(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Wastewater engineering and management plan for Boston harbor - eastern Massachusetts metropolitan area emma study, technical data volume 13: impact analysis and evaluation, 13a: biological impact analysis, 13b: socioeconomic impact analysis, 13c: hygienic impact analysis, 13d: visual, cultural and design impact analysis"

BOSTON 
PUBLIC 
LIBRARY 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/wastewaterengine0413mass 



WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 

FOR 

QSTON HARBOR - EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS METROPOLITAN AREA 

| EMMA STUDY 

TECHNICAL DATA VOL. 13D 
VISUAL, CULTURAL AND DESIGN IMPACT ANALYSIS 




OCTOBER 1975 



WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 
FOR 
Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area 

EMMA STUDY 

INDEX TO REPORT VOLUMES 



SUMMARY REPORT 

MAIN REPORT 

Technical Data Volumes 

1. Planning Criteria 

2. Engineering Criteria 

3* Industrial Process Wastewater Analysis and Regulation 
3A. Study of Certain Industrial Wastes 
3B. Study of Wastes from Large Industries 

h. Water Oriented Wastewater Utilization Concepts. 

5. Land Oriented Wastewater Utilization Concepts 

6. Formulation of Wastewater Utilization Plan 

7. Combined Sewer Overflow Regulation 

8. Urban Stormwater Management 

8A. Appendix to Urban Stormwater Management 

9. MDC Interceptor and Pumping Station Analysis and 
Improvements 

10. Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Analysis and 
Improvements 

11. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Analysis and 
Improvements 

12. Financing and Management 

13. Impact Analysis and Evaluation 
13A. Biological Impact Analysis 
13B. Socio-economic Impact Analysis 
13C. Hygienic Impact Analysis 

13D. Visual, Cultural and Design Impact Analysis 
LU. Public Involvement 

15. Recommended Plan and Implementation Program 

16. Agency Reviews 



IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 
OF 
VISUAL-CULTURAL AND DESIGN IMPACTS 

OF 
REGIONAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION i 

REGIONAL BASELINE CONDITIONS 

General 1 

Development Patterns 1 

Landscape Character 6 

Open Space & Recreation 9 

Existing Sewer Systems 18 

Concept Proposals , 25 

METHODOLOGY 30 

Definitions 30 

Matrix 31 

VISUAL-CULTURAL AND DESIGN IMPACTS 

Findings; General 34 

Concept One 35 

Concept Two 53 

Concept Three 58 

Concept Four 59 

Concept Five 62 

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS 

Regional 72 

Region; Summary 77 

Site Specific 78 

Site Specific; Summary 79 

Preferred Concept 79 

Selected Concept 80 

APPENDIX: SITE SPECIFIC BASELINE DATA AND MATRIX FORMS 

Appendix A: Concepts one, two, three & four 86 

Appendix B: Concept five 243 

Appendix C: Selected Concept 264 



INTRODUCTION : 

The intent of this report is to identify and 
assess the potential visual-cultural and design impacts 
resulting from the implementation of any of five re- 
gional concepts for wastewater treatment within the 
Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area 
(BH-EMMA) . The report is one of several impact assess- 
ments commissioned by the New England Division of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The other assessments 
consider potential hygenic, socio-economic and ecolo- 
gical impacts resulting from concept implementation. 

All of the impact assessments are part of a larger, 
on going study by the Metropolitan District Commission. 
The purpose and intent of their study is to investigate 
the anticipated wastewater problems and needs of the 
109 communities within the BH-EMMA, and to propose and 
evaluate regional advanced wastewater management and 
treatment concepts for the area in accordance with the 
goals, objectives and requirements of the 1972 Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. 

The MDC has commissioned a consulting engineering 
firm to develop and prepare four regional concepts for 
advanced wastewater management and treatment in the BH- 
EMMA. The central feature of all of these concepts is 
either the expansion or contraction of the existing MDC 
Metropolitan Sewerage District, with remaining communi- 
ties utilizing regional or municipal systems. Many of 
these municipal systems currently exist, but will 
require expansion and upgrading of their treatment 
processes. All of the concepts discharge treated 
effluent into surface waters. The locations of these 
discharge points and the subsequent flow volumes in 
either inland streams and rivers or Boston Harbor 
varies between the concepts. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has commissioned 
the development of a fifth concept that utilizes land 
application as the final advanced treatment process. 
This concept was prepared by another consulting engi- 
neering firm and is based, to a large degree, on the 
previously prepared Concept Four. Concept Five proposes 
that five of the regional, advanced treatment facilities 
in Concept Four be constructed as regional, secondary 
facilities. These plants will be connected by a mole 



tun'hel. Effluent will enter the tunnel at the Woburn 
plant and additional flows will be fed into the tunnel 
by plants in Medford, Watertown, Dedham and Canton. At 
Canton, the tunnel ends and effluent will be transported 
by surface force mains to previously selected land 
application sites (rapid infiltration and spray irriga- 
tion) outside the BH-EMMA. Treatment for areas not 
served by these five facilities is identical to that 
proposed by Concept Four. 

The focus of the identification and assessment of 
potential visual-cultural and design impacts will be on 
the following areas; 

1. "The visual impact of proposed treatment 
facilities and sites on historical, cultural and archae- 
ological sites; open space and recreational areas and 
significant natural features; and adjacent land uses 
and development" . 

2. "The design impacts from the visual-cultural 
view point of proposed treatment facilities including 
site plans, architecture, and landscaping of project 
facilities; public access to water bodies; and rela- 
tionships to adjacent development" . 

3. "The consistency of proposed treatment facil- 
ities and sites with local, regional and state land 
use, open space, and historic preservation plans and 
designs" . 

4. "The integration of wastewater sewerage 
systems with existing or planned rights of way and 
transportation corridors". 

5. "The effects of proposed treatment facilities 
upon the quality of air within the region. The pro- 
jected resultant air quality shall be discussed in 
relationship to Federal, state and local air quality 
standards" . 

6. "The noise level to be expected from the 
facilities in relationship to the current noise levels 
in the area under construction" . 

Many of the above items are certainly regional in 
nature. The five concepts were developed as broad, area 



li 



wide plans and their level of detail is somewhat con- 
sistant with this approach. However, contractual 
direction has been to concentrate study emphasis on 
site specific impacts. As such, suggested plant/facil- 
ity sites, as well as flow projections and area re- 
quirements developed for the various contract years 
(2000, 2020, 2050) have been taken as rather firm con- 
tract givens. 

In reality, this study will probably raise more 
issues and questions than it will address and attempt 
to answer. On its own, its value in determining either 
the need and/or desirability of a regional approach to 
wastewater management, or the selection of one con- 
cept over another, is minimum. The full value of this 
study cannot be realized until it is used in combina- 
tion with other assessments as part of an overall 
screening and review process. This process may well 
determine that resultant impacts are too severe, and 
that the regional concepts should be abandoned. Or, it 
may reveal the need for the development of another con- 
cept; a "hybrid", composed of the best elements from 
the study proposals. No matter what the final outcome 
may be, the important point to realize is that the full 
value of the impact assessments cannot be realized until 
they are made part of a complete, thorough, and properly 
weighted screening process . 



in 



THE STUDY AREA: BASELINE CONDITIONS 

General Description : The BH-EMMA study area is 
the greater Boston region extending out to its present 
outer ring of growth, roughly the arc of Route 495. It 
extends north to Gloucester, west to Northboro, and 
south to Wrentham and Pembroke. It includes 109 cities 
and towns in eastern Massachusetts and is approximately 
coterminus with the mempership area of the Metropolitan 
Area Planning Council (MAPC) . The area contains the 
Weymouth, Neponset, Charles, Ipswich and "Suasco" River 
basins along with most of the north and south coastal 
drainage areas. In 1970, the area had a population of 
three million, one hundred and twenty-nine thousand, 
two hundred (3,129,200). Projections for the year 2000 
indicate an increase to three million, eight hundred 
and six thousand (3,806,000). 

Development Patterns : The MAPC has divided their 
planning area into sectors and rings. As the accompa- 
nying map shows, the sectors are the Northeast, North, 
Northwest, West, Southwest and Southeast, each radial 
from the Core which includes Boston, Brookline, Cam- 
bridge, Somerville, Everett and Chelsea. The rings are 
the Route 128 Inner Suburbs, the Bay-Circuit Inter- 
mediate Suburbs, and the Outer Suburbs, the last being 
roughly defined by an arc along Route 495. As of 1970, 
30.2% of the total population was in the core, 34.5% 
was in the first ring, 27.8% was in the second ring, 
and 7.49% in the third ring. Except for the decade of 
the forties, the Core has been losing population while 
the surrounding areas have been gaining. The areas of 
most rapid growth have been moving further and further 
out. During the sixties, the Intermediate Suburbs had 
57.8% of all suburban growth. Most significantly, the 
Outer Suburbs, which previously had less than 10 per- 
cent of each decades suburban growth, accounted for 
over 20 percent of such growth during the sixties, 
almost matching the inner suburbs. Few of the Towns in 
the Outer Suburbs are sewered. Thus, the most rapid 
growth is now occuring in areas which lack sewer service 
The distribution and density of such growth within 
these rings will largely reflect future provisions for 
sewage treatment. Many areas which can tolerate only 
low density housing should be much more uniformly 
developed if the whole region is sewered. 



-1- 





2 






< 






En 






M 




^ 


^ 


2 


< o 


O 


Eh 


CU 


H 


O 


O 


U 


&H 


& 


W 




Eh 


rt 




W 






£ 







co 


a 


m 


w 


« 


H 


D 


D 


PQ 


o 


p 




CO 





w 




Eh 


Eh 




H 


< CO 


D 


M 


PQ 


U 


Q 


PS 


g 


W 


P 


H 


Jg! 


PQ 


U 


Ph 


D 




w 


CO 


>H 


Eh 




<C 2 




PQ 


H 





00 



CO 
PQ 
PS « 
W D 
2 PQ 
2 D 
H CO 



CN 


rH 


cn 


r- 


r* 


If) 


CN 


00 


K£> 


r^ 


rH 


o 


•. 


«. 


^ 


■k 


r- 


Cn 


<X> 


cn 


t 


rH 


"^ 


^o 




CN 


CN 


CM 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


CN 


CN 


O 


T 


H 


en 


r- 


en 


r^ 


Cn 


cn 


r- 


«. 


•» 


». 


^ 


CN 


rH 


rH 


00 




H 


en 


*x> 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 



o 


CM 


in 


rH 


o 


O 


"<* 


r* 


rH 


O 


IT) 


rH 


» 


*. 


». 


■> 


00 


*£> 


r- 


m 


H 


\o 


o 


cn 






CM 


rH 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 



00 


o 


U1 


CN 


CN 


ST 


CO 


CN 


vo 


"^ 


>£> 


cn 


v. 


«. 


«. 


V 


if) 


*£> 


CN 


en 


^r 


o\ 


H 


r^ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


00 


|-» 


H 


o 


VO 


rH 


r*» 


^r 


r^ 


ro 


o 


r^ 


•. 


». 


•» 


V 


00 


LD 


V£> 


00 


rH 


<ff 


en 


KO 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


en 


<* 


LD 


U3 


r- 


cn 


en 


cn 


en 


cn 



en 
en 

CN 

00 

+ 



CO 

o 



00 
rH 

00 

<o 

00 

+ 



in 
r» 

00 

in 
en 

+ 



CN 
CN 
00 



w 


o 


u 


r- 


2 


en 


<C 


H 


ffi 




u 


1 


J 


o 


< 


m 


Eh 


en 


O 


rH 


Eh 





2 




O 




H 




Eh 




< 




.H" 


O 


P 


r^ 


Pm 


en 


O 


rH 


Pm 


1 




o 


2 


en 


rt! 


en 


Eh 


rH 


H 




hQ 


I 


o 




Pn 


W 


o 


Q 


Ph 


< 


Eh 


U 


W 


w 


s 


Q 


,-q 


K 


< 


U 


Eh 


< 


O 


w 


Eh 






2 


P-. 


H 


O 






i 


2 


s 


O 


H 


o 


Eh 


pel 


P 


u 


PQ 




H 




PS 




Eh 




CO 





w 
-p 
-p 
<u 
w 

u 

CO 
0) 

w 
id 



p 
o 

CO 



1A 



§ 


EH 


H 


a .-3 £ 
3 o o 


Eh CU H 


O O O 


H PS W 
Eh 2 



00 




o 




^H 




o 




r- 




on 




r* 




CM 




in 




co 




rH 


<*> 


00 


(*> 


VO 


<*> 


h- 


c*> 


00 


dP 


■k 


o 


N> 


o 


%» 


o 


•«. 


O 


«» 


O 


<T> 


o 


VO 


o 


vo 


o 


(N 


O 


iH 


o 


cr\ 


t-i 


VO 


rH 


VO 


rH 


fH 


rH 


00 


rH 


co 




^ 




VO 




CF> 




r-\ 





CM 



CM 



CM 



CM 



CO 



co 


PS CQ 


W tf 


En P 


D CQ 


O P 


CO 




00 

cm co 


H pq 


tf P4 


• W P 


W2« 


En S P 


«HW 



r^ 




on 




rH 




rH 




in 




co 


<*P 


*r 


(#> 


^ 


dP 


rH 


<*> 


^ 


dP 


CM 


o 


on 


o 


on 


o 


<T> 


r* 


vo 


*& 


on 


in 


rH 


in 


CO 


in 


m 


in 


•«* 


r-» 


rH 




CM 




CO 




10 




ro 




rH 




rH 




rH 




rH 




CM 





<* 




*T 




vo 




r-i 




CM 




r^ 


dp 


r^ 


dP 


r- 


dP 


CM 


(*> 


on 


0P 


in 


vo 


VO 


O 


VO 


rH 


CM 


r- 


co 


00 


r^ 


vo 


in 


r^ 


rH 


00 


on 


CO 


**• 


r^ 


on 


r-i 


r-\ 


t-i 


00 


t-l 


00 


CM 


00 


CM 


CO 




*# 




■^ 




VO 




00 





00 


<*» 


vo 


dP 


vo 


dP 


rH 


dP 


CO 


dP 


H 


On 


^ 


CM 


00 


CM 


r- 


CN 


on 


VO 


on 


• 


in 


• 


CT\ 


• 


vo 


• 


in 


• 


* 


o 


a. 


CM 


•» 


co 


* 


in 


*. 


•*r 


H 


co 


C-* 


CO 


CO 


CO 


vo 


CO 


o 


CO 


«* 




00 




00 




CM 




o 




r^ 




r^ 




00 




O 




t-i 





CT» 




rH 




00 




r-» 




r-» 




VO 




o 




r-{ 




■^ 




o 




"tf 


dP 


r^ 


dP 


o 


dP 


on 


dP 


CM 


dP 


k> 


in 


« 


00 


% 


00 


•. 


-^ 


h 


CM 


o 


• 


r-i 


• 


r* 


• 


o 


• 


CM 


• 


^ 


r- 


CM 


in 


vo 


CO 


CO 


in 


VO 


O 


r-i 


^ 


r-i 


^* 


r-\ 


^ 


o 


CO 


CA 


ro 



< 


o 


En 


r- 


H 


on 


t-1 


r-i 


O 


1 


(h 


o 


O 


CO 


« 


on 


En 


rH 



w 



Eh 


rtj 


O 


u 


Eh 


w 




Q 


W 




ffi 


« 


Eh 


U 




< 


^ 


w 


O 






s 


S 


H 


o 




H 


2 


Eh 


O 


P 


H 


PQ 


Eh 


H 

P4 


5 


Eh 


P 


CO 


Pn 


H 


O 


Q 


Pm 



PS 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


< 


CO 


•<* 


in 


vo 


r» 


w 


on 


en 


on 


On 


on 


>H 


rH 


H 


rH 


r-\ 


rH 



8 

CO 



IB 



2 




< 




H 




H 




J 


2 


o 


O 


Cm 


H 


o 


O 


ex 


w 


EH 


a 


s! 







CO 


a 


PQ 


w 


« 


H 


D 


D 


PQ 


O 


D 




en 





w 




H 


En 




H 


<C CQ 


3 


H 


CQ 


U 


Q 


CX 


tf w 


D 


H 
U 


§ 


D 




W 


CO 


>H 


Eh 




< 2 




PQ 


H 




CO 






CM 




00 


rH 




cq 




Hi 


2 


• 


U 


D 


H 


2 


PQ 


H 


2 


D 



PS H CO 



o 




<* 




O 




r* 




^ 




co 




O 




(N 




"sT 


tiP 


^ 


dP 


CM 


dP 


00 


tiP 


». 


O 


». 


O 


« 


O 


». 


O 


1 vo 


o 


«tf 


O 


CM 


O 


r^ 


O 


VO 


H 




rH 


00 

CO 


rH 


n 

CO 


iH 


+ 




+ 




+ 




+ 




CM 




CM 




o 




•^ 




iH 




<y\ 




r- 




CO 




r^ 


tiP 


<j\ 


dp 


<y\ 


tiP 


r^ 


tiP 


a. 


H 


«. 


cr> 


». 


•^r 


•. 


CO 


1 CM 


• 


rH 


• 


rH 


• 


00 


• 




** 


H 


VO 


CO 


00 


VO 


o 

CM 


+ 




+ 




+ 




+ 





O 




CM 




in 




rH 




O 


dP 


o 


tiP 


^r 


o\° 


r» 


tiP 


rH 


CM 


o 


00 


in 


CO 


iH 


00 


00 


r- 


vo 


r^ 


r^ 


^r 


in 


r- 


rH 

+ 


CM 


vo 

+ 


CO 


o 

CM 

+ 


in 


cr> 

rH 

+ 


in 





dp 




tiP 




tiP 




dp 


00 


r^ 


o 


CO 


in 


CO 


CM 


<S\ 


CM 


• 


"T 


• 


CO 


• 


CM 


• 


vo 


CO 


^r 


in 


VO 


r^ 


(T> 


H 


». 


vo 


•» 


in 


». 


CO 


«. 


CM 


in 




vo 




CM 




CO 




■^ 




CT\ 




"Stf 




r^ 





O 


o 


CO 


^r 


en 


CTs 



o 
in 



o 

vo 



o 

CA 



o 




a\ 


tip 


*> 


o 


o 


o 


vo 


H 


C\ 




+ 




00 




o 


dP 


«3* 


o 



in cm 



oo 



rH 


dP 


00 


r- 


•» 


• 


VO 


o 


00 


in 


^ 




+ 







tip 


in 


CO 


r^ 


• 


vo 


r- 


«. 


CO 


00 




in 




CO 




+ 







U 




kJ 


X 




J 


w 




< 








2 


w 


►J 


O 


&H 


3 


H 


o 


Eh 


u 


u 





w 




H 


CX 









(0 






>H 






•H 


EC 




id 


Eh 




VM 


£ 




UH 


O 




<c 


tf 






O 




>1 


2 


o 


•H 


O 


r^- 


c! 


H 


CT\ 


3 


Eh 


iH 


g 


< 


1 


£ 


A 


o 


o 


£> 


CO 


u 


Pn 


CT\ 




O 


iH 


m 


PU 


1 





2 


1 


+» 


< 


W 


c 


PQ 


Q 


OJ 


(X 


< 


E 


D 


U 


+3 


CQ 


H 


^ 


tJ 


Q 


fd 


CO 




P4 




ffi 


(U 


Cm 


U 


Q 


o 


*C 






W 


CO 


2 




-M 


O 


2 


4J 


H 


H 


0) 


Eh 




to 


D 




3 


PQ 




A 


H 




u 


P4 




fd 


Eh 




CO 


CO 




CO 


H 




cd 


Q 




S 

• 

cn 
0) 

Cm 



D 
O 
CO 



1C 



In any case, we should not treat the rings as 
being homogeneous. We should look at patterns of 
growth revealed by the division of the region into 
sectors. In the past, the Core and Northeast Sector 
grew most rapidly. However, over the last several 
decades rapid growth has taken place in the Western, 
Southwestern, and Southeastern sectors. The most rapid 
growth has been in the large coastal portion of the 
Southeastern sector. Growth increased in that sector 
by 63.1 percent during the sixties. At present, the 
two most rapidly growing sectors are the fifth sub- 
sector of the Southeastern sector, and the whole South- 
west sector. The first reflects growth along the 
coastal area and the impact of the construction of 
Route 3. Growth in the Southwestern sector presumably 
reflects the existence of much undeveloped land in that 
area, as well as a tendency for metropolitan regions to 
grow towards one another, in this case, towards Prov- 
idence and New York. 

The MAPC and MDC have developed goals, objectives, 
and policy recommendations in light of these patterns 
of regional growth. Among these or suggested by these 
are (1) protection of quality landscapes and an in- 
crease in landscape variety; (2) the preservation and 
improvement of existing open space; (3) a focus of 
development along well defined corridors to provide 
maximum possibilities for public transportation and for 
efficiently used infra-structure investments generally; 
(4) a need to focus on the metropolitan core in order 
to preserve and take advantage of the strengths of 
Boston itself and (5) , most basic to the study, the 
need for improved water quality, particularly surface 
water quality. 

Development Patterns; Proposals : The Metropolitan 
Area Planning Council staff reviewed soil capabilities, 
land availability, and transportation within their 
planning region. Their review included extensive areas 
of land generally suitable for development, given 
adequate sewerage service. These areas included swamp, 
marsh, and areas of steep slope, but not areas of high 
water table or of poor perculation. The Council staff 
was also aware of the increasing number of towns re- 
quiring lots of one acre or more, and contrasted this 
to the average half acre per unit common to most new, 
single family, house construction. The Council decided 



-2- 



to recommend two units per acre as a basic density 
umbrella for most of the region, with certain areas at 
a higher density. 

The term "density umbrella" refers to an average 
density for areas to be developed in a given town. It 
allows for a range of densities, so long as this aver- 
age is maintained. Furthermore, the average is inten- 
ded to be a minimum. The intent is to prevent exten- 
sive areas of very low density development from con- 
suming vast amounts of land, raising service costs, and 
precluding preservation of areas for public use. 

Another result of the Council's review was the 
formulation of two alternative development guides. The 
first, referred to as "Controlled Dispersal Development 
Guide" , assumes that the bulk of the area outside Route 
12 8 would be developed at the basic two units per acre 
average, while nearly all the land within Route 128 
would range from 3 to 4 units per acre, and up. The 
second, called the "Composite Development Guide", 
features several corridors of higher, minimum density 
development running well past Route 128. The eastern 
most of these corridors extends south from Quincy 
through Brockton. The southwestern corridor extends 
southwest from Boston to Foxborough. The western 
corridor spreads west from Newton through Framingham, 
to Marlboro and Hudson. Finally, the northern, and 
northeast corridors extend to Wilmington and Danvers 
respectively. 

Presumbably, the "Composite Development Guide" 
approach would leave more open land between the devel- 
opment corridors since the higher minimum density 
required within those corridors would provide for a 
larger portion of the region's growth. While the 
Composite Guide would improve connections from the 
outer area to Boston, it would also facilitate residen- 
tial development in certain sectors of the closer-in 
surrounding area. This might strengthen the core as a 
place of employment and accellerate residential devel- 
opment in the well-served outlying areas. 



3- 



The Council sees the Controlled Dispersal Guide as 
concentrating growth in the intermediate suburbs, while 
the Composite Guide increases growth in the fringe 
areas and retains more population in the core. In all, 
the differences between the two Guides are as follows: 

1. Density Patterns ; The Controlled Dispersal 
Guide would have seventy-five cities and towns in the 
basic two units per acre range, 14 cities and towns at 
3 to 4 units per acre and 21 at 5-plus units per acre. 
The Composite Guide has only 48 towns in the low, 2 
units per acre range, 24 cities and towns in 3 to 4 
units per acre, and 3 8 at 5 units per acre and above. 
The Controlled Dispersal Guide would result in a popu- 
lation growth of 942,700, consuming about 128,143 acres 
resulting in average density from development of about 
2.1 units a acre. In contrast, the Composite Guide 
assumes a growth within the MAPC study area of only 
920,000 population (because of portions of the overall 
growth going to the outer fringe areas outside of the 
city area). It would house this growth over 113,822 
acres, resulting in a average density for new develop- 
ment of about 2.4 units per acre. (To calculate these 
densities we have assumed an average household the size 
of 3.4 persons.) 

2. Circulation Patterns : The Controlled Dis- 
persal Guide, despite its name, allows for extensive 
development since it proposes a "circumferential grid" 
system with extensive improvement to arterial highways. 
It would result in 617 miles of freeway including the 
new intermediate circumf rential route running from 
Route 9 5 north, to Route 3 south, as previously men- 
tioned. The resulting pattern would give somewhat 
uniform accessability to the whole region between Route 
128 and Route 495. 

The Controlled Dispersal Guide recommended limited 
transit extensions, essentially those in the 1966 MBTA 
plan, while the Composite Concept included extensive 
corridors with lines running as far west as Framingham, 
as far north as Wilmington, and as far south as Nor- 
wood, Holbrook and Rockland. Thus the Controlled 
Dispersal Guide appears to be a "filling in" of suburban 
areas in preference to either the core or the fringe 
areas. The Composite Guide is more selective, proposing 
several radial corridors. These would have both freeway 



-4- 



and improved arterial systems along with the extended 
transit service. Within these corridors, there would 
be a higher degree of access than within the region 
generally under Controlled Dispersal. In all, the 
Composite Guide would leave us with 519 miles of freeway, 
and about twice as much transit coverage as the Con- 
trolled Dispersal Guide. 

3. Employment Patterns : The two guides propose 
distribution of employment roughly according to their 
circulation systems. The Controlled Dispersal Guide 
calls for employment growth at existing expanded indus- 
trial parks, at shopping centers along Route 12 8, at 
existing, major radial roads, and at points of MBTA 
access. It also calls for major industrial and shopp- 
ing expansion in the areas of Routes 95 and 495, for 
other growth along the new circumfential Route between 
Routes 128 and 495, and at certain points (Route 2, 
Route 29 0, Route 9 and Route 109) along Route 49 5. The 
Composite Guide calls for large scale employment growth, 
particularly within the radial transportation corridors, 
and near MBTA access points. Existing industrial parks 
and shopping centers would expand when located near 
Route 12 8, other regular highways, or the major MBTA 
facilities. The greatest concentration of growth would 
apparently be in the Framingham, Natick, Ashland area. 
Thus, both guides have a large proportion of growth 
occuring in outlying areas. The difference between 
them, as developed through computer simulations, are 
very slight and somewhat contradictory. Despite the 
great emphasis on transportation corridors and transit 
service focusing on Boston, the Composite Guide is pre- 
dicted to end up with 34.0 percent of all employment in 
the core, while the Controlled Dispersal Guide has 
35.6% remaining in the core. 

The differences between the Guides is also very 
slight with respect to the distribution of employment 
across the sectors. This is particularly surprising 
since the difference between the Guides is that the 
Composite Guide involves concentrating growth in sectors 
of very high access, while the Controled Dispersal 
Guide stresses spreading roads and access rather broadly 
across the suburban and outer suburban areas. Pro- 
tected population distributions are also surprisingly 
similar. Thus the Composite Guide has only slightly 



-D- 



more population (23.4 percent) remaining in the core 
than the Controlled Dispersal Guide (22.3 percent), 
even though the radial transportation emphasis on the 
core means that it remains the place from which one can 
commute to jobs either in the city, or along the corri- 
dors of development. 

Both guides save considerable amounts of land for 
growth to continue. The differences between the guides 
remain less than their similarlarities . * 

Regional Landscape Character : The landscape of 
the BH-EMMA has been described in Appendix N of the 
North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study (NAR) . 
Appendix N is titled "Visual and Cultural Environment", 
and while broad in scope due to the overall size of its 
study area, it does offer sufficient information to 
establish a landscape character baseline for the BH- 
EMMA. 



*By 1990 the controlled dispersal quide would re- 
tain 58.1 percent of the inner suburban land, 69.5 per- 
cent of the intermediate suburban land, and 84.3 per- 
cent of the outer suburban land that was available in 
1963. The Composite Guide would retian a larger 62.9 
percent of the inner suburban land, and 72.7 percent of 
the intermediate suburban land, and a slightly small 

83.5 percent of the outer suburban land. 

Slightly greater difference exist between the 
plans in terms of the land used in various sectors. 
Thus the higher density corridors in the Composite plan 
would leave 6 4.9 percent of the land in the northern 
sector still available in 1990 compared to 56.9 percent 
under the control dispersal plan, and it would leave 

71.6 percent of the developable land in the south 
sector available compared to 66.9 percent under Con- 
trolled Dispersal plan. Nonetheless the differences 
really are not great particularly when the figures 
themselves are subject to variations that can occur in 
any set of projections. 



-6- 



The appendix describes various portions of the 
region in terms of seven landscape series, seven land- 
scape units, and three levels of landscape quality. 
Eight specific "Composite Landscape Quality Areas" were 
also designated. "Landscape Needs" were also deter- 
mined by indicating areas for preservation or protec- 
tion, and areas needing development of either "quality 
landscapes", or metropolitan amenities. 

In these broad terms, the highly urbanized, rela- 
tively level study area was found to have a "medial" 
overall landscape quality, with few areas to preserve, 
and a general need for improvement. The improvements 
needed would increase metropolitan amenities in urban 
areas and improve landscape quality in peripheral 
areas. 

Landscape Series ; are divisions of the landscape 
which are identified by the general visual impression 
gained from the repetition of a dominant landform over 
a large area. They consist of Mountain, Steep Hill, 
Rolling Hill, Undulating Land, Flat Land, and Coastline 
classifications. A seventh, the Compound Series en- 
compasses those landscapes which are a product of two 
series such as parts of the Appalachian Range which 
alternates between Steep Hills and Rolling Hills. 

Landscape Series; Findings : The study area is 
nearly all in Rolling Hills except for the Coastal 
areas, and the southern fringe. These, like Cape Cod 
and the adjoining noncoastal portion of S.E. Massa- 
chusetts were in "undulating land" . Needless to say, 
considerable locally significant variation occurs with- 
in this range. Marshes, dunes and low hills differ 
greatly in residential amenity, ecological sensativity, 
vistas available and their ability to display or hide 
major facilities. Recent issues in Scituate over the 
siting of a proposed municipal incinerator indicate the 
significance of micro-locational differences. 

Landscape Units ; are identified by consistent 
ground pattern - the two-dimensional distribution of 
man-made structures and man-manipulated resources on 
the landscape. If the landscape is envisioned as a 
continuum ranging from that which is completely man- 
made to that which is apparently untouched by man, 



-7- 



Landscape Units represent cross-sections of that conti- 
nuum. The cross-sections represent: Center City, 
Intermediate City, Fringe City, Town-Farm, Farm, Farm- 
Forest, Forest-Town and Forest-Wildland. These units 
are not separated by definitive boundaries but rather 
by zones of transition. The names are indicative of 
the dominant visual image imparted by the landscape so 
classified. 

Landscape Units; Findings : The study area is 
about 20% in the highly developed "Center City" cate- 
gories. About 50% of the surrounding area is in 
"Fringe City" use, which generally follow corridors of 
access and development. The remaining 30% is in Forest- 
Town development. This refers to the status of an 
expanding town generally surrounded by farm land that 
has returned to forest. It is found in the corners of 
the regions, particularly in the southwest corner. The 
adjoining southeastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod areas 
are also in Forest-Town landscape units. 

Landscape Evaluation : Visual landscape quality is 
defined as a landscape pattern which is clearly legible 
and which is composed of pattern generating elements 
arranged so as to maximize visual satisfaction and 
stimulation in conjunction with the varying degrees of 
contrast and spatial variety created by the existing 
landform. The two dimensional distribution of the 
pattern generating elements relates to and is mutually 
reinforced by the complexity and magnitude of the land- 
form. These are landscapes which possess great variety 
in the scale and distribution of open space, forests, 
lakes, wetlands, urbanized areas and landform. The 
landscape is relatively free of misfits. 

The study put most areas into categories requiring 
either: preservation of unique natural area; protection 
of composite landscape; protection of quality landscape; 
development of quality landscape; or development of 
metropolitan amenities. 

Landscape Quality; Findings : The Center City, 
Intermediate City and Fringe City areas were not evalu- 
ated. Perimeter areas were judged to be of medial 
quality. These areas are apparently slightly smaller 
than the areas of Farm-Forest noted above. The adja- 
cent non-coastal portion of southeastern Massachusetts 



-8- 



and the Cape are also in this "medial" quality category, 
As a result, the study area was generally mapped in the 
last two categories. 

Development of quality landscapes relates to the 
need for high quality landscapes near population 
centers. It implies the use of treatment methods that 
can add needed diversity and clarity to the landscape. 
Prime examples of such methods include the addition of 
major water bodies, or the creation of open fields in 
monotonous forest areas through clearance for agricul- 
tural spray irrigation. 

The study found little to protect on a regional 
scale but there are a number of small areas whose pro- 
tection from development would increase long term land- 
scape quality. This concern could argue for using 
these areas for land application if the required site 
preparation and probable subsequent effects of irriga- 
tion and harvesting were compatible with open space use 
of the land. 

The development of metropolitan and urban ameni- 
ties stresses increased access to clean waterways. 
This can range from major riverside parks like the 
Charles River Basin, to local hiking trails along the 
small rivers such as the upper portions of the Neponset 
or Assebet. Such streamways can be particularly impor- 
tant in developing suburban areas as they often offer 
the only significant contrast in topography and vege- 
tation from the surrounding development. And, they are 
often the only "living" feature tieing the neighborhood 
to surrounding natural areas. Thus, opportunities to 
improve stream water quality and to increase stream 
access are both important. Local development policies 
should protect and use the open space potential of 
streams. 

Open Space and Recreation : The MPAC Open Space 
and Recreation plan was completed in 1969, and is now 
under revision. It covers the central 79 cities and 
towns in the MAPC district and about three quarters of 
our study area. It excludes the MAPC ' s "outer suburbs" 
along with a number of the towns which have since 
joined the MAPC, and a number of the towns along the 
northern edge of the study area. However, it includes 
the areas in which open space acquisition and preser- 
vation is most crucial. 



-9- 



The study found that there were about 45,000 acres 
of visually significant park and conservation land 
serving the 2,700,000 residents of the study area. 
These included federal holdings, state parks, land 
reservations and small facilities of the Metropolitan 
District Commission, City and town parks, and holdings 
of semi-public, non-profit groups such as the Trustees 
of Reservations and the Audubon Society. The study 
found that "the land is generally well distributed 
geographically, and is of high quality, protecting 
essential resources and provides recreational opportun- 
ities for many residents of some of the more densely 
developed communities". In addition, the region bene- 
fits from scattered private holdings which are either 
open to informal public uses such as hiking, picnicing, 
etc. , or are important because they provide an open 
space setting for local development or compliment 
adjacent, publicly held, open spaces. However, the 
future of these areas is uncertain without positive 
programs to protect them. Thus, an evaluation of the 
regions open spaces must deal more directly with pri- 
vately and semi-publicly held lands. 

Applying a number of regional open space standards 
to the Boston area the study found that "by almost any 
measurement, the study area is seriously deficient in 
recreation areas and facilities. With a present popu- 
lation 2.7 million, the area should have a minimum of 
67,000 acres of major local and regional parks. Only 
45,000 acres are now available. This gives the area a 
present deficit of 22,000 acres. In 1990, the area 
will have a population close to 3.4 million people. At 
that time, the deficit will have increased to 40,000 
acres unless a new acquisition and development program 
is adopted". Subsequent population projections are 
more conservative, but the overall point presumably 
still holds. 

In addition, the study points out that while these 
needs are for relatively active recreation, there are 
other open space needs which will require additional 
acreage. The study comments that, "It is anticipated 
that the magnitude of open space requirements for 
conservation, service, institutional, and other exten- 



-10- 



sive land uses will substantially increase the gap 
between existing and needed open space acreage" . 
Apparently, the concern is that while such uses will 
increase the apparent open space in terms of regional 
appearance, the resulting land will not necessarally be 
available for recreation and other programs may compete 
for control of land that would otherwise be available 
for recreation. However, in terms of regional form and 
character, the extensive holdings for such uses are a 
considerable asset. The study also notes that while 
many semi-public holdings, such as those of the Audubon 
Society, are valuable for special purpose activities 
such as nature study and bird and wild life sanctu- 
aries, they can not be expected to take the place of 
general recreation areas. Thus, the report indicates 
the need for continued acquisition and development of 
general purpose public open space along with a number 
of specialized forms of public and semi-public open 
space. 

Open Space and Recreation; Trends : Much of the 
visual open space of the region is privately held and 
subject to change. Agricult urial holdings are converted 
to residential or industrial uses as land values go up, 
particularly under situations where taxation reflects 
prospective uses. Yet, it is precisely such agricul- 
tural uses that often provide a variety in the visual 
landscape which is otherwise unavailable in areas of 
natural forest. The study notes that a survey of 
private holdings in excess of 50 acres indicated that 
most such holdings within Route 128 had already been 
subdivided. This pattern is continuing, affecting not 
only farms or other commercially held open lands, but 
some land held for recreational uses, such as golf 
courses. More generally, land in many of the smaller 
towns is presently open because of a combination of low 
population growth, inaccessibility, or inadequancy for 
septic systems. However, much of this land is under 
increased development pressure because of increased 
accessibility. In some cases, such land is held from 
development largely because of its limited capacity for 
on site sewage treatment. In these cases existing de- 
facto open space will be lost more rapidly when town 
sewerage becomes available. Thus, provisions for ex- 
tending sewerage should be accompanied by selective and 
accellerated open space preservation programs. 



-11- 



Additional loses of open space are occuring in 
areas which might be considered "safe". For example, 
some marshes and wet lands, though protected by the 
Hatch-Jones wet lands protection act, have been devel- 
oped. Most notably, a large proportion of the lower 
Neponset marshes in Quincy has recently been converted 
to commercial and high density housing despite its self 
evident scenic, wild life habitant, and flood control 
value. Clearly, even a well developed city or town can 
feel sufficient tax pressure to allow development in 
areas clearly prohibited by the wet lands protection 
legislation. 

Another trend, one which is as much an opportunity 
as a threat, is the continuing release of former mili- 
tary lands by the federal government. In some instances, 
removal of such facilities have led to the creation of 
new state parks. For example, the Wampatuck State Park 
on the Hingham - Cohasset, Norwell border, created from 
portions of the former Cohasset annex of the Hingham 
Naval Munition Depot, is more useful to the public then 
it was as an abandoned military reservation. However, 
some such abandoned facilities can go into private 
hands, and without effective, coordinated, local plann- 
ing, are apt to be lost as open space resources. In 
the case of the Hingham Munition Depot on the Weymouth 
Back River, portions of the land are going into commer- 
cial, housing, and school uses, while the shore line 
and much of the back land is being retained for public 
use. However, without broad, local participation, it 
might have all become a commercial facility resulting 
in less visual and usable open space. 

Open Space and Recreation; Needs : As noted, the 
study found a need to approximately double the amount 
of existing open space for general public recreational 
purposes. Going further, it suggests a total system of 
about 190,000 acres of land for a wide range of recrea- 
tion and conservation purposes. This represents the 
addition of about 145,000 acres to the present 45,000 
acres of public land. Some of the additional land 
would be developed for active recreation and some would 
be held for natural resource purposes. All of it, 
along with many privately and non-profit held lands 
which are open, would add to the visual character of 
the region, help break up and separate areas of devel- 
opment, and provide continuity between special environ- 
mental areas and areas of active recreation. 



-12- 



It is clear that an open space system requires a 
range of land forms and facility types. As suggested, 
its purposes include guiding development of surrounding 
areas, providing for extensively used open spaces, as 
well as compact, actively used ones, unifying smaller 
facilities, and giving access to a range of terrain. 
Also, since the total area proposed is more than twice 
the projected recreation needs for 1990, extensive por- 
tions could probably be used for land application with- 
out constraining recreation use. The need for exten- 
sive land application sites may coincide with the need 
for permanent holdings for form-giving use, for wilder- 
ness preservation, and for, in effect, land banking for 
long term public needs. 

Open Space and Recreation; Proposals : The MAPC 
study began by developing an initial plan and open 
space policy for the whole 152 community eastern Massa- 
chusetts region. This plan consisted of a primary 
system and secondary system. The primary system is 
based on the most significant natural features and 
natural resource areas. It includes "the shorelines; 
the river, streams, and related wet lands; the promi- 
nent hills, ridges, and geological formations; and the 
valuable vegetation and wild life areas". While essen- 
tially reserved for conservation purposes, this system 
would accommodate much of the extensive outdoor needs 
of the region, and a third of it was already in public 
ownership at the time of this study. The secondary 
system includes some land for its location and effects 
on its surrounds, as much as for its basic character, 
and considers cultural and historic areas. It also 
considers the whole 152 community area, but is thought 
of as a step towards designing a more specific system 
within the basic 79 community open space study area. 

Considering open space and recreation, five pos- 
sible forms of metropolitan development were proposed. 
(1) Web; "dispersed urban development shaped by a web 
of open space. The web alternative is a diffused patt- 
ern of open space and low density development that 
reflects historic patterns of growth and current devel- 
opmental trends in surburban centers". (2) Wedge; 
"radial urban development shaped by wedges of open 
space. "In the wedge alternative, urban growth would 
occur along major radial routes of transportation. 
Large wedges of low density development and open space 



-13- 



would separate each of the urban corridors and penetrate 
only to the edge of the core communities" . This 
form of open space will tend to follow from natural 
growth along corridors. In the outlying areas, it 
would provide extensive open space areas within fairly 
close reach of developed areas, but it could leave the 
charater of the region, as experienced in daily life, 
unchanged. Residents might well have less sense of 
extensive open space and fewer glimpses of small scale 
natural settings than they would encounter in the web 
approach. (3) Green Belt; circumf rential rings of 
development separated by green belts of open space. 
This approach, the most classical of open space approa- 
ches, is the opposite of the wedge approach. With a 
half circle of more or less continuous open space 
wrapping around greater Boston, it would seem to give a 
definite edge to the highly developed urban areas. (4) 
Matrix; satellites of development set in a matrix of 
open space. The distinguishing feature of the matrix- 
satellite plan is that sizable community centers would 
be encouraged to develop outside the core area. This 
concept assumes that most future development occurs in 
free-standing "satellite" centers with the area around 
them remaining as open space. (5) "Composite"; "the 
proposed open space pattern combines the primary system 
with the best elements of each of the alternatives 
secondary systems. Each system of wedges and green 
belts is proposed to define large scale metropolitan 
form, while the matrix and web patterns are used to 
delinate the structure of the open space at a local 
scale". Thus, the composite scheme has alternating 
corridors of relatively intense development, and of 
relatively undeveloped land. The wedges of undeveloped 
land essentially start at the existing metropolitan 
parks system. As before, the inner ends of the wedges 
are "anchored" by existing, new, or extensively expanded 
regional parks. In addition, two green belts are pro- 
posed to separate development in the core and outlying 
suburban development. The inner green belt is primarily 
a series of relatively narrow strips of open space 
linking the major metropolitan parks and extending to 
the sea at each end. 

