Nearshore Habitat & Water Quality

Page 1

i

About the Authors Shawn Bland Shawn Bland was born in 1985 and raised in Saint John, New Brunswick where he graduated with Honours from Harbour View High School in 2003. In 2013, after gaining 10 years of experience in various work settings, he decided to further his education and follow his passion for the sciences by enrolling in the NBCC Saint John Chemical Technology Program.

Jacob Lewis Jacob was born in 1992 and graduated with Honours from Harbourview High Schoolin 2010.Unclear as to which career path to follow, he ultimately decided that the NBCC Chemical Technology program was a natural fit in an industrial area like Saint John. ‘’Life can only be enjoyed through understanding, and science is the language’’.

i

Executive Summary Marsh Creek, which is the largest watershed in greater Saint John, has been the recipient of centuries of untreated municipal wastewater deposition. Offensive odours, unsightly sanitary products and the threat 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 view towards someday restoring the ecological integrity of this underutilised 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 2014. The most notable change was the decrease in faecal coliform bacteria, which are used as an indicator for the potential presence of other disease causing pathogens such as amoebic dysentery and Hepatitis. Sampling conducted during 2014 along the lowest 400 m of the creek - which has historically received the greatest volume of untreated municipal wastewater - has shown decreases in faecal bacteria counts ranging from 95 to 99%, as compared to results from 2013. 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.

ii

Acknowledgements The 2014 ‘Impact of Harbour Cleanup on Nearshore Habitat and Water Quality in Saint John, New Brunswick’ project represents the third 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 2014 installment of this Marsh Creek project was provided by Environment Canada’s Atlantic Ecosystem Initiative 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). It must be noted that this report builds directly upon the 2013 ACAP Saint John report “LeBlanc, M. and Z. Sears. 2013. The Re-Birth of Marsh Creek: Chronicling the benefits of Harbour Cleanup on the Marsh Creek watershed of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. 49 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.

iii

Table of Contents Subject About the Authors Executive Summary Acknowledgements Table of Contents

Page i ii iii iv

1.0 Â Background

1

1.1 Overview of the Marsh Creek Watershed 1.2 History

1 1

2.0 Methodology

2

2.1 Water Quality Analyses 2.1.1 Comparative Historical Data 2.1.2 Sampling Stations Analysis A 2.1.3 Sampling Stations Analysis B 2.1.4 Water Quality Parameters

2 2 3 3 5

2.2 Water Quality Procedures 2.2.1Field pH 2.2.2Dissolved Oxygen 2.2.3Salinity 2.2.4Orthophosphates 2.2.5Total Suspended Solids 2.2.6Fecal Coliform 2.2.7 Lab pH

6 6 6 7 7 8 9 10

2.3 Sampling of Fish 2.3.1 Electrofishing 2.3.2 Fyke Nets 2.3.3 Beach Seines 2.3.4 Reporting of Fish Collected

11 11 12 12 13

2.4 Other Observations

13

3.0 Results

14

3.1 Water Quality Parameters 3.1.1 Analysis A Water Quality Parameters 3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters 3.1.3. Water Quality Parameters of Additional Site

14 14 15 19

iv

3.2 Fish Collection 3.2.1 Lower Marsh Creek 3.2.2 Ashburn Lake 3.2.2 Ashburn Creek

20 20 20 21

3.3 Other Observations 3.3.1 European Green Crab 3.3.2 Canada Post Retaining Wall: Creosote

21 21 22

4.0 Discussion

23

4.1 Water Quality Parameters Analysis A

23

4.2 Water Quality Parameters Analysis B

24

4.3 Fish Communities

25

5.0 Conclusion

25

6.0 References

26

v

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 near-shore environments. The most noteworthy of these alterations is the 2014 completion of the Saint John Harbour Cleanup project, which will result 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 aboutlargely from two decades of dedicated community engagement by ACAP Saint John, represents the single greatest opportunity in recent history to restore the recipient near-shore 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 i

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 firstbaseline (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 analysedin 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 2014. 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 2014

2.1.2 Sample Stations Analysis A 2

The stations used in Analysis A included a Downstream Site (45° 16' 32", 66° 00' 00")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° 16' 59", 66°03'02")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 2014

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 2km 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 2.1D and 2.1E.

Figure 2.1.C: Map showing the location of the five Sampling Stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B (2012-­‐ 2014)

3

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Sampling Stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B in 2012 through 2014.

Site Number

GPS Coordinates

Site Description

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

45.284844, -66.052393

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

4

45.288143, -66.048764

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

45.290998, -66.043606

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

5

Figure 2.1.E: Images of Sample Site 3 (left), 4 (middle) and 5 (right) used in Water Quality Analysis B conducted in Marsh Creek in 2012 through 2014

4

2.1.4 Water Quality Parameters Water quality parameters measured in 2014 included dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, orthophosphates, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform. Historically, ammonia concentration, nitrates, and turbidity were parameters that 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 that is 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 photosysthesis. Moving water will see typically higher concentrations of disolved oxygen (at any given temperature) due to its churning. Oxygen is removed from the watercourse by the respiration of aquatic life, decomposition, and chemical reactions that consume oxygen. Sewage water often contains organic materials that are decomposed by micro-organisms which use oxygen in the proccess. DO is also sensitive to temperature with colder water typically holding more oxygen than warmer water. When more oxygen is being consumed than produced, the DO levels will decline and cause some of the more sensitive animals to leave, weaken or die. DO is constantly fluctuating seasonally as well as day to day (EPA). The pH scale is a logarithmic function that represents the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. The pH scale is expressed as follows; a pH of 0 represents maximum acidity, 7 is neutral, and 14 is the maximum limit for bases. Being a logarithmic scale, every pH level under 7 is 10 times more acidic than the previous one. The same can be said for bases; every pH level above 7 is 10 times more basic than the previous one (EPA). A healthy watercourse should have a pH between 6 and 8. As a stream acidifies and reaches 5 or lower, unwanted species of plankton and mosses will start to appear while fish populations start to disappear. As the pH drops below 4.5, the stream will become devoid of fish life. High pH levels can damage the outer surfaces of fish like the gills and eyes and can even cause death. High pH can also increase the toxicity of other chemicals such as ammonia which becomes 10 times greater when a pH value of 7 increases to 8 (Lenntech). Salinity represents the amount of dissolved salts that are present in water. The types of salt ions that are predominant in surface watersinclude sodium, chloride, magnesium, calcium, and sulfate. Surface waters have varying levels of salinity. For example, fresh snow melting is pure water and contains no salts, therefore having a theoretical value of zero for salinity. This can be compared to the salinity in the oceans where the water contains an abundance of salt ions(Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.) with typically oceanic salinitiesbeing 32 – 36 ppt (grams salt per litre). Phosphorus and nitrogen are essential plant and animal nutrients; phosphate is the form of phosphorus used by aquatic plants. In aquatic ecosystems nitrogen is generally readily available; however, phosphate is most often the limiting reagent for growth. Therefore when abnormal amounts of phosphates are introduced to 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 (NCSU). The term Total Suspended Solids (TSS) refers to the measurement of the dry-weight of the particles trapped by a filter through a filtration process. The solids are a mixture of organic (algae or bacteria) and inorganic (clay or silt) components. These suspended particles, which will scatter light as it tries 5

