15 



out on the surface and often reaches the location of the new out- 

 fall. 



For the proposed outfall, the effluent, shown in blue, remains in 

 the lower layers and is concentrated within about 10 kilometers of 

 the site. You can see the smaller area of high concentrations for 

 the new outfall compared to the present outfall. The variability in 

 the effluent concentration is a result of wind, freshwater flow and 

 forcing from the Gulf of Maine which affect the plumes around in 

 western Massachusetts Bay. 



Mr. MacDonald. That is what I was thinking. Where does it go? 

 That is the big problem that we always have with toilets. Where 

 does it go? 



Mr. Studds. It just keeps dropping off toward the canal there. 



Mr. BuTMAN. It gets more and more diluted. 



We are now viewing the simulation showing the 1 to 400 dilu- 

 tion. Because the effluent is now more dilute, the surfaces occupy a 

 much larger area. Concentrations of the effluent introduced from 

 the present outflow are, again, always in excess of the one to 400 

 level in Boston Harbor. The high concentrations often extend past 

 the proposed outfall site over Stellwagen Basin. The effluent intro- 

 duced at the proposed outfall stays below the thermocline. There 

 are occasional movements of the 1 to 400 dilution contour south- 

 eastward toward Cape Cod Bay. The more rapid movement of the 

 effluent from Boston Harbor is caused by the stronger currents in 

 the upper layer compared to the lower layer in summer. 



In summary, for the near-field, the model simulation shows that 

 effluent concentrations are always in excess of 1 to 200 in Boston 

 Harbor and, for the proposed outfall, these high concentrations are 

 restricted to a smaller area offshore. 



In the far-field, Stellwagen Bank is not frequented by effluent 

 more concentrated than 1 to 400, actually less than 1 percent of the 

 time for the existing outfall and never for the proposed outfall. 

 Cape Cod Bay was infrequently visited by effluent more concentrat- 

 ed than 1 to 400. In winter these levels were exceeded less than 40 

 percent of the time for the existing outfall and less than 20 percent 

 of the time for the proposed outfall. In the summer, these levels 

 were not exceeded by the existing outfall and less than 5 percent of 

 the time from the proposed outfall. 



I thank you for the opportunity to present these results and look 

 forward to presenting results of the additional USGS studies in the 

 future. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Butman can be found at the end 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Well, congratulations. You have found the soft spot 

 of this Subcommittee. Anybody who comes up here with maps and 

 charts and videos, we always give them a little extra. 



Mr. Butman. I thank you for the additional time. 



Mr. Studds. Maybe it is a good thing Congressman Saxton did 

 not get here. Because, as I read that, it sort of goes through the 

 canal and heads to New Jersey. I will ask you later — I am very 

 worried about where it is going — into someone else's State it looks 

 like to me. 



Mr. Butman. Rich is here to answer those questions. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much. 



