[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Attachment #95.5.6.1 ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN TRIBUTARIES ENTERING GREAT BAY A Final Report to The New Hampshire Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program Submitted by Dr Stephen H. Jones and Dr. Richard Langan Jackson Estuarine Laboratory University of New Hampshire July , 1996 This Report was funded in part by a grant frorn the Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program, as authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Grant Award Number NA570ZO320 TD 224 VG72 J66 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The results from the 1995-96 study have provided a valuable third year of information on key water quality parameters. Temporal trends for most parameters are not clearly definable, although elevated levels at some sites this past year raise some concerns. The Cocheco River still appears to be a key problem area for both nutrients and bacteria. In fact, there are numerous concerns at most of the freshwater sites, possibly with the exception of the Lamprey River site. Despite the lack of consistent effects of storm events on most parameters, the consistently and often statistically significant adverse impact of storms on bacterial levels shows the importance of identifying and preventing future contamination from the presently unidentified sources. INTRODUCTION The third year of a project designed to determine the effect of rainfall on contaminant levels in tributaries to Great Bay was conducted from July 1995 to June 1996. The project was a cooperative effort between the NH Office of State Planning, NH Coastal Program, NH Department of Environmental Services, NH Fish and Game and the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory. 'Me project was similar in design to the two prior years conducted in 1993-1994 and 1994-1995, however, several changes were made. Based on the results of the previous two years, several stations were eliminated. These included upstream stations in the Exeter and Cocheco Rivers (14 EXT and 22 CCH) and the Portsmouth Harbor station (GB 13). Several analyses were eliminated because they shed little light onto the effect of rainfall and runoff. The analyses that were eliminated in 1995- 1996 included total phosphorus and particulate nitrogen. Chlorophyll analysis was added for 1995-1996. Similar to 1994-1995 project year, four storm events were monitored for two consecutive days, rather than eight storm events sampled one day each as was done in year one. 'Me purpose of the study was to: (1) add to the water quality database established in 1993- 1995 for Great Bay tributaries; (2) determine the effects of > 0.5 inches of rainfall the day of and the day before sampling on the concentrations of indicator bacteria, total suspended solids, and nutrients; (3) identify problem areas in the estuary (i.e. those which are contributing greater amounts of contamination). (4) identify temporal trends in water quality parameters METHODS Fourteen sites in the Great Bay watershed were sampled and analyzed following four rainfall events by JEL personnel, and four times between October 1995 and June 1996 during dry (random meteorological) conditions by DES and OSP personnel. 'Me sites consisted of one freshwater site and one tidal site each in the Exeter, Lamprey, Oyster, Bellamy, Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers. One additional upstream freshwater site each was included on Oyster and Cocheco Rivers. (Fig. 1). A description of the site locations is as follows: Exeter/Sguamscott River 9 EXT, downstream of 14 EXT, is located at the upstream side of the Rte. 108 bridge in downtown Exeter, GB 80 is located in the Squamscott River at the railroad bridge crossing. Lam=y River 5 LMP is located at the upstream side of the Rte. 108 bridge in downtown Newmarket; GB 15 is located at the mouth of the Lamprey River as it enters Great Bay. Qyster River 8 OYS is located near the Durham/Lee town line where the.Oyster River crosses Rte 155A; 5 OYS, downstream of 8 OYS, is located near the fish ladder in the mill pond, above the dam in Durham; GB 50 is located at the mouth of the oyster River as it enters Great Bay, adjacent to Wagon Hill Farm. Bellamy Ri 5 BLM is located upstream of the Rte. 108 Bridge in Dover, upstream of the Sawyer's NEU Apartment complex; GB 2 is located just upstream of the Scarnmel Bridge crossing on the Bellamy River. Cocheco River 11 CCH is located in Dover at the Watson Road Dam; 7 CCH, downstream of 11 CCH, is located just upstream of the dam in downtown Dover; GB 21 is located approximately 150 meters upstream of the tidal junction of the Cocheco and Piscataqua Rivers. Salmon Falls Riv 5 SFR is located just upstream of the Rte. 4 bridge in Rollinsford; GB 22 is located approximately 150 meters upstream of the tidal junction of the Salmon Falls and Piscataqua Rivers. Measurements of temperature, salinity (conductivity), dissolved oxygen, pH and observations of weather conditions were recorded at the sampling times. Separate containers were used for collection of water samples for microbial, suspended solids chlorophyll and nutrient analyses. Storm sample collection and processing methods were conducted according to JEL SOP's 1.05 and 1.06. Nutrient analyses for JEL samples were done using Lachat Method 11-107- 06- 1 -C for ammonium, method 30-107-04-1-A for nitrite/nitrate and the wet chemistry method of Parsons et al (1981) for orthophosphate. Dissolved organic nitrogen was analyzed using Shimadzu ion specific chromatography with an ANTEK Nitrogen detector on filtered samples. Chlorophyll a analysis was conducted using acetone extraction ftom glass fiber filters and spectrophotometry. Microbial analysis of JEL samples involved standard membrane filtration methods using mTEC agar for detection of fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli and mE agar for detection of enterococci. Rainfall records were examined to determine whether 1995-1996 sampling dates fit the criterion for either "dry" or "storm" sampling. Sample dates were then regrouped as either dry or storm samples. Means were established for all parameters and graphed to determine differences between stations and between dry and storm samples. Differences were tested for significance using one way ANOVA (P!5 0.05), and t-tests for samples with unequal variance (P:!-: 0.05). Data collected in 1995-96 were compared to 1994-95 and 1993-94 data for common stations and parameters, using the same graphic and statistical methods used for 1995-96 data. Data from the three years of the study were used to construct a cumulative database for the common sites and parameters. The three year means were established for all parameters and graphed to determine differences between stations and between dry and storm samples. Observed differences between dry and storm samples were tested for significance using one way ANOVA (P-< 0.05) and t-tests for samples with unequal variance. Combined dry and storm data for 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 were compared to determine if there were interannual differences for specific parameters. Observed differences were tested for statistical significance using t-tests for samples with unequal variance (P@@ 0.05). RESULTS Rainfall conditions on sampling dates for 1995-1996 are shown in Table 1. All sampling dates met the designated criterion for the dry and storm groupings. Results of field measurements and laboratory analyses for all parameters except indicator bacteria for dry weather samples are listed in Table 2 and these same data for storm samples are listed in Table 3. Means calculated for each of the stations and parameters are included in the tables as well. 2 Dry vs Storm Samples: 1995.1996 Dissolved Oxygen Mean dissolved oxygen concentrations were not directly comparable for dry and storm samples due to seasonal and temperature differences at time of collection, however the range of values and means were similar on storm and dry sampling dates. Lowest measurements were detected at the freshwater sites (Tables 2 and 3). Percent Oxygen Saturation very little difference in mean percent oxygen saturation was found between dry and storm samples at all stations (Tables 2 and 3, Fig. 2 ), and none of the differences were statistically significant (Table 4). Mean of storm measurements at the tidal sites (except GB 80) had a higher % saturation than the mean of dry sampling dates. Violations of the NH DES Water Quality Standard of 75% 02 saturation will be discussed in another section. At all sample sites, the mean pH for dry weather samples was similar to storm sample pH. Lowest pH was measured at I I CCH and some unusually high pH measurements were taken at 5 SFR and GB 22 during a storm in September 1995 (Tables 2 and 3). Total Su4ended Solids (TSS) With the exception of sites GB 80, GB 15 and GB 2, the TSS mean was higher for storm samples (Fig. 3). Though some of these differences in means appear to be considerable when viewed graphically (9 EXT, 7 CCH, GB 21, GB 22), only GB 21 was found to be statistically significant (Table 4). Suspended Particulate Organic Material (SPOM) Rather than expressing the suspended organic material as a percent of the TSS, the actual weight was used for comparison. Marked differences were observed between dry and storm samples for I I CCH, GB 21, 5 SFR, and GB 22 with storm samples higher than dry (Fig 4). The higher mean suspended organic material at these sites was due to extremely high values in samples taken during a storm in September 1995. Chlorophyll content for the sample sites indicate that a plankton bloom was responsible for the high the organic content (Figs 26 and 27). Because the higher storm concentrations were due to two sample dates (9/18 and 9/19), the differences were not statistically significant (Table 4). Chlg=hyll a Mean chlorophyll a concentrations were similar at most stations in dry and storm samples, though much higher in storm samples at 5 OYS, I I CCH, GB 21, 5 SFR and GB 22 (Figure 5). An As mentioned above, the means were greatly influenced by the September 18 and 19 storm samples, and showed no difference statistically (Figs. 26 and 27; Table 4). Ammonium ion concentration affI41 Mean ammonium ion concentrations were lower following storms for sites GB 80, GB 50, 1 I.CCH, GB 2 1, and GB 22: slightly higher following storms for sites 9 EXT, 5 LMP, GB 15, 7 CCH, and 5 SFR; and were similar at 5 OYS, 5 BLM and GB 2 (Fig. 6). None of the observed differences were statistically significant (Table 4). Nitrate concentration M%) Mean storm and dry concentrations of N03 were similar at GB 80, 5 LMP, GB 15, 5 3 OYS, GB 21 and GB 22, and higher in storm samples at 9 EXT, 8 OYS, GB 50, 5 BLM, GB 2, 11 CCH, 7 CCH and 5 SFR (Figure 7). However, only at site 9 EXT were the concentrations statistically higher in storms than dry weather samples (Table 4). Dissolved inorganic nitrogcn (DIN = NHA+NQ,) Mean dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NH;+NO3) was higher in storm samples than dry weather samples at 9 EXT, 5 LMP, GB 15, 8 OYS, GB 2, 11 CCH, 7 CCH, and 5 SFR and lower in storm samples at GB 80, GB 50, GB 21 and GB 22. Ile greatest difference, though not statistically so, was observed at 9 EXT (Figure 8). Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) The individual site mean for dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) was lower in storm samples at all sites except 5 OYS, 5 BLM, 11 CCH GB 21, 5 SFR and GB 22 where storm sample means were higher. The greatest differences in means between dry and storm samples were found at sites 11 CCH and GB 22. Though it appears that DON concentration decreases at some sites following rainfall and increases at others, none of the observed differences were statistically significant (Fig 9; Table 4). Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN=DON+DIM Total dissolved nitrogen was similar at most sites and slightly higher in storm samples at I I CCH, 7 CCH, 5 SFR and GB 22 (Fig. 10). None of the differences were statistically significant. Orthophoaphate (PO4)- Mean P04 concentration was higher in storm samples at eleven of fourteen sites. Except for sites 11 CCH, 7 CCH and 5 SFR, the storm sample mean was higher than the dry weather mean. The greatest differences in means were observed at 9 EXT GB 80, GB 15 and GB 50, 5 BLM and GB 22 (Fig. 11). No statistically significant differences were found, however (Table 4). Bacterial Indicators Results of laboratory analyses for all three bacterial indicators of water samples collected during dry weather conditions are listed in Table 10. The results for storm event samples are listed in Table 11. Geometric means calculated for each of the stations and indicators are included as well as the ratio of geometric mean values for freshwater (FW) sites to their corresponding estuarine water (SW) site. There were four sample dates for dry weather and eight for storms. The comparisons of geometric means for dry weather and storm event samples are shown in Figures 27a-c for all dime indicators. Generally, the geometric means for storm events were higher than those for dry weather. For fecal coliforms (FC), 12 of 14 sites had higher means for storm events (Figure 27a). The comparisons show 14 of 14 sites had higher E. coli (Ec) (Figure 27b) and 13 of 14 had higher enterococci (Figure 27c) during storm events. The sites where storm event means were lower than dry weather were GB80 and 1 ICCH for FC and GB2 for enterococcL although for aU three exceptions the means were virtually identical. Statistical comparisons of the dry and storm results were made using paired t tests, and the results are shown in Table 12. FC were significantly different at 4 sites, Ec at 6 sites and enterococci at 6 sites. Storm event data were greater than dry weather in every case. Three sites, 9 EXT, GB 80 and 7CCK had significant differences for all three indicators. At 50YS and 5 BLM, both Ec and enterococci were significantly different. In addition, Ec were significantly different at GB 50 and FC were significantly different at GB 2 1. The sites where there were no significant differences for any indicator are GB 80, GB 15, 8 OYS, GB 2, 11 CCH, 5 SFR and GB 22. 