Report of the southeastern New England study a strategy for balanced development and protection of water and related land resources in eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island : [planning reports]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

-Coastal Zone
Information
Center
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 AT- .in973

'-4'0aStReport

1UL'-a 1P1 tc of the

Southeastern

New rn'

MEngland

, Study
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a Strategy for Balanced Development
and Protection of Water and Related
Land Resources in Eastern
Massachusetts and Rhode Island
2. BOSTON METROPOLITAN
PLANNING AREA REPORT
Fi7T7? 7<_7 Property of CSC Library
F i" ~" ,.rTK ', 1,' I i: - rik

New England River Basins Commission
HD
1695 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
.A11 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
N49 - 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
v.2 CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
v.2 CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

The Southeastern New England Study Ten PLANNING AREA REPORTS dealing Special Reports
(SENE) is a "level B water and related land with the same subjects as the Regional Report, In addition to inventory reports, over a dozen
resources study." It was conducted under the but aimed at the local level. Eastern Mas- special reports were prepared, including:
provisions of the federal Water Resources sachusetts and Rhode Island were divided into Socio-Economic and Environmental Base
Planning Act of 1965. The resources man- ten "planning areas" based either on tradi- Study, Volumes I and I; Economic analyses of
agement program the Study produced was tional sub-state divisions or principal river ba- water supply and demand issues, power plant
developed by a team of federal, state, and sins. Reports were prepared for the following siting, coastal resources allocation, and sand
regional officials, local citizens, and the scien- areas: and gravel mining; Legal and institutional
tificcommunity,under the overall coordination 1. Ipswich-North Shore, analyses of the state wetlands laws, arrange-
of the New England River Basins Commission. 2. Boston Metropolitan, ments for water supply service, fiscal policy
It isa part of the Commission's comprehensive, 3. South Shore, and land control, access to natural resources
coordinated joint plan for the water and related 4. Cape Cod and the Islands, areas, and management structure for water and
land resources of New England. 5. Buzzards Bay, land use issues; Urban Waters Special Study;
The recommended program for managing 6. Taunton, Summaries of public workshops
the resources of Southeastern New England is 7. Blackstone and Vicinity,
described, in increasing level of detail, in the 8. Pawtuxet, Copies of reports are available from:
following Final Reports: 9. Narragansett Bay and
A SUMMARY highlighting the principal Block Island, New England River Basins Commission
findings and recommendations of the Study, 10. Pawcatuck 55 Court Street
and their implications for the future of the re- Boston, Massachusetts 02108
gion. Other reports prepared during the course of
A REGIONAL REPORT and Environmen- the Study include the following: National Technical Information
tal Impact Statement describing in detail the Inventory Reports Service
natural resources, issues and problems facing For each of the ten planning areas, inventory Springfield, Virginia 22151
the region, the alternative solutions examined reports were prepared covering the following
during the Study, the recommendations made, subjects: climate, meteorology, hydrology, and also in each of the 208 libraries and 210
and their implications. It includes policies and geology; land use, patterns, allocations, and town halls throughout the SENE region.
programs for dealing with water supply, land management; special environmental factors;
use, water quality, outdoor recreation, marine water supply; ground water management; water
resources, flood and erosion protection, and quality control; outdoor recreation; fish and
key facilities siting, and the changes in state wildlife; navigation; flood plain zoning and
and local' government required to implement streamflow management; inland wetlands
the program. management; coastal resources; irrigation and
drainage; sediment and erosion; power; miner-
als.

M~~I

I
I

0i
1W

REPORT OF THE SOUTHEASTERN NEW ENGLAND STUDY

READER'S GUIDE: HOW TO REVIEW THIS REPORT

� In five minutes Read the OVERVIEW which folds out as one large sheet.
There is an extra copy in the pocket in the rear for
FOR A "THUMBNAIL SKETCH" those who would like to mount it on the wall.

� In a half hour or less Read the SUMMARY. It is published separately.
You can read it in either of two ways:
TO LEARN THE MAIN POINTS � SELECTIVELY.' Read the Chapters on Goals and
Approach and Guiding Growth, plus any others that
interest you. Chapters are boldly labeled to facilitate
selective reading; or

* ENTIRELY. Rea'd the full summary for a fuller
understanding of the highlights of the SENE Study.

� In one day or less Read the REGIO N ALREPORT.
* SELECTIVELY; It is organized exactly like the
TO UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS summary. WhereVer your'interests lie, you can turn
to those sections for additional background, amplifica-
tions, analysis of rejected alternatives, and especially
for the full text of each recommendation, including
who should do what iand when. Also, remove the
Development Capabilities Maps in the rear pocket
and examine the legqed to appreciate the type of
information the mapsbportray; or

� ENTIRELY. Read the full report for full apprecia-
tion of all recommendations, and how they interrelate.

* In an additional 10 minutes to Get the PLANNING AREA REPORT for your locale.
2 hours Scan it or read it to see how the broader recommendations
presented in the Regional Report may apply to the area
FOR APPLICATION TO YOUR AREA where you live or work.

: . E 'S , 0' ', f:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. Boston Metropolitan Planning Area Report

OVERVIEW..................... .......... v

PLANNING AREA ACTIONS MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTER 1 THEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

CHAPTER 2 THE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

CHAPTER 3 GUIDING GROWTH . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

The Situation 3-1, Anticipated Growth 3-1, Accommodating Growth 3-2, Critical
Environmental Areas 3-3, Developable Areas 3-4, The Solutions 3-4, Implications 3-7,

CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

The Situation 4-1, The Solutions 4-1, A Major Regional System: The MDC 4-1, Mystic
River Basin 4-11, Charles River Basin 4-12, Neponset River Basin 4-13, South Shore Towns 4-13,
Implications 4-14,

CHAPTER 5 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

The Situation 5-1, Mystic River Basin 5-1, Charles River Basin 5-1, Neponset River
Basin 5-2, Boston Harbor 5-2, The Solutions 5-2, Preservation 5-2, Restoration 5-3,
Combined Sewers and Stormwater Runoff 5-3, Industrial Discharges 5-3, Oil
Pollution 5-4, Municipal Discharges 5-4, Septic Systems 5-5, Landfill Leachate
5-5, Pleasurecraft Wastes 5-6,

CHAPTER 6 OUTDOOR RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

SWIMMING 6-1, RECREATIONAL BOATING 6-2, BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS PARK 6-3,
GENERAL OUTDOOR RECREATION 64, Implications of Swimming, Boating, Harbor Islands
and General Recreation Proposals 6-7, WILDLIFE AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES 6-7,
Wildlife 6-8, Fresh Water Fisheries 6-8, Implications 6-9,

CHAPTER 7 MARINE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

PORT DEVELOPMENT 7-1, The Situation 7-1, The Solutions 7-2, Implications 7-3, COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES 7-3, The Situation 7-3, The Solutions 74, Implications 7-5, URBAN WATER-
FRONTS 7-5, The Situation 7-5, The Solutions 7-6, OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRAC-
TION 7-7, The Situation 7-7, The Solutions 7-8, Implications 7-8,

CHAPTER 8 FLOODING AND EROSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

The Situation 8-1, Inland and Coastal Flooding 8-1, Mystic River Watershed 8-1, Charles
River Watershed 8-1, Neponset River Watershed 8-2, Northern South Shore Towns 8-2,
Wetlands 8-3, Inland Erosion 8-3, Coastal Flooding 8-3, Coastal Erosion 8-3, The Solutions 84,
Alternatives 84, Recommendations 8-5, Implications 8-7,

CHAPTER 9 LOCATING KEY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

SAND AND GRAVEL MINING 9-1, POWER GENERATION FOR METROPOLITAN
BOSTON 9-1, PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE 9-1.

iii

OVERVIEW

Boston Metropolitan Planning Area

What is the point of the SENE Study program?

Balanced use and conservation of the region's water and (3) To maintain and improve water quality, many
related land resources is the program's objective. The towns should treat wastewater at regional facilities.
Southeastern New England (SENE) Water and Related Urban runoff must be monitored and attenuated at
Land Resources Study was authorized by Congress and new developments. Pumpout facilities should be
funded in 1971 in response to the increasingly troublesome provided for watercraft wastes.
pressures the region's rapid urbanization was exerting on
its rich and varied natural resources. The SENE Study has (4) To meet recreation needs, better transportation
two major goals: should be provided to nearby beaches, state parks,
and to the Boston Harbor Islands. The latter should
� To recommend actions for all levels of govern- be developed according to ongoing recreation plans.
ment and private interests to secure for the Funds for recreation should be used to make multi-
people of the region the full range of uses ple uses of land owned for public purposes or to
and benefits which may be provided by enlarge existing recreational facilities.
balanced use and conservation of the region's
water and related land resources. (5) To develop renewable and non-renewable marine
resources in an ecologically and economically sen-
* To assemble, at a consistent scale and level sitive manner, offshore fishing activities should be
of detail, information on the resources. limited within a 200 mile zone. The fishing in-
dustry should be revitalized by managing offshore
What makes this Study different from others is that it is fishery resources, by repealing certain laws, by
regional in scope, it comprehensively covers the full range of improving Boston Fish Pier, and by developing
water and related land resource issues, and it proposes co- aquaculture. Important navigation channels in har-
ordinated actions for all levels of government and private bors should be maintained, perhaps even deepened.
interests.

What does the SENE Study program cover? What will the program do?
If the recommended actions are carried out, most 1990
(1) To accommodate anticipated growth in environ- needs for water, sewers, electric power, and outdoor recrea-
mentally and economically acceptable ways, muni- tion could be met using existing infrastructure, legal authori-
cipalities should prohibit or restrict development ties, and institutional designs. Protecting Critical Environ-
on Critical Environmental Areas such as wetlands, mental Areas will avoid potential dangers to life and pro-
flood plains, and well sites. Growth should be perty from.flooding, erosion, and contamination of water
guided to Developable Areas which cover about quality and provide highly productive greenbelts. As a
25 percent of the planning area. Within this cate- result, new growth in this planning area can be accommo-
gory, municipalities s~hould manage development dated without harming the high quality environment which
on resources such as steep slopes, ledge, and soils attracted the growth in the first place.
with septic limitations. Development should be
encouraged where services already exist or are You can take the first step in helping to carry out the pro-
planned. gram by reading the recommendations in the SENE Study's
Regional Report and this Planning Area Report. Write your
(2) To supply sufficient amounts of water, local ground state and Congressional representatives about the Study.
water and surface water resources should be pro- Urge your local planning and conservation officials to use
tected, developed, and managed where available and th SENE Study planning process when developing or im-
feasible. The Metropolitan District Commission's the Smenting masterud plans, zoning ordinances such as flood
water supply sources will have to be expanded and plain and watershed protection, and other water and land
extended elsewhere.
use decisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GUIDING GROWTH (Chapter 3)

