INTENSIVE WATERSHED STUDY
THE CHESTER RIVER BASIN
by
Charles Bostater
Stephanie Berlett
Diane McCraney
Mike Davis
Bruce Nierwinski
Aftab Hassan
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Grant No. R806343
Project Officer
James Smullen
EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program
2083 West Street, Suite 5G
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, Florida
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
or the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed by the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Eutrophication Work Group for providing data concerning non-point source
loads from land use activities in the Chesapeake Bay, and for providing
comprehensive estuarine water quality data for the Chester Estuary. This
report represents a coordinated effort by State, Federal and private
researchers to provide data that will be invaluable for future quantitative
modeling of the estuary. This report represents an initial interpretation
of the data, and insight into the watershed processes.
L. E. Zeni, Administrator
Tidewater Administration
i i i
-------
ABSTRACT
This study was one of five intensive watershed studies designed to
provide detailed non-point source loading rates and ambient water quality
data within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
The study consisted of estuarine slack tide surveys, intensive
twenty-four hour water quality surveys, phytoplankton non-point source
monitoring at five subwatersheds, current speed and direction measurements
as well as rainfall quantity measurements.
This report was submitted as partial fulfillment of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources Grant No. R806343 under sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract ........ iv
Figures . . vl
Tables xxii
Abbreviations and Symbols xxxi
Acknowledgements xxxiii
Section
1. Introduction, Executive Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations 1-1
2. Methods 2-1
3. Point Sources . 3-1
4. Physical Characteristics of the Chester River Basin 4-1
5. Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus to the Chester River . . . 5-1
6. Non-Point Source and Meteorological Sub-Watershed Monitoring 6-1
7. Description of Longitudinal Slack Survey Results 7-1
8. Seasonal Characteristics of Water Quality Variables 8-1
9. Twentyfour Hour Water Quality Survey Variable Results .... 9-1
10. Historical Analysis of Dissolved Oxygen and Deficits .... 10-1
11. Results and Discussions 11-1
References ..... R-l
Appendices
A. Figures and Tables for Methods; Section 2 . . A-l
B. Tables for Point Sources; Section 3 B-l
C. Figures and Tables Presenting Physical Characteristics;
Section 4 C-l
D. Box Models; Section 5 D-l
E. Statistical Analyses of Non-Point Sources; Section 6 .... E-l
F. Longitudinal Slack Survey Figures and Tables; Section 7 . . . F-l
G. Temporal Water Quality Figures and Tables; Section 8 .... G-l
H. Intensive 24-Hour Survey Figures and Tables; Section 9 ... H-l
I. Figures and Tables of Dissolved Oxygen Characteristics;
Section 10 1-1
J. Figures and Tables for Section 1L J-l
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Map with the General Locations of Chester River Bathymetric
Survey Transects 2-2
2-2 Map of the Chester River with the Locations of the Tide Staff
Gauges, Continuous Water Level Recorder and Robot Monitor . 2-5
2-3 Map of the Chester River with the Location of Current Speed/
Direction Stations Sampled During the Intensive River
Surveys 2-7
2-4 Map of the Chester River Advective Flow Monitoring Stations . . 2-8
2-5 Map of the Upper Chester River Dye Study Station Locations . • • 2-10
2-6 Map of the Morgan Creek Dye Study Station Locations 2-11
2-7 Map Showing the Locations of Sediment Oxygen Demand; Nutrient
Exchange; Phytoplankton Community and Respiration; and
24-Hour Monitoring Stations in the Chester River 2-15
2-8 Map Showing the Location of Stations for the Chester River Slack
Survey 2-16
2-9 Map Showing the Location of the Chester River Lower Estuary
Homogeniety Water Quality Stations 2-18
2-10 Map Showing the Location of the Chester River Entire River
Intensive Survey Stations 2-20
2-11 Map of the Approximate Location of the Chester River Non-Point
Source Subwatershed Monitoring Stations 2-29
2-12 Diagram Showing the Sample Splitting, Preservation, Holding Times,
and Analysis Method for Collected Non-Point Source Samples . 2-39
2-13 Map Showing the Location of the Chester River Basin Rain Gauges 2-41
2-14 Flowchart Showing Sample Acquisition and Transport Methods Used
During Chester River Water Quality Surveys A-15
2-15 Flowchart of Sample Preservation Techniques Used in the Chester
River Study A-16
vi
-------
Number Page
2-16 Flowchart Showing Sample Slitting, Aliquot Amounts, Filtered
and Preservation Techniques A-L7
2-17 Flowchart Describing the Field Operations for a Bathymetric
Survey A-18
2-18 Flowchart Describing Phytoplankton Collection Field Processing . A-20
2-19 Flowchart Describing Sample Collection and Preservation for
Nitrogen Fixation A-21
4-1 Chester River Water Surface Area at Mean Low Water C-l
4-2 Chester River Width and Cumulative River Width C-2
4-3 Chester River Drainage Area and Cumulative Drainage Area .... C-3
4-4 Chester River Crossectional Area at Mean Low Water C-4
4-5 Chester River Water Volume and Cumulative Water Volume C-5
4-6 Chester River Mean Hydraulic Depth and Hydraulic Depth C-6
4-7 Freshwater Inflow (cfs) During 1980 Study Period at the Morgan
Creek USGS Gauge Station 01493500 C-7
4-8 Freshwater Inflow (cfs) During 1981 Study Period at the Morgan
Creek USGS Gauge Station 01493500 C-8
4-9 Freshwater Inflow (cfs) During 1975 Study Period at the Morgan
Creek USGS Gauge Station 01493500 C-9
4-10 Freshwater Inflow (cfs) During 1966 Study Period at the Morgan
Creek USGS Gauge Station 01493500 C-10
4-11 Freshwater Inflow (cfs) During 1974 Study Period at the Morgan
Creek USGS Gauge Station 01493500 C~ll
4-12 Chester River Mean Monthly Flow from Historical Data and Water
Year 1980 C-12
4-13 Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution Curves of Mean
Daily cfs Flow for 1975 C-13
4-14 Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution Curves of Mean
Daily cfs Flow for 1966 C-14
4-15 Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution Curves of Mean
Daily cfs Flow for 1974 C-15
vii
-------
Number Page
4-16 Map Showing the Location of CHI and CU2 Moorings C-L6
4-17 Mean Velocity Profiles for CHI and CH2 C—17
4-18 Chester River Low Frequency Currents Measured at CHI and CH2 . • C-18
4-19 Chester River Observed and Statistically Estimated Functions of
the Salinity Profile for 1980-1981 C-20
4-20 Estimated Average Longitudinal Fraction of Freshwater and
Chesapeake Bay Water in the Chester River C-21
4-21 Chester River Freshwater Flushing Time Versus Nautical Mile
(Nautical Chart Data) C-22
4-22 Chester River Freshwater Flushing Time Versus Nautical Mile
(Bathymetry Survey Data) C-23
4-23 Comparison of the Freshwater Inflows for Two Different Methods of
Calculating Total Chester River Flushing Time C-24
4-24 Chester River 1980 Slack. Survey Salinity Profile C-27
4-25 Chester River Salinity Profiles for the Error Function and
O'Connors Model C-28
4-26 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Derived from Constant
Cuoss-sectional Area Models C-36
4-27 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Estimated from the
Tidewater Polynomial C-37
4-28 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Derived from Variable
Cross-sectional. Area Models C-38
4-29 Chester River Dispersion Coefficient Derived from Tidewater Model
for Varying Freshwater Inflows C-39
5-1 Chester River Dissolved Nitrite & Nitrate Budget D-l
5-2 Chester River Dissolved Ammonia Budget D-2
5-3 Chester River Total Nitrogen Budget D-3
5-4 Chester River Dissolved Ortho-Phosphorus Budget D-4
5-5 Chester River Total Phosphorus Budget D-5
viii
-------
Number Page
6-1 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for BOD5
(lbs/acre) E-44
6-2 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for BOD30
(lbs/acre) ...... E-45
6-3 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for TSS
(lbs/acre) E-46
6-4 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for NH3
(lbs/acre) E-47
6-5 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for NO2
(lbs/acre) E-48
6-6 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for NO3
(lbs/acre) E-49
6-7 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for NO2+NO3
(lbs/acre) E-50
6-8 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for TKN
(lbs/acre) E-51
6-9 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for TPHOS
(lbs/acre) E-52
6-10 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for TPHOSD
(lbs/acre) E-53
6-11 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for DPO^
(lbs/acre) E-54
6-12 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for TOC
(lbs/acre) E-55
6-13 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for COD
(lbs/acre) E-56
6-14 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions for
Alkalinity (lbs/acre) E-57
6-15 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Total
Rainfall (in.) E-58
6-16 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Average
Rainfall Intensity (in./hr.) E-59
6-17 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Maximum
Rainfall Intensity (in./hr.) E-60
ix
-------
Number Page
6-18 Comparison of BOD5 and BOD3Q (lbs/acre) Cumulative Frequency
Distributions (All Sites Combined) li-6l
6-19 Comparison of NO2, NO3 and NO2+NO3 (lbs/acre) Cumulative
Frequency Distributions (All Sites Combined) E-62
6-20 Comparison of TK.N, TKND, and NO3 (lbs/acre) Cumulative
Frequency Distribution (All Sites Combined) E-63
6-21 Comparison of TPHOS, TPHOSD, and DPO^ (lbs/acre) Cumulative
Frequency Distribution (All Sites Combined) E-64
6-22 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for NO2+NO3
(lbs/acre/in) E-65
6-23 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for TPHOS
(lbs/acre/in) E-66
6-24 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for TPHOSD
(lbs/acre/in) E-67
6-25 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distribution for DPO4
(lbs/acre/in) E-68
7-1 Average Chester River Salinity (ppt) Slack Tide Profiles for
1980 F-l
7-2 Average Chester River Salinity (ppt) Slack Tide Profiles from
March 11, 1981 to July 9, 1981 F-2
7-3 Average Chester River Salinity (ppt) Slack Tide Profiles from
July 22, 1981 to September 27, 1981 F-3
7-4 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Salinity, (ppt) F-4
7-5 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Temperature, ( C) F-ll
7-6 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Turbidity, (FTU) F-18
7-7 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Suspended Solids, (mg/1) . . F-21
7-8 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Secchi Disc, (meters) . . . F-26
7-9 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1) . . F-33
7-10 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Oxygen Saturation,
(mg/1) F-40
7-11 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
(mg/1) F~^7
x
-------
Number Page
7-12 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for BOD2Q, (mg/1) F-53
7-13 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for BOD^q, (mg/1) F-57
7-14 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for pH F-59
7-15 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total kjeldahl Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-67
7-16 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved kjeldahl Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-74
7-17 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Organic Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-81
7-18 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Organic Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-84
7-19 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Inorganic Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-90
7-20 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen,
(mg/1) F-92
7-21 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Ammonia, (mg/1) • . . F-98
7-22 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Ammonia, (mg/1) . F-100
7-23 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Nitrite, (mg/1) . . . F-106
7-24 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1) . F-108
7-25 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Nitrate, (mg/1) • . . F-114
7-26 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Nitrate, (mg/1) . F-116
7-27 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Particulate Nitrogen,
(mg/1) • • F-123
7-28 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Phosphorus, (mg/1) . F-127
7-29 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Phosphorus,
(mg/1). F-135
7-30 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total Orthophosphorus,
(mg/1) F-142
7-31 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved Orthophosphorus,
(mg/1) F-143
xi
-------
Muin lie r Page
7-32 Longitudinal Slack. Survey Plots for Total Particulate Phosphorus,
(mg/1) F—151
7-33 Longitudinal Slack. Survey Plots for Total Organic Carbon,
(mg/1) F-158
7-34 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Particulate Carbon, (rag/1) F-160
7-35 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Chlorophyll-A, (mg/1) . . F-165
7-36 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Pheophytin-A, (mg/1) . . . F-173
7-37 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Total N:P Ratio F-181
7-38 Longitudinal Slack Survey Plots for Dissolved N:P Ratio . . . F-183
8-1 Temporal Plots of Salinity, 1980-1981 .... G-l
8-2 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Oxygen, 1980-1981 G-4
8-3 Temporal Plots of pH, 1980-1981 G-7
8-4 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Ammonia, 1980-1981 G-10
8-5 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Nitrite, 1980-1981 G-13
8-6 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Nitrate, 1980-1981 G-16
8-7 Temporal Plots of Total Particulate Nitrogen, 1980-1981 .... G-19
8-8 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Phosphorus, 1980-1981 G-22
8-9 Temporal Plots of Dissolved Orthophosphorus, 1980-1981 G-25
8-10 Temporal Plots of Total Particulate Phosphorus, 1980-1981 . . . G-28
8-11 Temporal Plots of Total Particulate Carbon, 1980-1981 G-31
8-12 Temporal Plots of Chlorophyll-a, 1980-1981 G-34
8-13 Temporal Plots of Pheophytin-a, 1980-1981 G-37
9-1 24-Hour Survey Plots of Salinity H-l
9-2 24-Hour Survey Plots of Temperature H-7
9-3 24-Hour Survey Plots of Suspended Solids H-l3
xii
-------
Number Page
9-4 24-llour Survey I'lots of pH H-19
9-5 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Oxygen H-25
9-6 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Oxygen Saturation H-31
9-7 24-Hour Survey Plots of Total Nitrogen H-37
9-8 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Nitrogen H-43
9-9 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen H-48
9-10 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen H-54
9-11 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Ammonia . H-60
9-12 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Nitrite H-66
9-13 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Nitrate H-72
9-14 24-Hour Survey Plots of Total Phosphorus H-78
9-15 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Phosphorus H-84
9-16 24-Hour Survey Plots of Dissolved Orthophosphorus H-90
9-17 24-Hour Survey Plots of Total Particulate Phosphorus H-95
9-18 24-Hour Survey Plots of Particulate Organic Carbon H-101
9-19 24-Hour Survey Plots of Chlorophyll-a H-107
9-20 24-Hour Survey Plots of Pheophytin-a H-113
9-21 24-Hour Survey Plots of Stage Height H-119
10-1 Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen vs Year (1949-1981) 1-2
10-2 Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen vs Year (1949-1981), Salinity Zone
0.2 to 10.0 ppt ^~4
10-3 Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen vs Year (1949-1981), Salinity Zone
10.01 to 20.0 ppt 1-6
10-4 Chester River Plots of Historical DO vs Salinity (grouped
by years)
xiii
-------
Number r Page
10-5 Chester Estuary Mean Monthly Dissolved Oxygen (1949-1981) . . . 1-19
10-6 Mean Dissolved Oxygen vs Time of Day (All Data) 1-2.3
10-7 Mean Hourly Dissolved Oxygen vs Time of Day for the Upper (L)
and Lower (H) Estuary 1-24
10-8 Chester River Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficits vs Year
(all estuarine data) . ......... 1-39
10-9 Lower Chester River Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficits vs
Year 1-40
10-10 Upper Chester River Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficits vs
Year 1-41
10-11 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits Monthly Means in the
Upper (L) and Lower (H) Estuary (Period of Record) 1-47
10-12 Mean Hourly Dissolved Oxygen Deficits vs Time of Day for the
Upper (L) and Lower (H) Estuary 1-54
10-13 Spring Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficit 1-66
10-14 Summer Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for the Upper Chester
Estuary . . ............. 1-67
10-15 Summer Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for the Lower Chester
Estuary ................ 1-68
10-16 Summer Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for All Estuarine
Data 1-69
1Q-17 Fall Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for All Estuarine
Data 1-70
10-18 Winter Yearly Mean Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for All Estuarine
Data 1-71
10-19 Chester River Plots of Historical D0D vs Salinity, (grouped by
years) ...... 1-72
10-20 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Dissolved Oxygen for All
Estuarine Data,, (grouped by years) 1-78
10-21 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Dissolved Oxygen for All
Estuarine Data and Grouped for Various Years and for All
Data in the Months of July and August . 1-79
xiv
-------
Number Page
10-22 CFU of Dissolved Oxygen in the Upper Estuary Cor the Months of
July and August, (grouped by years) 1-80
10-23 CFD of DO for the Lower Estuary for the Months of July and August
(grouped by years) 1-81
10-24 CFD of DO for the Lower Estuary, (grouped by years) 1-82
10-25 CFD of DO for the Upper Estuary, (grouped by years) 1-83
10-26 CFD of DO for the Upper Estuary and Grouped for Various Years and
for All Data for the Months of July and August 1-84
10-27 CFD of DO for the Lower Estuary and Grouped for Various Years
and for All July and August Data 1-85
10-28 CFD of DO for July and August for All Estuarine Data (grouped
by years) 1-86
10-29 CFD of DO for All Estuarine Data at Various Depths 1-87
10-30 CFD of DO for All Data Collected in the Months of June, July
and August at a Depth Greater than Thirty Feet (grouped
by years) 1-88
10-31 CFD of DO for All Data Collected in the Months of June, July and
August at a Depth Between 0-10 feet (grouped by years) . . • 1-89
10-32 CFD of DO for Months July and August in the Lower Estuary,
Grouped by Depth 1-90
10-33 CFD of DO for Months July and August in the Lower Estuary,
Grouped by Depth 1-91
10-34 CFD of DOD for All Salinity Ranges with the Historical Data
Grouped by Years 1-92
10-35 CFD of DOD for All Salinity Ranges for Various Years and All
Data for the Months' of July and August 1-93
10-36 CFD of DOD in the Months July and August for All Salinity Ranges
for Various Years 1-94
10-37 CFD of DOD for All Data Collected in the Months June, July and
August at a Depth Between 0-10 Feet (grouped by year) . . . 1-95
xv
-------
Number Page
10-38 CFD of L)0D for All Da La CollecLed i n Lhe Months June, July and
August at a Depth Greater Lhan Thirty Feet 1-96
10-39 CFD of DOD for the Chester Estuary for the Months of July and
August; Grouped by Depth 1-97
10-40 CFD of DOD for the Lower Estuary for the Months of July and
August; Grouped by Depth 1-98
10-41 CFD of DOD for the Upper Estuary for the Months of July and
August; Grouped by Depth 1-99
10-42 CFD of DO in the Upper Estuary; Grouped by Depth 1-100
10-43 CFD of DO in the Lower Estuary; Grouped by Depth 1-101
10-44 CFD of DOD in the Chester Estuary; Grouped by Depth 1-102
10-45 CFD of DOD in the Lower Estuary; Grouped by Depth 1-103
10-46 CFD of DOD in the Upper Estuary; Grouped by Depth 1-104
10-47 CFD of DOD in the Lower Estuary for the Months of July and
August; Grouped by Various Years 1-105
10-48 CFD of DOD in the Upper Estuary; Grouped by Various Years • • . 1-106
10-49 CFD of DOD in the Lower Estuary; Grouped by Various Years . . . 1-107
10-50 CFD of DOD in the Upper Estuary for the Months of July and
August; Grouped by Various Years 1-108
11-1 Example of Juvenile Index Time Series; Deviations from the Mean
and Normalized Series Using Z-Transformation J-4
11-2 Cumulative Departures from the Mean for Maryland- Precipitation
Data (Developed by NWS, BWI) J-5
11-3 Standardized Cumulative Time Series for the Annual Mean
Temperature from NWS Data, BWI J-6
11-4 Standardized Cumulative Time Series for the Annual Mean
Snowfall from NWS Data, BWI J-6
11-5 Standardized Cumulative Time Series for the Annual Mean
Precipitation from NWS Data, BWI J-7
xv i
-------
Number pao
11-6 Standardized Cumulative Time Series for the Annual Mean Total
Nitrate from NWS Unta, BWI j-7
li-7 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Spot j-8
11-8 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Shad J-8
11-9 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Menhadden J-8
11-10 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Bluefish J-8
11-11 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Blueback Herring J-9
11-12 Standardized Cumulative Juvenile Index of Observed and Predicted
Values for Striped Bass J-9
11-13 Average Standardized Cumulative Index for Ocean and Estuarine
Species J-9
11-14 Observed, Predicted and Transformed Predicted Juvenile Index for
Striped Bass J-10
11-15 Observed, Predicted and Transformed Predicted Juvenile Index for
Menhadden J-10
11-16 Observed, Predicted and Transformed Predicted Juvenile Index for
Bluefish J-ll
11-17 Observed, Predicted and Transformed Predicted Juvenile Index for
Shad J-ll
11-18 Observed, Predicted and Transformed Predicted Juvenile Index for
Blueback Herring J-12
11-20 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data
for Temperature and Turbidity J-13
11-21 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data
for Dissolved Oxygt'n and DOS J-14
xvi L
-------
Number
11-22 Chester River Longitud i.nal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data
for pH and Salinity J-15
11-23 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Secchi Disc and BOD5 J-16
11-24 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Solids and Suspended Solids J-17
11-25 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Nitrogen and Dissolved Nitrogen J-18
11-26 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Ammonia and Dissolved Ammonia J-19
11-27 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Nitrate and Dissolved Nitrate J-20
11-28 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Nitrite and Dissolved Nitrite J-21
11-29 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Organic Nitrogen and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen • . J-22
11-30 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Inorganic Nitrogen and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen • J-23
11-31 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Khejdahl Nitrogen and Total Dissolved Khejdahl
Nitrogen J-24
11-32 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Phosphorus and Dissolved Phosphorus J-25
11-33 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Orthophosphorus and Dissolved Orthophosphorus .... J-26
11-34 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Particulate Nitrogen and Total Particulate Phosphorus J-27
11-35 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total Organic Carbon and Particulate Organic Carbon .... J-28
11-36 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Chlorophyll-A and Pheophytin-A J-29
11-37 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Total N:P Ratio and Dissolved N:P Ratio J-30
xviii
-------
Number Page
11-38 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
Chlorophyll-A/TPN and Chlorophyll-A/TPP J-31
11-39 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Data for
POC/TPN and TPN/POC „ . J-32
11-40 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Slack ;
Data for Dissolved Oxygen and DOS J-33
11-41 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Slack
Data for BOD^ and pH J-34
11-42 Chester River Longitudinal Characterization of 1980-1981 Slack
Data for Secchi Disc and Chlorophyll-A J-35
11-43 Relationship between Mean Pheophytin-A and Mean Total Particulate
Phosphorus to Mean Salinity J-36
11-44 Relationship between Mean Dissolved Phosphorus and Mean Dissolved
Phosphorus and Mean Dissolved Orthophosphorus to Mean
Salinity . J-37
11-45 Relationship between Mean Dissolved Oxygen and Mean Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation to Mean Salinity J-38
11-46 Relationship between Mean Turbidity and Mean Secchi Disc to
Mean Salinity J-39
11-47 Relationship between Mean Dissolved Nitrogen and Mean Total
Phosphorus to Mean Salinity J-40
11—48 Relationship between Mean Dissolved Nitrite and Mean Dissolved
Nitrate to Mean Salinity J-41
11-49 Relationship between Mean Suspended Solids and Mean Dissolved
Ammonia to Mean Salinity J-42
11-50 Relationship between Mean Total Organic Carbon and Mean
Chlorophyll-A to Mean Salinity J-43
11-51 Relationship between Mean Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen and Mean
Organic Nitrogen to Mean Salinity J-44
11-52 Relationship between Mean Total Particulate Nitrogen and Mean
Dissolved N/P Ratio to Mean Salinity J-45
11-53 CFD for Dissolved Oxygen During Chester River Slack Surveys . . J-46
xix
-------
Number Page
11-54 CFL) for Salinity During Chester River Slack Surveys J—47
11-55 CFD for pH During Chester River Slack Surveys J-48
11-56 CFD for Total Dissolved Solids J-49
11-57 CFD for Total Nitrogen During Chester River Slack Surveys . . . J-50
11-58 CFD for Dissolved Nitrogen During Chester River Slack Surveys • J-51
11-59 CFD for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-52
11-60 CFD for Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-53
11-61 CFD for Total Organic Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-54
11-62 CFD for Dissolved Organic Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-55
11-63 CFD for Total Inorganic Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-56
11-64 CFD for Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-57
il-65 CFD for Particulate Nitrogen During Chester River Slack Surveys J-58
11-66 CFD for Total Phosphorus During Chester River Slack Surveys . . J-59
11-67 CFD for Dissolved Phosphorus During Chester River Slack Surveys J-60
11-68 CFD for Total Orthophosphorus During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-61
11-69 CFD for Dissolved Orthophosphorus During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-62
11-70 CFD for Total Particulate Phosphorus During Chester River Slack
Surveys J-63
11-71 CFD for Total Organic Carbon During Chester River Slack Surveys J-64
11-72 CFD for Dissolved N:P Ratio During Chester River Slack Surveys . J-65
11-73 CFD for Chlorophyll-A During Chester River Slack Surveys .... J-66
xx
-------
Number Page
11-74 Cb't) for Pheophyt Ln-A During Chester River Slack Surveys J—67
11-75 CFD for Secchi Disc During Chester River Slack Surveys J-68
11-76 Longitudinal Surveys of Dominant Classes of Phytoplankton
Observed During 1980-1981 J-69
11-77 Estimated Cells of Phytoplankton During the October 28, 1980
Longitudinal Survey J-71
11-78 Estimated Cells of Phytoplankton During the April 8, 1980
Longitudinal Survey J-72
11-79 Estimated Cells of Phytoplankton During the May 8, 1980
Longitudinal Survey J-73
11-80 Chester River Phytoplankton Cells, November 1980 to September
1981 J-76
11-81 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station 51 ... J-77
11-82 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station 48 ... J-78
11-83 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station 34 ... J-79
11-84 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station 22 ... J-80
11-85 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station 13 ... J-81
11-86 Chester River Phytoplankton Class Dominance at Station B . . . . J-82
11-87 Observed Phytoplankton Data Below One Meter at Station 34,
1980-1981 J-83
11-88 Observed Phytoplankton Data Below One Meter at Station 48,
1980-1981 J-84
11-89 Observed Phytoplankton Data Below One Meter at Station 51,
1980-1981 J-85
xxi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Chester River BathymetrLc Survey Transects 2-3
2-2 Chester River Tide Stage Height Indicator Staff Calibration
Results A-l
2-3 Equipment Type Used to Record Current Speed/Direction During
Intensive River Surveys 2-9
2-4 Summary of Station Location/Survey Information for Advective
Flow Surveys, July 1980 and May & July 1981 A-2
2-5 Study Station Numbers and State ID Codes for Sediment Oxygen
Demand and Phytoplankton Respiration Measurements 2-14
2-6 Station Numbers and Maryland ID Codes for the Chester River
Slack Surveys 2-17
2-7 Station Numbers and Maryland ID Codes for the Lower Estuary
Homogeniety Samples 2-19
2-8 List of Water Quality Variables and Methods of Analysis for the
Chester River Lower Estuary Homogeniety Samples ....... 2-21
2-9 List of Water Quality Variables and Methods of Analysis for the
Chester River Entire River Intensive Survey Samples .... A-3
2-10 Station Numbers and Maryland ID Codes for the Chester River
Intensive Survey Samples A-4
2-11 Water Quality Variables and Methods of Analysis for the Chester
River 24-Hour Intensive Surveys A-6
2-12 List of Dates and Times of Chester River Water Quality Surveys . A-7
2-13 Chester River Point Source Discharge Sites Used in Effluent
Assessment 2-25
2-14 Chester River Water Quality Variables for Point Source Sample
Analysis A-9
xxii
-------
Number
2-15 Summary of the Subwatersheds in the Chester River Basin Monitored
During the Non-Point Source Project 2-31
2-16 Primary Flow Control Devices and Flow Meters Installed at Each
Non-Point Source Subwatershed Site 2-37
2-17 Latitude and Longitude of Rain Gauges 2-43
2-18 Rainfall Reported in Climatological Data for Periods When
Monitors Were Not in Operation A-10
2-19 Explanation of Data Gaps for Rain Gauges Operated in the Chester
River Subwatersheds, 1980-1981 2-45
2-20 Rainfall Recorded on Days when Freezing Temperatures Occurred in
the Chester River Study Area A-ll
2-21 Summary of Historic Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages
for Millington Subwatershed, 1975-1979 A-12
2-22 Summary of Historic Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages
for Chestertown Subwatershed, 1975-1979 A-13
2-23 Summary of Historic Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages
for Centreville Subwatershed, 1975-1979 A-14
2-24 References to Procedures Used in Instrument Calibration .... 2-47
2-25 Quality Assurance Activities Related to Operating Continuous
Monitors A-22
2-26 EPA and Technicon Method Numbers, Detection Limits and Standard
Deviations for Nutrient Parameters A-23
2-27 Point and Non-Point Source Sampling Preservation Techniques • . A-24
2-28 Chester River Non-Point Source Parameters Analyzed, Method
Analysis, and Holding Times Prior to and After 1/30/81 . . . A-25
3-1 NPDES Permit Effluent Limits for Sewage Treatment Plants
Discharging into the Chester River B-l
3-2 NPDES Permit Effluent Limits for Industrial Facilities
Discharging into the Chester River B-2
3-3 Chester River Point Source Characteristics (1980-1981) B-3
xxiii
-------
Number Page
4-1 Flow Statistics from the Chester Measurements C~19
4-2 Comparison of Flushing Times for Chester Estuary 4-2
4-3 Flushing Times for the Chester River and Selected Tributaries
(from ref.) 4-9
4-4 Linearized Functions Used in Regression Analyses for Salinity
Regression C-25
4-5 Observed and Calculated Salinity at Slack Tide Stations in the
Chester Estuary C-29
4-6 Spatial/Temporal Values of Salinity for Chester River, 1980-1981 C-30
4-7 Chester Estuary Constants for use in Calculating Dispersion
Coefficients from Slack Tide Water Quality Surveys 4-20
4-8 Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester
River, 1980-1981. (Discharge at Morgan Creek is Based
on 28 yr. Average.) C-32
4-9 Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester
River, 1980-1981. Discharge at Morgan Creek is Based on
Linear Intepolation C-34
4-10 Dispersion Coefficients by Different Methods Using Constant Area C-40
4-11 Dispersion Coefficients by Different Methods Using Variable Area C-41
6-1 Characteristic of Chester River Urban NPS Sites E-l
6-2 Characteristic of Chester River Forested NPS Sites E-2
6-3 Characteristic of Chester River Agricultural NPS Sites E-3
6-4 Chester River Subwatershed NPS Water Quality Station Codes . . . E-6
6-5 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-All Sites E-7
6-6 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-All Forested Sites E-8
6-7 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-All Urban Sites . . E-9
6-8 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-All Agricultural
Sites E-10
6-9 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Millington A ... E-ll
6-10 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Millington B ... E-12
xxi v
-------
Number Page
6~11 Chester RLver NPS Chemical Export (1 bs/acre)-USGS Cage E-13
6-12 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Chestertown A . . • E-14
6-13 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Chestertown B . . . E-15
6-14 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-S Farm E-16
6-15 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Browntown Road . . E-17
6-16 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-H Farm E-18
6-17 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre)-Still Pond Road . . E-19
6-18 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-All Sites . . . E-20
6-19 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-All Forested . . E-21
6-20 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-All Urban Sites E-22
6-21 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-All Agricultural
Sites E-23
6-22 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-Millington A . . E-24
6-23 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-Millington B . . E-25
6-24 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-USGS Gage . . . E-26
6-25 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-Chestertown A . E-27
6-26 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-Chestertown B . E-28
6-27 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-S Farm E-29
6-28 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in)-Browntown Road . E-30
6-29 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-All Sites . . . E-31
6-30 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-All Forested
Sites E-32
6-31 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-All Urban Sites E-33
6-32 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-All Agricultural
Sites E-34
6-33 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-Millington A . . E-35
xxv
-------
Number Page
6-34 Chester Ktver NPS Chemical lixport (lbs/acre/yr)-Miili.ngton B . . E-36
6-35 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-USGS Gage . . . E-37
6-36 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-Chestertown A . E-38
6-37 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-Chestertown B . E-39
6-38 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-S Farm E-40
6-39 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr)-Browntown Road . E-41
6-40 Relative Comparison of Estimated Average Agricultural Watershed
Chemical Export to Estimated Average Forested Watershed
Export in the Chester River, 1980-1981 E-42
6-41 Relative Comparison of Estimated Average Agricultural Watershed
Chemical Export to Estimated Average Urban Watershed
Export in the Chester River, 1980-1981 E-43
6-42 Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
(lbs/acre/inches of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow) . . E-69
6-43 Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
(Independent Variable is Total Rainfall) E-84
6-44 Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
(Independent Variable is Gallon, Gal/Acre, Gal/Acre/In) . . E-99
6-45 Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed from Multiple
Linear Regression (Five Independent Variables) E-106
6-46 Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed from Multiple
Linear Regression (Nine Independent Variables) E-114
7-1 Univariate Statistics by Survey Date (All Stations) F-189
7-2 Statistical Summary of Slack Survey Data by Month and Salinity
Regimes F-209
7-3 Statistical Summary of Slack Survey Data for Total Period of
Record and Salinity Regimes F-222
7-4 Statistical Summary of Slack Survey Data by Station F-226
7-5 Correlation of Mean Slack Survey Data Versus Salinity F-233
xxvi
-------
Number Page
7-6 Regressions of Average Slack Survey Data Versus Average Dissolved
Oxygen F-234
8-1 Statistical Summary of Chester River Monthly Quality Variables,
1980-1981, at Salinity Regions of 0-3 ppt, 3-1 - 10 ppt and
Greater than 10 ppt G-40
9-1 Twenty-four Hour Intensive Survey Station Univariate Statistics H-123
9-2 Twenty-four Hour Intensive Survey Data for Each Station by Depth
for Each Survey H-141
9-3 Correlations of Mean Intensive Survey Data vs Salinity H-176
9-4 Twenty-four Hour Intensive Survey Statistics by Salinity Regimes
and by Depth H-181
9-5 Chester River 1981 Twentyfour Hour Survey Data Statistical
Summary by Depth H-186
9-6 Regressions of Intensive Survey Data Versus Dissolved Oxygen . .H-192
10-1 Chester River Univariate Statistics for DO vs Salinity, 1949-1981 1-1
10-2 Upper Chester River (Salinity 0.2-10.0 ppt) for Years 1949-1981 1-3
10-3 Lower Chester River (Salinity 10-01-20.0 ppt) for Years 1949-1981 1-5
10-4 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen for Years 49-59, 60-69, 70-79 and
80-81 1-13
10-5 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen for Years 49-59, 60-69, 70-79,
and 80-81 1-13
10-6 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen for Years 49-59, 60-69, 70-79,
and 80-81 1-13
10-7 Dissolved Oxygen in Chester Estuary at Various Depth Ranges . . 1-14
10-8 Dissolved Oxygen in Upper Chester Estuary at Various Depth
Ranges 1-15
10-9 Dissolved Oxygen in Lower Chester Estuary at Various Depth
Ranges 1-15
10-10 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Months 1-16
10-11 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Months 1-17
10-12 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Months 1-18
xxvii
-------
Number Page
10-13 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Time of Day 1-20
10-14 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Time of Day 1-21
10-15 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen by Time of Day 1-22
10-16 Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1951-1980 . . . 1-25
10-17 Chester River Spring Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1950-1981 . . . 1-26
10-18 Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1940-1981 . . . 1-27
10-19 Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1949-1981 .... 1-28
10-20 Upper Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1951-1980 1-29
10-21 Upper Chester River Spring Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1958-1981 1-30
10-22 Upper Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1949-1981 1-31
10-23 Upper Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1957-1981 . 1-32
10-24 Lower Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1951-1981 1-32
10-25 Lower Chester River Spring Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1950-1981 1-33
10-26 Lower Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1950-1981 1-34
10-27 Lower Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen for Years 1949-1981 . 1-35
10-28 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 1949-1981 . . . 1-36
10-29 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 1949-1981 1-37
10-30 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 1949-1981 1-38
10-31 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 49-59, 60-69,
70-79, 80-81 1-42
10-32 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 49-59,
60-69, 70-79, 80-81 1-43
10-33 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit for Years 49-59,
60-69, 70-79, 80-81 1-44
10-34 Dissolved Oxygen Deficits in Chester Estuary at Various Depth
Ranges 1-45
10-35 Dissolved Oxygen Deficits in Upper Chester Estuary at Various
Depth Ranges 1-46
xxviii
-------
Number Page
10-36 Dissolved Oxygen Deficits in Lower Chester Estuary at Various
Depth Ranges . . . . . 1-46
10-37 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficit by Months 1-48
10-38 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits by Months .... 1-49
10-39 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits by Months .... 1-50
10-40 Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits by Time of Day 1-51
10-41 Upper Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits by Time of Day . . 1-52
10-42 Lower Chester River Dissolved Oxygen Deficits by Time of Day . . 1-53
10-43 Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1951-1980 1-55
10-44 Lower Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1951-1980 1-56
10-45 Upper Chester River Winter Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1951-1980 1-56
10-46 Chester River Spring Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1950-1981 1-57
10-47 Upper Chester River Spring Dissolved. Oxygen Deficits for Years
1950-1981 1-38
10-48 Lower Chester River Spring Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for years
1950-1981 1-59
10-49 Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1949-1981 1-60
10-50 Upper Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1949-1981 1-61
10-51 Lower Chester River Summer Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1949-1981 1-62
10-52 Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years 1949-1981 1-63
LO-53 Upper Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1957-1981 1-64
10-54 Lower Chester River Fall Dissolved Oxygen Deficits for Years
1949-1981 1-65
xxix
-------
Number Page
1A-1 Selected Multiple Linear Regressions of (JZ-Juveaile Index Based
Upon Climatic Variables J-l
11-2 Selected Multiple Linear Regressions Based Upon Climatic, Chemical
and Average Ocean and Estuarine Variables for CZ-Index . . . J-2
11-3 Selected Estuarine and Other Spawner Index Regression Equations
Developed from Multiple Linear Regressions J-3
11-4 Phytoplankton Organisms Collected from Surface Waters of the
Chester River, 1980-1981 J-74
11-5 Dominant Individuals for Each Sampling Period J-86
11-6 Percent Nannoplankton (Cells Less Than 10 um) in Phytoplankton
Samples from the Chester River 11-16
11-7 Percent Green Algae in Phytoplankton Samples from the Chester
River 11-18
11-8 Shannon-Wiever Diversity Indices for Phytoplankton Samples from
the Chester River 11-21
xxx
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A i i I i i! L V IA I i U11L.
BOD5 --biochemical oxygen demand in five days
BOD2Q --biochemical oxygen demand in twenty days
B0D30 --biochemical oxygen.demand in thirty days
CA --cross-sectional area
COD --chemical oxygen demand
CFD —cummulative frequency distribution
CV --coefficient of variation
UA --drainage area
DN,FT0TN --dissolved nitrogen
DO —dissolved oxygen
DOC —dissolved organic carbon
DOD —dissolved oxygen deficit
DOS --dissolved oxygen saturation
DP,TFPH0S --dissolved phosphorus
ft/sec --feet per second
GPD —gallons per day
HD --hydraulic depth
IWQS --intensive water quality surveys
kg --kilograms
lb/acre --pounds per acre
lb/acre/in --pounds per acre per inch of rain
lb/acre/year --pounds per acre per year
MGD --million gallons per day
mg/1 —milligrams per liter
MPN —most probable number
NH3 --ammonia
NO2 --nitrite
NO3 —nitrate
M:P --the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus, by weight
NPS --non-point source
NPDES --national polutant discharge elimination system
PO4 --phosphate
ppt --parts per thousand
r --regression coefficient
r2 --squared correlation coefficient
RPD —relative percent difference
SA --wat£r surface area
SU --standard deviation
STP --sewage treatment plant
TKN --total kjeldahl nitrogen
TN,T0TN --total nitrogen
TOC —total organic carbon
TON,T0RGN --total organic nitrogen
TP,TPH0S —total phosphorus
TPN,PARN --total particulate nitrogen
TPP,PARPH0S --total particulate phosphorus
TSS,SUSSOL --total suspended solids
xx xi
-------
Ttf
--water surface width
ug/1
--micrograms per liter
USGS
--United States Geological Survey
V
--volume
FLUPH
— pH
TOTSOL
--total solids
ORGN
—total organic nitrogen
FORGM.DISORGN
--dissolved organic nitrogen
FORTHOP
--dissolved orthophosphorus
ORTHOD
--total orthophosphorus
DOC,PAROCAR
--particulate organic carbon
FTKN.TKHD
—dissolved kje1 dah1 nitrogen
CHLORAC
--chlorophyl1-a corrected
PHEOP
--pheophyti ri-a_
DISSOL
--dissolved solids
FINORGN
—dissolved inorganic nitrogen
TINORGN
—total inorganic nitrogen
RCHLQPP
—ratio of chlorophyll-a to particulate phosphorus
RCHLOPN
—ratio of chlorophyll-a to particulate nitrogen
RFIHORH
—ratio of dissolved inorganic nitrogen to dissolved
orthophosphors; by weight
RINORHP
—ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to total
orthophosphoros; by weight
RPCPN
—ratio of particulate carbon to particulate nitrogen
RPNPC
—ratio of particulate nitrogen to particulate carbon
RCHLOPC
--ratio of chlorophyll1-a to particulate carbon
xx xi i
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This study was one of five intensive watershed studies funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The study
was designed by the CBP Eutrophication Working Group in order to provide
data concerning nutrient enrichment in the Chesapeake Bay System and for
providing data concerning nutrient export from different land use
activities. The Chester River Basin was selected for study by the CBP and
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources because of concern due to
anoxic conditions in the River reported by Cooney et.al., 1979 and because
of the role the Chester Estuarine System plays in maintaining economically
viable finfish and shellfish resources.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of EPA Grant Number
R806343. Careful and complete documentation of the sampling program has
been included in this report for future nutrient enrichment modeling. This
report represents an initial interpretation and evaluation of water quality
conditions and relationships in the Chester Estuary. The monitoring
program and results described herein represent one of the most intensive
water quality studies of a Chesapeake Bay subestuary.
Executive Summary
Water quality monitoring was conducted in the Chester River Basin from
June 1980 through September 1981. The major sampling programs consisted of
(a) slack water surveys in the Chester Estuary and tidal river; (b) 24 hour
intensive surveys; (c) entire river system surveys; (d) biological
assessments consisting of longitudinal phytoplankton collection and
enumeration; (e) bathymetric survey; and nutrient export monitoring from
eight subwatersheds•
Figure 2-8 shows the location of the nine slack water stations located
in the m^ins.tem of the estuary. Monthly surveys were conducted and provide
an intensive data base suggesting the Chester Estuary may be experiencing
nutrient enrichment. Chlorophyll-a concentrations were above 50 ug/1 on
several occassions (Figure 7-35) and occurred above 100 ug/1 on several
occassions (Figures 9-19 and 8-12). Although the cumulative frequency
distribution for chlorophyll-a indicates that only approximately 2% of the
time chlorophyll is equal to or exceeds 40 ug/1, 20% of the time
chlorophyll-a is equal to or exceeds 20 ug/1. Chlorophyll-a values tended
to be higher during periods when the water column was stratified.
1-1
-------
Conservative mixing diagrams were evaluated in order to indicate
potential sources and sinks of water quality variables. None of the water
quality variables shown in Figures 11-43 through 11-52 indicate
conservative behavior when stations mean values are plotted against average
salinity from the slack survey data. A total phosphorus sink is indicated
in the lower estuary, and a possible source from Chesapeake Bay. The same
trend is apparent for NC>2, however a mid-river sink is also apparent. A
source of suspended solids is indicated in the expected region of the
turbidity maximum near Chestertown. A source of ammonia is also indicated
in the turbidity,maximum region, a sink .in the lower estuary, followed by a
potential source from Chesapeake Bay. A plot of the redfield ratio (N:P)
shown in Figure 11-51 indicates the upper river near the town of Millington
is phosphorus limited.- As one moves downstream the system appears to
become nitrogen limited followed by a shift to a phosphorus limited
condition at the mouth of the estuary. The above nutrient limiting,
conditions are based upon mean station values, however N:P ratios
calculated from the individual slack surveys (Figure 7-38) indicate the
extreme variability from month to month. For example, on August 6, 1981
the estuary appeared nitrogen limited in the upper tidal river area and
phosphorus limited in the lower estuary. On September 22, 1981 the river
indicated the limiting nutrient to be nitrogen in the lower river and
phosphorus in the upper tidal river.
In order to more clearly indicate the major sources of nutrient
sources to the estuarine system, budgets were calculated for NO2 + NO3,
total nitrogen, dissolved ortho-phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, and
ammonia. Figures 5-1 through 5-5 show the results of the simple
mass-balance budgets. In general, point sources are relatively
insignificant on a basin basis for NO2 + NO3, NH3, total nitrogen,
ortho-phosphorus, as well as dissolved and total phosphorus. The largest
potential source of NO2 + NO3 comes from chemical export due to storm
runoff. No source of NO2 + NO3 is indicated as coming from Chesapeake
Bay. The major sources of ammonia appear to be approxlmately_equally
distributed-Between Chesapeake~Bay, the sediments and _to_a.lesser degree,
storm nfnoff. The major source of total nitrogen is indicated as coming
from^base-flow followed by chemical export during storm events. For
dissolved ortho-phosphorus the major source is export during storm events.
The second major source of ortho-phosphorus appears to be from the
sediments. The major source of dissolved phosphorus is chemical export
during storm events. Therefore, the major source of phosphorus appears to
occur during storm events. For nitrogen, the major source appears to
depend upon the chemical species.
Based upon the non-point source subwatershed monitoring from two
forested sites, two urban sites and four agricultural sites, the ratio of
the average agricultural export to the average forested export (lbs/acre/in
of rain) was 51 for total suspended solids, 45 for NO3, 1 for NO2 +
NO3, 34 for total phosphorus and 29 for ortho phosphorus. The ratio of
agricultural export to urban export is 2 for total suspended solids, 2 for
NO2 + NO3, 1.4 for NH3, 1 for TKN, 2.8 for total phosphorus, and 7
for ortho-phosphorus. Detailed chemical export loading rates were
1-2
-------
developed from the monitoring data and are presented in Tables 6-5 through
6-39. In addition, cumulative frequency distributions are presented which
indicate the percent of time a given loading rate would be expected to
occur (see Figures 6-1 through 6-25). Regression analysis was performed in
order to determine the relation between the chemical export (lbs/acre) and
the gallons of storm runoff. In most instances, as expected, the loading
rates were highly correlated with size of the storm runoff volume as
indicated in Table 6-44. Multiple regression analysis indicated that
loading rates correlated quite well in many cases with the size of the
storm event, i.e., inches of rain, average storm intensity, suspended
solids and alkalinity concentrations. Since the Chester River Basin
sustains approximately 65-75% agricultural land use activities one might
expect from the above agricultural to forested loading rate ratios that
phosphorus would be a major chemical exported from agricultural land to the
river. The fact that the phosphorus budgets indicate a relatively high
source during storm events strengthens the view that phosphorus export from
agricultural land use activities is a major source.
During the course of the study the longitudinal salinity profile
varied substantially, (see Figures 7-1 to 7-2) with salinity varying at the
mouth of the estuary from approximately 9.7 ppt to 14.5 ppt. Estuary
salinity increased during the study period as a result of below normal
rainfall in July of 1980 followed by increasing rainfall during the fall
and spring months. On two occassions during the slack tide surveys
salinity was higher at the surface indicating potential upwelling of bottom
water. During the September 1981 24-hour monitoring survey a salinity
inversion occurred during high tide.
Longitudinal profiles of water quality variables observed during slack
tide surveys are discussed in Section 7 of the report. Twenty-seven slack
tide surveys were conducted during the study. The slack survey data were
used to develop the average location and fraction or percent of freshwater
and Chesapeake Bay water in the estuary. Figure 4-20 shows that at river
mile 27 there is, on the average, approximately 50% freshwater and
Chesapeake Bay water. This area is the region of the estuary approximately
where the salinity gradient is at a maximum. This is also the general
location of the region of the estuary where the rate of change of water
depth reaches its maximum (see Figure 4-6).
The flushing time of the estuary was estimated from simplistic mixing
theory to be around 80 days under average inflow conditions. Freshwater
inflow during 1980-1981 indicate very clearly that average freshwater flow
conditions rarely exist for more than two weeks as shown in Figures 4-10
and 4-11. Estimated flushing time as a function of freshwater inflow was
calculated and shown that during extreme low flow conditions the flushing
time may increase to 150 to 200 days, and during high flow conditions
(based upon data from the Morgan Creek USGS gage) flushing time may
decrease to around 10-40 days, depending upon the estimation procedure
used.
1-3
-------
based upon Llic average salinity proflLe from Che 27 slack water
surveys, the average salinity at the mouth of the estuary was 11.57 ppt. A
major analysis of one dimensional steady state dispersion characteristics
was conducted using the data. Tables 4-8 and 4-9 show the temporal and
spatial values of dispersion coefficients, which ranged from 3.1 ft^/sec
from nautical mile 28 to 41 up to 2,349.5 ft^/sec from nautical mile 8.5
to 13.2. The high temporal and spatial variability of one dimensional
dispersion coefficients is Indicated in Table 4-8, as well as the average
dispersion characteristics. The average dispersion coefficients ranged
from 428 ft^/sec in the lower estuary to 12.2 in the upper tidal river.
Dispersion coefficients were estimated using three different methods
based upon different approaches of estimating the salinity distribution and
by using the assumption of a constant or variable cross-sectional area.
The results of the theoretical one-dimensional steady state dispersion
coefficients are shown in Tables 4-10 and 4-11. The values have been
plotted in Figures 4-26 through 4-29. These tables and graphs clearly
show, as is well known, that the dispersion coefficients are dependent upon
freshwater inflow. More interesting is the result which shows that the
analytical dispersion function using the variable cross-sectional area
formulation indicates a maximum dispersion coefficient in the expected area
of the turbidity maximum region, where dispersion would be expected to be
greatest. In addition, the area of maximum dispersion coefficients
coincide with the region of the estuary where the salinity gradient reaches
a maximum. Other analyst have indicated that the turbidity maximum region
is a region of turbulent mixing where dispersion should increase. The
formulation for calculating Chester estuary dispersion coefficients clearly
supports this view. Estimated steady state one dimensional dispersion
coefficients in the lower estuary showed extreme variability as mentioned
earlier. This may be a function of complex circulation in the lower
estuary. Specifically, data collected for this study by Bolcourt (18) may
indicate a potential three layer flow pattern. A potential three layer
flow pattern is also indicated by data reported by previous studies
conducted by Westinghouse, Inc. 1975.
The slack tide water quality surveys indicate the estuarine system
supports very high chlorophyll-a concentrations in the upper tidal river
and mid-estuary. Total~suspended solids~~areT highest in the lower reaches
of the expected turbidity maximum (around nautical mile 27). Turbidity is
also highest in this region, and secchi disc measurements are at a minimum.
On several occassions nitrate In the upper river (0-3 ppt salinity) was
quite high, resulting in a mean nitrate concentration of 1.1 mg/1. Nitrate
values in the upper estuary did not appear to be extremely high, with a
mean of 0.02 mg/1 in the 0-3 ppt salinity region. Ammonia was quite high
in the upper tidal river (0-3 ppt) with a mean of 0.09 mg/1. Particulate
phosphorus was 2-3 orders of magnitude greater in the upper tidal river
with a mean of 0.32 mg/1. Since inorganic nitrogen was also an order of
magnitude higher in the upper estuary, but organic carbon and nitrogen did
not show order of magnitude differences in the upper tidal river, it cou.ld
be inferred that the material high phosphorus was inorganic and associated
with sediment. The pH in the upper tidal river (0-3 ppt) showed the lowest
1-4
-------
SECTION 2.0
METHODS
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY OF THE CHESTER RIVER
River bed profiles were recorded on July 31, August 1 and 2, 1980 at
twenty-two transects. Transects were positioned from the mouth of the
Chester River to the headwaters (about one mile above Crumpton, Maryland).
The transects are shown in Figure 2-1 and are described precisely by
latitude and longitude in Table 2-1. Transect crossections are included in
Normandeau Associates report prepared for this study (11).
The purpose of conducting the survey was to provide information about
the physical shape of the river bed and river depth at any point on a
transect under a standard tidal condition at Mean Low Water (MLW). Bottom
profiles were obtained using a recording fathometer. The transducer of the
recording fathometer was mounted on the boat transom one foot below actual
water level. The fathometer was calibrated both before and after the
survey using a marked and weighted polypropylene sounding line.
Recorder chart speed was always the maximum, about 1 cm per minute.
Boat speed was maintained constant throughout any one run, though not
necessarily from transect to transect, by running the engine at 1000 RPM
and using wind and current measurements to confirm that those two forces
had remained relatively constant throughout the run. Trueness-of-course
was monitored on the longer transects (20, 21, 22) by triangulation of
position using berings to navigational aids and landmarks, and on all other
transects by use of visual ranges resulting in rigid lines of reference.
Profile depths were normalized to Mean Low Water (MLW) at the stage height
indicator nearest the transect. For more details concerning the calcu-
lation of the MLW depth at each transect see reference 1 (p 2-4).
Calibration of the fathometer before and after the survey showed the
instrument to be accurate, the only adjustment needed being the addition of
one foot to correct for the transducer being run one foot beneath the
surface.
Portions of transects 2 and 3 did not appear on the fathometer
recording. The first 200 yards and last 50-60 yards of profile 2 and the
last 300 yards of profile 3 were too shallow to use the engine making
uniform boat speed impossible. These areas were poled over and found to be
of relatively uniform depth (11).
2-1
-------
Table 2-1 Chester River Bathymetric Survey Transects
Transect QA County Side Kent County Side
Mo. N. Latitude W. Longitude N. Latitude W. Longitude
1
39
14
58
75
53
45
39
14
53
75
53
44
2
39
14
39
75
55
03
39
14
45
75
55
06
3
39
14
07
75
56
22
39
14
33
75
56
20
4
39
14
12
76
00
31
39
14
41
76
00
30
5
39
13
40
76
01
07
39
13
47
76
01
19
6
39
13
05
76
02
11
39
13
18
76
02
33
7
39
12
31
76
03
19
39
12
44
76
03
26
8
39
10
39
76
02
21
39
10
30
76
02
44
9
39
09
24
76
02
34
39
09
53
76
03
05
10
39
07
45
76
04
43
39
08
03
76
05
06
11
39
06
50
76
06
19
39
06
58
76
06
40
12
39
05
50
76
07
40
39
07
10
76
07
40
13
39
05
35
76
08
43
39
06
16
76
09
38
14
39
04
45
76
09
02
39
05
39
76
11
19
15
39
03
40
76
09
27
39
05
07
76
12
15
16
39
02
38
76
10
46
39
02
41
76
12
34
17
39
00
17
76
09
49
39
01
36
76
12
45
18
38
58
50
76
14
37
39
00
49
76
13
09
19
39
00
17
76
17
34
39
01
36
76
14
28
20
39
02
22
76
18
07
39
02
48
17
13
53*
21
39
02
22
76
18
07
39
05
24
76
14
01
22
39
02
22
76
18
07
39
08
25
76
15
45
Positions stated in degrees, minutes, seconds as read from NOAA+NOs chart
12272, 18th ed., 1979.
*Thi s position is about 400 yards SE of the one indicated by the client as end
of transect No. 20.
2-3
-------
Transect number 1 was not recorded because shallow water and
vegetation made passage of the boat upriver to that po.i.nt impossible.
STAGE HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
The selection of sites for stage height measurement was based on
accessibility and distribution throughout the estuary. Three factors were
considered in selecting the sites. These factors included (1) location
near water quality survey transects so that they could be easily checked by
the survey teams, (2) at a place that offers good support for the instru-
ments or stakes, and (3) proximity to a benchmark or other known elevation.
Seven stage height marker stakes were permanently installed at locations
shown in Figure 2-2 and Table A-2-2. From May through September, 1981,
continuous level recorders were installed at Love Point and Chestertown.
As the recorders and stakes were installed, the site number was clearly
marked at each site, as well as marked on a topographic map. Latitude-
Longitude of continuous level recorders were: Love Pt. (39° 02' 05" N.
Lat x 76° 18' 07" W, Long.), Chestertown (39° 12' 15" N. Lat. x 76°
03' 30" W. Long.).
Stage height readings were taken visually by each survey team (with
the exception of the four continuous recorders) and referenced to mean sea
level. This datum was surveyed at each station at the time of installation
and twice during the study using benchmarks or other known elevations (man-
hole covers, building foundations) as reference points. Stage height
measurements were used to show the progression of tidal cycles up and down
the entire estuary.
The stage height at each station was read every three hours,
coinciding with sample collections for the intensive and 24 hour surveys.
The ISC0 continuous stage height recorders were checked every three hours
and the record obtained at the end of the survey. Data have been stored in
ST0RET.
Calibration of instruments involved installing the stage height stakes
and recorders and surveying their elevation from a known point, preferably
a benchmark. The water level recorders were calibrated according to
manufacturer's instructions. The expected uncertainty involved is less
than 0.05 foot.
Maintenance and calibration of the stage height stakes was minimal,
requiring visual inspection prior to each survey. Stage height recorders
were calibrated from temporary benchmarks close to the installation points.
Surveying and calibration of the stage height stakes followed standard land
surveying methods utilizing an automatic level and a stadia rod graduated
in 0.01-foot intervals. Tide stage height indicator staff calibration
results appear in Table A-2-2. Stage height records thus reflect water
level above or below mean sea level.
2-4
-------
CURRENT SPEED/DIRECTION MEASUREMENTS
Current measurements were obtained during Intensive water quality
surveys. Ten sites were selected (uniformly distributed along the estuary)
from the locations sampled during the intensive surveys and are shown in
Figure 2-3.
The transducer end of the system was dropped overboard from a boat
anchored at the station, lowered to the appropriate depth, and a measure-
ment of current direction and velocity was obtained from a direct readout
onboard. Each site was sampled once every three hours or 8 times during
the survey. Readings were taken at surface, mid-, and bottom depths,
giving a total of 24 readings per site. A total of 240 readings were
generated for each intensive survey. Table 2-3 shows the instruments used
at each station during each intensive 24-hour survey.
Calibration of the internal standard in each current meter was
performed according to the manufacturer's instructions before field
operation, and zero-set to the standard at each station during the survey.
The calibration of the internal standard was also checked after the survey.
The expected uncertainty for velocity variations are less than 1 ft/s.
Directional variations ranged as high as 10°.
ADVECTIVE FLOW MEASUREMENTS
Sixteen advective flow stations were sampled as shown in Figure 2-4.
These stations were selected to examine tidal effects in small tributaries
of the estuary. Flow measurements were obtained at each of the 16 stations
with a Marsh-McBirney (M-M) Model 201 direct reading flow meter. Prior to
each survey, all stations were visited to measure stream channel geometry,
mark appropriate measuring points, and inspect the stream height
indicators.
The transducer of the meter was placed in the stream at 1-foot
intervals across the width of the stream, thereby obtaining a
representative cross-sectional flow at each station. A General Oceanics
meter was anchored in the stream at a given depth, and the meter
hydrodynamically aligned itself with the flow in the stream. Since the
meter was run over a 2-5 minute interval, a representative sample of flow
conditions at that depth was obtained.
Advective flow measurements were taken once per station during the
Lower Estuary Homogeniety Survey of July 15, 1980, and once every three
hours during the May and July 1981 Intensive River Surveys. The three-hour
interval was based on the minimum amount of time needed for the survey team
to sample all other sites and return to the station. Data recording and
calibration procedures were the same as stated in the previous section,
except for the General Oceanics meter, which required no external
calibration (its mechanical counter is pre-set). Table A-2-4 provides the
2-6
-------
Figure 2-3 Location of Current Speed/Direction Stations in the Chester River sampled during
the,intensive River Surveys.
-------
Figure 2-4 Locatior; of Chester River Advective Flow Monitoring Stations
-------
Table 2-3
Equipment Type, Used to Record Current Speed/Direction
During Intensive River Surveys
Survey Date
Station No.
5/29-30/81
7/24-25/81
9/24-25/81
0051
Hydroproducts 950
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0048
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0043
Endeco 110
Hydroproducts
950
Hydroproducts 950
0034
Endeco 110
Hydroproducts
950
Hydroproducts 950
0024
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0022
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0018
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0013
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0007
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
0002
Marsh-McBirney 710
Endeco 110
Endeco 110
All data has been stored into STORET.
location of advective flow stations, station letters and state ID codes,
and surveyed elevations and benchmarks. Gage height data as well as
advective flow measurements were taken during the July 1980 Lower Estuary
Homogeniety Survey, the May 1981 and July 1981 Intensive River Surveys.
DATA has been placed into STORET.
UPPER ESTUARY AND MORGAN CREEK DYE STUDIES
Sites for measuring dye concentrations were selected at six easily
accessible locations along the "upper estuary," between Crumpton and
Chestertown, Maryland, and at six locations along Morgan Creek (see Figures
2-5 and 2-6). The site selection criteria, in addition to accessibility,
included equidistant spacing along the length of stream expected to be
traveled by the dye, absence of onshore disturbances, such as a storm sewer
outfall, and flow conditions that appeared similar to the stream sections
immediately adjacent to the site. Each site was described geographically
and marked on a topographic map. In addition, small stakes with flagging
tape attached were driven into the stream bank at each for triangulation by
the survey team. Water samples were taken with a peristaltic pump from up
to three different depths at each site, and composited In a 1-liter
container for analysis. This was to insure that a representative sample
was obtained if the dye was not uniformly dispersed in the water.
2-9
-------
r>o
i
4000 FT
° 2 Sampling Station
Figure 2-5 Upper Chester Estuary Dye Study Station Locations
-------
¦j j sur *¦>•<* v
P »oy
Figure 2-6 Morgan Creek Dye Study Station Locations
-------
The movement, of dye in the estuary was expected to be slow and thus
w.in monitored for yix t1d;il cycles. Each .station war; monitored hourly
except when the dye slug was passing the station. Samples were collected
every 10 minutes for 30 minutes before and one hour after the dye passed
each monitoring station. Drogues placed in the water at the time of dye
release served as visual indicators of the location of the dye slug. The
sampling period was determined by projecting information from tide tables
and current charts, sampling team observations. The passage of the dye
past a given station depended on many factors, therefore approximately 200
samples for each study were collected. Composite samples were labeled with
station number, time and date of collection, and purpose of sample using
standard Versar sample labels. Samples were stored in darkness, since the
dye was somewhat light-sensitive. No other preservation techniques were
required.
The dye was instantaneously released at the upstream station at low
slack tide. Intracid Rhodamine WT liquid was used for both the "upper
estuary" and Morgan Creek. Personnel recorded sample collection parameters
such as weather conditions, tide stage, temperature, and other field data
in bound field notebooks. Since the actual sample collection was
accomplished quickly, sample containers were pre-labeled and the field log
set up in table form, therefore the sampling crew spent a minimum amount of
time between sampling stations.
Sample analysis was performed with a Turner Model 430 Spectrofluoro-
meter calibrated from a calibration curve with at least five standard
reference points. Calibration curves were prepared daily during analysis
of dye study samples. A reference sample of quinine sulfate, supplied with
the fluorometer, was used for calibration. Samples of estuarine or stream
water were collected the day before the dye study to obtain a representa-
tive background fluorescence. Background values were subtracted from each
sample analyzed to obtain actual dye concentration. The variability of the
calibration standard was +1%, or 0.02 ppb. This variability had negligible
effects on the results of the study. Calibration and maintenance data were
recorded in the bound notebooks taken into the field. Data are included in
Appendix I.
EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
The purpose of these analyses was to determine the relative sediment
oxygen demand of the bottom substrate at six stations. Sediment samples
were collected at stations shown in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-7. Samples were
collected twice during the first year of the study and once during the
second year at stations XIH2463, XHH5301 and XGG9572. The exact sampling
points were determined in the field to assure a representative sampling
point. The criteria used for the determination of sampling points was the
following: outside of shipping lanes (i.e., navigational buoys) and clear
from private and commercial boat docks. Once the sampling stations were
determined they were marked on a navigational chart for use during
subsequent surveys.
2-12
-------
Samples were taken with an Eckman Dredge in accordance with procedures
described In the EPA Great Lakes Region, Committee on Analytical Methods
(1969). Sediment from the top 6 cm was placed in a labeled plastic
container, packed in ice, and analyzed within twenty-four hours.
Seven replicates at three different dilutions (O.Olg, 0.05g, and O.lg
sediment per BOD bottle on a wet weight basis) were set up for each station
sampled and twelve replicates for the O.Olg/BOD bottle dilution aliquots
were weighed and placed in BOD bottles, filled with dilution water,
aerated, the initial DO measured and placed in a 20°C BOD incubator. One
of the seven replicates for each of the three dilutions was removed and the
final DO recorded on day 2, day 5, day 10, day 15, day 20, day 25, and day
30. If the oxygen level in a bottle was depleted below 2.0 ppm, then that
bottle was not included in the results. By having twelve replicates of the
O.Olg/BOD bottle dilution, at least two readings were assured for each
station for every day the final DO was measured.
PHYTOPLANKTON RESPIRATION STUDY
Gross and net primary production was measured at six stations, shown
in Table 2-5. Two seasonal measurements were made at stations XIH2463,
XHH5301, and XGG1537 during the first year of the program and during June
of the second year. Exact sampling points were determined once in the
field to assure a representative sampling point. The criteria used for
determination of sampling points was: outside navigational buoys,
representative area and depth, and clear of private and commercial boat
docks.
One dark and two light BOD bottles at three different depths at each
station were incubated (with the exception of Station B where only the
surface and three foot depths were used). These incubation depths were
surface, three and six foot depths. A 6-liter vertical Beta bottle was
used to collect a representative sample at these respective depths for
incubation. During incubation, each bottle was held horizontally by a PVC
bottle holder attached to a buoy. These samples were incubated for a
4-hour period between 0900 and 1500 hours. The dissolved oxygen levels
intially and after incubation were measured with a YSI Model 57 dissolved
oxygen meter with BOD self-stirring probe. The DO meter was calibrated
using D.O. saturated water prior to each survey.
The net photosynthesis, respiration, and estimated gross primary
production rate were calculated based on the average of the replicate
samples.
WATER QUALITY SURVEYS
The purpose of the river/estuary water quality surveys was to provide
data necessary for evaluating water quality enrichment in the Chester
Estuary and to provide data for evaluating water quality models. The study
consisted of the folowing surveys: one lower estuary homogeniety survey,
entire river system surveys, slack tide surveys, and twenty-four hour
2-13
-------
Table 2-5
Study Statton Number and State ID Codes for Sediment
Oxygen Demand Samples Phytoplankton Respiration Measurements
and Sediment
Station Number
Maryland ID Code
000B
0013
0022
0034
0048
0051
CYR0004
XIH2563
XHH8354
XHH5301
XGG9572
XHG1537
monitoring surveys. With the exception of the automatic robot monitor
sampling, which occurred before and during the inensive and 24 hour
surveys, the collection methodology and parameters to be analyzed were the
same for each survey (Table A-2-9). The location of the stations sampled
during the twentyfour hour and slack surveys are shown in Figures 2-7 and
2-8 respectively.
SLACK WATER SURVEYS
Water quality surveys were conducted approximately monthly except
during the winter months. Surveys were conducted within + one hour of
predicted slack water (based upon predicted minimum currents) estimated
from published NOAA tide and current records. Table 2-6 shows the location
of the nine slack tide stations. All stations were located within the
mainstem of the river/estuarine system except station 33 which was located
near the mouth of Langford Creek. This station was located in this
location in order that water quality conditions typical of the larger
tributary systems could be indicated. Analysis of data in this report show
the relative difference in water quality variables at this station thus
supporting the need for such station data. Stations 43, 42, and 34 were
located closer together in order to represent the transition between the
lower estuary and tidal river portion of the estuary.
During each survey, dissolve oxygen, temperature, conductivity/salin-
ity and pH were collected at three depths (surface, mid-depth and bottom).