'Me State of New Hampshire has adopted different bacterial indicators for water quality classification in different environments and for different purposes. Enterococci is the standard for marine and estuarine recreational waters, fecal coliforms are for shenfish-growing waters and 4 Escherichia coli is used to classify recreational freshwaters. Geometric means and frequency of relatively high levels for each indicator, condition and site are critical to classification protocols, and were compared to State standards in this study. In tidal waters, the limit for fecal coliforms to prevent a prohibited classification is <88 FC/100 ml and 10% of samples not over 260/100 ml. The geometric mean limit was violated during dry weather in four of the six tidal sites, GB 80, GB 15, GB 21 and GB 22, all sites that are presently classified as prohibited. FC were <14/100 ml, the standard for approved classification, at GB 50, and just over the approved limit at 151100 nil at GB 2 (Table 10). These results are also consistent with present classification of these sites, although GB 50 is actually just outside of a nearby approved area. The same trend held for storm event results (Table 11), except that the geometric means for the two lowest sites, GB 50 and GB 2, were both >14/100 nil, although still <88/100 ml. For recreational use, swimming in tidal waters requires a geometric mean to be <35 enterococci/100 nil in three successive samples in 60 days with no sample >104/100 nil. The geometric mean and high value limits were not violated at any of the tidal sites during dry weather (Table 10). Ile geometric mean limit was violated at GB 21 only during storm events, but values >104/100 nil occurred at least once in four sample dates for all six tidal sites. Again, GB 50 and GB 2 had the lowest values for enterococci following storms, as seen for FC. In freshwaters, the limit for Class A waters is <47 E. coU1100 nil, with no sample over 153/100 nil in three consecutive samples. For Class B waters, the limits are 126 and 406/100 ml, respectively. Swimming waters requires limits of <47/100 ml for a geometric mean with no sample >88/100 ml. During dry weather, sites 11 CCH, 7 CCH and 5 SFR had geometric means >47/100 ml, but <126/100 ml, thus meeting Class B but not Class A requirements. The other sites, 9 EXT, 5 LMP, 8 OYS, 50YS and 5 BLM all had geometric means <47/100 ml, although at least one of four samples were >88/100 nil at 9 EXT, 5 OYS and 8 OYS. Following storms, six of the eight freshwater sites had geometric means >126/100 ml, and the other two sites, 5 LMP and I I CCH, had geometric means >47/100 n-A. Thus, conditions are cleanest at 5 LMP and 5 BLM during dry weather, with adverse effects of storms at both, especially 5 BLM. Differences Between the Day of the Storm and the Following Day Samples Samples were collected for bacterial indicator analysis on both the first day of storm events and the following day. This was a follow-up to last year's study where the concern was to determine when to best detect the flush of contaminants that may be washed into surface waters during storms. Without detailed assessments at each river-estuary site, the hydrology and contamination response was not known. In last year's study, the only instance of significant difference was for enterococci at 11 CCH, although the second day results were generally higher that the first day. For this study, the first day geometric means were higher than the second day means in 11 of 14 sites for FC (Figure 28a), 8 of 14 sites for Ec (Figure 28b), and 7 of 14 sites for enterococci (Figure 28c). The only instance where a significant difference was calculated was for enterococci at G1315, where the first day mean was significantly greater than the second day mean (Table 12). Thus, it appears that either day gives similar results, probably as contaminants continue to be washed by sampling sites from upper portions, of the respective watersheds. Between Site Differences as Indicated by 1995-96 Data Analysis of the concentrations of the contaminants of concern (i.e. TSS, nutrients, bacteria) and water column condition (D.O.) was conducted to determine which sites appear to be "problem areas" with respect one or more contaminants. Particular attention was paid to differences between upstream and downstream freshwater sites in those rivers with more than one freshwater site (Exeter, Oyster and Cocheco Rivers) and between the downstream freshwater site and its tidal counterpart. 5 Total suspgnded solids (TSS) means for TSS at all freshwater sites were generally low in both dry weather and storm samples (=5 mg/L). Occasional higher TSS concentrations (10 mg/L or greater) were measured at I I CCH and 5 SFR due to plankton blooms and at 7 CCH under particularly windy conditions. TSS concentration at site 8 OYS was higher than 5 OYS during dry weather and storms, so it appears as though some of the suspended load settles out before the freshwater endpoint in the Oyster River. In comparison to their freshwater counterparts, the tidal sites each show elevated concentrations in TSS. Sites GB 80 in the Squarnscott River, followed by GB 15 (Lamprey), GB 21 and GB 22 (Salmon Falls) have the highest concentrations under both sampling conditions. GB 50 (Oyster) and GB 2 (Bellamy) are similar, and lower than the previously mentioned sites. Statistically, GB 80 and GB 15 were higher than all other sites in dry weather and higher than all sites except GB 21 and GB 22 in storms (Table 5). When dry and storm data are combined GB 80 is significantly higher than all other stations and GB 15 is higher than all stations except GB 80 (Table 5). Susj&nded Particulate Organic Material (SPOM) SPOM appeared elevated in storms at GB 22, 5 SFR, GB 2 1, 11 CCH and GB 21 in Storms and at GB 80 and GB 15 in both dry weather and storms. This parameter is a measure of both living (plankton) and nonliving (detritus) organic material. The station differences observed for SPOM in the 1995-1996 data at GB 22, 5 SFR, GB 2 1, 11 CCH and GB 21 were primarily the result a plankton blooms in the Salmon Falls, Cocheco and Oyster Rivers following a rain storm in September. The higher concentrations observed in the tidal Squarnscott and Lamprey Rivers are likely due to resuspension of detrital material from the marshes surrounding these river mouths. Chlg=hyjU Elevated chlorophyll a was measured in storm samples at GB 22, 5 SFR, GB 2 1, 11 CCH, and 5 OYS and in dry weather samples at GB 22. Though the means appear extraordinarily high by comparison, they are greatly influenced by the 9/18 and 9/19 storm sampling. Heavy rains following an extended hot dry period resulted in ideal conditions for a plankton bloom at these sites. Nutrient concentrations were high as well, therefore the magnitude of the bloom may have been light limited. The bloom did not result in anoxic or hypoxic conditions, and oxygen was > 100% saturation at GB 21 and GB 22 (Table 3; Figs 2 &5). Nitrogcn With regard to nitrogen, a great deal of variation was observed in the form or "species" of nitrogen between sites, as well as within sites between dry weather and storms was observed. Natural processes and transformations of the different forms of nitrogen, such as plant and animal excretion, detrital decomposition, uptake and assimilation, make it difficult to view nitrogen .concentrations as a more conservative component such as salinity can be viewed. Some general trends were observed, however, and some identifiable problem areas can be determined. Highest mean NH4 concentrations at the freshwater sites, in descending order, were measured at I I CCH and 7 CCH in both dry and storm samples and at 5 SFR, 5 LMP and 9 EXT in storm samples. Highest mean NH4 concentrations at the tidal sites were measured at GB 21, GB 15 and GB 80 in both storm and dry samples, and GB 21 in dry weather samples (Fig. 6). Statistically I I CCH was significantly greater than all other sites in dry weather, greater than all except 7 CCh and 5 SFR in storm samples and > than all except 7 CCH in storm and dry samples combined. The only other statistically significant difference for ammonium was in combined samples where 7 CCH > 8 OYS (Table 5). Mean nitrate (NO3) concentrations were highest at the freshwater sites 6 i I CCH, 7 CCH,5 SFR, 8 OYS and 5 OYS (dry and storms). In the tidal sites, mean N03 was highest at GB 21, GB 22 and GB 80 (dry and storms) (Fig. 7). When NH4 and N03 are combined as DIN, the sites with the highest concentration of dissolved inorganic nitrogen in both dry weather and storms are 11 CCH, 7 CCH, and 5 SFR. Tidal sites with elevated mean DIN are GB 21 and GB 22 (Fig. 8). Mean concentrations of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) were highest in the Exeter (9 EXT) Salmon Falls (5 SFR), and Oyster Rivers (5 OYS), though differences between sites were not as great as they were for DIN. DON concentration at the tidal sites were similar, though highest at GB 22 in storms (Fig. 9). No statistical differences were found between sites under any conditions for DON concentration (Table 5). Mean total dissolved nitrogen concentration at each freshwater site was compared with its tidal counterpart, as well as with the "upstream " freshwater sites in those rivers with multiple sites (Oyster and Cocheco Rivers). Though no significant differences between freshwater and tidal sites were found, graphic presentation of the data (Fig. 10) suggests that all the freshwater portions of the rivers contribute some nitrogen to the estuary, and the Cocheco (upstream site 11 CCH in particular) and Salmon Falls make significant freshwater nitrogen contributions. Highest concentrations of P04 were measured at each of the tidal sites and at 11 and 7 CCH in the Cocheco River. Comparison of the concentrations at these two sites to GB 21 indicate that there is a freshwater source of P04 in the Cocheco River (Fig. 11). Results of statistical analyses indicate that P04 concentrations under all conditions combined at GB 80 are significantly higher than all freshwater sites except 11 and 7 CCH (Table 5). Dissolved Oxygrn On numerous sampling dates both dry and storm at many sites, percent 02 saturation fell below the NH water quality criteria of 75% saturation (Table 2 and 3). All but one violation (a dry weather measurement at GB 22) occurred in the freshwater sites. Mean percent saturation was higher at half the sites in storm samples, and lower in the others (Tables 2 and 3, Figure 2). No statistically significant differences were found in dry weather, however, in storm samples, 02 saturation was significantly lower at 11 CCH than at all tidal sites and at 5 SFR. Site 5 OYS was significantly lower than all tidal sites except GB 80 and lower than 5 SFR. Site 5 BLM was lower than GB 2, 15, 21, 22 and 50; site 5 LMP was lower than GB 15, 21 and 22 and 9 EXT was lower than GB 15, 21, and 22. These same sites (in descending order 11 CCH, 5 OYS, 9 EXT, 5 BLM, 5 LMP) were also significantly lower in % saturation in combined storm and dry weather samples (Table 5). Bacterial Indicators There were many differences between sites for all three bacterial indicators for the different conditions sampled (Figures 27-28). Statistical comparisons were made of wet and dry condition results to determine which sites might be the worst sites, and which sites might be the least contaminated. The results of the statistical analyses are shown in Table 13, which shows which pairs of sites are significantly different. To determine which site is greater in each case, Figures 27a-c and Tables 10 and I I should be reviewed. The highest FC geometric mean was at GB21 during both dry and storm events, and was significantly higher than GB 50, GB 2 and 5 LMP for both conditions, 5 BLM and 8 OYS during dry weather and GB 80 and I I CCH following storms. Other sites that were significantly higher than other sites during dry weather were 5 SFR and I I CCH compared to GB 50, GB 2 and 5 LMP. GB 50 and GB 2 were the least contaminated sites, both being significantly lower than the GB 21, 5 SFR, 11 CCH, 7 CCH, and GB 15, with GB 50 lower than GB 80 and GB 22. Only 5 OYS and 9 EXT were not significantly different than any 7 other site. For storm events, 7 CCH, 9 EXT, 8 OYS and 5 SFR had significantly higher levels of FC that 5 LMP, GB 50 and GB 2. Again, GB 50 and GB 2 were the least contaminated sites and were significantly lower than GB 21, 7 CCH, 9 EXT, 8 OYS, 5 SFR, 5 BLM, 5 OYS, GB 22 and GB 15, while GB 2 was also significantly lower than I I CCH. Like the FC data, the highest Ec geometric mean was at GB 21 during both dry and storm events, and was significantly higher than GB 50, GB 2 and 5 LMP for both conditions, 5 BLM during dry weather and GB 80 and 11 CCH following storms. Another site that was significantly higher than other sites during dry weather was 5 SFR, compared to GB 50, GB 2 and 5 LMP. GB 2 was the least contaminated sites, being significantly lower than the GB 21, 5 SFR, 11 CCH, 7 CCH, GB 15, GB 80, GB 22 and 9 EXT. Only 5 OYS and 8 OYS were not significantly different than any other sites. For storm events, 9 EXT and 8 OYS had significantly higher levels of FC that 5 LMP, GB 50 and GB 2. Again, GB 50 and GB 2 were the least contaminated sites and were significantly lower than GB 2 1, 7 CCH, 9 EXT, 8 OYS, 5 SFR, 5 BLM, 5 OYS, GB 22 and GB 15, while GB 2 was also significantly lower than 11 CCH and GB 80. The enterococci results were somewhat different from the FC and Ec results. The highest geometric mean was at 8 OYS for storm events and 7 CCH during dry weather. For dry weather, both 7 CCH and GB 21 were significantly higher than 5 LMP and GB 50, while 5 SFR was significantly higher than gb 50, the least contaminated site. Many sites were statistically the same as all other sites. For storm events, * OYS was significantly higher than GB 2, GB 50, GB 15, GB 22 and GB 80. Sites 9 EXT, 5 OYS, 7 CCH and 5 BLM were significantly higher than GB 50 and GB2, which were again the least contaminated sites. GB 21 also had significantly higher levels than GB 2. Only 5 SFR, 11 CCH and 5 LMP were not* significantly different than any other sites. Overall, the sites that were most consistently high were GB21, 7 CCH and 5 SFR under both conditions, 9 EX 'T and 8 OYS during storms, and 11 CCH during dry weather. The least contaminated sites were by far GB 50 and GB2 under both conditions. Interannual Comparison Dissolved Nutrients and Other Abiotic Parameters Combining dry and storm sample data for each of the dime project years provided an opportunity to assess interannual variation in the water quality parameters and possible water quality trends at the sites under all conditions. DON and % oxygen saturation were calculated for project years two and three only. For ammonium, concentrations were higher in the 93-94 and 95-96 than the 94-95 year at nine of the twelve sites sampled for the dime year period, however none of the 93-94 to 94-95 to 95-96 P04 concentrations (Figs. 13 and 14). Concentrations in 1994-95 were for the most part lower than the preceding and succeeding years, and the 93-94 to 95-96 comparisons were inconsistent as which years had greater or lower concentrations of N03 and P04. Significant differences were found for N03 at GB 15 (95-96>94-95) and GB 22 (95-96 >94-95) (Table 8). No significant differences were found for P04 (Table 6). 