Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations

Home , Boston Harbor, Monatiquot River, Mystic River, Neponset River, Purgatory Brook

Boston Harbor Watersheds

Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations

Fore River Watershed Mystic River Watershed Neponset River Watershed Weir River Watershed

Project Number 2002-02/MWI

June 30, 2003

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection

Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations

Project Number 2002-01/MWI

June 30, 2003

Report Prepared by: Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association Libby Larson, Mystic River Watershed Association Carl Pawlowski, Fore River Watershed Association Wendy Roemer, Neponset River Watershed Association Samantha Woods, Weir River Watershed Association

Report Prepared for: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Commissioner

Bureau of Resource Protection Cynthia Giles, Assistant Commissioner

Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director

Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director

Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations

Project Number 2002-01/MWI

July 2001 through June 2003

Report Prepared for: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection

Preface In 2002 the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection sought outside contractors to conduct water quality and hydrologic investigations in the Boston Harbor Watershed, with the goal of restoring designated uses as called for under the Federal Clean Water Act. The project was initiated under, and funded through, the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative using state environmental bond funds.

As defined by the state of Massachusetts the Boston Harbor Watershed consists of a number of smaller, hydrologically separate watersheds each of which drains to the Boston Harbor. These include the Mystic River Watershed to the northeast of Boston, the Neponset River Watershed to the Southwest, the Fore River Watershed to the south, the Back River to the southeast, and finally the Weir River Watershed to the extreme southeast. Notably omitted for the state defined Boston Harbor Watershed is the Harbor’s other major tributary, the Charles River.

To maximize the benefits derived from limited funds, the Department of Environmental Protection selected a coalition of nonprofit organizations to carry out the project, using a volunteer based water quality monitoring strategy. The coalition included the Neponset, Mystic, Fore and Weir River Watershed Associations, with the Neponset Watershed Association serving as fiscal agent for the project. This collaborative matched the funding available from the Department with volunteer time, in-kind laboratory analysis, other in-kind services and contributions from private donors to substantially expand the scope of what could be accomplished.

This report summarizes the results of those investigations, and recommends actions needed to restore natural resources and achieve water quality standards in the study area.

Each of the Watersheds included in the study area has its own unique set of water quality challenges and opportunities. Furthermore each watershed had available to it different levels of matching resources. The result was in essence a set of four separate but interrelated water quality monitoring programs tailored specifically to the needs, resources and goals of its own watershed.

While watershed impairments and sampling strategies all differed, each monitoring program had one thing in common: a DEP approved QAPP. The QAPP or Quality Assurance Project Plan was prepared by the applicable watershed association and spelled out all the details of how the investigations would be conducted and the measures taken to ensure that the resulting data was reliable for its intended purposes.

The four resulting reports are collected here to form this overall water quality assessment and action plan for the Boston Harbor Watersheds. The overall table of contents provides a key to locating the beginning of each watershed’s report in both the hard copy and electronic versions of the report. Each watershed section then includes its own, more detailed table of contents.

Overall Table of Contents

Watershed Hard Copy PDF Name Tab Number Page Number

Fore River Watershed ...... One ...... 11

Mystic River Watershed ...... Two...... 29

Neponset River Watershed ...... Three...... 91

Weir River Watershed...... Four...... 351

Fore River Watershed

Fore River Watershed Table of Contents

Background and Program Design...... 3

The Fore River Watershed...... 3 Past Monitoring and Project Goals...... 3 Sampling Program Design...... 4 Sampling Station Descriptions...... 5 Water Quality Criteria...... 8

Discussion and Recommendations...... 9

Location No. 31: Phillips Creek at North Street...... 9 Location No. 45: Tributary at Montcalm Street ...... 9 Location No. 61: Smelt Brook...... 10 Location No. 71: Monatiquot River @ Shaw Street...... 10 Location No. 71A: Storm Drain at Shaw Street Bridge ...... 10

Conclusion ...... 12

References...... 13

Appendix: Data Tables...... 15

Fore River Watershed, page F1 Fore River Watershed, page F2 Background and Program Design

The Fore River Watershed The Fore River Watershed includes some 46.5 square miles draining portions of Quincy, Braintree, and Weymouth. The watershed includes both freshwater tributaries and large estuarine reaches. Critical natural resources within the Fore River Watershed include extensive shellfish beds, anadromous smelt and herring runs, and an active recreational boating community and swimming beaches in the brackish portion of the watershed. Some 150,000 people reside in the watershed, and land use ranges from high density urban to low density suburban. The Fore River Watershed also has a significant stretch of “working waterfront” which includes the former Fore River shipyard, MWRA sludge to fertilizer facility and Sythe energy generating station.

Water quality in the Fore River Watershed and its tributaries has historically been severely impacted by bacterial pollution in the freshwater reaches and upper estuary, resulting in nonsupport of primary and secondary contact recreation standards and the closure of productive shellfish beds. The Lower Estuary, dominated by saltwater inflows from the Boston Harbor, has benefited significantly from the Boston Harbor Cleanup Project, and generally supports shell fishing. Many segments of the Fore River are included on the Massachusetts 303(d) list for pathogens and other sources of impairment.

Frequent sanitary sewer overflows from the MWRA’s Braintree-Weymouth Interceptor have been one of the primary sources of historic bacterial pollution. Upgrades to the interceptor are underway which should at least minimize and hopefully completely eliminate these egregious discharges. However any number of other sources of bacterial pollution exist within the watershed such as cross-connections, other SSOs, exfiltration and nonpoint sources, such that remediation of the Interceptor, in and of itself, will not be sufficient to restore primary and secondary contact shell fishing uses.

Past Monitoring and Project Goals Aside from the data collected in the past by the Fore River Watershed Association, very minimal assessment activities have been conducted on the Fore River by DEP or other government agencies. As a result, the DEP Nonpoint Source Action plan identifies conducting water quality monitoring and assessments as the primary, if not only, action for many segments of the Fore River Watershed.

Assessment and monitoring activities in the Fore River Watershed were carried out by the staff and volunteers of the Fore River Watershed Association, with additional technical and administrative support from the Neponset River Watershed Association.

The Fore River Watershed Association (FRWA) was founded in 1996 with the mission to protect and restore the natural resources of the Fore/Weymouth River, its tributaries and surrounding lands. Restoring water quality is a priority goal for the Association, specifically restoring

Fore River Watershed, page F3 primary and secondary contact recreation uses, restoring resident and anadromous fishery habitats and reopening the Fore River’s production of currently polluted shellfish beds.

The Association conducted a volunteer water-quality monitoring program from 1996 to 2000 with the support and assistance of the Mass Bays Program and the Mass Water Resources Authority. This program collected high quality data that helped identify sources of bacterial contamination and initiate remediation efforts by municipal and state parties.

The ultimate goal of the project in the Fore River Watershed is to restore primary and secondary contact recreation uses, as well as to reopen shellfish beds. Consistent with the recommendations of DEP’s Boston Harbor Watershed 1999 Water Quality Assessment Report, the immediate objectives are to:  Establish a sustainable, volunteer-based monitoring program that will provide the data needed to bring about water quality improvements;  Develop and obtain DEP approval for a QAPP to guide implementation of the monitoring program;  Collect high quality baseline data on bacteria and other basic physical water quality parameters, at strategic locations, focusing initially on the upper watershed;  Identify specific pollution sources contributing to non-attainment of designated uses, and work with municipal, state and federal officials to secure remediation of those pollution sources;  Educate the public about water quality conditions in the Fore River, and thereby build a stronger local constituency for restoring designated uses.

Because this is a relatively new volunteer sampling program, with limited pre-existing infrastructure and few matching resources in addition to DEP funding, the scope of sampling activities in the Fore River watershed was significantly more limited than the scope of sampling in other sub-basins of the Boston Harbor Watershed. Activities focused on establishing a sound foundation for the growth of the program over time.

Sampling Program Design Volunteers collected samples on weekday mornings, during slack low tide, such that all the samples reflect freshwater conditions. Observations were made in the field for temperature and pH. Stream discharge was also estimated in the field. Volunteers also collected samples in the field that were analyzed by G&L Laboratories for Fecal coliform, E. coli, and TSS. All sampling was conducted under the guidance of a DEP approved QAPP.

Monitoring took place at four instream and one outfall location. Instream locations were positioned at the downstream ends of the key tributaries before they entered the Fore River proper. The outfall location was included to evaluate whether past efforts to eliminate known illicit sanitary flows in that outfall had been successful.

In all, five rounds of sampling were completed. Three rounds were representative of dry-weather conditions and two rounds representative of wet-weather conditions. Precipitation data for each sampling event as measured at the Blue Hills observatory is presented in the table below.

Fore River Watershed, page F4 Sampling Dates and Antecedent Precipitation Date Inches of precipitation Weather during 72 hours preceding 8 AM classification 8/22/02 0.66 Wet 10/10/02 0.00 Dry 12/6/02 0.41 Wet 4/18/03 0.00 Dry 6/18/2003 0.00* Dry * precipitation for 48 hrs prior only due to incomplete record at Blue Hill Observatory

Sampling Station Descriptions

Location No. 31: Phillips Creek at North Street (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) Phillips Creek is a small tributary that flows into the Fore River at the northeast corner of Mill Cove. The creek flows through predominantly residential areas, salt marshes and wetlands. During the Fore River Embayment Project, monitoring in Phillips Creek led the identification of a cluster of homes tied into a central septic system. This finding led the Town of Weymouth to work together with the owners to connect these homes to the local sewer system. This work was apparently completed in l995. Subsequent monitoring of the creek indicates that although bacterial contamination appears to have been reduced, it has not been eliminated.

Location No. 45: Tributary at Montcalm Street (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) The tributary at Montcalm Street is impacted by sanitary sewer overflows from a sewer line owned by the Town of Weymouth. Results from past monitoring events indicate that the tributary does not contribute a significant bacterial pollutant loading to the Fore River during dry periods.

Location No. 61: Smelt Brook (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) Smelt Brook is severely impacted by sanitary sewer overflows from MWRA’ s interceptor. During wet weather events, the local sewer systems and the interceptor overflow, discharging tens of millions of gallons of raw sewage directly into the brook. However, during dry periods without overflows, this tributary appears to be one of the cleanest.

Location No. 71: Monatiquot River (MA74-08, Class B Warm Water Fishery) The Monatiquot River is the largest source of flow into the Fore River. Historical monitoring at this location shows that, while not completely clean, this water appears to be the least polluted of all the monitored locations.

Location No. 71A: Storm Drain at Shaw Street Bridge (outfall to MA74-08, Class B Warm Water Fishery)

Fore River Watershed, page F5 The discharge from the storm drain at the Shaw Street Bridge is contaminated with sanitary sewage. Work done during the Fore River Embayment Project sought to locate and eliminate the sources of this pollution. The problem was traced to an apparent sewage leak into the storm drain from a local sewerage line. The Town of Braintree repaired a portion of the sewer line in 1996. Subsequent monitoring appeared to show an improvement in water quality, however, bacteria levels increased over time at this location.

Fore River Watershed, page F6 Phillips Creek @ Pearl Street 31 [_

Lower Mill Cove @ Montcalm Street 45

Monatiquot River @ Shaw Street 71 [_ [_ [_ Smelt Brook @ Commercial Street Lot 61

Storm Drain @ Shaw Street Bridge 710 Water Quality Criteria Under the Mass Surface Water Quality Standards the Monaquit River is classified as Class B warm water fishery, while the Fore River Estuary is classified as SB Shellfishing restricted. The Mass Surface Water Quality Standards designate numeric criteria for establishing use determinations for some, but not all designated uses. For discussion purposes, thresholds from the scientific literature have been used. The Water Quality Criteria used in the discussion that follows are summarized below.

Discussion Criteria and Abbreviations Parameter Criterion Abbreviation Basis for Criterion

Fecal Coliform < 200 cfu/100mL Swimmable MA Surface Water Quality Standards Contact Recreation > 200 cfu/100mL Fishable AND < 1,000 cfu/100mL > 1,000 cfu/100mL Nonsupport

E. coli < 126 cfu/100mL Swimmable EPA-823-R-98-003 Bacterial Water Contact Recreation > 126 cfu/100mL Fishable Quality Standards Status Report. Office AND < 630 cfu/100mL of Science and Technology. Office of > 630 cfu/100mL Exceedance Water.

TSS < 25 Acceptable Kennedy, et. Al. 1995 > 25 AND < 80 Concern > 80 Problem pH >= 6.5 and <= 8.5 Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Class SB < 6.5 or > 8.5 Nonsupport

Temperature <= 28.3 degrees C Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Warm Water Fishery > 28.3 degrees C Nonsupport

Temperature <= 20 degrees C Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Cold Water Fishery > 20 degrees C Nonsupport

Fecal Coliform <= 88 cfu/100ml Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Restricted Shellfishing > 88 cfu/100ml Nonsupport

Fore River Watershed, page F8 Discussion and Recommendations Sampling results for the current project are presented in the table at the end of this section. Results and recommended actions for each station are discussed below.

Location No. 31: Phillips Creek at North Street (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) All the samples for fecal coliform at this station violated the restricted shellfishing criteria, and 60% violated the less protective primary contact recreation criteria. The highest count was found during the heaviest wet weather event, but overall there is no clear wet weather/dry weather pattern. These results suggest the continued presence of septic or sewer pollution in this reach. Nevertheless, these results also indicate improvement over past measurements, presumably due to remediation of previously identified septic system failures in the vicinity. Temperature, pH and TSS were generally within acceptable limits.

Recommended Actions:  Ongoing sampling for bacteria should be conducted at this site to better document current conditions and the progress of remediation efforts.  Follow up sampling for bacteria and/or surfactants should be conducted both instream and at outfalls in conjunction with a shoreline survey and review of Board of Health records in an effort to isolate specific sources.

Location No. 45: Tributary at Montcalm Street (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) All the samples for fecal coliform at this station violated the restricted shellfishing criteria, and 60% violated the less protective primary contact recreation criteria. Again there is no clear dry weather/wet weather pattern, with the worst sample occurring during dry weather. This location is just downstream from a Weymouth sewer line that frequently overflows during wet weather. The frequency of overflows should diminish when the new improvements to the MWRA’s Braintree/Weymouth interceptor are completed in early 2004. The dry weather results indicate the presence of sewage contamination possibly the result of an illicit connection, sewer exfiltration or a failing septic system. Temperature and ph were within acceptable limits though 60% of TSS samples exceeded the concern criteria.

Recommended Actions:  Ongoing sampling for bacteria should be conducted at this site to better document current conditions and the progress of remediation efforts.  Follow up sampling for bacteria and/or surfactants should be conducted both instream and at outfalls in conjunction with a shoreline survey in an effort to isolate specific sources.  Further investigation in this area should also include television surveillance of the sewer line and a review of Board of Heath septic system records in the area.

Fore River Watershed, page F9 Location No. 61: Smelt Brook (tributary to MA74-14, Class SB Restricted Shellfishing) Sixty percent of fecal coliform samples at this location violated both the restricted shellfishing criterion and the primary contact recreation criterion. During the heaviest wet weather event, there was an extremely high fecal coliform count of 51,000 CFU/100ml, an apparent consequence of the large SSO located upstream. Once again though, there is no clear wet dry pattern in the results, and there appear to be dry weather sources of bacteria as well. Once MWRA interceptor work is complete wet weather water quality should improve substantially at this site. Temperature and pH were within acceptable limits for all the sampling rounds, but 20% of TSS samples exceeded the concern criteria.

Recommended Actions:  Ongoing sampling for bacteria should be conducted at this site to verify the effectiveness of MWRA Interceptor improvements in eliminating SSOs. Ongoing sampling would also help clarify the nature of dry weather bacterial pollution at this site.  Follow up sampling for bacteria and/or surfactants should be conducted both instream and at outfalls during dry weather, in conjunction with a shoreline survey in an effort to isolate specific sources.

Location No. 71: Monatiquot River @ Shaw Street (MA74-08, Class B Warm Water Fishery) Eighty percent of samples for fecal coliform at this site support the primary contact recreation criteria with the one violation coming during dry weather. Although the SB restricted shellfishing criteria does not directly apply to this site it is important to note that only 20% of the samples support that criterion, and this station is immediately upstream of areas designated such. Temperature and pH were both within acceptable limits, but 20% of TSS samples were in the problem range. Nevertheless these results indicate that the largest contribution of fresh water flow into the Fore River remains relatively clean. It is important to note that these samples were collected outside the zone of influence of discharges from location 71A.

Recommended Actions:  Ongoing monitoring of bacteria should be conducted at this site to verify the absence of serious pollutant loading to shelfishing areas.  Monitoring for parameters other than bacteria should be conducted at this site, particularly for nitrogen, DO and perhaps macroinvertebrates, to verify the absence of any heretofore undetected problems.

Location No. 71A: Storm Drain at Shaw Street Bridge (outfall to MA74-08, Class B Warm Water Fishery) Eighty percent of samples at this outfall monitoring location exceed the primary contact recreation criteria, with an extraordinarily high result of 130,000 cfu/100ml during the heaviest wet weather event. These results indicate the presence of both SSOs, and either illicit connections and/or heavy sewer exfiltration somewhere in the collection system. Temperature, pH and TSS are generally within acceptable limits with one sample for TSS crossing slightly into

Fore River Watershed, page F10 the concern range. Improvements to this drain system made by the Town of Braintree clearly have not been sufficient to remediate the problems. This area requires immediate attention.

Recommended Actions:  Ongoing monitoring of bacteria should be conducted at this site to document the progress of remediation efforts.  Dry-weather and wet weather manhole sampling should be conducted throughout this drainage system to isolate and prioritize what are likely be to be multiple sources of sewage entering the system.  DEP, the FRWA and the Town of Braintree should meet to discuss this situation and develop a plan for immediate investigation followed by a timeline for prompt remediation.  If additional investigations are not promptly initiated by the town, DEP should initiate enforcement action as needed.

Fore River Watershed, page F11 Conclusion The sampling conducted in the Fore River Watershed has met its objectives of creating the infrastructure for a potentially successful long-term, volunteer-based monitoring program. It has also succeeded in collecting much needed data at key locations in this underassessed watershed. An effective program of ongoing water quality monitoring is desperately needed, not only for the sites monitored during this project, but in the many areas of the watershed not investigated here. It is also imperative that DEP the development and implementation of actions by municipalities and the MWRA to remediate sewage pollution entering the Fore River and its tributaries. Once the immediate impacts of sewage inputs have been addressed, it would be prudent to conduct surveys of sediment quality and fish tissue toxicity to verify the absence of lingering impacts from these extraordinary SSOs.

Fore River Watershed, page F12 References Applied Principles of Hydrology, Manning, John C., 1992, Macmillian Publishing Company, New York.

Citizen Water Monitoring Network, 1997 Final Report, Neponset River Watershed Association, February 1998, NepRWA.

Citizen Water Monitoring Network, 1998 Sampling Season Final Report, 1999, Barden, Michele Cobban, Neponset River Watershed Association, July 1999.

Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring: An Environmental Education Program for Schools, Mitchell, Mark K. and Stapp, William B., 1990. Thomson-Shore Printers, Dexter, MI.

Final Report on Neponset River Volunteer Flow Monitoring at Lower Mills, Milton, 1995-1996, Chase, Bradford; Pelto, Karen and Ide, Jenna, May 1997, Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement and Neponset River Watershed Association.

Neponset River Estuary, Area of Critical Environmental Concern: Resource Management Plan, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, DEM, ACEC Program, March 1996, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, DEM, ACEC Program.

Neponset River Watershed Modeling Project, Prototype Application Report, Camp Dresser and McKee, August 1997, Department of Environmental Protection and Camp Dresser and McKee.

Neponset River Watershed Basin Wide Action Plan, Neponset River Watershed Association, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, March 1997, Neponset River Watershed Association, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Citizen Water Monitoring Network, Neponset River Watershed Association, April 1998, Neponset River Watershed Association.

River Water Sampling and Analysis Manual, River Watch Network, March 1996, River Watch Network Inc.

Standard Operating Procedures: River and Stream Monitoring, Basins Program 1989, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. #15989-60-50-6-89-C.R., DEQE.

The Neponset River Watershed: 1994 Resource Assessment Report, Kennedy, Laurie E., O’Shea, Leslie K., Dunn, Jr., William J., and Lavangie, Duane, October 1995, The Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Watershed Management.

The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA 841-B-96-003. September 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

Fore River Watershed, page F13 D.C.

Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers, EPA 440/4-90-010. August 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Use Attainability Study of the East Branch of the Neponset River, Canton, Stoughton and Sharon, Massachusetts, August 1997, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

Water in Environmental Planning, Dunne, Thomas and Leopold, Luna B., 1978, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Water Quality: A Field-Based Water Quality Testing Program for Middle Schools and High Schools, The Writing Company for MWRA, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

Fore River Watershed, page F14 Appendix: Data Tables

Fore River Watershed, page F15 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 1,300 300 120 90 910 45 140 800 650 90 410 61 51,000 520 70 70 320 71 140 190 80 180 340 71A 130,000 7,700 2,950 <10 6,600

E. coli (cfu/100 ml) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 420 60 100 40 260 45 45 610 570 45 300 61 6,800 60 55 <10 80 71 45 30 50 10 190 71A 91,000 900 2,900 <10 290

Total Suspended Solids (mg/kg) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 <4 58 <10 10 20 45 42 50 48 10 30 61 <4 16 62 <10 20 71 <4 144 <10 <10 10 71A <4 28 20 <10 <10

Temperature (degrees C) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 nd 11.9 4.8 nd 15.3 45 nd 11.3 5 nd 14.3 61 nd 15.9 8.4 nd 15.1 71 nd 12.2 8.2 nd 14.3 71A nd 18.2 8 nd 17.6

pH (standard units) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 nd 7.8 7.1 nd 7.4 45 nd 7.3 6.9 nd 7.5 61 nd 7.1 8.4 nd 7.8 71 nd 7.7 7.7 nd 7.8 71A nd 8.2 8 nd 7.8

Discharge (estimated in MGD) Date Location 8/22/2002 10/10/2002 12/6/2002 4/18/2003 6/18/2003 31 1.08 1.60 nd 2.67 2.42 45 0.96 1.20 nd 2.62 1.85 61 1.05 4.30 nd 12.08 5.43 71 7.46 11.50 nd 67.33 34.66 71A 0.01 0.01 nd 0.04 0.03 Mystic River Watershed

Acknowledgements The Mystic River Watershed Association would like to thank the individuals, organizations, and agencies that provided MyRWA funding, laboratory services, technical assistance and program oversight to support the Mystic Monitoring Network. These include:

Kathy Baskin Anne Monnelly Brenda Berasi Jack Paar Todd Callaghan Peggy Savage Arthur Clark Arthur Screpetis Michele Cobban-Barden Myra Schwartz Ian Cooke Dave Senn Leslie DeSimone Charles River Watershed Association John Durant Home Depot Alyson Eberhardt Massachusetts DEP Jim Fitzgerald Neponset River Watershed Association Laura Harrahy Tufts University Beth Higgins U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maureen Hilton Region 1 Laboratory Rich Kleiman Watershed Initiative, Executive Office Paul Kirshen of Environmental Affairs Kwabena Kyei-Aboagye Jr.

Additionally, we would like to offer special thanks to Roger Frymire, volunteer extraordinaire. His dedication to the program and knowledge of the watershed has been invaluable. A very special thanks also to all of the volunteers who donated their time and efforts to make the Mystic Monitoring Network a wonderful success:

Kathryn Adams Anne Isham Tom Olson Pam Ahearn Rosemary Jason Tracy Olson Joe Armstrong-Champ Bob Jenkins Bob Paine Kathleen Attfield Delia Kaye Chris Pikula Joan Baldwin Kara Kelly Betty Radwanski Steven Berger Shannon Koenig Rebecca Ramsay Kara Brewton Janet Kovner Phil Rossoni Keryn Bromberg Amy Linsenmeyer Helen Rueda Todd Callaghan Catherine Lowery Greg Sampson Rowena Conkling Elizabeth Locke Matt Shuman Beth Conlin Alberta Maged Isabel Simoes Nancy Davis Elisa Manganelli Barbara Solomon Alyson Eberhardt Doug Matson Marsha Turin Bill Eykamp Mike O’Brien Christina Viola Jim Fesler Tuck O’Brien Rebecca Williams Erin Graham Jeff Oesterle Liz Woodcock Nancy Harris Andrew Olson Roger Wrubel Jane Yates Mystic Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 3

Introduction...... 9

Introduction...... 9 Geography and History...... 9

Project Description ...... 11 MMN-Baseline Parameters ...... 11 Monitoring Frequency ...... 12 Rationale for Selection of Sampling Sites...... 13 Quality Assurance...... 15

Results ...... 18 Precipitation ...... 18 Depth/Streamflow ...... 19 E. coli Bacteria ...... 20 Total Suspended Solids ...... 21 Nitrate and Nitrite...... 22 Total Phosphorous...... 23 Specific Conductance...... 24 pH...... 25 Dissolved Oxygen...... 26 Temperature...... 28 Color ...... 28 Odor ...... 29 Completion Rates...... 30

Discussion by Parameter ...... 33 E. coli bacteria...... 33 Total Suspended Solids ...... 36 Nitrate and Nitrite...... 38

Mystic River Watershed, page M1 Total Phosphorus...... 39 Specific Conductance...... 40 pH...... 42 Dissolved Oxygen...... 42 5.8 Temperature...... 43

Discussion By Location...... 46 ABR049 – Aberjona at Salem Street Bridge, Woburn ...... 46 ABR028 – Aberjona at Washington Street Bridge, Winchester...... 47 ABR006 – Aberjona at USGS Station, Winchester ...... 48 UPL001 – Upper Mystic Lake at Dam, Medford...... 49 MIB001 – Mill Brook at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, Arlington...... 49 MYR071 – Mystic River at High Street Bridge, Arlington...... 50 WIB001 – Winn’s Brook, Outfall to Little Pond, Belmont...... 51 ALB006 – Alewife Brook at Broadway, Somerville...... 51 MEB001 – Meetinghouse Brook, Outlet to Mystic River, Medford...... 53 MAR036 – Malden River at Medford Street Bridge, Malden ...... 53

Recommendations and Action Plan ...... 55

References...... 57

Appendix: Data Tables...... 59

Mystic River Watershed, page M2 Executive Summary In March 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) awarded the MyRWA, as a subcontractor to the Neponset River Watershed Association (NepRWA), a Massachusetts Watershed Initiative grant. This enabled the MyRWA to create the Mystic Monitoring Network (MMN), a volunteer water quality monitoring project. Since July 2000, the MMN has been collecting samples monthly for analysis of a variety of water quality parameters. The results of the previous 19 months were published in earlier papers "Mystic Monitoring Network Yearly Review: Baseline Water Quality Data for the Watershed (July 2000 – February 2002)" by Libby Larson and “Water Quality Monitoring in the Mystic River Watershed: A Study of 10 Sites (July- December 2000)” by Alyson Eberhardt and Libby Larson, Coordinators of the MMN project.

In 2002, MyRWA contracted again with NepRWA to complete the Mystic River Watershed portion of the Boston Harbor Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Project (2002-01/MWI) commissioned by the MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Sampling for this contract began in June 2002 at the same 10 locations initially chosen in 2000. The last samples included in this project were collected in March 2003. Continued MMN sampling will depend on the availability of funding and in-kind laboratory services.

The water quality parameters that the MMN monitors were chosen to correspond with those detailed in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00 (MASWQS). The significance of each parameter is described in the Results section. The parameters sampled, as well as the methods and techniques used, are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Parameters and Methods for MMN 2002-2003 Sampling Project Parameter Method Reference Color Direct observation Odor Direct observation Temperature Armored thermometer 0170.1 (b) pH Electrometric 0150.1 (b) Dissolved Oxygen Titration 0360.2 (b) Depth Staff gage Total Suspended Solids Gravimetric 0160.2 (b) Specific Conductance Electrometric 2510B (a) Nitrate/Nitrite Autoanalyzer 353.2 (b) Total Phosphorus Alkaline Persulfate Marine Chemistry, 10 (1981): Digestion, Autoanalyzer 109-122 E. coli Modified mTEC 9223 (b) (a) Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C., 1992. (b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1993. (EPA-600/4-79-020). (c) “Hach Water Analysis Handbook,” 3rd ed., 1997.

Monitoring events were scheduled for the second Wednesday of every month. Volunteers collected samples between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. Two additional

Mystic River Watershed, page M3 samplings were scheduled to target wet weather events. A wet weather event is defined as a rain event of 0.25 inches. However, due to budget constraints, the MWRA laboratory was not able to provide analyses on any additional dates beyond the regularly scheduled Wednesday sampling events. Fortunately, two of these dates happened to correspond with wet weather: July 10, 2002, and November 13, 2002.

With the exception of the samples collected on July 10, 2002, and November 13, 2002, all other samples are considered dry. Volunteers collected samples at 10 sites located throughout the watershed (Table 2). While in the field, volunteers took measurements of pH and temperature, made observations of color and odor, and collected and fixed dissolved oxygen samples. Water depth was measured by MMN volunteers at sites equipped with staff gages. Dissolved oxygen samples were analyzed by MyRWA staff at the MyRWA office. E. coli, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite, and specific conductance analyses were performed by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) laboratory. Table 2: Sampling Site Identification Numbers, Descriptions, and Geographic Positioning System Coordinates

Site ID Description Town Coordinates 71 07 43.94 w ABR049 Aberjona River at Salem St. Woburn 42 29 29.33 n Aberjona River at Washington St, 71 07 29.94 w ABR028 Winchester north of Forest St. 42 28 10.19 n Aberjona River at USGS stream 71 08 19.22 w ABR006 Winchester Gauging station 42 26 50.33 n Upper Mystic Lake at the Mystic 71 08 53023 w UPL001 Medford Lakes Dam 42 26 50.33 n 71 08 58.04 w MIB001 Mill Brook at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery Arlington 42 25 20.27 n 71 08 34.35w MYR071 Mystic River at High St. Bridge Arlington 42 25 14.16 n Winn Brook, 71 09 39.80 w WIB001 Belmont outlet into Little Pond 42 23 57.96 n Alewife Brook Arlington/ 71 08 01.41 w ALB006 at Broadway Somerville 42 24 25.41 n Meetinghouse Brook, 71 07 01.14 w MEB001 Medford outlet in to the Mystic River 42 25 06.51 n Malden River, 71 04 23.93 w MAR036 Malden at Medford St. 42 25 04.49 n

One of the greatest causes of concern throughout the watershed is E. coli. E. coli bacteria are a type of fecal coliform and are used as an indicator of disease causing organisms present in water. Currently, the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standard (MASWQS) for Class B warm water is based on fecal coliform. The fecal coliform limit for primary contact (swimming) is 200 cfu/100 ml. For secondary contact

Mystic River Watershed, page M4 (boating), the limit is 1,000 cfu/100 ml. However, studies have shown that E. coli is a better indicator of the risk to human health. Therefore, the State has plans to change the basis of the MASWQS from fecal coliform to E. coli. The cutoff levels for support of recreational activities have not yet been established as this report went to press.

Because E. coli is a subset of fecal coliform, it is reasonable to assume that the level of fecal coliform is equal to or greater than the measured result for E. coli for any sample. Therefore, for discussion purposes in the Mystic River portion of this report, any E. coli result that is equal to or greater than 200 cfu/100ml is treated as violating the standard for primary contact, and any result that is greater than 1,000 cfu/100ml is treated as violating the standard for secondary contact. By this standard, 60% of the E. coli samples collected did not meet MASWQS for primary contact recreation (i.e. swimming) during the entire period of study.

One of the criteria for determining primary contact recreation support states that no more than 10% of the samples shall exceed 400cfu/100ml. All sites except Upper Mystic Lake probably violated this criterion as well as the standard for secondary contact recreation with more than 10% of the samples with results greater than 2000cfu/100ml. In particular, samples from the Aberjona River at Salem St., Mill Brook, and Winn's Brook probably violated standards for primary contact 75%, 88%, and 100% of the time respectively. See Table 3.

Mystic River Watershed, page M5 Table 3: E. coli Geometric Mean and Percentage of samples violating 1 o and 2o contact standards % # % Geometric Total # # >400 Site ID# Site Description >400cfu/ >2000cfu/ >2000cfu/ Mean samples cfu/100ml 100ml 100ml 100ml ABR049 Aberjona @ Salem St. 1,295 8675% 2 25% ABR028 Aberjona @ Washington St. 1,074 8563% 2 25% ABR006 Aberjona @ USGS station 977 8450% 2 25% Upper Mystic Lake @ Mystic 36 7 0 0% 0 0% UPL001 Lakes Dam Mill Brook @ Mt. Pleasant 2,733 8788% 3 38% MIB001 Cemetery Mystic River @High St. 154 8 3 38% 1 13% MYR071 Bridge Winn Brook, outlet to Little 1,561 88100% 3 38% WIB001 Pond ALB006 Alewife Brook @ Broadway 996 8563% 2 25% Meetinghouse Brook, outlet 701 7457% 1 14% MEB001 into Mystic River MAR036 Malden River @ Medford St. 1,734 8563% 3 38% Total 78 47 60% 19 24% Indicates probable violation of MASWQS

As seen in Table 4, all of the sampling locations, except for Upper Mystic Lake and Mystic River at High Street, easily qualify as “hot spots”, places with high levels of pollution, due to E. coli levels, total phosphorus, nitrate + nitrite, and dissolved oxygen are of concern at several sites as well.

Table 4: Percent of All Samples Deviating from Established Criteria and Guidelines by Site Nitrate+ Total Spec. DO DO Site E. Coli1 TSS Temp. pH Nitrite Phos. Cond. mg/L % ABR049 75 0 56 0 78 50 63 0 29 ABR028 63 0 86 0 88 0 0 0 29 ABR006 50 0 88 63 67 0 11 0 14 UPL001 0 0 14 100 13 0 0 0 50 MIB001 88 22 88 100 78 0 0 0 0 MYR071 38 11 33 11 33 0 0 0 0 WIB001 100 0 56 100 67 0 0 0 0 ALB006 63 11 22 67 78 44 89 0 43 MEB001 57 13 78 22 11 0 0 0 0 MAR036 63 0 11 44 89 13 25 0 0 1 Percent of samples greater than 400 cfu/100 mL (MASWQS Primary Contact)

Mystic River Watershed, page M6 greater than 50% of the time; thus, these sites are a potential public health risk. More sampling needs to be conducted to better determine the sources of these bacteria.

Seven of the sampling sites are in waterbodies listed on the state 303(d) list of for pathogens. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) needs to be developed for these waterbodies due to the public health risk associated with high fecal coliform levels. However, a TMDL cannot be developed without adequate flow information. Staff gages exist at only 5 of the 10 monitoring locations, and the rating curve at MIB001 is no longer adequate for the existing conditions. The Mystic Monitoring Network should evaluate viable methods for calculating flow considering the budget constraints and volunteer capabilities.

This report makes the following specific recommendations as part of an Action Plan:

1. MMN must continue to help local municipalities identify sources of bacterial contamination on Alewife Brook, Mill Brook, Winn’s Brook, the Malden River, the Aberjona River, and Meetinghouse Brook.

2. Local municipalities need to utilize data collected by the MMN and other agencies or groups to remediate the sources of sewage contamination.

3. The MA DEP should continue their enforcement of 308 Non-Compliance, making sure that municipalities submit timely reports and make progress in their remediation efforts.

4. Bacterial TMDLs should be developed for the following waterbodies:

Alewife Brook Meetinghouse Brook Mill Brook Winn’s Brook Malden River Aberjona River

5. Nutrient TMDLs should be developed for the following waterbodies:

Alewife Brook Meetinghouse Brook Mill Brook Winn’s Brook Aberjona River Upper Mystic Lake

6. The MMN and other agencies or groups should investigate improvements to the hydrology of the Alewife Brook area.

Mystic River Watershed, page M7 7. MyRWA and other agencies or groups should continue and expand outreach efforts to local citizens, educating them about current water quality conditions and good stewardship practices.

Mystic River Watershed, page M8 Introduction Nearly 75 individuals representing a number of organizations concerned about the Mystic River watershed created the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA) in 1971. These founders identified the need for improved coordination among all active groups in order to decrease duplication of effort and maximize the protection of these common water resources. Jointly, they applied for and received an Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Capacity Building grant to fund the first two years of the fledgling Mystic River Watershed Coalition (MRWC). The MRWC merged with the 30-year old MyRWA in late 1999. Today, MyRWA includes over 140 individuals and a cross-section of organizations concerned about the watershed.

The mission of MyRWA is to:  restore clean water to the Mystic River Watershed  protect its waters and related natural resources  provide relevant information and education to communities in the watershed

Geography and History The Mystic River Watershed (MRW) encompasses an area of over 76 square miles, includes over 40 lakes and ponds, and supports half a million residents in 21 communities (Figure 1). The MRW has a long history of water pollution from industrial, domestic, and non-point sources. The MA Department of Public Health (formerly the Board of Health) conducted surveys as early as 1871 that described contamination of Horn Pond and Russell Brook by tannery wastes and sewage (Durant et al, 1990). Alewife Brook, among other waterways in the watershed, has long suffered from residential and industrial waste discharged directly into its waters, resulting from the overflow of inadequate sewer systems (Ivushkina, 1999). Illicit connections and cross-connections between sewer and stormwater collection systems are common in parts of the watershed. Previous water quality monitoring has also identified excessive input of plant nutrients and pollutants from stormwater runoff and leachate from toxic waste disposal sites as problems in the Mystic River Basin (DEP 1986).

In an effort to address current pollution and human health issues, numerous water quality studies have been conducted by government agencies, private consultants, universities, and non-profit organizations. Focus on the Mystic River and its tributaries has increased over the past several years, as evidenced by an increase in grants from public agencies and an increase in the number of non-profit environmental organizations in the watershed.

In March 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) awarded MyRWA, as a subcontractor to the Neponset River Watershed Association (NepRWA), a Massachusetts Watershed Initiative grant. This grant enabled MyRWA to create the Mystic Monitoring Network (MMN), a volunteer water quality monitoring project. The MMN benefited from the experience of the Charles River Watershed Association’s volunteer monitoring program, and received valuable help from CRWA in its initial design.

Mystic River Watershed, page M9 Since July 2000, the MMN has been collecting samples monthly for analysis of a variety of water quality parameters. The results of the first six months sampling were published in an earlier paper “Water Quality Monitoring in the Mystic River Watershed: A Study of 10 Sites (July-December 2000)” by Alyson Eberhardt and Libby Larson, Coordinators of the MMN project. This report covers the period of June 2002 – March 2003.

Figure 1: The Mystic River Watershed

Mystic River Watershed, page M10 Project Description The MMN volunteers include of residents, students, and professionals throughout the region. The goals of the MMN are multifold. At the most basic level, the MMN collects high quality data on several water quality parameters to assess the overall health of the Mystic watershed and the particular health of the sampling location(s). By depending on volunteers, the MMN helps cultivate concerned citizen advocates to act as stewards for the watershed. Many of the MMN volunteers become active in other MyRWA activities, including serving on a committee, helping with clean-ups, or organizing events. The MMN uses the data, in collaboration with other local organizations, municipalities and government agencies, to assist identification of areas of concern, sources of pollution, or areas of potential improvement. MyRWA also uses the data to inform MyRWA’s positions and advocacy.

MyRWA was an active participant on the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Boston Harbor Basin Team (now disbanded). The MMN has made data available to the Basin Team Leader and the DEP Division of Watershed Management for their use, particularly as a source for 305(b) assessments. The 305(b) assessments use the most current data available to determine whether waterbodies are supporting their assigned uses, such as primary and secondary contact recreation, shell fishing, and aesthetics.

In 2002, MyRWA contracted with the Neponset River Watershed Association (NepRWA) to complete the Mystic River Watershed portion of the Boston Harbor Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Project (2002-01/MWI) commissioned by the MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Sampling for this contract began in June 2002 at the same 10 locations initially chosen in 2000. The last samples included in this project were collected in March 2003. Continued MMN sampling will depend on the availability of funding and in-kind laboratory services.

MMN-Baseline Parameters The MMN monitors water quality parameters that correspond with those detailed in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.00 (MASWQS). The significance of each parameter is described in the Results section. The parameters sampled, as well as the methods and techniques used, are listed in Table 1.

Mystic River Watershed, page M11 Table 1: Parameters and Methods for MMN Sampling Project Parameter Method Reference Color Direct observation Odor Direct observation Temperature Armored thermometer 0170.1 (b) pH Electrometric 0150.1 (b) Dissolved Oxygen Titration 0360.2 (b) Depth Staff gage Total Suspended Gravimetric 0160.2 (b) Solids Specific Electrometric 2510B (a) Conductance Nitrate/Nitrite Autoanalyzer 353.2 (b) Total Phosphorus Alkaline Persulfate Marine Chemistry,10 Digestion, Autoanalyzer (1981): 109-122 E. coli Modified mTEC 9223 (b) a) Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C., 1992. b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1993. (EPA-600/4-79-020). c) “Hach Water Analysis Handbook,” 3rd ed., 1997.

Monitoring Frequency Monitoring events were scheduled for the second Wednesday of every month. Volunteers collected samples between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. As part of the contract with NepRWA, MyRWA planned to collect 2 additional sets of samples during wet weather. In the first version of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), 72 hours of dry weather was required prior to at least 0.5 inches of rain for the weather to qualify as “wet.” This definition was particularly difficult to implement within the constraints of laboratory and volunteer availability, and only one set of wet weather samples was taken. In the final version of the QAPP, the definition of wet weather was changed to eliminate the required length of dry weather and the requisite rainfall was reduced to 0.25 inches.

Dry Weather Sampling At the completion of this contract, MyRWA had collected data on seven dry weather dates. Volunteers collected samples at 10 sites located throughout the watershed. While in the field, volunteers took measurements of pH and temperature, made observations of color and odor, and collected and fixed dissolved oxygen samples. Water depth was measured by MMN volunteers at sites equipped with staff gages. Dissolved oxygen samples were analyzed by MyRWA staff at the MyRWA office. E. coli, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite, and specific conductance analyses were performed by the laboratory at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA).

Mystic River Watershed, page M12 Wet Weather Sampling At least two wet weather water quality events were scheduled to be taken at all sites, to test the hypothesis that stormwater is a significant source of pollutants to the river. Planned sampling locations were the same as the monthly monitoring sites, allowing for comparison of wet and dry weather water quality. Wet weather samples were to be analyzed for the same parameters as dry weather samples.

