Rebirth of Water 2016-2017

the

Rebirth of Water

Graeme Stewart-Robertson Roxanne MacKinnon i Karina Ortiz Munoz

Justin Prescott

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 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 since 2013. Sampling conducted during the summer of 2016 along the lowest 400 m of the creek, which has historically received the greatest volume of untreated municipal wastewater, showed decreases in fecal coliform concentration ranging from 95 – 99% since 2013. In comparison to previous years, 2016 is characterized by a more uniform count of fecal coliform between sites 1, 2, 4 and 5. Consistent with 2014 data, there were several occurrences where fecal coliforms were within the Canadian guidelines for recreational water at particular sites. Sites 1, 3, and 4, on average, have been below the Canadian guidelines of 200 CFU/100 mL for recreational waters during dry conditions; the other 2 sites were on average slightly above the guideline. Sampling after large rainfall events have shown that fecal coliform concentrations rise post storm events due to possible runoff issues and lift station overflows. The dissolved oxygen concentrations of Marsh Creek is also on the rebound post Habour Cleanup. This year, the DO concentration from all 5 sites were, on average, above the 6.5 ppm recommendation from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Additionally, ACAP expanded the water quality monitoring program to include other watercourses within the City of Saint John this year. With the addition of 8 more sites, 4 different watersheds were examined - Hazen Creek, Fairweather Brook, Taylor Brook, and Newman’s Brook. For most part, these new watercourses appear to be in good health in terms of the water quality parameters assessed.

However, the lower portion of Newman’s Brook (Spar Cove) has some concerning results such an elevated fecal coliform count, elevated phosphate concentration, and a low dissolved oxygen concentration needing further investigation.

The substantial improvements in water quality within Marsh Creek are very encouraging, suggesting that the City of Saint John’s ongoing efforts to complete Harbour Cleanup are 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.

i

Acknowledgements The 2016 ‘Rebirth of Water’ project represents the fifth 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 2016 installment of this project was provided by the Sitka Foundation and the New Brunswick Environmental Trust Fund. 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 Saint Mary’s University, and CURA H2O. It must be noted that this report builds directly upon the 2015 ACAP Saint John report “Horne, R. and Steeves, G. 2015. The Re-Birth of Marsh Creek: Chronicling the benefits of Harbour Cleanup on the Marsh Creek watershed of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.” Given that much of the text is taken verbatim, this acknowledgement will serve as the only reference indicating the direct duplication of some content.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Background ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of the Marsh Creek Watershed ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 History ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Green Banks Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Water Quality Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Comparative Historical Data ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Sample Stations Analysis A .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.3 Sample Stations Analysis B .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.4 Green Banks Sampling Sites ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Water Quality Parameters ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Water Quality Procedures ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3.1 Field pH .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen ................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.3 Salinity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.4 Orthophosphates .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.5 Total Suspended Solids ........................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.6 Fecal Coliform ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.7 Lab pH .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Sampling of Fish ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Electrofishing ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.2 Fyke nets ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.3 Beach Seine .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4.3 Reporting of Fish Collected .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Other Observations .................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Water Quality Parameters .......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Analysis A Water Quality Parameters .............................................................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters .............................................................................................................. 17 3.1.3 Green Banks Sites ............................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Fish Collection ............................................................................................................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Upper Marsh Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 21 3.2.2 Lower Marsh Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.2.3 Ashburn Lake ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Water Quality Parameters Analysis A ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Water Quality Parameters Analysis B ...................................................................................................................... 25 iii

4.3 Green Banks Sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 6.0 References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A: Sample Calculations used to determine water quality parameters in Marsh Creek in 2016. .............. 29 Appendix B. Calibration curve of absorbance vs total phosphates. .............................................................................. 35 Appendix C. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2016. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix D. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2015. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix E. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2014. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix F. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A (Upstream/Downstream) in 2013. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix G. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis A Upstream and Downstream for years 1995 through 2016. ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix H. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2016. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix I. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2015. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix J. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2014. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix K. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2013. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix L. Water quality parameters measured for Marsh Creek Analysis B (five locations in the last 2 km stretch) in 2012. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix M. Water quality parameters of new sites added in 2016. ............................................................................. 55

iv

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, 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.

1

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 analyzed 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.

1.3 Green Banks Sites An additional set of sites were added to the water quality monitoring program in 2016 under the green banks program. The addition of more sites outside the Marsh Creek watershed was undertaken to get a better understanding of water quality issues within the city of Saint John. In 2016, 4 different watercourses were examined and monitored – Hazen Creek, Fairweather Brook, Taylor Brook, and Newman’s Brook, which together with Marsh Creek, encompass a large portion of the Saint John region.

2

2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Water Quality Site Selection 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 2016.

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 2016.

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 and an upstream site (45.321517, -66.015117) located on the downstream side of the small bridge on Glen Road near MacKay Street.

Sites were changed slightly in the 2016 sampling period due to error in locating the historically used sites.

The downstream site (45.284844, -66.052393) was located immediately upstream of an old raw sewage outfall into Marsh Creek adjacent to the Universal Truck and Trailer parking lot; and the upstream site (45.325773, -66.012525) was located on the downstream side of the small bridge on Glen Road near Purdy Street (Figure 2.1.A (above)).

3

Figure 2.1.B: Downstream (left) and upstream (right) sampling stations used in water quality monitoring in Marsh Creek in 2016.

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 Figure 2.1D.

Figure 2.1.C: Map showing the location of the five sampling stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B (2012-2016).

4

Table 2.1.A: Characteristics of sampling stations used in Marsh Creek water quality Analysis B in 2012 through 2016.

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

45.284844, -66.052393

Located 500 m upstream from Site 2 immediately (2 m) upstream of the former raw sewage outfall adjacent to the Universal Truck and Trailer parking lot.

4

45.288143, -66.048764

Located 500 m upstream from Site 3 immediately upstream of another former 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

Site Description

Figure 2.1.D: Sites 1(left) and 5 (right) used in Water Quality Analysis B conducted in Marsh Creek in 2012 through 2016.

2

2.1.4 Green Banks Sampling Sites The Green Banks sampling sites were added to monitoring in 2016 to obtain water quality data outside of the recovering Marsh Creek. Eight sites were established as new sampling areas, with GPS coordinates and site descriptions outlined in Table 2.1.B and the locations are marked on Figure 2.1.E. Table 2.1.B: Characteristics of Green Banks sampling stations, adopted in 2016.

Site Number

GPS Coordinates

Site Description

6

45.220990, -66.015505

Lower Hazen Creek, located upstream of the bridge on Red Head Road at the outfall of Hazen Creek into the Saint John Harbour.

7

45.275878, -65.998910

Upper Hazen Creek, located upstream of the culvert on Dedication Street, off Industrial Drive.

8

45.378423, -65.978840

Fairweather Brook, located upstream of where it crosses McKay Highway by the Dolan Road Irving

9

45.374322, -65.982063

Upper Taylor Brook, located upstream of where it crosses McKay Highway by the Dolan Road Irving

10

45.382143, -65.996388

Lower Taylor Brook, located under the bridge on Rothesay Road by Rothesay Netherwood School

11

45.309639, -66.034028

Marsh Creek, located off Ashburn Lake Road under the bridge by Strescon

12

45.296902, -66.071298

Upper Newman’s Brook, located off Sandy Cove Road 300 m North of Hazen White-St. Francis School

13

45.277345, -66.089187

Lower Newman’s Brook, located at the furthest inland point at Spar Cove

3

Figure 2.1.E: The locations of Green Banks sampling sites throughout Saint John and Rothesay, NB in 2016.

