Charles River Monthly Monitoring Program 2009 Year End Report. Submitted by:

Transcription

1 Charles River Monthly Monitoring Program 2009 Year End Report Submitted by: 190 Park Road Weston, Massachusetts Spring 2010

2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Water Quality Results Core Project Monitoring... 8 E. coli Bacteria... 8 Enterococcus Bacteria Phosphorus Nitrogen Chlorophyll a Temperature Supplemental Project Monitoring Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Quality Control Conclusion References Appendix of Water Quality Tables List of Tables Table 1: Charles River Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Locations... 6 Table 2: Summary of 2009 Sampling Events... 7 Table 3: Water Quality Action Limits...8 Table 4: Summary of Charles River 2009 E. coli Results Table 5: Percentage of Time the Lower Charles Basin Met Bacteria Standards ( ) List of Figures Figure 1: New basket sampling device developed for the Volunteer Monitoring Program Figure 2: Charles River Watershed Monthly Volunteer Monitoring Sampling Locations... 5 Figure 3: Geometric mean E. coli Concentrations by Site for Figure 4: Percentage of Time River Met Swimming Standard in Wet and Dry Weather Figure 5: Percentage of Time Lower Charles River Basin E. coli concentration Met Standard.. 14 Figure 6: Geometric mean Enterococcus Concentrations by Site for Figure 7: Mean Charles River Phosphorus Concentrations by Site Figure 8: Mean Charles River Nitrogen Concentrations by Site Figure 9: Mean Charles River Chlorophyll a Concentrations by Site Figure 10: Mean Charles River Spring and Summer Phosphorus Concentrations by Site

3 1.0 Introduction The Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) is dedicated to protecting the health, beauty, and accessibility of the Charles River. Through rigorous application of science, law, and advocacy, CRWA is able to protect and preserve this ecologically and economically vital urban river. Understanding the many hydrological, biological, and chemical interactions throughout the watershed requires a comprehensive system of monitoring and reporting. A keystone to understanding such interactions is CRWA s Volunteer Monthly Monitoring Program, which involves the collection of monthly water quality samples throughout the watershed. Collecting this data, which is incredibly time and resource intensive, would not be possible without a corps of committed volunteers that collects samples and makes in-stream measurements and observations throughout the watershed on a monthly basis. Water quality scientists at CRWA compile these sample results into an annual water quality report that aids in identifying problem areas and tracking trends in water quality over time. CRWA and its volunteers are dedicated to providing environmentally sound information to guide restoration and management work throughout the watershed. The Charles River Monthly Volunteer Monitoring Program involves river monitoring at 35 sampling sites spanning the entire 80-mile stretch of the Charles River, and two sites located on tributaries: Stop River in Medfield and the Muddy River in Boston (Figure 2 and Table 1). A network of over 70 trained volunteers and CRWA staff collect samples and measure temperature and depth at 6:00 a.m. on the second or third Tuesday of every month. Since the program s inception in 1995, volunteer sample collection has been done using sterilized buckets to collect water from bridges; river water was then transferred into laboratory bottles. The use of buckets as intermediaries, however, introduced a potential source of bacterial contamination which could result in sampling errors. CRWA had to regularly check this potential source of error through the collection of equipment blanks. In an effort to eliminate this possible source of sample contamination, in June 2009, CRWA changed the method of sample collection to ensure more accurate data. CRWA introduced a new sampling device to the Volunteer Monthly Monitoring Program which allows laboratory sample bottles to be filled directly from the river. The simple yet efficient baskets use a stainless steel shower basket, weighted at the bottom, with two cable cuffs on top to secure sampling bottles inside. The sampling basket is weighed down to allow empty sample bottles to be submerged more readily. Therefore, in the absence of an intermediary container, water samples are now more reliable and easier to collect. Figure 1 shows the new sampling apparatus. The updated sampling method was also incorporated into CRWA s approved quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Once collected, water samples are analyzed for E. coli bacteria concentrations on a monthly basis at all sites, while various nutrient parameters, such as chlorophyll a and different chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, are monitored on a quarterly basis (March, June, September and December) at 12 sites. When funding is available, CRWA adds additional parameters such as total suspended solids (TSS) or collects and analyzes samples for nutrient parameters during additional months or from additional sites. The data provided have been widely used by regulators, municipalities and academics in tracking pollution and assessing the river s health in an effort to move towards the US Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) goal of a fishable and swimmable Charles River. Table 2 summarizes the parameters which were sampled in

