Water Quality Monitoring 2015

WATER QUALITY MONITORING 2015

Rachelle Horne Grant Steeves & Graeme Stewart-Robertson

About the Authors

Rachelle Horne Rachelle was born in 1989 and raised in Sussex, New Brunswick. In 2014, she graduated from UNBSJ with a Bachelor of Science, majoring in Environmental Biology. Following graduation, she enrolled in the Chemical Technology program at NBCC to continue her pursuit of knowledge in the sciences.

Grant Steeves Grant was born in 1994 and graduated with Honours from Kennebecasis Valley High School in 2012.

Immediately following high school, he enrolled in the Chemical Engineering Program at the University of New Brunswick Saint John for his love of math and chemistry. After 2 years at UNBSJ, he switched career paths to the Chemical Technology Program at New Brunswick Community College Saint John where his true passion for chemistry and math could develop.

Graeme Stewart-Robertson Graeme Stewart-Robertson is the Executive Director of ACAP Saint John and has over ten years of experience in designing, implementing and managing community-based projects, is recognized as the local authority on the geographic characteristics of a number of New Brunswick watersheds, and has authored published reports on ecological restoration and urban environmental sustainability.

Graeme also serves on numerous boards and committees across the province, providing insight on issues ranging from poverty reduction and urban planning, to tourism and ecosystem restoration.

2

Executive Summary Marsh Creek, the largest watershed in Greater Saint John, has been the recipient of centuries of untreated municipal wastewater deposition. Offensive odours, unsightly sanitary products, and threats posed by various human pathogens, resulting largely from the ~50 sewage outfalls in the lower reaches of Marsh Creek and the Saint John Harbour, have caused most residents to abandon the wellness of the watercourse. ACAP Saint John, a community-based ENGO and champion of the Harbour Cleanup project, has been conducting water quality monitoring and fish community surveys in the watershed since 1993 with the aim of restoring the ecological integrity of this forgotten natural asset.

Analyses conducted by the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John have indicated substantial improvements to the quality of water in Marsh Creek in 2015. Sampling conducted during 2014 along the lowest 400 m of the creek, which has historically received the greatest volume of untreated municipal wastewater, showed decreases in faecal bacteria counts ranging from 95 to 99% from 2013. Consistent with 2014 data, there were several occurrences where fecal coliforms were within the Canadian guidelines for recreational water at particular sites. While none of the sites, on average, are below the Canadian guidelines of 200 CFU/100 mL for recreational waters, this year saw a dramatic decrease in fecal coliform counts at two sample sites. Three sites saw a large increase in fecal coliform bacteria which is believed to be due to overflow following a heavy rainfall event. With the results taken after the rainfall removed, the results represent a best case scenario of the water quality in Marsh Creek, demonstrating the direct impact of the cessation of raw sewage outfalls on the health of the watercourse.

While the levels of bacteria still remain on average above the federal recreational water safety guidelines of 200 counts/100 ml at all sites tested, the substantial improvements in water quality are very encouraging, suggesting that the City of Saint John’s ongoing efforts to complete Harbour Cleanup are beginning to pay dividends. ACAP staff have also noted that, in addition to observed improvements in the clarity of the water in Marsh Creek, there have been no calls received from the public complaining about the offensive odours that have historically plagued this area of the city.

3

Acknowledgements The 2015 ‘Impact of Harbour Cleanup on Nearshore Habitat and Water Quality in Saint John, New Brunswick’ project represents the fourth consecutive year of intensive sampling and analyses directed at documenting the ecological implications of recent (2014) improvements in municipal wastewater treatment and discharge in Saint John, New Brunswick. Funding for the 2015 installment of this Marsh Creek project was provided by New Brunswick’s Environmental Trust Fund and Service Canada’s Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) program. Technical and laboratory support was [once again] generously provided by the Chemical Technology program of the New Brunswick Community College (Saint John). The use of a new field meter was provided by Eastern Charlotte Waterways, Wet-Pro, Saint Mary’s University, and CURA H2O. It must be noted that this report builds directly upon the 2014 ACAP Saint John report “Bland, S. and J. Lewis. 2014. Impact of Harbour Cleanup on Nearshore Habitat and Water Quality in Saint John, New Brunswick. 57 pages.” Given that much of the text is taken verbatim, this acknowledgement will serve as the only reference indicating the direct duplication of some content.

Your Environmental Trust Fund at Work

4

Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................iv 1.0 Background...........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview of the Marsh Creek Watershed.....................................................................................1 1.2 History.......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Methodology.........................................................................................................................3

2.1 Water Quality Analyses.................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Comparative Historical Data...........................................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Sample Stations Analysis A.............................................................................................................................4 2.1.3 Sample Stations Analysis B.............................................................................................................................4 2.1.4 Water Quality Parameters..........................................................................................................6 2.2 Water Quality Procedures............................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Field pH..............................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen.............................................................................................................................................7 2.2.3 Salinity.................................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.4 Orthophosphates..............................................................................................................................................8 2.2.5 Total Suspended Solids....................................................................................................................................9 2.2.6 Fecal Coliform.................................................................................................................................................10 2.2.7 Lab pH.............................................................................................................................................................11 2.3 Sampling of Fish........................................................................................................................11 2.3.1 Electrofishing..................................................................................................................................................11 2.3.2 Fyke Nets.........................................................................................................................................................12 2.3.3 Beach Seine......................................................................................................................................................13 2.3.4 Reporting of Fish Collected.........................................................................................................................13 2.4 Other Observations.....................................................................................................................14

3.0 Results.................................................................................................................................15

3.1 Water Quality Parameters...........................................................................................................15 3.1.1 Analysis A Water Quality Parameters..........................................................................................................15 3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters..........................................................................................................20 3.2 Fish Collection...........................................................................................................................25 3.2.1 Lower Marsh Creek........................................................................................................................................25 Table 3.2.A: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in the Courtenay Forebay, 2015.......................26 3.2.2 Ashburn Lake..................................................................................................................................................26 3.3 Other Observations....................................................................................................................27 3.3.1. Canada Post Retaining Wall: Creosote.......................................................................................................27

4.0 Discussion...........................................................................................................................29

4.1 Water Quality Parameters Analysis A.........................................................................................29 4.2 Water Quality Parameters Analysis B.........................................................................................29 4.3 Water Quality Data Analysis.......................................................................................................30

5.0 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................31 6.0 References...........................................................................................................................32 Appendix A: Sample Calculations used to determine water quality parameters in Marsh Creek in 2015...............................................................................................................................I Appendix B. Calibration curve of Absorbance vs Total Phosphates....................................VII

5

Appendix C. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2015.........................................................................................VIII Appendix D. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2014.............................................................................................X Appendix E. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2013..........................................................................................XII Appendix F. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A Upstream and Downstream for years 1995 through 2015.............................................................................XIII Appendix G. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2015..............................................................................................XV Appendix H. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2014...........................................................................................XVII Appendix I. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2013..............................................................................................XX Appendix J. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2012...........................................................................................XXII Appendix K. Water quality parameters of Analysis A and B with outlier excluded from June 2015.......................................................................................................................................XXV

6

1.0 Background 1.1 Overview of the Marsh Creek Watershed The Marsh Creek watershed is a 4,200 hectare feature located in the eastern quadrant of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, that drains directly into the Bay of Fundy (Figure 1.1). The watershed consists of six primary watercourses, eighteen lakes, and countless wetlands, including a brackish semi-tidal wetland at its terminus. Marsh Creek, which served as a valuable natural asset for early settlers, became an internationally recognized environmental concern due in large part to its receipt of untreated municipal wastewater and the existence of heavy creosote contamination in the sediments of its lower reaches. Locally, the creek is also subject to extreme flooding resulting from its low-lying drainage basin, commercial and residential developments in and around its floodplain, and the cumulative effects of crustal subsidence and watercourse channel and wetland infilling.

Figure 1.1: The Marsh Creek Watershed (outlined in red) in Saint John, New Brunswick.

1.2 History Saint John, New Brunswick, as one of the most rapidly changing urban environments in Atlantic Canada, is currently undertaking several once-in-a-lifetime alterations that have the potential to significantly improve the water quality of inland and nearshore environments. The most noteworthy of these alterations is the 2014 completion of the Saint John Harbour Cleanup project, which resulted in the cessation of the centuries old practice of discharging raw sewage into its urban waterways, including Marsh Creek, Courtenay Bay, Saint John Harbour, and ultimately the Bay of Fundy.

