet upstream. The combined effect of this channel work is to improve the hydraulic characteristics of the two bridges thereby reducing head losses and flood stages. In this channel work area, Washington Mountain Brook is a perennial, previously modified stream. Channel work in Reach 3 will consist of installation of sediment control facilities in the lower portion above Newton Bridge (Figure 7). These facilities will be designed to trap approximately 7,600 cubic yards of sediment (all material greater than 6 inches in size) during a 100-year flood. The threshold velocity through these facilities will be about 6 feet per second. The remaining sediment volume will pass through to the Housatonic River with minimal deposition. Annual accumulation in the facil- ities will average an estimated 1,800 cubic yards. The sediment control facilities will consist of two systems with capacities of 6,000 and 1,600 cubic yards. The control structures will be reinforced concrete, approximately 116 feet wide and projecting 5 feet above the stream- bed. The overall structure height will be about 8 feet. The upper system will employ two of these structures spaced about 177 feet apart. The lower system (1,200 feet downstream from the upper system and about 925 feet above Newton Bridge) will employ one structure with a concrete apron about 175 feet upstream of the structure. The apron is to identify the level or depth to which removal of debris should be confined. The total volume of concrete for the three control structures and the apron is estimated at 600 cubic yards. The structures are designed to safely pass flows during the 100-year flood, with completion of the upstream floodwater retarding structures. 12 ORIGINAL GROUND 84' BOT WIDTH-LOWER SED CONTROL FAC TYPICAL SECTION STILLING BA SjN NOT TO SCALE STRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE VIEW UPPER SEDIMENT CONTRO LOWER SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITY ORIGINAL GROUND UPPER CONCRETE STRUCTURE- J l -CREST ELEV 115? 5 LOWER CONCRETE STRUCTURE.^ ,-CREST ELEV 1152.5 ELEV I 147 - f o UPPER SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITY PROFILE Figure 7 PRELIMINARY PLAN CONCRETE GRADE SLAB-^ _ELEV 1089 4 V ORIGINAL GROUND CONCRETE STRUCTURE- °-4 l LOWER SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITY PROFILE 20 40 tei IVERTlCOL 6 HORIZONTAL I CREST ELEV 1089- 4 WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK CHANNEL WORK WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE JULY 1977 USOA-SCS LANHAM. MD 1979 L 'i • v. ~V w •u,„ £ S— & 1 *&. ■Vts ,l--f.»^V{j X ^ f -5 3«V %** >«s •V / \ I? \ J ;ro 1 >•*■; A» ^ V ■Jt Pirntl T*T^3r*^* ' ^■.^• ; ' ; ^;'- / £ \-/n ^=» ;r s .jmAiim P£ 1 \ ,: 10\ •v5%r^v y.s^^*~v ' \ *j|m| ggg^Sg ' _ "^^^^ ' FIGURE 7 A B^^^^nBH \ vY / f>^£t WpW!^^^ ^s&^^v^i/ IISSEff^3-r LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES Jrvwi LEE - LENOX BV^ WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED /fir . ^Z,af>'t?S£SE HBIi-,7 I i Debris removal and excavation will be required through approximately 400 feet of stream (200' and 200'), to accommodate the control structures and provide the storage capacity. This excavation will total about 18,000 cubic yards. Of this total, approximately 3,000 cubic yards will be used or dis- posed of onsite. The remaining 15,000 cubic yards will be serviceable material and will be stockpiled, at the direction of the town of Lee, for future use. Washington Mountain Road will serve as a construction and maintenance access road to the sediment control facilities. The road, to this point in the watershed, will not require extensive rehabilitation since it is presently used as an access to the water supply intake facilities. Although Washington Mountain Brook in the lower portion of Reach 3 is a perennial stream, it has been modified in the past by sediment excavations, stream realignment, and road construction. The sediment control facilities will not impound water during normal flows of 0.5 to 1.5 csm (cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage). Water Supply Facilities The town of Lee will install a gravity flow pipeline to transmit the water from October Mountain Lake and Schoolhouse Lake to their Upper Reservoir on Codding Brook. The pipeline would consist of approximately 2.9 miles of 16 inch pipe. It would follow Washington Mountain Road southwesterly, a distance of approxi- mately 2.2 miles (Figure 1); then cross country southeasterly to the Upper Reservoir. The cross country portion of the line would require maximum cleared right-of-way of 20 feet in width. This would require clearing of approximately 1 to 1.5 acres of hardwood forest. Final design of the pipe- line will seek to minimize the number of stream crossings to less than the five presently proposed. Four fire hydrants will be installed at intervals of about 2,000 feet along Washington Mountain Road. Three of these will lie within the town of Wash- ington and one within Lee. Treatment of this water source will include filtration and disinfection. A water treatment plant with a capacity of 3.2 mgd (0.75 existing source + 2.45 mgd new development) would be located near the present Upper Reservoir. A 12-inch pipeline about 6,000 feet in length would be installed to convey water from the treatment plant to the low service system presently serviced through the Vanetti Reservoir. Since treatment will take place near the Upper Reservoir, the Vanetti Reservoir will be abandoned and replaced with a one MG storage tank, to meet peak demands. A two MG storage tank will be installed to supply water to the high service system. Pipeline facilities to service Lenox consist of about 4,000 feet of 12 inch pipe extending along Mill Street to the Lee-Lenox town boundary. 13 A 17,200 foot, 12 inch pipeline will be installed from the Lee-Lenox town boundary, along Walker Street, then Main Street to Hubbard Street. The location of these facilities are shown on Figure 7A. Pollution Control The final design of all structural measures and development of construction procedures will give maximum consideration to minimizing adverse effects to the environment. Erosion and other pollution control is a major concern. Requirements for erosion and pollution control are outlined in SCS Engineering Memorandum-66 and will be an integral part of construction contracts. Final design of the water supply pipeline by Lee's consultant will include studies directed at minimizing the number of pipeline crossings of Washington Mountain Brook; the construction specifications for the pipeline work will include detailed site specific requirements for the control of erosion and silting. The following measures and techniques will be considered in preparing the final construction plans and specifications. The area and duration of exposure of erodible soils will be reduced to the minimum extent practicable. No more than 2 acres of completed cuts or fills shall be unvegetated at one time. All completed cuts or fills shall be covered with permanent vegetation during the next seeding period. Soils will be protected by using temporary vegetation, mulch or acceler- ated establishment of permanent vegetation. Segments of work will be completed and protected as rapidly as practicable. Plant materials used for vegetating disturbed areas will be selected for their ability to control erosion, provide wildlife food and cover, and for beauty and ease of maintenance. The rate of runoff from the construction site will be mechanically retarded and the disposal of runoff will be controlled. Sediment resulting from construction will be trapped in temporary debris basins. Dust will be kept within tolerable limits on haul roads and at construc- tion sites by application of methods acceptable under Regulation No. 9 of the State Air Pollution Implementation Plan. Temporary measures will be installed to control erosion if construction is suspended for any appreciable length of time. Protection against pollutants such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, sewage, etc., will be provided for in the contract. 14 L i Sanitary facilities will not be located over or adjacent to streams, wells or springs. Steps will be taken to protect against grass or brush fires. In addition to construction techniques and procedures, the order in which con- struction takes place can minimize pollution and adverse environmental effects. Included in the final design plans will be one sheet detailing the Sequence of Operations. The significance of the sequence is illustrated by the following operations: Clearing of the reservoir pool areas can be done only after the runoff is diverted into the reservoir area and stream flow is through the pool drain and the principal spillway. The channel work will be completed following completion of the floodwater retarding structures, and will be accomplished in a downstream order. The following measures and precautions will be included in the Special Provi- sions section of the construction contract. The Contractor shall exercise ewery reasonable precaution throughout the duration of the contract to prevent the silting of streams, rivers, and impoundments and to prevent excessive air and water pollution. The prevention of pollution shall be considered prior to starting any con- struction operation. The Contractor shall construct all ditches and diversions needed to prevent pollution and erosion during construction. The Contractor shall place temporary bridges or culverts at equipment stream crossings. He shall submit, for the Engineer's approval, the locations of proposed equipment stream crossings, along with the size and type of bridge or culvert. Before the start of construction the Contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer his proposal for handling sanitary wastes. The Contractor shall provide positive means for collecting waste oil and grease. All such material shall be removed from the area. The Contractor shall not operate any equipment that is leaking fuel, oil or grease near the stream. If normal operating procedures and the measures listed herein do not provide the required degree of pollution control, the Contractor may be required to perform work that is necessary to control the pollution. Typical of such work is temporary seeding and/or mulching. If special problems of pollution arise during construction, or measures not in the contract are needed, the contract will be modified or other appropriate action taken. 15 General Installation of the structural measures will comply with the permit program for regulation of discharges of dredged or fill materials established by Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. A permit will be required for construction of Schoolhouse Lake, the channel work, the pipeline and treatment facilities. See Appendix A for a descrip- tion of the permit program. Contractors must comply with the Safety and Health Regulations for Construe- , tion Manual , published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and with state and local health, sanitation and pollution regulations. An archaeological and historical survey (see page 69 and Appendix B) of the structure areas, conducted by a professional archaeologist, disclosed no evidence of archaeological resources that would be directly affected by installation of the structures. However, construction personnel will be made aware of the possibility of archaeological resources, particularly during removal of earth from borrow areas and the emergency spillway. If any discoveries are made during construction, work which might destroy the cultural property will be stopped and the Secretary of the Interior (through the appropriate field office of the Interagency Archaeological Services Division) and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified in compliance with the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act (PL 93-291). Construction would not be continued until necessary actions have been taken, as specified in Title 7, Part 656 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Since this is a federally assisted local project, there will be no change in the existing responsibilities of any federal agency under Executive Order 11593 with respect to archaeological and historical resources. No relocation of persons, businesses or farm operations will result from installation of the channel work or dams. Mitigative Features Soil Conservation Service policy, in response to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, requires that, if certain impacts cannot be avoided through implementing a practicable alternative, then those impacts will be mitigated, to the extent possible. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, states that direct or indirect support of floodplain development should be avoided wherever there is a practicable alternative. This project, by lessening the flood hazard and reducing the area of flood prone land, may be interpreted as providing in- direct support of floodplain development. Alternative plans, which could have avoided this impact were not considered practicable. Therefore, to mitigate this indirect support of floodplain development, the Soil Conser- vation Service will require the town of Lee to continue its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. SCS project financial assistance is contingent upon the town of Lee converting to the Regular phase of the program, when eligible, and adopting at least the minimum regulations re- quired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 16 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, was issued, in order to avoid to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. SCS policy requires that, for projects which include features for other purposes that unavoidably result in losses to types 1 through 20 wetlands, the loss is to be mitigated by establishing wetland habitat values in the same vicinity that are equiva- lent, insofar as possible, to the wetland habitat values lost. The following features of the project resulted from environmental evaluations during planning, in direct response to Executive Order 11990, or comments received on the draft EIS. When completed, they will help to reduce the impact to fish and wildlife resources resulting from the planned project. 1. The watershed plan includes the provision for a waterway which will insure the protection of a 32.5-acre wetland which abuts the October Mountain Lake dike. This wetland consists of 0.1 acre of type 3, 0.1 acre of type 6, 3.5 acres of type 2 and 28.8 acres of type 7 wetland. A protected grassed waterway will be installed at the outlet of this wetland to prevent outlet erosion and channel cutting which would ulti- mately result in the drainage of the wetland. After construction, the waterway will be seeded to tall fescue and red fescue to provide forage for wildlife. The waterway will result in the reduction of 2 acres of primarily pole size red spruce which occurs in a large red spruce stand. The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Division of Water Resources, will maintain the grassed waterway by periodic mowing or selective removal of woody plants which establish in the waterway. Lime and fertilizer will be applied as necessary to maintain a dense, healthy sod. 2. The management authority of Finerty Pond and its watershed will be trans- ferred from the town of Lee to the Massachusetts Department of Environ- mental Management, Division of Forests and Parks. Finerty Pond will no longer be used as a public water supply storage reservoir. A permanent pool elevation will be maintained and the warm water fishery, beaver and other biota will no longer incur periods of pool drawdown as has occurred in the past whenever water was needed for public uses. A stable water level at this site is expected to especially benefit beaver. Of the 0.76 miles of shoreline around Finerty Pond there is 0.64 miles (84 per- cent) which is dominated by hardwood woodland. The access to Finerty Pond will be kept in its unimproved road condition. The road is suitable for hikers and four wheel drive vehicles. Hikers and fishermen will be the primary users of Finerty Pond and its watershed. 3. Washington Mountain Lake will have 55 acres of water less than 10 feet deep which will succeed to wetland types. Of this, 18 acres of water will be 3 feet deep or less and will succeed to wetland types 2 thru 4 during the project life. Thirty-seven acres will be 3 feet to 10 feet deep which will succeed to type 5 wetland. One island 0.6 acre in area will be present in the permanent pool. 17 r 4. There are 16 inactive beaver flowages in the watershed that currently con- tain about 86 acres of wetland. These flowages have been intentionally breached and beaver colonies destroyed in recent years in order to maintain water flow to the town water intake. With installation of the two water supply reservoirs, the inactive beaver flowages will likely be reoccupied by beaver. These wetlands would be larger and deeper wetland types with active beaver colonies at the sites. With the water supply reservoirs, there will no longer be any purpose to breaching beaver dams or destroying beaver colonies. Establishment of beaver colonies at unoccupied sites is expected by means of immigration of 2 year old beaver from other colonies. The 3.5 miles of shoreline around Washington Mountain Lake will have 2.2 miles (63 percent) of hardwood dominated woodland. Based on typical beaver colony densities of one colony per mile of shoreline on nondeveloped lakes and reservoirs the Washington Mountain Lake and its shoreline is expected to support two beaver colonies. His- torically, it is known that the Washington Mountain Lake area did support beaver, however, the remains of only one beaver lodge is still evident. 5. Ten to 15 wood duck nesting boxes will be installed in and around Finerty Pond, Washington Mountain Lake and beaver flowages, once they become occupied by active beaver colonies. These boxes will be main- tained for a period of 5 years. Annual wood duck production from these boxes will be recorded and at the end of the 5 years the program will be evaluated. If reasonable use has been made of the boxes by ducks the program will be expanded. A 15 percent or higher use of the boxes is generally considered an effective level. All nesting boxes will be constructed with predator guards. All boxes will be inspected annually, repaired or replaced as necessary and old nesting material will be removed and replaced with fresh nesting material . 6. Of the 5,740 acres in the watershed, 5,150 acres (90 percent) are part of the October Mountain State Forest. Within this 5,150 acres, there are presently only 23.4 acres of grassland or open land vegetation. This total is comprised of 11.1 acres of AT&T buried cable strip, a 5.7-acre field, a 4.6-acre field and 2 acres of open grass cover created during installation of the Washington Mountain Lake dam and dike. Open or grass dominated acreage presently constitutes only 0.5 percent of the watershed area lying within the state forest. Instal- lation of October Mountain Lake and Schoolhouse Lake will add 9 acres and 21 acres, respectively, of grassed acreage to the state forest area. Open grassland is a desirable vegetative component of high value for wildlife on this heavily forested state forest. To retain the grassland acreage in the state forest (present and future with project amount) will require maintenance involving mowing, fertil- izing and liming. 18 L The two fields now existing on the state forest have been and will continue to be maintained by the Division of Forests and Parks. The 30 acres of grassland which will result from the installation of October Mountain Lake and School house Lake will be maintained by the Massachusetts Division of Water Resources. The 2 acres of grassland at the Washington Mountain Lake dam and dike will also be maintained by the Division of Water Resources. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company will be encouraged to main- tain grass or herbaceous cover rather than allow succession to woody plants. A planting plan will be developed for the October Mountain and School house Lake sites which will emphasize both visual and wildlife resources. The plantings will consist of shrub and tree species of high wildlife value to indigenous wildlife species. Wildlife travel lanes, protective cover and food value are all features which will be considered when selecting plant species to be planted. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife will assist the Soil Conservation Service and Massachusetts Division of Water Resources in the development of the planting plans. 7. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (with prior con- sultation with the Division of Forests and Parks) will be responsible for developing and managing the pool fisheries at Washington Mountain Lake and October Mountain Lake. Initial stockings, fish population management, and use are all within the authority of the Division. 8. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife will assist the Division of Forests and Parks in the development of management plans on the October Mountain State Forest. Technical assistance as requested will be provided by the Berkshire Conservation District through the SCS. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife inputs will focus on management features which will result in increasing the quality of wildlife habitat in the state forest. This will be an ongoing procedure with inputs provided when management plans are initially developed and when updated or revised. To compensate for the terrestrial habitat values attributed to the 322 acres affected by the planned project would require that habitat values be increased, through management, on about 600 acres. 9. When October Mountain Lake is used for water supply on a year-round basis, the town of Lee will replace the acreage of dedicated land lost as a result of the water supply storage by providing the Depart- ment of Environmental Management with an additional 34 acres of land or providing monetary compensation not to exceed the sum of $10,540.00. When this occurs, emphasis will be placed on acquiring land with wild- life habitat values . similar to those adversely affected by the project. 19 Operation and Maintenance General A successful watershed project is comprised of three broad phases: planning, installation, and operation and maintenance. While planning is essentially continual through completion of the installation phase, operation and mainten- ance must be performed throughout the planned life of the measure. The operation and maintenance phase is critical and requires effort and expenditures throughout the useful life (planned project life, plus) of the project. Operation is the administration, management and performance of nonmaintenance actions required to keep completed works of improvement functioning as planned and designed. Maintenance is work required to keep works of improvement in, or restore them to their original physical and/or functional condition. Maintenance includes performance of work to prevent deterioration, as well as, restoring, rebuilding, replacing, or repairing, parts or materials that have been broken, or deteriorated. An Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be executed between the Soil Conservation Service and the appropriate sponsor prior to issuing the invita- tions to bid on the works of improvement. This is a binding agreement that details the action each is to take in the operation and maintenance of the works of improvement. A plan of operation and maintenance detailing the routine needs is included in the agreement. A separate plan is included for each measure or group of measures where the routine operation and main- tenance needs are expected to be different. The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission is to insure that all opera- tions and maintenance needs are performed on all works of improvements in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expended funds for installation. Land Treatment Operation and maintenance of the forest land treatment measures will be the responsibility of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Division of Forests and Parks. Technical assistance will be provided by the Berkshire Conservation District, the Soil Conservation Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. Structural Measures The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Division of Water Resources will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the impoundment structures, including related waterways. An operation and maintenance agreement between the Soil Conservation Service and the Massachusetts Division of Water Resources is in effect for the Washington Mountain Lake structure. A similar agreement will be executed prior to issuing the Invitation to Bid for construction of the October Mountain Lake and Schoolhouse Lake structures. 20 The operation and maintenance work at the impoundment sites will include such activities as the removal of brush and debris around the dam and spillways; maintenance of vegetal cover by reseeding, fertilizing, and mowing; control of unwanted vegetation; and replacement or repair of the metal and concrete appurtenances. The principal item of operation and maintenance of the two recreational i pools is initial fish stocking and fishery management to be accomplished i by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. This will normally I be initiated within 2 years after the impoundments have been filled with i water. The town of Lee will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the channel work, the appurtenances at the October Mountain Lake and Schoolhouse Lake Dams related to water supply, the water supply pipeline (except in Lenox), and treatment facilities. An operation and maintenance agreement between the town of Lee and the Soil Conservation Service will be executed for the channel work. Opera- tion and maintenance of the channel work will include maintaining the structural integrity of the sediment control facilities and constructed channel, removal of sediment from the control facilities, removal of any sediment deposits in the constructed channel and at bridges, and maintaining access to the sediment control facilities. The Sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service will inspect the dams and the channel work annually and after each major storm or unusual occurrence which might adversely affect the measures. The initial inspection of the dams will be performed during or immediately after the initial filling of the reservoirs. Needed maintenance will be determined by the inspections. In conformance with state law, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission is responsible to insure that needed maintenance is performed. The water supply facilities will require maintenance and replacement, as necessary. This will be the responsibility of the town of Lee. Maintenance work and work resulting from improper operation and maintenance are not eligible for PL-566 financial assistance. However, PL-566 funds may be used to cost share for additional work on vegetative applications on completed measures, if the original application fails to establish vegetation through no fault of the contractor or those responsible for operation and maintenance. Also, PL-566 funds may be used to cost share on repair work resulting from unknown conditions or design or construction deficiencies. Technical assistance that may be needed for maintenance work and work resulting from improper operation and maintenance will be provided by the Soil Conservation Service. 21 Project Costs The total estimated installation cost of the remaining project measures is $9,970,800. Components of this cost are shown in Table 2. Cost and benefit data for the project are included in Appendix A. TABLE 2 PROJECT COSTS ' Project Costs (dollars) Item PL-566 3/ 0ther 4/ Total Washington Mountain Lake October Mountain Lake ' Schoolhouse Lake Channel Work Water Supply Pipelines, Intakes, Chlorinator, Storage Tanks, and 360,800 553,600 365,400 200,000 524,700 520,000 600 5/ 200,000 885,500 1,073,600 366,000 Treatment Plant 5,863,800 5,863,800 Allocated Costs - Subtotal 1,279,800 7,109,100 8,388,900 Project Administration 313,800 1,268,100 1,581,900 TOTAL 1,593,600 8,377,200 9,970,800 1/ Remaining installation costs as of December 1980, except as noted below. 2/ Includes $38,000 incurred from previous project activity. 3/ Funds appropriated under authority of PL-83-566 for installation of project measures. 4/ Funds from sources other than PL-83-566 appropriations. Other funds may include sponsors costs, donations, landowners and operators costs, and cost-sharing from other public programs. 5/ Estimated remaining land rights cost (utility relocation). 22 Physical Resources ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Area and Location The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed lies within the drainage basin of the Housatonic River in western Massachusetts, approximately 105 miles west of Boston, 40 miles southeast of Albany, New York, and 45 miles northwest of Hartford, Connecticut. The brook's drainage area, 5,740 acres is within Berkshire County, and includes portions of three towns: Lee (870 acres), Washington (4,670 acres), and Becket (200 acres). Approximately 5,150 acres of the watershed is within the October Mountain State Forest. Principal uses of the watershed are recreation and timber production. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is in the New England Region, numerically designated by the U.S. Water Resources Council as 01100005 (Figure 8). CI imate The nearest U.S. Weather Bureau station to the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is located at Becket, where only precipitation is monitored and the period of record is 2 years (NOAA-Environmental Data Service, 1974). Data used in the following discussion were collected at Stock- bridge, approximately 5 miles west of the watershed. The station at Stockbridge is located at an elevation of 870 feet above mean sea level (msl), which is equivalent to the lowest elevations in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed. Mean data used in the following discussion include the period from 1941 to 1970. The climate of the area is generally continental with occasional maritime intrusions. General climatic features include changeable weather, a sub- stantial temperature range (both daily and seasonal), and a relatively even distribution of precipitation. The average annual temperature at Stockbridge is 45.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (Table 3). The average summer (June-August) temperature is 65.4°F, and the average winter (December-February) temperature is 24.0°F. The average winter minimum temperature is -16°F. In general, summers are free of extreme or very uncomfortable heat; winters are cold but not extremely severe. The average "growing season," or period with minimum temperature exceeding 32°F is 127 days and extends from mid-May to the end of September. The length of the growing season varies with elevation, topography, soil type, and other influences. Low areas are generally more frost prone than higher slopes and rises. Local variations in the appearance of the first frost may amount to several weeks. 23 r WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED FIGURE 8 LOCATION OF THE WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED WITHIN THE NEW ENGLAND REGION 24 TABLE 3 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA AVERAGE TEMPERATURE, TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL AT STOCKBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS FROM 1941 TO 1970 [SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1973)] Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual 45.7 41.99 Temperature Precipitation (F°) (inches) 22.1 2.88 23.8 2.67 32.6 3.13 44.8 3.75 55.0 3.63 63.3 3.92 67.6 4.41 65.4 3.42 58.7 3.78 49.4 2.90 38.9 3.95 26.2 3.55 25 Total annual precipitation in the area averages 41.99 inches (Table 3) and exceeds 90 percent of this average in 7 of ewery 10 years. Although there are no "rainy" or "dry" seasons, short dry periods are fairly common. During the warmer half of the year much of the rainfall comes from showers and thunderstorms accompanying the passage of a front. During the colder seasons precipitation is sometimes augmented by "north- easters" which can produce strong winds and heavy rain or snow in the area. Total annual snowfall at Stockbridge is 66.6 inches, but seasonal snow- fall varies widely from the average. The maximum depth of snowcover averages 16 inches. However, measurable depths of snowcover do not cover the ground for extended periods of time. The average period of continuous snowcover at Stockbridge is 46 days. Air Qual ity The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is located at the sewage treatment plant in the town of Lee. According to the Berkshire Air Pollution Control District (BAPCD), air quality in the vicinity of Lee is excellent. Air quality in most portions of the watershed would be expected to be better than that in the town of Lee due to the lack of air pollution sources and the freer circulation of air at the higher elevations. Topography Elevations in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed range from 2,200 feet above mean sea level (msl ) at its headwaters to 900 feet msl at its confluence with the Housatonic River. The watershed lies within two sec- tions of the New England Physiographic Province: the upland plateau and the limestone valley. The brook originates in the upland plateau where elevations range from 1,750 to 1,900 feet msl with isolated hills rising to 2,200 feet msl. The stream flows west alternately through somewhat broad, gently sloping valleys and steep, V-shaped valleys. The more gently sloping portions of the valleys are often flooded by beaver dams creating swamps, marshes and shallow ponds. The western edge of the upland plateau is an abrupt escarpment. The brook flows from the upland plateau into the limestone valley through a steep, V-shaped valley which is approximately 400 feet deep where it dissects the mountain front. Elevations in the limestone valley range from 1,000 to 1,750 feet msl. The stream channel is confined to a V-shaped valley with steeply sloping banks. The average stream gradient in this section is approximately 320 feet/mile. Numerous unstable bank and slide areas in various stages of erosion and sloughing are scattered throughout this area. 26 Geology Bedrock of the Housatonic Basin is primarily sandstone, limestone, dolomite, marble, quartzite, schist and gneiss. These rocks have been substantially deformed by tilting, folding and faulting. The deformation processes have caused cracks and broken zones which now constitute the major water- bearing openings in the bedrock. Gneiss ic rocks , consisting primarily of granitic gneiss with some schist and quartzite, underlie most of the watershed (Figure 9). Gneissic rocks in the Housatonic Basin include the Hinsdale Gneiss, the Becket Granite Gneiss, the Washington Gneiss, and some Lee Quartz Diorite, all of Precam- brian age. Quartzitic rocks occur in a narrow band across the watershed near the Housatonic River (Figure 9). In the Housatonic Basin, these rocks consist primarily of quartzite, quartzite conglomerate, feldspathic quartzite, and some mica schist. Some surface outcrops appear as a friable sandstone. Quartzitic rocks include the Dalton Formation of early Cambrian age, the Cheshire Quartzite of early Cambrian age, and micaceous quartzites within the Stockbridge Group of Cambrian and Ordovician age. Carbonate rocks , consisting principally of limestone, dolomite, and marble, underlie the watershed near the Housatonic River (Figure 9). These rocks include members of the Stockbridge Group of Cambrian and Ordovician age and the Coles Brook Limestone of Precambrian age. Sufficial deposits within the Housatonic River Basin, excluding swamp and recent alluvium, are glacial in origin. These deposits are composed of rock particles ranging in size from clay to boulders. Surficial deposits are classified, according to the mode of deposition, as stratified deposits (glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine) and nonstratified (till) deposits. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed contains both stratified surficial deposits and nonstratified deposits (Figure 10). Washington Mountain Brook has been depositing an irregularly shaped allu- vial fan at the base of the mountain front since the retreat of the Pleis- tocene glaciers. The alluvial fan materials are coarse sands, gravel, cobbles and boulders. The fan generally extends from the Housatonic River upstream to the vicinity of the Newton Bridge (northeast end of Reach 2, see Figure 1). Stratified surficial deposits cover the watershed near the Housatonic River (Figure 10). The deposits consist primarily of silt, sand, gravel, and boulders. Some clay appears in well to poorly sorted deposits. Strati- fied deposits occur principally as valley bottom fill, kame deltas, and ice channel fillings. These deposits are principally glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits of Pleistocene age and some swamp, stream, and lake deposits of recent age. The thickness of these deposits ranges from to 240 feet. 27 , Ancient . Inactive Fault ' t''-'-'-1 •■artzi tic Racks Caraaaate Racks 1 I Catissic lacks FIGURE 9 BEDROCK GEOLOGY WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 28 R»$3 Fawable Ground Water A FIGURE 10 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 29 Till , a heterogeneous mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and boulders, with small quantities of clay, overlies most of the watershed (Figure 10). Till deposits range in thickness from to 90 feet, and occur as a discontinuous mantle over bedrock and as thicker deposits in drumlins (glacially molded elongated hills). Till deposits occur most frequently on the hills in Berkshire County. Because till was deposited directly from the glaciers, and not transported by water, the material is normally poorly sorted. Ground water in Berkshire County occurs in both surficial and bedrock deposits. Ground v/ater resources in the vicinity of the Washington Moun- tain Brook Watershed have been evaluated by Norvitch (1966), the Common- wealth of Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC) (1967), and Norvitch et al . , (1968, proposed that the stratified deposits near the confluence of the Housatonic River and Washington Mountain Brook are a favorable area for ground water exploration). Bedrock contains ground water only in secondary openings such as, fractures, joints, and solution cavities, within the rock formations. The volume of water and rate of production are dependent upon the size and degree of interconnection of these openings. The largest and most extensive secondary openings normally occur in carbonate bedrock. Reported yields from wells in carbonate rocks range from less than 1 gallon per minute (gpm) to as much as 1,700 gpm (WRC, 1967). The median yield for carbonate rocks is 9 gpm. The other bedrock units in the area are relatively insoluble and yield large quantities of water only where they are highly fractured. The median yield from these units is also 9 gpm, but yields exceeding 100 gpm are common. Surficial deposits contain the largest quantities of recoverable ground water in the vicinity of the watershed (Figure 10). The stratified surfi- cial deposits in the Housatonic Valley are generally well sorted. These deposits often yield large quantities of ground water. Norvitch et al., (1968) reported that the coarseness of the grains in the stratified deposits south of Woods Pond in the town of Lee was sufficient to warrant ground water exploration. These authors also noted that each of two wells in this area currently supply more than 1 million gallons of water per day (mgd). The deposit, part of which occurs in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, is extensive and has not been completely explored. Till deposits are normally poorly sorted and yield small quantities of ground water. Large diameter wells in till deposits generally produce sufficient water for domestic use. Mineral resources of economic importance produced in Berkshire County include limestone, sand and gravel. A gravel extraction operation is located in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed near the confluence of the brook and the Housatonic River (Figure 11). Large quantities of valuable mineral resources are not expected to be present in the upland portion of the watershed, but the presence of small deposits is possible (Dr. Norman Hatch, Jr., USGS, Reston, Va. , personal communication). 30 Earthquakes in the northeastern United States have not been frequent or intense in comparison to other areas of the world. Earthquakes have not been recorded recently in the Berkshire Mountains. Although the area in the vicinity of the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed contains some faults, these fractures are very old and have not been active for an extremely long period of time. Young developing faults have not been detected during recent geological examinations of the area. Soils A detailed soil survey is currently being prepared for Berkshire County by SCS. Advance copies of aerial photographs of the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed with preliminary soil survey data imposed upon them were made available for incorporation into this report. Soils delineated on the aerial photographs were identified using the identification legend of Scanu and Zayach (1971), and soil characteristics were taken from Description of Soil Series and Land Types , an undated publication of SCS. A preliminary soil map prepared from the aerial photographs indicates that a distinct division of soils exists at the approximate elevation of 1,100 feet msl . Lowland soils, those below 1,100 feet msl , in the water- shed do not appear above this elevation, and upland soils, those occurring above 1,100 feet msl, do not appear below this elevation (Table 4). Lowland soils in the watershed (Figure 11) include members of 14 different series of land types (Table 4). The most prominent lowland soil is the Copake sandy loam. The lowlands also contain substantial areas of Groton gravelly loamy sand and Pittsfield fine sandy loam (including the stony and extremely stony varieties). The lowlands are divided by an exposure of riverwash along the Washington Mountain Brook. Copake soils have been formed in sand and gravel deposits consisting mainly of limestone, schist, and phyllite. The soils have a fine sandy loam or a gravelly loam texture to a depth of approximately 24 inches. The under- lying substratum consists of stratified sands and gravel, and many contain cobbles and some stones. The surface soil and subsoil have a moderately rapid permeability, and the underlying sand and gravel layers are very rapidly permeable. The soils are somewhat excessively drained. Groton soils formed in thick deposits of neutral or calcareous sands and gravel. The sands and gravel were derived from limestone, phyllite, schist, and gneiss. Soils of this series commonly have a gravelly surface soil and subsoil underlain by stratified sands and gravel. The soils generally have loose substrata, and water moves very rapidly through them. They are excessively drained. The soils are usually stone-free but may contain a few stones and cobbles. Pittsfield soils formed in glacial till derived mainly from limestone and schist. These soils have a loam or a fine sandy loam surface soil and a subsoil that contains moderate quantities of cobble and stone. They are friable to a depth of 30 inches or more from the surface. The soils have moderately rapid to rapid permeability and are well drained. Pittsfield soils have very stony or extremely stony surfaces except where they have been cleared of surface stone. 31 — N— UiliiJ Sails D H Cr, J F~ -d LECEMI Groton Soi Is River Wash Hero Soi 1 s Fredon Soi 1 s Pittsfield Soils Made Land Copake Soi 1 s Lenox Soi 1 s Had ley Soi 1 s Saco Soi 1 s L imerick Soi 1 s Winooski Soils Amen i a Soils Gravel Pit JH4Fttt SOILS SOURCE- USDA-SCS Soil Survey Field Sheets (advance copies subject to change). FIGURE 11 LOWLAND SOILS WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 32 Riverwash is a miscellaneous land type consisting of sandy or gravelly material recently deposited by streams and rivers. Riverwash may also contain cobbles and large stones. Riverwash areas are subject to fre- quent stream overflow and are generally barren with little or no vegeta- tion. Upland soils in the watershed (Figure 12) include members of 11 different series or land types (Table 4). Upland soils occur in both the limestone valley and the upland plateau of the watershed. The most prominent upland soil is the Lyman extremely rocky loam. This soil dominates the limestone valley area of the watershed but also occurs in the upland plateau. Other prominent soils include the Ridgebury very stony and extremely stony loam, the Sutton extremely stony loam, and the Peru very stony loam. The upland plateau also contains areas of muck, peat and freshwater marsh. Approxi- mately 10 percent of the upland area has not been surveyed. Lyman soils developed in glacial till derived principally from schistose rock. The depth to bedrock is generally less than 20 inches. Distances between rock outcrops range from approximately 10 to more than 100 feet. The soils have a friable fine sandy loam or a loam surface soil and sub- soil. They have moderately rapid permeability to bedrock and are somewhat excessively drained. These soils are very stony or extremely stony except where surface stones have been removed. Ridgebury soils formed in compact, stony, glacial till. The soils have a fine sandy loam or a loam surface soil. The texture of the subsoil is fine sandy loam or sandy loam. A slowly permeable hardpan generally occurs at depths of 12 to 24 inches. Permeability of the soil above the hardpan is moderately rapid to rapid, but the soils are poorly drained. These soils are normally saturated with water for 7 to 9 months of the year by a perched water table near the soil surface. Ridgebury soils have a very stony or extremely stony surface and contain some stones below the surface. Berkshire soils developed in glacial till which contained many fragments of mica schist. These friable soils have a fine sandy loam or a loam surface soil and subsoil. The soils have moderately rapid permeability and are well drained. Berkshire soils are very stony or extremely stony except where they have been cleared of surface stones. Sutton soils formed in glacial till derived principally from schist and gneiss. The soils have a friable, fine sandy loam or loam surface soil and subsoil. The surface soil and subsoil have moderately rapid to rapid permeability. The soils are moderately well drained; they are generally wet below depths of 18 to 30 inches for 4 to 5 months of the year. Satur- ation generally occurs in winter and early spring, and is related to fluctuating high water tables or to excess seepage from adjacent higher areas. Sutton soils are very stony or extremely stony except where cleared of surface stones. 