unh coastal ocean observing center october 2005 great …ccg.sr.unh.edu/pdf/oct_2005_great_bay...

UNH Coastal Ocean Observing Center October 2005 Great Bay Sampling Report

Chris Hunt, Chris Manning, Megan Heidenreich, Joe Salisbury, Mike Novak, Ru Morrison, Doug Vandemark, Janet Campbell, Wade McGillis

2 Great Bay Data Report for cruises 10/4/2005 through 10/6/2005 UNH Coastal Ocean Observing Center CCTI Project

http://www.ccg.unh.edu

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….3 SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………4 METHODS…………………………………………………………………………5 RIVER DISCHARGE CONDITIONS……………………………………………..6 SPATIAL FLOW-THROUGH DATA……………………………………………..7 PHYTOPLANKTON……………………………………………………………….12 ZOOPLANKTON…………………………………………………………………..15 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...19 APPENDIX 1: Tides………………………………………………………………...20 Contact Information: If you are interested in using the data presented in this report, or collaborating, there are multiple ways to contact the CCTI Project: Joseph Salisbury ([email protected]) 603-862-0849 Ocean Processes Analysis Laboratory Morse Hall Room 142 University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 Cover photograph: The Lamprey Estuary in Newmarket, NH. Photo courtesy of Chris Manning.



1. Introduction The UNH Coastal Ocean Observing Center’s CCTI project (J. Salisbury, PI)

conducted cruises throughout Great Bay and its contributing rivers (Figure 1) for the three days October 4-6, 2005. This was the initial campaign to assess spatial patterns of chemical, biological and optically-active constituents within Great Bay to aid in our understanding of the role land fluxes play in the cycling of carbon, ecosystem dynamics, and the influence of Great Bay upon the New Hampshire coast. Another survey was conducted April 7-10, 2006, and similar surveys are planned for June and the Fall of 2006. Reports on these surveys will also be posted to the CCTI website. Using flow-through and profiling instrumentation in tandem with discrete sampling, we mapped distributions of physical, optical, chemical and planktonic variables. These data provide a snapshot of conditions in the Great Bay Estuary and its rivers, which are known to change seasonally and episodically. Our high-resolution spatial sampling complements ongoing monitoring efforts using buoys (http://www.cooa.unh.edu/buoydata/buoy.jsp), datasondes and discrete sampling strategies (http://ciceet.unh.edu/great_bay/). This report presents an initial view of the continuous spatial data and phytoplankton and zooplankton distributions. To access the data and for collaborations, contact information is given on the preceding page and before the References.

Figure 1. Map of Great Bay and contributing rivers. Yellow lines represent the cruise track from Oct. 4-6, 2005, and red circles represent locations where discrete water samples were taken.



2. Site Description The Great Bay Watershed lies primarily in Strafford, Rockingham, and Carroll

counties in New Hampshire, with the northern end of the Salmon Falls River drainage basin extending into York County in southwestern Maine (Figure 1). Elevation in the watershed ranges from sea level to approximately 1000 feet with most of the area located within the flat-lying coastal plane. The local bedrock is typically overlain with glacial deposits such as glacial till, outwash sand and gravels, and glacio-marine clays deposited during and directly after the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years B.P.

This region is characterized by strong seasonal variations with warm summers and cold winters, where precipitation in the form of snow is held above ground until temperatures warm, usually resulting in a hydrographically dominant spring runoff period.

While this coastal region is considered to be relatively pristine, it is faced with rapid suburbanization and population growth. The United States Census Bureau estimates that between 1990-2000, New Hampshire’s Carroll County experienced a 23.3% increase in population, Rockingham County a 12.8% increase, Strafford County a 7.7%, and York County in Maine 13.5% (United States Census Bureau, 2002). As a result, there is rising concern for the coastal region’s environmental health and economic viability as this area continues to develop and change and human impacts upon the region continue to increase (Table 1, Figure 2).

Basin Urban Agricultural Forested Wetlands Cleared Bellamy 8 3 74 6 9 Cocheco 12 3 71 5 9 Lamprey 11 5 66 6 12 Oyster 8 3 75 4 9 Salmon Falls 11 7 66 5 11 Squamscott 9 6 64 6 14 Winnicut 11 9 52 10 17

Table 1- Land-Use Percentages for seven major rivers contributing to the Great Bay Estuary (from Oczkowski 2002).



