vvEPA
           -United States
           lEnvbonnwntal Protection
           Agency
           Office Of
           The Administrator
           (A101F)
EPA 171-R-92-013
PB-92-182385
Jury 1992
Inventory Of Organic
And Metal Contamination
In-
    Massachusetts Bay,
    Cape Cod Bay,
    And Boston Harbor
    Sediments;
And An Assessment Of
Regional Sediment Quality
                                    Printed on Recycled Pap6f

-------
                           DISCLAIMER

This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by  the student identified  on the  cover page,  under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies  fellowship.

The  contents are essentially as  received from  the  author.  The
opinions, findings,  and conclusions  expressed  are  those of the author
and  not necessarily those of the  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency.  Mention,  if any, of company, process, or product names  is
not to be considered as an endorsement  by the U.S. Environmental
Protection  Agency.

-------
       AN INVENTORY OF ORGANIC AND METAL CONTAMINATION IN
  MASSACHUSETTS BAY, CAPE COD BAY, AND BOSTON HARBOR SEDIMENTS
           AND ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL SEDIMENT QUALITY
                           Jeanne Cahill
                                and
                          Karen Imbalzano
     National Network of Environmental Management Studies Interns
              Environmental Protection Agency Region 1
                     Water Management Division
                     Massachusetts Bays Program

                            Final Report

                          December, 1991
Address correspondence to:

Jeanne Cahill or Karen Imbalzano
Environmental Sciences Program
University  of Massachusetts-Boston
Harbor Campus
Boston, MA 02125
(617)  287-7440
Matthew Liebman
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
(WOE)
Boston, MA 02203
(617)  565-4866
                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                          Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                                          77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
                                          Chicago, IL  60604-3590

-------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Acknowledgements	
  List of Tables		'	'	
  List of Figures	'm	
  Abstract		
  Introduction	
                     ••••••......,. ••,«»,». ••••••••••••••••••••«««.....„..„tB-BB>
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Matthew Liebman for his support, suggestions, and comments
throughout the duration of  this  project.  In  addition, valuable dialogue  and
suggestions were made by  Beverley Baker, Kymberlee Keckler and Dave
Toomey at EPA Region 1; David Hansen from EPA-Narragansett;  Jack
Hathaway and Frank Manheim at USGS in Woods Hole, MA; and Dillon Scott
at MA Coastal Zone Management.  Data was generously provided by John
Cardin, Ken Perez, and Rich Pruell, EPA-Narragansett; Joseph Cooney,
Gordon Wallace, and Mike Shiaris, UMASS/Boston; Susan Curran and  Wendy
Smith, MWRA;  Terry Fleming, U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers; Tom
Gulbranson, Battelle; Steve Halterman, MA  DEP; Kymberlee Keckler and
Dave Toomey, EPA Region 1; Donald MacDonald, NOAA; Kevin McManus,
Metcalf and Eddy;  and  Judy Pederson, MA CZM.  Computer support for this
project was provided by  the Information  Management Branch-EPA, Region
1 and we would like to specially thank Greg Charest, Pat Ausman and
Marcie Berbrick.   Lastly, this project was supported by the  EPA-National
Network for Environmental  Management  Studies and the Massachusetts
Bays Program.

-------
 LIST OF TABLES

 Table  1.    Summary of existing and proposed sediment quality criteria.

 Table 2.    Summary of data sources compiled  in the  Excel database and
            used for the GIS analysis.

 Table 3.    SQC exceedences determined by database screening.


 LIST OF  FIGURES

 Figure 1    Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay with
            sampling  sites indicated.

 Figure  2.    Geographical Distribution of Copper with SQC violations
            indicated.

 Figure  3.    Geographical Distribution of Mercury with  SQC violations
            indicated.

 Figure  4.   Geographical  Distribution of total PCBs normalized to %TOC
           with  SQC violations indicated.

Figure  5.   Geographical  Distribution of Phenanthrene normalized to %TOC
           with  SQC violations indicated.

Figure  6.   Geographical  Distribution of Benzo[a]pyrene  normalized  to
           %TOC with SQC violations  indicated.

-------
ABSTRACT

      Records of organic and.metal contamination in Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay (Massachusetts Bays) were obtained
from reports by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), National Oceanic
and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA), Massachusetts  Water Resources
Authority (MWRA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other  state
agencies, private consulting firms, and  independent  researchers,  and
compiled into a Microsoft Excel  database.  Sediment contaminant levels in
the Massachusetts  Bays region were compared to Sediment Quality
Criteria (SQC) compiled from Massachusetts  state regulations, Washington
state standards, and EPA interim criteria.  The degree and  regional  extent
of sediment  contamination with  copper (Cu),  mercury  (Hg), total
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phenanthrene, and benzo[a]pyrene  were
analyzed using a Geographical  Information  System (GIS). Graphical
presentation  of the distributions of selected  contaminants  and comparison
with  their criteria  values has shown nearshore  coastal exceedences of
SQC by the  two metals in Boston Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay, and Salem
Harbor, as well as  in Hull Bay and  Cohasset for mercury.  Copper also
exceeded SQC at  the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). The organic
contaminants were found at concentrations greater than  SQC in  both
 nearshore  and offshore areas including Boston  Inner Harbor,  Dorchester
 Bay, at the planned MWRA  outfall site, and at  the MBDS.

-------
  INTRODUCTION

  Description  of  Study Site

       Boston Harbor is  severely impacted by anthropogenic sources of
 contaminants, including sewage and  industrial effluents, sewage sludge
 combined sewer overflows (CSOs)  and storm drains.   Massachusetts Bay'
 and Cape Cod Bay. receive contaminant loading from Boston Harbor sources
 as well as from the Merrimack River, coastal  municipal treatment plants '
 and effluent  permitees,  atmospheric deposition, and dredged  material
 (Menzie-Cura  Associates,  1991).   Additional  sources  of contaminants to
 sediments include resuspension events and deposition in low energy
 environments.
      Specifically, Boston  Harbor sediments  are highly  contaminated  with
 particle-reactive metals  and hydrophobic organic compounds  (Shiaris
 1986;  EPA, 1988a; White,  1972) (for detailed review, see MacDonald,'
 1991).   The accumulation  of toxic  metals, polyaromatic  hydrocarbons, and
 chlorinated  organic compounds  in sediments  has distinguished Boston
 Harbor  as among the most impacted of coastal sites sampled in the NOAA
 Status and Trends Program (Long and Morgan, 1990). MacDonald (1991)
 found a gradient of  contamination extends from the Harbor into
 Massachusetts Bay,  which  suggests a  declining  influence of sewage and
 industrial sources  and increased importance of atmospheric sources of
 organic contaminants from  the Harbor  to the Bay.  In  addition, localized
 areas of elevated metal  and organic contaminant burdens occur in
 proximity  to ocean disposal sites (Boehm,  1984; for detailed  maps  see
 Shea et a/., 1991).
     For the  purposes of this report, Boston Harbor is defined  as the
waters bounded by Deer Island and Hull. Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod
Bay are defined by the waters bounded by  an  imaginary line drawn from
Cape Ann to the tip of Cape Cod and will  hereafter be  referred to as
Massachusetts  Bays  (Figure 1).

-------
Objectives

      The overall goal of this study was to assess  regional  sediment
contamination in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, including Boston
Harbor.  Specifically the objectives of this study were to compile  data  on
sediment  metal, chemical, and  physical characteristics into  a master
database/spreadsheet and to evaluate the  regional distribution  of selected
contaminants,  in relation to  sediment quality criteria (SQC).
      The EPA is currently in the process of developing SQC that would
protect aquatic resources and human  health.  This  report identifies areas
of Massachusetts Bays  that are  likely to violate  SQC.   Areas of
Massachusetts  Bays that are in exceedence of  national standards  will  have
to be specially  considered and managed by  EPA.  Regulatory applications  of
SQC  include site cleanup and restoration (US EPA, 1987).
      The regional  evaluation was  completed by entering data from the
database  directly to a GIS (ARC/INFO) for  locational plotting by EPA
Region 1  Information Management  Branch.  In addition, organic
contaminant levels  in sediments were  compared  to  proposed SQC, with
normalization  to variables  influencing bioavailability  (i.e.,  total organic
carbon).  The database  and GIS was designed to be usable by other
interested  agencies/individuals for expanded evaluation of  critical  areas
such  as those  where exceedences of SQC  potentially cause biological
impacts.   The  compilation of our  sediment  data inventory was coordinated
with existing efforts, specifically those of the MWRA  and  U.S. Geological
Survey Branch  of Atlantic Marine Geology in Woods  Hole, MA.

Problem  of  Sediment Contamination

      Many metal and  organic contaminants are preferentially sorbed to
particles due to  their high  particle reactivity and hydrophobicity.   Metals
and organic compounds accumulate in  the sediment reservoir as a result of
physical  interactions with the solid phase,  such  as interaction  of metals
with mineral oxides, sulfides, carbonates,  and clays,  and adsorption of
hydrophobic non-ionic  organic compounds to organic  matter  (Shea, 1988).
The complexation  of contaminants with particle surfaces or  organic
                                   7

-------
                                                                       their
        Benthic -organisms that live in contact with  sediment (and
  associated porewater) are at risk of acute or chronic  toxicity due  to
                                              °rganisms  ^'accumulate
       b.  h   H     C°mpOUndS' which ™*  ^agnify along the food web
       benthic dwellers to consumer species, such  as  fish and Crustacea
  Accumulate  of contaminants  in  commercially  important species poses a
  nek to human consumers of seafood.  Direct contact with contaminated
  sediment, may a.so pose a  risk to human health.  To protect the aquatic

     aneS°UrC                              °f 3quatic resource*. the EPA
  i  devnH-                                             .
  •8 developing  sed.ment  quality criteria  to  identify  specific concentrations
  above wh,ch deleterious  effects are  expected to occur.         centratl°ns
       In  order  to  develop numerical  criteria for sediments knowledge of
  the factors  that control the bioavailable fraction of a toxicant  in
                                         effeCtS"  Two ™J°r determinants
                  are acid volatile su.fides (for  meta.s)  and total  organic
 carbon  (or non-ionic organics).   The bioavailability of metals has  yet to
 be modeled, due to multiple possible interactions with a number of
  nr-H   ,n
 the ac,d volatile  sulf.des  (AVS) in sediment, and  preliminary studies
 suggest metal bioavailability  may  be  controlled  by  AVS (D.Toro et al
 1990).   AVS  content in sediment may be adopted as a normalization factor
 for developing sediment quality criteria for metals.  To date  however
 tf!el!,cr! ^^ ^ ^^ Where AVS C0ntent has been measured.  No survey
 of AVS has been done  in Boston Harbor or Massachusetts Bays   The
 concentrations of  metals in sediments, therefore, can  not  yet  be
 normalized, and proposed  criteria for  metals  are based on only absolute
 concentrates.  Absolute  concentration may not,  however, accurately
 reflect the  bioavailable fraction of metals in sediments.
      For non-ionic organic compounds, the dissolved phase is considered
to be bioavailable, with maximum  concentration in  sediment pore  water
Based on the bulk toxicant concentration and organic carbon (OC) content
of the sediment, the dissolved concentration can be predicted by
assumptions of equilibrium partitioning and a measure of  the affinity of
                                   8

-------
the chemical for organic carbon (partition  coefficient,  Kp):

      [tox]w . [tox]s /{Kp * [TOC]}

where [tox]w is  the  concentration of  a toxicant in water, [tox]s is the  bulk
sediment concentration of  a toxicant, Kp is the empirically determined
partition coefficient,  and [TOC]  is the sediment total organic carbon
concentration  (Shea et al., 1991).

