Clean Charles 2005 Water Quality Report
2001 Core Monitoring Program
November 2002
Prepared By
US EPA
Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Purpose and Scope
Conclusions of the 2001 Core Monitoring Program
2.0 BACKGROUND 5
3.0 INTRODUCTION 5
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8
5.0 DATA ANALYSIS 9
5.1 Clarity, Apparent color, True color, TSS, Turbidity, TOC, transmissivity and Chlorophyll a 9
5.2 Bacteria 12
5.3 Dissolved Oxygen and pH 13
5.4 Nutrients 14
5.5 Metals 15
5.6 Salt Wedge Monitoring 20
5.7 Data Usability 24
6.0 2002 STUDY DESIGN 25
7.0 REFERENCES 25
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE
1: Sampling Station Description 6
2: Parameters Analyzed During the 2001 Sampling Events 8
3: Massachusetts Class B Warm Water Surface Water Quality Standards and Guidelines
12
4: Massachusetts Freshwater Bacteria Criteria 12
5: Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) 17
6: Priority Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) 19
FIGURES
1: EPA Core Monitoring Locations and Priority Resource Areas 7
2: Clarity - Secchi Disk Measurements at Stations CRBL03 - CRBL12 9
3: 1998 - 2000 Mean Secchi Disk Measurements at Stations CRBL03 - CRBL12 10
4: Secchi Disk Vs. Transmissivity
10
5: 1998 - 2000 Chlorophyll a Means 11
6: 1998 - 2000 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Geometric Means 13
7: 1998 - 2000 Total Phosphorus Dry Weather Means 15
8: Bottom Salinity Summary on July 13 21
9: Bottom Salinity Summary on August 1 22
10: Bottom Salinity Summary on September 11 23
APPENDIX
Charles River 1999 Baseline Data Report A-1
-------
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope
In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - New England (EPA) established the Clean Charles
2005 Initiative to restore the Charles River Basin to a swimmable and fishable condition by Earth Day in the
year 2005. The ongoing initiative incorporates a comprehensive approach for improving water quality
through: Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) controls, illicit sanitary connection removals, stormwater
management, public outreach, education, monitoring, enforcement and technical assistance.
In 1998, EPA's Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation (OEME) initiated the Clean Charles
2005 Core Monitoring Program that will continue until 2005. The purpose of the program is to track water
quality improvements in the Charles River Basin (defined as the section between the Watertown Dam and the
New Charles River Dam) and to identify where further pollution reductions or remediation actions are
necessary to meet the Clean Charles 2005 Initiative goals. The program is designed to sample during the
summer months that coincide with peak recreational uses.
The program monitors twelve "Core" stations. Ten stations are located in the Basin, one station is located on
the upstream side of the Watertown Dam and another is located immediately downstream of the South Natick
Dam (to establish upstream boundary conditions). Five of the ten sampling stations are located in priority
resource areas, which are identified as potential wading and swimming locations. Six of the twelve stations
are monitored during wet weather conditions.
In the year 2001, the following parameters were measured: dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, specific
conductance, turbidity, clarity, transmissivity, chlorophyll a, total organic carbon, total suspended solids,
apparent and true color, nutrients, bacteria, and dissolved metals. In 2001, additional monitoring was
conducted to define the extent of the salt wedge and to monitor select bacteria "Hot Spots". The detailed
results from these two projects will be presented in the annual comprehensive 2001 Core Monitoring
Program report.
Conclusions of the 2001 Core Monitoring Program
The conclusions below summarize the 2001 Core Monitoring Program data and use these data to evaluate the
water quality conditions from 1998 to 2001. No short-term trends were observed from the past four
years of data. Water quality was influenced by yearly fluctuations in weather and river flows, making
short-term trends difficult to determine. These data will provide a baseline for determining long-term
trends. With the exception of lower flows beginning in mid September, the sampling season daily average
flows at the Waltham gauging station were generally between 1998 and 1999 flow levels. In 1998, the
summer conditions were generally welter with correspondingly higher flows; in 1999, summer conditions
were drier with correspondingly lower flows; and in 2000, summer flows were generally between 1998 and
1999 flow levels.
Three dry weather and two wet weather events were sampled from July to September. Comparing these data
to the past three years' data revealed no definitive trends. The four years of data show the section near the
mouth of the River (Mass Ave. Bridge to the New Charles River Dam, excluding the Pond at the Esplanade)
met the swimming standards more often than any other part of the Basin.
-------
Clarity, Color and Transmissivity
Water clarity was directly measured in the field using a Secchi disk. Mean Secchi disk readings were similar
to those collected in previous years. The greatest clarity was recorded near the mouth of the Basin (from just
upstream of the Longfellow Bridge to the New Charles River Dam) during the first two sampling events
(July 9 and August 7). During both events, the four stations at the mouth of the Basin, met the four foot
swimming criteria. The data from the sampling events following August 7 showed a decrease in water
clarity when compared to the data from the first two sampling events.
True and apparent color were highest in July and decreased throughout the summer. Mean color values were
similar to values from the previous three years. As identified in a previous report (EPA 1999), it appears that
part of the color was associated with particulate matter. This implies that controlling algae growth and
preventing particulates from being discharged could enhance the clarity of the water and help achieve the
bathing beach visibility criteria.
Transmissivity was added to the parameter list in 2001 as an additional measurement of water clarity. The
greatest transmissivity was recorded near the mouth of the Basin. The lowest transmissivity was consistently
recorded in the Pond at the Esplanade. The transmissivity measurements correlated well with Secchi disk
measurements.
Bacteria
Fecal coliform
concentrations were lower
near the mouth of the
Basin (Mass Ave. Bridge
to the New Charles J^iver
Dam; CRBL07 -
CRBL12), which was
typical of the data
collected during the
previous three years.
Stations CRBL09 -
CRBLlOmetthe
swimming criteria1 of less
than 200 colonies/100 ml
during all sampling events.
The dry weather
geometric means2 were
higher at stations
CRBL02, CRBL03,
CJ3J3L05, and CJ3J3L06 when compared to previous years' geometric means2 (Figure la). At the other eight
stations the dry weather geometric means2 were similar to those collected during previous years.
The highest wet weather concentration was recorded at the Watertown Dam (CRJ3L02). As in past years this
Figure 1a: 1998 - 2001 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform
Geometric Means
4*50
Af\f\
E
o onn _
^ 2*50
0)
_O ^*'*'
Si
^100
en
-
-i
In
~ ft
F
_.a_
-
j
~
-i
r
i
i
m
ir
T- CM eo ^ 10 co
333333
o o o o o o
* * *
* = Priority Resource Area
Some of the geometric means were calculated from less than 5 data points.
MA Standards are based on at least 5 data points
i
• 1998
D1999
D2000
D2001
i
MA Primary Contact Standard (200 Col/1 00ml)
Values below this line meet the criteria
HI m H-rfll-H-ii-J-ll-m
h. co en
333
CO CO CO
o p o
Station
*CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
1The Massachusetts fecal coliform swimming criteria of less than 200 colonies/100ml is actually based on a
geometric mean of five samples or more. For this report, individual concentrations were compared to this
criteria.