Figure 2- Above-Dam populations for seven rivers contributing to Great Bay (Oczkowski 2002).

3. Methods

A detailed description of the methods employed for flow-through, phytoplankton and zooplankton analysis is provided in the companion “UNH Coastal Ocean Observing Center Great Bay Methods” document, available for download at (http://www.ccg.unh.edu/publications.html). A brief description of phytoplankton and zooplankton collection is included at the beginning of each section.

Figure 3. Megan Heidenreich, Chris Hunt, and Joe Salisbury (left to right) aboard the R/V Camden Belle. Photo thanks to Chris Manning.



4. Stream Flow Conditions

Stream flow to Great Bay was unusually low during the sampling period. The four rivers gauged by the USGS were at approximately half of their long-term average flow on the days they were sampled (Table 2).

River Date

Sampled Discharge

(cfs) Long-term Mean

(cfs) Years of

Data Lamprey 10/4/2005 22 73.1 71

Squamscott 10/4/2005 5.5 10.8 9 Oyster 10/5/2005 1.1 4 70

Cocheco 10/6/2005 12 30 10 Table 2- Stream flow conditions on survey days of four gaged Great Bay rivers.

Additionally, an examination of the river discharges shows they had been at very low levels for at least a month prior to our sampling period (Figure 4). The very low river flows from the Oyster and Bellamy Rivers can especially be seen in Figure 5, where the salinity in these rivers remains quite high upstream from Great Bay. An estimate of tidal state at each station sampled is given in Appendix 1.

Figure 4. Hydrographs of the Cocheco, Lamprey, Oyster and Salmon Falls rivers for 2005. Data obtained from gages operated by the United States Geologic Survey.



5. Spatial Flow-Through

Over the three days of this project the continuous flow-through system provided a comprehensive physical and chemical snapshot of Great Bay at a time of very low river discharge (Figure 5). A spatial plot of salinity, showing the high salinities in the Oyster and Bellamy Rivers, is shown in Figure 5. Surface water temperature data are shown in Figure 6. Chlorophyll fluorescence is plotted in Figures 7 and 8. The chlorophyll bloom concentrations in the Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers (Figure 7) are higher than any documented in a comprehensive report detailing Great Bay (Jones 2000).

Colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) fluorescence (Figures 9 and 10), beam attenuation at 660 nm (Figures 11 and 12), carbon dioxide fugacity (Figures 13 and 14), oxygen percent saturation (Figures 15 and 16), and in-situ ultraviolet spectrometry (ISUS) nitrate measurements (Johnson and Colletti 2002, Figures 17 and 18) are included in this section. These plots are combined to show the data from all three sampling days in one plot. Additionally, a plot showing the relationship between increased freshwater inputs and increased ISUS nitrate concentrations is provided in Figure 19.

Figure 5- Spatial salinity distribution for the three-day sampling period.



Figure 6- Spatial temperature distribution for the three-day sampling period.

Figure 7- Spatial chlorophyll fluorescence distribution for the three-day sampling

period. The readings in the Cocheco and Salmon Falls Rivers were above the detection limit of 70 mg/m3 for the WetStar fluorometer, thus the actual

concentrations of chlorophyll could be higher than those shown in this figure.



Figure 9- Spatial distribution of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM)

fluorescence for the three-day sampling period.

Figure 12- Log-10 transformation of beam attenuation at 660 nm for the three-day

sampling period.



Figure 13- Carbon dioxide fugacity distributions for the three-day sampling

period.

Figure 15- Dissolved oxygen percent saturation for the three-day sampling period.



Figure 17- Nitrate (NO3) distributions for the three-day sampling period,

measured by in-situ ultraviolet spectrometry.

Figure 19- Time-series of salinity (blue) and Nitrate (green) for the three days studied. The x-axis represents time over sampling period.