Development  of  Sediment Quality Criteria  (SQC)

      Sec.  304 (a)(1) of the  Clean Water Act requires  the establishment  of
water quality criteria (WQC)  in  order  to protect the health and welfare of
organisms,  biological communities, aesthetics,  recreation,  and from the
adverse impacts  of  pollutants.   Over  65  metal and chemical priority
pollutants  have  been  tested for toxicity  to  representative  aquatic
organisms  and bioaccumulation  potential (US EPA, 1986).  These results
are used  to recommend numerical limits  for ambient concentrations of a
given contaminant in water.  WQC  do not,  however, take into account  the
accumulation of contaminants in  sediments.   Sediments may be an
important  source of  contaminants even when WQC are  met in the overlying
waters.  Sediment  quality  criteria are  therefore needed in addition to WQC
for use in  regulatory decisions such  as  effluent  discharge  limits,
remediation of contaminated  areas, and for  management of transfer and
disposal of contaminated sediments.  The EPA's goal is to develop general,
numerical  criteria that can be applied nationally in a manner analogous  to
WQC (Shea, 1988).
      There are at  least nine different methods that have been proposed
for determining  sediment  quality criteria  (Becker  et al.,  1989).   These
include five field approaches:  reference  area; field collected sediment
bioassay;  screening level  concentration;  sediment quality triad,  and
apparent effects threshold  (AET), and four laboratory approaches: WQC;
equilbrium-partitioning  (EP)  (sediment-water);  EP  (sediment-biota);  and
spiked sediment  bioassay.  Becker et al.  (1989) reviewed these
approaches, including  the  advantages and limitations of each, and

-------
 recommended the adoption  of the AET approach to derive sediment quality
 criteria  for Puget Sound.
       The apparent  effects  threshold specifies a concentration for a given
 chemical  in sediments above  which significant  biological effects  would
 always  be expected to occur.   Adverse effects at  a site are determined by
 comparison to conditions at a reference site.   The advantages to  this
 approach  include the following: 1.  effects of  individual  chemicals  in  a
 sediment can be  distinguished;  2. AET values can be derived for all types
 of  chemicals  and  metals; and  3. many different biological indicators  can
 be used (e.g. community structure,  histopathology).  The main disadvantage
 of  AET  is  the extensive database needed for  both chemical and biological
 effects parameters.  A large database of  information  on Puget Sound
 sediments, including contaminant  measures and  biological  indicators,
 exists.   Therefore, the  AET  approach is acceptable for  this region.  In fact,
 the Washington Department  of  Ecology  has released  state Sediment
 Management Standards for both metals and organics based on the AET
 method  (Table 1).
      The  EPA, on the other hand,  has adopted the Equilibrium Partitioning
 (EP)  approach to derive several sediment quality  criteria  (DiToro  et al.,
 1989;  Shea,  1988).  This approach  is based on on  the finding that  total
 organic  carbon  determines  bioavailability for  non-ionic  organics  (see
 section  above).    The application of equilibrium partitioning models to
 predict the dissolved porewater concentration of  non-ionic  organic
 chemicals  utilizes organic  carbon-specific partition coefficients  (Koc)
 for  a  particular chemical. The SQC  is calculated from the WQC for that
 chemical, assuming reversible equilibrium  between  phases:

      SQCoc = Koc * WQC  (criteria  continuous concentration)

 The criteria continuous concentration is the lower of the WQC final
 chronic values,  which protect  aquatic life  from chronic  toxicity, and  the
 WQC  final  residue values, which protect uses  of aquatic  life (US EPA,
 1988b).  The advantages of the  EP approach to SQC determination  include
 its  use of the  existing WQC  database, its support of the  model by
 empirical data, and its  applicability  to  different environments and to
different  levels of sediment  organic carbon content.   The  major
                                  10

-------
disadvantage to the approach is that it only applies  to non-ionic  organics,
not to  metals or ionizable compounds.  In addition, one assumption of the
model  is not unanimously accepted, {that reversible equilibrium  is
attained between sediment and  porewater phases}.  Moreover, questions
remain regarding whether the EP approach adequately protects benthic
organisms that  ingest as well as inhabit sediment and that are exposed to
complex  mixtures of contaminants.  Despite the criticisms of the EP
approach, the EPA  is continuing  the  process of developing national SQC.  In
fact, the EPA office of Water Regulations,  Criteria and  Standards division,
has  already set interim  sediment quality criteria values  for nonpolar
hydrophobic organic contaminants based on  the equilibrium  partitioning
approach (Table 1) (US EPA, 1988b).
     The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has regulations for the
concentrations  of metals and polychlorinated  biphenyls (PCBs) in
sediments under the state dredging and disposal laws (314 CMR 9.00).  The
concentrations  of metals are evaluated according to  a three  tiered
classification of sediment contamination levels.   Sediments  determined to
be of Class I type  are not considered contaminated.   Sediments  classified
as types II  and III  automatically require that  biological testing  be done.
State regulations for dredging  projects specify standards for  metal  and
PCB concentrations  in sediments for each  of  the three sediment
classifications  (Table 1).   The purpose of these  regulations is to  aid in
management decisions for any proposed dredging projects in  the  state.
     In addition, the Commonwealth of  Massachusetts is in the process of
developing  sediment quality criteria for polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and draft criteria currently exist (Judy  Pederson,  Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management,  personal communication) (Table 1).  These  draft
criteria are based on Gulf of Maine  sediment  data (low values) and Boston
Harbor paired benthic community and sediment  analysis  transect data
(high values).

Evaluations of Sediment Quality

     Boston Harbor has been ranked the second most contaminated  site
tested  in the National Status and Trends Program (Long and Morgan, 1990)
Long and Morgan (1990) compiled a large  number of studies that relate
                                  11

-------
  concentrations of individual sediment  contaminants to associated toxicity
  or benthic community  impacts.  The  range of concentrations that showed
  biological effects, related to a given contaminant were  ranked, and the
  10th and 50th percentile values were determined.   The 10th percentile  is
  defined as the effects range-low (ER-L) value and represents the
  concentration  at which effects are seen in  sensitive organisms.  The  50th
  percentile is defined as the effects range-median  (ER-M) value and
  represents the concentration above which  effects  are usually seen  in  most
  species.  Though the ER-L and ER-M were not intended to be used as
  standards, the approach combines several independent methods to derive
 consensus values (equilibrium  partitioning,  spiked sediment bioassays,
 and methods  matching chemical/biological  field  data), and  thus derived
 values  are listed along with proposed criteria and  standards in Table  1.
      The low and median  effects  levels were compared to National Status
 and Trends sediment chemistry  data  from  representative coastal areas of
 the U.S.  (Long and Morgan, 1990).  Sites were ranked by their potential for
 the sediments to  cause biological  effects, as predicted  by the overall
 number of exceedences of ER-L and ER-M values at a site.   Several sites
 sampled in the  Status and  Trends program  exceed the effects range values,
 and  the sites  with the highest  potential for bioeffects were identified.   A'
 site in the Hudson-Raritan estuary ranked highest,  and a Boston Harbor
 site ranked second among the 212  sites sampled in the  Status and Trends
 program.
      These effect level values were  also used to  analyze metals data
 from the pre-1983 Boston Harbor Data Management (BHDM) file database,
 with the percent of samples exceeding the ER-L and  ER-M reported
 (Manheim and Hathaway, -1991).  Of metals  analyzed, cadmium exceeded  its
 ER-L  with  the  lowest frequency (21.4%), copper  was  intermediate  (61.4%),
while  mercury exhibited the highest exceedence  (91.4%).
     The following is an evaluation  of  surface sediment contamination in
Massachusetts  Bays in relation to existing or proposed SQC for five
compounds  - copper,  mercury, total  PCBs, phenanthrene,  and
benzo[a]pyrene.
                                 12

-------
METHODS

Sediment  Quality  Criteria  Compilation

     Sediment quality  criteria  were gathered and included  both  proposed
and existing criteria (Table 1).  Criteria were compiled in  a form that was
normalized  to  organic carbon content if appropriate (see discussion in
introduction).   Various methods used to generate SQC are identified and
discussed.  The lowest SQC compiled was used to evaluate sediment
concentrations throughout Boston Harbor and  Massachusetts  Bays.  This
provides  the  most sensitive measure  by  which  regional sediment
contamination can be evaluated.  The effects  range - low (ER-L) and
effects range - median (ER-M) values are also listed in Table 1.

Complementary   Database  Efforts

     A number of agencies concerned with  Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay water and  sediment quality are in the process of
evaluating  sediment contamination  in this  region.  Cooperative  efforts
were made to complement rather than duplicate  the work of many
agencies, as follows:
      1.  Manheim and Hathaway (1991) reviewed and reorganized the
Metcalf & Eddy compilation of pre-1983 sediment data, Boston Harbor
Data Management File  (BHDMF).  They have  transferred the dBase files into
a  Paradox  summary spreadsheet. All  available parameters for more than
800 sediment  samples  are  included  in this database.  We agreed to
complement the preparation of this data by  locating and entering  post-
1983  data  for the Boston  Harbor/Massachusetts  Bays region in a master
database in an Excel spreadsheet file.
      2.  MacDonald (NOAA, 1991) compiled  historical data for Boston
Harbor, and analyzed status and trends in  harbor sediment  contamination.
Dr. MacDonald contributed his data files that summarized Massachusetts
Bay  sediment data through 1988.   The  Microsoft Excel  spreadsheet files
were  compiled into a single spreadsheet, organized into a  standard
format, and purged of any  pre-1983 data that is found in the BHDMF.
                                  13

-------
        3.  The MWRA contracted Battelle Ocean Sciences to compile
  Massachusetts Bay chemical, physical, and biological data  for sediments
  MVA/O! P     * C°ntOUr mapS °f these Para™ters (Shea et al., 1991)    '
  MWRA and  Battelle data managers provided data from the 1991 report
  synthesizing Massachusetts Bay sediment data.  MWRA's intent is to enter
  his data into Massachusetts  GIS via the relational database Oracle   Due
  to  difficulties with  combining  the MWRA's  ASCII files into our database
  data tables from the appendix to their report were entered into a  Lotus '
  123 spreadsheet using a Xerox  Kurtzweil scanner.  Lotus 123 files were
  then converted to  Microsoft Excel files, organized into a standard  format
  and added to our master database.  In  addition, tables of  PAH and organics
  m?t r.rol8600^^ Treatment  FacMitieS  Plan  P'annin9 documents
  (Battelle,  1987a,b)  were also scanned into  Lotus  123,  converted  to
  M,crosoft  Excel  files, organized  into a standard format, and added to  our
  master  database.