4 Figure 1: New, more effective, basket sampling device developed for the Charles River Volunteer Monitoring Program. 4

5 Figure 2: Charles River Watershed Monthly Volunteer Monitoring Program Sampling Locations 5

6 Table 1: Charles River Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Locations Site # Description Town 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford 35CD Discharge Pipe at Central Street Milford 35C2 Discharge Pipe at Central Street on left side looking upstream Milford 59CS Mellen Street Bridge Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale 90CS Route 126, North Main Street Bellingham 130S Maple Street Bridge Bellingham 165S Shaw Street Bridge Medway/Franklin 199S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk 229S Route 115, Baltimore Street Millis 267S Dwight Street Bridge Millis/Medfield 269T Stop River at Causeway Street Medfield 290S West Street/Dove Road Medfield/Millis 318S Route 27 Bridge Medfield/Sherborn 343S Farm Road/Bridge Street Sherborn/Dover 387S Elm Bank/Cheney Drive Bridge Wellesley/Dover 400S Charles River Road Bridge Dover/Needham 447S Dover Gage, Millis Street Dover/Needham 484S Dedham Medical Center Dedham/Needham 521S Ames Street Bridge Dedham 534S Route 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston 567S Nahanton Park Newton/Needham 591S Route 9 Gaging Station Newton/Wellesley 609S Washington Street Bridge Newton/Wellesley 621S Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Road Newton/Weston 635S 2391 Commonwealth Avenue Newton 648S Auburndale Park, Lakes Region Waltham 662S Moody Street Bridge Waltham 675S North Street Bridge Waltham/Watertown/Newton 012S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown 700S North Beacon Street Bridge Watertown/Brighton 715S Arsenal Street Bridge Watertown/Brighton 729S Elliot Street Bridge Cambridge/Boston/Allston 743S Western Avenue Bridge Cambridge/Boston/Allston 760T Muddy River at Commonwealth Avenue Boston 763S Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge Boston/Cambridge 773S Longfellow Bridge Cambridge 784S New Charles River Dam Boston 6

7 2.0 Water Quality Results Monitoring was conducted during all twelve months of Table 2 summarizes sampling dates, weather conditions, and sampling parameters for the twelve sampling months. Temperature and depth are also measured at each site on a monthly basis. Sampling events are considered wet weather events when more than 0.1 inches of rain falls at the rain gauge located at Logan Airport in the 3 days preceding the sampling event. Conversely, sampling events are considered dry weather events when less than 0.1 inches of rain falls in the preceding 3 days. Table 2: Summary of 2009 Sampling Events Sampling Date Wet or Dry Parameters Analyzed 1/13/2009 Wet (5.6 of snow in preceding 3 days) E. coli 2/10/2009 Dry (no rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli 3/10/2009 4/14/2009 5/19/2009 6/16/2009 7/21/2009 8/18/2009 9/15/ /20/ /17/ /15/2009 Wet (0.56 of rain and 2.2 of snow in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Enterococcus*, Nitrate-Nitrite*, Orthophosphate*, Ammonia*, Total Phosphorus*, Total Nitrogen*, Chlorophyll a*, TSS Wet (0.49 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, TSS Wet (0.14 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, TSS Wet (0.20 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Enterococcus*, Nitrate-Nitrite*, Orthophosphate*, Ammonia*, Total Phosphorus*, Total Nitrogen*, Chlorophyll a* Wet (0.24 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Total Phosphorus Dry (no rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Total Phosphorus Wet (2.11 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Enterococcus*, Nitrate-Nitrite*, Orthophosphate*, Ammonia*, Total Phosphorus*, Total Nitrogen*, Chlorophyll a* Wet (0.93 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli Wet (1.58 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli Wet (0.73 of rain in preceding 3 days) E. coli, Enterococcus*, Nitrate-Nitrite*, Orthophosphate*, Ammonia*, Total Phosphorus*, Total Nitrogen*, Chlorophyll a* *Only at CRWA s twelve nutrient sites: 35CS, 90CS, 199S, 290S, 387S, 534S, 609S, 662S, 012S, 743S, 763S, 784S 7

