United States Environmental Protection Agency
                CBP/TRS 27/89

                  June 1989
   Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring
    Program Report
          P ^^"»>
          Chesapeake
                 Bay
             Program

-------
This study was funded by grants X—003295--0l, x—003351—0l, X—003351—
02, and X—003351—03 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of many people who
have helped make the Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program a success.
The Original Proposal was prepared by Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Dr Frank 0.
Perkins, and Dr. J. Kevin Sullivan.
Dr. Kent Mountford, Dr. Hermann Gucinski, Mr. Steve Bunker, Dr. Martin
Wiley Dr. David Evans, Dr. Bruce Nielson served on the Technical Advisory
C ’i ttee. Chesapeake Bay Program Quality Assurance Officers, Ranvna
Travato and Bettina Fletcher, provided invaluable assistance in developing
and writing the Quality Assurance Project Plan. USEPA Central Regional
Laboratory personnel, through their interest, advice and time, made a
unique contribution to the credibility of this data. Chesapeake Bay
Program Monitoring Subconinittee members who have served on the Citizen
Monitoring Workgroup, Dr. Robert Magnien, Dr. Bert Brun, Dr. Steve Jordon,
Mr. Rich Batiuk, Mr. Robert Siegfried and Mr. Rick Hoffman, have provided
ideas and support in evaluating the original pilot project and implementing
the current program.
Several Computer Sciences Corporation personnel have contributed to
the success of the Citizen Monitoring Program and to the production of this
report: Mr. Lowell Babner organized the original data structure and
advised on methods comparison analysis; Ms. Marcia Olson also worked on
methods cc arison analysis; Ms. Tairiuy Gill managed the data entry and
verification process and produced the Appendeces with assistance from Ms.
flichele Watt; Maps for the project and this report were produced by Ms.
Lynda Liptrap and Ms. Melanie Rippon; Dr. Peter Bergstrom contributed to
the report analysis and production.

-------
      CHESAPEAKE BAY CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT
                   July 1985 - October 1988
                  1                     22
Kathleen K. Ellett , Susan Brunenmeister  and Ricky H. Price
         1. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
            410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis MD  21403

 2.  Computer Sciences Corporation/Chesapeake Bay Program
            410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis MD 21403

-------
TABLE OF ( 11’EN1’S
• . . . . .
• . . . . . .
S
S
S I
• . . . . . . ,
• S S • S I • I
• S • S • S • •
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
12
12
17
28
28
30
31
33
APPENDIX I: D1 .Th SUMMARY — Site Descriptions and Time—series Graphs of
Measurements at Sites.
APPENDIX II: DATA LISTING By Site (available on request).
• . . S • • • •
• S S • 0 • •
SUMMARY
IN ODUCTION
SE
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
RiversStudied
Administration
Sampling Methods
COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY DATA COLLE rw
BY THE STATES AND CITIZEN MONIWRS
Met1 ods
Results
Discussion
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES

-------
SUMMARY
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (ACB) began a pilot water
quality testing project for volunteers in July 1985 as one of the
activities funded under its Chesapeake Bay Program public participation
grant from USEPA. The project was designed to answer four questions and
this report addresses them:
1. can citizens collect water quality data that meet rigorous quality
control standards? We believe the project has demonstrated that citizen
volunteers can, indeed, collect water quality data that meet rigorous
quality control standards. A complete summary of the data collected from
the beginning of the project through October 1988 is included in Appendix I
and a listing of the data is included in Appendix II of this report.
2. Does data collected at nearshore locations reflect water qualtiy
in the river generally? The major data interpretation section of the
report addresses this question. Such shallow, nearshore waters are
increasingly recognized for their importance as living resources habitat.
We have compared data collected nearshore and in some of the tributaries to
the James and Patuxent Rivers with data collected from boats in the middle
of the same rivers by the Virginia Water Control Board and Maryland
Department of the Environment respectively at nearby stations.
3. What are the most reliable sampling procedures, reporting formats,
and data management systems for a volunteer program? Sampling procedures
and reporting formats developed here can be and are being used for other
volunteer monitoring programs in the Bay region and throughout the U.S.
because of their reliability.
4. Is it feasible to include a permanent, Bay—wide citizen monitoring
network among the long—term Bay management strategies of the state and
federal governments? The Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program has endorsed the incremental expansion of the Citizen Monitoring
Program to meet other data needs of Bay managers and Scientists and
instructed its relevant subcommittees to report on ways citizen monitoring
data can be used to provide a better understanding of the status of the
quality of the nearshore habitat.
Two tributaries to the Chespeake Bay were included in this project,
the Patuxent River in Maryland and the James River in Virginia. The
volunteers sample on a weekly basis from a pier, dock or shoreline. Sites
are located between the mouth of the river and the head—of—tide. Five
surface water quality factors are measured: water temperature; pH (using a
color comparator kit); limit of water visibility using a Secchi disk;
disolved oxygen (using a micro—Winkler titration kit); and salinity (using
a hydrometer). In addition, monitors record weather and general ecological
observations about the site. Data Collection Forms are sent to the
1

-------
chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in P nnapolis, MD where the information is
stored on—line at the Chesapeake Bay Computer Center.
A comparison was made between water quality data collected by the
states and by the citizen monitors. Citizen monitoring sites and state’
monitoring stations were grouped for comparison based on their proximity
and similarity in classified hydrography, i.e. tidal freshwater, riverine—
estuarine transition zone or lower estuary.
Because sampling dates differed for state and citizen monitoring
sites, a sampling time period was defined in order to compare data sets.
We selected a weekly time period since citizen monitors usually sample at
weekly intervals.
Six variables were chosen for analysis: dissolved oxygen, percent
saturation of dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, water temperature, and water
clarity. Because citizen monitors sampled more frequently than the state,
we also examined the number of instances that low dissolved oxygen events
were recorded at state stations and citizen monitoring sites.
Several patterns of differences between the citizen monitoring sites
and state monitoring stations occurred frequently enough to suggest that
they may be real. Presumably most of the differences result from the
sauçling locations of the citizen monitoring sites. We confined our
analysis strictly to differences in parameter measurements taken within the
same week. We have, therefore, taken a conservative approach in attempting
to answer the question: “Do the data taken by citizen monitors enhance our
knowledge of the Bay’s tributaries?” We looked only for consistent
differences. However, we can point with some confidence to having
identified spatial heterogeneities in dissolved oxygen, percent saturation
of dissolved oxyten, salinity, turbidity, water temperature and pH that
often consistently occurred between state stations located in the middle of
the rivers and locations along the river banks or in the tributaries of the
river itself.
In the future we plan to test the utility of citizen monitoring data
in characterizing nearshore habitats by spatially integrating the citizen
monitoring data and state water quality data. We also hope to look at
correlations between certain measured variables, such as low dissolved
oxygen, and the frequency of observed events, such as fish kills and algae
blooms. It should be possible to identify which sites provide for
particular living resources habitats and attempt to link their character
with water quality indicators.
We think it would be useful to evaluate the feasibility of using the
citizen monitoring data set to determine data collection frequency optima
for time series of water quality indicators.
2

-------
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. (ACB) began a pilot water
quality testing project for volunteers in July 1985 as one of the
activities funded under its Chesapeake Bay Program public participation
grant from EPA. The project was designed to answer four questions:
1. Can citizens collect water quality data that meet rigorous quality
control standards?
2. Does data collected at nearshore locations reflect water quality
in the river generally?
3. Qhat are the most reliable sampling procedures, reporting formats
and data management systems for a volunteer program?
4. Is it feasible to include a permanent, Bay—wide citizen
monitoring network among the long term Bay management strategies of the
state and the federal governments?
The establishment of such a program was suggested in “Volunteer
Monitoring Program, Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action, P ppendix F,
Attachment 5” (8). In response to a request from the Chesapeake Bay
Program Monitoring Subcommittee, ACB established an ad—hoc committee to
analyze and report on the desirability and feasibility of citizen
monitoring efforts and to provide specific recommendations. The
committee’ s proposal was presented to and accepted by the Chesapeake Bay
Program Implementation Committee in February 1985 (4).
It was anticipated that data collected by volunteers would augment
information gathered in the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program begun in
1984. This program now collects data at over 165 stations Bay—wide. Its
major objectives are to determine long—term trends and the driving forces
behind them, and to establish the link between water quality and the health
of the Bay’s living resources. The monitoring program should help to
distinguish the effects on the Bay from natural events (e.g., flows and
salinities) and from man—induced pollutants (such as excessive nuitrients)
(5). It is well documented that several years (5—20 years in some cases)
are necessary to separate trends from natural variability in complex
ecological systems like the Bay. This program is making monitoring
information widely available so that it can be used to help managers make
decisions on the Bay’s future.
Volunteer monitoring that delivers data of known quality can augment
the Baywide program and help to determine seasonal and temporal changes in
Bay waters and to evaluate the water quality status of selected
tributaries, Specifically, volunteers can contribute by:
3

-------
* providing long—term water quality data in areas which are not
routinely monitored (e.g. nearshore habitats, small tidal
creeks);
* providing more frequent sampling to yield time—series data with
the large number of points required to establish response and lag
times in changes;
* capturing data on short—lived phenomena of interest (e.g., storms);
* providing observational information on weather, living
resources, and site conditions, and
* answering short—term research questions.
A well—coordinated, long— term volunteer monitoring program also can
promote active stewardship of natural resources by local residents; provide
an early warning of problems in stormwater management, sediment control,
and sewage contamination; and further the education of the general public
and concerned public officials regarding the Bay.
USEPA believes citizen monitoring programs can help fill the data gaps
identified in a recently completed Agency study on surface water
monitoring. The role of citizen monitoring may be further defined in
guidance for model state water monitoring programs now being developed by
EPA (7).
R E
This report addresses the four questions posed at the outset of the
project.
1. Can citizens collect water quality data that meet rigorous quality
control standards? We believe the project has demonstrated that citizen
volunteers can, indeed, collect water quality data that meet rigorous
quality control standards. A complete suninary of the data collected from
the beginning of the project through October 1988 is included in Appendix I
of this report.
2. The major data interpretation section of the report addresses the
second question — does data collected at nearshore locations reflect water
quality in the river generally? Such shallow, nearshore waters are
increasingly recognized for their importance as living resources habitat.
We have compared data collected nearshore and in some of the tributaries
to the James and Patuxent Rivers with data collected from boats in the
middle of the same rivers by the Virginia Water Control Board and Maryland
Department of the Environment respectively at nearby stations.
3. What are the most reliable sampling procedures, reporting formats,
and data management systems for a volunteer program? Sampling procedures
and reporting formats developed here can be and are being used for other
4

-------
volunteer monitoring programs in the Bay region and throughout the U.S.
because of their reliability. We have received enquiries about our
program from as far afield as Czechoslovakia and Mexico. Because we have
access to the Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center, our data management
system is more sophisticated than those in other areas. Perhaps other
programs will develop data storage and management approaches that can be
used in less extensive projects and that these techniques can be shared in
the near future.
4. is it feasible to include a permanent, Bay—wide citizen monitoring
network among the long—term Bay management strategies of the state and the
federal governments? Because we were able to demonstrate that the
volunteers can provide data of known quality and, based on the findings of
the Members of the Advisory Committee to the Citizen Monitoring Project,
the Implementation Conmtittee of the CBP approved a Resolution that:
* Endorses incremental expansion of the Citizen Monitoring Program to
meet other data needs of Bay managers and scientists;
* Tasks the Monitoring Subcommittee (utilizing, as appropriate,
the Living Resources Subcommittee and the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee) to report on ways citizen
monitoring data can be used to provide a better understanding
of the status of the quality of the inshore habitat; and
* Tasks the chesapeake Bay Liaison Office to distribute and
encourage the use of computer software developed to facilitate the
entry, storage, interpretation and verification of Citizen
Monitoring data (4).
w ( NI TI( i AND INPW rATICN
Rivers Studied
Two tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were chosen, the Patuxent River
in Maryland and the James River in Virginia because each has an extensive
estuarine gradient, a cadre of identifiable volunteers, and identified
environmental problems related to water quality degradation. In addition,
the water quality of each river is monitored regularly by the states,
permitting the quantitative assessment of the techniques, sampling
frequencies and results of the volunteer program.
Patuxent River
The Patuxent River is the longest river in Maryland whose watershed
lies completely within the state boundaries. The Patuxent originates in
the Piedmont plateau and flows 110 miles through seven counties enroute to
the Chesapeake Bay. The area of the Patuxent watershed is approximately
900 square miles.
5

-------
This river has experienced marked declines in water quality, a
concomitant loss of suhnerged aquatic vegetation, and declines in native
estuarine—dependent commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish.
This decline is generally attributed to increases in nutrient loadings
which have led to excessive algal (microscopic plant) growth. These
nutrients come from sewage treatment plant discharges and land run—off,
both urban and agricultural in origin.
In 1982 the State of Maryland developed and adopted the Patuxent
Nutrient Control Strategy which outlined specific nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction goals for point and non—point sources. Presently, the Maryland
Department of the Environment reports: “that the goal for phosphorus
removal has been met. When nitrogen removal at the Western Branch
wastewater treatment plant becomes operative, the goals of the Patuxent
Strategy for nitrogen removal will be met as well. However, management of
nutrient discharges to the Patuxent estuary will not be complete at that
time. If the Patuxent watershed continues to experience the growth that it
has in the past, sewage flows can be expected to increase even further.
With a greater volume of treated waters entering the estuary, it will be
necessary to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus effluent concentrations even
further in order to maintain the goals of the Patuxent strategy and to
realize the desired improvements to water quality in the Patuxent” (6).
J s River
The James River drains roughly one quarter of Virginia’s total land
area, making it the largest river basin (10,195 miles) in the state and the
third largest in the Bay region.
The James River system has long been stressed by a combination of
pollutants, including nutrients, toxics and bacteria. Landings of
freshwater spawners, such as shad and striped bass and commercial harvests
of market oysters from the tidal James River have declined over the years.
Over 53,000 acres of productive shellfish beds are now closed (2).
The James receives the highest nutrient inputs of any river in
Virginia, mostly from sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges but
also in lesser amounts from agricultural and urban runoff. AiTm onia, a form
of nitrogen which can be toxic to marine life and can also deplete the
water of oxygen through nitrification, sometimes reaches levels in the
waters below Richmond that violate state standards. The ammonia levels in
the river between Richmond and Tar Bay below Hopewell are being monitored
concurrently by the state and citizen volunteers. The staff of the
Virginia Water Control Board has proposed a water quality plan for the
upper James River and part of the P ppomattox that would prevent increased
discharge of several effluent constituents from 13 municipal and industrial
sewage treatment plants after 1990. A decrease in ammonia levels in the
upper James estuary is anticipated as the state plan is implemented (2).
Overflows from combined sewers are another serious problem on the
James River. Normally, sewage is carried to treatment plants by one system
of pipes, while another carries stormwater directly to the river. However,
6

-------
about 11,000 acres of Richmond’s land area are served by combined sewer
pipes, which use one pipe to convey both sewer and stormwater to wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP’s). When wet weather hits, the stormwater creates
high flows that are too great in volume for the WWTP and excess flows go
straight, untreated, into the river, carrying large quantities of fecal
bacteria, nutrients and suspended solids. The City of Richmond is
currently studying alternative methods for correcting the combined sewer
overflow problem, including expansion of Richmond’s wastewater treatment
plant, new conduits and structures along the river, and new treatment
facilities in other areas of the City (2).
Toxic chemical pollution represents another threat to the James. In
1975 large quantities of kepone, an extremely potent pesticide, were
discharged into the river at Hopewell. The James River has recently been
re—opened to recreational and commercial fishing for the first time since
the kepone disaster but the industrialized section of the James, such as
in the Norfolk and Hampton Road areas, are still among the most
contaminated sections of the Bay. Virginia will be implementing a toxic
reduction program as part of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement (2).
Aàninistration
A committee of eight Bay managers and scientists worked with the
Citizen Monitoring Coordinator in setting up the pilot program. This
technical advisory committee reviewed the project plans and the protocol
manual, provided technical guidance to the project coordinator as needed,
and reviewed and evaluated results for inclusion in interim reports.
At the outset, volunteers were asked to commit to taking weekly
samples for six months. At the end of that time a few people dropped out.
A few others had found it necessary to stop monitoring due to moving away,
changed jobs, or they just did not wish to continue. However, 81% of the
original volunteers were still in the program at the end àf the first year.
To date, data have been collected at 20 sites on the Patuxent and at
16 sites on the James. Thirteen sites on the Patuxent River and twelve
sites on the James River are still being monitored. These two rivers have
been and still are intensely monitored by the states and researchers. As
volunteers drop out of the program we will seek replacements only in
locations where a particular environmental problem has been identified.
Recruitment letters were sent to individuals and organizations who had
an interest in water quality or in monitoring. This included Sierra Club,
Audubon Society, League of Women Voters, Soil Conservation District
Committees, Lower James River Association, Patuxent River Association,
maritime businesses, watermen’s associations, etc. Extensive followup by
telephone was necessary to find people who were willing to participate.
Once the program was underway, people volunteered who had heard about the
project from friends and neighbors.
7

