Charles River Monthly Monitoring Program
2015 Year-End Report
June, 2016
Prepared by Charles River Watershed Association
190 Park Road
Weston, MA 02493
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Charles River Watershed Association................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 CRWA’s Volunteer Monthly Monitoring Program........................................................................................ 2
2.0 PROGRAM METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Sampling Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Sampling Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Volunteer Training ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Sampling Events ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Action Limits .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 WATER QUALITY RESULTS................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Monthly Parameters .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 E. coli ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Depth ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.3 Temperature .................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Quarterly Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 20
3.2.1 Enterococcus .................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.2. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.3. Nitrogen ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Phosphorus .................................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.5 Chlorophyll a ................................................................................................................................................ 28
3.3 Roving Sites .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Field comments................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.0 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Program Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
4.3 Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 32
5.0 QA/QC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35
i
5.1 Bacterial QA/QC ................................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Nutrients and TSS QA/QC .............................................................................................................................. 35
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
8.0 APPENDICIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 40
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Photographs of the Lower Basin of the Charles, a well-known Boston landmark......................... 1
Figure 1-2. Volunteer Nate Gardner collects a water sample at site 567S. ....................................................... 2
Figure 2-1. Sampling locations for CRWA volunteer monthly monitoring program. ......................................4
Figure 2-2. CRWA basket sampling device. .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3-1. Percentage of samples passing swimming and boating E. coli standards from 1995-2015.... 10
Figure 3-2. Percentage of samples passing swimming and boating E. coli standards, map figure ............. 11
Figure 3-3. Average E. coli concentration by site in 2015 . ................................................................................... 12
Figure 3-4. Average E. coli concentration by sampling event in 2015. .............................................................. 13
Figure 3-5. Scatterplot of 3-day cumulative rainfall v. average E. coli concentration…………………………….14
Figure 3-5. Scatterplot of 3-day cumulative rainfall v. percent passing swimming standard .................... 14
Figure 3-7. Average river depth by sampling site in 2015 .................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-8. Average monthy river depth in 2014 & 2015 ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 3-9. Cumulative precipitation in 2014 & 2015 ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 3-10. Number of temperature violations recorded in 2015, by month ................................................ 17
Figure 3-11. Number of temperature violations recorded from 1995-2015, by year………………………………17
Figure 3-12. Five-year rolling averages of summer water temperature at three Lower Basin sites .......... 19
Figure 3-13. Average Enterococci concentration by sampling event in 2015 .................................................. 20
Figure 3-14. Average Enterococci concentration by site in 2015 ......................................................................... 21
Figure 3-15. Concentration of Total Supsended Solids in collected water sampels……………………………..22
Figure 3-16. Average ammonia concentration by site in 2015 ........................................................................... 24
Figure 3-17. Average total nitrogen and nitrate-nitrate concentrations by site in 2015 ............................. 24
Figure 3-18. Annual phosphorus inputs by source to the Lower Charles River Basin.................................. 25
Figure 3-19. Photograph of a cyanobacteria bloom in the Charles River ........................................................ 25
Figure 3-20. Average concentration of total phosphorus and orthophosphate by site in 2015……………26
Figure 3-21. Average concentration of total phosphorus and orthophosphate by sampling event ......... 26
Figure 3-22. Average total phosphous concentrations & percent of samples passing total phosphorus
standard from 2005-2015 ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3-23. Average concentration of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a by site in 2015........................... 29
Figure 3-24. Average concentration of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a by sampling event in 2015 .... 29
Figure 3-25. Most common topics of field comments in 2015 .......................................................................... 30
Figure 4-1. Scatterplot of SBI water quality scores v. EPA habitat assessment scores at BMI sites…….34
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Charles River volunteer water quality monitoring locations. ............................................................. 5
Table 2-2. Dates, precipitation data, and parameters analyzed for 2015 volunteer monthly monitoring
sampling events................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 2-3. Action limits for all parameters analyzed by CRWA. ......................................................................... 8
Table 3-1. EPA annual river grade of the Lower Charles River Basin from 1995 to 2014 ............................... 9
Table 3-2. Average deviation from monthly mean temperature for all VMM sites ..................................... 18
Table 4-1. 2015 Biological monitoring results. ........................................................................................................33
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Charles River Watershed Association
The Charles River runs 80 miles from Hopkinton, Massachusetts to the New Charles River Dam, where
it flows into Boston Harbor. The stretch of river from Watertown to Boston Harbor, known as the
Lower Basin of the Charles, is a well-known Boston landmark, widely recognized for its recreational
and aesthetic value to the communities that surround it (Fig 1-1). Though the Charles River is a
relatively small river, with a watershed covering 308 square miles and 35 cities and towns, it is home
to approximately one million people, making it one of the most densely populated watersheds in New
England. The River itself meanders through 23 communities with diverse character, from the more
rural upper watershed in Hopkinton and Milford, to the urban lower watershed communities of Boston
and Cambridge. Today, the River is home to many species of fish, including the bluegill, redfin pickerel,
American eel, river herring, redbreast sunfish, and largemouth bass. The Charles bustles with
sailboats, rowboats, and wind surfers. Both the abundant wildlife of the River and its recreational utility
depend upon the delicate state of its biological, chemical, and physical attributes.
Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), an environmental non-profit, was created in 1965 to
ensure the long-term health of the River and its tributaries. At the time CRWA was created, the
Charles was considered too heavily polluted for swimming, boating, or fishing. Industry, impervious
cover (e.g. roads, sidewalks), and untreated wastewater destroyed natural habitats and threatened
public health. The destruction of wetlands, which naturally filter pollutants and excess nutrients out of
the water, as well as the construction of 20 dams had hampered the River’s ability to naturally clean
itself, and contributed to a growing concern over the River’s health.
In response to these challenges, CRWA has adopted an approach that integrates science, law, and
advocacy to protect the Charles. CRWA works alongside federal, state, and local government agencies
to pass legislation that regulates waste discharge and improves infrastructure and management
practices. In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the Clean Charles
Initiative with the goal of making the River safe for both primary use (swimming, wading) and
secondary use (boating, fishing). The Initiative relies on the water quality data produced by CRWA’s
Volunteer Monthly Monitoring (VMM) program to measure the progress in making the River more
swimmable and fishable, and to ensure its vitality for generations to come.
Figure 1-1. The Lower Basin of the Charles is a well-known Boston landmark, widely recognized
for its recreational and aesthetic value to the communities that surround it.
1
1.2 CRWA’s Volunteer Monthly Monitoring Program
Understanding the many hydrological, biological, and chemical interactions that occur throughout the
watershed requires a comprehensive system of monitoring and reporting. In 1995, CRWA’s VMM
program was created to provide monthly measurements of water properties relevant to river health: E.
coli, chlorophyll a, Enterococcus, ammonia, total nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite, orthophosphate, total
phosphorus, and total suspended solids (TSS). In 2015, CRWA continued to develop the summer
biological monitoring component that was added to the program in 2013 to complement the physical
and chemical water quality data collected through monthly monitoring. Assessing physical habitat
quality and macroinvertebrate (aquatic insect) communities provides a more complete picture of the
health of the River.
Collecting monthly data is time and resource intensive and would not be possible without a corps of
committed, early-rising volunteers who take monthly in-stream measurements and observations of
water quality at 37 sites along the River. CRWA maintains a network of over 80 volunteers who collect
monthly water samples and record any relevant observations at the sites. An additional 13 volunteers
participated in the biological monitoring program in 2015.
This report summarizes the data collected throughout 2015, the 21st year of this program. The data
produced through this program have been widely used by regulators, municipalities, and academics to
identify problems, track trends in water quality, and provide an easy means for the public to
understand how their river is faring.
Figure 1-2. Volunteer Nate Gardner collects a water sample at site 567S in Newton. Photo taken
by volunteer Emilie Kaden.
2
2.0 PROGRAM METHODOLOGY
2.1 Sampling Sites
CRWA’s VMM program involves water quality monitoring at 37 sites spanning the entire 80-mile
stretch of the Charles River; two of these 37 sites are rotating, or roving, sites. Thirty-three of the 35
regular sampling sites are distributed along the 80 miles of the main stem Charles River between
Milford and Boston. The remaining two regular sites are located on the Stop River in Medfield and the
Muddy River in Boston, both tributaries to the Charles. The sites are distributed fairly evenly along the
length of the River, with sites slightly more concentrated around the heavily urbanized areas in Boston
and the surrounding cities (Fig 2-1 & Table 2-1). The locations of the two roving sites change monthly
based on scientific need.
Sites are coded based on their mileage from the start of the River and whether they are in the River or
along a tributary. An “S” or “CS” signifies that the site is on the Charles River main stem while a “T”
signifies a tributary sampling site. For example, site 165S is located on the Charles River mainstream
16.5 miles from the headwaters; site 760T is a tributary site (along the Muddy River) 76.0 miles from
the headwaters. Site 012S, at the Watertown Dam, is the only site that does not follow this naming
convention. This site is also used as a sampling site by Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
(MWRA), whose site coding procedures predate CRWA’s; CRWA uses the MWRA code for this site
to maintain consistency.
This season of the biological monitoring program incorporated 10 sites throughout the watershed; two
sites were located on the main stem of the Charles River in the upper watershed, while the remaining 8
sites were located on tributaries of the Charles River: Stop River in Medfield, Cheesecake Brook in
Newton, Bogastow Brook in Millis, Rock Meadow Brook in Westwood, Rosemary Brook in Wellesley,
Miscoe Brook in Franklin, and the Muddy River in Brookline.
2.2 Sampling Methods
2.2.1 Volunteer Training
All volunteers and participants in the monitoring program follow procedures laid out in CRWA’s
Quality Assurance Project Plan, which is approved by the EPA and Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) to ensure the highest quality data possible. Volunteers are trained by
CRWA staff in field sampling protocols and macroinvertebrate identification. Periodic refresher
trainings on topics such as proper sampling technique, safety, and preservation and handling of
samples are given. All volunteers are given a comprehensive training manual to which they can refer
before sampling events.
3
Figure 2-1. Charles River monthly monitoring sampling locations.
4
Table 2-1. Charles River volunteer water quality monitoring locations.
(Nutrient samples are collected quarterly at sites shaded in gray.)
Site #
Description
Town
35CS
Central Street Bridge
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
Eliot 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
5
2.2.2 Sampling Procedures
At most of the sampling sites, volunteers lower a weighted stainless steel basket containing sample
bottles secured with cable cuffs from a bridge (Fig 1-2 & 2-2). The entire apparatus is lowered from a
bridge or dock so that the lips of the sampling bottles are submerged six inches below the water’s
surface. Once water has been collected, the volunteers haul the basket up and secure the sampling
bottles for transport. In June 2009, this method replaced an older method where samples were
collected in a bucket and then manually transferred to the collection bottles. The introduction of the
weighted sampling basket and cable cuffs removed the risk of sample contamination from the bucket.
At sites 35CS (Central St., Milford), 267S (Dwight St., Millis), and 447S (Mill St., Dover), samples are
collected using a sampling pole. The sampling pole can be extended up to 11 feet, allowing safe sample
collection in fast-moving or deep water. Cable cuffs are attached at the end to hold sample bottles, and
samples are collected in much the same way as the basket sampler. At site 199S, volunteers wade into
Populatic Pond in Norfolk to collect samples, while at 648S (near Mt. Feake Cemetery in Waltham);
sampling is done from a canoe or kayak.