Due to budget constraints, the MWRA laboratory was not able to provide analyses on any additional dates beyond the regularly scheduled Wednesday sampling events. Fortunately, two of these dates happened to correspond with wet weather: July 10, 2002, and November 13, 2002. On July 10th, monitors were able to collect samples less than 24 hours after a rainfall of 0.61 inches. On November 13th, volunteers collected samples in the middle of a storm system that deposited 0.69 inches on November 12th and 0.58 inches on November 13th. While neither of these wet weather events represent “first flush,” the results are very informative.

Rationale for Selection of Sampling Sites Because the MMN had already been monitoring at the 10 sites originally selected for the MWI contract in 2000 for almost two years, it was decided that these same locations should be used for this study. Originally, sites were selected throughout the Mystic River watershed to ensure representativeness. Six of the ten sites were previously sampled as part of another study by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 1999 and 2000. The USGS sampling project was completed in September 2000. The MMN included these sites in order to continue the baseline water quality data established at these sites by the USGS. The six sites sampled by both the USGS and the MMN are:

 Aberjona River at Salem Street (Woburn)  Aberjona River at Washington St. (Winchester)  Aberjona River at USGS stream gauging station (Winchester)  Mill Brook at Mt. Pleasant cemetery (Arlington)  Mystic River at High Street bridge (Arlington/Medford)  Alewife Brook at Broadway (Arlington/Somerville)

The remaining 4 sites were distributed to assess the water quality of the major tributaries of the Mystic River. The Upper Mystic Lake at Mystic Lakes dam site (Medford) was chosen to represent the inputs of the Aberjona River to the Mystic River. The Winn’s Brook outlet into Little Pond (Belmont), Malden River at Medford St. (Malden), and Meetinghouse Brook outlet into the Mystic River (Medford), sites were chosen due to a lack of current data for those water bodies.

MyRWA plans to add sampling sites below the Amelia Earhart dam, in the saltwater portion of the watershed. Funding constraints have so far precluded adding additional sites. MyRWA is continuing to seek funding to expand monitoring in the Lower Basin.

Mystic River Watershed, page M13 Figure 2: Mystic Monitoring Network Sampling Sites

Mystic River Watershed, page M14 Table 2: Sampling Site Identification Numbers, Descriptions, and Geographic Positioning System Coordinates DEP Waterbody Site ID Description Town Coordinates Segment 71 07 43.94 w Aberjona River ABR049 Aberjona River at Salem St. Woburn 42 29 29.33 n MA71-01_2002 Aberjona River at Washington St, 71 07 29.94 w Aberjona River ABR028 Winchester north of Forest St. 42 28 10.19 n MA71-01_2002 Aberjona River at USGS stream 71 08 19.22 w Aberjona River ABR006 Winchester gauging station 42 26 50.33 n MA71-01_2002 Upper Mystic Lake at the Mystic 71 08 53023 w UPL001 Medford Lakes Dam 42 26 50.33 n 71 08 58.04 w MIB001 Mill Brook at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery Arlington 42 25 20.27 n 71 08 34.35w Mystic River MYR071 Mystic River at High St. Bridge Arlington 42 25 14.16 n MA71-02_2002 Winn Brook, 71 09 39.80 w WIB001 Belmont outlet into Little Pond 42 23 57.96 n Alewife Brook Arlington/ 71 08 01.41 w Alewife Brook ALB006 at Broadway Somerville 42 24 25.41 n MA71-04_2002 Meetinghouse Brook, 71 07 01.14 w MEB001 Medford outlet in to the Mystic River 42 25 06.51 n Malden River, 71 04 23.93 w Malden River MAR036 Malden at Medford St. 42 25 04.49 n MA71_05_2002

Quality Assurance Sampling was conducted in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) written specifically for this project and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). MyRWA appreciates the help of the CRWA in developing these procedures. The protocols for volunteer training and field sampling are briefly described below. For a complete copy of the current QAPP, please contact the MyRWA office.

Training The volunteer training program consisted of five components. First, every volunteer received the Mystic Monitoring Network Water Quality Monitoring Manual. Volunteer samplers review this document prior to each sampling event. Second, every volunteer sampler attended a training session. At the training session, the MMN Coordinator reviewed the manual, demonstrated equipment maintenance and calibration, and the sampling procedures. Third, each sampler demonstrated the sampling procedures in the field. The MMN Coordinator or a trained instructor evaluated each volunteer’s performance and completed a sampler evaluation form for each person. Fourth, an instructor accompanied each of the volunteers during a sampling event at least once per year and filled out a second evaluation form. Fifth, the precision of duplicate samples

Mystic River Watershed, page M15 was used to help identify problems with volunteer performance. If problems were suspected, the MMN Coordinator accompanied those volunteers in the field on the next sampling event.

Field Methods Samplers were reminded of each upcoming sampling event several days ahead of time. The samplers then checked their equipment kit to make sure that all equipment was functioning properly and then notified the MMN Coordinator if they needed any supplies (e.g. Liqui-nox, pH buffer solutions, distilled water). On the night prior to sampling, the samplers calibrated the pH meters, decontaminated the sampling buckets, and packed up all the equipment.

At the site, samplers filled out the Water Quality Data Sheet and a Field Notebook noting weather conditions, including air temperature and recent precipitation. The sampler then dropped the bucket into the river three times to properly rinse, and on the fourth time, drew a sample. One bottle at a time, the cap was removed and the bottle filled by pouring the water from the bucket into the bottle. Each sample bottle was recapped, labeled, and placed on ice before the next sample bottle was opened. After all the bottles were filled, the samplers recorded the temperature and pH of the water in the bucket. They then noted the color and odor of the water. After all the information was recorded, the bucket was emptied. The dissolved oxygen bottle was then triple rinsed and filled according to the procedures outlined for each site (e.g. from the bank or a bridge), making sure that no bubbles were present in the sample. This sample was then fixed with the supplied reagents and packed in an upright position. If a staff gage was present, the level on the staff gage was recorded. Samplers then recorded any observations on the data sheet. The equipment was packed up, and the samples were taken (packed on ice) to the drop-off site.

At the drop-off site, the samplers transferred the sample bottles to the MyRWA ice cooler, filled out the chain of custody form and turned in their data sheets.

After collection, volunteers transport the samples to the MyRWA office for further sorting and labeling by the MMN Coordinator. The Coordinator then transports the samples to the MWRA for analysis.

Data Review, Validation and Verification The Quality Assurance (QA) Officer or the Project Manager inventoried all data sheets and reviewed them for illegible answers, errors, or questionable values. Any questions were referred to the sampler for clarification. MMN staff made corrections by crossing out errors and writing in the correct answer. All corrections were initialed. Laboratory results were checked and transcribed to a primary database by MyRWA staff and volunteers. When completed, volunteers reviewed the database along with the laboratory data to check for errors.

After confirmation of the accuracy of the entered data by the QA Officer, descriptive statistics and graphing were performed. The statistics quantified the validity of the

Mystic River Watershed, page M16 dataset. The relative percent difference (RPD) of laboratory, field, and instructor duplicates helped identify quantify measurement uncertainty. Calibrations and laboratory QC were compared to the acceptance criteria to further assist in the identification of analytical problems. Any questionable information was flagged and rechecked. The Project Manager and QA officer worked together to determine that the data met the project requirements. Data that did not meet the data quality objectives were noted. Decisions to reject data were made by the Project Manager and QA Officer.

During the course of the contract period, there were two occasions on which laboratory difficulties resulted either in a loss of data or questionable results. In October 2002, the refrigerator housing the specific conductivity samples at the MWRA laboratory failed. It is estimated that the samples had warmed to about 15º C for 3 days by the time analyses were performed. The MyRWA Committee on Water Quality discussed at length the possible impact this would have on the resulting data and was ultimately unable to determine if the data should be declared invalid. The results are still included in this report, but are asterisked to remind the reader of their potential inaccuracy.

In January 2003, the E. coli samples were processed normally through membrane filtration and plated, but then the results were not counted until approximately 112 hours later. The MWRA laboratory judged the results invalid and did not report them to MyRWA.

Mystic River Watershed, page M17 Results During the contract period, samples were collected on nine dates: June – December 2002, as well as January and March 2003. Samples were not collected in February 2003 due to inclement weather. Samples were not collected at the Upper Mystic Lake in March 2003 because the lake was frozen. The July and November sample dates qualify as wet weather. All of the other results are dry weather measurements.

Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Weather Service records for Logan International Airport, Boston. Rainfall for the sampling months varied considerably, as shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the daily precipitation occurring for each sampling event as well as the three days prior.

Table 3: Monthly Precipitation (inches) Month Actual Normal^ Difference % of Normal June ‘02 4.78 3.09 1.69 155 July ‘02 1.42 2.84 -1.42 50 Aug. ‘02 2.13 3.24 -1.11 66 Sept. ‘02 3.39 3.06 0.33 111 Oct. ‘02 3.48 3.30 0.18 105 Nov. ‘02 4.65 3.93 0.72 118 Dec. ‘02 5.3 N/A Jan. ‘03 1.71 3.92 -2.21 44 Mar. ‘03 3.98 3.86 0.12 103 ^ Normal precipitation as defined by NOAA on the Boston Rainfall website.

Table 4: Precipitation Prior to and Including Sampling Events Sample Date Day Of 1 Day Prior 2 Days Prior 3 Days Prior 6/12/02 0.16 0.24 0.00 Trace 7/10/02 wet 0.01 0.61 0.00 Trace 8/14/02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9/11/02 Trace 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/9/02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/13/02 wet 0.58 0.69 0.07 Trace 12/11/02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1/8/03 0.05 0.01 0.07 Trace 3/12/03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Mystic River Watershed, page M18 Depth/Streamflow Five sites were equipped with staff gages. Water height (feet) was recorded for sites ABR049, ABR028, MIB001 and ALB006 by volunteers monitors. Site ABR006 is a USGS stream gauging site (USGS station number 1102500). Data for river stage and streamflow for ABR006 were retrieved from the Gulf of Maine Watershed Information and Characterization System website at http://www.gm- wics.sr.unh.edu/html/realtime.html (Table 5).

Table 5: Depth Measurements (feet) for Sites Equipped with Staff Gages Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 MIB001 ALB006 6/12/02 4.50 4.85 10.97 0.70 2.00 7/10/02 No Data 5.18 11.15 1.20 2.38 8/14/02 No Data 4.40 10.43 0.80 No Data 9/11/02 4.00 4.47 10.45 1.12 No Data 10/9/02 No Data 4.50 10.52 1.12 No Data 11/13/02 5.51 6.05 11.51 1.70 2.40 12/11/02 4.78 4.66 10.81 No Data No Data 1/8/03 5.00 4.28 11.25 No Data No Data 3/12/03 4.90 5.04 11.15 1.50 No Data

The staff gages were installed by the USGS but are not being maintained by any responsible party. The gage at ALB006 was frequently obscured with mud and therefore unreadable. The gage at ABR049 was inaccessible due to plant (poison ivy) growth in July and August. The monitors failed to record the gage height in October 2002. Leaves and branches obscured the gage at MIB001 in December 2002 and January 2003.

Discharge rates for sites ABR049 and ALB006 (Table 6) were calculated using rating curves established by the USGS in Water Years 1999 and 2000. Streamflow for the USGS gauging station at site ABR006 is provisional. Discharge was not determined from stage measurement readings for site MIB001. A weir was located at the staff gage when measurements for the rating curve were taken. This weir was removed in November 2000 for a habitat restoration project, thus rendering the curve inaccurate for any readings taken after that.

Mystic River Watershed, page M19 Table 6: Streamflow data (cubic feet/second) for sampling events Sample Date ABR049 ABR006 ALB006 6/12/02 36.00 25.99 5.30 7/10/02 No Data 40.51 27.00 8/14/02 No Data 3.28 No data 9/11/02 20.00 3.64 No data 10/9/02 No Data 5.40 No data 11/13/02 90.00 82.74 29.00 12/11/02 51.00 16.00 No data 1/8/03 68.00 50.00 No data 3/12/03 63.00 39.76 No data

Streamflow measurements for ALB006 are questionable due to the influence of the constantly changing backwater conditions that exist along Alewife Brook.

In the initial scope of this contract, MyRWA planned to purchase a flow meter to measure flow at other locations and adjust the existing USGS rating curves for ABR049 and ALB006. However, due to budget constraints and the dissolution of the MWI, MyRWA was unable to purchase a meter. MyRWA had hoped to refine and update the USGS rating curves for ABR049 and ALB006, which are outdated and may be inaccurate.

MyRWA does not have many methods to assess the quality of staff gage readings and therefore the streamflow calculations based on these readings. On several occasions the gages were obscured and difficult or impossible to read, as noted above. It is also possible that the volunteer monitors incorrectly read the gages. During the contract period, the MMN Coordinator evaluated 5 of the monitors for the ability to adequately complete the sampling, including reading the staff gages. All 5 read the gages correctly on their evaluation dates. The MMN Coordinator and Volunteer Instructor (Roger Frymire) took special care during training to explain how to read a staff gage, particularly noting that subdivisions are in tenths of feet, not inches.

E. coli Bacteria E. coli bacteria are a group of bacteria that live in the intestinal tracts of animals and humans. High E. coli levels may indicate contamination from human or animal wastes, and the potential presence of other disease-causing types of bacteria. These bacteria render rivers and streams unsafe for swimming, boating, drinking, or fishing. Due to failing infrastructure, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and runoff, E. coli levels are expected to be higher during wet weather.

E. coli levels varied greatly both by location and, at a given location, by sampling event (Table 7). The Upper Mystic Lake site (UPL001) had consistently low values, with a minimum of <10 colonies per 100 milliliters (cfu/100ml), the method detection limit, and a maximum of 320 cfu/100ml. UPL001 was frozen on the March 2003 sampling date, so no data are available for that date. The remaining nine sites had both low and

Mystic River Watershed, page M20 high readings. The Aberjona River at the USGS Gage (ABR006) exhibited the greatest variance, with results as low as 120 cfu/100ml in August 2002, and as high as 107,000 cfu/100ml during the wet weather event in July 2002.

The wet weather results ranged from 290 cfu/100mL at UPL001 in July 2002 to 107,000 cfu/100mL at ABR006 in July 2002.

Throughout the report, to calculate averages and geometric means, results that were at the method detection limit (MDL), indicated by the < symbol, were assumed to be equal to the detection limit, i.e. the number next to the < symbol. This tends to overstate means and medians by an unknown amount. Table 7: Results for E. coli (cfu/100mL) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 580 530* 330 80 1,745* 770 1,500 470 640 550 7/10/2002 wet 28,800 8,900 107,000* 290 17,100 720 5,100 10,200 1,605* 71,000 8/14/02 540 480 120 <10 1,600 55* 1,480* 260 2,200 160 9/11/02 495* 190 300 <10 1,030 40 660 455* 550 20 10/9/02 1,900 1,800 470* <10 2,700 40 1,000 200 330 49,000 11/13/2002 wet 18,000 8,500* 4,900 320 5,500 2,100 4,800 16,500* 1,500 6,800 12/11/02 40 250 290 <10 1,560 20 630 520 310* 1,130* 1/8/03 3/12/03 60 220* 780 No Data 190 40 6,900 1551050 Geometric mean 1,295 1,074 977 36 2,733 154 1,561 996 701 1,734 Dry Geometric mean 298 411 329 15 1,149 62 1,361 311 304 412 Median 560 505 400 10 1,673 48 1,490 463 595 840

Violation of Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches, 105 CMR 445.000

* average of two samples Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Discarded results are not included in averages or other statistical calculations.

Total Suspended Solids Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a measure of dust, dirt, sand, and other particles in the water; TSS is measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Excessive amounts of suspended solids can bury aquatic plants, and can make rivers and streams unpleasant for recreation. In addition, other pollutants, such as oil, heavy metals, and nutrients are frequently attached to suspended solids. Thus, TSS can sometimes give an indirect indication of the presence of other pollutants in a stream.

Results for TSS (Table 8) ranged from a minimum of <5.0 mg/L, the method detection limit, to a maximum of 154.0 mg/L. The two highest TSS levels were measured at the

Mystic River Watershed, page M21 Mill Brook site (MIB001) with 154 mg/L, and at Meetinghouse Brook (MEB001) with 6.5 mg/L.

Table 8: Results for Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 9.0 <5.0 6.0 18.0 6.5* 7.0 9.0 9.2 6.0 21.0 7/12/02 wet 9.5 24.0 17.5* <5.0 6.5 28.5 9.0 8.0 18.5* 8.5 8/14/02 10.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.5 5.5 <5.0 9.5* 14.5 10.0 6.5 9/11/02 13.5* <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.7 23.4* 15.3 16.7 10/9/02 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0* 5.3* 29.3 7.5 8.5 13.5 56.5 6.5 11/13/02 wet 5.0 9.8* 6.4 5.0 10.0 12.9 12.5 33.8* 7.5 10.3 12/11/02 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 9.0 10.5* 5.0* 1/8/03 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0* <5.0 154.0 5.5 <5.0* 10.5 23.5 <5.0 3/12/03 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 No Data 19.5 <5.0 <5.0 6.6* <5.0 <5.0 Average 7.8 7.7 6.9 6.7 27.7 9.6 8.415.219.6 9.9 Dry Average 7.9 5.0 5.2 7.3 34.2 5.8 7.6 13.3 22.3 10.1 Median 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.5 8.7 10.5 12.7 6.5 *average of two samples Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Discarded results are not included in averages or other statistical calculations. Exceeds study guideline of maximum 25 mg/L

Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrate is the form of nitrogen that is essential for plants and animals. Most of the nitrogen in the environment is in gaseous form and makes up 80% of our air. Inorganic nitrogen is also found in aquatic systems as nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), and ammonia (NH3). Nitrate and nitrite enter rivers and streams from soil, animal wastes, and decomposing plants. The major sources are sewage, fertilizers, and animal waste.

Results for nitrate + nitrite (Table 9) ranged from 0.12 mg/L at Mystic River at High Street (MYR071) to 3.91 mg/L at the Upper Mystic Lake (UPL001). Average results ranged from 0.60 mg/L at ALB006 and MAR036, to 1.79 mg/L at ABR028. At all locations the results were higher during dry weather.

Mystic River Watershed, page M22 Table 9: Results for Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L as N) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 1.22 1.86* 1.30 0.95 1.42* 1.98 0.99 0.54 0.95 0.95 7/10/02 wet 0.84 1.03 1.14* 0.86 1.08 0.66 0.88 0.51 1.15* 0.69 8/14/02 1.67 3.04 1.60 0.48 1.47 0.42* 0.93* 0.27 1.50 0.39 9/11/02 1.31* 2.47 1.38 0.17 1.67 0.12 0.36 0.21* 1.58 0.14 10/9/02 0.82 1.72 1.70* 0.36* 1.58 0.24 1.28 0.47 1.64 0.41 11/13/02 wet 0.66 0.72* 0.55 0.76 0.16 0.33 1.32 0.46* 0.71 0.29 12/11/02 1.04 1.46 1.25 0.77 1.55 0.61 2.45 0.96 1.21* 0.83* 1/8/03 1.36 1.99 1.55* 3.91 1.93 1.14 2.82* 1.41 1.07 1.08 3/12/03 1.30 1.39* 1.65 No Data 1.52 1.77 1.30 1.05* 0.68 0.85 Average 1.12 1.79 1.31 1.03 1.35 0.69 1.38 0.60 1.23 0.60 Dry Average 1.24 2.09 1.46 1.11 1.64 0.75 1.47 0.64 1.32 0.63 * average of two samples Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Discarded results are not included in averages or other statistical calculations. Exceeds study guidelines of a maximum of 1.0 mg/L as N

Total Phosphorous Phosphorous can enter rivers and streams through many sources: animal wastes, human wastes, fertilizer, detergents, soil erosion, and storm runoff. The organic and inorganic, particulate and soluble forms of phosphorous undergo continuous transformations. Phosphorous is frequently the limiting agent for plant and algal growth in fresh water systems; therefore, elevated concentrations of phosphorous can stimulate aquatic plant growth and algal blooms. The decomposition of plants or algae consumes dissolved oxygen, which decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen available to other organisms. Total Phosphorous (TP) is a measure of all forms of phosphorous in the system. Total Phosphorous is measured in mg/L of elemental phosphorous.

Results for Total Phosphorous (Table 10) ranged from a low of 0.03 mg/L on numerous occasions at the Upper Mystic Lake (UPL001) to 0.28 mg/L at Winn’s Brook (WIB001) on November 13, 2003. Average results ranged from 0.05 mg/L at UPL001 to 0.15 mg/L at WIB001. Almost all of the results for Total Phosphorous exceeded 0.1 mg/L, the upper-most suggested limit for all types of streams and lakes.

