FIND IT AND FIX IT STORMWATER PROGRAM IN THE CHARLES AND MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHEDS

FINAL REPORT JUNE 2005 - AUGUST 2008

October 29, 2008

SUBMITTED TO:

MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, 9TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02114

SUBMITTED BY:

CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 190 PARK ROAD 20 ACADEMY STREET, SUITE 203 WESTON, MA 02493 ARLINGTON, MA 02476

Table of Contents List of Figures...... 3 List of Tables ...... 5 Introduction...... 6 Organization of Report ...... 8 1.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND...... 9 1.1 Charles River...... 9 1.1.1 Program Study Area...... 9 1.1.2 Water Quality Issues...... 13 1.1.3 Remediation Efforts Prior to FIFI...... 16 1.2 Mystic River...... 17 1.2.1 Project Study Area ...... 18 1.2.2 Remediation Efforts Prior to Find it and Fix It...... 22 2.0 PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK...... 24 3.0 CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION’S FIND IT AND FIX IT PROGRAM...... 26 3.1 Task 1: Conduct Visual Shoreline Surveys ...... 26 3.1.1 Background...... 26 3.1.2 Scope of Work...... 27 3.1.3 Methodology...... 28 3.1.4 Shoreline Survey Results ...... 32 3.1.5 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 38 3.2 Task 2: Collect and Test Water Samples ...... 39 3.2.1 Background...... 40 3.2.2 Scope of Work...... 41 3.2.3 Methodology...... 42 3.2.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results...... 45 3.2.5 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 99 3.3 Task 3: Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs)...... 100 3.3.1 Background...... 101 3.3.2 Scope of Work ...... 101 3.3.3 Methodology...... 103 3.3.4 BMP Promotion Results ...... 104 3.3.5 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 116 3.4 Public Education and Outreach...... 116 3.4.1 Background...... 117 3.4.2 Scope of Work ...... 117 3.4.3 Results...... 118 3.4.4 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 121 4.0 MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION’S FIND IT AND FIX IT PROGRAM...... 123 4.1 Visual monitoring ...... 123 4.1.1 Overview/scope of work/tasks...... 123 4.1.2 Methodology...... 123 4.1.3 Shoreline Survey Results ...... 125 4.2 Water quality monitoring...... 134

2 4.2.1 Overview of Monitoring Programs...... 134 4.2.2 Monitoring Design...... 135 4.2.3 Water Quality Monitoring Results...... 136 4.3 Promoting BMPs...... 149 4.3.1 Outfall Mapping...... 149 4.3.2 Political Advocacy...... 153 4.3.3 Tributary Monitoring Follow-up...... 153 4.3.4 BMP Education and Outreach ...... 155 4.4 Education and Outreach...... 158 5.0 GUIDEBOOK...... 160 5.1 Background and Scope of Work...... 160 5.2 Methodology...... 160 5.3 Results...... 160 5.4 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 160 6.0 EVALUATION...... 162 6.1 Objective 1: Identify Potential Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution...... 162 6.2 Objective 2: Track and Monitor Reported or Suspected Non-Point Source Pollution “Hot Spots” ...... 162 6.2.1 CRWA Monitoring ...... 162 6.2.2 MyRWA Monitoring ...... 163 6.3 Objective 3: Guide the Remediation of Non-point Source Pollution Problems ...... 164 7.0 CONCLUSION...... 166 REFERENCES ...... 179

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Time the Charles River is Safe for Swimming in Wet and Dry Weather 7 Figure 2: CRWA Program Study Area ...... 10 Figure 3: Mystic River watershed...... 18 Figure 4: Mystic River subbasins ...... 19 Figure 5: Map of Charles River Shoreline Survey Project Area ...... 27 Figure 6: Waltham Hot Spot Sampling Sites...... 47 Figure 7: Photos of Turbid Plume and Oil Sheen Observed during Sampling...... 48 Figure 8: Map of Havey Beach Monitoring Locations...... 49 Figure 9: Map of Charles River Cyanobacteria Monitoring Locations ...... 51 Figure 10: Map of Muddy River Summertime Cyanobacteria and Low DO monitoring Locations ...... 52 Figure 11: Map of Shoreline Survey Follow-up Monitoring Locations...... 53 Figure 12: Map of USGS Gauges Sites Used in CRWA’s Low Flow Analysis...... 55 Figure 13: Waltham vs. Dover for all Flow Values...... 56 Figure 14: Waltham vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions...... 57 Figure 15: Mother Brook vs. Dover for all Flows ...... 57 Figure 16: Mother Brook vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions...... 58 Figure 17: Stony Brook vs. Dover for all Flows...... 58 Figure 18: Stony Brook vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions ...... 59 Figure 19: Map of CRWA’s Canterbury Brook Sampling Sites ...... 61

3 Figure 20: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook...... 62 Figure 21: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook...... 63 Figure 22: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook ...... 64 Figure 23: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook ...... 65 Figure 24: Photos of Trash Piles Taken During CRWA’s Canterbury Brook Monitoring Events65 Figure 25: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Sawins Brook...... 66 Figure 26: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook ...... 68 Figure 27: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook ...... 69 Figure 28: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook...... 69 Figure 29: Orange Flocculant Observed along Sawins Brook...... 70 Figure 30: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Cheesecake Brook...... 72 Figure 31: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook...... 73 Figure 32: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook ...... 74 Figure 33: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook ...... 74 Figure 34: Photos of Sedimentation and Overflow along Cheesecake Brook Taken during CRWA Monitoring Events ...... 75 Figure 35: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Beaver Brook ...... 77 Figure 36: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook ...... 79 Figure 37: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook...... 80 Figure 38: Map of CRWA Sampling Sites along Sawmill Brook...... 82 Figure 39: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook ...... 83 Figure 40: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook...... 84 Figure 41: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook...... 85 Figure 42: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Fuller and Waban Brooks ...... 86 Figure 43: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks...... 88 Figure 44: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks...... 89 Figure 45: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along South Meadow Brook ...... 90 Figure 46: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook ...... 91 Figure 47: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook...... 91 Figure 48: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Muddy River...... 93 Figure 49: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River ...... 94 Figure 50: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River...... 95 Figure 51: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River...... 96 Figure 52: CRWA Sampling Sites along Millers River...... 97 Figure 53: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Millers River ...... 98 Figure 54: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Millers River...... 99 Figure 55: Berm along Leverett Pond...... 113 Figure 56: CRWA Shoreline Survey Results Displayed in GoogleEarth...... 118 Figure 57: Mystic River Subbasin Outfalls ...... 128 Figure 58: Mill Brook Subbasin Outfalls and Mystic Lake...... 129 Figure 59: Mystic River 1 Subbasin Outfalls ...... 130 Figure 60: Alewife Brook and Tributaries...... 131 Figure 61: Malden River Subbasin Outfalls ...... 132 Figure 62: MyRWA’s Outfall Database ...... 150 Figure 63: Entry in MyRWA’s Outfall Database ...... 151 Figure 64: Outfall Database in GoogleEarth ...... 152

4 List of Tables

Table 1: Category 5 Waters “Water Requiring a TMDL” on 303(d) List in the Find It and Fix It Project Area of the Charles River Watershed...... 14 Table 2: Charles River Grades Issued by EPA –Regions 1 and Percentage of Time the River Is Suitable for Swimming and Boating (based on bacterial standards) ...... 17 Table 3: Standards, Criteria and Limits for Relevant Water Quality Parameters...... 43 Table 4: Waltham Hot Spot Results...... 47 Table 5: Havey Beach E.coli Results...... 49 Table 6: Results of Shoreline Survey Follow-up Total Phosphorus Monitoring...... 54 Table 7: Summary of CRWA’s Tributary Monitoring ...... 60 Table 8: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook ...... 62 Table 9: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook ...... 67 Table 10: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook ...... 71 Table 11: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook...... 78 Table 12: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook...... 81 Table 13: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks...... 87 Table 14: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook...... 90 Table 15: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River...... 92 Table 16: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Millers River...... 98 Table 17: Next Steps Developed by CRWA...... 105 Table 18: Results of April 16 hydrocarbon sampling, from Alpha Analytical Laboratories. ... 148 Table 19: Results of April 16 hydrocarbon sampling, from Alpha Analytical Laboratories. ... 148 Table 20: CRWA’s Table of Accomplishments ...... 167 Table 21: MyRWA’s Table of Accomplishments ...... 175

5 Introduction The Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) and the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA) jointly submit this final report for the Find It and Fix It (FIFI) Stormwater Program funded by the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET). FIFI was a comprehensive three-year project developed to help municipalities and land owners identify issues caused by non-point source pollution and provide guidance on effective, holistic approaches to remediating these issues. The Find It and Fix It Program was conducted in the Charles River watershed by CRWA and in the Mystic River watershed by MyRWA.

Non-point source pollution has been identified as the primary source of pollution to Massachusetts waterways. Unfortunately, non-point source pollution is the most difficult type of pollution to mitigate because its sources are multiple and diffuse. This type of pollution essentially comes from everywhere. Unlike pollution from a factory or a sewage treatment plant, which are considered point sources, non-point source pollution is usually carried to the river by rain washing over the land, picking up pollutants from roads, parking lots, rooftops, lawns, etc. Although rainwater is generally clean when it falls from the sky, it collects oil, grease, metals and tire wear from cars; fertilizers from lawns; salt and sand from road de-icing efforts; bacteria from pet and livestock waste; and numerous other pollutants as it flows over land. This results in large pollutant loads being washed into our waterways every time it rains. This type of pollution is also commonly referred to as stormwater pollutions, as it reaches the river via stormwater or rainwater runoff.

Non-point source pollution can also reach our waterways during dry weather in the case of infrastructure defects which allow sanitary waste to enter the stormwater drainage system and ultimately enter our surface waterways. This occurs when commercial or household sanitary sewer systems are illegally connected to the stormwater drainage system or leaky sewage pipes running parallel to stormwater pipes, drip sanitary waste into stormwater pipes.

In recent years, CRWA, MyRWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state agencies and town governments have made significant accomplishments in eliminating many point source discharges, especially combined sewer overflows (CSOs), to the Charles and Mystic Rivers. Non-point source pollution; however, remains a serious issue in both the Charles and Mystic. Reducing non-point source pollution is a high priority in both watersheds, which are highly urbanized, have a large percentage of impervious cover and consequently generate a great deal of stormwater runoff during any given rain event. Long-term monitoring conducted by CRWA demonstrates that water quality in the Charles River continues to suffer from pollutant- laden runoff that causes widespread violations of the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards for Class B waterways during wet weather (See Figure 1). The Mystic is also significantly impacted by stormwater runoff. Much of the Mystic and its tributaries are plagued with problems caused by common stormwater pollutants such as nutrients, metals, oil and grease, and pathogens. Furthermore, a walk along the Mystic River shoreline following a rainstorm will reveal many places where oil is washing into the river from nearby parking lots and roads.

Cross contamination between sanitary sewers and stormwater drainage systems is also a problem in these watersheds. Many municipalities in these watersheds are under enforcement orders issued by EPA to address illegal connections of sanitary pipes to stormwater pipes. Reducing

6 stormwater pollution in the Charles and Mystic River watersheds will help protect drinking water supplies, recreational opportunities and ecosystem health.

Figure 1: Percentage of Time the Charles River is Safe for Swimming in Wet and Dry Weather

100

90 Swimming - Dry

80 Swimming - Wet

70

60

50

Percentage 40

30

20

10

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002(a) 2003(b) 2004(c) 2005 2006 Year

(a)Only one dry weather event (rainfall of less than 0.1 inches in previous 72 hours) occurred in 2002. Rainfall data collected at Logan Airport in Boston. This may have skewed the percentages of the time the river met the modified swimming and boating standard as individual results were compared to geometric mean standards. (b)In 2003, monthly water quality monitoring was conducted seven out of twelve months; of which, only two occurred during wet weather. This may have skewed the percentages of the time the river met the modified swimming and boating standard as individual results were compared to geometric mean standards. (c)Statistics from 1995 to 2003 are based on CRWA monthly fecal coliform testing in the Charles River Basin. In 2004, samples were analyzed for E. coli bacteria instead of fecal coliform bacteria and these results were compared to current MA surface water quality standards (126 cfu/100mL for swimming). For analysis and comparison purposes CRWA uses the geometric mean criteria established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection instead of the single sample criteria to be conservative and protective of the public’s health.

Stormwater runoff is currently regulated through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II. All operators of stormwater drainage systems, including municipalities and public agencies, are required to have NPDES stormwater discharge permits, which in Massachusetts are administered by EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The permit regulations call for operators to follow a basic set of practices to ensure that stormwater discharges will not cause surface waterways to be in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. Although improvements in stormwater discharge have been made since the conception of this program in 1999, there is still obvious room for improvement.

7 Organization of Report CRWA and MyRWA collaborated a great deal on the FIFI Project. The two organizations often shared stories of their successes and challenges and over the past three years, developed a close working relationship which we plan to build upon in our future work. Due to the nature of this project, however; much of the daily work was completed by each organization, independently of the other. The organization of this report is structured in a manner which reflects the management structure of this three-year project. This report is divided into seven sections. Sections 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 discuss the Find It and Fix It Program as a whole, while Sections 3.0 and 4.0 specifically address the work of CRWA and MyRWA respectively. Section 1.0 provides background information. Section 2.0 describes the work CRWA and MyRWA set out to accomplish during this three-year project. Section 3.0 focuses on the accomplishments of CRWA in performing Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the FIFI project in the Charles River watershed. Section 4.0 describes MyRWA accomplishments in each task. Section 5.0 discusses the FIFI guidebook which was published through a joint effort of both organizations. Section 6.0 evaluates the project with respect to our initial objectives and Section 7.0 summarizes the accomplishments, impacts and future work of CRWA and MyRWA with respect to this project.

Sections 1.2, 4.0 and portions of Sections 6.0 and 7.0 were written by MyRWA staff, while the remainder of the report was written by CRWA staff. While efforts were made to meld the written reports of both organizations into one cohesive report, each organization required the freedom to report their accomplishments in the manner most befitting of the work accomplished. Due to the fact that CRWA and MyRWA’s work plans were not identical, this resulted in final report sections that differ slightly in organizational style. Nevertheless, the format of this report best represents the work accomplished through this project.

8 1.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND CRWA and MyRWA received a grant from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET) in May 2005 to conduct the non-point source Find It and Fix It Program (FIFI) in the Charles and Mystic River watersheds. This program commenced in June 2005, and was completed a little over three years later in August 2008. This project identified sources of, and sought to reduce non-point source pollution to the Charles and Mystic Rivers.

1.1 Charles River

Located in Eastern Massachusetts, the Charles River is the longest river entirely contained in Massachusetts. The 80-mile river follows a sinuous journey under relatively low gradient conditions from its headwaters in Echo Lake in Hopkinton to its discharge point in Boston Harbor. The watershed area totals 308-square miles. Topography of the watershed varies from flat terrain to low rounded hills. The river has an estimated mean annual flow of 400 cubic feet per second at the Watertown Dam in Watertown (Weiskel, 2005). Major tributaries to the Charles include: Mine Brook in Franklin, Hopping and Chicken Brooks in Holliston and Medway, Mill River in Norfolk, Stop River in Medfield and Norfolk, Bogastow Brook in Holliston and Millis, Stony and Hobbs Brooks in Weston and Waltham, Beaver Brook in Waltham, Laundry Brook in Newton, Faneuil Brook in Boston, the Muddy River in Boston and Brookline, and the Stony Brook Conduit in Boston.

The Charles River watershed encompasses 35 communities and is home to nearly 1 million residents (based on 2000 Census data obtained through MassGIS). The landscape ranges from rural settings with small pockets of development in the western portion of the watershed to increasingly populated and urbanized settings moving eastward to ultra urban settings in Boston and Cambridge. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) describes the Charles River watershed as “geographically and economically a vital part of the largest employment and population complex in New England.” (MassDEP, 2007a)

A small upstream section of the river is designated for public water supply while the majority of the river is designated as a Class B waterway, meanings its designated uses include primary (swimming) and secondary (boating) contact recreation and aquatic habitat. The Charles is used extensively for boating and fishing nearly all along its 80-mile reach; water and sediment pollution issues, however; preclude the opening of swimming beaches along the river. The Charles is also designated as a warm water fisheries habitat in most areas. Finally, the Lower Charles River Basin, the approximately 9 miles stretch from the Watertown Dam to Boston Harbor, and the Muddy River are designated as waters subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

1.1.1 Program Study Area

The Find It and Fix It Program focused on the lower portion of the Charles River watershed which includes the municipalities of Wellesley, Needham, Waltham, Newton and Brookline; and portions of Sherborn, Dover, Natick, Westwood, Wayland, Weston, Lincoln, Lexington, Arlington, Belmont, Watertown, Cambridge, Somerville and Boston (See Figure 2). This includes the lower 45 miles of the river which flows from Dover and Sherborn to the New

9 Charles River Dam in Charlestown, MA. Throughout the three-year project period, CRWA conducted visual shoreline surveys and/or water quality monitoring along the lower 45 miles of the mainstem of the Charles River and along ten of its tributaries. Individual tributaries are further described in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.

Figure 2: CRWA Program Study Area

10 Landscape and Hydrology The river and surrounding land in this area have been heavily altered from their natural states. This may be most evident in the Lower Charles River Basin (lower basin). Prior to the urbanization of Boston this area was bordered by vast tidal flats which were extensively filled in the 18th and 19th centuries to create the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston. This tidal estuary was inundated with salt water twice a day, today however: the lower basin is dammed on the upstream and downstream end. In 1910, the Charles River Dam was constructed to physically divide the Charles River from Boston Harbor to create the freshwater basin which exists today. In the 1970s, the New Charles River Dam was constructed downstream of the original dam. Today this provides the boundary between the river and the harbor; preventing tidal flow to the lower basin, maintaining a relatively steady water level in the lower basin and providing flood control for the urban areas surrounding the lower basin.

In addition, many of the Charles River tributaries in the program study area have been transformed over time from free flowing streams to culverted or channelized waterways which serve as stormwater drainage systems.

Recreation and Open Space The lower basin is one of the most heavily used recreational areas in Massachusetts. Boating and other water sports are popular with both tourists and residents alike. The water is used for recreational and competitive rowing, sailing, canoeing, kayaking, windsurfing, power boating, fishing and swimming.

Numerous universities, including Boston University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University and Lasalle College, have boathouses along the river to house both their rowing and sailing programs. The Charles River is also home to numerous public and private rowing clubs. The Charles is host to many rowing and sailing competitions including the Head of the Charles Regatta, the world’s largest two-day rowing event which attracts up to 8,000 rowers and 300,000 spectators from around the globe (HOTC, 2008). Charles River Canoe and Kayak operate canoe and kayak rental services at three locations along the river and there are numerous public boat docks and canoe and kayak input sites.

In the summer of 2007 the Charles River Swim Club (CRSC) sponsored the first ever Charles River One Mile Swim in which roughly 100 individuals participated in a 1 mile swim between the Longfellow and Boston University bridges. CRSC held the Second Annual Swim in June 2008 and hopes Charles River water quality will permit the swim to become an annual event (CRSC).

Recreation is not limited to water sports. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Charles River Reservation surrounds the Charles through much of Boston, Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, and Waltham. This area includes picturesque parklands which surround the river to the north and south and contain a public theater, a concert pavilion, playgrounds, skating rinks, community gardens, recreational playing fields, tennis courts and many miles of scenic pathways for runners, walkers, cyclists, rollerbladers, picnickers and sightseers. CRWA recently installed an educational kiosk along this trail system in Watertown to educate the public about the river. Other parklands and open space areas abutting the lower 45

11 miles of the Charles River include Massachusetts Audubon’s Broadmoor Nature Canter in Sherborn and Natick, DCR’s Elm Bank Reservation in Dover, DCR’s Cutler Park in Needham and Dedham and Boston Park and Recreation’s Millennium Park in Boston.

Economic Benefits of the Charles River The Charles River provides recreational opportunities to local citizens while also benefiting the surrounding communities economically in a multitude of ways. Recreational opportunities along the Charles not only improve the quality of life for local residents and visitors, they also provide significant income to the surrounding communities. Regattas attract competitors and spectators to the area who patronize local hotels, restaurant and other establishments. Tour boats, boat houses, yacht clubs and canoe and kayak rental establishment all provide year-round and seasonal employment. Recreational opportunities in and along the river, however; are heavily dependent on good water quality.

A survey conducted by EPA in 1996, revealed that during large events along the river, such as the 4th of July celebration and the Head of the Charles Regatta five major hotels situated along the river typically reach capacity. Additionally, these hotels, as well as others in the area, typically charge a price premium for rooms with a river view. EPA also indicated that during the 1990s housing units located within a five block radius of the Lower Charles River Basin commanded a rental or purchase value 13-18% higher than similar properties situated further from the river (Kaufman, 1996).

Many businesses and institutions are located along the banks of the river and receive benefits from being situated as such. Three of the areas major universities, Boston University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are situated along the banks of the Lower Charles River Basin. These universities attract tens of thousands of students and visitors from around the globe and the aesthetic appeal of their campus setting is certainly dependent on a clean Charles River.

Fisheries An assessment of Charles River fisheries conducted in 2000-2003 by CRWA and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) revealed that an estimated 25 different species of fish, including two anadromous species, the Alewife and the Blueback Herring make their home in the Charles River. Unfortunately, the current resident fish population includes a low presence of fish species that would be expected in a healthy Charles River. Instead, a high percentage of species that currently inhabit the river are tolerant to pollution and can survive in a wide range of habitats including lakes, ponds and reservoirs and do not require free-flowing water for any part of their life cycle.

Over the past three summers, the MA DMF, US FWS and CRWA stocked shad fry into the Lakes District of the Charles River in Waltham in an attempt to reintroduce this native species to the river. The shad is an anadromous fish that was found in the Charles in abundance up until the mid-1800s but was not observed at all during the 2000-2003 fish community assessment (CRWA, 2003). Excessive nutrients carried by stormwater runoff contribute to oxygen depletion in the basin, making it an environment in which it is difficult for fish to thrive.

12 1.1.2 Water Quality Issues

The earliest investigations of water quality in the Charles River date back to 1891. Today, numerous organizations monitor the river on a regular basis, including CRWA, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), MassDEP, and EPA (Weiskel, 2005; MassDEP, 2008). As an urban river, the Charles is subject to numerous anthropogenic pressures. While these pressures have changed over time, centuries of human settlement on the banks of the river have certainly left their mark. Today, stormwater runoff has been identified as the primary source of pollution to the Charles River. Additionally, extensive damming along the Charles, including the New Charles River Dam at the mouth of the lower basin, prevents the river from flushing properly.

Table 1 summarizes the water bodies in the Charles River watershed FIFI Program study area which are listed on the Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Water as “Category 5: Water Requiring a TMDL”. These water bodies fail to meet their designated uses because of poor water quality and require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis. A TMDL is a pollution loading study which attempts to quantify current pollution sources and uses this data to develop a feasible plan to adequately reduce pollution so a water body can meet its designated uses on a regular basis. Many water bodies in this area are significantly impacted by common stormwater pollutants, such as: nutrients, siltation, pathogens, oil, grease, metals, priority organics and total suspended solids (TSS).

13 Table 1: Category 5 Waters “Water Requiring a TMDL” on 303(d) List in the Find It and Fix It Project Area of the Charles River Watershed

Water body DEP ID Description Length TMDL Pollutant (2006) Charles River MA72- Outlet Populatic Pond, 17.9 mi Unknown cause, Metals, 05 Norfolk/Medway to Nutrients, Organics/low South Natick Dam, DO, Other habitat Natick alterations, Pathogens, Noxious aquatic plants, Turbidity Charles River MA72- South Natick Dam, 8.3 mi Priority organics, Nutrients, 06 Natick to Chestnut Organics/low DO, Street, Needham Pathogens, Noxious aquatic plants, Turbidity Fuller Brook MA72- Headwaters south of 4.3 mi Unknown cause, 18 Route 135, Needham to Organics/low DO, Other confluence with Waban habitat alterations, Brook, Wellesley Pathogens, Noxious aquatic plants Charles River MA72- Chestnut Street, 24.6 mi Priority organics, Nutrients, 07 Needham to Watertown Organics/low DO, Dam, Watertown Pathogens, Noxious aquatic plants, Turbidity, Exotic species Sawmill Brook MA72- Headwaters, Newton to 2.4 mi Other inorganics, 23 confluence with Charles Organics/low DO, Other River, Boston habitat alterations, Pathogens, Taste, odor & color, Noxious aquatic plants South Meadow MA72- Isolated, interrupted, 1.7 mi Nutrients, Organics/low Brook 24 urban brook with DO, Other habitat 'headwaters' south of alterations, Pathogens, Route 9, Newton to Taste, odor & color, confluence with Charles Turbidity, Silt River, Newton Rosemary Brook MA72- Headwaters, outlet 3.3 mi Nutrients, Organics/low 25 Rosemary Lake, DO, Pathogens, Taste, odor Needham to confluence & color, TSS, Turbidity with Charles River, Wellesley

14 Table 1 continued Water body DEP ID Description Length TMDL Pollutant (2006) Beaver Brook MA72- Headwaters, south of 5.8 mi Unknown cause, Nutrients, 28 Route 2, Lexington Silt, Organics/low DO, through culvert to Flow, Other habitat Charles River, Waltham alterations, Pathogens, Taste, odor & color, Turbidity Cheesecake MA72- Headwaters, West 1.4 mi Nutrients, Silt, Brook 29 Newton to confluence Organics/low DO, Other with Charles River, habitat alterations, Newton Pathogens, Oil & grease, Taste, odor & color, Noxious aquatic plants Charles River MA72- Watertown Dam, 8.5 mi Unknown causes, 08 Watertown to Science Unknown toxicity, Priority Museum, Boston organics, Metals, Nutrients, Organics/low DO, Pathogens, Oil & grease, Taste, odor & color, Noxious aquatic plants, Turbidity Unnamed MA72- Locally known as 0.54 Pathogens Tributary 32 "Sawins Brook". Headwaters east of Elm Street to confluence with Charles River, Watertown (sections culverted) Muddy River MA72- Outlet of unnamed pond, 3.6 Priority organics, Metals, 11 Olmstead Park, Boston Nutrients, Siltation, to confluence with Organics/low DO, Other Charles River, Boston habitat alterations, Pathogens, Oil & grease, Taste, odor & color Unnamed MA72- Locally known as 0.2 Priority organics, Metals, Tributary 31 "Millers River", Other habitat alterations, 'headwaters' near Route Pathogens, Taste, odor and 93, Cambridge/Boston, color, Turbidity to the confluence with Charles River, Cambridge

The Charles River is presently subject to two TMDLs and a third will be published in the coming year. The entire Charles River is subject to a Pathogen TMDL, which was published in 2007. The Lower Charles River Basin is subject to a Nutrient TMDL which was also published in

15 2007. CRWA is developing a TMDL for the Upper and Middle Charles River which will be published in 2009.

The Charles River Nutrient TMDL reveals that phosphorus, an essential element of photosynthesis and typically the limiting factor in photosynthesis of freshwater aquatic plants, is a pollutant of great concern in the Charles River. Furthermore, studies reveal that stormwater is the main source of phosphorus to the river. The excessive amount of phosphorus entering the Charles is essentially fertilizing the aquatic system. This allows aquatic plants to grow rampant, altering the natural balance of the aquatic ecosystem. While this is typically an ecological concern, in recent years it has led to a public health concern due to the excessive growth of potentially toxic cyanobacteria.

Cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae although these organisms are not true algae) are photosynthetic bacteria that produce toxins which are potentially harmful to humans, dogs and other mammals at certain doses. Cyanobacteria have been present in the Charles River in low concentrations for many years. Cyanobacteria have recently become a public health concern in the Charles due to the type and quantity of organisms present. Severe blooms of cyanobacteria occurred in the Charles in the summers of 2006 and 2007. A bloom is a condition in which cyanobacteria are present in the water at such high concentrations that they may pose a public health risk to humans who come in contact with or ingest the infested waters. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health defines a bloom as greater than 70,000 cells cyanobacteria/mL water.

Beyond being a public health risk, cyanobacteria, like any aquatic organism, becomes a serious ecological problem when it grows in excess. It prevents light from penetrating the water and reaching submerged aquatic vegetation. Additionally, when cyanobacteria die off, decomposition of the organic matter depletes oxygen from the water column, potentially harming fish and other aquatic organisms. In addition to excess nutrients from stormwater runoff, cyanobacteria growth is also likely encouraged by low flows, warm temperatures, and strong, summer sunlight.

1.1.3 Remediation Efforts Prior to FIFI

CRWA, municipalities, state and federal agencies, and numerous community groups have worked extensively in recent years to improve the quality of the Charles River, which is rapidly becoming a major success story for an urban river. Since 1995, CRWA has conducted once monthly water quality monitoring at thirty-five sites throughout the watershed through our volunteer monthly monitoring program. This water quality monitoring program is one of the oldest and largest volunteer sampling programs in the country. On the third Tuesday of each month more than eighty volunteers gather to collect water samples, measure water depth and temperature, and record their observations on current river conditions. Samples are analyzed for indicator bacteria, a variety of nutrient parameters, sodium and total suspended solids. The data collected is used to identify problems in the river and trends in water quality, and to track the progress of efforts to clean up the Charles.

In 1995, EPA launched an ambitious effort based largely on CRWA’s water quality data and data analyses, to restore the Charles River to fishable and swimmable conditions by Earth Day 2005.

16 EPA’s work, as well as that of many watershed cities and towns, led to the elimination of many point source discharges into the river. Through this initiative, substantial effort has been made to reduce and eliminate combined sewer overflows. To date, combined sewers in the entire Stony Brook subwatershed of the Charles have been separated to eliminate sewage overflow to the river. By 2013, combined sewer overflows to the Charles River are projected to be reduced by 99.5%. In addition, work is ongoing to detect and eliminate sources of sanitary sewer contamination to stormwater drainage pipes. Because of EPA oversight, the communities of Boston, Brookline, Watertown and Newton are all actively working to identify and eliminate illicit connections of sewer pipes to stormwater drainage systems. Newton and Brookline have succeeded in reducing a combined 8,368 gallons per day of sewage from entering the stormwater drainage system (Borci, 2007). Finally, a pathogen TMDL was published for the Charles in 2007 which should lead to continued reduction in bacterial and viral pollution.

These accomplishments have led to reductions in observed bacteria levels. In 1995, high levels of fecal coliform caused regular violations of Massachusetts State Surface Water Quality Standards (the Standards) (See Table 2). Since 1995, the percentage of time the river is safe for boating has more than doubled, while the percentage of time the river is safe for swimming has increased nearly three-fold. Despite improvements, however; long-term monitoring conducted by CRWA shows that water quality in the river continues to suffer from pollutant-laden stormwater runoff that cause widespread violations of Standards.

Table 2: Charles River Grades Issued by EPA –Regions 1 and Percentage of Time the River Is Suitable for Swimming and Boating (based on bacterial standards) 2000 - 2004 - Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2003 2002 2006 Grade D C- C B- B B B- B+ Swimming 19% 21% 34% 51% 65% 39 – 59% 46% 53 – 59% Boating 39% 57% 70% 83% 90% 82 - 92% 85% 95 – 98%

Finally, CRWA is currently working with many watershed communities to develop stormwater plans which will help town or individual developments meet the phosphorus reductions required by the TMDL.

1.2 Mystic River

The Mystic River watershed is a collection of rivers, streams, lakes and ponds that drain an area of approximately 76 square miles north of Boston, MA (Figure 3). The watershed encompasses all or part of twenty-one cities and towns and is home to about 8% of the state's population (more than half a million people) in less than 1% of its land area. The Mystic is one of the most densely populated and urban watersheds in Massachusetts. Many of the communities within the watershed are overburdened by cumulative environmental hazards. Due to its relatively small land area, MyRWA was able to focus on the entire Mystic River watershed through the Find It and Fix It Program.

17 Figure 3: Mystic River watershed

1.2.1 Project Study Area

The headwaters of the Mystic River system are in Reading and form the Aberjona River, which flows into the Upper Mystic Lake in Winchester. The Mystic River flows from the Lower Mystic Lake through Arlington, Medford, Somerville, Everett, Charlestown, Chelsea, and East Boston before emptying into Boston Harbor. Main tributaries to the Mystic River include Mill Brook, Alewife Brook, Malden River, and Chelsea Creek. The watershed contains 44 lakes and ponds, the largest of which is Spot Pond in the Middlesex Fells, with an area of 307 acres.

The system was formed, in large part, by retreating glaciers more than 10,000 years ago, and is relatively flat. Originally, the system was tidal all the way up to the Lower Mystic Lake. This is no longer the case due to several hydrologic alterations in the watershed. Construction of the Craddock Dam in 1908 near Medford Square prevented the flow of salt water to Alewife Brook and the portion of the Mystic River upstream of the dam. The Amelia Earhart Dam was constructed in 1966 between Everett and Somerville, just below the confluence of the Malden and Mystic Rivers. This dam created a freshwater basin that enhanced public recreation opportunities, and provided for flood control. This dam also altered the watershed’s hydrology, and separated the watershed into a freshwater system above the dam and a saltwater system below the dam. As land uses in the watershed have changed, substantial portions of the water bodies have been straightened and sometimes culverted. In some locations, the rivers and streams have been routed underground and are no longer visible, and alteration of the river courses have profoundly affected their ecological characteristics

18 The Mystic River watershed, while itself a distinct watershed, in turn includes a number of distinct subwatersheds. The watershed can be divided into nine subbasins, each with a set of overlapping themes as well as unique ecological and hydrological characteristics (Figure 4). The subbasins and their water quality issues are described below.

Figure 4: Mystic River subbasins

Aberjona Subbasin The Aberjona is the largest subbasin in the Mystic watershed, comprising 25% of the total watershed area. The nine-mile-long Aberjona River originates in Reading and flows south through Woburn and Winchester before discharging into the upper forebay of Upper Mystic Lake. Along its course, the Aberjona receives inflows from Halls Brook, North Woburn Creek, Snyder Creek, Sweetwater Brook, and Horn Pond Brook (which drains the Horn Pond subbasin). The Aberjona is relatively slow moving and meandering in spots, particularly in north Woburn and Winchester Center, where there are many wetland areas and shallow ponds.

The sediments of the Aberjona River are contaminated by lead, arsenic, and chromium from past industrial uses. The Aberjona is also listed under the Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters as being impaired by nutrients, pathogens, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen (DO), and other habitat alterations. Non-point source runoff with fertilizers from private residences is a significant problem in this region of the Mystic River watershed.

Horn Pond Subbasin The two largest surface water bodies in the watershed are Horn Pond in Woburn and Wedge Pond in Winchester, both of which face problems with excessive nutrient loading and noxious exotic plants. Woburn draws about 60% of its municipal water from wells located on the west

19 side of Horn Pond; therefore, land-uses in the subbasin (particularly immediately around the pond) are carefully controlled. Wedge Pond, located near Winchester center, is used for recreational activities (swimming and boating) and is affected by stormwater runoff.

Mystic Lakes Subbasin Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes were created in c. 1873, when a dam was built at what is now the outlet of the upper lake. The upper lake is approximately 25 meters at its deepest point and contains two shallow forebays at its northern end where the Aberjona River discharges into it. The lower lake is also about 25 meters at its deepest point. In addition to many abutting residences on the Arlington and Winchester side of the lakes, both lakes are widely used for recreation, including fishing, boating and swimming. The Medford Boat Club owns a motorboat dock on the lower lake, and on the upper lake there are two more boat clubs, a public boat ramp and two swimming beaches (one public, one private).

Mill Brook Subbasin Mill Brook is fed by Sickle Brook, Munroe Brook (via the Arlington Reservoir), and Great Meadows. For about a 1 km stretch, the brook is culverted underneath several playing fields. Previously, this stretch of the brook sustained a series of seven mill ponds. The brook is not used much for recreational purposes, as it is difficult to gain access to it along much of its length. Mill Brook is listed in the Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters as being impaired for pathogens. Large amounts of trash are also commonly seen in the brook.

Mystic River 1 Subbasin The Mystic River 1 subbasin contains the portion of the Mystic River (and its contributing watershed area) that lies between Lower Mystic Lake and the Amelia Earhart Dam. This section of the Mystic receives significant inflow from Lower Mystic Lake, Alewife Brook, and the Malden River, as well as minor inflows from Two Penny Brook and Meetinghouse Brook in Medford. Flow out of this section of the Mystic is controlled by daily releases at the Amelia Earhart Dam. This part of the Mystic River – especially downstream of Medford Square – is widely used by recreational boaters. This reach contains three yacht clubs and two rowing clubs, as well as the Blessing of the Bay Boathouse, where the Boys & Girls Club runs youth programs. The sediments are contaminated with metals, and nutrients and pathogens are a problem in the water column, posing a potential health hazard for recreational users.

Alewife Brook Subbasin Alewife Brook drains parts of Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge, and Somerville. The main tributary to the Alewife, Little River, is fed by Little Pond in Belmont and Spy Pond in Arlington. Another important tributary to Alewife Brook is Wellington Brook, which is fed by Clay Pit Pond in Belmont.

Many changes in the surface hydrology and hydraulics have been made in this subbasin, some of them to address flooding and public health risks. For example, in the late 1800’s sewage pipes were constructed in Cambridge and Somerville to carry waste directly into the Alewife. Later, in the 1930s when a wastewater treatment plant was built in Boston, many of the old discharge pipes were converted into CSOs. The sewer system was designed to carry both sanitary sewage and stormwater, and CSO events still occur when excess stormwater/sewage is discharged

20 directly in to the river to prevent back-ups into homes during heavy rainstorms. Although many of the CSOs have since been removed or redesigned to surcharge less frequently, eight CSOs are still present, seven in Cambridge and one in Somerville.

Spy Pond is a “Great Pond” of the Commonwealth, and covers over 102 acres. The state filled in some 20 acres of the pond in the 1970s as part of the project to widen Route 2. The sediments of Spy Pond are contaminated with arsenic and nutrients; organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen are also problems.