8 Table 3 shows the action limits for all parameters analyzed by CRWA. An action limit is a numerical value for a given parameter that alerts CRWA of impaired water quality. In most cases, the action limits are based on a regulatory threshold such as the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards for Class B Waterways established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and nutrient criteria recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (MassDEP 2007, US EPA 2000). Table 3: Water Quality Action Limits Parameter Action Limit Source E. coli (bacteria) 126 cfu/100 ml (primary contact) Massachusetts Surface Water 630 cfu/100 ml (secondary contact) Quality Standards Temperature Should not exceed 28.3 C for Charles River 33 cfu/100ml (In freshwater, during bathing Massachusetts Department of Enterococci season) Public Health (MDPH) Total Phosphorus mg/l (as P) Orthophosphate mg/l (as P) U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria Ammonia 0.3 mg/l Recommendations for Rivers Nitrate/Nitrite 0.31 mg/l (as N) and Streams in Nutrient Total Nitrogen 0.57 mg/l Ecoregion XIV Chlorophyll a mg/l Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/l CRWA Historic Data Analysis 2.1 Core Project Monitoring CRWA s core monitoring program involves monthly collection of samples at every site which are analyzed for E. coli bacteria and quarterly (March, June, September and December) collection of samples at 12 sites which are analyzed for Enterococcus and nutrient parameters including chlorophyll a and different chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. All samples are analyzed at the MWRA s Central Laboratory. This monitoring plan has been in place since 2004 and is consistent from year to year. These results are discussed below. E. coli Bacteria The strain of E. coli bacteria cultured for water quality analysis is not directly implicated in causing adverse health effects, but its occurrence indicates the likely presence of other harmful bacteria and viruses. E. coli is present in the digestive tracts of warm-blooded mammals and the presence of these bacteria in the river can indicate the presence of human sewage which contains a number of disease causing pathogens. E. coli levels are compared to the State Surface Water Quality Standards for primary (swimming) and secondary (boating) contact recreation. In 8

9 January 2007, Mass DEP revised and approved the changes to the state standards which included changing the indicator bacteria from fecal coliform to E. coli. These standards are used to determine when the river is safe for people to use it. In 2009, a total of 372 E. coli samples were collected; of these samples, 53.49% met, or fell below, the state swimming standard of 126 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters of water (ml), and 92.74% met the state boating standard (630 cfu/100ml of water) (Water quality standards are listed in Table 3 above). The February and August events were dry weather monitoring events; every other event was a wet weather event (see Table 2). During dry weather, 54.55% and 94.55% of samples met the state swimming and boating standards, respectively. During wet weather, 53.31% of samples met the state swimming standard, while 92.43% of samples met the state boating standards. Figure 3 shows the average E. coli concentrations at each sampling location for In the Lower Charles River Basin, the area of the river stretching from Watertown Dam (site 012S) to the New Charles River Dam (site 784S) that is used heavily for recreational purposes, 32.94% of all the samples were within the state swimming standard and 89.41% were within the boating standard. During the ten wet weather events, 30.14% and 87.67% of samples collected in the Basin fell within swimming and boating standards, respectively. During the two dry weather events, 50% of samples met the swimming standard and 100% met the boating standard. Figure 5 shows the percentage of time that the Lower Charles River Basin met the state standards for both swimming and boating. During this year s Earth Day Cleanup Event, EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spaulding announced this year s environmental report card grade of B+ for the Lower Charles River Basin. This grade highlights the progress made by the Clean Charles Initiative, an intensive program where government and local groups such as CRWA have worked to successfully reduce bacteria and nutrient levels in the Charles. The Charles River has improved dramatically since it was awarded a grade of D when the Charles River Initiative was launched in The goal of a healthy Charles River that supports all types of recreation is ever increasingly closer to reality. All E. coli samples were analyzed at MWRA s Central Laboratory. Raw data and statistical analysis can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables included at the end of the report. 9

10 Table 4: Summary of Charles River 2009 E. coli Results Description 1/13/2009 2/10/2009 3/10/2009 4/14/2009 5/19/2009 6/16/2009 7/21/2009 8/18/2009 9/15/ /20/ /17/ /15/2009 Total # Samples Met Swimming Standard # Samples Met Boating Standard # Sites Sampled % Met Swimming Standard 80.95% 40.91% 75.86% 82.86% 71.88% 44.12% 62.86% 63.64% 55.88% 39.39% 6.06% 22.58% 53.49% %Met Boating Standard 90.48% 90.91% 96.55% % 90.63% 94.12% 94.29% 96.97% % 78.79% 87.88% 90.32% 92.74% Rainfall at Logan International Airport (inches) WET DRY WET WET WET WET WET DRY WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 2 Days Prior to Sampling 1 Day Prior to Sampling Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Day of Sampling Trace

11 760T 763S 773S 784S 700S 715S 729S 743S Figure 3: Geometric mean E. coli Concentrations by Site for 2009 Geometric Mean of E. coli Concentrations by Site for State Boating Standard 630 cfu/100ml State Swimming Standard 126 cfu/100 ml E. Coli Concentration (cfu/1000ml) 0 35CS 59CS 90CS 130S 165S 199S 229S 267S 269T 290S 318S 343S 387S 400S 447S 484S 521S 534S 567S 591S 609S 621S 635S 648S 662S 675S 012S River Flow Site 11

