Running Head: WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY

Lab 5: In Situ Water Monitoring in Lake Fred & Chesapeake Bay

Tina Gupta, Utah Adams, Raina Ryan
Stockton University, ENVL Issues 4300
Dr. Tait Chirenje
24 February 2018
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 2

Abstract

This research sought to determine the water quality of Lake Fred in Galloway, New Jersey, by
conducting twelve in situ water samples that measured parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen
(mg/L), specific conductance, salinity, turbidity and temperature. Two samplings taken outside
of effluent pipes had consistent anomalous measurements; temperature usually ranged 9.5-14°C,
while the rest of the sites maintained values around 14-20.6°. DO & salinity also showed
noticeable deviations i.e. DO 6.6-10 mg/L while the rest of the sites were between 10-12.7.
ArcMap software was used to create a visual map to display this data. This data was compared to
NJ and Pine Barrens data to determine if Lake Fred’s measurements are “normal”. Further
research for water quality in Lake Fred should focus on conducting more frequent water samples
for a longer duration of time. The Chesapeake Bay in MD is analyzed as a means to study water
chemistry parameters and trends in a large, natural water body. The Bay struggles with nitrate
and phosphate pollution from agricultural runoff though not to the point of causing hypoxic
conditions or fish kills. Lower Chestnut River is in the lower section of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, and this monitoring site showed the same inverse relationship between dissolved
oxygen (DO) and temperature. The site shows an increase in temperature and decrease in pH
over an eight year period. These parameter trends serve as evidence of the effects of climate
disruption on the Bay.

Keywords: eutrophication, Chesapeake Bay, DO, water quality, Lake Fred, ArcMap, YSI
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 3

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...4

Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………...6

Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………..6

Results………………………………………………………………………………………….....7

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………...………..10

Part 1………………………………………………………………………………….....10

Part 2…………………………………………………………………………………….12

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...……….13

References……………………………………………………………………………………….15
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 4

Introduction
Lab 5: In situ Water Monitoring in Lake Fred & Chesapeake Bay

One of the ways environmental scientists can assess the health and quality of a water
body is by measuring its various in situ parameters including: dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature, turbidity, pH, salinity, and conductivity. These parameters are measured in situ by
using a Yellow Springs Instrument, or “YSI” multiparameter probe. This analysis sought out to
assess the water quality of Stockton University’s own Lake Fred in Galloway, NJ, by sampling
in twelve diverse locations around the lake. As with many lakes located in the New Jersey Pine
Barrens, it is an artificial one that was created in the 19th century when a dam was built for
cranberry farming (The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Lake Fred, n.d.). The Pine
Barrens’ unique topography and hydrogeologic features make it an interesting locale for
measuring water quality, and determining how certain parameters might be influenced by it. For
instance, in this region and surely Lake Fred is no exception. The water is a characteristic tea
color which is the result of tannins leaching from cedar trees (some of the water sources into
Lake Fred flow through Atlantic White Cedar swamps) and high levels of iron (Pine Barrens
Rivers, n.d.). Many a farmer's plans for a bountiful harvest have probably been thwarted by the
regions not only very sandy, but acidic soil and water (around a pH of 5.0 or less) (n.d.).
Understanding the parameters used to measure the health of a water body are essential in
determining extent of pollution, especially in a region whose surface water and groundwater are
susceptible due to the soils.
First, temperature (°C) can simply be described as the movement (kinetic energy) of
water molecules in the system (lake) being measured. Despite this simplistic definition,
temperature often governs the other parameters, e.g. DO will be lower in warm water since its
solubility decreases. pH is essentially a logarithmic measure of the concentration of H⁺ ions in
water sources where pH=-log10[H⁺] (Physical and Chemical Assessment, 2017). Many aquatic
organisms have a hypersensitivity to subtle changes in pH, thus, being able to monitor its
changes can help scientists understand its effects on organisms. Increases in pH can hint to other
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 5

