Rebirth of Water Report 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
Site Description
1 45.277506, -66.047122
2 45.281560, -66.048694
3 45.284844, -66.052393
4 45.288143, -66.048764
5 45.290998, -66.043606
Located on the upstream side of the Courtenay tide gates at
the terminus of Marsh Creek.
Located approximately 500 m upstream from Site 1, just
upstream of where Dutchman’s Creek enters Marsh Creek.
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.
Located 500 m upstream from Site 3 immediately upstream
of another former raw sewage outfall.
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.
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
GPS Coordinates
Site Description
Number
6 45.220990, -66.015505
7 45.275878, -65.998910
Lower Hazen Creek, located upstream of the bridge on Red
Head Road at the outfall of Hazen Creek into the Saint John
Harbour.
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 ± 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
Scientific 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
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.
Average of Analysis A for 2016
℃
Orthophosphates
Fecal
Total
Salinity
Tides Temp ( ) Field pH DO (ppm) Coliforms %
Transmittance Absorbance
Lab pH TSS (mg/L)
Phosphates
(ppt)
(CFU/100mL)
(mg/L)
Upstream NA 17.5 7.80 8.8 516.8 98.7 0.006 0.012 7.14 3.2 0.08
Downstream NA 21.2 8.34 10.1 40142 97.8 0.009 0.017 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.
Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH DO (ppm)
Standard Deviation for Analysis A in 2016
Orthophosphates
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Upstream NA 1.0 0.07 0.4 812.1 0.6 0.003 0.004 0.18 2.3 0.01
Downstream NA 1.0 0.55 2.8 89364 0.8 0.004 0.006 0.59 1.6 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.
Lab pH
TSS (mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
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.
100000000
Fecal coliform (cfu/100 ml)
10000000
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
10
Upstream
Downstream
1
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
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.
Year
14

16
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Upstream
Downstream
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 2011-
2016. Values were not obtained in the 2012 year.
0.25
Orthophosphates (mg PO4/L)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Upstream
Downstream
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year
Figure 3.1.C: Orthophosphates (mg PO₄/L) measured in Marsh Creek upstream and downstream sample stations from 2002-
2016. 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
5
Upstream
Downstream
Salinity (ppt)
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
10
Upstream
Downstream
Dissolved oxygen (ppm)
8
6
4
2
0
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
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.
Year
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.
Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Average of Analysis B for 2016
Orthophosphates
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Total
%
Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates
(mg/L)
Site 1 NA 18.0 7.68 7.61 4154 94.86 0.023 0.038 7.63 6.4 15.35
Site 2 NA 19.2 7.66 7.40 2788 95.22 0.021 0.035 7.59 8.8 11.94
Site 3 NA 21.2 8.34 10.10 40082 97.82 0.009 0.017 8.06 2.2 0.22
Site 4 NA 20.6 8.08 8.49 7106 97.32 0.012 0.021 7.91 1.8 0.22
Site 5 NA 19.9 7.78 5.64 6108 97.12 0.013 0.022 7.54 1.2 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.
Tides Temp (
Standard Deviation of Analasys B for 2016
℃
Orthophosphates
Fecal
Total
) Field pH D.O. (ppm) Coliforms %
Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates
(CFU/100mL)
(mg/L)
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.
Lab pH
TSS (mg/L)
Site 1 NA 0.6 0.10 1.41 8859 0.88 0.004 0.007 0.14 3.0 3.41
Site 2 NA 1.7 0.15 1.53 5435 1.07 0.005 0.008 0.29 10.8 8.01
Site 3 NA 1.0 0.55 2.84 89397 0.77 0.004 0.006 0.59 1.6 0.05
Site 4 NA 1.5 0.40 2.73 15594 0.70 0.003 0.005 0.41 2.7 0.04
Site 5 NA 1.9 0.19 1.04 12798 0.54 0.002 0.004 0.19 1.1 0.03
Lab pH
TSS (mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
Salinity
(ppt)
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
225000
200000
175000
150000
125000
100000
75000
50000
25000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
0
1 2 3 4 5
Sample Station
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
200
150
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
TSS (mg/L)
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5
Sample Station
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.
Orthophosphate mgPO4/L
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
0
1 2 3 4 5
Sample Station
Figure 3.1.D: Orthophosphates (mg PO 4/L) measured in five sites in Lower Marsh Creek (Analysis B) from 2012 to 2016.
