903R93023
CBP/TRS 74/93
June 1993
Comparison of Mid-Bay and
Lateral Station Water
Quality Data in the
Chesapeake Bay
Mainstem
TD
225
.C54
VI 7"'
1993
no r, ...., , - -, '-.--->n
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on recycled paper
-------
'. ! r.c!:c!!cn Agency
.....iuLion Resource
FA 19107 /
Comparison of Mid-Bay and
Lateral Station Water
Quality Data in the
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Chesapeake Bay Program
June 1993
Produced under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-WO-0043
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
ENDORSEMENT
The Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee has reviewed the
assumptions and methods of data analysis used in this report and finds them
appropriate for the analysis conduc. jd. The findings of this report are consistent
with and supported by the analytical techniques employed.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
• Pagei
-------
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page ii • csc.MNie.9/92
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XIII
INTRODUCTION „ 1
w
METHODS 1
A. Selection of transects, parameters, time periods, and sampling depths 1
B. Summary statistics and graphical analyses 3
C. Choice of statistical test: Wilcoxon matched-pairs test '.: 3
D. Correlation Coefficients 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - 5
A. Annual seasonal medians and plots of mid-Bay and lateral station data 5
1. Medians and scatter plots 5
2. Time plots of differences 5
B. Statistical comparisons between annual seasonal medians of
mid-Bay and lateral station data 6
1. Central-western differences 6
2. Central-eastern differences 8
3. Synthesis of results from different analyses 9
C. Correlations between mid-Bay and lateral station data 10
D. Attainment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat requirements 11
CONCLUSIONS 11
REFERENCES 13
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Median bottom sampling depths for the seven transects studied,
with the percentage of cruises in which the transect was sampled
on the same day 15
TABLE 2. Statistically significant median differences (p < 0.05) between
1985-1991 Central and Western station medians. Exact p in
parentheses, 95% confidence interval is below the difference,
differences are Central - Western 16
TABLE 3. Statistically significant median differences (p < 0.05) between
1985-1991 Central and Eastern station medians. Exact p in
parentheses, 95% confidence interval is below the difference,
differences are Central - Eastern 18
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
esc VMB.9/92 • Page iii
-------
TABLE 4. Comparison of the magnitudes of statistically significant median
differences, uncertainty estimates (MDLs), and
SAV habitat requirements 20
TABLE 5. Pearson cross-correlation coefficients for Chesapeake Bay
mainstem data, center and lateral Stations, using raw
concentration data from 1985-1991 for the seasons shown 21
TABLE 6. Correspondence of attainment rates for SAV habitat requirements for
pairs of central and lateral stations, using annual growing season medi-
ans from all seven transects, 1985-1991 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Locator map showing the seven transects studied 23
Figure 2. Detail map of transect CB3.3. Hatched areas
are 1990 SAV coverage ,.-. 24
Figure 3. Detail map of transect CB4.1 Hatched areas
are 1990 SAV coverage 25
Figure 4. Detail map of transect CB4.2 and 4.3 Hatched areas
are 1990 SAV coverage 26
Figure 5. Detail map of transect CB5.1.
Hatched areas are 1990 SAV coverage 27
Figure 6. Detail map of transect CBS.4.
Hatched areas are 1990 SAV coverage 28
Figure 7. Detail map of transect CB7.2.
Hatched areas are 1990 SAV coverage 29
Figure 8. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Phosphorus,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 32
Figure 9. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Phosphorus,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 32
Figure 10. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Orthophosphate.l
1985-1991, for western and central stations 32
Figure 11. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Orthophosphate,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 32
Figure 12. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Nitrogen,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 33
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page iv • CSC.MM8.9/92
-------
Figure 13. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Nitrogen,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 33
Figure 14. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, 1985-1991, for western and central stations 33
Figure 15. Scatter plot ot annual seasonal medians of Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, 1985 1991, for eastern and central stations 33
Figure 16. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Suspended Solids,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 34
Figure 17. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Total Suspended Solids,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 34
Figure 18. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Chlorophyll a,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 34
Figure 19. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Chlorophyll a,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 34
Figure 20. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Secchi depth,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 35
Figure 21. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Secchi depth,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 35
Figure 22. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Surface Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 35
Figure 23. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of Surface Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 35
Figure 24. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring Surface Salinity,
1985-1991 .for western and central stations 36
Figure 25. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer Surface Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 36
Figure 26. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring Surface Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 36
Figure 27. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer Surface Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 36
Figure 28. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B1 Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 37
Figure 29. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B1 Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 37
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 . • Page v
-------
Figure 30. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B1 Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 37
Figure 31. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B1 Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 37
Figure 32. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B2 Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 38
Figure 33. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B2 Salinity,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 38
Figure 34. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B2 Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations ...„ 38
Figure 35. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B2 Salinity,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 38
Figure 36. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring S_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 39
Figure 37. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer S_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 39
Figure 38. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring S_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 39
Figure 39. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer S_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 39
Figure 40. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B1_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 40
Figure 41. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B1_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 40
Figure 42. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B1_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 40
Figure 43. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B1_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 40
Figure 44. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B2_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and centra! stations 41
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page vi • CSC.MM8.9/92
-------
Figure 45. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B2_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for western and central stations 41
Figure 46. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of spring B2_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 41
Figure 47. Scatter plot of annual seasonal medians of summer B2_Disoxy,
1985-1991, for eastern and central stations 41
Figure 48. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Phosphorus in CB3.3,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 42
"Figure 49. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Phosphorus in CB4.1,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 42
Figure 50. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Phosphorus in CB4.2, 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 43
Figure 51. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Phosphorus in CB4.3, 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 43
Figure 52. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Phosphorus in CB5.4,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 44
Figure 53. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Ortho-
phospnate in CB4.1,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 44
Figure 54. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Ortho-
phosphate in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 45
Figure 55. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Ortho-
phosphate in CB4.3,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 45
Figure 56. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Nitrogen in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 46
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page vii
-------
Figure 57. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Nitrogen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 46
Figure 58. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Nitrogen in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and tiansects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 47
Figure 59. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Nitrogen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 47
Figure 60. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB3.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 48
Figure 61. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 48
Figure 62. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 49
Figure 63. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 49
Figure 65. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 50
Figure 64. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total
Suspended Solids in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 50
Figure 66. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chloro-
phyll a in CBS.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 51
Figure 67. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chloro-
phyll a in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 51
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page viii • CSC.MM6.9/92
-------
Figure 69. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chloro-
phyll a in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 52
Figure 68. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chloro-
phyll a in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transect;, shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 52
Figure 70. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chloro-
phyll a in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 53
Figure 71, Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 53
Figure 72. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 54
Figure 73. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 54
Figure 74. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB5.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 55
Figure 75. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 55
Figure 76. Time plot of differences between centra! and lateral stations for Secchi in
CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and iransects shown had statistically
significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 56
Figure 77. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Salinity in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 56
Figure 76. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Salinity in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 57
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page ix
-------
Figure 79. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Salinity in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 57
Figure 80. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Salinity in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had
statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 58
Figure 81. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB3.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 58
Figure 82. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 59
Figure 83. Time plot of differences between- central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 59
Figure 84. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 60
Figure 85. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB5.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 60
Figure 86. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 61
Figure 87. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Salinity in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown
had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 61
Figure 88. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Salinity in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 62
Figure 89. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Salinity in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 62
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND l.V. JHAl STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page x • csc.MWB.9/s2
-------
Figure 90. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Salinity in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 63
Figure 91. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Salinity in CBS. 1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 63
Figure 92. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Salinity in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 64
Figure 93. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 64
Figure 95. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB3.3 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 65
Figure 94. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface
Dissolved Oxygen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects
shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3) 65
Figure 96. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 66
Figure 97. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) .". 66
Figure 99. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CBS.1 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 67
Figure 98. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 67
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page xi
-------
Figure 101. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 68
Figure 100. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
Layer Dissolved Oxygen in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and
transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 68
Figure 102. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters
and transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 69
Figure 103. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters
and transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 69
Figure 104. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Dissolved Oxygen in CBS.4 1985-1991. All parameters
and transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 70
Figure 105. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom
same-depth Dissolved Oxygen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters
and transects shown had statistically significant differences
(see Table 2 or 3) 70
APPENDIX I 71
TABLE A1 -1. Annual seasonal medians by station for all variables
and time periods analyzed 72
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page xii • csc.MWB.9'92
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Seasonal median water quality values were compared between stations in mid-
Bay and lateral regions in seven east-west transects in the mainstem Chesapeake
Bay. Comparison were made over seven years, 1985-1991, for April-October
surface layer medians of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, dissolved orthophos-
phate, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total suspended solids, chlorophyll a,
Secchi depth, and salinity. Comparisons were also made using spring (March-
May) and summer (June-September) medians of surface and bottom salinity
and dissolved oxygen. Comparisons were made using difference plots of raw
data, scatter plots of annual seasonal medians, and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs
test on annual seasonal medians. The graphical and statistical analyses con-
firmed each other. Correlation coefficients were also calculated between
mid-Bay and lateral data series to estimate their degree of similarity over time,
but could not be tested for statistical significance.
The results of the median comparisons show that in most cases, mid-Bay data
can be used to characterize median water quality in nearby lateral areas. There
were three categories of results for the nine parameters analyzed.
In the first category, one parameter, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, had no
statistically significant differences between mid-Bay and lateral station medi-
ans.
In the second category, five parameters, total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total
nitrogen, total suspended solids, and chlorophyll a, had statistically significant
differences between mid-Bay and lateral station medians. However, the
differences were smaller than the analytical uncertainty for that parameter, as
estimated by the method detection limit. Thus, the differences were small
enough to permit the application of mid-Bay median water quality to lateral
areas. Almost all of the differences found for these five parameters were
between mid-Bay and western stations, which were located farther from the
mid-Bay station than eastern stations.
In the third category, three parameters (Secchi depth, salinity, and dissolved
oxygen) had statistically significant differences that were usually larger than
the uncertainty level for those parameters. All of the significant differences
in Secchi depth were between central and western stations, and for salinity and
dissolved oxygen, the differences were largest when comparing summer me-
dians from 1 meter above the bottom. In most cases, mid-Bay data for these
three parameters should not be used to characterize seasonally averaged water
quality in nearby lateral areas. However, salinity and dissolved oxygen medians
were quite similar at mid-Bay and lateral stations at the surface, and for bottom
comparisons at the same depth.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page xiii
-------
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page xiv • csc.MNie.9/92
-------
INTRODUCTION
One of the main goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program is the restoration of the
Bay's living resources, primarily by improving the water quality in the Bay.
To do this effectively, scientists and manr ^ers need water quality monitoring
data from living resource habitats. However, many living resources are most
common in shallow water nearshore habitats, where it is difficult to collect
water samples via ship-based monitoring. Also, the three-dimensional com-
puter model that is being used to project water quality responses to nutrient
reductions produces estimates for mid-Bay areas only (Nutrient Reevaluation
Workgroup 1992). Thus, scientists and managers need information on the
comparability of water quality in mid-channel and mid-Bay areas to water
quality in shallower nearshore areas. Previous analyses assessed this compa-
rability for mid-channel and nearshore stations in selected tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay (Ellett et al. 1989, Batiuk et al. 1993), but not for areas in the
mainstem of the Bay.
The primary purpose of this analysis is to determine whether selected lateral
and mid-Bay stations in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem have the same overall
levels of certain water quality parameters. For several transects in the Chesa-
peake Bay mainstem, sampling has occurred at a mid-Bay location and at
corresponding eastern and/or western lateral locations with similar latitude.
Although these lateral stations are too deep to support all of the living resources
that live near the shore, they are closer to many living resource habitats than
the mid-Bay stations. The question of whether or not the center and lateral
stations behave similarly throughout the period of record is also examined
through time series plots and cross-correlation coefficients. The advantages
of developing actual predictive models that relate the mid-Bay and lateral
station data are discussed. Such predictive models would be particularly useful
when one location is not sampled (e.g. lateral stations during the winter) or when
data is missing for any reason.
METHODS
A. SELECTION OF TRANSECTS, PARAMETERS, TIME PERIODS, AND
SAMPLING DEPTHS
The data used for this analysis were collected under the Chesapeake Bay
Mainstem Monitoring Program and the Maryland Tributary Monitoring Pro-
gram. When the current monitoring program was established in 1984, eastern
and western lateral stations were added near historical mid-Bay stations that
had been monitored by the Chesapeake Bay Institute. The lateral stations
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 1
-------
were added primarily to assess the extent that wind and tidal events moved
oxygen-poor mid-Bay waters into shallower lateral areas (CBP 1985).
The lateral and mid-Bay data which were selected for analysis consisted of all
available cruises from March 1985 through October 1991 for the following
transects: CB3.3 (CB3.3C, CB3.3E and CB3.3W); CB4.1 (CB4.1C, CB4.1E,
CB4.1W); CB4.2 (CB4.2C, CB4.2E, CB4.2W); CB4.3 (CB4.3C, CB4.3E,
CB4.3W); CB5.1 (CB5.1, CB5.1W); CB5.4 (CB5.4, CB5.4W); and CB7.2
(CB7.2, CB7.2E, and CB6.3). Data for the months November through February
were not available for transects CB3.3 through CB4.3 after 1988, because the
lateral stations were not sampled during these months. Data from 1984 were
not available for all months used, because sampling started in June.
