HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Final Water Quality Report_201401201309460704 1
Technical Memorandum
FINAL
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment of the
Nantucket Island-Wide Estuaries and Salt Ponds
Update 2012
To:
David Fronzuto
Town of Nantucket
Marine and Natural Resources Department
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, MA 02554
From:
Brian Howes, Roland Samimy and David White
Coastal Systems Program
School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST)
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
706 South Rodney French Blvd.
New Bedford, MA 02744
February 20, 2013
2
The Technical Memorandum on the 2012 Nantucket Water Quality Monitoring Program is
organized as follows:
1. Overview
Background
Need for a Monitoring Program
2. Summary of Sampling Approach for each of Nantucket's estuaries and salt ponds:
Nantucket Harbor
Madaket Harbor
Long Pond
Hummock Pond
Miacomet Pond
Sesachacha Pond
3. Results of Sampling: Summary of Water Quality Results
Review of and comparison to historical data
4. Trophic State: Water Quality/Eutrophication Status
5. Recommendations for Future Monitoring
Overview
Background: Coastal salt ponds and estuaries are among the most productive
components of the coastal ocean. These circulation-restricted embayments support
extensive and diverse plant and animal communities providing the foundation for many
important commercial and recreational fisheries. The aesthetic value of these systems,
as well as the freshwater ponds of a town, are important resources to both residents and
the tourist industry alike. Maintaining high levels of water quality and ecological health in
these aquatic systems (fresh and marine) is fundamental to the enjoyment and
utilization of these valuable resources for all coastal communities.
Nutrient over-enrichment is the major ecological threat to water quality in the salt ponds
and embayments within the Town of Nantucket, primarily via ecological degradation
which results when nutrient loading exceeds the assimilative capacity (also called critical
nutrient threshold) of the system for new nutrient inputs. Of the various forms of
pollution that threaten coastal waters (nutrients, pathogens and toxics), nutrient inputs
are the most ubiquitous, insidious and difficult to control. This is especially true for
nutrients originating from non-point sources, such as nitrogen and phosphorous
transported in the groundwater from on-site septic treatment systems. On-site septic
treatment systems are the primary mechanism for waste disposal within the Madaket
Harbor/Long Pond, Hummock Pond, Miacomet Pond and Sesachacha Pond
watersheds. Nantucket Harbor is in a somewhat different situation as the watershed to
that system is almost entirely sewered. Nevertheless, the nutrient characteristics and
3
ecological health of that system must be monitored given the shellfish fishery that
depends on the water quality of Nantucket Harbor. Since nitrogen and phosphorous are
both natural components of estuarine and pond systems, it is important that
management allow for the natural capacity of these systems to absorb watershed
nutrient inputs. Through the coupling of monitoring data to the Massachusetts Estuaries
Project (MEP) watershed loading analysis developed in collaboration with the Coastal
Systems Program (CSP), the most cost-effective management strategies can be found
to protect these valuable aquatic environments. Moreover, as nutrient load reductions
strategies become implemented across the Island and in specific estuarine watersheds,
maintaining the regular monitoring of nutrient related water quality in the estuaries is
critical for answering questions related to whether or not a particular implementation
approach is having a positive effect and in some cases if full implementation is needed.
Need for a Monitoring Program: Conserving and/or restoring the environmental health
of coastal embayments and freshwater ponds is achievable, but only through proper
management of the waters and watersheds to each. Managing environmental health
requires a quantitative understanding of the biological and physical processes which
control nutrient related water quality within a specific basin and the role of watershed
inputs in the nutrient balance of the receiving waters. An essential step in managing
these fresh and saltwater systems is to monitor their water quality. The results of a
long-term monitoring effort are needed to determine the status and trend of ecological
health of each system to assess the need for management action and when coupled
with higher-end ecological data to support the development of site-specific management
plans.
Water quality monitoring of Nantucket's fresh and saltwater systems is focused on
summer-time conditions, as the warmer months typically have the lowest water quality
conditions, which are the target of resource management. The Town of Nantucket has
a long history of monitoring of its aquatic systems, generally by the Nantucket Marine
Department, (and currently the Natural Resources Department effective 2012) to
support the protection and management of the natural resources of the Town of
Nantucket. This effort has also supported nutrient related estuarine analyses by the
Massachusetts Estuaries Project for restoration/protection of all the coastal systems of
southeastern Massachusetts and specifically on the island of Nantucket. Over the past
eight years, the MEP has established the estuarine specific nitrogen thresholds for all of
the estuaries of Nantucket with the exception of Hummock Pond (currently being
evaluated by the MEP).
Water quality monitoring programs, like Nantucket's, can also maximize the value of
their results by structuring their sampling and analysis program, such that results can be
cross compared to water quality monitoring data collected throughout the region. In this
manner, inter-ecosystem comparisons can be made to better assess system
health/impairment and function and formulate appropriate nutrient management
strategies. This allows individual towns to directly benefit from lessons learned
throughout the wider region.
4
Summary of Sampling Approach
Monitoring Project Team: To address the present nutrient related ecological health
issues of the salt ponds and embayments within the Town of Nantucket and to provide
necessary information with which to develop policies to protect and/or remediate these
systems with regard to nutrient inputs, a long-term municipally coordinated monitoring
effort was established and coordinated through the Nantucket Marine and Coastal
Resources Department in early 2000 which continued through 2007. The program was
interrupted in 2008 and 2009 due to funding constraints. In 2010 it was determined that
the Nantucket Island-wide Water Quality Monitoring Program should be resumed with
support from the Coastal Systems Program at the University of Massachusetts-
Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST). Water quality
monitoring was completed during the summer of 2011 by another group, however, to
maintain consistency with water quality monitoring procedures and assays from all the
previous years other than 2011, water quality monitoring in 2012 was completed by the
Coastal Systems Program located at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth,
School for Marine Science. The Coastal Systems Program has also been responsible
for the development and coordination of the majority of the estuarine and pond water
quality monitoring across southeastern Massachusetts, Cape Cod and the Islands as
well as the analysis of all the samples collected and synthesis of the resulting water
quality data. A such, the CSP is able to leverage this comprehensive water quality
database to further evaluate results obtained from the Nantucket Island-wide monitoring
program.
CSP scientists focused primarily on the analysis of samples collected from the effort,
data analysis and program coordination while the Nantucket Marine and Coastal
Resources Department focused primarily on field sampling and data collection on
physical parameters. Both participated in the compilation of field and laboratory data to
provide an ecological overview of water quality conditions within each of the systems
monitored. The goals of the monitoring program were to:
(1) determine the present ecological health of each of the main salt ponds and estuaries
within the Town of Nantucket,
(2) gauge (as historical data allows) the decline or recovery of various salt ponds and
embayments over the long-term (also part of TMDL compliance), and
(3) provide the foundation (and context) for detailed quantitative measures for proper
nutrient and resource management, if needed.
This latter point (3) is critical for restoration planning should a system be found to be
impaired or trending toward impairment.
Water Quality Program Description: As was the case in 2010, sampling took place
during the warmer summer/early fall months (May-September) of 2012, the critical
period for environmental management. Samples were collected from 6 systems
(Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) on dates (“events”) following the schedule presented in Table
5
1a (2010) and Table 1b (2012). It should be noted that the Town of Nantucket did
undertake water quality monitoring in 2011, however, those samples were analyzed by a
lab other than the Coastal Systems Laboratory at the UMASS School for Marine
Science and Technology. As CSP scientists could not be certain of analytical protocols
and procedures utilized for the processing of samples collected in 2011, the results have
not be integrated into the comparison of 2010 and 2012 water quality data. The 2011
water quality data is, however, presented in tabular form in Appendix A for the sake of
having all three years of data in one document for easier reference.
The Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department oversaw the sampling and
all samplers who were involved were given refresher “training” by CSP staff to meet QA
requirements. The physical parameters measured in the estuaries included: total depth,
Secchi depth (light penetration), temperature, conductivity/salinity (YSI meter), general
weather, wind speed and direction, dissolved oxygen levels and observations of
moorings, birds, shellfishing and unusual events (fish kills, algal blooms, etc).
Laboratory analyses for estuaries included: salinity, nitrate + nitrite, ammonium,
dissolved organic nitrogen, particulate organic carbon and nitrogen, chlorophyll a and
pheophytin a and orthophosphate. For the 2010 sampling season, freshwater streams
were sampled and parameters assayed included: specific conductivity, nitrate + nitrite,
ammonium, dissolved organic nitrogen, particulate organic carbon and nitrogen,
chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a, orthophosphate and total phosphorus. In the summer
of 2012, the water quality monitoring was focused entirely on estuarine stations. In
addition, 14 sets of field duplicates were taken as part of the field sampling protocol for
QA analysis. Data were compiled and reviewed by the laboratory for accuracy and
evaluated to discern any possible artifacts caused by improper sampling technique. As
a point of comparison, the sampling schedule for 2010 and 2012 are provided below in
Tables 1a and 1B.
Table 1a. Sampling Schedule for 2010 Nantucket Water Quality Monitoring Program
Month Nantucket
Harbor
Madaket
Harbor
Long Pond Sesachacha
Pond
Miacomet
Pond
Hummock
Pond
Streams
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May May 18 May 20 May 19 May 26 May 26 May 25
June June 2, 17 June 3, 15 June 17 June 24 June 24 June 29 June 28
July July 1, 15,
30
July 16, 27 July 29 July 26 July 26 July 28
August Aug. 13 Aug. 12, 30 Aug. 11 Aug. 26 Aug. 26 Aug. 27
September Sept. 1, 14 Sept. 13 Sept. 15 Sept. 23 Sept. 23 Sept. 28
October Oct. 21
November
December
Totals 10 8 5 5 5 5 1
6
Table 1b. Sampling Schedule for 2012 Nantucket Water Quality Monitoring Program
Month Nantucket
Harbor
Madaket
Harbor
Long Pond Sesachacha
Pond
Miacomet
Pond
Hummock
Pond
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May May 29
June June 7, 28 June 12 June 25 June 20 June 20 June 27
July July 9, 26 July 11 July 24 July 19 July 19 July 31
August Aug 7, 22 Aug 8 Aug 21 Aug 23 Aug 23 Aug 24
September Sept 6 Sept 7 Sept 25 Sept 25 Sept 27 Sept 26
October
November
December
Total Events 8 4 4 4 4 4
7
Figure 1. Madaket Harbor and Long Pond sampling stations 2010 and 2012.