1. Protect priority Critical Environmental Areas. 17. Expand Wompatuck State Park.
2. Restrict development on other Critical Environmental 18. Expand Rocky Woods, Noon Hill, and Hale Reserva-
Areas. tions.
3. Manage growth on Developable Areas. 19. Develop Hallet Street Du.-p for recreation.
4. Use SENE resource development capability analysis 20. Connect Neponset River Reservation and Blue Hills
to guide future growth. Reservation with a stub of land near 1-95.
5. Accommodate growth where services already exist. 21. Acquire access to Massapoag Lake.
22. Develop guidelines for low-intensity outdoor
WATER SUPPLY (Chapter 4) recreation on secondary reservoir lands.
23. Use Critical Environmental Areas identified on SENE
1. Expand MDC sources by completing the Northfield Development Capabilities Map (Plate 1).
Mountain Facility and carrying out conservation mea-
sures; plan the Millers River Facility. Wildlife and Fisheries
2. Protect ground water sources in Everett and Woburn. 24. Use Natural Resources Planning Program to enforce
3. Extend MDC service to supplement sources in Welles- wetlands protection legislation.
ley, Natick, and Dedham. 25. Use Self-Help Funds to acquire significant wetlands.
4. Expand the capacity of Echo Lake to serve Milford. 26. Acquire public access to potentially most productive
5. Develop ground water sources to serve Franklin, streams.
Medway, and Wrentham. 27. Change Great Ponds legislation and acquire access to
6. Develop ground water supplies in other Upper Charles potentially most productive ponds.
municipalities.
7. Maintain and upgrade ground water sources in Canton MARINE MANAGEMENT (Chapter 7)
and Norwood.
8. Develop ground water sources in Sharon to meet 1990 Port Development
needs.
9. Develop Willett Pond in Walpole for supplementary 1. Develop a regionwide port development strategy.
supplies. 2. Maintain nine channels in Boston Harbor.
10. Extend MDC service to Westwood and Stoughton.
10. Extend MDC service to Weswood and Stougton. 3. Consider deepening two channels in Boston Harbor.
11. Expand the Richardi Reservoir to serve Braintree, 4. Attract private inestments to the Port of Boston.
Holbrook, and Randolph. 5. Improve Fort Point Channel.
12. Treat existing standby wells in Weymouth to meet 5. Improve ork bo ats upstream of Northern Avenue
1990 needs. 6. Relocate work boats upstream of Northem Avenue
Bridge to Pier 7.
13. Make best use of local resources in south coastal Bridge to Pier 7.
~~~~~~~~~municipalities. ~7. Consider a new marina between Northern Avenue and
municipalities.
Congress Street.
WATER QUALITY (Chapter 5)
Commercial Fishing
1. Carry out current Massachusetts non-degradation
policies. 8. Study upgrading Boston Fish Pier.
2. Attenuate runoff from new urban developments. 9. Consider developing a new fish pier in Boston Harbor.
3. Begin stormwater and wet-weather stream sampling. 10. Continue to support an interim 200-mile offshore
4. Continue current industrial permits program. economic zone.
5. Give additional consideration to several land disposal 11. Support national fisheries management policy.
sites. 12. Improve market for underutilized fish species.
6. Connect southern Bellingham to the Woonsocket 13. Accommodate coastal fish facilities through improved
treatment facility. planning.
7. Expand Medfield's treatment facility to serve Millis, 14. Aow privately fmanced purchase of foreign-
if possible. built fishing vessels.
8. Construct advanced facility in the middle Charles
basin to serve western suburbs. Urban Waterfronts
9. Construct advanced facility in Canton to serve southern
suburbs. 15. Coordinate local waterfront planning and develop-
10. Study and define the landfill leachate problem. ment.
11. Provide pump-out facilities for watercraft wastes. 16. Provide guidance and set criteria for priority water-
front uses.
17. Review and coordinate waterfront use.
OUTDOOR RECREATION (Chapter 6) 18. Support state and local waterfront development plans.

Swimming Offshore Sand and Gravel

I. Study best method to widen and protect Nantasket 19. Develop a policy and program regulating commercial
Beach. mineral extraction in coastal waters.
2. Improve access along the Dorchester waterfront. 20. Coordinate future leasing of far-shore sand and gravel
3. Improve facilities at Wollaston Beach, Merrymount sites.
Park, and Blacks Creek marsh. 21. Develop predictive modeling techniques for offshore
4. Construct one bathhouse at City Point-Carson Beach sand and gravel operations.
area.
5. Provide parking and access to Moswetusset Hummock.
FLOODING AND EROSION (Chapter 8)
Recreational Boating
1. Develop a flood plain management program for the
6. Establish state boating advisory committee. Neponset Watershed.
7. Consider fore-and-aft mooring practices. 2. Apply structural solutions selectively.
8. Continue maintenance of 13 recreation channels. 3. Study flooding problems in Braintree.
9. Develop boat ramps and parking facilities. 4. Adopt flood plain zoningpreventing adverse flood
plain development.
General Outdoor Recreation 5. Establish local sediment and erosion control ordinances.
6. Establish forest buffer zones.
10. Complete developing Boston Harbor Islands Park. 7. Establish local regulations to ensure flood plain pro-
11. Improve inner-city recreation opportunities. tection.
12. Designate the Charles an initial component of scenic 8. Acquire significant wetlands and flood plains.
rivers system. 9. Locate in existing safe buildings in the flood plain.
13. Expand the Mystic River Reservation. 10. Encourage natural stabilization of coastal erosion
14. Develop a park behind the Amelia Earhart Dam in areas.
Somerville and Everett.
15. Acquire parts of the surplused Chelsea Naval LOCATING KEY FACILITIES (Chapter 9)
Hospital.
16. Develop Middlesex Fells Reservation and expand Blue 1. Study deepwater port facility off Metropolitan
Hills Reservation. Boston within a New England-wide context.

Legend
U WATER SUPPLY
WATER QUALITY The symbols on this map represent the
recommended actions that can be shown on
RECREATION
REREI g O P Rbl c bhe.. a town-by-town basis. The symbols are
placed roughly within each town, and are
not intended to be more specifically sited
FOBisheries & orildills than that.
U Othrer eee~rotiool Icfut
rn MARINE MANAGEMENT
E FLOODING & EROSION CONTROL 0i.
jP, ~ KEY FACILITIESNTIO
12/4 NUMERICAL NOTATION -SURLING
(Mi.ii .. . ...,.,,... nBURNI/2 0R
A*rirnaco Reortrerpnigrcommrndolicccabe
Rrio, eport re~rcscmedalr for euber ~

lr,
L XfNGTCOi<

6Li

WAITHAM `OMA
SUD�URY F-hFtrl

SUOBURY Froth .r~~""'"--.~ i ~sTO NTBOSTON HARBOH

\ ,f' HOLLIS~~~~TON-
kv ~~ NEWTON

-��-~~~- - OW~p0
/ Ret 00nt
-�WELLM11IN7 / 9

7/.8 :~~~~~ tf;T7/lb ~ ~ ~ ~7/9

\~ ~ ~~~a 'i4\o 123m p
0 ANON) '. 4----'4EEI\ \

7/60 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~RTOUGHTDUL-NIX0O U~~~~~~G
HOLLISTON FEFIL
CAN~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~TON ~ 33J "

~~-L ~~ /.-,,,,,ORFLK "~'Y

M~~ownv ~ /';bi N~ r-. ,a ocr.\~l
-~t, G ;~;.o .(1*in/a\.r~gV - IH

7/O�~: /13\
M I

7~~~~~~~b~~~~~/

.-a C 2 4

KILOMETERS
j~~1 0 ~MILES I
'-I ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ 1 4 U j\1

NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION ;
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Boston Metropolitan Planning Area
SOUTHEASTERN NEW ENGLAND Recommended Actions
WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES STUDY

vii

CHAPTER 1 THEMES

This report on the Boston Metropolitan planning area is one some changes are needed. Full use of ongoing pro-
component of a comprehensive program for managing water grams, with some changes in how they relate to each
and related land resources in the Southeastern New England other, was viewed as a way of "piggy-backing" on
(SENE) region. The Study's Regional Report has presented programs which have already weathered most of the
recommended policies and actions from a regionwide or realities of the political process. In choosing this
statewide perspective. This Planning Area Report includes strategy the Study traded off novelty to increase
applications of those broad-based recommendations to the achievability.
municipalities found in the Boston Metropolitan planning
area. Each major chapter in this report contains actions to solve
water and related land problems which we face now, or can
One reason for preparing Planning Area Reports is to con- expect to face in the next 15 years, and, in some cases, into
nect the actions at the local level with the policy framework the next century. Table 1.1 shows the intensity of these
and considerations for state and federal levels. This direction problems within each planning area, between them, and for
was chosen as a response to the region's long history of local the region as a whole. Of the seven subjects studied, four
autonomy and to the Study's emphasis on placing decision- are severe problems in the Boston Metropolitan planning
making at a level commensurate with the anticipated scope area:
of the decision. The planning area boundaries follow the
town lines most closely approximating the hydrologic o Guiding Growth. New population and economic growth
boundaries of river basins. could substantially change the existing high environ-
mental quality presently pervading the environment.
Three common themes link all SENE's reports:
a Water Quality. Water quality improvements in this
* Enhancing the environment enhances the economy. planning area could benefit more people than any
The region's reputation as a pleasant place to live will other part of the SENE region.
have to be maintained in order to attract the highly
skilled workers characteristic of a service economy. S Water Supply. The existing water supply systems
This need is especially clear in the Boston Metropolitan cannot satisfy future demands.
planning area, the economic center for the Massachusetts
portion of the SENE region. 0 Outdoor Recreation. The availability of resources for
swimming, boating, hunting, and extensive outdoor
* Anticipated growth can be accommodated, but it recreation are especially limited in this most densely
needs guidance. The SENE program represents a populated planning area.
powerful beginning. The planning area is embraced by
Routes 495 and 128 which will continue to encourage Other major problems in the planning area focus on Boston
population growth. Municipalities therefore have a Harbor: managing the development of New England's most
special need to plan new development. important port; improving the urban waterfront, cut off
from Boston by the Southeast Expressway; deciding if, and
* Existing knowledge, programs, and institutions pro- where, to site petroleum related facilities.
vide the most realistic tools for achieving results, but

TABLEL1. GENERAL INTENSITY OF SENE WATER -RELATED PROBLEMS BY PLANNING AREA

Land Use
Discharge

* Severe problem tz0to)
- 4.--
* Major problem -,0
*Moderate problem -0~00)) ~ C o
C~~-onto - '~~~IS t
Blank Minor or no 0 rn
problem .: 'd Q 2' - f

rn~~~~~2 0 gp .0 z

0~~~~~~~

PLANNING AREAS
Ipswich -North Shore 0000 a 0 * 00 0 * * * 00 * 00 * 0 * 0 * 0 00a
Boston Metropolitan a *00 00000 * 0 0 * 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 * 0 * 0 0 0
South Shore 0 * 0 I 0 0 * 00 * 00 0. 0 0 * 000
Cape Cod and thelIslands 00*0* 0 0 . * 0 * 0 * 0
Buzzards Bay * 0 00 0 * 0 0 * .**0
Taunton 0 0 0 * 000 0 000 * 0 0
Blackstone and Vicinity .* *O e * 0 0- 000 000 0 00 * 00 000
Pawtuxet 0 * 0 00* 0 * 0 0 0 0
Narragansett Bay 0 000 0 00 * 0 0 * 0 00 000 0 * 0 0 * 0 00a
Pawcatuek 0 * 0 0 0 *** 0 *0
REGION AS AWHOLE . oo e oo o * 00a0 0 0 000 0 *0 * 0 * 00 000

CHAPTER 2 THE SETTING

The Boston Metropolitan planning area consists generally of in 1970. According to the Study's projections it will climb
all the land that drains into Boston Harbor. The area covers slightly to less than 2.3 million in 1990 and about 2.4 million
about 640 square miles (or about 409,000 acres). The 49 in 2020. The anticipated growth rates for the Boston Metro-
towns in the planning area include: politan planning area between 1970 and 1990, and 1970 and
2020, are roughly 10 percent for each period. These antici-
Arlington Hingham Millis Stoneham pated growth rates are about half the region's growth rate
Bellingham Holbrook Milton Stoughton anticipated over the next 20 years and about a quarter of
Belmont Holliston Natick Walpole that expected over the next 40 years. This planning area's
Boston Hull Needham Waltham anticipated growth rates are also lower than those expected
Braintree Lexington Newton Watertown for the United States as a whole, by over half for the 20
Brookline Lincoln Norfolk Wellesley
Cambridge Malden Norwood Weston year period, and about a fifth for the 40 year period.
Canton Medfield Quincy Westwood
Chelsea Medford Randolph Weymouth Within the planning area, however, the population is not so
Dedham Medway Sharon Winchester stable. Chapter 3, Guiding Growth, indicates that develop-
Dover Melrose Shervilorn Woburn ment pressures are high around the urban fringe, but decline
Frank in slightly in the core - thus reflecting nationwide urban
trends.

Three major rivers, the Mystic, Charles, and Neponset, drain Per capita income in 1970 averaged $3965. This is by far the
most of the area. The Mystic follows a southeasterly course highest level in SENE and is 16 percent above the national
over generally flat countryside from its headwaters in Lower average. With a work force of 1.0 million, the area employs
Mystic Lake (Winchester) to its mouth in Boston's Inner more than half the workers in SENE. They work in a diversi-
Harbor. The 79 mile long Charles rises in Hopkinton and fled economy. A third are in the service sector. The remain-
flows through moderately rolling countryside to Boston ing two-thirds is split about evenly between manufacturing,
Harbor. Wetlands are abundant in the more rural towns, the retail trades, and everything else. During the 1960's,
and many ponds and lakes are scattered throughout. The 134,000 new jobs were added. About two-thirds were in
recent Corps of Engineers Charles River Study determined the service sector - utilities, personnel and business, medical,
that a forty percent loss of Charles River wetlands could in- private education, consulting, and research and development.
crease flood stages in the middle and upper river from two Retail activities accounted for another quarter of the new
to four feet, for a flood of the magnitude experienced in jobs. Manufacturing declined by 41,000 or 17 percent. This
1968. The Neponset meanders northeastward 28 miles from pattern reflects trends going on throughout SENE region, as
Foxboro, through the extensive Fowl Meadows to Dor- described in Chapter 2 of the Regional Report.
chester Bay. Ground water of good quality to support low
population densities is available in many parts of the plan- Early in the Study, participants at public workshops
ning area, but urban areas must import water. voiced a preference for greater self-sufficiency in water
supply, treatment of all combined sewer flows, intensi-
Underlain for the most part by metamorphic rock the plan- fying wetlands management and acquisition, and expand-
ning area's surface topography, soils, and highly articulated ing all kinds of outdoor recreation opportunities. Of
coastline were formed by the last glacier about ten thousand great concern among workshop participants was the spread
years ago. of urban development.

The shoreline in this planning area is about 130 miles long, Later, during the 90-day review period, over 275 state.
100 on the mainland and 30 on some 31 islands. Essentially regional, and municipal officials, federal agencies. and con-
all of the island shoreline and 17 miles along the mainland cerned citizens submitted comments on the Study's draft
are beach. The remaining shoreline consists of bulkheads reports. The major comments are summarized in a Re-
and revetments (47 miles), rocks (15 miles), or bluffs, gional Report chapter, "Review of the Report."
marshes, and salt flats (6 miles).
There are several major changes in the Boston Metropolitan
Nearly half (44 percent) of the people in the SENE region Planning Area Report. In response to the concerns of citi-
live in this planning area, some of them in the most densely zens in the SENE region and the Connecticut Valley, the
populated municipalities in the region. The population has recommendation in Chapter 4 for diversion from the Con-
risen slowly from 2.0 million in 1960 to about 2.1 million necticut River basin now reflects the qualifications on the

2-1

Millers River diversion from the 1980'Connecticut River tioned by the Sie'rra Club and Metropolitan District Cornm-
Basin Plan and the many options available for study, in- mission.
eluding water conservation. The regional water district
recommended to serve Milford, Franklin, Wrentham, and Several implications stand out from the preceding profile.
Medway has been replaced with two new recommendations,
expanding Echo Lake to serve Milford and developing local (1) The physical, social, and economic health of the
ground water supplies to serve the other three communi- Boston Metropolitan planning area is the key to the
ties. Local authorities pointed out that a regional water future of not only Southeastern New England but
supply source could not adequately satisfy demands pro- the entire New England region as well.
jected for the four communities. Chapter 5 now includes
the suggestion that the Commonwealth review and update (2) Development pressures surrounding the urban core
regulations for siting septic systems due to public discon- indicate that many families prefer life in an im-.
tent with existing regulations. A recommendation to proved natural and social environment. Increasing
develop an esplanade along Tenean Beach was dropped pressures imply a need for adjustments in established
from Chapter 6 because of questions of propriety and of safety utilities, transportation, and taxation systems.
raised by Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Metropolitan
District Commission. In response to the Massachusetts Divi- (3) The pronounced move towards a services-oriented
sion of Water Resources and the Charles River Watershed economy promises less strain on the area's land, air,
Association, Chapter 6 suggests the Commonwealth restore and water resources. It also requires a high quality
public rights to mill ponds and pursue a program to restore environment to attract and hold creative and highly
mill dams when the public interest is at stake. The discus- skilled workers. Thus far, the "brain drain" has
sion of the Boston Harbor Islands plan was updated to re- favored Boston, but the city's future health, and,
fleet recent accomplishments in implementation. Instead therefore, that of the region, rests largely on its
of recommending that the Commonwealth restrict sand and ability to keep that flow from reversing.
gravel mining in ocean depths less than 100 feet, Chapter 7
reflects the state's intentions to develop a policy and pro- (4) Like every large city the world over, to provide in-
gram regulating mineral extraction activities in coastal come Boston must rely upon the resources of its
waters. Finally, a recommendation to consider a power hinterland. Making Boston become self-sufficient
generating facility on Deer Island was dropped from in water resources is unrealistic.
Chapter 9 because of conflicts with existing facilities men-

2-2

K~~

6 JRINGTO' Jd ~
r\ ~ \~

Zeller~~~~wgun

I--~~~~~~~~~~~~I

/.D AYLN MB
3;-i~~~~ ~~~~ / BOBiN~O B~.,

MEBOELOS!)Y / a

fe. ~, BOLLSTON,<*MASSACHRUSETTSANT.
A.c~K~T AND R IV E R
t>. / CAOLO \ / C \v.. y*�~

i~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ i'\ /N-'

TOWNS AND RIVERS ~~~~~~2.1
SOUTHEASTERN NEW ENGLAND IN THE PLANNING AREA
WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES STUDY

2-3

CHAPTER 3 GUIDING GROWTH

Although the Boston Metropolitan planning area is the tion, about 60 percent of the urban area is high intensity
economic and population center of New England, over half use (commercial, residential of multi-and single-family units
the planning area (using 1970 figures) is non-urban and exists on less than half acre lots, institutional). Medium intensity
as water (6 percent), forest (42 percent), open space (5 per- urban uses (single-family lots on half acre to one acre lots)
cent), or agriculture (1 percent). This picture will change occupy about 9 percent of the urban area. The remaining
over the next 50 years - perhaps substantially - due to urban area is nearly evenly divided among industrial uses,
new land development resulting from population and transportation, extraction/disposal, and low intensity urban
economic growth. uses (single-family dwellings on lots greater than one acre).

There is a growing concern about where this development This situation came about because population and employ-
will occur and how it will affect land and water resources. ment between 1960 and 1970 resulted in a 20 percent in-
These resources constitute high environmental quality crease in the area covered by urban development, from about
which Chapter 2 of the Regional Report shows to be vital 142,000 acres in 1960 to about 171,000 acres in 1971.
for the region's economic health. The SENE Study has con- This was much smaller than the regional increase in urban
cluded that the growth anticipated for the Boston Metro- area of 45 percent, but still a rather rapid consumption of
politan planning area can occur without significantly chang- land; for every increase of 2.4 persons, one acre of unde-
ing the existing environmental quality, as long as certain veloped land was converted to urban use during the sixties.
steps are taken. This chapter describes the anticipated
growth and the capacities of the resources to accommodate it. Between now and 1990, the rate of population increase will
The last section recommends strategies to guide growth in an about double the 1960-1970 rate (Chapter 2 of this report),
economically and environmentally acceptable manner. before slowing down to a fairly stable population by 2020,
if the present birth rate continues. If the current land
The Situation consumption rate continues, half of the planning area's re-
maining 250,000 undeveloped acres could be urbanized by
2020.
Anticipated Growth
The rates at which parts of the Boston Metropolitan planning
Chapter 2 of this report describes the Boston Metropolitan area will be urbanized will vary to some extent with relative
planning area as the most densely populated in the SENE development pressures. These pressures were estimated for
region. Yet the planning area embraces a rich natural land- SENE communities on the basis of factors such as the growth
scape literally within minutes of an urban center. The rate of industrial, commercial and other uses, the relative
amount of land which is urban (some 41 percent of the accessibility of an area to employment and population in
planning area in 1970) is about twice the average for the other parts of the region, and the availability of easily de-
region (some 20 percent of the total regional area in 1970). velopable land. The process for grouping towns by develop-
According to SENE Study single-purpose inventory informa- ment pressure is defined in Chapter 3 of the Regional

TABLE 3.1 MUNICIPALITY BY DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE: BOSTON METROPOLITAN
PLANNING AREA

High Medium High Medium Low Low
Bellingham Canton Arlington Norfolk Winchester Belmont
Dedham Norwood Stoneham Waltham Boston Chelsea
Franklin Sharon Woburn Wellesley Cambridge Everett
Holliston Stoughton Brookline Wrentham Milford Maiden
Lexington Walpole Dover Westwood Millis Medford
Medfield Braintree Lincoln Holbrook Weston Melrose
Medway Hingham Needham Milton Somerville
Natick Randolph Hull Newton
Sherborn Weymouth Watertown
Quincy

* Other factors may result in a different picture; MAPC studies, for example, indicate slow growth for
Arlington and Brookline, and more significant growth for Millis and Weston.

3-1

Report. In general, combining these factors resulted in an use of these critical resources might constitute a threat to
indication of development pressure on the municipalities in public health, safety, and welfare. Development of resources
the planning area relative to all SENE communities as shown such as flood plains, prime agricultural soils, unique natural
on Table 3.1. and cultural sites, upland erosion areas, and proposed reser-
voir sites and related watersheds (Category B), have certain
Accommodating Growth environmental, economic, and social costs. Some develop-
ment is compatible with recharge areas for high yield aqui-
To assess the implications of growth for land and water re- fers, best upland wildlife habitat, high landscape quality
sources in the SENE region, the SENE Study first identified areas, ledge and/or steep slopes and soils with severe or
and quantified them. Table 3.2 describes three major cate- moderate septic limitations (Category C, F, and G), if it is
gories of resources, each differing according to development restricted so as not to damage intrinsic qualities. Use of the
capability. There are two kinds of Critical Environmental remaining area is preempted by existing development
Areas: Priority Protection (Category A) and Other Protection (Category E) or public ownership (Category D). But it is
Areas (Category B). Category A includes water bodies, wet- worth noting that developed areas can be used - and further,
lands, beaches, and critical coastal erosion areas. Intensive that use and reuse of such land can be highly efficient.

TABLE 3.2 THE SENE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITY SYSTEM

CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS REQUIRING PROTECTION

Water Bodies (Category A), blue. [Includes estuaries, shellfish flats, and fish spawning areas.]
Priority Protection Areas (Category A), dark green: wetlands, well sites, beaches, and critical coastal erosion areas.
Other Protection Areas (Category B), light green: flood plains, class I and II agricultural soils, unique natural and
cultural sites, [proposed reservoir sites and related watersheds, and upland erosion areas] excluding all "A" areas.

DEVELOPABLE AREAS REQUIRING MANAGEMENT, Excluding All A & B Areas

WATER RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
Aquifers and/or Recharge Areas (Category C1) black dots: highest yield aquifers in each basin.

WILDLIFE AND SCENIC RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
Wildlife Habitat (Category C3), black diagonal lines: best upland wildlife habitat other than publicly owned land
and [commercial fishing grounds].
Landscape Quality Areas (Category C2), black vertical lines: land characterized by high landscape quality other
than categories C1 and C3.

SOILS RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
Ledge and/or Steep Slope (Category C5), brown: land with slope greater than 15 percent and/or with rock
near the surface.
Severe Septic System Limitations (Category C4), orange: land with severe septic system limitations other than
Category C5.
Moderate to No Septic System Limitations (Categories F and G), yellow: land with moderate or no septic system
limitations.

PREEMPTED USE AREAS

Urban Areas (Category E), gray: residentiall/institutional, commercial and industrial development.
Publicly Owned Lands (Category D), beige: major public parks, forests, watersheds, and military lands.

Notes:
All categories above, except those within brackets, are depicted on the development capabilities maps (plates 1, 2, 3).

Categories in brackets are included to show where they would fit in the overall classification hierarchy, were they
included on the plates in the pocket.
3 All categories above, including those within brackets, are depicted on large-scale, unpublished maps available for
4_1inspection as part of the SENE Files.
-'Categories C1, C2 and C3 overlap with categories C4, C5, F, or G. Thus, Category C3-C4 is a wildlife habitat
located on ledge or steep slopes.
VMapped urban areas (Category E) include all-residential development, although the legend on Plates 1, 2, and 3 reads
"residential areas on less than one acre lots."

3-2

These land and water resources for the Boston Metropolitan Canton, Braintree, and Weymouth. Wetlands are prime targets
planning area have been mapped on Plate 1 and the percent for development; between 1960 and 1970, 23 percent of the
of the planning area in each category is displayed on Table planning area's fresh water (non-wooded) wetlands, and 30
3.3. percent of the salt water wetlands were lost.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, about 40 percent of Chapters 6 and 8 of this and the Regional Report, discuss
planning area has been already developed. Boston and the the value of wetlands for flood storage, water supply, plant
surrounding towns account for most of the existing urbanized and wildlife habitat, and other purposes.
land. These urbanized areas embrace an infrastructure, in-
cluding a wastewater system which serves 87 percent of the All three basins have large amounts of riverine flood plain
total planning area population. Seven (7) percent of the (the planning area contains about 40,000 acres, the second
planning area is publicly owned. Most of the publicly owned highest among the planning areas), upon some of which
lands are in open space, recreation, water supply, or related extensive development has aggravated flooding problems
uses. These combined amounts of urbanized and publicly (see Chapter 8). Towns bordering the mainstem Charles
owned lands (47 percent) are a higher percentage of the total have sizeable inland flood plains, especially Medfield, Millis,
planning area than that for the SENE region (33 percent). Norfolk, Sherbom, Dedham, Wellesley, and Weston. Lexington
and Holliston are other basin towns with substantial flood
Critical Environmental Areas (Category A and B) comprise plains. In the Neponset River basin and South Shore towns,
nearly a quarter of the total Boston Metropolitan planning Norwood, Canton, Walpole, Sharon, Hingham, Weymouth,
area. This proportion is lower than the percentage of and Braintree have large amounts of inland flood plains.
Critical Environmental Areas for the SENE region (33 per- Woburn, Winchester, Arlington, and Belmont are towns in
cent). the Mystic River basin which have large amounts of inland
flood'plains.
The diversity of these resources contributes significantly to
the richness of the environment mentioned earlier in this Prime agricultural lands are scarce in this planning area
chapter. (Medway, Norfolk, Franklin, and Holbrook do, however,
have several areas), and are major targets for development.
Category A resources occupy about 14 percent of the plan- Chapter 3 of the Regional Report discusses the significance
ning area. The last major tidal salt marsh near the Boston of the rapid loss of these areas.
urban area is at the mouth of the Neponset River. Inland
wetlands however, are abundant, particularly in the Charles The planning area has numerous unique historical sites,
and Neponset River basins. Towns which have significant mostly in the Boston area; archeological sites on the Bogas-
concentrations of wetlands include: Medfield, Millis, Nor- tow Brook (a tributary of the Charles) and the Boston
folk, Needham, Dedham, Sherborn, Holliston, Norwood,

TABLE 3.3 PERCENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCE CATEGORIES IN EACH PLANNING AREA

Total Percent (%) of Planning Area
Critical Environmental Develop- Preempted
(in 1000's of Areas able Areas Use Areas
Planning Area acres) A B A & B C, F, G D, E
Ipswich-North Shore 274 19 13 32 34 34
Boston Metropolitan 421 14 9 23 30 47
South Shore 172 17 13 30 43 27
Cape Cod & Islands 378 10 23 33 32 35
Buzzards Bay 205 17 16 33 47 20
Taunton 351 19 22 41 37 22
Blackstone & Vicinity 410 10 11 21 38 41
Pawtuxet 180 11 7 18 41 41
Narragansett Bay 212 16 16 32 34 34
Pawcatuck 262 27 12 39 40 21
SENE 2,865 16% 15% 31% 367 33%

Sources: See Methodology in the Regional Report.

3-3

Harbor Islands; and natural sites such as in the Millis- operations are active in the area. But frequently the best
Holliston and Boston-Brookline-Newton area, the valued sand and gravel sites are ground water recharge areas and
character of which could be damaged by incompatible care must be exercised to prevent pollution or depletion of
development. aquifers. These are discussed further in Locating Key Facilities,
Chapter 9. Similar considerations apply to solid waste dis-
Developable Areas comprise nearly a third of the total plan- posal and large scale development.
ning area (some 125,000 acres). A large proportion (100,000
out of the region's 530,000 acres of the developable areas This analysis points to the opportunity existing in the Boston
are lands of high landscape quality (defined by landscape metropolitan planning area to accommodate growth with-
diversity and relief). Valuable landscape is found in Milton, out significantly changing the water and land resources
Sharon, Weston, Lincoln, Lexington, Waltham, the area of which contribute to the planning area's environmental quality.
Milford in the upper Charles River, and straddling the bor-
ders of Winchester and Arlington. Other developable Authorities at all levels - federal, state, local, and private -
areas are those with slopes of over 15 percent, which are can contribute to meeting this aim irrespective of the scope
scattered in small areas throughout the planning area. De- of the land use decision.
velopment of these causes risk of erosion and septic system
seepage to areas below. Density of development on soils with
severe septic tank limitation (12,000 acres in the area with The Solutions
much in the western portion of the Charles River basin)
must be regulated according to availability of sewers. Some To take advantage of the Boston Metropolitan planning
8,000 acres are predominately ledge - either exposed, or area's opportunity to accommodate growth without signifi-
within three feet of the surface - which offers little devel- cantly changing the overall environmental quality, a strategy
opment potential despite its physical attractiveness and with three components is needed: (!) Protect Category A
aesthetic quality. Table 3.4 presents suggested guidelines Critical Environmental Areas; (2) Restrict development of
for suitable use of Developable Areas mapped on Plate 1. Category B Critical Environmental Areas; (3) Manage Cate-
gories C, F, and G Developable Areas, guiding growth to
A pertinent question is how much of the projected popula- existing infrastructure. A statewide structure is recommended
tion could Developable Areas accommodate. The land con- below to carry out the program. In the time before institu-
sumption rate for the Boston metropolitan planning area tion of such a structure, however, municipalities can imple-
between 1960 and 1970 was about 0.4 acres for each ment many of these recommendations with the technical
additional person. This is somewhat less than the regional and financial assistance of regional planning agencies and
land consumption rate of 0.5 acres per person. Assuming a state agencies.
continuation of land consumption trends within the planning
area, 293,000 persons could be accommodated by the plan- A number of methods are available for protecting the fragile
ning area C, F, and G lands. This is more than the anticipated Critical Environmental Areas listed in Table 3.2. These in-
188,000 persons projected for the planning area by 1990, clude existing legislation, zoning, building codes, subdivision
and even somewhat more than the 283,000 projected by regulations, and outright purchase. Within the context of
2020. Should the land consumption rate increase to the existing methods the Study recommends for Priority Pro-
regional rate, 248,000 persons could be accommodated - still tection Areas:
more than the projected 1990 population, but less than the
projected 2020 population. The capacity to accommodate 1. Protect priority Critical Environmental Areas.
additional growth appears certain in yet another sense. The Municipalities should proluhibit urban development
additional sewer facilities proposed for the planning area on Category A Critical Environmental Areas
would serve 349,000 more persons, more than the population (Priority Protection Areas). The appropriate uses
projected for the planning area by 2020. of these resources include: water supply, fisheries
production, limited recreation, or scenic and open
In addition to land use decisions resulting from the need to space lands.
accommodate population growth, the planning area faces
several decisions about siting large scale facilities. These Planning and zoning boards should protect water bodies
developments are vital to the economic growth of the from pollution by restricting adjacent development and by
planning area and to service the people's needs, but they do controlling urban runoff through subdivision regulations
have significant impacts on water resources. The demand for requiring stormwater detention ponds where feasible. The
power is steadily growing but few sites exist that meet re- recommendations in Chapter 5 of this report will also help
quirements for power plants with minimal degradation of to achieve the state's water quality standards. Estuaries and
the environment or safety hazards. Sand and gravel consump- shellfish flats - particularly those along the lower Neponset
tion in this planning area is the greatest in SENE and large River in Hingham, Quincy, and Dorchester Bays, and among

TABLE 3.4 SUGGESTED* GUIDELINES FOR USE OF DEVELOPABLE AREAS SHOWN ON PLATES 1, 2, and 3