12 Table 5: Percentage of Time the Lower Charles Basin Met Bacteria Standards ( ) Year Overall Dry Weather Wet Weather Swimming Boating Swimming Boating Swimming Boating River Grade D C C C B B B (a) B- 2003(b) B (c) B B B B B B+ (a) Only one dry weather event (rainfall less than 0.1 inches in previous 72 hours) occurred in Rainfall data collected at Logan Airport in Boston. (b) In 2003, monthly water quality monitoring was conducted seven out of twelve months; of which, only two monthly monitoring events occurred during wet weather, which may have skewed the percentages of the time the river met the swimming and boating standards. (c) Statistics from 1995 to 2003 based on CRWA monthly fecal coliform testing at in Lower Charles River Basin. Since 2004, samples were analyzed for E. coli bacteria instead of fecal coliform bacteria and these results were compared to the state surface water quality standards for primary and secondary contact recreation. 12

13 Figure 4: Percentage of Time River Met Swimming Standard in Wet and Dry Weather ( ) 13

14 Figure 5: Percentage of Time Lower Charles River Basin E. coli concentration Met Bacteria Standards ( ) 14

15 Enterococcus Bacteria Enterococcus is a type of bacteria that is also used as an indicator parameter in environmental sampling. Like E. coli, the presence of enterococci in water is an indication of sewage pollution and/or feces of warm blooded mammals and birds. According to Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MassDPH), no single freshwater enterococci sample shall exceed 61 colonies per 100 ml and the geometric mean of the most recent five enterococci samples within the same bathing season shall not exceed 33 colonies per 100mL. During 2009 samples were collected at 12 different sampling locations in the months of March, June, September and December and analyzed for enterococcus. These were all wet weather events. A total of 43 samples were collected; 53.5% of the samples were below the standard of 33 colonies per 100 ml. Figure 6 shows the geometric mean of enterococci concentrations for 2009 by sampling site. The geometric mean at 8 out of 12 sites exceeded the state swimming standard. All E. coli samples were analyzed at MWRA s Central Laboratory. Raw data and statistical analysis can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables included at the end of the report. 15

16 Figure 6: Geometric mean Enterococcus Concentrations by Site for 2009 Geometric Mean of 2009 Enterococcus Samples by Site Enterococcus Standard: 33 cfu/100ml CS 90CS 199S 290S 387S 534S 609S 662S 012S 743S 763S 784S 16

17 Phosphorus Phosphorus is a natural part of any aquatic system and an essential component of primary production or photosynthesis. In freshwater systems like the Charles River, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient, meaning that the growth of aquatic plants, including algae, is limited by the supply of phosphorus, which is naturally relatively low. Phosphorus naturally enters rivers and other water bodies through erosion of rocks and soils and decomposition of organic matter. Today, human activities add excess phosphorus to the Charles River, and even minor increases in the phosphorus concentration of the river can cause eutrophication, the overgrowth of vegetation. The primary sources of phosphorus to the Charles River are stormwater runoff, discharges from wastewater treatment plants, and combined sewer overflows. Of these, stormwater is by far the largest contributor. Phosphorus is found in fertilizers, detergents, loose sediment, automobile exhaust, and animal waste. Phosphorus from these and other sources is carried into the river by stormwater runoff every time it rains. Due to common human activities and its natural abundance, phosphorus is ubiquitous in the environment. Algal blooms are a potential result of the overloading of phosphorus to a river system such as the Charles. Algal blooms can have severe impacts on the ecological environment including depleting oxygen concentrations in the water column suffocating (oxygen dependent) organisms such as fish. Additionally, blooms of toxin-producing organisms, such as cyanobacteria, can have adverse impacts on humans and other mammals that come in contact with the water. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic bacteria that produce toxins, which are harmful to humans and pets at large doses. Many stretches of the Charles River are listed as impaired for nutrients in the Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters, which identifies water bodies that do not meet surface water quality standards (MassDEP, 2008). The Monthly Volunteer Monitoring Program includes analyses of total phosphorus and orthophosphate (the amount of soluble phosphorus in the water which is immediately available for use by photosynthetic organisms). In 2009, 43 total phosphorus samples were collected as part of the core monitoring project, of which 97.67% exceeded the EPA recommended criterion of milligrams per liter (mg/l) (US EPA, 2000). Of the 43 orthophosphate samples, only 48.83% exceeded the EPA s recommended criterion for orthophosphate ( mg/l). Figure 7 displays mean total phosphorus and orthophosphate results for 2009 by site. Raw data and statistical analysis for total phosphorus and orthophosphate can be found in the Appendix. 17