8
Figure 2. Nantucket Harbor sampling stations 2012. Station NAN-8 (the cut) was only sampled in 2010 and location changed in 2011
and 2012.
9
Figure 3. Sesachacha Pond sampling stations 2010 and 2012.
10
Figure 4. Hummock Pond sampling stations 2010 and 2012.
11
Figure 5. Miacomet Pond sampling stations 2010 and 2012.
Station 3
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 1
Station 2
12
Summary of 2012 Water Quality Results for Nantucket Sampling
Water samples collected from May through September in the estuarine systems
indicate that organic nitrogen (dissolved + particulate) dominates the Total Nitrogen
pool (79%-95%), while bio-available nutrients in the form of nitrite and nitrate (NOx) and
ammonium (NH4) account for only 5%-21% of the Total Nitrogen pool (Table 2a,b,
Figure 6). These results are typical for estuarine systems throughout New England,
where nitrogen is the nutrient responsible for eutrophication and therefore the nutrient
critical for management. The predominance of organic nitrogen in the Total Nitrogen
(TN) pool in these systems would indicate that they are effectively converting the
bioavailable inorganic forms of nitrogen into organic forms (e.g. phytoplankton). Where
tidal flushing is effective, much of this particulate matter along with dissolved nutrients is
washed out of the system resulting in good water clarity as evidenced by the greater
secchi depth readings in the main basins of Nantucket Harbor and Madaket Harbor
(Table 2a). Consistent with the water clarity, corresponding Chlorophyll-a pigment
concentrations were lowest (2-4 ug/L) in these well flushed systems (Table 2a,b).
Where tidal flushing is more restricted in Long, Hummock, Miacomet and Sesachacha
Ponds, water clarity is relatively poor as shown by generally shallower Secchi Depth
recordings and Chlorophyll-a pigment concentrations are significantly higher, 5-27 ug/L
(Table 2a). These general patterns were also observed in prior years monitoring
results. It should be noted that 2012 generally showed lower phytoplankton biomass
(as indicated in the Total Pigment column of Tables 2a and 2b) within each estuary
when compared to 2010 summertime conditions. The level of variation is typical, but
underscores the need for multi-year monitoring to establish trends. Total Nitrogen
levels for each estuarine system in 2010 and 2012 were within 3%-9% of each other,
except for the stations in Long Pond. Long Pond showed significantly lower TN levels
(~40%) in 2012 versus 2010. This is a trend that the monitoring program should follow
closely. It is necessary to determine if this represents a real reduction (possibly
associated with watershed activities) or merely a natural inter-annual variation. Town
activities at the landfill represent one potential watershed activity warranting further
examination should the 2013 summer results confirm a shift.
Average Total Nitrogen values in 2012 (2010 in [ ]) ranged from 0.94 [1.75] mg/L in
Long Pond, 0.923 [0.944] mg/L in Hummock Pond, 0.919 [0.886] mg/L in Miacomet
Pond, 0.704 [0.639] mg/L in Sesachacha Pond, all relatively poorly flushed. Average
TN levels in all 4 ponds are significantly higher than average values in the “offshore”
stations NAN 4 and MH4 which average >0.344 [0.302] and 0.297 [0.285] mg/L,
respectively (Tables 2a & 2b, Figures 1, 2).
Average 2012 [2010] TN level in Madaket Harbor (Stations 1-3, not including Station 4,
offshore) was 0.485 [0.462] mg/L, compared to the off-shore Station 4 0.297 [0.285]
mg/L). Average TN in Nantucket Harbor (all Stations except Station 4, offshore)
averaged 0.395 [0.369] mg/L, compared to the off-shore Station 4 (Tables 2a, 2b). It
should be noted that the [2010] value includes station NAN-8 (the cut) whereas the
2012 value includes station NAN-8N which was relocated into the Harbor refer to Figure
2 for station location). That may be a reason the 2012 average TN concentration is
slightly higher than the 2010 value. TN concentrations in the 6 streams adjacent to
Nantucket Harbor in 2010 ranged from 0.565 mg/L in Stream 8 to 2.139 mg/L in Stream
6B (Table 2b). In spite of the high TN concentrations in these 6 streams and the likely
13
high TN loads that these streams contribute to the Harbor, tidal flushing and dilution
with lower concentration Harbor waters seems to be an effective mechanism to keep
TN levels in the main body of the Harbor relatively low (Table 2a,b, Figure 2). It should
be noted that the stream stations were not sampled in 2012. TN concentrations in
Polpis Harbor, 0.451 [0.435] mg/L, which is fed by the high TN levels in Streams 4, 6B
and 6C, are somewhat higher than the levels in the main Harbor, but still significantly
lower than the levels in the streams themselves (Table 2, Figure 2).
Both 2012 and 2010 results indicate that within Long, Hummock and Miacomet ponds,
there is a general gradient of nutrient (N and P) and chlorophyll concentrations from
high levels in the upper, more enclosed and poorly flushed reaches of the estuaries to
lower concentrations closer to the outlets where flushing is more effective (Figures 6a &
6b). In Sesachacha Pond, there is no noticeable nutrient or chlorophyll gradient
among any of the 4 Stations (Figure 6, Table 2). Madaket Harbor shows a significant
nitrogen gradient (and associated metrics) from Station 1 in Hither Creek (which
receives discharge from Madaket Ditch), and is relatively poorly flushed, out to Station 2
in the Harbor with further decreases out to the off-shore Station 4. In Nantucket
Harbor, there is a very small nutrient gradient from Wauwinet at the Head of the Harbor
and the more enclosed Polpis stations out to the entrance at Stations 8 and 4 (Figure 6,
Table 2). There is also a chlorophyll gradient with the highest concentrations at the 2
Polpis Stations (5 and 6), decreasing in the main Harbor and out to the off-shore
Station 4 (Table 2).
In reviewing both the 2010 and 2012 dissolved oxygen data, it does not appear that
there is sufficient temporal sampling in any one year to capture the critical minimum
oxygen levels. Therefore, while assessment of the oxygen levels in each estuary was
performed, it will be necessary to conduct a multi-year composite analysis once
sufficient data has been collected. It is also possible to strengthen the dissolved
oxygen data base in specific estuarine basins as each years monitoring results are
assessed. We have made some recommendations which we have noted at the end of
the discussion section.
Comparison of the 2012 and 2010 data with historical data: At all sites, historical TN
levels from previous years of sampling were compared to 2012 and 2010 TN
concentrations. Historical data presented here are from the Massachusetts Estuaries
Project (MEP) reports for Nantucket Harbor, Sesachacha Pond and Madaket
Harbor/Long Pond. Historical data for Hummock Pond 2007 and for Miacomet Pond
2005 are from the Annual Reports by the Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources
Department. Not all sites sampled historically were sampled in 2010 but those that
were are compared to the historical data in Tables 3 through 6.
Both the 2012 and 2010 Nantucket Harbor TN data generally compare well with
historical data from the same or adjacent sites sampled by both SMAST and the Town
from 1988 through 2005 (Figure 7, Table 3). Not all of the historical sites were sampled
in 2010 (Table 3). At Station Town 3, the historical mean for TN was 0.401 + 0.115
mg/L while the 2012 and 2010 TN values were 0.411 and 0.392 mg/L, respectively. In
East Polpis Harbor the historical mean is 0.362 + 0.112 mg/L while the 2012 [2010]
values were 0.484 [0.438] mg/L. In West Polpis, the historical mean is 0.388 + 0.119
mg/L similar to that in East Polpis. The 2012 [2010] values for TN were 0.419 [0.431],
14
only slightly lower than the value in East Polpis. In general, TN levels in 2012 were
slightly higher than 2010, but the differences were not significant.
In Sesachacha Pond, only Station 1 was available for comparison (Figure 8). The
historical mean for TN was 1.197 + 0.078 mg/L while both 2012 and 2010 TN levels
were similar to each other but significantly lower than historically at 0.678 and 0.684
mg/L (Table 4). The continued apparent lower TN level in Sesachacha Pond versus
historic levels is a critical finding, as relates to improvement of pond resources and the
Town's need to document water quality and habitat improvement in this system. While
it takes multiple years to document "restoration" the consistency of results in 2010 and
2012 provides a solid basis for moving forward with the third year of documentation (i.e.
summer 2013).
In Madaket Harbor only MEP M11 and Town 1 were comparable sites. TN values
agreed very well here. The historical mean was 0.620 + 0.215 mg/L at M11 while the
2012 and [2010] values were 0.655 [0.626] mg/L (Table 5). In 2012 and 2010 Stations
2 and 3 were distributed throughout the harbor between historical stations 3 and 10,
and 10 and 2, respectively and 2010 Station 2 was located at the mouth of Hither Creek
(Figure 9). TN values at these stations were comparable to values at the historical
stations (Table 5).
Long Pond TN levels appear to be relatively stable within the northern and southern
reaches. In Long Pond, the historical value of TN at Station 2 was 0.971 + 0.369 mg/L
while the 2012 [2010] level at comparable Town Station 5 was 1.031 [1.385] mg/L
(Figure 9, Table 5). This station is within the mid to lower pond and the differences are
not significant. Similarly, at historical Station 4, mean TN concentration was 0.894 +
0.278 mg/L and the 2012 and 2010 values at Town 6 were 0.867 and 2.044 mg/L,
respectively. The similarity in the 2012 and historical data provide important support
that the 2010 results did not indicate a significant decline in the pond health. 2012 and
to a lesser extent 2010 values are reasonable in comparison given the variability in the
historical data as evidenced by the standard deviation (s.d.) of the means (Table 5).
In Hummock Pond, 3 Stations have both 2007 and 2010 and now 2012 data from Town
sampling programs, Stations 1, 3 and 7 (see Figure 4). At Station 1, the 2007 TN mean
value was 0.751 + 0.374 mg/L while the 2012 and 2010 values were 0.666 and 0.616
mg/L (Table 6). For Station 3 (2007) the TN mean value was 0.630 + 0.388 mg/L and
the 2012 and 2010 means were 0.863 and 0.589 mg/L (Table 6). The Station 7 2007
mean for TN was 1.283 + 0.969 mg/L while the 2012 and 2010 values were 1.301 and
1.786 mg/L (Table 6). Overall, both the 2012 and 2010 data in composite, yield TN
levels comparable to the prior 2007 data and no improvement is indicated. These TN
levels are very high for brackish water systems and indicative of nitrogen impaired
resources either resulting from watershed inputs or insufficient tidal exchange (or both).