33 SOILS SOURCE USDA-SCS Soil Survey Field Sheets (advonce copies subject to change). FIGURE 12 UPLAND SOILS WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 34 TABLE 4 SOILS OCCURRING IN THE WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED [SOURCE: Advance copies of aerial photographs and accom- panying identification legend. Scanu and Zayach (1971)]. Lowland Soils Riverwash Saco silt loam Made land Hadley silt loam Winooski silt loam Limerick silt loam Lenox very stony loam Pittsfield fine sandy loam Pittsfield very stony fine sandy loam Pittsfield extremely stony fine sandy loam Amenia extremely stony fine sandy loam Groton gravelly loamy sand Copake fine sandy loam Hero fine sandy loam Fredon fine sandy loam Gravel pit Upland Soils Ridgebury very stony and extremely stony loam Whitman loam Whitman very stony and extremely stony loam Merrimac sandy loam Peat Muck Lyman very rocky loam Sutton extremely stony loam Freshwater marsh Lyman extremely rocky loam Berkshire very stony loam Berkshire extremely stony loam Marlow very stony loam Marlow extremely stony loam Peru loam Peru very stony loam Peru extremely stony loam 35 Peru soils developed in compact glacial till derived from schistose rock. The soils have a friable, fine sandy loam or a loam surface soil and sub- soil. Compact hardpan occurs at depths of 18 to 30 inches. Permeability is moderate in the surface soil and subsoil, and is slow in the hardpan. The soils are moderately well drained. Peru soils have a seasonally high water table or excess seepage water within 18 to 30 inches of the surface during 4 to 5 months of the year. These soils are very stony or extremely stony except where they have been cleared of surface stones. Land Use The 5,740-acre Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is 88.2 percent forested. This forest land includes 120 acres of wooded swamp. Ninety percent of the watershed is located within the October Mountain State Forest, which is administered by the Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks. The primary land management objective is timber production. Secondary objec- tives include outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, and watershed manage- ment. Ponds, streams and wetlands constitute 5.3 percent (3.2 percent excluding wooded swamp) of the watershed. Pasture, hayland, idle agricul- tural land, and cleared forest land comprise 5.0 percent of the watershed. The remaining 3.6 percent is urban land area. Surface Water Resources The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed currently contains one permanent lake, Finerty Pond; a flood control structure, Washington Mountain Lake Dam; a supplementary water supply intake structure; and approximately 12.3 miles of stream. Washington Mountain Brook originates at an elevation of approximately 1,800 feet msl and joins the Housatonic River at an elevation of 900 feet msl. The average gradient of the entire stream is 100 feet/mile. The gradient profile of the Washington Mountain Brook is illustrated in Figure 13. The brook is a dendritic stream system composed of first and second-order streams (Figure 14). Based upon the classification system proposed by Horton (1945), first-order streams have no tributaries, and second-order streams have only first-order streams as tributaries. Stream order increases whenever two streams of the same order unite. Thus, when two first-order streams unite, a second-order stream is formed. Approxi- mately 8.5 miles of the Washington Mountain Brook system is first-order stream, and the remaining 3.8 miles is second-order stream. Although the concept of stream order was originated to provide a system for classify- ing the morphological relationship of streams in a drainage system, the concept has been applied to the study of biological cummunities inhabit- ing streams. Recent discussions of stream fish communities indicate that fish distributions are related to stream order (Kuehne, 1962; Lotrich, 1973). Stream flow was measured by the "end area-velocity" method at eight sta- tions along the Washington Mountain Brook (Figure 15). Flow measure- ments were made with each collection of water quality samples. Flow data collected during the survey are summarized in Table 5. Stream velocities 36 o l_ 1- O) c f= c •— flj (D ro O t/> ^~ O rc -o Q. Q. (D O £5. O l_ < CC Q- 1 a 3 f e t u | H J aqo i 3q Sb9L3W 009 , L. x33^ E -0) =SDT ' E -to E *: •> -mi! I CO XJBlnqi jx |sj ij E E o < o UJ s: 00 o cc C£ Ll_ UJ Q_ ^ o t— o UJ OS UJ CQ u_ ■ZL c_> *—\ 1 — 1 < CQ 1— => c ■Z. O => ■1— O ^ +-> 21 I-H ft3 lo 4-> Z UJ 00 UJ O C£ _j h- <=c CO CJ3 < 2: 00 h- »—i 3S IE O 00 _J < Li- is 2: • 1 — 1 Q CD UJ t— 1 or r> « 00 CO < r— 1 LU SI cm UJ 00 CQ 32 21 UJ _J h- Li. Q_ 21 UJ < OO UJ a; O I— t— 00 00 M lo LO| cn\ (0 CM cvj| CO LO LO p*-. <—i LO CM LO < — 1 1 — 1 cd «vT I— 1 lo CD CO 1— 1 CM LO p^ CD i—l r-* 1— 1 CD i-H T— 1 r-H CM CO CM CM 00 CO CO cd CO r-- 00 LO co LO LO CO cd <* r-* r-^ «3- r-^ LO «tf- I—l r-^ co CO r-^ CO «* 00 CO CM *d- <3- r-* LO CO 1— 1 r-^. CO cd LO CM LO 1—1 LO LO 1— 1 LO CO I— 1 t— 1 LO LO CM cd LO CD co LO CO CM CO 00 CM CM r-H «tf- I— 1 CO cd LO *3- CD LO LO -3" LO <3- CM CO «3- O CM r-H CO CD CO **■ i—l 00 S- s- i- r^. i-H CM CM cu CU JO CU JD c: CD 4-> +-> +-> 4-> E E E fO +-> to IO to to cu CU CU CU na 3 3 13 3 +-> -M +-> :>_ CD CD CD CD CD Q. Q_ ex. 13 Z3 zs rs CU CU CU u O H a 2 CC < IS 2 w O a >H Eh Eh O 2 CM 1 H Q H <: H ffi U CO co < g § Q D 2 co S CJ <: a o H o pS Cm >H M Cm Eh Eh H * pq in H PS Eh r^ J w W U en f4j CO 3 PQ ^ H iH cq ^ hH O << J •«. < Eh O 00 W U r-{ PS cq o 2 < PS Cm D: Eh W Eh < PQ Eh Q g CU PS w W O >H Eh L> Cm Eh 04 X H W W J CO «: •«. D O CO O* Eh 2 o ps r^ H w Eh Eh Eh < < CO > £ D PS O H Cm D CO o < CQ O >} S & Q 2 1 PS D CO CO PS < o Cm c o •H +J rd +J CO co vo LO ^ co cn kD CO in co co r- o o ^inNTino^oomooN rH £> CN 00 CO CM g g o O ^-^ o O CO •-{ rH rH rH rH rH rH *—* , — > rH rH rH rH r-\ ^-^ p \ \ \ \ W \ rH H y—^ \ \ \ \ \ D •H 2 2 2 CU CU 2 2 \ \ Cn CT> cn Cn cn E- c cn cn cn Cn Cn cu CU cn Cn U 6 g e g 10 TJ •H H g 10 •H rH •-D p e g g g g a a g g CO CO CO u c c C CO 3 CU TJ T) CU CU 3 CO 10 p cn CU CU cn Cn C CU >H s g cd rT > T3 CU p s u U r-i fi Jh >H cn cd £ i g -o CO CO >i rd C C P CO H rH P CU CU ■H 3 P •H 1 1 •H 43 •H Eh > rH Q CO -H T3 CU CU p cd •H c ft ft U O S -rl sh rH rH •H u s fd c rH r-i rH rH •H iH CU co cd cs A >H cd ,£ cd cd cd T3 cd p CO Q Q p -P Tj rH P g P P p o p •H M CO •H o O 3 X •H g rl CU O rH £ Q CQ O Eh En Eh CJ ft 2 < EH O Eh Cm Eh < <=C 42 Washington Mountain Brook was not specifically mentioned in the State Water Quality Standards published on September 21, 1978. This stream must be inferred to be included in the "other surface waters" which were denoted as Class B (this is also true of Lee's primary water supply source, Codding Brook). The water quality data displayed in Table 6 for the impoundment reaches satisfy the criteria for Class A waters, with the exception of Total Col i form. This total col i form appears to be from natural sources, excluding human contributions. Two water quality samples were collected from the surface of Finerty Pond during the environmental evaluation of the watershed. The results of these surveys (see Appendix B) support the proposition that the pond is oligotro- phy. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are moderately high, and nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are low. The water was extremely clear (average turbidity was 4.25 JTU) and no algal masses were observed. Water quality in the pond meets Class A stream standards. Wetlands There are about 265 acres of wetlands within the watershed which are classified as follows: T 1/ Type Approximate Acreage Type 1 - Seasonally Flooded 5 Type 2 - Inland Fresh Meadow 73 Type 3 - Inland Shallow Fresh Marshes 24 Type 4 - Inland Deep Fresh Marshes 9 Type 5 - Inland Open Fresh Water 15 Type 6 - Shrub Swamp 19 Type 7 - Wooded Swamp 120 Total 265 Wetlands comprise about 4.6 percent of the watershed area (see Figure 16). Further discussion is contained in the Plant and Animal Resource section. Plant and Animal Resources Terrestrial Communities The composition of existing and future plant and animal communities in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is dependent upon the interaction of several environmental factors. Any interpretation of the quantitative data from the species present or prediction of the composition of future com- munities must account for these interactions. Factors which have been most important in determining existing terrestrial communities and which will continue to influence future species composition include topography, geology, climate, soils, the history of land use, and biotic influences. 1/ Wetlands of the United States , Circular 39, United States Depart- ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1956. 43 In the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, as elsewhere in New England, little of the pre-colonial forest survived the clearing for cultivation or the lumbering which occurred before 1850. Subsequent abandonment of farmland has permitted natural reforestation of the region (Braun, 1950). Because of its rugged topography, the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed affords a wide range of sites suitable for a variety of plant communities. Forest and wetland types in the watershed have been identified and mapped from aerial photographs (MacConnell, 1971). Based on the ratio of coni- ferous to deciduous trees in the mapping areas, MacConnell classified the forest types as hardwood, hardwood-softwood, softwood-hardwood, softwood and planted stands. In addition, the height and density of each stand was indicated. Egler (1940) studied the vegetation of the Berkshire Plateau, and divided the region into three distinctive areas. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is generally within his "Blandford Area." This study is of par- ticular interest because changes in the composition of plant communities over the past 35 years can be used to predict the future of six plant communities in forecasts of the Blandford Area. Five of these communities are currently present in the Washington Mountain .Brook Watershed. Plant communities in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed have developed a great diversity in response to variations in physical features and changes in land use. These plant communities are displayed in Figure 16. Forest Forest types occurring within the watershed include: . Hardwood forest, represented by several plant communities; . Hardwood-softwood forest, dominated by spruce or hemlock; . Softwood forest, usually dominated by spruce; and . Planted softwoods of spruce or pine. Hardwood forest occupies approximately 2,968 acres (52 percent) of the water- shed. Approximately 2,493 acres, or 84 percent, of the hardwood forest is developed with trees of 10 inches or more dbh (diameter at breast height 4.5 feet) forming a canopy closure of 80 percent or more. Less developed hard- wood stands, either with a more open canopy or smaller tree girth or both, occupy 446 acres or about 15 percent of the hardwood forest area. Prominent tree species in the hardwood forest include sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, gray birch, white ash, black cherry and hemlock. Other species occasionally exert a local dominance. Plant communities are named according to the dominant species. The most frequently encountered plant communities of the hardwood forest in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed are the beech-birch-maple, the beech-hemlock, and the cherry-ash-maple. The beech- hemlock association included in the hardwood forest cover type consists of stands with less than 20 percent hemlock in the canopy. 44 LEGEND ] CLEARED FORESTLAND j ] SEASONALLY FLOODED ^^ FRESH MEADOW HH SHALLOW MARSH |_JJTJ DEEP MARSH [■*•*■! FRESH OPEN WATER | '/ t »| SHRUB SWAMP HI WOODED SWAMP |ggg] SURFACE WATER |ft_ft| HARDWOOD |4ft| HARDWOOD/SOFTWOOD |i-4| SOFTWOOD fcj^ PLANTED STANDS |£jg!| GENERAL URBAN USES 055555 AGRICULTURAL OR 1888821 IDLE LAND >4i444 4 " $±444*444 i ,4 4 ^ 4 4 9.J 4 4X, sf- 4 V >4&i 4 ^^ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. ft. $ 4ft 44\ * ^. - AV~44f> 4>* 4 J-Tv _®4444444£§^888o^4444>^4ft\ . ' 44ft.4ft4ft«oooooooc|^ + ,f $m&& * v >^ / ^m^b#^44*444\ J&44AW.4& a a a ft 14, v/ * v Va A ^fil»-444^4ft.44) * USfvaMMH M ^W^44444444(4 +jfc!AVM$"^ * 4j V* 4 /4.4« SC/Jif /« MILES " &4&J k4<3 !>444' »4»9 L44443 4 "4 ~4 '4 '4 "4 ft ft ft. ft ft/r* 'ft. 4 'ft. "ft. i/ft ft ft H ^ fJM $ ft 4 4 4AAM 4 ft. 4 ^ * 4 4 «M&\6 4 4 4|Vtfi ft ft. ft. ft ft. ft. «\-*gtm5^ ^Ift?^ '* 4 4 4 § 4 4 ♦AIa^ 4 N[| 4i?4 * > ■ 41 , 4 4 $ $4 <^M &_ -^ v¥** "& > "$ *. 4 4 &J4 4/*,*$ q 4 4 ■ -ft. ft. % ft 4 4/ v. 4 "ft to Vk* ^44404\4J44J \ft444ft4i?4 k f _4$444\"4 "ft ^mIIIt^P 4.4.4.4MJ^f|l4 4 4 * * * * * * * 1W^ '4 4 if itlf 4 4 4 4 "* ^ >r 4 4 4 4 4 $ $ 0. 4 4 feilM 4 4 0. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4/TO 4tli rg?3 v 4JI* 4 4 4 «AJfi/* "4 4 "4 "4 "4 4 4 4^ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 $ 4*4*|4/4 4 4 "4 "4 41 .PVf« 444 .4;ii$ 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4^A4T4M 4 4-^4lf4$44CiT4 4^ "8 ^04P- «9.««??«? , ^ ; *4 > %^>^^+444f^K4 4 yv. v4 4 «rSL4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 %444^447^444^«^^i44^ \4 4 <^Sk4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 IN^44*44444H44444^4 "$ <^ $ ^ $ ^ ^ ^ 4\4^4|44.444^4$4<^>44^4 t . \"4 "4 "^Vv4 ~$ §<$$$$$$§§ ^41-1-4444444^4444* 1 '" "\'a a*=a a "a 'a 'a ■& A A A A A SvNl 1 il.&AcS±i38»4<3i4^-r-, 4$_4.e.4M¥44\ 3 t "a "a "a T "4444 <3 <^4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ft 4 4 4 4 4 444^4 <^^444ft4444444l -^— = — -^ "ftft_ft.ft^ftft4 4/44^ $ ^\s?ft.44444>W-4404^444 v 4 N s — ' \ft "44"ft4'ftV4^M»r^<^44444^ \"4f44"4W|M4 4 4 . V 44"44<^^>4 4 4 4 4 4 . HT4 4 4 4 4 4 4\ "ft_ 4, ft_ ft ft ft ft .' ft fczzzz "ft ft ft 4^ 4 &V ^ "ft. , ^^"ft. 'ft_ ^"^""v-^ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v 4 4.4 4 4^ .ft ft ft>^s $$§§$$_§§§§ Hi^+?+4*fgW^*Y-fS \ft ft "ft "ft> "ft"ft§ftftftfti?>^ft 4V44:4ft4444^44ft4'* N v4 "ft ft ft "ft ft "4 "4 '4 4 "4 4 "4 "4 4 4 ^^44444^44444 \4 "4 4 4 '4 '4 "4 4 "4 "4 "4 '4 "4 "4 "4 '4 €H4i444^4ft4<'; Vf?) "ft "ft "ft ft "ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 4 4 <#l o o w > M H w O w > H Z w CO w OS a. tj C V U Of H TJ 2 o »h O 4J » u 01 Oi > (J >w fl C — 1 -H 4-> -r-l •a i-i .h jj O 13 J « •H o O CO jj o O O a. O ^J co oS 13 -r-i X , 3 > cu JJ • 01 4-> CO CU to •i-( h (0 u CO V l-l >» <0 1 c TJ CO M Q. cu o D- 01 CO o S3 co > 43 CO » i . * 3 ~ JJ C C co C — i "O T3 C Vj -H •. CO u o o Cfl Hi 3h o 01 o c u-i jj oi B IM •> 3 3 • H n C 60 co E ■O » 1j « •3 M O co « •> o cfl 3 O Vj O 01 T3 O >>T3 a 01 01 to o> 43 >, JJ 3 T3 £ r-l O •H O u TJ co T3 C T3 43 r-l 3 01 *> » O fl) •• 01 3 (fl 3 60 > C co o q 4-» o oi r-l -O O c M to 3 q M q r-l 1-1 O cfl -a 1 o 0) O —1 01 0) 00 £. 01 tj tw 6 - CO tM O 4J •> 43 T3 r^ q >> J-> co •> co q 01 3 TJ 43 M C T3 1 CO T3 C 0) 3 ,J OI o O 3 M 3 <0 >, to r-l 1-" 3 O t-i c u O — 1 01 O « fl O O 01 ^H M O O o s o ,o e CQ 4= E W) bH 43 bO to z a> >1 4J 4J CO CU cu •H u CO CO V) 01 TJ U cfl r-l cfl a. 01 O a 1 Q S3 CO CO CO CO #» 01 I-l CO r-l 43 •* •r-l JJ o> 1 M •> CO l—( CO q n a. >% •r-l CO *. *. 3 •H JJ cfl cfl TJ CO Cu 14-1 £ 01 >, U O JJ (3 _C CJ to o 3 U V4 M-l cfl •r-l ex q - q 3 r-l co 0) 60 TJ 1— 1 O e 43 t-i - co CO M r-l CU CO 4J q cfl T-I a, •i-l E o O M TJ O 00 3 Cu 4S ■• n JJ JJ O •M to o cu q 43 •r-t -H to • TJ 01 >i 3 3 43 r-l > r-l >4-l •> OI CO —1 cu 3 u « 60 JJ a, cu O 0) • •H CO o » to o CO »- N r-l CO co cu 60 TJ 1 JJ 43 E tj i*-i • co co to co a, E to 3 O 01 O cfl 43 CO to cfl U 00 u cfl q cfl q •> CO CO 01 TJ -H 01 CO to 3 o to 604: 60 CO 3 M 3 C - 0) >^ q q E C ex, 01 .a u a; to .r-i Q. •<-> 4: ■r-l U CU CO •a q •a 3 —i ao o to xi a. q o> O r-l (J q cx j-> — 1 - 3 Q< rJ 43 01 q 0; co CO E s> 43 -h to -h a. CO CO -rH CO -i-l -H "-> co > E •-• co U CO 3 WtW > 2 TJ O u 1. oo a. CU X 01 —1 01 -H jj 01 E 3 q 3 r-l to CO q BJ £ O * CU u CU 60 CU TJ cfl cm T-I t-4 CTn CO TJ r-l TJ cu TJ 0) q Jj CU 60 q tj cfl 43 •< — O cu cfl 01 a. O OS a, 3 CQ to CO e 3 6 43 ; •H 43 CM O O CM X TJ CO CM CNI T-I T-I ~^! * >» n 0) 43 r-l O CU 43 >N 0) O M —1 •-I co U JJ M O CD 43 o o • CO 6 < O r-i o cu E m r-l O O r-l M E 3 r-| *. 3 , q 01 v v a CO -r-l CO cfl 01 a. u TJ 1 »— 1 cfl 01 pa i co s«< |J X C/> >■ TJ O 0) TJ r-l cfl cu E E cu u 60 O CO a. .. » (U •0 s TJ CO 0) 01 to TJ CU .—1 —1 3 "O CU u *» cfl Cu u >- 3 q —1 01 3 60 CO Cu JJ i "3 cfl X 4J O 4J E co •i-l JC U JJ 4J ■— 1 (U c CO CQ CO 0) CO ■— 1 CU TJ TJ g 1 1 01 73 CU a. CO O CO S co CU CU OS u o l-i 01 JJ o U r-l 3 3 q 01 Q. M M CO rC CO a. Cu r-l u s: CO CO Oi co CO V cu M r-~ T-I I-l CM CM CO c» ao u-> vO u 'H u~> 00 CM < < T-I a , 4: E CO > CO —1 ^-^ ^-^ C/J s-^ cfl ^^ 3 -^ H 1 4-1 •-J tH CM 01 cn 3 t/3 r^ r-J T3 TJ T3 •0 CO TJ i-i ij to cfl 3 M O O O JJ C CU CU 3 cu U. 01 ill CU TJ CU JJ 01 O *J O O u 1 tj a. 43 O Ou JJ C3. 43 Q. cu a. O s > ? CO •3 3 3 3 co 43 co >, CO TJ >, q cfl >, 3 >, TJ >, JJ o ■O cu 0) T3 JJ 4-t CU 3 cfl H cu *-l tM M to 01 —I ' ' U 01 — a. *-■ JZ -^ O v-r 3 CO O •H CO O O O CO Ct, b. 7~, to 3 to t 3C U. X X co CO Pl, 1 1 51 Approximately 50 percent of the lake site consisted of mixed hardwood- softwood stands. Red maple, black cherry, eastern hemlock, white ash, and red spruce were the most common species. Harvestable timber has been removed and understory plants and stump sprouts are rapidly filling in the space left by tree removal. Understory varies from moderate to dense at the present time. Natural stands of softwoods occupy about 8 percent of the area required for installing the October Mountain Lake. Prior to harvest these stands were primarily red spruce with an occasional tamarack, red maple, eastern hemlock, ash, and bigtooth aspen. These stands were harvested and the understory is increasing in density although at a slower rate than the hardwood or mixed hardwood-softwood stands that were harvested. Black- berry is a particularly common site invader where the softwood stands were harvested. Since much of the red spruce in these stands was too small to be merchantable there still remains a substantial amount of red spruce less than 9 inches dbh. Planted softwood stands consist primarily of Norway spruce and occupy about 8 percent of the site area. Blackberry is a common invader where these stands occurred. Trees less than 9 inches dbh were not harvested. Shrub swamp and wooded swamp occupy the largest percentage of wetland cover at this site. Red maple, green ash and red spruce dominate the wooded swamp. The shrub swamp is dominated by several species of willow and alder. Sweetgale and spirea occur frequently. Herbaceous plants include boneset and joe-pye-weed. Cattails, grasses and sedges cover some locally elevated hummucks. Sphagnum moss is common in the wooded swamp. Beavers had not occupied the site area in 1975 but are now active at the site and have restored 5 acres of open beaver flowage. School house Lake will have a surface area of approximately 39 acres. The flood control pool delineation encloses an additional 16 acres. The vege- tative cover which is present on these sites is delineated in Figure 18 and quantitative area data is provided in Table 8. The wetland types in the area designated for the recreational pool are seasonally flooded flats, fresh meadow, and shallow marsh. Nearly all of these wetlands are the result of previously active beaver flowages. The fresh meadow vegetation is primarily reed canarygrass, sedges, rushes, and meadowsweet. Shallow marsh at this site is less than one-half acre and occurs immedi- ately upstream of a decadent, breached beaver dam. Wildlife signs in addition to those of raccoons and muskrats at the edge of the shrub swamp, included deer tracks and woodchuck burrows. Red squirrels and many song birds were observed. Mallards utilize the shallow marsh. In 1976 the merchantable timber was harvested from the forested acreage of the Schoolhouse Lake site in preparation for future construction. 52 ■UNNAMED ROAD EMERGENCY SPILLWAY A A, AAA A A A A A AAA W.tsr*:o- COUNTY road" 400 4O0 SCALE IN FEET DAM- r*i^<>A<' Ja>A$A4AM$ Afc &£ ^A^4$A$A$A$*$1$* M fy ^^a4A^a^A0P^^A4a^a^a^a^a4'a4!4^a^j ^a^a^ a^a« feSfe&fK* a$a$a4a4a^4a4a4a ' ■ A4A4 j H4* lA<&A$A§A>*QA& J&A&A«&*$W iAA+AA^ ' >A$A&' t$4feA§A$*< UWA4A4A4A 1 t$A$A$A$A& i^A*.A$A3A ^^^^^A^A^A^ *&$*&&&&&& <$* $A$A$t <& <^ c^<^ $f $A <&* $f <$* <^ <*#44 aC ' ^^«&f^4A4*«4$4^M^^A4A*4**«, ■\"^^^4*^4*4*4Mk4*4K#fffiA>A A$ ■\ $H*$t$t$*4*$*4t$t < ? # t444*>A4 A<£ A . ' '» #1*$A$A$A$A4A$+ *# 4M*4&gA *A*4« ' ^A>feAAA(^0A^A^A^A^A^A^Al^ T?A> f 4 - feA^W^A^W.A4A^A^;A^feA44 O -H 3 -4 >4 CU CU j-i 4J 44 in CO CO cu to J-I H CO 3 0) CU M oi •a -o CO Q o o Q, a s CO h m en > -u o s CO co to o co C - 3 3 "3 C u 3 n M 3 -H , 0) CU 4J 4J 4J t-l <0 to CU co M M CO C CU CU M 01 •o •u as a o o a. £ S CO M •O 44 CO CU 43 CO 3 U CU -4 3 >* co ■-4 CU •H 3 5 U 4-1 Cu_4 3 .-4 o c 44 CO CO d, ■ E to CU .-4 ~ N .-1 U-l O •3 CO 01 43 3 o I-l I-l CO to C n •3 g OS CO CO -H CO M -H 4-> 6 JS 3 co a -o to 0) OO T3 0) CO O C 3 ccj cj c « « C cu o 44 c o 1-4 3 4J Q 14 0) 14 •H 43 3 3 CO «— 1 5 cu O C ~4 3 r-4 0) HWO N )4 3 u. 43 Q. T3 a. i-i u CO b -2 +J i-l a, •-! CO O to CU X < S to > CO CO CO 3 43 CO « _ CO cu CO i-4 r* 3 OO to Average dbl Canopy O •3 ■0 •r4 CU 01 1-1 i— 1 o CO oo CM T-H i-l 00 3 O •H 4J CO 44 0) CO 43 M 01 X O 14 3 CU "3 >. u CO 3 «0 CJ 3 o a. 3 o i-4 00 «-4 0) 01 i-4 01 (3 CU o Em 3 > a a- >> e j= o> 00 ^3" tH •W 43 *-4 i-| --I CO ■H ed s 44 3 OJ 44 CO CO 00 C •H •-4 a, CO CO J3 o 1 -3 to u O V4 U 4- 3 co >» l CU CU 3 T3 O O 3 CO >■ I-l ex CO M 01 43 0) 4-) -4 c 3 1 43 CO 4J M O Z to u •3- 3 3 O M OO *~4 CU CO 6 i < 1 - O o 4tJ ■3 cu bs o >» CU O CU o u M o 3 o o 01 M CO M 3 T3 3 -^ 01 )-l I-l u e 43 a- to a. cu U to x CO I CO cu u u < J- o- -^ CO 1-1 CJ < c»1 VO ON *o CD a (4 CO 1-4 ^-^ ^-N >-n CU f—1 ■-1 tH CM ro r-l -o i "3 *3 ■3 60-5 3 •H 3 44 O co »-i 4-1 c 4-1 CO T3 C 47 CU 3 oi 3 o oi to 4-1 3 cu O O O *o Cu 43 O D. -4 43 CU o H > 4-1 o o o CO O >, co -a >> H « >, 44 O o 3 to ■3 3 3 3 43 tO O H 0) co H to 14 H 43 H u '3 CU CJ T] 41 4-1 CU •—! v-' l-l 01 ' 43 to w 3 « o •H cfl O o •H 1-1 X o faJ 03 3 CO CO fau fau 2 co S CO X fa T. X CO CO 1 1 CO -"I 54 Hardwood woodland formerly occupied 6 percent of this site and consisted primarily of black cherry, white ash, and red and sugar maples. Vegetation presently on the site consists of sapling and pole size cherry, ash, red maple, sugar maple, eastern hemlock, yellow birch, and understory plants. Understory and ground cover is of moderate to high density as a result of removing most of the forest canopy. Stump sprouting and invasion of hazel- nut, blackberry, goldenrod and various grasses is occurring at a rapid rate. Mixed hardwood-softwood forest occupies about 66 percent of the School house Lake site. Prior to timber harvest the stands consisted of pole to large sawtimber size red spruce, red maple, aspen, eastern hemlock, yellow birch, sugar maple, black cherry, white ash, and American beech. Woody vegetation presently on the site is primarily sapling and pole size cherry, ash, sugar maple, yellow birch, hemlock, beech, aspen and red spruce. Larger trees of these species which remain are those with poor form or quality which were of little to no commercial value. Blackberry, red maple and sugar maple stump sprouts, hazelnut, arrowwood, and herbaceous plants are increasing in density in response to removal of most of the tree canopy. Natural softwood stands occupied about 6 percent of the site. These stands consisted primarily of red spruce and eastern hemlock with an occasional yellow birch, sugar maple, white ash, and red maple. These stands were harvested in 1976. Trees less than 9 inches dbh were left remaining due to their low commercial value. Blackberry is the most common invader in these harvested softwood stands. Washington Mountain Lake will have a surface area of approximately 224 acres. Clearing of this pool area was completed in November 1976, which resulted in 193 acres of cleared forest land and 31 acres of wetland (fresh meadow and shallow marsh), see Figure 16. The clearing specifications required that stumps not extend more than 12 inches above ground where the depth of water is to exceed 3 feet, and no more than 4 inches where the depth of water will be less than 3 feet. The 11-acres of shallow marsh (Type 3 Wetland) supports pondweeds, various sedges and rushes, pickerelweed, arrowhead and duckweed. Fresh meadow (Type 2 Wetland) comprises 20 acres of the area. Principal plants are reed canarygrass and various sedges and rushes. Woody plants including sweet gale, shrub willows, meadowsweet, silky dog- wood and shrubby cinquefoil are gradually increasing in density throughout the wetland area. Plant succession to shrub swamp (Type 6 Wetland) is typical of shallow freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts. Accessory sites near the impoundments have been designated as borrow or ^disposal areas. The Triangle Borrow Area, west of the dam site of October Mountain Lake dam was used for fill for the construction of Washington Mountain Lake dam. This 4-acre site has not been restored since additional fill is planned for removal for the construction of October Mountain and School house Lake structures. A site south of the Triangle Borrow Area has 55 been selected for the excavation of additional construction material, from which 10 to 15 acres of hardwood-softwood forest may be removed. Addi- tional land may be involved in grading to restore the borrow sites. Most of the softwood trees in this region are spruce of less than 10 inches dbh. The hardwoods include some excellent specimens of cherry averaging 15 inches dbh. Wildlife Present Wildlife present in any watershed is dependent upon the availability of diverse habitats provided by the various vegetative cover types. Most wildlife species have specialized habitat requirements which restrict their distribution. These habitat requirements are complex. Generally, food, cover, nesting sites, and water must be available within the daily range of individuals of the population. For predaceous species the food require- ment is an animal whose habitat requirements must also be met. Within the watershed, the diversity of vegetative cover types, topography and other factors permit habitation by many animal species. Table 9 lists the birds found in the watershed and Table 10 lists the mammals, reptiles and amphib- ians found in the watershed. There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals recorded in the watershed (see Appendix B). Aquatic Communities The composition of current and future aquatic communities in the Washington Mountain Brook system is dependent upon such factors as the availability and acceptability of habitat, hydrologic relations, water quality, biotic interactions, and stocking programs. Factors which appear to be most important in determining existing aquatic communities and which will con- tinue to influence future species composition of the fisheries in the brook include elevation and stream order. Benthic communities of Washington Mountain Brook were sampled at six sta- tions along the length of the stream. In order to facilitate sampling and data interpretation, the samples were obtained concurrently with the fish collections. Samples were collected at the locations shown in Figure 19 during the period from_August 27-29, 1975. Two replicate Surber samples (1 sq. ft.) were sorted and identified from each station except 8a, where a Peterson grab (213 cm ) was used. Detailed information on sampling procedures is given in Appendix B. The collections yielded 55 identifiable genera in 13 orders of four phyla. Complete results from the survey are presented in Appendix B, Tables B-l thru B-3. The collections were dominated by aquatic insect larvae of the orders Plecoptera (stonefl ies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Trichoptera (cad- disflies), Co1eo"ptera (beetles), and Diptera (true flies). The genera identified and their taxonomic associations are provided in Table B-l. Table B-2 presents the results for each sample. These data were used to calculate relative abundances for each major group by station (Table B-3). As can be seen from Tables B-l thru B-3, an abundant and diverse fauna was collected from the stream. Goodnight (1973) has discussed the problems 56 TABLE 9 BIRDS FOUND IN THE WATERSHED American Bittern Canada Goose Mallard Black Duck Green-winged Teal Wood Duck Green Heron Turkey Vulture Red-shouldered Hawk Broadwinged Hawk Ruffed Grouse Killdeer Mourning Dove Common Fl icker Pileated Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Crested Flycatcher Phoebe Least Flycatcher Wood Pewee Olive-sided Flycatcher Tree Swallow Barn Swallow Ruby-throated Hummingbird Song Sparrow Black-throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush Yellowthroat Canada Warbler American Redstart House Sparrow Red-winged Blackbird Common Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird Blue Jay Common Crow Black-capped Chickadee White-breasted Nuthatch Red-breasted Nuthatch Brown Creeper House Wren Winter Wren Catbird Brown Thrasher Robin Wood Thrush Hermit Thrush Swainson's Thrush Veery Eastern Bluebird Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Golden-crowned Kinglet Cedar Waxwing Starling Solitary Vireo Red-eyed Vireo Black and White Warbler Magnolia Warbler Black-throated Blue Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Northern Oriole Scarlet Tanager Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Purple Finch Goldfinch Towhee Dark-eyed Junco Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-throated Sparrow 57 TABLE 10 MAMMALS, AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOUND IN THE WATERSHED MAMMALS Opossum Masked Shrew Smokey Shrew Shorttailed Shrew Starnose Mole Hairytail Mole Little Brown Myotis Keen Myotis Si 1 ver-haired Bat Eastern Pipistrel Big Brown Bat White-footed Mouse Meadow Vole Redbacked Vole Pine Vole Muskrat Meadow Jumping Mouse Porcupine Red Bat Raccoon Red Fox Gray Fox Woodchuck Eastern Chipmunk Eastern Gray Squirrel Red Squirrel Northern Flying Squirrel Beaver Deer Mouse Snowshoe Hare Eastern Cottontail White-tailed Deer Weasel Mink Otter AMPHIBIANS Red Spotted Salamander Spotted Salamander Dusky Salamander Red-backed Salamander Northern Spring Salamander Northern two-lined Salamander American Toad Fowler's Toad Spring Peeper Common Tree Toad Pickerel Frog Northern Leopard Frog Green Frog Wood Frog Bull Frog REPTILES Snapping Turtle Wood Turtle Spotted Turtle Stink Pot Turtle Eastern Painted Turtle Box Turtle Red Bell ied Snake Northern Brown Snake Northern Water Snake Eastern Ribbon Snake Ringnecked Snake Eastern Smooth Green Snake Eastern Milk Snake Common Garter Snake 58 of using indicator organisms as opposed to various community measures as a reflection of water quality. He concluded that no single group of organ- isms could be used to indicate water quality and that some measure of com- munity structure was more useful. He described several simplified community indices which he felt were valuable, but avoided all discussion of more complex measures of diversity. Many authors have related decreases in diversity to environmental stress, and have used a wide variety of mathe- matical expressions. Pielou (1975) listed the attributes that an effective measure of diversity should have, and concluded that only one function has these properties, the Shannon-Wiener Index. This index has been in wide use by ecologists since its proposal in 1949. Diversity is, however, merely a single descriptive statistic and should be coupled with other measures of community structure (Pielou, 1975). u The Shannon-Wiener diversity (H 1 ) and J (the ratio of H* to MAX) were completed for each collection from Washington Mountain Brook. Station 8a is omitted from the following discussion since no animals were collected there. There was no change in diversity between stations, and values of J indicate relatively high diversity at all stations. Species richness at the stations varied from 21 to 31 species, indicative of good water quality. Allan (1975) found similar numbers of species in his study of a mountain stream in Colorado. These data indicate that the Washington Mountain Brook is not subjected to water quality degradation. The results of the present survey indicate a shift in species along the stream course, but not in species richness. Mayflies, stoneflies and Chironomids prefer the lower reaches of the stream while simulid larvae and Simsonia larvae occur only in restricted areas. Blackfly larvae might be responding to the absence of fish predation at station 8, but the reason for the concentration of Simsonia larvae at station 2 and 5 is unknown. The caddisfly larvae were dominated by Chi ma rra sp. and Hydropsyche sp., which were most abundant at stations 5 and 8, but which were also common at several other stations. Changes in species abundance with altitude are common in mountain streams, but are normally accompanied by a reduction in species richness (Allan, 1975). No change in species richness was noted in this study, perhaps because of the limited altitude change = 900 ft.). In the fish collections, populations appeared to be reacting to stream order, but the benthic data do not show the same pattern. Stations 8, 8a and 5 were all in first order streams, but supported highly dissimilar benthic fauna. The differences at station 8a are related to obvious habitat differ- ences, but there were no obvious differences between stations 8 and 5. Stations 1, la, 2 and 3 all were in second order reaches, but again the benthic fauna varied greatly (Table B-3). Station 8a was the only station located in a ponded area of the stream. The bottom type was sandy silt, as opposed to stones and gravel in the other areas. It was typical of the marshy ponds found in the upper areas of the watershed. No organisms were found in the grab samples from this area, although a large variety of odonates, aquatic Coleoptera, and aquatic Hemiptera were observed. No indications of degraded environmental condi- tions were observed. 59 Fish communities were surveyed from August 25-29, 1975. All stations except 8a, were sampled using portable electrof ishing equipment supplied by Coffelt Electronics, Inc. of Englewood, Colorado. Station 8a was sampled with a 20-foot hand seine with 1/4 x 1/4 inch mesh. Station locations are also presented in Figure 19. During the survey, 582 fishes, representing nine species, were captured and released in Washington Mountain Brook (Table 11). Both the number of species and the number of individuals generally decreased with distance upstream from the confluence with the Housatonic River and with elevation (Figure 20). The exceptions to this trend were increasing numbers of banded killifish and creek chubs ( Semotilus atromaculatus ). Except for one individual, the banded killifish was restricted to a beaver pond (station 8a). The large number of species present at station 1 is a result of the station's proximity to the Housatonic River. The white sucker ( Catostomus commer - soni ), and the brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) appeared at no other stations and probably entered the brook to feed, take refuge and/or spawn. In addition, the numbers of slimy sculpins ( Cottus cognatus ), blacknose dace ( Rhinichthys atratulus ) and longnose dace (JR. cataractae ) generally decreased with dis- tance upstream. Although the number of brook trout at station la exceeded the number at station 1, the decrease in the number of fish upstream from station la indicated that this species also preferred the lower reaches of the brook. The low number of brook trout at station 1 may have resulted from fishing pressure (station 1 is easily accessible) or competition. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife annually stocks the lower reaches of Washington Mountain Brook with about 300 6- to 9-inch brook trout. The two most important factors controlling fish distributions in Wash- ington Mountain Brook appear to be elevation, which in this case is equi- valent to distance upstream from the Housatonic River, and stream order. The effect of increasing elevation has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Lotrich (1973) demonstrated that the number of fish species decreased with stream order in a Kentucky stream system. The data from Washington Mountain Brook generally support the stream order concept. Only four species of fishes were collected in first order streams, and only two species, creek chubs and banded killifish, were present in substantial numbers in first order segments. All other species were restricted to second order segments. Hocutt and Stauffer (1975) found creek chubs, longnose dace, blacknose dace, and white suckers in their first order segments. Lotrich (1973) found only the creek chub in his first order streams. Lotrich also found that in some first order streams no fish occurred at anytime. This observation is similar to the result of the survey at station 8 in Washington Mountain Brook. From Lotrich's station description, first order stations in Kentucky and Massachusetts are similar. In both cases, the streams are covered by a dense canopy of trees. Lotrich proposed that direct fall leaves and associated litter should provide significant quantities of food for surface feeders, such as, the creek chub. Food would not limit fish at station 8 in Washington Mountain Brook because the benthic community is prolific and diverse. Lotrich proposed that headwater first order streams may represent the limit of physical conditions which fish can tolerate. This would appear to be true at station 8 in Washington Mountain Brook. 60 /^N Survey Station FIGURE 19 BENTHIC AND FISH SURVEY STATIONS WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 61 • Brook trout Creek chub ••••• Blacknose dace Longnose dace 1000 1200 1400 1600 ELEVATION (feet msl) 1800 FIGURE 20 FISH DISTRIBUTION WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED 62 to oo o o o CM CN in 00 o pq Eh On CM I IT) CM Eh CO D U g O s PQ H < En D O a a o Eh O a H a CO S H En 3 D Eh < U CO w a CO H P>4 m| cm o •H ■P a -p CO n| cm rd CM CN CN) CO vO CM <3* ON VO IT) -H 00 CM CM CO CM ON CM CO 0) CO •^> +* CQ « •^ s « JS +i V<1 o V-N. ^ Cj O rd CO ex, CU ■H tJ -(-> s +J s CD 3 CO ft O ts ^ ffl r£ X! CQ H ^ 3 s p in M s ■8 s rH O ■p T3 4^> rH S H CQ CO •^ - O o T-i p CD rS? r^ H ?L •H S •H Jh l~~i u 2 -^ & M o °? co i + ^ *^ C V c +i CU £ O O « £ « -p « 0) C» n o o ^ tn^ ^ X3 Ol XT oo i- O) +-> c co co en o cr s- ro co x: oo O) i- K o E E rs LO r-~ i— t CVJ in »— 1 i— ( «* •— « f— 1 in cr> co cr> in in cvj co cvj en cr> O cvj CO co~~» en com c i_ +j fa o mr «C 2: <_) ■a f0 I/) Ol i_ cj O CO en cvj «3- 1 co en o co 00 00 en evi + cvj CVJ in 1 10 cvj co 00 1 00 1 O O O CD CO 00 O co en cvj o o o <— 1 t—t 01 o CVJ CO o o en r^ o o en CT> ca < CO LU CD < re <_> ijj CO >- or CO cvj 00 o i. fO S- o CL E 00 QJ i. O 00 o cr QJ cr fa QJ CL, O0 QJ U u <: O CO 00 00 00 CD CD CD CD CD Cn CD 10 10 10 10 co t— CD in f-HOOOOOO O O O O CD o inoooooo o o o o o o «>oooooo O O O O o o Ol CD O CD CD O CD cn CO O O O O O CVJ 00 O O CO o o o o Cn 00 CVJ -o c CO ai fa c a. £ c? £ Q- o a> co a> ai 00 O S- 00 ? ' S 5 2^ a a^5S o- o a. s: o. a. CO i_ > jC> »- q >»» fe c> ^ 2 ci g. S I £^ 1- s- »£> 2^ "§^5 cy> co UD O cvj CVJ CO c c CO CO +-> ■a c o o c CO c co o. 00 E E o CJ 00 o > CO $_ 0. 00 *a 00 CO s_ . O 00 (O CO i. «a- o cvj «a cvj <4- CVJ O CVJ e *o Z3 co c i. -r- u CO 4-> t. c CO -o c CO (Q c E C i. ro CO <— ex. CO CO .C CO +J r<» 1 — Z3 r— I O0 CO c t ■o ■— CO 3 -»-> O CO X 'q.+j E U O CO o--> o 00 I_ fa a. -a E co 13 CO -Q ■o CO 00 rO CO o o 4-> CO -0 00 CO en cr o CO o. CO S- o ■u 00 o o o CL c CO c E S- QJ a. QJ JC +J <+- o 00 cr o •r— 4-> J_ o Q. s o ra x: 00 c o Lu 0Q O > >>:s •— O CO I— ^i •r- t— > - O f— O +J E O en fa 1— c ■o <+- 1- JC 00 00 00 CO CO fO ■0-03 rs rs 1— r- CO c c »— CO o 1-1 cvj co CO CO f— JX CL fO b _l • c CO •1— J>d fO fa • +-> _J IIO c r--. 3 CO 00 t— 1 s rs C 1_ XT •r- a» r— ^3 O ■O O CO 4-> -C s_ (J CJ fO CD CO CO *^^ ">^ f— «3- in CJ 00 >> w r- • CO •r- O0 O J- 00 O fl O 3 I- 1— 00 o CL J- +J E O c CO ra 4-> C 1— •1- a. ■O fO c cnx: f0 co 1— CO 3 $- o ami. ra 4-> r~ in U • CL COO •r— ^— C CO H-> fO > or m C +J -o 00 00 1— CO O0 r— O QJ •<- Q _l 3 *»■» — *«■» in r-^ co T3 c fO 100 areas. An additional 41 acres of forest land will be impaired or tempor- arily lost due to occasional storage of floodwater. About 34 acres of forest land and the 4 acres of existing borrow area will be changed to 30 acres of grassland (grass-legume vegetative cover) and 8 acres of rock riprap which are the protective covers provided on the dams, emergency spillways, water level control channel, and borrow and disposal areas. Wetlands will be decreased in the watershed as a result of the new impound- ment structures (see Table 19). Of the approximately 265 acres of wetland in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, 65 of the existing acres or 25 percent would be converted to open water in reservoirs. This wetland occurs in active and inactive beaver flowages. The 224- acre body of water at Wash- ington Mountain Lake will contain about 55 acres of wetland types similar to those areas impacted. The net result is a loss of 10 acres. The wetland in the watershed with the planned project installed as tabulated in Table 19 is shown in Figure 27. Their suitability for wildlife habitat was discussed on pages 47-49. In the Upper Housatonic River Basin 1 ' there are approximately 11,669 acres of wetland consisting of Types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. 2 ' There are also approximately 10,284 acres of wooded swamp wetland (Type 7). 3 / The loss of 57 acres of Types 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 wetland in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed represents less than 0.5 percent of the present total. Conversion of present marsh and swamp acreage to open water pond acreage can be expected to result in a decrease of nuisance insects, primarily mosquitoes, in the immediate area. Based on topography and distance to existing wetlands, this reduction would be most noticeable at the Washington Mountain Lake site. Both the Schoolhouse and October Mountain Lake sites are in close proximity to other existing wetland acreage where a decrease in mosquito activity would not be as obvious. Some states have conducted impoundment development pro- grams on problem mosquito areas as a successful means of mosquito control (Shoemaker, 1966; Catta and Lesser, 1963). Washington Mountain Brook supports a low population of native brook trout. Most trout streams of this size support about 25 pounds of trout per mile. Washington Mountain Brook supports about 5 pounds of trout per mile in its best reaches. Shallow, abandoned beaver flowages, low water pH and occasional extreme low flow conditions in the upper reaches apparently limit trout establishment and distribution. Installation of the remaining structures will result in a reduction of approximately 5,400 feet of perennial stream and about 1,500 feet of intermittent streams and their associated aquatic habitat. This loss is 1/ Based on information provided by William P. MacConnell, et al., Remote Sensing 20 Years of Change , Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1974. 2/ Wetlands of the United States , Circular 39, United States Depart- ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1956. 3/ Water and Related Land Resources of the Berkshire Region, Massachu- setts, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977. 101 the length of streams within the planned impoundments. An additional 300 feet of intermittent stream and 300 feet of perennial stream will be occasionally inundated by the temporary storage of floodwater. The impoundment structures are designed to provide bottom releases. This release of colder water from the lower levels of the permanent pools is expected to avoid increases in downstream water temperature during summer months and maintain flows at or above the lowest 7-day annual low flow volume. This minimum 7-day flow has been estimated to be about 0.23 csm for the watershed. The combined release from the three impoundments during a drought is expected to be at least 1.5 cfs or an average of 0.26 csm from the controlled drainage area. The annual stream flow will be reduced by the amount of water withdrawn for water supply. This eventually will reach 2.45 million gallons per day for an average year. No significant sport fishery will be affected by the construction of the dams and filling of the impoundments. The downstream channel work in the urbanized area will result in short-term, significant reduction of benthic organisms and a moderate reduction of habitat quality for native trout. The 224-acre and 90-acre permanent pools which would be created are expected to support a self-sustaining warm water fishery. The 224-acre and 90-acre pools will also be stocked annually with trout by the Massa- chusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Although some carryover is expected from one year to the next, the quality of fishing for trout will be dependent upon stocking since natural reproduction is unlikely. The value of land on which use was changed due to implementation of the planned project for recreation was considered a land rights cost and estimated at $32,550. Relocation of the utility- line will not have a significant impact on plant communities or wildlife. The area of concern is within the planned 224-acre Washington Mountain Lake. Subsequent installation of the pipeline will have only a minimal impact on wildlife. One to 1.5 acres of forest land will be converted and main- tained as grassland providing an edge habitat for wildlife. Recreation Completion of the project will enhance the water-based recreational poten- tial of the watershed and October Mountain State Forest. The planned impoundments would provide 314 acres of combined cold-warm-water fishery. Monetary benefits attributed to these fisheries is estimated to be $94,860 annually, representing 18,840 user-days. This satisfies approximately 20 percent of the estimated present need (100,000, 1976 SC0RP,DEM) in Berkshire County. Waterfowl hunting and furbearer trapping will be enhanced, although not significantly. These will be long-term impacts. 