Harper 1

A Comparison of Water Quality Parameters and the Elevation from which they were
Sampled
Lauren Harper
Abstract
The sea level near Cedar Run Dock rd is predicted to rise by 1.3 feet by 2050, this basic
sea level rise will result in the complete flooding of the surrounding marshland and creek near
Cedar Run Dock rd. Thus, this area will be highly effected by salt water intrusion in the
upcoming years. Elevation and distance from the salt water may both play a role in allowing salt
water to move through the current aquatic systems and contaminate, what is now fresh water,
with salt water. Based on this research project, the major influence of salt water is directly
through the existing channels and not flooding through lowly elevated areas. However, as sea
level continues to rise this data should be re-analyzed and compared.
Introduction
Sea level rise is occurring every second of everyday (Consequences of Climate 2008).
Sea level rise occurs from the combination of increased water temperatures (which allows the
water to expand), and the melting of the glaciers and ice sheets around the world. Occurring
gradually, the ocean will progressively push towards the land following route of the lowest lying
land. Basic sea level rise near Beach Haven West is expected to be 1.3 feet by 2050, and 4.4 feet
by 2100, and during a moderate flood the sea level could be 4.4 feet by 2050 and 7.4 feet by
2100 (Sea Level 2012). A tidal zone is an area subject to tidal action (Tidal Zone). Cedar
Run Dock road runs through a salt marsh, which is a part of the tidal zone; therefore, based on
2014 standards the sample location is influenced by ocean water. As oceanic water levels raise,
more salt water will not only push through the already existing channels and tributaries and
expand them in the less elevated areas (Thieler & Plant 2014). According to Thieler and Plant
where streams are present, an increase in the water-table elevation also may increase groundwater discharge to streams and result in local changes in the underlying freshwater-saltwater
interface (2014). Therefore the goal of this project was to determine if the current water
parameters along Cedar Run Dock road are influenced more by the distance from the mouth of
the creek into Barnegat Bay or the elevation at which the sample sites of the creek sit.
Methods

Harper 2
Study Site: Four study sites were selected at various waterfront locations along Cedar Run Dock
Road, West Creek NJ.

Figure 1: Sample sites along Cedar Run Dock Rd. Barnegat Bay surrounds site 1 and continues
off view towards the bottom of the image.
One of the sites (site 4) was just off of Junction Road, where the water is least influenced
by salt water, and one of the sites (site 1) was at end of Cedar Run Dock road, which reaches
directly into the Barnegat Bay. Sites 2 and 3 are located on docks along Cedar Run Dock Rd
making them convenient sampling sites. The Coordinates of the sites are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: The coordinates of the four sites that were a part of this study measured in the Universal
Transverse Mercator coordinate system. The average wind speed, air temperature, and time of
sample for each site are also listed.
Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Harper 3
GPS Coordinates (UTM)

18S 0564697

18S 0564007

18S 0563713

18S 056306

Average Wind Speed (mph)

Air Temperature (Celsius)
Time Sampled (am)

4388477
2.5
13.9
9:25

4389439
10.6
12.9
9:33

4389829
9.6
13.3
9:37

4391015
1.4
11.6
9:44

The study was conducted on November 26, 2014. As seen in Table 1, the air temperature
was approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and the wind speed was on average 6 miles per hour.
Procedure: All sites were sampled between 9: 25 and 9:44 on November 26, 2014 by the 2014
MATES Oceanography Class (see Table 1). At each site, 3 pH, turbidity, and wind speed
measurements were recorded. Also, an air temperature was recorded. pH, wind speed, and air
temperature were all recorded with probes, but turbidity was recorded with a turbidimeter. The
procedure for turbidimeter use is to place a 10 mL sample of water gathered from the middle of
the water column at the sample site into a vile, then wipe the vile with kim-wipes to remove
residue; finally, place the vile into the turbidimeter and read the value. Three different meters
(YSI 85, YSI 556, and YSI 30) were used to measure conductivity, temperature, and salinity. The
YSI ProPlus was also used to collect additional conductivity values. The YSI 85 and YSI 30
recorded two sets of values at each location, and the YSI 556 recorded one set. Through
Statistical Analysis with an Anova test, there was no significant difference between the recorded
values of any of the probes. The probes are typically rinsed between samplings with distilled
water, or rinsed in the new sample water longer and returned to its neutralizing solution between
sites.
Statistical Analysis: An anova test was used to analyze all data. anova stands for the analysis of
variance. The single-factor anova was the only test necessary for the analysis of this data. First,
an anova was run on all measured parameters to determine if there is statistically significant
differences amongst the data (Table 2).
Table 2: The statistical difference present between sites of the various parameters measured.
Variance Between