-------
Volunteers were sought who live on the water so that obtaining samples
would be convenient and take a minimum of time. It was not practical to
pre—select precise sites in this voluntary program. However, state
monitoring program coordinators in Maryland and Virginia suggested we try
to locate sites using the following criteria:
1. equally divided in the lower estuarine, riverine—estuarine
transition and tidal fresh zones of each river;
2. above and below the mouth of any significant tributary running
into the river;
3. above and below major construction sites and wastewater treatment
plants;
4. near a farm or animal holding facility that is instituting best
management practices;
5. on shore opposite a state water quality monitoring station to
allow for more direct comparison of data sets.
In addition, an effort was made to involve different user groups, such
as high school science classes, marina owners, boating clubs, coniminity
organizations and river basin groups.
aw ing Methods
The key to carrying out a successful monitoring program is to have
clearly established data quality objectives (DQO’s) identified at the
outset of the data collection effort. One of the major purposes of this
pilot project was to determine the potential data quality that could be
delivered by volunteers using simple, low—cost methods.
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) was prepared and accepted by
the Chesapeake Bay Program Quality Assurance Officer (OW)) (9). The
initial testing of methods for use in this program was conducted at the EPA
Central Regional Laboratory, Annapolis, MD under the supervision of the CBP
OW) and various other chemists and technicians. Instruments and methods
used in this project were chosen based on simplicity of use, cost, and
accuracy. Every possible effort has been made to use methods that are
comparable to those employed by the CBP Monitoring Program. Where methods
are necessarily different, methods comparison tests have been performed and
degree of comparability has been determined. The units reported are the
same as those in the CBP Monitoring Program.
The standard deviations (SD) for the values are reported in Table 1.
The precision and accuracy SD’s were arrived at by determining the
differences between individual monitors’ results and those obtained with
the standard CBP method. These measurements were made at the first round
of quality control (QC) sessions. At subsequent QC sessions we have used
the results obtained by the coordinator as the reference standard. The
8

-------
TABLE 1. PRECISION AND ACCURACY OBJECTIVES
Parameter
Method /Range Units
Sensitivity*
Precision Accuracy
Calibration
NOTE: The cri Leria used to judge completeness of data are addressed in Section 5.
* Determined by the increments measurable with the stated method reflecting esLimati.on
where allowed.
** Lack of sufficient data at present
***pajred t analysis ( =0.05, 3 d.f.) of the standard deviation of the mean difference
between 4 paired determinations.
I’emperature
Thermometer
—5.0°to+45°
°C
0.5°C
±
1.0
.
0.5
wit:h NI3S
Certified
Thermometers
il l
Color
Comparator
Wide-Range
Narrow-Range
Standard
pH units
0.5 units
0.1
0.6
?**
±

0.4
0.2
Orion Field
p11 Meter
Beckman p11
t ie ter
Salinity
hydrometer
parts per
thousand
(o/oo)
0.1 o/oo
1.0
0.82
Certified
Salinity
hlydrolueter
Se L
L)isso lved
Micro
mg/i
0.1 mg/i
0.9
0.3***
Standard
Oxygen
Winkler
Titration
Winkler &
Y.S.I. DO
.
Meter
Limit of
Secchi
meters
0.05. m
NA
NA
NA
Visibility
Disk
Depth

-------
precision reported in Table 1 reflects the overall results of differences
observed between individual monitors compared to the reference standard.
The reported accuracy reflects results of comparing the citizen monitoring
program method with the stated calibration method.
The volunteers initially attend a 3—hour training session. These
sessions include the viewing of an introductory slide show followed by a
demonstration and carrying out of the test procedures. Volunteers who are
unable to attend a session are trained by the coordinator individually.
Two quality control sessions per year are conducted by the monitoring
coordinator.
Various ways to actually test the monitors have been worked out. QC
sessions can include different combinations of approaches. Essentially,
there are two basic approaches: 1) have them all test the same water with
their equipnent in the way they do it at home; 2) have them read/record
already set up laboratory tests. Their results then provide a measure of
how well they perform as a group or how precisely they measure the
characteristics and constituents required.
Volunteer monitors are asked to collect data and samples once a week
year round—a potential of 52 observations per site per year. However, it
is assumed that some weeks will be missed for vacations, illness, and
severe weather (i.e. wind, flooding, ice.) Therefore, 48 observations per
year are considered to constitute a complete data set for a given site.
Five water quality parameters are measured weekly at each site: water
and air temperature; pH; Secchi depth/water transparency; salinity; and
dissolved oxygen(DO). Monitors report weekly accumulated rainfall if they
have a sufficiently clear space to install a rain gage near the site. Rain
gages are not installed at sites that are not on private property because
they might be vandalized.
The thermometers, Secchi disks, pH kits and DO titration kits are
manufactured by LaMotte Chemical Products, Inc., Chestertown, MD. The
hydrometers are made by Greers Ferry Glass Works, Inc., Quitman, R with
500 nil graduated cylinders used as hydrometer jars. Each volunteer monitor
is supplied with a “Citizen Monitoring Manual” which was prepared specially
for this program (1). The Manual gives step by step instructions for all
sampling and analysis procedures as well as brief background material on
what the test results mean.
In addition, information on weather and general observations about the
site (live or dead organisms, debris, oil slicks, ice, odor, water color,
anything unusual) is recorded on a Data Collection Form (see Figure 1) and
sent to the project coordinator. Data are entered into a computer file
stored in the Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Data Base. SAS software is
used to generate plots and graphics of the various parameters versus time.
Surface water samples were obtained in a bucket from the water’s edge,
a dock or pier and, in a few instances, from a boat depending on the
individual monitor’s site. Armored thermometers reading from —5.0 to
10

-------
+45.0°c were used to determine air and water temperature. They were
calibrated against NBS certified thermometers and found sufficiently
accurate to make it unnecessary to carry out corrections for these values.
Salinity was determined by the hydrometric method as described in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (3). The
specific gravity value is corrected for temperature of the water in the
hydrometer jar and converted to salinity by equations stored in a computer
program.
An effort was made to compare the hydrometric method for measuring
salinity to results obtained with a refractometer, a salinometer and a
titration kit. These results indicated that the hydrometer or titration
kits produce similar results, excluding human error. The refractometer and
salinometer appear to produce consistently lower readings than the other
two methods (9).
Secchi disks with black and white quadrants and measuring 8 inches in
diameter were used to determine the limit of visibility. These disks
provide a convenient method for measuring light penetration below the
water surface. Water transparency is directly related to the amount of
materials suspended in the water. Particulate matter, such as algae or
silt, limit light penetration and reduce the water’s clarity. In shallow
areas, wind—generated waves and boat wakes interact with the bottom to stir
up sediments.
Color comparator kits were used to measure pH. In the beginning of
the program pH comparators that test for a wide range of values (3—10 pH
units) were used. After a year’s worth of data had been collected and a
general range of pH values was known for each site, narrow range kits were
supplied. These kits measure a range of 1.4 standard pH units in
increments of 0.2 units.
The test for dissolved oxygen is made using a water analysis kit
which employs a modified Winkier method. The bias in DO values determined
with the Laflotte kit is reported as n mg/l + 0.3 mg/i. This was arrived at
by carrying out a paired t analysis of the standard deviation of the mean
difference between results of four paired measurements with the Kit and a
Standard Winkler titration.
Monitors titrate two samples at each sampling time. If the
difference between the first two is greater that 0.6 mg/i, they do a third
titration. The average of the two closer values is recorded. If values
greater than 0.9 mg/i are reported with no third test done, the results
are not entered in the file. Less than 25 (of the over 4000) DO
measurements have been determined to be above the upper control limit of
0.9 mg/i.
11

-------
Cc1’1PARISce OF 1’ TER WJITY LLEC
BY THE STNI’ES 1 IND CITIZ MClW1 S
I thods
Citizen Monitoring sites and state monitoring stations were grouped
for comparison based on their proximity and similarity in classified
hydrography, i.e. tidal freshwater, riverine—estuarine transition zone or
lower estuary (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 2 and 3).
Upriver distances of Citizen Monitoring sites and state monitoring
stations were estimated using ARC/INFO mapping software interactively. The
rivers were displayed on the screen of a Tektronix graphics terminal via
the ARC/INFO subsystem ARCPLOT. Incremental distances in meters were
measured using the ‘Measure Length’ command applied visually to the
displayed river maps.
Because sampling dates differed for state and Citizen flonitoring
sites, a sampling time period was defined in order to compare data sets. We
selected a weekly time period since Citizen Monitors usually sample at
weekly intervals. We assigned a week index to each sampling date, defining
weeks from Wednesday through the following Tuesday in order to cast
observations taken over a weekend into the same week period. Table 4 lists
the inclusive dates for each week period.
Because Citizen Monitoring sites are primarily in shallow water, we
selected water quality parameters measured at a depth of one meter at
state monitoring stations for comparison.
Dissolved oxygen saturation was estimated from a complete quadratic
response surface fit to tabled values developed by Whipple and Whipple
(10), which is a standard reference for dissolved oxygen solubility. We
fit the surface in order to avoid interpolating tabled values. The
equation we obtained using the SAS (Vers. 5) RSREG program was:
Y est = 14.37478 — 0.32886 Xl — 0.15353 X2
+ 0.003452 xl*xl + 0.002941 xl*x2 + .000075 x2*x2
where,
Y est Estimated saturation concentration of dissolved oxygen (mg/i)
Xl = Water temperature in °C
x2 chloride concentration of water (g/l)
An R—square value of 0.9988 was obtained indicating the correlation between
observed and estimated values was 0.99. Examination of residuals
indicated that the deviation between observed and estimated values was
similar over the entire surface and within the likely error associated with
the measurement of temperature and salinity.
12

-------
Table 2. Citizen Monitoring sites and state monitoring stations selected
for comparison in the Patuxent River. RD refers to distances (kin) up
river ofState Station LE1.4 close to the mouth of the river; CD (kin)
refers to the additional distance of sites up creeks on the river.
State Station Citizen Monitoring site
RD Name RD CD Name
0.0 LE1.4 2.56 2.98 Spring Cove—Mill Creek
3.32 Green Holly Pond
8.75 LE1.3 7.01 Kingston
8.48 1.71 Cuckold Creek
13.75 LE1.2 12.19 St. Cuthbert Wharf
14.96 Sotterley
13.75 LE1.2 13.48 1.53 St. Leonard
13.48 2.23 Osborn Cove
23.03 LE1.1 22.74 Cape St. Mary’s
24.00 2.20 Battle Creek
28.42 Cremona
32.19 RET1.1 30.24 Trent Hall
34.38 Benedict
43.11 TF1.7 42.18 Pott’s Point
45.14 Holland Cliff
52.45 TF1.6 51.96 Lower Marlboro
60.38 TF1.5
68.21 TF1.4 69.18 Jug Bay
72.69 TF1.3
78.28 TF1.1
73.56 TF1.2 69.18 Jug Bay
71.43 Rt. 4 Bridge
13

-------
Table 3. Citizen Monitoring sites and state monitoring stations selected
for co ,arison in the Jan s River. RD refers to distances (kin) up
river of the mouth of the river; CD (kin) refers to the additional
distance of sites up creeks on the river.
State Station Citizen Monitoring site
RD CD Name RD CD Name
8.29 7.86 LE5.6 13.80 Pig Point
8.29 LE5.4
18.94 LE5.3 25.32 Hilton Pier
25.32 9.23 Town Farm Creek
25.32 12.80 Smithfield
31.42 LE5.2 25.32 Hilton Pier
25.32 9.23 Town Farm Creek
25.32 12.80 Smithfield
49.73 LES.1 49.55 Carter’s Grove
52.16 Kings Mill
65.44 RET5.2 77.36 Dancing Point
68.52 First Colony
115,71 TF5.5 112.77 West Bank—Tar Bay
120.02 TF5.4 116.40 Jordan Point
137.71 TF5.3 132.78 Deep Bottcxn
138.72 IXitch Gap
155.03 TF5.2 159.45 James River Park
169.21 Ruguenot Bridge
14

-------
Table 4. Weekdates, Wednesday through Tuesday, corresponding to week
codes.
1985 1986
Week Dates Week Dates Week Dates
4 Jun 26— 2 Jul 31 Jan 1— 7
5 Jul 3— 9 32 8—14 57 Jul 2— 8
6 10—16 33 15—21 58 9—15
7 17—23 34 22—28 59 16—22
8 24—30 35 29— 4 Feb 60 23—29
9 31— 6 Aug 36 5—11 61 30— 5 Aug
10 7—13 37 12—18 62 6—12
11 14—20 38 19—25 63 13—19
12 21—27 39 26— 4 Mar 64 20—26
13 28— 3 sep 40 5—11 65 27— 2 Sep
14 4—10 41 12—18 66 3— 9
15 11—17 42 19—25 67 10—16
16 18—24 43 26— 1 Apr 68 17—23
17 25— 1 Oct 44 2— 8 69 24—30
18 2— 8 45 9—15 70 Oct 1— 7
19 9—15 46 16—22 71 8—14
20 16—22 47 23—29 72 15—21
21 23—29 48 30— 6 May 73 22—28
22 30— 5 Nov 49 7—13 74 29— 4 Nov
23 6—12 50 14—20 75 5—11
24 13—19 51 21—27 76 12—18
25 20—26 52 28— 3 Jun 77 19—25
26 27— 3 Dec 53 4—10 78 26— 2 Dec
27 4—10 54 11—17 79 3— 9
28 11—17 55 18—24 80 10—16
29 18—24 56 25— 1 Jul 81 17—23
30 25—31 82 24—30
15

-------
Table 4. Continued
1987 1988
Week Dates Week Dates Week Dtes
83 Dec 31— 6 Jan 109 Jul 1— 7 135 Dec 30— 5 Jan
84 7—13 110 8—14 136 6—12
85 14—20 111 15—21 137 13—19
86 21—27 112 22—28 138 20—26
87 2S— 3 Feb 113 29— 4 Aug 139 27— 2 Feb
88 4—10 114 5—11 140 3— 9
89 11—17 115 12—18 141 10—16
90 18—24 116 19—25 142 17—23
91 25— 3 Mar 117 26— 1 Sep 143 24— 1 Mar
92 4—10 118 2— 8 144 2— 8
93 11—17 119 9—15 145 9—15
94 18—24 120 16—22 146 16—22
95 25—31 121 23—29 147 23—29
96 Apr 1— 7 122 30— 6 Oct 148 30— 5 Apr
97 8—14 123 7—13 149 6—12
98 15—21 124 14—20 158 13—19
99 22—28 125 21—27 159 20—26
100 29— 5 May 126 28— 3 Nov 160 27— 3 May
101 6—12 127 4—10
102 13—19 128 11—17
103 20—26 129 18—24
104 27— 2 Jun 130 25— 1 Dec
105 3—9 131 2— 8
106 10—16 132 9—15
107 17—23 133 16—22
108 24—30 134 23—29
16

-------
Thus in estimating dissolved oxygen saturation, given observed
temperature and salinity values, we first converted observed salinity
values (o/oo) to chloride concentration through the well—known
relationship:
Chlorinity = (salinity — 0.03)/ 1.805
Percent dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation was calculated as the ratio:
% DO saturation = measured DO / estimated DO X 100
concentration saturation
In order to determine the feasibility of using time series analysis to
investigate patterns in the data, we inspected the data to determine how
many missing time periods, based on our weekly interval, existed in the
Citizen Monitoring series of observations and the states’ monitoring
series. This inspection revealed several missing weeks occurred in many of
the data series. Due to this limitation, we chose to compare data sets by
examining the temporal series of signed (+,—) differences between
parameters measured within the same week. This approach reduces the effect
of spurious contrasts between data set parameters due to sampling at
different stages of diurnal or tidal cycles. Thus, it emphasizes
identifying consistent differences, seasonal differences, or trends in
differences between surface water quality parameters measured at monitored
sites.
Six variables were selected for analysis: dissolved oxygen, percent
saturation of dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, water temperature, and water
clarity or turbidity. The previously described differences in the method
used to measure salinity by the state and the citizens (see above) probably
inflated observed differences in salinity between Citizen Monitoring and
state sites by up to 2 0/00. Thus, differences in salinity less than this
amount were not considered significant. Also, it should be noted that this
magnitude of difference in salinity imparted a negligible effect on percent
dissolved oxygen saturation differences.
Because Citizen Monitors sampled more frequently than the state
stations, we also examined the number of instances that low dissolved
oxygen events were recorded at state stations and Citizen Monitoring sites.
Results
Patuxent River
Lower estuarine segment
State Station LE1 .4 and ai sites Spring Cove—Mill Creek and Green
Holly Pond. Length of series: August 1985 to November 1987.
Dissolved oxygen values were generally higher at the cM sites from May
to December, when values in mid—river were lowest, and were lower than
17