Lamprey River

Oyster River

Cocheco River

Bellamy River

Salmon Falls River



6. Phytoplankton data Algal samples were collected using a wide mouth 1 liter jar. The sample was then poured into 150 to 250ml bottles or jars which contained 0.02 ml of Lugol’s solution per 1ml of bottle size. Bottles were then placed in a box to keep them in the dark until the boat returned to the lab. The boxes containing the samples were then placed in a 20 0C refrigerator. Once they were to be counted the bottles were transferred to a Styrofoam cooler and brought to the lab. Samples were counted using a Gridded Sedgwick-Rafter 1mm2 slide under 400x magnification with a Leica DME microscope. For each sample a minimum of 200 cells per slide were counted and identified to species whenever possible. Due to microscopic limitations some species were only identified to genus. Cell counts were then calculated to determine cells per milliliter. The data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet which was later imported into Surfer for analysis of the algal groups identified at each site in Great Bay (Figures 20-24).

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

7.0

0.70.1

Blue-green algae

Key (Cells/mL)

Figure 20- Blue-green algae distributions for the three-day sampling period.



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

3000

30030

Chlorophyta

Key (Cells/mL)

Figure 21- Chlorophyta distributions for the three-day sampling period.

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

1000

10010

Chromophyta

Key (Cells/mL)

Figure 22- Chromophyta distributions for the three-day sampling period.



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

1000

10010

Diatoms

Key (Cells/mL)

Figure 23- Diatom distributions for the three-day sampling period.

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

6000

60060

Dinoflagellates

Key (Cells/mL)

Figure 24- Dinoflagellate distributions for the three-day sampling period.



7. Zooplankton data

Zooplankton samples were collected from the JEL dock at the start of each cruise, and at 13 of the 23 discrete stations sampled during the cruises (Table 3). Zooplankton were collected with a 0.25 m2 ring net fitted with a 333 µm mesh net. Filter volumes were derived from a General Oceanics mechanical flowmeter tied in the center of the net. Aboard the R/V Camden Belle the ring net was towed obliquely at approximately 2 knots. To avoid unintentional benthic sampling the net was not heavily weighted. It was allowed to sink vertically before the boat accelerated to towing speed, causing the net to be pulled toward the surface. Sampling at the JEL dock was achieved by tying the net to the dock and allowing the current to force water through the net. Samples were preserved with 95% ethanol. For analysis, a Hensen-Stemple pipette was used where necessary to obtain an aliquot of approximately 200 zooplankters. These were identified to species where possible.

Table 3: Locations and volumes of zooplankton samples

Sample Location Date Latitude Longitude

Volume Filtered (m^3)

1 JEL Dock 4-Oct-2005 43.0921 -70.8642 10.62 Great Bay 4-Oct-2005 43.0638 -70.8668 8.63 Lamprey River 4-Oct-2005 43.0800 -70.9343 13.34 Squamscott River 4-Oct-2005 43.0528 -70.9123 16.75 JEL Dock 5-Oct-2005 43.0921 -70.8641 7.676 Oyster River 5-Oct-2005 43.1333 -70.902 7.587 Oyster River Mouth 5-Oct-2005 43.1224 -70.8691 12.28 Little Bay 5-Oct-2005 43.1076 -70.8599 13.29 JEL Dock 6-Oct-2005 43.0922 -70.8641 11.1

10 Salmon Falls River 6-Oct-2005 43.1905 -70.8259 13.611 SF/Cocheco River 6-Oct-2005 43.1738 -70.8246 9.6612 Cocheco Dover Marina 6-Oct-2005 43.1978 -70.8682 14.113 Cocheco pCO2 min 6-Oct-2005 43.1885 -70.8418 17.614 Cocheco mouth 6-Oct-2005 43.1444 -70.8329 1515 Bellamy River 6-Oct-2005 43.1672 -70.8608 9.7216 Main Channel 6-Oct-2005 43.1196 -70.8426 15.3



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

117.4

7.5

3.0

4.5

0.51.1

0.7

0.0

7.8

3.80.6

0.0

0.0

1.4

Acartia tonsaDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 25- Acartia tonsa distributions for the three-day sampling period.

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

14.0

1.2

0.0

0.1

0.114.8

38.4

3.2

38.9

0.80.6

92.7

2.4

69.2

Acartia longiremisDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 26- Acartia longiremis distributions for the three-day sampling period.