19

30
25
Salinity (ppt)
20
15
10
5
2013
2014
2015
2016
0
1 2 3 4 5
Sample Station
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.
Table 3.1.F: Calculated standard deviations of water quality parameters measured for Green Banks sites from five sample periods
in 2016.
3.2 Fish Collection
3.2.1 Upper Marsh Creek
Electrofishing
Temp (
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Site 6 18.3 7.5 7.7 1566 80.5 0.013 0.021 6.13 2.3 500.79
Site 7 13.8 7.5 9.0 638 81.5 0.008 0.015 6.10 0.8 0.17
Site 8 19.1 8.2 8.2 725 82.6 0.003 0.007 5.95 0.3 0.10
Site 9 21.8 7.9 7.7 1102 82.3 0.004 0.009 5.87 3.2 0.13
Site 10 17.4 7.9 9.2 717 82.6 0.003 0.007 5.95 1.8 0.14
Site 11 19.5 7.8 8.3 3545 79.3 0.018 0.030 5.94 9.3 0.21
Site 12 17.2 8.0 9.2 5717 81.7 0.007 0.013 6.18 2.8 0.18
Site 13 17.1 8.1 3.8 542833 40.3 0.287 0.447 6.19 27.3 1.81
Temp (
℃
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Average of Green Banks Sites for 2016
Orthophosphates
Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)
Standard Deviation of Green Banks Sites for 2016
Orthophosphates
) Field pH D.O. (ppm) Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100mL)
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
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 Number caught % of total catch Range (TL in mm)
Mummichog 100 51.0 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
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 1.0 0.1 0.9 2463.7 36.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.2 698.4
Site 7 1.1 0.4 0.6 1326.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.1
Site 8 1.6 0.1 0.4 1598.8 36.9 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.0
Site 9 1.7 0.1 0.5 2458.9 36.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.3 0.0
Site 10 1.9 0.1 0.8 1558.0 36.9 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 0.0
Site 11 1.1 0.1 0.9 6073.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.9 0.0
Site 12 1.6 0.0 0.2 12648.8 36.5 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.9 0.0
Site 13 1.0 1.1 2.2 758459.1 23.1 0.2 0.3 3.3 14.9 1.3
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 Number caught % of total catch Range (TL in mm)
Fourspine stickleback 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 PO 4
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
PO 4 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-2012-
guide_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
Total Fecal Coliforms = Counted fecal coliforms ∗ 10
Where:
Total Fecal Coliforms = the total amount of fecal coliforms from a 100 mL sample
Counted fecal coliforms = the amount of coliform bacteria counted
If all plates were less than 20:
789:;

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
B^
− 0.004 = 0.026
L.YKLZ 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 – 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 - 1.4591 = KLLBM KLLBM 2.0*10-4
^
^
KLLBM
TSS = 2.0*10 -4 ^
* 1000B^ = 2.0B^
KLLBM K ^*10
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 + = ( H U ) 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 + = (5.62E − 08 + 5.13E − 08 + 4.57E − 08 + 6.46E − 08 + 9.12E − 08 + 1.12E − 07 +
1.12E − 07) K = 7.62E − 08 M
f
Avg pH = -log (7.62E − 08) = 7.12
31

A-5: Salinity Equation:
In calculating the salinity an equation to find conductivity ratio (R) must first be calculated
R =
hijklhmnonmp( qr
hs )
tuuuu
R =
wxw.t qr
hs
tuuuu
= 0.00800
v.VRKv r s
v.VRKv r s
Next the r-sub-t must be calculated which is a function of temperature:
r − sub − t = C0 + C1 ∗ t + C2 ∗ (t)^2 + C3 ∗ (t)^3 + C4 ∗ (t)^4
Where:
t =temperature (degrees Celsius)
C 0 = 6.77E-01
C 1 = 2.01E-02
C 2 = 1.10E-04
C 3 = -7E-07