A single water sample was collected from each station after compositing
equal allquots of water from the three depths. From June 1980 through
September 1980 water samples were analyzed for variables shown in Table
2-8. After September 1980 through September 1981, water samples were
analyzed for the variables shown in Table 2-9.
2-14
-------
Figure 2-7 Location of sediment oxygen demand; nutrient exchange; phytoplankton community and
respiration; and 24 hour monitoring stations in the Chester River.
-------
PO
I
CHESTER RIVER
MUX
Figure 2-8 Location of Stations for the Chester River.Slack Survey
(refer to Table 2-6 to obtain Storet ID No.)
-------
Table 2-6
Slack Water Survey
Stations for the Chester
River
Station
STORET ID
Storet
Nautical Mile
No.
No.
Agency Code
B
CYR0004
21MDEXP
41
13
XIH2463
21MD
28
22
XHH8354
21MDEXP
21.3
34
XHH5301
21MDEXP
16
33
XHG6094
21MDEXP
15.5*
42
XHG4893
21MD
15
43
XHG3078
21MDEXP
13.2
48
XGG9572
21MD
8.5
51
XHG1537
21MDEXP
5.5
*This station was located outside of the mainstem river.
LOWER ESTUARY HOMOGENIETY SURVEY
This one-time effor was performed on 15 July 1980 to determine the
lateral and vertical uniformity of waters in the lower estuary. The July
sampling at 15 stations (Figure 2-9 and Table 2-7) was conducted at the
same time frame of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program bay-wide nutrient
assessment.
Water samples for water quality variable anaylses and in situ
parameters were recorded at four depths (near surface, 0.3 x depth, 0.6 x
depth, and 0.9 x depth) at each of the 15 stations (see Table 2-8 for
chemical variable list). Samples and data were collected at high slack
tide during daylight hours. (Slack tide conditions defined as +1 hour of
the high slack, adjusted to each station.)
Yellow Springs Instrument Company's Model 57/54 dissolved oxygen
meters and Model 33 SCT meters were used. Hydrogen ion concentration (pH)
and turbidity of each sample were determined at the field laboratory using
a Corning No. 610A pH meter and a Hack Model 2100A turbidimeter.
All instruments were calibrated prior r.o sampling according to
manufacturers' specifications. Meters were rechecked during sampling to
insure consistency and accuracy.
2-17
-------
PO
I
00
CHESTER RIVER
6 1 I I * *
Ml lea
Figure 2-9 Location of Chester Lower Estuary homogeniety water quality stations.
-------
Table 2-7
Sr.ar.lon Numbers and Maryland State ID Codes
for Lower Estuary Horaogeniety Survey Conducted July 15, 1980
Station Number
State ID Code
0050
XHG1228
0051
XHG1537
0051
XHG1545
0056
XGG9649
0057
XHG0153
0058
XHG0556
0059
XHG0396
0060
XHG0591
0061
XHG0786
0062
XHG2886
0063
XHG2881
0064
XHG2878
0065
XHH5206
0066
XHH5403
0067
XHH5602
Water samples from each depth were collected in 4-liter Van-Dorn
bottles. Withdrawn water was placed in plastic containers containing the
appropriate preservatives. All samples were packed in ice-filled chests
and, upon completion of the lower estuary homogeniety survey, all samples
except chlorophyll-a were air-shipped to TI's (Texas Instruments) Dallas
laboratory for analysis.
Two 1-liter samples for chlorophyll-^ analysis were returned (on ice)
to the field laboratory, filtered through Whatman GF/A glass-fiber filters,
and frozen at -20®C. Filtration volumes were recorded and frozen samples
were shipped to TI's Dallas laboratory, for extraction and analysis of
chlorophyll-a^ and phaeophytin-a.
ENTIRE RIVER INTENSIVE SURVEYS
Three entire river intensive surveys were performed during the Chester
River study; each of the surveys consisted of depth composited samples at
each of 50 stations (Figure 2-10). These surveys were conducted on May 29,
July 24, and September 24, 1981.
2-19
-------
Miles
2-10Location of Chester River Estuarine River Intensive Water Quality Survey Stations
-------
Table 2-8
Wafer Quaiir.y Variables and Methods foi Analysis o£ Chester
River Lower Estuary Homogenlety Samples
Variable Reference
Ammonia
EPA,
1979
350.1
Nitrate
EPA,
1979
353.2
Nitrite
EPA,
1979
353.2
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
EPA,
1979
351.2
Total phosphorus
EPA,
1979
365.4
Total phosphorus (filtered)
EPA,
1979
365.4
Orthophosphate
EPA,
1979
365.1
Total suspended solids
EPA,
1979
160.2
Total dissolved solids
EPA,
1979
160.1
Total organic carbon
EPA,
1979
415.1
Chlorophyll a
Strickland and
Parson, 1972
Vollenweider,
1974
All samples were collected at slack tide during daylight hours. Water
was collected at four depths (near surface, 0.3 x depth, 0.6 x depth, and
0.9 x depth) at each station, composited and thoroughly mixed, and sub-
sampled for the analysis of variables listed in Table A-2-9. Samples were
appropriately preserved, placed in iced containers and shipped to NAI's
Dallas laboratory. BOD samples were analyzed by Versars laboratory
facilities.
Surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom in situ measurements were taken at
the fifty stations for water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific
conductance, secchi depth and salinity. Instruments were calibrated before
and after each survey. Storet station numbers are listed in Table A-2-10.
AUTOMATIC ROBOT MONITOR SAMPLING
A single Schneider Instruments RM 25 automatic monitor was used to
measure and record water level, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and solar radiation at Chestertown, Md. during each intensive
survey (see Figure 2-2). Sampling began with the slack tide survey before
the entire river intensive survey and continued through the duration of the
intensive river survey and 24-hour survey and ended after the slack tide
survey following the intensive river and 24-hour survey. The automatic
monitor was calibrated according to the procedures discussed later in this
section. The data has been placed into STORET.
2-21
-------
TWh'NTK-FOUEl HOUR MONLTOKLNC
On the same day of the three entire river surveys, water quality
samples were collected at six stations (B, 13, 22, 34, 48, and 51) at
approximately three-hour intervals. The sampling intervals corresponded to
low slack, flood, high slack, and ebb tide stages over two complete tidal
cycles. In situ measurements were taken at near-surface, mid-depth, and
near-bottom depths at each of the stations. Water samples were collected
at near-surface and near-bottom depths. The variables analyzed are shown
in Table A-2-11. Current speed and direction was measured at each station
with recording flow meters from an anchored, stationary boat. The flow
meters were calibrated before and after each 24-hour survey effort with
calibration of other meters as described earlier.
Table A-2—12 provides the dates and start/end times of each 24-hour
monitoring survey.
SEDIMENT-WATER NUTRIENT EXCHANGE
The purpose of this subtask was to study indicate the gross potential
of sediment nutrient release in the Chester River system. Sediment samples
were collected four times during the survey in connection with sediment
oxygen demand evaluating at stations shown in Figure 2-7 and Table 2-5.
Sediment samples were collected, filtered, and the filtrate was analyzed
for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, and
orthophosphorous levels.
During each survey one sediment sample was collected at each station
for nutrient analysis. All samples were taken with an Eckman dredge in
accordance with EPA Great Lakes Region, Committee on Analytical Methods
(1969). Sediment from the top 6 cm was placed in 2-liter plastic
containers, labeled, packed in sn ice-filled Chester, and returned to
Versar's laboratory within twenty-four hours for analysis.
PHYTOPLANKTON EVALUATION (Community Composition)
Water samples were collected with 5-L Nisken water bottles and
analyzed for phytoplankton density, biomass (Biovolume), and chlorophyll-a
concentrations. Cell densities were determined for total phytoplankton and
the major divisions (diatoms, green algae, and blue-green algae).
Densities (greater r.han 5 percent) of the dominant taxa also are reported.
Phytoplankton samples were collected during summer and fall 1980 and
spring kand summer 1981 at stations shown in Table 2-5. Two 4-liter water
samples were collected 1.0 meter below the water surface in PVC Van-Dorn
water bottles. The two samples were composited, and four 1-liter
subsamples were withdrawn and preserved with acid-Lugol's solution for
phytoplankton species identification and enumeration and biomass
determinations. An additional 2-liter subsample was withdrawn from the
remaining composite sample volume and placed in two 1-liter bottles for
2-22
-------
chlorophyll-a analysis. These subsamples were placed on i.ee In r.he dark to
retard degradation. Surface temperatures were settled and centrlfuged at
r.he field laboratory before Identification and enumeration. After receipt
of samples in the laboratory and analyses began, samples were settled for
24 hours in glass cylinders in a final concentration of 1 percent
acid-Lugol's solution, the upper 1800 milliliters and then carefully
siphoned from each sample, and the remaining 200 milliliters concentrated
by careful successive centrifugat.ions on a high-volume centrifuge at 2000
revolutions per minute for 12 minutes. (It should be noted that only 2
liters of the 4-liter field sample is settled; the remainder served as a
backup until shipment to Dallas and lab analysis was completed). After
each centrifugation, the upper layers of liquid in the centrifuge tube were
carefully decanted, the remainder was agitated with a Vortex Junior mixer,
and the contents of each tube poured into a labeled sample vial. As a
precaution, several milliliters of 6:3:1 preservative were added to each
sample vial. The final sample volume was not always constant, but the
concentration of algal cells was approximately constant and representative
of the original volume settled. The final volume to which the cells was
concentrated and recorded to permit back-calculation to original volumes
(to determine concentration factors).
After the concentration sample was fully mixed, two subsamples were
placed in Palmer cells and the algae in 20 fields (10 per subsample) were
.identified to the lowest practical level (usually species) and enumerated
at 400X magnification. Density (number of cells per milliliter) was
determined for total phytoplankton, major divisions, and dominant
organisms. In addition, diatoms were identified and enumerated at 1000X
after clearing and mounting in Hyrax medium.
NITROGEN FIXATION
Samples for evaluation of nitrifying bacteria were collected during
summer, fall and winter 1980 and spring 1981 (two samples each time for
both water and sediment) using a Nisken sampler for water and Ekman dredge
sampler for sediment. The upper 1-3 centimeters of the bottom sediment
sample was removed for evaluation. One water sample per station was
filtered through 64m mesh to remove the phytoplankton for bacterial
evaluation only. Samples were immediately transferred into a gas-tight
serum or vaccine bottles and placed on ice for return to the field lab.
In addition, 2 liters of river water were collected, placed on ice,
and returned to the laboratory. This water was filtered through 0.2-m
membrane filters and added to the sediment reaction vessels so that water
just covered the sediment in the bottom of the container. After partial
evacuation, the reaction was initiated with the addition of acetylene
(02^), 0.2 to 0.4 atmosphere higher than the outside pressure. The
affinity of the nitrifying and N2~fixing organism's system for acetylene
is sufficiently high so that, if 0.2 atmosphere of C2H2 is injected
into a bottle filled with air, the N2 does not compete effectively and
reduction of C2H2 virtually the same as in the absence of N2 (6).
Samples were incubated at the field laboratory for up to 8 hours
2-23
-------
(pre] i in i nnry runs were made to determine the most: appropriate Incubation
time). incubation temperatures (+2-3°C) approximated those noted at the
time of collection. At the end of the the incubation a suffi.c.i.ent volume
of the gas mixture above the water and/or sediment material was withdrawn
and injected into a partially evacuated serum bottle. These labeled,
gas-filled bottles were then shipped on ice to Dallas. After properly
being logged in, gas was removed from the serum bottles and injected
directly into the gas chromatograph (Porapak R., 80-100 mesh) for
determination of the acetylene (C2H2) and ethylene (C2H4) that was
formed. Data is reported as nannograras C2H4 Per cubic centimeter per
hour for both sediment and water samples.
POINT SOURCE EFFLUENT ASSESSMENT
The objective of this effort was to characterize the conventional
pollutant concentrations from effluents that contribute pollutant loads to
the Chester River.
Site selection criteria was established to assure that target point
sources represented the spectrum of the major point sources on the Chester
River system. The first and major criterion for site selection was the
amount of effluent discharged. A factor which precluded selection of a
site based on amount of discharge is the nature of the discharged cycle.
Facilities with intermittent, as-needed batch discharges, or whose
operations result in atypical discharges were not included as target point
discharges in this survey.
Inherent to site selection (based on size of discharge) was considera-
tion for the presence of properly installed primary flow devices, or
existing in-line flow monitoring instruments and accessibility of those
discharges. Minimal masking of target discharge due to excessive non-point
discharges and/or the presence of a non-target point discharge in close
proximity to the target point discharge was considered prior to selection
of sampling sites.
Representative samples were obtained by use of flow proportioned
composite ISCO samplers.
Point source discharges that were considered for monitoring are shown
in Table 2-13.
A combination of only five point sources were sampled during each Intensive
survey.' When a facility was not selected for sampling during a survey it
was because their discharge characteristics were not typical. Sampling
dates and times appear In Table A-2-12.
2-24
-------
Table 2-13. Chester River Poind Sources
Point Source
Maryland ID Code
Millington STP
740166001
Cenr.ervi.lle STP
M(Ji UiOOL
Chest.ertown STP
750592001
Campbell Soup Co.
770009001
Tenneco Chemical
780014001
Queenstown STP
750737001
Rock Hall STP
750575001
Two sampling methods were available for collecting flow proportioned
composites. Whenever a primary flow measuring device was installed on a
point source discharge, portable flow meters and data recorders were inter-
faced with a composite sampler. These instruments were programmed to take
an appropriately sized sample aliquot upon the discharge of a
pre-determined volume of effluent.
If, for example, a target discharge was rated at 1.0 million gallons
per day (MGD), the flow measuring and sample collection train was
programmed to collect a sample every 20,000 gallons. This program resulted
in collection of a sample approximately every one-half hour.
To determine the concentration of wastewater discharges and major
point source pollutant loads contributing to the Chester River water qualiy
during the lower estuary homogeniety survey and the river intensive surveys
point source surveys were conducted the day before and the day of the
intensive surveys. Separate 24-hour composites wete collected far both
days at each of the five selected point sources.
Based on historical flow data or direct instantaneous flow determina-
tions, samplers were programmed to take a sample aliquot from approximately
each 0.02 (1/48) of the total daily discharge. The average sample aliquot
was taken every one-half hour. This frequency was selected to standardize
all sampling systems at each of the point source discharges.
2-25
-------
ISCO automatic samplers and flow meters were used to collect flow
proportioned samples at the selected point discharges. The model of
sampler used depended upon the presence of a primary flow measuring device.
In cases where a primary flow measuring device was installed at the
discharge, an ISCO Model 1580 sampler was used to collect direct flow
proportioned composite samples. Flow data obtained from the facility was
used to assure the flow meter operated correctly.
Where primary flow measuring devices were available, an ISCO Model
1870 flow meter or an ISCO Model 1700 flow meter combined with a Model 1710
printer was interfaced with the automatic sampler.
The ISCO Model 1580 Wastewater Sampler collected a composite sample,
into a single 3-gallon glass container at programmed flow proportioned (or
time) intervals. The container was situated in an insulated base section
with sufficient capacity to contain 10-15 pounds of ice.
The sampler was pumped under flow at all times of sample collection,
at a rate of 1400/ml/min (2.42 ft./sec.). This is adequate to prevent
settling of solids during sample collection. The suction line was purged
before and after each sample is taken to minimize cross-contamination.
The ISCO Model 1870 and 1700 flow meters were used to measure flow and
control sample collection at point source discharges which have primary
flow measuring devices. These flow meters used an air bubbling tube which
was anchored in the discharge stream at the appropriate point in the
primary flow measuring device. The air pressure in the bubble line was
proportional to the liquid level in the discharge stream. This air
pressure is measured by an internal pressure transducer and is integrated
into the general flow equation by solid state circuitry. The Model 1870
converts liquid level to flow rate through use of a Primary Device Charac-
terization Module (PDCM) specific to a particular primary flow device.
The following sequence of procedures were performed upon each visit to
the sampling site to insure proper operation of equipment:
(a) If line power (110V) was not being used, nickel-cadmium
batteries on sampler and flow meter were changed. Batteries
being replaced were labeled to indicate time, date, and
duration of use.
(b) Desiccant cartridges were checked and changed if color
indicator showed 30% relative humidity or greater.
(c) Sampling and bubbler lines were inspected for kinks, frays,
cuts, or obstructions. Lines were replaced if damaged.
(d) Sampling bottles were placed in base of sampler with 15
pounds of chipped ice.
2-26
-------
(e) The actual head depth was measured and compared to head
depth display on- flow meters. Flow rate was computed based
on actual head depth and compared to strip charr./pri.nter
flow rate data. Readjustments were made by mani.pulat i.ng
the zero adjust control and all changes noted In the
operator's field logbook.
(f) Sample collection volume was checked by initiating "manual"
cycle and intercepting flow to sample bottle with a
graduated cylinder.
(g) Sampling frequency was checked by inspection of-sample event
marks on strip chart and by determination of sample interval.
(h) Strip Chart was replaced, dated, and labeled with site
identification.
All field data and BOD5 data were reported on logsheets. Samples
were obtained from sampling stations within one hour after the 24-hour
sampling period and taken to the centralized field center for processing
and preservation. Each composited sample was divided into four aliquots
for analysis of BOD5, TOC, total solids, total suspended solids, ammonia,
nitrate, nitrite, orthophosphorous, and total phosphorous. The BOD5,
solids, and nutrient aliquots were placed in 1-quart linear polyethylene
containers and preserved in accordance with EPA-approved methods (2).
The list of parameters analyzed for the one 1980 survey and the three
1981 surveys appears in Table A-2-14.
NON POINT SOURCE SAMPLING PROGRAM
Site Selection
Nine NPS sites were selected for monitoring and analysis in the
Chester River Watershed. Site selection was conducted in cooperation with
the Kent Soil Conservation District, the EPA project officer, Versar Inc.,
and the USGS district office. The subwatersheds selected were representa-
tive of the major land use, soil associations and slopes in the watershed.
Potential subwatersheds in the Chester River Basin were categorized
according to the following characteristics:
(a) Land use.
(b) Absence/presence of road crossings.
(c) Factors in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (rainfall, soil
erod.ibility, slope length, slope gradient, crop management,
erosion control practices).
(d) Drainage area.
2-27
-------
(e) Accessibility.
(f) The sr.ream sites were to be non-tidal to avoid r.lie confounding
effects of inputs from downstream during flood tide.
(g) There were to be no point source discharges upstream of the
site.
(h) The stream channel was to have a fairly uniform cross-section
or existing flow control structure to facilitate calibration
of a stage-flow curve.
(i) The site should have the availability of AC power hookup which
would eliminate the use of batteries and the problems which
could affect quality assurance inherent in their use.
Final selection was based upon land use and soil association. The
actual monitoring points selected were to provide the quality and quantity
of data required over the duration of the project. Each NPS station
location met the following criteria:
(a) The channel and/or existing control was straight and of uniform
cross-section and slope to ensure parallel and non-turbulent
flow and to reduce the chance of abnormal velocity distribution.
For the most part, the length of straight was at least three
times the channel width with the measuring section mid-way, but
where this was not possible the measuring section was within the
downstream half of the reach. The sites were also remote from
any natural or artificial obstructions on the banks or in the
channel likely to cause disturbance, distortion, or reversal of
flow.
(b) The depth and velocity of water at minimum flow and the velocity
and turbulence at maximum flow was within the limits imposed by
the type of measuring equipment used.
(c) The physical characteristics of the channel ensured a sub-
stantially consistent and stable relationship between stage and
discharge. The,channel itself was stable and there was limited
variable backwater such as from tidal influences, downstream
tributaries, locks, sluices, off-takes and other structures.
(d) The channel and flow control structures were free from weed
growth during all seasons.
(e) Flows at all stages were confined to a well-defined channel
or channels or within an unobstructed floodway having stable
boundaries.
(f) NPS stations were accessible at all times and at all stages
of flow.
2-28
-------
miles
Figure 2-11 Approximate location of Chester River Non-Point Source Subwatershed
monitoring stations.
-------
(g) The flow control structure were sensitive, so that a small
increase in discharge produced a relatively large increase
in stage.
Nine watersheds were selected for NPS monitoring. Two watersheds
represented the residential land use category in Chestertown; two forested
watersheds were selected in the Millington Wildlife Management area located
at the headwaters of the Chester River and the remaining five sites
represented the various agricultural practices common to the Chester River
Basin. Table 2-15 summarizes the nine basins monitored during the NPS
project, the Versar identification number, the STORET assigned station
identification number, and the predominant land use characteristics and
approximate size of each basin studied. Figure 2-11 illustrates the
approximate locations of the nine stations within the Chester River Basin.
NPS Stream Flow Measurements and Instrumentation
Continuous flow measurements were required for each of the NPS sites.
Continuous flow measurements avoid the inherent difficulties and sources of
error that may arise when instantaneous discharge measurements are extra-
polated with time to provide the required total storm flow data. Flow was
continuously monitored at each of the NPS sites.
Stream flow measuring devices varied depending on the hydrological
characteristics of the designated NPS site. The two methods used were
either:
(a) the installation of primary flow control devices such as
flumes and V-notch weirs with empirical relations for measuring
stream flow,
or (b) the rating, via area-velocity measurements, of existing
structures such as a drain culvert or a stable channel section
of the stream and subsequent calculation of the stage-discharge
relation.
Table 2-16 shows the type of primary flow devices and meters installed
at each site. Five of the NPS study sites were instrumented with
artificial primary flow control devices in order to provide a standard
stage-discharge relationship for the purpose of monitoring flow. The
artificial primary flow control devices also increased the sensitivity of
the site, that is, a small increase in discharge resulted in a larger
increase in stage, thus increasing the resulting flow reduction and
accuracy of measurement. Flow devices used at each site are discussed
below.
H-type flumes for gauging runoff were installed at the Browntown Road,
Harris Farm, Still Pond, and Millington B Watersheds. H-type flumes are
particularly suited for gauging runoff from small watersheds and were
selected for the following reasons:
2-30
-------
Table 2-15
Non-Point; Source Subwatersheds In the Chester River Basin
BASIN
Field
ID
STORET
ID
LAND
USE
APPR0X.
ACRES
Chestertown A
CH
n
XIH
2630
Residential
50
Chestertown B
CH
#2
XIH
2832
Residential
50
Sutton Farm
CH
#3
XIH
6375
Mixed Agric.
800
USGS Station
(Morgan Creek.)
CH
/M
XIH
6891
Mixed Agric.
13.6 sq
. mi.
Browntown Road
CH
#5
XII
7728
Agricultural
(single land
350
use-field
corn)
Harris Farm
CH
it 6
XJH
1130
Agricultural
(single land
with minimum
14
use-field
tillage)
corn
Still Pond
CH
in
XJH
0930
Agricultural
(single land
with minimum
29
use-field
tillage)
corn
Millington A
CH
// 8
XIJ
8131
Forested
1200
Millington B
CH
// 9
XIJ
7134
Forested
270
(a) Minimal head loss required.
(b) Operate across a large range of flow conditions (0 to 84 cfs).
(c) No stilling pond is created which could ultimately undercut
the structure due to pressure.
(d) Operate with up to 50% submergence (ratio of downstream to
upstream head).
(e) Self-cleaning, thus reducing the deposition of sediment
within or behind the structure.
2-31
-------
flumes were fabricated of sheet metal and installed at the sites according
to specifications (10). Installation of these flumes was made with
approach boxes and extending wing-walls where the flow was dispersed. This
assured that no flow bypassed the structure and that the water approaching
the flume crest was of a uniform, non-turbulent nature. Flume floor was
level and the crest elevation was tied to a permanent benchmark by survey
techniques.
A sharp crested 120° V-notch weir with rectangular overflow was used
at the Sutton Farm site where the existing structure facilitated its
installation and where base flow was difficult to gauge. The 120°
V-notch increased base flow sensitivity; however, it did not significantly
reduce the culvert capacity. When stormflow exceeded the notch capacity,
the flow was gauged by the rectangular overflow. Essentially a compound
weir was created that facilitated both lowland high flow monitoring.
Support for these plates was provided by the culvert outlet's concrete
apron and wingwalls. The notch was positioned approximately 12 inches
above the stream bed. Actual position depended upon the characteristics of
the nappe after the plate was installed. The plate was raised to a point
where the nappe experienced freefall and was aerated on all sides.
Although the secondary flow monitoring instrument was factory calibrated
according to the empirical formula for the V-notch weir with rectangular
overflow, the stage-discharge relationship was periodically verified with
field current meter measurements.
Where the installation of primary flow control devices was considered
as unsuitable, stream flow was measured at the existing structure, such as
the drain culvert at Millington Site A by (1) direct field measurement of
stage discharge, (2) calculation of the formula for this relation, and (3)
factory calibration for the flow monitoring instruments. Calculation of
the stream "rating" curve was accomplished by taking field measurement of
instantaneous discharge using the area velocity method. The stream stages
measured were representative of the entire range of stream heights for the
NPS site.
Area-velocity measurements were also used to verify the function of
the H-type flumes and V-notch weirs installed at the NPS study sites.
The area-velocity method for the calculation of stream flow is the
summation of the products of the partial areas of the stream cross-section
and their representative average velocities.
The formula:
Q = (AV)
represents the computation where Q is total discharge, A is an individual
cross-section area, and V is the corresponding mean velocity of the flow
normal to the partial area. The instantaneous discharge calculated by this
method was related to the theoretical device discharge recorded as a
quality assurance/quality control check on flow data reliability. When
2-32
-------
rating the existing structure, such as Mill.lngton Site A, the .instantaneous
'discharge calculated by this method was related to a measured stream height
and the combined result represents one point in the stage-discharge
relation or rating curve. This procedure was repeated for a series of
stages until the entire relationship was known. The stage-discharge
relationship was determined using the following procedures:
(a) Staff (height) gauges were installed at each designated NPS site.
Staff gauges were referenced to a USGS benchmark or other control point
that was stable for the period of study.
(b) Verticals and horizontals for the measurement of stream
cross-section profile and for velocity measurements were determined on
site. A minimum of 20 sections was established. This number was increased
if site characteristics indicated that a greater number of verticals were
required to accurately determine stream cross-section and horizontal
distribution flow.
(c) At each vertical, velocities were measured utilizing
Marsh-McBirney Model 201 Current Meters. These devices were factory
calibrated semi-annually to an accuracy of +2%.
(d) Since all water depths were less than 2.5 feet, velocity was
measured utilizing the six-tenths depth method developed by USGS.
(e) All data, including supplemental notes concerning date, time,
names of field personnel, weather, etc., were recorded for total flow
calculation.
(f) Flows were measured as often as possible at each site to provide
points for calibration checks. Flows were measured at several stages of
storm flow to insure that the theoretical rating relation of the device was
accurate for all flow conditions.
(g) When rating the existing structure, the stage discharge data for
the site was plotted on log-log paper and the equation of the rating curve
calculated. Once the stage discharge relation was determined, flow
monitoring was accomplished by continuous monitoring of stream depth.
Stream depth measurements were converted to flow using the calculated
stage-discharge relationship.
(h) When the theoretical discharge was found to be in error, the
device was immediately inspected for damage or improper operation. Repairs
were instituted immediately and no flow or stream sampling occurred until
the device operation was corrected and verified.
One of the monitored NPS sites was the USGS gauging station on Morgan
Creek (CH it4). The stage-discharge relationship for the overflow structure
at this site was calculated by USGS personnel using the previously
described method. This stage-discharge relationship or rating curve was
used to calibrate the flow meter used to monitor flow at the site. During
2-33
-------
the coarse of the Chester River NFS study, USGS simultaneously collected
stage data at this site and the information provided a cross reference for
I.he comparison and quality assurance of the flow data recorded by
instruments.
The velocity modified flow method was used at Chestertown Sites A & B.
This method of continuously monitoring volumetric flow utilizes a
Marsh-McBirney Corporation Velocity Modified Flow Meter (VMFM). This
device is ideal for difficult open channel measurements such as existing
drain culverts and in urban stormwater systems. This instrument was placed
at the inlet to the urban storm drain beneath Route 213 in Chestertown
(Chestertown A) and at the utility commission storm drain culvert in
Chestertown B). Since the method for monitoring flow and the instrument
are synonymous, they are discussed together in this section.
The features of this device and reasons for its selection included the
following:
(a) Records true volumetric flow.
(b) No empirical equations were necessary.
(c) Easily installed in the existing pipes.
(d) Unaffected by diluted acids or suspended solids.
(e) No flumes or weirs were required.
(f) Capable of monitoring reverse flows.
(g) Accuracy was maintained in surcharge conditions.
(h) Simple operation in partial or filled pipe applications.
(i) Linear sensors.
(j) Accuracy of measurement was not dependent upon knowledge of pipe
slope and interior roughness.
The VMFM is based on the principle that flow (Q) is equal to the
average velocity (V) times the flow areas (A). The VMFM is equipped with a
solid-state electromagnetic sensor which measures flow velocity. There are
velocity variations throughout each cross-section which change slightly
with varying depths; however, the VMFM is designed to minimize these
effects. Level is obtained by use of a bubbler-type level transducer. The
level measurement signal passes through a pipe diameter plug-in module
which converts the signal to represent the area of flow in the pipe. This
signal was then applied to a computer circuit which multiplied the area
times the sensed velocity to yield a result that was directly proportional
to the volumetric flow rate. The sensor is attached to a stainless steel
mountinjg band that was recessed into the pipe and expanded to the interior
2-34
-------
wall. The expandable band held r.he sensors rigidly lns1.de the pipe. At
the Chestertown A site, this sensor was placed approximately 20 ft.
downstream from the culvert entrance and approximately 3 ft. upstream of
the storm drain inlet at the Chestertown B site. This helped to ensure
that any extreme turbulent flow caused by storm water passing through the
culverts was reduced and of a uniform nature as it passed over the probe.
The VMFM was connected to a high speed RUSTRAK strip chart recorder to
continuously record flow. Chart speed was two inches per hour. The flow
meter also emitted a signal proportional to flow which was interfaced with
an ISCO automatic sampler for the collection of volume integrated composite
samples.
In order to insure the quality of the flow data recorded by the VMFM
flow meter, field personnel conducted calibration checks a minimum of once
a month. The procedure used for field verification was as follows:
(a) Function selector switch was rotated to the level position and
depth of water in the pipe and was recorded from the LED display.
(b) Depth of water in the pipe was physically measured, by portable
staff or previously installed staff gauge calibrated to the contour of the
pipe, and compared to the level recorded by the meter. When the difference
in readings was greater than +2% the meter was adjusted accordingly.
(c) Function selector switch was rotated to the velocity position and
water velocity in the pipe recorded.
(d) Using a portable current meter the velocity of water in the pipe
was recorded. When the difference in these two readings was greater than
+2% the flow meter was adjusted accordingly.
(e) Finally, cross-sectional area for the water depth measured was
obtained from an office calculated table and multiplied by the measured
velocity to obtain total flow. This value was compared to that recorded by
the chart paper and adjustments were made when necessary.
ISCO Model 1870 Flow Meters were used at all Chester River NPS sites
except the two residential sites previously discussed to continuously
monitor stream flow. These flow meters monitored stream depth using a
bubble tube system. A small inside diameter tube was submerged in the
stream bed or in a stilling well constructed at the site. Air, supplied by
an internal compressor is bubbled out of the tube at a constant rate,
resulting in a pressure In the tube proportional to the level in the
stream. A transducer measures this pressure and converts it into a digital
electronic signal proportional to liquid level. Level to flow rate
conversion is accomplished by a Primary Device Characterization Module and
a signal proportional to flow rate is produced. Flow rate was recorded on
a built-in strip chart recorder and total flow displayed on a six digit
resettable totalizer. A chart speed of two inches per hour was used to
continuously record flow. The ISCO Model 1870 produces a signal
proportional to flow rate allowing liquid samplers to collect a flow
2-35
-------
proporti onal compos i.te sample. An event mark was placed on the chart
» (jco»"d each time a sample was collected for the composi te sample. Table
2-16 summarises the primary devices and flow meters used at each of the N PS
stations during the course of the study effort.
Water Sampling for Calculating Chemical Export
The Chester River NPS Study effort was designed to characterize
chemical export during storm events from various land uses. In order to
^accurately monitor chemical export, the collection of flow proportioned
samples was required. The flow measuring and sampling instruments were
designed to provide this capability. Alternative methods included simple
grab samples to time integrated samples. Grab sampling is indicative of
only an instantaneous measurement. Furthermore, grab sampling is
frequently biased towards low flow periods, and, as a result, may greatly
underestimate loadings.
Extrapolation is required to calculate total chemical export. Time
integrated samples also require manipulation of the collected samples to
adequately represent the actual flow conditions. Time integration may also
miss stream surges carrying significant pollutant loads. Flow composited
sampling overcomes this problem. No extrapolation or manipulation of the
sample or derived data was required after collection. The result was a
more accurate characterization of chemical export from the watershed.
The study was also designed to sample as many storm events at each NPS
site as was possible. A storm runoff event was defined by the interval
from (a) the occurrence of measurable flow in a previously dry conveyance,
or (b) an increase in flow above base flow of approximately 10% — to the
point when the flow dropped back to 10% to 25% in excess of previously
measured base flow or, (c) for a previously dry channel, the time when flow
dropped to 10% of the peak observed value. Four seasonal 24-hour base flow
water samples were conducted for sites where a base flow occurred. The
collected samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
(a) Alkalinity
(b) Soluble Ammonia
(c) Soluble Nitrate & Nitrite
(d) Total and Soluble Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(e) Particulate and Soluble Total Phosphorous (TP)
(f) Soluble Ortho-phosphate (P0^~3)
(g) Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
(h) Suspended Solids (TSS)
(i) Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD30)
(j) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
An ISCO Model 1580 automatic sampler coupled with an ISCO Model 1640W
sample actuator was used for water sampling. The model 1580 sampler pumps
uniform small sample increments (at least 100ml) into a single receptacle
at flow proportioned intervals. Accurately calibrated switches allow
precisely sized samples to be taken without involved computations. Actual
2-36
-------
Table 2-lb
Primary Flow Control Devices and Flow Meters Installed
at Each NPS Site
SITE
PRIMARY DEVICE
FLOW
METER
Chestertown A (CH #1)
Direct flow measurement VMFM
of 48 inch culvert
Model
250
Chester town B (CH //2)
Direct flow measurement VMFM
of 24 inch culvert
Model
250
Sutton Farm (CH #3)
120° V-notch weir (0-2 ft) ISCO
with 10 foot rectangular overflow
without end contractions to 4 ft.
Model
1870
USGS Gage (CH #4)
USGS Rating Table ISCO
Model
1870
Browntown Rd. (CH //5)
3.0 foot H-type
Flume ISCO
Model
1870
Harris Farm (CH #6)
1.5 foot H-type
Flume Sigmamotor LMS-400
Still Pond (CH #7)
2.0 foot H-type
Flume Sigmamotor LMS-400
Millington A (CH #8)
Channel Rating
ISCO
Model
1870
Millington B (CH //9)
4.0 foot H-type
Flume ISCO
Model
1870
sample size was determined on site and depended on the volume and duration
of anticipated runoff. The model 1640W sample actuator initiated the
sampling program when stream flow rose to a predetermined height by
activating a detector. The detector could be staked at any level in the
stream bed or control structure. Once the sampling was initiated the
compositer collected flow incremental samples across the entire storm
hydrograph and terminated when stream height dropped below the detector.
Each time a sample was collected for compositing, an event mark was placed
on the strip chart record. The mark was used to corroborate the operation
of the sampler and sample collected. For example, if 10 event marks were
noticed on the hydrograph and the sampling increment volume was 100 ml, one
liter should have been contained in the receptacle. Any deviation resulted
in the elimination of the sample. The mark was also used to further
corroborate that flow proportional sampling was occurring. This was
accomplished by integrating total flow between event marks. When the
sampling sequence was set, for example, at every 1000 cubic feet, the
hydrograph should have totaled this value between each mark. Any deviation
resulted..in the elimination of the sample.
2-37
-------
The sampler Intake tube was routed through a metal. pipe and emerged at:
the lowest point in the stream bed or control structure. In order to take
a sample that was well mixed, the intake tube was placed in a mixing box
positioned downstream of the primary device crest where mixing naturally
occurred. This avoided the necessity of collecting a depth integrated
sample. The actual samples withdrawn were composited with a 2 1/2 or
5-gallon polyethylene container within the ISCO sampler.
Immediately before certain predicted storm events, field personnel
visited each NPS site to insure that all instruments were functioning
properly, that the flow meter was calibrated, and that the sampling action
would commence when the stream stage rose to the predetermined height.
Site visits were also conducted during storm events to verify that sampling
had been initiated and to apply corrective measures should the systems be
failing. This not only permitted the opportunity of applying corrective
measures to ensure that sampling took place, but provided practical
experience in the problems that arose. The knowledge gained was applied to
ensure the quality of data from future events. The field crew also added
ice to the sample compartments in order to keep the samples cooled to near
4°C during each storm composite sample collection.
Following each storm event or within 24 hours of sampling initiation,
whichever came first, Versar personnel visited the NPS sites for sample
collection. The time and date of visit was marked on the hydrograph strip
chart and in the log book maintained at each NPS station along with all
other relevant information such as name, volume of sample, sampling
frequency, etc. The sample container was removed and immediately split
into separate shipment containers as illustrated in Figure 2-12.
Each sample container was immediately labeled with the station number,
name, time and date, and sampler's signature. The container was also
labeled with the parameters to be analyzed and any preservation techniques
employed. The samples were then placed in a cooler filled with ice. After
all samples had been collected and stored for shipment they were
immediately delivered to Versar's laboratory for analysis. Filtering and
preservation of samples in accordance with EPA approved procedures was
performed by Versar laboratory personnel (as discussed in the laboratory QA
discussion).
All samples were collected within 24 hours of sampling initiation to
insure samples were analyzed within EPA required holding times (7). When
the runoff event continued more than 24 hours (flow had not receded to the
predetermined point) the cycle was allowed to continue for additional 24
hour increments, or until the stage height dropped to the defined point.
These additional samples were analyzed separately from the first sample.
Results were presented for both the entire storm and separate 24 hour storm
increments.
NPS Site Maintenance
Each NPS site had an instrument housing installed as close to the
monitoring point as possible. Each housing had enough room to readily
2-38
-------
Kaa-FOiat source
crmrostn samtim
i5 pal Ion |x> ly« t hg f onn )
_i
sample mmin
cool 4° c
WinWWKMg
SWPIJ
1100 ¦!>
roc smpiji
(17S ml gtamaf
t
MVl MMf **>».
SMPLB
fl-lit*r poift
TS3 « luiuim
Mxrtc
/l-JJter poljf}
rn.mt .45t»
ffCl, p(I, *»»~ «oi, nm, TP
smptJt
fl-Jlter potyf
f
m,sch. pm1 Mrs
cm mttours **
M.7 truii
*5.» (TTJ
410.t (COO)
AOAI TS IS 7$ MtS*
BTA HKTttmS **
Jfl.J IT**}
t61.J (TP I
JSO.I (Mtt)
KJ.t f»0j» Hi)
sILls^^ote^^fn^u1"9' Jresenfa^?n. 1^ld™9 times, and analysis method for collected NPS
X4;; it™ & ,Au .•K?i-i«,s!,!KiS2r'S.,,?§7iri2s,csi^us"-fs;i"Ktss3s-s;1 cs
Analysis of water and wastes. iy/y. Methods for Chemical
-------
contain the flow meter, sampler, 12 volt batteries and additional room for
tool storage and log books. The housing units were constructed of steel to
minimize the chance of damage and weather-proofed. They were securely
mounted at the site with concrete fasteners attached to a poured concrete
foundation, or to wood posts which had been anchored to the ground with
concrete. Each unit had a case hardened padlock and hasp to discourage
vandalism.
Where available, the sites were provided with direct AC hookup. The
Del-Mar-Va Power Company and Choptank Electric Cooperative provided hookup
to within 100 feet of the existing utility line. Utility poles were
erected and power lines extended to the sites. The direct use of
electricity eliminated the need for battery power operation and the
problems inherent in their use.
Each NPS site was visited a minimum of once a week during the NPS
monitoring study. During these visits sampling personnel performed the
following quality control checks:
(a) Strip chart removal and replacement.
(b) Calibration checks on time clocks and level recorders
(i.e., adjustment of pen to correct stream level).
(c) Verification of instrument functions and application of
corrective actions should they be required.
(d) Replacement of batteries where required.
(e) Documentation of equipment condition and recording of all
required adjustments.
Time, date, name of field personnel, and pertinent information
relating to the above operations were recorded. Strip charts removed were
labeled with station name and time and date of removal. Routine maintenance
of flow meters was performed monthly in acordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
Each NPS station was supplied with a logbook, the purpose of which was
to keep a continuous record of all activities performed at the station. At
each visit the date, time, name of field personnel, etc., along with the
pertinent information relating to the above operations was recorded in the
logbook.
Copies of logbooks which detail the number of storms monitored,
problems during each storm monitored, number of storms monitored at each
site and flow data tapes are available from the Tidewater Administration.
2-40
-------
A (5)
MILES
Figure 2-13 Location of Chester River Basin rainguages.
-------
RAINFALL GAUGE PLACEMENT AND MONITORING
All existing precipitation monitoring sites were identified from U.S.
Weather Service records for each selected watershed. The placement sites
of recording precipitation gauges (e.g. Stevens Type) on four watersheds
were selected based on density and location of existing stations. The
identified sites were (Figure 2-13):
(a) Site on Brownstown Road (adjacent to the NPS site)
(b) Sutton Farm s.lte on Rt. 213 (adjacent to the NPS site)
(c) Lower Millington Forest site on Massey-Del-Line Road (adjacent
to the NPS site)
(d) Chestertown at the Agricultural Service Center (near the NPS
site)
Additionally, a strip chart raingauge (weathermeasure) was installed and
operated at Stillpond Road. Table 2-17 gives latitude and longitude of
rain gauge site locations. These tipping bucket gauges were checked weekly
and after significant rainfall events.
The manufacturer's specifications for the Stevens tipping bucket rain
gauges used stated that the device maintain stable calibration over long
periods (years). This was found to be the case. The gauges were
calibrated at the factory; they exhibited with.in-limits calibration upon
initial check-out at the field site and they showed no need for
recalibration nor any indication of calibration drift. When calibration
checks were performed, the recorder was disconnected, the gauge cover
removed, the buckets wiped clean and dry. A burette was used to introduce
water to the bottom of the stainless steel inner funnel so that it dripped
into the buckets as it would if the gauge were actually operating. The
flow rate was no more than 10 ml. per minute. As the tenth tip occurred,
the burette stopcock was closed and the volume of distilled water required
was recorded and compared to the calculated volume required to register
0.10 in. of rain through a 100 mm orifice (79.81 ml). Recalibration is
required if the result deviates more than +2% from the calculated volume.
When routine checks of rain gauges were performed, the results were
entered directly into the site log. Copies of rainfall data collection
QA/QC activities sheets and site logs are available from the Tidewater
Administration. The gauge and recorder were examined for: day and
time-of-day synchronization, amount of paper tape remaining, battery
condition, funnel clear of debris, punching interval (5 min.), time of
examination and recorder readout at that time, recorder and gauge ID, gauge
level, the tape serial number of the day being punched (this is checked for
agreement with previous serial numbers, if previous S/N plus number of days
elapsed equals today's S/N, then day synch is O.K.), proper solenoid
function, and any other information as a note. The gauge at Chestertown
was located a few feet from a brass U.S. Weather Bureau type manual gauge
2-42
-------
Table 2-17
LaM tudc nnd Longitude of Rain Ganges Installed
in Chester River Basin
SITE
Deg.
N-LAT
Min.
Sec*
Deg.
W-L0NG
Min.
Sec*
Chestertown
39
23
55
76
03
45
Sutton Farm
39
16
35
76
02
10
Browntown Road
39
17
40
75
56
40
Millington
39
18
25
75
47
35
Stillpond
39
21
00
76
06
55
*Seconds (+5)
operated a National Weather Service official observer. Comparisons of
daily rainfall results from the two gauges were favorable. Typical of
these comparisons was that of the rainfall occurring on the morning of
September 5, 1980: The NWB gauge read 0.66 inches, the tipping bucket
gauge read 0.69 inches.
The gauge at the Millington Wildlife Management Area and on Harris'
farm near Stillpond were both fitted with heating devices on January 13.
These two gauges remained heated until the possibility of freezing
condition and frozen precipitation was past. These gauges operated
unaffected by freezing conditions as the interior and measurement mechanism
were maintained above freezing temperatures and the collection funnel was
heated so that any frozen precipitation collected melted immediately.
Daily precipitation data for the Chestertown site was obtained from the
National Weather Service observer who recorded all forms of precipitation
as rainfall equivalent. The three unheated gauges (including Chestertown)
were handled in the following manner:
When current temperature and predictions indicated no frozen or
freezing precipitation or freezing conditions at ground level, no unusual
action was taken. The unheated gauges should have functioned properly.
When current temperature and predictions indicated only frozen
precipitation with freezing conditions at ground level so that any
2-43
-------
precipitation collected will remain frozen until arrival of personnel, an
early morning check of these three gauges occurred. The interior of the
rain gauge was warmed by a portable 12 V car window defogger type device
(heated forced air) so that the precipitation in the collection chamber
melted and was me.-isured by the warmed tripping bucket mechanism. The
amount was recorded by the pulse counting recorder and a record of the
date, time, amount recorded, type of precipitation melted, probable period
of time in which it fell, and technique used entered into the site log and
data file.
When current temperature and predictions indicated mixed or partially
frozen precipitation, or when freezing conditions may not have been
maintained at the gauge, weather records kept at the field office in
Grasonville and by the NWS observer in Chedtertown allowed the identifi-
cation of data recorded under these conditions. These data were flagged
and qualification stated as to possible inaccuracy in the measurements
caused by ice formation in the tipping buckets, etc.
Table 2-18 displays qualifications of rainfall data obtained during
6/24/80 - 8/22/80, and Table 2-19 provides an explanation of missing data
from all stations from startup through completion of monitoring efforts.
Table A-2-20 identifies all 0000-2359 hour (24 hr) periods above
freezing conditions were recorded at the Chestertown or Millington NWS
stations. If the minimum temperature for the period was less than or equal
to 32°F then the date is listed indicating that the rainfall data
collected during that period may be inaccurate. On days when maximum
temperature was well above freezing, it was assumed that rainfall data
collected during daylight hours was accurate (i.e. any day in November
except the 17th). Heating devices were installed at Millington and
Stillpond gauges on 1/13/81. There were no interruptions in heating at
these two gauges; therefore, all data collected after 1/13/81 2100 at these
two gauges can be considered accurate.
Data were recorded on punched paper tape at 5 minute intervals.
Punched tapes were then read onto a Hewlett-Packard punch paper tape reader
and transferred onto nine-track magnetic tape encoded in the NRZI mode at a
density of 800BPI at a tape speed of 45IPS. Data tapes were then
transported to NAI facilities in Dallas where those tapes were transferred
to a TI 990 computer system. Data was then transformed to a density of
1600 BPI with a logical record length and block size of 80 characters and
coded in EBCDIC representation.
HISTORIC RAINFALL INFORMATION COLLECTION
For each rainfall recording station in the Chester River NPS study
area, historical precipitation data was collected (if available), and
analyzed. Local, state and government agencies were contacted, and all
pertinent data (i.e. watershed - specific or. regionally applicable) were
acquired.
2-44
-------
Table 2-19
Explanation of Data Gaps for Rain Gauges Operated tn
Chester River Subwatersheds during 1980-81.
A - TIME SLIGHTLY OFF - timer set exactly on 6/24, initial station startup;
on 7/6 at 1840 hrs. the 1850 punch was observed, timer 10 min. fast,
reset to correct time.
B - TIME OFF - on 7/16 at 1050 the 0835 punch was observed, timer slow;
reset to correct time.
C - TIME OFF - On 7/19 at 1800 the 1205 punch was observed, recorder taken
out for repair.
D - STATION DOWN - recorder timer shipped off for repair, replacement rush
ordered and purchased, station reactivated on 7/23; repaired original
timer kept as backup should problem ever reoccur.
E - RECORDER JAM-UP - Recorders at Chestertown and Browntown were found to
have paper jamming the punch drive, were removed for repair 8/6. Not
able to repair recorders and reactivate stations until 8/22.
F - BAD SET OF BATTERIES - recorder at Suttons found down on 8/22,
batteries dead after only 15 days operation, new batteries installed.
Dry cell batteries deemed unreliable, all gauges converted to 12V
storage battery power to prevent reoccurrance of this problem.
Available historical precipitation data for the Chester River NPS
subwatershed study area were collected and used to calculate average
precipitation for each watershed on an annual, seasonal, and monthly basis,
as data permitted.
The only precipitation monitoring devices operating in Kent and Queen
Anne's Counties are NOAA's National Weather Service stations at Chester-
town, Millington, and Centerville, Maryland. Monthly and seasonal averages
were computed from data compiled from NOAA records for Chestertown and
Millington. Only data for 1976 could not be located in annual summary
form; data for this year were compiled from NOAA monthly data.
Yearly averages were computed from NOAA climatological data for
Maryland and Delaware summary data and again for 1976 from NOAA monthly
data extending the summaries through 1979.
Tables A-2-21 through A-2-23 summarize the historical monthly and
seasonal precipitation data obtained.
2-45
-------
Tabic 2-1'J
Explanation of Data Gaps for Rain Gauges Opera ted in
Chester R.i.ver Subwatersheds during 1980-81.
A - TIME SLIGHTLY OFF - timer set exactly on 6/24, initial station startup;
on 7/6 at 1840 hrs. the 1850 punch was observed, timer 10 min. fast,
reset to correct time.
B - TIME OFF - on 7/16 at 1050 the 0835 punch was observed, timer slow;
reset to correct tine.
C - TIME OFF - On 7/19 at 1800 the 1205 punch was observed, recorder taken
out for repair.
D - STATION DOWN - recorder timer shipped off for repair, replacement rush
ordered and purchased, station reactivated on 7/23; repaired original
timer kept as backup should problem ever reoccur.
E - RECORDER JAM-UP - Recorders at Chestertown and Browntown were found to
have paper jamming the punch drive, were removed for repair 8/6- Not
able to repair recorders and reactivate stations until 8/22.
P - BAD SET OF BATTERIES - recorder at Suttons found down on 8/22,
batteries dead after only 15 days operation, new batteries installed.
Dry cell batteries deemed unreliable, all gauges converted to 12V
storage battery power to prevent reoccurrance of this problem.
Available historical precipitation data for the Chester River NPS
subwatershed study area were collected and used to calculate average
precipitation for each watershed on an annual, seasonal, and monthly basis,
as data permitted.
The only precipitation monitoring devices operating in Kent and Queen
Anne's Counties are NOAA's National Weather Service stations at Chester-
town, Mllllngton, and Centerville, Maryland. Monthly and seasonal averages
were computed from data compiled from N0AA records for Chestertown and
Millington. Only data for 1976 could not be located in annual summary
form; data for this year were compiled from N0AA monthly data.
Yearly averages were computed from N0AA cl.imatolog.ical data for
Maryland and Delaware summary data and again for 1976 from N0A.A monthly
data extending the summaries through 1979.
Tables A-2-21 through A-2-23 summarize the historical monthly and
seasonal precipitation data obtained.
2-45
-------
Instruments were ca.Lf.brated before and after each survey and at least.
once In any 12 hour period. An Instrument: Calibration Record was used to
record the instrument ID, probe ID, parameter calibrated, standard(s) used
and the.fr values, calibration result, and approval of the instrument/cali-
bration for use. This record was also used to record the time of sample
arrival at the field lab, the time of filtration for filtered nutrients,
the time of other sample preparation, and any other processing information
deemed appropriate.
Calibration procedures used for pH, D.O., conductance, and temperature
are found in Standard Methods, 14th edition (8). Two buffers were used for
pH standardization, pH 7.00 and pH 4.01. Dissolved oxygen meters were of
the temperature and salinity compensating type. Routine calibration was
performed using the air saturated distilled water method taking into
account barometric pressure as reported by NOAA weather radio (VHF channel
WX-2). Distilled water was treated for no less than 15 min., the
instrument was turned on at the start of areation so that the probe was
well polarized before calibration. The instrument was not turned off until
post survey calibration confirmation had been accomplished. The modified
azide D.O. method as described in Standard Methods was employed
periodically to confirm the accuracy of the air saturated water method.
Conductance measurements were standardized using distilled water and 0.20
molar KCL which have conductances of "indistinguishable from zero" and
24,820 umho/cm respectively. The instrument converts conductance and
manually sets temperature to salinity. A nomograph was used to check the
accuracy of the salinity result. Table 2-24 lists the calibration
procedure references.
The continuous monitor which was used during intensive surveys was a
Schneider Model RM 25. The unit is the property of the State of Maryland
and was used for the duration of the program. Six parameters were
monitored: PH, conductance, temperature, D.O., water level, and solar
radiation intensity (SRI). The monitor was set up at the station to be
monitored and the pump and electronics turned on 2-3 days before any
calibration was attempted. This insured that the system was chemically and
electronically stable before calibration. Operation and calibration
information was supplied by the manufacturer in Operation and Service
Manual for Model RM-25 Robot Monitor, August 1973. Calibration was
performed in accordance with the service manual although in some instances
a prescribed action failed to achieve the desired effect (and sometimes had
no effect at all). Calibration of PH involved two buffers, one at two
different temperatures. Conductance also required two standards, one at
two temperatures. River water from the monitored site either spiked with
KCL or diluted slightly with distilled water and then analyzed for
conductance using a freshly calibrated YSI SCT meter were used as working
standards. Temperature was calibrated against an NBS traceable
thermometer. Dissolved oxygen was standardized against river water samples
which had been agitated to increase D.O. or boiled and then cooled in a
container filled to the brim and covered with plastic film to reduce D.O.,
a freshly calibrated YSI D.O. meter was then used to determine the
2-46
-------
Table 2-24
References to procedures used .tn instrument calibration.
PARAMETER
PART
PAGE
PH
424
460
D.O.
422 B, F
443, 450
Conductance
205
71
Temperature
212
125
dissolved oxygen content of these working standards. SRI couldn't be
calibrated as such, the meter was simply adjusted to zero and full scale,
the sensor employed by the SRI parameter is primary standard. Water
level was calibrated against the state height staff nearest to the
monitored station. Surveying results were used to then relate water level
to the Geodetic Datum.. Calibration curves determined for the RM-25 located
at Chestertown during the intensive surveys of May 29-30, July 24-25, and
September 24-25, 1981 (12). Table A-2-25 shows the procedure for
calibration of the continuous monitor.
Field activities were verified and implemented through field and
laboratory procedures. Figures A-2-14 through A-2-19 describe the major
field program activities and methods used to insure quality data collection
and sample preservation techniques.
The analytical laboratory quality control program was an integral part
of the overall quality assurance plan for this study. An integral part of
analytical laboratory quality control is method performance assurance which
involves insuring and confirming that a method/instrument is performing
properly before and during analysis of samples. To accomplish this goal
reagents were prepared using only reagent-grade chemicals unless lower
grades were specifically allowed by the method. Stock standards were
prepared using reagent-grade or primary-standard-grade chemicals. All
reagents and standards were labeled to indicate: (1) method, (2) reagent
name, (3) composition or reference to specific method, (4) expiration time
limit, (5) preparation date, and (6) initials of preparer.
Results of duplicate analyses and spiked sample analyses were compared
to historical performance in the form of control charts. The construction
and use of control charts is detailed in Standard Methods (8). Batches of
approximately 10 samples were analyzed, followed by duplicate analyses of
2-47
-------
one sample and duplicate analyses of the same sample after being spiked (at
least 20 percent increase in concentration). If the difference between
duplicates on the recovery of the spike fell outside of control limits as
indicated by the control chart, results of the entire batch of samples were
rejected and the batch reanalyzed. If failure of QC by two successive
batches occurred analyses were halted and the system examined to determine
the cause of the difficulty; corrective action followed.
The Chester River Program laboratory files were structured such that
results for samples received at one time were placed in a separate folder.
The folder was labeled with program name, date of sample receipt, task(s)
represented, and lab-internal identification numbers. The program files
will be maintained by Normandeau, Inc. for at least two years after
completion of the final report, after which they may be transferred to
NAI1s record storage facility. The files will be maintained in record
storage for at least an additional eight years constituting a record
maintenance period of not less than 10 years.
The methods used to analyze Chester River water quality variables are
listed in Tables 2-8, A-2-9, and A-2-11. Once samples were received in the
laboratory, an inventory was taken and samples place in a -20°C freezer
and stored until analysis' (3 weeks maximum).
Samples were unfrozen on the same day of analysis. After analysis,
the samples were refrozen and held until program administration issues
disposal notice. Ten percent of the samples were spiked, replicated and
blanks run. Two standards were used and controls run for NO3, N02>
NH3, 0-phos, t-phos, TKN.
Digestion for TKN and total phosphorus analyses were carried out in
combination. Ten (10) ml of sample and 2 ml of digestion reagent were
heated at 200°C for 30 minutes, then at 300°C for 30 minutes. Total
time for heating (digestion) is 90 minutes (30 minutes are required to
bring the mixture from 200 to 300°C). This combined digestion includes
the filling of the dilution loop with 3.5% NA0H (9).
This procedure is a modification of the 1975 EPA TKN method that
utilizes a continuous digestor. The only modification to this EPA
procedure is the substitution of the BD-40 block digestor in,place of the
outdated continuous digestor. (The BD-40 digestor is used in the EPA 351.2
method.)
After receiving the updated Technicon procedures for T-phos/TKN, they
were employed beginning with the March sample set. The Technicon method
numbers are 376-75 W/B for preparation of the samples using the BD-40 block
digestor, and 319-74 W/B for the analysis of the samples. This method is
the same as EPA method 351.2.
The QC for all the TKN samples were acceptable. No changes in the
range of TKN was observable.
2-48
-------
Chlorophyll. ,iik1 I'll juop i gmenr.s were analysed usi.ny the procedure
outlined below:
(1) Filter (GF/A) thawed and placed In test-tube
(2) Covered with known volume of 90-10 acetone-water
(3) Sonicated for 15 minutes
(4) Measured on narrow-band spectrophotometer at 665-and 75
nannometers wavelength before and after sample acidification
(5) Calculations made using the following modified equation (3),
(4), (13).
The equations used to calculate the phytoplankton pigments are:
Chlorophyll a_ (g per sample) = (Dj:)-Da) R/(R-1) (V/l) (10^/ac)
= 11.9 x 2.43 (Db-Da) (V/l)
Phaeopigraent (ug per sample) = 11.9 (V/l) (1.7 Da) - Chi. a^
where
Da = optical density of samples after acidification = Dg^ -
D750 (acidified)
= optical density of sample before acidification - D565 -
D750 (unacidifled)
ac = specific absorption coefficient for chlorophyll ja (in grams
11.9 per centimeter)
V = volume of solvent used to extract the sample (milliliters)
1 = path length in centimeters
R = D^/Da for pure chlorophyll a_ - 84 (Tailing and Driver 1963)
To convert to micrograms per liter, the chlorophyll a value was divided by
the number of liters of water filtered.
The phytoplankton species identification procedure is outlined below:
(1) Samples (preserved) were settled for 24 hours at the field
laboratory.
(2) Upper 90% of sample drawn off.
(3) Remaining sample agitated and decanted into centrifuge tubes,
spun at 2000 rpm for 12 minutes.
(4) Decant upper volume of each tube (2-5 mis of sample and the
pellet remains in each).
2-49
-------
(5) Each tube placed on a tube mi.xer m.ixed for 20-30 seconds.
((>) Contents of all tubes for a given sample .-ire re combined i.nto
a vial with A mis of 6:3:1 (water, 95% ethanol and 38-40%
formaline) added.
(7) Tubes were rinsed into the sample vial for a final volume of
25-30 ml. Labels were attached.
(8) Initiate Sample Analysis.
(9) Adjust sample volume using entire concentrated sample and
graduated cylinder.
(10) Shake thoroughly and transfer aliquot to a Palmer counting
chamber.
(11) Settle for 8-10 minutes.
(12) Count a 400X (using Wipple grid). Only cells apparently viable
at the time of collection were identified to most specific
possible taxon.
(13) Twenty (20) randomly selected fields were examined for each
sample for non-diatom valves enumerated at 1000X.
(14) Scientific name, taxon code, number of cells of each will be
recorded on the Phytoplankton Sample Analysis Data Sheet in
addition to general provenience data on the samples.
(15) Data is then transferred for key punch and computer entry of
density calculation and table development.
Density of sample = (x/f) (s/v)
x = number of organisms within the microscopic fields (or aliquot
analyzed)
f = total volume of the microscopic fields (or aliquot analyzed)
s = volume of lab sample
v = Total volume of water sample
Total Particulate Nitrogen and particulate Organic Carbon are analyzed
on a Perkin Elmer CHN Analyzer Model #240 with GC Column Separation and
dual thermal conductivity detectors (3). Sample filters are sectioned to
provide a subsample consistent with instrument detection range and
incinerated. The combustion products, together with a carrier gas are
drawn into the GC separator columns, drawn off to the paired sample/blank
thermal conductivity detectors and differences between the carrier gas and
2-50
-------
separated combustion products/carrier gas mixture recorded. QA/QC for
these nnfi.lyses i.ncLtuled:
(j) Lust I'Limo ii r. standriidlzation
(b) Blank filter runs
(c) Analysis of a portion of the outer edge (no sample passed through
this section)
(d) Replicates (2) were run for each batch of samples (27) analyzed.
Nitrogen Fixation samples were analyzed in the following manner:
(1) Samples received on ice in serum vials, inventoried (storage for
not more than 72 hours).
(2) Atmosphere (1 cc) above sediment or water withdrawn.
(3) Injected .into Porapak R column of the gas chromatograph (Helium
carrier 25/ml/min. - FID detector.
(4) Calibration standard - 1000 ppm Acetylene
Primary Standard - 100 ppm Ethylene
1 ml, 500 ul, 10 ul - curve
(5) Two replicates run for each sample.
(6) Replicates, spikes, blanks were run for QC.
Table A-2-26 lists the method number for both EPA 1979 and Technicon
detection limits and published standard deviation for each parameter
tested. Detection limits correspond to one chart unit when the highest
standard reads 90% of full scale and the baseline reads 10%.
Prior to October 1980, samples were analyzed by the manufacturer's
suggested procedures of using a single standard to calibrate the instrument
(Technicon AA II). This calibration was tested using a prepared control.
If the control deviated by more than +20% the run was started over. The
Technicon method book states "The use of multiple working standards is only
to establish linearity. For day to day operation, a single standard is
recommended for instrument calibration."
Beginning in October 1980, the NAI QC program was increased to include
3 standards, 10% spikes and duplicates, and control. This change in the QC
program was implemented internally so as to establish a more objective
criteria for data acceptance. While matrix interference was not a factor
in the Chester River project, other more complex matrices warranted this
change.
2-51
-------
The following .is a discussion of ir.eras which were common to all
pni'amcr.ei's run on r.liu Auto Analyzer II (nitrate, nitrite, ammon.ia, TKiJ,
orthophosphorus and phosphorus):
Ninety percent of the malfunctions of the auto analyzer can be
determined before samples are run. First, a reagent baseline was
established and checked for drift. After r.he baseline was stabilized,
standards were run and checked for linearity by linear regression. Three
different concentrations for each parameter were made up to bracket the
expected range of the samples. The high standard was adjusted to 90% of
full scale and the baseline set at 10% of full scale. A commercially
prepared control was run with the standards. Using the regression line of
the standards, the value of the control was determined. By cross checking
the in-lab standards with the commercial control, the concentrations of the
standards were confirmed. This also insured the accuracy of the results of
the samples.
If the regression of the standards was determined to be non linear,
the system was determined to be out of control. Also, if the control was
not + 15% of its calculated value, the system was out of control.
In addition, 10% of the samples were spiked and run in duplicate. If
the spike recovery was not within +15% or the duplicate values were not
within +15% of each other, the samples failed the QC criteria.
When the standard curve (linear regression) was out of control, the
standards were remade and run again. If the spiked samples fail QC they
were rerun. If the spikes were consistently out of control, it was
determined that a matrix interference existed and the whole set is rerun
after correcting for the interference.
Standards and reagents were prepared from ACS certified analytical
grade chemicals. Reagents were never held past the shelf life recommended
by Technicon. Stock standards were prepared from primary standard grade
chemicals, oven dried at 105+ 2 C, and cooled In a desicator for 1 hour.
The required amount is weighed to 0.1 mg on a Metier H-30 analytical
balance. The balance was calibrated before use with Class S metric weights
and serviced annually by a qualified service technician. Table 2-27 lists
the amount of chemical weighed and the resulting concentration of the stock
standard when dissolved in 1 liter of water. Working standards were
prepared daily from the stock standards. A simple formula was used to
determine the amount of stock standard needed to obtain the desired
concentrations:
(C1)(v1) = (C2)(V2)
For example, to make up a .1 mg/1 standard in a 1 liter.volumetric
flask.
2-52
-------
(^L)CVL)/(C2)= V2
(U.L mg/l)(10U0 m L)
1000 mg/l
= U. 1 ml
Therefore 100 ul of stock standard is diluted to 1000 ml with
deionized water. These small volumes were pipetted using calibrated
Eppendorf pipets.
Normandeau Inc. did not utilize intermediate standards to avoid
pipetting small volumes o£ stock standards. .The Eppendorf pipets were
maintained by lab personnel and checked for accuracy quarterly. The pipets
were checked for accuracy by pipetting ultrapure water (at 4°C) onto a
Mettler five-place balance that has been calibrated with Class S metric
weights. Four to five replicate pipettings were performed. The replicates
must be within 1% of each other, and the average must be within .00005
grams of the theoretical weight. If these conditions are not met, the
pipet is sent out for recalibration. The pipets were also checked if we
noted erroneous results in the analyses.
The QC program was based on 10% reruns and spikes. This is not meant
to uncover all possible matrix interferences in each sample, but rather to
determine whether there are broad interferences in a given set of, samples.
An effort was made to spike samples of each matrix type, e.g. slack tide
survey samples point source, and 24 hr. samples. In this way, it was
determined whether the different sets of samples contained matrix interfer-
ences. The concentrations used for spikes, were within the linear range of
the standards curve. Spike recovery was used to detect masking or enhance-
ment of the parameter being analyzed. Since the samples were spiked at
random within a set, the spikes were sometimes much higher than the sample
concentration, but we are still able to determine whether there is masking
or enhancement of the spike in the sample.
When a spike recovery exceeded Normandeau Inc. QC limits, several
types of things actions were taken. The instrument settings were checked,
the reagents were checked and remade if necessary, and the samples in that
group were repeated with additional spikes and duplicates.
When a matrix interference was discovered, the first attempt to
correct the problem involved dilution of the sample. A 2X dilution was
performed and spiked. If the spike recovery was acceptable, all the
samples in that set were diluted by 2X. If further dilution was necessary,
the final dilution would have a concentration high enough to be at least
twice as high as our lower limit of detection. If this procedure did not
correct for interference, an extraordinary event/noncomformity form is
prepared, filed, and was sent to the project manager for action. No such
reports were necessary.
2-53
-------
All glassware is acid-washed with 10% iiC1, rinsed several times with
deionized water (ASTrt Type I, lSMohm) filled and stored with L>1 water to
leach out contaminants. Before use, the glassware was emptied and
standards were prepared using fresh deionized water. All volumetric
glassware was Class A and calibrated to NBS capacity tolerances.