Malden River Subbasin The Malden River originates in Melrose and flows south through Malden, Everett and Medford before discharging into the Mystic River. Spot Pond Brook, which receives discharges from Spot Pond in Stoneham, is a tributary to the Malden. Since the 1950s, the Malden has been altered along much of its length. At Malden Square, the river was piped underground to prevent flooding of the city center. The banks of the Malden are heavily developed, particularly below Malden Center, where much of the land is zoned for industrial activity. Levels in the lower portion of the river (below Malden Square) are controlled by the Amelia Earhart Dam. Water quality issues in the Malden River include organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen, pathogens, oil and grease, and suspended solids.

Mystic River 2 Subbasin The Mystic River 2 subbasin extends from the Amelia Earhart Dam to its discharge into Boston Harbor. This reach of the river is tidal and is composed of saltwater except for inputs of freshwater from the Mystic River from upstream of the dam, from Island End River, and from Chelsea Creek. Land use and water use in the subbasin are markedly different from upstream of the dam. About 44% of the land in the subbasin is used for industry and transportation (versus about 10% upstream of the dam) and of the remainder only about 16% is open space (versus about 32% upstream of the dam).

Many industries occupy riverfront properties, including a major coal and oil-fired power station (Sithe Mystic), a gypsum-processing plant, a natural gas facility, and a shipping terminal. Large, oceangoing cargo ships, which deliver oil, coal, liquefied natural gas, gypsum, automobiles, and other products, are major users of the river. Recreational boaters also use the river as a means of getting from yacht clubs to Boston Harbor. Much of the waterfront in the subbasin is a Designated Port Area, which limits land uses to waterfront-dependent activities. This industry has had a significant impact on the river, and water quality problems include metals, toxics such as PCBs, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, pathogens, oil and grease.

Despite its industrial character, the river supports many species of fish as well as marine mammals. For example, large populations of herring and alewives run upriver each spring to spawn, and they are fed upon by striped bass and harbor porpoises, the latter of which have been sighted many times in recent years (Jim Rice, New England Aquarium, personal communication, 2002).

21 Chelsea River Subbasin Mill Creek, the headwaters to Chelsea River, rises out of a wetland area along the Revere/Chelsea border. The Chelsea River and Mill Creek system drains parts of Everett, Revere, Chelsea, and East Boston before discharging to the Mystic River just upstream of Boston Harbor. Similar to the Mystic River 2 subbasin, the Chelsea River subbasin is highly urbanized. Less than 10% of the subbasin is preserved as open space, compared to 27% for the watershed as a whole. Much of the land along Chelsea River is zoned for industrial use and transportation, which greatly limits local access to the river. For example, there are several fuel tank-farms in Chelsea and East Boston that are served by barges and large ocean-going tanker vessels. Like the lower Mystic, the Chelsea River waterfront is a Designated Port Area. The river faces pollutant issues such as organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, pathogens, oil and grease, and turbidity.

1.2.2 Remediation Efforts Prior to Find it and Fix It

The Mystic River Watershed Association has been actively engaged in protecting and restoring clean water in the watershed for decades. Water quality monitoring efforts began in the 1970s along the Aberjona River and found elevated levels of ammonia and other wastes from nearby industrial processes. MyRWA shared these results with the Woburn community and government agencies and mobilized multiple cleanups in the Woburn area. Since then, collecting water quality data to inform advocacy efforts has been a critical aspect of MyRWA’s daily operations.

In 2000, MyRWA’s monitoring efforts were formalized with the Mystic Monitoring Network, a volunteer-based water quality monitoring program, to collect high quality baseline data and identify problem areas. MyRWA’s data support direct advocacy for improved water quality and are used by government officials as a basis for decision making and enforcement. Our data have been used to prompt the City of Chelsea to mend a broken sewer line near Mill Creek, the Town of Belmont has followed up on our data reports by fixing illegal sewage outflows into Little River, Wellington Brook, and Alewife Brook. Our monitoring program has been supported with individual contributions and memberships in addition to donations of lab services from MWRA and EPA, grants from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), and has provided assistance to MassDEP for screening problem areas throughout the watershed.

The monitoring program has two major components: the Baseline Monitoring program, which collects data monthly from 10 sites in the freshwater portions of the watershed, and the Hot Spot Monitoring program, which seeks to monitor suspected and known problems in the watershed to track progress or describe worsening conditions. The Hot Spot program was the foundation for monitoring efforts in the Find It and Fix It Program.

Another major accomplishment was the completion of the Mystic Watershed Assessment Report and Action Plan, with support from the EOEEA. This thoroughly-researched document has laid out the problems the watershed faces and offers a guide for remediating problems. Much of our work in the Find It and Fix It Program has been informed by this document.

It is important to note that MyRWA’s monitoring, advocacy, and outreach efforts are in large part guided by three committees, the participants of which are concerned citizens and

22 professionals interested in volunteering their time to assist and direct MyRWA activities. The Policy committee primarily develops MyRWA positions and comment letters to influence development project and matters of environmental policy. The Committee on Water Quality provides technical assistance and guidance to the Monitoring Network Director, an instrumental service that contributes to the collection and interpretation of high-quality data. The Outreach Committee deals with bringing MyRWA issues and findings to local communities, by organizing events such as the annual Herring Run & Paddle and developing MyRWA’s newsletter.

23 2.0 PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK

The Find It and Fix It Project was a comprehensive program aimed at identifying sources of non- point source pollution and working with relevant partners to address these issues.

The goals of the Find It and Fix It Stormwater Program were to: • Identify and track potential sources of non-point source pollution • Track and monitor reported or suspected non-point source pollution “hot spots” • Guide the remediation of non-point source pollution problems • Guide water quality enforcement (as needed) • Engage and educate the public on non-point source pollution issues • Transfer project knowledge to others

These goals were accomplished through five main tasks. The project also included a sixth task for reporting on project work to the funder.

Task 1. Conduct visual shoreline surveys The first step of this program was to conduct comprehensive visual shoreline surveys along the lower 45 miles of the mainstem of the Charles River, the entire Mystic River and many of their tributaries. These surveys, which were conducted by volunteers, act as a baseline assessment of river and stream conditions. Volunteers walked or canoed along the river and streams noting conditions of outfall pipes, banks and indicators of non-point source pollution. The results of the survey helped to identify and prioritize non-point source pollution problems throughout our watersheds.

Task 2. Conduct water quality monitoring The second step of this project was to conduct water quality monitoring along the Charles, Mystic and their tributaries. Water quality monitoring is an important step in any effort to remediate pollution problems. Through the project, CRWA and MyRWA conducted water quality monitoring both in areas previously documented as having high levels of pollution and in areas where minimal water quality investigations had previously been conducted. To assess the impact of stormwater runoff many water bodies were investigated under both wet and dry weather conditions.

Task 3. Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs) Throughout the FIFI Program CRWA and MyRWA attempted to work with the parties responsible for managing stormwater in our respective watersheds to reduce stormwater pollution to the Charles and Mystic Rivers. Shoreline survey and water quality data was reviewed and analyzed. Data reports were prepared and distributed to local municipalities, land owners, state agencies, EPA and other river partners. After compiling and analyzing this data, which identified numerous sources of non-point source pollution, CRWA and MyRWA also conducted guided research and outreach aimed at remediating these problems. Remediation strategies were researched to find comprehensive, practical solutions to the stormwater issues in our area. Recommendations were made to local officials regarding remediation efforts. In some cases partnerships were formed which have led to proposed projects to address some of the individual problems identified. Finally, seminars and field trips were held and written materials

24 were developed to educate stormwater officials about low impact development (LID) stormwater best management practices (BMPs) which can affectively address many of the problems observed during Tasks 1 and 2.

Task 4. Share project knowledge through publication of a guidebook CRWA and MyRWA wrote and published a guidebook to educate other environmental and citizen groups about conducting their own stormwater assessment and assisted remediation project. This guidebook will be made available through CRWA and MyRWA’s websites free of charge.

Task 5. Public education and outreach Results of work completed under Tasks 1, 2 and 3 were shared with the public through public presentations, newspaper and newsletter articles, printed materials and our organizations’ web sites. Materials aimed at a general audience were developed to educate the public about what they can do to reduce non-point source pollution. Finally, an educational workshop on environmentally friendly landscaping practices was held to educate watershed residents about river-friendly landscaping techniques.

Task 6. Administration and reporting CRWA and MyRWA submitted regular interim reports to MET to keep the funder apprised of our progress in this project. This report serves as the final report for this project.

25 3.0 CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION’S FIND IT AND FIX IT PROGRAM

3.1 Task 1: Conduct Visual Shoreline Surveys

The Charles River is significantly impaired by stormwater runoff and regularly violates Massachusetts State Surface Water Quality Standards during and following rain events. Non- point source pollution originates in numerous, diffuse sources and travels to the river through overland flow and stormwater drainage systems. Through careful observations of riparian land use and certain indicators of non-points source pollution, especially downstream of stormwater drainage pipes, CRWA was able to highlight specific areas directly affected by stormwater runoff and characterize some of the most prevalent non-point source pollution issues along the mainstem and certain tributaries.

In Task 1 CRWA recruited volunteers to conduct visual shoreline surveys along 45 miles of the Charles River and 15 miles of Charles River tributaries. Volunteers made observations of water body characteristics, with a special focus on: water below or flowing from stormwater pipes, location and condition of stormwater drainage system outfall pipes, riparian land use, and habitat and recreational assets.

3.1.1 Background

Study Area Visual shoreline surveys were conducted along the lower 45 miles of the Charles River as it flows through the communities of Sherborn, Dover, Natick, Wellesley, Needham, Dedham, Newton, Weston, Waltham, Watertown, Cambridge and Boston. The river was divided into four major subsections called Stream Teams A, B, C and D (See Figure 5). Additionally, visual shoreline surveys were conducted on eight tributaries located throughout the lower watershed. These tributaries are: • Muddy River, Boston and Brookline • Cheesecake Brook, Newton • Beaver Brook, Lexington, Belmont, Waltham • Sawins Brook, Watertown • Fuller Brook, Wellesley • South Meadow Brook, Newton • Sawmill Brook, Boston, Brookline and Newton • Hobbs Brook, Weston

Many of the tributaries of the Charles River have been transformed over time into stormwater drainage areas, partially culverted or buried underground with numerous stormwater pipes discharging directly into them. Because of this, CRWA chose to focus some of our visual shoreline survey efforts on these smaller streams. By monitoring tributaries we hoped to gain insight into the origin of pollution to the Charles River.

26 Figure 5: Map of Charles River Shoreline Survey Project Area

Previous Visual Shoreline Surveys This was the first visual shoreline survey organized and led by CRWA. The Massachusetts Riverways Program (Riverways), a state agency working to promote the restoration, protection and ecological integrity of the state’s streams, organizes and trains volunteers to conduct visual shoreline surveys on rivers throughout the state. In 1997, a Riverways volunteer team conducted a visual shoreline survey of portions the Charles from Cutler Park to Commonwealth Ave., Norumbega Park to Nonantum, and Watertown to the mouth of the river in Boston.

3.1.2 Scope of Work

The goals of this task were to: • Recruit and train volunteers to perform shoreline surveys • Educate volunteers about non-point source pollution issues and engage them as empowered lifelong river stewards • Conduct visual shoreline surveys along the lower 45 miles of the Charles and along various tributaries to the Charles to: • Document baseline conditions, including: land use, local property ownership, evidence of non-point source pollution, erosion, sedimentation, locations of discharge pipes, important habitats, and public access • Identify problems and hot spots that require follow-up monitoring

The following subtasks were performed under Task 1: Conduct Visual Shoreline Surveys:

27 Task 1. Develop a shoreline survey methodology CRWA worked with Riverways to adapt Riverways’ established shoreline survey methodology to meet the needs of our survey. This included adapting the shoreline survey data sheet and conducting pre-survey field trials. Additionally, CRWA developed an in house system for organizing and managing data by river segment as it was submitted by volunteers.

Task 2. Recruit and train volunteers CRWA recruited 122 volunteers including CRWA members, watershed residents, friends’ groups, local youth organizations and concerned citizens to visually survey the Charles River and its tributaries. CRWA held multiple training sessions to prepare volunteers to conduct visual shoreline surveys. Survey volunteers were only required to attend one two-hour training session. Training sessions provided volunteers with adequate background on non-point source pollution and the Find It and Fix It Program. Additionally volunteers were provided detailed instructions on the shoreline survey methodology.

Task 3. Conduct shoreline surveys CRWA staff and volunteers successfully completed visual shoreline surveys of the lower 45 miles of the Charles River and 15 miles of Charles River tributaries. CRWA staff managed large volume of data generated during these surveys.

3.1.3 Methodology

CRWA worked with Riverways to develop a shoreline survey methodology that would meet the goals of the FIFI visual shoreline survey and be appropriate for an urban river. Adapting Riverways’ shoreline survey methodology required changes to the shoreline survey data sheets and field testing of these sheets prior to commencing the surveys. The final methodology CRWA developed and employed is described below.

Data Collection The final shoreline survey methodology required volunteers to collect data in multiple formats which combined to present a complete picture of each river segment. During the visual shoreline survey, volunteers observed and recorded every pipe along the river bank, riparian land use, and any unusual river conditions.

To capture and report these aspects of the river segment, surveyors: • Completed a shoreline survey data sheet; • Took photographs of observations; • Marked the location of pipes and unusual conditions on a map.

CRWA modified the Riverways’ shoreline survey data form, tailoring them to identify non-point source pollution issues and potential sources of pollution. Modification of the Riverways shoreline survey data sheet was a cooperative effort between CRWA and MyRWA. The modification process is discussed briefly in this section and in Section 4.1.2.

The shoreline survey data sheet employed in the Find It and Fix It visual shoreline surveys has three main sections (See Appendix A). The first section consists of questions dealing with

28 instream and water body conditions, non-point source pollution sources, and river wildlife and habitat. The second section is a matrix for entering information about pipes observed during the survey. In the matrix, pipes are described and rated to indicate the severity of any problems observed, using a simple 0-2 rating system to distinguish between pipes with no issues (0), moderate or possible issues (1), and severe issues (2). The third section asks surveyors to answer two open-ended questions. The first asks for an overall description of the segment; the second asks for a prioritization of the most severe problems, best assets and priorities for action along the river segment.

CRWA provided shoreline surveyors with multiple maps of their river segment. They were provided both USGS topographic maps, typically at a very large scale and aerial maps of their shoreline survey segment. Surveyors were asked to mark the location of their observation on the USGS topographic maps because the layout and coloring of these maps made them ideal for legibly marking the location of pipes and river issues while still providing landmarks. For longer shoreline survey segments, survey teams were provided multiple, large scale USGS maps of subsections of their shoreline survey segment, so every observation could be marked accurately and legibly. Aerial maps were useful to orient the surveyors to their stream section and surroundings. CRWA created these maps using ESRI ArcMap software and source data from MassGIS and local communities. In all, CRWA created over 180 maps for distribution to shoreline survey volunteer teams.

Finally, shoreline survey volunteers were asked to take photographs of every pipe and other observation they made while in the field, while always clearly indicating where each photograph was taken. Photographs allowed experts on CRWA staff to examine the issues identified to further understand the problems that are present and assess their severity. Surveyors were asked to label photographs, whether hard copies or digital, so it was clear where each photograph was taken and what it was depicting. When survey teams used film cameras, CRWA reimbursed volunteers for development costs.

Survey Segments GIS software, recent aerial photos of the region, an intimate knowledge of the river, and a thorough pre-survey field outing all proved invaluable in dividing the river into shoreline survey segments. The Charles River survey area was initially divided into four main sections: Stream Teams A, B, C and D (See Figure 5). Stream Team sections were used to plan volunteer trainings, schedule surveys, and process and report data. As Stream Team divisions were used in data reporting, CRWA found it helpful to delineate these sections along municipal boundaries where possible.

Stream Team sections were then subdivided into shorter sections which were numbered from upstream to downstream. Survey sections were initially delineated using maps and aerial photos and revised through pre-survey field outings. These sub-sections were usually river stretches with clear start and end points (such as road crossings) ranging from approximately 1 to 3 miles. Depending on the size and accessibility of this section, it would then be assigned to a survey team to observe on foot or boat. CRWA used the notation N and S to articulate whether the survey was of the north or south bank and the notations C and W for canoers and walkers. All volunteers were asked to survey their segment from upstream to downstream.

29 Beyond the challenge of dividing the river into easily surveyed sections, CRWA also faced the challenge of keeping track of the data collected for each segment. Data reports from each segment generated a large number of maps, data sheets and photos which had the potential to be overwhelming to manage and track. CRWA assigned each segment a unique identifying number according to the standardized notation system described above. Before being given to volunteers, each map and data sheet were labeled with this identifier to help keep track of the large number of maps, shoreline survey data sheets and photographs submitted by shoreline survey volunteer teams.

Pre-Survey Field Outings CRWA staff conducted pre-survey field outings so as not to inadvertently send a survey team through unsafe terrain or an area with no safe river access. During the pre-survey field outings staff walked or drove along each segment noting accessibility and safety issues. CRWA also conducted pre-survey field outings as a trial run of our modified shoreline survey methodology to ensure that the data sheet was easily understood and the methodology appropriately designed to collect the information we desired. Follow the pre-survey field outing, CRWA made minor adjustments to both the shoreline survey data methodology and the survey river segments.

Volunteer Recruitment CRWA relied solely on volunteers to conduct the initial visual shoreline surveys. In some instances follow-up surveys were conducted by staff, based on volunteer observations. Volunteers were recruited in a variety of ways and did not require any pre-existing knowledge of the river or non-point source pollution, although many volunteers were uniquely knowledgeable about certain sections of the river and their shoreline survey observations were enhanced by this familiarity. CRWA also saw the use of volunteers to conduct shoreline surveys as an opportunity to reach out to community members to make connections, build relationships and train lifelong river stewards.

CRWA recruited approximately 122 volunteers. CRWA reached out to potential volunteers through our existing volunteer network and membership base, our website, volunteer clearinghouses such as Boston Cares and United Way, local cable televisions stations, flyers posted in local establishments, local newspapers and at local environmental events. Many volunteers were individuals, however; we also partnered with a variety of groups and organizations, including the Charles River “No Nasties” Stream Team, Weston Girl Scouts and Newton North High School AP Biology class.

Volunteer Training Prior to conducting shoreline surveys, volunteers were required to attend a two-hour training session. Training sessions were held in the evenings. CRWA initially held three separate trainings, one for Stream Teams A and B combined, one for Stream Team C and one for Stream Team D. Additional trainings were held for follow-up and tributary surveys.

Shoreline survey trainings consisted of three brief presentations. The first was a brief introduction to non-point source pollution and the Find It and Fix It Program which was usually conducted by CRWA staff. The second presentation was conducted by Riverways staff and included a slideshow of photographs of non-point source pollution issues surveyors would be

30 observing and noting. The third presentation detailed the shoreline survey methodology to ensure surveyors clearly understood what was required of them both in the field during the survey and following the survey, and what they were required to return to CRWA upon completion of the survey. Surveyors were also provided an overview of the necessary safety precautions one should take while conduction field work. Finally, volunteers were broken into teams of two and assigned shoreline survey segments. For both safety and data quality reasons shoreline surveys were always conducted by two or more people.

Ideally, all three presentations were concluded in an hour and a half to leave ample time for surveyors to ask questions. Presenters strove to be clear with instructions, limiting the use of technical terms, and reiterating the most important points. Trainings held in the third year of the project period were conducted by just CRWA staff, without the help of Riverways.

Conducting Shoreline Surveys CRWA determined a time frame during which each Stream Team section would be surveyed. CRWA also determined that when possible shoreline surveys should be conducted during, or closely following, rain events to best assess the impact of stormwater runoff. Many volunteers were unable to do that, however; as they were only available to conduct surveys on weekends. Within these constraints, shoreline survey volunteers conducted surveys according to their own schedule. Each Stream Team section was surveyed in its entirety within a three-week span, barring any major weather or scheduling conflicts. Volunteers typically mailed or hand delivered their shoreline survey data reports to CRWA in a timely manner following the survey. Data was then managed and analyzed by CRWA staff and follow-up surveys were scheduled as needed.

Following the original surveys, CWRA staff conducted, or scheduled volunteers to conduct, follow-up shoreline surveys. In areas where data was incomplete CRWA would schedule a second volunteer team, ideally one with previous surveying experience, to re-survey the area. In areas with a high density of priority problems observed or severe issues possibly requiring immediate attention CRWA staff conducted follow-up surveys.

Data Management As visual shoreline survey data was submitted to CRWA, staff organized the data by Stream Team or tributary. This involved building both an electronic database for digital photographs and other soft data and organizing data sheets, maps and other hard data. When possible, CRWA staff contacted with volunteers to track down outstanding data.

Data Analysis CRWA staff compiled and reviewed shoreline survey data sheets, pipe matrices, written narratives, photographs and maps. Problem areas were identified within each river segment and placed under the following categories: • Water • Vegetation • Riparian area • Land use • Trash

31 • Pipes

Upon assessment and prioritization of the problems within each river stretch, CRWA determined the next steps for addressing the problems identified which included water quality monitoring, rechecking pipes, resurveying river segment, removing trash, creating or improving a riparian buffer of native vegetation, and various other steps discussed further in section 3.3.4. Finally, specific observations of non-point source pollution issues were entered into a geographic information system (GIS).

3.1.4 Shoreline Survey Results

CRWA compiled shoreline survey results using matrices created in Microsoft Excel and into a GIS using ArcMap. Results are discussed by Stream Team section and tributary.

Shoreline survey volunteers completed the initial survey of the lower 45 miles of the river from Dover/Sherborn to Boston Harbor during the spring and summer of 2006. Tributary surveys were conducted throughout the extent of the Find It and Fix Project period, beginning with Cheesecake Brook in December 2006, and commencing with Fuller, Beaver and Hobbs Brooks in spring 2008.

Stream Team A The Stream Team A segment is the most upstream segment of the shoreline survey study area. It stretches approximately 14 miles from Bridge St., Dover to Needham St., Dedham. The initial survey was conducted from late March to mid-April 2006, with follow-up surveys in spring 2007.

CRWA visual shoreline survey volunteers observed the following issues along the Charles River in the Stream Team A section: • Outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Outfall pipes flowing in dry weather; • Garbage in the river and along the banks, including larger items, such as rusty metal drums by the South Natick Dam and discarded carpet near the Cochrane Dam launch; • Areas of stream bank erosion; • Lawns abutting the river without appropriate riparian buffer zones; • Excessive algae growth in the river and near outfall pipes; and • Invasive plants, mainly Purple Loosestrife.

In addition to these pollution issues, shoreline survey volunteers also observed the following assets along Stream Team A: • Wildlife such as turtles and birds; • Wildlife habitat; and • Recreational use areas for boating, fishing, walking and biking.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The Stream Team A results matrix is available in Appendix B.

32 Stream Team B The Stream Team B segment stretches approximately 15 miles from Rt. 128 in Needham/Dedham to Washington St., Newton. The initial survey was conducted in April and May of 2006. One subsection was re-surveyed in April 2007. Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along the Stream Team B section: • Garbage in the river and along the banks; • Areas of stream bank erosion; • Excessive sedimentation; • Outwash of sanding from Route 9; • Invasive plants, mainly Purple Loosestrife and Phragmities; and • Parking lots leading directly to the river with no riparian buffer zones.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this river stretch: • Wildlife, such as muskrats, geese and herons; • Wildlife habitats; • Large tract of publicly owned park land along the river and many public access points; and • Vernal pools with rare salamanders.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The Stream Team B results matrix and a map created from the GIS database are available in Appendix B.

Stream Team C The Stream Team C section is approximately 6 miles extending from the Woerd Ave. boat launch in Waltham to Galen St., Watertown. The initial survey was completed in late April and early May of 2006. A follow-up survey of one sub-section was completed over two days in December 2006 and January 2007. Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along the Stream Team C section: • Outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Outfall pipes flowing in dry weather; • Sewage odor along the river and from outfall pipes; • Oil sheen on water; • Garbage in the river and along the banks, mostly smaller items, but also a discarded chain-link fence between Bridge Street and Galen Street and a shopping cart just downstream of Elm Street; • Areas of stream bank erosion; • Invasive plants, such as Water Chestnut, Phragmities and Milfoil; • Construction sites without any best management practices to reduce erosion; and • Lawns and cemeteries without any buffer zone to the river.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this river stretch: • Recreational use areas for boating, fishing, walking and biking; • Wildlife habitats;

33 • Wildlife such as frogs, turtles, geese, swans, swallows, mussels and clams; and • Signs advising the public: “Do Not Feed the Geese”.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The Stream Team C results matrix as well as a map of problems created from the GIS database and maps and tables focusing on issues observed in Waltham, which were created for EPA officials and officials in that community, are available in Appendix B.

Stream Team D The Stream Team D section is approximately 9 miles and roughly corresponds to the Lower Charles River Basin. This section begins at Galen St. in Watertown and extends to the New Charles River Dam in Charlestown. Most subsections were initially surveyed in late May and early June 2006. One subsection was surveyed in August 2006. Follow-up surveys were conducted in winter 2006/07.

Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along the Stream Team D section: • Numerous outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Outfall pipes flowing in dry weather; • Sewage odor from an outfall pipe by North Beacon Street bridge; • Objectionable floatables observed near Charles River Dam; • Smell of gas along the river near the Newton/Boston border and from outfall pipes near the Galen Street bridge and the Arsenal Mall; • Oil sheen on water in numerous locations; • Foam on water in numerous locations; • Garbage flowing from outfall pipes; • Garbage in the river and along the banks, mostly smaller items, although some larger items were observed; • Excessive sedimentation, especially near outfall pipes; • Areas of severe stream bank erosion; • Construction sites without any best management practices to reduce erosion; • Invasive plants, such as Purple Loosestrife, Phragmities and Japanese Knotweed; • Areas of excessive algae growth, especially below outfall pipes; • Lawns and cemeteries without any buffer zone to the river; and • High prevalence of goose droppings.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this river stretch: • Wildlife, including birds, carp, largemouth bass, perch and eel; • Wildlife habitat, including a turtle nesting site; • High level of recreational opportunities (boating clubs, launches, walking/biking paths and a public theater); and • Public notification of combined sewer overflow points.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The Stream Team D results matrix as well as maps and a table created from the GIS are available in Appendix B.

34 Tributaries

South Meadow Brook, Newton South Meadow Brook is located in Newton, MA. The brook originates near the Route 9 Parker Street intersection and flows through residential neighborhoods until it discharges into the Charles River upstream of the Needham Street bridge. This brook was surveyed in two sections, the first section, from Winchester St. to where the brook enters an underground culvert near Tower Road, was surveyed in November 2007. The second section, upstream of the first, from Dedham Street to Winchester Street, was surveyed in May 2008.

Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along South Meadow Brook: • Outfall pipes flowing in dry weather; • Sewage odor from outfall pipe upstream of Needham St.; • Discolored discharge from an outfall along Boundary Brook Rd.; • Numerous outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Excessive sedimentation occurring along brook; • Oil sheen on water in multiple locations; • Areas of stream bank erosion; • Lawns without any buffer zone to the brook; • Construction sites with exposed soils and no best management practices to prevent erosion abutting the brook; and • Garbage in the brook and along the banks, mostly smaller items, although some larger items such as a discarded play house, tires and shopping carts were observed.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this brook: • Wildlife, including birds; • Wildlife habitat; and • Majority of the brook stretch had adequate shade cover by trees in the riparian area.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The tributary matrix is available in Appendix B.

Cheesecake Brook, Newton The above-ground portions of Cheesecake Brook were surveyed in their entirety from the headwaters in Brae Burn Country Club to the confluence with the Charles River. This survey was done in three sections; surveys were conducted in the summer and winter of 2006.

Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along Cheesecake Brook: • Outfall pipe with heavy flow during a period of light rain; • Sewage odor from an outfall pipe on the Brae Burn Country Club golf course; • Outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Excessive aquatic vegetation growing in brook, especially near outfall pipes; • Excessive sedimentation occurring along brook; • Grass clippings being disposed of in the brook throughout the Brae Burn Country Club golf course;

35 • Pipes traversing the brook; • Areas with inadequate stream buffers; • Invasive species, such as Fanwort and Purple Loosestrife; • Areas of stream bank erosion; and • Garbage in the brook and along the banks, mostly smaller items, although some larger items such as a discarded bicycle and tarp.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this brook: • Wildlife, including birds, frogs and fish; • Wildlife habitat; and • Adequate shade cover by trees in the riparian area along some segments.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The tributary matrix and maps and a table created from the GIS database are available in Appendix B.

Sawmill Brook, Brookline and Newton Only a short segment of Sawmill Brook was surveyed. The survey began downstream of Newton Street in Brookline and ended upstream of St. Joseph’s cemetery near Grace Road, Newton. This survey was conducted on July 24, 2007.

Stream survey volunteers observed the following issues along Sawmill Brook: • An outfall pipe with a strong sewage odor and a broken trash rack near the Newton/Brookline border; • An outfall pipe surrounded by very turbid water; • Bright white foam or suds along the brook; • Invasive species, such as Purple Loosestrife; • Construction sites without best management practices and manicured lawns abutting the brook without adequate riparian buffers; and • Garbage in the brook and along the banks, mostly smaller items, although some larger items such as a discarded bicycle.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this brook: • Wildlife, including birds, frogs and rabbits; • Wildlife habitat; • Recreational use areas for walking, running and biking; • Much of the segment is surrounded by natural vegetated buffers; and • Most of this segment had adequate shade cover by trees in the riparian area.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The tributary matrix and maps and a table created from the GIS database are available in Appendix B.

36 Fuller Brook, Wellesley Fuller Brook is located primarily in Wellesley, MA. The brook begins in Needham and flows north into Wellesley. It feeds into the Wellesley Skating Pond where it bows and begins flowing southwest toward the Charles. Fuller Brook meets the Charles River as it flows through the Elm Bank Reservation.

CRWA volunteers conducted two separate surveys along the brook. Surveys were only conducted on the downstream-most section of the brook from State St. to Dover Rd. The first took place on May 2, 2007, the second on May 30, 2008. Below is a list of the main problems discovered by shoreline survey volunteers along Fuller Brook:

• Outfall pipes flowing in dry weather; • Sewage odor near Cottage Street bridge; • Outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Severe erosion along the banks, including areas above the brook’s retaining walls; • Portions of the retaining wall in disrepair; • Oily sheen on water; • Garbage in the river and along the banks, mostly smaller items; • Areas where excessive sedimentation is occurring; • Excessive algae growth below outfall pipes; • Lawns without any buffer zone to the river; and • Fish barriers.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this brook stretch: • Recreational use areas for walking and biking; and • Minimal trash observed.

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The tributary matrix and maps and a table created from the GIS database are available in Appendix B.

Sawins Brook, Watertown CRWA volunteers surveyed Sawins Brook in May 2007. Volunteers began their survey at Elm Street, where this brook emerges from a culvert and walked along the entire daylit portion of the brook, including Sawins Pond, to its confluence with the Charles. In general, conditions along this brook were extremely poor. Shoreline surveyors notes numerous problems and returned numerous photos of trash, discolored water and severely eroded banks.

Below is a list of the main problems discovered by our shoreline survey volunteers along Sawins Brook: • Outfall pipes in disrepair, either broken or clogged; • Remnants of an outfall pipe, which appears to be out of use, littering the bank; • Excessive amount of algae growing in the brook, especially around outfall pipes; • Exposed pipe traversing the brook;

37 • Large amount of litter in the water and along the banks, mostly smaller items, although some larger items were observed; • Areas of heavy sedimentation; • Areas of severe stream bank erosion; and • Areas with discolored water.

In addition to the problems observed, volunteers noted the following assets along this brook stretch: • Wildlife, including birds; • Wildlife habitat; and • Majority of the brook had adequate shade cover by trees in the riparian area

All results were incorporated into a matrix and a GIS. The tributary matrix and maps and a table created from the GIS database are available in Appendix B.

3.1.5 Conclusions and Future Work

The results of this visual shoreline survey are a comprehensive database of issues along the lower Charles River and many of its tributaries. These results were extremely useful to CRWA in completing Tasks 2, 3 and 5 of this project. This work is discussed in sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. Section 3.4 discusses CRWA’s recommendations for specific remediation actions for each Stream Team and tributary survey section.

This database will continue to serve numerous purposes and benefit CRWA’s work beyond the Find It and Fix It Program. CRWA believes the resulting catalog of problems and potential solutions will in itself be valuable to multiple agencies, funders, and various stakeholders in many non-point source pollution programs to come.

The observations made by shoreline survey volunteers establish a baseline of conditions along surveyed areas. As problems are addressed or left unaddressed, CRWA can use shoreline survey observations for comparison purposes to document improvements or assess how rapidly conditions are degenerating. These results will remain on file at CRWA for future reference and review.

The observations made by shoreline survey volunteers can help guide the future work of CRWA and our river partners. While CRWA has for many years been aware that non-point source pollution is the major issue facing the Charles, this database provides evidence of exactly what types of damage are occurring, where effects are very severe, where and which problems might be easily addressed, and where and which problems require extensive remediation efforts. For example, this data was useful in targeting areas for the Annual Charles River Cleanup in recent years and helps us advise other groups looking to conduct clean-ups about areas where their efforts might be most effective.

This was the first shoreline survey managed and conducted by CRWA. As an organization we learned many valuable lessons in regard to visual shoreline surveys. CRWA was fortunate enough to have the assistance of MassRiverways in developing our initial shoreline survey

38 protocol. In the future, when CRWA conducts additional visual shoreline surveys, the first hand experience in managing the FIFI visual surveys will be invaluable.

One practical lesson CRWA learned was that analyzing the data from visual shoreline surveys, entering these results into a geodatabase and preparing these results for display on the web is very time consuming. CRWA underestimated the time this would take on the back end of surveys, therefore; in retrospect we may have been over ambitions in conducting surveys along so many miles of Charles River tributaries. CRWA continues to work to analyze all the data submitted by volunteers for tributary shoreline surveys conducted late in the project period. As this effort is taking longer than anticipated, we have not yet fully completed analyzing and reporting results for three tributary shoreline surveys conducted during the project period, Muddy River, Beaver Brook and Hobbs Brook. CRWA anticipates these results will be fully analyzed and sent to municipalities before the end of the calendar year. Although we were not able to fully analyze this data during the project period, CRWA is pleased to have the data and was able to engage the Weston Girl Scouts and Newton North High School students in conducting these surveys.

A second important lesson learned by CRWA regarding shoreline survey methodology was the difficulty in matching photographs submitted by volunteers with the location where photographs were taken. In the future CRWA would develop a better plan for matching photographs to locations, possibly by including some sort of identifier or marker in the photograph. Finally, CRWA struggled with tracking and organizing all the shoreline survey data submitted by volunteers. CRWA underestimate the time commitment necessary to track all incoming data and follow up with volunteers regarding outstanding data pieces. In a few cases, CRWA was not able to contact volunteers about outstanding data until a few months had passed and by that time volunteers were not able to fill in the data gaps.

3.2 Task 2: Collect and Test Water Samples

Most of the Charles River and its tributaries remain in the impaired categories of the Massachusetts Integrated List of Waters, meaning that these river segments do not meet water quality standards for their designated recreational, habitat and/or industrial uses (MassDEP, 2006). With the extraordinary cleanup of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) receiving water monitoring now identifies the Charles River as one of the largest remaining sources of pollutant loading to the harbor.

The first step in any effort to remediate pollution problems is to establish an ongoing water quality monitoring program in order to identify polluted areas and their sources, prioritize investments, monitor the effectiveness of past efforts and adapt management techniques for the future. Sampling for water quality indicators is an important tool to begin work to “fix” the health of the river and its tributaries. MWRA conducts a comprehensive monitoring program in the Boston Harbor watershed that includes the Charles River, but this Charles River program stops at Watertown Dam, nine miles upstream of the mouth of the river. In addition, MassDEP monitoring staff lacks the resources to conduct extensive monitoring in the Charles at a level of detail that can actually support water quality improvement activities.

39 CRWA developed a two-part water quality monitoring plan for the FIFI project. The first aspect of this plan involved the further investigation of areas with suspected or known pollution problems, termed “hot spots”. The second aspect of monitoring involved investigation of Charles River tributaries, primarily tributaries located in the most developed municipalities in the watershed. Many of the tributaries in the middle and lower watershed have been transformed over time to perform stormwater drainage functions by being partially or fully culverted with numerous stormwater pipes and pipes of unknown origin discharging directly into them. CRWA focused some of our water quality monitoring efforts on these smaller streams. Water quality monitoring of tributaries provides some indication of where the pollution to the Charles River originates.

3.2.1 Background

Study Area Water quality monitoring was conducted throughout the Find It and Fix It Program study area. CRWA monitored various locations along the mainstem of the Charles and nine tributaries (See Figure 2). Maps of specific monitoring sites are included in the results section.

Previous Water Quality Sampling CRWA has been collecting monthly samples at 37 centerline and tributary sites since 1996. Samples are analyzed for E.coli bacteria, various nutrient parameters, TSS and other parameters as needed. This ongoing program helps CRWA to get a monthly snapshot of water quality in the river and track water quality trends over time, however; there is little flexibility in this monitoring program to respond to emergency situations or investigate suspect areas in greater depth. Monitoring through this program always occurs on a pre-determined date and time and therefore cannot be utilized to capture the effects of specific weather conditions.

Over the past eleven years, CRWA has also been conducting regular bacteria monitoring of the lower basin as part of our Summer Flagging Program. This program is designed to assess bacterial contamination in the lower basin and inform the public about potential health risks associated with recreating there. Through this project, CRWA has compiled a large database of bacteria data for the lower basin, however; the sampling times and sites for this program are fixed and therefore do not allow us to respond to specific weather conditions. Bacteria results and antecedent rain data are then input into a model which was developed by CRWA staff to predict the likelihood that bacteria concentrations are in violation of the Massachusetts State Water Quality Standard for Secondary Recreational Contact (State Boating Standard).

CRWA also recently conducted a great deal of water quality monitoring through the development of the Upper Charles Nutrient TMDL. Through this project, CRWA was able to conduct targeted wet and dry weather sampling, according to pre-defined definitions, to assess the impacts of stormwater runoff. Much of this water quality monitoring, however; was primarily focused in the upper, less developed areas of our watershed and not in the FIFI project area.

40 Finally, historically, CRWA had conducted extensive hot spot sampling to respond to water quality emergencies or follow-up on suspected areas of impairment, however; this program has been severely limited since CRWA closed its own water-testing laboratory in 2004.