The three criteria for selecting transects were:
1. Stations at approximately the same latitude.
2. At least one of the lateral stations in relatively shallow water (8-12 meters
median bottom depth to approximate "nearshore" habitat) with the mid-Bay
station in deeper water (16-31 meters median bottom depth).
3. All stations in each transect usually sampled on the same day, to reduce
variability due to sampling time.
Transect locations, bottom sampling depths, and the percentage of cruises in
which the stations were sampled on the same day is provided for each transect
in Table 1. A summary map of all the transects and detailed maps of each
transect are also provided, including 1990 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) beds (Figures 1-7). SAV beds are included because several of the
parameters analyzed are important to SAV growth, and have been used to
develop water quality habitat requirements for SAV growth (Batiuk et al. 1993).
Note that transects were not selected for their proximity to SAV beds; some
transects, such as CB3.3, are not close to any current SAV beds. In transects
CB4.1 through CB4.3, the western stations are not near any potential SAV
habitat, due to high wave action in nearby shallows (Batiuk et al. 1993).
The parameters examined included surface concentrations (layer = 'S') of total
phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), dissolved orthophosphate (PO4F), dis-
solved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), total suspended solids (TSS), chlorophyll a
(CHLA), Secchi depth (SECCHI), and salinity (SALIN). These parameters
include all five Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat requirements
(Batiuk et al. 1993), plus total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and salinity. The
surface layer is at 0.5 m depth in Maryland and 1.0 m in Virginia. The time
period used for these parameters was the same April-October time period used
for SAV habitat requirements (Batiuk et al. 1993). The data used had all current
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 2 • csc.MWB.9/92
-------
data corrections, including an adjustment to early total nitrogen data for stations
sampled by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) (Bergstrom
1992). In all cases, data from stations in the same transect came from the same
laboratory, with the same analytical methods and detection limits.
Surface and near bottom concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DJ^OXY) and
salinity (SALIN) were compared over the spring (March-May) and summer
(June-September) periods used for the three-dimensional computer model of
Chesapeake Bay water quality. Surface dissolved oxygen (S_DISOXY) and
salinity (S_SALIN) used the samples with layer = 'S' at each station. In all
cases, the mid-Bay stations were in deeper water than the lateral stations, so
bottom dissolved oxygen and salinity were each compared two different ways.
The first compared mid-Bay and lateral bottom layer (layer = 'B') samples
(B 1_DISOXY and B1_SALIN), which had greater sampling depth at the mid-
Bay station. The bottom layer sample is taken 1 m above the bottom. The second
compared dissolved oxygen and salinity values from the same depth (B2_DISOXY
and B2_S ALIN), usually at the minimum bottom sampling depth for the lateral
station (Table 1). This sampling depth was always above the bottom at the
central station, and could be above the pycnocline.
B. SUMMARY STATISTICS AND GRAPHICAL ANALYSES
Because the habitat restoration goals for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (S AV)
and three-dimensional model output are stated in terms of seasonal averages,
annual seasonal median concentrations are provided for all parameters. Me-
dians are less sensitive than means to the distribution of the data, and the
Wilcoxon matched-pairs test compares medians (see next section). The me-
dians were graphed in scatter plots with lateral station data on the vertical axis
and central station data on the horizontal axis. In these plots, differences
between lateral and central station data appear as deviations from the diagonal
line of equality. To show the magnitudes of differences between the raw data,
time series plots of differences between the raw concertration data from mid-
Bay and both lateral stations were produced for each transect/variable combination
that had statistically significant differences.
c
C. CHOICE OF STATISTICAL TEST: WILCOXON MATCHED-PAIRS
TEST
A nonparametric test was chosen for two reasons. First, nonparametric tests
are less sensitive to the distribution of the data, and second, they are less affected
by below detection limit data when compared to a parametric test (Gilbert 1987).
The Wilcoxon matched-pairs test was used because it assumes positively
correlated (paired) samples (Siegel 1956, Marascuilo and McSweeney 1977).
Stations within a transect were paired in space, since all were at similar latitudes
and within 7-9 km or less of each other (Figures 1-7). Stations were also paired
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 . • Page 3
-------
in time of sampling. In almost all cases stations within a transect were sampled
on the same day (Table 1).
The Wilcoxon matched-pairs test was performed on annual seasonal median
values for two reasons. In statistical terms, the main management question of
interest was whether the seasonal medians differed between central and lateral
stations, not whether the median of the central-lateral differences on each
sampling date was zero. Also, using annual seasonal medians reduced the serial
correlation in the data. The Wilcoxon test assumes that sequential data points
at the same station are independent, which is not true of semimonthly or monthly
nutrient concentrations in the Chesapeake Bay.
Calculations were done using a custom S AS program (SAS Institute 1990) using
the formulas in Siegel (1956) and a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. Because
annual seasonal medians were used, tests could not be done on a year-by-year
basis, but the consistency and magnitude of the annual differences were
assessed graphically (see previous section).
For each variable, the proportion of observations below the detection limit was
examined to ensure that there were sufficient uncensored observations for
analysis. Comparisons were not made if more than 50% of the observations
were censored at either station.
For those pairs of stations exhibiting statistically significant differences with
the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, stem and leaf and box plots were examined
to ensure that the observed differences were in fact due to location shifts rather
than distributional differences. Also, median differences and 95% confidence
intervals were calculated for those pairs of stations with a custom SAS program,
using the methods in Conover (1980, p. 288).
D. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
An issue which remains unanswered in the comparison of medians is how
reliably we can predict the lateral station observations from the mid-Bay station
observations when data are missing or lateral areas are not sampled. In order
to examine this question in detail, the time series should be carefully modeled
to account for serial correlation and other factors. Whereas the Wilcoxon
matched-pairs test provides only a coarse comparison, developing a predictive
model would enable us to define systematic differences and to extrapolate
individual values as well as means or medians. The correlation coefficients
described below are intended to provide a rough indication of how good our
predictions might be if we carried out this modeling effort. They are called
cross-correlation coefficients because they involve parallel time series.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 4 • csc.MN-iB.9/92
-------
The cross-correlation coefficients between the parallel time series (west and
center; east and center) were computed to obtain an estimate of the strength
of the relationship between the mid-Bay and corresponding lateral station data
for each parameter. Raw concentration data from the same seasons used for
the Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests, March 1985 through October 1991, were
used to calculate the Coefficients. Any pairs of data which were identical
because they were both below the detection limit were deleted before the
coefficients were calculated. These cross-correlation coefficients are identical
to the Pearson product moment correlations, and thus are constrained between
-1 and +1. For those stations and parameters exhibiting higher cross-correla-
tions, we would expect to be better able to predict the lateral station levels from
the mid-Bay station levels. Nonpararnetric correlation was not used because
it only indicates how closely the ranks of the two data series corresponded.
Since the time series are serially correlated, probability estimates for the cross-
correlation coefficients are not readily obtainable.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. ANNUAL SEASONAL MEDIANS AND PLOTS OF MID-BAY AND
LATERAL STATION DATA
1. Medians and scatter plots
The annual seasonal medians for all transect/parameter combinations, using the
same seasons used for the Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests, are shown in Appendix
1, Table A1-1. The same medians for each year, season and parameter are
shown in scatter plots of mid-Bay and lateral station data (Figures 8-47). If
mid-Bay and lateral station medians were identical they would fall on the
diagonal in each graph; symbols above the diagonal indicate higher medians
at lateral stations, while those below indicate higher medians at mid-Bay
stations. An examination of these graphs shows the same general differences
found with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests (next section), with relatively
consistent differences from year to year.
2. Time plots of differences
Time plots of differences between central and lateral station data are also shown
for all parameters and pairs of stations with statistically significant differences
(Figures 48-105). Note that there were no winter data after 1988 from the lateral
stations in transects CB3.3 through CB4.3, because winter sampling was
discontinued at those stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 5
-------
These difference plots show a seasonal pattern in many of the differences, since
they include winter data that were not included in the other analyses. For
example, total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and
bottom salinity (B1_SALIN) and dissolved oxygen (B1_DISOXY) differences
tended to be larger in the summei (April-October) than in the winter. Other
parameters, such as total suspended solids, Secchi depth, and surface salinity
and dissolved oxygen, had central-lateral differences of similar magnitudes in
the summer and winter. Most of the differences shown were relatively
consistent in magnitude and direction from year to year. There were four
exceptions to this consistency in 1989: summer bottom salinity (B1_SALIN)
differences in transect CB7.2 were smaller than usual in 1989, and summer
bottom dissolved oxygen (B 1_DISOXY) differences in transects CB4.1 through
CB4.3 were smaller than usual in 1989. These departures from the normal
pattern of differences in 1989 may be due to the relatively high rainfall during
the late spring of that year.
B. STATISTICAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN ANNUAL SEASONAL
MEDIANS OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION DATA
In general, there were more significant differences between central and western
stations than between central and eastern stations. This was probably because
central and western stations were usually located farther apart than central and
eastern stations.
1. Central-western differences
The results of the Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests for mid-Bay and western
stations are shown in Table 2 over all seven years. There were several
parameters and transects with statistically significant differences over this
period. Secchi depth medians -.verc significantly greater at the mid-Bay station
than at the western station in all transects except CB3.3. Surface total suspended
solids medians were significantly higher at the western station in all transects
except CB5.1, and surface total phosphorus were significantly higher at the
western station in all transects except CB5.1 and CB7.2. Surface total nitrogen
and chlorophyll a medians were significantly higher at the western station in
transects CB4.1, CB4.2, CB4.3, and CB7.2. Surface orthophosphate medians
were significantly higher at the western station in transects CB4.1, CB4.2, and
CB4.3. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen had no significant differences. In all cases
of significant differences, water quality was lower at the western stations.
Secchi depth was less at western stations (more turbidity), and the median
concentrations of total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total nitrogen, total sus-
pended solids, and chlorophyll a were higher for the western (lateral) station
than the corresponding mid-Bay station (shown by negative differences).
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 6 • csc.MNie.9/92
-------
Median April-October surface salinity was significantly higher at the central
station in transects CB4.1 and CB7.2, although the difference was small in
transect CB4.1. Median spring surface salinity showed significant differences
between mid-Bay and western stations in one transect, CB7.2, and summer
surface salinity had significant differences in three transects: CB4.1, CBS.4,
and CB7.2 (Table 2). Surface salinity was always higher at the central station
(positive differences) except in transect CBS.4, where the summer difference
was very small (0.16 ppt). The lower surface salinity at western stations was
presumably due to flow from western shore tributaries. Nearby rivers include
the South, Rhode and West rivers for CB4.1W, and the Piankatank River for
CB5.4W. The western station in transect CB7.2, station CB6.3, is over 20 km
south of the mouth of the Rappahannock River (Figure 1), so the surface salinity
differences there may reflect the general east-west surface salinity differences
found in the lower Bay (EPA 1989). There were no surface salinity differences
in the CBS. 1 transect, near the mouth of the Patuxent River, possibly because
the CB5.1 W station is farther from the mouth of the river (Figure 5) compared
. to station CB5.4W (Figure 6).
Spring and summer bottom salinity at the same layer (B 1_S ALIN) was signifi-
cantly higher at the mid-Bay station in spring and summer in all transects, with
some differences exceeding 6 ppt. This reflects normal estuarine stratification,
with denser, more saline water in deeper areas (EPA 1989). Bottom salinity
at the same sampling depth (B2_SALIN) showed far fewer and smaller signifi-
cant differences, in three transects in the spring and one in the summer, all with
higher salinity at the central station.
Surface dissolved oxygen medians showed a small but statistically significant
central-western differences in one transect, CB4.2, in the spring. Bottom
dissolved oxygen medians at the same layer (B1_DISOXY) were significantly
lower at the mid-Bay station in both seasons in all transects, by 2.6 to 4.7
mgA, except for CB7.2. The median differences were always larger in the
summer than in the spring (Table 2). These differences in B1_DISOXY reflect
the tendency for sub-pycnocline areas of the Bay, especially deeper mid-Bay
areas north of the Rappahannock River, to undergo oxygen depletion in the
summer (CSC 1991, Nutrient Reevaluatior Workgroup 1992). In t-ansect
CB7.2, B1_DISOXY was slightly but significantly higher at the mid-Bay
station in the summer, but an examination of the annual seasonal medians
(Appendix 1 and Figure 41) shows that low dissolved oxygen levels are not
a problem in this transect.
As with salinity, bottom dissolved oxygen at the same sampling depth
(B2_DISOXY) showed far fewer significant differences: it was significantly
higher at the central station in transects CB4.2 and CB4.3 in the spring, and
in transects CBS.4 and CB7.2 in the summer, although the differences were
small (1.1 mg/1 or less). The slightly higher median levels of B2_D1SOXY at
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 7
-------
the central station may be due to occasional sampling above the pycnocline at
the central station in these same-depth comparisons. Dissolved oxygen levels
tend to be higher above the pycnocline than below the pycnocline.