4

2.2 Water Quality Parameters Water quality parameters measured in 2016 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 due mostly to plant growth and bacterial decomposition (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, 2012). 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 species and abundance 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, 2012).

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) (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013).

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.

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 5

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 warm-blooded 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 milliliters (mL) of water, with 10% or less of samples containing a maximum of 400 CFU/100 mL (Health Canada, 2011).

2.3 Water Quality Procedures 2.3.1 Field pH A handheld pH meter (YSI Professional Plus) was used for all sampling except in June to test the pH in the field. The meter was standardized prior to testing by the manufacturing company. The probe was immersed in the creek until the value on the pH meter stabilized. This procedure was repeated at each sampling site.

2.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was measured in the field using a handheld meter (YSI Professional Plus) for all sampling except in June. The meter was calibrated every day it was used. DO was measured by immersing the probe in the creek and until the reading stabilized.

2.3.3 Salinity Salinity was measured in the field using a handheld meter (YSI Professional Plus) for all sampling except in June. The probe was calibrated by the manufacturing company before use. The probe was immersed in the creek until specific conductivity and salinity readings stabilized.

2.3.4 Orthophosphates Phosphate concentration was determined through the ascorbic acid method: mixed 25 mL of the sample, 2-3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator, and 4 mL the combined reagent. The combined reagent was prepared by mixing, in the order listed, 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 the 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 control standard of known phosphate concentration of approximately 0.1 mg/L was also prepared.

An Eppendorf pipette was used to transfer 5 mL of the stock solution into a volumetric flask and topped up to 100 mL with deionized water. A 10 mL portion of the diluted stock solution was pipetted and topped up to 250 mL. This control standard was treated as a sample and the phosphate concentration was measured using the above ascorbic acid method every time new samples were collected.

6

A calibration curve was constructed to represent the phosphate concentration in mg/L. A stock solution was prepared by dissolving 0.11 g of monopotassium phosphate in 250 mL of deionized water. Using an Eppendorf pipette, 1 mL of this stock 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, respectively. A tenth beaker was also prepared with 50 mL of deionized water to serve as a blank. The combined reagent was added to all 10 beakers in 8 mL aliquots.

The beakers were swirled for proper mixing and left for 10-30 minutes to allow color development (Figure 2.3.4). The absorbance and transmittance were 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 water samples were converted into concentrations in mg/L.

Figure 2.3.A: Photograph showing the colour development of standards for the orthophosphate calibration curve.

2.3.5 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) were determined through the vacuum filtration method. A glass fiber 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. The filter and weigh dish 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 water sample was slowly poured onto the pre-weighed filter, 7

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 2.3.B). Once filtration was complete, the previous constant weight procedure was followed and values recorded. TSS in mg/L was calculated based on the difference in weight (Appendix A, Sample Calculation A-3) and results were recorded.

Figure 2.3.B: Image showing the solids left on the filter paper after filtration was completed using the total suspended solids procedure.

2.3.6 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 grid face up, 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 (Figure 2.3.C). Petri plates were counted if they contained 20 to 80 colonies. Plates that contained more than 80 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.

8

All of the sample sites (Analysis A and Analysis B) were diluted to 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, and 1/10000 for the first and second weeks. For the third week all samples were diluted to 1/10, 1/100, and 1/1000, and a 10ml sample was analyzed due to the low fecal coliform count from the first 2 weeks. For the remaining weeks all sample were diluted to 1/10 and 1/100, and a 10mL sample was analyzed for all sites except Spar Cove. The Spar Cove sample was diluted to 1/10, 1/100 and 1/1000 due to increased fecal counts.

Figure 2.3.C: Image showing the coliform forming units (CFU) per 100 mL water sample taken from Marsh Creek.

2.3.7 Lab pH The pH level was also tested in the lab by standardizing the pH meter with the 4, and 7 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 deionized water. The procedure was then repeated for the remaining samples.

9

2.4 Sampling of Fish 2.4.1 Electrofishing Electrofishing was conducted as a fish rescue for a construction project in Alma, NB on June 30, 2016 and as presence surveys in Taylor Creek on June 27, 2016 and Newman’s Brook on July 27, 2016. Marsh Creek was surveyed in four different locations on August 11, 18, and 19, 2016. Electrofishing activities were conducted using a battery-powered Smith-Root LR-24 electrofisher. 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 voltage, were made as necessary. The operation time and setting 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 into their original environment as quickly as possible.

Figure 2.4.A: Electrofishing in Newman’s Brook off Sandy Point Road on July 26, 2016.

2.4.2 Fyke nets Two fyke nets were used to collect fish in the lower reaches of Marsh Creek on June 27-29, July 12-15, and July 25-27. 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 approximately 50 m below the tide gates. The nets were set during low tide and checked during a subsequent low tide 24 hours after they were 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 of water, identified, measured, and immediately returned to their environment.

10

Figure 2.4.B: Fyke nets set in Marsh Creek (Courtenay Bay) on June 28, 2016.

2.4.3 Beach Seine Beach seining was conducted in Ashburn Lake using a 10 x 1.5 m seine as part of a youth education program. Fish parameters (i.e. length, abundance, and species) were not collected so as to maintain the health of the fish. The demonstrations occurred June 29 and July 27, 2016.

Figure 2.4.C: Beach seining for a youth education camp at Ashburn Lake on June 29, 2016.

11

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

Table 2.4: 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 Pseudopleuronectes americanus Perca flavescens

2.5 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 aquatic 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 longterm management objectives of the Marsh Creek watershed, a principle upon which this project was founded.

12

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 five sample periods in 2016 (Appendix C) showed marked differences in temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, total phosphates, total suspended solids and salinity between the upstream and downstream sites (Table 3.1.A).

Due to lack of available equipment, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity were not tested during the weeks of June 14-16 and June 28-30, 2016. The average pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and salinity (Table 3.1A) are representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods.

Due to the heavy rainfall that occurred from June 12-13, 2016, and high winds experienced during sampling the results for fecal coliforms from the sample period of June 14-16, 2016 are not consistent with the other sample periods. This resulted in a high degree of within site variability with a standard deviation of 812 and 89364 CFU/100mL in upstream and downstream sites, respectively (Table 3.1B).

The difference in results are thought to have been due to the increase in runoff and potential overflow of sewage facilities near 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 2016. ℃ Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

Upstream

NA

17.5

7.80

Downstream

NA

21.2

8.34

Average of Analysis A for 2016 Orthophosphates Fecal Total DO (ppm) Coliforms % Absorbance Phosphates (CFU/100mL) Transmittance (mg/L) 8.8 516.8 98.7 0.006 0.012 10.1

40142

97.8

0.009

0.017

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.14

3.2

0.08

8.06

2.2

0.22

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 2016. ℃

Upstream Downstream

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

NA NA

1.0 1.0

0.07 0.55

Standard Deviation for Analysis A in 2016 Orthophosphates Fecal Total DO (ppm) Coliforms % Absorbance Phosphates (CFU/100mL) Transmittance (mg/L) 0.4 812.1 0.6 0.003 0.004 2.8 89364 0.8 0.004 0.006

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.18 0.59

2.3 1.6

0.01 0.05

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 – 2016) data set for these sampling stations (Appendix G).

The average fecal coliform count, including the rain event, (Figure 3.1.A) was 40142 CFU/100 mL at the downstream site and 517 CFU/100 mL at the upstream site. The downstream coliform count was higher than it has been in the last two years but is considered to be highly affected by outside factors.

