−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20

−10

0

10

cm/s

Mar Apr May

1991

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Mar   	 May 
 



−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15

−10

0

10

cm/s

May Jun Jul

1991

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A
 Boston Buoy velocity comparison May 
  	 Jul  


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9

−10

0

10

cm/s

Jul Aug Sep

1991

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Jul   	 Sep  


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4

−10

0

10

cm/s

Sep Oct Nov

1991

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Sep   	 Nov  



−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

0

0.5

1

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30

−10

0

10

cm/s

Nov Dec

1991

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A
 Boston Buoy velocity comparison Nov   	 Dec 

 


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24

−10

0

10

cm/s

Dec Jan Feb

1991 1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Dec 

  	 Feb  


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

0

0.5

1

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

24 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20

−10

0

10

cm/s

Feb Mar Apr

1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Feb   	 Apr 
 


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15

−10

0

10

cm/s

Apr May Jun

1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Apr 
  	 Jun  


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10

−10

0

10

cm/s

Jun Jul Aug

1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Jun   	 Aug 
 


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5

−10

0

10

cm/s

Aug Sep Oct

1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Aug 
  	 Oct  


−4

−2

0

2

dynes/cm2

Wind Stress at BB

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

MODEL: 5 m

−10

0

10

cm/s

DATA: 23 m

 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30

−10

0

10

cm/s

Oct Nov

1992

MODEL: 23 m

Figure A Boston Buoy velocity comparison Oct   	 Nov 

 



Appendix B

Mean Currents by Season


200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Winter 1989−1990: 1990/01/01−1990/03/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Winter 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Spring 1990: 1990/03/01−1990/06/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Spring 




200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Summer 1990: 1990/06/01−1990/09/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B
 Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Summer 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Fall 1990: 1990/09/01−1990/11/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Fall 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Winter 1990−1991: 1990/11/01−1991/03/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Winter 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Spring 1991: 1991/03/01−1991/06/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Spring 


200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Summer 1991: 1991/06/01−1991/09/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Summer 


200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Fall 1991: 1991/09/01−1991/11/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Fall 


200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Winter 1991−1992: 1991/11/01−1992/03/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Winter 




200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Spring 1992: 1992/03/01−1992/06/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B
 Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Spring 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Summer 1992: 1992/06/01−1992/09/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Summer 



200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Fall 1992: 1992/09/01−1992/11/01

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Fall 




200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Winter 1992: 1992/11/01−1992/12/31

Upper Layer (2 m)

200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

km

km

Wind Stress

1 dyne/cm2

10 cm/s

Lower Layer (25 m)

Figure B
 Modeled mean ow at  and 
 m depth for Winter 



Appendix C

Comparative Euent Dilution

Simulations for the Existing

and Future Outfalls



220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/01/02−1990/03/05

200

400

400

800

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

400

400

800

800

800

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Winter 
 at  m depthDi

lution contours of 

 

 and 

 are shownAreas where the dilution is

less than 

 are shaded in greyThe 
 m depth contour around Stellwagen

Bank is indicated by the dotted line



Figure C Euent comparison during Winter 
 at  m depth



220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/03/05−1990/06/06

200

400

800

800

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

800

800

800

800

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C
 Euent comparison during Spring 
 at  m depth



Figure C Euent comparison during Spring 
 at  m depth



220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/06/06−1990/09/07

400

800

800

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Summer 
 at  m depth



Figure C Euent comparison during Summer 
 at  m depth


220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/09/07−1990/11/08

400

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Fall 
 at  m depth


Figure C Euent comparison during Fall 
 at  m depth



220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/11/08−1991/03/12

200

400

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

400

800

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Winter 
 at  m depth


220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1990/11/08−1991/03/12

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 16 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

400

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 16 m

Figure C
 Euent comparison during Winter 
 at  m depth


220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1991/03/12−1991/06/14

400

800

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Spring  at  m depth


Figure C Euent comparison during Spring  at  m depth


220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1991/06/14−1991/09/15

400

800

800

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 2 m

Figure C
 Euent comparison during Summer  at  m depth


220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

Mean Effluent Dilution: 1991/06/14−1991/09/15

EXISTING OUTFALL

DEPTH = 16 m

220 240 260 280 300 320

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

km

km

400

800

FUTURE OUTFALL

DEPTH = 16 m

Figure C Euent comparison during Summer  at  m depth


Appendix D

References

References

AdamsER KossikD J CoslerJ K MacFarlaneand P M Gschwend

Calibration of a Transport model using halocarbonsIn Estuarine and Coastal

Modelingedited by M L Spauldingpp  American Society of Civil

EngineersASCE pressNew York	

AgencyE PAssessment of Potential Impact of the MWRA Outfall on Endan


gered SpeciesTechnical reportEPA Region 	JFK Federal BuildingBoston

Massachusetts 	

AuthorityM W RFinal Secondary Treatment Facilities PlanTechnical report

MWRA	

BeckmannA and D B HaidvogelNumerical Simulation of Flow around a Tall

Isolated Seamount Part I Problem Formulation and Model AccuracyJPhys

Oceanogr  	
	
	