'Me dime year comparisons for TSS concentrations indicate that TSS was similar for the dime project years (Fig 15). No statistically significant differences were found (Table 8), however, TSS appears to have increased at GB 15 and decreased at GB 80 and GB 50 throughout the period. DON Concentrations were similar in the two years, with only GB 22 showing a noticeable increase over the previous year (Fig 16). Percent oxygen saturation was slightly higher in the 1995-96 samples at twelve of fourteen sites and slightly lower at two. The interannual change, however, was minor (Fig. 17). Bacterial Indicators Dry weather and storm event weather results from all three project years were compared to 8 determine if there were any observable trends at any sites. The geometric means from all three years are shown in Figures 29a-c for dry weather and Figures 30a-c for storm events. In particular, the results show how contaminants are this last year compared to previous years. For 5 sites, 9 EXT, 5 LMP, GB 21, 5 SFR and GB 22, the geometric means of the different indicators were highest in 1995-96 compared to both other years in 5 of the 6 indicator/conditions presented in the 6 figures (Figures 29 and 30 a-c). ANOVA was run to determine any significant differences between years for the indicators at different sites. The results of the statistical analyses are shown in Table 14. There were no clear trends amongst the sites for significant differences between years. In the comparison of 1995-96 to the second study year 1994-95, indicator geometric means were higher in 1995-96 for FC at GB 80 and 5 SFR, for Ec at GB 80, and for enterococci at 5 LMP and GB 50 (Table 14). In the comparison of 1995-96 to the first year 1993-94, the geometric means for indicators during 1995-96 were significantly higher than 1993-94 in 9 cases and the opposite was true in two cases. In the comparison of the fist year 1993-94 to the second year 1994-95, the first year was greater than the second in three cases, and less that the second year in two cases (Table 14). In general, the first two years did not show consistent differences for sites and indicators under dry and wet weather. The past year has shown numerous cases where indicator levels were higher than in both of the previous years. Cumulative Database Comparison of Storm vs Dry Samples: 1993-96 Dissolved Nutrients and Other Abiotic Parameters Dry weather and storm data for the three project years were combined to establish a cumulative three year database (Table 9; Figs. 18-23). The cumulative data shows a pattern similar to the individual project year data in terms of the sites which appear to exhibit water quality problems and the effects of storms on concentrations of specific parameters. Sites 11 CCH, 7 CCH, 5 SFR, and 5 OYS have the highest mean concentrations of ammonium and nitrate of the freshwater sites and sites 7 CCH, 11 CCH and 5 SFR show elevated concentrations of nitrate in storm samples (Fig. 19). Sites 7 and 11 CCH and 5 SFR have elevated ammonium concentrations in storm samples (Fig 18). The storm vs dry differences for nitrate and ammonium at these sites are statistically significant for nitrate 9 EXT only, where storm samples are significantly higher than dry weather. The concentrations under both conditions, however, are relatively low (= 0. 10 mg/L) and much lower than the Oyster, Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers. Of the tidal sites GB 21 and GB 22, and to a lesser extent GB 15 and GB 80, show elevated concentrations of ammonium. and nitrate (Figs. 18 and 19). Orthophosphate concentrations are highest at GB 80, GB 50, GB 21, GB 22, and 11 and 7 CCH, however storm sample means are only slightly greater than dry weather means at the tidal sites (Fig 20). TSS concentrations are highest at GB 80 and GB 15 and do appear to increase slightly in storm samples (Fig. 21 ). For Dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) no consistent pattern of difference was observed between the two year dry vs storm comparison (Fig 22). The same was true for oxygen saturation as well (Fig. 23)., Bacterial Indicators An evaluation of all sites using the combined results for all three years was made as a basis to make general statements about the effects of storm events on water quality using a large database. Data are summarized in Tables 15, 16 and 17 for FC, Ec and enterococci, respectively. The geometric means of the 3-year databases for all three indicators for dry weather and storm events are shown in Figures 3 1 a-c. The geometric means for all three indicators following storm events were always greater than for dry weather (Figures 3la-c). Statistical analysis (ANOVA) of these results strikingly shows that this effect is significant in every case (Table 14). Thus, the large databases for the indicators over the three year time period of the project allow for more 9 robust analysis of the effect of storms, and show that in every case, storm events appear to be contaminating the surface waters at the study sites. Ile adverse effects on water quality are seen in all tidal and all freshwater sites. DISCUSSION Analysis the data collected in tributaries to Great Bay over the three project years indicates appears that 1) rainfall has an impact'on the concentrations of some contaminants at some sites; 2) some sites (rivers) exhibit more severe water quality problems than others; 3) violations of bacterial water quality standards are widespread, especially following storms; 4) oxygen saturation seasonally is below NH water quality standards for all of the tributaries in their freshwater portion regardless of weather conditions; 5) there is considerable interannual variation in nutrient concentrations and therefore no clearly observable trends in these parameters over the three year period, and 6) sources of contamination cannot be clearly identified as either point or nonpoint from this data. Rainfall impacts and problem areas The bacterial data are strong evidence of the significantly adverse effects that storm events have on the water quality at all sites. Some favorable water quality results were observed during dry weather. However, bacterial water quality standards for Class A and shellfish-growing waters were violated at virtually all sties following storms. Estuarine sites also had questionable data relative to the recreational water standard following storms. Though few statistically significant differences in nutrient concentrations were found between dry and storm samples, the differences in concentrations following rainfall cannot be ignored. Both the dry weather and storm data exhibit a great deal of "within treatment" variation. This amount of variation in a relatively small data set makes obtaining significant differences between treatments using ANOVA (P_< 0.05) or t-tests very difficult, even if there is an obvious difference in means. Ile concentrations of ammonium, and in some cases nitrate (8 OYS, 5 OYS, GB 21 and GB 22) are higher in storm samples than in dry weather, particularly at the sites that exhibit more severe water quality problems. These sites include 7 and 11 CCH and GB 21 in the Cocheco River, sites 5 SFR and GB 22 in the Salmon Falls River, 8 OYS, 5 OYS , and GB 80 in the Squamscott River. Sources of nutrient contamination in these rivers appear to be: Cocheco River: The freshw ater portion of the Cocheco (upstream of I I CCH) appears to be a major source of nutrient (both nitrogen and phosphorus) contamination to Great Bay, though additional input of contaminants directly into the tidal portion cannot be ruled out. Site I I CCH (downstream of downtown Rochester) had nutrient concentrations that were significantly higher than all other sites except 7 CCH, indicating that there are significant sources of contamination in the Cocheco River upstream of this site. Sources of nutrient contamination in the freshwater Cocheco sites are probably a combination of point sources (Rochester POTW) and nonpoint sources (urban and agricultural runoff). The freshwater sites showed different trends for bacteria. 11 CCH had relatively low levels of bacterial contaminants while 7 CCH had relatively high levels of indicators, especially following storms. The associated tidal site, GB 21, had by far the highest levels of FC and Ec, both during dry and storm events. The area around the dam and below it to GB 21 appear to have relatively high levels of bacterial contamination, implying urban-Dover related sources could be important. Salmon Falls Riv A combination of point source (Berwick, Rollinsford, Sommersworth POTW's), and nonpoint source in the form of urban runoff from Rollinsford and Sommersworth, 10 agricultural runoff in Rollinsford (several large dairy farms) are likely contributing to the nutrient load and high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphate measured at 5 SFR. This input no doubt affects the tidal portion of the river, though there are both point (South Berwick POTW) and nonpoint sources directly to the tidal portion that impact site GB 22 as well. Based on bacterial indicators, the freshwater and estuarine sites in this watershed were not the cleanest or the dirtiest. A consistent and relatively strong adverse impact of storms is apparent for last year, with a solid effect based on the three year database. Solving the problem of storm contamination could markedly improve water quality in this river. Oyster River: Problem areas appear to be in the freshwater portion of the Oyster River (8 OYS and 5 OYS). Since little difference in nutrient concentrations was found between 5 OYS and 8 OYS, the upstream site (which receives runoff from agricultural fields) and downtown area (urban runoff) probably both contribute to nutrient loading to the tidal portion of the river. The clean downstream water at GB 50 also points to the freshwater stretches of the river as sources bacterial contaminants. The significantly higher levels of Ec at 5 OYS following storms last year and the long-term effect at GB 50 and both freshwater sites suggests .that the freshwater portion could be having adverse effects on water quality at a site that is in close proximity to a recently classified approved shellfish-growing area. Further improvements in water quality, especially following storms, will be needed for any expansion of approved sites for shellfish harvesting in that area. Exeter/Squamscott Riven The data for 1995-1996 once again indicate that the freshwater portion of the Exeter River does not appear to have an impact on the al quamscott River with regard to nutrients and suspended sediments. Even though storm sample concentrations of N03 were significantly greater than dry weather samples, the concentrations under both conditions were among the lowest measured. Nutrient concentrations at site GB 80 in the Squamscott are affected by point sources (Exeter and Newfields; POTW's) and nonpoint sources (agricultural runoff, septic systems) in the tidal portion of the river. The strong effect of storms suggests that some nonpoint sources of bacteria exist in the freshwater portion of the river. The lack of effect of storms this last year at GB 80 is probably related to the observed higher levels of bacteria during dry weather. The source of this contamination is not known, although the Newfields POTW is located just upstream from GB 80, and the agriculturally-active Stuart Farm is just past that. Bellamy and Lam=y Rivers: By comparison to other rivers, the data indicates that neither the Bellamy nor the Lamprey Rivers appear to be contributing excessive nutrients to Great Bay. The same is essentially true for bacteria, although the Bellamy at 5 BLM is severely affected by storm events, with both Ec and enterococci being significantly higher during storm events compared to dry weather. Parameters Oxygcn Saturation* 17hough the data indicates that oxygen saturation was fi-equently below NH DES water quality standards (75% saturation) in the freshwater portions of all the tributaries, the dissolved oxygen measurements (most - 5 mg/L) do not indicate severe biological problems. Furthermore, these saturation assessments were based on point samples, mostly taken in the early morning when 02 saturation would be at its lowest point in the day. Additionally, the lowest measurements were observed in early fall following an extraordinarily hot and dry summer. Depressed oxygen would be expected due to the lack of flow and stagnation of shallow water that is enriched with nutrients. Dissolved organic nitroggn. DON appears to be an important component of the total nitrogen and exceeds or equals dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NH4 + N03) at some sites. The constituents of I I DON can be a variety of proteins, free amino acids as well as other substances, and the interpretation of the concentration of DON without fractionation and identification of its composition is rather vague. There are however, several interesting observations that can be made with regard to DON concentration. Those sites which exhibit more severe water quality problems (for nutrients such as total N, P04) , such as in the Cocheco, Salmon Falls and Oyster Rivers had lower concentrations of DON relative to DIN. NHA and NQ3: The inorganic species of nitrogen should continue to be measured. They are the fon@is of N mo-st readily assimilated by plant species and are therefor most likely to be associated with nitrogen enrichment. Also, at the sites (rivers) that appear to have the most severe water quality problems, total N is composed to a great extent of DIN. TSS: The freshwater portions of the tributaries do not appear to be contributing to the total suspended sediment load in Great Bay. Though it appears that rainfall may increase suspended sediments slightly at tidal sites, the effect of wind driven waves on resuspension of sediments that are already in the estuarine system can confound the interpretation of the results. There is no doubt that heavy rains (>2" in 24 hrs) will wash sediments from the land into the rivers and the estuary, however, it is widely accepted that wind driven resuspension is the most important cause of water column sediment load. and sediment transport in shallow estuaries. SPOM: Measurement of the suspended particulate organic material is a useful and inexpensive water quality parameter. Done in conjunction with water column chlorophyll and nutrient concentrations, it helps explain processes that occur in turbid heterotrophic estuaries such as Great Bay (Fig 26). Chlorophyll - Water column chlorophyll is a useful measurement when vying to deterrrdne the L impact of nutrient loading in estuaries. Processes such as plankton blooms that involve the transformation of free inorganic nitrogen into the living form play a critical role in determining estuarine water quality. Measurement of water column chlorophyll also helps interpret TSS and SPOM data (Figs 26-28). Bacterial Indicators The use of the three indicators in this study has provided some key information on the effects of storm events on water quality throughout the estuary. There is increasing pressure in coastal New Hampshire and surrounding towns to have clean, usable waters, both fresh and estuarine, for a variety of purposes. Clearly stated standards provide *invaluable references for bacterial results from this study, and suggest that determining the effects of storm events on whatever unidentified sources of contaminants ar present is extremely important. 