102 □ m m LEGEND SEASONALLY FLOOOEO FRESH MEADOW SHALLOW MARSH DEEP MARSH FRESH OPEN WATER SHRUB SWAMP WOODED SWAMP SURFACE WATER HARDWOOD HARDWOOD/SOFTWOOD SOFTWOOD PLANTED STANDS GENERAL URBAN USES AGRICULTURAL OR IDLE LAND «8& ■•>--* '4 4 4] 4 4. /H444444 ,^i4ft-i-4¥4*34 .,-^4444f4f444.44 r^^Tr^'iAite ^^ 000 ^ k4i4*9*^45s* c ?ioooooooo , 'o $ <$, $ $44pltMy $ >v. ooooocX 4 ,-> >uoo 4 C. :-:^^ifi!i!|B8888888g|*f Sfi&% 4 - \f 4f 44sooo^o-* A ^A i A + A + A i< v>. »* , ' .a |«|TM+4HiM V ' "a a A lSl$f 4 *4f 4i444\>n VV^ " , ' V'V 'v"4 ' v ' * "H £8*41444444(4 f ■ y°°9fc.44f 44 4f 4* A °8l4&4444444jf4 4 $ $ $/ SC^if /* */ifS 4 $ 4 § s «p «® <« « v - v 4 4 4 4 * *>w k*|Ma_a & & 4 4 4 4/ $ 4 * 4 sv * 4 4 4 V 4 a. 4 V*fc"«F*' <4*> v$u.*c.** 1$ 4 Ti*4+4+4l ... 4 ;#4+$<+4f4*4fl ft'444+4*444i #4f4A44444444C^4444^4 4 ^ •H 4 4 4 4444A4 4, j*2v 4 4 4Jf44>fc"' ,..44 if 44 .44 _ 4444$. . "|44444K4 V'4 '4"4 V"4 "4 "4 4 "4>4i*4444"4< \'4 4 "4 4*4 VvVHH^H 4VN&44K. \v "4 "4 VW* V* ***** 4 4 >s>44444^ ^^ 4 '& "4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44$>* v -^"-i — -^ HHHM 4+ XRJ -» ^v$ 14444 FIGURE 27 \4[444' ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITIES S > M44 W4444 >4 $44 . ,4444< 4444444 . ,44441444 44444441 ... '444f44< 4. 4 . 4 4 4 4 4 LAND USES WITH PLANNED PROJECT WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ^Mfy^ 4 4-4 4 4\ AV-^-~»^* A A A A A A A / .44. . . J 4 4 <^ M*4/ i 9 ? * S? « h,^4 $ 4/ 4 "4. 4 4 "4y - 4 A-> l.R-10,869 USDA-SCSLANHAM.MD 1979 Boating potential (see Appendix D) will be enhanced in the watershed by the provision of 314 acres of surface area. A decision concerning the type of boating to be permitted on the lakes will be made by the Division of Forests and Parks. Use of internal combustion engines has been prohibited on October Mountain Lake by the Lee Board of Health. Hiking will be enhanced by the presence of existing trails and additional cleared areas used as construction access routes. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management has recommended that circumferential hiking trails be provided around the proposed lakes. Informal hiking opportunities can be provided without additional clearing. Existing trails, logging roads and utility corridors could also be improved with markers and trail maps to promote additional use. Restrictions which presently prohibit public use of Finerty Pond (25 acres surface area) will be removed, and control of the pond and its watershed will be assigned to DEM. Public use of the recreation pools will primarily consist of fishing. Fisherman do not require or demand pest control. Pesticide application is not expected to occur. Archaeological, Historical and Unique Scenic Resources Completion of the project with the increased public use of the watershed, may subject several historical sites to increased vandalism and looting. One site consisting of house and barn cellar holes is near the common borrow area for construction of Schoolhouse Lake and October Mountain Lake. It is vulnerable to damage during construction, but will be protected by fencing if necessary. The remaining sites that were identified are not directly endangered by installation of the remaining planned project measures. No unique scenic resources will be impacted by completion of the planned project. In general, visual resources in the watershed will be improved through increased diversity of land use. The addition of permanent open water will contribute to improved scenic resources in the watershed, as a result of the increased shoreline (water edge) and water area, (Zube, E.H., D.G. Pitt and T.W. Anderson, 1974, Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Institute for Man and His Environment, Publication No. R-74-1, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts). Studies of the visual preferences of townspeople in the towns of Lee and Lenox (Natural Resources Planning Program, SCS, 1975) showed a high pre- ference for bodies of open water and vistas of forested mountain or hilly terrain. Water bodies bordered by woodland were of particularly high preference. Economic and Social The effect of the planned project on the economy of the area would be mod- erate. Flood prevention-sediment control and water supply benefits would 103 be the primary stimulus while recreational benefits will only provide a minimal stimulus. The loss of current use of lands replaced by the dams and reservoir areas would have little economic significance. Overall, land values will not be measurably altered and flood plain encroachment is not expected. The increase in the safe yield of the water supply system should allow for continued projected, controlled growth within the towns of Lee and Lenox. Of the approximately 3.0 million dollars to be expended initially for con- struction of the planned structural measures, approximately 25 percent or about three-quarters of a million dollars will be for local labor and materials. (Local is defined here as constituting the Pittsfield SMSA, which include the towns of Lee and Lenox.) Traffic disruptions along Mill Street, Washington Mountain Road and Wood- land Street during installation of the channel work will be minor, and will have a negligible effect on a townwide (Lee) basis. The economic effects from operation and maintenance of project measures varies. A total of less than 1 man-year of employment will be required.- Materials such as lime, fertilizer, seed, and machinery needed for oper- ation and maintenance of structures will not require a significant expenditure. The operation and maintenance of the sediment control facilities will provide a significant source of fill material (gravel, cobbles, boulders) to the town of Lee. Average annual flood prevention and sediment control benefits that will result from the land treatment and structural measures are estimated to be $82,780. The average annual water supply benefits are estimated to be $647,900. The average annual recreational benefits are estimated to be $94,860. In addition to monetary benefits from the project measures, the project will tend to improve public health, increase employment security, lessen hazards to life and property, provide a sense of stability of the com- munities and contribute to maintaining and improving the quality of the environment. Economic benefits foregone by direct beneficiaries for a 1-year delay of the project will depend primarily on flood losses incurred during the delay period and are unpredictable. However, if the September 1938 flood were to recur during the delay, it would cause damages of about $570,000 along Washington Mountain Brook. Based on past experience, it is expected that a 1-year delay of the project would result in an increased installation cost of 5 to 8 percent. An economic summary of findings is shown in Appendix A. 104 Summary - Favorable Environmental Effects The following are environmental effects which are probably beneficial. For floods of a 100-year frequency or less there will be a reduction of average annual floodwater damages along Washington Mountain Brook of 93 percent or $82,780. Protection is provided for roads, four \ bridges, 12 houses and a mobile home park with 10 trailers. Reduction of the area subject to flooding from a 100-year flood from about 40 acres to 12 acres. Reduction of erosion from streambanks upstream of the urbanized area resulting from lowered peak flows following storms. Creation of a 90- acre pool and a 224- acre pool which will support a combination cold-warm water fishery. Total increase of 314 acres of open water aquatic habitat. Within the 224-acre pool will be 55 acres of wetlands consisting of Type 2 through Type 5. An increase of 2.45 mgd in the safe yield of the municipal water supply for the towns of Lee and Lenox, valued at $647,900 per year. Conversion of 26 acres of existing woodland and 4 acres of existing borrow area to grass- legume vegetative cover which will benefit wildlife by increasing the diversity of vegetative cover in this largely (88 percent) wooded watershed. This conversion will also create valuable woodland-openland edge which will primarily benefit woodland species of wildlife. Creation of 314 acres of open water which will provide 18,840 fish- ing activity days annually for public use, valued at $94,860. Improvement in the visual resources in the watershed through the increased diversity of land use. Permanent open water is a valuable component of a landscape and the net aesthetics of an area. Beaver will be allowed to reoccupy suitable habitat. Reduction of average annual sediment removed from alluvial fan (4,100 cubic yards) by about 57 percent. Controlled annual deposition of 1,800 cubic yards in sediment control facilities maintains capacity of channel and bridges. 105 Summary - Adverse Environmental Effects The following are environmental effects which are probably adverse and cannot be avoided. Reduction of: 5 acres of Type 1 wetland, 28 acres of Type 2 wetland, 11 acres of Type 3 wetland, 5 acres of Type 5 wetland, 8 acres of Type 6 wetland, and 8 acres of Type 7 wetland. This loss of wetland acreage and associated wetland wildlife habitat will result from con- version to permanent pool areas. Reduction of 129 acres of forest resource and associated woodland wildlife habitat will result from land cleared and used for the dams, spillways, borrow areas, permanent pools, dike and water level con- trol channel. Occasional temporary loss of 41 acres of forest resource and associ- ated wildlife habitat will result from floodwater storage. Loss of 5,400 feet of natural perennial stream habitat and 1,500 feet of natural intermittent stream habitat will result from the dams and permanent pools. Occasional temporary loss of 300 feet of intermittent stream and 300 feet of perennial stream habitat will result from floodwater storage. Temporary increase of noise, air pollution, erosion and sedimentation during construction. Increase in noise, air and water pollution during the project life. Reduced quality of aquatic habitat in about 600 feet of perennial stream may result from the channel work. Views from certain vantage points will be changed as a result of the dams and appurtenances. Several identified archaeological sites may be subject to increased vandalism as a result of project induced use of the watershed. Approximately 1 to 1.5 acres of forest resource and associated wood- land wildlife habitat will be lost as a result of the town's instal- lation of the water line from October Mountain Lake to Upper Reservoir on Codding Brook. 106 ALTERNATIVES General A brief overview of the planning effort that has gone into this project was given in the introductory section, Summary of the Plan Formulation Process. Much of that discussion is pertinent to the development of alternative plans, and should be reviewed by the reader. Alternative plans have been considered with particular attention to reasonable alternatives that have been suggested by others and to those actions that might lessen the adverse environmental effects associated with the selected plan. In doing so, Executive Order 11988 and 11990 have been accommodated. How- ever, where there is no practical alternative, as is the case of this project, further mitigation features have been incorporated into the selected plan (see Planned Project Section). This section outlines seven alternatives to the selected plan. Within the seven alternatives are a number of components that are included to meet various objectives including flood prevention, municipal water supply, erosion and sediment control, and recreation. The alternatives are com- prised of groups of components that logically mesh to meet objectives and that will provide decisionmakers with a range of options to choose from. Each alternative is compared to the selected plan in terms of costs, benefits and other environmental effects. The availability of the Woods Pond aquifer as an alternative water supply source has been the subject of many meetings, news articles and letters of comment. The Woods Pond aquifer is not a socially acceptable alternative water supply source to the Washington Mountain Brook project. The quality of the water is threatened from several very real sources of pollution. Foremost is the known presence of PCBs in the bottom sediments of Woods Pond, in the greatest concentration known to exist in the Housatonic River Valley. The aquifer is also located downstream from three sewerage treat- ment facilities, including the regional Pittsfield plant. In addition, two municipal landfills are located in close proximity. In light of these known hazards, the "responsible people charged with providing a safe water supply to their communities have elected not to develop the aquifer further since a technically feasible, and cost effective alternative is available to them. For purposes of evaluating the technical feasibility of the Woods Pond aquifer, costs associated with activated carbon beds for adsorption have been added to the treatment process to remove PCBs. All the known options for water supply development were evaluated by Lee and Lenox. The results and comparisons are given in Appendix E. From these options, the Greenwater Brook aquifer was selected as an alternative that was cost effective aRd would avoid most of the adverse environmental effects of the selected plan. Only two options were less expensive, both surface water sites with similar environmental impacts, one being the selected plan. Of all items evaluated by Lee and Lenox, only the selected plan was considered mutually beneficial and offered the opportunity for a regional supply. 107 Consideration of water conservation has been an integral part of the planning process. The past accomplishments and ongoing water conservation efforts of Lee and Lenox were presented in the Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Problems section. These efforts have enabled both communities to "get-by" while awaiting implementation of this project or an alternative. The remain- ing reductions in consumption that can be expected from further conservation are not large enough to be considered an alternative course of action. Instead, continued water conservation is implicit in the projected demand figures and is considered to be an integral part of all alternatives. Conservation land treatment as described in the planned project, is a com- ponent of each alternative, including "no project," and the effects would be the same as described. The town of Lee is expected to continue its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Therefore, this is considered a without project condition. The alternatives are: Alternative Description I. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (3), Ground Water Development, Channel Work II. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (2), Multiple- Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Ground Water Development, Channel Work III. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Multiple- Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Water Supply Structure (1), Channel Work IV. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Extensive Channel Work, Ground Water Development V. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Nonstructural, Ground Water Development VI «* Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention, Water Supply and Recreation Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Water Supply Structure (1), Channel Work VII. No Project Activity VIII » Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structures (2), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention, Water Supply and Recreation Structure (1), Channel Work *Selected Plan Cost and benefit data of the selected plan (Alternative VI) are also presented in Appendix A, to facilitate economic comparisons. 108 Alternative I For achieving flood prevention and sediment control this alternative con- sists of managing the existing Washington Mountain Lake structure only for flood prevention, installing two additional single-purpose flood prevention structures, and channel work. The single-purpose flood prevention structures would be constructed at the site of the October Mountain Lake and Schoolhouse Lake multiple-purpose structures included in the planned project. The dams would be constructed of compacted earth, with a principal spillway conduit and riser, and vege- tated earth emergency spillway. About 278 acre-feet of flood storage would be provided at the October Mountain site, and 649 acre-feet of flood storage at the Schoolhouse site. Only temporary storage for floodwater would be provided within the reservoir areas and normal stream flows would pass unimpeded through the structures. All three structures would operate auto- matically, similar to the planned project. Channel work identical to the planned project would also be installed. This alternative would provide the same level of flood prevention and sediment control as the planned project. An additional source of potable municipal water would be provided by a ground water development in the Greenwater Brook aquifer. This component would consist of a well (or wells), pumping facilities, treatment plant, and transmission lines. The ground water development would provide an increase in the safe yield of the town of Lee's water system of 2.45 million gallons daily, which is equivalent to the selected plan. Improved access to Finerty Pond could be provided. This 25-acre pond could provide about 1,500 annual activity days for fishing, once properly stocked and managed as a warm-water fishery. This represents about 8 per- cent of the fishing demand satisfied by the planned project. The loss of land and related resources associated with the permanent pools of the planned project would be avoided. About 30 acres of land would be committed to the construction of the two dams, and emergency spillways. An additional 85 acres would be periodically inundated by stored flood- water behind these structures. The same impacts attributed to the channel work in the planned project would result. Development of the ground water wells will require land acquisition along Greenwater Brook. The acreage will vary with the number of wells installed, but about 6 acres per well is reasonable, with a minimum of 12 acres for a development. Operation of the wells (pumping) may cause Greenwater Brook to "dry up" about 10 percent of the time. This would most likely occur dur- ing the latter part of summer, when demand is high and surface flows are near minimum. This impact will depend on the withdrawal rate and the exact location of the wells. 109 Backwash water will be treated to remove pollutants prior to discharge to any streams. Solid wastes in the form of grit and sludge, from the treat- ment plant backwash will be removed at the plant and will be disposed of at an approved sludge disposal site, in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Divisions of Water Supply and Water Pollution Control. Pipelines will be installed along existing easements and streets and roads to minimize adverse effects on existing or future land use. The treatment plant will be given architectural consideration as to loca- tion and design to minimize any visual impacts. The benefits and costs for Alternative I are as follows: Costs: ($) October Mountain School house Lake Channel Work Finerty Pond Ground Water Totals Initial Costs Lake 8,434,000 Average Annual Cost 337,400 13,930 826,300 29,800 420,600 14,250 17,000 1,810 6,832,700 553,490 613,280 Benefits: ($) Flood Prevention Water Supply Recreation Total Net Average Annual Benefit Average Annual Benefit 82,780 422,210 3,375 Minus 508,365 104,915 Alternative II This alternative would be identical to Alternative I with the following exceptions: Washington Mountain Lake would be filled and operated as planned for flood prevention and recreation (a 224-acre cold-warm water fishery), and the improved access and management of Finerty Pond for recreation use would be deleted. As with Alternative I, the objectives of the sponsors for flood prevention, sediment control would be met. Washington Mountain Lake would provide 13,440 annual activity days for fishing, which represents about 68 percent of the planned project recreation benefits. Water supply goals would be satisfied. 110 The expected impacts would be as described in Alternative I, or for the planned project, as appropriate. The benefits and costs for Alternative II are as follows: Costs: ($) Initial Costs Ave raqe Annual Cost October Mountain Lake School house Lake Channel Work Ground Water Washington Mountain Lake 337,400 826,300 420,600 6,832,700 200,000 13,930 29,800 14,250 553,490 14,830 Totals 8,617,000 626,300 Benefits: ($) Flood Prevention Water Supply Recreation Total Net Average Annual Benefit Ave raqe Am lual Benefit 82. 780 422. 210 70 3 560 575, 550 linus 48, 050 Alternative III This alternative maximizes the potential of the multiple-purpose structure at the October Mountain Lake site for municipal water supply in addition to providing storage for flood prevention. Also, Washington Mountain Lake would be completed as detailed for the planned project, as would the channel work. The Schoolhouse Lake site would be developed as a single-purpose flood prevention structure, as in Alternatives I and II. The October Mountain Lake site would be developed only for flood prevention and municipal water supply. No recreation use (fishing) would be planned. The permanent storage would be utilized for water supply. This complex would provide a safe yield of approximately 1.1 mgd. The 2.4 mile pipe- line and impacts would be similar to those described for the selected plan. This alternative would provide flood prevention and sediment control bene- fits equal to those of the planned project. Washington Mountain Lake would provide 13,440 annual activity days for fishing or 71 percent of the planned project. October Mountain Lake would increase the safe yield of the present water supply system by about 1.1 mgd or about 45 percent that of the selected plan. Ill of ve I. The environmental impacts associated with Washington Mountain Lake, October Mountain Lake, the pipeline and the channel work would be essentially the same as the planned project. The increase in the number of persons expected annually (for recreation) would decrease by about 6,300. At the Schoolhouse Lake site, there would not be a permanent pool, or the resulting loss of land and related resources as in the planned project. There would be a periodic temporary inundation of about 35 acres by flood- water, and the permanent loss of 18 acres to be occupied by the dam, emergency spillway, disposal areas, etc. This alternative meets only 45 percent of the water supply needs for Lee and Lenox. The alternative had been presented in the State Environmental Impact Report and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of present- ing this alternative was to offer a smaller scale water supply option. Since the decision has been made by Lee and Lenox to identify a mutually agreeable water supply alternative, this alternative is no longer considered reasonable. Alternative IV This alternative would consist primarily of channel work, ground water development and management of the Washington Mountain Lake site for flood prevention only. The development of ground water for municipal water supply and the use Finerty Pond as a warm-water fishery would be as detailed in Alternati The channel work would supplement the existing floodwater retarding struc- ture, at the Washington Mountain Lake site. The channel work would include construction of a single sediment control facility (capacity about 10,000 cubic yards) above Newton Bridge. The location would be similar to that of the upper sediment control facility detailed for the planned project. This would be primarily an above ground (streambed) drop structure. There will be no significant impoundment of water. Operation and maintenance would be similar to the planned project, except the annual removal volume would be about 4,100 cubic yards. A reinforced concrete channel would also be constructed from Newton Bridge to the Conrail railroad crossing, a distance of about 4,000 feet. (Concrete is estimated to be less costly than riprap due to the size of riprap required by expected velocities in excess of 12 feet per second.) The bridge openings will require removal of accumulated sediment and modification of entrances to accommodate the concrete channel . This alternative would provide an increase in the safe yield of the water supply of Lee of 2.45 million gallons per day same as the selected plan. Recreation benefits (1,500 activity days) represent 8 percent of those pro- vided by the planned project. The level of flood protection along Washington Mountain Brook is estimated to be comparable to that provided by the plan- ned project. However, the additional erosion control and resulting reduction in sediment will not be realized, nor will the level of sediment control equal that of the planned project. 112 The environmental impact of installing the sediment control facility will be comparable to that of the sediment control facilities in the planned project. The concrete channel will destroy 4,000 feet of the most pro- ductive perennial stream habitat in the watershed. All adverse effects associated with construction of October Mountain Lake, Schoolhouse Lake and installation of the pipeline would be avoided. The benefits and costs for Alternative IV are as follows: Costs: ($) Channel Work Ground Water f Finerty Pond Ace. Total s Benefits: ($) Flood Prevention Water Supply Recreation Total Net Average Annual Benefit Initial Cost 3,098,700 6,832,700 17,000 9,948,400 Average Annual Cost 106,860 553,490 1,810 662,160 Average Annual Benefit 74,520 422,210 3,375 500,105 Minus 162,055 Alternative V This alternative is the "Nonstructural" Alternative. Operation of the Washington Mountain Lake structure for flood prevention; ground water development, and providing access to Finerty Pond and its management for a fishery are included. The primary component addressing flood damages is relocation. A total of 14 residential structures would be relocated. This alternative would provide a level of flood damages reduction equal to the planned project for residential property. No reduction of road, bridge, utility or erosion and sediment damages would be realized, other than that provided by the existing Washington Mountain Lake structure. The ground water development would provide water supply benefits equiva- lent to the planned project. The recreational benefits realized at Finerty Pond would be 8 percent of the planned project. The potential for severe adverse social effects, relative to relocation, would accompany this alternative. All adverse effects associated with the installation of additional flood- water retarding structures and the surface water for recreation and muni- cipal supply would be avoided. 113 Benefits and costs for Alternative V are as follows: Costs: ($) Flood Proofing or relocation Ground Water Finerty Pond Totals Benefits: ($) Initial Cost 291, 000 1 / 6,832,700 17,000 7,140,700 Flood Prevention (Residential only) Water Supply Recreation (Finerty Pond) Total Net Average Annual Benefit: Average Annual Cost 1/ 9,860 553,490 1,810 565,160 Average Annual Benefit 2,690 422,210 3,375 Minus 428,275 136,885 1/The costs are based only on those homes for which benefits were claimed in the planned project. Costs would be much higher to relocate or floodproof all homes susceptible to damage. Alternative VI This alternative is designed to provide municipal water supply capable of meeting the needs of Lee and Lenox through the year 2020. Features include: filling of Washington Mountain Lake as a multiple-purpose flood prevention and recreation facility; development of October Mountain Lake for flood prevention, recreation and water supply (daily use); and develop- ment of School house Lake as a flood prevention-water supply facility. The channel work will consist of: 1. Removal of sediment and debris from the bridge openings of all bridges in Reaches 1 and 2 as necessary, (Conrail Railroad, Mill Street, Washington Mountain Road, Woodland Street and Newton Bridge). 2. Construction of a concrete channel between the Conrail Rail- road and Mill Street bridges, including concrete paving of the bridge floors (Figure 6). 3. Installation of riprap wingwalls at the entrance to the Mill Street bridge. 4. Clearing and shaping the channel immediately upstream of Mill Street for a distance of about 100 feet. 114 5. Removal of sediment and debris from the stream channel within Reaches 1 and 2 at locations where the 100-year flood is to be confined to the stream channel. The appropriate locations and required volumes of sediment to be removed will be determined by onsite inspections following installation of upstream struc- tures. This volume is currently estimated to be between 100-300 cubic yards. 6. Construction of sediment control facilities above Newton Bridge with a combined capacity of approximately 7,600 cy. October Mountain Lake would have a total storage capacity of 1,408 acre-feet, , with 502 acre-feet for recreation (fishing), 14 acre-feet for sediment accu- mulation, 614 acre-feet for municipal water supply, and 278 acre-feet for flood control. The combined surface area of the recreation pool and water supply pool is 90 acres. The water supply element will provide an immediate safe yield of 0.5 mgd and ultimately 0.88 mgd (daily withdrawal). School house Lake would be developed to accommodate 655 acre-feet of permanent storage; 620 acre-feet for water supply and 35 acre-feet for sediment. Flood storage of 649 acre-feet would also be provided. The safe yield for water supply would be 1.57 mgd. The combined safe yield of this alternative is 2.45 mgd, or equivalent to the additional needs of Lee and Lenox through the year 2020. Treatment of these surface waters shall include filtration and disinfection. Water supply facilities required to deliver the water to consumers in Lee and Lenox are as follows: Lee Installations: A 16-inch pipeline leading from October Mountain and School house Lakes would extend to the vicinity of the Upper Reservoir. This pipeline would be approxi mately 15,000 feet in length. A water treatment plant with a capacity of 3.2 mgd (0.75 existing source + 2.45 mgd new development) would be located near the present Upper Reservoir. A 12-inch pipeline about 6,000 feet in length would be installed to convey water from the treatment plant to the low service system presently serviced through the Vanetti Reservoir. Since treatment will take place near the Upper Reservoir, the Vanetti Reservoir will be abandoned and replaced with a one MG storage tank, to meet peak demands. A two MG storage tank will be installed to supply water to the high service system. Pipeline facilities to service Lenox consist of about 4,000 feet of 12 inch pipe extending along Mill Street to the Lee-Lenox town boundary. Lenox Installations: A 17,200 foot, 12 inch pipeline will be installed from the Lee-Lenox town boundary, along Walker Street, then Main Street to Hubbard Street. 115 . This alternative would provide the same level of flood prevention and sedi- ment control as Alternative VIII. Creation of 224-acre and 90-acre pools, which will support a combination cold-warm water fishery, will provide 18,840 fishing activity days. Water supply benefits would result in an increase of the local safe yield by 2.45 mgd. The benefits and costs for Alternative VI are as follows: Costs: ($) October Mountain Lake School house Lake Washington Mountain Lake Sediment Control Facilities Channel Work Water Supply Facilities including: Chlorination, Water Treatment Plant, Intakes, Pipelines, and and Initial Cost 1,006,800 1,238,400 200,000 420,600 Average Annual Cost 47,430 50,360 14,830 14,250 Storage Tanks 7,105,000 376,720 Total s 9,970,800 503,590 Benefits: ($) Averaqe Annual Benefit Flood Prevention Water Supply Recreation 82,780 647,900 94,860 Total 825,540 Net Average Annual Bei lefits: Plus 321,950 Alternative VII If no project is chosen, there would toward solving the water and related the watershed and area of influence, water supply needs. be no concerted effort or activity direct( land resource problems that exist within The probable exception to this would be As previously stated, the conservation land treatment program and partici- pation in the National Flood Insurance Program would continue. However, neither of these programs will have a significant effect on reducing or eliminating present floodwater and sediment damages or hazards. Water Quality within the watershed is generally good. The water quality of Washington Mountain Brook through the lower developed reach is expected to be upgraded somewhat in the future through the availability of sewage collection facilities. However, throughout the watershed, water quality 116 will remain unchanged if the planned project is not implemented. Natural nonpoint sources would remain the principal nutrient and pollutant sources. Washington Mountain Brook would continue to transport large quantities of sediment and debris into the lower reaches, especially during high flows. Periodically and following major floods, the removal of sediment and debris from the stream channel in Reaches 1 and 2 would continue. This will pro- mote significant increases in sediment transport and total disruption of the stream regime in certain locations. This will be a recurring short- term, but cumulative impact. Since the objective of providing additional municipal water supply is viewed as a necessity, the immediate and projected needs will be satisfied to some degree by development of an alternative source. The development of another source or sources of water supply by Lee and/or Lenox may be costly in both dollars and environmental effects. Further reductions in floodwater and sediment damages would not be realized without completing the planned project. The existing Washington Mountain Lake site alone does not provide an adequate level of flood protection to existing roads, bridges and residences, as it controls only 15 percent of the watershed. Annual sediment removal from the alluvial fan would con- tinue to average about 4,100 cubic yards. The average annual damage from floodwater and sediment deposition would remain at $88,580. Land use in the watershed will remain essentially unchanged if the planned project is not implemented. As stated previously, approximately 90 per- cent of the watershed is included in the October Mountain State Forest. This land use is not expected to change through the year 2000. Overall wildlife resources in the watershed would remain essentially un- changed if the planned project were not implemented. Changes which would occur would be part of natural succession, and human influences would be minimal. Timber harvest would probably represent the greatest human intru- sion. Without the proposed project, timber in the planted softwood stands will probably be harvested by the year 2000. Many of the trees in these stands now are of sawtimber size. Successional trends in the forest predicted by Egler (1940) for an area including the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed will continue. He noted that under the unbroken canopy, hemlock and beech were the best suited species and postulated that one or both of these species would eventually dominate the forest. He also predicted that species, such as sugar maple, red maple, ash, cherry, and red oak, whose seedlings usually persist in closed forests, would become less abundant in the future. In addition, species which are generally considered intolerant, such as yellow birch, paper birch, black birch, hop hornbeam, and white pine, would become greatly reduced in number and even locally absent. These trends predicted by Egler 35 years ago appear to have been well founded. Except for the yellow ibirch, the intolerant species listed by Egler are now locally absent. The cherry-ash-maple community in the watershed appears to be giving way to a hemlock-beech community. Reproduction of cherry is prolific, but survival of saplings taller than 6 feet is limited. Ash seedlings are 117 scarce. Sugar maple seedlings and saplings appear to be more successful, and the sugar maple will probably remain an important species in the hard- wood forest for many years. Spruce shows advanced reproduction in mixed forests at higher elevations and will continue to occupy its important position in mixed forests. The density of understory species can be expected to decrease under the closed canopy, but death of individual older trees will continue to create scattered openings where shrubs can develop. Any forecast of future flor- istic composition of forests in the watershed assumes no natural catas- trophies, such as, disease, insect infestation, ice storms or unusual climatic events. Natural catastrophies are normal occurrences in the forest regime and may produce dramatic changes, altering well established successional patterns. Wildlife populations are so intimately tied to vegetative composition that changes in the animal community will certainly follow changes in the floral community. The trend toward an unbroken canopy will reduce the understory density which many species, including deer, rely upon. Wild- life which now utilizes varied forest types will continue to be abundant. Porcupines, gray fox, chipmunks, gray and red squirrels would not be seriously affected by natural changes in forest composition. Red foxes and woodchucks may. suffer a reduction of available habitat. The size of magnolia warbler populations, which are restricted to planted coniferous stands for nesting, may diminish as these stands are harvested. Increas- ing public use of the Appalachian Trail may result in some minor changes in nesting distribution of the red-shouldered hawk. Wetland types are expected to continue the pattern of change to a pro- gressively drier state. The open wetland types now present will succeed to the woody wetland types and ultimately will be forested. Beaver activ- ity would, however, cycle some of these sites and other available sites back to the open wetland types. Fish populations will remain essentially unchanged if the planned project is not implemented. The trout stocking program in the lower reaches of the brook will continue to provide sport fishing. None of the species encountered during the survey appear to be in danger of extinction from the watershed. Periodic channel cleanout work in the urbanized area would continue to create short-term impacts on the stream fishery and benthic organisms. Recreational opportunities within the watershed will not increase signi- ficantly without completion of the planned project. The public will con- tinue to be excluded from Finerty Pond since the town of Lee will continue to retain the pond for emergency water supply. Locally, additional oppor- tunities for boating (except canoeing on the Housatonic River) and fishing are not evident in the foreseeable future. Camping and day-use facilities are planned for Buckley-Dunton Lake (within the October Mountain State Forest); day-use and canoe-camping facilities along the Housatonic River in Lee and Lenox. The primary recreation objective of fishing would not be augmented. 118 Archaeological and historic sites would probably remain unprotected and unstudied without the project. Without protection these relics will be subject to vandalism and pilfering. The scenic quality of the watershed will generally remain unchanged if the proposed project is not implemented. All of the adverse environmental effects of installing the selected plan would be avoided if this alternative were selected. However, the result would be the annual loss of net monetary benefits of about $74,310, foregone by not implementing the planned project. Alternative VIII This alternative was the preferred plan at an earlier stage in planning. Features include: completion of Washington Mountain Lake as a multiple- purpose flood prevention and recreation facility; development of October Mountain Lake for flood prevention, recreation and water supply; and development of School house Lake as a flood prevention-recreation facility. The channel work detailed in the selected plan would also be installed. Proportionment of October Mountain Lake would be identical to the planned project, with winter withdrawal of the water supply storage. This devel- opment would provide a safe yield of about 0.5 mgd. School house Lake would have a total storage capacity of 789 acre-feet, with 105 acre-feet for recreation, 35 acre-feet for sediment accumulation, and 649 acre-feet for floodwater retention. The surface area of the recreational pool would be 15 acres and the flood pool would be 40 acres. This alternative would provide the same level of flood protection as the selected plan. The recreation opportunity would provide 19,740 fishing activity days, which is about 5 percent greater than the selected plan. The 0.5 mgd increase in the safe yield of the water supply represents only 20 percent of the planned project. Land use changes at the Schoolhouse Lake site would be generally less than the planned project as follows: 21 acres less forest land lost, 4 acres less wetland lost, and an increase of 9 acres temporarily impaired. This alternative does not meet the Lee and Lenox water supply needs. To increase the water supply yield of this alternative would amount to a duplication of the planned project. For these reasons this alternative is no longer being considered. Summary of Alternatives Table 20 is a summary of alternative plans and planned project costs and major provisions. The comparative costs represent initial construction costs, and annual Operations and Maintenance costs capitalized at an interest rate of 3 1/4 percent. Appendix E contains summaries of alternative actions related specifically to potential water supplies. The relative merits of the selected plan may be determined by comparison. 119 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS COMPARATIVE COST 1/ MAJOR PROVISIONS I. II. III. IV. VI VII. VIII. Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (3), Ground Water Development, Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structures (2), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Ground Water Development, Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structure (1), Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Water Supply Structure (1), Channel Work Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Extensive Channel Work, Ground Water Development Single-Purpose Flood Prevention Structure (1), Nonstructural, Ground Water Development Selected Plan $18,100,300 18,484,600 10,708,300 19,542,700 16,680,100 14,863,200 No Project Activity Multiple-Purpose Flood Prevention and Recreation Structures (2), Multiple- Purpose Flood Prevention, Water Supply and Recreation Structure (1), Channel Work 5,574,100 Flooding: Average Annual Redi of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: 1,500 activity d; for fishing Water Supply: 2.45 mgd safe j Flooding: Average Annual Redi of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: 13,440 activity < for fishing Water Supply: 2.45 mgd safe j: Flooding: Average Annual Redi: of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: 13,440 activity i.i for fishing Water Supply: 1.1 mgd safe y Flooding: Average Annual Red ; of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: 1,500 activity d ; for fishing Water Supply: 2.45 mgd safe ; Flooding: Average Annual Red: of $2,240 in flood damage Recreation: 1,500 activity d ; for fishing Water Supply: 2.45 mgd safe B Flooding: Average Annual Re: of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: $18,840 activity K for fishing Water Supply: 2.45 mgd safe i Flooding: No Reduction Recreation: None for fishing Water Supply: Probably betwe ( mgd and 2.5 mgd Flooding: Average Annual Red ti of $82,780 in flood damage Recreation: 19,740 activity f- for fishing Water Supply: 0.5 mgd safe si 1/ Comparative Cost is the initial cost plus the annual Operation and Maintenance cost capitalized at 3 1/4 percent. 120 SHORT-TERM VS LONG-TERM USE OF RESOURCES f Projected long-term land use changes in the Washington Mountain Brook .Watershed will be minimal. The October Mountain State Forest, which (occupies approximately 90 percent of the watershed, will remain under 1 the protection and management of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Devel- opment into the flood plain of the Washington Mountain Brook in the lower ! portion of the watershed is regulated by provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program and supporting zoning ordinances of the town of Lee. The planned project has been incorporated into future use plans for the Berkshire Mountains for the purposes of recreation (Department of Natural Resources, 1973 and Department of Environmental Management, 1976) and water supply (BCRPC* 1969). The future plans for use of the watershed are tenuous and have been modified since their inception. The plans in- corporated the proposed lakes as part of the future environmental setting. ! The Department has inaugurated a program to develop other existing sites in the vicinity to satisfy current and projected intensive recreational demands The planned project was formulated for the purposes of providing flood protection to existing structures in the flood plain of the Washington Mountain Brook, reducing erosion and sedimentation in the brook, increas- ing the recreational use of the October Mountain State Forest, and pro- viding additional water-supply storage for the town of Lee. Implementation of the planned project would accomplish these purposes with an immediate cost of 65 acres of wetland and 129 acres of forest and their associated wildlife habitat. (The sustained timber yield for the forest land for the long term is estimated to be about 75 board feet per acre annually.) Imple- mentation of the planned project would irreversibly commit these areas to the purposes of the project and would foreclose their future use for other purposes. The proposed project is compatible with future, long-term uses of the land, water, and natural resources of the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed. However, regional plans, such as those for recreation and water supply, were formulated after the project's inception and have incorporated the proposed lakes as part of the future environmental setting. The planned project is designed to be fully effective for 100 years and with proper maintenance should provide benefits after this period. There are presently four active watershed projects in the southeastern Berkshire County and western Hampden County area. These planned water- 's shed projects are in portions of 11 towns which have a combined acreage jcof approximately 6,804 acres of Types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 wetlands. Wooded swamp constitutes approximately 4,742 acres of wetland in the 11 towns. If all watersheds were completed as presently planned, there would be a total reduction of 186 acres of Types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 collec- tively, and a loss of 258 acres of wooded swamp (Type 7). Expressed as a percentage this loss is 2.7 percent of Types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 wet- lands (collectively) and 5.4 percent of the Type 7. The overall wetland loss would be 3.8 percent of the present amount. 