Town data for Miacomet Pond was available at all 3 Stations from 2005 and 2010 (see
Figure 5). At Station 1, the 2005 mean TN concentration was 0.842 + 0.191 mg/L and
the 2012 and 2010 values were 0.828 and 0.854 mg/L (Table 6). The Station 2
historical mean TN value was 0.855 + 0.213 mg/L while the 2012 and 2010
concentrations were 0.880 and 0.811 mg/L (Table 6). Finally at Station 3 the lone 2005
value of TN was 0.280 mg/L. Both the 2012 and 2010 TN levels were significantly
higher, consistent with the other stations (1 & 2) at 0.950 and 1.093 mg/L, respectively
15
(Table 6). It is not clear why the lone TN value in 2005 was so low compared with the
other Stations in the Pond but both the 2012 and 2010 measurements and the historical
data from the other 2 stations agree well.
Trophic State of the Estuaries of Nantucket Island
The Trophic State of an estuary is a quantitative indicator of its nutrient related
ecological health and is based on concentrations of Nitrogen, Secchi Depth, lowest
measured concentrations of Dissolved Oxygen (average of lowest 20% of
measurements), and Chlorophyll pigments (surrogate for phytoplankton biomass).
Trophic health scales generally range from Oligotrophic (healthy-low nutrient) to
Mesotrophic (showing signs of deterioration of health due to nutrient enrichment) to
Eutrophic (unhealthy, deteriorated condition, high nutrient). The Trophic Health Index
Score used here is a basic numerical scale based on criteria for open water
embayments and uses the above mentioned measured parameters to create a habitat
quality scale (Howes et al. 1999, http://www.savebuzzardsbay.org). For the estuaries
within the Town of Nantucket, a trophic index score was calculated for each sampling
location using the 2010 and 2012 data. The Index scores were calculated in 2 ways,
one which included the low dissolved oxygen for each year in the index ("with DO",
Table 7) and one which excluded the oxygen metric ("without DO", Table 8). The
reason for this dual approach is that in many estuaries, such as those on Nantucket,
there are only periodic depletions in bottom water dissolved oxygen, generally related to
meteorological events. While these short-term depletions have important ecological
consequences, they are difficult to capture in programs that sample 4 or 5 dates per
summer. In these cases, inclusion of the oxygen tends to bias the Index upwards (i.e.
higher quality) because of the greater probability of capturing high versus low oxygen
events. This bias was found in the previous analysis of the 2010 dataset, as well as for
other estuaries in s.e. Massachusetts. It should be noted that this bias relates only to
the oxygen data, the other water quality parameters do not change as rapidly as
dissolved oxygen and therefore the sampling program adequately captures accurate
concentration data (DO changes by the hour). For the sake of completeness, the
Index scores are calculated in both ways, although the scores that exclude the oxygen
data appear to more accurately represent the present level of estuarine health and are
more consistent with the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) assessments which
include higher level measurements including long-term time series dissolved oxygen
records (continuous measurements), which avoids the sampling bias issue.
The Health Status of each site was based on the Index Score, which is based on the
data collected during the sampling events. The ranges of Index scores that fall within a
particular Health Status determination are given at the bottom of both Tables 7 and 8.
Figures 10-14 show the distribution of Health Status throughout each estuary based on
the 2010 and 2012 monitoring program results. Values calculated with the dissolved
oxygen data are shown as upright triangles (left symbol of each pair) and values without
the oxygen data are shown as inverted triangles (right symbol of each pair). The colors
of each triangle represent the Bay Health Index status of its site and follow the
designation scheme below:
16
Color Health Status
Blue High Quality
Blue/Yellow High-Moderate
Yellow Moderate
Yellow/Red Moderate/Fair
Red Fair/Poor
There were 8 stations among the 5 estuaries in 2012 that had differences in Trophic
Index scores between including and excluding DO from the calculations. In 7 of the 8
cases, excluding the minimum DO metric resulted in a lowering of the score. This is
similar to what was found in 2010 and is consistent with sampling theory. It should be
noted that the oxygen data from the monitoring program will support an index when a
sufficient number of dates are collected over several years, as has been found in MEP
analysis of Cape Cod estuaries. The integrated water quality scores, as represented
by the Index were generally consistent between 2010 and 2012. This is expected as
nutrient related health does not typically change rapidly unless a significant alteration
has occurred to the watershed nitrogen loading or to tidal flushing of a basin. Based
upon the results it is possible to assess the nutrient related health of the basins within
each of the 5 estuarine systems within the Nantucket Water Quality Monitoring
Program. The following assessments rely mainly on the "without DO" scores (right-
hand triangles) as they most accurately represent current conditions:
Madaket Harbor
The water with the poorest “health” status is in Hither Creek at Station 1 (Table 7, 8,
Figure 10). Both 2010 and 2012 datasets indicate that this basin is clearly nitrogen
enriched and showing continuing impairment. In contrast the main basin of Madaket
Harbor are showing relatively high water quality in 2012 with a slight gradient on the
ebbing tide from offshore of Hither Creek out to the Harbor entrance. The pattern was
similar to 2010, except that the gradient in 2012 was more significant. It appears that
Station 2, near the outlet to Hither Creek is receiving low quality waters on the ebb tide
from Hither Creek and that this is controlling water quality at this nearshore location.
The inter-annual difference at this site likely stems from the degree that the poor water
quality plume from Hither Creek was captured each year, than a shift in status. In
contrast, the offshore sites (3 & 4) support high quality waters resulting from low
nitrogen inputs and very high rates of water exchange.
Long Pond
Long Pond operates semi-independently from Madaket Harbor, although waters are
exchanged between them via Hither Creek and Madaket Ditch (Figure 10). Unlike
Madaket Harbor which is marine, Long Pond is a brackish water system resulting from
groundwater inflows and restricted tidal exchange. Long Pond Bay Health scores for
both stations in both years (2010 and 2012) clearly indicate poor nutrient related water
quality. It is nearly certain that this poor water quality water flowing into the head of
Hither Creek during the ebb tide contributes to local inputs in creating the poor water
quality in Hither Creek as well. While there may be some small decline in nitrogen
levels in the upper basin (Station 6) the level is still very high and results in poor clarity,
algal blooms and nutrient related stress to aquatic resources.
17
Nantucket Harbor
Nantucket Harbor is presently supporting the highest water quality of Nantucket's
estuaries. Most of the main basin is supporting high quality waters, with only a small
level of decline in uppermost basin of the main Harbor, Wauwinet basin, and a
nearshore station at Children's Beach (Figure 11). However, the enclosed sub-basin of
Polpis Harbor (East and West) is showing impairment and only moderate water quality.
This designation stems both from both elevated nitrogen levels and consequent
enhancement of phytoplankton, with summer averages of 10-15 ug/L typical. While the
Harbor is generally supporting high quality waters, it is important that the decline in
Wauwinet and Polpis be monitored and that efforts to restore these basins by the Town
continue to move forward to meet the MassDEP TMDL for this system.
Sesachacha Pond
Sesachacha Pond is a closed coastal salt pond that has its water quality managed by
periodically breaching the barrier beach to open the basin to tidal exchange with the
adjacent Atlantic Ocean waters. This management action serves to flush out nutrients
and organic matter on the ebb tides and receive saline waters on the flood tides.
Sesachacha Pond was evaluated under the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and a
nitrogen threshold (0.60 mg/L) was established for restoration of this system.
Additionally, the MEP analysis recommended an additional mid-summertime opening
as part of the pond management strategy to enhance flushing of the pond and improve
water quality to reach the threshold. The water quality monitoring program in 2010 and
2012 is showing that the pond nitrogen levels are converging on the 0.60 mg/L total
nitrogen threshold established by the MEP. Total nitrogen (TN) levels have dropped
significantly from 1.20 mg/L to ~0.68 mg/L, with associated improvements in the levels
of water clarity and chlorophyll-a. The monitoring data suggest that the pond may still
be in transition, as there is some suggestion that the water quality metrics at stations 2
and 3 may have improved between 2010 and 2012 (Figure 12). Additional higher level
assessment of Sesachacha Pond initiated by the 2010 monitoring results is underway
to document the level of improvement in nutrient related health of this system and the
degree to which the pond meets conditions for habitat restoration documented in the
2006 MEP nitrogen threshold analysis for Sesachacha Pond.
Hummock Pond
Hummock Pond is a closed coastal salt pond that is only periodically opened to the
ocean to flush out nutrients and organic matter on the ebb tide and receive saline
waters on the flood tide. Hummock Pond is opened at a sufficient frequency to sustain
salinity levels in the 5-8 ppt range, with only small inter-annual differences (2012 slightly
higher than 2010). The pond supports a small but clear salinity gradient from Station 1
nearest the ocean to Station 7 in the uppermost basin. The present non-tidal state and
watershed nutrient inputs has resulted in moderate to poor nutrient related water quality
throughout the pond, with poor water quality conditions the present norm. There is a
small gradient in water quality with moderate to poor conditions near the ocean and
poor conditions in the uppermost basins (Figure 13). This gradient likely stems from the
periodic openings. The uppermost basin, Station 7, is particularly eutrophic with
phytoplankton blooms exceeding 70 ug/L (offshore waters are ~2 ug/L). Even the lower
basin supports moderate to high average chlorophyll levels ~10 ug/L (2010, 2012). All
of the metrics are consistent with a nutrient impaired basin in both 2010 and 2012.
18
Miacomet Pond
Miacomet Pond is a closed coastal salt pond that is seldom (once in the past ten years)
opened to the ocean to flush out nutrients and organic matter on the ebb tide and
receive saline waters on the flood tide. Salinity levels in 2010 (0.6 ppt) and 2012 (0.4
ppt) indicate that the pond has not been opened to tidal flow for a significant period and
is slowly freshening. The present non-tidal state and watershed nutrient inputs has
resulted in a decline in nutrient related water quality throughout the pond, with poor
water quality conditions the present norm (Figure 14). This can be seen, for example,
in the high chlorophyll levels (2010: 12-50 ug/L); 2012: 10-20 ug/L) several times that
found in the high quality basins of Nantucket and Madaket Harbors. All of the metrics
are consistent with a nutrient impaired basin. However, if the freshening of this basin
continues, it may come into a new equilibrium as a purely freshwater system and will
need to be reassessed as such. However, it will be difficult for Miacomet Pond to
maintain itself as a purely freshwater system as storm overwash and rising sea level will
tend to periodically cause seawater intrusion into its lower basin.