Non-Point Source Program Quality Assurance and Control
Primary, secondary, and working standards were prepared in accordance
with the procedures specified by EPA (2) for each of the parameters
analyzed in runoff from non-point sources. The primary stock standards
were prepared using analytical grade chemicals supplied by Fisher
Scientific. The working standards were preserved in the same manner as
samples. Whenever new standards were prepared, they were recorded in a
standards logbook.
Standards used were reference standards, method standards, and cali-
bration curve standards. Method standards are deionized water preserved as
required and spiked with a reference standard for a parameter of interest
and carried through the analysis. This provided the accuracy of the
method, under optimum conditions, excluding any chemical interference from
sample matrix. Calibration curve standards were used to determine the
amount of analyte of interest in each sample. Check standards were
analyzed in the same manner as samples to validate the currently used
standard calibration curves. Calibration curve standards were prepared
prior to each day's analysis for a selected parameter. At least one check
standard and one method standard were analyzed with every batch of samples
to verify the instrument's response. Reference standards were analyzed at
least semi-annually to establish the accuracy of each method.
The autoanalyzer was calibrated daily using a minimum of three (3)
working standards and a reagent blank. First the baseline was set by
pumping the reagents through the system. Then the instrument was
calibrated using midscale working standards. The slope, intercept, and
correlation coefficient for a standard curve was 0.995 or better. At least
one check standard was analyzed in a sample batch to establish the validity
of original standard calibration curves. Standard calibration settings on
the autoanalyzer were between those levels recorded during preparation of
the quality control limit charts. For example, ammonia standard
calibration settings were, between 3.50 and 4.80.
Calibration for the spectrophotometer and total organic carbon (TOC)
analyzer required preparation of a standard curve at the beginning of each
day of analysis. Check or method standards were analyzed with each sample
batch to establish the validity of the standard calibration curve. The TOC
analyzer zero, gain, and tune were recorded in the TOC instrument logbook.
The tune must be +1% +2%.
2-54
-------
The temperature oL: the refrigerator used Lor storage ol: .samples was
recorded daily in the temperature control logbook. All thermometers used
in the incubator, refrigerator, or oven were calibrated monthly using NBS
traceable thermometers. The calibrations were recorded in a thermometer
' calibration logbook. All the analytical balances were levelled and zeroed
before each use and calibrated once a month using Class "s" weights.
Balance calibration records were maintained in a Balance Calibration
x
logbook.
All analytical equipment received maintenance on a monthly or semi-
annual basis in accordance with manufacturer's recommended procedures.
Filtering of ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, ortho-phosphate, total
phosphorus, and total nitrogen was performed upon receipt. Sample analyses
were initiated immediately. Samples were initially preserved and analyzed
in accordance with the procedures documented by EPA (2). During January
1981, after approval of the proposed preservation and holding times (7) the
sample handling procedures were changed accordingly (see Table A-2-27).
Table A-2-28 lists the parameters, the method analysis and holding times
prior to and after January 30, 1981. Results of laboratory analyses for
each parameter including reagent blanks, standards, duplicates, and spikes
were entered into the Hewlett Packard Model 1103/RL01 Computer by the
chemist who performed the analysis. The computer was programmed to produce
an analysis report which tabulated the data, evaluated precision and
accuracy of analysis against stored control chart data, and indicated
whether results met the accept/reject criteria for analyses of that
parameter. Specific quality control procedures and accept/reject criteria
are defined in Section C4. Each analysis report was forwarded to the
Laboratory Section Chief for his review. He determined whether results
were acceptable, compared laboratory notebook, parameter request sheets,
and chain-of-custody records to the analysis report, and if necessary,
decided which analyses would be repeated- Once the Laboratory Section
Chief signed off a sample batch (all analyses included on the parameter
request sheet had been completed) and completed his analysis control chart,
laboratory results were forwarded to the Laboratory Manager for his review
and to Versar's Program Manager for the Chester River water quality data
acquisition program for evaluation and reporting of data.
A quality control document was used to maintain all intra-laboratory
quality control data for each batch of samples. This document is organized
by parameter. After 10 batches of samples had been analyzed for a para-
meter, quality control data for these batches was combined and used to
calculate new quality control limit charts.
The analytical batch consisted of (1) a group of samples to be
analyzed for a specific parameter; (2) control samples used to monitor the
quality of analyses in terms of recovery and precision; and (3)
quantitative standards used to determine the amount of the analyte of
interest in each sample. Specific components of each analytical batch
include:
2-55
-------
o Samples - All samples collected during that storm event. The
amount: oC samples collected depended on the amount, of non-point
source runoff. The number of samples ranged from 2 r.o 5 samples
per batch.
o Reagent Blank - Deionized water preserved as required and carried
through the analysis. This checks for reagent or lab contamina-
tion and also helped to determine the detection limit.
o Method Standard - Deionised water preserved as required, spiked
with a calibration curve standard for a parameter of interest,
and carried through the analysis. This provided the accuracy
of the method, under optimum conditions, excluding any chemical
interference from sample matrix.
o Spiked Sample - One of the original samples split with one split
spiked with a calibration curve standard. This provided the
spike recovery of the sample, including any chemical interference
from the sample matrix.
o Duplicate Sample - One of the original samples split into a
sample pair. The comparison of these analyses determined the
laboratory precision.
o Reference Standard - A sample with a known amount of the para-
meter of interest carried through the analyses (ex. from EPA,
ERA, NBS). This provided the accuracy of the method. Standard
curves were also generated using the reference standard.
o Check. Standard - A calibration curve standard instrumentally
analyzed in the same manner as samples to establish the
validity of the original standard curve.
Prior to the analysis of samples, a standard curve that covers the
entire working range of the method was constructed with the required number
of five standards, including one near the upper limit of the concentration
range and one near the lower limit of the concentration range. The other
standards were equally spaced throughout the operating concentration range.
Each day, if operation was continuous, or prior to analyzing each
group of samples if operation was non-continuous, Versar analyzed a minimum
of two check standards to establish the validity of the original standard
curve. These standards represented the range of the standard curve, i.e.,
one above and one below the mid point of the standard curve. If these
check standards fell outside the established limits, a new standard curve
was constructed. These limits were established by the analyst.
To determine the precision of the method, a regular program of
analyses of duplicate aliquots of environmental samples was carried out.
The precision control limits were developed from 20 sets of duplicate
results accumulated over a period of time during the routine analysis
2-56
-------
program. Duplicate aliquots of a well-mixed sample were analyzed with each
sample batch and comprised at least iO percent of the samples. The
duplicate data was obtained for each parameter o£ interest. Initially,
samples selected for duplicate analyses were those that were most repre-
sentative of the interference potential of the sample type- As the program
progressed, samples representing the entire range of concentrations and
potential interferences were designed into the duplicate analyses program.
After 20 duplicate results were obtained, control limits for each
parameter of interest were updated. The control limits for accept/reject
were +28. If the precision was not within the control limits, the system
was checked for problems. If problems existed, they were resolved before
repeating rejected analyses or continuing with routine analysis.
The data obtained from the duplicate analysis for each batch were
recorded with each analysis report and were also included in the QC
document.
In addition to the initial determination of the precision of the
method, a program was maintained to verify that the method accuracy
continued under control. The program was carried out by preparing method
standards and analyzing them according to the method. At least one method
standard was analyzed with each sample batch or comprised at least 10
percent of the samples. The method samples were approximately equal to the
concentration found in routine samples.
After 20 method standard results had been obtained, the relative
percent difference (RPD) for method standards was calculated and the
control limits for each parameter of interest established. The control
limits were +2 (standard deviation). If the KPD for succeeding method
standards was not within the control limits, the 'system was checked for
problems. If problems existed, they were resolved before repeating
rejected analyses or continuing with routine analysis. The data obtained
from the analysis of the method standard was recorded with each analysis
report and was also included in a QC document.
The Laboratory Receiving/Storage Logbook and Standard Stock Solution
and Reagent Logbooks were maintained until all pages were filled. The
dates covered by each logbook were entered on the cover by the Laboratory
Sample Custodian and filed in Versar's laboratory central file where they
are maintained for ten (10) years. The Chester River laboratory project
files are now maintained in the laboratory central file by Versar Inc.
2-57
-------
Section 3
Point Sources
Point sources were studied to determine if problems exist in the
Chester River due to nutrient input from Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) and
industrial facilities. Information concerning the status of approved
permit limits for eight STP's and four industrial facilities were obtained
(Tables B-3-1 and B-3-2). The imposed limits for these twelve sites gives
an idea of where possible major point sources are located.
Only five of the major STP's and two industrial sites were selected
for the 1980-81 sampling period (Table 2-13). The average concentrations
and corresponding statistics were computed from this data and are shown in
Table B-3-3. The Chestertown and Centreville STP's were the largest point
source contributers of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). However, N and P
loading from point sources was minimal compared to fluvial runoff. Because
the drainage basin is primarily agriculture, the fluvial runoff is high for
nutrients. Impacts on the Bay due to agricultural runoff have proved that
nutrient and sediment loadings are substantial (15). It is not surprising
to find fluvial runoff as the largest contributer of nutrients. Point
sources contributed only 0.9% of the total N and 0.6% of the total P loaded
into the Chester River during May to September 1981. These percentages
were obtained from the mass budget computations in Section 5. Because the
percentage of N and P added to the Chester River was low for point sources,
little adverse effect can be associated to point source N and P loading in
general.
The residual chlorine was one parameter not measured during the
1980-81 study of the Chester River, tiypochlorus acid (H0C1) is added to
effluent as a disinfectant that kills harmful bacteria and viruses. "It is
flow well established that by-products are produced whenever chlorine is
used as a disinfectant or a biocide" (17). This reactive form of chlorine
also reacts with ammonia and organic nitrogens to form mono-, di- and
triamines (14). While the ecosystem of the Chester may be able to
assimilate nutrients, it may be adversely effected by small amounts of
chlorine. Future studies of point sources should give more notice to the
chlorination of wastewater.
3-1
-------
Section 4
Physical Characteristics of the Chester River Basin
The Chester river basin geology, relief, soils, vegetation, rainfall
tidal effects and other parameters interact to create a river and estuarine
valley which drains approximately 429 square miles of land surface area.
The river/estuarine system is approximately 41 nautical miles long (east to
northeast) and, on the average, 3252 yards wide and 11.7 feet deep. The
general flow of water is to the southwest. A tidal-nontidal interface
(fall zone) occurs near the Route 213 bridge at the town of Millington.
The drainage area lies in the Maryland counties of Queen Annes and Kent and
approximately 55 square miles lies within the state of Delaware. The upper
watershed is characterized by poorly drained soil types covered
predominantly by coastal plain forestland and agriculture, while the soils
below the fall line and towards the mouth of the estuary drain relatively
sandy soils covered with agricultural cover type and small woodland areas.
The topography is influenced by the Coastal Plain province which
provides a relatively flat surface with small broad streams many of which
are tidal, densely vegetated along the banks, and underlain by alluvial
deposits and wetlands. The upper estuarine area has been filled by
alluvial deposition of eroded material over the last two to three hundred
years. More recently, within the last 5-30 years, the sedimentation has
reached a point where the upper estuarine river is only slightly navigable
by small power boats.
Geomorphological Relations
Geomorphological relations have been developed to characterize the
Chester Estuary. During this study a bathymetric survey of the tidal
estuary was conducted. Data from this survey (described in the Methods
Section), and data taken from nautical charts for comparison, has been used
to calculate geomorphological functional relations. Supplemental data from
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Geological Topographic Maps was
also used to calculate drainage area relations. These sources of data were
used to determine empirical relations of drainage area, hydraulic depth,
water surface area, top width, cross-sectional area and volume of water at
mean low sea water level-
Hydraulic depth was calculated as follows:
11D = CA/TW (4-1)
4-1
-------
where:
CA = Cross-sect: ional area (yd^)
TW = Water surface width (yd)
HU = Hydraulic Depth (yd)
Water surface area was calculated from water surface widths and nautical
mile designations as follows:
SAa = ((TWX + TW2)/2)*X12 (4-2)
where:
TW^, TW2 = top widths at river nautical miles 1 and 2
respectively (yd)
X12 = longitudinal distance between transects 1 and 2 (yd)
SA^ = Surface Area (yd2)
The volume of water between cross-sectional areas was calculated from
cross-sectional areas and longitudinal nautical miles as follows:
V± = ((CAi_ + CA2)/2)*X12 (4-3)
where:
CAj_, CA2 = cross-sectional area at transects 1 and 2 respectively
VA = volume between transects 1 and 2 (yd )
X12 = longitudinal distance between transects 1 and 2 (yd)
The BMDP statistical package PbD was used to regress longitudinal values of
calculated surface areas, volumes, widths, hydraulic depth and drainage
area.(26) The regression functions mentioned below were linearized and the
geomorphological variables mentioned above were regressed using least
squares regression.
(a) y = mX+c
(b) y = K exp (aX)
(c) X = K exp (ay)
(d) y = KXa
In applying the above regression functions the dependent variable (y) was
the geomorphological variable and the independent variable (X) was nautical
mile. Each linearized function was applied to the longitudinal river data
of the geomorphic variables using least squares regression giving r2
(squared correlation coefficient). The regression functions givirg the
highest correlation coefficient were selected and are shown below:
DA = 0.494356*(X**0.70324), r2=0.198 (4-4)
where: DA = drainage area (see Figure 4-3(b))
4-2
-------
from bathymetry survey data:
TW =
(lnX-3.5088)/(-0.00027), r2=0.925
(4-5)
CA =
95552.66*exp(-0.15477108*X), r2=0.941
(4-6)
HD =
(-0.14655*X)+6.2886, r2=0.771
(4-7)
SA =
(lnX-3.3247)/(-l.0E-08), r2=0.805
(4-8)
V =
3.0292627*(10**08)*exp(-0.15815*X), r2=0.904
(4-9)
from nautical charts:
TW = (lnX-3.4137)/(-0.00026), r2=0.893 (4-10)
CA = 81545*exp(-0.14190975*X), r2=0.939 (4-11)
HD = (-0.12620*X)+6.5163, r2=0.517 (4-12)
SA = (lnX-3.1697)/(-1.0E-07), r2=0.7815 (4-13)
V = 5.8225258*(10**9)+(X**(-2.492), r2=0.869 (4-14)
These equations can be used to approximate the respective geomorphic
variable at a given nautical mile with various degrees of accuracy. Plots
of selected geomorphic variable functions are shown in Figures C-4-1
through C-4-6.
Cumulative functions of these geomorphic variables were also
determined for the Chester Estuary by regression of the linearized
functions listed above. The advantage of developing cumulative functions
of the morphological variables is that a smoothed functional relation is
obtained, resulting in a higher r2 than the discrete step functions shown
above. The second advantage of developing a cumulative function for a
morphological variable is that the derived function can be differentiated
with respect to longitudinal distance in nautical miles to obtain an
instantaneous function of the variable at that mile. In essence, the
cumulative function can be used to approximate the morphological variable
at a particular longitudinal mile and at the same time can be used to
determine the difference as well as the rate of change of the morphological
variable between any two transects or locations in the longitudinal
direction. The best fit cumulative geomorphological functions for the
previously described variables are as follows:
CDA = 557.2422*exp(-0.3715*X), r2=0.904 (4-15)
from bathymetric survey data:
CTW = 93339.36*exp(-0.12536*X), r2=0.974 (4-16)
CCA = 635393.6*exp(-0.18786*X), r2=0.967 (4-17)
4-3
-------
CHD = (lnX-3.7262)/(-0.03591), r2=0.878
CSA = ((-7.0E+07)*(lnX))+2.0E+08), r2=0.982
CV = ((-3.0E+08)*(lnX))+l.0E+09, r2=0.966
(4-18)
(4-19)
(4-20)
from nautical chart data:
CTW = 280407.7*exp(-0.13796*X), r2=0.958
CCA = 1865426*exp(-0.18146*X), r2=0.957
CHD = (lriX-3.629)/(-0.00779), r2=0.832
CSA = 2.6813469*(10**8)*exp(-0.14228*X), r2=0.964
CV = (exp 21.22)*exp(-0.18039*X), r2=0.962
(4-21)
(4-22)
(4-23)
(4-24)
(4-25)
Figures C-4-1 through C—4-6 shows plots of the various morphological vari-
ables at longitudinal locations along the estuary.
Freshwater Inflow
Figures C-4-7 and C-4-8 show freshwater inflow at the Morgan Creek
USGS surface water gauge (Gauge Number 01493500) during this study. The
average flow for the period of record at this gauge is 10.7 cubic feet per
second or 0.8425 cfs/sq.mi. It can be seen that during the later half of
1980 very little freshwater inflow occurred due to storm events. During
1980 and 1981 inflow increased during several storm events in the early
summer period. Day one of these graphs coincide with January 1 of each
year.
For comparitive purposes, similar graphs have been presented for an
average water year (1975), an average dry water year (1966) and an average
wet year (1974) (See Figures C-4-9, C-4-10, C-4-11). Thus, by visual
comparison, 1980 freshwater inflow represented below average conditions.
Figure C-4-12 shows the 30 year average monthly inflow measured at the
Morgan Creek. USGS gauge, the standard deviation of the mean monthly flow
from the observed USGS records along with 1980 mean monthly flow (cfs)
indicating the below average inflow which occurred during the beginning of
this study. Also shown for comparative purposes are cumulative frequency
distributions (flow-exceedence) curves of mean daily cfs for the years
1966, 1974 and 1975 (see Figures C-4-13, C-4-14, and C-4-15).
Estuarine Hydrographic Measurements
Section 2 discusses the methodology employed for measuring current
speed and direction during the 1980-1981 surveys conducted during this
study. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Institute conducted flow measure-
ments in the lower Chester Estuary at two moorings deployed on June 27,
1980 and recovered on August 7, 1980, resulting in a 42 day record. This
data has been placed into STORET. The two moorings, CHI and CH2 were
4-4
-------
located at latitude 39°59,47", longitude 76°16'38" (CHI) and latitude
39°02'30", longitude 76°12'00" respectively. These locations are shown
in Figure C-4-16. Five instruments were placed at 5, 12, 20, 28 and 36
foot depths at CHI and at 8 1/2 and 31 feet at CH2. The CHI instrument at
5 feet was an Environmental Devices Model 174 (3.7 meters) which measures
current speed/direction, temperature and salinity. No data was retrieved
from this instrument due to a magnetic tape jam. Similarly, the 11 foot
Endeco 105 instrument jammed and provided only a 4 day record.
The details of the initial data reduction have been reported by
Boicourt, 1981.(18) The records were filtered with a lowpass, half-power
point at 3 hours followed by a low-lowpass filter with a half-power point
at 34 hours. The band-pass record therefore consisted primarily of the
tidal energy between 34 hr. and 3 hr. periods. The low-lowpass signal
provided information on the time variability of currents driven by winds,
by variations in gravitational circulation and by tidal height variations
in the Chesapeake Bay proper. Figure C-4-17 shows the mean velocity
profiles at the two locations. The most striking result from these
diagrams is the indication of a three layer flow pattern at CHI, indicating
the fresh water flow is relatively small and that the water mass in the
upper layers are in communication with lower salinity bay water. This has
been further supported by review of historical salinity profiles in the
lower Chester Estuary where it is not uncommon for upper layers to have a
higher salinity on the surface and lower salinity water at mid-depth. The
record from station CH2 indicates a typical two layer estuarine flow
pattern.
Boicourt rotated the coordinates of the principal axes where current
variance is maximized in one horizontal coordinate and minimized in the
orthogonal direction.(18) Figure C-4-18 shows the low-frequency components
of the velocity distributions measured in the Chester Estuary and Table
C-4-1 shows the u' and v1 directions. Table C-4-1 indicates that the
primary forcing of the observed fluctuations in flow is wind and
atmospheric pressure as indicated by the variance of the mean velocities in
the coordinates of the principal axes (u1 and v').
Boicourt reported that the Chester River's response to wind-driven
motion appears roughly two layered as viewed in Figure C-4-17, however
observation of Figure C-4-18 indicates the upper layer instrument at 2.6m
at CH2 suggests an inverse correlation with the instruments at 6.1m and
8.5m at CHI, thus indicating the upper layer frequency fluctuations at CH2
are directed along the channel axis in the same sense as the lower layer
fluctuations at CHI. Therefore, when the lower layer wind-driven flow at
CHI is directed up the estuary, the upper layer flow at CH2 is also
directed up the estuary. Boicourt also states that the axial component of
the upper layer flow in the lower estuary station CHI does not appear
correlated with the deeper layer flows at the same station. The cross-axis
component (u') however, is inversely correlated with the axial component in
the lower layers and probably represents the majority wind-driven component
of the flow in this layer. The reason for this behavior is that in the
wide lower reaches of the Chester River, the upper layer gravitational
4-5
-------
wind-driven components of the circulation are apparently not confined to
flow along the principal axis of the tidal currents, which are weak (of the
order of LO-15 cm/s) where the estuary has a large cross-sectional area.
The cross-axis component in the upper layer at CHI is inversely correlated
with the lower layer currents at CH2. An examination of the coordinate
directions (Table C-4-1) shows that the upper layer wind-driven flow at CHI
is flowing in the same axial direction as the lower layer flow at CH2. How
can these flow variations be reconciled? The simplest explanation arises
from the large bend in the channel, around Eastern Neck. The bend is
sufficiently large that the down-estuary direction in the reach at Station.
CH2 is approximately 170° from the down-estuary direction in the lower
reach at Station CHI. For certain wind directions (NNW, SSE) the surface
flow driven by local winds will be down-estuary at CH2 while it will be
up-estuary at CHI and vice versa. Winds of other directions will drive a
substantial upper-layer flow in the lower reaches, while driving little
flow at CH2 because the wind is directed cross-estuary. A north-northwest
wind, then, will drive the flow at CH2 down-estuary, with answering
up-estuary flow in the lower layer. The same wind will drive an up-estuary
flow in the lower reaches, at Station CHI, with answering down-estuary flow
in the lower layer. These two flows must therefore create a convergence in
the surface layer near the turn off Eastern Neck, and a corresponding
divergence in the lower layer. Continuity must therefore be satisfied with
downward vertical motion in the convergence region. This indicated local
wind-driven motion must be examined more carefully, with the specific wind
stress variation taken into account (18).
The principal preliminary findings from these flow measurements on the
Chester River are therefore reported by Boicourt as follows:
(1) The fresh water inflow to the Chester River was sufficiently
low and the Chesapeake Bay's surface salinity off the mouth
of the Chester was sufficiently low, that a three-layer
circulation was set up in June 1980.
(2) The large bend in the Chester River allows separate, oppositely
directed two-layer flows in the two reaches on either side of
Eastern Neck. The existence of these flows implies a convergence
region in the region of the bend.
(3) The gravitational or wind-driven component of the flow is not
necessarily confined to flow in the direction of the principal
axes of the tidal currents in wide reaches of an estuary with
large cross sectional area.
Boicourt also states that increased spatial coverage will be necessary to
examine the wind-driven circulation and to explore the suggested conver-
gence region, which has important consequences to the transport and mixing
processes.
4-6
-------
The three layer flow pattern indicated by the above described deploy-
ments conducted during this study are also supported by measurements taJcen
Ln 1972 during the Chester River Study, conducted by iJestinghouse, Inc.
(19). During this study funded by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
conducted current meter/direction measurements at several moorings, l'wo of
the five current velocity profiles of net flow taken during 1972 also
indicate a potential three layer flow pattern in the lower Chester estuary.
Salinity data collected during the slack tide water quality surveys
during 1980 and 1981 are shown in Figures F-7-1, F-7-2, and F-7-3. Depth
averaged values of salinity were calculated at each station for each survey
in order to determine the depth averaged salinity at a station during the
study period- Least squares regression of salinity versus nautical mile
gives a polynomial function describing salinity as a function of nautical
mile along (longitudinal axis), with the y intercept taken as the average
salinity at the mouth of the Chester estuary. The salinity distribution is
described by the following function:
Sx = -0.01077*X1-9+12.262 (4-26)
where: Sx = estimated salinity at given nautical mile
X = nautical mile (longitudinal axis of estuary)
Figure C-4-19 shows the observed and calculated longitudinal salinity
profile using the above equation as well as estimated salinity profile
using other methods described later. This function can also be used for
approximating the percent of Chesapeake Bay water and Chester River
freshwater at any mainstem longitudinal location in the estuary by using
the relation:
Px = (Sx/So)(100) (4-27)
where: Px = percent freshwater or Chesapeake Bay
water at nautical mile X
Sx = estimated or observed salinity at X
So = salinity at the mouth of the estuary
Figure C-4-20 shows the results of this simple calculation, i.e. estimated
percent freshwater and Chesapeake Bay water from nautical mile zero to 41
using equations 4-26 and 4-27. The location of the 50% mixing of these two
water types occurs at approximately the location of an upper estuary sill
where the water depth becomes relatively deeper on either side of the sill
(see Figure C-4-6).
Estimating the flushing time of an estuary is useful in approximating
the time period a conservative substance might remain in the entire estuary
or an estuary segment. The steady state, depth averaged flushing time of
the Chester Estuary for average freshwater inflow and mean low water volume
can be approximated by the definition of the flushing time (Tf) as
follows:
4-7
-------
Tf = Vf/Qf
(4-28)
where: V^ = freshwater volume between transect
and X2 (f L3)
Qf = freshwater flow rate into the volume (cfs)
This calculation does not include the effects of tidal flushing which can
be important in removal of a substance through tidally induced dispersion
and mixing. Using volumes calculated from (a) the data taken from nautical
charts; (b) the percent of a given volume of freshwater by applying equa-
tion 4-27 and (c) determination of the freshwater input at a given longi-
tudinal location (calculated by multiplying the average freshwater flow
rate, cfs/sq.mi. times the drainage area (sq.mi.) at a longitudinal
location), the freshwater flushing time of the Chester can be approximated
as shown in Figure C-4-21. The total flushing time obtained using this
method is 81 days. Due to the assumptions of depth average salinity,
average freshwater inflow, mean low water volume and no tidal forcing, this
value is more likely to be an approximation of the maximum flushing time.
Figure C-4-22 shows the same calculation except volumes of water segments
were estimated from the 1980 bathymetric survey. The difference between
the total flushing time for the estuary using both methods of calculating
volumes is approximately 2 days. The nautical chart data calculations used
55 segments and the bathymetry survey data calculation used 20 segments.
Figure C-4-23 shows the effect of varying the average freshwater dis-
charge on the calculation of the total mainstem river flushing time (see
curve b). Curve (a) on Figure C-4-23 is taken from work reported by
Ambrose (20), where a net advective one dimensional transport model (WASP)
was used to estimate the flushing time of the Chester Estuary under various
inflow conditions. It can be seen that the simplistic method described
above (curve b) shows considerably lower flushing estimates at higher
freshwater inflow rates and a higher flushing time at low inflow rates.
More importantly, it can be seen that the two methods predict similar
flushing times near low flow values. Table 4-2 is modified after Ambrose,
1980 showing a comparison of the flushing times for the Chester River by
several methods and the simplistic flushing method described above.
Table 4-2. Comparison of Flushing Times for Chester Estuary
Flushing Time (days)
Method
High Flow
Low Flow
Ref.
Tidal Prism
5.3
5.3
20
Modified Tidal Prism
143
134
20
Fraction of Freshwater
13.6
381
20
Net Flow Simulation (WASP)
40
144
20
Simple Mixing
10
208
this study
4-8
-------
TabLe 4-3 sliows the flushing times for the Chester Kiver and tribu-
taries calculated by the tidal prism and modified tidal prism method (22)
Table 4-3- Flushing times for the Chester River and
selected tributaries (from reference 22)
Flushing Time (days)
Modified
River/Creek
Ratio
Volume
cu.ft.
Tidal
Prism
Method
Tidal
High
Prism Method
Low
MTP/TP
High
Method
Low
7.31 E+8
4.3
16.7
69
3.9
16.0
6.21 E+8
5.0
17.7
59
3.5
11.8
4.20 E+8
2.2
9.8
18.1
4.5
8.2
1.30 E+8
3.8
15.0
26.4
3.9
6.9
2.61 E+10
6.4
140.1
136.4
21.9
21.3
( Langford Creek
\ (East Fork)
West Fork)
Corsica Kiver
Gray's Inn
Creek
Chester River
Evaluation of Chester Estuary Steady State Salinity Distribution
and Estimating Steady State Dispersion Coefficients
Various mathematical models or functional relations were used to
determine (a) the steady state salinity distribution in the Chester River
and (b) steady state dispersion coefficients in the Chester River, which is
essentially a variable area, variable discharge estuary. The salinity is
used as the conservative substance which is being circulated from the ocean
to Chester estuary. The salinity distribution in the estuary permits the
determination of steady state dispersion coefficients (one dimensional) in
the longitudinal direction of the estuary.
Estimation of Salinity Distribution
This analysis assumes that under conditions of constant freshwater
discharge into an estuary and constant tidal range, a steady-state salinity
distribution exists in an estuary. This steady-state distribution of
salinity is valid when the upstream nonconvective mass transfer due to
turbulent diffusion plus the upstream mass transfer due to the density
difference between ocean and fresh water is balanced by the downstream
convective mass transfer due to the freshwater flow.
4-9
-------
In reality steady state is rarely achieved because of random
fluctuations due to turbulent diffusion and periodic tidal fluctuations.
To begin this one dimensional analysis, the Chester River was divided
into different functional segments or reaches along the mainstem length
from zero to forty-one nautical miles. The average salinity in each reach
was calculated from slack tide survey measurements (1980-1981) of salinity
in the longitudinal direction and averaged in the vertical direction. A
continuous salinity distribution function was then determined, based on the
observed spatial data. This distribution can be used to evaluate the
relative accuracy of existing salinity distribution models and can also
yield a calibrated salinity function for Chester Estuary representing the
1980-1981 data. A large variety of spatial salinity distribution functions
can be used to determine average salinity at any nautical mile. Knowing
the salinity gradient at any given nautical mile, estimation and comparison
of resulting steady state dispersion coefficients at any longitudinal point
along the mainstem of the estuary can be made.
A theoretical solution to find dispersion coefficients using hydro-
dynamic equations coupled with the general diffusion equation does not
currently exist. Currently, various proposed and published models are
based on a compromise between the observed values and simplified forms of
the diffusion equation. Some of the simplistic solutions for commonly used
models have been applied to data taken during this study and evaluation of
each model relative to the available data is presented. The calibrated
salinity functions define the salinity variation in the longitudinal
direction. These functions are used to estimate and compare dispersion
coefficients.
Application of the Error Function Model
The steady state solution of the one dimensional turbulent diffusion
equation is the standard error function (1) which is a Gaussian function
related to the longitudinal spatial distance along the estuary. This
function is generally represented by
where k = estuary coefficient determined from suitable boundary and initial
conditions, S = Salinity at any given river mile, SQ = Boundary salinity
at mouth, x = Distance of a section/reach in nautical miles measured
upstream from the mouth of the estuary.
A steady-state solution (1) of the one dimensional turbulent diffusion
equation gives a Gaussian function for the salinity profile measured from
the mouth of the estuary,
S = f (SQ, e-kx2)
(4-29)
S/SQ = exp[(-Uf/2BE0)(x + B)2]
(4-30)
4-10
-------
For r.he Chester Estuary the average salinities for 1980-81 at two
points along the length are given by,
S = salinity at any given nautical mile
Si, S2 = salinities at two points along the estuary
SQ = S = (Sm^n + Smax)/2 or an estimated value of salinity
at the mouth of the estuary (bay boundary)
x = Distance of section from mouth of estuary measured upstream
X1» x2 = Distances measured from mouth of Chester Estuary upstream
B = Theoretical distance from mouth in opposite direction (downstream)
EQ = Dispersion coefficient (estimated at the bay boundary)
Uf = Estimated fresh water velocity
Calculations of constants SQ, B, E0, Uf are needed for Chester
Estuary to determine the dispersion coefficients. These constants are
evaluated for the Chester River in the following section. SQ = 11.57
(assuming this is the annual, vertically averaged value of salinity at the
mouth of the estuary, observed at station 51 during 1980-81)
Rewriting equation 4-30 for two points along the mainstem of the river
gives:
In Si - lnS2 = (Uf/2BE0) [(x2 + B)2 - (xx + B)2] (4-31)
where: E0 = Uf [(x2 + B)2 - (xL + B)2]/[2B ln(Si/S2)l (4-32)
and:
In S2-lnS0 = -(Uf/2BEQ)(x2 + B)2 Applying equation (4-30)
to two points at x = 0 and x = x2 respectively one obtains:
In Sq/S2 = (Uf/2BEQ)(x2 + B)2 (4-33)
E0 = Uf(x2 + B)2 / 2B In (SQ/S2) (4-34)
Dividing equation 4-32 with equation 4-34 and rearranging terms,
ln(S1/S2)/ln(S0/S2)=[(x2+B)2 - (xx+B)2]/(x2+B)2 (4.35)
Equations 4-34 and 4-35 can be solved for B and EQ and used for
salinity profile evaluation. From Chester River data the following values
were obtained:
SQ = 11.57 parts per thousand (ppt)
4-11
-------
*1 = 5.5 nautical miles (33418 ft.)
X2 = 28.0 nautical miles (170128 ft)
S1 = 11.57 ppt = Sq
S£ = 5.04 ppt
ln(1157/5.04)=0.3101
Uf = Q/A = 361.9 = 0.004303 fps
84107.8899
where:
Q = average annual discharge into Chester River Watershed in cubic
feet per second (cfs) based on 28 year records from observations at
Morgan Creek and extrapolated to the basin
A = Average cross-sectional area = 84107.889 ft2 (from nautical
chart data.)
From equation 4-35: B = -5.5 nautical miles = -33418 feet
= 28 nautical miles = 170128 feet
From equation 4-34: En = .004303(170128-33418)2 = -1447.956 ft.2/sec
2(-33418)(0.8310)
From equation 4-30: S = SQ exp[(-Uf/2BEQ) (x + B)2] (4-36)
Substituting constants obtained for Chester River in this equation yields:
11.57 exp
(~.004303)(x - 33418)2
2(-33418)(-1447.956)
The final simplified form of the salinity profile for steady state
estimation for the Chester Estuary using the Error function is:
S = 11.57 exp [-4.4464 E-ll (x-33418)2] (4-37)
where: S = salinity at any given nautical mile x
In this analysis, 5.5 x 41.0 (i.e. Salinity values between mouth (0
miles) and 5.5 miles are assumed constant and equal to 11.57 ppt). Conver-
sions of "X" should be made from nautical mile to feet. (6076 ft/nautical
mile)
Salinity Distribution Using O'Connor's Relation
O'Connor (3) gives a method for estimating the Salinity profile
equation for a variable area estuary, by the following:
S = S0 exp [(-U0/E0a) (eax - 1)] (4-38)
where: S = salinity at any section x
4-12
-------
x = distance measured .In nautical miles from the mouth (positive
upstream from bay boundary)
a = coefficient for areal expansion (exponent) for a variable
area estuary (nautical mile ~1)
SQ = salinity at mouth of the estuary (ppt)
Eq = dispersion coefficient at mouth of the estuary (ft2/sec)
UQ = average fresh water velocity at the mouth of the estuary=Q/AQ
For the Chester estuary SQ = 11.57 (salinity at the mouth of the
estuary), AQ = 428796 sq. ft. (cross-sectional area from nautical chart
data at the mouth of the estuary), therefore:
Un = Q = 361.9 cfs = .000844 fps
A0 428796 ft2
Substituting UQ into equation 4-38 gives:
S = 11.57 exp [(-Q/A0E0a) (eax - 1)] (4-39)
Defining S^, S2 as in the previous section from field data gives:
= 11.57, x^ = 5.5 nautical miles
S2 = 5.04, X£ = 28.0 nautical miles
and rewriting equation 4-38 for sections 1 and 2 gives:
SL = SQ exp [~Un (exp(ax^)~1)1 (4-40a)
E0a
S2 = SQ exp [-Un (exp(ax2)-l)
Eoa
(4-40b)
These two equations can be used to estimate the dispersion E0 at the
mouth. Equations 4-40a and 4-40b are combined to give:
exp
Si/S2 =
exp
E0a
-Un (exp(ax1)-l)l (4-41)
2U0 (exp(ax2)-l
E0a
As calculated from the Chester Estuary Morphological analysis, the
cross-sectional area can be expressed as a function of nautical miles (see
equation 4-11). The cross-sectional area versus nautical mile regression
(using nautical chart data) gives:
4-13
-------
A=81545 exp (-.141909675X)
(4-42)
where:
x = distance measured in nautical miles from the mouth (positive
upstream from bay boundary)
a = -.14190975 (nautical mile )
A = Cross-Sectional area at any nautical mile 'x' (yd^)
Substituting appropriate values into equation 4-41 gives:
exp \f~.000844(6076)'
11.57 =
f000844(6076)\ f -.14190975*5.5 \1
14190975)/ \exp -lj]
5.04
exp r/-.000844(6076)\ / -.14190975*28.0 \1
[VE0(-.14190975 ) \exp -l/J
2.296 = exp /-19.580+35 .457 \
V E0 E0 /
E0 = 19.1 ft^/sec.
Substituting the values of D0, E0, a and SQ into equation 4-39 gives:
S = 11.57 exp 000844(6076) \ ( -.14190975 x
^19.1(-.14190975)/ \exp -1
Simplifying one obtains the relation:
S = 11.57 exp |(q/191.284) ^-.14190975 x ^
(4-43)
Equation 4-43 is O'Connor's equation for estimating the longitudinal steady
state salinity distribution in the Chester Estuary
Salinity Best-Fit Equation
The observed temporally and spatially averaged salinity values were
regressed versus nautical miles to obtain a least squares function. The
correlation coefficient from the least squares regression and the estimated
boundary salinity values were used Co determine the best fit functional
model. Seventeen linearizable functions were regressed, each using the
salinity and nautical mile data obtained during this study. The BMDF
Statistical linear regression program (BMDP-6D) was used.(26) Table 4-4 is
a list of the mathematical functions used for Salinity versus nautical mile
regression and the corresponding correlation coefficient (r^).
The reason for conducting the regression analysis was to obtain a
statistically derived function based upon the squared correlation
coefficient and to estimate a better fit for the observed average slack,
water salinity profile in Chester River.
4-14
-------
Based on Table C-4-4, the following best equations based on the
optimized maximum correlation coefficient are presented below.
(a) Polynominal Type: S = ax + b from (l)r^ = .9293
S = ax^ + b from (5)r2 = *9781
S = ax^ + b from (7)r2 = -9448
S = ax^'^ + b from (9)r2 = .9663
S = ax^"^ + b from (ll)r^ = .9801
S = ax^*^ + b from (16)r2 = .9801
The best fit is either S = ax^-*® + b or S = ax^*^ + b. The intercept
"b" will decide the best value at x = o,
S = ax*-'® + b gives SQ = 12.44
S = ax^'9 + b gives SQ = 12.26
therefore the best fit polynominal, is with
SQ = 12.26 and a=-0.01077, b=12.262 based upon estimating the
salinity at the mouth of the estuary more accurately.
(b) Error function type:
In S = ax^ + b from (6), r2 = 0.9025
In S = ax^ + b from (8), r2 = 0.9722
In S = ax^'^ + b from (10), r2 = 0.9448
O
The best fit error function is S - B eax , B = e^ with SQ = 15.03
(very high). Thus salinity predicted at the mouth is higher than the
supporting data from the slack, surveys.
(c) Logistic curve type:
S = l/(b + eax^) from (14), r2 = 0.9025
S = 1/(b + eax3) from (15), r2 = 0.9722
In (1/S) = ax^ + In b
4-1 5
-------
The best logistic carve fit is S = l/(b + eax~*) with So = 15.03 which
is higher than the observed average salinity at the mouth of the estuary.
From the three types of functions above, the best fit linearized
function based on bay boundary salinity, and correlation coefficient and
the most simplistic curve is
S = ax^'® + b, SQ = 12.2b, r2 = 0.9801
The salinity profile equations, based on an average annual value of
salinity for the Chester River as developed in the previous subsection
(Estimation of Salinity Distribution), are summarized below:
Error Function Model:
S = 11.57 exp [[-Q(4.53558 E-06)](x - 5.5)2) (4-44)
5.5 x 41 (in nautical miles)
Q = average freshwater discharge at mouth in cfs for the total
drainage area (cfs)
O'Connor's Model:
S = 11.57 exp [(Q/191.284) (exp(-.14190975x)-l.)] (4-45)
x = distance measured from mouth upstream in nautical miles (positive)
Q = average freshwater discharge at mouth (cfs)
Tidewater Least Square Model:
S = ax^*9 + b (4-46)
SQ = Salinity at mouth = 12.26, a=-0.01077, b=12.262
r2 = 0.9801
Equations 4-44, 4-45 and 4-46 can now be used to develop one dimensional,
steady state dispersion coefficients for the Chester River. Table C-4-5
shows the salinity values calculated for Chester River by the three methods
stated above.
Figure C-4-24 shows the longitudinal salinity (depth averaged)
distribution obtained during the 1980 slack water surveys for reference.
Figure C-4-19 shows the observed and calculated longitudinal salinity
profiles from the different functions described above. Figure C-4-25 shows
the salinity distributions for the error function and O'Connors function
based upon changes in the percent of average freshwater inflow given
constant salinity at the mouth of the estuary.
4-16
-------
Evaluation of Dispersion Coefficients
Most tidal river and estuaries have variable cross-sectional areas,
variable flow rates along the length, fluctuating discharge at a given
cross section and dispersion coefficients which vary both in space and
time.
However, for a steady state application, the general dispersion
function (using a one dimensional analysis) is determined from the
following equation.
E(x) = Q(x) S(x) (4-47)
A(x) dS(x)
dx
= Variable freshwater discharge (cfs)
= Cross-sectional area (ft^)
= Steady state salinity (ppt)
= Gradient of salinity profile (ppt/ft)
= Dispersion coefficient at a given location
x (x = o is assumed at the mouth of the
estuary) calculated from equation (4-47)
(ft^/sec)
The discharge Q, the cross-sectional area A, and the concentration of
salinity S are obtained by measurement at a given location in the estuary.
The salinity gradient is more difficult to evaluate since it requires ex-
tensive data in order to accurately describe the spatial profile. Measure-
ments of Chester River salinity were obtained from eighteen of the slack
tide surveys conducted during 1980-81 at nine locations along the estuary.
Figure C-4-24 shows the vertically averaged salinity observations from
nautical mile 5.5 to 41.0 nautical miles for each slack tide survey. Each
of these values is an average obtained from three measurements taken at
three points in the vertical. The spatial and temporal mean salinity were
computed as shown in Table C-4-6. The quality of the observed salinity
data collected is fairly uniform, shown by a fairly consistent standard
deviation, both at different stations and at different times during the
year.
Figure C-4-3 shows the variation of drainage area in a longitudinal
direction. The drainage area for any station can be found and used to
extrapolate the discharge Q(x) at that station for use in calculating
dispersion coefficients. For this analysis a total discharge of 361.9 cfs
for a total drainage area of 429 square miles was used. The discharge
extrapolation was based on USGS discharge records at Morgan Creek.
Where Q(x)
A(x)
S(x)
dS (x)/dx
E(x)
4-17
-------
From USGS records, the Morgan Creek average discharge is 10.7 cfs, 28
year average Q and the Morgan Creek drainage area = 12.7 square miles (3).
Based on a linear extrapolation for Chester River, the total Chester
freshwater river discharge is approximately 361.9 ft^/sec.
The average freshwater velocity (UQ) can be found for any
cross-section using the Continuity equation.
uo =
average freshwater flow at x
Cross-Sectional area at longitudinal location x
An attempt was made to determine the time and space varying dispersion
coefficients using variable cross-sectional area (longitudinally) and time
and space varying salinity values. Chester River is a variable cross-sec-
tional area estuary and the area decreases exponentially from the mouth (0
nautical miles) to upstream (41 nautical miles) as shown in Figure C-4-4.
The only method which uses a variable cross-sectional area approach is
O'Connor's method (2). The method has been used in discrete increments of
longitudinal distance x, for applying it to the unequally spaced stations.
A brief derivation of the dispersion equations presented based on
O'Connor's method of areal expansion follows. This method can be used for
unequally spaced stations.
Derivation of discrete step O'Connor's dispersion relation:
The basic one-dimensional equation defining the time rate of change of
salinity in an estuary is stated as,
dS = _E _d_ (A 3s \ - Q_ 3S__ = 0
dt A 3X \ dX J A 3X
(for steady state)
(4-48)
Introducing an exponential function for cross-sectional area
increasing in the seaward direction, the salinity distribution equation
derived from equation 4-48 can be stated as,
S(x) = SQexp
ZQ_ 0
AEa
,ax -
1)
(4-49)
Applying the salinity distribution equation to two consecutive
locations (defining a reach or segment) and X2 respectively one
obtains:
S.exp
S2 = S0exp
~Q
(eaXl - 1)"
LAEL2a
-Q (eax2 "
.KEl2a
(4-50)
(4-51)
4-18
-------
Dividing equation 4-50 with 4-51 gives:
In (S1/S2) = (U12/aE12) (eax2 - eaxl), (4-52)
where:
U^2 = Average freshwater velocity between sections 1 and 2 (fps),
= Average steady state (estimated) dispersion coefficient
between sections 1 and 2 (ft^/sec),
Q = Average freshwater discharge (cfs),
A = (A^ + A2)/2 = Average cross-sectional area for a reach
a = Coefficient of areal expansion for estuary (nautical mile -^)
SQ = Salinity at mouth of the estuary (ppt).
Si, S2 = Salinities at sections 1 and 2 respectively (ppt).
The final discrete step dispersion equation can be then written as:
E12 = U12 (eax2 " eaxl)/[(a in^/S^) (4-53)
Based on semi-log regression of the cross-sectional area versus
nautical miles in the Chester River as mentioned earlier, the following
equation was established using data (see Figure C-4-4):
A(x) = 733905 exp (-.14190975x) (4-54)
with r2 = 0.9389 and where, A(x) = Cross-sectional area at nautical mile
'x* (ft2)-
The exponent of this equation is the value needed to use O'Connor's
equation 4-53 with a = -0.14190975 (nautical mile-^-). Table 4-7 gives
the basic data used in solving equation 4-52 for different stations by
using the following equation:
e12 = Kx/ln(Si/S2) (4-55)
Table C-4-8 shows estimated dispersion coefficients (absolute values)
evaluated for each slack survey at all data stations using equation 4-55.
Statistical averages and standard deviations were computed to show the
excess variability of the dispersion coefficients calculated from the slack
tide data. The last column gives an estimated yearly average dispersion
coefficient based on annual average salinity values.
4-19
-------
Table C-4-9 shows dispersion coefficients (absolute values) evaluated
for each slack survey at all data stations where discharge values (Q) were
selected from the discharge hydrograph observed at Morgan Creek, for
1980-81. It was assumed that it takes a fraction of che flushing time for
the salinity mixing to be completed. Average values of discharges were
calculated with a time lag of seven days before the slack survey. Disper-
sion coefficients calculated indicate a significant change. The last
column shows dispersions coefficients based on one yearly average of
discharge and salinity observations using the discrete salinity/dispersion
coefficient equations [see equations 4-52 and 4-53J.
Dispersion Coefficient Equations
As explained by equation 4-47 of this analysis, the dispersion
equation can be written as,
E = (QS/A)/(dS/dx) (4-56)
This equation can be used with different salinity functions described
earlier to estimate constant area and variable area dispersion
coefficients.
Table 4-7
Chester Estuary Constants Used for Calculating Dispersion Coefficients*
from Slack Tide Water Quality Surveys
Average
K. **
X
Miles from
Cross-Sectional
Fresh Water
Mouth
Area (sq ft)
Velocity (fps)
5.5
336257.1
.0012926
7.639761
8.5
219674.5
.0021617
11.718048
13.2
112749.8
.0035915
4.627758
15.0
87333.4
.0044055
2.580589
16.0
75779.2
.0064450
13.089114
21.3
35719.7
.0145104
16.092565
28.0
13803.3
.0449457
26.486484
41.0
2181.7
4-20
-------
*e12 = ul2texP (ax2.) ~ exP (axl)]/ a (S1/S2) (as shown by
eqn. A-53)
**KX = U^2[exP (ax2) - exp (ax^)]/(a) therefore = ^x/ln
(S^/S2) (as shown by eqn. 4-55) where:
. a = (-.14190975/6076) = 2.3356 * 10"5 ft-1
Constant Area Models
Equation 4-56 can therefore be used to find constant area dispersion
coefficients (E), knowing the salinity distribution (S), freshwater
discharge (Q) and the cross-sectional area (A). Using the Error Function
Equation for salinity where:
(a) Z = -Q (4.5678E-06)(x - 5.5)2,
(b) dS =(-1.05698E - 04)(x - 5.5) Q exp (Z),
dx
one obtains the following function using (a), (b), and equations (4-56)and
S = 11.57 exp [-Q(4.5678E-06)(x - 5.5)2],
(4-57)
and substituting:
(4-57),
Q (11.57) exp (Z)
E
(4-58)
A (-1.05698E - 04) (x - 5.5) exp (Z) Q
Rearranging the final equation calibrated error function model for
dispersion coefficients for Chester River is given by.
(109462.81)(6076), = 6.65096 exp 08
(4-59)
E
A (x - 5.5)
A ( x- 5.5 )
where:
x = River miles upstream of mouth.
A = Average Cross-Sectional area (sq ft) 84107.9 ft2
E = Dispersion coefficient (ft2/sec).
4-21
-------
Using O'Connors relation for the salinity distribution in Chester
River or:
S '= 11.57 exp [(Q/191.284)(e~-L4190975x - 1)]
and substituting:
(a) Z = (Q/191.284)(e"-14190975x - 1), T = -.14190975 x
(b) dS= (11.57) (Q/191.284) (-.14190975) exp (Z) exp (T)
dx
one obtains:
s = - 1347.93
(4-60)
dS Q exp (-.14190975 x),
dx
(c)
and finally, substitution gives the dispersion coefficient function:
1347.93 (6076)
= -8190008
(4-61)
E =
A exp (-.14190975 x) A exp (-.14190975X)
Using the least squares Tidewater Polynomial Model for salinity or:
S = 12.262 - 0.01077 x1*9,
and differentiating:
dS = (-0.01077)(1.9) x0-9 = -0.020463 x0*9
dx
substituting into equation 4-56 yields:
Q [12.262 - 0.01077 x1-9]
(4-62)
(4-63)
A [-0.020463 x0-9)
simplifying one obtains:
¦48.86869 Q
E =
12.262
-0.01077 X
L X
0.9
(6076),
(4-64)
where for the Chester Estuary Q = 361.ft^/sec average annual discharge
and the average cross-sectional area (A) is 84108 ft^-
4-22
-------
Variable Area Models
Using the regressed cross-sectional area and nautical mile relation
based on bathymetric data, one obtains:
A = 733905 exp (-.14190975 x) (4-54)
where: A = cross-sectional area (ft^)
The general expression for area is substituted into the basic
dispersion equation (13) to give an area-variable dispersion relations as
given below.
For the Error function model:
(109462.81)(6076)
£ = 733905 (x - 5.5) exp (-.14190975 x)
and simplifying gives:
(906.24)
E = (x - 5.5) exp (-.14190975 x) (4-65)
For O'Connor's Model:
-1347.93(6076)
E =
733905 e~-28381950x
and simplifying:
-11.1595 (4-66)
E =
e-.2838195x
Tidewater polynomial model substitution gives:
Q (12.262 - 0.01077 x1'9)
E =
733905 exp (-.14190975 x)(-.020643 x0-9)
and simplifying one obtains:
Q (6076)
E = 15017.898 exp (-.14190975 x)
12.262 0.01077 x
x071J
(4-67)
4-23
-------
Figure C-4-26, a graphical presentation of the calculated dispersion
coefficients for the Chester Estuary, is derived from the constant cross-
sectional area models described above. Figure C-4-27 is the dispersion
coefficients estimated from the Tidewater least squares regression equation
for the salinity function with various average freshwater discharge rates
(Q). Obviously, the dispersion coefficient is a function of Q. Figure
C-4-28 shows the calculated dispersion coefficients using the variable
cross-sectional area models derived above. The derivations of these three
models vary considerably. Figure C-4-29 shows the Tidewater least squares
dispersion function changes with various values of freshwater inflow (Q).
The calculated values are quite different as expected. Future work
should involve the application of these values in a computer simulation of
one dimensional transport in order to show which model provides the best
fit between observed and simulated salinity with time varying inflow.
In addition, the Tidewater least squares model does indicate that
dispersion is great in the region of the expected turbidity maximum of the
estuary. This same river region (of predicted higher dispersion) coincides
with the region where Figure C-4-20 indicates there is maximum mixing of
fresh and salt water (i.e., 50% salt and freshwater) and where the slope of
the salinity gradient is maximum. Evaluation of these dispersion coeffi-
cients in a transport model would enable some verification if the polynomi-
al form of the dispersion equation is a better approach. It should be
noted that Ambrose 1980 performed a time varying model calibration for the
Chester Estuary using (WAbP) a net advective simulation model(20). His
reported dispersion coefficients ranged in the same magnitude as the
average values calculated and shown in Tables C-4-10 and C-4-11. His work
would indicate that the dispersion coefficients using a constant area or
variable area function, as described above, produces considerably higher
values. Boicourt, 1981 (personal communication), indicated that other mass
transport studies have indicated the lack of model sensitivity to
longitudinal dispersion coefficients and that vertical dispersion is a more
important process controlling the salinity distribution in an estuary. In
fact, Boicourt reports that changing the longitudinal dispersion
coefficient by a factor of 100 or more made very little difference in the
salinity distribution calculated for the Patapsco Estuary.
4-24
-------
Section 5
Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus to the Chester River
The purpose of this section was to estimate the major sources of
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chester Estuary. Each source was
transformed into a mass load to form a mass balance box model. The box
models characterize magnitude of the various source loads to the Chester
River and provides an initial screening tool for water quality management.
The Chester River is also a good example of an eastern shore river on the
Chesapeake Bay, and the box models provide insight into nutrient cycling
present there.
Description of Sources
A major task in developing the box models was to organize a consistent
time frame for all the input data. The data collected during May through
September 1981 was selected for the time frame. The inputs (NPS, average
fluvial discharge, point source, rainfall, sediment flux and the Chesapeake
Bay) were the sources used for the box model during the stated five month
period. There was inadequate data to conduct the sediment flux and rainfall
quality computations and assumptions were made in order to estimate their
loads.
Sediment flux loads were computed from data obtained from reference
27. This report included data taken near the mouth of the Chester River.
The spring and summer values were averaged. Because section CB-3 only had
data for ammonia and orthophosphorus, the values for NO2+NO3 and TN
were computed by taking 3.6% and 55& respectively of the ammonia flux.
These percentages were present for the Patuxent River (28) and it was
assumed that the Chester had these same sediment characteristics. There
was no data concerning the water quality of the rain water for the Chester
jiasin during L98G-1981. Therefore the loading rates developed for the
Patuxent Basin were used (28).
Other inputs include point and non-poinc sources, average fluvial
discharges and the net exchange with the Bay. Loading rates from point
sources were computed from concentrations and flows reported in section 3.
For STP's where data was not available average concentrations and flows
were obtained from EPA-CBP. The NPS calculations used loading rate from
section 6. Average fluvial inputs were computed from measurement made at
fifteen advective flow stations. Advective flow measurements were
collected by Normandeu Associates Inc. for this study (11). Physical
characteristics such as drainage area, water surface area, estimates of
sediment surface area and river volume were obtained from section 4. The
equation describing the net exchange with the Bay was developed by assuming
5-1
-------
a two flow condition near the mouth of the Chester River and using salinity
as a conservative constituent (28).
(^b)(%) = (Qt + QB)(ST) (5-1)
where: Qf = fluvial flow (cfs)
Qg = Chesapeake Bay flow into Chester (cfs)
Sf = Average surface salinity
Sg = Average bottom salinity
The equation was rearranged to calculate the unknown flow coming in
from the Chesapeake Bay. The salinity values were taken from the 1981
averages at station XHG1537 which was 5.5 nautical miles from the mouth.
therefore: Qg = (Q*j* S
-------
ammonia which is a readily available nutrient for pixytoplankton. Of the
yi'oss amounts inputted to the Chester during ti. : flvu mouth buuyeL,
75% and 46Z of N02+N03, NII4 and Total Diss- N respectively was
utilized within the aquatic ecosystem-
Figure D-5-4 showed fluvial inputs contributed 76% of the dissolved
ortho-phosphorus loaded in the Chester River. Most of the fluvial input
occurred during storm events- The next largest source of ortho-phosphorus
was the sediment flux at 20.8%. The net exchange with the Bay showed there
was no flushing of ortho-phosphorus out of the Chester. This budget was
similar to NH-j which also had a source from the Bay and a large sediment
flux.
The total phosphorus budget indicated freshwater runoff (avg. flow and
stormflow) contributed 439 thousand pounds to the Chester River (Figure D-
5-5). The box models indicates 108 thousand pounds or around 25-30% of its
TP load is flushed into the Chesapeake Bay. Total phosphorus
concentrations were dependent on the hydrological condition (fluvial
runoff) and therefore fluvial input is a major controlling factor in the
phosphorus budgets.
Freshwater runoff is high in composition of suspended material. Since
TP is attached to sediments, controlling erosion would also control
excessive loading of nutrients to the Chester River. This is especially
important for the Chester Basin because the land use is primarily
agricultural.
5-3
-------
Section 6
Non-Point Source and Meteorological Sub-Watershed Monitoring
This section describes the monitoring of chemical export from nine
subwatersheds draining into the Chester River. A description of each site
is provided, and statistical results are presented that describe estimated
loading rates and relationships between rainfall and non-point source
loads•
Subwatershed Site Description
Nine watersheds were selected for monitoring chemical export during
storm events. All sites lie in the Coastal Plain Province. Figures 2-10
and 2-11 show the location of the watersheds and raingauges used in this
study.
Table E-6-1 shows the relevant characteristics of the two urban sites,
Chestertown A and B. The sites are adjacent to each other on either side
of U.S. 213. The impervious area was calculated as the sum of the total
street acreage plus the estimated total house and driveway area, plus an
estimated amount of miscellaneous impervious area. The area weighted
hydrologic soil group was 3.1 for site A and 2.83 for B. Therefore these
sites represent hydrologic soil group C.
Millington A and B are both forested sites. Table E-6-2 gives a
breakdown of their respective acreage, landuse, etc. Although 25% of the
Millington A site acreage consists of old field and grassland, neither of
these sites has been farmed for the last 20-30 years. Both are repre-
sentative of forested areas and may be used for comparative purposes.
The agricultural sites studied are named Perkins Hill (USGS GAGE), S
Farm, Browntown Road, H Farm, and Still Pond Farm. The main crops grown on
the various farms in the Perkins Hill watershed are field corn and rye.
Approximately 8% of the land at this site is forested. Table E-6-3 gives
land characteristics for all the agricultural sites.
The S-Farm agricultural site was predominantly cultivated with field
corn and soybeans. The Browntown Road site was predominantly field corn.
The H-Farm was cultivated for no-till corn and the Still Pond site was
minimum till field corn. Table E-6-4 shows the STORET station codes and
the basin size for each subwatershed.
6-1
-------
Statistical Summary of Measured Chemical Export
This section describes the methodology used to characterize the
chemical export of water quality variables from the various watersheds
described above. A total of 189 storm samples were analyzed in order to
determine the flow weighted concentration for each of the 15 variables
studied. Storm loads for each storm event were then calculated by
multiplying concentration times the storm volume. Resulting loads were
normalized to the size of storm (inches of rain) and size of watershed
(acres). Univariate statistics were calculated and are shown in the
Appendix (Tables E-6-5 to E-6-39) as lb/acre/inch of rain, lb/acre and
lb/acre/year (assuming an average of 42 inches of rain per year).
The number of storm samples taken at each site during this study were:
Millington A-22; Millington B—26; USGS Gage-27; Chestertown A-31; Chester-
town B-27; S Farm -33; Browntown Road -15; H Farm -3; and Still Pond Road
-5.
The data collected during this study period indicates that chemical
export from agricultural sites is generally higher than forested sites.
Table E-6-40 shows the ratio of the average lbs/acre/in between these site
groupings. It should be noted that in May of 1981 there were several large
storms at S Farm from which unusually high concentrations (mg/1) of TSS,
TPHOS, TPHOSD, and DPO4 were observed. The reader must keep in mind
that only 19 values weTe recorded in conjunction with rainfall data for
this variable, thus its significance is questionable. Table 6-41 shows
similar ratios between the agricultural and urban sites.
Figures E-6-1 to E-6-14 are cumulative frequency distribution plots of
all the variables (lbs/acre) in this study. Values from all sites
(forested, urban, and agricultural) are compared to each other in these
plots. Each point on the plots does not represent an observation from a
single storm event, but a value that the variable has taken on one or more
times. Mention has already been made of the fact that several very large
concentrations of phosphorus were observed at S Farm. Removal of these
values from the data set at plotting time was necessary to make the figures
meaningful. These plots indicate that, in general, the measured lbs/acre
chemical export for each land use varies substantially, especially during
larger storm events which occur less frequently.
Figures E-6-15 to E-6-17 are cumulative frequency distribution plots
of the rainfall data. In general, urban sites experienced less rainfall/
storm than the other sites but the rainfall intensity was higher. The
forested sites received less intense rainfall during the study period.
Figures E-6-18 through E-6-21 show the cumulative frequency distributions
for all sites for lbs/acre export during storm events. Figures E-6-22
through E-6-25 indicate the cumulative frequency distribution of chemical
export in lbs/acre/inch of rain. The greatest differences between sites
occurred for dissolved and orthophosphorus when the data are analyzed in
this fashion.
6-2
-------
Statistical Relationships
Least square linear regression was applied to the chemical export and
rainfall data. Chemical variables (lbs/acre/in.) were regressed versus
storm flow (gallons) for each site individually as well as for the various
site groupings. Logarithmic transformations were applied to the dependent
and independent variables. Selected equations are presented in Table
E-6-42 for each of the chemicals. Equation selection criteria throughout
this study was based on the highest correlation coefficients (r). There
are no equations shown for Still Pond Road or H Farm because of limited
number of observations. When all sites are combined for regression, the
correlation coefficient is less than the correlation between lbs/acre/in.
versus gallons of storm flow. This is probably a result of site specific
characteristics of the channel, land use activity and resulting differences
in overland subsurface flow regimes. These equations could be used to
estimate loads (lbs/acre/in) based upon knowledge of storm volume at a
site, however the user must be continued.
Regression was also applied to the calculated lbs/acre (dependent
variable) chemical export versus various linear combinations of total
rainfall, average storm intensity (in/hour) and maximum storm intensity
(in/hour)). Selected logarithmic transformations were also taken before
regression. The best equations are shown in Table E-6-43. B0D5 regression
coefficients (r) were high at the two urban sites and at S-Farm and the
USGS sites (r's ranged from 0.9 at S-Farm to 0.58 at Chestertown B). In
most cases B0D5 correlations were highest when the independent variables
were total rainfall (inches) and maximum intensity (inches/hour). In
general, this multiple curvilinear regression analysis indicated higher r's
at the S-Farm and USGS site for all chemicals. These two sites were the
only sites where continuous base flow occurs. This regression analysis
also indicates that at these two sites total rainfall and rainfall
intensity explains approximately 60-90% of the variability of the storm
loads measured in lb/acres depending on the water quality variable.
Phosphorus species, total suspended solids and B0D5 loads (lbs/acre) were
the variables which showed the highest correlation among all sites.
Lbs/acre (dependent variable) chemical export was regressed versus
total storm volume (gallons) and with linear combinations of other factors
that normalized flow to the size of the watershed and/or size of the storm
event. The result of this analysis is shown in Table E-6-44.
Comparison of these regression results reveals that B0D5 and B0D30 are
strongly dependent upon storm flow. Highest correlations were obtained
when (lbs/acre) values were regressed versus storm volume, i.e., r's
ranging from 0.82 to 0.98. Total suspended solids also show similar high
correlations. It is interesting to note that, while (lbs/acre/in) versus
gallons showed fairly high correlations for most stations, low r's were
obtained when data from all sites by land use type was combined, thus
indicating site specific dependence. Lbs/acre versus storm volume
regressions for all sites showned no similar pattern. NO2 and NO3 are
6-3
-------
regression equations with less significance due to small degrees of
freedom. This regression analysis with associated transformations of the
independent variables produced the highest correlation coefficients as
expected.
Multiple curvilinear regression techniques were applied to chemical
export (lbs/acre) with independent variables of chemical export of other
chemicals and rainfall variables. Correlations (r) higher than .9 were not
uncommon. The results of this regression analysis supports the view that
flow weighted composite sampling of storm events for estimating watershed
chemical export is a very useful method of collecting data for developing
statistically derived functions for estimating lbs/acre chemical export
from watersheds.
Selected multiple stepwise linear regressions, based upon Mallows Cp
criterion, (see BMDP, P9R, 1979) indicated that for every function
selected, total rainfall, maximum storm intensity or average intensity was
one of the first variables selected, thus indicating higher correlation.
All multiple regression coefficients were very high (most were above
r^=0.95), which again indicates utility of applying the sampling methods
used in this study. Appropriate transformation of the data made little
difference upon the variables selected and r^'s. Table E-6-45 shows the
results of this analysis. Table E-6-46 shows similar results with lbs/acre
versus rain or storm characteristics (total rainfall, average and maximum
intensity) plus two easily measured parameters, suspended solids and
alkalinity. Again, these equations indicate the ability to estimate
chemical export from watersheds given a flow composited sample and analysis
of the sample for total suspended solids, alkalinity and the storm
characteristics.
6-4
-------
Section 7
Description of Longitudinal Slack Survey Results
Twenty-seven slack water surveys were conducted from 7-7-80 to
9-27-80. The nine slack stations along the Chester River ranged from
nautical mile 5.5 (XHG1537) to 41.0 (CYR0004) and are shown in Figure 2-6.
All the stations were in the mainstem of the river except for XHG6094 (at
15.5) which was located at the mouth of Langford Creek. Langford Creek is
the largest tributary to the lower Chester River. Each nutrient parameter
was plotted against nautical mile for every survey date. Temperature,
salinity, pH and DO were measured at surface, middle and bottom depths.
These plots show the change in concentration longitudinally, with depth and
seasonal variability. The plots assume that station XHG6094 is in the
mainstem of the river and it is interesting to note the changes in nutrient
levels at this station.
Figures F-7-1, F-7-2 and F-7-3 show the 1980 and 1981 averages of the
salinity profiles. Salinity was near detection limits at the most upstream
station, at nautical mile 41.0. The rate of change of the longitudinal
salinity profile is fairly stable in the lower reach of the estuary;
however above nautical mile 21.3 (XHH8354) a large drop in salinity was
observed. Another major decrease was present between nautical mile 28
(XIH2463) and 41 (CYR0004) in the tidal fresh region. When individual
slack survey data are plotted at various depths (Figure F-7-4) the largest
stratification is observed in the lower estuary. Bottom waters show higher
salinity values with the exceptions occurring on April 8, 1981 and July 24,
1981. Therefore the Chester estuary has a net seaward flow in the surface
layer and a net landward flow in the bottom layer as expected. The higher
surface salinities may have been due to a possible upwelling or three layer
flow patterns. While salinity is controlled significantly by tidal action,
the dominance of advective and diffusive mixing processes are seen between
nautical mile 21.3 and 41.0 where stratification decreases. Looking at the
seasonal trends in salinity it is noted that lower salinity values were
observed during the summer months of June and July. Averages for these
months were 6.9 - 8.5 ppt while the overall average was 9.4 ppt.