MAP PATTERN NONE (color only) r ??jjiiji.//
X Other Resource No other Resource High Landscape Quality Upland Wildlife Habitat Aquifer and/or Ground water
S Limitations Limitations (Category C2) (Category C3) recharge areas
Soils (Category C1)
Limitations
Moderate to No Limitations - PW & PS If clustered on no more than If clustered on no more If clustered on no more than 20%
for septic system disposal . Any I/C 50% of area - than 30% of area - of area -
(Category F & G) . Any Res. - PW & PS - PW & PS PW & PS
- PW only . Any I/C . Any I/C . Any I/C
.Med. Intensity I/C . Any Res. . Any Res. . Any Res.
. At least 1/2 ac/DU - PW only - PW only - PW only .
O . Med. Intensity I/C . Med. Intensity I/C . Med. Intensity I/C
a . At least 1/2 ac/DU . At least 1/2 ac/DU . At Least 1/2 ac/DU
Unclustered - Unclustered - Unclustered -
� Low Intensity I/C . Low Intensity I/C . Med. Intensity I/C
� At least 1.0 ac/DU . At least 1.5 ac/DU . At least 1/2 ac/DU
Unclustered or no PW & PS -
� No I/C
.At least 3 ac/DU**
Severe septic system - PW & PS If clustered on no more than If clustered on no more If clustered on no more than
limitations caused by . Any I/C 50% of area - than 30% of area - 20% of area -
conditions other than . Any Res. - PW & PS - PW & PS - PW & PS
slope and ledge soils - PW only . Any I/C . Any I/C . Any I/C
uj (y Category C4) . Low Intensity I/C .Any Res. . Any Res. .Any Res.
At least 1.5 ac/DU Unclustered or PW only - Unclustered or PW only - PS only
. Low Intensity I/C . Low Intensity I/C . Med. Intensity I/C
. At least 1.5 ac/DU . At least 1.5 ac/DU . At least 1/2 ac/DU
- PW only
.No I/C
At least 3 ac/DU
Ledge and/or steep - PW & PS . No I/C . No I/C . No I/C
slope greater than . No I/C . At least 3 ac/DU . At least 3 ac/DU At least 3 ac/DU
15% . At least 1/2 ac/DU ***
0 (Category CS) - PW only
. No I/C
At least 2 ac/DU

* These are designed to provide a framework for designing guidelines of increasing specificity by state, regional, and local planners, and consultants
more intimately knowledgeable with local circumstances.
** In many cases suggested guidelines for development, particularly for ground water, are estimates of probable safe controls made in the absence
of greater knowledge of the effects of development on the pollution of aquifers.
*** Erosion control measures should accompany other restrictions on slopes over 15%.
Med. & Low Intensity - refers to water use/effluent discharge/building coverage
Clustering - refers to percent impermeable land surface area which may adversely effect the resource.
PW - Public Water Supply System Res. - Residential
PS - Public Sewer System ac - acre
I/C - Industry/Commercial DU - Dwelling Unit

islands in the outer portion of Boston Harbor - should be gory C resources and encourage growth on
protected by prohibiting outfalls of any kind of effluent Category F and G resources, especially where
and prohibiting dredging, sand and gravel mining, or in- infrastructure exists or is planned.
stallation of pipelines in these areas. Wetlands should be
protected through more rigorous enforcement of existing It is worth noting that this recommendation deals with
legislation at a local level. (Chapter 8 of the Regional Report management of all developable areas both within existing
details how the legislation can be improved; Chapter 6 of developed areas, and in areas yet to be developed.
the Regional Report discusses kinds of assistance available There are no developable areas in which management of
to municipalities). Municipalities using Massachusetts Self- some kind is not required.
Help Funds, and/or private interests should acquire the
most valuable wildlife wetlands and surrounding uplands On ground water recharge areas (of which there are about
which are mentioned in Chapter 6 of this report. Critical 12,000 acres scattered throughout the planning area), com-
erosion areas and beaches should be protected by zoning munities should restrict densities so that septic systems will
ordinances prohibiting development. Chapter 6 of this not endanger ground water quality. Densities requiring
report includes recommendations for the recreational de- sewers should be allowed only after analysis of the econo-
velopment of beaches. Chapter 8 includes measures for mic and environmental feasibility of recharge maintenance
protecting accelerating rates of erosion. (see Chapter 4, Water Supply, and Chapter 5, Water Quality).
Other ordinances and builfding codes should control coverage
To manage Other Protection Areas, municipalities should: by impermeable surfaces, require stormwater detention
ponds to recharge runoff from roofs, streets, parking lots,
2. Restrict development on other Critical En- and driveways. Regulations and sound engineering prac-
vironmental Areas. Municipalities should re- tices should be used to minimize the effects of activities
strict development of Category B resources. Suit- hazardous to ground water quality such as sanitary landfill,
able uses to be considered for this category should highway deicing salt, industrial waste disposal, agricultural
include agriculture, extensive recreation, forestry, runoff, and sand and gravel mining below the water table.
or in some cases, with proper management, very On areas with high landscape quality, best upland wildlife
low densitv residential use. habitat (especially in Lincoln, Norwood, Canton, Sharon,
Woburn, and Medford), and on unsewered soils with severe
Measures for protecting flood plains, described in depth in septic system limitations, only development of very low
Chapter 8 of the Regional Report, include local flood plain density or in clusters should be allowed. Development that
zoning prohibiting development, discouraging or prohibiting would tend to preempt the resource value of wildlife habi-
reconstruction after substantial storm damages, relocating tat and landscape quality should be carefully evaluated to
some public facilities if structural protection is not available ensure that adverse impacts are fully taken into account.
or practical. Structural methods required to remedy flooding Steep slopes should be protected from erosion by low
problems in this planning area are described in Chapter 8 density use. Development on moderate limitation areas
of this report. Prime agricultural lands should be protected should be regulated to correspond to the availability of sewers.
at the state level by tax incentives, agricultural districts, Higher densities should be encouraged on F and G lands,
and acquisition of development rights for the highest since Category C resources usually can support only very
priority lands, and at the local level by methods such as low densities.
transfer of development rights. (See Regional Report,
Chapter 3, for more details). The SENE Study findings represent a beginning for all
towns to implement this strategy. The information on
Proposed reservoir sites and unique natural and cultural SENE Development Capabilities Maps covers too large an
sites should be protected by outright acquisition or pur- area to allow use at the site design level of detail. For ex-
chase of easements or development rights. Chapter 4 of this ample, because of scale limitations, portions of the Charles
report describes recommendations for reservoir develop- River in its upper reaches and at its headwaters in Hopkin-
ment in Walpole and Holliston. Upland erosion areas should ton do not appear. Municipalities can concentrate on
be protected by local sediment and erosion control ordinan- developing management guidelines for high priority re-
ces (discussed in Chapter 8 of the Regional Report). sources which fit into existing ordinances and building
codes using more detailed maps and data. The municipali-
The nearly 125,000 acres of Developable Areas (Category C, ties which should take the steps most urgently are those
F, and G resources) require some management to retain the under high development pressure and with significant
intrinsic natural functions which these resources perform. amounts of Critical Environmental Areas, namely: Hollis-
The SENE Study recommends municipalities: ton, Dedham, Sherbom, Norwood, Sharon, Walpole, Can-
ton, Medfield, Lexington, Braintree, Hingham, and Hol-
3. Manage growth on Developable Areas. brook. Protection of public and industrial water supply
Municipalities should manage growth on Cate- wells in Woburn under medium-high development pressures

3-6

and industrial water supply wells in Everett under low devel- towns, regional planning agencies, and state agencies,
opment pressure is also important according to Chapter 4, should establish policies to accommodate further de-
Water Supply. velopment in already developed areas, and to per-
mit maximum use of existing water, sewer, and
Although local governments have- much of the authority transportation service. Planned unit development
necessary to implement the concept of guiding growth based and the cluster principle should also be encouraged
on resource capability, its implementation will be most in these areas.
effective if adopted as a matter of state policy. Many re-
sources extend across town boundaries and greater funding The Regional Report also recommends establishment of a
resources and additional information are available at the system for determining criteria for locations of developments
state level. of regional impact. This would be within the framework of
the system designed to protect critical areas and manage
The most expeditious way for the states to implement these developable areas, and would enable consideration of en-
concepts would be for their interagency policy councils to vironmental and economic ramifications of siting decisions.
review and adopt, as appropriate, the policy issues suggested Power plant siting problems in this planning area would be
herein. under its jurisdiction. Consistent with siting criteria suggested
for other facilities of regional impact, highway planners
Rhode Island has taken a powerful step in this direction by should give special consideration to avoiding Critical Environ-
putting together a comprehensive land use plan. Massachu- ment Areas (Categories A and B). Details of this recommenda-
setts should continue its progress toward developing a t ion can be found in the Locating Key Facilities chapters of
comprehensive policy for guiding growth. This decision is this and the Regional Report, and in the Regional Report in
most appropriately made by an existing interdisciplinary the chapters on Strengthening the Management System for
organization. It is therefore recommended that the Coin- Natural Resources and Guiding Growth.
monwealth:

4. Use SENE resource development capability Implications
analysis to guide future growth, The Mass- The impact of these recommendations on development
achusetts Cabinet, with the active participation of patterns in the planning area, considering the volumes of
regional planning agencies and municipal govern- area in each category and the projected population, would
ment, should review and use the SENE Study's be beneficial environmentally and economically. The
resource development capability analysis to develop amount of the planning area in Category A and B lands is
a policy for guiding future growth. Guidelines can relatively low (23 percent); only two planning areas have
be developed at the state, substate, or local levels lower percentages. A very high proportion of the area has
of government. Chapter 10 of the Regional Report already been preempted by development and public use,
describes several options for developing these and the Study was not able to estimate the amount of
guidelines. growth that could be accommodated in these areas. But
most, if not all, of the growth anticipated over the next 50
Chapter 3 in the Regional Report describes the economic in- years can be accommodated on land and water resources
efficiencies and environmental detriments of urban sprawl. capable of supporting that development with the fewest
Making better use of roads, sewer systems, and water supply environmental costs. The amount of sewer service proposed
systems where they already exist could help to avert these for the planning area is large enough to accommodate the
costs. Therefore, it is recommended that policies be developed projected population. By directing growth to areas with, or
to: proposed to have, services, municipalities can help meet the
goal of accommodating growth with fewest environmental
5. Accommodate growth where services already and economic costs.
exist. The Massachusetts Cabinet, in concert with

3-7

CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY

The Situation

The previous chapters have indicated that the Boston is generally the most economical source of supply for
Metropolitan planning area has the largest population and local systems, regional systems offer economies of scale and
is the most densely settled of all ten planning areas. Con- organization. The size and efficiency of the MDC system
tinued growth will result in increased demands for water, place it at the lower end of the regional system cost scale.
especially in the communities where development pressure The wholesale cost of water from the MDC system is about
is high. Major forces which can increase water demand in $200 per million gallons. In addition, municipalities must
the planning area include the steadily increasing population pay construction costs for the extension of MDC service to
outside the urban core and the rising standard of living. their towns. Where local ground water is unavailable or
economically or environmentally unfeasible, supplies from
An average of 329 million gallons (mgd) of water was the MDC may be an appropriate alternative. However, MDC
supplied to the planning area each day in 1970. Estimated supplies are limited, and in-basin ground and surface waters
1990 average day water demands for the entire planning should be developed to the maximum extent environmen-
area are 407 mgd. The major water supply system in the tally, economically, and socially feasible (Regional Report,
Boston area is the Metropolitan Water District, operated by Chapter 4, Water Supply). Table 4.1 is a summary of the
the Metropolitan District Commission. Hereafter the system projected 1990 demands and the recommended sources of
will be referred to as the MDC. The MDC is the largest supply for each of the towns in the planning area.
regional system in New England, serving about two million
people. Twenty-three of the most populated towns in the A Major Regional System: The MDC
planning area are either wholly or partially served by this
system and received a total of 262 mgd in 1970. The Because the MDC plays such a large role as a supplier of
remainder of the water (67 mgd) was supplied, for the most water in this planning area, and because municipalities in
part, by individual local ground water systems and surface this area will require much of the MDC's future supply, it is
water impoundments located within the planning area. appropriate to include a discussion of its future options in
Table 4.1 gives more details of this inventory, this report. Currently, the MDC supplies the water needs of
41 Massachusetts municipalities * (32 within the SENE
Ground water supply is adequate for meeting the entire region) from three major reservoirs: Quabbin, Wachusett,
1990 water demands of some communities in the Upper and Sudbury. These reservoirs impound water diverted
Charles River basin and in the outlying communities in the from tributaries of the Connecticut and Merrimack River
Neponset River basin. This source of supply will partially basins. Table 4.2 lists the municipalities served by the MDC
serve other communities in both basins, which will have to as of 1970.
depend upon surface sources as well. In some areas, ground
water is high in iron and manganese content which may limit As in the case of other regional developments, the im-
its development. Moreover, development of some aquifers portation of water to municipalities in the Boston Metro-
could lower stream and pond levels, thereby potentially politan and Ipswich-North Shore planning areas (also
reducing recreational values mentioned in Chapter 6. If partially served by MDC) has been primarily due to neces-
ground water pumping is determined to significantly sity. Where ground or surface water of sufficient quality
lower pond levels and streamflows, the municipalities and quantity is present, it should be developed. However,
should investigate other sources of supply. local development of ground and surface supplies in MDC
towns is generally less satisfactory than importation of
water, because of the lack of high quality supplies or the
The Solutions preemptive use of potential well sites, recharge areas,. and
watershed lands by urban and suburban development.
Chapter 4 of the Regional Report, Water Supply, has dis-
cussed the relative costs of ground water, surface water, The existing dependable yield of the MDC system is
and regional water supply systems. Although ground water estimated to be 300 mgd. However, the average daily

*Worcester also receives emergency supplies from the MDC. Lancaster has an agreement with the MDC to receive water, but has not made
use of this agreement since 1963.

4-1

TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF 1990 WATER SUPPLY PROPOSAL:
BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

Existing System (1970) 1990 1990 Proposed Waltham MDC 10.8 12.78 Same MDC
Safe Average Design Additional Watertown MDC 4.8 5.43 Same MDC
Yield Demand Demand Source of Wellesley Wells 7.7 4.82 8.82 MDC
Municipality Source (mgd)a-2'/ (mgd) (mgd)c-/ Supply Weston Wellse-/ 2.1 3.31 Same MDC
MDC 0.4
MYSTIC RIVER BASIN Wrentham Wells 2.0 1.92 3.89 Ground water &
Arlington MDC 6.8 8.26 Same MDC Milford Water Co.
Belmont MDC 2.6 3.09 Same MDC NEPONSET RIVER BASIN
Chelsea MDC 3.6 3.53 Same MDC Canton Wells 3.0 4.96 Same Ground water
Everett MDC 8.0 9.28 Same MDC MDC 1.0 & MDC
Maiden MDC 6.9 7.59 Same MDC MC10&D
Medforden MDC 8.1 9.2259 Same MDC Milton MDC 2.5 3.64 Same MDC
~~Medford MDC 8.1 9.22 Same MDC ~ Norwood Wells (3.0) 5.79 Same Treated ground
Melrose MDC 3.0 3.49 Same MDC MDC 3.0 water
Somerville MDC 10.7 11.31 Same MDC Quincy MDC 10.2 1244 Same MDC
Quincy MDC 10.2 12.44 Same MDC
Stoneham MDC 3.4 5.27 Same MDC Sharon Wells 3.7 2.48 4.90 Ground water
Winchester MDC 1.4 2.73 Same MDC Stoughton Wells 3.1 3.85 7.22 MDC
Wells 0.
Woburn Wells 8.2 7.98 13.73 MDC Willett Pond
Woburn Wells 8.2 7.98 13.73 MDC ~~~~~Walpole Wells 3.5 5.95 10.59 Ground water &
/ ~~~~~~~~Willett Pond
Hom Pond (2.4) Westwood See Dedhamd/ 2.41 4.76 See Dedham

CHARLES RIVER BASIN SOUTHSHORE
Bellingham Wells 2.2 2.00 4.05 Ground water Braintree Great Pond Res. 6.32 Same Further develop
Boston MDC 141.7 152.60 Same MDC & Diversions 2.8 Richardi Reservoir
Brookline MDC 7.4 8.86 Same MDC Richardi Res. (3.0)
Cambridge Hobbs Brook Tubular Well (0.4)
Fresh Pond >13.7 24.45 Same MDC
Stony Brook Hingham Fulling Mill 3.29 Same None
MDC 8.9 Dug Well 2.2
Dedham Wells 7.7 d/ 3.24 6.19 Ground water Gravel-Packed
& MDC Wells 3.9
Dover Wells 0.2 .36 .86 Ground water
Franklin Wells 2.4 3.34 6.35 Ground water Holbrook See Randolph 1.60 Same See Randolph
and Mifford Hull See Hingham 2.51 Same See Hingham
Water Co. Randolph Great Pond Res. 4.37 Same Further develop
Holliston Wells 1.9 1.99 4.03 Ground water & Diversions 1.3 Richardi Reservoir
Lexington MDC 4.5 6.42 Same MDC Gravel-Packed
Lincoln Wells 0.7 1.07 Same None Wells 2.5
Sandy Pond 0.4
Medfield Wells 1.1 1.73 3.63 Ground water Weymouth Great Pond 6.09 Same Treated Ground
Medway Wells 1.8 1.60 3.30 Ground water & Diver- water
& Milford sions 4.5
Water Co. Gravel-
Milford Wells 0.4 3.19 Same Milford Water Packed
Charles R. 1.0 Co. (Louisa ells (3.7)
Lake) aJ All safe yield figures attributed to the MDC are estimates of the amounts
Millis Wells 1.0 1.67 3.42 Ground water
Millis Wells 1.0 1.67 3.42 ~~Ground water provided in 1970 when the total demands on the MDC system approximated
Natick Wells 9.2 10.27 16.94 MDC system safe yield.
Needham Wells 3.4 5.19 Same MDC t
Needham Wells 3.4- 5.19 Same MDC L/Ground water yield reported as pumping capacity of system. Standby supplies
MDC 1.0
Newton MDC 11.6 12.88 Same MDC in parentheses.
Norfolk Wrentham Sc/ Systems relying primarily on ground water sources must supply maximum
State School Unknown .39 .92 Ground water day demands.
Norfolk Cor- d_ All safe yields for Dedham and Westwood are combined because they form
rectional Ins.
Sherbom Private one service area supplied by the Dedhamrn Water Company.
Supplies .27 .66 Ground water e/ Weston is now entirely served by the MDC.

amount of water furnished by the system in 1970 was 307 In order to meet its projected demands, the NEWS Study
mgd. Above average rates of precipitation since 1971 have recommended that the MDC undertake two water supply
enabled the MDC to supply more water than its theoretical projects. Their recommended Northfield Mountain and
safe yield. * Millers River basin projects would divert an average of 72
and 76 mgd, respectively, from the Connecticut River
The existing deficit in the MDC's-water supply must be basin during periods of high flow.
corrected in the near future. In addition, the system will
require new sources of supply as its member communities The Northfield Mountain project would use a high flow
increase their consumption and as additional towns gain skimming technique, principally during spring runoff
membership. In 1973, the Northeastern United States periods, diverting water from the main stem of the
Water Supply (NEWS) Study by the U. S. Army Corps of Connecticut through Northeast Utilities' pumped storage
Engineers estimated that by 1990 24 additional towns hydroelectric facility in Northfield and Erving, Massa-
(18 of them within the SENE region) will have no option chusetts. In order to provide water for the diversion, North-
for water supply other than the MDC. These towns are east Utilities would pump an additional 375 million gallons
listed on Table 4.3 ** The Corps estimated that these towns into its upper storage reservoir each day that flows in the
and the 41 presently served towns will place an additional Connecticut are above a control flow of 17,000 cubic feet
demand of 141 mgd (over its present 300 mdg yield) on the per second (cfs) at the Montague City U. S. Geological
MDC by 1990. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council, in Survey gaging station. The diverted water would then be
its report on Alternative Regional Water Supply Systems piped to Quabbin Reservoir through a 9.8 mile long
for the Boston Metropolitan Area by Camp, Dresser and aqueduct. Although high flow skimming of 375 mgd could
McKee, February, 1971) came to a similar conclusion, es- yield an annual average of 84 mgd to the MDC system, the
timating that the MDC would require 196 mgd yield by 1990. NEWS Study estimates that, because of "operational con-

TABLE 4.2 COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THE MDC IN 1970

FULLY SUPPLIED MEMBERS:

Arlington Marblehead Revere
Belmont Medford Saugus
Boston Melrose Somerville
Brookline Milton Stoneham
Chelsea Nahant Swampscott
Everett Newton Waltham
Lexington Norwood Watertown
Malden Quincy Winthrop

PARTIALLY SUPPLIED MEMBERS:

Cambridge Peabody
Canton Wakefield
Lynnfield Weston
Needham Winchester

NON-MEMBERS SUPPLIED:

Clinton Leominster Southborough
Chicopee Marlborough South Hadley, F.D. #1
Framingham Northborough Wilbraham
Worcester a

/On an emergency basis only

*Average daily amount of water supplied by the MDC in:
1971 = 322 mgd
1972 = 318 mgd
1973 = 316 mgd
**The MDC is now negotiating with two other municipalities not considered by the NEWS or SENE Studies. However, both studies found
that these municipalities have alternative sources other than the MDC.

4-3

siderations," the average daily yield to Quabbin would be Both the NEWS and SENE Studies estimate a reasonably
about 72 mgd. close rate of increase in domestic per capita water consump-
tion between 1970 and 1990. However, while the NEWS
Like the Northfield Mountain diversion, the Millers River Study used the OBERS "Series C" figures as the basis for
basin project would use high flow skimming techniques its population projections, the SENE Study has used a
to divert water from the East Branch of the Tully River, more recent set of figures, the OBERS "Series E" pro-
about four miles above Athol, Massachusetts, and from the jections. The latter projections assume a continuation of
main stem of the Millers River, about three miles above the zero population birth rate level which the nation is now
Athol. Both diversions in the Millers River basin would re- experiencing, rather than the higher 1960-1970 national
quire not only the control flow of 17,000 cfs on the Con- growth rate on which the "Series C" projections are based.*'
necticut at Montague City (see above), but would also re- Although the disaggregated figures may not be totally accu-
quire minimum flows on their respective rivers. Diversions rate for individual towns and cities, it is felt that over the
might occur simultaneously or possibly only at one site, total number of municipalities considered in this compari-
depending on the control flows and the water quality of son, the Series E figures are reasonable projections.
the two rivers. Because of the low quality of the Millers
River, treatment at the project's intake, or advanced The second major difference between the SENE and NEWS
treatment at the point pollution sources along the river, figures is the evaluation of sources other than the MDC.
would be required. The combined diversion from the Based on its policy of maximum use of local resources, the
Tully and Millers Rivers would be carried to Quabbin SENE Study has investigated the existing or potential
through a seven mile long aqueduct and would provide local surface and ground water sources for the same 65
the MDC with an average annual supply of 76 mgd. This municipalities evaluated by the NEWS Study. Detailed ac-
amount, combined with the 72 mgd from the Northfield counts of the SENE Study's findings for the communities
Mountain diversion, would provide 148 mgd to meet the within the SENE region may be found in the Regional Re-
NEWS Study's projected needs for MDC communities port and Ipswich North Shore Planning Area Report.
in 1990.
Although the SENE Study was able to identify 12 mgd in
Findings of the SENE Study, however, indicate that potential additional local resources in the 65 communi-
reliance of the 65 towns on MDC supplies may not be as ties, this figure is not significantly different from the
great as suggested by NEWS. Table 4.4 presents results of 9 mgd which the NEWS Study identified as additional
the NEWS and SENE Studies for comparison. The SENE supplies. Thus, the major difference in the two studies'
Study findings are based on two factors which differ from water supply figures is 30 mgd in the estimated yield of
those of the NEWS analysis: lower population projections existing local supplies. This difference may be explained
and a different interpretation of existing and potential by the fact that the NEWS Study significantly reduced
local resources available to meet water needs. its estimate of the amount of existing ground water

TABLE 4.3 THE 24 COMMUNITIES WITH NO REPORTED OPTION
OTHER THAN THE MDC (NEWS STUDY)

*Ashland *Hudson Sherborn
Avon Lincoln *Stoughton
Bolton *Maynard Stow
Braintree Medfield Sudbury
*Dedham Millis *Wellesley
Dover *Natick *Westwood
Holbrook Norfolk Weymouth
Holliston - Randolph *Woburn

* The nine (9) communities which the SENE Study finds have no reported
option other than the MDC.

*In fact, the OBERS Series E figures closely approximate the "Dispersed" estimates (or the lower limit) of county population totals listed
in the NEWS Study [Millers River Basin Water Supply Project, Volume II, Appendix B, pp. B-13 to B-14].

supplies if these supplies were insufficient to meet maxi- The last row of figures on Table 4.4 compares the NEWS
mum day demands. In contrast, the SENE Study in- and SENE Study estimates of MDC communities' needs
cluded all ground water supplies which satisfied communi- for water by 1990 if no additional sources of water supply
ties' average day demands,* provided that these were developed (ie, if neither the Northfield Mountain nor
communities also had storage of additional supplies the Millers River basin diversions were constructed). While
sufficient to meet their maximuri day demands.* the NEWS Study estimates that 141 mgd would be required
by 1990, the SENE Study figures indicate that, based on
Therefore, of the 24 additional communities which the lower demand projections and on maximum use of local
NEWS Study assigned to the MDC service area by 1990, resources, only 77 mgd would be necessary to meet the
the SENE Study has found that only 9 would have to MDC communities' needs. The question faced by the
join the MDC at that time (see Table 4.3). The remaining MDC is how these short-range needs will be met.
15 municipalities appear to have a sufficient amount of
water from existing or potential local sources to postpone The SENE Study has investigated short-range water supply
their membership in the MDC system. If more detailed in- alternatives to the Northfield and Millers Rivers diversions,
vestigations of local resource potential reveal that addi- but to date has been unable to suggest any alternatives which,
tional supplies are not available or suitable for use, the either separately or in combination, are demonstrably supe-
affected municipalities will require connection to the MDC. r ior to these projects. However, work is in progress on

TABLE 4.4 COMPARISON OF NEWS AND SENE STUDY ESTIMATES FOR
WATER SUPPLIES IN METROPOLITAN BOSTON THROUGH 1990
WITHOUT NORTHFIELD MOUNTAIN AND MILLERS RIVER
DIVERSIONS. a/

Assumptions - DEMAND NEWS SENE

Rate of growth, per capita use 1.1 gpcd/yrb/ 1.1% pc/yrc/
Total projected population 1990 2,845 000 2,773,000
Total projected demand 1990 524 mngd--/ 493 mgd

Assumptions - SUPPLY (in mgd)

Existing MDC supply 300 300
Existing local supply 74e-/ 104
Potential local supply 9 12
Total projected supply - 1990
without additional diversions 383 416

Net deficit - 1990 141 77

aService area: Current MDC towns (fully and partially supplied (32), current non-
member towns supplied (9), and towns identified by NEWS as having no reported
options other than MDC service by 1990 (24).
b_/gallons per capita per day/year graphical; domestic rate (industrial rate not available)
L_.per capita/year compounded; domestic and industrial rate
-/total NEWS demand based on domestic and industrial projections
A/1970 yield of ground water systems reduced to allow for 1970 maximum day demands
--/1970 yield of ground water systems applied to 1990 average day demands
Additional supplies available to meet 1990 maximum day demands.

*Average day demands represent a community's yearly average of daily water demands. Maximum day demands represent the amount of
water required by a community on the peak day in any given year. Because ground water supplies generally have no storage facilities, com-
munities which rely entirely on ground water must develop enough supplies to meet their maximum day demands even though these peak
demands may occur infrequently. However, the SENE Study finds that communities which use both surface and ground water supplies
can rely on the storage capacity of their reservoirs to provide the additional water needed to meet maximum day demands. Thus, these
communities only need to develop ground water supplies to meet their average day demands.

4-5

several studies, and additional investigation needs to be This source may be a short-term solution, helping to keep
carried out in order to determine their feasibility. several South Shore communities from having to join the
MDC, but, in the long run, it will probably not be possi-
The Merrimack River presently serves as a source of water ble to supply the MDC area with enough Plymouth County
supply for Lawrence, Lowell, and Methuen, and could, ground water to reduce the need for additional sources.
with treatment, serve communities in the Ipswich and
Merrimack basins which now are members of the MDC or Desalination has been proposed as a source of additional
which might have to join the MDC in the future. The MDC water supplies. However, as mentioned earlier in this
NEWS Study is presently considering the advisability of chapter, present desalination techniques are not economi-
providing supplies to several Merrimack valley communi- cally feasible for large-scale use, and environmental prob-
ties from the Merrimack by 1990. However, the NEWS lems, such as brine disposal, still remain to be solved. De-
Study is not considering diversions from the Merrimack salination will certainly not be economically feasible in
to serve out of basin needs, including those of the MDC, time to preclude the need for the Northfield Mountain
until after 1990. Presently, the water quality of the diversion, and it is doubtful that it could be developed in
Merrimack River necessitates a high degree of treatment time, and at a large enough scale, to replace the Millers
before it can be used as a water supply source. The cost River diversion. It is important to note, however, that desa-
of treatment and distribution, which could result in a total lination has a great deal of potential as a long-term source
project cost as high as $79.1 million for in-basin use alone,* of water supply, and studies on the development of econo-
precludes this alternative as a practical short-term solu- mically feasible, environmentally safe methods of desalina-
tion for MDC needs. State and local interests in New tion should be vigorously pursued.
Hampshire are also concerned about the potential Massa-
chusetts diversions of the Merrimack. Nevertheless, it The reuse of wastewater has also been discussed in a pre-
appears that a clean Merrimack River will hold the vious section of this chapter. The SENE Study has conclu-
greatest potential as a long-term solution for the MDC's ded that while recycling of wastewater for industrial
water supply problems, and continuing study of this al- use can be economically sound, it will probably be many
ternative is extremely important. years before recycled wastewater is an economically viable
alternative to other sources of drinking water supply. In-
The MDC is currently sponsoring a study on the feasibility dustrial recycling of water would not result in large
of using the Upper Sudbury River as a source of additional enough savings to negate the short-term needs for new MDC
water supplies. A draft report has been prepared and is sources. However, in the long term, wastewater reuse for
undergoing review by the MDC, but no conclusive informa- drinking water and for industrial use could result in sub-
tion has been developed as yet. However, there is a possi- stantial water supply savings and research in this field must
bility that if technical matters are resolved, the Upper be continued.
Sudbury could provide the MDC with additional supplies
of between 30 and 40 mgd by the mid-1980's. These sup- Another alternative which should be explored is the re-
plies would be in addition to the 15 mgd presently being activation of presently unused local water supplies in
withdrawn from the Sudbury River for MDC use. Until communities now served by the MDC. Although the SENE
more definitive information is developed, neither the MDC Study staff is aware of no previous work on this matter, it
nor the SENE Study can evaluate the feasibility of the is possible that if local supplies were reactivated, pressures
Upper Sudbury project, but it appears to be a potentially on the MDC sources would be lessened. This proposal is
valuable source of supply, and the Study endorses the consistent with the Study's theme of making maximum use
MDC's continued investigations. of local resources. Unfortunately, reactivation may not be
an economically acceptable solution for many of the cornm-
The apparently substantial reserves of ground water in munities involved, which joined the MDC because of the high
Plymouth County, Massachusetts, have been suggested as an costs of treating their local supplies. However, communities
alternative source to the Northfield Mountain and the such as Canton, which joined the MDC because of demands
Millers River diversions. However, as discussed in the South on local wells during the summer months, can maintain local
Shore Planning Area Report, the South Shore is one of the sources to meet most of their needs, while relying on the
fastest growing areas in the Southeastern New England MDC for augmenting their water supplies during times of
region. Based on discussions with consultants who are peak demands. Other communities which have discontinued
conducting a water supply study in the area, the SENE the use of previously significant supplies should look into
Study's conclusion is that Plymouth County ground water the option of their reactivation to lessen the burden placed
will be needed to meet local, in-basin water supply needs.

*MERRIMACK RIVER WATER SUPPLY STUDY. Information Packet for Pub. Meeting, July, 1975.

4-6

on MDC sources. Additional research would have to be "based on the price of water in the MDC communities,
carried out to determine the technical feasibility and the location and repair of leakage in excess of 3,000 gallons
costs and benefits of reactivating local supplies. per mile of main per day may be considered justifiable"
(p. 58). If a large portion of the MDC's unmetered water
Continuing the theme of maximizing the use of in-basin use is, in fact, leakage, and if all communities served by