-------
those measured in mid—river from January to March (Figures 4a and 4b).
Percent oxygen saturation showed a similar seasonal pattern of differences.
The creeks were usually 1 o/oo to 3 0/00 more saline than the river.
The pH was almost always higher at Green Holly Pond than in the river;
the pH in Spring Cove—Mill Creek was about the same as that of the river.
Water temperatures in the creeks were usually higher than those in the
river with the differences most marked at the onset of spring each year,
suggesting the shallower areas warmed faster in the spring. Thereafter,
temperature differences between the creeks and river appeared to decline
and then reverse, with temperatures in the creeks becoming colder than in
the river.
Each creek was more turbid than the river except for brief periods in
March and April when the river was more turbid.
State Station LE1.3 and GI sites Kingston and Cuckold Creek. Length
of series: July 1985 to November 1987 (Cuckold Creek), July 1985 to May
1986 (Kingston).
The series from Kingston was too short to use in comparisons, but the
few data obtained were similar to those from Cuckold Creek.
The magnitudes of differences in dissolved oxygen levels between
Cuckold Creek and the river were greatest in the spring, but there was no
consistent pattern in the direction of the differences. A similar pattern
occurred in percent oxygen saturation.
Salinity was usually higher in the creeks than in the river (up to 6
o/oo), though there was evidence of freshets lowering the salinity below
that of the river.
The magnitude of the pH differences was largest in the spring, when
both positive and negative differences occurred. The creek was usually
more alkaline than the river during the rest of the year.
Cuckold Creek was usually warmer than the river, especially in the
spring.
Cuckold Creek was usually clearer than the river from March to July,
and more turbid than the river in the rest of the year.
State Station LE1 .2 and GI sites St. Cuthbert and Sotterley. Length
of series: July 1985 to November 1987.
There was a slight tendency for dissolved oxygen at the nearshore
sites to be lower than that in the river during November 1985 to April
1986, but this pattern was not repeated the following winter. Patterns for
percent oxygen saturation were similar.
18

-------
The nearshore sites were almost always more saline than the river.
The difference was usually greatest during April to July.
Differences .iti pH appeared to be within the range of measurement
error
Water temperatures tended to be higher at the nearshore sites than in
the river during the spring and summer, with variable differences in the
winter.
The CM sites were usually clearer than the river from March to
September, and more turbid than the river from October to February.
However, the pattern was less evident than that observed in Cuckold Creek.
State Station LE1.2 aixl CM sites Osborn Cove and St. Leonard. Length
of series: July 1985 to December 1987.
Dissolved oxygen and percent saturation of dissolved oxygen values in
the creek varied most from those measured at the state station from May
through August, when levels of both parameters were seasonally lowest
(Figures 6a and 6b).
Salinity was usually higher in the creek, although this difference
tended to decline as salinity levels increased seasonally. Salinities
measured at Osborn Cove were usually higher than those measured at St.
Leonard.
The pH of the water measured in the creek was usually more alkaline
than that in the river between April and September.
The temperature of the water in the creek was higher in the spring
than in the river and this differential decreased during the year, until
temperatures in the creek were usually lower from June to December (Figures
7a and 7b).
The water in the creek was usually clearer than the river from
November or January to April. The creek tended to be more turbid than the
river from May to December.
State Station LE1.l aixl CM sites Cape St. Nary’s, Cr na, and Battle
Creek. Length of series: August 1985 to November 1987.
There was a slight tendency for dissolved oxygen and percent oxygen
saturation levels at the CM sites to vary most from the state station in
the spring, when water temperatures rose and oxygen levels fell.
The salinities at the CM sites tended to be higher than those in
mid—river, especially at Cape St. Mary’s.
Differences in pH were within the range of measurement error.
19

-------
There was a slight tendency for water at the nearshore sites to be
warmer than water in mid—river in the spring, with more similar
temperatures occurring during the rest of the year.
Seasonal patterns of turbidity varied among the three CM sites. Cape
St. Mary’s was almost always more turbid than the state station, except for
a few measurements in the spring. Cremona was also more turbid than the
state station through much of the year, except during December and January,
when it was similar to the state station. Battle Creek was clearer than
the river in April and May (more so in 1986 than in 1987), and more turbid
than the river the rest of the year.
Riverine—estuarine transition segment
State Station RET1 .1 and CM sites Trent Ball and Benedict. Length of
series: September 1985 to November 1987.
Both 01 sites, and especially Trent Hall, had higher dissolved oxygen
(Figs. 8a and 8b) and percent oxygen saturation than the river in the late
spring and sunm r, roughly April to August. Differences in oxygen levels
were variable during the rest of the year at both CM sites.
The CM sites were usually 1—4 o/oo more saline than the river, while
each was less saline than the river on a few scattered occasions.
The CM sites were up to 1.7 units more alkaline than the river during
May to August. Differences in pH were smaller and more variable during the
rest of the year.
Water temperature differences showed no clear seasonal trend at either
CM site.
The water clarity at both CM sites tended to be greater than in mid—
river. However, there were scattered observations at both CM sites that
were more turbid than the river.
Tidal fresh segment
We have omitted salinity comparisons in this river segment, since all
methods of determining salinity become unreliable below 5—7 0/00.
State Station TF1.7 and 01 sites Pott’s Point and Holland Cliff.
Length of series: August 1985 to November 1987 (fragmentary from Holland
Cliff).
The data from Holland Cliff were too incomplete for analysis.
Dissolved oxygen was higher at Pott’s Point than in the river during
the suiriner (April to November) and lower than the river during the rest of
20

-------
the year (Figures 9a and 9b). The pattern for percent saturation of
dissolved oxygen was similar.
Pott’s Point was usually more alkaline than the river (up to 1.5
units), except during the fall and early winter of. 1985—86 and at a few
times in 1987, when it was up to 1.7 units more acid than the river.
Pott’s Point was up to 4°c warmer than the river during March to
August, but the difference was more pronounced in 1986 than in 1987.
There were differences in turbidity, but the magnitudes were small
(0.1 — 0.2 in).
State Stations Wi .6 and Wi .5 and Q’I site Lower Marlboro. Length of
series: July 1985 to September 1986.
Both dissolved oxygen and percent saturation of dissolved oxygen were
usually lower at Lower Marlboro than at either state station. The
differences were most pronounced in the summer, when dissolved oxygen
levels were lowest.
The CM site appeared to be more acid than the river in the winter and
more alkaline in the summer (varying by 0.8 units), but a longer series
would be necessary to substantiate this conclusion.
Lower Marlboro tended to be cooler than the river in the summer and
warmer than the river in the winter, but more data are needed to
substantiate this conclusion also.
There were too few turbidity data to make comparisons.
State Stations TF1.4, TF1.3, and TF1.l and CM site Jug Bay. Length of
series: July 1985 to November 1987.
Measurements at Jug Bay differed from those at the state stations by
up to 7.1 mg/i in dissolved oxygen, and by up to 83% in saturation of
dissolved oxygen, but there was no clear seasonal pattern. There was a
slight tendency for greater oxygen concentrations to occur at Jug Bay.
Jug Bay tended to be more alkaline than the river (by up to 1.5 units)
in the summer and fall, but periods of greater acidity at Jug Bay were
scattered throughout the year.
The water at Jug Bay was usually warmer than water in the river,
except for July through October 1987, when Jug Bay was colder.
There were too few turbidity data for comparison.
21

-------
State Station 171.2 aix ] 01 sites Jug Bay and Rt. 4 Bridge. Length of
series: July 1985 to November 1987 (several gaps at both sites).
Rt. 4 Bridge had lower dissolved oxygen concentrations than the state
station during all but two weeks. The pattern at Jug Bay was similar,
except that dissolved oxygen concentrations there were higher than those at
the state station several times during the winter. Percent saturation of
dissolved oxygen data were not available for Rt. 4 Bridge due to the lack
of salinity readings; at Jug Bay the differences varied without seasonal
pattern.
Both CM sites had pH differences from the state station that were
ontside the range of measurement error (up to 1.8 units at Rt. 4 Bridge and
1.5 units at Jug Bay). However, there were no seasonal patterns.
Water temperatures at Rt. 4 Bridge were usually slightly higher than
those taken by the state in mid—river and showed no seasonal pattern in
their differences. Jug Bay was consistently warmer than the river, except
during July to October 1987, when it was consistently cooler (by up to
11°C).
No state observations of turbidity were available for comparison with
those from the CM sites.
Number of low dissolved oxygen events in the river
More low dissolved oxygen events were detected at the
CitizenMonitoring sites than at the state stations due to the more frequent
water quality sampling at the Citizen Monitor sites (Table 5). The
occurance of low dissolved oxygen was most notable at Pott’ s Point, St.
Cuthbert, Sotterley and Cremona.
Js River
Lower estuarine segment
State Stations LES.6 aix ] LE5.4 aix] 01 site Pig Point. Length of
series: September 1985 to October 1987.
Dissolved oxygen levels and percent saturation of dissolved oxygen at
Pig Point were usually higher than at both state stations.
Salinity at Pig Point was lower that at the state stations during both
winters monitored, and it was higher than at the state stations in sui ’er
1986 but not in s wm r 1987.
pH values did not consistently differ between the sites.
There was a tendency for water at Pig Point to be warmer than at the
two state sites in the winter, especially during 1987—88. Water
temperatures were about the same in the su er.
Water at Pig Point was usually more turbid than at the state stations.
22

-------
Table 5. Instances of dissolved oxygen levels in the Patuxent River near
( 5.50 mg / i), at or below the Maryland minimum standard of 5 mg/i
measured at state monitoring stations and Citizen Monitoring sites
during matched observation periods.
t985 1986 1987
LE1.4 0 3 4
Mill Creek 0 0 1
Green Holly Pond 0 1 1
LE1.3 0 3 2
Kingston 1 0 no obs
Cuckold Creek 1 2 2
LE1.2 1 2 3
St. Cuthbert 3 3 2
Sotterley 2 2 2
LE1.2 1 2 3
Osborn Cove 1 1 0
St. Leonard 2 1 7
LE1.l 0 3 3
Cape St. Mary 2 1 no obs
Cremona 3 8 2
Battle Creek no obs 3 2
RE’rl.l 1 6 6
Trent Hall no obs 0 0
Benedict 0 2 4
TF1.7 0 1 5
Pott’s Point 11 2 1
TF1.6 1 1 1
‘ff1.5 0 0 1
Lower Marlboro 4 2 no obs
TF1.4 0 1 4
TF1.3 0 3 1
TF1.1 2 9 6
Jugsay 2 4 6
TF1.2 0 0 0
Rt. 4 Bridge no obs 3 7
23

-------
State Station LE5.3 and 01 site Hilton Pier. Length of series:
November 1985 to December 1987.
Dissolved oxygen levels and percent saturation of dissolved oxygen
were usually higher than those measured at the state station during the
s”n r when state values are lowest. In addition, both parameters measured
at Hilton Pier appeared to trend upward during the period of comparison,
which was evident in the data taken at the state station.
Salinity at Hilton Pier was usually higher than that measured at the
state station.
No consistently remarkable differences in pH or water temperature were
apparent between the state station and Hilton Pier.
The turbidity of the water at Hilton Pier compared to the state
station showed increased turbidity beginning in January to March, becoming
greater through November/December as river water at the state station
became clearer in the annual cycle exhibited by both sites of clearer water
in late fall and winter and more turbid water in the spring and s”n r.
State Station LE5 .3 and 01 sites ¶Lbwn Farm Creek and ithfield.
Length of series: November 1985 to December 1987.
Dissolved oxygen differences, both positive and negative, occurred
between sites throughout the year, but there were no consistent seasonal
differences among sites. Dissolved oxygen at both CM sites varied most
from that at the state site in the winter, when DO was higher at all sites,
and the magnitudes of the differences were less in the simmer. Percent
oxygen saturation levels tended to be lower and more variable at the CM
sites than in the river, especially in the sumer (Figures lOa and lOb).
Salinities at the two CM sites, located on the Pagan River, were
consistently lower than at the state site.
Measurements of pH were not begun until April 1986, and were not done
for a complete winter. There were no clear trends, based on these limited
data.
Water temperatures at the CM sites generally exceeded those at the
state site. This difference was most pronounced from January to April.
During the winter low of turbidity, the two CM sites had generally
lower turbidity than the state site during 1985—86, but the state site was
less turbid during 1986—87 and 1987—88. As a rule, the creeks were more
turbid than the state station.
24

-------
Riverine—estuarine transition segment
State Station RET5.2 and ( sites Dancing Point and First Colony.
Length of series: August 1985 to November 1986.
There were not enough data from Dancing Point to use for comparisons.
Dissolved oxygen and percent oxygen saturation were consistently
higher at First Colony than at the state site.
Salinity at First Colony varied from 2.4 0/00 above to 3.6 0/00 below
the salinity at the state site, but there was no clear seasonal pattern.
There was a slight tendency for the pH at First Colony to exceed that
at the state site, but a longer series would be needed to confirm this.
Water temperatures at First Colony were generally higher than at the
state site. There may be seasonal differences in the magnitude of the
difference, but the series is incomplete.
The seasonal variation in turbidity was not pronounced at either site,
and there were no clear seasonal differences between the sites.
Tidal fresh segment
As in the Patuxent River, salinity comparisons are omitted in this
hydrological segment due to methodological constraints.
State Stations TF5.4 and TF5. 5 and G( sites Jordan Point and Tar Bay.
Length of series: November 1985 to December 1987 (Jordan Point).
The series at Tar Bay was too short to use for comparisons.
Dissolved oxygen (Figures ha and hib) and percent oxygen saturation
were usually lower at Jordan Point than at either state station.
The pH at Jordan Point was usually lower than the pH at either state
station.
The water at Jordan Point was warmer than at the state stations during
December to March, and the differences decreased with time until the state
stations were usually warmer from May to November.
The water at Jordan Point was slightly but consistently more turbid
than that at the state stations. The magnitude of the difference was from
0.1 to 0.5 m.
25

-------
State Station TF5.3 and 01 sites Deep Bott and Dutch Gap. Length
of series: August 1985 to May 1988 (Dutch Gap), May 1987 to May 1988 (Deep
Bottom).
There was a slight tendency for dissolved oxygen to be lower at Dutch
Gap than at the state station, but there were no seasonal trends. There
were too few data from Deep Bottom for a comparison. Few percent oxygen
saturation estimates were available for comparison due to the lack of
salinity measures.
The pH was usually lower at Dutch Gap than at the state station (up to
1.2 units), especially during 1986 and early 1987.
Water temperatures at Dutch Gap usually exceeded those at the state
station, without any seasonal trends.
Both 01 sites were n re turbid than the state station, except for
brief periods in the winter when the clarity of the water at the 0’! sites
was greater.
State Station TFS.2 and 01 sites James River Park and Buguenot
Bridge. Length of series: October 1985 to March 1988, except at Deep Water
(October 1986 to August 1987).
Dissolved oxygen during the spring was higher at Huguenot Bridge than
at the state station (Figures 12a and 12b). The difference declined
through the year until dissolved oxygen was lower at Huguenot Bridge in the
winter. Dissolved oxygen at James River Bridge was generally higher than
at the state station (Figures 12a and 12b). Percent oxygen saturation was
not calculated because salinity measurements were not made at the CM sites.
There was a slight tendency for the pH to be lower at the CM sites in
the s mvv r (by up to 1.7 units) and higher at the 01 sites in the winter
(by up to 1.6 units), compared to the state station. However, the (1.1
readings are less precise than the state readings, so the actual
differences may be less.
There were no consistent or seasonal trends in differences in water
temperature between sites. Turbidity data were not collected at the state
st4tion.
Number of low dissolved oxygen events in the river
More low dissolved oxygen events were observed at the Citizen Monitor
sites at Town Farm Creek, Smithfield and at Jordan Point in all years
sampled than at the closest state monitoring stations (Table 6).
26