C 4 = 1.00E-09
r − sub − t = 6.77E − 01 + 2.01E − 02 ∗ 21.3 + 1.10E − 04 ∗ (21.3)^2 + −7E − 07 ∗ (21.3)^3
+ 1.00E − 09 ∗ (21.3)^4
r-sub-t = 1.15
A function of pressure and temperature called R-sub-p must now be calculated as follows:
R − sub − p = 1 + p ∗ (E0 + E1 ∗ p + E2 ∗ (p)^2)/(1 + D0 ∗ t + D1 ∗ (t)^2 + (D2 + D3 ∗ t) ∗ R)
Where:
t = temperature (degrees Celsius)
p = pressure (in decibars)
R = previous calculation
E 0 = 2.07E-05
E 1 = -6.37E-10
E 2 = 3.99E-15
D 0 = 3.43E-02
D 1 = 4.46E-04
D 2 = 4.22E-01
D 3 = -3.11E-03
32

R − sub − p = 1 + 10.12 ∗ (2.07E − 05 ± 6.37E − 10 ∗ 10.12 +3.99E-15
∗ (10.12)^2)/(1 + 3.43E − 02 ∗ 21.3 + 4.46E − 04 ∗ (21.3)^2 + (4.22E − 01 + −3.11E − 03 ∗ 21.3)
∗ 0.00800)
R-sub-p = 0.517
Next R-sub-t must be calculated as a function of R, r-sub-t, and R-sub-p as follows:
R
R − sub − t =
(R − sub − p ∗ r − sub − t)
R − sub − t =
L.LLYLL
(K.K€∗L.€Kf) =0.135
An equation for S must now be calculated as follows:
t − 15
S =
∗ (B0 + B1 ∗ (R − sub − t)^(1/2) + B2 ∗ R − sub − t + B3 ∗ (R − sub
(1 + k ∗ (t − 15))
− t)^(3/2) + B4 ∗ (R − sub − t)^2
+B5 ∗ (R − sub − t)^(5/2))
Where:
t = temperature (degrees Celsius)
R-sub-t = previously calculated
k = 0.0162
B 0 = 0.0005
B 1 = -0.006
B 2 = -0.007
B 3 = -0.038
B 4 = 0.0636
B 5 = -0.014
33

21.3 − 15
S =
∗ (0.0005 +∗ −0.006(0.135)^(1/2) + −0.007 ∗ 0.135 +
(1 + 0.0162 ∗ (21.3 − 15))
−0.038 ∗ (0.135)^(3/2) + 0.0636 ∗ (0.135)^2 + −0.014 ∗ (0.135)^(5/2))
S = -0.00194
Finally to calculate Salinity in units of ppt the following equation must be used:
Salinity = A0 + A1 ∗ (R − sub − t) K V + A2 ∗ R − sub − t + A3 ∗ (R − sub − t)^(3/2) +
A4 ∗ (R − sub − t)^2 + A5 ∗ (R − sub − t)^(5/2) + S
Where:
S = previous calculation
A 0 = 0.008
A 1 = -0.169
A 2 = 25.385
A 3 = 14.094
A 4 = -7.026
A 5 = 2.7081
Salinity = 0.008 + −0.169 ∗ (0.135) K V + 25.385 ∗ 0.135 + 14.094 ∗ (0.135)^(3/2) +
−7.026 ∗ (0.135)^2 + 2.7081 ∗ (0.135)^(5/2) + −0.00194
Salinity = 0.35 ppt
34

APPENDIX B. CALIBRATION CURVE OF ABSORBANCE VS TOTAL
PHOSPHATES.
0.250
0.200
y = 0.6447x - 0.0015
R² = 0.99473
0.150
Absorbance
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)
Fecal Coliforms
Total
(CFU/100mL) % Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates
Lab pH
(mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream NA NA NA NA 144 97.7 0.010 0.018 NA 3 NA
Downtream NA NA NA NA 200000 97.1 0.013 0.022 NA 3 NA
Table C-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for June 28-30, 2016.
June 28-30, 2016 Tides Temp (
% Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Upstream NA NA NA NA 1950 98.5 0.007 0.013 6.88 1 NA
Downtream NA NA NA NA 0 98.8 0.005 0.010 7.55 3 NA
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)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
% Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Table C-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 26-28, 2016.
Table C-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 9-11, 2016.
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Upstream NA 17.0 7.81 8.7 50 98.7 0.006 0.012 7.25 3 0.08
Downtream NA 20.3 8.53 12.13 350 97.9 0.009 0.016 8.51 0 0.18
July 26-28, 2016 Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
% Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Upstream NA 18.7 7.86 9.21 60 99.1 0.004 0.009 7.29 7 0.09
Downtream NA 22.2 7.72 6.85 360 97 0.013 0.022 7.55 4 0.21
Aug 9-11, 2016 Tides Temp (
℃
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
Orthophosphates
% Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Upstream NA 16.8 7.72 8.51 380 99.3 0.003 0.007 7.14 2 0.08
Downtream NA 21.0 8.78 11.31 0 98.3 0.007 0.013 8.64 1 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.