water supplies, the SENE Study strongly endorses the the MDC could eliminate leakage in excess of 3,000
MDC's present policy of requiring maintenance and gallons/mile of main/day, the report estimates that ap-
development of its member communities' local resources. proximately 48 mgd of the communities' total 1972
The Study encourages the MDC to continue this policy, demand of 376 mgd could be saved. Since a large propor-
even as additional sources become available. Communi- tion of this water is supplied by the MDC (about 318 mgd in
ties which, in the past, were required to purchase a certain 1972), the 47 mgd reduction could result in substantial
percentage of their water from the MDC in order to be water savings for the system. It is therefore in the best
served should consider revising their agreements with the interests of the MDC and the City of Boston to pursue
MDC if they can make greater use of their local resources the Water Resources Research Center's investigations fur-
and place fewer demands on the MDC. The maintenance ther and, if their findings are confirmed, to act imme-
and protection of existing in-basin water supplies, as well diately to reduce water loss from system leakage.
as the protection of potential local sources, remains the
major recommendation of the SENE Study. In light of the foregoing discussions, it appears that
-- while several water supply alternatives may be po-
Water conservation must also be stressed in the MDC tentially important to the MDC's future supplies, and while
communities. Water-saving appliances and fixtures dis- water conservation measures can result in significant savings,
cussed earlier in the chapter could result in stabilized or neither the above individual alternatives nor a combination
reduced water demands if they were used on a large enough of them has the potential to fully meet the MDC's projected
scale. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this approach short-range water supply needs of 77 mgd. In contrast, the
can be regarded as a short-term solution to the MDC's water proposed Northfield Mountain project would supply the
supply problems, as it should require a significant period of MDC's water needs through the late 1980's.
time to replace older applicanees. In terms of future savings
however, a greater emphasis on water-saving devices could It appears that the water supplies from the Northfield
increase public awareness of their benefits. The Study has Mountain diversion will be required to meet the needs of
also suggested, above, that these fixtures could be required MDC communities almost immediately. The diversion,
in new buildings when their cost is less than the price of which has been approved by the Massachusetts legislature,
the water they would save. Certainly, a program of public would provide the MDC with 72 mgd from the Connecticut
education on the advantages of water conservation would main stem. Subject to pending negotiations, the project
be a first step towards voluntary "demand management." would use the existing Northfield pumped storage facility
operated by Northeast Utilities. The 1980 Connecticut
Along the same lines, the MDC must act to prevent water River Basin Plan, prepared by the New England River Basins
losses from system leakage. A recent study*, prepared for Commission in 1972, investigated the diversion from the
the MDC by the Water Resources Research Center at the "donor" area's point of view. Recognizing the need for
University of Massachusetts and Curran Associates, Inc., environmental safeguards and the potential political prob-
has identified a large amount of "unmetered" water usage lems which could arise, the Plan recommended the North-
in MDC communities, particularly in Boston. field Mountain diversion, with the following qualifications:
"Unmetered usage" includes distribution system leaks,
unavoidable leakage,.meter slippage, "blow-offs" (de- I. "The Commission recommends continued
vices to prevent freezing water pipes or poor water evaluation for adverse environmental effects
quality), main flushing, sewer flushing, street cleaning, throughout project planning, development and
fire fighting, unmetered public usage, and other unmie- operation, with mitigation of environmental
tered usage. Because the unmetered usage in Boston damage or repair by removal of the cause.
accounts for over half of the total unmetered usage in all
MDC communities, the Water Resources Research Center 2. "The Commission recommends that all proposed
report recommends that the city undertake a study to diversions of Connecticut River water below the newly
investigate the causes of this situation. The report also constructed nuclear power plant at Vernon, Vermont,
states that leaks and breaks in many water distribution including Northfield Mountain, be conditioned on
systems are generally regarded as the major component of satisfactory completion of environmental impact
unmetered usage (p. 57). Even though some leakage in a evaluations of the power plant. It is recommended
distribution system is unavoidable, the report suggests that, that these evaluations include careful investigations

*Water Usage Study in Communities served by the Metropolitan District Commission. June, 1975.

4-7

of the possibility of radioactive contamination of considered after the diversions are in operation and that any
Connecticut River water into Quabbin reservoir. It adverse effects of the projects be remedied.
is further recommended that proposed diversions be
conditioned on adequate measures to prevent radio- Steps are being taken to satisfy the second condition, that
active contamination of diverted water, including of water quality monitoring below the Vernon, Vermont
water quality monitoring. nuclear power plant. The completion of the Atomic Energy
Commission's Impact Statement on the Vermont Yankee
3. "Diversion of surplus water from the Basin is plant indicates that public health agencies and detailed
recommended subject to recognition of riparian monitoring specifications should effectively guard against
rights, specifically the right of return of these water quality problems. In addition, the U. S. Environmen-
waters when needed for water supply or flow tal Protection Agency (EPA) has advanced the opinion
augmentation within the basin. that this diversion would not cause degraded water quality
in MDC supplies, provided that the EPA-proposed program
4. "The Commission recommends [that] ....... of watershed management to maintain Class B water in the
approval of diversions [in addition to that already vicinity of the water intake at Northfield is carried out*.
authorized at Northfield Mountain]be conditioned However, final authority to approve or disapprove of the
on: Northfield project on water quality criteria is the respon-
sibility of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
a. Creation of a regional mechanism for allocating
water in which downstream states have a voice. The third condition, recognition of riparian rights, has not
In the event that the creation of such a mech- yet been resolved by the parties involved, primarily the
anism proves unfeasible, it is recommended that states of Connecticut and Massachusetts. It may be ap-
its functions be performed by existing institu- propriate to deal with this issue in the context of develop-
tions with appropriate regional management ing a regional mechanism for the equitable allocation of the
capabilities; Connecticut River Basin's water supplies.

b. Prior measurement of the impacts - environ- The 1980 Basin Plan's final condition, which includes the
mental, social, public health, economic, and other - above-mentioned regional mechanism, deals with diversions
used in determining "excess flows" [that is to say: beyond the Northfield Mountain project and will be dis-
prior determination of the impacts the diver- cussed in detail with respect to the Millers River diversion,
sion(s) would have]; and, below.

c. Prior determination of the location and available Whereas the 1980 Connecticut River Basin Plan has docu-
yield of ground water sources in the [Connecticut] mented the issues of environmental safeguards and political
basin and on development of adequate measures equity required by the "donor" region before the North-
for their protection, in coordination with en- field Mountain diversion can be constructed, the SENE
vironmental and flood management studies con- Study's figures have substantiated the need for the diversion
ducted as part of the supplemental study program." from the "recipient" area's perspective. Therefore, while
observing the qualifications listed above, it is the SENE
The first condition, that of continued evaluation for adverse Study's position that the Northfield Mountain diversion
environmental effects, has been addressed in part by the should have first priority for the MDC.
Corps of Engineers in their environmental studies of the
Northfield Mountain and Millers River basin diversions. According to the SENE Study's estimates, the completion
The Corps has also stated that during post-authorization of the Northfield Mountain project would leave the MDC
studies, environmental analysis will continue until action on communities with a 1990 deficit of 5 mgd. Although this
the projects is complete. Moreover, departments in the amount of water would have to be provided, the figure does
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs not carry the urgency of the 69 mgd deficit projected by
and the Office of State Planning will have the opportunity the NEWS Study for this same date. In other words, the.
to review the environmental effects of the projects during findings of the SENE Study suggest that although the
the state's evaluation of their environmental impact reports. Northfield Mountain diversion will be needed as soon as
It should be noted that completion of the Northfield project possible to meet the MDC's water supply demands, the
is subject to compliance with both the Massachusetts Environ- need for additional supplies will not occur until the late
mental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. 1980's. However, at that time several municipalities
In addition, it is also important that environmental impact be which will have been able to rely on local sources may

*Correspondence from Regional Administrator, EPA Region I to Division Engineer, New England Division, Corps of Engineers,
February 28, 1975.

4-8

have to look to the MDC for supplementary supplies, eveni Mountain and Millers River basin projects be conditioned
if they protect and conserve their existing and potential upon prior agreements between Massachusetts and
supplies. In addition, the rate of water consumption in the Connecticut on the diversion issues. However, reports of
50 municipalities which will require MDC service will con- the Corps of Engineers' Board of Engineers for Rivers and
tinue to increase, though probably at a lower rate than at Harbors have stated that, while it will be in the best in-
present. terests of both Connecticut and Massachusetts to "enter
an agreement regarding the management and allocation of
If the rate of increase of per capita water use remains at waters of the lower Connecticut River"*, it is not neces-
about one percent (1%) per year, MDC municipalities would sary to make this agreement a condition for federal loans
require an additional 196 mgd over the MDC's current safe in the case of the Northfield Mountain or Millers River
yield of 300 mgd by 2020 - far more than the two proposed basin projects.
diversions could supply. For reasons given earlier in this
chapter, however, it appears more likely that the rate of in- The Water Resources Research Center has recently been
crease in water use will slow down in the future. If this rate funded to study the question of an interstate water al-
is assumed to be a 0.5 percent increase per capita per year location mechanism for the Connecticut River. It is hoped
after 1990, the SENE Study estimates that the 50 munici- that the recommendations of this Study will encourage
palities which it recommends be assigned to the MDC will Connecticut and Massachusetts to reach a mutually accept-
require an additional 117 mgd by 2020 rather than 196 able agreement and will provide the states with the tools to
mgd. do so.

As the previous discussion of short-term alternatives has The second prerequisite (page 4 - 8) before a diversion such
shown, the Millers River diversion currently represents the as the Millers River basin project could be recommended is
most reliable source of the additional supplies which will be that there be prior measurement of the diversion's environ-
required in the late 1980's. However, water supply alterna- mental impacts on the "donor" area. The NEWS Study has
tives such as the Upper Sudbury River and conservation included detailed environmental reports on the impacts of
measures may lessen the pressure which the MDC communi- the Millers River diversion. The Board of Engineers for
ties will place on their water resources. With the Millers Rivers and Harbors found that these reports were of suffi-
River basin project in place, and based on the lower 0.5 cient scope and depth to support the project recommenda-
percent increase in per capita usage per year, the SENE tions. It also concluded that the positive effects of the di-
Study estimates that the 76 mgd which the project would version would outweigh its minor adverse environmental
supply could meet the MDC's additional water needs effects. However, residents of the Connecticut River
through 2020. In fact, if the lower rate of growth in water basin have felt that it is necessary to have more detailed in-
use discussed above were to occur, about 31 mgd would be formation than has been currently produced, in order to
available to meet the additional water requirements of the fully evaluate the environmental effects of the project. In
municipalities which would have to join the MDC between addition, Connecticut River basin interests have requested
1990 and 2020. reevaluation of the present control flow requirement of
17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Montague City to
However, before the Millers River diversion can be con- determine the appropriateness of that figure.
structed, it is extremely important that the final set of con-
ditions, listed above under the 1980 Connecticut River Water quality monitoring, a prerequisite for the Northfield
Basin Plan's fourth recommendation, be observed. Mountain diversion under the 1980 Connecticut River Basin
Plan, should also be a major consideration for the Millers
The development of a regional mechanism, if feasible, River diversion. EPA has stated that its approval of the
or other appropriate arrangement, between Connecticut diversion of water from the Millers River is not possible
and Massachusetts in order to allow downstream interests until the point sources of pollution on the river have been
a voice in water supply allocation is a recommended con- treated and good quality water is consistently available.**
dition for development of the Millers River diversion as The Corps of Engineers' Board of Engineers for Rivers and
indicated on page 4-8. Unfortunately, despite meetings Harbors has also expressed the opinion that in addition to
held in 1974, the two states have been unable to reach an monitoring the water supplies, additional studies should be
agreement on the form this mechanism should take. The conducted to more precisely define the scope of the Millers
New England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers River diversion's water quality problems and ecological ef-
recommended that federal loans for both the Northfield fects. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Water Resources

*DAEN-BR (21 March 1975) (25 Oct. 74), 2d Ind, Subject: Northfield Mt. Water Supply Project Survey; Millers River Water Supply
Project, Survey.
**Correspondence from Regional Administrator, EPA Region I to Chief Engineer, New England Division, Corps of Engineers, December
24, 1974.

4-9

Commission indicated a willingness to prepare a mathemat- lishing a policy on out-of-basin transfers. The group's ob-
ical water quality model of the Millers River as a part of jective, given the current data base, would be to obtain a
the development of a complete plan for that basin. In- reasonable understanding of in-basin needs before allocations
formation from such-a model would provide data useful of water could be made.
for impact assessment of the diversion of Millers River
water to the Quabbin Reservoir. Based upon the foregoing discussions, the SENE Study has
determined that the Millers River diversion can be recom-
Currently, the Federal Power Commission, under a separate mended assuming that the conditions of the 1980 Basin
study, is preparing an environmental impact statement on Plan are observed. If they are not satisfied, other alterna-
the relationships among hydroelectric facilities, the electric tives may have to be selected, despite their present environ-
power generation and transmission systems, and water use mental or economic implications.
in the-Connecticut River basin, with extensive use of mathe-
matical models. This material should prove useful in further In conclusion, the SENE Study has confirmed the MDC's
determining the environmental effects of diversions in the need for the Northfield Mountain diversion. Moreover, it
basin. appears that the Millers River Basin project will be required
by 1990 because no currently proven short-range altema-
The findings of the SENE Study indicate that there is time lives will fully meet the MDC's water supply needs. The
for additional research on the above issues before the supplies provided by the Millers River basin diversion can
Millers River basin project is needed. While the option to be expected to meet the MDC's additional water require-
divert water from the Millers River basin should be protected ments through 2020. This is a significant finding. Based
by beginning the initial project planning and acquiring the on its assumptions of population growth and water use, the
necessary land, this additional time can be used to provide SENE Study has shown that the supplies of the Millers
more definitive information on alternatives to the diversion River project will be adequate for a longer period than pre-
and its environmental consequences. In addition, the Corps viously believed.
of Engineers has stated that its environmental analysis will
continue during post authorization studies. Of course, population and consumption projections are
always open to question, especially when they are long-range
A third condition (page 4-8) which must be met before the estimates. The growth of water supply demands in the MDC
Millers River diversion can be implemented is the prior de- service area should be monitored so that the MDC can up-
termination of the adequacy of water resources in the Con- date its projections of future water demands and can plan
necticut River basin. The in-basin water supply needs have for serving them. However, assuming the accuracy of the
been considered both within the earlier Connecticut River SENE Study's water consumption projections, this more
Coordinating Committee report* and also by the Corps optimistic picture means that the conditions affecting the
of Engineers during the NEWS survey. Water supply needs environmental and political consequences of the Millers
were considered beyond 2020, and both groups found that River basin diversion can be clarified before construction
the size of the in-basin need was extremely small in corn- of the project begins.
parison with the amount of water that would be left within
the river after diversion. Further, during the environmental The Secretary of Environmental Affairs for Massachusetts
and ecological investigations of the basin conducted for the has stated that the timing and economics of water supply
NEWS Study, and during the continuing ecological studies alternatives to diversions must be addressed before it is
of the Connecticut River Supplemental Study, no in-basin assumed that further diversions are necessary and wise.**
needs which would be adversely-affected by the diversion As discussed above, the SENE Study indicates that there is
were determined. additional time for consideration of these alternatives, at
least as they apply to the Millers River diversion. At the
However, members of the 1980 Connecticut River Basin same time, however, the option to build the Millers River
Plan's Citizens Review Committee were concerned about project must be kept open. This can be accomplished by
the adequacy of Connecticut Basin ground water resources initiating planning and design of the project and by ac-
to meet future needs. It was felt that the future water quiring the land necessary for its construction. In the
requirements of the basin, including the needs of muni- meantime, work must continue on the long-range water
cipalities, industries, and agriculture along the Connecti- supply solutions which do not involve further diversions
cut River and its tributaries, must be considered in estab- of the Connecticut River. The longer the MDC can rely on

*Connecticut River Basin Coordinating Committee, Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resources Investigation Connecticut River
Basin, Volume III, June 1970.
**Correspondence from Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to Chairman, New England River Basins
Commission, September, 1975.

4-10

the Northfield and Millers River basin projects for its Before any diversions in addition to that already authorized
additional needs, the more time is allowed for the develop- at Northfield Mountain are made (i.e. the Millers River diver-
ment of advanced technologies and new resources in South- sion), the Basin Plan recommends that:
eastern New England. * an appropriate mechanism be established for allocating
water in which downstream states have a voice. In the
The Millers River basin project can be expected to meet the event that the creation of such a mechanism proves
MDC's needs through 2020. In the interim, it is likely that unfeasible, it is recommended that its functions be
alternatives such as diversions from the Upper Sudbury or performed by existing institutions with appropriate
Merrimack Rivers, recycling, and desalination will become regional management capabilities.
technically, economically, and environmentally feasible as * prior. evaluation of environmental, social, public
major sources of water supply, and that they will be de- health, economic, and other impacts on in-basin
veloped when new sources are needed. Constructive use needs be made;
must be made of the years before 2020, ensuring that all * monitoring the quality of water continue; and,
long-range solutions are thoroughly investigated from * Connecticut River Valley in-basin ground water
economic, environmental, and social perspectives. resources be determined and adequate measures for
their protection be developed.
1. Expand MDC sources by constructing the
Northfield Mountain Facility. Carry out In five years, the MDC should also re-examine population
conservation measures. Plan the Millers growth and consumption needs to verify trends and deter-
River Facility. To meet immediate needs, the mine the necessary timing of needed solutions; and should:
Metropolitan District Commission should promptly * continue to require maintenance and development
construct the Northfield Mountain diversion of member community local resources;
facility. The MDC should actively carry out con- * actively promote water conservation. measures,
servation measures and should encourage investi- including use of water saving devices and demand
gation of unmetered water use problems. The management;and,
Millers River basin project does not have to be � take steps to prevent economically avoidable
in operation until the late 1980's, but to protect water losses from distribution system.
the opportunity for timely implementation of
this option, design and land acquisition should If the provisions of the 1980 Connecticut River Basin Plan,
be initiated now. In addition, the MDC should summarized above, are not satisfied, other alternatives may
continue to examine the technical, economic, have to be selected. At the present time, alternatives being
and environmental feasibility and timing of other studied include:
alternatives for meeting its long range needs. � the feasibility of diversion of treated Merrimack
River and/or Upper Sudbury River waters to the
In carrying out this recommendation, the affected MDC system as additional sources; and,
states and, specifically the Massachusetts Execu- new technologies including waste water recycling
tive Office of Environmental Affairs and the and desalination.
Corps of Engineers can continue to implement
the provisions of the NERBC 1980 Connecticut Mystic River Basin
River Basin Plan, which recommends continual
evaluation for adoject planning, devenvir on mental effects The municipalities within the Mystic River basin, with the
t hroughout project planning, development and exception of Winchester and Woburn, are served entirely by
operation, with mitigation of environmental the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). They are:
damage or repair by removal of the cause. In Arlington, Belmont, Chelsea, Everett, Maiden, Medford,
addition: Melrose, Somerville, and Stoneham. Winchester depends on
the MDC system for nearly 70 percent of its demand, with a
For the Northfield Mountain Facility as well as subsequent local ground water supply providing the remaining amount.
diversions, the 1980 Basin Plan recommends that: Woburn has been meeting its own needs through ground
* based on satisfactory completion of environmental water from local wells. However, the MDC has entered into
impact evaluation, proposed diversions be condi- an agreement with Woburn to provide a minimum of one
tioned on adequate measures to prevent radio- third of its demand up to 13 mgd. This agreement has stip-
active contamination of diverted water, includ- ulated that Woburn must keep most, or all, of its municipal
ing water quality monitoring; and, wells. Private industrial use in the basin amounted to about
* diversion of surplus water from the Connecticut 7 mgd supplied by ground water. This demand was generated
Basin be subject to recognition, of riparian rights, primarily in Woburn. By 1990, it appears likely that all eleven
specifically the right of return of these waters communities will be supplied by the MDC system. Winchester,
when needed for water supply or for flow aug- which now utilizes some local ground water sources, will de-
mentation within the basin. pend upon the MDC for the increased demands projected for

4-11

the future. Woburn has an estimated safe yield that ap- town in the planning area that should explore an arrange-
proaches its 1990 projected demand. Ground water quality ment with the MDC for additional supply is Dedham. The
problems will probably result in a lowering of the available Dedham Water Company, serving Dedham and Westwood,
yield for public supply. does not appear to have sufficient developed sources to
meet anticipated 1990 maximum day demands. If further
In the lower Mystic basin town of Everett, a ground water
reservoir exists with the potential to satisfy industrial water ground water development is not successful, the company
needs. Infiltration of brackish or salt water from the Mystic sou l d look to the MDC to supplement its existing local
River estuary below the Amelia Earhart Dam can be ex-
pected in wells tapped in this area if they are drawn down 3. Extend MDC service to supplement sources
below mean sea level for extended periods, in Wellesley, Natick, and Dedham. Al
municipalities currently dependent on the MDC
The SENE Study recommendation is as follows: in the Charles River basin should continue to

2. Protect ground water sources in Everett and relyon his system. Wellesley, Natick, and
Woburn. Everett and Woburn should take the Dedham should enter into agreement with the
MDC for the purpose of supplementing their
necessary steps (Le. zoning as discussed in Chapter MDC for the purpos e of supplementing their
3) to protect aquifers used for water supply through existig local sources.
prohibition of land uses hazardous to ground water In the Upper Charles region, seven communities - Belling-
quality. ham, Dover, Holliston, Medfield, Millis, Norfolk, and
Charles River Basin Sherborn - appear to have sufficient ground water potential
to supply their needs through 1990. Treatment for iron and
Within the Charles River basin, the water demands of seven manganese may be necessary, particularly in the town of
communities - Boston, Brookline, Lexington, Newton, Holliston. Franklin and Wrentham, however, using aquifers
Waltham, Watertown, and Weston - are fully supplied by which recharge from small watershed areas, are unlikely to
the MDC. Two additional communities rely to some extent be able to meet peak demands from local ground sources
on the MDC system to supplement existing sources: Cam- without seriously depleting streamflows and lowering
bridge (surface water) and Needham (surface and ground pond and lake levels. Medway, too, may be unable to fully
water). Although Weston was previously able to rely entirely supply projected maximum day demands from local
upon its own ground water supplies, the application of high- aquifers.
way de-icing salt at the interchange of Route 128 and
the Massachusetts Turnpike has contaminated one of One proposal considered by the SENE Study called for
the town's wells. Weston has therefore had to turn to the Franklin, Wrentham, and Medway to join with Milford
MDC. This is the type of situation that must be avoided in in expanding that town's Echo Lake source by increasing
the future; towns relying on ground water must protect its storge capacity, diverting water from Louisa Lake, and
their sources from harmful contaminants (Chapters 3 and 4, constructing a treatment facility. Further investigation
Regional Report). The Department of Transportation, the of this opportunity has indicated, however, that these
Massachusetts Department of Public Works, and water actions will provide only enough additional capacity to
supply planners have to work together to coordinate their meet Milford's projected water needs for 1990.
activities in order to prevent situations such as that in Weston
Also evaluated was the potential for developing a water
from arising.
supply reservoir on Mine Brook in Franklin to serve Frank-
The remaining communities in the basin rely on local sources lin, Medway, and Wrentham. This site, however, has been
of supply. All but one town (Lincoln) in the Charles River designated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as a
basin will have to increase their current supplies to meet natural valley flood storage area, effectively precluding its
projected 1990 demands. The increased water demands use for water supply. Even if construction of a shallow
* expected by 1990 for all nine MDC member communities reservoir were possible on Mine Brook, serious water
will be most economically supplied by the MDC sources. By quality problems would probably result.
1990, it appears that Wellesley and Natick will have to find
additional sources of supply, and further development of
ground water sources does not appear a viable alternative. A third alternative would be extension of the MDC system
Such development would result in depletion of streamflows to the area. However, the MDC is currently supplying water
and reduction of pond and lake levels in the area, which at a deficit (see above discussion) and will not have the
would have harmful environmental effects. These towns required additional sources to develop service in this area
are expected to seek service from the MDC system, which for some time. It would be unwise for the MDC to extend
would have to be extended to the area in order to supple- its services to new municipalities outside its required service
ment existing local sources in each community. One other area (within a 15 mile radius of the State House) while its

4-12

existing sources are overtaxed. Sharon, Stoughton, Walpole, and Westwood are presently all
supplied from local ground water sources. Sharon appears to
The SENE Study recommendations are as follows: have sufficient potential for meeting its 1990 needs with
additional ground water development in the town. Stough-
4. Expand the capacity of Echo Lake to serve ton, which is presently operating under water use restrictions,
Milford. Milford should begin now to increase will have to look outside the community for additional
the storage capacity of Echo Lake by raising the sources of supply. Even though Stoughton is located out-
existing dam, diverting additional supplies from side the MDC's required service district, its need is so great
Louisa Lake, and constructing a water treatment that obtaining MDC supplies appears to be the most accept-
facility. able alternative the town has.

5. Develop ground water sources to serve Ground water development potential in Walpole is in-
Franklin, Medway, and Wrentham. These sufficient to supply 1990 maximum day demands projected
towns should fully explore and carefully develop for the town. In order to supplement existing supplies by
their remaining ground water resources. Water that time, Willett Pond should be developed and treated for
conservation measures should be enacted immne- water supply use.*
diately and recharge of treated wastewater
thoroughly explored in order to prevent future Westwood, served with Dedham by the Dedham Water
overpumping of the underlying aquifers. Company, must also seek to supplement local ground
sources in order to meet anticipated 1990 peak demands.
6. Develop ground water supplies in other Extension of MDC service to these towns is the most logical
Upper Charles municipalities. The munici- source of additional supply.
palities of Bellingham, Dover, Holliston, Med-
field, Millis, Norfolk, and Sherborn should de- For the above towns, the SENE Study makes the following
velop additional local ground water supplies, recommendations:
which should be sufficient to meet the munici-
palities projected 1990 needs. These munici- 8. Develop ground water sources in
palities, many of which are increasingly under Sharon to meet 1990 needs. Sharon
pressure for development, should undertake should develop additional ground water
methods for protecting these resources described sources to meet 1990 needs.
in Chapter 3 of this report and in Chapter 4 of
the Regional Report. 9. Develop Willett Pond in Walpole for
supplementary supplies. Walpole should
Neponset River Basin develop Willett Pond to supplement its exist-
ing supplies.
In the Neponset River basin, four communities receive some
portion of their water supply from the MDC. Milton and 10. Extend MDC service to Westwood and
Quincy receive full supply. A very small portion of Nor- Stoughton. MDC service should be extended
wood's demand is supplied by local ground water, with 99 to Westwood and to Stoughton. Current water
percent supplied by the MDC system. Canton also uses local supply shortages in Stoughton and the avail-
ground water for a portion of its supply, with the MDC ability of feasibility data make an extension
providing the remainder. All four towns will continue to to this municipality a top prioty.
depend on the MDC system to meet their 1990 needs. In
addition, Canton and Norwood should use existing and South Shore Towns
potential ground water resources to the maximum judicious
extent. Therefore: Limited opportunities exist in the south coastal area of the
Boston Metropolitan planning area to develop additional
7. Ma intai n and upg r ade ground water surface and ground water resources. Hingham and Hull, both
sources in Canton and Norwood. Can- served by the Hingham Water Company, should be able to
ton and Norwood should develop additional supply projected water demands from existing ground and
ground water resources in addition to con- surface sources. Braintree, Holbrook, and Randolph, all
tinued MDC service in order to minimize the presently served from Great Pond Reservoir, have an option
cost of future water supply. to increase diversions from the existing Richardi Reservoir

*Camp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineers, for Metropolitan Area Planning Commission; Alternative Regional Water Supply Systems
for the Boston Metropolitan Area, February, 1971, pp. 59-76.

4-13

by expanding its available yield from 3 to nearly 10 mgd. ing design and construction and the augmentation of existing
This additional supply should be more than sufficient to MDC sources will require sev-erTyeais before water can be
meet the projected additional demands of all three corn- expected to flow into the South Shore coastal area. The
munities. Therefore: SENE Study recommendation for these municipalities reads
as follows:
11. Expand the Richardi Reservoir to serve
Braintree, Holbrook, and Randolph. The 13. Make best use of local resources in south
existing Richardi Reservoir should be expanded coastal municipalities. The municipalities
to its full estimated capacity of 10 mgd be- south coastal are of the Boston Metro-
fore 1990 to serve Braintree, Holbrook, and a
Randolph. ~~~~~~~~~~~~politan planning area should make the best
possible use of local resources in order to
Weymouth could use its existing ground water capacity postpone the need for importing MDC water.
more fully by treating standby sources to remove high con- However, all six tons should begin planning