3.2.2 Scope of Work

Through the Find It and Fix It Project CRWA was able to conduct more in depth water quality monitoring and respond to short-term, isolated incidents, such as objectionable discharges or odors observed in waterways. This monitoring program was built on CRWA’s existing water quality monitoring programs but expanded our current reach and impact and allowed us to fill in some data gaps.

The goals of this task were to: • Collect and analyze samples for pollutants of concern in the Charles River watershed with a focus on stormwater pollutants; • Assess water quality conditions in the mainstem and tributaries not currently monitored as part of CRWA’s baseline receiving water quality monitoring program; • Collect wet and dry weather samples to determine the impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality; • Conduct “hot spot” monitoring to detect potential illicit sewer connections or other sources of pollution; • Track and monitor reported or suspected non-point source pollution “hot spots”; and • Evaluate effectiveness in pollutant removal of stormwater control methods.

The following subtasks were performed under Task 2: Collect and Test Water Samples:

Task 1. Expand and update CRWA’s existing Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to establish protocols and quality control measures for CRWA’s water quality and flow monitoring work. At the start of this project, CRWA’s existing QAPP was limited in scope to water quality monitoring and scheduled to expire in 2006. Under this task, the QAPP was updated and expanded.

Task 2. Conduct water quality monitoring Task 2a. Conduct water quality “hot spot” monitoring. CRWA staff and volunteers conducted “hot spot” water quality monitoring at various locations throughout the watershed. This monitoring was done as follow-up to visual monitoring results, calls from concerned citizens, shared information from other environmental groups, results of prior CRWA water quality monitoring, or other emergency water quality problems of which CRWA became aware.

Task 2b. Conduct water quality monitoring of tributaries. Beginning in August 2006, CRWA staff and volunteers conducted water quality monitoring on nine tributaries in the middle and lower watershed during wet and dry weather. These tributaries are located in Watertown, Newton, Brookline, Boston, Wellesley and Waltham.

41 3.2.3 Methodology

Quality Assurance Project Plan Development A quality assurance project plan (QAPP) outlines techniques and methods for field sampling design and methodology, laboratory procedures, and data management and reporting. The development of a QAPP is a crucial preliminary step for any water quality monitoring project.

CRWA developed a QAPP which expanded upon and combined previous CRWA QAPPs to establish protocols and quality control measures for all of CRWA’s water quality and flow monitoring work. In the past, each of CRWA’s projects was governed by a separate QAPP. Creating separate QAPPs for each project was time consuming and redundant. CRWA used these previous QAPPs as a base and develop one general QAPP to encompass all our monitoring programs, including all monitoring conducted under the Find It and Fix It Project. CRWA’s approved QAPP is included as Appendix A. QAPP appendices are available upon request.

Water Quality Monitoring CRWA conducted two types of monitoring: “hot spot” monitoring and tributary monitoring. All water quality monitoring for this project followed the protocols set out in CRWA’s approved QAPP.

When CRWA’s goal was to observe impacts of stormwater runoff, a monitoring plan was developed which included monitoring in either wet or dry weather, or both. CRWA defines wet weather as a storm of at least 1 inch of rain in 24 hours, after 72 hours antecedent dry conditions. Dry weather is defined by CRWA as less than 0.1 inches of precipitation in the 72 hours preceding sampling. CRWA used precipitation data from the Logan Airport rain gauge, USGS rain gauges located throughout the watershed and the Wellesley College rain gauge. The choice of rain gauge was typically based on the proximity of a gauge to the sampling sites. In some cases precipitation data is reported from more than one gauge. CRWA made every effort to sample according to these definitions, however; due to the inherent inaccuracy of weather predictions and predictions of rain fall amounts in particular, there were variations from these exact definitions, especially during wet weather monitoring events. Variations are discussed in Section 3.2.4.

CRWA collected water samples for analyses of bacteria and other indicators of human sewage, total phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS), cyanobacteria cell counts and petroleum products. Samples were analyzed at independent laboratories which are included in CRWA’s QAPP. When a field duplicate was collected the result is reported as an average of the two samples. CRWA collected a field duplicate sample for 10% of all samples collected. Selection of laboratories was dependent on parameters needed for analyses, cost, and proximity of the laboratory to the sampling sites. Once a laboratory was selected for a certain parameter, water body and region at the onset of the project, all samples were sent to the same laboratory throughout the duration of the project. In situ measurements were also taken for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, water depth, salinity, conductivity, and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) concentrations.

42 Results were compiled and analyzed for trends in water quality. Results were also compared to Massachusetts State Water Quality Standards, EPA recommended criteria and/or CRWA Action Limits. These standards, criteria and limits are summarized in Table 3. In addition, results were compared between sites and under wet and dry weather conditions.

Any variation from sampling design is noted and discussed in Section 3.2.4. CRWA’s complete monitoring results are included in Appendix C.

Table 3: Standards, Criteria and Limits for Relevant Water Quality Parameters Parameter Benchmark Value Source Reference E. coli <126 cfu/100 mL Massachusetts Surface Water Mass DEP, water Quality Standard five-sample 2007b mean bacterial standard for primary contact (swimming)1 <630 cfu/100mL water Massachusetts Surface Water Mass DEP, Quality Standard five-sample 2007b mean bacterial standard for secondary contact (boating) Total <30 mg/L CRWA Action Limit CRWA, 2007; Suspended US EPA 2003 Solids Total <0.0238 mg/L U.S. EPA Ambient Water US EPA, 2000 Phosphorus Quality Criteria Recommendations for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient EcoRegion XIV` Dissolved >5 mg/L Massachusetts Surface Water Mass DEP, Oxygen Quality Standard bacterial 2007b standard for warm water fisheries Surfactants >0.25 mg/L U.S. EPA Illicit Discharge EPA, unknown Detection and Elimination year (IDDE) 201: Conducting MassDEP, 2004 IDDE Investigations

“Hot Spot” Monitoring “Hot spots” are sites with known or suspected water quality degradation. CRWA observed water quality impairments due to pollutants, excessive growth of aquatic vegetation and flow alterations. CRWA staff conducted monitoring of these areas to verify conditions through observation and measurement. CRWA learned about these potential “hot spots” through our visual stream surveys; baseline receiving water quality data; notification by the public, media, government agency or other environmental group; or staff observations during field outings. When water samples were collected, sample collection sites were determined on a case by case basis based on the specific circumstances, previous water quality data (if available), institutional

1 CRWA uses the geometric mean criteria established by MassDEP instead of the single sample criteria to be more conservative and protective of the public’s health.

43 knowledge of pollutions or flow issues, extent of the reported condition, and accessibility to the river or stream. Samples were analyzed for a variety of the pollutants included in the QAPP and varied according to the issues specific to each site. “Hot spot” monitoring events often required a timely response or tracking at regular intervals and therefore monitoring events were often not planned around specific weather conditions.

Cyanobacteria Monitoring CRWA joined a collaborative working group to develop a protocol for monitoring and monitor for cyanobacteria levels in the river during the summer months and notifying the public of potential risks from the toxins cyanobacteria can produce. This collaborative group included DCR, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), Charles River Swim Club, EPA and MassDEP. The monitoring protocol CRWA developed with the Cyanobacteria Working Group divided the Lower Charles River Basin into four zones and established one designated sampling site in each zone. The monitoring protocol prescribes summertime water quality monitoring every other week, until cyanobacteria cell counts or toxin levels are above a threshold levels set by MDPH. Once this level is reached, monitoring will shift to every week. Monitoring includes collecting samples for both cyanobacteria cell counts and toxin levels, which were analyzed by MassDEP or another laboratory, and measuring in situ parameters such as water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity and pH. Unfortunately, there is not a direct correlation between visible algae in the water and toxin levels, so without monitoring, it can be difficult to determine when the water is safe and when it poses a threat.

In addition, CRWA purchased a HydroLab phycocyanin probe to measure cyanobacteria concentrations in situ. This probe reads fluorescence of phycocyanin, a pigment found in cyanobacteria, in the water to determine cyanobacteria concentrations. This probe requires calibration though in situ readings taken in conjunction with discrete samples which are analyzed for cell counts. CRWA has been building our database of the phycocyanin probe’s in situ readings and cell counts in an effort to calibrate our meter. Currently, CRWA has generated a preliminary calibration of the meter which allows us to predict approximate cell counts based on our phycocyanin probe readings. This calibration has not yet been finalized, however; and therefore cell counts based on probe readings are only estimates. CRWA uses these estimates to guide our monitoring and help determine where and when samples should be collected to be sent to the lab for cell count analysis.

CRWA staff and volunteers conducted water quality monitoring throughout the summers of 2006, 2007 and 2008 to track the cyanobacteria and monitor for river conditions favorable to cyanobacteria growth.

Low Flow Analysis Due to concern over the severe cyanobacteria blooms of 2006 and 2007, CRWA investigated possible causes of, or factors influencing these blooms. One such factor is low flows in the Charles River. Low flows can lead to warmer water temperatures, which exacerbate cyanobacteria blooms. In the summer of 2007, CRWA investigated the possible causes of low flows in the lower basin as measured and documented by four USGS flow gauges.

44 CRWA’s previous investigations have revealed that flows into the lower basin are affected by three significant factors in the middle Charles: flow coming in from the Upper Charles (as measured at the Dover gauge), flow leaving the Charles via the Mother Brook Diversion in Dedham and flowing into the Neponset River (as measured at the Mother Brook gauge), and the flow coming into the Charles from the Stony Brook tributary below the Stony Brook Reservoir in Waltham (as measured at the Stony Brook Gauge). The Waltham Gauge, located on the mainstem of the Charles River, is downstream of all three of these and provides a reasonably accurate estimate of flows entering the lower basin. Flow data for each of these gauges is available online. Natural flows in the middle Charles are also impacted by several mainstem dams which create impoundments and alter river stage height. Of particular importance is the Silk Mill dam in Newton Upper Falls, located directly downstream of the Mother Brook Diversion, and the Moody Street Dam. Alterations of dam height at these dams during low flow periods have the potential to significantly modify flows to the lower basin.

To evaluate potential impacts of the diversion of flows at Mother Brook, the inflow of water from Stony Brook, and dam operations, CRWA collected and analyzed streamflow data obtained from the USGS website for the gauges discussed above. CRWA also collected available information on dam operations through personal and telephone interviews with dam operators. Consequently, CRWA analyzed the data, using Excel graphs to observed changes over time under all flows and low flows.

Tributary Monitoring CRWA staff assessed the water quality of ten tributaries, many of which we previously possessed minimal, recent water quality data. For this project, CRWA targeted the tributaries found to be historically polluted. Selection of these tributaries was based on visual shoreline survey results, CRWA’s historical water quality data of these tributaries, and recent water quality data collected by USGS, MassDEP, EPA, and CRWA volunteer Roger Frymire. At each tributary specific sampling locations were selected based on previous data, shoreline survey results, accessibility and location of outfalls discharging into the brook. Sampling sites were designed to capture a complete picture of the entire tributary as well as to investigate certain areas as potentially high pollutant loading.

Samples were collected at each site for various stormwater pollutants including E. coli bacteria, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, surfactants and petroleum products. Monitoring was conducted during dry weather to establish baseline conditions of these locations and then followed up with wet weather monitoring. Sampling was typically conducted from upstream to downstream, unless field conditions required a different procedure.

3.2.4 Water Quality Monitoring Results

QAPP Development CRWA’s updated QAPP encompasses our numerous sampling projects, including baseline/volunteer monitoring, tributary, “hot spot”, stormwater, and wet weather receiving water monitoring. Sample collection procedures include grab sampling from a boat, while wading, and from the shore; pole sampling; basket sampling; volunteer bucket sampling; and stormwater runoff sampling.

45

In addition, the QAPP was expanded to include laboratory analyses of additional parameters. The updated QAPP stipulates control measures for the collection, storage and transportation of samples to be analyzed for the following parameters: fecal coliform, E. coli, Enterococcus, total phosphorus, orthophosphate, nitrate, nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia, chlorophyll a, phaeophytin, oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbons, chromium, zinc, copper, lead, sodium, five–day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), five–day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and total suspended solids (TSS). The QAPP also includes in situ field measurements of pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and salinity with the various meters available to CRWA.

An important addition to this updated QAPP is the inclusion of flow monitoring design and procedures. CRWA conducts streamflow monitoring at eight tributary sites to document the impacts of development on groundwater and surface water resources. USGS monitors mainstem sites along the Charles but only a few select tributary sites. Therefore, CRWA tributary monitoring is a unique long-term record of tributary streamflow that documents the effect of well withdrawals, sewer systems, and impervious area changes over time on the smaller streams in the watershed.

The QAPP updates took a great deal of CRWA staff time and effort. Staff spent several hundred hours over the course of eight months developing the QAPP. A majority of the time was spent coordinating with external laboratory managers to collect all the required quality assurance paperwork, to acquire an understanding of the methods used for each parameter and the associated method detection limits. In addition, CRWA had to prepare new field standard operating procedures (SOPs) for stormwater sampling using a plastic berm and courier transport of samples from CRWA sampling sites to the laboratories.

CRWA’s Water Quality and Flow Monitoring QAPP was submitted to EPA and MassDEP for approval on March 14, 2007. Environmental analysts at MassDEP signed the completed QAPP in late March 2007 and EPA project and quality assurance officers approved the QAPP on April 5, 2007. This QAPP will govern CRWA’s water quality and flow monitoring work until 2010.

‘Hot Spot’ Monitoring

Waltham River Walk Hot Spot In July 2007, a CRWA staff member observed a turbid discharge from a large concrete outfall pipe located on the right bank of the mainstem of the Charles, directly upstream of the Prospect St. bridge in Waltham. On July 17, 2007, CRWA staff responded by conducting targeted monitoring of the outfall discharge and upstream and downstream locations. No rain fell on July 17, 2007, the day of sampling, and the day was preceded by three days of dry weather, therefore; this is considered a dry weather monitoring event. CRWA collected samples for E. coli bacteria. A sample and a field duplicate were collected from the suspicious outfall discharge, site PSOUT. Additionally, one sample was collected approximately 100 yards upstream of the suspicious discharge, site WWF1. This was a grab sample taken from the right bank. Two samples were collected downstream of the outfall; the first was collected from the river water, directly

46 downstream of the outfall, site PSB; the second was collected approximately 800 yards downstream, near the Moody St. bridge, site MS1.

All samples had very low E. coli levels and did not exceed Massachusetts State Water Quality Primary or Secondary Recreational Standards (State Swimming and Boating Standards) (See Table 4). During sampling, however; CRWA staff noted a pungent chlorine odor coming from the outfall pipe, which may have accounted for the extremely low E. coli levels in the outfall sample. CRWA did not collect samples for TSS during this event but staff observed very turbid water coming from this pipe, which is regularly observed to flow during dry weather, however; typically the flow is very clear (See Figure 7).

Table 4: Waltham Hot Spot Results Sampling Sampling E. coli Site ID Date Time #cfu/100 ml WWF1 July 17, 2007 2:08 PM 40 PS OUT July 17, 2007 1:55 PM <10 PSB July 17, 2007 2:05 PM 30 MS1 July 17, 2007 2:20 PM 60

Figure 6: Waltham Hot Spot Sampling Sites

47 Figure 7: Photos of Turbid Plume and Oil Sheen Observed during Sampling

Havey Beach, West Roxbury In the summer of 2006, CRWA staff and interns worked with EPA to monitor water quality conditions at Havey Beach in West Roxbury. This area of the Charles was a popular bathing beach in the mid-1900s and has been identified by CRWA as a potential site for a future bathing beach. Today, this site, like the rest of the Charles, is closed to swimming primarily due to sediment contamination and non-point source pollution causing violations of State Water Quality Standards.

CRWA monitored two sites in this area (See Figure 8). The first was located upstream of Havey Beach at the Rt. 109 bridge in Dedham (534S), this site is also a monitoring site for CRWA’s monthly volunteer monitoring program. The second sampling site was located at Havey Beach (HAV1). CRWA and EPA took in situ measurements for temperature, specific conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll. Samples were collected and analyzed for fecal coliform and E. coli. Monitoring occurred on eight days throughout the summer and fall of 2006, CRWA participated in six of the eight monitoring events. Seven monitoring events were conducted during dry weather and one event was conducted during wet weather.

During the seven dry weather events E. coli concentrations at site 534S never exceeded State Swimming Standard of E. coli concentration (126 cfu/100 mL). At site HAV1, one sample collected on June 20, 2006, slightly exceeded this standard. These results indicated that there are likely no dry weather sources of sewage contamination to this site. During the wet weather monitoring event, however; E .coli concentrations at both sites exceeded the State Swimming and Boating Standards (EPA, 2007).

48 Table 5: Havey Beach E.coli Results E. coli concentration (#cfu/100mL) Sampling Event HAV1 534S June 8, 2006 - Wet weather 680 740 June 15, 2006 - Dry weather 96 66 June 20, 2006 - Dry weather 148 76 July 18, 2006 - Dry weather 86 n/a August 9, 2006 - Dry weather 10 14 September 11, 2006 - Dry weather 36 33 October 17, 2006 - Dry weather 29 25

Figure 8: Map of Havey Beach Monitoring Locations2

2 Locations are approximate.

49 Cyanobacteria Monitoring, Charles and Muddy Rivers The Charles River experienced blooms of toxin-producing cyanobacteria in the summers of 2006 and 2007. The Muddy River, a major tributary to the Charles, experienced a short-lived cyanobacteria bloom in the summer of 2008.

Charles River CRWA staff and volunteers conducted monitoring throughout the summers of 2007 and 2008 to track the cyanobacteria and monitor for river conditions favorable to cyanobacteria growth. Sampling sites are: the Charles River Canoe and Kayak kiosk at Herter Park in Brighton (HP1), Magazine Beach in Cambridge (MB1), the public dock in the Esplanade next to Community Boating in Boston (CB1), and the New Charles River Dam in Boston (ND1) (See Figure 9). CRWA tracked a severe algae bloom throughout the summer and fall of 2007 (See Appendix C for results). CRWA also assisted the other parties of the working group to advise the public about the health risks associated with a cyanobacteria bloom. CRWA monitored the Charles River throughout the summer of 2008 but no bloom conditions were observed.

By joining this working group CRWA strengthened relations with the state and federal agencies who also participated in the group. Additionally, this work and the knowledge and experience gained through these years of monitoring, data analysis and research have made CRWA a resource for other groups and agencies who are working to address emerging cyanobacteria problems in their own areas. CRWA recently advised environmental officials in Florida on our experience in monitoring for cyanobacteria and what we have learned through the process.

Cyanobacteria monitoring in the Charles River was also partially funded by a grant from Recreational Equipment, Inc.

50 Figure 9: Map of Charles River Cyanobacteria Monitoring Locations

Muddy River In July 2008, CRWA discovered a cyanobacteria bloom in the Fens area of the Muddy River. CRWA notified the Boston Parks Department, MDPH, the Muddy River Restoration Oversight Committee and the Emerald Necklace Conservancy about this discovery and worked with the groups to post advisories about contact with the river water. CRWA continued to monitor this bloom throughout the summer. Due to limited resources only one sample was collected and analyzed for cell counts. This sample was collected toward the end of the suspected bloom and did not exceed the MDPH threshold of 70,000 cells/mL.

During these monitoring events CRWA also observed numerous sites with extremely low dissolved oxygen levels. Results are included in Appendix C.

51 Figure 10: Map of Muddy River Summertime Cyanobacteria and Low DO monitoring Locations

Targeted Shoreline Survey Follow-up Monitoring, Charles River As a follow-up to visual shoreline survey monitoring results, CRWA conducted total phosphorus monitoring at locations where volunteers reported observing significant algae growth below stormwater outfalls. CRWA chose to monitor at these sites because excessive phosphorus

52 loading is a major problem in the Charles. The Nutrient TMDL for the Lower Charles River Basin published in 2007, names stormwater as the primary source of phosphorus to the lower basin and calls for drastic cuts in phosphorus inputs from stormwater.

On August 5, 2008, CRWA collected samples at six sites along the mainstem of the Charles River from Waltham to Cambridge. This was considered a dry weather event although weather conditions in the summer of 2008, which consisted of frequent and heavy but brief, rain events, and the project end date required sampling under conditions that did not exactly meet our dry weather definition of less than 0.1 inches of rain in the 72 hours preceding sampling. Prior to this sampling event, less than 0.1 inches of rain fell at the USGS rain gauge at the Stony Brook Reservoir in Waltham in the 66 hours preceding monitoring, however; in the 72 hours preceding sampling, a total of 0.45 inches of rain fell at that same gauge.

Sampling sites were located in Waltham, Newton, Watertown and Cambridge. All sites were stormwater outfall pipes where shoreline survey volunteers reported observing excessive algae growth. At most sites, samples were collected from river water below the outfall pipe, at two sites, however; C2S16 and D1WS7, there was flow from the outfall pipes and therefore samples were taken from that flow. Samples were collected which were analyzed for total phosphorus and in situ measurements of temperature, specific conductivity, salinity and dissolved oxygen were taken.

Figure 11: Map of Shoreline Survey Follow-up Monitoring Locations

53 Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.028 to 0.093 mg/L. All samples exceeded EPA’s recommended total phosphorus criteria in Level III, Ecoregion XIV of 0.0238 mg/L. (See Table 6). These results provide further evidence that phosphorus levels in the Charles are excessively high.

Additionally, during this monitoring event CRWA also observed extremely low dissolved oxygen levels at many of the sites sampled. DO concentrations at four of the six sites were below the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standard for Class B Warm Water Fisheries (Warm Water Fishery Standard) of 5.0 mg/L. Low DO levels can result from the die off and decomposition of large masses of aquatic vegetation fed by excess phosphorus.

Table 6: Results of Shoreline Survey Follow-up Total Phosphorus Monitoring Time Total Phosphorus DO Site Date (HHMM) (mg/l) (mg/l) C2S1 5-Aug-08 11:08 AM 0.071 2.65 C2S16 5-Aug-08 12:00 PM 0.028 3.52 D1WS7 5-Aug-08 12:50 PM 0.056 9.28 D2W8 5-Aug-08 2:00 PM 0.089 1.93 D2W9 5-Aug-08 2:36 PM 0.081 4.02 D3WN6 5-Aug-08 4:02 PM 0.093 5.03

Low Flow in the Lower Charles Investigation The purpose of CRWA’s low flow analysis was to investigate natural and man-made causes of observed low flow in the Lower Charles as low flows are thought to contribute to cyanobacteria blooms.

CRWA graphed flow data from the Dover, Stony Brook, Mother Brook and Waltham USGS flow gauges for the period from 1997 to 2007 (See Appendix C). For a discussion of why these gauges were used in this investigation see Section 3.2.3 Low Flow Investigation Methodology.

The Waltham Gauge did not show any obvious time trends. Stony Brook flows displayed a slight decrease in low flows during the more recent years (meaning there may be lower flows on average during low flow periods today than in past years). The Mother Brook gauge measures discharge from the Charles into the Neponset; recent discharges were markedly higher than earlier years both during low and high flow periods. During high flow periods at Mother Brook, the peaks were consistent, but during the low flow periods the flows appear to have increased and drop to zero much less frequently. Reduced flows from the Stony Brook reservoir or increased discharges from the Charles to the Neponset at Mother Brook result in less flow reaching the lower basin.

54 Figure 12: Map of USGS Gauges Sites Used in CRWA’s Low Flow Analysis

To separate out weather effects from any changes in dam management, CRWA also plotted the flows at Waltham, Stony Brook and Mother Brook versus flow at the Dover gauge for the four- year periods of 1999-2002 and 2004-2007. Year 2003 was omitted as it appears to be a transitional year in the management of the Mother Brook Diversion. This approach used the flow relationship between the gauges to look for effects of changes in dam management. CRWA plotted these relationships for all flows and for just low flows (See Appendix C). The low flow periods were defined by selecting flows at Dover less than 0.5 cfsm or 91 cfs.

Flows through the Waltham gauge were observed to decrease over time for all flows and especially during low flow periods (Figures 13 and 14). The Mother Brook diversions from the Charles increased for all flows and especially for low flows (Figures 15 and 16). Stony Brook flows into the Charles decreased marginally for all flows but have been almost reduced to zero during low flow (Figures 17 and 18). In summary, the combined effect of increased discharges at the Mother Brook Diversion and lower inflow from the Stony Brook reservoir appear to have decreased flows at the Waltham gauge.

During low flow periods (flow at the Dover gauge approximately 90 cfs) flows at the Waltham gauge during the 2004-2007 period were observed to be about 23% lower than flows observed during low flows periods from 1999 to 2002 (Figure 14). The loss is likely due to both increased

55 discharge at the Mother Brook Diversion and reduced flows from the Stony Brook Reservoir. These flows changes are probably not natural but are more likely due to a change in diversion and/or dam management.

Figure 13: Waltham vs. Dover for all Flow Values

Waltham vs Dover - All Flows 2500

2000

1500

1000 Waltham Discharge (cfs) Discharge Waltham

500

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-02 04-07 Linear (99-02) Linear (04-07)

56 Figure 14: Waltham vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions

Waltham vs Dover for Dover less than 91 cfs 200

180

160

140

120

100

80 Waltham Discharge (cfs) 60

40

20

0 0 102030405060708090100 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-03 04-07 Linear (99-03) Linear (04-07)

Figure 15: Mother Brook vs. Dover for all Flows

Mother Brook vs Dover - All Flows 700

600

500

400

300

200 Mother Brook Discharge (cfs) Brook Discharge Mother

100

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-100 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-02 04-07 Linear (99-02) Linear (04-07)

57

Figure 16: Mother Brook vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions

Mother Brook vs Dover for Dover less than 91 cfs 60

50

40

30

20 Mother Brook Discharge (cfs) Brook Discharge Mother

10

0 0 102030405060708090100 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-02 04-07 Linear (99-02) Linear (04-07)

Figure 17: Stony Brook vs. Dover for all Flows

Stony Brook vs Dover - All Flows 400

350

300

250

200

150

100 Stony (cfs) Discharge Stony Brook

50

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-50 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-02 04-07 Linear (99-02) Linear (04-07)

58 Figure 18: Stony Brook vs. Dover for Low Flow Conditions

Stony Brook vs Dover for Dover less than 91 cfs 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Stony Stony Brook Discharge (cfs) 30

20

10

0 0 102030405060708090100 Dover Discharge (cfs)

99-02 04-07 Linear (99-02) Linear (04-07)

CRWA contacted William Gode of DCR, the person responsible for management of the Mother Brook Diversion and the Silk Mill Dam to gather some additional information. Mr. Gode took over management of these two impoundments in 2003. CRWA asked Mr. Gode about current dam management and tried to obtain information to possibly confirm or refute our observations. Mr. Gode stated that the Silk Mill Dam seemed to be functioning normally but its level could potentially be set too high thereby backing up the water (raising its stage height) as far upstream as the Mother Brook Diversion and causing excessive discharge at the Diversion. Mr. Gode also mentioned that DCR had received a number of requests from upstream river abutters to have the water level higher which DCR had accommodated. Additionally, CRWA learned that the Mother Brook Diversion weir has a broken section on the south side that potentially could release excessive flow even though the weir is placed in its uppermost position. Finally, Mr. Gode did not note any difference in his method of managing these two impoundments compared to his predecessor, nevertheless, CRWA believe personal management style could be affecting dam operations.

In late July 2007, CRWA spoke with Peter Varga of Cambridge Water Department (CWD). CWD manages the upstream Cambridge Reservoir on Hobbs Brook in Waltham and the downstream Stony Brook Reservoir on Stony Brook in Waltham for water supply to the City of Cambridge. According to Peter Varga, the dams are being managed normally for this time of the year. However, CRWA’s review of Cambridge’s annual water use reported in their Annual Statistical Reports to DEP showed that water use has increased from about 14 mgd to 15 mgd over the past nine years.

59 CRWA’s low flow analysis revealed that a number of recent management changes have significantly lowered flow in the lower Charles.

Tributary Monitoring Results CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on ten tributaries in our project study area. Table 7 lists the tributaries sampled, their location, number of wet and dry weather sampling events and the parameters for which CRWA collected discrete samples for laboratory analysis.

Table 7: Summary of CRWA’s Tributary Monitoring Tributary Municipality(ies) Wet Weather Dry Weather Parameters Event(s) Event(s) E. coli, TSS (two Mattapan events, Total Canterbury Brook 2 2 (Boston) phosphorus (two events) E. coli, TSS, Total Sawins Brook Watertown 1 3 phosphorus Cheesecake E. coli, TSS, Total Newton 1 2 Brook phosphorus E. coli, TSS, Total Beaver Brook Waltham 1 2 phosphorus E. coli, TSS (dry weather event), Total Newton/Boston/ Sawmill Brook 1 1 phosphorus, Brookline Surfactants (wet weather event) E. coli, TSS, Total phosphorus, Surfactants (select Fuller and Waban Wellesley 1 2 sites wet weather Brooks event), Fluoride (select sites wet weather event) South Meadow E. coli, TSS, Total Newton 0 1 Brook phosphorus E. coli, TSS, Total Muddy River Boston/Brookline 2 0 phosphorus E. coli, fecal coliform (one event), Millers River Boston 2 1 TSS, Total phosphorus, Oil and grease (one event

Canterbury Brook, Mattapan Canterbury Brook is located in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston. The upstream section of the brook is culverted as it flows under the Dorchester area that it drains. The brook emerges at

60 Harvard Street, where it runs through the MassAudubon Boston Nature Center (BNC) property and St. Michael’s Cemetery before becoming culverted again. Eventually, the brook discharges into the Stony Brook Conduit, a large culverted tributary which discharges to the Charles near Mass Ave. in Boston.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Canterbury Brook on four occasions: 1) August 3, 2006 – a dry weather monitoring event, 2) August 23, 2006 – a dry weather monitoring event, 3) November 8, 2006 – a wet weather monitoring event, and 4) May 18, 2007 - a wet weather monitoring event. The final wet weather monitoring event on May 18, 2007, was not preceded by 72 hours of dry weather; instead, this sampling event was conducted at the tail end of a large, three day rain event. Total rainfall at Logan airport for the 72 hours preceding sampling was 2.51 inches; rainfall in the 24 hours preceding sampling totaled 1.73 inches.

CRWA sampled at seven sites along Canterbury Brook. Two sites are stormwater outfalls and the remaining five are instream brook sites. One site, CANT1, was added after the first two sampling events and therefore was only sampled during the second two events.

Figure 19: Map of CRWA’s Canterbury Brook Sampling Sites

E. coli levels in all locations, except CANT6, exceeded the State Swimming Standard, 126 cfu/100mL, during all four monitoring events. Of the 26 samples collected along the brook during these four monitoring events, seven exceeded the State Boating Standard, 630 cfu/100mL (See Table 8 and Figure 20).

61 Table 8: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook Site 8-Nov-06 3-Aug-06 23-Aug-06 18-May-07 Geometric Mean Wet weather Dry weather Dry weather Dry weather (by site) CANT1 57,000 7,000 19974.98 CANT2 2,800 1,200 2,600 16,000 3438.41 CANT3 27,000 220 500 16,000 2625.54 CANT4 8,200 3,000 1,600 30,500 5886.25 CANT5 11,000 1,070 570 27,000 3668.63 CANT6 10 40 30 100 33.10 CANT7 13,000 11,000 1,100 22,000 7669.87 Geometric Mean (by event) 4698.24 848.39 582.65 8515.37

Figure 20: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook

3-Aug-06, Dry Weather 23-Aug-06, Dry Weather 8-Nov-06, Wet Weather 100000 18-May-07, Wet Weather State Boating Standard: 630 cfu/100mL

10000

1000

State Swimming Standard: (cfu/100mL) 126 cfu/100mL 100 E. coli

10

1 CANT1 CANT2 CANT3 CANT4 CANT5 CANT6 CANT7 River Flow Site

The extremely high levels of bacteria observed in areas of Canterbury Brook are indicative of connections between the sanitary sewer and the stormwater drainage systems. E. coli levels were high in both dry and wet weather. CRWA’s experience has taught us that while evidence of

62 illicit connections may be observed in dry weather it can often be observed acutely during wet weather when stormwater washes out sanitary waste that has become stagnant in dry stormwater pipes. Additionally, these results show how the water quality of the river is impacted by stormwater runoff.

Unlike most sites along Canterbury Brook, bacteria concentrations at site CANT6 were repeatedly low. CANT6 is a stormwater pipe that drains St. Michael’s Cemetery. During wet weather conditions, measurements indicate that runoff from this site was most likely rainwater only.

CRWA observed additional water quality issues along Canterbury Brook, including elevated TSS and total phosphorus concentrations, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Dissolved oxygen levels on August 3, 2006 did not meet the Warm Water Fisheries DO Standard of 5.0 mg/L (See Figure 21). Dissolved oxygen measurements in May and November met this standard.

Figure 21: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook

12 3-Aug-06, Dry Weather State Class B Water 8-Nov-06, Wet Weather Quality Standard: 5.0 mg/L 18-May-07, Wet Weather 10

8

6 DO (mg/L)

4

2

0 CANT1 CANT2 CANT3 CANT4 CANT5 CANT6 CANT7 Site River Flow

During wet weather sampling, TSS ranged from 4-30 mg/L (See Figure 22). TSS samples were not collected during dry weather. Elevated TSS levels are related to inadequate stormwater management. Although no TSS concentrations exceeded CRWA’s Action Limit, CRWA staff and volunteers noticed increased sedimentation in this brook. This extra sediment raises the channel bed, decreases the amount of flow possible under bridges, and may increase flooding.

63 Figure 22: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook

35 8-Nov-06, Wet Weather 18-May-07, Wet Weather

30

CRWA Action Limit: 30 mg/L 25

20

15

Total SuspendedTotal (mg/L) Solids 10

5

0 CANT1 CANT2 CANT3 CANT4 CANT5 CANT6 CANT7 River Flow Site

Total phosphorus levels ranged from 0.08 to 0.22 mg/L during wet weather sampling (See Figure 23). All of these samples exceeded 0.0238 mg/L, EPA’s recommended total phosphorus criteria in Level III, Ecoregion XIV. Samples collected at sites CANT2 and CANT 5 exceeded this criterion by nearly an order of magnitude.

64 Figure 23: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Canterbury Brook

0.25 8-Nov-06, Wet Weather

18-May-07, Wet Weather

0.2 EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L

0.15

0.1 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total

0.05

0 CANT1 CANT2 CANT3 CANT4 CANT5 CANT6 CANT7 River Flow Site

In addition to the degraded instream water quality, large amounts of trash, including items indicative of sanitary waste, were observed along the banks and in the brook during all four monitoring events. Trash accumulates on the wetland meadows in the BNC during rain storms when the brook rises and floods the banks. The trash remains on the banks as the brook recedes.

Figure 24: Photos of Trash Piles Taken During CRWA’s Canterbury Brook Monitoring Events

65 Complete water quality results for Canterbury Brook are included in Appendix C.

Sawins Brook, Watertown Sawins Brook is located in Watertown. The upstream-most section of the brook is contained in an underground culvert. It emerges near Elm Street and flows east, converges into Sawins Pond, and then passes by the Watertown Arsenal site, a previous a military munitions and research facility and EPA Superfund Site. Sawins Brook discharges into the Charles River downstream of the Arsenal Street bridge.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Sawins Brook on four occasions: 1) November 9, 2006 – a wet weather monitoring event; 2) November 20, 2006 – a dry weather monitoring event; 3) December 12, 2006 – a dry weather monitoring event; and 4) May 25, 2007 – a dry weather monitoring event.

CRWA sampled nine sites along Sawins Brook and one site along the Charles, downstream of the Sawins confluence. Eight sites are instream, brook sites; SAW_OUT is an outfall pipe downstream of site SAW3. This site and site SAW1B were added to the sampling plan in May because of the results of the visual shoreline survey of this brook. Surveyors noted SAW_OUT flowing in dry weather and poor water quality conditions in the SAW1B area (See Figure 25).

Figure 25: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Sawins Brook

66 E. coli levels at all eight monitoring sites exceeded the State Swimming Standard of 126 cfu/100mL. A majority of the 28 samples also exceeded the Boating Standard, 630 cfu/100mL during at least one dry weather sampling event (Table 9 and Figure 26).

Table 9: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook Geometric 9-Nov-06 20-Nov-06 12-Dec-06 25-May-07 Mean Site Wet weather Dry weather Dry weather Dry weather (by site) SAW1 1,600 4,200 310 3,000 1581.11 SAW1B 150 150.00 SAW2A 2,700 1,100 880 1377.46 SAW2B 1,700 8,600 480 1914.53 SAW3 1,800 7,850 350 300 1103.65 SAW4 880 6,700 300 300 853.49 SAW5 420 8,600 112.5 280 580.78 SAW6 720 110 90 200 194.31 SAW_OUT <5 Geometric Mean (by event) 1045.08 2874.58 438.51 237.40

E. coli concentrations were extremely high during dry weather monitoring on this brook, indicating that there are likely contributions of sanitary sewage to this stormwater drainage system draining to Sawins Brook. Despite the fact that SAW_OUT was flowing during dry weather, CRWA did not observe high E. coli concentrations at this site.

67 Figure 26: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook

9-Nov-06, Wet Weather 20-Nov-06, Dry Weather 10000 12-Dec-06, Dry Weather 25-May-07, Dry Weather State Swimming State Boating Standard: Standard: 126 cfu/100mL 630 cfu/100mL

1000

100 Log Scale (cfu/100mL) E. coli

10

1 SAW1 SAW1B SAW2A SAW2B SAW3 SAW_OUT SAW4 SAW5 SAW6

River Flow Site

In addition, during some sampling events dissolved oxygen levels at SAW4 and SAW5 (downstream of the GZA site) were unusually low when compared to the remaining sites and came very close to violating the Warm Water Fishery DO Standard (See Figure 27). Also, samples collected at seven out of nine sites exceeded the EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus of 0.0238 mg/L (See Figure 28).

68 Figure 27: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook

16 9-Nov-06, Wet Weather 20-Nov-06, Dry Weather 12-Dec-06, Dry Weather 14 25-May-07, Dry Weather

12

State Class B Water Quality Standard: 5 mg/L 10

8 DO (mg/L) DO

6

4

2

0 SAW1 SAW1B SAW2A SAW2B SAW3 SAW_OUT SAW4 SAW5 SAW6 Site River Flow

Figure 28: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawins Brook

0.12 9-Nov-06, Wet Weather 20-Nov-06, Dry Weather 12-Dec-06, Dry Weather 25-May-07, Dry Weather 0.1

0.08

0.06

EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.04

0.02

0 SAW1 SAW1B SAW2A SAW2B SAW3 SAW_OUT SAW4 SAW5 SAW6 River Flow Site

69 In addition to poor water quality, CRWA observed a large amount of trash and debris, especially in the stretch of brook between sites SAW1 and SAW2. During water quality monitoring events, especially the final monitoring event in May, CRWA staff observed orange floccules in the water, this was most obvious near sites SAW1 and SAW_OUT. The orange flocculant was observed both in the pipe and downstream of the pipe discharge.

