Acknowledgements

The Green Mountain Conservation Group would like to acknowledge a number of people, organizations and associations who have been instrumental in the creation and birth of the water quality monitoring program. Without the knowledge, advice and continual support of so many individuals and organizations, the program’s first year could not have been so successful. More importantly, it is through the commitments and efforts of so many, that collectively we are able to ensure the protection of the Ossipee watershed and its natural resources for future generations. GMCG would like to thank the following:

Saco River Corridor Commission

Dennis Finn, Executive Director; Lynn Parker, Water Quality Assurance Officer; Roy Nelles, Field Coordinator

Chocorua Lake Association

Dwight Baldwin, Neely Lanou, David Little, Toby Page

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension

Robert Craycraft; Michelle Daley; Dr. William McDowell; Jeff Merriam; Jeff Schloss

Department of Environmental Services

Eric Williams

Volunteers

John Cooley; Larry Leavitt; Lori Lenart; Mary and Sepp Meier; Harry Merrow; John Mersefelder; Patty O’Day Senior; Deb Piekut; Ted and Bev Stainer; Caroline Snyder; Claes Thelemarck; Fred Van Cor; Jennifer Hocking Wiley

Effingham, Freedom, Madison, Ossipee, Sandwich, Tamworth Conservation Commissions, Planning Boards and Selectmen

Executive Summary

The following report summarizes the Green Mountain Conservation Group’s (GMCG) first year of monitoring the water quality of the rivers, streams and tributaries of the Ossipee Watershed. Although the Water Quality Monitoring (WQM) program was presented with many challenges, overall the first year was a success.

We selected 10 test sites in 6 towns in the Watershed. Selections were based in large part on the probable or potential impact of specific land uses on the surface waters. Town officials of Effingham, Freedom, Madison, Ossipee, Sandwich and Tamworth all played a part in selecting the test sites. All site selections were further validated by natural resource experts at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and UNH Cooperative Extension.

The WQM program relied upon the efforts of 15 volunteers who were taught how to collect water samples, use water monitoring equipment and record data. This report identifies the parameters that were tested for and describes what each parameter indicates. Tables and graphs are used to summarize the raw data.

A comprehensive assessment of the health of the water can only be achieved by observing water quality trends and these trends can only be established through systematic measurements over a period of many years. Since this was the pilot year for the WQM program and since there is very little historical data for comparison, we can only make inferences from the results rather than draw firm conclusion.

For example, an abnormally low or high reading could be the result of a specific land use that has compromised the water quality, or it might reflect weather trends or result from human error that has occurred in the testing process. Although we lack the long-term data needed to make comparisons, the data provides an extremely important baseline. This is also helpful in planning for the 2003 WQM program.

Continuing our WQM efforts over a long term period will allow us to observe water quality trends and, in turn, will allow us to eventually draw firm conclusions about the quality of the water based on scientific evidence.

Green Mountain Conservation Group welcomes any comments and suggestions that may arise as a result of the information provided in this report. Since our goal is to ensure the health and well being of the entire Ossipee Watershed community – natural and human – input from you is important as we evaluate our pilot WQM program and seek ways to improve our work.

As you look through this report please consider how we might be able to work together to maintain and improve the health and well being of the Ossipee Watershed and all who call it home.

I. Introduction

A. Green Mountain Conservation Group

Since 1997, the Green Mountain Conservation Group (GMCG), a non-profit charitable organization, has dedicated its efforts to natural resource conservation in the Ossipee Watershed. Through education, research, advocacy and land conservation we strive to promote an awareness and appreciation of our watershed’s natural resources and encourage a commitment to protect them.

Our guiding principle is to present objective information in a non-confrontational format enabling the public to make informed natural resource decisions. Our goals include:

1) Education – To foster an appreciation of the natural resources of the Ossipee Watershed by involving the public in activities such as monthly field trips, panel discussions or slide presentations. Green Mountain Conservation Group also publishes a quarterly newsletter, conducts symposia on special issues, and hosts an annual public event called Watershed Weekend, featuring information and activities of general interest.

2) Research – To gather background information and where appropriate, scientific information, including sponsoring scientific research, to inform GMCG’s educational and advocacy efforts.

3) Land Conservation – To encourage voluntary land conservation for the protection of water resources, wildlife habitat, sustainable forestry and agriculture and quality of life.

4) Advocacy – To present objective information with the belief that informed citizens will make good judgments about our unique watershed resources and to encourage individual and small group activism on resource protection and conservation issues, using common-sense, non-confrontational approaches to resolving problems.

In, 2000, GMCG worked with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension and the Society for the Protection of the New Hampshire Forests to produce a series of Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) maps of each town in the Ossipee Watershed. The NRI maps include information on hydrology, soils of statewide importance, town conservation land, unfragmented land, public water supplies, known and potential contamination sites as well as co-occurrences of important resources. Copies of these maps were provided to each town in the Watershed and are displayed at the town halls for public use.