centrations of iron. This action would assure adequate water for MDC service to supply their long-range
supplies through 1990 and would be more economical than water needs.
immediate connection to the MDC. The SENE Study re- Implication
commendation is as follows:

12. Treat existing standby wells in Weymouth This chapter has attempted to stress the SENE Study's
to meet 1990 needs. Weymouth should policy of reliance on local and in-basin water resources
treat existing standby wells within the next before turning to interbasin transfers of water. Although
five years in order to meet 1990 needs. many municipalities in the Boston Metropolitan planning
area must rely on the MDC as a source of water supply,
A preliminary study of an extension of the MDC to serve others will be able to develop additional local resources. The
Braintree, Holbrook, Randolph, and Weymouth has been reliance of planning area municipalities upon local ground
completed and the legislature has approved $17 million for water and intertown surface water resources will ease future
design and construction of the pipeline. However, engineer- pressures on the MDC's sources of supply.

4-14

CHAPTER 5 WATER QUALITY

Water quality problems differ for each of the three major roadways, sand and silt, and organic matter. The tidal por-
river basins of this planning area and for Boston Harbor. The tions of the Mystic River and Chelsea Creek - major
amount of wastewater treatment where sewers exist varies commercial waterways - are rimmed by petroleum product
from town to town. Table 5.1 illustrates the planning area's tank farms. Plans for recreational development (discussed in
sewer systems, the population they serve, their degrees of Chapter 6) are not distant from this pollution source. To
treatment, and the waters which receive their discharges. reduce the amount of oil released from these drainage
systems, recent discharge permits issued by Massachusetts
and EPA require installation of oil separators.
The Situation
Charles River Basin
Mystic River Basin
The Charles River is a meandering stream which, within the
The headwaters of the Mystic River, the Aberjona River, watershed's 31 mile straight-line length, traverses 79 miles.
and the Mystic Lakes have Class B water quality goals. At Twenty dams on the river affect its normal fall of 350 feet.
present, the Aberjona is not meeting that classification. The The longest stretch between dams is the 20.8 river miles from
Mystic River from the outlet of the Mystic Lakes to the the Medway Dam to the South Natick Dam.
Amelia Earhart Dam does not meet even the requirements
of a Class D river. The state's goal is to upgrade it to Class The Charles River meets its water quality goal only from
C quality. SC classification is the goal for the tidal section. its source to Dilla Street, Milford (Class A). From Dilla
Street to Mine Brook, however, the river has Class U
The towns in the Mystic basin are all members of the Metro- conditions. From Mine Brook to Watertown Dam, the
politan District Commision's Metropolitan Sewerage Dis- river is classified as C' and C1. The Charles again has a
trict and wastewaters are conveyed to the Deer Island Class U assignment from the1Watertown Dam to the
wastewater treatment facility where they receive primary Charles River Basin Dam. Water quality goals for the
treatment. Many of the stormwater and municipal waste- river below Dilla Street are Classes B and C.
water systems in Chelsea and Somerville are combined,
releasing tremendous pollution loads to the harbor during The existing water quality problems on the Charles are due
storms. primarily to sanitary and industrial waste discharges at its
upper reaches. Inadequately treated municipal wastewater
More than half of the total acreage of each town in the discharged to the upper Charles at Milford and to Mine
basin is urbanized. Woburn has the least land in urban uses - Brook and Stop River contributes much to the degradation
54 percent, but is under medium-high development pressure; of the river. Another major cause of degradation in the
Medford the greatest - 90 percent. In all, 75 percent of the Charles basin is the wastewater from two industries in Millis,
area is urbanized. As expected, this extremely high degree of presently being discharged to Sugar Brook. Both industries
urbanization, with its vast amounts of impervious pavement, are now planning pretreatment of their wastes before dis-
results in high storm runoff loaded with oils and grease from posal. Further downstream, active decomposition ceases,

TABLE 5.1 SEWER SERVICE: BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

1970 Population Degree of Receiving
Sewer System Served Treatment Waters
Milford 18,200 Secondary Charles River
Franklin 8,202 Secondary Mine Brook
Millis 2,080 Secondary Sugar Brook to Charles
Medfield 1,473 Advanced Charles River

Metropolitan Sewer District
Deer Island 1,300,000 Primary Boston Harbor
Nut Island 700,000 Primary Boston Harbor
Hull 4,400 None Atlantic Ocean

5-1

but the nutrients added to the river from the tributaries and a section of Boston Inner Harbor west of a line from the
other wastewater treatment plants cause heavy growth of southerly tip of Governor's Island to Fort Independence,
aquatic plants. Leachate from three poorly sited municipal including the Charles, Mystic, and Chelsea (Creek) Rivers
dumps in Milford, Newton and Waltham, will continue to and Fort Point Channel, has a lower water quality goal of
release nutrients to the river and aggravate plant growth SC which it is presently meeting. In addition, Quincy Bay
for some time, even though the Milton site was to close from Bromfield Street (near the Wollaston Yacht Club)
in late 1975. Nutrient leachates and algal blooms are north to buoy "C 1" and southeast to the "Willows"
problematic on nearly the entire Charles River. These prob- (sometimes known as Lord's Point), on the northerly shore
lems are compounded in the middle reaches by pollution of Hough's Neck in Quincy, is meeting a higher water quality
from urban runoff, and in the lower basin by combined goal of SA. This situation is important for sustaining high
sewer overflows and salt water stratification, which inhibits quality shellfish beds.
natural purification processes. The results in the lower basin
are black, oily, and probably toxic benthic deposits. Bacterial The harbor faces severe water quality problems resulting
concentrations in the lower basin discourage its use for any from combined sewers, the primary discharges from the
water contact recreation. Deer and Nut Island treatment plants, oil pollution, debris
and refuse, and vessel pollution. Efforts to remedy these
All of the towns within the Route 128 perimeter are served problems are vital to the realization of the harbor's full
by the Metropolitan District Commission sewer system. recreational and marine resource potential (Chapters 6 and
Outside the Route 128 perimeter, Wellesley and Natick are 7)
also served by the Metropolitan District Commission. Millis,
Medfield, Franklin, and Milford operate individual treat-
ment facilities discharging to the Charles and its tributaries. The Solutions
The rest of the towns in the basin use individual subsurface
disposal systems. Preservation

Neponset Rivel Basin For the reasons outlined in Chaper 5 of the Regional Report,
Water Quality, the SENE Study places highest priority on
The Neponset River's natural sluggishness, coupled with its the preservation of the Boston Metropolitan planning area's
past use for the disposal of raw wastewater from factories high quality waters. Preservation will be especially important
and mills, has made it one of the most critically polluted of in the Upper Charles and the Upper Neponset river basins
all the rivers in metropolitan Boston. where there are wildlife and flood control wetlands sensitive
to the vagaries of water quality changes. Recognizing the
A water quality survey of the Neponset conducted by the high quality tributaries in parts of this planning area, the
Division of Water Pollution Control in the summer of 1973 Study endorses the anti-degradation policies of the Divi-
indicated that water quality was generally below Class C for sion of Water Pollution Control as stated in the water
dissolved oxygen with wide fluctuations due to algal growth. quality standards, and encourages efforts to:
The Foxborough State Hospital has installed a physical/
chemical advanced treatment facility, which should greatly 1. Carry out current Massachusetts non-
improve conditions immediately downstream. degradation policies. In Massachusetts,
the Department of Environmental Quality
Other pollution problems include urban runoff, combined Engineering should ensure that no new dis-
sewer overflows from Boston's system, and the sludge de- charges will deteriorate the quality of stream
posits which have formed behind paper mill dams. Several water above the most upstream municipal
industries with production process wastewaters have con- discharges and Class SA and SB waters
nected to municipal sewers. All the towns in the Neponset (shellfish harvest and swimmable-fishable
basin except Sharon are served by the Metropolitan District salt water), with conditioned exceptions.
Commission system.
(a) to allow new cooling water discharges if
Boston Harbor standards of the receiving waters are met;
Boston Harbor is traditionally defined as those waters sub- (b) to allow new municipal discharges if part
ject to the rise and fall of the tides inside a line from the of a comprehensive plan; and
southerly tip of Deer Island to Point Allerton in Hull. The (c) to require existing discharges to cease and
harbor is considered to be the fourth priority area in SENE either connect to a municipal system or
for application of restoration recommendations (ChapterS, provide high degrees of treatment consis-
Regional Report). Most of the harbor, currently classified tent with maintaining high quality waters.
Class SC, has an ultimate water quality goal of SB. However,

5-2

This recommendation must be of high priority in the Boston port and treatment. At low tide, wastewater sometimes
Metropolitan planning area if the quality of its tributaries entered the receiving waters during dry weather periods.
are to be preserved. As a result, overflows of combined sewage degraded the
quality of the waters of Boston Harbor and sections of
Because a large portion of this planning area is urbanized, it the Mystic, Charles, and Neponset Rivers. Significant
is also important that a second preservation recommendation concentrations of bacteria, oxygen demanding wastes, and
be made. Stormwater runoff from highly developed areas is suspended solids are discharged to the receiving waters when
an important source of water pollution, and steps should be overflows oc6ur.
taken to reduce it. Consistent with the discussion in Chapter
5 of the Regional Report, the SENE Study recommends Several major projects which the SENE Study endorses are
that municipalities in the Boston Metropolitan planning underway in this field. Currently, there is one treatment
area: facility in operation on the Charles River in Cambridge near
the Boston University Bridge (Cottage Farm Stormwater
2. Attenuate runoff from new urban de- Treatment Station) which reduces the frequency of over-
velopments. The Massachusetts Department flows, the volume of wastewater, and the concentration of
of Community Affairs should encourage the pollutants discharged through combined sewer overflows to
municipalities to adopt subdivision controls the river. The Cottage Farm Station also disinfects the
which emphasize open areas and the use of effluent. A similar facility is under final design in con-
permeable drainage ditches. Municipalities junction with the construction of a new dam at the Old
should also provide attractive and safe storm- Warren Avenue Bridge. An added benefit of this dam will
water detention ponds, thereby also augmen- be the potential for the elimination of salt water stratification
ting ground water recharge. in the Basin. Cambridge is currently undertaking a five year
program to provide partial separation of combined sewers
Restoration which will result in combined sewer overflows only during
storms of a magnitude greater than the 5-year storm. Tide-
Where water pollution problems exist in the planning area, gate maintenance and repair in Boston by the MDC is
programs of restoration must be emphasized. Regulation progressing; separation of Brookline's combined sewers
and permitting of discharges and construction of treatment has recently been completed.
facilities can be used to achieve proposed water quality
goals. Major pollution problems in the Boston Metropolitan Because of the highly urbanized nature of many parts of
planning area include urban stormwater runoff, industrial the planning area, it is important that stormwater sampling
discharges, oil pollution, and municipal discharges. Landfill be carried out in order to provide a rational basis for a
leachate and watercraft wastes are two other less serious badly needed non-point source abatement program. The
sources of pollution in this planning area. These problems SENE Study recommendation is as follows:
are especially intense within densely populated municipalities.
3. Begin stormwater and wet-weather
Combined Sewers and Stormwater Runoff. As in stream sampling. In the Boston Metro-
many older, developed areas, much of metropolitan Boston politan planning area, the Massachusetts
is served by combined storm and sanitary sewers, many of Department of Environmental Quality En-
which were constructed in the late 1880's. During dry gineering should begin a major year-round
weather periods, these municipally owned sewers discharge stormwater and wet-weather stream
to a system of interceptors that are operated by the sampling program.
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), and the waste is
transported to the MDC primary treatment plant at Deer This program could be especially important for the Mystic
Island. However, during periods of rainfall, the combined and Neponset Rivers where industrial discharges are not
sewers and interceptors reach their capacity, and the excess major, and runoff is correspondingly important. The pro-
flows are discharged to nearby water-courses at numerous gram should also be instituted on the Charles River. In ad-
overflow points. dition, sewer separation may be implemented for some of
the communities in these basins. Unlike treatment tech-
The inadequacy of existing regulator devices and tide gates niques, combined sewer separation will not improve the qual-
has compounded the combined sewer problem in the Boston ity of urban runoff reaching a water body. Therefore, water
area. Many of the tide gates in Boston were either missing quality goals may never be realized unless the runoff prob-
or in need of repair. However, the MDC in an intensive pro- lem is solved.
gram has recently repaired almost all of the tide gates and
blocked regulators in the system. Previously, significant Industrial discharges. Industrial pollution in this planning
amounts of sea water entered the system at high tide, re- area is being brought under control by the National Pollutant
ducing its efficiency and increasing the cost of water trans- Discharge Elimination System of industrial permits. Indus-

5-3

trial dischargers must connect with municipal treatment of facilities which are designed to improve water quality in
facilities following pretreatment, or must provide adequate all ten planning areas. It is obvious that no single action will
treatment on-site. The SENE Study endorses efforts to: provide suitable water quality for the Boston Metropolitan
planning area because of the complex water quality prob-
4. Continue current industrial permits lems which exist. In addition to the programs to alleviate
program. The U.S. Environmental Protec- the problems of combined sewers, described above, several
tion Agency should continue its current in- other major treatment projects are underway in the Boston
dustrial permits program which is part of Metropolitan planning area, which are, briefly:
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System. (a) An advanced wastewater treatment facility has been
completed in Medfield.
Oil Pollution. The magnitude of the oil pollution problem
in Boston Harbor, resulting from spills during ship-to-shore (b) A secondary treatment facility will be constructed
transfers, stormwater runoff from streets,, as well as tank in Hull, eliminating five untreated discharges.
farms and combined sewers, is such that, in one instance, a
permanent oil boom has been placed across Chelsea Creek, a The Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area
major oil storage and transfer area for metropolitan Boston, Wastewater Management (EMMA) Study is a major effort
to help contain chronic spills. to propose and evaluate advanced wastewater management
systems for 109 communities in the metropolitan area. The
The major discharges of oil to sewers have, in virtually every EMMA Study considered five alternative concepts of waste-
case, been traced to fuel oil losses resulting from failure of water treatment. Many of the proposals considered by the
tanks, pipes, and mechanical equipment, or from human EMMA Study were initially outlined by the Massachusetts
error. The oil enters the sewers either by infiltration or Division of Water Pollution control or regional planning
directly through a catch basin. Continued vigilance by the agencies.
Coast Guard, EPA, and the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control will help to control this potential threat The following preliminary proposals have been made by
to water quality. However, prevention by all persons handling the EMMA Study as parts of their alternative concepts, and
oil is the key to fewer spills. are favored by the SENE Study. Basin plans developed by
the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control should
Municipal Discharges. The following discussion presents further evaluate these proposals to determine their technical
a facilities-oriented approach to upgrading the quality of the feasibility.
Boston Metropolitan planning area's waters.
The EMMA Study includes among its proposals the follow-
The two primary treatment facilities at the ends of the ing two options which the SENE Study endorses:
MDC system are the Deer and Nut Island Plants. The Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts has entered into an agreement (c) Milford should upgrade its secondary plant to an
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine advanced treatment facility discharging to the
the most feasible means of achieving a minimum of second- Charles River.
ary treatment at the two facilities. In addition, sludge dis-
posal methods will be investigated to eliminate sludge (d) The Charles River Pollution Control District should
discharges to the Harbor, probably a more important aspect construct an advanced treatment facility dis-
of the treatment works than provision of secondary treat- ch a rging to the Charles River in Medway to serve
ment. While the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- Franklin, Medway, North Bellingham, Holliston,
ments of 1972 specify a minimum of secondary treatment and Wrentham. The western third of Norfolk will
for all publicly owned treatment works by July 1, 1977, the be served after 2000.
situation for the Deer and Nut Islands plants requires a
reevaluation of that date given limited financial resources. In addition, the EMMA Study has considered land applica-
-It appears that the funds which would be spent upgrading tion for some communities. The Study feels that land
the Deer and Nut Island treatment facilities might be better application of the towns' own wastes might be feasible,
spent on the combined sewer problems of the area in order although more study must be undertaken. The SENE Study
to maximize water pollution control benefits. Some type of recommends that wastewater authorities:
legislative action on the federal level would be necessary,
however, to postpone the July 1, 1977 requirement. Al 5. Give additional consideration to several.
other requirements of the Act concerning dates and degrees land disposal sites. Additional serious con-
of treatment for this planning area are endorsed. sideration should be given to the land disposal

Figure 5.5 in the Regional Report, Proposed Wastewater site identified by the EMMA Study in Franklin,
Treatment Systems and Facilities, illustrates the locations Bellinghal, and Wrentham in lieu of stream

5-4

discharge, or at least to lessen the size of a In addition, Weston and Holbrook are considering future
stream discharge. MDC sewer service. The two Harbor facilities will expand as
needed and will provide secondary treatment.
Further discussion of land disposal may be found in the
Regional Report, Chapters 4, Water Supply, and 5, Water Studies have been made concerning sludge disposal, and
Quality. If sufficient suitable land for application of treated results have indicated that incineration is the most feasible
wastewater in these municipalities is present, the proposal alternative. Investigations are continuing, however, due to
should not be ignored. However, further study is necessary citizen and legislative concern over possible air pollution
to determine the economic and environmental feasibility of effects.
such a project, as well as the health hazards associated with
it. Preliminary construction costs are presented for the pre-
ceding alternatives and include only major interceptors and
The SENE Study also recommends other EMMA Study treatment facility costs: MDC member communities
options, specifically those to: $95,000,000; Milford - $2,750,000; Bellingham -
$4,000,000; Medway-$1,900,000; Franklin-
6. Connect southern Bellingham to the $6,000,000; Holliston - $500,000; Wrentham -
Woonsocket treatment facility. $4,000,000; Norfolk - costs borne after 1990; Millis -
$3,000,000; Medfield - $6,000,000; Hull - $6,500,000.
7. Expand Medfield's treatment facility to
serve Millis, if possible. Medfield should Septic Systems. Another threat to water quality is mal-
expand its advanced facility to serve illis. functioning septic systems. These have resulted in the pre-
However, because of a large industrial flow ceding proposals for sewer service and attendant treatment
in Millis, this may be difficult to implement. facilities. Rigid enforcement of existing regulations may
In that case, Millis should upgrade its facility preclude many of the problems of these systems. However,
to advanced. an in-depth look at the criteria for locating, siting, and
designing individual subsurface disposal systems is also
8. Construct advanced facility in the necessary since some aspects of existing regulations may
middle Charles basin to serve the still allow problems to develop. For example, high per-
western suburbs. An advanced satellite colation rates coupled with the minimum allowable depth
treatment facility should be constructed in to ground water may result in bacterial contamination,
the middle Charles to serve Hopkinton, nitrate build-up, or even phosphate build-up in that ground
Southborough, Ashland, Framingham, Natick water. Also, allowing systems to be placed in fill material
and Wellesley. might invite clogging conditions at the fill-old surface inter-
face.
This treatment plant would also serve two municipalities
after 2000: Dover and Sherborn. There is a real need for Massachusetts to thoroughly review
and update its regulations regarding individual disposal sys-
9. Construct advanced facility in Canton to tems, and support for this has been voiced by citizens.
serve southern suburbs. An advanced With proper enforcement, and by restricting the use of such
satellite treatment facility should be con- systems to those lands suitable for septic tanks, individual
structed in Canton discharging to the Nepon- disposal systems should continue to be useful for an im-
set River and serving a large section of Can- portant portion of future residential development. Without
ton, most of Norwood, Stoughton, Walpole, such precautions, the cumulative failure of individual sys-
and Sharon. Chapter 3, Guiding Growth, tems will intensify pressure for sewer extensions and new
suggests that all these communities have treatment works. The result will be new concentrations
increasing development pressures. The Metro- of effluent in high quality streams, loss of in-basin ground
politan District Commission or a regional water resources, increased municipal service costs, and,
authority would construct and operate the inevitably, the increased density of development induced
treatment facility. In addition, consideration by sewer service.
should be given to use of an identified land
disposal site in Sharon to serve that com- Landfill Leachate. Rigid enforcement of sanitary
munity. landfill regulations is another task of the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering. Towns which have
The satellite facilities would be constructed to minimize been identified as having landfills which produce prob-
expansion of the Nut Island treatment facility. All other lems associated with surface drainage, leachate, and
communities currently on the MDC system will continue lowest portion of the fill in the water table include:
to be served by the Metropolitan Sewerage District. Boston, Winthrop, Cambridge, Milford, and Ran-

5-5

dolph. Sites in Waltham, Winchester, and Woburn ex- coastal municipal treatment plants. While current U.S. Coast
perience only the first two problems. Sites in Belmont, Guard regulations allow certified discharges in certain cases,
Needham, and Wellesley experience only the last prob- it appears that the goal of these regulations is the ultimate
lem. Therefore, the SENE Study recommendation is elimination of all such discharges and that the current reg-
as follows: ulations are a worthwhile first step in controlling vessel
pollution.
10. Study and define the landfill leachate
problem. The Massachusetts Department In order to aid in the implementation of recent Coast Guard
of Environmental Quality Engineering should regulations on the disposal of vessel wastes and move towards
make further field investigations and studies the elimination of even certified discharges, the SENE
to better define the extent and nature of Study recommendation is:
water quality problems associated with exist-
ing and abandoned solid waste disposal sites, 11. Provide pump-out facilities for water-
with a view to developing adequate perspec- craft wastes, until other methods are
tives and rational controls.
more feasible. The Massachusetts Depart-
The SENE Study endorses the efforts of the Water Resources ment of Environmental Quality Engineering
(a) should have publicly owned treatment
Commission which has an ad hoc commission studying the I publicly o wned t reatment
problems of solid waste. plants along the coast which provide pump-
out facilities: the three coastal treatment
Pleasurecraft Wastes. The number of pleasurecraft facilities at Deer Island, Nut Island, and Hull
operating in the waters of the Commonwealth is increasing should construct these facilities; and/or (b)
rapidly every year, and so are the wastes they discharge. should require and marinas in heavily con-
Unless the discharge of sewage from these boats is brought harvest ble shellfish barbors and adacent to maor
under strict control, state officials anticipate that many area s to provide pump-outfish beds and swiming
shellfish and bathing areas will have to be closed. At present, areas to provide treatment facilities with
state officials favor requiring "tight tank" systems (resulting either adequate treatment or disposal to a
in no discharge) as the only devices that will assure positive
and adequate protection for these bathing and shellfish
harvesting areas. Emphasis on this system will result in the
need for adequate onshore pump-out facilities at marinas or

5-6

CHAPTER 6 OUTDOOR RECREATION

Approximately 9 percent of the Boston metropolitan plan- as neighborhood opportunities. Some are publicly owned
ning area presently is dedicated to recreation and conservation town or state beaches with heavy use. Others are pri-
uses (28,000 acres), and nearly half the open land is state vately owned and may, or may not, be open to the pub-
owned (13,000 acres). Large tracts of land such as the Blue lic, and may, or may not, be used extensively. During
Hills Reservation (5,700 acres), Middlesex Fells Reservation the summer bathing season, Revere, Nahant, and
(2,000 acres), and Stony Brook Reservation operated by the Nantasket Beaches, run by the Metropolitan District Corn-
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) are among the mission, are overcrowded on warm days and particularly on
major publicly owned areas for hiking, nature study, swim- weekends. Other beaches in the harbor are not fully used
ming, and occasionally, boating and canoeing. The Charles because of inaccessibility (such as the Harbor Islands),
River Reservation (1,500 acres) ensures public access to a because of inadequate facilities (such as parking areas, bath-
prime recreational resource for sailing, canoeing, and walking. houses, or rest rooms) or they may be occasionally closed
Plans to develop the Mystic and Neponset Rivers in a similar due to water pollution problems described in Chapter5.
fashion are currently on MDC's drawing boards and im-
plementation of them is imminent. Private organizations, The 42 beaches total approximately 19.2 miles in length, of
such as the Trustees of Reservations and Massachusetts which 95 percent are publicly owned. There are presently
Audubon Society, and local town commissions have signifi- 96 acres of publicly usable beach in Boston Harbor. Given
cantly managed to protect over 14,000 acres of conservation participation rates discussed in the Regional Report and the
and recreation land. projected increase of about a million residents in the planning
area, this amount of usable beach will satisfy about 10 per-
However extensive these existing resources, there will not be cent of the 1990 demand.
enough of them to meet future recreational demands.
Hence, recreational use of resources in other parts of the Even now, a large scale weekend migration from the urban
region will intensify over the next 20 to 40 years. The Boston area occurs to outlying beaches. This migration is
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation estimates that this planning placing increasing use pressure on some fragile and high
area's outdoor recreational demands are by far the greatest quality environmental areas in addition to wasting energy,
in the SENE region. Existing beach area can meet 10 percent and increasing traffic congestion and pollution. There are
of the estimated 1990 swimming demands; existing picnic substantial opportunities elsewhere to provide more readily
facilities could meet about a fifth of the 1990 demands; accessible swimming for the urban residents while reducing
existing publicly available natural areas could meet about a the above mentioned environmental problems. Therefore,
quarter of the estimated 1990 demands for extensive out- the SENE Study recommends the Metropolitan District
door recreation. Commission (MDC):

One of the SENE Study's prime strategies is to make up 1. Study best method to-widen and pro-
recreational deficiencies in urban areas in order to absorb tect Nantasket Beach. Additional improve-
some of the pressures on outlying recreational resources. ments such as play areas, pavilions, and bath
Also, providing recreation opportunities in urban areas houses should be made in conjunction with
enhances environmental quality and improves accessibility the town of Hull's projected urban renewal
of recreational facilities for urban residents. Chapter 3, for the area adjacent to the MDC beach.
Guiding Growth, suggests that attracting growth to well
serviced urban centers has economic and environmental 2. Improve access along the Dorchester
benefits. waterfront, including connecting Tenean
Beach, Malibu Beach, and the Neponset
River. Improvements and pedestrian tun-
SWIMMING nels are needed under the expressway
from the Dorchester neighborhood and the
The shoreline of Boston Harbor is very irregular with pen- Savin Hill MBTA station to the beach.
insulas, embayments, and islands combining to form about
130 miles of coast. The shore is a combination of ledge, 3. Improve facilities at three beaches. The
gravel till, and man-made bulkheads, granite wharves, and Metropolitan District Commission should con-
timber pilings in various states of disrepair and erosion. struct a bathhouse and additional toilet facili-
ties on Wollaston Beach and continue improve-
There are about 42 active beaches arond the harbor, with ments to Merrymount Park and Blacks Creek
the South Boston beaches probably the most important marsh. Any plan to alter Blacks Creek area

6-1

must be coordinated with fish and wildlife tax costs, all potential modifiers on demands. Based on
interests. such considerations, and given expected population growth,
an additional 660 boating spaces could be required. Follow-
4. Construct one bathhouse in the City ing a physiographic, land use, and accessibility analysis, the
Point Beach-Carson Beach area and con- estimates were derived by the Corps of Engineers for each
tinue existing maintenance and landscaping town's boating development potential (Table 6.2).
programs to preserve their excellent condition.
Provisions for more boats should not automatically mean
5. Provide parking and access to Moswe- more marinas. Alternatives to additional marina slips may
tusset Hummock, including a small foot be increased use of fore-and-aft-moorings, and on-shore high
bridge to connect the island to the parking rise dry slip storage.
area, and restore the tidal creek that sur-
rounds the hummock. The SENE Study recommends the appropriate agencies take
the following actions:
These recommendations aim to improve swimming opportu-
nities through the most cost-efficient methods. Therefore, 6. Establish state boating advisory corn-
the Study rejected costly recommendations to construct neittee. The Departments of Fisheries, Wild-
new beaches. The success of the recommendations for life and Recreational Vehicles and Environ-
satisfying future swimming needs depends on the achieve- mental Management should establish a boat.
ment of water quality standards set forth by the Massachu: ing advisory committee made up of repre-
setts Division of Water Pollution Control, and in part on the sentatives and boating interests to advise
implementation of recommendations described in Chapter and work with state and local govern-
5, in this Planning Area Report and the Regional Report. ments. Working to meet a major portion of
future boating needs with fewest environ-
mental impacts, such a committee could help
RECREATIONAL BOATING plan and foster orderly boating growth, and
encourage private investment development
Boston's fine harbor and numerous coves provide outstand- of marina and dry-storage facilities wherever
ing anchorages for recreational boating. The 14 cities and feasible. Details are found in Chapter 6 of the
towns which border the harbor have a total of 16 boat Regional Report.
landing ramps, and 57 recreational landings. Based on a
1972 Corps of Engineers airphoto count, the approximate 7. Consider fore-and-aft mooring practices.
recreational boating fleet by town is presented in Table 6.1. The harbor masters should consider the
possibility of initiating fore-and-aft mopring
Estimates of 1990 demands for additional boating facilities practices in protected anchorages in the more
have taken into account potentially higher inflation rates, crowded harbors in order to reduce the moor-
fuel costs, maintenance rates, and increased insurance and ing space required per boat.

TABLE 6.1 EXISTING RECREATIONAL FLEET BY MUNICIPALITY:
BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA

Sportfishing
Municipality Slips Moorings Total Boats

Arlington 20 - - - 20 - - -
Boston 565 425 990 18
Cambridge 85 30 115 - - -
Chelsea - - 20 20 2
Medford 125 45 170 3
Milton 10 30 40 1
Newton 85 10 95 1
Quincy 975 710 1,685 5
Somerville 55 - - - 55 - -
Watertown 70 5 75 - -
Braintree 130 30 160 0
Weymouth 190 170 360 1
Hingham 315 530 845 5
Hull 140 350 490 3

Totals 2,765 2,355 5,120 39

6-2

8. Continue maintenance of 13 recreation upstream.of the General Dynamics shipyard in Braintree
channels. The Corps of Engineers, in con- there is a problem with shoaling which is restricting boat
junction with the Massachusetts Department passage from the Metropolitan Yacht Club, and a public
of Public Works, should continue the opera- boat ramp. The municipalities of Braintree and Wey-
tional maintenance of the recreational channel mouth should request either the Corps of Engineers
through the bar north of the head of Long or the Commonwealth to determine the economic
Island which connects President Roads to feasibility of a channel improvement program.
Nantasket Roads; the Fort Point Channel to
the Congress Street Bridge; the Charles River
Channel to the Arsenal Street Bridge and on to BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS PARK
the Galen Street Bridge in Watertown; the Mys-
tic River Channel to Craddock Bridge in Medford; The Boston Harbor Islands Park currently under joint
the Maiden River Channel; the Dorchester Bay development by the Department of Environmental Manage-
and Neponset River Channels; the two Quincy ment and the Metropolitan District Commission, is contri-
Bay yacht club chamnels; the Town River buting vastly to revitalizing the Harbor, reclaiming it for