121 The project area of Washington Mountain Brook, 9.0 square miles, is too small to contribute significantly to potential cumulative hydrological effects within the Housatonic River Basin. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES In addition to land previously committed at the Washington Mountain Lake site, the present wildlife habitat values will be eliminated on a total of 167 acres at Schoolhouse and October Mountain Lakes. This 167 acres is comprised of: 129 acres of forest land; 34 acres of wetland; and 4 acres, which is currently the borrow area. Periodic inundation of an additional 41 acres of forest land in the floodwater detention pools will impair its wildlife habitat value. Areas to be occupied by the dams, emergency spillways and borrow areas will become grassland habitat, totaling 30 acres of the 167 acres permanently committed. Approximately 5,400 feet of perennial stream and 1,500 feet of intermittent/ ephermeral stream will be incorporated into the planned lakes. The channel work will commit approximately 400 feet of perennial stream to sediment con- trol facilities, and 50 feet to concrete channel, although flow will not be impeded. Installation of the water supply pipeline will convert 1 to 1.5 acres from forest land to grassland. Other commitments, including labor and materials which will be expended to install, operate and maintain the project, are irreversible. Most of the construction materials (rock and fill) are being extracted from within the watershed. Other commitments can and will be retrieved in the form of project benefits. CONSULTATION AND REVIEW WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES AND OTHERS General The Berkshire Conservation District applied to the U.S. Department of Agri- culture for planning assistance for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed in 1961. In February 1961, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission approved the application at the state level and notified the Soil Conserva- tion Service. Preliminary investigations were conducted by the Soil Conservation Service, and the project was authorized for planning in 1963. Notification of the intent of the sponsors to develop a watershed plan and a request for cooperation was sent to concerned local, county, state and federal officials. Preparation of the watershed plan involved a coordinated effort by local, state and federal agencies. At the request of the project sponsors, all three of the planned dams were planned to include recreation as an added purpose. One of the structures (October Mountain Lake) also includes municipal water supply as an added purpose. Planning was coordinated with 122 An informal field review of the watershed plan and a public meeting were held in 1966. Representatives of local, county, state and federal agen- cies, as well as interested citizens attended. The project plan received favorable comments from all who attended. Comments were received from the U.S. Public Health Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Massa- chusetts Division of Fisheries and Game, U.S. Forest Service, Massachu- setts Department of Public Health and others. The watershed plan was submitted to Congress and the project was approved for installation on April 1, 1969. The watershed plan was supplemented in December 1969, June 1971, February 1973, and July 1980. In 1975 and 1976, an environmental assessment of the project measures remaining to be installed was conducted by EcolSciences, Inc. and the Soil Conservation Service. The assessment was coordinated with local, state and federal agencies, as well as interested local groups and citizens. The State Historic Preservation Officer and National Park Service were consulted regarding historical and archaeological sites that may be affected by the project. In November of 1976, the Soil Conservation Service published in area news- papers a Negative Declaration to inform the public that an Environmental Impact Statement would not be prepared for the Washington Mountain Brook Project. The decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was based on the environmental assessment which showed that installa- tion of the remaining project measures would not create significant adverse impact on the environment, and there did not appear to be significant con- troversy associated with the project. Controversy surrounding the project subsequently developed during the review period of the Negative Declaration. On December 6, 1976, an 18-page review critique of the Environmental Assessment, which was critical of the findings, was forwarded to the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The transmittal letter urged that an Environmental Impact Report be required, before further activity is undertaken. The Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, in December 1976, directed the Massa- chusetts Division of Water Resources to prepare a Limited Environmental Impact Report. A public meeting was held on December 28, 1976 with the Secretary to review that decision. The following agencies, groups and individuals were represented or present at that meeting. Senator John H. Fitzpatrick Board of Selectmen, Town of Lee Conservation Law Foundation Schweitzer Division, Kimberly-Clark Co., Lee The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield Department of Public Works, Town of Lee Tighe and Bond Consulting Engineers, Inc. Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission Berkshire Natural Resources Council Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks Massachusetts Division of Water Resources 123 Massachusetts Audubon Society Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Soil Conservation Service Appalachian Mountain Club Planning Board, Town of Lenox Representative Dennis J. Duff in Representative Richard J. Dwinell In February 1977 the Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to the Secretary's Office and distributed to the following agencies, groups and interested individuals. Office of State Planning Attorney Generals Office Division of Water Resources Water Resources Commission Senator John H. Fitzpatrick Senator John W. Olver Representative Dennis J. Duff in Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission Board of Selectmen, Town of Lee Daniel J. Gaherty David L. Burg Appalachian Mountain Club Berkshire Natural Resources Council Berkshire County Commissioners Massachusetts Audubon Society Schweitzer Division, Kimberly-Clark Co. (Milton Gordon) Conservation Commission, Town of Lee Conservation Commission, Town of Washington Board of Selectmen, Town of Washington Division of Forests and Parks Soil Conservation Service Conservation Law Foundation In May 1977 a watershed town and informational meeting was held in Lee. The following agencies, groups and individuals participated or were repre- sented. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Law Foundation Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Audubon Society Soil Conservation Service Board of Selectmen, Town of Lee Schweitzer Division, Kimberly-Clark Co., Lee Department of Public Works, Town of Lee Tighe and Bond Consulting Engineers, Inc. 124 Board of Public Works, Town of Lee Congressman Silvio 0. Conte Massachusetts Division of Water Resources Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission Berkshire Museum Berkshire Community College WBEC Radio The Berkshire Eagle Berkshire Natural Resources Council Representative Dennis J. Duff in Senator John H. Fitzpatrick Additional archaeologic field studies have been conducted at the request of the staff archaeologists for the State Historic Preservation Officer to verify previous conclusions that no prehistoric Indian sites exist. In August 1977 the Board of Selectmen of the town of Lenox requested the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission to consider the potential of the Washington Mountain Brook Project to provide enough municipal water supply benefits to satisfy the needs of the town of Lenox as well as the town of Lee. This request received endorsement by the Project Sponsors and those agencies closely associated with current planning efforts. Appropriate studies are underway. In September 1977, the Soil Conservation Service made public a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. The Notice of Intent appeared in the Federal Register of September 16, 1977; the Massachusetts Environmental Monitor on September 22, 1977; The Berkshire Eagle on September 16, September 22 and September 28, 1977; and the Spring- field Union on September 10, 1977. In addition, copies of the notice were sent to a total of 73 agencies, groups, and interested individuals, aside from USDA agencies. The Notice of Intent advised that "Those interested in providing information, which may be considered in preparing this statement, should submit data to the following Responsible Federal Official by October 3, 1977." (State Conservationist) In response to the town of Lenox's request, the town of Lee requested SCS to assess the capability of the Watershed Project to meet the municipal water supply needs of both towns. This study was undertaken with cooperation from the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, DEQE, Division of Water Supply and others. Additional water supply studies were conducted by Tighe and Bond Engineers at the direction of the town of Lee. Whitman and Howard, Inc. provided inputs relating to the town of Lenox. The results of these studies are included in this report. In May 1978, a preliminary draft of this report (combined EIR/EIS) was pre- pared by SCS and circulated to the sponsors. The purpose of that draft was to enable the sponsors to review their project and to provide additional inputs or revisions as appropriate. 125 On June 12, 1978, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission voted to forward the Sponsors' Draft EIR/EIS (with incorporated comments) to the Secretary, EOEA as a Draft EIR. On June 21, 1978, the Lee Board of Selectmen sent a letter to the other sponsors of the Watershed Project, which stated in part: "In reviewing the preliminary Environmental Impact Statement - Environmental Impact Report prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service for the above referenced project, we note that the Statement - Report was written around the existing watershed plan which was approved in April 1969 and supple- mented in December of 1969, June of 1971, and February of 1973. "As stated in the Environmental Impact Statement - Environmental Impact Report, the Town of Lee's current water supply situation has changed substantially since the development of the original watershed plan. . . e . . "Realizing our current needs and current water supply status, we find it necessary at this time to pursue the development of addi- tional water for meeting our current and future needs, as well as possibly helping Lenox "The Town of Lee, as co-sponsor of the proposed Washington Mountain watershed project, supports a revision to the present watershed plan which would include development of the watershed as mentioned in Alternate No. 6 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement - Environmental Impact Report dated April 1978. Also, the Town of Lee respectfully requests that you as co-sponsor of the project support the revision to the watershed plan for the purpose of pro- viding the needed water supply for the Town of Lee. "In order for the Soil Conservation Service to finalize their Environ- mental Impact Statement - Environmental Impact Report, the Town of Lee requests that you give this proposal your earliest possible con- sideration " On June 27, 1978, a coordination meeting was held with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On August 13, 1979, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission voted to revise the watershed plan to reflect the levels of development outlined in Alternative VI in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 1978. The Watershed Plan was officially supplemented on July 16, 1980. On March 27, 1981, a coordination meeting was held with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wilslife Service. A public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the Draft EIS was held in Lee on October 15, 1980. About 25 people were in attendance. Coordination with local, state and federal agencies has been maintained throughout the planning phases of this project and will continue to be maintained during its implementation. 126 Draft EIS The draft EIS was transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on September 9, 1980. In addition, the following agencies and organizations were asked to comment on the draft EIS. An (R) indicates written comments were received. Department of the Army (R) Department of Commerce (R) Department of Health and Human Services (R) Department of the Interior (R) Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency (R) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (R) Office of Equal Opportunity, USDA (R) Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (Designated State Agency) Executive Office of Communities and Development (State Clearinghouse) Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission (R) (Regional Clearinghouse) Massachusetts Historical Commission Berkshire Natural Resources Council Massachusetts Audubon Society (R) Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (R) Conservation Law Foundation (R) Appalachian Mountain Club The written comments received are contained in Appendix F. The following discussions are a restatement and disposition of those comments. In some cases, several repetitive responses were received. In those instances, a summary of the comments are given, along with a list of the organizations providing the comment. (These organizations are as follows: Corps of Engineers, CE; Environmental Protection Agency, EPA; Department of the Interior, USDI; Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, EOEA; Massachusetts Audubon Society, MAS; Conservation Law Foundation, CLF. Summarized Comments/Responses 1. Two commentors emphasized the need for permits, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (CE, EPA) Response: SCS and project sponsors recognize the need for permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A description of the permit program has been added to Appendix A, and referenced on page 16. The responses to specific comments received on the Draft EIS should resolve the issues which concerned the regulatory agencies and assist them in their future permit determinations. 127 2. Two commentors expressed difficulties in determining which water supply options were technically feasible and which were also cost effective. (CE, EPA) Response: The comment is well taken. In the Draft EIS, all water supply options were considered technically feasible except ground water withdrawal from the Woods Pond aquifer. The Final EIS clearly identifies that all options are technically feasible; and all options are cost effective, except the Woods Pond aquifer. (Adding appropriate treatment costs to make this option technically feasible resulted in it not being cost effective.) To better assist in the comparison of alternatives, the water supply component consisting of ground water development has been increased to the level of the preferred alternative. Refer to Appendix A for an expanded discussion of Water Supply benefits and procedures. 3. Several commentors suggested that the uncertainties regarding the ground water options, specifically the acceptability of water quality in each aquifer should be positively confirmed or denied. (EOEA, CLF, MAS, CE) Response: The water quality, or the acceptability of the sources for water supply development has been resolved and further information is presented on pages 91 and 92 and in Appendices B and E. 4. Two commentors suggested that the nonstructural alternative be re- formulated to possibly include sediment traps and a water supply component other than ground water. (CE, EPA) Response: The nonstructural alternative was formulated to primarily avoid the greatest adverse impacts of the selected plan. The only water supply options which are more "cost-effective" are surface water sites, of which the component in the selected plan is the least cost option. One primary reason for selection of the preferred plan was that it was the most cost-effective solution to meet the project objectives. 5. Several commentors requested that the necessity and degree of treatment for each water source be fully resolved; and all costs associated with treatment be included as a project cost or alternative plan cost, as appropriate. (CE, EPA, EOEA, CLF, MAS) Response: The need for treatment of each water source in respect to its level of development has been determined and included in each alternative, including the preferred plan. The cost of treatment associated with the preferred plan (planned project) is included, and no longer labeled "Phase II." 128 6. Several commentors questioned the validity of claiming the multiple- purpose benefits of recreation and water supply for a single impound- ment; and whether these concurrent uses were in themselves incompatible. (CE, EPA, USDI, EOEA, MAS) Response: Concurrent uses of recreation and water supply will only occur at October Mountain Lake. The recreation use will only include fishing. The town of Lee Board of Health has stated that ". . . October Mountain Lake be posted specifying no swimming and the use of internal combustion engines in or on the lake be prohibited." (See Appendix A for text of letter.) At the request of the town of Lee and at the direction of the Commis- sioner of the Department of Environmental Management, references to any future intensive recreation facilities have been removed from the Final EIS. There are no plans for such a development. In addition since filtration and disinfection are included treatment processes, no con- flict or incompatibility shall exist. Several commentors expressed concern for the potential significant impact of installing the water supply pipeline. (EOEA, EPA, CE) 7. Response: The potential for the stated impacts does exist. So does the potential to affectively control the possible erosion and sedimentation. The number of stream crossings has been reduced to five, and final planning and design will reduce this number if practical. Final route deter- mination layout, and design will enable engineers to be site specific in erosion control measure requirements. Statements to this effect have been added to the Pollution Control section. 8. Several comments noted that the draft EIS failed to discuss the project or alternatives relative to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 on Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, respectively. (CE, EPA, USDI) Response: Both Executive Orders are now specifically discussed in the planned project, alternatives and environmental impact sections. Mitigation features related to each Executive Order associated with the selected plan will be identified in detail in the Record of Decision (ROD). Several comments were received regarding the benefit-cost ratio and expressed concern that the true costs of the project were not dis- played. (EPA, MAS, CLF) 9. Response: The total estimated installation cost of the remaining project are presented in Table 2. These costs have been updated to 1980 using the average Engineering News Record index for 1980. The costs of appropriate treatment are no longer referred to as Phase II Project Costs." 129 L The applicable interest rate for water resource project evaluation is determined by the U.S. Water Resources Council in accordance with Chapter IV D "Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources" (39 FR 29242). SCS procedures provide for the continual use of an interest rate once a watershed plan has received Congressional approval. The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Plan was approved by Congress in 1968 and the applicable interest rate was 3 1/4 percent. Appendix A is primarily devoted to economic analyses of the preferred plan. This appendix contains an economic summary reflecting the 3 1/4 percent interest rate, and in response to comments, an alternative economic evaluation at 7 1/8 percent interest rate. (The 7 1/8 percent interest rate was the interest rate for fiscal year 1980, covering the period when Supplemental Watershed Plan No. 4 was prepared and signed. This supplemental plan, which also includes previously incurred costs of building Washington Mountain Lake Dam, has now been added to Appendix A as further background material. SCS believes that the final statement fully discloses the true costs and benefits of the preferred plan and alternative plans, and provides ample economic data which together with the environmental evaluations, will enable the project sponsors to make an informed, rational decision regarding the project. 10. Several comments were received which questioned the validity of not including (in the EIS) the incurred construction cost of the Washington Mountain Lake dam in the cost analysis of constructing the remainder of the project (EPA, MAS, CLF) Response: The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Section 5, requires that the benefits of every "plan" exceed the costs associated with imple- menting the plan. The Soil Conservation Service prepares documents callec Watershed (Work) Plans which describe the project in detail and provide cost/benefit data for the entire plan. From time to time these Watershed Plans must be updated. To accomplish this, SCS prepares supplements to the original plan. In the case of Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, the latest supplement (#4) was prepared in July 1980. In this document the economic feasibility of the total plan (including Washington Mountain Lake Dam and dike) is reaffirmed. A copy of Supplement #4 has been added to Appendix A. 11. Several comments were received which suggested that water conservation (President's Water Policy message of June 6, 1978) should be given more thorough consideration. (EPA, USDI, MAS) Response: Water conservation is now specifically addressed in the Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Problems section. The discussion details the present level of water conservation in Lee and Lenox, which was omitted in the draft EIS. 130 12. Several commentors felt that the wetland losses had not been adequately acknowledged or accounted for. (EPA, USDI, MAS, CLF) Response: The Soil Conservation Service feels that the wetland to be impacted by the preferred plan was adequately identified and evaluated. However, the plan was deficient in mitigating the wetland losses. Mitigative features have been added to the preferred plan and are detailed in the Planned Project section. Revisions were also made to Table 19 to more correctly reflect the expected character of the 224-acre body of water at Washington Mountain Lake. Also, see response to comment #8. 13. Three commentors noted that there was not an adequate discussion of the Lee-Lenox water supply arrangement. (MAS, CLF, EOEA) Response: The towns of Lee and Lenox have agreed to cooperate in developing a permanent regional water supply, based on the 1980 Watershed Plan (Supplement #4). A copy of the agreement is included in Appendix A. 14. One commentor suggested that a brief explanation of the provision of PL83-566 would be helpful. Response: An overview of PL83-566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, is included in a new introductory section entitled, Summary of the Plan Formulation Process. 15. One commentor asked how the annual costs and benefits of the water supply facilities were derived. Response: The annual cost is based on an amortization of construction costs, including treatment facilities, plus the annual operation and main- tenance cost. These costs are associated with the preferred plan. The same economic analysis of annual costs is done for the "most likely" alternative, aside from the preferred plan. The net benefits attributable to water supply is the difference between the annual costs of the preferred plan and the "most likely" alternative. 16. The Corps of Engineers commented that the value of harvested timber at the impoundment sites should not have been deducted from the land rights cost. Response: The harvesting of timber on the sites preceeded the effective date of the CEQ regulations (7/1/79) on which this comment is based. Although the amount originally deducted from the land rights costs was not signi- ficant enough to influence the choice of alternatives, this amount has been restored to the land rights cost at both sites. 131 17. The Corps of Engineers commented that the final EIS should address the anticipated impacts of the project on downstream water quality and flow regime. Response: These discussions have been expanded on pages 97 and 102. 18. The Corps of Engineers inquired as to the basis for expecting an enhance- ment of furbearer trapping, when stream habitat is replaced with lake habitat. Response: There are presently only two active beaver flowages in the watershed. Since there is no significant storage for water supply in this water- shed, the presence of beaver impoundment during a dry or drought period hampers attempts to withdraw water from the instream intake. Present management of the watershed for water supply also means management of the beaver to minimize their presence. With the provision of ample water supply storage, the activities of beaver will become less of a concern. In addition, observations and experiences of wildlife personnel have indicated that beavers will colonize at impoundments like Washington Mountain Lake at the rate of one lodge per mile of shoreline. Washington Mountain Lake will have 3.5 miles of undeveloped shoreline, of which 2.2 miles is dominated by hardwood woodland. Beaver are continuing to increase in Berkshire County as indicated both by the steady increase in the beaver trapping harvest and the increasing number of beaver complaints received by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Establishment of beaver colonies at unoccupied sites is expected by means of immigration of 2 year old beaver from other colonies. 19. The Corps of Engineers suggested that the final EIS contain a brief discussion of the issues which led to the preparation of the draft EIS. Response: The discussion in the "Consultation and Review ..." section has been expanded to include the sequence of events which led to the preparation of the draft EIS. 20. The EPA commented that the project's construction would have a signifi- cant adverse impact on the town of Lee's current drinking water supply, namely Washington Mountain Brook. Response: The DEIS apparently failed to adequately define the method and frequency of use of the watershed for water supply by the town of Lee. 132 Lee has relied on Washington Mountain Brook for water supply during droughty periods to supplement their Codding Brook supply. This was the case in 1980. When in use, water is withdrawn from the stream through an intake, located at the point of the proposed upper sediment control facility. The watershed will not be used for water supply during construction of the impoundments. When the sediment control facilities are installed, the stream intake will be removed. Water from the upstream reservoirs will be conveyed by pipeline to the Upper Reservoir on Codding Brook. The preferred plan includes a filtration plant capable of treating water from Washington Mountain Brook and the Codding Brook supply. 21. One EPA comment was concerned with the references in the draft EIS to potential development of intensive recreation facilities around the reservoirs, sometime in the future. Response: See response to comment #6. 22. One EPA comment suggested that the value of wetlands as floodwater retention areas should be given consideration. Response: The value of wetlands as floodwater retention areas is a basic consider- ation of the hydrologic studies conducted by SCS on all watershed projects of this type. 23. The USDI considered the planned flow releases inadequate to sustain indigenous acquatic organisms during times of the year critical to their survival and maintenance. "Inadequate flows are particularly true for October Mountain and School house Lakes. We recommend Aquatic Base Flows (ABFs) of 4.0, 0.5, and 1.0 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage area (cfsm) for the spring, summer, and fall critical periods, respectively. Alternately, minimum releases of median monthly flows would be adequate. Furthermore, when inflows immediately upstream of the project fall below the ABFs, outflows from the project should equal the inflows." Response: Discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel revealed that the median August daily flow would be an acceptable flow release, since this was the most critical period. The Walker Brook (adjacent water- shed) stream gage record of 1963 to 1977 was used to estimate the August median daily flow for Washington Mountain Brook. The Walker Brook record yielded a value of 0.28 cubic feet per second per square mile (CSM). The low flow release from School house Lake has been doubled to 0.20 cfs. This increases the combined low flow release from the flood controlled portion of the watershed to 0.26 csm; which is not significantly different from 0.28 csm, given the transposition of estimates from one watershed to another. 133 24. The USDI noted that the historical and archeological survey did not include any standing buildings and structures of historic, architectural, or engineering significannce. Response: The draft EIS only failed to mention that there are none. 25. The USDI commented that measures designed to prevent looting of cultural resources should be developed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Response: The SHPO has been consulted further regarding this comment, and the recommendation is that the sites be "staked," but no designed measures are necessary. 26. The USDI also commented that results of studies to determine the eligi- bility of the agricultural village for the National Register should be included in the final EIS; as well as a letter from the SHPO stating results of consultation and compliance. Response: The agricultural village has been determined to be eligible for the National Register, but nomination is not imminent. See letter from SHPO in Appendix B. 27. The EOEA and MAS commented that the demand figures presented in the report based on population projections and the industrial demand figures are unsubstantiated; the demand for water, both present and future, should be adequately documented. Response: We feel that the population projections and demand figures are reasonable and adequately documented. For a further, indepth response, see appended letter from Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, dated 11/25/80, in Appendix F. 28. The EOEA and MAS commented that the draft EIS was deficient in discussions relating to Article 97, of the State Constitution, which concerns dedi- cated state parklands. Response: Article 97 is an amendment to the state Constitution, approved by the voters at the statewide election on November 7, 1972. In an opinion from the Attorney General , 134 "Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts constitution estab- lishes the right of the people to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic qualities of their environment. The protection of the people in their right to the conservation development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is declared to be a public purpose. Lands, easements and interests therein taken or acquired for such public purposes are not to be dis- posed of or used for other purposes except by two-thirds roll-call vote of both the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives. "Answering the questions of the House of Representatives I advise that the two-thirds roll-call vote requirement of Article 97 applies to all lands, easements and interests therein whenever taken or acquired for Article 97 conservation, development or utilization purposes, even prior to the effective date of Article 97, November 7, 1972. The Amendment applies to land, easements and interests therein held by the Commonwealth, or any of its agencies or political subdivi- sions, such as cities, towns and counties." Sponsors of the Washington Mountain Brook Project are currently preparing legislation to be submitted to the Legislature for approval. 29. The CLF noted that the draft EIS did not discuss how Schoolhouse Lake will answer a water supply need. Response: The Planned Project section, page 7 now fully details how Schoolhouse Lake coupled with October Mountain Lake will supply an additional safe yield of 2.45 million gallons daily. 30. Three commentors directly or indirectly inquired as to why there was no response to Dr. Ian Nisbet's data, which concluded in part: "In my opinion, the reports of PCBs in Schweitzer Well No. 3 should not be accepted unless they are confirmed by comparably careful sampling and analytical techniques, including the use of blank samples. (EOEA, MAS, CLF) Response: Dr. Nisbet's final report is included in Appendix B in its entirety. We consider this data to serve as further evidence of the ^conclusiveness as to the presence of PCBs and the risks involved in further developing the Woods Pond aquifer. Close examination of the data reveals an apparent mathematical error in calculating the PCB concentration of the "Blank" sample. The concentra- tion should have been reported as 80 ppt instead of 1.2 ppt. This would give the "Blank" sample the highest concentration of PCBs of the six samples tested. 135 . New England River Basins Commission 31. The information presented in the draft EIS, however, is insufficient Comment: to determine the degree to which a different combination of measures might have reduced the extent of property damage. The report does not present information on the degree to which each of the structural measures reduces the area subject to flooding for the 1-percent chance event. The section on ALTERNATIVES , shows that nonstructural measures were considered as components only in Alternative V. Presenta- tion of the increments of protection afforded by each component measure relative to the area impacted by the 1-percent flood in each alternative in the final EIS will improve this agency's ability to make a determination on the degree to which this project is consistent with adopted NERBC policy. Response: We believe the inclusion of the material on pages 1 and 2 partially responds to these comments. Going further, however, the comment fails to mention an adequate "level of protection," which in this case must include the elimination of the risk for loss of life. Given this criteria and the conditions cited on pages 1 and 2, certain measures or combination of measures would just not do the job. We also feel that a wide range of components has been presented in the Alternative. For instance, the following components are included in one or more alternatives: flood insurance, flood plain regulation, channel work, single-purpose flood prevention structure, multiple-purpose flood prevention and recreation structure, reloca- tion, or a combination of measures. Each alternative is compared to the selected plan in terms of costs and environmental effects. We believe that the decisionmakers are provided with adequate data to enable them to judge the merits of each alternative and the selected plan. The sole use of nonstructural measures or even a "primarily" non- structural plan would not be cost-effective along Washington Mountain Brook. 32. We also note that on page C-l, Appendix C, the discount rate used Comment: to calculate average annual costs for the project was 3 1/4 percent, It is our understanding that the rate required by the U.S. Water Resources Council for federal projects for FY 1980 was 7 1/8 percent, Response: Refer to response to comment #9. 136 33. Comment: nse :34. ■ Comment: Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission It is quite possible that the WMB project's estimated average annual water supply benefit of $114,600 (1979) is a conservative figure. Unfortunately, the EIS gives little explanation of how that figure was calculated, but given the importance of public water supply for fire protection; health; residential, industrial and commercial devel- opment; recreation; and aesthetics the value of the water supply benefits could be justifiably estimated at significantly more that the listed figure. That would increase the net project benefits. Further- more, if Lenox is to receive water from WMB, then the benefits to Lenox will be substantial, a dollar figure that could be added to the project's net benefits. In 1977, prior to the current environmental review, it was believed that if the USDA withdrew support for this project, that Lee would pursue to build a single-purpose water supply development on Washing- ton Mountain Brook. At that time, it appeared to be the "most likely" alternative for water supply to the PL83-566 watershed project. However, it has become apparent, as a result of the environmental review, that if the Washington Mountain Brook project is unacceptable ( not because of withdrawn support ), that any plans Lee might pursue along the same course would also be unacceptable. Therefore, Lee and Lenox must identify another "most likely" alternative aside from the planned project. The responses received from Lee and Lenox clearly indicate the Washington Mountain Brook to be the only mutually beneficial alternative for a regional supply. Lee has indicated a preference to develop the Greenwater Brook aquifer to meet its own needs; while Lenox has indicated it will pursue either the Vahle site or Pleasant Valley site. Both of Lenox choices are surface water sites of the same relative cost. SCS is now basing the water supply benefits (since the existence of the Lee-Lenox agreement) on these two "most likely" alternative courses of action. See response to comment #15 regarding procedure used to determine annual cost and benefits. Department of Commerce The DEIS addresses the flood problems of the community and non- structural alternatives, but does not reference flood warning systems in the solutions offered. As part of the structural solution proposed, a flood warning system of the type described in the enclosure should be considered. It would be an oversight not to include a warning system either as a nonstructural alter- native and/or companion item. 137 Flash flood watches and warnings for this area are issued as a routine NWS service by the Forecast Office in Boston, Massachusetts. Flood forecasts for the Housatonic River are prepared by the NWS River Forecast Center in Hartford, Connecticut. Response: The short hydrologic response time of the watershed and the type of flooding that usually occurs, would only allow use of the generalized flash flood watch and warning system. Flash flood watches and warnings for this area are issued by the Forecast Office of the National Weather Service, in Boston. They are routinely broadcast by local radio stations when issued. It is felt that with installa- tion of the preferred plan, together with an awareness of potential flooding from the radio broadcasts, no further warning program is necessary. Department of Health and Human Services 35. The two proposed permanent sediment control structures in Washington Comment: Mountain Brook "... will be designed to trap approximately 7,600 cubic yards of sediment (all material greater than 6 inches in size) during a 100-year flood." Yet, the current estimated volume of deposition fo a 100-year flood would be in excess of 26,000 cubic yards. What bene- fit if any would these two sediment control facilities offer the town of Lee if a 100-year or greater flood event occurred and more than 18,000 cubic yards of gravel, boulders, etc., were bypassed to the town? Response: The two sediment control structures are to serve two major functions. First, they are needed to prevent the channel from breaching during the 100-year flood. Total estimated sediment from the watershed, without the upstream dams is 26,000 cy. With the dams in place, this total will be reduced to 19,500 cy delivered at the alluvial fan. This sediment will consist of all sizes of material ranging from suspended fines to boulders several feet in diameter. When this sediment reaches the alluvial fan where slopes are flatter and velocities are less, the large material can no longer be transported and will be deposited in the channel. This deposition will block the channel and divert the flood flows out onto the alluvial fan causing extensive flooding and damage. To prevent this deposition, the two sediment control structures were designed to trap most of the material above 6 inches in size. Studies indicate that most of the sediments under 6 inches will be transported through the alluvial fan during the peak flows of the 100-year flood. Investigations show that about 39 percent or 7,600 cy of the 19,500 delivered to the fan will be over 6 inch size material. Secondly, the present average annual volume of sediment delivered to the alluvial fan is about 9,100 cy. Of this volume, about 4,100 cy are deposited each year. With the upstream floodwater retarding structures, the volume of sediment delivered to the alluvial fan will be reduced to average 4,000 cy per year, with about 1,800 cy deposited The remaining 2,200 cy will be fine and suspended material, which will move downstream, causing little aggradation in the stream channel. Th- is in contrast to the 5,000 cy/year presently being passed downstream. 138 36. The potential for development in the 36 acres of benefited flood Comment: plain should be described. If development was to occur in this area, to what extent would flood damages be aggravated from a storm event greater than 100-years? Examination of Figures 23 and 24 reveals flood damage along a portion of Washington Mountain Road that is outside of the present 100-year flood area (Figure 25 Flood Hazard Map). Were there other areas in Lee subject to damage outside of the 100-year flood plain? Has any consideration been given to possibly adding a relocation plan of the more flood- prone structures to the preferred plan? Response: First of all, there are several other areas within Lee that are subject to flooding and damage from other sources. These areas have recently been identified in a Flood Insurance Study. Secondly, adding a relocation plan of the more flood-prone struc- tures to the preferred plan was not considered, since there is no remaining damage to these structures for floods up to 1-percent chance (100-year). Also, the relocation component of the non- structural alternative was not cost-effective. The flood plain area benefited does have a developmental potential based solely on present land use. However, the preliminary flood boundary maps of the Flood Insurance Study do not propose a flood- way for Washington Mountain Brook. This is a reflection of the hazard involved, and therefore community officials should restrict any further development within the 100-year flood plain, which was determined to include the entire alluvial fan. 37. According to Appendix D of the EIS, phosphorus loadings to the Comment: proposed lakes should not be increased by land use changes or increased human activity in the watershed above. Recommendations are also made discouraging the installation of septic systems and shoreline development. For these reasons, we believe efforts should be made to develop and implement a water quality manage- ment plan to protect the future water quality for Washington Mountain Lake, October Mountain Lake, and Schoolhouse. Response: The suggestion of a water quality management plan is yery appropriate. The SCS will take the initiative, and together with the Massachusetts Divisions of Forests and Parks, and Fisheries and Wildlife, and the town of Lee, will develop and implement a water quality management plan for each of the three lakes. 139 LIST OF PREPARERS Following is a listing of the key personnel who were directly responsible for significant input in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement. NAME PRESENT TITLE (Time in Job-Yrs.) EDUCATION Degree(s) OTHER EXPERIENCE (Titles & Time in Job-Yrs.) SCS Water Resources Planning Staff William M. Fennell Planning Engineer (11) Donald W. Haley Hydraulic Engineer (5) Michael R. Kolman Agricultural Economist (2) Luther F. McDougal John L. O'Neill John A. Tibbetts Supervisory Hydraul ic Engineer (5) Agricultural Economist (6) Hydraul ic Engineer (1) James A. Wesoloski Civil Engineer (9) BS - Agricultural Engineering BS - Agricultural Engineering BA, MA - Economics BS - Agricultural Engineering BS - Agricultural & Food Economics BS - Civil Engineering BS, MS - Civil Engineering Civil Engineer 10 yrs. Engineering Specialist 2 yrs. Civil or Agricul- tural Engineer 6 yrs. Economist 2 yrs. Area Engineer (Civil) 6 yrs. Hydraul ic Engineer 12 yrs. Civil Engineer (Design) 8 yrs. Project Engineer 2 yrs. SCS State Office Staff Robert W. Franzen Peter G. Waldo Geologist (6) BA, MS - Geology State Biologist (8) BS, MS - Biology (Wildlife) Biologist 7 yrs. 140 NAME LIST OF PREPARERS - cont. PRESENT TITLE EDUCATION (Time in Job-Yrs.) Degree(s) OTHER EXPERIENCE (Titles & Time in Job-Yrs.) ( Consulting Firms & Individuals i Name Contribution i EcolSciences, Inc. 133 Park Street, NE \ Vienna, Virginia 22180 .John Pretola, Archaeologist Springfield Science Museum I Tighe and Bond/SCI Consulting Engineers and Environmental Specialists J. F. Moynihan & Associates Engineering Consultants Environmental Assessment Archaeological Survey Municipal Water Supply Evaluations Lee Municipal Water Supply Evaluation Lenox ^The EIS was reviewed and concurred in by the Soil Conservation Service, state staff specialists having responsibility for engineering, soils, agronomy, conservation land treatment, and geology. This review was followed by a review of the document and supporting data by the Northeast Technical Service Center. 