During each monthly sampling event, water is collected for E. coli analysis, and temperature and depth
measurements are recorded. Temperature measurements are taken by dipping a thermometer into the
cup of water retrieved from the River, and depth is determined by lowering a weighted plumb line into
the River. At four sampling events during the year, samples are collected to be analyzed for additional
water quality parameters. In March, June, September, and December of 2014, samples were analyzed
for various chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, chlorophyll a, Enterococcus bacteria, and TSS.
CRWA uses these additional parameters to obtain a broader assessment of environmental conditions
in the Charles River. Monthly bacteria samples and quarterly nutrient samples were analyzed at the
MWRA Central Laboratory on Deer Island in accordance with MWRA’s own standard operating
procedure.
Figure 2-2. CRWA sampling basket device for collected water samples from bridge.
6
2.3 Sampling Events
Sampling takes place once every month, twelve times during the year at approximately 6:00 AM.
Table 2-2 summarizes dates, weather conditions, and sampling parameters for the sampling events in
2015. The February sampling event in 2015 was canceled due to persistent and severe winter weather
conditions. Additionally three sites (199S, 447S, and 648S) are closed during winter months.
Sampling events are considered wet weather events when more than 0.1 inches of rain is recorded at
the NOAA rain gauge located at Logan Airport in the three days preceding the sampling event, and
considered dry weather events when less than 0.1 inches of rain is recorded in the preceding three
days. Precipitation that falls as snow is converted to equivalent rainfall. Events are classified as “wet”
or “dry” to provide CRWA with a framework to interpret water quality data. During wet weather, more
runoff from impervious surfaces (often carrying pollutants and excessive nutrients) enters the river
and, in heavy conditions, a combined sewer overflow event is more likely. In 2015 there were six “wet
weather” events and five “dry weather” events (Table 2-2).
Table 2-2. Sampling dates, precipitation levels, and parameters analyzed for the 2015 VMM Program.
Sampling
Date
1/13/2015
Precipitation in 3 days
preceding sampling event
WET
0.20"
Parameters analyzed
E. coli
E. coli, Enterococcus*, Chlorophyll a*, Phaeophytin*,
Nitrate-nitrite*, Total nitrogen*, Total phosphorus*,
Orthophosphate*, TSS*, Ammonia*
3/17/2015
WET
1.21"
4/14/2015
DRY
no rain
E. coli
5/19/2015
DRY
no rain
E. coli
6/16/2015
WET
0.40"
E. coli, Enterococcus*, Chlorophyll a*, Phaeophytin*,
Nitrate-nitrite*, Total nitrogen*, Total phosphorus*,
Orthophosphate*, TSS*, Ammonia*
7/21/2015
WET
0.14"
E. coli
8/18/2015
DRY
0.08"
E. coli
9/15/2015
WET
0.39"
E. coli, Enterococcus*, Chlorophyll a*, Phaeophytin*,
Nitrate-nitrite*, Total nitrogen*, Total phosphorus*,
Orthophosphate*, TSS*, Ammonia*
10/20/2015
11/17/2015
12/15/2015
DRY
no rain
DRY
no rain
WET
0.51"
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli, Enterococcus*, Chlorophyll a*, Phaeophytin*,
Nitrate-nitrite*, Total nitrogen*, Total phosphorus*,
Orthophosphate*, TSS*, Ammonia*
*Nutrient sites: 35CS, 90CS, 199S, 290S, 387S, 400S, 534S, 609S, 662S, 012S, 743S, 763S, 784S
7
2.4 Action Limits
Table 2-3 shows the action limits for all parameters analyzed by CRWA. An action limit is a numerical
value for a given parameter that CRWA uses to identify sites with 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 Massachusetts DEP. Nutrient action limit
criteria are recommended by the US EPA. Results exceeding the established action limits provide
evidence of detrimental conditions affecting the health of organisms and the River.
Table 2-3. Action limits for all parameters analyzed by CRWA.
Parameter
Action Limit
Source
126 cfu/100 mL (primary contact)
E. coli*
630 cfu/100 mL (secondary contact)
Temperature
28.3 °C
Enterococcus
33 cfu/100mL (primary contact)
Total Phosphorus
0.0238 mg/L (as P)
Orthophosphate
0.0238 mg/L (as P)
Ammonia
0.3 mg/L
Nitrate-Nitrite
0.31 mg/L (as N)
Total Nitrogen
0.57 mg/L
Chlorophyll a
0.00375 mg/L
Massachusetts Surface
Water Quality Standards1
Massachusetts Department
of Public Health (MDPH)
U.S. EPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria
Recommendations for Rivers
and Streams in Nutrient
Ecoregion XIV2
30 mg/L
Total Suspended
Solids
1
2
15 mg/L during herring spawning
season (spring)
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (1997).
US Environmental Protection Agency (2000).
8
CRWA Historical Data
Analysis
3.0 WATER QUALITY RESULTS
3.1 Monthly Parameters
3.1.1 E. coli
Escherichia coli (E. coli) are a species of bacteria commonly used as a water quality indicator for surface
waters. Most strains of E. coli are not harmful to humans, but because they are found in the digestive
system of most warm-blooded mammals, the presence of E. coli indicates the presence of other
bacteria and viruses that are potentially harmful to human health.3 The Massachusetts Surface Water
Quality Standards set two action limits for E. coli: the limit for primary contact (swim standard) is 126
cfu/100mL; the limit for secondary contact (boat standard) is 630 cfu/100mL.
In 1995, the EPA launched the Clean Charles Initiative in the Lower Basin, with the goal to make the
river “fishable” and “swimmable”. The data collected by the CRWA volunteer monthly monitoring
program is used by the EPA to assign the Charles River Lower Basin a report card grade each year. The
report card grades from previous years can be found in Table 3-1; the grade for 2014 was B+, while the
grade for 2015 will be announced in June of 2016.
Table 3-1. EPA report card grades for the Charles River Lower Basin from 1995 to 2014
Year
Grade
1995
D
1996
C-
1997
C
1998
C+
1999
B-
2000
B
2001
B
2002
B
2003
B-
2004
B+
Year
Grade
2005
B+
2006
B+
2007
B++
2008
B+
2009
B+
2010
B+
2011
B
2012
B+
2013
A-
2014
B+
Data Analysis & Discussion
In 2015, 343 samples were collected and tested for E. coli at the 35 permanent sites (excluding field
duplicate samples). Over the course of the year, 67% of the samples passed the swimming standard,
while 94% passed the boating standard, both slight improvements over the 2014 data (Fig 3-1a).
E. coli concentrations recorded in 2015 ranged from as low as 5 MPN/100mL to as high as 24,200
MPN/100mL. Site averages of E. coli concentrations over 2015 show that, in general, upper watershed
sites had lower E. coli concentrations than in the Lower Basin (Fig 3-3). Individual site-to-site
comparisons using the annual average concentration is more difficult, as the average can be strongly
influenced by a single very high concentration sample. A comparison of the proportion of sampling
events each site passed the swimming and boating standards is more useful for investigating spatial
trends and identifying areas of the river that regularly have lower water quality (Fig 3-2a & 3-2b).
3
http://www.usawaterquality.org/volunteer/ecoli/june2008manual/chpt2_ecoli.pdf
9
Proportion of sites passing standards
(%)
100
80
60
40
Boat standard
20
Swim standard
(A)
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Proportion of sites passing standards
(%)
100
80
60
40
20
Swim standard
Boat standard
(B)
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 3-1(a-b). Percentage of samples passing swimming and boating E. coli standard between 1995 and 2015 in (a) all monthly monitoring
sites, and (b) lower basin sites (Watertown dam to the New Charles River dam).
10
(A)
(B)
Figure 3-2(a-b). Percentage of samples passing (a) swimming and (b) boating E. coli standard in 2015 for all VMM site locations.
11
E. coli concentration (MPN/100mL)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
773S
784S
763S
743S
760T
715S
729S
012S
700S
675S
662S
648S
621S
635S
591S
609S
567S
521S
534S
447S
484S
387S
400S
318S
343S
290S
267S
269T
229S
165S
199S
130S
90CS
35CS
59CS
0
Site
Figure 3-3. Average E. coli concentration by site, in 2015.
Charles River Lower Basin
Water quality in the Charles River Lower Basin – which stretches from the Watertown Dam (Site 012S)
to the New Charles River Dam (Site 784S) – has significantly improved since the VMM program and
the EPA Clean Charles Initiative began in 1995. Comparing VMM data from 1995 to 2015, the
proportion of samples passing the boating standard has more than doubled and the proportion passing
the swimming standard has increased threefold (Fig 3-1b). The environmental improvements in the
Lower Basin of the Charles have been praised as a model of success by national environmental
organizations such as the River Network and Natural Resources Defense Council.
The reduction of E. coli concentrations in the Lower Basin has been largely due to the treatment and
prevention of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). CSOs are antiquated wastewater management
systems that carry both sewage and stormwater runoff to a treatment plant via the same pipe. During
periods of heavy rainfall, the pipes become overloaded and release some of their content directly into
the Charles River through built-in overflows.4 The average annual CSO discharge to the Charles has
been reduced by 98% since 1988, equivalent to removing over one million gallons per day of raw
sewage.5
However, as seen in Figure 3-1b, the improvements in the Lower Basin mostly occurred in the first five
to ten years after the Clean Charles Initiative began, with conditions plateauing over the past ten years
of data. Today CSOs, while smaller in number and volume, continue to discharge waste into the Lower
Basin during heavy rainfall events. Additionally, the area is highly urbanized with large quantities of
impervious surfaces (e.g., roads and parking lots) that facilitate runoff of contaminants into the river.
4
5
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (2011).
US Environmental Protection Agency (2012).
12
Eliminating the remaining sources of sewage discharge to the river, and working to reduce runoff
through better urban stormwater management design is required to take the next step in improving
water quality in the Charles River.
Effect of rainfall on E. coli concentrations
E. coli concentrations in the river were strongly influenced by precipitation conditions. Rainfall events
result in the runoff of contaminants to the river, and during heavy rains, can result in combined sewer
overflow into the river, both of which can lead to elevated E. coli concentrations in the river. “Wet”
weather sampling events (those with > 0.1” of precipitation in the three days prior to the sampling
date) typically recorded higher average E. coli concentrations than “dry” weather sampling events in
2015 (Fig 3-4), following a pattern seen in previous year's data.
The average E. coli concentration during the December 2015 sampling event was over four times
greater than the concentration of the second highest sampling event in 2015 (June). When comparing
the amount of rainfall in the three days prior to sampling, the December event had lower precipitation
totals than other sampling events. However, the December event was the only instance in 2015 where
more than 0.01” of rainfall fell on the day of sampling in the early morning hours before the samples
were collected. Average E. coli concentrations were not correlated with rainfall in the three days
preceding sampling events in 2015 (Fig 3-5), however the three-day rainfall was correlated with the
proportion of sites passing the swimming standard (Fig 3-6), suggesting that the current “wet”/”dry”
weather classification method is useful for predicting the occurrence of failing water quality conditions.
Mean E. coli concentration (MPN/100mL)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 3-4. Mean E. coli concentrations recorded in samples collect during volunteer monthly
monitoring events in 2015. February sampling event canceled due to severe winter weather.
13
1750
100
90
Proportion of sites passing swim standard (%)
Average E. coli concentration (MPN/100mL)
1500
1250
1000
750
R2 = 0.1106
500
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
R2 = 0.6491
250
10
0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
0.00
1.25
Cumulative rainfall 3 days preceeding sampling event (inches)
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
Cumulative rainfall in 3 days preceeding sampling event (inches)
Figure 3-5 (left). Average E. coli concentration for sampling event compared with cumulative rainfall in 3 days preceding sampling event.