2. Central-eastern differences
The results of the Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests for mid-Bay and eastern
stations are shown in Table 3 over all seven years. The only statistically
significant differences between medians from mid-Bay and the corresponding
eastern stations were for chlorophyll a, salinity and dissolved oxygen.
Chlorophyll a medians were slightly but significantly higher at station CB3.3C
compared to CB3.3E. Since these two stations are less than 2 km apart and
are a similar distance from shore
-------
transects. Stations CB3.3E and CB4.2E, which had significant differences in
bottom dissolved oxygen, were much shallower than stations CB4.1E and
CB4.3E, which did not (Table 1). The deep eastern stations CB4.1Eand CB4.3E
had B1_DISOXY medians as low or lower than medians at the corresponding
mid-Bay station (Appendix 1 and Figure 43). In contrast, the western stations
were all relatively shallow (Tabl*-1), and all western stations had significantly
higher summer median bottom dissolved oxygen (B1_DISOXY) than the
corresponding mid-Bay stations (Table 2).
3. Synthesis of results from different analyses
Comparison of the annual seasonal medians (Appendix 1, Table Al-1, and
Figures 8-47) to the results over seven years in Tables 2 and 3 shows that all
of the differences that were statistically significant over seven years also
showed consistent differences in the same direction on an annual basis. Thus,
although the concentration levels often varied from year to year, the differences
between stations were consistent over the seven years studied. This same
consistency of differences is evident in plots of the raw differences (Figures
48-105), although most of the differences were less consistent when using raw
data rather than medians.
However, foi nutrients and most other SAV-related parameters, these signifi-
cant differences were smaller than or similar in magnitude to estimates of
analytical uncertainty and the habitat requirements for SAV growth (Batiuk et
al. 1993). The magnitudes are compared in Table 4, using the method detection
limits at the laboratories involved to estimate analytical uncertainty. All of the
significant differences were smaller than or similar to the maximum MDL and
the SAV habitat requirement (if available), except for Secchi depth, salinity,
and dissolved oxygen. Thus, the differences in total phosphorus, orthophos-
phate, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, and chlorophyll a, although
statistically significant, were small enough to permit the application of mid-
Bay data to lateral aieas, given the uncertainty in the data. However, the
significant differences in Secchi depth, salinity, and dissolved oxygen were
consistently larger than the detection limit for those parameters (Table 4). Thus,
mid-Bay data for these three parameters should not be used to characterize
seasonally ave: aged water quality in nearby lateral areas for those transects and
seasons with significant differences. Note that when "bottom" salinity and
dissolved oxygen are compared at the same sampling depth (B2_SALIN and
B2_DISOXY) there are few significant differences with relatively small mag-
nitudes, but there are consistent and large differences in most transects when
comparing bottom layer salinity and dissolved oxygen at different depths (Bl
parameters).
The differences that were significant showed generally reduced surface water
quality at the western station compared to the mid-Bay station. This was shown
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 9
-------
by higher nutrients, total suspended solids, and chlorophyll a, and lower Secchi
depths at the western stations. This could be due either to localized effects such
as bottom re-suspension or shoreline erosion, or to more distant effects such
as flow from western shore tributaries. The same tendency for lower Secchi
depths (and correspondingly higher light attenuation) at nearshore sites was also
found in two comparisons of tributary nearshore and mid-channel data (Ellett
et al. 1989, Batiuk et al. 1993). One of these studies also found significantly
higher total suspended solids medians at several nearshore sites (Batiuk et al.
1992).
C. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MID-BA Y AND LA TERAL STA TION
DATA
Correlations between mid-Bay and lateral .station data were calculated to
estimate how well water quality at lateral stations could be predicted from mid-
Bay water quality. The cross-correlation coefficients between data from central
and lateral stations for all parameters analyzed are shown in Table 5. Not
surprisingly, the cross-correlation coefficients are larger for those stations
which are physically closer together. For all the three-station transects exam-
ined, the eastern stations are closer to the central station than are the western
stations (Figures 1-7), and this is reflected in the generally larger coefficients
for the center and east than the center and west. This may be a result of
differences in time as well as distance, since intervals between sampling times
are greater when the stations are farther apart.
Even after considering the time/distance issue, certain parameters appear to be
more readily extrapolated from the central stations to the lateral stations than
others. The cross-correlations for nitrogen (total nitrogen and dissolved
inorganic nitrogen) and surface dissolved oxygen and salinity (S_DISOXY and
S_SALIN) are frequently larger for all transects than cross-correlations for
phosphorus (total phosphorus and orthophosphate), chlorophyll a, total sus-
pended solids 01 bottom dissolved oxygen and salinity. Bottom salinity and
dissolved oxygen at the same layer (B1_SALIN and B1_DISOXY) tended to
have smaller correlations than the same parameters compared near the bottom
with the same depth (B2_SALIN and B2_DISOXY), although the pattern was
occasionally reversed. Spring salinity correlations were usually smaller than
those in the summer, but spring dissolved oxygen correlations were usually
larger than those in the summer. For salinity, this may reflect higher flow levels
in the spring, which would tend to make salinities less similar at different
stations. The occurrence of low dissolved oxygen values in the summer, which
tend to be somewhat localized, probably led to smaller dissolved oxygen
correlations in the summer.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 10 • CSC.MNIB.S/QS
-------
D. ATTAINMENT OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (SAV)
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
The frequency of attainment of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat
requirements was compared for mid-Bay and lateral stations, and the number
of years and pairs of stations for which attainment wac the same or different
was tabulated (Table 6). This was done to show how accurately mid-Bay data
could be used to predict habitat requirement attainment in lateral areas. The
medians used are in Appendix 1, and the habitat requirements are in Table 4.
The attainment was the same in most comparisons, with 88-100% of the pairs
of stations (central-western and central-eastern pairs) with the same attainment
of habitat requirements.
This frequency of identical attainment was higher than the corresponding values
for tributary nearshore to mid-channel comparisons in four tributary study
areas, which ranged from 66-88% of pairs and years with the same attainment
(Batiuk et al. 1993). Those lower frequencies of similarity were probably due
to two factors: the use of true "nearshore" stations in 1-2 m of water, as well
as to station location relative to water quality gradients. The nearshore stations
analyzed in the SAV study were chosen to include gradients of SAV growth,
so many of the median water quality values for nearshore stations were near
the habitat requirements for SAV. This made it more likely to find differences
in habitat requirement attainment between nearshore and mid-channel stations.
The mid-Bay and lateral stations in the mainstem were not located with respect
to SAV gradients, and their water quality medians were usually both above or
both below the SAV habitat requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, some aspects of the mid-Bay to lateral station comparisons are
site-specific, but median water quality at the lateral station can often be
characterized by the median at the mid-Bay station. In this analysis, sets of
two different lateral stations were compared to the same mid-Bay station and
it is evident that water quality at some lateral stations is nearly identical to water
quality at the mid-Bay station, while uther pairs of stations show differences
in water quality. Central and western stations, which are located farther apart,
showed many more differences than central and eastern stations. Also, some
parameters showed more differences than others, and many of the significant
differences were small. There were no significant differences for one param-
eter, dissolved inorganic nitrogen. The statistically significant differences in
total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, and
chlorophyll a, although consistent over 7 years, were small enough to permit
the use of mid-Bay data to characterize median water quality in lateral areas,
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 11
-------
given the uncertainty in the data. However, the significant differences in Secchi
depth, bottom layer salinity, and bottom layer dissolved oxygen were consis-
tently larger than the detection limit for those parameters and (for Secchi depth)
the habitat requirement for SAV growth. Thus, in most cases mid-Bay data
for these parameters should not be used to characterize median water quality
in nearby lateral areas. However, salinity and dissolved oxygen medians for
the surface layer, and for "bottom" comparisons at the same depth (B2_SALIN
and B2_DISOXY), were quite similar at mid-Bay and lateral stations.
Clearly, factors such as distance between sites, difference in sampling depth,
and proximity of a lateral station to the shore influence the relationship between
mid-Bay and lateral water quality. There is evidence that additional physical
variations may influence trends in some parameters, such as total phosphorus
(Nagaraj and Brunenmeister 1991).
It should be noted that all the mainstem lateral stations except CB5.4W are in
fairly deep water (7 to 23 m bottom sampling depth, Table 1), so it is uncertain
how mid-channel data might relate to "very hearshore" data which is of
particular interest in terms of living resources. For example, most SAV species
growing in the Chesapeake Bay are limited to areas 2 m deep or less, with the
largest populations found in water 1 m deep or less (Batiuk et al. 1993).
Analyses underway using Citizen Monitoring data from the Patuxent River,
which is usually measured from water samples collected from a dock or pier
in 1-2 m of water, will provide more information about how well mid-channel
data can reflect conditions in true nearshore areas in the tributaries.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 12 • csc.MwB.9/92
-------
REFERENCES
Batiuk, R., P. Heasly, R. Orth, K. Moore, C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver,
V. Carter, N. Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar, S. Bieber, and P. Bergstrom.
1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements
and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS 52/92, Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Bergstrom, P. 1992. Adjusting helix Kjeldahl nitrogen results: Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem Water Quality Monitoring Program, 1984-1985.
CBP/TRS 44/92, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 1985. Monitoring 1984: A first report from
the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee. Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, MD.
Computer Sciences Corp. 1991. Dissolved oxygen trends in the Chesapeake
Bay (1984-1990). CBP/TRS 66/91, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical nonparametrie statistics, 2nd ed. John Wiley
& Sons, NY.
Ellen, K., S. Brunenmeister, and R. Price. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Citizen
Monitoring Report, July 1985 - October 1988. CBP/TRS 27/89, Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
EPA. 1989. Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an ecosystem. Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, MD.
Gilbert, R. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring.
Van Nosrrand Reinhold, New York.
Marascuilo, L., and M. McSweeney. 1977. Nonparametric and Distribution-
Free Methods for the Social Sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Monterey,
CA
Nagaraj, N.K., and Brunenmeister, S.L. 1991. Application of Seemingly
Unrelated Regression Estimation (SURE) to Characterizing Trends in Total
Phosphorus in the Upper Chesapeake Bay, October 1984 to September 1989.
Pages 355-369 in J. Mihursky and A. Chaney, eds. New perspectives in the
Chesapeake system: A research and management partnership. Chesapeake
Research Consortium, Solomons, MD, Publication No. 137.
Nutrient Reevaluation Workgroup. 1992. Progress report of the Bay wide
Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Siegel,S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide, Version 6, Third Edition.
SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, NC.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MNiB.9/92 • Page 13
-------
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 14 • csc.MNiB.g/92
-------
JC
—
5
C
(A
O
«
V*
•^
O
0)
0)
(0
'c
0>
o
IH
o
a
0)
£
*^
^H
**
'i
•o"
ID
3
^^
W
w
t>
0)
(A
c
re
c .
a >.
> re
w "°
{j
jc E
*- re
i; w
O -
•«- o
fs
"O -u
o ^
.C 0.
"o. ^
E w
re
IB
Median bottom
the transect wt
T-
LU
_J
DO
1-
u>
|2 -o
C. ft>
E E
g g
^ 0
<
S
w
E
.E
_E_
"g
€l
•S ^
•^
^^'
"5.
E
5
E
c
i
e
s
|
b:
**•
ee
C
£
LOCATION
C
w
z
^
oc
Bi
^,
~:
[>,
^.
^
a
S
^
ri
t—;
X
r-
0
>:
^
CRL/CB
n:
i
f
CC
1"
1
f.
sc'
U
r-
iy-1
^^
?i
fS
i-L
C-
p
fN
S
£
C
„ „
<*"•
p
o-
r^
c
sc
. 7
CRL/CB
c
S
Horseshoe V\. - Kent Pt.
^m
u
r*
^
f^
c"
SC
c
ac
0?
r-i
0
^
f-4
-
cC
C-
c
sc
_3
CRL/CB
u:
S
S
E
C-l
U
t- p « —
o< o< S< S
s-~ *-^
R — .
s —
a- ci
d. ^s
p c.
C^ 1 ! -—
S - ^ S
(^-1 — CN ' —
O — O C
i/-' s£ ^ ^™
r-i — f. r-J
^.^
P ~' P 5
cr." i/. vc" ^
C- C- i ^'
" v^ ^ ^
^~ "" ^ f^'l
X X -^ —
-J Ss
i 1- § §
oe g a £ S
u S u > >
c: c S S
S S > >
^
<
11 - 1
U I I :«
16 £ ! J<5
« « ^ ^ * g
^ S -S -5 « 5,
1- 1 1 II
C c S S ? I
"i ~. t ^1
W w^ t/S l^-
oc cc ec sc
U u u u
£ ^
f 'I
ti
w -
^ «
MJ °
B C
— C
C- u
ll
t) -*t
5 ce'
•-• o
ll
"° ~.
se -c
.u
*£ S
~ &
'e 2
e i-
H >>
u-S
~ ra
K "c
S "
5- p
E S
||
e ^
^5
ac "tx
5=: |
5^ ^
c fc
- £
s-1 ~
U |
f f
P^ —
=
C c
v- ^
ct ~
j£ ^
•5^
_c —
R -C
"Z ^
1;
rl
re "
1 ?