13

The TSS (Figure 3.1.B) results were 2.2 and 3.2 mg/L in the downstream and upstream site, respectively.

The results are consistent with previous years where they were both found to follow the same trends; the downstream site was at the lowest recorded value and the upstream site at the highest recorded value since 2011.

The orthophosphate concentration was 0.017 and 0.012 mg/L at the downstream and upstream site, respectively.

Salinity (Figure 3.1 D) was 0.22 and 0.08 ppt at the downstream and upstream site, respectively.

Dissolved oxygen results were 10.1 and 8.8 ppm in the downstream and upstream site, respectively. The dissolved oxygen concentration at the downstream site continues to increase as seen in recent years.

Fecal coliform (cfu/100 ml)

100000000 10000000 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100

Upstream Downstream

10 1 1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Year Figure 3.1.A: Fecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL sample) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 1995 to 2016. 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 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and are represented only as a trend line for these years.

14

16 Total suspended solids (mg/L)

14

Upstream Downstream

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year Figure 3.1.B: Total suspended solids (mg/L) measured in Marsh Creek Upstream and Downstream sample stations from 20112016. Values were not obtained in the 2012 year.

0.25

Orthophosphates (mg PO4/L)

Upstream 0.2

Downstream

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Year Figure 3.1.C: Orthophosphates (mg POâ‚„/L) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 20022016. A value was not obtained for only the upstream site in the 2011 sampling year and values were not obtained in years 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 for both upstream and downstream sites.

15

7 6

Upstream Downstream

Salinity (ppt)

5 4 3 2 1 0 1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

Year Figure 3.1.D: Salinity (ppt) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 1993 to 2016. Values were not obtained in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

12

Upstream Downstream

Dissolved oxygen (ppm)

10

8

6

4

2

0 1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

Year Figure 3.1.E: Dissolved oxygen (ppm) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 1993 to 2016.

Values were not obtained in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

16

3.1.2 Analysis B Water Quality Parameters Water samples were acquired in 2016 from five sample periods, each 2-3 days in duration, which included June 14-16, June 28-30, July 13-14, July 26-28, and August 9-11, 2016 (Appendix H; Tables H-1 through H-5).

It must be noted that due to the required materials not being immediately available, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity were not recorded during the first two weeks of sampling. The average values of these parameters (Table 3.1.C), are representative of the values obtained during the remaining sample periods (Appendix H; Tables H-3 through H-5).

Due to the heavy rainfall that occurred from June 12-13, 2016 and high winds experienced during sampling the results for fecal coliforms from the sample period of June 14-16, 2016 are not consistent with the rest of the data for 2016.

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 and TSS, for the reasons stated in Analysis A (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 2016. ℃

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

NA NA NA NA NA

18.0 19.2 21.2 20.6 19.9

7.68 7.66 8.34 8.08 7.78

7.61 7.40 10.10 8.49 5.64

Average of Analysis B for 2016 Orthophosphates Fecal Total Coliforms % Absorbance Phosphates (CFU/100mL) Transmittance (mg/L) 4154 94.86 0.023 0.038 2788 95.22 0.021 0.035 40082 97.82 0.009 0.017 7106 97.32 0.012 0.021 6108 97.12 0.013 0.022

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.63 7.59 8.06 7.91 7.54

6.4 8.8 2.2 1.8 1.2

15.35 11.94 0.22 0.22 0.21

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 2016. ℃

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

NA NA NA NA NA

0.6 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.9

0.10 0.15 0.55 0.40 0.19

Standard Deviation of Analasys B for 2016 Orthophosphates Fecal Total D.O. (ppm) Coliforms % Absorbance Phosphates (CFU/100mL) Transmittance (mg/L) 1.41 8859 0.88 0.004 0.007 1.53 5435 1.07 0.005 0.008 2.84 89397 0.77 0.004 0.006 2.73 15594 0.70 0.003 0.005 1.04 12798 0.54 0.002 0.004

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.14 0.29 0.59 0.41 0.19

3.0 10.8 1.6 2.7 1.1

3.41 8.01 0.05 0.04 0.03

Fecal coliform levels were plotted amongst the five sample stations for 2012 to 2016 (Figure 3.1.B). The results for site 1 decreased significantly from 2015 with an average of 4154 CFU/100 mL. Site 2 remained consistent with the previous two years. With the exception of 2015, site 3 results did not vary greatly from previous years, with an average of 40 082 CFU/100 mL. Site 4 showed a decrease from 2015 and site 5 remained relatively consistent since 2012.

Total suspended solids remained relatively the same between 2014 and 2016, with the exception of site 2 which had a slight increase in TSS (Figure 3.1.C).

Total phosphates were plotted amongst the five sample stations from 2012 to 2016 (Figure 3.1.D). The 2016 results showed an increase from 2015 at each of the five sample sites.

17

Salinity showed an increase across all five sample sites between 2015 and 2016 (Figure 3.1.E). Site 1 and site 2 had much higher results than the other three sites as they are closest to Courtenay Bay and are influenced by the saltwater influx through the tide gates at high tide.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were plotted for the five sample stations from 2012 to 2016 (Figure 3.1.J). With the exception of site 1, all sampling sites had a reduction in dissolved oxygen in comparison to 2015 results. Averages for all sites except site 5 were above the guideline of 6.5 ppm (Table 3.1.C).

275000

Fecal Coliform CFU/100ml

250000

2012

225000

2013

200000

2014

175000

2015 2016

150000 125000 100000 75000 50000 25000 0 1

2

3 Sample Station

4

5

Figure 3.1.B: Fecal coliforms (CFU/100 mL) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012 to 2016.

The 2012 site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

18

250 2012 2013

200

2014 2015 2016

TSS (mg/L)

150

100

50

0 1

2

3 Sample Station

4

5

Figure 3.1.C: Total suspended solids (mg/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012 to 2016.

The 2012 site 4 sample was discarded and no data was acquired.

0.14

2012 2013

Orthophosphate mgPO4/L

0.12

2014 2015

0.1

2016 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1

2

3 Sample Station

4

5

Figure 3.1.D: Orthophosphates (mg PO4/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012 to 2016.

19

30 25

Salinity (ppt)

20 2013 15

2014 2015

10

2016

5 0 1

2

3 Sample Station

4

5

Figure 3.1.E: Salinity (ppt) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek from 2013 to 2016.

3.1.3 Green Banks Sites Visual assessments of the area around the sampling sites were conducted prior to monitoring in 2016; noting water clarity, substrate type, vegetation, and erosion. Site 6 in lower Hazen Creek was characterized by murky water, clay substrate, a variety of riparian vegetation, and a relatively stable bank. A few fallen trees in the area had been noted. Site 7 in upper Hazen Creek had clear water, substrate of boulders, gravel, and sand, lots of cover from vegetation, and no signs of erosion. Fairweather Brook, site 8, had very clear water, substrate of rock and sand, lots of vegetation, and very stable banks. Site 9, upper Taylor Brook, proved difficult to identify substrate due to the depth, but appeared to be cobble, sand, and mud.

Vegetation was present but did not provide much cover to the stream. Signs of erosion were not present.