to pass through the water, will affect the turbidity or cloudiness of a water body and can be represented in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). However, TSS is most commonly expressed in mg/L. Some sources of the 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, microscopic organisms, and algae blooms. Due to these changes, throughout the seasons, the amount of sunlight that algae and other aquatic life can absorb will increase and decrease significantly as well. Fecal coliform bacteria are largely found in the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals including humans. Increased levels of fecal coliformscan be indicative of a failure in wastewater treatment, a break in the integrity of the distribution system, or possible pathogenic contamination. Fecal coliforms can also enter a water body through direct waste from mammals, birds, agricultural runoff, storm runoff, and human sewage. Since fecal coliform are an indication that other pathogens may be present, any water body that contains elevated levels of fecal coliforms has the potential to transmit diseases. Testing for fecal coliform is inexpensive, reliable and fast (1-day incubation). Observing the fecal coliform levels and fluctuations can provide an estimation of the relative amounts of pathogenic contamination within a water body. The standard for recreational water quality limit (contact such as wading, swimming and, fishing) is 200 fecal coliform per 100 mL of water (10% not >400) (Task Force).

2.2 Water Quality Procedures 2.2.1 Field pH A handheld pH meter (Fisher Scientific, Accumet AP 63, Handheld pH/mV/Ion Meter) was used to test the pH in the field. The meter was standardized prior to testing using pH buffers 4 and 7. The probe of the meter was then immersed in the creek and moved in a small circular motion. This was continued until the value stabilized on the pH meter and that value was then recorded. This same procedure was repeated at each sampling site. 2.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen Testing the Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) was also conducted in the field using a handheld meter (YSI EcoSense DO200, Field/Lab, Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Instrument).Calibration of this meter required knowing the approximate atmospheric pressure in mBars and the salinity concentration in ppt. Salinity was assumed to be approximately 35 ppt in sea water and 0 ppt for fresh water. The probe of the meter was then immersed in the creek and moved in a small circular motion until the reading stabilized. This reading was then recorded and the method was repeated at every site. 2.2.3 Salinity Salinity was measured in the labvia a handheld conductivity meter. The Accumet AP 65 conductivity meter was prepared by setting the cell constant to 10.0 cm-1 for an optimal conductivity range of 1,000 to 200,000 ÂľS/cm. The probe was then dipped in the water 3 times to completely wet the surface. The temperature and conductivity of the water were obtained by using the AP 65meter along with the atmospheric pressure for that time of day which was retrieved from the weather network website. These values were then computed into a salinity calculator which was created using Microsoft Excel 6

in order to convert conductivity at a particular temperature and pressure to salinity in parts per thousand (PPT) 2.2.4 Orthophosphates The phosphate concentration was determined using the ascorbic acid method. The process involved mixing 25 mL of each sample and 2-3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator with 4 mL of a previously mixed combined reagent. The combined reagent was composed of 50mL of 5N Sulfuric acid, 5mL of Potassium Antimonyl Tartrate solution, 15mL Ammonium Molybdate solution, and 30 mL of Absorbic acid solution. After the mixing was completed the samples were left to sit for at least 10 minutes but no more than 30 minutes and then placed in the spectrophotometer(Spectronic 21 in weeks 1-3 and Thermo Scientific Genesys 20 in the remaining weeks). The transmittance and absorbance were then measured using the spectrophotometer and recorded. A calibration curve was constructed to represent the phosphate concentration in mg/L by first dissolving 0.11g of KH2PO4 into a 250 mL volumetric flask containing distilled water. Using an eppendorf pipette, 2 mL of this solution was then transferred to another 250 mL volumetric flask that was then topped off using distilled water. Using the diluted stock solution, standards of approximately 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16, 0.20, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, and 0.36 mg/L were created. This was done by pipetting 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 mL of the stock solution into separately labelled 150 mL beakers. Deionised water was added to each beaker so that the total volume in each beaker was 50 mL. A 10th 150 mL beaker was also prepared with 50 mL of distilled water to later be used as a blank sample. Next, 8 mL of the reagent was then added to all 10 beakers. The beakers were then swirled to ensure proper mixing, and then between 10 and 30 minutes (max) were allowed for color development.(The absorbance and transmittance were then recorded for all 10 beakers. The absorbance and the known mg/L were then plottedand, using Microsoft Excel to generate a best fit line from the plotted graph (Appendix B), the absorbance values that were recorded from the Marsh Creek water sample were then converted into mg/L.

Figure 2.2.A: Photograph showing the results of 20 minutes of colour development for all 10 beakers used in the colour development procedure of the Orthophosphate Calibration Curve

7

2.2.5 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) were measured using the vacuum filtration method. A glass fibre filter disk (Whatman Grade 934-AH Circles 55mm) was washed by rinsing 20 mL of distilled water and allowing it to be filtered out through a vacuum filtration, this was then repeated twice. The filter was then placed into an aluminum weighing dish and transferred into an oven that was set at 105 degrees Celsius for approximately one hour. The filter and aluminum weighing dish were then removed from the oven and transferred into a desiccator were they were cooled to room temperature. They were then weighed using an analytical balance, the mass was recorded and they were, again, returned to the oven for at least another 20 minutes. Following this, the filter and aluminum weighing dish were once again placed into a desiccator prior to being weighed. After weighing them, if the two weights were within ± 0.0003 g, they were considered to have reached a constant weight.A predetermined sample size of 100 mL was slowly poured onto the filter, after which the apparatus was rinsed three times with distilled water to ensure that the entire sample had been filtered and none was left on the walls of the apparatus (Figure 2.2.B). Once the filtration was completed, the same constant weight procedure was followed. TSS in milligrams per litre was then calculated by subtracting the initial constant weight value from the final weight (Appendix A, Sample Calculation A-3). All results were then recorded.

Figure 2.2.B: Image showing the residue left on the filter paper after filtration was completed during the Total Suspended Solids procedure.

8

2.2.6 Fecal Coliform The membrane filtration technique was used for the testing of fecal coliform bacteria. An m-FC agar containing 1% rosolic acid was prepared and placed into sterile Petri dishes. A Millipore (EZ Pak membrane; white, gridded, 0.45µm pore size, 47mm) filter was added to a Microanalysis Filter Holder and centered accurately on the support screen. Multiple dilutions of the same sample were prepared and then slowly added to the apparatus, a vacuum was then applied. Once the filtration process was completed the membrane filter was removed from the apparatus and placed into a previously prepared petri dish. The petri dishes were then incubated upside down at 44.5°C (±0.2°C) for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the petri dishes were removed from the incubator. Only the blue colonies on the petri dishes were counted. When choosing which plate to count, plates between 20 and 60 colonies were preferred. If all plates were above 60 colonies, the data had to be represented as > 60. If some of the plates had a count under 20, the additional steps had to be taken to determine the fecal concentration (refer to Appendix A sample calculation A-1). Using the dilution ratio of the sample used for the specific petri dishes, the colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of water were calculated and recorded. The accepted way of expressing fecal coliform level in water is in terms of the number of colony forming units per 100 millilitres of water (CFU/100 mL). Despite the assumed decline of fecal coliforms in Marsh Creek caused by the cessation of the dumping of raw sewage, all sampling sites (Analysis A and Analysis B) were diluted to 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, 1/10000, and 1/100000 for the first 2 weeks of testing. This was done to ensure that the number of fecal coliforms are indeed declining, as well as accurate counts, and to compare the results found at high and low tide. 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 1/10 000. The dilutions for the Downstream site and sites 4 and 5 were also permanently changed to: 1/10,1/100, and1/1000.