12 Table 1. Rainfall conditions relative to sampling dates and classification based on the following criteria: Wet>0.25" cumulative rain on of and day prior to sampling date Dry =<0.25" rain. Cumulative rainfall on Sampling sample date Condition DATE Agency & prior day classification 9/18/95 JEL .06/1.21 Wet 9/19/95 JEL 0/0.06 2nd d wet 10/17/95 DES 0.01/0.01 Dry 11/2/95 JEL 1.89/1.98 Wet 11/3/95 JEL 0.02/1.91 2nd d wet 4/9/96 DES 0.01/0.26 Dry* 517/96 DES 0/0.13 Dry 5/17/96 JEL 0.82/0.83 Wet 5/18/96 JEL 0/0.82 2nd d wet 6/4/96 DES 0.08/0.17 Dry 6/23/96 JEL 0.18/0.31 Wet 4/96 JEL 0/0.18 2nd d wet Rainfall could have occurred 2 days before sampling occurred. Table 2. Dry weather data for Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 NH 4 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 I I CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 10/17/95 0.02 0.19 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.75 0.24 0.12 0.03 0.07 4/9/96 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.03 .0.05 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.70 0.22 0.23 0.08 0.10 5/7/96 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.36 0.06 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.14 6/4/96 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.27 0.12 0.18 0.17 mean 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.48 0.21 0.15 0.09 0.12 N03 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G82 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 1 1 10/17/95 0.03 0.391 0.09 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.86, 0.54 0.39 0.55 0.50 4/9/96 0.06 0.141 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.13 5/7/96 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.16 6/4/96 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.07 0.21 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.26 0.36 0.16 0.23 0.09 Mean 0.05 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.36 0.31 0.22 0.26 0.22 DON CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 GCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 1 10/17/96 0.39 0.18 0.19 0.06 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.16 0.00 4/9/96 0.42 0.27 0.33 0.42 0.30 0.38 0.32 0.17 0.31 0.00 0.30 0.31 0.44 0.39 5/7/96 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.06 0.21 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.17 0.16 6/4/96 0.26 0.32 0.17. 0.29 0.20 0.16 0.28. 0.22 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.24 1 Mean 0.33 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.23 0.20 P04 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 15 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH G 8 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 0.012 0.098 0.006 0.042 0.007 0.006 0.061 0.007 0.035 0.107 0.066 0.050 0.034 0.032 4/9/961 0.002 0.018 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.004 0.007 5/7/961 0.003 0.024 0.002 0.021 0.003 0.003 0.012. 0.002 0.048 0.009 0.009 0.017 0.008 0.011 Table 2. Dry weather data for Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 6/4/96 0.003 0.020 0.008 0.025 0.002 0.005 0.017 0.001 0.011 0.058 0.025 0.017 0.003 0.013 Mean 0.005 0.040 0.005 0.024 0.003 0.004 0.025 0.003 0.025 0.046 0.028 0.024 0.012 0.015 TSS CONCENTRATION mg/I DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 GCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 - 1 10/17/95 1.60 10.00 2.40 18.20 4.80 3.80 8.20 5.80 7.40 11.40 2.80 6.80 2.00 6.20 4/9/96 1.40 28.60 1.40 44.60 4.20 3.20 5.80 1.60 3.80 2.60 2.80 5.00 1.40 6.00 5/7/96 2.00 38.80 1.60 8.60 4.80 4.40 8.60 2.60 11.20 2.40 2.60 8.40 1.60 9.00 6/4/96 2.80 70.86 1.60138.25 8.601 5.20 10.40 1.80 11.40 4.60 2.60 8.40 3.80 16.001 1 Mean 1.95 37.07 1.75 27.41 5.60 4.15 8.25 2.95 8.45 5.25 2.70 7.15 2.20 9.30 % Organic DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP G8 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 87.50 24.00 50.00 23.08 33.33, 36.84 17.07 41.38 29.73 19.30 50.00 47.06 30.00 64.52 4/9/96 57.14 13.99 85.71 13.00 28.571 3.20 27.59 75.00 31.58 38.46 57.14 28.00 85.71 23.33 5/7/96 50.00 13.40 50.00, 15.12 29.171 31.82 20.93 53.85 16.07 33.33 38.46 23.81 37.50 17.78 6/4/96 50.00 15.32 37.50 13.73 20.93 30.771 13.46 44.44 19.30 39.13 46.15 23.81 52.63 13.75 Mean 61.16 16.68 55-80 16.23 28.00 25.66 19.76 53.67 24.17 32.56 47.94 30.67 51.46 29.85 SPOM mg/L I 10/17/96 1.40 2.40 1.20, 4.20 1.60, 1.40 1.40 2.40 2.20 2.20 1.40 3.20 0.60 4.00 4/9/96 0.80 4.00 1.20 5.80 1.20 0.10, 1.60 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.40 5/7/96 1.00 5.20 0.80 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.80 1.40 1.80 0.80 1.00 2.00 0.60 1.60 6/4/96 1.40 10.86 0.60 5.25 1.80 1.60 1.40, 0.80 2.20 1.80 1.20 2.00 2.00 2.20 1 Mean 1.15 5.61 0.95 4.14 1.50 1.13 1.55 1.45 1.85 1.45 1.30 2.15 1.10 2.30 SALINITY ppt/ Conductivity DATE 19EXr GB80,5LMP GB15 80YS 50YS GB50,5BLM GB2 11CCh 7CCH GB21 5SFR GB22 Table 2. Dry weather data for Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 10/17/95 180-00 15.00 75.00 10.00 170.00 230.00 25.00 95.00 22.00 245.00 90.00 6.00 104.00 6.00 4/9/96 80.00 0.00 58.00 2.00 85.00 109-00 10.00 54.00 10-00 71.00 62.00 2.00 51.00 5.00 5/7/96 100.00 2.00 82.00 2.00 101.00 122.00 14-00 61.00 10.00 70.00 69.00 2.00 61.00 2.00 6/4/96 130.00 12.00 111.00 10.00 155.00 180.00 20.00 90.00 20.00_ 111.00 110.00 6.00 96.00 8.00 Mean 122.50 7.25 81.50 6.00 127.75 160.25 17.25 75.00 15.50 124.25 82.75 4.00 78.00 5.25 Temp DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 14.00 12.50 13.50 12.60 11.00 13.00 11.90 13.50 11.70, 18.00 13.00 13.20, 14.50 12.60 4/9/96 6.00 7.70 6.00 6.20 5.00 5.90 6.20 5.00 6.30 6.50 5.00 7.601 5.90 7.60 5/7/96 12.00 12.50 10.00 12.30 10.00 11.80 10.60 11.20 10.00 11.50 11.00 11.30 13.00 12.10 6/4/96 18.50 20.90 18.00 19.80 16.00 17.00 16.10 18.20 16.30 18.00 16.50 17.00 17.50 17.00 Mean 12.63 13.40 11.88 12.73 10.50 11.93 11.20 11.98 11.08 13.50 11.38 12.28 12.73 12.33 D.O. mgA DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GS 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 @5 BLM G82 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 10/17/95 4.80 8.20 8.30 9.80 7.80 6.70 5.20 6.70 9.40 5.60 8.80 5.20 8.20 5.30 4/9/96 9.80 11.20 10.60 12.40 11.20 11.00 11.60 11.40 12.40 9.80 11.20 11.90 10.80 11.90 5/7/96 9.20 9.20 10.10 12.30 10.60 9.80 9.60 10.10 9.60 9.90 10.50 11.30 10.20 9.80 6/4/96 6.20 6.80 7.20 6.90 8.10 6.40 7.20 7.40 6.80 7.10 6.90 8.00 8.00 7.40 Mean 7.50 8.85 9.05 10.35 9.43 8.48 8.40 8.90 9.55 8.10 9.35 9.10 9.30 8.60 % Oxygen saturation DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 15 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 46% 84% 80%1 98% 69% 63% 56% 64% 97% 59% 82% 50% 79% 51% 4/9/96 77% 93% 84% 100% 86% 87% 98% 88% 105% 79% 86% 99% 85% 101% 5/7/96 84% 86% 88% 98% 93% 90% 94% 90% 91% 91% 94% 95% 96% 93% F 71 84%1 84% 80% 6/4/96 66% 80% 76% 80% 82% 66%1 82%1 78% 77% 75Y. %. Table 2. Dry weather data for Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 Mean 68% 86% 82% 94% 83% 77% 83% 80% 93% 76% 83% 82% 86% 81% PH DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 80YS 50YS GB50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 6.70 7.75 7.00 8.11 6.501 6.70 8.16 6.70 8.20 6.80 6.80 8.04 6.90 8.00 4/9/96 7.10 8.16 7.30 8.16 7.301 7.20 8.04 7.10 8.17 6.40 6.80 8.08 6.90 8.00 5/7/96 6.86 8.12 6.87 8.44 7.10 7.12 7.76 6.84 7.78 6.74 6.92 8.31 6.77 8.63 6/4/96 6.85 7.73 6.94 7.89 7.08 7.i2 7.67 7.04 7.64 6.69 7.03 7.87 6.94 7.63 Mean 6.88 7.94 7.03 8.15 7.00 7.04 7.91 6.92 7.95 6.66 6.89 8.081 6.88 8.07 Chlorophyll gg/L 9 E)Cr GB 80 5LMP GB15 8 OYS 50YS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11CCh 7 CCH GS 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 6.65 5.51 2.64, 10.55 6.41 1.40 3.08 1.94 5.29 1.66 1.62 14.24 1.04 32.161 4/9/96 0.76 6.29 0.98 6.43 1.40 0.78 3.16 1.82 2.50 3.68 3.62 3.08 1.18 1.261 5/7/96 0.82 4.21 1.30 1.50 1.50 1.52 1.48 2.10 1.46 1.42 1.50 1.24 0.98 1.06 6/4/96 2.88 2.80 3.24 4.71 1.44 4.67 2.18 3.62 2.56 6.05 3.36 1.80 9.67 0.72 Mean 2.78 4.70 2.04 5.80 2.69 2.09 2.48 2.37 2.95 3.20 2.53 5.09 3.22 8.80 Phaeopigments 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 1 10/17/95 1.72 3.18 1.93 7.38 3.47, 0.95 2.00 2.09 1.88 3.16 2.34 3.83 2.04 1.71 4/9/96 0.4 4.90 0.55 5.56 0.95 1.49 1.76 1.35 1.28 0.60 1.21 1.65 0.53 1.82 5/7/96 1.04 11.59 0.91 4.72 1.48 1.98 2.56 1.75 2.55 1.26 1.41 3.31 0.98 3.41 6/4/96 2.23 5.06 0.93 7.38 3.14 3.69 2.85 2.56 2.40 2. 5 2.73 3.97 6.42 6.43 N 5 0 146 25 6 1.3 2.03 2.29 1.94 2.03 1.991 1 . -Mean 51 6.181 1.08 6.26 2.26 92 3.191 72_.7479T7@K@ Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 NH 4 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 9/18/95 0.07 0.11, 0.12 0.08 0.02, 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01, 9/19/95 0.34 0.10 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.17 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.00 11/2/95 0.12 0.15 0.05 0.45 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.41 0.24 0.09 0.12 11/3/95 0.04 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.33 0.15 0.68 0.27 0.75 0.10 5/17/95 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.32 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.09 6/23/96 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.31 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.07 Mean 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.38 0.27 0.12 0.21 0.07 N03 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 9/18/95 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.26 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.08 1.08 0.35 0.10 0.66 0.28 9/19/95 0.07 0.291 0.02 0.15 0.45 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.46 1.05 0.35 0.30 0.66 0.24 11/2/95 0.22 0.391 0.24 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.29 0.30 0.11, 0.30 0.34, 0.13 0.28, 0.11 11/3/95 0.21 0.131 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.55 0.131 0.32 0.17 0.25 0.45 0.16 -0.27 0.29 5/17/96 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.19 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.16 6/23/96 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.28 0.21 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.74 0.68 0.31 0.36 0.21 Mean 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.23 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.39 0.19 0.39 0.22 DON CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT IGB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 0.35 0.19, 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.28 0.07 0.32 0.27 0.00 0.30 0.37, 0.67 1.86 9/19/95 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.12, 0.23 0.28 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.39 0.24 0.15 0.65 0.23 11/2/95 0.07 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.23 0.33, 0.09 0.08 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.15 0.06, 0.23 11/3/95 0.32 0.49 0.10 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.53 0.33 0.09 0.36 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.22 5/17/96 0.22 0.24 0.14 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.04 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.19 6/23/96 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.32 0.09 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.121 0.02 0.31 0.12 0.30 1 Mean 0.20 0.25 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.19 0.24 0.16 0.151 0.13 0.25 0.28 0.51 P04 CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11CCh 7CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 1 @ 0.007 0.073 0.007 0 2= 0.022 0.0531 0.005 9/18/951 0.039 .009 0. Wo 0.011 0.045 0.027, Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 9/19/95 0.009 0.082 0.008 0.078 0.009 0.010 0.053 0.012 0.041 0.0251 0.023 0.057 0.009 0.064 11/2/95 0.012 0.084 0.011 0.040 0.014 0.019 0.079 0.010 0.032 0.0381 0.038 0.035 0.026 0.028 11/3/95 0.012 0.061 0.015 0.027 0.024 0.014 0.034 0.015 0.027 0.0351 0.040 0.034 0.016 0.027 5/17/95 0.009 0.028 0.006 0.029 0.007 0.010 0.017 0.008 0.036 0.0151 0.014 0.020 0.010 0.014 6/23/96 0.004 0.010 0.004 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.0251 0.017 0.006 0.007 0.005 1 Mean 0.014 0.057 0.009 0.043 0.010 0.011 0.044 0.010 0.032 0.0271 0.025 0.034 0.012 0.054 TSS CONCENTRATION mgA DATE 9 EXT G13 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 17 CCH G13 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 5.60 15.00 2.40 11.60 8.40 9.00 5.60 4.20 6.40 13.00 3.60 19.00 9.60 44.67 9/19/95 3.20 8.20 1.20121.00 5.80 6.40 5.60 2.40 3.80 4.00 2.60 23.00, 10.00 24.00 11/2/95 3.20 31.00 2.60132.80 6.80 3.80 5.80 3.40 5.60 3.40 2.80 11.201 2.00 4.20 11/3/95 4.20 31.00 3.801 17.80 6.60, 19.67 10.00 5.60 7.60 9.00 40.67 29.671 2.80 9.80 5/17/96 1.60 42.67 1.201 17.60 8.60 5.80 9.40 5.20 8.80 3.60 2.80 7.401 2.80 6.801 5/18/96 15.80 60.67 2.20 19-20 9.00 4.60 19.20 2.80 6.80 3.60 4.20 9.00 2.40 7.20 6/23/96 1.80 23.80 1.40 16.40 12.20 4.00 5.80 3.20 6.80 4.60 2.80 11.00 2.60 9.60 6/24/96 2.60 16.00 2.20 27.40 9.60 5.20 8.40 2.80 9.60 4.20 5.20 6.80 2.20 5.00 Mean 4.75 28.54 2.13 20.48 8.38 7.31 8.73 3.70 6.93 5.68 8.08 14.63 4.30 13.91 Storm Day 1 3.05 28.12 1.901 19.60 9.00 5.65 6.65 4.00 6.90 6.15 3.00 12.15 4.25 16.32 Storm Day 2 6.45 28.97 2.35 21.35 7.75 8.97 10.80 3.40 6.95 5.20 13.17 17.12 4.35 11.50 % Organic I .I DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR G13 22 9/18/95 42.86 22.67 66.67 34.48 26.19 42.22 32.14 52.38 18.75 58.46 44.44 63.16 81.25 80.60 9/19/95 50.00 29.27 50.00 25.71 27.59 34.38 25.00 41.67, 31.58 55.00 53.85 72.461 86.00 88.89 11/2/95 43.75 17.20 53.85 11.59 23.53 36.84 24.14 35.29 25.00 35.29 35.71 21.431 60.00 33.33 11/3/95 47.62 16.13 42.11 16.85 24.24 19.67 14.00 32.14 21.05 20.00 10.66 13.48 50.00 22.45 5/17/96 50.00 14.84 50.00 18.80 27.91 27.59 21.28 38.46 22.73 44.44 46.15 24.32 57.14 29.41 5/18/96 11.39 14.29 54.55 13.54 24.44 39.13 14.71 64.29 23.53 38.89 38.10 24.44 41.67 25.00 6/23/96 55.56 13.45 28.57 18.29 19.67 17.24 17.24 31.25 11.76 43.48 35.71 18.18 61.54 20.83 6/24/96 61.54 17.50 72.73 16.79 16.67 46.15 16.67 35.71 14.58 38.10 38.46 29.41 54.55 36.00 Mean 45.34 18.17 52.31 19.51 23.78 32.90 20.65 41.40 21.12 41.71 37.89 33.36 61.52 42.06 Storm Day 1 48.04 17.04] 49.77[ 20.79 24.33 30.97 23.70 39.35 19.56 45.42 40.50 31.77 64.98 41.04 Storm Day 2, 42.64 19.301 54.85118.22 23.24 34.831 17.60F 43,45- 22.691 38.00 35.27 34.95 58.06 43.09 Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 SPOM mg/L 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS G13 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR G13 22 9/18/96 2.40 3.40 1.60 4.00 2.20 3.80 1.80 2.20 1.20 7.60 1.60 12.00 7.80 36.00 9/19/95 1.60 2.40 0.60 5.40 1.60, 2.20 1.40 1.00 1.20 2.20 1.40 16.67 8.60 21.33 11/2/95 1.40 5.33 1.40 3.80 1.601 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.00 2.40 1.20 1.40 11/3/95 2.00 5.00 1.60 3.00 1.601 3.87 1.40 1.80 1.60 1.80 4.34 4.00 1.40 2.20 5/17/96 0.80 6.33 0.60 3.31 2.401 1.60 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.60 1.29 1.80 1.60 2.00 5/18/96 1.80 8.67 1.20 2.60 2.201 1.80 2.82 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.60 2.20 1.00 1.80 6/23/96 1.00 3.20 0.401 3.00 2.401 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.80 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.60 2.00 6/24/96 1.60 2.80 1.60 4.60 1.60 2.40 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.20 1.80 Mean 1.57 4.64 1.13 3.71 1.95 2.22 1.65 1.50 1.40 2.42 1.78 5.38 3.05 8.57 Day 1 1.40. 4.57 1.00 3.53 2.15 1.87 1.55 1.60 1.35 3.10 1.22 4.55 3.05 10.35 Day 2 1.75 4.72 1.25 3.90 1.75 2.57 1.76 1.40 1.45 1.75 2.33 6.22 3.05 6.78 SALINITY ppt DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP G13 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 I I CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 121.00 24.00 140.00, 26.00 250.00, 295.00 27.00 180.00 27.00 202.00 182.00 21.00 251.00 21.00 9/19/95 167.00 23.20 138.00125.00 222.001 240.00 28.00 172.00 28.00 201.00 185.00 21.00 180.00 22.00 11/2/95 122.00 3.50 80.00 3.50 103.00 130.00 19.50 82.00 19.50 222.00 172.00 4.50 172.00 5.50 11/3/95 4.50 7.20 132.00 201.00 12.00 150.00 9.00 135.00 130.00 0.00 140.00 0.00 5/17/96 0.00 0.00 10.00 11.20 0.00 0.00 5/18/96 0.00 0.00 8.