This overall "Composite" concept was approved by 
the MAPC council membership in December, 1965 as being 
the "Initial Plan Open Space Policy". It guided the 
planning work leading to the present Open Space and 
Recreation Plan and Program. The Plan itself is rela- 



-14- 



tively consistent with the MAPC's Composite Development 
Guide alternate. That is, the broad corridors of 
development are largely those shown for high and moder- 
ate density development in the Composite Development 
Guide. The medium density and low density wedges are 
generally those proposed for low density development in 
the Guide. However, more explicit actions in zoning 
and in open space requisition, as well as in transpor- 
tation policy, will be needed if the proposed pattern 
is to remain for any length of time. 

In all, there is a broad parallel between the 
initial Open Space Plan Proposals and the Composite 
Development Guide, and only a rough parallel between 
the initial Open Space Plan and the Regional Open Space 
system which followed from it, three and a half years 
later. The MAPC notes that the resulting Plan and 
Program actually calls for a "web-like system of rela- 
tively small open spaces linked together by carefully 
protected large resource areas including the harbor, 
the rivers, outstanding hills and ridges, and the 
present open spaces". In many cases, it calls for a 
continuation of expansion of open spaces within the 
development corridors since these open spaces are in 
the sensitive primary system or are particularly attrac- 
tive. On the other hand, there are areas in which 
there are few specific proposals, even though the area 
is indicated graphically as a major wedge of open space 
and low density development. Presumbably, this re- 
flects the lack of specific opportunities in that 
wedge. Looked at overall, it seems as though the re- 
sulting system would not be perceived by most residents 
as a system, as much as it would be as a rather abun- 
dant supply of open space. People might sense that 
certain paths of movement lead to, or through, frequent 
open space areas, while other do not. But even this 
might not be noticable until the intervening, non- 
publicly held areas are developed. 

Of course, the intention in the open space wedges 
is not to have the major public open spaces stand out, 
but rather to have them and adjoining low density 
privately owned areas run together in an essentially 
permanent overall pattern. This pattern will become 
more apparent as the intervening high and moderate 
density areas continue to fill up. However, this 
differencial will only continue if the various in- 
fluences on development are clearly articulated so as 



-15- 



to maintain such a differentiation. Local zoning, 
public open space policy, state transportation policy, 
and regional water and sewer policy must be coordinated 
if such a pattern is to develop and to remain. 

The Open Space Plan and Program designate land 
that should be acquired, protected, or controlled in 
order to meet public recreation, conservation, and open 
space needs over the next twenty years. As noted 
before, some of this land would be for active recrea- 
tion while the other portions would be conserved for 
natural resource purposes. The Plan developed a range 
of "environment categories", each including various 
types of recreation or conservation activity for a 
given intensity of use. As explained in the report the 
catagories are: 

1- Intensive use areas : Areas of high accessi- 
bility, developed as planned activity centers with a 
wide range of intensive recreation opportunities. 
Examples are Nantasket Beach, Hoosichwhisick Pond in 
the Blue Hills, the Middlesex Fells Zoo, and the Salem 
Harbor historic center. 

2- Moderate Use Areas : These areas are less inten- 
sively developed than those in No. 1, but still offer a 
range of activities. Examples are the Breakheart 
Reservation, Cochituate State Park and Franklin Park. 
Portions of these would be intensively developed with 
specialized facilities. Other portions would remain 
open land. 

3- Natural Environment Areas : These are areas 
where conservation or protection of the environment is 
the main purpose, and recreation is more or less in- 
formal. Examples are the Blue Hills Reservation, the 
Rocky Woods Reservation, Cutler Park and the North 
River wetlands. In many of these areas, there are 
specific facilities such as ski slopes, ponds, and 
picnic areas. However, most of the setting will be 
open. This provides a rough overlap between some 
moderate use areas and some natural environment areas. 

4- Linear Recreation Areas : These are areas where 
driving, walking or bicycling would be encouraged along 
parkways or green corridors linking major open spaces 
and providing opportunities for seeing and using a 
variety of resources and recreation areas. Examples 



-16- 



would be parts of the Charles River Esplanade, parts of 
the Mystic Lakes, the Warner Trail and the shores of 
Walden Pond. 

5- Historical and Educational Areas : These might 
be developed to compliment open space activities, but 
are essentially developed, cultural, facilities. 
Examples are the Saugus Iron Works, or the Trail Side 
Museum in the Blue Hills. 

In addition to mapping specific proposals, the 
Plan and Program state a number of policies for general 
application across the region. These include the 
following: 

(1) to plan, acquire, develop, and operate at the 
metropolitan level, recreation facilities designed 
for metropolitan wide use. 

(2) publicly acquire control of all the major inland 
wetlands, the banks of the metropolitan rivers, and 
the coastal wet lands and beaches to insure that all 
have a place to swim, boat, or fish, and at the same 
time, to protect water resources. 

(3) Minimize the travel time and distance between the 
urban population and a diverse range of recreational 
facilities with the goal that no household has to 
travel more than 2 minutes to reach some major 
metropolitan recreation area. 

(4) Provide for multiple uses of open space, extend- 
ing the approach which has been used for water-shed 
lands to a wide range of possibilities such as power- 
line rights of way, commercial parking lots, ski 
slopes, and other presently single purpose areas. 

(5) If necessary, create artifical facilities in re- 
source poor areas to meet recreation or scenic needs, 
and to improve the character of the landscape. This 
would apply to development of blighted land in urban 
areas and to the creation of skating rinks, swimming 
pools, etc. A prime example of this would be the 
man-made, but highly effective, pond in the Boston 
Public Gardens. 

While the above policies were to create an adequate 
quantity of open space in the region, the following are 



-17- 



intended to achieve an adequate quality of open space: 

(1) Protection of unique natural areas from urban 
development and strengthening those areas that are 
already part of the existing open space system and 
accessible to the public. 

(2) Reclaim inland and coastal waters from pollution 
and provide for their continued purity in order to 
meet increasing recreation and utilatarian needs. 

(3) (Particularily relevant to our study) provide 
landscape treatment for the services and utilities 
necessary to an urban area so that they become compli- 
mentary parts of the open space system. The report 
notes that "extensive land uses including institu- 
tions, waste disposal facilities, and utility and 
highway rights-of-way can be more attractive elements 
in the development of the area" . 

(4) Design the metropolitan open space system to the 
maximum extent possible to give form, structure, and 
a sense of identity to the urban development that 
surrounds it. The report notes that open land must 
be accessible to surrounding neighborhoods, as well 
as to the region as a whole. 

(5) Identify, protect, and where necessary, restore 
or rehabilitate historical buildings and areas to 
enhance their meaning and to contribute to the quality 
and diversity of the region. 

Existing Se wer age Syst ems; As of 1970, 76 of the 
110 communities in the Interim Definition MAPC planning 
area were served by public sewerage systems. This left 
34 of the communities, with a population of 290,529, 
without connections to sewerage systems. An even smaller 
proportion of the population was actually served since 
some sewerage systems are simply collection systems 
releasing raw sewage, and other systems, in some towns, 
cover only the central portions or particular problem 
areas. Therefore, the total proportion of the popula- 
tion not served is probably well over the 10.7 percent 
suggested above. 

The vast proportion of this sewage goes to the 
MDC system. As of 1965, forty three communities with 
service were tied into the MDC system. The MDC system 



-18- 



serves the Boston core and most of the densely popu- 
lated communities within the inner suburbs, except for 
Lynn and Saugus to the north, and Cohasset and Hull to 
the south and east. However, large parts of Westwood 
and Hingham are not served by local lines tieing into 
the system. The MDC system also extends along the 
rapidly developing west and southwest corridors into 
the intermediate suburbs. Outlying cities such as 
Brockton to the south, and Lynn to the north have, or 
are developing, their own systems. 

Existing Sewerage Systems; Core and Inner Suburbs : 
In terms of the overall coverage, all the core and 
inner suburb communities are served by either MDC or 
local systems, with the exception of Weston and Hol- 
brook. 

Existing Sewerage Sy s_te ms; I ntermediate Suburbs : 
The MDC serves the more rapidly growing portions of the 
intermediate suburban ring. To the north, it serves a 
portion of Wilmington and the town of Bedford. To the 
west, it serves Natick, Framingham and a portion of 
Ashland. In the rapidly growing southwestern sector, 
it extends as far as Walpole. On the other hand it 
serves none of the intermediate suburban communities in 
the southern sector. The bulk of the 24 intermediate 
suburban communities without sewerage service are in 
this southern sector. And most of the southern sector 
suburbs which have service use small, local systems. 
This is the case in Scituate, Marshfield, Rockland and 
Bridgewater. These, along with the city of Brockton, 
are the only southern communities with sewerage systems. 
although a portion of Abington, as of 1970, drained 
into Rockland. 

Existing Sewerage Systems; Outer Suburbs - As of 
1970, eight of the thirteen outer suburban communities 
had sewerage systems. Some of these covered a very small 
area, or provided no treatment. Systems were generally 
found in the older, more developed towns such as Hudson, 
Milford and Franklin, or in the older and currently 
rapidly developing towns such as Marlboro. Some of the 
towns without service are in the paths of development. 
Southboro has no service, nor does Hopkington, just 
south of the Mass. turnpike and southwest of Framingham 
and Ashfield. Simiarly, Foxboro in the southwestern 
development corridor has a very limited system and the 
adjoining towns of Wrentham and Norfolk have none. 



-19- 



Existing Sewer Systems; Fringe Communities ; Very 
few of the outlying fringe communities have sewer 
systems, and most of those cover only portions of the 
town. Those with systems include Ayer, Clinton, West- 
boro, Upton (a very small system) , and Northbridge. 

Existing Sewerage Systems; Changes and Trends : 
Speaking broadly, perhaps 90% of metropolitan Boston's 
population is served by sewerage systems, while about 
about a third of the region's area is so served. In 
the last ten years the MDC has improved its system by 
opening the Deer Island Plant. A number of outlying 
city and towns have developed their own systems. 
Scituate and Brockton both have relatively new secon- 
dary systems and Marlboro has the first teriary system 
in the region. The outlying systems undoubtably im- 
prove water quality where the alternative was dumping 
of untreated, or only primary treated, sewage into sur- 
face streams. On the other hand, the new systems in- 
crease the total discharge of treated sewage into the 
streams by serving properties that would otherwise 
still have on-site sewage treatment. 

The availability of a sewerage system in only some 
of the outlying towns makes those towns more susceptible 
to development. So far, sewerage development has not 
lead to overall development; instead, most towns and 
cities have been attempting to catch up with system 
needs, either to respond to the state implementation 
plan, to minimize present pollution, or to serve their 
rapidly growing populations. 

Currently, several alternative, relatively re- 
gional approaches to sewage treatment have been pro- 
posed. The range of proposals suggest that all towns 
and cities in the study area would eventually be served. 
Those systems may only contact the outer edge of a given 
town, but the presence of an interceptor at that point 
would increase the pressure for extensive collection 
within the town. 

The presence of these systems may not lead to 
development in terms of overall population distribution, 
but it would certainly change the character of specific 
towns. A given corridor might grow about the same with 
or without comprehensive region wide sewage treatment, 
so long as the main towns in that corridor are sewered. 
However, the availability of service in a small town 



-20- 



could encourage development in many previously unbuild- 
able portions of the town. 

A number of towns seem to have chosen not to have 
sewerage systems for the time being, but rather to use 
on-site sewage treatment and relatively large lot sizes 
as a way of both accomodating some growth and delaying 
grow generally. As the MAPC has noted, there is a wide 
arc of towns where there are extensive areas of one arc 
lots and low density zoning. The net effect is to in- 
crease the land required for a given population. As 
was noted before, the MAPC has recommended an average 2 
units per acre for all developable land. This can be 
achieved with on-site septic systems in areas where 
soils are appropriate. However, elsewhere it would re- 
quire sewerage systems unless the overall density were 
achieved through the use of scattered, very high den- 
sity, concentrations. In that case, the scattered con- 
centrations of development might use package systems 
while the intermediate areas could remain with on-site 
treatment. 

Existing Treatment Facilities; Siting and Location : 
The MDC system consists of an extensive network of in- 
terceptors, a number of small pumping stations, the old 
Mood Island Holding tanks and outfall, and the two 
large primary treatment plants at Deer Island and Nut 
Island. The interceptors are underground and generally 
not visable. 

The pumping stations are commonly small facilities 
occupying less than a house lot. They are generally 
noticeable and visually incompatible only when they are 
made with materials strongly "out of character with the 
surroundings, or are fenced off in a way to make them 
more conspicuous. For example, the plant on Downer 
Avenue, near Otis Street in Hingham, is conspicuous 
because it is made of institutional looking tile and 
fenced off with a high cyclone fence. Previously, the 
grass around the plant was available for informal 
recreation and had helped the plant fit into its 
surroundings. Now, with the high fencing and some re- 
cent incongruously decorative landscaping, the facili- 
ty is more grating and more visually incompatible than 
before. 

The Deer Island and Nut Island plants are both 
quite large. Though they are only primary plants, they 
have extensive settling tanks, gas holding tanks, 



-21- 



digesters, control buildings and other bulky facili- 
ties. The plants are quite conspicuous due to their 
locations on hilly peninsulas in view of both boating 
and residential areas. (This visibility is not in 
itself a bad thing. After years of polio scares and 
beach closings, Quincy bay area residents were happy to 
see the Nut Island plant.) 

The third facility in the harbor, the Moon Island 
Holding Tanks and Pumping Station, consists mostly of 
low tanks. While the plant dominates the island, it is 
not too visible (except for its outfalls) from surroun- 
ding islands and water. Also, the causeway to the 
plant provides valuable vehicle access to the center of 
the harbor, allowing people to fish, hike and generally 
experience the harbor vistas from a different perspec- 
tive. However, the calf pasture (Columbia Point) 
pumping station serving Moon Island is quite conspicuous 
It is a heavy, multi-story, 19th century granite struc- 
ture at Columbia Point and should be considered for 
conversion to a related public or commercial use if it 
is abandoned as a pumping station. 

The outlying plants are generally conspicuous. 
They are "water oriented" , discharging their effluent 
into streams. Accordingly, most are located along-side 
streams in relatively low locations, generally down- 
stream from most intensive development. Surrounding 
uses are usually related public works or waste disposal 
facilities, warehouses, or other low value, land exten- 
sive operations. Plants located near housing or schools 
are generally not within the sight of those facilities. 
This is largely because the plants, using biological 
treatment, consist essentially of a series of low 
tanks. Except for an occasional crane for removing 
grit, or an operations building, most of the facilities 
are barely higher than the land they are built on. The 
plants are also inconspicuous from the rivers into 
which they release their effluent. This is because the 
banks are commonly overgrown and the closest structures 
are usually the low chlorination tanks. The most 
notable aspect of most stream side plants is the 
outfall itself due to its proximity to the main plant 
and the resulting foam in the water. In many cases, 
the most noticable general impact is smell, not from 
the plant itself, but from sludge dumped on adjoining 
land. This occurs because a number of modern, secon- 
dary plants adjoin excess land containing old, exten- 
sive lagoon systems. One often encounters a very 



-22- 



clean, sparkling treatment plant with extensive piles 
of sludge nearby in its "back yard" . 

The sites commonly range from five to ten acres. 
They do not increase rapidly with plant capacity since 
larger plants use relatively less land for their capa- 
city. 

Existing Treatment Facilities; Visual Impact ; In 
all, the visual impact of existing plants is quite 
limited. As previously mentioned, in many cases the 
most noticable aspect is not the bulk or width of the 
plant itself so much as the glare from bright work, 
metal railings, etc. around tanks and supporting facil- 
ities. However, further improvements would result from 
careful siting of the most attractive elements of 
typical plants. For example, trickling filters have a 
positive beauty resulting from the spraying of water 
over stone while, round, simple sludge digesters, 
though large, have a pleasing form often compatible 
with other development. When possible, these elements 
should be used to heighten the attractiveness of the 
plants. 

In addition, extensive plantings of bold trees be- 
tween the major plant elements would help break up the 
monotony of the rectangular tanks. This is particulaly 
important where the tanks are to be seen from adjoining 
high ground. 

Plants located along the coast tend to be more 
conspicuous than the inland, water-oriented plants. 
For example, the Scituate plant, though low lying, is 
on higher ground than portions of the adjoining marsh and 
golf course, and is, therefore, relatively conspicuous. 
(However, even in this case the most conspicuous ele- 
ment is the rarely used grit crane.) With increased 
planting the facility would remain relatively incon- 
spicuous. Indiginous reeds have grown along the fence 
providing natural, effective screening. This particu- 
lar plant has no conspicuous outfall because it uses a 
sand filter. 

While the water oriented plants are generally com- 
patible with their present surroundings, they do little 
to inhance their surroundings. In particular, they 
generally do not encourage increased access to the 
rivers. This is unfortunate since many of the rivers 
are attractive and have stream side trail possibili- 



23- 



ties. Though the outfalls distract from the natural 
quality of the rivers, the treatment plants, nonethe- 
less, provide opportunities for river access that 
should be exploited whenever possible. One opportunity 
is in Hudson where the town sewage plant and public 
works yard run roughly parallel to the Assabet River 
near a proposed park. Another opportunity exists at 
the new Medfield plant, now under construction, next to 
the Charles River. The plant is buffered from the 
river and the adjoining marshes on two sides by low 
ridges. Park development on the perimeter could take 
advantage of public ownership of the site to achieve 
public access to extensive, extremly attractive por- 
tions of the river and the marsh. 

Some portions of river banks and shorelines are 
particularly sensitive. If treatment plants conflict 
with surrounding uses, other sites, removed from the 
water, should be considered. If they can meet collec- 
tion system requirements and be connected to discharge 
points, such sites would protect these more sensitive 
water edges and retain them for other potential uses. 

Existing Sewerage Systems; Needs : In terms of the 
potential effects that regional treatment of wastewater 
may have on water quality, open space, overall land use 
and development patterns within the region, regional 
system design considerations include the following: 

(1) to control present water pollution problems by 
providing treatment where there is none, and expand- 
ing capacity where present systems are overloaded; 

(2) to raise the level of existing treatment plants 
to meet the required 1977, 1983 and 1985 standards; 

(3) to provide adequate treatment in areas where it 
would be inevitably required by present growth, or by 
the predictable breakdown of present septic systems. 
(A corollary of this is the need to inhibit growth, 
even present growth, in such areas if provision of 
adequate treatment is infeasible in the near future.) 

(4) to take into account and respect local and re- 
gional land use plans when progamming wastewater 
treatment systems. While service should be provided 
where now needed, or imminently needed, it should not 
be provided ahead of need in areas which are proposed 
for low density development. 



-24- 



(5) to maintain and protect present high quality 
landscapes. 

(6) to improve landscape quality when possible and, 
when appropriate, to add urban ammenities. 

(7) to expand usable public open space both by acqui- 
sition and by increasing the accessibility and usabil- 
ity of present public or semi-public holdings. 

(8) to maintain, or augment, groundwater and surface 
water levels. This particularly refers to maintaining 
flow in small streams during summer months. 

(9) to protect the immediate environment of the 
treatment plants and supporting facilities so that 
overall water quality protection is not achieved at 
the cost of unattractiveness or lost values in immed- 
iately affected areas. 

In all then, wastewater improvement systems should 
meet immediate health needs and probable prospective 
needs in a way which respects landscape and open space 
quality, supports regional and local planning effects, 
maintains or improves groundwater quality and surface 
water flow levels, and "fits in" with the immediate 
surroundings. 

Existing Sewerage Systems; Proposals : A great 
many sewage treatment plants have been built in the 
last ten years. More are being built now to meet 
Massachusetts water quality standards as required by 
the State Implementation Plan. More recent federal 
legislation, the 1972 amendments to the Water Control 
Act, require even higher standards. By 1977 all 
publicly owned waste water treatment facilities must 
meet E.P.A. secondary treatment standards. By 1983 all 
plants must provide the "best practicable treatment". 
While the exact standards are not yet clear, it is 
assumed that the 1983 goal will require most secondary 
plants to expand enough to provide tertiary treatment. 
Thus any new secondary systems under design must allow 
for such expansion. 

The contract proposal contains five concepts for 
regional treatment of wastewater within the BH-EMMA. 
The concepts all assume ultimate provision of sewage 



-25- 



treatment to every town in the study area. However, in 
most alternatives, up to nine of the perimeter towns 
would not tie into a regional system, or systems, until 
after the year 2000. Thus, the plans do not call for 
the total sewering of the whole study area in the near 
future. Nor do they assume the total sewering of each 
town which is served. In most of the less developed 
communities, those outside the present MDC district, 
the population proposed to be sewered in the year 2000 
is no more than two thirds or three quarters of the 
population projected for the year 2000. Cohasset's 
"low" projection for 2000 is 23,600 while the proposed 
sewered population for the year 200 is only 8,391. 
Simiarly, Wrentham' s "low" 2000 projection is 10,900 
while the proposed year 2000 sewered population is 
7,227. 

The concepts vary by: a, the size of the area 
served by the Metropolitan Sewerage District and its 
Deer Island and Nut Island plants, and b, the degree of 
centralization or decentralization of outlying systems 
and c, the methods for achieving tertiary treatment and 
disposing of effluent. The five concepts, as described 
in information packets prepared for mid stage public 
meetings, are as follows: 

Concept #1 , "Upgrading systems within the present 
service area of the Deer and Nut Island Treatment 
Plants". This involves the limited expansion of the 
Metropolitan Sewerage District to 50 cities and towns 
by the addition of seven towns which would otherwise 
be difficult to serve, the creation of 16 regional 
systems, and the construction, or retention, of a 
number of individual municipal plants. Two of the 
regional systems rely on major municipal plants 
immediately outside the study area, while the rest 
use new or expanded plants within the area. The 
concept would cost approximately one billion six 
million dollars ($1,006,000,000). 

Concept 2, "Limited expansion or contraction of the 
Deer and Nut Islands Treatment Plant Service Areas". 
This approach reduces the burden on the Deer and Nut 
Island plants by trimming the Metropolitan Sewerage 
District of 13 towns located roughly between Waltham, 
Framingham and Stoughton. It continues to add one 
town, Lynnfield, resulting in a District of 31 cities 
and towns. To serve these it proposes five regional 



-26- 



treatment plants in addition to those in concept #1 
and deletes one proposed plant leaving an increase of 
4. It serves the rest of the region much as concept 
#1 did and would cost approximately one billion 
thirty-eight million dollars ($1,038,000,000). 

Concept 3 , "Maximum expansion of the Deer and Nut 
Island Treatment Plants Service Area". This would 
add 15 cities and towns to the existing Metropolitan 
Sewerage District, extending it as far west as Hop- 
kinton and Southboro, and as far south as Wrentham and 
Bellingham. As a result it would require only 11 
regional plants, some of which, as before, would be 
expansions of existing facilities. It would cost 
about one billion one hundred and five million 
dollars ($1,105,000,000) . 

Concept #4 , "Decentralization of treatment by Con- 
struction of additional Treatment Plants within 
present Service Areas and Systems" . This approach 
contracts the Metropolitan Sewerage District further by 
deleting 20 cities and towns in a arc running north 
from Stoughton to Wilmington and west into Framingham 
and Ashland. To serve this area, it proposes a chain 
of five regional plants running from Canton, north to 
Woburn. Elsewhere, it relys on the same regional and 
municipal plants as the other concepts. Concept #4 
would cost about one billion one hundred and twenty- 
three million dollars ($1,123,000,000). 

Concept #5 , "Land Application". Concept #5 differs 
from the others in the method of achieving the re- 
quired advanced treatment and in the method of disposal 
of effluent. The inland, water oriented plants 
discussed above will all provide for advanced treat- 
ment and release effluent to nearby streams. In 
contrast, land application would use soil and plants 
to provide the advanced treatment and would generally 
use the land itself for ultimate disposal. (Some 
land application methods collect the effluent for 
disposal in water bodies elsewhere) after it flows 
through the ground. The three basic methods of land 
application are: 

(1) Spray Irrigation . The spraying of effluent over 
crop or farm land. Most effluent is absorbed into 
the ground with nutrients removed by vegetation. 
Other pollutants are filtered or removed by soil 
action. Some systems collect the effluent for repro- 



-27- 



cessing or release elsewhere, but most leave it in 
the ground and spray only as much as can be absorbed. 

(2) Overland Flow - the release of effluent over 
relatively impermeable, but well vegetated slopes in 
which some effluent is treated by micro-organisms on 
the grass, some is abosrbed into the ground, and the 
rest is collected for reprocessing. 

(3) Rapid Infiltration - The release of effluent into 
very permeable soils. Most is absorbed and filtered 
quite rapidly by the soil, but some nutriants are 
removed by vegation. 

Rapid infiltration is more efficient in the use of 
land than spray irrigation. Spray irrigation can use 
from 140 to 560 acres for each million gallons a day of 
flow, while rapid infiltration can handle a million 
gallons a day on sites ranging from 2 to 62 acres. On 
a year round basis, a spray irrigation system rated at 
2 inches per week for half of the year would treat 
about thirty-eight hundred gallons (3800) per acre per 
day. In contrast, the rapid infiltration system would 
be handling about 33,000 gallons per acre per day. A 
system depending on spray irrigation alone would re- 
quire extensive storage lagoons to hold effluent during 
cold or rainy weather. The availability of rapid 
infiltration sites should reduce the need for such 
lagoons. However, the concept calls for almost 3000 
acres of storage lagoons at unspecified sites. Also, 
the concept requires four, 25 acre "equalization 
lagoons" at the junction of the mole tunnel and the 
force main in Canton. 

In all, the land application concept represents 
the following: (1) The desire to handle effluent from 
the Woburn to Canton chain of treatment plants which 
are projected to produce an estimated 177 MGD by the 
year 2000. (This includes sewage treated at the Fram- 
ingham plant under concepts 2 and 4, but added to 
the Dedham plant under this concept.) (2) The scarcity 
of extensive sites in the central part of the metropol- 
itan area served by the Woburn through Canton plants. 
(3) The presence of salt water in sewer lines in coastal 
areas precluding spray application of such effluent in 
order to avoid salt build up on the land; and (4) An 
apparent desire to build an extensive regional system 
rather than a number of small local systems. 



-28- 



Concept 5 combines spray irrigation and rapid 
infiltration in an integrated regional system serving 
the Woburn to Canton plants. It would tie these plants 
together with a rock tunnel and pipe line system feeding 
spray irrigation and rapid infiltration sites. Many of 
the sites include small parcles in several adjoining 
towns. They are centered around Freetown, Plymouth- 
Wareham, and Sandwich. The main rapid infiltration 
site is located on 2,745 acres of federally owned land 
in the northern part of the Otis Air Force Base (and 
north of the developed portions of the base) , near the 
Sandwich, Bourne, border. There are two other sites, 
365 acres in Bourne, north of the Cape Cod Canel, and 
210 acres on the Lakeville, Freetown border. Concept 5 
also involves approximately 15,000 acres for spray 
irrigation. The bulk of this acreage is in the Myles 
Standish State Forest in Plymouth and in or near the 
Freetown-Fall River State Forest. 



-29- 



METHODOLOGY 

General : The purpose of most environmental assess- 
ments is to provide a system or process by which poten- 
tial impacts that may result from the implementation of 
a plan action are identified and assessed. The proce- 
dure is composed of three basic steps; the development 
of a baseline condition, generally done with some 
knowledge of both the proposed plan action and the 
impacts to be identified and, as such, the baseline is 
normally tailored and refined to emphasize certain 
specific elements and conditions; the development of 
potential or probable impact categories, again, with 
some knowledge of the proposed plan action; and the 
identification and assessment of impacts that occur as 
a result of a plan action, or elements of a plan action, 
being implemented within the designated study area 
baseline and time frame. 

Some objective methodologies have been developed 
for the identification and assessment of environmental 
impacts. However, most are not generally considered 
acceptable due to their complexity and their lack of a 
common base and scale rating system. Without a common 
unified, base and scale rating system, the process of 
determining the relative merits and importance of ob- 
jectively identified and assessed impacts in one cate- 
gory, such as visual-cultural and design, against those 
of another category, such as hygienic or aquatic, 
becomes subjective, thereby negating much of the value 
of an objective approach. 

The baseline for this report was developed sub- 
jectively. The determination of impact categories and 
plan actions as well as the identification and assess- 
ment of visual-cultural and design impacts is also a 
subjective process. All processes are based upon best 
professional judgement after visual inspections of both 
the overall BH-EMMA and the individual, specific sites. 

Definitions : Pertinent to any attempt to identify 
and assess probable visual-cultural and design impacts 
that may result from the implementation of any of the 
five project concepts for regional wastewater manage- 
ment within the Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area 
is the development of definitions for visual-cultural 
and design. 



-30- 



Visual-Cultural ; The visual, physical realities and 
elements of our environment; the cumulative, sum 
total of the results and effects of mankind's im- 
position upon, and manipulation of, his natural 
environment. 

Design : The effect, by way of location, siting, 
scale, texture, color, and function, of the physical 
elements of mankind's environment; the impact of the 
conscious recognition and awareness of the appearance 
and arrangement of these elements. 

As defined, visual-cultural and design impacts are 
somewhat synonymous and fall under the broad category 
of environmental asthetics. They represent ranges of 
compatibility of a proposed action with given base line 
asthetic conditions. 

The Matrix ; The visual-cultural and design im- 
pact s~ r^sultTng from the implementation of any of the 
five project concepts are identified on a matrix. The 
matrix is composed of columns of plan actions and rows 
of potential impact categories. The plan actions 
represent the division of the physical elements of the 
project concept components into four basic units. They 
are site selection, design, construction, and operation, 
and as plan actions, are defined as follows: 

Site Selection : The process of choosing the most 
suitable site for the project action. The success of 
this process is dependent upon the compatibility of 
an integrated project program in which the project 
elements, their function, engineering, design, con- 
struction, and operation are harmonious with the 
physical and social factors of the specific site and 
the overall region. 

Design : The process of refining and developing the 
project program for the specific site selected. The 
process involves decisions and selections ranging 
from general layout and arrangement down to the 
smallest of details. Total project compatibility and 
balance is dependent upon this process. 

Construction : The physical implementation of the 
project action. This process includes all major work 
classifications from demolition and clearing and 



-31- 



grubbing to final grading, loaming, seeding, plant- 
ing, and other site improvements. 

Operation : The completed project action as it func- 
tions, its by-products, and its requirements for 
management and maintenance. 

Impact categories are elements or areas of the 
visual-cultural and design baseline that may be effected 
by proposed plan actions. They are listed in rows on 
the matrix and are grouped in two distinct divisions; 
Region and Site Specific. These divisions represent 
changes in the level or scale of the identification and 
assessment process. The Region and Site Specific 
divisions are each composed of from one to four classi- 
fications of general impact types. These classifica- 
tions contain the specific impact categories. The 
meaning and general intent of most of the impact cate- 
gories is evident from their titles. However, some do 
require explanation. 

Region, Planning, land use, general refers to a 
degree of compatibility and consistency of proposed 
plan actions with existing, general land use proposals. 
These proposals include regional open space, recrea- 
tion, and development plans formulated by the various 
regional planning agencies and commissions, as well as 
federal and state planning and regulatory authorities. 
Land use; specific, refers to a degree of compatibility 
of the plan action with specific, definite, regional 
plans and proposals for the particular site in question. 

Under Site Specific, Development, type refers to 
the kind of development in the area; residential, 
commercial, industrial, institutional, etc. Density 
refers to the overall visual complexity and area cover- 
age of surrounding development more so than it does to 
the normally accepted definitions of the term. Charac- 
ter refers to a visual appraisal of the quality and 
amenity value of the surrounding development. Scale is 
another visual impression, and refers to the general 
overall mass and bulk of the elements of the surround- 
ing development. 

Impacts are identified on the matrix when plan 
actions are considered either significantly supportive 
of, or inconsistant with the visual-cultural and design 
asthetic baseline. The key work is "significant". 
Plan action - Impact category interactions that are not 



-32- 



considered as potentially significant impacts are not 
assessed. Once identified, impacts are assessed by one 
of the following symbols: 

+ A plus sign for impacts that represent an improve- 
ment in the baseline conditions . 

A negative sign for impacts that lessen or detract 
from the baseline conditions. 

A zero for identified impacts that cannot be 

assessed at this time as being either positive or 
negative due to either insufficient plan action 
detail, or inconclusive baseline data. 

There are 96 potential plan action, impact cate- 
gory interactions on the matrix. Many of these were 
not used. This developed as a result of attempts to 
eliminate, or certainly minimize, the possibility of 
impacts being unjustifiably over emphasized and over- 
weighted. Once a potential impact is identified, it is 
assessed under the plan action judged to have the most 
significant impact. For example, identified impacts 
under the Region, land use: general category usually 
indicate a conflict between the plan action and the 
MAPC Composite Development Guide. Such impacts are 
assessed under operation, since this division of the 
plan action is most directly related to possible ex- 
panded and accelerated development. The assessment is 
not repeated, or "echoed", under Design, Construction 
or Operation even though this would generally be a 
logical extension of the original assessment. 

Some impacts that are identified and assessed can, 
potentially, be minimized or negated by design and 
program refinements. In these instances, a "zero" is 
usually placed in both the design and operation plan 
action boxes of the assessed impact category. 



33- 



/,VIF>*G~ MATRIX 



SAMPLE 



ox 



IMPACT f\V 







FL^/^H/^JG 



-. ^*z^r 



Lps.^iO t, -ZrB '■ tB'.S'N z-'ZA L, 



^A^O USB £>--£C/-,C 



A\C~<a^ ToTA\uS 





10 

ID 



w 



r? 



r^A/VAV/AVCS' 



&5-N&&AL* ZC?^/*JG> 



LAND U£5 '■ 3r>ZCiFIC 



c/m/quz H/sro?ic &r& 



UH/QU5. GUL^OZAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC ^ATT^.^N 



A\CJ(Q^ TOTAuQ: | 



D&\/&LOf> V.&N T 



TVF'& 



CHA&A.GT5.& 



&CA^£ 



ACT : G'^ TOTALS 



^^NO^^^i 



L AMD FORM 



V<£ &£. T<A 7 lO ^ 



CHARACTER 



UMQUs- S/AUU& 



ACG&&& 



A\GT/0^ *~&~'A^'5', 



£NV/fiONM2*NT \ 



WAT&FI COL-O^ 



W^T&'l Q^V*M~t m "V 



MAT & ft QU^L/TV 



A\l ft 0>UAUIT'V 



HO/<=>2- UZVZ^ 



ODOft 



w Q^^Tio^i 




1 



7 





-*^jf- ^SS*^ 



o + — o •* - o + 



— o + - o + 

n rm r 






Of-- © + - Of-' 



O f - 



Of-- 



- 



Of-- Of-- o + - O -t " o + — 



c 



O + - O f - 



r 



o •>>• - 



o f- - 



o ■+• — 

TTH 



' 



AGTfOM fOTAlJz> 


o r - 


i 





o ■*■ - o f 



n 



o y- - 



~m 



-33A- 



VISUAL-CULTURAL AND DESIGN IMPACTS : 

Findings; General ; There are forty-four (44) 
individual plant/facility sites in the five project 
concepts. This includes the five land application 
sites essential to Concept Five. A total of nine 
hundred and sixty-eight (968) potential impacts were 
identified and assessed on the various matrix forms for 
these sites. This represents an average of 22.0 im- 
pacts per plant/facility site. Of this total number of 
impacts, three hundred and eighty-eight (388) were zero 
assessments (40.1% of total), one hundred and ninety- 
five (195) were positive assessments (20.1%), and three 
hundred and eighty-five (385) were negative assessments 
(39.8%) . 

Total numbers of identified and assessed impacts 
per individual plant/facility site range from lows of 
six (Marlborough, East) , ten (Marlborough, West and 
Salem) , eleven (Swampscott) , twelve (Rockland) , and 
fourteen (Billerica) to highs of twenty-nine (Canton, 
95/128 and Canton, North) , thirty (Medford and Nut 
Island) thirty-one (Cohasset) thirty-two (Marshfield) 
and thirty-three (Lowell) . Cohasset, Concord, Deer 
Island, Essex, Gloucester (Magnolia), Hamilton, Marsh- 
field, Medford, Nut Island, Rockport, Scituate, and 
Sudbury each have a lower than average number of posi- 
tive impacts, while Brockton Canton (95/128) , Dedham, 
Gloucester (133), Hopedale, Hudson, Lynn, Manchester, 
Rockland and Salem each have a higher than average 
number of positive impacts. Plant/facility sites with 
a lower than average number of negative impacts are 
Bourne (East and West) , Brockton, Canton (95/128) , 
Chelmsford, Dedham, Hudson, Lakeville/Freetown, Lynn, 
Medfield, Plymouth/Carver, Rockland (the only site with 
no negative impacts) , Salem and Freetown/Fall River. 
Those with a higher than average number of negative 
impacts are Billerica, Canton (North), Cohasset, Con- 
cord, Deer Island, Essex, Gloucester (Lanesville) , 
Hamilton, Ipswich, Lowell, Manchester, Marshfield, 
Medford, Medway, Nut Island, and Swampscott. 

A concept by concept comparison of the distribu- 
tion of total concept impacts (expressed as a percentage 
of the total number of impacts in the concept) identi- 
fied and assessed in each of the twenty potential 
impact category classification/plan action boxes reveals 



-34- 



ASSESSED IMPACTS 
SUMMARY SHEET 



PLANT/FACILITY 







+ 


- 


TOTAL 


Billerica 




2 


4 


8 


14 


Bourne East (R. I. ) 




10 


4 


3 


17 


Bourne West (R.I. ) 




12 


6 


5 


23 


Brockton 




8 


11 


4 


23 


Canton (95/128) 




12 


8 


9 


29 


Canton North 




8 


5 


16 


29 


Canton South 




10 


7 


9 


26 


Chelmsford 




8 


5 


4 


17 


Cohasset 




12 


4 


15 


31 


Concord 




9 


3 


17 


29 


Dedham 




10 


8 


5 


23 


Deer Island 




9 


2 


11 


22 


Essex 




5 


1 


11 


17 


Framingham 




14 


6 


6 


26 


Freetown/Fall River 


(S.I.) 


10 


5 . 


3 


18 


Gloucester (133) 




5 


6 


9 


20 


Gloucester (Eanesvi 


lie) 


8 


4 


15 


27 


Gloucester (Magnolia) 


10 


2 


9 


21 


Hamilton 




7 


1 


13 


21 


Kopedale (milford) 




10 


8 


8 


26 


Hudson 




9 


8 


4 


21 


Hull 




11 


6 


6 


23 


Ipswich 


. 


6 


2 


10 


18 


Lakeville/Freetov/n 


(R.I.) 


12 


4 


5 


21 



■3^A- 



PLANT/FACILITY + TOTAL 

Lynn 

Lowell 

Manchester 

Marlborough East 

Marlborough West 

Marshf ield 

Medfield 

Medford 

Medway 

Middletown 

Nut Island 

Plymouth/Carver (S.I.) 

Rockland 

Rockport 

Salem 

Scituate 

Sudbury 

Swampscott 

Water town 

Woburn 

Total Impacts 388 195 385 968 

Average number of impacts/site = 22.0 

-34b- 



6 


11 


1 


18 


8 


8 


17 


33 


2 


8 


12 


22 


3 


1 


2 


6 


3 


2 


5 


10 


14 


1 


17 


32 


10 


4 


5 


19 


9 


3 


18 


30 


8 


1 


18 


27 


8 


4 


7 


19 


13 


1 


16 


30 


15 


6 


3 


24 


6 


6 


- 


12 


12 


1 


11 


24 


4 


4 


2 


10 


13 


2 


9 


24 


11 


2 


10 


23 


1 


3 


7 


11 


12 


3 


10 


25 


13 


4 


10 


27 



many similarities between the five concepts. The 
numerical difference between the percentage of one 
concept's impacts in a given box and the percentages of 
the other concept's impacts in identical boxes is 
between 9.3 and 1.8. All concepts had the highest 
percentages of their respective impacts in the same 
boxes. These impact category classification/plan 
action boxes are Site Specific; Planning/Site Selec- 
tion, Development/Site Selection, Landscape/Site Selec- 
tion, Landscape/Design, and Environment/Operation. The 
highest percentage of impacts in all concepts is in the 
Environment/Operation box. However, it should be 
realized that one reason for this is the constant, 
positive assessment in the water quality impact cate- 
gory for every plant/facility site in each concept. 
This is an assumed project given, and is most certainly 
a significant impact. Deletion of this assessment 
would reduce the percentage figures in this box by 3 to 
4 percent. 

Findings; Concept One : Concept One is composed of 
31 individual plant/facility sites. They generate a 
total of 651 impacts for an average of 21.0 impacts per 
site. Sixteen of the 31 sites are existing facilities, 
and 2 of these are currently being expanded and up- 
graded. In addition, four other plants/facilities are 
in some phase of construction and should be in opera- 
tion within the next 12 to 18 months. Another four are 
in various phases of definitive planning and/or design, 
and should be on the line within 2 to 3 years. This 
means that 77.4% of the sites in Concept One are either 
in operation, under construction, or in some phase of 
implementation. This is especially significant since 
2 8 of the sites in Concept One are included in each of 
the other four concepts. 

Billerica ; The existing facility in Billerica 
serves 15 to 20% of the towns population. The plant is 
currently being upgraded, and it is assumed that this 
will remedy some current effluent problems and provide 
the potential for expanded service. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
Billerica plant are its compatibility with development 
patterns and trends, both existing and proposed, and 
its resultant effects on the visual quality of the 
Concord River. 



-35- 



Significant negative impacts are the visual con- 
flict of the plant with the type and scale of the 
surrounding development, and the potential changes in 
surface water and vegetation due to an expanded, struc- 
tured system with resultant changes in percolation and 
groundwater recharge. 

The general landscape of the site specific area 
is, at best, medial. The plant's control structures 
are very close to the river bank, but are separated 
visually from the river by a narrow, dense band of 
second growth decidious trees. This restricts access 
along the river bank and removal of this band of trees 
would provide a better visual relationship between the 
plant and the river and improve the appearance of this 
small scale landscape. 

Brockton : This existing facility is outside the 
study area but is proposed to handle flows from Avon, 
which is inside the study area, and possibly flows from 
Abington, in the future. 

Significant positive impacts related to the plant 
are its compatibility with regional development patterns, 
site specific zoning, and the type, density, character, 
and scale of surrounding development. 

Significant negative impacts are the sites prox- 
imity to the Taunton River and its possible preclusion 
of the area for open space and general recreation. 
These factors, as well as provisions for access to, and 
along the River should receive priority consideration 
during the planning of an expanded facility. 

Chelmsford : This proposed regional facility would 
receive flows from the northwestern one third of Chelms- 
ford, all of Westford, and the western one half of 
Littleton. 