The downstream site for Taylor Brook, site 10, had a mixed substrate along the sampling location, changing from boulders to sand in some areas. A large amount of vegetation was present that provided good cover for the stream as well as bank stabilization. Manmade bank stabilization was also present, as boulders were contained in wire along parts of the bank. The new Marsh Creek site located near Strescon, site 11, had a mostly muddy substrate near the water with larger cobble and boulders up higher on the bank. Manmade stabilization was also present and it appeared that erosion was still occurring. Riparian vegetation consisted mostly of grasses, with some willow trees providing cover to this section of the creek. It was noted that a strong sewage smell was present and an outfall pipe was visible. Site 12, Newman’s Brook upstream site had substrate of mostly cobble and gravel with some sand. Vegetation present was a mix of grasses, shrubs, and trees that provided cover to the stream. A culvert is located at this area and have partially collapsed, however the bank appeared to be stable beyond that. The final sample site, 13, is the downstream site for Newman’s Brook, located at Spar Cove. Water clarity was very poor making it difficult to identify substrate type, although it appeared to be mostly mud. Some erosion was visible but vegetation on the bank provided stability in some areas. It was noted that there was a lot of garbage in the area.

20

The average in-situ parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, field pH, and salinity) are presented in Table 3.1.E, along with the measured parameters (fecal coliform, phosphate, lab pH, and TSS). It should be noted that the average fecal coliform test included a rain event for these sites as well. Table 3.1.F presents the standard deviation for the parameters mentioned above.

Table 3.1.E: Calculated averages of water quality parameters measured for Green Banks sites from five sample periods in 2016. ℃ Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

18.3 13.8 19.1 21.8 17.4 19.5 17.2 17.1

7.5 7.5 8.2 7.9 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.1

7.7 9.0 8.2 7.7 9.2 8.3 9.2 3.8

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13

Average of Green Banks Sites for 2016 Orthophosphates % Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 1566 80.5 0.013 0.021 638 81.5 0.008 0.015 725 82.6 0.003 0.007 1102 82.3 0.004 0.009 717 82.6 0.003 0.007 3545 79.3 0.018 0.030 5717 81.7 0.007 0.013 542833 40.3 0.287 0.447

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 6.13 6.10 5.95 5.87 5.95 5.94 6.18 6.19

2.3 0.8 0.3 3.2 1.8 9.3 2.8 27.3

Salinity (ppt) 500.79 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.21 0.18 1.81

Table 3.1.F: Calculated standard deviations of water quality parameters measured for Green Banks sites from five sample periods in 2016. ℃ Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

1.0 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.6 1.0

0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1

0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.2 2.2

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13

Standard Deviation of Green Banks Sites for 2016 Orthophosphates % Total Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 2463.7 36.1 0.0 0.0 1326.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 1598.8 36.9 0.0 0.0 2458.9 36.8 0.0 0.0 1558.0 36.9 0.0 0.0 6073.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 12648.8 36.5 0.0 0.0 758459.1 23.1 0.2 0.3

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3

2.2 0.9 0.5 3.3 2.5 10.9 3.9 14.9

Salinity (ppt) 698.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

3.2 Fish Collection 3.2.1 Upper Marsh Creek Electrofishing Electrofishing on August 11, 2016 was done in Marsh Creek from Site 3 to the bridge on Rothesay Avenue. A total of 196 fish were caught, identified, and measured, with the two major species being Mummichog with 51.0% and Fourspine stickleback at 41.3% (Table 3.2.A).

Table 3.2.A: Fish species composition caught by electrofishing in Marsh Creek (Site three to Rothesay Avenue bridge) on August 11, 2016.

Species Mummichog

Number caught 100

% of total catch 51.0

Range (TL in mm) 16 - 87

Fourspine stickleback

81

41.3

15 - 46

American eel

8

4.1

60 - 220

Threespine stickleback

5

2.6

20 - 40

Ninespine stickleback

2

1.0

42 - 45 21

Both the new Analysis A upstream site and the location historically sampled as the upstream site were surveyed for fish on August 18, 2016. The original site (Table 3.2.B) provided six species: 36.3% American eel, 27.3% Golden shiner, and 9.1% each of White sucker, Fourspine stickleback, Brown bullhead, and Pearl dace. Six species were caught at the new location of the Upstream site (Table 3.2.C): 32.1% White sucker, 28.6% Blacknose dace, 25.0% Pearl dace, 7.1% Ninespine stickleback, and 3.6% of both American eel and Golden shiner.

Table 3.2.B: Fish species composition caught by electrofishing at the previous Analysis A Upstream site (bridge near McKay Street) in Marsh Creek on August 18, 2016.

Species

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

American eel

4

36.3

160 - 360

Golden shiner

3

27.3

30 - 32

White sucker

1

9.1

48

Fourspine stickleback

1

9.1

35

Brown bullhead

1

9.1

130

Pearl dace

1

9.1

34

Table 3.2.C: Fish species composition caught by electrofishing at the new Analysis A Upstream site (bridge near Purdy Street) in Marsh Creek on August 18, 2016.

Species

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

White sucker

9

32.1

26 - 52

Ninespine stickleback

2

7.1

35 - 40

Pearl dace

7

25

42 - 75

Blacknose dace

8

28.6

25 - 70

American eel

1

3.6

220

Golden shiner

1

3.6

65

The upper area of Marsh Creek, just off the end of Fox Farm Road, was surveyed on August 19, 2016.

Two species were caught in the densely vegetated area, with 90.5% Blacknose dace and 9.5% Ninespine stickleback (Table 3.2.D).

Table 3.2.D: Fish species composition caught by electrofishing at Marsh Creek bog on August 19, 2016.

Species

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

Blacknose dace

19

90.5

30 - 70

Ninespine stickleback

2

9.5

29 - 45

On August 19, 2016, electrofishing was done in two pools on either side of a culvert in Marsh Creek, near Ashburn Road. Only eight Fourspine stickleback were caught in the area (Table 3.2.E). The size and depths of the pools made it difficult to cover much area to catch fish.

22

Table 3.2.E: Fish species composition caught by electrofishing in Marsh Creek near the culvert on Ashburn Road on August 19, 2016.

Species Fourspine stickleback

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

8

100

18 - 42

3.2.2 Lower Marsh Creek Fyke Nets A total of 98 fish comprised of seven different species were collected from six separate hauls between June 27 and July 27, 2016 (Table 3.2.F and Table 3.2.G). The fyke net catch in the upstream site (Courtenay Forebay above tide gates) contained 21 fish of four species: Mummichog (80.9%), two American eels (9.5%), one Threespine stickleback (4.8%), and one Pumpkinseed sunfish (4.8%).

The downstream fyke net site (Courtenay Bay below the tide gates) resulted in the capture of 77 fish, of five different species, and was dominated by Tomcod at 80.5% (Table 3.2.B). Rainbow smelt was the second most-frequently captured fish (11.7%), and the remaining species were American eel (3.9%), Threespine stickleback (2.6%) and Alewife (1.3%).

Both Courtenay Bay and Forebay fyke nets had a number of bycatch. Green crab was the only species caught, with 10 in the Forebay and 38 in the Bay. Table 3.2.F: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Forebay, 2016.

Species

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

Mummichog

17

80.9

70 - 110

American eel

2

9.5

650 - 700

Threespine stickleback

1

4.8

78

Pumpkinseed sunfish

1

4.8

95

23

Table 3.2.G: Fish species composition caught in fyke nets in Courtenay Bay, 2016.

Species

Number caught

% of total catch

Range (TL in mm)

Tomcod

62

80.5

128 - 270

Rainbow smelt

9

11.7

135 - 185

Threespine stickleback

2

2.6

35 - 70

American eel

3

3.9

470 - 500

Alewife

1

1.3

110

3.2.3 Ashburn Lake Beach Seine Beach seining was used to collect fish from Ashburn Lake, on two different occasions (June 29 and July 27, 2016). Fish were neither measured nor counted due to the intent of sampling to serve as an educational medium for youth.

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 2016 consisted of identical tests as those performed from 2013 to 2015. 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., for the first time TSS was higher at the upstream site than the downstream site.