^2 ^
^~
c -^
•S "S
rt E
ei-D
c "E.
"u fcj
o ^^
re >.
2 X
_o C
'•"•5
ts i
O C4
Z sc
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 15 • . csc.MNie.9/92
-------
11
S 1
w O
c CD
£ " g i
w ^ 5*5
_ 0)
^D ^"
c ,0
— ^
i cT >
C U -a- ^
fl> C ""• *< w'
o g 55
T- CJ
o JC
i
O ^
f™ ^*
flj O ir-' ir
§• "w 55
If
IT? £)
9 c
O '~
v o H ^
""^ -n £ £
CO •—
o *£
o 5
s s
>_ v5
V- lft
.t: o
c o 3*S
_CO V> os cc
O £
c c
c O
"c co
co OL
.£> c
«*- •••
'ED. y ^
0 >
re o ^** ^ ^
^* ^m ' «j •
ff\ P 1 C^ «C f.
WJ C 1 SC CC
CJ U
oi
UJ
_J
CD
S
£
|
r™
2
e<
a.
u;
U
u.
oc
f—
M
~
c^
C
Z
0£
UJ
CC
<
a.
^
00
a:
O
r JTRIENTS,
~0
0? G oe ^^,S~m
IT, t" --^-9' •-•• 9 >-> o ^ —
,. c ?| a «^5 «52" oS SP"
z s efSs7272 2= *'s
eg ^ ^^
O • oe ^ oc ^
-« - O **• C ^
*j ^ N^9 ^^ o
*^C C 0^°' » § v
f S S S S 72 z S£ z
^* ^v
o n
J -°'
CO CO CO ^-CO CO c \3" ^
5 S si ss £_ s?_ £~ scs
°-9'- >-> 2 <=* S^ o^. e^
~ - Ss !24- >"e? °~ -;-ci -:-ci
S=-§fc Srj ^ r^
o
CO
00
Q
C
•-ir
SALINITY M
vc ^ oc j—^ oe ^
9 ^e o «• o ^
»o <^" ^ oe" _ o"
oe <^ « "! £ x. co
e £ "; Ci. ,-: B Z
c ^
o r~
CO ^ ^ CO CO
z i/-; 3^ z z
oc" ^-^ i>j" f*^
— s S ^
0 0 (5 0
^•" o
t^ r- ^ ^ X V*
Z* <~s| ^* O "7
r'i i^^- o ^- *£~
oc -^
O^ 3C^
c/~ c^ " c/* v
z u-; S z z
c rj o — ;
CO SC ~ CO ?. §
Z ui S- Z o £
§5 §-:
r4 ^ OB tr~'
CO Sv "*. 5 S »5
Z i« !5 « £ Z
x-v
S^ 9 9
s r"ot
^ CO R1^ t« CO
jj . <= * Z
1 z * >•
gills
& H **• < co
g ^ ^ 3 5,
t/3 c/5 CC CC C/5
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 16
-------
C CO
O u
*- £
^^ Ita
^D »^Z
C 73
re „
— 0
re o
£ c
c o>
0) *•
00
5:
^ •«•
O "O
o> o
If) **
co >
0> rt
,_ _o
c ®
Q) ^
0> (A
If
o re
o "£
O "~
v o
O
^i, *•
^^? w
si
2. o
G) -
t^. s^
»*- o
^J O
c „
•— o
^o /*
o> 5fJ
£ .c
c c
t: oj
2-.
re
£ o.
§>.£
(A D.
^™ *^
"re re £
•2 IH «
*- LLJ *-
(A (0
|gl
(/) _re |
°5 —
**^ ^-^. U
oc ^ _ ^ 22C~ 2Si^22^ 'c'S
p ^2 S® P |2 SS S2 Si/ «=
«~ ?s "> o" ^ S «~ f^ iff !?" "^ £ g1
z z ^E 2d oS z 2sE Is _ g- 2- K
•§ ^ - 1 1
•^ **- ^\ ^r C
^* .- — ^ ^" ^-v t — ^ oo*^~^ * ^ w O^ *— *~^
§5 •- §1 | J sS || | 1 1 1 ^
^,rsi ^oo - rsOll-c rf'^Sw)
^"^ — "^ r-> oc oe ~. *r~. _ S P" " ' > >,
r4*G "> eO0^'^ c/5«*iw^'-7^x
n'^Z t^seSZ zT^oB S §£§0
*~~* y >™ ^3
re C O
— -^ '--x-^ i to "o z o
OC ,.- ^ OC —~ «^ C ^ ^ ^
= i^-' x— S^ re w E Q •-
Sp p I-. S1* § " — ^ Q,
". f*"" ""'w1 « S5 re c c s_
\ei~~ «S ?25 — cC'U'*'
5 T' ^ ^ ^-^v; c^L-u-:^ £ s^^x
•Viz z *cz z^T^z ^c i5£o
• — ® ? J2 7 —
5 -r n Q
&. ^ cj 3 -«. i™1
«£. _ ^ 5^^ -g S. ceil
o^ ^S S^ 5?~ ^ f -= -£ re f- «
^— p^. cp S— a 5 c. . «* ^ x
5E ! 1^ u- 1^- r^, f^v ^ aj fli ^ 3 E
;— . O- C/" O^: C/" C/" ^/-^- t/: Cs^ OJ.— ^.t
^^-B Z u-;^Z Z'T'^Z ore "5- 2 «f -w 75
Q E E ^ o ^ t/z
X c * "* ¥ •Z^
— ^ > ~ u w 1 ""-
c ^ §^ ~ 5 P§ g J g f S. §- ^
^R' gS ~£ gs tlf-Ji^i^
7.1 -;B z vc^c- z z 12 z -f^^jl^l-t
— - ^ ** *; u. ^ *s .^
II iip i| pslii-J
7 X Z ^.oS^SZ Z'TOZ c*^.l.|-£='1> u ** *• u w f c^
^5;p ^ ^S' ^^^r^ llss^.usi-
J,fvsr)-c« f f r~,Jv2 t/2-jmt/3 .S^^^D-NOT:-;
g7oz Jjz ^C-z z'Y^z .sg«J8«E-at2Sg:
66 | li^lo-i^<--
•5>- >• ^^ >• >• O§3S««--2C
^X X p« Z £ >-X X ZH&opac^c^eu^
«OOhJZ55XOO $ - ^
^£2i2^3<<9S2£2 , | ^w
^Q D§< S 5 £2d D -J iil"2=r
?i i^So i 'Q'.J c^ ° i — rM S ^ s
1,— cs O i — r^ I-™ ^ i^Trl^iJ; « O .
v; cc 03 c/5 c/5 os CQ in e& oa Z^vimeco-vi.ss
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 17 • csc.MNiB.s/92
-------
CO C
ll
O re
*"• V»
** £
re c
to a>
V. (]}
O 2.
1 s
U 0 M
^3 *• **?
c S S S
re « « * K
75 & " v
£ S:
o aT
0 o
i- C
O> 0)
^^ Q)
T 5:
LO 1JI
Ij! 3*3
i* D 5
c o
l«
0 &
jQ _<£
Lft ^
O re
Vo
** T N r -,
^» w b"
^ — ^ # 5
i? / \ C£ fi£
g g u u
C 0)
A) ^5
*- i£
fli M
^M "•
it o
~° "
? * U K
G) * ^ eg •*
Z, a & e
c u w u
JM f
W MM
O **
^r c
*= 0)
.1 |
J.S
K
*- « U K
VI X f> «
'^3 UJ ri eg ri
n P: as
TABLE 3. St
c
c
00
Z
QJ
u;
£ ^
1 Z
J,
"-
e.
^
bf
U
fa.
* ^
nr 2
H
~2
^f
Vj
C
r-
IT.
w z
1
^
fi.
«
u
H Z
NUTRIENTS, <
TP
o? So
5 s; 5?
^ ' o ^^ o
_3 _J VC vc" ^ in
^"" 5? ^fr (^ V^ Q^
SzSZZ Z|>1< i^
^^
oc
^ o\
* S^
b: 9
S ^ 5
ZZZZZ ZZ 3 ?' S.
X
C
z
^
^H
C£
e.
5
£-*
v. rj-. v. ts-. V. is: v. C ^
ZZZZZ ZZ H Z
O
e
c
z
^ K ^-N
fNl y OC
o g < 5 E
— 9 g — c
VC Ov' S 0 —
r-« oe 55 **J ~.
ZZZZZ Z ? S- 2 ? 3
u
o
^
0
o
u
^ >•
1^ I 5
^ TJ- C/V i
' ^* ^^
zzzz^ezz o^^
Z as
> 1
£ , ||l
§ z z » 5 § | | | <
O Z — to E gg< - >-
! ! * o §
r: H O co co
3 3 S 5 5
CQ CD co ca co
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 18
-------
c v>
t» Q
0) o
^^ «•
co £
UJ o5
tJ 3=
C -o
T5 »
TO »)
*= C
c o
Q) *-
0 £
T— "~
CO "O
O) Q)
10 ** ^
00 5 tt °
^ .2 u
c *
0 V)
*i
o «
5*
tJT £
g.E u
v o 2 "
So u
o £
c R
0) **
Jt in
MB W/
C (0 &
.5 * 3,
"° o R
0 £ U
££
•c o
C t-
re co
U Q.
" .E
j? fi.
w o u
^ 5 c 5*
— x k. as
S UJ aj D
'* • £
SSiS
(0 CO i
(Continued). St
station medi
are Central -
CB3.3*.1
*.
a
w
01
ffi
<
u
isi
W
2 st
u
fc
ss
u
{£
s 5
BC
u
i
s^ ^ ^~. ^ ^^ ^^
o2 O?; O^C Or- O— OC
^ C, ^ r^ ^ - ^ c. — C ^9
~^ pS S § 5 § *« S |
7 ^- "*~ °" *" ? ^ *T ^<
^ ^
g Ifg^z z g
»H ^ IT, M
d - d -
^-V ^-v
Z QRz Z Q^Z
^! f ®J 5
^ " — ' f** ^1^
1
^^-oc^oc^, >. ^.
% * 3 3 * o o
* 3 < < S s §
^ ^ ", w, 5 D, Di
&| — 2 £ O
1 r 1 '§ *s
1 | 1 - 1
§ " — ^ i5
~ £ g £ X
^* O ^ *,T* ^J,
'*" tr -^ ^~ 5^ ^^
•6 1 III?
0 E ^ £ « • c
"5 C •= re C «
— u &• . Jf
re CJ C "7 *-^
c « -o c '7 f~ >>
w u ° = *~ •-
C _*^* •— • '•C , - C
C ffi G- « o^" ^ •=
_0 o ^ "^ "^ "c. ^
[^ .^ W ^ ffi C "•*••
C G- ^ (1- J^ H
v^ ••• o ^, c*. ^ ^C
(^5 •" ^3 ffi __ r~ ^^
• ^ ^_ •*—
o c — t« p T? c
^OCLreg^Q^
^wa)gB^"gi0
.£• ,S? "5. '•£ u, o ^ ._
-S-ore'^I^S'o
'"^ "5 v ^ wf £ t> c*o
^•slsSi"- —
g^ S S — s a:
•j* , -S73PG
4^ ^i 5r 5 — S^ ^ ?*{
^3 ^.^ .— r- ^* 1 5^
*"* O t« ^ C C* *™^ *-l
^~a t~4 ^^ pQ ^^ (^ IM r \ ^Tj
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 19 • CSC.MN 18.9/92
-------
'w
«J
O
s
to
o
**
re
£
*rf
(A
O
>,
**
£
're
o>
o
c
3
differences,
c
.2
•5
o>
£
**
c
re
«£
'E
o
'55
_>.
"re
0
1
4^
TO
**
V) .
*. (0
o r-
the magnitudes
bitat requiremel
^^ ffi
TJ TO
O r*
** JM
0>
is
1 =
c re
0
O
TJ-'
UJ
-j
CD
<
(A
^•^
SAV Habitat
Requiremeni
V)
_J
0
S-o
ol
0 =
O)
rc
QC
4~ 0)
inge of significan
median differenc
iw
OC
(A
4^
'E
=3
0>
Parame
I
1?
I li I 5 = = -l -1 I
— , tN
0 P
o o
C-J ^ o
So O oc
PS OJ c rsi r- CM
0 , 0 0 v~. r-i _ o 0
go C- jp — «N >0' - —
| 8 § 8 c oo
o o o
- 2 S
— O f^i re
°-P Z^ c m vo u-, r--, r~:
oo ° ^ CN c«-: o vd ^
11 ' bo • i i , '
S2 £'55OON{NtN^
00 P « — — l 0 0 2
0 g 0 § °
O c
11 1 1 !> "§» E *. "5>
= E EEEscci.g
•o
u
^ 2 «, ^ 1 "S 1 S
A-p zgS?a:g = .«^
S- HClHUi^cSoQO
o
TO ^ **^
a ja 8
r"
« —
r™
8 - S.