2Some of the dry weather geometric means were calculated from less than five data points, the actual criteria
is based on a geometric mean of five samples or more.
-------
station continued to exhibit high concentrations during wet weather.
Figure 2a: Dry Weather E.coli Counts
1000
900
800
700
600
7/9/01-Dry
8/7/01-Dry
9/4/01-Dry
• MA DPH bathing bea
cr
individual sample criteria (235 colonies/100ml)
During dry weather, approximately 35% of the core monitoring samples exceeded the fecal coliform
swimming criteria1 (compared to 23% in 2000, 8% in 1999, and 17% in 1998). There were no identified
reasons for this increase in dry weather exceedances. During wet weather, approximately 44% of the fecal
coliform samples exceeded the criteria1 (compared to 63% in 2000 and 50% in 1999).
E. coli bacteria was
sampled during three
dry weather sampling
events. As observed
with fecal coliform
measurements, the E.
coli concentrations
were lower near the
mouth of the Basin
(Mass Ave. Bridge to
the New Charles River
Dam; CRBL07 -
CRBL12). All samples
collected at these
stations were below the
single sample criteria of
235 colonies/lOOml3.
Seven of the samples,
collected at the other
stations, (19% of all
samples, compared to 35%
* = Priority Resource Area
Station
in 1998) exceeded this criteria (Figure 2a).
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and pH
Massachusetts has established DO criteria4 for class B waters. One of the two stations where continuous DO
data were collected, recorded three hours of data not meeting the criteria. This station was located
immediately downstream of the BU Bridge. No DO violations were recorded from the manual
measurements collected during the eight sampling events (compared to 0% in 2000, 3% in 1999, and 0% in
1998). No DO violations were recorded from surface measurements during the salt wedge monitoring
although numerous DO violations and anoxia were observed at lower depths.
Violations of pH were recorded throughout the basin at each of the three pH continuous monitoring stations.
The hours of recorded violations occurred in the afternoon and evening on August 8 and coincided with
super-saturated DO conditions. The data from all the dry and wet weather manual measurements showed pH
violated the criteria twelve times or approximately 18% of all field measurements (compared to 20% in 2000
and 8% in 1999, and 4% in 1998). All except one of the violations were greater than 8.3 and occurred
downstream of the Mass Ave. Bridge. The one exception occurred upstream of the South Natick dam and
3 The Massachusetts DPH E. coli Bathing Beach criteria for as single sample is less than or equal to 235
colonies/100ml. The geometric mean criteria is less than or equal to 126 colonies/100ml and is based on a
geometric mean of the most recent five samples within the same bathing season (this criteria was not
evaluated in this report).
4 The Massachusetts water quality criteria for Class B water for DO is > 5 mg/l and >60% saturation and for
pH is between 6.5 and 8.3.
-------
was 6.4. Violations of pH were also recorded in the salt wedge monitoring during August and September.
Nutrients
Phosphorus was the most significant nutrient in this system. Elevated phosphorus concentrations at many of
the sampling stations indicated highly eutrophic conditions. Each station recorded the highest concentration
during the July sampling event. Mean dry weather total phosphorus concentrations at most stations were less
than 1998 levels and similar to the means over the past two years. At the South Natick Dam, the dry weather
data showed a reduction in the total phosphorus when compared to data collected over the past three years.
Except for two stations, the highest concentrations for ammonia and nitrate+nitrite were recorded during the
July sampling event.
Metals
Copper was the only metal that exceeded the acute Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). The two
exceedances occurred at the Magazine Beach station. Copper and lead were the only metals that exceeded
the chronic AWQC. In addition to the acute AWQC exceedance, copper exceeded the chronic AWQC twice.
The exceedances occurred at the Herter East Park and Community Boating Stations. The lead chronic
AWQC was exceeded sixteen times. Twelve of the exceedances occurred during the July sampling event
and the remainders occurred during the August sampling event. Lead exceedances occurred 33% of the time
during dry weather (compared to 27% in 2000 and 8% in 1999) and 0% of the time during wet weather
(compared to 25% in 2000 and 72% in 1999). There were no identified reasons for these yearly changes.
The other measured priority pollutants metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, and zinc) did not exceed the AWQC.
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Charles River watershed is located in eastern Massachusetts and drains 311 square miles from a total of
24 cities and towns. Designated as a Massachusetts class B water, the Charles is the longest river in the state
and meanders 80 miles from its headwaters at Echo Lake in Hopkinton to its outlet in Boston Harbor. From
Echo Lake to the Watertown Dam, the River flows over many dams and drops approximately 340 feet. From
the Watertown Dam to the New Charles River Dam in Boston, the River is primarily flat water (EPA 1997).
This section, referred to as "the Basin", is the most urbanized part of the River and is used extensively by
rowers, sailors and anglers. A Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) park encompasses the banks of the
River and creates excellent outdoor recreational opportunities with its open space and bicycle paths.
The lower basin (defined as the section between the Boston University Bridge and the New Charles River
Dam), once a tidal estuary, is now a large impoundment. During low flow conditions of the summer, the
basin consists of fresh water overlying a wedge of saltwater. Sea walls define a major portion of the banks
and shoreline of this section.
The Charles River shows the effects of pollution and physical alteration that has occurred over the past
century. The water quality in the Basin is influenced by point sources, storm water runoff and CSO's. An
EPA survey identified over 100 outfall pipes in the Basin (EPA 1996).
3.0 INTRODUCTION
In 1995, EPA established the Clean Charles 2005 Initiative, with a taskforce and numerous subcommittees,
to restore the Charles River to a swimmable and fishable condition by Earth Day in the year 2005. The
Initiative's strategy was developed to provide a comprehensive approach for improving water quality
through CSO controls, removal of illicit sanitary connections, stormwater management planning and
implementation, public outreach, education, monitoring, enforcement and technical assistance.
In 1998, EPA's Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation (OEME) implemented a water quality
monitoring program (Core Monitoring Program) in the Charles River that will continue until at least 2005.
EPA and its partners on the Taskforce's water quality subcommittee developed a study design to track
improvements in the Charles River Basin and to identify where further pollution reductions or remediation
actions were necessary to meet the swimmable and fishable goals. Members of the subcommittee included
EPA-New England, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - New England District
(ACE), Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (DEM),
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWS), Charles
River Watershed Association (CRWA) and the MDC. In addition to the Core Monitoring Program, EPA and
its partners continue to support other water quality studies in the Charles River to further identify impairment
areas and to evaluate storm water management techniques.
EPA's Core Monitoring Program was designed to sample twelve stations during three dry weather periods
and six (of the twelve) stations during three different wet weather events. The monitoring was focused in the
Boston and Cambridge areas of the River during peak recreational usage in July, August and September. To
establish a boundary condition, one station was located immediately downstream from the South Natick Dam
or 30.5 miles upstream from the Watertown Dam. One station was located above the Watertown Dam and
the other ten stations were located in the Basin. Five of these ten sampling stations were located in priority
resource areas (potential wading and swimming locations). The project map (Figure 1) shows the locations
of the: dry and wet weather fixed sampling stations, priority resource areas, CSO's, and stormwater discharge
pipes. Table 1 describes the stations monitored in 2001.