-------
Table 6. Instances of dissolved oxygen levels in the James River near
( 4.50 mg/i), at or below the Virginia minimum standard of 4 mg/i
measured at state monitoring stations and Citizen Monitoring sites
during matched observation periods.
1985 1986 1987 1988
LES.6 0 1 0 noobs
LE5.4 0 0 0 noobs
PigPoint 0 1 0 1
LE5.3 no obs 0 0 0
Hilton Pier no obs 1 0 0
LE5.3 noobs 0 0 0
Town Farm Creek no obs 3 14 0
Smithfield no obs 5 2 5
RETS .2 0 0 no obs no obs
Dancing Point 0 no obs no obs no obs
First Colony 0 0 no obs no obs
TF5.4 0 0 0 noobs
TF S.5 0 0 0 noobs
Jordan Point no obs 7 7 7
Tar Bay 0 no obs no obs 0
TF5.3 0 0 1 0
Deep Bottom no obs no obs 1 0
DutchGap 0 0 0 0
TF5.2 0 0 0 0
James River Park 0 0 0 0
Huguenot Bridge no obs 0 0 0
27

-------
Discussion
Several patterns of differences between the Citizen Monitoring sites
and state monitoring station occurred frequently enough to suggest that
they may be real. Only the most common pattern for each water quality
variable will be mentioned. Presumably most of the differences result from
the sampling locations of the Citizen Monitoring sites, which were in the
shallows along the river, margins and in tributaries of the rivers, in
contrast to the state monitoring stations which were situated mid—river.
Oxygen levels showed a variety of patterns. In the most common
pattern, both dissolved oxygen and percent oxygen saturation at the Citizen
Monitoring sites were higher compared to surface river concentrations
during the summer, when oxygen levels were low, than during the rest of the
year. This occurred in five of 17 comparisons, including both rivers.
Citizen Monitoring sites tended to be more saline than the mid—river
locations. This was true in all comparisons made in the Patuxent River
and in one of five comparisons on the James River. Some of these
differences were likely due to the method differences described earlier,
which tended to produce slightly higher readings in water samples measured
by the citizens. Two of the James River Citizen Monitoring sites, Town
Farm Creek and Smithfield, were less saline than the river, probably due to
fresh water flow of the Pagan River.
The Citizen Monitoring sites on the Patuxent River tended to be more
alkaline than the state stations, especially in the summer (seven of 10
ccmçarisons). There was no clear pattern in pH differences observed in the
James River data.
The CM sites on the Patuxent River were usually warmer than the river,
especially during the spring warming period of March to June (eight of 10
c çarisons). The seasonal pattern was less pronounced in the tidal fresh
segment. This pattern was less conu n in the James River data (two of
seven comparisons), where fewer of the CM sites were on creeks.
Turbidity tended to be higher in the creeks and along the river edges
than at the mid—river state stations, in both the Patuxent and James Rivers
(eight of 12 comparisons). This difference was most often reversed in the
spring, when the water in the river was more turbid.
cwcwsici s
In considering the utility of data collected by Citizen Monitors in
comparison to that collected by the states for water quality monitoring, we
confined our analysis strictly to differences in parameter measurements
taken within the same week. Thus we have taken a conservative approach in
attempting to answer the question: “Do the data taken by citizen monitors
enhance our knowledge of the Bay’s tributaries?”, as we have only looked
for consistent differences. We therefore excluded much of the information
collected by citizen monitors that relates to the interpretation of the
28

-------
data and to characterization of the weekly ecological variation at the
sites that are the real value of this program.
Having taken a conservative approach, however, we can point with some
confidence to having identified spatial heterogeneities in dissolved
oxygen, percent saturation of dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, water
temperature and pH that often consistently occurred between state stations
located in the middle of the rivers and locations along the river banks or
in the tributaries of the river itself. The value to the Bay restorative
program of monitoring these differences will depend on questions that are
asked about habitats, living resources, and water quality, and the
importance in answering these questions of characterizing the small—scale
variability that is the hallmark of estuarine systems. The similarities we
observed between the citizen monitoring data and state data, conversely,
are useful in characterizing spatially homogeneous water quality aspects
that are also of interest.
In the future we plan to test the utility of citizen monitoring data
in characterizing nearshore habitats by spatially integrating the citizen
monitoring data and state water quality data. We also hope to look at
correlations between certain measured variables, such as low dissolved
oxygen, and the frequency of observed events, such as fish kills and algae
blooms. It should be possible to identify which sites provide for
particular living resources habitats and attempt to link their character
with water quality indicators.
We think it would be useful to evaluate the feasibility of using the
citizen monitoring data set to determine data collection frequency optima
for time series of water quality indicators.
The key to meeting our goal of restoring the Bay to its more nearly
natural life cycle, thereby slowing down the sedimentation and
eutrophication process which leads to living resource population changes,
lies in man’s activities in the watershed, particularly on the land
adjacent to the water. The Citizen Monitoring Program sponsored by the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. for the Chesapeake Bay Program has
demonstrated that having the region’s citizens involved directly in
collecting information that meets the needs of the overall Monitoring
Program not only creates a clearer understanding of the Bay ecosystem and
man’s role in complex ecological processes, but also establishes advocates
for the life style changes that must occur if the Bay is to be “saved”.
29

-------
REF C
1. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 1986. Citizen Monitoring
Manual . Baltimore, MD.
2. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 1988. The James River , a fact
sheet. Baltimore, lID.
3. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association
and Water Pollution Control Federation (APHh, AWWA, and WPCF). 1985.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater . 16th
ed. American Public Health Association. Wi ihington, DC. 1268 pages.
4. Chesapeake Bay Program, Implementation Coim ittee Resolution. Passed 25
June 1987. Annapolis, MD.
5. Chesapeake Bay Program, Monitoring Subcc ni ttee. 1987. The state of
the Chesapeake Bay, second annual monitoring report, 1984—85 .
Annapolis, MD. 26 pages.
6. Domotor, D. 1989. A case study of the Patuxent River estuary . The
State of the Chesapeake Bay, Monitoring Report, 1986—87. thesapeake
Bay Program, Monitoring Subcoiri ittee. Annapolis, MD. (In press)
7. Hanmer, R. 1988. Keynote Address . Citizen Volunteers in
Environmental Monitoring, Suniriary Proceedings of a National Workshop
held in Narragansett, RI in May 1988. Sponsored by Office of Water,
USEPA and Rhode Island Sea Grant Program. EPA 503/9—89—001,
Washington, DC. p. 12—13.
8. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program.
1983. Chesapeake Bay: a Framework for Action. Appendices.
Philadelphia, PA. 554 pages.
9. US Evironmental Protection Agency, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program.
1986. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) for the Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring Program. USEPA QAIIS 1980 Document. Annapolis, MD.
10. Whipple, G.C. and M.C. Whipple. 1911. Solubility of oxygen in Sea
water . J. Am, them. Soc. 33: 362.
30

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Sample data sheet used by the Citizen Monitors.
Figure 2. Map of the Patuxent River showing state monitoring stations and
Citizen Monitoring sites.
Figure 3. Map of the James River showing state monitoring stations and
Citizen Monitoring sites.
Figure 4a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Spring
Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) with State station
LE1 .4 (‘*1). The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents the
state minimum standard (5 mg/i).
Figure 4b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Spring Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) and
State station LE1.4. The dashed line in the middle of the plot
represents zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the
level measured at the CM site was higher than at the state station.
Figure 5a. Comparison of water temperatures (°C) at CM sites Spring Cove—
Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) with State station LE1.4
(1*’)
Figure 5b. Signed differences in water temperatures (°C) between CM sites
Spring Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) and State
Station LE1.4. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents
zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the water
temperature measured at the CM site was higher than at the state
station.
Figure 6a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Osborn
Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) with State station LE1.2 (‘*‘). The
state miniim.mi standard (5 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
Figure 6b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Osborn Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) and State station 121.2.
The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
a positive difference indicates that the level measured at the CM
site was higher than at the state station.
Figure 7a. Comparison of water temperatures (°C) at CM sites Osborn Cove
(‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) with State station LE1.2 ( ‘*r).
Figure 7b. Signed differences in water temperatures (°C) between CM sites
Osborn Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) and State station LE1 .2. The
dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
positive differences indicate that the water temperature measured at
the CM sites was higher than at the state station.
31

-------
Figure 8a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Trent
Ball (‘N’) and Benedict (‘0’) with State station BET1.l (‘*1). The
state minimum standard (5 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
Figure 8b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/l) between CM
sites Trent Hall (‘N’) and Benedict (‘0’) and State station RET1l.
The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
a positive difference indicates that the level at the CM site was
higher that at the state station.
Figure 9a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Pott’s
Point (‘P’) and Holland Cliff (‘Q’) with State station TF1.7 ( ‘*t).
The state minimum standard (5 mqJl) is shown by the dashed line.
Figure 9b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Pott’s Point (‘P’) and Holland Cliff (‘Q’) and State station
TF1.7. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero
difference; a positive difference indicates that the level measured at
the CM site was higher that at the state station.
Figure lOa. Comparison of percent oxygen saturation levels at CM sites
Town Farm Creek (‘D’) and Smithfield (‘E’) with State station LES.3
(‘* ‘). The dashed line in the middle of the plot shows 100%
saturation.
Figure lOb. Signed differences in percent oxygen saturation between CM
sites Town Farm Creek (‘D’) and Smithfield (‘E’) and State station
LE5.2. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero
difference; a positive difference indicates that the level at the CM
sites was higher that at the state station.
Figure ha. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels at CM site Jordan Point
(‘L’) with State station TF5.5 (‘*1). The state minimum standard (4
m /l) is shown by the dashed line.
Figure lib. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between
CM site Jordan Point (‘L’) and State station TF5.5. The dashed line
in the middle of the plot represents zero difference; a positive
difference indicates that the level at the CM site was higher than at
the state station.
Figure 12a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels at CM sites James River
Park (‘P’) and Huguenot Bridge (‘Q’) with State station TF5.2 ( ‘* ‘).
The state minimum standard (4 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
Figure 12b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between
CM sites James River Park (‘P’) and Huguenot Bridge (‘Q’) and State
station TF5.2. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents
zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the level at the
CM site was higher than at the state station.
32

-------
RETURN TO: Kathleen Eiiett
do Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Ave. Suite 110
Figure 1. Sample data sheet. Annapolis, Md 21403
ALLLANCE PROGRAM FOR TEE CHESAPEAKE BAY
CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
DATA COLLECTION FORM
JAMES RIVER
Collection Date: ____________________
Time of Day: ___________________
Monitor Name: ___________________ Monitor Number :
Site Name: ____________________ Site Number:
Air Temperature: __________________ C
Secehi Depth: ___________________
Water Depth: ___________________ in
Water Temperature: ___________________ C
(In bucket)
Hydrometer Reading: ___________________ Salinity: 0/00
Water Temperature: ___________________ C
(In hydrometer jar)
pH: ___________________ SU (Standard Units)
Dissolved Oxygen: Test 1: ______ Test 2: _____ Average: _____mg/i (ppm)
Ammonia: _________ppm
Water Surface: (Circle one)
1 Calm 2 Ripple 3 Waves 4 White Caps
Weather: - (Circle one)
1 Cloudless 2 Partly Cloudy 3 Overcast 4 Fog/Haze
5 Drizzle 6 Intermittent Rain 7 Rain 8 Sriov
Rainfall: __________ mm (Weekly accumulation, enter ‘0’ if no rainfall)
Other: (Circle ones that apply)
1 Sea Nettles 2 Dead Fish 3 Dead Crabs 4 SAV
5 Oil Slick 6 Ice 7 Debris 8 Erosion
9 Foam 10 Bubbles 11 Odors
Water Color: (Circle one.and describe) Normal Abnormal
Comments: (Observations about your site)
Signature________________________________________ Date______________________

-------
w1.1
TFI.2r\ 1 .3
BAY
PATUXENT RIVER WATER QUALITY
.4
AND
RT.4 £
ID
TF1.5
TF1
CITIZEN
L
ca SEGI’ENT
TF—1
TF1.7
POTTS POINT
MONITORING STATIONS
T ( Maryland Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
r Citizen Monitoring
Stations
r 1 Historical
Monitoring Stations
1s2 3.241
0 2 4 6
flLES
BATThE
SEGt’ENT
Ci + i Zen
T-1
T1.1
T T LL
.1
8P SEGt B’ T
LE-1
TT tEY E
ST. OJT T
.3
a Bc
KINGSTO4
N OJ..Y P O
Figure 2.
LE1 .4
Map of the Patuxent River showing state u nitoring stations arxi
Citizen Monitoring sites.

-------
JAMES RIVER WATER QUALITY AND CITIZEN
VJ-ES RIVER PAR(
FEJIENOT F IDGE
CBP SEG €NT
TF-5
L
L iI1
ouroi
sr
TAR BAT
DANCING
POINT
Virginia Water Quality
Monitoring Stations RET-5
Citizen Monitoring
SCALE 1s481,704
0 5 10 15
Hi 5tor i cal
Citizen
MONITORNG STATIONS
\
\
FIRST cawy
KINGS MILL
LE5. 1
CARTERS GRCNE
CBP SEGt’ENT
LE-5
Figure 3. Map of the Jan s River showing state monitoring stations and
Citizen Monitorinq sites.
1 111FF
BOTTOM
Stat I ons
Tif iao
Monitoring Stations MILES
TGJ4 FAI 1
REEX

-------
o 0
‘I ‘I ‘I ‘I S
I
. . r. r •—-“. -‘- • •• ••‘ F FF. FPFFFF. F. .
$ s is i ñ *sv iuü si s 1Ü I* jiiu Issuxsz *U8$$SZiU S$ $ 88 S 88588 S55558 88 85 *
F. . • • a•• •d —a •*4 -
$ •••••• •• ••• • $•$ • •••• ñ1 süì* •*si**si*s •ñ 8 5$ $*$W * $
— — — — —
— ‘. ‘ •. 40 • • 1 — • ‘ . ‘ a. • •
* i s a ,igsiIisassi $ ass 3
fj flip • • j •• —
lu l l • J 1 11’ ii
I I
! rir 11
Figure 4a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Spring
Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) with State station
LE1.4 ( * ‘). The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents the
state mininLnn standard (5 mg/i).

-------
I
• . .. -
.. .°. —r. . . ?r?. I’. . . . . . . . .
S g
i 11 t
1 1! 1’
——il_I I t I f I I
I
Figure 4b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Spring Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) and
State station LE1.4. The dashed line in the middle of the plot
represents zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the
level measured at the cM site was higher than at the state station.
11
I

-------
I I
•
gg g ggggg ggg g ggg g s g gg gg g g g ggg gg g gg gggg g g s ü
? .
g gg gg gg gg g g gggg g g S ggS:g gg: SSS SS g —
. .. — - ;
S —
ii
zIIJ I
Ij
zz ,.
Figure 5a. Comparison of water temperatures (°C) at CM sites Spring Cove—
Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) with State station LEX.4
( ‘*r)
I
i.— 1
U
J x
.11 i I

UflIZII I
I
U”

p
• U
• t
i. p
• U
S
Si
U
U
0

-------
6
1
- — n n IS p& asa.s .. .. . p. £ a a — .. p. s-a is is p. a a — s . Cs
*838 * 88333 88 8 8* 8*8888 888*88 8 8 8 88
Figure 5b. Signed differences in water temperatures (°C) between CM sites
Spring Cove—Mill Creek (‘A’) and Green Holly Pond (‘B’) and State
Station L.El.4. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents
zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the water
at the CM site was higher than at the state
temperature measured
station.
‘S
0 — S PI 0 1 — is — is PO PS — — 0 0 P. C d 0 a s . . p .a..as. peat. P. P. — a
8 8888 *8*8 *8* 83 8 8* 8 8*3888388388 8 8 8 3*8
-. 2
I
It
I
ii

-------
‘I
‘I
II
II
F 1. . --—-.-. . . . ... _ • 1.,.r*.V p • •p. t P • •
t$ VS$ $V*$ V$ S VV$* $$$$$* $U1 Ü $ flt$V$VV V$* ü l$$*s äs äl $ s su; s ; ss; * ;;Vsss $$ ; *s;** ÜVS VU$ * ** * *
L; . ; ;;• ; ;; • ; • ;• ;; ;;;;;• ; I I
• V•• • • • p r- .
bs e 5$ V V b $ * s $ S S
Figure 6a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Osborn
Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) with State station 711.2 ( * ). The
state minin*im standard (5 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
I
I
I
$1

-------
I
II I I
• r —. . —— .. • • . . . £.. • £ .. ..
Is s $,V stIVI $ • k... *i s as ss a $
• —. !. &. r. LI r. . r.•, p.r. ’ rP. . r. .. p. .. i•
$ as baskss us*a,..* s * s ssi gb;ass i a $ $ss
Figure 6b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Osborn Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) and State station LE1.2.
The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
a positive difference indicates that the level measured at the cM
site was higher than at the state station.
I
I
I
I
I

-------
i
$j
i
t
i
i
• N N .U U P U $ PP p P DU C •j. .pNN .. a • . . F PP .
UI usUis i isüi sñvih Ci siui W IÜ IWIW ks II&I s si ss ii s s *sñs si si ä ,i isi s v ug I ms II
;;;;. ç ç;ç. ç;;;;; ;ç;. c c; . {. • I
p . . •a — r . . . .. 3
as* ”i*isbbbsi . is bbs 1 1 I I $ $ $
I
I
I
Figure 7a. Comparison of water temperatures (°C) at CM sites Osborn Cove
(‘F’) arid St. Leonard (‘G’) with State station LE1.2 ( * ).
.
li 2 2
—I
2
li
11.! ‘IlL
f
I
a.
itj
St
IT T
1. I
£ 2 T
If
I —a
.2 II
11 2
S
—I
•1
‘• ftp 2
I
$1

-------
0
0
II
II
1
1
1
WI
. c c c •••• ;• i. .... .
• • e. i.?. P. P. . . P. P. r. r. . . . . . . ?. . 1.. !. I.. !. r. r. . r. r.. • p.••.
$ Is ssssasssIIsais as a as asssasassssass $ a a I * is,
Figure 7b. Signed differences in water temperatures (°C) between CM sites
Osborn Cove (‘F’) and St. Leonard (‘G’) and State station LE1.2. The
dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
positive differences indicate that the water temperature measured at
the CM sites was higher than at the state station.
I
I

-------
ft p
‘I ‘I I
F. is —is • — — — — .—. — .•• • u -. —— .. —. F. FFF. F .FF.F.F.. FF. F. F— ——. ... j
: s z *
F. . FFFF. FF. . F .———— — —. — ————. .——. F. F. F. FFFFF. F. . F .
* * *:s * * * w* *
is . is ian.. ,. I. (a.. .P.i$ * is : F. r
* : * * * ••• 1 • •* I * *
----1
Figure 8a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Trent
Hall (‘N’) and Benedict (‘0’) with State station RET1.l (r*1). The
state minimum standard (5 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
is
. is I L
£
1° •.
0s
U
.
I • 11 ‘°
I o u 1
— I x oLI t hzhhsI 0
II
I
0
•01 ,

-------
2 I WI W i
o ‘ 0 0 — N — C • S — 0 0 54 — S S I#P#I. 0 0 0 S C Si —
: “* :

a a
r 0 1 L
“ 1 H A. I
Figure 8b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between c M
sites Trent Hail (‘N’) and Benedict (‘0’) and State station RET1.l.
The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero difference;
a positive difference indicates that the level at the cM site was
higher that at the state station.