Recommendations for Future Monitoring
Due to the critical importance of dissolved oxygen to the ecological health of an
estuarine basin, additional data should be collected using high frequency automated
sensors when the low frequency sampling of the monitoring program suggests that a
problem may exist in a specific basin. At this point, Polpis Harbor, Madaket Harbor
(station 2) and lower Miacomet Pond should be considered for this analysis at some
time in the future. However, procedural steps should also be implemented to
strengthen the oxygen data base from the on-going monitoring program.
Approaches to address these 2 issues are:
1) Deploying in situ oxygen meters (sondes) on the bottom of specific
estuaries at several strategic locations for the summer months when periodic
hypoxic or anoxic events in bottom waters can occur.
2) Running Winkler Titrations on water samples where meter readings of
D.O. are < 5mg/L. Winkler titration is a more accurate and precise method
for quantifying dissolved oxygen concentrations in samples expected to have
low DO levels (implemented in 2012).
19
Secchi Secchi 20% Low 20% Low
Station Depth Depth DO DO Salinity PO4 NH4 N0x DIN DON PON TON TN T-Pig
I.D.m %WC mg/L %Sat ppt mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L
HUM-1 1.0 44%6.27 79%7.6 0.020 0.044 0.006 0.050 0.439 0.178 0.616 0.666 8.7
HUM-3 1.2 58%6.20 79%7.0 0.029 0.039 0.003 0.042 0.573 0.249 0.822 0.863 8.3
HUM-5 0.8 44%6.56 82%6.3 0.030 0.043 0.004 0.047 0.540 0.283 0.824 0.871 12.7
HUM-7 0.7 21%5.76 70%4.8 0.011 0.085 0.031 0.117 0.546 0.638 1.184 1.301 27.2
HUM-8 0.6 53%6.51 81%6.0 0.030 0.054 0.005 0.058 0.534 0.352 0.885 0.944 17.5
LONG-5 0.6 58%5.49 71%16.8 0.067 0.063 0.007 0.069 0.441 0.503 0.944 1.013 18.3
LONG-6 0.5 51%5.13 67%18.6 0.027 0.049 0.008 0.057 0.437 0.373 0.810 0.867 7.7
MH1 1.7 70%6.88 98%26.8 0.026 0.115 0.015 0.131 0.332 0.192 0.525 0.655 9.6
MH2 2.3 100%8.16 115%30.9 0.015 0.078 0.010 0.088 0.272 0.084 0.356 0.444 1.8
MH3 2.4 100%7.55 104%31.6 0.018 0.063 0.011 0.074 0.217 0.065 0.282 0.356 1.8
MH4 3.7 90%8.35 119%31.6 0.019 0.032 0.009 0.041 0.189 0.068 0.257 0.297 2.0
MP1 1.5 97%7.14 79%0.3 0.007 0.057 0.004 0.061 0.546 0.221 0.767 0.828 10.8
MP2 1.5 67%7.24 80%0.4 0.005 0.070 0.012 0.082 0.509 0.290 0.799 0.880 20.3
MP3 1.0 81%7.64 92%0.1 0.045 0.109 0.011 0.120 0.381 0.450 0.830 0.950 18.3
NAN1 3.5 73%5.22 74%31.6 0.020 0.045 0.011 0.056 0.210 0.070 0.279 0.335 3.8
NAN2 2.9 62%5.91 85%31.6 0.022 0.057 0.009 0.066 0.213 0.091 0.304 0.364 3.7
NAN3 2.4 40%5.86 87%31.8 0.027 0.035 0.008 0.044 0.261 0.117 0.371 0.411 4.0
NAN4 2.9 63%6.29 90%31.6 0.017 0.031 0.007 0.038 0.212 0.094 0.306 0.344 3.6
NAN5 1.7 76%5.96 83%31.5 0.019 0.046 0.007 0.053 0.233 0.133 0.366 0.419 14.9
NAN6 2.1 76%5.50 77%31.5 0.019 0.042 0.006 0.048 0.289 0.147 0.436 0.484 6.3
NAN7 2.0 80%6.10 86%31.5 0.021 0.049 0.008 0.057 0.217 0.105 0.323 0.379 4.2
NAN8 1.9 100%5.20 74%31.5 0.017 0.050 0.006 0.057 0.225 0.090 0.315 0.371 3.6
SES 1 2.3 51%5.49 77%24.7 0.064 0.042 0.010 0.051 0.497 0.130 0.627 0.678 5.8
SES 2 2.5 52%""24.7 0.065 0.087 0.014 0.101 0.405 0.120 0.525 0.627 5.1
SES 3 2.8 87%""24.7 0.063 0.053 0.007 0.060 0.417 0.107 0.524 0.584 4.2
SES 4 2.7 77%""24.8 0.062 0.060 0.010 0.070 0.456 0.142 0.599 0.668 4.5
Table 2a. Summary of Water Quality Parameters, 2012 Nantucket Sampling Program. Values are Station Averages of all sampling events,
May-October for estuarine and harbor sites. Stream sites were sampled once in June (see Table 1b).
20
Table 2b. Summary of Water Quality Parameters, 2010 Nantucket Sampling Program. Values are
Station Averages of all sampling events, May-October for estuarine and harbor sites. Stream sites were
sampled once in June (see Table 1a).
Station ID
Secchi
Depth
(m)
Secchi
Depth
as
% WC
20% Low
D.O. (mg/L)
20% Low
% Sat
Salinity
ppt
PO4
mg/L
NH4
mg/L
NOX
mg/L
DIN
mg/L
DON
mg/L
PON
mg/L
TON
mg/L
TN
mg/L
Total
Pig
(ug/L)
HUM1 1.4 54.4% 4.81 56.0% 7.3 0.013 0.021 0.002 0.023 0.425 0.168 0.592 0.616 12.30
HUM3 1.3 61.5% 4.99 59.8% 6.4 0.012 0.022 0.003 0.025 0.380 0.184 0.564 0.589 11.04
HUM5 0.9 44.2% 4.65 56.1% 5.3 0.015 0.020 0.003 0.023 0.430 0.313 0.743 0.766 27.03
HUM7 0.9 23.4% 3.89 45.0% 4.0 0.284 0.070 0.069 0.139 0.628 1.020 1.647 1.786 67.66
HUM8 0.7 51.0% 4.80 56.5% 4.4 0.025 0.031 0.008 0.039 0.584 0.360 0.944 0.983 33.02
LONG5 0.6 48.5% 4.77 62.9% 16.0 0.071 0.009 0.002 0.011 0.480 0.894 1.374 1.385 18.08
LONG6 0.6 48.8% 4.76 62.9% 15.9 0.028 0.022 0.003 0.026 0.567 1.452 2.019 2.044 24.21
MH1 1.6 67.1% 3.00 40.1% 26.8 0.024 0.045 0.005 0.050 0.316 0.260 0.576 0.626 14.20
MH2 1.9 93.9% 3.52 47.9% 29.7 0.014 0.024 0.003 0.027 0.264 0.145 0.409 0.436 9.37
MH3 2.3 100.0% 4.39 55.5% 30.8 0.011 0.024 0.002 0.026 0.213 0.084 0.297 0.324 6.14
MH4 3.8 58.3% 4.27 55.6% 31.1 0.015 0.024 0.002 0.026 0.190 0.069 0.259 0.285 4.21
MP1 1.5 86.3% 5.43 54.0% 0.7 0.003 0.030 0.002 0.032 0.557 0.265 0.822 0.854 16.29
MP2 1.9 58.5% 5.70 62.8% 0.6 0.002 0.044 0.002 0.046 0.554 0.210 0.764 0.811 11.50
MP3 1.3 83.1% 4.93 56.6% 0.1 0.031 0.048 0.056 0.104 0.499 0.490 0.990 1.093 51.52
NAN1 4.5 84.8% 3.57 48.2% 31.0 0.016 0.027 0.003 0.030 0.218 0.084 0.302 0.332 4.00
NAN2 3.4 62.8% 3.45 47.4% 31.0 0.018 0.016 0.003 0.019 0.201 0.077 0.278 0.297 5.36
NAN3 2.8 49.2% 3.72 52.4% 30.9 0.022 0.027 0.003 0.030 0.251 0.111 0.362 0.392 7.58
NAN4 3.7 84.5% 3.89 52.2% 29.8 0.015 0.027 0.002 0.029 0.203 0.070 0.273 0.283 4.15
NAN5 2.0 98.0% 3.18 44.3% 30.4 0.017 0.027 0.007 0.034 0.248 0.149 0.397 0.431 11.31
NAN6 2.2 88.7% 3.26 45.7% 30.5 0.016 0.024 0.004 0.028 0.277 0.133 0.410 0.438 10.31
NAN7 2.1 92.5% 3.60 49.8% 30.9 0.016 0.023 0.003 0.026 0.244 0.106 0.351 0.377 7.35
NAN8 2.4 100.8% 3.65 50.0% 31.1 0.018 0.031 0.002 0.033 0.204 0.076 0.280 0.313 3.93
SESA1 1.6 32.9% 4.82 56.4% 11.9 0.051 0.018 0.003 0.021 0.441 0.222 0.663 0.684 8.00
SESA2 1.4 28.6% 4.83 56.4% 11.9 0.045 0.024 0.003 0.027 0.469 0.219 0.688 0.715 7.19
SESA3 1.5 36.6% 4.83 56.2% 11.9 0.049 0.021 0.006 0.028 0.449 0.223 0.672 0.700 7.61
SESA4 1.5 38.7% 4.83 56.4% 11.9 0.046 0.024 0.003 0.027 0.470 0.221 0.691 0.718 6.73
82 WAUWINET ND ND ND ND 18.2 0.071 0.122 0.004 0.126 0.611 0.108 0.719 0.845 40.70
STREAM1 ND ND ND ND 0.3 0.077 0.081 0.021 0.102 1.419 0.258 1.677 1.779 2.64
STREAM4 ND ND ND ND <0.1 0.163 0.039 0.008 0.048 1.092 0.061 1.153 1.200 1.18
STREAM6B ND ND ND ND <0.1 0.006 0.059 0.004 0.064 1.701 0.374 2.076 2.139 16.37
STREAM6C ND ND ND ND <0.1 0.132 0.097 0.003 0.100 0.375 0.156 0.532 0.632 7.41
STREAM8 ND ND ND ND 3.3 0.015 0.045 0.005 0.050 0.398 0.118 0.516 0.565 5.29
Secchi as % of WC is the % of the water column above the secchi depth, values of 100% means that the Secchi was at or below the bottom.