141 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PLANNED PROJECT Economic Summary Supplemental Watershed Plan #4 Agreement Regarding Land Use and Water Rights Water Supply Agreement 'Section 404' Permit Program APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY Summary: Benthic Survey Summary Table: Finerty Pond Water Quality Wildlife Classification Series Summary Report: Historical and Archaeological Survey PCBs in the Housatonic River Watershed PCB Bibliographies Communications: PCBs APPENDIX C - WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE PROBLEMS Historical Flood Damage Recreational Fishing - Present Capacity APPENDIX D - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Summary: Eutrophication Calculations Summary: Estimated Boating Use APPENDIX E - WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Town of Lenox Town of Lee Summary Table: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Town of Lee APPENDIX F - LETTERS OF COMMENT RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 142 APPENDIX A PLANNED PROJECT (Selected Plan) Economic Summary The primary benefits and costs ascribed to each aspect of the planned project are shown in the following tables. The data can also be used for the purpose of comparing alternatives with the planned project. Costs: ($) Initial Costs Average Annual Costs ' Flood Water Non Prevention Supply Recreation Allocated Total October Mountain Lake Schoolhouse Lake Channel Work Washington Mountain Lake 1,006,800 1,238,400 420,600 200,000 6,970 21,110 20,400 24,380 14,250 Water Supply Facilities 3 / 7,105,000 Total 9,970,800 Benefits: ($) October 15,240 4,110 47,430 5,580 50,360 14,250 14,830 14,830 376,720 41,620 422,210 30,070 9,690 503,590 376,720 Mountain Schoolhouse Supply Lake Lake Facilities Average Annual Benefits Water Channel Work Washington Mountain Lake Total II tlood Prevention ' ater Supply Recreation 24,300 Total Net Average Annual Benefit: 82,780 647,900 70,560 94,860 825,540 PTus 321.950 1/ Amortized @ 3 1/4 percent as required by U.S. Senate Document 97. The discount period is 100 years. Nonallocated costs represent costs of administration. 2/ The flood prevention and sediment control measures are interdependent, and function as a unit or system. Does not include flood prevention benefits from Washington Mountain Lake. 3/ Includes Pipelines, Intakes and Chlorinator, Treatment Plant, Storage Tanks. A-l . Recreation Benefits Recreation benefits were based on pool fishing only. Benefits were claimed at Washington Mountain Lake and October Mountain Lake. The rationale for including recreation benefits at Washington Mountain Lake is that the structure in its existing state does not store water permanently and will not until land rights (i.e., telephone cable relocation) have been com- pletely obtained. These land rights have been included as a project cost in the Benefit/Cost analysis. Benefits were calculated by determining annual user days expected at the sites and multiplying this figure by the appropriate value for this recrea- tional activity. The 1978 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Manage- ment indicates the average number of fishing user days annually supplied by 1 acre of open water in nonurban areas is 66.1. Actual figures for use at PL-566 projects east of the Mississippi River show this figure to be 67 user days per acre annually; in the northeast the figure is 173 user days per acre annually. For the Washington Mountain Brook sites a figure of 60 was used. When applying this number to acreages of open water at each site, the following annual use was calculated for each site. Site Washington Mountain Lake October Mountain Lake Acres 224 90 User Days 13,440 5,400 Dollar Benefits were calculated as follows Site Type of Fishery Washington Mountain Lake Cold & Warm Water October Mountain Lake Total Cold & Warm Water Value per User Day $5.25 4.50 Total User Days Value 13,440 $70,560 5,400 24,300 18,840 $94,860 Water Supply Benefits Municipal water supply is considered to be economically justified if it supplies water at no greater cost than the least expensive most likely alternative that would be used in the absence of the project. In the absence of the planned project there is no alternative which Lee and Lenox would likely pursue mutually, to develop a regional supply. A-2 Information provided by the town's consultants indicate that Lee would pursue a ground water alternative at Greenwater Brook and Lenox would obtain its supply by constructing a surface water reservoir at the Vahle site. The following table compares the costs of these alternatives with planned project costs. Average Annual Costs ' Lee Greenwater Lenox Total Brook Vahle Lee and Planned Ground Water Site Lenox Project Installation 158,960 152,050 311,000 271,110 Operation and Maintenance 258,000 78,900 336,900 151,100 416,960 230,950 647,900 422,210 1/ Amortized at 3 1/4 percent for 100 years - Price Base 1980. The difference between the least cost alternative and next least cost, most likely alternative is considered to be the net benefit. Net benefits result- ing from the above cost data are $225,690. Land Rights Costs A. October Mountain and School house Lake Land necessary for October Mountain Lake is 120 acres and for School - house Lake 75 acres. Land rights costs for October Mountain Lake and School house Lake were based on opportunity costs which represent the value of benefits foregone through project implementation. Existing benefits which would be lost at these sites were (1) recreation use (a reflection of the amenity value), and (2) sustained timber produc- tion. Actual day use figures at October Mountain State Forest from 1970 through 1976 were used to determine an average annual recreation use of 2.72 user days/per acre. This use figure was then applied to acreages to be lost at each site and the annual value capitalized at 3 1/4 percent for the project evaluation period of 100 years. The value of a user day for hiking and nature study was set at $2.25, the maximum value based on Water Resources Council standards. This analysis indicated the lost value of recreation to be about $200 per acre. Sustained timber yield over the evaluation period was estimated to be 76.4 board feet per acre annually. Although this figure is double the present allowable cut according to the Massachusetts Division of Forests and Parks, indications are that with proper management, this A-3 goal will be reached in the future. The value used for timber har- vested was estimated at $65 per 1,000 board feet. The analysis was made in the same manner as that for recreation with the final result showing the value of timber lost to be approximately $145/acre. The resulting existing land rights value was estimated at about $345 per acre. B. Washington Mountain Lake The only remaining land rights cost at this site is for relocation of 3,100 feet of telephone cable. This relocation is necessary in order to facilitate the impoundment of a permanent pool for fishing. The cable is presently owned by the American Telephone & Telegraph Company. The most recent estimated cost for cable relocation is $200,000. C. Channel Work Land rights for the channel work consists of the fee simple purchase of approximately 2 acres (for sediment control facilities), and the purchase of construction and access easements (at each of the two facilities and at Mill Street) where channel work will be conducted. The estimated cost for fee simple purchase is $2,500 per acre or $5,000. The cost of easements is estimated at $500 each for a total of $1,500. Flood Damage Reduction Benefits With the exception of Mill Street road and bridge damage, flood prevention benefits claimed in Reaches 1 and 2 reflect only damage reduction upstream of the common flood plain of Washington Mountain Brook and the Main Stem Housatonic River. The decision to claim damage reduction for Mill Street was based on the fact that damages here are function of the high veloci- ties of Washington Mountain Brook and that with the project in effect these damages would be eliminated. Flood damage at the Mill Street bridge and adjacent road from the Main Stem Housatonic only, would be insignificant due to low velocities associated with backwater conditions. Damages by reach and type with and without project are shown on the following table. A-4 Q < CO UJ CD < SI < O Q O O O UI o o_ Q UJ o < CO \— I — I u. UJ 2: UI DO o h- o =3 Q UI CD < < 00 <+- 0) c CU 00 00 +j +-> cu CO o rO co to ra -a cu to c O) ra o o s- DO ro Z3 o c o +-> CD to rO «*o to a> CD rO E fO Q +-> O O a; o c Q_ rO +-> O 4-> U CU C. C ra +-> o 4-> (J a> s_ ■i— -a c u cu s_ •I— Q O <— ) CO «3- LO 00 LO rr» LO LO lo CD «3- «N a n A I— 1 CD i—l CM no C\J CO CO O OD t— 1 LO LO "3- #1 CO 1 — O O O O O rO CO "=3- CD 00 «3- lo CO CO CM ■=3" 00 +-> CO lo CM LO CM o cu s- +-> u cu S- ■f— Q CU Q. o CU a: O 00 o LO LO fO cu ■a to cu oc o o I— I lo A CO o CO o A 00 cu CD ■o •1— c. DO -o o O LO O CM O CM A LO CM O CO CM O O CO o CM O i—4 lo CM O O i—l IO A CM O CM LO O CD LO O CD cd CM o CM o o o r-. o LO CO A O co O CD O LO A LO o cd lo A CM CO O O i—l CM 1—1 CM 00 CM O O 00 co 00 r» O CM LO 00 o CD CO o co o LO LO +-> O O O O O O r~i LO CO CD r-^ ■=3- CD r-» CM LO CO r — at LO O r-^ r~^ O r^. co ■5f 1—1 A A « 91 A A f\ Q 00 1—1 cd CM I—l CM CO r-^ I—l CO 1—1 1-^ O O O O =d- «^- ^1- CM 10 r-. r^ r-. CO 00 CM O CO LO o co CM O CO CM A CM O O CO <3" 00 -=3- CM LO O O LO O CO o 00 LO o CD CM O O co CD A CD LO 00 O CM A LO OS +-> to C T- cu s- e -q •1- CU -O Q CU CO +-> -P •1- O 1— +-> •r- J3 +J =3 ZD CO «T3 -(-> C CU to CU CM CU CD •r- 03 S- CQ o3 -a to o +-> to C -r- cu s- E -Q •r- CU -0 Q cu 00 4~> +-> o +-> JD OO LO LO ro o -a fO S- CD 00 CD fa i- CU CU CD -o Z. CD. o cu cu > o JQ f0 cu ro +-> C O !^- 00 CU CD +-> 1—1 ro s c. cu o JD. +-> E cu cu O CD CU <0 Q E ra cu -a to ra to co cu -o CU Z3 a 1— ■1- o a. •— • CM A- 5 H oo o o o I— I I— <: _i _i ■=c i— oo c_> UJ ■"D O c£ o_ Q LU < _J O. CJ3 *— i t— i UJ to 4-> +-> C O c o cn to 03 03 O 1 -M 03 to i— O ^— O 1— 03 03 +-> c +-> to o O c •r— I— 1— 1 +-> S- 03 cu -M JZ O +-> to 1— O -a c =5 U_ to s~ -M 03 •r— O _l cc i +J to ■ o S- c_> cu c c o •i— •r— cn cn +-> C c 03 UJ •i— i — r— 03 1 +-> o to 3 £= t_ i — i +-> to z c o o •r- O 4J to -a 1— tO c 03 to z> -l-> LO u_ O | 1— _J to Q_ to LO 1 _J ,1 o_ ai -»-> CU to c o •I— o C7> cn c c c UJ •I— o •r - -•-> 1 fl3 o ^-* rs p— S- 03 4-> +-> to c: to c o c o ■H™ 1— < c_> 4-> UJ 1— o o o o o o o o o LO to o a A •V a o LO ro to o 00 r^ to CM 00 o ro o o 00 ro to 00 LO o o cn 00 00 CO 00 CD o o o O o o o O r^ o to A •\ A O ^f O O CM C\J CM LO LO o o o o o CM O O CT> #\ ro O O O cr« o CD to o o o o 00 t— 1 01 m ro cn to o 00 i— i a ■< LO r» o O o o CO 00 #» n CM Cn T— 1 to CM CM O O O O Cn r- «\ m CM CO *3" LO o o cn ro o o CO o o to CM A a to CO 00 oo 00 cn o o o o CTi <— i A m *d- to to LO cn 00 o o o o o o 00 to «st- #\ rt A o CO LO to LO to CO LO CO CM o o o o o o cn CO o A A A CM cn cn oo LO CO o o o o o o cn CO •3- A A A 1^. •3- to r^ cn CM CM «=i- CO LO o o oo A en CM o o CM 00 o o to A 00 cn o cu ^. i. 03 •> o _l CU CU 4-> E 03 T3 C 03 •i- £= 03 •r— _J ^— T™ 03 CU *- -l-> +-> C cu Q. O C C •i — J>i •i - r^ 03 =5 03 03 D_ JZ ■ — Jx£ o +J —J C_3 D_ C s: C if >» 03 3 CU r— OS +-> 1— c o to o Q- C j— o s: 13 3 Q. to CU CU 03 4-> o ZS CU E cn 4-> CD S- JZ r— OO -S^ 4J 03 O C cu 1— cu 03 03 S- 4-> •r— jQ o c S- 4-> ^ o JZ JC O o c CU C si 4J Z3 to +-> JZ 03 +-> i-h 1— o 00 A3 O o JZ 03 3 o oo CO 3 o o o o cn oo a A t— i O 00 1 — LO cn A A r— 1 cn O o o o 1—1 CM w\ A oo I — to r~». CM CO m a i—l 00 1 1 1 o o o o 00 to A A CO CO .—1 en CO LO #t I-H 1 1 c o •I— +J 03 t. 4-> to •r— E •r— OO E _l T3 < < h- o +-> 1— a CU Q ••"3 z: O < S- a: Q_ CD o 00 cn CM +-> C CU E CU 'CL Q. zs oo cu +-> •r— OO 03 C •^ cn •r— S- o +-> 03 T3 E^ &- zs o c •1— >> -a 03 g F^ 03 o 00 to cn +-> «— i to o cu o to 03 to CQ cu -a CU 3 CJ r— • r— O s- c o_ I— 1 CM A- 6 Project benefits and costs are displayed below using an interest rate of 7 1/8 percent. This is in response to comments during the EIS review period. Seven and one-eighth percent is the Water Resources Council interest rate which was in effect for FY 1980. The draft EIS was pre- pared in June 1980. DSts: ($) Initial Costs Average Annual Costs 1/ Flood Water Non Preventio n Supply Re creation Allocated :tober Mountain Lake :hoolhouse Lake iannel Work shington Mountain Lak( 1,006,800 1,238,400 420,600 200,000 13,830 41,500 29,950 35,600 27,040 43,470 8,650 11,750 iter Supply Facil ities 3 / 7,105,000 642,730 22,310 Total 85,120 96,720 29,950 22,310 642,730 Total mefits: ($) 9,970,800 85,280 721,800 49,350 20,400 876,830 October Average Annual Benefits Water Mountain School house Supply Channel Lake Lake Facilities Work Washington Mountain Lake Total ood Prevention ter Supply creation Total 2/ 24,300 82,780 991,630 70,560 94,860 t Average Annual Benefit: Plus 1,169,270 292,440 1/ Amortized @ 7 1/8 percent. The discount period is 100 years. Non- located costs represent costs of administration. 2/ The flood prevention and sediment control measures are interdependent, d function as a unit or system. Does not include flood prevention benefits tun Washington Mountain Lake. 3/ Includes Pipelines, Intakes and Chlorinator, Treatment Plant, Storage nks. A- 7 Net Employment Employment resulting from the project has been calculated in regards to construction only. Detailed analysis of bid schedules for project mea- sures indicates that approximately $900,000 of construction costs will be associated with labor. At an average annual wage of $18,000 this translates into about 50- man-years employment resulting directly from project construction. Secondary Benefits Secondary benefits were not used for project justification and are not included in Benefit-Cost analysis tables in this report. These bene- fits represent both indirect and induced effects of the project. In- direct effects are the increased net returns which result from economic activity stimulated by production, utilization, and disposition of intermediate goods or services created by the project. Induced effects are increased net returns which result from economic activities stimu- lated by consumer spending or wages and income earned from direct and indirect activity created by the project. The most accurate method commonly used for estimating secondary benefits is through an input- output analysis. This analysis determines how business activity in any form generates other business activity. Because of the time and expense involved in developing this type of analysis for a specific location, an analysis is not available for this particular watershed. However, as a general rule, based on other study areas and projects, the Soil Conservation Service estimates that secondary benefits will equal approximately 10 percent of flood prevention and recreation direct primary benefits or $16,600. This figure represents only an approximation of business activity stimulated by the project. A-8 SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN #4 for the WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED Berkshire County, Massachusetts June 1980 A-9 WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN AGREEMENT NO. 4 between the Town of Lee Local Organization Berkshire Conservation District Local Organization Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (Formerly Department of Natural Resources) Local Organization Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Local Organization (hereinafter referred to as the Sponsors) Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Soil Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the Service) Whereas, the Watershed Plan Agreement for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, executed by the Sponsors named therein and the Service, became effective on the 1st day of April 1969; and Whereas, Supplemental Watershed Plan Agreements No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, executed by the Sponsors named therein and the Service, became effective on the 31st day of December 1969, the 16th day of July 1971, and the 18th day of May 1973, respectively; and Whereas, in order to carry out the watershed plan for said watershed, it has become necessary to modify said Watershed Plan Agreement, as supplemented; and A-10 Whereas, it has been found necessary to modify the watershed plan as supplemented by: changing the storage volumes, multiple-use, and allocation and sharing of costs for the Schoolhouse Lake Structure (Site 4); changing the management of the water supply storage in the October Mountain Lake Structure; substituting sediment control facil- ities (debris basins) for the streambank protection measures in Reach 3; and to reaffirm the economic feasibility of the project; and Whereas, a Supplemental Watershed Plan which modifies the watershed plan dated August 1967 for said watershed has been developed through the cooperative efforts of the Sponsors and the Service; which plan is annexed to and made a part of this agreement; Now, therefore, the Sponsors and the Service hereby agree upon the following modifications of the terms, conditions, and stipulations of said Watershed Plan Agreement, as supplemented: 1. Paragraph numbered 1 is modified to read as follows: The Sponsors will acquire with other than PL-566 funds, such land rights as will be needed in connection with the works of improvement. These costs will be borne by the Sponsors as follows: Works of Improvement Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (percent) 100 100 Town of Lee (percent) 100 100 100 Estimated Cost Washington Mountain Lake October Mountain Lake Schoolhouse Lake Channel Work Water Supply Pipeline (dollars) 270,550 37,200 23,200 7,200 2/ 1/ 1/ Includes $70,550 expenditure at completed site. 2/ Assumed to be on existing rights-of-way. The Sponsors agree that all land acquired or improved with PL-566 financial or credit assistance will not be sold or otherwise disposed of for the evaluated life of the project except to a public agency which will continue to maintain and operate the development in accor- dance with the Operation and Maintenance Agreement. A-ll 2. Paragraph number 3 is modified, except with respect to the Washington Mountain Lake Structure, to read as follows: The percentages of construction costs for structural measures to be paid by the Sponsors and by the Service are as follows: Works of Improvement Massachusetts Estimated Water Resources Town of Construction Commission Lee Service Cost (percent) (percent) (percent) (dollars) Schoolhouse Lake Intake October Mountain Lake Chlorinator-Intake Channel Work Water Supply Pipeline 47.6 52.4 840,000 100 53,000 61.5 38.5 643,900 00 53,000 100 291,200 100 534,000 3. Paragraph numbered 4 is modified, except with respect to the Washington Mountain Lake Structure, to read as follows: The percentages of the engineering costs to be borne by the Sponsors and the Service are as follows: Works of Improvement Massachusetts Estimated Water Resources Town of Engineering Commission Lee Service Cost (percent) (percent) ( percent) (dollars) Schoolhouse Lake 47.6 52.4 100,800 Intake 100 6,350 October Mountain Lake Present Structure 43.7 56.3 74,200 Original Structure 15.2 84.8 38,000 Chlorinator-Intake 100 6,350 Channel Work 100 34,900 Water Supply Pipeline 100 67,300 4. Paragraph number 5 is modified to read as follows: The Sponsors and the Service will each bear the costs of Pro- ject Administration which it incurs, estimated to be as follows: Massachusetts Water Resources Commission $28,600, town of Lee $119,600, and the Service $374,100. A-12 5. Paragraph numbered 6 is modified to read as follows: The Sponsors will be responsible for the operation, mainten- ance, and replacement of the works of improvement by actually performing the work or arranging for such work in accordance with agreements to be entered into prior to issuing invita- tions to bid for construction work. These responsibilities are as follows: Works of Improvement Sponsor All Multiple-Purpose Structures Massachusetts Water Resources Commission All Water Supply Facilities Town of Lee Channel Work Town of Lee 6. Paragraph numbered 7 concerning operation and maintenance of the water supply facilities is now included in the preceding paragraph numbered 5. 7. Paragraph numbered 8 is modified to read as follows: The Sponsors agree that the municipal water supply storage will be withdrawn from October Mountain Lake and used for municipal water supply only during the months of December through March, until such time when the local demand for water increases to a level which warrants a change in management to allow year-round use of the water supply storage. Continued recreational use of the reservoir is assured by the town of Lee, as the municipal water will be appropriately treated. The watershed areas and reservoirs of October Mountain Lake and School house Lake will be managed in accord with appropriate public health regulations. A separate agreement will be entered into between the Town of Lee and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management on an exchange of values for dedicated forest lands utilized for municipal water supply. 8. Paragraph numbered 14 is added to read as follows: This agreement will not become effective until the Service has issued a notification of approval and authorizes assistance. 9. The Sponsors and the Service further agree to all other terms, conditions, and stipulations of said Watershed Plan Agreement, as supplemented, not modified herein. A-13 10. Paragraphs numbered 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 remain unchanged, or as modified by previous supplemental agreements. These pro- visions are included here for clarity. 2. The Sponsors will acquire or provide assurance that land- owners or water users have acquired such water rights pur- suant to state law as may be needed in the installation and operation of works of improvement. 9. The costs shown in this agreement represent preliminary estimates. In finally determining the costs to be borne by the parties hereto, the actual costs incurred in the installation of works of improvement will be used. 10. This agreement is not a fund obligating document. Financial and other assistance to be furnished by the Service in carry- ing out the watershed plan is contingent on the appropriation of funds for this purpose. A separate agreement will be entered into between the Service and the Sponsors before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party. Such agreement will set forth in detail the financial and working arrangements and other con- ditions that are applicable to the specific works of improve- ment. 11. The watershed plan may be amended or revised, and this agree- ment may be modified or terminated, only by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. 12. No member of or delegate to Congress, or resident commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. 13. The program conducted will be in compliance with all require- ments respecting nondiscrimination as contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 C.F.R. 15.1-15.12), which provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimin- ation under any activity receiving federal financial assis- tance. 15. The Sponsors assure that comparable replacement dwellings will be available for individuals and persons displaced A-14 from dwellings, and will provide relocation assistance advisory services and relocation assistance, make the re- location payments to displaced persons, and otherwise comply the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui- sition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894) effective as of January 2, 1971, and the Regula- tions issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant thereto. The costs of relocation payments will be shared by the Sponsors and the Service as follows: Estimated Relocation Relocation Payments Sponsors Service Payment Costs (percent) (percent) (dollars) Relocation Payments 45.3 54.7 l/ 1/ Investigation has disclosed that under present conditions the project measures will not result in the displacement of any persons, business, or farm operation. However, if relocations become necessary, relocation payments will be cost-shared in accordance with percentages shown. A-15 TOWN OF LEE • Title ( ,ir { t A ^rn tt 1 */ L— Address Date h*^~ Kfr WC^ C;lfti lM i. -? o Zip Code c. The signing of this agreement was authorized by a resolution of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Lee adopted-act a meeting heTd on ^b^ffa ^,0 19*7 ? ) /^J 2 J 0~/T~'^ / J ^jjdSd. Address /% Date ^iaA 0~)C Zip Code f BERKSHIRE CONSERVATION DISTRICT By D ~LP r&--ut SS X-t,A_^\>t- - Title .SfS .'!. Address (^sLtgpt- Rws.tA*^ tT>1 . +-> O) CO o 03 to CO 03 ■a a» .c to i- cu ^ +-> 1—1 03 *- o o i~ CQ 03 c O c o Cn c •r- to 03 to i_ 03 O Q 1 +-> o CD o 8 o O o O 03 to o O o o O o o r— O C\J CO o CO o CO CO — H i — 03 r>. ro •ct- CO o r-~ CM o 03 -M C i — i cn UD co CM CM CM LO 4-> tO O CM r~^ cn ro r^ r- LO CM O C -r- a A 1 — •— • -1— > oo ■3" o o o o o o O O r- i_ LO o o o C3 LO O LO rc OJ LO «3- 1 — 1 CM O CM CM «tf" to +-> -C -a O 4-> r-s. I— 1 o r^. O UD 00 «^" c h- O o r~- r-* CM r-« *tf- CM zj LO «=J- ^i- r-^. i— i . — 1 CO u. CM CM S- CO o O o O O O -CZ "O .c LO O o o i LO 1 LO +J c en LO CM CM CM i ! 1 1 1 — 1 o 03 -r- t* r. m A n #1 _j a: o 1^. ro r-- 00 CO 1 CM CO CM CO CO CO ro -M to O i CD CO c CD o O o o O o c o o CD o o •r— •r— 1 CM cn i O r-4 1 r— 1 4-> en en 1 A *i i «\ »» 1 M 03 c c CO r*> o vo VO r— LU t- CO <^- CO UD "^ to i cm sz cj o o o CD O o ►—1 Z5 o o o O O o S- o o o O o o +-> ft ft A i «s * 1 #> to c r^- CO cn i o CM 1 CM c o ro Cn cn CD O o o o O o to C O o cn CTi 1 CO i oo O *!"■ ft A «s A 1 »l i #t CD cn en o *d- CM *^" 1— 1 r— 1 c c r^. r-* LO ro CO CO c LU -r- CM rM o •r— ^■S* +-> 1 CM fO u O O O o O CD r— zj LO O O o LO LO r— s- CO CTi O CM r^ r-^ 03 +-> A a A #> 1 *» i A +-> to c CT> r*«. I— 1 .— t 1 OM i cn to c o CO «tf" *3" CTi i— I r— 1 cr O T- CO CM <^- CM CO CO i— t O -M A rt .—1 r-H 0) ^i l_ 03 « o c -J CD C O) Q. O +J c •r— J^ ■i" r*~ to 3 03 _j CJ c s: c -V >> •r— % zj ai L. r-^oC E _J c o to O Q. r— •o < s: o s: rs 2 CL tO 03 < I— LU +-> o 3 0) +J o h- en j_ JZ r— to -s«£ O 4-> h- ►— ( sz a; r— ai 03 +J u •r— JD O c S- +-> -Q 2: to +j -C 03 +J t— 1 CO O < 03 u a -C 03 i- cc 12 o to o 3 Q_ CD o 00 cn c r 7> CM * o +-> c a> E O) Q. Q. =5 CO CD +-> ■r~~ CO 03 a --^ Cn "a -r- cd s- 4-> o CD = r— CL 4-J E 03 O U "O CD S- 13 C CD S> 4-> U rj i_ CO T3 03 CD CD S- t_ r— . rs 03 cn 4-> r^ t- to CTi T3 4-J r- < C to a) o - C£ < 4-> y ■♦-> X! 00 3 o o z ct io < T3 X s: oo A h- T3 CO Ol o x: (_> to »■«. L. rH o - o o < L. t_> OS o -J c ^ ITS ■»-> 1- C eo 3 O O o 1 c o < 4-> CM en c UJ «^- _J sz CO CO < > l_ cu Q- J-> CX 'tj 3 j: CO i a> i_ c <-> o CU *^- a: 4_> i c "O c o O) o Le.Q-.t-> TO -t~> o >, t- O) Q. *J ex TO 3 "* co 1 TO a> c_ c u o cu •r— C£L -i-J i -o a) o > c o o o r— i_ 'r~ Li_ a. 4~> o 1 TO ai t, C u o ai ■f— ca -4-1 i cr ■o CD o > d o aj o r— i- ■r- U- O- ■>-> TO •4-> o ■M Q. to 3 3 CO OJ C cz D o ai •r— a: ■»-> i T3 c: O CD o r— U ■f— Ll_ o. +-> o en CO o en o o o on cr. «3- o m O en co CTi O o en CM M ro CTi CM O O o o CM r-. en o o 00 CO O O CTi CM c o cu CD rt> C _1 01 C 3 2; O r> 1— ^ «M * I r^ r-. «^- O O CTl 1 n 1 r^. m «y O *»■ r- O * * CO r^ en VO ro 1 — 1 VO r— i » a> •-H 3 O rs O «3- ro » p 00 eo f—4 VD 1— t - o o CM o o «3- *3- o CO 00 en ro o en 00 CM O O O O CT> CM n o CM on UJ eo O CO en n eo en O O ro ro CTl o en 00 •t en PO ro o ro CTl CM o CO CM eo S_ ro o 2: o o CM CD O eo CTl en O O ^o CTl en O o en •» ro CTl o o eo CM CO CTi «— » m * ro eo CTl CM «3- ro O O O c ro tk ** ** ro eo ro CTt ro O O CTi w> 1 r~. 1 en *r o o o o CM o o o o CM o o o en cu 3 o o o ai -C ^^ n CO —I o o ro ro ro u o ai c: c: 3? Q. O 3d) a. +-> <— t) •— c x: IS O. ■— • C_) o o o en en 00 ro O O en en CTi ro O en CO CM CM O en CM M O CM O en en en en o en 00 en O CO CTi CM CTi O O O 00 I — CM o en p^ ro en O CM 00 o o CO p-~ CM ro CTi p~- CTi OJ 00 ro CO QJ U !_ CL. O A-29 TABLE 3 - PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE DATA (Revised) for the SCHOOLHOUSE LAKE FLOODWATER RETARDING AND WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR Washington Mountain Brook Watershed, Massachusetts Schoolhouse ITEM UNIT Lake (Site 4) Class of Structure Drainage Area Curve No. (1-day) (AMC II) T C Elevation Top of Dam Elevation Crest Emergency Spillway Elevation Crest Low Stage Inlet Maximum Height of Dam Volume of Fill Total Capacity Sediment - 100 Year Accumulation Beneficial Use - Recreation Beneficial Use - Water Supply Floodwater Retarding Surface Area Beneficial Use Pool Retarding Pool Principal Spillway Rainfall Volume (areal) (1 day) Rainfall Volume (areal) (10 day) Runoff Volume (10 day) Capacity-Single Stage (Max.) Frequency Operation-Emergency Spillway Size of Conduit Emergency Spillway Rainfall Volume (ESH) (areal) Runoff Volume (ESH) Type Bottom Width Velocity of Flow (V e ) Slope of Exit Channel Maximum Water Surface Elevation Freeboard Rainfall Volume (FH) (areal) Runoff Volume (FH) Maximum Water Surface Elevation Capacity Equivalents Sediment Volume Retarding Volume c sq. mi. 3.27 68 hrs. 2.4 ft. 1 ,713 ft. 1 ,708 ft. 1 ,694.0 ft. 63 cu. yd. 155 ,000 ac. ft. 1 ,304 ac. ft. 35 ac. ft. -- ac. ft. 620 ac. ft. 649 acres 39 acres 55 in. 6.3 in. 16.0 in. 8.2 cfs 146 % chance lo i— i 00 in r»» ^ ^- cn r^ CO o A * A * A m A * ■ 1— LO CO **• T— 1 co r^ 1— 1 «tf- cn CM co CM oo vo +-> u i- c +-> o cu s- CO 2^ '•v. «=t t— 1 1— oo co UJ UJ C3 "O < o s* o: < q. Q Q Q LU O z o 2= _l < u_ _l Q_ —J < s: ZD o 2T oh 2: u_ UJ «=C CO co 2T z o 1— 1 1— « 2T h- i— i o < ro s: Q LU UJ C£ q; 1 UJ CD Lf> < UJ CD to =3 JZ o 03 to to 03 to 01 jr to &_ a> *—. +j to 03 s- s 03 J^ r— O O O CO J- ^— ' CO 03 +J c o c o 4-> CD c JZ to 03 to OJ cn| to E 03 a 03 o +J +-> o O u cu o u o_ o +-> o cu s- 03 ■«-> O +J u cu J- TO e u cu J- cu q. >> o 03 O) a: o o o r^ cn cm o o o r-» oo «* cn co o co CM CM O O O CM O OO O o LO LO CM O cn o o CM O CM CO O LO o o o ^O N 00 ^- Cn N o o CM i— t cn i— to 03 -i- •i- i~ +-> CO C CU oS ■a •r- TO tO 03 f— I CM cr> CM o CM CM o o LT> O l^» t-H o o o CM o CO o co o o r— o CO CM O O O l— I Lf) r— I r^ t-H ko CO CM cr> cn o o o CO O r-^ lo cri r>» cr> CM cr> o CD o o o o o o O CM CM (T> ^f CO Lf> m LO *? 1—1 UD r— 1 UD CTi O m co o cr> o o co co r-~ t—i LO CO o o o O r»» lo CTi CO «3r *% * 0* i— i i—i co o o O O o o O 1—1 CM cr> LO CM cn o 00 CM LO "St- CO UD LO r. €% a m ^t «s»" LO o o LO o o o r^» cr> ^o CM «3" ^~ o LO CM o CO LO o CO LO o LO CT> CM CO ©8 4-> c a> to E -r- •r- i_ ■o XI OO Q CO CM CJ CD ■a en LO CO >, 03 4-> +-> •i- o i— 4-> •i- JO +-> 3 ro oo 03 OJ TO ■r - CO CM •r- OQ CQ 4J ©3 "O 03 O OH a> to E i- •r- J^ •a jo ai cu O0 Q 03 +-> i— O >> 03 h- +J +-> •r- O TO r— +J C •r- J3 03 r) oo co o co cn ai c -3 a» CD TO J- CQ o +-> S CU a> > o JO 03 03 2 o +-> i cn cu i^. cn en 03 <-> E 03 a> to to 03 to CQ CU TO CU Z3 CJ <— •r- O J- C Q_ I—. CM A-32 00 UJ en 00 < < en o en \- 00 en o u_ oo \- 00 o C_J 00 CO C3 en o 00 I — c en < s: o o I CO -J CO < CO +J 4-> cu CO JC u 03 CO CO 03 -o cu JZ CO s- cu +-> 03 o o s- CO 03 c o e o +-> c: CO 03 CO 03 o +-> •i- o 4- -t-> T- CU CO 4-> c o 03 CO cu ^ en i — ^j- 03 03 +-> S- rs co (U c o > e o < O C\J CO +-> CU c O) CO 03 rs C < oo 03 ■o £Z O a cu 00 ID +-> 03 cu S- o cu on 03 >, a. i- r— •■- cu Q- U •<-> Q. •r UJ 3 c s 00 c o CU -r- 03 U E rs r- 03 "O U_ Q CU cc: ■o o o 4-> •r™ C o •p— 03 Z3 03 > O o oo OvJ CO o *vt- LO OO o o oo OvJ o OvJ oo o o CO o o o o oo r. CT> CO _1_ CO cu rs CO 03 CU 03 i_ rs +-> u rs l_ -p oo cu 03 OS -t-> rs o c o en c CO 03 CU 03 CU CO rs o j= o o JZ o 00 cu 03 03 +-> tz rs o S- cu jo o +j «_) o i- o cu c c 03 jz c_> oo oo cu s- c o •I- +J i— 03 cu sr Q.T- •t- i_ ex o >>JT i— o Q.OQ rs OO CO cu i- J* CU 03 +-> +J 03 C LT> c o ■I— -(-> 03 S- CO < O CU •<—) o s- CU oo o o o o o CM CD cr> uo OvJ o o oo OvJ o •3- OvJ oo CO o o CO O o oo CTt CO 03 +-> O c 03 s- CJ3 03 ■a cu JC CO S- cu +-> 03 CU C o 00 CT> CU c rs -3 +-) CD S_ "4- 03 O E 4-> i. CO CU O +-> O 03 • CU CO i— i_ +-> 03 CD •I— 4-> 4- o c cu -l-> CU c: > cu • cu cu CO cu jr o •4-> C c •1— 03 o > X5 •r— i. CU >, 4-> cu CU JQ 03 oo u CU X +-> S- cu CU co o 4- o cu •1 — ^-^ u on r— TD -a CU r— ■a r— N 03 c "p— •r- +J 03 s ^- O 03 +-> C 03 CU o S- CU ■I— jr JZ 4-> CO CD +-> C •r— JD CU Li_ ■D > O CU cu • +J CU i_ OO o a. • +-> X ID cu cu xs >> o >v CO o J2 4-> r— CO -r- u_ CU +-> M- +-) •r— CU +-> 03 4- C o E O) cu cu ■!"■ C XI t- 4-> Q cu 03 r-~. CD+J CT) 4- • LD C O < — i o «- r^ •i- +J CT« c cu (— 1 •r- CU 00 c 1 — 03 JT 03 CU -Q e E P CO u TD o CU i_ I— s_ »- cu cu •a c o Q. E cu cu cu •r- O CO J= J= S- o i- 03 1— -u Cu 1— I u_ CO •^ >> >v^ *>» \ r— 1 l ^J oo «t LiO l» 03 CU CJ) A-33 AGREEMENT regarding LAND USE and WATER RIGHTS in the OCTOBER MOUNTAIN STATE FOREST j as it relates to the WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN BROOK WATERSHED PLAN AGREEMENT entered into this 30th d ay of June , 1980, by and between the TOWN of LEE and the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT of the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS: ! WHEREAS, the Water Resources Commission is about to enter into a watershed work plan agreement with the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America, and; WHEREAS, the Town of Lee and the Department of Environmental Management are desirous of reaching certain understandings with respect to the exchange of rights to water supplies and compensation for loss of acreage of dedicated land; THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Neither party will enter into a project agreement to further carry out the works of improvement in the Washington Mountain Brook Water- shed Plan until appropriate changes in the authorizing legislation have been made. 2. The Town of Lee shall have the exclusive use of the Schoolhouse Lake Site including a protective zone around the reservoir for water supply. 3. The Town of Lee will assign all rights to Finerty Pond and its water- shed to the Department of Environmental Management. 4. If Schoolhouse Lake is not developed for water supply, all rights to Finerty Pond will revert to the Town of Lee and all rights to School- house Lake will revert to the Department of Environmental Management. 5. Enforcement of public use restrictions related to water supply will be the responsibility of the Town of Lee. A-34 6. If the Town of Lee requires additional water for its municipal water system, the Town may utilize for its municipal water supply October Mountain Lake and compensate the Department of Environmental Manage- ment as follows: a. If the water supply storage is used only during the period from December through March to replenish storage in the primary reservoirs, no compensation will be made. b. When October Mountain Lake is used on a year round basis, the Town of Lee will replace the acreage of dedicated land lost as a result of the water supply storage by providing the Department of Environmental Management with an additional 34 acres of land or providing monetary compensation not to exceed the sum of $10,540.00. Richard E. Kendall Commissioner, Department of Environmental Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Q>-,4... \ / 1^. i- vav^- John E. DeVarennes Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town of Lee, Massachusetts g/s*/?-* ?D Date Date A-35 WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT between the TOWN OF LEE, MASSACHUSETTS and the TOWN OF LENOX, MASSACHUSETTS This agreement is between the Town of Lee, Massachusetts and the Town of Lenox, Massachusetts. Both Lee and Lenox are faced with critical water supply shortages. Both Lee and Lenox recognize that a regional water supply utilizing the planned storage of the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project would be mutually beneficial. Therefore, both Towns agree to cooperate to develop a permanent regional supply based on the planned Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project. The Town of Lee agrees to supply the Town of Lenox with water from the Washington Mountain Brook Project in sufficient quantity to meet currently foreseeable needs. The methods and costs by which this water will be supplied will be mutually acceptable to both Lee and Lenox. The Town of Lenox agrees to work closely with the Town of Lee to develop a mutually acceptable method to obtain a permanent water supply from the Washington Mountain Brook Project. &3X([jl_ 11/26/80 DAVID W. PARKER, CHAIRMAN TOWN OF LEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GI TOWN OF LENOX DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A-36 *-3z5$ y (413) 549-1917 1413) 545-2S1D (413) 549-6442 isMes r &foifn&wweaUM' f iuAe//S' artment Of (onvironmental e^luautu (onaineerin "/ WESTERN REGION WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST mOQiZ October 21, 1980 Mr. Sherman L. Lewis State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service West Street Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 Dear Mr. Lewis: Re: Proposed Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project In reference to the proposed multi-purpose October Mt. Lake impoundment, which is designed to be used for water supply, recreation and flood control, I would like to call to your attention the following Massachusetts regulations concerning recreation: 310 CMR 22.20(7) "Drinking Water Regulations of Massachusetts" states that: No person shall wade or bath in any source of drinking water supply, and no person shall, unless permitted by written permit by the Board of Water Commissioners, or like body having jurisdiction over such source of supply, fish in, enter or go in any boat, seaplane, or other contrivance; enter upon the ice for any purpose, including the cutting or taking of ice; or cause any animal to go in or upon such source of water supply or tributary thereto. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Very truly yours, For the Commissioner, , t- Angelo I an to sea Regional Environmental Engineer AI:TMc:gl A-37 BDARD DF HEALTH TOWN OF LEE MASSACHUSETTS JanuaAy 7, 19S1 Ma. SheAman Lewtb State ConseAvationist Soil Conservation SeAvice West Stieet AmheAst, MA 01002 Re: PAoposed Washington Mountain PAOject VzaA Mft. Lewis; The Lee BoaAd oh Health has been asked to outline any AestAictions that would be placed on the. pAoposed School House and OctobeA Mountain wateA suppli , We wish to call youA attention to the. hollowing Angulations: I. Section 10 [a] - [i) Viinking WateA Regulations oh Massachusetts [copy enclosed) II. Forest HaAvest, WateA Supply and Wetlands laws a. General Laws, ChapteA 132, Section 40-46 FoAest PAactices Act 6. GeneAal Laws, ChapteA 45, Section 19 6 21 Town oa City FoAests c. GeneAal Laws, ChapteA 48, Section 16 Placement oh Slash d. GeneAal Laws, ChapteA 131 , Section 40 Wetlands PAotection Act e. GeneAal Laws, ChapteA 111, Section 167 S 169 CouAt Injunctions to PAotect Public Health [copies enclosed) III. Title 5, Regulation 3.7 [1), [2), [5) State Environmental Code specihies that no sewage disposal h^eility shall be placed within 100 tfee; oh any suAhace wateA supplies [AeseAvoiAs) oa tributaries to AeservoiAS, inclucr* open and subsuAhace dAains. [copy enclosed) IV. Commonwealth oh Massachusetts Manual oh Laws Relating to Public Health, ChapteA 111, Section 167 [copy enclosed) A-38 BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OF LEE MASSACHUSETTS Pago. 2 M*. Sherman Lewis January 7, 1981 We hurther Kequire the potting oh School House lake specihying no swimming, hithing OK boating, and that October Mountain lake, be potted specifying no swimming and the use oh internal combustion engines in ok on the lake be pKohibited. Fok any additional applicable state Kegulations concerning tiie pKotectlon oh ipublic water supplies, I suggest you contact the State VepaKtment oh Environmental \Quality Engineering in kmheKSt, 549-19 17 . y ours truly , j c/L^6l/M7X* Vk. ChaKles StKatton Chairman, Lee Board oh Health CS/pdc 2C: Lee VepaKtment oh Public WoKks Lee Selectmen TKi-Town Health Vept. Board oh Selectmen, Washington, MA VepaKtment oh Environmental Quality Engineering mcls : A-39 'SECTION 404' PERMIT PROGRAM U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS INTRODUCTION . For many years at the direction of Congress, the Corps of Engineers has been charged with various regulation responsibilities dealing with water resources. More recently, that responsibility has been expanded to include the "404 program" to restore and maintain water quality by regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material in all waters of the United States . (See glossary for definition of underscored terms) AUTHORITY . The basis for the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers' responsibility to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Section 404 of that Act charges the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material in the waters of the United States. Initially, the Corps of Engineers limited its regulatory authority under Section 404 to waters which are presently used, were used in the past, or could be used by reasonable improvements to transport interstate commerce. Limiting the Corps ' authority under Section 404 to navigable waters of the United States was successfully challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 27, 1975, the Court directed the Corps of Engineers to extend its responsibility to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material under Section 404 to all waters of the United States (including the territorial seas) and to revise its regulation accordingly. A proposed draft regulation was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1975, for comment, and an interim final regulation was published on July 25, 1975, and became effective on that date. Final regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1977 reflecting two years experience in administering the Section 404 program and the extensive public response received. Those final regulations include the entire regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. PURPOSE . The purpose of this program, which is part of the Corps of Engineers' overall regulatory authority, is to insure that the chemical/ biological integrity of waters of the United States is protected from the irresponsible and unregulated discharges of dredged or fill material that could permanently destroy or alter the character of these valuable resources. ACTIVITIES INCLUDED . Along with the discharge of material which has been dredged or excavated from any waters of the United States, the following additional types of activities will also be regulated by this program: site development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; dams and dikes; artificial islands; property protection and/or reclamation devices such as riprap, groins, seawalls, breakwaters and bulkheads and fills; beach nourishment; levees; sanitary landfills, and backfill required for the placement of structures such as sewage treatment facilitites. A-40 FARMING EXEMPT . The Section 404 permit program does not apply to normal farming practices such as plowing, cultivating, seeding, and harvesting. Nor does it apply to such farm and ranch conservation practices as terracing, land levelling, and the construction of check dams unless they occur in a water of the United States. However, damming of major streams, diking, and the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands associated with farm practices will require permits. NATIONWIDE PERMITS . For the purposes of Section 404, the following discharges of dredged or fill material are permitted by the July 19, 1977 regulations without the need to submit an application, provided certain conditions are met: Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal rivers and streams including adjacent wetlands above their headwaters (where the average annual flow is less than 5 cubic feet per second) . Natural lakes, including adjacent wetlands, that are less than 10 acres in surface area. Bedding and backfill for utility crossings, provided there is no change in precons true t ion ground elevations. Other construction fills, whether temporary or permanent, such as for construction access or cofferdams will require an individual permit. Bank stabilization fills less than 500 feet long, necessary for erosion prevention and involving less than 1 cubic yard per running foot, provided that no discharge occurs in any wetland. Minor road crossing fills involving less than 200 cubic yards of fill placed below ordinary high water and less than 100' intrusion of fill into any wetland measured from the ordinary high water line along either bank. Crossing must be bridged or culverted to prevent restricting high flows . Fills in tidal waters associated to with bridge construction including cofferdams, abutments, piers, and temporary construction and access fills; but not including roadway approach fills and causeways. Repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable fill, or of any currently serviceable fill discharged prior to the requirement for authorization; provided such repair, rehabilitation, or replacement does not result in a deviation from the specifications of the original work, and further provided that the fill to be maintained has not been put to uses differing from uses specified for it in any permit authorizing its original construction. A-41 Water quality and coastal zone management certifications must be obtained before such discharges can occur, however. And the Division Engineer may still require an individual to submit an application for a particular discharge falling within one of these exceptions if he feels the interest of water quality requires it. WHERE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT . Application for a permit under this program should be made to Chief, Regulatory Branch New England Division Corps of Engineers 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Telephone 617-894-2400, Ext. 332 The New England Division is responsible for federal water resources development and regulatory functions in the six New England States with the exception of the St. Lawrence and Hudson River Drainage areas in western Vermont and along parts of the western borders of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Those are within the North Atlantic Division. Separate authorizations required by state and local governments must still be obtained. Applications may be submitted for Corps of Engineers' permits at the same time you submit state and local applications. In many instances this will save you considerable time. HOW APPLICATIONS ARE PROCESSED . A public notice is issued on each permit application. Substantive comments received from interested individuals, groups, or government agencies are furnished the applicant for his rebuttal. Often a public hearing will also be held before the Division Engineer issues or denies a permit. Major controversial cases may be referred to higher headquarters for a decision. CONSIDERATIONS . In evaluating a permit application, the Corps of Engineers will thoroughly analyze the impact of the proposed activity on the public interest including water quality. The benefits which may accrue from the proposal will be weighed against any forseeable detriments, and a permit will be issued only when its issuance is found to be in the public interest. Contact with the Corps of Engineers should be made before disposal of any dredged or fill material. This could save considerable time and expense. A-42 YOU CAN HELP . The understanding and support of the American people is vital to the success of this program. In order to protect the quality of our water resources, including wetlands, we must all join in this vital effort. We ask your help in "passing the word" to others concerning the permit requirements outlined in this paper. GLOSSARY . Waters of the United States - all waters and their adjacent wetlands including tidal waters, lakes and ponds, rivers and streams, and isolated wetlands. Dredged material - material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United states. Discharge of dredged material - any addition of dredged material into waters of the United States including the runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area. Fill material - any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing the hottom elevation of a waterhody . Discharge of fili materia l - the addition of fill material into waters of the United States. W etlands - those areas that are inundated or saturated hy surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, hogs, and similar areas. NOTE : Copies of the complete regulations of the Corps of Engineers' permit program are found in the 19 July 1977 Federal Register available from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402. A-43 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY Summary - Bent hie Survey A 200 foot reach was cordoned off at each station for the fishing survey. Prior to electrofishing, benthic samples were obtained in midstream at the 50-, 100- , and 150-foot points along the sampling reach. Samples were obtained using a one square foot Surber Sampler with a net mesh of 571 u. All stones within the grid were scraped using a fine brush and putty knife, and the bottom was stirred using a hand garden fork. Nor- mally the bottom consisted of large rocks overlain by a thin coat of gravel and larger stones. Therefore, the effective sampling depth was quite shallow, certainly no more than 3 or 4 inches. Exceptions to this procedure occurred at Station 8, where a 100-foot reach was surveyed, with samples at 0, 50, and 100 feet; and at Station 8a, where t£e sub- strate was silt. At 8a, a Peterson Grab with an area of 213 cm effec- tive to a depth of approximately 2 cm was used to obtain three samples at 50 foot intervals. These samples were sieved in the field through a #30 standard sieve (590 u aperture). Samples obtained from the Surber Sampler were transferred directly to 5 percent formalin without further sieving. Upon returning to the laboratory, all samples were sorted in shallow white enamel pans and the animals removed. Even though three samples were collected at each station, only two samples were counted. All individuals in each sample were identified using Pennak (1953), Edmondson (1959) or Usinger (1956). No attempt was made to refer to more recent monographs. B-l in r- CTv (U ■j- (0 p 10 (fl 0) •H O D. W CO 3 c <1) o 333 73 73 73 id id id 73 73 73 CU CU CU •H -rl -rl M-l >4-l U-l -H -H -rl P c 73 73 P i-l 3 73 — id P — i-i 3 • 73 El "i 03 ~ C3 R, g o x: c -Li E O >o, h -C g a. +j li — Cj ex a 03 sl G r^ i-J Cj, a a -W 03 I--i Cj 03 -« px, n< x: a — £ j3 >. a c E — - >, • c a~ 0) . a 03 sl c- K O >L a. x: a -. ~ — £ x: £ x >, a a a c E £ £ • c c c cl — — — 03 IB to O CJ 03 . a a e 03 >i r» G »- T-~i f-> a Cfi to SL 3! 03 fc -^ Q) -Li a. o G ii, •t-> 03 CB E a^ o vi +i J J a .-x c o i--i SL G -o J, s; ft, to a el, 03 03 st; — » o ^. O -J 03 Cj ,3 O -W "G CO 0) Co 03 £ — x: x: a E & >i c c ~- CJ id CU (U id > (-I O H 0) m a a -a c .-. id CU ,d --. CU > (!) CU ■d a 3 a •a ~ c id > > tj El il) 03 0) c o c CD -Li D 02 > (0 1-1 1-1 )-l > m !3 • r~\ u c n Id la > H El, *—•* *z r-l ^1 H m u — ' 03 A ^" " ■ — J H rfl • • — ' El ^-* H D, C3 a, • . '■3 -— ' CO j5J 03 • a a T> • *J a 03 03 rv 0) Si. Cfl S3 « CO •H 03 ^ 03 s; c a ^S 1XJ o ^ij o H +3 I-O s; •H a »> '0 Sl, <3 CJ «-s 4J %, 03 ■i^ -Li t-i >L| Cu c^ C S El a CJ 33 -Li CJ o > O i ttl •5 o o a ■a s t--i a, v~i -Li ^53 ■•-I •ci "y 0) a. o •<^> a c 4S 33 r*» , ^ ca '0 Cu 5 a r o a; O c> >; R. ^ a- 03 a 03 G E O 03 o CQ CO cu >d > -d d) H rd -^ > 1j • m a CO CU a 3 a — r. 3 T> U -H t) g ~ *- u CJ o ^ t--i S Co CJ . .c a CJ CO oo a §■*£ CJ ii, •ri O r-i -Li 03 CJ EC fel . n ElCJ CC -H M-l •^> -p K C o cu 05 T3 E ■"< •tJ £ Oj D CU id > --» i-i cu « > — Vl id tj -H > -w n Vi G Id Id CT3 .-( ,-! C» — — VS cu > — l-l cu id id ^ > — u cu id a 3 a "J T3 •d C > id M ^. id cu cu r-H id id — > > i-i >-i -^ rH id Id 03 C^. a 03 a 03 E^ • G 0; Pl, E3 o; *^- G E G H -Li CJ R, G O CO H •« rC a: ^c ^; -H T3 X) C CU CU O H H CT> <*-! >»-l O -H -H a -u +j o c c •P cu cu ,d TJ t> U -H -^ CU c c U3S 03 K 0) O ."X .-^ •r» •r^ -' -IT K Cj 'j -W a 3 R, r - •-3 •tJ ft. 5: B U3 D O D < O o PS CQ CU id c ■H cu •H n cu S-l c n) 3 ■H c cu c •H c OJ r-H o CP Ij 1-1 o cu o tn ft < H QJ id CJ C id •M c TJ •H CJ •H a a •H T) H c