P-value

Statistically

Values: Different or

Sites
pH

3.1E-

Significant?
Yes

Similar?
Different

Turbidity

11
0.0042

Yes

Different

Harper 4

Wind Speed

2
8.2E-

Yes

Different

Salinity
Conductivity

07
2E-10
2.1E-

Yes
Yes

Different
Different

Water Temperature

10
3.8E-

Yes

Different

05
Next, Anovas were run amongst the parameters to determine if there were any
statistically significant differences amongst the data provided by one of the meters (Table 3).
Table 3: The statistical differences present between the probes used to measure the various
parameters.
Variance Between

P-value

Statistically

Values: Different or

Probes
Salinity

0.9796

Significant?
No

Similar?
Similar

Conductivity

6
0.9726

No

Similar

Temperature

7
0.9799

No

Similar

5
After the initial anova tests were conducted, averages of every parameter were calculated.
In addition, Google Earth was used to measure the overall change in elevation of the water way
from site 1 to 4. When mapping the creek, the line was kept as close to the center of the creek as
possible to avoid bias from developed land or marsh land. The elevation was also measured at
each sampling location individually. Graphs are automatically produced by Google Earth (as
seen in Figure 2) of the change in elevation, as it also distinguishes where on the map the
elevation is occurring. The minimum, average, and maximum elevation for each individual site
was used in this project to compare to the water quality parameters. Google Earth was also used
to measure the distance along the center-aligned elevation traced line. The distance along the
traced line from site one to all of the other sites was used, and the distance straight from site 1 to
any other site was later compared similarly. The straight distance, curved distance, and elevation

Harper 5
at each site were all compared to the average of every water quality parameter by means of a
regression.

Figure 2: Change in elevation of the entire Cedar Run Dock Rd. Creek. In the top left section of
the graph the minimum, average, and maximum elevation can be found.
Results
Regressions were run between all of the parameters, and the distance through the channel
from point one, directly from point one, and elevation. However, the parameters: turbidity, wind
speed, and air temperature consistently did not prove significant data. The strongest regression
formed was between the average conductivity of the water and the straight distance from site 1.
Throughout all of the sites, the strongest correlation is consistently between pH and conductivity
with the varying distances and even elevation. Over all, the average elevation correlations proved
to be the weakest.

Harper 6

Average pH vs. Channel Distance

8

R = 0.84

Average pH

4
2
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000 12000 14000

Distance Through Channel from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 3: The Average pH is compared to the distance from site 1 (representing the opening into
Barnegat Bay) through the center of the Cedar Run Dock rd. Creek.

Average Salinity vs. Channel Distance

25

R = 0.83

20
15

Average Salinity

10
5
0

2000 4000 6000 8000 100001200014000

Distance Through Channel from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 4: The Average Salinity at each site is compared to the distance from site 1 (representing
the opening into Barnegat Bay) through the center of the Cedar Run Dock rd. Creek.

Harper 7

Average Conductivity vs. Channel Distance

35
30
25
20
Average Conductivity (mS/cm^3) 15
10
5
0

R = 0.9

5000

10000

15000

Distance Through Channel from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 5: The average conductivity of each site compared to: distance from site 1 (representing
the opening into Barnegat Bay) through the center of the Cedar Run Dock rd. Creek.

Average Water Temperature vs. Channel Distance

10
R = 0.84

8
6

Average Water Temperature (Celsius)

4
2
0

5000

10000

15000

Distance Through Channel from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 6: Average water temperature at each site compared to:distance from site 1 (representing
the opening into Barnegat Bay) through the center of the Cedar Run Dock rd. Creek.

Harper 8

Average pH vs. Straight Distance

8

R = 0.86

Average pH 4
2
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Straight Distance from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 7: The average pH of the water at each sample site compared to the straight distance from
site 1 (representing the opening into Barnegat Bay) to each given site.

Average Air Temperature vs. Straight Distance

15
14

R = 0.87

13

Average Air Temperature (Celsius) 12

11
10

5000

10000

15000

Straight Distance from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 8: The average air temperature at each sample site compared to the distance from site 1
(representing the opening into Barnegat Bay) to each given site.

Harper 9

Average Salinity vs. Straight Distance

25

R = 0.84

20
15

Average Sainity (ppt)

10
5
0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Straight Distance from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 9: The average salinity at each sample site compared to the distance from site 1
(representing the opening into Barnegat Bay) to each given site.

Average Conductivity vs. Straight Distance

35

R = 0.9

30
25
20

Average Conductivity (mS/cm^3) 15

10
5
0

5000

10000

15000

Straight Distance from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 10: The average Conductivity at each sample site compared to the distance from site 1
(representing the opening into Barnegat Bay) to each given site.