5
-------
The 1998 monitoring program included measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, specific
conductance, chlorophyll a, total organic carbon (TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), apparent color, clarity,
turbidity, nutrients, bacteria and total metals. Chronic toxicity was also tested during dry weather conditions.
In 1999, dissolved metals and true color were added to the analyte list. Dissolved metals were added to
better assess the metals concentration in relationship to the AWQC, which are based on the dissolved metals
fraction. True color was added to help determine the causes of reduced clarity. In 2000, the analyte list was
unchanged.
In 2001, transmissivity was added as an additional measurement of water clarity. In addition, E. coli bacteria
was added and enterococcus bacteria was discontinued. This modification was made to reflect the changes to
the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches regulations,
which allowed the use of E. coli bacteria for determining compliance in freshwater.
Table 1: Sampling Station Description
PRIMARY CORE MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
Downstream of S. Natick Dam
Upstream of Watertown Dam
Daly Field, 10 m off south bank
Herter East Park, 10 m off south bank
Magazine Beach, 10 m off north bank
Downstream of BU Bridge, main stem
Downstream of Stony Brook & Mass Ave, 10m off South shore
Pond at Esplanade
Upstream of Longfellow Bridge, Cam. side
Community boating area
Between Longfellow Bridge & Old Dam
Upstream of Railroad Bridge
STATION #
CRBL01
CRBL02
WW
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
ww
WW
ww
CRBL08
CRBL09
ww
CRBL10
CRBL11
ww
CRBL12
SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING STATIONS DESCRIPTION
30 m downstream of BU Bridge, center channel
Cheese Cake Brook near mouth of the Charles River
Laundry Brook near mouth of the Charles River
Hyde Brook at mouth of Charles River
Faneuil Brook at USGS Sampling Station
Sawins Brook near mouth at Charles River
Upstream pipe at drainage area #76, (California Rd Across from California Pk,
Newtown)
Downstream Pipe at drainage area #76
Outfall in front of Perkins school (across from Daly Field)
Pipe discharging to Sawins Brook between Arlington and Elm St
Sawins Brook (~40 meters downstream of Elm St)
CRBUBR
CHEE01
LAUD01
HYDE01
FANE02
SAW01
CR76L
CR76R
CRPES
SAPIP
SAUPS
Bold = Priority resource area station
WW = Wet weather sampling station
-------
p
i2
o
£
rj.-
|
fl
Sf
•c
D
0
<
eu
w
•
\
•
•* 2
rt " —
H •£ tj m
HI!11
J ilii i
ns»n:
Kil*raj
3 f. ffl H. <->
0 *
D
il
..
.-
•
. •
•
*
1
3
-------
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sampling was conducted during three dry weather periods and two wet weather events from July through
September 2001. Dry weather sampling days were preplanned for the months of July, August, and
September. The dry weather sampling goal was to sample on days that were preceded by three days during
which a total of less than 0.20 inches of rain had fallen. Dry weather sampling was conducted on July 9,
August 7, and September 4. These three dry weather sampling events and the two pre-storm sampling events
met the dry weather sampling goal.
The approach for each wet weather event was to sample six stations during four storm periods; pre-storm,
first flush, peak flow and post-storm. The pre-storm was sampled before the rain began. The first flush
sampling began when the rain became steady and one hour after the measured stage in the Laundry Brook
culvert increased by at least 0.5 inches. The peak flow sampling began when rain intensity peaked and the
stage reading was greatest in the Laundry Brook culvert. In previous sampling years, it was identified that
peak rain intensity coincides with maximum stage or peak flow in Laundry Brook (EPA 2001). Post-storm
sampling occurred when the rain ceased and the flow at Laundry Brook returned to near pre-storm
conditions.
The first wet weather sampling event began on August 19. This storm, which started on August 20,
produced less rain (0.18 inches of rainfall was recorded1) than was anticipated. Since this rain event did not
meet the specified criteria (0.5 inches or greater within 24 hours) sampling was terminated after first flush
samples were collected (Figure A-5). It should also be noted that during the three days prior to the first flush
sampling atotal of 0.09 inches of rain1 was recorded. This rain occurred on August 17. The pre-storm
sampling event on August 19 was considered representative of dry weather conditions since the rainfall
amount was minimal and since during the previous 53 hours zero rainfall1 occurred. A second wet weather
sampling event was initiated on September 20. The associated storm dropped 0.55 inches of rainfall1 (Figure
A-4 in the appendix).
The parameters analysed during 2001 Core Monitoring Program are listed in Table 2. Except for the
following notations, all parameters were measured during all sampling events. Transmissivity and E. coli
were not measured during either of the wet weather sampling events. Secchi disk transparency was not
measured during the September 21 wet weather event. True and apparent color were not measured during
the September 4 dry weather event. During "Hot Spot" sampling only fecal coliform bacteria was measured.
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and specific conductance were the only parameters measured during the
salt wedge monitoring. The EPA OEME's field staff conducted all the sampling and field measurements.
Samples were analysed by OEME and contract laboratories.
Table 2: Parameters Analyzed During the 2001 Sampling Events
Field Measurements
dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH,
specific conductance,
turbidity, Secchi disk,
transmissivity
Bacteria
fecal coliform
E. coli.
Nutrients
total phosphorus(TP),
ortho-
phosphorus(OP),
nitrate+nitrite(NO2+N
O3), ammonia(NH3)
Total Metal
Hg
Dissolved Metals
Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be,
Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu,
Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni,
Pb, Sb, Se, Tl, V, Zn
Other
Parameters
TSS,
chlorophyll a,
TOC,
apparent +
true color
Rainfall data was collected in Watertown by USGS and are reported as preliminary data.
-------
5.0 DATA ANALYSIS
The fourth year of the Core Monitoring Program was completed in 2001. These data will provide a baseline
for determining long-term trends. Because the water quality was influenced by year-to-year fluctuations in
weather and river flows, short-term trends could not be determined from the past four years of data. These
data will provide a baseline for determining long-term trends. With the exception of lower flows beginning
in mid September, the sampling season daily average flows at the Waltham gauging station were generally
between 1998 and 1999 flow levels. In 1998, the summer conditions were generally wetter with
correspondingly higher flows; in 1999, summer conditions were drier with correspondingly lower flows; and
in 2000, the summer flows were generally between 1998 and 1999 flow levels. (Figure A-2).
Three dry weather and two wet weather events were sampled from July to September. Comparing these data
to the past three years' data revealed no definitive trends. The four years of data show the section near the
mouth of the River (Mass Ave. Bridge to the New Charles River Dam, excluding the Pond at the Esplanade)
met the swimming standards more often than any other part of the Basin. Total phosphorus continues to be
elevated throughout the system. Continued monitoring will help identify trends in the River.