The WQM program grew out of the NRI mapping project as a way to further study our natural resources and as a way to work with the broader community to plan for growth while protecting the environment. Since water does not recognize political boundaries, GMCG decided to work collaboratively on the WQM program with Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC), an organization located in Maine.

Saco River Corridor Commission began its WQM program in 2001 and monitor 27 sites across 20 towns along the Saco River. Together GMCG and SRCC monitor the quality of the water across two states, 26 towns and one watershed. These WQM programs will enable us to study the health of the entire watershed, track changes over time and educate the public.

B. Ossipee Watershed

The Ossipee Watershed is part of the Saco River Basin. Water from the Ossipee Watershed flows into the Saco River and through Maine to the Atlantic Ocean. The Watershed embodies an area of about 379 square miles located in Carroll and Grafton Counties, New Hampshire. It contains 82 lakes and ponds that cover about 9,400 acres spread over 13 towns. At its widest point the Watershed extends approximately 29 miles east and west and 23 miles north and south.

The Watershed’s drainage area is bound by the mountains of the Sandwich Range to the northwest, the Ossipee Mountains to the south and the sandy pine-barren lands of the Ossipee-Freedom-Effingham plains to the east. Elevations in the Watershed range from 375 feet at the Maine-New Hampshire line in Effingham to 4,060 feet on Mount Passaconway in Waterville.

The Ossipee watershed contains New Hampshire’s largest stratified-drift aquifer. These types of aquifers are unique because they recharge more rapidly than any other aquifer. On the other hand, stratified drift aquifers allow pollution and contamination to be carried more rapidly into the underground water supply. Therefore, conservation of the recharge lands is vital to the protection of drinking water supplies in New Hampshire and Maine.

II. The Water Quality Monitoring Program

C. Why Monitor Water Quality?

Water quality data provides an understanding of how land use and underlying geological controls affect the water in our lakes, rives and streams. Because we do not have past data or long term background information to review, it is difficult to determine if current land use practices are negatively affecting water quality. Compiling water quality data will allow us to determine the effectiveness or harmfulness of specific land use practices in maintaining good water quality. These determinations can further guide us in making informed decisions to protect the Watershed’s natural resources.

D. What Did We Monitor For?

There were 17 parameters or testing criteria, in our first water quality monitoring season. Four of the 17 parameters - pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and turbidity were monitored using equipment made and purchased from the HACH Company. The remaining 13 parameters were analyzed through water samples collected and sent to the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension labs down in Durham, NH.

The following charts shows the parameters we monitored; the equipment used for monitoring and the range and accuracy of the equipment used.

Parameter	Equipment Used	Range	Accuracy
pH	SensION 2 Portable pH/ISE Meter	-2.00 to 19.99	+/- 0.2 mV or +\- 0.05% whichever is >
Dissolved Oxygen	SensION 6 Portable DO Meter	0-20 mg/L 0-200% saturation	+\- 1%
Turbidity	Model 2100P Portable Turbidimeter	0-1000 NTU	+\- 2% of reading
Temperature	Non-mercury thermometer	-5 to 45 degrees Celsius	+\- 0.3 degrees Celsius

Parameter	Equipment Used	Parameter	Equipment Used
Chloride (Cl)	Lab Tested	Silica (SiO2)	Lab Tested
Sulfate (SO4-2)	Lab Tested	Ammonium (NH4)	Lab Tested
Nitrate (No3-)	Lab Tested	Dissolved Organic Carbon	Lab Tested
Sodium (Na+)	Lab Tested	Total Dissolved Nitrogen	Lab Tested
Potassium (K+)	Lab Tested	Orthophosphate (PO4)	Lab Tested
Magnesium (Mg+2)	Lab Tested	Total Phosphorus	Lab Tested
Calcium (Ca+2)	Lab Tested

E. Where Did We Perform The Monitoring?

The selection of the water monitoring sites was a collaborative effort between GMCG, and the town officials of Effingham, Freedom, Madison, Ossipee, Sandwich and Tamworth. The primary consideration was how current land uses were affecting nearby surface waters. All test site selections were validated by natural resource experts from UNH and UNH Cooperative Extension.

Ten test site locations were selected with two sites in each town, except for Madison and Sandwich, which have only one test site each. As the program expands in coming years, GMCG hopes to increase the number of test sites. The following summarizes the reasons why each test site was chosen:

Madison – GM1 (Stream flowing out of Pea Porridge Pond, test site located on Route 113.)

This test site was chosen to determine the impact of road run-off, erosion and timber cutting to Pea Porridge Ponds. The stream also flows through the Eidelweiss development, located upstream of test site.

Freedom - GF2 (Stream flowing out of Danforth Pond into Ossipee Lake, test site located on Danforth Bridge on Ossipee Lake Rd.)