Harper 10

Average Water Temperature vs. Straight Distance

10
R = 0.84

8
6

Average Water Temperature (Celsius)

4
2
0

5000

10000

15000

Straight Distance from Site 1 (ft)

Figure 11: The average water temperature at each sample site compared to the distance from site
1 (representing the opening into Barnegat Bay) to each given site.

Average pH vs. Average Elevation

8

R = 0.82

pH 4
2
0

Average Elevation at Site (ft)

Figure 12: The average pH at each sample site compared to the average elevation at that site.

Harper 11

Average Salinity vs. Average Elevation

25

R = 0.64

20
15

Salinity (ppt) 10
5
0

Average Elevation of Site (ft)

Figure 13: The average salinity at each sample site compared to the average elevation at that site.

Average Conductivity vs. Average Elevation

40
30

R = 0.7

Conductivity (mS/cm^3) 20
10
0

Average Elevation of Site (ft)

Figure 14: The average conductivity at each sample site compared to the average elevation at that
site.

Harper 12

Average Water Temperature vs. Average Elevation

10
R = 0.61

8
6

Average Temperature of Water (Celsius)

4
2
0

Average Elevation of Site (ft)

Figure 15: Average water temperature at each sample site compared to the average elevation at
that site.
Discussion
The results show that the strongest correlations overall come from the straight distance
inland from point one, followed by the distance through the channel and finally by average
elevation. This suggests that elevation does not affect the distribution of salt water as
significantly as distance from the salt water source. This could be due to the fact that most
tributaries that flow into the Barnegat Bay are slow flowing streams which allows the water
within their creeks to have longer interface and mixing periods to allow for a more equal
distribution of salt (Barnegat Bay Complex 1997). The Barnegat Bay is also considered a wellmixed estuary, which means that it does not flush well, and therefore the salt water has a longer
amount of time to mix with the fresh water. A primary method of mixing with in the Barnegat
Bay is through diffusion, which also appears to hold true in the data collected as the water further
away from the source of salt water was least impacted by the salt water (Barnegat Bay
Complex 1997). Overall, the further the data collected was from the bay, the lower the pH,
conductivity, and salinity, but the higher the water temperature. The pH was lowered due to the
fact that the fresh water is draining from the Pine Barrens, which have naturally acidic soils.
Conductivity and Salinity are naturally very related, and therefore the decrease in salinity as you
travel up the freshwater creek means that the creek is draining well and that there will also be a
decrease in conductivity. Salt water is typically warmer than freshwater in the fall/ winter

Harper 13
periods, however, the freshwater might be warmer from various human influence (Properties of
the Sea n.d.). The creek is also shallower than the Bay, allowing the water to warm faster.
Conclusion
The elevation from which the samples were taken seamed to not have a strong correlation
with the various water quality parameters, as expected. However, as sea levels continue to rise,
the salt water may find other low lying inlets into the Creek near Cedar Run Dock Road, which
could greatly alter the water quality parameters compared with the 2014 results. Although, by
2050 sea level in this area is expected to rise approximately 1.3 feet which will greatly alter this
ecosystem. According to the Surging Seas map of the area, with one foot of sea level rise, all of
the marsh land and the Creek near Cedar Run Dock rd. will be under water. Only Cedar Run
Dock rd. will be slightly above water (see figure 16) (Climate Central 2012). This base line
data might be able to further assist in the prediction of sea level rise. Along the Creek of Cedar
Run Dock rd, the water quality parameters are determined by distance from the source of salt
water rather than elevation.

Figure 16: Cedar Run Dock road surrounded by 1 foot of sea level rise. This is predicted to occur
between 2040 and 2050 (Climate Central 2012).

Harper 14
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the 2014 MATES Oceanography Class for supplying the data
necessary to complete this research paper. I would also like to thank Dr. John Wnek for his
guidance through all phases of this research project.
References
Barnegat Bay Complex. (1997, November). Retrieved September 25, 2015.
Consequences of Climate Change on the Oceans. (2008, March 26). Retrieved September 24,
2015.
Climate Central - Surging Seas Risk Finder. (2012). Retrieved September 25, 2015.
Properties of the Sea: Salinity and Temperature. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2015.
Sea Level & Flood Projections at Water Level Station: Atlantic City, NJ (Near Beach Haven
West). (2012). Retrieved September 24, 2015.
Thieler, R., & Plant, N. (2014, November 24). Sea-level Rise Hazards and Decision Support,
Coastal Wetlands. Retrieved September 25, 2015.
Tidal Zone. (2003). Retrieved September 25, 2015.