Harbour Cleanup, which has come about largely from two decades of dedicated community engagement by ACAP Saint John, represents the single greatest opportunity in recent history to restore the recipient nearshore water quality of Saint John, thereby improving the habitat needed to increase (and potentially even restore) the diversity of flora and fauna. As such, the information acquired in this project represents one of the last opportunities in Canadian history to acquire the baseline metrics needed to measure and document any changes that occur in the associated biodiversity following the cessation of untreated municipal wastewater discharges into near-shore environments.

The objectives of this project were to acquire the first baseline (post-wastewater treatment) water quality measurements and fish community assemblages within the estuarine and aquatic habitats of Marsh Creek and the Courtenay Bay Forebay. The scope of this report included the recipient waters as well as those immediately above (upstream of) the historic zone of influence. This project was designed to acquire data and present information in a format that will enable comparable data to be collected and analysed in subsequent years. It must also be noted that field staff were instructed to be vigilant and take note of any other conditions that could increase our understanding of the current status of this ecosystem.

2.0 Methodology 2.1 Water Quality Analyses 2.1.1 Comparative Historical Data This project conducted two separate water quality analyses in the Marsh Creek watershed to enable comparisons with two distinct historical data sets. Analysis A involved a simple upstream (U)/downstream (D) comparison relative to the area receiving wastewater discharges (Figure 2.1.A). These sample stations have now acquired data in various years between 1993 and 2015.

Analysis B consisted of five sample stations in the last 2 km of Marsh Creek used to conduct a more defined concentration gradient analyses within the wastewater discharge zone (Figure 2.1.A). These sample stations were first established in the 2012 Marsh Creek study.

Figure 2.1.A: Water quality monitoring stations used for the Marsh Creek Watershed in 2015.

2.1.2 Sample Stations Analysis A The stations used in Analysis A included a Downstream Site (45.28271, -66.02991) located on the downstream side of the access road/rail crossing which contains three metal culverts (Figure 2.1.B (left)); and an Upstream Site (45.321517, -66.015117) located on the downstream side of the small bridge on Glen Road near MacKay Street (Figure 2.1.B (right)).

Figure 2.1.B: Downstream (left) and upstream (right) sampling stations used in water quality monitoring in Marsh Creek between 1993 and 2015.

2.1.3 Sample Stations Analysis B

Analysis B, which has acquired water quality measurements since 2012, incorporated five sampling stations located approximately 500 m apart within the last 2 km of Marsh Creek (Figure 2.1.C). The stations included two sites in the Courtenay Forebay and three sites above the three culvert station used as the downstream sampling station in Analysis A (Section 2.1.2). The characteristics of the five individual sampling stations used in Analysis B are provided in Table 2.1 and in Figures 2.1.D.

Figure 2.1.C: Map showing the location of the five sampling stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B (2012-2015).

Table 2.1: Characteristics of sampling stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B in 2012 through 2015.

Site Number

GPS Coordinates

1

45.277506, -66.047122

Located on the upstream side of the Courtenay tide gates at the terminus of Marsh Creek.

2

45.281560, -66.048694

Located approximately 500 m upstream from Site 1, just upstream of where Dutchman’s Creek enters Marsh Creek.

3

Located 500 m upstream from Site 2, immediately (2 m) 45.284844, -66.052393 upstream of the raw sewage outfall adjacent to the Sunbury parking lot.

4

45.288143, -66.048764

5

Located upstream of the raw sewage outfalls, approximately 2 km from the outlet of Marsh Creek at the 45.290998, -66.043606 tide gates (Site 1). This sampling station is located beneath the train bridge adjacent to Rothesay Avenue.

Site Description

Located 500 m upstream from Site 3, immediately upstream of another raw sewage outfall.

Figure 2.1.D: Images of sample sites 3 (left), 4 (center) and 5 (right) used in water quality Analysis B conducted in Marsh Creek in 2012 through 2015.

2.1.4 Water Quality Parameters Water quality parameters measured in 2015 included dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, orthophosphates, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform. Historically, ammonia concentration, nitrates, and turbidity had also been recorded for the upstream and downstream (Analysis A) sampling locations. Ammonia and turbidity tests were last performed during the 2007 testing period while nitrates were only measured during the 2003 testing period.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the amount of oxygen dissolved in water and is usually represented in parts per million (ppm) or percent saturation. Oxygen is introduced into a watercourse via the atmosphere and photosynthesis. DO is temperature sensitive as cold water can hold more dissolved oxygen than warm water; however, at any given temperature moving water will typically have higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen due to churning. Oxygen consumption in a watercourse occurs through respiration by aquatic animals, decomposition of organic material by microorganisms, and chemical reactions. When more oxygen has been removed than added, DO levels decline causing harm or death to some of the more sensitive animals. DO fluctuates daily and seasonally. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012) The pH scale is a logarithmic function that represents the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. The pH scale ranges from very acidic (pH 0) to very basic (pH 14), with neutral pH at 7.

As a logarithmic scale, when pH decreases by 1 there is a ten times increase in acidity (United States Environmental Protection Agency). A healthy watercourse has a pH between 6 and 8. Acidification of a stream will cause an intrusion of unwanted plankton and mosses and a decline in fish as it reaches a pH of 5 or lower. If the pH drops below 4.5, the stream will become intolerable to most fish species. As a waterway becomes more basic, external damage is caused to the eyes and gills of fish and death may occur. It also increases the toxicity of other chemicals such as ammonia, increasing harm to aquatic life. (Lenntech) Salinity represents the amount of dissolved salts present in water. Predominantly, the types of salt ions in surface waters include sodium, chloride, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate. Surface waters have varying levels of salinity. For example, fresh snowmelt is pure water and has a theoretical salinity value of zero; salinity in oceans where the water contains an abundance of salt ions, typically ranges from 32 – 36 parts per thousand (ppt) or grams of salt per litre (g/L). (Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.) Phosphorus and nitrogen are essential plant and animal nutrients; in aquatic ecosystems nitrogen is generally readily available and phosphorus is a limiting growth factor. Aquatic plants use phosphorus in the form of phosphates and when abnormal amounts are introduced into aquatic ecosystems, it can rapidly cause increases in the biological activity of certain organisms and disrupt the ecological balance of the waterway. Some sources of phosphates are agricultural runoff (fertilizer), biological waste (sewage, manure), and industrial waste. (North Carolina State University Water Quality Group) Total suspended solids (TSS) refers to the measurement of the dry-weight of particles trapped by a filter through a filtration process, and is most commonly expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/L).

The solids are a mixture of organic (algae and bacteria) and inorganic (clay and silt) components. As light passes through water, it is scattered by suspended particles. This defines the turbidity or cloudiness of a water body, and is represented in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Some sources of organic and inorganic components which contribute to TSS and turbidity are eroding soil, microscopic organisms, industrial and municipal effluent, and suspended bottom sediment.

From early spring to early fall there is an increase in turbidity and TSS due to spring runoff, microorganisms, and algae blooms. Due to these changes, the amount of sunlight algae and other aquatic life can absorb will fluctuate throughout the seasons.

Fecal coliform bacteria are largely found in the intestinal tracts of humans and other warmblooded animals. Increased levels of fecal coliforms can be indicative of possible pathogenic contamination. Sources include failure in wastewater treatment, a break in the integrity of the distribution system, direct waste from mammals and birds, agricultural and storm runoff, and human sewage. Since fecal coliforms indicate pathogens may be present, any water body with elevated levels of fecal coliforms has the potential to transmit diseases. Fecal coliform tests are inexpensive, reliable and fast (1-day incubation). Observation of fecal coliform levels and fluctuations can provide an estimation of the relative amount of pathogenic contamination within a water body. The standard limit for recreational water (contact such as wading, swimming, and fishing) is 200 coliform forming units (CFU) per 100 millilitres (mL) of water, with 10% or less of samples containing a maximum of 400 CFU/100 mL (Canadian Water Quality Guidelines).

2.2 Water Quality Procedures 2.2.1 Field pH A handheld meter (YSI Professional Plus) was used for the all sampling weeks except June 10-12 and August 6-7, as no functioning pH meter was available for those weeks. The meter was standardized prior to testing using pH buffers 4 and 7. The probe was immersed in the creek until the value on the pH meter stabilized. This procedure was repeated at each sampling site. For the sampling period of August 6-7, litmus paper was used to estimate the pH levels at all Analysis A and Analysis B sites.

