summary of cso receiving water quality monitoring in ... · cso receiving water quality monitoring...
Post on 15-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Summary of CSO Receiving Water Quality Monitoring in
Boston Harbor and Tributary Rivers, 1989 - 2001
DRAFT (chapters 1 – 3 only)
Environmental Quality Department Report ENQUAD 2003-02
Citation: Coughlin K. 2003. Summary of CSO Receiving Water Quality Monitoring in Boston Harbor and Tributary Rivers, 1989 – 2001. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report ENQUAD 2003-02. 135 p.
6
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Indicator bacteria counts are typically log-normally distributed, and therefore a proper measure of central tendency for these data is the geometric mean. Geometric means and their associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the measurements made at each station over the sampling period. A descriptive tool used in this report for fecal coliform and Enterococcus results is the percentile plot, as shown in Figure 2-1.
These plots present a frequency distribution of a group of measurements. Each box comprises measurements from a single beach or sampling location. Values are shown in Figure 2-1 for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. Single measurements beyond these ranges (outliers) are displayed as dots. The plots display the range and central tendencies of the data to be seen and allow for easy comparison of the results among stations. Since part of the Massachusetts standard is a percentile, these plots are particularly appropriate (see Section 2.3 for a description of these guidelines). When boxplots are displayed on a logarithmic scale, the 50th percentile is equivalent to the geometric mean. Several parameters are presented with data summarized for the winter and summer seasons. For many of these parameters, results were collected in the fall and spring months but these data were omitted from the summaries for simplicity. Although seasonal boundaries differ somewhat for each parameter, the same time range was used for all parameters for the sake of consistency. For the purposes of this report, summer is defined as June 1 through September 30 and winter is defined as December 1 through March 31. Statistical Analyses. The association between indicator counts and rainfall was evaluated using correlation analyses (Pearson’s r and Spearman Rank Order Correlation). Enterococcus and fecal coliform were evaluated for temporal differences within each phase of the CSO Program using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc analysis performed by Fisher’s protected least significant difference test for multiple comparisons.
Graphic and statistical analyses were performed using Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and Statview (SAS, Inc., Cary, NC). Figures were generated using Statview, Excel and PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA).
Figure 2-1. Percentile distributions indicated on percentile plots
Outlier
50th percentile
10th Outlier
90th
25th
Outlier
50th percentile
10th Outlier
90th 75th
7
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
2.3 Water Quality Criteria used in this report Criteria are shown in Table 2-6, and are a combination of criteria from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH), and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF). standards for Class SB waters (fishable swimmable) are based on fecal coliform counts, while the USEPA recommends using Enterococcus in marine waters (USEPA 1986). The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has issued regulations for beach management based on the USEPA criteria.
Table 2-6. Water quality criteria
Designated Use Parameter Support
Dissolved Oxygen >5.0 mg/l, >=60% to <= 100% saturation
Temperature <20 degrees C (68 degrees F)
pH 6.0 to 8.3 S.U.
Warmwater fisheries, Massachusetts waters, MADEP
Ammonia
(pH and temperature dependent)
<0.2 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen >5.0 mg/L, >=60% saturation
Temperature >28.3 degrees C (83 degrees F)
pH 6.0 to 8.3 S.U.