  Database  Compilation

       The data sets  mentioned above include many of the known sources  of
 data on the Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bays sediment regime.   As much
 of the data from these  reports that could be  obtained  as  electronic files
 were transferred into our database.  The  database  was condensed  by
 removing redundant reports,  and reports  contained in the pre-1983 BHDM
 files.
      Our  efforts concentrated on obtaining new data sources  not  covered
 m these reports.  Requests for data were made to  independent
 investigators, consulting  firms (Metcalf and Eddy,  Battelle), and state and
 federal agencies  (EPA Region 1, EPA Environmental  Research  Laboratory-
 Narragansett, Massachusetts  Department  of  Environmental  Protection  US
 Army Corps of Engineers, and Massachusetts Coastal  Zone Management)
 All data  entered into  the Excel database are  listed  in  Table  2.  Not all  data
 available to us were entered  into spreadsheet files due to  incomplete
 information,  unpublished  data, and time   limitations.
      Recorded in our master  database were  the source  document,  sample
 identification number, site description, location coordinates, sediment
grain  size  parameters, percent organic carbon,  and concentrations  of
                                  14

-------
individual  metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, and  individual PAHs.  The
methods employed,  detection  limits, and  quality assurance/quality control
measures (replicates, blanks, standards used) were  also  recorded when
available.   Biological data were not compiled, but it was noted if
biological  data were  gathered  in the original  report.  Additional
parameters are listed at the end of the spreadsheet.  These parameters are
neither complete  nor standardized,  and for the most part are only
measured by one investigator.
      Hardcopy of the Excel database file is in Appendix 1.  The Excel file
is available on disc to those  interested.

Geographical  analysis

      In  order to be included in the GIS analysis, the  following information
must  have existed for each  sample:
      1.   latitude and longitude coordinates of the sampling location; and
      2.   the depth  of sediment sampled was  indicated  to be surface only.
We analyzed two metals.copper and mercury,  total PCBs, and  two
individual PAHs, phenanthrene  and benzo[a]pyrene.These  were selected as
representative  sediment-associated  toxicants  that  are  found in high,
potentially toxic concentrations in  Boston Harbor, that are routinely
measured, and that  are known to  persist and accumulate in the sediment
reservoir.  In  addition, proposed SQC and Washington state sediment
standards  exist  for  the selected metal  and organic  contaminants.  Mercury
was chosen  because historical data showed  consistently high
concentrations in sediments throughout the Harbor (Metcalf and Eddy,
1984).   In their analysis of Boston  Harbor metal contamination, Manheim
and Hathaway (1991) found  that mercury  exceeded its ER-L concentration
(as determined by Long and Morgan, 1990) in  91.4% of  the Boston Harbor
sites  sampled.  Copper, on the other hand, was intermediate in its
exceedences  (61.4%) and may, therefore, better represent metal
contamination in  general.  Phenanthrene  was chosen as  a representative
low molecular weight PAH, and benzo[a]pyrene was analyzed  as a
representative high  molecular  weight and carcinogenic PAH.
      The selected  parameters were extracted from the database, and
entered  into ARC/INFO, which geographically plots  the values  for a
                                  15

-------
 specified  parameter.   The following parameters  were extracted from  the
 Excel  database file into a second Excel file: an  identification number  for
 each sediment sample, latitude/longitude, % TOC,  concentrations  (in  units
 of ppm-dry weight) of  copper, mercury, total RGBs, benzo[a]pyrene, and
 phenanthrene, and the concentrations of the three organic  compounds
 normalized to sediment organic  carbon content (ug/g-OC).   This file was
 transferred to an  ASCII format, with  parameters in  comma-delimited
 columns.  The Information Management Branch at  EPA Region 1 converted
 this  file to ARC/INFO, geographically plotted the  contaminant data, and
 produced  maps for individual contaminants indicating areas with
 concentrations in exceedence of  SQC.
     The GIS analysis provided only limited coverage of the study area
due  to the lack of latitude/longitude  information  in  many studies.   The
number of SQC exceedences in  the entire database were therefore
independently determined and compared  to  the results of the geographic
analysis.
                                 16

-------
RESULTS

Sediment Quality Criteria  Comparison

      Sediment quality criteria  and standards have been  compiled from
three sources: Massachusetts state regulations (314 CMR 9.00),
Washington state sediment management standards (1991), and EPA
Interim Criteria (1988b) (Table  1).  The effects level values (ER-L and  ER-
M) developed by Long  and Morgan (1990) are also listed in Table 1.
      Comparison of the SQC values  derived by different  methods shows
close agreement  among criteria for certain  contaminants,  but up  to order
of magnitude differences  in criteria values  for others.   The range of
values defined by  the Massachusetts  classification criteria for  metals
agrees closely with the AET-based Washington state  sediment  standards
for  most  metals,  except  the latter sets 2-fold higher  standards for
arsenic and lead.  For PCBs, the Massachusetts criteria are non-
normalized, while the Washington AET-based standard  and EPA  EP-based
criterion are normalized to sediment  organic carbon.   If the Massachusetts
PCB criteria are normalized to  a typical sediment (1% TOC), this
corresponds to a concentration of 50-IOOu.g/g-OC, which  is 1  to 2-fold
higher than the  EPA  interim criterion (41.8 jig/g-OC),  and 5 to 10-fold
higher than the Washington state PCB standard (12 |ig/g-OC).  For PAHs,
the  reference area-based Massachusetts  draft  criteria  low-effects
concentrations exceed  Washington state standards for all  PAHs except
pyrene.  The EPA criteria  for PAHs are  an  order of magnitude higher than
that  of Washington  for three  PAHs, but are similar for phenanthrene and
pyrene.   While the  EPA phenanthrene criterion is 10-fold lower  than the
other EPA PAH  criteria, the Washington pyrene standard is  10-fold  higher
than the other Washington PAH standards.
      The Washington  standards are  similar  to or less protective(/.e. =
higher)  than  Massachusetts sediment  classification criteria for metals,
but are  generally more protective (i.e. » lower) than Massachusetts (draft)
criteria and EPA  criteria  for  organics. The  Massachusetts criteria and
Washington standards  for  metals fall within the range of ER-L and ER-M
values.  The effects range values for  organics are not  normalized to TOC,
                                 17

-------
 but in a 1% TOC sediment, the ER-L and ER-M would bracket the
 Washington state standards for all organics except pyrene.  In summary,
 agreement  is -seen  among criteria values  for metals derived by different
 methods, while  AET and the consensus-based effects range levels are 4-
 10 fold  more protective  than  the  equilibrium  partitioning  and reference
 area-based approaches for deriving  criteria for  organics.

 Database  Analysis

      The  Excel database contains contaminant concentration data,
 sediment texture data, and quality control information  for  1,085  unique
 sediment samples.   Several reports were not  included in the geographical
 analysis.  Of the 31  source documents in the database, data from  only 16
 were included in the GIS analysis (Table 2).  Fifteen reports lacked
 latitude and longitude  data or gave state plane coordinates, which could
 not be entered  into  GIS.  An additional four reports  were excluded from
 both the database and  GIS because the data was in progress or because the
 report was included  in  the BHDMF. A large number of different dredging
 reports were compiled  by MacDonald  (1990), and are listed  as a single
 source of data in Table 2.
      Of the 1,085 sediment samples  in the database, copper was
 measured in 60%, mercury in  54%, total PCBs in 28%, and the two  PAHs  in
 18% (Table  3)
      The percent of samples which exceed the SQC  for  each contaminant
 is  indicated in Table 3, along with a listing of the sites from which these
 samples  were taken.   Of  the 5 contaminants analyzed,  mercury  exhibits
 the highest  frequency of exceedence of AET-based Washington standards
 (25% of samples ^ 0.41 ppm), and copper the lowest  (1.5%).   The three
 organic contaminants exceed the Washington standards in 5.5% (OC-
 normalized benzo[a]pyrene) to  7.6% (OC-normalized phenanthrene) of
 samples.   The EP-based  EPA interim criteria for PCBs and benzo[a]pyrene
were  infrequently exceeded (0.5-1% of samples), while  the EPA  interim
criterion  for phenanthrene (which is  10-fold lower than the criteria for
other  PAHs) was exceeded in  7.6% of  samples.
                                 18

-------
Geographical  Analysis

      We  chose the most protective of the  Massachusetts state,
Washington  state, and EPA  SQC values for  the regional evaluation of
Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bays.  The GIS maps  indicate samples below
the lowest SQC with a blue dot, and those in exceedence of the SQC for a
given contaminant are indicated with a red  dot.   Because few  sites
exceeded the lowest  criterion  we  did not  further differentiate sites that
exceeded  the higher criterion.  The SQC values chosen were:
      copper £. 200  jig/g (Massachusetts class 1)
      mercury ^ 0.41 u.g/g (Washington AET-based standard)
      PCBs  2. 12 u.g/g-OC (Washington standard)
      benzo[a]pyrene ^ 99 u,g/g-OC (Washington standard)
      phenanthrene >  100 jig/g-OC (Washington standard)

      GIS analysis of two metals, total PCBs, and two organic
contaminants has shown both nearshore and  offshore sites  that exceeded
SQC.  Copper concentrations exceeded SQC  in Salem Harbor, the Mystic
River, Fort Point Channel, and Dorchester Bay (Figure 3).  All of these
sites are coastal  locations.  In  addition, copper exceeded 200ppm in
Massachusetts Bay at the MBDS.
      Mercury exceeded the SQC in many coastal  locations as well as
Salem Harbor and the MWRA outfall site  (Figure 4).  Specific coastal sites
that  were shown  to  have concentrations greater than 0.41ppm include the
Mystic River, Fort Point Channel, Deer Island, Dorchester  Bay,  Hull Bay,
Salem Harbor, and  Scituate.  Additional sites of  high levels  of  mercury
outside the  scope of our study  site  are also indicated in  Figure 4 and
include the Bass River, Falmouth Harbor, and Rhode  Island Sound.
      Figure 6 shows  sample locations where normalized total  PCB's were
measured  in levels that exceed 0.12ppm-OC.  Although exceedences  are
seen at only the MBDS and  the outfall site, it is  noted that most coastal
sampling locations had no organic  carbon data or lacked latitude/longitude
coordinates.  Therefore,  normalized PCB data for coastal locations  could
not be calculated or plotted, and interpretation  of sites that are  likely to
exceed SQC must take this lack of data into account.   It is interesting to
                                 19