The proposal supports general development plans 
for the region and the plant is consistent with current 
zoning. With proper design, potential visual conflicts 
between the plant and the density and scale of the 
surrounding development can be negated. Careful land- 
scape treatment of the various elements of the plant 
could improve the character of the site. The site is 
close to major highways and traffic, either during 
construction or normal operation, should not be a 



-36- 



significant problem. However, potentially significant 
negative impacts that could result from the implemen- 
tation of this proposal are those relating to changes 
in vegetation, surface water, percolation, and ground- 
water recharge as a result of the availability and 
increased use of a municipal wastewater system. 

With respect to potential visual-cultural and 
design impacts, the site appears to be a good choice 
for the construction of a wastewater treatment facili- 
ty. 

Cohasset : This existing facility serves Cohasset 
and part of Scituate. It is located on the edge of a 
salt marsh and is surrounded by an attractive village 
center and the harbor. James Brook passes through the 
site on its way to Cohasset Cove. The plant is fairly 
well screened by structures and vegetation, but is 
visible from the harbor. 

The only significant positive impacts generated by 
the facility are its effects on the color, clarity and 
quality of the surrounding tidal waters. This should 
improve recreational activities such as swimming, 
boating and fin and shell fishing. 

The plant generates many negative impacts. Its 
location on a salt marsh is a threat to the vegetation, 
character and value of a unique environmental resource. 
The plant is inconsistant with surrounding development 
types. It is also out of scale and character with 
adjacent development, but this can be minimized by 
careful design of the upgraded and expanded facility. 
Construction traffic during expansion could be a signif- 
icant problem, especially during the summer months. 
The plant is somewhat inconsistant with regional devel- 
opment proposals for the area and it introduces many 
variable impacts associated with increased surface run- 
off, reductions in natural percolation and vegetative 
succession. 

Concord : This is an existing facility occupying 
about 30 acres. The proposal indicates that it will 
treat influent from Concord, Avon, Maynard, portions of 
Littleton, and Boxborough after the year 2000. The 
existing site is flat, surrounded by dense woods, and 
has extensive views down to the Concord River and the 



-37- 



adjacent. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. 

Significant positive impacts resulting from the 
facility are its effects on the appearance and quality 
of the Concord River. 

Significant negative impacts generated by the 
plant are its inconsistancy with regional development 
proposals, secondary impacts related to increased use 
of an expanded municipal wastewater collection system, 
and general visual incompatibility with the type, 
density, character, and scale of the surrounding devel- 
opment and natural landscape. Much of the potential 
impact on landform, vegetation and general landscape 
character can be minimized during the design process, 
but the impacts of a major construction program (erosion, 
siltation, dust, etc.) on the adjacent wildlife refuge 
could be very significant. 

Deer Island : The Deer Island facility provides 
primary treatment and some chlorination for approxi- 
mately 340 mgd of influent from the 22 communities in 
the MDC Northern Metropolitan System. This flow is 
projected to increase to approximately 380 mgd by the 
year 2000. 

The plant is located on an island which is con- 
nected to the mainland (Winthrop) by a causeway along 
Yirrell Beach. Deer Island projects into the harbor 
opposite Long Island, and the two islands combine to 
produce a natural gut in President Roads, the main 
shipping channel into Boston Harbor. The islands also 
provide a natural definition and enclosure around the 
periphery of the inner harbor. 

The most significant positive impact associated 
with the upgrading and expansion of the plant is the 
potential for more extensive, better quality, water 
oriented recreation due to the improved quality of the 
discharged effluent. However, there are several other 
pertinent factors related to increased recreational 
uses of the waters in and around Boston Harbor. Tidal 
flows, particularly as they relate to other sources of 
pollution in the harbor, changes in water temperatures 
and chemical composition resulting from increased dis- 
charges of improved effluent, and increased and im- 
proved access to the harbor for the general public are 



-38- 



some of the principal issues that must be resolved 
before the harbor's recreation potential can be maxi- 
mized. 

There are several significant negative impacts 
associated with the expansion and upgrading of the Deer 
Island facility. Being an island the site is unique 
and has the potential for a wide variety of recrea- 
tional uses. It is highly visible and offers impress- 
ive views and a variety of visual experiences in all 
directions. Plant expansion will restrict the sites 
recreation potential (the extent of this restriction is 
a design variable) and will certainly have a severe 
impact on the islands natural land form and visual 
significance. Expansion will compound the current 
problem of conflicting land use (municipal, correct- 
ional, military, recreational) and will probably result 
in the destruction of Fort Dawes, a military installa- 
tion that many consider historically significant. 
Expansion may involve filling portions of the harbor 
and/or Broad Sound, and while this approach may mini- 
mize some of the land use conflicts, it does present a 
variety of new and potentially significant impacts. A 
major construction project, as well as increased ser- 
vice and staff requirements, will certainly compound an 
already dangerous traffic volume and route to and from 
the plant. 

Essex : Construction of the wastewater treatment 
facility in Essex is expected to begin within the next 
12 months. Plans and specifications have been fina- 
lized and the project is waiting for final approvals. 

The plant site is on the edge of a vast, saltwater 
marsh and, as such, the proposal represents an intru- 
sion into a unique environmental resource. The site is 
highly visable, and the plant will conflict with the 
type and density of surrounding development if the 
extension of single family residences continues towards 
the edges of the marsh. However, proper site design 
and effective, complimentary screen plantings can 
minimize these potential impacts. 

Overall, the site is marginally acceptable for the 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility, and 
potential visual-cultural and design impacts of the 
completed plant are resolvable, given adequate design 
considerations . 



39- 



Gloucester ( 133) : Construction of this proposed 
treatment plant is expected to start by the end of this 
year. The facility supports regional development 
proposals for the area, and also satisfies the needs of 
an older, densly developed community. The site is a 
tidal, backwater marsh. It is open and highly visible. 
While construction of the facility and subsequent 
planting may provide a needed visual variety in an 
otherwise medial micro landscape, it will result in an 
almost complete destruction of a unique environmental 
resource. Also, due primarily to the openness and high 
visibility of the site, the plant will be out of scale 
with surrounding development. 

With respect to potential visual-cultural and 
design impacts, this site is not recommended for the 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility. 

Gloucester (Lanesville) : The proposed site for 
the Lanesville facility is on the shore of Lanes Cove. 
The cove is a small anchorage area formed by massive, 
rectangular, granite blocks stacked together to form a 
breakwater. Surrounding development is a mixture of 
older single family homes and some small stores and 
shops. Roads are narrow and winding, and the topography 
is very steep and irregular. 

The most significant positive impact generated by 
the proposal would be a reduction in the area's depen- 
dence on either on-site disposal or direct ocean dis- 
charge. 

Significant negative impacts involve potential 
conflicts between the facility and the type and chara- 
cter of surrounding development, the proximity of the 
plant to a unique and picturesque setting and possible 
disruption of the existing traffic pattern, especially 
during construction. With prevailing on-shore breezes, 
odor and noise are also potential conflicts. However, 
since the proposed plant is small and the character and 
visual quality of the area is man-made and very geo- 
metric, a properly sited and designed facility should 
compliment the area. Two important design considera- 
tions would be the plant's proximity to, and intrusion 
into, the visual confines of the cove and the need to 
maintain current levels and paths of access to both the 
cove and enclosing breakwater. 



-40- 



With respect to potential visual-cultural and 
design impacts, the site is adequate for the construc- 
tion of a properly designed wastewater treatment facil- 
ity. 

Gloucester (Magnolia) ; Plans for a proposed plant 
in the Magnolia section of Gloucester are currently 
being revised. No firm site has been chosen and there 
is a possibility that the eventual plant may receive 
some flow from sections of Manchester, as well as its 
own sub area of Gloucester. However, the area has 
perhaps the most scenic coast line in Massachusetts, 
and the homes and estates in the Manchester, Magnolia 
area are comparable to the finest in New England. The 
landscape is steep, irregular and heavily wooded. Any 
plant in the area will have to be carefully sited and 
reflect a sympathetic design solution in order to avoid 
potential visual impacts and incongruities. 

H amilton : This proposed regional facility will 
treat flows from Hamilton and Topsfield, plus addit- 
ional flows from Wenham and Boxford, after 2000. The 
site is a triangle of land formed by the intersections 
of 3 rural roads. 

The proposal appears to be inconsistant with 
regional development plans for the area. Secondary 
impacts to surface waters, vegetation and groundwater 
recharge resulting from increased use of municipal 
wastewater systems are potentially significant through- 
out the entire service region. 

The plant would not be compatible with existing 
zoning, the type, density, character and scale of 
surrounding development, as well as the vegetation, 
land form and general character of the immediate land- 
scape. While some of these site specific impacts could 
be minimized by a responsible design solution, remain- 
ing impacts would still be very significant. This site 
is not recommended for the construction of a wastewater 
treatment plant. 

Hopedale (Milford) : This existing plant serves 
over 9 percent of the Town of Milford and discharges 
approximately 3 mgd into the upper Charles Rivpr. This 
discharge is well below the plants design capacity of 
approximately 4 mgd. However, the effluent is reported 



-41- 



to be below acceptable standards and the plant is under 
court order to stop discharges into the river. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
upgrading of this facility would be the improved visual 
appearance of the river and the removal of the old 
lagoon areas which are currently being used for sludge 
disposal. Removal of these lagoons will be somewhat 
dependent upon the area requirements of the process 
used to achieve advanced treatment. However, the 
existing lagoons currently represent a significant 
negative impact, both visually and by the odors they 
emit, and they should be removed, and the area regraded 
and planted, even if their total elimination is not 
required by the selected advanced treatment process. 

Hudson ; This existing plant provides secondary 
treatment for over 90 percent of Hudson. The plant 
reinforces regional development and growth proposals 
and it is compatible with surrounding development and 
general land uses. 

Potential negative impacts are associated with the 
expansion and upgrading of the facility. Expansion 
should be designed to minimize the plants potential 
dominance of the river bank and the upgraded facility 
should not restrict access to, or along the river. 

The expansion and upgrading of the existing facil- 
ity should produce a significant positive impact; the 
removal of existing lagoons. Details pertinent to the 
removal of these lagoons are identical to those con- 
tained in the discussion of the Hopedale plant. 

Hull : Contract drawings and specifications for 
the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in 
Hull should be completed early next year. Construction 
should be underway by mid summer, at the latest. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
facility are its compatibility with regional proposals 
for general development and the service it will provide 
to a fairly dense residential community that is depen- 
dent upon either individual, on site systems or direct 
ocean discharge. With proper siting and design, the 
plant could enhance the general landform, vegetation 
and character of its immediate landscape. 



-42- 



Significant negative impacts are the plants prox- 
imity to unique historic and cultural sites, potential 
traffic problems during summer construction operations, 
general incompatibility with surrounding development, 
and potential visual dominance due to the site being 
located at the focal point of rather long, linear 
avenues of approach. However, most of these can be 
minimized, and proper design could turn the potential 
visual dominance into an asset. Overall, the site is 
acceptable for the construction of a wastewater treat- 
ment plant. 

Ipswich ; This primary treatment plant provides 
service for approximately 30 to 40 percent of the 
population. Effluent is discharged into the Ipswich 
River estuary. The plant is currently being expanded 
and upgraded to secondary treatment. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
plant would be those associated with the discharge of 
better quality effluent; improved water oriented recre- 
ation, shell fishing, and maintenance of the environ- 
mentally significant saltwater marsh. However, before 
these impacts can be realized, discharges upstream 
along the Ipswich River and its tributaries must be 
improved. 

The plant is located in a fairly dense grove of 
deciduous trees. The expansion and upgrading construc- 
tion operation does not appear to require removal of 
this material. As such, the vegetation provides an 
excellent screen between the plant and nearby homes and 
marsh areas. 

Lowell : Site preparation for the construction of 
this proposed facility has been completed. The work 
involved filling the Merrimack River to connect the 
Duck Islands to the existing river bank along Merrimack 
Avenue. The islands were covered by several feet of 
fill and their value as visual elements in the river- 
scape has been completely destroyed. The man-made site 
is highly visual in the river and this is accentuated 
by the proximity and general layout and alignment of 
Merrimack Avenue. 

Construction of the plant is expected to start by 
summer, 1975. The plant will serve Lowell and Dracut 



-43- 



which are outside the BH-EMMA, plus Tewskbury and a 
portion of Chelmsford. 

The plant does support general development pro- 
posals for the area and it will provide needed service 
to a relatively industrialized, densely populated 
region. The treated effluent should reinforce other 
regional proposals in which improvement of the water 
quality and visual appearance of the Merrimack River 
are major concerns. 

The most significant negative impact, other than 
those associated with site preparation, is the plants 
visual dominance of this portion of the river. How- 
ever, the site does offer the potential for direct 
access to the river and this opportunity should be a 
major consideration in the layout and design of the 
facility. 

Lynn : This regional plant will serve Lynn, Saugus 
and Nahant. These communities have extensive municipal 
systems, all of which currently dump untreated waste- 
water into Lynn Harbor. Portions of the system in Lynn 
are combined sewers and this community also contributes 
a significant amount of industrial wastewater to the 
harbor. 

The most significant positive impact generated by 
this facility would be the improved water quality in 
the harbor. Lynn harbor is one of the most polluted 
harbors on the coast. However, it has excellant poten- 
tial for boating, sportfishing and shellfish harvest- 
ing, all of which are either currently limited, or 
impossible, because of the poor quality of the harbor's 
waters. 

There are other sources of pollution that will 
have to be resolved before the harbor's potential can 
be realized. These are the industrial discharges from 
the General Electric plant into the Saugus River and 
the leachates from the landfill and incineration opera- 
tions on the Saugus and Pines River Marshes. 

The proposed plant will be a visual improvement in 
the general appearance of the area. It will be com- 
patible with the type, density and scale of surrounding 
development and it will improve the character of the 



-44- 



area. A fishing pier and a small park have recently- 
been constructed at the intersection of the harbor 
bulkhead and the mouth of the Saugus river. The design 
of the plant should include the extension of this band 
of recreation along the harbor bulkhead. 

Overall, the site appears to be an excellent 
choice for the construction of a wastewater treatment 
facility. 

Manchester : Manchester is the only Town in the 
north coastal drainage area that has secondary treat- 
ment for its wastes. The plant is located on a small 
backwater off the main harbor anchorage area. It is 
bordered by a Boston and Maine railbed, the Town Hall, 
Police and Fire Stations, the V.F.W. hall and a small 
parking lot. The site is somewhat enclosed and noise 
and faint odors from the plant are immediately apparent, 
The surrounding development is a mixture of construc- 
tion materials , colors and textures and the plant 
blends in fairly well. 

Potentially significant negative impacts related 
to future expansion of the plant are the plants domi- 
nance of the site and the conflict of existing land 
uses. Also, unlike the existing facility, the expanded 
plant should provide easy access to the waters edge. 

Marlborough, East : This plant is a new, advanced 
waste treatment facility designed to handle an average 
flow of 5.5 mgd in 1990. Treated effluent is dis- 
charged into a tributary of the Sudbury River. The 
plant will treat wastewater from eastern Marlborough 
and Southborough under Concept One, but will remain a 
municipal facility (eastern Marlborough only) under the 
other four concepts. 

Significant impacts related to the facility are 
the effects that the discharge of an improved quality 
effluent will have on the water quality and visual 
appearance of Hager Pond, Hop Brook and the Sudbury 
River. 

The plant site is relatively flat with very little 
vegetation. It is rural in character and is surrounded 
by groves of pines and mixed deciduous trees. Plant 
expansion required by the various concepts should be 



-45- 



easily accommodated without penetrating this natural 
buffer. It is assumed that lawns will be established 
and that trees and shrubs will be planted when con- 
struction is completed. This will improve the overall 
appearance of the site. However, rather extensive 
areas of old lagoons from the original plant still 
exist on the site. They are a visual distration and 
their removal and subsequent regrading and seeding of 
the area would improve the continuity of the site. 

Marlborough, West : This existing secondary treat- 
ment facility discharges fairly high quality effluent 
into the Assabet River. It is located on a small, 
flat, rather open site near the shoreline of Millham 
Reservoir. Surrounding land is heavily wooded and 
slopes away to the wetlands along the river. The 
reservoir and wetlands are significant open spaces and 
valuable environmental resources. 

The plant is compatible with regional development 
plans for the area and the site appears to be of suffic- 
ient size to accommodate future expansion without 
penetrating the surrounding woods line or disturbing 
the adjacent marshes and open spaces. 

Marshfield : This existing facility is located on 
the edge of a salt marsh adjacent to the Green Harbor 
River. Portions of the site are 3 to 4 feet above the 
mean elevation of the marsh. It is adjacent to the 
compact, relatively dense commercial and retail section 
of the Brant Rock summer colony area. The plant is 
very small and inconspiciously located, but it is in 
plain sight of the main street and surrounding develop- 
ment. 

The concept proposal is for an upgraded secondary 
treatment facility occupying about 3.5 acres. It would 
treat flows from Marshfield and Norwell, after 2000. 

Positive impacts generated by this proposal are 
those related to improved water quality due to reduced 
use of sub-surface septic systems. This is particu- 
larly important in this area as more and more summer 
homes are being converted to year-round use. 



-46- 



Negative aspects of the proposal involve the 
certain visual dominance of the upgraded and enlarged 
plant, and its incompatibility with the surrounding 
development. The plant's physical and visual intrusion 
into the ecologically fragile salt marsh could produce 
serious environmental and design impacts. The MAPC 
Open Space Plan designates this marsh as a Natural 
Environment Area. The plant is upwind of commercial 
and residential areas and odors are a potential prob- 
lem. 

Medfield : Medfield has an existing secondary 
treatment plant which serves a very limited area of the 
Town. Construction of a new, regional, advanced treat- 
ment facility is now underway. This new plant will 
treat sewage from all of Medfield and Millis, plus 
portions of Norfolk, after the year 2000. 

The site for the new plant is a triangular shaped 
piece of land that projects into the Charles River 
Marsh. It is low in the center and surrounded by a 
railroad embankment and high ridges. There is adequate 
natural vegetation along most of these ridges. 

Regional wastewater treatment concepts involving 
this plant are somewhat inconsistant with general 
development proposals for the area. Secondary visual 
impacts resulting from increased development and changes 
in groundwater recharge are potentially significant. 

The plant would not conflict with surrounding 
development. The site appears large enough to accommo- 
date required expansion within its natural buffers. 
Development of design plans for the plant's expansion 
might well consider the park potential of the high 
ground immediately southwest of the site. 

Overall, the site seems suitable for the facility 
and its eventual expansion. 

Medway : Approximately 10 percent of Medway is now 
sewered. Sewage is chlorinated and discharged into the 
Great Black Swamp. 

Concept proposals suggest the construction of new, 
regional, advanced wastewater treatment plant. The 
suggested site is the north end of Populatic Pond. 



-47- 



There are many significant negative impacts gener- 
ated by this proposal. The regional service potentially 
provided by this concept may produce growth and develop- 
ment inconsistant with general development plans for 
the area. The plant would be very visible and would 
completely dominate the local landscape. It would be 
incompatible with the type, density, character and 
scale of surrounding development and it could preclude 
some current recreational activities. The concept 
proposals indicate substantial flow increases by the 
year 2050, and it is questionable whether the site 
could accommodate the required expansion. 

This site is not recommended for the construction 
of a wastewater treatment facility. 

Middleton ; This proposed facility is compatible 
with general development and densities in the area and 
it will provide a needed service to the somewhat "older" 
communities of Middleton and North Reading. 

While the plant will be inconsistant with the type 
and character of the surrounding development, current 
zoning should control future problems associated with 
proximity, and careful design can minimize impacts with 
existing development. Careful siting and landscaping 
can improve the landform and general character of the 
site. The site plan should improve and encourage 
access to the river. This portion of the river is 
heavily fished, and provisions for parking for the 
fishermen should be considered. 

This site is adequate for the construction of a 
wastewater treatment facility. 

Nut Island : The Nut Island site consists of 17 
acres on a low hill (the former Nut Island) and adjoin- 
ing filled land connecting Hough's Neck to the original 
island. Though perhaps less visually significant to 
the Harbor than other, more strategically located 
islands, Nut Island is visible from surrounding areas 
in Quincy and Hingham Bays, and the adjacent Quincy 
Great Hill residential development. 

The present primary treatment plant occupies about 
7 of the site's 17 acres. The plant treats sewage from 
communities in the Southern MDC sewer district. The 



-48- 



plant has become the object of concern due to limited 
treatment and increasing loads. 

The Concept One proposal requires approximately 53 
acres of land to accommodate the upgraded and expanded 
facility. With only 5-10 acres available, this pro- 
posal will require either extensive harbor filling, 
acquisition of portions of adjoining residential lots, 
or the development of a complex, innovative multi- level 
plant. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
concept proposal are those associated with improved 
water quality; generally water oriented active recrea- 
tion. However, these positive impacts are subject to 
the same constraints and variables presented in the 
Deer Island discussion. 

Potential negative impacts range from loss of 
housing and disruption of development to the environ- 
mental and ecological effects of filling on shallow 
water, tidal, marine life. Increased traffic is also a 
concern, particularly in the Hough's Neck area. 

Design of the expanded facility should minimize 
filling, reduce the dominance of the plant and leave 
the periphery open for public access. The MAPC Open 
Space Plan designates this area as a Natural Environ- 
ment Area, and while it is probably late for this, some 
potential can still be realized around the edges of the 
facility. 

Rockland ; The site of this existing secondary 
treatment facility is low land near the edge of the 
Beech Hill Swamp. The plant has a capacity of about 1 
mgd, serves approximately 20 percent of Rockland, and 
it occupies 5 to 7 acres of land. It is somewhat 
isolated at the end of a long driveway and well screened 
by plant material. The only visible elements are two, 
rather attractive sludge digestors located at the focal 
point of the entrance drive. 

Positive impacts of the plant are the improved 
water quality in French stream and the potential for 
developing a recreation area between the plant and the 
adjacent Esten Elementary School. 



-49- 



Potential negative impacts are the possible intru- 
sion into wetlands during expansion, and the secondary 
impacts resulting from increased use of structured 
municipal systems. The extent, and to some degree the 
necessity of increased surface coverage required by 
expansion is somewhat unclear. At a capacity of 1 mgd, 
the present plant occupies 5 to 7 acres, yet the con- 
cept proposal indicates that a new facility of 1.7 mgd 
requires only 2.7 acres. The exact area need to in- 
crease the plant's capacity to design flows is unclear. 

Rockport : Construction of this secondary treat- 
ment facility started in August, 1974. The plant is 
located at the end of a narrow residential road and it 
is adjacent to the Rockport Cemetery. 

The plant provides a needed service to the area 
and it should improve the visual appearance and quality 
of both inland surface waters and ocean discharges. 
However, secondary impacts resulting from increased use 
of a structured municipal system could be very signifi- 
cant in this area. 

The plant is incompatible with the type and chara- 
cter of the surrounding development. However, this 
impact can be minimized by the preservation of existing 
vegetative buffers around the site. Increased traffic, 
especially during the summer tourist season will be a 
problem. Most of this will be generated by the con- 
struction operation and, as such, it will be a tempo- 
rary inconvenience. 

Salem : This regional secondary treatment facility 
is under construction. It will treat sewage from 
Salem, Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, and Peabody. Many 
of these communities are quite industrialized and 
heavily populated. 

Positive impacts related to the plant are improved 
water quality and resultant increases in the intensity 
and types of water oriented recreation. The plant is 
compatible with adjacent development and does not 
dominate the site. Effective grading and planting 
would compliment the plant and it could become an 
attractive addition to the area. Provisions for access 
to the edge of the harbor along the north side of the 
site would allow more intensive use of this area. A 



50- 



boat launching ramp and parking facilities for cars and 
trailers would be a desirable addition to the plant. 

Scituate : This is an existing secondary treatment 
facility with a capacity of approximately 1 mgd. It is 
located on an 11 acre site near the edge of the North 
River Marsh. The site is surrounded by low woods 
meadow, brush, and marsh and is well screened from the 
Driftway by rolling terrain. While the plant itself is 
visible from the marsh to the south and a golf course 
which wraps around portions of the site, natural reeds 
screen most of the existing tanks. The most visual 
element is the top of the grit crane. 

The concept proposals indicates that the facili- 
ties capacity will be increased to 5.5 mgd by 2000, 8.8 
mgd by 2020, and 14 mgd by the year 2050. The facility 
will become regional and treat sewage from portions of 
Scituate, Marshfield and Hanson (outside the study 
area) and all of Hanover and Pembroke. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
regional service are related to improved water quality 
and increased recreational opportunities. The plant 
should assist efforts to maintain the high water quality 
in the North River. 

A potentially significant negative impact is the 
secondary effects generated by increased use of struc- 
tured municipal systems. Another is the obvious prob- 
lem of possible intrusion by the expanded facility into 
the North River Marsh. The marsh is a valuable and 
unique cultural and environmental resource. Recent DCA 
studies and the MAPC Open Space Plan recognize the 
unique values of the area and it has been proposed for 
a National Wildlife Preserve. 

The design of the expanded facility should respect 
the dominant horizontal visual quality of the site. 
Tanks and structures should be kept low and perhaps 
screened by low berms planted with natural marsh grasses 
and reeds. However, if the expanded facility cannot be 
accommodated on the existing site and intrusion further 
into the marsh is inevitable, the selection of another 
site is recommended. 



-51- 



Sudbury : The site suggested for the construction 
of this proposed regional advanced wastewater treatment 
plant is a peninsula jutting into a State Fish and Game 
area. This reserve is an extensive marsh land next to 
the Sudbury River. The concept proposal indicates a 
plant capacity of 5.9 mgd and a site of approximately 
6.6 acres. Flows are increased to 14 mgd by 2050, and 
it is assumed that site requirements are somewhat 
proportional. The plant will treat sewage from Sudbury 
and Wayland. 

The only significant positive impacts generated by 
the construction of this plant are those associated 
with improved water quality. 

Potentially significant negative impacts involve 
the proposed plants relationship to the State Fish and 
Game Area. The area is environmentally and culturally 
unique and offers recreational opportunities for large 
numbers of people. If the proposed plant and its 
projected expansion cannot be accommodated without 
intrusion into this area, the selection of another site 
is recommended. Potential conflicts with surrounding 
development are unlikely to be significant since the 
area is zoned as flood plain. Visual dominance of the 
area by the plant could be minimized by proper design 
and site planning. 

With the exception of potential intrusion into the 
fish and game area, this site appears suitable for the 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility. 

Swampscott : This small, existing primary treat- 
ment plant serves over 95 percent of the Town. It has 
been operational for only a few months, but has had the 
significant positive impact of improving coastal water 
qualities to the extent that the Town's principal beach 
was recently reopened for swimming. 

The plant site fronts the major roadway between 
Swampscott and Marblehead, and the plant is visually 
dominant and out of scale and character with much of 
the surrounding development. The site backs up to some 
of the most desirable vacant residential property 
remaining in the Town, and the construction of homes, 
which appears imminent, will aggravate this problem. 



-52- 



S3 

O 
H 

I 

W 
to 

o 



r3 
o 

H 
E-< 
O 
D 
« 
Eh 
to 

O 
O 



o 

H 

w 

pa 

p 



i i 

<X> VO 



+ + 



O O 



I I 



+ + 



I I 



-h + 



I I tl I 



CN 



+ + + + + 

o o o o o 



r-4 -^ r-l 
rH 

I I I I I 



in 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I I 
in 



+ + .+ + + 

CN 00 



o o o o o 



vc in H 



l l I l 
in H 

CN 



+ + + + 



co 
o o o o 



till 



+ + + + 



o o o o 



I I I I 

+ + + + 

in r» <T> cr^ 
o o o o 



iH CN CM 

I I I I I 

HC1H 



+ -I- + + + 

vo m rH 
o o o o o 



vo vo vo m cm 
l l l l l 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I I 



00 —* -~> --^ -^ w 

+ + + + ■}■ 



*r in cn ** 



o o o o o 



rH CN 



dP t I I I 1 I I i 

• ^J" H iH CN 

rH iH H CO 
CN 



+ + + + + + + + 



CN 00 H C\ 00 

oooooooo 



CN ^f rH VO 
I I I I I I I I 



+ + + + + + + + 



OOOOOOOO 



I I I I I I I 



++++++++ 



oooooooo 



53 

o 

H 

W H 
E-i O 
H W 
to ,-q 
W 
CO 



I I 



+ + 



r^ ^ oo r~» co 
rH h 



II III 



+ + + + + 



■llll I I ■ M IIUIH I HHIIIBIII llll 



o 

H H 
fU 4H 
V4 H 
0) O 

0) a 
O CD 



CO 

Eh 

o 

EH 

Eh 

04 Eh 

W U 

U rf. 

!?, Pi 

O S 



<D OJ 
.. W to 
ODD 



dP 
O 



10 

-P 

o 

Eh 




O O O O O 

O « 
■P 4J 

O -H-H 

•H 01 CO 

vw 

•H O H £ 

d (U U U <B 

•H Q, O 'J •»-> 

.: CO -P -P -P 

CO .H f\J 

CO •-. -.1 'J to 

Q) Hi CJ 



OP 

ct\ in <y> ro ro 

• iH rH rH 

O v_*>^^_ 
H I I I I 



m <n rr o *r vo 

. rH CN rH 

VO V^ *_* N_* V_- ^ 

" ■ I • ■ 1 ■ 



o 



I I I I I I I 



rH CN CN f» CN 

•p ^.^^^ 

o 

Eh 



+ + + H- 



g + + + + + 



•p ^>^^^^^^^ 

g H- + + + -!- + + + 



WHIN in 





0000 



•h n fi in ^ io 




00000 



oooooooo 



O ! 

H 

o 
w 



r>; 



rj (G 



■.■»TT^m»mao»»«irv-v>»o.j»u.c 



.. rH 17) 

a <u d 
r4 



u 

r, rH .'j 



:u fl) ol K £ i-i 

n: O h) D D H 

to 



U 

<U 
>i-P 
■P o 
•H rj ,y 

1) Ul rlrl 

v-J C< C 10 til 

fM >■, c ,c o 

>[HQU CO 

w 



CO ^ 

cu o 
»i; u-i 



a 



rj o 

■P 01 

c; u 

> u 



0) w 

:j 10 

a 1 a 
•h u 

C O 

D << 



Eh 
►^ 

« * 

O 

a; 
1 1 

% 

[J 



>i 
■P 

•rH Vl 

M O 

rj rH 

■H O 

U U 

M U 

o o 

p p 

<C ."J 



>1 

•p >1 

•H 4J 
-P -H 



rH -P 



rj td 
CO 

U U 

G) <1) 

P P 

rj rj 



rH (1) 

a 
a <u 

0) 

M H 
•H O 

rC S3 



-52A- 



Odor and noise are readily detectable, and plant expan- 
sion and upgrading may compound these impacts. 

Findings; Concept Two ; Concept two reduces the 
service area tributary to the Deer and Nut Island 
treatment plants. The reduced area is served by 5 new 
regional treatment systems. The service area of the 
Marlborough East plant, a regional facility under 
Concept One, is reduced and the plant is considered a 
municipal facility under this concept. All other 
plants and facilities contained in Concept One remain 
the same and are common to Concept Two. 

The 36 individual plant/facility sites in Concept 
Two generate a total of 779 impacts for an average of 
21.6 impacts per site. Compared to Concept One, Con- 
cept Two has a 16.1 percent increase in total plant/ 
facility sites, a 19.7 percent increase in total im- 
pacts, but only a 2.9 percent increase in the average 
number of impacts per site. 

The reduction of the Metropolitan Sewerage Dis- 
trict proposed by this concept has more impact on Nut 
Island than it does on Deer Island. Concept Two would 
reduce the flows and area requirements for Nut Island 
projected under Concept One by 48.6 and 34.0 percent, 
respectively. Similar reductions at Deer Island are 
only 9.2 and 6.1 percent, respectively. However, this 
still represents a three fold increase in the area of 
the current Nut Island facility and the impacts of this 
plant, as well as those pertaining to Deer Island, are 
expected to remain very similar to those outlined and 
discussed under Concept One. 

Canton; North : This proposed regional advanced 
wastewater treatment facility will treat flows from 
Westwood and portions of Canton, Dedham and Norwood. 
The concept proposal indicates a projected flow of 5.5 
mgd on a 6.3 acre site in the year 2000. Flows are 
shown increasing to 8.0 and 8.2 mgd by 2020 and 2050 
respectively. 

The proposed site is near the Neponset River and 
the Fowl Meadow Reservation. This is close to the 
boundaries of Milton, Dedham and Boston. The exact 
location of the suggested site is somewhat unclear. 



-53- 



Early concept maps indicated that the plant was actually 
in the Fowl Meadow Reservation, apparently astride a 
junction in the existing Neponset interceptors. Later 
maps moved the site to the north and west, apparently 
onto a landfill area adjacent to existing industrial 
development. While the move is significant with re- 
spect to the magnitude of the facilities impacts on the 
Fowl Meadow Reservation, the plant's proximity to the 
marsh is still a critical concern. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
facility include increased stream flow in the Neponset 
River and a reduction in the volume of discharge at the 
Nut Island plant. If properly designed the plant could 
provide increased access to the river and marsh area. 
However, the desirability and extent of this access 
should reflect careful review of the areas ability to 
withstand and absorb probable impacts resulting from 
increased accessability. 

The Fowl Meadow Reservation is proposed as a new 
or continuing Natural Environmental Area in the MAPC 
Open Space Plan, and protection of the area was a main 
reason for the recent halt in the extension of Route 
95. The potential intrusion of the plant into the 
marsh, and the visual dominance it may have on the 
area, are major concerns. Also, negative impacts 
associated with a major construction operation are 
potentially significant. A recommendation as to the 
suitability of this site for the construction of a 
wastewater treatment facility is entirely dependent 
upon both the successful resolution of these signifi- 
cant problems and the results of a detailed ecological 
study of the area. If these issues can be resolved, 
the site is marginally acceptable for construction of 
the facility. 

South Canton ; The suggested site for this pro- 
posed regional advanced wastewater treatment plant is 
an area of filled industrial land on the edge of the 
Neponset River marsh. The site is bounded by Route 95 
on the west, Neponset River to the south, low, resi- 
dentially developed hills to the east and the marshes 
to the north. These marshes run north, south and 
extend on both sides of Neponset Street and the East 
Branch of the Neponset River. Six to eight acres of 



-54- 



the site are now being used as truck terminals and 
construction stock yards. The visual appearance of 
these uses is rather run-down. The site also straddles 
the junction of the existing Canton, Norwood and Nepon- 
set River interceptors. 

The concept proposal proposes future flows of 25 
mgd (2000) , 30 mgd (2020) and 32 mgd (2050) . The plant 
would serve Sharon, Stoughton, Walpole and portions of 
Canton and Norwood. 2000 projections indicate a re- 
quired site size of 21 acres. 

The plants proposed service region is currently 
tributary to Nut Island. As such, the facility will 
have positive impacts related to reduced effluent 
discharges, as well as those associated with increased 
discharges of high quality effluent into inland marshes 
and rivers. The plant is also relatively consistant 
with regional development proposals in that most of its 
service area is in the MAPC's southwest corridor of 
relatively high density development. Compatibility 
with surrounding development does not appear to be a 
significant problem and the plant could be an interest- 
ing visual experience from Route 95. 

Negative impacts are those related to the poten- 
tial destruction of 15 to 20 acres of marsh. MAPC's 
Open Space Plan indicates preservation of these marshes 
for Natural Environmental Areas. Wetlands legislation 
will most certainly be involved in project development. 

In all, the suggested site is unacceptable from 
the standpoint of visual-cultural and design impacts. 
There appears to be, however, several high ground sites 
of the required acreage in the general vicinity. These 
should be investigated as potential alternatives. 

Dedham : The construction of this regional advanced 
wastewater treatment facility will result in the re- 
duction of effluent discharges into Boston Harbor as 
well as other visual improvements related to increased 
flows in the Charles River. Potential impacts relative 
to incompatibility or visual dominance of surrounding 
development and landscape features appear resolvable by 
careful siting and landscape treatment. The proposed 
site is an existing dump and its use avoids the poten- 



-55- 



tial destruction of river marsh areas. This is one of 
the few proposed plants that has any real degree of 
spatial separation between itself and its discharge 
point. 

The plant will serve Wellesley, Natick, Needham 
and portions of Brookline, Dedham, Newton and Boston. 
Flows from Sherbon and Dover will be treated after 
2000. Flows projections indicate 29 mgd (2000) , 32 mgd 
(2020) and 33 mgd (2050) . Site area required is 24 
acres. 

Potential negative impacts relate to the size of 
the site. This will require a compact design solution 
which must address the plants relationship to Mother 
Brook and Center Street. Attractive pedestrian access 
to the brook is a design consideration that should not 
be overlooked. 

Framingham ; This regional advanced treatment 
facility will receive flows from Ashland, Framingham, 
Hopkinton and Southborough. Flows from Southborough 
were treated at the Marlborough East plant in Concept 
One, but that plant becomes a municipal facility in both 
this and the other remaining concepts. Project data 
indicates flows of 19 mgd and a site requirement of 17 
acres by the year 2000. Flows are projected to 23 and 
27 mgd by 2020 and 2050. 

The proposed site is located between an MDC aque- 
duct, the Pod Meadow and an oxbow in the Sudbury River. 
It is open, flat and entirely void of vegetation. 
However, bands of trees do exist around the perimeters 
of the sight, especially along the river and the adja- 
cent marshes. The site has two distinct levels. 
Southwestern portions of the site are 20 to 30 feet 
higher than northeastern portions, which are close to 
river bank grade. The most dominant visual impression 
from the site is the results of active (southwest area) 
and inactive gravel removal operations. 

Significant positive impacts of this proposal are 
the reduction of flows in Boston Harbor (Nut Island) 
and the visual impacts resulting from increased flows 
of better quality water in the Sudbury River. Addit- 
ional positive impacts could be realized if the plant 
was designed to provide an open space and recreational 



-56- 



linkage between the river, Pod Meadow and Lake Cochitu- 
ate State Park to the east. Enhancement of a potential 
linear open space corridor along the MDC aqueduct is 
another possibility that should be investigated. The 
site plan should also reflect a connection between the 
plant and existing perimeter vegetation. 

Potential negative impacts of the proposal relate 
to the questionable ability of the site to accommodate 
projected expansion without penetrating the perimeter 
vegetation and/or intruding into the river oxbow and 
Pod Meadow marshes. If expansion can be contained 
within the sites natural definitives, the site is 
suitable for the construction of a wastewater treatment 
facility. 

Watertown : This suggested site is defined by 
Coolidge Avenue, Greenough Boulevard and Arsenal Street 
It is close to the Charles River and has a fairly rural 
character despite its urban setting. More than one 
half of the site is a flat, semi-wetland area. There 
is a significant grade change of approximately 30 feet 
in one area of the site, and it appears to be the 
result of a former landfill operation. The site is 
adjacent to what is becoming a major redevelopment area 
involving the Arsenal and the former B.F. Goodrich 
property. General Services Administration facilities 
occupy portions of the site. Surrounding development 
is generally retail and commercial, with the exception 
of a tennis club which is under construction. Sawins 
Pond and the river are significant natural and open 
space features. 

The proposed facility will serve Lincoln, Water- 
town, Waltham, Weston and parts of Newton. Projected 
flows are 45 mgd and 34 acres is the suggested site 
size. 

Significant positive impacts are reduced flows 
into the Boston Harbor treatment plants and resultant 
reductions in their discharges, and the visual impacts 
of increased flows of better quality water in the 
Charles River. If the plant could be designed to 
preserve and enhance the open space potential along the 
river, and possible link this together with Sawins 
Pond, other benefits could be realized. 



-57- 



22 

O 

M 

S 

w 
o 



2 
o 

H 

CO 

a 



r» as 



+ + 



r^ H 



I I 



+ + 



+ + 



I I I i I I 






+ + + + + 

rH *J> O (N 



O O O O O 



Hlflr 

r" 

I I I I 



CM 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 






i i i i i 



+ + + + + 
n o 

rH 

o o o o o 



I I I I 



co rH 



+ + + + 

rH CO 



o o o o 



I I I 



to 



+ + + + 



o o o o 



I I I I 






+ + + + 

r- CO rH rH 
O O O O 



rH (N CM 

I I I I I 

r-i cn r-i 



+ + + + + 

co co ^j* 



o o o o o 



I s ffi oo n n 



l l l I I 



en 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I 



o 

Ch 



+ + + + + 



r- cr> vo oo 

HHH rH 



o o o o o 



CM 
<N 



H <N 



OP 
to' 



I I I I I I I 



VO 

ro 



+ + + + + h + + 



CM ^ CM 

rH rH rH 



O CO 
H CM 



OOOOOOOO 



mm <N tO rH 



I I I I I I I I 






++++++++ 



OOOOOOOO 



I I I I I I I I 



dr 

o 



H- + H- + + + + + 



OOOOOOOO 



00 

in 



to 



in 

<N 



CJ\ 
VO 



in 
co 



in 



o 

(N 



CM 

o 



CO 



H W 
CO ,-J 

w 

CO 



CO 

Eh 

o 

Eh 

w u 

u < 

o si 

CJ H 



CN 



a 

-p 
o 

H 

o 



o in co h oo 

CM <N 



OP 

co oo o in in 



*» en vo in t-» vo 

. t-i CM r-i 



I I 



+ + 



I I I I I 



I I 



I I I I 



O 1 I I I I I I I 



m 
■p 
o 
Eh 

I4H 





+ + + + + 



rH CM CM 00 (N 

id 

S + iii 



rH rH VO "3* rH CM 
« rH rH 

p + + + + + 



+ + + + + + + + 



HTHin 







M-l ^r *f CM in VO 

o 



<4n 

o 



o o o o o 



o o o o 



o o o o o 



OOOOOOOO 



j*T-*r»:uj3iWLjTYr^jajrw.ji^Tu^»i*^ve-^.Tw:Jit.WH^ 



(5 



u 

rH H 

flj <4H 

>H H 

O O 

o a 

o to 



CO tD 
to U) 
D D 






:< <tj td 


ti 


*j 1-1 l-H 


t-i 


\A 


M 


0t 


to 



o 

•H 
tM 
r\ 

XT- U 



r : 



<u 
H to 

VI 
(U 'CJ 

a fO 



4J -P 
•H H 

to CO 

O rH 

• r \ rj 

V< Vh 

O 3 

-iJ -M 

05 rH 
•H ^ 



0) 0) -rl 

D :j 4h 

•r^ -H nj 
fj f: m 
^ u> H 



M 

P^ 

W 
W 

a 



>H 

aj 

>i-P 

P u 

•rl rj IU 

Of) n r-i 

a, r: rj ,u 
>i tu 45 o 
E i a u to 



w 



to t: 

cj ^ 



rl 

•. i c: 

•P 4J 

CJ (J 

j j n 

o n 



•H U 

r. cj 



p >i 

•H -P 

■P -H >,rH 

id (tl -H > C 

3 '.1 H Q) 

uuaaiD^ -H 

^j -p 

H HOffl Pi 

(J (!) Ul 5-1 U 

P 4J r< H £> 

nf (U -H () TJ H 

:s: ;s rC, r A o > 



>1 

-p 

•H J-l 
M O 
Pi .H 
O 



V-I M 

a a* 

-;-> -p 

m Hi 



to 



o^ 

CO 



CO 

Eh 
O 
Eh 



to 

< 

EH 

O 
Eh 



-57A- 



Negative impacts of this proposal are the plants 
incompatibility with surrounding development in that it 
will dominate and compete with existing and proposed 
land uses, and the visual dominance that it might 
impose over the entire area. However, the most im- 
portant impacts relates to the size of the site. It 
appears that the site can only accommodate the plant if 
the design evolves into a very compact, verticle struc- 
ture and treatment process. Other obvious problems 
aside, this would only aggravate the previously dis- 
cussed impacts. 