Lowest 20% of D.O. records for a site over the project period.
HUM = Hummock Pond, Long = Long Pond, MH = Madaket Harbor, MP = Miacomet Pond, NAN = Nantucket Harbor, SESA = Sesachacha Pond
21
Figure 6. Comparison of nitrogen species in the Nantucket estuaries (Summer 2010/2012 sampling season)
22
Figure 6 cont'd. Comparison of nitrogen species in the Nantucket estuaries (Summer 2010/2012 sampling
season)
23
Figure 7. Estuarine water quality monitoring station locations in the Nantucket Harbor
estuary system. Station labels correspond to those provided in Table 3 below. Red diamonds
indicate locations of MEP monitoring stations. Blue diamonds are locations of Town sampling.
Station 8 sampled in 2010, station 8N sampled in 2011 and 2012.
Table 3. Comparison of MEP mean values of TN with Town data (all values are mg/L) from Nantucket
Harbor. MEP data were collected in the summers of 1988 through 1990 and 1992 though 1994 by the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and between 1992 and 2005 by the Town of Nantucket
Marine Department and by the Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department in summer of
2010 and 2012.
1 It is almost certain that this does not represent the TN level in the inflow to Nantucket Harbor on the flood tide, but rather the
2012 data is influenced by mixing with TN enriched outflowing waters. An attempt to control for this issue will be
implemented in the 2013 monitoring program.
Sub-Embayment
monitoring
station
Historical
MEP
Mean TN
(mg/L) s.d.
2010
Town
ID
2010
Mean TN
(mg/L)
2012
Mean TN
(mg/L)
Head of the Harbor - Upper 2 0.408 0.188 NA Not Sampled
Head of the Harbor - Mid Town 3 0.401 0.115 3 0.392 0.411
Head of the Harbor - Lower 2A 0.339 0.070 NA Not Sampled Not Sampled
Pocomo Head 3 0.335 0.081 NA Not Sampled Not Sampled
Quaise Basin 3A+Town 2 0.336 0.112 2 0.297 0.364
East Polpis Harbor 4+Town 6 0.362 0.105 6 0.438 0.484
West Polpis Harbor 4A+Town 5 0.388 0.119 5 0.431 0.419
Abrams Point 5 0.335 0.060 NA Not Sampled Not Sampled
Monomoy 6 0.297 0.086 NA Not Sampled Not Sampled
Mooring Area 7+Town 1,1A 0.326 0.106 1, 7 0.332, 0.377 0.335, 0.379
Nantucket Sound OS+Town 4 0.239 0.041 4 0.283 0.3441
24
Figure 8. 2005 aerial photo showing MEP monitoring station location in Sesachacha Pond
that was used in the water quality analysis for the Massachusetts Estuaries Project. Station
SES corresponds to SESA-1 in Tables 2a,b and Station 1 in Figure 3.
Sampling Station
Location
Historical
MEP
Mean TN
(mg/L)
s.d.
2010
Mean TN
(mg/L)
2012
Mean TN
(mg/L)
Sesachacha Pond 1.197 0.078 0.684 (0.704) 0.678 (0.639)
Table 4. Comparison of MEP mean values of TN with Town TN data (all values are mg/L) from
Sesachacha Pond. MEP data were collected in the summers of 1992 through 2005. Town data
were collected in the summer of 2010 and 2012 by the Town of Nantucket Marine and Coastal
Resources Department. Values in 2010 & 2012 represent the average at Station 1, with the
average of stations 1-4 in ( ).
25
Figure 9. Estuarine water quality monitoring station locations in the Madaket Harbor and Long
Pond Systems.
Table 5. Comparison of MEP mean values of TN with Town TN data (all values are mg/L)
from Madaket Harbor and Long Pond. MEP data were collected by SMAST in the summers
of 2002 through 2004. Town data were collected in the summer of 2010 and 2012 by the Town
of Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department.
Sub-Embayment Monitoring station
Historical
MEP
Mean TN
(mg/L) s.d.
2010
Mean TN
(mg/L)
2012
Mean TN
(mg/L)
Madaket Harbor MEP M1 0.336 0.098
Madaket Harbor Town 4 0.285 0.297
Madaket Harbor MEP M2 0.395 0.083
Madaket Harbor Town 2 0.436 0.444
Madaket Harbor MEP M3 0.415 0.090
Madaket Harbor Town 3 0.324 .356
Hither Creek MEP M4 0.581 0.193
Hither Creek MEP M5 0.780 0.178
Madaket Harbor MEP M6 0.347 0.067
Madaket Harbor MEP M10 0.422 0.127
Hither Creek MEP M11+Town 1 0.620 0.215 0.626 .655
Long Pond MEP LOPO1 1.058 0.404
Long Pond MEP LOPO2+Town 5 0.971 0.369 1.385 1.013
Long Pond MEP LOPO3 0.924 0.234
Long Pond MEP LOPO4+Town 6 0.894 0.278 2.044 0.867
North Head Long Pond MEP LOPO5 0.954 0.271
26
Hummock Pond
and
Miacomet Pond
Station ID's
2012 2010 2005/2007
TN
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
Mean Mean Mean S.D.
HUM1 0.666 0.616 0.751** 0.374
HUM3 0.863 0.589 0.630** 0.388
HUM5 0.871 0.766 ND ND
HUM7 1.301 1.786 1.283** 0.969
HUM8 0.944 0.983 ND ND
MP1 0.828 0.854 0.842* 0.191
MP2 0.880 0.811 0.855* 0.213
MP3 0.950 1.093 0.280* 0
*2005 data only
**2007 data only
Table 6. Comparison of TN concentrations collected in 2005 (Miacomet Pond) and 2007
(Hummock Pond) by Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department with Town TN
data collected at both sites the summer of 2010 and 2012. All values are mg/L.
27
Low20%
Station ID Year Secchi Oxsat DIN TON T-Pig EUTRO Health Status
SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE Index
HUM-1 2012 30.8 84.2 45.0 0.0 12.0 34.4 Moderate-Fair
HUM-3 2012 41.0 83.4 52.8 0.0 16.0 38.6 Moderate-Fair
HUM-5 2012 17.5 89.3 47.3 0.0 0.0 30.8 Fair-Poor
HUM-7 2012 11.3 69.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 17.7 Fair-Poor
HUM-8 2012 1.0 87.1 38.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 Fair-Poor
LONG-5 2012 0.0 70.9 30.4 0.0 0.0 20.3 Fair-Poor
LONG-6 2012 0.0 64.1 39.3 0.0 21.9 25.1 Fair-Poor
MH1 2012 65.3 100.0 3.0 17.6 3.1 37.8 Moderate-Fair
MH2 2012 83.2 100.0 20.1 68.4 100.0 74.3 High
MH3 2012 84.8 100.0 27.7 99.0 100.0 82.3 High
MH4 2012 100.0 100.0 53.8 100.0 100.0 90.8 High
MP1 2012 55.3 84.6 36.2 0.0 0.0 35.2 Moderate-Fair
MP2 2012 55.4 85.3 23.2 0.0 0.0 32.8 Moderate-Fair
MP3 2012 31.0 100.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 27.5 Fair-Poor
NAN1 2012 100.0 76.4 40.2 100.0 79.4 79.2 High
NAN2 2012 98.9 92.6 32.5 89.4 83.0 79.3 High
NAN3 2012 85.2 96.0 50.7 63.0 76.7 74.3 High
NAN4 2012 98.5 99.8 57.2 88.3 84.0 85.5 High
NAN5 2012 65.1 90.5 42.3 64.9 0.0 52.6 Moderate
NAN6 2012 79.2 80.8 46.5 41.9 38.5 57.4 Moderate
NAN7 2012 75.0 95.0 39.4 81.3 72.6 72.7 High-Moderate
NAN8 2012 71.4 76.1 39.3 84.7 85.1 71.3 High
SES 1 2012 84.2 80.4 43.6 0.0 45.4 50.7 Moderate
SES 2 2012 88.9 80.4 14.1 17.4 55.7 51.3 Moderate
SES 3 2012 95.4 80.4 36.7 17.8 71.3 60.3 Moderate
SES 4 2012 93.6 80.4 30.2 0.3 66.2 54.2 Moderate
High Quality = >69; High/Moderate = 61-69; Moderate = 39-61; Moderate/Fair = 31-39;
Fair/Poor = <31
Table 7a. 2012 Trophic Health Index Scores and status for water quality monitoring stations in
Nantucket estuaries based upon open water embayment (not salt marsh) habitat quality
scales. Index calculated with Dissolved Oxygen data (described in Howes et. al., 1999 at
www.savebuzzardsbay.org).
28
ID
Secchi
SCORE
Low20%
Oxsat
SCORE
DIN
SCORE
TON
SCORE
T-Pig
SCORE
EUTRO
Index Health Status
HUM1 54.0 41.6 100.0 4.3 2.4 40.4 Moderate
HUM3 48.5 49.6 75.2 8.2 0.0 36.3 Moderate-Fair
HUM5 25.9 41.7 77.7 0.0 0.0 29.0 Fair-Poor
HUM7 22.4 14.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 Fair-Poor
HUM8 12.2 42.6 55.2 0.0 0.0 22.0 Fair-Poor
LONG5 0.6 55.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 Moderate-Fair
LONG6 4.6 55.8 73.9 0.0 0.0 26.8 Fair-Poor
MH1 59.0 0.3 44.5 5.4 0.0 21.8 Fair-Poor
MH2 72.8 22.3 70.7 50.3 5.4 44.3 Moderate
MH3 83.3 40.5 72.7 92.1 40.5 65.8 High-Moderate
MH4 100.0 40.5 72.4 100.0 71.8 77.0 High
MP1 54.8 37.1 63.7 0.0 0.0 31.1 Moderate-Fair
MP2 70.3 55.6 47.9 0.0 0.0 34.8 Moderate-Fair
MP3 47.1 42.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 20.6 Fair-Poor
NAN1 100.0 23.0 66.7 90.1 76.1 71.2 High
NAN2 100.0 20.9 87.2 100.0 51.8 72.0 High
NAN3 95.5 33.4 66.4 66.3 23.0 56.9 Moderate
NAN4 100.0 32.8 68.0 100.0 73.0 74.8 High
NAN5 74.8 12.5 62.1 54.1 0.0 40.7 Moderate
NAN6 81.7 16.6 69.8 49.9 0.0 43.6 Moderate
NAN7 78.1 27.1 72.3 70.4 25.6 54.7 Moderate
NAN8 86.7 27.5 62.3 100.0 77.6 70.8 High
SESA1 62.1 42.3 82.2 0.0 18.5 41.0 Moderate
SESA2 54.3 42.3 71.4 0.0 27.4 39.1 Moderate
SESA3 55.9 42.0 70.2 0.0 22.7 38.2 Moderate-Fair
SESA4 54.8 42.5 71.3 0.0 32.9 40.3 Moderate
High Quality = >69; High/Moderate = 61-69; Moderate = 39-61; Moderate/Fair = 31-39;
Fair/Poor = <31
Table 7b. 2010 Trophic Health Index Scores and status for water quality monitoring stations in
Nantucket estuaries based upon open water embayment (not salt marsh) habitat quality
scales. Index calculated with Dissolved Oxygen data (described in Howes et. al., 1999 at
www.savebuzzardsbay.org).