9

Figure 2.2.C: Image showing the Coliform Forming Units (CFU) per 100 mL water sample taken from Analysis B Site 3 in Marsh Creek. The sample dilutions were (from left to right) 1/1 (no dilution), 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, and 1/10000.

2.2.7 Lab pH The pH level was also tested in the labby standardizing the pH meter with the 4, 7, and 10 pH buffers. The probe was then immersed into a beaker containing the desired sample. When the pH measurement stabilized, the value was recorded and the probe was then rinsed thoroughly with distilled water. The procedure was then repeated for the remaining samples.

10

2.3 Sampling of Fish 2.3.1 Electrofishing Electrofishing was conducted in the Ashburn Creek tributary of Marsh Creek on July 26, 2014. Electrofishing activities were conducted using a battery-powered Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher (Figure 2.3.A). The certified operators were Tim Vickers and Graeme Stewart-Robertson of ACAP Saint John. The settings used were varied depending on the 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 'on 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 showing ACAP staff calibrating a Smith Root LR-­‐24 electrofisher used to sample fish in Marsh Creek.

11

2.3.2 Fyke nets Two Fyke nets were used to collect fish in the lower reaches of Marsh Creek on May 31, June 13, 20 & 27, and September 26 (Figure 2.3.B). On each occasion one net was set in the riverine section located approximately 250m upstream of the tide gates located within the Courtenay Bay Causeway, and the second net was set in the Marsh Creek channel in the Courtenay Bay estuary approximately 50m below the tide gates. The nets were set during low tide and checked during a subsequent low tide either 12 or 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 watershed.

Figure 2.3.B: Fyke nets set in Marsh Creek (Courtenay Bay) on June 5, 2014.

2.3.3 Beach Seine Beach seining was conducted in Ashburn Lake on August 6, 2014 using a 10m x 1.5m seine (Figure 2.3.C). Three substrate types were sampled (sandy, mixed organic& rock, and organic) and were in keeping with historical sample locations conducted in each of the past five years. Sampling was conducted as part of an ongoing youth education program, and as a presence/absence study conducted by ACAP Saint John. Fish parameters (i.e. length, abundance, etc.) were not collected so as to maintain the health of the fish.

Figure 2.3.C: Beach seining in Ashburn Lake, July 3, 2013.

12

2.3.3 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 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 Alewife American eel Atlantic salmon Atlantic tomcod Blacknose dace Brook trout Brown bullhead Brown trout Chain pickerel Creek chub Four spine stickleback Golden shiner Mummichog Nine spine stickleback Northern Redbelly dace Pearl dace Pumpkinseed sunfish Rainbow smelt Three spine stickleback White perch White sucker Winter flounder Yellow perch

Scientific Name Alosa pseudoharengus Anguilla rostrata Salmo salar Microgadus tomcod Rhinichthys atratulus Salvelinus fontinalis Ictalurus nebulosus Salmo trutta Esox niger Semotilus atromaculatus Apeltes quadracus Notemigonus crysoleucas Fundulus heterclitus Pungitius pungitius Chrosomus eos Semotilus margarita Lepomis gibbosus Osmerus mordax Gasterosteus aculeatus Morone americana Catostomus commersoni Psuedopleuronectes americanus 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.

13

3.0 Results 3.1 Water Quality Parameters Confirmation that municipal wastewater outfalls had been diverted from Marsh Creek prior to the first water samples acquired on June 10, 2014 was obtained by way of a personal conversation with Graeme Huddleston, the Operations Manager for Environmental Protection at City of Saint John. Mr. Huddleston noted that while the municipal wastewater system was technically ‘online’, it was still viewed as being in its commissioning stage which is subject to necessary adjustments and fine tuning. As such, there may have been temporary occurrences where discharges into Marsh Creek could have occurred during one or two of our sampling periods. If any such discharges had occurred during our sampling, they would only have had the potential to affect the results obtained for the Downstream sample station of Analysis A, as well Analysis B stations 1 and 2. Given that the results presented herein reflect average values from at each of the sampling station taken on five different sample periods, the authors are confident that any such discharges would be unlikely to greatly affect the interpretation of any overall trends.

3.1.1 Analysis A Water Quality Parameters Water quality parameters averaged across five sample periods in 2014(Appendix C; Tables C-1 through C-6)showed marked differences in dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, total phosphates, total suspended solids and salinity between the upstream and downstream sites (Table 3.1.A). Temperatures were comparable (21.50C for both upstream and downstream),with small standard deviations in all parameters except fecal coliforms, Downstream TSS, and %Transmittance (Table 3.1.B).The deviation in %Transmittance is believed to be caused from the use of two different spectrophotometers, as the original one became damaged, and therefore resulted in the use of 2 separate calibration curves. Despite this, the results for total phosphates are still reliable due to the equations used were specific to the spectrophotometer used to calculate them. Due to the materials required to calculate salinity not being available during the first two weeks of testing, the average values of salinity (Table 3.1.A) is representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods (Appendix C; Tables C-3through C-6). Due to Tropical Storm Arthur, the results for fecal coliforms, total suspended solids, and total phosphates from weeks 3 and 4 are not consistent with the other sample periods due to the increase of water in Marsh Creek. Table 3.1.A: Calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (upstream/downstream) from five sample periods in 2014.

14

Table 3.1.B: Standard deviations for calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (upstream/downstream) from five sample periods in 2014.

Figure 3.1.A: Fecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL sample) measured in Marsh Creek Upstream and Downstream sample stations from 1995-­‐2014. 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.

The fecal coliform counts obtained in 2014 (Table 3.1.A) were included in the historical (2005 – 2011) data set for these sampling stations (Appendix E).The2014 results were consistent with those obtained in previous years where the Upstream fecal coliform values were substantially lower than those for the Downstream site (Figure 3.1.A).However, due to the cessation of the dumping of raw sewage into Marsh Creek, the Downstream Site is at its lowest fecal coliform count in 10 years.