2.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO) was tested in the field using a handheld meter (Fisher Scientific, Accumet Portable AP64 Dissolved Oxygen Meter) for the first sampling week. Calibration of the meter required the approximate atmospheric pressure in mBars and the salinity concentration in ppt.

Salinity was assumed to be 35 ppt in seawater and 0 ppt for fresh water. During the sampling period of August 6-7, a handheld meter (YSI 550A Dissolved Oxygen Meter) was used as the original meter no longer functioned properly. All other sampling weeks, the YSI Professional Plus handheld meter was used in the field. This meter was used as it had the ability to measure all parameters of interest for this project. Calibration was done through immersing the probe in a 100% oxygen saturated environment. The probe was immersed in the creek and moved in a small circular motion until the reading stabilized. This reading was recorded and the method was repeated at every site.

2.2.3 Salinity Salinity was measured in the field via a handheld conductivity meter (Fisher Scientific, Accumet AP65 Handheld Conductivity Meter) for the sampling weeks of June 10-12 and August 6-7. The meter was prepared by setting the cell constant to 10.0 cm -1 for an optimal conductivity range of 1,000 to 200,000 ÎźS/cm and calibrated with potassium chloride. The probe was dipped in the water 3 times to completely wet the surface. Temperature and conductivity of the water were obtained from the meter and atmospheric pressure was retrieved from The Weather Network (www.theweathernetwork.com). These values were computed into a salinity calculator created in

Microsoft Excel in order to convert conductivity, at a particular temperature and pressure, to salinity in ppt (Appendix A-5). Another handheld meter (YSI Professional Plus) was used for the rest of the sampling weeks. It did not require additional calculations as it measured both specific conductivity and salinity.

2.2.4 Orthophosphates Phosphate concentration was determined through the ascorbic acid method. The process involved mixing 25 mL of a sample, 2-3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator, and 4 mL of a combined reagent. The combined reagent was composed of 50 mL of 5N sulfuric acid, 5 mL of potassium antimonyl tartrate solution, 15 mL ammonium molybdate solution, and 30 mL of ascorbic acid solution. After samples were sufficiently mixed, they sat for 10-30 minutes for colour development and were placed in a spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific Genesys 20) where transmittance and absorbance were measured and recorded.

A calibration curve was constructed to represent the phosphate concentration in mg/L by first dissolving 0.11 g of monopotassium phosphate in 250 mL of deionized water. Using an Eppendorf pipette, 2 mL of this solution was transferred and topped up to 250 mL with deionized water. This diluted stock solution was pipetted in amounts of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 mL into separately labelled 150 mL beakers and topped up to 50 mL with deionized water. This gave standards of approximately 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16, 0.20, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, and 0.36 mg/L. A tenth beaker was also prepared with 50 mL of deionized water to serve as a blank. The combined reagent was added to each beaker in 8 mL aliquots. The beakers were swirled for proper mixing and left for 10-30 minutes to allow color development. The absorbance and transmittance were then recorded for all 10 beakers. The absorbance and standard concentrations were plotted with Microsoft Excel to generate a calibration curve (Appendix B). With this curve, the absorbance values recorded from the Marsh Creek water samples were able to be converted into concentrations in mg/L.

Figure 2.2.A: The results of 20 minutes of colour development for all 10 beakers used to create the orthophosphate calibration curve.

2.2.5 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) were determined through the vacuum filtration method. A glass fibre filter disk (Whatman Grade 934-AH Circles 55mm) was rinsed three times with 20 mL of deionized water and filtered via vacuum filtration. The filter was placed in an aluminum weigh dish and into an oven at 105 degrees Celsius for one hour. The filter and aluminum weigh dish were removed from the oven and cooled to room temperature in a desiccator. The weight was measured and recorded and then returned to the oven for a minimum of 20 minutes. They were returned to the desiccator and weighed once at room temperature. If the weights were within Âą 0.0003 g, the filter was considered to have reached a constant weight. A 100 mL sample was slowly poured onto the preweighed filter, and the apparatus was rinsed three times with deionized water to ensure the entire sample had passed through the filter and none remained on the apparatus (Figure 2.2.B). Once filtration was complete, the previous constant weight procedure was followed and values recorded.

TSS in mg/L was calculated through weigh by difference (Appendix A, Sample Calculation A-3) and results were recorded.

Figure 2.2.B: Image of particulate matter left on the filter paper after the filtration process for total suspended solids.

2.2.6 Fecal Coliform The membrane filtration technique was used to test for fecal coliform bacteria. Serial dilutions of each sample were prepared and slowly added to the Millipore apparatus, which contained Millipore filters (EZ Pak membrane; white, gridded, 0.45 μm pore size, 47 mm), and vacuum filtration was applied. Once the filtration process was complete, the membrane filter was removed from the apparatus and placed into a previously prepared sterile Petri dish, which contained m-FC agar and 1% rosolic acid. The Petri dishes were incubated upside down at 44.5°C (±0.2°C) for 24 hours.

After 24 hours, the Petri dishes were removed from the incubator and all blue colonies were counted. Petri plates were counted if they contained 20 to 80 colonies. Plates that contained more than 200 colonies were represented as too numerous to count (TNTC). Plates that contained less than 20 colonies required additional steps to determine fecal concentration and were considered to only be estimations (Appendix A-1). Using the dilution ratio for each particular plate, the number of CFU/100 mL of water were calculated and recorded.

Despite the assumed decline of fecal coliforms in Marsh Creek caused by the cessation of the dumping of raw sewage, all sample sites (Analysis A and Analysis B) were diluted to 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, and 1/10000 for the first week. For the second week samples were diluted to 1/10, 1/100,

1/1000, 1/10000, and 1/100000 because of the high results from the first week. This was done to ensure that the number of fecal coliforms had indeed declined and had accurate counts.

After completing the first two weeks of sampling, the dilutions were adjusted as needed. The following dilutions were prepared for the downstream site and sites 1, 2, and 3 for all of the remaining sampling days: 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000 and 1/10000. The dilutions for the upstream site and sites 4 and 5 were also permanently changed to: 1/10, 1/100, and 1/1000.

Figure 2.2.C: Image of fecal coliforms from water sample taken from Analysis A upstream site in Marsh Creek. The sample dilution was 1/10. Dark blue spots are fecal coliform colonies and light grey spots are other bacterial colonies.

2.2.7 Lab pH The pH of each sample was also tested in the lab. The pH meter (Fisher Scientific, Accumet Research AR20 Desktop pH/Conductivity Meter) was standardized with pH buffers 4, 7, and 10.

The probe was immersed into a beaker of the desired sample and recorded when the value stabilized. The probe was rinsed thoroughly with deionized water and the procedure was repeated for all samples.

2.3 Sampling of Fish 2.3.1 Electrofishing Electrofishing was conducted as a fish rescue for a construction project in Oakville Acres on June 4 and 30, 2015 and as a follow up survey in Hazen Creek on June 5, 2015. Electrofishing activities were conducted using a battery-powered Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher (Figure 2.3.A). The certified operator was Graeme Stewart-Robertson of ACAP Saint John. The settings used were varied depending on substrate, water conductivity and the effect they were having on fish. In most

cases, the built-in quick setup option was used and minor adjustments (typically to the voltage) were made as necessary. The operation time and settings were noted upon completion of each site. Dip nets were used to capture fish which were then transferred to a 5 gallon bucket of water until they could be measured and released back to their original environment as quickly as possible.

Figure 2.3.A: Image of ACAP staff operating a Smith Root LR-24 electrofisher used to collect fish.

2.3.2 Fyke Nets Two fyke nets were used to collect fish in the lower reaches of Marsh Creek on July 22, 23, 24, and 28, and August 5 (Figure 2.3.B). On each occasion one net was set in the riverine section located approximately 250 m upstream of the tide gates located within the Courtenay Forebay, and the second net was set in the Marsh Creek channel in the Courtenay Bay estuary approximately 50 m below the tide gates. The nets were set during low tide and checked during a subsequent low tide 24 hours after the set. Tide heights were closely monitored to prevent the nets from becoming completely emergent during any period so as to maintain the submergence of any trapped fish within the holding end. Fish were removed from nets, placed in a 5 gallon pail, identified, measured, counted, and then immediately returned to the water.

Figure 2.3.B: Fyke nets set in Marsh Creek (Courtenay Forebay) on July 23, 2015.