Coldwater fisheries, Massachusetts waters, MADEP
Ammonia <0.2 mg/L
Primary contact recreation (designated swimming area), EPA
and MADPH guidelines Enterococcus
Single sample limit 61 colonies/100 ml (freshwater), 104 colonies/100 ml (marine); geometric mean 33 colonies/100 ml (freshwater), 35 colonies/100 ml (marine)
Primary contact recreation, Massachusetts MADEP
Fecal coliform Geometric mean <=200 colonies/100 ml, no more than 10% of samples above 400 colonies/100 ml
Restricted shellfishing, Massachusetts MADMF
Fecal coliform Geometric mean <=88 colonies/100 ml
8
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
3 Charles River
3.1 Sampling area Monitoring results of the Charles River are divided into three sub-regions. Table 3-1 describes the sub-regions and the sampling locations within each sub-region. Locations are shown on the map in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Map of Charles River sampling locations
Table 3-1. Charles River sampling sub-regions
Sub-region Description Sampling locations
Upstream of Lower Basin
Watertown dam in Watertown to upstream of BU Bridge on Boston/Cambridge line
012, 001, 144, 002, 003, 004, 005
Lower Basin
BU Bridge on Boston/Cambridge line to Science Museum, near Leverett Circle, Boston
006, 007, 145, 008, 009, 010
CAMBRIDGE
BOSTON
Charles R.001
002
003
004
005 006007
009166
011012
144
WATERTOWN
008
010
145(MWR023)
MWR018
CAM017BOS057
BOS085
BOS076
BOS058
MWR022
MWR021MWR020
BOS042
MWR201
MWR010
CAM011CAM009
CAM007CAM005
BOS033
(BOS032)
BOS087
BOS046
CAM18/19
Cottage Farm CSO Facility(MWR201)
Charles R. locks
Watertowndam
cso outfallmonitoring station 0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers
N
CSO outfall
9
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Downstream of Lower Basin
Science Museum to North Station railroad bridge, near Charlestown.
166, 011
3.2 Pollution sources Known pollution sources to the Charles River are shown in Table 3-2. The river is affected by approximately 16 CSOs in Cambridge and Boston (some are scheduled to be closed – see MWRA CSO System Master Plan). Upstream contamination above the Watertown dam has been evident since 1989. MWRA’s Cottage Farm CSO facility, located upstream of the BU Bridge, screens and chlorinates CSO flow before discharge and is the only source of treated CSO discharge to the river. With increases in sewer system capacity, the number of activations at Cottage Farm has decreased in recent years – from 26 activations in 1996 to 12 activations per year, on average, since 1999 (MWRA 2001). The Stony Brook/Muddy River outlet near Kenmore Square is a source of contaminated brook flow and significant untreated CSO flows to the basin area. Numerous illicit connections in the river basin and upstream of the basin have been identified and eliminated during the monitoring period, as indicated by the bacterial monitoring results shown later in this report.
Table 3-2. Charles River pollution sources
Source Upstream of Lower Basin Lower Basin Downstream of
Lower Basin
CSOs (untreated) ✔ ✔ ✔ CSO treatment facility
(screened, chlorinated CSO discharge)
✗ ✔ ✗
Storm drains ✔ ✔ ✔
Upstream inputs ✔ ✔ ✔
Dry weather inputs ✔ ✔ ✔
Brook or stream flow ✔ ✔ ✗
3.3 Summary of current water quality, 1998-2001 A summary of water quality results collected from 1998 through 2001 is shown in Table 3-3. In general, bacterial water quality and water clarity is poorer in upstream portions of the monitoring area, whereas nutrient water quality is poorer in the downstream portions. The lower basin area of the river, with bottom-water stratification due to saltwater intrusion from the harbor, had the lowest dissolved oxygen levels of the three sub-regions.