This site is not recommended for the construction 
of a wastewater treatment plant. 

Concept Three : This concept expands the service 
area of the Metropolitan Sewerage District. The ex- 
panded system serves all communities that are naturally 
tributary to the existing system. Compared to Concept 
One, Concept Three does not change the Deer Island 
service area, but does add 9 communities which are 
tributary to Nut Island. This represents an increase 
of 36.0 percent in the Nut Island service area. Total 
flows to the Nut Island plant increase by 11.4 percent. 
These figures include "post 2000" communities. 

The expanded Metropolitan Sewerage District elimi- 
nates the regional facilities at Medfield and Medway as 
well as the municipal plant in Hopedale. Also, the 
Marlborough East plant serves as a municipal facility 
as it does under Concept Two. All other communities in 
the study area are served as detailed in Concept One. 

Concept Three is composed of 2 8 individual plant/ 
facility sites. Twenty- three of these facilities are 
either existing, under construction, or in some phase 
of implementation. The 28 plants generate a total of 
579 impacts for an average of 20.7 impacts per site. 
Compared to Concept One, Concept Three has 9.7 percent 
fewer sites, 11.1 percent fewer total impacts, but only 
a 1.4 percent reduction in the average number of im- 
pacts per site. 

The most significant impacts related to Concept 
Three are those associated with the increased flows 
into Boston Harbor, the filling of the waters around 
the Nut Island plant (the area required by this concept 



-58- 



S3 

o 

M 

E< 

a 

w 

o 



o 

H 

H 
U 

rj 

Eh 
CO 

o 
u 



CT» 
I I 



O ID 



+ + 



O 



I I 



-:- + 



o 



I I 



•J- + 







o o 






^ r~* 






CO 




dP 




is 


C\ 


— >_* 


o 

M 


rH 


1 1 


W M 






EH O 

H w 


rH 
< 
EH 
O 
E-t 




00 ►-} 


» N_» 


co 


+ + 




fa 


m 




O 


^- — 


1 


op 


o o 



dP 

IT) 



I I I I 



f- + + -»- + 
iH «T C\ CM 



O O O O O 



I I I I 



dP 
CO 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I I 






+ + .+ + + 
(N o 



o o o o o 



df> 

in 





o 

Eh 

hi 

o 



vo ^r m tj< co 

•H iH 

I I I I I 

+ + + + + 

o o o o o 



.»cA. - J *rr^o/-rjiJitf' 




in ^« rH 
till 

^^^^ 



o o o o 



I I 



en 



o+ + + + 



o o o o 



I I I I 



dP 



-»- + + + 



in in co r- 



o o o o 



<*> rr r» (N 

OH rH 



•• (N CI kO CM 

M 

gwWWW 

o "''■ + H + 

Eh^ ^ — — 

H cnj in 

M o o o o 



n > 



H 

o 
<J o 

•rl PJ 

r: rj 
•.) x: 



> Eh n o co 

Ml 

Q 



I I I I I 

dP~ '- — — ' — 



+ + + + + 

^r rs cr> 
o o o o o 



in vo in r>j cn 



l I 



dP 

in 



m+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I l I I I 



dP 

^j. *., -_. »_, ^_, v.^ 

• + + + + + 

CO ^, ^-> ,-, .-, ^-x 

(N tH <N 
H H iH «H 



O O O O O 



dP CT> CO CO rH VO 
CTi iH iH rH 

JQ I I I I I 

•• ^o ^r ^ H vo 

S+i+ii 

Eh 

NHH^lO 

fa 



dP 



o o o o o 



•• li 

CI H 

U 

.-.; u i 

O \j 

co c 



r: 

o \\ 

•r( OJ 

|) 4-> 

:\i C) 

J' I J 

St 

t/> id 

oj /.: 

> u 



U] 



o 1 o 
c, u 



I I I I I I I I 

OP''"' » *-* ^"-» *^» <^» 

fO(N O CO rH 

• rH rH CM 

N + + + + + + + + 

hmo en vo 

H rH H rH 

OOOOOOOO 



I I I 



I I I 



df> 

en 



+ + H- + + H- + + 



OOOOOOOO 



I I I I I I I I 



0+ + + + + + + + 



oooooooo 



» i i i i i t i i 



rH" 

g -h + + + H- <- -h + 

— OOOOOOOO 



£ L< L< S rij i5 O > 






dP 






in 

dP 
H 

o cr> 



dP 

m 



CO 



m 



dp 






en 



jUi'tm. « a « «,» > gw < « i mii WWW— 



>1 
>1 *> >1 

•H V< 4J -H >,rH 

H O d HU (J 

rj rH i-J nj -H > C 

rH 't r) rl OJ 

u u o a is ..j •■ i 

M !-; !h U O O ^ 

o (j (!) w in jh u 
+j 4J m j i >., ,i o ,q 

i0 rj i0 i<J -,h O^l -i 



CO CO 

^ < 

Eh Eh 
O O 
Eh ^ 



-58a- 



is almost 6 times the current area of the site) and the 
loss of stream flows and related percolation. Avail- 
able data* on average stream flows for the Charles 
River states an average flow of 29 6 cfs at Charles 
River Village. Combined flows from the Hopedale, 
Medfield and Medway plants is about 25 cfs (year 2000) . 
Since most of this is much further upstream from Charles 
River Village, these plants could be expected to add 
more than 10 percent to total river flows in the upper 
runs of the river. 

Concept Four ; Concept Four reduces the size of 
the Metropolitan Sewerage District to 24 communities. 
This is 19 less than its current service area and 26 
less than the proposed Concept One service area. These 
figures include both "in part" and "post 2000" communi- 
ties. Compared to Concept One, this reduced or "decen- 
tralized" service area would contribute 25 percent less 
flow to Deer Island and 43 percent less flow to Nut 
Island. Service for remaining communities in the study 
area will be provided as in Concept One with the follow- 
ing additions; the regional facilities at Dedham (ser- 
vice area slightly revised) , Framingham and Watertown, 
as described in Concept Two, and new regional facili- 
ties at Canton (95/128) , Medford and Woburn. 

The 37 plant/ facility sites in Concept Four gener- 
ate 810 impacts for an average of 21.7 impacts per 
site. Compared to Concept One, Concept Four has a 19.4 
percent increase in sites, a 24.4 percent increase in 
total impacts, and a 3.3 percent in the average number 
of impacts per site. 

Canton; 95/128 : This proposed regional advanced 
wastewater treatment plant will treat flows from Canton, 
Westwood, Norwood, Sharon, Stoughton, and Walpole. The 
concept proposals project flows of 30 mgd by the year 
2000 and indicate that the size of the required site is 
25 acres. 



*"Water Resources Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island and Vermont, 1972;" U.S. Department of the 
Interior 



-59- 



The proposed site is similar to the other Canton 
sites (North, South in Concept Two) in that it is also 
on the Neponset River marshes. It appears to be located 
just southwest of the Route 95, 12 8 interchange and it 
is bounded by these highways, railroad tracks and an 
industrial park, and open marshes to the south. The 
Neponset River runs north, south thru the site and the 
Fowl Meadow, Neponset River Reservation is just north 
of the site, on the east side of Route 128. 

Significant positive impacts generated by this 
facility include increased stream flows in the Neponset 
River and a reduction of both the expanded land area 
and discharge volumes of the Boston Harbor treatment 
facilities (the benefits of increased stream flows in 
the Neponset River may be slightly less than those 
generated by the South Canton plant since this facility 
is somewhat further downstream) . Also, the plant may 
be visually beneficial in helping to reinforce the 
"industrial appearance" of the area. 

Significant negative impacts deal mainly with the 
plants intrusion into a large marsh area. The area is 
both visually and ecologically valuable. It is one of 
the MAPC's proposed Natural Environment Areas. The 
Neponset River is rather serpentine through the site 
and would have to be rechanneled to accommodate the 
indicated plant acreage. 

This site is not recommended for the construction 
of a wastewater treatment facility. However, an alter- 
nate site that appears somewhat more viable is an area 
of slightly higher ground about 4000 feet upstream. 

Medford : The Medford site requires 25 acres for a 
30 mgd plant to serve Arlington, Bedford, Lexington, 
and parts of Belmont, Medford, and Winchester. The 
only open land in the indicated general location is MDC 
parkland along the north bank of the Mystic River about 
2000 feet south of Alewife Brook. The largest portion 
of this is a long (about 2000')/ relatively narrow 
(200 , -400 , )f strip of level park land, ballfields, and 
river edge totaling about 20 acres. It appears to be 
one of the most spacious and usable segments of the 
river edge and is assumed to remain a "Moderate Use 
Area" in the MAPC Open Space Plan. 



-60- 



Positive impacts generated by the facility include 
a reduction in both effluent flows and expansion area 
requirements of the Boston Harbor plants, and increased 
flows of better quality water in the Mystic River. 

Negative impacts would include the loss of park- 
land, and the destruction of any river views from the 
adjacent road. 

The proposed plant is clearly incompatible with 
the present appearance and use of the site. Considera- 
tion should be given to acquiring a site back from the 
river, or to replacing the open space by decking over 
the treatment plant, or building it underground. 

Woburn ; The Woburn site lies between the Aberjona 
River, and Rt. 93 just north of the Winchester line. 
It includes lowlands sloping up from the River's marshes, 
a gravel pit, and high ground rising 60' over an esti- 
mated 30% slope. It is bounded by housing a few hundred 
feet to the south, and industry 500 feet to the north. 
The marshland along the river is a proposed "Natural 
Environment Area" in the MAPC Open Space Plan. 

A 31 mgd plant requiring 25 acres is proposed for 
the site. It is to serve Burlington, Reading, Wilming- 
ton, Woburn and parts of Stoneham, Wakefield, and 
Winchester. To avoid the marsh the plant would have to 
be built on the hillside with much landscape alteration, 
and increased development and operating costs. 

Positive impacts include improved water quality in 
the Harbor, and increased and stabilized flows in the 
Aberjona River. The site is sufficiently altered and 
poorly vegetated now that further changes may have no 
more than a neutral or slightly negative impacts on 
landscape character. Other negative impacts are the 
short run neighborhood disruption from construction, 
possible intrusion on the marsh, and visual incompati- 
bility with adjoining housing. The last may be mini- 
mized by the fact that the essentially flat plant 
elements will be at a slightly higher elevation than 
most of the housing. Odor impacts may also be minimal 
since the plant is slightly east (i.e. downwind) of the 
nearest housing. 



-61- 



2 

o 

H 

W 

a. 
o 



o 

H 

U 

« 
En 
CO 

a 

u 



M 
CO 

W 

n 



i i 



*> ON 

r» in 



+ + 

f"» rH 



O O 



o 



I I 



+ + 



o 



I I 



+ V 



rH rH *J< 

I I I i I I 



dP 



+ + 1- -I- + 

rH ** rH CM 

o o o o o 



HU1H 
iH 

I I I I I 



CM + + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I I 



r- 



H ^ — ^-- — w 
+ + H- f + 



co rH 

rH 

o o o o o 



00 rH in rH 



I I I I 



l/VH 

N + + + + 

CO rH 

o o o o 



rH m CM 



I I I 



O 



rH+ + + + 



o o o o 



I I I 



dP 



+ + + + 



r-« o cm co 

rH H rH 



O O O O 



rH CM CM 



I I I I I 



rH CO rH 
+ + + + + 



in 

rH <y» n rH 



o o o o o 



o o\ r-» co cm 



I l I l l 



dp 



coH- + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I I 






+ -«- + + + 



CA <J\ VD 00 

rH rH rH rH 



O O O O O 



I I I 



I I I 



rH oo in rH r> cm 

• rH rH CO 



+ + + + + + + + 



CO t* CO 
rH rH rH 



rH CO 
rH CM 



OOOOOOOO 



CM <<* rH «3 



I I I I I I I 



H+ + + + + + + + 



OOOOOOOO 



I I I I I I I I 



++++++++ 



OOOOOOOO 



dP 
00 • 

a\ m 

CO 



CM 
CO 



o 

00 






g 

O 

H 
W Eh 
E-< O 
M PI 
CO t-3 
W 
CO 



ctf> 
CO 



I I 



3 ~~ 

S XX 

E-h 

Cm in 

O ^^ 



:i 



O 

C% M 
(-1 U 

is ^ 

o -,: 

O H 



,l a 

ii S 



o 

rH -H 

ftl <I4 

n -r-1 

<D O 

O U* 

O CO 



(U 0) 

.. C) 01 
ODD 

•,s |m "J -a 

>; u; a 

:: a id 

'i; m iJ 

P4 



o 



ON VD CO CM 00 
rH CM 



do <j\ rH in vo 

rHrH rH rH rH 



*Hr> vooor* 

CO H rH CM H 



I I I I I 



I I 



^D | 



I I I 



<*• | | I I I I I I 
O ^ ,-> ^ ^ ^ ^. ^ ^ 



+ + H - + + 



Cm rH tj< cm in 
O ^ _ ^ _ ^ 

— O O O o o 



h3 co ro cti ro 

Si + ii 

CMrH CO H VO 

_o o o o 



•• H in ^f H H 

►-} rH rH 

g + + -t- + + 

Eh ~ " "" *"* "* 

Cm co -<3" cm in r^ 

_^ o o o o o 

dP 



Eh + + + + •<- + + + 



Hi 

t/j r I 



0) <u 
4J 4-» 
•H-H 
W f/i 

O.H 

■H fJ 

U U 

o n 

+J I) 
tl) .-I 
•ri yi 

LU U 
OJ O 

^ :-' 
•H H 



> n*<vrxifccxi^r«:Gmi*Eu><v:3ijrai 



Fh 


M 




7^ 


<u 


• • 


to 


>,4J 


W 


t<< 


+J o 


rx 


r- 


•H «} 0) 


iij 


o o 


tfl Vl .- 1 


c; 


. ) u 


c: u to 


f/i 


M > 


aj x: o 


o 


> L i 


Q U OJ 


V-", 


C«J 
Q 




3 



dp 



OOOOOOOO 



(U 

^ rH 

M rj 

G ■' i O > 
U 4J u 

o <i o a m 

•H 4» Pj Zi 0) 

■a o !-i cr >y 

c: n^ i'j ■■■'. o 

rj <j .c r; o 



-p >i 

•H -P 

4J H >,H 

C rH 4J a> 

t > i: 

i o o 

U U O O ^ r-3 -H 

3 4J 

ri >h VI Vi O 0) rj 

OJ (J O 1) Ul h ll 

4J -U -»J -IJ Vi rl O XJ 

n3 71 id id T» O TJ -H 

IS ^ ^Z L< ^ K O > 



>i 

-H M 

V4 O 

cj h rd id 
o 'J :i 



dP 



w> cr» 
co 






CO 



Eh 
O 
Eh 



-6lA- 



In all, the location can be acceptable if the 
siting and landscaping of the plant sensatively pro- 
tects the marsh, and screens the houses. The site has 
the advantage (like the Dedham site) of keeping the 
plant some distance from the receiving river. 

Concept Five : Concept Five combines spray irriga- 
tion and rapid infiltration in an integrated regional 
system that provides advanced treatment for flows from 
the communities tributary to the Framingham, Woburn, 
Medfield, Watertown, Dedham and Canton (95/128) plants 
as. detailed in Concept Four. Under Concept Four, these 
6 plants provided advanced wastewater treatment. Their 
treatment changes to secondary in Concept Five. The 
concept proposes to connect the Woburn to Canton plants 
with a mole tunnel. Flows from the Framingham plant 
would travel to Canton thru existing MDC interceptors. 
From the Canton plant, all flows travel by surface 
force mains to spray irrigation and rapid infiltration 
sites located outside the BH-EMMA. Communities not 
served by Framingham and the 5 Woburn to Canton plants 
are served as proposed in Concept Four. 

Concept Five is composed of 41 individual plant/ 
facility sites. They produce 888 total impacts for an 
average of 21.7 impacts per site. Compared to Concept 
One this represents a 32.3 percent increase in total 
sites, a 35.2 percent increase in total impacts, and a 
3.3 percent increase in the average number of impacts 
per site. 

Bourne; East ; This site consists of 2,745 acres 
in the former Otis Air Force Base. The land is a 
rolling, relatively level plateau about 200' high and 
is covered with a mixture of low pines and hardwoods. 
It is used as an artillery firing range and is well 
isolated by other vacant land on the military reserva- 
tion. The nearest development is low density housing 
on Snake Pond a half mile to the Southeast, and devel- 
oped portions of the base are about a mile to the 
south. 

The site is the heart of the land application 
concept since its extensive areas of coarse sandy soils 
should be able to handle 16 8.0 mgd on essentially a 
year-round basis. Thus, it could process the bulk of 
the 177 mgd projected for the major satellite treatment 



-62- 



plants (Woburn to Canton plus Framingham) in 2000. 
This capacity will allow for both growth and needed 
resting of the spray irrigation sites. In addition to 
rapid infiltration lagoons, the concept calls for a 
1,210 acre storage lagoon allowing 14 days of effluent 
storage during freezing weather. This backup feature 
may never be needed since rapid infiltration systems 
are reportedly undisturbed by freezing weather. 

Positive impacts associated with this site are 
those associated with the creation of fairly large 
"ponds" in a particularly dry area of the Cape, in- 
creased groundwater levels in the area, the reduction 
of total site area requirements for the six "satellite" 
plants and the Boston Harbor facilities, and the pro- 
jected changes in the growth rates of existing vegeta- 
tion, though the latter applies more to spray irriga- 
tion. 

Potential negative impacts include the possibility 
of damage to large areas of existing vegetation due to 
either system malfunction or reaction to effluent 
additives, groundwater degradation, and the commitment 
of large areas of potentially useable (recreation) and 
developable land. 

Bourne; West : The Bourne west rapid infiltration 
site consists of 2 pieces of land, one containing 335 
acres and the other 30 acres. They are located just 
north of the Cape Cod Canal and east of the village of 
Buzzard's Bay. It is hilly ground sloping to the north 
and west from about 150' to about 40', and is covered 
with low, mixed hardwoods and softwoods. Surrounding 
development includes town and federal open space to the 
south along the canal, a small parcel of state land 
containing Fish and Game offices to the north along 
Bournedale Rd. , and commercial development to the west 
at the end of the Bourne Bridge. 

The proposed rapid infiltration facility would 
have a capacity of 19.7 mgd, and like the others, would 
serve the major "satellite" plants. It will supplement 
the 168 mgd Bourne East site on Otis Air Force Base 
across the canal. 

Significant impacts related to this site, both 
positive and negative, are identical to those described 
for the Bourne East site. In addition, consideration 



-63- 



should be given to the impacts from the proposed exten- 
sion of Route 25. 

Freetown; Fall River Spray Irrigation Site ; This 
site consists of 6,920 acres of low hills and ridges 
interspersed with wetlands. The largest group of sub- 
sites is clustered around Copicut Hill in Fall River. 
It includes the southern edge of the Fall River - 
Freetown State Forest and the eastern edge of the 
Watuppa Reservation, but is mostly on private undevel- 
oped land. Two major sub-sites border the new Copicut 
Reservoir. The second group of sub-sites consists of 2 
drumlins and nearby slopes centered on the Lakeville - 
Freetown boundary. One of these hills abutts the only 
major cranberry bog in the area. The third cluster of 
sub-sites is a group of hillsides on either side of the 
Freetown - Berkly border. This includes Brecksneck 
Hill in the northern top of the Fall River - Freetown 
State Forest. 

The total site is planned to have a capacity of 
23.4 mgd and to serve the same group of major satellite 
plants as the other land application sites. Much of 
the proposed area may be needed for the required 526 
acres of storage lagoons. No specific sites are shown. 
Use of the most centrally located vacant area on high 
ground, the land on both sides of Makepeace Rd. in the 
Fall River - Freetown State Forest, would remove a 
large portion of the forest's limited relatively level 
upland. Use of swamp area would presumbably increase 
pumping costs, and remove ecologically valuable swamp. 

Positive impacts include improvement of Boston 
Harbor water quality, reduction in satellite and harbor 
plant site requirements, and a slight expansion in 
publically controlled open land. 

Negative impacts include reduction in the recrea- 
tion usefulness of the State Forest, and its wildlife 
sanctuary function, possible visual inappropriatness if 
a large clearly man-made storage lagoon in the forest, 
withdrawal of high, relatively attrative hill tops from 
the housing market, and unknown effects on one major 
cranberry bog. 

Use of this site does seem compatible with the 
expansion of public open space and low density residen- 
tial uses encouraged as expected by the Southeastern 



-64- 



Regional Planning and Economic Development Commission 
staff. There appears to be few plans for expanded 
recreational facilities in the State Forest. The 
crucial regional planning concern is protection of 
water supplies and cranberry bogs. Other issues are 
the lack of local benefits (e.g. use of the system for 
local sewage disposal) , and an unclear institutional 
structure. The public health and governmental question 
are the subjects of other studies, and possible local 
tie-ins should be explored. In all, the site does seem 
generally acceptable from a visual standpoint, and 
should be studied further. 

Lakeville - Freetown; Proposed Infiltration Site : 
This site consists of 2 sub-sites, one of 96 acres and 
one of 111 acres on either side of the railroad tracks 
at Lakeville - Freetown line. The land slopes gently 
from about 150' to swamp land at about 90'. It is 
covered with mixed hard and soft woods, and a few open 
fields. The surrounding area is undeveloped, except 
for a regional high school immediately north of the 
large site. The open hillside North, South, and West 
of this smaller site are all in the proposed Freetown - 
Fall River spray irrigation site. 

The proposed facility would handle up to 11.4 mgd 
and would serve the same group of major satellite 
plants as the other land application sites. It appears 
to have good pipeline access, since the railroad bisect- 
ing it crosses a pipeline which in turn crosses Rt. 24. 
The concept also calls for a 139 acre storage lagoon, 
along with a 526 acre lagoon for the adjoining spray 
irrigation site. It is fortunate that the lagoon may 
be optional (given the reported year-round useability 
of R.I. sites), since there are few potential storage 
areas. 

The Southeastern Mass. Regional Planning agency 
expects little local development due to poor access, 
lack of utilities, and slow sub-regional growth. Thus 
the site is compatible with local and regional planning 
concerns, so long as nearby surface water supplies are 
not harmed. 

Major positive impacts include improved Boston 
Harbor water quality, and reduced harbor and regional 
plant site requirements. 



-65- 



Negative impacts include removal or relocation of 
minor streams draining the larger site, and removal of 
an apparently much used woodland and potential school 
expansion area south of the regional high school. 

In all, the site seems basically acceptable due to 
its compactness and isolation. The main concern is 
that it does not conflict with the neighboring Apponequet 
Regional High School. This seems unlikely, due to the 
large school site and intervening playing fields and 
woodlands. 

Plymouth/Carver ; In total, this group of sites 
represent the largest areas designated for spray irri- 
gation. A total of 8,086 acres are spread over a 
fairly broad area in 11 individual sub-sites. Most of 
the acreage is in the Myles Standish State Forest in 
Plymouth. In addition to this area, there is another 
1,012 acres in the Carver portions of the Forest, 778 
acres in Wareham (316 acres west of Red Brook and 461 
acres south of the Forest) and about 377 acres in 
Bourne, north of the Cape Cod Canel. These sub-sites 
generally occupy low, rolling woodlands. Existing 
vegetation is mainly low pines and mixed hardwoods. 
Much of the area is burnt over forest. There are many 
ponds in the area, as well as 8 or 9 cranberry bogs 
near some of the sites. 

The complete site would be able to handle 29.5 
mgd. This includes some reserve capacity since the 
total land application concept provides 252 mgd capa- 
city to meet a 177 mgd demand projected for 2000. 
Approximately 675 acres of the spray site will be used 
for storage lagoons. The lagoon locations are unde- 
fined, but presumably would be central to the whole 
cluster of sub-sites, and relatively high. Thus, one 
possibility would be the high ground along the eastern 
boundary of the Forest, just west of Halfway Pond. 

Potential positive impacts resulting from the use 
of these sites as spray irrigation facilities are 
similar to those outlined in Bourne East, plus an 
increase in publically controlled land. 

Potential negative impacts resulting from the use 
of these sites for spray irrigation are also similar to 



-66- 



O 
H 

W Eh' 
Eh O 
H W 
W A 
W 
CO 



I I 

n 

CN 

+ + 

t> rH 

o o 



I I 



H- + 



I l 



+ + 



r-i 



+ + 



X3=KJaKsu«nx£«KvCj«mKXH2-fiatxa ranu-jotK»n«ci-»: 



w 

w E-t 
O 

Eh 

CU Eh 
W O 

u «: 

O 3 
U H 



° 
II H 

li W 



o 

H -H 

«J MH 
H H 
CD O 
C CD 

a & 



CD CD 
#. »J> 0) 
ODD 

^. nl rtl 
.j; »-3 »-q 
►-1 



I I I i I I 



+ + + + + 



rH ■** CN CN 



O O O O O 



4 111 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



1 I I I I 
+ +"+ + + 

CO H 

-s — ^ -d ^ 

o o o o o 



ONVD COCM CD 
<*> H CN 



I I I I I 



+ -!-+ + + 



rH ^ cn in 



o o o o o 



00 rH in rH 

1 I I I 



dP 
CO 



+ + 4- + 



CN VO rH 



o o o o 



rH VO CN 



I I I 



o 



•h + + + 



o o o o 



I I I I 



OP 
VO 



+ + + + 



r> cr> cn cn 
o o o o 



<x> cx> o id in 

NHrlHH 



rH I I • I 



rH cn cn (T\ cn 
ccj^^^^ 

+ + + + 

4H cn cn CN VO 

o 



<*> o o o o 



PSICVI 



CO 



u 

■H 

•rH 

£ <U 

•-H D< 

C W 
O 

N • » 
0) 

r-l 10 

HJ D 

Sh 

CD U 

B f-I 

*L> 'J 

O ^ 



CD (U 
•P -p 

•H-H 
01 W 



cd n 
m 0) 
^ p 



P 

u 

u 
a -h 

■H rj 

D E< 



CD 

P O 
rv, -h (ij a 

O cy in Vt r-i 

>hauw 
w 

Q 



Eh 
W 



W 



H(N CN 

I I I I I 

OP 

cn rH H cn H 

+ -h + -h + 



TJ< ^ O ^ CT> 



O O O O O 



rr cn r^ <n cn 

rH rH 



I I I I I 



dP 



+ + + + + 



o o o o o 



I I I I 



dp 
va 



o 

CM 



rH CN 

I I I I I I I I 
CN 



dP 

cn r- ^ vo rH 



CN+ + + + + + + + 



cn ^r cn in rH r> 

rH rH rH rH CN 



OOOOOOOO 



I I 1 I I I I 1 



VO- 



++++++++ 



OOOOOOOO 



+ -!• r- + + 



cn m oo cn 

CN CN rH CN 



o o o o o 



dp m cr» r^ oo r>- 

CN rH rH CN rH 



I I I 



rH o vo m rH in 

o + + + + + 

vt-i t}> cn cn in r> 




dp o o o o o 



KAi<an»<>GX««iiur^ . vm : 



vU 

C rH 

o vh <n 

•. C-'l VU > 
M rH 4J 4J 

D, o ia o o) in 

r3 "H -.J rj ;J r,i 

m ?: tr» rj -n o 

r_j d cu ,c: r: o 

^ ^ > U D rC 



I I I I I I I I 



dP 



OOOOOOOO 



o I I I I I I I • 



OH-H- + + + + + + 

m 
o 



dpOOOOOOOO 



M 



o 

H 
> 

W 



•H >H 

M O 

<ti rH 

rH O 

u o 

O O 

4J xi 



>1 

+J >1 

•H P 

+J r{ > 1r H 

B rH +J 0) 

d rcj -H > 

:J 3H (I) 

cj o w 

-p P V4 H 

(U .-J rl O TJ H 

'.S s K ^ o > 



c 



•H 

p 

H Vh 

o s\ 






dP 



dP 
00 

o • 
in 

rH 



dP 
CO CN 

VO • 

00 

cn 



Eh Eh 
O O 
Eh Eh 



-66a- 



those discussed under the Bourne East section except 
that negative effects due to groundwater retention are 
less at Bourne West since spray irrigation facilitates 
the rapid reduction of groundwater. However, addit- 
ional negative impacts seem inevitable in view of 
planned expansion of camp sites (between 600 and 2000) , 
trails and other recreational facilities in the State 
Forest. There is little evidence to support assump- 
tions that recreation and spray irrigation can coexist 
on a daily basis. Not enough information has been 
clearly defined or established pertinent to either 
public health impacts or user response. 

The effects of land application areas and facili- 
ties will depend on detailed site characteristics, 
facility design, operation variables, (e.g. the height 
and spacing of heads, valves, connecting pipelines, 
monitoring wells, etc., and the rate, frequency and 
timing of operation) and the ecological response to 
these. The last includes changes in vegetation and 
local water quality, appropriate to other reports. In 
any case the scale of the impacts can range from site 
specific to regional. These impacts will reflect the 
presence of the facilities in the immediate region, 
more than the effects of the system on the area being 
served. By definition, the pattern of sewer service 
availability in the metropolitan area will be the same 
as under Concept 4. The study area will need smaller 
and slightly fewer treatment plants than required under 
concepts which provide all tertiary treatment in the 
study area, and will experience some reduced stream 
flows. Nonetheless, the main impact 1 will be in the 
immediate vicinity of the application sites. 

Given the relatively slow growth of most of South- 
eastern Massachusetts and the remote character of most 
of the sites, land application should have little 
effect on regional growth patterns. Since the force 
main carries secondary effluent, it, in itself, should 
not encourage or facilitate local development along its 
path as regular interceptors within the study area 
might. Allowing local communities to tie into it (not 
presently proposed) would probably do little more then 
lessen their costs for tertiary treatment. 



-67- 



There appear to be no regional open space plans 
comparable to the MAPC Plan. However, the Department 
of Natural Resources has been improving the recreation 
facilities in the state forests, and the effects on 
these areas will need close examination. Inevitably, 
certain areas will be less useful due to the need to 
restrict access during spraying and after spraying. On 
the other hand, the largest spray area in the Myles 
Standish Forest is generally in a burnt-over area which 
has little current active recreation value. Some of 
the proposed spray areas outside the forest would have 
a beneficial land banking effect in holding undeveloped 
land next to the forest for future public use. 

The vast area available and the extensive existing 
facilities give Otis Air Force Base great potential for 
regionally significant development. This could be com- 
patible with the proposed rapid infiltration area since 
it would be in the least developed part of the reserva- 
tion. 

The proposed land application sites are generally 
compatible with available local planning information. 
Most sites are on land designated for future open 
space, low density housing, agriculture or vacant land. 
These generally appear to be residual recommendations 
rather than specific proposals. Thus, the open space 
recommendations usually refer to state forest land 
rather than to specific local facilities and the agri- 
cultural recommendations refer to woods rather than to 
valuable cranberry bogs. Similarly, low density housing 
recommendations usually reflect inaccessable, marginal 
land rather than particularly desirable estate areas. 

No unique historic or cultural sites appear to be 
affected, and as we understand it, the spray sites can 
be altered to exclude small cemetaries, etc. (such as 
the one near site #6 in Plymouth) which might be found. 

Traffic patterns are generally unaffected since 
the sites are set back from major roads. The one 
conflict noted is with the extension of Route 25 which 
is planned to go through a 30 acre portion of the 
Bourne-West Rapid Infiltration Site. This should leave 
the main 335 acre portion of that site intact, and if 
built as a limited access highway, it could form a good 
boundary to the remaining site. 



-68- 



Two new subdivisions, Heritage Hills in Plymouth 
and Seawoods Springs in Wareham, conflict with proposed 
spray irrigation sites. They appear to be relatively 
inactive and are at the edge of spray irrigation sites. 

Generally the location of spray sites in back 
areas away from development should minimize impact on 
local development. With suitable buffering the sites 
should blend into the surrounding woodlands. As noted, 
the sites will remove some otherwise developable land 
from the market. This might slightly slow and redirect 
growth particularly in rapidly developing Plymouth, and 
bears closer examination. 

The characteristic regional vegetation and land- 
scape forms are scrubby low hills, offset by a network 
of ponds, small streams, wetlands and closely related 
cranbery bogs. The spray sites are designed to stay 
away from all these water bodies and are concentrated 
on the higher dry ground. They should have little 
effect on the land form since the readily permeable 
soils are expected to require little in the way of 
berming, trenching, underdrain installation or other 
surface alternations. 

The spray sites are expected to alter vegetation 
by increasing the growth of the existing scrub oak and 
pine, and by encouraging succession of a wider range of 
less drought tolerant plants. Thus larger trees and 
shrubs growing near the ponds and those starting from 
wind blown and bird carried seeds may gradually take 
over. In addition excess watering reportedly might 
weaken root systems while encouraging growth thereby 
leading to many blown down trees in windy weather. The 
first effects might be more attractive though less 
distinctive than the present landscape. The net effect 
would depend on the value placed on the present char- 
acteristic Cape landscape. The blown down trees would 
be unattractive, and presumbably a fire hazard, though 
perhaps good for wildlife. 

The rapid infiltration sites will require drastic 
changes in land form since they require extensive 
lagoons. These might be visually appropriate to the 
extent that they resemble the present ponds, but the 
chances are that the result will be clearly man-made. 



-69- 



The 2,791 acres of storage lagoons will be simi- 
larly man-made unless some natural storage areas can be 
found. These are yet undefined. Though the rapid 
infiltration areas will have a major land form impact, 
they will use relatively little land in proportion to 
their capacity. 

The effects of land application on access to the 
countryside are marginal. The system will undoubtably 
require new rights-of-way, which could be used by 
hikers, snowmobiles, horsemen, etc. Yet, the Cape 
woods already have extensive dirt roads, and many gas 
pipeline and powerline rights of way. 

In all, the land application approach may have an 
acceptable landscape impact if the results of spray 
irrigation are generally positive, and if the rapid 
infiltration sites are either well-buffered or designed 
so that the resulting lagoons complement the surround- 
ing pattern of hills and ponds. 

Environmental impact needs considerable definition, 
Both approaches will improve the quality of the treated 
water, but their effects on local water is unclear. 
The main visual impact will be the response to the 
increased ground and surface water. Generally, this is 
expected to be favorable in terms of supporting plants, 
and maintaining stream and pond levels. Water quality 
effects will be carefully monitored, but their visual 
manifestation is not yet known. 

Available information suggests that the visual, 
cultural and design impacts of Concept 5, can be accept- 
able if: 

1, Storage lagoons can be sensitively designed 
and located; 

2, Spray areas can be used for open space and 
recreation much of the year; 

3, Changes in vegetation lead to a diverse, 
healthy plant community, adding variety to 
the landscape; 

4, Spray areas help to hold extensive back areas 
open for long term public use; 



-70- 



5, Access to usable open space is increased when 
appropriate and safe; 

6, Natural filtering is effective enough, and 
sufficiently monitored to avoid excess 
nutrients in ponds; 

7, Local and regional planning agencies co- 
operate to accommodate the extensive space 
demands of land application with other land 
use needs. 



-71- 



CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS ; 

Regional : It is generally agreed that sewerage 
systems are potentially development generators. These 
systems can have a direct bearing on both the pace and 
direction of growth in any given area or region. They 
have the potential for significant spatial and visual 
implications and resultant consequences, especially 
when applied over relatively large regional areas. 
They can either support existing development trends, 
guidelines, and proposals, or can present rather unique 
opportunities to develop and refine new and perhaps 
more definitive programs for regional growth and general 
land use. 

The most consistant feature of all of the five 
project concepts is their uniform provision of sewerage 
treatment for every community within the BH-EMMA by, or 
shortly after, the year 2000. However, while the 
concepts do provide the potential for service, they do 
not assume the total sewering of all communities. In 
some of the less developed communities, the population 
proposed to be sewered by the year 2000 is often no 
more than two-thirds or three quarters of their pro- 
jected populations for 1990. 

The ability of some of these "post 2000" communi- 
ties to resist pressures to provide service before 2000 
is open to question. Many of the more developed com- 
munities lie around the perimeters of the study area. 
Proposed interceptors to these communities often run 
through, or quite close to, the borders of post 2000 
communities. For example, the interceptor connecting 
Wrentham to the Medway plant (Concepts 1, 2 and 4) runs 
through Norfolk, a post 2000 town. Under Concept 
Three, this same interceptor continues on and runs 
between the post 2000 towns of Sherborn and Dover en 
route to the MDC interceptor in Natick. While the 
interceptor is not proposed to serve any of these 
communities until post 2000, it does seem logical to 
assume that its proximity to these towns could lead to 
increased development pressures on the various gover- 
ning bodies and control agencies of these communities. 

The five project concepts are potentially incon- 
sistant with regional development and density patterns 
recommended in the MAPC's Composite Development Guide. 



-72- 



Most of these inconsistancies are directly related to 
the uniformity of service that is common to all con- 
cepts. The Composite Guide features alternating corri- 
dors of high and low density development. These corri- 
dors are radial from the core city and generally extend 
out into the Route 495 area. If the project concepts 
concentrated interceptors and/or regional facility 
services in these areas, they would strenghten the 
density proposals, help to concentrate development, 
and, in areas where recommended densities have been met 
or exceeded, they would provide needed community ser- 
vices. Application of similar services in the low 
density corridors would tend to blur the corridors and 
obscure their spatial and visual differences. 

The concepts are potentially inconsistant with 
regional open space and recreational programs. Again, 
the principal factor appears to be the concept's uni- 
formity of service. MAPC Open Space and Recreation 
Plan studies indicate that the region is seriously 
deficient in recreation areas and facilities. The 
major proposals of the studies are the continued and 
accelerated acquisition and development of general 
purpose open space as well as more specialized forms of 
public and semi-public open space and recreational 
facilities. The studies predict that acreage needed 
for these programs by 199 will be more than twice the 
currently existing acreage. Competition for available 
land would seem to be the key factor. If density 
corridors were developed, the low density corridors 
might offer more potential for land acquisition. 

For the same reason, the concepts do not appear to 
encourage the preservation of small, quality landscape 
areas as recommended in "Appendix N" of the NAR report. 
As before, the issue appears to be increased competition 
for available acreage. Expanded muncipal facilities 
and related development generally result in a changing 
economic cycle that eventually surfaces as increased 
land costs. This has a direct bearing on the feasi- 
bility of acquiring land solely for its amenity value. 

In total, all three of these potential inconsis- 
tancies relate directly to what is perhaps the most 
significant visual-cultural and design impact resulting 
from the implementation of any of the project concepts. 
This impact is the potential change in the regional 



-73- 



visual-cultural asthetic "baseline condition". The 
composition of this baseline asthetic is a unique, 
harmonious blend of the natural and the man-made. It 
is a continual visual experience. It is the conscious 
awarness and enjoyment of the continually changing 
arrangement of the elements and features of our environ- 
ment. It is especially unique and valuable in this 
area due to the degree of change and the variety of 
visual experiences offered within relatively short 
travel times and distances. Many feel it is a prime 
factor in the region's ability to attract and hold 
professionals and other highly skilled personnel needed 
to support and develop our changing, service-oriented 
economy. 

Changes in the baseline asthetic are secondary 
impacts, (i.e. going beyond the basic water quality 
concerns) associated with development and increased use 
of structured wastewater collection systems. These 
impacts would generally include changes in overall 
landscape pattern, surface water, vegetation, and to 
some extent, land form. Most of these secondary im- 
pacts relate to reductions in rates and amounts of 
natural percolation which, in many areas, will aggra- 
vate already unstable groundwater conditions. A gradu- 
al "drying" of surface soils and lowered water tables 
could be harmful to vegetation, especially species with 
shallow root systems. This could also accelerate 
natural, gradual succession and encourage the develop- 
ment of new plant material, some of which may not be as 
attractive or as desirable as the existing species. 
Lowered water tables could have significant visual 
impacts such as lower levels of impounded water and 
reduced stream flows. The magnitude of these impacts 
would be greatly increased during prolonged drought 
periods. Also, if development reached the point of 
requiring structured storm drain systems, these impacts 
could be magnified by as much as 1000 percent. 

Many of these potential impacts cannot be accurate- 
ly projected without input from the other impact assess- 
ors. Even then, they may be beyond the scale and scope 
of these reports and require additional, more detailed 
investigation by other professional disciplines. The 
important point is to be aware of their potential 
significance and weight them properly during the screen- 
ing and review processes. 



-74- 



Even though simple rapid infiltration lagoons 
might replace more standard outfalls at some plants 
(soils permitting) we assume that all of the concepts 
discharge some treated effluent into inland streams and 
rivers. The locations of discharge points and the 
volumes of effluent vary from one concept to another. 
In most instances, the volumes of effluent are large 
enough to generate significant impacts. For example, 
the average flow of the East Branch of the Neponset 
River in the vicinity of the proposed South Canton 
facility is about 50 cfs. Total effluent discharged 
from that plant by the year 2000 is approximately 39 
cfs. In other words, the Canton South plant will 
generate a 75 to 80 percent increase in the average 
yearly flow of the East Branch. Another example is the 
combined discharges of the Hopedale, Medfield and 
Medway plants. They represent the addition of 25 cfs 
to the upper Charles River. The nearest recorded flow 
figures for the river are taken downstream from these 
plants, in the Charles River Village area. At this 
point, river flows average about 295 cfs. In raw 
figures then, the 3 plants increase river flows by 8 to 
10 percent. However, it is likely that this figure is 
somewhat conservative due to the separation of the data 
reference points. Further upstream the average flow of 
the river is probably less than 295 cfs, and the added 
25 cfs can be expected to have a more significant 
impact. 

Most of the impacts associated with increased 
stream flows are generally thought of as being positive. 
Added volumes of what may be considered "better quality" 
water should improve the visual appearance of the 
surface waters and adjacent river banks. Expanded 
recreational opportunities are often associated with 
improved water quality and increased flows. The dis- 
charge of effluent into inland water bodies rather than 
the ocean does have the benefit of some water being 
retained for percolation. This could be especially 
significant in areas that depend on well fields for 
their water supplies. 