Figure 29: Orange Flocculant Observed along Sawins Brook

Cheesecake Brook, Newton Cheesecake Brook is located in Newton. The headwaters of Cheesecake Brook are in the Brae Burn Country Club. The brook begins as two branches, Cheesecake Brook East Branch and West Branch, which feed into a pond on the golf course, the brook then flows northeast out of the golf course through an underground culvert for approximately one mile. The brook emerges at Watertown Street and flows through a stone lined channel buffered by parklands. Cheesecake Brook discharges into the Charles River near Ablemarle Rd. in Newton.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Cheesecake Brook on three occasions: 1) November 29, 2006 – a dry weather monitoring event; 2) May 9, 2007 – a dry weather monitoring event; and 3) June 4, 2007 – a wet weather monitoring event.

Samples were collected at ten sites along Cheesecake Brook starting at the headwater tributaries and extending down to the confluence with the Charles (Figure 30). One of the ten sampling sites, CHE_OUT1, is a pipe which discharges to the brook, while the remaining sampling locations are all centerline brook sites.

E. coli levels at every site exceeded the State Swimming (126 cfu/100mL) and Boating (630 cfu/100mL) Standards during at least one sampling event. During the wet weather sampling event on June 4, 2007, E. coli concentrations at every site far exceeded the Boating Standard, peaking at 71,000 cfu/100mL at CHE4B. Concentrations ranged from 18,000-71,000 cfu/100mL, with a geometric mean concentration of 32,355 cfu/100mL.

E. coli concentrations also exceeded swimming and boating standards during dry weather events. During the dry weather events in November 2006, bacteria concentrations ranged from 10 to 2,000 cfu/100mL, with a geometric mean concentration of 244 cfu/100mL. E. coli concentrations

70 at sites CHE3 and CHE4, where Cheesecake Brook emerges from an underground culvert, were 2,000 and 1,090 cfu/100mL respectively. These sites and site CHE5 were in violations of the State Boating Standard, while the remaining sites had relatively low E. coli concentrations (See Table 10 and Figure 31). This data evidences the negative effects of stormwater on water quality in this brook.

Table 10: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook Geometric 4-Jun-07 9-May-07 29-Nov-06 Mean (by site) Site Wet Weather Dry Weather Dry Weather CHE1A 37,000 510 10 573.58 CHE1B 24,000 20 160 425.06 CHE2 38,000 130 160 924.59 CHE3 23,000 10 2,000 771.94 CHE4A 49,000 300 1,090 2521.05 CHE4B 71,000 230 4041.04 CHE5 30,000 125 640 1338.87 CHE_OUT 18,000 18000.00 CHE6 34,500 50 240 745.30 CHE7 25,000 260 150 991.60 Geometric Mean (by event) 32355.88 104.51 244.71

71 Figure 30: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Cheesecake Brook

72 Figure 31: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook

29-Nov-06, Dry Weather 100000 State Boating Standard: 9-May-07, Dry Weather 630 cfu/100 mL 4-Jun-07, Wet Weather

10000

1000

(cfu/100 mL) LogScale 100 E.coli E.coli State Swimming Standard: 126 cfu/100 mL 10

1 CHE1A CHE1B CHE2 CHE3 CHE4A CHE4B CHE5 CHE_OUT1 CHE6 CHE7 River Flow Site

During the wet weather sampling event on June 4, 2007, all samples exceeded the EPA total phosphorous recommended criteria of 0.0238 mg/L (See Figure 32). In addition, TSS levels ranged from 18-256 mg/L; samples taken at eight of ten sites exceeded CRWA’s Action Limit of 30 mg/L (See Figure 33).

73 Figure 32: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook

0.6 29-Nov-06, Dry Weather 9-May-07, Dry Weather 4-Jun-07, Wet Weather 0.5

0.4

0.3

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.2 EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L

0.1

0 CHE1A CHE1B CHE2 CHE3 CHE4A CHE4B CHE5 CHE_OUT1 CHE6 CHE7 Site

Figure 33: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in Cheesecake Brook

250 29-Nov-06, Dry Weather 9-May-07, Dry Weather 4-Jun-07, Wet Weather

200

150

100

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Solids Suspended Total CRWA Action Limit: 30 mg/L

50

0

B 2 3 A B 1 6 7 1A 1 E 4 4 E E E UT H H CHE CH H CHE5 O C CHE C CHE C CHE _ E H River Flow C Site

74 Sand bars were visible during all sampling events. Rapidly moving stormwater is caring large amounts of sediment and causing erosions along the river banks. High levels of TSS in stormwater have led to sedimentation in the stream channel and the formation of sand bars. These bars are being colinated by non-aquatic vegetation and are beginning to choke the stream channel. During monitoring erosion was observed along the bank walls and the lawns that abut the channel.

Finally, during the wet weather event CRWA staff observed the brook nearly overtopping its banks at numerous locations. Water levels during this wet weather event were much higher than those observed during dry weather events indicating that this brook is greatly impacted by stormwater runoff and is a likely flooding concern.

Figure 34: Photos of Sedimentation and Overflow along Cheesecake Brook Taken during CRWA Monitoring Events

Beaver Brook, Waltham Beaver Brook is located primarily in Waltham although it begins in Lexington and flows briefly along the Waltham-Belmont border. Beaver Brook begins in Lexington, MA after flowing from Hardy Pond in Waltham through a wetland area under the name Hardy’s Pond Brook and partially through Lexington under the name Clematis Brook. Beaver Brook then flows south along the Waltham-Belmont border, through Beaver Brook Reservation. After emerging from the Reservation, the brook flows southwest parallel to Linden Street in Waltham. Lyman Pond

75 feeds into Beaver Brook near where the brook crosses Linden Street. Just down stream of this confluence Beaver Brook flows into a culvert where it flows underground for approximately 0.5 mile until it discharges into the Charles River by the Newton Street bridge.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Beaver Brook on three occasions: 1) December 21, 2006 – a dry weather event; 2) January 12, 2007 – a dry weather event; and 3) November 6, 2007 – a wet weather event. The sampling plan for Beaver Brook varied slightly from the Find It and Fix It sampling protocol in two ways. First, TSS and total phosphorus samples that were collected during the final sampling event were analyzed at a different laboratory than TSS and total phosphorus samples collected during the first two events. Second, on November 6, 2007, rainfall totaled only 0.62 inches and sampling occurred following about 62 hours of dry weather.

Nineteen sampling locations were identified along Beaver Brook (Figure 35). The upstream most site is located on what is known as Hardy’s Pond Brook. Seven of the sites are at outfalls into the brook, six of which were only sampled during wet weather. The final sampling site is in the Charles River downstream of the confluence with Beaver Brook.

E. coli bacteria concentrations varied considerably between the two dry weather sampling events (Table 11 and Figure 36). On December 21, 2006, bacteria concentrations ranged from 55- 21,000 cfu/100mL, with a geometric mean of 1,209 cfu/100mL. During this event, E. coli samples from ten of the thirteen sites sampled had concentrations which exceeded the State Swimming Standard (126 cfu/100mL) and samples from eight sites exceeded the State Boating Standard (630 clu/100 mL). In contrast, the January 12, 2007 bacteria concentrations were much lower, ranging from 5-2,100 cfu/100mL, with a geometric mean of 121 cfu/100mL. On the November 6, 2007 wet weather event, samples from all 13 of the sites sampled exceeded the State Boating Standard. E. coli concentrations ranged from 1,700 to 14,000 cfu/100 mL, with a geometric mean of 5,307 cfu/100 mL. In discussing these results with Waltham officials, CRWA learned of the removal of one illicit sanitary sewer connection from a household to Beaver Brook, which may partially explain the decrease in E. coli concentrations between the first and second sampling event in one area. This is discussed in Section 3.4.5. E. coli concentrations were still extremely high during wet weather.

76 Figure 35: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Beaver Brook

77 Table 11: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook Geometric 21-Dec-06 12-Jan-07 6-Nov-07 Mean Site Dry weather Dry weather Wet weather (by site) BEA1 10 10 10.00 BEA2 55 80 66.33 BEA3 35 BEA4 55 120 1,700 223.87 BEA_OUT1 5,700 2,100 6,650 4301.68 BEA_OUT2 2,100 BEA_OUT3 7,100 BEA_OUT4 3,500 BEA5 145 160 3,400 428.87 BEA6 21,000 130 14,000 3368.45 BEA7 200 30 77.46 BEA8 5,600 70 6,000 1329.88 BEA_OUT6 11,000 130 7,200 2175.49 BEA9 16,000 140 4,400 2144.04 BEA_OUT7 12,500 BEA10 4,300 120 6,100 1465.52 BEA11 14,000 930 6,500 4390.44 BEA12 1,900 240 675.28 Geometric Mean (by event) 1,209.37 121.35 5,306.51

78 Figure 36: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook

100000 21-Dec-06, Dry Weather State Boating Standard: 12-Jan-07, Dry Weather 630 cfu/100 mL 6 Nov 07, Wet Weather

10000 State Swimmining Standard: 126 cfu/100 mL

1000

100 - Log Scale (# cfu/100 mL) (# cfu/100 Scale - Log E. coli E.

10

1

1 2 0 1 A4 5 A6 A9 1 1 E A E E BEA1 BEA2 BEA3 B OUT4 B BEA7 BEA8 B EA EA _ BE B B BEA12 A_OUT E EA B BEA_OUT2BEA_OUT3B BEA_OUT5 BEA_OUT6 BEA_OUT7 River Flow Site

79 High phosphorus concentrations were also observed along Beaver Brook, especially during wet weather sampling, further illustrating the effect of stormwater on this brook. Phosphorus concentrations exceeded the EPA recommended criteria of 0.0238 mg/L during both wet and dry weather, however; during wet weather all samples exceeded this criterion, some by greater than an order of magnitude (See Figure 37).

Figure 37: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Beaver Brook

0.3

21 Dec 06, Dry Weather 0.25 12 Jan 06, Dry Weather 6 Nov 07, Wet Weather

0.2 EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L 0.15 Total P (mg/L)

0.1

0.05

0

3 2 1 A1 A T1 34 5 A8 64 A9 T24 A E T74 A12 BE BEA2 BE BEA4 OU BEA6 BEA7 B BE E OU OUT BE OUT OU BEA10 BEA1 B _ _ A A_OUT54 A BEA_ E BEA_ BE BEA_OUT44 B BE BEA_ River Flow Site

Sawmill Brook, Newton Sawmill Brook (a.k.a. Saw Mill Brook) flows through Newton, Brookline and Boston. The upstream most section of Sawmill Brook is contained in an underground culvert. The brook emerges at Woodlawn Road in Brookline, downstream of Holyhood Cemetery. The brook is then culverted again downstream of Hammond Pond Parkway to Vine Street in Newton. After emerging at Vine Street, the brook travels through wetland areas, St. Joseph’s Cemetery, and Millennium Park before discharging to the Charles River.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Sawmill Brook on two occasions: 1) July 27, 2007 – a dry weather event; and 2) August 6, 2008 – a wet weather event. On August 6, 2008, less rain fell than predicted; a total of 0.4 inches of rain fell at the USGS rain gauge along the Muddy River.

80 During the dry weather sampling event, samples were collected at six sites along Sawmill Brook, one outfall and five instream sites. Following the dry weather event, monitoring locations along this brook were modified due to sampling conducted by Roger Frymire. During the wet weather event samples were collected at nine sites along the brook, six outfalls and three instream sites. These sites were chosen from a combination of CRWA’s dry weather monitoring sites and sites monitored by Mr. Frymire during a dry weather event on March 19, 2008. CRWA worked with Mr. Frymire to develop this new monitoring plan based on an amalgamation of our respective sites which required follow-up monitoring (See Figure 38). During the second sampling event, sites were sampled from downstream to upstream.

Table 12: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook Wet Weather Dry Weather July 27, 2007 August 6, 2008 Geometric Sites Sites Dry Weather Wet Weather Mean (by site) SMill1_OUT Smill1_OUT 2,100 36,000 8694.83 SAWM1 7.5 Smill2_OUT 18,000 SAWM2 560 Smill3 8,600 Smill3_OUT 11,000 Smill4_OUT 2,100 SAWM5 580 Smill6_OUT 31,000 Smill7 Smill7 1,200 18,000 4647.58 Smill9_OUT 540 Smill10 Smill10 100 340 184.39 Geometric Mean (by event) 291.53 6182.05

During the dry weather event, the majority of the samples collected from Sawmill Brook met the State Boating Standard of 630 cfu/100mL (See Table 12 and Figure 39). The highest bacteria concentration, 2,100 cfu/100mL, was found at SMill1_OUT; which was collected downstream of where the brook emerges from being culverted. The other samples ranged from 7-1,200 cfu/100 mL.

During the wet weather sampling event, E. coli levels were extremely high, ranging from 540- 36,000 cfu/100mL, with a geometric mean of 6,182. Samples collected at every site exceeded the State Swimming Standard (126 cfu/100 mL) and samples at seven of nine sites exceeded the State Boating Standard (630 cfu/100 mL).

81 Figure 38: Map of CRWA Sampling Sites along Sawmill Brook

82 Due to high E. coli concentrations observed during CRWA and Roger Frymire’s dry weather events and an in-kind donation of laboratory analysis from EPA, CRWA added additional parameters to the wet weather sampling event. Based on EPA recommendations for conducting illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) investigations, CRWA also collected samples for surfactants. This parameter is not included in CRWA’s QAPP and therefore this data was collected for reference purposes only. Although this parameter is not included in the QAPP, CRWA followed recommended laboratory protocol for collection, storage and transportation of surfactant samples. CRWA has no established action limit for this parameter, however; the sample collected at site SMill6_OUT exceeded the EPA recommended thresholds suggestive of illicit discharges (0.25 mg/L). A second sample, collected at SMill9_OUT nearly exceeded this threshold value. Interestingly, the E. coli concentration at this site was the second lowest of all the samples, indicating that bleach or chlorine disinfectants may have reduced E. coli bacteria in these locations but sewage may well be present, despite the low E. coli concentrations.

Figure 39: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook

100000 27July 2007, Dry Weather 6 August 2008, Wet Weather State Boating Standard: 630 cfu/100 ml

10000

1000

100 E.coli (cfu/100 ml)E.coli (cfu/100

State Swimming Standard: 10 126 cfu/100 ml

1

T 3 1 T U ll l10 O Mi il S WM SMill7 A SM ill1_OUT SAWM5 ll2_ ill3_OUT SAWM2 S ll6_OUT ll9_OU Mi Mi SM S SM SMill4_OUT S SMi Water Flow Site

83 Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 0.4 - 10.58 mg/L. DO levels at eight of the twelve sites sampled were below the Warm Water Fishery Standard of 5.0 mg/L during either one or both sampling events.

Figure 40: Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook

12 27July 2007, Dry Weather 6 August 2008, Wet Weather

10 State Standard for warm water fisheries: 5 mg/L 8

6 mg/L

4

2

0

T T T T T l7 0 U U U U M1 U ll1 O O O O O _ _ SMill3 _ SMil ll1 SAWM5 ll2 ll3 SAWM2 SAW SMi SMi SMi SMi SMill4_ SMill6_ SMill9_OUT Water Flow Site

84 Additionally, total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.05-0.513 mg/L. All of the total phosphorus samples exceeded the EPA’s recommended criteria of 0.0238 mg/L, some sites exceeded this value by much more than an order of magnitude. Samples from this brook have some of the highest total phosphorus concentrations observed during the three-year project.

Figure 41: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Sawmill Brook

0.6 27July 2007, Dry Weather

6 August 2008, Wet Weather

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Phosphorus Total EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/l

0.1

0

M5 M1 UT OUT Mill3 OUT Mill7 _ S _ _O S 1 AW 4 AW 6 SMill10 ill S SAWM2 ill S ill Mill2_OUT Mill9_OUT SM S SMill3_OUT SM SM S Water Flow Site

85 Fuller and Waban Brooks, Wellesley Fuller and Waban Brooks are located primarily in Wellesley. Fuller Brook begins in Needham and flows north into Wellesley. It feeds into the Wellesley Skating Pond where it bows and begins flowing southwest toward the Charles. Fuller Brook is channelized as it flows through residential neighborhoods and a golf course. Fuller Brook meets the Charles River as it flows through the Elm Bank Reservation. Waban Brook flows roughly a half mile from Lake Waban to its confluence with Fuller Brook near Service Drive on the Wellesley College campus.

Figure 42: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Fuller and Waban Brooks

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on Fuller and Waban Brooks on three occasions: 1) July 18, 2007 – a dry weather event; 2) October 4, 2007 – a dry weather event; and 3) April 28, 2008 – a wet weather event. During the wet weather sampling event, CRWA attempted to sample during the first flush of the rain event to capture the initial effects of stormwater runoff to these brooks. Unfortunately, this rain event did not result in 1 inch of rain within 24 hours and therefore this monitoring event did not exactly conform to CRWA’s wet weather definition. . On April 28, 2008, 0.91 inches of rain fell at the rain gauge at Wellesley College. Nevertheless, during sampling, rain was falling very intensely and producing stormwater runoff.

86 Eight locations were sampled along Fuller and Waban Brooks, seven sites along Fuller Brook and one site along Waban Brook (Figure 42). All sites are center channel, instream sites which were sampled in both wet and dry weather.

Samples collected during dry weather exceeded State Swimming Standards for E. coli at seven of the eight sites, during either one or both dry weather monitoring event. E. coli concentrations at two sites, COL1 and FUL1, exceeded the State Boating Standard during dry weather. Samples collected during the wet weather sampling event exceeded State Swimming Standards at five sites and State Boating Standards at two sites, FUL1B and FUL1 (See Table 13 and Figure 43 ).

Due to high E. coli concentrations observed during dry weather events and other evidence of sewage contamination to Fuller Brook in the form of CRWA member reports and the Massachusetts draft 2008 303(d) list, CRWA added additional parameters to our wet weather sampling event. Based on EPA recommendations for conducting illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) investigations, CRWA also collected samples for surfactants and fluoride at four sites, FUL1c, COL1, FUL1B and FUL1. These parameters are not included in CRWA’s QAPP and therefore this data was collected for reference purposes only. Although these parameters are not included in the QAPP, CRWA followed recommended laboratory protocol for collection, storage and transportation for these samples. CRWA has no established action limit for either parameter.

CRWA targeted these four sites because our previous water quality monitoring results indicated that a sewage problem might be confined to this area. During our first two monitoring events, E. coli concentrations were relatively high at site COL1, then lower downstream at site FUL1B and high again downstream of that at site FUL1. CRWA believes high E. coli concentrations at site COL1, the town hall duck pond, may be the result of animal waste, however; CRWA was unaware of the cause of high E. coli concentrations at site FUL1. None of the additional samples exceeded EPA recommendations for thresholds suggestive of illicit discharges, however; CRWA is making no definite conclusions on the basis of this data.

Table 13: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks 18-Jul-07 4-Oct-07 28-Apr-08 Geometric Mean Sites Dry weather Dry weather Wet weather (by site) FUL4 20 10 360 41.60 FUL3 440 96 10 75.03 FUL2B 170 204 70 134.40 FUL1C 190 58 390 162.59 COL1 4,950 630 60 571.96 FUL1B 620 180 3,100 702.01 FUL1 1,730 730 6,950 2062.77 WAB1 440 173 330 292.87 Geometric Mean (by event) 400.66 141.71 283.67

87 Figure 43: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks

10000 18 July 2007, Dry Weather State Boating Standard: 630 cfu/100 mL 4 October 2007, Dry Weather

28 April 2008, Wet Weather

1000

State Swimming Standard: 126 cfu/100 mL

100 Log Scale (cfu/100 mL) (cfu/100 Log Scale E. coli

10

1 FUL4 FUL3 FUL2B FUL1C COL1 FUL1B FUL1 WAB1 River Flow Site

88 Additionally, phosphorus is a large concern in both Fuller and Waban Brooks. Of the twenty- four samples collected at the eight sites during all three sampling events, twenty-seven samples exceeded the EPA recommended criteria of 0.0238 mg/L, some by more than an order of magnitude. Phosphorus concentrations were exceptionally high at sites COL1, FUL1B and FUL1 during the July 18, 2007, dry weather sampling event. These were some of the highest total phosphorus concentrations observed during the entire project. Phosphorus concentrations are likely high at the COL1 site due to the large number of wildfowl and other animals that congregate at the town hall duck pond. FUL1B and FUL1 are located in residential neighborhoods along a walking path. High phosphorus concentrations are likely due to residential use of fertilizers and other lawns care chemicals and lawn clippings from mowed banks. This is a prime location for installation of a bio-filtration system.

Figure 44: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in Fuller and Waban Brooks

1 18 July 2007, Dry Weather 4 October 2007, Dry Weather 0.9 28 April 2008, Wet Weather

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 EPA Recommended Criteria:

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.0238 mg/L 0.3

0.2

0.1

0 FUL4 FUL3 FUL2B FUL1C COL1 FUL1B FUL1 WAB1

River Flow Site

South Meadow Brook, Newton South Meadow Brook is located in Newton. South Meadow Brook originates near the Route 9 Parker Street intersection and flows through residential neighborhoods until it discharges into the Charles River upstream of the Needham Street bridge. Most of the brook is channelized with concrete blocks lining the stream channel.

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring on South Meadow Brook on one occasion: 1) August 3, 2007 – a dry weather monitoring event. Samples were collected at six sites along

89 South Meadow Brook (Figure 45). Five sites are instream, center channel sites along the brook and one site is in the Charles, downstream of the confluence with South Meadow Brook.

Figure 45: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along South Meadow Brook

All of the samples collected from South Meadow Brook exceeded the State Standard for Boating (630 cfu/100mL) (See Table 14 and Figure 46). E. coli bacteria concentrations ranged from 910- 3,600 cfu/100mL. E. coli concentrations from the Charles River sample collected downstream of the confluence with South Meadow Brook had a bacteria concentration of 55 cfu/100mL. Additionally, all sites exceeded the EPA’s recommended criteria for total phosphorus of 0.0238 mg/L.

Table 14: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook Sites 3-Aug-07 Dry weather SMB6 3,600 SMB5 1,640 SMB4 910 SMB3 1,900 SMB2 1,860 SMB1 55 Geometric Mean (by event) 1007.25

90 Figure 46: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook

10000 3 August 2007, Dry Weather State Boating Standard: 630 cfu/100 mL

1000

100 (cfu/100 mL) (cfu/100 E.coli

State Swimming Standard: 10 126 cfu/100 mL

1 SMB6 SMB5 SMB4 SMB3 SMB22 SMB1 River Flow Site

Figure 47: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in South Meadow Brook

0.16 3 August 2007, Dry Weather

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L 0.04

0.02

0 SMB6 SMB5 SMB4 SMB3 SMB22 SMB1 River Flow Site

91 Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, MA

The Muddy River begins at Jamaica Pond in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston. The river flows along a relatively gentle slope to meet up with the Charles River at Charlesgate, near Kenmore Square in Boston. Short stretches of the river are culverted as it flows through the Fens area. The river also travels underground over its final 100 yards as it flows under Storrow Drive and into the Charles River.

CRWA conducted two monitoring events on the Muddy River: 1) January 11, 2008 – a wet weather event; and 2) February 1, 2008 – a wet weather event. CRWA sampled eleven sites along the Muddy River (See Figure 48). Unlike the other tributaries discussed, none of the sampling sites along the Muddy River are instream, centerline sites. Conversely, four sites are located at river outfalls and the remaining seven sites are drainage channels, erosion gullies, broken and overflowing manholes, or other locations of obvious stormwater runoff pathways into the river. CRWA particularly focused on sites where excessive stormwater runoff appears to be overflowing out of inadequate stormwater drainage infrastructure along the river and flowing overland into the river.

E. coli concentrations at eight of eleven sites exceeded State Swimming Standards on either one or both of the sampling events3. Samples at five of eleven sites exceeded State Boating Standards on either one or both of the sampling events.

Table 15: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River Geometric 11-Jan-08 1-Feb-08 Site Mean Wet Weather Wet Weather (by site) MUD7B_OUT 1405 1300 1351.48 MUD7C 260 3600 967.47 MUD10 160 160.00 MUD17C_MAN 30 70 45.83 MUD17A_CUL 550 120 256.90 MUD19A_MAN 410 60 156.84 MUD19B 450 450.00 MUD20A_MAN 10 <10 10.00 MUD20B 910 1100 1000.50 MUD28_OUT 2000 355 842.61 MUD33A_OUT 250 1800 670.82 Geometric Mean (by event) 279.39 449.21

3 CRWA is comparing these results to state water quality standards for comparison purposes only as none of these samples are representative of instream conditions. Instead they are samples taken from stormwater prior to it mixing with river water where pollutants may be diluted. These samples are intended to show the high pollutant concentration in the stormwater runoff flowing into this urban river.

92 Figure 48: Map of CRWA Monitoring Sites along Muddy River

93 Figure 49: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River

10000 11-Jan-08, Wet Weather

State Boating 1-Feb-08, Wet Weather Standard: 630 cfu/100mL

1000

100 (#cfu/100mL) State Swimming Standard: E. coli 126 cfu/100 mL

10

1

C L B T UT 7 U D CU MAN 19 20B _O U UD10 _ _ D D B M U U M M M 17A 19A D D MUD7 MUD28_OUT UD33A_O MUD17C_MAN MU MU MUD20A_MAN M River Flow Site

Samples collected along the Muddy River also had alarmingly high concentrations of TSS and total phosphorus. Every sample exceeded CRWA’s Action Limit for TSS of 30 mg/L. On February 1, 2008, TSS concentration at Site MUD7C was 40 times the Action Limit. This sample was taken along an erosion gully carrying runoff from the Daisy Field baseball diamond in Boston into Leverett Pond. CRWA staff observed that this runoff was carrying dirt from the baseball diamond, which has a distinct orangish color, into the pond. Since February 2008, Boston has taken steps to remediate this problem. This will be further discussed under Task 3.

94 Figure 50: TSS Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River

1400 11-Jan-08, Wet Weather 1-Feb-08, Wet Weather

1200

1000

800

600 CRWA Action Limit: 30 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Solids Suspended Total 400

200

0

C 0 N B UT AN A 0B 3 O CUL M 2 _ UD1 _ _ B M A A MUD7 7 MUD19B 0A_M MUD MUD3 UD7 D19 D2 UD28_OUT M UD1 U M MUD17C_MAN M M MU MUD33A_OUT River Flow Site

95 Additionally, every site exceeded EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus of 0.0238 mg/L. At Site MUD7C on February 1, 2008, total phosphorus concentrations were nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the recommended criteria. Stormwater runoff from this site carries a large amount of sediment and wildfowl waste from Daisy Field.

Figure 51: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Muddy River

2.0 11-Jan-08, Wet Weather 1-Feb-08, Wet Weather 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0 EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L 0.8 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

C N N B N B 9 0 UT MA MA MA O _ _ _ MUD10 C_ A UD1 A UD2 A 7B_OUT MUD7 7 9 M 0 M 3 UD M UD1 MUD28_OUT UD3 M MUD17A_CUL MUD1 MUD2 M River Flow Site

Millers River

The Millers River was, at one time, a tributary stream reaching north and west into Somerville for a distance of over 5 miles. Today, it has been almost entirely buried in culverts and pipes, and the only remaining open water segment of the river is a short 1,000 foot reach almost directly under the north section of the Zakim Bridge and the loop ramps, just upstream of the Charles River Dam. For many years, the Millers River was physically cut off from the New Charles by a stone berm or embankment, with outflow to the Charles through two culverts below the water surface. The small remaining river receives large stormwater flows from the highway system which is above it, as well as large parking lots belonging to Bunker Hill Community College, the MBTA’s Boston Engine Terminal, and the large adjacent Boston Sand and Gravel facility.

The creation of new parklands and restoration efforts underway in the so-called New Charles River Basin (the area between the Museum of Science dam and the New Charles River dam) included plans to remove the embankment separating the Millers River from the Charles River, allowing flows to move freely between the two. Given the high stormwater load to the Millers River, CRWA was concerned that the changes could impact the Charles River. As part of the

96 FIFI project, we undertook a water quality monitoring program to collect samples from both the Millers River and the Charles River.

CRWA conducted three monitoring events on the Millers River 1) November 30, 2005 – a wet weather event; 2) October 12, 2006 – a wet weather event; and 3) October 26, 2006 – a dry weather event. On November 30, 2005, samples were collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria, TSS and oil and grease. During the two October 2006 sampling events, samples were collected and analyzed for E. coli bacteria, total phosphorus and TSS. Laboratories were consistent between the second two sampling events, however; samples from the first event were analyzed at different laboratories.

Four locations were samples along the Millers River and three locations along the Charles; one upstream of the confluence with the Millers River and two downstream.

Figure 52: CRWA Sampling Sites along Millers River

E. coli results along the Millers River were very high during the October 12, 2006 wet weather sampling event, ranging from 3,200-4,100 cfu/mL. E. coli concentrations were much lower at the Charles River sites, ranging from only 30-360 cfu/mL. Concentrations at each site exceeded the State Boating Standard (630 cfu/100mL). E. coli concentrations were much lower during the dry weather event on October 26, 2006. E. coli was not sampled on November 30, 2005.

97 Table 16: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in Millers River Site Water body October 12, 2006 October 26, 2006 Geometric Wet weather Wet weather Mean (by site) 348A Millers 3200 MIRTOP Millers 4100 50 452.8 MIR005 Millers 3800 64 493.2 MIR001 Millers 3600 72 509.1 NP4 Charles 30 MRDIS Charles 100 65 80.6 MRDOWN Charles 360 70 158.7

Figure 53: E. coli Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Millers River

10000 12 Oct 2006 - wet weather 26 Oct 2006 - dry weather

State Boating Standard: 630 cfu/100 mL

1000

State Swimming Standard: 126 cfu/100 mL

100

10 E. coli concentration Log Scale (#cfu/100mL) Scale Log concentration E. coli

1 348A MIRTOP MIR005 MIR001 NP4 MRDIS MRDOWN Site

98 Total phosphorus concentrations were also high during all three sampling events. Every sample exceeded the EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus of 0.0238 mg/L. Again, higher concentrations were observed in Millers River, compared to the Charles. Sampling results confirmed CRWA’s belief that Millers River is carrying degraded water to the Charles.

Figure 54: Total Phosphorus Results for CRWA Monitoring in the Millers River

0.14 30 Nov 2005 - wet weather 12 Oct 2006 - wet weather 26 Oct 2006 - dry weather 0.12

0.1

0.08 EPA Recommended Criteria: 0.0238 mg/L mg/L

0.06

0.04

0.02

0 348A MIRTOP MIR005 MIR001 NP4 MRDIS MRDOWN Site

Complete results are included in Appendix C.

3.2.5 Conclusions and Future Work

The data collected through the Find It and Fix It Program was extremely useful in helping CRWA to direct actions taken under Tasks 3 and 5 of this project. In addition, however; the data collected through this project has helped to inform and direct many aspects of CRWA’s work at large. Results of this monitoring work verify CRWA’s understanding that stormwater is carrying large pollutant loads to the river. The targeted monitoring of tributaries during wet and dry weather provides data to support this conclusion and communicate it to others.

The Find It and Fix It Program also gave CRWA the flexibility to monitor in response to short- term or emerging issues. CRWA frequently receives calls from the public or other groups advising us of suspicious river conditions including odors and discolored discharges. Often, the state and municipalities are not able to respond to these issues. By collecting water quality samples, “smell” tests or taking photographs, through the FIFI Program, CRWA was often able

99 to fill in this gap. Through our work with the Cyanobacteria Working Group, CRWA moved into a new area of water quality monitoring and become well-informed about this emerging issue in the Charles River and beyond.

CRWA hopes to be able to conduct some additional monitoring on tributaries where high bacteria concentrations were observed and ideally track down bacteria sources which are still unknown. Additionally, on the select tributaries where monitoring was not performed during both wet and dry weather, CRWA hopes to be able to conducted further monitoring to fill in any gaps. CRWA plans to seek funding so we are able to continue to respond to “hot spot” issues when we are informed of them. Finally, CRWA will continue to be an active participant in the Cyanobacteria Working Group and share the knowledge we have gained through this experience with other groups. Actions CRWA is taking and has taken to identify the pollution issues identified through this work are discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 4.0. CRWA will continue to make all results conducted under this project and included in this report available to MassDEP and EPA.

Finally, CRWA consolidated and updated our Quality Assurance Project Plan. This QAPP continues to ensure quality in all of our monitoring and data management work. Additionally, CRWA staff gained valuable experience in writing this QAPP. CRWA will need to update this; QAPP every three to five years, because of the lessons learned through this process, CRWA expects this process will be much easier in the future. The biggest challenge CRWA faced in developing the QAPP was communicating with the laboratories. CRWA has learned it is essential to establish a good relationship with a contact person at the laboratories. Finally, CRWA has learned that in the future it will be useful to assemble a list of all the required materials from the labs initially, which includes a comprehensive list of all parameters to be included in the QAPP.

3.3 Task 3: Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs)

As discussed above, the Charles River has experienced substantial water quality improvements over the past 30 years due to improvements in wastewater treatment and collection, and the elimination of many point sources and the success story of this urban river is still unfolding. During this time, CRWA has played an important role as a river advocate, working with municipalities and business owners throughout the watershed. Armed with monitoring results from Tasks 1 and 2 of this project, CRWA was able to continue to advocate for behavioral changes, progressive thinking, and intelligent urban design to reduce pollution to the river.

Through Tasks 1 and 2 of this project CRWA was able to identify specific water quality issues requiring further investigation and/or remediation. After problems were identified, CRWA worked to guide the remediation of non-point source pollution by working with municipalities, other land owners, and river partners. CRWA called extensively upon our past experiences with watershed municipal officials to guide remediation efforts. In all cases, CRWA brought the problems identified to the attention of local and, if relevant, state or federal agencies through written data reports. CRWA also made every effort to meet with municipal officials to discuss potential remediation steps.

100 Finally, CRWA researched intelligent remediation strategies and facilitated educational opportunities for others to learn about these opportunities. CRWA researched numerous low impact development (LID) stormwater best management practices and created educational printed materials to share with municipal officials and the general public. CRWA also held educational seminars and field trips for municipal officials in our watershed and beyond. These programs were designed to educate municipal officials, specifically those who work on stormwater issues.

3.3.1 Background

CRWA has worked effectively with many of the municipalities in our watershed in the past to address non-point source pollution and promote intelligent stormwater management. CRWA has been and continues to work with the communities of Boston, Somerville, Cambridge, Waltham and Blackstone on site redevelopment projects which incorporate low impact development stormwater management practices. These practices differ from traditional stormwater management practices where stormwater is funneled quickly into underground drainage systems which carry the runoff directly to local surface water bodies. Conversely, low impact development stormwater management systems employ vegetation, specially engineered soils and other mechanisms to cool, clean and infiltrate stormwater runoff prior to, or instead of, discharging it to local surface waterways.

Additionally, CRWA recently published a report titled “Assessment of Stormwater Financing Mechanisms in New England” which investigated the development and implementation process for stormwater financing mechanisms in three New England communities. This report also details CRWA’s research on stormwater financing mechanisms in general and how they are employed in other areas of the country. Many municipalities have requested copies of this report and found it to be a useful tool as they develop stormwater management plans.

Finally, CRWA staff members were recently directly involved with the development of the latest Massachusetts state stormwater standards, serving on both the main advisory body and several technical subcommittees. CRWA’s participation not only played a role in the way the standards were revised, but helped us advocate clearly and strongly for implementation of the new requirements on new projects, which will over time help remediate many of the impairments in our water bodies which are due to old development patterns that did not manage or treat stormwater.

3.3.2 Scope of Work

The actions taken under Task 3: Promote BMPs were taken in response to work conducted under Tasks 1 and 2. Responses were site specific and dependant on the outcome of the observations and monitoring of each location. These differed based on visual monitoring results, water quality results, geography, political environments, CRWA’s previous relationships with town officials and physical limitations of each area. Most responses involved working directly with local, state or federal officials. CRWA worked with these officials and other river partners to effectively leverage the remediation work of others, allowing us to address multiple issues throughout the watershed area without exhausting limited resources. CRWA’s intent in this task

101 was not to substitute for actions municipalities and other property owners are required to take, but to identify the responsible parties whenever possible and encourage them to address the issues.

The goals of this task were to: • Inform municipalities, land owners and other river partners of pressing stormwater issues in their communities as discovered in Tasks 1 and 2; • Conduct our own research and educate others about appropriate BMPs to solve and/or remediate water quality problems identified through Tasks 1 and 2; • Work with municipalities and other partners to develop remediation strategies to address water quality impairments; and • Identify appropriate partners to institute BMPs, including municipalities (local, state and federal), land-owners, and other potential partners.

The following subtasks were performed under Task 3: Promote BMPs:

Task 1. Analyze data collected under Tasks 1 and 2 to determine appropriate remediation actions. CRWA compiled, reviewed, analyzed and interpreted shoreline survey and water quality monitoring results to complete the assessment of our project study area. Priority problems were identified and CRWA conducted research and developed appropriate “next steps” to be taken to remediate these issues.

Task 2. Monitoring and reporting on municipal and state agencies’ efforts to control stormwater pollution under their Phase II stormwater programs. Through visual shoreline surveys and water quality monitoring, CRWA identified sources, and quantified and qualified impacts of stormwater runoff in thirteen of the watershed’s thirty-five cities and towns and in DCR parkland areas. CRWA reported problems to the attention of the responsible local agencies and the EPA. CRWA then tracked progress in addressing the problems, consistent with their Phase II permits.

Task 3. Working with municipalities and property owners to identify and remediate the sources of dry weather bacteria loadings. CRWA conducted sufficient observation and monitoring to track dry weather bacteria sources to within specific town boundaries. Once it was clear which cities, towns or properties were responsible for water bodies with high bacteria levels, CRWA provided the relevant data to town officials. CRWA then made every effort to meet with town officials or property owners to discuss the observations and monitoring results. CRWA also made efforts to stay in contact with these municipal officials to be kept apprised of the actions taken to address problems.