anchorage; the Weymouth Back River Channel; public use and enjoyment, and preserving and enhancing the
the Hingham Harbor Channel; the Weir River unique character of the islands. The special historic and
Channel; and the Allerton Harbor Channel in natural qualities of the islands provide rare opportunities
Hull. Care should be taken in maintenance pro- for cultural, recreational, and aesthetic experience for the
jects to avoid disturbing shellfish beds, shallow residents and visitors in the metropolitan area. The poten-
waters, and wetland areas valuable to fish and tial accessibility of this park to urban Boston residents
wildlife uses. is its most valuable characteristic.

9. Develop boat ramps and parking facili- During the first six months of 1975, great strides have been
ties. The Massachusetts Department of taken to implement the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's
Public Works, in conjunction with municipali- 1972 Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan. Three islands are
ties, should maximize the number of slips being developed and managed for recreational and conserva-
and moorings available in each harbor con- tion purposes and are accessible to the public by means of a
sistent with local conditions and opportunities. free water taxi service. The areas under use are:
They should also develop additional public
boat ramps and parking facilities wherever George's Island - National Historic landmark;
feasible and appropriate. Fort Warren.

The possible development of a new marina in Boston Harbor Recreational Development Plan:
is discussed in Chapter 7, Marine Management. Major stop on Boston-Nantasket ferry line,

famil cnic facilities, partially restored
An important river for access to recreational boating Fort i tren.
in Boston Harbor is the Weymouth Fore River. However,

TABLE 6.2 RECONNAISSANCE OF POTENTIAL RECREATIONAL
BOATING FACILITIES*

Potential Potential Potential
Additional Additional Additional
Municipality Slips Moorings Spaces

Boston 450 210 660
Cambridge 135 10 145
Medford 140 30 170
Milton 0 50 50
Newton 0 10 10
Quincy 130 180 310
Somerville 120 0 120
Watertown 20 20 40
Weymouth 170 60 230
Hingham 200 60 260
Hull 30 60 90
Total 1,395 690 2,075

* These are preliminary estimates and should not be construed as justification for marina development or expansion. Further study - either
by towns or by the proposed statewide boating advisory committee (see recommendation 5 in Chapter 6 of the Regional Report) - is
needed to determine capacities for accommodating more boats.

6-3

Gallop's Island - Low hill, shrub cover; beach. Castle Island - Fort Independence and
popular well-used recreation facilities. Con-
Recreational Development Plan: tinued support is essential for MDC to com-
Swimming beach, picnic areas, dock plete its plans.
and ferry boat landing. Proposed Recreational Development Plan -
Love's sand - Fort Standish, major beach. Restoration of important historic resource.
Lovell's Island - Fort Standish, major beach.
Brewster Islands - 100 foot drainline; sparse
Recreational Development Plan: vegetation; many bedrock ledges; abandoned
Group camping, saltmarsh interpretive trail, gun sites; historic Boston Light.
wildlife management area, patrolled swim-
ming beach, picnic area, administrative Proposed Recreational Development Plan -
center. Creation of Boston Harbor Outer Sanctuary
to assure preservation and natural manage-
One of the SENE Study's two highest priority recommen- ment of valuable resource, primitive camp-
dations is: sites, self-guided nature trails, small boat
docks, underwater park for scuba divers to
10. Complete developing Boston Harbor explore old shipwrecks and marine environ-
Islands Park. Consistent with the Harbor ment.
Island Plan prepared by the Metropolitan
District Commission and by the Metropoli- Peddock's Island- Fort Andrews; 5 hills with beach
tan Area Planning Council for the Massa- connections; dense woods; extensive beaches.
chusetts Department of Natural Resources,
(now Department of Environmental Proposed Recreational Development Plan -
Management), the SENE Study endorses the Three-mile bike loop, group camping, playfields,
following actions as appropriate to islands saltmarsh interpretive center, wildlife manage-
under their jurisdiction and encourages ment area, Harbor Island Inn, restoration and
completion of the plan: conversion of Ft. Andrews buildings into environ-
mental education center.
Deer Island - Fort Dawes; correctional in-
stitute; wastewater treatment plant; 100 foot The Study supports the idea of federal legislation which
high hill grassy and open. would authorize $20 million to set up a commission and
to further the development of a Boston Harbor Islands
Proposed Recreational Development Plan - Park.
Three-mile bicycle trail, children's recreation
area, informal park for viewing, picnic areas, Together the 15 Harbor Islands owned by the state could
beach, environmental interpretive center, service up to 1500 recreational visitors each day, or as many
ferrylanding, small boat dock and offshore as 390,000 visitors annually in an April to November season.
moorage area. The Harbor Islands Park, in combination with the other
Long Island - Large harbor; causeway to recreation recommendations in the chapter, would un-
shore; Fort Strong; Long Island Hospital; doubtedly satisfy a significant portion of the recreational
wooded areas. demands in the metropolitan area over the next 20 to 40 years.

Proposed Recreational Development Plan - Two very important precautions must be kept in mind when
Visitor center-ferry landing, grass playgrounds, developing the Boston Harbor Islands Park. The first is the
restored Fort Strong, swimming beach, picnic provision of an adequate and inexpensive ferry service, par-
and outdoor eating areas, wetland interpretive ticularly to islands not accessible by automobile. The second
center, trail system and bike path, boat dock is the protection of Critical Environmental Areas from in-
and fishing pier, group camping sites. tensive uses, particularly the smaller, fragile ones scattered
Thompson's Island - Thompson Academy; throughout the harbor.
orchards; productive marshes.
Proposed Recreational Development Plan - GENERAL OUTDOOR RECREATION
model farm similar to Audubon's Drumlin
Farm, saltmarsh wildlife sanctuary, swimming With development inching steadily into surrounding open
beach. spaces, local, state, and federal governments, and even pri-

6-4

vate land owners, must move quickly to acquire additional 0 Develop multiple use of highway corridors,
space for camping, picnicking, and extensive activities. public work lands, and parking areas.
Recreational demands are competing with future residential,
commercial, and industrial development demands for the * Develop improved pedestrian access to exist-
same open spaces in municipalities with development pres- ing urban parks.
sures. Another contribution to the recreational pressures, * Develop a major program of soliciting land
peculiar only to this and the Blackstone planning area, is the and easement donations.
fact that cities in the center of the metropolitan areas
(Somerville, Chelsea, Cambridge, Boston, Quincy, and * Develop a formal review system of tax title
Brookline) offer very limited recreational opportunities. lands by planning and recreation agencies.
* Develop adequate recreation and open space
Assuming a recreational standard of 7.5 acres/1000 persons, in urban reneal area tion and open space
Chelsea (with 1.0 acres/1000) and Somerville (with 1.3
acres/1000) are the most severely deficient of the municipali- � Consider the feasibility of re-routing com-
ties within the Boston and Providence metropolitan areas; muter oriented bus service on weekends
and the situation is certain to worsen before it gets better. to better serve recreation areas, especially
Quincy and Brookline have substantially better distribution major beaches.
of total recreation acreage. Inspection of resources in these
cities showed many local and city-wide areas not yet de- Natural river systems represent high value for conser-
veloped or under-developed, or, in some cases, not easily vation and recreation. The Mystic and Neponset Rivers
accessible to the major center of population. have scenic, historical, and recreational qualities which are
for the most part underutilized. Prospects for realizing the
The major reason for the gross deficiencies in recreation Neponset River's recreational potential are brighter now
opportunities in municipalities like Chelsea and Somerville that the legislature has authorized funds for MDC's improve-
is the severe financial limitation under which core cities ments. The Weymouth Back River, according to a March
are operating, effectively preventing a program of improving 1973 report by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fish-
and expanding the quantity and quality of recreation ser- eries Monograph # 14, has great recreational and fisheries
vices. Considering the existing austerity budget of core cities, potential, if water quality were improved to proposed stan-
it would appear that neither the ratio of recreation budget, dards. Further, plans have been made to improve the Mystic
nor the proportion of the city's total budget it comprises, River Reservation. However, certain stretches of the Charles
will improve significantly. With the urban land pressures, River, also have extremely high recreation and scenic value,
and thus land prices, as they are, this precludes substantial and should be protected. To develop rivers for recreational
land acquisition programs to meet the city's needs. Planning use, and to meet Study goals of enhancing environmental
and recreation officials in the towns surveyed perceived quality, protecting Critical Environmental Areas, and
little opportunity for the city to significantly add to the improving recreation opportunities near metropolitan
recreation land resources by the conventional land acquisi- centers, it is recommended that the state:
tion program.
12. Designate the Charles as an initial com-
In light of this situation, it is necessary to look for solutions ponent of the scenic rivers system. The
other than simple acquisiton of land. The Bureau of Out- Commonwealth should implement its existing
door Recreation (BOR) suggests that opportunities exist for scenic rivers legislation and designate the
increasing both the acreage and the improved efficiency in Charles as an initial component of a scenic and
recreational use of urban lands. The SENE Study recom- recreational river system.
mends that cities:
13. Expand the Mystic River Reservation.
11. Improve inner-city recreational oppor- The Metropolitan District Commission should
tunities. Inner cities in the Boston metro- pursue its plan to expand the Mystic River
politan area, especially Chelsea and Somer- Reservation and develop a continuous corri-
ville, should improve inner-city recreation dor along the Mystic River, partially land-
opportunities through the use of available scaped from Boston Harbor in Boston through
acquisition meam including fees, increased Everett and Chelsea. The plan includes acquisi-
efficiency at existing areas, and multiple uses tion of vacant riverside areas in Charlestown,
of public lands in several ways: and the Little Mystic Channel and rights-of-
way through other developed portions.
* Increase the availability of community school
facilities.

6-5

This action would contribute important picnic areas, walk- vation should expand Rocky Woods and
ways, bikeways, rental facilities, and play areas. Implement- Noon illD Reservations and develop land for
ing recommendations for the harbor discussed in picnicking and camping. The Hale Reservation
Chapter 5 would enhance this plan. should also be expanded.

14. Develop park behind the Amelia Ear- 19. Develop Hallet Street Dump. The Metro-
hart Dam in Somerville and Everett, politan District Commission should pursue
including shore landscaping, boat launching plans to stabilize and develop the Hallet
ramps, boat rental facilities, picnic areas, walk- Street dump site for recreation, including
ways, and play areas. Upgrading the water boat launching areas, playing fields, tennis
quality to state standards will enhance the court facilities, and landscaping.
recreational potential of this stretch of the
River. Access should be provided from the 20. Connect two parks with a stub of land
MBTA transit stop proposed for the area, just near 1-95. To connect the proposed Nepon-
east of Wellington Circle, and a pedestrain set River Reservation with Blue lills Reserva-
overpass at 1-93 from Somerville. tion and to protect the Fowl Meadow used
for water supply by Dedham and Canton, the
15 . Acquire parts of the surplused Chelsea Metropolitan District Commission would
Naval Hospital. The Metropolitan District gain ownership of some land at the undervelop-
Commission should acquire all, or parts of, ed corner of 1-95, now owned by DPW.
the surplus Chelsea Naval Hospital for recrea-
tion and open space purposes, with special 21. Acquire access to Massapoag Lake. The
attention to river front property. Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Management should acquire public access to
There are numerous opportunities within the planning area Massapoag Lake to provide for swimming boat
to expand existing recreational facilities, and to make rec- ramps, and conservation of natural areas.
reational use of other publicly owned resources. The rec- Public access should also be acquired on the
omimended opportunities are as follows: Neponset River upstream from Rt. 128 in

16. Develop Middlesex Fells Reservation Norwood, Canton, Walpole, and Sharon.
and expand Blue Hills Reservation. The Many water supply reservoirs in the Boston Metropolitan
Metropolitan District Commission should planning area are valuable potential recreational resources.
develop more facilities at Middlesex Fells They have persisted as such because water authorities,
Reservation and expand Blue Hills Reserva- legally bound to protect the quality of drinking water
tion. More picnic and parking facilities and supplies, prohibit trespassing for any purpose. Extensive out-
trails c ould be added to Middlesex Fells door recreation (nature. study and photography) is not
R eserva tion without adversely affectigthe necessarily a threat to water quality, nor is it illegal,
a strong ild ern ess-like quality. Citizens have voiced particularly for storage (secondary) reservoirs. How-
The Metrong concern for restoration of the Fells. ever, such limited forms of recreation are rarely permitted
proposed that the Metropolitan District Council has by municipal authorities, probably because of misgivings or
pro coulsed thexpand the Me t ropolitan District Comva- management problems posed to water authorities. Finances
mission could expand the Blue Hills Reserva- large enough to acquire natural areas of equal quality and
tion by at least 2,100 acres. size are difficult to pull together, and social pressures for
These actions would provide 5 more acres for swimming, recreational use of water supply reservoirs will mount. To
60 more acres for picnicking, 10 more acres for camping, satisfy extensive outdoor recreational needs, the Study
and over 2,000 acres for nature study, photography and recommends:
walking. The costs would exceed several million dollars.
22. Develop guidelines for low intensity recrea-
17. Expand Wompatuck State Park. The tion on secondary reservoir lands. With the
Massachusetts Division of Forest and Parks Departments of Environmental Management and
should expand the Wompatuck State Park to Environmental Quality Engineering, local water
include adjoining surplus military land, when authorites and concerned citizens should prepare
it is available in Hingham, and suitable private guidelines for non-cntact recreational use of
land in Cohasset and Scituate. storage reservoir lands. Local water authorities
should allow public access to reservoirs for
18. Expand Rocky Woods, Noon Hill, and hiking, picnicking, and nature study; including
Hale Reservations. The Trustees of Reser- Great Pond Reservoir in Braintree and Randolph;
Great Pond in Weymouth, Reservoir Pond in

6-6

Canton; Willet Pond in Walpole; Cambridge which, with existing resources, could help meet nearly a
Reservoir, Sandy Pond in Lincoln; MDC reservoirs tenth of the 1990 demands; several hundred additional
in Chestnut Hill, Weston and Sudbury. acres for picnic facilities which, with existing resources,
could help meet over a third of the 1990 demands; over a
Yet another possibility for multiple use development is the hundred additional acres for camping, which, with the
Southwest Corridor Project involving five rail tracts and an existing resources, could help meet about a quarter of the
arterial street from South Cove to Forest Hills. The project 1990 demands; and almost 10,000 acres of natural area,
would involve the relocation of Stoney Brook, now an or- which, with the existing resources, could help meet just
dinary and convenient sewer. Recreational values of this under half the total 1990 needs for extensive outdoor
project would be realized if parts of Stoney Brook, with recreation.
upgraded water quality, were opened and a bikeway and
esplanade constructed. These actions are directed at meeting a significant and
feasible portion of needs radiating from the most densely
Plate 1 shows the location of Critical Environmental Areas, populated portions of the planning area. They stress en-
which, as Chapter 3 explains, have important roles in natural larging the existing recreational lands (Mystic and Neponset
processes such as riverine and coastal flooding and erosion River Reservations, Blue Hills and Middlesex Fells Reserva-
protection, water supply, and wildlife protection. They can tions), or making recreation opportunities out of already
also be used for varying degrees of recreation, at least for publicly owned facilities (water supply watershed lands,
low-intensity activities. Since protection and development public works, and abandoned lands in center cities). Citizens
of such resources is best coordinated at the local level, of the Boston Metropolitan planning area participating in
municipalities should: public workshops strongly favored expanding existing parks
and natural areas to increase the amount of recreational
23. Use Critical Environmental Areas opportunity. They were less favorable to increasing the
identified on SENE Development amount of public access to privately owned land. Also of
Capabilities Map (Plate 1) for open some importance to citizens attending the meetings is the
space protection and greenbelt programs. acquisition of new natural areas, such as the Study's recom-
Methods for protecting such resources modations regarding Boston Harbor Islands. This is an im-
without outright acquisition are described portant step toward meeting the enormous outdoor recrea-
in Chapter 3 of the Regional Report. tion demands of the metropolitan area.

Mill ponds are one kind of Critical Environmental Area State or federal governments should have most of the re-
which offer great potential for satisfying extensive recrea- sponsibility for implementing these actions because the
tional demands in the Boston Metropolitan planning area, costs exceed the means of most municipal budgets. The
if the two problems of access and repairs were solved. Mill Land and Water Conservation Fund is a potential source for
ponds were created when the Mill Acts in the latter part of state and local efforts, while the Communities Development
the 19th century authorized mill developers to seize, by Act is a potential source for action in municipalities. Mean-
eminent domain, lands important for the production of while, efforts to open up recreation lands through zoning, ac-
water power. The logic was that power production was in quisition, easements, as exemplified by the "Charles to Char-
the public interest. Now that most of them have been les Plan" sponsored by the Boston and Brookline Conserva-
abandoned, the question remains to whom do access rights, tion Commissions, illustrate how much can be done with
reversionary rights, and first choice to gain water rights, imaginative local leadership. Recommendations for trail
belong. Public access for recreation should be gained by development described in the Regional Report indicate the
means of new legislation. But access rights cannot be need for the state Trails Advisory Committees to identify
gained without some assurance that the dams are safe. Ex- suitable locations for motorized and non-motorized
perience with Bogastow Pond in Millis would indicate that vehicles.
most mill dams are in disrepair, that owners do not have
the finances to restore them, and that the choice is to
breach. To ensure their recreational and flood control WILDLIFE AND FRESH WATER
functions, the Commonwealth must pursue a program FISHERIES
to repair and maintain private small dams.
Relating to the SENE region as a whole, the Boston Metro-
politan planning area does not possess a great deal of wild-
Implications of Swimming, Boating, Harbor life habitat. Less than 60 percent of the area is either forest,
Islands and General Recreation Proposals agricultural, wetlands, or open water. About 80 percent of
the area's forest land is rated as fair wildlife habitat, and
about 30 percent of the planning area's wildlife habitat is
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation estimates that these open to hunting. Publicly owned land and land open to
actions could provide several acres of beaches for swimming public hunting amounts to about 2,000 acres; and another

6-7

67,000 acres are privately owned and open to hunting. If Edges between forest, field, and wetlands are often the most
this total remained open through 1990, it would support productive wildlife habitats. One of the Study's major
only I percent of the 1,400,000 recreational days projected policies is the protection of prime agricultural lands, wet-
for this planning area. Insufficient wildlife habitat both in lands, flood plains, and unique natural areas (components
extent and variety, and a lack of public access to the exist- of Category A and B resources). Actions to protect these
ing resource base are the major factors limiting fulfillment resources - described in Chapter 3 of the Regional Report -
of this demand. have secondary benefits for the wildlife enthusiast or
hunter because they preserve habitat.
Wildlife
Wildlife management programs if instituted on Category
Consistent with the SENE Study policy of protecting wet- A and B lands would improve the quality of wildlife habi-
lands and other Critical Environmental Areas to provide tat and could support approximately 14 percent of the
opportunities for extensive pursuits and hunting, and to en- 1990 demands. Information was not available to ascertain
hance environmental quality in this highly urbanized plan- the effectiveness of options such as arranging state manage-
ning area, the Study recommends: ment of privately owned wildlife lands in exchange for
public access, or the possibility of enlarging the boundaries
24. Use Natural Resource wetlands legsla tiong Pro- of state hunting areas. Private organizations also will play
Consegra m to enforce wetlands legiu s ing technical increasingly important roles in protecting valuable wildlife
Conservatnilable frcom ns usingatural Resourc es habitat. Past experience indicates that most wildlife enjoy-
assistance available from strive Natural Resource ment occurs on privately, or quasi-privately, owned lands.
Planning Program should strive to enforce
existing wetlands protection legislation. This An option of acquiring public access to all 232,000 acres
District Offices adminwith the Executive Office of on of wildlife habitat was not recommended because hunting
District O ffice s with the Executive Office of is prohibited in several towns, because of the expense in-
Environmental Affairs. volved, and because public preferences expressed at the
Boston Metropolitan planning area workshop did not
25. Use Self-Help Funds to acqu ire significant support the idea of public access to privately owned land.
wetlands. Using Self-Help Funds administered Creating new wetlands was not recommended for the near
by Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Recrea- future, because the high costs involved in initial outlay
tional Vehicles, municipalities should consider would be better spent in acquiring wetlands which already
acquiring wildlife wetlands. Chapter 8 discusses exist, and are known to be highly productive. However, the
forthcoming wetland acquisitions in the upper Study supports research into creating wetlands - especially
Charles River basin, one component of the Corps using dredged materials - for the long-run.
flood management program for the River. SENE
Study Single-Purpose wetland inventories have Fresh Water Fisheries
identified these especially productive areas
which should also be considered for acquisition: Of the 108 (7,095 acres) fresh water ponds 10 acres and
(a) Charles River basin - the Indian Brook wet- larger within the basin boundaries, only 4 (194 acres) ponds
lands in Sherborn; Charles River, especially the have guaranteed state-wide public access; 31 (2,767 acres)
headwaters, the Trout Brook area in Dover and ponds have town or municipal access; 48 (1,924 acres) have
Needham; the Mill River area in Norfolk; the informal access; and 25 (2,210 acres) are water supply res-
Beaver Pond area in Bellingham; the Beaver Pond ervoirs or private ponds closed to fishing. Of the 225 miles
a rea i n Franklin ; t he Stone Broo k area in of stream the amount in public ownership and open to
Norfolk and Wre ntham; the Bristol Blake fishing is negligible. If these waters had adequate public ac-
Reservation wetlands in Norfolk; wetlands on cess and were under fisheries management, they could sup-
the state prison lands in Norfolk; and the wet- port about 470,000 man days of fishing per year, approxi-
lands by the south end of Lake Pearl in mately 12 percent of the 1990 dem and.
Wrentham; (b) Neponset River Basin - the
shallow marshes north of Turner Pond in As mentioned previously in this chapter, water supply
Walpole; the Beaver Brook and Massapoag watershed lands offer recreational potential - even fishing.
Brook wetlands in Sharon; the wetlands However, demands are most assuredly met if opportunities
bordering the Neponset River in Sharon, are acquired for recreation. The Study recommends.
Canton, Norwood, Westwood, Dedham,
Milton, and Boston; the wetland south of 26. Acquire public access to potentially
the town farm in Milton; the area on the most productive streams. The Massachum
northwest side of Ponkapoag Pond in setts Division of Fish and Game should
Randolph and Canton; and the wetland along acquire public access to 15 streams of good
Meadow Brook in Walpole and Sharon. and best fisheries potential, if it is not now

6-8

provided (identified on SENE Study single- To ensure a relatively inexpensive means of meeting fishing
purpose inventory information available in demands, the Study recommends the following actions:
NERBCfiles). Among the most important are:
27. Change Great Ponds legislation and
Stoney Brook - Charles River, Waltham and � acquire access to potentially most
Weston; Bogastow Brook - Charles River, productive ponds. The Massachusetts
Millis; Beaver Brook - Massapoag Brook, Legislature should change the existing
Sharon; Stop River - Charles River, Medfield; Great Ponds Act to designate ponds 10
Mill River - Charles River, Norfolk; Eagle acres and larger for fishing. The Public
Brook - Mill River, Norfolk; Mine Brook, Access Board should plan to acquire access
Franklin; Neponset River, Canton; Massapoag to about 86 ponds of ten acres and larger,
Brook, Canton; Beaver Brook, Sharon; of good and best fisheries potential. The
Hawes Brook, Norwood; Pine and Mills lengthy listing of appropriate sites is
Brooks, Walpole. available from SENE Study Single-
Purpose inventories available in the NERBC
The Great Ponds Law is a colonial statute for providing files.
fisheries and other recreational opportunities, whose poten-
tial has not been fully realized. Many ponds in the planning Implications
area qualify as "great ponds" and the Department of Public
Works, and its predecessors, have identified a number of The combined recommendations for fresh water fishing
them. Presently, a natural great pond is defined for recrea- would succeed in meeting nearly 10 percent of the total
tional purposes as a natural pond 10 acres or larger, but for 1990 demands. The alternative of creating impoundments
fishing purposes as a natural pond of 20 acres or larger. was not considered because of the high costs and low return
Changing the definition of fishable ponds to 10 acres would on satisfying 1990 demands. Public sentiment against ex-
greatly improve opportunities for fishing. Additionally, panding licensing programs for salt water fishing is very
public and municipal cooperation in permitting public strong, even though many fishermen are unlicensed (see
access to "great ponds" is needed in order to meet rising Chapter 6 of the Regional Report). The option of expand-
demands for fresh water based recreation. ing the license program was therefore not recommended.

6-9

CHAPTER 7 MARINE MANAGEMENT

The major marine-related issues in the Boston Metropolitan Massport's Marine Division controls only those marine-
planning area concern port development, offshore fisheries, related facilities owned or leased by Massport, and has no
potential offshore sand and gravel mining, and urban water- authority over other public or private properties in the port.
fronts. Additional information on each of SENE's marine- Its facilities total 22,700 linear feet of berthing space for
related topics can be found in the Regional Report Chapter deepwater vessels, 2,148,000 square feet of cargo storage
7, Marine Management. That report covers, from a regional sheds, a 1.3 acre dockside freezer, and nearly 50 acres of
perspective, offshore fisheries, shellfish and aquaculture, open-air container storage yards.
port development, offshore sand and gravel mining, and
urban waterfronts. In addition to the properties owned or leased by Massport,
other piers, wharves, and docks of Boston are owned and
operated by private corporations (see Table 7.1). Addition-
PORT DEVELOPMENT ally, there are various small facilities owned by federal,
state, and municipal authorities used for non-commercial
Boston Harbor, the largest seaport in New England, consists activities such as the U.S. Coast Guard, police and fire boat
of an outer harbor formed and protected by islands and berthing, and private small craft berthing. Eight facilities
peninsulas which are natural boundaries for Hingham, are available in Boston for construction, repair, or con-
Quincy, and Dorchester Bays, and an inner harbor formed version of vessels ranging from oceangoing ships to private
by the confluence of the Charles and Mystic Rivers. The pleasure boats. In addition, there are four floating drydocks
two harbors comprise a combined area of approximately 50 ranging in lifting capacities from 2,000 to 18,000 tons,
square miles, bounded by 180 miles of shoreline and dotted four graving docks ranging in length from 256 to 938 feet,
with 30 islands, totalling approximately 1200 acres. and four marine railways with capacities ranging from 100
to 300 tons. Eighteen tugs and two boats are in service to
As a major port, Boston offers complete port facilities and assist with towing and docking at Boston, Quincy, and
services to the regional economy, ship operators, and the Salem. Ship chandlery services, bunkering facilities, and
shipping public. Custom house brokers, domestic and inter- floating heavy lift cranes are also available.
national freight forwarders, steamship agencies, several
steamship company branch offices, and many related One of the largest shipbuilding plants on the Atlantic Coast
services are actively serving steamship company and shipper is located along the Weymouth Fore River in Quincy, on the
needs. south side of Boston Bay. It is equipped with 12 launching
ways and 3 mooring basins.
The port facilities of Boston consist of 156 piers, wharves,
and docks, 29 of which are designed for petroleum products Of all the SENE ports, only Boston has a capability to
handling. Seventeen (17) others function as general cargo handle containers in any volume. Table 7.2 presents the
terminals, 69 as berthing and repair facilities, and the balance cargo types and amounts for the Port during the 1972
is divided among specialized terminal types for the handling sample year. The port was off to a late start in the container-
of liquid natural gas (LNG), cement, chemicals, salt, and ization boom, but has grown considerably from 2,135
seafood. Established in 1969 and operated by the Massa- twenty-foot container equivalents in 1969, to 26,460 units
chusetts Port Authority (Massport), the newer of two in 1970. Each subsequent year saw substantial growth and
Boston container terminals handled over 78,000 units in the Massachusetts Port Authority has estimates of 78,000
1973, a three-fold increase since 1970 when 26,000 units units for 1973 with average weight of 20,000 pounds.
were handled. In terms of overall tonnage, Boston ranked
as 15th busiest port in the nation in 1972, handling 26.5
million tons from 13,000 vessel trips. TABLE 7.1 BOSTON PORT CHARACTERISTICS

The Situation
Recreational Terminals 37
Fish Terminals 7
Various federal, state, and municipal agencies exercise Commercial Terminals 59
control within the jurisdiction of their areas of responsi- U.S. Navy Terminals (Active & Surplus) 22
bility, but the Marine Division of Massport was established Marine Services and Repair Terminals 65
in 1956 by a state Legislature Enabling Act, and commenced Inactive Terminals 15
Fishing Boats 30
its mission of ensuring the development and maintenance of Lobster Boats 20
a safe, efficient, economical, and modern transportation Waterborne Commerce in tons (1972) 26,483,38
system for the Commonwealth in 1959.

7-1

The success of the Boston Mystic Public Container Terminal land tank storage or refinery areas. A deepwater offshore
operation has caused Massport to plan-continued expansion terminal would alleviate existing and projected tanker con-
with another fifty acres of marshalling area, and the acquisi- gestion and the threat of spills in the port of Boston.
tion of an additional gantry crane for the container handling. Coupled with a pipeline distribution system to major popula-
The agency has plans to create a roll-on/roll-off facility, as tion centers - Worcester, Providence, and Fall River-New
well as a small tank storage farm at the terminal. The con- Bedford - this central petroleum receiving facility could
tinued development of modern containerization facilities is provide for the region's oil needs in a safer and more efficient
essential in order to continue to attract, and to enlarge, the manner than is currently the case.
volume of general cargo moving through the port.
Such a scheme anticipates, and is contingent upon, eventual
From the regional standpoint, the biggest problem facing inland refinery construction and deepwater crude oil ship-
not only Boston, but all SENE port operations today, is the ments. Further detailed discussion is included in Chapters 7
general lack of coordination of port development schemes, and 9 of the Regional Report. With such a large market
terminal construction plans, and inland distribution systems, within such short distances, it would appear that specializa-
particularly for petroleum. In a market as distinct as that tion would benefit both ports, as well as be more commer-
for SENE, the region's ports would be more efficient if they cially attractive to potential investors.
were planned jointly to complement, rather than conflict
with, each other. Planning for development of future key The Solutions
facilities at ports best equipped to handle a given commo-
dity would benefit the shippers, the port itself, and the Based upon the preceding discussion, the following actions
region as a whole. This has been borne out by the success of are recommended to sustain and improve the competitive
Massport's container operations. Additional regional eco- standing of New England ports:
nomic analysis is needed to determine the extent to which
regionalism should play to serve SENE and New England. 1. Develop a regionwide port development
strategy. Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
There have been many proposals recently, for example, for as well as Connecticut, New Hampshire, and
development of deepwater oil terminals for both the greater Maine, through the New England Regional
Boston and Providence-Narragansett Bay area. The need Commission and with assistance from the
for both facilities - especially in light of similar proposals in New England River Basins Commission,
other parts of New England - has not been analyzed. These should jointly undertake a regional port
proposals have been made in a policy vacuum, without planning program. Federal participation
benefit of a port development plan within a regional con- should include the Corps of Engineers, De-
text. partment of Commerce, U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Maritime Administration. The cen-
While it was not within the scope of the SENE Study to tral objective of the program should be to
conduct such analyses, it would appear that the current determine the most economically efficient
development of LNG facilities on Narragansett Bay might be port development system for meeting the