2.3.3 Beach Seine Beach seining (Figure 2.3.C) was conducted in Ashburn Lake and Crescent Lake using a 10m x 1.5m seine as part of youth education programs. Fish parameters (i.e. length, abundance, etc.) were not collected so as to maintain the health of the fish. Demonstrations occurred July 14, 21, 22, and 29 and August 4 and 5, 2015.

Figure 2.3.C: Beach seining in Hazen Creek, June 25, 2015.

2.3.4 Reporting of Fish Collected The lengths of all fish recorded herein were measured as total lengths to the nearest millimetre. The common names of fishes mentioned in this report can be referenced to their scientific names (Table 2.3.A).

Table 2.3.A: A list of common fish names and their corresponding scientific names used in ACAP Saint John reports.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Alewife

Alosa pseudoharengus

American eel

Anguilla rostrata

Atlantic salmon

Salmo salar

Atlantic tomcod

Microgadus tomcod

Blacknose dace

Rhinichthys atratulus

Brook trout

Salvelinus fontinalis

Brown bullhead

Ictalurus nebulosus

Brown trout

Salmo trutta

Chain pickerel

Esox niger

Creek chub

Semotilus atromaculatus

Four spine stickleback

Apeltes quadracus

Golden shiner

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Mummichog

Fundulus heterclitus

Nine spine stickleback

Pungitius pungitius

Northern Redbelly dace

Chrosomus eos

Pearl dace

Semotilus margarita

Pumpkinseed sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus

Rainbow smelt

Osmerus mordax

Three spine stickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus

White perch

Morone americana

White sucker

Catostomus commersoni

Winter flounder

Pseudopleuronectes americanus

Yellow perch

Perca flavescens

2.4 Other Observations ACAP Saint John instructed its staff to be vigilant in observing any other parameters that could influence the current or future integrity of the Marsh Creek ecosystem. While these other parameters were not measured during this project, they were documented and included in this report due to their relevance to the long term management objectives of the Marsh Creek watershed, a principle upon which this project was founded.

3.0 Results 3.1 Water Quality Parameters Confirmation was made that municipal wastewater outfalls had been diverted from Marsh Creek and the municipal wastewater system was ‘online’ after the final piece of infrastructure, the Mill Street Lift Station, was commissioned in October 2014.

3.1.1 Analysis A Water Quality Parameters Water quality parameters averaged across six sample periods in 2015 (Appendix C) showed marked differences in temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, total phosphates, field pH, and salinity between the upstream and downstream sites (Table 3.1.A).

Due to lack of available instruments, pH was not tested in the field during the weeks of June 8-10 and August 6-7. Therefore, average pH (Table 3.1.A) is representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods (Appendix C-2 through C-4 and C-6).

Due to a heavy rainfall event on June 9, the results for fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, and total phosphates from the sample period of June 8-10 are not consistent with the other sample periods. It is thought to be due to increase in runoff and potential overflow of sewage facilities near Marsh Creek.

The wide range of values obtained between the first sampling week and the remaining five weeks resulted in a substantial degree of within-site variation in all parameters, especially fecal coliforms at the upstream site (Table 3.1.D).

Table 3.1.A: Calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (upstream/downstream) from six sample periods in 2015.

Averages for Analysis A in 2015 Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms % (CFU/100mL Absorbance Transmittance )

Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm )

Upstream

Low

15.1

7.59

7.376

15,684

98.6

0.006

0.007

Downstrea m

Low-mid

19.0

8.25

8.938

570

95.9

0.018

0.022

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH 7.2 0 7.9 6

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

2.7

0.072

3.7

0.626

Table 3.1.B: Standard deviations for calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (upstream/downstream) from six sample periods in 2015.

Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Upstream Downstream

Low Low-mid

3.040 3.989

0.325 0.311

Standard Deviations for Analysis A in 2015 Orthophosphates Fecal D.O. Coliforms % (ppm) Absorbance (CFU/100mL) Transmittance 3.397 4.292

36409 294

0.516 3.142

0.002 0.015

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.003 0.018

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.290 0.398

3.327 5.279

0.035 0.446

The results for fecal coliform, total suspended solids, orthophosphates, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and field pH (Table 3.1.A) were included in the historical (1993 – 2015) data set for these sampling stations (Appendix F).

Fecal coliform results were inconsistent with those obtained in previous years as the downstream counts were substantially lower than those for the upstream site (Figure 3.1.A). Due to the cessation of raw sewage input into Marsh Creek, the downstream site is at its lowest fecal coliform count on record (570 CFU/100 mL). The upstream site was at its highest (15,684 CFU/100 mL) on record but was substantially influenced by outside factors.

TSS (Figure 3.1.B) showed the highest recorded value at the upstream site since 2011, at 2.7 mg/L. The downstream site showed the lowest recorded value since 2011, at 3.7 mg/L. The downstream site decreased in orthophosphate concentration (Figure 3.1.C), with the lowest result (0.022 mg/L) since 2002. The upstream site average was consistent with those obtained in previous years, at 0.007 mg/L. Salinity (Figure 3.1.D) at the downstream site (0.626 ppt) was consistent with results back to 2013.

The upstream average (0.072 ppt) has had greater consistency with past results with very little change since 2003.

Dissolved oxygen (Figure 3.1.E) results show a slight increase downstream and a slight decrease upstream from 2013 onward. Both sites are above the recommended guideline, with averages at 8.938 ppm for the downstream site and 7.376 ppm upstream.

Figure 3.1.A: Fecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL sample) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 1995-2015. The logarithmic scale does not permit the “zero CFU� values obtained in the 2005 and 2006 Upstream site to be plotted. Values were not obtained in years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and are represented only as a trend line for these years.

Figure 3.1.B: Total suspended solids (mg/L) measured in Marsh Creek Upstream and Downstream sample stations from 2011-2015. Values were not obtained in the 2012 year is represented only as a trend line for that year.

Figure 3.1.C: Orthophosphates (mg POâ‚„/L) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 2002-2015. A value was not obtained for only the upstream site in the 2011 sampling year and is represented by a trend line.

Values were not obtained in years 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and are represented only as a trend line for these years.

Figure 3.1.D: Salinity (ppt) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 1993-2015. Values were not obtained in years 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 and are represented only as a trend line for these years.

Figure 3.1.E: Dissolved oxygen (ppm) measured in Marsh Creek Upstream and Downstream sample stations from 19932015. Values were not obtained in years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and are represented only as a trend line for these years.

3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters Water samples were acquired in 2015 from six sample periods, each two to three days in duration, which included June 10-12, July 6-8, July 13-15, July 21-22, August 6-7, and August 18-19, 2015 (Appendix G). The average values for water quality parameters acquired over six sample periods indicated increasing trends for some parameters and decreasing trends for others, showing significant differences between sites.

It must be noted due to the required materials not being immediately available, pH was not measured in the field during the first week of sampling (June 10-12; Appendix G; Table G-1) and the fifth week of sampling (August 6-7; Appendix G; Table G-5). The average values of pH (Table 3.1.C) are representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods (Appendix G; Tables G-2 through G-4 and G-6). During the sampling period of July 6-7, the YSI handheld meter was not functioning at site 1, so temperature, field pH, salinity, and dissolved oxygen were not recorded for that time. Therefore, the averages for those parameters are resultant of all other sampling weeks (Appendix G; Tables G-1 and G-3 through G-6).

Due to heavy rainfall (40 mm) on June 9, 2015, the results for fecal coliforms, total suspended solids, and dissolved oxygen from week 1 were not consistent with the other sample periods due to an increase of runoff and potential overflow of sewage facilities near Marsh Creek.

The wide range of values obtained within the first sampling week compared to the remaining five resulted in a substantial degree of within-site variation in all parameters, especially fecal coliforms for sites 1, 4, and 5 (Table 3.1.D).

Table 3.1.C: Calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five sample sites in the last 2 km of the watercourse) from six sample periods in 2015.

Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Site 1 Site 2

Low-mid Low-mid

16.2 17.9

7.79 7.81

Site 3

Low

19.6

8.51

Site 4 Site 5

Low Low

19.2 18.3

8.29 7.80

7.612 7.935 10.21 0 9.803 6.853

Averages for Analysis B in 2015 Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms % (CFU/100mL Absorbance Transmittance )

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt

7.65 7.71

6.6 3.4

4.929 4.739

517,031 680

94.7 95.1

0.024 0.022

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.029 0.026

511

97.6

0.011

0.013

8.18

2.6

0.187

45,420 8,930

97.4 97.7

0.012 0.010

0.014 0.012

8.04 7.58

3.2 0.6

0.165 0.152

Table 3.1.D: Standard deviations for calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five sample sites in the last 2 km of the watercourse) from six sample periods in 2015.

Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Low-mid Low-mid Low Low Low

7.292 7.586 8.372 8.096 7.756

3.899 3.496 3.828 3.743 3.495

Standard Deviations for Analysis B in 2015 Orthophosphates Fecal D.O. Coliforms % (ppm) Absorbance (CFU/100mL) Transmittance 4.707 4.496 5.935 5.663 3.901

1171552 746 315 101893 17807

35.829 36.034 36.898 36.837 36.955

0.013 0.014 0.008 0.009 0.007

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.016 0.017 0.009 0.011 0.009

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt

2.896 2.921 3.156 3.087 2.888

7.007 3.189 4.834 6.055 0.837

4.271 6.169 0.082 0.066 0.067

Fecal coliform levels (CFU/100mL) were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (Figure 3.1.F). The results do not indicate clear trends between sites throughout these years (Figure 3.1.F). In 2014, a 95-99% decrease in fecal coliform bacteria occurred; however, 2015 results did not show further decrease in fecal coliforms at all sites. On average, sites 1, 4, and 5 resulted in a significant increase from 2014. However, sites 2 and 3 were reduced drastically, decreasing from 5,385 to 680 and 14,391 to 511, respectively.

Total suspended solids (mg/L) averages were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (Figure 3.1.G). Results indicate a consistent trend of slight increases in TSS as one moved from the most upstream site 5 to the downstream site 1. Average TSS values have decreased drastically in 2015 when comparing to previous years for sites 1, 2, 3 and 5. The average TSS values for 2015 for site 4 are consistent with previous years.

Total phosphates (measured as orthophosphate in mg/L) were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (Figure 3.1.H). The results indicated a consistent trend between 2012 and 2013 with increased phosphate concentrations as one moved downstream from Site 4. In 2014, sample stations 1 and 2 showed moderate increases in total phosphates, while sample stations 3, 4, and 5 showed large increases. In 2015, all sites on average remained above the guideline (Table 3.1.C). Between 2014 and 2015, site 2 increased from 7.50 to 7.94 ppm, site 3 increased from 6.99 to 10.21 ppm, and site 4 increased from 7.50 to 9.80 ppm. Slight decreases occurred at sites 1 and 5, changing from 8.66 to 7.61 ppm and 7.36 to 6.85 ppm, respectively.

Salinity, measured across the five sample sites in 2015, indicated a distinct decrease in salt concentration as one moved upstream from Site 1 (Figure 3.1.I). Salinity varied little between sites 3, 4, and 5, with salinity concentrations of 0.187, 0.165, and 0.152 ppt, respectively (Table 3.1.C). Since 2014, site 1 decreased from 25.63 to 4.93 ppt and site 2 increased from 1.37 to 4.74 ppt Dissolved oxygen concentrations were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The results show dissolved oxygen has increased for sites 3 and 4 but has decreased in sites 1, 2, and 5 when compared to the 2014 results. Averages for all sites indicate dissolved oxygen is above the guideline of 6.5 ppm (Table 3.1.C).

Figure 3.1.F: Fecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL sample) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 20122015. The 2012 Site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

Figure 3.1.G: Total suspended solids (mg TSS/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 20122015. The 2012 site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

Figure 3.1.H: Orthophosphates (mg PO4/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012-2015.

Figure 3.1.I: Salinity (ppt) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek from 2013 to 2015.

3.2 Fish Collection 3.2.1 Lower Marsh Creek Fyke Nets

A total of 84 fish comprised of 6 different species were collected from five separate hauls between July 22 and August 5, 2015 (Table 3.2.A and Table 3.2.B). The fyke net catch in the upstream site (Courtenay Forebay above tide gates) contained 7 fish of three species: Mummichog (57.1%), two 4spine stickleback (28.6%), and one American Eel (14.3%).

The downstream fyke net site (Courtenay Bay below the tide gates) resulted in the capture of 77 fish of three different species, and was dominated by Tomcod at 63.6% (Table 3.2.B). Alewife was the second most-frequently captured fish (33.8%), and Rainbow Smelt was the remaining species at 2.6%.

Both Courtenay Bay and Forebay fyke nets had a number of bycatch. At the upstream site 11 individuals were caught from two species, with 81.8% Green Crab and 18.2% of an unidentified shrimp. At the downstream site, 32 individuals were caught from two different species, comprised of 87.5% Green Crab and 12.5% Rock Crab.

Table 3.2.A: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in the Courtenay Forebay, 2015.

Species

Number Caught

% of Total Catch

Range (TL in mm)

Mummichog

4

57.1

80-110

American Eel

1

14.3

315

4-Spine Stickleback

2

28.6

40-45

Table 3.2.B: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Bay, 2015.

Species

Number Caught

% of Total Catch

Range (TL in mm)

Tomcod

49

63.6

107-245

Rainbow smelt

2

2.6

150-160

Alewife

26

33.8

95-148

Table 3.2.C: Bycatch species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Forebay, 2015.

Species

Number Caught

% of Total Bycatch

Green Crab

9

81.8

Shrimp

2

18.2

Table 3.2.D: Bycatch species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Bay, 2015.

Species

Number Caught

% of Total Bycatch

Green Crab

28

87.5

Rock Crab

4

12.5

3.2.2 Ashburn Lake Beach Seine

Beach seining was used to collect fish from Ashburn Lake, on three different occasions (July 14, 21, 22, 29 and August 4 and 5, 2015). Fish were neither measured nor counted due to the intent of this sampling to serve as an educational medium for youth.

3.3 Other Observations 3.3.1. Canada Post Retaining Wall: Creosote A ~200 m section of Marsh Creek adjacent to the Canada Post property on Rothesay Avenue is contaminated with creosote resultant from the wood preservative operations of the Likely Lumber Mill that existed on the banks of Marsh Creek from approximately 1930-1970 (ACAP Saint John, 2003). A Phase I Environmental Assessment on the site in 1996 precipitated a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessment on the Canada Post property, after which a steel retaining wall was inserted along the base of the property below a wooden retaining wall (Figure 3.3.B) adjacent to Marsh Creek to reduce the migration of creosote from the property into the watercourse (ACAP Saint John, 2005).

Figure 3.3.B: Images showing the state of Canada Post’s wooden retaining wall in the bank of Marsh Creek prior to collapse (top) and immediately after collapse in late November 2013 (bottom).

ACAP staff observed that (in late November 2013) the structural integrity of a section of the wooden retaining wall had failed (Figure 3.3.B - bottom) and that the remaining wall sections (upstream and downstream of the collapse) were at risk of similar failures in structural integrity (Figure 3.3.C.). ACAP’s Executive Director reported the event to the Regional Office of the NB Department of Environment and to Mr. Dan Hurley, Saint John Operations Manager of Canada Post Corporation. Mr. Hurley provided a quick response indicating they were aware of the situation and had an engineering firm as well as a property management firm taking the necessary actions to prevent exacerbating the situation. Upon observation in 2014, the wall’s condition seemed to slightly worsen and no preventable measures were implicated.

Figure 3.3.C: Image indicating the state of Canada Post’s wooden retaining wall in the bank of Marsh Creek immediately upstream of the section that collapsed in late November 2013.

The wooden retaining wall was replaced in late 2014. The new rock wall is sloped to be more structurally sound and provide better containment of creosote from the property (Figure 3.3.D).

Fig ure 3.3.D: Canada Post’s retaining wall in 2015 following reconstruction in late 2014.

4.0 Discussion 4.1 Water Quality Parameters Analysis A The greater Marsh Creek watershed has been the subject of water quality monitoring since 1993.

Appendix F represents a data compilation of all parameters recorded at the upstream and downstream locations since 1993. The data recorded from the summer of 2015 consisted of identical tests as those performed in 2013 and 2014. This was done to continue monitoring water quality under the same parameters and to demonstrate the effect of the cessation of the outflow of raw sewage into Marsh Creek, which took place in July 2014.