Task 4. Working with municipalities and facility owners to identify and remediate wet weather sources of bacteria and nutrient loadings. CRWA took a similar approach to promoting solutions to wet weather bacteria problems as with dry weather bacteria. CRWA used our observations and monitoring to direct the attention of municipalities and property or business owners to problem areas. Where the problems appear to be associated with specific pipes, CRWA attempted to determine the owner of these pipes and then worked with the responsible parties to address the problems. Where non-point sources appeared to be the problems, CRWA

102 worked with local partners (municipalities and local groups) to conduct education and outreach about low impact development and “good housekeeping” stormwater best management practices designed to address the issues.

Task 5. Build institutional knowledge and educate municipal officials about intelligent stormwater solutions through field trips, seminars and printed materials. CRWA organized a full-day field trip and half-day seminar for municipal stormwater officials designed to educate officials about LID BMPs. Additionally, CRWA conducted research to build up our in house library of information on these technologies.

3.3.3 Methodology

CRWA took many different approaches to promoting BMPs in order to address the various issues identified and to reach as wide an audience as possible.

As mentioned above, a major goal under this task was to bring CRWA’s findings to the attention of those who could best address these issues. CRWA developed data reports for municipal officials for both visual shoreline survey monitoring and water quality monitoring results. These data reports were designed to summarize the major issues facing a certain tributary or region while also detailing specific problems and highlighting known or suspected pollution sources. These reports were designed to be easily read and understood by individuals with some experience in water issues. Data reports were shared with municipal officials, landowners, concerned citizens and other river partners.

CRWA used data reports as a forum in which to present results and facilitate a discussion about stormwater BMPs and other water quality remediation efforts.

Shoreline survey data reports included: • A letter to the municipality which: o Explained the Find It and Fix It Program o Explained visual shoreline survey methodology o Listed specific priority problems in the relevant river stretch o Recommended specific solutions for remediating the particular river stretch • Maps marking the locations of each priority problem observed • Photographs of the problem area • A table offering a brief description of each individual problem

Water quality monitoring data reports included: • A memorandum to municipal officials and landowners which: o Explained the Find It and Fix It Program, o Described sampling methodology o Interpreted the observed water quality data o Requested a follow-up meeting with municipal officials • A description of sampling locations • A map of sampling sites • Photographs of notable observations at various sampling sites

103 • Monitoring results in tables and charts

CRWA often also sent data reports to EPA officials to inform them of the visual shoreline survey and sampling results and recommended follow-up actions. After sending the data reports, CRWA followed up with municipal officials to schedule a face to face meeting to discuss these issues in person and suggest possible solutions. During these meetings, CRWA would present the water quality results, an interpretation of their importance and possible pollution sources. From the officials, CRWA tried to gather information about the city or town’s efforts in stormwater management, their knowledge of the water quality problems, and assess their capacity for water quality improvements, including stormwater BMPs. Beyond a forum for information exchange, CRWA also viewed these meetings as an opportunity to begin to build relationships with municipal officials who we had not previously worked with and to strengthen relationships with municipal officials with whom we already had a relationship.

In some instances, CRWA also met with concerned citizens after sending out data reports. These meeting were held to inform citizens of the water quality results in their local waterways. These meetings were also a step to creating a stronger coalition for water quality improvements in a specific location.

Beyond written data reports and face to face meetings, CRWA also facilitated educational opportunities for all municipal officials in our watershed, whether we had conducted monitoring in their municipality or not. Educational opportunities took the form of field trips, seminars and printed materials.

3.3.4 BMP Promotion Results

Developing Next Steps based on Visual Shoreline Survey Results After shoreline surveys were conducted and volunteers submitted their data, CRWA reviewed the shoreline survey data sheets, maps and photos submitted by volunteers to identify the priority problems and assets of each river stretch. CRWA identified the following as priority problems: • Sewage odor in or around pipes • Pipes flowing in dry weather • Excessive sedimentation • Excessive erosion • Large trash items or large amounts of litter • Construction sites without proper sediment control • Lawns abutting the river without a riparian buffer • Excessive algae growing below pipes • Large areas of invasive species • Clogged or broken stormwater infrastructure

The priority problems observed during visual monitoring were compiled into ArcMap shapefiles. This allowed CRWA to create maps that identified the specific locations of problems for ease of re-checking, communication to municipalities and remediation.

104 Based on observed problems along a river stretch, CRWA developed next steps which should be taken to address these issues. Next steps were based on CRWA’s research, institutional knowledge and previous work in the watershed. CRWA developed next steps which would and should be taken by CRWA, municipalities and the public, or through some combined effort by these stakeholders. Table 17 summarizes CRWA’s recommended next steps.

Table 17: Next Steps Developed by CRWA Observation Recommended Next Step(s) Outfall pipe in disrepair 1. Recheck and possibly repair infrastructure Outfall pipe clogged with debris or 1. Recheck and clean pipe sediment Outfall pipe flowing in dry weather 1. Check source of pipe, using infrastructure maps 2. Check water quality of dry weather flow Sewage odor, oil sheens, discolored water 1. Conduct water quality monitoring to begin to assess the problem Large trash items or area with many small 1. Target during CRWA’s Annual Earth Day trash items Cleanup 2. Removal of large items by town DPWs 3. Public education campaign about the non-point source issues and behavioral changes to protect the Charles River, with a focus on litter reduction Excessive sedimentation and erosion 1. Review stormwater management for ways to reduce sediment load to the river 2. Implement low impact development stormwater best management practices to slow and filter stormwater prior to discharge to the river Evidence of sediment washout from 1. Review road sanding practices and address areas roadways where its washing into the Charles River Lawns abutting the river without a 1. Public education campaign about the non-point riparian buffer source issues and behavioral changes to protect the Charles River, with a focus on riparian buffer zones Excessive algae growing below pipes 1. Public education campaign about the non-point source issues and behavioral changes to protect the Charles River, with a focus on lawn care and impacts of fertilizer and pesticides on river quality and aquatic vegetation Construction sites without proper 1. Recheck site for use of BMPs sediment control 2. Public education campaign about stormwater BMPs around construction sites to control sediment runoff Areas where large numbers of geese and 1. Discourage geese from the area other waterfowl are conglomerating 2. Public education campaign about the negative effects of feeding wildlife Invasive species growth 1. Invasive species removal and control

While CRWA’s main goal in this task was not to physically fix the problems identified through our visual monitoring work but to instead leverage the work of others to address these issues in a

105 comprehensive way. Nevertheless, CRWA did directly address some of these issues through our non-MET funded projects. CRWA targeted locations identified as having a large amount of litter during our Annual Earth Day Clean-up. In 2007 and 2008, CRWA held three water chestnut pulling volunteer events in the Lake’s District in Newton to help prevent the dispersal of this problematic invasive species.

Action Planning Meeting During the shoreline survey data analysis process, CRWA scheduled a shoreline survey follow- up action planning meeting with the help of Riverways’ staff. This meeting was held in spring 2007, after the completion of visual shoreline surveys on the mainstem of the Charles. Shoreline survey volunteers, municipal officials and other interested river partners were invited to attend. At these meetings volunteers presented the results of their shoreline survey, offering further explanations, clarifications and insights to the written data reports they previously submitted. CRWA and Riverways explained potential causes of common shoreline survey volunteer observations and possible follow-up steps for remediation.

Recommended next steps were then discussed and identified for various river stretches. Hearing directly from the volunteers who were in the field allowed CRWA staff to make more informed decisions about the next steps that would best address the problems observed in various river segments and to ask follow-up questions directly to volunteers if certain aspects of written data reports were unclear. When practical, follow up steps were assigned to be completed by either CRWA staff or shoreline survey volunteers. Additionally, at this meeting CRWA received valuable feedback that will improve future visual shoreline surveys.

Charles River Visual Shoreline Survey Results Distribution Once the shoreline survey results for a river segment were reviewed, analyzed for priority problems and digitized into a GIS, CRWA composed written data reports for municipalities or state agencies concerning river and brook stretches falling within their jurisdiction.

Matrices summarizing all shoreline survey results as well as copies of maps and tables which were included in the data reports sent to municipal officials are included in Appendix B.

Data reports from the Stream Team A river segment were distributed in February 2007. Reports were sent to personnel from Needham and Natick Departments of Public Works (DPW), and the Dover Town Clerk. EPA officials were also sent copies of this data report as priority problems, such as potential cross connections between sanitary sewer lines and stormwater drainage systems and evidence of poor stormwater management are issues of great concern to EPA.

CRWA distributed data reports for the Stream Teams B and C river segments in spring 2007. Data reports for Stream Team B were sent to the Dedham DPW, Dedham Conservation Commission, Newton Engineering Division, Newton Conservation Commission, Wellesley DPW, Wellesley Natural Resource Commission and EPA. Data reports for the Stream Team C river segment were distributed to Waltham DPW, Waltham Conservation Commission, Watertown DPW and Watertown Conservation Commission.

106 CRWA distributed data reports for the Stream Team D river segment in February 2008. Results were sent to Newton Engineering Division, Watertown DPW, Watertown Conservation Commission, BWSC, Boston Conservation Commission, Cambridge Department of Public Works, Cambridge Conservation Commission, DCR and EPA.

Tributary Monitoring Follow-Up Canterbury Brook After conducting water quality sampling that yielded high bacteria concentrations, CRWA began to initiate partnerships to most effectively improve the water quality in Canterbury Brook. In October 2006, CRWA met with representatives from MassAudubon’s Boston Nature Center (BNC), Julie Brandlen and Lou Wagner, to discuss Canterbury Brook. A daylit section of this primarily culverted brook flows through the BNC property. At the meeting, CRWA presented water quality results from our two August 2006 dry weather sampling events. MassAudubon discussed the history of the brook, property ownership issues, and the water quality and trash issues particularly problematic to BNC.

In response to the high dry weather bacteria results CRWA submitted a data report to BWSC summarizing Canterbury Brook water quality results and requesting a meeting to further discuss the issues. In November, CRWA met with BWSC to discuss water quality in Canterbury Brook and BWSC’s efforts to detect and eliminate illicit cross connections in this area. CRWA presented the water quality monitoring results from our dry weather sampling events with an interpretation of the data. CRWA also relayed some of BNC’s observations and concerns. BWSC described their trash management protocols, the process of illicit discharge detection and the progress within the Dorchester drainage area which is upstream of the daylit section of Canterbury Brook. BWSC stated that they have a trash fence at the Harvard Street bridge to collect trash before it flows into BNC. BWSC explained that their illicit discharge detection program moves upstream to downstream until they reach an unidentifiable problem. BWSC stated that significant progress has been made in the Dorchester area, but this has been stalled due to problem connections that could not be identified. At this meeting CRWA and BWSC agreed that CRWA would conduct further monitoring on the brook to continue to track water quality and that BWSC would continue with illicit discharge detection and trash fence maintenance.

After conducting further monitoring, CRWA sent BWSC a follow-up memo in August 2007, detailing the results of wet weather monitoring on Canterbury Brook. This second memo was also sent to Canterbury Brook partners, such as MassAudubon, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and EPA. The memo described and interpreted the most recent water quality results, while also referring to the previous results, a summary of the November meeting between CRWA and BWSC, and a request for a second meeting to discuss illicit discharge detection progress. BWSC and CRWA were not yet able to schedule a second meeting. In September 2008, BWSC issued a report detailing their illicit discharge detection and elimination work in Dorchester. While many illicit connections have been identified and most of those have been addressed, there still remains a large portion of the drainage area which has not been investigated. CRWA hopes to continue monitoring Canterbury Brook to identify and track dry weather water quality improvements and promote stormwater best management practices

107 surrounding this urban brook. CRWA also sent a separate letter to EPA, detailing the results of monitoring work in Canterbury Brook.

CRWA also conducted a considerable amount of research on Canterbury Brook, both prior to and following water quality monitoring. CRWA conducted research to learn more about the pollution issues facing this brook as well as information about the history and demographics of the surrounding neighborhood.

Finally, in September 2008, CRWA staff and volunteers participated in a tree planting event in the Canterbury Brook area coordinated by the Boston Urban Forestry Coalition. Although this work was not part of the Find It and Fix It Program, the information we gained through this project has revealed the need to focus resources on improving this portion of the watershed.

Sawins Brook CRWA conducted visual shoreline survey and water quality monitoring along Sawins Brook. Visual and water quality monitoring results indicated that this brook was severely impaired. CRWA submitted a data report to Watertown DPW officials and the Watertown Conservation Commission Agent in January 2007, with the results of water quality monitoring along this brook. Later that winter CRWA also sent a data report to EPA summarizing the results of our water quality monitoring work. Finally, in August 2008, CRWA sent the results of Sawins Brook shoreline survey monitoring to Watertown DPW officials.

CRWA met repeatedly with active Watertown citizens, including a Town Counselor, and CRWA members and volunteers to discuss Sawins Brook. During these meetings, CRWA presented water quality results, including interpretation of the data, and showed pictures taken from sampling events to show the physical state of the brook. The citizens expressed concern over Sawins Brook and presented the history of the brook, including ownership issues. In addition, they described the political climate in Watertown, especially in regards to environmental issues, and offered their support of a meeting between CRWA and Watertown municipal officials.

The support of the Watertown Town Counselor and the multiple data reports sent to the DPW requesting face to face meetings eventually led to a meeting between CRWA and Watertown DPW’s Director, Gerald Mee on August 28, 2008. Mr. Mee informed CRWA about stormwater management and infrastructure maintenance practices in Watertown; as well as the political forces in Watertown surrounding stormwater issues. Mr. Mee informed CRWA that he hoped CRWA and the Town of Watertown could cooperate on an improvement and stormwater management demonstration project in the Sawins Pond area. CRWA informed Mr. Mee that we would be extremely amenable to such a cooperative effort. CRWA is currently looking for funding sources to support this work.

Cheesecake Brook CRWA submitted a data report summarizing water quality monitoring results along Cheesecake Brook to the Newton DPW Director in July 2007. Due to the June 4, 2007, wet weather sampling event that yielded very high bacteria, total suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations, CRWA scheduled a follow up meeting with Maria Pologruto Rose, an Environmental Engineer for the Newton Public Works Department to further discuss these

108 issues. At this meeting, held in August 2007, CRWA presented the water quality results with an interpretation of the data. CRWA highlighted specific problems identified through our sampling efforts. Ms. Rose discussed stormwater management in Newton and many of the issues her agency faces.

Ms. Rose presented her knowledge of water quality issues in the Cheesecake Brook area, Newton’s intended remediation work in this region, and other stormwater related projects scheduled or ongoing throughout the City. She informed CRWA that Newton is actively working on creating a drainage atlas, which highlights all the stormwater and sewer drain pipes in the city. Ms. Rose also informed CRWA about a common situation in the City that may cause water quality impairments. Many areas in Newton have a high groundwater table and therefore, many sanitary sewer drains were built with underdrains below them to transport excess groundwater to streams. This has become a problem, however; because these older sewer lines have developed leaks over time and now, when the water table rises and surrounds the leaky sewer lines, ground water becomes contaminated with pollutants and is then diverted to streams through these underdrains. Ms. Rose shared a report, prepared by Weston and Samson for the City of Newton, which explains the underdrains.

Ms. Rose also shared the City of Newton’s plan to address water quality issues on Cheesecake Brook. The City’s current and planned remediation efforts included a multi-phase greening project planned for the brook and surrounding streets, which will include channelizing stormwater into catch basins and creating a nature observation area. Other improvements include vegetation removal, repairs of the brook walls, repairs of sinkholes on the abutting lawns, and replacing the fieldstones from the brook bottom that have been scoured or pushed downstream.

In May 2008, CRWA also presented the results of monitoring along Cheesecake Brook, South Meadow Brook and Sawmill Brook at an open meeting with the Newton Conservation Commission. The Commission was extremely interested in these results and asked CRWA what role they could play in remediating the water quality of these tributaries. CRWA made the following recommendations to the Commission and the City of Newton: follow up with dry weather flows and high bacteria results; preserve and reclaim river and stream buffers; and address wet weather nutrient loading to the river by requiring low impact development stormwater best management practices for new construction and redevelopments. CRWA also encouraged the Newton Conservation Commission to view us as a resource for stormwater management information. This presentation is included in Appendix D.

Additionally, in August 2008, CRWA submitted a data report to the City summarizing the shoreline survey results for Cheesecake Brook. CRWA is planning to meet with Ms. Rose to discuss the actions we have taken since our meeting a year ago.

Finally, volunteers from Newton North High School targeted the Cheesecake Brook area during CRWA’s 2008 Earth Day Charles River Clean Up.

109 Beaver Brook After completing two dry and one wet weather monitoring event and repeatedly observing high bacteria, total phosphorus and total suspended solids concentration CRWA sent a data report to John Tashijan, Director of Waltham Consolidated Public Works and Gloria Champion, Waltham Conservation Commission in December 2007. CRWA attempted to schedule a follow-up meeting with Mr. Tashijan and representatives from the Conservation Commission, however, we were referred to Joan Lastovica, Waltham City Engineer. On February 14, 2008, CRWA met with Ms. Lastovica, Charles Fuller, Consultant for the Waltham Engineering Department and Mark Mancuso, Assistant Superintendent Water, Sewer and Drain. CRWA did not submit a written data report on our Beaver Brook shoreline survey results, however; CRWA incorporated survey observations from the portions of the survey that were completed, into our discussion with Waltham officials.

CRWA presented Beaver Brook monitoring results and highlighted specific problems identified through our sampling efforts. Additionally, CRWA described our field observations. During all three sampling events CRWA observed a broken pipe along the bank of Beaver Brook, causing extensive erosion along the bank near sampling site BEA9 and potentially contaminating the brook. CRWA also mentioned the abundance of trash observed along the brook, including large items such as shopping carts. CRWA recommended installing trash racks near our sampling sites BEA6 and BEA9 and checking on the broken pipe.

Waltham representatives shared the results of their Beaver Brook monitoring and remediation work. The City described their monitoring efforts specific to their attempts to locate and eliminate illicit sanitary sewer connections and discharges. They reported that they had found one illicit discharge from a residence to Beaver Brook in the past year which may have affected CRWA sampling results at Sites BEA5 and/or BEA6. They further reported that they had yet to find any illicit discharges from commercial developments. The Waltham representatives explained that they do not believe illegal discharges to be a significant problem in Waltham but attribute high bacteria concentrations in local surface waters and stormwater outfalls to be from old, leaking sewer pipes which often run parallel and above stormwater drainage pipes. The City has begun to replace some of their sewer pipes and plans to continue replacing sewer lines systematically over the next 30 years.

Additionally, CRWA stressed the importance of addressing the issue of nutrient loading to Beaver Brook and the Charles River. CRWA discussed likely sources of nutrients in stormwater: geese waste, fertilizers and auto emissions and briefly discussed some best management practices that are ideal for dealing with nutrients. The Waltham officials also stated they have a committee working on a stormwater educational brochure which CRWA offered assistance in producing.

Finally, CRWA made the following recommendations: • CRWA and the City of Waltham should continue to share water quality results • CRWA and the City of Waltham will continue to share educational materials • Waltham should employ, and CRWA can assist with planning and design of, innovative stormwater BMPs

110 • Install stormwater markings instructing the public to not dump waste into catch basins (Waltham is beginning this practice.) • CRWA can present information about “Green Streets” (using low impact development techniques in public rights of way) to the Waltham Conservation Commission, Planning Department, and Engineering Department • Attend the half-day stormwater BMP seminar presented by CRWA

Sawmill Brook As mentioned above, in May 2008, CRWA presented the results of dry weather monitoring in Sawmill Brook at an open meeting with the Newton Conservation Commission (See Presentation in Appendix D). CRWA also provided these dry weather results to Maria Pologruto Rose at our August 2007 meeting. Unfortunately CRWA conducted wet weather monitoring on this brook, late in the project period and therefore follow up work is still ongoing. To date, CRWA submitted results of wet weather monitoring in Sawmill Brook to the Newton DPW and EPA officials in August 2008. CRWA also submitted a data report summarizing visual shoreline survey results along this brook to Newton DPW officials at the same time.

The data report submitted to Newton DPW officials in August 2008 recommended remediation actions for the issues observed along this brook. In particular, CRWA requested that the City of Newton investigate the source of high E. coli concentrations in flow from the outfall at site SMill4_OUT located upstream of the St. Joseph’s Cemetery, near the Newton Boston border.

Results of this monitoring work will be sent to authorities in Boston and Brookline, with a request that these communities investigate high bacteria concentrations at the pipes under their control.

Fuller and Waban Brooks

CRWA sent data reports summarizing our dry weather water quality monitoring events to personnel at Wellesley Natural Resources Commission and Wellesley Department of Public Works on November 5, 2007. CRWA sent a second data report summarizing all water quality work on Fuller Brook, including the April 28, 2008, wet weather event and Fuller Brook shoreline survey results to town officials on September 12, 2008. Despite follow up phone calls, CRWA was not able to schedule a face to face meeting with town officials prior to publication of this report.

CRWA also shared the results of water quality monitoring along Fuller Brook with Jenny Birnbaum, Monitoring Coordinator for MassDEP’s Bacteria Source Tracking (BST) Program. The BST program focused on Fuller Brook during their 2007 monitoring seasons. In October 2007, MassDEP sent a letter to the Town of Wellesley informing them that water quality along the stretch of Fuller Brook between Cottage Street and Dover Road were in violation of state water quality standards for bacteria. In an effort to assess pollutions sources to the town’s stormwater system, the state required the town to submit information on their IDDE work, results of water quality monitoring work, results of sewer infiltration and inflow studies and a map of the town’s sewer system. The town of Wellesley used CRWA’s data both in their efforts to track down potential sewage contamination and in their efforts to comply with the state’s requests.

111 Following, the town’s response to the state’s original request and discussions between MassDEP and town officials in spring of this year, the state requested additional information from the town, including results of dye-flooding, television inspections and dry weather water quality results, and a summary of locations where sewer lines cross stormwater drain lines or other areas of potential cross contamination.

CRWA intends to continue to be involved in the investigation of Fuller Brook and efforts to track down sewage sources.

South Meadow Brook

CRWA reported results from our dry weather monitoring event to Maria Pologruto Rose, Engineer for the City of Newton during our August 10, 2007 meeting and to the Newton Conservation Commission during a presentation at the Conservation Commission’s April 24, 2008 meeting. During CRWA’s presentation to the Conservation Commission, CRWA highlighted the bacteria water quality violations along South Meadow Brook and recommended that the City follow up on the high dry weather E. coli concentrations observed (See Presentation in Appendix D). Finally, in August 2008, CRWA submitted a written data report summarizing the visual shoreline survey results along South Meadow Brook to Newton DPW officials.

Muddy River

CRWA produced written data reports summarizing our January and February 2008 stormwater runoff water quality monitoring along the Muddy River to the Muddy River Water Quality Committee, a subcommittee of the Muddy River Restoration Project Maintenance and Management Oversight Committee (MMOC). Currently, CRWA is in the process of compiling data reports summarizing this water quality data and results of the Muddy River visual shoreline survey to submit to officials in the Town of Brookline, City of Boston, Boston Water and Sewer Commission, EPA and the Emerald Necklace Conservancy.

Water quality in the Muddy River has been a major issue of concern for many years. Extremely low dissolved oxygen levels in particular have been noted since the 1990’s; segments of the river often violate the state water quality standard of 5 mg/l of dissolved oxygen during low flow periods in the summer. In addition, illicit sanitary cross connections have been a frequent problem, and both Boston and Brookline have invested significant resources into storm drain investigations and cross-connection removal programs.

In response to intensely polluted runoff from the Daisy Field baseball field in Boston into Leverett Pond (CRWA monitoring site MUD7C), the Boston Parks Department constructed a vegetated berm to slow and absorb runoff prior to it entering the pond.

112 Figure 55: Berm along Leverett Pond

The US Army Corps of Engineers has partnered with the City of Boston, the Town of Brookline and the State of Massachusetts to undertake a massive dredging and bank restoration project that is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2009. As a component of this project, Boston and Brookline have agreed to undertake improved stormwater management programs in areas that drain to the Muddy River. CRWA’s water quality monitoring in this tributary was designed to augment the extensive water quality monitoring program that is being undertaken by Northeastern University, under contract to the City of Boston, as part of the Muddy River Restoration Project.

In an effort to promote better stormwater management to improve water quality conditions, and especially to reduce sediment loading into the Muddy River, CRWA organized and chairs the Muddy River Water Quality Committee, a subcommittee of the Muddy River Maintenance and Management Oversight Committee. This committee meets on a quarterly basis to review water quality data, BMP implementation, stormwater management and project plans, and makes recommendations to the oversight committee and to Boston and Brookline.

UNH Stormwater Center Field Trip CRWA and the City of Newton organized a trip to the University of New Hampshire (UNH) Stormwater Center on September 18, 2007. CRWA invited public officials from municipal, state and federal agencies as well as several other watershed organizations. For a small registration fee attendees received round-trip transportation, breakfast, lunch and admission to the UNH Stormwater Center. Due to funding from MET and other sources, CRWA was able to offer this full-day field trip to participants for lower than the “at cost” price per participant. This all day

113 event included many discussions of stormwater management, stormwater BMPs, and funding options to facilitate implementations. On the bus ride to UNH, the City of Newton discussed their stormwater utility, its development, and current BMP projects. At the stormwater center, UNH presented a BMP workshop, which covered performance, cost, suitability, operations, and maintenance issues. Twenty-four people attended this full-day workshop, this included representatives from eight watershed communities, EPA and other local environmental groups.

A copy of the brochure CRWA distributed to advertise this event is included in Appendix D.

Low Impact Development Seminar As part of our program to promote BMPs and to undertake outreach and education about stormwater management, CRWA made numerous efforts to reach out specifically to municipal officials, especially town engineers and Public Works officials. On March 13, 2008, CRWA held a free Urban Stormwater Management Seminar to inform municipal officials from watershed communities about the latest stormwater technologies, research and case studies from stormwater experts. CRWA sent e-mail invitations to public works’ officials, conservation commissioners, planning board members, town engineers, and park and recreation officials in all 35 cities and towns of the Charles River watershed. Representatives from 18 of the watershed’s 35 cities and towns participated in the half day seminar.

CRWA arranged for a continental breakfast for participants, which was generously donated by Filterra Systems. Presenters included CRWA’s Director of Projects Kate Bowditch, Rich Claytor a Principal with Horsley Witten Group, Steve Roy of Geosyntec, Paul Iorio of Filterra, Ken Dews of RainStay and Rob Roseen of the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. Presenters addressed topics such as municipal stormwater bylaws, LID credits and regulatory compliance; LID technologies in use in Massachusetts; stormwater BMPs for use in ultra-urban and residential settings; current field testing and research on stormwater BMPs; and strategies for “greening” the public realm. CRWA also made copies of these presentations available through our website for interested individuals who were unable to attend the seminar. CRWA believes many people took advantage of downloading these presentations as staff received multiple requests for assistance in finding and downloading these presentations after an article in CRWA’s quarterly newsletter, The Streamer, alerted the public to their presence. Copies of seminar presentations are included in Appendix D.

Low Flows in the Lower Charles River In the summer of 2008, CRWA received several anecdotal reports of lower than normal flows in the middle and lower sections of the Charles. CRWA analyzed data from several USGS flow gages on the river and asked for reports from several regular river paddlers. Available evidence seemed to corroborate the reported low flows. After reviewing the data, CRWA’s analysis indicated that larger than normal volumes of water may have been discharged through the Mother Brook Diversion. The Mother Brook Diversion discharges water from the Charles River and directs it into the Neponset River. This diversion is a remnant of the early industrial age where water was diverted to Dedham for mill power and is currently used for flood control for the Boston metropolitan area. The high flows in Mother Brook may have been related to operational or mechanical issues at the Mother Brook Diversion, but are more likely from the decision to increase the dam height at the downstream Silk Mill Dam. This stage increase would

114 in turn back up the river as far as Mother Brook, resulting in higher than normal discharge from the Charles.

CRWA has reached out to DCR in an effort to work with the Office of Dam Safety to develop a standard, written protocol for dam operations under varying stream flow and weather conditions. CRWA has not yet been able to cooperate with DCR to accomplish this, but we hope to in the near future.

No Discharge Area Application CRWA joined with the Urban Harbors Institute, the City of Boston Environmental Department and the City of Quincy Harbormaster to have Boston Harbor and the Lower Charles River Basin become a state designated, federally approved No Discharge Area (NDA). An NDA is an area in which boats are prohibited from discharging untreated or partially treated sewage directly into the water body; instead, all vessels are required to dispose of sewage in sanitary pump out facilities. CRWA authored the portion of the application requesting the lower basin be designated as an NDA.

This application was submitted on April 4, 2008, the request was approved three months later and on July 7, 2008, EPA, the City of Boston and the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs held a press conference to publicly announce and celebrate the designation of Boston Harbor and the Lower Charles River Basin as a vessel No Discharge Area. This made Boston the largest urban area to prohibit dumping in its surrounding waters. The NDA application and a Boston Globe article about this designation are included in Appendix E.

BMP Information Sheets As mentioned above, CRWA has been actively involved in the planning and siting of low impact development (LID) stormwater management techniques, especially in urban areas such as Boston. As part of our Peabody Square and Town of Blackstone Greening Projects CRWA produced information sheets providing a brief overview of some of the LID BMPs which are appropriate for use in the Charles River watershed. Through the Find It and Fix It Project, CRWA distributed these information sheets to the municipal officials with whom we made contact throughout the three years of this program. These information sheets are also available on our web page. Information sheets are enclosed in Appendix D.

Optimal Stormwater Recharge Site Development Through CRWA’s research on LID BMPs, we have become particularly interested in infiltration or recharge BMPs because of the numerous potential benefits they offer: reduced pollutant load; increased recharge to groundwater; and lower flow volumes and peaks.

Since recharge BMPs offer multiple benefits, it makes sense to optimize the technique for more than just pollutant removal. In 2000-2004, CRWA developed a Recharge Restoration technique for the Town of Blackstone to help locate optimal areas for stormwater recharge (CRWA, 2005). The approach identifies areas with significant sources of stormwater and optimizes the impact of recharge on streamflow by identifying areas that can deliver the recharged water to the stream during the critical low flow period in the late summer.

115 The Recharge Restoration approach CRWA developed uses a combination of GIS analyses and simple groundwater equations to identify optimal recharge zones. Through the FIFI project CRWA began to improve and automate this approach. This work is ongoing and partially funded by a grant from EPA. CRWA hopes to develop a pilot application for the upper Charles River watershed which will develop the approach further and demonstrate its potential utility for other watersheds in the state. The development of an automated tool will allow the results from this study to be easily extended to other rivers and watersheds. CRWA hopes this work will lead to an automated approach for siting infiltration BMPs to optimize their benefits.

3.3.5 Conclusions and Future Work

CRWA worked to guide water quality remediation and initiate stormwater BMPs throughout the watershed. Major efforts included public education about BMPs and stormwater management to municipal officials and the public. Additionally, specific BMP promotion was initiated in response to visual and water quality monitoring results. CRWA is pleased with the landscaped berm installed along Leverett Pond where CRWA monitoring revealed that runoff from this field had extremely high bacteria and TSS concentrations. CRWA is also pleased to have been a part of the effort to have Boston waterways designates as the largest urban No Discharge Area.

The database of visual shoreline survey observations built in this task through the time- consuming review and compilation of visual shoreline survey results continues to be a valuable resource to CRWA. The pipe inventory generated from analysis of shoreline survey results is useful to many aspects of CRWA’s work.

CRWA will continue to work with municipal officials, land owners, and concerned citizens to improve water quality. As stormwater runoff continues to pollute the river, CRWA will work with municipalities and advocate for improved stormwater management and utilization of stormwater BMPs. Specifically, CRWA will be submitting data reports to the communities of Boston and Brookline regarding sampling and shoreline survey data on the Muddy River and water quality results from recent monitoring along Sawmill Brook. Following the submission of data reports, CRWA will attempt to meet with representatives from these communities to discuss the issues identified. CRWA will also continue our work with the Muddy River Water Quality Committee.

Finally, CRWA hopes to be able to conduct further remediation in the areas of Canterbury Brook and Sawins Pond. As discussed above, CRWA identified numerous issues in these areas and identified potential partners in the Boston Nature Center and Watertown DPW to work with on remediation projects. CRWA is currently exploring funding opportunities which would allow us to design and implement improved stormwater controls in these areas.

3.4 Public Education and Outreach

CRWA is dedicated to engaging our watershed residents through volunteer opportunities, outreach and education. CRWA strives to provide all watershed residents and members of the general public with accurate, up-to-date, easy to understand information about the river, its

116 historic clean-up efforts and the challenges we face today in our efforts to preserve and enhance the Charles.

Additionally, CRWA understands that achieving and sustaining our goal of a clean Charles River requires the help of all our watershed residents. CRWA’s work in Tasks 1 and 2 highlighted the numerous issues non-point source pollution is causing in our watershed. In this task CRWA worked to educate watershed residents about these problems and the lifestyles changes each one of us can make to positively affect water quality.

3.4.1 Background

CRWA began as an all-volunteer, citizen based organization and continues today to engage the community in its efforts to clean the Charles. Since our establishment, CRWA has regularly participated in community environmental events, conducted school programs, and presented at public forums. Additionally, CRWA organizes an Annual Charles River Earth Day Cleanup which provides a forum for thousands of participants to make a difference in their watershed.

3.4.2 Scope of Work

Throughout Task 5, CRWA attempted to educate watershed residents about the problems currently facing the Charles River and what they can do to help. The Charles River watershed is home to nearly 1 million individuals, many of whom are likely unaware that their day to day activities have an effect on the Charles River.

Results from Tasks 1 and 2 highlighted the effects of non-point source pollution in the watershed. Numerous water quality impairments and riparian area issues were observed, however; one issue that was consistently observed to be a problem was nutrient loading. Shoreline survey volunteers observed many areas where algae growth appeared to be choking stream corridors, bright green lawns were abutting rivers and streams, and grass clippings were being disposed of in rivers and brook. Water quality monitoring revealed high total phosphorus concentrations along every tributary CRWA monitored. None of these tributaries have any point source discharges of phosphorus, such as waste water treatment facility, therefore; CRWA assumed this impairment to be solely the result of non-point sources. Additionally, many non- point sources of phosphorus can be reduced through lifestyles changes. For these reasons CRWA chose to dedication much of our efforts in Task 5 to educating the public about the nutrient loading problem in the Charles River and how they can play an active role in addressing this problem.

CRWA communicates with the public primarily though our website, e-mail newsletter The River Current, print newsletter The Streamer, newspaper contributions, printed outreach materials, outreach presentations and appearances, school presentations, and volunteer opportunities. CRWA employed each of these outlets in the Find It and Fix It Program to educate and engage the public about non-point source pollution issues.

117 3.4.3 Results

Website CRWA developed a series of webpages solely dedicated to the Find It and Fix It Program. These webpages described the FIFI project and all the various tasks that fell within in it. CRWA used our website extensively to recruit volunteers to conduct visual shoreline surveys, display monitoring results to the general public and advertise the various educational programs offered through this program.

CRWA advertised the shoreline survey monitoring volunteer opportunity on our webpage and posted a volunteer information questionnaire so that we could easily collect the relevant contact information from potential volunteers. Additionally, through this task CRWA developed an innovative way to display geographic data which we have extended to many of our other water quality programs. CRWA used GoogleEarth, a free geographic information program, to display shoreline survey results. GoogleEarth allows data to be displayed in a manner that links a description of a shoreline survey volunteer’s observation directly to the location where the observation was made. (See Figure 56)

Figure 56: CRWA Shoreline Survey Results Displayed in GoogleEarth

118 CRWA faced numerous technical challenges while learning to display our shoreline survey results in GoogleEarth. Through the FIFI Program, however; we were able to overcome these challenges and develop the necessary skills and technical capability to display data in this way. This knowledge and technical capability are a great asset to CRWA as the majority of the data we collect is linked to a specific spatial location. The ability to display data in a way that visual links it to the location in space where it was collected, truly revolutionizes our ability to communicate data with the general public. CRWA now uses the skills gained through this process to display our monthly monitoring data in GoogleEarth.

CRWA also used our website to make all of our tributary water quality monitoring available to the public. CRWA developed a separate webpage for each tributary that was monitored as part of this project. The webpage included background information on the tributary, a description of sampling events and monitoring results, data from water quality sampling events, a map of the sampling sites, descriptions of the sampling sites, and photos taken during sampling events. CRWA received a lot of positive feedback in response to these webpages, as information on individual tributaries is often difficult to find.

Finally, CRWA used our website to advertise educational workshops which were aimed toward the general public. These workshops are discussed below.

Newspaper Articles CRWA authored three articles which were published in the Newton Tab and online through the Green Decade Coalition webpage. These articles are included in Appendix F.

Additionally, CRWA staff members were interviewed by numerous media outlets regarding issues facing the Charles. The Boston Globe, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, Boston Network News and Fox 25 News all contacted CRWA regarding our work to monitor and address the summer- time cyanobacteria blooms in the lower basin. These articles are included in Appendix F.

Public Presentations CRWA presented information on the Find It and Fix It Program, stormwater issues and ways residents can mitigate impacts to numerous school groups, civic and community based organizations, conservation commissions, and garden clubs. CRWA staff conducted presentations for school groups ranging from elementary through graduate school level. Throughout the Find It and Fix It Program CRWA provided educational programs to the following schools:

• Cambridge Ridge and Latin School, Cambridge • Noble and Greenough School, Dedham • Young Achievers Science and Mathematics School, Jamaica Plain • Watertown Jewish Day School, Watertown • Bates School, Wellesley • Zervas Elementary School, Newton • Brandeis University, Waltham • Boston University Graduate Program, Boston

119 In addition to presentations to school and university groups, CRWA also conducted outreach presentation for the general public through speaking engagements organized by various organizations either on their own or in conjunction with CRWA, including the Waltham Land Trust, Newton Green Decade Coalition, Urban Ecology Institute, the Esplanade Association, the Alt-Wheels Festival, the Newton Conservation Commission, and the Muddy River Research Symposium.