There are some potential negative impacts associ- 
ated with increased stream flows. Increased water 
depths may reduce the range and variety of visual 
experiences on some streams by eliminating shallow 



-75- 



water, deep water transitions. Focal points created by 
current interaction with exposed or partially submerged 
rocks may lose much of their dramatic impact. Water 
edge vegetation may prove intolerant to increased 
flows. Larger and more ecologically fragile areas such 
as swamps and marshes may be adversely effected by the 
introduction of effluent discharges. 

In reality, we may be placing to much emphasis on 
the various visual-cultural and design impacts related 
to stream effluent discharges. When compared to other 
impacts, particularly those related to the asthetic 
baseline condition, their importance may be relatively 
insignificant. Also, the findings and conclusions of 
the hygenic and ecological impact assessments may 
indicate that effluent discharges do not produce a 
"better quality" condition in all instances. 

Implementation of any of the concept proposals 
should not have a significant affect on the current 
levels of air quality within the study area. On the 
state and local levels, air quality control is the 
responsibility of the Commwealth of Massachusetts, 
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Air Quality 
Control. This bureau has established definite plan 
review procedures as well as control standards and 
testing methods for emissions from wastewater treatment 
facilities. While their control standards for sludge 
incineration are somewhat more stringent than those in 
the Federal regulations, the two regulations are very 
similar on most key issues. The Federal regulations 
are part of the EPA Clean Air Act and they establish 
"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources", 
which includes wastewater treatment plants. These 
regulations became effective in February, 1974 and 
apply to new plants as well as those that began con- 
struction in June, 1973. 

The majority of the proposed interceptors deline- 
ated on their respective concept plans do not seem to 
relate to existing or planned rights of ways or trans- 
portation corridors. The interceptors seem to follow 
along side brooks, streams and rivers and other natural 
drainage channels. For example, the proposed inter- 
ceptors for the Hamilton and Middleton plants follow 
along the Ipswich River. Interceptors from the Brockton 
facility follow the Salisbury Plain River and West 
Meadow Brook. 



-76- 



One rather obvious exception to this pattern is 
the mole tunnel that connects the Woburn, Medford, 
Watertown, Dedham and Canton (95/128) plants. From the 
Woburn plant, the tunnel appears to follow along under 
Route 93 down to the Medford plant. From Medford to 
Canton, the path of the tunnel does not appear to 
follow any readily apparent rights of way or transpor- 
tation corridors. However, from Canton south, the 
surface force mains follow Routes 24 and 25 to the 
general vicinities of the spray irrigation and rapid 
infiltration sites. 

Since the majority of the interceptors seem water 
oriented, they do represent a unique opportunity for 
the development of trail systems. These trails could 
be short inter-community systems, or long interconnect- 
ing networks. With adequate side slopes and surface 
treatments, they could be used for hiking, bicycle 
riding or a combination of both. 

Region; Summary ; The most consistant feature of 
all project concepts is their uniform provision of 
sewerage treatment for every community in the BH-EMMA 
by, or shortly after the year 2000. 

The most significant visual-cultural and design 
impacts resulting from the implementation of any one of 
the five project concepts are the potential changes in 
the region's baseline asthetic. 

All of the concepts are somewhat inconsistant with 
regional development guides, land use plans and open 
space proposals. 

The majority of proposed interceptors are not 
intergrated with existing or planned rights of way and 
transportation corridors. 

Implementation of any project concept will not 
have a significant impact on the quality of air within 
the BH-EMMA or its Concept Five extension. 

As proposed, the concepts do not fully utilize 
some of their inherent potentials. For example, if we 
assume that the positive impacts of increased stream 
flows are significant, it seems logical to assume that 
the impacts would have an even greater significance if 



-77- 



the effluents were discharged further upstream. Could 
abandoned MDC interceptors be used as "casements" for 
internal, reverse gradient pipes that would carry this 
effluent upstream? Could proposed treatment plants 
also function as booster pumping stations for these 
flows? 

Site Specific : Of the 31 individual plant facili- 
ty sites proposed in Concept One, 20 of them are either 
existing, operational plants or currently under con- 
struction. Of the remaining 11 plant/facility sites, 7 
are considered adequate for the construction of a 
wastewater treatment plant (Brockton, Chelmsford, 
Essex, Gloucester Lanesville, Hull, Middleton, Sud- 
bury) . Three sites were considered not acceptable for 
the construction of a wastewater treatment plant 
(Gloucester 133, Hamilton, Medway) . One site was not 
rated (Gloucester Magnolia) due to the lack of exact 
site definition. Expressed as a percentage of total 
concept plant/facility sites, 9.7 percent of the sites 
in Concept One were not recommended for plant construc- 
tion. As a percentage of total new, raw land sites, 
2 7.3 percent were not recommended for plant construc- 
tion. 

Concept Two adds 5 new suggested "raw land" plant 
sites to the 11 contained in Concept One. Three of 
these (Canton North, Dedham, Framingham) were considered 
acceptable for the construction of a wastewater treat- 
ment plant. Two were considered unacceptable for the 
construction of a wastewater treatment plant (Canton 
South, Watertown) . Expressed as a percentage of total 
concept plant/facility sites 13.9 percent of the sites 
in Concept Two were not recommended for plant construc- 
tion. As a percentage of new, "raw land" sites within 
Concept Two, 40.0 percent were not recommended for 
plant construction. 

Concept Three Metropolitan Sewerage District 
expansion eliminates 3 sites contained in Concept One. 
One of those sites is not recommended for the construc- 
tion of a wastewater treatment plant. Expressed as a 
percentage of total concept plant/facility sites, 7.1 
percent of the sites in Concept Three were not recom- 
mended for plant construction. 



-78- 



Concept Four adds 6 "raw land" plant sites to the 
11 contained in Concept One. Three of these were 
considered suitable for the construction of a waste- 
water treatment plant (Dedham, Framingham, Woburn) . 
Three were considered unsuitable for wastewater treat- 
ment plant construction (Canton 95/12 8, Medford, Water- 
town) . Expressed as a percentage of total concept 
plant/facility sites, 16.2 percent of the sites in 
Concept Four were not recommended for plant construc- 
tion. As a percentage of "raw land" sites within the 
concept, 50.0 percent were not recommended for plant 
■construction. 

A site specific analysis of potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts related to the land appli- 
cation and spray irrigation sites in Concept Five does 
not reveal any clearly discernible reasons for imple- 
mentation or rejection. Many of the identified impacts 
are marginal and subject to widely divergent opinions. 
Few, if any, seem to express any strong positive or 
negative comparisons that are different from other 
concepts. 

Site Specific; Summary : Of the two concepts that 
propose expansion of the Metropolitan Sewerage District, 
Concept Three has a lower percentage of sites not 
recommended for construction. 

Of the two concepts that propose contraction or 
decentralization of the Metropolitan Sewerage District, 
Concept Two has a lower percentage of sites not recom- 
mended for construction. 

Preferred Concept : From a regional viewpoint, the 
contracted or decentralized Metropolitan Sewerage 
District concepts are preferred over concepts that 
expanded the Sewerage District. On a site specific 
basis, Concept Two is preferred over Concept Four. 
Concept Five does not exhibit sufficient justification 
for its implementation. 

From a visual-cultural and design point of view, 
Concept Two is the preferred concept. 



-79- 




/mer 



AHESBURY \ SALISBURY ' 



PEPPfRfLL 



) TTNCS- feg 
DUNSTABLE < BOROUGH * 



MKIT 

V-' 



r 



MERRIMAC V 

^ WEST J PORT 
^ NEWBURY V^*" 
N HAVERHILL /^ ^"NEWBURY 

V /-CflOVELANO ^ 

GEORGETOWN / ROWLEY 



~i 



METHUEN_ 
r-yB&( NORTH 
\ 



L- 



ANDOVER 



iWfLl 



ANOOVER \ 



\ 



\ 



CROTON 



TEMJWJT 



v 



t 



\ 



-^ 



•s 



/ 



BOXFORD ^>^" IPSWICH 

f TOPSFIELO S J n,"S jP ,- 

y S ^l^NILTON JlKfl/ 

WDDLETON ^,Xl WENHAJT^^Vj ___iGL0OCf STFR 






/ }|0«TH READING \ / |iwrtk\ 



-< 



i 1 

SHIRLEY ) AYER 7 \ ■_ 

r L.TTl/TM S V-< CARLISLE ^_ ;\ ^ K *° l >^\? 1 ^^ 7W^ 

mm y «To. / l /\ /"•»«>*■■) >c * t ™ HioL> 



LANCASTER \ 



\ 

/ HARVARO 

A 




BOLTON 



STOW 



4. , 

\ LEXINCTON "Y^*^ "l 

ING-YufDfORD^ "" 

^REVERE 



BERLIN _J> *•*•■___ ^ 



\ MARLBOKOUCH 



yt>^/ / \ LEXINCTON^^* 5 ^ 

' l ^k ^"'v ^belxonV^^ 

If suo.wrr r J i " > ■"■ A^W 



fN0RTHBOR0UCH V 
J 

kwESTHROUCH 



\Wl*Noj WESTON V"" ""f' J 
* 1 , S NEWTON u^ y 



D< "**!-/ V^l^HAHANT 
'WINTHROP 



V 




A . 

C LINE/ 



/ 



i 1 

SDUTHMROMCH / fRMMCHAN / 

\ /. r v '' v./ 

NATICK \ / , fEDMM ^ 



\ 



AMt«J s y r " 



^WfLKSLE. , 

V' - 

- J / • 



boston! 



VjC 



UPTON 



/ ^ I V- J / XDEOHAN | J / OUINCY ^^ V ^ 

,' MnilTH '»-»— '\ SHH80M ,J DOVER .'Vs. V MIL ™ ]> _^-^">* V r N COHASSET 

J \ A -, / ^NA ^" / ' ) HINCHAW \ 

._r^ Nf»»»/ ^NORWOOD/ V ^n , X " ^ N 

\ «ILLI$ C S ^ CANTON X / -I I .-< _-_,, N 

\ J „,m,, \ n ^'\ /■ / > \ ^, NORKELL 

\ / — JiALPCtE > ^ ^ X /holbrook.' ^^«^ r \ r 

LLANO \ NANOVElT^ ^ HARSHFIELa^ 



NORTHBRIDCE X \°*K 

s' | MENOON 



I 1 

UJBRiDCE ,MILi -| Brr - Tfll , f 
fyi ll£ BLACK. IONS 



/ HOLUSTOK 1 ,-S /-\ / V V T BRAINTREE ,1 

"T ^--T ^'^ <',"<" , «w/ \anoolph~) ' 

\_. / / \ HILLIS C \ S ~S CANTON X / -I 

*> ^NEOWAY \ y__ r JWALPOLE >' V ^^\ .'hOWKk' 

I \ NORFOLK \ VSTOUGHTON^^^^^L^ae 

I / \ v ^^i^^W SHARON ^ ^^^^ ) 

ieuiis-/ ; ^Jr V /^^^> /- 

"*" / FI,A, " U,, / Tpoxborouc>\ - ^'^ \ W 00 *™ A* 



i 

l " 

l 



Rhode Island 



ABINCTOlJ 

) 

\ MOCKTON (WHITMAN 'j 1 / 

\"\J EAST I"*" 50 "/ L 

EASTON \ W [sr I BRIOGEWATER \ 

\briogewater 1 p 

\ ^ — Vj 

\ ^' ^7 HALIfAX 

BRIOGEWATER 



Diagonally Striped Areas 



■ proposed service area for 
Deer I Nut Islands 



Shaded & Cross Hatched Areas- proposed municipal & reg- 
ional service areas 



Arrows 



- proposed inclusions after 

the year 2000 

study area boundary 



CONCEPT 2 A REGIONAL PLAN 

DEER AND NUT ISLANDS 
SERVICE AREA CONTRACTION 



-79A- 



The Selected Concept : The Technical Subcommittee* 
of the BH-EMMA has developed its recommendations for 
wastewater treatment within the project study area. 
While these recommendations represent a consensus of 
the agencies on the subcommittee, they are not final, 
and they will be presented to, and reviewed by, the 
general public as well as various Federal, state, and 
local agencies. 

The subcommittee's recommendations are referred to 
as the Selected Concept. Basically, this concept is 
Concept One modified to include three additional ad- 
vanced wastewater treatment facilities. These facili- 
ties are located in Woburn, Canton and Welles ley. The 
key points of the Selected Concept are: 

1. To maintain the current service area of the 
Deer Island plant. 

2. To minimize expansion of the Nut Island 
Plant. 

3. To increase flows in the Aberjona, Charles 
and Neponset Rivers. 

The Woburn facility is identical to the plant pro- 
posed in Concept Four but, with a greatly reduced flow. 
This plant would treat a small portion of its Concept 
Four service area, the rest of the flow going to the 
Deer Island plant. Treatment would be of a very high 
level and projected flows are about 2 mgd. In reality, 
it would appear that the prime function of this facili- 
ty is low-flow augmentation for the Aberjona River. 



*Agencies on the subcommittee are: The Metropolitan 
District Commission (Chairman), the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Commonwealth's Department of Public Health, Divis- 
ion of Water Pollution Control and Resource Management 
Policy Council, and the Metropolitan Area Planning 
Council. 



-80- 



SELECTED CONCEPT: STREAM FLOW COMPARISON 



Facility 

Location Woburn Canton Wellesley 

Receiving Aberjona Neponset Charles 

Stream River River River 

Average Plant 

Discharge 

(yr. 2000) 2 mgd 30 mgd 30 mgd 

Upstream 
Effluent 
Discharge (mgd) 16 

10 yr. - 7 day 

Low Flow (mgd) 0.25 7 7 



80 



195 



2650 



July thru Oct. 
Average Flow 
(mgd) 


5 


40 


Annual Average 
Flow (mgd) 


18 


95 


100 yr. Flood 
Flow (mgd) 


790 


1300 



Source: U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers 



-81- 



On a site specific basis, the previously identified 
potential negative impacts resulting from the construc- 
tion of this facility (page 61) should be greatly re- 
duced due to the reduction in the overall size and area 
requirements of the plant. 

The Canton facility is identical to the facility 
proposed in Concept Four (Canton, 95/128) . Projected 
flows are 30 mgd in the year 2000. This plant will 
reduce flows to the Nut Island plant in Boston Harbor 
and increase flows in the Neponset River. 

The Wellesley facility is a new proposal. The 
plant's service will include Wellesley, Framingham, 
Natick, Ashland, Hopkinton, and Southborough, as well 
as parts of Dover and Sherborn in the future. Flows 
from this plant will be about 30 mgd in the year 2000. 
Like the Canton facility, this plant will increase flow 
in inland waterways, in this instance, the Charles 
River. 

The suggested site for this plant is in Wellesley 
on the bank of the Charles River, on the nothern portion 
of land currently being used by the Stigmatine Fathers. 
From the standpoint of potential visual-cultural and 
design impacts, the site seems suitable for the con- 
struction of a treatment facility. 

Significant positive impacts generated by the 
plant are increased flows in the Charles River, parti- 
cularly during low flow periods (this area of the river 
is very attractive and is heavily used by canoeists and 
other boaters) . Also, with the exception of South- 
borough and Hopkington, the plant should provide ser- 
vices consistant with the MAPC's Composite Development 
Guide. 

A comparison of the Selected Concept and Concept 
Two (Preferred Concept, page 79) reveals many similari- 
ties. Under both concepts, the Marlborough East plant 
becomes a municipal facility. Both concepts reduce 
flows to Nut Island by about the same amount (assuming 
that the Watertown plant is unexceptable and its ser- 
vice area flows will go to Deer Island) . Both Concepts 
have similar relationships to the MAPC Composite Devel- 
opment Guide. 



-82- 



The principle differences between the concepts are 
that the Selected Concept has fewer plants than Concept 
Two, and it also reduces the service area of the Woburn 
facility. While these differences are small, they are, 
from a visual-cultural and design viewpoint, sufficient 
to recommend the Selected Concept over the previously 
preferred Concept Two. This decision assumes that the 
previous recommendation regarding an alternate site for 
the Canton plant is feasible and will be investigated. 

In November, 1975, prior to the development of the 
Selected Concept by the Technical Subcommittee, a meet- 
ing was held involving representatives of the Corps of 
Engineers and all of the impact consultants* involved 
in the BH-EMMA study. The purpose of this meeting was 
to review the final draft conclusions and comments of 
the impact consultants and attempt to develop a hybrid 
concept consistent with this review. A hybrid concept 
was developed but, perhaps more important to an over- 
view of the BH-EMMA study project are the general con- 
clusions that the impact consultants formulated at that 
meeting. 

1. Concepts One and Three require maximum ex- 
pansion of the Deer and Nut Island facilities. While 
definitive proposals for expansion of these facilities 
were not presented to the impact consultants, it was 
generally concluded that expansion would require ex- 
tensive filling of Boston Harbor, especially at Nut 
Island, with resulting negative asthetic and ecological 
impacts . 

2. The volume of harbor discharges proposed by 
Concepts One and Three may have an adverse effect on 
inland surface water levels and groundwater tables. 

3. The centralized concepts tend to preclude 
opportunities for water reclaimation. 



*Visual-cultural and Design, Hygenic, Socio-Economic 
and Ecolocical. 



-83- 



4. The centralized concepts could homogenize 
development patterns contrary to regional planning 
recommendations. This could have significant impacts 
on the regions over all asthetic quality. 

5. The attempt to decentralize treatment in Con- 
cepts Two and Four seems too limited since the "decen- 
tralized" new systems are actually centralized sub- 
regional systems, each serving 4 to 6 towns. As a re- 
sult, many have local and regional land use conflicts. 

6. In most instances, discharging effluent into 
inland waters will not significantly improve the quality 
of these waters. With the simultaneous removal of 
landfill leachates and other pollutants, the discharge 
of treated effluents would, at best, maintain current 
water quality levels. Thus, with respect to water, the 
greatest difference between the concepts seems to be 
water quantity and the potential for reclaimation and 
eventual treatment and reuse, rather than water quality. 

It was felt that a more decentralized system would 
be generally more acceptable. Use of many smaller dis- 
charge points would lessen effluent impact and help to 
maintain upstream water levels. The smaller individual 
plants would also lessen site impacts (despite the in- 
creased total acreage used) . In addition, development 
impacts could be controlled better by dealing with 
smaller, more discrete service areas whose inclusion 
could be programmed to implement regional land use 
goals. Thus, a completely decentralized system was 
generally preferred, given acceptable capital and 
operating costs and the availability of sufficient dis- 
charge points or small, land application sites. 



-84- 



THE SELECTED CONCEPT 



Diagonally Striped Areas 



proposed service area for 
Deer & Nut Islands 



Shaded & Cross Hatched Areas- proposed municipal & reg- 
ional service areas 






/« 



Arrows 



proposed inclusions after 
the year 2000 



AMESBURY \ 
'MERRIMAC ^ 



PEPPERELL 



study area boundary 



] TYNGS- 

-v DUNSTABLE < BOROUGH W& 

-\ ^; - - m 






). 



■-< 



l\ / - ILAWREHCE^ 

V i \. \ 

\V u *\ ANDOVER 



AN00VER 




x — 
/GHOVELAND 



B0XF0RD 



I 
' SHIRLEY ) AVER 

r — '""""" 
-( 



WESTfORO 



LITTLETON \,^C CARLISLE 



BILLERICA 



f TOPSFIELO s" 1 

S ^HAMILTON I ^ - ( 



'.WILMINGTON \-' 

f\ \ READING iLTKKrao' 



4 1 




MANCHESTER 



-/ 



< BEDFOBD >*T0 N r \_^'^--^\^W 

L /~\ X* OTW &oNf-~; r \ irN „ \ -^ 



J' 

/ HARVARD f ' — ^,-^ \ 

LANCASTER ) JlOXBOROUCH/ I 

i concord r^-7 \ w ^'y \ 

y^J r \ LEX-NCTON^'"^^ — V> 

BOLTON / STOW \ WY- /^ / ) /ABitf-V*™ nen C "*"'" ' 

fCLINTONr^ ^"^ , \ ' O- t V ^0-n 7\ • ™ K 

mum S i 

fwruuioj WfSTONV 

i NIKON 



lo\ mm" 



"■< 



HUDSON 



r* 



V_V /REVERE 
EVER 



^ 



-^ 



**■*' 



( ^f^EFT^tr> 





X 



'NMTHKROUCH 



kWESTBQNWOt j 



< LINE/ 

^/fflWMI /^ 

/ S -.D(DHAN ■? 

:RV / V \f »" T W V 

' WESTWOOO 



Mass a c hus e fts 

DEER ISLAND FACILITY 
NUT ISLAND FACILITY 





ANOOLPH i 

/hclbrooi' 



r \ f 

ROCK-\ 



\ 



J— 



/ WflFNTHAN 



UXBRIDGE IMILi -| R , ir «Tni l f 
lyi^r iBLACIClONE 



Rhode 



sland 



lLAND 
*-- lABWTOr 

\- 

\ MOCITMI 1 WHIT MAN > 

\--\j ^srv us °* 

EASTON \ f[ST \ B R IDCf » AT fR '. 

' BRIOCEt/ATfR » p~ A 

\ 



HANOVER \ \ 



MAASHTllUJ 



PfMBRME / 



1 HALIFAX 



BRIDGE WATER 





SCALE IN MILES 



120 APPROXIMATE CAPACITY OF THE FACILITY IN MGD 

▲ SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITY 

■ RECOMMENDED ADVANCED TREATMENT FACILITY 

□ FLOW AUGMENTATION FACILITY 



-85- 



APPENDIX A 

BASELINE DATA 
AND 
COMPLETED MATRIX FORMS 

FOR 
ALL PLANT/FACILITY SITES 
CONCEPTS ONE, TWO, THREE, & FOUR 



-86- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General: 



Site Location Billerica 
Watershed Concord River 



USGS Quad Billerica 



Site Designation 

X existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

X Primary Fv*«i-in g 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



J3 



X_ Secondary under const-.mni-.inn 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 6.4 , 2020 9-4 



, 2050 11 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 l2_0 

Plant/Facility; areas served Billerica , pl us Carlisle 
after 200Q 



-87- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Generally flat; minor pitch down to river 



Vegetation: Generally open; surrounded by deciduous on 
three sides. 



Soils : 



Special features: Existing facility is in process of 

major expansion & construction project. Site does not appear 



to have any special natural features. 


River not now visible 


from any part of the site. 







General site character: Typical bottom land with "edge" 



vegetation. Site is isolated and doesn't conflict with 
residential development general to the area. Conflict will 
take place if development continues in direction of plant. 



-88- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. r,pnpral residential: one to two 
acre lots; typical style, setting and character of that 



fairly rural area. 


Most* homes are 


single 


family, 


quite 


new with good 


setback, 


but appear 


to 


suf f 1 


5r 


from 


poor 


maintenance & 


lack 


of 


attention. 

















Noise levels and air quality. Generally good. 



Zoning and development issues. 



-89- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

eirs- 









IMPACT 



► 



PL^NN/hJG 



LAnO 1^£>Z ■ <3rS^JZ&\U 



LAHO USB ■ Sf&ClrIG 



X 





^ 


£0 


fl * 


1) 






& 










\ 



T 




/ 





^^^^^Kim nzn iznn nzn cm 





8! 

tf) 



10 



PLfrMMlh*l& 



&5-N&RAL Z&W/M& 



land ues. -■ sp&cific 



C/M/QU5- H/STOXIG &/T3 



QH/QUZ GULWXAL SIT& 



TRAFFIC 7ATT&RH 



A\CJ/OH TOT^US'. 1 



OB^yBLOpMBN T 



7VP& 



O&r^&lTY 



CHAX&&TBX 



&CAL& 



LAts/Q5G/*P& 



UAMOFOfrM 



\z&&B.T<^TlO^ 






ACG&<Z>£> 



a 



o + 



| AGTIGN TOTA0&\ I - I % yf \ 



o t - 

ZEE 



c? f - 



L2 



- o *» - o *» - 



0+ - © f- 

rm nr 



1 ^cr/o^ r^^ lH^^ r f ] ^ ^^ ^ 



ZNV/RONMZNT 



WATS-R CL-^HITV 



WATB-R COLO* 



WATS'* GxU^MTir^ 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A\lK QUALITY 



/sto/e>& ue.\/eu 



OO&R 



v/3/^^r/o^ 



3 m 



5 



ACTION TOTAL& 



or- a + - 



^. * 



~n^rrn 







T 



























~rm 







/ 


















/ 






















/ 








/ 




1 



o + — 





1 


/ 




/ 


I 






/ 




/ 
















1 













EBBS 



-90- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Brockton 



Site Location 
Watershed 



USGS Quad Brockton 



Taunton 



. Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

y 

X existing facility — I — ' ' — • l ' 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) extensive adjoining lan d 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X Secondary existing (12 mgd) 

X Advanced proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
2000 Avon 3.2 , 2020 



, 2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 

Plant/Facility; areas served Brockton, Avon, & possibly 
Abington in future 



Facility is outside study area, but is proposed to handle 
flow from Avon which is in study area 

-91- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: low, Salisbury Plain River Flood Plain rising 
slightly to east. 



Vegetation: Misc. hardwoods and shrubs. 



Soils : Fine sandy flood plain loam (Saco) 



Special features: Great proximity to river and to Main 
Street. Sludge is being dumped on partially diked lands south 
of the plant. 



General site character: secluded and well screened despite 



proximity to Main St. across the river. 



-92- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Business along Main Street 
to the west, new distribution industries in industrial 
park along Oak Hill way to the east. Vacant flood plain 
land to north and south. River is murky and river access, 
though possible, is difficult with no provision now for 
trails along the river or along the banks. 



Noise levels and air quality. Same smell from sludge 
dumping area, but there is little affected development immedia tely 
downwind . 



Zoning and development issues. Area is zoned for industr y 
P ast of the river and for commerce west of it. 1969 plan reco m- 
mpndPd the same us ers. Open space possibilities exist along, 

the river , 1969 plan proposed a river oriented open space syst em 

as far as Perkins Street, 

nore could be done and the plant should be designed to give 

access to the river without overwhelming i t. 



-93- 



IMPACT MATRIX 









IMPACT 

GA\TZ&OftV 



FL*\NN//^JG 



LA^O U&Z ■ &B«^lS.f<A,L 



I, AND use ■ SPECIFIC 



X 







i\o 


-«U 


*JW 


4! 


fl 







^^F ^k^F 



I frG-lOH TOTAL'S] \ ° (*" \ "\ 



I 



5 




EH 



O + ~ O •¥ - 






I 








1 



o + — 





5: 
8! 



10 



PLfrM^l^G? 



&5-N5-ftAL ZON//NI& 



cano U&S- '■ erzc/Fic 



c/wQp& H/eroxic &/T3 



OH/QUZ GULTUZAL SITB 



TRAFFIC PATTSftN 
A\CJ/om TOTALS'. 1 



O&^S&LOPM&N T 



7-YPB* 



O^n/B/TV 



CHAft&GTSft 



scals 



1 APT I OH TOTAL'S] 



L*hJQSG/*P& 



LAMOrOftM 



\/£&&T*TlO^ 



CH^ftAGTBP 



C/K/QOB \'ALU& 



AGG&&& 



B3 



± 



1 
1- 



* 



fA" 



zn 



- o y - 



^D rm crDi 



a. 



\ a\gtio^ to~au<=>;\ t 



£NV/RONM5>SlT 



WAT 3- ft CW^ft/TV 



WATBft GOL-Oft, 



WATS> ft QG&/SJT/TY 



WAT&ft Qu-^L/ry 



A\lft\ G}UA\L/TV 



/vo/s^ Lzveu 



ooop 



V/BplAf/ONJ 



O + - & T 

mam 





1 






/I 























Of- 





1 






1 






/ 






I 





o + - o t - O * - O i* - Of — 



^n 



2 






/ 




/ 


/ 




/ 






/ 


^ 


1 





- O T - O f - 



IS 



^rrra 



2 



a 



£ 



± 





/ 






/ 




/ 








/ 
















1 













I AGT/&/« TOTALS 



o t - a 

fi rm r 



- o + " 



n 



gisn 



5m 



-94- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Canton (SW 95/12 8) 



USGS Quad Norwood 



Watershed Neponset River . 

Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

. explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





X X 





Secondary 



proposed, Concept 5 



X _ , j proposed, Concept 4 
Advanced r r 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 (4)30 (5)2 7, 2020 (4,5)36 , 2050 (4,5)39 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2C00 (4,5)25 
Plant/Facility; areas served Canton, Norwood, Sharon, 



Stoughton, Walpole, Westwood. 



-95- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Flat freshwater marsh stretching to south with 
low hills to east and west. 



Vegetation: low trees , 40% grass, 10% brush 



Soils: probably typical marsh soil, peat. 



Special features: Site is immediately bounded on north 

and east by RTES. 128 and 95, and is bounded on west by RR trac ks 
and C.C. & F's Westwood Industrial Park. 



General site character: Marsh confined by highways and 



railroad. Site is apparently determined by present MDC interceptor 
following Neponset River. 



^-96T 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development . Adjoining industrial and highway 
development is compatible with STP construction. Present River 
access is limited since it requires leaving highway or crossing 
RR tracks. River appears clear. 



Noise levels and air quality. Present background noise 
is that from the two highways. 



Zoning and development issues. 1959 Master Plan called for 

limited industrial use as did zoning map. MAPC ' s open space pla n 

called for retention as a "natural environment area" (presumab 1 y 

an extension of Fowl Meadow ("Neponset River") Reservation. 

Present Hatch-Jones Act Requirements should severly limit feas ibility 

of this site for an extensive plant. 

Note; if the key locational requirement is access to the prese nt 
interceptors the possibility of moving the site about 2600' South 
to higher ground just east of the junction of the two interceptors 
feeding this site should be expanded. 

-97- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

Cyan 'on (, <{?£) 






IMPACT K" 






PL^MN/C^G 



LA^O L>€?Z : <5>5.\i£RAL, 



LAND USB • S^GlFIG 



frG~IO^i TOTALS- 







ID 



PLA>NNllMGr 



&5-N&RAL ZCW/MG> 



LAND U£>5- ■ SP&CtFIG 



C/M/QUB- H/STOX/G S/T3 



UH/QU5 GULWXAL SITB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



A\CT(&H TDTAL-3 1 . | 



0&\S&U0PM&N T 



7YP5* 



O&M&lTY 



CHARAC-TZR 



&CALB 



\ ACTION TOTALS >\ 



L<ANIOOGP*P& 



L AMD FORM 



\z&&&T*Tio^i 



(JMIQUB \/<ALU& 



AGG&&& 



lAor/ar^ to~auz>',\ 



EN V/RONM2.N T 



i^ATZ-R GL-^.^/TV 



WAT&R GOLOR 



tMATZI GXUf^NTir^ 



yWATB-R QUALITY 



A\/R G*UAUIT>C 



MO/£>£- L£M"BL 



ooop 



VIBRATION 



AGTIOM TOTALS 



X 



So 













i 






T 



o + - 

TTH 



O + - O + — © *» - 



a + — 



Jtf 



7T-T71 



ffl 





/ 




















/ 









Of*- g j - Of- O f - 



a + - 

~rnr 



s 



± 



rid 



(2 





1 




/ 


/ 




/ 


1 




I 


/ 





Of- Of-- 



gni 



o^- o f - o«^-- 






k2 



^ 










/ 


2 




2- 


-£ 




-z- 






/ 


3 










o + - o y» - c? f — 



E 



± 



/ 


1 



Of- o *• 

an 



o i" - o f - o 

Dm 



nm 



-98- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location North Canton • 

Watershed Neponset River • 

Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



USGS Quad Norwood 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





X 





Secondary 
X Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 



2000. 



5.5 



2020 8.0 



, 2050 8.2 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



6.3 



Plant/Facility; areas served Westwood and parts of Canton, 
Dedham and Norwood. 



-99- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Marsh and swamp extending along the river North 
and South, bordered by higher land and low hills to east and 
west. 



Vegetation : Marsh grass, shrubs and low trees. 



Soils: Presumably typical marsh soils 



Special features: site is bordered to north by a trucking 
terminal and light industry, and on the west by RR tracks and 
beyond that, housing. Only open areas are to north, west and 
south along marsh and east toward the Blue Hills Reservation. 



General site character: Marsh and river attractive for 
hiking and fishing. 



-100- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development, intensive reside ntial ^yplnpmpnt 

is immediately east of RR tracks and residents appea r to use 

open space along the riverr. Truck terminal to North has fille d 

some marsh, it would be unaffected by STP. 

Area is in the Fowl Meadow Reservation and appears to be in si g h t 

of Blue Hills Reservation. Development should be pre cluded by 

open space use and wetlands Protection Act. River is slightly 
murkier than at Canton. River is public but access appears 
to require trespass across private land and the RR. 

Noise levels and air quality, freq uent RR no ise 



Zoning and development issues. Though zoned for residenti al 
use in 1959 are a is shown as centering on a "Natural Environment 
Area" Proposed by M.A.P.C. and Rt. 95 through this area was 
stopped largely to protect said area. 

Existing p rivately owned vacant upland to the east might offer 
an alternative site if Hydrologically and aesthetically feasible 



-101 



IMPACT MATRIX 

eirs- 



Caofen (Aj?rfi )& § 



*s 



I 



IMPACT 

CA\T£G>OftV 



> 



F>L^NN//^JG 



LAl^O U&2 ' OSs^a^AL 



LAsO US3. • Sr^Cl^iC 



X 



■a 



^^^ 



AOT/OH 


totals- 


o + - 




i 










O *• - £>•*- — 






a 






/ 








/ 



"rrrnrrrm 





m 

ID 

k 

ID 



PUfrM^ill^lGr 



&5-N&RAL Z&^//*J& 



LANO U&Z ' S^ZClFIC 



C/WQU& H/5TOXIC S/f£ 



QH/QU£ CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC FATTZKN 



A\CJ(OM fOTAu&'. | 



O&V&LOPM ZN r 



7VP& 



O&hJ&lTV 



CHAftAC-TBK 



SCALS 



| AGTI&M TOTALS- 



LAMOSG/*F>& 



LAMOrOfcM 



^e&BTA\TiO^ 



CHARACTER 



C//V/QU& \/ALU& 



A>CCg&£> 



o t - 



a + - 



=» K5 






EB 



la 






| ^cr/o^ ro->^e;| rTTTTgj f^ 1 ] 



£MV/rtONM£SiT 



t*SAT2-R GU^FVTV 



WATBR COLO/^. 



WATS-R G(UA\N Tl T^ 



W&T&R QUALITY 



AMR QUALITY 



HO/£>3 L£.S/£U 



OOOfl 



^I3RA\TI0^4 



| Acr/gN TOTAUb 



o t - o + ~ 



m 



-102- 



- o + - o + - 



O + - Of- 

n 



— ^ 



-rm rrr 



± 
± 



± 



a 



a + " o t - 







/ 


















/ 









o ± - 



\ 




*> 














1 




I 




\ 





o + - 



/ 






/ 




V- 


/ 




*z- 






) 


t> 


I 


\ 



§mz? 





1 






I 








I 




I 


I 












1 


1 













mhh 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General: 



Site Location south Canton 
Watershed Neponset River 



USGS Quad 



Norwood 



Site Designation 

existing facility 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





X 



ZD 



jt_ explicit by M & E (apparently at the junction of interceptors 

, . . , from Canton & Norwwod) 
explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Secondary 

X Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 25 , 2020 30 



2050 



32 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 21 

Plant/Facility; areas served Sharon, Stoughton, Walpole 



and parts of Canton and Norwood. 



103- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain : Marsh; the only elevation is at the edge of borde ring 
roads, on a filled (?) light industrial site and along a genera l 
upslope about 500' south west of the dege of the indicated area . 

Vegetation: Half low trees, half grass and shrubs. Landsc ape 
needs control of intrusion of marsh by trees in order to mainta in 
open marsh character. 



Soils: Presumably typical marsh soils plus made land on 
adjoining light industrial and truck terminal sites. 



Special features : Site is bounded by the Neponset River and 
Rt. 95 to the west, Neponset St. to the south, continuing marshes 
to the north and by residentially developed low hills to the east. 
6-8 acres of rundown truck terminal and construction yards are in the 
center of the site just off of Neponset St. A small branch of the 
Neponset River flows west into the river just south of the site. 



General site character ^ lood plain at the edge of a marsh w ith 
wooded swamp screening the plant site from houses on the low hills 
to the east. 



-104- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Low density housing and an elemen tary 
school 500-1000' east of the site; limited commercial developme nt 
bordering the site along Neponset St. , 6-8 acres of trucking te rminal , 
scrap dealers , and construction yards on the site. There are s ome 
signs of site preparation and filling for development south of 
the Neponset St, bridge over the river. 

The river looks fairly clean (rated "D" ). Access is possible at the 
foot of the Neponset St. bridge but there are no signs of public use. 

Noise levels and air quality. Much trucK noise along Nepo nset 
St. and Rt. 95. Low density housing on up-slope of hills 500-1000" 
east of site is downwind from site. 



Zoning and development issues. 1959 town plan called for 

industrial uses; area is shown by MAPC Open Space Plan as "exis ting 

and/or proposed natural environment areas". Except for existin g 

filled industrial land the site is unsuitable due to wetlands 

character. Possible alternatives might be: 1. on two vacant portions 

of vacant high ground east of the site or 2. on largely vacant high 

ground north-west of the Neponset St./95 Interchange. By the USGS 

maps these vacant areas range from 18-42 acres. 

-105- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

eirs- 

Cantor , 



fzteott) 








to 

ID 



*$ 

^ 



IMPACT 



w 



PL^NN/Z^G 



L^HO (,&& ■• GrB^t&RAL 



LAHO U53 • Sf^ClrlG 



\ frGTiO^ ToTF*LS\ 



PLfrMI^IMGr 



&5-N&KAL ZC/^//*J& 



CANO U&B' SFZClFIC 



c/wQue. H/sroxic e/rz 



UN/QU& GUL7VRAL SiTB — 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



ACTIO M TOT^uS'. \ 



O&^&UOPM&NT 



7VP& 



OZt^&ITV 



CHA*AC>TS.R 



SCALg 



| AOT'^N TOTALS 



LAMC*SG/*F>& 



LAMOrOfcM 



v&&&t*t/c>i^ 



CHARACTER 



UKIG(U& VAUU& 



ACG&&£> 



| Acjyjgys/ tot a us-. 



Z/s/V/rfONMZN T 



i^ATS-R C-L^&ITY 



WAT&R COLOfc 



W/*\T£>R QO^/sfT/Ty^ 



WAT BR QU^L/TV 



A/iR QUALITY 



Ho/e>& uss/eu 



ooop. 



wiBR^Aflo^-4 



AcrnaMToTA Us 



X 









\n^ 


41 






I 





^w* 




I 
i 



5 

5 



"^5^^^ 




/ 










/ 



+ - © 



^.- o-f- O-f- 



o + - 



n rm rrrrn ITTT7 



m 



O T - O + 





1 




















1 




I 





- o +> - 



o + - o + - 



& 




1 

























o + ~ at" 



o + - 



o + ~ o + - 

~mra-r 



* - Of - 



c 
£ 






sms 






& T ~ & 



I^ZEfl 



£3 



£ 



± 



5 





1 


/ 




/ 


/ 






/ 


( 


/ 
















1 













Of- o + ~ 



rnh 



Tiwhmhh 



-106- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Chelmsford 



Watershed Stony Brook 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



USGS Quad Nashu, South , 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



X 



Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Secondary 



X Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 2.1 , 2020 4.5 



2050 



A~A. 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 2.3 
Plant/Facility; areas served Westford, plus part s of 
Chelmsford and Littleton. 



-107- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: flat; general "bottom land" appearance with 
some shallow depressions. 



Vegetation: generally open field with fairly dense 
edge growth of second growth deciduous, trees and shrubs 
Some evergreen along the back of the site. 



Soils: 



Special features: B. & M. railroad runs along one edge 
of site: Route 4 along another. Site is cut by power lines 

and Cold Springs Brook. Pumping Stations (water ?) are 

close to the back edge of the property. 



General site character: Open "farm field" with edge row 

vegetation. Site is on the edge of an urban, more dens e 

development zone, but retains a more rural atmosphere. 



-108- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Development along Route 4 is 
typical strip commercial; used car lot (vacant) restaurant, 
light industry. Richardson Road is typical one to two acre 
residential development, probably no more than ten to fifteen 
years old. 



Noise levels and air quality. Good, except for traffic 
noise from Route 4. 



Zoning and development issues. Major potential is sue 
is the expansion of single family homes typical of those 
along Richardson Road. 



-109 



IMPACT MATRIX 



i 
i 



IMPACT 



PLS\NN/S^IG 



LAkO U&B '■ &E^ia/^AL 



^s\ho ue>B ■ e>?=&ClrlG 



&G7/ON TOTALS' 







\ 











o +> — 

-T7T- 





8! 






PLfrM^iir^O 



&£.N£-fc*L Z&M/NG, 



LAND U&& ■ ep&ciFic 



on /que. H/eroxic e/r£ 



UN/QUZ CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



F^CJIOM TOTALS'. 1 



O&^S&LOPM 5. NT 



r^ps> 



OZ^&ITV 



CHARCOTS.* 



ecALS 



I ACTION TOTAL^\ 



LAMOSG/Apg. 



LAKOrORM 



V£&B\TATIO^ 



CHA\RF\CTBR 



/ACG&&& 



| AC77Q/V TOTAU<=>',\ 



ZNV/ftONM&N T 



WATZR CL^mj'V 



^/AT&* GOL&K 



WAT2>& QO^^T/T^ 



WATTS.* QU^L/TV 



A\/R G*U/\UIT>' 



MO/&3 LSV&U 



ooop 



W/3PA\Tl&r^ 



ACTION TOTAU=>\ 



* 



+ - 

in 



a 



r 



5 



s 



o + 



a 



rm 



- o + - o 



+ - 



O + - O *• - 





/ 





























~m- 













/ 




/ 








/ 




















/ 


2. 


1 










1 


1 





O + - C? f - © *• - c? *• - «#• — 



£UE£ 



ra rem Efnzra 



£2 



3' 



1 






/ 










/ 




/ 





























o t - 



-110- 



<9 



- 



1* 



- o 



(air 



v - 



^im 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 



Site Analysis Sheet 
General : 

Cohasset 



Site Location 

Watershed South Coastal 



USGS Quad 



Cohasset 



Site Designation 
x existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

X Primary existing 

x Secondary Proposed 

Advanced 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



GD 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2QQG 2.0 , 2020 3.5 



2050 



4.0 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 2 *2 

Cohasset and part of 



Plant/Facility; areas served 
Scituate 



-111- 



Site Specifics : 

Terra in : Marsh surrounded by slight rise along roads o n 
all sides. Small brook passes through marsh to harbor. 



water appears clear but that maybe from incoming tide . Access 
to marsh seems to require informal trespass. 

Vegetation: grass, brush, few trees. 



Special 

features : site contains existing plant; (1972-1973) is locate d 

between charming concentrated village and harbor; is presently 

screened by houses and trees at ed ge, bu t is visible from harbor 

area through houses and stores. Generally the m a rsh needs pro te c t i o n 

and definition, as do brooks entering it. 