29
Station ID Year Secchi DIN TON T-Pig EUTRO Health Status
SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE Index
HUM-1 2012 30.8 45.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 Fair-Poor
HUM-3 2012 41.0 52.8 0.0 16.0 27.4 Fair-Poor
HUM-5 2012 17.5 47.3 0.0 0.0 16.2 Fair-Poor
HUM-7 2012 11.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 4.8 Fair-Poor
HUM-8 2012 1.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Fair-Poor
LONG-5 2012 0.0 30.4 0.0 0.0 7.6 Fair-Poor
LONG-6 2012 0.0 39.3 0.0 21.9 15.3 Fair-Poor
MH1 2012 65.3 3.0 17.6 3.1 22.3 Fair-Poor
MH2 2012 83.2 20.1 68.4 100.0 67.9 High-Moderate
MH3 2012 84.8 27.7 99.0 100.0 77.9 High
MH4 2012 100.0 53.8 100.0 100.0 88.4 High
MP1 2012 55.3 36.2 0.0 0.0 22.9 Fair-Poor
MP2 2012 55.4 23.2 0.0 0.0 19.7 Fair-Poor
MP3 2012 31.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 9.4 Fair-Poor
NAN1 2012 100.0 40.2 100.0 79.4 79.9 High
NAN2 2012 98.9 32.5 89.4 83.0 76.0 High
NAN3 2012 85.2 50.7 63.0 76.7 68.9 High-Moderate
NAN4 2012 98.5 57.2 88.3 84.0 82.0 High
NAN5 2012 65.1 42.3 64.9 0.0 43.1 Moderate
NAN6 2012 79.2 46.5 41.9 38.5 51.5 Moderate
NAN7 2012 75.0 39.4 81.3 72.6 67.1 High-Moderate
NAN8 2012 71.4 39.3 84.7 85.1 70.1 High
SES 1 2012 84.2 43.6 0.0 45.4 43.3 Moderate
SES 2 2012 88.9 14.1 17.4 55.7 44.1 Moderate
SES 3 2012 95.4 36.7 17.8 71.3 55.3 Moderate
SES 4 2012 93.6 30.2 0.3 66.2 47.6 Moderate
High Quality = >69; High/Moderate = 61-69; Moderate = 39-61; Moderate/Fair = 31-39;
Fair/Poor = <31
Table 8a. 2012Trophic Health Index Scores and status for water quality monitoring stations
in Nantucket estuaries based upon open water embayment (not salt marsh) habitat quality
scales. Index calculated without Dissolved Oxygen data (described in Howes et. al., 1999
at www.savebuzzardsbay.org).
30
ID
Secchi
SCORE
DIN
SCORE
TON
SCORE
T-Pig
SCORE
EUTRO
Index Health Status
HUM1 54.0 100.0 4.3 2.4 40.1 Moderate
HUM3 48.5 75.2 8.2 0.0 33.0 Moderate-Fair
HUM5 25.9 77.7 0.0 0.0 25.9 Fair-Poor
HUM7 22.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.7 Fair-Poor
HUM8 12.2 55.2 0.0 0.0 16.9 Fair-Poor
LONG5 0.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 Fair-Poor
LONG6 4.6 73.9 0.0 0.0 19.6 Fair-Poor
MH1 59.0 44.5 5.4 0.0 27.2 Fair-Poor
MH2 72.8 70.7 50.3 5.4 49.8 Moderate
MH3 83.3 72.7 92.1 40.5 72.1 High
MH4 100.0 72.4 100.0 71.8 86.1 High
MP1 54.8 63.7 0.0 0.0 29.6 Fair-Poor
MP2 70.3 47.9 0.0 0.0 29.6 Fair-Poor
MP3 47.1 12.9 0.0 0.0 15.0 Fair-Poor
NAN1 100.0 66.7 90.1 76.1 83.3 High
NAN2 100.0 87.2 100.0 51.8 84.7 High
NAN3 95.5 66.4 66.3 23.0 62.8 High-Moderate
NAN4 100.0 68.0 100.0 73.0 85.3 High
NAN5 74.8 62.1 54.1 0.0 47.8 Moderate
NAN6 81.7 69.8 49.9 0.0 50.4 Moderate
NAN7 78.1 72.3 70.4 25.6 61.6 High-Moderate
NAN8 86.7 62.3 100.0 77.6 81.7 High
SESA1 62.1 82.2 0.0 18.5 40.7 Moderate
SESA2 54.3 71.4 0.0 27.4 38.3 Moderate-Fair
SESA3 55.9 70.2 0.0 22.7 37.2 Moderate-Fair
SESA4 54.8 71.3 0.0 32.9 39.8 Moderate
High Quality = >69; High/Moderate = 61-69; Moderate = 39-61;
Moderate/Fair = 31-39; Fair/Poor = <31
Table 8b. 2010Trophic Health Index Scores and status for water quality monitoring stations
in Nantucket estuaries based upon open water embayment (not salt marsh) habitat quality
scales. Index calculated without Dissolved Oxygen data (described in Howes et. al., 1999
at www.savebuzzardsbay.org).
31
Figure 10. Madaket Harbor Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair of triangles). Index was calculated with
(left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010-8
events, 2012-4 events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality.
Station 4
Station 3
Station 1
Station 5
Station 6
Station 2
Bay Health Index
Top 2010
Btm 2012
Left With DO
Right Without DO
32
Figure 11. Nantucket Harbor Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair of triangles). Index was calculated with
(left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010, 10
events; 2012, 7 events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality.
NAN - 4
NAN - 3
NAN - 6
NAN - 2
NAN - 5 NAN - 8 (The Cut)
( Childrens Beach) NAN - 7 NAN - 1
NAN - 4
NAN - 3
NAN - 6
NAN - 2
NAN - 5 NAN - 8 (The Cut)
( Childrens Beach) NAN - 7 NAN - 1
Bay Health Index
Top – 2010
Btm – 2012
Left With DO
Right Without DO
33
Figure 12. Sesachacha Pond Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair
of triangles). Index was calculated with (left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including
dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010, 5 events; 2012, 4
events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 1
Bay Health Index
Top – 2010
Btm – 2012
Left With DO
Right Without DO
34
Figure 13. Hummock Pond Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair of
triangles). Index was calculated with (left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including
dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010, 5 events; 2012, 4
events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality
Figure 13. Hummock Pond Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair of
triangles). Index was calculated with (left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including
dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010, 5 events; 2012, 4
events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality.
Station 3
Station 1
Station 5
Station 8
Station 7
Station 2
Station 4
Station 6
Bay Health Index
Top – 2010
Btm – 2012
Left With DO
Right Without DO
Station 9
35
Figure 14b. Miacomet Pond Eutrophication Index 20
Figure 14. Miacomet Pond Eutrophication Index 2010 (top pair of triangles) and 2012 (bottom pair of
triangles). Index was calculated with (left of each pair) and without (right of each pair) including
dissolved oxygen, due to the limited amount of oxygen measurements (2010, 5 events; 2012, 4
events). Colors indicate High (Blue), Moderate (Yellow), Fair/Poor (Red) nutrient related water quality.