-------
‘I 1 1 1 ‘I 1 I
X r•• .. • r. — . . • . r.
$ $1 $$ tüu *i,, nt i * u; i ss i utu suüjiii iüss siz su ssüiiii’ siiiisisu sszssuss s8!UI5VS555* 5Z55$ $ 5
p . 0 •
s 5
$
. . V
•eI 1 II • • •_ V
•..:
1.1
V 0
V V
V
V
V
—V
Figure 9a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) at CM sites Pott’s
Point (‘P’) and Holland Cliff (‘Q’) with State station TF1.7 (‘*‘).
The state minimum standard (5 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
I
. IJ
VII... •
I

-------
U U
II *1 i
. .. . .
s* s $ s i t;s $t;$ s g
$ $ $ $ $ $
Figure 9b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between CM
sites Pott’s Point (‘P’) and Holland Cliff (‘0’) and State station
TF1.7. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero
difference; a positive difference indicates that the level measured at
the CM site was higher that at the state station.
)

-------
II
hE *E: 1$ Z3$$2* $3 E
I $3! 43 C 118 I ‘
EE E 5E: s: *:5ah z3 E :E: a: amEa E : : i :

I.
N
N
NI
I öj
I .
*: 3 : : :::z::: a:
3 $ S • 5 $• . . a a
11
.
Figure lOa. Comparison of percent oxygen saturation levels at CM sites
Town Farm Creek (‘D’) and Smithfield (‘E’) with State station LES.3
(‘*‘). The dashed line in the middle of the plot shows 100%
saturation.

-------
2 C i 2
! .
: ; : ; i . i:• •:• •
Figure lOb. Signed differences in percent oxygen saturation between CM
sites Town Farm Creek (‘D’) and Smithfield (‘E’) and State station
LE5.2. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents zero
difference; a positive difference indicates that the level at the CM
sites was higher that at the state station.
*
-a
N
a
I
1 1
Ii

-------
ft
I
i ‘1 ‘I ‘I
I
ba wl .win an a. i0 S 04 ..I000..I. awi. w •aSape . ?
•$i• $1*** Z * 1$I i$$ U
— — — — is — — — — — pa — • —
• • — .1 — *4 4 SiP 400 — ( 5 — • • 4 *4* 10 4 S*000000 , •••
g
————.
Figure ha. Coniparison of dissolved oxygen levels at CM site Jordan Point
(‘L’) with State station TF5.5 (‘*1). The state minimum standard (4
mg/l) is shown by the dashed line.
a
I

-------
WI I
. E
s ss s i z
TLTh lu
L
Figure lib. Signed differe ices in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between
cM site Jordan Point (‘L’) and State station TFS.5. The dashed line
in the middle of the plot represents zero difference; a positive
difference indicates that the level at the cM site was higher than at
the state station.
LJ1 i.
a
1 H T T J I
(I
U
9

-------
. F . F. F . F . ? . FF. . “ . • — . . . . . . . — . .. — . .
; *$ :i I I W I I I ä I I :u :u u
• ‘•• — “
s * I gsg gg I*I I I 1*1 us W ü W
. .— . ... .. . ...
•$• * • 5 •I •* • •*s •
iT T T
1 &. .L .
.1 •i•j bun.
Figure 12a. Comparison of dissolved oxygen levels at CM sites James River
Park (‘P’) and Huguenot Bridge (‘Q’) with State station TF5.2 (‘*1).
The state minimum standard (4 mg/i) is shown by the dashed line.
001
‘S
0 1 L. 1IL 1 °
I
t 1 tt.* 0* 0
I I..
0 1 1
a
._ t I
p.
0
I
r

-------
... . .. j. .. . .! . . ——i.. . —
.. .. . I • ••••
a
. ! . . ?. . .- 0 O. . !.
a a a as $ “$•• •:aa * S $* I
n
i J ii 1 1 1Th
q 11 v I
1 z
Figure 12b. Signed differences in dissolved oxygen levels (mg/i) between
cM sites James River Park (‘P’) and Huguenot Bridge (‘Q’) and State
station TF5.2. The dashed line in the middle of the plot represents
zero difference; a positive difference indicates that the level at the
cM site was higher than at the state station.

-------
APPE1 DIX I: IWI SL 9IARY
The following section presents a site by site data summary of all
verified data in the Citizen Nonitoring Program Data File. The sites are
in order progressing from the mouth of each river. A site map precedes the
data for each river. The sites are identified by name and number followed
by the location and a description of the site. We have then listed the
range in salinity (where applicable), the minimum\maximum water depth and
the dates that data were collected at the site.
The above information is followed by plots of each parameter value
versus date of collection. Not all parameters were measured at every site.
The sites in the tidal fresh zone did not measure salinity consistently and
were, therefore, excluded. Bottom as well as surface dissolved oxygen
concentrations were measured at only four sites on the. Patuxent River and
are plotted accordingly. Rainfall was not measured at sites that were
located in areas with public access. Rainfall values measuring over 100 mm
are indicated by a circle and the actual value. In the beginning of the
program, ph comparators that test for a wide range of values were used.
After data had been collected for a year and a general range of ph values
was known for each site, narrow range kits were supplied.
A complete listing of all the data is available on request as Appendix
II.

-------
PATUXENT RIVER
CiT IZEN
ff
r.
MONITOR INC
SITES
RT.4
c sr.
Fx

-------
GREEN HOLLY POND #19
Monitor : Mary Hollinger
Location : 381748 762740 Green Holly Pond is an inlet on the southwestern side of the Patuxent River
3.32 km from the mouth. The Patuxent Naval Air Test Center is just below the site.
Sampling Site Samples are taken from a pier that runs from the beach out into the Patuxent River. The outlet
for the pond is just up river of sampling site.
Salinity Range : 11.2 to 19.5 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.6 to 1.8 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1988.
40
w
o
JUN
iass
GREEN HOLLY POND
0 WATER TEMP ]
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
Iw .i 4 ..
%TV’ ••‘
0
d0
9\
oo
Sf
I
F — I.
DEC
DEC JUN
DEC JUN
DEC JUN
4.
w
1•
0-•-’
JUN
1985
DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1986 1986 1987
! ! !!
DEC JUN
1987 1988
I.’.’
DEC
1988

-------
GREEN HOLLY POND • SALINITY 1
4
I’ , ..
+ 4
# ‘ . •
•.
4• + 4
4,
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
/Df
0
.
4
•.
4. .4 41%
..•• + 4
• •#. 4
• •_e• --
• 4 •
• •. ,
•
.
•
• •. •
‘ _. -
4 + 4
4 • • •
• 4
• ••
# .•
•
I.I—I—I.I.I—I.I—I—I.I.I.I—I—I.I—I—
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988
S
I — I•I
DEC
1988
SURFACE DO
.;10.
5-
0 —
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• RAINFALL
. pH
10’
9 ,
0
8’
4
• +41
* S 1 . ‘. • ‘#
• 411+ * .% 4%.
• •+•+ *+ • •+ +4*
•. 41•+ 4. 44+ + ••• * • • *4+ 4 4 • 5 + 44. 4
6’
5,
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0’ -
JUN
1985
25
20
‘—1.
0.
a-
10-
5’
100
80 ,
w
4O ’
-J
20
0’• -’
JUN
1985
20
15-
0
0

-------
SPRING COVE-MILL CREEK #14
Monitor John O’Meara
Location : 38 1945 762636 Spring Cove is an inlet on the south side of Mill Creek 2.98 km from the mouth
where it runs into the Patuxent River from the northeast 2.56 km from the mouth of the river.
Sampling Site : A grab sample was taken from a pier located at the waterfront home of Mr. O’Meara.
Salinity Range : 5.8 to 20.9 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.9 to 2.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to May 1987.
SPRING COVE-MILL CREEK 0 WATER TEMP
40
0
0
oa Q
0% _
0 0 0
0
0
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCH DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4.
w
:‘ __
0—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
SPRING COVE-MILL CREEK • SALINITY
+
• + •. • •4 *
•• •
• 41••
• •• + •
.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o0
0
Wb
0 SURFACE DO
V p11
*
l ’ s ’ .. :4H..*• •
.
••• .• •
:. •,+
6 +
S.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
25
20
I-
a.
a.
10
S.
20
_15
10
0
0 øt ..

0
0
S
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
9.
10-
8
-7.

-------
KINGSTON #17
Monitor Oran Wilkerson
Location : 38 1923 762938 Kingston is located on a small peninsula of land between Little Kingston Creek
and Kingston Creek on the southwest shore of the Patuxent River 7.01 km from the river mouth.
Sampling Site: Grab samples were taken from a boat and a pier at the waterfront home of Mr.Wilkerson.
Salinity Range : 10.8 to 19.5 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 1.5 to 3.5 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to June 1986.
KINGSTON 0 WATER TEMP
40
030 o
10.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4,
4
3
w
‘0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
KINGSTON • SALINITY
25
20
.,v*
:
S.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I ° SURFACE DO
20’
15 ’
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
10’
9.
• .
8’ N 44
Z 7’
6’
5 , J.I.I.I.I.I.l.l.I.I.I.I.I.l.I.I.I.I.I.l.I. I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Cuckold Creek #2
MOnitors : Frank and Bertha Ber itheisel
Location: , 382038 763005 Cuckold Creek runs into the Patuxent 8.48 km from the mouth. The site is 1.71
km from the mouth of the creek inside Half Pone Point.
Sampling Site : A grab sample is taken from the end of a short pier located at the Bernheisel’s waterfront home.
Salinity Range : 8.9 to 24.2 parts per thousand (predominantly mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 1.90 to 2.97 meters
Data Collection Dates: July 1985 to October 1988.
0
C l)
w
U i
0
U i
0
U)
Ui
I-
Ui
CUCKOLD CREEK 0 WATER TEMP 1
8 ‘ ‘
6
‘6
V
• - U -
DEC
1986
I - I -
JUN
1987
- - — I
DEC
1987
I — I
JUN
1988
I I • I • I
DEC
1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
0
DEC JUN DEC
1987 1988 1988
• — U — I
JUN
1986
40
20 a
0
1o• 8
0
JUN DEC
1985 1985
4.
3.
1•11•.. SI
2
0
0
JUN DEC
1985 1985
‘6 a
0
I — I - I
JUN
1986
I I - I
DEC
1986
I — I•I
JUN
1987

-------
CUCKOLD CREEK SALINITY
25
20 + . : : + • !I . . ii
+4 ’ ,
I.- + + te _
+ 4I * %f + • 4 • $ —
+ •
a. +• + ; 4
10
5.

JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I • RAINFALL
ISO
100• 0
(1)80
Lu + 4
‘ -60 +
Lu
+ 4
40 •+ +
+ 4
_j • •• • •t •
4 4
• + 44
+ • +44+
20 4 + • + ••
+ + +
+ 4.+ • • • • +• + 44 •
._ •! . ++
0 ! !hI i! J .I.J.IlI.I.ItI.I1I.I.I ,1l.I.U.! .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10
20
15 -
10-
0 cQ
0—_ •_
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
pH
10 -
9- •
4+ 4IIP+ + + ‘.
+ * +4. + + ‘ +4
S + * * + +4’. 4
• 4 P • • • 4/ ‘ ‘
+ 4
7,
a.
$
6’
,14_
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
ST.CUTHBERTS WHARF #7
Monitor : Charles Fleiwig
Location : 3821 47 763044 St. Cuthberts Wharf is on the southwest side of the river 12.19 km from the
mouth.
Sampling Site: A grab sample is taken from a pier at the Heiwig waterfront home.
Salinity Range : 11.8 to 21.4 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.6 to 2.2 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to October 1988.
ST. CUTHBERTS WHARF
40
0
30
20 0 o

,
10’

0_ ’I i!i ’! ’!.! .i’! i .i .i .i
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
4.
0)3•
w
I--
w
1•
JUN
1985
o WATER TEMP
9
0
a—I—I—I..—
JUN DEC -
1988 1988
0 SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
0
Ii )
Lu
Lu
C,
Lu
0
0
I — I —
DEC
1987
I.I.,—l—I.I.I.I.I.I. I-.—-I.,-.I.y— 1•1 1 1 ’1•1
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
ST. CUTHBERTS WHARF
1 • SALINITY
25
2O •: .‘
4. •4 4 .4
+ 4.
44. 4.,
is 4. * • • + 4 4 + . + +
0. 4.
10
5.
0 ’-
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• RAINFALL
101#
100- 0
cn80-
.
w , 4. +
uJ
.
4O • +
.
4. + + . . .
4.
4. + .
4. 4. ..
2O • • • . • +
+ . ‘ : •.+ ‘ ,. ,
• •• • •+• . +
I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SURFACE DO
20
15 0
0° 00
0”
000
0
0
0—_ •_
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
10’
9. sI • + +
0 I • +4. ++ +4. • 4. ,I ’4 • +.4lIieMA1 + * + 4. +
• • 4.
4+ • •• • • • • •.•
C 8 • *e+ mu . uuiuu +41 141*4H 1(4 * +41411 I .IN44.* • •* + +4. *
• + + *4.4 + + +
•, 4 4.+ + 4.++
X 7
0.
6
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
ST. LEONARDS CREEK #11
Monitor : Ken Kaumeyer
Location : 38 2308 762900 St. Leonard’s Creek enters the Patuxent River from the northeast 13.48 km
from the mouth of the river. This site is on Grapevine Cove which is on the east side of the creek about 1.53 km
from the creek mouth.
Sampling SiteL A grab sample is taken from a pier located at the Kaumeyer’s waterfront home. Surface and
bottom dissolved oxygen concentration is measured with a Y.S.I. DO meter.
Salinity Range : 7.3 to 17.9 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 3.2 to 4.3 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to October 1988.
0
_‘Q _
ST. LEONARDS CREEK
40
030
C l )
w
w
0
w
010
a WATER TEMP
%\ 76e
0 —
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
C l )
U i
I-
U i
4.
3.
2
1•
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
.t, . •... I•%.. ...
•• • •.. •44•
4... •o*• *. . .
4
q, .
0
a
0%Pt:
o
0
n • •.
•. # ••l I4,s 4,• + + “::.. . ‘%•
.. 4
4. • •••• 4•j
4 0
0 00 0
00
: , o: :
00 ‘0
0 0 0
a
0 __
0
0•
•i
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
25
20
1
a.
a.
10
5.
0 -
JUN
1985
100
s0.
Lu
60
-J
20
20’
15’
-;1o
5.
0’ -
JUN
1985
10’
9.
8’
7.
a-
6
ST. LEONARDS CREEK I • SALINITY
# •
4 * •.
4 4
• RAINFALL
•
I
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
4
4 •
0’ ‘I!
JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986
0
• 4
.4
+
• .
••
4
4
•4
+ . 4 4 4
• . 4..’ • 4+.
•+ • •‘4• 4
- — ‘ 4— - -- 4
I
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I o SURFACE DO I
• BOUOM DO J
9
. ‘ ‘o a
0
•
I
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC -
- JUN -
- DEC
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
• pH
S
• 4
• •4 4
•• %4* h, 4+ 411
* •IIUI + * 4 4 4l 4 4+4 4+4 + • 4Nl 4lII* * + 411 + • + +
4l+ 4 .+. 4
• + +4 4+ 41* • 4 + llSIi *4
5I ’i! iii’i ’ii ’ i ’i ’! ’i ’ii ’i ’i ’!i ’i
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0