11
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Table 3-3. Summary of current water quality, Charles River 1998 - 2001
Upstream of Lower Basin Lower Basin Downstream of Lower Basin
Parameter
Water Quality Guideli
ne Mean ± SD
% meeting guideli
ne
Range n Mean ± SD
% meetingguideli
ne
Range n Mean
% meeting guidelin
e
Range n
Summer 22 ± 3 100 13.9 - 27.5 320 23 ± 2 100 14.0 -
27.0 264 16 100 16.8 - 27.9 126
Sur
face
Te
mpe
ratu
re (C
)
Winter
<28 (warm water
fishery) 6 ± 4 100 -0.3 -
15.6 138 8 ± 4 100 -0.2 - 12.5 84 5 ± 4 100 -0.2 –
13.7 88
Summer 5.0 7.0 ± 1.7
92 0.2-12.9 472 5.5 ± 2.9 69 -0.2 - 10.7 6.1 ± 2.2 78 0.3-12.6 278
Bot
tom
-wat
er
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n (m
g/L)
*
Winter 5.0 11.8 ± 2.1
99 0.5-16.1 250 9.0 ± 3.4 88 0.4-15.0 11.3 ± 2 100 1.2-14.4 173
pH
6.0 – 8.3 7.2 ± 0.4 5.8 – 9.2 811 7.3 ± 0.5 6.0 - 9.0 863 7.3 ± 0.6 5.1 – 9.5 413
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L)
5.3 ± 3.0
- 0.00-19.3 202 - - - - 4.4 ± 2.0 - 0.7-12.8 205
Wat
er c
larit
y
Secchi Depth (m) 1.5 0.8 ±
0.2 8 0.3-2.0 388 1.0 ± 0.3 6 0.3 - 6.0 522 1.2 ± 0.3 18 0.5 - 2.1 104
10
12
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Turbidity (NTU) NS 4.4 ± 4.0 - 0 - 22.6 358 6.0 ± 4.7 - 0 - 22.8 3.2 ± 4.1 - 0.0-45.2 189
Upstream of Lower Basin Lower Basin Downstream of Lower Basin
Parameter
Water Quality Guidelin
e Mean ± SD
% meeting guideli
ne
Range n Mean ± SD
% meetingguideli
ne
Range n Mean
% meeting guidelin
e
Range n
Fecal coliform 200 225 ±
5 51 0 -158,000 664 90 ± 5 76 0 - 43,000 522 58 ± 5 87 0-15,800 304
Bac
teria
(c
ol/1
00 m
L)
Enterococcus 33 77 ± 6 34 0 – 9,200 664 23 ± 5 70 0 - 5,220 521 20 ± 4 72 0 - 4,000 303
Phosphate
NS 0.78 ±
0.47 - 0.11 - 3.01 202 - - - - 10.2 ±
7.3 - 0.07 - 3.63 200
Ammonium NS 6.6 ± 5.0
- 0.36 -42.9 203 - - 10.3 - 0.1-32.1 201
Nut
rient
s (um
ol/l)
Nitrate+nitrate NS 36.3 ±
18.4 - 3.4 - 97.1 201 - - 33.9 ±
17.4 - 0.2 -91.4 199
Alg
ae
Chlorophyll (ug/L) 25 8.2 95 0.9-37.6 188 - - 15.73 78 1.0-87.6 185
Surface samples unless otherwise noted. NS: no standard or guideline. *Summer (June-Sept), Winter (Dec-March)
11
24
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
3.4.5 Bacterial water quality Table 3-4 shows the current bacterial water quality at locations sampled in the Charles. Results are presented graphically beginning on page 22. Bacterial water quality in the Charles varies spatially, with upstream portions more contaminated than downstream portions. There is a clear trend of improving water quality from 1989 to 2001 in all regions, in both wet and dry weather. Between 1998 and 2001, Station 144, Laundry Brook, had by far the poorest water quality of all locations sampled in the River, followed by Station 001 in Newton and Station 012 at the Watertown Dam. In the lower basin, Station 145, Stony Brook/Muddy River, had the poorest water quality, followed by station 166 located at the rear of the Science Museum. Enterococcus. Figure 3-6 shows percentile plots of Enterococcus counts arranged from upstream to downstream locations and grouped by weather condition. This figure also includes line plots of annual geometric mean counts of a representative group of locations for which data exist for all twelve years (stations 012, 006, 008 and 011). The median counts for the upstream locations fail to meet the 33 col/100 ml EPA guideline in dry, damp, and wet weather. For the lower basin locations, most meet the standard in dry weather, but fail to meet standards in wet weather. With the exception of station 166, lower basin stations meet the standard in all weather. Comparison of annual means shows an improvement in bacterial water quality at all four representative stations during the twelve years of monitoring. For dry weather, all four stations failed to meet standards at the start of monitoring in 1989, but are meeting standards (at the latest) by 1998. Trends are similar for both weather categories, with wet weather mean counts generally higher than in dry weather. Fecal coliform. Figure 3-7 shows percentile plots of fecal coliform counts grouped by weather condition and line plots of annual geometric mean counts of stations 012, 006, 008 and 001. The trends are very similar to those of Enterococcus. Median counts for upstream locations fail to meet the 200 col/100 ml standard for Class B waters in all weather conditions; the lower basin stations (stations 008, 009, 010, 166, and 011) are elevated but do generally meet the standard in wet weather.