l-i Id o O O H O ■H C £ 1 £ 3 4J ■M r-l r-< -u fd U g E rH 1-1 U a .— i c 3 id •H en CJ cu cu id ft U J o J H ft ft ft CO m id i O r-H H ft ft 3, x u ft id u cu +j a o n cu E cu x; a u cu o id , x 2 cu 01 id id 73 73 •H -n E x; id V >, (fl a a o o rH i-i •rl 73 r >i ft ■x. CJ CJ id id id CU CJ 73 73 73 id id CU •H ■-H •H 73 73 id M -U r. cu •H ■H ■a -P id u 7] rH Lj ■H c e >, 73 •rl CJ u cu o (fl ■H £ u cu m a C a > O cu id d J-l 43 [fl o £ 73 a c ■1^ u to •rl a ■rl 2 3 a 3 r-l cu E •» cu rl H o io rH j o -J ca 'J X ft w id rl cu •M & x; o •H rl En id 73 •H rH 3 a •H Eh CJ ID id ■d •rl CU c id id o cu 73 73 CJl Id H •h 73 E c an O O r| •P rH o c . o cr> id 3 u rl S -H „cuh x: u w o 2 id M rl cu CJ •p ■P a id a O rl o 73 CU cu •rl P i-i a a o CU -r| o J Q 2 M CJ H EH 2 CJ co w Eh ft O Eh CO M < ci LH CQ Eh id ■d id •H P CU rl CU id 73 id id cu •r| rH x; o O id rH u id c p (fl CU o p £ u [fl XI C31 in O 1J 3 rl -r, 3 3 [fl H 3 rH rl rl c CJ Eh o u < M x: en cu x: p c •r| id E 73 rH Id o CU 73 a x; H o >. -H r| P CU id C 5 rH C rl ft < «< B-2 *— % *-*. flj *— ^ Q : S M § U > o .— ■9 n) fl h * (D > > rd > o rd fd — rd U M H H iH rd ft , — , — - w . v.. H co a, — * tr . . to • rjj CO fx tx a, • rd V to to -^ to Cs ^^ *~~ ^-* ft to t>. to > > (/> »— v- to ^- r>. u U k ^-» OJ •t-i ^~ m rd rO T3 •H « a s to •-{ •-i H 0) ro cu U s^ ?h tj s a *-> — ' » — ■H T> -M cn cx> -a TJ TI C ^ ?! 1^ tl S TJ T> T3 •H C -H H to D O D o ra z H IS rH § to 0) (0 c •H i ■H fi DC O D o s § H O Z H K w I b Q M H h H z Q H 00 8 ra w I u H B Z u CQ M to H u -a o to to rd iH u CO rd -o ■H c •H » M o (U fi rd .* A c ft D CO rd § -a o u 0) 4J C) 33 rd -O a >i u 1 X! Cu rd O a B-3 m vo ih •sf CN HHCOHroiO'jinNr-oooOMH'fl'J'MfHnnmifonomm^i'iHn^oiOMciOMjir- H^nHHlOiflNHON CO O n <& CN CJ1 rH O CN rH CN *!• CN w 1-1 ex to « s w CO o 2 H to D Q 13 o CD 00.1 III I I I I I I I I I ml I "» I I I iH I rtll I O rH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I |. Illllllllimeir-IIH I I I I "3" r- III I I I I I I l l l I i I I I I I I I I rH CN iH I I vO r-l IIOIII I I I I rH CN V0 iH I I I rH CO rH o o § Eh O w o 3 IX CO W CO o o a. D o. CO w o m (X M CO < EH 2 r- * O s B O Eh CJ 2 M X CO < « c > O CO < 2 p < o a 3 B 2 H 2 W > CJ o M B 2 CJ 03 CO Eh Eh J CO P D CO gs M . K -. Eh Eh fa o O Cu CO 3 CO Ol CO cu 2 O CN u CQI j n I f o rt h i i i i co i tj 1 CO I CO «* | I rH | in i I i I rH I I I I I CO I I IrHvOl ICNI rH CO CN rH I I | I I I I I 3Q| COIIIIIIIICOIIIIrHICNrHrH IIIIICN1 ex & rH rH) -4h ^^» ^_ t s_* CO . . . ■,J (X CXJX rCl t/j co co >1 rH >1 ce S £ H "" "" D, to CX SXx « ca • CO co coa; TJ a> rH aj CO r% CO • r-J F C-^ f7l D -a ■ CO ■H h U •H 0> CX c rC a to r^i • SX,^ W v — •H r^i -H C'j ,c u « w HH 4-> •H Cj § !0 t-i o'C >J a Cj -^ MH (3 •,J MH CX H ■H >. M 03 a & 3 g CO is ■Ut^ O •H E ~ -H a S5 Sd u 4-> £ -i £ -^ cs 03 r-j ^ CX SX y 3 4-1 03 cx -t J H CO +i « u c O E o E CX a 5 C 0) to tj Q O^ a K c ^ CX O V ex 0) r- 3 ra o O cm s; w E •fr* 1-1 Sn tj "C 03 § CO 03 « O CB ^ CO •o w J U g -i^ -w §s cd ca +s a -w s<-» -a (3 T3 E sx t-> S •H E O r^S O rC V X K Ctt -H ta ^> ' H •ri c • § • •ri CO 03 -e « CO ex a « tS CO I- ■c ■M rC c -^ ."Sl'ri.-'S P Cu iX fi. tO, l-H CX CX ^ H c*i cq tx H "— "* <-— X c^. ~-. ^ rH a ». r~* *~* . rH Q) — ■p ^H DiH °<~ ^ ' rH rH «o cxd d . . CO -^ CX CX ,r^ ,— I »— * *-^ -»^ im* ^ ^. rH •-* H rH fj. . CX CX CX 3. x7 rH rH --- — 1 03 . ex 05 CO CO ^- to CO 01 • • a, CO ^- rs; cx cx ■0 w w a «S cd CX . C3 a « U « O CO CO •H X • T) T3 CO CX » » -U HJ r-J O tl3 CJ M a s e 35 e 03 CX-H •H CO ^~ E Q k 8 B ti rH .H CN +i CO rH rH a »-» is JX « 03 CO r, CX - ^ "t- 1 •vl U =* =«= CX 3 3 E « !J »>H^.H-i O co O O Ci St, S a to to cx K O 3 E E Q*'!> rC O O O 4-> TD X) "\j r-i -r4 •rJ -P CJ &. CXt-i 1-3 -vi X co rov-i O co CO rH -r4 ■H -fl 3 CO W t5 O 03 O -ri •<-> CX O O O <-3 HJ E r: J G ci CX CX H+SrS.' 03 CO CO CU V-J f^ 03 1) •<■» •3 "3 rH rH 03 -ri • • 03 K HJ fe; fX CX to. 5: y> <^j a; c«] to to < W ia i~a Eh [l, tu*^i; B-4 __ r~-or~oocTir~ir)iri^rrMinir)tN(N| co VO CN CT> <3* I 1 iO 1/1 CO Tf ! «3* ^r » Sn M tn Oi -H V) t) Hi o o arc s? cj W a a o o « « ft o o rH O H-i 05 CO 4-> -U o> "a o ix, <0 n5 ft ^ Sn o u )H ca • o i-* Ql 01 • 0} 'ri «3 u u ft ft< 5: to 01 ^_^ 10 ft rH ■H c rH rH -^ 01 CX rd •».• v_ * ( J •H 0) * %— ' ■0 4-> e Si, C4 a m . 05 • 01 ■rH H EX, Cx, • Eh Q U 05 CO 05 rx, rH rH rH TJ TJ c <3 "O cq Sn ^ iX « 01 01 0) a 0) 0) rp Oi CT> T3 Tj id T3 TJ TJ •H ■H rfl ■H •H ■H c C ft to to a: to X a s o P CO rJ o Eh 01 4-> rC (0 01 rH ex. > eg S (0 ex 3 f0 C H ex II II II II (0 C rH ex B-5 en oo r^ en 00 ml OfNOOOOOrHOOOfNOOrHO cn m cm \£> co in n o en in • • # • • • • ocNOOOOO'tfOOOinorHino in r- CTi rH Eh co D O D < CO w - Eh VJ _ < U 2 Eh tf H 2 pq D Cm U O TV H £ , CO X :6 < Eh 2 >— ' 2 O W H W PQ U w u 2 J 2 Cm h PQ < O K < Q CO H 22 CO Eh § S Eh CO w w X X 33 Eh U Eh < Cm W O Eh < a w Eh CJ 3 J o u m U) en vd ^r co <* m in ml m fN PQ x> m en OOOOOr-O^rHOOOrHOOO fN vX) fN ^r m oo UD OfNOOOOO^TOOfNOOOOOO fN o m vo r^ fN o OOOfN^TOOOOOOOfNO iH -h r- ■H P in cu fd ftf ft! TJ •h x: o ft! C •H rH ffl rd ■H 5H -P rd ns a u u OJ o -iua,ueaicua.ao --h-h (UOHrdCDOgOOtJrH^i XJCPXIl-I^HOCUOCU-H^D co x: -h -H a a e (iH O CO -H H U -H d Tj 3 -H g >, Q Eh O KUftWHUrlHW d) id O tj us d) rd 73 tP -H T) •H O T3 -H CJ Cm CO -H O O D^ U ■rH P -H CO fjl ft! rrj ,rj rrj U c. jC „q co co a, 2 U Eh CO B-6 TABLE B-4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY OF FINERTY POND ON AUGUST 7 AND AUGUST 21, 1975 Parameter August 7 August 21 Time of Day 1020 0815 Water Temperature (°C) 20.5 21.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.5 7.6 BOD (mg/1) 1 1 COD (mg/1) 2 20 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1) 22 20 Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 14 12 Turbidity (JTU) 6.0 2.5 Color (units) 30 20 pH 5.2 5.2 Nitrate Nitrogen (mgN/1) 0.00 0.45 Ammonia Nitrogen (mgN/1) 0.00 0.27 Total Nitrogen (mgN/1) 15.12 1.56 Orthophosphate (mgP/1) 0.00 0.16 Total Phosphorus (mgP/1) 0.08 0.16 Fecal Col i forms (MF/lOOml) Total Col i forms ( MF/lOOml ) 50 B-7 WILDLIFE CLASSIFICATION STATUS Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 there were no threatened or endangered species found in the watershed. In 1975-/ the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife developed an inventory of Massachusetts fish and wildlife resources. No species identified as threatened or endangered on this state list was found in the watershed. Two species were inventoried in the watershed which are believed to 1 / be decreasing in abundance in Massachusetts. -1/ These species are the: red shouldered hawk which is classified_/as having a statewide distribu- tion but is uncommon in relative abundance; and the eastern bluebird which has a statewide distribution and an uncommon to rare relative abundance. The possible reason for the population decline of the red shouldered hawk is indicated as pesticides.-/ The possible reasons for the population decline of the eastern bluebird are habitat decline, pesticides and competition for nesting sites. A study of red shouldered hawk nesting habits in the Quabbin Reserva- tion (Portnoy, 197*0 determined that they have an average hunting terri- tory of approximately 220 acres; nest in mature hardwoods, primarily black or yellow birch and nest sites are located on east or northeast slopes near open wetland. This study indicates that an apparent popula- tion decline of red shouldered hawks in the northeast may be due to habitat specificity and a sensitivity to human disturbance during this nesting period. An inventory of the beaver flowages in the watershed determined that there are presently two active flowages and 21 inactive flowages two of which have had very recent beaver activity as fresh beaver cuttings were found. Whether active or inactive the flowages all pro- vide some open wetland consisting primarily of fresh meadow and shallow marsh. With the planned project there would be one active flowage and 17 inactive flowages including the two where fresh cuttings were noted. At the present time there are an estimated 13 potential red shouldered hawk nesting sites in the watershed. With the planned project installed there would be an estimated 10 nesting sites. These sites would all consist of east or northeast facing slopes, are present within 90 feet elevation change of an open wetland, occur in close proximity to open wetlands, occur where preferred nesting trees are present, and are not adjoining a high use area by man. J/ An Inventory of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (Vertebrate) Resources by Paul S. Mugford, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Massachusetts, 1975- B-8 V The typical habitat—' of the eastern bluebird is open woods, swamps, rural roadsides, farmland and burned-over areas. In the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed there are idle fields near the lower elevation urbanized area, two small open fields in the state forest, an open area around the Washington Mountain Lake dam, dike, disposal area and emergency spillway, 2 active beaver flowages and 21 inactive beaver flowages (totalling approximately 11 4- acres), and several miles of under- ground cable and transmission line which provide a limited quantity of bluebird habitat. Completion of the planned project would result in reducing the existing open areas by approximately 21 acres which consists of 1 active and h inactive beaver flowages. Completion of the project would, however, create 29 acres of grassland as a result of seeding portions of the dam, the emergency spillway and disposal areas. With the project completed there would, therefore, be a net gain of 8 acres of open area which would be expected to benefit eastern bluebird if their other habitat requirements are also available. 1/ An Inventory of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife (Vertebrate) Resources by Paul S. Mugford, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Massachusetts, 1975- B-9 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Condensed from a report prepared by Mr. John Pretola, Professional Archaeologist INTRODUCTION Objectives The objectives of this archaeological survey were three fold: (1) to locate both prehistoric and historic sites of archaeological significance in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed; (2) to determine whether any of the sites were affected by the construction of the planned impound- ments; (3) to test excavate any possible endangered sites as a prelimin- ary to recommending such sites for salvage excavation. Survey Methods The techniques and methods utilized in the survey were systematic and involved the inspection of historical documentation showing the possible locations of historic sites in the study area. In addition, the office of the state archaeologist was consulted concerning possible prehistoric sites. Nearly a dozen local persons, historians, rangers, foresters and amateur archaeologists were interviewed concerning possible sites. These leads were followed up by surface inspection of likely looking places. The surface inspection proved to be the most difficult aspect of the sur- vey. Many of the sites occurred in spruce plantations or in areas of heavy brush. This cover made it difficult to locate surface artifacts. His- torical documentation was also difficult to obtain. Assessor' maps do not exist, but two county maps from the 19th century have survived (Smith & Gallus, 1858; White & Co., 1876). Each site discovered was assigned a number on the basis of order of dis- covery. The survey was done by permission of Maurice Robbins, the State Archaeologist for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Permit No. 37. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING History The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is part of the Watsontown grant purchased from the Stockbridge Indians some time near 1760. The grant consisted of parts of modern-day Lee, Lenox and Becket townships, as well as, almost all of Washington, Massachusetts. Watsontown was repurchased in 1760 by a group from Hartford, Connecticut and renamed Greenock. In 1763, the Massachusetts General Court awarded them a charter calling the area Hartwood and instructing the proprietors to lay out and clear 60 house lots and build a church and school. The area flourished, and in 1777 the townships of Lee and Washington were incorporated out of Hartwood (Beers Co., 1885: 144-45; Gale, 1854: 4-10). B-10 The first United States Census of 1791 shows a population of 588 for the late 18th century town of Washington. Most of the settlers were of English extraction from eastern and central Massachusetts as well as parts of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Early in the 19th century, most of the farmers moved into the Ohio or Saint Lawrence valleys. Title to their land in Washington reverted to family members still living in Hartford, Connecticut. These lands were rented out or sold. Most of the farmland was used for grazing cattle and sheep. Cash crops of corn, wheat, oats and rye were also grown. When the Pontoosuc Turnpike was built in 1830 (connecting Chester with Pittsfield), Washington Center served as a way station for stage travel on that road. This lasted until 1837 and it was during this period that the town reached a population of nearly 1,000 people. The advent of the railroad in 1841 spelled doom for the farmers of Berkshire County. It made cheaper western beef more available and ruined the market for local beef. More and more, the local farmers had to supple- ment farming by working in the mills which proliferated on the many small streams in the area. Sawmills were common, but there were also turning mills for making furniture parts in Lee, and the spruce shingle industry was large in this area also. The hills were logged to make charcoal as well . The four corners area population increased only slightly judging by the number of houses added to the map. It appears this area was more of a back woods hamlet. By 1900 there were only 377 residents in the entire town of Washington. Most of them resided in Washington Center or Wash- ington Post Office. There must have been only a few people still living in the four corners area when William C. Whitney, a millionaire and past Secretary of the Navy, decided to buy the land in 1896. Although Whitney's development of the area is the subject of many local legends, little specific information can be found concerning his activities in the water- shed. The four corners area was part of Whitney's hunting preserve where according to tradition he erected a hunting lodge* He also built a caretaker's house and a wooden fire or water tower nearby. After his wife's death Whitney abandoned the area and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts made his estate part of the 14,000 acre October Mountain Forest early in the 20th century. Today the entire area around the four corners and down Washington Mountain Brook Road gives mute testimony to human activity in this area. Apple trees, growing from sproutings, occur in several places—suggesting the one time location of ancient orchards. Segments of stone fences run through the forest—indicating once active boundary lines. Here and there are cellar holes, some partially filled in by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Modern evidence of recreational use is indicated by a number of recent fire hearths scattered about, small trash dumps, and piles of unrusted beer cans. B-ll FIELD OBSERVATIONS Prehistoric Survey Examination of prehistoric Indian artifacts in local collections and at the Berkshire Museum and Stockbridge Library did not indicate any sites in the watershed. No one could recall any material being found there as well. Most material comes either from the shores of several larger ponds in the area or the flood plain of the Housatonic River. The regional assemblage closely parallels what is to be found in the Connecticut River to the east, and the Hudson River to the west. Archaic Period material consists of both Laurentian and Small Stemmed Quartz Point Traditions. The Brewerton Complex of the Laurentian Tra- dition is especially evident in private collections from sites around Goose and Greenwater Ponds and along the Housatonic River. Transitional and Woodland Period material occurs in lesser amounts in collections from along the Housatonic River. Historically the area was controlled by the Stockbridge Indians of the Mohican Indian group. Many legends have grown up surrounding them in the Housatonic Valley, and it is certain that the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed was under their control. After talking with local amateurs, foresters and rangers who have worked or hunted in the watershed for years, I am convinced that there are no significant prehistoric Indian sites. 1/ Surface walks also failed to produce a single Indian artifact. The land was probably a hunting terri- tory, visited seasonally for a very short period of time. Such a situa- tion would produce only thin and widely scattered occupation levels at best which the forest covering could conceal from the most careful survey. Historical Survey County maps of 1858 and 1876 show evidence of a village in the watershed. This is reinforced by the presence of a cemetery dating back to the mid- 19th century. Figure 1 shows the locations of historic sites found during the course of the survey. Most of them consisted of cellar holes--some partially filled in by the Civilian Conservation Corps. In some cases, barn cellar holes exist near the houses. 1/ At the request of the staff archaeologist for the State Historic Preservation Officer, additional studies including excavation at 100 feet transects in certain areas to be disturbed by project installation are being undertaken to verify this conclusion. B-12 Findings The Washington Mountain Brook Watershed is unique in that it preserves the remains of a mid-19th century agricultural village. 1/ The survey shows that for the most part, the village remains are intact and have not been influenced by later activities as is so often true in more populous, areas. The area can be studied as a region and not as a few scattered surviving cellar holes. A total of 19 sites were located within the watershed. Two sites (WMB-7 and WMB-13) are probably endangered by the impoundment project and should be subjected to salvage archaeology. 2/ While the WMB-7 site was not tested and surface finds were few, the fact that it is easily accessible and shows no sign of looting presents a strong case for excavation. Certainly, its vulnerability to erosion during construc- tion makes it imperative that excavation be attempted before work on the October Mountain Lake begins. The WMB-13 site shows evidence of being a rich site as far as archaeo- logical materials are concerned. Its location near to the shore of Wash- ington Mountain Lake could result in its being lost to archaeological inquiry due to a resulting rise in the water table. Increased public use of the area could result in even further looting at the site as well. The 17 other sites in the watershed show great potential for further study, but are not recommended for salvage because the projects do not endanger them as long as certain safeguards such as, prevention of further looting are provided for. These sites lend themselves to several research topics within historical archaeology. Besides answering questions concerning life ways, this area can give us insights into settlement patterns. Where did these people locate themselves on the land and why? We know that these people were farmers who were articulated with the nation's industrial economy. Further study could show us more specifically in what way this was true. In general, the watershed's archaeological potential is great. 1/ At. the request of the staff archeologist, for the State Historic Preservation Officer, additional studies were undertaken to determine if the agricultural village is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District. 2/ Additional observations in the field by John Pretola, Archaeolo- gist, Frank McManamon, Staff Archaeologist SHPO, and SCS personnel have revealed that sites WMB-7 and WMB-13 will not be directly affected by installation of the Washington Mountain Brook Project. Care will be taken to protect these sites during construction. B-13 Land Use and the Archaeological Resources As part of the October Mountain State Forest, the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed receives heavy use by hikers, picnickers, joggers, hunters, and others. This heavy recreational usage is reflected in the condition of several of the historical sites in the watershed. Some sites show evidence of looting and the cemetery has been horribly vandalized. The addition of the proposed impoundments will bring even more attention to the area and make a few sites more vulnerable to looting unless certain safeguards are undertaken. B-14 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CENTRAL BERKSHIRE 151 New Lenox Rd. Lenox, Ma. 0124 Joan R. Flood 413-637-0198 President Polychlorinated Biphenals (PCBs) in the Housatonic River Watershed PCB contamination of the Housatonic River is a known and proven fact. PCB contamination in 1979, two years after outright ban of PCBs at the General Electric Co., shows no significant decline. The reason for this as noted in a report by Angel o Iantosca are "continuing sources of input from tertiary streams, old and current waste disposal sites, industrial sources, air pollution, etc. But the significant factor appears to be the PCB in the sediment." He also states: "The two most serious public health problems associated with river contamination are the ingestion of contaminated fish and the potential contamina- tion of adjacent groundwater aquifers through river infiltration." A subsequent study dated July 1, 1980, by Charles R. Frink^ ' con- cludes "it appears that the principal source of PCBs in the sediment of the Housatonic River in Connecticut is the sediment in Woods Pond in Massachusetts." Following an earlier pumping test evaluation done March 26 - April 1979 by Walter Schwarz^ ' which raised questions, further pumping tests were done Aug. 8 - 18, 1979. The report states "it strongly suggests that the major portion of the aquifer recharge is from storage or upgradient infiltration." No PCB tests were done in conjunction with this study. A report done by Frederick B. Gay, May 22, 1980^', states "There is concern that these bottom materials may be a source of PCB to ground water. Although PCB is strongly sorbed to organic matter in sediments on the bottom, changing mechanical and chemical conditions may release them to solution and, as such, may be free to move into ground water B-15 reservoirs. In the Housatonic River, natural ground water flow is from the ground to the stream. Withdrawal of ground water can, however, reverse the gradient and induce water to flow from the river through the bottom materials and may carry PCB into the aquifer and, hence, into a pumping well." (A) Earlier in a report dated March 28, 1978, Angel o Iantosca v ' stated "this does not preclude the possibility of movement with the leachate plume from a landfill or dump since the chemical properties of a strong leachate may facilitate a movement and dissolution of PCBs that ground water alone may no, Furthermore there is ample evidence that PCBs, because of their persistence in the environment and difficulty of being broken down, may linger in the river for fifty years- '. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering of the ( 6 ) Commonwealth of Massachusetts^ ' notified the Department of Public Works of both Lee, Mass. and Lenox, Mass. that "it is the opinion of this Department that the possibility exists of contamination by PCB and other chemicals to the ground water sources located near the Housatonic River. Therefore, we suggest that plans for development of these ground water sources be put aside, and strongly urge that you proceed with the Washington Mountain Brook Project." New studies being done for Connecticut by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service^ ' have revealed that PCDF (polychlorinated dibenzofuran) and PCDD (polychlorinated dibenzodioxin) have been found in fish taken from the Housatonic River. These chemicals are much more toxic than PCBs. PCDF is a contaminant of PCB and can be formed when PCBs are burned at temperatures too low to destroy them. PCDD can be formed when certain phenol compounds are manufactured or burned. PCDF is the most hazardous of the three compounds. What do we know about PCBs, PCDF and PCDD and health effects ? Since the first report of PCB related Chloracne in 1936, the toxicity »f PCBs has been recognized. That incident was thought to be caused by unidentifid B-16 impurities in a single batch of early PCB. The most dramatic occurrence of human PCB poisoning was the socalled "YUSHO" incident in Japan in 1968 when a supply of cooking oil was contaminated with a \/ery high concentration of PCB (2000-3000 parts per million) (ppm). Victims were permanently affected with serious skin, nervous and lung disorders. It is now believed the offending element was PCDF and polychlorinated quaterphenols^ ' Workers exposed to PCBs, PCDD and PCDF have developed chloracne, liver, skin, digestive and lung disorders. Many studies have been done and are being done on animals. Most researchers report difficulty in pinpointing specific effects which can be confidently stated as likely to occur in man. Some researchers believe that research methods are probably inadequate to apply to real world (9) situations. All agree that there are still many unanswered questions v . The state of Connecticut, in 1976, issued a warning against consuming all species of fish taken from the Housatonic River from Lake Zoar north to the Massachusetts border. Because of expressed concerns by commercial interests as well as sportsmen's groups, the state appropriated $200,000 for a controlled study. The study is examining the biochemical effects of PCBs on persons who have received non-occupational exposure -- ingesting fish and a control group. It is hoped that information will be developed to permit the Department of Health to estimate the proper health risk. What are PCBs ? PCBs are part of a broad family of organic chemicals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons. They closely resemble DDT. PCBs are even more persistent in the environment than DDT. PCBs are essentially unalterable by any naturally occuring biological, chemical or physical process. The only known way to destroy them is by incineration B-17 at a temperature of 2700° F. This stability allows PCBs to bioaccumulate and, therefore, the problem of fish contamination is acute. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established 5 parts per million (ppm as the upper limit for fish to be eaten. Canada has a standard of 2 ppm which USEPA is now proposing. PCBs have been found in turkeys and chickens which ate contaminated feed. And PCBs have been found in mothers' milk. No one knows what effect PCBs may have as an additive or synergist with other contaminants widely present in mothers' milk, such as aldrin, dieldrin or hexachlorobenzene. Douglas Costle of USEPA stated "PCBs have also been associated with birth defects, cancer and immunological effects in laboratory animals and geneti effects in microorganisms." Of the roughly 1.25 billion pounds of PCBs purchase by U.S. industries since 1929, it is estimated that 750 million pounds are still in service, 6 million pounds have been destroyed and the remaining 440 million pounds are dispersed throughout the environment. PCBs were used mainly in power transformers and power capacitors but can be found in home air conditioners, microwave ovens, fluorescent lights and some television sets. PCBs also have been found in plasticizers, paints, adhesi?: caulking compounds, carbonless papers, hydraulic and heat transfer fluids* . PCBs have been banned completely except in specially approved closed systems. The 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act and subsequent Rule makings in 1977-1978 established July 2, 1979, as the effective date for control. In the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut it is estimate that there is a total of 42,000 pounds of PCB. About 70% of this is in Massachu' 1 nearly all of it in Woods Pond^'"'. Submitted by Joan R. Flood February 3, 1981 B-18 Notes 1. PCBs in Housatonic River Sediments: A Progress Report Charles R. Frink The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station New Haven, Conn. July 1, 1980 2. Status of Report of Polychlorinated Bi phenol (PCB) Contamination in Western Massachusetts August 14, 1979 Walter Schwa rz, Principal Civil Engineer Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Commonwealth of Massachusetts 3. Occurrence and Transport of Polychlorinated Bi phenols (PCB) Residue in the Housatonic River and Ground Water Adjacent to Housatonic River, Massachusetts Frederick B. Gay U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 150 Caseway Street Boston, Mass. 02114 May 22, 1980 4. Status Report on Polychlorinated Bi phenols (PCB) Levels in Western Massachusetts March 28, 1978 Angel o Iantosca Regional Environmental Engineer DEQE, Commonwealth of Mass. Walter Schwarz Junior Civil Engineer 5. PCBs and the Housatonic River The Problem State of Connecticut June 1979 6. Letter to Mr. George Lagarce, Chairman Department of Public Works Lenox, Mass. 01240 December 29, 1980 7. From Angel o Iantosca Regional Environmental Engineer Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Commonwealth of Mass. cc to Lee Department of Public Works B-19 8. Newsclips December 20, 1980 The News Times January 21, 1981 The Berkshire Eagle 9. The Persistence of PCBs Robert H. Boyle and Joseph H. Highland from Malignant Neglect by Environmental Defense Fund and Robert H. Boyle Copyright 1979. Reprinted by permission of Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 10. Proceedings of the Conference PCRs Impacts on Health September 12, 1979 Hartford, Conn. Transcribed and funded by Connecticut Department of Environmental Protects October 1, 1979 11. Environment News E.P.A. United States Environmental Protection Agency 12. Ibid - Frink noted as 2 General Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated Bi phenyls U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards Washington, D.C. Pub. No. EPA 440/5-80-068 October 1980 The PCB Contaminations Problem in Waukegan, Illinois 1/21/81 Environmental Protection Agency - Region V 230 Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 6064 B-20 Bibliography - PCB References "PCBs: How Widespread? How Dangerous? How Do We Deal With These?" Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Citizens' Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 10, June 1979, pp 7-11. "Polychlorinated Bi phenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions." Environmental Protection Agency Final Rule 40CFR 761. Federal Register , Volume 44, No. 106, Thursday, May 31, 1979, pp 31514-31568. "PCBs and the Housatonic River: The Problem." State of Connecticut, June 1979, Pamphlet. "Polychlorinated Bi phenyls (PCBs): Disposal and Marking." Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR 761. Federal Register , Vol. 43, No. 34, Friday, February 17, 1978, pp 7150-7163. Beil, Karen Manguson, "PCBs, Another Chemical Monster," EQ News (Supplement to The Conservationist , (no date). Tucker, E. etal , "Migration of PCBs in Soil Induced by Percolating Water," Monsanto Co. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 13, 1975. "Environmental Protection Agency Recommended Procedures for Disposal of PCB - Containing Wastes by Industrial Facilities," 41 FR 14134, April 1, 1976. "Annual PCB Project Report to United States Environmental Protection Agency: Region I," Relations and Utilities Operations, General Electric Co., Pittsfield, Massachusetts, January 15, 1979. Frink, Charles R., "PCBs in Housatonic River Sediments: A Progress Report," The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut, July 1, 1980, 29 p. Jordan, Don, "The Town Dilemma," Environment , Vol. 19, No. 2, March 1977, pp 6-15. (PCBs discharged from Westinghouse plant in Bloomington, Indiana). Crossland, Janice and Kevin P. Shea, "The Hazards of Impurities," Environment , June 1973, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp 35-38. Boyle, Robert H. and Joseph H. Highland, "The Persistence of PCBs," Vol. 21, No. 5, June 1979, pp 6-38 (from Malignant Neglect by Environmental Defense Fund and Robert H. Boyle, Knopf, 1979). Shea, Kevin P., "PCB: The Worldwide Pollutant That Nobody Noticed," Environment , Vol. 15, No. 9, November 1973, pp 25-28. "EPA Proposes Rule to Ban PCBs," Environment News , EPA, Region I, 1978. B-21 Cross, Robert F., "PCBs in the Hudson River," EQ News , The Conservationist , Nov. -Dec. 1978, pp III-V. Gay, Frederick B., "Occurrence and Transport of Polychlorinated Bi phenyl (PCB) Resides in the Housatonic River and Ground Water Adjacent to the Housatonic River, Massachusetts," U.S.G.S., May 22, 1980. "A Report on Subsurface Contamination by Transformer Oil Containing Poly- chlorinated Biphenyls in Pittsfield, Massachusetts," Walter Schwartz, Principal Civil Engineer, DEQE, Western Regional Office, Amherst, Massachu- setts, September 1980. "EPA: Toxic Information Series: PCBs," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, June 1980. "EPA's Final PCB Ban Rule: Over 100 Questions and Answers to Help You Meet These Requirements," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, June 1979. "Status Report of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination in Western Massachusetts," Walter Schwartz, Principal Civil Engineer, DEQE, August 14, 1979. ""Status Report on Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Levels in Western Massachu- setts, Angel o Iantosca, Regional Environmental Engineer and Walter Schwartz, Junior Civil Engineer, March 28, 1978. "New England PCB Waste Management Study," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Program, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I, November 1976. Proceedings of the Conference "PCBs Impacts on Health," Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut, September 12, 1979. "Water Quality Issues in Massachusetts, Chemical Contamination," DEQE and U.S. EPA, Region I, September 1979, pp 48-50. Housatonic River Basin Overview , New England River Basins Commission, April 1980, Draft 165 pp. "Proposal for Future Studies and Evaluation of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contamination in Western Massachusetts," Walter Schwartz, Principal Civil Engineer, DEQE, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 1979. B-22 3^ 1413) B4B-1B17 1413) B45*2610 1413) 64 9>£442 '1& \Ljo?mn0ti *J)(fiartment y fanvtrorvmentai ^Zuafilu fenaineerina WESTERN REGION WESTERN HA8BACHUBCTTI PUBLIC HEALTH CCNTCR UNIVERSITY Or MASBACHUEETTS. AMHERST OIOOS December 29, 1980 Mr. George LaGarce Chairman Department of Public Works Lenox, Massachusetts 01240 Dear Mr. LaGarce: Ret Lenox - Lee - Public Water Supply; Washington Mountain Brook Project In response to your letter of November 17, 1S80, to the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Mr. Thomas F. McLoughlin, it is the opinion of this Department that the possibility exists of contamination by PCB and other chemicals to the groundwater sources located near the Housa tonic River. Therefore, we suggest that plans for development of these groundwater sources be put aside, and strongly urge that you proceed with the Washington Mountain Brook project. This Department set forth conditions on the development of the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project in a letter to the Board of Water Commissioners of the Town of Lee in a letter dated April 21, 1967, and approved plans for construction of the October Mountain Lake site in a letter dated November 9, 1972, to the Water Resources Commission. Before and since these actions, the Towns of Lee and Lenox have experienced water supply shortages. Further delay of this project will only serve to worsen what has already become a critical water supply situation. The treatment processes necessary for this project will depend on further evaluation of the nature and quality of the water but shall include at least filtration and disinfection. Disinfection is required of all surface water supplies, and water quality data taken from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would indicate the need for filtration due to excessive turbidity and color. If you have any questions on this matter, please call this office. Very truly yours, For the Commissioner, C^ *jist*> VJ*L^_J»C Angelo Iantosca Regional Environmental Engineer AI:PR:gl cc: Lee Department of Public Works cc: Mr. Peter Kolodziej $-23 cc: Ms. Sally Bell 1150000 - 501 1152000 - 501 /\ S WATCI * . WATTTVATW AND pnnoMMENTAi ANMlM • MW« ; UKMUTOtT ^ CKUncu AND •ACTmOtOCKAll TBIWC BEEKSHIRE ENVIRO- LABS, INC. ROUTE 102, LEE, MASS. 01238 (413) 243-2600 USDA - Soil Conservation Service 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 c/o Stephen Claughton L-497 SAMPLE NUMBER MIEjCQLLECIED- UML_£0LL£QT£D- C0LLECTED BY DATE ANALYZED ANA 1Y7F D BY JNALISJLSl Bacteriological Total Col i form (MF) Fecal Col i form (MF) Physical -Chemical pH Color Turbidity Suspended Solids Total Solids Orthophosphate Total Phosphorus 11/17/80 1 : 1 0am Benjamin lT/T7/80 W.Enser zizn-3 UNITS. /100ml /100ml SU Pt. Units FTU mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 3992 10 7.3 1_ 0.85 0.5 6.0 0.00 0.03 3993 11/17/80 10:30am Benjamir 11/17/8C W.Enser 10 <£ 2 6.5 9 gum 0.5 8.0 0.00 0.01 Page 1 of ! REMARKS: Sample #3992: Finerty Pond, Surface #3993: Finerty Pond, Outlet O = less than Fein Enser, Jr/ William S Director B-24 mmmmmv&utomn*m;M ■astivatu AND [NVtlONNIWTAl BERKSHIRE ENVffiO- LABS, INC. IMYUCAI ^5 LMOIATOIV ' CHIMKA1 It AND AND I mill •ACTMJOtOCtCAll HIAHIUlUNn TOTINC ROUTE 102, LEE, MASS. 01238 (413)243-2600 USDA - Soil Conservation Service 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 c/o Stephen Claughton L-497 Page 2 of 2 [ NUMBER 3992 3993 :ni i FfTFn 11/17/80 1 : 1 0am Benjamin 11/17/80 11/17/80 m i Fnrn 10:30am Ben j ami 11/17/80 W.Enser r :TED BY i INALYZED 'FD RY W.Enser zl^z: — . 1 ANAIYSTS UNITS 'sical -Chemical (Cond't) Ammonia mg/1 0.03 0.08 Nitrate/Nitrite rag/1 0.08 0,59 0.06 0.48 Total Kjeldahl mg/1 * Air Temperature °C 2 3 * Water Temperature °C 1 2 *■ ■ Sample #3992: Finerty Pond, Surface #3993: Finerty Pond, Outlet Form #L-2 * Air and Water Temperatures are field measurements made by P. Benjamin, SCS Pittsfield. William S. Enser, Jr/ Director B-25 XMNHWN^Wt^ &)efiai/ti>*fif of $niul6ttm*n{a{ Quality Sttcutfeuttr* Special Analysis ii tt aire* A Sveltzer, Well 03 near Woods Pond mxc* B " " *4 " urct C rnrce D mroe E 4LTC0 F Lee Collector! A 3 C D E ' amplo Uo» 541867 868 4 a\,_ of Collection 3/9/77 Mto of Hecoipt 3/21/77 PCB 0.5 0.9 I i i * . , ' i > r ilAlUC3 rt ncpottcJ in pact pot wliliojc din A B-26 Voolor 13MI t &He ^ommoniaealU*. of? ' vllateuchtitetfo Special Analysis Lee CQ A Schwietzer Well C2 «e B «§ C •os D bee E -oe F it it ii #3 #4 Collector:^ A D C D E ? 1 H tple ifo • 543451 452 453 ;e of Collection 8/26/77 •»;« of Hecclpt 8/30/77 As 1254 •.. 2.0 2.7 i i i i i I i i i Jttt §fVv>r y>/r> A//>4 B-27 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND POTENTIAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES IN LENOX, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR CONTAMINATION WITH POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS Final Report By I.C.T. Nisbet, Ph.D. Director, Scientific Staff, Massachusetts Audubon Society Introduction This report describes the results of sampling of surface and ground waters in Lenox, Massachusetts, and their analysis for contamination with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) . The sampling was undertaken in response to reports that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) had intermittently detected very high concentrations of PCBs in Schweitzer Well No. 3, a possible source of ground water to augment the town's present surface water supplies. The sampling was designed to test not only water from Schweitzer Well No. 3, but also the present water supply of the town, a potential new surface source, and one sample of melting snow (the ultimate source for both surface and ground waters) . Very careful precautions were taken to minimize the possibility of contamination of the samples with PCBs during collection and analysis, a notorious problem which has rendered many reported measurements of low levels of PCBs in water suspect. Sampling and Analysis Sampling was conducted on April 11, 1978, by the writer. Observers were D. Blanchard and L. McAllister of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, W. Schwartz of DEQE, and P. Kolodziej representing the Tri-Town Health Department. G. Darey, a Selectman of the Town of Lenox, observed the collection of one sample. Samples were collected and the PCBs extracted by an ^n situ method devised by scientists at the University of California and described in a published report by R.W. Risebrough e_t ad.1 Water was collected in stain- less steel containers, previously washed thoroughly with detergent and rinsed four times with pesticide-grade acetone; containers were again rinsed two or three times with pesticide-grade acetone in the field imme- diately prior to each sampling. The water was immediately passed through a stainless steel column (60 mm i.d., 280 mm long) containing 5 polyurethane foam plugs which had been previously Soxhlet-extracted with acetone in the laboratory prior to dispatch. Because pumps were not available in the field, the water was passed through the columns under gravity: this limited the rate of filtration so that only about 10 liters of water could be sampled at each station, rather than the 100 liters that are desirable to obtain maximum sensitivity. 