Figure 3-6 (right). Proportion of sites passing the swimming standard compared with cumulative rainfall in 3 days preceding sampling event. Green
points represent “dry” weather sampling events; blue points represent “wet” weather sampling events.
14
3.1.2 Depth
Depth is an important measure of water quality. Low river depths can cause problems for the river
ecosystem by reducing the amount of aquatic habitat and contributing to river warming. It is also
problematic for CRWA’s sampling program, as very low depths can make it cumbersome to collect
samples with the usual procedures. Monitoring river depth provides insight into the effect of
engineering and river management decisions on the river, such as the opening of the New Charles
River Dam locks in Boston or diversions through Mother Brook in Dedham. It also can show seasonal
or yearly effects of precipitation, runoff, and water use on the river. Typically, river depths are higher in
spring due to snowmelt, and reach a low point in mid- to late-summer, when demand for outdoor
water use is high and precipitation generally lower.
Data Analysis & Discussion
River depth varies across sampling locations, with sites in the lower basin recorded higher average
river depths than those in the upper watershed (Fig 3-7). The lowest measurement of the year was 0.2
feet at 165S (Shaw St. /Elm St. Bridge, Franklin/Medway). The highest recorded depth of the year,
26.6 feet, was measured at 784S (New Charles River Dam, Boston).
The average river depth across all sites peaked in March and steadily decreased for the rest of 2015
(Fig 3-8). Though the declining trend in river depth in late spring and summer months are expected,
the depths continued to decrease into the autumn and winter, in contrast to the 2014 data. This is
likely a reflection of the drought conditions experienced in eastern Massachusetts during 2015. As
shown in Figure 3-9, cumulative precipitation in 2015 lagged behind the average for most of the year,
but the deficit increased from late-summer onward. Precipitation in 2015 diverged from the 2014 data
from October onwards, the same period of time we see a split in average river depths between the two
years.
25
20
15
10
5
0
35CS
59CS
90S
130S
165S
199S
229S
269S
290S
318S
343S
387S
400S
484S
521S
534S
567S
591S
621S
635S
648S
662S
675S
012S
700S
715S
729S
743S
760T
763S
773S
784S
Average depth (feet)
30
Site
Figure 3-7. Average river depth by sampling site in 2015.
15
9
2015
Avearge river depth (feet)
2014
8
7
6
5
4
50
2015
Cumulative precipitation (inches)
45
2014
40
Average Year
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 3-8 (top). Average river depth in 2014 and 2015.
Figure 3-9 (bottom). Cumulative precipitation in 2014 and 2015, compared with average yearly
precipitation.6
6
Data source: National Weather Service Forecast Office
16
3.1.3 Temperature
Water temperature is an important quantitative measure of water quality, as temperature affects
nearly all biological and chemical process in the river ecosystem. Water temperature above 28.3°C,
the temperature standard, can be extremely dangerous if not fatal for several species of fish.
Data Analysis & Discussion
In 2015, there were standard temperature violations in July and August (Figure 3-10). Temperatures
above the standard temperature were observed primarily in the lower basin. This number does not
encompass all temperature violations occurrences, as temperature measurements are taken around
6:00 am, making it is possible that additional sites could have violated the temperature standard on
the sampling date as water temperatures rose over the course of the day.
Relative to previous years, 2015 VMM samplings recorded a large number of temperature violations
(Figure 3-11). The only other year with seven recorded temperature violations was 2012. In the 20
years the monthly monitoring program has collected temperature measurements, there have been
more temperature violations observed in the last four years (17 violations), then in all the other years
combined (15 violations).
Number of sites violating
temperature standard
4
3
2
1
0
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Number of standard
temperature violations
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 3-10 (top). Number of temperature violations recorded during CRWA monthly
monitoring by month in 2015.
Figure 3-11 (bottom). Number of temperature violations recorded during CRWA monthly monitoring
from 1995-2015.
17
Table 3-2. Average deviations from monthly mean
temperature at VMM sites.
Site-to-site temperature comparison
Temperature differences from site to site help
identify hot spots along the river. This
identification is important as it can provide
insight into factors leading to the warming of
the Charles River. Site-to-site temperature
analysis was performed by normalizing the
temperature data to the monthly mean for
each sampling event, in order to eliminate the
effect of normal seasonal changes in
temperature.
Site
621S
591S
165S
715S
534S
269T
267S
90CS
130S
700S
567S
229S
290S
35CS
447S
59CS
012S
760T
484S
343S
648S
743S
729S
662S
675S
387S
609S
635S
400S
784S
521S
318S
199S
773S
763S
In 2015, 773S and 763S were the warmest
sites, more than 2°C above the mean monthly
temperature on average (Table 3-2). The
coolest site was 621S with temperatures on
average 2°C below the mean monthly
temperature. In general, the river experienced
higher temperatures toward the lower basin of
the Charles.
18
Temperature Deviation (°C)
-2.07
-1.50
-0.95
-0.83
-0.69
-0.55
-0.52
-0.46
-0.45
-0.37
-0.37
-0.36
-0.17
-0.15
-0.14
-0.13
-0.12
-0.10
-0.07
-0.02
0.02
0.10
0.26
0.32
0.33
0.36
0.71
0.78
0.82
0.97
1.12
1.14
1.26
2.29
2.39
Temperature trends in Lower Basin (1996 – 2015)
Temperature data from 1996-2015 was analyzed for the three Lower Basin monthly monitoring sites
located downstream of Boston University (BU): site 763S – Mass Ave Bridge; site 773S – Longfellow
Bridge; and site 784S – New Charles River Dam. Temperatures recorded during summer months (June,
July, & August) were averaged for each year and plotted in the Figure 3-12. A five-year rolling average
was also calculated for each site, and plotted at the center of the time frame being averaged (i.e. 5-yr
rolling average at 1998 reflects the average of data from 1996-2000). Because the data is collected at
6AM, when water temperature is closer to its daily low point, the value of the summer averages don’t
themselves represent average summertime water temperatures over the course of a whole day, but
because they are collected at the same time each month of each year, the data is useful for examining
temporal trends.
Temperatures at sites 763S and 784S showed an increasing trend over time, particularly in the last 1012 years of data, while a trend at site 773S was difficult to discern. Compiling together data from the
three sites downstream of BU, the 5-year rolling average was 22.6°C (72.7°F) in 1998 and 25.1°C
(77.2°F) in 2013, reflecting an increase in summer water temperature of 2.5°C (4.5°F) over 15 years.
Figure 3-12. Five-year rolling averages of summer water temperature measurements at three VMM
sites in the Lower Basin.
19
3.2 Quarterly Parameters
3.2.1 Enterococcus
Enterococci are a type of fecal streptococci bacteria that, like E. coli, live in the intestinal tracts of warmblooded mammals, and are, therefore, useful indicators of sewage contamination. Though most
commonly used for detecting sewage contamination in salt water, Enterococcus is still a valuable
parameter for gauging the health of the Charles. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s
standard for bathing beaches is 61 cfu/100mL for a single sample and 33 cfu/100mL for the geometric
mean of the most recent five Enterococci samples within the same bathing season.
The factors that cause high Enterococcus concentrations are often the same as those that cause high E.
coli concentrations: impervious surfaces, CSOs, and illicit connections between sewage and
stormwater drainage systems. Human waste arriving via the sewer system is not the only source of
Enterococcus bacteria. Dog waste contains exceptionally high concentrations of these organisms and
may be responsible for action limit violations at sites with heavy dog traffic.7 Several species of
Enterococcus are associated with plants and not human waste,8 though CRWA monitoring does not
currently distinguish between species of Enterococcus.
Data Analysis & Discussion
In order to measure Enterococcus concentration in the river, 45 samples were collected from 13
sampling locations in March, June, September, and December of 2015. Figure 3-13 displays the mean
concentration of Enterococcus for all sampling sites recorded during each sampling event. 53% of
samples collected in 2015 exceeded the action limit of 33 MPN/100mL. Similar to the E. coli data,
highest concentrations of Enterococcus were measured at the December sampling event, where 75% of
sites exceeding the 33 cfu/100mL limit. The average concentration at the December sampling event
was over ten times higher than the action limit.
Mean Enterococci
concentration (MPN/100mL)
400
CRWA Action Limit (33MPN/100mL)
300
200
100
0
March
June
September
Figure 3-13. Average Enterococci concentration by sampling event in 2015.
7
8
Wright (2008)
Moore (2007)
20
December
Mean Enterococci concentration (MPN/100mL)
Figure 3-14 shows the average annual concentration of Enterococcus by sampling site. Sites 012S, 35CS,
and 763S had the highest mean Enterococcus concentration of the quarterly sites. Sites 199S and 784S
were the only two sites with an annual mean below the action limit, however, this is likely a result of
the two sites not being sampled during the December event, which was characterized by wet weather
conditions and elevated bacteria levels across the watershed.
450
CRWA Action Limit (33MPN/100 mL)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
743S
763S
784S
90CS
Site
Figure 3-14. Average Enterococci concentrations at quarterly VMM sites during 2015.
3.2.2. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total suspended solids (TSS) are a measurement of the amount of sediment present in a water
sample. TSS are primarily comprised of fine sand, silt, and clay particles – particles that are not heavy
enough to settle out of the water column. High levels of TSS can make the water cloudy, preventing
light from reaching submerged vegetation and having a detrimental impact on organisms such as fish
that depend on light to find food, shelter, and mates. TSS can also act as a transport mechanism
carrying heavy metals and organic contaminants into the water.
Human activities and non-anthropogenic factors can greatly impact the quantity and type of sediment
found in streams and rivers. The paving of previously pervious surfaces increases the amount of
stormwater runoff carrying dust, sediment, and pollutants into the river. In New England, sand is used
to de-ice slippery roadways and parking lots throughout the winter, which enters the river during
spring snowmelt. The removal of aquatic or terrestrial vegetation in the riparian zone enables the
release of sediment as plant roots are no longer present to stabilize the bank, which can result in rapid
bank erosion.
21
CRWA uses two action limits for TSS. For the majority of the year, the action limit is 30 mg/L.
However, during the herring run (March-June) the action limit is lowered to 15 mg/L. Herring are
migratory fish that migrate from the ocean in the spring to spawn in coastal rivers. Herring are
sensitive to penetrating light and high TSS values can affect their spawning success.
Data Analysis & Discussion
Of the 44 samples collected and analyzed for TSS in 2015, only one sample, collected from site 290S
in March, exceeded CRWA’s year-round action limit (as well as the spring action limit), with a
concentration of 35 mg/L (Fig 3-15). Site 199S had the highest average TSS concentration with 16
mg/L, but since no data was collected at that site during the spring herring run, it is unknown whether
concentrations at the site exceeded the spring action limit.
35
Annual Mean
March
June
September
December
CRWA Year-Round Action Limit
CRWA Spring Action Limit
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
743S
763S
784S
Site
Figure 3-15. Concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) at quarterly VMM sites in 2015.
22
90CS
3.2.3. Nitrogen
Nitrogen is an essential nutrient in aquatic systems, but can lead to water quality issues at high
concentrations or in certain chemical forms. CRWA tests the river for three forms of nitrogen:
ammonia (NH3), nitrate-nitrite (NO3/NO2), and total nitrogen (TN) – the sum of ammonia, nitratenitrite, and organic nitrogen found in plant matter. These forms of nitrogen originate from many
sources, including atmospheric deposition of automobile exhaust and power plant emissions,
wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, illicit sewer pipe cross-connections, leaking sewer pipes,
animal waste, decomposition of plant material, and fertilizers. Nitrates are a particularly valuable water
quality parameter, because they dissolve in water more easily than phosphorus, making them a better
indicator of sewage contamination during dry weather.