15

3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters Water samples were acquired in 2014 from five sample periods, each three days in duration, which included June10-12, July 2-4, July 9-11, July 16-18, July 23-25,and July 29-31, 2014(Appendix F; Tables F-1 through F-6). The average values for water quality parameters acquired in five sample periods indicated a general trend of increasing salinity and total suspended solids, and decreasing water temperatureas one moves from the most upstream site (Site 5) to the most downstream site (Site 1) (Table 3.1.C). It must be noted that due to the required materials not being immediately available, salinity was not recorded during the first two weeks of sampling. The average values of salinity (Table 3.1.C), are representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods (Appendix F; Tables F-3 through F-6). Due to Tropical Storm Arthur, the results for fecal coliforms, total suspended solids, and total phosphates from weeks 3 and 4 are not consistent with the other sample periods due to the increase of water in Marsh Creek. During the July 23-25, 2014 sampling period (Appendix F; Table F-5), it was found that Site 3 had a significantly higher fecal coliform count than any other site that week. This is believed to be due to creosote being disturbed while the samples were being taken. The wide range of values obtained within a single sample site amongst the five sample dates resulted in a considerable degree of within site variation in some parameters, especially fecal coliforms, %Transmittance for the reasons stated in Analysis A, and total suspended solids. (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 five sample periods in 2014.

16

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 five sample periods in 2014.

Fecal coliform levels (CFU/100mL) were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012,2013,and 2014 (Figure 3.1.B). The results did not indicate a strong consistent trend amongst the five sites between 2012 and 2013; however, both years did indicate a trend towards declining fecal coliform concentrations as one moved both upstream and downstream from Site 3 (Figure 3.1.B).This is evident due to the 95-99% decrease of fecal bacteria from 2013-2014 with the largest decrease is located at Site 1.The anomaly of high fecal coliforms at Site 3 may be able to be contributed to the water fowl that nest in and around that section of Marsh Creekand also the possibility of outflow from the duck pond located at Lily Lake.Site threes anomaly may be due amount of bird life in marsh creek and the surrounding areas. The section of site 3 has a runoff from the lily lake duck pond which may lead to finding of high levels of fecal coliforms. Without performing DNA testing at that site ,If the results are due to human’s or birds are unknown Total suspended solids (mg TSS/L) were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, and 2014 (Figure 3.1.C). The results indicated a consistent trend amongst the five sites between 2012 and 2014 with slightincreases in TSS as one moved from the most upstream Station 5 to the downstream Station 1. While the TSS tread to increase in downstream sites was consistent, the degree to which this increase occurred was not consistent amongst years with 2012 values being 58.9 times higher in Site 1 than Site 5, verso an 8.4 times increase in 2013, and a 3.8 times increase in 2014(Figure 3.1.C). Absolute TSS values were also considerably higher in 2012 and 2013versus 2014 Total phosphates (measured as orthophosphate in mg/L) were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012, 2013, and 2014 (Figure 3.1.D). The results indicated a consistent trend between 2012 and 2013 with increased phosphate concentrations as one moved downstream from Site 4, however, the results from 2014 showed no such trend. Sample stations 1 and 2 showed moderate increases in total phosphates in 2014 when compared to 2013 at 1.3 and 2.5 times greater respectively, while sample stations 3, 4, and 5 showed large increases of 7.1, 6.1, and 10.4 times greater than 2013 (Figure 3.1.D).

17

Figure 3.1.B: Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100 mL sample) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012-­‐2014. The 2012 Site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

18

Figure 3.1.C: Total Suspended Solids (mgTSS/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012-­‐2014. The 2012 Site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

Figure 3.1.D: Orthophosphates (mgPO4/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012-­‐ 2014.

19

Salinity, measured across the five sample sites in 2014, indicated a distinct decrease in salt concentration as one moved upstream from Site 1 (Figure 3.1.E). Salinity varied little upstream of Site 2, with Sites 3, 4 & 5 having salinities of 0.38, 0.29, and 0.26 ppt, respectively (Table 3.1.C).

Figure 3.1.E: Salinity (part per thousand /00) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek in 2013 and 2014. 0

3.1.3. Water Quality Parameters of Additional Site ACAP staff added a new site in week 5 (July 23-25, 2014) to test the water quality in the area. The site is located beside Avenue Animal Hospital at 507 Rothesay Avenue and was subject to the same tests as all the sites in Analysis A and B and is approximately halfway between the Upstream and Downstream Sites (Table 3.1.E). It should be noted that due to insufficient filters to perform the Total Suspended Solids test during the July 23-25, 2014 test period no value was recorded at this site. Also, during the July 29-31, 2014 test period, the battery in the field pH meter died and no value was recorded at this site. Table 3.1.E: Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek located beside Avenue Animal Hospital during the test periods of July 23-­‐25 & July 29-­‐31, 2014.

20

3.2 Fish Collection 3.2.1 Lower Marsh Creek Fyke Nets A total of 52 fish comprised of 11 different species were collected from ten separate hauls between May 31 and September 26, 2013 (Table 3.2.A). The fyke net catch in the upstream site (Courtenay Forebay above tide gates) contained only four species and was dominated by Pumpkinseed sunfish (52.9%) and Mummichog (35.3%). A single Golden shiner (5.9%) and 4-spine stickleback (5.9%) comprised the remaining two species. The downstream site (Courtenay Bay below tide gates) resulted in the capture of 32 fish of five different species, and was dominated by Tomcod at 70.6% (Table 3.2.B). Rainbow smelt and Pumpkinseed sunfish were the second most-frequently captured fish (11.8% each), with a single American eel and Brown bullhead each comprising 2.9% of the remaining total catch. Table 3.2.A: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in the Courtenay Forebay, 2013.

Species 4 spine stickleback Golden shiner Mummichog Pumpkinseed sunfish

Number Caught 1 1 6 9

% of Total Catch 5.9 5.9 35.3 52.9

Range (TL in mm) 71 97 78 - 104 78 - 110

Table 3.2.B: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Bay, 2013.

Species Tomcod Rainbow smelt Pumpkinseed sunfish American eel Brown bullhead

Number Caught 24 4 4 1 1

% of Total Catch 70.6 11.8 11.8 2.9 2.9

Range (TL in mm) 106 - 250 162 – 242 75 – 100 510 265

3.2.2 Ashburn Lake Fyke Nets Two fyke nets were set in Ashburn Lake on each of July 3, July 31 and August 23, 2013. The nets were part of an outdoor youth education program conducted each year at the Glen Carpenter Centre. The nets performed poorly, yielding only two fish for the effort; an American eel and a White sucker.

21

Beach Seine Beach seining was used to collect fish from Ashburn Lake, on three different occasions (July 3, July 31 and August 23, 2013). Fish were neither measured nor counted due to warmer water temperatures, and because the intent of this sampling to serve as an educational medium for youth and as an annual presence / absence monitoring protocol for ACAP. Fish collected in 2013 included White sucker, age 0+ Brown trout, Pearl dace, Northern Redbelly dace, Blacknose dace, Creek chub and Mummichog.

3.2.3 Ashburn Creek Electrofishing was conducted on June 19, 2013 to determine fish species composition in Ashburn Creek as well as to conduct an initial ‘fin marking’ procedure to assess the success of a pending removal of a barrier to the upstream passage of fish. Sixteen fish were captured which were comprised of five different species (Table 3.2.C). Lower caudal fin clips were given to the two Brown trout prevent re-counting at a later date and to determine upstream/downstream, mobility. Table 3.2.C: Fish captured by electroseining in lower Ashburn Creek on June 19, 2013.