-------
OSBORN COVE #13
Monitor : Kent Mountford
Location : 3824 15 762808 Osborn Cove is located on the east side of the St. Leonard’s Creek
approximately 2.23 km from the mouth. The Cieek runs into the Patuxent River from the north at river km
13.48.
Sampling Site : A grab sample is taken from a pier, secchi depth and bottom DO samples are take from a boat in
deeper water when weather permits. The water depth and secchi plot reflect this practice.
Salinity Range : 7.9 to 19.3 parts per thound (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : Bottom exposed to 2.4 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to October 1988.
(Data also available from 1976 to July 1985)
OSBORN COVE
0 WATERTEMP I
cb 6

9
0
:

0 0
0
cP

0• —
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
P
0
0 SECCHI DEPTh
• WATER DEPTH
0
0
C
I—I — I
JUN
1988
I — I •I
DEC
1988
I
40
0
u30
a)
U I
U I
0
UI
10
0
0
a 3
UI
I-
UI
1
JUN
1985
00
• •
I —I—I
DEC
1985
• — I —
JUN
1986
I - I -
DEC
1986
.— •
• 4
I — I I
JUN
1987
I — I — I
DEC
1987

-------
OSBORN COVE • SALINITY
25 -
20
+
• . , / .# .
* 4
I- . 15 • + * 4 4+ + i* • S
•i,, 4+
0. . •, •
a.
10-
5-
0 r rr __ i .! .! _ ! .i.. _ u _ i.! _ i.!.i.j.p _ I .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC - - JUN - DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
+ RAINFALL
i7o 1,
100
4
+
60 + + • +
+
LU •,
40 + 4, + +
4
•+
4 •
• +4 • + + •* +
20 • •++ • + . • • . + 4, .• •+
. + +
4
+ +
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
I • BOTFOMDO
20
15
0 0
0 0 cf # 0 0,—
000 0 0
0 % o 0 00%
000
0 4 4 0 o
0 od •
• • •+ 4
•
4, 4 , +4
0 _1!!!!!’
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
10
• 4
9 + 4 4 * * #* • + • + *
+ ‘ , . . + 4
— + • • , + 4, * •4 , 4* 4 + • 4444 •+ +
*
+
4+ +44 +4+ * + +4
— + +
4+ 4 •444
8 • • 4, # S 4 4 : “ +4 4 4+
4 *
a.
6
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 19 3

-------
SOTTERLEY COVE #8
Monitors : John Horton and various students and teachers involved in St. Mary’s County Environmental
Education Program
Location : 382244 7631 53 Sotterley Plantation sits on high ground between Sotterley Creek and Hog Neck
Creek on the southwest banks of the Patuxent River 14.96 km from the mouth. The Wharf was used to bade
tobacco. The Plantation House is now a National Historical Site.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from the end of the pier which extends out into the river.
Salinity Range : 8.9 to 22.4 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.8 to 3.1 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to October 1988.
o30
C,)
UI
UI
C,
UI
cio.
0
1985
40
SOTI’ERLEY COVE
0 WATER TEMP
cP°
0
0
OO
0
0
0• ’
JUN
1985
0 0
0
JUN
1986
0
o% 0
‘o0 o
U - I -
DEC
1986
I -I • I
JUN
1987
I - U —
DEC
1987
I - I —
JUN
1988
I - U — U
DEC
1988
4 ,
3,
2
1
0)
UI
I-
UI
0
.
SECCHI
WATER
DEPTH
DEPTH
• • •
•
. .•
I • •. •.. t
4 ‘;t• ‘: •% tF . __
0 4 00 0.
p o S
0
0
•
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
SOTTERLEY COVE
I + SALINITY
+
4 1+ + . .+ 4 • 1
‘ S , + + + : • 4*4. + 1
+4+ # IIt
*4+ +
•
+ 4
. +
RAINFALL
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
+
+
4+ + +
4
470
0
+ + +
4
+ + +
414* +
• +
• 4
4
4 4. +
+

+
4
•+ •+ + + +
4+ + 41.
4. + .• +44 ,++
+ —
0 •i • • . ‘i•h.—— • P • i IM.u• 1 I I’•i •i’ u.u .u .
JUN - DEC - JUN - DEC - - JUN DEC JUN - - DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SURFACE DO
• BOTTOM DO
0 ç 19
oo& -
0
c
+ 4.
0— • l•I•I’I•I•l•I•I•Il’lI•I•I ,•I I•III•I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
41 4 4 + +
411- 4.
4414I •• 4 +• + + •,
* +1
. + +
+ +
411411144111144111 + + 441111 II IIIUU1I 4* 41+ 41441411+411 1*44111+ +
1 4
+1
+IlIIJIIII +4
4•+
•4
6-
S.—
JUN DEC JUN - DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
2S
20
I-
0.
0.
10 -
100-
8O
U i
60
40
-J
20
20
15
5-
0
0
10•
9.
a,

-------
Captain Point #3
Monitor : Robert F. Chapman
Location : 3823 10 763255 Capthin Point is located 16.45 km up the Patuxent River at the mouth of St.
Thomas Creek.
Sampling Site : Grab samples taken from a small boat approximately 100 meters offshore. Site protected by a
sand bar at the mouth of the creek.
Salinity Range : 11.5 to 19.1 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 2.2 to 3.4 meters
Data Collection : July 1985 to January 1986.
CAPTAIN POINT 0 WATER TEMP
40
030o
w
2O
0
w 0
1o.
0
0— .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4.
•.•
#4
• •
ha 0
1’ 0%l%
0 . I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
+
++ +
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN - - DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
20’
15 ’
5.
oae)
0
0 SURFACE DO
0• • i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i .i.i .i .i .i.i .i., .i I — .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10’
9’
S.
7 .
0 .
6
CAPTAIN POINT
25’
20
I-
a.
a.
10’
5 ,
• SALINITY
pH
. ,
1.I.I.I I.l .I.I.t.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
ISLAND CREEK #9
Monitor : Ruth Wolf
Location : 382522 76 3220 Island Creek runs into the Patuxent from the northeast 17.28 km from the
mouth. It runs along the east edge of Broomes Island. The site is located on the east side of the creek 2.92 km
from the mouth.
Sampling Site : A grab sample was taken from a short pier at the bottom of a high bank on which was built the
Wolf’s waterfront home.
Salinity Range : 7.9 to 20.2 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 1.1 to 2.1 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1986.
ISLAND CREEK 0 WATER TEMP
40’
030
U) 0
w 0
20
010 0
0 .1 • I• I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
4.
U i
• ••• • •
• 4 •‘ • .
••• OO O6
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
ISLAND CREEK • SAUNITY
25
20 •+‘
4
4 + 4 +
15 - •l 4 • +
10- + *
5.
0— • 1
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• RAINFALL
100-
80 -
w
60 •
4O-
4
• 4
•
0— - . i.1t 1 .ttIu •
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
20
15 -
o% o.ô. 0 0
w’ ’o o
9 0O
5• ‘U
0 —
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
10-
9.
4*4+44 4I +
4-
8 • • UIU 111111 4 * + 414 +4+ 4*
D 4
0 .
6
5 , . I.I.I.I—I—I —I.I.I•I•I —I.I•1.I.I•I•I•I•I•I•I•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
CAPE ST. MARYS #12
Monitor : Dudley Lindsley
Location : 382450 763627 St. Mary’s Creek runs into the southwest side of the Patuxent River 22.74 km
from the mouth.
Sampling Site: Grab samples were taken from the pier at the Sea Breeze Restaurant, Sandgates.
Salinity Range : 10.5 to 19.6 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water DeDth : 0.2 to 2.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to May 1987.
C.)
C l ,
w
U i
C,
U i
0
40
CAPE ST. MARY’S
0 WATER TEMP
3O &
0
o’c k

20 o

‘ ,
0— .
JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986
a
F
‘
DEC JUN
1986 1987
DEC
1987
JUN
1988
DEC
1988
I
Ui
I —
Ui
o SECCHI DEPTh
• WATER DEPTH
4.
3.
2
1•
0
•
•• •. •
• ,. ,.o
• •0I ’ t
•
Oo 0
.
JUN
DEC JUN DEC JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985 1986 1986 1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
25
5.
CAPE ST. MARY’S
L SALINITY
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
i 1 .
100- 0
0
. •
.
4’
- ...• .__.
4 4•4
*
4 +
• RAINFALL
0- .i.i i.i .—i—- . I.I.-u.I.I.I.I•I•I•I•I.I.I.I.I.I.I•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
5
0
JUN
1985
DEC
1985
JUN
1986
DEC
1986
JUN
1987
DEC
1987
JUN
1988
+ 4 * IN. + INI N . ‘(NN.+ + + + 4+ 4*
.4 -
• 4*4’ IUNr +*4NI ,4S N.AI ,+ 4
+
20
1.
a.
a.
10-
4
+4’
4+ + •
+ 4’•44 •• 4 • + •
• 4 • + 41 t +% *0 •t .
cn80.
w
60
40
20
20
15
0 SURFACE DO
oq? 0 0o
00 0
:0D%:opg ,6R9 0
0
I — U —
DEC
1988
10
9, + +4 *
. pH
8’
a.
6
5, .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 198

-------
BATTLE CREEK #20
Monitor : Philip Hildebrandt
Location : 38 2640 763740 Battle Creek runs into the Patuxent River from the northeast side 24.00 km
from the river mouth.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from a short pier at the bottom of a hill on the Hildebrandt’s waterfront
property. The site is in a small cove off the west shore of Battle Creek 2.2 km from the creek mouth.
Salinity Range : 0.0 to 17.9 parts per thousand (predominately mesohaline; surface water salinities of 0.0
observed when ice is melting at site)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 1.7 to 2.9 meters
Data Collection Dates : February 1986 to October 1988.
BATTLE CREEK
0 WATER TEMP
JUN
1988
1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
• 4. .
4. • S + •+• * • ••++ • • 4
. • • • . 6 ’ •..••• • • ••
.4
• 4+ +4. •?“.• /i. 4• • • • ..+. - : •.
.
o 0
0
9 00
b 0%a :F ___
l.I.I.I.I.I. I
DEC JUN
1985 1986
I—I.
DEC
1986
I
JUN DEC
1988 1988
0 rod’
o
0
U)
LU
LU
C,
LU
a
(n
LU
I -
LU
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987
40
30
20
10
0
JUN
1985
4,
3.
2’
1’
JUN
1985
I — I — I
JUN
1987
I — I•
DEC
1987

-------
BATTLE CREEK
• SALINITY
4
4i4 ’ :! . :• ‘ . .+ . . +
# .fI•
4 •
4 4 4 + 4
*
+
0• .
JUN
1985
DEC
1985
..i.u.i.i.i ...,.,. II.
JUN DEC
1986 1986
JUN DEC
1987 1987
4
I.I.I.I.I.•I.I.t.I.I.I.I,
JUN
1988
DEC
1988
•
• . •..
.
+ 4
•++
• 4 ’r .
+ +
• •+
••
4

4 +
4 , 4
.
*
•++
•4 : •

• 1 •1 •
1 •
JUN -
DEC
- - JUN
- DEC -
JUN DEC -
- JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987 1987
1988
1988
j5p
%bO o& 0
0 0• OO
94 e
O + •. *4 4
+ t.
o SURFACE DO
• BOTTOM DO
0•
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
•
pH
*
+
+ *4 + 4**i + 4 øI + # .+ * •+ * + 1
4II ... * luuiuuuun n-hr-ru • • • *4 + •
4 + 4 + * S • 4 ++ + +
+
• RAINFALL
+
25 -
20
I-.
a-
a.
10-
5-
100 -
I80
60
40
-J
20-
20
is.
9
10•
9.
S
X7 -
C.
6
5.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Cremona #4
Monitors : Norton Dodge and Thomas Repenning
Location : 382725 763920 Cremona is 28.42 km from the mouth of the Patuxent on the west side of the river
and bordered by Persimmon Creek and Cremona Creek.
Sampling Site : A grab sample is taken from the end of the pier that juts straight out into the river.
Salinity Range : 5.1 to 19.9 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 1.3 to 3.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1988.
CREMONA 0 WATER TEMP
4O
030 0
oo%
20 o 00 0
0
w 0 0
a 10 . 0 0 8
0 00
0 ! ! ILiI
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCHI DEPTH
WATER DEPTH
4.
cn 3
.
w •4.. • •• . .0
...l: .4:.* ::.,. • .•••$ . .
•
• •
0
1
0
JUN DEC
1985 1988
• ..
I — I — I —
DEC
1985
I.t.,.l.I.I.I.I .I• I — . — 1•I•I•I•I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1986 1986 1987 1987 1988

-------
++
##,+ : . . +
+
*4 •4 *+*•
04 • •+# +
+
o -_
JUN DEC
1985 1985
20
0 SURFACE DO
0 a 0
po
2 1t / ) 0 0 ó’q, 00
0
0
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• • +
et, • *
• • * 4+
• • •.•• • ••
• +4+ l•. • • • 4 -+
• 4*+ • • •
25
20-
I —
a.
a.
10-
5.
CREMONA
L + SALINITY
+
+
+
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC -
JUN
I
DEC
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
15•
5.
0
0
L pH
•
10 -
9.
.-
C
+
7-
a.
6-
5—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
TRENT HALL #18
Monitor : Henry Virts
Location : 3828 14 763950 Trent Hall Point is on the eastern shore of the Patuxent River 30.24 km from
the river mouth. It lies between Trent Hall Creek and Washington Creek.
Sampling Site : Samples are taken from a pier on the Viits’ waterfront property.
Salinity Range : 9.2 to 20.0 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.3 to 2.7 meters
Data Collection Dates : September 1985 to October 1988.
TRENT HALL WATER TEMP
40
I: \ 8°
DEC JUN DEC - JUN -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
0 SECCHI
• WATER DEPTH
•t . .‘.
•S4%• •.
. .
0 0
0 _______
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
aPo
0
00
0
0000
00
00
0
00 q 9
0 0
°‘a:,
DEC JUN DEC
1987 1988 1988
(I)
w
I-
U i
.
0
4.
3.
2
1
0•
JUN
1985
DEC JUN
1985 1986

-------
TRENT HALL • SALINITY
25
20-
+
I— - + • •+#* 44
•• S ••. • . • + + +
• 15 • • +4 + + •
+ +
0. • +# + 4 + + $4 +! + .. 4
10- •• +
5-
0_1!1.11 111111
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I • RAINFALL
100-
w
60
•
•4
4 4 +
20 - +
• 4+
t + 4 4 4 •+• •
• + + 4
• •# • • +
11!’! ç. •sI •I •i I_! •IJ !1 hI I I I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACED
20
15- 0
— o0 0 0 0
00 000
;io 00 0 0
0 Oooc p 000 0
5 ,
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
10
9. * +
+ +4+
— *
• 411*4* + 4+ 4114144* +111114 11111 UJI + *4144+11 + + +4+4 + 41+44144 • 44+414
4+ +4 #+ +
4 +
T 7.
0
6
5—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Benedict #1
Monitors : Rick Osmond, Kevin Junghaus, Fritz Riedel
Location : 383033764045 Benedict Laboratozy is located 34.38 km from the mouth of the Patuxent River.
Sampling Site : Grab sample taken from the pier at the Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory, The Academy of
Natural Sciences at Benedict, M l ).
Salinity Range : 7.2 to 19.2 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.95 to 2.10 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to August 1987.
4.
U)
uJ
I-.
w
1-
0 -’
JUN
1985
BENEDICT
0
U)
w
U I
C,
U I
0 WATER TEMP
40
30 *%
. o 00
° e
w o