June 10-12,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream Mid-low 9.7 NA* 0.72 90,000*** 97.7 0.01 0.01194 6.74 5 0.04662
Downstream Mid-low 11.0 NA 0.65 TNTC** 89.8 0.047 0.05758 7.19 14 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.
July 7-8, 2015 Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream Low 14.4 7.25 6.9 560 99.1 0.004 0.00453 7.56 0 0.14
Downstream Low 20.8 8.65 11.1 880 98.1 0.009 0.01070 8.32 0 0.43
Table D-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 13-15, 2015.
July 13-15,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream High 15.3 7.85 9.5 630 98.5 0.006 0.00700 7.07 0 0.06000
Downstream High 20.0 8.09 9.3 590 97.3 0.012 0.01440 8.03 2 1.47000
Table D-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for July 21-22, 2015.
July 21-22,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream Low 17.7 7.89 9.4 491 99.1 0.004 0.00453 7.36 3 0.06000
Downstream Low 19.6 7.94 9.7 890 98.3 0.008 0.00947 7.97 2 0.76000
37

Table D-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 6-7, 2015.
August 6-7,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream Low 15.5 NA 8.64 1,070 98.5 0.007 0.00824 7.09 8 0.04662
Downstream Low 20.6 NA- 9.78 200 96.0 0.018 0.02181 8.01 4 0.30559
Table D-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis A for August 18-19, 2015.
August 18-19,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab
pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity (ppt)
Upstream Low 18.2 7.38 9.1 1,355 98.5 0.006 0.00700 7.36 0.08000
Downstream Low-mid 21.9 8.34 13.1 260 96.0 0.018 0.02181 8.21 0.49000
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.
Yearly Summary of Data [Marsh Creek Upstream]
Year
Ammonia Concentrations Total
Dissloved Oxygen
Salinity
Turbidity
Suspended
Total Nitrate
pH
Fecal (CFU)
Free % Total Phosphate
Oxygen Saturation
(ppt)
(NTU)
solids (g/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L) Dissociated (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (%)
2016 0.08 7.8 517 0.0032 0.012 8.8
2015 0.07 7.59 15,684 0.0027 0.007 7.38
2014 0.27 7.33 873 0.0021 0.051 7.87
2013 0.06 6.50 695 0.0010 0.002 9.17
2011 7.3 613 0.0012
2009
2008
2007 0.0556 7.31 6.857 1669 0.04 1.962 0.000796 0.0122
2006
2005
2004 0.075 7.20 1.60 329 0.002 0.049 0.023 5.36
2003 0.097 7.19 0.27 325 0.040 0.010 1.744 8.17
2002 0.031 7.36 0.61 114.97 0.0027 1.9586 0.1170 0.0145 8.12 89.29
2001 0.1 6.90 5.50 192 0.05 5.50
2000 0.1 6.92 5.45 192.5 0.05 5.54
1999 0.131 7.73

Table G-2: Yearly summary of data for Analysis A Downstream from 1993-2016.
Yearly Summary of Data [Marsh Creek Downstream]
Year
Ammonia Concentrations Total
Dissloved Oxygen
Salinity
Turbidity
Suspended
Total Nitrate
pH
Fecal (CFU)
Free % Total Phosphate
Oxygen Saturation
(ppt)
(NTU)
solids (g/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L) Dissociated (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (%)
2016 0.22 8.34 40142 0.0022 0.017 10.1
2015 0.63 8.25 564 0.0037 0.023 8.94
2014 0.32 7.36 5,213 0.0151 0.076 8.17
2013 0.38 7.19 494,375 0.0056 0.050 7.61
2011 7.85 54,086 0.0066 0.1068
2009
2008
2007 1.47 7.36 8.857 4,052,381 0.8318 1.827 0.0141 0.231
2006 7,228,571
2005 15,825,556
2004 0.21 7.34 3.30 4,379,445 0.017 0.916 0.171 2.03
2003 6.30 7.66 0.70 1,841,667 0.256 0.084 1.508 9.54
2002 0.65 7.33 1.00 557,500 0.0052 1.6999 0.2805 0.0829 7.75 62.03
2001 4.70 7.10 4.50 143,889 1 5.20
2000 4.70 7.07 4.50 143,889 1 5.23
1999 4.23 7.59 4.00 160,625 0.008 0.45 7.81
1998 2.58 7.44 5.70 173,700 6.19 74.33
1997 2.65 7.41 9.65 69,857 5.90
1996 4.70 7.28 7.32 23,703 7.12
1995 5.90 7.71 5.57 31,456 9.10
1994 6.87 7.66 13.61 7.87
1993 3.35 7.41 9.24 6.28
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
Total
%
Transmittance Absorbance Phosphates
(mg/L)
Site 1 NA NA NA NA 20000 96.3 0.016 0.02714 NA 10 NA
Site 2 NA NA NA NA 12500 93.7 0.028 0.04576 NA 28 NA
Site 3 NA NA NA NA 200000 97.1 0.013 0.02249 NA 3 NA
Site 4 NA NA NA NA 35000 96.8 0.014 0.02404 NA 3 NA
Site 5 NA NA NA NA 29000 97.8 0.01 0.01784 NA 1 NA
Table H-2: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 28-30, 2016.