further pursued. Similarly, deepwater petroleum facilities region's petroleum needs, and to some extent
development near the Boston Metropolitan area might its shipping and cargo distribution needs. The
also be further pursued. Massport has studied multi-user study should also consider: (a) the various
offshore petroleum terminals with pipelines to various in- navigation projects proposed to serve petro-

TABLE 7.2 WATERBORNE COMMERCE BY PRODUCT GROUPS:
BOSTON HARBOR AREA

Product Group Tons Percent

Petroleum Products 23,327,292 88.1
Food and Agricultural Products 783,090 3.0
Nonmetallic Mineral Products 775,443 2.9
Scrap Metals 605,820 2.3
Metal Products and Machinery 314,910 1.1
Forest Products and Manufactures 178,249 0.7
Chemicals 152,673 0.6
Crude Petroleum 128,195 0.5
Rubber, Leather, and Textile Products 103,481 0.4
Other Commodities 92,863 0.3
Fish, Shellfish, and Marine Products '22,154 0.1

7-2

leum distribution facilities, existing or should be filled in as part of the ongoing re-
potential power plants, or possible refineries development of the nearby South Station
which might be constructed; and (b) cost- area. There are no active terminals in this
sharing measures, that would be submitted portion of the Channel. To fill the Channel
for consideration by Congress, concerning the City must request the U.S. Congress,
federal assistance for local port planning pur- authorized to regulate navigable waters, to
poses, and federal assistance to state authori- declare this portion of the Channel non-
ties for port improvements. navigable.

2. Maintain 9 channels in Boston Harbor. 6. Relocate work boats upstream of
The Corps of Engineers should continue to Northern Avenue Bridge to Pier 7.
actively maintain all deepwater commercial City of Boston should investigate the re-
navigation channels in Boston Harbor in- location of the marine work boats and
cluding: the North, South, and Nantasket lobster boats berthed upstream of the
Roads Channels; the President Roads Anchor- Northern Avenue Bridge to nearby sites. One
age; the Inner Harbor main ship channel; the possible relocation site would be the in-
Chelsea River Channel. Additionally, the active 2,000 square foot area at the south-
Corps of Engineers should maintain the 35- west end of Pier 7, the westernmost of the
foot access channel through gingham Bay to South Boston Naval Annex piers that were
Weymouth Fore and Town Rivers, and the declared surplus in July, 1974.
mooring and turning basins at the Fore River
Shipyard in Quincy. 7. Consider new marina between Northern
Avenue and Congress Street. In the event
3. Consider deepening two channels in that the existing work boats and lobster boats
Boston Harbor. The Corps of Engineers (now berthed along the east side of the Fort
should consider the deepening of the 35-foot Point Channel between Northern Avenue and
reaches of the main ship channel and the Congress Street) could be relocated, this east
Mystic River channel to 40 feet. bank area would provide excellent opportunity
for much needed marina which could be de-
4. Attract new private investments to the veloped by private interests into a facility
Port of Boston. The Massachusetts Port that could service a minimum of 160 re-
Authority should continue its efforts to creational boats.
attract private investments to continue
wherever feasible, consistent with port de- Implications
velopment priorities (see Urban Waterfronts
section of this report). Because of the extremely high capital costs involved, future
port development plans will have to be regionwide in scope.
There are navigation and vehicular traffic problems associated No one port can be expected to be internationally competi-
with the Fort Point Channel and its 61-year-old Northern tive without support of the region as a whole. Competitive
Avenue Bridge. The tentative proposal for a new bridge with port development programs resulting in duplication of
15-foot vertical clearance at mean high water would meet facilities, in spite of regional traffic projections which in-
the needs of lobster boats currently berthed upstream of the dicate limited regionwide demand, are in neither the national
bridge, but would not be passable by the larger marine con- nor the regional economic interest. In the long-run they
struction work boats that also berth immediately upstream may not even be in the local interest. Implementation of the
from the bridge. City officials are exploring possible arrange- Study's recommendations on port development will permit
ments whereby the work boats could relocate to a new berth a degree of control over liquid and bulk commodity handling
area that would be developed seaward of the proposed fixed in the region and could give a significant boost to the region's
bridge. shipping and cargo industries in major port cities, such as
Boston.
The following recommendations are made:

5. Improve Fort Point Channel. The City COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
of Boston should decide if the Fort Point
channel upstream from Congress Street should The Situation
be retained as a reflecting pool (assuming
necessary water quality improvements), or Boston has slipped from its previous ranking as the leading
developed for other uses, or whether portions New England fishing port during the early 1950's. At that

7-3

time its receipts roughly equalled the combined totals for years. The problem concerns the redevelopment of the
Gloucester and New Bedford, then the second and fifth Atlantic Avenue waterfront, which was declared to be non-
largest New England fishing ports. Boston now ranks lower navigable waters in 1968 by Public Law 90-312. During the
than both Gloucester and New Bedford. Although over half past 15 years, the number of commercial fishing piers in
of the fish receipts at Gloucester and New Bedford represent the Atlantic Avenue area has dwindled from five to two,
landings by foreign vessels, Boston still ranks fourth in New although the fishing fleet landed 22,000 tons of fish. The
England in terms of receipts from U. S. fishing boats. continued loss of fisheries facilties to non-marine oriented
uses should be halted and, in conjunction with a broad-
The principal problem for the commercial fishing boats still based revitalization program, additional wharfage and pro-
remaining in Boston Harbor, in addition to the need for cessing facilities should be developed (see following section
harbor improvements, is the need for conservation measures on Urban Waterfronts).
in the offshore fishing grounds. The Boston Harbor fishing
fleet has declined sharply in recent years because the offshore The Solutions
fishing grounds have been overfished by foreign fishing fleets,
and most of the American fishing boats are relatively old and Consistent with the policy of maximizing the region's
unable to compete on equal terms. commercial fishing industry, the following actions are
recommended:
It is widely agreed that most traditionally fished stocks
found off our northeast coast are now harvested near, or 8. Study upgrading the Boston Fish Pier.
beyond, their capacity to sustain themselves. It follows that The Massachusetts Port Authority should
any new potential to support growth should come from study the feasibility of upgrading the facili-
"underdeveloped" fisheries resources. And in most cases, ties at the Boston Fish Pier to permit more
harvesting these species requires a financial risk, added rapid processing, packaging, and distribution
fishing effort, plus new processing technology and market- of fish products. Efforts should be made,
ing. Three abundant resources that are not fully utilized however, to retain the Boston Fish Exchange
are offshore crabs, squid, and various mixed finfish species as an institution central to the character of
such as sea herring, dogfish, small silver hake, red hake, and Boston's waterfront.
butterfish. Many of these mixed species are now caught
regularly, but are not brought ashore due to low market 9. Consider developing a new fish pier in
values. These caught, but unused, fish stocks have been Boston Harbor. Assuming that the Boston
estimated to be as much as 50 to 75 million pounds, or Harbor fishing industry can be revitalized by
about 20 to 30 percent, of current trawl landings. modernization of the local fleet and by
effective conservation measures in the off-
As noted in Chapter 7 of the Regional Report, the New shore fishing grounds, consideration should be
England Fisheries Development Program initially seeks to given by Massport for setting aside an existing
develop the three above-mentioned underutilized resources. pier, in addition to the existing Boston Fish
It also will encourage new marketing techniques by the Pier, which would be required to meet the
industry to take advantage of the increased consumer potential needs of a revitalized fishing in-
demand and hopefully to blunt the 70 percent share of the dustry (also see Urban Waterfronts recom-
domestic market which foreign imports have captured. If mendations).
new markets can be developed for these species it would
mean an economic boost to the industry. It has been esti- 10. Continue to support an interim off-
mated by fisheries development officials that an increase of shore 200-mile economic zone. Local
one percent a year in landings for 10 years would mean per- fishermen and politicians should continue to
haps another $4.2 million to the fishermen and vessel owners. urge the U.S. Congress to extend, as soon as
possible, the nation's jurisdiction over fish-
The New England Fisheries Development Program is looking eries to 200-miles offshore or to the edge of
toward developing a method for handling mixed species the continental shelf. This recommendation
catches of fish at sea, part of which may be used to make would provide better control over the off-
fish blocks. These are frozen blocks of fish flesh from which shore resource base as an interim measure
fish portions and sticks can be produced. Research is pending final proposals by the Law of the
needed, too, to develop an automated system to process Sea Conference.
large quantities of small, irregular sized fish and to sort
them into groups. 11. Support national fisheries management
policy. A national management policy
There is an additional, though somewhat lesser problem should be locally supported by the fishing
that will affect the Boston-based fishing fleet in future industry. The establishment of this joint

7-4

federal-state management program would even more significant force in the economy of the region,
allow limited foreign entry, quota enforce- making a major contribution to regional income and generat-
ment, seasonal or species control limitations, ing development of related processing, storage, and shipping
and fishing gear specifications within the facilities in existing ports.
200-mile economic zone. The objective of the
preceding actions would be to increase the It is possible that as fishing fleets modernize, they will be
supply and variety of fishery products with-, considered by some as less aesthetically desirable assets to
out depleting the stocks of any given species. coastal communities, leading eventually to pressures to
isolate them. The various processing activities associated
12. Improve market for underutilized fish with the fishing industry have in the past suffered less than
species. The local commercial fishing in- total acceptance. However, the negative externalities of
dustry, with technical assistance from National smell and waste generally associated with them pose less a
Marine Fisheries Services under the New problem than do the adverse impacts of many other industries.
England Fisheries Development Program, These fishing-related processes are subject to relatively less
should actively develop a domestic market expensive, and less complicated, anti-pollution technologies
for underutilized fish species by applying than many of the more complex industries. In addition,
innovative marketing techniques in educating commercial marine fishing is one economic activity for
the public to the use of new fish stocks. which there is no alternative to locating in the coastal zone.
Thus, to some extent, the harbor facilities required by the
13. Accommodate coastal fish facilities fishing fleets will compete with other coastal industries and
through improved planning. The Coastal some private recreational uses (see Urban Waterfronts
Zone Management Program, in cooperation recommendations). However, in general, the facilities
with Departments of Community Affairs, associated with the fishing industry are compatible with
should jointly prepare development guide- many recreational uses, and most other industrial activities
lines with the Boston Redevelopment Author- which do net depend on waterfront sites can find alternative
ity and other municipal planning agencies. locations within the region.
Technical assistance should be provided when
making land use or zoning bylaws for shore-
based support services for commercial fish- URBAN WATERFRONTS
eries, such as fish or shellfish processing
plants, or updated docking and transship -
ment facilities. Such planning should also The Situation
carefully consider Critical Environmental
Areas (SENE Categories A and B) so as to New England's port cities were largely responsible for the
protect those estuarine resources which are of area's rapid economic growth and development in the eigh-
vital importance to the commercially valu- teenth and nineteenth centuries. As noted in New York's
able offshore fisheries (also see Urban Water- "Waterfront Workshop" conducted by the City's Planning
fronts recommendations). Commission in 1974:

14. Allow privately financed purchase "Time and technology have left stranded many once-
of foreign-built fishing vessels. Con- busy segments of the waterfront. Brickyards,
gress should consider repealing the law pro- stoneyards, lumberyards, and coal terminals have
hibiting the purchase and importation of either gone out of business or moved elsewhere.
foreign-built fishing vessels to allow their Containerization has shifted the volume of shipping
use specifically in depressed fisheries states business, and airlines and cruises have transformed
if purchased with private capital. Federal passenger ship piers.
monies should not be granted for pur-
chases of such foreign vessels. These changes have opened up the waterfront's
potential, although in a double-edged fashion:
Implications because one type of development usually precludes
all other alternatives, proposals may generate
Implementation of these actions would be a major step counter-proposals. A housing plan is met with the
toward regenerating Boston's fishing industry which, despite suggestion that a park would be preferable, a plan
its decline, still represents an important economic activity. to site industry may arouse environmentalists, a
In time, given enlightened management and federal support, plan to turn over an idle pier for recreation may
a healthier, more stable fishing industry could become an be attacked as a blow to shipping. Almost everyone

7-5

agrees that the shoreline is too valuable to be allowed Public and private redevelopment activity elsewhere in the
to lie fallow, but agreement on a specific plan may harbor has many of these same characteristics. In all these
be difficult to obtain. This is one of many con- cases, the central questions not only have to do with what
tradictions enshrouding the waterfront." type of development occurs, but also whether or not it is a
kind of development which will make the waterfront acces-
In order to recapture the vitality which lies just beneath the sible to the public.
surface of decay and neglect, a few institutional and admin-
istrative changes are needed, backed by public awareness. Throughout Boston Harbor, there is a growing demand for
Several cities and towns have initiated or carried out sound public access to the waterfront for both low-and high-
programs for waterfront development or renewal, although intensity recreational purposes. Although the regional
their success has occurred in spite of, rather than because of, transportation network makes the general area of the harbor
current institutional and public policy, accessible to a large population, access to the water itself is
often difficult. In some places, highways built along the
The future of Boston Harbor has become a critical issue in waterfront block direct access. The Central Artery in down-
recent years, and the specific questions involved in this town Boston and the Southeast Expressway at Malibu Beach
issue reflect economic and environmental changes that are are prime examples of this barrier effect. In others, commer-
affecting major seaports throughout the United States. Some cial or residential developments on the waterfront have been
are regional issues and some are local, but they all revolve designed in ways which impede visual or physical access.
around the search for the proper balance between the im-
peratives of economic growth and the need to improve the One of the questions that runs throughout any considera-
quality of the environment. tion of the future of Boston Harbor is how to coordinate
the efforts of the numerous public agencies that are respon-
In Boston, there are a number of major illustrations of these sible for its operation, regulation, and development. In 1968,
issues involving the Harbor and its adjacent communities. the Metropolitan Area Planning Council listed 20 federal,
They range from expansion of the airport and development state, and local agencies with key functions related to the
of modern seaport facilities, to residential and commercial Harbor. More recently, a representative of the Boston
development on waterfront lands, greater public access to Harbor Associates expanded the number to 105 by includ-
the waterfront, new recreation facilities, improvement of ing the myriad governmental divisions, and departments
water quality in Boston Harbor, and protection of marine which had specific, separate powers. Regardless of the
resources. A case of particular concern to both economic number, however, it is clear that one of the obstacles to the
development and environmental protection interests is the formulation of balanced policies and programs for the Har-
reuse of Naval facilities recently made available (see dis- bor is the fact that institutional responsibility for the Harbor
cussion in the previous section on Port Development and is highly fragmented.
Chapter 7 of the Regional Report).
The question is not how to give more power to one agency
The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is working on or another, but, rather, how to integrate, enhance, and co-
urban renewal projects in Charlestown, downtown Boston, ordinate the variety of powers and programs that already
and East and South Boston. Plans are being prepared for exist.
the reuse of Charlestown Naval Base and the Naval Yards
on a 30 acre section of the Charlestown Navy Shipyard in-
cluding the U. S. S. Constitutioi which will be one of the The Solutions
seven sites as part of the National Maritime Historic Park.
In East Boston, major emphasis is being placed on using the By integrating master planning and development control
waterfront for housing, open space, and schools, and in functions in urban waterfronts, local governments can focus
South Boston, the BRA is studying the most appropriate public interest and concern on relevant development issues
reuses of the South Boston Navy Yard. and establish administrative framework at the local level. In
light of the previously discussed options, the following
The controversy over the Downtown Boston Waterfront actions are recommended in order to enhance the reuse of
Renewal project illustrates multifaceted characteristics of urban waterfronts in a rational and balanced manner:
the issues surrounding redevelopment. The most recent re-
vised plans that have emerged from the project place greater IS. Coordinate local waterfront planning
emphasis on the creation of waterfront parkland, physical and development. Municipalities should
and visual access to the water, rehabilitation rather than prepare and inventory or plan for the long-
demolition of historic warehouses and wharves, and non- term use or reuse of waterfront areas. In
luxury residential development.

7-6

undertaking such activities, towns should OFFSHORE SAND AND
give special consideration to factors such asGR V LE T A IO
the protection of flood prone areas, the pre-GRVLETAIO
servation and enhancement of historic sites
and buildings, the provision of public access The Situation
easements (both physical and visual) in new Although the rate of increase in demand for sand and gravel
development, building height, and so forth, is beginning to slow as highway and building construction
consistent with Critical Environmental Areas tapers off, the overall demand for these products can still be
as specified in the Chapter 3, Guiding Growth. expected to increase in the next few decades. The Boston
Metropolitan area does not appear to have sufficient on-
While prime responsibility for initiating and carrying out shore sand and gravel deposits to meet its needs (see Chapter
land use decisions should remain at the local level, the state 9, Locating Key Facilities). Sand and gravel used in the
should perform the following critical functions: Boston area is trucked in from more rural districts or hauled

16. Provide guidance and set criteria for by rail from as far away as southern Now Hampshire. The
priority wterfront ses. Masschusettssteadily increasing transportation costs of these construction
thrioughits Coastalfrontues Massachusenttso materials has made the heretofore uneconomical extraction
through ishCoastld deeone uranwaterfrnt plan- of offshore deposits more attractive in recent years.

ning and management guidelines, and criteria Price increases of conventionally mined sand and gravel
for deciding priorities for uses to be incor- from June 1973 to June 1974 ranged from IO to 50 percent
porated into local waterfront master plans. in SENE. Moreover, in June 1974, the price of washed and
Priorities should he established for water- screened concrete sand was $2.33 per ton in the high-
using uses, complementary uses, and low demand Boston metropolitan area. In contrast, industry
priority uses. experts now estimate that by 1976 far-shore sand and
gravel could be extracted, processed, and delivered dock-
17. Review and coordinate waterfront use. side at $ 1.00 per ton. Adding transportation to this dock-
Massachusetts, through its regional plannmng side cost, far-shore sand and gravel could be competitive up
agencies, and Department of Community to 30 to 40 miles inland from port of entry.
Affairs, should exercise its powers to review
and revise major waterfront development The degree to which offshore sand and gravel mining affects
proposals of more than local concern, the marine environment varies considerably by site. Some
effects are known to be minor and temporary, others major
18. Support state and local waterfront de- and permanent, while~ for others little is known. Three areas
velopment plans. The U. S. Congress and of potential conflict exist: fisheries, recreation, and navigation
the Office of Management and Budget should and communications.
approve adequate federal funding for state
coastal zone planning programs, and for other Given the importance of both the commercial and sport
planning programs which enhance waterfront fishing industries to the SENE region, offshore mining will
redevelopment. require careful scrutiny and more information than is pre-
Imp l menttionof oordnate locl ad stte aproahessently available. From the research which has been done to
Implmenaterfont use shouldinaelp toca minimz stateapproahes date, it appears that if mining is restricted to far-shore waters,
deisonsi waterfront ares, whoule relpcogmnizingte apraetton-o away from near-shore shellfish beds and delicate spawning
priate roles of the different levels of government. Agreement gon sdermenal (efectshaptter7 fiseriewonald beport).
on appropriate guidelines and priorities should help to re-ma(seCptr7Rginleot)
duce conflicts between uses and increase the chances for a The mining industry appears to have anticipated these
variety of uses along urban waterfronts. problems and has focused its attention and develdpment on
Moresenitiv an senibl us of atefrons wll rinfrcefar-shore mining. In addition to the need to reduce conflicts
More ofexisitingivasrcue and henilp useof raeufotsiliz urbanfoc with other uses, the industry is interested in far-shore
areswhchae on xstideinrablucue ecncand aespth eutiliz urban mining because: (1) far-shore waters currently lay outside of
tareswihhv osdrbeecnmcadashtcptn state jurisdiction; (2) ocean transport costs are low; and (3)

7-7

recent technological developments have significantly in- shore sand and gravel licensing with the State
creased the efficiency of mining in depths exceeding 100 to reduce potential conflicts. Such licensing
feet (see discussion on offshore sand and gravel extraction, should consider the following criteria as
Chapter 7 of Regional Report). requirements: (a) living resources should not
be jeopardized by construction or operation
Due to the configuration of marine sanctuaries in Massachu- of mining devices; (b) mining operations
setts waters, the only possible mining site would be off should be timed to occur in waters not used
Boston Harbor. This could pose navigational conflicts, but as seasonal spawning areas by fish; (c) opera-
would be immediately accessible to the only market area in tors should be required to use latest equipment
SENE which is immediately capable of sustaining such such as trailing suction hopper dredges cap-
operations. Appropriate onshore sites along the Boston able of onboard processing.
Waterfront, specifically along Northern Avenue, are under-
utilized and could be made available for transshipment of 21. Develop predictive modeling techniques
sand and gravel. for offshore sand and gravel operations.
The above participants should seek funding
The Solutions for a study to develop an interdisciplinary
predictive model capable of identifying post-
In the event that offshore mining becomes economically operational biological, chemical, and physical
competitive, the following recommendations are presented, effects of mineral extraction on living and
consistent with the Regional Report's policy of accomo- non-living marine resources at alternative
dating development while protecting the surrounding marine extraction sites. This effort will produce
environment: operational guidelines for industry regulation
in order to improve offshore mining techni-
19. Develop a policy and program regulating ques and minimize adverse impacts on the
commercial mineral extraction in coastal fisheries resource.
waters. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Pro-
gram should develop a policy and program regu- Implications
lating extraction activities in sensitive marine
environs. Such a program would require know- In light of the direct relationship in mineral extraction be-
ledge about the location of particularly fragile tween closeness to shore and potential environmental
coastal areas and about the kinds of impacts damage it is in the best economic and environmental in-
such activities would have. Appropriate regu- terests of the SENE region for the states to virtually pro-
lations should be drawn up to minimize nega- hibit nearshore mineral extraction. The existing Massachu-
tive impacts. In the meantime, the Oceans setts marine sanctuaries legislation regulates activites in
Sanctuary Act should be clarified as to which almost all the State's coastal waters except offshore of
agency has the authority to oversee these Boston Harbor.
activities in near shore waters.
The program is also designed to support the far-shore
20. Coordinate future leasing of far-shore mining operator, should such extraction be needed, by
sand and gravel sites. The Massachusetts providing sensitive site selection mechanisms and clear
Coastal Zone Management Program, and operating criteria and regulations. By clarifying operating
appropriate departments in the Executive standards and identifying approved extraction sites, the
Office of Environmental Affairs should program of recommendations provides opportunities for
actively seek to have the Bureau of Land extraction while being sensitive to the importance of these
Management of the U.S. Department of the same far-shore waters to the region's fishing industry
Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries (see Chapter 7, Regional Report).
Service of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration coordinate their far-

7-8

CHAPTER 8 FLOODING AND EROSION

The Situation

Inland and Coastal Flooding

Previous floods in the Boston Metropolitan planning area of the Mystic basin as soon as the pumping station at the
have caused major damages in the lower reaches of the dam has been installed.
principal rivers where there has been extensive development
in flood plain areas, particularly in the lower Charles. Un-
controlled land use in the planning area and the loss of Due to the large flood flows, flat river gradient, and existing
existing flood retention areas is resulting in increased flood- channel restrictions that exist on Alewife Brook and the
ing. Residential and industrial expansion which reduces the upper portion of the Mystic River, an additional pumping
storage capacity of natural bogs, swamps, marshes, and station on the Mystic River in the vicinity of the old Crad-
ponds will increase potential flood damage in the planning dock Locks (near Medford Square) may be needed. Addition-
area. al structural measures, such as channel modification, culvert
enlargement, or flow diversion, may also be required to help
In general, the Study's recommendations emphasize that alleviate the flood problems along Alewife Brook in the
both inland and coastal flood prone areas be protected from vicinity of Route 2. Further detailed studies will be required
development by using non-structural solutions such as maxi- for the other local problem areas in the subwatersheds of
mum protection of wetlands and strict development criteria, the Mystic River drainage area in order to determine
wherever possible. Only where there is high value develop- economically feasible solutions.
ment in small concentrated areas should development be
protected from flooding by using structural solutions. The upper portion of the watershed above Upper Mystic
Recognition of the multiple values of wetlands - not just Lake is not, for the most part, intensively developed and
as natural flood retention areas, but for wildlife habitat, consists of rural areas, parks, and moderately populated resi-
water supply, recreation, and landscape quality as well - dential areas. However, recent commercial and industrial
further strengthens the importance of wetlands protection as development has changed the drainage patterns of some
a policy for reducing flood damages. parts of the area, making maintenance of existing channels,
bridges, and culverts important. If development is allowed
Mystic River Watershed. Flood damages have occurred to continue, future problems may occur, especially in the
throughout the Mystic River watershed. Major floods on the upper portion of the watershed.
Mystic River have been experienced in March 1936 and
August 1955; other significant events were in October 1962 The opportunity exists for a program of comprehensive
and March 1968. Many problem areas are along the tribu- flood plain management which takes advantage of remain-
taries due to local conditions and backwater effects. Signi- ing natural valley storage areas. A number of lakes and ponds
ficant problem areas include: scattered throughout the Mystic River watershed act as
detention areas for storing excess runoff during flood
- the flood plain along Horn Pond Brook from conditions. During dry periods they help to augment low
the Woburn-Winchester town line to its cnn- streamflow.
fluence with Aberjona River;
In addition to these open water bodies, the inland wetland
- the lower portion of Mill Brook in Arlington; areas, which are located mainly in the upper portion of the
- the area along Alewife Brook from the Mystic watershed, help to store excess runoff during flood con-
River to Little Pond; ditions and gradually release this water to streams during dry
spells. The two major inland wetland areas in the watershed
- the vicinity of Maiden Square; are those located along the Aberjona River in Woburn and
Great Meadows in Lexington.
- areas along the mainstem of the Mystic
River in Arlington, Medford, and Somer- Charles River Watershed. Throughout the middle and
ville; and upper watershed, flood damage at the present time is not
- potential damage areas and nuisance con- extensive (approximately $400,000 during the March 1968
ditions along the Aberjona River. flood). The relatively low flood damage is attributed princi-
pally to the extensive marshes and swamps along the Charles
The Mystic River (Amelia Earhart) Dam is expected to and its main tributaries. Flood peaks in these areas are so
alleviate most of the flooding problems in the lower portion retarded by natural valley storage that they do not reach

8-1

the Lower Charles until three or four days after the flood Two local protection projects have been constructed along
peak generated downstream has passed. But for this two tributary streams, one on the East Branch at Canton,
characteristic, the Charles River Basin area would have and the second on Pine Tree Brook in Milton. Other structu-
suffered much greater damages in the past. In their ral projects have been undertaken which involved replace-
Charles River study, the Corps of Engineers determined ment of outdated bridges, channel improvement, and the
that a 40 percent loss of wetlands would increase flood increasing of culvert capacities where necessary. In addition,
stages in the middle and upper river from 2 to 4 feet, for a the main river has been relocated and the channel en-
flood of the magnitude of the 1968 flood. larged as the result of Route 128 highway construction.

As mentioned in Chapters 2, 3 and 6, the Charles River Along the headwaters, moderate development does exist and
Study Report of the Corps of Engineers has found that the is primarily residential. Industrial development is found
magnitude of potential flood losses are sufficient to warrant along the riverbanks and is primarily responsible for the
the acquisition of the important natural valley storage areas creation of impoundment areas along the mainstem. The
as a multi-purpose project for flood control, recreation, and central portion is, for the most part, undeveloped and con-
fish and wildlife management. The estimated first cost of sists of very extensive marshlands. The lack of development
the project was given in the report as $7,340,000 for allows this area to act as a large storage area for excessive
8,422 acres covering 17 wetlands in 16 towns. The project flows caused by abnormal precipitation. Downstream of
was authorized in fiscal year 1974, and funds were available the Neponset's intersection with Truman Highway, the
to the Corps in fiscal year 1975 to start detailed studies of area is highly urbanized, the flood plain is encroached upon
the wetlands as a preliminary step toward acquisition. heavily, and almost all rainfall becomes instantaneous run-
Detailed studies are expected to be a two-year effort; off into the river. The Metropolitan District Commission
acquisition is expected to begin in fiscal year 1977. operates a dam at Hyde Park which can be used to help
Conservation commissions, planning boards, and zoning control river flows.
boards of appeal in the 16 municipalities should continue
to protect these wetlands from preemptive uses. Major wetlands include areas along: the Neponset River and
Fowl Meadow, York and Pequid Brooks, Redding Brook,
The characteristics of the lower reach of the Charles River Cedar Swamp, and Mine Brook. Wetlands in Neponset
vary markedly from those of the middle and upper reaches. towns of Walpole, Westwood, Stoughton, Sharon, Norwood,
In the downstream portion, the watershed is heavily ur- Canton, Milton, and Quincy total over 12,000 acres; Canton,
banized, and conducive to both tributary and mainstem Sharon, and Walpole contain nearly 70 percent of the total
flash-flooding due to extremely rapid runoff. The lower wetlands in the Neponset watershed.
Charles (below river mile 12) has experienced severe flood-
ing. During the record flood of August 1955, damage in the Despite preventive measures already taken in the basin,
lower Charles amounted to an estimated $5.5 million. This future problems may exist if development is allowed to
flooding is caused by the rapid runoff from built-up areas proceedunchecked. Encroachment of the upstream flood
of Cambridge and Boston. In the event of a recurrence of plain areas will result in increased river heights in the highly
flood flows equivalent to those in the record 1955 flood, developed areas of Dedham, Hyde Park, Mattapan, and
losses amounting to over $12 million (at 1968 prices) in Milton. The Neponset River Basin Flood Plain and Wetland
2020 are estimated if wetlands continue to be lost at the Encroachment Study of April 19'71, prepared for the
present rate. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, provides various
flood stage data.
Another major project in the watershed is the construction
of the new Charles River dam and pumping station. Begun in Northern South Shore Towns. Five storms have pro-