things, like high photosynthetic activity since CO₂ (lowers pH) in the water is being depleted.
The pH of fresh surface waters is usually between 6.5 & 8.0 (2017).
DO can either be measured as a percent or in mg/L; for this report’s purposes mg/L
deemed to be useful since using a percent is a relative value and can not be accurately compared.
Dissolved oxygen is essential for most chemical and biological processes in water, knowing how
much DO is in water can determine if it will be fit for life (in lakes etc.). Its depletion (hypoxia)
can cause a die-off and if it is noted that DO levels are depleting, it might be due to high
respiration levels. Turbidity is a measure of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS). This is an essential parameter to consider since too much suspended solids in a
water column is an indicator of pollution. If water is incredibly turbid, it can hinder the
transmission of light through water, potentially decreasing the amount of oxygen available for
the system (2017).
Salinity is typically measured in parts per thousand, and it represents the amount of
dissolved salts in the water (2017). It is probably a less significant parameter for freshwater
sources due to the lack of salt content. However, it could potentially be used to track pollution in
Lake Fred since the presence of salts is not natural and, therefore, must be introduced. Lastly,
conductivity is measured by taking the electrical current of the water since it is the concentration
of ions (salts) in the water. It pairs with salinity since it can also measure salinity of a water body
by measuring the amount of dissolved solids (2017). Increases in conductivity may indicate
anthropogenic pollution (i.e. salt runoff from paved roads).
Lake Fred is a very small water system when compared to the likes of the Chesapeake
Bay, an expansive estuary that creeps into the states of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.
Despite the obvious differences in water characteristics, the parameters discussed above are still
used in determining the health of each water body. The Chesapeake Bay however, also has
parameters like nitrates, phosphates (which indicate fertilizer use), and chlorophyll a (presence of
algae/plants) that are routinely monitored. In this way, ​t​he Chesapeake Bay can be contrasted
against Lake Fred to show that man-made lakes do not differ in water chemistry or trends. The
Chesapeake Bay is subject to eutrophication from agricultural runoff in much the same way Lake
Fred may suffer from fertilizer runoff. The Bay has 22 main stations that collect water chemistry
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 6

data 15 times a year (Dept. of Natural Resources). These data can be used to establish short-term,
yearly trends as well as be compared to each other for analysis of long-term trends.

Objectives
To assess the current health of Lake Fred in Galloway, NJ, by measuring the following in
situ parameters using a YSI device: DO, temperature, conductivity, salinity, pH, turbidity.
Twelve diverse sites where chosen for sampling to serve as interesting points of comparison. The
implications of this are such that judgements on the lake’s pollution can be made, especially
since two sampling locations where taken at effluent pipes coming from Stockton University’s
campus.
The second part analyzes a larger water body that encompases a larger watershed,
namely, the Chesapeake Bay. This is done to review the trends in water quality over time (since
the Lake Fred analysis is only a snippet) and to compare it to Lake Fred. In addition to the
parameters used in the study of Lake Fred, an added emphasis on nitrates, phosphates and
chlorophyll a will be places.

Methods
Materials

The Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) multi probe was used to determine water quality
parameters. The YSI instrument typically is designed to measure water quality for streams,
rivers, lakes, estuaries and is a more limited extent of the ocean. The basis of certain sensors
relies mainly on measurements of light absorption, fluorescence and scattering. It was used in
this study to measure variables such as dissolved oxygen, conductivity, salinity, pH and
temperature. A Secchi disk was used to measure turbidity. It is used by lowering a black and
white disk to measure the depth at which the water ceases to be visible. Latitude and longitude
locations were taken using a ​Garmin GPS​ watch. The ArcMap software was used to display the
location of the sampling sites as well as to give a visual representation of the differences between
in situ parameters.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 7

Procedure

A total of 12 sampling points were measured for water quality around Lake Fred in Galloway,
NJ. These points were measured with the following parameters: pH, dissolved oxygen, specific
conductance, salinity, turbidity and temperature. One sample was taken at each sampling
location. Then the points were added to an Excel document including the latitude and longitude
of each point and each of the parameters. The Excel sheet was saved as a 97-2003 Excel
workbook. It was added to the ArcMap software through the “add xy data” option under the file
tab. The coordinate system was set to GCS NAD 1983 2011 and a topographic basemap was
added in the background. To display the different levels of each parameter, graduated symbols
were set under the quantities tab located under the symbology of the shapefile.

Results
Note:​ The results gathered from this analysis only represent a snippet, if you will, of the whole
picture and dynamic environment of Lake Fred. In order to gather more meaningful results on
the lake’s health, one should sample on a continuous basis yearly, or at least seasonally.

Lake Fred In Situ Parameters:

Figure 1. Temperature (°C) measurements for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 8

Figure 2. Salinity (ppt) concentrations for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.

Figure 3. Turbidity (TSS) measurements for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 9

Figure 4. pH measurements for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.

Figure 5. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) concentrations for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 10

Figure 6. Conductivity (µS, mS) measurements for sites 1-12 around Lake Fred.