-------
 note  that non-normalized PCS data did not show SQC violations at the
 outfall site  but the normalized data did.
      Analysis of phenanthrene and benzo[a]pyrene  showed concentrations
 exceeding  100ppm-OC and  99ppm-OC, respectively,  at the MWRA outfall
 site and  in the outer harbor near  Deer Island (Figures 7 and 8).  In addition,
 phenanthrene exceeded 99ppm-OC in Dorchester Bay.  Compared to the two
 metals analyzed and total PCBs,  the organic contaminants showed
 relatively few sites  that are in exceedence of proposed or existing  SQC.
      In summary, mercury,  PCBs, and PAHs were all found at
 concentrations greater  than  proposed or existing SQC at the outfall  site,
 and mercury and PCBs are found at higher than criteria concentrations at
 the MBDS.  Boston Inner Harbor  (specifically,  Deer Island,  the Mystic River,
 and Fort Point Channel) also consistently had  concentrations  of
contaminants that were above SQC levels.  In addition, both metals and
 PCBs were  identified at high concentrations in Salem  Harbor.
                                20

-------
 DISCUSSION

 Regional  Evaluation  of  Sediment  Quality

      Our analysis showed low frequencies of exceedences of proposed and
 existing  sediment quality criteria for  all  of  the contaminants evaluated,
 except for mercury.   Mercury exceeded the  most protective criterion in
 25% of the samples for which  mercury was measured,  whereas the other
 contaminants evaluated exceeded their criteria in 5.5% -  7.6% of the
 samples   Manheim and Hathaway (1991), on the other hand, found higher
 frequencies  of exceedences of ER-L and ER-M values for both  copper and
 mercury  in the  historical Boston  Harbor database, BHDMF. Their data,
 which are confined to Boston Harbor, are consistent with our results,
 which show higher concentrations of  contaminants in nearshore areas.  In
 addition,  MacDonald (1991)  found that for  Boston Harbor sediments, the
 mean concentration of mercury exceeded its ER-M value and the  mean
 concentration of copper exceeded its  ER-L value.
      The geographic analysis and screening of this  database located areas
 in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts  Bays with  potentially toxic
 sediments.  While primarily clustered  in Boston  Harbor,  coastal
 embayments on the northern perimeter of Massachusetts Bay and  Cape Cod
 are also  affected.  The  outfall site and MBDS  also exceed two or more
 different  SQC.   MacDonald (1991) used evidence from  individual  reports to
 define trends in contamination  of Boston Harbor.  Despite  the limitations
 of the data  and sources of variability  encountered, he found a decreasing
gradient  in several  metal concentrations from the inner Harbor to  the
 southwest Harbor.  Our analysis showed appreciable contamination with
 mercury throughout the  Boston Harbor and  Massachusetts Bays region, and
a lower frequency of  SQC exceedences with the other four  contaminants
analyzed.
     Analysis of sediment contamination of Boston  Harbor  and
Massachusetts  Bays  shows very  limited coverage of  the study site.  This
limited  number  of sampling  sites is  primarily  due to the  exclusion  of
studies that did not contain  latitude  and longitude  information from the
GIS analysis.   In addition, when single latitude/longitude coordinates  were
                                 21

-------
  given  for multiple samples, GIS only plotted a single  point.   Quantitative
  analysis of the  GIS results was not possible because  of the  limited
  coverage and inability to differentiate  data points  from  similar locations
  on the maps.

  Sediment  Quality   Criteria

       Sediment  quality criteria  compiled from three sources
  (Commonwealth  of Massachusetts, State  of Washington, and  U.S. EPA)
  were developed by independent methods.  These approaches (AET, EP, and
  reference area)  show  a surprising amount of similarity in the  SQC  derived
 from them.  In general, the AET-based approach used by Washington state
 and the  Massachusetts sediment classification method provide similar
 SQC for metals.  In addition,  the AET approach consistently yields  lower
 SQC for  organics than  either of the other two approaches.  The AET
 approach may therefore be a  more protective method for determining SQC
 for organic contaminants.   The reference area approach requires that
 suitable reference sites and data exist, and thus may not be applicable on
 a nation-wide basis.  The  EP  approach has potential  for developing
 broadly-applicable SQC from  the existing database used in determining
 water  quality criteria.   However, the  EP approach  is presently limited to
 non-ionic organics for  which WQC  are available, and provides significantly
 higher criteria  values than those derived by the field-based
 chemistry/bioeffects AET.   In addition, the EP approach  does  not account
 for biota  which are  exposed to contaminated sediments either through
 ingestion  or  through direct contact.  The  derivation of SQC  by  combining
 the results of several approaches, as done by Long and  Morgan (1990) to
 define  the ER-L and ER-M, may provide a more balanced criteria than
 reliance on a single  approach.
     Our efforts have  shown  that  it will be essential  for  future
 investigators  to measure both  total  organic carbon content  and acid
 volatile  sulfides if evaluation  of sediment contamination with  any
 normalized/standardized sediment quality criteria is  to be  achieved.
 Comparison of  Figures 5 and 6 shows the striking lack of data for TOC
content  in the Massachusetts Bays region.  Coastal  contamination  of PCBs
could not be definitively evaluated due to the lack of corresponding TOC
                                 22

-------
and  PCB data in coastal sampling sites.  There has been no survey of AVS
in Massachusetts  Bays; therefore, the concentrations of metals in
sediments can  not be normalized and only  absolute concentrations may be
compared with  SQC.  Absolute concentration may not, however, accurately
reflect the bioavailable  fraction  of  metals  in sediments.

Database

      The database  compiled here includes almost all of the  post-1983
data available for  sediment contamination in  Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts  Bays.  This database  is easily accessed and readily
available in a standardized spreadsheet form in Microsoft Excel.   It is
hoped that this will  form the basis for any future  sediment quality
analysis of the region.   All or  some  of this database will  be entered into
the ARC/INFO -Oracle system at Mass-GIS.  Our database should aid future
investigators, in particular, the database can  aid  in survey design and
selection of parameters to  measure.
      Statistical analysis of the  data  has not been  attempted  due  to the
variability  in  the data.  Sources of variability include  different
investigators,  sampling  methods, analytical  methods, detection  limits,
quality assurance/quality control  measures, as  well  as  natural factors,
such as biota and grain size.  The lower quality of  data obtained from
dredging reports,  with  detection limits of 0.66 ng/g of individual  PAHs,  is
difficult to  compare  with studies in which 0.003 fig/g  detection limits
were  achieved.
      Each individual study compiled here had  its own objectives and
focus.  Therefore  the spatial and temporal  coverage of data for
Massachusetts  Bays  is  not comprehensive.  Other than a general nearshore
to offshore gradient  in sediment contamination, spatial trends in  the data
are not discernable  from our limited  analysis of the data.  Analysis of
temporal  trends was  not attempted.   An analysis  of more a comprehensive
spatial and temporal database  is needed.
                                  23

-------
 Recommendations

       Database  compilation  efforts  would benefit  greatly,  with  time and
 effort conserved, by designating a common  location and cataloging system
 for  holdings  of  regional environmental reports.  Attempts  to  locate
 sediment  data by contacting  individuals  proved  time-consuming and
 unproductive.  The new information identified  in this manner  were  most
 often  incomplete raw data or reports already in  hand.
       In the future, all sediment chemistry analyses  of Boston Harbor and
 Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays should include measurements of %TOC,
 grain  size information, and acid volatile  sulfide content.   Knowledge of'
 factors  controlling  bioavailability will  allow  better  prediction of  the
 biological effects  of a given contaminant.   Sites which exceed  SQC  should
 be further investigated  to  determine potential for  biological effects.
       Stricter standards  for analytical  methods and lower detection
 limits  should  be  in place to allow comparison of  data generated by
 different analytical methods and laboratories.   For  example, PAH data
 obtained from Battelle with a limit of  detection of 3ng/g cannot  be
 directly compared with data reported to the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
 with a limit  of detection of  660ng/g.
      The  GIS analysis could be significantly expanded both spatially and
 temporally  by locating the  latitude and longitude data from the  15 reports
 included in our database that are missing this information.   Detailed  maps
 of the sampling  locations exist for most of these studies, but  time and
 expertise did  not permit  translation of the information to the  GIS program
 for the study.
      Caution is  advised  in synthesizing and transferring  large databases
 such as  this  (Manheim, personal communication).   Entering  data into a
 relational database with  a  minimum of reformatting  would avert the
 introduction of error or loss of data with repeated transfer from  hardcopy
to  files and between  files.  It is recommended  that this database  and all
future data collected on Boston  Harbor  and Massachusetts Bay  be placed
into an accessible database for entering and analyzing coastal water  and
sediment quality  trends.

                                  24

-------
      It is  hoped that agencies interested in  sediment quality will
combine efforts to establish a common database and build on  the data
compiled to date  for the  Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bay region.   Such
cooperative efforts  might also  be fruitful  for development  of  a
comprehensive GIS database, .of  interest to MWRA, U.S. EPA,  U.S. ACOE, and
MA CZM.   Other  EPA regional  offices are conducting similar sediment
surveys, and this could perhaps be incorporated into a national assessment
of contaminated  sediments.
                                 25

-------
 REFERENCES

 Arthur D. Little.  Sept 28,  1990.  Final  Data Report for Evaluation of the
 Reference Site Suitability  for the Massachusetts Bay  Disposal Site.
 Submitted to US EPA, Region 1.  Water Management Division.  Contract No
 68-D-90164.

 Battelle Ocean Sciences.  1984.  Unpublished metals data from NOAA-NEMP
 (in Shea et al., 1991).

 Battelle Ocean Sciences.  1987a. Marine Ecology and Water Quality Field
 Studies for  Outfall  Siting  for the Deer  Island Secondary  Treatment
 Facilities Plan: Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons  and
 Metals in Surface Sediment at Selected Sites in Massachusetts Bay.  Draft
 report to CZM, Oct  21, 1987.

 Battelle Ocean Sciences.  1987b.  Technical Memorandum  to Camp Dresser
 and McKee.   Marine Ecology and  Water Quality Field Program for Deer
 Island Secondary Treatment  Facilities Plan.  Concentrations  of
 Polychlorinated Biphenyls  in  Surface  Sediments at Selected  Stations  in
 Massachusetts Bay.

 Battelle  Ocean Sciences.  May 20, 1991.  CSO Effects on  Contamination of
 Boston Harbor Sediments.  MWRA Task Order No. 18. Draft Report.