Downstream is at the lowest level to date and changes in the upstream site are thought to have been caused by external factors. As seen in Figure 3.1.C, orthophosphates were present in higher concentrations at the downstream site compared to the upstream site. Improvements to the orthophosphate procedure were expected to cause an increase in total phosphates in comparison to previous years, however that was not the case. This suggests that Marsh Creek may be stabilizing as the upstream and downstream sites both experience either an increase or reduction each year. 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 due to saltwater influx from Courtenay Bay during high tide. Dissolved oxygen was within recommended guidelines at both sites, with the downstream site at a higher concentration than the upstream site for the last three years. This could become a 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 was outside of the range for the second year. Fecal coliform has been greatly reduced in the downstream site over the years, due to raw sewage no longer flowing into Marsh Creek, but has yet to stabilize which has been considered due to outside factors such as runoff, lift station overflows during heavy rainfall, and fecal coliforms present in the substrate from years of fecal contamination.

24

4.2 Water Quality Parameters Analysis B The water quality monitoring of the Lower Marsh Creek had the objective of monitoring certain parameters over the summers from 2012 to 2016. While none of the sites were, on average, below the Canadian guidelines of 200 CFU/100 mL for recreational waters, this year saw a dramatic decrease in fecal coliform count in sites 1 and 4 (Task Force, 1994). In comparison to previous years, 2016 is characterized by a more uniform count of fecal coliform between sites 1, 2, 4 and 5. With the exception of 2015, the trend at site 3 continues to be to have approximately 25000 to 50000 CFU/100mL. Site 3 continues to have a high occurrence of waterfowl; Canada geese and mallard ducks were seen with their young each sampling period. It is likely that site 3 will continue to have a higher fecal coliform count due to these external factors. Although the averages were above the Canadian guidelines, 2016 data was consistent with 2014 and 2015 and saw several individual occurrences where fecal coliforms were within the Canadian guidelines for recreational water at particular sites (Appendix C).

The monitored portion of Marsh Creek is considered non-salmonid water and the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines indicate 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, 1994; 3-14). As seen in Appendix L, Table L-1, from 2012 to 2015 dissolved oxygen levels moved from a level where fish survival was not even possible in some areas to Marsh Creek DO levels all above the recommended guidelines. The results from 2016 revealed that since the previous year, all sites except site 1 had a decrease in dissolved oxygen. Sites 1 through 4 maintained average dissolved oxygen levels above 6.5 ppm; however, site 5 fell below 6.5 ppm. This trend was coupled with a roughly 2°C increase in average temperature at all sites from 2015. These parameters may have been affected by the drier than usual summer; the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-food Department assessed southern New Brunswick as having an abnormally dry summer (Government of Canada, 2016). Studies have connected surface water temperature increase and dissolved oxygen concentration decrease during periods of drought (Murdock et al., 2000; Van Vliet and Zwolsman, 2008).

Due to changes in the procedure for total phosphates, results for all sites from 2016 were on average higher than results from 2015. To confirm the accuracy of the new procedure, a control was used and phosphate concentrations were determined to be roughly double of what they would have been using the previous method. Although higher, there was no drastic change seen when compared to 2015, suggesting the levels of orthophosphates were potentially lower than previous years.

Since 2014, toilet paper and other toiletry debris could no longer be seen floating down Marsh Creek as raw sewage inflow has ceased. 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, 1994; 3-42). Table 3.1.C. shows average TSS for 2016 were once again 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. In 2016, all sites except site 3 were between a pH of 7-8.

The Marsh Creek watershed experiences 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.

The fluctuation seen at the sites nearest the gate from one year to the next could be due to a potential difference in sampling times in reference to high or low tide.

25

4.3 Green Banks Sites The in-situ water quality parameters assessed for these 4 watercourses fell within acceptable limits for the specific parameter in most cases. The temperature at each site varied over time as expected, but the average over the entire monitoring season was less than 22°C. Salmonid species are especially sensitive to high water temperatures, however, an average below 22°C would not fall into a lethal temperature range for most individuals and it is unlikely that they would not remain in an area that has warmed. The average per site pH varied between 7.5 and 8.2; which is considered a normal neutral range for surface waters. The average dissolved oxygen concentration was found to be good (above 6.5 ppm) for all sites expect site 13, lower Newman’s Brook (Spar Cove), were the average was 3.8 ppm. It is unlikely that this site would be able to sustain much aquatic life with such low dissolved oxygen levels. The salinity levels varied from site to site depending on if the watercourse is affected by the tide. Site 6, lower Hazen Creek, had an average salinity concentration of 500.79 ppt; it is unlikely that this a true value as seawater only has a salinity concentration of 35 ppt. Most likely, this value represents an unnoticed error made in the field at the time of sampling.

In terms of phosphate concentration, the majority of the sites have low concentrations. The average PO4 concentrations for Hazen Creek, Fairweather Brook, and Taylor Brook, as well as the upper Newman’s Brook are considered normal for surface waters and should not encourage a spike in aquatic vegetation growth. However, lower Newman’s Brook, Spar Cove, (Site 13) had elevated concentrations. The average PO4 concentration for site 13 was 0.447 mg/L which would support an elevated growth of aquatic vegetation.

The average fecal coliform concentration for all site was above the CCME guideline of 200 CFU/100 mL for recreational waters. Once again lower Newman’s Brook had an average fecal coliform concentration much higher than the other sites (542,833 CFU/100mL). The high fecal coliform count, along with elevated phosphate concentration, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations would suggest that there is some sewage discharge along the lower portion of this watercourse. The averages for the other sites were above the guideline recommendation overall but most sites were well below the limit for most time points. The first samples were taken after a heavy rainfall and the fecal coliform counts were elevated. This would suggest that large rain events are contributing to the increased fecal coliform concentrations through runoff and possible lift station overflows.

26

5.0 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the data recovered during the water quality monitoring of the Marsh Creek watershed study was successful in compiling and recording data prior to the completion of Harbour Cleanup.

Current data collected for the water quality monitoring of the Marsh Creek watershed study was compiled and added 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. Monitoring in 2016 resulted in another significant decrease in the majority of Marsh Creek. Although the average fecal coliform count is not within the guidelines for recreational water, the decreasing trend has given a significant indication that Marsh Creek is recovering quickly.

Overall, the Green Banks sites were in good standing in terms of water quality. Hazen Creek, Taylor Brook, and Fairweather Brook have the best overall water quality; with potential areas of improvements in each watershed. Newman’s Brook in the upper reaches is quite healthy but the lower reach of the brook clearly needs more monitoring and investigation into the causes of the increased fecal coliform counts, phosphate concentrations, and the depletion of dissolved oxygen, in the future.

27

6.0 REFERENCES Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. (2013). Biosphere. Retrieved June 20, 2013 from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66191/biosphere/70878/Salinity.

Government of Canada. (2016). Canadian Drought Monitor. Retrieved August 18, 2016, from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/programs-and-services/list-ofprograms-and-services/drought-watch/canadian-drought-monitor/?id=1463575104513.

Health Canada. (2012). Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality. Retrieved August 11, 2014 from Health Canada: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/guide_water-2012guide_eau/index-eng.php.

Lenntech. (2012). Acids & alkalis in freshwater. Retrieved June 2013 from Water Treatment Solutions: http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/acids-alkalis.htm.

Murdoch P.S., Baron J.S., and Miller T.L.. (2000). Potential effects of climate change on surface-water quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(2): 347-366.

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

(1994). Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Retrieved July 3, 2013 from Water: Monitoring & Assessment: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm.