1. Risebrough, R.W. , B.W. de Lappe, and W. Walker II. 1977. Transfer of low molecular weight chlorinated hydrocarbons to the marine environment. Pp. 2 61-321 in Marine Pollutant Transfer (H.L. Windom and R.A. Duce, eds.). Lexington Books, Lexington & Toronto. B-28 2. Immediately after filtration the columns were wrapped in aluminum foil, frozen, and sent on dry ice to the University of California laboratory at Bodega Bay, where they were analyzed by Dr. R.W. Risebrough of the Bodega Institute of Pollution Ecology. The columns were extracted with acetone and hexane. The hexane fraction was cleaned up with sul- furic acid and fuming sulfuric acid, and the extract was analyzed by gas chromatography, with and without saponification. 2 (Saponification removes p,p'-DDT and a number of other interfering substances.) PCBs were quantified approximately by matching the gas-chromatographic profiles of the sample extracts with those of standard samples of Aroclors 1254 and 1248. For matches to Aroclor 1254, three late-emerging components (penta- chlorobiphenyls) were used and the sums of the heights of the three peaks in the gas-chromatographic profiles were compared. For matches to Aroclor 1248, three characteristic components (tetrachlorobiphenyls) were compared similarly. Matching a gas chromatographic profile to Aroclor 1248 means simply that the residues found in water contained a substantial fraction of tetrachlorobiphenyls. It does not imply that the residues were derived from Aroclor 1248, because the same components are also found in Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 1016. Although the "blank" sample resembled Aroclor 1254 in profile, several water samples had proportionately more of the earlier components (tetrachlorobiphenyls) and have accordingly been matched to a 1:1 mixture between the two. Unfortunately the earliest peaks (trichloro- and some tetrachlorobiphenyls) were not clearly resolved from interfering substances at the nanogram levels found in these water samples. If present, tri- chlorobiphenyls would not have been incorporated into the quantitative estimates of PCB concentrations in this report, which may therefore be too low. Six samples were collected in the course of the day, as follows: A. Water from the Yocum Brook in Pleasant Valley (a proposed new source of water for the Lenox municipal water supply) . 10 liters of water were sampled. B. Blank Sample . The collection procedure was identical to that for sample A, except that only 0.15 liters of water were passed through the filter. The purpose of collecting a "blank" was to investigate whether there might be any contamination of the equipment, in addition to PCBs in the water being sampled. C. Snow, Pleasant Valley . Snow from the hillside above and to the south of the River at Pleasant Valley was collected and melted in a stainless steel container (immersed in a bucket of hot water to 2. The analytical procedure is described more fully in ref. 1. A fuller account incorporating recent revisions in procedure is cur- rently in preparation and will be published shortly. B-29 3. minimize contamination from other equipment). A total of 7.47 liters of water was collected in this way and extracted through a polyure thane-packed column. D. Schweitzer Well Mo. 3 . 10 liters of water were sampled. E. Woolsey Reservoir (secondary water source for the Town of Lenox) . 12 liters of water were sampled. F. Tap Water . 10 liters of water were sampled. Results and Discussion The results of the sampling and analysis are given in Table 1. Blank Sample . The "blank" sample contained small quantities of PCBs which closely resembled Aroclor 1254 in gas-chroma tographic profile. The total quantity was estimated to be about 12 nanograms (ng).3 If this is regarded as "background" contamination it would correspond to a concentra- tion of 1.2 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion) in a 10 liter sample. This may be regarded as the limit of sensitivity of the sampling and analytical procedures. Schweitzer Well No. 3 . The sample from Schweitzer Well No. 3 con- tained small amounts of PCBs, but the estimated total quantity was less than in the blank sample. The profile of this sample did not match either Aroclor 1254 or Aroclor 1248, but contained a disproportionate quantity of two components common to both. (See Figure 2.) Surface Water Samples . All surface water samples contained PCBs at levels in the low parts per trillion. The quantities found were 2-5 times higher than those found in the blank, and in two cases differed in profile also. Hence there is little doubt that the PCBs found in the samples were actually present in the water and that only a small fraction can be explained as having arisen from contamination. The Lenox tap water sample contained about 3 parts per trillion of PCBs, which resembled a mixture of Aroclors 1254 and 1248. Water from Woolsey Reservoir contained somewhat larger quantities of PCBs, estimated at about 5 parts per trillion, The chromatogram of this sample showed a reasonable match to Aroclor 1254, but there was one unidentified component which emerged just after the pentachlorobiphenyls. (See Figure 1.) The sample from Yocum Brook apparently contained a more complex mix- ture of chemicals. By matching the late-emerging components to Aroclor 1254 the concentration of PCBs was estimated to be about 2-3 parts per trillion. However, this is an underestimate of the total quantity of 3. This is somewhat larger than in blank samples previously run through this procedure in the same laboratory, which usually contain 5 nanograms or less. B-30 4, TABLE 1 Results of Sampling for PCBs in Water, Lenox, Massachusetts Sample Volume Collected (liters) Estimated Total PCBs (nanograms) Matched to Aroclor 1254 1254/1258 mixture Comments on shape of Chroma togr am Estimated Concentration (parts per trillion) A. Yocura Brook /B. Blank 10 0.15 23 12 23 10 Large early peaks not resolved. Two large unidentified compon- ents Good match to Aroclor 1254 2.3 C. Melted Snow 7.47 530 580 Reasonable match to Aroclor 1254 Additional large peak, probably DDE One unidentified late peak 77 D. Schweitzer 10 Well No. 3 10 Poor match to both Aroclors 1.0 E. Woolsey 12 Reservoir 63 52 Reasonable match to Aroclor 1254 One unidentified late peak 5.2 F. Tap Water 10.5 28 33 Reasonable match to 1254/1248 mixture 3.2 B-31 5. PCBs present, because a number of early-emerging components were not fully resolved* An unidentified late component similar to that in the Woolsey Reservoir sample was also present. In addition, there were very large quantities of two other unidentified components, one of which had a retention time similar to that of tetrachlorobiphenyls, the other similar to hexa- chlorobiphenyls. The latter component was probably present at a concen- tration in the parts per billion range. Both peaks disappeared on saponification. Further identification was not attempted, but they may perhaps have been phthalate esters. (See Figure A.) Snow . Melted snow contained much higher quantities of PCBs (70 - 80 parts per trillion) than any surface water sample. The PCB profile matched that of Aroclor 1254 reasonably well, although early components were not well resolved. In addition, there was a large component of p,p'-DDE, which was not detected in the water samples. Another unidentified component was present, similar to that found in the samples from Yocura Brook and Woolsey Reservoirs. (See Figure 3.) Conclusions 1. Schweitzer Well contained smaller quantities of PCBs than any other water source sampled. The concentration of PCBs in the well water was not greater than 1 part per trillion and actually less than in the "blank" sample. 2. All surface water samples, including Yocum Brook and the existing town water supplies, contained PCBs at concentrations in the range of 1 - 5 parts per trillion. 3. Yocum Brook also contained a much larger quantity of two unidenti- fied chemical contaminants. A. Melting snow contained much higher concentrations of PCBs than surface waters. This suggests that much of the PCBs falling in rain and snow are adsorbed to the soil or organic matter before they reach the rivers and enter the water supply. 5. Melting snow also contained DDE and at least one other unidentified contaminant. 6. These results do not necessarily refute earlier reports that PCBs may have been present in Schweitzer Well No. 3 at times in the past. However, the occurrence of PCBs in water from a deep well is inherently unlikely. In my opinion, the reports of PCBs in Schweitzer Well No. 3 should not be accepted unless they are confirmed by comparably careful sampling and analytical techniques, including the use of blank samples. ICTN/sab November 9, 1978 B-32 •p»l gure 1. Gas chromatogram of extract from water from Woolsey reservoir. a,b,c: components used for matching to Aroclor 1248 ( tetrachlorobiphenyl d,e,f: components used for matching to Aroclor 1254 (pentachlorobiphenly g: unidentified component &-33 !».«■ ». Figure 2. Gas chromatogram of extract from water from Schweitzer Well No.! a,b,c: components used for matching to Aroclor 1248 (tetrachlorobipheny's d,e,f: components used for matching to Aroclor 1254 (pentachiorobipheny^ g,h: unidentified components B-34 Sure 3. Gas chroraatogram of extract from melted snow, Pleasant Valley. ,b,c: ,e,f : 1 : components used fc matching to Aroclor 1248 ( tetrachlorobiphenyls) components used for matching to Aroclor 1254 (pentachlorobiphenyls) unidentified P,p' -DDE component B-35 3l^ I 1 Figure A. Gas chroma togram of unsaponified extract from water from Yocum Brook. d,e,f: components used (after saponification) for matching to Aroclor 1254 h,i: large unidentified components which disappeared after saponification Note: saponification removes components such as h and i, and other interfering compounds, making PCBs easier to identify and quantify. B-36 I M—m^gf s i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I Office of the Secretary of State SSACHUSETTS 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 08 MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY HISTORICAL COMMISSION 617-727-8470 Secretary of State March 19, 1981 Frank Resides, Staff Leader U.S. Department of Agriculture 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 Dear Mr. Resides: I enjoyed meeting with you and discussing the SCS project at Washington Mountain Brook with you. 1) MHC concurs with SCS's opinion that the Washington Mountain Brook Historic Archaeological District meets criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The sites included in the area have the potential for contributing information about the depopulation of Massachusetts upland areas during the 19th century. Sites include remains of domestic, commercial, pub- lic, and industrial properties all dating to the 18th -19th century. They appear to be largely undisturbed and to retain integrity. SCS should forward documentation on the Washington Mountain Brook Historic Archaeological District and a copy of this letter along with a statement of SCS's opinion on National Register eligibility to the Keeper of the National Register, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Pension Building, Washington, D.C. (36 CFR 800.4). 2) MHC staff have reviewed development plans as they impact the Washington Mountain Brook Historic Archaeological District. No archaeological properties will be directly impacted by the proposed watershed projects. Several sites are located adjacent to areas of construction. These sites should be flagged and construction activity should be directed away from the sites. The specifications for the project should include instructions for avoiding these site areas. MHC concurns with a determination of "no effect" (36CFR 800.4) to the Washington Mountain Brook Historic Archaeological District. A copy of this determination should be included in final environmental assessments. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Valerie Talmage, State Archaeologist. Sincerely, Patricia L. Weslowski, State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission PWPb ffi. 2s& united states Soil 451 West Street UJ; Department of Conservation Amherst, MA 01002 Agriculture Service Tel. (413) 256-0441 May 11, 1981 Executive Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Berkshire County, Mass. It has been determined that installation of the remaining measures planned for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed will have "no adverse effect" on identified archeological and historical resources of the watershed. Prior to construction, these resources will be flagged and construction specifications for the project will address their protection and avoidance. A letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission concurring in the above determination is attached. Additional information enclosed to document this finding include: 1. A copy of Public Law 83-566 the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act which authorizes this agency to provide technical and financial assistance to sponsors of watershed projects. 2. Supplemental Watershed Plan #4 for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed. This describes the nature of the project, its purposes, and federal and nonfederal costs. 3. A project map. 4. A copy of the Archeological Survey Report for the watershed by John Pretola, 1975. 5. A copy of the NRHP - Nomination Forms including a map of the proposed Archeological /Historical District. 6. A copy of the Determination of Eligibility by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. None of the properties within the Archeological /Historical District will be altered or destroyed by construction activity in the watershed. Alteration of the Archeological /Historical District's surrounding environment by the construction of multiple-purpose lakes will not be adverse. The entire project lies within the October Mountain State Forest and the planned measures will be compatible with existing landscape features. Neglect will not be a factor affecting the properties within the Archeological/Historical District. ^\ The Soil Conservation Service B— 3S SCS^ VV JM IS an a 9 enc y °* ,ne 10-7 ^^^^ Department of Agriculture All land in and surrounding the district will remain in state ownership. The impoundments created by the project will enhance the natural setting surrounding the district. Noise, dust, and other products of construction will be kept to a minimum as per construction specifications and these adverse effects will be of a temporary nature. The draft Environmental t Impact Statement for this project has been reviewed and the final EIS is now being prepared. I request your concurrence in the determination of "no adverse effect." you have questions or require additional information about this project, please contact Frank Resides of this office. If Sincerely, e ''' si SHERMAN L. LEWIS State Conservationist ' - > m i; * - !j ! ' ... ) Attachment 1 Enclosures 6 ;:ftY22!9BI ADVISO'-iV nOU'iCi! GJJ HISTORIC PRESpVATION :i B-39 APPENDIX C WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE PROBLEMS The following are excerpts from selected Town of Lee Annual Reports: FLOOD OF NOVEMBER 1927 The town's appropriations were about exhausted when the flood came. It was then a question of making the necessary repairs as soon as possible. Some of those were permanent, while some were temporary. Nine bridges were put back in permanent shape; two were made passable; one (Greylock street) was not touched, the street having been closed. The road at May's bridge was rebuilt and a temporary embankemnt made to protect the road. The cement bridge at Woodlawn street was made passable for the winter at a heavy expense following the damage done by the flood. An entirely new road was built on Washington mountain from the E. Newton place to the See place. The rest of the road was repaired as far as the Washington town line. Three of the previously- mentioned bridges were on this road. A new bridge will have to be built on Woodlawn street and the brook put back in its regular course. FLOOD DAMAGE 1933 The flood of September this year caused considerable damage to roads and bridges. Three bridges were washed out completely and several others damaged. The newly-constructed road to the Mountain Mill stood up well, but the road from the mill to the Tyringham line was demolished in places. The road up Washington mountain was completely torn out but was replaced by Mr. McColloch and the CCC forces. The bridge at Church's in East Lee had to be completely rebuilt. The bridge near the McAllister farm had to be partially rebuilt. Several large wash- outs, adjacent to brooks, had to be filled in again. And several small culverts completely rebuilt. We still have three bridges on the Washington mountain stream to rebuild. The CWA workers are working on the abutments of one of them at the present time. REPORT OF FLOOD OF SEPTEMBER 21, 19 38 On September 21, 1938, the town of Lee experienced one of the worst floods in its history. After two days of almost continuous rain which filled reservoirs and ponds to overflowing and raised all streams to a dangerous flood state, the 21st brought continued rain with occasional cloud-bursts, and the run-off was so tremendous that the capacity of dam spillways was exceeded, regular stream channels could not carry the water and everywhere overflowed their banks; bridge openings were not large enough to carry the flood and bridges were either wiped out or the water went around the abutments, washing out the roads and damaging the bridges them&elves, and stream channels became loaded with debris of all kinds. C-l Every available man that could be used by the Highway Department was busy sand-bagging, trying to keep roads open, patrolling washed-out roads and flooded areas, and helping families within the flooded areas. Four temporary vehicle bridges were erected, seven vehicle bridges were temporarily repaired, and all roads with the exception of Wash- ington Mountain road were made passable in less than three weeks' time. Aid was sought from the Department of Conservation through Commissioner -Dean for help in repairing town roads bordering on or passing through the State Reservation, and for the dredging of Washington Mountain brook. The Commissioner sent a fleet of ten trucks for our use, under the supervision of Mr. William McCullock, who is in charge of October Mountain State Reservation. A grant of $850 was secured from the County Commissioners and $750 secured from the town reserve fund to dredge out Washington Mountain brook from the Housatonic river to Newton bridge. REPORT OF FLOOD OF JANUARY 1, 1949 On the night of December 31, 1948, and January 1st, 1949, after rains fell over a period of three days, the Town of Lee was again in the throes of damaging flood waters. Perhaps not so destructive in places hit before, however, the water reached a record high and flooded areas never before covered. It is frightening to think what tremendous devastation would have occurred had not the drought in the summer and fall of 1948 reduced the amount of water in the surrounding ponds and reservoirs. These basins acted as flood storage dams to hold the amount of water from the acres of surrounding watershed which otherwise would have gone down the streams washing everything ahead of them. The fact that Reservoir Brook and Greenwater Pond Brook were not as destructive in this flood as in previous ones, is based on the low level of the ponds feeding these brooks, whereas, Washington Mt. Brook with no basin at the top of the mountain at its source to store the tremendous water shed, raised havoc on its downward plunge to the Housatonic river filling the bed and under bridges with gravel and boulders, and washing out meadows and sections of roads. This Brook will never be checked until some form of flood dam is constructed on Washington Mt. to check the runoff from the water shed area. Coming in the winter as it did repairs to highways and bridges had to be rushed before snow conditions hampered the operations. It was heartening at this time of the year to have mild weather and light snow experienced so that we were able to make temporary repairs to highways, bridges, and stream beds so that every road was passable except Woodland Street at the Washington Mt. Brook Bridge, where a section of the road was out, due to the stream leaving the bed which was filled above ground level. C-2 Large washouts occurred on Washington Mt. Road, Woodland Road, Mill Street, STREAM CLEARANCE (1948) This represents a costly proposition; where the money is coming from is the controlling factor. Something has got to be done, nevertheless. A power shovel was placed in Washington Mt. Brook and another in Green- water Pond Brook at the Tyringham Road Bridge to relieve immediate emergency, but further work could not be accomplished inasmuch as financial aid could not be assured from the State. The Washington Mt. Brook will require excavation for 3000 feet to bring the stream back in its bed and under the bridge on Woodland Road, numerous landslides and trees to be removed above Newton Bridge and rip rap, and retaining wall; a $60,000.00 project. STREAM CLEARANCE (1949) As it was necessary to do something on Washington Mt. Brook and Green- water Pond Brook before anticipated spring rains, two power shovels were employed to clear the beds near Mill St. and below Tyringham Road Bridge. For this work $684.00 of the Flood Emergency money was used, and then the work was taken over by the State by contract with Petricca Construction Co. and paid by the State. Funds being limited the amount of dredging and stream clearance necessary could not be done, although splendid work was accomplished on both brooks and clearing under bridges accomplished. The State Department also undertook the repair of the abutments on Newton Bridge, Washington Mt. Road and repair of washout on Woodland Road. The opening month of the year 1949 brought a great many problems to this Department. On December 31st, 1948, probably the worst flood ever to be experienced in the town caused a tremendous amount of damage to our water system. The intake dam on Washington Mt. Brook and an eight inch main at Newton's Bridge nearby were washed away. To replace the dam on Washington Mt. Brook was out of the question, because of the season of the year. However, sand bags were placed around it to hold water in as much as possible until something more permanent could be done. CHAPTER 90 FLOOD EMERGENCY - 1950 During the storm of November 25th and 26th the Washington Mt. Brook once again raised havoc with the brook bed, bridges, highways and private property on Woodland Road, Washington Mt. Road, and Mill Street. A section of the Washington Mt. Road was washed out and will not be repaired until spring. Damage to abutments of the bridges on this road are extensive and have virtually placed the bridges in a condition making new construction inevitable in the near future. C-3 Work was started immediately on the washouts on Mill Street, Woodland Road, Washington Mt. Road, and excavation of the brook bed, to get the water back into original course, while negotiations were conducted with the State Department of Public Works for funds to make emergency repairs. A sum of $3000.00 was allowed by the State and the balance of this amount will be used in the spring to complete the repairs. Efforts were made through the Board of Selectmen and County Commissioners to have the State make a complete survey of this brook to try to eliminate this periodic damage, by the possibility of raising of bridges where necessary and straightening of the brook to allow a quicker flow off of water. The State officials felt such an extensive expenditure was hardly warranted, but that an effort would be made to relieve the condition if possible to prevent private and public destruction of property. Considerable damage resulted on two culvert bridges on Woodland Road and have been partially repaired. Washouts have been gravelled in part and will be completed in the spring. On November 25th, the Berkshires was visited by a rain and wind storm which did extensive damage to homes, roads and utilities. The Water Department did not escape. The brook at Washington Mountain became, as always, a raging torrent and washed dirt and debris down upon our equipment. The chlorinators both there and at Vanetti were out of order for several days. It was necessary to ask all users to boil the water. Repairs to get things back in working order were made as quickly as possible, but much remains to be done in the spring. AUGUST 1955 The floods of August 18th and 19th did some damage to our rivers and streams. As a result, Army Engineers and engineers from the Division of Waterways, Department of Public Works made surveys of the rivers and streams in the town. Flood relief funds were received for emergency repairs to the affected areas. An Army Engineer contract was made for further repair work on bridges on the Washington Mountain Brook. Spring came and with it heavy rains and washouts and surface breakups. Early summer was more or less the same which did not help matters, putting a crimp in our early maintenance and behind on our schedule. Our gravel roads at this time took a terrific beating. Pot holes appeared from nowhere. Grading some roads seemed a continuous project especially where traffic was heavy. A long dry spell came along, and to expel this condition the rains fell again and in August we exper- ienced another flood. We were fortunate however in that the heavy rains were south of us, although we did get six inches of rain in two days. As usual Washington Mt. Brook went on a rampage, filled the water ways under bridges, overflowed banks and washed road surfaces. Meadow Street was inundated longer than ever before caused by the heavy runoff this side of Otis and Tyringham. With aid from State C-4 funds, washouts and stream clearance on Washington Mt. Brook, Mt. Mill Road, and Fernside Road were taken care of. The almost total lack of rainfall in the latter part of June, all of July and the first half of August reduced the natural brook flow and the level of the main reservoir to such an extent that the use of water to consumers had to be curtailed over an extended period. Then on August 16th and 17th came the flood. The intake dam at Washington Mountain Brook was completely filled with rock and gravel and the pipe line put out of service. It was necessary to dredge out the dam and intake pit before this line could be used again. 1956 We were able to accomplish the reopening to traffic of Washington Mountain Road. It had been closed for the past few years. This was due to the fact that the Federal Government with a Federal Grant supplied the funds to replace a bridge that had been washed out. Cost of this replacement was approximately $7,500.00. Funds were also received through a Federal Grant to clear the Washington Mountain Brook of debris. We were most grateful for this assistance. C-5 Undercutting of foundation by f loodwaters along Washington Mountain Brook at Woodland Street, Flood of 1914 > photo courtesy of Lee Public Library. Scoured and debris ladened grounds of property north and adjacent to Newton Bridge, following flood of September 19 38. Photo courtesy of William Newton. Washington Mountain Road between Newton Bridge and Woodland Street following flood of September 1938. Photo courtesy of Mrs. Elva Munson. C-6 f"~- si —Y1 *? s a — Yffafr. £7 - •\ V} ^, **>.V . 4- •-» ; - f t T IX! ; /•-!•-, — • *«» - ^ i 4 . M U- ~t V •• -TT^VXTTt «o r - +t r: fiL~rlZLJI I- Ilk'. 1 -;' / .: v p, ». t\ < -++* -. .i _*•.. . ...» mm] •*-**• jir:tnz|z & ■ -4 *— « 4-*—; — — ■ v*^ — ■ - — — — • ^-— ^-*-— »-•— r~- ^ i • " i & r : 4 j »i i;-M ■- - ^ i i ; i >..- -f^ "-JSj; »-f— ~t— S" -r -J-H ' TV- -q - • ^1 iili Ss.. • vx Ht-M- -1 -ii titfi * * •« ZZ'iZ p6Z A/^r^oe- t*rz7T7?7F II LTt -OCl ofbz ff ce ,-3L - 4- H- Tf ■ : ■ is -%ttm o ■ - C i. -c -i C C - sasi c S i. ,= ." a £■£ *«:?■-«- £-^ * - * Recreational Fishing - Present Capacity SCORP Region I Since the 1978 SCORP figures represent a complete reversal of the 1976 SCORP figures, a check of computations was made. The following basic data was obtained from the Department of Environ- mental Management, Office of Planning: Region I Nonurban miles of stream fisheries: 111* Urban miles of stream fisheries: None Nonurban access of lakes and ponds: 7639* Urban access of lakes and ponds: None Capacity Computations 111 miles x 528.8 activity days/mil e/yr = 58,697 7639 acres x 66.1 activity days/acre/yr = 504,938 Region I Total 563,635 If 1,000 acres of the ponds and lakes were considered to be urban (approximately the acreage considered urban for boating in Region I), the capacity would be as follows. 1000 acres (Urban) x 594.9 activity days/acre/yr = 594,900 6639 acres (Nonurban) x 66.1 activity days/acre/yr = 438,838 111 miles x 528.8 activity days/mil e/yr = 58,697 Total 1,092,435 This value of about 1,000,000 activity days appears reasonable. Therefore, the current unmet demand is about 500,000 activity days, or 400,000 more than the estimate in the 1976 SCORP. *Same as in 1976 SCORP. C-8 APPENDIX D [ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS | EUTROPHICATION CALCULATIONS In any program involving the construction of an impoundment, the future quality of the lake is a criti- cal issue. Within the last ten years researchers con- cerned with eutrophication problems in lakes have begun to develop predictive techniques for assessing the tro- phic status of lakes. Two concepts have been fundamen- tal in this development, 1) the realization that the entire watershed, and not just the lake and its shore- line, is the basic ecosystem unit, and 2) the identifi- cation of phosphorus as the plant nutrient most fre- quently limiting primary production in north temperate lakes (Dillon and Rigler, 1975) . Vollenweider (1968) reviewed a large portion of the available literature on lakes, particularly in northern Europe, and concluded that a graphical analysis of total annual phosphorus loading (L) vs mean depth (z) was sufficient to allow lakes to be classified into the three standard categor- ies of oligotrophic , mesotrophic, and eutrophic. This early approach was modified by Vollenweider in 197 3 to include a consideration of hydraulic retention time (Dillon and Rigler, 1975). Vollenweider (1975) has ex- panded his original concepts and greatly improved the mathematical basis for his conclusions. Dillon (1975), Dillon and Kirchner (1975) , and Dillon and Rigler (1975) have investigated Vollenweider ' s concepts and related them to field studies conducted on Canadian Shield lakes. They have developed a simple predictive model which relates the annual total phosphorus load (L) to a lake's trophic state. The formulation was first presen- ted in Dillon (1975) and is currently the best available method for predicting the future trophic status of lakes. SCS (1975) has formulated a model based on Vol- lenweider 's (197 3) approach. This model does not include specific aspects of the more recent works cited here. All of the predictive models discussed here are based on the assumptions that the total phosphorus con- centration in a lake can be related to levels of primary productivity and that this concentration can be predict- ed from an estimate of the hydrologic and phosphorus budgets of the lake. Sawyer (1947) determined that algal blooms could be expected to occur in a lake if the concentrations of inorganic phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen exceeded 0.010 mg/1 and 0.300 mg/1, respec- tively, at spring turnover. These criteria were expanded by Vollenweider (1968) who concluded that lakes with a total phosphorus concentration below .010 mg/1 were oligotrophic, D-l lakes with concentrations between .010 mg/1 and .020 mg/1 were mesotrophic, and lakes with concentrations exceeding .020 mg/1 were eutrophic. These values were subsequently accepted by Dillon (1975) and are used here to establish lake water-quality standards. The model proposed by Dillon (1975) is based upon the assumption that when a lake is in steady-state equilibrium the total phosphorus concentration in the lake water is directly proportional to the loading rate and the phosphorus retention coefficient/ and inversely proportional to the mean depth of the lake and the flushing rate. This relationship is summarized in the equation [P] = Ml-R) 2 p where [P] = Total phosphorus concentration in the lake [g/m" 3 ] L = Annual phosphorus areal loading rate to lake [g/m-Vyr] R = Phosphorus retention coefficient z = Mean depth (m) _, and p = Flushing rate (year ) . 3 If [P] is assumed to equal .010 g/m (oligotrophic limit) , it is possible to predict a threshold areal loading rate (L) which can be compared to actual, or predicted, inputs to the lake. The evaluation of the parameters of the equation are dependent on the devel- opment of a water and a phosphorus budget for the lake. The accuracy of the prediction is subsequently dependent upon the accuracy of these data. The Dillon (1975) model was used to predict the trophic status of the three lakes involved in this pro- ject. The calculations for each lake follow this dis- cussion. The procedures used are outlined below. • SCS work plan and pool designs were consulted for the following; mean depth, lake area, and drainage basin area. The beneficial-use pool figures were used in all calculations. • A water budget for the lake was constructed. The generalized equation used was, D-2 Q =i A d • r + A q (Pr-Ev) where Q ~ total outflow volume per year 9 A, = area of the drainage basin (m ) r = long-term average areal discharge (m /m /yr) A = area of the lake (m ) Pr = direct input via precipitation Ev = loss by evaporation. This formulation does not include any considera- tion of groundwater in the water budget. In most reported studies, groundwater contribu- tions have been negligible in relation to the total budget. Flow data taken during this study were insuffi- cient for an estimation of yearly flows. Records from two USGS gages on small water- sheds in the vicinity of the Washington Mountain Brook watershed were examined to estimate areal mean flows. The gages were on Walker Brook (USGS 01180800) and Marsh Broo£ (USGS 01197^00) , with drainage areas of 7.80 km and 5.67 km respectively . The gage on Marsh Brook was discontinued shortly before this study, but the gage on Walker Brook was active during our study. Flow data taken at Station 8, immediately downstream from Washing- ton Mountain Lake dam, were compared to flow data provided by USGS. Seven flow measurements were obtained at Station 8. On four of these occa- sions good flow records were obtained at Walker Brook. These readings are compared below: AREAL DISCHARGE (m 3 /m /s) Date Aug 14, 19 7 5 Sept 14, 21 28 . 18 Station 8 Wal ker Brook 2.74 .299 0.106 .150 0.301 .137 0.176 .162 D-3 Except for the August 14 measurements, these data are in reasonable agreement, although data from the two sites are not sufficient for a meaningful statis- tical comparison. They appear sufficient to support the use of a mean areal discharge value, which was calculated from the USGS records at Walker Brook and Marsh Brook. Based on ten years data from both sites, the areal discharge from the Marsh Creek drainage basin was 0.7 6 m /m /yr, and from the Walker Brook basin was 0.72 m /m /yr. The average long-term areal discharge for the two sites is 0.74 m /m /yr. This figure was used in calculating the water budget. Long- term average rainfall was obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau station at Stockbridge (109 cm/yr, 30-year average) . Evaporation rates were ob- tained from a graph of average annual lake evaporation (Linsley and Franzini, 1964) and was estimated to be approximately 69 cm/yr. The phosphorus budget of each lake was estimated from average values for nonpoint sources. Phos- phorus may enter a lake in a variety of ways, which are summarized in Table C-10. Two of these mechanisms, septic tank seepage and point source discharges, are not applicable to these lakes. Groundwater contributions are assumed to be of minimal significance. The remaining two sources, surface water and precipitation, were estimated using data provided in Dillon and Rigler (1975) , EPA (1974), and Uttormark, Chapin and Green (1974) . These studies have indicated that mean annual phosphorus discharge from a watershed is dependent on land use and the physical and bio- logical characteristics of the basin. The land use category (e.g., forest, cultivated farmland, urban, etc.) is particularly significant. Dillon and Kirchner (1975) have also discussed the sig- nificance of geology in this regard. They report that the mean export of total phosphorus from plutonic igneous watersheds which are forested is 4.8 mg/m 2 /yr. Their values ranged from 2.5 to 7.7 mg/m /yr. Uttormark et al (1974) reported forest values (n^ geologic information) ranging from 5 Jo 80 mg/m /yr, with a mean ex- port of 20 mg/m /yr. For 2 the purpose of this study, a value of 10 mg/m /yr was selected. This value is higher than Dillon and Rigler' s (197 5) reported maximum, but lower than the average reported by Uttormark et al (197 4) . D-4 MODES OF PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT TO LAKES, [Source: Uttormark et al (1974)]. Mode of Transport Entry to Lake Contributions from Groundwater land-water interface unknown portion of ground- water drainage basin Surface water a) streamflow b) streamflow c) overland flow Precipitation inlet streams inlet streams lake perimeter lake surface direct drainage basin indirect drainage basin immediately adjacent lands unknown Dry fallout Septic tank seepage lake surface unknown inlet streams domestic wastes or lake surfaces Point source discharges inlet streams municipal or industrial or lake surface processes D-5 Data, on the phosphorus content of bulk precipita- tion are provided by Dillon and Rigler (.1975) and Uttormark et al (.1974) . Bulk precipitation is defined as total of rainfall, snowfall, and dry fallout. Dillon and Rigler (1975) working in southern Ontario recommend a figure of 75 mg/m /yr, which is well within the range reported by Uttormark et al (1974) . This value was used in this study. These data are sufficient to estimate the terms of the predictive equation. It must be stressed that the predictive capability of the model is only as good as the data used in its calculation. Any discussion based on theoretical values has a greater uncertainty than would be present if field data were available. In order to estimate the future trophic status of the lakes the terms of the predictive equa- tion were calculated as follows: = A P, + A d o where A, = area of the drainage basin (m ) 2 P.. = mean areal phosphorus load (q/m /yr) = area of the lake (m ) P = phosphorus contribution from bulk precipitation q/m /yr z = (mean depth) (lake volume) ( lake area ) where Q V Q V total outflow volume per year lake volume (SCS work plan) R = 0-.426e ( -°- 271< 3 s > + 0. 574e <"° • 00949q s > where q = Q/A ^*s This relationship was developed by Dillon and Rigler (1975) as a means of estimating R in the absence of field data. It has been shown to be inaccurate at low q . D-6 It is now possible to calculate a predicted mean total phosphorus concentration for the lake, which can be evaluated in terms of the criteria stated earlier; ^.010g/m , oligotro- phia . OlOg/m to .020 g/m , mesotrophic; and >.020g/m eutrophic . The results for the three lakes are presented in Tables Oil, C-12, C-13, and may be summar- ized as: Predicted Mean Total Lake Phosphorus (g/m ) Washington Mountain Lake 0.009 October Mountain Lake 0.009 Schoolhouse Lake 0.011 These data indicate that all three lakes may be expected to be oligotrophic but that School- house Lake may approach a marginally mesotro- phic state. In any exercise of this type it is necessary to keep the limitations of the technique firmly in mind when interpreting the results. As Dillon and Rigler (1975) have pointed out, theoretical water budgets are often inaccurate for small watersheds, and the uncertainty in the phospho- rus export figures and in the loading from pre- cipitation could result in significant errors. In addition, the formula for estimation of R (phosphorus retention coefficient) has been shown to be subject to considerable error when q is low, as it is in two of the lakes (Dillon, personal communication) . Extremely rapid flush- ing rates may also adversely affect the model. This suggests that residence time is event- related rather than regular and predictable. Even so, these calculations do provide some guidance, provided care is used in interpreta- tion. In this instance all three lakes should be mar- ginally oligotrophic. Two of them, Washington Mountain Lake and October Mountain Lake, are approaching the mesotrophic threshold, while the third, Schoolhouse Lake, is slightly above this level. The phosphorus loading estimates in- cluded in these calculations are conservative, and it appears that no immediate problems exist D-7 in these lakes. Care should be taken, however, to insure that phosphorus loadings to these lakes are not increased by changes in land use in the watershed or by increased human activity. No septic systems should be installed in the watersheds. Other activi- ties, such as clearing of parking sites, fertilization of grasslands, construction of parking lots and/or recreational facilities, etc., should be carefully evaluated before development. Shoreline development and clearing should be discouraged. In the case of Schoolhouse Lake there appears to be little danger of a major eutrophication problem, due to the high flush- ing rate of the lake. With a mean residence time of 10 days it is considered unlikely that algal blooms will occur. This does not consider seasonal variation in flushing rate, which should be evaluated before extensive watershed modification is undertaken. All three of these lakes are shallow, and while the model suggests all will be oligotrophic , it does not directly consider the impact of rooted aquatic vege- tation. This is considered to be only a potential problem. The conclusions are supported by observations made at Finnerty Pond, which, during the summer of this study, gave no indications of eutrohication. At the same time, however, Woods Pond, at the base of the October Mountain, is a vivid example of the potential problem, should the assimilative capacity of these lakes be exceeded. D-8 TROPHIC STATE CALCULATIONS FOR WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN LAKE DATA 3 2 Areal discharge 0.736m /m /yr Lake area 224 acres = 906,493m Drainage area 1.60 sq. mi. = 4,143,968m 2 Lake volume 3,225 acre ft = 3,978,001m2 Mean depth 4.38m P load = .010g/m 2 /yr P in Rainfall = .075g/m 2 /yr 1. Q = A • r + A (Pr-Ev) Q = (4,143,968m 2 ) (0.736m 3 /m 2 /yr) + (906 , 493m 2 ) (0 . 109m/yr-0 . 069m/yr Q = 3,086,220 m 3 /yr 2. L = A, * P, + A * P d d o p_ A o L = (4,143,968m 2 ) ( . 010g/m 2 /yr) + (906 , 493m 2 ) (. 075g/m 2 /yr) 906,493 m^ L = .120g/m 2 /yr , Q 3. e = - 3,086,220m 3 /yr e " 3,978.001 e = O^Syr" 1 4. R = 0.426e (-0. 2 71q s ) + .57e (-0.00949q s ) q s = Q/A = 3,086,220/906,493 [ q S = 3 - 40 R = .170 + .556 R = .725 5. [P]= ki±l*L Ze [p]= (0.120) (1-.725) (4.38) (0.78) [P]= .009g/m 3 D-9 TROPHIC STATE CALCULATIONS FOR OCTOBER MOUNTAIN LAKE DATA 3 2 Areal discharge 0.736m /m /yr Lake area 90 acres = 364 , 217nu Drainage area 1.28 sq.mi. = 3,315,174m Lake volume 1130 acre ft = 1,393,842m 3 Mean depth 3.8m P load = .010g/m 2 /yr P in Rainfall = 0.075q/m 2 /yr Q = A , * r + A (Pr-Ev) a o Q= (3,315,174) (0.736) = (364 , 217) (0 . 109-0 . 069) Q = 2,454,537m 3 /yr L = A, ' P, + A * P d d o £ A o L = (3,315,174m 2 ) (0 . 010g/m 2 /yr ) + (364,217m 2 ) ( . 075g/m 2 /yr ) 364,217 2 L = 0.166g/m /yr 3 e = 2 j. e v e = 2 ' 454 ' 537m 3 /yr l,393,842m3 e = 1.76yr _1 4. R = 0.426e ( -°' 271( 5s) + . 574e (-0.0094q s ) q s = Q/Ao = 2,454,537/364,217 q s = 6.74 R = .069 + .538 R = .607 5.[ P ]= kiizRL Ze [P]= (0-166) (1-.607) (3.8) (1.76) [P]= .009g/m 3 D-10 TROPHIC STATE CALCULATIONS FOR SCHOOLHOUSE LAKE DATA 3 2 Areal discharge 0.736m /m /yr Lake area 15 acres = 60,702m 2 Drainage area 3.27 sq.mi. = 8,469,235m Lake volume 140 acre ft = 172,688m 3 Mean depth 2 P load = O.OlOg/m /yr P in Rainfall = 0.075q/m /yr 1. Q = A , ' r + A (Pr-Ev) d o , Q= (8,469,235) (0.736) + (60 , 702) (0 . 109- . 069) Q = 6,235,785 2. L = A, • P, + A * P d d o p _ o L = (6,469,235m 2 ) ( . 010g/m 2 /yr) + (60,802m 2 ) ( . 075g/m 2 /yr) 60,702 L = 1.4 7g/m 2 /yr J. e = y e = 6,235,785m 3 /yr 172,688m 3 e = Se.lyr" 1 4. R = 0.426e ( -° 271c 2s ) + 0#574e (-0.00949q s ) q S = Q/ A o = 6,235,785/60,702 q s = 103 R = + .216 R = .216 5. [P]= Ml-R) Zp [P]= d.47) (1-.216) (2.84) (36.1) [P]= .011g/m 3 D-ll ESTIMATED BOATING USE Total Surface Area (acres) Boating Area (acres) Power Boating Capacity (Boating Area/ 10) Turnover (Capacity x 1.5) Annual Use (Turnover x 153) Activity Days (Annual Use x 3) Nonpower Boating (Desirable) Capacity (Total Area/6) Turnover (Capacity x 1.5) Annual Use (Turnover x 153) Activity Days (Annual Use x 3) October Washington Mountain Mountain Lake Lake 90 224 29 127 3 13 4.5 19 689 2,907 2,067 8,721 15 37 22.5 56 3,443 8,568 10,329 25,704 D-12 APPENDIX E WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Town of Lenox, Massachusetts Fifteen alternate water supply schemes for the town of Lenox have been reviewed and reanalyzed by Whitman and Howard Inc. A brief description of each scheme along with relevant rulings, costs, advantages, and disadvantages follows. The life of each project is the time period over which present and projected demand will be satisfied through development of the source. ! It should be noted that the construction costs to follow are for spring, 1978 construction and do not include land costs, legal fees, etc. Also, the opera- tional costs are based on meeting present water demands. As water demands increase, so will the operational costs. Costs for these alternatives have been updated to 1980 price base and are presented on page E-5. 