 Becker, D.S., R.A. Pastorok, R.C. Barrick,  P.N. Booth, and L.A. Jacobs. April
 1989.  Contaminated  Sediments Criteria Report.   Submitted by PTI
 Environmental Services to  Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia WA.
 Ecology Contract No.  C0088171.

 Boehm,  PD.   1983.   Chemical contaminants  in Northeast United States
 marine sediments. NOAA Technical Report NOS 99. Rockville,  MD:   NOAA.
82pp.
                                 26

-------
Boehm, PD  and JW  Farrington.  1984.  Aspects of the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon geochemistry of  recent sediments in the Georges Bank region.
Environ.  Sci. Technol.   18:11:480-485.

Boehm, PD,  W  Steinhauer, and J Brown.  1984. Organic pollutant
biogeochemistry studies Northeast U.S.  marine environment.  Final  Report
Contract No. NA-83-FA-C-00022.  Duxbury, MA: Battelle,  New England
Marine Research Laboratory.  60pp.

Camp, Dresser  and McKee.  1990. Spectacle Island Sediment Sampling
Results   (data received from Kevin McManus, Metcalf and Eddy, Wakefield
MA - Table 1.)

Chesmore, AP.  1972.   A study of the marine resources of Lynn-Saugus
Harbor.  Monograph Series, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of
Natural Resources Division of Marine  Fisheries.  40pp.

Chesmore, AP.  1973.  A study of the  marine  resources of Essex Bay.
Monograph Series, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources Division of Marine Fisheries.  38pp.

Cudmore, J,  R Schumacher, and B Poole.  1988.  Ecological evaluation  of
proposed  oceanic discharge of dredged  material  from Harbor View Marina,
Town  River,  Quincy, MA for Quinoil Industries,  Inc. SP, Inc. Salem, MA.
34pp.

DiToro, D.M., et al.   April 1989.  Briefing Report to  the EPA Science
Advisory Board on the  Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to  Generating
Sediment Quality  Criteria.   EPA Office of Water  Regulations and
Standards, Criteria and  Standards Div.

DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahoney, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr, and
M.S. Redmond.   1990.  Toxicity of Cadmium in Sediments: The Role of  Acid
Volatile Sulfides.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry  9: 1487.
                                 27

-------
 Enseco Inc. 1987a.  Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of
 dredged material from Marina Bay/Squantum Point, Quincy, MA.  Enseco
 Inc. Doaks Lane at Little Harbor, Marblehead, MA  25pp.

 Enseco Inc. 1987b.  Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of
 dredged material from Little Mystic Channel/ Charlestown Navy Yard.
 Enseco Inc. Doaks Lane at Little Harbor, Marblehead, MA  27pp.

 Farrington, J.,  E. Gallagher, and G. Wallace.  March 1990.  Progress Report -
 To  MWRA.  Boston Harbor Study of Sources and Transport of Harbor
 Sediment Contamination.  Part II:  Sediment-Water Exchange of
 Contaminants  in Boston Harbor.

 Gardner, G.B.,  R.P. Eganhouse, and G.T. Wallace. 1986.  Baseline
 Assessment of Salem Harbor - Salem  Sound and Adjacent Waters.  Report
 prepared for the South  Essex  Sewage District.

 Gilbert,  TR. 1975.  Studies of the  Massachusetts Bay foul area.  Report No.
 1-75. Boston,  MA: Commonwealth  of Massachusetts Division of Water
 Pollution Control.  197pp.

 Gilbert, TR, GC McLeod,  R Maehl, KV Ladd, A Clay, A Baker. 1972.  Volume
 II.  Trace metal  analysis of Boston Harbor waters  and sediments.   Boston,
 MA: New England Aquarium, Research  Department.  98pp.

Hubbard, WA.   1987.  A draft environmental assessment of the proposed
Boston  Harbor Improvement Dredging  Project in Boston,  Massachusetts,
Boston,  MA: Army Core of Engineers.  180pp.

Isaac, RA and  J  Delaney.  1975. Toxic element survey.   Final Report.
Research  and  Demonstration  Project 71-06.   Massachusetts Department of
Environmental  Quality Engineering,  Westborough,  MA  40pp.

Iwanowicz,  HR, RD Anderson, and BA Ketschke.  1974.  A study of the
marine resources of Plymouth, Kingston, and Duxbury Bay.  Monograph

                                 28

-------
Series, Boston, MA:  Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources
Division of Marine  Fisheries.  37pp.

Jason M.  Cortell & Associates,  Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.  May 1990.
Draft, report.   The Aquatic Resources of  Spectacle Island.  Central Artery
(l-93)/Third Harbor Tunnel  (I-90)  Project.

Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. March 1990. The Potential for Biological
Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the  National  Status
and Trends Program.  NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.

MacDonald, D.A. June 1991.  Status  and  Trends  in Concentrations  of
Selected Contaminants  in Boston Harbor Sediments and Biota. NOAA
Technical Memorandum  NOS OMA 56.

Manheim,  F.T. August  20, 1991  update memo to: Respondents to June 1990
Meeting on Contaminated Sediments,  Woods Hole.

Manheim,  F.T. and  J.C. Hathaway.  1991 - Final Report. Polluted Sediments
in  Boston  Harbor -  Massachusetts Bay:  Progress Report on the Boston
Harbor Data Management File. US Geological Survey, Woods Hole MA.  Open
File  Report.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental  Quality Engineering.  Division
of  Water Pollution  Control.  1985.  Boston Harbor, 1985.   Water quality and
wastewater discharge data.  14,4771-80-20-10-86-CR.  Westborough, MA:
MASS-DEQE, Division  of Water Pollution  Control, Technical Services
Branch.  72pp.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental  Quality Engineering.  1986.
Boston Harbor,  1986.   Water quality  and  wastewater discharge data.
#15.063-75-75-10-87-CR.  Westborough, MA:  MASS-DEQE,  Division  of
Water Pollution Control, Technical Services  Branch. 67pp.

Massachusetts Department of Public Works.   March 25, 1991.  Evaluation
of  Third Harbor Tunnel  Dredged  Material Disposal at MBDS.  Central
                                 29

-------
 Artery/Tunnel  Project.   Rowars Task Assignment  #7.   Characterization  of
 Dredged Material.  Final Draft, Vol.s 1 and 2.  Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.

 Massachusetts State  Sediment Classification  for  Dredge Material
 Disposal.  State regulations section 314 CMR  9.00,

 Massachusetts Water  Resources Authority.  March  31, 1988.  Secondary
 Treatment Facilities Plan.  Volume V. Appendix S.  Benthic  Chemistry
 Sampling.     Submitted by Battelle to CZM (cf. Battelle, 1987a).

 Metcalf and Eddy.  November 1983. Boston Harbor  Data Management:
 References and  Data  Summaries.  Vol 1:  Preliminary  Listing, July  1983;
 Preliminary Listing, Vol. 2.

 Menzie-Cura & Associates.  April 1991  - Draft Report.  Sources and
 Loadings of Pollutants to Massachusetts Bay:   Task 1  of the Massachusetts
 Bays program.

 NET Atlantic,  Cambridge Div.  October, 1990.  Mid-year report
 for:Engineering  Services for  the  301 (h) Effluent Monitoring Program.
 Submitted  to Glouchester Dept. of Public Works.

 NOAA.  Unpublished.  Trace  metal data from the North East Monitoring
 Program survey in  Massachusetts Bay,  1983.  (taken from Table C-2 in:
 Shea et a/./Battelle, June 1991).

 Perez, K. and  J. Cardin.  unpublished data.   Boston  Harbor sediment
 sampling,  metals concentrations,  July 1990.   EPA-Narragansett
 Laboratory,  Narragansett Rl.

 Phillips, S.  1985.  Letter to Atkinson ACOE  10-31-85.

 Pruell,  R.J., McKinney, R.A., Boothman, W.S., Cobb, D.J., LiVoIsi, J.A., Bowen,
 R.D., and F.A. Osterman.  Jan. 1989.  Contaminant concentrations in
sediments from the Foul Area Disposal  Site in  Massachusetts Bay.  Final
 Report to US EPA Region 1.
                                 30

-------
Robinson, WE, TJ Coffey, and PA Sullivan.  1990.  New England Aquarium's
ten year Boston Harbor monitoring program (draft).  First Report March
1987- July 1989. Boston,  MA: New England Aquarium Edgerton Research
Laboratory.  184pp.

Shea, D.  1988.  Developing National Sediment Quality  Criteria.
Environmental Science and Technology 22:  1256.

Shea, D., D.A. Lewis, B.E. Buxton, D.C. Rhoads, and J.A. Blake. June 20, 1991.
The  Sedimentary  Environment  of Massachusetts  Bay:   Physical, Biological,
and  Chemical Characteristics.  Prepared for MWRA,  by Battelle and SAIC.

Shiaris,  MP  and D Jambard-Sweet.  1986.   Polycyclic /aromatic
hydrocarbons in surficial  sediments of  Boston  Harbor, Massachusetts,  USA.
Marine  Pollution  Bulletin  17(10):  469-472.

US Army Corps of Engineers.  1980. Boston Harbor Massachusetts.  Final
environmental impact statement on debris removal.  Waltham, MA:  US
ACOE. 53pp.

US Army Corps of Engineers.  1981.  Environmental assessment for Boston
Harbor maintenance dredging Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts.  Data
sheets.  Waltham, MA:  Department of the New  England Division, COE.  70pp.

US Army Corps of Engineers, New  England Div.  October 1987.  Disposal
Area Monitoring System DAMOS.  Analysis of Sediment Chemistry and Body
Burden  Data Obtained at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site.
Contribution #75, August 1990b.   Prepared by Science Applications
International Corp, Newport Rl.

US Army Corps of Engineers.  1988.  Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
Feasibility  report and  environmental assessment for deep-draft
navigation improvements to Boston Harbor including Mystic River,  Chelsea
River, and Reserved Channel.  Boston, MA: Department of the Core of
Engineers New England Division.  523pp.
                                 31

-------
  US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Div. August 1990a.  Boston
  Harbor, Mass.  Mystic River, Chelsea River, and Reserved Channel.
  Navigation  Improvement Study Dredge Material Disposal  Plan.  Supplement
  to Feasibility Report, and Supporting Documentation (2 vols.).

  United States Environmental Protection Agency.   1986.   Quality criteria
  for Water.   EPA 440-5-86-00.  Office of Water Regulations  and Standards
  Criteria and Standards Div.   Washington. D.C.

  United States  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1987.   Regulatory
 applications of  sediment  quality  criteria.   Washington,  D.C.

 United States Environmental Protection Agency.  1988a.  A
 histopathological and chemical assessment of winter  flounder, lobster,
 and soft-shelled clam indigenous  to Quincy  Bay, Boston Harbor and an in
 situ  evaluation of oysters including sediment (surface  and cores)
 chemistry. Quincy Bay Study. Narragansett, Rl:  United States
 Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Environmental Research Laboratory
 108pp.