As seen in figures 3.1.B and 3.1.C, TSS and orthophosphates were present in higher concentrations at the downstream site compared to upstream. Another trend observed and behaved expectedly was salinity. The downstream site, which was located approximately 0.7 km from the tide gate, experienced higher salinity values. Before 2004, the salinity concentration showed no trend but, after 2004, salinity concentration showed an average decrease in salinity at the downstream site. Dissolved oxygen was within recommended guidelines at both sites, with the downstream site at a higher concentration than the upstream site for the last two years; this could become a continuous trend for Marsh Creek, demonstrating the ability of the creek to recover from years of sewage intake. The pH level was within the guideline for the upstream site; however, the downstream site moved outside of the range for the first time on record. Fecal coliform bacteria, despite the historical increase at the upstream site, saw another drastic decrease at the downstream site. This is due to raw sewage no longer flowing into Marsh Creek and the water quality continuing to show great improvement.

4.2 Water Quality Parameters Analysis B Water quality monitoring of the Lower Marsh Creek had the objective of monitoring certain parameters over the summers of 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. While none of the sites are, on average, below the Canadian guidelines of 200 CFU/100 mL for recreational waters (Task Force), this year saw a dramatic decrease in fecal coliform counts at a sites 2 and 3. Sites 1, 4, and 5 saw a large increase in fecal coliform bacteria (Table 3.1.C) which is believed to be due to overflow following a heavy rainfall event (40 mm) on June 9, 2015. Marsh Creek has also seen high activity again this year from various forms of wildlife which may contribute to higher fecal coliform counts.

Consistent with 2014 data, there were several occurrences where fecal coliforms were within the Canadian guidelines for recreational water at particular sites (Appendix F).

The tested portion of Marsh Creek is considered non-salmonid waters, indicating required dissolved oxygen levels may be lower than salmonid waters. The Canadian water quality guidelines indicate the desired dissolved oxygen concentration is to be greater than 6.5 ppm. A moderate impairment is experienced by fishes at 4 ppm and death occurs at 3.5 ppm (Task Force, 3-14). As seen in Appendix J, Table J-1, in 2012 sites 1 through 4 were much lower than the guidelines and site 3 was at a level where fishes could not survive. Average dissolved oxygen for 2013 improved drastically (Appendix I) with only site 1 below the guideline. In 2014, dissolved oxygen (Appendix H) displayed further improvement with all sites above the concentration for no fish impairment. The results from 2015 show continuous improvement with decreases recorded only at site 1 and 5, and all sites are above the recommended guideline.

Between 2012 and 2014, total phosphates had increased in concentration. In 2012, total phosphates were within the guidelines of 0.01-0.02 mg PO4/L, the 2013 study displayed a moderate increase in

total phosphates at all sites with only two sites outside of the desired range, and data from 2014 indicated a large increase at all sites ranging from 3-6 times greater than the desired level. The results from 2015 showed a decrease in all averages compared to 2014, however only sites 3, 4, and 5 were within the desired range, with sites 1 and 2 at a greater average.

Since 2014, toilet paper and other toiletry debris could no longer be seen floating down Marsh Creek as raw sewage has ceased entering it. By testing for total suspended solids, it was possible to determine the concentration of the remaining floating debris. The Canadian water quality guidelines indicate TSS has no harmful effect if less than 25 mg/L and concentrations from 80-400 mg/L are not ideal for fish life (Task Force, 3-42). Table 3.1.C. shows average TSS for 2015 has decreased significantly with all measurements less than 25 mg/L. From 2012 to 2014, the average pH had been within the recommended guideline of 6 to 8. In 2015, it was found on average pH had decreased and site 3 and 4 had reached between 8 and 9.

The Marsh Creek watershed experienced salinity intrusion through the tide gates of the Courtenay Bay Causeway. As seen in Figure 3.1.E., the samples taken showed higher values for salinity at the two sites nearest the tide gates. This was expected due to the heavy tide influence experienced by Marsh Creek. However, salinity concentration at the site nearest the tide gates had seen a decrease in average in comparison to previous years; this may have been due to tide height at the time of sampling.

4.3 Water Quality Data Analysis It must be noted the sample period of June 8-10 appeared as a significant outlier in comparison to all other sample periods with respect to dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, total suspended solids, and total phosphates. Due to the minimal number of sampling periods and the consistent weather during the remaining weeks, the complete data set has been determined to be more representative of the water quality in Marsh Creek as it experiences seasonal changes and weather events. With the outlier removed, the results represent a best case scenario of the water quality in Marsh Creek, demonstrating the direct impact of the cessation of raw sewage outfalls (Appendix K).

5.0 Conclusion The data recovered during water quality monitoring of the Marsh Creek watershed has been successful in compiling and recording data prior to the completion of Harbour Cleanup, with some data contributing to a 20 year-long study. The lower parts of Marsh Creek have, historically, been highly contaminated with fecal coliforms and other sewage related properties. In 2014, the cessation of raw sewage outfalls allowed for baseline data to be collected and a data compilation to be started on the recovery of Marsh Creek. In 2014, fecal coliforms had reduced by 95 to 99% in comparison to the previous year when raw sewage was still entering Marsh Creek. The results from 2015 show an increase in fecal coliforms at some sites, indicating other external factors continue to influence the water quality of Marsh Creek. However, some sites saw significant decreases in fecal coliform bacteria and many other parameters showed improvement from previous years, indicating recovery is occurring in Marsh Creek.

6.0 References "Acids & alkalis in freshwater." Water Treatment Solutions. Lenntech, 2012. Web. June 2013. <http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/acids-alkalis.htm>.

Alderisio, K. A., and N. DeLuca. “Seasonal Enumeration of Fecal Coliform Bacteria from the Feces of Ring-Billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis) and Canada Geese (Branta canadensis)”. Appl. Enivron.

Microbiol. 65.12 (1999): 5628-5630. Web. Bartenhagen, Kathryn, Marjut H Turner, and Deanna L. Osmond. “Phosphorus”. Watershedss.

North Carolina State University, n.d. <http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/phos.html>. 3 July 2013.

"Biosphere". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 15 Jun. 2015 <http://www.britannica.com/science/biosphere/Salinity>.

"Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand". Water: Monitoring & Assessment. EPA, 2012.

Web. 3 July 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm>.

Environment, Task Force on water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the.

Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Ottawa, 1994. Book.

“Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality”. Health Canada. Third Edition. Health Canada, 2012. Web. August 11, 2014. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/watereau/guide_water-2012-guide_eau//index-eng.php>.

Haack, Sheridan. "Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Sanitary Water Quality." USGS: science for a changing world. USGS, 21 December 2007. Web. June 2013. <http://mi.water.usgs.gov/h2oqual/BactHOWeb.html>.

Johnson, T.R. "Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators." Government of British Columbia, 7 August 2001. Web. July 2013. <http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/microbiology/microbiology.html>.

“Reports”. ACAP Saint John. Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John Inc., 2015. Web. 15 June 2015 <www.acapsj.com/reports>.

Thursby, Glen, et al. "Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras." EPA, November 2000. Web. July 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2007_03_01_criteria_dissolv ed_docriteria.pdf>.

“Wastewater NPDES Laboratory Manual”. Drinking Water & Wastewater Operators Information Center.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 15 June 2006. Web. 16 June 2015.

Appendix A: Sample Calculations used to determine water quality parameters in Marsh Creek in 2015.

A-1: Fecal coliforms: In determining the total amount of fecal coliforms in a 100 mL of sample a plate count between 20 – 80 coliform bacteria must be counted from a 10 mL sample.

Counted fecal coliforms = Counted bacteria *Dilution Where: Counted bacteria = are the bacteria counted in agar plate from a 10mL sample.

Dilution = is the dilution of bacteria counted in the agar plate

Total Fecal Coliforms=Counted fecal coliforms∗10

Where: Total Fecal Coliforms = the total amount of fecal coliforms from a 100 mL sample Counted fecal coliforms = the amount of coliform bacteria counted If all plates were less than 20:

Total colony counts Total Volume filtered

× 100

Sample Calculation Counted fecal coliforms = 45

Total Fecal Coliforms=4,500

CFU CFU *100 = 4,500 10 mL 10 mL CFU ∗10 = 45,000 10 mL

If all plates were less than 20:

(19 ×10)+(2 ×100) 20 mL

× 100 = 1,950

CFU 100 mL

CFU 100 mL

A-2: Orthophosphates: To determine the amount of phosphates in a litre sample of water the equation from the calibration graph (Appendix B) must be used.