BlumbergAZ Jiand C K ZieglerConrmation of the Near Field Behav


ior from a far eld circulation model of Massachusetts BayTechnical report

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority	  pp

BlumbergAR Signelland H JenterModeling Transport Processes in the

Coastal OceanJournal of Environmental Engineering  		

BlumbergA F and L H KanthaOpen Boundary Condition for Circulation

ModelsJHydraulic Engineering  
	

BlumbergA F and G L MellorA description of a threedimensional coastal

modelpp 		Coastal and Estuarine SciencesVol  AGUWashington

DC	


BodgenPP Malanotte
Rizzoliand R P SignellOpen
ocean boundary con


ditions from interior data Local and remote forcing of Massachusetts BayJ



GeophysRes C submitted	

CasulliVSemi
implicit nite dierence methods for the two
dimensional shallow

water equationsJComputational Physics 	 
	

DrinkwaterKAFAP climate studies in the Scotia
Fundy RegionTechnical Re


port 
N	NAFO SCR	  pp

GalperinBL H KanthaS Hassidand A RosatiA Quasi
equilibrium turbu


lent energy model for geophysical owsJAtmosphSci 
 	

GeyerWG GardnerW BrownJ IrishB ButmanT Loderand R Signell

Physical Oceanographic Investigation of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays

Technical Report MBP

Massachusetts Bays ProgramUS EPA Re


gion IMassachusetts Coastal Zone Management OceBostonMassachusetts

	 
 pp

GeyerW R and J LedwellMassachusetts Bay dye study	 Submitted to

the Massachusetts Water Resources AuthorityCharlestownMassachusetts

Holzwarth
DavisT and M H TaylorDescription of the 	 Oceanographic

Conditions on the Northeast Continental ShelfNortheast Fisheries Science Cen


ter Reference Document 
NOAANational Marine Fisheries Service	


 p

HydroQualI and B O SciencesA water quality model for Massachusetts and

Cape Cod Bays Calibration of the bays eutrophication modelTechnical Report

NAIC	Massachusetts Water Resources Authority	

LargeW G and S PondOpen ocean momentum ux measurements in moderate

to strong windsJPhysOceanogr  		

LynchD and C NaimieThe M tide and its residual on the outer banks of the

Gulf of MaineJPhysOceanogr  	

MellorG and T YamadaDevelopment of a turbulence closure model for geo


physical uid problemsRevGeophysSpace Phys  	
	

MoodyJ AB ButmanR C BeardsleyW S BrownP DaifukuJ D Irish

D A MayerH O MofjeldB PetrieS RampP Smithand W R Wright

Atlas of tidal elevation and current observations on the Northeast American

Continental Shelf and SlopeU S Geological Survey Bulletin 			US Geol

Surv	 US Government Printing Oce	 pp

ShapiroRLinear FilteringMathematics of Computation 
 		
	


SignellR PTidal dynamics and dispersion around coastal head landsPh D

thesisWoods Hole Oceanogr InstMass Inst of Technol Joint Program in

OceanographyCambridgeMass	 	 pp

SignellR PModeling the seasonal circulation in Massachusetts BayIn Estuarine

and Coastal Modeling Proceedings of the rd International Conferenceedited

by M L Spauldingpp 
 American Society of Civil EngineersASCE


New York	

SignellR P and B ButmanModeling tidal exchange and dispersion in Boston

HarborJournal of Geophysical Research 
 				

SmagorinskyJGeneral Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations

I The Basic ExperimentMonthly Weather Review 
 		

VermerschJR Beardsleyand W BrownWinter circulation in the western

Gulf of Maine Part  Current and pressure observationsJPhysOceanogr


 

	


WaltonRR Kossikand R KapnerBay
wide model studies for the Boston

ocean outfallIn Estuarine and Coastal Modelingedited by M L Spaulding

pp  American Society of Civil EngineersASCE pressNew York	

WellerRD Rudnickand N J BrinkMeteorological variability and air
sea

uxes at a closely spaced array of surface mooringsJGeophysRes