 US Environmental Protection Agency.  May 1988b.   Interim Sediment
 Criteria Values for  Nonpolar Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants.  Office of
 Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria  and Standards Div.

 US Environmental  Protection  Agency.  1989.  Unpublished   Massachusetts
 Bay Disposal Site Sediment  Data  from 7 Dec 1988.   5 July 1989 Memo from
 Sue Cobler to Kymberlee Keckler, EPA Region  1, Div. of Water.

 Wallace, GT, RP Eganhouse, LC Pitts,  and BR Gould. 1988. Analysis of
 contaminants in  marine resources.  Final report.  Contract No.  85-18.
 Project 812527-01-0.   Boston, MA:  University  of  Massachusetts,
 Environmental Sciences Program.  144pp.

Washington  State Department of  Ecology.  April 1991.  Chapter 173-204
WAC  Sediment Management Standards.
                                 32

-------
White,  RJ, JR.   1972.  The distribution and concentrations of selected
metals  in  Boston Harbor sediments. Msc. Boston,  MA.
                                  33

-------
                                        TABLE 1.  Summary of existing and proposed Sediment Quality Criteria,
                    SOURCE
 CCMPCUM)
 Metals.
     Arsenic
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Copper
     Lead
     Mercury
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc

Total PCBs

Pesticides
    Total  DOT
     Dieldrin
     Endrin
    Chlorpyrifos
    Heptaclor
PAHs
    Acenapthane
    Anthracene
    Benzo(a]anthracene
    Banzofluoranthracene
    Benzo[a]pyrene
    Benzojghqperylene
    Chrysene
    Oibenzo[a,h]amhracene
    Fluoranthene
    Fluorene
    Napthalene
    Phenanthrene
    Pyrene
   Massachusetts  State Criteria
     Sediment  Classification
   1            II          III

    (Dredge Material Criteria)-
           (ppm-dw)'
                                                                     Effects  Range
<10
<5
<100
<200
<100
20
>10
>300
>400
>200
>1.5
>100
<200
 <0.5
           200 - 400
           0.5 • 1.0
                        >400
                                 (Draft Only)"
                           Low  effects  High effects
                            (ppm-OC)     (ppm-OC)
 3.3

 2.9

 1.6


12.5

 3.3
 4
28.1

28.1

30.2


48.2

27.2
 45
                          Low
                       (ppm-dw)

                          33
                           5
                          80
                          70
                          35
                          0.15
                          30
                           1
                          120

                          0.05
                                     0.003
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
 0.15
0.085
 0.23

 0.4

 0.4
 0.06
 0.6
0.035
 0.34
0.225
 0.35
             Medium
            (ppm-dw)

               85
               9
              145
              390
              110
               1.3
               50
              2.2
              270

              0.4
                                      0.35
                                     0.008
                                       45
                                                        Washington  State
                                                       Sediment  Standards
             (Apparent  Effects Threshold)
                      (ppm-dw)

                         57
                         5.1
                        260
                        390
                        450
                        0.41

                        6.1
                        410
                     (ppm-OC)
                         12
                                                            EPA Interim
                                                              Criteria
                                                                                                                        (Equilibrium  Partitioning)
                                                                                                                               (ppm-OC)
                                                                 (ppm-dw)     (ppm-dw)
0.65
0.96
 1.6

 2.5

 2.8
0.26
 3.6
0.64
 2.1
1.38
 2.2
(ppm-OC)

   16
  220
  110
  230
   99
   31
  110
   12
  160
  23
  99
  100
  1000
                                                                                                   41.8'
                                                              0.828
                                                               0.13
                                                              0.0532
                                                               0.44
                                                              0.104
(ppm-OC)



  1317

  1063



  1883
  102
 1311
                 Sources: MA State - Metals - State regulations section 314 CMR 9.00
                                   • PAHs - Judy Pederson-MA Coastal Zone Management
                          Effects Range - Long and Morgan. 1990
                          Washington State - Sediment Management Standards. 1991
                          EPA -  US EPA-OHfce of Water Regulations and Standards Criteria, 1988
                          - ppm-dw . parts  per  million dry weight - |tg/g
                          - OC - organic carbon
                          ' - PCB congener 1254  only
                            -  Massachusetts draft criteria based on benthic community structure Indices
                                                                   34

-------
                         Table 2. Sources of data compiled in the Excel database and used for the CIS analysis.
 Report
 AD  Little,  1990
 Bajek, 1983
 Battelle.  1984
 Battelle,  1987a,b
 Boehm. 1983
 Boehm et al, 1984
 Boehm & Farrington, 1984
 Chesmore, 1972
 Chesmore et al, 1973
 Cudmore et all 1988
 Enseco. 1987a
 Enseco, 1987b
 Gardner, 1986
 Gilbert, 1975
 Gilbert et al,  1972
 Hubbard, 1987
 Isaac & Delaney, 1975
 Iwanowicz et  al, 1974
 Jason  Cortell, 1990
 MacDonald,  1991
MADEQE, 1985
MADEQE, 1986
MA DPW, 1991
NET Atlantic,  1990
Phillips,  1985
Pruell et al, 1989
Robinson et al, 1990
Shea et al, 1991
Shiaris et al, 1986
USACOE, 1990a
USACOE. 1990b(DAMOS)
USACOE. 1981
US EPA, 1988
USEPAMBDS.1989
White,  1972
Agency Used

EPA
USACOE
NOAA/NEMP
MWRA
NOAA
NOAA
X
MA-DMF
MA-DMF
USACOE
USACOE
USACOE
S Essex SD
MA-DEQE/DWPC
NEA
USACOE
MA-DEQE/DWPC
MA-DMF
MA DPW
USACOE


DEE
DB3E
MA DPW
Gloucester-DPW
USACOE
EPA
NEA
MWRA
EPA
USACOE
USACOE
USACOE
EPA
EPA
X
in Database

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y


Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
ID #s in
database
'1-24
10466-10471
255-269
120-254
10232-10251
10252-10399
10184-10231
10400-10431
10432-10440
10456-10457
10458-10461
10462-10465
270-276
10614-10631
X
10632-10658
10659-10701
10702-10734
74-92
10000-10183 &
10476-10491 &
10735-10770
10492-10510
10511-10521
25-35
68-73
10472-10475
93-106
10771-10785
36-65
10786-10809
X
107-115
10441-10455
10522-10613
66-67
X
Used ir

Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y


N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
                                                                                      Comments
 Only 1  location  for 24 samples
 No latitude  and  longitude data
 Scanned into supplemental database
 Scanned into supplemental database
 No latitude  and  longitude data

 No latitude  and  longitude data
 No latitude  and  longitude data
 No latitude  and  longitude data
 No latitude  and  longitude data

 No latitude  and  longitude data
 Scanned into supplemental database
 Excluded non surface samples
 INBHDMF.
 Excluded non surface samples
 No latitude  and  longitude data
 No latitude  and  longitude data
 Only state plane coordinates available
 Excluded sites not in Mass Bay
 & sites without lat/long  data

 No latitude  and  longitude  data
 No latitude  and  longitude  data
No  latitude and longitude data
No  latitude and longitude data

Draft  report not for release

No  latitude and longitude data

No  latitude and longitude data


IN BHDMF
in
ro

-------
                                 Table 3. SQC exceedences determined by database screening.
  Compound
    Copper
    (n=649)
    Mercury
    (n=585)
  Total PCBs
   (n=304)
Benzo[a]pyrene
   (n=201)

Phenanthrene
   (n=197)
Low  Criteria
(SQC Source)

  >200ppm
 (MA Class I)
  >0.41ppm
    (AET)
% Exceedence  Sites  In  Exceedence   High  Criteria
                   of  low  criteria      (SQC  Source)
 >12ng/g-OC
    (AET)
 >99|ig/g-OC
    (AET)

>100mj/g-OC
    (AET)
    6.50%      Quincy Bay
               Greene Harbor
               Smith  Cove (Gloucester)
               Spectacle Island

     25%       Taunton  River
               Falmouth
               Nantucket
               Hyannis
               Beverly
               MBOS
               MWRA Outfall site

    5.90%      Inner Boston Harbor
               MBDS
               MWRA Outfall site

    5.50%      Inner Boston Harbor
               MWRA Outfall  site

    7.60%      Inner Boston Harbor
               Deer Island
               Spectacle Island
               Dorchester Bay
               MWRA  Outfall site
   >390ppm
     (AET)
   >1,5ppm
 (MA Class III)
    .8ng/g-OC
    (EPA)
>1063jig/g-OC
    (EPA)

>102ng/g-OC
    (EPA)
% Exceedence  Sites In Exceedence
                  of  high  criteria

    1.50%      Inner  Boston Harbor
               Salem Harbor
               Dorchester Bay
               Bass  River

     11%       Inner  Boston  Harbor
               Salem Harbor
               Boston Outer Harbor
               Bass  River
               Scituate
               Smith  Cove (Gloucester)
     1%        Spectacle  Island
    0.50%      Deer Island
    7.60%      Inner Boston Harbor
               Deer Island
               Spectacle  Island
               Dorchester Bay
               MWRA Outfall site
                                n=the number of samples in the database in  which a given contaminant was measured
                                ppm=parts  per  million dry weight
                                OC=organic carbon

-------
                                       I0stoa  Harbor lisct
   Boston Harbor,  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Cape
   Cod  Bay with  sampling  sites  indicated
                 37
M«llf 1
HA l*|l*l I, Vtltl •tttftattl Hfltltt
•ititckiitttt Itjt ftt|tia • Otltktr.

