summary of cso receiving water quality monitoring in ... · cso receiving water quality monitoring...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


Phase IIIPhase IIPhase I

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000


Wet weather (>0.5 inches in previous 2

Dry weather (no rainfall in previous 3

27

34


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


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

'

summary of cso receiving water quality monitoring in ... · cso receiving water quality monitoring...

Documents