25
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Table 3-4. Geometric mean fecal coliform and Enterococcus counts, Charles River, 1998 - 2001
Station Location Surface
or Bottom
Number of
samples
Mean Enterococcus
(95% CI)
Mean fecal coliform
(95% CI)
012 Newton/Watertown, footbridge upstream of Watertown dam S 204 120 (98-147) 237 (201-280)
001 Newton, near Nonantum Road, rear of MDC skating rink S 83 146 (96-222) 468 (344-637)
144 Brighton, downstream of N. Beacon Street bridge, Laundry Brook outlet, BOS-032 (closed
S 35 318 (180-562)
716 (385-1,329)
002 Allston, downstream of Arsenal Street bridge, BOS-033 S 85 81 (55-118) 299 (224-401)
003 Allston/Cambridge, midstream, near Mt. Auburn Street, between CAM-005 and CAM-
S 85 44 (29-67) 175 (127-239)
004 Allston/Cambridge, midstream, between River Street and Western Avenue bridges
S 85 18 (11-28) 83 (58-119)
005 Cambridge, near Magazine Beach, upstream of Cottage F
S 85 29 (19-43) 157 (111-223)
006 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, downstream of Cottage Farm, BU bridge
S 87 40 (29-57) 219 (167-287)
29 (18-46) 151 (105-219)007 Cambridge, near Memorial Drive, MIT Boathouse
S B 87
15 (10-24) 91 (62-134)
145 Boston (Charlesgate), Muddy River/Stony Brook outlet S 87 28 (17-46) 176 (123-254)
17 (11-27) 99 (68-144)008 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, downstream of Harvard Bridge
S B 87 11 (7-18) 75 (50-113)
7 (4-10) 59 (43-79)009 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, upstream of Longfellow Bridge near Community Sailing
S B 87
7 (4-10) 47 (33-66)
6 (4-8) 23 (17-32)010 Boston, downstream of Longfellow Bridge, MWR-022
S B 87 6 (4-9) 38 (28-52)
166 Boston, old Charles River dam, rear of Science Museum S 212 15 (12-20) 64 (50-81)
15 (11-21) 37 (29-47)011 Boston, upstream of river locks (New Charles River Dam) and Rt. 93, near Nashua Street
S B 88 7 (5-11) 37 (28-48)
26
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
0
1
2
3
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
EC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 012, Watertown dam
0
1
2
3
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
EC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 006, downstream of Cottage Farm CSO
0
1
2
3
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
EC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 008, downstream of Mass. Ave. bridge
0
1
2
3
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
EC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 011, upstream of locks
WetDry
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Ente
roco
ccus
(co
l/100
ml)
012 001 144 002 003 004 005 006 007 145 008 009 010 166 011
DryDampWet
upstream downstream
Geo
met
ric M
ean
Ente
roco
ccus
, col
/100
ml
(dot
ted
line
show
s sta
ndar
d/gu
idel
ine)
1
1
10
100
1
1
10
100
1
1
10
100
1
1
10
100
27
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Figure 3-6. Current and long term trends in Enterococcus, Charles River “Dry”: no rainfall for previous 3 days; “Wet”: at least 0.5 inches in previous 2 days; “Damp”: all remaining results
28
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Geo
met
ric M
ean
feca
l col
iform
, col
/100
ml
(dot
ted
line
show
s sta
ndar
d/gu
idel
ine)
0
1
2
3
4C
ell M
ean
for l
og F
C
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 006, downstream of Cottage Farm CSO
0
1
2
3
4
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
FC
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 008, downstream of Mass. Ave. bridge
0
1
2
3
4
Cel
l Mea
n fo
r log
FC
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 012, Watertown dam
WetDry
0
1
2
3
4
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Station 011, upstream of locks
upstream downstream
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000Fe
cal c
olifo
rm (c
ol/1
00 m
l)
012 001 144 002 003 004 005 006 007 145 008 009 010 166 011
DryDampWet
1
1
10
100
1000
1
1
10
100
1000
1
1
10
100