-------
J*tl« <|

-------
lid '
•ultij
             VII
                                   I IlltU
put
         $ sAeg  poo
         uojsog  u|
                  put
                  ^ 1°

-------
   Legend

   B  » or .  41.1 ppa-oc
   S  » or •  12 *»d  <41.1 ppa-o
   H  »12 ppn-oc
   Notes:
                                      lostoi Harbor  liset
   41.1 f»-»» . ir* ituti*
   II  >«< • *MkU|IM lltl* Ctltttli
   Distribution  off Total PCB's  in  B o s t o nr o r
   and Massachusetts  and Cape Cod  Bays  Sediments
   Normalized  to  Total  Organic  Carbon with
   Sediment Quality  Criteria  Violations  Indicated
riant 4
              40
IfA l»|l*i I, *«t*r Mti»f«B*tl tlvlti**
           rr»|tta - OcUktr, 1**1

-------
   Legend
   B  >or • 1143 pp«-oc
   GO ..» or • fl lid i1ti3 pp»-o
   ID  «t* ppa-oc
                                           los to* Harbor Iiset
   till »»•••« • I** Uliil* telltflt
   • I »»••«« . •ltkll|l*> Ittlt tH««ll«
   Distribut ion  of  Phenanthrene  in  Boston  Harbor
   and  Massachusetts  and  Cape Cod  Bays  Sedinents  with
   Sedinent  Quality  Criteria  Violations  Indicated
ricni i
                41
       I, *tt«r
Hittt«ki»«ltt lift
                                                • Ocltkcr,

-------
   Legend
   B  » or •  112  ppa-oc
   S  . or .  ill  aid <1I2 pp«-o
   El  <1II ppa-oc          —
                                        loitoa  Harbor liset
                                              ^	^
   Distribution  of Benzoapyrene in Boston  Harbor and
   Massachusetts  and Cape  Cod  Bays Sediments  with
   Sediment  Quality Criteria  Violations  Indicated
FICIII I
              42
*tl«r Mit
-------
APPENDIX - MICROSOFT EXCEL DATABASE

Explanation  of  Database

      The database is  in Microsoft Excel  version 2.2 and is available
to those who would like a copy.
      Each row in the database contains a single sample entry.  For
ease  in using this database,  new and unique  identification numbers
have  been assigned to  each sample entry  and appear in column A-
Sample numbers  and identifiers  assigned by the original
investigators  have been  retained.
      Columns A through £G_ are identical for every sample in the
database. The parameters we chose to record  in the database
include location information,  sediment chemistry  data,
concentrations  of contaminants, and quality assurance/control
information.   Several columns beyond CG contain parameters
measured only by one  or  a few  investigators and are  not identical
throughout the database.
      Where  blanks occur in the database, the parameter was either
not measured or  not recorded by the original  investigator.
      A supplemental file was scanned into the database from
Battelle (1987a,b), Gardner (1986),  and NOAA/NEMP (1983).   This
portion of the database does  not contain  complete  records, QA/QC
information is missing,  and of the PAH's  measured in these original
reports, only  benzo[a]pyrene and phenanthrene  values  were entered in
our database.
                              43

-------

-------

-------
88|8|g|g|g|g|g|g|gl8l8lg|g|gl*

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------
«9
_LL
TT
it
_u
("
it
-Al-
oE
Lid
40
Li!_l
LuJ
l_i«J
hH
19


-IL

67

»•
60

61


6S
•,L
67
61
•o
-it
71
72
'»
70
7f
77
70
'•
At

-JJ-
_ii.

.1.'.

.li
61
61
•«
66
•7
•0

109
101
10}
101

P II A* PC* 1204 ONLY:
""*
NO Cd.C«.P»,HD; 010.7.2.0. OS Mn
P NO P».PC>: OL 2 «, 01 :
P NO PCI: OL. 01 MM:
P NO PCI: OL 0.2 MM 12001: NA A4.M.Zn>
NO PCI.OOO: OL 0212*01.1 W. NA A.AI.Z

II C..PO.W.PCI
P NO Cd.P»: OL 2 0 2 .1: NA PCI
P NO Cd.Pe.NJ; OL 2.21 ». NA PCI
NO Cd: OL 0.4 MID: NA AtM.In.PCI
P NO Cd: OL 07 MmttA AiM.2n.PCI






NOPCi.O»0;DL 01.42MM
NO PC*: OL .01 Mm: II P»






NDCd.OOOiOL.32.4Mm


NDCd: OL 20 nm
NDC4tOLO3MM
II Pk

P Ml A4
P II Zn
NO CdM.000: OL J7..00.ZOO:NA 2H.PC*
NO Cd.0*0: OL 37.200 MUVNA Zn.PCO
NAZuPCI
NO C4O, PL iOOjtm NA InfG*

P NO Cd: OL 02 Mm- NA A4M.Zn PCI
P NOCd: OL 07 Mm: NA A4M .Zn.PCI
P NO PCI-OL no*"""- IIA4.Cd.OOO-
P NO PCI: II A4.Cd.Main.WX (OL:

P NO Ha: OL OOOMm:NA OflAM SIZE
II PCI: NAM. (MAM SIZE
II At,Zn: NA M OfUIN SIZE
II A4.P».PCI: NAM. OMAINSIZE
NO Cd- OL O.SMm- NA M OMA04 SIZE
P NA At.Nl.Zn.PCI
P NO Cd-OL 0 *Mm: NA At/0,Zn,PCI
NDCd HaM- NA PCI
NDCd.HO.M
NDCdMNAPCI
NDCd,Hl
ND Cd HaM- NA PCI
NOCdcNAPCI
























































— S —











































j











*
2'OPO
00"
2450
2.7M
POOP
15000
POOP
7SOOO
1 OOOO
oooo
oooo
20000
31 OM
4200
20000
OOOO
75*0
«'M
1440
0 000
0 000
4540
13 MO
1 100
1 300
OOOO
0 000
3 200
2000
4000
4 700
4(00
4 400
4 100
a (M
5 700
S 100
4(00
32M
4 200
5700
4 400
4 300
3 700
3 400
3 (00
4 1001
57 MO
0 000.
51 000'
16 000
0 4*0 )
8 2301
6 940
4 740;
0 000
0 000
0 000'
1 1 1 5001
4 000
•00
400
3 000'
3: 000!
1 000!
000!
0001
0001
500|
900 {
900!
500:
•00<
'300
1 440
	 LSOO
0900
P«OO
3»PP
"PP
I 000
1 400
o.soo
0.3*0
4500
0*40
0200
0 100
1 '-1001
0 700
4 400
3210
S520
3900
2 ISO
4 570
2000
2000
0400
0 070
OSSO
0 430
0400
0370
0600
0 320
0340
0 330
2 $00
o no
2 400
0690
t 100
I 000
0320
0 330
0 440
0 260
0 300
0 610
1 710
0300,
0 320
0 260
0 370'
0 370
0 &40
9 4(0
0 iSO
3 020
0 070
29 630
1 1 OOOl
2 100i
3 800 1
4 2001
2 900;
0 OSO
0 220
0 SOO
3 000
30001
3 0001
3 000
3 000
3 000
«•*»
1U400
-IM.OOO
— ?40O°
40.000
— 1222
"oooo
•0-W.
1 .
'3*70
"POOP
50 000
*0 MO
7000
24.MO
"OOPO
"oooo
'00*00
317400
"OOP
7*00
«ooo
SMO
204000
2M.MO
"PPP
300<
2 I0(
'PP-PPO
HOMO
•0000
•2.MO
110000
SMO
2. SOO
1 »-«00
7500
• MO
14 OOC

2*0400
2 100
2 100
10M(
• 100
•2000
34 MO
IS MO
13000
93000
If MO
OOOO
•40 MO
1 10 MO
$0 Mfl
70 Mfl
51 000
3* OOQ
74000
1(000
20 Mfl
35000
lOOOfl
It MO
SOO Mfl
141.010
4. Mfl
17 Mfl
(700
7 MO
147MO
17300
71 700
1 MO
14 MO
I03.MO
M.OOO
4* 000
70320
20ft. MO
27 MO
170. MO
1SO.MO
240.MO
110000
33 MO
31 000
»OOPO
40000
• t 000
40000
40000
S3 MO
191 MO
























































OMO
0-1*0
'OOP
I 000
'OOP
«»p
POOP
POOP
O.*40
1 200
0.0*0
0.000
00*0
p«»p
o*to
0"0
0.040
oooo
0.010
0.020
0340
0400
1 100
0.0*0
O'OO
Q"Q
0.140
oo«o
0.0*0
0543
	 3_430
43«
0040
o too
0520
0070
o.ioo
0200
0072
0032
0(70
0 M7
0.020
0 2*0
0 740
0410
0 SOO
0.330
0 MO
0.370
o no
0 110
0. IM
0.0*7
0 IM
0440
10.7*0
0.0*0
0 013
0023
0 074
0.2*0
0 4*2
0 173
0.040
0 070
00*0
1 3*0
1 300
1 170
0013
O.OM
1 200
0070
1 100
OOOO
0.070
0 170
O.IM
o too
0 100
O.IM
o too
0 7M
'3*00
PPM
•POOP
»ooo
12000
oooo
POOP
'7000
30040
57440
oooo
OOOO
oooo
PPOO
POOP
4.0M
HOOO
1 '7000
73M
70M
MOOO
OOOO
	 OOOO
24 100
2««M
PPOO
OOOO
OOM
" OMI
10550
42 OM
2SM
OOM
OOM1
12 OM
13000
IS 000


IS OM
IS OMI
!• OMI
24 000!
13 OMI
19 OMI
12000
14 OM
1(000
3000
3 000-
1 OM:
t 000.
3 000'
1( OM'
14500
OOOO
45 000
1 000
940
1 300
710
900
000
	 two"
0 000
*• 500
4* 130
70 100
77 000
40 000
0 000
0 000
OOOO
0 000
oooo
oooo
23000
24 000
24 000
23000
24 000
13 000










1

!





1






































-------
IM44I4 Mm

-------
                                                    W|4i
         li


         '
I
£
I
I

-------

-------
                                                             F. - .—— -x-ff -f-frr • •
                                                                  >  '.".'.  ,".".".

                                                                  I


                                                                  I
                              S R
                                              513
                                                                    111
                   15SI
     S3
    8S3
                                                 SS 2
                                                                    SS3
     CSS
                                                                                S3
                                                                             888
ill
 ji
       i
                                                                           188888
u
                                                                  ••
                                                                        "•"I"

-------

-------
i

-------
•
                                         ITT
                                               \
                                                                                             mi
,
                                                                                                 Issi
                                                                                                 essass
                                                                                                     st

-------

-------

-------
f PA-OU  WU

_!_
if



_!_
19



i«

'1


'.•.