E ^ g
•—Ox
•4-W >^ *^
u 13 «
0 X! x-,
u, >^
-= _g .t?
— X) •£
« "° —
•S I 2
Us.
= «* g:
^- v^
P C 00
o .2 T
W T3 m
... w ^^
^ E ^
re _ cs
3 re 03
in c
= 0 "
^ "- J—
.2 re —
o <—
.t; <« o
^=
C^^ f^
C3
'« .» •£
o 1 g
= 1 £
3 < w
3 "S -
.= 6O c
>L h "~
•^ CJ -.
"re E g
c _c «
ra = -o
V2 tC U
^ " 1
E > S
1^ §
•g « 1
|||
•" C3 ~5
•— c« <.
.S *>
J g f
s — ^
o a. o
'S «J •- L
0 c- M CT
1> — K^ Q.
g £<«
" JS oo _
"8 > S A
J= O o ^
«3 ~" E w
^ = n C
2 « £ =
II « &^
J J2 2 £"
Q o.ol
? .1 1 -S
S-SS « J5
.2 c/2 o
11^1
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 m page 20
-------
c
o
re
^-i
V)
75
o>
•o
c
re
0)
§ u w
O' fcj •
T e£ ^t
** CJ C.J
^B •
c
£ 5
C) O
(/) ^^
c w £$ £
1 c £*F'
CO ^ W
Cre
_~ CJ
CD 5>
O o>
re £
0) . CJ K
°- o 5 « 5
re *- ec cs
CO CJ CJ
o*
X in
«£- ^
*2 ^ u >
"c c *~- ^ ~
o | 3*3
•— •£: w
j^
*£ "
o 75
0 TJ
C c
oo u M
n^lj **i -, **"*
*V f < °C f *
^^ k» C£ CC
t c u u
88
« c
co o
o o
o 5 .
c 2 %*
8 » 68
L c w u
« -55
o> z;
Q. 3
in
HI
_j
CD
^
H
£
•-•
H
U
^V
',
M
H£
^
g
U.
~
X
•-.
f.
N
^
T:
£
Z
*^
X
a
H
•<
3^
^
^
<
«
K
0
^
1
£
s
H
Z
5 S.
x r
O o
- c
"w" o
"O -^
W |
•^ —
Q. 55
10 «>
— 0)
JS 3
O "^
•^ r^ t tt>
ON ON ON ON O^ ON — •— f^". r^* r^, f*", r"* f*^. SO vri i/^. SO w! v"* S^ «
ONTj-r-. ONOON— ON ON ,
^ S o P- £ "E £
O^CCvOr^-t^OO . CNOv^-ococr^. — 1/1 — — w-, — D-;5^ m
^s_^^,^^^^, ^^^,^^^- ^^^^^,^ -D0 c
r-J\cr-^-, -^tO^^O Z. r- — Ovor^, — Os o f^. — -^ 1sO wC '<^
^™ **~ ^3 C
*1 T- fl)
O^r^, O^OCCNOCCNC ^ w". O r^ • — ONC*> »^~. r^,r>iocscCN Q. "^T "7=: m C^*
•«• U-. OC ON W-. r— r- ON jf" ONONOCONCNON ONONCNVC^TvO (Di^VcX
B- • .... "Droi/i.E*
CA m ^ ~ -S *"
CO (/) ^
CNJ r^", <"^, O^ r^J ^~ i/~. ON ^* r^~ '^T OC ON r^- NO ON \O OO \O C^ ^T ft~i ~fZ; fc Qi S
^ i' . co ">; « 5
W "S^ r^ '? ^ -O
^^ * — ' "^ c C1J
b ~ ^ ^- CO ^
fiC O "^ ^~
^.^^^.^.^^3 .£o.^CgJ
Op-OOt-ooOO' .. ONONf-viocoe— — -«tO — TfO '--Q'E'S^ajp'
oe — VOON — NO— ON M ONTocr^OrNi ONONt—Tj-r~o '55? '-;- *" in
\q r- ; oc ON vo r-. t— . ON y ON r-) oc oo oe oo ON \p ON oo fN oo jjj O £ _gj
X 3) TJ ^ .§
O ^*s ^^ "m t^\
** ^ CO ii: V- ^2- ^-
Cri O O Ct)
W 03 1- 0 "P ^
U cs E — °> S *
^^^^ ^j ^ S ^ ^ -S •§
OcSoot^ONOvO o C^ ONONxoooboin £ — -wNrNi — O^rNi p • ~r Q^ *O
^ S ^> 3 f\ ^ ^
c£ § jH!^l|
Z ^C **^\ CD 2 ^ P^ 5
4^ ^ >* >* fcl ^>" _ r- —- ^-
"P r- C*^ P |k "^ "™ ^"J ^^ ^O ^^ [j^ ^"^ **^ ^T ^^ ^O C^ t Q O Q ^^
U™ ^^ ^^ *•• ff Js* ^^ ^^ ^^ ^« Ci Ci 2s ^C ^f* ^s* ^™ ^" *3 to -T^J- ,Q ^ «•£
r^ &• r^ UJ p" \^ C/3 t/J ^^ |^ *Sj &* tt* C^ ^H K* J^ t/j ^u &• t/J ••« p"" w^ r ""—i " U_ u
C/2 tn Vj
COMPARISON
Page 21 m
OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92
-------
re
0)
•o
c
re
o'
'c
o
re"
"re
•
^ r^- r~*-
C"""
._ w
e «
£ c
m S
0> CO
V
o £ K ^ 2'
Q.
re o
^ i ^ft
^^
o V
•*- in ^
co eo ^ ^ >
o *~
'o £
£ o
"S «fc
0 (C
o *-
re o • w-.
0 S
o -g
(0 ^
£ o
O U U u
c ^ 5 "* 5
« S
^1
c .2 "* '
•E re
0 CO
0,
in
LU
_J
CD
H
-
u:
RIL-OCTOI
Y, SURFAC
b
Z
<
Z
K
u;
lit
AX
e.
<
ai
£
NUTRIENTS, OT1
'«'
-' K
t *
P «
1 0
U
• — ' re
3 «
g i
•-< "o
V5 W
S C
OO re
•S S
•O o
C o
& " 21 re
is~;*s~. O O- be be be t-- r-^ so \C r^ \C \C iT" <•*"-,.— ^?- v, C-J ~ *n
CNTJ — xOCNCNONON r*"-, c^. r«1 r^v r*"* r*i £ u^ W. u-, n-. ty~, ^ £
^^~ c*«i oc ^^ c^v ON ™ ^ c^ c^ ^i c^i c*^ i/~i t*-* f*^ \o ^p ^5 p"* r"""- ™"^ o
r^r-ir; ocir-,occcOA oor-r-c^CNCv o^osococ\or- S «
f£ «j
x< 5
c u
^ Oil C
t^ r**- c? oc ON ^•C r^~ r*^ ^. r^- ^^ \c ^^ ^~ ^o ^" f^1. c^J ^C i^, r^" t
f, i/", p- TT r^i xC O- oc M O — r^ i/% -^ sc 0^*^^^^^^ ^
r*. \^ \^ oc f*, oc \o oc j? oo i — r — os ON ON 5^ oc r*- t — oc r-- *->
S ^= £"
g •£§.•£
c« £"1 s
c "Zz •-
Z <££. ^
< -"5 1
r- <"-. OC r-". rf CN u~. vo O vc vc VC V-, U-. rt '"• CN r^i 1^. t— • — — -f- OJ-
"". — oc vc r^. TT ^ rvj *x vc — c-5-ocr^. ri <~~ r^i u-> oc oc f~ ' £
VCVC — r~ V. t^TTON if OC — OCOCt^OC C- ^ ON v^1. f, ^ ejZ '
X ' ^c «
I fill
e 1 J ^^
w J^ "c-O
— — ocfNOr— csr*^. 65 OocOObcO ^ CN r^, rr , be r^-, — C — . is
ON 1^- SO ON 0s OC ON ON _^ "^ r*~, "^ ^y r*~, TJ j^.' Tj- Vj \f*, -^ l/", £ J^ i* "~
— ON l/~i r-^ OC SO f^r OC jr *^1 ON i^-, ON sC O oc^-Tr^ONr^, \O ^CD"^J^
r^, TJ- r — ONO>ocr~-ON ^3 ON — oc oo oc oc ONSoONi-^mo CSc
U« ' > O - - ^
w^. OOsosOOO ^ ONOcr^ocr-r^ ^- w-i ON — w*i O\ 5 fii "O "G
NOC^OCONfOOOsOON rj ONOCOOO\CNON O^OAONOO»/^W^ flj -^ NJ "°
g S « 1 z ^ S
w 05 — £ — — ?
-- 5 £ eb-^ >>- «^SH^
%j ._ *_ ^_ r> k.> >JT ._. . ^ t-j kj »Cu c/2 *~ ^
t ^sll^oo * ^Sisoo y«-8l
Z-, E c»\ RHHOoooo S S'3'dOoooo (2SS = «J
& ^ 3HSS?^^^gS5||^^g55 1£H§"S
a.pZZ.8 = &< S | ^ -' «J Q, -' r,1 i ^-'c.10,-1^1 ,^SS
H&pQHUoooo ^ £ ooeOODoopSBQ g ^'CJpaooCQOJ oof-000-cj
Cfi Sfl «C
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Page 22
-------
v>
c
0
TO
W
75
o>
2
•o
c
«
WM
0 VI
£ C
o £
&• «^^
'= c
CT C)
o >
»- c
+rf (/)
TO _
5 "TO
TO ^
> 2
CO v>
0|
w o
O f£
2 c
+- 0
c v
O TO
C 0>
1 ">
"S O
TO ^
* 0
^5 ^™
1^^
6)
0 "TO
C §
1 i
Q. Ui
v> c
0) --T
k_
o D
o
to'
UJ
_J
CD
^^
H
_TO
O
1-
^ 0
C —
0) TO
E -g
.h **
^3 tj
^
0
^
^^
cc
^-«
re
£ O
si
^i c/5
w?
"o
"c
E
.£ >.
§1
TO
tu
(A
.2
4^
m
CO
£
S
TO
0.
O5in oin om c?>in cj>m
^3-CO TTCO TTCO TfCO ^TCO
. — . ^^ ^- ^- ^~. ^-
O^ 0^ &^ O^1 0s" O^
C^ C^ CO CO ^f ^3 O O~j CT; O^ O
? K S 55 ££ !?S3 ^^
OO CMCD OO CVJO OO
•^ CM T- i-
*/3(/5 <^CO ^CO ^(/) V> th
^ro o>co «CD a>cc a^ns
5uj 5uj 5uj 5u-J 5L"-1
cc -HC cc He -EC
QJQ5 (DtU QjOl Old) fl)CU
QO QO OO oO OO
5" ^1
9=0 z ^ I §
Q Si, Q (-- O CO
'~
«
3
C
S
C
o
s
.c
•^
cs
)_.
1
c
c
S
S
*^
C3
C
CJ
fc
'"
£•
kt
•£
c
*4J
L>^
C
C
•5
1
c
"o
i
8.S
"° H
n ^
-I «
-o c
s 1
w "^
w S"
•s.1
u- ^
E "C-
3 ™"
Z .K
8 1
A p.
Z <
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Page 23 • csc.MNtB.9/92
-------
Figure 1. Locator map showing the seven transects studied.
'$
40
^MPARISON OF M.D-BAY AND LATERAL STATION
CSC MN'1B.9'92
-------
Figure 2. Detail map of transect CB3.3. Hatched areas are 1990 SAV
coverage.
V '
^
r
^
K-
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-26
-------
Figure 3. Detail map of transect CB4.1. Hatched areas are 1990 SAV
coverage.
o +
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MN1E.9'92 . Figure • Page F-27
-------
Figure 4. Detail map of transects CB4.2 and 4.3. Hatched areas
are 1990 SAV coveraae.
c
a
«->
CL
O
JT
O
V)
O
LLJ
til -
o *
O
o
CO
rf
m
o
E E
S: ro
n a>
O CQ
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-28 csc.MNiB.g/92
-------
Figure 5. Detail map of transect CB5.1. Hatched areas are 1990 SAV
coverage.
Barren Island
cr
o
in
e>
o
Hooper
Island
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
cs:f,'^E.9's; Figure • Page F-29
-------
FlgureG. Detail map of transect CB5.4. Hatched areas are 1990 SAV
coverage.
CD
O
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-30 csc.wNiB9'92
-------
Figure 7. Detail map of transect CB7.2. Hatched areas are 1990 SAV
coverage.
V)
-------
0.08.
c 0.06-
I
I
| 0.04
o
a
Cfl
O
£ 0.02
re
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.012.
S 0.008-
0)
i
u
o 0.004-
o.
o
I
0.004
0.008
0.012
Total Phosphorus, Central (mg/l)
Orthophosphate, Central (mg/l)
Figure 8. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Phosphorus, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 10. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Orthophosphate, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
0.08
•§>
o.o6-
o
co
tu
0.04-
o
Q.