Mystic River Watershed, page M23 Table 10: Total Phosphorous results (mg/L as P) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 0.058 0.055* No Data 0.082 0.091* 0.067 0.127 0.121 0.047 0.129 7/10/02 wet 0.039 0.060 0.087* 0.029 0.082 0.128 0.112 0.128 0.052* 0.129 8/14/02 0.067 0.044 0.046 0.030 0.056 0.030* 0.174* 0.178 0.075 0.067 9/11/02 0.075* 0.074 0.067 0.045 0.067 0.036 0.149 0.117* 0.092 0.071 10/9/02 0.050 0.040 0.050* 0.033* 0.100 0.030 0.154 0.113 0.214 0.191 11/13/02 wet 0.059 0.086* 0.090 0.050 0.172 0.093 0.276 0.209* 0.106 0.142 12/11/02 0.054 0.054 0.055 0.035 0.132 0.040 0.099 0.090 0.060* 0.075* 1/8/03 0.073 0.063 0.050* 0.102 0.273 0.047 0.094* 0.095 0.085 0.079 3/12/03 0.051 0.043* 0.051 No Data 0.079 0.039 0.067 0.084* 0.031 0.056 Average 0.059 0.060 0.063 0.051 0.122 0.059 0.148 0.131 0.091 0.110 Dry Average 0.063 0.055 0.053 0.055 0.120 0.042 0.133 0.119 0.095 0.102 * average of two samples Indicates result exceeds site support guideline (see discussion section 4.4)

Specific Conductance Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to pass an electrical current. This ability depends on the presence of ions. Conductivity is a general measure of water quality, with elevated conductivity in freshwater systems potentially indicating a source of excess dissolved solids (e.g. road salt used for deicing). Conductivity measurements can be compared with baseline and/or background measurements, with significant departures from baseline/background potentially indicating that a discharge or other source of pollution has entered the water. Specific conductance is the measurement of conductivity at a standard temperature of 25C.

The results for Specific Conductance (Table 11) ranged from a minimum of 1844 micorseimens/cm (at MEB001 on November 13, 2002), to 2,340 micoseimens/cm (at MAR036 on October 9, 2002). With the exception of MAR036, which had generally higher results than all other sampling locations, the average ranged between 552 microseimens/cm at MEB001 to 852 microseimens/cm at ABR028.

Mystic River Watershed, page M24 Table 11: Results for Specific Conductance (microseimens/cm) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 647 751* 628 499 912* 544 802 872 398 603 7/10/02 wet 344 432 281* 540 477 570 665 559 403* 737 8/14/02 941 816 750 574 951 612* 671* 877 482 2,100 9/11/02 781* 753 720 558 926 614 780 868* 484 1,690 10/9/02^ 684 694 689* 578* 904 598 636 853 480 2,340 11/13/02 wet 262 No data 206 561 206 525 414 466* 184 143 12/11/02 1,110 1,120 484 624 1,080 699 848 1,050 484* 1,040* 1/8/03 1,460 1,400 1,145* 2,000 1,310 764 772* 1,260 1,500 1,120 3/12/03 1,000 1,105* 934 No data 975 906 863 1,170* 558 977 Average 779 852 613 742 846 616 698 851 552 1,222 Dry Average 937 922 736 806 1014 638 751 963 638 1,482 * average of two samples ^ results may be questionable. Before the analysis was done, the refrigerator housing samples broke down. It is estimated that samples reached a temperature of approximately 25º C for 3 days before analysis was completed. Indicates result exceeds support guideline (see discussion section 4.5)

pH pH is a measure of water acidity, and is calculated as

pH =- log [H+]

where [H+] is the molar concentration of the hydrogen ion. pH is important because water that is too acidic or too basic can be toxic to fish and other aquatic life. pH also plays an important role in how other pollutants, such as heavy metals, behave in the environment. It is measured on a scale from 1 to 14, with 1 being very acidic, 7 being neutral, and 14 being very basic (alkaline).

Results for pH (Table 12) ranged from a minimum of 6.1 at ABR028 to a maximum of 8.7 at UPL001, both on August 14, 2002.

Mystic River Watershed, page M25 Table 12: Results for pH Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 6.5 6.4 7.1 7.6 7.1 7.9 7.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7/10/02 wet 6.5 6.5 6.9 8.5 6.6 8.2 6.9 7.1 No data No Data 8/14/02 6.5 6.1 6.9 8.7 7.1 7.8 No data 6.8 7.0 7.4 9/11/02 6.4 No data 6.7 No Data 6.5 8.3 7.1 6.4 6.9 7.9 10/9/02 6.5 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.7 7.1 6.3 6.9 6.9 11/13/02 wet 5.9 6.7 6.3 9.2 7.1 6.8 6.7 6.1 No data 7.1 12/11/02 6.3 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.8 6.5 1/8/03 7.1 6.9 6.7 No Data 6.9 7.3 6.8 6.6 6.7 5.8 3/12/03 6.8 6.9 6.8 No Data 6.6 7.3 6.8 7.4 6.7 6.6 Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Indicates violation of MA Surface Water Quality Standard

Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen that is dissolved in water. Dissolved oxygen must be present at concentrations equal to or above 5.0 mg/L for the health of many fish and aquatic organisms. Low DO values indicate a high rate of oxygen consumption (relative to the rate of oxygen replenishment), often due to excess levels of easily degradable organic matter. High nutrient input to water bodies is a common cause of excess organic matter, as is the direct discharge of organic-rich waste streams (e.g. from illegal sewer connections and combined sewer overflows). Dissolved oxygen is measured as milligrams of oxygen per liter of water (mg/L) or as percentage of oxygen saturation (i.e. the amount of oxygen in a liter of water relative to the total amount of oxygen the water can hold at a given temperature). Dissolved oxygen samples were taken early in the morning, between the hours of 6 and 8 a.m., to establish potential “worst case scenario” after a autotroph respiration. Table 13 shows the exact times DO samples were taken for each location by sample date.

Table 13: Dissolved Oxygen Collection Times by Location and Sample Date Sample date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 7:18 6:14 6:58 7:40 6:37 7:12 7:15 7:10 6:37 6:30 7/10/02 7:08 6:17 7:02 7:50 6:47 7:17 7:20 7:11 6:38 7:11 8/14/02 7:37 6:16 7:00 6:53 6:42 7:15 7:15 7:26 6:39 6:08 9/11/02 7:16 6:16 6:55 6:41 7:05 7:15 6:56 7:15 6:40 6:40 10/9/02 7:43 6:20 7:00 7:40 6:54 7:17 7:17 7:04 6:34 6:55 11/13/02 7:09 6:14 7:01 7:20 6:45 7:07 7:05 7:09 6:38 7:15 12/11/02 7:26 6:12 7:00 7:32 6:48 7:14 7:10 7:09 6:53 7:10 1/8/03 7:31 6:18 7:06 No Data 6:57 7:19 7:12 7:08 6:56 7:25 3/12/03 7:25 6:10 6:56 No Data 6:44 7:12 7:07 7:00 6:36 6:40

Mystic River Watershed, page M26 Results for dissolved oxygen in mg/L are shown in Table 14. No samples were taken at UPL001 in January or March because the Lake was frozen. The September 11th, 2002 sample bottle for MAR036 broke before analysis. Dissolved oxygen levels were generally lower in the summer months, with all violations of the MASWQS occurring between the months of June and October. Results ranged from a low of 2.0 mg/L at ALB006 in July and August 2002, to a high of 12.5 at MEB001 in March 2003. Table 14: Dissolved Oxygen results (mg/L) Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 4.5* 6.8* 6.6 8.9* 7.0* 8.0 9.6 5.0 8.8 5.6 7/10/02 wet 3.2 6.0 5.5* 7.7* 5.6 7.4 6.6 2.0 7.5 4.0 8/14/02 3.6 6.0 7.2 10.0 5.7* 8.0* 8.1* 2.0 7.2 8.6 9/11/02 2.7* 5.8 5.0* 9.5* 6.0 8.2 6.8 3.0* 7.2 No Data 10/9/02 3.4 7.0 7.1* 8.5* 8.2 8.3* 9.2 4.0 8.2 7.0* 11/13/02 wet 5.6 8.2* 8.0 9.4 7.4 8.0 8.0* 6.0* 8.4 8.4 12/11/02 8.8* 10.8 10.6 10.6 11.2 10.0 10.4 8.0 9.4* 10.0* 1/8/03 9.0* 10.0 10.6 No Data 11.0 9.8 10.7* 8.2* No Data 11.6 3/12/03 10.0 12.1* 12.1* No Data 12.4 10.0 12.4 10.6* 12.5 12.4* *average of two samples Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Indicates violation of MASWQS of a minimum of 5.0 mg/L

Percent saturation (Table 15) could not be calculated for WIB001 on March 12th, 2003 due to the fact that water temperature was not recorded. Several locations that did not violate the MASWQS for dissolved oxygen expressed in mg/L violated the standard for percent saturation, even in the cooler months. Results ranged from a low of 22.5% at ALB006 in July 2002, to a high of 110.95 at UPL001 in September 2002.

Table 15: Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 46.65 70.45 69.8 98.1 68 86.4 95.3 51.8 85.5 48.5 7/10/02 wet 36 67.4 61.8 93.45 60.5 88.1 72.8 22.5 79.35 45.9 8/14/02 43.7 70.1 89 123.6 64 97.1 92.85 24.7 77.8 108.2 9/11/02 30.95 66.5 56.15 110.95 66.2 97.6 76.4 34.4 76.2 No Data 10/9/02 31.6 63.6 64.5 66.7 72.8 80.65 72.2 36.3 77.9 69.5 11/13/02 wet 47.9 72.8 71 83.4 65.7 71 77.7 53.2 74.5 72.7 12/11/02 60.3 76.1 76.8 78.9 81.1 72.4 81.6 56.4 75.6 95.1 1/8/03 61.65 70.5 74.7 No Data 77.5 69.1 94.95 59.35 No Data 84 3/12/03 72.4 87.6 87.6 No Data 94.7 74.4 No Data 78.5 90.5 89.8 Strikethrough indicates result did not meet quality assurance standards and was discarded. Indicates violation of MASWQS of a minimum of 5.0 mg/L

Mystic River Watershed, page M27 Temperature It is critical for rivers and streams to remain relatively cool in order for fish and other aquatic life to survive. Water temperatures can get too hot from a lack of shade along the riverbanks, industrial discharges of coolant water, storm water running off hot pavement, or diverting discharges from relatively cold groundwater by nearby wells.

As expected, temperature measurements (Table 16) for all sites varied with the changing seasons. The highest recorded temperature was 27.0º C, measured at site MAR036 in August.

Table 16: Results for Temperature Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 17.0 16.5 17.5 20.0 14.0 19.0 15.0 17.0 13.5 9.0 7/10/02 wet 21.0 21.0 21.0 25.0 19.0 24.0 19.5 21.0 18.0 22.0 8/14/02 24.0 22.5 26.0 26.0 20.5 25.0 22.0 26.0 18.5 27.0 9/11/02 21.5 21.5 21.0 23.0 19.5 24.0 21.0 22.0 18.0 25.0 10/9/02 12.0 11.0 10.5 4.5 8.5 14.0 5.0 11.0 13.0 14.5 11/13/02 wet 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0 9.5 10 14.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 12/11/02 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 1.0 6.0 13.0 1/8/03 0.0 1.0 1.0No Data 0.5 1.0 10.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3/12/03 1.5 2.0 2.0 No Data 4.0 3.0 No data 3.0 2.0 2.0

Color The color of water serves as a basic indicator of stream health. Volunteer monitors subjectively designate a color to the water sample collected in a white bucket. Color is a highly judgmental indicator, and so is often used in conjunction with other parameters to indicate stream conditions. Results for color, as shown in Table 17, generally ranged from clear to tea (a tannic brown).

Mystic River Watershed, page M28 Table 17: Results for color Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 very light cloudy/ medium light light 6/12/02 light tea light tea tea light tea tea tea/yellow tea/yellow light tea clear tea cloudy, tea, 7/10/02 very light medium wet light tea light tea tea light tea tea light tea light tea cloudy light tea light tea light tea, very light very light almost very light 8/14/02 light teatea to clear tea clear tea clear yellow light tea light tea yellow very light 9/12/02 tea light tea tea clear light tea clear clear clear light tea tea, dirty greenish 10/9/02 tea light tea clear light tea tea light tea clear clear tea light tea 11/13/02 dark gray - wet light tea light grey grey light tea tea tea muddy silty tea muddy 12/11/02 light tea light tea clear tea - gray clear clear clear clear light tea very light 1/8/03 light tea light tea tea No Data cloudy tea clear clear clear light tea

Odor The odor of a water sample can indicate contaminants present in a waterbody. Volunteer monitors sniffed the air in the bucket and subjectively assigned a description of the odor of the water.

Table 18: Results for Odor Sample Date ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 6/12/02 none none none none like dirt none none none none none 7/10/02 chemical/ wet none none none none dirt fishy none none none acidic a bit slight 8/14/02 none none musky none organic none none none none none 9/11/02 none none none none none none none musky none 10/9/02 none none none none none none none none none 11/13/02 wet none none none none none none none none none none 12/11/02 none none none none none none none none none 1/8/03 none none none No Data none none none none none fruity 3/12/03 none none none No Data none none none none none none

Mystic River Watershed, page M29 Completion Rates Of the 1,053 measurements planned for this study period, 997 measurements were performed, giving an overall completion rate of 94.7% (Table 19). Site UPL001 was frozen in March 2003, so at least one measurement is missing for each parameter. In January 2003, all E. coli results were invalid due to laboratory error.

Table 19: Completion Rates

Total Specific E. coli Nitrate+ Phos- Conduc- Dissolved Bacteria TSS Nitrite phorous tance Oxygen Temp. Depth pH Color Odor Total Potential 108 108 108 108 108 108 90 45 90 90 90 1053 Collected 96 105 106 106 106 103 87 36 72 89 89 997 Complete 88.9% 97.2% 98.1% 98.1% 98.1% 95.4% 96.7% 80.0% 80.0% 98.9% 98.9% 94.7%

One of the E. coli results, two Total Suspended Solids results, and two of the nitrate+nitrite results were discarded because the relative percent difference between the samples and their duplicates did not meet the quality assurance criteria. In January 2003, two of the dissolved oxygen sample bottles broke during sampling. The remaining incompletes are due to equipment error (pH), missing equipment, and volunteer monitor error or omission.

Adherence with Quality Assurance Project Plan Strict quality assurance measures were followed to ensure and evaluate the quality of the data collected. These measures are outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Mystic River Watershed Mystic Monitoring Network.

In accordance with the QAPP, each volunteer was trained and evaluated demonstrating the procedures by the MMN Coordinator or an Instructor before sampling. Sampling equipment was inventoried and decontaminated before each sampling event. Field probes were calibrated on a routine schedule.

Chain of custody forms were completed for each sample. All samples met the required hold times outlined in the QAPP.

Duplicate samples were taken throughout the sampling season by volunteers at each location. Duplicates were collected at two sites per event, as dictated by a random numbers table. These samples represented almost 11% of the total samples collected. In adherence with the data quality objectives outlined in the QAPP, several samples were discarded because the relative percent difference between the field duplicates failed to meet the criteria established in the QAPP.

Mystic River Watershed, page M30 Table 20: Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for Field Duplicates Specific E. coli Nitrate + Total Phos- Dissolved TSS Conduc- Bacteria Nitrite phorus Oxygen tance QAPP Acceptance 100%20%20%20%20%20% Criteria Minimum 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% RPD

Maximum 181% 63.3% 33.1% 13.1% 9.7% 22.2% RPD

Average 29.8% 8.6% 8.0% 4.9% 1.1% 4.8% RPD Total # of samples 122 0 0 1 discarded

Mystic River Watershed, page M31 Mystic River Watershed, page M32 Discussion by Parameter

E. coli bacteria E. coli bacteria are a type of fecal coliform and are used as an indicator of disease causing organisms present in water. Currently, the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standard (MASWQS) for Class B warm water is based on fecal coliform (Table 21). However, studies have shown that E. coli is a better indicator of the risk to human health. Therefore, the state has plans to change the basis of the MASWQS from fecal coliform to E. coli. The cutoff levels for support of recreational activities has not yet been established, although the Beaches Bill (105 CMR 445) does define maximum limits of E. coli for recognized swimming beaches: 235 cfu/100mL.

Table 21: MASWQS for fecal coliform bacteria Activity Support Non-Support Primary Contact 200 cfu per Geo mean >200cfu per 100ml or Recreation (swimming) 100ml >10% is >400cfu per 100ml Secondary Contact 1,000 cfu per Geo mean >1,000cfu per 100ml or Recreation (boating) 10ml >10% is >2,000cfu per 100ml Source: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00, 1996)

Because E. coli is a subset of fecal coliform, it is reasonable to assume that the level of fecal coliform is equal to or greater than the measured result for E. coli for any sample. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, any E. coli result that is equal to or greater than 200 cfu/100ml is treated as violating the standard for primary contact, and any result that is greater than 1,000 cfu/100ml is treated as violating the standard for secondary contact. By this standard, 60% of the E. coli samples collected did not meet MASWQS (Table 21) for primary contact recreation (i.e. swimming) during the entire period of study.

Sites ABR006, ALB006 and MEB001 had geometric mean values that fell between 200 and 1000 cfu/100ml, therefore violating the criteria for primary contact recreation but meeting the criteria for secondary contact recreation. Five sites, ABR049, ABR028, MIB001, WIB001, and MAR036, violated both the standards for primary and secondary contact recreation with geometric means greater than 1,000 cfu/100ml. The two remaining sites, UPL001 and MYR071, had geometric means of <200 cfu/100ml, thereby meeting the criteria for support of primary contact recreation.

The second criterion for determining primary contact recreation support states that no more than 10% of the samples shall exceed 400cfu/100ml. All sites except UPL001 violated this criterion, as well as the standard for secondary contact recreation with more than 10% of the samples with results greater than 2000cfu/100ml. However, with such a small sample size (7 or 8), even one measurement higher than the cutoff results in a

Mystic River Watershed, page M33 violation of the standard based on this criterion. Therefore, in this study it is probably better to consider the geometric means rather than percentage of violations.

Mystic River Watershed, page M34 Table 22: E. coli Geometric Mean and Percentage of samples violating 1 o and 2o contact standards % # % Geometric Total # # >400 Site ID# Site Description >400cfu/ >2000cfu/ >2000cfu/ Mean samples cfu/100ml 100ml 100ml 100ml ABR049 Aberjona @ Salem St. 1,295 8675% 2 25% ABR028 Aberjona @ Washington St. 1,074 8563% 2 25% ABR006 Aberjona @ USGS station 977 8450% 2 25% Upper Mystic Lake @ Mystic 36 7 0 0% 0 0% UPL001 Lakes Dam Mill Brook @ Mt. Pleasant 2,733 8788% 3 38% MIB001 Cemetery Mystic River @High St. 154 8 3 38% 1 13% MYR071 Bridge Winn Brook, outlet to Little 1,561 88100% 3 38% WIB001 Pond ALB006 Alewife Brook @ Broadway 996 8563% 2 25% Meetinghouse Brook, outlet 701 7457% 1 14% MEB001 into Mystic River MAR036 Malden River @ Medford St. 1,734 8563% 3 38% Total 78 47 60% 19 24% Indicates probable violation of MASWQS

Eliminating the wet weather samples from the geometric mean calculation dramatically lowered the geometric means at several locations (Figure 3).

Figure 3: E. coli bacteria, geometric means

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 cfu/100 mL

1,000

500

0 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Sample Location

Geometric Mean Dry Geometric Mean

Mystic River Watershed, page M35 Earlier data collected by the Mystic Monitoring Network identified Alewife Brook (ALB006), Winn’s Brook (WIB001), and Mill Brook (MIB001) as sites with the highest levels of bacteria contamination based on fecal coliform bacteria. A comparison of the geometric means from that study with those from this study (Table 23) is quite informative.

Table 23: Comparison of Bacterial Results for MMN Monitoring July 2000 – February June 2002 – March 2003 2002 Geometric Mean Geometric Mean for for Fecal Coliform E. coli (cfu/100ml) Site ID Location (cfu/100ml) ABR049 Aberjona @ Salem St. 452 1,295 ABR028 Aberjona @ Washington St. 285 1,074 ABR006 Aberjona @ USGS station 344 977 Upper Mystic Lake @ Mystic Lakes 26 36 UPL001 Dam MIB001 Mill Brook @ Mt. Pleasant Cemetery 1,079 2,733 MYR071 Mystic River @High St. Bridge 91 154 WIB001 Winn Brook, outlet to Little Pond 978 1,561 ALB006 Alewife Brook @ Broadway 1,266 996 Meetinghouse Brook, outlet into 430 701 MEB001 Mystic River MAR036 Malden River @ Medford St. 285 1,734

All of the Aberjona River sites, and the Mill Brook, Winn’s Brook and Malden River locations had substantial increases in their geometric means. The Upper Mystic Lake and Mystic River at High Street locations did not change very much, being mostly clean. The Meetinghouse Brook geometric mean also increased somewhat. The geometric mean for Alewife Brook actually decreased, although any conclusions should be made with caution because of the change in bacterial parameter from fecal coliform to E. coli.

Total Suspended Solids There are no quantitative criteria for TSS. The MASWQS state that Class B waters “shall be free from floating, suspended and settleable solids in concentrations and combinations that would impair any use assigned to this Class, that would cause aesthetically objectionable conditions, or that would impair the benthic biota or degrade the chemical composition of the bottom” (DEP 314 CMR 4.00, 1996). Accepting the support determinations employed by DEP during the 1998 assessment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (DEP, 1998), the guidelines outlined in Table 24 were used to evaluate TSS results with regard to Class B waters.