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 6/23/96 144.00 23.00 123.00 16.00 199.00 213.00 23.00 148.00 22.00 137.00 130.00 7.00 142.00 9.00 6/24/96 170.00 11.00 120.00 11.00 203.00 209.00 23.00 89.00 23.00 145.00 142.00 4.00 111.00 5.00 Mean 144.80 11.15 120.20 11.09 184.83 214.67 18.81 136.83 18.34 173.67 156.83 7.19 166.00 7.81 Storm Day 1 121.50 9.17 110.00 14.75 176.50 212.50 23.25 131.00 23.25 212.00 177.00 12.75 211.50 13.25 Storm Day 2 167.00 9.23 138.00 16.10 177.00 220.50 20.00 161.00 18.50 168.00 157.50 10.50 160.00 11.00 Temp DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP G8 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH G13 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 1 1 1 9/18/95 17.00 18.00 18.00 18.20 13.50 13.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.50 17.00 18.00 17.90 18.00 9/19/95 16.00 18.20 17.201 19.10 15.00 15.20 17.00 17.00 16.80 16.00 16.20 18.90 16.00 18.50 11/2/95 8.20 9.50 9,00T 9.00 7.90 7.90 10.00 9.50 9.50, 7.OOT 6,80- 8.70 8.40 9.20 Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 11/3/95 8.50 9.00 8.40 9.00 8.10 6.10 9.60 10.00 9.90 8.20 9.00 8.301 9.00 8.70 5/17/96 12.50 13.00 13.00 12.90 12.20 12.90 11.70 12.90 12.00 13.00 12.20 12.001 12.90 12.20 5/18/96 14.20 14.00 13.80 13.90 13.40 13.70 12.00 14.30 11.80 13.00 13.10 12.80 13.00 13.00 6/23/96 21.90 21.50 22.90 21.50 18.90 21.80 20.00 21.70 20.00 21.80 20.40 21.50 22.10 22.00 6/24/96 22.90 22.00 21.50. 22.00 18.50 19.50 20.00 20.30 20.00 19.80 20.60 22.00 21.10 22.00 Mean 15.15 15.65 15.48 15.70 13.44 13.76 14.66 15.34 14.63 14.54 14.41 15.28 15.05 15.45 Storm Day 1 12.57 13.50 13.33 13.37 11.20 11.27 12.90 13.13 12.83 12.50 12.00 12-901 13.07 13.13 Storm Day 2 12.90 13.73 13.13 14.00 12.17 11.67 12.87 13.77 12.83 12.40 12.77 13.331 12.67 13.40 D.O. mgA DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 80YS 150YS GB50 513LM G132 11 CCh 7 CGH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 6.20 6.40 4.40, 8.60 7.80 6.40 8.20, 4.00 8.20 5.20 6.20 9.20 9.20 7.80 9/19/95 5.50 6.30 5.201 9.50 7.40 4.80 8.90 5.80 8.60 4.50 6.20 10.70 11.60 11.90 11/2/95 8.80 9.20 10.401 10.00 8.40 8.40 8.50 9.30 8.60 10.20 10.40 9.80 10.10 9.30 11/3/95 10.28 9.40 11.101 10.40 9.20 9.90 9.38 9.70 9.63 10.30 11.30 12. 14 10.90 11.76 5/17/96 8.20 10.27 9.601 11.35 9.201 9.00 8.89 9.00 9.17 9.20 9.40 10. 64 9.60 10.63 5/18/96 9.60 9.40 9.801 10.60 9.701 8.40 8.95 9.00 9.2 0 9.051 9.35 10.30 10.20 10.20 6/23/96 7.49 6.80 5.33 7.00 7.30 5.90 7.60 5.64 7.40 4.10 6.90 7.00 6.77 7.10 6/24/96 6.57 7.60 6.77 8.20 6.70 7.45 7.70 6.60 7.90 4.97 6.33 7.80 7.38 7.90 Mean 7.83 8.17 7.83 9.46 8.21 7.53 8.52 7.38 8.59 7.19 8.26 9.70 9.47 9.57 Storm Day 1 7.67 8.17 7.43. 9.24 8.18 7.43 8.30 6.99 8.34 7.18 8.23 9.16 8.92 8.71 Storm Day 2 7.99 8.18 8.22 9.68 8.251 7*64 8.73 7.78 8.83 7.21 8.30 10.24 10-02 10.44 % Oxygen saturation DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CGh 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 1 1 1 9/18/95 63% 78% 46% 104% 75% 49% 100% 41% 100% 54% 63% 108%, 96% 115%. 9/19/95 55% 76% 53% 117% 72% 47% 109% 59% 105% 45% 62% 128%1 116% 140% 11/2/95 73% 81% 88% 88% 70% 70% 84% 81% 85% 84% 84% 86% 84% 82% 11/3/95 87% 83% 94% 93% 76% 82% 89% 85% 90% 86% 96% 104% 93% 102% 5/17/96 76% 98% 90% 108% 84% 84% 87% 84%, 91% 86% 86% 99% 89% 99% 5/18/96 93% 90% 94% 102% 92% 81% 87% 88% .90% 88% 88% 96% 96% 96% 6/23/96 83% 86% 60% 88% 83% 66% 100% 62% 97% 46% 77% 86% 76% 86% 16 7 0 0 8. 52 S.3 0 8_ 73 6/24/96 76% 91% 77% 98% 71% 81% 97% 72% 99% 54% 70% @@i %1 82% 92% Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 Mean 76% 85% 75% 100% 78% 70% 94% 72% 95% 68% 78% 100% 92% 102% Storm Day 1 74% 86% 71% 97% 78% 67% 93% 67% 93% 68% 77% 95% 86% 96% Storm Day 2 78% 85% 80% 103% 78% 73% 96% 76% 96% 68% 79% 105% 97% 108% pH DATE 9 EXT G13 80 5 LMP G13 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR G13 22 9/18/95 7.10 7.74 6.91 8.11 7.22 7.29 8.18 7.12 7.94 6.88 7.24 7.73 9.12 8.34 9/19/95 7.11 7.66 6.94 8.06 7.26 7.38 8.16 7.09 7.83 6.84 7.11 8.09 9.67 8.32 11/2/95 6.79 7.23 6.82 7.18 6.90 7.03 7.76 6.88 7.78 6.71 7.10 7.26 6.91 7.27 11/3/95 6.64 6.97 6.75 7.14 6.54 6.86 7.31 6.88 7.32 6.64 7.08 6.85 6.89 6.69 5/17/96 6.77 7.11 6.86 7.00 6.91 7.04 7.35 6.99 7.40 6.71 7.01 7.00 6.85 6.76 5/18/96 6.97 7.02 6.96 7.02 7.08 7.18 7.35 6.92 7.39 6.81 7.03 6.94 6.96 6.84 6/23/96 7.27 7.55 7.09. 7.68 7.40. 7.30 7.76 7.06 7.71 6.90 7.11 7.41 7.21 7.61 6/24/96 6.91 7.32 6.84 7.63 7.071 7.23 7.72 7.04 7.70 6.59 7.12 7.31 6.93 7.72 Mean 6.95 7.33 6.90 7.48 7.05 7.16 7.70 7.00 7.63 6.76 7.10 7.32 7.57 7.44 Chlorophyll gg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS .5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH G13 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 3.48 3.90 8.01 11.11 3.54 22.05 3.14 6.03 1.94 89.87 6.49 29.94 116.12 170.86 9/19/95 4.73 4.75 2.60 11.69 1.64 10.55 3.00 4.23 2.62 20.13 8.51 73.89 106.57 56.97 11/2/95 4.83 3.07 1.06 0.94 0.84 1.76 1.20 0.98 1.62 1.32 1.06 2.96 0.88 2.90 11/3/95 1.88 1.16 1.30 1.48 0.62 1.74 0.88 0.92 0.90 0.98 1.37 1.34 0.94 1.28 5/17/96 1.72 2.07 1.16 0.94 1.66 1.84 1.34 1.56 1.20 2.74 2.14 1.42 1.14 1.04 5/18/96 3.82 1.40 1.28 1.52 1.32. 0.72 1.06 1.34 1.24 2.68 2.54 2.10 1.28 1.06 6/23/96 4.69 7.09 2.84 6.23 1.80 14.24 2.82 2.86 2.04 5.59 5.91 2.72 7.41 3.40 6/24/96 10.73 7.61 15.081 5.45 1.78 37.03- 3.98 3.20 2.28 4.99 5.77 4.13 2.00 4.09 Mean 4.48 3.88 4.17 4.92 1.65 11.24 2.18 2.64 1.73 16.04 4.22 14.81 29.54 30.20 Storm Day 1 3.68 4.03 3.27 4.81 1.96 9.97 2.13 2.86 1.70 24.88 3.90 9.26. 31.39 44.55 Storm Day 2 5.29 3.73 5.07 5.04 1.34 12.51 2.23 2.42 1.76 7.20 4.55 20.37 27.70 15.85 1 Phaeopigments gg& DATE 9 EXT I GB 80 5 LMP IGB15180YS 50YS IGB 501 IG132 11CCh 7CCH IGB2115SFR IGB22 Table 3. Storm sample data for the Great Bay tributaries 1995-1996 - --i-2.52 34.21 9/18/95 1.91 2.16 2.38 4.52 2.41 7.89 1.45 4.08 0.27 15.71 3.45 6.31 -- 9/19/95 2.84 3.58 1.06 5.21 1.58 5.01 1.47 2.74 1.25 13.71 3.38 8.95 7.64 8.39 11/2/95 3.40 7.98 9.85 3.21 0.44 1.22 0.72 1.00 0.73 1.20 1.74 1.75 1.04 1.11 11/3/95 2.01 3.48 1.42. 3.12 1.94 2.00 0.87 1.42 0.98 2.00 4.05 3.52 1.81 3.08 5/17/96 1.18 8.19 1.24 4.40 2.80 2.15 1.70 1.94 2.72 0.99 1.17 3.431 1.51 2.59 5/18/96 2.99 7.30 1.66 3.08 2.07 2.22 1.90 2.29 1.49 1.87 1.75 2.661 1.34 2.61 6/23/96 1.68 5.70 1.74 3.92 2.81 6.16 2.35 2.21 1.52 8.33 3.76 3.121 7.32 3.86 6/24/96 0.56 6.93 0.21 2.84 2.45. 6.18 1.68, 0.10 1.17 2.78 3.99 1.861 2.44 1.54 1 Mean 2.07 5.67 2.45 3.79 2.06 4.10 1.52 1.97 1.27 5.82 2.91 3.95 4.45 7.17 Storm Day 1 2.04, 6.01, 3.80, 4.01 2.12 4.361 1.55 2.31 1.31, 6.56, 2.53, 3.65 5.60 10.44 Storm Day 21 2.101 5.321 1.091 3.56 2.01 3.851 1.481 1.641 1.221 5.091 3.291 4.251 3.311 3.91 Table 4. Comparison of storm vs dry weather samples 1995-1996 for selected stations and parameters using Welches West for samples with unequal sd Parameter Station Significance Interpretation NH4 11 CCH NS 5 SFR NS 7CCH NS 9 EXT NS N03 11 CCH NS 5 SFR NS 7 CCH NS 9 EXT P= .041 STORM > DRY DON GB 22 NS P04 GB 80 NS GB 15 NS GB 50 NS GB 21 NS GB 22 NS 11 CCH NS 9EXT NS TSS 7CCH NS 5 OYS NS 9 EXT NS GB 21 P=.042 STORM DRY GB 22 NS 5SFR NS SPOM 11 CCH NS GB 21 NS GB 22 NS 5 SFR NS CHL A 5 OYS NS 11 CCH NS GB 21 NS 5 SFR NS GB 22 NS % 02 SAT 5 BLM NS 11CCH NS GB 21 NS JGB 22 NS 19 E)(T NS Table 5. Station comparisons using ANOVA for dry weather, storm and all samples combined 1995-1996 Data Parameter Significance (P) Pairs Dry Weather NH4 <.0001 11 CCH >all other stations N03 NS DON NS P04 NS TSS <.0001 GB 15 and 80 > all other stations SPCM <.0001 GB 15 and 80 > 9 EXT, 5 Imp, 5 OYS GB80 >5 SFR, 7CCH, 5 BLM, 11 CCH, GB 2 GB 50, GB 21, GB 22 % 02 SAT NS CHL A NS Storm samples NH4 <.005 11 CCH > all except 7 CCH and 5 SFR N03 <.0001 11 CCH > all except 7CCH DON NS P04 NS TSS <.0001 GB 80 > all except GB 21, 22, 15 GB 15 > all except GB 21, 22, 80 SPCM 0.0193 GB 22> all except GB 21, 15, 80 NS if 9/18 and 9/19 elimanated % 02 SAT <.0001 11 CCH < all fidal except GB 80 11 CCH< 5SFR 5 OYS < all tidal except GB 80 5 OYS < 5 SFR 5 BLM < GB 2, 15, 21, 22, 50 5 LMP < GB 15, 21, 22 19 EXT < Gb 15, 21, 22 Table 5. Station comparisons using ANOVA for dry weather, storm and all samples combined 1995-1996 8 OYS < GB 15, 21, 22 7 CCH < Gb 15, 21, 22 CHL A NS 95-96 D &S NH4 <.0001 11 CCH > all except 7 CCH 7 CCh > 8 OYS N03 <.0001 5 SFR . GB 50 and 9 EXT 7 CCH > GB 2,5 LMP and 5 BLM 11 CCH >all except 5 SFR and 7 CCH DON NS P04 <.0001 GB 80 > all tw except 7 and 11 CCH TSS <.0001 GB 80 > all other stations GB 15 > all except GB 80 SPOM 0.0017 GB 22. all except GB 15, GB 80, GB 21 % 02 SAT < .0001 11 CCH < 5 SFR, GB 2, 15, 21, 22, 50 50YS<GB2,15,21,22,50and5SFR 9 EXT< GB 2, 15, 21 5 BLM < GB 2. 15, 21 5 LMP < GB 15 CHL A NS Table 6. Interannual comparison of storm and dry data combined for the three project years using Welch's Mest for samples with unequal Sd Data Para neter Station Significance Interpretation Dry and Storm combined 93-94 vs 94-95 vs 95-96 NH4 5 LMP NS GB 15 NS 7 CCH NS 11 CCH NS N03 GB 80 NS GB 15 P= .0184 95-96 > 94-95 8 OYS NS 11 CCH NS 5 SFR NS GB 22 P- .0342 95-96>94-95 DON GB 22 NS P04 GB 80 NS GB 15 NS GB 2 NS GB 21 NS GB 22 NS TSS GB 21 NS 19 EXT I NS I Table 7. Cumulative Database for selected parameters for d ry weather samples 1993-1996 NH4 Concentration mg/L I DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 -BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 8/24/93 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 9/7/93 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.0901 0.0901 0.090 0.090 0.0901 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 10/5/93 0.090 0.200 0.090 0.0901 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.400 0.100 11/2/93 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.100 0.090 0.090 0.110 0.100 0.130 0.110 12/20/93 0.090 0.210 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.240 0.190 0.1101 0.130 4/19/94 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 5/17/94 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.0901 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.090 6/14/94 0.090 0.100 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.0901 0.100 0.090 0.300 0.200 7/26/94 0.0621 0.053 0.181 0.1011 0.076 0.059 0.062 0.124 0.044 0.086 0.062 0.034 0.092 0.127 8/30/94 6.027 0.063 0.019 0.033 0.031 0.021 0.064 0.060 0.012 0.048 0.033 0.056 0.013 0.043 10/24/94 0.007 0.055 0.020 0. 0 1'9 0.016 0.018 0.087 0.016 0.001 0.237 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.137 11/8/94 0.249 0.076 0.024 0.077 0.022 0.062 0.091 0.087 0.076 0.180 0.122 0.064 0.169 0.106 3/21/95 0.019 0.042 0.016 0.021 0.010 0.025 0.029 0.222 0.168 0.125 0.138 0.050 4/18/95 0.042, 0.093 0.015 0.047, 0.053 0.139 0.265, 0.654 0.144, 0.281 0.189 0.1661 0.260 0.118 5/2/95 0.032 0.150 0.031 0.014 0.084 0.043 0.135 0.035 0.068 0.244 0.132 0.134 0.150 0.142 6/6/95 0.050 0.182 0.052 0.107 0.081 0.245 0.325 0.033 0.015 0.410 0.202 0.124 0.203 0.160 10/17/95 0.032 0.386 0.085 0.230 0.047 0.232 0.050 0.176 0.066 0.754 0.545 0.385 0.547 0.499 4/9/96 0.062 0.138 0.135 0.076 0.034 0.211 0.089 0.127 0.018 0.699 0.205 0.166 0.142 0.130 5/7/96 0.021 0.128 0.086 0.113 0.025 0.152 0.094 0.010 0.133 0.117 0.123 0.155 0.119 0.155 6/4/96 0.090 0.035 0.16110.067 0.057 0.231 0.062 0.065 0.014 0.338 0.362 0.155 0.2291 0.094 Mean NI-14 Dry 0.071 0.126 0.079 0.084 0.045 0.108 0.103 0.107 0.067 0.301 0.163 0.128 0.179 0.133 N03 Concentration mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCH 7CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 1 8/24/93 0.078 0.120 0.018 0.050 0.018 0.040 0.018 0.0181 10.870 0.120.0.630 0.060 Table 7. Cumulative Database for selected parameters for dry weather samples 1993-1996 9/7/93 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.020 0.018 0.018 0.570 -0.018 1.200 0.018 10/5/93 0.030 0.190 0.260 0.130 0.180 0.070 0.360 0.060- 0.780 0.400 1.350 0.420 11/2/93 0.060 0.360 0.070 0.100 0.330 0.070 0.120 0.080 0.360 0.260 0.310 0.260 12/20/93 0.180 0.060 0.100 0.110 0.230 0.240 0.120 0.210 0.170 0.160 0.170 0.160 4/19/94 0.080 10.090 0.0801 0.160 0.120 0.045 0.1401 0.140 0.150 0.130 0.140 5/17/94 0.050 0.060 0.060 0.130 0.130 0.080 0.0701 0.160 0.130 0.150 0.120 6/14/94 0.080 0.140 0.100 0.140 0.130 0.1001 0.060 0.1001 0.560 0.370 0.460 0.310 7/26/94 0.016 0.033 0.000 0.003 0.325 0.000 0.0001 0.003 0.003 0.745 0.459 0.020 0.714 0.087 8/30/94 0.026 0.115 0.000 0.031 0.347 0.019 0.0241 0.017 0.025 0.581 0.767 0.008 0.646 0.001 10/24/94 0.090 0.111 0.025 0.011 0.154 0.192 0.047 0.025 0.051 0.458 0.490 0.295 0.166 0.103 11/8/94 0.099 0.111 0.053 0.048 0.134 0.248 0.078 0.059 0.074 0.401 0.474 0.182 0.235 0.098 3/21/95 0.105 0.071 0.058 0.234 0.110 0.110 0.140 0.102 0.149 0.160 0.075 0.113 4/18/95 0.020 0.143 0.066 0.108 0.065 0.145 0.044 0.088 0.074 0.157 0.155 0.175 0.101 0.130 5/2/95 0.0541 0.076 0.064 0.0071 0.106 0.165 0.0141 0.133 0.0331 0.195 0.292 0.188, 0.199 0.139 6/6/95 0.093 0.252 0.136 0.07610.225 0.188 0.011 0.071 0.025 0.521 0.635 0.272 0.242 0.148 10/17/95 0.032 0.386 0.085 0.230 0.188 0.232 0.050 0.176 0.066 0.863 0.545 0.385 0.547 0.499 4/9/96 0.062 0.138 0.135 0.076 0.120 0.211 0.089 0.127 0.018 0.194 0.205 0.166 0.142 0.130 5/7/96 0.021 0.128 0.086 0.113 0.113 0.152 0.094 0.010 0.133 0.130 0.123 0.155 0.119 0.155 6/4/96 0.090 0.035 0.161 0.067 0.210 0.231 0.062 0.065 0.014 0.260 0.362 0.155 0.229 0.094 Mean N03 Dry 0.064 0.142 0.080 0.077 0.17110.161 0.071 0.085 0.068 0.384 0.413 0.189 0.391 0.159 P04 Concentration mg)L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15,8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCH 7CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 8/24/93 0.004 0.041 0.004 0.059 0.008 0.055 0.005 0.038 0.018 0.041 0.007 0.045 9/7/93 0.001 0.056. 0.001 0.068 0.001 0.0491 0.001 0.033- 0.001 0.030 0.017 0.034 10/5/93 0.001 0.066 0.002 0.075 0.002 0.0441 0.004 0.0211 0.045 0.0241 0.031 0.022 11/2/93 0.007 0.034 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.032 0.002 0.023 0.033 0.0221 0.019 0.023 12/20/93 0.032 0.069 0.025 0.025 0.034 0.052 0.042 0.081 0.061 0.036 0. 