Van Vliet M.J.H., and Zwolsman J.J.G.. (2008). Impact of summer droughts on the water quality of the Meuse River. Journal of hydrology, 353(1-2): 1-17.

28

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS USED TO DETERMINE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN MARSH CREEK IN 2016.

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 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 100 mL 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&#x2014; 100

Sample Calculation Counted fecal coliforms = 45

HIJ KLBM

đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122; đ??šđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122; đ??śđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x201C;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018; = 4,500

*100 = 4,500

HIJ KLBM

HIJ KLBM

â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 10 = 45,000

HIJ KLLBM

If all plates were less than 20: (KRĂ&#x2014;KL)U(VĂ&#x2014;KLL) VL BM

Ă&#x2014; 100 = 1,950

HIJ KLLBM

29

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=

W L.YKLZ

- 0.004

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

L.LVK L.YKLZ

â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 0.004 = 0.026

B^ M

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

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

= 2.0*10-4

B^ K ^

*10 = 2.0

^ KLLBM

B^ M

30

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+ = (

đ??ťU)

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??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 + 5.13đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 + 4.57đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 + 6.46đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 + 9.12đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 + 1.12đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 07 + K 1.12đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 07) = 7.62đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08 đ?&#x2018;&#x20AC; f

Avg pH = -log (7.62đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 08) = 7.12

31

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

R=

tuuuu

v.VRKv

qr ) hs

qr hs tuuuu r v.VRKv s wxw.t

R=

r s

= 0.00800

Next the r-sub-t must be calculated which is a function of temperature: đ?&#x2018;&#x; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą = đ??ś0 + đ??ś1 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;Ą + đ??ś2 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;Ą)^2 + đ??ś3 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;Ą)^3 + đ??ś4 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;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?&#x2018;&#x; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą = 6.77đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 01 + 2.01đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 02 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 21.3 + 1.10đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 04 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (21.3)^2 + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;7đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 07 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (21.3)^3 + 1.00đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 09 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (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?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;? = 1 + đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ??¸0 + đ??¸1 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;? + đ??¸2 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;?)^2)/(1 + đ??ˇ0 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;Ą + đ??ˇ1 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;Ą)^2 + (đ??ˇ2 + đ??ˇ3 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;Ą) â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;&#x2026;) 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 32

đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;? = 1 + 10.12 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (2.07đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 05 Âą 6.37đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 10 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 10.12 +3.99E-15 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (10.12)^2)/(1 + 3.43đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 02 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 21.3 + 4.46đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 04 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (21.3)^2 + (4.22đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 01 + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;3.11đ??¸ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 03 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 21.3) â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 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?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą =

đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;&#x; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)

đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą =

L.LLYLL (K.Kâ&#x201A;Źâ&#x2C6;&#x2014;L.â&#x201A;ŹKf)

=0.135

An equation for S must now be calculated as follows: đ?&#x2018;&#x2020; =

đ?&#x2018;Ą â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 15 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ??ľ0 + đ??ľ1 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^(1/2) + đ??ľ2 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą + đ??ľ3 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;?

(1 + đ?&#x2018;&#x2DC; â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;Ą â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 15)) â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^(3/2) + đ??ľ4 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^2

+đ??ľ5 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;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

33

đ?&#x2018;&#x2020; =

21.3 â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 15 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.0005 +â&#x2C6;&#x2014; â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.006(0.135)^(1/2) + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.007 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 0.135 + (1 + 0.0162 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (21.3 â&#x2C6;&#x2019; 15))

â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.038 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^(3/2) + 0.0636 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^2 + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.014 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^(5/2)) S = -0.00194 Finally to calculate Salinity in units of ppt the following equation must be used: K

đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;Ś = đ??´0 + đ??´1 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)V + đ??´2 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą + đ??´3 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^(3/2) + đ??´4 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^2 + đ??´5 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;? â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;Ą)^(5/2) + đ?&#x2018;&#x2020; Where: S = previous calculation A0 = 0.008 A1 = -0.169 A2 = 25.385 A3 = 14.094 A4 = -7.026 A5 = 2.7081 K

đ?&#x2018;&#x2020;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;Ś = 0.008 + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.169 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)V + 25.385 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; 0.135 + 14.094 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^(3/2) + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;7.026 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^2 + 2.7081 â&#x2C6;&#x2014; (0.135)^(5/2) + â&#x2C6;&#x2019;0.00194 Salinity = 0.35 ppt

34

APPENDIX B. CALIBRATION CURVE OF ABSORBANCE VS TOTAL PHOSPHATES. 0.250

0.200

y = 0.6447x - 0.0015 R² = 0.99473

Absorbance

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000 0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

Total phosphate (mg/L)

35

APPENDIX C. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS A (UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM) IN 2016.

Table C-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 12-14, 2016.

Orthophosphates

℃ June 12-14, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Upstream Downtream

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance

144 200000

97.7 97.1

0.010 0.013

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

0.018 0.022

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

NA NA

3 3

NA NA

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

6.88 7.55

1 3

NA NA

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.25 8.51

3 0

0.08 0.18

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.29 7.55

7 4

0.09 0.21

Table C-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 28-30, 2016. ℃

June 28-30, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Upstream Downtream

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates (mg/L)

1950 0

98.5 98.8

0.007 0.005

0.013 0.010

Table C-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 12-14, 2016. ℃

July 12-14, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Upstream Downtream

NA NA

17.0 20.3

7.81 8.53

8.7 12.13

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates (mg/L)

50 350

98.7 97.9

0.006 0.009

0.012 0.016

Table C-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 26-28, 2016. ℃

July 26-28, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Upstream Downtream

NA NA

18.7 22.2

7.86 7.72

9.21 6.85

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates (mg/L)

60 360

99.1 97

0.004 0.013

0.009 0.022

Table C-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 9-11, 2016. ℃

Aug 9-11, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Upstream Downtream

NA NA

16.8 21.0

7.72 8.78

8.51 11.31

Orthophosphates Fecal Coliforms Total (CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates (mg/L)

380 0

99.3 98.3

0.003 0.007

0.007 0.013

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.14 8.64

2 1

0.08 0.27

36

APPENDIX D. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS A (UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM) IN 2015.

Table D-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 Downstream

Mid-low Mid-low

9.7 11.0

NA* NA

0.72 0.65

90,000*** TNTC**

% Absorbance Transmittance

97.7 89.8

0.01 0.047

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.01194 0.05758

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

6.74 7.19

5 14

0.04662 0.30559

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

Table D-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 Downstream

Low Low

14.4 20.8

7.25 8.65

6.9 11.1

560 880

% Absorbance Transmittance

99.1 98.1

0.004 0.009

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.00453 0.01070

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.56 8.32

0 0

0.14 0.43

Table D-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 Downstream

High High

15.3 20.0

7.85 8.09

9.5 9.3

630 590

% Absorbance Transmittance

98.5 97.3

0.006 0.012

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.00700 0.01440

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.07 8.03

0 2

0.06000 1.47000

Table D-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)

Upstream Downstream

Low Low

17.7 19.6

7.89 7.94

9.4 9.7

491 890

% Absorbance Transmittance

99.1 98.3

0.004 0.008

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.00453 0.00947

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.36 7.97

3 2

0.06000 0.76000

37

Table D-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 Downstream

Low Low

15.5 20.6

NA NA-

8.64 9.78

1,070 200

% Absorbance Transmittance 98.5 96.0

0.007 0.018

Total Phosphates (mg/L) 0.00824 0.02181

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.09 8.01

8 4

0.04662 0.30559

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

Orthophosphates August 18-19, 2015

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

7.38

9.1

1,355

98.5

0.006

0.00700

7.36

0.08000

8.34

13.1

260

96.0

0.018

0.02181

8.21

0.49000

Tides

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Upstream

Low

18.2

Downstream

Low-mid

21.9

% Absorbance Transmittance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

38

APPENDIX E. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS A (UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM) IN 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

39

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

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

40

APPENDIX F. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS A (UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM) IN 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

41

APPENDIX G. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS A UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM FOR YEARS 1995 THROUGH 2016.