1000
1
1
10
100
1000
29
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Figure 3-7. Current and long-term trends in fecal coliform, Charles River “Dry”: no rainfall for previous 3 days; “Wet”: at least 0.5 inches in previous 2 days; “Damp”: all remaining results
30
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
3.4.6 Relationship between bacteria and rainfall, 1998 – 2001 The relationship between log-transformed indicator bacteria and rainfall are highly significant but somewhat weak. The correlation coefficients for Enterococcus and fecal coliform are shown in Table 3-5. Fecal coliform showed a stronger correlation with rainfall than Enterococcus. Of the three rainfall categories (one-day, two-day, and three-day summed rain), three-day summed rain consistently had the strongest correlation with indicator counts. Only station 145, Laundry Brook outlet, had no significant relationship to rainfall. This is likely because the sample size is relatively small and dry weather contamination obscures rain-related impacts at this location. Spearman’s rank order correlation also showed a highly significant but somewhat weak relationship between bacteria and rain, with rho of 0.41 for fecal coliform and 0.34 for Enterococcus, corrected for ties (p<0.0001).
31
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Table 3-5. Correlation coefficients, bacteria and three-day summed rain, Charles River, 1998 – 2001 p<0.0001 unless otherwise noted. Higher r value indicates stronger correlation; generally, r values above 0.8 are considered strong, values below 0.4 are considered weak.
log Enterococcus log fecal coliform Station Location
r 95% CI r 95% CI
012 Newton/Watertown, footbridge upstream of W d
0.50 (0.38, 0.60) 0.41 (0.28, 0.52)
001 Newton, near Nonantum Road, rear of MDC skating i k
0.40 (p=0.0004)
(0.19, 0.58) 0.45 (0.25, 0.61)
144 Brighton, downstream of N. Beacon Street bridge, Laundry Brook outlet, BOS-
Not significant
002 Allston, downstream of Arsenal Street bridge, BOS-033
0.46 (0.26, 0.61) 0.46 (0.27, 0.61)
003 Allston/Cambridge, midstream, near Mt. Auburn Street, between CAM-005 and
0.40 (0.20, 0.56) 0.46 (0.27, 0.61)
004 Allston/Cambridge, midstream, between River Street and Western Avenue
0.61 (0.42, 0.74) 0.58 (0.42, 0.71)
005 Cambridge, near Magazine Beach, upstream of Cottage F
0.42 (p=0.0002)
(0.21, 0.59) 0.36 (p=0.001)
(0.15, .0.53)
006 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, downstream of Cottage Farm, BU bridge
0.40 (p=0.0002)
(0.20, 0.57) 0.41 (0.22, 0.58)
007 Cambridge, near Memorial Drive, MIT Boathouse 0.41 (0.26, 0.55) 0.51 (0.39, 0.61)
145 Boston (Charlesgate), Muddy River/Stony Brook outlet 0.38 (0.15, 0.56) 0.42 (0.22, 0.58)
008 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, downstream of H d B id
0.44 (0.28, 0.57) 0.50 (0.37, 0.60)
009 Boston, downstream of Longfellow Bridge, MWR-022
0.43 (0.26, 0.57) 0.48 (0.35, 0.59)
010 Cambridge/Boston, midstream, upstream of Longfellow Bridge near
0.48 (0.32, 0.62) 0.48 (0.36, 0.59)
166 Boston, old Charles River dam, rear of Science Museum 0.52 (0.39, 0.63 0.62 (0.53, 0.70)
011 Boston, upstream of river locks (New Charles River Dam) and Rt 93, near Nashua S
0.54 (0.41, 0.66) 0.57 (0.46, 0.66)
32
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
3.4.7 Effects of system improvements
Bacterial results collected during the 12-year monitoring period were grouped into phases of MWRA’s CSO System Master Plan, as shown in Figure 1-1. (Phase I: 1989 – 1991; Phase II: 1992 – 1997; Phase III: 1998 – 2001). Both fecal coliform and Enterococcus counts were significantly lower in each subsequent phase (p<0.0001), with geometric mean counts falling nearly an order of magnitude between Phase I and Phase III. Boxplots for both fecal coliform and Enterococcus are shown in Figure 3-8. This trend held for both dry and wet weather, indicating that both dry weather sources and wet weather sources were reduced over this period
.