5.1 Clarity, Apparent color, True color, TSS, Turbidity, TOC, Transmissivity and Chlorophyll a
Secchi disk was used to measure visibility/clarity. The Massachusetts Department of Health has recently
amended the minimum standards for bathing beaches (105 CMR 445.00). The new standards amend the four
foot numeric standard with a narrative standard. To maintain consistency with previous reports and the MA
DEP primary contact recreational use criteria, Secchi disk measurements were compared to the four foot
criteria.
Clarity could not be measured at the South Natick Dam (CRBL01) and Watertown Dam (CRBL02) because
of the shallow water at these stations. Water clarity was directly measured in the field using a Secchi disk.
The greatest clarity was recorded near the mouth of the Basin (from just upstream of the Longfellow Bridge
to the New Charles River Dam; CRBL09- CRBL11) during the first two sampling events (July 9 and August
7). During both events,
the four stations at the
mouth of the Basin, met
the four foot swimming
criteria (Figure 2). The
data from most stations
data, following August 7,
showed a decrease in
water clarity when
compared to the data
from the first two
sampling events.
The mean Secchi disk
readings were similar to
those collected in
previous years. The
means for 1998 to 2001
show water clarity
improves closer to the
mouth of the Basin
Figure 2: Clarity - Secchi Disk Measurments at Stations CRBL03 -
CRBL12
2
1 8 -
1 R
^_ -1 A
«r '-^
Qi -10
« 1'2
£ 1 -
*- n R
0)
n A
n 9
I in7/no/m-nry
i ina/n7/m-nry
I m«/io/m-nry (pre-storm)
I i«/7n/ni.Firrf Flush
I IQ/fU/m-nry
-ill
nr
nr
nr
n r
nh
CO ^
3 3
m m
a: a:
p p
*= Priority Resource Area
•
"CRBL05
•
-|i
I
to r—
3 3
m m
a: a:
0 0
Station
i*
•
|| ||
I
n J 1 J 1
1
00 O) O
33^
an an an
a: a: a:
pop
I
I
T- CN
n n
m m
a: a:
0 0
-------
(Figure 3) and the lowest clarity readings were measured in the pond at the Esplanade (CRBL08).
Apparent color measures the color of the water which may contain suspended matter. Apparent color values
were highest in July and
decreased throughout the
summer. This relationship
was also evident in the data
collected during 2000.
True color measures the stain
in the water after the
suspended particulates have
been removed by
centriftiging.
As with apparent color, true
color values were highest in
July and decreased
throughout the summer. True
color was less than apparent
color at each station. The
true color mean value was 9%
to 27% lower than the
apparent color mean value. As identified in 1999 Core Monitoring Program Report (EPA 2000) it appears
that part of the color was associated with suspended matter. This implies that reducing suspended matter and
nutrients that stimulate algae growth could enhance the clarity of the water. Other sources of suspended
matter include non-point, point sources (such as storm water and CSO's), resuspended bottom sediments, and
other natural sources.
Figure 3: 1998-2001 Mean Secchi Disk Measurements at Station
CRBL03-CRBL12
1.8 -,
1 fi -
1 A
F-l o
o 1-^
o 1 n
'
£ U.ti
8-0.6 --
Q
0.4 -
0.2 --
0 0 -
^•1998
I MQQQ
i i?nnn
^•2001
MA DEP Primary Contact Recreational Use Criteria.
__
Values above this line meet
I
,_.• j
-
P
N-
j_L
333
CO CO CO
OiOiQ:
O O O
*= Priority Resource Area
I
r-
-
PI
H [-
I—
1 1
[-
]^
Tj
i criteria
•
1 1
1 1
i i
V-
h
CD 1^
CD CD
en en
o o
• —
N-
F
-
~L
1 .
-
j
-
-
§(3) O T— CM
0 T- T- T-
m m m m m
en en en en en
o o o o o
•X -X
Station
Some of the 1999 - 2001 means include Pre-storm and Post-storm results
: Secchi Disk vs.Transmissivity
Total Suspended Solids
measured in the water
column were highest at
station CJ^BLOS during the
three dry weather events.
Generally, TSS
concentrations were higher
during September compared
to July and August. All
measured TSS
concentrations were less
than the Massachusetts
water quality standard
(Table 3).
Turbidity and Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) were
additional measurements of
suspended and dissolved
matter in the water. As with
TSS, the highest turbidity
values recorded during the dry weather sampling events in July and September were at CRBL08. At each
A Outlying data points not
included in the analysis
10
20
30 40 50 60
Transmissivity (%)
70
80
10
-------
station, the highest TOC values were recorded during the July sampling event. This was consistent with the
data collected in 2000.
Transmissivity was added to the parameter list in 2001 as an additional measurement of water clarity. Since
the Core Monitoring Program only had one transmissometer and two sampling teams, transmissivity was not
measured at station CRBL01 and CRBL02. Generally, the greatest transmissivity was recorded near the
mouth of the Basin. The lowest transmissivity was consistently recorded in the Pond at the Esplanade. The
transmissivity measurements correlated well with Secchi disk measurements and a four foot Secchi disk
reading corresponds to an approximately 49% transmissivity (Figure 4).
Chlorophyll a was one of the parameters measured to assess eutrophication in the Basin. Because
Massachusetts does not
have numeric nutrient or
chlorophyll a criteria for
assessing eutrophication of
lakes and rivers, the total
phosphorus and
chlorophyll a
concentrations were
compared to the State of
Connecticut's Lake
Trophic Classifications -
Water Quality Standards2.
More than 40% of the
chlorophyll a samples
collected in the Basin were
considered highly
eutrophic. Mean
chlorophyll a
concentrations were similar
to the means for 2000. The 2001 means were between 1998 and 1999 mean values at ten of the twelve
stations (Figure 5).
Figure 5: 1998-2001 Chlorophyll a Means
fin -,
vn
— * fin
3 f^n
•2 40-
5
01
o
o 20
O
10 -
0 -
D1998
• 1999
D2000
D2001
•
n[
J
II
1
n
r]
r
1
^
•
1 r
P
i J
1-flh-l
[
"
I
r
1
-p
TT n
1
T — CN CO ^~ LO CD r*^ 00 C7) O ^ — CN
o o o o o o o o o ^ — ^ — ^ —
CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQ
OOOOOOOOOOOO
•* * * -X -X
*= Priority Resource Area Station
Some of the means from 1 999-2001 include Pre-storm and Post
2 The Connecticut Water Quality Lake Trophic Classification Criteria during mid summer conditions for chlorophyll a:
Oligotrophic (0 - 2 ug/1), Mesotrophic (2 -15 ug/1), Eutrophic (15 - 30 ug/1), and Highly Eutrophic (>30 ug/1).
11
-------
Table 3: Massachusetts Class B Surface Water Quality Standards and Guidelines for Warm Waters
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
pH
Bacteria
Secchi disk depth
Solids
Color and turbidity
Nutrients
MA Surface Water Quality Standards (3 14 CMR 4.00) and Guidelines
> 5 mg/1 and > 60% saturation
< 83°F (28.3°C) and A3°F (1.7°C) in Lakes, A5°F (2.8°C) in Rivers
Between 6.5 and 8.3
See Table 4
Lakes > 1.2 meters (for primary contact recreation use support)
Narrative and TSS < 25.0 mg/1 (for aquatic life use support)
Narrative Standard
Narrative "Control of Eutrophication" Site Specific
5.2 Bacteria
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches and the
DEP Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00) establish maximum allowable bacteria criteria.