026 0.036 4/19/94 0.001- 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.029 0.008 0.012 0.010 5/17/941 0.0041 10.0011 0.0071 10.001 0.022 0.001 0.011 10.018 0.014 0.0071 0.01 Table 7. Cumulative Database for selected parameters for dry weather samples 1993-1996 6/14/94 0.004 0.030 0.009 0.027 0.006 0.032 0.010 0.023 0.039 0.020 0.024 0.026 7/26/94 0.006 0.030 0.008 0.044 0.008 0.003 0.051 0.004 0.040 0.010 0.005 0.040 0.010 0.039 8/30/94 0.007 0.052 0.004 0.044 0.008 0.006 0.047 0.012 0.042 0.046 0.027 0.041 0.011 0.034 10/24/94 0.012 0.059 0.007 0.033 0.011 0.014 0.043 0.006 0.028 0.050 0.046 0.033 0.012 0.034- 11/8/94 0.014 0.052 0.0081 0.033 0.010 0.012 0.049 0.038 0.031 0.048 0.044 0.028 0.016 0.036 3/21/95 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.020 0.006 0.016 0.006 0.0091 0.019 0.019 0.0151 0.006 0.006- 4/18/95 0.002 0.020 0.002 0.011 0.003 0.025 0.011 0.001 0.006 0.026 0.025 0.015 0.005 0.010 5/2/95 0.005 0.026 0.003 0.010 0.006 0.006 0.014 0.003 0.002 0.038 0.050 0.024 0.004 0.014 6/6/95 0.0181 0.045 0.013 0.022 0.011 0.014 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.087 0.071 0.026 0.008 0.019 10/17/95 0.012 0.098, 0.006 0.042, 0.007 0.006 0.061, 0.007 0.035 0.107 0.066 0.050 0.034 0.032 4/9/96 0.002 0.018 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.0041 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.0041 0.007 5/7/96 0.003 0.024 0.002 0.021 0.003 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.048 0.009 0.009 0.017 0.008 0.011 6/4/96 0.003 0.020 0.008 0.025 0.002 0.005 0.017 0.001 0.011 0.058 0.025 0.017 0.003 0.013 Mean P04 Dry 0.007 0.0411 0.006 0.0291 0.008 0.008 0.032 0.008 0.025 0.042 0.032 0.026 0.013 0.023 TSS Concentration mg/L .1 DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB 2 11 CCH 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 8/24/93 1.50 41.50 0.09 24.50 2.50 40.001 1.50 8.00 7.00 20.50 -9.00 19.00 9/7/93 4.00 8.50 3.00 6.00 1.00 8.001 5.50 25.00 7.00 11.00 1.00 13.50 10/5/93 3.00 57.00 5.00 37.00 6.00 52.00 5.00 51.00 3.00 30.00 3.00 36.00 11/2/93 2.00136.00 0.90 43.00 0.09 70.00 1.00 14.00 1.00 19.00 3.00 87.00 12/20/93 4.50 17.00 4.00 19.00 4.00 5.00 3.20 5.00 4.80 5.00 4.40 6.00 4/19/94 1.00 0.90 12.001 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 0.90 1.00 5/17/94 2.00 1.00 12.501 4.50 5.50 2.00 5.50 4.00 6.00 4.00 7.00 6/14/94 2.00 35.00 3.00 7.001 9.00 4.50 2.00 5.50 2.00 5.50 3.00 3.50 7/26/94 2.00 27.80 3.20 6.00 8.40 3.20122.80 1.40 9.00 5.00 3.80 6.60 7.80 13.60 8/30/94 1.80 6.80 1.60 18.20 7.11 4.40 5.40 2.80 4.60 6.80 3.80 19.00 12.40 7.00 10/24/94 1.80 10.80 1.20@ 6.20 2.80 3.80 4.60 2.33 6.60 1.80 1.60 5.60 0.80 2.60 11/8/94 1.20 30.20 1.60 16.20 2.20 2.40 9.60 3.201 15.40 2.80 1.80 3.00 1.20 4.80 3/21/951 1.201 1.601 1 5.00 3.20 4.601 2.20T -5,601 3.201 3.801 6.401 1.601 10. 4pj Table 7. Cumulative Database for selected parameters for dry weather samples 1993-1996 4/18/95 1.00 80.00 1.20 37.40 3.40 3.60 5.00 2.00 5.60 2.60 2.40 6.20 1.80 29.20 5/2/95 2.40 23.40 3.20 18.20 4.20 4.60 8.00 2.60 4.40 3.80 3.00 4.80 2.60 9.40 6/6/95 1.80 24.40 1.40 10.00 10.80 5.40 9.00 2.20 14.20 6.60 2.60 4.80 2.80 9.60 10/17/95 1.60 10.00 2.40 18.20 4.80 3.80 8.20 -5.80 7.40 11.40 2.80 6.80 2.00 6.20 4/9/96 1.40 28.60 1.40 44.60 4.20 3.20 5.80 1.60 3.80 2.60 2.80 5.00 1.40 6.00 5/7/96 2.00 38.80 1.60 8.60 4.80 4.40 8.60 2.60 11.20 2.40 2.60 8.40 1.60 9.00 6/4/96 2.80 70.86 1.60 38.25 8.60 5.20 10.40 1.80 11.40 - 4.60 2.60 8.40 3.80 16.00 Mean TSS Dry 2.05 32.16 1.99 20.151 5.53 3.76 14.551 2.59 10.81 4.471 3.22 9.25 3.41 14.84 DON CONCENTRATION mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 7/26/94 0.242 0.254. 0.149 0.266 0.029 0.221 0.1981 0.193 0.1831 0.159 0-.129 0.346 0.364 0.186 8/30/94 0.527 0.412 0.371 0.396 0.372 0.390 0.501 0.453 0.000 0.650 0.610 0.386 0.871 0.406 10/24/94 0.342 0.464 0.185 0.341 0.160 0.270 0.556 0.239 0.188 0.036 0.077 0.252 0.120 0.251 11/8/94 0.172 0.413 0.232 0.375 0.314 0.290 0.141 0.235 0.120 0.250 0.194 0.394 0.296 0.366 3/21/95 0.130 0.240 0.250 0.360 0.470 0.330 0.400 0.400 0.420 0.410 0.290 0.330 4/18/95 0.168 0.1151 0.069 0.0451 0.071 0.000 0.0001 0.000 0.000 0.000, 0.000 0.000, 0.009 0.032 5/2/95 0.215 0.194 0.184 0.2091 0.101 0.152 0.2111 0.082 0.079 0.141 0.096 0.1881 0.191 0.160 6/6/95 0.548 0.158 0.357 0.43310.282 0.126 0.2441 0.074 0.052 0.225 0.020 0.043 0.000 0.188 10/17/96 0.391 0.180 0.189 0.0591 0.155 0.151 0.174 0.115 0.141 0.000 0.084 0.245 0.155 0.000 4/9/96 0.418 0.271 0.329 0.4221 0.296 0.381 0.325 0.169 0.3111 0.000 0.303 0.312 0.438 0.393 5/7/96 0.267 0.250 0.197 0.15010.162 0.237 0.059 0.209 0.090 0.143 0.070 0.148 0.172 0.159 6/4/96 0.261 0.319 0.172 0.286 0.203 0.162 0.284 0.224 0.338 0.042 0.042 0.0481 0.155 0.243 1 Mean DON dry 0.307 0.275 0.223 0.271 0.200 0.228 0.2641 0.193 0.159 0.171 0.170 0.231 0.255 0.226 @ 2 0 8 0 4@8 0 % Oxygen Saturation DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 I I CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 7/26/94@ 43% 92% 48% 75% 49% 52% 970y, 1 1=0'-/.69%1 98%1 78% 8/30/941 43%1 84%1 46%1 90%1 42% 58%1 97%1 54-/ol_101%1 50%1 58%1 88%1 73%1 9194] Table 7. Cumulative Database for selected parameters for dry weather samples 1993-1996 10/24/94 54% 101% 70% 95% 58% 58% 123% 68% 117% 55% 73% 92% 66% 89% 11/8/94 52% 73% 68% 83% 64% 60% 97% 64% 97% 59% 65% 80% 67% 102% 3/21/95 87% 85% 91% 95% 93% 91% 78% 87% 91% 70% 94% 84% 4/18/95 75% 81% 80% 95% 80% 78% 117% 79% 118% 74% 77% 86% 77% 90% 5/2/95 78%1 85% 82% 111%1 80% 78% 106%1 82% 109% 74% 79% 83% 80% 92% 6/6/95 49% 52% 63% 67% 60% 29% 112% 70% 113% 44% 63% 64% 64% 62% 10/17/95 46% 84% 80% 98% 69% 63% 56% 64% 97% 59% 82% 50% 79% 51% 4/9/96 77% 93% 84% 100% 86% 87% 98% 88% 105%1 79% 86% 99% -85% 101% 5/7/96 84% 86% 88% 98% 93% 90% 94% 90% 91%1 91% 94% 95% 96% 93% 6/4/96 66%1 80% 76% 80% 82% 66% 82% 78% 77% 75% 71% 84% 84% 80% Mean 02 Sat Dry 63%1 83%1 72%1 90%1 71%_ 68%1 98%1 74% 100% 709/6 77%1 80%1 80%1 84% Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 NI-14 Concentration mg/L DATE - -dB- -80 -&--LMP -d-B 1-5 8 -OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 -BLM -GB2 7CCH GB21 5SFR GB22 9/9/93 0.044 --6-.-181 --0.043 -0.246 0.037 0.169 0.023 0.118 0.102 0.009 0.336 0.030 9/27/93 0.045 0.177 0.036 0.051 0.053. 0.093 0.075 0.057 0.083 0.058 0.181 0.061 11/2/94 0.090 [email protected] --0.090 0.090 0.100 0.090 0.090 0.110 0.100 0.130 0.110 0.090 - - 11/18/93 [email protected] 0.058 0.008 0.173 0.013 0.026 0.233 0.472 0.420 0.385 0.281 0.334 0.167 0.141 12/6/93 0.017 109 0.029 0.045 1.051 0.117 0.035 0.001 5/17/94 0.090'- 6.0-00 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.090 5126/94 0.073 0.158 0.070 -0.063 0.152 0.086 0.069 0.073 0.203 0.124 0.527 0.113 6/13/94 0.033 0.160 -0.090 0.168 0.073 0.071 0.049 0.065- 0.108 0.132 0.434 0.286 6/14/94 0.090 0.100 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 - 0.100 0.090 0.300 0.200 8/22/94 0.073 0.16-1 0.236 0.088 0.124 0.078 0.077 0.086 0.054 0.066 0.030 0.067 0.067 0.086 9/26/94 0.035 0.0801 0.035 0.077 0.029 0.054 0,057 0.014 0.005 0.193 0.271 0.167 0.057 0.133 11/1/94 0.054 0.0811 0.038 0.017 0.015 0.065 0,060 0.043 0 027 0.167 0.219 0.117 0.162 0.113 11/2/94 0.032 0.0601 0.029 0.028 0.020 0.025 0.098 0.050 0.068 0.172 0.125 0.107 0.239 0.111 4/13/95 0.020 0.1531 0.043 0.048 0.032 0.069 0.064 0.052 0.006 0.312 0.290 0.109, 0.432 0.101 4/14/95 0.009 0.059 0.053 0.083 0.021 0.036 0.048 0.049 0.029 0.276 0.298 0.147 0.484 0.134 5/12/95 0.113 -0.086 0.032 0.040 0.039 0.073 0.057 0.027 0.097 0.278 0.151 0.101 0.263 0.123 5/16/95 0.033 0.127 0.028 0.094 0.049 0.071 0.253 0.027 0.059 0.-251 0.197 0.116 0.264 0.150 5/17/95 0.041 ' 0.111 0.024. 0.113 0.024 0.081 0.3571 0.039 0.068 0.301 0.395 0.174 0.223 0.130 9/18/95 0.072 0.113 0.118 0.075 0.015 0.084 0.0971 0.082 0.021 0.782 0.091 0.000 0.007 0.013 9/19/95 0.336 0.099 0.392 0.023 0.025 0.058 0.046 0.088 0.008 0.166 0.217 0.021 0.010 0.0041 11/2/95 0.124 0.146 0.049 0.445 0.018 0.082 0.118 -0.031 0.044 0.543 0.405 0.235 0.091 OA 19 11/3/95 0.042 0.065 0.191 0.068 0.012 0.034 0.030 0.042 0.334 0.152 0.675 0.268 0.747 -0.103 5/17/95 0.089 0.097 0.051 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.146 0.045 0.063 0.319 0 140 0.114 0.112 0.089 6/23/96 0.093 0.127 0.086 0.048 0.146 0.092 0.0521 0.110 0.046 0.306 0.068 0.274 0.073 U024 .01 5 2 Mean NH4 Storms 0.069 0.108 0.081 0.091 0.041 0.108 0.106 0.055 0.064 0.286 0.209 0.135 0.255 -0.121 Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 N03 Concentration mg/L I I DATE 9 E)Cr GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 - 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCH 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 9/9/93 0.101 0.115 0.025 0.058 0.056 0.0231 0.005 0.021 0.463 0.012 1.096 0.031 9/27/93 0.087 0.056 0.014 0.090 0.058 0.0341 0.009 0.030 1.044 0.100 1.304 0.075 11/2/94 0.060 0.360 0.070 0.100 0.330 0.0701 0.120 0.080 0.360 0.260 0.310 0.260 11/18/93 0.147 0.399 0.068 0.145 0.362 0.1011 0.139 0.071 0.392 0.313 0.309 0.174 12/6/93 0.070 0.167 0.102 0.228 0.100 0.117 0.210 0.144 0.235 0.220 0.3241 0.303 5/17/94 0.050 0.000 0.060 0.060 0.130 0.130 0.080 0.070 0.160 0.130 0.1501 0.120 5/26/94 0.100 0.114 0.049 0.078 0.236 0.055 0.077 0.058 0.334 0.137 0.218 0.080 6/13/94 0.065 0.087 0.065 0.060 0.1811 0.049 0.062 0.056 0.637 0.606 0.504 0.191 6/14/94 0.080 0.140 0.100 0.140 0.130 0.100 0.060 0.100 0.560 0.370 0.460 0.310 8/22/94 0.061 0.090 0.007 0.037 0.216 0.198 0.049 0.059 0.050 1.246 1.351 0.198 0.906 0.152 9/26/94 0.056 0.081 0.073 0.052 0.050 0.437 0.061 0.017 0.001 0.217 0.173 0.211 0.164 0.139 11/1/94 0.125 0.253 0.055 0.041 0.206 0.205 0.072 0.039 0.118 0.272 0.305 0.296 0.173 0.147 11/2/94 0.114 0.160 0.037 0.055 0.150 0.233 0.034 0.028 0.051 0.314 0.360 0.364 0.236 0.100 4/13/95 0.113 0.166 0.124 0.071 0.140 0.249 0.098 0.151 0.041 0.158 0.175 0.157 0.062 0.092 4/14/95 0.075 0.081 0.132 0.029 0.106 0.204 0.0821 0.107 0.018 0.176 0.182 0.072 0.119 0.083 5/12/95 0.074 0.1071 0.075 0.117 0.1411 0.206 0.0151 0.059 0.028, 0.349 0.348 0.1261 0.289 0.093 5/16/95 0.083 0.057 0.067 0.149 0.133 0.194 0.123 0.069 0.087 0.327 0.421 0.327 0.261 0.215 5/17/95 0.096 0.155 0.109 0.052 0.122 0.167 0.033 0.086 0.073 0.343 0.413 0.234 0.255 0.186 9/18/95 0.122 0.039 0.024 0.258 0.050 0.050 0.084 0.031 0.076 1.084 0.347 0.101 0.656 0.282 9/19/95 0.074 0.293 0*021 0.146 0.051 0.051 0.108 0.033 0.457 1.0541 0.347 0.301 0.662 0.242 11/2/95 0.224 0.3871 0.242 0.271 0.3211 0.321 0.287 0.300 0.114 0.2951 0.338 0.1331 0.275 0.108 11/3/95 0.211 0.134 0.224 0.123 0.547 0.547 0.132 0.323 0.168 0.253 0.446 0.157 0.267 0.288 5/17/96 0.085 0.128 0.086 0.093 0.186 0.186 0.062 0.112 0.045 0.151 0.154 0.162 0.126 0.155 6/23/96 0.113 0.028 0.143 0.047 0.207 0.207 0.018 0.092 0.032 0.741 0.685 0.312 0.361 0.215 Mean N03 Storms 0.099 0.150 0.082 0.104 0.175 0.210 0.0811 0.095 0.083 0.4651 0.426 0.221 0.395 0.168 Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 P04 Concentration mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 7 CCH GB 21 5SFR GB 22 9/9/93 0.008 0.065 0.005 0.094 0.009 0.083 0.011 0.045 0.012 0.096 0.031 0.046 9/27/93 0.010 0.050 0.007 0.029 0.006 0.055 0.012 0.035 0.042 0.025 0.024 0.029 11/2/94 0.007 0.034 0.009 0.020 0.003 0.032 0.002 0.023 0.033 0.022 0.019 0 093 11/18/93 0.011 0.049 0.006 0.030 0.015 0.047 0.020 0.023 0.058 0.031 0.046 0.034 12/6/93 0.019 0.032 0.021 0.023 0.019 0.033 0.025 0.017 10.039 0.045 0.014 0.018 5/17/94 0.004 0.0001 0.001 0.0071 0.001 0.0221 0.001 0.011- 0.018 0.014, 0.007 0.013 5/26/94 0.014 0.042 0.012 0.0201 0.014 0.027 0.012 0.018 0.033 0.020 0.019 0.020 6/13/94 0.013 0.031 0.012 0.037 0.009 0.035 0.010 0.021 0.048 0.033 0.038 0.031 6/14/94 0.004 0.030 0.009 0.027 0.006 0.032 0.010 0.023 0.039 0.020 0.024 0.026 8/22/94 0.012 0.079 0.002 0.035 0.009 0.011 0.057 0.011 0.046 0.0308 0.014 0.035 0.006 0.039 9/26/94 0.017 0.040 0.008 0.019 0.008 0.012 0.051 0.006 0.024 0.0334 0.036 0.035 0.011 0.021 11/1/94 0.026 0.077 0.010 0.012 0.009 0.010 0.056 0.014 0.021 0.0414 0.034 0.033 0.015 0.027 11/2/94 0.010 0.065 0.006 0.012 0.010 0.011 0.073 0.009 0.030 0.0358 0.034 0.031 0.017 0.027 4/13/95 0.002 0.015 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.022 0.002 0.009 0.0190 0.017 0.012 0.005 0.012 4/14/95 0.002 0.0151 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.0221 0.002 0.009 0.0190 0.017 0.012 0.005 0.012 5/12/95 0.006 0.019 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.007 0.013 0.005 0.007 0.0584 0.049 0.012 0.009 0.012 5/16/95 0.008 0.033 0.006 0.016 0.005 0.008 0.026 0.007, 0.014 0.0464 0.045, 0.026 0.006, 0.016 5/17/95 0.005 0.032 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.018 0.004 0.008 0.0508 0.033 0.027 0.0021 0.011 9/18/95 0.039 0.075 0.007 0.073 0.0071 0.009 0.072 0.011 0.045 0.027 0.022 0.053 0.0051 0.189 9/19/95 0.009 0.082 0.008 0.078 0.009 0.010 0.053 0.012 0.041 0.025 0.023 0.057 0.0091 0.064 11/2/95 0.012 0.084 0.011 0.040 0.014 0.019 0.079 0.010 0.032 0.038 0.038 0.035 0.0261 0.028 11/3/95 0.012 0.061 0.015 0.027 0.024 0.014 0.034 0.015 0.027 0.035 0.040 0.034 0.016 0.027 5/17/95 0.009 0.028 0.006 0.029 0.007 0.010 0.017 0.008 0.036 0.015 0.014 0.020 0.010 0.014 6/23/96 0.004 0.010 0.004 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.025 0.017 0.006 0.007 0.005 Mean P04 Storms 0.011 0.044 0.008 0.028 0.008 0.009 0.040 0.009 0.024 0.033 0.031 0.031 0.016 0.031 Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 TSS Concentration mg/L DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB 2 7 CCH GB21 5SFR GB22 9/9/93 0.80 7.80 0.20 3.20 1.20 2.20 3.40 3.80 7.20 12-80 0.60 1.60 9/27/93 3.40 30.60 1.20 18.60 2.40 3.40. 2.60 1.60 5.00 1.60 3.00 2.40 11/18/93 3.00 31.00 1.00 10.00 9.00 5.40 7.80 6.00 4.60 5.80 0.80-4.00 12/6/93 5.00 28.20. 7.80 24.60 9.20 5.00 4.00 3.40 7.60 8.40 1.20 4.80 5/26/94 1.00 106-67 0.80 18.40 3.40 6.601 2.00 6.80 2.20 6.801 2.00 7.80 6/13/94 2.00 40.00 3.40 9.60 8.80 5.80 -2.20 5.40 3.00 7.00 4.40 7.60 6/14/94 2.00 35.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 4.50 2.00 5.50 2.00 5.50 3.00 3.50 8/22/94 1.80 29.00 1.80 6.80 10.00 3.40 5.40 4.20 4.20 4.40 6.20 7.20 13.00 5.80 9/26/94 2.00 19.00 1.20 3.80 8.00 5.00 8.20 3.00 4.20 4.40 5.40 7.00 2.60 5.00 11/1/94 3.00 14.20 1.60 5.60 2.40 2.40 2.80 6.40 19.60 2.40 2.80 4.40 1.60 10.60 11/2/94 0.60 17.401 0.80 12.60 3.20 5.60 31.40 5.80 35.20 2.40 4.00 11.00 1.00 107.67 4/13/95 2.00 34.80 1.40 14.50 11.80 7.80 21.80 2.20 3.70 2.80 3.00 8.50 1.40 10.40 4/14/95 1.60 27.60 1.80 14.00 6.60 5.40 4.80 2.40 5.60 7.80 4.60 5.60 2.20 6.80 5/12/95 2.20 40.00 1.60 21.40 5.20 6.40 6.40 3.20 8.00 4.40 2.80 5.60 3.40 10.80 5/16/95 2.00 67.00 -1.80 78.00 9.401 6.20 11.80 3.20 9.60 3.60 2.60 10.60 2.40, 12.00 5/17/95 1.80 91.00 1.00 96.00 6.80 5.80 8.801 3.00 10.20 4.40 2.60 10.20 2.001 17.80 9/18/95 5.60 15.00 2.40 11.60 8.40 9.00 5.60 4.20 6.40 13.00 3.60 19.00 9.60 44.67 9/19/95 3.20 8.20 1.20 21.00 5.80 6.40 5.60 2.40 3.80 4.00 2.60 23.00 10.00 24.00 11/2/95 3.20 31.00 2.60 32.80 6.801 3.80 5.80 3.40 5.60 3.40 2.80 11.20 2.00 4.20 11/3/95 4.20 31-00 3.80 17.80 6.60 19.67 10.00 5.60 7.60 9.00 40.67 29.67 2.80 9.80 5/17/96 1.60 42.67 1.20 17.60 8.60 5.80 9.40 5.20 8.80 3.60 2.80 7.40 2.80 6.80 5/18/96 15.80 60.67 2.20 19.20 9.00 4.60 19.20 2.80 6.80 3.60 4.20 9.00 2.40 7.20 6/23/96 1.80 23.80 1.40 16.40 12.20 4.00 5.80 3.20 6.80 4.60 2.80 11.00 2.60 9.60 6/24/96 2.60 16.001 2.20 27.40 9.60 5.20 8.40 2.80 9.60 4.20 5.20 6.80 2.20 5.00 1 Mean 3.01 35.32 1.98 21.16 7.67 6.23 8.50 3.63 7.84 4.82 5.43 9.79 3.29 13.74 L I I Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 DON Concentration mg/L DATE 9 E)Cr GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7CCH GB21 5SFR GB 22 8/22/94 0.440 0.570 0.070 0.350 0.270 0.300 0.160 0.430 0.170 0.440 0.410 0.310 1.050 0.410 9/26/94 0.405 0.369 0.430 0.332 0.317 0.764 0.226 0.261 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.367 0.345 11/1/94 0.311 0.516 0.237 0.142 0.159 0.210 0.108 0.238 0.075 0.210 0.000 0.106 0.255 0.000 11/2/94 0.424 0.470 0.253 0.216 0.080 0.363 0.348 0.362 0.221 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.326 0.449 4/13/95 0.078 0.000 0.083 0.072 0.1081 0.002 0.048 0.008 0.283 0.000 0.000 0.104 0.000 0.178 4/14/95 0.166 0.110 0.000 0.097 0.063 0.110 0.120 0.063 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.151 0.000 0.163 5/12/95 0.153 0.227 0.202 0.134 0.240 0.151 0.188 0.185 0.155 0.000 0. 