10
O
0.02-
o
0.012-
I
oj 0.008-
cn
CD
UJ
£
c
0.004-
JC
O
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Total Phosphorus, Central (mg/l)
0.004 0.008 0.012
Orthophosphate, Central (mg/l)
Figure 9. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Phosphorus, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
Figure 11. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Orthophosphate, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-32 CSC.MN--^'92
-------
S
w
I
£
I
I
1.4
1.2:
1:
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Total Nitrogen, Central (mg/l)
Figure 12. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Nitrogen, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
1.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen, Central (mg/l)
Figure 14. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen, 1985-
1991, for western and central stations.
CD
m
01
o>
O
£
1.4
1.2
0.6:
0.2
0
0.7-
I
£ 0.6-
lu 0.5-
1
«
D
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.
Total Nitrogen, Central (mg/l)
Figure 13. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Nitrogen, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen, Central (mg/l)
Figure 15. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen, 1985
1991, for eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MN-iB.9/92 • Figure • Page P-33
-------
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Total Suspended Solids, Central (mg/l)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Chlorophyll a, Central (ug/l)
Figure 16. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Suspended Solids, 1985-1991,
for western and central stations.
Figure 18. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Chlorophyll a, 1985-1991, for western
and central stations.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Total Suspended Solids, Central (mg/l)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Chlorophyll a, Central (ug/I)
20
Figure 17. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Total Suspended Solids, 1985-1991,
for eastern and central stations.
Figure 19. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Chlorophyll a, 1985-1991, for eastern
and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-34 CSC.MW: : >?
-------
2.8-
E 2^
I
I M
"§0.8
o
CO
0.4 J
C.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Secchi depth, Centra! (m)
2.8
24-
E 20-
M
16-
to
g 4-
04 8 12 16 20 24
Surface Salinity, Apr.-Oct., Central (ppt)
Figure 20. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Secchi depth, 1985-1991, for western
and central stations.
Figure 22. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Surface Salinity, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
2.8 -
2.4 -
fc
TO
Ul
"t
1
V)
1-2 -;
0-
24-
0.4 O.B 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Secchi depth, Central (m)
a.
"c 20-
I
S 4
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Surface Salinty, Apr.-Oct., Central (ppt)
Figure 21. Scalier plot of annual seasonal
medians of Secchi depth, 1985-1991, for eastern
and central stations.
Figure 23. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of Surface Salinity, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
:..x.MNiB.9/92 Figure • Page F-35
-------
SPRING
SPRING
4 8 12 16 20 24
Surface Salinity, Central (ppt)
4 8 12 16 20 24
Surface Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
Figure 24. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring Surface Salinity, 1985-1991,
for western and central stations.
Figure 26. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring Surface Salinity, 1985-1991,
for eastern and central stations.
SUMMER
SUMMER
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Surface Salinity, Central (ppt)
Figure 25. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer Surface Salinity, 1985-1991,
for western and central stations.
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Surface Salinity, Central (ppt)
Figure 27. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer Surface Salinity, 1985-1991,
for eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-36 CSC.M ?'92
-------
28
244
S20-
c>
SPRING
CO
8-
4-
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
B1 Salinity, Central (ppt)
Figure 28. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B1 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
28
SPRING
24:
a 20
I 16
UJ
8-
4-
28
4 8 12 16 20 24
B1 Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
Figure 30. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B1 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
28
24
£20
SUMMER
16-
0)
! 8
5
4 8 12 16 20 24
B1 Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
SUMMER
24-
« 16
CO
LLI
.^12
_E
"5
co 8
4-
28
4 8 12 16 20 24
B1 Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
Figure 29. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B1 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 31. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B1 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-37
-------
28-
SPRING
24-
3:20
c
I12
"5
m
8-
4
0
T-JT
4
8 12 16 20 24
B2 Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
SPRING
28
Figure 32. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B2 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
1
I
CM
CD
24-
20-
16-
12-
8-
4-
0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
B2 Salinity, Central (ppt)
Figure 34. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B2 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
SUMMER
4 8 12 16 20 24
B2 Salinity, Central (ppt)
28
Figure 33. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B2 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
28-
24-
•?
&20.
09
UJ
SUMMER
CM
m
8-
4-
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
B2 Salinity, Central (ppt)
Figure 35. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B2 Salinity, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-38 CSC.MN-
-------
SPRING
SPRING
2 4 6 8 10 12
S.DISOXY, Central (mg/I)
14
2 4 6 8 10 12
S_DISOXY, Central (mg/I)
14
Figure 36. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring S_Disoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 38. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring S_Disoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
14.
SUMMER
12-
f
E 10
« 8
I
>•" 6^
=,x
o
V)
2-
11 •
4
TJT
8
111"
10
14
SUMMER
12-
% 8^
co
HI
> 6-3
X
O
2-
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S_DISOXY, Central (mg/I)
Figure 37. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer S_Dlsoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
14
2 4 6 8 10 12
S.DISOXY, Central (mg/I)
14
Figure 39. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer S.DIsoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Figure • Page F-39
-------
SPRING
SPRING
B1_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
B1_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
Figure 40. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B1_Dlsoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 42. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B1_Disoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
SUMMER
SUMMER
B1_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
2 4 6 8 10 12
B1.DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
14
Figure 41. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B1_Dlsoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 43. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B1_Dlsoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stdtions.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-40 csc.MNie.9/92
-------
14-
SPRING
i
£,10
£
o>
t)
I
8-
O
W
5 4
CM
m
0-
0
"I*
2
14
12
i
E 10
ce
IU
x"
o
SPRING
m
4 6 8 10 12
62_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
14
2-
0
11'
4
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
B2_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
Figure 44. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B2_Disoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
Figure 46. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of spring B2_Disoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
14
SUMMER
SUMMER
12-
•§>
JLio
c
c
•K
I
O
v>
O
*.'
xo
2 4 6 8 10 12
B2_DlSOXY, Central (mg^)
14
Figure 45. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B2_DIsoxy, 1985-1991, for
western and central stations.
2 4 6 8 10 12
B2_DISOXY, Central (mg/l)
14
Figure 47. Scatter plot of annual seasonal
medians of summer B2_Dlsoxy, 1985-1991, for
eastern and central stations.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CDc.MMB.9/92 Figure • Page F-41
-------
Figure 48. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Phosphorus in
CB3.3,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 49. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Phosphorus in
CB4.1,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
-0
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-42 CSC.MN -92
-------
Figure 50. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Phosphorus in
CB4.2,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 51. Time piotot differences between central and lateral stations lor Total Phosphorus in
CB4.3,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
T
c-w
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MMB.9/92 Figure • Page F-43
-------
Figure 52. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Phosphorus in
CB5.4,1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 53. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Orthophosphate in CB4.1,
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-44 csc.MMB.9/92
-------
Figure 54. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Orthophosphate in CB4.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
.-.0.02
-0.04
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 55. Time plot of differences between centra/ and lateral stations for Orthophosphate in CB4.3,
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
1985
1986
1987
1988
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MNiB.9/92 . Figure • Page F-45
-------
Figure 56. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Nitrogen in CB4.1
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
-2.5
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 57. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Nitrogen in CB4.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
-2.5
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-46 CSC.MM 6.9/92
-------
Figure 58. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Nitrogen in CB4.3
1965-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
—fc • w I i i i i
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 59. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Nitrogen in CB7.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
-2.5
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-47
-------
Figure 60. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB3.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 61. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr lOct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 .986 1j87 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-48 csc.MNiB.g/92
-------
Figure 62. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1386
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 63. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB4.3 1985-1991. Ail parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MMB.9/92 Figure Ji Page F-49
-------
Figure 64. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 65. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Total Suspended Solids in
CB7.21985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
I I i I I I I I I I i I L '
1085 i486 1487 19"88 1489 l4cO 19" 91
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-50 csc.MWB.9/92
-------
Figure 66. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chlorophyll a in CB3.3
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
i 20i
£
m ^0-
5 -60 f
=, -80-E
0,100^
8
0-120-
I
t -^
M 1,1
J
•
A
^
1 1 1 1 1
, H \\
IV
1 1 1 1 1
C-E
V
-160
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 67. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chlorophyll a in CB4.1
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
D)
4)
O
D
(0
a
2
_o
£
O
-160
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Figure • Page F-51
-------
Figure 68. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chlorophyll a in CB4.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
O
-160
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 69. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chlorophyll a in CB4.3
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-52 CSC.MNIB.WW
-------
Figure 70. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Chlorophyll a in CB7.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
o
o
£
0)
CO
Q.
2
o
£
O
-160
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 71. Time plol of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB4.1 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
-2
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 19B6 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
usC.MNiB.9/92 Figure • Page F-53
-------
Figure 72. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB4.2 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
-2
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 73. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB4.3 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
-2
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
••985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-54 . csc.wNie.9/92
-------
Figure 74. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB5.1 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
4-
I3"
I 2-
CO
-11
-2-TTTTi-TTTTT-TTTTT- I.M.|IM
C-W
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 75. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB5.4 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
4-
a, 3-d
o
c
I:
3 1-1
!E
u
S 0
\
C-W
T
'T
-2
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-55
-------
Figure 76. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Secchi in CB7.2 1985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
-2
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 77. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Salinity in CB4.1
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
-8
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
•toss
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-56 csc.MWB.9/92
-------
Figure 78. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Salinity In CB4.31985-1991.
All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
8
Ie^
!•
£
£ 2^
o
-4-
o
€
<\IJ{
C-E
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 79. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Salinity in CBS.4
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
i—.—i i i i——i i—,—i i—,—i i—,—i i—,—i
1985 19*86 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 . Figure • Page F-57
-------
Figure 80. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Salinity in CB7.2
1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see Table 2
or 3).
-8-1
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Figure 81. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB3.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
-6
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-58 csc.MNiB.g/92
-------
Figure 82. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 83. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
csc.MNiB.9/9i Figure • Page F-59
-------
Figure 84. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB4.31985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
-6
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 85. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB5.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-60 csc.MWB.9/92
-------
Figure 86. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
-6
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 87. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Salinity in
CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-61
-------
Figure 88. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Salinity in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 89. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Salinity in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
IU .
^ 8
I 6:
I 2"
5 °"
£ -2-1
CO "^ "I
CO
CM -6-
£Q ° :
-8-
if*
^
s
V*
VT
-Vw
\/\i
' • M
ii i i i
"^^^
4
uV\,
^
C-E
Mill
V
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-62 . csc.MNis.9/92
-------
Figure 90. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Salinity in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
-10
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 91. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Salinity in CB5.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
iu-
& 8^
"QL _ :
3: 6-
0> ., :
1
5 °
.-^ -2-
c
== .4_
CM -6-^
ID
-8-
-10-
AF
i
>r O<
— i —
1985
Al
:t AF
L
t
yv«
>r O<
— i —
1986
/v
;t AF
I
^M
"r
>r O(
"— r-
1987
\r*
1
:t AF
J
rJWv
"•T>
>r O<
1988
"i
r
:t AF
J L
L
VI
>r
19i
Hr
T
0(
59
"'W
•
;t AF
L
MB.VHB
>r Oc
— r-J
1990
.-
c-w
:t AF
L
tb^
**
>r Oc
— r— '
1991
t
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 • Figure • Page F-63
-------
Figure 92. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Salinity in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
11 i i M 11 i n i i 11 1111 I' ' '" I' '' ' ' I' ' ' ' M '
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 93. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Dissolved Oxygen
in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1b35
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-64 csc.MWB.9/92
-------
Figure 94. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Surface Dissolved Oxygen
in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differences (see
Table 2 or 3).
s
E «
5 2-
TJ--1H
V)
8-4
Apr Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 95. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CB3.3 1985-1921. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant
differences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-65
-------
Figure 96. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CB4.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
I""1]"'"!""'!1
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 97. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations forBottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-66 csc.MMB.9/92
-------
Figure 98. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 99. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CBS.1 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Figure • Page F-67
-------
cigure 100. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
'. xygen in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 101. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom Layer Dissolved
Oxygen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically significant differ-
ences (see Table 2 or 3).
c-w
C-E
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
199-1
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-68 csc.MwB.9/92
-------
Figure 102. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically signifi-
cant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 103. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Dissolved Oxygen in CB4.3 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically signifi-
cant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 . Figure • Page F-69
-------
Figure 104. Time plot of differences between central and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Dissolved Oxygen in CB5.4 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically signifi-
cant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Figure 105. Time plot of differences between centra! and lateral stations for Bottom same-depth
Dissolved Oxygen in CB7.2 1985-1991. All parameters and transects shown had statistically signifi-
cant differences (see Table 2 or 3).
10-q
Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Figure • Page F-70 CSC.MN 19.9/92
-------
X
Q
LU
Q.
D.