These are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Massachusetts Freshwater Bacteria Criteria
Indicator
organism
E. coli
or
Enterococci
Fecal
coliform
MA DPH
Minimum Criteria for Bathing Beaches
(105 CMR 445. 00)
Bathing beaches
<235 colonies/ 100ml and a geometric mean
of most recent five samples <126 col/lOOml
<61 colonies/ 100ml and a geometric mean of
most recent five samples<33 col/lOOml
NA
MA DEP
Surface Water Quality Standards (3 14 CMR
4.00) and water quality guidelines
Primary contact
NA
NA
a geometric mean
<200 col/ 100ml for
>5 samples
<400/ 100ml for not
more than 10 % of the
samples
<400 col/ 100ml for
<5 samples
Secondary contact
NA
NA
a geometric mean
<1000col/100mlfor>5
samples
<2000/ 100ml for not
more than 10 % of the
samples
<2000 col/ 100ml for <5
samples
Note: NA = not applicable
12
-------
Figure 6: 1998 - 2001 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Geometric
Means
450
400
^,350
§300
^250
0)
§200
0150
100
50
0
IV A
I
Primary Contact Standard (200 Col/100ml)
Jl jes oeiow tnis line meet me criteria
i-i-n.l-m
CM
o
CO
o
•<*
o
10
o
to
o
00
tt.
o
00
01
o
00
tt.
o
00
tt.
o
00
tt.
o
00
a:
o
* = Priority Resource Area
Some of the geometric means were calculated from less than 5 data points.
MA Standards are based on at least 5 data points
CO
O
00 00
o p
Station
0>
o
00
tt.
o
O T-
00
tt.
o
00
tt.
o
Fecal coliform concentrations were measured during each sampling event. E. coli bacteria were measured
during the three dry
weather events. For
the purpose of this
report, the fecal
coliform counts of
individual samples
were compared to
the Massachusetts
DEP geometric
mean criteria of less
than or equal to 200
colonies/100ml for
primary contact
recreation
(swimming) and less
than or equal to
1000 colonies/100ml
for secondary
contact recreation
(boating).
One dry weather sample collected downstream of the BU Bridge (CRBL06) and one wet weather sample
collected upstream of the Watertown Dam (CRBL02) exceeded 1000 colonies/100ml. Approximately 35%
of dry weather samples exceeded 200 colonies/100ml (compared to 23% in 2000). During wet weather
conditions approximately 44% of the fecal coliform samples exceeded 200 colonies/100ml (compared to
63% in 2000). Fecal coliform concentrations were lower near the mouth of the Basin (Mass Ave. Bridge to
the New Charles River Dam; CRBL07 - CRBL12), which was typical of the data collected from 1998 to
2000.
Near the mouth of the Basin, dry weather geometric means5 were similar to the values from 1998 to 2000
(Figure 6). In the upper part of the Basin, from Watertown Dam (CRBL02) to Magazine Beach (CRBL05),
the dry weather geometric means5 were generally higher than the values from 1998 to 2000 (Figure 6). The
wet weather geometric means were calculated from only three data points. These values appear similar to
that from previous years.
E. coli bacteria was sampled during three dry weather sampling events. As observed with fecal coliform
measurements, the E. coli concentrations were lower near the mouth of the Basin (Mass Ave. Bridge to the
New Charles River Dam; CRBL07 - CRBL12). All samples collected at these stations were below the single
sample criteria of 235 colonies/100ml (Table 4). Seven of the samples, collected at other stations, (19 % of
all samples, compared to 35% in 1998) exceeded this criterion.
5.3 Dissolved Oxygen and pH
Massachusetts has established criteria for class B waters for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and turbidity
(Table 3). To measure and evaluate these parameters, automated and manual in-situ measurement were
5Some of the dry weather geometric means were calculated from less than five data points, the actual criteria is
based on a geometric mean of five samples or more.
13
-------
made. One instrument was used to measure temperature, specific conductance, DO, pH, and turbidity. Data
that did not meet the quality control criteria were not reported.
Automated instruments were deployed from August 6 to August 9 at three stations (Table A-l and Figure A-
1). The continuous monitoring data revealed several violations of the Massachusetts class B water quality
criteria (Table 3). At one of the two stations (where validated continuous DO data were collected) there were
three hours of recorded data that did not meet the DO criteria. This station was located immediately
downstream of the BU Bridge (CRBUBR). The continuous monitoring data revealed pH violations
throughout the basin at each of the three continuous monitoring stations (CRBL03, CRBUBR, CRBL09).
On August 8, recorded violations occurred in the afternoon and evening which coincided with super-
saturated DO conditions. In addition, CRBL09 exceeded the pH criteria during the afternoon and early
evening hours of August 7. The temperature exceeded the warm water Class B criteria at each of the three
continuous monitoring stations. At each of the three stations the highest temperatures were recorded on
August 8. The highest fifteen-minute value was recorded at CRBL03 at 17:45 on August 8 and was 30.70
°C (87.26 °F).
Manual measurements for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity were
measured in-situ during each sampling day. No DO violations were recorded from the manual measurements
collected during the eight sampling events (compared to 0% in 2000, 3% in 1999, and 0% in 1998). No DO
violations were recorded from surface measurements during the salt wedge monitoring although numerous
DO violations and anoxia were observed at lower depths. The data from all the dry and wet weather manual
measurements showed pH violated the criteria twelve times or approximately 18% of all field measurements
(compared to 20% in 2000 and 8% in 1999, and 4% in 1998). All except one of the violations were greater
than 8.3 and occurred downstream of the Mass Ave. Bridge. The one exception occurred upstream of the
South Natick dam and was 6.4. The eleven pH violations that were greater than the criteria had associated
super-saturated DO concentration of greater than 115%. Violations of pH were also recorded in the salt
wedge monitoring during August and September. The cause of the elevated pH values was unable to be
determined but may be, in part, due to the photosynthesis of algae and the uptake of carbon dioxide from the
water. No instantaneous temperature measurements made during sample collection exceeded the warm water
Class B criteria.
5.4 Nutrients
Nutrient analyses included measurements of total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate+nitrite and
ammonia. Elevated phosphorus concentrations at many of the sampling stations indicated highly eutrophic
conditions.
Each station recorded the highest concentration during the July sampling event. Mean dry weather total
phosphorus concentrations at most stations were less than 1998 levels and similar to the means over the past
two years (Figure 7). At the South Natick Dam, the dry weather data showed a reduction in the total
phosphorus when compared to data collected over the past three years. Upstream point sources include
wastewater treatment plants operated by: Charles River Pollution Control District, the Massachusetts
Correctional Institute (MCI) in Norfolk, Wrentham State School, and the towns of Medfield and Milford.
