Water Quality in the Saco River: yIndicators of Watershed Health

Tyler Spillane Stephan Zeeman, PhD

Shelby Braese Claire Whalen Linda JordanShelby Braese, Claire Whalen, Linda Jordan, Emily Brzycki, Amanda Liebau, Allegra Tedder, Kim Malkoski, Stephen Giunta, Bailey Rahn, Megan Perry Marissa Redding Amanda RosaMegan Perry, Marissa Redding, Amanda Rosa 

OutlineOutline

• Water QualityWater Quality• Indicator Bacteria• Population Growth• Population Growth• ChlorophyllN t i t• Nutrients

• Dissolved Oxygen• Indicator Status• Future Issues

Why Monitor Bacteria?Why Monitor Bacteria?

• Indicator Bacteria: Bacteria used to measure levels of other pathogens and contaminants in water.   

• Used for testing inA Maine Beach.http://jeskeonline.net• Used for testing in: 

– Recreational waters– Shellfish  growing water 

/Pictures/Oct13/Maine%20beach.JPG

S e s g o g ate– Public water 

• Types: – coliform bacteria: 

• Escherichia coli– enterococci and streptococci E. coli bacteria

// / /enterococci  and streptococci  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/EscherichiaColi_NIAID.jpg/250px‐EscherichiaColi_NIAID.jpg

The other reasonThe other reason

• Indicator bacteria are just that – they indicateIndicator bacteria are just that  they indicate sources of other possible pollutants.

• Mostly point source from treated sewage• Mostly point source – from treated sewage discharges, but also some non‐point sources –wildlife runoff etcwildlife, runoff, etc.

• What other kinds of pollutants?– Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, other organic pollutants, nutrients

The Saco River and BacteriaThe Saco River and Bacteria 

• Watershed spans 1700 square milesWatershed spans 1700 square miles• Runs through 29 towns, 3 counties, and 2 states with 11 drainage areasstates, with 11 drainage areas. 

SamplingSampling 

• SamplingSampling– 18 sites along the riverSampled roughly monthly since December 2010– Sampled roughly monthly since December 2010

• Somewhat more inconsistent since 2013.

– Measured –– Measured –• Total coliform bacteria and E. coli – very good (mostly) • Dissolved oxygen ‐ excellentDissolved oxygen  excellent• Nutrients – very good• Chlorophyll – very good

Methods: Monitoring BacteriaMethods: Monitoring Bacteria 

• Sample entire river once a monthSample entire river once a month– Collect 100ml samples in sterile bottles– Samples are kept on ice untilbrought in for processing. 

• Samples are processed using the Idexx Colilert‐18© system– Most Probable Number (MPN)                                                

2012Recreational Water Quality Criteria

US EPA OFFICE OF WATER 820‐F‐12‐058 

Geometric Mean E. coli numbersGeometric Mean E. coli numbers

300

350

200

250

Mean

MPN

 

50

100

150 2012 RWQC

0

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Site 

Relation of Total Coliform bacteria to lE. coli

25

y = 0.0565x ‐ 3.1215R² 0 5723

20

i R² = 0.5723

10

15

metric

 mean ‐E

. coli

5

10

Geo

m

00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Geometric Mean ‐ Total Coliforms

Seasonal VariabilitySeasonal Variability700

500

600

300

400

metric

 Mean (M

PN)

Winter

Spring

S

100

200

Geo

m Summer

Fall

2012 RWQC

0

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Site

3

2

North Conway Treatment PlantNorth Conway Treatment Plant

• No direct discharge to the riverNo direct discharge to the river– Rapid infiltration to groundwater

• Uses a nitrogen and phosphorus removal• Uses a nitrogen and phosphorus removal process

Seasonal VariabilitySeasonal Variability700

500

600

300

400

metric

 Mean (M

PN)

Winter

Spring

S

100

200

Geo

m Summer

Fall

2012 RWQC

0

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Site

14

1515

Saco River Corridor CommissionSaco River Corridor Commission 

• The SRCC has collected water quality data forThe SRCC has collected water quality data for many years.

• Some sites near the Saco/Biddeford:• Some sites near the Saco/Biddeford:– Swan Pond Brook – Impaired (E. coli)Th h B k I i d ( b– Thatcher Brook – Impaired (urban stormwater, non‐point source)S Ri E t I i d (CSO)– Saco River Estuary – Impaired (CSO)

Saco R. 19

Swan Pond Brook Saco R. Estuary

Thatcher Brook

2500

Saco River 19, Escherichia coliAbove Skelton Dam

2000

1500

s/10

0mL) April

May

June

1000

E. coli (colonie June

July

August

September

October

500

Average

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

2500

Swan Pond Brook 26 Escherichia coli

2000

1500

nies/100

mL)

April

May

June

July

1000

E. coli (colo

Ju y

August

September

October

November

500

Average

02002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

2500

Thatcher Brook 27, Escherichia coli

2000

1500

onies/10

0mL)

April

May

June

July

1000

E. coli (colo

y

August

September

October

November

500

Average

02002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

2500

Saco River 21, Escherichia coliSaco Bay Yacht Club ramp

2000

1500

es/100

mL)

April

May

June

1000

E. coli (colonie

July

August

September

October

November

500

November

Average

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Saco River Corridor Commission lResults

• The SRCC data also confirm the lower valuesThe SRCC data also confirm the lower values upstream from Biddeford and Saco, and higher values in the estuaryhigher values in the estuary.