The three distinct forms of nitrogen have unique properties. Ammonia is commonly found in untreated
sewage and at certain levels can be toxic to fish and aquatic plants. Microbes convert ammonia to
nitrite, which can also cause toxicity in aquatic organisms, 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. High levels of nitrate can lead to eutrophication and algal blooms, anoxia, and in
extreme cases, dead zones. However, this is primarily a problem in brackish and saltwater systems
where nitrogen is the limiting nutrient, as opposed to freshwater systems where algal growth is usually
limited by phosphorus.
Data Analysis & Discussion
A total of 44 samples from thirteen monitoring sites were analyzed for total nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite,
and ammonia. No ammonia samples exceeded the 0.3 mg/L action limit (Fig 3-16), however 76% of
the nitrate-nitrite samples and 100% of the total nitrogen samples exceeded their action limits of 0.31
mg/L and 0.57 mg/L, respectively (Fig 3-17). The large percentage of samples exceeding these action
limits is consistent with data from previous years.
The highest average concentrations of total nitrogen (4.17 mg/L) was found at site 90CS, as has been
the case since the parameters were measured in 1997. 2015 was the first year since 1996 where the
highest amount of nitrates/nitrites wasn’t found at site 90CS. This year the highest nitrate/nitrite
concentration (1.61 mg/L) was found at site 290S. These values are higher than the average total
nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite concentrations for all sites (1.49 mg/L and 0.67 mg/L, respectively).
High levels of nitrogen is often an indicator of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge, thus it
is possible the consistently elevated concentrations of nitrogen observed at site 90CS in 2015, and in
previous years, could be caused by the downstream proximity (~4 miles) of the site to the Milford
Wastewater Treatment Facility. However, there are no consistent, significant spikes of other
parameters, including phosphorus, at site 90CS.
In general, it is difficult to quantify the contribution of WWTPs to nitrogen concentrations in the
Charles River, as WWTPs are regulated only for ammonia which may subsequently be converted into
other forms of nitrogen after discharge. Additionally, violations may occur at WWTPs despite
23
regulatory requirements. Continued investigation and data collection at sites downstream of WWTPs
are important to assessing their contribution to nutrient levels in the river.
0.35
CRWA Action Limit (0.3 mg/L)
Ammonia (mg/L as N)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
743S
763S
784S
90CS
784S
90CS
Site
4.5
4
Mean Total Nitrogen
Mean Nitrate/Nitrite
CRWA Action Limit (0.57 mg/L)
CRWA Action Limit (0.31 mg/L)
Concentration in mg/L as N
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
743S
763S
Site
Figure 3-16 (top). Average ammonia concentration at quarterly VMM sites in 2015.
Figure 3-17 (bottom). Average concentration of total nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite at quarterly
VMM sites in 2015.
24
3.2.4 Phosphorus
Phosphorus is a natural part of any aquatic system and is essential for photosynthesis and plant
growth. In freshwater systems like the Charles River, phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient,
meaning that the growth of aquatic plants, including algae, is typically limited by the relatively low
natural supply of phosphorus. CRWA monitors the Charles River for total phosphorus and for
orthophosphate, which is the fraction of total phosphorus directly available to organisms.
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.
The primary anthropogenic sources of phosphorus to the Charles are stormwater runoff, discharges
from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and combined-sewer overflows (CSOs). Of these,
stormwater runoff is the largest contributor, carrying phosphorus found in fertilizers, detergents, loose
sediment, automobile exhaust, animal waste, and other sources into the river. About 40% of
phosphorus entering the lower Charles River Basin comes from residential sources, such as lawn
fertilizers and residential runoff (Figure 3-18).9
The addition of phosphorus into freshwater systems can cause eutrophication, a condition of excessive
plant and algal growth caused by excess nutrients. When phosphorus stimulates algae and other
plants that float on the water surface to grow and cover a large area, submerged vegetation suffers
from a lack of sunlight and dies. The decomposition of large amounts of organic material depletes the
river’s dissolved oxygen supply, essentially suffocating oxygen dependent organisms such as fish.
Additionally, blooms of toxin-producing photosynthetic organisms, such as cyanobacteria (Fig 3-19),
can have a wide range of potential biological impacts throughout the ecosystem. While it is generally
uncommon for humans to ingest a lethal amount of the toxin, dogs and other animals prone to drinking
river water are more vulnerable. Humans can, however, still experience discomforting symptoms from
contact with the organisms.
Figure 3-18 (left). Annual phosphorus inputs by source to the Lower Charles River Basin
Figure 3-19 (right). Photograph of a cyanobacteria bloom in the Charles River
9
Charles River Watershed Association (2008)
25
Data Analysis & Discussion
A total of 44 quarterly samples were analyzed for both phosphorus and orthophosphate in 2015. One
hundred percent of total phosphorus samples (44 of 44) collected in 2015 exceeded the US EPA
recommended criterion of 0.0238 mg/L, while only 11% (5 of 44) of orthophosphate samples
exceeded this limit and none of the sites surpassed the limit as an average of their samples (Appendix
I & J). Site 763S had the highest average concentration of total phosphorus at 0.108 mg/L, while the
lowest average total phosphorus concentration was observed at site 35CS - the furthest upstream
sampling site (Fig 3-20). Seasonal analysis shows of phosphorus concentrations highest in the spring,
and then falling off throughout the rest of the year (Fig 3-21).
0.08
Total Phosphorus
Orthophosphate
CRWA Action Limit (0.0238 mg/L)
Concentration (mg/L)
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
743S
763S
784S
90CS
Concentration (mg/L)
0.125
Total Phosphorous
Orthophosphate
CRWA Action Limit (0.0238 mg/L)
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Figure 3-20 (top). Average concentration of total phosphorous and orthophosphate at
quarterly VMM sites in 2015.
Figure 3-21 (bottom). Average concentration of total phosphorous and orthophosphate by
sampling event in 2015.
26
Phosphorus is a major pollutant of the Charles River and is a growing water quality issue. The vast
majority of samples taken in the Charles River in the last ten years have exceeded the action limit, and
the average concentration of total phosphorus in river samples remains over twice as high as the
action limit (Fig 3-22). In the summer of 2015 a cyanobacteria bloom in the Lower Charles River
prompted public health advisories which lasted for weeks.10 With the continuing high levels of
phosphorus loading to the river, and increasing temperatures due to climate change, cyanobacteria
blooms will likely be a more common occurrence in the future.
The Massachusetts Year 2014 Integrated List of Waters lists many stretches of the Charles River as
impaired because of high nutrients.11 Of the nine mainstream divisions of the Charles, six are listed as
impaired by phosphorus loading. A study by CRWA, DEP, and EPA found that phosphorus in
stormwater runoff needs to be reduced to about half its current levels to support healthy ecological
function in the Charles River.12 This pollution budget study, The Charles River Nutrient Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL), is an excellent source for information on nutrient contamination in the Charles
River and provides watershed-level implementation plans for reducing nutrient pollution to safe levels.
The report calls for state agencies, cities and towns, and private land-owners throughout the Charles
River watershed to better manage stormwater runoff before it reaches the Charles and to reduce
sources of phosphorus to the environment.
0.100
50%
Total phosphorus [mg/L]
40%
0.075
30%
0.050
20%
0.025
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0.000
2015
Figure 3-22. Percent of river samples meeting the EPA standard for total phosphorous (0.0238
mg/L) from 2005-2015.
10
Boston Globe (2015, August 13). “Charles River bacteria levels prompt health advisory.”
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2014)
12
US Environmental Protection Agency (2011)
11
27
Average total phosphorus [mg/L]
Percentage samples passing total phosphorus
standard
Percent samples passing standard
Human activity is the major cause of elevated phosphorus levels in the Charles River. CRWA
advocates the use of street sweeping, zero-phosphorus fertilizers, and basic vegetation management
to decrease municipal phosphorus inputs, and the use of yard rainwater collection, pet waste pick-up,
and zero-phosphorus household cleaning products to reduce residential contributions to phosphorus
inputs.13 CRWA also partners with municipalities and property owners to construct rain gardens and
other low-impact development stormwater treatment systems to collect and treat stormwater runoff
before it reaches the River.
3.2.5 Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a is the principle photosynthetic pigment in algae and vascular plants in the Charles River
and is used to determine the concentration of algae in the water column. An abundance of algae can
lead to anoxic (low oxygen) conditions in the river and harm fish and other aquatic fauna in the
manner discussed in previous sections. Algal growth is fueled by excess phosphorus in the River, so
the chlorophyll a concentration is often high when there is an excess of phosphorus in the system.14 In
order to estimate accurately the current chlorophyll a level in a water sample, the concentration of the
substance that is produced when chlorophyll a degrades, phaeophytin a, is also measured.
Phaeophytin a can absorb light at the same wavelengths as chlorophyll a, resulting in an artificially high
estimate when a fluorescence-based method is used to determine the chlorophyll a concentration of a
water sample.
Data Analysis & Discussion
A total of 44 samples were analyzed for both chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a (Fig 3-23). The highest
chlorophyll a concentration measured in 2015 was 52.6 μg/L, observed at site 763S in June (Appendix
K). The highest phaeophytin a result was 40.2 μg/L, also observed at Site 763S, though in September.
Of the 44 samples collected, 54% contained concentrations of chlorophyll a that exceeded the action
limit of 3.75 μg/L, similar to the 53% exceedance percentage in 2014. This negligible increase is in
chlorophyll a exceedances is in contrast to the 33% increase in exceedances from 2013 to 2014, which
was due to reported observations of dense Eurasian water milfoil cover upstream of the Natick Dam
and high counts of cyanobacteria in the Lower Basin.
Typically, chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a concentrations are highest in September at the end of the
growing season. However in 2015, the highest chlorophyll a results in 2015 occurred in June, when
83% of samples exceeded the action limit (Fig 3-24). A majority of samples collected in September
and December also exceeded the chlorophyll a action limit (64% and 80%, respectively). The highest
phaeophytin results also occurred in June, with results in December also slightly over the action limit
on average. This could be due to the fact that Boston-area received about a half inch of rain the day
before the June and December sampling events, but practically no rain at all in September.
13
14
Charles River Watershed Association (2008)
US Environmental Protection Agency (2011)
28
30
Concentration (ug/L)
25
20
15
10
5
0
012S
199S
290S
35CS
387S
Chlorophyll a
400S
534S
Phaeophytin
609S
662S
743S
763S
784S
CRWA Action Limit (ug/L)
Concentration (ug/L)
20
15
10
5
0
March
June
Chlorophyll a
September
Phaeophytin
December
CRWA Action Limit
Figure 3-23 (top). Average concentration of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin at quarterly VMM
sites in 2015.
Figure 3-24 (bottom). Average concentration of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin by sampling
event in 2015.
29
90CS
3.3 Roving Sites
In addition to the 35 fixed VMM sites sampled each month, samples are typically collected from two
roving sites that change location from month-to-month. Roving sites were added to the VMM program
in June 2011 to measure E. coli concentrations at locations in the watershed that were typically not
monitored by the VMM program – such as under-sampled locations on the Charles River, tributary
sites, and outfall pipes – and to pinpoint specific sources of contamination to the river. In 2015, a
majority of roving samples were collected at sites that are investigated through CRWA’s biological
monitoring program, in order to pair water sample data with the habitat assessment and
macroinvertebrate data collected by CRWA biological monitoring volunteers.