MP 3
MP 2
MP 1
Bay Health Index
Top – 2010
Btm – 2012
Left With DO
Right Without DO
36
APPENDIX A
Results of Summer 2011 Water Quality Monitoring
Samples Collected by the Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department
Samples Analyzed by the Wampanoag Environmental Laboratory
37
Nantucket Harbor (NAN 1-4)
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
NAN1 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 33.7 0.69 <0.0015 <0.05 0.260 <0.05 3.7 2.1 0.06
NAN1 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.3 0.09 0.0028 <0.05 0.710 <0.05 4.4 2.1 0.42
NAN1 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.3 0.42 0.0031 0.02 0.050 <0.05 5.8 1.3 0.17
NAN1 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.6 0.08 0.0022 0.02 0.230 <0.015 5.4 1.4 0.42
NAN1 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 34.6 0.16 <<0.210 <6.1 1.1 1.63
NAN1 SURFACE 6/9/2011 33.4 0.49 0.006 <0.05 0.890 <0.05 5.6 1.2 0.19
NAN1 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.1 0.05 0.0046 <0.05 0.620 <0.05 5.3 2.1 0.49
NAN1 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.3 0.61 0.0048 0.03 0.050 <0.05 5.8 1.3 0.38
NAN1 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.4 0.09 0.0027 0.03 0.140 <0.015 5.4 1.6 0.4
NAN1 SURFACE 9/14/2011 34.4 0.14 <<0.110 <4.2 1.6 1.62
NAN2 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.2 0.79 0.0046 <0.05 0.220 <0.05 6 3.2 0.05
NAN2 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.7 0.08 0.0009 <0.05 0.28 <0.05 3.2 2.4 0.43
NAN2 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.4 0.19 0.0024 0.03 0.12 <0.05 8.6 2.8 0.057
NAN2 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 35 0.05 0.0022 0.02 0.24 <0.015 8 2.1 0.35
NAN2 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 34.7 0.31 <<0.14 <4.1 2.3 2.23
NAN2 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.2 0.84 0.0095 <0.05 0.410 <0.05 5.2 2.6 0.21
NAN2 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.6 0.05 0.0019 <0.05 0.400 <0.05 7.6 3.6 0.17
NAN2 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.5 0.11 0.0045 0.01 0.940 <0.05 7.6 1.4 0.3
NAN2 SURFACE 7/20/2011 35 0.05 0.0013 0.04 0.190 <0.015 8.2 2.1 0.49
NAN2 SURFACE 9/14/2011 34.7 0.29 <0.06 0.160 <7.3 1.4 1.38
NAN3 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.5 0.41 0.003 <0.05 0.660 <0.05 5.1 4.1 0.12
NAN3 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.8 0.04 0.0031 <0.05 0.860 <0.05 7 4.1 0.4
NAN3 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.9 0.16 0.0027 0.03 0.110 <0.05 6.6 1.2 0.68
NAN3 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.9 0.09 0.0033 0.05 0.130 <0.015 7.1 2.2 0.55
NAN3 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 35.1 0.11 <<0.090 <5 1.3 1.91
NAN3 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.4 0.68 0.0065 <0.05 0.14 <0.05 5.7 3.2 0.14
NAN3 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.9 0.06 0.0029 <0.05 0.140 <0.05 41.1 21.6 0.02
NAN3 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.9 0.24 0.0021 0.03 0.140 <0.05 8.4 3.6 0.62
NAN3 SURFACE 7/20/2011 35.1 0.06 0.0036 0.02 0.160 <0.015 8.4 2.3 0.59
NAN3 SURFACE 9/14/2011 35 0.26 <<0.130 <5.2 1.6 1.53
NAN4 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.3 0.21 0.0052 <0.05 0.610 <0.05 4.2 2.3 <0.05
NAN4 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.8 0.09 0.0014 <0.05 0.36 <0.05 4 2 0.45
NAN4 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.8 0.22 0.0024 0.02 0.81 <0.05 3.7 1.7 0.6
NAN4 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.6 0.05 0.00334 0.04 0.66 <0.015 2.8 <0.48
NAN4 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 34.3 0.05 <<0.17 <5.3 3.2 1.52
NAN4 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.2 0.42 0.0067 <0.05 0.110 <0.05 4 2 0.08
NAN4 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.8 0.06 0.0008 <0.05 0.490 <0.05 4.7 2.6 0.37
NAN4 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.8 0.21 0.0018 0.03 0.130 <0.05 3.6 1.9 0.82
NAN4 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.5 0.05 0.0021 0.02 0.220 <0.015 2.9 <0.26
NAN4 SURFACE 9/14/2011 35.3 0.09 <<0.220 <6.6 2.1 1.45
38
Nantucket Harbor (NAN 5-9)
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
NAN5 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.3 0.39 0.0052 <0.05 0.32 <0.05 3.5 2.6 0.06
NAN5 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 33.7 0.08 0.0021 <0.05 0.200 <0.05 7 2.6 0.42
NAN5 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.5 0.18 0.0031 0.03 0.240 <0.05 7.1 3.3 0.4
NAN5 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.4 0.05 0.001 0.02 0.120 <0.015 7.2 2.3 0.64
NAN5 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 35 0.24 <<0.050 <8 3.1 1.82
NAN5 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.1 0.64 0.0064 <0.05 0.110 <0.05 4.5 2.6 <0.05
NAN5 SURFACE 6/24/2011 33.5 0.14 0.0035 <0.05 0.240 <0.05 6.3 3.1 0.28
NAN5 SURFACE 7/5/2011 33.9 0.14 0.0022 0.03 0.160 <0.05 6.5 2.1 0.4
NAN5 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.1 0.07 0.0006 0.05 0.420 <0.015 7.2 2.4 0.45
NAN5 SURFACE 9/14/2011 34.9 0.17 <0.06 0.050 <8.7 3.6 1.32
NAN6 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.5 0.24 0.0047 <0.05 0.050 <0.05 4.2 2 0.09
NAN6 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34 0.11 0.0027 <0.05 0.22 <0.05 5.7 2.8 0.32
NAN6 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.4 0.14 0.0019 0.02 0.23 <0.05 7.3 4.8 0.37
NAN6 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.5 0.08 0.002 0.03 0.31 <0.015 7.2 1.3 0.31
NAN6 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 34.9 0.29 <<0.09 <5.9 3 1.9
NAN6 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.4 0.63 0.0053 <0.05 0.420 <0.05 4.7 1.9 0.11
NAN6 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34 0.09 0.003 <0.05 0.890 <0.05 6.7 2.4 0.36
NAN6 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.3 0.09 0.0053 0.04 0.190 <0.05 6.9 2.6 0.41
NAN6 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.5 0.06 0.0013 0.03 0.210 <0.015 6.4 1.6 0.51
NAN6 SURFACE 9/14/2011 34.9 0.11 <<0.160 <9 4.2 1.62
NAN7 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.6 0.82 0.0043 <0.05 0.940 <0.05 3 3.2 0.08
NAN7 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.4 0.07 0.002 <0.05 0.080 <0.05 4.8 2 0.34
NAN7 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.5 0.39 0.0023 0.03 0.630 <0.05 6.4 1.1 0.55
NAN7 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.7 0.05 0.0031 0.03 0.390 <0.015 6.8 2.1 0.2
NAN7 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 35 0.14 <0.06 0.100 <6 2.7 2.16
NAN7 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.5 0.51 0.0049 <0.05 0.130 <0.05 5.3 3.6 <0.05
NAN7 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.4 0.11 0.002 <0.05 0.090 <0.05 5.1 2 0.67
NAN7 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.4 0.26 0.0031 0.04 0.110 <0.05 6.3 1.6 0.45
NAN7 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.4 0.07 0.0028 0.05 0.240 <0.015 7 2 0.53
NAN7 SURFACE 9/14/2011 35.1 0.16 <<0.130 <6.6 2.8 1.58
NAN8 BOTTOM 6/9/2011 34.6 0.24 0.0054 <0.05 0.060 <0.05 5.5 3.6 0.09
NAN8 BOTTOM 6/24/2011 34.5 0.11 0.0022 <0.05 0.16 <0.05 4.5 3 0.29
NAN8 BOTTOM 7/5/2011 34.8 0.33 0.0046 0.03 0.18 <0.05 4.4 1.1 0.53
NAN8 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 26.5 0.05 0.0024 0.04 0.11 <0.015 4.9 1 0.49
NAN8 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 35.2 0.05 <<0.15 <5.8 1.7 2
NAN8 SURFACE 6/9/2011 34.6 0.66 0.0039 <0.05 0.630 <0.05 3.9 2.1 0.14
NAN8 SURFACE 6/24/2011 34.6 0.09 0.0023 <0.05 0.140 <0.05 6.6 3.1 0.54
NAN8 SURFACE 7/5/2011 34.5 0.24 0.0035 0.03 0.210 <0.05 6.4 2.3 0.47
NAN8 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.8 0.05 0.0039 0.02 0.270 <0.015 4.2 1 0.6
NAN8 SURFACE 9/14/2011 35.2 0.05 <0.09 0.200 <5.8 1.8 2.39
NAN9 BOTTOM 7/20/2011 34.4 0.05 0.0026 0.03 0.09 <0.015 6.2 2.3 0.5
NAN9 BOTTOM 9/14/2011 34.9 0.22 <<0.05 <5.3 2.3 1.45
NAN9 SURFACE 7/20/2011 34.4 0.05 0.0018 0.03 0.08 <0.015 6.1 2.3 0.42
NAN9 SURFACE 9/14/2011 34.8 0.21 <<0.05 <4.8 2.2 2.12
39
Madaket Harbor
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
MH1 BOTTOM 7/13/2011 33.6 0.62 0.0016 0.03 0.240 <3.7 1 0.21
MH1 BOTTOM 9/13/2011 30.6 0.17 0.0037 0.01 0.210 <13.2 8.1 1.58
MH1 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 2.7 0.26 0.0046 <0.050 <7.5 3.6 1.85
MH1 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 31 0.14 0.0034 <0.05 0.200 <0.05 5.2 3.1 0.24
MH1 SURFACE 7/13/2011 32.2 0.49 0.0017 0.01 0.110 <3.5 1.8 0.45
MH1 SURFACE 9/13/2011 25.4 0.23 0.0054 0.02 0.140 <11.9 6.2 1.67