Species Brown trout Brook trout Blacknosed dace American eel

Number Captured 2 1 6 5

Total length (mm) 61, 122 22 61, 63, 70, 73, 75, 85 140 - 160

3.3 Other Observations 3.3.1:European Green Crab ACAP staff captured (in a fyke net set on September 25-26, 2013) and recorded what is believed to be the first documented occurrence of the invasive Green crab (Carcinus maenus) in the Courtenay Forebay. The specimen was captured at a location approximately 200m upstream of the tide gates located within the Courtenay Causeway. The green crab was easily identified by the five sharp spines on either side of its eyes, and the three rounded spines between its eyes (Figure 3.3.A).

22

Figure 3.3.A: Photo of the (believed) first confirmed occurrence of the invasive European Green crab (Carcinus maenus) in the Courtenay Forebay of Marsh Creek; September 26, 2013.

3.3.2.Canada Post Retaining Wall: Creosote A ~200m 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 IIEnvironmental 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).

23

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 that they were aware of the situation and that they had an engineering firm as well as a property management firm taking the necessary actions to prevent exacerbating the situation. Unfortunately, upon observationin 2014, the walls condition seemed to slightly worsen and no preventable measures were implicated. 24

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.

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 D and E, represents a data compilation of all the parameters that were recorded at the upstream and downstream location since 1993. The data recorded from the summer of 2014 consisted of identical tests as those performed in 2013. This was done to continue to monitor the water quality under the same parameters and to demonstrate the affect of the cessation of the outflow of raw sewage into Marsh Creek, which took place in July 2014. As seen in Table 3.1.A, fecal coliform, orthophosphates, and TSS were all present in higher concentrations at the downstream site compared to upstream. The downstream site recorded approximately a 6 time greater concentration of fecal coliforms. Downstream also showed 1.5 times the concentrations of phosphates compared to its upstream counterpart. Another trend that was observed and behaved expectedly was salinity. The downstream site which was located approximately 1.3 km from the tide gate did experience higher salinity values. Dissolved oxygen and pH levels at both sites were also well within the desired range. Fecal coliforms, despite maintaining approximately the same concentration at the Upstream site as 2013, saw a drastic decrease of 99% at the Downstream site due to raw sewage no longer flowing into Marsh Creek and the quality of the water is already beginning to show great improvement.

4.2Water Quality Parameters Analysis B The water quality monitoring of the Lower Marsh Creek had the objective of monitoring certain parameters over the summers of 2012, 2013, and 2014. This year saw a dramatic decrease in fecal 25

counts at a majority of the sample stations. While none of the sites are, on average, below the Canadian guide lines over 200 CFU/100 mL (Task Force), as can be seen in Table 3.1.C, Site 3 saw no real increase/decrease if fecal counts which is believed to be due to the outflow from the Lily Lake Duck Pond, which has seen high activity this year and fecal matter from various forms of wildlife can affect the counts. Also this year, there were several occurrences where the fecal counts were under the Canadian guidelines for recreational water that particular week as well as the first time that some sites returned with 0 CFU/100 mL in the 1/1 dilution (Appendix F). The Marsh Creek portion that was tested was considered non-salmonid waters, meaning, the dissolved oxygen levels needed are much lower. The Canadian water quality guidelines indicate that the desired dissolved oxygen levels are to be greater than 6.5 ppm. A moderate impairment is experienced by these fishes at 4 ppm and death at 3.5 ppm (Task Force, 3-14). As seen in Appendix H; Table H-1, on average, sites 1 through 4 were much lower than the desired guidelines and site 3 was at a level were fishes could not survive. The average dissolved oxygen levels for 2013 were a drastic improvement with only site 1 not at the desired level. Average dissolved oxygen levels for 2014 displayed further improvement from 2013 with all sites above the desired levels allowed for no fish impairment. From 2012-2014, total phosphates have been increasing as time goes on. In 2012, total phosphates were at the desired level of between 0.01-0.02 mgPO4/L. While the results from the 2013 study displayed an moderate increase in total phosphates at all sites with only two sites outside of the desired range, 2014 displayed large increases at all sites ranging from 3-6 times greater than the desired level. This could be the result of increased rainfall causing large amounts of sediment to be introduced to the water via runoff during sampling periods. Because the raw sewage has ceased entering Marsh Creek, toilette paper and other toiletry debris can no longer be seen floating down Marsh Creek. By testing for total suspended solids, it was possible to determine the mg/L value of the remaining floating debris. Although, it should be noted that some of the larger debris could not be sampled and measured, for this reason the suspended solids are actually at a greater concentration than recorded. The Canadian water quality guidelines indicated that TSS would have had no harmful effect if values were > 25 mg/L, 80-400 mg/L is not ideal for fish life (Task Force, 3-42). Table 3.1.C. shows that average TSS for 2014 was under 80.0 mg/L at all sites with the highest TSS counts found at site 1 with the average reading 25.63 mg/L. Throughout the 3 years of sampling, the average pH has been between 6 and 8 which are the recommended guidelines. None of the results from 2014 produced any pH values that were below 6 or above 8. 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 much higher values for salinity near the tide gates than at any other site. This was expected due to the heavy tide influence experienced by Marsh Creek.

26

5.0 Â Conclusion In conclusion, the data recovered during the water quality monitoring of the lower Marsh Creek watershed study was successful in compiling and recording data prior to the completion of harbour clean up. The data collected for the water quality monitoring of the greater Marsh Creek watershed study was compiled and added to a 20 year-long study The lower parts of Marsh Creek were highly contaminated with fecal coliforms in 2013 and also tested high for other sewage related parameters In 2014 the data found for theses parameters were from 95%-99% lower than the previous year. This indicating Marsh Creek is on its way to recovery.

27

6.0 References Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John Inc. 2013.“The Rebirth of Marsh Creek, 2013”. www.acapsj.com/reports. Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John Inc. 2003. “The 2004 Marsh Creek Remediation Technology Demonstration Project”.www.acapsj.com/reports Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John Inc. 2003. “2003 Marsh Creek Passive Recovery Project”. www.acapsj.com/reports Dohrman, Paul. "How to convert conductivity to salinity." n.d. eHow.http://www.ehow.com/how_5911746_convert-conductivity-salinity.html. 12 June 2014. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. "Biosphere." 2013. Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66191/biosphere/70878/Salinity. 20 June 2013. Environment, Task Force on water Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Ottawa, 1994. Book. EPA. "5.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand." 6 March 2012. Water: Monitoring & Assessment . http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm. 3 July 2013. . http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/phos.html. 3 July 2013. James, William E. Yake and Robert K. "Setting Effluent Ammonia Limits to Meet In-Stream Toxicity Criteria." Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation Vol. 55, No. 3, Part I. Water Environment Federation, 1983. 303-309. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25041852?uid=3739416&uid=2&uid=3737720&ui d=4&sid=21102555970873. Johnson, T.R. "Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators ." 7 August 2001. Government of British Columbia. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/microbiology/microbiology.html. July 2013. Lenntech. "Acids & alkalis in freshwater." 2012. Water Treatment Solutions. http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/acids-alkalis.htm. June 2013. Microbiology, Environmental Health. Total and Fecal coliform and E. coli Analyses by Membrane Filter Methods. 2006. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3Kc4aWhzGzIJ:www.unc.edu/co urses/2006spring/envr/133/001/ENVR133_Lab2_2006.doc+why+must+u+count+betwe 28