• They point to localized “hot spots” in some tributariestributaries.

Bottom lineBottom line

• Most of the time the E coli along the river areMost of the time the E. coli along the river are below EPA criteria.

• Higher levels are observed near Conway NH• Higher levels are observed near Conway, NH and below the dam at Saco and Biddeford.S l d b d i h hi h• Seasonal trends are observed with higher values in summer and fall.– Spring, summer and fall around Biddeford and Saco.

Relation to Population SizeRelation to Population Size

40 000

45,00025

30,000

35,000

40,000

20

ize

N)

*

20,000

25,000

10

15

mated

 Pop

ulation Si

metric

 Mean (M

PN

Average MPN

Pop. Size

10,000

15,000

5

10

EstimGeo

0

5,000

0Sites 1‐5 Sites 6‐12 Sites 13‐18

Region Location

Population GrowthPopulation Growth

• To model population growth and land useTo model population growth and land use changes we looked at Conway, NH, as an exampleexample.

• We used IDRISI from Clark Labs and its Land Change ModelerChange Modeler

• Using Data from 1992, 2001, and 2010 we di d di i f 2030predicted conditions for 2030.  

Conway, NHConway, NHPay attention to  !

Maine

Predicting growth  1992‐2030

New Hampshire

1992

Fryeburg

19922001

Conway

North Conway

2010 2030predicted

Gauging the Health of New England’s Lakes and Ponds,New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 2010

Gauging the Health of New England’s Lakes and Ponds,New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, 2010

ChlorophyllChlorophyll35.00

Chlorophyll (mg/l)

25.00

30.00

15 00

20.00

orop

hyll µg

/l)

1/4/2012

11/2/2013

12/7/2013

10.00

15.00

Chlo 12/7/2013

2/2/2014

4/6/2014

0.00

5.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20SiteSite

Chlorophyll – Seasonal TrendChlorophyll  Seasonal Trend

14 00

Chlorophyll Mean for all samples

10 00

12.00

14.00

6 00

8.00

10.00

phyll M

ean (µg/l)

Mean

2 00

4.00

6.00

Chlorop Mean

0.00

2.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Month

NutrientsNutrients

• Nutrients are substances required for growthNutrients are substances required for growth– In the case of water quality, it refers specifically to plant or algae growthplant or algae growth

• The important plant nutrients areNitrogen– Nitrogen

• Nitrate, nitrite, ammonium

Phosphorus– Phosphorus• Soluble reactive phosphorus

NitrateNitrate

Nitrate

0.8

0.9

1

t ate

0.5

0.6

0.7

tration (m

g/l)

0.2

0.3

0.4

Concen

t

Nitrate  Mean

0

0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Site

PhosphatePhosphate1.6

Phosphate

1.2

1.4

0.8

1

centratio

n (m

g/l)

Phosphate  Mean

0 2

0.4

0.6Conc

0

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Site

Saco Bay NutrientsSaco Bay Nutrients

• EPA sampling 7/2/2010

Site DepthTP

(mg/l)TN

(mg/l)

EPA sampling 7/2/2010

Site Depth (mg/l) (mg/l)1.00 Surface 0.0249 0.221.00 Mid 0.0316 0.241 00 Bottom 0 0380 0 351.00 Bottom 0.0380 0.352.00 Surface 0.0216 0.212.00 Mid 0.0228 0.202.00 Bottom 0.0494 0.372.00 Bottom 0.0494 0.37

Dissolved OxygenDissolved Oxygen14

10

12

n

6

8

Dissolved

 Oxygen

5/26/2011

6/30/2011

9/24/2011

11/6/2011

2

4

11/6/2011

00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Site

Report SummaryReport Summary

• Water QualityWater Quality – E. coli – very good (mostly) Chlorophyll very good– Chlorophyll – very good

– Nutrients – very goodDi l d ll t– Dissolved oxygen – excellent

Report Summary ‐ CaveatsReport Summary  Caveats

• There are areas and times that show reducedThere are areas and times that show reduced water quality

• Future growth may have deleterious effects• Future growth may have deleterious effects unless we plan for it.

• New and legacy pollutants may be problematic – we did not measure these.p

Water  Quality in the New England Coastal Basins, Maine, NewMaine, New Hampshire, Massachussetsand Rhode Island, 1999 20011999‐2001. Robinson et. al. 2004. USGS Circular 1226.

Things Not MeasuredThings Not Measured

• PAHs PCBs pesticides lead mercury (andPAHs, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury (and methyl mercury)

Watersheds with less than 5%less than 5% urbanization usually had no detections above 0.005 µg/l.

Questions?Questions?