181 0.233 0.1281 0.194 5/16/95 0.184 0.385 0.155 0.087 0.148 0.165 0.000 0.144 0.123 0.072 0.002 0.207 0.036 0.185 5/17/95 0.303 0.2141 0.107 0.135 0.174 0.182 0.000 0.136 0.129 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.172 0.054 9/18/95 0.346 0.1881 0.268 0.036 0.239 0.276 0.070 0.317 0.273 0.000 0.302 0.369 0.667 1.864 9/19/95 0.000 0.0991 0.000 0.121 0.227 0.281 0.016 0.310 0.000 0.390 0.236 0.148 0.648 0.233 11/2/95 0.073 0.2071 0.049 0.000 0.229 0.327 0.086 0.079 0.161 0.000 0.077 0.152 0.064 0.233 11/3/95 0.318 0.4911 0.095 0.319. 0.304 0.339 0.529 0.325 0.088 0.355 0.000 0.365 0.000 0.218 5/17/96 0.217 0.245 0.142 0.1951 0.228 0.273 0.162 0.143 0.191 0.039 0.156 0.185 0.182 0.186 6/23/96 0.274 0.254 0.261 0.3161 0.086 0.342 0.290 0.288 0.231 0.123 0.017 0.310 0.125 0.302 Mean 0.246 0.290 0.157 0.170 0.191 0.272 0.157 0.219 0.161 0.114 0.106 0.187 0.268 0.334 % Oxygen Saturation DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP G1315 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7CCH GB21 5SFR GB 22 8/22/94 48% 50% 46% 62% 59% 62% 84% 50% 80% 54% 64% 53% 84% 55% 9/26/94 74% 77% 95% 95% 77% 75% 11/1/94 47% 75% 67% 72%@ 65% 62% 94% 54% 93% 65% 75% 70% 69% 66% 11/2/94 49% 90% 72% 79% 67% 68%@ 99% 59% 100% 71% 76% 66% 71% 74% 4/13/95 79% 104% 86% 105% 85% 86% 135% 82% 132% 80% 76% 104% 81%-105% 4/14/95 81% 101% 88% 99% 83% 85% 113% 81% 123% 85% 84% 89% 84% 89% 5/12/951 56%1 74%1 69%1 86%1 79%1 72% 115% 69%1 114%1 64%1 72%1 80%1 67%1 84%1 Table 8. Cumulative database for selected parameters for storm samples 1993-1996 5/16/95 56% 77% 59% 82% 71%1 70% 103% 65% 97% 60% 69% 76% 62% 77% 5/17/95 65% 78% 65% 83% 71%1 67% 98% 62% 100% 58% 67% 75% 73% 75% 9/18/95 63% 78% 46% 104% 75% 49% 100% 41% 100% 54% 63% 108% 96% 115% 9/19/95 55% 76% 53% 117% 72% 47% 109% 59% 105% 45% 62% 128% 116% 140% 11/2/95 73% 81% 88% 88% 70% 70% 84% 81% 85% 84% 84% 86% 84% 82% 11/3/95 87% 83% 94% 93% 76% 82% 89% 85% 90% 86% 96% 104% 93% 102% 5/17/96 76% 98% 90% 108% 84% 84% 87% 84% 91% 86% 86% 99% 89%1 99% 5/18/96 93% 90% 94% 102% 92% 81% 87% 88% 90% 88% 88% 96XO 96% 96% 6/23/96 83% 86%1 60% 88% 83% 66% 100% 62% 97% 46% 77% 86% 76% 86% 6/24/96 76% 91% 77% 98% 71% 81% 97% 72% 99% 54% 70% 91% 82% 92% iMean 68% 83% 72%1 91%1 75%1 71%] 99%1 68% 99%1 68%1 75%1 88%1 83%1 89% Table 9. Comparison of Dry vs Storm data for the cumulative 93-96 database using Welch's test for unequal sd DATA PARAMETER STATION SIGNIFICANCE INTERPRETATION CUMULATIVE 1993-1996 NI-14 5 SFR NS DRYVSSTORM N03 11CCH NS 5 OYS NS 9 EXT P=.0086 STORM > DRY DON GB 50 NS GB 22 NS P04 9 EXT NS GB 50 NS JGB 22 INS Table 10. Bacterial indicator concentrations at all sites during dry weather conditions. FECAL COLIFORMS DATE 19 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 140 156 22 230 70 305 20 135 71.5 340 165 480 760 425 4/9/96 20 54 7 87.5 2 8 0.5 6.5 1 12 65 140 36 35 5f7/96 51 118 27.5 94 47 61.5 17.5 20.5 17 790 112 320 153 204 6/4/96 66 110 29 104 455 66 30 98 40 190 196 365 630 35 Geo. Ave. T 55 102 19 118 42 56 9 36 15 157 124 298 227 102 FW:SW 0.9 0.1 3.5 15.3 1.9 0.7 0.3 1.8 E. eoft DATE 19 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 90 % 12 145 65 115 11 55 58.5 90 130 360 400 370 4/9/96 17.5 38 5 17.5 2 8 0.5 6 1 9.5 30 100 14.5 25 5n196 46.5 78 23.5 76 44.5 51 14.5 18 15 460 74 170 88 118 6/4/96 56 90 24 94 430 66 23 94 35 80 114 295 460 15 Geo. Ave. T 45 71 14 65 40 42 7 27 13 75 76 206 124 64 FW:SW 0.9 0.1 5.9 10.5 0.9 0.3 0.4 1.1 Enterococci DATE 19 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 10/17/95 95 10 20 37 155 110 0.5 118 16.5 95 58 23 90 38 4/9/96 5 8 4 4 0.5 17.5 2.5 4 27.5 4 17 27 12 2 5n196 4.5 18 1.5 6.5 9 4 3.5 0.5 1.5 17.5 36 24.5 4.5 9 6/4/96 7 13.5 1.5 26.5 24 11.5 8.5 18 48.5 2 65 54 22 9 Geo. Ave. 11 12 4 13 11 17 2 '8 13 11 39 30 18 9 FW:SW 0.9 0.3 4.6 7.0 0.6 0.4 0 2.0 Table 11. Bacterial indicator concentrations at all sites on the 1st and 2nd days of storm events. FECAL COLIFORMS DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LUP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 3900 34 252 100 770 5300 28 410 4 42 1000 1300 130 820 9/19/95 520 28 145 25 600 900 8 290 2 26 360 160 140 60 11/2,95 400 1740 55 1260 340 60 70 60 124 52 190 840 65 124 11/3/95 380 2160 285 1280 460 940 410 390 565 950 1150 2000 885 1350 5/17/96 72 100 35 84 208 162 57 160 53 240 44 320 595 210 5/18/96 522 40 48 96 56 56 24 20 31 135 106 330 40 85 6/23/96 68 32 16 350 250 102 26 9350 20 120 1500 1400 3200 320 6/24/96 78 24 36 186 290 88 5 330 8 315 140 640 710 345 Geo. Ave. 298 101 70 195 297 262 32 269 25 127 306 653 295 252 1st day 2% 117 53 247 342 269 41 438 27 89 335 836 356 298 2nd day 2" 87 92 155 2S9 254 25 16S 23 180 280 510 244 221 lst:2nd day 1.0 1.3 0.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.6 2.6 1.2 O.S 1.2 1.6 IS 1.3 FW:SW 2.9 OA 9.2 8.1 10.8 0.2 0.5 1.2 ExoU DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LW GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9/18/95 3800 32 190 85 770 700 10 300 2 42 850 1000 130 580 9/19/95 380 22 125 20 480 220 8 200 2 24 320 125 110 50 11/2/95 380 1420 55 1160 300 60 68 50 215 43 140 560 40 102 11/3/95 380 1440 285 400 420 880 358 390 520 690 910 1200 785 1300 5/17/96 55 100 26 52 204 104 39 92 34 150 16 150 425 195 5/18/96 476 40 44 96 56 56 24 20 28 95 70 215 40 75 6/23/96 62 30 15 350 220 94 26 9350 17 115 1400 1200 3200 320 6/24/96 78 24 34 152 290 78 4 266 8 235 140 550 480 310 Geo. Ave. 268 90 62 146 276 156 26 219 22 102 229 453 242 220 1st day 265 108 4S 206 319 142 29 337 22 7S 227 563 290 246 2nd day 271 74 95 104 239 171 23 143 22 139 231 365 202 197 lst:2nd day 1.0 LS 0.5 2.0 1.3 0.8 1.3 2A 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 IA 1.3 FW:SW 3.0 OA 10.8 6.1 9.9 0.2 0.5 1.1 ENTEROCOCCI DATE 9 EXT GB 80 5 LUP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22. 9/18/95 2160 10 331 14 360 625 4 400 2 21 392 6 145 22 9/19/95 234 0 97 2 323 144 1 110 2 24 165 3 13 5 11/2/95 240 580 105 1035 950 150 42 128 375 46 135 485 58 36 11/3/95 380 590 380 420 350 1020 960 345 260 1080 2580 595 148 222 5/17/96 55 37 2 15 52 50 32 61 34 23 30 111 32 18 5/18/96 62 33 7 10 116 126 15 24 20 30 31 54 20 20 6/23/96 31 24 13 23 76 59 3 34 1 35 81 147 87 32 6/24/96 27 8 33 5 22 15 2 139 1 58 53 49 112 25 Geo. Ave. 137 27 41 26 157 129 12 104 11 49 131 62 56 27 1st day 172 47 31 47 191 129 11 101 12 30 106 83 69 26 2nd day 110 16 54 14 130 129 12 106 9 82 162 47 46 27 Ist:2nd day 1.6 3.0 0.6 3.3 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 OA 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.0 FW:SW 5.0 1.6 13.5 11.0 9.7 0.8 2.1 2.1 Table 12. Summary of statistical analyses of bacterial indicator data using paired t tests. Comparison Results of statistical analysis and explanation Fecal coliforms E. coli Enterococci 1994-1995 DATA Dry vs Storms 9 EXT storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 80 NS NS NS 5 LMP storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 15 NS NS NS 8 OYS NS NS NS 5 OYS NS storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) GB 50 NS storm > dry (P < 0.05) NS 5 BLM NS storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) GB2 NS NS NS 11 CCH NS NS NS 7 CCH storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.05) GB 21 storm > dry (P < 0.05) NS NS 5 SFR NS NS NS GB 22 NS NS NS 1st vs 2nd day storm samples GB15 NS NS ld > 2d (P<0.05) All other sites NS NS NS Between site differences for all sites and conditions: see Table 15. Between site differences: Freshwater (FW) compared to paired saltwater (SW) sites 9 EXT vs GB 80 wet&dry NS NS NS 5LUP vs GB 15 wet NS NS NS 5LNW vs GB 15 dry FW<SW (P < 0.05) FW<SW (P < 0.05) NS 8 OYS vs GB 50 wet FW>SW (P<0.01) FW>SW (P<0.01) FW>SW (P<0.05) 8 OYS vs GB 50 dry FW>SW (P<0.05) FW>SW (P<0.05) NS 5 OYS vs GB 50 wet FW<SW (P < 0.05) FW<SW (P < 0.05) FW<SW (P < 0.01) 5 OYS vs GB 50 dry FW>SW (P<0.05) FW>SW (P<0.05) NS 5 BLM vs GB 2 wet FW>SW (P<0.05) NS FW>SW (P<0.05) 1 1CCH vs GB 21 wet FW<SW (P<0.01) FW<SW (P<0.01) NS 7 CCH vs GB 21 dry FW<SW (P<0.01) FW<SW (P<0.01) NS All other site/conditions NS NS NS Table 13. Statistically significant differences between bacteria at all sites. Bottom left matrix = wet conditions; Top right matrix = dry conditions. I . I F I Fecal coliforms (ANOVA: *P<0.05; **P<0.01) 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8-OYS 5 OYS JGB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCH 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 9 EXT wetNdry GB 80 wet\,dry 5 LMP @Wetmq GB 15 wet\,dry 8 OYS wefdry 5 OYS weklry GB 50 wetdry 5 BLM wet\dry GB2 1we6dry 11 CCH we&dry 7 CCH wet-dry GB 21 wet\dry 5 SFR weiNdry GB 22 weMq E. coli 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCH 7CCH GB21 5 SFR GB 22 9EXT wet\dry GB 90 wet\dry 5LMP wetdry GB15 weMq 80YS wet\dry SOYS WeNg GB 50 wet\dry 5BLM wet\dry GB2 wct\dry IICCH weUry 7CCH 1weUry GB 21 wet\dry 5 SFR -etdry GB 22 wet\dry Enterococci 9 EXT GB 90 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 IICCH 7CCH GH 21 5 SFR GB 22 9EXT wet\dry GB 80 wet\dry 5LMP WeA&Y GB15 wet*y 80ys wetNdby 50ys weedry GB 50 we&&y 5BLM wet\dry GB2 wet\dry IICCH wet\dry 7CCH wet\dry GB21 wet\,dry 5SFR wet\dry GB 22 weNdry Table 14. Summary of statistical analyses of bacterial indicator data using 1-way ANOVA. INTERANNUAL COMPARISONS Fecal coliforms E. coli Enterococci 1994-95 vs 1995-96 Wet conditions NS NS NS Dry conditions GB80 94-5<95-6 (P<0.01) 94-5<95-6 (P<0.01) NS 5SFR 94-5<95-6 (P<0.05) NS NS 5LW NS NS 94-5>95-6 (P<0.05) GB,50 NS NS 94-5>95-6 (P<0.01) 1993-94 vs 1995-96 Wet conditions 5SFR 93-4<95-6 (P<0.05) NS NS GB2 NS NS 93-4>95-6 (P<0.05) Dry conditions GB80 934<95-6 (P<0.01) 93-4<95-6 (P<0.01) NS 5SFR 934<95-6 (P<0.05) NS NS 5LMP NS NS 93-4>95-6 (P<0.01) GB15 93-4<95-6 (P<0.01) NS NS GB21 93-4<95-6 (P<0.01) 93-4<95-6 (P<0.05) NS GB22 NS 93-4<95-6 (P<0.05) NS GB50 NS NS 934<95-6 (P<0.05) 1993-94 vs1994-95 Wet conditions GB2 NS NS 93-4 > 94-5 (P < 0.05) GB 13 NS NS 93-4 > 94-5 (P < 0.05) Dry conditions 5 BLM 93-4 < 94-5 (P < 0.05) NS NS GB 50 NS 93-4 > 94-5 (P < 0.05) NS 5 SFR NS NS 93-4 < 94-5 (P < 0.05) ALL 1993-96 DATA. STORM VS. DRY CONDITIONS 9 EXT storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 80 storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) 5 LMP storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.05) GB 15 storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) 5 OYS storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 50 storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.05) 5 BLM storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 2 storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.05) 7 CCH storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 21 storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.01) 5 SFR storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.05) storm > dry (P < 0.01) GB 22 storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) storm > dry (P < 0.01) Table 15. Fecal coliform concentrations (per loo ml) at all sites: 1993-96. DRY 9-EXT GB80 S-LUP GBI5 5-OYS GB50 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 8/24/93 6 7 4 60 6 1 3 5 220 54 4 11 9M93 51 5 5 15 5 4 7 1 133 74 2 8 10/5/93 8 6 2 50 13 0.8 6 8 166 91 4 41 12/20/93 16 46 6 49 9 4 2 5 22 177 23 47 4/19/94 26 4 20 8 0.8 7 2 12 29 29 30 5/3/94 77 56 19 14 100 86 53 27 59 125 73 27 6/22/94 32.5 5.5 15 6.25 75 70 220 55 72.5 11.25 217.5 100 7/26/94 30 17 10 210 40 10 100 9 80 58 20 10 8/30/94 12 20 1 37 14 9 210 9 70 40 210 9 10/24/94 90 32 20 104 50 10 900 9 108 400 55 60 11/8/94 25 14 30 80 70 9 1140 30 330 160 44 34 3121/95 30 10 25 9 30 20 14 24 10 16 4/18/95 20 12 9 13 21 9 9 9 180 57 10 20 5/2/95 26 9 9 30 18 9 10 9 155 140 10 9 616/95 70 30 14 99 24 9 48 10 67 117 200 20 10/17/95 140 156 22 230 305 20 135 71.5 165 490 760 425 4/9/96 20 54 7 87.5 8 0.5 6.5 1 65 140 36 35 5/7/96 51 118 27.5 94 61.5 17.5 20.5 17 112 320 153 204 6/4/96 66 110 29 104 66 30 98 40 196 365 630 35 Geo.Ave. 31 23 9 49 26 7 33 10 97 79 39 30 1993-94 22 12 6 23 is 5 11 7 66 33 17 28 1994-95 31 17 10 59 29 9 84 12 92 87 35 18 1995-96 55 102 19 118 S6 9 36 15 124 298 227 102 WET 9-EXT GB80 5-LNW GB15 5-OYS GB50 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 9/9/93 1240 17.5 40 160 660 4.5 103 10.5 3110 1180 10 258 9r27/93 820 280 30 3040 1160 2.5 36 19.5 2800 140 14 100 11 r2M 105 14 16 220 122 183 168 43 48 5 220 60 11/18/93 460 160 50 200 1520 54.5 180 210 3600 645 132 405 12/6/93 260 328 360 420 58 90 75 360 540 120 110 5117/94 220 31 46 36 183 146 71 55 112 11 98 20 5/26/94 115 60 16 165 210 55 85 47 102 295 143 Ill 6/13/94 210 22.5 70 355 3200 52.5 130 35 325 5500 40 5700 6/14/94 57 22 24 106 158 330 133 70 200 2 200 28 8/22/94 66 60 34 305 720 18 8000 22 760 380 183 260 9/26/94 440 2000 600 720 750 220 190 270 1650 1920 1350 1880 II/l/94 2100 85 17 675 29 9 99 32 280 1375 65 70 ll/Z/94 40 55 55 947 2000 182 430 74 340 545 1330 480 4/13/95 440 23 10 8 90 1 20 3 19600 180 48 33 4/14/95 60 28 15 24 28 9 22 13 4140 79 90 49 5/12/95 100 36 9 40 2320 40 73 22 10200 40 18 21 5/16/95 80 22 13 75 140 26 81 22 1000 148 52 40 5/17/95 70 54 34 50 110 12 61 22 59 126 62 41 9/18/95 3900 34 252 100 5300 28 410 4 1000 1300 130 820 9/19/95 520 28 145 25 900 8 290 2 360 160 140 60 11/2/95 400 1740 55 1260 60 70 60 124 190 840 65 124 11/3/95 380 2160 285 1280 940 410 390 565 1150 2000 985 1350 5/17/96 72 100 35 84 162 57 160 53 44 320 595 210 5/18/96 522 40 48 96 56 24 20 31 106 330 40 85 6123/96 68 32 16 350 102 26 9350 20 ISW 1400 3200 320 6/24/96 78 24 36 186 88 5 330 8 140 640 710 345 Geo.Av& 221 43 173 312 31 149 31 SSO 272 133 ISO 1993-94 250 42 42 229 472 46 101 46 419 130 72 143 1994-95 149 63 28 117 242 20 130 26 1216 261 120 1995-96 1 298 101 70 195 262 32 269 25 306 653 295 252 Table 16. E. coli concentrations (per 100 ml) at all sites: 1993-96. DRY 9-EXT GB80 5-LMP GB15 5-OYS GB50 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 _j/-24/93 12 6 3 115 21 4 4 4 1390 63 6 6 qn193 98 6 4 18 20 7 10 2 240 137 1 27 10/5/93 10 13 3 131 41 2 3 15 330 108 6 88 12t2O/93 19 51 15 61 23 11 6 4 25 140 46 44 4/19/94 16 8 34 10 3 8 4 21 22 21 8 5/3194 67 56 18 3.25 59 64 43 15 47 1.25 47 27 6/22/94 27.5 5 14 6.25 75 62.5 220 45 37.5 8.75 127.5 100 7/26/94 30 17 5 210 40 5 100 7 64 58 20 2 8/30/94 12 16 1 37 14 1 210 1 70 40 210 7 10/24/94 33 32 11 104 33 3 800 1 108 219 55 34 11/8/94 25 14 23 39 66 6 610 19 330 123 44 34 3/21/95 16 4 25 1 10 6 14 24 5 16 4/18/95 20 12 2 13 21 1 3 3 171 57 10 6 5/2/95 26 6 7 21 18 1 2 1 155 71 4 7 6/6/95 52 21 14 99 24 7 48 10 67 117 200 12 10/17/95 90 96 12 145 115 11 55 58.5 130 360 400 370 4/9/96 17.5 38 5 17.5 8 0.5 6 1 30 100 14.5 25 5f7/96 46.5 78 23.5 76 51 14.5 18 15 74 170 88 118 6/4/96 56 90 24 94 66 23 94 35 114 295 460 15 Geo.Ave. 28 21 7 42 30 5 26 6 90 66 31 22 1993-94 25 14 7 27 29 10 13 7 100 32 is 28 1994-95 24 is 6 51 27 2 48 4 89 72 28 10 1995-96 45 71 14 65 42 7 27 13 76 206 124 64 wFr 9-EXT GB80 5-LUP GB15 5-OYS GB50 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 9/9193 480 12 25 110 310 4.5 53 9 1300 820 4 186 9/27/93 640 270 20 2990 880 2.5 18 19.5 2200 120 7 100 I I rZ/93 190 30 40 200 140 230 280 50 80 10 280 90 11/18/93 440 150 44 200 1300 41 172 198 3200 625 53 320 12/6/93 240 323 340 420 53 90 60 240 350 108 90 5/17/94 240 32 52 47 360 190 79 64 90 7 130 28 5/26/94 112,5 20 15 142 130 54 83 16.5 9 200 98 43 6/13/94 195 17.5 60 425 3000 52.5 115 33.8 305 4200 35 500 6/14/94 62 14 30 97 133 220 110 105 189 5 280 4 8122/94 58 40 25 165 540 15 8000 18 660 300 135 260 9/26/94 350 2000 510 560 570 220 190 Z70 1650 1200 1250 1850 11/1/94 630 65 13 445 26 8 46 31 170 895 45 60 11 t2/94 50 55 54 867 192D 167 330 62 310 420 1310 385 4/13/95 220 23 7 6 84 1 20 2 150 110 16 25 4/14/95 50 26 15 21 24 7 20 13 120 53 71 36 5/12/95 100 32 8 20 440 31 60 18 800 25 16 19 5/16/95 50 22 13 65 120 23 62 16 800 114 50 35 5/17/95 70 44 34 40 100 11 54 16 49 92 42 5 9/18/95 3800 32 190 95 700 10 300 2 850 1000 130 580 9/19/95 380 22 125 20 220 8 200 2 320 125 110 50 11/2/95 380 1420 55 1160 60 68 50 215 140 560 40 102 11/3/95 380 1440 295 400 980 358 390 520 910 1200 785 1300 5/17/96 55 100 26 52 104 39 92 34 16 150 425 195 5/18/96 476 40 44 96 56 24 20 28 70 215 40 75 6/23/96 62 30 15 350 94 26 9350 17 1400 1200 3200 320 6/24/96 78 24 34 152 78 4 266 8 140 550 480 310 Ge.o.Ave. 188 56 39 140 229 28 125 27 272 210 104 103 1993-94 233 35 42 220 418 44 99 42 272 123 56 79 1994-95 111 S6 25 95 176 19 107 22 317 181 68 1995-96 1268 90 62 146 156 26 219 22 229 453 242 220 Table 17. Enterococci concentrations (per 100 ml) at all sites: 1993-%. 