Mystic River Watershed, page M36 Table 24: MMN Study Guidelines for Total Suspended Solids

Aesthetics Support Partial Support Non-Support

TSS level <25 mg/L 25 – 80 mg/L >80 mg/L Source: DEP 1998

The average results for TSS for most locations fell within the study guidelines for all locations during both wet and dry events (Figure 4). However, Mill Brook had dry and wet averages that fell in the “Partial Support” category. Figure 4: Average total suspended solids, mg/L

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0 mg/L

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Location

Average Dry Average Median

Evaluation of individual results showed that 5 of the 108 measurements exceeded the guidelines, with one of these five falling in the “non-support” range. Mill Brook had the highest result of 154.0 mg/L on January 8, 2003. Mystic River at High Street, Alewife Brook, and Meetinghouse Brook had results in the “partial support” range.

It should be noted that a small number of very high results for Mill Brook, Alewife Brook, and Meetinghouse Brook skew the averages towards the higher end. Therefore, the median values are also included in Figure 4.

Mystic River Watershed, page M37 Nitrate and Nitrite There is no state standard for nitrate+nitrite concentration for support of aquatic fisheries. Natural background water levels of nitrate are typically less than 1.0 mg/L (Behar 1997). For this study, we chose 1.0 mg/L as the guideline for the maximum level for nitrate as N and nitrate + nitrite as N (Table 24).

Nitrite forms as an intermediate nitrogen species in the nitrogen cycle during ammonia/ammonium oxidation to nitrate and during nitrate reduction to nitrogen gas (denitrification). In oxic systems, nitrite is typically oxidized to nitrate by bacteria very quickly. Therefore, we treat our measurements of nitrate + nitrite as 100% nitrate. Earlier studies of nitrate and nitrite levels in the watershed have shown that nitrite levels were typically below the detection limit of 0.10 mg/L as N. However, low dissolved oxygen levels slow the rate at which nitrite is oxidized to nitrate, so it may be that at some locations with typically low levels of dissolved oxygen, e.g. Alewife Brook, we may be overestimating the level if nitrate in the water. Table 25: MMN Study Guideline for Nitrate + Nitrite Support Nitrate level <1.0 mg/L as N

All of the Aberjona River sites, along with the Upper Mystic Lake, Mill Brook, Winn’s Brook, and Meetinghouse Brook, have average nitrate and nitrate + nitrite concentrations above the study guideline of 1.0 mg/L (Figure 5). Figure 5: Average Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L as N

2.50

2.00

1.50 mg/L

1.00

0.50

0.00 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Location

Average Dry Average

Mystic River Watershed, page M38 Sites ABR028 and ABR006 on the Aberjona and Mill Brook (MIB001) exceeded the criteria on all occasions except for the wet weather event in November 2002, and ABR049 exceeded on almost all occasions except for the two wet weather events in July and November 2002 and the October 2002 dry weather event.

Total Phosphorus There are no state water quality standards for total phosphorus. Guidelines for total phosphorus were taken from EPA water quality criteria (Table 26).

Table 26: MMN Study Guidelines for Total Phosphorus Site Type Upper Limit 1. Within a lake or reservoir 0.025 mg/L 2. Stream discharging into lake or 0.05 mg/L reservoir 3. Streams not discharging into 0.1 mg/L lake or reservoir Source: US EPA 1986

This study had sites that fell into each of the three possible types (Table 27).

Table 27: Characterization of Sampling Locations Discharging into a Not Discharging into a Within a Lake/ Reservoir Lake/Reservoir Lake/Reservoir UPL001 ABR006 ABR049 MIB001 ABR028 WIB001 MYR071 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036

Three sites, ABR006, MIB001, and WIB001, are at streams entering into a lake, and thus are compared to the guideline of 0.050 mg/L. Site ABR006 exceeded this guideline on five out of seven, or 71%, of the qualifying events. Mill Brook (MIB001) and Winn’s Brook (WIB001) exceeded the guideline on all qualifying sampling events.

Of the streams that do not discharge into a lake, sites ABR028 and ABR049 did not exceed the guideline on any sampling event. Site MYR071 exceeded only once on the wet weather event in July 2002. ALB006 exceeded the guideline five out of eight (63%) events. MEB001 exceeded the guideline only two of eight events (25%). MAR036 exceeded the guideline four of eight events (50%).

The UPL001 exceeded the site study guideline on all sampling events.

Mystic River Watershed, page M39 Winn’s Brook (WIB001) had the highest single result of all samples at 0.276 mg/L as P during the wet weather event in November 2002. However, Mill Brook also had a result of 0.273 mg/L as P in January 2003. Both sites discharge into a lake or pond, and thus have the lowest maximum concentration limit.

The average total phosphorus results by sampling location appear in Figure 6. The horizontal bars in this figure indicate the relevant limit for phosphorous used in this study.

Figure 6: Average Total Phosphorus, mg/L as P

0.160

0.140

0.120

0.100

0.080 mg/L

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Location

Average Dry Average

The following sites have averages exceeding of the study guideline for that site: ABR006, UPL001, MIB001, WIB001, ALB006 and MAR036. In all of these cases, both wet and dry averages exceeded the study guidelines.

Specific Conductance There is no state standard for specific conductance. D. B. Senn, in his study of the waters of the Upper Mystic Lake, estimates normal warm weather concentrations to be between 400 – 600 µS/cm (microseimens/centimeter). In colder weather, when there is input from road salt, the conductivity levels in the Lake ranged from 500 – 850 µS/cm (Senn, 2001). These values were used for evaluation of the MMN results for specific conductance (Table 28).

Mystic River Watershed, page M40 Table 28: MMN Study Guidelines for specific conductance Season Support May – October 400 – 600 microseimens/cm (µS/cm) November – April 500 – 850 microseimens/cm (µS/cm) Source: Senn 2001

Many of the sampling locations had results consistently above the study guidelines (Figure 7). During warm weather conditions, ABR049, ABR028, ABR006, MIB001, WIB001, and ALB001 exceeded the guideline maximum of 600 µS/cm except during the wet weather event in July 2002. During cold weather, the same sites exceeded the study guideline maximum of 850 µS/cm except during the wet weather event in November 2002. The Malden River site (MAR036) exceeded the guideline on all events except for the wet weather event in November 2002, and had consistently higher results than elsewhere in the watershed. This site is located approximately 1.5 river miles upstream of the Amelia Earhart dam that separates the Mystic River and Boston Harbor. The elevated conductivity results at MAR036 may be due to saline ocean water leaching through the dam and lock operations.

Figure 7: Average Specific Conductance

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000 m

800

microseimens/c 600

400

200

0 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Location

Average Dry Average

Mystic River Watershed, page M41 pH The Massachusetts surface water quality standard for pH is 6.5 – 8.3 (Table 29).

Table 29: MASWQS for pH

Support pH level 6.5 – 8.3 Source: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (DEP 1996)

Five locations had occasional violations of the pH standard, both by being too acidic or too basic. ABR049 had two occasions when the pH fell below 6.5: September and December 2002. ABR028 had acidic water in June (6.4) and August (6.1) 2002. ABR006 violated once with a reading of 6.3 in November 2002. ALB006 had three violations in September – November 2002: 6.4, 6.3, and 6.1 respectively. The Upper Mystic Lake was the only location that violated the standard by being too basic. In July and August the measurements were 8.5 and 8.7, respectively.

Dissolved Oxygen The MA Surface Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen are based on two criteria: mg/L (parts per million), and percent saturation (Table 30).

Table 30: MASWQS for Dissolved Oxygen Support Dissolved oxygen level > 5.0 mg/L Percent Saturation > 60% Source: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (DEP 1996)

Of the 103 data points collected, nine fell below the criteria of 5.0 mg/L. The Aberjona River at Salem Street (ABR049) site violated on four of seven sampling events (57%), with a low of 3.2 mg/L in July 2002. Alewife Brook at Broadway (ALB006) violated on four of eight sampling events (50%), with a low of 2.0 mg/L in July and August 2002.

Of the 102 data points collected for dissolved oxygen percent saturation, 16 violated the MASQWS. Percent saturation could not be calculated for one site in January 2003 when no water temperature was taken. Even though many of the samples met the MASWQS for mg/L, they violated the standard for percent saturation. This is because colder water has a greater potential saturation for dissolved oxygen, and thus a mg/L measurement, which in warmer weather would represent at least 60% saturation, in cold weather represents a lower proportion of the possible saturation. ABR049, which violated the standard in the summer time months for both percent saturation and mg/L in the summer of 2002, also violated for percent saturation in the fall of 2002, although mg/L

Mystic River Watershed, page M42 measurements did not. Alewife Brook (ALB006) only had one percent saturation measurement, that of March 2003, that met the water quality standard minimum of 60%. See Figure 8.

Figure 8: Dissolved Oxygen Percent Saturation

140

120

100

60 percent saturation

0 ABR049 ABR028 ABR006 UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036 Location

6/12/02 7/10/02 8/14/02 9/11/02 10/9/02 11/13/02 12/11/02 1/8/03 3/12/03

5.8 Temperature

Table 31: MASWQS for Temperature Support Temperature 28.3° Source: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (DEP 1996)

None of the results violated the MA Surface Water Quality Standard for temperature. In general, all sampling locations had similar water temperatures. See Figure 9.

Mystic River Watershed, page M43 Figure 9: Water Temperature by Sample Date

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0 Temperature

10.0

5.0

0.0 6/12/02 7/10/02 8/14/02 9/11/02 10/9/02 11/13/02 12/11/02 1/8/03 3/12/03 ABR049 ABR028 SampleABR006 Date UPL001 MIB001 MYR071 WIB001 ALB006 MEB001 MAR036

The warmer water in Winn’s Brook during the colder months may be due to extensive culverting and therefore minimal exposure to outside air. The Malden River site also shows a peak in December 2002, although it is not culverted at the sampling location.

Mystic River Watershed, page M44 Mystic River Watershed, page M45 Discussion By Location

ABR049 – Aberjona at Salem Street Bridge, Woburn ABR049 is the most upstream sampling location in the MMN project. Monitors sample from the downstream side of the Salem Street Bridge. Just upstream of the bridge is a large wetland area that is part of the Wells G & H Superfund Site. Landuse in the area is light industry, commercial, and residential.

ABR049 has a USGS staff gage, which has recently been obscured with mud and is therefore unreadable. USGS established a rating curve for this gage in1999 and 2000. The highest streamflow recorded during the contract period was on 11/13/02, at 90 cubic feet per second.

ABR049 probably (see discussion in section 4.1) regularly violated the MASWQS for primary and secondary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 1,295 cfu/100 ml and a high of 28,800 cfu/100 ml for the study period. E. coli levels were highest during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Total suspended solids were not a problem at this site.

Nitrate+nitrite is another problem for ABR049. During the study period, the average Nitrate+nitrite concentration was 1.12 mg/L. Only on 3 occasions did concentrations drop below the study guideline of a maximum of 1.0 mg/L. Two of these events were the wet weather samples, which may mean that the increased flow diluted the Nitrate+nitrite concentrations. This suggests that the urban runoff is not the main contributing source of excess Nitrate+nitrite.

Total phosphorus was not a problem for this location, with no sampling events exceeding the site guideline or 0.1 mg/L as P.

On two occasions the pH of the water was measured at levels below the MA Surface Water Quality Standard minimum of 6.5: in September 2002 the result was 6.4 and in December the results was 6.3. The readings for June – August and October were 6.5, right at the cutoff.

As expected, specific conductivity varied due to season and rainfall.

All of the DO samples were collected between 7:08 a.m. and 7:43 a.m. The highest percent saturation reached at this location was 72.4% on March 12, 2003. The lowest measurement was 31.6% on October 9, 2002. On this date the water temperature was 12 C, although the mg/L for DO was only 3.4. 62.5% of the samples taken at this location violated the MASWQS for percent saturation, with two of the violations occurring in the colder months when water temperatures were 12 C or lower.

Mystic River Watershed, page M46 ABR028 – Aberjona at Washington Street Bridge, Winchester ABR028 is approximately two miles downstream of ABR049, and this section of the Aberjona River flows through largely residential areas. The last 100 yards or so before the bridge is parkland. Sandbeds on the inside curve of the river indicate significant road runoff.

ABR028 has a USGS staff gage, but no rating curve has been established for this site. The highest depth recorded in this study was 6.05 feet on November 13, 2002, during the rainstorm that yielded 0.69 inches on November 12, 2002 and 0.58 inches on November 13, 2002.

ABR028 probably regularly violated the MASWQS for primary and secondary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 1,074 cfu/100 ml and a high of 8,900 cfu/100 ml for the study period on the wet weather event in July 2002. E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Total suspended solids were not a problem at this site.

Nitrate + nitrite is problem for ABR028. ABR028 had the highest levels of nitrate + nitrite in the study. The average level for the study period was 1.79 mg/L as N, which exceeds the guideline for nitrate in this study of 1.0 mg/L. When compared to the nitrate levels of ABR049, it appears that there is some additional source of nitrate entering the system between these two locations.

Total phosphorus was not a problem at this site.

As expected, specific conductivity varied due to season and rainfall.

On two occasions ABR028 violated the MASWQS for pH, having readings that were too acidic. These occurred in June and August 2002, with readings of 6.4 and 6.1, respectively.

All dissolved oxygen samples were taken between the 6:10 a.m. and 6:20 a.m. during the contract period. The minimum result for percent saturation was 63.6% on October 9, 2002. The maximum result was 87.6% on March 12, 2003. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this site. All of the samples met the minimum for percent saturation and parts per million as outlined in the MASWQS.

Mystic River Watershed, page M47 ABR006 – Aberjona at USGS Station, Winchester ABR006 is approximately 2 miles downstream of ABR028, and about 1 mile downstream of Winchester Center. The area is largely residential with riverside parkland. The sampling location is just upstream of the weir constructed for the USGS gauging station.

The highest streamflow recorded for this study at ABR006 occurred November 13, 2002, during the rainstorm that yielded 0.69 inches on November 12, 2002 and 0.58 inches on November 13, 2002, and was 82.74 cubic feet per second. ABR006 probably regularly violated the MASWQS for primary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 977 cfu/100 ml and a high of 107,000 cfu/100 ml for the study period on the wet weather event in November 2002. E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Total suspended solids were not a problem at this site.

Nitrate is another problem for ABR006. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 1.31 mg/L as N, which exceeds the guideline for nitrate in this study of 1.0 mg/L. When compared to the nitrate levels of ABR028, it does not appear that there is an additional source of nitrate entering the system between these two locations.

Total phosphorus was often problem at this site, which discharges into the Upper Mystic Lake 0.6 miles downstream. The average total phosphorus was 0.063 mg/L as P, which exceeded the study guideline of 0.05 mg/L as P.

As expected, specific conductivity varied due to season and rainfall.

ABR006 had one violation of the MASWQS for pH, with a reading in November 2002 of 6.3.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 6:55 and 7:06 a.m. Dissolved oxygen violated the MASWQS for percent saturation on only one occasion, with a result of 56.15%, just below the minimum, on September 11, 2002. Water temperature on this date was 21 C, and the mg/L of DO was only 5.0. The maximum result for percent saturation was 89% on August 14, 2002.

Mystic River Watershed, page M48 UPL001 – Upper Mystic Lake at Dam, Medford UPL001 is the only lake sampling location in this study. The sampling location is located east of the dam and samples are taken from the shore. Farther north on the lake is Sandy Beach, a public swimming area maintained by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC).

UPL001 violated the MASWQS for primary contact only twice during the study period. On 7/10/2002 and 11/13/02, the two wet weather events, the results were 290 cfu/100 ml and 320 cfu/100 ml respectively. Otherwise, the lake was well below the standard of 200 cfu/100 ml.

Total suspended solids were not a problem at this location.

UPL001 only violated the study guideline for nitrate + nitrite once, in January 2003, but this result of 3.91 mg/L is the highest of all nitrate + nitrite. The rest of the time, nitrate + nitrite was below the study guideline of 0.1 mg/L.

Results for total phosphorus exceeded the site guideline of 0.025 mg/L on every sampling event for the study period. The average total phosphorus was 0.051 mg/L as P.

As expected, specific conductivity varied due to season and rainfall.

UPL001 had two readings in the summer of 2002 that violated the standard for pH by being too basic. In July the measurement was 8.5 and in August the measurement was 8.7.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 6:41 and 7:50 a.m. The minimum result for percent saturation was 66.7%, on October 9, 2002. The maximum result was 123.6% (super-saturation) on August 14, 2002. On this date the water temperature was 23 C and the mg/L measurement for DO was 10.0. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this location, none of the samples violated the MASWQS.

MIB001 – Mill Brook at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, Arlington MIB001 is located just upstream of an old weir, just before Mill Brook empties into the Lower Mystic Lake. The surrounding area is largely residential, but the immediate area is a cemetery.

This location has a staff gage, and a rating curve was established in 1999 and 2000. However, soon after the rating curve was developed, the weir downstream was altered and thus the rating curve is no longer valid. The highest depth recorded for this study was 1.7 feet on November 13, 2002, during the rainstorm that yielded 0.69 inches on November 12, 2002 and 0.58 inches on November 13, 2002.

Mystic River Watershed, page M49 MIB001 probably regularly violated the MASWQS for primary and secondary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 2,733 cfu/100 ml and a high of 17,100 cfu/100 ml for the study period. In general E. coli levels were higher in the wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Twice the results for total suspended solids exceeded the study guidelines. On 10/9/02 the result was 29.3 mg/L, and on 1/8/03 the result was 154.0 mg/L, the highest measurement for the study period.

Nitrate was another problem for MIB001. Only on the wet weather event in November 2002 did the concentration drop below the guideline for nitrate in this study of 1.0 mg/L. The average concentration was 1.35 mg/L. MIB001, as a tributary to the Mystic River, is adding nitrate to the system in addition to the nitrate already contributed by the Aberjona River.

Total phosphorus was also a problem at this site, which discharges into the Lower Mystic Lake. The average total phosphorus was 0.122 mg/L as P, which exceeded the study guideline of 0.05 mg/L as P. All sample measurements exceeded this guideline.

As expected, specific conductivity varies due to season and rainfall.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 6:37 and 7:05 a.m. The minimum result for percent saturation was 60.5%, on July 10, 2002. On this date the water temperature was 19 C and the mg/L result was 5.7. The maximum result for percent saturation was 94.7%, on March 12, 2003. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this location, none of the samples violated the MASWQS, although the July 10th sample was very close to the minimum of 60%.

MYR071 – Mystic River at High Street Bridge, Arlington Monitors sample at MYR071 on the upstream side of the bridge, from the Arlington bank. The surrounding area is largely residential.

MYR071 probably occasionally violated the MASWQS for primary contact, however the E. coli geometric mean was only 154 cfu/100 ml. The highest result was 2,100 cfu/100 ml for the study period on the wet weather event of November 2002.

On one occasion, the wet weather event of July 2002, a TSS reading of 28.5 mg/L exceeded the guideline for the study of 25 mg/L.

Nitrate levels at MYR071 only exceeded the study guidelines on three occasions during the study period: June 2002, January 2003, and March 2003. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 0.69 mg/L as N.

Total phosphorus was only a problem once during the study period, on the wet weather event in July 2002. The sample measurement at this time was 0.128 mg/L.

Mystic River Watershed, page M50 As expected, specific conductivity varied due to season and rainfall.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 7:07 and 7:19 a.m. The minimum result for percent saturation was 69.1%, on January 8, 2003, when the water temperature was 1.0 C. The highest result was 97.6%, on September 11, 2002. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this location, none of the samples violated the MASWQS.

WIB001 – Winn’s Brook, Outfall to Little Pond, Belmont WIB001 is located in Belmont just where Winn’s Brook emerges into Little Pond from being culverted for approximately 1 mile. Due to the structure of the culvert, the flow entering the pond usually creates a visible plume on the north side of the culvert. A primary concern when sampling at this location is making sure to capture the brook water rather than water from the pond. The area is largely residential, with Route 2 nearby.

WIB001 probably regularly violated the MASWQS for primary and secondary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 1,561 cfu/100 ml and a high of 6,900 cfu/100 ml for the study period. In general, E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Total suspended solids were not a problem at this location.

Nitrate was another problem for WIB001. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 1.38 mg/L as N, which exceeds the guideline for nitrate in this study of 1.0 mg/L.

Total phosphorus was also a problem at this site, which discharges into Little Pond. The average total phosphorus was 0.148 mg/L as P, which exceeded the study guideline of 0.05 mg/L as P. Every sample measurement during the study period exceeded this guideline.

As expected, specific conductivity varies due to season and rainfall.

All of the samples for dissolved oxygen were collected between 6:56 and 7:20 a.m. The lowest result for percent saturation was 72.2%, on October 9, 2002, when the water temperature was 5.0 C, but the mg/L result for DO was only 9.2. The highest result for percent saturation was 95.3%, on June 12, 2002. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this location, none of the samples violated the MASWQS.

ALB006 – Alewife Brook at Broadway, Somerville ALB006 is located just downstream of the Broadway Bridge in Somerville. The Brook is channelized with concrete walls from Massachusetts Avenue up to the Broadway

Mystic River Watershed, page M51 Bridge. On the downstream side, the banks are riprap and vegetated. The area is largely residential, although there is a car dealership and supermarket nearby. Route 16 intersects with Broadway just prior to the bridge.

This location has a staff gage, installed upstream of the Broadway Bridge and visible from the St. Paul's cemetery. The gage is often muddy and difficult to read. When not in flood conditions, the flow at ALB006 is almost always very slow. The greatest depth measured at this site was 2.40 feet.