Finally, on Tuesday, May 6, 2008, CRWA held an evening workshop entitled Healthy Lawns and Landscapes for watershed residents interested in learning environmentally-friendly lawn care and landscaping techniques. Presenters included CRWA Landscape Designer Viola Augustin, MassDEP Consumer Waste Reduction Coordinator Ann McGovern, and Ken Dews of Rainstay. Ms. Augustin and Mr. Dews discussed LID techniques to capture and treat or reuse stormwater runoff from residential properties, such as rain gardens, green roofs, porous pavers, rain barrels and cisterns. Ms. McGovern, a Northeast Organic Farmers Association (NOFA) Organic Landcare Professional and avid gardener discussed reducing pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use, composting and general lawn care. A summary of this workshop, along with some recommendations for river-friendly lawn care practices was also included in CRWA’s Spring 2008 issue of The Streamer. The Streamer is distributed to approximately 6,000 of CRWA’s members and river partners. Finally, this seminar was filmed by volunteers from NewTV, Newton’s Public Access Channel, so that it can be aired on one of the NewTV channels next spring.

Printed Materials Extensive research by CRWA, EPA and MassDEP has revealed that stormwater is the largest contributor of phosphorus, the problematic nutrient in the Charles, to the river. This was very evident in CRWA’s FIFI monitoring work. In an effort to inform the public about this pressing concern, CRWA developed a printed brochure entitled “Phosphorus in the Charles River: What You Should Know!”. This brochure is intended to provide a simple explanation of the nutrient loading problem in the Charles (See Appendix D).

The brochure addresses the following topics: • What is phosphorus? • Where does phosphorus come from and how does it enter the river? • What are the human health effects of too much phosphorus in the Charles River? • What are the ecological effects of too much phosphorus in the Charles River? • What can individuals do to prevent excess phosphorus from entering the Charles River?

This brochure had been distributed to CRWA’s municipal contacts in large quantities so they can be made available to town residents. This brochure will also be made available at all future public outreach events attended by CRWA staff.

Storm Drain Stenciling CRWA purchased eight large, approximately two by three foot personalized storm drain stencils which say “Don’t dump – drains to Charles River”. CRWA also purchased two stencils which say “Don’t dump – drains to Boston Harbor”. By displaying a “Don’t Dump” message directly on a storm drain CRWA hopes to remind or inform the public that water and anything else that

120 goes into a storm drain, goes directly to our surface waterways. Through some of our public outreach work, CRWA has found that many members of the general public mistakenly believe that water that enters a storm drain is treated at a waste water treatment plant and therefore these drains can be treated like garbage cans.

CRWA makes these stencils available for school and community groups to borrow and use to label the storm drains in their communities. In addition, CRWA provides guidelines about how to go about stenciling effectively, as well as contact information for local municipal officials from whom groups will need to obtain permission, prior to stenciling. In the Newton area, approximately 50 drains were stenciled by high school students in summer 2007. CRWA receives numerous inquiries each year about the stenciling project from scout troops, colleges, and others.

Cyanobacteria in the Lower Charles and Muddy Rivers Through CRWA’s work with the Cyanobacteria Working Group, we have been involved in educating the public about the emerging issue of cyanobacteria in our local waterways. CRWA posted information on cyanobacteria (or blue-green algae) on our website, including a two page fact sheet and a field guide to help the river using public distinguish, regular algae from cyanobacteria. In the summer of 2008, CRWA worked with the Emerald Necklace Conservancy and DCR to post warning signs along areas of the Muddy River where a cyanobacteria bloom was suspected to be occurring. Finally, in our brochure entitled “Phosphorus in the Charles River: What You Should Know!”, CRWA addressed the potential public health risk presented by cyanobacteria blooms.

In educating the public about this threat CRWA faced many challenges. CRWA strove to present information in a clear and factual manner without alienating individuals who are not comfortable with scientific jargon but also not leaving out any important facts or issues. Additionally, CRWA struggled with accurately communicating the public health threat without scaring river users away from the river with the threat of toxic water.

3.4.4 Conclusions and Future Work

CRWA was able to make many valuable connections and perform a great deal of public outreach throughout the three-years of our Find It and Fix It Program. This project allowed CRWA to participate in public outreach events that would otherwise not have been possible. As a result, CRWA was able to make some new connections with the community. CRWA hopes to continue these relationships with river partners to extend the reach and impact of our work.

CRWA will continue to work with our watershed residents and the public beyond our watershed boundaries to educate people about non-point source pollution issues. CRWA plans to air the taped version of our landscaping seminar on NewTV next spring and in years to come, as long as it is current. CRWA will also look into airing this program on local cable stations in other communities. CRWA plans to continue to distribute the “Phosphorus in the Charles River: What You Should Know!” brochure, created through this project, at any CRWA events and outreach events in which CRWA participates. CRWA will continue to make our storm drain stencils available for community groups to utilize. Finally, CRWA will finalize preparations for all

121 shoreline survey data to be posted to the web and post all remaining data to our website where it can be downloaded and viewed in GoogleEarth. CRWA will reconnect with shoreline survey volunteers through e-mail to let volunteers know when their shoreline survey section results are available on the web.

122 4.0 MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION’S FIND IT AND FIX IT PROGRAM

4.1 Visual monitoring

4.1.1 Overview/scope of work/tasks

For our visual monitoring program, MyRWA began with the Stream Team approach outlined by MassRiverways and modified it to support the goals of the FIFI project. We tailored the training, execution and deliverables for the peculiarities of a watershed that ranges from suburban to highly industrial. Our goal was to comprehensively gather data on the shoreline of the Mystic and Aberjona Rivers, their major tributaries, and the major lakes and ponds in the watershed. We largely achieved that goal, with over 90% of the watershed surveyed. The unsurveyed areas are predominantly the heavily industrialized area of the lower Mystic (classified as a Working Port) and the shoreline of Boston Harbor around Logan Airport.

In order to enhance the survey work, MyRWA applied for and received loans of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices and digital cameras from the EPA. This gear enabled us to collect data which we believe is more readily useful for our purposes, but also required that MyRWA invest significant time in developing a data management system. The outputs of this system (a database of outfalls and other points of interest tied to GoogleEarth) were integral to our outreach and BMP work. This is described in detail in Section 4.3: Promoting BMPs. MyRWA will continue to build and refine this data set.

4.1.2 Methodology

Volunteer recruitment, organization and coordination – The shoreline survey work was largely done by citizen volunteers recruited from cities and towns in the watershed. Early “test surveys” showed that the data-gathering was too complex for most school groups (who are usually the most readily available volunteers) so MyRWA focused on recruiting adults or closely supervised high-school-age students. Several avenues proved most effective in gathering these volunteers:

• MyRWA’s existing base of volunteers and membership mailing lists. • “Friends” groups such as Chelsea Creek Action Group, Friends of the Mystic River, and Friends of Upper Mystic Lake. • Websites such as Idealist.org, Vounteermatch.org, BostonCares.org, and the volunteer opportunity section on Craigslist. • The Massachusetts State Employees volunteer program, in which state employees can spend one day a month volunteers with a qualified organization. • Local newspapers and community bulletin boards, where MyRWA placed articles and announcements about upcoming surveys.

Through these means, MyRWA signed up 65 volunteers. Several volunteers performed more than one survey on different occasions. Several volunteers have also remained active with MyRWA using their specific expertise (e.g., water monitoring, lab work, outreach, policy).

123 Data collection methodology and training – MyRWA decided the optimal size of a survey effort was 10 teams surveying at one time, each looking at shoreline stretches of 0.5 miles to 2 miles in length. Teams were of two persons for safety and effectiveness in recording information on visual observations, GPS locations and pictures. The goal was to have every stretch of shoreline surveyed by both boat and foot since some areas were inaccessible by foot (e.g., posted, fenced, unsafe) yet foot-surveyors typically were better able to identify non-point source pollution causes by examining nearby land use and gathering street addresses for follow-up actions. MyRWA conducted four days of these large survey efforts and several days of smaller ones.

In the week prior to a survey, MyRWA conducted two, two-hour training sessions consisting of the following:

• Overview of FIFI and why it is important; • Tutorial on how to spot signs of non-point source pollution (Riverways personnel or MyRWA Monitoring Director); • Tutorial on use of GPS unit (MyRWA personnel); • Directions on the completion of survey form and assignment of segments to volunteer teams (MyRWA Project Manager).

MyRWA also developed a packet of resources using MassGIS and GoogleEarth so that volunteers could familiarize themselves with the characteristics of the areas they would be surveying (town borders, major roadways, ownership big parcels, topography/drainage, etc.) (See Appendix H) The intent was to enable volunteers to link observed non-point pollution to causes “on the spot” to provide more effective recommendation for prevention or remediation.

The surveys were scheduled for a Saturday of Sunday. Typically, Saturday was the target; Sunday was the alternate if weather cancelled. On the day of the survey, we arranged a meeting at a central location which was preferably accessible by public transportation. We handed out GPS units and cameras and provided any final instructions.

Survey development – An early challenge of the FIFI project was to develop a survey form that would: 1) leverage the experience gathered through the years via the Riverways template; 2) provide information to best inform the water monitoring and “Fix-It” stages of the program; and 3) be manageable in scope so that volunteers could complete the survey with a reasonably small time commitment and so that MyRWA staff could manage the volume of data. This led to a survey form with the following characteristics: o The pipe survey – detailing the condition, flow, water quality, and any identifying markings of all outfalls – was deemed highest priority; o Additional sheets were added to enable the matching of pictures with GPS coordinates and written descriptions; o Completion of the post-survey form on “Problems, Assets and Action Items” was emphasized, since community volunteers were judged to be the best source to identify and prioritize issues in the Watershed; o Questions geared to comprehensively describe the shoreline’s natural habitat were de- emphasized.

124 4.1.3 Shoreline Survey Results

In this section we present the results of our shoreline survey work. First, we summarize major findings from across the watershed. Second, we discuss findings by the sub-watersheds of the Mystic. Third, we provide detailed matrices with the findings for specific stretches of shoreline that were surveyed by volunteers (Figure S2 Appendix H). We have also included a summary of issues that were cited as priorities at volunteer action planning meetings and recommendations for follow-up (many of which are detailed later in the report).

Major findings from across the watershed

• Contamination of outfall pipes with bacteria is commonplace. Volunteers in many segments observed outfall pipes that were flowing water in dry weather and/or had signs of bacterial contamination such as an odor of sewage or rotten eggs or a buildup of algae at the mouth. We have used this information to direct our water sampling program described in Section B.

• Sediment run-off from roadways is a major problem. Many major routes are directly adjacent to the Mystic’s water bodies. I-93, Routes 1, 1A, 2, 16, 28, 38, 60 and 99, 145 and the Mystic Valley Parkway all run directly adjacent to the river, its tributaries or ponds. Many outfall pipes which drain these roadways have significant sediment buildup at their mouths. Oily sheens are also commonplace. This suggests that the design and maintenance of these roadways is lacking (e.g., catch basin cleaning, street sweeping).

• Trash is a major problem in many locations. Many stretches of the Mystic’s water bodies have extreme levels of trash, litter, and small debris. Volunteers consistently cited three types as the most pervasive: Styrofoam coffee cups, plastic bags, and bottled-water bottles. Observations suggest this small trash has two sources: littering (e.g., throwing things out of cars) and improper disposal of waste by residents and businesses. In the latter category, causes may be broken down to residential trash bags or commercial dumpsters which overflow. Possible remedial actions may include more frequent street sweeping and, for businesses, better outreach/education, inspection and enforcement of dumpster violation.

With respect to the items which most commonly litter the shoreline (e.g., coffee cups, plastic bags), a possible response is to seek mitigation resources from the businesses who manufacture, sell or distribute these products. Suggestions from volunteers at action planning meetings included some social-marketing outreach such as point-of-sale information at Dunkin’ Donuts about proper disposal of cups.

The worst spots observed in the watershed for trash include the banks of Alewife Brook (Rt. 16 side), the bend in the Malden River near the former GE parcel (likely coming out of the culvert under Malden), and Winter/Winterhill Brook on the border of Medford and Somerville.

• Several locations had evidence of dumping, either by businesses or citizens. A particular class of property where several informal dump sites were found was areas by the railroad

125 tracks (MBTA, commuter rail, and defunct corridors). MyRWA believes a concerted effort by the owners of these properties to fence, post and monitor the areas around railroad tracks could make a difference.

• Invasives are pervasive, particularly Phragmites around major roadways. Many riparian areas are entirely choked off by Phragmites to the point where they is little to no indigenous vegetation. Areas noted as particularly concerning are the shores of the Mystic mainstem by the Route 16 bridge in Medford, the east bank of the Malden River in Everett, and all around Mill Creek in Chelsea/Revere. Japanese knotweed is also extremely heavy in several locations, notable the Mystic River above the old Craddock Dam in Medford.

• Oil/grease is major problem in the lower watershed. Oily sheens were a common sight for our surveyors, and many outfalls smell of oil and gas. Outfalls directly adjacent to parking lots and major roadways also often were cited. Water bodies which were particularly notable for petroleum smells included the Little Creek tributary to the Malden River (in Medford/Malden), Mill Brook in Arlington, the Island End River in Everett/Chelsea, and Winterhill Brook in Medford/Somerville. Evidence of petroleum contamination was also observed frequently in Chelsea Creek in Chelsea and at the Island End River in Everett/Chelsea.

• Animal waste, predominantly from dogs, ducks and geese, was found in high concentrations in many shoreline areas. At a minimum, this complicates the analysis of bacteria sources in the river to target problem outfalls. Many areas, the Mystic Lakes, Spy Pond, the Mystic mainstem in Medford and Everett, Wedge Pond in Winchester, the Malden River, had either large populations of waterfowl or large numbers of dog walkers who did not clean up properly. There is evidence of feeding of waterfowl so posting or public education could be helpful.

• Careless lawn care practices could be contributing to nutrient problems. Several lakes, most notably the Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes, were observed to have many abutting residences with heavily fertilized lawns.

• Access: good news and bad news. Despite the aforementioned issues, most surveyors reported a great deal of use of the river. Fisherman and boaters were seen in just about all areas. Even the more industrial areas – not traditionally known for recreational river use, people appear to be interested in using the river. The upper Malden River has several docks. In Mill Creek in Revere, there is an ad hoc canoe launch off of Route 16 that is heavily utilized. Rowing clubs are very active at the Blessing of the Bay Boathouse and in two facilities on the Malden River. However, surveyors saw multiple instances of bank erosion from ad hoc access. We also believe there is little knowledge by the public about times it may be unsafe to use these water bodies.

126 Findings by subwatershed

Aberjona & Horn Pond Subbasins

The Aberjona is the largest subbasin in the Mystic watershed, comprising approximately 25% of the total watershed area. The nine-mile-long Aberjona River originates in Reading and flows south through Woburn and Winchester before discharging into the upper forebay of Upper Mystic Lakes. Along its course, the Aberjona receives inflows from Halls Brook, North Woburn Creek, Snyder Creek, Sweetwater Brook, and Horn Pond Brook (which drains the Horn Pond subbasin). The Aberjona is relatively slow moving and meandering in spots, particularly in north Woburn and Winchester Center, where there are many wetland areas and shallow ponds. There are two branches of the Aberjona River, north and south, in Winchester.

The two largest surface water bodies in the watershed are Horn Pond in Woburn and Wedge Pond in Winchester. Woburn draws about 60% of its municipal water from wells located on the west side of Horn Pond; therefore, land-uses in the subbasin (particularly right around the pond) are carefully controlled. Wedge Pond, located near Winchester center, is used for recreational activities (swimming and boating) and is impacted by stormwater runoff.

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• Numerous pipes were noted as suspicious of having bacterial contamination, particularly in the culverted area in Winchester, and near the center of Winchester. Horn Pond Brook also had one suspicious outfall, where Russell Brook (underground throughout most of its length) daylights. • Many residences on several shoreline stretches have bright green lawns. This indicates active fertilization and likely contributes to the nutrient-loading problems in this subwatershed. • Several street drain outfalls from Arlington St. in Woburn have formed sandy deltas in Horn Pond, and surveyors observed oil sheen at two locations in the pond. (Discussions with Woburn Conservation Commission indicated actions are underway to address this problem.) • The DPW yard in Winchester had a large pile of dirt less than ten feet from the banks of Horn Pond Brook, with potential for erosion. • The walking paths in Winchester are much used, and public access to Wedge Pond, Winchester, appears excellent.

Mystic Lakes Subbasin

Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes were created in c.1873, when a dam was built at what is now the outlet of the upper lake. The upper lake is about 25 meters at its deepest point and contains two shallow forebays at its northern end where the Aberjona River discharges. The lower lake is also about 25 meters at its deepest point. A layer of saltwater is still present at the bottom of the lower lake, which may be impacting water quality in upper water layers. Both lakes are widely used for recreation, including fishing, boating and swimming. The Medford Boat Club owns a motorboat dock on the lower lake, and on the upper lake there are two more boat clubs, a public boat ramp and two swimming beaches (one public, one private).

127 Figure 57: Mystic River Subbasin Outfalls

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• Waste from waterfowl is present in large quantities in the mowed area of the DCR park in the northeast corner of Upper Mystic Lake. • A fair amount of trash is strewn by the walking path on the eastern side of the two lakes. The area sees heavy public use, but no trash cans are available south of Sandy Beach I Winchester. • Runoff from Route 3 (a.k.a. Cambridge St.) in Winchester has produced heavy silt and sedimentation at several outfalls in the Upper Mystic Lake. • Numerous residences abutting the lakes have bright green lawns, indicating active fertilization which likely contributes to the nutrient-loading problems in the lakes. The forebay of the upper lake has a high concentration of pond lillies.

Mill Brook Subbasin

Mill Brook is fed by Sickle Brook, Munroe Brook (via the Arlington Reservoir) and Great Meadows. Sickle Brook and Munroe Brook drain farmlands in the southern part of Lexington. As it moves through Arlington Heights, Mill Brook is fed by steeply sloping uplands before reaching more gentle terrain near Arlington Center. Just before discharging into Lower Mystic Lake, the brook passes through a constructed wetland area adjacent to the Arlington Cemetery. For about a 1 km stretch upstream of the constructed wetland (between Grove Street and Mystic Avenue), the brook is culverted underneath several playing fields. The brook is not much used for recreational purposes, as it is difficult to gain access to it along much of its length

128 Figure 58: Mill Brook Subbasin Outfalls and Mystic Lake

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• The smell of oil and/or gas is present at several locations. It is particularly notable where the Brook emerges from its culvert near Buzzell Field. • Because Mill Brook is culverted for much of its length, there is a general lack of knowledge of its existence and proximity even in heavily trafficked nearby-areas like the Minuteman Bike Path. • Japanese knotweed was observed in the Mt. Pleasant Cemetery. • A great deal of trash accumulates throughout the brook. The installation and maintenance of additional bar racks could well be helpful in keeping debris out of the brook and the river.

Mystic River 1 Subbasin

The Mystic River 1 subbasin contains the portion of the Mystic River (and its contributing watershed area) that lies between Lower Mystic Lake and the Amelia Earhart Dam. This section of the Mystic receives significant inflow from Lower Mystic Lake, Alewife Brook, and the Malden River, as well as minor inflows from Two Penny Brook and Town Meeting Brook in Medford.

This part of the Mystic River, especially downstream of Medford Square, is widely used by recreational boaters. The reach contains two yacht clubs and a rowing club, as well as the Blessing of the Bay Boathouse, where the Boys & Girls Club runs youth programs. Much of the

129 shoreline in this area is DCR parkland. Several major roadways run close to the shoreline, including Routes 16 and 28 and I-93.

Figure 59: Mystic River 1 Subbasin Outfalls

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• Phragmites has taken over large stretches of the shoreline in this sub-basin. The problem is most acute along directly abutting roadways such as Route 16 in Medford and I-93 in Somerville and Medford. A great deal of Japanese knotweed is present in the river reaches between the Mystic Valley Parkway and Main St., Medford. • Winter Brook on the Medford/Somerville border smells strongly of sewage and petroleum, and is laden with trash. • Numerous outfall pipes in Medford have odors or visual signs of bacterial contamination. • A great deal of dumping takes place in this stretch. Particularly bad spots include the area directly south of the Wellington MBTA station and the length of Winter Brook on the Medford/Somerville border. • The riverbanks are severely eroded in many places, notably the part of this reach east of Winthrop St., Medford. • Oily sheens are frequently observed on the river in this stretch. Two areas of note are the outfalls in the area of the Meadowglen Mall in Medford and the Gateway Plaza in Everett. • Several outfall pipes from Route 16 in the area of Torbert McDonald Park in Medford are partially or wholly clogged. They appear to be street drains for Route 16. • There is a great deal of dog waste in the parks near the band shell in Medford.

130 • Access to the northern part of this stretch is very limited. In at least one location (DCR parkland at Medford near Jerome St.), the bank is eroded from use as an informal canoe/kayak put in. • DCR parkland all along this stretch and a recently-constructed wetland in Medford create an active wildlife habitat. Several surveyors noted various birds and small animals.

Alewife Brook Subbasin

Alewife Brook drains parts of Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge, and Somerville (See Figure 60). The main tributary to the Alewife, Little River, is fed by Little Pond in Belmont and Spy Pond in Arlington. Another important tributary is Wellington Brook, which is fed by Clay Pit Pond in Belmont. The topography of the subbasin is mixed: the uplands in Belmont and western Arlington are fairly steep, while parts of Cambridge and East Arlington are relatively flat, making these areas particularly susceptible to flooding. This sub-watershed also contains Spy Pond which covers over 102 acres.

Figure 60: Alewife Brook and Tributaries

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• A large amount of sediment has accumulated on the bottom of Alewife Brook. The culverted portion alongside the Alewife Brook Parkway seems to have the worst buildup. A great deal of debris, from both human dumping, and trees and brush have also accumulated in the brook. This detritus makes passage by canoe impossible and may help to impede the flow of the brook. • The outfalls from Route 2 into Spy Pond exhibit a large build-up of silt and sediment.

131 • Access is mixed. Spy Pond has a much-used park and boat launch. The Little Pond public access point is not marked and poorly maintained. No other public access was observed to Alewife Brook. • An extreme amount of litter has built up on the bank between the Alewife Brook Parkway and the water. • A high concentration of Phragmites was reported on the Arlington side of Alewife Brook and in the area of the Alewife MBTA station.

Malden River Subbasin

The Malden River originates in Melrose and flows south through Malden, Everett and Medford before discharging into the Mystic River. Spot Pond Brook, which receives discharges from Spot Pond in Stoneham, is a tributary to the Malden. The banks of the Malden are heavily developed, particularly below Medford Square, where much of the land is zoned for industrial activity. Flow in the lower portion of the river (below Malden Square) is controlled by the Amelia Earhart Dam. .

Figure 61: Malden River Subbasin Outfalls

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• The Little Creek tributary has a strong smell of petroleum. • Litter is a huge problem in the Malden River. The eastern shore is probably home to the largest, most dense collection of floating debris in the Mystic watershed. • There is evidence of dumping in the stretch of the river opposite the former General Electric parcel. • The booms constructed to contain run-off from the former Telecom City development were observed to be overflowing with trash and in poor repair.

132 • Several private docks are situated on the west bank, indicating some interest in use of the river. • The shoreline is clogged with dense Phragmites on the lower portion of the river.

Mystic River 2 Subbasin

The Mystic River 2 subbasin extends from the Amelia Earhart Dam to its discharge into Boston Harbor. This reach of the river is tidal and is composed of saltwater except for inputs of freshwater from the Mystic River from upstream of the dam, from Island End River, and from Chelsea Creek. Land-use and water-use in the subbasin are markedly different from upstream of the dam. About 44% of the land in the subbasin is used for industry and transportation (vs. approximately 10% upstream of the dam) and of the remainder only about 16% is open space (vs. about 32% upstream of the dam).

Many industries occupy riverfront properties, including a major coal/oil-fired power station (Sithe Mystic), a gypsum-processing plant, a natural gas facility, and a shipping terminal. Large, ocean-going cargo ships, which deliver oil, coal, liquefied natural gas, gypsum, automobiles and other products, are major users of the river. Recreational boaters also use the river as a means of accessing Boston Harbor. Much of the waterfront in this subbasin is a Designated Port Area, which limits land uses to waterfront-dependent activities. Not all of this stretch could be surveyed due access restrictions and safety factors.

Notable observations by surveyors in this subwatershed include:

• A large volume of oil and grease was observed to flow into the Island End River from outfalls at its mouth. • A visible oil sheen and petroleum odors are present at many outfall pipes in this stretch. • Many outfall pipes on the eastern bank directly below the Amelia Earhart dam are in disrepair. • Large-scale dumping was observed in the area adjacent to the MBTA tracks near Draw 7 Park in Somerville. • Draw 7 Park was observed to be very popular with fisherman, particularly at times when striped bass were present.

Chelsea Creek Subbasin

Mill Creek, the headwaters to Chelsea Creek, rises out of a wetland area along the Revere/Chelsea border, runs due east and then turns 90 degrees to the south where it becomes Chelsea Creek. The Chelsea/Mill Creek system drains parts of Everett, Revere, Chelsea, and East Boston before discharging to the Mystic River just upstream of Boston Harbor (Figure 2- 10). The Chelsea Creek subbasin is one of the most urbanized in the Mystic watershed. Only 9.5% of the subbasin is preserved as open space, compared to 27% for the watershed as a whole.

Much of the land along Chelsea Creek is zoned for industrial use and transportation, which greatly limits local access to the river. For example, there are several fuel tank-farms in Chelsea

133 and East Boston that are served by barges and large, ocean-going tanker vessels. Like the lower Mystic, Chelsea Creek waterfront is a Designated Port Area.

• Several pipes with dry flows and algae at their mouths were observed. • Phragmites grow densely at many spots on Chelsea and Mill Creeks. Japanese knotweed was also observed between Addison and Border Streets in Chelsea. • A great deal of dumping takes place, notable at the Parkway Plaza bridge. • A canoe launch is frequently used off Route 16 in Revere. • Two construction sites were noted where silt runoff was not properly controlled.

4.2 Water quality monitoring

4.2.1 Overview of Monitoring Programs

MyRWA regularly collects data through two volunteer-based monitoring programs, baseline monitoring and hotspot monitoring. MyRWA’s baseline program has been in operation since 2001, collecting data on a monthly basis from 10 sites in the freshwater portions of the watershed. The volunteer monitors collect monthly water samples for E. coli, dissolved oxygen, nutrients (total phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite), total suspended solids, and specific conductivity. In the field, they assess water temperature, water color, and water odor. The water samples are analyzed by MWRA, who donates the analysis of 12 samples per month (10 sites and two field duplicates, in keeping with our Quality Assurance Project Plan).

While the goal of the baseline program is to assess trends in water quality, the goal of MyRWA’s Hot Spot Monitoring program is to identify problem areas, sources, and to monitor changing conditions. The program largely focuses on sewage contamination, monitoring for fecal indicator bacteria and other indicators of sewage such as surfactants and optical brighteners (components of laundry detergents), ammonia, and phosphorus. The program receives support from the EPA, which donates the analysis of 12 – 25 bacteria samples each month. In addition to this, MyRWA received funding from Coastal Zone Management, a division of the EOEEA, to set up a microbiology lab at Tufts University to analyze our own bacteria samples. This lab gives us the flexibility to collect samples on short notice, which is often needed for wet weather monitoring. In addition to monitoring for bacteria, EPA donated $10,000 to MyRWA in 2007, to fund the analysis of samples through a commercial laboratory to monitor parameters such as surfactants, ammonia, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

With the advent of the Find It and Fix It Program, the Hot Spot program has benefited from the development of a model that uses a three-pronged approach to identifying and following up on water quality problems. The first piece is to identify problem areas, by conducting visual shoreline surveys and site reconnaissance. In shoreline surveys, volunteer surveyors were asked to document the location and condition of all outfall pipes and indicate any potential problems with non-point source pollution, such as excessive algae growth or the presence of oil and grease.

The second piece is to monitor the problem areas identified by the monitors. The information collected by volunteers in the shoreline surveys were used to develop sampling plans to monitor

134 bacteria and sewage contamination, nutrients and Chlorophyll a, and oil and grease. In addition to this, MyRWA conducted several special studies where initial monitoring efforts were not adequate to understand the nature of the problem. For example, when looking for potential locations of sewage contamination, we employed a bacteria source tracking strategy to pinpoint where the bacteria contamination originated and determine whether the source of the bacteria was sewage or animal. During one sampling event, MyRWA partnered with the EPA to collect water samples that were analyzed for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) such as codeine, caffeine, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, erythromycin, and amoxicillin. Wet weather monitoring was also conducted on several occasions to track the impact of storm water on in- stream water quality.

The final piece is to deliver our data to municipal officials, federal and state agencies, municipal Boards of Health, conservation commissions and other stakeholders including the public. Our primary method of communicating data is to disseminate analytical reports on water quality to municipalities and regulatory agencies. We use a phased data report distribution protocol, which first addresses the responsible municipal agency or property owner, and later releases the data to the public and to state and federal enforcement staff. This approach supports a cooperative effort with municipalities to investigate and correct very high bacteria loadings, while enhancing public awareness and enforcement oversight of the problems. MyRWA has also set up meetings with municipal town engineers and heads of Public Works Departments, which have been an effective method for disseminating our results and assisting with developing plans for further investigations. We have also given numerous presentations to several conservation commissions and public groups. These efforts are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3 Promoting BMPs.

4.2.2 Monitoring Design

While sites monitored for the Baseline Monitoring program do not change from month to month, a new sampling plan is designed for each monthly Hot Spot monitoring event. The Hot Spot monitoring program includes an in-kind donation from the EPA of lab services for analysis of bacterial samples, as well as funding to monitor for additional indicators of sewage contamination or nutrient loading.

Sites are selected for sampling in several ways. Below, several approaches to designing Hot Spot sampling plans are described in detail.

1. Routine Hot Spot Monitoring: Routine hot spot monitoring generally consists of tributary monitoring, spot checks at suspicious locations, and monitoring of problem areas identified in Find it and Fix it shoreline surveys which have identified numerous stream segments and suspicious outfall pipes. Samples are analyzed for E. coli or Enterococcus in the lab, while dissolved oxygen, water temperature, specific conductivity, and salinity are measured in the field.

2. Bacteria Source Tracking: The goal of this sampling design is to determine the source of bacteria contamination into surface water bodies. High bacteria counts provide a strong indication that sewage contamination is present, but it is helpful to have multiple data points when presenting a problem to municipal representatives or enforcement agencies.

135

If high bacteria counts are obtained in a tributary centerline sample, the first step is to pinpoint where the problem likely originates. When drainage maps are available for the stream, the locations of outfalls that could be a source of bacteria are identified and outfall pipe samples are collected. If the source still cannot be pinpointed, a stream walk is needed to note conditions throughout the tributary. The coordinates of all outfall pipes needing to be sampled are documented with a GPS unit, and notes are made on where a sewage smell or other indications of contamination are detected.

If necessary, samples are also tested for other sewage indicators. For example, a smell of laundry detergents may be detected at a flowing outfall pipe, but the sample does not have a high bacteria count. Testing for optical brighteners and surfactants, which are both components of laundry detergents, can be an informative analysis. Ammonia and potassium sampling can also indicate whether human waste is present, as a ratio of ammonia to potassium greater than 0.6 is indicative of a human source (Brown, et al., 2004).

3. Wet Weather Monitoring & Storm Sampling: Wet weather and storm sampling events provide information on how bacteria levels change during and immediately after a storm event. Data from the baseline program provide possible stream segments for wet weather monitoring, as several sites have been documented as having exceptionally poor water quality immediately following a storm. For example, the Malden River is one of these sites, and because it is heavily used by crew teams and fisherman it is a priority for monitoring. MyRWA's wet weather definition is 0.25 inches of rain in 48 hours.

4. Chlorophyll a and nutrients: The Mystic Watershed Assessment Report and Action Plan, data from our baseline monitoring program and observations from shoreline surveys have indicated that nutrient loading is a pressing problem in the watershed. Information gathered from shoreline surveys were used to develop a sampling plan to document a snapshot of algae conditions throughout the watershed, primarily concentrating on ponds in the watershed. A group of volunteer monitors was trained in proper collection techniques, and they collected Chlorophyll a samples as well as nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, and salinity. The results were used to prioritize locations for intensive monitoring during the 2008 field season.

5. Oil and grease: The presence of sheen was a common observation during the visual shoreline surveys. We developed a sampling plan to collect water samples at each site identified by the monitors as having excessive oil sheen on the water.

4.2.3 Water Quality Monitoring Results

QAPP revisions – A revision of MyRWA’s Quality Assurance Project Plan was required because the Find It and Fix It Program was dependant upon the ability to monitor for various non-point source pollutants that previously had not been sampled (Appendix A). A section entitled “Non- Point Source Assessments” was therefore added, which details general procedures for collecting water samples. In addition, a table listing numeric action levels and data quality objectives was included for each parameter, with citations to the relevant literature.

136

Mainstem & Tributary Monitoring – Using a combination of the various sampling plans designed above, MyRWA conducted monitoring along the mainstem of the Mystic River as well as at each of the major tributaries to the Mystic River over the course of the three-year project. The results of representative studies are discussed below.

Mystic River: MyRWA conducted two wet weather monitoring events in the mainstem of the Mystic (Appendix I). The first set of data was collected on May 28, 2008, on the day following a known CSO event on Alewife Brook (it is not known whether other CSOs discharged that day). Bacteria levels were elevated at most sample locations; twelve out of thirteen samples were above the State Swimming Standard and nine out of thirteen samples were above the State Boating Standard. In general, bacteria levels increased from the Amelia Earhart Dam (MYR29) to Medford Center (MYR53), where the bacteria concentration peaked sharply (from 6,212 to 111,990 cfu/100 mL). Continuing upstream the bacteria began to decline, with a notable drop- off in levels immediately upstream of Alewife Brook.

MyRWA collected additional data during an intense rainstorm on July 24, 2008. Although water quality was less impaired than in the previous monitoring event, a similar pattern was seen with bacteria levels generally increasing towards MYR53, near Medford Center, and then decreasing upstream with a sharp drop-off in levels immediately upstream of Alewife Brook. Nine out of eleven samples failed to meet the State Swimming Standard, and seven out of eleven samples exceeded the State Boating Standard.

Conclusions and Follow-up Work Needed: One possible source of the peak in bacteria levels at Medford Center is the Alewife CSO that discharged the day prior. Another possible source is an SSO near Medford Center that has discharged raw sewage to the Mystic River in recent rainstorms. Monitoring stormwater outfall pipes in addition to collecting centerline samples from tributaries and the mainstem of the Mystic River will help to clarify where bacteria loading to the system may originate.

Aberjona River: Monthly monitoring in MyRWA’s baseline program has shown there to be significant water quality impairments in wet weather in the Aberjona River system, and in dry weather problems are seen as well. Three sites are monitored on the Aberjona River: ABR006 near the outlet to Upper Mystic Lake, ABR028 at Washington Street in Winchester, and ABR049 at Salem Street in Woburn. Water quality varies from month to month at each site, with greater impairments usually seen at ABR049, but ABR006 often exceeds State Swimming and Boating Standards during monthly monitoring.

A first centerline survey of the Aberjona River was conducted in March 2006 during dry weather, with all eight samples meeting the State Swimming Standard (Appendix I). During a dry weather survey in April 2006, moderate levels of bacterial contamination ranging from 74 – 369 cfu/100 mL were observed. Bacteria levels were slightly lower overall in upstream samples, rising above the State Swimming Standard at ABR028 near Washington Street. Slightly elevated bacteria levels were observed from one pipe sample that was collected.

137 A similar pattern was observed in twelve centerline samples collected on February 20, 2007 from the Aberjona River, Hall’s Brook, Snyder Creek, and two unnamed tributaries. In the Aberjona, water quality was better and passed State Swimming Standards in the three upstream sites (ABR064, ABR061, and ABR058). Further downstream, the Aberjona failed to meet State Swimming Standard at four of five sites, but met State Boating Standards for boating at all sites. Of the four tributaries tested, Hall’s Brook was the only one to fail state water quality standards for swimming. At this site, more than 100 waterfowl were observed near the brook; fecal matter from the birds may have contributed to the result (1,045 cfu/100 mL E. coli).

Samples were collected in wet weather from additional tributaries and pipes draining into the Aberjona River. One sample had bacteria levels elevated above the State Boating Standards (SUNSET 1,460 cfu/100 mL). Out of the other eight samples, two were slightly above the primary contact standard.

Conclusions and Follow-up Work Needed: Overall, results from MyRWA’s Aberjona River monitoring in wet and dry weather have not led to a discovery of the source of contamination observed during baseline monitoring. If funding can be secured, MyRWA plans to conduct additional wet weather monitoring efforts along the length of the Aberjona River to track the source of contamination.

Horn Pond Brook: A centerline study of Horn Pond Brook was conducted June 25, 2008 to pinpoint the source of elevated bacteria levels observed in a spot check of several sites along the brook in October 2007 (Appendix I). The study was conducted after two consecutive days of rain, and each of the twelve samples failed to meet the State Swimming Standard. In general, water quality was consistent along the length of the brook with the exception of WIN037, a culvert that drains Russell Brook into Horn Pond Brook. Russell Brook originates in Woburn and has been routed underground along its entire length. The bacterial level at this site was 1,954 cfu/100 mL, considerably higher than the other eleven samples collected from Horn Pond Brook. In addition to high bacteria levels, a strong odor of a petroleum hydrocarbon product was present during the time of sampling.

Conclusions and Follow-up Work Needed: Each outfall pipe along Horn Pond Brook was marked with GPS during a stream walk along the entire length of the brook, but no pipes appeared suspicious during the survey. The source of bacteria observed in the October 2007 survey therefore could not be determined. MyRWA plans to meet with representatives from Winchester to discuss possible sources of bacterial contamination to Horn Pond Brook in the fall of 2009.

Mill Brook: MyRWA’s monthly monitoring of water quality in Mill Brook has indicated that the water is generally impaired for swimming and boating in both wet and dry weather. The monthly monitoring site is located at MIB001, near the outlet of Mill Brook to Lower Mystic Lake. The goal of MyRWA’s monitoring efforts through Find It and Fix It was to better understand where in Mill Brook the bacteria contamination originated in wet and dry weather. One survey was conducted in dry weather to document background bacteria levels and another was done in wet weather to monitor non-point source loadings of bacteria (Appendix I).