18 Figure 7: Mean Charles River Phosphorus Concentrations by Site EPA recommended Criteria for Total Phosphorus and Orthophosphate: mg/l Phosphorus Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/l) CS 90CS 199S 290S 387S 534S 609S 662S 012S 743S 763S 784S Site 18

19 Nitrogen CRWA tests the river for ammonia, nitrate-nitrite and total nitrogen. These forms of nitrogen originate from atmospheric deposition of automobile exhaust and power plant emissions, wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, illicit sewer pipe cross connections, leaking sewer pipes, animal waste, and fertilizers. Ammonia is commonly found in untreated sewage and can be used to identify illicit connections of sewage to stormwater drainage systems. Bacteria convert ammonia to nitrite, through a process called nitrification. Nitrite is quickly converted to nitrate, the form of nitrogen that is most readily available to algae and other aquatic plants. Total nitrogen is the sum of all organic and inorganic nitrogen forms. In 2009, 43 samples were collected and analyzed for ammonia. No sample exceeded the EPA s recommended criterion of 0.30 mg/l (US EPA, 2000). Of the 43 nitrate-nitrite samples, however, 95.3% exceeded the criterion of 0.31 mg/l. Of the 43 total nitrogen samples, all but one (or 97.7%) exceeded the EPA s recommended criterion of 0.57 mg/l for total nitrogen. Figure 8 displays mean ammonia, nitrate-nitrite and total nitrogen results for 2009 by site. Nitrogen parameter results are from samples analyzed at MWRA s Central Laboratory. Complete results for ammonia, nitrate-nitrite and total nitrogen can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables at the end of this report. Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a is the principle photosynthetic pigment in algae and vascular plants. It is an indicator of the presence and concentration of algae in the water column. An abundance of algae can lead to oxygen depleted, or anoxic, conditions as the algae inhibit oxygen exchange with the air and the abundant, decaying organic matter depletes oxygen from the water as it decomposes. These conditions are detrimental to fish and other aquatic fauna that are dependent on oxygen availability for their survival. Algae can also block sunlight penetration into the water, clouding out submerged aquatic vegetation. Of the 43 chlorophyll a samples, 19 (or 44.2%) exceeded the EPA recommended criterion of mg/l (US EPA, 2000). All of the exceedences were observed in the spring, summer and fall (March, June and September), none were observed in December. This is in-line with the typical algae growth pattern which usually consists of blooms in the warmer periods and little to no activity in cold weather. The levels of chlorophyll a being observed in certain summer-time samples indicated that an excessive amount of algae was growing in the Charles. Although we would expect to see high chlorophyll a concentrations in June, some of the concentrations observed were indicative of eutrophication. Figure 9 displays chlorophyll a results for 2009 by site. Chlorophyll a results are from samples analyzed at MWRA s Central Laboratory. Chlorophyll a values are corrected for phaeophytin. Complete results for chlorophyll a can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables at the end of this report. 19

20 Figure 8: Mean Charles River Nitrogen Concentrations by Site

21 Figure 9: Mean Charles River Chlorophyll a Concentrations by Site

22 Temperature Water temperature is an important factor affecting the natural habitat of an aquatic system. Temperature has an important role in many of the biological and chemical processes which take place in the river. As a Class B Warm Water Fishery, Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards state that temperatures in the Charles River should not exceed 28.3 C. Temperature violations are often the result of river water being used as a coolant in various industrial practices, such as electricity production. There are multiple industrial plants located along the Charles that use river water for this purpose. In 2009, one violation of this limit was reported at site 784S, the New Charles River dam in August Supplemental Project Monitoring When funding is available, CRWA adds additional parameters such as total suspended solids (TSS) or collects and analyzes samples for nutrient parameters during additional months or from more sites than are possible through our core monitoring program. In 2009, samples were collected and analyzed for TSS at all 35 sites in March, April and May. Samples were collected and analyzed for total phosphorus at all sites in July, August and September (Table 2). Finally, samples were collected and analyzed at selected sites for chlorophyll a in March, June, September and December. Results from total phosphorus and chlorophyll a samples collected in our supplemental project monitoring program are not compared directly to results generated through our core monitoring program because samples are analyzed at different laboratories. All samples collected under our supplemental project monitoring were analyzed at Alpha Analytical Laboratory. Results from multiple laboratories should not be directly compared because of small differences in sample handing and analysis between different laboratories. Total Phosphorus As part of the supplemental monitoring program data was gathered on total phosphorus levels for the entire stretch of the river for the months of July, August and September when aquatic plants thrive in the Charles. Out of the 99 samples collected in 2009, 98% were above CRWA s action limit of mg/l. Complete results for total phosphorus collected as part of our 2009 supplemental monitoring plan can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables at the end of this report. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Beginning in late winter and continuing through the spring, stormwater runoff is laden with sand, minerals, and other types of materials used to de-ice our roadways and parking lots in the winter. Dirt and sand can also be carried off of construction sites, playing fields and eroding river banks. This influx of particles can have adverse effects on the river, making the water cloudy or murky, inhibiting sunlight from reaching the aquatic vegetation that needs it. Excessive amounts of sediment also cause rivers and streams to fill in, forming islands or extending banks. CRWA 22