1974 and scheduled for completion in 1977, the dam is duced major floods in the Furnace Brook, Town Brook,
expected to protect major damage areas along the lower - and Hayward Creek areas.of Quincy in the past 20 years.
Charles. The storm of record in the basin, Hurricane Diane, produced
12.7 inches of rainfall and major flooding during August
Neponset River Watershed. Flood damages in the past 1955. A recurrence of this storm would generate an esti-
have occurred throughout the watershed. The basin has mated $1.8 million damages, particularly in the city of
experienced extensive damage due to the past floods of Quincy. The March 1968 storm resulted in maximum area
1936, 1938, 1955, and 1968. The flood caused by hurri- flooding and $1 million damages due to increased urban
cane rains in August 1955 is the flood of record for this development, even though there was much less rainfall than in
basin and has a frequency of occurrence of about once in the previous storms. In addition to major flooding from
100 years. Damage areas included Diamond Brook in Wal- severe storms, minor flooding of streets and cellars follows
pole, Traphole Brook in Walpole and Canton, and Pine Tree nearly every heavy rainfall in these watersheds. Flash flood-
Brook in Milton.

8-2

ing of Hayward Creek in Quincy has caused damage in Inland Erosion
General Dynamics' Fore River Shipyard. Under the pro-
visions of Section 205 authority, the Chief of Engineers in The only upland erosion problems in this planning area are
January 1975 approved measures along Hayward Creek: those associated with lands undergoing urban development.
diversion of Echo Creek into a temporary storage area above Erosion on forest land in the area is minimal. In their
Hayward Pond, minor dike and wall work near the head of present condition, soils in this planning area generally have
Hayward Pond, increasing the storage capacity at Hayward a low erodibility factor, but when protective cover is dis-
Pond, channel enlargement below the pond, and installation turbed or destroyed, these soils will erode at unacceptable
of larger conduits near the shipyard. Construction is sched- rates. Much of the erosion damages can be avoided through
uled to start in fiscal year 1976, contingent upon funding, a sound urban-environmental forestry program to retain as
with construction requiring about 1.5 years to complete. much of the native vegetation as possible. Without taking
The Corps is continuing planning study of Furnace Brook the proper erosion control measures in the urbanizing areas,
and Town Brook. a decrease in environmental quality can be expected. Further,
the costs of treating erosion problems, once they have de-
Hurricane Diane in 1955 caused some damages to comrn- veloped, can be high.
mercial/industrial firms in Weymouth and Braintree, partic-
ularly to commercial areas in Weymouth Landing when Coastal Flooding
Smelt Brook flooded. In general, flood problems resulted
from undersized culverts, narrow or confined stream The harbor area has an easterly exposure and is subject to
channels, and construction in Braintree within filled swamp attack from the frequent winter northeasters, which can
land of relatively low elevation. A $1.3 million flood con- be stalled in the area for several days, and generate pro-
trol project is being carried out through the Corps of longed above-normal tidal surges and high waves. In addition,
Engineers to construct a dam and make channel improve- other storms, including hurricanes and extra-tropical storms,
ments which will carry Smelt Brook under Weymouth have occurred, though usually with lesser impact on tides
Landing to Fore River. The target date for completion is and waves.
early 1976.
A report prepared by the Corps of Engineers in 1960 pre-
Record rainfall during Hurricane Diane in 1955 caused river sents a general description of the northeast storm of
flooding in East Weymouth in the Weymouth Back River. December 29, 1959, and the effects of tidal flooding and
Drainage during the storm exceeded the capacity of the wave action on shore structures and protective installations,
system of conduits carrying the river from Whitmans Pond beaches, private properties, highways, and utilities. Tidal
to the tidal region, and caused local damage to residential flood damage from this coastal storm was reported to have
and commercial properties. The Corps points out that the been serious in the Boston Harbor area. Damages in Boston
flow capacity of critical points under road crossings will amounted to about $1 million, and in Quincy were about
have to be increased to avoid future flooding. $750,000. Hull suffered damages estimated at $930;000,
flingham $5,000, and Weymouth $70,000.
There is also a local flooding problem on the Monatiquot Hingham $5,000, and Weymouth $70,000.
River in Braintree. This has been caused by the increasing A hurricane survey report of Massachusetts coastal and tidal
urbanization which has resulted in increased runoff. The areas was published by the Corps of Engineers in 1964. Due
existing channel capacity of the streams is inadequate to to the scattered nature of developments and potential
carry this increased flow and therefore results in flooding of damages, complete hurricane flood protection was found to
the downstream areas. be impractical and uneconomical. The Division Engineer
recommended that no further federal improvements for
Wetlands hurricane protection be undertaken in the Commonwealth
at that time. However, the report was published recommend-
On a statewide scale, Massachusetts is losing its wetlands at ing methods of tidal flood protection for local consideration
a rate of one percent per year. Certain communities near including early warning, zoning, beach raising and widening,
Boston have been estimated as having lost up to 50 percent concrete walls, bulkheads, and revetments.
of their wetlands since 1951. The area between Route 128
and Route 495 is particularly vulnerable to loss of wetlands. Coastal Erosion

Because of high development pressures in this planning area, Critical coastal erosion occurs at a number of points along
municipalities should give special attention to protecting the shoreline of the Boston planning area. The Corps of
fresh water and coastal wetlands. Specific actions that can Engineers has identified a number of critical shoreline
be taken are listed in the Regional Report, Chapter 8. erosion areas (where erosion is occurring at rates of over
Special attention should be given to protecting natural about 3 feet per year and protection is needed). Also, some
storage areas which have water supply value and are also areas of serious bluff erosion have been designated as critical,
unique natural areas, and/or wildlife habitat areas. even though the shoreline may not be receding more than 3

8-3

feet per year. Critical erosion areas requiring immediate re- abnormal precipitation; and (3) flood flow regulation
medial work include the north shore of Spectacle Island, utilizing existing structures.
Great Brewster, and Peddocks Island. Areas needing pro-
tection are East Boston, several points along the Boston Flood plain zoning will allow the controlled development
waterfront, the area along Carson Beach in Boston, northern of areas within the flood plain. Implementation of this
shore of Gallops Island, Rainsford Island, Peddocks Island, measure is especially important in the low lying marshland
and several points in Quincy. Areas of non-critical erosion, areas of Canton, Norwood, and Dedham in the Neponset
where the erosion is continuing at rates of less than 3 feet watershed, and along the Aberjona River in the Mystic
per year, may need protection at a future date. These include watershed. Firm encroachment lines should be established
several points on Thompson Island, the eastern shore of based on the limits of a flood which occurs once in 50
Long Island, and Great Brewster. Continual erosion of most years. No construction would be allowed within these en-
beaches has necessitated artificial nourishment in order to croachment lines, and sufficient storage area will be retained
maintain them in their present condition. Chapter 6 of this to handle the 50-year event. Structures already existing
report and the Ipswich North Shore report recommend within these encroachment lines would be allowed to re-
solutions to similar problems for Nantasket and Revere main, but no additions may be made to them.
Beaches. Because of other priorities, the MDC is not in-
terested in beach nourishment measures at these two areas Sub-watershed improvements should be initiated where it
at this time. has been shown that significant damage has or will occur
due to future development in the planning area. An evalua-
The Corps of Engineers has prepared a number of reports on tion of the causative factors should be made to determine if
coastal protection projects. Recent protection projects con- flooding problems result primarily from inadequate local
structed by the Commonwealth with federal cost sharing drainage conditions. If it is found that local drainage con-
have included Winthrop Beach, Quincy Shore Beach, and ditions and structures are poor, it may be most feasible to
Wessagusset Beach in Weymouth. All three were completed replace them with Droperly sized facilities. If, however,
in 1959. flooding problems appear to be occurring due to increased
runoff, a sub-watershed storage area may be in order. The
Much work has been done by local and state agencies to main impact of these storage areas is that they allow the
preserve and protect the existing beaches and coastal areas. release of large volumes of stored floodwaters at a con-
Among several projects presently being undertaken by the trolled rate. This can have a significant effect in reducing
Division of Waterways, Massachusetts Department of flood stages along the mainstem as well as along the tribu-
Public Works, are a number of seawalls in Quincy. In tary it protects. In addition to reducing flood damages, sub-
addition, the Boston Redevelopment Authority has been watershed improvements can be utilized as recreational
reconstructing a number of deteriorated seawalls in the areas and wildlife habitats.
waterfront area. The Massachusetts Port Authority and the
Metropolitan District Commission have responsibility for At the present time, sub-watershed improvement appears to
protection, maintenance, and improvement of coastal be immediately feasible in the Diamond Brook watershed in
facilities and properties in their areas. Walpole, the lower portion of Horn Pond Brook in Win-
chester, the lower portion of Mill Brook in Arlington, the
upper portion of Alewife Brook in Arlington, and the upper
The Solutions portion of the Malden River where it passes through
Malden Square. Further detailed studies are required to
Alternatives determine the most economically feasible solutions to these
problem areas. The Soil Conservation Service is presently
As pressure for expansion in the metropolitan area con- conducting a PL-566 small watershed protection study of
tinues, more and more low-lying areas are being developed the Diamond-Traphole Brooks area.
for commercial and industrial uses as well as housing. This
will cause future flood damages to become more severe Flood flow regulation, using existing structures, can be used
from storms equivalent to those that presently do not to reduce flood stages at various points along the river. For
cause severe damage. example, in the Neponset basin, the dams, if properly
operated, can serve an important role in protecting the up-
Problems in other parts of the Boston planning area may be stream areas of Foxboro, Walpole, and Norwood. Down-
kept at a minimum if sound flood management principles are stream facilities for flood flow regulation exist at the Metro-
implemented and enforced. The most appropriate manage- politan District Commission dam in Hyde Park, which can
ment program for this planning area consists of three help piovide protection to the vulnerable areas of Mattapan
elements: (1) flood plain zoning with the establishment of Square and Milton Lower Mills. One of the most important
50-year encroachment lines; (2) sub-watershed improvements considerations is that no new structures are required.
by structural or other means to provide storage volume for

In coastal areas, alternatives considered were: (1) restore and The Study therefore recommends that the appropriate
protect criticalshoreline areas with physical structures to authorities:
meet present needs for restoration and protection of eroded
land and provide a reasonable degree of future protection. 1. Develop a flood plain management
The beach restoration could probably be done on a regional program for the Neponset Watershed.
basis; the other eroded areas would have to be done on an The Corps of Engineers, in close cooperation
individual and private basis; (2) establish a rigid coastal zone with state, regional, and local officials, should
management program precluding further encroachment of develop a comprehensive flood plain manage-
inappropriate development, and providing guidelines for ment plan for the Neponset watershed.
future planning and proper development.
In this plan, particular emphasis should be given to non-
Recommendations structural methods of flood protection, including flood
plain zoning, wetlands protection, flood proofing, expanded
A major result of the SENE Study has been the classification storm and flood forecasting and warning services,and re-
of the region's resources according to their capability for moval of flood prone structures. Such plans should be co-
development. In the Boston Metropolitan planning area, ordinated with land use planning programs as they are
inland wetlands (about 47,000 acres) and coastal wetlands developing, and, for coastal areas, with the state coastal
(about 1,400 acres), estuaries, beaches, barrier beaches, and zone management program. The study should also be
critical coastal erosion areas have been classified as "A" coordinated with ongoing work by the Soil Conservation
resources or "priority protection areas" requiring the Service in the Diamond-Traphole Brooks area.
greatest degree of protection from development. Flood
plains (some 39,400 acres) and hazardous coastal flooding 2. Apply structural solutions selectively.
areas (about 8,000 acres) (both to the 100-year frequency The agencies developing the comprehensive
line) have been classified as "B" resources or "other pro- flood plain management plan should consider
tection areas" which have very limited tolerance for a combination of debris removal, dam re-
development, but with proper management are suitable for moval or regulation, and bridge opening
such compatible activities as agriculture or recreation. All adjustments, together with strong non-
of these resources have been classified as Critical Environ- structural measures as alternatives to major
mental Areas. structural measures.

In keeping with this resource classification, it has been re- Despite the existence of extensive natural valley storage
commended that comprehensive flood plain management areas, significant development in the flood plain has pre-
programs be developed for flood prone areas, making use of cluded fully adequate protection from flood damages through
non-structural solutions wherever possible. All such pro- wetlands protection. Construction of the Charles River Dam
grams should be developed in close cooperation between and improvements to the Amelia Earhart Dam are underway.
federal and state agencies, regional planning agencies, and
local governments and interests. They should also be Maintenance of existing structures is also a part of an overall
coordinated with related programs, such as the National flood plain management program. Growing interest in and
Flood Insurance Program, the National Weather Service, support of rehabilitating mill dams is being expressed by
state wetlands acts, state land use planning programs, and municipal officials and citizen groups (see Chapter 6). Dam
for coastal areas, with state coastal zone management pro- maintenance together with coordinated operation could
grams. help to keep the limited flood retention capacity of mill
ponds intact, as well as offer recreation opportunities, and,
Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of in some cases, small scale power.
1974 authorizes federal cost sharing for non-structural
measures. Although implementation of Section 73 has For a town adjoining the Neponset watershed, authorities
presently been deferred by the Office of Management and should:
Budget (OMB), application of the cost sharing authority
can be an important factor in making non-structural 3. Study flooding problems in Braintree.
solutions more competitive than they have been: Local interests should request the Corps of
Engineers to investigate the flooding problems
An area particularly appropriate for development of a on the Monatiquot River in Braintree under the
comprehensive flood plainmanagement program is the authority of the Section 205 Program.
Neponset River watershed. Consideration should also be
given to developing a similar program for the Mystic River Throughout the planning area, municipalities should:
watershed.

4. Adopt flood plain zoning preventing ad- most significant for flood damage reduction
verse flood plain development in flood and protection, and those which have water-
prone areas (and particularly the 100-yt-, supply value and wildlife and/or recreation
floodway) as defined under the National values.
Flood Insurance Program.
Particular emphasis should be given to protection of areas
This also includes incorporating inland and coastal wetlands, classified as unique natural areas and those located in areas
eroding areas, and storms of record on the map upon which subject to high and medium development pressure as out-
the zoning is based. All related regulations - building codes, lined above.
subdivision regulations, sanitary codes - should reinforce
this policy of preventing adverse development and redevelop- Protection of wetlands and flood plains is also expected
ment in the 100-year flood plain. The regulations should also to help existing structural flood protection projects
take advantage of the restrictive provisions of state wetlands do their job by keeping flood flows to within the design
regulations, scenic rivers programs, and the like. capacity of the existing dams, channels, etc. In built-up and
heavily used areas alternative locations outside the flood
Related to local zoning action are two recommendations for plain may not always be feasible. One way to cope with this
controlling local sedimentation and inland erosion problems. situation is to:
Municipalities, assisted by the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture and the Executive Office of Environmental f- 9. Locate in existing safe buildings in the
fairs should: flood plain. Where location outside the
flood plain is not feasible, municipalities
5. Establish local sediment and erosion should encourage private interests to locate
control ordinances. in existing safe buildings in the flood plain
rather than permitting new construction in
A model for such ordinances is included in the more detailed the flood plain.
information prepared for the Study and available in the
NERBC files. To protect streambanks and water bodies, the Floodproofing, especially of existing buildings, is particularly
Critical Environmental Areas (Chapter 3), the Study re- appropriate where only moderate flooding is expected,
commends municipalities: where other types of flood protection are not feasible, or
where activities requiring a waterfront location need some
6. Establish forest buffer zones. Municipalities degree of protection. Improved and expanded storm and
should establish appropriate forest buffer' flood forecasting and warning services, recommended in
zones within 200 feet of streams and lakes Chapter 8 of the Regional Report, will also be important in
to preserve vegetation and maintain natural keeping down future amage imagacosts.
systems through forestry techniques to help
keep non-point source pollutants from reach- The Regional Report, Clhpter 8, contained recommenda-
ing sensitive water quality areas. tion for specifically including critical coastal erosion areas
within the 100-year coastal flood prone areas, all of which
Towns with existing high and medium high development would be protected as part of the state coastal zone man:
pressure (see Chapter 3, Guiding Growth) should be among agement program.
the first to implement these two recommendations.
On -a local level, recommendation number 4 called for pro-
To reinforce these zoning ordinances, municipalities should: hibiting development and other damaging uses of critical
erosion areas through local flood plain zoning. In addition,
7. Establish local regulations. Municipali- municipalities should:
ties should ensure that all local regulations,
including building and sanitary codes, rein- 10. Encourage natural stabilization of
force the intent of the zoning ordinances coastal areas. Municipalities and conser-
recommended above. vation commissions should continue to
encourage natural means of stabilizing coastal
In conjunction with a zoning program, efforts should be erosion areas, giving priority to areas ex-
strengthened to: periencing critical rates of coastal erosion

8. Acquire significant wetlands and flood (3 feet or more per year).
plains. Municipalities and state agencies Use of vegetative cover, snow fences, discarded Christmas
should investigate continuing possibilities to trees, and boardwalks have proven effective approaches to
acquire those wetlands and flood plain areas control accelerating rates of wind and wave erosion.

8-6

No specific sites have been identified for structural erosion National Flood Insurance Program requires. But it does
control projects in this planning area. However, Chapter 8 make full recognition o f resource limitations and natural
of the Regional Report recommends selective construction functions of wetland and flood plain areas. The SENE Study
of erosion control projects for areas other than beaches, such has found that all new development can be accommodated
as eroding bluffs (except for unique natural sites). Artificial in C, F, and G lands (as discussed in the Guiding Growth
beach nourishment does not provide substantial benefits chapter), so that protecting A and B lands from inappropriate
unless public recreational benefits are added in as well. use need not be incompatible with a growing economy. In
Therefore, further discussion of the possibilities for beach fact, a policy of resource protection and non-structural
nourishment are included in the Outdoor Recreation solution is regarded as a significant step toward protecting
chapter of this report. Any studies and projects should the physical beauty of the region's landscape which is ex-
address the littoral drift relationships between beach erosion pected to be in the long-term interest of the SENE region.
and headland protection. Finally, protecting A and B lands reserves productive wild-
life habitats and natural areas for recreational purposes.
Implications

This approach is a good deal more restrictive than the

8-7

CHAPTER 9 LOCATING KEY FACILITIES

As with other planning areas in the SENE Study region, the extraction in the planning area. The recommendations pro-
Boston Metropolitan area has its share of key facilities vide for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
- sand and gravel pits, stone quarries, and power Quality Engineering to set statewide operating standards with
plants. However, the heavily urbanized nature of much of local land use approvals, provide a permitting procedure for
the area has the effect of placing pressure for future siting all extraction operations, and oversee site reclamation. Per-
of these services in the last remaining open spaces. Both haps more importantly, the recommendations provide for a
the services and the open spaces are vitally needed, and statewide survey of potential sand and gravel sites to provide
classic conflicts arise. a basis for protection of the resource for future use. Through
a carefully planned program of sequential use of mineral
SAND AND GRAVEL MINING deposit sites, adequate sand and gravel can be provided at
the least environmental and economic cost to residents of
Processed sand and gravel is produced at 11 plants in the the planning area.
planning area: two each at Holliston and Walpole, and one
each in Bellingham, Millis, Norfolk, Wrentham, Weymouth,
Canton, and Stoughton. In the Charles basin portion of the POWER GENERATION FOR
planning area alone, nearly 1.2 million tons of sand and METROPOLITAN BOSTON
gravel valued at almost $1.7 million was produced. Crushed
stone, quarried in Weston, West Roxbury, Wrentham, and Boston's options for power plant siting are limited. With
Weymouth totalled over 900,000 tons and was valued at demand for electricity steadily increasing, though according
nearly $2 million. Finally, some dimension stone was quar- to Boston Edison at slightly lower rates, the metropolitan
ried at two sites in Milford (granite) and one each in Walpole area offers few options for siting major new power plants.
(sandstone), Weymouth, and Hingham. Crushed stone pro-
duced just outside the planning area in Revere is consumed Utility service in the area is provided by Boston Edison
in the Boston area. Company, New England Electric System, Cambridge
Electric Light Company, and the municipalities of Belmont,
With remaining potential sites rapidly being preempted by Braintree, Wellesley, and Norwood. Boston Edison and the
other forms of development, the construction aggregate New England Electric System supply over 90 percent of
business is slipping in this area. The inevitable result is the total requirements of this area. In 1971, five fossil fuel
importation of materials from elsewhere in the state, at plants with an installed capacity of 1582.6 megawatts
substantially increased cost. It is a common irony that where operated in the Mystic and Charles basins. During 1971 these
construction and the resultant need for aggregate is greatest, five plants generated a total of 7.7 billion kilowatt hours, or
availability of materials is the lowest. At least one company 29.2 percent of the total SENE service area's generation.
in Boston is importing trainloads of aggregate from New There are four gas turbine plants operating in the Mystic and
Hampshire. Charles River basins. The largest, 135.2 megawatt, is at
West Medway and is operated by Boston Edison Company.
With the feasibility of mining sand and gravel from the Bay
in question, only two alternatives appear to remain: increase Scheduled for completion in 1975 at the Mystic Station is
costly imports, or identify and preserve remaining deposits. Unit #7, which will have a 587 megawatt fossil steam
In fact, in this planning area, a combination of the two capacity. In addition, construction was completed in 1972
appears to be the most likely course. However, locating on a 24 megawatt gas turbine peaking unit at the Kendall
mining operations in Boston's suburbs will not be willingly Gas Turbine plant located in Cambridge.
accepted by residents.

The antipathy of many communities to sand and gravel PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION
operations is understandable; they are noisy, dirty, and they AND STORAGE
have a decidedly negative effect on surrounding property
values. The stiff regulations adopted by most communities
to prohibit extraction operations, and the subsequent While the SENE region's petroleum system is discussed in
preemptive development which occurs, serve to all but greater detail in Chapter 9 of the Regional Report,. the
eliminate the use of in-basin resources. Boston Metropolitan planning area warrants special attention.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) recently
The recommendations made in Chapter 9 of the Regional released an interim report identifying, in order of preference,
Report are expected to be sufficient to preserve and regulate

9-1

sites off Newburyport and Nahant as potential deepwater other petroleum facilities siting, the SENE Study concludes
oil terminals. that the facilities siting question should be decided within
the New England regional context.
The Study is in substantial agreement with the fundamental
concept behind the Massport investigations: that a deep- Consequently, the Study recommends:
water oil terminal is more economical and preferable to
increases in risky coastal tanker traffic in the region's 1. Study deepwater port facility off
harbors. At the same time, more information on the Metropolitan Boston within a New
opportunity costs to the environment and economy England-wide context. If the Massport
are needed. study is reactivated, it should be conducted
in cooperation with the Massachusetts
Moreover, since the feasibility of the terminal is dependent Coastal Zone Program and Energy Facilities
on the construction of a refinery for processing the de- Siting Council (appropriately authorized)
livered crude, and the New England Regional Commission and the siting and coastal zone programs of
is investigating the regional implications of refinery and the other four New England states.

9-2

N 0 T ES

I I I i.4

2p 3 1 R 1 f a I jq

J 'A

IAIM H (I A I

T
d i OuX Am v2?-v
f

5 4 ff rd f
V, -K 1*6m twAl 4
V
Q Ni k ,ii WT I"
i
;Ni J "in f"
;WWO, hio F! 73
Lv 2j I CA, Io

4, i Rf'P. ? u 2 rv,O, su'alf"M hmoilgA Affair. .I
-Daiwa"

f v I FM V

ITT
qtuft? .-I -AciA -'?1!5d

Rtwf/I IsM.A15'i
la ni'VO
w

--Iwmigf21 tfilr5jq iw ivw, x1rn. ivn i V t
r !,;ej g -j -Eg 9 -1 4, pnoj bmf p i

odol 01M xjul 10 ;tAl 5,C! -30 lo mAifW

vbwn8

Representatives of Contributing State

And Federal Agencies

FEDERAL-STATE RHODE ISLAND Department of Transportation
Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program Federal Highway Administration: Stanley R.
Daniel W. Varin, Chief**; Patrick V. Fingliss*; Lou Davis**; Charles L. O'Donnell** (to October 1975).
New England River Basins Commission David. U.S. Coast Guard: Capt. Bernard Thompson* (to
R. Frank Gregg, Chairman**; Robert D. October 1973); Capt. Alvin P. Durgin, Jr.* (October
Brown, Staff Director** Southeastern New Coastal Zone Management Program 1973 to August 1974); Cdr C. R. Lindquist* (to
England Study Staff: Robert Kasvinsky, Coastal Resources Management Council: February 1974); Capt R Grover Jr.* (as of
Study Manager*; Jane F. Carlson; Cornelia JohnFebruary 1974); Capt. Royal E. Grover, Jr.* as of
V. H. Ferber; Alan Jacobs; Ernesta Kracke; Coastal Resources Center: Stuart 0. Hale; Mal- August 1974); Rear Admiral James P. Stewart** (as
James Luty; William Mahoney; Priscilla colm Grant. of October 1975).
Newbury; William E. Nothdurft; William Water Resources Board: Robert Russ**; Peter Environmental Protection Agency
E. Richardson; Philip Tabas. Calese*. Water Quality Branch; Walter Newman, Chief**;
Roger Duwart*; Clyde Shufelt*.
CONNECTICUT Water Supply Branch: Jerome Healey*; Stephen
Department of Environmental Protection Lathrop*; Alma Rojas* (to February 1974).
Thomas Fitzpatrick**; Tirath Gupta* (consultant); Joseph Gill, Commissioner**; Robert B. Taylor, Di- Department of the Interior
Roger Sumner Babb** (as of December 1974); Mark
MASSACHUSETTS FEDERAL Abelson** (to June 1973); Kenneth Young** (to
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs D ep a rtment of Agrice May 1974); William Patterson** (a s of September
Dr. Evelyn Murphy, Secretary** 1974); Robert B. Ryder* (as of May 1975).
Soil Conservation Service: Dr. Benjamin Isgur**; Bureau of Mines: Robert D. Thompson*; Joseph
Coastal Zone Management Program Philip H. Christensen**; Stephen Claughton*. Krickich* (to March 1974); Peter Morey* (as of
Matthew Connolly**; Dan Calano*. Economic Research Service: John Green*. March 1974).
Department of Environmental Management Forest Service: Kenneth Johnson**; Sam Becker* Bureau of Outdoor Recreation: James Donoghue*
(formerly Department of Natural Resources) (to December 1973); Neil Lamson* (to March 1974); (to March 1973); Eric Finstick* (to September 1974);
Arthur W. Brownell, Commissioner** (to February Douglas Monteith* (as of March 1974). Alan Hutchings* (as of September 1974); Earl
1975); Dr. Bette Woody, Commissioner** (as of Department of Commerce Nichols (as of September 1974).
June 1975). National Weather Service: Norman L. Canfield** Fish and Wildlife Service: Melvin Evans**; Roy
Divisioa of Water Resources: Charles Kennedy**; (to September 1975); Albert Kachic**; Joseph J. Landstrom*; Dewey Castor; Dave Ferguson; Fred
Emerson Chandler* (as of June 1974); Clinton Wat- Brumbak. Benson; Tom Oliver.
son* (to June 1974). National Marine Fisheries Services: Russell T. National Park Service: David Clark**; David Kim-
Water Resources Commission: Robert E. Laut- Norriss**; Christopher Mantzaris*. ball; Richard Giamberdine.
zenheiser. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Henry DeGraff; University of Massachusetts (consultants for
Department of Community Affairs MrtGene Janisch. NPS): Ervin Zube; Julius Gy Fabos; R. Jeffrey Riot-
Lewis S. W. Crampton, Commissioner (to Feb- Maritime Administration: William S. Cham- te*.
Lewis S. W. rampton, Commissioner*. (to Feb- bers**; Robert L. Safarik. U.S. Geological Survey: Michael Frimpter*
ruary 1975); David Terry*.
Resources Management Policy Council Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Federal Power Commission
Vincent Ciampa. Corps of Engineers Martin Inwald*; Jonas Barish*.
Planning Division: Joseph Ignazio, Chief** (to June
Department of Environmental Quality Engineer- 1974).
ing Policy and Long Range Planning Branch: Law- ** Policy level Coordinating Group
Division of Environmental Health (formerly De- rence Bergen, Chief**; (As of June 1974); John * Technical level Study Management Team
partment of Public Health): George Coogan. Landall*; Gardner Blodgett*; Paul Pronovost.
Division of Water Pollution Control: Tom Mac- Plan Formulation Branch: Steven Onysko
Mahon**; Dick Young*; Al Cooperman*. Coastal Development Branch: Harvey Minsky
Department of Housing and Urban Development
David Prescott** (to September 1974); Sheldon Gil-
bert** (as of September 1974); JGA/Wallace, Floyd,
Ellenzweig* (consultants).

REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
Merrimack Valley Regional Planning Commis- REGIONAL SCIENTIFIC TASK FORCE
sion Gordon Abbott, Milton, Ma.; Dr. Daniel Aldrich III,
Margaret Concannon; Stephen Aradas North Dartmouth, Ma.; Nancy Anderson, Reading,
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (also HUD, Ma.; Arthur Barnes; West Newton, Ma.; Gerald
SENE Study Consultants) Beals, Easton, Ma.; Leo Bouchard, Smithfield, R.I.;
James Miller; Lawrence Brennan; Bob Joseph (to Prof. Derek Bradford, Providence, R.I.; Jack Con-
May 1974). way, Hanover, Ma.; John Davis, Pawcatuck, Conn.;
Peter Donovan*, Brighton, Ma.; Charles E. Downe,
Old Colony Planning Council West Newton, Ma.; Dr. Madge Ertel, Amherst, Ma.;
Daniel Crane; Robert McMahon. Dennis Ducsik, Cambridge, Ma.; Michael Everett*,
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Providence, R.I.; Dr. John W. Farrington, Woods
Commission Hole, Ma.; Barbara Fegan, Chairman, South
Robert Robes; Paul Doane. Wellfleet, Ma.; Michael Frucci, Hyannis, Ma.; Dr.
Frederick Glantz, Boston, Ma.; William Graves,
Dukes County Planning and Economic Develop- Raynham, Ma.; Rolf Hardy, Boston, Ma.; Robert A.
ment Commission Harpell, Cumberland, R.I.; Alfred Hawkes, Provi-
Robert Kormives. dence, R.I.; Paul Hicks, Providence, R.I.; Dorothy
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Hunnewell, Wellesley, Ma.; Nancy Hustvedt,
Commission Woburn, Ma.; John Kellam, Providence, R.I.;Walter
William R. Klein. Kelly, Waltham, Ma.; Dr. Bostwick Ketchum*,
Woods Hole, Ma.; Paul Klotz, Westerly, R.I.; Ken
Central Massachusetts Regional, Planning Corn- Lagerquist, Seekonk, Ma.; Maurice Leduc, Coven-
David H. Kellogg; James Arnold. try, R.I.; Frank Lee, Boston, Ma.; Elwood Leonard,
Ashton, R.I.; Glenn McNary, North Falmouth, Ma.;
Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Dr. Sanford: Moss, Westport, Ma.; Herbert Nicker-
Development District son, Gloucester, Ma.; Ed Plumley, Westboro, Ma.;
William Toole; Eric Savolainen; Steven Smith; Spencer Potter, Jamestown, R.I.; Ted Prall, Boston,
Alexander Zaleski. Ma.; Martha Reardon, Quincy, Ma.; James Rogers,
Southeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Lexington, Ma.; Dr. Neils Rorholm*, Kingston,
SoutheAg ency R.I.; Neil Ross, Kingston, R.I.; John T. Scanlon,
Richard B. Erickson East Greenwich, R.I.; Dr. William Seifert*, Cam-
bridge, Ma.; Roland Sherman (to May 1975), Wor-
CONSULTANTS (not otherwise shown) cester, Ma.; Barbara Sjoberg, Pawtucket, R.I.;
Urban Waters Special Study Frederick Smith*, Cambridge, Ma.; Reed Stewart,
Skidmoren Owings & Meriall Marshfield Hills, Ma.; Merlin Szosz, Foster, R.I.;
Dr. Clarence Tarzwell*, Wakefield, R.I.; Marshall
Economic Analysis Taylor, West Somerville, Ma.; Jens Thornton, Quin-
Nathaniel Clapp, Barry C. Field; John M. Gates; cy, Ma.; Bruce Tripp, Woods Hole, Ma.;Ivan Valie-
Thomas Grigalunas; J. G. Sutiner; Gregory A. Vaut. la, Woods Hole, Ma.; Thomas Weaver, Kingston,
Legal and Institutional Analysis R.I.
*RSTF Member
Thomas Arnold; Morton Gorden, Development Sci-
ences, Inc.; Frances X. Cameron, Interface; Edward
R. Kaynor; Edward Selig.
Planning Analysis
William V. McGuinness, Jr.; Robert Gidez and Paul
Merkens, Intasa; Harry Schwartz.
Public Participation
Survey Research Program; Stephen Logowitz.