In 2015, 19 roving samples were collected at 17 different sites and analyzed for E. coli, with nine (47%)
samples exceeded the swimming standard and three (16%) samples exceeded the boating standard.
The highest E. coli concentration observed in a roving sample was 1560 MPN/100mL, from a sample
collected at the MRRW biological monitoring site on the Muddy River site in Brookline (upstream
from the Brookline Avenue and Riverway intersection). A detailed summary of E. coli concentrations
recorded at roving sites in 2015 can be found in Appendix L.
3.4 Field comments
Field comments provide qualitative information about river conditions. Field comments from monthly
sampling events record physical conditions of the site, as well as deviations from regular sampling
protocol. In 2015, common field comment topics included wildlife, vegetation and weather conditions
(Fig 3-25).
Number of field comments
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3-25. The 11 most common field comment topics in 2015.
30
4.0 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
4.1 Program Overview
In 2013, a new biological monitoring program was established to complement the monthly monitoring
and to help provide a more complete picture of the health of the watershed. Volunteers continued to
assist CRWA in implementing this program in 2014 and 2015.
The biological monitoring program measures two additional properties of river and stream systems.
The first of these is water quality as evaluated through the presence of aquatic macroinvertebrate
(aquatic insect) communities. Macroinvertebrates show various tolerances to pollution, so their
presence or absence at a site can be used to gauge water quality. The other new measure is a physical
habitat assessment of parameters such as the amount of vegetation along the sides of the river, river
flow, and stability of the river banks. Both of these measures give a longer-term picture of the health of
the river, because physical habitat and biological communities do not fluctuate as often as other water
measurements, such as nutrient levels.
The new program was initiated in partnership with the Freshwater Ecology Lab (FEL) at the University
of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), whose staff conducted a preliminary study at 10 sites along the
Charles River Watershed in 2012. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, UMB FEL researchers generously
performed quality control checks on samples analyzed by CRWA’s volunteers to ensure scientific
integrity of the water quality data.
4.2 Methodology
To assess habitat quality, volunteers rate 13 habitat parameters based on the U.S. EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol. The protocol calls for evaluations of: bottom cover, pool bottom, pool
variability, sediment deposition, channel flow, channel alternation, channel sinuosity, bank stability,
riparian zone, and bank vegetation. Using the Bioassessment Protocol, volunteers were able to
translate their findings into a habitat assessment score, rating the habitat as Optimal, Suboptimal,
Marginal, or Poor.
Volunteers also sample for benthic macroinvertebrates at the site locations. Based on consultation
with experts in the field and our experience with this program in 2013, CRWA has chosen to adopt U.S.
EPA’s Stream Biotic Index (SBI) water quality scoring system instead of the Streamside Biosurvey
scoring system to interpret macroinvertebrate monitoring results. The SBI scoring system accounts for
both the presence and the relative abundance of each type of macroinvertebrate, whereas the
Streamside Biosurvey scoring system is based solely on the presence/absence of macroinvertebrate
types. The SBI system calculates a water quality score for each site and classifies the water quality as
“Good” (SBI>40), “Fair” (SBI=20-40) or “Poor” (SBI<20) based on the types of invertebrates present
and their relative abundance.
31
4.3 Results
CRWA volunteers, including volunteers from UMB, conducted habitat assessments and collected
biological samples at 10 sites throughout the Charles River watershed between July and September of
2015 (Table 4-1). Site 35CS on the Charles River was sampled twice, three weeks apart.
No sites achieved the highest possible water quality rating (“Good”) in the Stream Biotic Index, which
requires a score greater than 40, though the Rock Meadow Brook site (RM01, Westwood) did come
close, with an SBI sore of 39.6. Seven sites (70%) received a water quality score of “Fair”, while three
sites (30%) had “poor” water quality: sites 35CS and 90CS on the Charles River, and CHE4 on
Cheesecake Brook in Newton. Three sites achieved the “Optimal” category for habitat quality in 2015,
up from only one site in 2014. Six sites (60%) received habitat scores one level below optimal at
“Suboptimal”, while one site, Cheesecake Brook in Newton, received a score of “Marginal” with
corresponding “Poor” water quality.
All sites in 2015 that had “Fair” water quality scores had either “Suboptimal” or “Optimal” habitat
scores. The 2015 data show a loose correlation between habitat score and SBI water quality score (Fig
4-1a), though this correlation disappears when grouping together all data from 2013-2015 (Fig 4-1b),
indicating that other factors are influencing the water quality aside from habitat quality.
Some year-to-year variability is already evident in our biological monitoring results.1516 Between 20142015, Cheesecake Brook has remained at “Marginal” habitat quality, however its score has improved
by nearly 20 points since 2013. Muddy River in Brookline increased from Marginal to Suboptimal in
habitat quality, increasing 22 habitat score points in just two years. The Stop River in Norfolk has had
consistently good habitat quality, remaining at “Optimal” for three years in a row. Bogastow Brook in
Millis has also remained constant at “Suboptimal” for the past year. The remaining sites did not have
historical data to determine whether their habitat or water quality levels have improved.
The 2015 biological monitoring results generally show healthier stream habitat in the less urbanized
areas of the upper watershed, but also highlight hotspots of poor habitat and water quality. This agrees
with a preliminary study conducted by UMB in 2012,17 which sampled the same sites as CRWA and
found higher water quality and habitat quality in the upper watershed than in the more urbanized area
of the lower Charles. However, in part due to the fact that the sampling methodology is only applicable
to wadeable streams, which are more heavily concentrated near the headwaters of the Charles,
sampling sites to date have over-represented the upper watershed. Only two of the 10 sampling sites
in 2015 were located in the Lower Basin (Muddy River in Brookline). A sampling methodology for nonwadeable streams has been developed over the winter and will be incorporated into the BMI program
in the near future.
15
Charles River Watershed Association (2014)
Charles River Watershed Association (2015)
17
Ciarfella and Christian (2013)
16
32
Table 4-1. Biological Monitoring Results.
Site ID
Water Body
Description
Town
Date
Sampled
Habitat
Quality
Score
Habitat
Quality
SBI Score
Water
Quality
35CS(A)
Charles River
222 Central St.
Milford
7/17/2015
121
Suboptimal
15.9
Poor
35CS(B)
Charles River
222 Central St.
Milford
8/7/2015
121
Suboptimal
6.4
Poor
90CS
Charles River
Route 126 & N
Main St.
Bellingham
7/17/2015
164
Optimal
25.6
Fair
BGSB
Bogastow Brook
260 Ridge St.
Millis
9/22/2015
121
Suboptimal
23.6
Fair
CHE4
Cheesecake Brook
Eddy St. &
Albemarle Rd.
Newton
8/13/2015
72
Marginal
15.4
Poor
MRBB
Muddy River
Pond Ave. near
Chestnut St. Rotary
Brookline
9/14/2015
103
Suboptimal
21.9
Fair
MRRW
Muddy River
Brookline Ave. &
Aspinwall Ave.
Brookline
7/11/2015
101
Suboptimal
16.1
Poor
MSB01
Miscoe Brook
South St.
Franklin
8/18/2015
144
Suboptimal
20.3
Fair
RB01
Rosemary Brook
200 Barton Rd.
Wellesley
8/18/2015
103
Suboptimal
27.8
Fair
RM01
Rock Meadow Brook
Summer St.
Westwood
8/19/2015
158
Optimal
39.6
Fair
SR02
Stop River
18 Campbell St.
Norfolk
7/10/2015
173
Optimal
24.3
Fair
33
45
40
RM01
35
SBI Score
30
R2 = 0.2227
RB01
25
90CS
SR02
BGSB
20
MRBB
MSB01
15
CHE4
MRRW
35CS(A)
10
5
35CS(B)
0
0
50
100
150
200
EPA Habitat Score
45
2015
40
2014
2013
35
30
SBI Score
R2 = 0.0042
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
EPA Habitat Score
Figure 4-1. Comparison of SBI water quality and EPA habitat assessment scores for (a) 2015
BMI sites only, and (b) all BMI sites monitored in 2013-2015.
34
200
5.0 QA/QC
The precision of water sample results in measured through the collection and analysis of field
duplicate samples. Field duplicates, collected on the same day and time by the same sampling team,
examine whether results are replicable across the whole sampling process. Field duplicates are
collected for at least 10% of all samples. Differences between the field duplicate and the routine
sample are measured in relative percent difference (RPD). The RPD threshold varies from one
parameter to the next. Noteworthy differences between routine and field duplicate samples can be
either indicative of real variation between the samples, or sampling and/or laboratory errors.
5.1 Bacterial QA/QC
E. coli field duplicates are collected every sampling event at four to five sampling locations. For E. coli,
the difference between routine and field duplicate samples must either be less than 100 MPN/100 mL
or be within 100% RPD to be considered reliable. A total of 43 E. coli field duplicate samples were
collected in 2015, of which 98% met the quality control standards. A detailed summary of bacterial
field duplicates and their RPDs can be found in Appendix N.
5.2 Nutrients and TSS QA/QC
Nutrient field duplicates are taken at two sites during every quarterly sampling event, ideally totaling
eight duplicates for each nutrient parameter. The schedule for duplicate sampling cycles through the
thirteen nutrient sites so that each site is assigned a duplicate at least once every two years. Nutrient
and TSS duplicate samples with an RPD less than 20% are considered reliable.
In 2015, seven of the thirteen sites that sample for nutrients and TSS on a quarterly basis took a field
duplicate. Seven field duplicates were collected and analyzed for TSS, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and orthophosphate. All TSS and total nitrogen duplicates met quality
control standards, while one nitrate-nitrite duplicate sample, two total phosphorous duplicate samples,
three ammonia duplicate samples, and four orthophosphate duplicate samples failed to meet the
quality control standard. One duplicate nutrient sample – from 784S in June – failed to meet quality
control standards for ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous, suggesting a
compromised sample. A detailed summary of TSS and nutrient field duplicates and their RPDs can be
found in Appendix O.
35
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
CRWA’s VMM program provides data that can be used to better understand the health of the Charles
River and its tributaries. The data are used by organizations such as U.S. EPA, which assigns an annual
grade to the Lower Charles River Basin as part of its Clean Charles Initiative. In addition to providing
the public with an easily accessible picture of the health of the Charles through annual EPA grades,
VMM data also enables CRWA to identify problem areas so that remediation efforts can be focused in
a more efficient way.
The 2015 VMM data suggest that although the Clean Charles Initiative has helped improve water
quality over the past 20 years, the River remains impaired in many ways. Based on bacteria levels, the
Charles River is much cleaner than in the early 1990’s; however, other parameters, such as nitrogen
and phosphorus, regularly exceed acceptable levels, and bacteria levels have plateaued over the past
decade.
The 2015 water quality monitoring results are generally consistent with results from the past several
years. The percentage of E. coli samples that exceeded surface water quality standards in 2015 was
33% exceeding the swimming standard and 6% exceeding the boating standard – only a slight
improvement compared to the previous year, which saw exceedances of 37% and 12% respectively,
but a significant improvement from when the program began in 1995. For Enterococcus, nutrient, and
TSS samples, all happened to be collected during “wet weather” sampling events. For Enterococcus
samples, 53% exceeded the action limit, compared to 36% in 2014. For nitrogen parameters in 2015,
76% of nitrate-nitrate samples exceeded the action limit (compared to 81% in 2014) and 100% of
total nitrogen samples exceeded the action limit (compared to 93% in 2014), while zero ammonia
samples exceeded the action limit, similar to the previous year.