Figure F-7-5 shows the temperature profiles of the river. The largest
stratification between the surface and bottom layers is in the lower
estuary except between nautical mile 15-16 where Langford Creek enters the
Chester. Langford Creek's outflow causes greater mixing between surface
and bottom waters and may reduce stratification in this shallow region of
the lower estuary. Late spring and early summer surveys show the largest
temperature stratification. By August the temperature stratification is
7-1
-------
negligible. The estuary stayed thermally stable until September. The
average temperature of the Chester was 19.51 + 7.749°C during the study
l>(! r i. od.
Turbidity (FTU) plots can be seen in Figure F-7-6. Turbidity was
measured for only 8 of th$ 27 survey dates. These plots indicate a
turbidity maximum region near nautical mile 28.0 (XIH2463). The turbidity
maximum zone can also be verified by the suspended solids (Figure F-7-7)
and the secchi disc (Figure F-7-8) plots. A bottom sediment sill also
occurs at this location. The overall slack, mean value for suspended solids
was 56.92 mg/1. The longitudinal maximum average occurred at nautical mile
28.0 (X1H2463) and the minimum average occurred at mile 5.5 (XHG1537) with
127.8 mg/1 and 40.3 mg/1 respectively. At various times between August and
December of 1980 the Chesapeake Bay may have been a source of suspended
solids because increased levels were present at XHG1537 (5.5). Secchi disc
measurements are low in the turbidity maximum region especially during the
months of July and August.
The DO plots are shown in Figure F-7-9. As expected, dissolved
oxygen concentrations are low during the summer with a large difference
between the surface and bottom values. The surface values stay around 8
mg/1 while the bottom values go below 1-2 mg/1 and reach values near zero
on several occassions. The lowest bottom concentration was observed on
July 22, 1981 (0.20 mg/1). The low DO levels observed during the summer of
1981 coincide with a period of low freshwater discharge reflecting little
rainfall. It is interesting to note the Langford Creek station DO. Little
or no stratification is seen there and DO is generally higher. Average DO
levels were 8.64 + 2.56 for 1980 and 7.61 + 2.76 for 1981. Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation profiles are shown in Figure F-7-10. Bottom waters show
DOS falling to 15% during the summer. The mean value for DOS was 87.82 +
17.37% during the study period. During the May 29, June 28, July 9, 24 and
27, 1981 slack surveys DOS reached above 150% at various locations in the
estuary. The May 29 survey was preceded by a large storm event around May
16-17. On June 26, 1981 the largest mean daily freshwater inflow for the
year was recorded at the Morgan Creek USGS station. On June 28 the DOS was
above 160% around mile 21. On July 5 a storm event occurred and on July 9
DOS was above 150% in the lower estuary. These measurements indicate slugs
of highly productive nutrient rich waters travel through the system in
response to storm events. On July 24 and 27, 1981 supersaturation (DOS of
150-180%) was observed in the lower estuary and upper river following a 20
day period of extremely low flows following the storm event. Thus, low flow
periods may also result in supersaturated DO in the lower estuary surface
waters and extremely low DOS in bottom waters.
The BOD^ plots are presented in Figure F-7-11. Biochemical Oxygen
Demand does not show a consistent longitudinal trend for the Chester River.
During 7-7-81, 7-10-81 and 7-16-81 the BOD levels are high in the lower
portion of the Chester and decrease up the river. The other dates, how-
ever, tend to show a trend of increasing BOD values in the upper Chester.
7-2
-------
The average profile of the river indicates a slight peak at Langford Creek
(XHG6094) and higher BOD vaiues at the headwaters of the river (C4R0004)
with an average BOD of 2.88 mg/.L and 3.86 mg/L respectively. The mean
BOD5 concentration was 2.75 + 1.70 mg/i. In Table F-7-2 the highest BOD
were obtained in April and August. This is also true for chlorophyll-a.
Longitudinally, chlorophyll-a was higher at the upper stations.
Limited plots for BOD20 and BOD3Q are available (Figure F-7-12 and
F-7-13). No general trend towards higher values was observed in the upper
river. BOD20 and BOD3Q mean values were 4.83 + 1.72 mg/1 5.0 + 1.74
mg/1 respectively.
The pH longitudinal plots can be seen in Figure F-7-14. The average
profile of the river (Table F-7-4) shows a peak at nautical mile 15.5
(XHG6094, Langford Creek) of 7.58+0.41. The pH gradually decreases in
the mainstem of the river on either side of Langford Creek. The upper and
lower river have greater variation, while the middle river is more stable.
It is not uncommon for pH to drop below 7 and sometimes below 6 pH units.
TKN is a chemical analysis to determine the total organic nitrogen
plus ammonia present in the river (Figure F-7-15). At the turbidity
maximum zone (XIH2463) a peak was observed. The average concentration for
all surveys was 0.7045 + 0.3911 mg/1. Filtered TKN (Figure F-7-16) is the
concentration of the dissolved components of organic nitrogen and ammonia
present in the river. There was not a peak at nautical mile 28.0
(XIH2463). This indicates that the peak observed in total TKN may have
been in particulate nitrogen. Plots of total particulate nitrogen
substantiate this fact. The mean value for filtered TKN was 0.6717 +
0.2467 mg/l.
Total organic nitrogen and dissolved organic nitrogen are shown in
Figure F-7-17 and Figure F-7-18 respectively. Mean concentrations for
dissolved organic nitrogen was 0.584 + 0.246 mg/1. During late spring
through summer organic nitrogen concentrations on the average were higher,
especially in the lower river. This is probably due to higher productivity
in the river during the summer, causing more organic matter to be present.
The source during this time is the Chesapeake Bay. On the other hand,
upper river values increased during early spring. This is possibly related
to winter thaw and increased land runoff contributing sources of detrital
matter to the estuary.
Total and dissolved inorganic nitrogen represent the sum of ammonia,
nitrite and nitrate (Figures F-7-19 and F-7-20). During the study period
dissolved inorganic nitrogen was greatest at nautical mile 41.0, the last
station in the upper river (1.22 + 0.90 mg/1). The minimum mean value of
dissolved inorganic nitrogen was at Langford Creek (0.13 + .14 mg/1). This
is close to a ten fold difference in longitudinal minimum and maximum of
the river. Inorganic nitrogen levels appear to be dependent on advective
flow to the estuary. Where the estuary is wider and dilution is greater
the concentrations are low. During the survey dates of 7-22-81, 7-27-81,
8-6-81 and 8-20-81 the plots show inorganic nitrogen higher in the lower
7-3
-------
estuary. During tills period rainfall was very low and freshwater discharge
was low slow. It could be inferred that little inorganic nitrogen was
input to the upper section of the river and the inorganic nitrogen has
gradually moved down to the lower river, or it cou.Ld be suggested that
during low flow conditions the Chesapeake Bay is a source of inorganic
nitrogen to the Chester.
Total and dissolved ammonia longitudinal profiles are shown in Figures
F-7-21 and ¥-1-22. There are generally higher concentrations in the upper
river with river maximums occurring near or at the turbidity maximum zone
(survey dates 3-11-81, 4-8-81 and 5-29-81). This could be due to an
increase in breakdown of detrital organic nitrogen which is dominantly
present in the upper river during the spring or to sediment fluxes. The
lower estuary had higher concentrations for survey dates 7-22-81, 7-27-81,
8-6-81 and 8-20-81 during low flow conditipns. Again indicating the Bay
serves as a source of nutrients during low flow conditions. Mean values
for total and dissolved ammonia are 0.044 + 0.036 mg/1 and 0.088 + 0.083
mg/1 respectively.
Total and dissolved nitrite longitudinal plot shown in Figure F-7-23
and F-7-24 follow along the same patterns as inorganic nitrogen. Peaks at
nautical mile 28.0 (XI112463) are observed for March 11, 1981 and April 8,
1981. The increased freshwater input to the upper estuary during the
spring could cause these higher values. The average estuary dissolved
nitrite concentration is 0.021 + 0.029 mg/1.
In Figures F-7-25 and F-7-26 the total and dissolved nitrate
longitudinal plots are presented. Nitrate does not have a peak at the
turbidity maximum zone during the spring as observed for ammonia and
nitrite. Concentrations are significantly higher at CYR0004, the last
station in the upper river (1.108 + 0.869 mg/1). The exceptions occur at
8-20-81 and 9-27-81 when levels become extremely low during a low flow
period when the Chesapeake Bay appears to be a source of nitrate. The
average value for dissolved nitrate is 0.225 + 0.448 mg/1.
TPN or total particulate nitrogen has a peak at the turbidity maximum
zone as expected. The mean value for TPN is 0.2569 + 0.1648 mg/1 (Figure
¥-1-21).
Total and dissolved phosphorus plots are shown in Figures F-7-28 and
F-7-29. Total phosphorus is the combination of both organic and inorganic
phosphorus. The maximum levels are observed either at 28.0 or 41.0
nautical miles. When looking the overall mean longitudinal profile of
total phosphorus a definite maximum of 0.317 mg/1 is observed at CYR0004
(nautical mile 41.0). Although dissolved phosphorus has higher concentra-
tions in the upper river, the difference along the longitudinal direction
is not as pronounced as nitrogen. Levels of dissolved phosphorus are
higher in October and then again in March. This is probably due to greater
freshwater inflows during these months.
7-4
-------
Orthophosphorus plots are presented in Figures F-7-30 and F—7—31. The
average concuntrations Tor dissolved orthophosphorus is 0.0244 + 0.0507
mg/1. The ioiiKlLudin.il minimum occurred ,:L Langl.ord Creek (nuulicai mile
15.5) and the mean maximum value right after it at nautical mile 10.0
(XHH5301). Although mile 16.0 has the highest mean value it also has a
large standard deviation. In the 0-3 ppt salinity range (oligohaline) high
values were observed from May to September. This suggests that a major
source of orthophosphorus during this period is from land runoff..
In most cases a peak at the last two stations was observed for total
particulate phosphorus in Figure F-7-32. A maximum mean level of 0.2518
mg/1 was observed at nautical mile 41.0. The lowest concentrations were at
nautical miles 8.5 and 13.2 before Langford Creek where a peak was
observed. Overall average of all dates and stations is 0.0864 + 0.261
mg/1.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) was analyzed during the first five surveys.
A maximum peak occurred near Langford Creek. The mean value for TOC was
7.923 + 2.789 mg/1 (Figure F-7-33).
Particulate carbon plots are shown in Figure F-7-34. A peak dominates
most plots at the turbidity maximum zone. The average 1980-81 value for
TPC is 1.921 + 1.09 mg/1.
Chlorophyll-a plots are shown in Figure F-7-35. Mean values of
chlorophyll-^ is 11.08 + 18.09 mg/1. Higher concentrations were observed
in the lower salinity ranges while higher salinity had lower levels of
chlorophyll-a^ Chlorophyll-a correlated well with salinity with a R^ of
0.755. In late July a large increase in chlorophyll-a is observed
indicating an algal bloom. It is not until September that levels of
chlorophyll-a resume to lower levels.
Pheophytin plots are shown in Figure F_7~36. Outcrops in high levels
in pheophytin are spotty with the highest levels observed on November 24,
1980 and July 27, 1981. The average estuarine value was 8.319 + 15.44
mg/1. On the average a maximum pheophytin-a concentration occurred at the
turbidity maximum zone. Pheophytin-a does not correlate well with
salinity.
The plots in Figure F-7-37 and F-7-38 are the relation between in-
organic nitrogen to orthophosphorus (Redfield ratio). The longitudinal
profile for all data indicate the upper and lower portions of the river are
phosphorus limited while the middle of the river from nautical miles 13.2
to 21.3 may be nitrogen limited. A maxima occurs at nautical mile 41.0
with 65.6 and the mean minimum ratio was at Langford Creek with 8.6.
During the fall and winter extremely high ratios were obtained in the upper
most station (CYR0004), indicating phosphorus limitation. From late June
through September the Chester estuary seems to be nitrogen limited
suggesting that more phosphorus is being released and supplied.
7-5
-------
Tables of statistics for the slack surveys were developed. Table
F-7-1 shows the statistical average for each survey date. The monthly
statistics for each salinity range are in Table F-7-2. The overall
statistical average for each nutrient parameter and the corresponding
salinity regimes are in Table F-7-3. Table F-7-4 provides the longitudinal
average profile for each parameter. Table L-'—7 — 5 i s tin: raw (.lata ol tho
slack surveys. Table F-7-6 gives the correlation of the nutrient variable
during the slack survey to salinity.
7-6
-------
SECTION 8
Temporal Characteristics of Water Quality Variables
The following section is a discussion of the temporal trends of
various water quality parameters using both the slack and twenty-four hour
survey data. There were 27 surveys conducted from July 1, 1980 to
September 27, 1981 with three 24-hour surveys. When possible the surface,
middle and bottom values were plotted. During intensive surveys the minimum
and maximum values were plotted to indicate the variability present during
a 24-hour period. These plots show the variability in seasonal trends as
well as the variability observed during the slack and 24-hour data.
Salinity values during 1981 were higher than the 1980 values due to
reduced rainfall (Figure G-8-1). Higher values were observed in the fall
and winter months, especially in the lower river. However in the upper
regions of the Chester Estuary higher salinity concentrations were observed
during the late summer. During periods of low freshwater inflow, a trend
existed for greater stratification in the water column. The data indicate
that higher flows reduced stratification. Comparison of station salinity
observed during the slack surveys to the 24-hour surveys indicate little
difference in the range of values, except at station XIH2463 in the
turbidity maximum region.
The dissolved oxygen plots are shown in Figure G-8-2. From May to
September the D.O. values were much lower. During these months the
polyhaline zone (greater than 10 ppt) had the lowest D.O. The deeper
bottom layers became depleted of oxygen during these months in the lower
estuary. The highest monthly average D.O. was observed in March 1981
(12.30 mg/1). In general, the minimum and maximum value observed at a
station during the study was measured during the 24-hour surveys.
The pH values do not seem to have any temporal trend (Figure G-8-3).
The pH changed considerably during a 24-hour period (see Section 9). The
Chester River had a slightly basic but stable pH. The monthly averages
range from 7.04 to 8.04 and for the majority of the time it was below 7.5.
The 24 hour surveys clearly show that values approaching a pH of 6 are not
uncommon.
The mean monthly statistics for ammonia (Figure G-8-4) show that
maximum values were present in the early spring, and in the summer from
July through September. In the lower estuary, from nautical mile 5.5 to
16.0, the maximum value occurred during summer with concentrations around
0.12 mg/1.
8-1
-------
The lower estuary stations also had increased concentrations in the early
spring. Ln the mid ant nary or mesohaline zone; the maximum values were in
March and April with peaks occasionally occurring in July and September.
Station CYR0004, at nautical mile 41.0, had maximum values during May and
June.
Monthly nitrite concentrations are presented in Figure 8-5. Nitrate
levels in the lower and middle estuary were at a maximum during August and
September. However, in the upper estuary the maximum nitrite
concentrations occurred in November, May and June.
Temporal nitrate station trends are shown in Figure G-8-6 and
statistics of the slack survey means are presented in Table 8-1. Nitrate
concentrations inceased during the spring (March to May). The maximum mean
value occurred in March at nautical mile 28 (0.62 mg/l). Concentrations
declined during the summer to a mean low of 0.50 mg/l during August. At
nautical mile 41.0, nitrate levels were very high and a summer nitrate
minimum was not apparent. At this location there was a nitrate maximum in
December. The 24-hour survey data indicate that slack, survey trends should
be interpreted with care.
A particulate nitrogen plots show maxima occurred in the summer
(Figure G-8-7). Average monthly values were usually higher in the
mesohaline zone (3.1-10. At nautical mile 28.0 no temporal trend was
apparent, with values being high during all months.
Dissolved phosphorus temporal plots are shown in Figure G-8-8. High
concentrations occurred in October and March. Over half of the monthly
averages had a concentration of 0.04 or less which is the "buffering" range
of phosphate suggested by Butler and Tibbites (1972). They suggested that
phosphorus lacked variability due to buffering reactions with the sediment.
The large increases in concentration during October and March are probably
due to higher spring and fall runoff.
The monthly statistics of orthophosphorus indicate maximum con-
centrations occurred during March and May although individual station plots
(Figure G-8-9) do not stress this trend. In the first four stations from
nautical mile 5.5 to 21.3 the concentrations were low except for high
values in March, July and September. The variability which occurred during
the 24-hour survey was very limited in the lower estuary, especially during
May. Variability increased during the summer in the upper river. At the
upper station (CYR0Q04) all the monthly values were high with highest
concentration and greater variability in the spring.
8-2
-------
Total particulate phosphorus trends are shown in Figure G-8-10. The
maximum concentrations for total particulate phosphorus occurred in March
1981, October 1980 and July 1981 with concentrations of 0.87, 0.14 and 0.12
mg/1 respectively. At the two upper stations a maximum also occurred in
March. The upper river concentrations are higher than the lower estuary
centrations.
Observations of the total particulate organic carbon are shown in
Figure G-8-11. Maximum concentrations occurred in the summer but
occasionally winter and spring levels were increased. Concentrations were
usually higher in the mesohaline zone (3.1-10 ppt). Summer maximums
occurred at the first three lower estuary stations and the last upper
station (XHG1537, XGG9572; XHH5301, CYR0004). The mid estuary stations at
nautical mile 21.3 and 28.0 had higher values during early spring (May) and
mid summer. Mean concentrations for the entire estuary during July and
August were 2.46 mg/1 and,2.69 mg/1 respectively.
Temporal characteristics of chlorophyll-a are shown in Figure G-8-12
Maximum mean river values during July and August of 1981 were 36.3 mg/1 and
29.7 mg/1 respectively. This monthly trend correlated well with BOD5
average monthly values. The stations at nautical mile 8.5 and 41.0 follow
this average monthly trend the closest. Concentrations are quite variable
on a monthly basis. Station XHG1537 (at nautical mile 5.5) had the highest
concentration of chlorophyll-ji during July 1980 and May, July and August of
1981. At nautical mile 16.0, 21.3 and 28.0 the monthly trend was similar
but higher values during August and September of 1980 were also present.
Highest chlorophyll-a^ values occurred at nautical mile 41 where
concentrations above 100 ug/1 occurred on several occasions.
November had the overall highest monthly mean concentrations of
pheophytin-a, (Figure G-8-13) but values were also high during July (18.98
mg/1) and August (13.52 mg/1) of 1981. These high pheophytin
concentrations coincides with higher chlorophyll-a and BOD5 levels.
Maximum monthly levels were usually present in the mesohaline zone.
Statistics of the temporal data are presented in Table G-8-1. The
data was divided into salinity regime of 0-3 ppt, 3.1-10 ppt and greater
than 10 ppt.
8-3
-------
Section y
Twenty-Four Hour Water Quality Survey Variable Results
Twenty four hour surveys were conducted at six stations in the
mainstem of the Chester for three dates. At each station a sample was
taken approximately every three hours. Although longitudinal and temporal
plots say a lot about the character and variability of nutrient
concentrations, the 24 hour surveys bring to light the dynamic nutrient
characteristics existing in an estuary.
Salinity plots for the 24 hour surveys are shown in Figure H-9-1.
Salinity does not vary greatly over a 24 hour period. As expected, values
decrease as they go up the river. Most of the stratification occurred at
the lower stations, especially in May. May's higher degree of stratifi-
cation could be due to a large temperature difference also present. The
cooler bottom water is denser with a higher salinity while the surface is
wanner, and less saline. Stratification was negligible for the July and
September surveys coinciding with less stratification in temperature. The
salinity values increased during high tide during the May survey at station
XHH5301 (16.0). Stratification was observed more often at slack tide
conditions. Although salinity was relatively uneffected in a 24 hour
period, it varied significantly with season and flow conditions.
Occasional inversions between mid-water and bottom water were observed.
Temperature plots in Figure H-9-2 do not vary much over a 24 hour time
span. As mentioned above, the May survey had more stratification.
Since there was more variability during the May survey, it was looked at
more closely. At night the temperature tends to decrease slightly,
especially the surface values. The one exception occurred at station
XGG9572 (8.5) where the bottom reacted oppositely showing an increase in
temperature during night.
Suspended solids (Figure H-9-3) vary significantly during the 24 hour
surveys. Of the three surveys, September had the highest values. This may
be due to the windy conditions which were prevalent during this survey.
For all surveys the bottom values were usually greater than the surface
values, but occassionally surface values were higher. When looking at the
average surface and bottom values for each salinity range (Table H-9-4) it
can be seen that the surface waters are more homogeneous or consistent.
Although the surface and bottom have increased levels in the mesohaline
zone (3.1 - 10 ppt) where the suspected turbidity maximum zone was, the
increase in the surface was not as dramatic as the increase in the bottom
layer. During July at nautical mile 21.3 (XHH8354) the surface and bottom
values inversed between each other four times- Although there were
9-1
-------
considerable fluctuations between the aurfacu arid bottom values, tlic water
column average remained relatively unchanged dur'ng the 24-hour period. La
Uue lower portion of the Chester River the yeaks and increased stratifi-
cation generally occurred at slack tides, especially aEter a flood tide,
i'his suggests that suspended solid levels were dependent on the tidal
cycle. Since water movement was minimized during slack tides, the
suspended solids settled to the bottom and caused bottom concentrations to
increase- Surface values were relatively stable. Longitudinally, all
three surveys were very consistent, indicating the highest concentration at
nautical mile 28.0 (XIH2463). The average concentration at this station
was 58 mg/1. The overall river mean value for suspended solids was 39 + 25
mg/1 with 4 mg/1 and 203 mg/l as the minimum and maximum values
respectively.
It was interesting to note the fluctuations that occur in pH during
the 24 hour surveys (Figure H-9-4). For an estuary like the Chester, a
slightly basic ptt was expected and the average value of 7.38 + 0.64
reflects this. The minimum and maximum values were 3.5 and 9.5
respectively and they both appear during the May survey at station XHK8354
(2L.3). To have the minimum and maximum value occur on the same day and
same station verifies that one slack pH measurement is not indicative of
the general river conditions at that location on a given day. The pH
measurements ranging from 5 to 9 were regarded as safe and the Chester,
except for the May survey at 21.3, was well within this range. The pH ¦
levels were on the slightly acidic side during May at XGG9572 (6.43 + 0.39)
and CYR0004 (6.79 + 0.32) and during September at CYR.0004 (6.30 + 0.5l).
Stratification was more prevalent in May and July. During September the
Chester Estuary showed a better chemical equilibrium and a greater
buffering capacity which resisted large changes in pH. High wind
conditions present during September's survey could have caused greater
equilibrium in the water column through reaeration processes. The
stratification observed during the May (more so) and July surveys coincide
with a more acidic bottom layer. (This could be a result of less
photosynthetic activity at the bottom because pH shifts due to biological
uptake of CC^O
The average dissolved oxygen observed during the three 24-hour
.-surveys, as shown, in Figure ii-9-5, was 7.30 + 2.2 tng/1. Most of the
stratification occurred in the lower river, especially during May and July.
At times the bottom layer fell to onoxic low levels. The largest
stratification occurred on the 5-29-81 survey at mile 5.5 with the mean
surface and bottom values being 9.66 and 1.95 mg/1 respectively. For the
various salinity ranges the polyhaline zone (greater than L0 ppt) had the
highest surface average of 8.6 mg/1 and the lowest bottom average of 6.0
mg/1 (Table H-9-4). Almost no stratification was observed during the
September 24 hour surveys, with values generally above 6 mg/1. Windy
conditions that occurred during 9-24-81 were probably the cause of
destratification and elevated bottom DO concentrations. There was not a
larger DO range observed during the 24 hour surveys (1.0 mg/1 - 14.5 mg/1)
which could not be obtained during the individual slack surveys (0.2 mg/1 -
15.0 mg/1). This implies that DO for a particular station could be
9-2
-------
represented fairly well by collecting a single slack, sample per depth for
that d.iy. Average dissolved oxygen concentratio n; for the May, July and
September surveys were ft.42 mg/1, 7.16 mg/1 .mid H.48 m;;/L respectively.
Dissolved oxygen saturation plots are shown in Figure H-9-6. The
highest mean DOS values were reached on 7-24-81 at XH115301 (16.0) with the
average value being 131.13% + 45.87% and mean surface and bottom values
ranging from 140.13% to 118.23%. During this July survey high levels were
not reached until midway in the survey. Bottom levels jumped from
approximately 40% to 180%. This increase and inversion of surface and
bottom values may have been caused by bottom upwelling. Very high DOS
percents were obtained during 9-24-81. The levels in DOS were surprisingly
dependent on wind conditions.
During the 24-hour survey total particulate organic nitrogen samples
were analyzed every six hours instead of every three hours (Figure H-9-7).
Total nitrogen had an average concentration of 0.60 + 0.55 mg/1 with 0.09
mg/1 and 2.8 mg/1 as the minimum and maximum values, respectively. There
was stratification present during all three survey dates with no strong
evidence toward destratification on windy days. On 9-24-81 there was an
inversion between surface and bottom concentrations. Bottom values were
generally lower for April and July while the opposite was true for
September. The changes in concentration appear to be governed by the tidal
cycle with stratification occurring more often during slack tide.
Dissolved nitrogen levels are shown in Figure li-9~8. Stratification
was present for all dates with minimum and maximum values being 0.01 mg/1
and 2.b mg/1 respectively. Levels of dissolved nitrogen increased up the
river and a sink appears to occur in the middle of the river. This sink
was present at nautical mile 21.3 for day, at mile 8.5 for July and at mile
16.0 for September. In July the concentrations in dissolved nitrogen were
very low in the lower river with a dramatic jump occurring at station
CYR0004 (41.0). The average concentration for dissolved nitrogen was 0.31
mg/1 + 0.49 mg/1.
The dissolved organic nitrogen plots in Figure ri-9-9 show much higher
concentrations during the July survey. May had the highest average values
at. station CYR0004 -(0.83 mg/1), July at XHH5301 (1.58 mg/1) and September
at XIH2463 (0.92 mg/1); as shown in Table H-9-1. Peaks were observed
during July at nautical miles 5.5 and 16.0, May at 8.5 and 21.3 and during
September at 16.0 and 41.0. When comparing these peaks to the tidal cycle
it was noticed that they appear during a slack tide. Bottom values rose
when the slack occurred after a flood tide while the surface values
increase after an ebb tide.
Inorganic nitrogen fluctuates during a 24 hour period as shown in
Figure H-9-10. There was significant stratification for all three survey
dates, especially in the lower river. In the middle section of the estuary
the bottom layer had higher inorganic nitrogen measurements, suggesting
remineralization processes on the bottom. Longitudinally the last upper
station on the Chester River had the highest concentrations for each 24
9-3
-------
hour survey. This implies that the freshwater Inflow was a dominant source
of inorganic nitrogen. The mean value at CYROOO was 1.54 mg/1 +0.43
rag/1. The concentration of inorganic nitrogen does not change considerably
due to night fall. This lacK of dependency on the sun's radiation suggests
tnat inorganic nitrogen is not utilized photosynthetically as expected.
Dissolved ammonia (Figure H-9-11) was the most abundant component of
inorganic nitrogen present in the lower estuary and it appears to dictate
the patterns of inorganic nitrogen there. When comparing the ammonia
concentrations at various salinity levels, the lower and upper estuary had
the highest concentrations with a sink occurring in the middle. Usually
the surface values were higher in the Chester Estuary. The values for the
surface were 0.14 mg/l, 0.08 mg/1 and 0.16 mg/l for the lower, middle and
upper sections of the estuary, respectively. Bottom values were 0.12 mg/l,
0.08 mg/l and 0.09 mg/l, respectively. There is a reversal in nutrient
stratification between nautical mile 8.5 to 16.0 where the sink appears to
occur. Bottom levels had higher concentrations at these sinks suggesting
increased benthic activity. The July survey was unique in that the bottom
layer was always more concentrated, indicating that benthic remineraliza-
tion may be greater in the mid summer rather than in late spring or early
fall.
Nitrite was the least abundant form of inorganic (Figure H-9-12). The
concentrations rarely follow the inorganic nitrogen trends. The changes in
concentration and stratification was not a result of the tidal cycle since
concentration changes do not follow changes in stage height. Values for
dissolved nitrite were low and the mean concentration for all three surveys
was 0.C.3 + 0.03 mg/l with the minimum and maximum of 0.001 mg/l and 0.11
mg/l respectively. The three surveys were inconsistent in their longitudi-
nal characteristics. May and July showed a minimum (sink) in the mesoha-
line zone (3.1 - 10 ppt) with concentrations increasing in the upper and
lower estuary. September data indicated a sink in the upper station with
increasing levels in the lower estuary. Lower than average concentrations
were observed in July with higher than average values obtained in
September.
Average dissolved nitrate values were considerably higher in the upper
river with the middle and lower river showing greater variability (Figure
H-9-13). Nitrate was the dominant inorganic nitrogen in the upper river
stations at 21.3, 28.0 and 40.0 nautical mile. Most of the time nitrate
concentration changed with the tidal cycle with a decrease in concentration
during high tide and an increase in concentration during low tide, thus
during high tide, a dilution effect caused levels to drop. Some examples
or this tidal effect occurred in May at 28.0 and 41.0, and July at 41.0
where a high tide resulted in a drop in nitrate levels. In September at
21.3 and 5.5 a low tide resulted in an increased nitrate concentration.
Also, stratification generally increased during a slack tide and destrati-
fication was the effect of an ebb or flood tide. High winds present during
the September survey did not effect the nitrate stratification as was
suggested for DO. The dissolved nitrate mean for all the 24 hour surveys
was 0.28 + 0.49 mg/l with 0.01 mg/l and 2.55 mg/l being the minimum and
9-4
-------
maximum values respectively. In the lower and upper portions of the' river
the mean surface values were higher but in the middle section the mean
bottom concentration was higher. The July survey mean nitrate concentra-
tions were lower than the Hay and September concentrations. The discharge
flow rate during the July survey was also higher.
Unlike the nitrogen nutrients discussed, the total phosphorus plots in
Figure 11-9-14 do not show dependence upon stage height. Since the
variability of total phosphorus does not appear to be selected to any
physical characteristic (weather, flow rate or tidal cycle) the variability
may be dependent on sources and sinks. Although there was stratification,
there was no trend to have higher concentration at the bottom of the water
column. Frequently the surface and bottom values inversed, while the
average levels in the water column remained fairly stable. The mean value
for total phosphorus was 0.09 + 0.07 mg/1 with 0.0L mg/1 and 0.62 mg/1 as
the minimum and maximum.
Dissolved phosphorus concentrations showed a stronger dependence with
stage height (Figure H-9-15). The strongest tidal influences occurred
during May at nautical mile 28.0, in July at nautical miles 28.0 and 41.0,
and in September at nautical mile 16.0. As was noticed for total
phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus had no definite water column trend because
of surface and bottom concentration inversions. Each survey date had a
different average longitudinal trend. The peak concentrations for May,
July and September were at 41.0, 21.3 and 8.5 nautical miles respectively,
while sinks occurred at 21.3 and 28.0 for May, 5.5 and 16.0 for July and
41.0 for September. There appeared to be a gradual longitudinal movement
in the peaks and sinks of dissolved phosphorus. During late spring a
Chester River dissolved phosphorus source was indicated in the upper
estuary with a sink appearing right below it in the upper middle section of
the river. 3y the summer, the potential source had moved down the river to
the middle of the estuary and the sink moved down to the lower mid section.
September brought about a complete longitudinal change and a source was
indicated in the lower estuary and a sink in the upper river.
Dissolved orthophosphorus is shown in Figure 9-16. Tidal effects
seemed to have an effect on the orthophosphorus concentration especially in
the middle to upper estuary. An increase in concentration was observed
after an ebb tide for all three survey dates at nautical miles 41.0 and
28.0 and during May and July at 21.3 nautical miles. During May there was
little or no stratification in the lower stations with a gradual but spotty
stratification occurring in the upper stations. Looking at the water
column for all three 24 hour surveys the bottom values were generally
greater than surface values, especially in the 0-3 ppt salinity range.
Statistically, the July data has greater vaLue in the bottom layer which
coincides with ammonia. This fact supports the view that increased benthic
remineralization occurred in the July summer survey. Longitudinally the
three 24 hour surveys were very consistent with each other with maximum
level in the upper estuary and minimum value in the lower estuary. The
maximum and the minimum averages for May were 0.063 mg/1 and 0.01 uig/1 and
were at stations CYROOU4 (41.0) and XCU9572 (8.5) respectively. During
9-5
-------
July and September the maximums (0.056 and 0.U67 my/I) and minimums (O.Oly
and U.017 mg/1) were ;it 21.3 and 5.5 nautical mi cs respectively. At night
the orchophospliord.s levels decreased during M.iy aL 21-3, July ;jL 16.0 and
2iJ.il .mil Sepl (.'inbu r .iL n. 5 and 16.0.
Total particulate phosphorus had its longitudinal maximum at nautical
mile 28.0 (Figure H-9-17). The turbidity maximum region in July varied
slightly from this mean trend with higher concentrations occurring in the
upper most station, CYR0004. The changes in concentration of TPP appear to
be governed by tidal forces. When the tide was high levels of TPP usually
increased, especially during May. Stratification was present at all
stations. During the May survey the surface values were greater while
during the July survey bottom values were greater.
Particulate organic carbon in Figure H-9-18 also had its mean
longitudinal maximum at the turbidity maximum zone. This trend was
consistent for all three survey dates. Stratification was present and for
a majority of the time surface values were greater. The average value for
P0C is 2.00 + 1.62 mg/1 with 0.001 mg/1 and 11.30 mg/1 as the minimum and
maximum respectively.
When looking at chlorophyll-^ in figure H-9-19, note should be taken
to the different scales used. The average chlorophyll-a value for all
24-hour survey data was 16.97 + 37.02 ug/1. Longitudinally the mean
maximum value appeared at nautical mile A 1.0. In Table H-9-4 the
oligohaline zone (0-3 ppt) showed the greatest difference in the surface
and bottom values- The statistics were somewhat deceiving because an algae
bloom was present in July at 41.0 causing the concentration at the surface
to be extremely high (i.e. note the scale); yet during this same survey at
CYK0004 no bottom values were taken. Stratification and destratification
was present during all surveys and appears partially dependent upon tidal
forces.
For the phaeophytin~a plots in Figure H-9-20, the average concentra-
tion was 5.36 + 10.21 ug/1. Pheophytin was not as concentrated as
chlorophyll yet it still appeared to be dependent on stage height. There
was no trend longitudinally to have higher surface or bottom values (Table
Hr9—2) although Table H-9-4 indicated the values were higher at the
surface. The greater depth difference was at 0-3 ppt region due again to
the lack of bottom values during the July survey.
Table tl-9-1 shows the univariate statistics for each 24 hour survey.
Table H-9-2 shows longitudinal statistics for the surface and bottom
values. The salinity regimes are represented in Table ri—9-4 with
statistics grouped by depth. Regressions correlating the water quality
variables to salinity and Dissolved Oxygen are presented in Tables H-9~3
and H-9-5 respectively.
9-6
-------
Section 10
Historical Analysis of Dissolved Oxygen and Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
Historical Dissolved Oxygen
Historical dissolved oxygen (DO-mg/1) data from the Chester River was
consolidated into one file. Sources of data for this file included the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality File, the Chesa-
peake Bay Institute, and "An Evaluation of Chester River Oyster Mortality",
a Maryland Department of Natural Resources report. The sampling dates
spanned from 1949 to 1981.
For purposes of analysis, the river was divided into an upper and low-
er zone. These divisions were based on salinity. The lower zone salinity
was between 10.01 and 20.0 ppt. Data in the upper zone had DO observations
and salinity between 0.2 and 10.0 ppt. This division of brackish water is
similar to the classification proposed by Ekman, 1953.
The data was grouped by years and DO vs salinity was linearly
regressed. Table 1-10-1 shows the univariate statistics for DO as well as
the correlation coefficients from the"regressions. This table reflects the
whole estuary (salinity= .2 to 20.0 ppt). A plot of DO means vs year is
shown in Figure I-10-1. The plot shows no clear linear historical DO trend
although regression of the yearly mean DO would indicate a trend towards
supersaturated water. Figure 1-10-2 and Table 1-10-2 show the same
information in the two estuary salinity zones. Again, no strong linear
trend is evident, although the regression line would indicate a downward
trend. The same data for the lower river is presented in Figure 1-10-3 and
Table 1-10-3. A strong linear trend is not evident, however this grouping
of data shows a stronger linear trend towards higher DO than the previous
figures. It should be noted that many of the years, particularly the 60's
have little or no data. For this reason these three plots may be
misleading. Plots of the actual DO values vs salinity, by years, are shown
in Figure 1-10-4. These plots indicate that DO around 1 mg/1 was observed
in 1949 and 1958 in the lower estuary. Low DO was not again measured until
1975 and 1976 when detailed sampling occurred in the lower river by the
Department of Natural Resources. Data from 1980 and 1981 also show DO near
or below 1 mg/1.
The data was split into four groups (by decades) and regressions of DO
vs salinity were again performed. Statistical results from the whole
estuary, and the upper and lower salinity zones are shown in Tables 1-10-4,
10-1
-------
1-10-5, and 1-10-6, respectively. This grouping of the data would indicate
a lower estuary trend towards increasing DO values in the 70's and 80's.
The upper estuary mean DO increased in the 60's and fell in the 70's and
80's. The estuary as a whole reflects this characteristic and thus no
linear trend. This trend may reflect partly the fact that more samples
were taken in the upper zone than in the lower. Since random sampling
procedures were never applied, more sophisticated statistical techniques
applied to the data may be misleading.
It is difficult to make any definitive statement regarding DO trends
based on the preceding information. Dissolved oxygen is a variable that is
influenced by temperature, salinity, and varies according to depth of the
water, tidal fluctuations, seasons, time of the day, and many other chemi-
cal and biological factors.
Tables 1-10-7, 1-10-8, and 1-10-9 show univariate statistics and the
results of regressing DO vs salinity for various depth ranges for the
entire estuary, the upper zone, and the lower zone. As expected, DO
averages decrease as depth increases, with the lower estuary deeper water
average of 5 mg/l. The standard deviations for DO in the lower river are
also generally higher than their counterparts in upper river. This
increased range of DO is probably due to the greater influence of water
column stratification found in the lower estuary and the resulting
utilization of oxygen during stratified conditions by organic material
decomposition.
DO and salinity were grouped by month. Tables 1-10-10, 1-10-11 and
1-10-12 show the univariate statistics and regression results. Figure
1-10-5 is a plot of DO means vs month for the whole river. As expected,
the lower estuary shows lower monthly DO in the summer months. Chemical and
biological processes which utilize oxygen increase during these summer
months. The temperature also increases and this lowers DO. This trend is
clearly illustrated in the plots. Examination of the DO standard
deviations during the warmer months shows another important trend, i.e.,
while the means have decreased, the ranges have increased. This most
likely is due to the fact that biological processes which utilize oxygen,
such as phytoplankton productivity, are higher and diurnal cycles show
greater variability, causing greater "swings" in the dissolved oxygen
during summer months. The relatively low DO mean for January (as compared
to December and February) is attributed to the small number of
observations.
An analysis of DO by time of day was carried out. These results are
shown in Table 1-10-13, 1-10-14, and 1-10-15. Figure 1-10-6 is a plot of
the DO means vs time of day for the whole river. Figure 1-10-7 shows
averages from the upper and lower river. The L's indicate low salinity
(upper river) and the H's indicate high salinity (lower river). In the
upper river DO shows an increase around 3 A.M., falls to a low between 6
and 8 A.M., and then increases to its' highest point of the day around
noon. It starts falling around 7 P.M. Discounting the extreme low around
9 P.M. (which represents only 18 observations), it would appear that DO
10-2
-------
fluctuates less on a daily basis in the upper estuary than in the lower
estuary. This is probably due to the greater tidal mixing which occurs in
the high salinity region. In both figures a DO minimum appears around 5
A.M.
In an effort to further refine the analysis, the data was grouped by
seasons and by years. The seasonal divisions were as follows: winter
(December, January, February), spring (March, April, May), summer (June,
July, August), and fall (September, October, November). Tables 1-10-16,
1-10-17, 1-10-18, and 1-10-19 show DO statistics by year for the four
seasons. There appears to be a slight historical trend towards higher DO
in the winter months, although this is questionable due to the limited
number of observations. Spring mean values indicate no trend. The summer
season DO values are lowest, as expected, followed by fall, spring, and
then winter. No trend through the years is observed during the spring,
summer, or fall values when all estuary data is combined to calculate
statistics. No trend is evident of changing standard deviations for
different seasons.
Seasonal DO univariate statistics and regression results are shown for
the upper river or estuarine zone in Tables 1-10-20, 1-10-21, 1-10-22, and
1-10-23. No trend during the winter is obvious, especially considering the
paucity of data. During the spring as well as the summer mean DO values,
no strong trend appears except that standard deviation shows a slight
increase over the years. Table 1-10-23 shows the fall mean DO by year with
no apparent trend.
In the lower river, Tables 1-10-24, 1-10-25, 1-10-26, and 1-10-27
indicate that a trend may exist in winter towards higher DO, but data is
available for only three years. During the spring, summer and fall, no
distinct trend is observed using these simple statistical relations.
Historical Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
Temperature and salinity affect the solubility of oxygen in water.
This characteristic should be taken into account when analyzing DO trends.
Another variable called the dissolved oxygen deficit (DOD - mg/1), some-
times known as apparent oxygen utilization, was calculated as follows:
DOD = SDO - MD0
where: SDO = calculated saturation value of DO. SDO is a
function of salinity and temperature.
MDO = measured dissolved oxygen corrected for temperature
and salinity.
DOD was calculated whenever DO measurements were present in the file
in conjunction with temperature and salinity measurements. The method of
calculating the saturation value is based on the algorithm used in the
Maryland Water Quality file.
10-3
-------
In some cases salinity was not present but a conductivity measurement
was available. In these instances salinity was calculated as a function of
-conductivity. The equation used was given by Pritchard and reported by
Westinghouse, 1972. This calculated salinity was then used in the
previously mentioned algorithm.
Negative values of DOD represent water that is supersaturated with
oxygen. Positive values indicate oxygen utilization.
Tables 1-10-28, 1-10-29, and 1-10-30, show univariate statistics for
DOD by years for all data, the lower zone and upper river or estuary zone,
as well as correlation coefficients obtained from least squares regression
of DOD vs salinity. Figures 1-10-8, 1-10-9, and 1-10-10, are plots of the
means vs year. A general trend indicates greater supersaturation trends
for the entire river system (r = -.380). There is a small linear decrease
of DOD's in the upper river indicating a small trend towards supersatur-
ation (r = -.149). The plot for the lower estuary also shows a slight
trend towards saturation (lower DOD's) in thie later years (r = -0.490).
This correlates well with the findings of slightly greater DO's (Figure
1-10-3, Table 1-10-3).
Tables 1-10-31, 1-10-32, and 1-10-33 give the statistics for DOD for
the years 1949-59, 1960-69, 1970-79, and 1980-81. Using this temporal
grouping, a trend towards saturation values is indicated in the lower
river. The upper estuary shows little change from the 50's to the 80's.
DOD was grouped by depth ranges: 0-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, and greater
than 41 feet. As expected, Tables 1-10-34, 1-10-35, and 1-10-36, clearly
show greater deficits at increasing depths.
Figure 1-10-11, is a plot of DOD means vs month for the upper and
lower river. The H's refer to the high salinity zone and the L's refer to
low salinity zone. Tables 1-10-37, 1-10-38, and 1-10-39 give the
corresponding statistics for the monthly averages.
DOD was analyzed by time of day, i.e. data was analyzed using 2-hour
periods. Tables 1-10-40, 1-10-41, and 1-10-42, show results for the whole
upper, and lower river system. Figure 1-10-12 shows that DOD in the upper
river zone (L) falls to a low around 3 A.M., reaches the maximum high for
the day around 5 A.M., and then steadily decreases to Its' minimum value
around 7 P.M. (i.e. increasing saturation), then increases, reaching a high
around 12-1 A.M. (larger positive deficits). The lower estuary (H) data
indicates.a less variable cycle. The deficits rise to a high around noon
and remain high until 9 P.M. They then decrease to their maximum low
around midnight. This is the reverse of what we expected, i.e. lower
deficits during the day and greater deficits in the early morning and
evening hours. All data for the river (see Table 1-10-40) indicate a trend
towards saturation in the late afternoon period and early evening, and
large deficits from 6-8 A.M. in the early morning, as expected.
10-4
-------
Results of the seasonal DOD analysis is shown in Tables 1-10-43-54.
The winter values indicate a potential trend towards supersaturation,
however this may be a spurious trend due to limited number of observations.
No linear DOD trend is obvious in the spring season. During the summer
months no total river trend in DOD is observed. In the lower estuary a
slight trend is indicated by the greater standard deviations, indicating
potentially larger swings in the dissolved oxygen (see Table 1-10-51). In
the upper estuary (see Table 1-10-50) a trend towards larger deficits are
indicated as well as an increase in the standard deviations through the
years. In the fall season, a strong linear trend is apparent for the total
estuary analysis (see Table 1-10-52). No trend is apparent in the upper
estuary, however a trend towards supersaturation is noted in the lower
estuary. It's significance is not clear.
Figures 1-10-13 through 1-10-18 show the yearly mean seasonal DOD
versus year. It is interesting to note the change in trend of summer DOD
(Figure 1-10-16) around 1972, after tropical storm Agnes occurred. Thus,
the season values indicate a general trend towards supersaturated
conditions.
Figure 1-10-19 shows the DOD plotted against salinity for each year.
Although deficits around 6.5 mg/1 were observed as early as 1949 and
continue to be observed in 1981 near the same magnitude, negative DOD
(indicative of supersaturated conditions) were observed at a greater
frequency in later years, probably due to increased sampling frequency as
concern for water quality conditions increased.
Cumulative frequency distributions (CFD's) can be useful tools for
evaluating changes in water quality, especially changes from a given
criteria or standard. CFD's have been developed for dissolved oxygen and
dissolved oxygen deficits for historical and new data. Figure 1-10-20
shows the dissolved oxygen CFD based upon combining all data for various
years. Based upon data from 1949-1981, 50% of the time dissolved oxygen
has been approximately 7.0 mg/l. Data taken during 1960-1969 was higher,
i.e. 50% of the time observed D.0. was slightly greater than 8.0 mg/1. The
1949-1959 data indicated that 10 percent of the time one would expect D.0.
to be less than 5.0 mg/1 and only 8% of the year one would expect D.0. to
be less than 4.0 mg/1. Figure 1-10-20 could be interpreted as indicating
low dissolved oxygen occurring less frequently around 1959, higher D.0.
occured more frequently from 1960-1969. In addition1, Figure 10-20
indicates one might expect D.0. from around 8 to 10 mg/1 to occur less
frequently. This figure also supports the view that higher D.0. occurs
less frequently now than historically.
Figure 1-10-21 shows data for the entire Chester estuary during the
months of July and August. Data are grouped before 1969, between 1970-1981
and 1980-1981 data. This plot indicates that during the months of July and
10-5
-------
August one can expect D.O. to be around 6 mg/1 50% of the time and about 8%
of the time (during July and August) D.O. is below 4.0 mg/1. This
information can be compared with data in the upper estuary (low salinity
region) where Figure 1-10-22 indicates a D.O. below 4 mg/1 occurs less than
4-5% of the time, however around 5.2 mg/1 occurs 50% of the time. In other
words, in the upper estuary D.O. tends to be lower by 1 mg/1 50% of the
time and D.O. below 4 mg/1 occurs less frequently than one would estimate
for the entire river.
In the lower estuary (high salinity zone) Figure 1-10-23 indicate
historically D.O. less than or equal to 4 mg/1 occurs less than or equal to
20% of the time and D.O. of 6 mg/1 occurs approximately 50% of the time.
In addition, low DO (0-2 mg/1) occurs less often. Also, the median D.O. is
lower in the upper estuary compared to the lower estuary by around 0.8
mg/1. The probability of D.O. less than 4 mg/1 doubles in the lower
estuary during July and August, compared to the upper estuaries zone.
Figure 1-10-24 shows the CFD for the lower estuary (all months) by decades.
Fifty percent of the time D.O. is around 6.0 mg/1. Figure 1-10-25
indicates a trend towards lower dissolved oxygen in the upper estuary based
upon the CFD. Figures 1-10-26 and 1-10-2 7 show the change in the D.O. CFD
in the upper and lower estuary when the months of July and August are
compared to data from all months. Figure 10-28 indicates that when all
data are used to create a simple CFD, data taken from 1949-1959 has a
greater frequency of low dissolved oxygen than data from 1980-1981, thus
supporting the previous linear regression trends.
Calculation of dissolved oxygen CFD's for various depth ranges is
shown in Figure 1-10-29. This figure clearly shows a high frequency of low
dissolved oxygen at water depths greater than 20 feet. Specifically, all
historical data indicates that at a depth greater than 40 feet, 20% of the
time D.O. is less than 3 mg/1. Figure 1-10-30 shows that all data taken at
a depth greater than 30 feet in 1980-1981 indicates 20% of the time D.O.
would be expected to be at or below 2 mg/1 during the months of June, July
and August. Figure 10-31 indicates, as expected, that very rarely does
surface DO occur less than 5 mg/1 occur, although occassionally D.O.
approaching 3 mg/1 was observed in surface waters (0-10 feet) in 1980-1981.
Figures 10-31 and 10-32 are noteworthy in that the CFD's for the upper
and lower estuary during July and August are compared using all historical
data. In the upper estuary a D.O. of 3.3 would be expected to occur
approximately 20% of the time, and Figure 10-33 shows that a D.O. of around
1.0 mg/1 occurred 20% of the time in waters greater than 30 feet during the
months of July and August.
CFD's have also been developed for the dissolved oxygen deficit and
comparisons are shown in Figures 1-10-34 through 1-10-38. Figure 1-10-34
shows the historical trends to be very clearly in the deficit. No obvious
deviation is apparent through the years. Larger negative deficits have
10-6
-------
been observed, but less frequently compared to the 1949-1959 data. Still
there is no large deviation through the years, and the biological signifi-
cance between the 1980-81 and 1949-1959 CFD's cannot be determined. Figure
1-10-35 also substantiates the view that little change in the DOD has been
observed over the last two decades. Figures 1-10-39, 1-10-40 and 1-10-41
indicate as expected, the larger deficits (low D.O.) especially in the
lower river in deeper waters. Figures 1-10-42 through 1-10-46 show the
uniqueness of dissolved oxygen at depth ranges.
D.O. deficit CRD's are shown in Figures 1-10-47 through 1-10-49 and
indicate no large deviations through the years, however larger deficits did
occur in the low salinity region (see Figure 1-10-48) during this 1980-1981
study. In the high salinity region there is indication of a trend towards
supersaturation. The greatest evidence for degraded water quality is
highlighted by Figure 1-10-50 which indicates that the 1980-1981 CFD in the
upper river in July and August showed relatively higher deficits than all
other time periods except 1960-1969.
10-7
-------
Section 11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Juvenile Finfish Index for Chesapeake Bay and its relation to environmental
variables.
An analysis of the Chesapeake Bay juvenile finfish index was made in
order to more fully address the relation between water quality, environ-
mental variables and biological resources. Before beginning this analysis
consideration was given to various techniques of time series analysis and
multiple linear regression. The review showed that a key element in
quantitative analysis of time series is the analysis of residual phenomena.
For example, Draper and Smith, 1981 reference Herschel and K. Bart, 1849,
as stating the following:
"Almost all the greatest discoveries in astronomy have
resulted from the consideration of what we have elsewhere termed
residual phenomena, of a quantitative or numerical kind, that is
to say, of such portions of the numerical or quantitative results
of observation as remain outstanding and unaccounted for after
subducting and allowing for all that would result from the strict
application of known principles."
This statement highlights an underlying theme used in the analysis
which is described below.
Results of the Baywide juvenile index for finfish, monitored by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and reported by J. Boone, in the
Estuarine Fish Recruitment Survey, 1980(4), were used. This report gives
the yearly results of inshore seining in major spawning and nursery grounds
for estuarine species. Combined site data was obtained from the monitoring
program for the years 1959 through 1979 which represents a bay-wide
juvenile finfish index (Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay). The index
has been used as an Indicator of the abundance of estuarine spawning and
ocean spawning finfish species and has also been interpreted to reflect
future year classes of estuarine finfish in Chesapeake Bay. In addition,
the index has been used to indicate the potential spawning success of
estuarine and ocean spawning finfish species.
Although this index lacks repetitive station sampling at a given
station in order to statistically characterize the variance of the
abundance of juvenile species, it is one of the only field monitoring
11-1
-------
studies of juvenile finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay Region which has
been conducted on a yearly basis for more than twenty years. if the
assumption is made that the index is an indicator of Lhe spawning success
of Liufisli, it can be correlated with other eiivLroninenta L time scries data
in order to make inferences regarding factors affecting spawning success,
l'his analysis was therefore performed in order to indicate positive
correlations or associations between the juvenile index, climatic variables
and water quality variables.
Climatic time series of yearly mean rainfall, heating degree days and
air temperature was obtained from published National Weather Service,
Climatological Summaries for Baltimore Washington Airport, Maryland. Water
quality time series were obtained from retrieval of data stored in the US
EPA Storage and Retrieval System (STORET). STORET data was stored and
retrieved in two subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, the Chester and Patuxent
Rivers within Maryland. Data from these systems were selected because of
the historical data availability, familiarity of the data bases in these
systems, and because these rivers are known to support the spawning of
estuarine finfish.
Time series for the above data from 1959 to 1979 were standardized
according to the procedure suggested by Salas, et. al. 1980 (6). All time
series were normalized by the following transformation:
Z± = X,- - M , (11-1)
S
where: M = the mean of the time series.
S = the standard deviation of the time series.
= the value of the time series for period i.
Z± = normalized value of the time series for period i.
In essence, this transformation is a very simple method of creating a
residual time series which has been standardized with respect to the mean
and standard deviation. The result (Z^) is a unitless residual time
series. Application of the transformation allows the comparison of
original time series representing different variables and units of
measurements, i.e., fish and rainfall, fish and water quality variables
etc. Figure J-ll-1 shows the actual juvenile striped bass index for
Chesapeake Bay, the index after the mean is subtracted and the standardized
juvenile index time series.
Another advantage of this transformation is that both positive and
negative values (Z^) are piroduced. Therefore, when the values are
accumulated or summed, one can detect trends in departure from the
normalized mean of the series. Figure J-ll-2 indicates cumulative
departures from the mean (X^-M) for Maryland Precipitation Data produced
by the National Weather Service for Maryland. Although this plot is not
standardized, it clearly shows the drought which occurred in the mid and
late 1960's. This plot also shows that in mid 1969 and 1970 the trend of
below normal rainfall ended. This period coincided with a peak in the
Baywide juvenile index for most species.
11-2
-------
Cumulative plots of Z^ for the envirortinenta] time series were
developed. Selected ones are shown in Figures J-li-J through J-ll-6.
Following the development of the cumulative plots, it was noted that
ocean and estuarine spawners showed reverse trends. This fact can be
observed by comparing the cumulative Z^ plots for finfish species in
Figures J-ll-7 through J-ll-12. An average ocean spawning and average
estuarine spawning species index also shows this trend (see Figure
J-ll-13). These indices were calculated by averaging the cumulative Z
plots for the individual ocean spawning species and the estuarine spawning
species, respectively.
Thus, Figures J-ll-3 through J-ll-13 show selected plots of the
observed cumulative standardized time series which were then used in a
multiple linear stepwise regression analyses. Based upon the graphs of the
cumulative normalized (Z) time series, variables which showed possible
correlations were selected for regression analysis using the BMDP-P9R
statistical program (26).
Several types of multiple stepwise regression analyses were performed.
Dependent variables used were the Baywide juvenile index for each species,
the standardized cumulative juvenile index for each species or the
cumulative "average" ocean spawner and estuarine spawner index. The
independent time series used in the stepwise multiple regression analysis
were climatic variables (actual time series or the standardized cumulative
series), as well as water quality variables (actual time series or the
standardized cumulative series).
The results of the regression analyses are presented in the various
figures and tables. Figures J-ll-14 through J-ll-19 graphically show the
results of the stepwise multiple linear regression for blueback. herring,
shad, striped bass, bluefish, and menhaden. These figures show the
observed baywide juvenile index and the predicted baywide juvenile index
calculated from the derived regression equation, with and without use of
the standardizing transformation. These figures clearly demonstrate the
validity of the transformation. In essence, the transformation analysis
involved the following steps:
(a) normalization of the time series (where Zi=((Xi-m)/s),
(b) developing a cumulative normalized time series,
(c) performing stepwise multiple linear regression using the
cumulative normalized time series (in this case we used
BMDP-P9R with selection based upon Mallows (Cp)score and
the associated multiple r^),
11-3
-------
(d) calculation of the predicted standardized cumulative
juvenile index using a selected multiple linear
regression function,
(e) detrending or de-cumulating the predicted time series by
subtraction,
(f) de-transforming the predicted Z^, i.e., calculating the
predicted yearly juvenile index by rearranging equation 11-1
as follows:
xip = SZip + M (11-2)
where: M = mean of original dependent variable time
series.
S = standard deviation of the original dependent
variable time series.
Z^p = predicted standardized dependent variable
(juvenile index) for each time period.
X^p = predicted dependent variable (i.e.
juvenile index) for each time period.
Tables J-ll-1 and J-ll-2 show the derived multiple regression
equations for the cumulative standardized baywide juvenile finfish index
series using selected cumulative standardized climatic variables as
independent variables only or using all of the selected environmental
cumulative standardized variables (i.e. climatic variables, water quality
variables and the average estuarine and ocean spawner (species) index, as
described above). Table J-ll-3 shows the selected stepwise regression
equations and the associated squared multiple correlation coefficients
(r^) when the dependent variable is the calculated average index of
species which spawn in the ocean (CZ01, CZ02) and the average index of
species which spawn in estuarine spawning areas (CZAl, CZA2). The CZAl and
CZ01 time series were calculated from averaging respective Z^ for the
anadromous and ocean species. The CZA2 and CZ02 were calculated from
averaging the cumulative standardized time series for anadromous spawning
species and ocean spawning species.
Future work should consider the use of other variables as independent
variables, especially additional water quality or nutrient variables in the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay as well as freshwater inflow from repre-
sentative locations in the bay. Rainfall reflects freshwater inflows as
well as transport mechanisms in Chesapeake Bay. In the Patuxent and
Chester rivers, only NO3 or NO2+NO3 were indicated as being
correlated to the juvenile index.
Table J-ll-3 indicates that 50% of the residual variability of the
average cumulative normalized juvenile index for estuarine spawning species
can be explained by standardized mean yearly residual variability of preci-
pitation. For ocean spawning species, 84% of the standardized residual
11-4
-------
variability can be explained by the standardized residual variability uE
yearly snowfall, yearly precipitation and air temperature. Figures J—11—7
through J-ll-12 show the plots of the observed cumulative standardized,
juvenile index for various species. Comparison of these plots versus the
decumulated predicted juvenile index plots (Figures J-il-14 through J-LL-1^
highlight the utility of this transformation for use in multiple linear
regression or correlation analysis of residual variability of time series.
In addition, the detreriding or decumulating of the predicted values does
produce some errors due to the absence of some of the yearly independent
variables for the 20 year period. The figures showing predicted cumulative
standardized juvenile finfish are more representative of the analysis
results. The estimated mean computer error (due to roundoff) varied from
1.7 to 50% depending upon the finfish index.
In summary, this analysis indicates the residual variability of
Chester River nitrate (NQ^ - N mg/1) and water temperature (°C) as well
as Patuxent River pH correlated with the abundance and by inferrence, the
variability of the spawning success of the Baywide juvenile finfish index.
Further analysis is needed, using water quality variable time series from
other Chesapeake Bay Regions in order to determine if the correlations
between these water quality variables and others are not spurious. This
analysis does support, as other researchers have shown, that climatic
variables can be statistically associated with the abundance of juvenile
finfish in Chesapeake Bay. In addition, this analysis quantitatively shows
the relation of variability of environmental variables to the variability
of the Baywide juvenile index. This analysis supports the use of a simple
but logical data transformation before statistical regression analysis is
performed in order to determine how residual variability of time series are
correlated.
Longitudinal Characterization of Water Quality Variables
In order to classify longitudinal zones of similar water quality
characteristics, the Duncan multiple range test was applied to the slack
water and intensive mainstem station data. The results of applying this
statistical test are shown in Figures J-ll-20 through J-ll-42, and indicate
areas (i.e., by stations) in the mainstem estuary and river, which have
similar concentrations or characteristics. Stations that are not
significantly different are shaded similarly. These figures also show the
mean value at each station for the respective water quality variable and
nautical miles. The depth profile of the Chester River has also been shown
on these figures to emphasize the general water depth of the river.
Figure J-ll-20 indicates that the river water temperature (°C) is
fairly constant throughout the river. This is contrasted to the same test
applied to the Patuxent estuary to similar data during the same time frame.
In the Patuxent River, the maximum mean temperature coincided with the
expected turbidity maximum region. This figure also shows the turbidity
(FTU) zones with the area of the turbidity maximum observed between
nautical mile 25 to 35. A lower estuary region where several stations
11-5
-------
overlap, shows a transition from a tidal river to a predominant two layer
flow in the estuary (around miles 18-8).
figure J-ii-21 indicates relatively constant average dissolved oxygen
values throughout the river system where the Duncan's multiple range test
is applied, however distinct zones of higher DOS are characterized in the
upper river and lower estuary. The slack water station at the mouth of
Langford Creek indicates this area as a distinct region of highest mean
DOS.
Figure J-ll-22 indicates the possibility of two overall zones in the
river for pH, with interaction between them in the middle region of the
estuary. This figure also indicates each station represented a unique
river zone for salinity characterization. Higher mid-estuary mean salinity
is observed above a region of lower salinity. This may either be a
reflection of the particular station location, i.e. to deeper water in the
region, or that the upper station higher salinity values may be due to the
upwelling of denser Chesapeake Bay water or fresh water flow into the
mainstem is substantial. It is believed that this region of low salinity
is probably a result of freshwater inflow in a region where the station was
not deep, and was bound on either side by deeper waters.
Unlike the values for turbidity, secchi disc zones of dissimilarity
are not indicated in Figure J-ll-23. The upper river mean value of secchi
depth is lowest in the area of the expected turbidity maximum. This figure
also shows that BOD5 (mg/1) is highest at the head of the river, making
this a unique zone within the mainstem river. In fact, the BOD5 mean
value of 5.26 is higher than the same value for the Patuxent River (A.2
mg/1), indicating high oxygen demanding waters enter the Chester River.
Figure J-ll-24 shows the zones characterized for total solids. The
total solid levels increase as it moves down the river towards the mouth.
This figure shows that suspended solids or the total residue is higher in
the region of the expected turbidity maximum (i.e. 89.80 mg/1) and in the
lower estuary in a region where the rate of change of depth is maximum.
This may be indicative of a second turbidity maximum in the estuary.
Figure J-ll-25 indicates a unique station and region for total
nitrogen (mg/1) in the upper river with a mean concentration of 1.62 mg/1
near Millington. This compares to the mean value of 3.57 mg/1 at a similar
region in the Patuxent River, Md. Thus, headwater concentrations of
nitrogen are apparently higher by a factor of two times in the Patuxent,
but higher B0D5 in the Chester. An area of higher dissolved nitrogen is
indicated in the upper estuary, with the rest of the river being similar.
During a few surveys water samples were analyzed for total (unfil-
tered) Nti3, the results are shown in Figure J-ll-26. High concentra-
tions are indicated in areas of highest turbidity. Most of the slack
survey samples were analyzed for dissolved NH3 where upper river and
11-6
-------
Figures J-ll-52 through J-ll-74 show the cumulative frequency
distribution plots from the slack water surveys, 1980-1981 conducted for
this study. In some instances, rounding values were made in order to
provide adequate graphical representations, kiach plotting symbol
represents a class or grouping- It can be seen that very few of the
variables show the s-shape curve representing a normal distribution.
These curves are useful for comparing different aquatic systems. For
example, 5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen would be expected to occur less than or
equal to 10% of the time in the Chester River. The same type of data
collected in the Patuxent River during 1980-1981 indicate 5 mg/l dissolved
oxygen would be expected to occur less than or equal to 20% of the time.
Indicating from this type of quantitative analysis that critical levels of
dissolved oxygen occur twice as frequently in the Patuxent diver when
compared to the Chester River (see Figure J-ll-53). Figure J-ll-73
indicates chlorophyll-a values of AO ug/1 occur less than or equal to 5% of
the time in the Chester River.
Phytoplankton Composition and Abundance*
Section 2 describes the methods used for characterization of the
phytoplankton community data collected by Normandaeu Associates, Inc.
Samples were collected on October 28, 1980, April 8, 1981 and May 8, 1981.
Figures J-ll-75 through J-ll-79 show the results of the identification of
dominant classes of data at the six stations in the rnainstem of the
estuary.
Additional and more detailed phytoplankton composition and abundance
analysis was performed in conjunction with the slack water surveys by Linda
Davidson, EPA-CBP, and is discussed below.
Estuaries are characterized by a highly versatile group of environ-
mental variables that under most conditions support a diverse population of
phytoplankton species. The more diversified the community of algae is, the
more likely it will be useful to a greater variety of organisms which feed
upon it. Algae are one of the most important groups due to their position
at the base of the food web and their ability to convert inorganic
substances into complex organic compounds through photosynthesis. Because
of their trophic level position and because they ultimately provide food
for commercially important species, it is important to know phytoplankton
seasonal distribution and abundance.
Primary producers, such as phytoplankton, clearly reflect chemical
changes in water since they use the minerals present as a source of
nutrition. Under polluted conditions, shifts in species may occur. Those
species that are more tolerant of adverse conditions, or which exploit the
abundance of some particular constituent then become dominant. Often the
dominant species which occur under these circumstances are undesirable
organisms, such as some blue-green algae, which can form noxious blooms
such as those reported in the tidal fresh portions of the Potomac River
(48). These blooms can represent major changes in the trophic structure of
*written by Linda Davidson, EPA, CBP
11-10
-------
an estuary. With the ever-increasing threat of excessive nutrient
enrichment in the sub-estuaries of Chesapeake Bay, phytoplankton monitoring
becomes imperative. Frequently, the first observable effect of excessive
nutrient enrichment Is increased standing stocks of algae (49).
To date, no published literature exists which describes an annual
phytoplankton cycle on the Chester River. However, Seliger et al. (50)
studied phytoplankton populations in the river and adjacent areas of the
Bay in relation to "seasonal frontal" and "interfrontal regions" which
serve as delivery and retention mechanisms.
As part of a complete watershed study of the Chester River, this
project was designed to provide baseline information about the quantitative
seasonality of phytoplankton communities in fresh and saltwater portions of
the river; and to meet the following specific, objectives:
1) To determine the spatial and temporal distribution (composition
and abundance) of phytoplankton in surface waters;
2) To determine, at selected sites, the difference between surface
and bottom phytoplankton;
3) To ascertain phytoplankton diversity (spatially and temporally);
and
4) To determine which classes of phytoplankton are dominant during
the annual cycle.
During eight sampling surveys in which each of the seasons was
represented the Chester River was sampled at six stations from the
freshwater portion to the mouth of the river. Total cell counts and
seasonal dominant class information were compared to other estuaries.
Between November 1980 and September 1981 eight sampling surveys were
conducted at six stations (Figure 2-7, Table 2-5) in the Chester River.