Y = 0.8106 * X + 0.004 X=

Y - 0.004 0.8106 Where:

Y = absorbance value from spectrophotometer X = total phosphates in mg/L Sample Calculation X=

0.021 mg â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.004=0.026 0.8106 L

A-3: Total Suspended Solids: In order to determine how much total suspended solids are in a litre of sample a calculation was made by using 100 mL of sample. tss = filter after â&#x20AC;&#x201C; filter prior Where: tss = the total suspended solids in 100 mL sample measured in g/100 mL filter after = the weight of the filter and aluminum foil container after the sample was poured filter prior = the weight of the filter and aluminum foil container before the pouring of the sample.

TSS = tss*1000

mg *10 1g

Where: TSS = the total suspended solids in 1 litre sample measured in mg/L

Sample Calculation tss = 1.4593

g 100 mL

- 1.4591

g 100 mL

= 2.0*10-4

g 100 mL

TSS = 2.0*10-4

g 100 mL

mg mg *10 = 2.0 1g L

* 1000

A-4: Average pH In calculation an average pH value from a given number of pH values, you must first convert the pH value into a hydrogen ion concentration pH = -log[H+] [H¸+] = 10^ (-pH) Where: pH = the measurement value H+ = is the hydrogen concentration in units of molarity (M) Next you take the average of the H+ values and then convert that average back into a pH to get your average pH value. ❑

Avg H+ =

+¿

1

❑H¿ ∑ n ❑ ¿

Avg pH = -log (Avg H+) Where: n = number of terms of H+ Avg H+ = the average hydrogen concentrations in units of molarity (M) Avg pH = the average pH value Sample Calculation [H+] = 10^ (-7.25) = 5.62E-08 M Avg H+ =

1 (5.62E-08+5.13E-08+ 4.57E-08+6.46E-08+9.12E-08+1.12E-07+ 1.12E-07) =7.62E-08 M 7 Avg pH = -log ( 7.62E-08 ¿=7.12

A-5: Salinity Equation: In calculating the salinity an equation to find conductivity ratio (R) must first be calculated

conductivity ( R=

µS ) cm

µS cm 10000 S 4.2914 m 343.1

10000 S 4.2914 m

R=

= 0.00800

Next the r-sub-t must be calculated which is a function of temperature: 2

3

r −−t ¿C 0+C 1∗t+C 2∗(t ) +C 3∗(t) +C 4∗(t)

4

Where: t =temperature (degrees Celsius) C0 = 6.77E-01 C1 = 2.01E-02 C2 = 1.10E-04 C3 = -7E-07 C4 = 1.00E-09 2

3

4

r −−t ¿6.77E-01+2.01E-02∗21.3+1.10E-04∗(21.3) +−7E-07∗(21.3) +1.00E-09∗(21.3) r-sub-t = 1.15 A function of pressure and temperature called R-sub-p must now be calculated as follows:

R −−p ¿ 1+ p∗(E 0+ E 1∗p+ E 2∗( p)2)/(1+ D 0∗t+ D1∗(t )2+( D 2+ D 3∗t)∗R) Where: t = temperature (degrees Celsius) p = pressure (in decibars) R = previous calculation E0 = 2.07E-05

E1 = -6.37E-10 E2 = 3.99E-15 D0 = 3.43E-02 D1 = 4.46E-04 D2 = 4.22E-01 D3 = -3.11E-03

2.07E-05 ±6.37E-10∗10.12+¿ 3.99E-15 R−−p ¿ 1+ 10.12∗¿ 2

2

¿(10.12) ¿ /(1+3.43E-02∗21.3+ 4.46E-04∗(21.3) +(4.22E-01±3.11E-03∗21.3)∗0.00800) R-sub-p = 0.517 Next R-sub-t must be calculated as a function of R, r-sub-t, and R-sub-p as follows:

R −−p ¿ r −−t ¿ ¿ R R −−t ¿ ¿

R−−t ¿

0.00800 =¿ 0.135 (1.15∗0.517)

An equation for S must now be calculated as follows: 2

R−−t ¿ R−−t ¿(3 /2 )+ B 4∗¿ R−−t ¿(1 /2) + B 2∗R−−t +B 3∗¿ B 0+ B 1∗¿ t−15 S= ∗¿ (1+ k∗(t−15)) +B 5∗( R −−t ¿(5/ 2) ) Where: t = temperature (degrees Celsius) R-sub-t = previously calculated k = 0.0162

B0 = 0.0005 B1 = -0.006 B2 = -0.007 B3 = -0.038 B4 = 0.0636 B5 = -0.014

0.0005+¿−0.006(0.135)(1 /2) +−0.007∗0.135+¿ 21.3−15 S= ∗¿ (1+0.0162∗(21.3−15)) −0.038∗(0.135)(3/ 2) +0.0636∗( 0.135)2 +−0.014∗(0.135)(5 /2 ) ¿ S = -0.00194 Finally to calculate Salinity in units of ppt the following equation must be used:

R−−t ¿ ¿ R−−t ¿(3 /2) +¿ ¿ Salinity= A 0+ A 1∗¿ (5/ 2)

R −−t ¿ +S R−−t ¿2+ A 5∗¿ A 4∗¿ Where: S = previous calculation A0 = 0.008 A1 = -0.169 A2 = 25.385 A3 = 14.094 A4 = -7.026 A5 = 2.7081 1

Salinity=0.008+−0.169∗(0.135)2 +25.385∗0.135+14.094∗( 0.135)(3/ 2)+ ¿ 2

(5 /2 )

−7.026∗(0.135) +2.7081∗(0.135) Salinity = 0.35 ppt

±0.00194

Appendix B. Calibration curve of Absorbance vs Total Phosphates

Appendix C. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2015.

Table C-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 10-12, 2015.

Orthophosphates June 10-12, 2015

Tides

Temp (째C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

Mid-low

9.7

NA*

0.72

90,000***

97.7

0.01

Downstream

Mid-low

11.0

NA

0.65

TNTC**

89.8

0.047

% Absorbance Transmittance

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.01194

6.74

5

0.04662

0.05758

7.19

14

0.30559

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

*; Not available **; Too numerous to count ***; Estimated

Table C-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 7-8, 2015.

Orthophosphates July 7-8, 2015

Tides

Temp (째C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

Low

14.4

7.25

6.9

560

99.1

0.004

Downstream

Low

20.8

8.65

11.1

880

98.1

0.009

% Absorbance Transmittance

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.00453

7.56

0

0.14

0.01070

8.32

0

0.43

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Table C-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 13-15, 2015.

Orthophosphates July 13-15, 2015

Tides

Temp (째C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

High

15.3

7.85

9.5

630

98.5

0.006

Downstream

High

20.0

8.09

9.3

590

97.3

0.012

% Absorbance Transmittance

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.00700

7.07

0

0.06000

0.01440

8.03

2

1.47000

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Table C-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 21-22, 2015.

Orthophosphates July 21-22, 2015

Tides

Temp (째C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

% Absorbance Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Upstream

Low

17.7

7.89

9.4

491

99.1

0.004

0.00453

7.36

3

0.06000

Downstream

Low

19.6

7.94

9.7

890

98.3

0.008

0.00947

7.97

2

0.76000

Table C-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 6-7, 2015.

Orthophosphates August 6-7, 2015

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

Low

15.5

NA

8.64

1,070

98.5

0.007

Downstream

Low

20.6

NA-

9.78

200

96.0

0.018

% Absorbance Transmittance

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.00824

7.09

8

0.04662

0.02181

8.01

4

0.30559

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Table C-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 18-19, 2015.

Orthophosphates August 18-19, 2015

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

Low

18.2

7.38

9.1

1,355

98.5

0.006

0.00700

7.36

0.08000

Downstream

Low-mid

21.9

8.34

13.1

260

96.0

0.018

0.02181

8.21

0.49000

% Absorbance Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Appendix D. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2014.

Table D-1: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A in 2014.

Table D-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 10-12, 2014.

Table D-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 2-4, 2014.

Table D-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 9-11, 2014.

Table D-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 16-18, 2014 .

Table D-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 23-25, 2014 .

Table D-7: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 29-31, 2014.

Appendix E. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2013.

Table E-1: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A in 2013.

Table E-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 24-26, 2013.

Table E-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 9-11, 2013.

Table E-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 23-25, 2013.

Table E-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 29-31, 2013.

Table E-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 6-8, 2013.

Appendix F. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A Upstream and Downstream for years 1995 through 2015.

Table F-1: Yearly summary of data for Analysis A Upstream from 1993-2015.