23 collects samples which are analyzed for total suspended solids to determine areas where high levels of sand or silt are washing off into the river and tributaries. A total of ninety-four samples were collected and analyzed for TSS at all sites in March, April and May. Three samples, or 3.1%, exceeded CRWA s action limit for TSS of 30 mg/l. The highest TSS value observed occurred at site 35CS during the April sampling event, the TSS concentration was 76 mg/l. Complete TSS results can be found in the Appendix of Water Quality Tables at the end of the report. 3.0 Quality Control Field duplicates and equipment blanks were analyzed to test and ensure quality assurance of the sample collection process as well as any contamination that could occur from the sampling equipments. A field duplicate is a second sample of river water collected by the sampling team immediately following the original sample. Field duplicates measure repeatability/precision of the sampling process. Equipment blanks are samples of distilled water rinsed on the inside of the sampling bucket and then poured into sampling bottles and analyzed in the same manner as the river samples. Equipment blanks test accuracy/contamination or bias from the sampling bucket. With the switch from a sampling bucket to the sampling basket device, equipment blank analysis is no longer necessary. In 2009, 96 field duplicates were collected at 24 of the 35 sampling locations and 18 equipment blanks were collected at 6 sampling sites. The results of the field duplicates and equipment blanks were compared with the performance criteria described in CRWA s Water Quality and Flow Monitoring QAPP. Most of the field duplicates for the sampling year 2009 were within the acceptance criteria, only 5 field duplicates (5.3%) failed to meet CRWA s data quality objective. These were samples of chlorophyll a, orthophosphate, phaeophytin, and total suspended solids. All bacteria samples met CRWA s data quality objectives. Additionally, only 2 equipment blanks (11.1%) failed to meet data quality objectives, these were blanks analyzed for nitrate-nitrite and orthophosphate. 4.0 Conclusion CRWA s monitoring program has provided data to determine the water quality and understand the health of the Charles River and its tributaries. The Lower Charles River Basin achieved a B+ for water quality in The river s report card grade is determined by the EPA and is based primarily upon CRWA s monthly monitoring data. EPA s Clean Charles River Initiative has significantly improved the water quality of the river over the past years. The river is found to be meeting secondary contact standards most of the time. But, a review of the 2009 data has shown that the Charles River has met the standard swimming criteria for enteric bacteria (E.coli and Enterococcus) less than 54% of the time during The results of total phosphorous, nitritenitrate and total nitrogen has confirmed that the river suffers from high levels of nutrient contamination. Over the course of this fifteen-year monitoring program, CRWA staff and volunteers have remained committed with their continued effort which has helped to identify the most problematic areas in the river and guided where remediation and management efforts should be focused in the watershed. CRWA looks forward to continuing this project for another 15 years and beyond. 23

24 Figure 10: Mean Charles River Spring and Summer Phosphorus Concentrations by Site (samples collected July September 2009) 24

25 5.0 References MA Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control, Technical Services Branch. Westborough, MA (314 CMR 4.00). MA Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters Proposed listing of the condition of MA waters pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) Clean Water Act. MassDEP, Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XIV. EPA-822/B-00/022.US EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. 25

26 6.0 Appendix of Water Quality Tables E. coli Bacteria...27 Phosphorus...28 Orthophosphate...29 Total Phosphorus...30 Enterococci...31 Ammonia...32 Nitrate/Nitrite...33 Total Nitrogen...34 Chlorophyll a...35 Total Suspended Solids...36 Temperature...37 Depth