ALB006 probably frequently violated the MASWQS for primary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 996 cfu/100 ml and a high of 16,500 cfu/100 ml for the study period, during the wet weather event of November 2002. In general, E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

The results for total suspended solids once exceeded the study guidelines. On 11/13/02, the wet weather event, the result for ALB006 was 33.8 mg/L.

Nitrate was not generally a problem at ALB006. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 0.60 mg/L as N. The sample measurements only exceeded the guideline of 1.0 mg/L twice: on 1/8/03 with 1.41 mg/L and on 3/12/03 with 1.05 mg/L.

Total phosphorus levels frequently exceeded the study guideline of 0.10 mg/L for this location. The average total phosphorus was 0.131 mg/L as P.

As expected, specific conductivity varies due to season and rainfall.

Alewife Brook had three occasions when the pH level fell below the MASWQS minimum of 6.5. In September 2002 the result was 6.4, in October 2002 the result was 6.3, and in November 2002 the result was 6.1.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were collected between 7:00 and 7:26 a.m. All but one of the ALB006 dissolved oxygen levels were well below the MASWQS of 60% saturation, especially during the warmer months. The lowest saturation for the study period was 20%, a level lethal to most aquatic animals, which occurred on July 10, 2002, when the water temperature was 21.0 C and the mg/L result for DO was only 2.0. The highest reading for percent saturation was 78.5%, on March 12, 2003.

Mystic River Watershed, page M52 MEB001 – Meetinghouse Brook, Outlet to Mystic River, Medford The South Reservoir in the Middlesex Fells feeds Meetinghouse Brook, which runs through the Fells and then is culverted much of the rest of its length through Medford. The surrounding area is largely residential and commercial. The Brook surfaces again and flows through the Mystic River Reservation, emptying into the Mystic River just north of the Msgr. John B. Condon Shell. Monitors sample on the upstream side of a small footbridge just feet away from the confluence with the Mystic River.

MEB001 probably frequently violated the MASWQS for primary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 701 cfu/100 ml and a high of 2,200 cfu/100 ml for the study period. In general, E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Total suspended solids exceeded the study guideline on one occasion. On 10/9/02, the result for MEB001 was 56.5 mg/L.

Nitrate was frequently a problem at MEB001. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 1.23 mg/L as N, exceeding the study guideline of 1.0 mg/L as N. On only two occasions did the concentrations fall below the study guideline.

Total phosphorus levels only exceeded the study guideline of 0.10 mg/L for this location twice. On 10/9/02 the result was 0.214 mg/L as P, and on 11/13/02 the result was 0.106 mg/L as P. The average total phosphorus was 0.091 mg/L as P.

As expected, specific conductivity varies due to season and rainfall.

All dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 6:34 and 6:56 a.m. The lowest reading for percent saturation was 74.5%, on November 13, 2002, when the water temperature was 10.0 C. The highest reading was 90.5%, on March 12, 2003. Dissolved oxygen was not a problem at this location, none of the samples violated the MASWQS.

MAR036 – Malden River at Medford Street Bridge, Malden MAR036 is located in Malden. Volunteers collect samples from the downstream side of the Medford St. Bridge. There are storm drains that discharge under the bridge and may contribute to samples at this location. The surrounding area is largely commercial space and light-industry. The offices for Telecom City are nearby, and the first phase of development will occur downstream.

MAR036 probably frequently violated the MASWQS for primary and secondary contact, with an E. coli geometric mean of 1,734 cfu/100 ml and a high of 71,000 cfu/100 ml for the study period on the November 2002 wet weather event. In general, E. coli levels were higher during wet weather. Potential sources of bacterial contamination have not been fully investigated.

Mystic River Watershed, page M53 Total suspended solids was not a problem at this location.

Nitrate was generally not a problem at MAR036. The average nitrate + nitrite level for the period of study was 0.60 mg/L as N. The January 2003 result of 1.08 was the only one that exceeded the study guideline of 1.0 mg/L.

Total phosphorus levels frequently exceeded the study guideline for this location. The average total phosphorus was 0.110 mg/L as P.

As expected, specific conductivity varies due to season and rainfall, but was generally higher than the other locations in the study.

All of the dissolved oxygen samples were taken between 6:08 and 7:25 a.m. MAR036 met the MASWQS for dissolved oxygen in terms of mg/L on all occasions except one throughout the study period, on July 10, 2002 when the result was 4.0 mg/L. However, on two occasions the percent saturation dipped below the minimum 60%, June 12, 2002 and July 10, 2002. The highest result for percent saturation was 108.2% (super- saturation), on August 14, 2002.

Mystic River Watershed, page M54 Recommendations and Action Plan

The Mystic Monitoring Network was established in 2000 to gather baseline water quality data throughout the watershed and aid in hot spot analysis. As seen in Table 32, all of the sampling locations, except for UPL001 and MYR071 easily qualify as hot spots due to E. coli levels, total phosphorus, nitrate + nitrite, and dissolved oxygen are of concern at several sites as well. Table 31: Percent of All Samples Deviating from Established Criteria and Guidelines by Site Nitrate+ Total Spec. DO DO Site E. Coli1 TSS Temp. pH Nitrite Phos. Cond. mg/L % ABR049 75 0 56 0 78 50 63 0 29 ABR028 63 0 86 0 88 0 0 0 29 ABR006 50 0 88 63 67 0 11 0 14 UPL001 0 0 14 100 13 0 0 0 50 MIB001 88 22 88 100 78 0 0 0 0 MYR071 38 11 33 11 33 0 0 0 0 WIB001 100 0 56 100 67 0 0 0 0 ALB006 63 11 22 67 78 44 89 0 43 MEB001 57 13 78 22 11 0 0 0 0 MAR036 63 0 11 44 89 13 25 0 0 1 Percent of samples greater than 400 cfu/100 mL (MASWQS Primary Contact)

These sampling locations need to be continued as monitoring stations in the future, both to detect future violations and to aid in establishing trends over time and by season. Eight of the ten sites monitored probably violated the MASWQS for fecal coliform greater that 50% of the time; thus, these sites are a potential human health risk. More sampling needs to be conducted to better determine the source of these bacteria.

Seven of the sampling sites are in waterbodies listed on the state 303(d) list of for pathogens. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) needs to be developed for these waterbodies due to the public health risk associated with high fecal coliform levels. However, a TMDL cannot be developed without adequate flow information. Staff gages exist at only 5 of the 10 monitoring locations, and the rating curve at MIB001 is no longer adequate for the existing conditions. The Mystic Monitoring Network should evaluate viable methods for calculating flow, considering budget constraints and volunteer capabilities.

The new sub-watershed and hot spot studies, made possible by lab work from the EPA Region 1 Laboratory, along with continued baseline monitoring will enhance our understanding of the ecological health of the watershed, as well as aiding in eliminating human health hazards from bacterial contamination. Now that a significant amount of data has been collected, the Mystic River Watershed Association needs to utilize this data in working with local municipalities to correct sewage contamination and implement best management practices for overall ecosystem health.

Mystic River Watershed, page M55 This report makes the following specific recommendations:

2. Local municipalities need to utilize data collected by the MMN and other agencies or groups to remediate the sources of sewage contamination.

3. The MA DEP should continue their enforcement of 308 Non-Compliance, making sure that municipalities submit timely reports and make progress in their remediation efforts.

4. Bacterial TMDLs should be developed for the following waterbodies:  Alewife Brook  Meetinghouse Brook  Mill Brook  Winn’s Brook  Malden River  Aberjona River

5. Nutrient TMDLs should be developed for the following waterbodies:  Alewife Brook  Meetinghouse Brook  Mill Brook  Winn’s Brook  Aberjona River  Upper Mystic Lake

6. The MMN and other agencies or groups should investigate improvements to the hydrology of the Alewife Brook area.

7. MyRWA and other agencies or groups should continue and expand outreach efforts to local citizens, educating them about current water quality conditions and good stewardship practices.

Mystic River Watershed, page M56 References

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater” 18th ed. Washington, D.C., 1992.

Behar, S., “Testing the Waters: Chemical and Physical Vital Signs of a River,” River Watch Network, 1997.

DeSimone, L., USGS water year 2000 data, written communication, 2000.

Durant, J.L., Zemach, J.J., and Hemond, H.F., “The history of leather industry waste contamination in the Aberjona watershed: A mass balance approach,” Civil Engineering Practice, Fall 1990, pp. 41-66.

Frymire, R., “A Snapshot of the Alewife Watershed: Observations and Bacterial Sampling results from Fall, 1999,” 2000.

“Hach Water Analysis Handbook,” 3rd ed., 1997.

Ivushkina, T., “Spatial distribution of toxic elements in surface sediments on the Alewife Brook and Mill Brook Watersheds” Masters thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1999.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution, Technical Services Branch, “Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards,” 314 CMR 4.00, 1996.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management, “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of Water Quality 1998,” Worcester, MA, 1998.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Division of Water Pollution Control, “Mystic River Survey, 1986 Water Quality Data,” Westborough, MA, 1989.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches,” 105 CMR 445.000.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Planning “Surface Water Quality Standards, NJAC 7:9B”, April 1998.

Senn, D.B. “Coupled arsenic, iron, and nitrogen cycling in arsenic-contaminated Upper Mystic Lake.” Doctoral Dissertation (unpublished). Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2001.

Mystic River Watershed, page M57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NERL, “Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,” Cincinnati, OH 45268, March 1983, August 1993. (EPA-600/4-79- 020).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “Draft Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria – 1986,” EPA-823-D-00-001, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. “National Primary Drinking Water Standards,” EPA 826-F-01-007, March 2001.

U.S. Geological Survey, “Water Resources Data Massachusetts and Rhode Island Water Year 1999” Water-Data Report MA-RI-1, 1999.

Mystic River Watershed, page M58 Neponset River Watershed

Neponset Watershed, Page N1 Neponset Watershed, Page N2 Neponset Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5 Historical Water Quality Sampling...... 6 Methods ...... 7 Parameters sampled ...... 7 Spatial Frequency...... 7 Temporal Frequency ...... 11 Results Evaluation ...... 12 Results ...... 13 Adherence with Quality Assurance Project Plan...... 13 Completion Rates...... 13 Precipitation and Streamflow...... 13 Data Tables and Graphs...... 15 Results and Discussion by Subwatershed ...... 20 Neponset Headwaters Subwatershed ...... 21 Upper Main Stem Subwatershed ...... 24 Mill/Mine Subwatershed...... 31 Hawes Brook Subwatershed ...... 34 Massapoag and Beaver Brook Subwatershed...... 43 East Branch Subwatershed...... 50 Steep Hill Subwatershed...... 57 Fowl Meadow / Middle Main Stem Subwatershed...... 60 Traphole Brook Subwatershed...... 68 Purgatory Brook Subwatershed ...... 71 Ponkapoag Brook Subwatershed ...... 74 Lower Main Stem Subwatershed (Paul’s Bridge to Lower Mills) ...... 78 Mother Brook Subwatershed ...... 82 Pine Tree Brook Subwatershed...... 86 Unquity Brook and Gulliver’s Creek Subwatershed ...... 91 Estuary Subwatershed...... 96 Discussion and Recommendations ...... 98 Water Quality Overview...... 98 Recommendations and Action Plan...... 100 Stream Specific Recommendations ...... 101 References...... 103

Neponset Watershed, Page N3 Neponset Watershed, Page N4 Introduction Citizen water monitoring has been an effective mechanism for the Neponset River Watershed Association (NepRWA) in achieving many goals: education, "hot spot" identification and remediation, informing local decision-makers, non-point source assessment, watershed planning, habitat restoration and enforcement. Over the last nine years, NepRWA has identified many point sources of pollution, worked with responsible parties to remediate problems, and begun to prioritize non-point sources of pollution.

NepRWA has implemented some form of citizen monitoring since 1989, with a consistent and building program since 1995. The program, in its most recent iteration, is known as the Citizen Water Monitoring Network, (CWMN), a collaborative of citizen volunteers organized by NepRWA. This network is a trained volunteer base, which conducts water monitoring, and sample collection throughout the entire Neponset Watershed.

NepRWA's CWMN uses widely accepted standardized methods and techniques for collecting high-quality data. The testing, which focuses on physical, biological and chemical water quality indicators, uses parameters that address the 2002-2003 project goals, and which serve as the use determination criteria for the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00).

NepRWA sought to accomplish the following during 2002-2003:  Collect water quality samples from in-stream water at one or more stations on each major tributary of the Neponset River, to provide an overall characterization of water quality conditions and long-term trends.  Collect in-stream samples during rainfall events, to build an understanding of how storm water affects receiving water quality.  Locate previously unknown problem areas so they can be targeted for follow-up sampling and remediation.  Conduct shoreline surveys and follow-up sampling at targeted locations where water pollution is found but the sources of that pollution have not yet been located. Target and follow-up sampling will include intensive in-stream water quality samples for the target area, as well as necessary pipe sampling.  Document previously identified pollution sources, initiate remediation actions, and track improvement.  Distribute results as quickly and widely as possible to ensure their utilization

Sixteen stream segments in the Neponset River Watershed have been listed on Massachusetts’ 1998 303d list, and additional 5 will be added in 2002. In response, the U.S. EPA and Massachusetts DEP have written a bacteria TMDL for the Neponset River Watershed. A number of recommendations came out of this document, including recommendations for continued Surface Water Monitoring, illicit discharge detection and elimination, and the organization and implementation of education and outreach programs. The CWMN program will address each of these recommendations by continuing to monitor the in-stream water quality of the river with bi- monthly sampling events. The bucket pull sampling procedures will serve to identify areas with elevated bacteria concentrations. Targeted follow-up testing at sites that have been found to have unexpectedly high levels of fecal coliform were utilized on two occasions to specifically address

Neponset Watershed, Page N5 elevated concentrations. Follow-up testing followed DEP approved sterile sampling procedures and, in addition to the instream samples, pipe samples were taken. Final results from these efforts were used to further identify potential sources and remediation solutions.

The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative (MWI) grant program sought to establish a Boston Harbor Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program to collect water quality and streamflow measurements at a minimum of 25 locations in the Neponset, Mystic Fore, Back and Weir River sub-basins of the Boston Harbor Watershed to assess water quality conditions and identify sources of water quality impairment. NepRWA served as the lead contractor for this effort and conducted the sampling activities in the Neponset Watershed. NepRWA subcontracted for sampling services with the Weir River Watershed Association, the Fore River Watershed Association, and the Mystic River Watershed Association in their respective watersheds. The efforts in each watershed were designed to address that basin’s unique circumstances and each sampling program was governed by its own QAPP. Nevertheless, all the programs bear a strong resemblance to one another, with teamwork between groups an imperative part of the program.

This final report describes the results for the parameters gathered in the Neponset Watershed, during the grant term which was from 2002 to 2003. In addition, data collected outside the scope of the MWI grant deliverables is also included in this report. Procedures for the collection of data in the Neponset can be found in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the CWMN program (NepRWA 2003).

The Neponset CWMN program was funded in part by the EOEA Boston Harbor Watershed Team through a DEP MWI grant project (DEP Project Number: 2002-02MWI), along with generous support from the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Mass Water Resources Authority.

Historical Water Quality Sampling Past sampling efforts under the CWMN program have been funded in part by grants and contracts under the MWI Priority Projects and the EOEA Volunteer Monitoring Program. These past projects have included: the Boston Harbor Watershed Water Quality and Hydrologic Investigations funded through DEP in fiscal year 2001, and conducted in conjunction with the Mystic River Watershed Association; and at least three small grants under the EOEA Volunteer Monitoring Program used to replenish equipment and supplies. NepRWA has also been conducting a parallel study of aquatic life, aquatic habitats and instream flow levels, known as the Water BUDGETS Program, which has been funded in part by the MWI under the Watershed Stewardship Program. The MA DEP conducted sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish during 1999 which, together with chemical water quality data collected by the CWMN program, formed the basis for the most recent 5 year DEP watershed assessment (DEP, 1999). NepRWA was also a partner in a 1999-2000 DEP multi watershed study of alternate pathogen indicators. Finally, in 2002 DFWELE conducted an in depth study of water quality indicators affecting the success of the anadromous smelt reproduction in the Neponset River and several other Mass Bay spawning areas.

Neponset Watershed, Page N6 Methods This section provides a general overview of the procedures and parameters sampled during the 2002 – 2003 sampling season. A more detailed account can be found in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that governed the operation of the CWMN project.

Parameters sampled This project sought to determine the present status of watershed health as well as contribute to a long-term record of water quality parameters for the future management of water and land resources within the watershed. Volunteers took grab samples at each of the site locations. These samples were analyzed for phosphorus, nitrogen, fecal coliform, and E. coli. Visual observations of water color, odor, turbidity, flow, and water depth were made at each site. In addition to these visual observations, measurements of physical parameters such as pH, temperature, conductivity, total suspended solids and dissolved oxygen were taken. Each of these elements provides valuable information about water quality throughout the watershed and also provides a historical database for future projects. All parameters taken at a sampling station are critical to the assessment of that station, where a particular parameter is not critical to the assessment of a site it has been eliminated from the sampling regime.

Table N1: Parameters Sampled Fecal Coliform Ammonia E. coli Temperature Total Suspended Solids (TSS) pH Nitrate + Nitrite (N + N) Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Total Phosphorus (TP) Conductivity Total Nitrogen (TN) Color Orthophosphorus (Ortho-P) Odor Clarity

Spatial Frequency Forty-one sampling sites were located throughout the watershed (see figure below). These sites were selected to provide coverage of the Neponset River Watershed so as to characterize the water quality in each of the major reaches or tributaries. Sites are positioned to capture known or suspected water quality problems (example: A site may be positioned downstream of an area where leaky sewers are suspected). Six sites were relocated during this sample year to better capture areas of potential pollution. In addition, sites with known bacteria problems were not sampled for nutrients. This allowed for the better use of lab resources. See the table below for a complete list of sites and the parameters that were sampled at each.

Neponset Watershed, Page N7 Figure N1: Sampling Station Locations

Neponset Watershed, Page N8 Table N2: Schedule of Stations and Parameters Sampled Field Parameters Lab Analyzed Parameters horus p r Sampled in 2001-2002 Temperature Oxygen Dissolved Conductivity PH Turbidity Odor Colo NitrateNitrite + Solids Suspended Total Total Nitrogen Orthophosphorus Fecal Coliform Bacteria E. Coli mmonia

Site ID Site Location Town Total Phos A Season MOB032 Mother Brook @ Reservation Hyde Park X X X X X X X X X no UNB014 Unquity Brook @ Adams Milton X X X X X X X X X yes Street UNB016 Unquity Brook @ Squantum Milton X X X X X X X X X yes St/Christopher Rd MEB001 Meadow Brook @ Sunnyside Norwood X X X X X X X X X yes Road WIP002 Willett Pond, southern site Walpole X X X X X X X X X yes WIP003 Willett Pond, eastern site Walpole X X X X X X X X X yes TUR001 Turner’s Pond Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X no PQB036 Pequit Brook @ Rt 138 Canton X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X no POB040 Ponkapoag Brook @ Elm St Canton X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from Washington St THB033 Traphole Brook @ Sumner Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from Coney St Street BEB025 Beaver Brook @ Maskwonicut Sharon X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from Upland Rd MPB037 Massapoag Brook @ Billings Sharon X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from the outlet Street of Lake Massapoag MIB030 Mine Brook @ Nebo Street Medfield X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from Elm St SMB001 School Meadow Brook @ Pine Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Relocated from Street Washington St NER002 Neponset River @ outlet of Foxborough X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Crackrock Pond NER040 Neponset River @ South Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Street SPB016 Spring Brook @ Route 27 Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER075 Neponset River @ Walpole X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Hollingsworth & Vose Dam MLB024 Mill Brook @ inlet of Petee’s Westwood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Pond GEB020 Germany Brook @ inlet of Norwood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Ellis Pond HAB002 Hawes Brook @ Walpole Norwood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Street HAB006 Hawes Brook @ Endean Park, Norwood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes railroad bridge HAB010 Hawes Brook @ Washington Norwood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes Street Neponset River @ Pleasant X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER080 Street Bridge Norwood Massapoag Brook @ Walnut X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes MPB088 Street Canton Steep Hill Brook @ Central St X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes SHB021 & West St Stoughton Beaver Meadow Brook @ Pine X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes BMB026 Street Canton Pequit Brook @ Sherman X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes PQB040 Street Canton East Branch @ Neponset X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes EAB010 Street Canton Purgatory Brook @ Rt 1A, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes PUB022 near Everett St Westwood Neponset River @ Dedham X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER125 Street Bridge Canton PEB008 Pecunit Brook @ Elm Street Canton X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes

Neponset Watershed, Page N9 Table N2: Schedule of Stations and Parameters Sampled, continued Field Parameters Lab Analyzed Parameters orm orm f

ecal Coli Sampled in 2001- Temperature Oxygen Dissolved Conductivity pH Turbidity Odor Color NitrateNitrite + Solids Suspended Total Total Nitrogen Orthophosphorus F E. Coli