June 28-30,
2016
Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Table H-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 13-14, 2016.
Table H-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 26-28, 2016.
Table H-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 26-28, 2016.
Lab pH
TSS (mg/L)
Site 1 NA NA NA NA 200 94.5 0.025 0.04110 7.51 8 NA
Site 2 NA NA NA NA 300 96.1 0.017 0.02870 7.39 5 NA
Site 3 NA NA NA NA 0 98.8 0.005 0.01008 7.55 3 NA
Site 4 NA NA NA NA 0 98.3 0.007 0.01318 8.13 0 NA
Site 5 NA NA NA NA 650 96.9 0.014 0.02404 7.68 1 NA
July 13-14,
2016
Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 1 NA 17.9 7.73 9.23 110 94.2 0.026 0.04266 7.71 7 11.80
Site 2 NA 18.3 7.76 8.86 390 96.1 0.017 0.02870 7.83 2 17.21
Site 3 NA 20.3 8.53 12.13 50 97.9 0.009 0.01629 8.51 0 0.18
Site 4 NA 19.2 8.43 11.24 290 97.0 0.013 0.02249 8.20 0 0.18
Site 5 NA 18.1 7.67 6.40 420 97.5 0.011 0.01939 7.60 0 0.18
July 26-28,
2016
Tides Temp (
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 1 NA 18.6 7.57 6.66 420 95.1 0.022 0.03645 7.51 5 15.67
Site 2 NA 21.2 7.49 5.81 730 95.7 0.019 0.03180 7.30 4 2.72
Site 3 NA 22.2 7.72 6.85 360 97.0 0.013 0.02249 7.55 4 0.21
Site 4 NA 22.1 7.64 5.78 210 96.7 0.015 0.02559 7.31 6 0.22
Site 5 NA 21.8 7.66 4.45 270 96.4 0.016 0.02714 7.26 3 0.22
Aug 9-11,
2016
Tides Temp (
Tides Temp (
℃
℃
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
) Field pH D.O. (ppm)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 1 NA 17.4 7.75 6.95 40 94.2 0.026 0.04266 7.78 2 18.59
Site 2 NA 18.2 7.72 7.54 20 94.5 0.025 0.04110 7.85 5 15.89
Site 3 NA 21 8.78 11.31 0 98.3 0.007 0.01318 8.64 1 0.27
Site 4 NA 20.5 8.16 8.46 30 97.8 0.010 0.01784 7.99 0 0.26
Site 5 NA 19.8 8.00 6.06 200 97.0 0.013 0.02249 7.62 1 0.24
44

APPENDIX I. WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED FOR MARSH
CREEK ANALYSIS B (FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE LAST 2 KM STRETCH) IN
2015.
June 10-
12, 2015
Table I-1: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for June 10-12, 2015.
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
Site 1 Mid-low 10.9 NA 0.65 31,000,000 90.8 0.042 0.05141 7.26 19 2.90717
Site 2 Mid-low 10.9 NA 0.65 NA* 90.4 0.044 0.05388 7.30 9 0.29728
Site 3 Mid-low 11.0 NA 0.65 TNTC** 94.6 0.024 0.02921 7.09 12 0.23173
Site 4 Mid-low 11.2 NA 0.67 2,700,000 93.9 0.028 0.03414 7.00 15 0.15379
Site 5 Mid-low 10.6 NA 0.67 480,000 95.2 0.021 0.02551 6.83 2 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.