In the third season of our benthic macroinvertebrate sampling program, volunteers successfully
collected biological and physical water quality data at 10 sites. Seven sites (70%) had fair water
quality and three (30%) had poor water quality. The sites showed greater variability in habitat quality
scores; 30% were optimal, 60% were suboptimal, 10% were marginal. The lack of correlation between
habitat and water quality scores over the first three years of the BMI program suggests that there are
many opportunities to promote aquatic life in the Charles River watershed by restoring water quality in
areas that have good habitat quality.
Total phosphorus continues to be a major water quality issue in the Charles River, and an issue of
increasing concern. In 2015, 100% of samples collected for total phosphorus exceeded the phosphorus
standard. Average total phosphorus concentrations in the 2015 samples were over twice as high as the
phosphorus standard, and within the range of average concentrations seen in the last decade of data
from the volunteer monthly monitoring program. With increasing development in the watershed
region and the possibility of greater intensity precipitation events brought on by climate change,
stormwater runoff – already the leading contributor of phosphorus to the Charles River – could
increase. These high nutrient inputs, combined with higher river temperatures due to climate change
(as observed in the VMM program data), may be responsible for the emerging threat of large,
sustained cyanobacterial blooms in the Charles River and other local water bodies, such as the blooms
36
that occurred in Charles River Lower Basin, Jamaica Pond, and the Brookline Reservoir during the
summer of 2015. Thus it is imperative for the present and future water quality of the Charles River that
steps for phosphorus and stormwater runoff reduction, such as those outlined in the Charles River
Nutrient TMDL, be implemented.
Continued commitment from CRWA staff and volunteers, as well as collaboration with MWRA, DEP,
the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), and EPA will ensure that water quality in the
Charles continues to improve for recreation, public health, and wildlife for years to come. For more
information and water quality data updated each month, please refer to CRWA’s water quality
monitoring website at http://www.crwa.org/fieldscience/monthly-monitoring.
37
7.0 REFERENCES
Boston Globe. (2015, August 13). “Charles River bacteria levels prompt health advisory.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/13/dirty-water-onceagain/l5LB4ylXyICdV1UeQ3UKVP/story.html
Charles River Watershed Association. (2008). Phosphorus in the Charles River: What you should know.
Retrieved Febuary 1, 2013, from http://www.crwa.org/projects/METwMyRWA/phosedu.html
Charles River Watershed Association. (2014). Charles River Monthly Monitoring Program 2013 Year-End Report.
Weston, MA: CRWA.
Charles River Watershed Association. (2015). Charles River Monthly Monitoring Program 2014 Year-End Report.
Weston, MA: CRWA.
Ciarfella, C. and A. Christian. (2013). Preliminary Autumn 2012 CRWA Macroinvertebrate and Habitat Results
and Discussion. University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2007, September). Massachusetts Surface Water
Quality Standards. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from
http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2014, June). Massachusetts Year 2014 Integrated List
of Waters. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from Mass DEP.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. (2011, March 21). Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Retrieved
February 1, 2013, from http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm
Moore, Douglas, Joseph Guzman, Paul Hannah, Martin Getrich, and Charles McGee. (October 24, 2007). Does
Enterococcus Indicate Fecal Contamination? Presence of Plant-Associated Enterococcus in Southern
California Recreational Waters. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from
http://www.coastalconference.org/h20_2007/pdf_07/2007-10-24-Wednesday/Session_2ABacterial_Indictors/Guzman-Does_Enterococcus_Indicate_Fecal_Contamination_Presen.pdf
National Weather Service Forecast Office – Preliminary Monthly Climate Data
Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
(http://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, February 17). Clean Charles River Initiative. Retrieved March 1,
2013 from Region http://www.epa.gov/region1/charles/initiative.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000, December). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations.
Retrieved March 26, 2013, from
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/upload/2007_09_27_criteria
_nutrient_ecoregions_rivers_rivers_14.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, February 18). Addressing Excessive Nutrients in the Charles River
(TMDL). Retrieved March 10, 2013 from EPA Region 1: http://www.epa.gov/ne/charles/tmdl.html
38
Wright, Mary. Evaluation of Enterococci, an Indicator Microbe, and the Sources That Impact the Water Quality at
a Subtropical Non-Point Source Recreational Beach. (2008, May).
39
8.0 APPENDICIES
Appendix A: 2015 Escherichia coli bacteria sampling results
Appendix B: 2015 Temperature Results
Appendix C: 2015 Depth Results
Appendix D: 2015 Enterococci Sampling Results
Appendix E: 2015 Total Suspended Solid Sampling Results
Appendix F: 2015 Total Nitrogen Sampling Results
Appendix G: 2015 Nitrate-Nitrite Sampling Results
Appendix H: 2015 Ammonia Sampling Results
Appendix I: 2015 Total Phosphorus Sampling Results
Appendix J: 2015 Orthophosphate Sampling Results
Appendix K: 2015 Chlorophyll a & Phaeophytin a Sampling Results
Appendix L: 2015 Roving Sites Sampling Results
Appendix M: 2015 Biological Monitoring Results
Appendix N: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results 2015: Bacteria
Appendix O: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results 2015: Quarterly Nutrients and TSS
40
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Concentrations of Escherichia Coli (E. coli) Bacteria (#/100 ml)
Site #
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
700S
715S
729S
743S
760T
763S
773S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Mellen St. Bridge
Rt. 126, N. Main St.
Maple St. Bridge
Shaw St./Elm St. Bridge
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
Rt. 115, Baltimore St.
Dwight St. Bridge
Causeway St./Stop River
West St./Dover Rd.
Rt. 27 Bridge
Farm Rd./Bridge St.
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Dover Gage, Mill St.
Greendale Ave./Lyons St. Bridge
Ames St. Bridge
Rt. 109 Bridge
Nahanton Park
Rt. 9 Gaging Station
Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge
Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd.
2391 Commonwealth Ave.
Auburndale Park, Lakes Region
Moody St. Bridge
North St. Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
N. Beacon St. Bridge
Arsenal St. Bridge
Eliot St. Bridge
Western Ave Bridge
Muddy River at Commonwealth Ave.
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Longfellow Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
River mile
Milford
3.5
Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale
5.9
Bellingham
9.0
Bellingham
12.9
Franklin/Medway
16.5
Norfolk
19.9
Millis
22.9
Millis/Medfield
26.7
Medfield
26.9
Millis/Medfield
29.0
Medfield/Sherborn
31.8
Sherborn/Dover
34.3
Wellesley/Dover
37.8
Dover/Needham
40.0
Dover/Needham
44.7
Dedham/Needham
48.4
Dedham
52.1
Dedham/Boston
53.4
Newton/Needham
56.7
Newton
59.1
Wellesley/Newton
60.9
Weston/Newton
62.1
Newton
63.5
Waltham
64.8
Waltham
66.2
Waltham/Watertown/Newton
67.6
Watertown
69.3
Watertown/Brighton
70.9
Watertown/Brighton
71.5
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
72.9
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
74.3
Boston
76.0
Boston/Cambridge
76.3
Cambridge/Boston
77.3
Boston
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designation of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
1/13/15
30
201
41
63
226
30
63
41
10
52
52
74
74
161
240
472
435
122
3/17/15
30
119
63
185
85
644
384
20
134
189
189
160
74
63
31
86
134
134
110
388
275
146
145
121
201
262
269
345
397
216
4/14/15
31
110
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
10
20
10
86
20
10
10
20
10
41
10
10
74
5
85
62
40
74
173
52
74
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
WET
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.00
WET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
DRY
E. coli (cfu/100mL)
5/19/15
6/16/15
7/21/15
8/18/15
9/15/15
120
410
364
495
63
1620
199
246
697
31
74
173
74
441
145
309
364
189
663
122
85
158
31
41
41
20
41
74
20
52
63
41
52
85
216
410
86
63
<10
169
84
86
74
20
122
41
<10
63
<10
74
52
110
31
52
109
547
74
10
52
265
84
148
41
41
41
41
122
31
41
228
413
74
52
173
10
10
134
520
148
109
134
31
20
41
31
41
435
109
74
31
121
228
74
97
63
108
223
135
41
10
74
395
145
727
109
31
98
31
74
10
20
52
31
10
213
211
359
554
135
278
520
379
108
146
110
272
1110
63
156
86
161
426
109
132
31
52
108
85
74
203
<10
134
31
10
52
109
189
256
389
537
31
98
<10
<10
10
20
31
10
10
41
<10
10
<10
<10
20
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
trace
trace
0.14
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
trace
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.40
trace
0.00
0.00
0.01
trace
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
WET
WET
DRY
WET
10/20/15
317
63
63
86
30
74
41
30
31
41
<10
10
52
20
20
20
31
31
30
10
20
31
98
228
145
226
122
31
443
2910
250
<10
11/17/15
211
20
<10
20
52
30
52
52
20
31
74
10
20
W
<10
10
52
31
30
20
10
74
W
143
97
109
98
148
31
63
216
98
52
12/15/15
546
24200
41
135
203
52
121
20
31
31
31
10
52
683
W
148
20
907
723
4880
1790
63
816
W
727
987
2360
437
1610
422
933
7700
521
175
trace
trace
0.00
trace
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
WET
Appendix B. Temperature Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Temperature in °C
Site #
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
700S
715S
729S
743S
760T
763S
773S
784S
Description
Town
Central Street Bridge
Milford
Mellen St. Bridge
Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale
Rt. 126, N. Main St.
Bellingham
Maple St. Bridge
Bellingham
Shaw St./Elm St. Bridge
Franklin/Medway
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
Norfolk
Rt. 115, Baltimore St.
Millis
Dwight St. Bridge
Millis/Medfield
Causeway St./Stop River
Medfield
West St./Dover Rd.
Millis/Medfield
Rt. 27 Bridge
Medfield/Sherborn
Farm Rd./Bridge St.
Sherborn/Dover
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Wellesley/Dover
Charles River Road Bridge
Dover/Needham
Dover Gage, Mill St.
Dover/Needham
Greendale Ave./Lyons St. Bridge (Dedham Medical Center)
Dedham/Needham
Ames St. Bridge
Dedham
Rt. 109 Bridge
Dedham/Boston
Nahanton Park
Newton/Needham
Rt. 9 Gaging Station
Newton
Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge
Wellesley/Newton
Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd.
Weston/Newton
2391 Commonwealth Ave.
Newton
Auburndale Park, Lakes Region
Waltham
Moody St. Bridge
Waltham
North St. Bridge
Waltham/Watertown/Newton
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Watertown
N. Beacon St. Bridge
Watertown/Brighton
Arsenal St. Bridge
Watertown/Brighton
Eliot St. Bridge
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
Western Ave Bridge
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
Muddy River at Commonwealth Ave.