27 E. coli Bacteria Results 2009 Site # Description Town River E. coli Concentrations (cfu/100 ml) mile 1/13/2009 2/10/2009 3/10/2009 4/14/2009 5/19/2009 6/16/2009 (p) 7/21/2009 8/18/2009 9/15/ /20/ /17/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (a) (n) (a) CD Discharge Central St Milford 3.5 no data no data no data no data no data 35C2 2nd Discharge Central St Milford 3.5 no data no data no data no data no data 59CS Mellen St. Bridge Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale (a) (a) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham (a) (a) S Maple St. Bridge Bellingham (a) S Shaw St. Bridge Franklin/Medway (a) S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (a) S Rt. 115, Baltimore St. Norfolk/Millis (a) (n) 5 (n) 63 (n) (a) S Dwight St. Bridge Millis/Medfield (a) (a) T Causeway St. Stop River Medfield (a) (a) S Old Bridge St. Millis/Medfield 29.0 (h) (a) (a) S Rt. 27 Bridge Medfield/Sherborn 31.8 (h) (h) (a) S Farm Rd./Bridge St. Sherborn/Dover (a) (a) S Cheney Bridge Wellesley/Natick (h) S Charles River Road Bridge Dover/Wellesley S Dover Gage Dover S Dedham Medical Center Dedham/Needham (a) S Ames St. Bridge Dedham (a) S Rt. 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston S Nahanton Park Newton/Needham (a) S Rt. 9 Gaging Station Newton (a) S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Wellesley/Newton (a) S Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd. Weston/Newton (a) (a) S 2391 Commonwealth Ave. Newton 63.5 (h) (h) 63 (n) (n) S Lakes Region Waltham (a) S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (a) S North St. Waltham/Newton (a) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (a) S N. Beacon St. Watertown/Brighton 70.9 (h) (a) (a) S Arsenal St. Watertown/Brighton (a) S Eliot Bridge Cambridge/Boston 72.9 (h) (h) S Western Ave Cambridge/Boston 74.3 (h) (h) (n) 63 (n) (a) T Muddy River at Comm. Ave. Boston 76.0 (h) (h) 1585 (a) (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge 76.3 (h) (h) (a) (a) S Longfellow Bridge Cambridge/Boston 77.3 (h) (h) (a) (a) S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (a) (a) WET DRY Total # sites meeting swimming standard # sites boatable # sites sampled % sites swimable 81% 41% 76% 83% 72% 44% 63% 64% 56% 39% 6% 23% 53% 55% 53% % sites boatable 90% 91% 97% 100% 91% 94% 94% 97% 100% 79% 88% 90% 92% 95% 93% QA/QC Samples Equipment Blank Site No. Equipment Blank Site No. Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET DRY WET WET WET WET WET DRY WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling Trace Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling Trace (o) 0.00 Trace Trace Day of Sampling 0.02 (i)(m Trace (a) Average of duplicates (h) Sampling cancelled due to harsh temperatures, frozen river, inaccessible sites (i) Rainfall took place after 06:30 am (n) Sample taken with pilot basket sampling device, not bucket (m) Snowfall at Logan International Airport (inches): 3 days prior = 0.7; 2 days prior = 4.8; 1 day prior = 0.1; day of sampling = trace (o) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (p) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S and 318S. Equipment blanks no longer collected.

28 Total Phosphorus Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Total Phosphorus Concentrations (mg/l) mile 3/10/2009 6/16/2009 (g) 9/15/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (a) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (a) S Rt. 115, Baltimore St. Medfield/Millis 22.9 no data no data no data no data no data 290S Old Bridge St. Natick/Wellesley (a) S S. Natick Dam Dedham/Boston (a) S Rt. 109 Bridge Wellesley/Newton S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Weston/Newton (a) S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (a) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (a) S Western Ave Cambridge/Boston (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (a) Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit 97.7% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% QA/QC Samples Equipment Blank Site No. Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 0.02 Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling 0.54 (f) Day of Sampling 0.01 Trace Samples analyzed at Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Central Laboratory. (a) Average of duplicate samples. (f) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (g) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S. Equipment Blanks no longer taken.

29 Orthophosphate Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Concentrations of Orthophosphate (mg/l) mile 3/10/2009 6/16/2009 (l) 9/15/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (e) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (e) S Rt. 115, Baltimore St. Norfolk/Millis 22.9 no data no data no data no data no data 290S Old Bridge St. Medfield/Millis (e) S S. Natick Dam Natick/Wellesley (a) S Rt. 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Wellesley/Newton (e) S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (e) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (e) S Western Ave. Cambridge/Boston (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (e) Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit 49% 0% 27% 67% 100% QA/QC Samples Equipment Blank Site No. Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 0.02 Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling 0.54 (k) Day of Sampling 0.01 Trace (a) Analysis performed at National Environmental Testing, Inc. (e) Average of duplicate samples (k) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (l) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S. Equipment Blanks no longer taken.