Table F-2: Yearly summary of data for Analysis A Downstream from 1993-2015.

Appendix G. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2015.

Table G-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 10-12, 2015.

Orthophosphates Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Mid-low

10.9

NA

0.65

Site 2

Mid-low

10.9

NA

Site 3

Mid-low

11.0

Site 4

Mid-low

Site 5

Mid-low

June 1012, 2015

Tides

Site 1

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

90.8

0.042

0.05141

7.26

19

2.90717

NA*

90.4

0.044

0.05388

7.30

9

0.29728

0.65

TNTC**

94.6

0.024

0.02921

7.09

12

0.23173

NA

0.67

2,700,000

93.9

0.028

0.03414

7.00

15

0.15379

NA

0.67

480,000

95.2

0.021

0.02551

6.83

2

0.11561

% Transmittance

31,000,000

0.65

NA

11.2 10.6

*; Not available **; Too numerous to count

Table G-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 6-8, 2015.

Orthophosphates Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Low

NA*

NA

NA

Site 2

Low

19.1

8.03

Site 3

Low

21.3

Site 4

Low

Site 5

Low

July 6-8, 2015

Tides

Site 1

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

96.0

0.018

0.02181

7.77

3

NA

TNTC**

95.4

0.020

0.02427

7.95

3

10.93

13.2

520

99.0

0.004

0.00453

8.77

0

0.18

8.81

12.6

310

99.0

0.004

0.00453

8.58

0

0.18

8.05

8.2

700

99.4

0.003

0.00330

7.72

0

0.19

% Transmittance

640

9.4

9.00

20.9 20.0

*; Not available **; Too numerous to count

Table G-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 13-15, 2015.

July 13-15, 2015

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Orthophosphates %

Absorbance

Lab pH Total Phosphates

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Transmittance

(mg/L)

Site 1

High

14.8

7.92

10.1

155

95.8

0.019

0.02304

7.75

7

8.43000

Site 2

High

16.9

7.88

8.5

200

96.8

0.013

0.01564

7.71

2

14.87000

Site 3

High

21.9

8.85

13

930

98.2

0.008

0.00947

8.95

0

0.19000

Site 4

High

21.5

8.79

13.6

1,280

98.5

0.007

0.00824

8.53

0

0.19000

Site 5

High

20.4

8.04

9.9

2,210

98.7

0.006

0.00700

8.00

0

0.19000

Table G-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 21-22, 2015.

Orthophosphates Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Low

18.3

7.53

8.3

Site 2

Low

19.4

7.72

Site 3

Low

19.8

Site 4

Low

Site 5

Low

July 21-22, 2015

Tides

Site 1

% Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

Absorbance

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

891

96.7

0.015

0.01810

7.67

2

10.22000

9.6

2200

97.5

0.011

0.01317

7.86

2

1.74000

8.04

9.9

590

98.5

0.007

0.00824

7.80

1

0.18000

19.5

7.85

9.5

700

98.8

0.005

0.00577

7.74

1

0.18000

19.3

7.52

7.2

1700***

98.8

0.005

0.00577

7.44

0

0.18000

***; Estimated

Table G-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for August 6-7, 2015.

Orthophosphates Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Low

19.3

NA*

9.21

Site 2

Low

20.0

NA

Site 3

Low

21.3

Site 4

Low

Site 5

Low

August 6-7, 2015

Tides

Site 1

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

95.0

0.022

0.02674

7.67

2

2.90717

280

96.4

0.016

0.01934

7.77

1

0.29728

10.61

250

97.6

0.010

0.01194

7.97

0

0.23173

NA

10.85

100

97.2

0.012

0.01440

8.16

0

0.15379

NA

7.05

570

97.3

0.012

0.01440

7.58

1

0.11561

% Transmittance

109

10.86

NA

20.8 19.0

*; Not available

Table G-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for August 18-19, 2015.

Orthophosphates Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Mid

17.8

7.92

9.8

Site 2

Mid

21.3

7.61

Site 3

Low-mid

22.2

Site 4

Low-mid

Site 5

Low

August 1819, 2015

Tides

Site 1

***; Estimated

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

% Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

Absorbance

390

93.6

0.029

0.03538

7.76

0.18000

8.6

200

94.3

0.026

0.03168

7.66

0.30000

8.14

13.9

173

97.4

0.011

0.01317

8.49

0.11000

21.1

7.72

11.6

130***

96.7

0.015

0.01810

8.23

0.13000

20.6

7.57

8.1

400

96.8

0.014

0.01687

7.88

0.12000

Appendix H. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2014.

Table H-1: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B in 2014.

Table H-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 10-12, 2014.

Table H-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 2-4, 2014.

Table H-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 9-11, 2014.

Table H-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 16-18, 2014.

Table H-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 23-25, 2014.

Table H-7: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 29-31, 2014.

Appendix I. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2013.

Table I-1: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B in 2013.

Table I-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 24-26, 2013.

Table I-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 9-11, 2013.

Table I-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 23-25, 2013.

Table I-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 29-31, 2013.

Table I-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for August 6-8, 2013.

Appendix J. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2012.

Table J-1: Averages of parameters measured for Analysis A sites 1 through 5 during 2012.

Averages for 2012 Orthophosphates Site

Field pH

D.O (ppm) %T

Absorb.

mg/L

Lab pH

mg TSS/L

Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 mL)

1

6.83

5.24

90.8

0.043

0.017

7.23

221.0

> 8325

2

6.68

3.63

91.1

0.040

0.016

7.05

72.5

> 95825

3

6.70

2.30

89.9

0.047

0.019

7.11

12.5

> 20825

4

6.55

/

25.4

0.021

0.008

7.13

ND

-

5

6.78

6.51

94.0

0.028

0.011

7.33

3.75

> 8325

Table J-2: Summary table of results for August 1, 2012

Table J-3: Summary table of results for August 8, 2012.

Table J-4: Summary table of results for August 14, 2012.

Table J-5: Summary table of results for August 16, 2012.

Appendix K. Water quality parameters of Analysis A and B with outlier excluded from June 2015.

Table K-1: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A with exclusion of June 6-10 data.

Averages for Analysis A in 2015 Orthophosphates Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Upstream

Low

16.2

7.59

8.71

821

98.7

0.005

Downstream

Low-mid

20.6

8.26

10.60

564

97.1

0.013

% Absorbance Transmittance

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.006

7.29

2.75

0.077

0.016

8.11

2.00

0.691

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Table K-2: Standard deviations of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A with exclusion of June 6-10 data.

Standard Deviations for Analysis A in 2015 Orthophosphates Fecal D.O. Coliforms Total (ppm) % (CFU/100mL) Absorbance Phosphates Transmittance (mg/L)

Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Upstream

Low

1.642

0.325

1.065

374

0.329

0.001

Downstream

Low-mid

0.879

0.311

1.555

328

1.085

0.005

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.002

0.207

3.775

0.037

0.006

0.150

1.633

0.466

Table K-3: Averages of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B with exclusion of June 6-10 data.

Averages for Analysis B in 2015 Orthophosphates Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

% Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

Absorbance

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Site 1

Low-mid

17.6

7.79

9.35

437

95.4

0.021

0.025

7.72

3.50

5.43

Site 2

Low-mid

19.3

7.81

9.39

696

96.1

0.017

0.021

7.79

2.00

5.63

Site 3

Low

21.3

8.51

12.12

493

98.1

0.008

0.009

8.40

0.25

0.18

Site 4

Low

20.8

8.29

11.63

504

98.0

0.009

0.010

8.25

0.25

0.17

Site 5

Low

19.9

7.80

8.09

970

98.2

0.008

0.009

7.72

0.25

0.16

Table K-4: Standard deviations of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B with exclusion of June 6-10 data.

Standard Deviations for Analysis B in 2015 Orthophosphates Site

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

% Transmittance

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Site 1

Low-mid

1.936

0.225

0.793

330

1.184

0.005

0.007

0.050

2.380

4.686

Site 2

Low-mid

1.604

0.184

0.951

856

1.252

0.006

0.007

0.116

0.816

6.809

Site 3

Low

0.925

0.488

1.755

301

0.654

0.003

0.003

0.498

0.500

0.044

Site 4

Low

0.754

0.588

1.579

495

1.026

0.005

0.006

0.338

0.500

0.025

Site 5

Low

0.691

0.289

1.136

835

1.098

0.005

0.006

0.225

0.500

0.038