July 6-8,
2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Site 1 Low NA* NA NA 640 96.0 0.018 0.02181 7.77 3 NA
Site 2 Low 19.1 8.03 9.4 TNTC** 95.4 0.020 0.02427 7.95 3 10.93
Site 3 Low 21.3 9.00 13.2 520 99.0 0.004 0.00453 8.77 0 0.18
Site 4 Low 20.9 8.81 12.6 310 99.0 0.004 0.00453 8.58 0 0.18
Site 5 Low 20.0 8.05 8.2 700 99.4 0.003 0.00330 7.72 0 0.19
*; Not available
**; Too numerous to count
Salinity
(ppt)
July 13-15,
2015
Table I-3: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 13-15, 2015.
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
Site 1 High 14.8 7.92 10.1 155 95.8 0.019 0.02304 7.75 7 8.43000
Site 2 High 16.9 7.88 8.5 200 96.8 0.013 0.01564 7.71 2 14.87000
Site 3 High 21.9 8.85 13 930 98.2 0.008 0.00947 8.95 0 0.19000
Site 4 High 21.5 8.79 13.6 1,280 98.5 0.007 0.00824 8.53 0 0.19000
Site 5 High 20.4 8.04 9.9 2,210 98.7 0.006 0.00700 8.00 0 0.19000
45

July 21-22,
2015
Table I-4: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for July 21-22, 2015.
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Site 1 Low 18.3 7.53 8.3 891 96.7 0.015 0.01810 7.67 2 10.22000
Site 2 Low 19.4 7.72 9.6 2200 97.5 0.011 0.01317 7.86 2 1.74000
Site 3 Low 19.8 8.04 9.9 590 98.5 0.007 0.00824 7.80 1 0.18000
Site 4 Low 19.5 7.85 9.5 700 98.8 0.005 0.00577 7.74 1 0.18000
Site 5 Low 19.3 7.52 7.2 1700*** 98.8 0.005 0.00577 7.44 0 0.18000
***; Estimated
August 6-
7, 2015
Table I-5: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for August 6-7, 2015.
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
%
Transmittance
Orthophosphates
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Site 1 Low 19.3 NA* 9.21 109 95.0 0.022 0.02674 7.67 2 2.90717
Site 2 Low 20.0 NA 10.86 280 96.4 0.016 0.01934 7.77 1 0.29728
Site 3 Low 21.3 NA 10.61 250 97.6 0.010 0.01194 7.97 0 0.23173
Site 4 Low 20.8 NA 10.85 100 97.2 0.012 0.01440 8.16 0 0.15379
Site 5 Low 19.0 NA 7.05 570 97.3 0.012 0.01440 7.58 1 0.11561
*; Not available
Table I-6: Summary of water quality parameters for Marsh Creek Analysis B for August 18-19, 2015.
August 18-
19, 2015
Tides
Temp
(°C)
Field
pH
D.O.
(ppm)
Fecal
Coliforms
(CFU/100mL)
Orthophosphates
%
Transmittance
Absorbance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH
TSS
(mg/L)
Salinity
(ppt)
Salinity
(ppt)
Salinity
(ppt)
Site 1 Mid 17.8 7.92 9.8 390 93.6 0.029 0.03538 7.76 0.18000
Site 2 Mid 21.3 7.61 8.6 200 94.3 0.026 0.03168 7.66 0.30000
Site 3 Low-mid 22.2 8.14 13.9 173 97.4 0.011 0.01317 8.49 0.11000
Site 4 Low-mid 21.1 7.72 11.6 130*** 96.7 0.015 0.01810 8.23 0.13000
Site 5 Low 20.6 7.57 8.1 400 96.8 0.014 0.01687 7.88 0.12000
***; 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.
Table L-1: Averages of parameters measured for Analysis A sites 1 through 5 during 2012.