No direct correlation could be made between loading from the wastewater treatment plants and
concentrations measured in the River6.
6 Wastewater treatment plant loadings data came from the facilities Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's)
14
-------
Figure 7: 1998-2001 Total Phosphorus Dry Weather Arithmetic Means
0.2
0.18
0.16
dO. 14
O)
-§-0.12
•-§ 0.1
S.
§0.08
u
§0.06
O
0.04
0.02
I
in
DO
o:
o
(N
O
DO
o:
o
ro
o
DO
o:
o
DO
o:
o
ID
O
DO
o:
o
CD
O
DO
o:
o
DO
o:
o
CO
o
DO
o:
o
(35
O
DO
o:
o
DO
o:
o
m
a:
o
(N
I]
m
a:
o
*=P rio rity Peso urce area
Fro m 1998 -2000 non-detects are averaged as half the detectio n limit (DL= 0.05)
Station
Since Massachusetts uses a narrative site-specific water quality criteria for total phosphorus, measured
concentrations were compared to Connecticut's numeric Lakes Trophic Classifications7. These
classifications indicated that approximately 75% of the dry weather (compared to 80% in 2000 and 1999)
total phosphorus concentrations were associated with highly eutrophic waters. Many of the ortho-
phosphorus samples were reported as less than 8.15ug/l (not detected), although, as with total phosphorus
each station recorded the highest concentration during the July sampling event
Except for two stations, the highest concentrations for ammonia and nitrate+nitrite were recorded during the
July sampling event. Nitrate+nitrite (the total nitrate and nitrite) concentrations ranged from less than 0.023
mg/1 (not detected) to 0.73 mg/1 as nitrogen. Ammonia (as nitrogen) concentrations, ranged from less than
0.075 mg/1 (not detected) to 0.321 mg/1.
5.5 Metals
Twenty-one elements were included in the dissolved metal analyses. In addition, total recoverable mercury
was analyzed. Ten of these were EPA priority metals and have associated Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC)8. Seven of these AWQC's were dependent on the water hardness. Hardness dependent AWQC
7The Connecticut Water Quality Lake Trophic Classification Criteria during the spring and summer conditions for
total phosphorus are: Oligotrophic (0 - 0.010 mg/1), Mesotrophic (0.010 - 0.030 mg/1), Eutrophic (0.030 - 0.050
mg/1), and Highly Eutrophic (>0.050 mg/1).
8EPA=s Clean Water Act Section 304(a) Criteria for Priority toxic Pollutants (40 CFR Part 131.36)
15
-------
were calculated using the hardness of the water at the time of sampling. The hardness was calculated using
the dissolved fraction of calcium and magnesium. Except for mercury, all AWQC's were based on the
dissolved metals fraction. Because only total recoverable mercury was measured, the AWQC's for mercury
were converted to a total recoverable AWQC. The metals concentrations and the associated criteria are
presented in Tables 5 and 6 for dry and wet weather, respectively. The concentrations of all the metals
analyzed are presented in Appendix A.
Copper was the only metal that exceeded the acute AWQC. The two exceedances occurred at CRBL05
during a dry weather sampling event on July 9 and a wet weather first flush sampling event on September 21.
Copper and lead were the only metals that exceeded the chronic AWQC. In addition, to the two acute
AWQC exceedances, the copper chronic AWQC was exceeded twice. Both exceedances occurred at
CRBL04 and CRBL10 on July 9. The lead chronic AWQC was exceeded a total of sixteen times. It was
exceeded at every station on July 9 and at four stations on August 7. Overall the data appears similar to the
data collected during previous years.
16
-------
Table 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
STATION
Arsenic
Cone.
(ug/L)
Arsenic
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Arsenic
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Cadmium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Cadmium
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Cadmium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Chromium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Chromium
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Chromium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Copper
Cone.
(ug/L)
Copper
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Copper
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
_ead
Cone.
(ug/L)
_ead
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
_ead
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Sampling was conducted on 7/9/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.62
0.82
0.78
0.87
0.95
0.99
1.00
1.50
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.60
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.3
3.5
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.2
270
322
322
324
324
326
331
324
339
359
361
488
35| 2.3| 6
42\ 3.4| 7
42| 3.l| 7
42
42
42
43
42
44
47
47
64
6.6
4.4
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.7
5.6
7.7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
11
4.1
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.0
5.2
5.5
5.6
7.6
1.70
3.00
3.00
4.00
6.70
5.60
6.60
18.00
6.40
6.20
6.10
6.10
24
30
30
30
30
31
31
30
32
35
35
53
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.0
Sampling was conducted on 8/7/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
ND (0.50)
0.80
0.82
0.77
0.86
0.96
1.20
1.40
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.30
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.9
4.3
3.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.6
393
412
432
434
399
412
479
501
501
528
571
532
51
54
56
57
52
54
62
65
65
69
74
69
2.4
2.8
3.4
3.1
4.0
4.3
5.0
4.3
5.0
6.2
6.9
4.2
9
9
10
10
9
9
11
12
12
12
14
12
6.1
6.4
6.7
6.7
6.2
6.4
7.5
7.8
7.8
8.3
9.0
8.3
0.47
0.91
1.10
1.00
0.90
1.20
2.20
5.60
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.40
39
42
45
45
40
42
51
54
54
58
65
59
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.3
Sampling was conducted on 8/19/01 (dry weather pre-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.72
0.75
0.89
1.10
1.30
1.30
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.9
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.9
ND (0.50)
395
397
440
483
510
512
51
52
57
63
66
70
2.6
3.4
3.5
5.2
4.9
5.1
9
9
10
11
12
13
6.1
6.1
6.8
7.5
8.0
8.4
0.71
1.20
1.10
1.10
0.94
0.86
40
40
46
52
56
60
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.3
Sampling was conducted on 9/4/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
ND (0.5)
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.77
0.81
1.30
1.29
1.51
1.54
1.58
1.68
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.8
4.3
4.3
4.9
4.8
5.1
5.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.7
0.55
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.65
0.52
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.70
404
441
448
457
431
420
569
578
629
621
652
710
53
57
58
60
56
55
74
75
82
81
85
92
2.9
2.7
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.4
4.5
4.3
4.9
5.0
5.7
6.1
9
10
10
10
10
10
13
14
15
15
16
17
6.3
6.8
7.0
7.1
6.7
6.5
8.9
9.1
9.9
9.8
10.3
11.3
0.25
0.65
1.40
1.09
0.51
0.55
1.05
2.35
0.67
0.81
0.63
0.66
41
46
47
48
44
43
64
66
74
72
77
86
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.4
Note:
~ =Estimated data
ND = Not detected above the associated detection limit
Chronic '= Exceeds Chronic Criteria
I Acute |'= Exceeds Acute Criteria
17
-------
Table 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) Cont.
STATION
Mercury
Cone.
(ug/L)
Mercury
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Mercury
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Nickel
Cone.
(ug/L)
Nickel
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Nickel
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Selenium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Selenium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Silver
Cone.
(ug/L)
Silver
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Zinc
Cone.