33
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
Figure 3-8. Bacterial indicator counts 1989 - 2001, grouped by phases of MWRA’s CSO System Master Plan Dotted line shows geometric mean guideline
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Ente
roco
ccus
(col
/100
ml)
Upstream of Basin Basin Downstream of Basin
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Feca
l col
iform
(col
/100
ml)
Upstream of Basin Basin Downstream of Basin
Phase IIIPhase IIPhase I
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Upstream of Basin Basin Downstream of Basin
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Upstream of Basin Basin Downstream of Basin
Wet weather (>0.5 inches in previous 2
Dry weather (no rainfall in previous 3
27
34
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
3.5 Summary of Charles River water quality A significant decline in bacterial concentrations is evident in Charles River receiving waters downstream of the Watertown Dam. This decline has occured in both wet and dry weather, suggesting that elimination of both dry weather and wet weather sources has had a significant impact on the water quality in the Charles. As the water quality has improved, the relationship between rainfall and water quality has grown weaker - previous analyses have indicated that the relationship between rainfall and bacteria has shown a reduction in correlation over time (MWRA, 2001). Evaluation of current conditions (1998 – 2001) confirms that the relationship between rainfall and bacteria counts in the river is somewhat weak. While there is significant year-to-year variation due to multiple factors (e.g. environmental factors such as rainfall, temperature, sunlight intensity, river flow), change in bacterial water quality can be detected when results are grouped, as in the Phase I, II, and III time periods of the CSO System Master Plan. Trends are subtle, and results must be observed over a long period of time to detect change; it is difficult to detect effects of individual CSOs. Attempts to gauge short-term rainfall effects at individual CSOs proved logistically difficult because of inconsistent or infrequent overflows. However, impacts of viral pathogens at several CSO discharge locations (Cottage Farm and Stony Brook CSOs) are currently being evaluated and a report is in preparation (MWRA, in prep). Physical parameters showed very little evidence of a trend over time, and any variability is likely due to short-term environmental factors (e.g., volume of rainfall and associated runoff, river flow). Dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and secchi depth likewise showed no obvious trend over the monitoring period. However, some of these parameters exhibited significant spatial trends, particularly salinity and dissolved oxygen. Lower basin locations showed relatively high bottom-water salinity and low dissolved oxygen levels consistently throughout the monitoring period. Nutrients and chlorophyll exhibited strong seasonal signals, however not enough data has been collected to draw any conclusions regarding long term trends.
35
DRAFT chap 1- 3 only
REFERENCES Darling S., Wu D. 2001. NPDES compliance summary report, fiscal year 2001. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report ENQUAD 2001-08. Ellis B., Rosen J. 2001. Statistical Analysis of Combined Sewer Overflow Receiving Water Data, 1989 – 1999. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report ENQUAD 2001-06. Gong G., Lieberman J., D. McLaughlin. 1998. Statistcal analysis of combined sewer overflow receiving waer data, 1989-1996. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report ENQUAD 98-09. USEPA, Office of Water. 1986. Ambient Water Quality for Bacteria – 1986. Washington, D.C. Office of Water. EPA 440/5-84-002
$0.2 MIL
$0.5 MIL
$4.1 MIL
$3.0 MIL
COTTAGE FARMOUTFALLIMPROVEMENTS
$1.1 MIL
BRIGHTONINTERCEPTOR CONNECTION
CSO FACILITY$4.1 MIL
$12 MIL
BRIGHTONINTERCEPTOR
Notes:(1) Construction of Cambridge Sewer Separation and other Alewife Brook CSO controls is on-hold pending federal and state regulatory approval of a revised plan.(2) A MEPA reassessment of the CSO control plan for North Dorchester Bay and the Reserved Channel is underway.