Averages for 2012
Site Field pH D.O (ppm)
Orthophosphates
Fecal Coliform
Lab pH mg TSS/L
%T Absorb. mg/L
(CFU/100 mL)
1 6.83 5.24 90.8 0.043 0.017 7.23 221.0 > 8325
2 6.68 3.63 91.1 0.040 0.016 7.05 72.5 > 95825
3 6.70 2.30 89.9 0.047 0.019 7.11 12.5 > 20825
4 6.55 / 25.4 0.021 0.008 7.13 ND -
5 6.78 6.51 94.0 0.028 0.011 7.33 3.75 > 8325
Table 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)
%
Transmi
ttance
Orthophosphates
Absorba
nce
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 NA NA NA 6800 92.8 0.033 0.054 NA 4 NA
Site 7 NA NA NA 3600 98.6 0.006 0.012 NA 2 NA
Site 8 NA NA NA 4300 98.9 0.005 0.010 NA 0 NA
Site 9 NA NA NA 6600 98.7 0.006 0.012 NA 1 NA
Site 10 NA NA NA 4200 99.2 0.003 0.007 NA 1 NA
Site 12 NA NA NA 17000 96.5 0.015 0.026 NA 2 NA
Site 13 NA NA NA 34000 97.7 0.010 0.018 NA 11 NA
Site 14 NA NA NA 2200000 69.4 0.159 0.249 NA 18 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)
Orthophosphates
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 NA NA NA 200 98.2 0.008 0.015 7.67 0 NA
Site 7 NA NA NA 0 98.0 0.009 0.016 7.47 0 NA
Site 8 NA NA NA 0 99.5 0.002 0.005 7.34 0 NA
Site 9 NA NA NA 0 98.8 0.005 0.010 7.10 2 NA
Site 10 NA NA NA 0 99.5 0.002 0.005 7.09 7 NA
Site 12 NA NA NA 2500 86.3 0.064 0.102 6.92 27 NA
Site 13 NA NA NA 100 98.5 0.006 0.012 7.47 0 NA
Site 14 NA NA NA 460000 58.6 0.232 0.362 7.00 28 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)
Orthophosphates
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 17.0 7.66 8.30 200 97.3 0.012 0.021 7.47 1 1488.5
Site 7 12.8 7.74 9.91 0 98.1 0.008 0.015 7.42 0 0.12
Site 8 19.1 8.10 7.88 20 98.7 0.006 0.012 7.42 1 0.09
Site 9 20.9 7.81 8.08 0 98.5 0.006 0.012 7.34 10 0.12
Site 10 17.7 7.85 8.63 70 98.6 0.006 0.012 7.45 0 0.12
Site 12 18.9 7.96 9.45 210 97.6 0.011 0.019 7.80 1 0.19
Site 13 16.2 8.02 9.18 40 96.4 0.016 0.027 7.77 4 0.14
Site 14 15.8 9.60 6.20 37000 41.5 0.381 0.593 9.73 43 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)
Orthophosphates
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 19.5 7.47 6.36 560 97.7 0.010 0.018 7.46 3 8.94
Site 7 15.3 7.79 8.81 150 98.0 0.009 0.016 7.75 2 0.13
Site 8 21.0 8.34 7.86 30 99.0 0.004 0.009 7.47 1 0.10
Site 9 24.1 8.03 6.95 10 98.8 0.005 0.010 7.55 4 0.13
Site 10 19.6 7.97 8.54 20 99.0 0.004 0.009 7.63 3 0.13
Site 12 21.1 7.69 7.31 480 97.3 0.012 0.021 7.46 4 0.19
Site 13 19.4 8.04 9.00 150 98.5 0.007 0.013 7.88 2 0.17
Site 14 17.4 7.31 4.31 210000 49.8 0.303 0.472 7.10 33 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)
Orthophosphates
%
Absorban
Transmitt
ce
ance
Total
Phosphates
(mg/L)
Lab pH TSS (mg/L) Salinity (ppt)
Site 6 18.5 7.43 8.31 70 97.2 0.012 0.021 8.07 6 4.92
Site 7 13.3 7.02 8.41 75 96.0 0.018 0.030 7.84 1 0.26
Site 8 17.2 8.16 8.71 0 99.3 0.003 0.007 7.50 0 0.11
Site 9 20.3 7.84 8.07 0 99.0 0.004 0.009 7.34 2 0.15
Site 10 15.0 7.83 10.32 10 99.4 0.003 0.007 7.60 0 0.16
Site 12 18.5 7.82 8.26 1080 98.2 0.008 0.015 7.50 22 0.24
Site 13 15.9 8.08 9.48 10 98.9 0.005 0.010 7.80 0 0.22
Site 14 18.1 7.31 0.96 350000 22.6 0.645 1.003 7.12 42 0.29
56