Site ID Site Location Town Phosphorus Total Ammonia 2002 Season Neponset River @ Paul's X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER150 Bridge Milton Mother Brook @ Washington X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes MOB001 Street Dedham Neponset River @ Fairmount X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER165 Avenue Hyde Park Neponset River @ Ryan X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER185 Playground Mattapan Pine Tree Brook @ Blue Hills X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes PTB028 Parkway Milton Pine Tree Brook @ Brook X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes PTB035 Road Milton Pine Tree Brook @ Central X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes PTB047 Avenue Milton Neponset River @ Adams X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes NER200 Street Bridge Milton/Boston Unquity Brook @ Randolph X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X yes UNB002 Avenue Milton

Neponset Watershed, Page N10 Table N3: Subwatersheds, Stream Reaches, and DEP Segments Numbers Subwatershed Stream DEP Segment Number Sampling Site Start Date End Date Neponset Neponset Mainstem MA73-01 NER002 May 99 Present Headwaters Upper Main School Meadow Brook MA73-06 SMB001 Jan 02 Present Stem SMB013 May 99 Nov 01 Neponset Mainstem MA73-01 NER040 May 99 Present NER075 May 99 Present Spring Brook SPB016 May 99 Present Mill/Mine Mill/Mine Brook MIB030 Sept 02 Present MIB037 May 99 July 02 Germany Brook/ Germany Brook MA73-15 GEB020 Sept 99 Present Hawes Brook Hawes Brook MA73-16 HAB002 May 99 Present HAB006 May 99 Present HAB010 May 99 Present Mill Brook MLB024 May 99 Present Massapoag and Massapoag Brook MA73-21, MPB009 May 99 July 02 Beaver Brook Beaver Brook MA73-19 MPB037 Sept 02 Present MPB088 May 99 Present BEB013 May 99 July 02 BEB025 Sept 02 Present East Branch East Branch MA73-05 EAB010 May 99 Present Beaver Meadow Brook MA73-20 BMB026 May 99 Present Pequit Brook MA73-22? PQB036 Sept 02 Present PQB040 May 99 Present Steep Hill Steep Hill Brook MA73-32, MA73-18 SHB021 May 99 Present Fowl Meadow/ Neponset Main Stem NER080 May 99 Present Middle Main NER125 May 99 Present Stem Pecunit Brook MA73-25 PEB008 May 99 Present Meadow Brook MEB001 May 99 Present Puffer’s Brook Traphole Brook Traphole Brook MA73-17 THB020 May 99 July 02 THB033 Sept 02 Present Purgatory Brook Purgatory Brook MA73-24 PUB022 May 99 Present Plantingfield Brook MA73-23 Ponkapoag Ponkapoag Brook MA73-27 POB024 May 99 July 02 Brook POB040 Sept 02 Present Lower Main Neponset Main Stem NER165 May 99 Present Stem NER185 May 99 Present Mother Brook Mother Brook MA73-28 MOB001 May 99 Present MOB032 Sept 02 Present Pine Tree Brook Pine Tree Brook MA73-29 PTB028 May 99 Present PTB035 May 99 Present PTB047 May 99 Present Unquity Brook Unquity Brook MA73-26 UNB002 May 99 Present and Gulliver’s Gulliver’s Creek MA73-30 UNB014 May 99 Present Creek UNB016 May 99 Present Estuary Neponset Main Stem MA73-04 NER200 May 99 Present

Temporal Frequency Sampling occurred bi-monthly throughout the year. Sampling events included both dry and wet weather conditions. NepRWA’s goal is was to capture at least three wet weather events during the term of the grant (March 15, 2002 – March 26, 2003). A wet weather event is designed to capture the effects of more than 0.5 inch of rain within 24 hours prior to the sampling event after

Neponset Watershed, Page N11 a period of 72 hours of dry weather or more than 1.5” within the 72 hours prior to the event. These wet weather events may or may not capture the “first flush” or the peak level of pollutant concentrations.

Table N4: Sampling Dates March 27, 2002 May 22, 2002 June 24, 2002 September 25, 2002 November 20, 2002 January 22, 2003 March 26, 2003

Results Evaluation Our results are evaluated against the current State Surface Water Quality Standards. Where the Mass SWQS do not provide a numeric criterion for a particular parameter, that parameter has been evaluated in relation to appropriate EPA recommended standards and/or scientifically published standards. Site data is also compared to historical water quality data and to sites up and downstream of the sampling location. This provides multiple spatial and temporal perspectives to qualify the data according to current standards and also to explore the spatial nature of the water quality throughout the tributaries.

Neponset Watershed, Page N12 Results

Adherence with Quality Assurance Project Plan As mentioned previously, strict quality assurance and quality control measures (QA/QC) were developed and followed. These elements are outlined in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (NepRWA 2003) and Sampling Manual (NepRWA, 2002).

Completion Rates The CWMN Program met its QAPP requirement (NepRWA, 2002) of at least a 90% completion rate for all of the lab tested parameters. Those parameters that did not meet the criteria pH (79.3%) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (83.23%) are field measured parameters dependent on functioning meters for accurate measurement. The completion rates for these equipment based results are lower due to user error and meter error. NepRWA is working to reconcile this problem in future sample years with better record keeping and replacement of old pH meters.

Table N5: Completion Rates (for the Grant period 03/15/02 - 03/26/03) Potential CollectedComplete Fecal Coliform 220 208 94.55% E. coli 220 208 94.55% TSS 228 222 97.37% N + N 228 222 97.37% Total P 228 222 97.37% Total N 228 223 97.81% Ortho-P 228 22397.81% Ammonia 228 22196.93% Temp 261 23790.80% pH 261 20779.31% DO 155 12983.23% Conductivity 155 145 93.55%

Precipitation and Streamflow For purposes of evaluating results, a sampling round is considered a dry weather sampling round if it is preceded by at least 72 hours of dry weather. A sampling round is considered a wet weather sampling round if it does not meet the criteria to be considered a dry weather sampling round AND the antecedent precipitation is enough to generate runoff as evidenced by an observable rise in the hydrograph. The tables below summarize the antecedent precipitation amounts, hydrograph response and the wet/dry determination used for reporting throughout the remainder of the report.

For the wet weather samples, the goal was to sample within 24 hours following a rain event of 0.50 inches or more preceded by at 48 to 72 hours of dry weather (as evidenced by weather observations and the absence of an observable rise in the Hydrograph.). The intent in defining this criterion was to attempt to capture the “first flush” conditions which represent worst case NPS loading conditions, while recognizing the limitations imposed by the lead time necessary to mobilize 60+ volunteer testers, the limited window of time during which our laboratories can

Neponset Watershed, Page N13 accept samples and the lack of precision/accuracy in weather prediction technology. The 0.50 inch of rainfall figure is based in part on the DEP Stormwater Handbook, in part on observations of how the hydrograph of the Neponset River responds to various intensities of rainfall, and in part on the need to define a storm, which occurs frequently enough to meet project goals. Precipitation data was taken from the National Weather Service web sites and recorded by the Project Manager daily.

Table N6: Antecedent Rainfall for Sampling Dates and Weather Classification 24 hrs prior 48 hours 72 hours Weather Wet/dry prior prior Date rainfall (in.) rainfall (in.) rainfall (in.) station determination 5/26/1999 0 T 0.73 Norwood Airport Wet 7/28/1999 0 0.00 0.00 Norwood Airport Dry 9/22/1999 Wet 11/17/1999 Dry 1/26/2000 0.02 0.73 0.00 Norwood Airport Wet 3/22/2000 T 0.00 0.00 Norwood Airport Dry 5/24/2000 0.72 0.13 0.31 Norwood Airport Wet 7/26/2000 0.33 0.00 0.00 Norwood Airport Dry 9/27/2000 0 0.65 0.00 Norwood Airport Wet 11/15/2000 0 0.66 0.02 Blue Hills Wet 1/24/2001 0 0.00 0.00 Logan Airport Dry 3/28/2001 0 0.01 0.10 Logan Airport Dry 5/23/2001 0.37 0.12 0.00 Logan Airport Wet 7/25/2001 0 0.00 0.00 Logan Airport Dry 9/26/2001 0.35 0.00 0.00 Logan Airport Wet 11/28/2001 0.01 0.00 0.25 Blue Hills Dry 1/23/2002 0.00 0.21 0.00 Blue Hills Dry 3/27/2002 0.82 0.00 0.01 Norwood Airport Wet 5/22/2002 1.09 0.00 0.00 Blue Hills Wet 7/24/2002 0.84 0.00 0.00 Blue Hills Wet 9/25/2002 0.00 0.04 1.46 Blue Hills Wet 11/20/2002 0.00 0.00 2.69 Blue Hills Wet 1/22/2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 Blue Hills Dry 3/26/2003 0 0.00 0.00 Blue Hills Dry

Neponset Watershed, Page N14 Table N7: Hydrograph Response to Rainfall for Sampling Dates in CFS at USGS Gage as Noted Nep at Norwood East Branch Nep at Milton date 2 day 1 day day of 2 day 1 day day of 2 day 1 day day of prior prior prior prior prior prior 5/26/1999 80 110 93 71 93 61 213 375 340 7/28/1999 15 14 12 30 33 40 117 137 74 9/22/1999 60 42 44 137 51 27 671 593 496 11/17/1999 27 25 23 111 98 96 110 110 95 1/26/2000 17 19 20 29 32 35 126 169 190 3/22/2000 121 110 100 100 92 80 513 478 437 5/24/2000 62 68 91 48 61 75 250 284 331 7/26/2000 12 10 15 13 12 12 64 59 62 9/27/2000 17 20 23 10 14 22 65 84 106 11/15/2000 57 56 68 43 47 62 296 267 317 1/24/2001 46 42 37 40 35 33 203 186 159 3/28/2001 313 277 252 231 222 208 1960 1860 1730 5/23/2001 20 26 31 16 23 41 67 108 136 7/25/2001 14 11 11 14 15 13 51 54 51 9/26/2001 18 21 15 38 30 44 110 89 82 11/28/2001 6 5.4 5.3 11 13 12 27 33 26 1/23/2002 23 24 24 28 33 31 133 104 83 3/27/2002 34 36 90 43 43 90 171 175 276 5/22/2002 143 105 85 122 99 81 602 568 513 7/24/2002 5.3 7.7 7.4 6.8 7.1 6.9 30 41 45 9/25/2002 44 32 21 27 29 17 137 98 74 11/20/2002 147 101 74 est 1/22/2003 23 AM 3/26/2003 112 AM 5/28/2003 136 96 AM Notes: early morning reading = “AM”, estimated = “est”, average of 8 reading = “av Taken from: Site Name: USGS 01105500 East Branch at Neponset River at Canton, MA. Web Address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ma/nwis/uv?0110550 Site Name: USGS 01105000 NEPONSET RIVER AT NORWOOD, MA. Web Address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ma/nwis/uv?01105000 Site Name: USGS 011055566 Neponset River at Milton Village, MA. Web Address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?dd_cd=03&dd_cd=06&format=gif&period=21&site_no=0110 55566

Data Tables and Graphs Throughout the report, results are presented in both tabular and graphic form. This section will describe abbreviations present in all tables.

Color and Odor For historical dates (prior to DEP contract period) there are numeric abbreviations for color and odor. These abbreviations are outlined in the table below. For more recent sampling dates the data tables present brief narrative descriptions for color, odor and turbidity, thus no conversion is needed.

Neponset Watershed, Page N15 Table N8: Odor and Color Abbreviations Abbreviation Odor Color 1 none clear 2 rotten eggs cloudy 3 musky tea 4 fishy light tea 5 oily milky 6 ammonia muddy

Duplicate Samples and ND samples As part of the QA/QC process duplicates were taken every event. These samples have an asterisk (*) following the parameter value, to indicate that they were averaged with a duplicate sample. All data was reviewed and double checked to assure that quality control guidelines were met. A “ND” abbreviation refers to a level that was “not – detectable” or was below the minimum detection limit for the method used to analyze that parameter.

Assessment Criteria for Individual Parameters To make the data tables more useful for the lay reader, NepRWA has developed a set of assessment criteria for each parameter. These criteria are used to translate the numeric results into a brief narrative assessment in the data table itself. As indicated earlier, where the Mass Surface Water Quality Standards provide a numeric criterion for a parameter, those criteria are used. Where no numeric standards are provided in the Mass SWQS, the assessment is based on EPA recommendations and/or the scientific literature.

The brief narrative assessments used in the data tables along with their corresponding criteria are summarized in the table below.

Neponset Watershed, Page N16 Table N9: Discussion Criteria and Abbreviations Parameter Criterion Abbreviation Basis for Criterion

Fecal Coliform < 200 cfu/100mL Swimmable MA Surface Water Quality Standards > 200 cfu/100mL Fishable AND < 1,000 cfu/100mL > 1,000 cfu/100mL Violates

E. coli < 126 cfu/100mL Swimmable EPA-823-R-98-003 Bacterial Water > 126 cfu/100mL Fishable Quality Standards Status Report. Office AND < 630 cfu/100mL of Science and Technology. Office of > 630 cfu/100mL Violates Water.

TSS < 25 Support/Acceptable Kennedy, et. Al. 1995 > 25 AND < 80 Concern > 80 Problem

Nitrate + Nitrite < 1.0 mg/L Support/Acceptable EPA-440/5-86-001 Quality Criteria for > 1.0 mg/L Problem Water 1986 p 233-238

Ammonia < 0.2 mg/L Acceptable/Safe EPA-440/5-86-001 Quality Criteria for > 0.2 mg/L AND < 2.0 mg/L Concern/Harmful to Trout Water 1986 p 33-42 > 2.0 mg/L Problem/Harmful to Carp

Total Nitrogen < 1.0 mg/L Support/Acceptable Dunne and Leopold, 1998 Water in > 1.0 mg/L Non-Support/Problem Environmental Planning

Orthophosphate < 0.01 mg/L Not a problem/Acceptable Dunne and Leopold, 1998 Water in > 0.01 mg/L AND < 0.08 mg/L Supports/Concern Environmental Planning > 0.08 mg/L Trigger/Problem

Total Phosphorus < 0.1 mg/L Support/Acceptable Kennedy, et. Al. 1995 > 0.1 mg/L Non-Support

Dissolved Oxygen > 5 mg/L Support/Acceptable MA Surface Water Quality Standards < 5 mg/L Non-Support

Temperature <= 28.3 degrees C Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Warm Water Fishery > 28.3 degrees C Nonsupport

Temperature <= 20 degrees C Support MA Surface Water Quality Standards Cold Water Fishery > 20 degrees C Nonsupport

Conductivity < 500 usiemens Support/Acceptable EPA Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A > 500 usiemens Problem Methods Manual, 5/3/02

Neponset Watershed, Page N17 Water Quality Index Grades To simplify interpretation of results even further for the general public, NepRWA has developed a Water Quality index grade system. This system condenses the results for all the parameters for a single site during a single sampling round into an easy to understand letter grade.

The index is based on twelve parameters: fecal coliform, e. coli, total suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, orthophosphate, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Ratings are described in detail below. This index is a conglomeration of indices used throughout the country to allow for a quick qualitative description of water quality and an overall judgment on the level of water quality degradation. With the exception of those standards that have State designated Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00) all criteria have been developed by NepRWA and are based on best available science.

Table N10: Explanation of Water Quality Index Grade Grade Abbreviation Description A (Excellent) All water quality parameters measured are within optimal ranges. The water quality supports all designated uses and is aesthetically pleasing and suitable for swimming. B (Good) At least 70% of the parameters are within the acceptable ranges. The water quality supports most designated uses and is esthetically pleasing and suitable for swimming. C (Moderate Degradation) Half of the parameters are not within acceptable ranges or bacteria levels exceed state standards. Water quality supports non-contact recreational uses but may not be suitable for swimming. D (Serious Degradation) At least 70% of the parameters, including fecal bacteria, are outside acceptable limits. Contact recreation (swimming) is not recommended. F (Extreme Degradation) At least 70% of the parameters are outside acceptable limits AND fecal bacteria concentrations are greater than 3,000 cfu/100mL. Contact recreation (swimming) is not recommended.

For the “report card” tables, the letter grade assigned to each event, as it corresponds to the overall health of that site was converted to a number grade (0.0 – 4.0) to allow for the numerical calculation of overall average, wet weather averages, and dry weather averages. The following is the number designation for each grade:

Neponset Watershed, Page N18 Table N11: Letter Grades and Corresponding Numeric Scores Grade Number A 4.0 A - 3.6 B + 3.3 B 3.0 B - 2.6 C + 2.3 C 2.0 C - 1.6 D + 1.3 D 1.0 D - 0.6 F + 0.3 F 0.0

All averages are rounded to the nearest 1/10 to determine letter grade from the numerical average.

Neponset Watershed, Page N19 Results and Discussion by Subwatershed Results are presented below organized by subwatersheds that were identified in the 1994 and 2002 DEP Assessments. The DEP segment number is also listed to provide consistency among the State and NepRWA’s studies. In addition to presenting the data in tabular and graphic formats, a summary of past 303d listings is provided, along with a brief narrative description of conditions in the subwatershed and highlights any distinctive results for the subwatershed.

The historic CWMN sites are located within the subwatershed that they are listed and are also along the designated segment number of their respective stream. This section is organized as such to provide a framework for describing water quality issues within a smaller land area. The hope is that lines could be drawn between issues affected streams within the same topographic drainage boundary. Many of the water quality issues affecting streams are relative to their subwatershed’s land-use, demographic, and political characteristics. NepRWA believes that thinking about water quality issues in this subwatershed framework will help us achieve our goals outlined above. Specifically monitoring water quality with the goal of identifying locations with water pollution, exploring the source of the pollution, disseminating information to stakeholders, and aiding in the remediation of problem sites. See Figure 11.1 for current sampling station location and subwatershed delineations.

Neponset Watershed, Page N20 Neponset Headwaters Subwatershed

Stream Reaches: Neponset Mainstem to Outlet of Crackrock Pond

Towns: Foxborough

Historic CWMN site locations: NER002

Current CWMN site locations: NER002

DEP Segment Number: Upper portion of MA73-01

Cause of 303d listings: pathogens, priority organics, metals, nutrients, siltation, organic enrichment/low DO, suspended solids, noxious aquatic plants, and turbidity

Primary Problems: metals, eutrophication, sedimentation

Background: The headwaters of the Neponset have traditionally been clear of fecal contamination although there have been isolated spikes with no clear cause or pattern. This section of the river continues to be impacted by past nutrient and heavy metal discharges from the Foxboro Company. The recent redevelopment of the Foxboro Stadium has substantially improved aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. The stadium redevelopment should also put an end to severe sedimentation in this reach and help augment groundwater levels. We will continue to sample this reach as it provides a beginning reference condition for the mainstem.

Water Quality Discussion: Water quality in this subwatershed is monitored at a single station, NER002. This station is located at the end of the subwatershed at North Street and is primarily representative of conditions in the Neponset reservoir. Bacteria levels in the subwatershed were all within the swimmable range during both dry and wet weather, though wet weather values were somewhat higher than dry weather values. Results for nitrogen are generally acceptable with only one concern level noted for ammonia. Phosphorous however is a serious problem with more than half the samples registering concern or problem levels for orthophosphate and almost 25% registering problem levels for total phosphate. TSS and temperature results were all acceptable. DO and conductivity were also acceptable, though it is important to note that the sampling station is immediately downstream of a small waterfall and therefore are probably not representative of

Neponset Watershed, Page N21 background conditions. Some odor and color concerns were also reported. The water quality index grade for this site is relatively favorable because problems seem to be limited primarily to a single parameter.