SQUANTUM PUMP
ALEWIFEBROOK
HEADWORKS
COMMERCIAL POINTCSO FACILITY
CSO FACILITYFOX POINT
WINTHROP TERMINAL
DEER ISLANDWASTEWATERTREATMENT
FACILITYSouth SystemPump Station
North MainPump Station
HEADWORKS
LongIsland
STATION
CALF PASTUREPUMP STATION
NEP
ON
SET
RIV
ER
BOS088
BOS095
MWR201
BOS050BOS004
BOS073
BOS070
(TO PRISON PT.)
BOS009
CAM401
CHE004
BOS052
BOS068
BOS060
BOS006 BOS005
BOS003
MWR018
MWR020
MWR021
MWR022
CAM017
CAM005
BOS033
SOM007
BOS017
BOS049
BOS013
SOM009
CHE002
BOS014
BOS015
SOM004
SOM002A/003
SOM001
CAM401BCAM002 CAM001
SOM001A
MWR003
CAM009
LOWER CHARLES RIVER
MWR010 BOS042MWR023
MWR019
SOM010
BOS010
BOS058
BOS057BOS007
BOS062
BOS064
BOS002MWR207
COTTAGE FARMCSO FACILITY
BOS046
BOS065
BOS080
BOS081
BOS082
BOS083BOS084BOS085BOS086
BOS087
BOS089/MWR209
BOS090/MWR211
BOS093
CAM007
RESERVED CHANNELBOS079
CONSTITUTIONBEACH CSOFACILITY
PUMP STATION
DORCHESTER BAY
DORCHESTER BAY
SpectacleIsland
IslandMoon
ThompsonIsland
NORTH
SOUTH
BOS072ConduitStony Brook
ALEWIFE BROOKPUMP STATION
E. BOSTON CARUSO
WARD STREET
CHEALSEA CREEKHEADWORKS
CONSTITUTIONBEACH
CHARLESTOWN DELAURIPUMP STATION
CHE003
NEW CHANNEL
LOWER INNERHARBOR
MWR205
SOM007A/MWR205A
UPPER MYSTIC RIVERSOM006
BACK BAYFENS
CHEL
SEA
CREE
K
CHE008
CSO FACILITYPRISON POINT
CSO FACILITYSOMERVILLE MARGINAL
PUMP STATIONUNION PARK
COLUMBUSHEADWORKS
East BostonBranch Sewer
BOSTON
BROOKLINE
CAMBRIDGE
SOMERVILLE
EVERETT
CHELSEA
WINTHROP
MEDFORD MALDEN
REVERE
BOSTONHARBOR
BOS076
BOS078
SEWER SEPARATION
SEWER SEPARATION
SOUTH DORCHESTER BAY
NEPONSET
SEWER SEPARATION(1)CAMBRIDGE
SOMERVILLESEWER SEPARATION
SEWER SEPARATIONSOMERVILLE
COMMERCIAL POINTUPGRADE
FOX POINTUPGRADE
UPGRADECOTTAGE FARM
UPGRADEPRISON POINT
SOMERVILLEMARGINALUPGRADE
NORTH DORCHESTER BAYCONSOLIDATION CONDUIT(2)
CONSOLIDATION CONDUIT(2)RESERVED CHANNEL
FORT POINT CHANNELSTORAGE CONDUIT
RESERVED CHANNELCSO FACILITY(2)
CHARLESTOWNSTORAGECONDUIT
CHARLESTOWNHYDRAULICRELIEF
CAMBRIDGEHYDRAULICRELIEF
SEWER RELIEFEAST BOSTON BRANCH
CHELSEA TRUNKSEWER RELIEF
CHELSEA BRANCHSEWER RELIEF
UNION PARKPUMP STATIONDETENTION/TREATMENTFACILITY
OUTFALL IMPROVEMENTCHELSEA
EAST BOSTONSEWER SEPARATION
MYSTIC RIVER/CHELSEA CREEK
UPPER
CHARLES
RIVER
FTPO
INT
CHAN
NEL
UPPERINNERHARBOR
6861-1B2-04-02
CAM011
BOS032
CSO PROJECTS3/2002
BOS019BOS012
FIGURE 1. MWRA RECOMMENDED CSO CONTROL PLAN