30 Total Phosphorus Alpha Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Total Phosphorus Concentrations (mg/l) mile 7/21/2009 (d) 8/18/2009 9/15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford CS Mellen St. Bridge Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale (a) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham S Maple St. Bridge Bellingham S Shaw St. Bridge Franklin/Medway S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk S Rt. 115, Baltimore St. Norfolk/Millis (a) S Dwight St. Bridge Millis/Medfield (a) T Causeway St. Stop River Medfield (a) S Old Bridge St. Millis/Medfield S Rt. 27 Bridge Medfield/Sherborn S Farm Rd./Bridge St. Sherborn/Dover (a) S Cheney Bridge Wellesley/Natick (a) S Charles River Road Bridge Dover/Wellesley S Dover Gage Dover S Dedham Medical Center Dedham/Needham S Ames St. Bridge Dedham S Rt. 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston S Nahanton Park Newton/Needham S Rt. 9 Gaging Station Newton S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Wellesley/Newton S Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd. Weston/Newton S 2391 Commonwealth Ave. Newton S Lakes Region Waltham S Moody St. Bridge Waltham S North St. Waltham/Newton (a) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown S N. Beacon St. Watertown/Brighton (a) S Arsenal St. Watertown/Brighton S Eliot Bridge Cambridge/Boston S Western Ave. Cambridge/Boston T Muddy River at Comm. Ave. Boston S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge (a) S Longfellow Bridge Cambridge/Boston (a) S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit 98.0% 97.1% 100.0% 96.9% Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET DRY WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling Day of Sampling All samples analyzed by Alpha Analytical (a) Average of duplicates (d) Weighted basket sampling device used to collect samples. Equipment Blanks no longer taken.

31 Enterococci Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Enterococci Concentrations (cfu/100ml) mile 3/10/2009 6/16/2009 (h) 9/15/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (a) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (a) S Old Bridge St. Natick/Wellesley S S. Natick Dam Dedham/Boston S Rt. 109 Bridge Wellesley/Newton S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Weston/Newton S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (a) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (a) S Western Ave Cambridge/Boston (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (a) Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit 46.5% 0% 50% 50% 80% QA/QC Samples Equipment Blank Site No. Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 0.02 Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling 0.54 (g) Day of Sampling 0.01 Trace Samples analyzed at Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Central Laboratory (a) Average of duplicate samples. (g) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (h) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S. Equipment blanks no longer collected.

32 Ammonia Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Ammonia Concentration (mg/l) mile 3/10/2009 6/16/2009 (j) 9/15/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (d) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (d) S Old Bridge St. Millis/Medfield (d) S Cheney Bridge Wellesley/Natick (a) S Rt. 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Wellesley/Newton (d) S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (d) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (a) S Western Ave Cambridge/Boston (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (d) Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit % 0% 0% 0% 0% Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 0.02 Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling 0.54 (i) Day of Sampling 0.01 Trace (a) Analysis performed at National Environmental Testing, Inc. (d) Average of duplicates (h) Rainfall took place during and following sampling event (i) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (j) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S. Equipment blanks no longer taken.

33 Nitrate-Nitrite Results 2009 Site # Description Town River Concentrations of nitrate-nitrite (mg/l) mile 3/10/2009 6/16/2009 (i) 9/15/ /15/2009 Mean Median Std Dev Min Max 35CS Central Street Bridge Milford (a) CS Rt. 126, N. Main St. Bellingham S Populatic Pond Boat Launch Norfolk (a) S Old Bridge St. Millis/Medfield (a) S Cheney Bridge Wellesley/Natick (a) S Rt. 109 Bridge Dedham/Boston S Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge Wellesley/Newton (a) S Moody St. Bridge Waltham (a) S Watertown Dam Footbridge Watertown (a) S Western Ave Cambridge/Boston (a) S Mass. Ave. at Harvard Bridge Boston/Cambridge S New Charles River Dam Boston/Cambridge (a) Total # of Samples exceeding action limit Total # of Samples % of samples exceeding action limit % 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches) WET WET WET WET 3 Days Prior to Sampling 0.02 Trace Days Prior to Sampling Day Prior to Sampling 0.54 (h) Day of Sampling 0.01 Trace (a) Average of duplicates (h) Snowfall on March 9, 2009 = 2.2 inches (i) Launch of weighted basket sampling device. Basket sampler used at all sites except 199S.