Discussion
Part 1:
The sites can be characterized as thus: sites 4 & 5 represent effluent pipes from the main
campus into Lake Fred, sites 7-9 where taken in ponds/pools that were seperated from the main
lake, and the rest of the sites represent edge locations around the lake. The difference in
parameter measurements can be attributed by sampling site variance. For instance, in Figure 1
sites 4 (9.5-14 °C) & 5 (9.5 °C) are relatively cooler which could be a result of moving water
within the pipes that hasn’t had contact with the sun yet. Since the measurements were taken
near the pipes, the effluent being discharged into the lake hasn’t acclimated with its average
temperature. Conversely, sites 7-9 range from 15.8-20.65 °C and are the warmest sites around
the lake. Since these were taken in shallower, and more confined, still waters, the sun’s rays
could penetrate to the bottom quicker, adding energy that in turn makes the waters warmer. The
smaller surface areas at these sites would also contribute to the warmer waters by comparison to
the other sites. The remaining sites consistently range from 14-17.7 °C, and could represent the
lakes more “stable” conditions. Salinity is generally not considered when dealing with freshwater
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 11

sources, however, it appears that effluent going into the lake contains elevated levels of salts
ranging from .07-.44 (Fig. 2). Turbidity ranged considerably throughout different points in the
lake, with sites 8 & 9 having the highest levels (between 19.75-192) (Fig. 3). This could be a
result of sampling techniques that stirred up the muck, rather than a result of naturally high
sediment suspensions.
According to Figure 4, the sites besides 7-9 (moderately acidic) had consistently slightly
acid waters ranging between 5.23-6.6. Sites 4 & 5 had less acidic sites by comparison,
suggesting that campus runoff contains less acidic material, or that acidification occurs after
entrance in the lake. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are lowest at sites 4,5,7,8 and 9; they
range from 6.6-10 mg/L (Fig. 5). The remaining site concentrations vacillate between 10-12.7
mg/L. Sites 7-9 low levels might be attributed to the higher temperatures associated with the
sites; since oxygen’s solubility is inversely proportional with increasing temperature.
Additionally, these sites might have had a lack of aquatic plants contributing to oxygen levels
(photosynthesis), or due to an increased amount of chemical oxidation and respiration via
animals and microbes aka. a high BOD (Water Quality Indicators: Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen, n.d.). Sites 4 & 5 had lower temperatures, but the effluent may have caused hypoxic
conditions or the environment in the pipes was not conducive to oxygenation. The results
garnered from Figure 6 are confounding since one might expect sites 7-9 to have low
conductivity if they also had low salinity, but they had high measurements ranging from
87.2-120.2. However, sites 8 & 9 had high turbidity levels meaning high mineralization and
TDS; both contributing to the ionic character in the water (Conductivity and Water Quality, n.d.).
According to NJDEP, water pH in NJ has an optimum range between 6.5 to 8.5.
Therefore, it appears that Lake Fred is generally more on the acidic side of optimal water
chemistry. Carbon dioxide is a common cause of acidity in water. Processes such as
photosynthesis, respiration and decomposition all contribute to changes in pH due to their effect
on carbon dioxide levels. The sandiness of Pine Barrens soils also could contribute to the lower
pH. This soil has high proportions of aluminum, which tends to break down water molecules into
H⁺ and OH⁻ ions. They keep hold of OH⁻ ions and release H⁺ ions into the surrounding this
increasing acidity (2009).
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 12

The NJDEP also classifies that surface water should be less than or equal to 3.5 parts per
thousand (ppt) which is met by the current data. Dissolved oxygen in a 24 hour average should
not be less than 5.0, but it should not be below 4.0 at anytime. The samples that were taken all
exemplify data that meet this requirement. Turbidity should have a 30 day average of 15 NTU
and a maximum of 50 NTU (2005). The measurements for Lake Fred show a wide range of
variability for turbidity. It is important to note that an average for 30 days cannot be made by one
water quality sample. Conductivity measures the ability of water to conduct an electrical current.
It increases when there are more ions dissolved in the water (2017). Typically, water bodies have
a constant range of conductivity. These measurements are made over time to reveal patterns in
water quality.

Part 2:
Water quality is determined through the measurement and monitoring of various
parameters. Dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature must be measured in situ, whereas pH,
turbidity, and conductivity can be measured either in situ or from a sample taken to the lab
(Parameter Guideline). DO levels serve as an indicator of the biotic life in a water body. Low
DO levels mean biota (e.g. fish, bacteria, cyanobacteria) will be unable to thrive and, if low
enough, survive at all. Hypoxic conditions often results from another key water chemistry
indicator, nitrogen. Overabundance of nitrogen in waterways results from fertilizer and sewage
runoff. Since nitrogen is a necessary plant nutrient, photosynthetic organisms will plume in the
presence of excess nitrogen (USGS Nitrogen). The increased biota crowds the surface water,
preventing sunlight from reaching into the depths, causing issues for deeper photosynthetic
organisms. The eventual decomposition of excess organic matter leads to the eutrophication, or
decrease of DO, of the water body. Compromised DO levels lead both to fish kills and algal
blooms. Excess phosphate, another fertilizer, also leads to severely reduced DO levels. DO levels
are not the only parameter that has a grand effect on aquatic biota. pH is equally important. Fish
tolerate a narrow range of pH levels, with the median hovering close to neutral. Temperatures
have a minor effect on DO levels in that temperature is inversely related to DO.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 13