MH1 SURFACE 9/27/2011 2.7 0.14 0.0046 <0.110 <7.1 4.1 1.3
MH1 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 30.9 0.05 0.0048 <0.05 0.190 <0.05 6 4.8 0.39
MH2 BOTTOM 7/13/2011 34.1 0.31 0.0032 0.02 0.19 <3.6 1.4 0.23
MH2 BOTTOM 9/13/2011 34.9 0.32 0.003 0.01 0.160 <6.5 3.2 1.75
MH2 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 3.2 0.09 0.0029 <0.070 <6.1 4.3 1.46
MH2 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 33.3 0.05 0.0032 <0.05 0.160 <0.05 5.1 1.6 0.36
MH2 SURFACE 7/13/2011 34.1 0.11 0.0026 0.02 0.160 <3.2 <0.29
MH2 SURFACE 9/13/2011 34.9 0.41 0.0032 0.1 0.180 <6.1 4.1 2.22
MH2 SURFACE 9/27/2011 3.2 0.11 0.0029 <0.09 <4.8 2.1 1.44
MH2 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 33.2 0.05 0.004 <0.05 0.240 <0.05 3.9 2.6 0.32
MH3 BOTTOM 7/13/2011 34.5 0.14 0.0029 0.03 0.280 <2.5 1 0.46
MH3 BOTTOM 9/13/2011 35.2 0.08 0.0042 0.07 0.060 <7.3 2.3 1.73
MH3 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 1.7 0.24 0.005 <0.080 <10.1 4.6 1.51
MH3 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 34.1 0.18 0.0043 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 6.8 4.1 0.33
MH3 SURFACE 7/13/2011 34.4 0.05 0.002 0.02 0.210 <2.7 1.2 0.21
MH3 SURFACE 9/13/2011 35.1 0.11 0.0042 0.01 0.090 <7.7 2.3 1.64
MH3 SURFACE 9/27/2011 1.6 0.06 0.003 <0.100 <10.5 4.9 2.57
MH3 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 34.1 0.21 0.0036 <0.05 0.090 <0.05 4.2 2 1.18
MH4 BOTTOM 7/13/2011 34.5 0.12 0.0043 0.02 0.09 <2.3 <0.41
MH4 BOTTOM 9/13/2011 35 0.09 0.0038 0.02 0.130 <5 2.5 1.75
MH4 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 34.1 0.05 0.0034 <0.05 0.130 <0.05 5.7 1.9 0.35
MH4 SURFACE 7/13/2011 34.5 0.09 0.0022 0.03 0.150 <2.3 1 0.36
MH4 SURFACE 9/13/2011 35.1 0.16 0.0037 0.01 0.13 <12.5 6.4 1.7
MH4 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 34.1 0.05 0.0045 <0.05 0.140 <0.05 11.1 2.6 0.18
Long Pond
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
LONG5 6/9/2011 14 0.42 0.0054 <0.05 0.91 0.13 13.9 4.2 1.9
LONG5 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 0.09 0.09 0.0066 <0.220 <18 8.8 1.87
LONG5 MID 7/12/2011 16.2 0.09 0.0013 0.02 0.09 0.01 11.1 4.1 0.15
LONG5 SURFACE 9/28/2011 0.12 0.12 0.0091 <0.140 <18.2 9.3 1.34
LONG6 6/9/2011 16.6 0.86 0.0062 <0.05 0.240 <0.05 18.6 9.6 2.6
LONG6 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 0.09 0.09 0.0013 <0.090 <15.2 3.2 1.44
LONG6 MID 7/12/2011 17.4 0.09 <0.02 0.120 0.02 8.6 3.2 0.55
LONG6 SURFACE 9/28/2011 0.24 0.24 0.0092 <0.160 <14.6 7.1 1.5
40
Sesachacha Pond
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
SESA1 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 13.8 0.14 0.016 <0.090 <10.9 2.4 0.76
SESA1 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 13.6 0.15 <<0.36 <18.5 5.9 1.53
SESA1 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 13.7 0.13 0.004 <0.16 <8.3 3 3.1
SESA1 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 13.8 0.23 0.003 <0.05 0.210 <0.05 12.2 4.9 0.44
SESA1 SURFACE 7/6/2011 13.8 0.28 0.008 <0.14 <12.5 2.5 0.67
SESA1 SURFACE 8/31/2011 13.6 0.16 0.0056 <0.220 0 17.5 5.3 1.09
SESA1 SURFACE 9/27/2011 13.7 0.16 0.0042 <0.240 <8.9 3.2 1.99
SESA1 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 13.8 0.14 0.0042 <0.05 0.190 <0.05 11.4 3.6 0.41
SESA2 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 13.8 0.19 0.014 <0.240 <12 1.8 0.57
SESA2 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 13.6 0.13 0.0046 <0.200 0.01 17.9 7.3 2.85
SESA2 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 13.9 0.1 0.16 <0.060 <10.6 2 1.96
SESA2 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 13.9 0.14 0.0057 <0.05 0.390 <0.05 10.3 4.1 0.3
SESA2 SURFACE 7/6/2011 13.8 0.14 0.021 <0.330 <12.1 2.1 0.59
SESA2 SURFACE 8/31/2011 13.6 0.22 0.002 <0.140 0.01 18.4 8.6 2.68
SESA2 SURFACE 9/27/2011 13.9 0.29 0.22 <0.090 <12.2 1.6 2.27
SESA2 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 13.8 0.16 0.0039 <0.05 0.640 <0.05 10.3 6.1 0.52
SESA3 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 13.8 0.14 0.042 <0.640 <12.2 1.2 0.49
SESA3 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 13.5 0.1 0.0023 <0.09 <16.7 6.2 2.89
SESA3 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 13.9 0.09 0.004 <0.06 <12.2 1.4 2.02
SESA3 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 13.9 0.05 0.004 <0.05 0.090 <0.05 10.9 2.1 0.5
SESA3 SURFACE 7/6/2011 13.7 0.23 0.036 <0.41 <12.5 1.7 0.59
SESA3 SURFACE 8/31/2011 13.5 0.09 <<0.11 <18.4 7.4 3.22
SESA3 SURFACE 9/27/2011 13.9 0.22 0.0031 <0.11 <11.7 2.2 1.81
SESA3 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 13.9 0.05 0.0046 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 11.2 3.6 0.38
SESA4 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 13.8 0.31 0.015 <0.080 <12.4 2.1 0.51
SESA4 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 13.4 0.14 0.0026 <0.09 0 19.5 7.5 3.06
SESA4 BOTTOM 9/27/2011 13.9 0.15 0.006 <0.05 <11 2 1.83
SESA4 BOTTOM 6/16-6/17 13.9 0.1 0.0064 <0.05 0.100 <0.05 11 4.6 0.42
SESA4 SURFACE 7/6/2011 13.8 0.39 0.033 <0.180 <12.5 1.1 1.14
SESA4 SURFACE 8/31/2011 13.5 0.05 0.0044 <0.14 0 17.4 7.1 3.04
SESA4 SURFACE 9/27/2011 13.9 0.17 0.002 <0.05 <10.2 1.9 3.52
SESA4 SURFACE 6/16-6/17 13.9 0.09 0.0064 <0.05 0.110 <0.05 11.3 4.2 0.52
Miacomet Pond
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
MP1 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 0.2 0.19 0.02 <0.240 0.27 11.9 2.8 0.46
MP1 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 2.5 0.29 0.0062 <0.160 0.01 25.4 9.8 0.39
MP1 SURFACE 7/6/2011 0.2 0.14 0.0019 <0.460 0.25 8.9 1.6 0.46
MP1 SURFACE 8/31/2011 1.9 0.14 0.0024 <0.240 0.01 20.6 9.2 0.46
MP2 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 0.2 0.12 0.041 <0.31 0.33 27.2 1.9 0.37
MP2 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 5.1 0.08 0.0048 <0.250 0.05 16.2 7.3 2.17
MP2 SURFACE 7/6/2011 0.2 0.05 0.056 <0.290 0.43 25.1 2.4 0.49
MP2 SURFACE 8/31/2011 1.4 0.08 <<0.13 0.02 20.1 8.6 0.13
MP3 BOTTOM 7/6/2011 0.1 0.21 0.011 <0.260 <7.6 2.1 0.39
MP3 BOTTOM 8/31/2011 2.2 0.18 0.0015 <0.140 0.05 22.5 6.9 0.4
MP3 SURFACE 7/6/2011 0.1 0.14 0.022 <0.430 <7.4 1.5 0.33
MP3 SURFACE 8/31/2011 1.6 0.21 0.0027 <0.180 0 15.5 4.2 1.06
41
Hummock Pond
Lab ID Sample Date Salinity
Particulate
organic
nitrogen Nitrite Nitrate
KJEHLDAHL
NITROGEN Ammonium CHLOROPHYLL a Pheophytin-a Orthophosphate
(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
HUM1 BOTTOM 6/20/2011 2.1 0.07 0.0009 <0.05 0.100 0.05 7.8 1.8 0.34
HUM1 BOTTOM 7/12/2011 1.8 0.26 0.0014 0.01 0.210 0.01 7.3 1.6 0.31
HUM1 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 4.7 0.16 0.0012 <0.190 <6.6 2.9 1.84
HUM1 SURFACE 6/20/2011 2.2 0.05 0.0024 <0.05 0.110 <0.05 7.3 2.4 0.36
HUM1 SURFACE 7/12/2011 1.8 0.31 <0.01 0.140 0.03 7.2 2.1 0.14
HUM1 SURFACE 9/28/2011 4.6 0.22 0.0014 <0.080 <7.6 3.1 1.57
HUM3 BOTTOM 6/20/2011 2.1 0.06 0.0038 <0.05 0.050 <0.05 6.8 2.1 0.38
HUM3 BOTTOM 7/12/2011 1.8 0.33 <0.01 0.16 0.01 7.1 2.4 0.26
HUM3 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 4.3 0.09 0.0018 <0.220 <13.4 3.9 1.51
HUM3 SURFACE 6/20/2011 2.1 0.05 <0.0015 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 7.5 3.6 0.47
HUM3 SURFACE 7/12/2011 1.8 0.18 0.0009 0.01 0.090 0.01 6.8 3.9 0.01
HUM3 SURFACE 9/28/2011 4.1 0.13 0.0016 <0.090 <14.8 4.6 1.58
HUM5 BOTTOM 6/20/2011 1.5 0.05 <0.0015 <0.05 0.100 <0.05 9.4 3.9 0.38
HUM5 BOTTOM 7/12/2011 1.1 0.29 <0.02 0.050 0.05 13.3 6.2 0.11
HUM5 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 3.5 0.14 0.0016 <0.050 <20.7 7.3 1.52
HUM5 SURFACE 6/20/2011 1.5 0.14 <0.0015 <0.05 0.140 <0.05 10.2 4.3 0.32
HUM5 SURFACE 7/12/2011 1.1 0.16 <0.01 0.230 0.03 11.7 6.6 0.21
HUM5 SURFACE 9/28/2011 3.4 0.27 0.0018 <0.130 <21.5 8.6 1.93
HUM7 BOTTOM 6/20/2011 0.7 0.41 0.001 <0.05 0.090 <0.05 22.4 8.6 0.23
HUM7 BOTTOM 7/12/2011 0.6 0.23 0.0016 0.02 0.12 0 16.1 6.8 0.48
HUM7 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 2.1 0.29 0.0008 <0.120 <51.5 13.6 3.77
HUM7 SURFACE 6/20/2011 0.7 0.12 0.0001 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 20.2 10.1 0.54
HUM7 SURFACE 7/12/2011 0.6 0.34 <0.01 0.140 <17 7.1 0.26
HUM7 SURFACE 9/28/2011 2 0.29 0.0049 <0.08 <64.3 18.1 2.85
HUM8 BOTTOM 6/20/2011 1.3 0.08 <0.0015 <0.05 0.040 <0.05 11.2 6.2 0.35
HUM8 BOTTOM 7/12/2011 0.9 0.18 <0.02 0.050 0.1 19.6 8.1 0.22
HUM8 BOTTOM 9/28/2011 3.4 0.16 0.0044 <0.090 <21.2 6.7 1.68
HUM8 SURFACE 6/20/2011 1.2 0.05 <0.0015 <0.05 0.060 <0.05 11.4 6.4 0.28
HUM8 SURFACE 7/12/2011 0.8 0.31 <0.02 0.050 0.08 19.1 8.2 0.15
HUM8 SURFACE 9/28/2011 3.3 0.24 0.0065 <0.110 <25.5 8.1 1.83