(ug/L)
Zinc
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Zinc
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Sampling was conducted on 7/9/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.0063
0.0105
0.0050
0.0054
0.0069
0.0083
0.0064
0.0083
0.0065
0.0060
0.0058
0.0071
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
217
260
260
262
262
263
267
261
274
290
292
399
24.1
28.8
28.8
29.0
29.0
29.2
29.6
29.0
30.4
32.2
32.4
44.3
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
ND(2.5)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
ND(0.10)
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
6.5
20
5.4
4.9
4.0
7.9
6.8
6.6
7.2
54
65
65
65
65
66
67
65
69
73
73
100
55
66
66
66
66
66
67
66
69
73
74
101
Sampling was conducted on 8/7/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.0033
0.0025
0.0042
0.0049
0.0045
0.0054
0.0037
0.0077
0.0043
0.0039
0.0043
0.0032
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
319
335
352
354
324
335
391
410
410
433
469
436
35.4
37.2
39.1
39.3
36.0
37.2
43.4
45.5
45.5
48.1
52.1
48.5
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.5
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.9
5.4
4.6
2.0
3.9
4.2
5.0
4.5
80
84
88
89
81
84
98
103
103
108
117
109
80
84
89
89
82
84
99
103
103
109
118
110
Sampling was conducted on 8/19/01 (dry weather pre-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.0045
0.0100
0.0052
0.0039
0.0043
0.0043
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
321
322
359
394
418
440
35.6
35.8
39.9
43.8
46.4
48.8
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
1.0
1.5
2.1
2.2
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
ND (0.20)
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.2
2.0
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
2.1
2.1
80
81
90
99
105
110
81
81
91
100
105
111
Sampling was conducted on 9/4/01 (dry weather)
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL08
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.0031
0.0019
0.0051
0.0062
0.0064
0.0095
0.0056
0.0168
0.0100
0.0076
0.0070
0.0046
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
328
359
366
373
351
342
468
475
518
512
539
588
36.4
39.8
40.6
41.4
39.0
38.0
51.9
52.7
57.6
56.9
59.8
65.3
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.8
3.4
3.5
4.2
4.1
4.6
5.5
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
82
90
92
93
88
86
117
119
130
128
135
147
83
90
92
94
89
86
118
120
131
129
136
148
Note:
Except for Mercury, which is reported as Total Mercury, all metals concentrations and AWQC criteria are reported as dissolved metals.
~ =Estimated data
ND = Not detected above the associated detection limit
Chronic '= Exceeds Chronic Criteria
I Acute |'= Exceeds Acute Criteria
18
-------
Table 6: Priority Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC
STATION
Arsenic
Cone.
(ug/L)
Arsenic
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Arsenic
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Cadmium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Cadmium
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Cadmium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Chromium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Chromium
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Chromium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Copper
Cone.
(ug/L)
Copper
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Copper
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Lead
Cone.
(ug/L)
Lead
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
_ead
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Sampling was conducted on 8/20/01 (wet weather first flush)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.64
0.73
0.81
1.00
1.20
1.20
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.2
3.7
3.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.0
0.60
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.70
0.60
0.70
395
401
401
454
514
516
51
52
52
59
67
67
2.7
3.7
3.0
3.5
6.9
4.6
9
9
9
10
12
12
6.1
6.2
6.2
7.1
8.0
8.1
0.70
1.20
1.30
0.99
1.30
0.83
40
40
40
48
56
57
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.2
Sampling was conducted on 9/20/01 (wet weather pre-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.65
0.81
0.91
1.62
1.58
1.71
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
3.3
3.4
3.8
5.9
6.0
6.2
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.8
2.8
2.9
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.65
474
479
521
727
733
752
62
62
68
95
95
98
3.0
3.8
4.3
5.8
6.1
6.2
11
11
12
18
18
19
7.4
7.5
8.2
11.5
11.7
12.0
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.21
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
51
51
57
89
90
93
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.5
3.5
3.6
Sampling was conducted on 9/21/01 (wet weather first flush)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.63
0.74
0.79
1.50
1.60
1.60
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
3.2
3.4
3.5
5.5
6.3
6.2
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.7
2.9
2.9
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.66
0.55
ND (0.5)
0.70
455
483
491
688
764
754
59
63
64
3.4
4.4
90| 5.8
99J 6.3
98J 6.9
10
11
11
17
19
19
7.1
7.5
7.7
10.9
12.2
12.0
0.42
0.40
0.31
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
0.26
48
52
53
83
95
93
1.9
2.0
2.1
3.2
3.7
3.6
Sampling was conducted on 9/24/01 (wet weather post-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.60
0.80
0.80
1.30
1.50
1.70
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
3.2
3.4
3.5
4.9
5.6
5.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.60
457
483
491
632
699
717
59
63
64
82
91
93
3.2
4.8
5.0
5.8
6.4
7.4
10
11
11
15
17
18
7.1
7.5
7.7
10.0
11.1
11.4
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.30
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
48
52
53
74
85
88
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.9
3.3
3.4
Note:
Except for Mercury, which is reported as Total Mercury, all metals concentrations and AWQC criteria are reported as dissolved metals.
~ = Estimated data
ND = Not detected above the associated detection limit
Chronic '= Exceeds Chronic Criteria
I Acute I '= Exceeds Acute Criteria
19
-------
Table 6: Priority Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) Cont.
STATION
Mercury
Cone.
(ug/L)
Mercury
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Mercury
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Nickel
Cone.
(ug/L)
Nickel
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Nickel
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Selenium
Cone.
(ug/L)
Selenium
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Silver
Cone.
(ug/L)
Silver
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Zinc
Cone.
(ug/L)
Zinc
AWQC
Acute
(ug/L)
Zinc
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/L)
Sampling was conducted on 8/20/01 (wet weather first flush)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.0032
0.0073
0.0121
0.0066
0.0047
0.0046
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.1
321
326
326
371
421
423
36
36
36
41
47
47
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
1.4
1.8
2.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.9
4.4
3.0
80
82
82
93
105
106
81
82
82
94
106
107
Sampling was conducted on 9/20/01 (wet weather pre-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.0015
0.0100
0.0071
0.0062
0.0046
0.0040
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
387
392
427
602
608
624
43
44
47
67
68
69
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
1.1
3.3
3.4
3.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
2.3
2.4
2.9
5.7
5.9
6.2
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
5.2
ND (5.0)
97
98
107
151
152
156
98
99
108
152
153
157
Sampling was conducted on 9/21/01 (wet weather first flush)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.0026
0.0076
0.0078
0.0076
0.0049
0.0046
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
371
395
402
569
634
625
41
44
45
63
71
69
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
3.1
3.5
3.8
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
2.1
2.4
2.5
5.1
6.4
6.2
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
93
99
100
142
159
157
94
100
101
144
160
158
Sampling was conducted on 9/24/01 (wet weather post-storm)
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.0018
0.0038
0.0049
0.0040
0.0032
0.0056
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
373
395
402
521
578
594
41
44
45
58
64
66
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
ND (1 .0)
2.4
3.0
3.4
5
5
5
5
5
5
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
2.2
2.4
2.5
4.3
5.3
5.6
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (5.0)
93
99
100
130
145
149
94
100
101
132
146
150
Note:
Except for Mercury, which is reported as Total Mercury, all metals concentrations and AWQC criteria are reported as dissolved metals.