Boston
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Boston/Cambridge
Longfellow Bridge
Cambridge/Boston
New Charles River Dam
Boston
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
River Mile
3.5
5.9
9.0
12.9
16.5
19.9
22.9
26.7
26.9
29.0
31.8
34.3
37.8
40.0
44.7
48.4
52.1
53.4
56.7
59.1
60.9
62.1
63.5
64.8
66.2
67.6
69.3
70.9
71.5
72.9
74.3
76.0
76.3
77.3
78.4
1/13/2015
3.4
4.1
1.4
1.9
0.5
2.4
0.7
2.2
0.7
0.2
0.3
1.7
-0.4
0.6
2.3
0.5
1.3
0.6
2.0
3/17/2015
3.0
3.9
3.6
13.6
0.9
1.2
2.3
1.6
1.2
1.7
8.0
0.2
2.7
0.4
0.7
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.4
2.2
1.8
3.1
2.3
4/14/2015
13.8
13.0
12.8
19.4
13.2
14.4
12.6
14.0
12.8
11.1
15.0
13.7
12.8
13.0
14.6
11.7
12.1
11.9
12.0
11.6
13.7
7.4
12.0
12.8
12.0
12.3
11.5
12.0
0.6
15.0
12.5
12.3
11.1
5/19/2015
18.2
17.7
19.0
26.7
19.0
21.0
18.0
20.4
20.4
20.9
20.3
20.1
19.6
19.8
20.0
11.0
18.7
19.0
21.2
21.3
20.5
19.5
20.2
19.8
18.4
20.5
21.4
20.2
21.9
21.7
20.8
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
WET
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.00
WET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
trace
0.00
0.00
0.01
DRY
Temperature (°C)
6/16/2015
7/21/2015
8/18/2015
9/15/2015
18.9
27.0
23.4
17.9
24.0
24.5
25.4
26.1
19.3
9.0
19.0
25.4
25.1
23.0
28.9
22.4
26.0
26.6
26.6
20.7
19.4
27.7
27.0
19.6
20.6
27.2
27.3
20.6
21.0
22.5
27.2
22.6
21.7
27.4
27.0
21.0
22.1
28.0
27.2
20.7
22.0
28.0
27.1
21.2
22.6
26.0
25.8
20.6
21.0
28.3
28.0
20.9
22.8
28.5
22.2
20.5
27.6
27.5
20.6
28.1
28.0
20.6
20.9
26.0
26.6
20.4
19.9
27.3
27.3
19.8
20.2
25.4
16.0
21.7
28.0
25.7
21.8
22.6
27.8
27.7
21.9
22.2
27.2
27.3
21.5
21.5
26.7
26.0
21.0
20.0
27.0
27.4
21.0
20.1
27.0
27.3
20.3
20.8
26.2
26.3
20.0
22.5
27.1
27.3
22.2
23.6
28.2
28.7
23.7
20.6
27.2
27.2
19.4
23.8
28.5
29.2
24.9
23.7
27.6
30.2
24.7
23.0
28.1
26.5
23.4
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
trace
0.14
0.08
0.01
0.00
trace
0.00
0.38
0.40
trace
0.00
0.00
trace
0.00
0.00
0.00
WET
WET
DRY
WET
10/20/2015
9.0
12.2
10.8
8.0
10.5
23.0
10.8
10.7
10.7
11.4
11.0
11.7
10.0
10.1
10.5
23.5
8.5
13.6
11.7
11.0
13.0
12.0
10.6
10.9
12.7
10.8
15.4
14.7
13.7
11/17/2015
6.5
10.1
7.2
7.5
6.4
8.8
7.6
5.4
7.4
-0.6
7.8
-3.3
8.7
8.2
9.2
6.9
7.2
6.5
6.6
5.0
9.6
7.5
8.8
7.2
8.8
10.6
12.4
12.6
10.9
12/15/2015
13.0
13.7
10.0
11.5
9.7
11.1
10.6
10.7
9.4
10.2
9.2
11.0
9.4
10.0
11.0
8.9
9.6
9.0
9.4
8.7
13.8
10.9
11.0
9.0
8.6
8.6
9.7
12.5
11.3
10.5
trace
trace
0.00
trace
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
WET
Appendix C. Depth Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Depth of river in feet
Site #
35CS
59CS
90CS
130S
165S
199S
229S
269T
290S
318S
343S
387S
400S
484S
521S
534S
567S
591S
621S
635S
648S
662S
675S
012S
700S
715S
729S
743S
760T
763S
773S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Mellen St. Bridge
Rt. 126, N. Main St.
Maple St. Bridge
Shaw St./Elm St. Bridge
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
Rt. 115, Baltimore St.
Causeway St./Stop River
West St./Dover Rd.
Rt. 27 Bridge
Farm Rd./Bridge St.
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Greendale Ave./Lyons St. Bridge (Dedham Medical Center)
Ames St. Bridge
Rt. 109 Bridge
Nahanton Park
Rt. 9 Gaging Station
Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd.
2391 Commonwealth Ave.
Auburndale Park, Lakes Region
Moody St. Bridge
North St. Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
N. Beacon St. Bridge
Arsenal St. Bridge
Eliot St. Bridge
Western Ave Bridge
Muddy River at Commonwealth Ave.
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Longfellow Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale
Bellingham
Bellingham
Franklin/Medway
Norfolk
Millis
Medfield
Millis/Medfield
Medfield/Sherborn
Sherborn/Dover
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Needham
Dedham
Dedham/Boston
Newton/Needham
Newton
Weston/Newton
Newton
Waltham
Waltham
Waltham/Watertown/Newton
Watertown
Watertown/Brighton
Watertown/Brighton
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
Boston
Boston/Cambridge
Cambridge/Boston
Boston
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
River Mile
3.5
5.9
9.0
12.9
16.5
19.9
22.9
26.9
29.0
31.8
34.3
37.8
40.0
48.4
52.1
53.4
56.7
59.1
62.1
63.5
64.8
66.2
67.6
69.3
70.9
71.5
72.9
74.3
76.0
76.3
77.3
78.4
1/13/2015
1.1
2.6
2.3
2.0
2.4
1.7
6.3
6.3
4.5
5.5
6.2
1.2
5.3
3.1
14.3
25.8
3/17/2015
1.6
4.0
2.8
1.3
3.8
2.9
9.7
7.8
8.0
6.5
6.0
3.8
5.9
7.2
8.1
2.1
3.2
8.9
10.6
14.6
6.5
13.2
25.7
4/14/2015
1.2
2.5
2.8
1.2
2.8
3.1
2.6
3.3
9.3
9.0
6.0
3.5
6.8
8.5
1.0
9.6
4.8
7.4
8.8
3.5
8.0
11.0
14.2
13.5
5.8
15.7
6.5
24.4
5/19/2015
0.3
1.0
1.7
0.8
1.3
2.7
6.7
5.7
5.6
3.4
4.9
6.1
0.9
4.8
3.5
6.5
7.8
1.1
2.9
9.1
12.2
14.5
14.5
6.7
15.9
6.6
26.6
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
WET
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.00
WET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
trace
0.00
0.00
0.01
DRY
Depth (feet)
6/16/2015
7/21/2015
8/18/2015
9/15/2015
0.9
0.7
0.6
2.3
1.6
1.4
0.5
2.4
2.5
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
1.4
1.4
0.2
0.9
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.2
6.3
5.5
5.5
5.1
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.7
5.5
5.4
5.5
5.1
6.0
5.3
4.8
5.8
3.0
2.8
4.4
2.0
2.5
2.0
4.7
2.2
4.8
4.6
3.8
6.0
6.0
5.7
0.5
0.3
0.6
6.0
4.8
4.8
2.9
3.9
4.3
3.3
6.3
6.2
7.6
3.9
7.9
7.7
8.1
8.0
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.2
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.7
8.3
8.2
8.8
7.8
11.4
11.3
11.5
11.0
14.7
14.9
14.6
13.9
14.2
14.5
14.0
14.0
6.8
6.1
6.1
6.2
15.8
16.0
15.6
15.8
6.9
7.2
6.3
6.1
26.0
26.1
26.5
25.5
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
trace
0.14
0.08
0.01
0.00
trace
0.00
0.38
0.40
trace
0.00
0.00
trace
0.00
0.00
0.00
WET
WET
DRY
WET
10/20/2015
0.5
2.2
2.8
0.5
1.9
3.5
5.0
4.3
5.5
6.0
2.5
1.8
4.5
6.1
0.6
4.6
4.1
7.9
7.3
1.0
3.0
9.0
11.4
14.5
7.3
17.2
6.2
22.8
11/17/2015
0.4
2.5
3.1
0.5
2.0
3.3
5.7
4.3
5.5
6.0
1.9
2.3
4.6
6.0
0.7
4.8
3.3
1.0
2.7
9.7
11.2
14.7
14.8
7.1
15.1
7.2
25.7
12/15/2015
1.2
2.5
3.8
0.8
1.7
2.9
5.7
5.1
5.0
5.6
2.9
2.3
4.4
5.2
0.8
5.1
8.6
1.6
2.9
8.8
1.0
14.3
7.0
14.9
6.8
26.2
trace
trace
0.00
trace
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
WET
Appendix D. Enterococci Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of Enterococci results reported in most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/ 100mL)
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Enterococci (MPN/100 mL)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
63
404
441
63
10
85
20
31
10
146
41
20
20
63
20
173
203
10
249
10
187
20
97
20
98
5
443
471
20
73
31
31
199
63
1310
84
5
52
30
5
1300
74
20
5
10
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix E. TSS Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of total suspended solids, results reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
2.5
2.5
9.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
16.0
35.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.0
6.5
8.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.5
8.0
6.5
5.5
7.5
11.5
2.5
6.5
2.5
5.5
2.5
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix F. Total Nitrogen (TN) Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of total nitrogen, results reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
0.94
0.62
0.83
2.24
0.87
9.40
0.86
1.59
1.46
2.76
2.85
1.47
1.06
1.33
2.36
1.48
1.03
0.92
2.32
1.58
0.91
0.81
1.87
1.68
0.95
0.57
1.40
1.71
0.85
0.89
1.66
0.99
0.95
1.35
1.07
0.96
1.80
1.04
0.76
1.47
2.02
0.97
0.88
1.44
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix G. Nitrate-Nitrite Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of nitrates and nitrites, results reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
NO3 - NO2 (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
0.53
0.10
0.23
1.56
0.35
0.87
0.19
1.08
0.82
2.14
2.39
0.94
0.47
0.84
2.01
0.92
0.44
0.40
1.82
1.02
0.20
0.04
1.41
1.07
0.26
0.37
0.98
1.12
0.20
0.04
1.07
0.36
0.44
0.88
0.31
0.21
1.19
0.33
0.02
0.85
1.32
0.35
0.13
0.75
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix H. Ammonia Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of ammonia, results reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Ammonia (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
0.23
0.10
0.28
0.37
0.10
0.25
0.00
0.28
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.28
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.31
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.31
0.15
0.07
0.12
0.30
0.08
0.10
0.29
0.12
0.03
0.09
0.12
0.27
0.36
0.12
0.00
0.23
0.42
0.11
0.13
0.16
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix I. Total Phosphorus (TP) Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Data
Concentrations of Total Phosphorus results reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
0.033
0.028
0.027
0.051
0.045
0.029
0.068
0.065
0.080
0.030
0.052
0.054
0.066
0.033
0.029
0.054
0.072
0.042
0.032
0.054
0.088
0.044
0.031
0.054
0.064
0.041
0.032
0.056
0.056
0.052
0.055
0.057
0.073
0.031
0.065
0.051
0.059
0.070
0.108
0.044
0.059
0.049
0.075
0.034
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix J. Orthophosphate Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Concentrations of Orthophosphate reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) as P
Site #
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Orthophosphate (mg/L)
3/17/2015 6/16/2015 9/15/2015 12/15/2015
0.007
0.007
0.013
0.014
0.011
0.015
0.009
0.018
0.034
0.008
0.031
0.017
0.017
0.011
0.016
0.015
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.016
0.021
0.008
0.015
0.019
0.024
0.017
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.008
0.019
0.018
0.043
0.019
0.011
0.008
0.022
0.013
0.006
0.027
0.023
0.011
0.014
0.024
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
0.80
trace
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.42
0.00
trace
0.00
0.09
WET
WET
WET
WET
Appendix K. Chlorophyll a & Phaeophytin a Data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Concentrations of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin a in micrograms per liter (ug/L)
Site ID
35CS
90CS
199S
290S
387S
400S
534S
609S
662S
012S
743S
763S
784S
Description
Central Street Bridge
Route 126, North Main Street
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
West Street/Dover Road
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Charles River Road Bridge
Route 109 Bridge
Washington Street Hunnewell Bridge
Moody Street Bridge
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Western Avenue Bridge
Massachusetts Avenue (Harvard) Bridge
New Charles River Dam
Town
Milford
Bellingham
Norfolk
Millis/Medfield
Wellesley/Dover
Dover/Needham
Dedham/Boston
Wellesley/Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Cambridge/Boston/Allston
Boston/Cambridge
Boston
River Mile
3.5
9.0
19.9
29.0
38.7
40.0
53.4
60.9
66.2
69.3
74.3
76.3
78.4
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
Chl a
[µg/L]
0.35
0.81
0.79
0.75
0.79
0.61
1.08
1.38
1.66
1.95
2.08
3/17/2015
Phaeo
[µg/L]
0.96
1.38
1.67
1.5
1.53
1.15
1.5
1.65
1.74
1.82
1.61
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.00
WET
Chl a /
Phaeo
0.36
0.59
0.47
0.50
0.52
0.53
0.72
0.84
0.95
1.07
1.29
Chl a
[µg/L]
1.68
19.90
4.51
13.00
16.10
24.60
2.47
16.00
4.83
38.40
52.60
25.10
6/16/2015
9/15/2015
Phaeo
Chl a /
Chl a
Phaeo
[µg/L]
Phaeo
[µg/L]
[µg/L]
2.99
0.56
24.3
0.82
16.30
4.99
5.95
0.76
1.30
1.83
9.78
1.33
2.25
1.72
10.5
1.53
4.29
1.65
14.6
1.68
3.99
2.8
6.06
0.41
0.48
1.2
10.6
1.51
6.02
4.61
7.86
0.61
0.57
1.34
21
1.83
6.88
4.76
40.2
1.31
39.00
7.12
28.3
0.89
20.20
7.31
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
trace
0.01
0.00
0.38
0.40
0.00
trace
0.00
WET
WET
Chl a /
Phaeo
3.27
0.71
1.31
2.60
1.43
0.40
1.31
0.43
1.45
5.48
2.76
Chl a
[µg/L]
22.70
1.92
2.91
7.23
5.56
6.71
9.61
10.20
13.40
4.26
12/15/2015
Phaeo
[µg/L]
6.22
1.55
3.04
3.22
2.64
3.96
5.1
6.46
6.22
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
WET
Chl a /
Phaeo
3.65
1.24
0.96
2.25
2.11
1.69
1.88
1.58
2.15
1.09
Appendix L. 2015 Roving Sites data
Charles River Watershed Association
Monthly Water Quality Sampling Data
Concentrations of E. coli results reported in most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/ 100mL)
Description
BOS 033 outfall
Northeastern University Boathouse
Greenough Blvd
BGSB* - Bogastow Brook
Charles bank Apartments, Charles River Rd
Outfall between Prospect st bridge and watch factory lofts
BB* - Beaver Brook; Waverly Oaks Rd.