One set of water samples was taken at 1 meter depth with a 5-liter PVC
Nisken water bottle. A 2-liter sample was drawn and preserved with
acid-Lugol's solution. Bottom samples were taken concurrently at selected
stations during the months of May and August and preserved in the same
manner as the 1 meter samples. All samples were taken during high slack
tide. Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH measurements were
also obtained.
Samples were concentrated by settling in a graduated cylinder for at
least 24 hours, siphoning off all but 150-200 mis, and centrifuging at 2000
rpm for 15 minutes (47). The upper volume in the centrifuge tubes was
decanted until 20 mis of the sample remained. Formaldehyde (2.2 mis) was
added to insure preservation. Samples were stored in the dark until they
could be examined.
Before examinations were made, each sample was diluted to a volume of
the 25 mis. Identification and enumeration were done at 400X on an
11-11
-------
inverted microscope. A Paimer-Maloney ceil, cavity was fiiied with an
aliquot of the 25 ml sample. Twenty randomly selected fields (Whipple
grids) were examined for each sample (47). Phytoplankton greater than 10
um was recorded by genera (species where possible) in numbers of organisms
per ml. Cells less than 10 um were counted only. All filamentous and
colonial organisms were counted as one individual even though each one
contained three or more cells. The density of organisms per ml was
calculated as follows:
C x 1,000 ml , (11-3)
A x D x F
Where:
C = number of organisms counted
A = area of a field (Whipple grid image), mm^
D = depth of a field (Palraer-Maloney cell depth), mm
F = number of fields counted (American Public Health Assoc. 1975).
This number was divided by a correction factor (80) to adjust for
concentration of the sample.
Statistical Analysis
The Shannon Weaver Diversity index (45) was computed for each station
and month combination (at the genus level) using the following formula:
H = -(ni/N)log(ni/N)
= -Pi log Pi
where:
n^ = importance value for each species
N = total of importance values
Pi = (n^/N)=importance probability for each species
Measures of similarity of taxonomic composition, at the genus level,
were computed for all possible station pairs for each month sampled. The
Bray-Curtis index was employed to compute similarity percentages based on
raw counts, percent of total cell number and the natural log of the count
plus one (51).
Table J-ll-4 lists the phytoplankton genera found in the Chester River
during the eight month survey. Stations at nautical mile 5.5, 8.5, 16,
21.3 and 28 were fairly similar in the types of phytoplankton seen, showing
some differences depending on the salinity. As expected, Station CYR0004
(at nautical mile 41.0), located in the tidal freshwater area did have many
typically freshwater genera which did not occur at the other stations and
many more individuals representative of the green (Chlorophyta) and
blue-green (Cyanophyta) algal groups.
11-12
-------
Figure J-Li-bO summarizes the estimated phytoplankton ceLis per ml for
the entire river over the sampling periods from November 1980 to September
1981. The river experienced two peaks in phytoplankton numbers, one in
winter due to large blooms of diatoms (Bacillariophyta) and nannoplankton
(cells less than 10 um), and again in the late summer due to a diverse
population of phytoplankton. Because of an oversite, nannoplankton were
not counted in the November sample, therefore, these numbers could be much
higher. The December cell count was highest with approximately 60,000
cells/ml and the June count of approximately 21,000 cells/ml was the
lowest.
Dominant classes of phytoplankton shift with the changing of the
season. Diatoms dominate in the months of November, December, and March
with dinoflagellates (Pyrrophyta) as subdominants. It is likely that
diatoms dominate throughout the winter season including January and
February (two months in which were not sampled). Warmer temperatures in
May, June and July help shift the dominant position to the dinoflagellates.
Diatoms regain dominant status toward the end of summer and hold it
throughout August and September. Nannoplankton were present in fairly good
proportions throughout all the sampling periods and were at their peak
during the month of December.
Samples for the months of March and May showed that blue-greens were
relatively more abundant than for other months. This is due to the
presence of a single genus, tentatively called Synechocystis sp. which
averaged approximately 1600 and 1400 cells/ml in March and May
respectively. Normally this organism was sited in groups of four cells but
was counted as one organism. Therefore, the number reported could be as
high as four times that amount in cells/ml. All filamentous and colonial
organisms including Skeletonema costatum were counted as one individual
even though each one contained three or more cells. This method of
counting phytoplankton is very common, and it is important to note that
this practice leads to bias when phytoplankton biomass estimates are
attempted.
Skeletonema costatum reached bloom conditions during November and
December at all stations, except station B with cell counts ranging from
1600 to 12,700 cells/ml. By March S. costatum had virtually disappeared
frpm the river. Melosira sp. a pollutant-tolerant individual (Parrish
1975), was ubiquitous in the river at all seasons of the year and reached
maximum cell density in March at stations XHG1537 and XGG9572 with cell
counts of 3900 and 4200 cells/ml respectively and in August at stations
XHG1537 (3400 cells/ml), XGG9572 (4800 cells/ml), XHH5301 (3900 cells/ml),
and XHH8354 (2700 cells/ml). Station CYR0004 experienced blooms of
Chlamydomonas sp. (5600 cells/ml) in July and Cyclotella sp. (3300
cells/ml) and Thalassiosira (3100 cells/ml) in August. Oscillatoria sp. was
seen in fairly small numbers at all stations throughout the spring and
summer but in July at station XIH2463, its numbers escalated to
approximately 2700 cells/ml.
11-13
-------
Stations at nautical miles 5.5 and 8.5 were very similar in phyto-
plankton class dominance analysis (Figures J-ll-81 and J-ll-82).
Nannoplankton were dominant at both stations during July. Since
individuals from this group were counted only, their classifications are
uncertain. Aside from the nannoplankton counts, every month showed
dominance by diatoms except May, which showed co-dominance of blue-greens
and dinoflagellates, and June where dinoflagellates were paramount.
Stations at nautical miles 16.0 and 21.3 (Figures J-ll-83 and J-ll-84)
revealed similar patterns in their class dominance. Dinoflagellates
dominated during May, June and July with blue-greens as a co-dominate at
nautical mile 16.0 during July. Another increase of dinoflagellates
occurred in September at nautical mile 16.0 monopolized by the presence of
a species of uncertain genus (Heterocapsa sp. or Glenodinium sp.). Diatoms
dominated in all other months. Nannoplankton counts were greatest in
December at nautical mile 21.3 and in July at nautical mile 16.0.
The upper two estuary stations (CYR0004 and XIH2463) (Figures J-ll-85
and J-ll-86) stand alone in their profile analyses; that is, they are
significantly different from the other stations and different from each
other. Diatoms were dominant at nautical mile 28 during the months of
November, December, August and September. The November numbers were
elevated due to the presence of Skeletonema costatum in bloom proportions
(5800 cells/ml). The blue-greens monopolized this station during March
with blooms of Synechociptis sp. (3300 cells/ml). As a group, the
nannoplankton dominated in December and May at both upper stations.
Diatoms dominated at station CYR0004 in all months except May, when there
were larger numbers of blue-greens and in July when the green algae
proliferated. Most of the diatoms found at this station have been
described as pollutant-tolerant individuals (EPA 1975) such as Nitzchia
sp., Melosira sp., and Cyclotella sp.. The large numbers of green algae
present in July were a result of blooms by Chlanydomonas sp. (5600
cells/ml). This July survey also revealed large cell counts of a green
algae, Oscillatoria subbrevls (1013 cells/ml) and a dinoflagellate
Glenodlnum sp. (3300 cells/ml).
Table J-ll-5 summarizes the dominant phytoplankton individuals for
each sampling period. Prolific diatoms were Skeletonema costatum and
Melosira sp. from nautical mile 5.5 upriver to nautical mile 28 and
Cyclotella sp. and Melosira sp. at station B. Among the dinoflagellates
which subjugated the river during May and June, Prorocentrum minimum and
Gyrodinium estuariale occurred most frequently and in the greatest numbers.
During May and August bottom samples were collected at stations
XHH5301 (8 meters), XGG9572 (8 meters) and XHG1537 (9 meters). In May at
station XHH5301 (Figure 11-87) the bottom sample had equal numbers of
diatoms and dinoflagellates where as at one meter the dinoflagellates were
dominate. In August the dinoflagellates had virtually disappeared from the
bottom waters and were beginning to diminish at the one meter depth. Both
depths were dominated by diatoms.
11-14
-------
Dinoflageiiates comprised the largest percentage of the phytoplankton
in bottom waters at nautical mile 8.5 (Figure J-ll-88) in May. Very few
diatoms were present. At one meter, all classes were represented. By
August both depths were dominated by diatoms, however, the bottom waters
were devoid of dinoflageiiates.
Station XHG1537, at nautical mile 5.5, (Figure J-ll-89) demonstrated
the same pattern as shown at nautical miles 8.5 16.0, i.e., dinoflageiiates
being numerous in bottom waters during May and virtually disappearing by
August. The major dinoflagellate in these bottom waters was Prorocentrum
minimum. Prorocentrum moves up the Chesapeake Bay entrained in the
northward-flowing bottom waters. By late spring, it reaches the upper Bay
and its tributaries and is eventually pushed toward the surface where
blooms occur. Significant numbers of P_^_ minimum were present in the surface
waters of the Chester River during May and June 1981.
Phytoplankton identified from the six stations in the Chester River
were classified in eight taxonomic categories: Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta,
Chrysophyta, Bacillariophyta (Centrales and Pennales), Pyrrophyta,
Euglenophyta, Cryptophyta, and Nannoplankton. One group, the
nannoplankton, is not a formal category. It consists of single celled
phytoplankton, less than 10 um in size, that are too small and too obscure
for accurate identification. If their classifications were known, it is
likely that many of these tiny phytoplankters would fit into the other
seven categories.
Most aquatic systems experience two seasonal peaks in phytoplankton
abundance, one In spring and a lesser one in the fall. Estuarine phyto-
plankton tend to alter this pattern somewhat due to high turbidity and
rapid circulation preventing the development of thermoclines in the estuary
(52). Spring is generally accompanied by high phytoplankton growth which
increases throughout the summer until temperatures and light intensity
begin to decline in the fall (52). This pattern was the case in the
Pataspco River in 1970-1971 (53). The Chester River in 1980-1981 altered
this pattern. Maximum cell counts (averaged for all stations) occurred in
December (10,000 cells per ml) with the next highest counts occurring in
summer (July and August) (8,000 cells per ml). The lowest total cell
counts occurred during June at 3,500 cells per ml. A recent study of the
Patuxent River (28) showed average phytoplankton cell counts as high as
12,600 per ml in July 1980 and 13,170 per ml in April 1981.
Nannoplankton
The nannoplankton were not identified but it was felt that they should
be counted and included in the total counts. The importance of these small
organisms should not be overlooked. In many surveys they are ignored
totally. Their importance as food for oysters was demonstrated by Gaarder
11-15
-------
(1933), Haven and Morales-Alamo (1970)(54)(55). Their importance in the
total phytoplankton productivity was pointed out by McCarthy et al. (1974),
Van Valkenburg and Flemer (1974) who stated that the nannoplankton can
comprise between 75-93 percent of the phytoplankton population (56)(57).
Studies in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island found that the net phyto-
plankton dominated during the winter-spring bloom but the nannoplankters
were equally as important as the net phytoplankton during the rest of the
year (58). In Gales Creek, North Carolina, the nannoplankton
(microflagellates) dominated the phytoplankton most of the year (59). This
latter observation was also the case in the Chester River during the
1980-1981 sampling survey.
Table 11-6 lists nannoplankton percentages of the phytoplankton
population.
TABLE 11-6. PERCENT NANNOPLANKTON (CELLS LESS THAN 10 uM IN PHYTOPLANKTON
SAMPLES FROM THE CHESTER RIVER
Stations
(in nautical
mile)**
Date
41.0
28.0
21.3
16.0
8.5
5.5
December 15, 1980
76
71
60
30
18
24
March 11, 1981
24
79
59
39
29
27
May 27, 1981
77
51
51
40
41
49
June 18, 1981
9
27
29
32
22
14
July 27, 1981
0.4
18
8
52
57
63
August 20, 1981
32
30
27
9
16
35
September 27, 1981
15
5
7
17
12
22
*Percentages include the blue-green, Synechocystis
**For station ID's look at Table 2.5
Diatoms
Blooms of diatoms may occur once or several times a year in Chesapeake
Bay (60). Often these blooms are associated with spring and fall. Riley
(1959) found a winter pulse between January and March in Long Island Sound
as well as an autumn bloom between August and October (61). This was also
the case in the Chester River during 1980 and 1981. The November,
December, and March pulse of diatoms was due primarily to blooms of
Skeletonema costatus and the August, September flowering to Meloslra sp.
11-16
-------
Although It has been noted that S_^ costatum prefers cool water for its
best development, in a L964 survey of the J.imes Kiver estuary, S. costatum
was the most abundant species during several months of the year including
(62)(63). In the Chester River, S. costatum was dominant during the winter
season and was replaced by Melosira sp. during the months when water
temperatures were warmer. Marshall reported that phytoplankton in the
James estuary were most abundant in January through March (63). This was
also true in the Chester River. In the James River estuary the diatom
succession was from S^ costatum to Asterionella japonica and Nitzschia
pungens. In the Chester River, Melosira, along with Cyclotella and
Thalasslosira followed costatum.
Dinoflagellates
Gyrodinium estuariale, Prorocentrum minimum, Gymnodinium sp. and
Amphidinium sp. were the most numerous dinoflagellates in the river. All
of these were abundant in the river from May to July. G. estuariale and P.
minimum were the two most common species to be seen.
G. estuariale is a euryhaline species found in waters from 5 to 31 ppt
salinity (59). In the Chester River it was found in samples of salinity
from 4 to 14 ppt (Figure J-ll-90).
P. minimum is also a euryhaline species found in waters from 1 to 33
ppt salinity (59). It was found in the Chester River in every month
sampled. The growth rate of P^ minimum is dependent on temperature and
salinity which helps to restrict its year-round distribution to the
high-salinity waters of the southern Bay (46). In summer when temperatures
rise and there is an increased tolerance to low salinities, P. minimum can
move up the Bay. Tyler and Seliger described the mechanism by which P.
minimum is transported up the Bay (46). This mechanism is the northward
flowing bottom waters. P. minimum can assimilate carbon at low light
intensities and maintain a reduced respiration rate in winter temperatures.
This enables them to survive throughout the subsurface transport. The warm
water temperatures enable P^_ minimum to survive in lower salinities found
in the upper Bay. In 1976, P. minimum was delivered up Bay too early when
water temperatures were still low. Growth rates were, in turn, greatly
reduced (46). In summer the surface waters are nutrient poor, but P.
minimum is able to migrate at night to the nutrient rich bottom waters
below the pycnocline (46).
Tyler and Seliger report that P_^ minimum is absent from low salinity
waters of the upper Bay during winter, however, this was not the case in
the Chester River during 1980-1981 when it was present in every month
sampled. Allison sited P^_ minimum at Kent Narrows in eastern Bay and in
the main Bay at Sandy Point in December, 1981 (64).
11-17
-------
Green Algae
Each of the six stations had some representatives of the green algae.
The upper estuary stations, at nautical miles 41.0 and 28.0 had the
greatest numbers of different genera occurring throughout the year but
being most numerous during the summer. Ankistrodesmus falcatus and
Scenedesmus sp. were common at station B and station 13 and were seen
occasionally at the more saline stations.
In September an unidentified colonial green was the dominant species
at nautical mile 16.0 (916 cells per ml) and nautical mile 21.3 (434 cells
per ml). It ranges in size from 17.5 to 20 um and has an invagination on
one side. It looks very much.like a stage of Eudorina involved in plakeal
development (65). However, no other stages of Eudorina were seen.
In general, green algae are usually restricted to the more fresh water
regions. Table 11-7 shows the green algae percentages for all stations
with the larger figures at nautical mile 41.0 (.01 - 1 ppt salinity) and
nautical mile 28.0 (4.0 to 8.3 ppt salinity). The only exception to this
observation was at nautical mile 21.3 (5 - 12 ppt salinity) and nautical
mile 16.0 (9.6 - 14.6 ppt salinity) which had 38 percent and 24 percent
green algae, respectively, during September, 1981. This was due to the
appearance of the unidentified colonial green described above, which was
most numerous in this area of the river.
TABLE 11-7. PERCENT GREEN ALGAE IN PHYT0PLANKT0N SAMPLES FROM THE CHESTER
RIVER
Stations
(in nautical
mile)
Date
41.0
28.0
21.3
16.0
8.5
5.5
November 24, 1980
9
0.
6 0
0
0
0
December 15, 1980
1
6
1
0
0.4
0.6
March 11, 1981
10
1
0
2
2
2
May 27, 1981
8
4
2
2
7
13
June 18, 1981
37
5
0
0
3
2
July 27, 1981
53
7
0
2
0
0.9
August 20, 1981
11
4
0
4
1
0
September 27, 1981
14
9
38
24
16
9
Blue-Green Algae
Twelve genera of blue-greens were represented in the Chester River.
Anabaena sp. and Calothrix sp. were the only heterocyst forming genera
present. Heterocysts are differentiated cells found in some blue-greens
and are believed to be involved in nitrogen fixation (66). The ability to
fix nitrogen from the atmosphere can give blue-greens an advantage in a
11-18
-------
situation where nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the water column.
Both Calothrix sp. and Anabaena sp., however, were very rare and seen only
at station B during July.
Some non-hetreocystous blue-greens have also been reported to be
capable of nitrogen fixation (66). Among those cited were Oscillatoria
sub-brevis and Chroococcus sp., both of which were also seen in the Chester
River. Chroococcus sp. was rare and seen only at nautical miles 28.0 and
16.0 during July (289 and 820 cells per ml, respectively). Oscillatoria
sub-brevis, however, was only slightly more numerous (1,013 cells per ml)
and found only at station B in July.
An unknown species of Oscillatoria with cell dimensions of 2.5 x 5 um
was present at every station except XHH5301 (at nautical mile 16.0). It
was found in greatest numbers at nautical mile 28.0 with the maximum count
at 2,749 cells per ml in July. This small species has been sited in other
areas of the upper main Bay and the Gunpowder River in recent surveys (Jim
Allison, personal communication; Kevin Sellner, personal communication).
The most prolific blue-green was what we are tentatively calling
Synechocystis sp. (67). It is a coccoid species, 4 um in size, with no
visible gelatinous envelope, and is usually seen in groups of four cells.
It was present at all stations and reached maximum cell density (3,376
cells per ml) in March at nautical mile 28.0.
Each of the six sampling stations had at least two different
blue-greens present at some time during the eight surveys with the upper
stations CYR0004 and XIH2463 having the greatest numbers of different
genera. As a group the blue-greens dominated the phytoplankton at nautical
mile 5.5 in May and nautical mile 28.0 in March and July.
Increases in nutrient enrichment are frequently expressed by increases
in standing stocks of algae (49). If the algae produced are beneficial
species which are readily used for food by zooplankton and other higher
trophic level organisms, then enrichment can be a positive matter.
However, increased enrichment, especially in the more fresh water regions,
often causes blooms of nuisance and/or noxious algae such as many of the
blue-greens. These types of blooms can represent major shifts in the
trophic structure.
A good example of the effects of excessive nutrient enrichment
followed by persistent blooms of bluegreens has been seen in the Potomac
River. Under maximum bloom conditions in September 1978 the blue-greens
amounted to 80 percent of the phytoplankton population with total cell
counts ranging from 60 to 80 million cells per liter (48). The Chester
River has not yet apprached this scenario, however, nutrient enrichment has
been on the increase (68) and if it continues we can expect to see changes
from the present phytoplankton species succession.
11-19
-------
Other Algae
Euglenophyta, Cryptophyta, and Chrysophyta were listed under the
category, "other algae", (Figures J-ll-90 to J-ll-95) since they are not
major contributors to the Chester River phytoplankton population. This is
not meant to imply that they are not important species but simply that
their numbers were very small.
Euglenophyta—
Euglenophyta was represented by three genera: Eutreptia sp., Phacus
sp., and Euglena sp. Phacus sp. was seen only once during the sampling
period and thus is not statistically significant. Euglena sp. occurred in
relatively small numbers (579 cells per ml.) at station CYR0004 in the
September sample. Eutreptia sp. was the most common of the three
Euglenoids occurring at all stations except CYR0004 during different months
of the year but in very small numbers (never more than 145 cells per ml.).
Euglenoids are widely distributed, occurring in freshwater, and
brackish as well as marine waters. Euglena and Phacus are generally found
in freshwater although some species of Phacus may be found in marine waters
(Bold and Wynne 1978). Eutreptia is a Euglena-like organism with two
flagella as opposed to one flagella in Euglena. It occurs mostly in marine
and brackish waters.
Cryptophyta—
This division contains a relatively small group of biflagellate
organisms which may be found in freshwater as well as marine habitats. In
the Chester River, Chroomonas was the only genus representing the
Cryptophytes, however, there were at least two different species. It was
found at all stations during most of the summer months sampled. The
highest concentrations were at station CYR0004 in September (723 cells per
ml) and at station XHH5301 (627 cells per ml) and XGG9572 (531 cells per
ml) in June.
Chrysophyta—
The golden algae were represented solely by Ochromonas sp. which
occurred at stations XHH5301 and XGG9572 during July. These single celled,
biflagellate algae are capable of heterotrophy as well as photosynthesis.
Normally they appear to be teardrop shaped, however, this shape will become
more oval after the cells have engulfed food (Bold and Wynne 1978).
Diversity and Similarity
Shannon Wiever diversity indices are listed in Table 11-8. Analysis
of variance indicated strong evidence (significance level 0.0002) to
support the existence of differences in diversity means between dates but
not between stations. Several post hoc multiple comparison tests were
employed. The results of Boniferroni's t-test (significance level 0.05)
were as follows:
11-20
-------
1. Diversity on November 24, 1980 was significantly less than
on June 24, 1981 and September 27, 1981.
2. Samples from March 11, 1981 were less diverse than those
from September 27, 1981.
Although diversity was low in November, the total cell count was among
the highest for the sampling period. Genera richness, based on numbers of
different individuals present, (Figure J-ll-92) for most of the stations
increased throughout the summer and reached a peak in September. The peak
for stations 51 and 34, however, was in July.
TABLE 11-8. SHANNON-WIEVER DIVERSITY INDICES FOR PHYTOPLANKTON SAMPLES
FROM THE CHESTER RIVER
Stations (in nautical mile)
Date 41.0 28.0 21.3 16.0 8.5 5.5
November
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.5
December 15, 1980
2.0
2.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
March 11, 1981
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.4
0.8
1.2
May 27, 1981
1.6
2.1
2.3
1.5
2.0
1.6
June 18, 1981
2.3
2.5
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.6
July 27, 1981
1.5
1.6
2.2
2.5
1.8
2.5
August 20, 1981
2.3
2.1
1.6
1.0
1.5
1.5
September 27, 1981
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.0
2.5
2.5
The Bray-Curtis index was employed to compute similarity percentages
based on (1) raw counts, (2) percent of total cell number, and (3) the
natural log of the count plus one (51). The results of these three tests
differed slightly due to inherent biases. The similarity based on raw
counts test is dominated by numerically abundant genera, while the natural
log method is very sensitive to less abundant genera. The method based on
the percentage of total cells ignores differences in absolute abundance and
focuses on proportions.
Raw counts—
On November 24, 1980 stations at nautical miles 21.3 and 16.0 showed
the highest degree of similarity (85.7 percent) of all the station pairs
for each date.
11-21
-------
Percent of total cell number—
Station pairs XH1I8354/XIH2463, XHH8354/XHH5301 and XIH2463/XHH5301
showed high degrees of similarity on November 24, 1980 (92.4, 94.8 and 87.6
percent respectively). Station pair XGG9572/XHG1537 was 86.7 percent and
86.2 percent similar on March 11, 1981 and August 20, 1981, respectively.
Natural log of count plus one—
The highest degree of similarity (85.5 percent) was shown between
stations XGG9572 and XHG1537 on September 27, 1981.
During the November 1980 to September 1981 phytoplankton sampling
period, the Chester River demonstrated a somewhat different seasonal
pattern than is normally reported for other sub-estuaries. Instead of the
usual peaks which occur in spring and late summer, the Chester River
experienced a major peak in winter and a lesser one in summer. The river
was dominated by diatoms during the winter and early spring,
dinoflagellates during May and June, and diatoms toward the end of summer.
Nannoplankton percentages ranged from 0.4 to 79 percent. The highest
percentages were found from stations at nautical miles 41.0 through 21.3
during December, March and May. The highest percentages for the -more
saline stations, XHH5301, XGG9572, XHG1537 were recorded in July.
Although Prococentrium minimum is generally thought to be restricted
to the lower Bay during winter, it was seen in the Chester River in every
month sampled during 1980-1981.
Most of the green and blue-green algae were restricted to the two
stations (CYR0004 and XIH2463) closest to the head waters of the river,
however, all stations at one time or another did have representatives of
these two groups.
Total cell counts in the Chester River were not as high as those
reported in the Patuxent River (28) or in some areas of the upper Bay (64).
Since the author is unaware of other phytoplankton data that may exist for
the Chester River, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not total cell
counts have begun to increase due to increased nutrient enrichment.
However, in comparison to other estuaries, total cell counts in the Chester
River during this survey do not appear to be extremely high. In addition,
there were no persistent blooms of blue-green algae although this group was
well represented throughout the sampling period and even at the more saline
stations near the mouth of the river.
11-22
-------
REFERENCES
1. Noriii.jiule.'iu Assoc >'.1 l.cr;, Inc. Evaluation oi iil.'ir.ui' (Ju;i 1 i ty in the
Chester River Basin: Data Acquisition. prepared for DNR, Tidewater
Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. EPA 625/6-74-003 and EPA 600/4-79-020, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974, 1979.
3. Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons. A Practical Handbook, of Sea-
water Analysis. Bull. No. 167, Fisheries Research Board, Ottawa,
Canada, 1972. 310 pp.
4. Vollenweider, R.A. Manual of Methods for Measuring Primary Production
in Aquatic Environments. IPB Handbook No. 12, Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford, England, 1974. 34 pp.
5. Culno, R.F. Automatic Micro Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen and
Nitrogen; Improved Combustion Train and Handling Techniques.
Mikrochim Acta, 1975.
6. Sorokin, T.I. and H. Kadota. Techniques for the Assessment of
Microbial Production and Decomposition in Fresh Water. IBP Handbook
No. 23, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, England, 1972. 112 pp.
7. Environmental Protection Agency. CFP Federal Register, Volume 44,
Part 136, 1979.
8. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th
Edition, APWA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, D.C., 1975.
9. J.irka, A.M. Ultramicro Semi Automated Method for Simultaneous
Determination of Total Phosphorus and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in
Wastewaters. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 10, October,
1976.
10. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Manual of Agricultural Hydrology, 1979.
11. Normandeau Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Water Quality in the
Chester River Basin; Data Appendices, Volume I. Prepared for DNR,
Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982.
12. Schneider Instruments. Operations and Service Manual for Schneider
Robot Monitor Model RM-25, August, 1973.
13. Tailing and Driner 1963.
R-l
-------
Ch.in i i>r. i:, K.T.
VoiK, MY, I'.'/'J.
Knvi inn.iicMitri] Protection.
ill, L in;.. , ik:w
15. Ayars, J.£., J.C. tnraan, and G. McClung. Nonpoint Contri.butions from
Agricultural Act.ivi.rJ.es in the Maryland Piedmont:. In: Nonpoint
Pollution Control; Tools and Techniques for the Future. F.lynn, K.C.
ed. Rockville, MD, 1981. lh pp.
16. Potter, N. A Local Urban Perspective on Nonpoint Pollution Control.
In: Nonpoint Pollution Control, Tools and Techniques for the Future.
Flynn, K.C. ed. Rockville, MD, 1981. 30 pp.
17. Glaze, W.H., J.L• Burleson, J.fcl. Henderson IV, P.C. Jones, W. Kinsley,
G.R. Peyton, R. Rawley , F.Y. Saleh and G. Smith. Analysis of
Chlorinated Organic Compounds Formed During Chlori.nation of Wastewater
Products. EPA-600/S4-82-072 Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA, 1983.
18. Boicourt, W.C. Flow Measurements in the Patuxent and Chester Rivers,
Summer 1980. Interior Report to Tidewater Administration, Maryland
Department of Safural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns
Hopkins University, 1981. 19 pp.
19. Joint Investigation by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Chester River Study, Volume II,
Clark W.D. and rt..D. Palmer, eds. 1972.
20. Ambrose, R.B. an-d D.W. Dallas. Comparison of Simple Methods for
Predicting the Fate of Chemicals in the Chester River. In:
: Proceedings Symp>osium of the Development Use and Value of Water
Quality Standards. Bell B. and C.R. Bostater eds. Washington, D.C.,
1980. 300 pp.
21. Davis, M.J. , M.K. Snyder and J.W. Nebgen. R.iver Basin Validation of
the Water Qualii.ty Assessment Methodology for Screening Nondesignated
208 Areas. Volume II. In: Chesapeake-Sandusky Nondesignated 208
Screening Methodology Demonstration. EPA 600/S3-82-057 Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens, Ca., 1982.
22. Dean 1981 (flushing time)
23. Ippen, A.T. Estuary and Coastline Hydrodynamics, McGraw-Hill Book.
Company, NY, 1966.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Models of Natural Water
Systems. Contract Wo. 68-01-5919, Manhattan College, NY, 1980.
25. Delaware/Maryland (USG3 Morgan Creek data report)
R-2
-------
2(). University of Ca I i.tom i.a. BMDP Biomedical Computer Programs,
P-Seri.es. University oi: California Preys, Los L'.'.'J, 'Jai i.f oi'n i. J ,
l'J79.
27. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Hay Program Technical
Studies: A Synthesis. KPA-CUP, Annapolis, Maryland, L',182.
28. Bostater, C., D. McCrancy, S. Berlett and D. Pushkar. Intensive
Watershed Study; The Patuxent River Basin. DNR, Tidewater Adminis-
tration, EPA-CBP, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982.
29. Normandeau Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Water Quality in the
Chester River Basin. Data Appendices, Volume II. Prepared for DNR,
Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982.
30. O'Connor, D.J. Modeling of Eutrophicati.on in Estuaries. In:
Estuaries and Nutrients, B.J. Neilson and L.E. Cronln, eds. Humana
Press, Clifton, New Jersey, 1981. pp. 183-223.
31. Monbet, Y., F. Manaud, P. Centien, M. Pommepuy, G.P. Allen, J.C.
Salomon and J. L'Yavanc. The Use of Nutrient, Salinity and Water
Circulation Data as a Tool for Coastal Zone Planning. In: Estuaries
and Nutrients, B.J. Neilson and L.E. Cronln, eds. Humana Press,
Clifton, New Jersey, 1981, pp.
32. Jaworski, N.A. Sources of Nutrients and the Scale of Eutrophication
Problems in Estuaries. In: Estuaries and Nutrients, B.J. Neilson and
L.E. Cronln, eds. Humana Press, Clifton, New Jersey, 1981, pp.
33. Bostater, C.R., R.B. Ambrose and B. Bell. Modeling the Fate and
Transport of Chemicals in Estuaries: Current Approaches and Future
Needs. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, Branson and
Dickson, eds. ASTM, PCN 04-7-37000-16, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979.
34. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. Climato logical Data for Maryland and
Delaware; May, June, 'July, August, September. Daily Precipitation
Records, 1981.
35. Li.ss, P.S. Conservative and Non-Conservative Behaviour of Dissolved
Constituents during Estuarine Mixing. In: Estuarine Chemistry, J.D.
Burton and P.S. Li.ss, eds. Academic Press, New York, New York, 1976,
pp. 93-126.
36. Pomeroy, L.R., £.E. Smith and C.M. Grant. The exchange of phosphates
between estuarine water and sediments. Amer. J. Scl. 272, 1965, pp.
150-160.
37. Dyrssen, D. and M. Wedborg. Major and Minor Elements, Chemical
Speciation in Estuarine Waters. In: Chemistry and Bi.ogeochemi.stry
of Estuaries, E. Olausson and I. Cato, eds. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
New York, New York 1980. pp. 71-116.
R-3
-------
33. Aston, S.k. Nutrients, Dissolved Gases and General Bi ogeoc'.iemistry
in Estuaries. in: Chemistry and Bioyeocheinist ry ol" Iv; Lu.i ,
L. OJausson ,ind i. (JaLo eds. John Wiicy 0 Soiu Ltd., Uew York,
New York, 1980. pp 233-262.
39. ButLer, E.I. and S. Tibbitts. CliL'mica L Survey ol: the i'ama r K.s Lu.i ry 1.
Properties of the Water. J. Mar. liioi. Ass. U.K. 52, 1972. pp. 081-
699.
40. 1 kma 11 1953
41. Boone, J. Md. DNK Report on Juvenilis Index for Finfish in Estuarine
Fish Recruitment Survey. Annapolis, Maryland, 1980.
42. Draper - Smith. 1981. ref. llerschel & K Bart 1849
43. National Weather Service, Climatological Summaries for BWI
44. Salas 1980
45. Zar, J .11. iiiostatistical Analysis. Prentice-iiall, Inc. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. 1974. 620 pp.
46. Tyler, M.A. and tl.H. Selinger. Selections for a Red Tide Organism:
Physiological Responses to the Physical Environment. Limnology and
Oceanography. 1981. 26(Z):310-324.
47. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Assoc., and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th ed. Washington, D.C. 1975
1193 pp.
48. Clark, L.J., S.E. Rolsch and M.M. Bray. Assessment of 1978 Water
Quality Conditions in the Upper Potomac Estuary. EPA. Annapolis,
Maryland 1980. 91 pp.
49. llunie, D.R., C.F. D'Elia, J.L. Taft, J.S. Wilson, M. Cole-Jones, A.B.
Caplins and L.E. Cronin. Historical Review of Water Quality and
Climatic Data from Chesapeake Bay with Emphasis on Effects of Enrich-
ment. Ches. Res. Consort. Pub. No. 84. 1980. 238 pp.
50. Seliger, H.H. , K.R. McKinley, W.H. Biggley, R.G. Rivkins and K..R.H.
Aspen. Phytoplankton Patchiness and Frontal Regions. Marine Biology.
1981. 61:119-131.
51. Bolsch, Donald F. Applications of Numerical Classification in
Ecological Investigations of Water Pollution. Scientific Report No.
77, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, Va.
1980. 113 pp.
R-4
-------
52. Perkins, E.J. The Biology of Estuaries and Coastal Waters. Academic
Press, New York. 1974. 678 pp.
53. Bowman, Gene. Phytoplankton of Baltimore Harbor and Adjacent
Chesapeake IJay. Prepared for Maryland Department of Water Resources.
Annapolis, Md. 1971, 56 pp.
54. Gaarder, T. and R. Sparck. llydrographisch-Biochemische Untersuchungen
in Norwegischen Austernpollen. Bergeno Mus. Arbok. Naturv. Rekke No.
1:1-144 1933.
55. Haven, D.S. and R. Morales-Alamo. Filtration of Particles from
Suspension by the American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Biol. Bull.
139(2):248-264. 1970.
56. McCarthy, J.J., W.R. Taylor and M.E. Loftus. Significance of Nanno-
plankton in the Chesapeake Bay Estuary and Problems Associated with
the Measurement of Nannoplankton Productivity. Marine Biology.
24:7-16. 1974.
57. Van Valkenburg, S.D. and D.A. Flemer. The Distribution and
Productivity of Nannoplankton in a Temperate Estuarine Area.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 2:311-322. 1974.
58. Durbin, E.G., R.W. Krawiec, and T.J. Smayda. Seasonal Studies on the
Relative Importance of Different Size Fractions of Phytoplankton in
Narraganset Bay (U.S.A.). Marine Biology. 32:271-287. 1975.
59. Campbell, P.H. The Phytoplankton of the Gales Creek with Emphasis on
the Taxonomy and Ecology of Estuarine Phytoflagellates. In: Studies
on Brackish Water Phytoplankton. Sea Grant Publ. NC-SG-73-07. UNC,
Chapel Hill, NC. 1973. 407 pp.
60. Patten, B.C., R.A. Mulford, and J.E. Warinner. An Annual Phyto-
plankton Cycle in the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science.
4(1):1-20. 1963.
61. Riley, G.A. Environmental Control of Autumn and Winter Diatom
Flowerings in Long Island Sound. Intern. Oceanog. Congr. Preprints.
1959. pp. 850-851.
62. Allen, W.E. Review of Five Years of Study on Phytoplankton at
Southern California Piers, 192U-1924 Inclusive. Bull. Scripps Inst.
Oceanog. Tech. Ser. , 1:351-401. 1928.
63. Marshal, H.G. Plankton in James River Estuary, Va. III. Phytoplankton
in the Lafayette and Elizabeth Rivers (Western and Eastern Branches).
Castanea 33:255-258. 1968.
64. Allison, J. Phytoplankton Sampling Results Technical Brief. Maryland
Office of Environmental Programs. Annapolis, MD 1981.
R-5
-------
65. Gottlieb, B. and M.E. Goldstein. Colchicine-Induced Alterations in
Colony Development in Eudoria Elegans (Volvocales, Chlorphyta).
Journal of Phycology 15(3). 1979. pp. 260-265.
66. Carr, N.G., and B.A. Whitton. The Biology of Blue-Green Algae.
University of California Press. Berkley, Ca. 1973. 676 pp.
67. Desikachary, T.V. Cyanophyta. Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi. 1959. 686 pp.
68. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland Water Quality
1980. Prepared by the Water Resources Administration. 208 Planning
Division. 1980.
R-6
-------
APPENDIX A
FIGURES AND TABLES FOR METHODS
SECTION 2
-------
Table 2-2
Tide Stage Height Indicator (SHI) Staff Calibration Results
SHI
#
Location
Elevation (ft.) of SHI
Zero Mark Above GO
1
Marker 51 West of Crumpton
1 .925
2
Chestertown Bridge
1 .758
3
Booker's Wharf
2.732
4
Spaniard's Point
1 .610
5
Piney Point
1 .0*
5A
2500 ft. SW of Gordon Point
1 .412
6
Long Point
2.893
7
Love Point
2.671
A-l
-------
Table 2-4
Summary of Station Location/Survey Information for
Advective Flow Surveys, July 1980, and May & July 1981
Resurveyed
State ID Elevation From Ref. Points Benchmark
Station Code Location Feet (7-21-81) Used
A
AND 0010
Sudlersville Cemetery Rd.
30.740
30.038
Q78
at Andover Branch
62.02 (PRR)
B
CYR0004
Rt. 291 west of Millington
5.312
5.292
at unnamed stream
62.02 (PRR)
C
UNI 0007
Rt. 313 south of Millington
15.222
15.232
at Unicorn Branch
D
MZB0006
Chesterville-Mill ington Rd.
15.623
14.822
Nail at Rt.
at Mil 1s Branch
301/291
E
RBL0013
Red Lion Branch Rd. at Red
13.801
13.821
T71
Lion Branch
F
UVE0013
Rt. 291 east of Chestertown
8.555
8.115
C72
at unnamed stream
I
MGN0043
Perkins Hill Rd. at Morgan
4.812
5.092
K115
Creek
J
UWW0011
Rt. 213 at Morgan Creek
14.967
Not checked too muddy
K115
(west branch)
LI 14
K
RAD0025
Rt. 20 at Radcliffe Branch
7.668
No longer used
L
HAB0028
Rolph's Wharf Rd. at Hatnbleton Cr.
10.036
9.086
J71
M
XHH9584
Southeast Creek Landing
2.211
No marker
A122
Q
EFL0070
Langford-Brice's Mill Rd at
2.365
2.435
Mil 4
East Branch Langford Creek
78 (USGS)
R
WFL0052
Ricaud's Branch-Langford Rd.
2.332
2.602
at West Branch Langford Creek
S
TBB0005
Rt. 213 at Three Bridges Branch
3.523
3.763
HI 22
T
GVL0002
Rt. 213 at Gravel Run
4.030
Not checked
G122
U
0MS0014
Rt. 18 southwest of Center-
v i 11 e
51.331
Not checked
LI 22
1/
REE0038
Tilghman Neck Rd.at Reed
3.742
Not checked
LI 22
Creek
-------
Table 2-10
Station Numbers and Maryland State ID Codes
For The Chester River Intensive Survey
Station Number State ID Code STORET
Agency
Code
0055
XHG5819
21MDEXP
0050
XHG1122
21MDEXP
0051
XHG1537
21MDEXP
0052
XHG2051
21MDEXP
0049
XHG0651
21MDEXP
0048
XGG9572
21MD
0047
XGG9992
21MDEXP
0046
XGH9900
21MDEXP
0044
XHG0688
21MDEXP
0041
GY10001
21MDEXP
0043
XHG3078
21MDEXP
0042
XHG4893
21 MD
0033
XHG6094
21MDEXP
0034
XHH5301
21MDEXP
0038
XHH4822
21MDEXP
0024
XHH6529
21MDEXP
0023
XHH7239
21MDEXP
0022
XHH8354
21MDEXP
0019
XHH9678
21MDEXP
0018
XIH0873
21MDEXP
0013
XIH2463
21 MD
0012
XIH3072
21MDEXP
0010
MGN0006
21MDEXP
0007
CHE0327
21MDEXP
0005
CHE0359
21MDEXP
0002
CHE0392
21MDEXP
000 B
CYR0004
21MDEXP
000A
AND0010
21MDEXP
0025
EFL0037
21MDEXP
000Q
EFL0070
21MDEXP
000T
GVL0002
21MDEXP
0029
GY10017
21MDEXP
000L
HAB0028
21MDEXP
0001
MGN0043
21MDEXP
000D
MZB0006
21MDEXP
0004
0MS0014
21MDEXP
0016
RAD0006
21MDEXP
000E
RBL0013
21MDEXP
000V
REE0038
21MDEXP
ooos
TBB0005
21MDEXP
oooc
UNI0007
21MDEXP
OOOF
UVE0013
21MDEXP
000J
UWW0011
21MDEXP
A-4
-------
Table 2-10 (continued)
Station Numbers and Maryland State ID Codes
For The Chester River Intensive Survey
Station Number
State ID Code
STORET
Agency
Code
0028
WFL0037
21MDEXP
000R
WFL0052
21MDEXP
0035
XHH3554
21MDEXP
0031
XHH7600
21MDEXP
0027
XHH7607
21MDEXP
0020
XHH9276
21MDEXP
000M
XHH9584
21MDEXP
A-5
-------
Table 2-11
Water Quality Variables and Methods of Analysis for Chester
River 24 - Hour Intensive Surveys 1981
Parameter
Reference
Total Suspended Solids
EPA, 1979* 160.2
Total Dissolved Solids
EPA, 1979 160.1
Total Phosphorus
EPA, 1979 365.4
Total Kjelda hi Nitrogen
EPA, 1979 "351 .2
Chlorophyll a^
Strickland and Parsons 1972**
Phaeophytin a^
Vollenweider, 1974***
Total Phosphorus (filtered)
EPA, 1979 365.1
Ammonia (filtered)
EPA, 1979 350.1
Nitrate (filtered)
EPA, 1979 353.2
Nitrite (filtered)
EPA, 1979 353.2
Orthophosphorus (filtered)
EPA, 1979 365.1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (filtered)
EPA, 1979 351.2
Total Particulate Phosphorus
calculated
Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen
calculated
Soluble Organic Nitrogen
calculated
Total Particulate Nitrogen
(one tidal cycle only)
Culno, 1975****
Particulate Organic Carbon
(one tidal cycle only)
Culno, 1975
BOD5 (12 selected stations)
EPA, 1979 405.1
B0Du (12 selected stations)
EPA, 1979 405.1
EPA 1979 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Pub. No. EPA
600/4-79-020.
** Strickland, J.D.H., and T.R. Parsons 1972, A Practical Handbook of Seawater
Analysis, Bull. 167, 2nd ed. Fish. Res. d. Canada, pg. 153.
*** Vollenweider (ed). 1974. A Manual on Methods for Measuring Primary Produc-
tion in Aquatic Environments, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Oxford, England.
**** Culno, R.F., 1975, 1969. Automatic Micro Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen,
and Nitrogen; Improved Combustion Train and Handling Techniques.
Mikrochim Acta.
A-6
-------
Table 2-12
Summary of Dates and Times of Chester River Mater Quality Surveys
Times
Survey
Date
(durations)
Slack Tide Survey
7/7/80
1345-1 715
Pre-Intensive Slack Tide Survey
7/10/80
0510-0925
Phytoplankton Evaluation Survey
7/10/80
0925-1100
Lower Estuary Homogeniety Survey
7/15/80
0830-1200
Phytoplankton Respiration Survey
7/15/80
091 5-1300
Sediment-Nutrient Exchange Survey
7/15/80
0915-1300
Special Sediment-Oxygen Demand Survey
7/15/80
0915-1300
Point-Source Monitroing Survey
7/15-16/80
24 hours
Post Intensive Slack Tide Survey
7/16/80
0930-1225
Slack Tide Survey
7/28/80
0707-1040
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
7/28/80
1040-1200
Bathymetric Survey
7/31-8/2/80
dayli ght
hours
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
9/15/80
dayli ght
hours
Slack Tide Survey
10/10/10
0730-1100
Phytoplankton Respiration Survey
10/21/80
0933-1320
Sediment-Water Nutrient Exchange
Special SOD Survey
10/21/80
0933-1320
Slack Tide Survey
10/28/80
0840-1300
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
10/28/80
1300-1430
Phytoplankton Evaluation Survey
10/28/80
1300-1430
Slack Tide Survey
11/13/80
0845-1545
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
11/13/80
0845-1545
Slack Tide Survey
11/24/80
0631-1140
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
11/24/80
0631-1140
Slack Tide Survey
12/15/80
1000-1400
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
12/15/80
1000-1400
Slack'Tide Survey
3/11/81
1045-1510
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
4/7/81
1020-1620
Slack Tide Survey
4/8/81
0810-1250
Phytoplankton Evaluation Survey
4/8/81
0810-1250
Slack Tide Survey!.
5/8/81
0850-1435
Phytoplankton Evaluation Survey
5/8/81
0950-1535
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
5/8/81
0930-1200
Pre-Intensive Slack Tide Survey
5/27/81
1140-1845
Twenty-Four Hour Monitoring Survey
5/29-30/81
1600-1530
Advective Flow Survey
5/29-33/81
1515-1625
Entire River Intensive Survey
5/29-30/81
1351-0530
Tide Stage Height Measurements
5/29-30/81
1200-1625
Robot Monitor Data Collection
5/28-30/81
1400-1400
Pt. Source Monitoring Survey
5/29-30/81
1300-1730
Current Speed-Direction Survey
5/29-30/81
0425-1630
Post Intensive Slack Tide Survey
6/1/81
1650-2020
Slack Tide Survey
6/18/81
0610-0845
Sidiment-Water Nutrient Exchange/SOD
Survey
6//8/81
0930-1205
-------
Table 2-12 (continued)
Summary of Dates and Times of Chester River Water Quality Surveys
Times
Survey
Date
(durations)
Phytoplankton Respiration Survey
6/18/81
0940-1120
Bacterial Nitrification Survey
6/26/81
1020-1630
Slack Tide Survey
6/28/81
1410-1655
Phytoplankton Evaluation Survey
6/28/81
1510-1755
Slack Tide Survey
7/09/81
1208-1530
Pre-Intensive Slack Tide Survey
7/22/81
0850-1130
Entire River Intensive Survey
7/24/81
1018-1738
Twenty-Four Hour Monitoring Survey
7/24-25/81
1125-1035
Advective Flow Survey
7/24-25/81
1220-1255
Current Speed-Direction Survey
7/24-25/81
1155-1123
Pt. Source Monitoring Survey
7/23-25/81
1100-1245
Robot Monitor Data Collection
7/23-25/81
1100-1100
Tide Stage Height Measurements
7/24-25/81
1200-0900
Post Intensive Slack Tide Survey
7/27/81
1400-1622
Slack Tide Survey
8/06/81
0930-1215
Phytoplankton Respiration Survey
8/06/81
845-1045
Sediment-Water Nutrient Exchange/SOD
Survey
8/06/81
1 050-1 535
Slack Tide Survey
8/20/81
0826-1130
Pre-Intensive Slack Tide Survey
9/22/81
1310-1605
Entire River Intensive Survey
9/24/81
1038-2000
Twenty-Four Hour Monitoring Survey
9/24-25/81
1 525-1605
Current Speed-Direction Survey
9/24-25/81
1440-1537
Pt. Source Monitoring Survey
9/24-25/81
1320-1830
Robot Monitor Data Collection
9/23-25/81
1700-1700
Tide Stage Height Measurements
9/24-25/81
1600-1300
Post Intensive Slack Tide Survey
9/27/81
0545-0850
-------
Table 2-14
Water Quality Variables for Point Source Sample Analysis (1980-1981)
1980 Lower Estuary
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved solids
Turbidi ty
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
1981 Intensive
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus (filtered)
Ammonia (filtered)
Nitrate (filtered)
Homogeniety Survey
Total Phosphorus
TOC
Orthophosphorus (filtered)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus (filtered)
B0D5
River Surveys
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (filtered)
Total Particulate Phosphorus
Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen
Soluble Organic Nitrogen
Orthophosphorus (filtered)
Nitrite (filtered)
B0D5
A-9
-------
Table 2-18
Rainfall Reported in CIimatological Data for Periods
When Monitors Were Not in Operation
Explanation
Date
*Rainfal1
Reported
Gauge Affected
Centvl
Chestn
Chtn
Sutt
Bntn Mill
A
6/24
- 7/6/80
_
X
B
7/6
- 7/16/80
-
-
X
C
7/16
- 7/19/80
-
-
X
D
7/19
- 7/23/80
-
-
X
E
7/29/80
0
0
X
E
7/30/80
0
0
X
X
E
7/31/81
0
0
X
X
E
8/1/80
.17
0
X
X
E
8/2/80
0
0
X
X
E
8/3/80
0
.19
X
X
E
8/4/80
.48
0
X
X
E
8/5/80
0
.04
X
X
E
8/6/80
.07
0
X
X
E
8/7/80
0
0
X
X
E
8/8/80
0
0
X
X
E
8/9/80
0
0
X
X
E
8/10/80
0
.53
X
X
E
8/11/80
.06
.05
X
X
E
8/12/80
.31
.14
X
X
E, F
8/13/80
0
0
X
X
X
E, F
8/14/80
0
0
X
X
X
E, F
8/15/80
.11
.23
X
X
X
E, F
8/16/80
.34
0
X
X
X
E, F
8/17/80
0
0
X
X
X
E, F
8/18/80
.03
.07
X
X
X
E, F
8/19/80..
.06
.64
X
X
X
E, F
8/20/80
0
.05
X
X
X
E, F
8/21/80
0
0
X
X
X
E, F
8/22/80
.02
0
X
X
X
* At NWS stations in Centreville and Chestertown
A-10
-------
Table 2-20
Rainfall Recorded on Days (0000-2359) When Freezing
Temperatures Occurred in Chester River Study Area during
From
To
Stations
Affected
= X
Inclusive Date
Year
Chtn
Sutt
Bntrt
Hill
Stpd
11/3
-
1980
X
X
X
X
X
11/6
-
1980
X
X
X
X
X
11/16
11/17
1980
X
X
X
X
X
11/19
11/23
1980
X
X
X
X
X
11/26
11/28
1980
X
X
X
X
X
12/3
12/6
1980
X
X
X'
X
X
12/11
12/12
1980
X
X
X
X
X
12/14
12/28
1980
X
X
X
X
X
12/30
12/31
1980
X
X
X
X
X
1/1
1/12
1981
X
X
X
X
X
1/13
1/26
1981
X
X
X
H
H
1/28
1/31
1981
X
X
X
H
H
2/1
2/16
1981
X
X
X
H
H
2/28
-
1981
X
X
X
H
H
3/2
3/8
1981
X
X
X
H
H
3/10
3/12
1981
X
X
X
H
H
3/14
3/26
1981
X
X
X
H
H
3/28
-
1981
X
X
X
H
H
4/7
-
1981
X
X
X
H
H
4/16
-
1981
X
X
X
H
H
4/21
4/22
1981
K
K
K
H
H
H indicates gauge was heated, NOT affected.
A-ll
-------
Table 2-21
Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages for Millington
Subwatershed 1975-1979.
Millington Total
M
Inches Rain
J J A
3=-
I
1979 54.89 7.97 5.53 2.44
15.94
1978 43.64 6.23 1.73 5.33
13.29
1 977 57.05 1.73 1.41 2.48
5.62
1 976 35.85 5.41 1.24 2.1 6
8.31
1975 52.77 4.26 2.94 5.24
12.44
Monthly Avg.
Seasonal Avg.
5.12 2.57 3.53
11 .22
2.13 2.67 4.27 6.87 6.01 7.36 4.08 4.02 1.54
9.07 20.24 9.64
2.03 5.04 2.58 5.10 5.05 1.63 1.42 2.51 4.99
9.65 11.78 20.70
2.65 1.83 3.71 2.02 3.88 1.44 '4.13 5.77 6.00
8.1 9 7.34 15.90
1.12 3.20 1.76 4.95 2.95 3.41 8.48 .65 2.52
6.08 11.31 9.65
3.02 5.73 3.91 6.58 2.85 8.43 3.45 3.16 3.20
12.66 17.86 9.81
2.10 3.69 3.25 5.10 4.15 4.45 3.91 3.22 3.55
9.13 13.71 13.14
50 Year Annual Average = 43.48 inches
-------
Table 2-22
Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages for Chestertown
Subwatershed, 1975-1979
Inches Rain
Chestertown Total J F M A M J J
1979 53.40 8.10 5.21 2.78 3.02 2.60 4.87 3.22 6.59 7.47 4.41 3.63 1.50
16.09 10.49 17.28 9.54
1978 43.37 7.12 1.33 5.27 1.51 5.61 1.53 5.66 5.52 1.01 1 .18 2.40 5.23
13.72 8.65 12.1 9 8.81
1977 40.27 1.81 .76 2.87 2.96 1.26 4.62 2.45 5.27 1.21 3.87 7.07 6.12
5.44 8.84 8.93 17.06
1976 33.38 5.12 1.62 2.1 1 1 .09 3.66 1.82 3.23 2.31 3.30 5.94 .21 2.97
8.85 6.57 8.84 9.12
1975 54.06 4.23 3.03 5.23 2.94 5.01 5.20 8.57 2.79 7.46 2.94 2.63 4.03
12.49 13.15 18.82 9.60
Monthly Avg. [in) 5.28 2,39 3.65 2.30 3.63 3.61 4.63 4.50 4,09 3.67 3.19 3.97
Seasonal Avg. (in) 11.32 9.54 13.21 10.83
43 Year Annual Average = 44.22 inches
-------
Table 2-23
Monthly and Seasonal Precipitation Averages for Centreville
Subwatershed, 1 975-1 979
3=>
I
Inches Rain
Centreville Total JFMAMJJASOND
1 979 46.75 6.50 5.11 .97 2.70 3.03 4.66 3.19 4.59 5.79 5.1 5 4.02 1.04
12.58 10-39 13.57 10.21
1 978 -- 7.49 1.56 5.89 1.35 4.93 3.54 6.01 3.13 2.26 1.33
14.94 9.82 11.40
1 977 33.96 2.36 .58 2.16 2.94 1.14 2.33 3.39 2.43 1.1 5 5.04 5.45 4.99
5.1 0 6.41 6.97 1 5.48
1976 — 6.74 2.36 1.31 1.24 3.59 2.41 .2.70 3.45 4.98 5.31 .73
10.41 7.24 11.13
1975 54.52 4.78 3.47 5.27 3.39 4.85 3.11 7.69 4.77 7.88 3.63 2.37 3.31
13.52 11.35 20.34 9.31
Monthly Avg. 5.57 2.62 3.12 2.32 3.51 3.21 4.60 3.67 4.41 4.09
Seasonal Avg. 11.31 9.04 12.68
-------
SAMPLE SPLITTING
immediately, onboard vessel
4°C
PRESERVATION
(4 - 1z poly)
stored onboard,
4°C, dark
stored onboard,
4°C, dark.
TOC
PRESERVATION
SULFURIC ACID PRESERVATION
(1 - poly) stored onboard,
4°C, dark.
24 HOUR INTENSIVE SURVEY &
LOWER ESTUARY SURVEY
Discreet sampling, depths per SOP
at field laboratory. Maximum transport time - 8 hr.
SAMPLE TRANSPORT
SLACK TIDE SURVEY & ENTIRE RIVER
SYSTEM INTENSIVE SURVEY
Composite sample, four depths, mixed
in 5 gal polyethylene container
Figure 2-14 Flowchart of Sample Acquisition and Transport Methods (For composite sampling, in situ
measurements obtained at near surface, mid-depth, and near bottom. For discreet sampling, at depths
sampled. In situ parameters measured are conductance, salinity, temperature, D.O., secchi depth, and pH.
During the 24 hour survey, current speed and direction are also measured. During the lower estuary survey
pH & turbidity were determined at the field lab.
-------
SAMPLE RECEIVING
Samples inventoried, checked against
sampling plan (SC/1P sheet), time
of arrival noted.
selected samples
filtrate
TPN sample
POC sample
SULFURIC ACID
PRESERVATION
CHLOROPHYLL
sample
U, THE 4°C
PRESERVATION
Hcl to
TOC
PRESERVATION
PRESERVATION
U , CHLOROPHYLL
FILTRATION per
PROC-1
250ml, the FILTERED
4°C PRESERVATION
FILTRATION
per PROC-2
Jjfc, FILTERED
NUTRIENTS
FILTRATION
per PROC-3
250ml, the FILTERED
SULFURIC ACID PRES.
H2SO4 to pH <2
la, transported (4°C, dark) to lab for initiation
of BODc and /or BOD20 analysis within 24 hr. of
sample collection (48 hrs after 1/30/81, ref. 10.)
fO Q) ^
— NO)
O <1)
O OJ *r-
S- -C -O 4->
M- +0 0) (J
S- O
CO O) CM
C ro
CO
CO
Figure 2-15 Flowchart of sample preservation techniques used in the Chester
River Study (*Not applicable to the Lower Estuary Survey)
A-16
-------
Collected in
the field*
4°C —
Frozen -20°C
SULF
BOD
-> H2S04 pH <2,
Frozen -20°C
4°C, to lab
Chloro-
phyll,
somewhat
more than
a liter
400ml
-o Chlorophyll
filtration
through
glass fiber
filter,
washed
200ml
POC filtration
TPN filtration
FILTERED 4°C
_> C'0.45pmfiltered, then split)
„ FILTERED 4°C
200 ml
Figure 2-16 Sample splitting, aliquot amounts filtered and preservation
technique flow chart. Samples were shaken thoroughly before splitting.
A-17
-------
Confirm installation of stage height staffs
At midpoint record
Record comments, label chart
Confirm, record starting
position, record - - -
Post-Survey calibration of fathometer
Record transect #, date,
surface conditions
At endpoint record,
confirm, record
position.
Determination of 22 transect profiles
Obtain stage height reading,
time of reading .
Occasionally, obtain one point
calibration confirmation
Pre-Survey calibration of fathometer using sounding
1ine & weight.
Time, Compass
heading, Boat speed,
Chart speed, Wind
Distance from shore,
Depth.
Figure 2-17 Flowchart describing the field operations for a Bathymetry Survey
A-18
-------
JaI
Set up axis of plot with horizontal distance 'seale of
appropriate divisions, vertical depth scale of
Label the plot with transect number
Mark off the recording in 100-200 yd. increments
Divide lenght of profile recording in cm. by NET
YARDS, multiply by 100. This is the equivalent
of 100 yd. on the recording
Plot the starting point of initial distance from shore
(DFS) & comp'd depth at that point, draw connecting
Plot position (yards run + initial DFS) & comp'd depth
from recorded profile using point density
sufficient to retain adequate definition.
After plotting the last recorded point, move further
along the scale on amount equal to
final DFS. Plot a point here at depth = 0
and connect all points with lines
END
Figure 2-17 (continued) Flowchart describing the field operations for a
Bathymetric Survey
A-l 9
-------
and in darkness until arrival
at the field lab.
2nd
chloro
filter
one
chloro
fi1ter
2-1 i refrigerated,
held for backup
Held at field
lab at -20°C
as backup.
Shipped to biological
laboratory
Shi
-20°C water samples.
to lab with other
Shipping inventory retained on file
Filters placed in seperate
vials, labeled, frozen at
-20°C.
2 - U CHLOROPHYLL FILTRATION
per reference 3. Two separate
filtrations using up to 1 fi.
for each.
4 - 1& poly, samples preserved
with Acid Lugol's, held on ice
and in darkness until arrival
at the field lab
2-1 sl combined, settled,
centrifuged per the SOP,
pg. 11-72, preserved with 10
10% formalin
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Two Si Van Dorn sampler
casts at 1 .0 M composited,
water temperature recorded.
Figure 2-18 Flowchart describing Phytoplankton collection field
processing.
A-20
-------
duplicates, spiked, background
vials prepared for selected
stations
All vials (held on ice until now) placed in incubator at a temperature
representative of surface water and sediment temps measured in the
field. Incubation start time noted.
Background vials set aside
Incubate all vials 8-12 hours
Filtration, 64 micron
mesh, 2500 ml
Water sample collected,
water temp recorded
*Filtrate, 25 ml placed in
serum vial, held on ice
Samples on ice transported to field lab
Vials sealed, 20cc air withdrawn,
20 cc AIR injected. Seal wi/RTV.
Sediment sample collected, Ekman
dredge, sed temperature recorded
QA vials prepared:
• distilled water blank
• 0.2y filtered sample
• empty vials
Vials sealed, 20 cc air with-
drawn, 20 cc acetylene injected.
Seal w/RTV.
*Top 2-3 cm transferred to serum
vial to a depth in the vial of 1
cm, 0,2y filtered sample added if
necessary so that water just covers
the sediment, held on ice.
Phytoplankton concentrated on mesh wash with 0.2y filtered
sample & transferred to serum vial by washing with same so
that final volume = 25 ml, held on ice.
Terminate incubation, record duration of incubation & temperature.
Immediately place all vials on ice, ship to Dallas laboratory via
Priority Parcel. Retain an iventory of samples, QAs, etc. shipped
for documentation.
Figure 2-19 Flowchart describing sample collection and preservation for
Nitrogen Fixation.
A-2,1
-------
Table 2-25
Quality Assurance Activities Related To Operating Continuous
Monitor (Schneider RM-25)
(1) PREPLACEMENT CHECKOUT - 6 weeks before use.
electrical & mechanical systems (recorder, power supply, etc.)
pump
parametric systems.
necessary repairs/replacements made
(2) MONITOR PLACEMENT - 5-7 days before-use
trailer positioned on site
SRI, water level sensors and pump deployed
110V power supplied
pump and monitor turned on
(3) INITIAL CALIBRATION - 1 day after placement
sample flow adjusted to proper rate
calibration of all parametric systems performed per RM-25 manual and
project SOP, calibrated using both panel meters and recorder
necessary adjustments/repair /replacements made
successful calibration of all parameters obtained
(4) PRE SURVEY CALIBRATION - to initiate monitoring
sample flow rate checked, adjusted if necessary
all parametric systems calibrated per RM-25 manual and projects SOP,
points of calibration precisely marked and calibration information
recorded on a strip chart including date & time
successful calibration of all parameters obtained
any observations concerning system performance recorded
(5) POST SURVEY CALIBRATION - to terminate monitoring
sample flow rate checked, recorded as being proper/too rapid/too slow
all parametric systems subjected to calibration standards, results
marked precisely and calibration confirmation
any system found to be out of calibration subjected to trouble-shooting
procedures, problem defined, data examined to ascertain whether any
of it can considered valid &/or extent of error over time determined.
All findings documented on strip chart,
pump and monitor shut down
(6) MONITOR RETRIEVAL - any time after shutdown
110V power removed
SRI and water level sensors retrieved
pump retrieved, flushed with fresh water
all gear, wires, hoses stowed securely
all water removed from monitor flow cells, inlets, and discharges
trailer removed from site
(7) DATA HANDLING
calibration curves constructed using both pre and post survey calibration
info
any non-valid data sections identified
keypunch data forms coded with date, time, and parameter values at
intervals of 15 minutes
coding QC'd by spot check, etc.
data forms, calibration material, and recorded observations copied, copies
retained at field site, originals sent to program management
A-22
-------
Table 2-26
EPA and Technicon Method Numbers, Detection Limits and
Standard Deviations for Nutrient Parameters
Parameter
EPA
Technicon
Detection
1imit (mg/1)
Standard
Deviation
N02
353.2
1 61-71W
.005
.012
no3
353.2
100-70W
.005
.012
nh3
350.1
1 54-71W
.005
.005
n
-------
Table 2-2 7
Point and NPS Sampling Preservation Techniques
Sampling
Activity
Sampl e
Type
Parameters
Preservation
NPS
Sediment
Point Source
River Surveys
1 liter polyethylene
1 liter polyethylene
125 ml glass
1 liter polyethylene
1 liter polyethylene
1 liter polyethylene
BODc, BOD™,
TSS,
Nutrients that
need to be
filtered
TKN, TP, COD
TOC
Nutrients
BOD5
BOD5, BOD30
40C
H2S04, 4°C
HC1 , 40C
4°C
4°C
4°C
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Methods for the Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, ORD, Cincinnati, Ohio,
A-24
-------
Table 2-28
Chester River NPS Parameters Analyzed, Analysis, Method
and Holding Times Prior To and After 1/30/81
Holding Holding
Times Times
Method Prior To After
Parameters Analysis* 1/30/81 1/30/81**
Ammonia (filtered)
350.1
24,
hrs.
28 days
Nitrate + Nitrite
(filtered)
353.2
24
hrs.
28 days
Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl)
(filtered & unfiltered)
351 .2
24
hrs.
28 days
Total phosphorus
(filtered & unfiltered)
365.1
24
hrs.
28 days
Orthophosphate
(filtered)
365.1
24
hrs.
48 hrs.
BOD5
405.1
24
hrs.
48 hrs.
BOD30
405.1
24
hrs.
48 hrs.
Total Suspended Solids
160.2
7
days
14 days
Total Organic Carbon
415.1
24
hrs.
28 days
Chemical Oxygen Demand
410.2
7
days
28 days
Sediment Oxygen Demand
405.1
24
hrs.
24 hrs.
A1kalinity
310.2
24
hr.
14 days
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Methods for the
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, ORD, Cincinnati, Ohio.
** CFR Vol. 44, Part 136, December 3, 1979.
*** Sediment samples from Task 1,6 were extracted prior to nutrient
analyses in accordance with USDA procedures.
A-25
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES FOR POINT SOURCES
SECTION 3
-------
Table 3-
1 Municipal
NPDES Permit
Effluent Limits
Effl uent
Eastern
Characteristics
Centrevi11e
Chestertown Correctional
Kennedyvil1e
Camp
BOD
Loading Rate (lbs/day)
31
225.18
5.0
12.5
Monthly Avg. (mg/1)
10
30
30
30
TSS
Loading Rate (lbs/day)
31
675.54
5.0
12.5
Monthly Avg. (mg/1)
10
90
30
30
Fecal Coliforms
Max (MPN/100 ML)
200
70
200
200
Total Residual Chlorine
Max (mg/1)
0.5
0.5
0.03
0.1
D.O.
Min (mg/1)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
pH
Range
6.0-8.5
6.0-8.5
6.5-8.5
--
Flow*
MGD
.375
.90
.02
"
Effl uent
Characteri sties
Mil 1ington
Queenstown
/Rock Hall
Sudlersvil1e
BOD
Loading Rate (lbs/day)
11 .7
20 (17)
+ 62.6
22.5
Monthlv Avg. (mg/1)
20
20 (30)
30
30
TSS
Loading Rate (lbs/day)
11.7
20 (17)
187.8
67.5
Monthly Avg. (mg/1)
20
40 (30)
90
90
Fecal Col iforms
Max (MPN/1 00 ML)
200
14
70
200
Total Residual Chlorine
Max (mg/1)
0.5
4.0 (.