The Chesapeake Bay is one of many water bodies that suffer from excess nutrients from
runoff. This causes algal blooms that smother and, eventually kill bay grasses integral for the
animal biota in the Bay (Dept of Natural Resources). The Lower Chester River section of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed was explored to as a means to monitor both short and long-term
trends. pH, salinity, Secchi depth (as a measure of turbidity), DO, and temperature were looked
at. Each parameter showed a similar short-term trend over the course of a one year period. The
pH and Secchi depth held fairly constant throughout the year while DO displayed an inverse
relationship with water temperature. Higher water temperatures (i.e. Summer) resulted in lower
DO levels and colder temperatures (i.e. Winter) saw increased DO levels. Salinity levels
consistently followed a sine wave pattern, suggesting that salinity levels are greatest in colder
temperatures.
Trends over the long term in the Lower Chester River show supporting evidence for
climate disruption. pH levels decreased from closer to 8.4 to closer to 7.6 over the eight year
period between 2010 and 2018. Similarly, water temperature at all times of the year has slowly
creeped higher. Turbidity has remained fairly constant, suggesting that the change in water
temperatures and pH have not been extreme enough to affect algal presence (Eyes on the Bay).
Constant turbidity also indicates that nitrate and phosphate levels have remained fairly constant
and sediment movement has not been a major issue.

Conclusion

pH in Lake Fred is generally in between 5.23-6.6, which is more acidic than New
Jersey’s optimum range of 6.5-8.5, but within the usual ranges for waters in the Pine Barrens.
This acidity could be a function of the high aluminum content of the soils and/or the biological
activity (respiration) adding CO₂. Sites 5 & 4 at Lake Fred are anomalous since they often have
parameter values that differ widely from the rest of the lake, especially for temperature, salinity,
pH, and conductivity. This is most likely due to the fact that they are near effluent pipes that may
contain pollutants that are skewing measurements; a future investigation of their contents must
be evaluated in order to determine this. Sites 8 & 9 differed in all parameter values; DO, pH, and
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 14

temperature values in particular, when compared to the other 10 sampling sites most likely due to
their shallow site location. Standards for dissolved oxygen were met over the 5.0 mg/L
requirement set by NJDEP. However, criteria for the other parameters cannot be determined
based on one sample. To determine if these standards are being met, future research should
include more sampling. Lake Fred’s water quality indicators and trends do not differ from
natural water bodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay data, for example, show
an inverse relationship between DO and temperature. These data follow suit with the DO
variances in Lake Fred.
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 15

References

Conductivity and Water Quality. (n.d.). Kentucky Water Watch. Retrieved from
https://www.uvm.edu/~empact/water/conductivity.php
Dept of Natural Resources. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring. Retrieved 26 February 2018 from
http://dnr.maryland.gov/waters/bay/Pages/water-quality.aspx.
Eyes on the Bay. Retrieved 26 February 2018 from
http://eyesonthebay.dnr.maryland.gov/eyesonthebay/index.cfm?yearselect=2017.
Pine Barrens Rivers. (n.d.). New Jersey Audubon. Retrieved from
http://www.njaudubon.org/SectionEducation/BirdingandBoatinggoHandinHand/PineBarr
ensRivers.aspx
The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Lake Fred. (n.d.). Birding & Wildlife Trails.
Retrieved from
http://www.njwildlifetrails.org/PineBarrensTrails/Sites/tabid/1698/Scope/site/Guide/PIN
EBARREN/Site/351/Default.aspx
Streams, Rivers and Watersheds. (n.d.). Pinelands Preservation Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/ecology/water/streamsriversandwatersheds/
United States, NJDEP, Division of Water Supply. (2005, February). Federal and NJ State
Primary
and Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/pdf/dw_standards_2_2005.pdf
United States, Pinelands Preservation Alliance. (2009). The Pine Barrens: Up Close &
Natural(p. 5). Retrieved from
http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/downloads/pinelandsalliance_148.pdf
USGS. (2017). Nitrogen and Water. Retrieved 26 February 2018 from
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html.
Water Quality Indicators: Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. (n.d.). Regional Aquatics
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE FRED & CHESAPEAKE BAY 16

Monitoring Program. Retrieved from

http://www.ramp-alberta.org/river/water+sediment+quality/chemical/temperature+and+di
ssolved+oxygen.aspx
Why Measure Conductivity or Salinity? (2017). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
https://www.montclair.edu/csam/passaic-river-institute/environmental-services/conductiv
ity0000-salinity/
Wilde, F. (2008). Guidelines for Field-Measured Water Quality Properties. Retrieved 26
February 2018 from
https://envl4300.weebly.com/uploads/9/5/5/4/95542854/usgs-insitupapameterguidelines.
pdf.