General site character: A pocket of marsh surrounded by develop ment 

as above, much historic /cultural value. 



Soils: 



-112 



Develo'omental Issues: 



Surrounding development. Surrounding development includes 
colonial houses, stores, and some institutions. 



Noise levels and air quality, no noticeable smell from 
a distance. 



Zoning and development issues. Presumably present sur- 
rounding development will continue. Development of a plant on the 
site would take all the available area. With good screening i t 
might remain inconspicuous to by-passers but it would dom inate 
the view from most of the surrounding properties. 



Town has area zoned for housing, with business in area indicated by 
l&E The 1961 Allen Benjamin Master Plan indicated housing around 
the area with the marsh itself staying open. 

-113- 



IMPACT MATRIX, 

£>IT£- 



I 



IMPP\C T 



k^7 



► 



PL^NN/MG 



LA^O U&2 ■■ &£^iZ*ZAL 



LAND USB ■ S°£CPIG 



X 







So 


q-i 


«u 


m 



z 






I 







o + — ■ o + - o + — © + - 




ggggg ror^^ l 4 - TTnrT - TnrrT - |ri - TTin ^. T ^ ] 







ID 



PL>A>^N>/iM& 



&5.N&RAL ZO/s//*J& 



land ue>& ■ ep&CiFic 



c/wQug- H/e>ro#ic s/rs 



UM/QUZ CULTURAL SITB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



A\CJ/c^h TOTAue: 1 



O&^S&UOPM&NT 



T-YP& 



o&^e>irv 



GHARAGTZX 



3CALS 



| AGT'&K TOTALS | 



LPsKQ5G/Ap& 



LAMDFORM 



\Z^&»TATIQ^ 



GH<ApAGT£P 



C/M/QO& \/ALU& 



ACG&<=>£> 



A\CT/0^ TO~AL*<=>',\ 



ENVIRONMENT 



WA72-& <Zl~^F\/TV 



WATB.R COLO& 



WATZR Q6WA/ r /""/ 



yS/AT£P QU^sL/TV 



As/P GZUALIT'**' 



ooop 

W/3pAJ~/O^I 

ACTION TOTAL&{ 



o + - © + - 



a 



<2 



© + - Of" 

IK] 



= Q. 






O i- - & 



-114- 



£ 



ztz 



p. v - 



a: 



^ 



* o * - O t " 



rm m 



a 



© * - o y- - 



n 



1 



-of-- 



□ 



□z 







1 






1 


^ 




/ 


^ 




( 






/ 



Of » 







) 








/ 




/ 


/ 




1 



frrei 









/ 




/ 


/ 




/ 






/ 


^ 


•1 





img 





1 






/ 








/ 




I 










1 




1 


/ 













- & f - 



VZPtt 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Concord 
Watershed Concord River 



• USGS Q uad Concord 

. Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

X existing facility — ' — ' ' — u ' 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 30 acres 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X 



X 



Secondary 
Advanced 



existing 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 8.3 , 2020 15 



2050 



21 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 8 «6 

Plant/Facility; areas served Concord , Acton , Maynard, 
Littleton (part) and Boxborough (after 2000) 



-115- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: This existing site is flat and partly built 

on filled land on the valley slope. Areas toward the river , 

drop off steeply. Other adjacent land is level or gently 

rolling. 

Vegetation: Most of the actual site is open with adjacent 

areas well planted with white pine or left natural with a 

mixture .of hard/soft woods. 



Soils: 



Special features: The Great Meadows National Wildlife 
Refuge is adjacent. 



General site character: A basically rural character. 



Well forested and secluded with extensive high level views 
of the Concord River and the adjoining wilflife refuge. 



-11C- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Scattered residential develop- 
ment in the vicinity. All commercial development and the 
historical features of the area are approximately one mile 
away. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. 1970 Zoning Map shows thi s 
area to be zoned for "business" , surrounded on three sides 
by residential zoning. 



-117 



IMPACT MATRIX 

£>IT5- 









IMPACT 



FL^NM/t^G 



LA^O u&Z ■■ &5S^£RAL. 



LAHO USZ SPECIFIC 



APT I OH TOTALS 



X 



to 









^^F %^F ,, ^S? r 



© *■ - o v- - 








T 


I 



© «*■ — O * - & + ~ 

~m m-m m-rn 





to 

10 



PLfrM/^iir^Gr 



&S.N&RAL ZC>M/*J& 



land ues. ■ ePZCiFic 



OH/QU& H/sro#ic 5/r& 



UH/QU6 GULTUXAL SUB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



ACJfOh>i TOTALS: [ 



o&^s&lopm BN T 



7YP& 



O&^J&IT'Y' 



CHAfiAC>T£rt 



eCAL£ 



\ AGT'&M TOTALS 



LArtOSG/*P& 



UAHOFOKM 



\z£&&TATio^ 



CHARACTER 
C/H/QUB \/ALU& 



/ACG&'2>£> 



\ A\CT(Or^ T£>~F\U<5',\ 



ZNV/RONMZSI T 



t*SAT&& CLARITY 



WATS-* GOLOK 



wats. 1 * qu&m ri rv' 



WAT&ft QUALITY 



A\lP QUALITY 



HO/&3 us^y&u 



ooop 



w/BPAT/o^i 



o + - © * - © + - 






o + - © f - © 



w 



CZ 







1 








1 






1 













© * * © j; - 



f- 



^ 



I 



© y - o * - 



£ 



/ 




•2 


( 




■£- 


/ 




•2- 


/ 













c?y- © *• - © *• - 

T3 fg-nrT-^i 



© *• - © * — 



U 



z£ 



± 



5 



£ 
2 





1 






1 








1 




1 














/ 


/ 













Of- © *■ 



ACTION TOTAW=>\ I 1 |A I 1 r 



- © * 

una 



nmSktr 



-118- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Dgrlham 



Site Location 

Watershed Charles ftivftr 



USGS Quad N fiw t n n 



. Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

r- ... I I X I IXIXI] I 

existing facility — I — ' ' — JJ ■ 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 2 5 arrps 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X_ Secondary proposed. Concept 5 

X Advanced proposed. Concepts 2 & 4 

Spray Irrigation 

Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
(2)29(4)22 
2000 / 2020 32 



2050 



JLL 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2QQQ (2)24(4)19 
Plant/Facility; areas served Concept 2: Wellesley, Natick # 
Needham, parts of Brookline, Dedham, Newton & Boston; Sherborn 
and Dover after 2000 Concept 4: Dover, Natick, Needham, 
Sherborn, Wellesley & part of Dedham 



-119- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Basically flat but rising at approx. 3% 



grade. Rough & lumpy; typical of a land fill area. 



Vegetation: Generally non existant. However, adjacent 
residential areas are well treed with maple, oak and elm. 



Soils: 



Special features: Mother Brook borders the site and 

Should be preserved. Charles River marshland should be 

considered as a dominate landscape feature. „_ 



General site character: The site is in the middle of 



a highly urbanized strip along Rt. 1. The large open nearly 

rural space of the near-by Charles River provides a sharp 

contrast. Residential areas to the no-th and east are well 
treed. 



Developmental Issues: 



Surrounding development. The area is one of an extensive 
mixture of land uses, e.g. public, commercial, residential 
and semi-industrial uses ^re all adjacent. 



Noise levels and air quality. Odor could be a problem 



due to the close proximity of so much other de v elopment 



Zoning and development issues. The 1 9 71 Zoning Map 
designates the area as "Single Residence", 



-121- 










F'L^NM/MG 



LANO U&Z ■ Cr-^Vc/^4^ 



l^AHO US5- • SF&ClriG 



&G7IOH TOTALS: 



X 







?o 


-«u 


to^ 


01 


<0 



o 







+ - o f - 



1 

I 







T 



o + - o t - 

in 



□ 




M 





to 



10 



^AA^/V/zN^ 



&5-N&KAL Z0M/M& 



LAND U&Z '■ SrZClFIC 



OWQUe. H/5TOAIC £>/T£ 



traffic pattern 



A\Cj(OM TOTALS: I 



0&\/&bOPM&N T 



TVP& 



d&^jsitv 



CHAtfAGT&fi 



ecALg 



\ AGTI&K TOTAL'S 



LAMOSG/*F*£ 



CA/s/O&ORM 



V£&&T*7lO^ 



CH<ARAGT&R 
UWQU& \ZALU& 



ACG&&£> 



UH/QU6 GULWXAL S/TB ~& 



O + - 



a 



A- 



o f - 



2 



© 



o ^ - 



o 



nzn 



£ 



g 



o f - 



Of- 







/ 














/ 




/ 









Of-- 

n 



m- 









/ 








1 











Of- Of- of — 



at 



( 


/ 


/ 


/ 


I 


/ 


I 




1 








( 


/ 





of- Of— e> f - o f — 



£NV/ftONM5>NT 



j^/ATS-R (ZL^.^/TV 



WAT&R GOUO* 



WAT 2.-^ QU^MTIT^ 



WATBft QU^L/TV 



Ai/R QUALITY 



Ho/e>& L-zvaL, 



OOOft 



WlBp,A\TlOr^l 



I Acr ^r^u jB_ ri ^q 1 ^ r ^ r - r ^ r - r ^ ^ m ^ 



i 



(2 



| ^cr/ON TOTAL'S 



O T " 



£1 



Of- O + ~ 



t - 



O f 

U2 



-122- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General: 



Site Location n ^ pr T gi*nH 
Watershed Coastal 



USGS Quad 



Hull 



Site Designation 
Y existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area, available (if limited and known) 

PI ant /Facility type 

X_ Primary P yi R Hng 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 











X 



j^_ Secondary proposed 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 Concept 3; ,380. Concept 2; 345. Concept 3; 380 

Concept 4; 28 5 
Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 Concept 1; 98. Concept 2; 92. Concept 3; 98. 

Concept 4; 81 
Plant/Facility; areas served Portions of the M.D.C. sewer 



district; varies from concept to concept. 



-123- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Generally flat with one manor, very 

prominent hill. 



Vegetation: Very few trees; mostly grasses. 



Soils: 



Special features: The site is an island in Boston Harbor. 
There is a wide range of existing uses; correctional, military, 



municipal and recreational. 



General site character: Most impressive feature of the 



site 


is 


its 


location 


and 


views. Site 


appears to be a 


confusi 


ng 


mixt 


ure 


of : 


non- 


-conforming 


f and 


somewhat 


: non-compatible 


uses. 




The 


results 


of 


time, 


old 


age, 


neglect 


and vandilism. are 





very evident and distract from the overall site. 



-124- 



Developmental Issues ; 

Surrounding development. Correctional, municipal 



military and some recreational facilities. Access to the 
site is very restricted and is through a dense residential 



area 


of 


Winthrop. Road 


is narrow 


and 


traffic 


is 


a 


problem 


with 


the neighborhood residents. 

















Noise levels and air quality. good 



Zoning and development issues. Major issue is a conflic t 

between uses. Another is the sites unique valve, being an 

island in Eoston Harbor. Another is the potential impacts 

of a major construction project filling portions of the 

harbor. Another is the potential impacts of increased flows 
into the harbor proposed by some of the concepts. 



-125- 



f MP ACT MATRIX 

e ' r£i I l I 

Ck^r Inland 









IMPACT 



> 



77 



/^.-Vv/V/AVcS 



l.r\^lO c&z •• (StZs^s-RAL. 



Z.ANO OSS '■ &°SCIrlC 



X 



So 







M^p^ "^iu^f 



I 




O + — ■ o + - o + — 



i ^ c - /0 v r^^ Lr-^fir-rVi,^^ 



© * - 

in 



/ 










1 



© * — 





o 

m 

tf) 



10 



PLfr/Sl^ll^Gr 



&ZN&RAL ZOM/MG, 



land u$z '. sfzcific 



c/H/Que. h/stofic s/rz 



UH/QUZ GULWFAL £>IT& — 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



A\CJlOH T&TAuS: | 



D3^&LOPM 5-NT 



T-YPSf 



0&M£>ITV 



CHARAOTBR 



3CALB 



1 ACTION TOTAL'S 



lamcdsgp>\P& 



L AM O FORM 



\/£&&TATlOt**l 



CH^RACTBP 



C/M/QUB V<AUU& 



ACG&&& 



| A\CT(O^I TO~AL^>',\ 



ZNV/RONMZNT 



WAT2-R GL^HITV 



WATBR GOLO* 



WAT&H GXJAMTlTV 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A/ P. QUALITY 



MO/&& LS.\/&L> 



ooop 



WIQPAflO^ 



o + - 



g 



I 



O + 



= 2 



o + - 



n 



o + - 



- O + - 



o + -" 



- o + - 



— ^ 



az 



- © * - 



□ 



, o t - o + - & + ~ 

AQT/OM TOTALS |—|— [— | | I I | T I I 1 



rrn n 













/ 






f 






/, 









ZIZ^ 



/ 










1 




1 




I 







Of-- © v - 

Fzm rn 



( 




1 












1 






1 






<?■ 



^TTTl&n^l 



<2 









/ 






( 








1 
















/ 













t%TTn^rfr 



-126- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Essex . USGS Quad Ipswich 

Watershed North Coastal . Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 



existing facility 
explicit by M & E 



X 



_X explicit by others (w. & h.) 

interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 7.0 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X Secondary proposed (See note "A", be low) 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2Q0Q 0-4 , 2020 1.1 2050 1.9 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 1 ' 5 

Plant/Facility; areas served Essex 



'A" Plant is designed & approved and is waiting for funding. 



-127- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Flat to rolling. 



Vegetation : Very thin mostly low shrubs with second 
growth deciduous along the edges of what were probably 
cultivated fields. 



Soils : 



Special features: site is ni gh ground on the edge of 
the tidal marsh. Site is open, very visual and has commanding 
views all around. 



General site character: a combination of somewhat open 
farm/field and salt marsh. 



-128- 



Developmental Issues: 

Surrounding development. a few single family homes. 
The area seems suited for the development of additional 
homes, and this trend sho uld be anticipated. 



Noise levels and air quality. Very good . 



Zoning and development issues. Any plant/facility would 
be highly visible and out of character with existing development 



(size, 


shape 


and materials) 


The 


extension 


of 


existing 


single 


family 


homes 


might 


minimize 


visual 


impact t 


, but 


would i 


also 


be inc 


ompatible. 























-129- 




I 





If) 



If) 



IMPACT \£ 



X 



in-* 







I 



/^^/V/V/zVG 



LAi^O (,&&■'• OE^^^^AU 



UANO USB ■ SF&C/F/G 











1 


/ 







o f — © f - o^-» © f - & + - 



1 " G,/QN ror ^^ L f7rn nrn rrin rm ryn-n 



PLfrM^lt^Ksr 



&£-N&fcAL Z&A>//*J& 



(,AND U&S- ' epzciric 



OM/QU& H/STOXIC S/T3 



UK/QUZ CULTURAL SUB 



TRAFFIC F>Arr&*M 



= a 



1 


T 



ACJIOH JOTAuS'. J 



D&^/BfUOPM&N T 



TVP& 



o^^-s/ry 



GHAR&GTBR 



SCALS 



f - 

"2 



o±*r o ± •* o j> - 



rm rrm n 



o f - 



I agtiq^ totals- 



LA\MC)£>G/*P& 



U AH O FORM 



\/&&&TATlO; 



CHARACTER 



ACG&&& 



*^l 



Of-- Of- O-f- 



p?ri^ 



O + - C? f - Of— Of- Of—. 



I ^cr/o^ro^j 71 ^^ m rT ^ rTT ^ rT ^ rri ^ 1 



£/V V/RONMZN T 



^ATZK CL^Ft/TV 



WATB.&. GOLOK 



WATS>^ QC&A/nry' 



WATBX QUsAUTV 



A/rt QUALITY 



HO/&3 L.S.V&U 



OOOfr 



w/3/^AT/o^i 



£ 



















1 




I 
















/ 













ACTION TOT ALA 



O f - 



- <p y - 



n 



o 

II 



mi 



rTTTTT 



-130- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Framingham 



Watershed Sudbury River 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

Primarv 



USGS Quad Framingham 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





x| X 



X 



Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed, Concepts 2&4 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 19 , 2020 23 



2050 



27 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 17 

Plant/Facility; areas served Ashland, Framingham, Hopkinton, 
Southborough . 



All flows go to Dedham under Concept 5 



-131- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Sites are basically flat with slight undula- 

tions typical of excavated gravel pit areas. NW pit is on two 
distinct levels and SW site is very rough. NE site is basically 
flat at river level (perhaps test site) . 

Vegetation: Non-existant or insignificant on actual 

s ites. Important vegetation is on perimeters , i.e. pine groves , 
mixed hard/soft woods and marshland with maple, poplar, 
willow along the river. 



Soils: 



Special features: M.D.C. Aguaduct runs adjacent to 
the sites. 



General site character: Very open due to excavation but 



still somewhat secluded by topography and vegetation. Still 
essentially a rural character. River & marshland provide 
large open space. Other immediate areas remain undeveloped 
or large lot residential with tree cover retained. 



-132- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Primarily low density residenti al 
in the immediate vicinity. A portion of the gravel pit is 
sH n in operation and there is a concrete products operation 
aa well. Pod Meadow along the river provides a large open 
space area. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. The 1967 Zoning Map 

designates the area industrial. 1967 Town Plan recommended 
residential use possibly to tap Open Space potential of River. 
Lake Cochituate and open lands along power line. Since area 
is still largely undeveloped such possibilities remain and 
should be reflected in plant design and setting. 



-133- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

&ITB* 

imP^ot 






1 



5^ 



Gi^TB&OHV V 



\> 



PL^NMthJG 



LANO U&Z ■ GrBS-JZRAL 



^aho uss- • specific 



X 







So 


m^ 


m 






^<^ 



X 

$ 

i) 





1 



i 

1 



5E5P 



o + — o + - o + — o *• - 



1 ac:/on rar/^s.-l | | | || | | p | | |f7 




( 





o + — 



101 





if) 



10 



PLfrM^lll^G> 



&5-N&KAL Z&/V/*J& 



LAND U5S- ■ SPECIFIC 



c/wQus. H/sre.xic s/rz 



UH/QU5 CULTURAL SIT& 



traffic ^attsrn 



A\CJIOM TOTALS'- J 



O^V^tO^M^ T 



T-TFEt 



&&^/5/TV 



CHARACTER 



e>CAi~g 



| ACTION toTaZ^- 



L*NG5G/*F>&> 



LAMOfORM 



\/&&&TATio^J 



CH<ARACT£P 



URlG(U&VAUuW 



A\CG&<2>£> 



| - ACTION TO~AL,<o',\ 



ZNV/RONM&NT 



WAT2.R CU^RITV 



WATBR COLOR. 



wats.1 QCAQijstr/ry 



WAXT&R QU^L/TV 



A\lR GZUAL.lT'V 



Hoz&g. L-zveu 



ooofc 



wi&fr&Tlo^ 



AGT/O/^ TOTALt> 



£ 



=k' 



o. 





I 




( 












I 




( 









o + - o + - o + * a + - ot - 



MTm n 



mn 



=■ a 









[ 




1 


\ 






J- 




1 



rrm vzn 



n rm ^m 



a 



s 



tfci 



2' 



°mm &¥i rrrn r^rrn r^ni 



k2l 



/ 


1 




I 






2 




; 


( 






n. 


1 





I 



£ 





1 






/ 








/ 




1 
















( 













or- & + - O t - O f - Oy- 

- rm rm rm rf wn rrrem 

-134- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General: 



Site Location Glouscester, 133 
Watershed North Coastal 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others (w. & H.) 
interpreted by W & H. 



USGS Quad Gloucester 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



JJ 



Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 8 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X Secondary proposed 

Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
2000 7.5 , 2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 8 

Plant/Facility; areas served Gloucester Only. 



Plant construction expected to begin by June, 1975. 



-135- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Very flat. Site is mostly tidal marsh. 



Vegetation: Grasses. Rear edge of site is foot of 
very steep hill. Hill is heavily wooded with deciduous 
material. 



Soils : 



Special features: General character and visual nature 
of a tidal marsh. With exception to hill at the rear of 
the site, the entire site is very open and exposed to all 



major approach avenues. 



General site character: °P en tidal marsh, contrasted 



to wooded hill as a backdrop/setting. 



-136- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Some single family homes , a 
large marina. Fort Hill Park and the major scenic drive/ 
approach to Gloucester are within 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from 
the sjte. 



Noise levels and air quality. Good 



Zoning and development issues. Preservation of the open 
maxsfa ar&ax. Potential recreation oriented development in 
j-v^ immediate area. Anv plant facility would be highly visual 
in this area. Physical and functional incompatibility appears 
as potential major issue. 



-137- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

eiT£- 









IMPACT [O 



/^/W/V/zVG 



LAhiO u €>$ : 63Vc^L 



^Aj*& US 5- ■ S^C/.-JG 



AGTiO^ TOTALS. 



X 



•a 

in 



o 








©*■—.©*■- © «f- — 



5 



ZE 




a- nz 



m 







If) 



PLfrM^II^Gr 



&5.N&RAL ZOM/^lGr 



l**\ND U£>& '■ SPECIFIC 



C/H/QU& H/STO&IC S/T£ 



UH/QUZ GULTOGAL S!T6 



TRAFFIC PATT&ftH 



A\CJ/OM TOTALS'. 1 



OB^/eLOpM&N T 



7VP& 



o&^£>/ r y 



CHAtfAGTB* 



£>CAL5 



| ACTiOM TOTALS 



LAsMOSG^/^g. 



LAMDrGRM 



\/e&£T*7io^ 



GHA\F$<ACT£R 



6//V/Q03 S/ALU& 



ACG&&& 



I 



[ act/o/v rg"/A^s;l r 



use 



+ - at 



a 



l/VV/ftONM2>SiT 



i*SAT2.#. CL^rRITV 



WATB.R GOL.OK 



WAT2-S C}6KWr/7V 



t^ATBR QU^L/TV 



A\l& GZUAUT^f 



/VO/6^ L£\/3U 



OOOR 



wiB^A\Tlo^i 



aaiaS 



Acr/av totalis* 



o t - © 



n 



-138- 



n 







/ 






1 












I 









- © *• - © f - o + ~ 



%} 



I 



o + — © t — OV- — 

TTTT 





1 




1 


1 








1 






1 


1 




1 



© *• - o + - o <+ — 



i 



-f- 





/ 






/ 








1 




1 
















1 













irrrrnrn^rr 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



(Lanesville) 
Gloucester 



Site Location 

Watershed North Coastar 



USGS Quad Gloucester 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others (w. & H.) 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





1, 


X 



Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 



2000. 



0.07 



2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



2.0 



Plant/Facility; areas served 
of Gloucester 



Lanesville section 



-139- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Man made (in part)/ flat, sharp edge/materia l 
constructions and contrasts. 



Vegetation: Low shrubs, grasses. 



Soils: 



Special features: Ver y lar 9 e & impressive granite dik es 
& breakwaters/walls and the small inlet and cove. Area used 
for protected anchorage by local fisherman. 



General site character: A very defined area, somewhat 

"rundown". Overall impression is natural, but structure d, 

man-made elements are imposing. Area is unique and can be 
classified as scenic and pictures que. 



-140- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Older, wooden framed homes 
between coastal road and anchorage area. 



Noise levels and air quality. Good . 



Zoning and development issues. With existing structured, 
geometrical, man-made elements prominent, the major poten tial 
would seem to be the eventual size of the proposed facility. 



-141- 



IMPACT MATRIX. X 

<SIT£ ''-(lan&t>\ii '/ley <g 






IMPACT 



FLS\MN/MG 



LAmO L,&2- &5SsjS.*ZAL 



^AHO USB ■ SP&GlrlC 



AG~iOH TOTALS 



X 



go 

•a 



* 

* 

6 
tu 





1 



o + - o + - o •+ - 



7 





a 



I 




& + - 



rr 





to 



ID 



^AA/N/N(5 



&S-N&&.AL ZGK/^Gr 



LAND U£& '■ SFZCtFIC 



c/m/qu& H/sroxic s;r& 



ON/QU£ CULTURAL SITS 



TRAFFIC fATTS.RN 



ACJIOM TOTAUS'. | 



O&SZ&UOPM&N T 



T^YPB* 



O&^'&IT^' 



GHARA\GTBR 



&cals 



| ACTION TOTALS -\ 



LA^CDS>G/Ap3 



LAHDFOftM 



\/&&&TA\Tio^i 



CHARACTER 



UKIQU& \/AUU& 



ACG&&& 






o * 



c 



sa 



Q 



-Of-- o 

~mm 



T 



o *■ - o +• - o «*» — 



o * - 



£3 







1 






/ 








■2 




£- 






2> 



o + <- 



a=e 



fifE3 



J 




/ 












* 








'2- 




_ 



i ^r^ ^^ . Jct rfrn rri^i rfrri 65b 



£NV/ftONMB,SlT 



^/AT^R GL~Art/TV 



WAT&R GOLOK 



WAT£>R QUAA/r/T^ 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A/rR CiUAUlT^ 



HO/e>g. L-e.\/&u 



OOO/R 



WI3/RATlO<--4 





\ 






1 




\ 








1 
















\ 













AQTlO^ TOTAUb 



o t - © 



- a + 



- O f - 



vzl 



Sir 



-142- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



USGS Quad Gloucester 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



X 



Site Location Gloucester (Magnolia) , 

Watershed North Coastal , 

Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others (W. & H. see note "A", below) 
. interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) See note "A" 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
2000 0-4 , 2020 



, 2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 

Plant/Facility; areas served The Magnolia section of 



Gloucester and possibly part of Manchester. Note "A": 



Consideration is now being given to moving the site inland to 



the West Pond area and includin g some flow from portions of 
Manchester. 

-143- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain : Rocky seacoast to steep hills immediately 

inland. 



Vegetation : A mixture of deciduous and evergreens/ 
most of which are prominent/ mature trees, 



Soils: 



Special features: The entire area is one of the most 
scenic sections of the northshore. 



General site character: A range from rocky coast line to 
wooded hills. The homes are impressive and generally blend 
with, and compliment/ the natural elements of the area. 



-144- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Most of the surrounding 
dagalQpmeni: is expensive, single family homes and estates 



Noise levels and air quality. Noise levels are low 
and air quality is generally good. 



Zoning and development issues. A general and conflict 
between the proposed plant and residence zoning appears 
certain no matter what plant site is eventually chosen. 



-145- 












F>L*NN/MG 



L/^HO U&Z'- OS^iS-RAL- 



LAHO USB ■ SPECIFIC 



X 







So 


*n^ 


•u 


« 






a 



I 
i 



h 

8 



3 



I ^c ror^j ffir r 1| ° rr , r r ,- | ^ T 




1 





o f — 



3C 





ID 



PLfrMMiMG* 



&&N&RAL ZO/S//M& 



UANO U$&'> SFZC/FIC 



C/WQU& H/STOXIC S/T3 



UN/QUZ GOLWXAL SIT& 



TRAFFIC F'ATT^RN 



O&^S&LOPM&NT 



TVP& 



0&^S>/TV 



CHARACTER 



SCALB 



| ACTION TOTALS] 



LAMO£>GF*P&> 



| ] AsCj/OW TO~AL>e>',\ 



£NV/ftONMS.NT 



^yATS-R CL^&lTY 



WAT&R. COLO& 



WAT£R QCsANTlTV 



fs/AT&ft GU^L/TV 



A\/& GZUAUIT^F 



/VO/6j5 LZV&L. 



OOOFl 



WI3frA\TlOf^ 






1* - 



LAMOFORM 










V&&BTATIO^i 


CHt\RACT£R 


OWQU& \/<ALU& 


Acc&&e> 



A\CT(OM TOTALS'. | p5 



+ ~ 

HE 



X 



+ - 

'a 







I 












! 


£ 










-2 



o + - 



SWOl 



Of - 



O T ~ 



~ O + - Of-- Of — 



zrra 



FT 





/ 




/ 




/ 




/ 








/ 




/ 








/ 







3 



2d 



o + - o + - 



o + — 



1 















/ 








/ 
















1 













ACTION TOTAL& 



o t - 



nz 



mi 






-146- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location 



Hamilton 



USGS Quad 



Tpswich 



Watershed Ipswich River 
Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



7\rea available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X 



Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 14 / 2020 5.9 



2050 



13 .0. 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 2.5 
Plant/Facility; areas served Hamilton, Topsfield plus Boxford & 
Wenham, after 2,000 



-147- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Rolling; site appears to be a small 
depression. 



Vegetation : Fairly dense; generally mature 
deciduous with a few evergreens. 



Soils: 



Special features: Surrounding 



development; exclusive single family homes and 
"small estates". 



General site character: Rural, country atmosphere 



^I?5=" 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Single family homes and 
"small estates"; open fields on some sides of the property 



Noise levels and air quality, good. 



Zoning and development issues. The major issue is the 
obvious potential conflict between the proposed plant and 

the existing development, both in structure type, use, 

and zoning. 



-149- 




I 





8! 

ID 



ID 






X 







sa 


- *u 


*n^ 


•u 


m 



2 

o 





PL^NN/hJG 



Lf\NO W=?Z '■ &5*^i£fZAL 



US\HO US>& ■ SPECIFIC 




I 











/ 









F\oriO^ TOTALS 



o + - ■ o + - o + - 



PLfrM^II^IGr 



(ZZNe-fr/M- zaM//^iG> 



l*nd use- ■ srzctFic 



c/wqub> h/stof/c s/r& 



UH/QUZ GULWFAL SIT& 



TRAFFIC FATT5KM 



F\CJIOH TQT*t~S'- 1 



O&^'&UOF'MS-N T 



TXF'B 



O&i^&iTV 



CHARCOTS.* 



&CALS 



+ ~_ o * 

zmuz 



o + - 



id 



LA^OSC/*^ 



LAMOFOfrM 



v&&&r*T!o^ 



UHIQU& \/<£\L~U& 



F\CGg&£> 



| act/o^ ro^^ei] 



O + - O f - 



ZNV/ftONMZNT 



WAT&K CL^FUTV 



WATBR GOLO& 



WAT&G Gto&wr/rv 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



*/R GZUF\LITV 



/VO/65 LS.S/&L, 



oo&fr 



wi&fr&Tio^ 



atH 



o + - & + — 

"Tmrrm 







/ 
























2- 



- © t - 



H 



» + - 



© •+ - 



HJ 









I 










1 


1 




1 



- O •¥ 



| ACTION TOTAL^ | 1 i ^H j i x7 | I — | r^i 1 



-Of- 



Of — 



^ 



1 




1 






1 






1 















© *• 

□z 



- © f - o -f — 



n~ren 



3 



2' 



f- 

1 

1 

J- 


1 
1 



Of- © * - Of-Of- © y - 



I ^ TO n ^r^g L pp^ p^ p-i-rfi e^tt^ 377^ 



-150- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Hopp^aiR {Millard stp * USGS Quad Mi i fnr^ 

Watershed Charles River . Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 
X existing facility [X1JU X±xJ J 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) est ?5+ anr-tm; 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X Secondary existing trickling filler plant 
X Advanced proposed 

Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2QQQ 3.7 2020 4.3 2050 4. 5 ■ 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 4.6 
Plant/Facility; areas served Milford. Existing plant is 
reportedly beyond capacity , and under court order to stop 
dumping sewage onto river. 



-151- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: lew, Charles River flood plain; marshy along river. 



Vegetation : Marshy (very wet pasture) along river/ grass and shrubs , 
mixed low hardwood around whole site plus misc. shrubs, grapes etc. Old 
treatment lagoon area is open except for some: brush. 



Soils: Sandy above river, dark and fine along river. 



Special features: extensive old lagoon area. Adjoining solid waste 
disposal company has an old sand pit (?) and a small landfill crowding adjoin - 
ing wetland area, landscape east of river is agricultural - residential in 
character and very attractive. 



General site character : Wooded and pasture flood plain, backing 
o nto rural/suburban development. The river wanders. It has access from local 
( Mellon St. ) but there is little easy public access though c o ntact is possible 
at bridges and at outfall. 



-ttZ 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development .^gjJgPfcia] »nH nm^m-r^i *irwj n^-in r^^. 
Rural /suburban to south and east, generally undeveloped along river to the 
north. Solid waste operatio n Struck yard, small land fill (?) compactor 
and sand pile is immediately west o f plant. 



Noise levels and air quality. River smells septic at Mellon S t, 
as do beds used for sludge dispo sal, Typ ica l landfill smell emerge s fran 
adjoining (private?) landfill. Main noise is from frequent light planes 
going to nearby Draper Airport. 



Zoning and development issues. Some open space possibilities 
exist along the river, land immediately west of plant seems suitable for 
light industry given distance from road and need to fit in with the plant 
and trash disposal company. If the river is to be used for hiking trails 
etc. then discharge into a sa nd filter or other non-outfall approach would 
be more attractive than present outfall. (But then so might a "waterfall" 
type somewhat like at Marlboro East Plant. 



-153- 




I 





8! 

10 



IMP^O T 



^ 



PL^N/S/MG 



LAxO U&2 '■ &S^t£-f^.U 



UANO USS ■ e>rBCIrlC 



frGTlOM TOTALS 



PLfrM^ll^Gr 



&5N&KAL Z&W/*J& 



LAND U£& '■ SFZClFIC 



c/wctue. h/stoxic s/rz 



OH/QUZ CULTURAL eiTB — 



TRAFFIC PATT&&M 



A\CJ/OM TOTALS' 1 



D&^&UDF^M &NT 



7VP& 



0&/*J&ITY 



CHAR.AGTBR 



£>CALB 



| AOTIGM TOTALS- 



LAHCSG/*F : >& 



LAHOFOfrM 



\Z£&&T*TIQ^ 



CHA\RA,CT£F* 



Accge>z> 



X 







?o 


trm 


^ 


41 


« 







I 



rnj 



+ - 

I 



a * - 



=* 






£2 



Of- Of- 



pas 



m 






Si 

O 




a- 



o + - oi*»- o + — o f - 





/ 








4. 



O * - 



nrr 

























/ 









o f - o + - o + - 

rm rrr/ 









/ 




/ 


1 


1 




/ 




/ 



O + - Of- Of — 

HED3- 







1 



i 



s 



i 



- o f - 



£NV/ftONMZ.h>lT 



t^ATS-R O^AR/TV 



WATBR COLOf^ 



WATZR GUAM T I TV 



W<AT&ft QUALITY 



/V/? GZUALITX 



/VO/S<5 LS.s/31, 



OO&fr 



wf3frA\~ic>^ 



i ^v*~ t*-»l ^ ^ ^ ,y T ^ ff-^ f^^ ^^ 



1 



2- 



-+ 

/ 





Acr/ON TOTALS 



o t - + -&+~0+~&t~ 



rrn rm rm rji^n m^r 



-154- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 



Site Analysis Sheet 
General : 

Hudson 



Site Location 
Watershed Assabet 



Site Designation 
X existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



USGS Quad Hudson 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 

nana 



20-24 



Secondary 
x Advanced 



existing 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 



2000. 



3.9 



2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 4 - 8 

Plant/Facility; areas served Hudson. After 2000, 



combined with Bolton and Stow. 



-155 



Sit e. Sp e cif ics : 

Terra in : , Level flood plain of Assabet River sloping 

up to east and south, and down to river and marshes on M.W. 
River acce ss is fair by road and sewer easement to outfall ; 
water is slow and dusty. 



Vegetation: Young maple in sewer beds, mature p ines and 
some hardwoods in surrounding area, 



Soils 



Spec ial feature s : E xtensive open area from old sewer 

beds, partially reclaimed for DPW yard. 



General .site character :_ Secluded , wooded, but very clnsg 

t o potenti al ope n space area along river. 



"=I5^" 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. pjg farm s to west p as t river, 

ftpprfman shooting c lub to north, DPW yard between road 

3nd plant, marsh and the school to so ut heast. 



Noise levels and air quality . Little noise, little develop- 
ment close enough to be bothered , but strong smell from 

sludge dumped in old beds . __ 



Zoning and development issues. 



Site seems generally feasible as Town controls immediate 
area but use of full 23-30 acres might greatly crowd river 
and preclude open space uses. 



-157- 




IMPACT fO 






F*L<*\NN//<JG 



LA^O U&z '■ &S^\ia^AL 



i^AHO USZ ■ SF&CirlC — 



ACTION TOTALS 






8! 

tf) 



in 



/^^A/V/V/zWC^ 



&&N&&AL Z&N/NG, 



LAND U&5- ' SPECIFIC 



C/M/QUZ H/STOXIC &r£ 



UN/QUZ CULTURAL S/T6 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



ACJION fOT A US: | 



OB^y&LO^M &NT 



r^pst 



osn&itv 



CHARAGT&R 



e>CALg 



| ACTION TOTALS 



LA/^ICD^C/^F^^ 



U AN O FORM 



\/& && t<a tionj 



CHARACTER 



ACC&<5>& 



| <AGTtONl TQ-AL-£>',\ 



£NV/ftONMZ>/^ T 



P^ATS-R CL^KITV 



iNATBR COLO* 



WAT5>G QUANTI"^ 



WAT BR QU^LITV 



AIR GiUAUIT^ 



NO/£>5> L.&V3U 



OOOR. 



V 'I3RATIO/N 



ACTION TOTALS 



J 











1 























O f " Of- O f ~ O f - © + - 

^n rrnrm rmr 



n 



c 



£ 



a 



i 



£ 



i 



2' 









. 








I 




I 








O-f- Of-* O + - Of*- Of-- 



1 


/ 




/ 






/ 




i 


/ 






/ 




1 



O + ~ Of- o + - & + - & + — 















1 








1 


















/ 











of- of- o f - o y- - Of- 



p im rm m^n nqm 



-158- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Hull 



Site Location 

Watershed South Coastol 



USGS Quad Hull 



Site Designation 

existing facility (under design) 

explicit by M & E 

x explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

Primarv 



Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 1.0 f 2020 l.Q 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 
2000 1.5 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 







X 



4-6 acres 



., 2050 li2 



Plant/Facility; areas served 



JUlLL 



-159- 



Site Specifics : 

Terr a in : low, semi-marsh between cemetary and hill . and 

rQafl running along shore t One road runs along ocean , the other 

along Hull Bay. 

Vegetation : grass an d brush with trees along c emetery edge. 



Soils : 



Special features: very prominent position between two 
shore roads and below a hill. 



General site character: Low, visible surrounded by residenc es 
and open space use. Plant would be far less evident if control 
building and any other high elements were oriented to hillside, b ut 
that might conflict more with view from cemetery. 



-160- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development, site j s very visible especially 

f mm the adjoining hill/ and will be visible from the ocean unle s s 

p lant is very low. Cemetery with ancient graves, and W.W. II 

B attery border site on hill to west. Small beach houses and a 

p ocket of marsh border site to NW - neck and road to rest of Hul 1 , 

a nd small houses on either side of road border site to east. Ho g 

I sland (military radio base proposed for acquisition by town) is 
1000' SE connected to site by a causeway. 

Noise levels and air quality. Little noise, sea breezes, 
s ite is upwind of housing on Allerton Hill . 



Zoning and development issues. As a pocket of wetland the site 
( hopefully) would not be developed. The adjoining housing and cemetary 
a re presumably permanent uses. Future development of Hog Islan d may 

a dd to need to screen the plant or make it a visual asset. 

MAPC Open Space Plan calls for moderate use here along the 
s hore for boating facilities. MAPC staff s ee no conflict with 
a sewerage plant. 



-161- 



IMPACT MATRIX 
ll 



l 
l 





ID 



IMP^C T 



V^7 



s> 



o 

10 






PL^NN/MG 



LAHO U&Z ■' <=re^l£RAL 



LAND USs> ■ S°£ClFIG 



\ 

to 



i 




TT 



frGTIOH TOTALS 



o + — ■ o + ~ o + — o 



I 



in 



fntM 



PLfr/st^li^Gr 



&5-N&KAL ZO/s//*J& 



LAND U&& '■ SP&CfFIC 



C/H/QUS. H/STOXIC s/r& 



UH/QU6 CULTURAL SITB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 





o 



Q 



a 



<2 / 



AsCT/OH fOTAuS: 



O&^S&LOriVI&N T 



TYP& 



OZt^&ITY 



CHARACTER 



eCALS 



o + - 

2 



o + - 



a 






£2 



/ 




•2. 


/ 






/ 


1 











© *■ - © *• - 



LAMCDSG/^F'e 



LA/VOFO&M 



s/& <zrg TA\ TIO^ 



CH<ARAGT£F* 



UMG(U£i \/ALU& 



/ACG&&& 



I Mcr/^ gjgg JLrc-pj-j] r^-n |— r— r- ! q 



© * ~ of-- © y» — 



i 





1 






1 




/ 


/ 

















i «gv°~ m^ BJ^3 rfrrn rrrn rr 



ZNV/ftONM&NT 



t+sArzR c^/^/rv 



WATB.R COL-Of* 



l*/AT£ S QCWA/r/fv' 



WAT&ft QUALITY 



A\lF< GZUA\UTY 



/VO/55 LS.\/&U 



OOOF* 



WI&^A^TIO^ 



© *• - c? f - © ^- — 

n rrren 



I 















1 








/ 





























AC,TtO/^ TOTAL'S 



Of- 



rr-n r 



© *■ 

n 



©¥»-©*•- dy — 

-m rmn r mrn 



-162- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Ipswich 



USGS Quad Ipswich 



Watershed Ipswich River 



Site Designation 

X existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & II. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

X Primary Existing 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



X 



X Secondary Under Construction 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 2- 1 , 2020 3.3 



2050 



4.2 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 2 - 6 

Plant/Facility; areas served Ipswich 



-163- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Rolling to flat site has no major land forms, 
although it is fairly close to the edge of the salt marsh. 



Vegetation: Mostly second growth deciduous, with a few 
evergreens. 



Soils: Mostly clay. 



Special features: The site is cloSe tQ the edge ° f a maj ° r 



salt 


water 


marsh, 


but 


vegetat 


ion 


blocks any 


views 


to, 


or from, 


the : 


marsh. 


Expansion 


of the 


existing 


plant 


has 


J 1 


JSt 


begun. 




~ 





General site character: Wooded ' the site is at the Very 



end of a 


secondarv : 


residential 


road. 


Currently, 


there is 


adequate 


seDaration 


between 


the 


plant 


and the single 


family 


homes. 



































-164- 



Developmental Issues : 

Extension and expansion of 



Surrounding development. 



single family homes could produce use conflict in the area, 
but this could be minimized by careful retention of vege- 
tation screens existing around the plant site. 



Noise levels and air quality. Good. 



Zoning and development issues. See "surrounding develop- 
ment" , above. 