This test site was chosen to determine the impact of road run-off. Additional considerations were its accessibility and the fact that a previous study had been conducted.

Freedom – GF3 (Cold Brook, test site located on Maple St. Bridge, upstream of old mill.)

This test site was chosen to determine the impact of road run-off and because the Brook runs through the village of Freedom and is easily accessible. An additional consideration was that the Freedom Conservation Commission has data on this site that had been gathered over a 20 year period.

Sandwich – GS4 (Cold River, test site located on Route 113, right next to the Sandwich – Tamworth border.)

This test site was chosen because of concerns about the gravel pit located upstream of the test site and because the River is situated upstream of Tamworth’s drinking wellhead zone.

Tamworth – GT5 (Bear Camp River, test site located on Route 113 Bridge, right next to The Community School.)

This site was chosen because of accessibility and because it provided a way for the students at The Community School to get involved with water testing. This site is located downstream of Tamworth’s drinking water supply zone.

Tamworth – GT6 (Mill Brook, test site located on Rt. 113 (not roadside) within Earle Remick Natural Area.)

This test site was chosen because Tamworth’s recently closed dump is located upstream and because established and well-maintained trails provide accessibility.

Effingham – GE7 (Pine River, test site located on Elm St. Bridge.)

This site was chosen because it is located downstream of two gravel pits as well as a Department of Environmental Services (DES) designated drinking water zone. This site was also readily accessible.

Effingham – GE8 (South River, test site located just over the Maine border, in Parsonsfield on Plantation Rd. Bridge.)

This site was chosen because it is located downstream of the town’s transfer station and capped landfill, and potential road run-off is a concern as well. This site was also readily accessible.

Ossipee – GO9 (Beech River, test site located on Tuftonboro Rd. Bridge.)

This site was chosen because of accessibility and because it is located upstream of a mill, dump and old tannery.

Ossipee – GO10 (Frenchman Brook, White Pond Rd.)

This site was chosen because Frenchman Brook runs under Route 16 just upstream of the test site, and there is the potential for road run-off impact. In addition, dumping has previously occurred upstream.

F. When Did We Perform The Monitoring?

Monitoring was performed bi-weekly, Tuesdays through Fridays, for twelve weeks. An extra set of equipment was borrowed from SRCC so that GMCG’s testing could take place at up to three locations per day.

Testing began the first full week of May and continued until the first full week of October. On Tuesdays, sites GM-1, GF-2 and GF-3 were tested. On Wednesdays, sites GS-4, GT-5 and GT-6 were tested. On Thursdays, sites GE-7 and GE-8 were tested and on Fridays, sites GO-9 and GO-10 were tested.

A typical volunteer’s day began around 7:00 a.m., although several volunteers began around 5:30 a.m. Testing in the early morning is important because as the day goes on, the sun increased the water temperature and increased water temperature decreases the levels of dissolved oxygen. To get an accurate measurement of the dissolved oxygen, testing should be completed before 9:00 a.m.

The average time that volunteers spent monitoring one site was between 30 to 45 minutes. Each volunteer had a data sheet on which they recorded any site observations, including weather, wildlife observations, water appearance and odor and floatable and bottom observations.

The volunteers also recorded the temperature, pH, turbidity and dissolved oxygen obtained with the portable meters. Once all of these reading were recorded and water samples collected for lab analysis, volunteers returned equipment, field data sheets and water samples to GMCG staff.

There are a number of steps involved in obtaining useable data for each parameter. Appendix B highlights the testing procedures that each volunteer went through on a typical day of monitoring.

III. Outcome of the Program’s First Year

The following pages contain a report that summarizes and interprets the 2002 data. This report was prepared by the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. Appendices C through I consist of charts and graphs showing all of the numerical results and pictorial explanations of the data collected by volunteers over the course of our first season.

IV. Review of Ossippee River Volunteer monitoring data collected during 2002

Report Prepared by the University of New Hampshire

February 2003

Introduction

Long term monitoring of streams and rivers is essential to understand, manage and protect our water resources. Volunteer monitors are an integral part of the monitoring process as they provide a cost effective way to obtain high quality information and generally have a sincere interest in their local water resources. Information that monitors collect in the field can be used to complement the laboratory analysis of the samples they collect.

A volunteer monitoring program has been established for the Ossippee River watershed and volunteers have completed their first year of sampling. The goal of this report is to summarize and interpret data collected by the volunteer monitors during the 2002 monitoring year, and from this interpretation, make some suggestions for future monitoring strategies. This report is a preliminary interpretation and it is our hope that it will stimulate constructive discussion regarding the status of the sample sites and inspire future monitoring efforts. It is likely that local land owners may provide further insight to activities occurring throughout the watershed that may impact water quality.