10• o 0
.
0
0• . • I•1•I.I•I•I.I.,•I’I. .I•l.I• •I•I•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
DEC
1987
JUN
1988
DEC
1988
t
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
• • •.•
•. • • •. • •.
• • % • •#
0• + 0’
o% 0 0 00
0 0%
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
• : •
• +•
0 — — — — —
JUN DEC
1985 1985
I
JUN DEC
1986 1986
JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1987 1987 1988 1988
o0
0 %boo
o° 0 c
0• i.i.i.i.i.t.i .j.i.i.i.i. I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
I.I.I.I.I —I.I.I. I
DEC JUN - DEC
1987 1988 1988
10’
6
•
• •. 14 • •
• • e •• •
.. •...• • * _..
• •
• •4.•
. pH
25
20-
I-
a.
a-
10-
5.
• SALINITY
BENEDICT
•. •+ 4.4
+ •
••• •
+
20
15’
5’
0 SURFACE DO
9,
q9 0
0
0
: : 0 ’ R ’°
0
5. —
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Monitor John Prouty
POTT’S POINT #15
Location : 38 3436 764023 Pott’s Point is on the east shore of the Patuxent River 42.18 km from the
mouth. It is on the opposite shore from and a little north of the Chalk Point Power Generating Plant cooling
water outlet.
Sampling Site : The grab samples are taken from a pier on the shore of the Prouty farm.
Salinity Range : 0.0 to 17.3 parts per thousand (riverine/estuarine transition zone, predominately mesohline;
surfaáe water salinities of 0.0 parts per thousand observed when ice is melting at site)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.45 to 1.70 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to October 1988.
porr’s POINT
0 : ,
o WATER TEMP
0’
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
0
SECCHt DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
40
30
20
10’
(.)
U)
LU
w
C,
LU
1’
C 0
0
0 coo
co 00
0
4
LU
I-
LU
2
1
0
JUN
1985
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
25
POTTS POINT
+ SALINITY
20
#4 4
S 4 . •
• • + 4j41. 4 4 4 + •.: . . + *
• • + • 4 4 ,4+4: ..
41. 4• +
• +4 4 + 4 • # 4+4 + +, # 4.
# •..#+ +. 4 • :. • •+ + + 4
4
+
4 • • + 4?. 4
4+,• • 4# 4 +
4
+ . • • 44
•
4 +
.
4 4 4 4
+ _,*_ .4 .4.
0 SURFACE DO
0
00
0 %9
0 00 4) ,

QS ’d 00 0 0
0 00 0
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10-
L pH
* 4 1*I 1 .+ 1 1 111*44P41*1.* +411.4 411. • 4 4440*4 4+4+ 4 4 + *4
4+ ,
+4 44+ 4 4+ 4 +4 +
*
• + 441. 4 *4+4111. + 4 444114*4+4
20
I-
0.
0.
10
5 .
° r
JUN
1985
100 -
80
60
..4Q.
1
20
4..
DEC JUN DEC - JUN - DEC - JUN - DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I02
0
In
p
4
I • RAINFALL
11*
0
4
+
4
• +
+ 4
4
•
* 4
+ 4 +
4 4 +4
+ + 4•
+ •+ 4 4 4 4*•4 +
_4*_._, + - 4 + +4
0’
r 1
I. ,
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
15 -
-;10.
5.
P pA
0 %
• +
+
41.
9.
0 )
—
8 •
44+0+ 4111.4
7 - + 44 4 4+4 *411.
0.
6
+
5 •i’ , • j I • I • i •I • I • •I • I • u I I • j • I•I•I•I•I•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
+ + 4
4+

-------
LOWER MARLBORO #16
Monitor : Joanne Roberts
Location : 38 3922 7641 00 Upper Marlboro is on the east shore of the Patuxent 51.96 km from the mouth
of the river.
Sampling Site: Grab samples were taken at the public dock in Upper Marlboro.
Salinity Range : 1.3 to 11.7 parts per thousand (predominately oligohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.2 to 1.8 meters
Data Collection Dates : July 1985 to September 1986.
LOWER MARLBORO 0 WATER TEMP
40
o
20
C,
U i 00
010.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1981 1988 1988
0 SECCHI DEPTh
• WATER DEPTH
4-
C l )
U i
4
• 44 4 4 • 4 4
• • 4• •
4• 4
pqL9o 0 0
0 i r 1 .j 1
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
10
9.
4-
8
I 7
Q.
6
4- +
•+ 4-
• .
*. ••+
•
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
LOWER MARLBORO • SAUNITY - J
4-
25
20 -
I- -
0.
0.
10
5.
•1
JUN
1985
20
15 -
S.
0 SURFACE DO
o 0 00
0
0 --
JUN
1985
DEC JUN
1985 1986
•
.4-. .**+++II. • • •++
L pH
5-
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
HOLLAND CLIFF #10
Monitors : William Johnston and Mary Hoffinger
Location : 38 36 10 7640 10 Holland Cliff is located on the east bank of the Patuxent 45.14 km from the
mouth of the river.
Sampling Site: A grab sample is taken from a pier located on the north side of a small inlet off of the river. The
pier extends into the harbor just inside the mouth.
Salinity Range : 1.8 to 11.7 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.2 to 1.3 meters
Data Collection Dates : Once a month from July 1985 to February 1987, weeldy from October 1988 to December
1988.
HOLLAND CLIFF 0 WATER TEMP
40
o3OC 00000 0
0000 0
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4.
U) 3
U i
U i
• •
• •• • •
1• •
0
• 0
O ’p0 0 ‘ Wp
0’ ii • • i • I • I • I•J • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I’! • I • I• I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
25
20
HOLLAND CLIFF
• SALINITY
1.
0
0. +
10 ,•
‘p
+ + +
5- +
• +
4+
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• RAINFALL
100 -
w
60
4O
-I
20
tIIII’J!iIII J lIIIIII’ t’tI•I•
JUN - DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0
00
0
0 0000 0
0
0 SURFACE DO
20
15-
0 -
JUN
1985
10
9
U)
S .
8
0.
I — I — •
DEC
1985
4
-
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
I
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
‘pH
J
+ +•••+
• •
6
S.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
JUG BAY #6
Monitors : Christine Gault, Gretchen Seielstad, Virginia Dove, Ben Dove, Gayla Campbell
Location : 38 4650 764230 The site is at Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary on the east side of the river 69.18 km
from the mouth. The sanctuary has over 200 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands and focuses on wetlands
research and education.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from a permanent dock located at the edge of the marsh. The site is at
the end of an abandoned railroad bed that carried trains to seaside resorts on the Chesapeake Bay.
Salin tv Range : Tidal fresh (limnetic)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.3 to 2.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1988.
40
o30
C l )
w
w
C,
w
1o.
0 WATER TEMP
0T .
DEC
1985
O Q
0
o
0
o O9
0
0
I I
DEC
1986
0 -’
JUN
1985
4.
I
JUN
1987
JUG BAY
0
o
0
00
1 I•I
JUN
1986
4 4
V 4 • • • 4.
•* •
4
I • I
DEC
1987
• • !
JUN
1988
1•1 1
DEC
1988
U)
Lu
I-
Lu
3.
2
1
0
SECCHIDEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
4I +
4
•
4
•444
-
4
• 4•44
0
—
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
100•
‘a’
0
JUG BAY
I • RAINFALL 1
10
L pH
80
w
60
40
-J
4•+
4 4
.4
0_
i .i t i .i .t’
JUN
DEC
JUN
1985
1985
1986
• +
4
• •,
+
*4
• &
+
4
I ,
4
4
Jo
SURFACE DO
o
69
JUN
DEC
JUN
1985
1985
1986
20’
15
10’
5.
0
C
DEC
1986
0
o 0
o
000 d’
0
8 o ,
0
I
JUN DEC JUN DEC
1987 1987 1988 1988
&%0O
0 q 00
0
000
! •
‘.• .
DEC
1986
*4 4
.4.
4 4
-. 4,
• 4ISS *
• 4+ 4
# • . G4 +
-. +4 * + 4P 4 I **4I4fr
‘V 4* * 4 -. 4*1111+ 4
• • 4 +
!I
JUN
1987
! -• -i i
DEC
1 987
I — I — I
JUN
1988
I — I — I
DEC
1988
9,
8
7.
6
• .
4+4•+ 4
+4
+ + 4
4* •4* 4*4
5.
JUN
1985
I I
DEC
1985
I — I —
JUN
1986
- I
DEC
1986
I I
JUN
1987
I—I
DEC
1987
-I • I
JUN
1988
• I • I
DEC
1988

-------
RT. 4 BRIDGE #5
Monitors : Ginger Ellis and Darrell Knoll
Location : 384745 764400 Maryland Rt. 4 Patuxent River Bridge is 71km up river.
Sampling Site : A grab sample is taken under a bridge from the platform at the base of a concrete pillar. The site
is a popular sport fishing spot.
Salinity Range : Tidal fresh (limnetic)
MinirnumfMaximum Water DeDth : 0.3 to 1.8 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985, August 1986 to October 1988.
RT. 4 BRIDGE 0 WATER TEMP
40
0 0
cP 0
0 0
t . \
00
0•’ . 1 .1 .1 .1—I. — ‘
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTh
4’
0)3’
U I
2 • • 44* o
• — • •
• •o •
1
o 0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
RT. 4 BRIDGE
0 SURFACE DO
15•
0
° 10
0
0II•i!•! I
JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986
10-
9-
4 -
C 8-
D
x
6
0
o o ”
0

DEC JUN DEC
1987 1988 1988
L pH
4
4 +
• ++ •4 *4 •
_____•
4 4 +4II I* 4 +4+
*
i—i-i—i—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
20
eo
I • I • I • I — i — I
DEC JUN
1986 1987
0
0

-------
PU GLENOT
JAMES
EF
cH
RIVER
BOTTOM
CITIZEN
POWT
MONITORING SITES
‘Ii

-------
TCC - PIG POINT #34
Moi itors : Kerby Latham, Jr. and M.J. Stairs.
Location : 365425 762653 Tidewater Community College is located on Pig Point which is on
the southern shore of the James at the confluence of the Nansemond River 13.8 km from the
James River mouth.
Sampling Site : Samples are taken from a small boat about 200 ft. offshore.
Salinity : 4.7 to 29.3 parts per thousand (mesohaline/polyhaline).
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.2 to 1.8 meters.
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1988.
40
30
20
10
0
JUN
1985
TCC - PIG POINT r
0 WATER TEMP
1987 1987 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
C.)
U)
w
I L ’
0
w
0
°d’
o 08
o ’
00 0
—
JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986
4
1988
w
I .-
w
1
0
•
•+,• S
5. • • • • .
• 0• •j •
V •
• . +.. +
•.
•
JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987
JIN DEC
1988 1988
1985

-------
I •1 I •t ’ 1 1 1IJII1 1 11
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
dL
c ’b”b 0
&S9 Q,c
°
0 —.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10
9.
= S.
7.
0.
6
[ . pH
SALINITY
TCC - PIG POINT
4 +
4* . .4.
44. 4
. ‘ 4
.
+
+ 4 1..
4
4
• *1.41.
4
+
.
•. ,4
4
+
4
.4.,
‘.4 i...
4. 4
4
8•
4
4
4
4’
+
25
20
I .-
a-
0 .
10
5.
0 .
JUN
1985
20
15
0 SURFACE DO
0
4$4 4 ‘.? . 4. ,.• f 4 4
4 1 1*4I*lIIIPP 4+ 41*111. * NI 111 1 ( 111 14 1111 UMH4+ 111111111. +4(11111. +$+4 1 1 1W 1 1P+++ 1111. 4111.
4 4 4+4 11.
5. -
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
HILTON PIER
o WATER TEMP
HILTON PIER #37
Monitor : Raymond Meroney
Location : 3701 55 762845 Hilton Pier is located on the north side of the James River 25.32 km from the
River mouth.
Sampling Site : A grab sample is taken from the end of the Hilton Village Community pier which runs straight
out into the river. The James River Bridge on RT. 17 is visible just to the southeast and the Newport News
shipyard can be seen beyond the bridge.
Sal!nitv Range : 10.3 to 25.9 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.5 to 2.6 meters
Data Collection Dates ; November 1985 to October 1988.
U)
w
I-
w
0 0000
0
0
0.
0
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
1985
1985
1988
1988
1987
1987
1988
0
Oo
DEC
1988
1

0
.
SECCHI DEPTH
WATER DEPTH
0
C,)
w
w
C,
w
0
30
20
10
0
00
0
00
cb0
4
3
2
1
0
JUN
1985
.
0
o8o o
+
4+• +
4+ +4.
• DEC JUN - DEC - JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
+4*441+41* * ++ +41* 4 I IUI 441*44+
• 4., 4 • +4
+444+4 *4+ • 4 4 4+
4 . 4
+ 4
SALINITY
HILTON PIER
+d 44++ + +
•+ + • •+ +
+ 4 . + *
. 4 +4+ _ 4
4 + + +
+ + . + .
+ 4
4 + S •
4 5+ + 4
* 4
+
+ 4 4
. RAINFALL
25
20’
I-
Q.
10’
5.
0 - I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN - - DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
100’
(080 ’
4 + +
LU . 4 +
+
LU + 4 4
4O ’
+
•• +++•
20 + + • + • •.,I. • • • .
+ 4 4 4 4 4 • .
0’ . t% N 1 . 1 . 1 .I 1 . 1 . M i • il-I • tu 1 • 1.1.1 •
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC - JUN - DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
J 0 SURFACE DO
20 ’
15 -
0 %0
D 10 ° ° Oq 0
° a0 c 1b %% 9 0 %4fP
5 , 0
0 ’ • i .i i ivu.i i .i .r- .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10’
9. +
S.
C 8 • . 4*++ 4+ + + + +**++1 . 411444
Z 7.
6’
5.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 19b8
I ’ pH

-------
SMITHFIELD #32
Monitor : Col. Elsey Harris, Jr.
Location : 3658 57 7637 44 The town of Smithfield is on the Pagan River 12.8 km from the
mouth’which runs into the James River 25.32 km from the James River mouth.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from a dock located at Mr. Harris s waterfront home on
the Pagan River in Smithfield.
Salinity : 0.7 to 19.6 parts per thousand (mesohaline)
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.6 to 2.4 meters.
Data Collection Dates : November 1985 to October 1988.
SMITHFIELD 0 WATER TEMP
40
30
20
10
0
JUN
1985
A

6,0 7: 0 00

0

DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1988 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCHJ DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
a
U,
w
w
C,
w
0
4
w
w
1
0
JUN
1985
••
t. •
•
• ..•. •:•.
4
• • •
4• •
DEC
1985
JUN
1986
DEC
1986
JUN
1988
DEC
1988
1987 1987

-------
SMITHFIELD + SALINITY
+ +
4, .: .
• .+• •+
• 1. •
+
•• • “• •+
• 4
•• •4 +++
.4..
++ +
4
+4
4
• ,4 + • +
• •+ + 444*4
• •• •4 + S
• •+ + 4
+44 •
‘+ 5+4+
+4
44
+ 4
.4+
I .II .l .I .I .I .I .III _ I .I .I’I.I.J.I.I .
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
• RAINFALL
+
4 +4
4
4 , 4
4
•
•
4 4 •• 4
+ 44
4 +4
4+ • + ‘ :. .
4
4
— 4 - —- -
DEC JUN DEC JUN - DEC - - JUN - DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
25
20
I—
0.
0 .
10-
5-
0-•-’
JUN
1985
100•
U i
60
40
-J
20
0• -‘—
JUN
1985
20
is
o -
JUN
1985
10-
9.
4 -
8-
x 7-
0.
6
5.
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0
0
I
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
• a
• • • * 4+ •f +4+ + 4
4+, 4
liii IIIIUU — u• +411 1HW1 *4114NINI 4 •
4+ 4 4
• • • : •
4+

-------
TOWN FARM CREEK #38
Monitors : Barron and John Dempsey
Location : 3658 15 763430 Town Farm Creek is a tributaiy to Jones Creek which runs into
the east side of the Pagan River near its confluence with the James which is 25.32 km from the
mouth. The Pagan runs into the James from the southwest
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from a dock on the Dempsey’s property at the end of a
marshy alea.
Salinity Range: 5.0 to 22.1 parts per thousand (mesohaline/polyhaline)
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.5 to 1.8 meters
Data Collection Dates: Januaiy 1986 to October 1988.
TOWN FARM CREEK
1°
WATER TEMP
JUN
1988
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTh
.
i6% , * ..
•..
I I I
DEC
1987
I U U
JUN
1988
I.’.’
DEC
1988
20
40
030
LU
C,
LU
o 10
0
JUN
1985
“0
0
0
00 0
- DEC JUN - DEC - JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987
DEC
1988
U)
LU
I —
LU
2
4.
3.
2
1-
0- -’
JUN
1985
• - I — • -
DEC
1985
• — I —
JUN
1986
U I —
DEC
1986
I—I—I
JUN
1987