en+2060+fecal+coliforms+on+mfc+agar&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=cahttp://webcache. googleusercontent.com/sea. 15 August 2013. <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3Kc4aWhzGzIJ:www.unc.edu/c ourses/2006spring/envr/133/001/ENVR133_Lab2_2006.doc+why+must+u+count+betw een+2060+fecal+coliforms+on+mfc+agar&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=cahttp://webcache .googleusercontent.com/sea>. NEOGEN. "m-FC Agar (7397)." July 2008. Acumedia. http://www.neogen.com/Acumedia/pdf/ProdInfo/7397_PI.pdf. June 2013. Thursby, Glen, Don Miller, Sherry Poucher, Laura Coiro, Wayne Munns, and Timothy Gleason. "Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras." November 2000. EPA. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2007_03_01_criteria_dissolve d_docriteria.pdf. July 2013. USGS. "Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Sanitary Water Quality." 21 December 2007. USGS: science for a changing world. http://mi.water.usgs.gov/h2oqual/BactHOWeb.html. June 2013. Wenner, E., M. Thompson, and D. Sanger. "Water Quality." n.d. NOAA.http://nerrs.noaa.gov/doc/siteprofile/acebasin/html/envicond/watqual/wqintro.h tm. July 2013. Environment Canada. “Erosion & Sedimentation.” https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/ default.asp?lang=En&n=32121A74-1. Government of Canada, February 15, 2011. Web. August 11, 2014 Health Canada. “Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality.” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewhsemt/pubs/water-eau/guide_water-2012-guide_eau/index-eng.php. Health Canada, April 2012. Web. August 11, 2014.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/public-health/pdf/Water_Quality_Recreational_Water-Evidence_Review.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC91772/

29

Appendix A: Sample Calculations used to determine water quality parameters in Marsh Creek in 2013.

A-1: Fecal coliforms: In determining the total amount of fecal coliforms in a 100mL of sample a plate count between 20 – 60 coliform bacteria must be counted from a 10mL 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

đ?‘‡đ?‘œđ?‘Ąđ?‘Žđ?‘™  đ??šđ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Žđ?‘™  đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘™đ?‘–đ?‘“đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;đ?‘šđ?‘ = đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘˘đ?‘›đ?‘Ąđ?‘’đ?‘‘  đ?‘“đ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Žđ?‘™  đ?‘?đ?‘œđ?‘™đ?‘–đ?‘“đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;đ?‘šđ?‘ ∗ 10 Where: Total Fecal Coliforms = the total amount of fecal coliforms from a 100mL sample Counted fecal coliforms = the amount of coliform bacteria counted If all plates were less than 20: 789:;  <8;8=>  <8?=9@ 789:;  A8;?BC  DE;9CFCG

Ă— 100

http://www2.vernier.com/sample_labs/WQV-09-COMP-fecal_coliform.pdf Sample Calculation Counted fecal coliforms = 45

HIJ KLBM

đ?‘‡đ?‘œđ?‘Ąđ?‘Žđ?‘™  đ??šđ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Žđ?‘™  đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘™đ?‘–đ?‘“đ?‘œđ?‘&#x;đ?‘šđ?‘ = 4,500 Â

*100 = 4,500

HIJ KLBM

∗ 10  = 45,000

If all plates were less than 20: KQĂ—KL S(UĂ—KLL) UL Â BM

HIJ KLBM

Ă— 100 = 1,950

HIJ KLLBM

HIJ KLLBM

A-2: Orthophosphates: To determine the amount of phosphates in a litre sample of water the equation from the calibration graph must be used. Refer to Appendix Y = 0.953 * X [Spectronic 21] ; Y = 1.377 * X [Genesys 20] X=

W L.QYZ

W

[Spectonic 21] ; X =

K.Z[[

[Genesys 20]

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

L.LQ[ L.QYZ

= 0.102

B] M

[Spectronic 21] ; X =

L.LUU K.Z[[

= 0.016

B] M

[Genesys 20]

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 100mL of sample. tss = filter after – filter prior Where: tss = the total suspended solids in 100mL sample measured in g/100mL 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

B] K ]

*10

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

Sample Calculation tss = 1.4593

] KLLBM

TSS = 2.0*10-4

- 1.4591 ]

KLLBM

] KLLBM

* 1000

B] K ]

= 2.0*10-4 *10 = 2.0

] KLLBM

B] M

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+ = ( H S )

K `

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+ = (5.62đ??¸ − 08 + 5.13đ??¸ − 08 + 4.57đ??¸ − 08 + 6.46đ??¸ − 08 + 9.12đ??¸ − 08 + 1.12đ??¸ − 07 + K

1.12đ??¸ − 07) = 7.62đ??¸ − 08  đ?‘€ [

Avg pH = -log (7.62đ??¸ − 08)  =  7.12

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

R=

rs ) it

uvvvv

w.UQKw

rs it uvvvv s w.UQKw t xyx.u Â

R=

s t

= 0.00800

Next the r-sub-t must be calculated which is a function of temperature: đ?‘&#x; − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą = đ??ś0 + đ??ś1 ∗ đ?‘Ą + đ??ś2 ∗ (đ?‘Ą)^2 + đ??ś3 ∗ (đ?‘Ą)^3 + đ??ś4 ∗ (đ?‘Ą)^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 đ?‘&#x; − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą = 6.77đ??¸ − 01 + 2.01đ??¸ − 02 ∗ 21.3 + 1.10đ??¸ − 04 ∗ (21.3)^2 + −7đ??¸ − 07 ∗ (21.3)^3 + 1.00đ??¸ − 09 ∗ (21.3)^4 r-sub-t = 1.15 A function of pressure and temperature called R-sub-p must now be calculated as follows: đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘?  = 1 + đ?‘? ∗ (đ??¸0 + đ??¸1 ∗ đ?‘? + đ??¸2 ∗ (đ?‘?)^2)/(1 + đ??ˇ0 ∗ đ?‘Ą + đ??ˇ1 ∗ (đ?‘Ą)^2 + (đ??ˇ2 + đ??ˇ3 ∗ đ?‘Ą) ∗ đ?‘…) 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

đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘?  = 1 + 10.12 ∗ (2.07đ??¸ − 05 Âą 6.37đ??¸ − 10 ∗ 10.12 +3.99E-15 ∗ (10.12)^2)/(1 + 3.43đ??¸ − 02 ∗ 21.3 + 4.46đ??¸ − 04 ∗ (21.3)^2 + (4.22đ??¸ − 01 + −3.11đ??¸ − 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: đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą  =