Table G-1: Yearly summary of data for Analysis A Upstream from 1993-2016.

Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2011 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993

Salinity (ppt)

pH

Yearly Summary of Data [Marsh Creek Upstream] Ammonia Concentrations Turbidity Suspended Fecal (CFU) Free % Total (NTU) solids (g/L) (mg/L) Dissociated (mg/L) 517 0.0032 15,684 0.0027 873 0.0021 695 0.0010 613 0.0012

0.08 0.07 0.27 0.06

7.8 7.59 7.33 6.50 7.3

0.0556

7.31

6.857

1669

0.04

0.075 0.097 0.031 0.1 0.1 0.131 0.06 0.25 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.18

7.20 7.19 7.36 6.90 6.92 7.73 7.68 7.83 7.52 7.32 7.85 7.72

1.60 0.27 0.61 5.50 5.45 <1 4.92 2.90 2.24 1.68 4.17 3.79

329 325 114.97 192 192.5 159 293.5 106.3 33.9 2336

0.002 0.0027

0.0017

1.962

1.9586

Total Dissloved Oxygen Total Nitrate Phosphate Oxygen Saturation (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) 0.012 8.8 0.007 7.38 0.051 7.87 0.002 9.17

0.000796

0.0122

0.049 0.040 0.1170 0.05 0.05 0.06

0.023 0.010 0.0145

1.744

5.36 8.17 8.12 5.50 5.54 8.49 8.48 9.44 8.56 8.66 8.02 5.89

89.29

94.84

42

Table G-2: Yearly summary of data for Analysis A Downstream from 1993-2016.

Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2011 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993

Salinity (ppt)

pH

Yearly Summary of Data [Marsh Creek Downstream] Ammonia Concentrations Total Dissloved Oxygen Turbidity Suspended Total Nitrate Fecal (CFU) Free % Total Phosphate Oxygen Saturation (NTU) solids (g/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Dissociated (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) 40142 0.0022 0.017 10.1 564 0.0037 0.023 8.94 5,213 0.0151 0.076 8.17 494,375 0.0056 0.050 7.61 54,086 0.0066 0.1068

0.22 0.63 0.32 0.38

8.34 8.25 7.36 7.19 7.85

1.47

7.36

8.857

0.21 6.30 0.65 4.70 4.70 4.23 2.58 2.65 4.70 5.90 6.87 3.35

7.34 7.66 7.33 7.10 7.07 7.59 7.44 7.41 7.28 7.71 7.66 7.41

3.30 0.70 1.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 5.70 9.65 7.32 5.57 13.61 9.24

4,052,381 7,228,571 15,825,556 4,379,445 1,841,667 557,500 143,889 143,889 160,625 173,700 69,857 23,703 31,456

0.8318

1.827

0.017 0.0052

0.008

1.6999

0.0141

0.231

0.916 0.256 0.2805 1 1 0.45

0.171 0.084 0.0829

1.508

2.03 9.54 7.75 5.20 5.23 7.81 6.19 5.90 7.12 9.10 7.87 6.28

62.03

74.33

43

APPENDIX H. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN 2016.

Table H-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 12-14, 2016. ℃

June 14-16, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

Orthophosphates Fecal Total Coliforms % Absorbance Phosphates (CFU/100mL) Transmittance (mg/L) 20000 96.3 0.016 0.02714 12500 93.7 0.028 0.04576 200000 97.1 0.013 0.02249 35000 96.8 0.014 0.02404 29000 97.8 0.01 0.01784

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

NA NA NA NA NA

10 28 3 3 1

NA NA NA NA NA

Table H-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 28-30, 2016. ℃

Orthophosphates

June 28-30, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

200 300 0 0 650

% Transmittance

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

94.5 96.1 98.8 98.3 96.9

0.025 0.017 0.005 0.007 0.014

0.04110 0.02870 0.01008 0.01318 0.02404

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.51 7.39 7.55 8.13 7.68

8 5 3 0 1

NA NA NA NA NA

Table H-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 13-14, 2016. ℃

Orthophosphates

July 13-14, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

NA NA NA NA NA

17.9 18.3 20.3 19.2 18.1

7.73 7.76 8.53 8.43 7.67

9.23 8.86 12.13 11.24 6.40

110 390 50 290 420

% Transmittance

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

94.2 96.1 97.9 97.0 97.5

0.026 0.017 0.009 0.013 0.011

0.04266 0.02870 0.01629 0.02249 0.01939

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.71 7.83 8.51 8.20 7.60

7 2 0 0 0

11.80 17.21 0.18 0.18 0.18

Table H-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 26-28, 2016. ℃

Orthophosphates

July 26-28, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

NA NA NA NA NA

18.6 21.2 22.2 22.1 21.8

7.57 7.49 7.72 7.64 7.66

6.66 5.81 6.85 5.78 4.45

420 730 360 210 270

% Transmittance

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

95.1 95.7 97.0 96.7 96.4

0.022 0.019 0.013 0.015 0.016

0.03645 0.03180 0.02249 0.02559 0.02714

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.51 7.30 7.55 7.31 7.26

5 4 4 6 3

15.67 2.72 0.21 0.22 0.22

Table H-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 26-28, 2016. ℃

Orthophosphates

Aug 9-11, 2016

Tides

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

NA NA NA NA NA

17.4 18.2 21 20.5 19.8

7.75 7.72 8.78 8.16 8.00

6.95 7.54 11.31 8.46 6.06

40 20 0 30 200

% Transmittance

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

94.2 94.5 98.3 97.8 97.0

0.026 0.025 0.007 0.010 0.013

0.04266 0.04110 0.01318 0.01784 0.02249

Lab pH

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

7.78 7.85 8.64 7.99 7.62

2 5 1 0 1

18.59 15.89 0.27 0.26 0.24

44

APPENDIX I. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN 2015.

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

Orthophosphates June 1012, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Mid-low Mid-low Mid-low Mid-low Mid-low

Temp (°C)

Field pH

10.9 10.9 11.0 11.2 10.6

NA NA NA NA NA

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

0.65 0.65 0.65 0.67 0.67

31,000,000 NA* TNTC** 2,700,000 480,000

% Transmittance

90.8 90.4 94.6 93.9 95.2

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.042 0.044 0.024 0.028 0.021

0.05141 0.05388 0.02921 0.03414 0.02551

7.26 7.30 7.09 7.00 6.83

19 9 12 15 2

2.90717 0.29728 0.23173 0.15379 0.11561

*; Not available **; Too numerous to count

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

Orthophosphates July 6-8, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Low Low Low Low Low

Temp (°C)

Field pH

NA* 19.1 21.3 20.9 20.0

NA 8.03 9.00 8.81 8.05

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

NA 9.4 13.2 12.6 8.2

640 TNTC** 520 310 700

% Transmittance

96.0 95.4 99.0 99.0 99.4

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.018 0.020 0.004 0.004 0.003