-165- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

eirs- 



-p^auc 



5 



IMPACT 






> 



PL^MM/Z^/G 



L/*\NO L &2 ■ &2s^ZRAL 



L.AMO USB - SPECIFIC 




I Aor/o^ ror*L.s\ | | |~| ill ' ni l 



o * - o + -r 







10 



PLfr/S/MIMGr 



&5.N5-KAL Z&K/NG, 



LAND U&& ' SPECIFIC 



owctue. H/srcxic &r& 



UN/QU6 CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC rATTBRN 



Ascjiom rorAusT~\ 



OErS&UOpM &NT 



tvps* 



O&^SITV 



CHARCOTS* 



ecALS 



\ AGTIGM TOTALS] 



LA^IOSG/^PB 



LAHOFOfZM 



\/&&&T*Tio^i 



CH<c\RF\GT£K 



i/H/QUS: VALU& 



ACG&&£> 



| ACT/O^ r&~AL*5 



ZNV/RONMZNT 



^AT2-& <ZU-*R/TV 



WAiTBR COt-OK 



WATCR QU^NTlTy 



W&T&.R QU^L/TV 



A\/H GZUFM-ITX 



MO/&S. us\/eu 



OO&Fl 



wi3frF*TlQ^ 



| ^cr/QN T&TAL& 



o + ~ 



zxn 



o + - 



H 



'3 



O t ~ 



D 



i 



a. 



o + - 






or- 



on 






-166- 



/ 




























^ 



o r - or- o + - 

~n nrrn fn-ia 



a 



1 




-z- 








/ 










/ 



© * - O «f - o * — 









/ 




Id- 


/ 


/ 

















znmnnnimj^- 



5 



-of-o^-dy- 



m nrrn rnrT 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Lynn 

Watershed Saugus River 



USGS Quad 



Lynn 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

x explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



_X 



X Secondary 

Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 24 , 2020 23 



2050 



21 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



16 



Plant/Facility; areas served 



Lynn, Saugus , & Nahant 



-167- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Flat; manmade fill area. 



Vegetation: Very limited; some new plantings by City 



Soils: 



Special features: Area is fill against bulk head and 
edge of Lynn Harbor/ City has constructed park at one end 
of site within the past 12-18 months* Site butts rear of . 
shopping: center and an old abandoned dump. 



General site character: Very urban; a run down "backside" 
appearance. Much of the harbor is exposed tidal mud flats 



at 


low 


tide. 


The 


area 


is 


often 


used 


for 


an 


urban 


dump 


and 


abandoned cars 


; are 


common . 



















-168- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. A park; the backdoor service 

r^rriAnr o f a large shopping center. 



Noise levels and air quality. N oise levels are somewhat 
high; air quality fair to good. 



Zoning and development issues. The site has been 

considered for a $300 million dollar power plant - Lynn 
could use the tax income. In reality any properly designed 
and constructed plant/facility would be a tremendous visual 
improvement to the area. 



-169- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 



km 



& 



n 
















^7 



► 



o 

o 



/=^^W/V//V(9 



LANO U&Z •' <SrBS^ie.RAL. 



LAHO US* ■ SPECIFIC 



X 

(!) 
o 



I 



h 



T 



PL&MMIM& 



&5-N&KAL ZC?/s///<l& 



LAND u&e*. SP&ClFIC 



C/H/<ZU£ H/STO#lC s/rz 



UN/QU& CULTURAL SfTB 



traffic patt&km 



A\CJ{OM TOrA£&~\ 



o t ~. 



OB^S&UOf=>M&NT 



TVP& 



OZ/^&ITV 



CHAtfAGTBX 



bcals 



n 



ditto 



- o + - 



][ 



* - 



5 



I ^cr/g/v rgr^Z^I 



© *• - © *• - o + ~ o + ~ 



LA*IC)£>G^P& 



LANDFOftM 



\/&<=>&T*Tic>^i 






F\coe&e> 



u 



nc 



1 



E5 ES 



5 



c? v- - 



i ^^^^^ ^^^□□^□fn 



ZNV/ftONMZNT 



WAT&A CLARITY 



WAT5.R C&L&fl 



WATS- ft QUANTITY 



WAT&ft QUALITY 



A\/# QUALITY 



HOJ&g. L£.\/£L 



OOOH 



s/lSfrAT/O^i 



i wo* T^LZ L f-r^ rrn nrV, fi^ 




\ kt,qh tot^\ ^ r, ,^, - „ - , + , - , ,0^^ 



T 



* 



JH 









/ 












/ 




1 









P3TTT 

















/ 











rm-i 



ra^ri 



i 

_ 11 ■ 






-170- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location 
Watershed 



Lowell 



Merrimack River 



USGS Quad T , nwPl l 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others (W. & H.) 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 14 acres 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X 



Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed (see not e"A" , below) 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
2000 32 , 2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 

Plant/Facility; areas served Lowell, Dracut, Tewksbury 
and part of Chelmsford 



"A": Tentative construction start, summer, 1975 



-171- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Flat 



Vegetation : None 



Soils: Common fills 



Special features: Site is highly visible driving 
along major roadway. 



General site character: site is under construction 



Current status is a fill operation linking an existing island 
(completely obliterated) and the river bank. 



-172- 



Developmental Issues: 

— 

Surrounding development, one or two single family 

h ^ g and a rn^side restaurant, (all within 100 yards). 

P „,* alignment j-. ODQ ara P hv> and river limit further development 
j P +h^ immediate area of the site. 



Noise levels and air quality. Noise level is generally 
high (traffic noise) to the proximity of the roadway (Route 11 ) 
Tends to overcome any possible natural river noises. 



Zoning and development issues. Minimized due to topograph y 

existing development and river. Only potential issue is 

conflict of river access/use for recreation and problem of 
increased traffic turning movements where existing road is 
poorly aligned. 



-173- 







V 



I 

I 






ID 



pl^nn/^jg 



lANO Cs&B ■ &S^>is.RAL 



LAHO USB ■ Sf&C/F/G 



A\GTlOH TOTALS 



PLfrMt^llt^Gr 



&5.N&RAL ZO/s//*J& 



LAND U&&'- SPECIFIC 



c/h/qu& H/£>ro#/c s/rz 



OH/QU6 GULTVXAL SITB ^ 



TRAFFIC F>ATT5RN 



AsCJIOM TOTAUS^\ 



O&^S&UOPM &N r 



TV^ 



O&hJ&ITY 



CHARAGTE.H 



&CALS 



1 ACTION TOTAL&\ 



LArsia^CF^P^ 



UAMDFORM 



\/&&&TA TIO^J 



CH^RAGTS-fR 



C/MQU& \/ALU& 



ACG&<52> 



| ACJTg/V TOTALS'^ 



ZNV/RONM&NT 



WAT&R CLARITY 



WAT&R COLOR 



t*/ATS> R quantity 



WAKT&R QUALITY 



A\lR QUALITY 



HO/&3. ues/su 



OOOfZ 



\//3RlA\Tlo^ 



ACTION TOTALSbX 



X 









<n^ 


hi 


m 



(!) 
d 







s 




a- 



i 



i 



^ t -■ o + - o f — o * - o + — 

■ rrrp n-n rm rrnn nrrm 



a 



B B 



nvT2i rtr 



£■ 



o f - o * 

IS si 



o 










o t - o + 

rm m 



-174- 



o f - o * ■? 

rrmrTTT 



- O + - Of- 



1 



Of- Of- 

-rmi-ren 



1 S 



=■ 5' 



2 



z. 



gnf i 







T 


1 




\ 


1 


1 




i. 




I 



I§T1#I 



zn 



i 



a 



I3B23 



1 

I 



- O + - O + ~ Of- 



-H fpSTi rn^^i 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Manchester 
Watershed North Coastal 



Site Designation 

v existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



USGS Quad Marblehead No . 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



Zl 



Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 3 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

X Secondary existing 

Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 0-5 (W&H ) , 2020 2.3 (M&E) , 2050 2.4 (M&E) 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 Approx. 1. 5 acres. 
Plant/Facility; areas served Manchester 



-175- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Oat. 



Vegetation : none 



Soils: 



Special features: The plant is located directly behind 
the town's central business block and is bounded by the Town, 

Hall, the police and fire stations, the V.F.W. Hall and 

Manchester Harbor. 



General site character: Typical small New England 



town urban setting. The most outstanding feature of the 
site is Manchester Harbor. 



"=T7E=" 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. With the exception of the 
harbor, all surrounding development is municipal or civic 
facilities and parking 3>ots. 



Noise levels and air quality. Generally good. 



Zoning and development issues. The major potential 
issue would appear to be a matter of priorities should 
any of the surrounding facilities want to, or need to, 
expand . 



-177- 




5 



IMPACT 



X 







So 


to^ 


HI 


1ft 



o 





F>Ls\NN/MG 



L/^hO Ls£>2 ■■ GrSS^lBRAL. 



UAHO USB ■ apZCIrIG 




If) 



& 

i 

8 










tf) 



10 



PLfrM/^IMGr 



&5.N&RAL ZG/W/NG, 



land ue&- SPECIFIC 



oh/qu5> H/eroxic s/r& 



UN/QUZ GOLTUffAL SITB ~ 



TRAFFIC F'ATTBftN 



A\aj-/OM fOTAuS'. | 



O&^S&LOF^M&HT 



TYF& 



0&M&/TY 



CHAKAGT '&# 



ecAus 



o + ~ 



ZQ 



V, 



+ - 



m 



s- 



- o f - 



o^-- © f * o * - 



/>^AVQ5g^^ 



UAMOFOfrM 



S/e&BTATIO^ 



CH>ARAGT£R 
O/si/QOS: \/<ALU& 



ACG&&& 



ftif 



I ^ r/ c W70 r^, | | - T5mrrnrrnn 



Of- 

12 



i 





/ 






/ 














/ 






/ 



rvzra 



i 



2- 






















/ 




/ 


; 






-2- 



1 AGf/orsi T&~AU&',\ 



ZNV/RONM&NT 



WAT&R CLARITY 



WAT&R C&LOK 



wats. ft QO&Mrtry 



WAT&K QUALITY 



A\/F< G2U/\LITY 



ho/&& ues/eu 



OOGfr 



v/Bfr&r/o^ 



o + - 



o f 



O ¥• - ^ f - o * — 



□ 



Tm rrp^ 



a 





/ 




/ 










1 




1 














/, 






1 









1 Acr/gN ^r^^s] 



Of- 



AVirrnrrnrpzra r 

-178- 



023 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General: 



USGS Quad Framingham 
Used in Concepts 

12 3 4 5 All 
IDE] 



Site Location Marlborough (East) 

Watershed Sudbury River 

Site Designation 

x existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 40 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

Secondary 

x Advanced 



Existing 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility: capacity (MGD) 

(ir$.8 * J 71) 8.3 (1) 10 

2000 (2,3,4,5) 4.5 2020 (2,3,4,5)6 .32050 (2,3,4,5)6.6 . 
Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 (1) 6.5 
Plant/Facility; areas served Concept 1; Marlborough (east) 
and Southborough. All other concepts, municipal system for 



Marlborough only 



-179- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Due to its being a new plant the site is 

flat, particularly the extensive area of abandoned 

lagoons. Adjacent land to the west & east is much higher 



Vegetation : The actual plant site (old & new) is free of 
vegetation. However, the site, is surrounded by dense pine 
groves and/or natural mixed hard/softwoods . 



Soils: 



Special features: 



General site character: The area has a rural character. 



Land is well forested & high ground helps conceal it from view 



-180- 



Developmental Issues ; 

Surrounding development. Development is very low density 
& generally scattered. There is no definate concentration 
in the immediate vicinity & the plant would seem to have 
little impact in this regard. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. The 1969 Zoning Ordinance 
HPsignatiRs this area for ru ral residences. 



-181- 



ATR.U 



IMPACT 

e/rs\ 




& 






IMPACT 
GF*T&<s>OAV 



► 



t^t 






a 1 



id 



* 







So 


to-j 


«u 


Q 



P > LANN/^lG 



LP\NO U&2 ■ <SrSS^i£RAL 



UAHO USS> ■ SF&CIFIC 



X 
o 





I ^.cr/QAV ToTAsLS\ f * f . ~ , | ° i ^ i 





/ 





rfrn 



PLfrM^IMGr 



&5-N5-RAL ZO/S//N& 



land ue>a ■ specific 



C/WQUB- H/STOXtC 3/T3 



UN/QUZ GUL7VXAL SUB 



TRAFFIC F>ATT5KN 



^scrfiOH TDTAusT] 



O&^S&LOPM&NT 



TVP& 



oe^£>ITY 



CHAtfACTB* 



bcals 



| action tota£¥\ 



L^HCDS>C/^PB> 



LAHDFOftM 



\z&&erATio,^ 



CH*\RACT£P 



O/V/QUB \SALU& 



ACC&&& 



\ *CTfOh>l TOrAUZ>',\ 



ZNV/RONMZN T 



WAT2.R CC^RITV 



t+/AT£# COLOI^ 



WATZR QU^NT/TV 



W<AT&K QU^L/TV 



A/rt G^U^L/TV 



/vo/55 L-s.ssau 



OO&F* 



\ZI&fr<AflOf-4 



AGT/OhJ TOTAUb 







7 






























o + - 



© * - 



rrn 



TIT 



J 



<? * - Of*- o + - © t - © * ~ 



n 



c?y- c?-^- © *• - © *• - o *» — 



][ 



3C 



C2 
£ 



5 



/ 






/ 










/ 




1 
























- 





o y - 



a 



* - © * - 



][ 



mrjrn 



I2T7TT 



-182- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Marlborough (West) uSGS Quad Marlborough 

Watershed Assabet m used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

0=r 



x existing facility 
explicit by M & E 



x 



explicit by others 
interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 15 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

x Secondary Existing . 



x Advanced proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2QQQ 9 ' 3 , 2020 10 2050 14 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 9 - 5 
Plant/Facility; areas served Marlborough, Northborough and 
Berlin after 2000 



-183- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain : Existing plant site is flat while adjacent 
land slopes gently away to wetlands. 



Vegetation: Actual site is open (i.e. the plant itself). 
Adjacent land is heavily forested with pine and mixed hardwood/ 
softwood trees. 



Soils: 



Special features: Site is on shore of Millham Reservoir. 



General site character: Basically rural and well-forested 

The reservoir and marshland along the river are significant 

open space areas. ■ 



-184- 



Developmental Issues: 



Surrounding development. There is scattered residential 
development in the area. Commercial and public facilities 
are a mile or more away.* 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. This area was zoned for 



rural residences in the 1969 zoning ordinance 



-185- 



/MPAC T MATRIX 

eiTB'-ftfJesr) 








If) 



■e 






W 



x 


So 



F*L<*\NN/h*JG 



LANO U&Z ' <2r£Ssl&KAL 



UAHO US£ i SF&ClFIG 




X 

6 





I 

! 







^*P* 



a 



/ C? ^A/VAV//V(5' 



&&Ne-RAL ZOM/N& 



CANO U3& SPECIFIC 



c/wqu& h/stoxic &/r£ 



UN/QUZ CULTURAL SIT& 



TRAFFIC f^att^rn 



A\cjtOH TOT^^sr\ 



0&\/&LOpM&NT 



7VP& 



O&^S/TV 



GHARAGTBFt 



eCALS 



| AGT>'OM 7QTAL&\ 



LAMCOG/*P& 



LAHOFOfrM 



\z&&er*Tio^ 



CHA\R<ACT&R 



ACGg&2> 



| AC7VO/V totals i\ 



ZNV/ftONM&hJT 



>V^7 '£■ /*? <ZL^K/TV 



WATB.R GOLOt* 



w Are. ft QUANTITY 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A/& QUAUTV 



/vo/5^ L.zs/eu 



OOOFA 



WIBfrATiO^ 






3ULJZ 






o + - o t - o •*• — 



r-mn-n rn 



n 



t - 




| ,c- /w rcr^ l f £ r , - , rrr , mr r 1 f o^ r ^ 







1 


















1 









~r~F2 - 



~m 









1 




1 






I 















<P *• — 



HE 



%rm mn rmrTn^ 



E 



1 






J 










1 




/ 





























Acr/ON r ^ LS| rfn rrn rrn imrp rcmT 



-186- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Marshfield 
Watershed South Coastal 



. USGS Quad Duxbury 

. Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

X I 
X existing facility — ' — ' ' — *' ' 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Limited to east; vacant 
Area available (if limited and known) land (marsh) to west 

Plant/Facility type 

X Primary existing 



X .Secondary 
Advanced 



proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 3.0 , 2020 4.7 



2050 



6.9 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



3.3 



Plant/Facility; areas served Marshfield (Southern) plus 
Duxbury (after 2000) 



-187- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Salt marsh along Green Harbor River estuary. Land 
is flat with occassional plateaus rising about 4' above tidal 
marsh. 



Vegetation: Marsh grass with reeds etc., on higher ground, 
no trees. 



Soils: 



Special features: Extreme proximity to existing developmen t 
and compact size of present plant. 



General site character: Salt marsh, open, backing on 
to local summer colony. 



-188- 



Developmental Issues ; 

Surrounding development. Existing 1-3 story, woodframe 
and shingled summer colony plus old concrete lookout tower 
200-300 feet to east, ordjented to ocean; marsh to west running 
to Green Harbor River. Present plant is very visible but rela tively 
inconspicuous since it occupies only about 300-400 s.f. 



Noise levels and air quality. No special noise, no smell 
from plant when visited, pleasant sea air character to area. 
Presumably west wind would blow smell of larger plant to adjoining 
commercial, and residential area. 



Zoning and development issues. site includes MAPC ' s existi ng 
and future natural environment areas along marsh. 14-18 acre 
plant would be grossly out of scale with existing and probable 
environment. 
New plant would have to be very low to be inconspicuous. 



-189- 




IMP&GT 



> 








8! 

tf) 



ID 







** 






/^A/V/V//Vg 



LANO u&2 ■' <=r£^£-RAL 



UAHO USZ ■ aPZCIrIG 




X 
o 






I 
i 



5 





I ^g ^^: | ^± TfH g I ^„fl I ± T = lr O | V/ , r | V ^ 



PLfrM^IMGr 



&&N&RAL ZC/s//*J& 



LAND L&&i SP&ClFIC 



C/H/6XJ& H/STO#(C S/T3 



OH/QU6 GUtfVKAL SITB 



TRAFFIC F 9 ATT5RN 
/*\CT«Z>M TOTALS'- 1 



a 



z- 



D&^S&LOpM &SIT 



7VP£> 



OZ/^S/TV 



GHARA\GT5.ft 



&CALB 



o + ~ o + - Of - of* Pf_r 







/ 


/ 




*z 


/ 




3 









| ACTION TOTALS] 



M/VOgC/^^l 



UAMDFOR/V) 



\/&&&T*Tio/^ 



CHA\R<AGT£R 



<ACG&<&& 



o + - o + - o + ~ o- + - o*~ 

^TIB pgm mW fTTTI 151173 



<2 




2 



la 



3 



2- 



ZNV/RONM&N T 



WATS-& GCAsFVTV 



WATBR G&LOK 



WATZft cjo&wr/ry' 



WAT&rt QU^L/TY 



A\/F* GlUA^LlT'V 



Hoz&g. Lss/eu 



oo&FZ 



\//3/^^r/o^ 



i ^^^^g HI [3i^^ D | = nziiafiii i^Egr 



52 



5 



*~ 









/ 










1 




/ 










1 






/ 













Ac:r/0^ 7S?7VQ>^6| 






-190- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Medfield 



USGS Quad Medfield 



Watershed Upper Charles River 



Site Designation 

Under 
x existing facility Construction 



Used in Concepts 



12 3 4 5 All 


| x| X XX 



explicit by M & E 
explicit by others 
interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 
Primarv 



x Secondary under construction 
x Advanced proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

4.0 2020 7.0 



2000 



, 2050 



9.6 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 4.9 

Plant/Facility; areas served Medfield, Millis and Eastern 
two thirds of Norfolk after 2000 



-191- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: A triangular/ pointed low hill tapering into Char les 

River marshes, and excavated in the center (as though for sand a nd 

gravel) leaving 20 '-30' high ridges around 2 sides of the site a nd 

a slight railroad embankment on the third side. Surrounding ter rain 
is marsh to west, river and marsh to south and southeast, and old 
sand pits to northeast. 

Vegetation : Low hardwoods around the edges of the site, som e 

pines on the north and east edges, birch and miscellaneous hardw oods 
on th e point to the west, shrubs and grass on marsh, (marsh im- 
mediately north of the site is open^not forested as the USGS 
seems to indicate. 



Soils: Sandy. 



Spec ial feature s : At present the site is conspicuously close d 
and well screened by remaining ridges. The point of high land 
remaining to the west of the site has considerable park potential 
with its attractive wooded, character in contrast to surrounding 
river and marsh. 



General site character: Level sandy soil surrounded by low 
ridges, well screened from surroundings, ground slopes 10-15' to the 
river, sloping steeply to southwest, more gradually to northeast 
and tapering off to the west. Eastern edge is along Railroad. 



-192- 



Developmental Iss ues: 

Surrounding development. Surrounding land is undeveloped except 

for railroad and old pits to east. A light industrial/researc h 

facility exists about 1500' to the south and some commercial a nd 

institutional space exist about 2000' north along West St. A few 

houses are along the river immediately south, and along Bridge St. 

approaching site from the east. None of these are inview of s ite. 

Rt. 27 has been rerouted and runs along a new ROW through edge of 
marsh 2000'+ to the north. 

Noise levels and air quality. Nothing remarkable now; howe ver , 
housing on Brid g e St. (1000' east of site) is downwind from 
the plant. 

(Is future sludge to be incinerated?) 



Zoning and development issues. Area is zoned for industr y 
but recommended for a Natural Environmental Area by MAPC. 
Industry seems appropriate for the old sand pits along the RR. 
The problem is to reconcile that industrial potential and the STP 
itself with Open Space value and potential of the edges of the site 
and the surrounding area. Access to the site could be used to in- 
crease access to the river. But expansion of the present plan t 
might overwhelm the riverscape at this point. There seems to be 
enough unused space to halve again o r perhaps double the treat ment 
tanks with a very tight layout. However the recommended 2 3+ acres 
would appear to obliterate the surrounding ridges and vegetati on . 



-193- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 









IMPACT fO 



PL^MN/MG 



Lf\NO U&Z '■ <=?Bs-iZF<AL- 



!rA.NO USB ■ S&£C/riC 



X 







?« 


-♦11 


vn 4 


■** 










i 

l 








T 


U 



I WOM TOT*, S ] *+ lh ° l + ri l <>f f} ~* fhl 



tz& 





8! 

tf) 

10 



^AAv^/V/N^ 



&&N&&AL ZO/s///^J& 



l^nd uee ■ SPECIFIC 



C/WQU5. H/STOX/C S/T3 



UN/QUZ GULW&AL SUB 



TRAFFIC PATT&KM 



A\CJ/OM TOTALS'. I 



OEz^&LOPM&M T 



TVP& 



o&^e>/rv 



CH&R&OTBR 



ecALS 



I AQTio^ TOTaU^\ 



L>AMQ5G/*F*i 



LAHOFORM 



ve&&T*Tio^ 






ACG&&£> 



| ACT/Oi^ TOTALS ;\ 



£NV/ftONMZ,h>l T 



WATZ& CL^RITV 



WATBR COLOK 



WATZS QO&A/r/ry' 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A\(F< GZU/M-IT^ 



mo/&£ L-zvau 



OO&fr 



^y/3/^^r/o^ 



/\<zr/&^ TOTAL/b 



r 



a 



63 



o + - 

TTT 





















2 




\ 









- -°. t ~ ° _+ ~ 



rm m 



<3 ± r 



o + - o + - o + - o t ~ 



n rm rmm 



TT 



£ 



^ 





/ 




), 






-2 






2- 




1 


-z- 


1 





- cr>y- o + - o +• - <?«*• — 



M S 



n m-\ Fm^T ] 



m 



E- 





-r 














/ 




/ 





























O + - & + -&i'~Ot~ 



-194- 



m rrn rp^rh ifrerf 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 



Site Analysis Sheet 
General : 

Medford 



Site Location 

Watershed Mystic Rivp.r 



Lexington 
USGS Quad Boston North . 

Used in Concepts 



12 3 4 5 All 

xQCZ] 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

x 
explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 2 acres 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

x Secondary Concept 5 

X Advanced Concept 4 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 (4) 30 (5) 28 2020 (4,5) 31 , 2050 (4 f 5) 29 
Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 (4/5) 25 
Plant/Facility; areas served Arlington / Bedford , Le xington 
and parts of Belmont, Medford, and Winchester. 



-195- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: The area is low, flat river bottom land along 
the Mystic River. The width of this low area is fairly 
narrow as the land rises quickly within short distances of 
the river; especially to the north. 

Vegetation: There is a scattering of specimen trees 
through what is predominately an open space setting. 



Soils 



Special features: Site is a recreation space. There 
is a historical site across the parkway. 

NOTE: Not considered an appropriate site in any case. 



General site character: This area is a narrow river 



valley with well treed residential areas on .the slopes. 




The actual valley floor is of a horizontal character with 


a series of flowing linear spaces. 









-196- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Adjacent land use is pre- 
dominately residential and is very near the site. Open 
space dominates the valley floor. Commercial areas are 
few. There is a library within 1/4 mile. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. Assumed to remain a n 
M. D. C. recreation area. 



-197- 







> 



I 
I 





8! 



to 







F>L^NN/^G 



u\^o U&Z ' &S-V=*^i. 



ua,ho usb- ■ specific 




X 

6 
o 











m 



T 


1 



AGT/O^' TOTALS- 



m rrn cm rrrn nfn 



F'LfrMi^ir^G' 



&5.N&KAL rC/VWS 



£ *nd ue>B -■ specific 



c/m/quz H/eroxic s/r£ 



UN/QUS. GULWXAL SITS 



TRAFFIC PATT5&M 



G> 













/rtl " 


\ 










-2 









A\cjiom totals: I 



O&V&UOFZM&N T 



7-YP& 



OZ^J£>/T\' 



CHAR&GTSX 



&CAL5 



t ~ O f - O + ~ ° + •% 9 ± * 



t*a 



3-r frrfi 



k2 









1 




<^" 








1 




1 



Of- O f - 



L**NOQG/ c *P& 



UAHOFOfrM 



\z&&&T*Tior-*i 



CH«*\R<<\CT£R 



C//V/QO& \Z<^LU& 



i<\CGg&& 



\ AGTiGN TOTAu^ j — ■ \ A\ y7\ I I r 



Of- Of- Of — 



a. 
o. 



£2 



£ 



\ Ascj/ar^i rg"/^^s;| 



o y - o f - 



£NV/ftONMB,N T 



WATS-K CL^^ITY' 



WAT5.R COLO* 



WAT2S QO&Ajr/TY 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



/>\IR GZUAsLlT**' 



HO/&3 USS/SU 



OOOFZ 



^/3/^^f/Or^ 



qjogiffi. 



o + - & + ~ o 

znacn 



gpi^a 



t 



£2 



I ^cr/o^ totals 



Of- Of- o + - 



Of" & f - 



-198- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Medwav 



Site Location 



USGS Quad 



Watershed Upper Charles River . 

Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



XX X IX 



Secondary 



X Advanced proposed, all concepts 
Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

(1,2,4)8(5)7.4 (1,2,4,5)15 
2000 _,.2020 , 2050 (i. 2. 4,5121 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 (1/2 & 4) 8 . 5 
Plant/Facility; areas served Bellingham, Franklin, Holliston, 

Medway, Norfolk, Wrentham, plus western third of Medway after 

200 



-199- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain; Rolling hill dropping down to Charles River flood 
plain, and marsh at edge of Populatic lake. Site ranges from 
about 140' to 130' . 



Vegetation: Low wetlands plants , brush about 6' high 
trees at edge. 



Soils: 



Special features: Charles River enters and leaves the 
Pond at the low end of the site, power line crosses site from 
north to south. 



General site character: site appears to fill whole area 



between road (Village St.) and the Pond and would probably 
overwhelm the site and be very visible from the pond. 



-200- 



Developmental Issues: 

-- 

Surrounding development. Low density rural and suburban 
housing along Village St., Vacation housing along the south 
bank of the river (in the site and adjoining it) as it leaves 
the Pond, and around the Pond Power lines crossing the site 
A small airport (Norfolk Airport) 1500-2000' S.E. of the site 



Noise levels and air quality. Nothing noticeable 



Zoning and development issues. Site clearly conflicts 
with residential and recreational uses around the pond unless it is 

broken up and screened with planting. (Perhaps trees 

roughly along contour lines and between major plant elements) 

1963 (Chas. Downe) Master Plan recommended R-2 30,000 S.F. 

residential zoning and use on the high ground and Flood Plain 
zoning on the lowlands, i.e. basically excluding the site . No map 
was in DCA zoning file. 

-201- 









8! 

ID 

ID 



IMPACT \CV 
GA\TZG>OftV V 



X 








PLa\^N/MG 



LAHO U&Z ■' <&&S/£tfAL 



UAMO uss. ■ SPECIFIC 



\ 




I 



^r 




— r 


/ 



^^^iMcmfficnicra 



PLfrM^I^O 



&5-N&KAL ZO/S//H& 



LAND U&& '■ SP&CiFiC 



C/WQU5. H/STOXIC S/T& 



UH/QUZ CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC F'ATTZKN 







T 


















/ 









A\cj;om TOTALS'. 1 



O&^&UOPM&NT 



rr^ 



O&MSITY 



character 



ecAue 






□ 



o * - 



o ± - 



bd O 



C 







-?,. 






% 


/ 




\ 



I AGTIOH TOTaU^\ 



o + ~ o t - © * - o + ~ & + - 



LAMa£>G/*P& 



LAMDFORhrt 



s/&&£TATlO^ 



CHA\RACT&& 



ACG&&& 



^EO 



S-EOS 



1 




/ 


1 










-z- 






^2- 









£/VV/rtONM£S/T 



W*T2>R GL^FVTV 



WAT5-R CO^OjR, 



WATS- ft QUA^r/TV 



WW&R QU^AL/TV 



A\/F* QUALITY 



HO/&& LS.S/&U 



OOOFZ 



WI&fr&TlO^ 



2 



/ 






/ 




/ 






/ 


[ 


1 














/ 


1 













i Acr/o~ gasg L g-gf] m^i rfrrarSrfrn &fnh 



-202- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 



Site Analysis Sheet 
General : 

Middletown 



Site Location 

Watershed Ipswich River 



USGS Quad Salem 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



I— X 



Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Secondary 



X Advanced proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 2 .4 ' 202 ° 3.8 



2050 



^JL 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 3.5 

Plant/Facility; areas served Middletown, North Reading 



-203- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain; fiat 



Vegetation : Large deciduous and evergreen materials 
around edges of site. 



Soils: 



Special features: No special features. Site is a 
fairly small open field. 



General site character: Open field with hedge row 
vegetation along two sides. 



-204- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. A few single family homes , 
Site and area is very rural in nature despite its closeness 
to Danvers and Route 95 * 



Noise levels and air quality. good 



Zoning and development issues. Potential conflict 
with expanding single family homes appears to be the only 
possible issue. However, access to site could become an 
issue, especially during construction. 



-205- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

Mfdd/efauin 









IMPACT 



PLANNING 



LANO U&2'- G'&Svc./ZAL 



LAHO US£ • SrBC/r/C 




So 



o 




1 

i 



5 



a 




| ^r,a. ToT»,s-\ r i L f} - l ^- u - r i ^^ f ^ [ 



O + - 





a 1 



Vs. 

ID 



PLfrMi^lH^IGr 



&S-N&RAL Z0M/M& 



LAND U£>& '■ Sr&CtFIC 



&n/qub> h/st&ric &/r& 



UN/QU& GOLTUXAL SUB 



TRAFFIC .^ATT^RN 



o + «r 



DB^S&LOFM &NT 



TYP£> 



O&l^l&iTV 



CHARAGTS.K 



eCALS 



+ ~ a + - 



i^^^^^Knni] mn tea tnfi 



<2. 



| AGTIQM TOTALS] 



T*R55g£P& 



LAMDFOfr/V) 



\/&&&T*TiO^ 



CHA\RAGT£R 



iACGg<=>& 



fnh 



- a t - o + - 






+ - 



a 



?. 



=' c 



E3 







1 
























1 






1 




1 












1 


1 







ana - 



in 



z 



i 



o +• — 



1 gg|gg^^ 



ZNV/ftONM&NT 



WATS- ft GL^niTV 



WATS.R COLO* 



WATZS QUANTITY 



WAT&rt QUALITY 



A\IK G}UA\LIT'V 



nio/&& L-zveu 



ooop, 



^/i&fr&Tio^ 



?■ 






















1 




1 










1 




1 


1 













AGTtOM TOTAWb 



Of" & + - o + - 



rmrm n 



rft rOTTi 



rerfrzi 



-206- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Nut Island 
Watershed Coastal 



USGS Quad 



Hull 



Site Designation 

X existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

__ explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

X_ Primary FvisHng 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 

rn.ra 



X Secondary Proposed 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 
Concept 1; 
2000 li5 > Concept 2; 90, Concept 3; 195. Concept 4; 100 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 Concept 1; 53. Concept 2; 35. Concept 3; 57. Concept 4; 37 

Plant/Facility; areas served Portions of the M.D.C. 

sewer district; varies from concept to concept. 



-207- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain:__gite is a low h ill (2Q+ft T ) ea st of Hough's NecK 
(Quincv) and adjoining fill along a causeway to Hough's Neck. A d- 
j oining portion of Hough's Neck is a 100' resident^allv develope d 

hill ("Quincv Great Hill"). Surroundings are very scenic areas of 
Quincy and Hingham Bays., with Peddock's Island (publicly acquired 
recently with some summer homes remaining on rented MDC land) about 
1/2 mile to the east. 

Vegetation: little grass and some trees. 



Soils : 



Special features: Very conspicuous site, present plant is 
v isible for miles, site has very pretty setting, with good view s 
o f harbor and Boston Skyline. 



General site character: former island now connected to mai n- 
land by causeway and filled site. 



3TOS"" 



Devel opmental Issues : 

Surrounding development* Housing, mostly year round to 
w est on Hough's Neck; summer housing and public lands on Peddoc k ' s 
Island 1/2 mile to the east; Quincy and Hingham Bays with much 
recreational boating to north and south. 



Noise levels and air quality. Some industrial noise fro m 
plant's generators etc., little smell as sludge is digested, 
some sense of the process from visible, torch-like burning of 
s urplus gas. 



Zoning and development issues. Present plant was designed to be 
visually compatible with the neighborhood in that sedimentation tanks 
were decked over .Buildings , sludge digesters, and especiall y the 
spherical gas tank remain very conspicuous yet most of plant ha s an 

institutional look. 

Regional Open Space plans call for maximum public Open Space use 
j o f Nut Island. Hence new development should be unobtrus ive as possible 
jand leave the periphery for public walkways and view points. At the 
same time shallow water a ^d tideland filling should be minim i z ed 
to protect marine life. 

High traffic generating public uses probably should not be en- 
pouraged to avoid increasing traffic through Hough's Neck. 

MAPC OPEN SPACE PLAN calls for a Natural Environment Area. 

-209- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

eiT£- . 

4/rjf f^and 






ii 

IMPACT h^7 



^L^MN/t^G 



Lf\NO U&z ■ <=>5Ssi£-RAL 



^*ho usz ■ epeciFic 



X 





^«. 




«I-J 


41 






© 
Q 




I 



5 




i actio* ror+ m- rrfft rT^ rr^ ifi^ iTrm 





8! 

tf) 



k 

ID 



PLfrM^IMGr 



&5-N&RAL. Z0M/fisl& 



LAND U&& ■ SP&CtFIG 



owquz h/stofic &/r& 



OM/QU& GULWXAL SITB 



TRAFFIC F'^TTBRN 



f^ct/om totausT] 



D&V&UOPM&N T 



T>FF>& 



oefi-J&.'TY 



CHAtfAGTSF 



3CALS 



C2 



CZ 



l 




i 



o + - 



rrru 



a ± 

O 



- © 



][ 



t ■ 



rmrznzfi 







/ 


I 




I 






I 






\ 



o + ~ o t ~ 



1 ^cr/^ ^, 1^^ ^^ rm rm ^^ 



LAMC)SGF*F , & 



UF\MDFOftM 



VB&BT^TIO^ 



GHARFsGT&R 
U/SlG(UBf VAL*U& 



ACC&<=>£> 



E5 







-2 






-Z-- 


/ 




/ 






/ 


2 







i ^^^^^ €D ^ Ea ^ IIz:] a a 3Q B ^ 



ZNV/RONM&SIT 



WATS-* CL^RITV 



WAT&R COL.O& 



WATS- ft QO&/vr/ry 



WATBA QUA L/ TV 



A/& GlUAL.IT>' 



ho/£>& ues/eu 



ODO& 



V/S&AT/O^ 






Q 
2 



1 






1 






1 








1 










1 






1 













1 Acr/QN total&\ 



or- 



o 






- © 



m 



i ^in iffn 



-210- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location BnnVlnnH 

Watershed North River 



USGS Quad wh1tTT 1an 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 

Ea1 



Site Designation 

X existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 15 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

X Primary existing 



Secondary 



X Advanced proposed 



Present capacity is 
1.0 mgd. Supt. wants 
to expand to 1.5 to 
2 . mgd . 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 1-7 , 2020 2.7 



2050 



2.5 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



2.7 



Plant/Facility; areas served Rockland 



-211- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Sloping gently or flat, site is at edge of 
Beech Hill swamp. Most of rear of site is marsh or swamp 



Vegetation : Pines and some hardwood on high ground. Brush 
and low wetlands vegation on wetland. 



Soils: 



Special features: sit e is well isolated. 



General site character: Low rise protruding into swamp 



-212- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Housing along Sumner St. 2/10 
milo to north, a largp Stating, filub, £Quth Shore Sports Center 

botwoon plant and Sumner* .St. Phone company service facility (?) 

nppnsit.fi plant driveway. New Esten Elementary School abou t 
inOQ' p^gt past adjoining wetland and out of sight). Extens ive 
industry (National Coatings Co.) on low drumlin past swamp 

2QQQ' tO south 

Noise levels and air quality. N/a little noise or smell 

from plant nr surrounding area. (Sludge is remove d to town 

landfill) . 



Zoning and development issues. Area is well screened from 
view and plant itself is low (the highest elements are the 
sludge digesters) . Plant expansion seems possible at the 
cost of some wetlands filling. 

1958 Zoning Map has it in the Residential District later 
am endments greatly increased industrial area and probably inc luded 

the plant site. (No map was available) . 

-213- 




IMPACT 



p 








5: 

8! 

tf) 



10 







o 





PL+SNN/hJG 



LANO U&&- O&^ZRAL. 



^SJJJM^' "^^CTP^ 



I 

\ 



L.AHO USS- ■ QfEC/rlG 



I 

i 



T 




PLfrMMIMGr 



&5.N&KAL ZGM/M& 



LAND U&& '• ep&ciFic 



C/WQU& H/STO&/C s/r& 



UH/QU6 GULTVfML eiTB ^ 



TRAFFIC PATT&RN 



ACJ/om TOT*£&~\ 



OB^S&L&PM &N T 



7VP5> 



&&HS/TV 



CHARAOTBR 



3cals 



ACTION TOTALS 



LA*IO£>G^F>& 



LAMDFOftM 



\/&&&TATio^ 






ACG&&& 



| (ACTION TOTAL'S ;| 



&NV/ftONM&NT 



JAJATZR CO^HITV 



WAT&R. GOLOl^ 



WAT& ft QUANTITY 



WAT&R QUsAL/TV 



A\lft QUALITY 



/VO/5^ L-zveu 



OOOR 



V/Bfr&T/O^ 



ACT/ OH TOTAWb 



a 



2- 






o + - o + ~ Of- 



m 



+ - 



o t - 



f - o 



m= 



± 



c?f- & -r - o + - <?f>- 



tuna 



(2 



/ 





I ^ ror^ l ^^ — ^^^^^^ 



Of — 





1 






/ 










1 













fren 





1 























□r 









1 


1 




1 



















o f 



1 





Of- O + - O + - O + ~ Of- 



rmiTTirrnsrrn 

-214- 



em 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 



Site Analysis Sheet 
General : 

Rockport 



Site Location 

Watershed North Coastal 



Rockport 
USGS Quad glnncester 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others (w. & H.) 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



X 



X Secondary Under construction as of 9/ 74 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

1.7 , 2020 2.0 



2000. 



2050 



2.5 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 
2.7 

Rockport. (Designed for 



2000 



Plant/Facility; areas served 
flow of 0.6 mgd in 1995) . 



-215- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: rjgngr-ally f1*1- r fifimo margh/wpf arpas. 



Vegetation : dense , mostly deciduous 



Soils: 



Special features: Site is at end of narrow residential 
road. Homes are old, but generally well maintained. Very 
desirable area. Site is adjacent to an old established and 
well maintained cemetery. 



General site character: Wooded. 



-216- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development, q-n-^ j g i^g j-h^n nn P mile 

from popular faaurisat araas of Rockport. Main access is along 

mrr™ roc^pnH^ i strPP^s. MQSt ho mes in the area are old, 

qinql family, ^H fairly well maintained. 



Noise levels and air quality. Good 



Zoning and development issues. Compatibility with sur- 
rounding areas/developments is major issue; site is somewhat 

remote and isolated, and proper use of existing plant 

material would do much to minimize potential impacts and 



incompatibilities 



-217- 




I 





5: 

8! 

to 



if) 






X 







?,o 


-Ul 


fl>^ 


HI 


o 







F>L*\NN/MG 



Lf\NO U&&'- <5>B*^l£-RAL 



UA,HO USB ■ SPECIFIC 




I 
i 



5 
% 





1 





morion ror*Ts] rT ^ rT ^ ,-p^ r - f ^ n - T ^ 



PLfrM^IMGr 



&5.N&KAL. Za/V/N& 



land uea t sp&cific 



OWClue. H/STORIC &/T£ 



UH/QU£ CULTURAL SITB — 



TRAFFIC PATT&KH 



A\cj/om fOTAueT] 



O&sS&L&FM 5.MT 



7VP& 



O&^B/TV 



GHARAGT&.R 



&CALB 



2 

s 

o + - 







1 








L 






4 




1 


I 




/ 



lai izi mrig] 



joa 



C 



1 




1 






I 


I 




1 









{ ACTION TOTAL^\ 



o t 



L.*h4Q&G*P&. 



LAMDFOfrM 



\Z&&£\T*TiO^ 



OH/QU& \s^LU& 



ACGg<Z>Z> 



rA irr 



=□2 



o + - 













-2- 








1 




1 









i ^/o^ r^^ zjn^fr^n rfy^ rr^rrfi firm 



£NV/rtONMB>NT 



t>/ATS# CLARITY 



WAT&R COLO* 



WATS. H QO&As/r/ry' 



WA.T&K QU^UTV 



A\lR QUAL/T-f 



/VO/S5 L.&S/&L* 



0&&& 



v/B/z&r/o^ 



2- 






i 



I acton bpt^s ^^^ r £ r ^ f £ T ^ ^^ ^^ 



-218- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for v;astewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Salem 
Watershed 



Salem 
USGS Quad MarhlPhPaH 



Site Designation 

X existing facility (under 

construction) 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



_ 



explicit by M & E 
explicit by others 
interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X Secondary 

Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 47 / 2020 ^n_ 



2050 



46 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 27 
Plant/Facility; areas served Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead , 
Peabody & Salem. 