CAM004
CAM400
Titles of Completed Projectsare Labeled in Green
SOM002
CSO Outfall To be ClosedCSO Outfall To RemainExisting Pump StationExisting CSO Treatment FacilityExisting HeadworksProposed CSO Treatment FacilityProposed Conduit/Pipeline/ConnectionProposed Sewer Separation Area
LEGENDCSO Outfall Closed as of 3/02
BOS028
STONY BROOK CONDUITSEWER SEPARATION
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Measured and Simulated Runoff to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts, October 1999–September 2000By PHILLIP J. ZARRIELLO and LORA K. BARLOW
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4129
In cooperation with the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, and the MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Northborough, Massachusetts 2002
10 Measured and Simulated Runoff to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts, October 1999–September 2000
Figu
re 6
. Out
falls
to th
e lo
wer
Cha
rles
Rive
r, M
assa
chus
etts
.
13
6
37
42
23
66
1965
45
6260
61
1310
13a
129
84
11
11a
14
19a
2120
18
22
1516
7
5
227
2628
25
43
4849
49a
53
5250
5557
5959
a
4746444
1c
27a
29
41a
41b
41
37a
3031
32
38b
40a40
39
38a
38
36
35
3433a
33
5856
54
68
6967
a
67
6464a
63
70
8181 7775
737278
76
80
7774
1724
Watertown Dam
Laundry Brook
Faneuil Brook
Muddy RIver
Stony Brook
Bos
ton
Bo ar
bor
Ha
18a
Muddy RIver conduit
Hyde Brook
Salt Creek
Shepard Brook
New
Cha
rles
Riv
er D
am
41a
60
ST
RE
AM
OR
ST
OR
M-D
RA
IN O
UT
FA
LL A
ND
IDE
NT
IFIC
AT
ION
NU
MB
ER
– B
old
num
ber
indi
cate
s ou
tfall
is s
imul
ated
by
one
– A
lpha
num
eric
num
ber
indi
cate
s sh
eet r
unof
f, lo
catio
n is
cen
ter
poin
t
of
the
over
land
flow
pla
ne
21
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
12
MIL
ES
12
KIL
OM
ET
ER
S
0 0C
SO
OU
TF
ALL
– N
ot s
imul
ated
ST
ON
Y B
RO
OK
SU
BB
AS
IN O
UT
FA
LL (
incl
udes
CS
O d
isch
arge
)
Info
rmat
ion
from
Bos
ton
Wat
er a
nd S
ewer
Com
mis
sion
,C
ity o
f Cam
brid
ge D
epar
tmen
t of P
ublic
Wor
ks,
City
of N
ewto
n M
IS D
epar
tmen
t,C
ity o
f Wat
erto
wn
Dep
artm
ent o
f Pub
lic W
orks
,M
assa
chus
etts
Sta
te P
lane
Pro
ject
ion,
Nor
th A
mer
ican
Dat
um 1
983
Long
fello
w B
ridge
Harvard Bridge
7
Riv
er S
treet
Brid
ge
Elio
tB
ridge
Arsenal Stre
et Brid
gee
71o 12
'
71o 08
'
71o 04
'
42o 22
'
42o 21
'
top related