9-EXT GB80 5-LMP GB15 S-OYS GBSO 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 8124/93 9 9 10 9 9 9 10 9 70 10 10 9 9n193 20 9 20 9 10 9 60 10 50 9 10 9 10/5193 9 10 9 50 20 9 9 10 80 40 9 20 1Z/20/93 9 40 50 40 10 9 9 10 20 50 10 30 4/19/94 10 20 9 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 10 5/3/94 4 8 9 0.5 50 14 12 14 5 10 3 10 6/22/94 20 1 11.5 9 50 0.8 14 3 39 3 3 10 7/26/94 20 70 10 50 50 9 20 9 40 40 9 9 8/30/94 9 9 9 9 9 9 10/24194 30 9 20 30 70 9 20 9 20 80 20 10 11/8/94 9 9 9 20 50 9 30 20 20 20 20 9 3121/95 30 10 10 10 9 30 9 10 2D 9 20 4/18195 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 9 9 30 9 9 5/2/95 9 9 9 9 20 9 9 9 30 9 9 9 6/6/95 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 so 10 40 9 10/17)95 95 10 20 37 110 0.5 118 16.5 58 23 90 38 4/9/96 5 8 4 4 17.5 2-5 4 27.5 17 27 12 2 5n196 4.5 18 1.5 6.5 4 3.5 0.5 1.5 36 24.5 4.5 9 6/4/96 7 13.5 1.5 26.5 11.5 8.5 18 48.5 65 54 22 9 Geo.Ave. 12 10 10 12 19 6 13 10 27 19 11 11 1"3-94 10 8 is 9 17 7 13 9 27 13 7 13 1994-95 14 12 10 16 22 9 16 10 n 20 14 10 1"5-96 11 12 4 13 17 2 8 13 39 30 18 9 WET 9-EXT GB80 5-LMP GB15 5-OYS GB50 5-BLM GB2 7-CCH GB21 5-SFR GB22 9/9/93 100 92 80 60 28 72 10 74 85 52.5 8.5 68.5 9/27/93 80 30 17.5 4180 262 0.8 10 98 268 14 8 24 11/2/93 250 20 70 90 390 100 270 60 60 20 110 40 11/18/93 233 400 84 200 1930 70 700 240 120 265 13.5 190 12/6/93 505 403 350 1020 196 240 260 210 345 52 265 5/17/94 80 20 9 20 170 90 70 60 20 10 20 30 5/26/94 16 135 3 1115 102 59 43.5 17 37 124 30.5 16 6/13/94 7.5 5 155 60 75 10 22 19 90 257.5 46 60 6/14/94 60 9 9 40 110 240 20 50 130 9 70 20 8/22/94 79 77 23 86 245 17 33 32 50 50 25 28 9a6/94 150 400 230 190 260 40 80 40 260 140 190 350 11/1/94 46 85 17 660 11 4 550 21 39 550 6 38 11/2/94 258 48 440 1745 69 257 96 279 301 145 121 4/13/95 116 100 4/14195 18 8 8 6 30 10 12 8 5 24 15 18 5/12/95 5 8 2 8 124 1 20 12 50 28 8 10 5/16/95 24. 15 1 16 132 30 75 46 35 68 20 24 5/17/95 27 is 6 28 48 9 18 5 20 32 32 14 9/18/95 2160 10 331 14 625 4 400 2 392 6 145 22 9/19/95 234 0 97 2 144 1 110 2 165 3 13 5 11/2/95 240 580 105 1035 150 42 128 375 135 485 58 36 11/3/95 380 590 380 420 1020 960 345 260 2580 595 148 222 5/17/96 55 37 2 15 50 32 61 34 30 111 32 18 5/18/96 62 33 7 10 126 15 24 20 31 54 20 20 6/23/96 31 24 13 23 59 3 34 1 81 147 87 32 6/24196 27 8 33 5 15 2 139 1 53 49 112 25 Goo.Ave- 77 32 26 60 148 19 69 26 82 64 35 37 1993-94 80 36 37 127 210 46 S7 67 87 S4 28 so 1994-95 41 35 10 61 113 11 57 n 51 so 27 36 1"5-96 137 27 41 26 129 12 104 11 131 62 56 27 \V-IX a;z-cc DURHAM MAINE 43 05 GREAT SAY 61390 PORTSMOUTH NEW HAMPSHIRE 14-Exr ATLANTIC OCEAN 4255- 10 km 7055 70 45' Figure 1. A map of the Great Bay Estuary and its tributaries showing freshwater and tidal sampling sites for the 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 NPS studies Figure 2. Mean percent oxygen saturation in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storms 110.00%-, - 96 Dry 100.00%-, 96 Storm C 0 0.- 90.00%-/ 80.00%- X 0 70.00%-/ AL 60.00%-/ 50.00%-/ 9 GB 5 GB 8 5 (M 5 GB2 11 7 (13 5 (33 EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCh OCH 21 SFR 22 Figure 3. Mean TSS concentration in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storms 40-/ 35-/ R 96 Dry z-J 30-/ N 96 Storm E 25-/ 0 20-/ 0 15- Ca 10-/- 5 - 0- 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 4. Mean suspended particulate organic material in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storms 9-/ 96 Dry 7-/ 96 Storm E C 6-/ .2 0 4-/ 0 2 3-/ 0 CL 2-/ 0 - 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 5. Mean chlorophyll a concentration in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storm 35-/' 30-'/ El 96 Dry 96 Storm =L 25-/ 20-/ C 00 15- 10-/ 5-/ 0 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 FIGURE 6. Mean NI-14 Concentration in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storm 0.5-/ 0.45-/ 0.4-/ El 96 Dry 96 storm 0.35-/ -j 0.3-/ E 0.25-/ z 0.2-/ 0.1- ....... 0.05- 0 9 EXr GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 7. N03 Concentration in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storm 0 .6 0.5" El 96 dry 96 Storm E 0.4-/ C 0 0.3-/ 0 U v) 0.2-/ 0 z 0 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 8. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storm 0.9-/ 0.8-/ F] 96 Dry E 0.7-/ 96 Storm C 0 0.6-/ 0.5-/ 0 0.4-/ 0 z 0.3-/ F3 0.2-/ 0.1 0 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 9. Mean dissolved organic nitrogen in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storm 0.6--/ El 96 Dry 96 Storm E 0.4- C 0 0.3-/ 0 0 z 0.2-/' 0 0.1-/ 0 / - I I I 1 1 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 10. Mean total dissolved nitrogen in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storms 1.2-/ 96 Dry 96 Storms E 0.8-/ c 0 0.6-/ 0 z 0.4-/ 0.2-/ 0 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 11. Mean P04 concentration in 1995-1996 dry weather vs storms 0.06-'/ 96 Dry 0.05-" 96 Storm .j E 0.04-/ C 0 0.03-/ 0 0.02-/ 0 IL 0.01-/ 0 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM GB2 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 12. Interannual comparison of mean NH4 concentrations for dry and storm data combined 0.45-" 0.4-" e-J 0.35-10 El 93-94 Mean Ca E 94-95 Mean C 0.3-" Obw 95-96 Mean 0.25-' C 0.2- 0 z 0.1- 0.05 40 "Was 0 1 1 9 GB 5 CB 8 5 GB 5 GB2 11 7 (M 5 GB EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLOM CCH CCH 21 SFR 22 0 r dw I IMP Figure 13. Interannual comparison of mean N03 concentration for dry and storm samples combined 0.6-" 0.5-' El 93-94 Mean -j CO 94-95 Mean 0.4-/ C 95-96 Mean C 0.3-' C 0.2-" 0 0.1- 0-j 9 GB 5 (B 8 5 (M 5 GB2 11 7 GB 5 GB ID(T 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCH OCH 21 SM 22 Figure 14. Interannual comparison of mean P04 concentration in dry and storm samples combined El P04 93-94 Mean P04 94-95 Mean P04 95-96 Mean 0.05-' 0.045-" 0.04-"- E 0.035-" 0.03-" 0.025-' 0 0.02- 0.015-" 0 0.01-1, 0.0051 0 9 (B 5 CB 8 5 GB 5 GB2 11 7 CS 5 CB EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCH CCH 21 SM 22 Figure 15. Interannual comparison of mean TSS concentration In dry and storm samples'combined 40-" 35-" 93-94 TSS Mean 30- E 94-95 TSS Mean C 0 25-,' 95-96 TSS Mean 20-lo 15-' 10J.- Alm 5 Ago- 0 9 GB 5 (M 8 5 GB 5 GB2 11 7 GB 5 (B EXT 80 IMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCH CCH 21 S:R 22 Figure 16. Interannual comparison of mean dissolved organic nitrogen in dry and storm samples combined 0.4-,/ 0.35-,/ El 94-95 Mean 95-9 Mean 0.3- 0.25- E 0.2-/ z 0 0.15-/ 0.1-/ 0.05-/ 0-/ 9 EXT GB 80 5 LMP GB 15 8 OYS 5 OYS GB 50 5 BLM G132 11 CCh 7 CCH GB 21 5 SFR GB 22 Figure 17. Interannual comparison of mean percent oxygen saturation for dry and storm samples combined F-I 94-95 Mean 95-96 Mean 120%-" 100%--, C 0 80%-" 60%- U) N 0 aR 40%- 20%-' 0%- 9 (33 5 (33 8 5 (33 5 GB2 11 7 (33 5 GB EXI" 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM CCh CCH 21 EFR 22 Figure 18. Comparison of mean NH4 concentration in dry vs storm samples for the cumulative database 0.35-'/ 0.3--/ NI-14 3 Yr Dry Mean E 0.25-/ NI-14 3 Yr Storm Mean 0 0.2-/ 0.15-/ 0 z 0.05-" 0 9 GB 5 (B 8 5 (33 5 G132 11 7 GB 5 GB EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCH OCH 21 SM 22 Figure 19. Comparison of mean N03 concentration in dry vs storm samples for the cumulative database 0.5-/ 0.45-/ .j 0.4-/ E-1 N03 3 Yr Dry Mean N03 3 Yr Storm Mean E 0.35-/ C 0 0.3-/ 0.25-/ 0 0.2-/ a CV) 0 0.15-/ z 0.1- 0.05- 0 9 (M 5 (M 8 5 (M 5 GB2 11 7 (B 5 GB EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCH CCH 21 SM 22 Figure 20. Comparison of the mean P04 concentration In dry vs storm samples for the cumulative database El P04 3 Yr Dry Mean P04 3 YRr Storm Mean 0.05-," 0.045-" 0.04- E 0.035-" 0 0.03-/ 0.025-" 0 0.02-" 0.015-/- IV I I 0 IL 0.01-11 0.005-" 0+ 9 (33 5 CB 8 5 (33 5 GB2 11 7 GB 5 GB EKT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM CCH CCH 21 9ffl 22 Figure 21. Comparison of the mean TSS concentration In dry vs storm samples for the cumulative database 40.00-" 35.00-,/ -j El TSS 3 Yr Dry Mean 30.00-/- a E TSS 3 Yr Storm Mean 0 25.00-/ 20.00-/ 0 a 15.00- 10.00-/- 5.00- 0.00- WWI I I w 1 9 (33 5 GS 8 5 (33 5 G132 11 7 (33 5 03 EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM CCH OCH 21 51:14 22 Figure 23. Comparison of meanpercent oxygen saturation for dry vs storm samples for the cumulative database 94-96 Mean Dry 94-96 Mean Storm iio%-/, 100%_/' go%-,, .2 80%- I V 70 - M u) 60%- C 4) 50%- CS :Ift X 40%-/ 0 30%-/ 20%-/ 10%_/ 0%-/ 9 GB 5 GB 8 5 GB 5 G132 11 7 GB 5 GB EXT 80 LMP 15 M OYS 50 BLM OCh CCH 21 SM 22 anew Em1w Figure 24. The relationship of TSS, SPOM and CHL a during the 9/18/95 storm Sampling date 180.00 160.00 TSS mg/L - - - - - SPOM mg/L 140.00 --------- CHL a gg/L _j 120.00 =L 13 100.00 E cc 80.00 co E 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 @7( 0. cc 04 GO LC) 04 LL w M 0 M co 0 co CO 0) 0 LO 0 Le) LO 0 Figure 25. The relationship of TSS, SPOM and CHL a during the 9/19/96 storm sampling date 120.00 TSS mg/L 100.00 SPOM mg/L 80.00 --------- CHL a gg/L =L V 60.00 -j co E 40.00 20.00 mo (L LO cO cS M M EE i o 0 CM cm co CV0- 0 00 00 ca ca OD UI) U) W) Figure 26. Comparison of mean TSS, Chlorophyll a and suspended particulate organic material for storm samples 1995-1996 30 CHL gg/L 25 - - - - - SPOM mg/L --------- TSS mg/L 20 0 15 E 10 5 0 9 (B 5 GB 8 5 GB 5 G132 11 7 GB 5 (33 EXT 80 LMP 15 OYS OYS 50 BLM OCh CCH 21 SFR 22 Figure 27a. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations under wet and dry conditions in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-%. 700 STORM El DRY 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 C kn C.4) CO) C,4 C,4 00 -4 >4 >0 W) CI4 W pq PQ 0 0 go M U U pq 00 WE Figure 27b. Geometric mean E. coli concentrations under wet and dry conditions in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-96. 500 STORM 450 El DRY 400 350 300 250 150 100 50 0 kn GO Eel C4 CA 00 -4 >-, pq U CA Cq 0 U V) 00 SUE Figure 27c. Geometric mean enterococci concentrations under wet and dry conditions in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-96. 160 STORM 140 El DRY 120 100 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 00 U 0 0 U U M U) PQ 00 W1 SITE Figure 28a. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in water collected during the first or second day of significant sotrm events in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-96. 900 1 st day storm 800 2nd day storm 700 600 500 400 300 200 - 100 - NEW 0 W) Cn Ln C4 00 1.4 >4 >.4 ell 0 0 U U Un kn 00 W) kn r- SITE Figure 28b. Geometric mean E. coli concentrations in water collected during the first or second day of significant sotrm events in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-96. 600 0 1 st day storm 0 2nd day storm 500 400 300 200 100 0 + W) U@ En 0 C4 00 1-4 >.4 >. In M N 0 0 00 kn r- SITE Figure 28c. Geometric mean enterococci concentrations in water collected during the first or second day of significant sotrm events in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1995-96. 200 0 1 st day storm 180 2nd day storm 160 140 120 100 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 W) CA Cn 0 CI4 00 pq U CI4 pq pq 0 pq 0 U U ON 00 SUE Figure 29a. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in water collected during dry weather for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 300 1993-94 250 El 1994-95 1995-96 200 150 100 50 0 9- GB80 5- GB 15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SITE r Figure 29b. Geometric mean E. coli concentrations in water collected during dry weather for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 250 1993-94 EI 1994-95 200 01995-96 150 50 M 0 -aim 9- GB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SITE Figure 29c. Geometric mean enterococci concentrations in water collected during dry weather for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 40 1993-94 35 El 1994-95 30 1995-96 25 20 15 10 5 @i 0 id i 9- OB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SUE Figure 30a. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in water collected during storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 1400 1993-94 1200 El 1994-95 1995-96 1000 800 600 400 200 WN 0 in C01) 00 -0 >. Cq U C4 0 SITE Figure 30b. Geometric mean E. coli concentrations in water collected during storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 500 450 1993-94 1994-95 400 1995-96 350 300 250 150 100 50 0 9- GB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SrFE Figure 30c. Geometric mean enterococci concentrations in water collected during storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96. 250 - 1993-94 F-I 1994-95 200 - 01995-96 150 50 0 9- GB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EX"r LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SM Figure 31a. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in water collected during dry weather and storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96, cumulative. 600 Wet 500 El Dry 400 300 200 100 0 9- GB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR S TE I Figure 31b. Geometric mean E. coli concentrations in water collected during dry weather and storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96, cumulative. 300 Wet 250 Dry 200 150 100 50 I IL 9- GB80 5- G1315 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SITE Figure 31c. Geometric mean enterococci concentrations in water collected during dry weather and storm events for three consecutive years in tributaries to Great Bay Estuary: 1993-96, cumulative. 160 140 wet E]Dry 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 9- GB80 5- GB15 5- GB50 5- GB2 7- GB21 5- GB22 EXT LMP OYS BLM CCH SFR SITE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR USRARY 3 6668 14111324 3