0.02181 0.02427 0.00453 0.00453 0.00330

7.77 7.95 8.77 8.58 7.72

3 3 0 0 0

NA 10.93 0.18 0.18 0.19

*; Not available **; Too numerous to count

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

Orthophosphates July 13-15, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

High High High High High

Temp (°C)

Field pH

14.8 16.9 21.9 21.5 20.4

7.92 7.88 8.85 8.79 8.04

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

10.1 8.5 13 13.6 9.9

155 200 930 1,280 2,210

% Transmittance

95.8 96.8 98.2 98.5 98.7

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.019 0.013 0.008 0.007 0.006

0.02304 0.01564 0.00947 0.00824 0.00700

7.75 7.71 8.95 8.53 8.00

7 2 0 0 0

8.43000 14.87000 0.19000 0.19000 0.19000

45

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

Orthophosphates July 21-22, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Low Low Low Low Low

Temp (°C)

Field pH

18.3 19.4 19.8 19.5 19.3

7.53 7.72 8.04 7.85 7.52

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

8.3 9.6 9.9 9.5 7.2

891 2200 590 700 1700***

% Transmittance

96.7 97.5 98.5 98.8 98.8

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.015 0.011 0.007 0.005 0.005

0.01810 0.01317 0.00824 0.00577 0.00577

7.67 7.86 7.80 7.74 7.44

2 2 1 1 0

10.22000 1.74000 0.18000 0.18000 0.18000

***; Estimated

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

Orthophosphates August 67, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Low Low Low Low Low

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

19.3 20.0 21.3 20.8 19.0

NA* NA NA NA NA

9.21 10.86 10.61 10.85 7.05

109 280 250 100 570

% Transmittance 95.0 96.4 97.6 97.2 97.3

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

0.022 0.016 0.010 0.012 0.012

0.02674 0.01934 0.01194 0.01440 0.01440

7.67 7.77 7.97 8.16 7.58

2 1 0 0 1

2.90717 0.29728 0.23173 0.15379 0.11561

*; Not available

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

Orthophosphates August 1819, 2015

Tides

Site 1 Site 2

Fecal D.O. Coliforms (ppm) (CFU/100mL)

Temp (°C)

Field pH

Mid

17.8

7.92

9.8

Mid

21.3

7.61

8.6

Site 3

Low-mid

22.2

8.14

Site 4

Low-mid

21.1

7.72

Site 5

Low

20.6

7.57

TSS (mg/L)

Salinity (ppt)

Lab pH

Absorbance

Total Phosphates (mg/L)

93.6

0.029

0.03538

7.76

0.18000

94.3

0.026

0.03168

7.66

0.30000

173

97.4

0.011

0.01317

8.49

0.11000

130***

96.7

0.015

0.01810

8.23

0.13000

96.8

0.014

0.01687

7.88

0.12000

% Transmittance

390 200

13.9 11.6 8.1

400

***; Estimated

46

APPENDIX J. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN 2014.

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

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

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

47

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

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

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

48

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

49

APPENDIX K. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN 2013.

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

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

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

50

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

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

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

51

APPENDIX L. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN 2012.

Site 1 2 3 4 5

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

Averages for 2012 Orthophosphates Fecal Coliform Field pH D.O (ppm) Lab pH mg TSS/L (CFU/100 mL) %T Absorb. mg/L 6.83 5.24 90.8 0.043 0.017 7.23 221.0 > 8325 6.68 3.63 91.1 0.040 0.016 7.05 72.5 > 95825 6.70 2.30 89.9 0.047 0.019 7.11 12.5 > 20825 6.55 / 25.4 0.021 0.008 7.13 ND 6.78 6.51 94.0 0.028 0.011 7.33 3.75 > 8325

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

52

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

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

53

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

54

APPENDIX M. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS OF NEW SITES ADDED IN 2016.

Table M-1: Summary of water quality parameters for new sites for June 12-14, 2016. ℃ June 14-16, 2016 Temp ( ) Field pH D.O. (ppm) Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL) Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6800 3600 4300 6600 4200 17000 34000 2200000

Orthophosphates % Total Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt) Absorba Transmi Phosphates nce ttance (mg/L) 92.8 98.6 98.9 98.7 99.2 96.5 97.7 69.4

0.033 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.015 0.010 0.159

0.054 0.012 0.010 0.012 0.007 0.026 0.018 0.249

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 2 0 1 1 2 11 18

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Table M-2: Summary of water quality parameters for new sites for June 28-30, 2016. ℃ June 28-30, 2016

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

200 0 0 0 0 2500 100 460000

Orthophosphates % Total Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 98.2 0.008 0.015 98.0 0.009 0.016 99.5 0.002 0.005 98.8 0.005 0.010 99.5 0.002 0.005 86.3 0.064 0.102 98.5 0.006 0.012 58.6 0.232 0.362

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 7.67 7.47 7.34 7.10 7.09 6.92 7.47 7.00

0 0 0 2 7 27 0 28

Salinity (ppt) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Table M-3: Summary of water quality parameters for new sites for July 12-14, 2016. ℃ July 13-14, 2016

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14

17.0 12.8 19.1 20.9 17.7 18.9 16.2 15.8

7.66 7.74 8.10 7.81 7.85 7.96 8.02 9.60

8.30 9.91 7.88 8.08 8.63 9.45 9.18 6.20

200 0 20 0 70 210 40 37000

Orthophosphates % Total Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 97.3 0.012 0.021 98.1 0.008 0.015 98.7 0.006 0.012 98.5 0.006 0.012 98.6 0.006 0.012 97.6 0.011 0.019 96.4 0.016 0.027 41.5 0.381 0.593

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 7.47 7.42 7.42 7.34 7.45 7.80 7.77 9.73

1 0 1 10 0 1 4 43

Salinity (ppt) 1488.5 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.14 1.58

55

Table M-4: Summary of water quality parameters for new sites for July 26-28, 2016. ℃ July 26-28, 2016

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14

19.5 15.3 21.0 24.1 19.6 21.1 19.4 17.4

7.47 7.79 8.34 8.03 7.97 7.69 8.04 7.31

6.36 8.81 7.86 6.95 8.54 7.31 9.00 4.31

560 150 30 10 20 480 150 210000

Orthophosphates % Total Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 97.7 0.010 0.018 98.0 0.009 0.016 99.0 0.004 0.009 98.8 0.005 0.010 99.0 0.004 0.009 97.3 0.012 0.021 98.5 0.007 0.013 49.8 0.303 0.472

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 7.46 7.75 7.47 7.55 7.63 7.46 7.88 7.10

3 2 1 4 3 4 2 33

Salinity (ppt) 8.94 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.17 3.57

Table M-5: Summary of water quality parameters for new sites for August 9-11, 2016. ℃ Aug 9-11, 2016

Temp ( )

Field pH

D.O. (ppm)

Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)

Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14

18.5 13.3 17.2 20.3 15.0 18.5 15.9 18.1

7.43 7.02 8.16 7.84 7.83 7.82 8.08 7.31

8.31 8.41 8.71 8.07 10.32 8.26 9.48 0.96

70 75 0 0 10 1080 10 350000

Orthophosphates % Total Absorban Transmitt Phosphates ce ance (mg/L) 97.2 0.012 0.021 96.0 0.018 0.030 99.3 0.003 0.007 99.0 0.004 0.009 99.4 0.003 0.007 98.2 0.008 0.015 98.9 0.005 0.010 22.6 0.645 1.003

Lab pH TSS (mg/L) 8.07 7.84 7.50 7.34 7.60 7.50 7.80 7.12

6 1 0 2 0 22 0 42

Salinity (ppt) 4.92 0.26 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.22 0.29

56