-------
25
20
I-
0.
0.
10•
5.
?
4+
4.
+
SALINITY
• +4 •
• .
4.
4.
• •.
.4
4. 4.
• 4 •.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
10
9.
C s
7.
0.
6
L pH
RAINFALL
TOWN FARM CREEK
•
4 . 4 4
•t •s • +
4+4+ •+ • :Ji
4. +
a.. •
•4 + S. •• • 4+
+ •4 • 4.
+ •
+ ••
•4•
*
0 ._
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
r u
100• 0
8o. 4.
w
•
w
•
40 •
_1 4 + 4.
+
+4+ • • ••+• •
2O
4. 4+444. 4.
o- • •!•P!’!f
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
2O
15 00 0
o 2Möo
0o
00 0
0 c bo 0
C a
• *
+4 •+ +4+
+ + + +4
4. * + * 41+4++ 4. •• •
*4++ 4+ +4 4.
+ 5 4 4+4+41
+4. 41+ * 4111414 + +4 • +
4+414* + *
+ 4 • ++ +
+44+4+4+41 4 4.
5....
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
CARTER’S GROVE #22
Monitors : Mary Curry and Susan Dippre
Location : 37 11 42 763722 Carter’s Grove Plantation is situated on the north shore of the James River near
the Williamsburg area 49.55 km from the river mouth.
Sampling Site : Samples were taken on the beach at the end of the river road.
Salinity Range : 1.1 to 11.7 parts per thousand (riverine/estuarine transition zone; mesohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.4 to 0.9 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to March 1986.
CARTERS GROVE WATER TEMP
40
030- cPo
0
LU
LU
LU 0
1:
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4-
co
LU
I-.
LU
1-
I jIIlIIIlIIIIIIIl
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
CARTER’S GROVE • SAUNITY
25
20’
I-
0 . +
10
- tL %
•1•40.
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
20
15
0
5. 0
0 • .•. .i.i.I.I .II.IIfIlI ’I ’IIII ’I ’I ’
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
10
9.
4-

m 7-
0.
6
S. • i.i.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I .I I .I ’l.I I•! I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
KING’S MILL #21
Monitors : Grace and Joe Doyle
Location : 37 1320 763946 Kingsmill development is located on the northshore of the James
River 52.16 km from the river mouth. It is near Busch Gardens in the Williamsburg area.
Sampling Site : Grab samples wete taken from the community dock
Salinity Range : 2.9 to 12.9 parts per thousand (riverine/estuarine transition zone; mesobaline)
Minimum/Maxinrnm Water Depth : 1.4 to 4.1 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to December 1985.
KING’S MILL WATER TEMP
40
030
20
010.
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4.
••• •
U , 3
w
I-
w
2
1-
0._ .i
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
25
20
KING’S MILL
+ SALINITY
I-
a.
a.
10
5’
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
9.
8 INIIIIIIIUN*
7.
6
L pH
+
• ‘I.
*
*
20’
0 SURFACE DO
I
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
15
10•
5’
0’ -
JUN
1985
10-
C
I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
FIRST COLONY #23
Monitor : Amy Kopia
Location : 37 14 18 7648 41 The development of First Colony is located on the north shore of the James
River east of Jamestown Island and is 68.52 km from the mouth of the James.
Sampling Site : Samples were taken from the community dock.
Salinity Ran e : 0.0 to 9.2 parts per thousand (oligohaline)
Minimum/Maximum Water Depth : 0.1 to 2.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to November 1986.
FIRST COLONY WATER TEMP
40
o30 0
o 0
0 O
2O
C,
i:
JUN DEC - JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4-
a) 3
U i
I-
Ui
• ••.
•. • •
1 - • •: • c 0
0• —i-i ., I .I.I.J.I•J .I_J.J.I•I_p•I•I•I•J•J•I_
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
F! ’ST COLONY • SALINITY
25
20
I-
a..
10 ’ +
•
4 •# •+
5 ,
0_ • IuIIlyI_UI 1 . I .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SURFACE DO
20
15• 0
— 0
QP% ; *‘%,
0 iiiiii i1!II1 111111111
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
L pH
10-
4 4
9.
•• 4 4II + **4K** 4 4*
4 -
S +4*4 * * 4 • + 4
+ 4 + 44*4 4 4 •4I • 44
= 7.
a-
• +4
6
5.—.— I .I.I .I.I ,J.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I ,I.I.I.I.l.I.I .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1935 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
DANCING POINT #29
Monitors : Mrs. Julia Hotchkiss, Aileen Trainer, and Howard van Dine
Locationt 37 1401 765502 Dancing Point is located on the north shore of the River just above the point
where the Chickahominy River runs into the James and 77.36 km from the river mouth.
Sampling Site: Grab samples were taken from Mrs. Hotchkiss’ waterfront property.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.65 to 2.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : August to November 1985 and October 1986 to Februaiy 1987.
DANCING POINT 0 WATER TEMP
40
030
U)
w
-
V 8
C, 0 CoO
co
ooGp
0
JUN - - DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTh
• WATER DEPTH
4.
3.
w
I—
• , :: ,.,•
1 • •.. •
A . o. 0
0— . .i.i.i.i.i.i.u.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i. •1
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
DANCING POINT 0 SURFACE DO
20 -
15 -
o
5-
0—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
10•
9. +
E e
. +
X 7
6
5 . .
JUN DEC - - JUN - DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
WESTOVER #30
Monitors : Mrs. Ingeborg Fisher and Robert Creamer
Location : 37 1837 77 0926 Westover Plantation is located on the north side of the James 108.91 km from
the mouth above the point at which Herring Creek runs into the river.
Sampling Sites : Grab samples are taken from the Plantation dock.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.55 to 2.45 meters
Data Collection Dates : September 1985 to October 1988.
WESTOVER 0 WATER TEMP
40
)
io
i pi9 q ’
r
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
o SECCHI DEPTH
• WATER DEPTh
4
w
I-
• •
• V ?
- :• •
1 ••, •• •
0
JUN
1985
- DEC - - JUN - DEC - - JUN
1985 1986 1986 1987
DEC JUN
1987 1988
1988

-------
WESTOVER
I + RAINFALL
100-
8O -
U i
60
-J
20
L pH
+. . ••+ 4+
• = 4U • • • • + 4+ + + • +• + • e. 4
___ 4
4+•+
4+ 4+ + + * ,,, •+ + • S +
4
++ 4+ 4+
* •. . + .. •4.”” 4I + + + 4+ ++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++ +
• ++ II •
• +
4 --
4_S
4
+
+4+
•
+•* +
• _ ••
+ +

• +
-
+ +
•
+4
•+
+t+ +
+ +
++
0 SURFACE DO
I I .I .IIJIlIIIII J11111
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC -
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I.I’I•I.I I’ I • i’I i i ti tii
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN - DEC - - JUN - - DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
20
15
10’
5.
0• -’-
JUN
1985
10-
9 . + 4 4+
= 8
X 7-
6
5. 1!11!11 1 111 1 1 1’t’tIIIIt I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Monitors : Jim Gilhiam and Mark Cullen
Location : 37 1555 77 12 10 Tar Bay is located on the south side of the River between Indian Point and
Coggins Point. It is on the downriver side of Jordan Point just below the upper James River Bridge on Rt 156
and 112.77 km from the river mouth.
Sampling Site : Samples were taken from a pier at the bottom of the hill near Mr. Gilliam’s property.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimumlmaximumwaterdepth : 0.25 to 1.55 meters.
Data Collection Dates : September to December 1985 and June to October 1988.
WEST BANK - TAR BAY #28
WEST BANK - TAR BAY
40
o30
0)
U i
U i
C,
U i
Olo.
0 WATERTEMP
0
0
0%
00
‘I
000
0
0’ -’
JUN
1985
• — I — I
DEC
1985
JUN
1986
1 .1—i.
DEC
1986
I.u . ,.I. ,.I.I.I.I.I.I—I—
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1987
1987
1988
1988
4-
3-
2
1
C ,)
U i
I-
Ui
0
SECCHI DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
0•
—I -
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
WEST BANK - TAR BAY SURFACE DO
20 -
15- 0
0o
0— —
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN - - DEC -
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
1 PHI
10-
9• .
0
4 -
C 8
6
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
JORDAN POINT #39
Monitor : Col. Samuel Taylor
Location : 37 18 39 77 13 30 Jordan Point is on the south side of the River 116.4 km from the
mouth of the James just below the confluence with the Appomattox River. Rt. 156 goes over the
Upper James River Bridge at this point which is bounded by Tar Bay on the east and Baily’s Bay
on the east.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from a dock at the bottom of a hill upon which the Taylor’s
waterfront home is located. The site is on the upper west side of Jordan Point and is heavily
impacted by the effluent discharge of the Hopewell Regional Sewage Treatment Plant.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.2 to 1.3 meters
Data Collection Dates : November 1985 to October 1988.
0 WATER TEMP
0 g
jrL 0
0——’
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
0 SECCHIDEPTH 1
• WATER DEPTH
4
4
• 4 • 4 • + + 4 * • . •
4 444
4, $•4 •
• . -
— _ At.. . _ ai t. . - _______________
-V.-— 0
0 —
.!
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
D C
1985
1985
198
6
198
6
1987
1987
1988
1988
JORDAN POINT
40
30
20-
10
C.)
w
w
C,
w
0
0
00
° 0c00
0
‘ 0
4.
c o 3
‘a
‘a
1

-------
+
+ 4
l ijO
•O S
4
+
+
JORDAN POINT • RAINFALL
4 4
4
.
4
+ + + 4
+
4 4 4
4 •
• •,+ • S • 4 4+ ,
• + •
+ + + .: + • .: •
+
• ! ‘! • ! ! ‘ !
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
20
15 -
5 -
JUN
1985
e 0
•
bo
4
+ +
o SURFACE DO
0
0
0
0
I•I•l.I•I•l.I•I—I•.—I— •1
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
+
+ pH
r
• 4*4+ + +4 1- 44+4 5 4
+
• 4. + + 4 +4111+4 44* +4 + + s 4+
‘p. + .4
41114 444 .114 444114+ 44+44 4 4144 44
4
S
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
100
080
LU
60
:i4°-
-J
20
0
0
p 0
0
0
10
9-
4-
8
7.
0
6

-------
DEEP BOTTOM #31
Monitors : Sheri Erhart and Larry McMillan
Location 37 2400 77 1730 Deep Bottom is a public launching ramp located on the upper west side of the
Jones Neck oxbow of the James 132.78 km from the river mouth.
Sampling Site : Samples are taken from a floating dock near the launch ramp.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimum/maximum water depth : 1.0 to 4.0 meters
Data Collection Dates : May 1987 to October 1988.
DEEP BOTTOM 0 WATER TEMP
40
0
o30

2O• 0
o ‘0
Ui 0
o 0
00
0•
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0 SECCH DEPTH
• WATER DEPTH
4.
cn 3
• • .••
• • • •• •
2 • • • • • .
• S. . • .
• .
1 0 jPco°6kP
0-
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
5.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987
•l • 4* 4 4, *
4 • •• 4+ * •
DEEP BOTTOM
20
15•
10.
SURFACE DO
o0
% Po: 0
k:o
DEC JUN DEC -
1987 1988 1988
10•
9.
8
x
6
5 , I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.—I—- , I I.I.J.I— I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Monitor : Robin Ruth
DUTCH GAP #27
Location : 37 5256 77 2220 The Dutch Gap site is located at a public boat lunching ramp at the end of RT.
615 on the the southeast shore of the James River and is 138.72 km from the mouth.
Sampling Site : Grab samples are taken from the boat launching ramp.
Salinity : TidaiFresh
Minimum/Maximum water depth : 0.42 to 2.5 meters.
Data Collection Dates : August 1985 to October 1988.
DUTCH GAP
0 cP%
0 _ 000 0
0
d 0
0 0 p% ‘i9
d
0
0 WATER TEMP j
‘9
0 J
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
I
4.
3.
2
1
0• •’
JUN
1985
•4 • •
.
• •o0. .
0 o O0a
0 0 a
0
0
[ .
SECCHI DEPTH
WATER DEPTH
a
a ••
a.. a
a a •a
DEC
JUN
DEC
40
o3O
U)
w
w
C,
w
oio.
C ,)
w
I .-
w
a a. •.
a • •• ••••
.
I • I • I • I
DEC
1985
I ., — I
JUN
1986
I — I
DEC
1986
- JUN
1987

-------
DUTCH GAP
o SURFACE DO
j08
0
DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN
1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988
. pH
4UN ’ _JINU 4 * •
4* . . II...
........ .. . .ii •.
•••+ 4* 4* .4 .• 444 * •
20
15
5.
o -
JUN
1985
0
• 1 • I
DEC
1988
10•
9
0)
8.
6
5—
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
DREWRY’S BLUFF #24
Monitors : Erv Gasser and Leslie Winston
Location : 37 2525 77 2529 Drewry’s Bluff is on the west shore of the James River at Fort Darling which is
in the Richmond National Battlefield Park. The Bluff is 142.82 km from the James River mouth.
Sampling Site: Samples are taken by wading out into the river where a creek enters the James River. This creek
runs through the Park, past a former dump which is a designated superfund site. The effluent from an
oil/asphalt refinery discharges to the creek, also.
Salinity : Tidal Fresh
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.7 to 3.4 meters.
Data Collection Dates : July 1988 to October 1988.
C I )
w
I-.
w
DREWRYS BLUFF
4O
o30
(I )
w
U i
0
U i
o 10
0 WATER TEMP
80
e
0 .
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
4.
3.
2
0
SECCHIDEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
1-
.
6
0
i.i.i.i.i.i.i .r .i.u.i .i.i.i I’i.i .i’i .j.i .
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988

-------
20 DREWRYS BLUFF SURFACE DO
15•
-;10.
5.
0
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
10
9.
8
.
=7.
a-
6
5. .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
Monitor Ralph White
JAMES RIVER PARK #35
Location : 37 31 35 77 25 50 (est.) James River Park is located along the south side of the
James River within the City of Richmond 157.68 km from the River mouth.
Sampling Site : Samples are taken from the edge of the River at the Visitor Center. There is a
series of rapids in the river as well as islands. It is subject to flooding and large amounts of
nutrients are released into the river from combined sewer overflows in times of high rainfall.
Salinity: This site is technically beyond the tidal reaches of the James.
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.15 to 2.0 meters.
Data Collection Dates : September 1985 to October 1988.
40
JAMES RIVER PARK
0 WATER TEMP
4.
0
SECCH DEPTH
•
WATER DEPTH
o30
U)
LU
LU
C,
LU
10
2o
Js 00
0
0%0 000
pR
000
o
%,0
o 0 q

00
0
%/
04 006
0
p
0_ 1!_
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
I • I • I • I
DEC
1988
U)
LU
I .-
w
3.
1
4
£ —
‘-.
0 • •
Oj
00 S. •
•S
.
.9#
••
.
. • • •2.
.% .,
0—
I
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
JUN
DEC
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
1988
• S

-------
JAMES RIVER PARK
0 SURFACE DO
5.
0
0
o00o
00
0• I. 1— .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
. pH
4.
4.
• 4N LII 1111111 +( 4 * 4S+
*
4.
4. •4.
4. * 4.
4I *44 4+ 4. 4. 4.4. • + +
4.
+ 4. 4.
+
20 -
15
10
9.
4 -
8
7
0.
6
V
5’ I II I’1IIII’I’I IJII
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------
HUGUENOT BRIDGE #36
Monitor : Vicki Bell and Jim Sei
Location : 37 3345 77 3230 The Huguenot Bridge crosses the James River on RT. 147 to the east
of Downtown Richmond.
Sampling Site : Samples are taken at the waxer’s edge beside the bridge.
Salinity : This site is beyond the tidal reaches of the James.
Minimum/maximum water depth : 0.2 to 1.6 meters.
Data Collection Dates : February 1986 to October 1988.
HUGUENOT BRIDGE WATER TEMP
40
030
U) d’ 9 1 e
w 0 0
2O 0 :%%
9
0•
0• . i.i .i.i .i.i . .i .i .i .i .i .i .t. I
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
0
SECCHI DEPTh
•
WATER DEPTH
U)
w
p .-
w
3
2
1
0
DEC
1985
.4).
.
JUN
1986
DEC - JUN DEC
1986 1987 1987
JUN
1988
DEC
1988
1985

-------
HUGUENOT BRIDGE 0 SURFACE DO
20-
:: 0
o0
5 -
O• _ u ! —I•!•i !ii•i’! i’i’!•i! .u —i!’-i .I .! .
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988
[ + pH
10
9.
0 4
8 * 4* 44,• +
4• + 4 * + + + .
4
7 - • ••• •I 1 ; +A*4 4 • *I,rt+ s s . I4 S •,
0.
6
5-
JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC JUN DEC
1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988

-------