Recommended Actions:  The DO monitoring location should be moved upstream of the waterfall  DEP and Invensys Corporation need to move forward as soon as possible with remediation of unresolved phosphorous and metals problems. This is particularly so given that the Neponset Reservoir seems to be an ongoing source of phosphorous loading to the Neponset River and downstream ponds.  Measures should be implemented to reduce ongoing nutrient, metals and bacteria loading from stormwater runoff and septic systems

Information Sources: 303d list, DEP 1995, DEP 2000, DEP 2001, NepRWA 1998, NepRWA 1999, NepRWA 2001, NepRWA Field Reconnaissance, NepRWA 2003

Neponset Watershed, Page N22 NER002, Neponset River @outlet of Crackrock Pond, Foxborough Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 6:45 AM 32 Swimmable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 5:12 AM 10 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/17/1999 6:10 AM ND no data NA no data dry 3/22/2000 8:10 AM ND no data NA no data dry 7/26/2000 6:00 AM ND no data NA no data dry 1/24/2001 7:28 AM 3* Swimmable NA no data dry 3/28/2001 7:13 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 7:07 AM 14 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/28/2001 7:09 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 1/23/2002 7:17 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 7:14 AM ND Swimmable NA Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 7:11 AM ND no data NA no data wet 5/24/2000 6:17 AM 6* Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 7:27 AM 16 Swimmable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 6:28 AM 10 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 7:16 AM ND Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 7:22 AM 150 Swimmable NA no data wet 3/27/2002 7:06 AM 6 Swimmable 6 Swimmable wet 5/22/2002 7:15 AM ND Swimmable NA Swimmable wet 7/24/2002 7:16 AM ND no data NA no data wet 9/25/2002 7:08 AM 12 Swimmable 12 Swimmable wet 11/20/2002 7:15 AM 20* Swimmable 18* Swimmable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time NER002, Neponset River @outlet of Crackrock Pond, Foxborough Nutrient Results

N+N N+N Amm Amm TN TN OrthoP OrthoP TP TP Wet/Dry Date Time mg/l Support mg/l support mg/l support mg/l support mg/l support

dry 5/26/99 6:45:00 0.003 Acceptable 0.003 Acceptable 0.756 Acceptable 0.031 Concern 0.121 Problem

dry 9/22/99 5:12:00 0.118 Acceptable 0.145 Acceptable 0.680 Acceptable 0.008 Acceptable 0.066 Acceptable

dry 11/17/99 6:10:00 0.210 Acceptable 0.138 Acceptable 0.612 Acceptable 0.011 Concern 0.037 Acceptable

dry 3/22/00 8:10:00 0.195 Acceptable 0.009 Acceptable 0.576 Acceptable 0.004 Acceptable 0.032 Acceptable

dry 7/26/00 6:00:00 0.000 no data 0.000 no data 0.000 no data 0.000 no data 0.000 no data

dry 1/24/01 7:28:00 0.264* Acceptable 0.295* Concern 0.812* Acceptable 0.014* Concern 0.057* Acceptable

dry 3/28/01 7:13:00 0.245 Acceptable 0.014 Acceptable 0.563 Acceptable 0.010 Concern 0.043 Acceptable

dry 7/25/01 7:07:00 0.011 Acceptable 0.019 Acceptable 0.975 Acceptable 0.121 Problem 0.331 Problem

dry 11/28/01 7:09:00 0.019 Acceptable 0.029 Acceptable 0.455 Acceptable 0.011 Concern 0.042 Acceptable

dry 1/23/02 7:17:00 0.082 Acceptable 0.043 Acceptable 0.421 Acceptable 0.104 Problem 0.256 Problem

dry 1/22/03 7:14:00 0.295 Acceptable 0.034 Acceptable 0.608 Acceptable 0.000 Acceptable 0.029 Acceptable

dry 3/26/03 7:11:00 0.169 Acceptable 0.008 Acceptable 0.475 Acceptable 0.008 Acceptable 0.044 Acceptable

wet 5/24/00 6:17:00 0.014* Acceptable 0.008* Acceptable 0.557* Acceptable 0.005* Acceptable 0.057* Acceptable

wet 9/27/00 7:27:00 0.020 Acceptable 0.149 Acceptable 0.888 Acceptable 0.003 Acceptable 0.047 Acceptable

wet 11/15/00 6:28:00 0.054 Acceptable 0.108 Acceptable 0.601 Acceptable 0.008 Acceptable 0.057 Acceptable

wet 5/23/01 7:16:00 0.008 Acceptable 0.019 Acceptable 0.521 Acceptable 0.028 Concern 0.094 Acceptable

wet 9/26/01 7:22:00 0.036 Acceptable 0.191 Acceptable 1.030 Problem 0.067 Concern 0.052 Acceptable

wet 3/27/02 7:06:00 0.047 Acceptable 0.016 Acceptable 0.447 Acceptable 0.055 Concern 0.140 Problem

wet 5/22/02 7:15:00 0.008 Acceptable 0.020 Acceptable 0.397 Acceptable 0.007 Acceptable 0.052 Acceptable

wet 7/24/02 7:16:00 0.023 Acceptable 0.074 Acceptable 0.530 Acceptable 0.050 Concern 0.117 Problem

wet 9/25/02 7:08:00 0.006 Acceptable 0.027 Acceptable 0.533 Acceptable 0.033 Concern 0.089 Acceptable

wet 11/20/02 7:15:00 0.117* Acceptable 0.140* Acceptable 0.636* Acceptable 0.013* Concern 0.071* Acceptable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time NER002, Neponset River @outlet of Crackrock Pond, Foxborough Physical Measurements

TSS TSS T h20 T h20 T air pH pH Cond Cond DO DO Clarity Color Odor Wet/Dry Date Time mg/l Support degC Support degC SU support msim support mg/l support narritive narritive narritive

dry 5/26/99 6:45:00 9 Acceptable 17 Full Support 13 7 Full Support no data 6 Support 2 1

dry 9/22/99 5:12:00 6 Acceptable 19 Full Support 15 no data 4.8 Non-Support 3

dry 11/17/99 6:10:00 7 Acceptable 2 Full Support -1 7.4 Full Support no data 10.4 Support 4 1

dry 3/22/00 8:10:00 1.5 Acceptable 6 Full Support 4.5 7.3 Full Support no data no data 4 1

dry 7/26/00 6:00:00 ND no data ND no data ND no data no data no data

dry 1/24/01 7:28:00 2.45* Acceptable 1 Full Support -7 6.6 Full Support no data 11.5 Support 3 1

dry 3/28/01 7:13:00 <1 Acceptable 4.5 Full Support 5.5 7.4 Full Support no data 11.7 Support 2 1

dry 7/25/01 7:07:00 4 Acceptable 27 Full Support 24 no data no data no data

dry 11/28/01 7:09:00 1 Acceptable 10 Full Support 8 7.8 Full Support no data 10.11 Support 1 1

dry 1/23/02 7:17:00 1.33 Acceptable 2 Full Support 1 7.4 Full Support no data 9.45 Support 1 1

dry 1/22/03 7:14:00 <5.00 Acceptable 7 Full Supportest. 7oFoff scale 7.7 Full Support 248.000 Acceptable 12.6 Support clear light yellow none

dry 3/26/03 7:11:00 <5.00 Acceptable 9 Full Support 7 Full Support 244.000 Acceptable clear grayishlight musky

wet 5/24/00 6:17:00 1.75* Acceptable 15 Full Support 12 7.9 Full Support no data 8.3 Support 2 1

wet 9/27/00 7:27:00 3.5 Acceptable 16 Full Support 8.5 6.7 Full Support no data no data 4 1

wet 11/15/00 6:28:00 3 Acceptable 8.5 Full Support 9.5 7.4 Full Support no data 11.3 Support 4 3

wet 5/23/01 7:16:00 4 Acceptable 17 Full Support 13.5 no data no data 8 Support 2 1

wet 9/26/01 7:22:00 2.5 Acceptable 20 Full Support 13.5 7.1 Full Support no data no data 2 1

wet 3/27/02 7:06:00 2 Acceptable 7.5 Full Support 8 7.8 Full Support no data 10.6 Support 2 1

wet 5/22/02 7:15:00 <5.00 Acceptable 13 Full Support 8 7.6 Full Support no data no data 2 1

wet 7/24/02 7:16:00 5 Acceptable 24 Full Support 16 7.3 Full Support no data no data 2 3

wet 9/25/02 7:08:00 <5.00 Acceptable 18 Full Support 13 8.2 Full Support 220.000 Acceptable 7.19 Supportclear slight murkygrayishlight none

wet 11/20/02 7:15:00 <5.00* Acceptable 5 Full Support 1 7.9 Full Support 180.000 Acceptable 7.3 Supportsuspended solids/murkygrayishlightmusky

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time Water Quality Grade: Neponset Headwaters Total Total Water Event Number of Number Quality Site Wet/Dry Town Date Parameters of Index Measured Violations Grade NER002 dry 5/26/99Walpole 10 1 B 3.00 NER002 dry 9/22/99Walpole 9 1 B 3.00 NER002 dry 11/17/99Walpole 9 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 3/22/00Walpole 8 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 1/24/01Walpole 10 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 3/28/01Walpole 8 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 7/25/01Foxborough 8 2 B 3.00 NER002 dry 11/28/01Foxborough 9 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 1/23/02Foxborough 9 2 B 3.00 NER002 dry 1/22/03Foxborough 7 0 A 4.00 NER002 dry 3/26/03Foxborough 6 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 5/24/00Walpole 10 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 9/27/00Walpole 9 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 11/15/00Walpole 10 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 5/23/01Foxborough 8 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 9/26/01Foxborough 9 1 B 3.00 NER002 wet 3/27/02Foxborough 11 1 B 3.00 NER002 wet 5/22/02Foxborough 7 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 7/24/02Foxborough 8 1 B 3.00 NER002 wet 9/25/02Foxborough 10 0 A 4.00 NER002 wet 11/20/02Foxborough 10 0 A 4.00 All Dates Average A - 3.6 Dry Dates Average A - 3.6 Wet Dates Average A - 3.7

Neponset Watershed, Page N23 Upper Main Stem Subwatershed

Stream Reaches: School Meadow Brook, Neponset Mainstem (10 mi, outlet Crackrock Pond to Pleasant Street Bridge (Norwood), Spring Brook

Towns: Foxboro, Walpole, Norwood

Historic CWMN site locations: SMB013, NER040, NER075, SPB016

Current CWMN site locations: SMB001, NER002, NER040, NER075, SPB016

DEP Segment Number: Middle portion of MA73-01, MA73-06

Cause of 303d listing: pathogens, priority organics, metals, nutrients, siltation, organic enrichment/low DO, suspended solids, noxious aquatic plants, and turbidity

Primary Problems: low flows on School Meadow and Spring Brooks, nutrients and DO on Spring Brook, mild wet weather fecal issues on Spring and School Meadow Brook

Background: Much of Walpole’s drinking water is withdrawn from the School Meadow Brook subwatershed. The sampling site on this brook was relocated because of sampler safety concerns. Spring Brook has experienced mild wet weather fecal problems, eutrophic conditions and nuisance aquatic vegetation. Walpole has initiated a variety of vegetation control projects. The lower end of the Neponset mainstem in this reach receives significant pollutant loads from Hawes Brook.

Water Quality Discussion:

Mainstem The mainstem stream segment in the subwatershed includes three sampling locations. This subwatershed begins at station NER002 at North Street (also discussed under Neponset Headwaters). Station NER040 at South Street in Walpole provides an indication of pollutant sources in the upper portion of the subwatershed. NER075 at the H&V Dam near the Walpole/Norwood Line describes the middle portion of this reach, and finally NER080 provides information on the lowermost portion of the subwatershed.

This subwatershed starts out with low bacteria counts and high nutrient levels as represented at NER002. By the time one passes downstream through the upper portion of this watershed to

Neponset Watershed, Page N24 (NER040), noticeable bacteria problems develop with FC counts as high as 3,600 cfu/100 ml. An illicit septic to stormdrain connection has recently been identified in this upper reach entering the secondary channel from Billings Street Near the dam, and should be remediated soon. However, this source is well upstream of the sampling station and there are likely to be other septic bacteria sources in this reach. Bacteria conditions improve through the middle portion of the watershed with generally low bacteria counts during both dry and wet weather at NER075, particularly in the more recent samples. Bacterial pollution increases as one moves to the end of the subwatershed with 24% of samples violating at NER080, primarily during wet weather.

There are modest problems with nitrogen and serious problems with orthophosphate in the upper reach with 13 of 18 orthophosphate samples violating. Nitrogen issues are more significant in the middle reach and orthophosphate issues are similarly severe with 77% of orthophosphate samples violating. Nutrient levels in the most downstream reach are similar to those in the middle reach.

Physical parameters were generally acceptable throughout both the upper, middle and lower sections of this reach with the upper reach almost meeting the stricter coldwater fishery temperature criteria.

School Meadow Brook School Meadow Brook is a major tributary in this subwatershed. There have been two sampling stations on School Meadow Brook SMB013 at Washington Street, which is about halfway down the length of the Brook, and SMB001 at the outlet of Gannawatte Farm Pond right at the headwaters of the Brook. Note that sampling prior to 2002 was at SMB013 only and sampling since that time has been at SMB001. SMB013 was discontinued due to dangerous access conditions. There have been relatively few bacteria samples at SMB001, but those have been consistently acceptable during wet weather. The bacteria results from SMB013 are much worse with almost 30% violating during dry weather and 60% violating during wet weather. Nutrient results for the upper station indicate occasional concerns with total nitrogen and concerns with orthophosphate in one third of samples, with most of the orthophosphate problems observed during dry weather. At the lower station only, orthophosphate was a concern but with almost 60% of samples registering a concern level and the majority of problems again occurring during dry weather. For physical measurements at the upper station, pH was very high for 30% of samples and there were a number of notations for problems with odor and turbidity. It is important to note that the upper station is immediately downstream of a waterfall, and at least one informal sample of DO taken upstream of the waterfall in Gannawatte Farm Pond was very low when the sample at the regular station was acceptable. At the lower station, pH was consistently acceptable and there was one violation each for DO, color and odor.

Spring Brook Spring Brook is the other major tributary in this subwatershed and it is sampled at its extreme downstream end at station SPB016. There have been a number of modest bacteria violations here comprising roughly 20% of samples. Roughly 9% of samples showed exceedances for total nitrogen, all during dry weather. Just over some 80% of samples exceeded the orthophosphate criterion during dry weather while only 36% exceeded during dry weather. Samples for physical parameters were all acceptable with the exception on a single high result for conductivity.

Neponset Watershed, Page N25 Recommended Actions:

Mainstem  Additional follow up sampling for bacteria should be considered at the upper end of the reach once repairs at the Funway on Route 1 are completed.  Continuous temperature monitoring, dam assessments and riparian buffer assessments should be conducted on this reach of the mainstem to determine whether it is possible to restore a cold water fishery through this reach.  Best management practices for stormwater management, sewer management and septic management should be implemented in this reach to reduce nutrient loading in this reach.

School Meadow Brook  If sampling is to continue at SMB001, DO samples should be taken above rather than below the Gannawatte Farm Pond Dam.  Gannawatte Farm Pond appears to be in a eutrophic condition. An assessment should be made of what BMPs might be available to reduce nutrient loading to the pond.  Continuous temperature monitoring, dam assessments and riparian buffer assessments should be conducted to determine whether the upper reach of School Meadow Brook currently meets criteria for cold water fishery and if not whether there is the potential to restore a cold water fishery.  Intensive follow up sampling for bacteria should be conducted in the middle and lower reach of the brook to attempt to locate specific sources of bacteria loading.  An attempt should be made to locate a safe sampling location in the middle or lower reach of the brook to replace SMB001.  Best management practices for stormwater management, sewer management and septic management should be implemented in this reach to reduce nutrient loading in this reach.  Upper School Meadow is very unusual in having violations for pH, additional pH sampling should be conducted in the vicinity of Ganawatte Farm Pond and pH meter calibration/operation procedures should be verified with the volunteer for this station.

Spring Brook  Additional follow up sampling for bacteria and nutrients should be conducted on Spring Brook to better identify potential sources of bacterial and nutrient loading, and to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs currently being installed by the Town of Walpole.  Given the high nutrient loading and past identification of eutrophic ponds in this system by DEP, additional follow up sampling for DO should be conducted at the seasons/locations that represent worst case scenarios.  Best management practices for stormwater management, sewer management and septic management should be implemented in this reach to reduce nutrient loading in this reach.

Information sources: 303d list, DEP 1995, DEP 2000, DEP 2001, NepRWA 1998, NepRWA 1999, NepRWA 2001, CDM 1997, NepRWA Field Reconnaissance, NepRWA 2003

Neponset Watershed, Page N26 NER002, Neponset River @outlet of Crackrock Pond, Foxborough Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time NER040, Neponset River @ South Street, Walpole Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 6:44 AM 108 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/28/1999 6:47 AM 172 Swimmable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 6:45 AM 340 Fishable NA no data dry 3/22/2000 7:08 AM ND no data NA no data dry 7/26/2000 6:45 AM 8 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/24/2001 6:00 AM ND no data NA no data dry 3/28/2001 7:14 AM 18* Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 6:00 AM ND no data NA no data dry 11/28/2001 7:32 AM 11 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/23/2002 7:35 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 7:20 AM 8 Swimmable 8 Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 7:10 AM ND no data NA no data wet 5/24/2000 7:15 AM 84 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 7:23 AM 178 Swimmable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 6:57 AM 220 Fishable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 7:22 AM 96 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 6:00 AM ND no data NA no data wet 3/27/2002 7:35 AM 38 Swimmable 36 Swimmable wet 7/24/2002 7:10 AM 3600 Violates 800 Violates wet 9/25/2002 6:05 AM 460 Fishable 410 Fishable wet 11/20/2002 8:01 AM 20 Swimmable 20 Swimmable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time NER075, Neponset River @ Hollingsworth & Vose Dam, Walpole Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 7:46 AM 400 Fishable NA no data dry 7/28/1999 7:37 AM 28 Swimmable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 7:35 AM 100 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/17/1999 7:25 AM 8 Swimmable NA no data dry 3/22/2000 7:35 AM ND no data NA no data dry 7/26/2000 7:16 AM 20 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/24/2001 7:20 AM 58 Swimmable NA no data dry 3/28/2001 7:02 AM 6 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 7:08 AM 69 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/28/2001 7:11 AM 39 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/23/2002 7:22 AM ND* Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 7:25 AM 9* Swimmable 8* Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 7:18 AM ND no data NA no data wet 1/26/2000 7:20 AM 16 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/24/2000 7:18 AM 36 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 7:29 AM 44* Swimmable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 7:18 AM 140 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 6:57 AM 61 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 7:12 AM 40 Swimmable NA no data wet 3/27/2002 7:05 AM 11 Swimmable 11 Swimmable wet 5/22/2002 7:13 AM 20 Swimmable 16 Swimmable wet 7/24/2002 7:15 AM 80 Swimmable 60 Swimmable wet 9/25/2002 7:21 AM 230 Fishable 160 Fishable wet 11/20/2002 7:20 AM 56 Swimmable 44 Swimmable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time NER080, Neposet River @ Pleasant Street Bridge, Norwood Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 6:50 AM 390 Fishable NA no data dry 7/28/1999 6:00 AM 188 Swimmable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 6:00 AM 136 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/17/1999 6:00 AM 54* Swimmable NA no data dry 3/22/2000 6:00 AM 8 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/26/2000 6:00 AM 200 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/24/2001 6:00 AM 39 Swimmable NA no data dry 3/28/2001 6:00 AM 17 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 6:00 AM 420 Fishable NA no data dry 11/28/2001 6:02 AM 20.5* Swimmable NA no data dry 1/23/2002 6:02 AM 6 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 7:00 AM 16 Swimmable 16 Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 6:00 AM ND no data NA no data wet 5/24/2000 6:30 AM 124 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 6:00 AM 670* Fishable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 6:00 AM 128 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 6:00 AM 124 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 6:00 AM 520 Fishable NA no data wet 3/27/2002 6:00 AM 47 Swimmable 42 Swimmable wet 5/22/2002 6:00 AM 56 Swimmable 56 Swimmable wet 7/24/2002 6:02 AM ND no data NA no data wet 9/25/2002 6:00 AM 577 Fishable 432 Fishable wet 11/20/2002 6:01 AM 52 Swimmable 52 Swimmable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time SMB001, School Meadow Brook @ Pine Street, Walpole Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 1/23/2002 7:47 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 6:15 AM ND Swimmable NA Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 7:54 AM ND no data NA no data wet 3/27/2002 6:46 AM ND no data NA no data wet 7/24/2002 7:44 AM 128 Swimmable 120 Swimmable wet 9/25/2002 8:47 AM ND no data NA no data wet 11/20/2002 8:21 AM 4 Swimmable 4 Swimmable

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time SMB013, School Meadow Brook @ Washington Street, Walpole Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 6:38 AM 96 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/28/1999 6:46 AM 320 Fishable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 6:50 AM 212 Fishable NA no data dry 11/17/1999 6:30 AM 136 Swimmable NA no data dry 3/22/2000 6:46 AM ND no data NA no data dry 7/26/2000 6:05 AM 46* Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 7:15 AM 84* Swimmable NA no data dry 11/28/2001 6:53 AM 22 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/24/2000 6:41 AM 8 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 6:42 AM 440 Fishable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 6:45 AM 340 Fishable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 6:30 AM 4 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 7:43 AM 2100 Violates NA no data

* indicates average of dupes, ND indicates no data collected, NA indicates perameter was not being monitoried at the time SPB016, Spring Brook @ Route 27, Walpole Bacteria Results

Fecal Fecal E.coli E.coli Wet/Dry Date Time cfu/100ml Support cfu/100ml Support

dry 5/26/1999 7:18 AM 510 Fishable NA no data dry 7/28/1999 7:05 AM 252 Fishable NA no data dry 9/22/1999 6:35 AM 60 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/17/1999 6:50 AM 96 Swimmable NA no data dry 3/22/2000 7:10 AM 8 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/26/2000 7:12 AM 40 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/24/2001 6:55 AM 30 Swimmable NA no data dry 7/25/2001 7:16 AM 92 Swimmable NA no data dry 11/28/2001 7:18 AM 83 Swimmable NA no data dry 1/23/2002 7:45 AM ND Swimmable NA no data dry 1/22/2003 7:15 AM 16 Swimmable 16 Swimmable dry 3/26/2003 6:45 AM ND no data NA no data wet 1/26/2000 7:15 AM 12 Swimmable NA no data wet 5/24/2000 7:02 AM 60 Swimmable NA no data wet 9/27/2000 7:10 AM 36 Swimmable NA no data wet 11/15/2000 7:05 AM 238 Fishable NA no data wet 5/23/2001 7:10 AM 148* Swimmable NA no data wet 9/26/2001 6:24 AM 240 Fishable NA no data wet 3/27/2002 6:45 AM 25 Swimmable 25 Swimmable wet 5/22/2002 7:45 AM 20 Swimmable 20 Swimmable wet 7/24/2002 8:17 AM 100 Swimmable 88 Swimmable wet 9/25/2002 7:00 AM 76 Swimmable 56 Swimmable wet 11/20/2002 8:20 AM 16 Swimmable 20 Swimmable