50) 0.5
0.5
D.O.
Min (mg/1)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
pH
Range
6.0-8.5
6.5-8.5
6.0-8.5
6.0-8.5
Flow*
MGD
.07
0.06
0.25
0.09
*Design flow used in waste load calculations; Not a limitation.
+numbers in parentheses indicate effluent limitations effective
Oct. 1, 1984 - June 30, 1987 .
B-l
-------
Table 3-2 Industrial NPDES Permit Effluent Limits
Effluent Characteristfc
Holiday 8 Jones Getty Oil Campbell
Tenneco Gulf & Oil Co. Inc. Soup
BOD
Monthly Avg. (lb/day) 22 - -
Daily Max (lb/day) 47,7 - - 50
TSS
Monthly Avg. (lb/day) 20.5 - -
Daily Max (lb/day) 40.9 - - 61
COO
Monthly Avg. (lb/day) 113.3 - -
Daily Max (lb/day) 226.4 - -
pH
Range (units) 6-9 - - 6-8.5
Fecal Coliforms
Max (MPN/100 ML) - - 200
Total Residual Chlorine
Max (mg/1) - - -
Oil & Grease - - - 0.2
Yearly Avg. (mg/1) - 20 20*
Daily Avg. (mg/1) - 20 20 33
^monthly average.
Ba2
-------
Table 3-3
Chester River Point Source Characteristics (1980-1 981 )
B0D5
DISS.
N02
DISS.
N03
Water Quality Variables
RESIDUE DISS. TOT.
TOT. NFLT. ORTHO-P P
(mg/1)
DISS.
NH3+NH4
DISS.
Org. N.
PARTICULATE
P
GPDX
(qa11c
N
10
8
8
10
Centerville STP
10 10
8
8
6
6
MAX
10.0
.44
79.0
68.0
5.4
7.14
14.7
6.0
5.2
3.1 2
MIN
1.0
.001
.7
16.0
.73
.11
.91
.04
.001
1 .23
MEAN
5.0
.23
13.9
30.4
3.9
3.9
5.1
3.4
1.4
1 .93
STD.
DEV.
2.9
.16
26.4
15.1
1.6
2.4
4.2
2.1
2.0
0.78
N
2
2
Rockhall
2
STP
2
—
—
2
MAX
25.0
--
--
76.0
1.5
1.7
--
--
0.81
MIN
1.0
--
--
57.0
1.03
1.6
--
--
--
0.81
MEAN
13.0
--
--
66.5
1.3
1.63
--
--
--
0.81
STD.
DEV.
17.0
_ _
_ _
13.4
.33
.04
_ _
__ _
_ _
0.00
-------
Tab!e 3-3 (cont.)
Chester River Point Source Characteristics (1980-1 981 )
Water Quality Variables (mg/1) 5
DISS. DISS. RESIDUE DISS. TOT. DISS. DISS. PARTICULATE GPDX 10
B0D5 N02 N03 TOT. NFLT. ORTHO-P P NH3+NH4 Org. N. P (gallons)
N
6
6
6
6
Millington STP
6 6
6
6
5
6
MAX
17.0
0.64
4.14
49.0
5.2
6.4
4.78
6.09
3.4
0.80
MIN
3.0
0.02
0.01
14.0
1.5
1.7
1 .27
0.58
0.001
0.26
MEAN
9.0
0.32
1.98
35.6
3.6
3.6
3.41
2.17
0.68
0.48
Std.
Dev.
5.2
0.23
1.72
12.9
1.5
1.7
1.3
2.09
1.53
0.18
N
10
8
8
8
Queenstown
10
STP
10
8
8
6
8
MAX
14.0
.58
3.19
48.0
6.1
10.9
15.7
14.9
3.4
0.63
MIN
1.0
.002
.01
6.0
.98
.09
2.5
2.6
.001
0.30
MEAN
7.1
.23
1.68
29.6
4.0
4.8
10.1
7.1
1.4
0.47
Std.
Dev.
4.7
.23
.89
13.4
1.4
3.6
4.6
4. 7
1.3
0.15
-------
Table 3-3 (cont.) Chester River Point Source Characteristics (1980-1981)
Water Quality Variables
(nig/1)
DISS.
DISS.
RESIDUE DISS. TOT.
DISS.
DISS. PARTICULATE
GPDX 10-
B0D5 N02
N03
TOT. NFLT. ORTHO-P P
NH3+NH4
ORG. N. P
(gallons)
N
6
6
6
6
Chestertown
6
STP
6
6
6
4
4
MAX
9.0
1.04
. 72
138.0
2.73
4.83
6.7
6.6
2.1
4 .84
MIN
1.0
.021
.23
79.0
.05
.25
.86
2.6
.025
2.88
MEAN
4.7
.37
.61
94.7
1.75
2.4
2.3
3.9
1.5
3.70
STD. DEV.
3.0
.42
. 19
22.4
1.25
Cambel1
1.98
Soup
2.2
1.5
.97
0.98
N
6
4
4
6
6
4
4
4
2
4
MAX
47.0
.08
24.73
32.0
2.68
.6
1. 74
8.12
.32
0.25
MIN
1.0
.002
1.14
16.0
.14
.05
.27
.33
.001
0.11
MEAN
15.7
.05
12.44
21.7
1.15
.24
.71
3.11
.16
0.1 7
STD. DEV.
21.0
.04
12.58
7.0
1.07
.26
.7
3.64
.23
0.07
-------
Table 3-3 (cont.) Chester River Point Source Characters (1980-1981 )
B0D5
DISS.
N02
DISS.
N03
Water Quality Variables
RESIDUE DISS. TOT.
TOT. NFLT. ORTHO-P P
(ing/1)
DISS.
NH3+NH4
DISS.
ORG. N.
PARTICULATE
P
GPOX 105
(GALLONS)
N
10
8
8
10
TENNECO
10
9
8
8
6
8
MAX
25.0
.19
.55
133.0
6.28
11.6
6.35
6.51
3.42
0.66
MIN
1.0
.001
.06
13.0
.01
.17
.11
.49
.001
0.25
MEAN
10.4
.044
.25
60.0
1.27
2.63
2.51
2.95
.81
0.50
STD. DEV.
7.26
.065
.2
35.5
2.46
4.44
2.05
2.0
1.39
0.17
-------
APPENDIX C
FIGURES AND TABLES PRESENTING PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION U
-------
o
o
o
U
Q-'S
.00
ft 00
12.00
a. 00
16 00 20.00
NAU11 GAL MILES
28.00
o
o
o
UJ
Cd
16.00 20 00
NAUTICAL MILE
.00
4.00
00
28-00
24 .00
36 00
Figure 4-1 Chester River water surface area at mean low water
calculated from (a) nautical charts and (b) comparison between
nautical chart and bathymetric data.
C-l
-------
o
o
Q
J2.00
S6 00
16 00 20 00
NAUTICAL MILE
24 00
28 00
00
12-00
• 00
o
o
Ul
Q
C£
X
Q
LU!
r-
00
¦ 22
16 44 20 56
NAUTICAL MILE
28. 7
37 00
Figure 4-2 Chester River width and cumulative river width from
bathymetry survey and nautical chart data.
C-2
-------
o
o
o
to
UJ
40.00
45-00
35-00
25.00
30 00
20-00
1 5.00
10-00
5-00
.00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
o
UJ
cc
5°
-------
o
Bathymetry Survey
Nautical Charts
O
uj
en,
45-00
35 00
40.00
25.00
30.00
15.00
20-00
5.00
00
o
o
ir>
O
o -
UJ
8. iS
16.G7 20 8J
NAUTICAL MILE
25 00
.00
Figure 4-4 Chester cross sectional area at mean low water
from bathymetry data (b) and comparison between bathymetry
and nautical chart data (a).
C-4
-------
o
o
~-Bathymetry Survey (1980)
O-Nautical Charts
O
O
L±J
36.00
32.00
28 00
24 .00
16.00
NAUTICAL
20.00
MILE
12.00
.00
4.00
.00
o
in
O'
o
28.00
12-00
• 00
4-00
.00
16-00
NAUT1CAL
20 00
MILE
24.00
32-00
36 00
Figure 4-5 Calculated water volume and cumulative water volume
at mean low water in Chester River from bathymetry survey data
and nautical chart data.
C-5
-------
LO
O
en
X
&
Q
r
O
QC
**
C£
O
cb oo
CHESTER RIVER
T
* • oo
8 30
I 2 00 16 00 00
nautical mile
?4 00
^8 oo
J6 00
Figure 4-6. Chester River Mean Hydraulic Depth and Hydraulic Depth.
C-6
-------
o
o
vN
0-00
CHESTER RIVER 1980
MORGAN CREEK
JW
\j
aAa_/
61 .00
122-00
1 83
DAY
00
244-00
305•00
366•00
Figure 4-7 Freshwater inflow (cubic feet per second) during the 1980 study
period at the Morgan Creek USGS gauge, station 01493500.
C-7
-------
CHESTER RIVER 1981
MORGAN CREEK
(230)
o°-
O"
Lu
CO
UJ
CD
O
'0.00
61 .CO
1 22.00
1B3-CO
DA Y
305.00
Figure 4-8 Freshwater inflow (cfs) during 1981 study
period at the Morgan Creek USGS guage, station
01493500.
C-8
-------
o
o
o
o
o
o
o.
CM
o
o
CHESTER RIVER 1975
MORGAN CREEK
WU
v-/\J
0-00
61 .00
22-00
183-00
DAY
244.00
305.00
366-00
Figure 4- 9 Freshwater inflow (cubic feet per second) during the 1975 study
period at the Morgan Creek USGS gauge, station 01493500.
09
-------
^HESTER RIVER 1966
MORGAN CREEK
o
o
r.
O
o
LO.
OJ
oCJ
Lu
CO
LlJ
O
O
to
o
o
c.
'0.00
61 -00
122-00
305.00
366-00
DAY
Figure 4-10 Freshwater inflow (cubic feet per second) during
1966 study period at the Morgan Creek USGS gauge, station
01493500.
C-10
-------
CHESTER RIVER 1974
MORGAN CREEK
CM
200)
209)
o
o
o
o_
~ g-
O00
UJ
CO
UJ
UJ
Llo
o
Oo_
I—.
CD
O
O
o
o
o
o.
0-00
i 22-00
244•00
366 •
DAY
Figure 4-11 Freshwater inflow (cubic feet per second) during the 1974 study
period at the Morgan Creek USGS gauge, station 01493500.
c-ll
-------
o
o
CHESTER RIVER
MORGAN CREEK
+
Q 30 YEAR AVERAGE
+ STANDARD DEVIATION
OF 30 YEAR AVERAGE
* 1980 WATER YEAR
~r-
N
~i 1 1 1—
F M A M
MONTH
I
A
1
S
Figure 4-12 Chester River mean monthly flow from historical data and
for water year 1980.
C-12
-------
CHESTER RIVER 1975
o
c\j_
o
a
o
<-5 O
LxJO
O
O
CM
o
Q,
0- 00
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE PERCENT CA)
80 - 00
Figure 4-13. Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution
Curves of Mean Daily cfs Flow for 1 975.
C-13
-------
CHESTER RIVER 1966
oo
o
o
Q
ir>
cr.
Lu
Q_
o
o
o
CD
o.
i 00•00
40 • 00
I"
80 • 00
(%)
20-00
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
60-00
T
0-00
T
Figure 4-14. Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution
Curves of Mean Daily cfo Flow for 1966.
C-14
-------
S CHESTER RIVER 1974
o
CM
O
O
Q
cr
UJ
CL
o
o
o
o
o
, 0 00000000 0—6®©^ ooo® *5®
O,
0.00
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
80 - 00
("/»)
I 00•00
Figure 4-15. Chester River Cumulative Frequency Distribution
Curves of Mean Daily cfo Flow for 1 974.
C-15
-------
n
i
i—•
<7\
2^3>r
Figure 4-16. Current meter mooring locations for CRIMP80 measurement program.
-------
CHI CH 2
5cm/s
:5m
10m-
-10 m
Figure 4-17 Mean velocity profiles for the two Chester River
moorings, CHI and CH2. Positive velocity is directed into
the estuary.
C-17
-------
CH 1
1.5 m
CH 1
6.1 m
CH i
8.5 rn
CH 2
2.6 m
CH 2
9.5 m
4V
:dr
0
1
M
03
CH 1
1.5m
CH 1
6.1m
CH 1
8.5 m
CH 2
2.6 m
CH 2
9.5 m
Figure 4-18. Low frequency currents for the Chester River measurements. The component
directions are as defined in Table 4-1.
-------
Table 4-1 Flow statistics from the Chester measurements. N is the number of records, Tq is the
initial start time in hours after 0000 23 June 1980, ac is the averaging interval for each record,
and-eis the rotation angle for the principal axis. The next four columns represent the mean
velocities in the north and east directions (u and v) and the mean velocities in the coordinates
of the principal axes (u1 and v'). The last two columns contain the variances in the rotated
axes. The principal axis js_ indicated by an asterisk.
02 02
Moorings Depth N To At 0 y' v'
m hr min o cm/s cm/s cm/s cm/s cm /s cm2/s2
CHI
1.5
1963
112.25
30
14
-0.95
-0.99
-1.16
-0.72*
33.42
120.81
CHI
6.1
1963
112.25
30
12
-0.84
-3.09
-1.49
-2.83*
17.50
137.58
CHI
8.5
1963
112.25
30
17
2.09
O
r^
•
CO
i
0.93
-4.15*
10.14
138.56
CHI
11.0
175
112.75
30
33
0.90
-3.82
-1.31
-3.69*
2.75
112.63
CH2
2.6
1967
111 .25
30
9
0.39
-1.76
0.09
-1.80*
43.72
353.68
CH2
9.5
1967
111.25
30
23
-0.03
1 .81
0.69
1 .67*
11 .94
536.97
-------
o
o
K OBSERVED
o_
O O'CONNOR MODEL
* TIDEWATER POLYNOMIAL
o
LO
CO
o
LO
CM
0 0 0 O O
o,
25. 50
34-00
8-50
0-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 4-19 Chester River observed and Statistically Estimated
Functions of the Salinity Profile for 198-81.
C-20
-------
Qo
cc ¦<
CHESTER RIVER
: v
' pc=100-px
. V • vnr BAv -M^F^ •*>
'1 *a:c{\
PX=(SX/S0)(1 00)
0-00
9 00 18-00 27-00 36-00 45-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 4-20 Estimated average longitudinal fraction
of freshwater and Chesapeake Bay water in the Chester
Estuary, (see equation 4-26 and 4-27).
C-21
-------
o
o
o_ FLUSHING TIME
CM
(FROM NAUTICAL CHARTS)
Estimated Flushing Tine = 81 days
Avg. Inflow Conditions
o
o
if)
LU
O
^ CO
CO
o
24 - 00
1 5 • 00
32 • 00
o.
0-00
8-00
40-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 4-21 Chester River freshwater flushing time versus nautical
mile (from nautical chart data).
C-22
-------
o
o
FLUSHING T1 ME
o_.
oo
(FROM BATHYMETRY SURVEY)
Estimated Flushing Time = 83 days
Avg. Inflow Conditions
o
en
P0_
UJ
O
tn
o
o
8-00
16-00
24 -00
32 • 00
0-00
40 - 00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 4-22 Chester River freshwater flushing time versus nautical
mile (from bathymetry survey data).
C-23
-------
o
o
CHESTER RIVER FLUSHING T I ME
CORRELATION COEFF1 CI EN T = 1 -00
o
o_
CM
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS -00
FROM NAUTICAL CHARTS
CO
_• o
LO-
CO
3
o_
LO
O
O
98.88
79.81
30-74
22.60
3.53
FLOW (cfs)
Figure 4-23 Chester River flushing time versus flow.
C-24
-------
Table 4-4
Linearized Functions Used In Regression Analysis for Salinity Distribution
Dependent Variable
y=salini ty
Independent Vairable
x = nautical mile
Correlation
Coefficient
(r2)
(1) S
(s = ax + b)
(2) In S
(S = ebeax) (In S = ax + b)
(3) - S / C k \ /
(S = a In X + b)-[x = elb"b,/a]
(4) In S
(In S = a In x + In b)-»(S = b x )
(5) In S
(S = ax^ + b)
(6) !n s ? 2
(In S = ax + b)->-(S = ebeax )
(7) S
(S = ax3 + b)
(8) In S 3
(In S = ax + b)->-(S = ebeax )
(9) S „ ,
(S = ax*'5 + b)
(10) 1n S pr h ,,2.5
(In S = ax • + b)->-(S = e°e )
In x
In x
2
,2.5
2.5
0.9293
0.7396
0.7090
0.4720
0.9781
0.9025
0.9448
0.9722
0.9663
0.9448
-------
Table 4-4 (cont.)
Linearized Functions Used In Regression Analysis for Salinity Distribution
Dependent Variable Independent Variable Correlation
y=salinity x=nautical mile Coefficient
(r )
(11) S i q 1 q
(S = ax1*y + b) x1*y 0.9801
(12) In X i q u 3V1.9
(In S =
(13) In (1/S)
[ln(l/S)
(14) In (1/S)
/ -I c 1.9 , . \ /c b aX * » 1.9 n omi
(In S = ax + b)-*(S = e e ) x 0.8911
[In(1/S) = ax + In b] +[S = 1/(b + eax)] x 0.7396
[1n(1/S) = ax + In b] ^[S = 1/(b + eax )] x2 0.9025
{15) ln (1/S) ? ay3 ,
[ 1n(1/S) = ax + ln b]+[S = l/(b + eax )] xJ
0.9722
s i o i o
(S = ax *° + b) x1 0.9801
(17) ln (S) 1 a u ax1'8 i a
tin S = ax + b]->[ (S = ebe )] x 0.8780
-------
15-
14.
13
12-
11-
10-
9-
8"
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
I-
1980 SLACK SURVEYS
River 1980 slack survey salinity profile (depth-averaged).
-------
o
o
ERROR FUNCTION
~— o
_o
QBSFRVED
-10% TO -30* OF 0
on
361 .9
4S.00
36. 00
27.00
NAUTICAL MILE
18-00
9-00
0.00
NAUT
o
o
O'CONNOR MODEL
* OBSERVED
i—o
a.°_
Q_co"
t—O
CO
o.
27-00
... E
36-00
18-00
NAUTICAL MILE
9.00
0.00
Figure 4-25 Chester River calculated Salinity Profiles for the Error
Function and O'Connor Model under various freshwater inflow.
C-28
-------
Table 4-5 Salinity Values Calculated for Chester
River Using the Different Methods
Salinity (PPT)
Nauti cal
Error
01 Connor
Ti dewater
Mi le
Observed
Function
Model
Model
5.5
11.57
11.57
11.57
11.57
6.0
-
11.57
11.57
11.53
7.0
-
11 .53
9.01
11.42
8.0
-
11.45
7.25
11.30
8.5
11.52
11.40
6.58
11.23
9.0
-
11.34
6.00
11.16
10.0
-
11 .19
5.10
11.01
11.0
-
11.01
4.42
10.85
12.0
-
10.79
3.91
10.67
13.0
-
10.54
3.52
10.48
13.2
11.09
10.49
3.45
10.44
14.0
-
10.27
3.20
10.27
15.0
10.45
9.97
2.96
10.06
15.5
10.43
9.81
2.85
9.94
16.0
10.57
9.64
2.76
9.82
17.0
-
9.30
2.60
9.58
18.0
-
8.94
2.46
9.32
19.0
-
8.56
2.35
9.04
20.0
-
8.17
2.26
8.76
21.0
-
7.78
2.18
8.46
21.3
9.39
7.66
2.16
8.37
22.0
-
7.38
2.12
8.14
23.0
-
6.97
2.07
7.82
24.0
-
6.57
2.02
7.48
25.0
-
6.17
1.98
7.13
26.0
-
5.78
1.95
6.76
27.0
-
5.39
1 .92
6.39
28.0
5.04
5.01
1.90
6.00
29.0
-
4.64
1.88
5.59
30.0
-
4.29
1.86
5.18
31.0
-
3.95
1.84
4.75
32.0
-
3.62
1.83
4.31
33.0
-
3.31
1.82
3.86
34.0
-
3.02
1 .81
3.39
35.0
-
2.75
1.80
2.91
36.0
-
2.49
1 .79
2.42
37.0
-
2.24
1 .79
1.92
38.0
-
2.02
1.78
1 .40
39.0
-
1 .81
1.78
0.87
40.0
-
1.62
1.77
0.33
41.0
0.05
1.44
1.77
0.00
C-29
-------
Table 4-6
Spatial/Temporal
Values of Salinity for
Chester
River, 1 980-
-1981
Nautical
July
July
July
July
Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Mi 1 es
7
10
16
28
27
4
10
28
13
24
5.5
9.67
9.57
10.13
9.87
10.87
12.70
13.90
13.80
13.13
14.40
8.5
8.87
9.93
9.87
9.96
11 .67
12.00
13.20
14.00
13.20
14.13
13.2
8.37
9.30
9.67
9.90
8.43
12.06
12.17
13.07
13.07
13.27
15.0
7.87
8.90
8.00
7.53
10.83
10.83
11 .83
12.13
12.78
13.00
15.5
7.63
7.77
7.80
9.33
10.53
11 .77
12.00
12.63
12.67
16.0
8.03
8.10
7.96
8.20
10.10
11 .40
13.07
12.23
12.63
13.13
21 .3
6.57
6.87
7.13
7.07
9.00
9.90
11 .00
10.50
11 .67
12.07
28.0
2.60
2.90
3.83
3.03
5.20
3.03
6.10
5.50
6.80
8.20
41 .0
0.10
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.09
Mean
6.51
6.95
7.07
6.95
8.28
9.00
10.17
10.17
10.42
11 .04
Std.
3.15
3.37
3.28
3.39
3.62
4.43
4.43
4.58
4.39
4.52
Dev.
-------
Table 4-6 (cont.) Spatial/Temporal values of Salinity for Chester River, 1980-1981
Nautical
Mi 1 es
Dec. March April May May June June June Mean
15 3 8 8 27 1 18 28
Std.
Dev.
5.5
13.43
13.20
11 .67
11 .30
10.47
10.30
10.57
9.33
11 .57
1 .67
8.5
13.50
12.70
12.77
10.93
10.63
10.40
10.20
9.43
11 .52
1 .65
13.2
13.10
11.27
12.27
10.60
11 .60
10.47
11 .03
9.97
11 .09
1 .55
15.0
12.27
10.63
12.00
10.90
10.10
9.87
10.50
8.17
10.45
1.70
15.5
11.93
12.63
11.10
10.67
9.90
9.63
9.77
9.60
10.43
1 .66
16.0
12.27
11.07
11 .50
10.77
10.00
9.77
10.1 7
9.87
10.57
1.69
21.3
10.63
10.00
10.27
10.30
8.87
8.97
9.47
8.77
9.39
1 .59
28.0
6.90
6.00
6.00
5.47
4.20
4.97
5.07
4.83
5.04
1.51
41 .0
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.05
0.05
Mean
10.27
9.37
9.57
8.78
8.23
8.09
8.38
7.55
Std.
Dev.
4.35
4.06
4,10
3.76
3.50
3.63
3.24
-------
Table 4-8 Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester River, 1980-81
Nautical
July
July
July
July
Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Mi les
7
10
16
28
27
4
10
28
13
24
15
5.5-
88.5
206.9
293.8
841.6
107.6
134.8
147.9
531.0
1436.0
403.6
1469.6
8.5
8.5-
202.0
178.8
572.4
1939.3
36.0
2349.5
144.2
170.5
1184.6
186.6
389.6
13.2
13.2-
75.1
105.3
24.4
16.9
18.5
43.0
163.3
62.0
206.3
225.1
70.7
15.0
15.0-
128.2
27.4
514.8
30.3
37.0
50.3
25.9
314.3
218.6
259.4
-
16.0
16.0-
65.2
79.5
118.9
88.3
113.5
92.8
75.9
85.8
165.5
155.5
91 .2
21 .3
21 .3-
17.4
18.7
25.9
19.0
29.3
13.6
27.3
24.9
29.8
41 .6
37.2
28.0
28.8-
8.1
7.9
7.3
7.8
6.7
7.3
6.3
6.8
6.0
5.9
6.1
41.0
Mean
83.5
89.2
222.5
420.5
49.8
384.5
84.4
170.8
463.9
182.5
344.1
S.D.
61.6
73.3
222.9
680.5
39.7
803.3
61 .8
176.3
544.9
124.4
519.0
-------
Table 4-8 (cont.) Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester River, 1980-1981
Nautical
Mile
March
3
Apri 1
8
May
8
May
27
June
1
June
18
June
28
Mean
Std.
Dev.
£**
5.5-
8.5
197.9
84.8
229.5
503.7
790.7
214.4
716.6
466.7
420.5
1764.0
8.5-
13.2
98.1
93.4
382.2
134.2
1746.8
149.8
210.4
576.0
696.3
308.0
13.2-
15.0
79.2
208.0
165.8
33.2
78.4
94.0
23.2
94.0
67.9
77.9
15.0-
16.0
63.6
60.6
215.1
259.4
253.4
80.8
13.7
150.2
135.1
266.0
16.0-
21 .3
128.9
115.7
292.2
109.2
153.2
183.5
110.8
125.6
51 .4
108 .8
21 .3-
28.0
31 .5
29.9
25.4
21 .5
27.3
25.8
27.0
26.3
6.6
25.9
28.0-
41 .0
6.0
6.5
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
5.8
1.8
5.7
Mean
86.4
114.1
187.8
152.1
436.1
197.3
157.8
--
--
--
S.D.
59.1
95.1
126.7
165.0
590.4
73.2
238.2
--
--
--
Based on average (28 years) discharge at Morgan Creek of Z = 10.7 ft^/sec.,
Drainage Area = 12.7 sq. miles Total Chester Q = 361.9 ft/sec., Drainage Area = 429.59
sq. miles
**Based on yearly average of Salinity
-------
Table 4-9 Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester River, 1980-1981
River July July Julv July Aug. Oct. Oct. Oct. Nov. Nov.
Miles 7 10 16" 28 27 4 10 28 13 24
from
mouth
5.5- 504.5 965.8 164.8 747.3 55.3 50.4 124.4 198.5 671.4 188.6
8.5
8.5- 1151.6 835.5 321.0 1721.8 18.5 878.3 121.3 63.7 553.3 87.2
13.2
13.2- 428.1 492.1 13.7 15.0 9.5 16.1 137.4 23.2 96.4 105.2
15.0
15.0- 730.9 128.0 288.7 26.9 19.0 18.8 21.8 117.5 102.1 242.4
n 16.0
'w
16.0- 371.7 371.5 66.7 78.4 58.3 34.7 63.8 32.1 77.4 72.7
21 .3
21.3- 99.2 87.4 14.5 16.9 15.1 5.1 23.0 9.3 1 3.9 19.4
28.0
28.0- 46.2 36.9 4.1 6.9 3.4 2.7 5.3 2.5 2.8 2.8
41 .0
Mean 476.0 416.9 124.8 373.3 25.6 143.7 71.0 63.8 216.8 102.6
Std. 350.9 342.6 125.0 604.1 20.4 300.3 51.9 65.9 254.7 80.1
Dev.
Q 61cfs 50cfs 6cfs 9.5cfs 5.5cfs 4.0cfs 9.0cfs 4.0cfs 5.0cfs lO.Ocfs
(7 days)
-------
Table 4-9 (cont.) Spatial/Temporal Values of Dispersion Coefficients for Chester River, 1980-1981
- - ¦¦ •' ¦—L- — ¦'— ... - ....
River
Mil es
from
Mouth
Dec.
15
March
3
Apri 1
8
May
May
June
June
June
Mean
Std.
Dev.
E lag
5.5-
8.5
824.1
101 .7
87.2
407.5
235.4
221.7
72.1
401 .8
350.4
283.7
267.6
8.5-
13.2
218.5
50.4
301 .5
678.7
62.7
489.8
50.4
118.0
428.0
456.2
30.2
13.2-
15.0
39.7
40.7
213.8
294.4
15.6
22.0
31 .6
13.0
111 .5
145.2
19.5
15.0-
16.0
-
32.7
62.3
382.0
121 .2
71 .1
27.2
7.7
141 .2
180.1
101 .5
16.0-
21 .3
51 .1
66.2
118.9
520.8
51 .0
43.0
61 .7
62.1
122.3
138.0
9.8
21 .3
28.0
20.9
16.2
30.7
45.1
10.1
7.7
8.7
15.1
25.5
25.7
1 .9
1
o o
OO r-
CSJ *3-
3.4
3.1
6.7
5.5
1.5
0.9
1 .0
1.7
7.6
12.2
0.3
Mean
193.0
44.4
117.3
333.4
77.1
122.3
36.1
88.5
Std.
Dev.
291 .0
30.4
97.8
225.0
77.1
165.5
24.6
133.6
Q
(7 days)
6. 0c f s
5. 5c fs
11. 0c f s
19.0cfs
5.Ocfs
3.Ocfs
3.6cfs
6. Ocfs
Note: Based linear intepolation of discharge observed at Morgan Creek with a time lag of 7 days.
Discharge used was observed 7 days prior to the Slack Survey.
-------
CHESTER RIVER
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
CONSTANT AREA
— o_
«
O
CJO
UJ0J
C/Dro
C\J
9
«
-O
o
FUROR FUNCTION MODFL
"t). 00 10-00 20.00 30 - 00
NAUTICAL MILE
40. oo
O'CONNOR MODEL
o
I—o
u_
ft
o,
30-00
0-00
10-00
20-00
NAUTICAL MILE
-------
o
o
- 00
TIDEWATER POLYNOMIAL
constant AREA
& -102 "0 30'/ OF 0
•i> -lu'' '"j J!-' 0
* AVERAGE 0 (361.9 CFS)
9-00 18-00 27-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
00
Figure 4-27 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Derived from
Tidewater Polynomial for Constant Cross Sectional area.
C-3 7
-------
CHESTER RIVER
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
VARIABLE AREA
r. O
o°
— o.
* 00
oo
LLio
c/)-«•
CM
~
«
ERROR FUNCTION MODEL
40- 00
13.00 10-00 20-00 30-00
NAUTICAL MILE
O'CONNOR MODEL
U_
40-00
30.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
NAUTICAL MILE
TIDEWATER polynomial
on.
•—CM.
• C\J
CM
o,
20-00 30-00
NAUTICAL MILE
i 0 - 00
0-00
Figure 4-28 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Using Various
Models for Variable Cross Sectional Area.
C-38
-------
o
o
TIDEWATER POLYNOMIAL
VARIABLE AREA
A -io% TO "30% OF Q
'10/ r (J i- / j!' u
* AVERAGE 0 ' J61 . 9 CPS)
9.00 18-00 27-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
45 - 00
Figure 4-29 Chester River Dispersion Coefficients Derived from Tidewater
Polynomial for variable cross sectional area.
C- 39
-------
Table 4-10 Dispersion Coefficients by Different Methods
Using Constant Area
Dispersion Coefficient* (ft /sec)
Nauti cal
Error
0'Connor
Ti dewater
Mile
Function
5.5
15814.30
6405.47
3301.56
6.0
15815.30
5966.72
3040.82
7.0
5271 .77
5177.32
2622.46
8.0
3163.06
4492.36
2300.83
8.5
2635.88
4184.65
2165.93
9.0
2259.33
3898.02
2044.58
10.0
1757.26
3382.31
1834.65
11.0
1437.75
2934.83
1658.76
12.0
1216.56
2546.55
1508.66
13.0
0054.35
2209.64
1378.57
13.2
1026.97
2147.81
1354.56
14.0
930.31
1917.30
1264.32
15.0
832.38
1663.64
1162.84
15.5
790.77
1549.69
1116.14
16.0
753.11
1443.54
1071.81
17.0
687.62
1252.56
989.45
18.0
632.61
1086.85
914.35
19.0
585.75
943.06
845.40
20.0
545.36
818.29
781.70
21.0
510.17
710.03
722.54
21.3
500.48
680.44
705.58
22.0
479.25
616.09
667.30
23.0
451.87
534.58
615.50
24.0
427.44
463.86
566.72
25.0
405.52
402.49
520.60
26.0
385.74
349.24
476.86
27.0
367.80
303.03
435.22
28.0
351.45
262.94
395.49
29.0
336.50
228.16
357.45
30.0
322.76
197.97
320.96
31 .0
310.10
171.78
285.86
32.0
298.40
149.05
252.03
33.0
287.55
129.33
219.36
34.0
277.46
112.22
187.75
35.0
268.06
97.38
157.11
36.0
359.27
84.49
127.36
37.0
251.04
73.31
98.43
38.0
243.31
63.61
70.26
39.0
236.05
55.20
42.80
40.0
229.21
47.90
15.98
41.0
222.75
41.56
0.00
* A = 84108 ft2
-------
Table 4-11 Dispersion Coefficients by Different Methods Using Variable Area
Dispersion
Coefficient* (ft?/sec.)
Nautical
Mile
Error Function
0' Connor
Tidewater
5.5
4246.75
48289.48
825.94
6.0
4246.75
41900.77
816.53
7.0
1631.42
31547.19
811.56
8.0
1128.10
23751.95
820.59
8.5
1009.21
20609.56
829.28
9.0
928.55
17882.90
840.38
10.0
832.41
13464.08
869.07
11.0
78.4.91
10137.14
905.56
12.0
765.42
7632.28
949.20
13.0
764.50
5746.36
999.59
13.2
766.08
5429.26
1010.46
14.0
777.42
4326.45
1056.53
15.0
801.64
3257.39
1119.89
15.5
817.56
2826.44
1153.96
16.0
835.88
2452.50
1189.62
17.0
879.56
1846.49
1265.64
18.0
932.58
1390.23
1347.91
19.0
995.16
1046.71
1436.28
20.0
1067.79
788.07
1530.56
21.0
1151.21
593.34
1630.42
21.3
1178.47
544.91
1661.40
22.0
1246.33
446.73
1735.38
23.0
1354.28
336.34
1844.72
24.0
1476.41
253.23
1957.49
25.0
1614.26
190.66
2072.38
26.0
1769.64
143.55
2187.66
27.0
1944.61
108.08
2301.10
28.0
2141.50
81.37
2409.82
29.0
2363.00
61 .27
2510.17
30.0
2612.14
46.13
2597.56
31 .0
2892.36
34.76
2666.27
32.0
3207.58
26.15
2709.17
33.0
3562.22
19.69
2717.50
34.0
3961.32
14.82
2680.51
35.0
4410.55
11.16
2585.03
36.0
4916.38
8.40
2415.04
37.0
5486.1 3
6.33
2151.09
38.0
6128.07
4.76
1769.62
39.0
6851.61
3.59
1242.22
40.0
7667.42
2.70
534.66
41.0
8587.57
2.03
0.00
*A = 733905 exp (-0.14190975 X)
C-41
-------
APPENDIX D
BOX MODELS
SECTION 5
-------
Point Sources (STP) ^4
4.0 x 103 lbs. (0.8%) •
• / - *¦. .y... • t j
v .» :v.• . • - v
Net Exchange with the
Chesapeake Bay
142.5 x TO3 lbs. ( 29.456)
o
NJ
b
CHESTER RIVER
~
Atmosphere 3.4 x TO3 lbs. (0.7%)
r * j *
Fluvial Sources
3
Avg. Freshwater Inflow 75.0 x 10 (15.5$)
Storm Events (NPS) 109.5 x 1 03 (22.6%)
Sediment Flu* 150.4 x 103 lbs. (31.0%)
Figure 5-2 Box Model of Dissolved Ammonia (NH3) for the Chester River. Ammonia
had three significant sources; Fluvial Input, Sediment Flux and the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
.u
-£
12.8 x 103 lbs.(0.9%) Point Sources (STP)
•.. '•"¦ ».
D
CHESTER RIVER
Atmosphere 32.7 x TO3 lbs. (2.4%)
Fluvial Sources
Avg. Freshwater Inflow 727.0 x 103 lbs
(62.42)
530.0 x
(38.32)
(52 4^)
Storm Events (NPS) 530*. 0% 103 lbs
Sediment Flux 82.7 x 103 lbs. (6.0%)
Figure 5-3 Box Model of Total Nitrogen for the Chester River. The Major Source was
from Freshwater Runoff with a loss to the Chesapeake Bay.
(*when a value is negative, the nutrient is leaving the Chester River).
-------
2.5 x 10^ lbs. (1.3%) Point Sources(STP)
Net Exchange with the
Chesapeake Bay
3.5 x 103 lbs. (1 .9%)
..
~
CHESTER RIVER
Atmosphere 0.7 x 10 lbs. (0.4%)
:;o'r
•,
D
I
Fluvial Sources
Sediment Flux 38.9 x 10^ 1 bs . (20.8%)
Avg. Freshwater Inflow 26.5 x 10^ lbs.
(14.2:)
Storm Events (NPS) 114.5 x 10^ lbs
(51 .4^;)
Figure 5-4 Box Model of Dissolved Orthophosphorus for the Chester River. The
fluvial sources were the largest contributers of orthophosphorus with sediment
flux as the next leading source.
-------
Point Sources (STP) m
3.0 x 103 lbs. (0.6%) 7-
Net Exchange with the
Chesapeake Bay
-108.3 x 103 lbs. (-22.2%)
' '•!¦¦'-¦*-j.
Atmosphere 7.2 x 10 lbs. (1.4%)
0
1
ui
CHESTER RIVER
\ j • A, v . .. m, !j"J"
r.~" ^ 3- :->J-
Fluvial Sources
Avg. Freshwater Inflow 1 05.7 x 103 lbs
.7%)
x 10J lbs
Storm Events (NPS)
(21
332.9
(68.3%)
Sediment Flux
lbs. (8.0%)
Figure 5-5 Box Model of Total Dissolved Phosphorus for the Chester
River. Most of the phosphoros loaded into the Chester come from fluvial
runoff.
* when a value is negative, the nutrient is leaving the Chester River.
-------
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF NON-POINT SOURCES
SECTION 6
-------
Table 6-1 Characteristics of Chester River Urban NPS Sites
Character!stic
Chestertown
A
Chestertown
B
Total acres
50.6 acres
49.1 acres
Principle +
soil types
Keyport fine
sandy loam - 45%
Matapeake silt
loam - 34%
Butlertown-Mattapex
silt loam - 55%
Matapeake
silt loam - 32%
Erosion +
coef (K)
0.38
0.38
Permeability (in/hr)+
0.4-2.1
0.5-2.85
Moisture holding
cap (in/hr)+
0.15-0.21
0.)6-0.22
Basin slope (£}+
1-4%
3-6%
Channel slope
-
-
Land use
Residential
Residential
Impervious area +
6.1 acres (13.2%)
8.8 acres (18.0%)
Street
acreage
*2.0 acres (4.4%)
(0.7 miles)
**5.06 acres (10.3%)
(2.0 miles)
Population/
Density
9.1 persons/acre
(assumes 4 persons/house)
***6.9 persons/acre
(assumes 4 persons/house)
Housing units/
Density
Hydroloaic Group
17 5 units -2.5 units/acre
C(3.1)
103 units = 2.1 units/acre
C( 2.83)
*** Population density does not include hospital.
* All streets with curb and gutter.
** 86% of streets with curb and gutter.
(+) values are area weighted.
E-l
-------
Table 6-2
Characteristics of Chester River Forested NPS Sites
Characteristic
Mill ington
A
Mil 1 ington
B
Total acres
1179 acres
271 acres
Principle*
soil types
Woodstown
sandy loam - 34%
Elkton
silt loam - 24%
Fallsington
sandy loam - 45%
Woodstown
sandy loam - 34%
Erosion*
coef. (K)
0.31
0.28
~
Permeability (in/hr)0.5-3.5
0.8-4.2
Moisture
holding cap(in/hr)*
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.19
Basin slope (%)*
0.8-2.2
0.8-2.1
Channel slope
-
-
Land
Use
Forest - 938 acres
Old field/grassland - 240 acres
Water -1.5 acres
Forest - 259.5 acres
Old field - 10.1 acres
Roads - 1.4 acres
Population/
Density
0
0
Housing units/
density
0
0
Hydrologic*
Group
C (3.4)
C (3.46)
~values a^e area weighted
i-2
-------
Table 6-3 Characteristics of Chester R i ver ^gr iV.ul.tural j^PS, Sj_te_s_
Characteri stic
US6S
GAGE
S
Farm
Total acres
Principle +
soil types
Erosion
8290 acres * (13 sq. mi.)
Mattapex - Mattapeake
Butlertown silt loam - 44%
Mattapeake
s 111 loam - 21%
.34
coef. (K)
Permeability (in/hr)o.5-4.24
Moisture +0.13-0.20
holding cap (in/hr)
+
Basin slope (%) 2.5-6.0%
Channel slope
Land use
Hydrologic
group
Agricultural (corn and rye predominant)
Residential - 75 acres (ex. farmsteads)
Forest - 715 acres
C (2.54)
804 acres
Mattapeake
silt loam - 53%
.31
0.6-3.89
0.13-0.25
2.0-5.0%
Agricultural
Field Corn
Soybean
B
* USGS records indicate basin size is 12.7 sq. miles.
+ - values are area weighted.
E-3
-------
Table 6-3 (cont) Characteristics of Chester River Agricultural NPS Sites
Characteristic
Browntown Road
Farm
H-Farm
Total acres
331 acres
14.1 acres
Principle
soil type*
Mattapeake
silt loam - 56%
Sassafras
sandy loam - 20%
Matapex - Metapeake
Butlertown silt loam - 81%
Erosion
coef. (K)*
0.32
0.37
IT
Permeability (in/hr)0.6-5.2
0.4-3.5
Moi sture
holding cap (in/hr)
0.12-0.20
it
0.15-0.20
Basin slope (%)*
1 .5-4.3%
1 .8-4.7%
Channel slope
-
-
Land use
Agricultural: field corn
(except farmstead area)
No Till field corn
Hydrologic*
group
B(2.2)
C(2.83)
Farmstead area
3.7 acre
0
Population/
density
1 family
0
Housing units/
density
1 farm units of 6-7 buildings
0
*values are area-weighted
£-4
-------
Table 6-3 (cont) Characteristics of Chester River Agricultural NPS Sites
Characteri sti c
Still Pond
Road
Total acres
Principle
soil type*
Erosion
coef. (K)*
Permeability{in/hr)*
Moisture
holding cap(in/hr)*
Basin slope(%)*
Channel slope
Land use
Hydrologic
Group*
Population
density
Housing units
29 acres
Mattapex - Metapeake
Butlertown silt loam - 31%
Sassafras loam and
Sas. sandy loam - 23%
.29
1.0-7.7
0.11-0.19
1.6-4.2%
Minimum tillage field corn
8(2.3)
* - values are area weighted
B-5
-------
Table 6-4 Chester River Subwatershed NPS Water Quality Station Codes
Subwatershed ID. No. STORET Basin
MD-DNR size
ID. No. (acres)
Chestertown Site A
CHI
X1H
2630
46.4
Chestertown Site B
CH2
X1H
2832
49.1
Sutton Farm
CH3
X1H
6375
804.0
USGS Gage-Morgan Creek
CH4
XIH
6891
8,290.0
Browntown Road
CH5
Xll
7728
331.0
Harris Farm
CH6
XJH
1130
14.1
Still Pond Road
CH7
XJH
0930
29.0
Millington Forest Site A
CH8
X1J
8131
1,179.0
Millington Forest Site B
CH9
XIJ
7134
271.0
-------
Table 6-5
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - All Sites
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1719
.0328
.3711
.0624
3.4624
.0034
B0D30
.3977
.0668
.8185
.1661
7.9796
4.886E-4
TSS
13.5235
5.2475
69.2192
.4057
693.0204
3.054E-4
N02
5.257E-4
1.247E-4
5.438E-4
2.388E-4
18.083E-4
0.031E-4
NO 3
.0147
.0036
.0156
.0110
.0542
0.244E-4
N02N03
.0182
.0027
.0346
.00 73
.2222
0.343E-4
NH3
.0131
.0028
.0380
.0022
.3105
0.031 E- 4
TKN
.0509
.0115
.1557
.0118
1.3970
0.366E-4
TKND
.0228
.0044
.0593
.0070
.6347
0.183E-4
TPHOS
.0806
.0510
.7693
.0026
10.3302
0.031E-4
TPHOSD
.1720
.1693
2.2713
8.182E-4
30.4756
0.012E-4
DP04
.0354
.0311
.3824
5.184E-4
4.8398
0.006E-4
TOC
.3843
.0514
.6922
.1326
6.6245
4.886E-4
COD
1.4010
.1981
2.6575
.4103
25.4035
.0015
ALKIN
.1906
.0206
.2670
.1071
1.6644
0.611E-4
-------
Table 6-6
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - Alt Forested Sites
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
80D5
.0646
.0130
.0130
.0304
.4563
.0034
B0D30
.1593
.0299
.2070
.0661
1.0648
4.886E-4
TSS
.2311
.0526
. 3641
.0894
1.6902
3.054E-4
NO 2
0.705E-4
0.313E-4
0.767E-4
0.509E-4
2.183E-4
0.031E-4
NO 3
3.232E-4
1.448E-4
3.547E-4
1.777E-4
9.680E-4
0.244E-4
N02N03
.0109
.0054
.0352
.0014
.2222
0.930E-4
NH3
.0026
7.311E-4
.0051
9.476E-4
.0240
0.031E-4
TKN
.0139
.0036
.0249
.0046
.1370
0.366E-4
TKND
.0098
.0024
.0169
.0036
.0913
0.183E-4
TPHOS
.0021
9.043Er4
.0063
4.057E-4
.0426
0.031E-4
TPHOSD
7.053E-4
1.857E-4
2.867E-4
2.192E-4
3.311E-4
0.012E-4
DP04
3.597E-4
1.047E-4
7.255E-4
1.404E-4
7.652E-4
0.006E-4
TOC
.2968
.0845
.5857
.0911
3.6507
4.886E-4
COD
.9511
.2063
1.4293
.3571
6.8451
.0015
ALK1N
.0246
.0047
.0318
.0100
.1521
0.611E-4
-------
Table 6-7
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - All Urban Sites
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.2445
.0512
.2940
.1399
1.4201
.0110
B0D30
.5714
.1084
.6681
.3360
3.4767
.0408
TSS
4.9462
.8535
5.9744
2.5845
21.3710
.0408
N02
.0011
1.991E-4
3.981E-4
.0011
.0015
5.564E-4
N03
.0140
.0030
.0060
.0140
.0207
.0070
N02N03
.0093
.0017
.0117
.0057
.0682
0.0500E-4
NH3
.0067
.0014
.0103
.0028
.0637
1.416E-4
TKN
.0302
.0047
.0346
.0181
.2137
6.329E-4
TKND
.0143
.0020
.0152
.0089
.0818
4.997E-4
TPHOS
.0147
.0027
.0199
.0065
.1069
1.133E-4
TPHOSD
.0037
.0011
.0080
.0015
.0509
0.266E-4
DP04
.0023
3.518E-4
.0024
.0015
.0117
0.233E-4
TOC
.3820
.0536
.3975
.2240
1.6370
.0053
COD
1.4955
.2160
1.5880
1.4955
7/2752
.0100
ALKIN
1.8367
.0245
.1717
.1440
.8185
.0042
-------
Chester River NPS
Chemical
Table 6-8
Export (lbs/acre)
- All Agricultural Sites
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1561
.0360
.4012
.0445
3.4624
.0017
B0D30
.3642
.0790
.9767
.1132
7.9796
.0027
TSS
18.5935
5.6444
75.9380
.5224
693.0204
.0020
N02
4.485E-4
0.889E-4
4.704E-4
2.296E-4
8.083E-4
0.194E-4
NO 3
.0105
.0027
.0140
.0042
.0542
0.194Et4
N02N03
.0208
.0028
.0359
.0086
.2220
0.343E-4
NH3
.0131
.0029
.0396
.0015
.3105
0.194E-4
TKN
.0566
.0125
.1713
.0093
1.4070
0.802E-4
TKND
.0209
.0044
.0510
.0047
.6347
0.401E-4
TPHOS
.0968
.0588
.7669
.0024
10.3302
0.427E-4
TPHOSD
.1633
.1612
2.2166
4.830 E-4
30.4756
0.100E-4
DP04
.0333
.0284
.3724
2.842E-4
4.8398
0.049E-4
TOC
.4262
.0693
.9508
.0857
6.6245
6.676E-4
COD
.1597
.3169
4.3450
.2887
34.6440
.0020
ALKIN
.1846
.0209
.2795
.0850
1.6644
.0020
-------
Chester
Table 6-9
River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) -
Millington A
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.0373
.0084
.0358
.0213
.1172
.0034
B0D30
.0929
.0261
.1:95
.0505
.4923
.0005
TSS
.1196
.0364
.1667
.069
.6866
.0003
N02
.35E-04
.189E-04
.328E-04
.333E-04
•686E-04
.031E-04
NO 3
.872E-04
.332E-04
.574E-04
.999E-04
1.371E-04
•244E-04
N02N03
.0021
.0012
.005
.0008
.022
.0001
NH3
8.423E-04
2.332E-04
10.69E-04
4.542E-04
45.81E-04
.031E-04
TKN
.0066
.0017
.008
.0026
.027
.366E-04
TKND
.0045
.0012
.0055
.0017
.0186
.183E-04
TPHOS
7.280E-04
3.434E-04
15.74E-4
2.807E-4
73.31E-4
.031E-4
TPHOSD
5.763E-4
3.413E-4
15.64E-4
1.731E-4
73.31E-4
.012E-4
DP04
3.327E-4
2.225E-4
10.19E-4
.908E-4
47.65E-4
.006E-4
TOC
'.1276
.0324
.1486
.067
.5392
4.89E-4
COD
.4269
.1109
.5084
.3087
2.1098
.0015
ALKIN
.0108
.0026
.0115
.0062
.0379
.611E-4
-------
Chester
River NPS
Table 6-10
Chemical Export (lbs/acre) -
Mi 11inqton B
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.0859
.0214
.1026
.043
.4563
.004
BOD 30
.2109
.0472
.2452
.1076
1.6048
.0121
TSS
.3178
.0862
.4477
.1245
1.6902
.0178
NO 2
1.061E-4
.572E 4
.991E-4
.691E-4
2.183E-4
.307E-4
NO 3
5.593E-4
2.19E-4
3.794E-4
4.917E-4
9.68E-4
2.183E-4
N02N03
.0175
.0093
.0456
.0021
.2222
.0002
NH3
.004
.0012
.0064
.0017
.024
.691E-4
TKN
.0195
.0061
.0315
.0082
.1369
.0004
TKND
.0139
.0041
.0212
.0062
.0913
.0004
TPHOS
.0031
.0016
.0082
.0005
.0426
. 605E-4
TPHOSD
.0008
.0002
.001
2.766E-4
.0046
. 369E-4
DP04
3.808E-4
.748E-4
3.884E-4
2.059E-4
15.21E-4
.215E-4
TOC
.4284
.1443
.7496
.1588
3.651
.0081
COD
1.3588
.3388
1.7605
.9096
6.8451
.0369
ALKIN
.0356
.0077
.0383
.0215
.1521
.0014
-------
Table 6-11
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - USGS Gage
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
BODS
.3784
.1668
.7646
.1072
3.4624
.0295
B0D3O
.8568
.3501
1.679
.2076
7.9796
.0589
TSS
34.398
27.596
137.98
.8208
693.02
.0861
NO 2
.0013
.0005
.0007
.0013
.0018
.0009
NO 3
.0395
.0147
.0208
.0395
.0542
.0248
N02N03
.024
.0049
.0239
.0131
.0904
.0024
NH3
.0355
.0107
.0545
.0099
.2085
.0011
TKN
.1187
.0534
.2723
.027
1.3969
.0072
TKND
.0586
.0244
.1243
.015
.6347
.0038
TPHOS
.4159
.3966
2.0224
.0054
10.3302
.0006
TPHOSD
1.2239
1.2188
6.0941
.0021
30.4756
.268E-4
DP04
.2326
.2023
.9912
.0011
4.8398
.268E-4
TOC
.4448
.1178
.5892
.1059
2.0944
.023
COD
1.2255
.3006
1.503
.3918
6.188
.1119
ALKIN
.4426
.071
.3404
.2873
1.3328
.0777
-------
Table 6-12
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - Chestertown A
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1971
.0326
.1406
.1421
.5453
.0431
B0D30
.5181
.0931
.4364
.3676
1.8318
.0862
TSS
5.9323
1.0488
5.648
3.8193
19.0608
.2585
NO 2
.0011
.0003
.0005
.0013
.0015
5.564E-4
NO 3
.0163
.0027
.0047
.0167
.0207
.0114
N02N03
.0095
.0017
.0088
.0065
.0303
.0006
NH3
.0059
.0011
.0063
.0035
.0273
.0002
TKN
.0313
.0045
.0248
.0224
.0896
.0022
TKND
.0135
.002
.0113
.0106
.0443
.0009
TPHOS
.0181
.0041
.023
.0069
.1069
.0004
TPHOSD
.004
.0016
.0089
.0021
.0509
.0001
DP04
.0025
.0004
.0023
.0018
.0117
.0003
TOC
.4485
.0746
.4151
.2814
1.6282
.0237
COD
1.6831
.2743
1.5274
1.3425
6.3751
.0592
ALKIN
.2152
.0296
.1596
.2034
.682
.0042
-------
Table 6-13
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - Chestertown B
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.3088
.1126
.4214
.1145
1.4201
.02
B0D30
.6447
.227
.9081
.2339
3.4767
.0408
TSS
3.5163
1.4058
6.2869
.7324
21.371
.0408
NO 2
9.91E-4
—
--
9.91E-4
9.91E-4
9.91E-4
NO 3
.0069
—
--
.0069
.0069
.0069
N02N03
.0091
.0032
.0149
,005
.0682
. 5E-4
NH3
.0081
.003
.0142
.0024
.0637
.0001
TKN
.0289
.0091
.0448
.0128
.2137
.0006
TKND
.0153
.0041
.0196
.0067
.0818
.0005
TPHOS
.0104
.0029
.0142
.0034
.058
.0001
TPHOSD
.0032
.0014
.0067
.0014
.0314
.266E-4
DP04
.002
.0006
.0026
.0012
.0092
.233E-4
TOC
.2962
.0743
.364
.1304
1.6369
.0053
COD
1.2426
.3475
1.6666
.5596
7.2752
.01
ALKIN
.138
.0408
,1822
.083
.8185
.0075
-------
Table 6-14
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - S Farm
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.0819
.04
.1876
.0234
.876
.005
B0D30
.2127
.1029
.5345
.0665
2.8031
.0124
TSS
17.2882
14.304
82.17
.1466
473.03
.0104
N02
5.34E-4
1.13E-4
2.26E-4
5.62E-4
7.81E-4
2.33E-4
N03
.03
.0038
.0075
.0314
.0375
.0196
N02N03
.0206
.0043
.023
.0132
.1119
.792E-4
NH3
.0057
.0019
.0107
.0017
.044
2.056E-4
TKN
.0547
.0371
.2131
.0052
1.2264
1.989E-4
TKND
.0127
.0045
.0256
.0037
.1314
1.74E-4
TPHOS
.041
.0319
.1831
.0012
1.0512
1.268E-4
TPHOSD
.0013
.0005
.0029
.0003
.014
.411E-4
DP04
9.073E-4
4.83E-4
.0026
2.07E-4
.0131
.411E-4
TOC
-2273
.0834
.4788
.0323
2.4527
.0041
COD
1.3672
.7775
4.4665
.2237
25.403
.0104
ALKIN
.2339
.0553
.3131
.1364
1.6644
.0224
-------
Table 6-15
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - Browntown Road
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1083
.0437
.1236
.0651
.3726
.0057
B0D30
.327
.1293
.409
.1839
1.242
.0124
TSS
40.867
26.807
96.653
6.0282
356.06
.0185
N02
1.029E-4
. 745E-4
1.054E-4
1.029E-4
1.774E-4
.284E-4
N03
.0064
.0046
.0064
.0064
.011
.0019
N02N03
.064
.0253
.0841
.0199
.2219
.343E-4
NH3
.0532
.029
.1044
.0012
.3105
. 923E-4
TKN
.1278
.066
.2379
.0265
.8281
.0016
TKND
.0597
.0289
.1041
.003
.294
8.919E-4
TPHOS
.0906
.0376
.1354
.0215
.4216
4.289E-4
TPHOSD
.002
8.26E-4
.003
4.37E-4
.0108
1.16E-4
DP04
.0022
.0011
.0037
3.22E-4
.0128
.927 E-4
TOC
.9286
.4984
1.797
.1655
6.624
.0114
COD
2.8446
1.2789
4.611
.5643
16.147
.041
ALKIN
.1484
.0389
.3025
.0263
1.1179
.0033
-------
Table 6-1G
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - H Farm
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.5316
—
—
.5316
.5316
.5316
B0D30
1.0631
--
1.0631
1.0631
1.0631
TSS
.8121
.0738
.1044
.8121
.8859
.7383
N02
--
—
—
—
--
—
NO 3
--
—
—
—
—
N02N03
.0416
.0286
.0496
.0244
.0975
.0028
NH3
.0174
.0117
.0202
.0118
.0399
5.611E-4
TKN
.0494
.0263
.0456
.0532
.093
.0021
TKND
.0296
.0141
.0244
.0399
.0473
.0018
TPHOS
.0516
.0316
.0548
.0413
.1107
.0027
TPHOSD
.0122
.0102
.0176
.0027
.0325
.0013
DP04
.0012
.0003
.0005
.0012
.0015
.0009
TOC
.5001
.253
.4382
.5906
.8859
.0236
COD
1.1409
.7858
1.361
.7383
2.6578..