138 In June 2006, a centerline and pipe survey was conducted during wet weather with egregiously high bacteria counts observed at several sites. Ten sites were sampled and nine of these had bacteria levels elevated above secondary contact standards. Only one pipe sampled met both State Swimming and Boating Standards. Two pipes had bacteria levels that exceeded the maximum detection limit (>241,960 MPN/100 mL), ARL043 and ARL203, owned by the Town of Arlington. Centerline samples collected near these pipes had elevated bacteria levels. In addition, samples collected downstream of ARL026 and ARL027, pipes that have been found to be extremely contaminated during previous sampling events - also had elevated bacteria levels suggesting that these pipes continue to be a source of bacteria.

In December 2006 fourteen centerline samples and ten pipe samples were collected from Mill and Sickle Brooks. Overall, bacteria levels were extremely elevated in centerline and pipe samples. Of the fourteen centerline samples, 79% failed to meet State Swimming Standards and another 27% failed to meet State Boating Standards as well. Of the pipe samples, 60% failed State Swimming Standards and 30% failed State Boating Standards. The most contaminated pipe sample was collected at ARL207, with a bacteria count of 41,060 cfu/100 mL. Centerline samples collected downstream of this site were also contaminated, though water quality improved further downstream. The most contaminated centerline sample, MIB030, was near the intersection with Sickle Brook and upstream of the dirty pipes. The source of contamination at this site is not clear from this study, since samples collected upstream in Mill and Sickle Brooks were both clean. However, previous monitoring of a pipe owned by Lexington just upstream of MIB030 in January 2006 indicated severely elevated bacteria levels (547,500 cfu / 100 mL), which may be the source of contamination.

Conclusions and Follow-up Work Needed: The overall conclusion from our sampling at Sickle and Mill Brooks is that severe problems with sewage contamination exist in both dry and wet weather. The Town of Arlington is currently under orders from MassDEP to remediate the problems at Mill Brook, largely a result of MyRWA’s monitoring and reporting of persistent problems. MyRWA have been in contact with the town and plans to conduct a follow-up survey of the tributaries and their stormwater outfall pipes to monitor whether satisfactory water quality improvements are seen as a result.

Alewife Brook: While significant improvements in water quality have been made on Alewife Brook in the past ten years, eight CSOs remain in operation along the brook and sites with severely impaired water quality during wet weather has been documented in MyRWA’s Baseline monitoring program. MyRWA’s goal for monitoring Alewife Brook was to isolate hot spots in bacteria loadings during dry and wet weather other than the eight CSOs that have obvious impacts on water quality (Appendix I).

MyRWA began the project with a centerline survey of Alewife Brook and Little River in September 2005 immediately following a rain event. Widespread water quality impairments were observed in Alewife Brook, particularly between ALB007 and ALB005, roughly between Broadway and Dilboy Field. Alewife Brook near the confluence with Little River was also impaired, though water quality was better overall in Little River than the Alewife. Two of three sites on Little River failed to meet the primary contact water quality standard, but all sites did

139 meet the secondary contact standard. At Alewife Brook, two sites failed to meet the primary contact standard while seven out of nine sites failed to meet both standards.

In January 2006, MyRWA conducted a survey of outfall pipes in dry weather to track potential sources of bacteria contamination to the system. Upstream of ALB007, ARL013 and SOMD04 were found to be discharging bacteria more than 40 times greater than the State Boating Standard. SOMD07, just downstream of the Broadway bridge, was also discharging water contaminated with bacteria. These contaminated pipes are likely at least one source of the contamination observed in the brook in the 2005 survey.

In June of 2006, both centerline and outfall pipe samples were collected from Little River and Alewife Brook, again during dry weather. Previously untested pipes were added to the sampling plan to determine their effect on the tributaries. Centerline water quality was greatly improved over the previous centerline sample event during wet weather, with all samples meeting the secondary contact standard, though seven of seventeen sites failed to meet the primary contact standard. Similarly to the wet weather event, bacteria levels were elevated near Broadway, Mass Ave., and near the confluence with Little River. However, samples collected from flowing outfall pipes generally had lower levels of bacteria than surface grab samples collected in both Little River and Alewife Brook, with the exception of one pipe, MDC8(6), which was slightly elevated above the primary contact limit.

A follow-up pipe survey was conducted during dry weather in August 2007, with concerning results obtained from two outfall pipes. ARL029, the Arlington side of Alewife Brook across from Dilboy Field, had bacteria levels of 51,720 cfu/100 mL, an exceedance of the secondary contact standard by more than 41 times. This pipe was not sampled in the previous monitoring events. SOMD08 was more contaminated than in the sample collected the previous year, with a bacteria count of 5,199 cfu/100 mL. ARL029 was re-sampled in January 2008 and bacteria levels were vastly improved with a count of 568 cfu/100 mL but further monitoring of the pipe is needed since fluctuating bacteria levels are common even at contaminated pipes.

In July 2008, four centerline samples were collected from Alewife Brook and Little River during an intense rainstorm and each failed both primary and secondary contact standards for water quality, even though no CSO event had occurred (due to continuous heavy rain a CSO event occurred later that day). Contamination was most prevalent at ALB016 near the confluence of Alewife Brook with Little River.

Conclusions and Follow-up Work Needed: The overall conclusion that can be drawn from these monitoring events is that although CSOs are a problem on Alewife Brook, other sources of bacteria loadings make significant contributions to water quality impairments in both dry and wet weather. During dry weather, centerline water quality can often meet boating standards, although specific stormwater outfall pipes apparently prohibit water quality from meeting State Swimming Standards during dry weather. During wet weather, centerline samples rarely meet State Boating Standards. Polluted stormwater outfall pipes appear to be largely responsible for contamination in the tributaries, although fluctuating bacteria levels complicate the issue. Additional wet weather monitoring on Alewife Brook and the Mystic River following CSO

140 events will be helpful in understanding how contamination travels in the river, and for how long water quality is impaired following the events.

Malden River: The Malden River has been a focus of investigation due to elevated levels of bacteria observed in MyRWA’s monthly baseline monitoring program, which are particularly noticeable after rain events. MyRWA’s baseline site, MAR036, is located at the Medford St. bridge in Malden just upstream from the Tufts University boathouse, a heavily used recreational area. To better understand the bacterial loadings affecting the Malden River, MyRWA conducted three dry weather events and three wet weather events with several spot checks at particular pipes to follow up on elevated bacteria levels (Appendix I).

In November 2005, MyRWA conducted a dry weather centerline survey of the Malden River beginning at the culvert where the river daylights after being routed under Malden Center. Bacteria levels were highest in two pipes that discharge near where the river daylights. Samples collected downstream from these pipes were well within acceptable water quality standards. Samples collected immediately upstream and downstream of the baseline monitoring site both had acceptable levels of bacteria. A year later, additional dry weather monitoring was done in the lower half of the river below the baseline monitoring site, again resulting in relatively low levels of bacteria.

In March 2007, a survey of pipes and small tributaries was done along the lower reach of the Malden River in dry weather. Elevated levels of bacteria were detected in these samples, with five of the eleven samples exceeding the State Swimming Standard. The highest level of contamination was observed in a culvert feeding into the upstream portion of the reach, MAR19E, which also had high levels of bacteria during the November 2005 monitoring event.

Wet weather monitoring was conducted in the Malden in June 2007, February 2008, and March 2008. During the June 2007 event, samples were collected from five pipes clustered downstream of Malden Center, where the Malden River comes up from underground. These pipes were sampled hourly for five hours. Every pipe failed to meet State Swimming Standards and twenty one out of twenty five samples failed to meet the State Boating Standard. In two culverts (MAR19NW, and MARNEN) bacteria counts were thirty-eight times the secondary contact limit in three samples.

Interval sampling during wet weather was conducted again at four locations in the Malden River in order to track bacteria levels upstream and downstream of the sites sampled in June 2007. Sampling was conducted immediately following an intense rainstorm to monitor the length of time bacteria levels remained elevated after the ‘first flush.’ The site furthest upstream, MAC054, had the lowest levels of bacteria. In general contamination was highest at LIC003, a site on Little Creek near its outlet to the Malden River. A high level of sediment was also observed discharging from outfall pipes near LIC003. MyRWA’s monthly baseline monitoring site, MAR036, also had elevated bacteria levels particularly in the first hour of sampling. MARNEN, a pipe near Malden Center, had far lower levels of contamination than in the June sampling event.

141 MyRWA conducted follow-up sampling at Little Creek immediately following an intense rainstorm on March 5, 2008 to investigate the outfalls not tested in the February event. Plumes of thick sediment were again observed flowing from outfalls on the north and south banks of the creek. Bacteria levels were above state water quality standards at four locations on the creek: outfall pipes on the north and south banks, and the north and south culverts where Little Creek daylights at Commercial Ave. Water samples were also tested for surfactants, phosphorus, ammonia, and potassium. Bacteria levels were highest at LIC003N, the north culvert (Malden side of Little Creek, 8664 cfu / 100 mL). The next highest levels of bacteria contamination were detected at LICx02, an outfall on the north bank of Little Creek (Malden side, 4106 cfu / 100 mL). At LICx02, elevated levels of phosphorus and ammonia were detected.

The Little Creek pipes were monitored again in dry weather on April 23, 2008 and no indications of sewage contamination were observed. The two outfall pipes on the north and south banks of Little Creek were not flowing. E. coli levels were very low at the north culvert and undetectable at the south culvert. Surfactant and ammonia levels were also low.

The overall conclusion from the monitoring work conducted over the past three years in the Malden River and its immediate tributary, Little Creek, is that water quality is significantly impaired during wet weather (ie, usually exceeds the State Boating Standard) and is often moderately impaired during dry weather (ie, several outfall pipes and tributaries fail to meet the State Swimming Standard, though the mainstem generally meets standards). Impairments tend to be the worst immediately downstream of Malden Center, where the river daylights after flowing through a deep culvert, and considerably improves further downstream. The culvert that brings Little Creek (a tributary that now flows underground for most of its length) up from underground also is a hot spot for bacteria in wet weather.

Follow-up work needed: MyRWA’s Malden River baseline monitoring site, which has clear problems with elevated bacteria levels during wet weather, is upstream of Tufts University. Because this is a high use location on the river, it is imperative that the bacteria sources be eliminated. MyRWA has begun to engage Melrose and plans to meet with Malden in the fall of 2008 to discuss these results and encourage investigations into the sources of elevated bacteria.

Chelsea River / Mill Creek: MyRWA’s work on the Chelsea River and Mill Creek has largely focused on identifying and monitoring contaminated stormwater outfall pipes. Previous investigations have indicated that bacterial water quality in the Chelsea River is generally good in dry weather, but in wet weather is impaired from bacterial loadings and other non-point source pollutants. MyRWA conducted extensive field surveys of the Chelsea River and Mill Creek to catalog all outfall pipes with suspicious flows and signs of sewage contamination. Once all suspicious pipes were identified and marked with GPS during shoreline surveys, outfall pipe monitoring events were undertaken to first identify pipes contributing to bacterial loadings. Scheduling wet weather monitoring for the outfall pipes along the Chelsea River proved to be difficult, since surveys needed to occur during low tide in order to access the pipes and it was challenging to align suitable wet weather events with appropriate tides. The results discussed here are therefore our dry weather outfall pipe results (Appendix I).

142 During a dry weather monitoring event in March 2006 samples were collected from several pipes, including two CSOs, and tested for Enterococcus and E. coli. Since these outfall pipes generally discharge a combination of seawater and freshwater from the stormwater drainage system, we hoped to gain a better understanding of which parameter would be best for detecting potential sewage contamination. Overall, the Enterococcus tests appeared to be more sensitive and a better choice for most of the pipes tested. Three of eight pipes had elevated levels of E. coli, and two of these were elevated above the State Swimming Standard. These two outfall pipes, REVx06 and REVx07, are located on Mill Creek near Route 16 in Revere. REVx07 was also tested for Enterococcus but did not exceed water quality standards for the parameter. Further downstream on the Chelsea River, the Chelsea CSO # 08 was also tested for both parameters, and exceeded Enterococcus standards for swimming and boating. Although the bacteria levels are relatively low compared to what a CSO can potentially discharge during an overflow event, the fact that water quality was poor at this pipe during dry weather points to a problem that needs to be addressed. BOS014 and BOS014E both exceeded bacterial water quality standards due to elevated Enterococcus as well. BOS014 is also a CSO and discharges near Channel Fish. A storm drain near the Condor St. Urban Wild in Chelsea, a popular recreational area, was also found to be contaminated.

These pipes and several others were tested for Enterococcus several months later in November, 2006. Seventy-five percent of twelve samples failed to meet State Standards for Swimming; fifty-eight percent of the twelve samples also failed to meet secondary contact standards. CHEx10, an outfall pipe in a newly constructed wetland in Chelsea, was the highest of the twelve samples. CHEx03, which had met State Standards for Swimming and Boating during the March sampling event, failed to meet both water quality standards in November. At a later date, MyRWA monitors conducted a routine site visit to Mill Creek and detected signs of sewage contamination. After reporting the event to the Chelsea Department of Public Works, MyRWA learned that a sanitary sewer overflow had occurred at the site. Follow-up monitoring of CHEx10 and CHEx08, two pipes in this area, have confirmed that sewage contamination is an on-going problem on this segment of Mill Creek. On MyRWA’s request, the EPA conducted sampling of these two pipes on pharmaceuticals and primary care products and confirmed elevated levels of a suite of parameters at both outfall pipes. Chelsea is currently under an order from the MassDEP to correct the sanitary sewer overflow to Mill Creek, with plans for remediation to be complete in the fall of 2008.

In a final round of sampling, pipes along Mill Creek and the Chelsea River were again tested for both E. coli and Enterococcus. Again, Enterococcus tests were more sensitive to elevated bacterial concentrations. Several new pipes, identified through additional shoreline surveys, were tested for Enterococcus. All but one of the new pipes met State Swimming and Boating Standards; the one failure of the standards occurred at CHEx19, a pipe on Mill Creek. At the pipes tested during previous sampling events, no new patterns were observed.

Chlorophyll a and nutrients – MyRWA monitors nutrient levels through the Baseline monitoring program on a monthly basis in the Mystic River and its tributaries in order to track trends. Overall, the results from the nutrient testing indicate widespread problems with elevated nutrient levels. To understand conditions in other sites not monitored in the baseline monitoring program, MyRWA conducted

143 a survey of nutrients and Chlorophyll a throughout ponds of the Mystic watershed and three sites on the Mystic River to assess water quality conditions on a single day. These data would be used to develop a program for more intensively monitoring Chlorophyll a conditions on a regular basis. Data such as these are needed in order to advocate for BMPs to be implemented to better manage nutrient loadings, and to communicate to state and federal regulators that proper oversight of water quality impairments due to elevated nutrients is a priority.

In August and September of 2007, volunteers collected water samples at 27 sites that included lakes, ponds, and rivers (Figure 3). Water samples were analyzed for total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrite, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and specific conductivity. The results were compared to several water quality benchmarks suggested by EPA and MWRA.

This sampling event found elevated Chlorophyll a and nutrient concentrations throughout the watershed (Appendix I). Chlorophyll a values ranged from 2.3 µg/L at Spot Pond to 4,400 µg/L at Upper Mystic Lake near the outlet of the Aberjona River4 (Table 2). Total phosphorous values were also high, ranging from 10 µg /L (Spot Pond, Upper Mystic Lake at the dam, Spy Pond, Lower Mystic Lake, and Horn Pond) to 650 µg /L at Upper Mystic Lake at the outlet of the Aberjona River. Nitrogen levels were high, though not as consistently as total phosphorous.

All Chlorophyll a samples failed to meet the EPA’s recommended criteria of 2.0 µg/L Chlorophyll a for lakes in nutrient ecoregion XIV. 41% of all samples were above the value MWRA cites as excessive algae growth of 25 µg/L Chlorophyll a. Six sites were more than 10 times above this MWRA level (Little Pond, Fellesmere Pond, Blair Pond, Upper Mystic Lake at the outlet of the Aberjona, and the Mystic River 29S and 37S).

The majority of all total phosphorous samples were above the EPA’s recommended criteria of 0.01 mg/L for both lakes and rivers. Two sites were more than 10 times greater than this EPA level (Wedge Pond and the Upper Mystic Lake near the outlet of the Aberjona River). Of the 27 nitrate-nitrite samples, 26% were above the EPA’s recommended criteria for rivers of 0.31 mg/L. Upper Mystic Lake near the outlet of the Aberjona River had the highest nitrate-nitrite result, while Hall’s Brook Holding Pond had the highest total Kjeldahl nitrogen results. 82% of all samples failed to meet the EPA’s suggested water quality criteria for total Kjeldahl nitrogen in lakes (0.43 mg/L).

Chlorophyll a levels were most strongly correlated with total phosphorous (r2 = 0.83) and slightly less so with nitrate-nitrite (r2 = 0.66), but weakly correlated with total Kjeldahl nitrogen (r2 = 0.30). This result makes sense given that freshwater ecosystems are generally phosphorus- limited. Based on these results it appears that decreasing the amount of total phosphorous available in the water column would presumably decrease the amount of algal growth.

In this snapshot of water quality conditions in the watershed, the most problematic site was the Upper Mystic Lake near the outlet of the Aberjona River. This site had the highest Chlorophyll a, total phosphorous, nitrate-nitrite, and the third highest total Kjeldahl nitrogen. These

4 The extremely high value for Chlorophyll a obtained from Upper Mystic Lake at the outlet of the Aberjona River (more than 30 times greater than the next highest value) may be considered an outlier. Further testing is needed to confirm whether the value of 4,400 µg/l is an anomaly.

144 conditions were not mirrored at the opposite end of the lake near the Mystic Lakes dam, where Chlorophyll a and total phosphorous levels were among the lowest of all the sites sampled (4.69 µg/L and 0.01 mg/L, respectively). Near the dam, total phosphorous met the EPA recommended criteria of 0.0238 mg/L. Nitrate-nitrite was high at this end of the lake compared to other sites though it was substantially lower than in the upper part of the lake.

The site with the best water quality according to the parameters measured was Spot Pond; this site had the lowest Chlorophyll a, nitrate-nitrite, and total phosphorous and the third lowest value for total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Because Spot Pond is surrounded largely by forested land it is less affected by urban stormwater runoff, and so better water quality is to be expected. The pond was selected due to its usefulness in providing reference conditions, since it is the least impacted by anthropogenic influences of any water body in the Mystic watershed.

At Wedge Pond, nutrient levels were among the highest while Chlorophyll a levels were among the lowest. Considering the correlation between total phosphorous and Chlorophyll a, this is a surprising result. Volunteers monitoring this site noted the presence of a sign describing a recent chemical treatment of the water to reduce algae, which explains this discrepancy.

Water quality conditions in the mainstem of the Mystic River did not increase or decrease consistently among samples collected upstream to downstream. Instead, high levels of nutrients and Chlorophyll a occurred in patches. The highest Chlorophyll a, total phosphorous, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen levels of the three sample sites were observed at MYR37S, in between the other two Mystic River sample sites. MYR37S is downstream of the outlets of Winter and Twopenny Brooks in Medford, sites known to have problems with sewage contamination. The most upstream site, MYR57S, had the highest nitrate-nitrite levels. This site is downstream of Meetinghouse Brook. All three sites failed to meet the EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorous while only the two upstream sites exceeded MWRA’s Chlorophyll a indicator value of excessive algae growth.

The results of this study, though only a snapshot of conditions in a single day, confirm that elevated nutrient levels are a significant problem in the watershed. Nearly all the ponds MyRWA surveyed exhibited the need for BMPs to reduce the input of nutrients to the watershed. The contributions of tributaries, outfall pipes, and non-point sources of nutrients to poor water quality in the Mystic River need to be further investigated as well. Once the relative contribution of nutrients from specific tributaries is better understood, MyRWA can work with municipalities to set priorities for developing BMPs to minimize algae blooms in the watershed.

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Monitoring – In response to observations of oil sheen on various water bodies in the watershed during shoreline surveys, MyRWA collected water samples to quantify concentrations and identify petroleum hydrocarbons in the water. Two studies were conducted: the first was an investigation of heavy oil slicks observed on the Island End River, and the second was a survey of petroleum hydrocarbon hot spots throughout the watershed.

145 Island End River

At the north end of the Island End River, problems with oil slicks were often noted during MyRWA shoreline surveys and site visits over the past 8 years. Literature searches and discussions with public officials indicated that these problems had been observed in the area for many years. Based on the available information, MyRWA determined these oil slicks to be one of the worst problems in the Island End River and decided to collect water quality data to provide for possible enforcement.

The oil slicks appeared to originate from four pipes at the north end of the river. Large amounts of oil were observed on multiple occasions from one of these pipes, and smaller amounts, less often, from the others. Two sampling events were conducted to attempt to identify the substances discharging from the pipes, and to learn whether the same hydrocarbons were consistently being discharged.

Methods. Samples were collected from four pipes in the north end of the Island End River in Chelsea. The dimensions, problems, and sources of each pipe are described in detail below.

CHEx02 is an approximately 8-ft pipe of corrugated metal. Based on available maps, MyRWA suspects this pipe is connected to a stormwater detention pond on the Exxon-Mobil site in Everett. Elevated levels of bacteria have been previously observed at this pipe, though a determination of the source has not been made. In addition, hydrocarbon products have been observed on previous occasions but these were not analyzed in the lab.

CHEx15 is a 14-ft corrugated metal pipe. Bacteria samples have been collected extensively at this site and results show extremely high loads of bacteria. During the March 2nd sampling event a slick was observed on water flowing out of the pipe. This pipe has been confirmed to be connected to storm drains in Everett and Chelsea.

These two large pipes are directly adjacent to one another and are flanked on either side by two 12” pipes, CHEx14 and CHEx16. Both pipes are local street drains from Beacham St. in Chelsea. Bacteria problems have not been observed at these pipes, but water polluted with hydrocarbons have been regularly observed at the pipes during monitoring events.

On March 2, 2007, end-of-pipe samples were taken by a MyRWA volunteer. Samples were taken at four pipes: CHEx02, CHEx14, CHEx15, and CHEx16. Sampling was again conducted on April 16, 2007at CHEx02, the pipe with the worst appearance and the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons.

Procedures. Samples were collected from the surface of the water in a wide mouth 1-liter amber bottle over approximately 15-20 seconds. Sample preservation, transport, and holding times were conducted following the protocol of our EPA- and DEP-approved QAPP. Analysis of each sample was conducted at Alpha Analytical Laboratories.

146 Each sampling event was conducted following a large rain event. Greater than 1.7” of rain fell prior to and during the sampling event on March 2, 2007. On April 16, 2007, 3” of rain fell in the 30 hours prior to the sampling.

Results

Results from both sampling events are summarized in Tables 19 and 20. Salinity data from both sampling events indicate that water sampled from the pipes was not sea water that had entered pipes on the previous tide. Water collected from pipes was therefore recent runoff.

The March 2, 2007, hydrocarbon analysis indicates that gasoline and #6 fuel oil were discharging from CHEx02, which had the thickest and heaviest oil discharge of the four pipes sampled. Chromatography results of the other three pipes indicated the presence of gasoline and other heavy oils.

Results from the April 16, 2007, sampling event of CHEx02 indicated the presence of different hydrocarbons: #2 diesel fuel and other heavy oils. The appearance of the slick on this sampling date differed by the addition of dark brown, tarry globules ranging from 0.25” – 2” in diameter. The second sample taken in this thicker, lumpy flow exceeded the DEP 15 mg/l reporting limit.

We reported our data to the MassDEP, emphasizing our interest in a thorough investigation. Later that year, the Exxon facility NPDES permit was scheduled for renewal and MyRWA offered comments in support of stringent revisions of the permit. MyRWA believes this stringent permit is needed to ensure that all sources of petroleum products entering the watershed from the ExxonMobil site are identified, that a comprehensive plan is developed to abate and prevent the discharge of petroleum products to the ground and surface waters and that a rapid and rigorous timeline for achieving this plan is adhered to. Final determination of this permit is still pending.

147 Table 18: Results of April 16 hydrocarbon sampling, from Alpha Analytical Laboratories.

Petroleum Pipe Coordinates Total Hydrocarbo H2O Petroleum DO Sample Date Site ID n Temp, DO mg/l Salinity (ppt) Time Hydrocarbon (%sat) Identificatio C s (mg/l) n gasoline and AA001 CHEx15 3450 heavy 3.6 97.4 12.86 0.5 13:46 42.3944 71.0496 waste/lube oil 3 9 gasoline and AA002 CHEx02 5380 2.8 93.1 12.55 0.5 14:05 42.3944 71.0497 #6 fuel oil 4 8 gasoline and AA003 CHEx02 4260 3.6 94.6 12.37 1.7 14:59 42.3944 71.0497 #6 fuel oil 3 2 gasoline and AA004 CHEx14 2420 heavy 3.3 95.0 12.70 0.1 15:10 42.3944 71.0497 waste/lube oil 7 5 gasoline and AA005 CHEx16 2870 heavy 5.1 81.9 10.20 3.3 15:23 42.3944 71.0496 waste/lube oil 3 9

Table 19: Results of April 16 hydrocarbon sampling, from Alpha Analytical Laboratories.

Total Petroleum H2O Sample Petroleum DO DO Salinity Site ID Hydrocarbon Temp, Time Pipe Coordinates Date Hydrocarbons (%sat) mg/l (ppt) Identification C (mg/l) #2 diesel fuel; 4/16/2007 CHEx02 9.92 other heavy 7.3 96.2 11.49 1.1 14:50 42.39443 71.0498 oils 4/16/2007 CHEx02 15.2 #2 diesel fuel 7.4 97.1 11.59 1.2 15:16 42.39443 71.0498

148 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Hot Spots

During shoreline surveys throughout the watershed, MyRWA received numerous observations of oil and grease sheen on the water. In a monitoring event in August 2007, eighteen samples were collected in attempts to quantify and identify petroleum hydrocarbon products observed in the water.

Although sheen was clearly visible, none of the samples collected exceeded MassDEP’s limit. Values ranged from non-detect to 2,200 μg/L. The highest concentration of petroleum product was observed at CHEx16, one of the pipes sampled during the April 16, 2007 event. The petroleum hydrocarbon identification confirmed the presence of #6 fuel oil. The only other sample with enough petroleum product for identification was collected at EVE, a site in Everett along the Malden River. The product was confirmed to be #6 fuel diesel oil, at a concentration of 1280 μg/L. Neither of these samples exceeded the DEP limit of 15 mg/L.

Monitoring petroleum hydrocarbon hot spots provided important information on the quantity of product in the water. In comparing both the aesthetic properties of the water (i.e., oil sheen on the water) and the numeric concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon product determined through sampling, MyRWA determined that of the regions monitored during the August 2007 event, the most persistent oil and grease problems are at the Malden River, the Island End River, and the Chelsea River.

4.3 Promoting BMPs

4.3.1 Outfall Mapping

MyRWA has constructed a comprehensive database of outfalls for most of the Watershed. Hundreds of outfalls line the shores of a dense urban watershed like the Mystic. A major challenge of the shoreline survey work was to catalogue the information that was gathered to make it accessible and useful. MyRWA feels that evaluating the Watershed’s outfalls in a systemic way and keeping track of this information is a critical step in addressing non-point source pollution.

To move towards this, MyRWA constructed a database of all the outfalls found by volunteers in the shoreline survey process (Figure 62). The initial version of this database contains the location of the outfall (marked by GPS), one or more photos, identifying marks (e.g., who owns it), and any relevant observations about the water quality (Figure 63). The scope of this data management effort is quite large and it consumed significant resources on the FIFI projects. However, we feel it serves several critical functions:

• An analysis tool to prioritize outfalls for testing and to analyze geographic relationships; • A repository for MyRWA’s sampling data, enabling searches across different sampling events, wet and dry weather, various water quality parameters; • A means of communicating with municipalities and regulators about what is happening, when and where; • An outreach tool, as we have made portions of this database available to the public (http://www.paddleboston.com/myrwa/myrwage.php - Chelsea (Figure 63), Arlington).

149 Figure 62: MyRWA’s Outfall Database

150 Figure 63: Entry in MyRWA’s Outfall Database

151 Figure 64: Outfall Database in GoogleEarth

A major task in this effort was to research the ownership and names of the outfalls. The first step was comparing the MyRWA-generated maps with municipal outfall maps. When communicating with cities and towns about problem pipes, we have found it is critical to identify them by the municipality’s nomenclature. Typically, we have found that about half of the outfalls we find for a given city’s shoreline appear on that city’s map. The rest may belong to MassHighway, DCR, MWRA, the MBTA, or private entities. Compiling this information is a difficult exercise which is complicated by the use of many different technology platforms by various entities.

MyRWA views this database as a work in process. Data will constantly be scrubbed and added. The technologies used thus far include Microsoft Access, Excel with extensive macros, and GoogleEarth for data presentation. Over time, MyRWA hopes to migrate the system to a Web platform to ease the import and export of data and to link to our Website. It is our hope that, over time, we will also be able to incorporate water sampling data from cities and towns, the EPA, MassDEP, MWRA and others to make a comprehensive, and ultimately very useful, analysis tool.

152 4.3.2 Political Advocacy

MyRWA supported the development of municipal codes and bylaws to promote better stormwater management practices in the Watershed. Based on discussions with municipal planners and Conservation Commissioners, MyRWA included a session on stormwater utilities in our 2008 BMP Conference. Several cities or towns in the watershed are investigating utilities as a means of funding stormwater infrastructure improvements, so MyRWA facilitated a session in which legal experts discussed the process and officials from the town of Reading shared their experiences in developing and implementing a utility there. MyRWA also assisted in the promotion of a stormwater bylaw which was passed in the town of Arlington in 2007.

MyRWA has also developed links with local Departments of Public Health (DPHs) to share information about issues related to non-point source pollution. MyRWA developed a dialog with DPH officials in several cities and towns to communicate issues found during FIFI. For instance, information from our water testing program has led to safety signage and the temporary closure of public-use areas of the watershed numerous times (Appendix H). Issues which we have brought to the attention of local authorities include elevated fecal coliform levels and high cyanobacteria concentrations.

Another example of this relationship is the work which MyRWA and area DPH’s have done on fish toxicity. Having observed many fisherman in the river (via shoreline surveys and others sources), MyRWA promoted an analysis of fish toxicity. The results of this study indicated a public heath risk. MyRWA subsequently worked with several DPH’s to educate the public about this risk, including press releases and the posting of signage in various languages at the places where the most fishing has been observed (Appendix H).

4.3.3 Tributary Monitoring Follow-up

MyRWA employed several methods to ensure that the results of monitoring reached the appropriate parties so that corrective actions could be taken. As a first step, the results from all monitoring events were analyzed to produce technical data reports. In the summer of 2007, we revised our technical report format on the advice of members of MyRWA’s committee on water quality. Our old reports consisted of a simple spreadsheet showing the monitoring results, site descriptions, and general maps of the sampling area. The new reports contain a more thorough analysis of the results, charts and tables, maps and detailed site descriptions including GPS coordinates, and photos or other supporting documentation. In addition, the reports have a citable report number and title. Following our distribution protocol, MyRWA released the reports first to the pertinent heads of municipal DPWs, town/city engineers, and Boards of Health. After 30 days, the data reports were sent to relevant conservation commissions, state and federal regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders such as non- profits with an interest in the data. Releasing reports often generates questions and requests for further information from municipalities or their consultants, and in other cases officials informed us of projects initiated to address water quality problems.

In some cases, MyRWA held meetings with municipalities to discuss the monitoring results and make recommendations for further investigations or educational opportunities. In the meetings, MyRWA staff summarized results from bacterial monitoring, Chlorophyll a sampling, problems with oil and grease, and sedimentation. These meetings were generally highly productive and are described briefly below for each municipality.

153

Melrose: In the late summer of 2007, MyRWA provided the City of Melrose with data indicating an on-going bacteria contamination problem at a 36” corrugated steel pipe that drains a culverted tributary to Ell Pond. MyRWA collected several samples at this site in recent years showing fecal indicator bacteria (E. coli) in the hundreds of thousands – many times in exceedence of the water quality standards for swimming and boating. MyRWA set up a meeting with representatives from the DPW to discuss the potential sources of contamination. One major outcome of the meeting was to develop a strategy for tracking inputs of bacteria in the stormwater drainage system upstream from the culvert to pinpoint the origin of contamination. MyRWA conducted the monitoring on 12/18/2007 with the help of the Melrose DPW. Four manholes were tested in the Tremont Street drainage area. Unfortunately, the actual culvert draining to Ell Pond could not be sampled because the water was frozen. The bacterial results from the manholes were in all cases far lower than the values seen at the pipe – although exceedances of state water quality standards were observed in the manholes, the numbers were not high enough to explain the elevated bacteria levels at the culvert. Melrose followed up by conducting a televised inspection of the stormwater pipes to look for cross-connections and did not find any. MyRWA then followed up by testing water for additional indicators of sewage contamination but did not detect elevated levels of surfactants or ammonia. MyRWA plans to place optical brightener detection pads into the mouth of the culvert to further monitor the problem.

Chelsea: MyRWA met with Chelsea in the summer of 2007 upon their request to discuss our sampling locations and review maps of outfall pipes to be sure they understood which pipes were testing above state water quality standards. Chelsea suggested that MyRWA adopt the city’s outfall pipe naming system, which would help them to act upon our reports of bacterial contamination. As a result, MyRWA modified maps of shoreline survey data to incorporate the pipe names used by Chelsea in efforts to improve coordination between monitoring and remediation (Figure 4).

Arlington: MyRWA met with the Town of Arlington’s Town Engineer in the fall of 2007 to discuss monitoring results and to receive updates on their efforts to respond to an enforcement order from the DEP regarding Mill Brook. MyRWA provided Arlington with a complete history of monitoring work in the community, and received an update on their efforts to identify and eliminate inflow and infiltration. The engineer found the sampling history to be quite useful, and requested that MyRWA develop two GIS layers indicating our precise sample locations and the locations of all outfall pipes identified in Arlington. MyRWA is finishing up this project currently and will provide the Town of Arlington with these products by the end of August.

Revere: As with the other communities, MyRWA met with representatives from Revere to discuss on- going bacterial contamination problems, primarily seen in Sales Creek and Belle Isle Marsh, which are ecologically important areas. Revere expressed interest in receiving outreach literature from MyRWA that it could distribute in water bills to citizens. MyRWA will be printing off quantities of brochures and sending them to Revere and other communities by the end of August, and providing them with CDs of materials that they can print off and distribute.

Winchester: MyRWA met with the Director of Winchester’s Board of Health (BOH) in June of 2008 to discuss the public health threat posed by elevated bacteria levels in Horn Pond Brook, a tributary flowing through several residential neighborhoods. MyRWA took the BOH Director on site visits to show where samples were collected, and the BOH plans to conduct an investigation into the source of contamination. During recent discussions, the BOH Director indicated that she plans to post signage along the Brook (particularly next to an elementary school adjacent to the brook) to warn local citizens of the potential public health threats posed by the brook. 154

During a shoreline survey of Horn Pond Brook, MyRWA monitors noticed a huge pile of dirt on the Winchester DPW grounds, ranging in size of about 15’ x 30’. The dirt pile was completely exposed, and was less than 10’ from the banks of Horn Pond Brook with no BMP in place to prevent erosion from the pile. MyRWA’s Monitoring Director contacted the Winchester Conservation Commission to report the issue, and on a site visit a month later confirmed that BMPs had been installed on the site.

MassHighway, Arlington, Belmont: The results from a sampling event in September 2007 indicated elevated bacteria levels at a large outfall pipe owned by MassHighway that discharges to Spy Pond. In addition, a large plume of sediment at the mouth of the outfall pipe has been a concern for many years, and is apparently a result of poor road sanding practices without appropriate BMPs to manage water quality. Because Spy Pond is an important natural resource, MyRWA decided to pursue the issue with MassHighway. Although the pipe is owned by MassHighway, it receives drainage from both Arlington and Belmont, so MyRWA held a meeting with all three stakeholders to review drainage maps and discuss possible contamination sources, and to raise the issue of remediating the sediment plume problem. As a result of the meeting, MassHighway did agree to conduct an investigation into the source of the bacterial problem. Unfortunately, we were not able to make progress on the sediment plume issue. MyRWA inquired as to why there was not an effective BMP in place to reduce sediment loading to Spy Pond. MassHighway expressed their belief that unless the communities restricted their sand usage in the winter, it was not appropriate for MassHighway to be responsible for the management of sediments may have originated from Arlington or Belmont roads. This unsatisfactory response points to the need for more stringent water quality regulations and to focus advocacy efforts on issues that branch into multiple political jurisdictions.

4.3.4 BMP Education and Outreach

Water Quality Reports: In order for municipalities to plan remediation projects and to effectively manage their stormwater runoff, data are needed in a timely and accessible fashion. Therefore, one aspect of our work was to ensure that our data could be easily accessed and understood by those most in need of them. Regular data distributions have been part of MyRWA’s protocol for several years, but we rarely received feedback or updates from municipalities who received our reports. For this reason, it became apparent that a revision of our reports was necessary in order to effectively communicate our results to stakeholders. In the summer of 2007, we conducted a major revision of our technical report format with assistance from members of MyRWA’s committee on water quality. Our old reports consisted of a simple spreadsheet showing the monitoring results, site descriptions, and general maps of the sampling area. The new reports contained a more detailed analysis of the results, charts and tables, maps and detailed site descriptions including GPS coordinates, and photos or other supporting documentation. In addition, the reports have a citable report number and title. Following our distribution protocol, MyRWA released the reports first to heads of municipal DPWs, town/city engineers, and Boards of Health. After 30 days, the data reports were sent to relevant conservation commissions, state and federal regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders such as non-profits with an interest in the data. The reports often bring questions and requests for further information from municipalities or their consultants, and in other cases municipalities inform us of projects initiated to address the problems we’ve identified. All reports are archived on our website and are available for download at http://www.mysticriver.org/research/index.html#hotspot.

Public Education: In September 2006, MyRWA co-hosted a workshop on Low Impact Development (LID) with Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and EOEEA. In attendance

155 were municipal employees, Conservation Commission officials, developers and students. Presenters included Marilyn McCrory of DCR; Scott Horsley, president of Horsley Witten Group; Tim Reardon a planner with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council; and Michael Clark an engineer with Norfolk Ram Group, LLC. The presenters discussed the principles of LID, explained the common regulatory barriers to LID and how to overcome them, and showed case studies of successful LID implementations in Eastern Massachusetts.