CHE4* - Cheesecake Brook; Eddy St. & Albemarle Rd.
SR02* - Stop River; 18 Campbell St
RM01* - Rock Meadow Brook; 385 Summer St
MRRW* - Muddy River
SR02* - Stop River; 18 Campbell St
RB01* - Rosemary Brook
MSB01* - Miscoe Brook
FULLER* - Fuller Brook
MRBB* - Muddy River
WABB* - Waban Brook
CHBR* - Cheesecake Brook
PB01* - Powisett Brook
Town
Brighton
Brighton
Watertown
Sherborn
Waltham
Waltham
Waltham
Newton
Norfolk
Westwood
Brookline
Norfolk
Wellesley
Franklin
Wellesley
Brookline
Wellesley
Newton
Dover
3 Days Prior to Sampling
2 Days Prior to Sampling
1 Day Prior to Sampling
Day of Sampling
Wet/Dry designatin of sampling event
Samples are analyzed at MWRA Central Laboratory
*BMI sites
3/17/2015
262
323
4/14/2015
5/19/2015
E. coli (MPN/ 100mL)
6/16/2015 7/21/2015 8/18/2015
9/15/2015
11/17/2015
12/15/2015
<10
<10
52
30
1080
990
86
97
1560
10
399
211
269
86
<10
156
20
0.80
0.27
0.00
0.00
WET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
DRY
trace
0.00
0.00
0.10
DRY
Rainfall At Logan International Airport (inches)
trace
0.14
0.08
0.01
0.00
trace
0.00
0.38
0.40
trace
0.00
0.00
trace
0.00
0.00
0.00
WET
WET
DRY
WET
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DRY
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
WET
Appendix M. Biological Monitoring Results.
Site ID
Water Body
Description
Town
Date
Sampled
Habitat
Quality
Score
Habitat
Quality
SBI Score
Water
Quality
35CS(A)
Charles River
222 Central St.
Milford
7/17/2015
121
Suboptimal
15.9
Poor
35CS(B)
Charles River
222 Central St.
Milford
8/7/2015
121
Suboptimal
6.4
Poor
90CS
Charles River
Route 126 & N
Main St.
Bellingham
7/17/2015
164
Optimal
25.6
Fair
BGSB
Bogastow Brook
260 Ridge St.
Millis
9/22/2015
121
Suboptimal
23.6
Fair
CHE4
Cheesecake Brook
Eddy St. &
Albemarle Rd.
Newton
8/13/2015
72
Marginal
15.4
Poor
MRBB
Muddy River
Pond Ave. near
Chestnut St. Rotary
Brookline
9/14/2015
103
Suboptimal
21.9
Fair
MRRW
Muddy River
Brookline Ave. &
Aspinwall Ave.
Brookline
7/11/2015
101
Suboptimal
16.1
Poor
MSB01
Miscoe Brook
South St.
Franklin
8/18/2015
144
Suboptimal
20.3
Fair
RB01
Rosemary Brook
200 Barton Rd.
Wellesley
8/18/2015
103
Suboptimal
27.8
Fair
RM01
Rock Meadow Brook
Summer St.
Westwood
8/19/2015
158
Optimal
39.6
Fair
SR02
Stop River
18 Campbell St.
Norfolk
7/10/2015
173
Optimal
24.3
Fair
33
Appendix N. E. coli QA/QC
Charles River Watershed Association
QA/QC: E. coli
Date
1/13/2015
1/13/2015
1/13/2015
3/17/2015
3/17/2015
3/17/2015
3/17/2015
3/17/2015
4/14/2015
4/14/2015
4/14/2015
4/14/2015
5/19/2015
5/19/2015
5/19/2015
5/19/2015
6/16/2015
6/16/2015
6/16/2015
7/21/2015
7/21/2015
7/21/2015
7/21/2015
7/21/2015
8/18/2015
8/18/2015
8/18/2015
9/15/2015
9/15/2015
9/15/2015
9/15/2015
10/20/2015
10/20/2015
10/20/2015
10/20/2015
10/20/2015
11/17/2015
11/17/2015
11/17/2015
12/15/2015
12/15/2015
12/15/2015
12/15/2015
Site
534S
567S
675S
35CS
165S
343S
609S
715S
199S
591S
648S
763S
90CS
447S
621S
729S
269T
387S
662S
35CS
130S
400S
635S
763S
267S
343S
648S
59CS
400S
567S
012S
387S
534S
567S
591S
760T
521S
621S
715S
269T
484S
012S
763S
Description
Town
Rt. 109 Bridge
Dedham/Boston
Nahanton Park
Newton/Needham
North St. Bridge
Waltham/Watertown/Newton
Central Street Bridge
Milford
Shaw St./Elm St. Bridge
Franklin/Medway
Farm Rd./Bridge St.
Sherborn/Dover
Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge
Wellesley/Newton
Arsenal St. Bridge
Watertown/Brighton
Populatic Pond Boat Launch
Norfolk
Rt. 9 Gaging Station
Newton
Auburndale Park, Lakes Region
Waltham
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Boston/Cambridge
Rt. 126, N. Main St.
Bellingham
Dover Gage, Mill St.
Dover/Needham
Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd.
Weston/Newton
Eliot St. Bridge
Cambridge/Boston-Allston
Causeway St./Stop River
Medfield
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Wellesley/Dover
Moody St. Bridge
Waltham
Central Street Bridge
Milford
Maple St. Bridge
Bellingham
Charles River Road Bridge
Dover/Needham
2391 Commonwealth Ave.
Newton
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Boston/Cambridge
Dwight St. Bridge
Millis/Medfield
Farm Rd./Bridge St.
Sherborn/Dover
Auburndale Park, Lakes Region
Waltham
Mellen St. Bridge
Bellingham/Milford/Hopedale
Charles River Road Bridge
Dover/Needham
Nahanton Park
Newton/Needham
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Watertown
Elm Bank/Cheney Dr. Bridge
Wellesley/Dover
Rt. 109 Bridge
Dedham/Boston
Nahanton Park
Newton/Needham
Rt. 9 Gaging Station
Newton
Muddy River at Commonwealth Ave.
Boston
Ames St. Bridge
Dedham
Leo J. Martin Golf Course/Park Rd.
Weston/Newton
Arsenal St. Bridge
Watertown/Brighton
Causeway St./Stop River
Medfield
Greendale Ave./Lyons St. Bridge (Dedham Medical
Dedham/Needham
Center)
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Watertown
Massachusetts Ave. (Harvard) Bridge
Boston/Cambridge
RPD (%)
23.7
49.3
7.6
100.0
48.2
17.9
72.1
45.4
66.7
66.7
0.0
1.2
27.8
68.9
89.9
23.7
24.0
0.9
61.3
100.0
17.6
28.6
18.1
66.7
70.9
17.9
0.0
62.8
0.0
144.4
0.0
120.0
0.0
3.3
103.9
40.7
66.7
135.5
21.8
3.3
2.1
14.2
17.1
Appendix O. Nutrients & TSS QA/QC
Charles River Watershed Association
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Nutrients and TSS
% RPD
NH3-N NO2-NO3 Ortho-P
TN
Date
Site #
Description
Town
3/17/2015 609S
Washington St. Hunnewell Bridge
Wellesley/Newton
0.0
0.0
97.8
0.3
3/17/2015 35CS
Central Street Bridge
Milford
1.3
4.8
132.3
1.1
6/16/2015 662S
Moody St. Bridge
Waltham
7.7
5.8
12.3
1.9
6/16/2015 784S
New Charles River Dam
Boston
49.0
29.8
50.8
6.8
9/15/2015 012S
Watertown Dam Footbridge
Watertown
32.3
0.9
81.2
15.5
9/15/2015 400S
Charles River Road Bridge
Dover/Needham
21.5
2.7
11.0
5.2
12/15/2015 763S
Massachusetts Ave. Bridge
Boston/Cambridge
0.9
1.3
17.4
1.8
Average % RPD
16.8
6.7
56.1
5.2
# of RPDs exceeding acceptable level*
3
1
4
0
# of field duplicate samples
7
7
7
7
*For a nutrient sample to be accepted, the RPD between the routine and duplicate sample must be less than 20%
Samples analyzed at Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Central Lab
TP
7.4
8.0
6.5
28.4
59.3
5.7
6.3
17.4
2
7
TSS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
7