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Appendix I • Page A-71 csc.MNiB.9/92
-------
TJ
0)
N
^^
(0
C
(D
TJ
O
O
a
o
T3
C
TO
0)
JD
.n
TO
Q
c
o
(A
C
CO
•Q
I
(0
i.
o
CO
^0
"c
c
c
c
T-
LLJ
_J
CD
1
<
CENTER-1
$ £
*•" oe
r») in, tN
sCONCecr*-. NCCNG
«N) in, in, in. in. CM p^
r~ oc r-, in ON ON ON oc
loc
^ IT; »/~. CM
l/l NC f^j NC CM ON OC r*
^ U-,
i/ir-'Ncv, OOONNC
-
^ V. 1^",
f( ON OC OC V; ON f~.
U V, IT. V,
p l^, l^1. I/". l/^.
C£ ^' r- oc CM CM CM ^ M c*", CM O •— v, oo ^~
r^- r*^ ^f V"- NC ON ON V1, r-* CM CM CM CM — — CM
f", «*-. oc r-
>. ON v, rr Tf >•
^ 2 ^ V; V, ^ V,
NC f^ C*-j
V; V* t^* OC V. V, l^, V, V;
1/iU", NC — ^OC — NC V^CMCM — — — — CM
* «*5U ft ^!S*«*
V, */~,
^;ocr— TT r«-, — CMO ^-ococ NC *c
I/) V, vl NC CN ON ON ^C ITJ — " — CM — CM *- CM
f*( ^^ ^ ^D t^- •"" f^ "~ Vi NC f*** V1, "^ ^
r% v". v, !$' T r-' Tt Tf e*j r-* o^ oc oc «c ON
fM] CM NC NCOCCM s- J) »•
KxcSpN>r-iTj-l/"'oe *•" R <£ —
ft; « NC m NC PS — •*' o gSm — c> — — —
O ~ " ~ •" 5}
« •<
2 E
jgUr^^r^v; C5^ ^ cs
« o
< K
fa ** U ~<
2 U 5
^~ »Jj ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 55 t?r ON ON O^ ON ON ON
§
>e
r*-
vi
^
w
iX
^
••j
*^t
^
K
c< ^
§1..
X -i
, APRILS
JW 4
^, «»>
H
1
SURFACE
k'EAR
ON
ON
in
O
?j
in
oc
r*-,
in.
K
NO
("-I
Tt
£
8
**t
g
1
r*i
oc
s
CM
8
O
s
—
1
—
oo
V.
m
oc
ON
V,
oc
o
CM
OC
CM
I—
^T
£
B
r*~.
g
£
CM
i
i
CM
^
—
oe
ON
oc
O
£
2
OC
£
NC
NC
,
^-
V.
,
f.
s
NC
r-i
in.
8
oc
M
—
o
g
•— '
oc
fC
ON
U-.
oc
V,
^
if
w-.
CM
a
c*-.
CM
r*-;
S
"•
v-.
t
O
s
o
*
2
V,
NC
^I
— .
*
NC'
c
•*t'
NC
in.
C
^
OC
0
ON
r—
V,
oe
V,
V;
oc
oc
£
ON
v,
NC
CM
OC
m
oc
—
S
5
c
0
s
o
o
p^
V)
CM
V)
SN
NO
,
r*-
s
oc
r—
oc
R
V,
r*",
rt
v,
0^
•*?_
s
r^.
e
f,
NC
r*~,
c^-.
NC
r-
CM
ft
0
in
—
s
^*
—
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Appendix I • Page A-74
-------
(ft
O
k.
0)
a
0)
•o
c
TO
£
TO
L.
TO
•
w.
O
•*-
C
o
*j*7
TO
W
W
c
TO
E
c
o
w
TO
0)
TO
3
C
C
'S* o
OKI
.E "5
u
OQ
<
P
1
E
(MARC
C5
, SPRIN
5^
.. Z
UM *•*
CENTER-1
SURFACE
§
se
|
iri
«
i/**
ir,
*
U
>
f^
T
U
T
£
<»
U
Tt
£
<*!
H
«*1
9
^
OC sC
oc r-
r- r-
^
r- TT
l/~l C*-i
5 ?,
c*~, —
oc r*
f c*~.
r-. —
g-
i rr
iy —
CN O
r-. f~
c-i -^s-
/~, C-4
oc r^
OC SC
U-. sc
oc oc
sC sc Os
TT sc sc sC
sc r~ oc sc
— sC rs) r-~
sC sC — C
^^
r- oc rf- r*~, TT V". NC CM CM l/l c*-, CM r*', r*". rj- ^- —
ON ^-t W". ON OCf^", r*-, NC>Ct^r^l/"
mp-r-oc\cocoCNC ir, Ttc*"f^. rtv~. — —
^ r*-, — ~£ <*~ y£ ^ *s~. ? r^, r- NC r*-. oc oc sc
^* -n- r", r-i <^j \c C1 r-" ^T -r — CM CM wl ON o^"
^) fN NC W" '~r"i ^^ ON ^ NC ^C NC ^
•^•ONOCOCOC — OCr~^ ^TTJ1— T*rMrfOO
CM OC O f. C~- r*~, C^ NC ^C-)scrtsCON r^-ON
^ oc r— oe r-^ ON r^ r— " g/ ** rK — rK c-i ^ O O
---- S-~ ~
^^•oev, — \csom h^^oev^*— c*^^ oc
f^j— ^^.sc— cicMr^. 2, fj ^ oc v^ «*K O — ON
c/:
r% r* w^ (** sc oc sc sc £, f*^ o' o ^' — c*"^ o o
§«
^^
i
tf
a.
c5
S
o
u«
C/5
W
SURFACE
»<^ vr, CS CSI
SC O C —
CM \T:
U% O 0 CM
^ OC V~. Tf
l« — — —
iy- iy-
»— OC sC r—
u% — o —
rr, sc ^ sc
f^ i/~. t~^ CM
^ r~
^ cs — O
U sc rsi w-.
^ r-. — —
i? u-i r- r<-,
— — 0 f.
^ esi — ^«
>
r> c — e>
S^i — ^ l/~, SC
f^ r*", (*•" ^~
^1 CM ^~> C=
0£
•^ tr-. sc r-
ro OC OC OC
C ON ON ON
sC SC CM
O ON —
c*-, oc Tt
t/~, OC f^*
ON sC rf '
— 0 —
— O —
2 ^ M
0s r* O--
ON O O
0 O —
sC CM r*"
o o c;
000
CM ^ */-,
O O O
oc ^j »-'.
O O O
OC OC ON
(P^
s>
rr
oc
CM
r-
0
0
o
T*
5
u~
~~
I/",
—
c
—
_
—
o
i
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Appendix I • Page A-75 • csc.MWB.9/92
-------
tt
TJ
O
• «•
O
a
F
TJ
C
(0
0)
JO
.2
75
y_
o
«*-
c
o
(0
C/J
C
.2
^
E
75
c
o
re
a>
(A
re
c
c
^r
£ -o
a> N
3>»
P
§ •
T—
1
^*
III
_J
CD
<
p
5
ARCH-J
S
C
5/1
2
C
rS
o
o
w
£
W5
H S
u S
!£ £•
CENTERS
BOTTOM
f; f, r-l f^
SC Ox ee Ox
v,
«S OX IT:
t- oc p- oe
£oc
^ Ox ir-, r-l
tf) Ox Ox —
•*» ee Ox
«« p- xc ox
*,r
V> 0 C O
v* v-, o^ oc
§535
CJ NC ^t —
f*« V. — V,
C*4 T P- V,
^ \c- r^ oc
^^ ON */", ^
"» rr v. ^C
^
•» p- t— P-
W r* -*t (N
— C C~l 0
^ rf. U-, xc
^ U-. XC «-,
f> ^^ oc */~i
U sC r^, oc
CO CN W", V,
OC
?5 oe' oc oc
Jj ON ON ON
5 r-, Tfr c
oc oc oc oc
OC fN \C O^
^^ fN ^ l/^.
oe ON oc r-
^ cr v, r—
r- v. \c oe
0 ON — 0>
f^ ON Vi t~-
O O ON ON
O ON V. i/".
— a- o
c oc oc cK
i/~, i/~
SC 0^ t^ p-.
CN r- 0s oc
-^ NC r— '
>c r- ^ - ON NC r*",
^r NC p^, c^
oe ON o —
oe oe CK ON
ON ON ON ON
•<••
T
ARCH-I
?
2
5
p,,
2
O
X
o
c
>
o
W5
C
BOTTOM
6,,.
xe Ox oe
«x» o r-i
t- Ox ee
^ V", ^S
V) 0 ON
i/-,
^ — V,
V) O O
*
in — c
m — o
t' xc oe
f, r-- C
T Ox T)-
CJ —
r< r-i
•^ o ox
**-
^r r— r-
y^g
^* r^- r*
S:
f^l OC OC
fl O ee
ee
«<-. P-
Ox ec ec
I'", xC t
— Ox xC
Ox ec ec
— ec
oe Tt IA,
O O Ox
oe ox o^
— Ox Ox
w-.
— — —
_; _: e
oe
T O-
C O-' oe
r-
C Ox <--.
Ox Ox p—
xC p* v".
O O^ Ox
oe
oc ox r".
oc ec ec
Ox
vc TJ- r-.
Ox Ox Ox
^f ^^ Ox
CN p- r--r^>c<* uS
«x« SC
t~ P-'
^
m oe
»/-,
tn u-.
m oc
3 P
O oe
r-l
? o-
r» Sc
* •*
U
ec
£ ^ ~~
2 i w-i
3 ^ t'
* "*S
g
Nr:
S-Uoc
SS- «*» ee
ll.
OC «- Ox P-
vrv c^ Tt —
?. — Ox —
ee p- >/-, r<-,
r-, — — C
^ — xc r-l
u-, irv Tf —
O O< p-' p-'
S..2*
rr — oc
(N [ -^r e+* ^T
rs rsj — —
r^. cr ^C
Tt Tj CS CS
o\ *— oe CM
SrS^00
ass*
«t rt r-l rj
*S,S
C Ox P- p-
I? — oe p?
p~ Ox fs rs
OX p- xc >C
SSeSS
— ON
— . <^-
Tj" SC
0 ee
«N CN
cr cr
(N NC
K 0
t- 5
OC 0s
— CN
5S
— ^
ec
O- O
oc ir.
r-l r*"*
sp
oe o^
pg
2S
p- p-
Is
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Appendix I • Page A-76
-------
V)
•o
o
l_
o
a
0)
£
+*
T3
C
(0
V)
.SJ
TO
^m
CO
T5
»w —
.
o
c
o
'J**.
n
A
c
fu
^
a>
E
c.
o
t/)
(C
o
CO
3
C
C
^•o
T3 O
O N
3 >»
~ ^
O
V H
T"™ ^A;
< K
111 ^
_J K
CD £
^ TT e^ -t oc — p-
^ »/-" v/~, r-J (•*•, O — - r*""
r-J r-j c-4 (N ?^i CN o-j
^ *••*• r-. \r~, — rs r-~
fSIOCOC— W. ^COV
CM CN (N C-» fS CN Csj
^ r-J TJ- rs r*-. r~,
IA r^- r~" \c i^" rs ^ ^^
in r- t~~ r- w-. CM m *c
^r^Tfp-\Cr*-, c*-oc
l/l i/". v~, t/". ^ O fN W",
•*+ CN ^c r^ r-
*/", "*T ^T i/', ^" O •— v.
w r~ rN r- r-
f*^ tr c*: r^ — oc ; T* r^
> , ^ ^
r,->
C£
S iJ r^, sc r-, e^j CM »c
A.
fa- ^ -^ r^
Z •— — ocF-c^'t'^u-.
"^
&C
|^U — >c o^v-*r»-.
^
K
i™ 3* X V. T-. -O C1 T--. 2>
|*^ fi ^^ ^N ™™ T^ U~( ^5 ^^
<
55- r% TT t^, rK ^^ \g ^-l i/^ f-^. f^«. ^;
i/it—r^^ocococr- wi c^. CN ^- r^. — c-4 •—
^«- ^ ^ ^
^ ,--, — - r-; \cr r", o cr, *^ rN — \c r- •*» <^4
«nr^r*-^c%coer-xc */> \c vc */-, »^-, ^ w^. *s~.
Wt P*~ t**- P1^ P— P~- f** sC V< -^~ ™^ ^? C1 f~^ ^^ CI
^) oc i/~ >/" v ^^ ^* IA r^ oc
f, i-^ vc rg oc c u- — ; j-- fr | f. t" rj ro ^. « %.
CKlr **' ocl?^- b"?»S£crS=cr~.
^ <^ ^: . . oc w-. c- ^_ M c =c
S g
^>— . i>
B z
rj C
^ w
lS5S2S=575 ISSsSsaSS
i o
O ^»i j-' ac' o< ae oc — oc £ TO o C O O C C4i
o S
<: o
«5^.«r.oe^ - fc5^-,>cr-oe^
S ^oc'ocoe8e*c5^S^ ^ r-i oc oc oe oc oe c^ Qv
a:
u:
ec
S
u:
H
A.