.0266
ALKIN
.4061
.3618
.5116
.4061
.7678
.0443
-------
Table 6-17
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre) - Still Pond Road
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Medi an
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.0739
.0543
.0768
.0739
.1282
.0196
BOD 30
.1719
.0965
.1672
.1194
.359
.0372
TSS
34.068
23.995
47.991
16.917
102.177
.2627
NO 2
2.388E-4
—
—
2.388E-4
2.388E-4
2.388E-4
NO 3
.0091
--
--
.0091
.0091
.0091
N02N03
.0096
.0042
.0073
.0115
.0157
.0014
NH3
.0059
.0033
.0066
.0059
.0118
1.551E-4
TKN
.0594
.038
.0759
.0352
.1651
.0022
TKND
.0191
.01
.02
.0181
.0393
.001
TPHOS
.064
.0481
.0961
.0256
.2044
7.133E-4
TPHOSD
.0051
.0027
.0055
.0038
.0126
2.895E-4
DP04
.0023
.0015
.0025
.0015
.0051
2.59E-4
TOC
.5275
.358
.716
.2577
1.572
0.227
COD
2.4047
1.8421
3.6843
.8485
7.8598
.062
ALKIN
.3764
.2005
.401
.2765
.9432
.0093
-------
Table 6-22
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (1bs/acre/in.) - Millington A (Forested)
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.0964
.0299
.1268
.0498
.4884
.0039
B0D30
.2538
.1043
.4665
.1111
2.0512
1 .955E-4
TSS
.1939
.0417
.1864
.1261
.5313
1 .222E-4
N02
.231E-4
.219E-4
.31OE-4
.231E-4
.45E-4
.012E-4
N03
. 724E-4
.626E-4
.885E-4
.724E-4
1 .35E-4
.098E-4
N02N03
.0037
.0016
.0066
.001
.0286
.647E-4
NH3
.0018
.0005
.0022
.0007
.0079
.012E-4
TKN
.0111
.0023
.0104
.0087
.0319
.147E-4
TKND
.0087
.0024
.0105
.0062
.0425
.073E-4
TPHOS
.0012
.0005
.0021
.0007
.0095
.012E-4
TPHOSD
.0011
.0005
.0023
.0003
.0095
.0G5E-4
DP04
5.7 35E-4
3.041E-4
13.601E-4
1 .707E-4
61 .886E-4
.002E-4
TOC
.2849
.1013
.4529
.1464
1.7002
1 .955E-4
COD
1 .1478
.4438
1.9846
.3685
8.7909
6.108E-4
ALKIN
.0235
.0068
.0297
.0114
.1063
.244E-4
-------
Table 6-23
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (1bs/acre/in) - Millington B (Forested)
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1803
.0363
.1452
.1474
.6108
.0048
B0D30
.4302
.1118
.5001
.4156
2.1379
.0054
TSS
.465
.1164
.5204
.2589
1.5506
.0194
N02
1.11 9E-
-4
.917E-4
1 .588E-4
.277E-4
2.951E-4
.13E-4
N03
2.966E-
-4
. 519E-4
.899E-4
2.951E-4
3.872E-4
2.075E-4
N02N03
.0775
.0544
.2243
.0039
.926
8.459E-4
NH3
.0069
.0017
.0076
.003
.024
.277E-4
TKN
.0274
.C076
.0338
.0155
.1176
3.631E-4
TKND
.0208
.0053
.0236
.01 33
.0916
2.334E-4
TPHOS
.0033
.0011
.0051
.0017
.0174
.443E-4
TPHOSD
.0016
6.013E-4
.0027
5.266E-4
.0122
.156E-4
DP04
8.393E-
¦4
3.116E-4
13.937E-4
4.767E-4
61.082E-4
.104E-4
TOC
.5701
.1525
,6822
.1832
2.3402
.0093
COD
2.0064
.4898
2.1907
1 .0356
7.6353
.0156
ALKIN
.0719
.0209
.0089
.0509
.3054
5.531E-4
-------
Table 6-24
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in) - USGS Gage (Agricultural)
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.3036
.0803
.3593
.1763
1.5389
.0252
B0D30
.6762
.1692
.7935
.4384
3.5465
.0504
TSS
18.1464
12.7811
62.6143
1 .5994
308.009
.1488
N02
9.796E-4
1 .267E-4
1 .791E-4
9.796E-4
11.063E-4
8.53E-4
N03
.0283
.0027
.0038
.0283
.031
.0256
N02N03
.0285
.0046
.0223
.0265
.0946
.0015
NH3
.0292
.0069
.0345
.0167
.1181
.0017
TKN
.0859
.0252
.1259
.0421
.6208
.0062
TKND
.0451
.0114
.0571
.0298
.2821
.0032
TPHOS
.2008
.1831
.9153
.0085
4(5912
.001
TPHOSD
.5693
.5642
2.7638
.0029
13.5447
. 229E-4
DP04
.1204
.0955
.4578
.0022
2.151
.229E-4
TOC
.3711
.082
.4018
.197
1 .5747
.0229
COD
1 .1438
.2171
1.0637
.847
4.6526
.1259
ALKIN
.5776
.0783
.3671
.5476
1 .837
.0664
-------
Table 6-25
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (1 bs/acre/in) - Chestertown A (Urban)
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.2642
.0308
.1341
.2436
.5953
.0874
B0D30
.6125
.0764
.3585
.5155
1 .7119
.1758
TSS
9.009
2.3106
12.4432
5.4309
56.0612
.5275
N02
9.314E-4
2.388E-4
4.136E-4
7.672E-4
14.019E-4
6.252E-4
N03
.014
.0024
.0042
.0126
.0188
.0107
N02N03
.0141
.0022
.012
.01 01
.0447
.0014
NH3
.0073
.001
.0056
.0053
.0238
.0008
TKN
.0468
.0083
.0459
.0328
.1926
.007
TKND
.0184
.0023
.0129
.0141
.0536
.0028
TPHOS
.0278
.0068
.038
.0131
.1494
.0018
TPHOSD
.0049
.0015
.0083
.003
.0476
.0006
DP04
.0032
.0004
.0019
.003
.0109
.0006
TOC
.6312
.1212
.675
.3535
2.9219
.0879
COD
2.5712
.58
3.229
1 .7003
15.9378
.2575
ALKIN
.3245
.0393
.2118
.2513
.8301
.0098
-------
Chester River
MPS Chemical
Table 6-26
Export (lbs/acre/in.) -
Chestertown B
(Urban^
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Mi nimum
B0D5
.418
.132
.4938
.2667
1 .6955
.0322
B0D30
.8408
.2485
.9939
.5326
3.3112
.0658
TSS
6.0344
2.2733
10.1663
1 .7431
36.222
.0995
N02
.0011
--
--
.0011
.0011
.0011
N03
.0077
--
.0077
.0077
.0077
N02N03
.0154
.0051
.0239
.0098
.1156
.0003
NH3
.0215
.0099
.0477
.0056
.2141
7.388E-4
TKN
.0688
.0258
.1264
.0266
.56
.0017
TKND
.0411
.0178
.0856
.0182
.4118
9.402E-4
TPHOS
.0298
.0127
.062
.0079
.2898
2.686E-4
TPHOSD
.0053
.0017
.0082
.0024
.0346
1 .209E-4
DP04
.0029
.0007
.0032
.002
.0146
.806E-4
TOC
.7248
.2427
1 .189
.3355
5.6
.0215
COD
2.3057
.5736
2.751
1 .163
12.3309
.094
ALKIN
.321
.116
.5189
.188
2.1412
.0121
-------
Table 6-27
Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in.) - S. Farm (Agricultural)
Varieble
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Ma x i mum
Minimum
B0D5
.0757
.0194
.0909
.046
.4
.01 08
B0D30
.1816
.0486
.2478
.1056
1 .28
.027
TSS
9.1494
6.9519
38.7067
.294
215.995
.0414
N02
4.797E-4
.736E-4
1 .275E-4
4.14E-4
6.267E-4
3.982E-4
N03
.0257
.0043
.0075
.024
.0338
.0191
N02N03
.0309
.0064
.0341
.0227
.1885
2.732E-4
NH3
.0052
.001
.0054
.0028
.0227
6.267E-4
TKN
.0346
.0179
.0995
.009
.56
4.231E-4
TKND
.0117
.0024
.0131
.0067
.06
3.702E-4
TPHOS
.0218
.0154
.086
.0016
.48
4.372E-4
TPHOSD
.0011
2.556E-4
.0014
5.013E-4
.0064
1 .621E-4
DP04
7.341E-4
2.413E-4
12.302E-4
3.542E-4
59.999E-4
1.081E-4
TOC
.1799
.0435
.2423
.0814
1 .12
.0166
COO
.9584
.3715
2.0685
.3884
11 .5997
.0414
ALKIN
.2772
.05
.2962
.2181
1 .6832
.0486
-------
Chester River NPS
Table 6-28
Chemical Export (lbs/acre/in
.) - Browntown Road (Agri
cultural)
Variable
Mean
Standard
Error
Standard
Deviation
Median
Maximum
Minimum
B0D5
.1642
.0668
.1891
.0649
.4932
.01
B0D30
.5693
.3108
.9827
.1248
3.1233
.0268
TSS
54.8188
30.8599
111 .267
11 .3749
382.865
.0151
N02
.596E-4
.241E-4
.341E-4
.596E-4
.837E-4
.355E-4
N03
.0038
.0014
.002
.0038
.0052
.0023
N02N03
.1222
.0731
.2426
.0179
.8219
. 903E-4
NH3
.107
.0713
.2572
.0022
.9041
.756E-4
TKN
.218
.1245
.44
.0162
1.4795
.002
TKND
.1184
.0765
.27 59
.0045
.9863
9.076E-4
TPHOS
.1823
.1183
.4265
.0199
1 .5617
6.814E-4
TPHOSD
.0029
.0013
.0047
.0005
.0148
1 .664E-4
DP04
.0031
.0015
.0053
.0004
.0148
1 .17E-4
TOC
1 .3755
.6937
2.5011
.1986
7.1231
.0341
COD
3.9094
1 .645
5.9311
.6565
17.3625
.0852
ALKIN
.211
.1107
.3992
.0277
1 .202
.003
-------
Table 6-29 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acres/yr) - All Sites
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
8.8012
1.0484
11.3400
5.7650
71.2109
.1630
B0D30
20.3514
2.3327
27.2034
11.9140
148.9572
.0082
TSS
488.7286
152.1412
196.3243
3a0213
16080.3184
.0051
N02
.0205
.0048
.0192
.0171
.0589
0.513E-4
N03
.5038
.1248
.4991
.3874
1.4213
4.105E-4
N02N03
1.4233
.3634
4.4055
.4804
38.8921
.0027
NH3
.8176
.2582
3.2966
.1938
37.9728
0.513E-4
TKN
2.5425
.5130
6.5708
.8419
62.1373
6.157E-4
TKND
1.3231
.2958
3.7777
.5156
41.4249
3.078E-4
TPHOS
2.4927
1.2470
15.9696
.1688
192.8313
0.513E-4
TPHOSD
3.6462
3.5108
44.6854
.0753
568.8780
0.205E-4
DP04
.8556
.6337
7.6830
.0445
90.3432
0.103E-4
TOC
22.2698
3.2243
41.1651
8.8000
299.1687
.0082
COD
78.7647
9.5367
121.3820
37.4655
729.2237
.0257
ALKIN
11.4979
1.1819
14.5234
8.0047
89.9301
.0010
-------
Table 6-30 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acres/yr) - All Forested Sites
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max Min
BODS
5.7065
1.0102
5.0984
4.5547
25.6545
.1630
BOD 30
14.3638
3.2250
20.3970
8.8732
89.7908
.0082
TSS
13.8351
2.7193
17.1987
8.3241
65.1254
.0051
NO 2
.0032
.0023
.0052
.0012
.0124
0.513E-4
N03
.0087
.0027
.0061
.0087
.0163
4.105E-4
N02N03
1.6612
1.1248
6.6543
.1377
38.8921
.0027
NH3
.1814
.0404
.2554
.0652
1.0067
0.513E-4
TKN
.8080
.173 0
1.0940
.4174
4.9401
6.157E-4
TKND
.6199
.1264
.7997
.3575
3.8482
3.078E-4
TPHOS
.0961
.0265
.1676
.0365
.7292
0.513E-4
TPHOSD
.0560
.0165
.1043
.0194
.5131
0.205E-4
DP04
.0297
.0091
.0574
.0103
.2599
0.103E-4
TOC
17.9551
3.9156
24.7582
6.6107
98.2893
.0082
COD
66.2393
14.0023
88.5581
29.2020
369.2192
.0257
ALKIN
1.9755
.4768
2.9100
.0938
12.8273
10.262E-4
-------
Table 6-31 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (Ibs/acre/yr) - All Urban Sites
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max Min
B0D5
13.8372
2.4807
14.2507
10.3542
71.2110
1.3540
B0D30
29.7627
4.7522
29.2944
21.6511
139.0690
2.7643
TSS
327.3853
69.3024
485.1169
164.1375
2354.5684
4.1802
N02
.0409
.0073
.0146
.0392
.0589
.0263
NO 3
.5231
.0979
.1958
.4905
.7877
.3237
N02N03
.6153
.1070
.7565
.4157
4.8553
.0132
NH3
.5590
.1818
1.3358
.2283
8.9930
.0310
TKN
2.3701
.5097
3.7802
1.1705
23.5202
.0733
TKND
1.1798
.3265
2.3993
.6071
17.2942
.0395
TPHOS
1.2031
.2797
2.0742
.4288
12.1720
.0113
TPHOSD
.2136
.0467 •
.3435
.1167
1.9972
.0050
DP04
.1278
..0153
.1036
.1173
.6150
.0034
TOC
28.2667
5.2441
38.8909
14.8479
235.2015
.9026
COD
103.2410
17.2046
126.4276
63.8244
669.3893
3.9490
ALKIN
13.5697
2.1863
15.3040
9.1372
89.3011
.4120
-------
Table 6-32 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acres/yr) - All Agricultural Sites
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
6.7262
1.0692
10.9560
2.9302
64.6319
.3078
B0D30
15.9400
2.6205
29.5320
6.6868
221.6494
.9153
TSS
710.1598
192.0563
2320.6250
46.0872
16080.3184
.6353
N02
.0188
.0030
.0134
.0167
.0465
.0015
N03
.3943
.1020
.4560
.1884
1.4213
.0264
N02N03
1.3317
.2816
3.2480
.6564
34.5207
.0038
NH3
.7645
.2702
3.3524
.1086
37.9728
.0032
TKN
2.6476
.5924
7.3033
.5888
62.1373
.0178
TKNB
1.1030
.2986
3.6933
.3235
41.4250
.0156
THHOS
3.0389
1.4008
17.2696
.1589
192.8313
.0067
TPHOSD
3.8378
3.7420
46.1350
.0302
568.8780
9.617E-4
DP04
.8724
.6609
7.8472
.0160
90.3432
6.662E-4
TOC
20.7837
4.1560
51.0708
6.6187
387.6628
.3498
COD
72.4329
13.7319
168.7398
20.9721
1122.1818
1.5390
ALKIN
11.2008
1.6026
19.2982
5.7112
178.5504
.1253
-------
Table 6-33 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/yr) - Hillinqton A (Forested)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
BODS
4.0490
1.2554
5.3260
2.0900
20.5122
.1630
B0D30
10.6604
4.3810
19.5923
4.6674
86.1511
.0082
TSS
8.1422
1.7501
7.8270
5.2945
22.3416
.0051
N02
9.706E-4
9.193E-4
13.0000E-4
9.706E-4
18.899E-4
0.513E-4
N03
.0030
.0026
.0037
.0030
.0057
4.105E-4
N02N03
.1562
.0656
.2781
.0417
1.1996
.0027
NH3
.0746
.0203
.0909
.0274
.3317
0.513E-4
TKN
.4648
.0981
.4389
.3636
1.3388
6.157E-4
TKND
.3646
.0988
.4420
.2584
1.7852
3.078E-4
TPHOS
.0522
.0198
.0885
.0280
.3998
0.513E-4
TPHOSD
.0467
.0217
.0969
.0136
.3998
0.205E-4
DP04
.0241
.0128
.0571
.0072
.2601
0.103E-4
TOC
11 .9667
4.2535
19.0222
6.1471
71.4068
.0082
COD
48.2096
18.6387
83.3550
15.4751
369.2192
.0257
ALKIN
.9878
.2857
1.2455
.4797
4.4630
.0010
-------
Table 6-34 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (Ibs/acre/yr) - Millinqton 6 (Forested)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
7.5712
1.5243
6.0974
6.1896
25.6545
.2030
B0D30
18.0673
4.6970
21.0056
17.4563
89.7907
.2287
TSS
19.5280
4.8871
25.8557
10.8734
65.1254
.8137
N02
.0047
.0040
.0067
.0012
.0124
5.446E-4
N03
.0125
.0022
.0038
.0124
.0163
.0087
N02N03
3.2548
2.2851
9.4215
.1647
38.8921
.0355
NH3
.2883
.0713
.3187
.1250
1.0067
.0012
TKN
1.1512
.3175
1.4198
.6524
4.9401
.0152
TKND
.8752
.2214
.9899
.5571
3.8482
.0098
TPHOS
.1400
.0479
.2140
.0710
.7302
.0020
TPHOSD
.0654
.0025
.1130
.0221
.5131
6.535E-4
DP04
.0352
.0131
.0585
.0200
.2565
4.357E-4
TOC
23.9436
6.4065
28.6506
7.6934
98.2893
.3921
COD
84.2690
27.5735
92.0077
43.4937
320.6813
.6535
ALKIN
3.0180
.8796
3.7317
2.1391
12.8273
.0232
-------
Table 6-35 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (Ibs/acre/yr) - USGS Gage (Agricultural)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
12.7502
3.3746
15.0919
7.4040
64.6320
1.0580
B0D30
28.4021
7.1051
33.3260
18.4134
148.9527
2.1157
TSS
762.1494
536.8503
2629.7986
67.1728
12936.3818
6.2510
N02
.0411
.0053
.0075
.0411
.0465
.0358
N03
1.1879
.1131
.1600
1.1879
1.3001
.0748
N02N03
1.1960
.1951
.9357
1.1111
3.9747
.0638
NH3
1.2271
.2901
1.4507
.7017
4.9604
.0717
TKN
3.6067
1.0577
5.2885
1.7698
26.0756
.2597
TKND
1.8924
.4795
2.3976
1.2510
11.8484
.1346
TPHOS
8.4317
7.6885
38.4424
.3552
192.8313
.0423
TPHOSD
23.9105
23.6943
116.0781
.1207
568.8780
9.617E-4
DP04
5.0585
4.0096
19.2294
.0935
90.3432
9.617E-4
TOC
15.5873
3.4443
16.8736
8.2730
66.1392
.9617
COD
48.0379
9.1191
44.6741
35.5735
195.4113
5.2893
ALKIN
24.2610
3.2875
15.4197
22.9995
77.1554
2.7890
-------
Table 6-36 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (Ibs/acre/yr) - Chestertown A (Urban)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
11.0981
1.2921
5.6320
10.2304
25.0047
3.6078
B0D3 0
25.7253
3.2101
15.0568
21.6511
71.9014
7.3843
TSS
378.3788
97.0467
522.6125
228.0994
2354.5684
22.1530
N02
.0391
.0100
.0174
.0322
.0589
.0263
N03
.5896
.1016
.1760
.5230
.7877
.4511
N02N03
.5919
.0951
.5033
.4234
1.8753
.0571
NH3
.3050
.0422
.2353
.2218
1.0002
.0343
TKN
1.9664
.3465
1.9292
1.3772
8.0885
.2954
TKND
.7733
.0976
.5434
.5916
2.2504
.1178
TPHOS
1.1665
.2866
1.5958
.5514
6.2755
.0738
TPHOSD
.2065
.0625
.3480
.1267
1.9973
.0236
DP04
.1331
.0153
.0794
.1255
.4594
.02 58
TOC
26.5120
5.0920
28.3505
14.8480
122.7213
3.6921
COD
107.9907
24.3584
135.6221
71.4142
669.3893
10.8156
ALKIN
13.6293
1.6522
8.8972
10.5543
54.8640
.4120
-------
Table 6-37 Chester River MPS Chemical Export (1bs/acre/yr) - Chestertown B (Urban)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
17.5547
5.5429
20.7395
11.2022
71.2110
1.3540
B0D3 0
35.3141
10.4362
41.7447
22.3694
139.0689
2.7643
TSS
253.4446
95.4769
426.9856
73.2096
1521.3260
4.1802
NO 2
.0462
--
--
.0462
.0462
.0462
N03
.3237
--
.3237
.3237
.3237
N02N03
.6451
.2141
1.0040
.4102
4.8553
.0132
NH3
.9012
.4176
2.0025
.2348
8.9930
.0310
TKN
2.8915
1.0838
5.3096
1.1175
23.5202
.0733
TKND
1.7278
.7495
3.5943
.7657
17.2942
.0395
TPHOS
1.2503
.5313
2.6030
.3309
12.1720
.0113
TPHOSD
.2232
.0720
.3448
.1029
1.4527
.0051
DP04
.1201
.0304
.1327
.0851
.6150
.0034
TOC
30.4417
10.1932
49.9364
14.0897
235.2105
.9026
COD
96.8392
24.0923
115.5426
48.8400
517.8981
3.9490
ALKIN
13.4829
4.8735
21 .7950
7.8941
89.9301
.5077
-------
Table 6-38 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (1bs/acre/yr) - S Farm (Agricultural)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
3.1799
.8173
3.8167
1.9317
16.7996
.4540
B0D30
7.6276
2.0413
10.4085
4.4351
53.7488
1.1349
TSS
384.2735
291.9812
1625.6824
12.3495
9071.8037
1.7042
N02
.0201
.0031
.0054
.0174
.0263
.0167
N03
1.0778
.1818
.3149
1.0093
1.4213
.8028
N02N03
1.2986
.2705
1.4313
.9543
7.9178
.0115
NH3
.2180
.0410
.2281
.1170
.9526
.0263
TKN
1 .4541
.7506
4.1794
.3797
23.5195
.0178
TKND
.4898
.0988
.5498
.2825
2.5199
.0156
TPHOS
.9170
.6485
3.6106
.0674
20.1596
.0184
TPHOSD
.0477
.0107
.0598
.0211
.2688
.0068
DP04
.0308
.0101
.0517
.0149
.2520
.0045
IOC
7.5548
1.8279
10.1772
3.4170
47.0390
.6961
COD
40.2529
15.6034
86.8758
16.3140
487.1985
1.7402
ALKIN
11.6405
2.2713
12.4408
9.1609
70.6938
2.0428
-------
Table 6-39 Chester River NPS Chemical Export (lbs/acre/.yr) - Browritown Road (Agricultural)
Variable Mean St. Error St. Deviation Median Max. Min.
B0D5
6.8971
2.8074
7.9407
2.7265
20.7124
.4213
B0D30
23.9092
13.0525
41.2755
5.2431
131.1788
1.1235
TSS
2302.3884
1296.1166
4673.2148
477.7449
16080.3184
.6353
W02
.0025
.0010
.0014
.0025
.0035
.0015
NO 3
.1582
.0598
.0846
.1582
.2180
.0984
N02N03
5.1318
3.0718
10.1879
.7520
34.5207
.0038
NH3
4.4920
2.9964
10.8O?8
.0910
37.9728
.0032
TKM
9.1576
5.2307
18.8596
.6825
62.1373
.0835
TKND
4.9738
3.2136
11.5869
.1898
41.4249
.0381
TPHOS
7.6587
4.9682
17.9132
.8342
65.5894
.0286
TPHOSD
.1216
.0550
.1986
.0230
.6214
.0070
DP04
.1304
.0647
.2242
.0174
.6214
.0050
TOC
57.7698
29.1349
105.0472
8.3416
299.1687
1.4309
COD
164.1961
69.0892
249.1050
27.5720
729.2237
3.5772
ALKIN
8.8625
4.6498
16.7651
1.1626
50.4847
.1253
-------
o
o
CHESTER RIVER NPS
WALL SITES
* FORES TED SITES
OURBAN SITES
N = 1 28
N = 41
N = 33
•^AGRICULTURAL SITES N = 54
0-00
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
80 - 00
a)
i 00•00
Figure 6-1 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for B0D5 (lbs/acre).
E-4 4
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
o
WALL SITES N-i50
¥ FORES TED r;iTF.S N-4S
OURBAN SITES N-3S
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N-64
0.00 20-00 40-00 60-00 80-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
i00¦00
Figure 6-2 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
BOD30 (lbs/acre).
Ei-4 5
-------
3
o
CHESTER RIVER NPS
WALL SITF.S
KFU'vEi.Tn ¦: i TF
OURB4N SUES
N= i 74
N= 4 9
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N= 77
0-00 20-00 40-00 60-00 80-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY m
i 00
Figure 6-3 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for TSS (1bs/acre).
E-46
-------
CHESTER RIVER NP1-:
o
^ WALL SITES N = i 81
o
^FORESTED 1mTES N-4E
OURBAN SITES N = 54
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=79
o
"¦0
o
LU O
X
o
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
80 • 00
(%)
Figure 6-4 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for NH3 soluble (lbs ./acre).
E-47
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
KALL SITES
* FORES1"ED
OURBAN SITES
AAGR1CULTURAL SITES N=9
o
O
OJ
LU
or.
o
00
20 ¦ 00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
CD,
0-00
60-00
80 • 00
CA)
I 00-00
40. 00
Figure 6-5 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
N02 (lbs/acre).
E-4 8
-------
CHESTER RIVER NrS
o
_ WALL SITES N = 1 9
*F0f'E. rKD
!>UP3;N sites
aAGR1CULTURAL SITES N=9
o
UJ &
ctr. °
o o~
CO
m
o
ro
o
CM
O,
0-00
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMUAL11VE FREQUENCY
80 . oo
i oo.oo
Figure 6-6 Chester River cumulative frequency distributions for N03
(1bs/acre).
E- 49
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
i n
¦\J
WALL SITES N=162
*fore:;tfd > i te;",
OURBAN SiTES N=;.iO
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=70
o
CO
CQ^>
LjJ
GOo
ZD —
O
GO
CM
O
o
o
o.
0-00
20- 00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
40- 00
60 ¦ 00
80-00
u
Figure 6-7 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for N02 + N03 soluble (lbs/acre).
E-50
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
WALL SITES N=182
c\j
JKFORKoTED ' 1 r F.":. N*i.
>URBAN SITES N--55
AAGRICULTURAL SITES N=79
UJO
or:rKJ
o„l~
CO
CD
CO
o
o.
0-00
20-00 40-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
60 - 00
80 - 00
('/)
C
N
Figure 6-8 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for TKN soluble (lbs./acre).
E- 51
-------
CHESTER RIVER NFS
o
° WALL SITES N =18 i
CJ
DURBAN SITES
N = 55
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N = 78
CO
CD
o
<"\1
00 -
3
C£
O
o
o
o.
0-00
20 - 00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
40-00
T I V E
60- 00
80 - 00
(7J
i00•00
REQUE
C
N
Y
Figure 6-9 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
total Phosphorus (lbs/acre). Note: The largest storm was
not included in this analysis. Removal of this storm allows the
CFD difference to be visually observable.
E- 52
-------
CHESTER RIVER NFS
o
•_ WALL SITES N= 1 79
MJRBAN SITES N=54
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N= 77
oo
^ o
0Q O
CL
CO
O
n- o
1 CM
OO o
CO
o
o
40-00 60-00 80-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%'
0 .00
20-00
CUMULAT
o
A
Figure 6-10 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
total dissolved phosphorus (lbs/acre.). Note: The largest
storm was not included in this analysis. Removal of this storm
allows the CFD differences to be visually observable.
E-53
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
HALL SITES
xforel.tf:d ' i tf:
N=1 62
N - 4 b
O URBAN LiTKb N-4-:.
AAGR1CULTURAL SITES N=68
r.
0 .00
Cd
o
20-00 40
CUMULATIVE
00 60-00
FREQUENCY
i 00
Figure 6-11 Chester River NPS Cumulative frequency distributions
for soluble orthophosphorus. Note: The largest storm event was not
included in this analysis. Removal of this storm allows the CFD
difference to be visually observable.
E-5 4
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
cn
^forested
URBAN SITES N = 55
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=78
o
o
co
CO
—I o
^ o
o
o
o
o
0 • 00
20-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
40-00
60 - 00
80 • 00
i 00¦00
Figure 6-12 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for TOC (1bs ./acre).
E-5 5
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
o
io_ KALL SITES N=180
^FORES^ED •' i TE
OURBAN SITES
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=7
o
UJO
CO
m0
I o
a
CD
o
o
ro
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
80-00
m
Figure 6-13 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions fo
COD (1bs./acre).
E—56
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
°_ WALL SITES N-i 68
OJ
^FORESTED SiTES
OURBAN SITES
N = 49
AAGRICULTURAL SITES N = 74
UJ
Q1
O
o
CO
CD
O
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
CM
*F0RECrFD ¦
'JR3AN SITES
^agricultural SITES N=71
o
(\J
LTl
O
o
o,
0-00
20-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
40- 00
E
60-00
i 00•00
V
c
N
Y
i
Figure 6-15 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
total rainfall (ins.) for storm events where quality samples were
taken.
E-5 8
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
MALL SITES
N = 1 69
* FORE:,1" ED
O'JRBAN SITES N = 58
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N = 71
w
00
CD
o
o,
0-00
20-00 40-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
60. 00
80-00
(%)
i 00 - 00
R E Q U E N
C
Y
Figure 6-16 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions for
average rain intensity (in./hr.) for storm events where quality
samples were taken.
E-59
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
in
N = 1 68
WALL SITES
o
OURBAN SITES
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=70
N = 58
o
cvj
Lu o
ZO
X
•<- lO
ZIo
o
• —
°0. 00
60-00
20-00 40-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
80-00
(7J
i 00-00
C
N
Y
Figure 6-17 Chester River NPS cumulative frequency distributions
for maximum rain intensity (in./hr.) for storm events where
quality samples were taken.
E-6 0
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
ALL SITES
o XB0D30
00
~QO
iO
CM
UJ
CJ
o
o.
0.00
20-00 40-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
60. 00
80 . 00
(X)
100•00
c
N
Y
Figure 6-18 Comparison of B0D5 and B0D30 (lbs/acre) cumulative
frequency distributions (all sites combined).
E-61
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
ALL SUES
WN02 + N03 SOLUBLE
*NO '¦
N = 1 62
ON02
GO
on
Oo
Q_ ¦—
: o
O
o
¦¦ ^»| o —
80 - 00
(%)
0-00
20-00 40-00 60-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
¦| 00 - 00
Figure 6-19 Comparison of N02 + N03, N02, and N03 (lbs/acre) cumulative
frequency distributions (all sites combined).
E-62
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
ALL SITES
WTKN SOLUBLE N=l8i
*TKND fOLUBLF.
NH3 SOLUBLE
N= 181
o
Qd
Oo
q_/o
x o
LU
O
'0-00
20-00
40 - 00
80 - 00
60-00
i00•00
cumulative frequency m
Figure 6-20 Comparison of TKN, TKND, and NH3 (lbs/acre) cumulative
frequency distributions (all sites combined).
E-63
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
WALL SITES N=147
*F0RE.':rED
DURBAN SITES
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=62
N = 50
•o
¦> 00
IN
:o
LlJ
Qd
O
O
CO
CM
O
o
o
o,
0. 00
20-00
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (7J
40-00
60-00
80-00
i00-00
V
E
F
F
R
QUE
C
N
Y
Figure 6-22 Chester River NPS Cumulative Frequency Distributions For
N02+N03 (Ibs/acre/in.).
E-65
-------
CHESTER RIVER NPS
o
o
*F0RE^TFD
O
O'JRSAN SITES
N = 45
^AGRICULTURAL SITES N=60
lO
O
x
-------
Table 6-42
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression
Variable Equation
B0D5 V = (7 .E-09)X + .17742
lnY = .7393 (lnx) - 12.791
lnY = .55916 (lnx) - 7.6562
Y =» (8.E-09)X + .10531
lnY = /92236 (lnX) - 15.922
lnY = .73475 (lnX) - 12.056
Y = (7 .E-09)X + .13327
lnY = .3731 (lnX) - 5.6538
1nY= .65987 (lnX) - 8.6317
Y = (4 .E-08)X + .0275
Y = (3 .E-07)X + .02888
Correlation
N Coefficient(r) Site
117
.503
All
34
.609
All Forested
33
.634
All Urban
50
.851
All Agricultural
18
.689
Millington A
16
.787
Millington B
20
.892
USGS Gage
19
.450
Chestertown A
14
.717
Chestertown B
22
.809
S Farm
8
.873
Browntown Road
H Farm
Still Pond Road
— _
-------
Table 6-42 (cont)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression
Variable Equation
B0D30 Y= (2.E-08)X + .41423
1nY= 1.0076 (InX) - 15.527
1nY= 60201 (InX) - 7.3830
lnY= .42606 (lnx) - 7.6677
lnY= 1 .162 (lnx) - 18.287
lnY=.99085 (InX) - 14.628
Y= (2.E-08JX + .27601
Y=(4.E-06)X + .24304
1nY= .69769 (InX) - 8.3359
Y= (1.E-07)X + .02423
1nY= .88069 (InX) - 12.317
N
Correlation
Coefficient (r)
Site
136
.449
All
40
.814
All Forested
38
.696
All Urban
58
.726
All Agricultural
20
.892
Millington A
20
.882
Millington B
22
.889
USGS Gage
22
.658
Chestertown A
16
.752
Chestertown B
26
.891
S Farm
10
.855
Browntown Road
-------
Table 6-42
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Dependent
Variabl e
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient(r)
Site
TSS
Y =
(1 .E-06)X + 6.1429
157
.499
All
1 n Y
= .88531 (lnX) - 13.776
40
.753
All Forested
lnY
= 91565 (lnX) - 8.83
49
.617
All Urban
Y =
(1 .E-06)X + 9.7209
68
.486
All Agricultural
lnY
= 1 .0744(lnX) - 17.019
20
.824
Millington A
lnY
= .83699(1nX) - 12.453
20
.875
Millington B
Y =
(2.E-06)X - 18.061
24
.978
USGS Gage
lnY
= .68419(1nX) - 5.8967
29
.583
Chestertown A
lnY
= .00001X - 6.9075
20
.664
Chestertown B
1 nY=
(1.E-06)X - 1 .8473
31
.838
S Farm
Y =
.00021 X - 19.110
13
.960
Browntown Road
--
--
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression
Variable Equation
N02 Y = .001(1nXO - .0081
lnY = 1 .6837(lnX) - 28.547
lnY = .47723(1nX) - 12.541
lnY = .46934(1nX) - 14.58
lnY = 1 .5096(1nX) - 27.298
lnY = .00003X - 11 .702
Y = -(1 .E-ll)X + .00135
lnY = .46262(1nX) - 12.422
lnY = -(6 .E-07)X - 6.9685
lnY = .4682 (lnX) - 14.969
N
Correlation
Coefficient(r)
Site
16
.536
All
5
.960
All Forested
4
.567
All Urban
7
.931
All Agricultural
2
1 .00
Millington A
3
.999
Millington B
2
-1 .00
USGS Gage
3
.579
Chestertown A
Chestertown B
3
-.552
S Farm
2
1 .00
Browntown Road
- _
—
H Farm
—
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression Correlation
Variable Equation.. N Coefficient^) Site
Y = .00416(1nX) - .03946
16
.818
A11
InY = .9342(lnX) - 18.885
5
.718
All Forested
Y = - .00838(1nX) + .11011
4
-.773
All Urban
InY = .33852(1nX) - 8.9677
7
.841
All Agricultural
InY = 1 .099(1nX) - 21 .498
2
1 .00
Millington A
InY = .15179(1nX) - 9.7986
3
.478
Millington B
Y = -(3.E-l0)X + .03614
2
-1 .00
USGS Gage
InY = -(5.E-06)X - 3.6422
3
-.998
Chestertown A
--
Chestertown B
InY = -(9.E-07)X - 2.5466
3
-.792
S Farm
InY = .43409(lnX) - 1 .0435
2
1 .00
Browntown Road
H Farm
- -
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Regression
Correlation
Variable..
Equation
N
Coefficient(r)
Site
N02N03
lnY = .23434(1nX) - 7.6673
147
.316
All
lnY = .6864(1nX) - 15.083
35
.399
All Forested
lhY = .64884(1nX) - 11 .748
50
.674
All Urban
lnY = .19041(1 nX) - 6.6443
62
.273
All Agricultural
lnY = 1 .11 9(1 nX) - 22.191
18
.721
Millington A
lnY = .69795(1nX) - 14.047
17
.471
Millington B
Y = .00418(1nX) - .04009
23
.185
USGS Gage
lnY = .48085(1nX) - 9.9562
28
.467
Chestertown A
lnY = .76698(lnX) - 12.891
22
.785
Chestertwon B
lnY - .27267(1nX) - 7.5552
28
.254
S Farm
lnY = 1 .425(1nX) - 21 .233
11
.801
Browntown Road
-------
Table'6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Variable
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient(r)
Site
lnY
= .30746(lnX) - 9.4628
163
.387
All
lnY
= .9758(1nX) - 19.595
40
.747
All Forested
lnY
= .42994(1nX) - 9.8395
54
.416
All Urban
lnY
= .4874(1nX) - 12.038
69
.587
All Agricultural
lnY
= 1 .069(1nX) - 21.701
20
.844
Millington A
lnY
= 1 .0536(1nX) - 19.758
20
.851
Millington B
Y =
.02189(1nX) - .33088
25
.614
USGS Gage
lnY
= .4511 5(1 nX) - 10.259
31
.463
Chestertown A
lnY
= .49547(1nX) - 10.288
23
.448
Chestertown B
Y =
(2.E-09)X + .00277
31
.61
S Farm
lnY
= (4.E-06)X - 7.0267
13
.739
Browntown Road
_ _
_ _
- -
H Farm
— _
_ _
Still Pond Road
NH3
m
i
c_n
-------
Table"6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression Correlation
Variable Equation N Coefficient(r) Site
InY
= .2422(1nX) - 7.0447
164
.351
All
lnY
= .93575 (lnX) - 17.314
40
.806
All Forested
InY
= .52922 (lnX) - 9.188
55
.060
All Urban
lnY
= .42585(lnX) - 9.8116
69
.586
All Agricultural
InY
= 1.0901(lnX) - 20.007
20
.903
Millington A
lnY
= .90575(lnX) - 16.309
20
.840
Millington B
Y =
(3.E-09)X + .01334
25
.931
USGS Gage
lnY
= .40496(1nX) 7.8973
31
.455
Chestertown A
lnY
= .63476(1 nX) - 10.178
24
.695
Chestertown B
Y =
(5 ,E-08)X - .02721
31
.852
S Farm
InY
= 1.232(1nX) - 18.021
13
.883
Browntown Road
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Regression
Correlation
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient^)
Site
TKND
lnY
= .2606(1nX) - 7.855
163
.385
All
lnY
= .9532(1nX) - 17.871
40
.765
All Forested
lnY
= .37332(1 nX) - 8.2317
54
.415
All Urban
lnY
= ,42964(lnX) - 10.446
69
.627
All Agricultural
lnY
= 1 .142(1 nX) - 21 .134
20
.867
Millington A
lnY
= .90998(1nX) - 16.59
20
.824
Millington B
Y =
(1 .E-09)X + .01298
25
.909
USGS Gage
lnY
= ,30729(lnX) - 7.6446
31
.383
Chestertown A
lnY
= .4802(1 nX) - 9.1687
23
.485
Chestertown B
Y=(6.E-09)X + .00442
31
.759
S Farm
lnY
= 1 .2485(1nX) - 19.294
13
.793
Browntown Road
--
--
--
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Regression
Correlation
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient(r)
Site
TPHOS
Y =
2.E-08X - .01926
164
.834
All
lnY
= .9097(1nX) - 19.299
40
.768
All Forested
1 nY
= .66611 (lnX) - 11 .723
55
.55
All Urban
Y =
(2 .E-08)X - .06046
69
.839
All Agricultural
1 nY
= 1.0507(1nX) - 21 .884
20
.865
Millington A
1 nY
= .9073(1nX) - 18.58
20
.829
Millington B
Y =
(2.E-08)X - .33042
25
.938
USGS Gage
lnY
= .64269(1nX) - 11 .447
31
.474
Chestertown A
1 nY
= .67174(1nX) - 11.802
24
.571
Chestertown B
lnY
= (8.E-07JX - 6.8848
31
.866
S Farm
lnY
= 1.1793(1nX) - 17.886
13
.706
Browntown Road
—
--
--
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(lbs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Regression
Correlation
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient^)
Site
TPHOSD
Y =
5.E-08X - .14641
162
.890
All
lnY
= 1 .1004(lnX) - 22.538
40
.844
All Forested
lnY
= .63464(1 n,X) - 12.764
54
.703
All Urban
Y =
(6 .E-08)X - .3312
68
.900
All Agricultural
lnY
= 1 .301(1nX) - 25.864
20
.921
Millington A
lnY
= 1 .0265(1 nX) - 20.952
20
.880
Millington B
Y =
(6.E-08JX - 1 .0424
24
.935
USGS Gage
lnY
= .5149(1nX) - 11 .473
31
.589
Chestertown A
lnY
= .73064(1nX) - 13.728
23
.768
Chestertwon B
Y =
(7.E-l0)X + .00024
31
.865
S Farm
Y =
(8.E-09)X + .00004
13
.873
Browntown Road
--
H Farm
--
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Dependent
Variabl e
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient(r)
Site
DP04
lnY
= (5.E-08JX - 7.3006
147
.424
All
lnY
= 1 .0355(1nX) - 22.26
40
.807
All Forested
lnY
= .60341(1nX) - 12.696
46
.782
AH Urban
Y =
(1 .E-08)X - .04267
61
.917
All Agricultura
lnY
= 1.2447(lnX) - 25.746
20
.893
Millington A
lnY
= .96193(1nX) - 20.634
20
.857
Millington B
Y =
(1 .E-08)X - .12005
23
.932
USGS Gage
Y =
(2 .E-08)X + .00127
27
.671
Chestertown A
lnY
= .63348(1nX) - 13.051
19
.805
Chestertown B
Y =
(7 .E-l0)X - .00005
26
.896
S Farm
Y =
(9.E-09)X - .00017
12
.913
Browntown Road
--
H Farm
_ _
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(lbs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent
Regression
Correlation
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient^)
Site
TOC
InY
= . 14754(1nX) - 3.4864
163
.216
All
lnY
= 1 .0555(lnX) - 16.019
40
.848
All Forested
InY
= ,54336(lnX) - 6.8461
55
.611
All Urban
InY
= .29781(lnX) - 6.0796
68
.431
All Agricultura"
InY
= 1 .2083(lnX) - 18.715
20
.929
Millington A
InY
= 1 .0316(lnX) - 15.071
20
.891
Millington B
InY
= 1 .105(1 nX) - 19.582
24
.796
USGS Gage
InY
= .55483(1nX) - 7.0278
31
.570
Chestertown A
InY
= .56086(lnX) - 6.9602
24
.632
Chestertown B
Y =
(1 .E-07)X + .02599
31
.871
S Farm
Y =
(5.E-06JX - .22386
13
.924
Browntown Road
--
--
H Farm
— —
¦" —
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1bs ./acre/in. of rain) versus (gallons of storm flow)
Dependent
Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient^)
Site
COD
lnY
= .14503(1nX) - 2.0825
162
.216
All
lnY
= 1 .0466(1nX) - 14.499
40
.837
All Forested
lnY
= .54257(lnX) - 5.5251
54
.582
All Urban
InY
= .26723(1nX) - 4.2502
68
.42
All Agricultural
InY
= 1 .1754(1 nX) - 16.886
20
.893
Millington A
lnY
= 1 .0498(1nX) - 13.887
20
.916
Millington B
lnY
= .78236(1nX) - 12.986
24
.739
USGS Gage
InY
= .51764(1nX) - 5.2557
31
.518
Chestertown A
lnY
= .56228(1nX) - 5.7239
23
.614
Chestertown B
Y =
(1.E-06)X - .35389
31
.87
S Farm
Y =
.00001X + .21727
13
.899
Browntown Road
_ .
H Farm
_ _
_ _
--
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-42 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
(1 bs ./acre/in . of rain) versusjgal 1 ons of storm flow)
Selected
Dependent Regression Correlation
Variable Equation N Coefficient(r) Site
ALKIN
lnY
=
.30729(1nX) - 6.2005
151
.353
All
1 n Y
=
1 .0497(1 nX) - 18.156
37
.819
All Forested
lnY
=
.53855(1nX) - 7.5104
49
.487
All Urban
lnY
=
.49928(1nX) - 8.629
65
.754
All Agricultural
lnY
=
1 .141 7(1 nX) - 20.096
19
.888
Millington A
lnY
=
1 .0469(1nX) - 17.374
18
.891
Millington B
lnY
=
.35947(1nX) - 6.576
22
.433
USGS Gage
lnY
.3667(1nX) - 5.4577
29
.348
Chestertown A
lnY
=
.63187(1nX) - 8.74
20
.569
Chestertown B
lnY
=
.31774(1nX) - 5.8353
30
.489
S Farm
lnY
=
(3 .E-06)X - 4.1636
13
.838
Browntown Road
--
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correlation
(1bs/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient
Si te
B0D5
TRF*AVINT
Y = .32482X + .08702
117
.506
All
TRF*AVINT-
1 nY = -1 .1 687X - 3.1970
34
-.246
All Forested
TRF
lnY = 1.2780(lnX) - 1 .3080
33
.613
All Urban
TRF
lnY = 1.2780(1nX) - 1 .3080
33
.613
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY = r55293(lnX) + .27516
49
.644
All Agricultural
TRF*MtNT
Y = -.00579(1nX) + .02009
18
-.252
Millington A
TRF
Y = .07353(1nX) + .15854
16
.564
Millington B
TRF*AVINT
Y = .98934X - .03088
20
.85
USGS Gage
TRF*MINT
Y = 9.1079X + .10631
19
.85
Chestertown A
TRF
Y = .55057(1nX) + .60187
14
.581
Chestertown B
TRF*MINT
Y = 8.4781X - .00614
21
.897
S Farm
--
--
--
--
H Farm
Still Pond Road
* TRF=tota1 rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT=maximum intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (cont)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correlation
(1bs/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient
Site
B0D30
TRF*AYINT
Y = .74434(1nX) + .21102
136
.493
All
TRF*MINT
lnY = -41 .570X - 2.2648
40
-.407
All Forested
TRF
lnY = 1 .2621 (1nX) - .54958
38
.637
All Urban
--
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
lnY = -59.313X - 2.5085
20
- .51 6
Millington A
TRF*AVINT
lnY = -2.1 737X - 1 .9205
20
-.487
Millington B
TRF*AVINT
Y = 2.2463X + .07042
22
.847
USGS Gage
TRF
lnY = 1 .1482(1nX) - .57443
22
.771
Chestertwon A
TRF
lnY = 1.4780(1nX) - .46713
16
.542
Chestertown B
TRF*AVINT
Y = .99992X - .01407
26
.881
S Farm
TRF*MINT
lnY = .38219(1nX) - .05451
10
.413
Browntown Road
--
--
--
--
H Farm
~ -
- ~
- -
- —
Still Pond Road
* TRF=total
rainfall (inches);
AVINT=average intensity; MINT=
=maximum
intensity
-------
Table 6-43
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TRF*AVINT
Y =
66.308X - 1 .6324
157
.471
All
TRF
Y =
,0978o(lnX) + .26003
40
.247
All Forested
TRF*KINT
InY
= .60311(1nX) + 2.9919
49
.560
All Urban
--
--
--
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
Y =
.48077X + .05528
20
.685
Mi 11 ington- A
TRF
Y =
.1406(1nX) + .37268
20
.281
Millington B
TRF*AVINT
Y =
250.36X - 29.164
24
.958
USGS Gage
TRF*MINT
InY
= .57367(1nX) + 4.257
29
.645
Chestertown A
TRF*MINT
Y =
38.852X + 2.5099
20
.617
Chestertown B
TRF*AVINT
Y =
169.92X - 17.861
31
.884
S Farm
TRF*M1MT
Y =
1 4 .1 83(1 nX) - 110.63
13
.233
Browntown Road
::
"
H Farm
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total rainfall (inches): AVINT=average intensity; MINT=maximum intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correlation
(1bs/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient
Site
N02
TRF*MINT
lnY = -52.154X - 7.4333
16
-.529
All
TRF*MINT
Y = - .00199X + .00013
5
-.607
All Forested
TRF
Y = .00072(lnX) + .00101
4
.693
All Urban
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
lnY = -51 .599X - 10.119
2
-1 .00
Millington A
TRF*MINT
Y = -.00007(1nX) - .00015
3
-.998
Millington B
TRF*MINT
Y = .0471IX + .00081
2
1 .00
USGS Gage
TRF
Y = .00075(1nX) + .00009
3
.692
Chestertown A
- -
—
Chestertown B
m
TRF*AV.I'NT
Y = .00129X + .00047
3
.973
S Farm
i
00
TRF*MINT
lnY = .70920(lnX) - 5.9038
2
1 .00
Browntown Road
—i
--
—
H Farm
—
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT=maximum intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TRF*MINT
InY
= -47.573X - 4.6547
16
-.371
All
TRF
Y =
.00028(1nX) + .00024
5
.480
All Forested
TRF*AVINT
InY
= .07227(lnX) + .00393
4
.954
All Urban
TRF*MINT
InY
= .40491(lnX) - 1 .9496
7
.468
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
InY
= -30.414X - 9.0989
2
-1 .00
Millington A
TRF
InY
= .69886X - 8.9690
3
.919
Millington B
TRF*MINT
Y =
1.5035X + .02238
2
1 .00
USGS Gage
TRF*AVINT
InY
= 3.7518X - 4.7513
3
1 .00
Chestertown A
--
--
Chestertown B
TRF*AVINT
Y =
.03790X + .02861
3
.998
S Farm
TRF*MINT
InY
= .68501(lnX) - 1.8699
2
1 .00
Browntown Road
~ —
'
H Farm
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT=max"fmUFn intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correlation
(1bs/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient
Site
N02N03
TRF*MINT
lnY = .38793(1 nX) - 2.9949
146
.361
All
TRF*AVINT
Y = 0.00562(1nX) - .0059
35
-.236
All Forested
TRF
lnY = 1 .3452(1nX) - 4.5206
50
.636
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY = .40544(1nX) - 2.1173
61
.440
All Agricultural
TRF*RINT
Y = .00072(lnX) + .00622
18
.245
Millington A
TRF*AVINT
Y =- .00923(1nX) - .00902
17
-.288
Millington B
TRF*MINT
Y = .85377X + .0123
23
.655
USGS Gage
TRF
lnY = 1.0675*1nX) - 4.5958
28
.556
Chestertown A
TRF
lnY = 1.4928(1nX) - 4.4837
22
.658
Chestertown B
TRF*MINT
Y = .76132X - .01222
27
.721
S Farm
TRF*MINT
lnY = .64237(1nX) - 1 .2886
11
.39
Browntown Road
~ —
- -
- -
- -
H Farm
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT=maximum intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TRF*MINT
lnY = .35651(1nX) - 3.9771
162
.329
All
TRF*MINT
lnY = -26.254X - 6.9146
40
-.223
All Forested
TRF
lnY = .99736(1nX) - 5.1477
54
.548
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY = .57522(1nX) - 2.3072
68
.502
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
lnY = -44.671X - 7.3226
20
-.375
Mil 1ington A
TRF*MINT
Y = .00113(1nX) + .01126
20
.294
Millington B
TRF*MINT
Y = 2.4306X + .00305
25
.794
USGS Gage
TRF
Y = .00900X - .00095
31
.709
Chestertown A
TRF
lnY = .86221(1nX) - 5.1440
23
.459
Chestertown B
TRF*MINT
Y = .47793X + .00024
30
.935
S Farm
TRF
lnY = -1 .2164X - 4.5624
13
-.274
Browntown Road
— -
H Farm
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT=maximum intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correl ation
(1bs/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coefficient
Site
TKN
TRF*AVINT
Y = .14911 X + .01658
164
.475
All
TRF
Y = .00665(1nX) + .01647
40
.243
All Forested
TRF
InY = .95321(InX) - 3.4724
55
.566
All Urban
TRF*MINT
1 r.Y = .77059(1nX) + .09838
68
.689
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
Y = .00177(1nX) + .01206
20
.34
Mil 1ington A
TRF
Y = .01086(1nX) + .02522
20
.306
Mil 1ington B
TRF*AVINT
Y = .39116X - .00853
25
.861
USGS Gage
TRF
InY = .98723(lnX) - 3.3966
31
.600
Chestertown A
TRF
InY = .87843(1nX) - 3.6166
24
.497
Chestertown B
TRF*AVINT
Y = .44121X - .03602
31
.886
S Farm
TRF*MINT
InY = .58639(1nX) - .74750
13
.466
Browntown Road
--
--
H Farm
- —
- -
- -
Still Pond Road
*TRF=total
rainfall (inches); AVINT=average intensity; MINT-
=maximum
intensity
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TRF*AVINT
Y = .04723X + .01171
163
.397
All
TRF
Y = .00418(1nX) + .01121
40
.232
All Forested
TRF
lnY = .83937(1nX) - 4.2595
54
.538
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY = .58876(1nX) - 1.4640
68
.585
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
Y = .01015X + .00328
20
.436
Millington A
TRF
Y = .00712(1nX) + .01734
20
.307
Millington B
TRF*AVINT
Y = .18199X - .00085
25
.878
USGS Gage
TRF
Y = .01557X + .00167
31
.678
Chestertown A
TRF
lnY = .73035(1nX) - 4.3041
23
.444
Chestertown B
TRF*MINT
Y = 1.0467X + .00084
30
.854
S Farm
TRF*MINT
lnY = .36728(1nX) - 2.9041
13
.269
Browntown Road
H Farm
--
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TPHOS
TRF*MINT
TRF*MINT
TRF
TRF*MINT
TRF
TRF*AVINT
TRF*AVINT
TRF
TRF*MINT
TRF*AVINT
TRF*MINT
lnY= .54705(1nX) - 2.8029 163
lnY = -24.738X - 7.5102 40
lnY = .93773(1nX) - 4.5309 55
lnY = 78.396X - 6.39 68
lnY = -.74424X - 7.5668 20
lnY = -1 .6159X - 7.0593 20
Y = 2.6952X - .43269 25
lnY = .92743(1nX) - 4.3277 31
Y = .11249X + .0079 24
Y = .37644X - .03676 31
lnY = .72206(1nX) - .57238 13
.418
.231
.438
.679
.299
.335
.799
.42
.724
.880
.471
All
All Forested
All Urban
All Agricultural
Millington A
Millington B
USGS Gage
Chestertown A
Chestertown B
S Farm
Browntown Road
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TPHOSD TRF*MINT InY
TRF*MINT InY
TRF InY
TRF*MINT InY
TRF InY
TRF*AVINT InY
TRF*AVINT Y =
TRF InY
TRF*MINT Y =
TRF InY
TRF*MINT InY
= .42605(lnX) - 4.7839 161
= -32.108X - 8.1453 40
= 1 .2361 (1nX) - 5.6838 54
= .7332(1nX) - 2.0013 67
= - .91417X - 8.0297 20
= -2.1622X - 7.7822 20
7.9562X - 1 .251 3 24
= 1 .2428(1nX) - 5,6312 31
.06601X + .00170 23
= 2 .0321 X - 9.5014 31
= .36931(1nX) - 5.3559 13
.373
All
-.278
All Forested
.687
All Urban
.578
All Agricultural
-.310
Millington A
-.447
Millington B
.796
USGS Gags
.699
Chestertown A
.92
Chestertown B
.845
S Farm
.384
Browntown Road
- -
H Farm
- _
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River HPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
TRF*AVINT
Y =
#
26883X - .02846
147
.346
All
TRF
lnY
=
- .76019X - 8.4239
40
-.311
All Forested
TRF
lnY
=
1,4252(lnX) - 5.8249
46
.776
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY
=
65.219X - 8.0929
60
.582
All Agricultural
TRF
lnY
=
- .98877X - 8.6070
20
-.345
Millington A
TRF*AVINT
lnY
=
-2 .2521X - 8.2899
20
-.524
Millington B
TP.F*AVINT
Y =
1
.2554 X - .17820
23
.788
USGS Gage
TRF
lnY
=
1 .2204(1nX) - 5.7927
27
.793
Chestertown A
TRF
lnY
=
1 .4848(1nX) - 5.9524
19
.755
Chestertown B
TRF
lnY
=
2.0253X - 9.9210
26
.889
S Farm
TRF*MINT
lnY
=
.36999(1nX) - 5.5318
12
.353
Browntown Road
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correl ation
Coefficient Site
TRF
lnY
=
.81400(1nX) - 1 .6840
1 63
.392
All
TRF*AVINT
lnY
=
1 .5220X - 2.3154
40
-.244
All Forested
TRF
lnY
=
1 .0308(1nX) - .92695
55
.589
All Urban
TRF*MINT
lnY
=
.75229(1 nX) + 1 .9130
67
.705
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
lnY
=
-45.390X - 2.4523
20
-.348
Millington A
TRF*AVINT
lnY
=
-1 .6980X - 1 .9146
20
-.315
Millington B
TRF*MINT
lnY
=
.73(1 nX) + 2.1065
24
.740
USGS Gage
TRF
lnY
_
1 .2476(lnX) - .73985
31
.660
Chestertown A
TRF
lnY
_
.8075(lnX) - 1 .2386
24
.478
Chestertown B
TRF
lnY
=
2.4180X - 4.8946
31
.879
S Farm
TRF*Mint
lnY
=
.50911(lnX) + 1.0857
13
.450
Browntown Road
--
"* —
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable
(1bs/acre)
Independent
Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Si te
COD
TRF
InY
-
.68813(1nX) - .36859
162
.353
All
TRF*MINT
InY
=
-43.294X - .70264
40
-.409
All Forested
TRF
InY
=
1 .181 5(1 nX) + .51447
54
.656
A11UUrban
TRF*MINT
InY
=
.66020(1 nX) + 2.7815
67
.665
All Agricultural
TRF*MINT
InY
=
-65.336X - .86765
20
-.556
Millington A
TRF*MINT
InY
=
-30.095X - .45925
20
-.327
Millington B
TRF
InY
=
1.6003X - 1.9374
24
.747
USGS Gage
TRF
InY
=
1.1189(1nX) + .55934
31
.605
Chestertown A
TRF*MINT
InY
=
.53648(1nX) + 2.6997
23
.650
Chestertown B
TRF*AVINT
Y =
9,
.1 724X - .50494
31
.879
S Farm
TRF*MINT
InY
=
.54214(1nX) + 2.4268
13
.471
Browntown Road
H Farm
_ _
_ _
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-43 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions For The Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable Independent
(lbs/acre) Variable
Selected
Regression
Equation N
Correlation
Coefficient Site
ALKIN TRF Y =
TRF lnY
TRF Y =
TRF lnY
TRF*MINT Y =
TRF*AVINT lnY
TRF*MINT Y =
TRF Y =
TRF lnY
TRF lnY
TRF*MINT lnY
.15600X + .06048
151
= - .81855X - 3.9497
37
.16034X + .07457
49
= .28495(1nX) + .03426
65
.0201X + .00826
19
= -2.3484X - 3.6539
18
32.704X + .18220
22
.15089(1nX) + .28884
29
= 1.1224X - 3.3386
20
= 1 .3079X - 3.0695
30
= .43489(1nX) - 1.2022
13
.339
All
-.337
All Forested
.435
All Urban
.484
All Agricultural
.425
Millington A
-.535
Millington B
.776
USGS Gage
.572
Chestertown A
.345
Chestertown B
.817
S Farm
.379
Browntown Road
H Farm
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-44 Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
Independent
Variable*
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Site
B0D5
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X + .09708
128
.837
All
GAL.
lnY
= .82643 (lnX) - 14.637
41
.806
All Forested
GAL.
InY
- .00001X - 2.9899
33
.806
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.00014X - .07295
54
.956
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .79753 (lnX) - 14.756
18
.854
Millington A
GAL.
Y =
(8.E-08)X - .00968
23
.923
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X - .03652
21
.985
USGS Gage
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-06)X - .00461
19
.82
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY
= .00001X - 3.0555
14
.811
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-07)X - .03964
22
.988
S Farm
GAL.
lnY
= .85585 (lnX) - 13.412
8
.967
Browntown Road
--
--
--
—
H Farm
GAL.
lnY
= .58425 (lnX) - 8.7143
2
1.00
Still Pond Road
B0D30
GAL.
Y =
(4.E-08)X + .23716
150
.809
All
GAL.
lnY
= .87713 (lnX) - 14.285
48
.876
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= .93497 (lnX) - 11.498
38
.846
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.00033X - .16481
64
.972
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .94859 (lnX) - 15.878
21
.958
Millington A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-07)X - .00195
27
.98
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(4.E-08)X - .11451
23
.987
USGS Gage
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-06)X - .09446
22
.897
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY
= .91069 (lnX) - 11.138
16
.842
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-07)X - .15588
27
.975
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(7.E-07)X + .02923
10
.986
Browntown Road
--
H Farm
GAL.
lnY
= .70504 (lnX) - 9.0346
3
.999
Still Pond Road
*GAL. = Total volume of storm (gallons).
**GAL./ACRE = Total volume of storm/acres of watershed.
***GAL./ACRE/IN. = Total volume of storm/acres of watershed/total rainfall of storm (inches).
-------
Table 6-44 (cont) Chemical Export Functions • for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Selected
Variable
Independent
Regression
Correlation
(los/acre)
Variable
Equation
N
Coeffi cient
Si te
TSS
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-06)X + 1.7443
174
.705
All
GAL.
lnY
= .77832 (lnX) - 12.791
48
.696
All Forested
GAL.
InY
= 1.3581 (lnX) - 14.273
49
.786
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.02770X - 27.646
77
.855
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .88724 (lnX) - 15.009
21
.763
Mi 11i ngton A
GAL.
InY
= .7626 (lnX) - 11.995
27
.811
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(3.E—06)X - 46.801
25
.966
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY
= 1.2441 (lnX) - 12.575
29
.836
Chestertown A
GAL.
Y =
.00007X - 2.3247
20
.907
Chestertown B
GAL.
InY
= 2.2945 (lnX) - 32.1
33
.906
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
.00017X - 19.562
13
.903
Browntown Road
H Farm
GAL.
Y =
.00039X - 2.8303
4
.999
Still Pond Road
N02
GAL./ACRE/IN.
InY
= .88933 (lnXO - 13.748
16
.971
All
GAL./ACRE/IN.
Y =
(3.E-07)X + .00002
5
.973
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= (1.E-05)X - 8.0829
4
.997
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
(4.E-07)X + 0.0
9
1.00
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0 (lnX) - 21.763
3
1.00
Mi 11ington A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-09)X + (2.E-1)
3
1.00
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(5.E-11)X - (l.E-10)
2
1.00
USGS Gage
GAL.
Y =
(9.E-09)X + (l.E-10)
3
1.00
Chestertown A
--
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(5.E-10)X - 0.0
4
1.00
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-09)X - (7.E-12)
2
1.00
Browntown Road
--
—
—
H Farm
—
Still Pond Road
N03
GAL.
Y =
.00583 (lnX) - .05675
19
.836
All
GAL./ACRE/IN.
lnY
= .35762 (lnX) - 9.9911
5
.499
All Forested
GAL./IN.
Y =
.01225 (lnX) + .15564
4
-.761
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.00001X + .00859
9
.908
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .56321 (lnX) - 15.713
3
.999
Mi 11i ngton A
-------
Table 6-44
Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent Selected
Variable Independent Regression Correlation
(lbs/acre) Variable Equation N Coefficient Site
N03 (cont.)
N02N03
NH3
GAL./ACRE/IN.
lnY = .0017X - 7.2060
3
-.869
Mi 11i ngton B
GAL.
Y = (2.E-09)X - .00347
2
1.00
USGS Gage
GAL./ACRE/IN.
lnY = -.00025X - 3,
.5588
3
-.860
Chestertown A
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y = (2.E-08)X - .01233
4
.990
S Farm
GAL.
Y = (7.E-08)X + .00014
2
1.00
Browntown Road
--
—
H Farm
Sti11 Pond Road
GAL.
lnY = .32947 (lnX)
- 9.4435
162
.423
All
GAL./ACRE/IN.
Y = (3.E-06)X -.00603
35
.613
All Forested
GAL.
lnY = 1.0722 (lnX)
- 16.982
50
.879
All Urban
GAL./IN.
lnY = .83624 (lnX
- 10.092
70
.702
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY = (8.E-07JX - 8.4923
18
.798
Mi 11ington A
GAL./ACRE/IN.
Y = (3.E-06JX - .00733
17
.615
Mi 11i ngton B
GAL.
Y = .01655 (lnX) -
.24596
24
.671
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY = .99612 (lnX)
- 16.185
28
.806
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY = 1.1324 (lnX)
- 17.55
22
.908
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y = .01642 (lnX) -
.19971
29
.727
S Farm
GAL./ACRE/IN.
Y = .05244 (lnX) -
.27597
11
.905
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY = .66150 (lnX)
- 10.354
3
.885
H Farm
GAL.
Y = .00326 (lnX) -
.02534
3
.999
Sti11 Pond Road
GAL.
lnY = .40625 (lnX)
- 11.232
181
.496
All
GAL.
lnY = .84525 (lnX)
- 18.332
48
.729
All Forested
GAL.
lnY = .91878 (lnX)
- 15.818
54
.744
All Urban
GAL./IN.
lnY = 1.2009 (lnX)
- 13.761
79
.771
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY = .87805 (lnX)
- 19.634
21
.839
Mi 11i ngton A
GAL.
lnY = .90832 (lnX)
- 18.491
27
.829
Millington B
GAL.
Y = (1.E-09)X + .00831
26
.785
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY = .99165 (lnX)
- 16.732
31
.762
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY = .91574 (lnX)
- 15.647
23
.738
Chestertown B
GAL.
lnY = 1.1293 (lnX)
- 21.444
33
.804
S Farm
-------
Table 6-44 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
NH3 (cont.)
TKN
TKND
TPHOS
lependent
iriable
Selected
Regression
Equation
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Site
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-07)X - .01221
13
.905
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY
= .00006X - 7.4951
3
.998
H Farm
GAL.
lnY
= 1.1704 (lnX) - 18.743
4
.936
Still Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-09JX + .02538
182
.667
All
GAL.
lnY
= .81652 (lnX) - 16.158
48
.753
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= .95525 (lnX) - 14.459
55
.902
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.00006X - .03460
79
.844
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .8957 (lnX) - 17.888
21
.847
Mi 11fngton A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08JX - .00419
27
.851
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(7.E-09)X - .0519
26
.986
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY
= .94546 (lnX) - 14.37
31
.85
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY
- .96925 (lnX) - 14.580
24
.924
Chestertown B
GAL.
lnY
= 1.6510 (lnX) - 27.257
33
.899
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(5.E-07)X - .03112
13
.965
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY
= .86091 (lnX) - 12.139
3
.999
H Farm
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-07)X + .00112
4
.997
Still Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-09)X + .01112
181
.798
All
GAL.
lnY
= .85959 (lnX) - 17.094
48
.749
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= .86215 (lnX) - 14.211
54
.814
All Urban
GAL./IN.
lnY
= 1.1340 (lnX) - 12.490
79
.833
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .97133 (lnX) - 19.375
21
.833
Millington A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X - .00260
27
.875
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-09JX - .01882
26
.981
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY
= .84779 (lnX) - 14.118
31
.792
Chestertown A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-07)X - .00103
23
.865
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(l.E-08)X - .00488
33
.956
S Farm
GAL./ACRE/IN.
lnY
= 1.3352 (lnX) - 13.036
13
.905
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY
= .76867 (lnX) - 11.622
3
.991
H Farm
GAL.
lnY
= .92564 (lnX) - 14.521
4
.973
Still Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(4.E-08)X - .08619
182
.881
All
-------
Table 6-44 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent Selected
Variable Independent Regression Correlation
(lbs/acre) Variable Equation N Coefficient Site
TPHOS (cont.)
TPHOSD
DP04
GAL.
lnY
= .83792
InX) - 18.757
48
.737
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0921
InX) - 16.994
55
.811
All Urban
GAL.
Y =
(4.E-08)X
- .18915
79
.888
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= .84900
InX) - 19.653
21
.837
Mi 11ington A
GAL.
lnY
= .90799
InX) - 19.097
27
.805
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-08)X
- .7866
26
.936
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY
= 2.0145
InX) - 20.364
31
.828
Chestertown A
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-07)X
- .00049
24
.821
Chestertown B
GAL.
lnY
= 1.9535
InX) - 32.728
33
.93
S Farm
GAL.
lnY
= 1.274 (
nX) - 19.243
13
.76
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY
= .79858
InX) - 11.479
3
.985
H Farm
GAL.
Y =
(8.E-07)X
- .00974
4
.997
Still Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-07)X
- .31807
180
.883
All
GAL.
lnY
= .96700
InX) - 21.202
48
.845
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= 1.1235
InX) - 18.742
54
.919
All Urban
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-07)X
- .67978
78
.892
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0989
InX) - 23.627
21
.913
Millington A
GAL.
lnY
= .91999
InX) - 20.075
27
.909
Millington B
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-07)X
- 2.4199
25
.934
USGS Gage
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0554
InX) - 17.946
31
.878
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY
= 1.1509
InX) - 19.087
23
.938
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-09)X
- .00066
33
.979
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-09JX
+ .00008
13
.948
Browntown Road
GAL.
Y =
.00288 (InX) - .01566
3
.390
H Farm
GAL.
Y =
(4.E-08)X
+ .00091
4
.992
Sti11 Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X
- .04716
163
.916
All
GAL.
lnY
= .91363 (InX) - 21.089
48
.834
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0785
(InX) - 18.471
46
.939
A11 Urban
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08JX
- .10009
69
.922
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0459
(InX) - 23.56
21
.891
Mi 11i ngton A
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-l0)X
+ .00005
27
.95
Millington B
-------
Table 6-44 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent Selected
Variable Independent Regression Correlation
(lbs/acre) Variable Equation N Coefficient Site
DP04 (cont.)
TOC
COD
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X
- .31378
24
.947
USGS Gage
GAL.
InY
= 1.0712
(lnX) - 18.36
27
.893
Chestertown A
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-03)X
- .00048
19
.975
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-09)X
- .00085
28
.981
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(7.E-09)X
- .00017
12
.95
Browntown Road
GAL.
Y =
-.00015 (lnX) + .00258
2
-1.00
H Farm
GAL.
InY
= .92707
(lnX) - 15.729
3
.991
Sti11 Pond Road
GAL./ACRE/IN.
InY
= .68031
lnX) - 7.1059
163
.543
All
GAL.
InY
= .95186
lnX) - 15.052
48
.798
All Forested
GAL.
InY
= .96939
lnX) - 12.117
55
.881
All Urban
GAL./IN.
InY
= 1.1424
lnX) - 9.9884
78
.775
All Agricultural
GAL.
InY
= .99621
lnX) - 16.326
21
.888
Mi 1lington A
GAL.
Y =
(5.E-07)X
- .13926
27
.855
Mi 1lington 8
GAL.
InY
= 1.6763
lnX) - 29.205
25
-.920
USGS Gage
GAL.
InY
= 1.0953
lnX) - 13.501
31
.857
Chestertown A
GAL.
InY
= .89534
lnX) - 11.362
24
.894
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-07)X
- .10696
33
.972
S Farm
GAL.
InY
= 1.911 (
nX) - 15.553
13
.963
Browntown Road
GAL.
Y =
.00001X +
.01112
3
1.00
H Farm
GAL.
InY
= .95413
lnX) - 11.596
4
.998
Still Pond Road
GAL./ACRE/IN.
InY
= .70357
lnX) - 5.9116
162
.59
All
GAL.
InY
= .94206
lnX) - 13.526
48
.863
All Forested
GAL.
InY
= 1.0314
1nX) - 11.504
54
.843
All Urban
GAL./IN.
InY
= 1.1003
lnX) - 8.3537
78
.796
All Agricultural
GAL.
InY
= .97679
lnX) - 14.704
21
.950
Mi 11i ngton A
GAL.
Y =
(1.E-06JX
- .05985
27
.910
Mi 11i ngton B
GAL.
InY
- 1.3492
lnX) - 22.538
25
.937
USGS Gage
GAL.
InY
= 1.0581
lnX) - 11.729
31
.845
Chestertown A
GAL.
InY
= .98255
1nX) - 11.083
23
.826
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-06U
- 1.4884
33
.891
S Farm
GAL.
InY
= 1.1516 (lnX) - 13.905
13
.916
Browntown Road
-------
Table 6-44 (continued)
Chemical Export Functions for the Chester River NPS Watershed
Dependent Selected
Variable Independent Regression Correlation
(lbs/acre) Variable Equation N Coefficient Site
COD (cont.)
ALKIN
m
i
o
CD
GAL.
lnY
= .00006X - 3.6309
3
.998
H Farm
GAL.
lnY
= 1.0897 (lnX) - 11.801
4
.995
Still Pond Road
GAL.
Y =
(2. E-08)X + .12748
168
.621
All
GAL.
lnY
= .90707 (lnX) - 16.621
45
.847
All Forested
GAL.
lnY
= .98102 (lnX) - 12.953
49
.812
All Urban
GAL./IN.
Y =
.00014X + .04887
74
.973
All Agricultural
GAL.
lnY
- .96145 (lnX) - 18.115
20
.921
Mi 11i ngton A
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-08)X + .00018
25
1.00
Mi 11i ngton B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-08)X + .06117
23
.96
USGS Gage
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-06)X + .0521
29
.769
Chestertown A
GAL.
lnY
= .96204 (lnX) - 13.062
20
.869
Chestertown B
GAL.
Y =
(2.E-07)X + .00931
32
.985
S Farm
GAL.
Y =
(6.E-07)X - .04893
13
.942
Browntown Road
GAL.
lnY
= -7.0354 (lnX) + 75.858
2
-1.00
H Farm
GAL.