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

2.0

6.2

0.0

1.3

0.00.0

0.0

18.2

2.2

0.80.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

Cirripedianauplius larvaeDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 27- Cirripedia nauplius larvae distributions for the three-day sampling period.

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

1.0

6.2

4.2

1.1

2.60.1

0.1

119.4

5.6

200.817.7

0.1

0.2

0.0

Jellyfish

Density (#/m^3)

Figure 28- Jellyfish distributions for the three-day sampling period.



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.00.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.00.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

ParacalanusparvusDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 29- Paracalanus parvus distributions for the three-day sampling period.

-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

7.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.01.2

2.2

0.0

2.2

0.80.0

2.4

0.1

5.6

PseudocalanusnewmaniDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 30- Paracalanus newmani distributions for the three-day sampling period.



-70.95° -70.9° -70.85° -70.8°

43.05°

43.1°

43.15°

43.2°

32.1

2.5

0.0

0.2

0.11.5

3.0

0.0

1.1

0.00.0

1.2

0.1

44.0

TemoralongicornisDensity (#/m^3)

Figure 31- Temora longicornis distributions for the three-day sampling period.

Contact Information: If you are interested in using the data presented in this report, there are multiple ways to contact the CCTI Project: Joseph Salisbury ([email protected]) 603-862-0849 Ocean Processes Analysis Laboratory Morse Hall Room 142 University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 References Clarke K (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117-143. Johnson, K., L. Coletti (2002), In situ ultraviolet spectrometry for high resolution and long-term monitoring of nitrate, bromide and bisulfide in the ocean, Deep-Sea Research I, 49, 1291-1305. Jones, S.H. 2000, ‘A Technical Characterization of Estuarine and Coastal New Hampshire.’ New Hampshire Estuaries Project, Portsmouth, NH. United States Census Bureau (2002) State and County Quickfacts, New Hampshire. 02 May 2002 <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html>.



Appendix 1: Tidal status at discrete sampling locations, estimated from tide charts published by the New Hampshire Coastal Program and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Day 1 10/4/2005 Squamscott Railroad Bridge Tides

Station Time (UTC) Lat Long High Low High Low

Tide Status at time of station

1 124100 42.9815 -

70.9456 221 823 1433 2044 flood

2 123142 43.0645 -

70.8679 221 823 1433 2044 flood

3 133430 43.0799 -

70.9344 221 823 1433 2044 flood

4 135000 43.0759 -

70.9285 221 823 1433 2044 flood

5 141300 43.0529 -

70.9123 221 823 1433 2044 flood-high

6 151900 43.0698 -

70.8675 221 823 1433 2044 ebb

7 152100 43.0716 -

70.8671 221 823 1433 2044 ebb

8 153030 43.0713 -

70.8777 221 823 1433 2044 ebb

9 154454 43.0818 -

70.8676 221 823 1433 2044 ebb

Day 2 10/5/2005 Dover Point Tides


Tide Status at Station

1 150000 43.1307 -

70.9184 210 809 1358 2034 ebb

2 143140 43.1324 -

70.9161 210 809 1358 2034 ebb

3 144615 43.1331 -

70.9019 210 809 1358 2034 ebb

4 150645 43.1233 -

70.8697 210 809 1358 2034 ebb

5 -9999 43.1065 -

70.8592 210 809 1358 2034

Day 3 10/6/2005 Dover Point Tides


Tide Status at Station

1 150300 43.0814 -

70.9347 247 844 1454 2114 ebb

2 125010 43.1905 -

70.8259 247 844 1454 2114 flood

3 131046 43.1735 -

70.8248 247 844 1454 2114 flood

4 134000 43.1978 -

70.8682 247 844 1454 2114 flood



5 140130 43.1921 -

70.8494 247 844 1454 2114 flood

6 141535 43.1885 -

70.8417 247 844 1454 2114 flood

7 144755 43.1443 -

70.8328 247 844 1454 2114 high

8 155115 43.1674 -

70.8608 247 844 1454 2114 ebb

9 162225 43.1201 -

70.8430 247 844 1454 2114 ebb

unh coastal ocean observing center october 2005 great …ccg.sr.unh.edu/pdf/oct_2005_great_bay...

Documents