~ =Estimated data
ND = Not detected above the associated detection limit
Chronic '= Exceeds Chronic Criteria
I Acute |'= Exceeds Acute Criteria
5.6 Salt Wedge Monitoring
On July 31, August 1, and September 11 depth profile measurements were made at selected stations in the
Basin. Measurements were made for temperature, specific conductance, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH.
These measurements were conducted primarily to measure the depth and longitudinal profile of the halocline.
These measurements were conducted to build on the work that USGS performed during 1998 and 1999
(USGS 2000). The profile data for July 31, August 1 and September 11 are presented in Table A-19, A-20,
andA-21. The distribution and concentration of the haloclines for July 31, August 1 and September 11 are
presented on Figure 8, 9 and 10, respectively. The halocline covered the largest area on September 11
(Figure 10). Bottom anoxic conditions were measured during each of the three sampling events.
20
-------
Figure 8: Bottom Salinity Summary on July 13
Bottom Salinity
21
-------
Figure 9: Bottom Salinity Summary on August 1
Bottom Salinity in the Charles
August 1, 2001
22
-------
Figure 10: Bottom Salinity Summary on September 11
Bottom Salinity
23
-------
5.7 Data Usability
Quality control criteria were established for all data presented in this report. The criteria specify holding
times, sample preservation, and precision and accuracy limits. Holding times were met for all samples. The
quality control requirements for this project were documented in the Project Work/QA Plan - Charles River
Clean 2005 Water Quality Study June 2,1999.
Duplicate field measurements (temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, salinity, turbidity, and Secchi
disk) were measured approximately fifty percent of the time. With the exception of one turbidity duplicate
result, which recorded a relative percent difference of 69 percent, all duplicated relative percent differences
were less than 10 percent. The Project Work/QA Plan did not specify goals for these parameters. There
were criteria specified for post calibration checks that were performed after each sampling event to document
instrument precision and accuracy. Field monitoring data that did not meet the established quality control
criteria were not presented in this report. Field data that partially met the criteria were reported as estimated
data and identified with a swung dash (~) preceding the value.
Chemistry data that partially met laboratory quality control criteria or concentrations that were less than the
associated reporting limit were considered estimated values and identified with a swung dash (~) preceding
the value. Field duplicate chemistry samples were collected during each of the eight core monitoring
sampling events to evaluate sampling and analytical precision. The data not meeting the criteria are
described below. Four of the 84 duplicate samples (excluding metals and field measurements) analyzed
during the sampling events did not meet the precision quality control goal of less than 35 relative percent
difference established in the Project Work/QA Plan. However, the project use of these data was not limited
for the reason specified below. Three of the duplicate samples were for fecal coliform and one was for E.
coli. All measured counts that recorded these variations were 100 colonies/100 ml or less. At these levels,
large relative percent differences are common because of the of natural bacteria variability that exist in
ambient water.
One of 176 duplicate samples for total and dissolved metals analyzed during the eleven sampling events did
not meet the precision quality control goal of less than 35 relative percent difference. However, the project
use of these data was not limited for this project for the reason specified below. The one duplicate sample
collected on September 21, that did not meet the quality control goal was for manganese. The calculated
relative percent difference for the duplicate sample was 49 percent. The review of the field and laboratory
quality control data, samples showed no abnormalities.
For the chemistry analyses, trip blanks were used to evaluate any contamination caused by: the sample
container, sample preservation, sampling method, and/or transportation to the laboratory. The trip blank, a
bottle of ultra pure water, was collected prior to sampling and brought on the sampling trip. The non-metal
sample trip blanks were collected during each dry weather sampling event. All the results for these samples
were reported as not detected above the reporting limit, which indicates no reported contamination. The
dissolved metals trip blank was filtered in the field and then preserved following the procedure specified for
sample collection. Some of the dissolved metal blank values for copper and barium were above the reporting
level. These blank values were all less than three times the lowest value reported for the station samples.
Therefore, the use of the data was not limited for this report. No metal trip blank was collected for the
August 19 pre-storm sampling event and contamination was evaluated using data collected during the other
sampling events. This evaluation also indicates the use of the data was not limited for this report. The
Appendix contains all the validated data for this report.
24
-------
6.0 2002 STUDY DESIGN
In 2002, the monitoring program will change slightly to effectively build on the existing data and to address
future monitoring needs. In the past, continuous monitoring was conducted in the Basin at numerous stations
during different months of the summer. The results indicate few exceedances. Therefore, it was decided to
discontinue continuous monitoring in 2002. If a need arises continuous monitoring will be added to future
monitoring programs.
In 2002, EPA's Charles River Core Monitoring Program will be expanded to support water quality model
development of the Basin. The model will ultimately be used in the development of a eutrophication Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address low dissolved oxygen levels, numerous aesthetic impairments
resulting from algae blooms, and pH violations. The 2002 monitoring program will include; adding eight
supplemental (TMDL) stations in the lower Basin, three additional surveys between June 1 and October 1,
2002, and adding Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and algal analysis to the parameter list.
In 2002, station CRBL08 will be relocated to the main stem of the Charles River (outside the Pond at the
Esplanade). This new station will be identified as CRBLA8. This station will be relocated to better
characterize water quality in the main-stem of the River. The previous monitoring data shows that the Pond
at the Esplanade (CRBL08) has consistently poor water quality and it is currently unsuitable as a priority
resource area.
Targeted pipe monitoring will continue in 2002 at identified hot spots in the Basin for fecal coliform and E.
coli bacteria.
7.0 REFERENCES
Breault, R.F, United States Geological Service. 2001. Personal Communication.
Breault, R.F,,Barlow, L.K., Reisig, K.D., Parker, G.W., 2000. Spatial Distribution, Temporal Variability,
and Chemistry of the Salt Wedge in the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts, June 1998 to July 1999.
United States Geological Service. Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4124
Charles River Watershed Association. 1997. Charles River Watershed Integrated Monitoring, Modeling and
Management Project Phase II Interim Report.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration Principles,
Processes, and Practices. EPA841_R_98_900
Fiorentino, J.F., Kennedy, L.E., Weinstein, M.J., 2000. Charles River Watershed 1997/1998 Water Quality
Assessment Report. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Report Number 72-AC-3
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management. 1998.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of Water Quality Report.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1994. Baseline Water Quality Assessment. Master Planning and CSO Facility Planning.
Report prepared for MWRA
25
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards Branch, Washington, DC. EPA-
823-B-94-005a
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Charles River Sediment/Water Quality Analysis
Project Report. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Measurement and
Evaluation, Region I
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Clean Charles 2005 Water Quality Report, 2000
Core Monitoring Program. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Measurement
and Evaluation, Region I
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Charles River Shoreline Survey. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation, Region I
26
------- |