đ?‘… đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘? ∗ đ?‘&#x; − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą

đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą  =

L.LL•LL K.KY∗L.YK[

=0.135

An equation for S must now be calculated as follows: �  =

đ?‘Ą − 15 ∗ (đ??ľ0 + đ??ľ1 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^(1/2) + đ??ľ2 ∗ đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą + đ??ľ3 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? (1 + đ?‘˜ ∗ (đ?‘Ą − 15)) − đ?‘Ą)^(3/2) + đ??ľ4 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^2 +đ??ľ5 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^(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

�  =

21.3 − 15 ∗ (0.0005 +∗ −0.006(0.135)^(1/2) +  −0.007 ∗ 0.135 + (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:

đ?‘†đ?‘Žđ?‘™đ?‘–đ?‘›đ?‘–đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ś  =  đ??´0 + đ??´1 ∗ đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą

u ‥

+ đ??´2 ∗ đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą + đ??´3 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^(3/2) +

đ??´4 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^2 + đ??´5 ∗ (đ?‘… − đ?‘ đ?‘˘đ?‘? − đ?‘Ą)^(5/2) + đ?‘† Where: S = previous calculation A0 = 0.008 A1 = -0.169 A2 = 25.385 A3 = 14.094 A4 = -7.026 A5 = 2.7081 đ?‘†đ?‘Žđ?‘™đ?‘–đ?‘›đ?‘–đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ś  =  0.008 + −0.169 ∗ 0.135

u ‥

+ 25.385 ∗ 0.135 + 14.094 ∗ (0.135)^(3/2) +

−7.026 ∗ (0.135)^2 +  2.7081 ∗ (0.135)^(5/2) + −0.00194 Salinity = 0.35 ppt

Appendix B. Calibration curve of Absorbance vs Total Phosphates

Absorbance as a function of Total Phosphates (mg/L) [Spectronic 21] 0.40 y = 0.9536x R² = 0.9798 0.35

0.30

Absorbance

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16 0.20 0.24 Total Phosphates (mg/L)

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Absorbance as a function of Total Phosphates (mg/L) [Genesys 20] 0.55 y = 1.3777x - 0.0002 R² = 0.99976

0.50

0.45

0.40

Absorbance

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16 0.20 0.24 Total Phosphates (mg/L)

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

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

Table C-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 10-12, 2014

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

Table C-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 9-11, 2014

Table C-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 16-18, 2014

Table C-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 23-25, 2014

Table C-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 29-31, 2014

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

Table D-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Afor June 24-26, 2013 Date: June 25 -­‐ Samples 26, 2013 Upstream 1 Downstream 1

Tides Low Low

Temp Fecal Coliforms Orthophosphates Field pH D.O. (ppm) (°C) (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance 18.4 6.62 9.63 >6000 98.0 0.009 17.6 7.69 10.71 1,200,000 75.4 0.123

Total 0.004 0.049

Lab TSS Salinity (ppt) pH (mg/L) 6.25 0.0 0.07 8.09 5.0 0.89

Table D-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Afor July 9-11, 2013 Date: July 9 -­‐ Samples 11, 2013 Upstream 1 Downstream 1

Tides Low Low

Temp Fecal Coliforms Orthophosphates Field pH D.O. (ppm) (°C) (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance 17.8 -­‐ 9.85 1,400 98.0 0.009 18.8 -­‐ 9.38 525,000 65.0 0.187

Total 0.004 0.075

Lab TSS Salinity (ppt) pH (mg/L) 6.79 0.0 0.05 7.77 3.0 0.30

Table D-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Afor July 23-25, 2013 Date: July 23 -­‐ Samples 25, 2013 Upstream Downstream

1 1

Tides Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid

Temp Field pH D.O. (ppm) (°C) 16.6 16.2

-­‐ -­‐

8.85 6.30

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) 550 -­‐

Orthophosphates %Transmittance Absorbance 98.2 0.008 85.6 0.067

Total 0.003 0.027

Lab TSS Salinity (ppt) pH (mg/L) 6.48 6.95

5.0 10.0

0.06 0.24

Table D-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Afor July 29-31, 2013 Orthophosphates Date: July 29 -­‐ Samples 31, 2013 Upstream Downstream

1 1

Tides High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid

Temp Field pH D.O. (ppm) (°C) 19.4 18.4

-­‐ -­‐

8.27 5.41

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Total %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 280 99.8 0.001 0.000 85,000 73.2 0.136 0.055

Lab TSS Salinity (ppt) pH (mg/L) 6.65 6.91

0.0 0.0

0.06 0.19

Table D-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Afor August 6-8, 2013 Orthophosphates Date: August 6 Samples -­‐ 8, 2013 Upstream Downstream

1 1

Tides Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid

Temp Field pH D.O. (ppm) (°C) 16.2 18.1

-­‐ -­‐

9.24 6.23

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Total %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 550 99.2 0.004 0.002 167,500 76.8 0.115 0.046

Lab TSS Salinity (ppt) pH (mg/L) 6.51 7.23

0.0 10.0

0.06 0.30

Appendix E. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream (top) and Downstream (bottom)) for years 1995 through 2014.

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

Table F-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 10-12, 2014

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

Table F-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 9-11, 2014

Table F-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 16-18, 2014

Table F-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 23-25, 2014

Table F-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 29-31, 2014

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

Table G-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Bfor June 24-26, 2013 Date: June 24 -­‐ Samples 26, 2013

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

1 2 3 1 1 1 1

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

14.4 14.4 14.9 17.1 18.9 18.9 18.5

7.01 6.99 6.49 6.99 8.52 8.42 7.54

5.27 5.50 5.56 9.10 14.94 14.83 10.01

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 130,000 80.2 0.096 0.039 110,000 79.0 0.103 0.041 25,000 77.0 0.113 0.045 105,000 75.2 0.123 0.049 105,000 93.8 0.028 0.011 3,500 93.0 0.031 0.012 50 92.2 0.036 0.014

Lab pH 7.25 7.29 7.34 7.74 8.82 8.61 7.16

TSS Salinity (ppt) (mg/L) 2.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 1.0 8.0 0.0

13.74 17.13 17.25 1.90 0.20 0.20 0.20

Table G-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Bfor July 9-11, 2013 Date: July 9 -­‐11, Samples 2013 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

1 1 2 3 1 1 1

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

16.9 18.3 18.4 18.5 19.5 19.5 19.4

-­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐

5.08 7.76 7.84 8.08 12.46 10.68 9.06

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 1,150,000 66.2 0.072 0.072 215,000 73.0 0.055 0.055 175,000 67.6 0.068 0.068 155,000 70.2 0.062 0.062 23,000 87.6 0.023 0.023 >60000 88.2 0.022 0.022 300 95.6 0.008 0.008