1. Pleasant Val ley The Pleasant Valley site involves the construction of a dam and reservoir along Yokun Brook. The reservoir would flood 55 acres, all of which is owned by the Massachusetts Audubon Society. A 2 million gallon per day (MGD) water treat- ment plant would be constructed and 12,300 feet of 12-inch pipeline would connect the water treatment plant to the Aspinwall tank. The total cost of this project is estimated at $3,900,000 and the yearly operational cost would be $41,000. The combined safe yield of the existing Root Reservoirs and Pleasant Valley would be 1.6 MGD. This safe yield represents better than a 50 year life with respect to water quantity. The entire land acquisition is estimated at 72 acres for this project. 2. Fairfield Brook This project requires the construction of a dam and reservoir in the town of Richmond. This site would flood 115 acres of land along Fairfield Brook and would inundate three homes. A 2 MGD water treatment plant and 23,500 feet of 12-inch pipeline would have to be constructed. The total project cost is estimated at $4,030,000 with a yearly operational cost of $42,000. This project would have a 40 year life, a safe yield of 0.74 MGD and require the purchasing of approximately 142 acres of land. 3. Geller Land (N/W Mountain Road The Geller land site is located on the northwest side of Mountain Road in Lenox. This project involves the construction of a dam and reservoir having a water surface area of 101 acres. Better than 50 percent of this area is located in the City of Pittsfield. This site requires pumping Yokun Brook into the reservoir to develop adequate yield. A 2 MGD water treatment plant would be required along with 15,500 feet of 12-inch pipeline. This site along with the Root Reservoirs would provide a safe yield that would meet the town's water needs well beyond 50 years. The yearly operational cost would be $43,000 and the construction cost is estimated at $4,525,000. This project requires approximately 131 acres of land in Lenox and Pittsfield. E-l 4. Felton Lake and Site 3 This project involves the diversion of excess flows from Site 3, on the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project, to Felton Lake. The Felton Lake dam and reservoir will have to be enlarged. An intake would be constructed at Site 3 and a 20-inch raw water transmission main would connect Site 3 to Felton Lake. A 2 MGD water treatment plant, 24,000 feet of 12- inch pipeline and a pressure reducing valve chamber would also be built. The total project cost is estimated at $6,414,000 and a yearly operational cost of $37,000. The combined safe yield of Felton Lake, Site 3 and the Root Reservoirs would be 1.3 MGD which represents a 35-year project life. Total land acquisition is estimated at 73 acres. 5. Ravine Above Woolsey Reservoir This project involves pumping Yokun Brook into a dam and reservoir con- structed in the ravine adjacent to Reservoir Road in Lenox. Due to the difference in elevation between this reservoir and Yokun Brook, two 4 MGD booster pumping stations and 9000 feet of 16-inch pipeline would be required to fill the reservoir. A 2 MGD water treatment plant and 12,000 feet of 12- inch pipeline would connect the supply to the proposed Aspin- wall Storage Tank. The land acquisition for this project is estimated at 23 acres and the project life would be greater than 50 years. The total project cost is $7,360,000 and the yearly operational cost would be $55,000. 6. Rock Wells (Lime-Soda Ash Treatment) This project involves the construction of deep rock wells in New Lenox at the base of October Mountain. Water quality is uncertain but will probably be very hard. Therefore, water softening will be required. The number of wells required to obtain a safe yield of 1 MGD is also question- able. As a matter of fact, this site may not even be capable of yielding 1 MGD. However, it could also yield considerably more. This project requires the construction of deep wells, pumping stations, equipment, 8-inch raw water transmission main, 1 MGD lime-soda ash water softening treatment plant, 22,400 feet of 12-inch pipeline and a 1 MGD intermediate booster pumping station. The yearly operational cost is estimated at $78,000 and the initial project cost is estimated at $2,830,000. If the rock wells could be developed to a 1 MGD safe yield, the project life would be better than 50 years. 7. Rock Wells (Ion-Exchange Treatment) This project is identical to the "Rock Wells (Lime-Soda Ash Treatment)" except for treatment as the titles suggest. Under this scheme, an ion exchange treatment process would be used in lieu of the lime-soda ash treatment process. The total project cost would be $2,450,000 with a yearly operational cost of $42,000. The major disadvantage of an ion exchange treatment process is the addition of sodium to the water. This E-2 process exchanges sodium ions for calcium ions. The A.M. A. has recom- mended a maxiumum sodium limit of 20 mg/1 for heart patients. A sodium concentration of better than 100 mg/1 would exist from this supply if it was softened with the ion exchange process. 8. Vahle Land (S/W Mountain Road) The Vahle Land project involves the construction of a dam and reservoir on the southwesterly side of Mountain Road in the Town of Lenox. This site would inundate three homes on Mountain Road. A 2 MGD water treat- ment plant of 15,500 feet of 12-inch pipeline would be required. The total project cost is estimated at $4,488,000, and the yearly operational cost would be approximately $78,900/ The projected project life is better than 50 years as the combined safe yield of the Root Reservoirs and the Vahle Land would be 2.26 MGD. 9. Foess Well (Lime-Soda Ash Treatment) The Foess Well scheme involves the construction of a deep well in the town of Lee along the Housatonic River. The well would be drilled into limestone and yield hard water similar to that anticipated at the Rock Well Site in New Lenox. This project includes the construction of a well, 1 MGD lime-soda ash softening plant, 15,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline, ground storage tank and a 1 MGD booster pumping station. The estimated construction cost is $2,152,000 with a yearly operational cost of $75,000. If the well could actually be developed for 1 MGD, its projected life would be better than 50 years when combined with the Root Reservoirs. It must be noted that a letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health, dated March 10, 1975, ruled out this area by restricting ground water exploration to the areas between Willow Creek and Yokun Brook. 10. Foess Well (Ion Exchange Treatment) This project is identical to the previously discussed project "Foess Well (Lime-Soda Ash Treatment)" except for the treatment process. Under this scheme an ion exchange process would be used in lieu of a lime-soda ash process. The operational cost would be approximately $39,000 per year and the initial construction cost would be $1,775,000. Again, with ion exchange, sodium levels will greatly exceed the A.M. A. recommended limit of 20 mg/1. 11. Raise Lower Root Reservoir This project involves raising the existing Lower Root Reservoir to obtain a total safe yield of 1 MGD. Additional work required includes a valve chamber, 2 MGD temporary water treatment facility and 20,500 feet of 12- inch pipeline. The total project cost is estimated at $5,080,000. There would be no operational costs as treatment would not be required. However, the project life is zero as the town's water demands will probably reach the safe yield by the time construction would be completed. E-3 12. Raise Upper Root Reservoir This project is essentially identical to raising the Lower Root Reservoir except that the Upper Reservoir would be raised and the Lower Reservoir would remain intact. The estimated project cost is $4,135,000 with no operational cost and no project life. 13. Lenox Mountain Brook This project involves the construction of a dam and reservoir on Lenox Mountain Brook in the town of Richmond. The reservoir site is located about 1 mile downstream of the Root Reservoirs. In addition to construct- ing a dam and reservoir, a 2 MGD water treatment plant and 18,500 feet of 12- inch pipeline would be required. This project would have a zero life expectancy as its safe yield is only 0.32 MGD. The land acquisition for the Lenox Mountain Brook project is estimated at 52 acres. 14. Schweitzer Wells (No Treatment) This project involves purchasing 0.5 MGD from the Schweitzer Paper Company. Under this scheme, treatment would not be required except for chlorination. Two pumping stations and 15,000 feet of 12- inch pipeline would be required. The total project cost is estimated at $1,063,000 with a yearly operational cost of $17,000. The projected project life is 10 years and land acquisition would be approximately 2 acres. Water samples collected in March and August of 1977 reveal the presence of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, the presence of PCBs in Schweitzer's wells rules out their use as a municipal water supply. This will be confirmed in writing by the state. 15. Schweitzer Wells (Conventional Treatment) This project is essentially identical to the project just discussed except that the water would receive conventional treatment prior to being pumped into the distribution system. The project cost is estimated at $1,845,000 and the yearly operational cost would be $37,000. Again, the project life would be 10 years. Also, PCBs would still exist. Therefore, this water source can't be used as a municipal water supply. Recommendations ' It is Whitman & Howard's recommendation that the town of Lenox proceed with the Pleasant Valley alternative. All other options presented herein have drawbacks in one form or another that clearly reveal, from an engi- neering viewpoint, that Pleasant Valley is the best source of additional water for the town. However, land acquisition costs and/or possible litigations may be such that another alternative would be more advan- tageous. Lenox's current consultants J. F. Moynihan and Associates, Inc. have recommended the Washington Mountain Brook project to the town and have identified Pleasant Valley and Vahle site as the next most feasible alternative 1/ SCS comment - These recommendations preceded (9/77) the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed project, as presently planned, and therefore were not considered as options. E-4 L The Lenox Mountain Brook project, raising the Lower Root Reservoir and raising the Upper Root Reservoir, all provide little additional supply such that they may be undersized by the time construction would be com- pleted. The Foess Wells and the Schweitzer Wells have been eliminated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. The rock wells are highly questionable with respect to quantity and treatment costs would be excessively high. Felton Lake with Site 3 and the ravine above Woolsey Reservoir both have high construction costs. The Vahle Land project inundates three homes on Mountain Road and the Fairfield Brook project would inundate three homes on Swamp Road. The Geller land project costs are close to the Pleasant Valley project costs but require purchasing approximately 83 acres of land in the city of Pittsfield. For the town of Lenox to purchase land in any community, Lenox must first obtain approval of the voters at town meeting and this approval must also be obtained in the town or city in which the parcel of land lies. With both communities consenting, the Massachusetts Legislature must also ratify the land purchase. Approval from a sur- rounding community is highly suspect considering the growing need for additional water in almost every town and city. Therefore, we believe Pleasant Valley to be the most favorable additional water supply avail- able to the town of Lenox. 1980 COST UPDATE Alternative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Pleasant Valley Reservoir Geller Land Reservoir Vahle Land Reservoir Washington Mountain Brook Project Fairfield Brook Felton Lake Rock Wells (Lime-Soda Ash Treatment) Rock Wells (Ion exchange Treatment) Foess Well (Lime Soda Ash Treatment) Foess Well (Ion exchange Treatment) Raise Lower Root Reservoir Schweitzer Wells (Conventional Treatment 13. Schweitzer Wells (No Treatment) Cost of Project $4,668,000.00 5,083,000.00 4,446,000.00 960,500.00 4,699,000.00 7,479,000.00 3,300,000.00 2,857,000.00 2,509,000.00 2,070,000.00 5,924,000.00 2,151,000.00 1,240,000.00 1/ Maintenance $75,900.00/yr 60,690.00/yr 78,900.00/yr 49,000.00/yr 43,100.00/yr 91,000.00/yr 49,000.00/yr 87,500.00/yr 45,000.00/yr 43,100.00/yr 19,800.00/yr 1/ Updated using ENR index. Does not include land costs. E-5 Town of Lee, Massachusetts The following data for water supply alternatives were provided by the town of Lee through their consulting firm of Tighe and Bond, Inc. The data developed is preliminary and assumptions were made regarding the quality of surface water sources and the quantity of ground water sources. Therefore, equipment and treatment costs have been developed accordingly. Land requirements for each alternative have been con- sidered and are included in the construction costs. Facilities and construction required by the town of Lenox to utilize up to 0.75 million gallons daily (mgd) from each of the following alterna- tives is the same. These include: 17,200 feet of 12 inch pipeline; a pressure reducing valve chamber; and two, 2 mgd booster pumping stations. These items represent a construction cost of $1,351,000 and an annual operation and maintenance cost of about $9,800. The ground water aquifers are shown on Figure 26 (page 85). The surface water sites are identified by a three digit number which appeared in a 1969 report entitled "A Study of Potential Reservoir Sites, Housatonic Study Area, Massachusetts. "I/ 1. This project is development of ground water well(s) in the Woods Pond aquifer, with treatment for hardness. A treatment plant for the existing surface water supply would also be provided. Additional construction in- cludes 10,000 feet of piping and two storage tanks. To provide an addi- tional 1.7 million gallons daily (mgd) for the town of Lee the initial cost would be $3,276,000. The total annual operation and maintenance cost would be about $184,000. To supply Lenox, 2,000 feet of additional piping and a large storage tank would be required. To provide 2.45 mgd, annual construction costs would be $5,492,800. The total annual operation and maintenance would be about $231,800. This source is presently not a viable alternative due to the presence of PCBs found in existing wells in the aquifer. 2. This project is development of ground water well(s) in the Greenwater Brook aquifer, with treatment for hardness. A treatment plant for the existing surface water supply would also be provided. Additional con- C + wirtiftn n-F 9Q HOf! foot rvf ninalinnp •* rxA +...« ft-n~?>r, n f^xl/r 3 *»« -inolnsJ. wuu i u reqU i i c an auu i u i vna i t , uuu i ecu ui u i uc i i lie anu en i ai yciuciiu ui ui storage tank. To provide 2.45 mgd for Lee and Lenox would require an initial cost of $6,387,200 and an annual operation and maintenance cost of about $253,800. The safe yield of this development has been assumed. 1/ U.S. Department, of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, A Study of Potential Reservoir Sites, Housatonic Study Area, Massachusetts , Amherst, Massachusetts, June 1969. E-6 3. This project is development of surface water sites in the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed. The site designations are 702 and 703 or the location of Schoolhouse Lake and October Mountain Lake sites, respectively. Storage at both locations would provide a combined safe yield of up to 2.45 mgd. In addition to the reservoirs (2), a treatment plant, 15,000 feet of 16 inch piping and two 1-MG storage tanks are included. The treat- ment plant would process water from the existing source in addition to the new source. The initial construction cost to provide 1.7 mgd is $4,739,920, while the annual operation and maintenance cost is about $95,500. To pro- vide 2.45 mgd for Lee and Lenox would require an additional 10,000 feet of 12 inch pipelines and an increased storage of 1 MG at an initial cost of $7,434,120, with an annual operation and maintenance cost of about $117,300. 4. This project is development of a surface water site on Lily Brook, east of Stockbridge Bowl, in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. The site designation is 606. Construction of the following would be required: dam and reser- voir, booster pumping station, two water treatment plants, 18,000 feet of pipelines and two 1 MG storage tanks. The new and existing source would be treated separately. The site has the capability of providing up to 2.5 mgd. To provide Lee with 1.7 mgd would cost $4,940,000 for initial con- struction and about $128,000 annually for operation and maintenance. To provide 2.45 mgd for Lee and Lenox would require an additional 4,000 feet of 12 inch pipelines and a 1-MG increase in storage tank capacity, at a total cost of $7,333,600 initially, and about $158,800 annually for opera- tion and maintenance. 5. This project would require development of a surface water site (#621) on Basin Pond Brook, in Lee. The site has the potential to provide a safe yield of 2.45 mgd. Required construction includes: dam and reser- voir, two treatment plants (for new and existing supplies), 18,000 feet of piping, and two 1-MG storage tanks. To provide 1.7 mgd for Lee the con- struction costs would be $6,297,200 and the annual operation and mainten- ance costs about $105,000. Development of a 2.45 mgd supply would require 4,000 feet of additional piping and a 1-MG increase in storage tank capacity, at a total initial cost of $8,690,800 with annual operation and maintenance costs of about $126,800. 6. This project is development of surface water site #802 on Hop Brook in Tyringham, Massachusetts. Construction includes: dam and reservoir, booster pump station, two water treatment plants (for new and existing supplies), 32,000 feet of 18 inch pipelines, and two 1-MG storage tanks. Land require- ments for this development are significant. To provide 1.7 mgd for Lee would cost $6,589,700 for construction and about $124,500 annually for operation and maintenance. To supply Lee and Lenox (2.45 mgd), 4,000 feet of additional piping and a 1-MG increase in storage tank capacity are required. Con- struction would amount to $8,983,300, with an annual operation and main- tenance cost of about $162, 800. 7. This project is development of surface water site 908 on West Brook in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Required construction includes: dam and reservoir, two treatment plants (for new and existing supplies), E-7 30,000 feet of 16 inch pipelines and two 1-MG storage tanks. To provide 1.7 rngd for Lee would cost $6,756,100 in initial construction and about $107,000 annually for operation and maintenance. To provide 2.45 rngd for Lee and Lenox would require 4,000 feet of additional pipelines and a 1-MG increase in storage tank capacity, at a total initial cost of $9,149,700 for construction, and about $126,300 for annual operation and maintenance. The table on page E-9 summarizes the construction and annual costs for each project, using 1980 estimates and an interest rate of 7 1/8 percent. A comparative cost for each project has also been developed to determine which alternative is the least costly for the town of Lee to develop. Recommendations Tighe and Bond, Inc. recommends that the town of Lee continue to support the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed project in order to eventually develop that project as a water supply source. The reasons are two-fold. The project is economically beneficial and the environmental impacts are minimal . E-8 L oo UJ > <: z cc a. oo cc UJ oo cc UJ o 00 U- ZD :n >- O cc < < oo ?■ oo s: < oo oo UJ 00 o o >- cc CM O- O X o I UJ cc o oo o o cc o oo o o co oo o o <: ex o o to z o o 00 z o o CO I— oo o o C£ o o o0 O O a: i— oo z o <_> UJ o or Q- O O CM 00 CO «>o- o o o CM en IT) o o CM n **- oo *i- oo" ■feO- o o co o o en 00 o o co 00 OO to o o * IT) tO uo o o en en t— I CM O O O O CM O O O CM CM CO O O O on o o o r*. en o o o lO «3- o o o * O CM o o o tO •3- o o CM co 00 * tO O O o o co o o CM tO co en o o r-» oo en o o » en Lf) oo en o o co LO o o o to o o CO o o CM o o o o CM o o O O CO en co CM en o co co CM CM oo o i— i CO* en i — 00 o en i— i er> o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO CM «5f o o 00 CO CM CM to OO CO ID CO o o en * CM en to o o tO CM LO O O O o" tO o o ir> CM co o o tO A CO 00 tO o o tO r~ I — oo LT> in ^ s_ O <4- 2 •r— oa 3 CT c to L. oo C1J • r— CU O r- c 1 Z3 ~K o 3 CT S- -o o s_ <: t- ca c s: a- eu T7 +-> i- c IT c o +-> O. •!- ^ "O 3 cu eu -c o O O ai 4-> (/) i~ O S- S- •>- (O C£i 3 o tD oo 3 o ID O O 5- to CO cu >> -»-> •— 00 _1 CM o o i- ca ■o c ^H O cm a. c CU -r- +J l/> •i- ro OO CO LT) CM O CO *- CO cu •^ o 00 3Z UD O CO p o *- +-> to •^ cu 00 3 cu cu a. oo ■o cu N (T3 a. o m o o o0 O c c • <: • >> •r- (T3 <0 to W C O C O <_> O i— r — .— C .— IO O n3 CD-'— CD +J c o cop O •r- t- •r- i— 4-> i — i — >- >- oo o cu cu t_3 o cu Q. CJ oo to i- 4-> 4J 4-> to OO OO O O C O O O O -t-> -t-> c c cu cu cu c E E •<- -!->-»->•— +J 4-> Cl. co co x uoo Q_ o. c cu 4- S- _J o o o O O 4- O O O to O . «o en en on co i»» « LO o o n «lO t— i cm en C C +-> oo oo to o o — oo oo E o u u (O and 3) generalized flash flood watches and warnings. Selection of a method for a specific community depends on the hydrologic nature of the problem in that area. In some cases a combination of methods is used. With the first method, a forecast procedure prepared by IWIS officials is provided to a community official. He collects rainfall data and prepares the official forecasts required. The FFAS is a specialized river gage which senses a pre-selected critical water level and sounds an alarm. The alarm portion of FFAS*s is placed in some disaster oriented office, such as a police station which is always manned around the clock. Disaster officials warn endangered citizens end nointor upstream conditions to get an ids of the stage to be expected. Areas which cannot be served by either of these methods must rely on flash flood watches and warnings. The watch means that conditions conducive to flooding are expected. Interested parties should stay informed and ready for immediate action if a warning is received or flooding is observed. The warning means that flooding is imminent or in progress and low areas should be evacuated immediately. The success of any natural disaster warning program is dependent on community preparedness and pre-designed plans of action. ca F-28 -^ r . i •■■ .*4 « 1 |l'.\ i • UP i K'NG r. • v 1 •• •; -i» mi »•; ". W '.VIC > '', r.i'l i,mh f / • •• • /- ' • ( ;xr<« /a*' ('/ft''' '/ f't//rf/i ,v,v,, ////// .* /unit i /Of i ' .tnti/.y/t/t.-r .//,,,/ • '/Stx/on, . ({,*&«<'/,«}. (h L'JXCV cKKTiricATi; ok Tin-: skcrktary of lnyikonmiii.ta-i. aitairs ON i.'RAKT i.::vikonmi;ntai, impact rkpopi' i'ko.ikct N'AMi;: Washington Mountain Brook Washington i.oka ^p:ii,f.r: 02476 I'RO.n-f.T i'Ri)i(i:,i„\r : Water Resources Commission hath N'vncr.n in monitor: September 22, 1980 III'.' lurt.- ii:i..iry p! I'.u v i ronwi'nl.i I Ai'l'iir.-, inMi'in ismu's .1 .;i ;i( i«;s,i 1;! th.'ll I. In.' Pl'.lll I'.ilV i I Ollill'Ml ( ,) 1 I lilp.il- t lu'pOll ■; ll|i !i; i I l ( (J ,-|l [III"" .!iJ(.\V~ r«.»l 1 n nerd pioj.w I. elm's .iili-fpi.-iLcl V -isu! piMp.-rlv i**«r:;» 1 v villi ;-i.i:;;;.i<-!i;: ;.■ I { :; CiMU'r.Jl i..v,.'-., Cii.-ipli't- 30, Sv»M Urn (>.:- ''■>.'' II l.iii'lu •; i vi», .-iii*l the n\r.ulnl Im:; i mp 1 i-i miiI i \\\\ "1 j'A . A Draft EIR for this project was submitted and reviewed in 1977 and was deemed inadequate by the Secretary. Another Draft EIR was sub- mitted in 1978 and was deemed adequate with comments by Secretary Murphy MEPA has reviewed the present document submitted as a Draft EIR under NEPA and, by agreement with the Amherst office of the USDA-SCS, we are considering this document as an additional Draft EIR. Comments received on this document will therefore be addressed in a combined Final EIS/EIR. The absence of responses to comments received on the 1978 Draft EIR would require a determination of inadequacy as a Final EIR. Although I find this document adequate to satisfy the requirements of MEPA with regard to a Draft EIR, the following issues should be addressed in the Final EIR. F-29 Washington Mountain Brook EOEA No. 03476 Page 2 GENERAL The report should make very clear what are the specific elements of the Project. The initial phase of Washington Mountain Lake has been excluded consistently throughout the report and there is a reasonable argument that the No-Build Alternative could include the work already accomplished at WML. Therefore, the impacts, costs and benefits of WML as flood storage need not be considered as part of the project under review. However, certain elements of the project, such as costs for water supply for Lee, the costs of relocat- ing the AT&T cable, and other incomplete elements must be carried through consistently in the analysis of both costs and environmental impacts. FLOODING The report indicates that after completion, 65% of the watershed will be controlled and that would indicate that a comma r 6urate reduction in channel flow would result. If this is the case, it would follow that perhaps there would not be a need for the extensive channel alterations that are proposed. An alternative stream control measure is to consider rebuilding the Newton Bridge, which has an inadequate opening causing flood flows to over- top the structure. These flood flows are then diverted down Washington Moun- tain Road causing extensive erosion and roadway damage. It is likely that the existing small bridge may be damaged considerably by construction vehicles working in the upstream areas and may require replacement anyway. The existing watershed comes to peak discharge relatively quickly and certainly peaks earlier than the Housatonic Watershed. What will be the effect of delaying this peak from the WMB Watershed on the peak discharge in the Housantonic? Will the delayed discharge increase the potential for flooding in the Housatonic by adding to peak flows in this larger stream? SEDIMENT C ONTROL The natural condition of WMB is to discharge as a torrent and to carry considerable sediment including large rocks and debris as bedload. The pro- posed sediment controls for the project as described in the DEIR are located in-stream, and are designed to collect only material larger than 6 inches in size. All sediment smaller than 6 inches will continue down the Brook toward the Housatonic What will be the effect of this sediment on the downstream areas? The water pipeline will be constructed along the difficult terrain parallel to WMB and appears to have as many as 7 crossings of the Brook. To perform such construction in difficult terrain including stream crossings in an area of high energy runoff will be extremely difficult. What measures will be taken to handle this potentially dangerous situation? F-30 Washington Mountain Brook EOEA No. 03476 Page 3 WATER SUPPLY The DEIR presents a brief discussion of groundwater and dismisses ground- water as an alternative source of water because of contamination by PCB's and hardness. In the original comments on this project by Secretary Murphy, a discussion of groundwater as an alternative water source was mandated and I feel that dismissal of this alternative for the stated reasons is unwarranted. There is evidence presented in the MAS comments of 10/22/80 that serious PCB contamination does not exist and that hardness may actually be a benefit in terms of public health. The FEIR shall discuss the groundwater alternative in detail . The demand figures presented in the report based on population projections and the industrial demand figures are unsubstantiated. Since water supply is a major element in the justification of the project, the demand for water, both present and future, should be adequately documented. The cooperative arrangement between Lee and Lenox with respect to water supply should be defined and reported in the FEIR. ' Since both recreation and water supply are justifications of the project, there should be included in the FIER a detailed discussion of the potential conflicts between these two uses of the same watersheds. This is particularly true since the land is presently recreation oriented and will hopefully remain in that use. LAND USE The FEIR should discuss and present any agreements relating to Article 97 of the State Constitution as presented in the comment by the Division of Forests and Parks. OTHER COMMENTS The Division of Water Pollution Control has indicated in their comment that the conclusion regarding water quality may be optimistic. If quality problems warrant treatment, the costs of the treatment should be included in the discussion of costs. It is clear from the comments received that there are significant questions regarding the Cost/Benefit Analysis for the project. Although MEPA has no direct jurisdiction over economic issues we have a considerable interest in this matter. Because the NEPA process requires study of the Cost/Benefit issue, we leave the response to the comments by CLF to the NEPA jurisdiction, but will review the response with interest. SGM:RNF:jc 2 DATE \BPTA. BEWICK, SECRE/ARY F-31 J $ EG0 >y t ^ \ t w *, October 22, 1980 Secretary Executive Office of Environmental QC~f £ K " Affairs .vtS-JU^ « c « 20th Floor WlKSS- «*»-' ^ ptSQ'i^ 100 Cambridge Street ^--- ,r " Boston, Massachusetts 02202 ATTENTION: MEPA Unit EOEA No. 02476 Washington Mountain Brook Watershed Project Dear Secretary: The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) , M.G.L. Chapter 30,ss.61 et. seq. , mandates that "[u]nless a clear contrary intent is" manifested, all statutes shall be interpreted and administered so as to minimize and prevent damage to the environment." Section 61, (emphasis supplied). "(This) substantive section requires that each agency (including state boards, departments, commissions and authorities, and many local authorities) review the impact on the environment of their activities, and use a ll practicable means and measures to minimize or prevent damage to the environment." Environmental Policy Act" (MCLE-NELI, Inc. 1980), p. 219. The MEPA mandate and substantive requirements are applicable to projects developed, sponsored, and funded by the state Water Resources Commission, such as the Washing- ton Mountain Brook Watershed project. There is no evidence in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) /Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS) that the Commission has interpreted or administered its legislative authorization in a manner which minimizes and prevents damage to the environment. F-32 The Final EIR fails to respond to most of the issues raised in CLF' s previous correspondence with MEPA and fails to respond to the statement made by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs dated April 7, 1977. CLF reasserts all issues raised in our previous correspondence and incorporates and asserts the issues presented by the Secretary in the statement dated Apirl 7, 1977. For instance, Washington Mountain lake is still missing from the EIR, except for the pipeline cost and the attribution of benefits. We have repeatedly stated that the costs and benefits for this PL-566 project cannot be segmented, one impoundment from the other. The multi-dam Washington Mountain Brook project is a single project in which the final EIR/EIS must include all costs of construction and engineering regardless of whether or not the construction precedes the EIR/EIS. This must be reflected in the cost/benefit ratio. In addition, the EIR/EIS must examine the environmental impact of the proposed (now completed) Washington Mountain Lake dam. I have attached as part of this comment a brief excerpt from a legal memorandum prepared as part of the background research for this project. I would particularly draw attention to the case involving a segmented SC3 dam project, Concerned Residents of Buck Hil l Fal ls v\ Grant, 388 F.Supp 39^ (M.D.Pa. 1975); Rev'dT 537 F.2d 20 "(3rd Cir.~19767T ' Another example would be the issues raised in CLF 1 s letter dated September 6, 1978, where we question why groundwater sources are dismissed because of hardness of water and PCBs. There is no response in the present EIR/FIS to these comments or a response to Dr. Ian Nisbet's dt.a which was present"! *c MST'A. Furthermore, the report appears to indicated -.rut in recent tostir.,:; -- ;: an unspecified portion of the Woods Fond aquifer, no PCBs. were found (see page 86). What is the significance of this statement: Fore importantly, W.y.U is the response to Dr. Nisbet who has tested all sources of water, and found PCBs even in snowfall. What is the significance of this data to existing and proposed reservoirs? This raises the issue of whether the sane parameters for water quality have been run on all sources considered for water supply. Is there consistency in the testing? This doeum-nt is required to be- a disclosure device and a planning mechanism - is it possible to make a rational decision on local or regional water supply based on the data contained within this report? Schoolhouse Lake is now considered part of the W4ter supply element and has had an average annual benefit amounting to $44,090 attributed to the proposed impoundment (see Appendix A). The EIR/EIS does not discuss how Schoolhouse Lake will answer a water supply need. There is no data in the report as to how this new source of water supply is rela^r.l A o a supply system -or how ~ -. - F-33 Page Three ( There is consistently unequal treatment in the discussion of existing sources and proposed sources. There is unequal treatment of surface water vs. groundwater supplies. There is not sufficient data in the EIIJ/eIS upon which any agency or political subdivision could make a rational decision on regional or local water supply. The document is inadequate in its treatment of the water supply purpose of the project. The RIR/EIS does not incorporate Lenox as part of the water supply component. The immediate critical need in the region appears from recent newspaper accounts to be a water supply problem in Lenox. The only mention of how this; project woucy] benefit Lenox appears on page 93 and concerns only an indirect benefit in that Lee will continue to supply New Lenox. As stated earlier, we reassert our earlier comments and incorporate the Secretary's comments of 1977. The only comment of the Secretary's that we would expand upon is to question why there is no response to the Secretary's comment on page 5 of the statement which reads: ". . . . the DEIR takes a count. ywide view in evaluating the significance of wetland acreage lost, tlie recreation aspect is considered on a restricted watershed basis". It i.-. imperative that the EIR/EIS address recreation alternatives that are no I minor variations on the theme proposed by the preferred alternative. Win I about Buckley- Dunton Reservoir and other recreational opportunities within the county or whatever consistent geographical unit is used? Attached are further comments on flood and sediment control and cost/benefit an. i I ysis. • ' r / 7 f .»uu-. rely, / ^-^ Jifcl i tT-i Picket F-34 C onsu union Law Foundation of New Finland, lnc.,3Jo\ Street, Boston. Massachusetts 02J08 (617) 742-2540 MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY CONSERVATION LINCOLN. MASSACHUSETTS 01773 • TEL. 617-259-9500 EDUCATION RESEARCH October 27, 1980 Sherman L. Lewis State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 Dear Mr. Lewis: These comments review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (which we understand will also serve as the Final Environmental Impact Report) on Washington Mountain Brook Watershed. This project proposes, in its entirety, three impoundments for municipal water supply, recreation, flood prevention and watershed protection. In total, it will impact approximately 3,000 acres of October Mountain State Forest. Background The Massachusetts Audubon Society became involved in the Washington Mountain Brook project in 1977 when we agreed to be coplaintiffs in a suit to be filed by the Conservation Law Foundation arguing that the Soil Conservation Service had failed to comply with numerous state and Federal laws and regulation required for projects of this type. In particular, the Soil Conservation Service had determined that no substantial environmental damage would occur; that therefore, preparation of a state Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under MEPA or a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA would not be required. When the Service subsequently suspended its activity on this project, pending the preparation of a Federal EIS, CLF and MAS concluded that any further proceedings in a judicial forum were inappropriate and withdrew notification of a suit at that time. Water Supply Secretary Murphy's Requirements; The project proposes water supply benefits foi Lee and Lenox in the form of 614 acre feet of capacity in October Mountain Lake and 620 acre feet in Schoolhouse Lake. In Secretary Murphy's memo of February 11, 1977, in which she stated that the Draft EIR did not adequately and properly comply with MEPA and with regulations governing the preparation of EIR's, she made the following requirements for compliance: F-35 MAS comments #02476 October 2?, 1980 Page 2 1. adequate information about demand and supply and safe yield of the Lee water system 2. consideration of alternative solutions, including the development of abundant ground water 3. inclusion of the cost of a pipeline to deliver the water 4. a discussion of a joint Lee/Lenox water system 5. discussion of the conflict between water supply and recreation on the impoundments 1. Demand and safe yield: The demand figures proposed for Lee and Lenox , based on current population figures and projections into the future, are inadequate and incomplete and appear totally hypothetical. The Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission projections for Lee are at variance with those of the former Office of State Planning, which projected virtually no growth. There is no information on the basis for the estimates of industrialization. The same applies to Lenox. The population figures are old and there is no discussion of the way they were obtained or the projections which were used. 2. Development of ground water: There is an extremely superficial dis- cussion of the ground water alternative (pp 84-86) and it is not included, as specifically required by the Secretary, in the discussion of alternatives. Ground water is dismissed because of hardness and possible PCB contamination. The EIS states that recent testing of wells in the Woods Pond aquifer has indicated the presence of PCBs . It also notes that results of water tests in March, 1979, did not disclose the presence of PCBs. Dr s I.C.T. Nisbet of our Scientific Staff did extensive testing of Lenox water sources in April, 1978 and his tests revealed no PCBs in the Woods Pond aquifer. In fact , he found that surface water was more highly contaminated . His report is attached to this comment. Hardness has been discussed at length and is not an insoluable problem. Ir is certainly not a health issue. In fact, there are recent studies which correlate hardness with freedom from disease in certain populations. The dismissal of the ground water option because of PCB contamination and hardness is unwarranted. In our opinion, the Secretarys mandate requires this discussion or a ground water supply as one of the alternatives. 3. Cost of the pipeline: While the cost of the pipeline itself is included in this EIS, there is no indication of how much improvements to Washington Mountain Brook Road will cost in order to make the area accessible for the heavy aquipment which will be required to install the pipeline. F-36 MAS comments #02476 October 2%, 1980 Page 3 4. Lee/Lenox system: There is no discussion of a LeeLenox water system. The only mention of cooperation between the two municipalities is the proposal for the sale of Lee water to Lenox. 5. Conflicts between water supply and recreation: There is minimal discussion of the conflict between water supply and recreation. More importantly, there is no discussion at all of the fact that this is a diversion of land under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which will require a 2/3 vote of the legislature and mitigating measures to replace for the people of the Commonwealth the lands forgone to provide benefits for a small segment of the population. Water supply conservation There is again, a very superficial discussion of the possibility of conserving significant quantities of water through a conservation program, in the town of Lee. Lee now has flat rate for^its pricing structure but there is no indication in the EIS that all of Lee is metered. Lenox, according to the EIS, has 90% metering and practices conservation, but there is no indication of whether the percentage of the consumers who are metered includes the highest consumers. Destruction of Wetlands There is no adequate discussion of the environmental effects on wildlife of the destruction of 65 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of natural perennial stream and 1500 feet of natural intermittent stream. Wetlands are under constant pressure in Massachusetts and continue to be destroyed despite the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. These serve for flood, control, drinking water recharge areas, pollution abatement, wildlife habitat and fishery enhancement, among other values. The costs of these losses, or any valid acknowledgement of them, are not included in the EIS. Costs While I cannot include in these comments a detailed discussion of costs., there are several glaring omissions on the cost side of the ledger which I would point out: the cost of the road improvements connected with the pipeline are omitted the cost for Washington Mountain Lake, already built as part of the project, is omitted because the impoundment has already been constructed; I believe such segmentation is illegal . no cost for land acquisition required to replace the land diverted in the state forest has been included no cost for the treatment plant which may be required h,as been included; stringent standards being implemented under the Safe D inking Water Act may well require treatment for turbidity, color or other contaminants F-37 MAS comment #02476 October 2/, 1980 p age 4 no cost for the pipeline from the treatment plant to the present system has been included (the latter two are mentioned as part of Phase 2 but are not included in the cost/benefit ratio) In our opinion, this EIS suffers from many of the deficiencies of previous drafts, does not address the Secretary^ requirements for compliance, in many cases, and, in particular, omits the consideration of ground water for spurious reasons. We urge you to reject it as inadequate. Sincerely, jQtfr»v-ft OtLjo Deborah V. Howard, Co-Director Public Affairs Enclosure F-38 JERBC New England River Basins Commission 141 Milk Street. fluid floor Boston, Miissiiiliusetts i>2KN I'd. Al7-22.i-(tM4 November 12, 1980 Mr. Sherman L. Lewis State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 Dear Mr. Lewis: We have reviewed the June, 1980 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Washington Mountain Brook Watershed in Berkshire County, Massachusetts . This document describes the remaining elements of a project consisting of conservation land treatment, three multi-purpose reservoirs, and channel work to benefit Washington, Lee, and Becket, Massachusetts. The Draft EIS indicates that the project will decrease the area subject to the one-percent chance flood and reduce associated damages to existing property by 88 percent. The multi-purpose reservoirs will also provide water supply and recreation benefits to this locality. NERBC adopted a policy in 1978 which states that "preference is to be placed on the use of nonstructural measures to modify susceptibility to flooding" (page 16, Regional Policy Statement on Flood Plain Management in New England ). This agency has not adopted specific recommendations for Berkshire County. Therefore, we have used the regional policy statement as the principle reference to evaluate the proposed project for consistency. The NERBC policy statement recognizes that the sole use of nonstructural measures may not be possible in every instance. The relationship of Washington Mountain Brook to the alluvial fan in Lee where damages are highest suggests that this may be the situation in this case. The information presented in the Draft EIS, however, is insufficient to determine the degree to which a different combination of measures might have reduced the extent of property damage. The report does not present information on the degree to which each of the structural measures reduces the area subject to flooding for the one-percent chance event. The section on ALTERNATIVES , page 103 through 114, shows that nonstructural measures were considered as components only in Alternative V. Presentation of the increments of protection afforded by each component measure relative to the area impacted by the one-percent flood in each alternative in the Final EIS will improve this agency's ability to make a determination on the degree to which this project is consistent with adopted NERBC policy. F-39 Mr. Sherman L. Lewis November 12, 1980 Page 2 We also note that on page C-l, Appendix C, the discount rate used to calculate average annual costs for the project was 3-1/4 percent. It is our understanding that the rate required by the U.S. Water Resources Council for federal projects for FY 1981 is 7-3/8 percent. SipcJ&rely '.'Robert D. Brown/ / / ' Director of Plan Utilization RDB/RK/jh cc. Coy Garrett, NERBC Member, Soil Conservation Service Richard A. Gallo, NERBC Alternate, Soil Conservation Service John Bewick, Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs Elizabeth Kline, Assistant to the Secretary, MA EOEA *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981—701-636/100 F-40 ^ ALL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, CREED, COLOR, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAP- SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE