Clean Charles 2005 Water Quality Report
        2002 Core Monitoring Program
                November 2003
                 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 2002 Core Monitoring Program

2.0 BACKGROUND	6

3.0 INTRODUCTION	6

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION	9

5.0 DATA ANALYSIS	10
       5.1 Clarity, Apparent color, True color, TSS, Turbidity, TOC, Transmissivity and Chlorophyll a	11
       5.2 Bacteria	13
       5.3 Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature	15
       5.4 Nutrients	16
       5.5 Metals	17
       5.6 Data Usability	25

6.02003 STUDY  DESIGN	26

7.0 REFERENCES	26

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE

1:         Sampling Station Description                                                      7

2:         Parameters Analyzed During the 2002 Sampling Events                                10

3:         Massachusetts Class B Warm Water Surface Water Quality Standards and Guidelines      13

4:         Massachusetts Freshwater Bacteria Criteria                                          14

5:         Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water
          Quality Criteria (AWQC)                                                          19

6:         Priority Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water
          Quality Criteria (AWQC)                                                           23


FIGURES

1:         EPA Core Monitoring Locations and Priority Resource Areas                              8

2:         Clarity - Secchi Disk Measurements at Stations CRBL03 - CRBL12                       11

3:         1998 - 2002 Mean Secchi Disk Measurements at Stations CRBL03 - CRBL12               11

4:         1998 - 2002 Chlorophyll a Means                                                    12

5:         1998 - 2002 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Geometric Means                             14

6:         1998 - 2002 Total Phosphorus Dry Weather Means                                     16

7:         Total and Ortho Phosphorus Depth Concentrations - Median Values                       17

8:         Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonia (NH3) Depth Concentrations
          - Median Values                                                                   17


                                       APPENDIX


          Charles River 2002 Data Report                                                   A-l

-------
This page was intentionally left blank.

-------
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 (see Figure 1:).  Six of the twelve stations are
monitored during wet weather conditions. The following parameters are measured for the Core Monitoring
Program: 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 the year 2002, modifications were made to the Program to support the development of a three-dimensional hydro-
dynamic  linked water quality model.  The model will be used for the development of a eutrophication Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address low dissolved oxygen, numerous aesthetic impairments, algae blooms and
pH violations in the Basin.  Sampling stations, sampling parameters, and additional sampling dates were  added to
provide data for the model development.  Seven additional (TMDL) stations were added between the BU Bridge and
the Museum of Science (Figure 1).  Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and algal analysis were added to the parameter
list.  Three additional (TMDL) sampling dates were added between June and September.  Depth samples were
collected at some stations to determine pollutant concentrations above and  below the pycnocline (the interface
between water of different densities). In addition to these modifications, the Core Monitoring station inside the pond
at the esplanade (CRBL08) was relocated to the main stem of the Charles and  designated as CRBLA8.  This station
was repositioned to evaluate an alternative priority resource  area.  The previous station measured consistently poor
water quality and did not meet the initiatives goals.

In 2002,  additional bacteria sampling was conducted during the Fourth of July and at selected "Hot Spot" locations.
This work was conducted with the assistance of Roger Frymire. This Cambridge resident volunteer, conducted all
the sampling for these two projects.  These data were summarized separately and are not included in this summary.

                            Conclusions of the 2002 Core Monitoring Program

The conclusions below summarize the 2002 Core Monitoring Program data and use these data to evaluate the water
quality conditions from  1998 to 2002.  At this time,  no short-term trends were observed from the  past five
years of data. A more comprehensive statistical analysis will be conducted in future reports, as more data are
available.

In addition to point source and non-point source pollutant loadings, water quality was influenced by yearly
fluctuations in weather and river flows, making short-term trends difficult  to determine. The weather conditions and
river flow affect the transport of pollutants in the watershed. In 2002, from the middle of June through the first
                                                                                                         1

-------
week in September, the flows at the Waltham gaging station were generally less than the flows recorded during
1998, 2000, and 2001. During this same time period, with the exception of some selected periods, the flows were
greater than the low flows of 1999.  The flows during 1998 and 1999 (from the middle of June through the first
week in September) were generally the high and low flow years, respectively.  In 1998, the summer conditions
were generally wetter with correspondingly higher flows; in 1999, summer conditions were drier with
correspondingly lower flows.

Six dry weather and three wet weather events were sampled from June through October 2002.  Comparing these
data to the past four years' data revealed no definitive trends.  However, the following conclusions can be made.
The five years of data show a pattern of the best water quality occurring near the mouth of the River (Mass Ave.
Bridge to the New Charles River Dam).  This part of the river met the swimming standards more often than any
other part of the Basin.

The greatest clarity was recorded during the lower flow years of 1999 and 2002 at the stations near the mouth of
the Basin.  During 2002, elevated nutrient concentrations were measured in the water below the pycnocline.

Clarity, Color and Transmissivity
Water clarity was directly measured in the field using a Secchi disk.  Mean Secchi disk readings downstream of
Magazine Beach were greater than the means from the last two years and similar to the means from 1999.  The
greatest clarity was recorded between the Esplanade and the New Charles River Dam on July 9  and August 20.
From Daly field to the BU Bridge, the mean Secchi disk value was 1.0 meter while the stations monitored between
the Esplanade to the New Charles River Dam recorded a mean Secchi disk value of 1.5 meters.  The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protections primary contact (swimming) use support criterion specifies a Secchi disk
reading of greater than or equal to 1.2 meters.

True and apparent color were measured during the Core Monitoring dry and wet weather sampling events. These
parameters were not measured during the TMDL sampling days of June 13, July 30, and August 20. The highest
true and apparent color values were measured during July 9. Mean color values were generally lower than mean
values measured during the previous years.  As identified in a previous report (EPA 2002), 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.

Transmissivity, a measurement  of water clarity, was measured at selected stations. The greatest transmissivity was
recorded near the mouth of the Basin. The mean values from the two stations where transmissivity was measured
in 2001 and 2002, showed an average increase in 2002 of 10%.  The transmissivity measurements correlated well
with Secchi disk measurements.

Bacteria
During dry weather, approximately 31% of the core monitoring fecal coliform samples exceeded the swimming
criterion1 of less than 200 colonies/100ml, (compared to 35%, 23%, 8%, and 17% in 2001, 2000, 1999and 1998,
respectively).  During wet weather, approximately 46% of the core monitoring samples exceeded the criterion1
(compared to  44%, 63%, and 50% in 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively).

Fecal coliform concentrations were lower near the mouth of the Basin (Mass Ave. Bridge to the New Charles River
Dam; CRBL07 - CRBL12).  This is a consistent pattern, which has occurred in the previous four years of data. The
dry weather Core Monitoring samples collected at stations CRBL07 - CRBL12 exceeded the swimming criterion1 9%
of the time. Upstream at stations CRBL02 - CRBL06 the criterion1 was exceeded 53% of the time.  The area from
station CRBL07- CRBL12 is the most heavily recreated parts of the River. The area contains the MIT Sailing
lrThe Massachusetts fecal coliform swimming criterion 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 criterion.
                                                                                                       2

-------
Pavilion and Community Boating where much sailing, kayaking, windsurfing, and occasional contact with the water
occurs.
Figure 1a: 1998 -2002 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Geometric

4oU
Ann -

E
^D Ofifi _
o 30
CD
0200-
0
O1 en -
100-
50-

IH 1999



i-
|_


111
1











 2000
D2001
 2002






MA Primary Contact Standard (200 col/1 00ml)
values below the line meet the criteria
. _
II I -Ji 1 I 1
II iL . .11 ,1,, . .Lui Li
_i_i_i_io_i_i_i_i_i_i_ijj_i_i_iZjZj_iZj
* = Priority Resource Area
Some of the geometric means were calculated from less than 5 data points. otatlOn
MA Standards are based on at least 5 data points.
The 2002 dry weather fecal coliform geometric means1 were similar to those collected during previous years. At
station CRBL02, the geometric means1 have increased over the past three years (Figure la).

E. coli bacteria was sampled during all sampling events.  As observed with the 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). For these Core Monitoring stations, all calculated geometric means met the Department of
Public Health (DPH) Bathing Beach criterion2 and one sample collected at station CRBL12 (or 2% of the samples)
was greater than the DPH bathing beach criterion for individual samples2.  At stations CRBL02 - CRBL06 the
individual sample criterion was exceeded 30% of the time and the geometric mean criterion2 was exceeded at two of
the five  stations (Figure 2a).

Fourteen or approximately 17% of the dry weather core monitoring samples exceeded the E. coli bathing beach
criterion for individual samples, compared to 19% in 2001 and 35% in 1998 (Figure 2a).  The fecal coliform and E.
coli bacteria concentration from the six TMDL station between the  Mass Ave. Bridge and the Museum of Science
showed  similar counts.  For these stations the fecal coliform geometric means ranged from 7 to  10 and the E.coli
geometric means ranged from 6 to 12.
iSome of the dry weather geometric means were calculated from less than five data points; the actual criterion is based on a
geometric mean of five samples or more.
2 The Massachusetts DPH E. coli Bathing Beach criterion for as single sample is less than or equal to 235 colonies/100ml.
The geometric mean criterion 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.
                                                                                                        3

-------
Figure 2a: 2002 Dry Wea
10000
1000 "
o
o
|IOO 
c
o
8.
to
o in -
a> 10
D)
3
1
ih
e.

r.

R


I
E
i

thor E.coli Counts
I I=16/
^7/
=l7/
i IB/
g8/
1=1 9/
l^9/
"=M(
* G
	 M
	 M
13/2002
9/2002
30/2002
6/2002
20/2002
10/2002
26/2002
1/15/2002
eometric. Mean
A DPH bathing beach individual sample criterion (235 col/100ml)
A DPH bathinq beach qeometric mean criterion (126 cpl/IOOmh


II

JVIA DPH aoomotric moan criterion (126 col/100mh 	
n
^
fl
T-CM^._tOT-|>.CM
OOOOtroCMOCM
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
OQOQOQOQmCQQOQQ
OOOOSOSOS
OOOOoOHOI-
* * *
* = Priority Resource Area
MA Stds. are based on geometric mean of 5 or more data points.
CRBL01 was calculated with 3 data ooints.
/s

TMDL23
y 	 I pluii. |L_
b| [ 

*COCOa>IOtOOT-COCM
CMO5 mg/1 and>60% saturation, for pH is in the range of
6.5 through 8.3, and for temperature is < 28.3C (83F).

-------
were ten recorded temperature measurements above the state criterion1. These measurements occurred on August 6
and August 20, in the area of Longfellow Bridge and the Museum of Science.

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
June or July sampling events.  The dry weather means from eight stations were lower than any previous years'
means.  The additional TMDL sampling that was conducted during 2002 involved collecting samples above and
below the pycnocline at three stations. These data revealed elevated concentrations of total phosphorus, ortho-
phosphorous, total kjeldahl nitrogen, and ammonia below the pycnocline. The total phosphorus median
concentration above the pycnocline was 58 ug/1 and the median below the pycnocline was 498 ug/1. The highest
concentrations for ammonia and nitrate from the surface samples were recorded during the June and July sampling
events.

Metals
No measured metals exceeded the acute Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). Lead and selenium were the only
metals that exceeded the chronic AWQC. The  lead exceedances occurred only during the July 9 sampling event at
the ten most downstream stations.  These ten exceedances represent 21% of all dry weather metals samples
(compared to 33%, 27%, and 8% in 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively).  No wet weather lead exceedances were
measured (compared to 0%, 25%, and 72% in 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively).  Selenium exceeded the chronic
AWQC fifteen times during dry weather and fifteen times during wet weather. All exceedances occurred down
stream  of the BU Bridge. In past years, copper had exceeded the chronic AWQC but not selenium. There were no
identified reasons for these yearly changes.  The other measured priority pollutants metals (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc) did not exceed the AWQC.

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

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998.  Stream Corridor Restoration Principles, Processes,
and Practices. EPA841_R_98_900

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. 2002. Clean Charles 2005 Water Quality Report, 2001 Core
Monitoring Program.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Measurement and
Evaluation, Region I

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Waters 1986.  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of water, Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA-440/5-86-00
1  The Massachusetts water quality criteria for Class B water for DO is >. 5 mg/l and >60% saturation, for pH is in
the range of 6.5 through 8.3, and for temperature is < 28.3C (83F) .
                                                                                                       5

-------
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, technical assistance, and scientific studies.

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
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 core monitoring sampling stations, TMDL sampling stations, priority resource  areas, CSO's, and
stormwater discharge pipes.  Table 1  describes the stations  monitored in 2002.

-------
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.

 In 2002, the Core Monitoring station inside the pond at the esplanade (CRBL08) was relocated to the main stem
of the Charles  and designated as CRBLA8. This  station was repositioned to evaluate an alternative priority
resource area.  The previous  station measured consistently poor water quality and did not meet the initiatives
goals. In addition, modifications were made to the Program to support the development of a three-dimensional
hydro-dynamic linked water quality model. The model will be used for the development of a eutrophication Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address low dissolved oxygen, numerous aesthetic impairments, algae blooms
and pH violations in the Basin.  Sampling stations, sampling parameters, and additional sampling dates were added
to provide data for the model development. Seven additional (TMDL) stations were added between the BU
Bridge and the Museum of Science  (Table 1 and  Figure:  1).

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 - center channel
Downstream of Stony Brook & Mass Ave, 10m off South shore
Pond at Esplanade
Off the Esplanade (new station in 2002)
Upstream of Longfellow Bridge, Cam. side
Community boating area
Between Longfellow Bridge & Old Dam - center channel
Upstream of Railroad Bridge - center channel
STATION*
CRBL01
CRBL02 WW
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05 WW
CRBL06 WW
CRBL07 WW
r'puT ns
CRBLA8
CRBL09 WW
CRBL10
CRBL11 WW
CRBL12
SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING STATIONS DESCRIPTION
Deep hole between CRBL06 and Mass Ave Bridge
Southern transect station in the deep hole off the upstream lagoon
Center transect station between TMDL22 to TMDL24
Northern transect station near MIT Sailing Pavilion
Southern transect station in the deep hole near the Hatch Shell
Center transect station between TMDL25 and CRBL09
Off the Old Dam - center channel
TMDL21
TMDL22
TMDL23
TMDL24
TMDL25
TMDL26
TMDL28
Bold = Priority resource area station
WW = Wet weather sampling station
CRBL08 ~ Discontinued station

-------
Figure 1:  EPA Core Monitoring Locations and Priority Resource Areas
                                                                                          Legend
                                                                               TMIXL Supplemental Sampling Locations
                                                                                Core Dry Weather Sampling Locations
                                                                              /\ Core Wet Weather Sampling Locations
                                                                                 Priority Resource Area
                                                                                 Pipe Outfall Location
                                                                                 CSO Location               
                                                                                   Town Boundaries
                                                                                   Roads
                                                                              I  |   Su rfac e wat er
                                                                              0     650     1,300

                                                                               30 May 2CCO, updated 25-Jiin-2002

-------
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Core Monitoring Program targets one dry weather sampling event for each month of July, August, and
September and three wet weather events between July and September.  If no significant storms are sampled
between July and September the wet weather sampling season is extended into October.

In 2002, three additional (TMDL) sampling dates were added between June and September.  These days were
not targeted as dry weather sampling days but were added to gather additional data for unspecified weather
conditions.  These TMDL sampling days occurred on June 13, July 30, and August 20.

Depth profile sampling was conducted at four selected stations (TMDL21, TMDL22, TMDL25, and CRBL11).
Sampling involved measuring temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance and salinity through the water column.
Nutrients and chlorophyll a measurements were collected above and below any pycnocline (the interface
between water of different densities) that was determined to exist.  This was  conducted  to measure pollutant
concentrations in the different stratified layers of water.

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 occurs.  Antecedent to the June 13 sampling event, 0.21 inches of rain1 fell over the
two prior days.  Although the 0.20 inches in three day dry weather criterion was exceeded by one hundredth of
an inch, the rainfall that occurred was of low intensity and long duration. Therefore, for the purpose of this
report the June 13 sampling  date will be analysed with the other dry weather  sampling data. Which brings the
total of dry weather sampling days to six.

Dry weather sampling was conducted on June 13, July 9, July 30, August 6,  August 20  and September 10.  In
addition to these sampling days pre-storm sampling was conducted on September 26 and October 15.  These
pre-storm sampling events met the dry weather criterion and are included in the dry weather sample analysis.

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 September 15. This storm, produced less rain than was
anticipated (0.22 inches of rainfall was recorded1).  Since this rain event did not meet the specified criterion  (0.5
inches or greater within 24 hours) sampling was terminated after first flush samples were collected (Figure A-2
in the appendix). A second  wet weather sampling event was initiated on September 26.  The associated storm
dropped 0.50 inches of rainfall1 (Figure A-3 in the appendix).  However, sampling was terminated after first  flush
since the storm appeared to have ended.  A third wet weather sampling  event was initiated on October 15. This
storm produced 1.26 inches  of rainfall.

The parameters analysed during 2002 Core Monitoring Program are listed in Table 2. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN) and algal analysis were added to the parameter list during 2002.  Except for the following notations, all
parameters were measured during all sampling events. The algal analysis was performed on June 13, July 9,
            Rainfall data was collected in Watertown by USGS and are reported as preliminary data.

-------
August 6, and September 10 at selected stations.  Total Organic Carbon, (TOC), TSS, true and apparent color
were not measured during the TMDL sampling days.  Apparent color was not measured during the August 6dry
weather sampling event.  Transmissivity and Secchi disk measurements were not performed during all the wet
weather sampling events.  Transmissivity was measured at only the TMDL stations and stations CRBL06 and
CRBL11. Depth samples were collected above and below the pycnocline for chlorophyll a and all nutrients.

The EPA's  OEME and office of Ecosystem Protection (OEP) field staff conducted all the sampling and field
measurements.  Samples were analysed by OEME and contract laboratories.

Table 2: Parameters Analyzed During the 2002 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 (N02), nitrite
(N03), ammonia
(NH3), total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN)
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,
algal analysis


5.0 DATA ANALYSIS

The fifth year of the Core Monitoring Program was completed in 2002.  In addition to point source and non-point
source pollutant loadings, water quality was influenced by yearly fluctuations in weather and river flows, making
short-term trends difficult to determine.  The weather conditions and river flow affect the transport of pollutants
in the watershed. Rain events can cause pollutants to be transported from the landscape and can cause an
increase in river flow.  Increased flow can lead to greater channel loads from the erosion and resuspension of
sediments and particulates.

In 2002, from the middle of June through the first week in September, the flows at the Waltham gaging station
were generally less than the flows recorded during 1998, 2000, and 2001.  During this same time period, with the
exception of some selected periods, the flows were greater than the low flows of 1999. The flow during 1998
and 1999 (from the middle of June through the first week in September) were generally the high and low flow
years, respectively (Figure A-l).   In 1998, the summer conditions were generally wetter with correspondingly
higher flows; in 1999,  summer conditions were drier with correspondingly lower flows.

Six dry weather and three wet weather events were sampled from June  through October.  Comparing these data
to the past four years'  data revealed no short-term trends.  However, the following conclusions can be made.
The five years  of data  show a pattern of the best water quality occurring near the mouth of the River (Mass Ave.
Bridge to the New Charles River Dam).  This  part of the river met the swimming standards more often than any
other part of the Basin.

The greatest clarity was recorded  during the lower flow years of 1999 and 2002 at the stations near the mouth of
the Basin. During 2002, elevated nutrient concentrations were measured in the water below the pycnocline.
Continued monitoring will help identify trends  in the River.
                                                                                                    10

-------
5.1 Clarity, Apparent color, True color, TSS, Turbidity, TOC, Transmissivity and Chlorophyll a
Secchi disk was used in the field to measure visibility/clarity. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection uses a 1.2 meter (4 foot) criterion to assess primary contact (swimming) use support.  Clarity could
not be measured at the South Natick Dam (CRBL01) and Watertown Dam (CRBL02) because of the shallow
water at these stations.  The greatest clarity was generally recorded near the mouth of the Basin from the
Esplande to the  New Charles River Dam; (CRBLA8 - CRBL12 and TMDL22 - TMDL28) during the July 9 and
August 20 sampling events.  Except for one sample, these stations met the 1.2 meter swimming criterion during
the July 9, August 6, August 20, and September 10 sampling events (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Clarity - Secchi Disk Measurements at Station CRBL03 - CRBL12
3.0-

.0
"o
E <\ c .
1
0
1.0-
0.5-
1 16
^^7
1 I?
1 18
1 19
^^9
1 1 1


71 3 -TMDL
79 -Dry
730 - TMDL
76 -Dry
720 - TMDL
710 -Dry
726 - Dry, Pre
0/1 5 -Dry, Pre
1A DEP Primary Contact Recreational Use C

H 1 X/ahifiQ ahr / thic c*
L
In
'


.0 T ' ' ' '
CO ^~ LO CD
m m m rn
o o o o
* * *
*= Priority Resource Area



Criteria

th :  eua II



n




1

]
1









i



H



1
1 1


F


^00000)0^ CN!T CMCO
O^OO^-T-T-CNCNCN
10 n"i CO CO CO CD CO O O O
^fyfyfyfyfyn-'^^^
OoOOOOOKKK
Station
i


i


r.

1


fi







f in to oo
OM OM OM OM
a a a a
i- i- i- i-
                          Figure 3:1998-2002 Mean Secchi Disk Measurements at Stations
                          CRBL03-CRBL12
                              1.8
                              1.6
                              1.4
                              1.2
                              1.0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
MA DEP Primary Contact Recreational Use Criteria.
From Daly field to the BU
Bridge (stations CRBL03,
CRBL04, and CRBL05),
the mean Secchi disk
value was 1.0 meters
while the stations
monitored between the
Esplanade to the New
Charles River Dam
(stations CRBLA8 -
CRBL12 and TMDL 22 -
TMDL28) recorded a
mean Secchi disk value of
1.5 meters (Figure 2).
Mean Secchi disk
readings downstream of
Magazine Beach were
greater than the means
from the last two years and similar to the means from 1999. The means from 1998 to 2002 show a pattern of
improved water clarity closer to the mouth of the Basin (Figure 3).

Total suspended solids, TOC, true and apparent were measured only during the Core Monitoring dry and wet
                          '= Priority Resource Area
                          Some of the 1999- 2002 means include Pre-storm and Post-storm results
                                                                .Station
                                                                                                    11

-------
sampling events. 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 and 2001.

True color measures the stain in the water after the suspended particulates have been removed by centrifuging.
As with apparent color, true color values were highest in July and decreased throughout the summer.  The true
color mean value was  10% to 52% lower than the apparent color mean value.  As identified in the 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, bank erosion, and other natural sources.

All measured TSS concentrations were less than the Massachusetts water quality standard (Table 3).  Total
Suspended Solids mean values were highest at the station above and below the BU Bridge; station CRBL05 and
CRBL06, respectively. During previous years, the highest mean values were recorded at these locations and at
the stations at Herter East park and in the Lagoon.

Turbidity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) were additional measurements of suspended and dissolved matter in
the water. As with TSS, the highest turbidity mean values were recorded at the station above and below the BU
Bridge; station CRBL05 and CRBL06, respectively. At each station, the highest TOC values were recorded
during the July sampling event.  This was consistent with the data collected in 2001 and 2000.

Transmissivity was measured at stations CRBL06, CRBL11 and at all TMDL stations. Transmissivity was not
measured during the wet weather sampling events.  The lowest transmissivity was recorded during  the June and
September sampling events.  Generally, the greatest transmissivity was recorded near the mouth of the Basin.
The transmissivity measurements correlated well with Secchi disk measurements and a 1.2 meter Secchi disk
reading corresponds to a transmissivity of approximately 51% (R2 = 0.8855).
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 Standards1.  Twenty seven percent of the chlorophyll
a samples collected in the Basin were considered highly eutrophic (greater than 30 ug/1).  For lakes, ponds and
Figure 4: 1998-2002 Chlorophyll a Means
on
Concentration (ug/L)
-"NJCO-NOICD^JC
3OOOOOOOC
HI

 1998
 1999
2000
2001
2002



II
^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i-CMco"3-incor^02cocj>OT-cM-<-CMco''3-incoco
OOOOOOO30 ug/1).
                                                                                                     12

-------
reservoirs in the North Eastern Coastal Zone the recommended criterion for chlorophyll a is approximately 2.5
ug/1 (NEIWPCC, 2000).

The highest chlorophyll a values generally occurred on the July 30 sampling event with values downstream of
Herter East Park ranging from 41 ug/1 to 65 ug/1. The mean values from 2002 were similar to the mean values of
previous years (Figure 4)

At stations CRBL06 and CRBL11, chlorophyll a samples were collected using two different techniques during
each of the six dry weather sampling events. In addition, the two techniques were also evaluated on June 13 at
station TMDL28.  The surface grab method, which has been used through out the Core Monitoring Program,
was compared to a 1-meter depth integrated sample collected with a pre-cleaned Teflon bailer. Excluding the one
not detected value, the twelve results showed that the relative percent difference ranged from 10% to 0% with
the mean difference being 3%.  For the purpose of this report, the data collected at the TMDL sampling stations
from the depth-integrated samples will be considered  equivalent to  the surface grab samples collected at the Core
Monitoring Program Stations.

Depth samples were collected at stations TMDL22, TMDL25 and CRBL11 for Chlorophyll a during the six dry
weather sampling events. Although, chlorophyll a values generally were similar at the surface and above the
pycnocline, values deceased below the pycnocline.  The mean value at the three stations monitored above the
pycnocline was 22.1 ug/1 and below the pycnocline was 4.4 ug/1.

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 (314 CMR 4
00) and Guidelines
> 5 mg/1 and > 60% saturation
< 83F (28.3C) and ?3PF (1.7C) in Lakes, ?5F
(2. 8C) 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.
                                                                                                    13

-------
 Table 4: Massachusetts Freshwater Bacteria Criteria
Indicator
Organism
E. coli
or
Enterococci
Fecal
coliform
MADPH
Minimum Criteria for Bathing Beaches
(105CMR445.00)
Bathing beaches
<235 colonies/1 00ml and a geometric mean of
most recent five samples <126 col/lOOml
<61 colonies/1 00ml and a geometric mean of
most recent five samples<33 col/1 00ml
NA
MADEP
Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR
4.00) and water quality guidelines
Primary contact
NA
NA
a geometric mean
<200 col/1 00ml for >5
samples
<400/1 00ml for not
more than 1 0 % of the
samples
<400 col/lOOml for <5
samples
Secondary contact
NA
NA
a geometric mean <1000
col/1 00ml for >5
samples
<2000/1 00ml for not
more than 1 0 % of the
samples
<2000 col/lOOml for <5
samples
Note: NA = not applicable
Fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria concentrations were measured during each sampling event.  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).
                                  Figure 5: 1998 - 2002 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Geometric
                                                          Means
                                     450

During dry weather,
approximately 31% of the core
monitoring fecal coliform samples
exceeded the swimming criterion1
of less than 200 colonies/100ml,
(compared to 35%, 23%, 8%,
and 17% in 2001, 2000, 1999 and
1998, respectively). During wet
weather, approximately 46% of
the core monitoring samples
exceeded the criterion1 (compared
to 44%, 63%, and 50% in 2001,
2000, and 1999, respectively).

Fecal coliform concentrations were lower near the mouth of the Basin (Mass Ave. Bridge to the New Charles
River Dam; CRBL07 - CRBL12).  This is a consistent pattern, which has occurred in the previous four years of
data.  The dry weather Core Monitoring samples collected at stations CRBL07 - CRBL12 exceeded the swimming
                                  * = Priority Resource Area
                                  Some of the geometric means were calcu ated from ess than 5 data points.
                                  MA Standards are based on at least 5 data points.
                                                                                                     14

-------
criterion1 9% of the time. Upstream, at stations CRBL02 - CRBL06 the criterion was exceeded 53% of the
time.  The area from station CRBL07- CRBL12 is the most heavily recreated parts of the River.  The area
contains the MIT Sailing Pavilion and Community Boating where much sailing, kayaking, windsurfing, and
occasional contact with the water occurs.

The 2002 dry weather fecal coliform geometric means2 were similar to those collected during previous years.  At
station CRBL02, the geometric means2 have increased over the past three years (Figure  5).

E. coli bacteria was sampled during all sampling events.  As observed with the 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). For these Core Monitoring stations, all calculated geometric means met the Department of
Public Health (DPH) Bathing Beach criterion3 and one sample collected at station CRBL12 (or 2% of the samples)
was greater than the DPH bathing beach criterion for individual samples3. At stations CRBL02 - CRBL06 the
individual sample criterion was exceeded 30% of the time and the geometric mean criterion was exceeded at two
of the five stations.

Fourteen or approximately  17% of the dry weather core monitoring samples exceeded the E. coli bathing beach
criterion for a single sample3, compared to 19% in 2001 and 35% in 1998.  The fecal coliform and E. coli
bacteria concentration from the six TMDL stations  between the Mass Ave. Bridge and the Museum of Science
showed  similar counts.  For these stations the fecal coliform geometric means ranged from 7 to 10 colonies/100
ml and the E.coli geometric means ranged from 6 to 12 colonies/100 ml.

5.3 Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Temperature

Massachusetts has established criteria for class B waters for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and turbidity
(Table 3). 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.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is required for a healthy ecosystem.  Fish  and other aquatic organisms require DO for
survival (EPA 1998). Massachusetts has established DO criterion4 for class B  waters. Two DO violations or
approximately 1% of all the field measurements (compared to 0%, 0%, 3%, and 0% in 2001, 2000, 1999, and
1998, respectively) collected during the thirteen sampling events did not meet the criterion.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) depth profile measurements were conducted at four stations downstream of the BU
Bridge (stations TMDL21, TMDL22, TMDL 25 and CRBL11). Anoxia was measured at the bottom during the
five sampling events in which DO depth profiles where conducted.  Except for one sampling event on June 13,
all DO measurements below 4.5 meters were less than the Massachusetts DO criterion 4.

The pH of an aquatic system is an important parameter in evaluating toxicity. High acidity (a low pH) can
convert insoluble metal sulfides to soluble forms, which increases the bioavailability.  A high pH can cause
ammonia toxicity  (EPA 1998).  The data from all the dry and wet weather core monitoring surface
lrThe Massachusetts fecal coliform swimming criterion 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 criterion.
2Some of the dry weather geometric means were calculated from less than five data points; the actual criterion is based
on a geometric mean of five samples or more.
3 The Massachusetts DPH E. coli Bathing Beach criterion for as single sample is less than or equal to 235 colonies/100ml.
 The  geometric mean criterion 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.
4 The Massachusetts water quality criteria for Class B water for DO is> 5 mg/1 and>60% saturation, for pH is in the
range of 6.5 through 8.3, and for temperature is<28.3C (83F).
                                                                                                    15

-------
measurements showed pH violated the criterion1 twenty times or approximately 22% of all field measurements
(compared to 18%, 20%, 8%, and 4% in 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively).  All surface violations were
greater than 8.3 and occurred at or downstream of Herter East Park. The cause of these elevated values was
unable to be determined but may be, in part, by the photosynthesis of algae and the uptake of carbon dioxide
from the water.  Depth samples often had a lower pH than the surface measurements.  All depth measurements
were greater than or equal to 6.5.

Temperature is a crucial factor in maintaining a natural system.  Changes in the temperature can alter the existing
or natural  aquatic community (EPA 1986).  Temperature also governs many biochemical and physiological
processes  in cold-blooded aquatic organisms. Increased temperature decreases the oxygen solubility in water
resulting in increased stress from oxygen-demanding waste (EPA 1998). The  highest surface water temperature
was recorded on August 20, between the Longfellow Bridge and the Museum of Science (CRBL11) at 29.2 C.
(84.6F ).  There were ten recorded temperature measurements above the  state criterion1. These measurements
occurred on August 6 and August 20,  in the area of Longfellow Bridge and the Museum of Science.

5.4 Nutrients

Nutrient analyses included measurements of total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and
TKN. Elevated phosphorus concentrations at many of the sampling stations indicated highly eutrophic
conditions.  Each station recorded the highest dry weather concentration during the June or July sampling event.
 Since Massachusetts uses narrative site-specific water quality criteria for  total phosphorus, measured
concentrations were
compared to
Connecticut's numeric
Lakes Trophic
Classifications2.  These
classifications indicated
that approximately 56 %
of the total phosphorus
dry weather Core
Monitoring samples
(compared to 75% in
2001 and 80% in 2000
and 1999) were
associated with highly
eutrophic  waters. For
lakes, ponds and
reservoirs  in the North
Eastern  Coastal Zone the
recommended criterion for total phosphorus is between 0.009 and 0.011 mg/1 (NEIWPCC, 2000).

The dry weather means from eight stations were lower than any previous years' means (Figure 6).  At the South
Natick Dam station (CRBL02), the dry weather data showed a reduction in the total phosphorus when compared
to data collected over the past four years.  Upstream point sources include wastewater treatment plants operated
Figure 6:1998-2002 Dry Weather Total Phosphorus Means
                                   Station
1 The Massachusetts water quality criteria for Class B water for DO is> 5 mg/1 and>60% saturation, for pH is in the
range of 6.5 through 8.3, and for temperature is < 28.3C (83F).
^The 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).
                                                                                                     16

-------
by: Charles River Pollution Control District, the Massachusetts Correctional Institute (MCI) in Norfolk,
Wrentham State School, and the towns of Medfield and Milford.  In the 2001 report it was noted that no direct
correlation could be made between reported loadings from the wastewater treatment plants and concentrations
measured in the River (EPA2002).
The additional TMDL sampling
that was conducted during 2002
involved collecting samples above
and below the pycnocline  at three
stations. This data revealed
elevated concentrations of total
phosphorus, ortho-phosphorous,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and
ammonia below the pycnocline
(Figure 7 and 8).  The total
phosphorus median concentration
above the pycnocline was 0.058
mg/1 and the median below the
pycnocline was 0.50 mg/1 (Figure
                                            Figure 7: Total and Ortho Phosphorus Depth Concentrations -
                                                               Median Values
                                       Surface (0.2 m)
                                  Above the Pycnocline
                                  (mean depth =4.1m)
                                  Below the Pycnocline
                                  (mean depth = 6.0m)
                                                                                  Ortho Phophorous
                                                                                D Total Phosphorus
                                                   0.00
                                                           0.10
                                                                    0.20
                                                                            0.30
                                                                           (mg/l)
                                                                                    0.40
                                                                                             0.50
                                                                                                     0.60
Many of the ortho-phosphorus
samples were reported as less
than 0.005 mg/1 (not detected),
although, as with total
phosphorus, each station recorded
the highest dry weather
concentration during the June or
July sampling event. At most
stations the highest concentrations
for ammonia, TKN, and nitrate
from the surface samples were
recorded during the June and July
sampling event.

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)1.  Seven of these AWQC's were dependent on the water
hardness. Hardness dependent AWQC 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,
                                   Figure 8: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Ammonia (NH3) Depth
                                                 Concentrations - Median Values
                                       Surface (0.2 m)
                                  Above the Pycnocline
                                   (mean depth =4.1m)
                                   Below the Pycnocline
                                   (mean depth = 6.0m)
                                                    0.0          0.5

                                    Estimated and non detects are included in these calculations
 1.0
(mg/l)
1 EPA=s Clean Water Act Section 304(a) Criteria for Priority toxic Pollutants (40 CFR Part 131.36)
                                                                                                        17

-------
the AWQC's for mercury were presented as total recoverable.  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

No measured metals exceeded the acute Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). Lead and selenium were the
only metals that exceeded the chronic AWQC.  The lead exceedances occurred only during the July 9 sampling
event at the ten most downstream stations. These ten exceedances represent 21% of all dry weather metals
samples (compared to 33%, 27%, and 8% in 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively).  No wet weather lead
exceedances were measured (compared to 0%, 25%, and 72% in 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively).  Selenium
exceeded the chronic AWQC fifteen times during dry weather and fifteen times during wet weather. All
exceedances occurred down stream of the BU Bridge. In past years, copper had exceeded the chronic AWQC
but not selenium.  There were no identified reasons for these yearly changes. The other measured priority
pollutants metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc) did not exceed the
AWQC.
                                                                                                   18

-------
TABLE 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Drv Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
STATION
Arsenic
cone.
(ug/l)
Arsenic
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
ftrsenic
ftWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Cadmium
cone.
(ug/l)
Cadmium
ftWQC
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)
.ead
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Lead
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
7/9/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBLA8
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
ND(.50)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
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(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.4
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.3
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
1.8
2.5
2.4
1.9
2.3
392
427
432
435
421
430
441
451
470
513
514
580
51
56
56
57
55
56
57
59
81
87
87
75
2.5
2.4
3.3
3.1
3.8
4.0
4.8
5.3
6.2
6.9
7.2
7.4
8.7
9.6
9.8
9.9
9.5
9.7
10.0
10.3
10.8
11.9
11.9
13.7
6.1
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.8
7.0
7.3
8.0
8.0
9.1
0.6
1.6
2.4
4.0
3.6
4.5
6.2
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.7
4.3
39.2
43.9
44.6
45.1
43.1
44.4
45.8
47.3
49.9
56.2
56.3
86.2
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.6
8/6/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBLA8
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
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(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.0
4.1
5.5
5.2
5.4
5.6
7.0
5.8
7.5
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.3
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
2.3
2.4
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.6
2.0
495
479
485
438
552
892
754
775
790
829
815
873
84
82
53
57
72
90
98
101
103
108
106
114
2.4
2.8
3.7
3.2
3.9
4.8
6.1
6.3
6.6
7.3
7.4
7.8
11.4
11.0
11.2
9.9
13.0
16.8
18.5
19.2
19.6
20.7
20.3
22.0
7.7
7.5
7.6
6.8
8.7
11.0
12.0
12.4
12.6
13.2
13.0
14.0
ND(.20)
0.3
1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
53.6
51.3
52.1
45.5
81.9
83.5
93.5
97.0
99.4
105.9
103.5
113.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.4
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.4
9/10/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBLA8
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
ND(.50)
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.4
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
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(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.7
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.7
5.2
9.4
9.7
9.6
10.5
10.3
10.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.9
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.2
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
511
499
515
539
811
754
1040
1063
1055
1128
1106
1136
86
85
87
70
80
98
135
138
137
147
144
148
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.9
5.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.1
8.8
11.9
11.5
12.0
12.6
14.6
18.5
26.8
27.5
27.3
29.5
28.8
29.7
8.0
7.8
8.1
8.4
9.6
12.0
16.8
17.2
17.0
18.3
17.9
18.4
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
0.2
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
55.9
54.1
56.5
59.9
70.9
93.5
142.2
146.4
144.9
158.0
154.1
159.5
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.8
3.6
5.5
5.7
5.6
6.2
6.0
6.2
         = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                           19

-------
TABLE 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Drv Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) - continued
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)
Lead
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Lead
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
9/26/02 Core Dry Weather Pre-storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.6
1.1
1.4
2.5
3.2
3.5
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.5
4.7
5.9
9.3
11.3
10.6
10/15/02 Core Dry Weather Pre-Storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.5
1.2
1.4
2.3
2.5
3.3
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.6
5.6
6.5
9.3
10.5
12.3
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.8
4.3
4.2

2.0
2.7
3.0
3.8
4.1
4.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2

-1.0
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
489
617
732
1026
1189
1136

501
695
779
1030
1123
1273
64
80
95
133
155
148

65
90
101
134
146
166
2.7
4.2
5.4
7.9
10.0
10.0

2.5
4.9
5.6
7.9
9.3
11.1
11.3
14.7
17.9
26.4
31.3
29.7

11.6
16.9
19.3
26.5
29.3
33.9
7.6
9.7
11.6
16.5
19.3
18.4

7.8
11.0
12.4
16.6
18.2
20.7
0.2
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)

0.2
0.3
0.2
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
52.7
71.8
90.0
139.8
169.1
159.5

54.4
84.1
97.6
140.4
157.1
184.6
2.1
2.8
3.5
5.4
6.6
6.2

2.1
3.3
3.8
5.5
6.1
7.2
          = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                                  20

-------
TABLE 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) - continued
STATION
Mercury
cone.
(ug/l)
Mercury
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Mercury
ftWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Mickel
cone.
(ug/l)
Nickel
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Mickel
ftWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Selenium
cone.
(ug/l)
Selenium
ftWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Silver
cone.
(ug/l)
Silver
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Zinc
cone.
(ug/l)
Zinc
ftWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Zinc
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
7/9/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBLA8
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.005
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
318
347
352
355
343
350
359
368
384
421
421
477
35
39
39
39
38
39
40
41
43
47
47
53
8/6/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01
CRBL02
CRBL03
CRBL04
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBLA8
CRBL09
CRBL10
CRBL11
CRBL12
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
9/10/02 Core Dry Weather Sampling
CRBL01 [
CRBL02 [
CRBL03 [
CRBL04 [
CRBL05 [
CRBL06 [
CRBL07 [
CRBLA8 [
CRBL09 [
CRBL10 [
CRBL11 [
CRBL12 [
JD(.001)
JD(.001)
J.003
J.004
J.002
J.004
J.002
J.002
J.002
J.002
J.002
J.002
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.5

2.5
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
405
391
397
357
453
572
625
644
656
690
677
727

419
408
422
442
503
625
871
892
885
948
929
955
45
43
44
40
50
64
69
71
73
77
75
81

46
45
47
49
56
69
97
99
98
105
103
106
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
1.4
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.9
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00

ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
1.6
3.5
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.9

ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
1.9
3.7
6.9
7.4
8.0
8.9
8.7
9.4
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.8
2.8
3.6

ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)

ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.0
3.2
5.2
6.2
6.6
6.8
7.6
7.3
8.4

2.7
2.6
2.8
3.1
4.0
6.2
12.2
12.8
12.6
14.5
13.9
14.7
5.1
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
5.5
5.9
7.2
6.3
7.5
7.6
80
87
88
89
86
88
90
92
96
105
105
119
80
88
89
89
86
88
91
93
97
106
106
120

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)

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)
101
98
99
89
113
143
157
161
164
173
170
182

105
102
106
111
126
157
218
223
222
238
233
239
102
99
100
90
114
144
158
162
166
174
171
184

106
103
106
111
127
158
220
225
223
239
235
241
         = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                         21

-------
TABLE 5: Priority Pollutant Metals Dry Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) continued
STATION
Mercury
cone.
(ug/l)
Mercury
AWQC
ftcute
(ug/l)
Mercury
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Nickel
cone.
(ug/l)
Mickel
ftWQC
ftcute
(ug/l)
Mickel
ftWQC
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
ftWQC
ftcute
(ug/l)
Zinc
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
9/26/02 Core Dry Weather Pre-storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.001
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.2
400
508
807
860
1001
955
44
56
87
95
111
106
ND(1.0)
1.8
3.1
7.1
10.0
11.0
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.5
4.1
5.8
11.9
16.2
14.7
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
100
127
152
215
251
239
101
128
153
217
253
241
10/15/02 Core Dry Weather Pre-Storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.004
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
410
575
847
863
944
1075
46
84
72
96
105
119
ND(1.0)
2.8
3.7
8.9
8.1
10.5
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.6
5.2
6.7
12.0
14.3
18.7
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
103
144
162
216
236
269
103
145
163
218
238
271
         = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                         22

-------
Table 6: Priority
STATION
Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC)
Arsenic
cone.
(ug/l]
Arseni
c
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]
Leac
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l
9/15/02 Core Wet Weather First Flush
Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0
7
1.4
1
2
2
8
7
g
3.3
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
4.0
6.3
7.4
11.1
11.5
12.6
2.1
2.9
3.3
4.3
4.4
4.7
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.5
543
766
867
1172
1209
1294
71
100
113
152
157
168
2.8
4.4
5.0
7.5
8.8
9.7
12.7
18.9
21.8
30.8
31.9
34.5
8.5
12.2
13.9
19.0
19.6
21.1
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
60.5
95.4
112.3
166.0
172.7
188.5
2.4
3.7
4.4
6.5
6.7
7.3
9/27/02 Core Wet Weather First Flush
Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.7
1.1
1.2
2.7
2.9
3.2
10/16/02 Core Wet
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0
0
1
2
2
3
10/1 6/02 Core Wet
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0
0
1
2
3
3
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.6
4.7
4.7
10.0
10.3
11.5
2.0
2.4
2.4
4.0
4.1
4.4
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
505
617
617
1086
1113
1205
66
80
80
141
145
157
3.2
4.6
4.8
9.2
10.0
12.0
11.7
14.7
14.7
28.2
29.0
31.8
7.9
9.7
9.7
17.6
18.0
19.6
0.2
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
55.0
71.8
71.8
150.5
155.3
172.1
2.1
2.8
2.8
5.9
6.1
6.7
Weather First Flush Sampling
5
9
4
4
9
2
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.8
4.6
6.0
9.8
11.9
12.6
2.1
2.3
2.8
3.9
4.5
4.7
1.5
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.2
518
600
742
1066
1235
1293
67
78
96
139
161
168
3.0
4.6
5.7
9.0
11.5
12.8
12.1
14.3
18.2
27.6
32.7
34.5
8.1
9.5
11.8
17.2
20.1
21.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
57.0
69.2
91.5
146.9
177.6
188.3
2.2
2.7
3.6
5.7
6.9
7.3
Weather Peak Flow Sampling
7
8
1
5
0
0
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.0
4.2
4.8
9.7
11.6
11.9
1.8
2.2
2.4
3.9
4.4
4.5
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.6
436
560
619
1063
1218
1241
57
73
81
138
158
161
5.2
5.0
5.7
8.6
11.5
12.0
9.9
13.2
14.8
27.5
32.2
32.9
6.8
8.8
9.8
17.2
19.8
20.2
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
45.2
63.1
72.1
146.4
174.5
178.7
1.8
2.5
2.8
5.7
6.8
7.0
10/18/02 Wet Weather, Post-Storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
D.6
D.7
1.1
.9
1.4
1.9
340
340
340
340
340
340
150
150
150
150
150
150
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.5
3.9
5.0
7.4
9.8
11.5
1.9
2.1
2.5
3.3
3.9
4.4
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
487
536
639
867
1066
1209
63
70
83
113
139
157
3.6
5.3
5.9
7.4
9.2
13.1
11.2
12.5
15.3
21.8
27.6
31.9
7.6
8.4
10.1
13.9
17.2
19.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
ND(.20)
0.2
52.4
59.5
75.1
112.4
146.9
172.7
2.0
2.3
2.9
4.4
5.7
5.7
        = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                                   23

-------
Table 6: Priority Pollutant Metals Wet Weather Concentrations and the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) - continued
STATION
Mercury
cone.
(ug/l)
Mercury
AWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Mercury
AWQC
Chronic
(ug/l)
Mickel
cone.
(ug/l)
Mickel
ftWQC
Acute
(ug/l)
Mickel
ftWQC
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)
9/15/02 Core Wet Weather First Flush Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.001
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.4
445
835
723
986
1018
1093
49
71
80
110
113
121
ND(1.0)
3.5
4.8
9.3
9.7
11.6
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
3.1
6.4
8.3
15.7
16.7
19.3
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
111
159
181
247
255
274
112
160
182
249
257
276
9/27/02 Core Wet Weather First Flush Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.001
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.006
0.003
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.3
414
508
508
912
935
1015
46
56
56
101
104
113
ND(1.0)
1.8
2.1
8.1
9.1
9.7
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.7
4.1
4.1
13.4
14.1
16.6
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
103
127
127
228
234
254
104
128
128
230
236
256
10/16/02 Core Wet Weather First Flush Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.002
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.004
0.003
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4
425
494
815
895
1041
1092
47
55
88
99
116
121
ND(1.0)
1.5
3.2
7.5
9.3
10.2
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.8
3.8
6.0
12.9
17.5
19.3
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
106
124
154
224
261
274
107
125
155
226
263
276
10/16/02 Core Wet Weather Peak Flow Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.007
0.010
0.017
0.011
0.005
0.004
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.5
356
460
510
892
1027
1046
39
51
57
99
114
116
ND(1.0)
1.1
2.0
7.6
9.0
10.0
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.0
3.3
4.1
12.8
17.0
17.7
8.7
ND(5.0)
8.2
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
89
115
128
223
257
262
90
116
129
225
259
264
10/18/02 Wet Weather, Post-Storm Sampling
CRBL02
CRBL05
CRBL06
CRBL07
CRBL09
CRBL11
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.003
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
0.770
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
398
440
527
723
894
1018
44
49
59
80
99
113
ND(1.0)
ND(1.0)
2.2
5.3
7.4
9.5
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
ND(.20)
2.5
3.0
4.4
8.3
12.9
16.7
ND(5.0)
5.4
ND(5.0)
5.2
ND(5.0)
ND(5.0)
100
110
132
181
224
255
100
111
133
182
226
257
         = meets or exceeds the chronic criterion
ND=not detected above the associated detection limit.
                                                                                                                                    24

-------
5.6 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 and in the addendum dated June 10, 2002.

Instruments used in the field to measure temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, salinity, turbidity, and
transmissivity were calibrated prior to sampling and checked after use. 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.  Duplicate field
measurements (temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, salinity, and turbidity) were measured during three
sampling events. All the measured duplicate values recorded a relative percent difference of 12 or less.  The
Project Work/QA Plan did not specify goals for these parameters.

 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 thirteen sampling events to evaluate
sampling and analytical precision.  During TMDL and dry weather Core Monitoring Program sampling events
each of the two teams collected duplicate samples.  Twenty-three of the  193  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. The data not meeting the
criteria are described below. Fifteen of the duplicate samples were for fecal  coliform and E.  coli, which can
have large variation in the environment.  All these duplicate counts were within the same magnitude  as the
collected sample. The use of this data was not limited for this project.  Four of the duplicate samples not meeting
the established criteria were for nitrate.  For the purpose of this report the data use was not limited since the
laboratory quality control data were well with in laboratory quality control limits. Two of the duplicate samples
were for Chlorophyll a. Since there were limited laboratory quality control data for these data the associated data
for these duplicated samples were reported  as estimated and were identified with a  swung dash (~)  preceding the
value.  There was one field duplicate samples that was above the 35 relative percent difference for Ammonia.
The ammonia laboratory duplicate data was elevated, therefore the data associated with this field duplicate were
reported as estimated and were  identified with a swung dash (~) preceding the value.

Nine of 220 duplicate samples for the dissolved metals and total mercury analyzed during the ten sampling events
did not meet the precision quality control goal of less than 35 relative percent difference. These eight duplicate
samples occurred during four different sampling events for cobalt and during two sampling events for chromium
and one of the sampling events for antimony, manganese, and mercury.  With the exception of one  chromium
sample all the laboratory quality control samples for these data  were within the laboratory quality control  limits.
The chromium data associated with this duplicated result were reported as estimated values since the laboratory
duplicate data were out of the quality control range. The project use of the other metals data where the field
duplicate did not meet the goal was not limited for this project.

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.  An equipment blank was used to
evaluate contamination from the above parameters and from the Teflon chlorophyll  a core and the Van Dorn
depth sampler.  A filter blank was used to evaluate contamination to the dissolved metal samples from the filter,
sampling equipment, sample container, sample preservation, sampling method, and/or transportation to the
laboratory.

Sample results were evaluated using the results of the associated blank for that sampling day.  If the blank result

                                                                                                       25

-------
was reported as "ND" (non detect) the use of the data was not limit it any way.  If a sample result was less than
or equal to five times the associated positive blank value, the sample result was denoted by "ND" following the
sample result.  For the purpose of this report these data were evaluated as estimated values. True color,
Chlorophyll a^ TKN, copper and manganese were the only parameters where this occurred. No filter blank was
collected on the November 16 sampling event.  The data for this sampling event were evaluated using the highest
blank value that was reported during all other sampling events.  The Appendix contains all the validated data for
this report

6.0 2003 STUDY DESIGN

In 2003, the Core Monitoring Program will continue unchanged.  Although, the additional monitoring conducted
during 2002 to support development of a eutrophication TMDL will be discontinued.  Targeted pipe monitoring
will continue in 2003 at identified hot spots in the Basin for fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria. Future monitoring
may change as different data needs arise.
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

New England Water Pollution Control Commission and ENSR International.  2000. Collection and Evaluation of
Ambient Nutrient Data for Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs in New England - Data Synthesis Report. Final Report.
 June 2000.

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
                                                                                                    26

-------
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.  2002. Clean Charles 2005 Water Quality Report, 2001 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
                                                                                                   27

-------