-219- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Fairly steep bank down from road to flat plateau 
out to harbor edge 



Vegetation: almost all that may have existed has been 
removed during construction operation. 



Soils: 



Special features: the site abutts an existing power plant 
The main access is through downtown Salem, past the newly 



developed 


historic 


distr 


ict 


and on 


the 


way 


to 


one 


of 


the 


larger 


recreation 


complexes in 


the 


area. 





















General site character: destroyed by construction 



-220- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development, existing power plant; nearby 
recreation area, which Salem would like to expand by acquiring 
the abandoned Coast Guard «facility, nearby Marine Lab facility 



Noise levels and air quality . Noise levels are fairly high 
and air quality is probably lower than a normally accepted 
standard for the general area. 



Zoning and development issues. Major development issues 
are possible conflict with expansions of both the adjacent 
power plant and the nearby recreation facilities. Site appears 
to straddle public and industrial areas proposed in 1963 Blair 
Associates 1 Town Plan. Land was zoned for public and semi-public 
use in 1963. 



-221- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

em 



<2a 




3SSO 



85 



IMPACT \C 



I 
I 







If) 



^^/V/V//VG 



L/^NO U&2'- O&^lc-RAL 



LAHO USB ■ Sr^C/rlC 



ACTIO M TOTALS 




iza rTTi era nfn cgn 



PLfrM^II^G* 



&&N&RAL ZC/s) VM& 



land uea- specific 



c/wqu5. H/sroxic &/rz 



UH/QU6 CULTURAL SIT& <^ 



TRAFFIC F*ATT5RN 





















1 













1 actiom TOTALS' I i f 1 * 1 ~ | PPTH 



D&'y'&LOPM &SI T 



-tv^s* 



O&MS/TY 



CHAR&GTBR 



3CALS 



o + - o f - p f - 

rm peg m-n 



o f - © f - 



LAHCD£>G/*P& 



L AMD FORM 



s/eer&TATio^ 



CHARACTER 
(JMIQUSi VALU& 



ACC&&& 



1 ^^^^ r g^.g^g^g£^,g [ ^ 



^ 



= E 



a 



i 



| ACT/^ TO-AC * ^^ f^y^ ^^^t^^L^ 



£NV/ftONMa.N r 



*s/AT3R CLARITY' 



WATBR COLOR 



iMAre.R QOAMriry 



JMATBR QUALITY 



A/R QUALITY 



mo/€>£ ues/au 



OOOR- 



V/BRAT/O^ 



I 



I 





1 






1 




1 








J 





























Of- Of- 



i ^^^^ H^m mziozQ timiiiaa 



-222- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Scituate 



Watershed North River 



. USGS Quad Scituate 

. Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

x existing facility — ' — ' ' — lL 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 11.5 acres 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



x Secondary 
Advanced 



1 mgd capacity 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 5 - 5 / 2020 8.8 



2050 



14 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



4.9 



Plant/Facility; areas served Hanover, Norwell, Pembroke, 
and parts of Hanson, Marshfield and Scituate 



-223- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: low hills and salt marsh along North River Estuary , 
generall dropping down from sand hills north of the driftway 
to marsh. 



Vegetation: low trees , marsh grass , cattails etc. 



Soils: sandy on high ground/ then marsh soils 



Special features: landscape has a very attractive range 
of low woods, meadow, brush and marsh making it extremely pleasant 
for hiking, etc. 



General site character: hills to marsh. 



-224- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Surroundings are undeveloped exc ept 
for golf course adjacent to north (and actually wrapped around the 
plant) and boat yard 250(V to west. Much intensive housing an d 
related open space and boating development has been proposed 

for Boston Sand and Gravel Co. lands to North and West. 

River and marsh access is good though probably through private 
land. River is one of the cleanest in Mass. 

Noise levels and air quality, little noise, but strong 
septic smell from septage piled down wind from golf course. 



Zoning and development issues. The ™arsh is in wetlands 

zoning, the Driftway (road) is generally zoned for business an d light 

industry- A several hundred unit P.U.D. has been proposed for adjoin- 

ing land to north and east. Concentrated residential use and exten- 

sive open space preservation seem the best uses for this area . Past 

town plans , present Dept. of Community Affair studies and the MAPC 

Open Space Plan all recognise the unique value of the North Ri ver 
Marsh. New or expanded plant should be kept low, present plant 
is nearly out of sight except for grit crane. A 15+ acre plant 
can fit if done very carefully with berms and natural plant 
material screening. 

-225- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

aire* 

frkzt'fda.ie. 








8! 



in 









> 



7W 



PL^NN/MG 



L-ANO U&Z '■ <2r£Ssi£-RAL 



LAHO US* ■ SPECIFIC 



i^OTIO/^ TOTALS- 



PLfrMMMCB 



&£-N5>RAU ZOM/N& 



land uee- specific 



cwQue. H/sToxic s/rs 



UH/QU& GULWXAL eiTB .— 



TRAFFIC F'ATT&KM 



acjiom totalsT\ 



O&^S&LOfM&N T 



TVP& 



o&MSirv 



CHARAC-TSK 



&CALS 



ACTION TOTALS'. 



LAi*>IC)£>G/*F>& 



LAKDFOfchrt 



\/e&&T*Tio/^ 



CHARACTER 
QMG\U& VALU& 



Acc&&e> 



X 









fl^ 


•a 










*+SJ* ""^^3P^ 



I 



5 









1 






( 



mTi r 



o + - o + -, 



o + ~ 



rh rrra ^ 







-f 














2 




j 









o t ~ 



Mt 



n 



t ~ 



h!£ 



3rra 



© y- - © *■ - o + - oy-- © *• - 



rm rm rm rm 



c 
<2 



o 



?: 



S3 



7 



I 



o + - o f - © y - © y- - © *• — 



i ^cr/QN rg^^ fma g^ rn^ r^inn 177^ 



ZNV/ftONM&NT 



WAT2.& CLARITY 



WAT&R. COLO* 



WAT2S QUANTITY 



WATBK QUALITY 



A/F* GUALITV 



/Vo/65 Lzveu 



OO&fr 



vi&frATIo^ 



=*■ 









1 










/ 




/ 










1 






1 













1 Acr/o^ TOTAL& 



O T - O + - 

■ rmn-r 



© * 

ICC 



i^rfrn 



Sin 



-226- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Sudbury 



Site Location 

Watershed Sudbury River 



USGS Quad Maynard, C oncord 
Used in Concepts 

12 3 4 5 All 
]OL] 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

X interpreted by W & H. 
Area available (if limited and known) Approx. 25 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

Secondary 



X 



Advanced proposed. 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

200C 5 - 9 , 2020 11.0 



2050 



14.0 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 
2000 6 ' 6 



Plant/Facility; areas served Sudbury, Wayland. 



-227- 



Site Specifics : 

Terrain: Nearly 100% flat open land of slightly higher- 
elevation than adjacent marshland. A small steep hill on f-ho 
northeast boundry is not suitable for development. 

Vegetation: Open agricultural land with some (15%) 

wetland vegetation , i.e. maple, poplar, willow. Nearly 

surrounded by marshes. 



Soils : 



Special features: The site is basically a peninsula 
jutting into state and national wildlife refuge areas. 



General site character; Ver y rural & open with views 
across the broad river marshes. Land is heavily wooded & 



interspersed with 


agr 


icultural 


fields 


as 


one 


moves 


away 


from the 


river. 





















-228- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. There is onl y scatterd resident ial 
development in the vicinity. A golf course to the north and 
the wildlife refuge areas, dominate the adjacent land use. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. 



Designated as "flood plain" on 1962 future land use map 



-229- 



/MPACT MATRIX 

iMp^dr 








8! 



in 






► 



^^/V//VG 



LAHO b&Z ' &&H&RAL. 



uamo uss. ■■ specific 



AsGTlOK TOTALS 



PLfrM^iMO 



&5-N5.KAL ZOM/H& 



LAND C/&Z t SPECIFIC 



OH/Que. h/5To#(c &r& 



UH/QUZ GUUVKAL SITB 



TRAFFIC rATTSRN 



A\CT(&H TOTALS' 1 



O&^&UDPM&^I T 



7VP& 



O&r^&ITV 



GHAKAGTBX 



&CALZ 



| ACTION TOTAL^T] 



LAMO£>G/*P& 



LAMDFOfrM 



\/&&&T*TlO^ 



CH<°\RAGT£R 



UMG\U& \/<AUU& 



/ACGZ&& 



| AC77CW T&7Al,3',\ 



ZNV/ftONMZNT 



WATS-R Cl~^rt/TV 



WAT&R COLO* 



W AT& ft QUANTITY 



WAT&ft QUALITY 



A\IR G2UAL/TV 



/VO/65 L-&S/SU 



ooop 



v/3&A\r/&^ 




]GE3H 



Q 



= 5. 



Z: 



Z 



I 



O + - O + - 



ranr 



nrm ifrVi pfrrzi 



O + ~ O +■ - ©+- O-f- o *• — 



□ 



a 



= c2 



ma 





1 








/ 






-$ 


I 




1 


t 







V£2 



nnmnrmwm 



ra 



c 



/ 






/ 










/ 




/ 














/ 















o t - 



I Acr/g/y r^r^si q^q | | | | 



DEEEl ^tttti grfra 



-230- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



■Swampsrof t 



Site Location 

Watershed North Coastal 



USGS Quad Lynn 



Site Designation 

x existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

X Primary existing 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



ID 



Approx . 1 . 9 acres 



X Secondary proposed 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2QQQ 3.2 , 2020 3.3 



2050 



3.6 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 3 - 2 
Plant/Facility; areas served Swampscott 



-231- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: flat 



Vegetation: the site has low hedges on two sides and 
a few random deciduous trees. 



Soils: 



Special features: The site is the largest and most valuable 
property available in Swampscott. It was the site of the New 
Ocean House hotel/ which burned several years ago. . 



General site character: the site was a 9 hole practice 



golf course for the hotel. The plant has been built on end 
of the property, right on the main road to Marblehead. 



-232- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. A large storage garage/ single 
family homes , and the town's best park/recreation area. 



Noise levels and air quality. good 



Zoning and development issues. The key issue is taxes an d 

the best tax use for the remaining parcel area. Proposals 

range from high rise luxury apartments, to single family homes 
($100,000.00 +) to open space and recreation. 



-233- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

aire* 



<£btugrnf\ 






■A 



IMPACT K 
C^TZGrOKV V 



FLa\mN/MG 



LP\hO Ls£>z ■ <Sr£^i£RAL 



LAHO USS. ■ SPECIFIC 



ACTION TOT/A LS\ > 







/ 











& + — 

urn 





8! 

tf) 



<D 



PLi^Mt^llMGr 



&£.N&R*L Z&M/M& 



LAND U&B '• SPZClFiC 



C/M/QU& H/STCX/C S/T3 



OM/QU£ CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC PATT&KH 



ACJ/&M TOTALS'. \ 



0&^&UOPM&.N T 



TYP& 



O&^/S/TV 



CHARCOTS* 



&CAL5 



| ACTION TOTAL^] 



t^NOSC^^ 



LANOFORM 



\/&&&TATiO/^ 



CHARACTER 
UMG\U& \/<ALU& 



ACG&&& 



t - 

r 



zm 



o + - 



o + - 



ZNV/RONM&NT 



WAT£R CLARITY 



WAT&.R COL&K 



WATS/? QUANTITY 



WAT&R QUALITY 



<A/R QUALITY 



HO/e>g. L£SS£L 



ooop 



viBfrAT/o^i 



□ 







/. 



o f ~ o + - o + - 







*?. 












2 






/ 



zm rrjA urm 



l ACr^ TOTALS 0f]f] [flf|f] ( 



Of- <? f - o«f- — 

-T-n rr-n n-ri 



a 



5 





/ 


















/ 










1 










/ 









Of- o + - 



i ^ TO n BBj L cf-n rWi rrri qihh rtrzrn 



-234- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Watertown 



USGS Quad Newton 



Watershed Mystic River . Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

I I XI I XI xll 
existing facility — ' — ' ' — ' ' ' 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx 15 acres 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



X 



Secondary 



proposed, Concept 5 



X 



Advanced proposed, Concepts 2,4 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

(2)45(4)45(5)34 (2)38(4)38(5)38 (2)38(4)38(5)38 
2000 » 2020 , 2050 . 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 (2 & 4) 34 

Plant/Facility; areas served All concepts; Lincoln , 

Waltham, Watertown, Weston and part of Newton 



-235- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: 60% of the site is a low flat area of semi- 
wetland. The higher part appears to be a former land fill 

area. Change in grade is approx. 30' on a 90% slope. 

Vegetation: The site is primarily covered by scrub 

growth, typical of an open field situation; mainly grasses, 
and a few shrubs and small tress. 



Soils 



Special features: Sawins Pond might be preserved. 

Also the General Services Administration facility might severly 



limit 


this 


site 1 


s 


potential 


if 


it 


remains. 




- 





General site character: Due to its location along the 



Charles River, the area remains semi-rural inspite or adjacent 
commercial development. The landscape is low; a broad flood 
plain with fairly extensive views along the river to the 
northwest, the land rises with a significant change in grade. 



-236- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Primarily commercial to the 

NW Residential areas are approximately 1/3 mile away. 

Public open space is a major adjacent land use. The site 
is next to what is designated as a major redevelopment area 
The Arsenal may have historical importance. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. Town Plan suggests high 
d ensity housing for the site with Pub l ic Op e n Spa ce along the 
r iver frontage. 



-237- 



/MPACT MATRIX. 
















IT) 



X 









*n^ 


•ii 


m 



F>La\mN/MG 



L/\NO U&2 : G?SS^£.RAL 



LAHO USS. ■ SPECIFIC 







o + - © * - 



I «ot,oh r^^ Lr-^fir-^j-i 







, 



rfrn 



PLfrM^lt^lGr 



C^eNS-^AL Z0/s//*J& 



LAND U&& '■ SPECIFIC 



c/M/Que. H/5Toftic s/rs 



QN/QU6 CULTURAL e/TB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



ACJIOM TOTALS'. | 



0&^/&UOF>M &NT 



T*YP& 



OZ,^£>/TV 



CHARCOTS.* 



3CALS 



| ACT I CM TOTAL^] 



L*rtaSG/*F>& 



UAMOFOp/V) 



\/£&&TATIO^i 



CH<ARACT£R 



OH/QUe S/AUU& 



ACG&&£> 



| ACf/ON TOTAL>&;\ 



£NV/ftONMa>NT 



MS/AT&R CL^ftlTV 



WATBR COL&& 



w at£ ft Qc&Mr/ry' 



>V/? QUALITY 



HO/&3 L5.\/BU 



OD&R 



^/i3frA\Tl0^4 







1 






/ 


1' 




\ 




/ 









O t " o + - o + - o + - o + - 

gnaw i 1 1 tti rrn ^rra 



a 



t 




/ 








/ 




£■ 









© y - o + ~ o + - o + ~ o + - 



dB 



1 


1 




1 




( 






/ 






I 









O * • - O + - O + - <? f - o + — 



m 



% 



G 



± 





7 




I 






1 








I 










1 






1 













of- df-^y-of-oy- 



i wo* ^a L nn rm rm^n ^t^f 



-238- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Woburn 



USGS Quad Boston North 



Watershed Mystic River 
Site Designation 

existing facility 

x explicit by M & E 

explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 



Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 





X X 



:j 



Area available (if limited and known) Apprnv. 7*> ar-re** 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

x Secondary proposed, Concept 5 

X Advanced proposed, Concept 4 



Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

(4)31(5)25 (4)29(5)29 (4)27 (5)27 
2000 / 2020 , 2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 (4) 25 
Plant/Facility; areas served Burlington, Reading, 

Wilmington, Woburn and parts of Stoneham, Wakefield and 

Winchester 



-239- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain; Gravel pit is basically flat with small 

indulations. 15% is low land bordering a river while remaining 
25% is sloping land on 30% slope. 

Vegetation ; Limited vegetation; mostly open field scrub 

growth. Bordering up-land is forested with mixed hard/ 

softwoods. Marshlands lie between the site and the river. 



Soils; 



Special features; Qppn Rparp rPSPrw along +ho n'vpr 



General site character; The landscape is that of a valley 
with a meandering stream. Open marshland is concentrated on the 

valley floor giving way to woodlands on the gentle slopes. 

Development of low density is encroaching but the area has 
remained rural in character and the site is both visually and 

physically secluded. 

"^ - -240- 



Developmental Issues: 

— - - 

Surrounding development. A small area of low density 

development is near-by (residential) . The Atlantic Gelatin 
Plant borders on the north and may be expanding their faciliti es 
toward this site which might significantly reduce the working 
area of this site. 



Noise levels and air quality. 



Zoning and development issues. Future Land Use Plan, 
1966, designated area as "industrial". 



■241- 



/MPAGT MATRIX, 

e/rs- 






8! 

ID 



^ 
U 

Vi 






impact k; 

GA\T&G>OftV V 



F^L^NN/^JG 



LfisHO b&Z ■' O&vS-RAL 



LAHO USB ■ SPECIFIC 



MOTION TOTALS: 



PLfrM^IMGr 



<*£>N5>ft*L ZC/^//^J& 



l~*ND U&5- ' SP&CtFIC 



C/WQUe. H/STOXIC £>/T£ 



UN/QU& CULTURAL SITB 



TRAFFIC PATT5&H 
| F\CJ/OM TOTA£s^[ 



OB^BLOPM &NT 



7VPB 



OZ/^ISITY 



CHARAGTS.R 



&CALS 



ACTIGM TOTALS- 



UAsHIQ^C/^Pi 



LAMOFOfrM 



\/B&er^Tio^j 






ACGg&Z> 



X 



tin 
CM 



o 






i 



5 



TT 




o + - a + - 



fr-n rm rnri rfrf 



][M 



m 





1 
















& 




I 









nfrn nm una rrm gnu 



r Ck 



— <z — 



o 



/ 




/ 














£ 




2 



O * - Of- © + 7 Of-- © y. - 

n-Tar^rn rTTti nT-n ^rT5i 



2 



z : 



2 



I ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ c ^ ^^ ^^ 



ZNV/RONM&hlT 



WATS- ft CL-^ft/TY 



WATZR COLO* 



WAT&R. QO&wT/ry 



WATBR QUALITY 



/V/ 4 ? QUALITY 



NO/&& i~z\/eu 



ooop 



wis^atio^i 



3- 



/ 








/ 








/ 




1 
















1 













1 /s<sr/gN 7^?^^] 



of- o^-of-oy'-oy- 

• rr-n n-n rrn [^2FTi p^rri 



-242- 



APPENDIX B 

BASELINE DATE 
AND 
COMPLETED MATRIX FORMS 
FOR 
ALL LAND APPLICATION SITES 
CONCEPT FIVE 



-243- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site Location Bourne-East 
Watershed 



USGS Quad 



Pocasset 



Coastal 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

explicit by M & E 

X explicit by others 



Used in Concepts 
1 2 3 4 5 All 



(W & H) 



interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 
Primarv 



2745 acres 



Secondary 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



X Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 



2Q0Q 168.0 



2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



2745 



Plant/Facility; areas served String of plants from Woburn to 
Canton proposed in concept 4 , plua (via P udham Plant) — fchB aiea 
served by the Framingham plant under concepts 1, 2, & 4 



*Site is part of a concept providing 252 MGD capacity to 
meet projected year 2000 demand of 177 MGD. 

-244- 



Site Specifics: 



Terrain: Low ' Rolling, relatively level 



Vegetation: Mixed pine and hardwoods, low 



„ . n Coarse sand 
Soils : 



Part of a little used military reser- 

Special features: 

vation, some firing ranges in use now, basically open. Many 



reuses have been proposed for the base as a whole. 



General site character : p r y s crubby, i sola ted 



-245- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Ope n land on little used militar y 
base, Cape Cod Canal 2 miles to north, developed portion of 



Otis 


Field a 


mile 


to 


south, 


low 


dem 


3ity 


summer 


and 


year- 


■ round 


housing 


near 


Snake 


Pond 


1/2 


to ! 


3.E. 


of 


site. 



































































Noise levels and air quality. _Nothing no table now 



„ . , , , . Despite many proposals for 
Zoning and development issues. _ 

reuse of the airport, and of the residental and community 



facilities 


at 


the 


Base, 


most of the 


area (including 


the 


R.I. 


site) is open 


and 


lacks 


shore 


and pond 


amenities. Thus 


the 


site could 


probably be 


used without 


excluding other 


develop- 


ments . 









































-246- 



IMPACT MATRIX. 

eiT£- px 








to 



^0 









PL^'NN/hJG 



LAHO O&Z : <9&v5/^[- 



MNC USZ ■ SF£GI-IG 



MOTION TOTALS 



^AA//V/N^ 



&£.Ne-fc/*L. ZG^/i^lG> 



lano uaz ■ specific 



C/^/QUB. H/STOXiC &/r& 



ON/QU& CULTURAL 5IT& 



TRAFFIC FATTEN 



i ACJIOM T&TAL-5: \ 



O&s/BUjO&M BN T 



rvpa 



&&M&ITY 



CHARCOT B.R 



&CALB 



j AGTI&i^ TOTAL'S)'- 



MNOSO^^ 



UAMOrORM 



V&&£TA7lO^ 



CHA\RACT£F? 



OK/QU& \SALU&- 



ACG&&& 



AC7/0/V TO-AL*-)', 



BN V/ftONMZM T 



JASAT&& 



WATS.R GCDLO^ 



•v 



WATS-'R QU^M"/"^ 



fS/ATZ-X QCJ^L/TV 



A\lR GjUALlTV 



HO/£>g. u5Vi 



O&OFZ 



W/B^AT/O.-^ 



\ ACTiO^ TO~AL& 



X 



So 

to ^ 
•a 

to 



a 



a + - 



o y- - 



ffl 



(!) 
© 



in 







'^^ 



/ 


] 











O f - 



O -f* - 



- Of- 



m 







Of- Of- O f - 



O f - 



O f - 



Of- Of- O + ~ o + -~ 



I 



<2 



IS 



El H3 



£ 



I 



a 



- Of- Of- Of-- c? 



mon3 



i 



o f - 



Of- o + ~ o t ~ o *- • 

W5. 



■ 1 I I i-l- ■ ■ 



-247- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual - 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a. 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General ; 

Site Location Bourne -West . USGS Quad Sagamore 

Watershed Coastal . Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

rrrrixi r~i 



existing facility 

explicit by M 6 E 

_X explicit by others (W £ H) 

interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) 3 ^ 5 acre s ___ ^ 

In 2 portions, one 335 acres 
Plant/Facility type and one of 30 acres 

Primary 



Secondary 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



X Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 19.7* , 2020 , 2050_ . 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 ?65* 

Plant/Facility; areas served Part of series of S.I, and R.I, 
sites serving the chain of 5 STPs running fr om Woburn to 
Can ton proposed in concept 5; also ser ves area served by 
Framin g ham p lant in concepts 1, 2 & 4 (via th e Dedham Plant ) 

*Site is part of a concept providing 252 MGD capacity to meet 
177 MGD in year 2000 projections. 

-248- 



3_ite Specific:-:: : 

Terra.ii): Hilly, sloping north and west from 150' to 40', 
generally slopes away from Cape Cod Canal. 



Vegetation:: Low mixed hard and soft woods, scrubby 



toils: Sandy, loose 



, ' - Near Cape Cod Canal but oriented 
Special features: _ 

away from it. 



Rough, wooded 
General site character! 



-249- 



Developmental, Issues ; 

Surrounding development. Town and federal open space to 
south along Canal with a small pocket of state land housing 
the State Division of Fisheries and Game Offices to north alo ng 
Bournedale Rd. Commercial development to west at end of Cana l 
and Bourne Bridge, site itself is an isolated pocket. 



., • n t j i ., Some noise from Rt. 6 traffic 
tfoise levels and air quality. 



„ ^ , . 1966 town master plan pro- 
Zoning and development issues. 

posed low density housing with some public open space to north 

outside of site, and commercial development along Rd. north 

of Bourne Bridge traffic circle. Since low density housing 

appears to be the residual use site seems consistent with 

local proposals. The proposed construction of Rt. 25 running 

NtS. between the main 335 acre portion of this site and Head of 

the Bay Rd. will remove the smaller 30 acre portion of the site. 
However it will also provide a good barrier enclosing this site on 
the west. 

-250- 



IMPACT MATRIX 

airs ■>(&£) 









IMPACT 

GAWZ&OftV 



^ 



PL^NN/MG 



LA^O W-?Z ' &5SVS-FAL. 



LAH& U3B ■ e>r%ci~iG 



[ AG~/OK TOTALS' 




'Cm 

o 



© + 



fin 






o * - 



I 



© + - 



7 





a 



— o f - 




tna 




if) 

10 



/^AAZ/V/N^ 



&5.N&&AL Z&M/N& 



l^AND U&5 ■ SPECIFIC 



c/w<zue- h/stofvc s/r& 



ON/QU& GUtfVfiAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



f A\CJ/0^ TOTALS: \ 



0&\/&LjOF>M &N T 



7VFZ 



OZM^iTY 



CHARAG-T&R 



&GALS. 



\ AGT'&M TOTALS'- 



MAV05^^ 



LAMOrOfcM 



\S£&e.TA\TlO^' 



CH^RACTS-FZ 



U^IQUe \/AL.U& 



ACG&&& 



?" 



O * - 



o + - 



EB- 



© f - 



© f - 



£2 



© f - 



© f - 



c 



Of,- o f 



BN V/ftONM&N T 



i^/^TS-^. cZL~^,^/-ry 



WAT&&. GOL.O* 



WAT£1 QW*H~, , r>/' 



WAT&R QU^L/TV 



A\l K QUALITY 



/vo/s. 



^-5Vi 



OOO^ 



^I3F^A\TIOi^4 



\ A\Cj/OM TO~AL,<Z>;\ i 1 j ] pT x p^j r-^-| r 



© f - 

32 



- Of- Of- 



£ 



2 



a 



51 



3- 



3n 



- Of- of- 



3- 

7 



r 



Of- o 

1 



rerfof 



2 



c 

















1 






/ 
















1 













Acr/ON 7^7-^l.s 



© f - 



- o 



O *■ - O f - 



-251- 



Identification and as se element of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Freetown - Fall River - Fall River east; 

Site Location Berkley--Lakeville USGS Quad Assonet - 

Assawompset Pond 
Watershed T aunton • Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

rm ez] 



existing facility 
explicit by M & E 
explicit by others (W & H) 
interpreted by W & H. 



Over 30 
Area available (if limited and known) 6,290 ac res Sub- si te g 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Secondary 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 23 ' 4 * / 2020 , 2050_ . 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 6920* 

Plant/Facility; areas served The Woburn to Canton string of 
treatment plants proposed in Concept 5, also serves (via the 
Dedha m Plant) the area served by the Frarolngham plant in Con- 
cepts 1 ,2 & 4. ; 

*Site is part of a concept providing 252 MGD capacity to meet 
Projected year 2000 demand of 177 MGD. 

-252- 



Site Specific s : 

Terrain: Low hills and ridges running north and south 
interspersed with wet lands 



Vegetation: Mixed hard and softwoods, some open fields 



Soil'- • Stony, sandy loams 



Special features: Proximity to wate r supply sy stems, 
(Watuppa Pond, Long Pond and Copicut reservoir.) 



General site character: Fragmented si tes runnin g north 
and south between wetlands and along ridges and hillsides in a 



slowly growing rural area. 



-253- 



Developmental Issues : 

Public water lands, state 

Surrounding development._____ 



forest and private vacant land. Limited access Rt. 24 cuts 
between 2 spray sites on Berkley, Freetown border, one cranberry 
bog west of major spray site on Freetown, Lakeville border. Spray 
sites occupy some high potentially developable but relatively in- 
accessable sites. (The more visible rapid infiltration sites will 
be screened by these spray sites.) 



Noise levels and air qual.ity.__ No signi ficant noise or 
odor in area. 



Zoning and development issues. Sout h eastern Mass. region al 

planning counr.il staff seeks exp ans ion of public lands south o f 
Freetown - Fall River State Forest , in area proposed for spray 
irrigation and is concerned with p rotection nf waf^r <m rr n a « an( j 
cranberry bogs. Basically , land a m plication seema compatible with ex- 
pansion of public open lands , and with low density uses other - 
wise expecte d. 



-254- 






IMPACT MATRIX. 

are* (fee) 

Fall giver 









10 






IMPACT 



PLANN/MG 



L/^NO t,e?5' &B-f-jZtZA.L 



UAHO usz ■ e^ciric 



<AG~IOM TOTALS 



PLfr/sfMIMGf 



&5.N&KAL Z0/S//M& 



LAND U&& ■ SFS-CiFIC 



C/MQU& H/5TOXIC s/rz 



UN/QUZ GULTVtfAL SITB 



TRAFFIC fATTSRN 



r A\CJIO/si TOTALS' | 



0&\S&LOf°M &N 7 



-TYP& 



O&l^&ITV 



CHARACTER 



&CALB 



\ ACTION TOTALS' 



LA^ICD^G/^pi 



UAMO^OfcM 



\/B &£. TA\ flOM 



CH^ARACTBH 



(JKIG\U& V<AL-U& 



ACG&&& 



\ AsCT/O^ TO"AU^>'\ 



B.NV/RONMZ.NT 



fK/ATZR OL-^KITY' 



WAT5.R COLO* 



WATS- 1 ^ QOA/^in^^ 



WATBrt QUALITY 



A\lR QUALITY 



AslO/e>£ L.Z.V3L- 



ooos 



Wl3frA\Tt&^l 



Acr/ON TOTAL** 



X 








§ 




7 







Z 




8 







Liu 









U) 




* 








6 




o 



a 



H 



O + - 



2 



o -r - 



ro 



BB 




a 



a 





r 






/ 





© f — o f - o 



— Of- 



EDO 



1^ 



© + - 







j£ 



p ■*• - 



- © + -- © f - o 



<2 



O 



£T 



121 



O + ~ O +> - © + — Of- C> 



5 



±- 



S 



© f - 



- Of- © f - Of- 















^ 













a rrrnr^TTi 



2 




/ 






/ 


1 








i 




'(Z- 


f 





urn rzm nmh fTth isrrra 

















1 






/ 




1 












/ 













©f-O^-Ov- 



-255- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a^ 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Site Location Freetown - Lake vi li e USGS Quad Assawompset .Pond 

Watershed Taunton i Used in concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 



existing facility 
explicit by M & E 



X . . . . . (W & H) 
explicit by others 



interpreted by W & H. 



Area available (if limited and known) 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



210 acres in 2 sections 



Secondary 
Advanced 



Spray Irrigation 



X Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

*2QQQ 13 -- 4 , 2020 ., 2050 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

*2000 210 



Plant/Facility; areas served The Woburn to Canton string of 
plants proposed in concept 5 also serves (via Dedham Plant) 
the area served by the Framingham Plant in concepts 1, 2 & 4. 



*Site is part of a concept providing 252 MGD capacity to meet 
projected 177 MGD year 2000 demands. 

-256- 



Terra in : Gently sloping from L5 ' _ to edge of swamp at 
about 90' 



Vegetation i Mixed hard and soft woods, some fields 



Soils: Loamy sand 



Special features: Site brackets a railroad line 



, . Gentle hillside in generally un- 

General site character: 



developed area sloping to wetlands 



-257- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Proposed spray areas and R.R. l ine 
s urround western portion of site, eastern portion i s betwee n 
plavfields of a regional high school , woods, and a swamp 
sites therefor are generally well screened. 



Noise levels and air quality. Little present noise or 
odor* 



Zoning and development issues. sites wil1 Prelude 
development but land is relatively inacessible. South- 
eastern Mass. Regional Planning Agency is concerned about 



protection of nearby (1.5 mile) surface water supplies. It 



expects very limited development in the area due to poor 
access, slow growth and lack of utilities, thus site seems 



generally compatible in visual and land use terms. 

-258- 



/MPACT MATRIX. 






IMPACT \ 



PL^NN/Z^/G 



t-r\NO U^^ : <3rZ^i£.f<AL^ 



L-ANO USB ■ Sf^ClrlC 



\ AG~/Q^ TOTALS 








if) 



PLfrM^IMGr 



&5.N&KAU za^>//*i& 



i^^ND U5£ ■ SPECIFIC 



c/m/quz H/sroxic s/r& 



UK/QU6 CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC PATTERN 



r Acjic?h TOTAi^b: I 



O&^S&L&PM&M T 



7*rp& 



0&/^£>i7V 



CHAR^GTBK 



£>CALc 



LA^CDSCP^Pg 



UAMOFOR/V) 



V&&&T*T_tOfi*± 



CH*RAGT£R_ 



ACG&&£> 



PsCT/or^ to~aw=>; 



PN V/RONMZ.N T 



PVAT2.& CL~^<3>ITV 



WAT5./Q. GOL.O!** 



WATS-R Cm^/s/r/"Y" 



WATBP QU^L/TV 



A/P QUALITY 



/stO/&3 LZS/&U 



ooop 



w/BpAT/o^i 



*GT!Ot^ TOTAl/b 



o + - 



^ 



I AGTiO^ TOTALS] A 



o + ~ 



m 



o + - 



O +■ - 



a 



& 



a 



£2 



tmH 



o. r - 



or- 



n 



© + - a + - © -t- - 

EH 



r 















2 













- o + — o + — © *> — • 






^ 



o 



k2 



£ 




z. 


-2- 




^ 


/ 




/ 








* 


/ 





© *• — o y- - c? *- — 



i 



Q 



3 

















1 






/ 




( 












1 













a r - 



o t 



- © + - 



23; 



-259- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 

Plymouth - Carver Sagamore - 

Site Location Wareham - Bourne • USGS Quad Warpham - Pl ymnnfh 

Watershed Coastal . Used in Concepts 

Site Designation 12 3 4 5 All 

i i ii bci r.z] 



existing facility 
explicit by M & E 



_X explicit by others (w & H) 

interpreted by W & H. 



8086 acres over 
Area available (if limited and known) H su b - sites 

Plant/Facility type 

Primary 



Secondary 
Advanced 



X Spray Irrigation 
Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility; capacity (MGD) 

2000 29.5* , 2020 , 2050 . 

Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 

2000 8086* 

Plant/Facility; areas served Woburn to Canton string of treat- 
ment plants proposed in Concept 4, also serves (via the Dedham 
Plant), area served by Framingham plant in Concepts 1,2 & 4. 



*Site is part of concept providing 252 MGD capacity to meet 
year 2000 projected 177 MGD need. 



-260- 



Site Specif ic 3 : 

Terrain: Generally low and rolling pocketed with many ponds 

and small dry depressions . Much of the lar gest sub-s ite (#£)__ 

is level with a few ponds in relatively steep sided depressions. 



Vegetation: Generally low pine and hardwood, much new 
growth is in previously burnt-over areas, some nearby cranberry 



bogs. 



Soils: Sandy, Coarse 



- £ Very dry permeable soil, extensive public 
Special features: _ ^ f_ J_ _ 

holdings in the Myles Standish State Forest, many cranberry bogs. 



General site character: Rural, vacation oriented area, 
scrubby and parched low forest with streams, bogs, and ponds 



-261- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development . Much r ecreational development, 
paved bike paths, trails and camp sites in Myles Standish 



State Forest, many summer houses and camps around ponds, 



scattered new year-round housing and some subdivisions near 



major roads and ponds e.g., Heritage Hills near Sandy Pond and 
sub-site #7 and Seawood Pines near sub-site #4, and hew houses 



along the road near sub-site # at Plymouth's Little Herring 
Pond. 

Noise levels and air quality. No significant noise or 
sme 11 wa s no ted .near any_ a f__the sites_. 



Zoning and development issues. Little con flict as most 
sites are in areas proposed for agriculture, low density hous ing , 
open space, or vacant land. Question is co m patibi lity of spray 
irrigation with recreation use of some sites and its effect s on 
gross v egetation. In several instances, sp ray use conflicts 
with specific housing developments. Spraying would also sl ow 
or divert some housi ng develo pment by r emoving land from the 
market- The effect is probably greatest with major developments 

which are more likely to include extensive area of back-land 

as well as roadside and shoreline sites. _262 ~ 



IMPACT 







i 

i 










I 



ok 



IMPACT 



~7 



PLANN/MG 



i-ANO ^£>: 



&L 



~,*<AU 



LAHO USB ■ SPS-GI-IG 



; frG\ 



VON 



~ota>ls 



PLAM^IMGr 



&5.N&KAL ZO/S//M& 



LAND u&& ■ e^zc/F/c 



OH/QU& H/S r O*iC S/T3 



OAJ/QU3 CULTURAL eiTB 



TRAFFIC PATT5& N 



[ /Acpo^ totals: 



Q&\S&UOpM g-vr 



TVP&J 



,0£5/s.'£?/7*y 



GHAfi/*\&7'&# 



&CALZ 



| ACTION TOTALS 



LA/^C25>GApg 



L/\KOrOf<M 



S/^&BT^TIG^J 



CHA\R<ACT2.R 



(J/v/QUcz V'-A^^ 



/^CC556 







Hi 



a 



o + - 



a 



o + - 



3 



E- 



I 



7 





O 4. - 



a 



o. *• - o + - 



qrma 






O f - 



o 



3 
o 



<3 



&. r - 



| ^cr/ON r^-.A^s;! I / i ^E-j,"/ ! rS 



*-NV/ftONMZNT 



t^ATS-R. CLJ>*RiTV 



WAT&.R GOUO^ 



WATS- 'R QG&/sj-/ry 



WAT&K QU^L/TV 



S\IR G*U/\UITV 



AslO/e>Z L.Z,S/~u 



OOOfr 



w 1 3^(^710^1 



I ACTION 7& r AU& 



O T - O 



I 



o <* 
© T 

© i 


- 



7 






o t - 



o — — 



rrntca 



2 









i 












£ 




/ 









f 



+> - © 



C 






© f- - <? + - 

zmtfrn 



^TT^ 



© 



k2 



3L 
H3 



© y- - o + — 



1 

















1 






1 




1 












1 













© y- - © -r 



-263- 



APPENDIX C 

BASELINE DATA 

AND 

COMPLETED MATRIX FORM 

FOR THE 

WELLES LEY PLANT/FACILITY SITE 

THE SELECTED CONCEPT 



-264- 



Identification and assessment of the potential visual- 
cultural and design impacts of the implementation of a 
regional plan for wastewater management in the Eastern 
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. 

Site Analysis Sheet 

General : 



Site .Location Wellesley 

Watershed Charles River 



USGS Quad Natick 
Used in Concepts 
12 3 4 5 All 



Site Designation 

existing facility 

X explicit by M & E 
_____ explicit by others 

interpreted by W & H. 

Area available (if limited and known) Approx 4 acres 
Plant/Facility type 

Primary 

Secondary 



Selected 
Concept 



X 



X Advanced 



Proposed 



Spray Irrigation 



Rapid Infiltration 



Plant/Facility capacity (MGD) 
2000 30 2020_ 



40 



2050 



44 



Plant/Facility; needed area (acres) 



2000 



25 



, 2020 



2050 



Plant/Facility; areas served Natick, Framingham, Ashla nd, 
Hopkinton, Southborough, Wellesle y (80%) , plus Sherborn in 
the future. 



-265- 



Site Specifics ; 

Terrain: Small, low hill in center of site. Land 



slopes away to river on 3 sides. 


Slopes 


are moderate to 


gentle. 





Vegetation: MIXED: evergreens & hardwoods on higher 
ground; shrubs & bushes on lower elevations; typical swamp 
& river edge vegation along portions of the river. 



Soils: Probably alluvium: silty, sandy mixture 



Special features: The site & its buildings are used by 



the 


Stigmatine Fathers 


;. Conversion 


of f, 


acilities to 


school 


has 


been discussed 


in 


the past. 


In 


1973 


, well 


tests 


indicated 


potential yield of 


over 1 millior 


i gpd of 


good 


quality 


water 


from north portion 


of 


site, next 


to 


the ; 


river. 









General site character: Secluded and very attractive; 

passive & quiet. Pleasing changes from open space to wooded 
areas. Buildings are set back & blend with the site. River 
is dominant from some views & is very important to site context 



-266- 



Developmental Issues : 

Surrounding development. Large homes & estates. Golf 
course across river to the north. From some sections of the 
site, the river gives the impression that the property is 
almost an island. Entire site is well screened from most of 
surrounding development. Site is "in character" and blends 
with its surroundings. 



Noise levels and air quality. Both seem to be very good 



Zoning and development issues. Due to separation of si te 
from its surrounding development , potential development con- 
flicts should be easily resolved. Vehicular traffic, during 
both construction & daily operation could be a real problem. 



-267- 



IMPACT MATRIX ? 



impact 






c^r^<3o/^v s/ 






^/.^NA/Z/Vi 



AA.V5 i/£?^.' <s-^.^^^^l. 



l*AHO U35- e^Ci-lC 



AsG~/0.*x TOTALS 





tf) 



ID 



PLfr/sli < JJM& 



GrS-NS-fcAL* Z£>/s//*JG> 



CAND U5& '■ S^ZClFlC 



c/^/qub- H/e>Totfic &r& 



UH/QUZ CULTURAL 5!T& 



TRAFFIC fATTSRN 



A\CJlOM TOTAuS'. | 



0&\/&LOPM&N T 



TV.T* 



C7£JN5/ry 



CHARACTER 



£>CAL5 



| ACT i &K TOT * 1**3 



LA^OOG^pg 



C/\MDrOfrM 



ve&B-TATiO^ 



CHARACTER 



C/niQUff \/AUU& 



ACG&<=>£> 



act/on ro~/^s; 



l/s/V/rtONM&NT 



t*SAT£>R CL^.I/TV 



WATZR GO>^0.< 



WAT&ft QC'^A/nry' 



WATS. /? QUALITY 



A\//R QUALITY 



/VO/S5 L-ZVSU 



OtDOp, 



v/3/RApo^-J 



r 



A<zT/0^ TOT ALA 



X 



HI-} 







I 



7 




- ^^J F* ^^3F^ H^yjP" ''•i^ap^' 



& 



C? *- - O V - o 



n 



□ rTfnr rfrT i 



,a 



& 







7 


1 










1 


'$ 




I 


\ 







? 



t - o + - © + - o+- o 



m 






\\ YPrr^^rv{\ 







a 



t 
tt 



^ 



2 



° * r: Q t ~ o + - & + ~ o + — 




m s □ 



c? «*■ — 



^•[Szn nzn Eazn ^^e3- 

z 



£ 



i 



i 



I 



Of- Of-of-Of-O-r- 

-cc 



268 



m ^r/ri Ffm