&
. \
Z
«
£C
S
1
Z
0
rs
U
C
o
S
es
S
| BOTTO
^" p~ w-, oc p- Tt r—
r*"( w, Tt — oc r-j c^ r^
\C ^t ^t r*~i ^t r*K r^. ^t
^f c**^ O" f^. oc c^ sC xC
l/i P*> ^C x£ •^ p-^ p— sC
r»" u^, ir. \C xC (N
TT r- o »^. ON r
vir-r— scr-oep--r--
^
^-< \c oc cs cs r*-, c^ r^
l« %C NC sC sC xC NC >£
^" oc t — Or*", Tf
w, ^cp^NC-r-xc^c^c
t^ oc TT u-
3 5 S S Ic' S S $
>
OP- %c *r-.
^ M", tfi *c r- \c -^ *r.
SSSS^s,
^« — — -^t o vc' r-j CN
^ CS T)- c^. sc t<~. TT r";
^ ^*-, •-* ON V~l
y <*-. v. 04 in »^,
^ »/^ %c r^ oe ON o •••
^ococoeoeoec^O'
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Appendix I •• Pane A-T7 csc.MNie.9/92
-------
II variables and time periods
CO
^
O
*»-
C
o
^rf
re
V)
>«i
jQ
C
TO
*n
0>
E
TO
C
O
w
TO
0)
i^»
re
3
c
c
^f
. •
^ o
0) N
3 >
.E «
*- c
o ro
o
T-
LU
^J
CO
Si
££
o
o
*m
Cfi
c.
g
0
e.
O
a.
j
^
H H
to 0
ro
M U
fc S
« S
u K
\
•*T 0 G O
^.
w 5 ^ S
f*} G G G
rl C> O' G
OC vy-,
f> S G G
rS G G 0
^ ec sc oe
DC rsi vc
— r*-, C-J ^
G G C C
G O C C
w. w.
G c c e
CN -^t CN r—
c Ni vc v=
CN r-j rj <^j
C G C C
f vC —
— \c r- x
C G G G
G C G C
^ ^ ^ ^
rsi r-j r*- <^j
~ ~ C ~
C C C G
ON OC G f~-
— fN r*~. c*J
G C C G
C G C C
G G C G
C G C G
rvi r--, r-! c-"!
C C c C
G C G C
5- rJ f .
ON 5 r-. c
f*J ^ ^ ^*
o o 5 S
o o o o
ON ON r*". r—
siss
G G G G
illi
^GGGSSfiS
r-cccGocc
C G rj i~- r^, "
r,5ES8S8S
t~CCGGCGG
5*^ S S S ^' c S S
TTOOOCOOO
vc 2 r- — o
f^S252SSSSS55
TOOOCOOO
^f fN r*~ oc — C^ f*" <
SScSSSSS
^GGGCGGG
v~. •/", i/-,
r— coeoer^f*".
fij-ylilills
^ ^-ooooooo
^, w-v v-i
Q WoOOQOoS
JJJ f^j c C3 ^ ^ o O °
ffi f^OOOOOOO
o
E v- ^^^-
L« rn f*". NC ON t/-| P^ ON
fi£ WGCGGGCO
2T r^S2S£s£££
>^ rOO'OOGOOO
w
u
fc
ff ^v(\cr-ocONO~-
^r^ocoeoeeeoe .ON
05
CC
O
d
O
p;
<
U
O
O
^S
z
fcj
H
o
H
U
|
S i5 5 4
r- G G G
«-.«-.
r* 5 ^ ^
t^ C G G
f*"' 5
jjr 2 G —
T G G G
— — CN
r^i NC v~. NC
«t C G G
i/~, ir, -^-
S 3 tr ' t£
^ C : O O
« 1 S 1
^> O O O
Slst
^» O G C
ON g
>— vc r- r-
^t O G C
ON
»o o o o
^
W ^' NC NC
r*^ r* oc oc
fl G G G
IT* ON ON ON
5- SS. ^ Jr,
O C G G
»r-,
i| f: § jr.
C G G C
u- «-.
NC S f- S-
C G C G
r^i x t G
G C C G
u- V-
r^. r~~ — oc
C G G G
W". W^. l^.
O G G G
r", ^t ir-. oc
— OC f~ CM
G G G G
in u-i w^
f*-. ON — f.
O — C G
ON «-.
|«gg
O — O G
m
— — G oc
™ — — G
HI!
u,
es
c
n
i
*^
^
5;
Wv
£*
0
W
C
z
u
1
o
o
z
Q
w
ij
o
c^
*6
u
o
^J<
1
^•( V,
fa^ ^ ^ r*"
t- o c c
I/-,
f« S G C
r- G c G
Tt — «•
UJ f^J G t
•wooe
— G (Q
K C G C
TT GC G
^- — vC
u: g
• O O G
^ oe oc oe
1^ ON ON ON
r^J t —
G G
O G
fNl fS
G G
C C
v~.
S ?
CG
— u-.
^ f*-.
G G
t/-.
r-i jj;
G G
m m
G G
r* G
G G
— NC
G G
Op
0 0
V". w~.
SN!
0 0
OO ON
ON c£
c 8
G G
_£
c 8
G G
,j.
r~ —
*-~ G
~ C
^ — '
G G
— G
G G
^i
O G
NC OC
C G
^_
si
o o
IT-. NC
£25
O G
ON ON
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Appendix I • Page A-78
-------
all variables and time periods
c
o
«J
w
.Q
c
rc
o
75
c
o
w
re
0
re
3
C
C
~-d
•O O
O N
3 >»
.E 75
u
^ £
-1 w
p I
- " F^ ON f*", V. ON ON *•" C^l
2 £ £ E S 5 2 oc
W «- u-
Nj ^. ^
tC u- I/- »/-, U~,
u
e:
B« „,„*
^
N™
)M
a
e_
< w jj. ^^^^
C
13
o
5/2 U «- u- «- w- «-^
rs -^ c rj t— r- >^, t— NC
r^ ^ xi-w1,^ ^, ^J -^ *C
O
u:
fT W ir-, w-, w». w-i
J£^ fi— •t/~iOCOC^C?NON
^
|u , ,,
T^p^l CNr-^tococr^,
u
u
|«__ _
^tS*^00060600??
fS CM OC
O; NC oc
r^ r*~. r"4 oc r* NC vC ^
Tt ^ OC
•^ o^ NC
t*" fi ^" */^i ^C ON 0s */"P
OC f.
, r-i o^
U f: W".
f--, r^j Tt i — f^.
o — — — —
I ^
H .- , r--' oc
^n xw ^c f. v~,
y n ^ -. « "": "; «. *
g
<^
^ SOC'OCOCOCOC^ON
r4crsioc — NCOC r«_ t- \C sC
t; ^ u * § S !£ ON — -
-^ — r\i — — ^— — ^ t»-, f, t-Ni rj c O r'
W *- ,. o tg ""• _ "•
UJ
es
« O
* H S^«- ,^ ^. ^
K-.t-vcvc-«»-^5'\csc z • • c — — NC P rJ o
9 g cc
.J , , ^f f . ON r*", v-, tn
*J* U2 Wll/"} ^ W f^, fN — P-J SO OC
5 s
w 3 *° oc
D*f*^— ^- — —
-------
all variables and time periods
0
M—
C
o
re
*->
(0
n
(ft
C.
re
TJ
o
"re
c
o
re
0)
rn
re
3
c
c
^f
~-u
"O O
,
£ "5
l«
O
T-
LU
_J
CO
<
oc r- — \c 5
< E
S w ^ w
^^-c^ocr-oc^j^i-rr- p£ — r~. r*-. . — oetr-!o^-
•*• *t — C^ — O — 3^ oc ^ •»' I— ' \C r-' VC oc U-; vC
« £L
<— r- oc r-' •«• — r-' r-j ^J -^ oe o\ •** ?, oe ^- rK
r»» ^osc — ococac g^ ^rocr^ocr^c^r^r*
z ^
S t
C^U-scr-v-, ocw-, r^-, oc r* W r«-, oe scoe^-^
^f^Oe P~ >^-! r-' c Z — oc TJ- — c oc i^, ^ ^— * ^ ^^ ^~ f^*, f^ f^ ^^ ^
O «
5^ ^ »/" »T"I »/~, c*" oc f*~ ^ Z ^ fN c^ ^
J;-«^r-. «" o
P^ b£ sC f1^ f i sC ^ c**< ^^ ^0 sC V"( Vi */^
f*^ f^i *^"i (^ ^' ''j ^ oc v~i *"5 f*j t^* *^ '^ r*^ w"' ON
Zf>oae'»'oo;i-:oe' &*r<^'Ni~ OOC
1 o
V3 «j
S* flCTvOCr^O^ONOC Wf*)or~oeCT> - «<^-vor~ocoo-
J5k IT* ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ?jf IT"' ON ON ON ON ^^ ON &^
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
CSC.MN1B.9/92 Appendix I • Page A-80
-------
ariables and time periods
>
"TO
i_
o
c
o
•*->
TO
(A
>,
C/5
C
(U
•Q
o
E
TO
c
O
TO
O
TO
c
C
**
^ O
d> N
C {^
'•£ c
o TO
u
*7
W
u
CO
g
"
C/5
<
K
i
rj
u: rr c- — i/~
l^»ONO|CONOCOsC:oc
v/- oc ri \c C'
Li2 iy- T* I/-, l/-
J^^ — ^^C-"!?^
_
^« U^ c^ r-
_
^iC — er Wr-scrjsCON^Cf-i
^r^^c — DC <~- rr r- r^acocot*- — ^CO
u _
OS Si
*• ^, ir-. t/3 W ir-. ^ oc vc c',
Qfioc'cvcONOcie'r-' ^r^c^o — o>cr^r-i
c/; f—
»™< 5r
C K
fs|CJ r- ^«CJr^, ir-, ocu^r^rrvc
£, i R 7^ oe oc oc oe oe 2F. ON
g>
EMRF
£
^
V
—i
^2
OS
u
^
y
H
z
^
<*
Cfi
J?
fe
O
|
Cfi
SS^'^Z?o£?
t-» u-, w. r^, Tt C^4 (N Tt
r^ \c. ?. ™ ? — ir —
(N f^J (N fN (N CN C--J
« tV ^ P S g £•
^j — oc^r-~r--co
UOCNCOC^ONON^.
tocoNi—r^ocoN
b* r^ rr Ov ^^ r^ c^
WTtmr-i — ONfN),^.
Uoet-.^fNjgoc^
f*")ocoNr— ^vcr-r^
«
Ejj ON ON ON 0s ON ON w
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
Appendix I • Page A-81 . csc.MWB.9/92
-------
C/5
O
O
c.
cj
E.
•o
r
TO
_C
.E
'~
re
o
c
o
C
V,
^^
.£>
c/-,
c
c
T.
c
E
^_
r
c
o
c;
o
'- • ' — r ~ r — r
r , r r , r t f . r , ^ .
M. — >c >" r~ u' ^* ^- — ^ vi,'
^,r-j=«c^. — C'C'T f*~, sCsc-- r-sC
" — ^rC'." — — ", — c •• . i^ c ' —
/- r- , <• Z- ~
a
£1
— rL * ->-
~ ~~ — — •" U.
'* C-
** ^i,
^ 'sA
^?j.^^_I * v* £ g ^ ^ ^- «. — iC ,
X ^
C/l
u.' ^
^_— -i.'-t/-C'Ck-Tir— ^.U-i^ »*tr ir
* 7
^?=S5 S g5s^ = S_£!C-.
^t, ^ -- . — - '*-f~-r^-^ ? * *s i- $*. •*£, tr, ^, t i—
* ,. ®
j- ?, P > ^. - o J» &-' C f, S > £ f . f. vc
^
H ^0, |y
^ ~ ", ^ TJ r< — o C; r- C^, r-scc-ocsc — =<:
il 1
^ ^<^vcr~=c-c 5$ vcr-
•*• Cui^^^^^Jx 5w£SS?fK5*?
f
M.
t.
r
^
• — ;
y.
r,'^
Z.
*.:
^,
^
r-
*-
y.
Z
|:
^
x
>
t^
•y.
C
C
c
". - • - - r - -
r,Zr.-Zt-Z-
'_^ F- (/• r-
f, ^*" rj iy — r-~ rJ O
- ' ff f r "~ f~ , c.
' ' "" ""
— — r r "•
* - "-
ifc rj ^ >c (^
y^SSlS.^E
^ ci f*_ ^ O O d; f*-
fa» ^•i pvj f*-^ i/- i^-
r*'. PJ (vj — C ^"' — C-
(Ss^s^sSst
AX
«^
S
—
*
^
^
PJ>
z
^;
^
r-
V
^
**-
—
y.
Z
C
•*>
X
y,
y.
C
er
T TOM (1
O
b.
N^-J?^i7c:
^
U.' >- ir »y "
5 c - o o o S i
"-"""' — -
^ -^ ^ ._ ,,
<~-» , r- ^ . _ _ >:
^ r-J ^ sc r. -r ^ (-1
^ w ^c r- sc -^
H. LT C" T u- r .
L^ rsi sc sc v. r- --
^C-OOOC-vO
SS^*So25
^g,__
BC
WS^SssSx
COMPARISON OF MID-BAY AND LATERAL STATION WATER QUALITY DATA
cs^N'\-,B9?2 Appendix I * Page A-82