Mapping Initiative: We identified mapping as another method for effectively communicating our results to municipalities, agencies, and the general public. During the final two years of the Find It and Fix It Project, MyRWA undertook a major initiative to develop maps that display monitoring results in a comprehensive manner. From the perspective of municipalities interested in developing BMPs, a good map can visually display problem areas in need of attention. Regulatory agencies are able to use MyRWA maps to locate areas where pressure may be needed to encourage municipalities or other landowners to more effectively manage stormwater runoff. Non-profit organizations could review our maps to understand where gaps in knowledge exist, which is an essential aspect of project planning. Finally, members of the general public would use MyRWA maps to better understand the health of the water bodies within their neighborhoods.

MyRWA developed a set of maps using the GoogleEarth software to integrate our geo-referenced data into digitized aerial photos. Results from hot spot data and visual shoreline surveys are now regularly uploaded into an Access database developed by MyRWA’s mapping consultant and into Google Earth, which can be launched from our website (http://www.mysticriver.org/research/index.html).

MyRWA also developed GIS maps that integrated the results of visual shoreline surveys with results of bacterial monitoring. These maps were developed at the request of communities where information was needed on pipe location and condition.

Presentations: While reports are an effective way to distribute information to many people at once, presentations are also critical since they allow MyRWA staff and volunteers to discuss findings and address questions. MyRWA gave numerous presentations to stakeholder groups with a special emphasis on Conservation Commissions. These presentations detailed the results of our shoreline surveys and our water monitoring work. (See Appendix H for an abridged example of one of these presentations). The goal was to inform the municipality about the biggest problems that had been found and to discuss the best ways to start remediation or prevention. In many cases, the Conservation Commission helped MyRWA identify the proper municipal employees with whom to follow up on various issues. MyRWA also received input on the best channels to conduct outreach in that town (e.g., who would help us distribute educational materials). Presentations to Conservation Commissions were conducted in the following communities; highlights from each meeting are discussed in brief: • Medford • Somerville • Arlington • Chelsea • Winchester • Woburn • Belmont

BMP Conference: Most town officials are generally well aware of the water quality problems facing the Mystic watershed, but what is the best way to go about fixing them in a time of constrained budgets

156 and many competing priorities? This was the topic of MyRWA’s first annual conference: “Mystic Stormwater 2008: A BMP Primer for Municipal Officials,” held April 30, 2008 at the Century Bank building in Medford. The goal of the conference was to bring together stormwater-management practitioners from local cities and towns, government officials and other experts to share knowledge about techniques that have worked for them and try to apply them to current issues. Twenty-seven officials representing 18 of the 22 towns in the watershed participated in the conference. City Engineers, DPW Directors, Conservation Commissioners attended or sent staff, which indicated an encouraging level of interest and commitment from those on the “front lines” of fixing the Mystic’s pollution problems.

Highlights from the day’s presentations included:

• Thelma Murphy, the Regional Stormwater Coordinator for EPA New England, previewed changes in the next round of stormwater permits to be issued to municipalities by the federal government. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES regulation, municipalities must submit plans for how they will manage the discharges of stormwater from their storm drain network into receiving waters. Towns received their first five-year permit in 2003 and are undergoing the first renewal cycle. From Ms. Murphy’s comments, municipalities can expect requirements for more water quality monitoring and a tougher stance on discharges to impaired waters.

• Another key session was “Evaluating BMP Effectiveness,” presented by James Houle of the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. Mr. Houle presented a comparison of different approaches to stormwater problems in urban environments, including test results on some emerging technologies such as tree filters, which consist of infiltration systems built under a tree planted along a roadway to capture runoff. However, comments from the audience indicated that current zoning laws in some cities prohibit such plantings. One promising newer technology was permeable pavement, which is a new formulation of asphalt for roadways and parking lots which allows a higher rate of infiltration.

• Jane Peirce, administrator of the MassDEP Nonpoint Competitive Grants Program, talked about sources of government funding for stormwater-related infrastructure projects and presented some tools which MassDEP uses to evaluate grant applications. Questions from several towns indicated that they were planning to apply for funds through these programs in the coming months. Some towns in the watershed, such as Arlington with its 2005 award to address pollution in Spy Pond, have benefited from these grants in the past.

• Another session that generated a high level of interest was stormwater utilities. Fred Paulsen, an Attorney from Burns-Levinson LLP, a former MyRWA Board President and a current MyRWA Policy Committee member who has helped several towns develop such utilities, provided an overview of the legal aspects to such a utility. Town officials from North Reading, where a stormwater utility was recently put in place, shared their experiences in developing the law and working with government and citizens on the process.

• The day concluded with case studies by officials from two watershed cities. Owen O’Riordan, City Engineer at the City of Cambridge, highlighted some approaches that Cambridge has taken to flooding problems and to minimizing CSO overflows. Vithal Deshpande, Environmental Coordinator at the City of Somerville, talked about the development of Somerville’s

157 Geographic Information System (GIS) to map best management practices, and he described an analysis of Somerville’s “Green Cover” as it relates to stormwater management.

MyRWA’s first annual Stormwater Management Conference presented a great deal of valuable information to municipal stormwater managers who often have little opportunity to learn about current approaches and issues in BMP technology and development. An evaluation was distributed to each conference participant, from which MyRWA received feedback on additional topics that conference participants would like to see at future meetings. In the coming months, MyRWA will continue to follow up on these topics with city and town officials.

4.4 Education and Outreach

MyRWA’s outreach strategy for the FIFI program was guided by three important principles:

1. Non-point source pollution is, by definition, a diffuse problem where progress can be made only by influencing the behavior of a wide range of stakeholders over a sustained period of time. 2. The Mystic River watershed is comprised of 21 communities with diverse problems, priorities, resources and capabilities; 3. Real headway in reducing NPS pollution requires an effort leveraged beyond the activities of MyRWA alone.

Our “Find-It” work (shoreline surveys and water quality monitoring) gave us a good idea of what non- point source pollution issues should be the biggest priority of each community. With this in mind, MyRWA set out to build our relationships with officials and activists in each locale to learn the best channels to influence people and businesses on the most critical issues. (Generally, discussion of our interaction with institutions at the municipal and state level is covered in the BMP section). The next facet of our FIFI outreach program was the creation of relevant materials to build awareness and to educate the general public or other groups about how and why they should modify their actions. With this framework in place, MyRWA has accomplished significant Outreach activities across most of the communities in the watershed. As important, we believe we have developed the knowledge and the “channels” to deliver the kind of sustained effort that is required to make real headway on non-point source pollutions as we go forward.

• MyRWA developed and distributed educational literature on the major non-point source pollution problem in the watershed. Our research indicates that there is a general lack of awareness about the impact of non-point source pollution. We believe most citizens have no idea how municipal storm-drain infrastructure works, and how it relates to water quality and the public health, and why it should be a priority for funding. Therefore, one thrust of our outreach effort has been the wide dissemination of basic education literature (Appendix H).

To this end, we developed a brochure on stormwater BMPs for citizens. We made the brochure in modifiable electronic form (e.g., for town seals and contact phone numbers) and provided it to Conservation Commissioners, DPW heads, town planners, and other city/town officials for distribution. Chelsea, Revere, Somerville, and other Watershed town have distributed these brochures in large mass mailings inside items like water bills and census forms (or will in the near future).

158 MyRWA also developed educational materials for issues specific to certain areas. For example, we developed materials on dog waste, lawn care and best practices for the auto industry (Appendix H). In an example of local tailoring, the materials in Chelsea were also developed in Spanish and included more information about topics like auto maintenance and less about lawn care. Other towns have sent out brochures with dog-license renewal materials. Conservation Commissions also helped with the distribution of this literature by getting them placed in display racks at libraries and city/town halls, handing them out at tables at town days, etc.

• MyRWA has trained local groups and volunteers to gain wider distribution of educational materials. In order to get more materials out then MyRWA staff could do alone, we have trained volunteers or worked with other groups to help. For instance, MyRWA trained volunteers to act as MyRWA’s representatives at community events like Earth Day festivals, town days and store openings. These volunteers work to hand out literature and talk to citizens about non-point source issues, among other things. In another example, MyRWA worked with Groundwork Somerville and AmeriCorp staff to hand out relevant educational materials to businesses in Somerville and Charlestown. Part of this process included education of the students on the biggest stormwater pollution issues in these towns. Other student groups distributed business education flyers to Medford, Somerville, and Winchester,

• MyRWA staff authored articles on NPS pollution issues to for the MyRWA newsletter and other periodicals. MyRWA’s newsletter reaches over 500 people in the watershed and MyRWA wrote several articles describing non-point source issues, the FIFI program and what volunteers could do (Appendix H). Articles of this type were also published in local paper like the Arlington Advocate and the Melrose Free Press.

• MyRWA developed and posted education materials at high-traffic spots throughout the watershed. MyRWA staff constructed educational displays on NPS pollution that were posted at several local libraries. MyRWA also developed materials that were posted at areas in the watershed which enjoy high public use. MyRWA also organized the showings of stormwater public service announcements and “After the Storm” on public access television in Chelsea and Arlington.

• MyRWA has worked with Departments of Public Health (DPHs) to direct our NPS outreach activities. For instance, one town official described how they had observed a local restaurant emptying the grease from their deep fryer into a storm drain. The personnel were non-English speakers and it unclear if the activities were due to ignorance or intentional avoidance of proper disposal procedures. In any case, MyRWA has begun the process of working with local associations to develop educational materials in several languages specifically for restaurants.

• MyRWA also organized and facilitated numerous shoreline cleanups in areas that had been designated as high-priority in our shoreline surveys. Our role included recruiting volunteers, provided equipment and trash bags, organizing the removal of larger items, full trash bags and recycling by cities and town, and distributing educational materials about the Watershed and NPS issues. Areas where cleanups were completed included Chelsea Creek, Alewife Brook, and the Mystic mainstem in Somerville.

159 5.0 GUIDEBOOK

CRWA and MyRWA believe that others can benefit significantly from our experiences in the Find It and Fix It Stormwater Program. Through this task CRWA and MyRWA aspired to write an easily understood “how-to” for environmental and community groups looking to develop their own stormwater programs. CRWA developed the term “Stormwater Assessment and Assisted Remediation Program (SAARP)” to refer to the Find It and Fix It Program in a general way.

5.1 Background and Scope of Work

CRWA has a strong history of assisting other environmental and community organizations in developing their own science and advocacy programs. CRWA’s monthly monitoring program was one of the first of its kinds and has since been imitated by numerous water quality groups. We regularly make presentations at workshops and seminars, and provide numerous resources, presentations and informational brochures available on our website. The guidebook is a comprehensive reference document, useable by anyone from a start-up volunteer group to an experienced researcher looking for more information on specific techniques.

5.2 Methodology In contrast to Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 5, Task 4: Write and Publish Guidebook required a direct collaborative effort between CRWA and MyRWA. CRWA and MyRWA initially met to discuss the guidebook in February, 2008. CRWA prepared a basic outline for the guidebook which was provided to MyRWA with requests for contributions to specific sections. Additionally, CRWA provided a list of specific questions to MyRWA requesting information and input intended to inform the guidebook. MyRWA then provided CRWA with the requested written sections and additional information. CRWA worked to incorporate information contributed by both groups into one cohesive document. Finally, CRWA sent the final version of the guidebook text to MyRWA for their review and input. This collaboration went very smoothly and the guidebook is truly a joint work between the two organizations.

5.3 Results CRWA and MyRWA wrote and published a guidebook providing step-by-step instructions for other environmental or community groups to conduct their own stormwater remediation program. The Stormwater Assessment and Assisted Remediation Program Guidebook, included in Appendix G, offers in depth instruction on mimicking CRWA and MyRWA’s work through the FIFI Program. Additionally, specific tips on lessons CRWA and MyRWA learned through their FIFI experiences are included so others can learn not only from our successes but also from the challenges we faced and overcame.

5.4 Conclusions and Future Work The guidebook was finalized in conjunction with this final report. CRWA and MyRWA now intend to distribute and publicize the guidebook. Both organizations will distribute it to partner organizations who we believe will benefit from this document. Additionally, we will make the guidebook available on our respective websites. CRWA may also hold a “Brown Bag” presentation for environmental groups interested in hearing more about the guidebook and the Find It and Fix It Program. We will distribute flyers announcing the availability of the guidebook on the website, and may seek funding for a limited publication of the document if there is sufficient demand.

160 CRWA and MyRWA believe the guidebook is an extremely useful document for other environmental organizations. We also look forward, however; to receiving feedback from groups that opt to utilize the guidebook on potential improvements for future publications.

161 6.0 EVALUATION

In the original proposal for the Find It and Fix It Project submitted to the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, CRWA and MyRWA laid out three objectives which would be used to evaluate the project in the short-term (following the initial three-year project phase) and to continuously evaluate the program as CRWA and MyRWA carry on this work within our respective organizations. While many of these topics have been discussed in the sections above; this section directly addresses these objectives.

6.1 Objective 1: Identify Potential Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution

CRWA and MyRWA staff, and the vast majority of shoreline survey volunteers received training on how to conduct shoreline surveys from Riverways staff. CRWA and MyRWA worked closely with Riverways to develop our shoreline survey protocols. Riverways staff generously donated their time to be present at the large majority of CRWA and MyRWA’s shoreline survey training sessions. The only situation in which Riverways staff was not present at trainings were in the event that an individual training was conducted for an organized group of volunteers, such as a Scout troop or group of state employees volunteering under the SERV (State Employees Responding as Volunteers) program, in the third year of the project. In these situations, CRWA or MyRWA staff conducted individualized training sessions for these groups.

In the Charles River watershed, volunteers surveyed the lower 45 miles of the mainstem of the river and over 15 miles of tributary stretches. MyRWA conducted shoreline surveys in each of the Mystic watershed’s eight major subbasins, totaling 51 miles of shoreline surveyed (including right and left river banks and lake perimeters).

As detailed in sections 3.1.4 and 4.1.3, shoreline survey volunteers identified numerous areas which were likely sources of non-point source pollution, such as lawns and roadways abutting the river and numerous signs of non-point source pollution, such as trash, heavy sedimentation and excessive algae growth.

Result: CRWA and MyRWA met this objective in its entirety.

6.2 Objective 2: Track and Monitor Reported or Suspected Non-Point Source Pollution “Hot Spots”

As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2, CRWA and MyRWA conducted extensive water quality monitoring throughout the three-years of the FIFI Program. Much of this monitoring was in direct response to observations made by visual shoreline survey volunteers.

6.2.1 CRWA Monitoring

CRWA conducted water quality monitoring along the mainstem of the Charles in areas where shoreline survey volunteers reported observing excessive algae growth below outfall pipes. As expected, CRWA found high total phosphorus concentrations at all of these sites. In addition, CRWA based or modified tributary sampling plans on the results of shoreline surveys. Our project schedule necessitated that we begin monitoring of certain tributaries prior to the completion of shoreline surveys along some of these waterways, however; the shoreline survey along Fuller Brook was completed prior to commencing monitoring along that brook and therefore shoreline survey results were helpful in

162 developing a sampling plan. In addition, Sawins Brook sampling sites were modified as a result of shoreline survey results to include sampling of outfall pipes which were observed to be flowing during dry weather.

Finally, Muddy River shoreline survey results were extremely useful in developing our targeted monitoring plan of this water body. Volunteers conducted shoreline surveys of the Muddy River in the spring and summer of 2007. In August 2007, a CRWA intern reviewed these results looking for areas of significant erosion. Following this review, the intern then conducted his own follow-up visual shoreline survey noting areas where significant erosion appeared to be occurring as a direct result of stormwater infrastructure deficiencies. The intern used a methodology similar to that of shoreline survey volunteers although his survey was aimed solely at noting these areas with erosion problems. The intern took photographs and GPS waypoints at each problem area he observed. CRWA’s monitoring plan of the Muddy River was based upon these surveys.

This was the first visual shoreline survey conducted by CRWA; many lessons were learned throughout this process. One challenge CRWA faced was difficulty in locating some areas or specific pipes noted by shoreline survey volunteers in order to conduct follow up monitoring. While CRWA had marked- up maps and photographs to go on, it often took longer than anticipated to locate the exact pipe or location that a shoreline survey volunteer noted in their survey results. This experience has taught CRWA that in the future it will be helpful to arm shoreline survey volunteers with GPS units when possible, although these units are often unreliable when used under tree canopies as are common along river banks. Additionally, we are now aware that even when surveyors are equipped with GPS units it is advisable to leave more time for finding monitoring locations in response to shoreline survey results.

A second challenge that CRWA faced in this realm was that some shoreline surveys were conducted by boat. Shoreline survey volunteers used their own boats to conduct these surveys. CRWA owns a small motor boat, although the motor is old and extremely unreliable. Additionally, CRWA relies on the cooperation of Charles River Canoe and Kayak to transport this boat between dammed sections of the river; because CRWA does not have access to a boat at all times. Additionally, much of the Charles, especially near the banks is very shallow making it inaccessible by our small motor boat, therefore; some locations were unrealistic for CRWA to access to perform follow-up monitoring.

6.2.2 MyRWA Monitoring

MyRWA relied heavily on visual shoreline survey results to develop monitoring plans, conducted under Task 2. In August of 2007, MyRWA conducted the second part of our Oil and Grease Survey. This comprehensive survey of petroleum hydrocarbons in the watershed included targeted sampling of each location where shoreline survey volunteers observed oil sheens on the water. This survey was an important learning experience for MyRWA. We were interested in quantifying the amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons observed in the water to learn if the observed amounts might exceed the Action Limit stated in our QAPP (15 μg/L). We found that although sheen was quite thick in some areas, we didn’t find actionable levels except near the Exxon oil storage facility on the Island End River. We reported our findings in this area to the EPA and submitted extensive comments when the facility’s permit was up for renewal in 2007. In general, however; MyRWA learned that sampling for petroleum hydrocarbons, in anything but extreme cases, is expensive and time-consuming. MyRWA believes it is preferable to keep a careful log of each location where sheens are observed (that would include date, weather conditions, and GPS coordinates). MyRWA has found this to be a helpful

163 method of tracking areas where petroleum runoff is impacting the river and believes it to be an effective tool, especially in trying to set priorities for BMP planning.

MyRWA also used shoreline survey results to locate pipes flowing in dry weather. MyRWA sampled every pipe noted by shoreline survey volunteers to be flowing during dry weather. This work is discussed in detail in Sections 5.2 and 4.3.

Result: CRWA and MyRWA met this objective in spite of some unexpected challenges.

6.3 Objective 3: Guide the Remediation of Non-point Source Pollution Problems

As discussed in Sections 3.3 and 4.3, CRWA and MyRWA worked extensively with municipal officials within our respective watersheds. We were able to strengthen existing relationships with some communities as well as build relationships and connections with many new municipal officials.

CRWA is extremely pleased with the connections we were able to make with officials in the communities of Waltham and Watertown, as we previously did not have strong relationships with these municipalities. These connections and the resultant lines of communication established were a success of the FIFI program. In addition, CRWA was able to strengthen existing relationships with Newton and BWSC. As a result of the FIFI project, CRWA hopes to partner with some of these municipalities and agencies to develop and implement remediation projects in the areas CRWA’s monitoring revealed to be particularly impaired. CRWA has already discussed this possibility with Watertown officials and we hope to begin working with them in the near future.

MyRWA also strengthened ties with municipal officials and looks forward to working more closely with communities where significant non-point source pollution problems have been identified. In particular, MyRWA hopes to build a stronger relationship with the City of Melrose, where bacteria source tracking efforts need to get pushed further along to identify sources of contamination to Ell Pond and the upper sections of the Malden River. Persistent cyanobacteria blooms became problematic in Ell Pond during the summer of 2008, and MyRWA hopes to work with the Board of Health to develop a notification about the public health threats posed by toxic cyanobacteria. In addition, MyRWA hopes to work closely with the City of Somerville in efforts to better understand bacteria inputs to Winter Brook, which is underground in Somerville and daylights in Medford. To be able to support these relationships, MyRWA hopes to obtain funding to dedicate specifically to working with municipalities to support their monitoring efforts.

CRWA conducted extensive monitoring of DCR property. DCR owns a large amount of land bordering the Charles and many of its tributaries. CRWA conducted shoreline surveys throughout the DCR run Charles River Reservation. Results of this survey were shared with DCR officials. Additionally, CRWA worked cooperatively with DCR and other state and local agencies to study the emerging cyanobacteria problem in the Lower Charles River Basin, which is likely being fueled by high nutrient loading from stormwater runoff. CRWA will continue to work with DCR and the other members of the Cyanobacteria Working Group in the years to come.

CRWA and MyRWA also reported high bacteria results to state agencies as well as the EPA in an effort to improve stormwater pollution control under Phase II stormwater programs. CRWA communicated high bacteria results to EPA to assist them in their enforcement of IDDE Administrative

164 Orders of Compliance, which EPA has issued for Newton, Watertown, Brookline, and Waltham and to MassDEP to augment their Bacteria Source Tracking Program.

CRWA and MyRWA also used considerable resources to help educate stormwater officials on low impact development stormwater management practices. These efforts, which consisted of written materials, seminars, field trips, presentations and face to face meetings, are discussed fully in Sections 3.3 and 4.3. MyRWA hopes to be able to continue the capacity-building workshops for municipal stormwater managers in the future and will look for funding to support these, since overwhelming feedback from the participants of the BMP Conference emphasized the need for more efforts of this nature.

CRWA saw improvements in water quality during the project period and hopes to continue these improvements as we continue to move forward with our stormwater management work. One area in which CRWA has begun to see improvement and hopes to continue to see improvement is the Muddy River. In the summer of 2008, a landscaped berm was constructed along the edge of Leverett Pond, an area where CRWA noted intensely polluted runoff flowing directly into the pond carrying dirt and goose waste from the field. CRWA was also able to track a minor improvement in the City of Waltham, where Town officials were able to find and repair an illicit sanitary waste connection from a house to Beaver Brook.

MyRWA’s monitoring work prompted enforcement actions in the communities of Arlington, Belmont, Chelsea and Revere (Suffolk Downs). These enforcement actions were taken in the second and third years of the program, and investigations into the sources of the problems has uncovered a variety of infrastructure issues needing immediate attention. While illicit connection tended to be more commonplace in Chelsea and Revere, problems with collapsed sewer mains, cracks and leaks in pipes leading to sewer exfiltration, and otherwise failing infrastructure tended to be the problem in Arlington and Belmont. Remediation efforts have been planned in each community, and the Town of Belmont has completed significant infrastructure repairs which have resulted in water quality improvements in Little Pond. MyRWA will continue to monitor water quality in these communities in order to document improvements in environmental conditions.

Result: CRWA and MyRWA met this objective with on-the-ground project outcomes such as the berm at the Muddy River, as well as with the establishment of stronger relationships with municipal officials and the development and distribution of educational materials.

165 7.0 CONCLUSION

CRWA and MyRWA consider the Find It and Fix It Program to be a great success. CRWA and MyRWA were able to assess stormwater impacts in many areas throughout our respective watersheds and establish protocols for data analysis and reporting. We were able to make valuable municipal contacts which will allow us to continue working to remediate many of the issues identified. We were able to build our institutional knowledge as well as the knowledge within our watershed communities regarding effective stormwater control and non-point source pollution reduction. Overall, this program allowed both organizations to make great efforts to improve our capacity to assess stormwater impacts and suggest remediation strategies.

CRWA’s major accomplishments and intended future work are summarized in Table 20. CRWA intends to seek funding so that we are able to continue much of the work begun under the Find It and Fix It Project. MyRWA’s major accomplishments and intended future work are summarized in Table 21.

166 Table 20: CRWA’s Table of Accomplishments Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Visual shoreline • Established visual shoreline survey • Organizing, managing and • Seek funding to target surveys of the lower protocol adapted to an urban river analyzing data from visual impaired areas for 45 miles of the Charles • Made connections with over 100 shoreline surveys is remediation River volunteers who have, or gained, an energy and time intensive • Consult survey results to interest in non-point source pollution • Learned valuable lessons assess improvement or issues regarding the organization continued deterioration in • Assessed areas of suspected non-point and storage of geographic certain areas source pollution along both banks of the data lower 45 miles of the Charles • Built a geographic database of stormwater pipes and observed stormwater impacts to serve as a baseline assessment of impacts throughout the Program Study Area Visual shoreline • Made connections with many volunteers, • Continue to analyze surveys of over 15 including some active local groups such shoreline survey results of miles of Charles River as the Weston Girl Scouts and Newton tributary surveys tributaries North High School conducted late in the • Assessed areas of suspected non-point project period source pollution along both banks of • Possibly conduct many Charles River tributaries additional shoreline • Built a geographic database of surveys of tributaries stormwater pipes and observed previously unsurveyed if stormwater impacts to serve as a baseline we have the necessary assessment of impacts along eight volunteer interest and Charles River tributaries commitment

167 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Analyzed and reported • Made recommendations for remediation • Analyze and distribute on visual stream actions to be taken on common and results of shoreline survey results severe issues observed throughout the surveys conducted late in watershed the project period; namely • Communicated shoreline survey results surveys of the Muddy to municipal officials and/or conservation River, Beaver Brook and commission members in Needham, Hobbs Brook Natick, Dover, Dedham, Newton, • Per recent discussion with Wellesley, Watertown, Boston and Riverways, summarize Cambridge. and communicate • Communicated shoreline survey results locations of possible fish to state and federal officials with EPA barriers/impoundments and DCR Display shoreline • Currently displaying shoreline survey • Gained technical skills • Prepare remaining survey results in volunteer observations for some survey and knowledge necessary shoreline survey data for GoogleEarth for segments, linked to their location in to display data in display in GoogleEarth viewing by the general space, via our website for view in GoogleEarth and make • Post remaining public and other river GoogleEarth, a free geographical this data available for GoogleEarth files to our partners mapping program view through our website website • Gained the ability to display all our data • Reconnect with shoreline GoogleEarth, where data can be linked to survey volunteers by the spatial location where it was collected making volunteers aware as the results of their survey segments are posted on our website

168 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Develop QAPP • Developed EPA and DEP approved • QAPP development is • Update QAPP as needed QAPP to govern all of CRWA’s water time and energy intensive quality monitoring work • Thorough upfront planning can have a positive impact on the QAPP development process • Good working partnerships with your external laboratories and QAPP reviewers are helpful in the QAPP development process Monitored hot spots as • Conducted monitoring in response to • CRWA has come to • Seek funding to continue needed visual shoreline survey results acknowledge that having our ability to respond to • Monitored in response to calls from the the funding and resources unusual river conditions public or our own observations of usual available to respond to by collecting samples for river conditions unusual river conditions in laboratory analysis when • Documented unusual river conditions and a timely manner is an necessary communicated them with state agencies important function of our • Continue to monitor organization and the unusual river conditions positive impact we can have on river water quality

169 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Develop protocols for • Worked with local, state and federal • Increased institutional • Continue to monitor monitoring, and agencies to develop a protocol for knowledge about cyanobacteria throughout monitored for monitoring cyanobacteria in the Charles cyanobacteria and the the watershed cyanobacteria River and for communicating information associated public health • Continue to build about these blooms with the public threat institutional knowledge • Tracked potentially harmful • Increased institutional about this emerging public cyanobacteria blooms in the Charles knowledge about health threat River in the summers of 2006 and 2007 monitoring for • Finalize the calibration of • Observed and tracked a bloom of cyanobacteria our in situ HyrdoLab potentially harmful cyanobacteria in the probe Muddy River in the summer of 2008 • Share our experiences • Shared our experience in cyanobacteria with other groups and monitoring with state officials in Florida agencies working on this facing similar problems issue • Purchased probe to measure cyanobacteria concentrations in situ Educate the public • Posted information on cyanobacteria in • Continue to educate the about the emerging the Charles on our website public about this emerging issue of cyanobacteria • Assisted in advising the public, when a issue blooms health threat was present • Improve techniques for • Presented information on cyanobacteria communicating with the in an informational brochure public • Discuss this issue with members of the press

170 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Monitor water quality • Assessed water quality in nine Charles • Conduct additional in Charles River River tributaries monitoring on certain tributaries • Assessed water quality in both wet and tributaries as needed to fill dry weather in seven Charles River in data gaps as funding tributaries allows • Discovered areas with evidence of high bacteria concentrations in dry weather • Discovered many areas with evidence of significant impairment during wet weather Report to local, state • Reported water quality monitoring results • Make this report available and federal officials on to officials in the following communities: to local, state and federal water quality results Boston, Watertown, Newton, Waltham officials and Wellesley • Reported water quality data to the following agencies: EPA, MassDEP Participate in face to • Held meetings with officials from the • Learned a great deal about • Continue to meet with face meetings with following communities and the issues facing these municipal officials to stormwater officials • agencies: BWSC, Waltham, Newton, individual communities, discuss water quality Watertown their stormwater results and stormwater • Strengthened existing relationships and management plans and management developed new relationships with styles, and the challenges stormwater officials unique to each community Suggest remediation • Developed suggested possible • Continue to build our strategies remediation steps and strategies for database of remediation identified non-point source pollution strategies which problems effectively address the • Communicated suggested next steps to non-point source pollution stormwater officials issues facing the Charles

171 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Educate stormwater • Organized field trip to UNH Stormwater • Stormwater officials are • Continue to offer official through a Center where cutting edge research on often appreciative of the educational opportunities workshop and field stormwater BMPs is taking place help we can offer in as funding allows trip • Planned and held half day seminar on providing these stormwater BMPs for stormwater educational opportunities officials in our watershed and beyond at low costs as they are often working with limited time and budgets and do not have adequate time to dedicate to research Educate stormwater • Provide information sheets on stormwater • Distribute BMP official through BMPs, created through other CRWA information sheets and printed materials projects, to most local stormwater rain garden information to officials contacted throughout the FIFI remaining municipal project officials • Provide information on the role of rain gardens and other bioretention systems in stormwater management as these systems are particularly effective with nutrient controls which are a major issue in the Charles Lower Charles River • Worked with local groups to have Boston • Communicate this Basin Designated as a waterways, including the entire Lower achievement with the No Discharge Area Charles River Basin, designated as a general public, focusing Federally Approved No Discharge Area on its potential impact on water quality • Educate boaters about proper disposal of sanitary waste via our website

172 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Create and publish • Created a series of webpages hosted on • Maintain webpages so program website as a our organization’s website dedicated interested parties have way to communicate solely to the FIFI Program continued access to with a wide audiences • Posted information to inform the public information and about non-point source pollution issues monitoring results • Posted information to inform the public about CRWA’s tasks and accomplishments in the FIFI Program • Created a page for each tributary monitored to display some background information on the tributary and the results of our water quality monitoring work Conduct public • Organized and held a springtime seminar • Air landscaping seminar presentations on environmentally friendly landscaping on public television next practices spring • Videotaped landscaping seminar for • Continue to conduct broadcast on Newton public television educational presentations next spring at schools, community • Conducted outreach presentations at groups, etc. to continue to schools, community group meetings, engage our watershed conservation commission meetings and residents in our mission environmental fairs Produce educational • Developed a brochure aimed at a general • Continue to distribute materials for the audience to inform people about the brochure general public issues phosphorus is causing in the • Improve techniques for Charles River communicating with the • Distributed brochures to municipal public partners • Posted brochure on our website

173 Major Impact Lessons Learned Anticipated Accomplishment/ Future Work Achievement Share project • In conjunction with MyRWA wrote and • Distribute the Stormwater knowledge through published a guidebook informing other Assessment and Assisted publication of a groups about how to emulate the Find It Remediation Program guidebook and Fix It Program Guidebook

174 Table 21: MyRWA’s Table of Accomplishments Accomplishment/ Impact Lessons Learned Future Work Achievement Visual Shoreline Survey MyRWA conducted Established visual shoreline survey protocol Data management proved to be Continue targeting impaired Visual shoreline adapted to an urban river a difficult task. MyRWA areas for remediation surveys of the lower Made connections with over 100 volunteers learned that it was critical to 45 miles of the who have, or hopefully gained, an interest in collect data sheets from watershed’s eight non-point source pollution issues volunteers right away for entry major subbasins, Built a geographic database of stormwater into our database. It also totaling 51 total miles pipes and observed stormwater impacts to became apparent that utilizing of shoreline surveyed serve as a baseline assessment of impacts mapping systems to display throughout the Program study area data was a useful way to share results with stakeholders. Analyzed and reported Communicated shoreline survey results to Presentations and in-person Set up meetings with on visual stream municipal officials and/or conservation meetings proved to be the most communities where survey results commission members in Medford, effective way to communicate presentations were held to Somerville, Arlington, Belmont, Winchester, our results. receive updates on BMP Woburn, Chelsea, and Melrose. projects and planning Communicated shoreline survey results to state and federal officials with EPA and DCR Display shoreline Display shoreline survey results via our Prepare remaining shoreline survey results in website for view in GoogleEarth, a free survey data for display in GoogleEarth for geographical mapping program GoogleEarth communication with Display shoreline survey volunteer the general public and observations linked to their location in space Post remaining GoogleEarth other river partners Gained the ability to display all our data files to our website for view by GoogleEarth, where data can be linked to the the general public spatial location where it was collected Advise shoreline survey volunteers as the results of their survey segment are posted on the web

Combine water quality

175 Accomplishment/ Impact Lessons Learned Future Work Achievement monitoring results into GoogleEarth pipe survey maps Water Quality Monitoring Develop QAPP Develop EPA and DEP approved QAPP to QAPP development is time Update QAPP as needed govern all of MyRWA’s water quality and energy intensive monitoring work Thorough upfront planning can have a positive impact on the QAPP development project Good working partnerships with your external laboratories and QAPP reviewers are helpful in the QAPP development process Identified and MyRWA sampled hot spots identified in Discussions with municipal Seek funding to continue our Monitored Hot Spots shoreline surveys, testing for bacteria, officials and timely ability to respond to unusual as needed ammonia, surfactants, total phosphorus distribution of data reports river conditions proved to be the most effective way to direct attention and Continue to monitor unusual resources to water quality river conditions problems Hold meetings with municipal authorities and continue to maintain open lines of communication with state and federal regulatory agencies Develop Protocols for Following the lead of CRWA, MyRWA Increased institutional Report out on the results of Monitoring and obtained equipment to monitor cyanobacteria knowledge about cyanobacteria monitoring in Monitored for upon discovering toxic cyanobacteria in Spy cyanobacteria and their public 2008 Cyanobacteria Pond in 2007 health threat Gain cooperation with DCR Tracked potentially harmful cyanobacteria Increased institutional and MassDEP for support with blooms in Ell Pond, Little Pond, and Spy knowledge about monitoring cyanobacteria monitoring Pond in the summer of 2008 for cyanobacteria

176 Accomplishment/ Impact Lessons Learned Future Work Achievement Promote BMPs Tributary Monitoring Comprehensive database of outfall pipes Important to provide detailed Integrate water quality data Follow-up information on contaminated into shoreline survey maps Revision of Water Quality Monitoring reports outfall pipes to municipal used for dissemination of water quality data authorities in data reports, Conduct follow-up meetings including GPS coordinates, with municipalities to gain Conducted meetings with municipal maps, and photos updates on infrastructure authorities to report violations of water repairs and BMP projects quality standards

BMP Education and Hosted a LID-workshops in conjunction with Municipal stormwater Sponsor more workshops for Outreach CZM and EOEEA managers are very interested in municipal officials centering opportunities for capacity- on themes identified by BMP Sponsored a BMP Educational Conference for building Conference participants in municipal authorities follow-up evaluations

Presentations to various stakeholder groups

Outreach Developed and All 21 municipalities in the Mystic River Overall, citizens have appeared Continue developing education distributed educational watershed received a packet of educational to generally have little material for MyRWA’s new literature brochures on non-point source pollution understanding of how website stormwater pollution impacts Volunteer training Trained volunteers to disseminate and discuss the Mystic Watershed. educational materials at local festivals, Town Focusing on education to this Outreach to Days, and other outreach events end was an important community members contribution to raising the Wrote articles for newsletters and local public’s awareness about non- newspapers to educate members and point source pollution. concerned citizens about non-point source pollution

177 Accomplishment/ Impact Lessons Learned Future Work Achievement Facilitated river clean-ups with the help of hundreds of volunteers

178 REFERENCES

U.S. EPA. (March, 2008). What is Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution? Questions and Answers. Accessed August 4, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html.

Borci, T. (2007). Personal Communication.

Brown, E., Caraco, D., and Pitt, R.(2004). Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A guidance manual for program development and technical assessments. Center for Watershed Protection, EPA Cooperative Agreement X-82907801-0.

CRWA. (December 2003). Assessment of Fish Communities and Habitat in the Charles River Watershed. Charles River Watershed Association, Weston, MA.

CRWA. (2007). Charles River Watershed Water Quality and Flow Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (2007-2009). Charles River Watershed Association, Weston, MA.

Head of the Charles, Inc. (HOTC). (2008). Sponsorship: Event Overview. Head of the Charles Regatta. Accessed January 24, 2008. http://www.hocr.org/sponsorship/default.asp.

Kansas DHE, 2000. Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) For Stream Teams and Volunteer Monitoring Projects. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Water, Nonpoint Source Section.

Kaufman, A. (July 10, 1996). EPA: A Health Charles River Contributes Over $100 Million to Local Economy. EPA New England Press Releases. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/pr/1996/pr0710a.html.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Division of Watershed Management. (November 2007a). Charles River Watershed 2002-2006 Water Quality Assessment Report. Report Number 72-AC-4.

MassDEP. (November 2004). Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Protocol Guidance for Consideration Accessed July 2007. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/appendxa.pdf.

MassDEP. (January 2007b). Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control, Technical Services Branch. Westborough, MA (314 CMR 4.00). Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf.

MassDEP. (2006). Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters – Proposed listing of the condition of MA waters pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) Clean Water Act. MassDEP, Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA.

179 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2000). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XIV. EPA-822/B-00/022.US EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

EPA. (2003). Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential Approaches. US EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington DC.

EPA. (May 2007). EPA’s Annual Water Quality Report on the Lower Charles River 2006.

EPA. (1998). EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C. EPA/600/R-98/018. pp. 136.

EPA. (1996). The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, EPA 841-B-96-003. pp. 67.

EPA. (Unknown year). US EPA Stormwater Program’s Webcast Series Conduction Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Investigations (IDDE 201). Accessed July 2007. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdespub/webcasts/test/106273%20Flash%20Archive/106273%20Flash%2 0Archive/idde_201_resources_list(formatted).pdf.

180