Methods

Stream samples were collected from ten sites throughout the Ossippee River watershed on a bi-weedly basis from May 7, 2002 to October 11, 2002. Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and turbidity measurements were recorded using field meters. Unfiltered stream water samples were collected and preserved with sulfuric acid for total phosphorus. Total phosphorus was determined spectrophotometrically using the manual ascorbic acid method by Bob Craycraft. Further stream samples were filtered in the field using ashed (450 °C for 4-6 hrs) Whatman GF/F filters (nominal pore size 0.7 mm), collected in acid washed polyethylene (HDPE) bottles and frozen in until analysis (no chemicals were used for preservation). Filtered stream samples were analyzed by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of New Hampsire for dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), nitrate (NO₃^-), ammonium (NH₄⁺), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), phosphate PO₄^-3, silica (SiO₂), anions (chloride (Cl^-) and sulfate (SO₄^-2)) and cations (sodium (Na⁺), potassium (K⁺), calcium (Ca⁺²) and magnesium (Mg⁺²)) using the methods listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Method and instrument used to analyze water quality parameters at the Water Resources Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.

The average of each water quality parameter was computed for each site based on samples collected throughout the entire 2002 sampling season. For each parameter, mean concentrations at each site were plotted in a bar graph with minimum and maximum values shown. Comparisons among sites were made based on average water quality parameters. Changes in water quality parameters over the course of the sampling season were examined for each site.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Precipitation

Precipitation can have a significant impact on water quality. Periods of heavy rainfall, as well as the period of spring snowmelt, often coincide with the increased transport of pollutants and sediments into our surface waters that include lakes, streams and wetlands. Likewise, the water that infiltrates the soil and enters our surface waters as groundwater recharge can be laden with minerals that occur naturally, through the weathering of mineral formations, as well as, from human sources such as septic system effluent, leaching fertilizers and road salt applications.

On the other hand, dry periods are often characterized by a reduction in the overland pollutant transport into our surface waters. During these dry periods, pollutants often accumulate in the watershed until the following heavy storm event or wet period provides a means of transporting debris, nutrients and other materials into our water bodies.

Text Box: Figure 1 Text Box: Figure 2

Precipitation has been significantly below average during much of the past two calendar years (Figures 1 and 2). The below average monthly precipitation values that characterized most of 2001 culminated in “drought like” conditions that extended from the summer of 2001 into the fall of 2002. Heavy snowfall during the month of April 2002 and the near to above average rainfall in May and June, 2002 did provide some much needed precipitation in 2002. However, the magnitude of the drought over the previous 12 months and the return to below average precipitation in July through October 2002 minimized groundwater and surface water recharge through most of the 2002 sampling season. Based on the below average rainfall that began in 2001, the Saco River watershed data were likely collected under below average streamflow conditions during the 2002 water quality sampling season that spanned May 7 to October 11.

Temperature

Text Box: Table 2: 2002 Saco Watershed Temperature Data Summary

The temperature and range of temperatures that occur at the stream site will limit the types of stream organisms that can survive at the respective location. Processes such as the removal of shoreside vegetation, that increase the water temperature, generally have a negative impact on the aquatic organisms. Raising temperatures will also reduce the waters capacity to hold oxygen and in turn might further impact the suitability of these streams to harbor aquatic life including certain fish species.

Text Box: Figure 3. Water temperature data were most variable seasonally with the lower water temperatures documented during the months of May and October relative to the water temperatures measured between June and September. The 2002 water temperatures ranged from 6.1^oC (43.0^oF) at Site GS 4 on October 9, 2002 to 25.9^oC (78.6^oF) at Site GF 2 on July 2, 2002. On an annual basis, the in-stream water temperatures followed the ambient air temperatures closely.

The bi-weekly water temperature data collected at Site GF 2, located at the outlet of Danforth Pond, were generally higher than the values documented at the remaining 9 Saco watershed sampling locations and are reflected by the highest seasonal average water temperature, 19.7^oC (67.5^oF), calculated for Site GF 2 (Figure 3 and Table 2). Most of the Saco watershed in-stream sampling locations are characterized by extensive shoreside (riparian) vegetation that shades the stream channels and in-turn suppresses the water temperatures. On the other hand, the Danforth Pond outlet is fed by open-water that has been warmed by direct sunlight exposure.

Dissolved Oxygen

Oxygen is an essential component for the survival of aquatic life. Submergent plants and algae create oxygen through photosynthesis by day while respiration by both plants and animals use up oxygen continually. Respiration is associated with the natural bacteria, fungi and other decomposers in the stream that break down organic matter that enters the stream from upland sources, as well as, from the water originating from up-gradient lakes, wetlands and the stream itself. Oxygen can also be replenished in the streams through the turbulent mixing of the air and water, particularly in fast flowing and rocky stream reaches, that facilitates the rapid diffusion of atmospheric oxygen into the stream water.