Y =
(3.E-06)X + .07249
4
.984
Still Pond Road
-------
Table 6-45 Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
Multiple Linear
Mul tjple
(lbs/acre)
Regression Equation*
Station
B0D5
Y = 2.135(X3) - . 128E-2(X4) + .819(X5) - . 124E-1
.571
109
All
Y = .213E-1(XI) - .109(X2) + 2.299(X5) + .356E-2
.854
31
All Forested
Y = . 325E-1 ( X4) + .844 E-l
.393
33
All Urban
Y = 2.909(X3) - .134E-2(X4) + .882(X5) - .105
.886
45
All Agriculture
Y = -.141(X2) + .971(X3) + 2.029(X5) + .186E-1
.606
17
Mill ington A
Y = .225(X1) - .64 (X2) - .671E-l(X4) + 1.284(X5) + 3.69E-2
.932
14
Mill ington B
Y = .861 E-2(X4) + .692(X5) - .84E-1
.966
17
USGS Gage
Y = .114(X2) + 7.893(X3) + .239(X5) + .253E-1
.84
19
Chestertown A
Y = 1 .2(XI) - 4.889(X3) + 1.043(X5) - .534
.736
14
Chestertown B
Y = .435E-l(X2) + 4.776(X3) + .703E-3(X4) + .273(X5) - .254E-1
.994
20
Sutton Farm
Y = . 158(X1 ) - . 19(X2) - 2.905(X3) - .247E-2(X4) + 1.10(X5) - . 197E-1
.993
8
Browntown Road
_ _
_ _
"" ~
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
o
cri
Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 =
average intensity X3 = maximum intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (cont) Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Qependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
Multiple Linear
Reqression Equation*
Multiple
R2
Station
N02N03
Y = -.122E-1 (X 2) + .252E-3(X4) + .257(X5) + .137E-1
.239
134
All
Y = -.212E-1(X1) + .512(X5) + .153E-1
.201
32
All Forested
Y = .509E-1(X5) + .789E-4
.587
45
All Urban
Y = 184E-1(XI) - .367E-1(X2) + 2.086(X3) + .266E-3(X4) + .257E-1
.374
57
All Agriculture
Y = - .417E-2{XI) - .333E-1 (X2) + .568(X3) + .164E-1(X4) + .154(X5) + .107E-2
.844
17
Millington A
Y = .924E-1(XI) + .322(X2) - 3.585(X3) + 1.233(X5) + .262E-1
.330
15
Millington B
Y = .588E-1 (X2) - .895E-3(X4) + .784E-1 (X5) - .144E-1
.654
20
USGS Gage
Y = . 329E-1 (X5) + .161E-2
.444
27
Chestertown A
Y = .572E-2(XI) - .909E-3(X4) + .102(X5) - .351E-1
.920
18
Chestertown B
Y = . 177E-1 (XI) + .702(X3) + .679E-3
.514
26
Sutton Farm
Y = .189(X5) + .331 E-l
.544
11
Browntown Road
—
—
Harris Farm
--
--
—
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Varaible
(lbs/acre)
MuJ^lple
N
Station
NH3
Y = -.733 E-2(X1) + .26E-3(X4) + .462E-1(X5) + .652E-2
.351
150
All
Y = .574E-2(X2) + .144(X5) - .132E-2
.655
37
All Forested
Y = -.357E-1(X3) + .477E-1(X5) - .101E-2
.562
49
All Urban
Y - -.1376E-1(XI) + 1.824(X3) + .167E-3(X4) + .622E-1(X5) + .152E-1
.394
64
All Agriculture
Y = .598E-1(X5) + .188E-3
.390
19
Mil 1 ington A
Y = . 138E-1 (X2) + . 16(X5) - .276E-2
.659
18
Mill ington B
Y = -.282E-1 (XI) + .789E-1 (X2) + .394E-3(X4) + .69E-1 (X5) - . 315E-2
.693
22
USGS Gage
Y = .452E-2(X1) + .304E-2(X2) + .211E-1(X5) - .294E-2
.735
29
Chester town A
Y = -. 106E-2(X4) + . 105(X5) - .159E-2
.888
20
Chester town B
Y = .643(X3) - .5llE-4(X4) + .258E-1 (X5) - .499E-2
.866
29
Sutton Farm
Y = -.687E-1(XI) + .103CX2) - .778E-3(X4) + .543(X5) + .445E-1
.860
13
Browntown Road
• •»
•
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
Multiple Linear
Mul tiple
(lbs/acre)
Reqression Eouatlon*
R2
N
Station
TPHOS
Y = .316E-1(X2) + .146E-2(X4) + .273E-2
.569
150
All
Y = .35E-1(X5) + .489E-3
.295
37
All Forested
Y = --777E-2(X1) + .818E-1 (X3) + .237E-1(X4) + .61E-2
.782
49
All Urban
Y = . 118(X2) + ,134E-2(X4) - .529E-2
.577
64
All Agriculture
Y = -.915E-3(X1 ) - ,942E-2(X2) + . 171 (X3) + .535E-2(X4) + -58E-1 (X5) + .28E-4
.858
19
Millington A
Y = .274E-1(X5) + .882E-3
.231
18
Mil 1 ington B
Y = --19E-1(XI) - .149(X2) + 5.502(X3) - .118E-2(X4) + ,836E-1(X5) - .136E-1
.747
22
USGS Gage
Y = 13E-1(XI) + .893E-1(X3) + .25E-2(X4) + .275E-1(X5) + .291E-2
.843
29
Chestertown A
Y = .849E-1 (X3) + .163E-2(X4) + .444E-2
.821
20
Chestertown B
Y = 128E-1 (X2) + .768(X3) + .211E-2(X4) + .261 E-l(X5) - .588E-2
.998
29
Sutton Farm
Y = -,109(X1) + 5.167(X3) + .124
.194
13
Brown town Road
--
—
Harris Farm
—
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
Multiple Linear
Multiple
N
Station
(lbs/acre)
Rpgrp<;tLinn FquaHnn*
TPHOSD
= - .918E-3(XI) + . 105(X3) - .143E-4(X4) + .124E-1 (X5) - .302E-3
= -.677E-3CXI) - ,491E-2{X2) + .139(X3) + .205E-2(X4) + .302E-3
.650
149
All
.537
37
All Forested
= .101 {X3} + . 66E-2 (X5) + .179E-3
.797
49
All Urban
= - . 189E-2(XI ) + . 15(X3) - ,235E-4(X4) + .1 57E-1 (X5) - .1C6E-1
.610
63
All Agriculture
= —.974E-3{XI) - .119E-1(X2) + .187{X3) + .532E-2(X4) + .507E-1(X5) + .193E-3
.860
19
M111ington A
= .261 E-l (X5) - .11 6E-3
.864
18
Mil 1 ington 8
= - .405E-1 (X2) + 1.241 (X3) - .158E-3(X4) + .167E-1(X5) - .422E-2
.824
21
USGS Gage
= .239E-2(XI ) + ,218E-2{X5) + .1 74E-3
.681
29
Chestertown A
= -.327E-2(X2) + .153(X3) - .345E-3(X4) + .235E-1(X5) - .475E-3
.987
20
Chestertown B
= -,45E-3{X1) - .109E-2(X2) + ,349E-1(X3) + .938E-2(X5) - .485E-3
.967
29
Sutton Farm
= .936E-3{X1) - .173E-2CX2) - .116E-4(X4) + .13E-1(X5) + .121E-3
.952
13
Browntown Road
—
—
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
Multlple Linear
Rearession Eauation*
Mul t^ple
N
Station
DP04
Y = .296E-1(X3) +
.411E-5(X4) + .777E-2(X5) - .236E-3
.791
135
All
Y = - - 458E-3{XI) -
.255E-2(X2) + .804E-1(X3) + .901E-1(X4) +¦ .215E-3
.414
37
All Forested
Y = . 204E-2(XI) -
.821E-3{X2) + .229E-1(X3) + .561E-2(X5) - .482E-3
.792
42
All Urban
Y = . 412E-1 (X3) +
.919E-2(X5) - .109E-2
.867
56
All Agriculture
Y = -.679E-3(XI) -
.768E-2(X2) + .127(X3) + .384E-2(X4) + .261E-1(X5) + .10E-3
.840
19
Mill ington A
Y = - .291E-2(X3) +
.992E-2(X5) + .575E-4
.951
18
Mil 1 ington B
Y = .82E-3(XI) + .
117E-3(X4) + .718E-2(X5) - .15E-2
.957
20
USGS Gage
Y = .273E-2{XI) -
.503E-3(X2) + .15E-2(X5) - .123E-3
.811
25
Chestertown A
Y = .157E-2(XI) -
.705E-2{X2) + .761E-1 (X3) - .219E-3(X4) ~ .152E-1 (X5) - .309E-3
.979
17
Chestertown B
Y = .354E-3(X1) -
.544E-3(X2) + .443E-1 (X3) + .145E-4(X4) + .315E-2(X5) - .605E-3
.979
24
Sutton Farm
Y = ,787E-3(X1) -
.493E-1(X3) - .275E-4(X4) + .209E-1(X5) - .27E-3
.996
12
Browntown Road
--
—
Harris Farm
--
--
--
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average intensity X3 ° maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
Mul tiple Linear
Multiple
Reqression Equation*
N
Station
= -.248(X2) + 2.668(X3) + .782E-2(X4) + .717(X5) + .175
.524
150
All
= . 171 (XI) - .561 (X2) + .378(X4) + 13.298(X5) - .185
.782
37
All Forested
= .765E-1(XI) - 2.655(X3) + .443E-1(X4) + .46(X5) + .463E-1
.784
49
All Urban
= -. 805( X 2) + 14.458 (X3) + .839E-2(X4) + .534(X5) + .104
.679
64
All Agriculture
= -.655(X2) + 6.254 (X 3) + 9.179(X5) + .529E-1
.541
19
Mill ington A
= .215(XI) + ,47(X4) + 14.385(X5) - .406
.823
18
Mil 1 ington B
= . 124(XI) + 1.633(X2) - 27.2(X3) + .119E-1(X4) + .876(X5) - .279
.948
22
USGS Gage
= .825E-1 (XI) + .48E-KX4) + .39E-1
.750
29
Chestertown A
= .185(XI) - 3.377(X3) + .383E-1(X4) + .932(X5) + .178E-1
.9?8
20
Chestertown B
= .168(X?) + ,217E-2(X4) + .73(X5) - .118
.931
29
Sutton Farm
= -.303(XI) + 15.12(X3) + .273E-2(X4) + 4.836(X5) + .181
.994
13
Browntown Road
::
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 ¦= total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-45 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
Multiple Linear
Multjple
(lbs/acre)
Regression Equation*
N
Station
COD
Y = .287(XI) + 5.176(X3) + .422E-1(X4) + 2.157(X5) + .278
.807
150
All
Y = -1.718(X2) +.29.327(X3) + 1.71(X4) + 23.477(X5) - .985E-1
.865
37
All Forested
Y = -10.467(X3) + ,254(X4) + .393
.726
49
All Urban
Y = 61 .534(X3) + .417E-KX4) + 1.648(X5) - .238
.936
64
All Agriculture
Y -1-37(X2) + 26.206(X5) + .249
.663
19
Mill ington A
Y = 36.444(X3) + 2.173(X4) + 22.056(X5) - .44
.915
18
Mi 11i ngton B
Y = 1.74(X2) + .187E-1(X4) + 3.283(X5) - .713
.914
22
USGS Gage
Y = .618(XI) - 22.567(X3) + .214(X4) + .169
.652
29
Chestertown A
Y = 1.06(XI) - 19.622(X3) + .315(X4) - .54
.945
20
Chestertown B
Y = 1.13(X1 ) + .497E-1(X4) - .457
.985
29
Sutton Farm
Y = -2.029(X1) + 166.27(X3) + 11.85(X5) + .725
.938
13
Browntown Road
..
- ~
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
* Independent Variables:
XI = total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = total suspended solids X5 = alkalinity
-------
Table 6-46
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R' N Station
B0D5 Y = .933E-1(XI) + 1,549(X3) - .523(X4) + ,957(X5) + .238(X8) + .26E-1
.763
116
All
Y » —.917E-1 (X2) +-'9.635(X4) + 1.805(X5) + .151(X7) + 63.542(X8) - 96.764(X9)
+ .242E-1
.908
34
All Forested
Y = -29.548(X8) + 173.26(X9) - .389E-1
.637
33
All Urban
Y = . 124*X1 ) + ,566(X5) + ,496(X9) - .174E-1
.903
49
All Agricultural
Y = - .227E-1 (XI) - .608E-1 (X2) + 2.516(X5) + 7.97(X8) + .381E-1
.597
18
Millington A
Y «¦ .893E-1 (XI) - .298(X2) + 7.046(X4) + 1 .157(X5) => 28.19(X8) + .934E-2
.978
16
Millington B
Y = 10.42(X3) - .813{X2) + 4.641(X5) - ,5(X9) + .502E-1
.993
20
USGS Gage
Y =• - .906E-1 (XI) + 6.981 (X3) + .1 (X2) + 1 .728(X5) + 1 .765(X7) + 38.91 (X9)
+ .134E-1
.952
19
Chestertown A
Y = -258.1 (X8) + .51 (XI) + 11.22(X3) - 9.609(X4) + 5.571 (X5) - 29.58(X7) +
638.4(X9) - .376
.976
14
Chestertown B
Y = .236E-1 (XI) + 1 .12(X3) - .135(X2) - .467(X4) + .892(X5) + ,575(X7) + 12.69(X9)
- .604E-2
.999
21
Sutton Farm
Brovmtown Road
Harris Farm
—
Still Pond Road
~Independent Variables:
XI ¦ total rainfall X2 ¦ average intensity X3 ¦ maximum Intensity X4 » TPHOS X5 » TKN X6 » B0D5 X7 = N02N03 X8 = TPHOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (cont)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent Multiple
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation*. R' N Station
N02N03 Y = - ,969E-2(X2) - .93E-1(X4) + .211(X5) + .231E-l(X8) + .139E-1
.354
116
A11
Y = 5.772(X4) + ,256(X6) - 59.249(X8) + 85.594(X9) - .803E-3
.261
34
All Forested
Y = -.314(X3) - .313E-2(X2) + ,102(X4) + 1 .342(X8) + 5.592(X9) - .933E-3
.881
33
All Urban
Y = 1 .274(X3) - .371 E-l (X2) - .811 E-l (X4) + ,177(X5) + .204E-1(X8) + .167E-1
.517
49
All Agricultural
Y <= -.759E-3(XI) + .619E-1 (X3) - ,42E-2(X2) + 1 .625(X4) ~ 1 .898(X9) + .611E-3
.987
18
Mil 1ington A
Y = 6.339(X4) - 82.21 (X8) + 233.4(X9) - .135E-1
.496
16
Millington B
Y - -.4(X3) + ,455(X2) - .352E-1(X4) + ,258(X5) + .326E-2
.967
20
USGS Gage
Y = 3.042(X8) - .548E-2(X2) + 4.157(X9) - .377E-2
.626
19
Chestertown A
Y = -4.096(X8) + .121 E-l (XI) + .226(X3) - .324E-1 (X2) + .714E-1 (X5) - .173E-1 (X6)
+ 14.02(X9) - .593E-2
.991
14
Chestertown B
Y = 13.26(X8) - .928E-2(XI) - .507(X3) - .42(X4) + ,4('X6) + .755E-2
.968
21
Sutton Farm
--
—
--
Browntown Road
—
—
—
Harris Farm
—
Still Pond Road
'Independent Variables
XI =» total rainfall X2 - average intensity X3 - maximum Intensity X4 = TPHOS X5 = TKN X6 » B0D5 X7 = N02N03 X8 => TPHOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R2 N Station
NH3 Y = -.501 E-2(XI) - ,187(X4) + .219(X5) + ,566(X7) + .397E-1(X8) + .126(X9)
- 152E-3
.804
116
All
Y = -.237E-2(XI) + ,224(X3) + ,207(X5) + .17E-1(X7) - .838(X9) + .162E-3
.787
34
All Forested
y o -,154(X4) + ,206(X5) + .11E-l(X6) + ,3(X7) - .571(X8) - .544E-3
.883
33
All Urban
Y = - .258E-1 (XI) + .267E-1 (X2) - .133(X4) + .91E-1 (X5) + .324E-1 (X6) + 1.118(X7)
+ .223E-1 (X8) + .1 33(X9) - .154E-2
.948
49
All Agricultural
Y = -.637E-1(X3) + .359E-2(X2) + ,663E-1(X5) + .169E-1(X6) - 2.257(XS) ~
3.469(X9) + .385E-4
.71
18
MllUngton A
Y = .107E-1 (XI) + 454(X3) - .491 E-l {X2) + 1 .274(X4) + ,376(X5) - .16{X6) +
4 .651 (X8) + .146E-2
.929
16
MillIngton B
Y » -.945(X3) - .58E-1 (X4) + .338E-1 (X6) + 1 .405 (X7) + ,138(X9) - .679E-2
.987
20
USGS Gage
Y = .533(X3) + . 195(X4) - .13E-2
.753
19
Chestertown A
Y = 1.89(X8) + .564E-2(X1) - .489E-1(X2) + .113E-1(X6) + .357(X7) + .189E-2
.991
14
Chestertown B
Y = 1.008(X8) - .438E-1(X3) + .196E-2(X2) - .458E-1(X5) + .749E-1(X7) + 5.485(X9)
- .516E-3
.996
21
Sutton Farm
--
—
—
Browntown Road
Harris Faro
Still Pond Road
~Independent Variables:
XI » total rainfall X2 = average intensity X3 - maximum Intensity X4 = TPHOS X5 = TKN X6 = B0D5 X7 = N02N03 X8 = TPHOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multipie Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R2 N Station
TKN Y = .15E-1 (XI ) + 864(X4) + .117(X6) + 1 .005(X7) - ,262(X8) - .194E-1
.878
116
All
Y = .419E-1(X2) - 2.922(X4) +¦ ,314(X6) - .686E-2
.831
34
All Forested
Y = -,843{X3) + .654(X4) + 5.054(X8) + 12.373(X9) - .632E-2
.866
33
All Urban
Y ¦» .758(X4) + ,222(X6) + 1 .489(X7) - ,237(X8) - .283E-1
.906
49
All Agricultural
Y = ,546E-2(Xl) + 10.1(X4) + .96(X6) + 12.65(X8) - 34.19(X9) - .374E-2
.721
18
Mlllington A
Y = -.411 E-l (XI) - .887(X3) +¦ ,19{X2) - 3.915(X4) * ,487(X6) - .637E-2
.909
16
MilUngton B
Y = .921E-2(XI) + .693E-1 (X4) + ,116(X6) + 1 .567(X7) + .433E-1(X9) - .155E-1
.999
20
USGS Gage
Y = ,805( X4) + .857E-1 (X6) + .147E-2
.783
19
Chestertown A
Y = 8.411 (X8) - .431 E-l(XI) - .159(X2) + 2.147(X4) + .221E-1 (X6) + .305E-1
.987
14
Chestertown B
Y = - .126E-1 (Xl) - .705(X3) + .154E-1(X2) + .851(X4) + ,543(X6) - 8.3(X9)
+ .292E-3
.999
21
Sutton Farm
..
--
--
Browntown Road
—
—
—
Harris Farm
Still Pond Road
'Independent Variables
XI = total rainfall XZ = average Intensity X3 » maximum intensity X4 = TPHOS X5 = TKN X6 = B005 X7 =¦ N02N03 X8 = TPHOSO X9 «¦ DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R2 N Station
TPHOS Y = .301(2) + .69(X5) - ,597E-1(X6) - ,343{X7) + ,313(X8) - .134E-2
.996
116
A' 1
Y = .291E-2(X2) - .504E-1(X5) + .222E-1(X6) + ,104E-1(X7) + 1.078(X9) - .223E-3
.617
34
All Forested
Y = .133E01 (XI) + .114(X3) - .596E-2(X2i + .2(X5) - .253E-2
.686
33
All Urban
Y = .78E-1 (X2) + .739(X5) - .892E-HX6) - .684(X7) + ,313(X8) - .183E-3
.997
49
All Agricultural
Y =¦ ,1$3E-3(X1) - .246E-1 (X3) + .285E-2(X2) +• .979E-1 (X7) + .758(X8) - .18E03
.995
18
MillIngton A
Y » -.58E-1 (X5) + AZE-1(X6) * .162E-)(X7) - 4.591(X9) + .856E-3
.603
16
MilHngton B
Y ¦» -33.45(X3) + 1.628(X2) + 4.303(X5) - 15.52(X7) + .819(X9) + .691E-1
.998
20
USGS Gage
Y =» -.616E-2(X2) + .444(X5) + .47(X7) - .19E-2
.722
19
Chestertown A
Y = -2.559(X8) + .16E-1 (XI) ~ .55E-1(X2) ~ .351(X5) - .517E-2(X6) - .105E-1
.978
14
Chestertown B
Y = 10.34(X8) - ,929E-2(X2) + .78(X5) - .69(X7) + .412E-2
.999
21
Sutton Farm
--
—
--
Browntown Road
—
Harris Farm
—
—
Still Pond Road
•Independet Variables:
XI » total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum Intensity X4 = TPHOS X5 a TKN X6 n B005 X7 = N02N03 X8 ° TPHOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R2 N Station
TPHOSD Y = -.705E-1(X2) + 2.529(X4) - 1.706(X5) + .15(X6) + .683(X7) + 1 .274(X9)
- .409E-2
.997
116
All
=
,464E-2(X6) - ,274E-2(X7) +1.47(X9) - .805E-4
.977
34
All Forested
c
-.255E-2£XI) + .983E-1(X3) + .129E-1(X5) - .127E-1(X6) + .379E-1(X7)
+ 1.03(X9) + .805E-3
.980
33
All Urban
7.277CX3) + 2.498(X4) - 1 .783(X5) ~ .24(X6) + 1 ,933(X7) + 1.319(X9) - .959E-2
.997
49
All Agricultural
=
- .124E-3(XI) + .1 52E-1 (X3) - ,178E-2(X2) + .476(X4) + ,82E-2(X5) - ,568E-1(X7)
+ ,989(X9) 1- .152E-3
.997
18
MHIington A
s
.39E-2(X6) - .317E-2(X7) * 1.784(X9) - .149E-3
.947
16
Millington B
Cr
- ,122(X2) + 3.006(X4) - .659(X6) + .877(X7) + .924E-1(X9) + .527E-2
1.00
20
USGS Gage
a
.843E-3C X2) + .25E-1(X4) + ,668E-1{X7) + .118E-2
.642
19
Cher.tertown A
=
.536E-1 (X3) + .74E-2{X5) - ,319E-2(X6) - .726E-1(X7) + 2.284(X9) - .62E-3
.999
14
Chestertown B
=
.207E-1 (X4) - .113E-1 (X5) + .52E-2(X6) + .264E-1(X7) - .91E-4
.995
21
Sutton Farm
—
—
Browntown Road
..
Harris Farm
...
—
—
Still Pond Road
~Independent Variables:
XI ° total rainfall X2 a average Intensity X3 ¦ maximum Intensity X4 » TPHOS X5 ¦ TKN X6 ¦ B0D5 X7 = N02N03 X8 = TPHOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable
(lbs/acre)
Multiple Linear
Regression Equation*
Multiple
N
Station
DP04
Y B
.4E-1 (X6) + .154(X8) + .123E-3
.9B1
116
All
Y °
.213E-1 (X4) - .297E-2(X6) + .158E-2(X7) + .638(X8) *¦ .493E-4
.971
34
All Forested
V a
• 112E-2(X1) - .103E-1 (X4) + ,103E-1(X5) + .786E-3(X6) + ,444E-l(X7) + .186(X8)
- .13E-3
.966
33
All Urban
Y 3
5.283(X3) - .129(X2) + .705E-1(X6) - .487{X7) + .151 (X8) + .101E-2
.983
49
All Agricultural
Y 9
,562E-3(X1) + .107(X4) - .882E-2 (X5) + .489E-1(X7> + .414(X8) - .558E-4
.997
18
Millington A
Y 3
.179E-2(X7) + ,334{X8} + .785E-4
.929
16
MilUngton B
V B
.121E-2(X1) - ,552E-3(X2) + .435E-2(X6) + .311E-1(X7) + .152E-3
.877
19
Chestertown A
Y °
.358(X8) - ,212E-2(X3) + .103E-2(X2) + .12E-2(X6) + ,405E-1(X7) + .167E-3
.999
14
Chestertown B
y s
,27(X8) ~ .11 (X6) - .221E-3
.994
21
Sutton Farm
—
Browntown Road
Harris Farm
—
Still Pond Road
^Independent Variables:
XI " total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 ° maximum Intensity X4 = TPHOS X5 =¦ TKN X6 « 8005 X7 = N02N03 X8 » TPNOSD X9 = DP04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester River Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* R* N Station
TOC Y = ,172(X2) - ,177(X2) - 5.349(X4) + 6.445(X5) + .298(X6) + 4.28(X7) + .647(X9)
- .1 54E-1
.828
115
All
Y = -25.853(X4) + 11.232(X5) + 3.4(X7) + 854.9(X8) - 1242.3(X9) - .256E-1
.916
34
All Forested
Y = 9.849(X4) + 2.6(X5) + .161(X6) + 4.253(X7) - 39.57(X8) + 85.52(X9) - .691E-2
.886
33
All Urban
Y = -.231(XI) + 18.89(X3) - 4.654(X4) + 5.568(X5) ~ 7.743(X7) + ,833(X9)
All Agricultural
- .1 96E-1
.974
48
Y = 8."607(X3) - .378(X2) + 5.988(X5) + 1 .556(X6) + 371 .1(X8) - 578.3(X9)
- .381E-3
.837
18
MllUngton A
Y - 11.96(X5) + 3.409(X7) + 869.3(X8) - 1350.X9 - .733E-1
.92
16
MillIngton B
Y = -7.393(X4) + 2.449(X5) + .596(X6) + 11 .58(X7) + 1 .291(X9) - .118
.992
19
USGS Gage
Y » -.244(X2) + 7.029(X4) - 2.963(X5) + 2.417(X6) + 3.712(X7) - .872E-1
.939
19
Chestertown A
Y -33.64(X8) + 3.028(X3) - 1.991(X2) + 33.42(X4) + 1.771(X5) - 25.52(X7) +
243.08(X9) + .128
.999
14
Chestertown B
Y = --389E-1(XI) - 10.15(X4) + 8.324(X5) + 2.649(X6) - 1 .345(X7) ~ 59.46(X9)
- .179E-1
.999
21
Sutton Farm
--
—
Browntown Road
Harris Farm
—
Still Pond Road
~Independent Variables:
XI ¦ total rainfall X2 = average Intensity X3 = maximum intensity X4 ° TPHOS X5 ¦» TKN X6 « BODS X7 » N02N03 X8 ¦ TPHOSD X9 = 0P04
-------
Table 6-46 (continued)
Chester Rfyer Chemical Export Functions Developed From Multiple Linear Regression
Dependent
Variable Multiple .Linear Multiple
(lbs/acre) Regression Equation* N Station
.447(X1 ) - ,47(X2) + 18.452(X5) + 1 .72(X6) - 3.72(X9) + .957E-1
.902
115
All
16.424(X5) + 5.633(X6) + 6.796(X7) + 1097.3{XB) - 1642.7{X9) + .816E-1
.798
34
All Forested
-6,267(X3) + 35.24(X4) + 20.(X5) + .994{X6) + .189
.845
33
All Urban
106,7(X3) - 1.77(X2) + 1 ,415{X4) + 18.77(X5) - 10.32{X7) - 4.604(X9) - .828E-1
.971
48
All Agricultural
11 .746(X6) + . 557E-1
.654
18
MIlHngton A
5.385(XI) + 63.99(X3) - 18.36(X2) + 237.7(X4) + 59.9(X5) - 38.39(X6) *¦
1002.9(X8) + 1581 .4(X9) + .986E-1
.953
16
Mllllngton 8
-15.84(X3) - 26.6(X4) + 14.7(X5) + 1 ,283(X6) ~ 20.93(X7) - 2.0(X9) - .11
.991
19
USGS Gage
-244.4(X8) + .643(X2) + 50.36(X4) + 36.77{X7) + .696
.727
19
Chestertown A
-247.79(X8) + 112.2(X4) + 30.8(X5) - 33.(X7) «• 225.96
-------
APPENDIX F
LONGITUDINAL SLACK SURVEY FIGURES AND TABLES
SECTION 7
-------
o
a
CHESTER RIVER
1980 DATA
W- JUL Y 7
*-JULY 10
^- JUL Y 16
O-JULY 28
~-AUGUST 27
Q-0CT0BER 10
+-OCTOBER 28
X-NOVEMBER 13
X-NOVEMBER 24
Z-DECEMBER 15
0-00
18 -00
NAUTICAL
MILE
36. 00
45-00
Figure 7-1 Average Chester River salinity (ppt) slack tide
profiles for 1980.
F-l
-------
o
o
CHESTER RIVER
1981 DATA
H-MARCH 1 1
B-APR1L 8
&-MAY 8
O-MAY 27
~-MAY 29
Q-JUNE 1
+ - JUNE 18
X-JUNE 28
X-JULY
0.00
9.00 18-00 27-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
45-00
Figure 7-2 Average Chester River salinity (ppt) slack tide profiles
for 1981.
F-2
-------
o
o
CHESTER RIVER
1981 DATA
X-JULY 22
*-JULY 24
A-JULY 27
O-AUGUST 6
~-AUGUST 20
CD-SEPTEMBER 22
-f-SEPTEMBER 24
X-SEPTEMBER 27
0.00
9-00 18-00 27-00 36-00 45-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-3 Average Chester River salinity (ppt) slack tide profiles
for 1981 .
F-3
-------
JUL r 7 . 1 980
H-AVERAGE
a-SURFACE
0-M1DDLE
^-BOTTOM
Q_ O
"0-00
12-00 2 4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
CT
0_O
O-
<
(/>
JULY 1 0. i930
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O -MIDDLE
*-BOTTOM
'0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 16.1980
o
o
Q_o
0_°
w'o.
• o
" o
<
00
o
o
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
O-MlDDLE
W-B0TT0M
Q_o
q_o
o.
c
CO
0-00 12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
JULY 28.1980
H-AVERAGE
a - SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-B0TT0M
0-00
12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-4
-------
OCTOBER 10.1980
W-AVERAGE
IT)
A - SURFACE
CO
O-tll DOLE
o.
36 - 00
24 • 00
0.00
AUGUST 27.1980
o
o
W-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
O-Ml DDL E
5K-B0T TOM
CO
o
36 • 00
T
O,
24-00
0-00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 13. 1980
o
CLO
o.
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-B0T TOM
CO
o
o
0. 00
1 2-00
36-00
24.00
OCTOBER 28.1980
o
u">-
0_O
Q_°
^ O-
1 LO
CO
o
36 - 00
0-00
12-00
24.00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-5
-------
Q_ O
Q_°
"" o.
c/}
NOVEMBER 24.1980
H-AVERAGE
^- SURFACE
© -Ml DDL E
3K-30T i 0*1
"0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
o
o
CLo
0_O
"""o.
<
CO
DECEMBER 15.1980
0-00
H-AVERAGE
^-SURF A CF
©-Ml DDlE
5K-a0"T0M
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
CHESTER RIVER
Q_o
0_O
' (\J_
<
CO
MARCH 11.1981
H-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
©-MIDDLE
3K-B0TT0M
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
CLO
Q_°
o.
c
CO
APRIL 8.i981
0-00
H-AVERAGE
A-SURF ACE
©-MIDDLE
*-B0TT0M
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-6
-------
Q_0
0-°.
wo.
c
tn
MAY 8 .1381
MAY 27.i9Ri
H-AVERAGE
A- SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
3K-30T TOM
H-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O-MlDDLE
X-301T0M
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
0 • 00
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
o
o
Q-O
Q_°
c
o.
MAY 29.1981
JUNE 1.1981
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O-MIDDLE
* -B0 T TOM
'0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
0-00
K-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O- Ml DOLE
* -B0T TOM
1 2-00
24.00
36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack sruvey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-7
-------
JUNE 28 . i 98 i
o
o
W-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O -MIDDLE
¥-~0" ~0^1
Q_o
Q_°
CD-
CO
O,
0-00
24 • 00
36-00
W-AVERAGE
a - SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
¥ - 3 J7i:i
U">
C/)
o
a
o.
36 00
24 • 00
00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 22.1981
H-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
0-hi DDL E
^-BOTTOM
in
CO
36-00
'0-00
24-00
o
o
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
Q_o
CL°
O-
o
o
36-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
0.00
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity* (ppt).
F-8
-------
JULY 24.)98)
K-AVERAGE
^-surface
O-MlDDLE
CLO
Q_°
O-
<
CO
JULY 27.198i
H-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O - MIDDLE
¥ -BO"TOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
0-00 12-00 2 4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST 6.1981
AUGUST 20-1981
W-AVERAGE
A - SURF ACE
O-Mi DDLE
*-SOT TOM
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
Q_o
'"'o.
2°
o
-<
CO
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
M-BOTTOM
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-9
-------
SEPTEMBER 24,1981
o
o
H-AVERAGE
Q_ o
n o
o.
in
C
CO
O,
36 • 00
0.00
SEPTEMBER 22,1981
o
o
H-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O-M] DOLE
LD
o
36 ¦ 00
24 . 00
0.00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 271 1 981
o
LO-
X-AVERAGE
in
^- SURF ACE
O-Ml DOLE
*-B0TT0M
CO
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
0-0 0
Figure 7-4 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Salinity, (ppt).
F-l 0
-------
JULr 7.1980
JULY 10.1980
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MlDDLE
¥-301 TOM
.00 12-00 24-00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 • 00
o_
ro
UJO
q;°
=>o.
i—OJ
<
Cd
UJ
Q-o
sro
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-30T Ton
¦ 00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
o.
ro
UJO
C£°
=)oJ
<\j
c
01
UJ
Q-o
no
^OJ
JULY 16.1980
H-AVERAGE
A - SURFACE
0-M1DDLE
W-B0TT0M
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
o
o
o.
ro
UJO
0;O
=>6_|
I CM
-------
AUGUS1 27. I9R0
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O-Ml DDLE
*-30"TOM
"0.00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL HIL E
3G 00
O-
ro
LUo
=>o
I— (M
<
cc
UJ
CL.O
no
LUr;
OCTOBER 10. I 980
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O- MlDDLE
X-3J"T0i1
0.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 28.1980
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
-Ml DDLE
X-30TT0M
o
o
o.
f)
UJO
Q.'O
=>o.
I—CM
<
ct
NOVEMBER 13.1980
X-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
O -MIDDLE
*-B0T TOM
"0-00 12-00 24.00 36-00 0-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-5 Longitudinal slack survey plots for temperature, (centigrade)
F-l 2
i
-------
NOVEMBER 24 -19HO
H-AVERAGE
A- SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
* -3J~ 7 J 1
Id'. 00 12.00 24~00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
o
LlJ o
cc
a
~=>o.
y— cm
<
cr
LiJ
Q-o
HO
^OJ
DECEMBER 15.i980
H-AVERAGE
a -:U R F A C F
O - Ml DOLE
*-3.." ".il
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
MARCH 11.1981
H-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-307T0M
"0.00 12-00 24.00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
o
o.
ro
UJO
q;0
=>o.
i—<\j
-------
MAY
i 981
X-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O-MlQDLE
71)1
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
UJo
O^a
30.
I—
-------
o,
ro
UJO
C£ °
3oJ
I— C\j
«<
Q1
UJ
Q-O
5IO
L^OJ
JUNE 18.i 981
H-AVERAGE
A - SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
X-BQTTOM
0.00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 .00
o
o
o.
n
UJO
Q^O
3oJ
I—CM
<
cc
UJ
Q-o
sio
^OJ
JUNE 28.i9R1
X-AVERAGE
& - SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
CHESTER RIVER
UJO
cc°
=>°4
I—C\J
<
ir
UJ
Q-o
Sio
JULY 9.1981
K-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
"0.00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
o
o.
f->
UJo
Q-O
3oJ
I—
-------
JULY 24.1981
JULY 27 - i 9(51
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
C>-M1 DDLE
fc-SJ'TU'i
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
30 00
LiJ O
Cd n
=3o.
i— rvj
<
CC
UJ
Q-o
Sio
^OJ
W-AVERAGE
&~C-UKF\CF
O -Ml00L E
* ": u 1
00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST 6. i 9(31
H-AVERAGE
a - SURFACE
O-MlDDLE
*-30"0!1
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
o
o.
ro
UJ O
q; °
i—00
C
cc
LU
Q-O
Ho
L^OJ
AUGUST 20-1981
W-AVERAGE
^-SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
¥-B0TT0M
0-00
~r
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-5 Longitudinal slack survey plots for temperature, (centigrade)
F-l 6
-------
SEPTEMBER 22.198i
K-AVERAGE
A - SURFACE
O-MlQDLE
¥-BO'TOi"l
o. 00
T"
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
SEPTEMBER 24.1981
o
o
OJ
r-o
UJo
or. °
I— CM
-------
JULY 7.1980
"0 •00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
o
o
f—
CM
00.
Q
mO
03°
CUcr,'
3
JULY 10.1980
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 16.1980
0-00
12.00 24.00 36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
N
CM
00_
a
r—O
0Q °
CtoV
JULY 28.1980
"0.00 12-00 24.00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-6 Longitudinal slack survey plots for turbidity, (FTU).
F—18
-------
AUGUST 27.1980
i—
OJ
U_
00-
12. 00
T
36 • 00
o,
0-00
24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-6 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Turbidity (FTU).
F-19
-------
JUNE 18.i98 i
0. 00
12.00
NAUTICAL
4 . 00
MILE
36 . 00
o
o
O).
ro
U,§
lO.
C\J
mn.
a:"
¦JUNE 28. i 981
0.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY
o
o
o_
n
o_
OJ
~DO-
CK'-
3
o
o
12-00
24-00
36-00
0-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-6 Longitudinal Slack survey plots for turbidity, (FTN).
F-20
-------
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 8.1981
13-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
s:
o
o
CO •
O
CO
o
LiJ"^
UJ
CL-
co^
—1°
CO ¦
nAY
27.1981
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Solids
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-21
-------
1ARCH 11 . )98 i
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 8. t 981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36- 00
O
o
o
CO ¦
Q°-
'lO
O
CO
o
Q°
UJ10-
Q™
LlJ
Q.
LO^
—1°
CO
tAAY
27.1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Solids
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-21
-------
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE
CO 0-00
ZD
CO
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
O
o.
oi
oo
5°
^ o.
l£>
C/5
a
>—o
,_|0
CO
a
UJ
Q
-z.o
UJ°
0- o,
JUNE 28. i98 t
CO 0-00
3
CO
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MIlE
36-00
Figure 7-7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Solids
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-2 2
-------
CHESTER RIVER
'8j
CD
21
o
o
00 ¦
QS-
o
CO
o
_ o
Q
2
LlJ
Q_
CO
—1°
•—> o
CA> ¦.
JULY 2 4.i98i
1 ,
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
O
CO
O
CO
o
Q°
UJ°-
2
UJ
Q_
-J o
00
o.
JULY 27. i981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7 7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Solids
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-23
-------
AUGUST ^0 . i 9J> i
AUGUST 6.i9Ri
CHESTER RIVER
SFPTEMBER 24. 1 98 i
SFPT EMBER 22. i98i
Figure 7-7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Solids
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-24
-------
SFPTEMBER 27.i9fii
Figure 7—7 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Suspended Sol
or (Total Non-filtered Residues), (mg/1).
F-25,
-------
JULY 7.i980
0.00
—r
1 2 •
•00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 00
CO-
CK
UJ
5=2
CJ
CO
QO
ip
'—'O
X
o
o
UJ
coo
o
JULY lO-i9R0
"0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 16.1980
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
coto
cc
LiJ
CO
*9:
o
CO
Q»'
~o7
x'
o
o
.Jj
co o
o
JULY 28.1980
13.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Secchi Disc, (meters)
F-26
-------
AUGUST i rJ%0
OCTOBFR lO.i <380
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 28.1980
1 1
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
to —
ct
UJ
UJ
o
C/5
QO
r— O
X
o
o
Li •
COo
O
NOVEMBER 13.1980
i 1
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Secchi Disc, (meters)
F-27
-------
SEPTEMBER 22.1981
AUGUST 20.1981
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 24.1981
0-00
12.00
NAUT1 CAI
24.00
MILE
36 • 00
o
in
CO-
cc
UJ
I—
UJ
2=2
o
CO
in
i—'O
X
o
o
LU
COo
O
SEPTEMBER 27.1981
"0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUT I CAL. MI I F
36-00
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Secchi Disc (meters).
F- 28
-------
JULY 24.198!
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 27.i981
"0.00 12-00 24-00
N A11T T r AI M1 I F
36.00
o
IT)
co-
cc
LU
UJ
CJ
CO
QO
in
O
O
UJ
coo
o
AUGUST 6.1981
0-00
12-00
N A I IT T P A I
24.00
MT I F
36-00
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for secchi disc (meters).
F-29
-------
NOVEMBER 24.i9R0
12-00 24.00 3G ¦ 00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
in
CO-
CK
UJ
UJ
O
CO
QO
IT-
X
CJ
o
Lu
COo
O
DECFMBER 15.i9R0
0-00
12-00 24.00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Secchi Disc, (meters).
F-30
-------
MARCH 11.1981
0-00
—r
1 2 ¦
¦00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
o
i/>
tn-
or.
UJ
H—
UJ
o
CO
Q<2
in
•—o
X
o
o
UJ
c/3o
o
APRIL 8.i981
0. 00
—r
12-
•00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 8.1981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
00
co-
cc
UJ
>—
UJ
51°
*— «i
o
CO
QO
ID
o
o
UJ
cno
o
MAY 2?•1981
0-00
1 2 - 00
NAUTICAI
24-00
Mil F
36-00
F igure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Secchi Disc (meters).
F- 31
-------
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 28. 1 981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
in
CO-
CK
Ll)
±:o
O
CO
QO
1/1
I—o
X
o
o
UJ
COO
o
¦JULY 9.1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-8 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Secchi disc, (meters).
F- 32
-------
o
Za'
X
o
Co
UJ •
o
CO
'-°o
'o
a •
JULY 7¦ I 0^0
JUlY 10.13^0
M-AVERAT-t'
'k-sy«FACU
C>-MI DOLE
X-BOTTOM
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAU11 CAL MILE
56-00
o
o
-------
Od.OBER 4. 1 313
H-AVERAGE
a-SURFACE
<>-m HOLE
¥-Borron
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 on
o
o
r
o
~Z. CJ
O
>—
>r
o
og
o
CO
"o
en
'J'-'OBKI-1 10 iWh
H-AVERAGE
SURf/^CE
O -MlDDlE
x bottom
o. 00
i2¦00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 2S,1380
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
~ -MIDDLE
*-3U" " 0^
"0.00 12.00 24-00
NAU11CAL MlLE
36. 00
o
, o
O
SI
o
ZO
co
c5
>-
X
o
Qo
O
oo
c/5
NOVEMBER 13,1980
H-AVERAGE
^- SURF ACE
O-Ml DPLE
* -BO'TOM
00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1)
F- 34
-------
NOVEMBER 24 • I 080
H-AVERAGE
A-<;uRFACF
O -• Ml DDL £
* -30"TUM
0-00 12-00 24-0 0
NAUTICAL MILE
3b 00
o
>-
X
o
o<
UJ _
_1
o
CO
CO
Q~
DFCEMBER iS.i080
H-AVERAGE
a-^URFACF
0> -MI DOLE
* • HJ " 7 0vi
0 00
i? oo 24.no
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
CHESTER RIVER
MARCH 11.198
H-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
"^-MIDDLE
w-bottom
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 • 00
O
co
C/)
o
*o
APRIL S,1 OSi
K-AVERAGE
A-SURF ACE
O -Ml DOLE
^-BOTTOM
0.00 12-00 24.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxyten, (mg/1)
R-35
-------
MAY
38 i
MAY >.7 . i 3f, i
o
o®4-.
o.
W-AVERAGE
a ¦ SURFACE
«> - MlODl E
x-dUTTon
• on 12-00 ?."i . oo
NAUTICAL MILE
35 -00
C9
O
ZO
^00
o
CT
Qo
O
c/>
00
o
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MiD^lE
*-botrjm
0-0P i2•00 24.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
3b • 00
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 39.1961
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
O-MlDOLE
¥-B0T7OM
"0 00 I?.00 34.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
-.0
o
-z.o
>-
X
o
Oo
CT
CO
1 o
JUNE 1.198i
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O - MlDDLE
*-B07T0M
i i
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
Figure 7-9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1)
F-36
-------
o
, o
¦0
V
o
zo
^rn"
'.3
>-
X
O
Qo
UJ_
_l
O
cn
"o
"¦"•o
JUNE 16.i 981
W-AVERAGE
-Ml rouE
* -^o":
0-00 12.CC 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
3b 0^
c
v o
CD
o
ZO
UJ ' H
o"
X
o
Qo
UJ •
>*¦
_l
o
CO
(Or
Q
JUNE ?8. iOK i
K-AVERAGE
^-cl1RPACE
O-MIDDLE
.00 I?.00 24-00 36 00
NAU11CAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
r
o
ZO
l^ooH
CD
•>—
X
o
o
Qo
O
'0
'.0
a
JULY 9.i 981
X-AVERAGE
A- SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
*-30T TOM
0-00 12-00 24-00 35.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
o
o
>-
X
o
Co
LiJ '-I
o
GO
LO
JULY ??.i981
C - 00
H-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
* - 80 T TOM
12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7- 9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1)
F- 37
-------
o
H-AVERAGE
O
A -^URFAi.F
O-MIDDLE
O
Qo
o
o
a
<>4 • 00
36 00
o,
0-00
ro.
O
X
o
CD o
UJ
W-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
C> -Ml DDl E
*--S0r TOM
C?
?4 • 00
• 00
36 • 00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST o.)98i
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
0 -MIDDLE
& -BOTTOM
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
O
SI
o
3 o
CD
X
o
Qo
UJ ¦-
CO
o.
AUGUST 20.108.
H-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O-MlDDlE
*-30"TOM
0-00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1).
F-38
-------
SEPTEMBER ??.i3Ri
SEP IFMBEP P4.1381
H-AVERAGE
A-\jKFM'.F
1 -MlD^l E
¦ 9;)" T L. "1
"0.00 1 ? 00 ?4.00 36.00
NAU1 i CAL MILE
o
c
-1'
o
V
X
o
oo
o
(0
CD.
W-AVERAGE
a - r'URF ACF
O-MIDDlE
X ¦ 30 T T 0'1
"O.Ofl i 7.CO ? 4 • 00
NAUlICAL MILE
36 . 00
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 27• i98i
K-AVERAGE
A - SURF ACE
^-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-9 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen, (mg/1)
F-39
-------
o
o
o
10.
c
o
JULY
CO
s<
o
©
p,
W-AVERAGE
A -SURFACE
-Ml DOLE
¥ -BOTTOM
'0.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.0:
t >
o
o
«o
- -S O
^oO-
CO
s§
o _
lO
JULY 10,1980
«-AVERAGE
& iJH' ACr
o -Midoll
* "ri.j"
0.00 I 2.00 24•CO
nautical mile
36 00
CHESTER RIVER
o
o
l,_N -
o
o
o
O-
CO
o
o
o
24.00
U0-0C
2-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen Saturation, (mg/1).
F-40
-------
o
o
o
to-
o
o
—.o
svO-
00
s°
C--
0
o
o
0-1 CjBFR 4 . 1 0U0
W-AVERAGE
& - Suf\F ACE
O-MIDDlE
*-&orron
O.OO I2.0C1 2400 .*6-00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
o
.0
.aj
= iG 1
09
°o
a.
to
W-AVERAGE
*-surface
o-m:pqle
* -Borr;)^
C.oo I P.CO P4.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
o
o
o
o
OCTOBER ?8.1080
Jv«0-
co
c°
o
K-AVERAGE
&-SURFACF
O-HIDDLE
X-30IT0M
0-00 1?00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
o
o
a
10.
-o
„v.»o.
c/>
o 0
g°
NOVEMBER i3. I DSC
H-AVERAGE
&-SURFACE
O-rtlODLE
*-B0TiOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-41
-------
o
o
o
lO_
o
o
. o
r O.
CO.
o
O-
t/>
o
c:'
NCtfrlHFK "J/] 1
H-AVERAGE
A - '\JKF a i:F
C>-MIDDlE
*-dJ" 7 j -i
12.OC /A-00
N A U1 IC A L MILE
jc- jo
o
L>
. o
» C. -
O
nrr.r iipek ii. i :r- j
o. no
h-average
A -l UK1-" \;.F
O -MI DOLE
X-rU
12-00 2 4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
o
o
o
IT)_
o
o
\ o
nO-
ilARvH H . t 98i
CO
§<
o
o
W-AVERAGE
^ -SURFACE
O-MDQLE
X-BOf TOh
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILL
36.00
o
o
o
lO.
c
o
CO
<*PR] L S . i 0€ I
W-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
O- Ml DDL E
* -B0 T TOM
CO 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-42
-------
MAY K . i 3 P:
MAY
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O -MIDDLE
* -rfj" ";ri
i^.oo ;'4-oo
N A U 1 i C A L '11 L £
Jf, JU
0
1
<.7
o.
W-AVERAGE
A-^USFACf
O-MlDDLE
*-.-50" ruM
00
I ? 00
2 4 . 00
36. 00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 23.i0?i
'0-00 12.0C ,>4.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
, o
™o.
junl i.idsi
W-AVERAGE
& - SURFACE
O -MlDDLE
* -B0 T T 01
"0.00 12-00 24-00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-43
-------
JUNE i 8. i0^i
W-AVERAGE
a-SUSF^F
O -lil DDlE
¥-B.)rT.ri
"0-00 l ? . OC ,'4 :"J _
N A U1 I ^ A L i11 L c
o
o
JUNE sX. i3M
o
§-
r:0
l?..nC ,'t 00
N AU i i C A L MILE
36 ¦ r o
CHESTER RIVER
july i.iosi
iUlY
i 38 i
¦JC.OO 12.00 24-00 36-00
NAU1 I CAL >11 LE
CT
o<
K-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-80TT0M
"r OC 12.00 24-00 36-00
NAU1ICAL MILE
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-44
-------
jui^y ?i • i ani
H-AVERAGE
<5- -MIDDlE
* -3J"7J1
0 OC )? on /a. 00
NAUTICAL NIL:
3o • Ou
'ULY
i 0-
- o
tNj.
"O 00
I 7 . 00
z\ ¦ 00
36 ¦ 00
NAUn C*L MILE
CHESTER RIVER
o
o
o
u">-
o
o
o
^O-
co
g°
o.
lO
o
o
MJGUS T 6 . I 081
H-AVERAGE
a-SURFACP
O-Ml DOLE
X-BQTT0M
~r 00 I2-C0 24-00
NAUTICAL I L E
36- 00
o
¦o_
AUCUSl P0. i 08 i
~,o
C3.
CO
O-
C . 00
H-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
12.00 ?4.00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-45
-------
SEPTEMBER ??. / 0°. i
H-AVERAGE
A--SURF ACF
O-MT DOuE
*-Bur ro^i
o
o
s O
¦ OJ
SFP1FMBER ?4.1ORi
01
- OC I?.PC 24-00 J6 00
NAU1ICAL MILE
H-AVERAGE
A-SURF \CE
C> -MIDDLE
^-BOTTO:-!
I 2.00 24.00
NAU11CAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 27.1081
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-3onon
"0 00 13-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-10 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation, (mg/1).
F-46
-------
CD
C\J
o
o
JULr 7. I 920
o
o
—'o
\o
o_-
^2°
Oo
O • -I
"10-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Oo
o
m
c\j
JULT 10.i9R0
"0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
CHESTER RIVER
—1 o
\o
C5 ¦¦
Qo
O •-!
mr
JULY 16.1 980
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
&
4?°
Qo
O
03
OJ
JULY 28.1980
0-00 12-00 24.00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-11 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Biological Oxygen
Demand after 5 days, (mg/1).
F-47
-------
OCTOBER 10.1980
AUGUST 27.1980
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 28.i980
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
—io
\o
O ¦ ¦
tf-a
NOVEMBER 13.1980
V
0-00 12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-11 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Biological Oxygen
Demand after 5 days, (mg/1).
F-48
-------
NOVEMBER 24 .iS80
DFCFMBFR i5.i9KO
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
MARCH 1i.1981
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
o
&
Q o
O
-------
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 1.1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
~ o
CD
¦JULY 9. 1 981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-11 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Biological Oxygen
Demand after 5 days, (mg/1).
F-50
-------
—'o
o
sr"
Oo
O
03
ovj
jui r 22. i w
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
—Jo
\o
Qo
O •-
CQr
IULY 27 . i 9P, i
0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
\o
o
£>o
Qo
O
CD0'
AUGUST 6-198i
0-00 i 2-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
o
\o
o •-
Qo
O ••
o
o
o,
MJGUST 20.i981
'0 - 00 12-00 24 • 00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-11 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Biological Oxygen
Demand after 5 days, (mg/1).
F-51
-------
SEPTEMBER 22- "t 9R i
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-11 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Biological Oxygen
Demand after 5 days, (mg/1).
F-52
-------
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-12 Longitudinal slack survey plots for B0D20> (mg/1).
F-53
-------
o
o
AUGUST 27.1980
—3o
"v in
o
Qo
o ¦-
o
in
0.00 i 2 • 00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
j
[ Figure 7-12 Longitudinal slack survey plots for B0D20 (mg/1).
F-54
-------
MARCH 11.1981
DECEMBER 15.1980
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-12 Longitudinal slack survey plots for B0D20> (mg/1).
F-55
-------
SEPTEMBER 22.1981
12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 27.1981
0-00 12-00 24.00 36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-12 Longitudinal slack survey plots for B0D20. (mg/1)
F- 56
-------
OCTOBER 4.i980
0-00 i 2.00 24.00 36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
o
—lo
\ o
"in
O
£?o
Qo
~ ¦
OCTOBER 1 0. 1 980
0-00 12-00 24•00 36•00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 28.i980
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
—io
\o
o
Qo
O ¦¦
CD10
N0VEM J! 1 3. i 980
0-00 i 2 • 00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-13 Longitudinal slack survey plots for BOD30, (mg/1).
F-57
-------
NOVEMBER 24.1980
o
o
Jo
„o
<3,
O
Qo
O •-
o
o
0.00 12-00 24.00 36.00
NAUTICM. MILE
Figure 7-13Longitudinal slack survey plots for BOD30 (mg/1).
F-58
-------
JULY 10, 1980
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 16, 1980 JULY 2 8, 1980
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH,
F-59
-------
AUGUST 27, 1980
o
in
oo
o
o
Lf>
36-00
m.
0.00
24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-60
-------
OCTOBER 4.i980
K-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O-MIDDLE
*-30~ "0'1
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
J6 • 00
x:
o_
OCTOBEP 10. I 380
W-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O -MI DDL E
"0 00 12-00 24-00
NAU11CAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
OCTOBER 28. I 980
K-AVERAGE
A- SURF ACE
O- MI DOLE
*-bot tom
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
U"*
o
ui
X
Q_
NOVEMBER 13.1980
W-AVERAGE
^- SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
BOTTOM
'0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-61
-------
n;
Q_
NOVEMBEP
980
W-AVERAGE
a-SUKF^CE
O-MlODLE
*-BOTTOM
0-00
12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
Q_
DECEMBFR 15.19R0
W-AVERAGE
a-surface
O -MIDDLE
*-B0" r0M
0 . 00 1 2 . 00 24 . 00
N A U TI J A L MILE
36 . 00
CHESTER RIVER
X
Q_
MARCH 11.1981
W-AVERAGE
A- SURF ACE
O-MIDDLE
*-B0TT0M
0-00 12-00 24¦00
NAU11CAL hiLE
36 • 00
01
CL-
io,
^PRlL 8.i981
W-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
O-MI DDlE
* - 30 r TOM
'0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-62
-------
MAY 8. t 98i
W-AVERAGE
^-SURFACE
C> - Mi DDL E
^-BOTTOH
).00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
31
Q_
MAY 27¦ i38i
W-AVERAGE
&-SURFACF
DDlE
* ¦ HO T T Oil
0-00 12 00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
1AY 29,1981
W-AVERAGE
A- SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
10
31
Q_
JUNE 1.19Si
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACE
^-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-63
-------
JUNE 18.198i
JUNE 28. i9Ri
o
in
H-AVERAGE
^ - SURF ^F
O-MIDDLE
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAU11CAL MILE
36 • 00
CL
K-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
O -MlDDlE
* - 3 u7 r o ,vi
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
o
lO
o
u->
CL
O
iD~
JULY 3.1981
0-00
K-AVERAGE
a-SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
*-B0TT0M
"T"
12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
X
CL
JULY 22.1981
W-AVERAGE
a - SURFACE
O -MlDDLE
^-BOTTOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL hILE
36-00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-64
-------
JULY 24.19Ri
W-AVERAGE
A-SURFACF
- Ml DDL E
SK-60" r on
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
2Z
Q.
JULY 27. i98i
W-AVERAGE
a-SURFACF
O -MlDDLE
* -B.jTTO'1
"T"
O.OC 12-00 ?1.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST 6.i981
W-AVERAGE
A - SURFACE
O-MlDDLE
X-30 T TOM
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAU1ICAL hiLE
36 . 00
3Z
Q_
10,
AUGUST 20.i981
W-AVERAGE
^- SURFACE
O-MIDDLE
^-BOTTOM
'0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH.
F-65
-------
SEPTEMBER 22. i9K1
H-AVERAGE
^ -SURFACE
O - Ml DOLE
*-d0" TOM
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAU1ICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
LO
a:
o_
SEP!EMBER 24.i98i
W-AVERAGE
&--SURFACF
O- Ml DDlE
* -d.i" ",J'.
0-00 12-00 24.00 36-00
NAU11CAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 27.1981
W-AVERAGE
-SURFACE
O -MlDDLE
*-B0TT0M
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-14 Longitudinal slack survey plots for pH,
F-66
-------
o
-^
-------
OCTOBER 28. i 980
NOVEMBER 13.i 980
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 24.1980
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
^-*0,
O
CD
2=
X
<
Q
JO
uj"
Oo
1— O
DECEMBER 15.1980
"0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-15 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (mg/1).
F-68
-------
APRIL 8. i98i
MARCH 11 . i 91? i
12-00 24-00 36 00
NAUTICAL MILE
i 2 - 00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
HAY 8-i98 i
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
in
r>
Oo
MAY 27. i 98•
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-15 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-69'
-------
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
i2 - 00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-15 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-70
-------
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER R[VER
JULY 24 . i 98i
1 1 1
0-00 i 2•00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
-------
AUGUST 20.i981
AUGUST 6.i9Ri
12-00 21-00
NAUTICAL MIlE
12-00 21-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 22.¦98.
"0-00 12-00 21-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
\ .
oo'
SEPTEMBER 21.I 98i
0-00 12-00 21-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-15Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-72
-------
SEPTEMBER 27.1981
in
ro
Oo
o
o
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
Figure 7-15 Longitudinal slack survey plots for
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-73
-------
OCTOBER 28 J 980
OCTOBER 10.i980
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 13.i980
0.00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
CD
JZ
<
Q
—1 o
LUn-
CO
CO
Q
NOVEMBER 24.1980
0.00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILF
36.00
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (mg/1).
F-74
-------
DECEMBER 15.1980
* o
,(M
\
CD
51
CO
CO
~
0. 00
12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (mg/1).
F-75
-------
MARCH 11.1IRi
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-76
-------
12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 18 i98i
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
51°
z:a>
CQo
CO
~
JUNE 28.i981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-16l.ongitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-77
-------
JULY 9.i 9(5 i
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-78
-------
AUGUST 20. i9Ri
AUGUST 6.i9Ri
12-00 21-00
NAUTICAL MILE
i2¦00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
SFPTEM8ER 22-1981
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
SEPTEMBER 24.1981
O
51°
/-r<
co o
CO
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Tdtal
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-79
-------
SFPTEMBF.R 27 ¦ i 981
CD
CO —
in
o
"0-00 I 2-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-16 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved
Total Kjelda hi Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-80
-------
JULY 7 . 1980
0-00
—r~
i 2 ¦
.00 24¦00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
JULY 10.1980
oo
I 980
0.00
i 2•00 24-00
NAUTICAL MIlE
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 28.1980
"0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MIlE
36-00
v°
CD
2°
ID
LU
oo'
o
cc
2:0
Oo'
ce
o
oo
L_.0
OCTOBER 10.1980
AUGUST 27.1980
"0.00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL mile
36.00
Figure 7-17 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Organic
Nitrogen (mg/1).
F-81
-------
OCTOBER 28. i 980
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 13.I 980
0-00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
O
oo
o
cc
ZO
Oo
cc
o
Oo
cn°
NOVEMBER 24.i980
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MIlE
36.00
Figure 7-17 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Organic
nitrogen (mg/1).
F-82
-------
DECEMBER"15.i 980
o
*
-------
OCTOBER 28- i 980
OC1OBER i 0. i 98 i
12-00 ^4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
i2-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
o
O
TL
o
. or
<
0°
CC ¦"
Oo'
CO
CO
— o
Q°
NOVEMBER 13.1980
NOVEMBER 24.i980
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
-¦M
O
s:
o
¦<
oo
Oo'
oo
CO
¦—o
QO
o,
'0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic Nitrogen, (ng/1)
F-84
-------
MARCH 11.i 981
DF.CEMBER 15.1980
CHESTER RIVER
APRIL 8.1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
O
o
<
oo
Oo'
CO
CO
¦—o
Q°
MAY 8.198i
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-85
-------
>2-00 <£4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
i 2•00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 1 . i 98i
JUNE IS.i9Ri
0-00 i2-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
\ -
CO
T.
o
<
CD O
Q
Oo
CO
CO
— o
Q °
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-86
-------
i 2¦00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 2 4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JUlY 22.i9HI
"0-00 i2-00 24.00
NAUTICAL hiLE
3C 00
\ ™
CD
O
CDO
QC"
Oo
CO
CO
I—>o
Q°
JULY 24.i9Ri
""0.00 I 2-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-87
-------
AUGUST 6.i98i
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST 20.1981
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
\ -
SEPTEMBER 22-1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-88
-------
cFfy FMBP.R 24 ¦ I <5fil
"0.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
O
51
O
-<
CD O
Oo
00
CO
Q
SFPTEMBER y. i981
0.00 12-00 2 4-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-18 Longitudinal slack survey plot for Dissolved Organic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-89
-------
JULY 7.i980
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
o
o
sr.
o
QC
O,
-------
AUGUST 27.i9B0
OCTOBER 10.1980
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL lilLE
36 ¦ 00
0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-19 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F—91
-------
OCTOBER 10.i9Ri
CD
21
o
U5
CD
CC
a,
cn
in
0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
ro
O
sr
CD
or.
a,
CO
CO
r-i"
£->o
OCTOBER 28.19fiC
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 13.'t 980
NOVEMBER 24.1980
CD
CD
CC
O
00
00
a
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
N
o
sr
CD
CC
o0
:2 a-
oo
m
08
~!D ¦ 00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-92
-------
DECEMBER lS-i 9RCJ
O
o
i 2 ¦ 00
0.00
"JO 00
NAUTICAL MILE
. MARCH 1).i9Pi
o
—'c\J~
CO
o
o
CO
08
°0 ¦00 i 2-00 24-00 3b 00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
APRIL 8.i98i
0-00 i 2¦00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
r
o
2"
CD
ct
o,
CO
CO
MAY
i 98 i
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-93
-------
12.00 21.00
NAU7]CAL MILE
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 1.1981
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
a>
SI
o
ct:
o
CO
CO
JUNE 18-i981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-94
-------
JUNE 28.i981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 . 00
o
5=
CD
OC
O
CO
CO
q;
JULY 9,1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 22.198i
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
o
Io
—'o'
o
r;
o
ct
o
CO
CO
<—1 o
JULY 24.)981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-95
-------
mjguS1 . i dr i
i 2 • 00 ?A .00
NAUTICAL MILE
i 2-00 ,24 • 00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
AUGUST 20-i 98i
"0-00 i2-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
O
o
cc
Zen
LO
CO
SEPTEMBER 22.198i
"0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-96
-------
SFPTEMBER 24.iOP.
"FPTFhBt'.R VI . i t)Ri
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-20 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen, (mg/1).
F-.97
-------
JULY 7,1980
"0.00 12.00 <>4.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
in
- o'
O
r
^o"
m
-
-------
AUGUST 27. I 9WO
0-00 i 2•00 24.00
NAUTICM MILE
156 ¦ 00
o
o
21
5=io
-------
in
MOyEIBFR 13 iORO
O
O
10
O
CP
OCTOBER 28.i980
o
o.
0. 00
24.00
36-00
n
OCTOBER 10. i 980
in
O
o
CO
o
o
A • 00
o,
0. 00
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 24.1980
t). 00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
o
< ¦-
o
o
CO
DECEMBER 15,1980
"0.00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-22 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Ammonia, (mg/1).
F-100
-------
MARCH 11.I9Ri
APRIL 8.i981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
O
-------
1AY 29.i981
lO
O
o
O
o„
00
12-00
24 . 00
36 • 00
m
o
O
CO
o
CO
co
OO
o
o.
0.00
i 2 • 00
36 ¦ 00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
¦JUNE 1 8- 1 981
"ID • 00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
\
CD
o
•*)
-co
¦< ~
o'
CO
CO
~ o
o
¦JUNE 28. i 981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 ¦ 00
Figure 7-22 Longutudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Ammonia, (mg/1)
F-102
-------
JULY 9.*i9Ri
13-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 00
U")
O
co
o
s:
21 io
-------
AUGUST 6.i981
0-00
—r
12.
00 ~24~. 00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
O
-co
(/)
CO
oo
o
AUGUST 20.i 981
0-00
•00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
—r
12-
36 • 00
CHESTER RIVER
SEPTEMBER 22.1981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36- 00
O
51
o
-------
SEPTEMBER 27. i 9Ri
O
-co
O
-------
JULY 7.\980
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36- 00
ro
o
\
o
r
Ovj
o
Ujo"
H—
C£
h—
O
<
h—
a
o
o
JULY 10.1980
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 16.1980
n mr
0.00 12.00 24.00
NAUTICAL hILE
36-00
ro
a
O
-------
MJGUST 27.19R0
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
ro
O
O
CM
O
LlJO
CC
OCTOBER 10.1580
"0-00 12-00 24-00 36-00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-23 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Nitrite, (mg/1).
F-107
-------
OCTOBER 28.1980
OCTOBER 10.1980
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 24.1980
NOVEMBER 13.1980
UJO
0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-24 Longitudinal Slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1).
F-108
-------
DECEMBER 15.1980
MARCH 11.1981
CHESTER RIVER
APRIL 8.1981
o
CD
n
CM
O
UJO
ca
-o
o"
CO
C/D
~ o
o
"0.00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
MAY 8.1981
36-00 0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-24 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1)
F-109
-------
CHESTER RIVER
JUNE 1.1981
0-00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
o
2=
**¦
o
UJo
i—
a:
CO
CO
~ o
o
JUNE 18.1981
0-00 12.00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-24 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1)
F-110
-------
JUNE 28. I 981
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
n
o
CD
UJo
CrL
CO
CO
Oo
o
¦JULY 9. 1 981
, , ,
0-00 12-00 24-00 36.00
NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 22.1981
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
ro
o
O
n
UJO
C£
. o
o"
CO
CO
Qo
o
JULY 24.1981
"0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-24 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1)
F-lll
-------
r>
o
IjO'
\
o
51
CM
O
LlJo'
cc
to
oo
C3o
o
JULY
-------
SEPTEMBER 24.1981
"b'.OO 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 • 00
O
LUO
CC
tn
CO
Oo
o
SEPTEMBER 27- i 981
0-00 12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36 - 00
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-24 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrite, (mg/1)
F-113
-------
JULY 7.1980
O
on
O
o
o.
00
I 2.00
36 ¦ 00
JULY 10,i 980
o
,_J
o
o
0-00
36.00
i 2-00
24-00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MIEl
CHESTER RIVER
o
-c
OL
O
JULY 16.1980
x x
0-00
12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36.00
CD
c
C£
JULY 28.1980
;« X*-
0.00 12-00 24.00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-25 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Nitrite, (mg/1)
F-114
-------
OCTOBER 10.1980
CO
O
0-00
24.00
36-00
AUGUST 27 . 1980
o
CD
o
tr
o
o.
0.00
1 2-00
'36.00
24.00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
Figure 7-25 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Total Nitrate (mg/1)
F-.115
-------
OCTOBER 10.1980
"t>. 00 12.00 24.00 36 ¦ 00
NAUTICAL MILE
o
\
o
UJ
h-
c
QC
1—
o
i—•
00
o"
_1
o
CO
o
o
cu
0
OCTOBER 28.1980
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
CHESTER RIVER
NOVEMBER 13.1980
O
UJ
CC
o
oo
o
O
CO
o
o,
36.00
0-00
24.00
NOVEMBER 24.i 980
o
C\J
o
10
UJ
00
o
o
CO
o
o
o.
0.00
12-00
24-00
36.00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
Figure 7-26 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved
Nitrate (mg/1).
F-116
-------
DECEMBER 15.t 980
CM
o
LU
Cd
o
O
CO
o
o
o.
0-00
12-00
NAUT "
24-00
NAUT 1 CM MILE
36 . oo
Figure 7-26 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrate, (mg/1).
F-117
-------
MARCH 11.1991
CHESTER RIVER
MAY 8. I 981
0-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
36. 00
\
o
r
o
o
uj —
i—
<
ct
CO
CO
Qo
O
MAY 27.1981
0-00 12.00 24¦00
NAUTICAL MILE
36-00
Figure 7-26 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrate
(mg/1).
F-118
-------
o
o
o
UJO
Qo
0 • 00
36 -00
24-00
O
ujo
o.
24 • 00
00
NAUTICAL MILE NAUTICAL MILE
CHESTER RIVER
JULY 24.1981
o
LiJO
Qo
o.
36-00
12-00 24-00
NAUTICAL MILE
0-00
JULY 27.1981
o
O
o
cc
CO
CO
Qo
o.
0-00
361-00
12-00
NAUTICAL
24-00
MILE
Figure 7-26 Longitudinal slack survey plots for Dissolved Nitrat^,
(mg/1).
F-120
-------
|