Lab pH 7.19 7.41 7.42 7.50 8.34 7.73 7.65

TSS Salinity (ppt) (mg/L) 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.30 1.06 1.09 1.11 0.20 0.20 0.20

Table G-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Bfor July 23-25, 2013 Date: July 23 -­‐ Samples 25, 2013 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

1 1 1 2 3 1 1

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid

16.1 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.2 15.8

-­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐

5.25 6.03 6.57 6.47 6.49 6.32 6.14

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 240,000 79.8 0.098 0.039 105,000 86.4 0.063 0.025 112,500 89.4 0.048 0.019 15,500 89.4 0.049 0.020 21,000 92.8 0.032 0.013 120,000 92.2 0.035 0.014 2,700 95.0 0.022 0.009

Lab pH 7.04 7.11 6.82 6.94 7.04 6.75 6.61

TSS Salinity (ppt) (mg/L) 12.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 2.0 0.0

3.93 0.24 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.16

Table G-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Bfor July 29-31, 2013 Orthophosphates Date: July 29 -­‐ 31, 2013 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Samples

Tides

Temp (°C)

1 1 1 1 2 3 1

High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid High -­‐ Mid

18.0 17.9 18.6 18.6 18.5 18.5 18.5

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

-­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐

5.37 5.23 6.17 5.72 5.94 5.86 5.95

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Total %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 19,500 94.6 0.025 0.010 >60000 76.6 0.116 0.047 -­‐ 94.0 0.027 0.011 >60000 92.2 0.035 0.014 27,500 94.0 0.027 0.011 4,250 91.6 0.038 0.015 5,250 94.6 0.024 0.010

Lab pH 6.95 6.95 6.87 6.73 6.79 6.83 6.65

TSS Salinity (ppt) (mg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0

1.45 1.21 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.13

Table G-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis Bfor August 6-8, 2013 Date: August 6 -­‐ Samples 8, 2013 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

1 1 1 1 1 2 3

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid Low -­‐ Mid

16.9 17.9 18.9 18.8 18.0 18.1 18.1

-­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ -­‐

3.97 5.26 7.85 7.59 5.61 5.98 6.08

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) %Transmittance Absorbance phosphates (mg/L) 105,000 73.8 0.132 0.053 45,000 77.2 0.112 0.045 13,500 95.0 0.023 0.009 115,000 93.6 0.029 0.012 1,425 95.2 0.021 0.008 400 93.0 0.031 0.012 450 97.4 0.011 0.004

Lab pH 6.95 7.20 7.24 7.25 6.70 6.83 6.90

TSS Salinity (ppt) (mg/L) 14.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.35 0.41 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18

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

Table H-1: The Average of the Data Tables of Sites 1 through 5 During 2012

Site

Field pH

D.O (ppm)

1 2 3 4 5

6.83 6.68 6.70 6.55 6.78

5.24 3.63 2.30 / 6.51

Averages for 2012 Orthophosphates %T Absorb. mg/L 90.8 0.043 0.017 91.1 0.040 0.016 89.9 0.047 0.019 25.4 0.021 0.008 94.0 0.028 0.011

Lab pH

mg TTS/L

Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 mL)

7.23 7.05 7.11 7.13 7.33

221.0 72.5 12.5 ND 3.75

> 8325 > 95825 > 20825 > 8325

Table H-2: Summary table of results for August 1, 2012 Week 1 Tide

Temp.

Field pH D.O (ppm)

Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) >300 >300 >300

Orthophosphates %T Absorb. 80.8 0.092 80.4 0.095 81.4 0.089

Lab pH

mg TSS/L

6.83 6.84 6.90

937.5 380.0 ND

Site 1

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

High/Middle Tide

6.72

/

Site 2

Sample 1

High/Middle Tide

6.52

/

>300

90.0

0.046

6.87

ND

Site 3

Sample1

High/Middle Tide

6.40

/

>300

89.0

0.051

6.94

ND

Site 4

Sample1

High/Middle Tide

6.55

/

>300

25.4

0.021

7.13

ND

Site 5

Sample1

High/Middle Tide

/

/

>300

83.6

0.078

7.10

ND

Lab pH

mg TSS/L

7.23

2.5

22°C

Table H-3: Summary table of results for August 8, 2012 Week 2 Tide

Temp.

Field pH D.O (ppm)

Sample 1 Site 1

Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) >3000 >3000 >3000

Orthophosphates %T Absorb. 90.4 0.043

Going out

6.96

/

6.72

6.4

>3000

91.8 91.0 92.2

0.037

7.01

ND

6.88

2.5

>3000

88.4

0.054

7.12

10.0

Site 2

Sample 1

Going out

Site 3

Sample1

Coming In

Site 4

Sample1

/

/

/

-­‐

/

/

/

/

Site 5

Sample1

Coming In

7.01

6.06

>3000

97.0

0.012

7.10

5.0

22°C

Table H-4: Summary table of results for August 14, 2012 Week 3 Tide

Temp.

Field pH D.O (ppm)

Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Orthophosphates %T Absorb.

Lab pH

mg TSS/L

Site 1

Sample 1

High

7.18

5.24

>30000

97.8

0.010

7.45

2.5

Site 2

Sample 1

High

6.81

2.66

>30000

93.8

0.027

7.26

2.5

Site 3

Sample1 Sample2 Sample3

High

6.62

2.5

>30000 >30000 >30000

81.8 89.0 89.8

0.088 0.051 0.047

6.99 7.10 7.17

12.5 ND ND

Site 4

Sample1

High

/

/

-­‐

/

/

/

/

Site 5

Sample1

High

6.54

6.5

>30000

98.6

0.006

7.48

ND

Lab pH

mg TSS/L

20.4°C

Table H-5: Summary table of results for August 16, 2012 Week 4 Tide

Temp.

Field pH D.O (ppm)

Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Orthophosphates %T Absorb.

Site 1

Sample 1 Middle (Coming In)

/

/

-­‐

94.0

0.028

7.37

220.0

Site 2

Sample 1 Middle (Coming In)

/

1.84

>700000

89.0

0.051

7.05

7.5

Site 3

Sample1 Middle (Coming In)

/

1.91

>100000

95.4

0.020

7.27

15.0

Site 4

Sample1 Middle (Coming In)

/

/

-­‐

/

/

/

/

Site 5

Sample1 Sample2 Middle (Coming In) Sample3

/

6.98

-­‐ -­‐ -­‐

95.8 97.4 97.4

0.018 0.012 0.012

7.69 7.61 7.61

2.5 ND ND

22.8°C

Appendix I Salinity of the Lower Marsh Creek Watershed Figure E-1: Salinity Readings for Lower Marsh Creek

The data that was plotted in Figure 3.0.A was taken from appendix A, table A-4 and A-9. This was done to compare fecal coliform from 2012 – 2013. 800000

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

700000 600000 500000 Fecal Coliforms for 2012

400000

Fecal Coliforms for 2013

300000 200000 100000 0 1

2

3

4

5

Sample Sites

Figure 3.0.A: Fecal Coliform Counts Compared from 2012 to 2013 at Sites 1 through 5

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.