.11

J.1L
11
?•
If
"
II
»•
»
fl
«
77
«
if
i<
f7
»«
11
<•
—»T~
KM
0.0«
00«


0.01C
001<



030C

O.IK


o.ooc

0.041

o.tia
I.OOC
IOOC
100C
10M
o.ooc
o.ooc
o.ooc
oooc
oooc
2 IOC
O.iOC
o.ooc
o.ooc
o.ooc
O.OM
0.910
o.ooc
oooc
04M
0424
04K
oooc
oooc
0010
0.010
0010
0200
0200
020C
1 OK
OIM
3130
0000
O.OM
0000
O.OM
0.070
0020
0010
OOM
0140
0010
OOlt
0010
0 110
0 IM
0.330
0020
0220
0 120
0 020
0 IM
0 IM
O.OK
O.OM
O.OM
0070
1.0M
O.OM
0003
0014
0 OM
O.OM
0 OM
OOM
OOM
OOM
OOM
OOM
0.00$
ooot

0170
0030
1 IM
0 770
2300
0320
0 OM
0000
0001
OOM
0 IM
0 OM
0030
OOM
»«"*>

"""•I
1242











































































































I2M











































































































*,«.<
1210











































































































"











































































































101











































































































r"











































































































U3











































































































13«











































































































121



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































***»























































































































































































































M^MMtof











































































































Oi«tJ»n























































































































































































































btr1





-






















































































i 	














M»i





1 	




































































































    '.g.21

-------

-------

JUtL|

Oil





, 'U

114

til
J3J.
til
til

141

241
IO

241
147

141
lit

lit
HI
114
111
til
II*
"£
Jli
110
It*
nt

114
111

117
111
111
170
171
171
171
V*

171

171
171
110
111
III
til
114
111
111
117
111
111
110
111
lit
111
114
111
til
2*7
111
211
100
101
101
101
104
101
101
107
101
301
310
111
lit
111
114
111
114
117
111
111
110
111
111
111
114
J?f
in
117
111
111
-122.














fits —




















«*gr —




















































































2S 	









































































































»»^>u




















"i"*""




















































































**•»




















*"•




















































































4.0001
00001
0.0007
00007
0.0011
0.0004
o.oooi
4.0001
4.0001
4.0001
O.OH
O.OM
0.001
0.00)
0.001
0.0021
0.0077
O.OOM
OOOM
0.0047






















0.0312
00404
0.107
0.07M
00471
00704
0 111
0.177
0 112
0.134
0.111
O.I 11

041
.301
14*
.314
.421

073
O.OMI
0.127
O.OW*
0 123
0.1
0.0*71
O.OM2
OMI
0447
05|4
( 010*
0223
(0071
0131
0144

0421
0271
07M
0.020*
0 0211
031.3


0.0321
0011
0.0241
0 0121
00113














*n*»
1142




















*»*«
1242




















































































1214




















12*4




















































































1210




















12*0




















































































il 	




















»




















































































1101 I









































































































111 j




















111




















































































1*1




















111

































































































1121 j




















121





















1
















US —




















no
























i
]


















1



I
i















1
j














***




















104








































: ; [
• ]













1 •. ;



i '




















; i
1









1



















i
































»'*




















m — |




















































































DOTi




















OOTi







































































































































































































































































































•^•H





















M^««^'









































































































Dt«Mrx









































































































«*"•







































































U»J






Lfc-





!
i


























t^*



















**»•«
1000



















BttSL















































(









(





- •













-------
.211.
Ml.
4333.
^
J1I
"1
55
Oil
411
ft
Ml
«•
**
*H
.us
>M
5s
JM
JU.
"».
-Ill
n«
[HI
»•»
^•5:
M§
.»?«,
.111
571
J7J
SI
IJTI
-Mi
1»T
iifil
171
.?•«.,
311
m
111
m
i»
in
117
?•?
JSl
Itl
. 1,M,
Oil
in
JSi.
40t
1^?,
401
-in.
401
-i£l
407
401
401
«J».
411
41J
»'?
4 4
4 f
4 1
4 7
4 1
« •
410
4J1
491
411
414
411
«?t
417
411
1 "*
43f
411
4?t
411
-Hi
411

«»*

; 440
r~3T~
»*=_






























[—"































| *J
Fiy»jgtun






























1 «<
tu»






























[— *t
»•»
• AM
0.00*1
00441
OOTM
..««"«
o.out
OOMI
««»•
OOJM
00»47
O.OJ74
00111
00114
OOMI
OOJ44
oom
«»»»'
•M*
«•««'»
00011
OOMI
»o»«
0.0177^
»«»««
OOJl^
00071
OWMll
ooottl
0.007^
00(M«J
0.007^
0.00411
0.00*7
00101
00101
000*4
0.00*1
0 0101
0.0071
o.ooa
0 0011
00071
OOWJ
0.021
00177
ooan
00301
00311
o.oiia
own
00307
00*41
00111
00241
OOMI
r«i«i






























-ML.
*»^
1141






























_JB_
A»»H»«
12*4






























_aa_
lUMttt
11**






























pq
»






























rsn
101






























«»
It*






























IPA44
~««~
111






























u •••
111






























in
~*"~
121




















1









_&2_
	
110






























_4H_
101






























_JHL_J
10*































r««i
XXTi
0001




o.ioa



1 021






ooo;



0.01
0001
o.oo;
0011
0001

0 OOi
0 001

o 02:
-«4
"»»»

1
00*i
OM1
1
0771
oua
007(
1.1
1
0.1W
00*1
O.OT:
1.M1
0**
O.M1
000



000
0.00!







0 Oft

































>*»la«la»


00.





in<
0.0*1


0011



0.011


0.371
0.0
OK
«.01
SO







DM
ooos

001-



0.231

1.TI

01*1






4.071
0.171



0.00


00»





*la»tn






























iKj
	 1
•"*""































.M»»i































-------
          u
          i
        88
                                                   !§
                                                                                                            «
                                                                                                            !
                               is
          !i
h
     .;;
•-
               ss

          1
1
J

-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.

-------
                                                                                                sc
                                                                                                          Is
                                                                                                                iSIE
                                                                                                    88
                                                                                                          88
                                                                                                                §335
                                                                                            ii
                                                                                      §§§
E
inJrLL
            1-1

-------

-------
sl
                 M
slsls
                                                         38
                                                           III
                                                       111
                                                       1 LI
                                             Ii
                                                         ii
                                                        11
                                                        ii
                                                        U

-------

-------
IPA4M <*•»»

-------
*t
SI
LIU
ty
'?»
'11
^ff
r>i7
114
EH
1t<
'If
.in.
11*
Jit
HI
Lml
i«
JJ1,


.Hi
141



.121
14*


-ill
,.','•,
,'U,
tit
'•?
"1,
i»
'Jt
117
Ml
111
110
'•'


































































*




















































»»K»*>0«












•a




















































i












	 E_




















































tl>.hHKh»iK»fi»












•«




















































na •>!(%•*•«•












	 II—




















































MMM












«<

































































•» j




















































««•












-JS_.




















































""»*^
10*>

































































o oon
930*












-------

-------
I
K
                                                                                                                                           Is]

-------

-------
                                                                               I  I I  I I  I I  I I

                 *
        i
                 o o






                 Wl
                 o *
                     s J
                  s It
i
=1
                                                                i=

-------
                                                                                            JE_
on tua-
                                                                                                   ,»di*H«lh»*
                                                                                       .li.ni.nhi.Mn. nMUMI»»
                                                                                                                              *****
-111

| 7"
I >I4
i 717
Uu
usi
^11
211

-------
togtM

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------
??
L.II
ft
lUi
1"
»
11
»*•
Jit
?»•
SI
»»?
LUI
114
ill
?M
JU
.111
»•
l»
7i?
14*
in.
»«
ju.
147
ill
«•
Tif
in
in
JU.
»4
lit
It*
-Ul
TM
Lajl
»•«
T5?
"?
UtiJ
i*i
!«
liT
»1
.US
in
ITS
?"
Oil
17*
?"
in
ill
JiO
?f
MI
,Ui
114
IK
1M
?M
tit
?•»

>M
in
?M
in
?M
117
?M
Zll



jai
304
»9»

jj£i
101
-HI
no
ill
in
Jii
J14
111
H»
n;
JII
in
ill
111
ill
111
U'
Ml
in
ill
"1

321
"
m.lK,l-
tmmmtmim
'•"•••".I-




























































«
0.1
«.M1
II NUMMV
mweoi
Tnt
O.J33
l^rrwrtJOtl
I '?!
O.M
0.17
Oil
IJ
0071
0.31
0043
0.014
Oil
o.a
OOM
0011
o.oia

on
















































— a_
1.3.1-lfl
•*»"""•""•
l.l.l-lrl




























































«»
ixaxoc
OMO
IO.MO
0.041
«a*.oc












1.741
'Ml
0.4*0
T*T*
I.M7
I. Mt
iTIO
1131

>. Ml
.Ml
1»
l.00«
O.M3
'.411
Illl
'.Ml
o.ta
'MO

Ml
.404
Ml

Ml
1*3
Ml
171
Oil
.3*1
Ml
.017
•1*
.717
Ml
.000
.Ml
.107
.111
.3*1
.Ml

M*

.111
.1*1
11*

_ju 	
o
••"•PC
O.Moi
1.111
U»»40C
11*0.117
1*3*
H7M
11 171
11.131
0000
MM3
141*
7M*
	 L*il
1 10*
3.171
1471
11.MO
<3M
• on
1171
0000
Mil

















	 B—
r>HP»oc
••**>
1.1M
BW.OC
'™T
1214.111
• 3M
"1M
172*3
172*71
0000
1171
'»•»*»
37*1
1.1(7
"»'
0133
• in
7011
1 4M
S131
S.I14
1000
0.000
11.17*












	 «
	 00011
	 0.0011
	 0.001
	 iSSl
	 IOMJ
	 IOMJ
	 &001
o»i>
0.03
	 101]
&*» »»
	 L!4
110
eiotriiMi
°-»*»
	 LI
	 103*
	 iSSl
ooot
»00»i
	 iS*i
OOM
0031
0001
0009
0011
0013
0003
0001
OOM

0047






























"
«•«•*
»»o««
»»•«
»»"
	 2A.
»**
0.01
»•»'
0.004
III U*~**~
*<*i*C*Ci>
	 ll
C1MT11111
	 «i
007)
«"77
o.oo:
••"

00*1
o.oot
<0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0003

0073











































































]
I




















aj
— ooen
— &OOJ;
— »**««
— ISOii
	 2J3
	 12.
	 Ill
«"»
	 LHZ
0.*7
	 1«I
C3MTI1MI
	 O.OJ
	 U
0.11
	 1SJ4
0001
	 .O.MI
	 101
»•*•*
rtOOl
OOM
	 0.00*
<0001
<0001
O.OM
0001
*»«
"^»~
	 1
	 as
a**"""!
I*""*'*
»•»"
'Of
»»»«
»«««
0«M
«-»M
0.001
0.011
«-»»T
«0.001
«"••*•'
"rl^lPl
«.«
	 *2
«»
O.M
0.11
»«"
oo«
*•'«
o.oa
0.11
«••»
0.001
0001
0.0*1
*.««
o.on
0.01
o.oa

0.41















































	 	
•»«
"X"
«•"
1 	 &
0.71
?'t
»»*
»•«•
»1»
••**»
O.M7
0.11
OOM
0001
o.oa
0.03
OOM
O.OM
O.OM

ox>















































	
Lml
MX**
»«4
— 11
0.11
»»y»
«»•*
««•»'
»»"
»••*«
<0001
0.01*
• «*

-------
*
4fi
»»«
#
JU
«f
-111
>.u
LUI.
Jil
Tfft
111
ill
lit
IE
.ui
ou
.MI
55
S3
HI
117
LuiJ
littl
Ml
"1
UnJ
1M
,?,".
->I»



JZ1



17t

111
.lit
"*
?ft
?f»
!••
Jf7
>i«
w
i to
'•'
•itt
;?M
JIM
?fl
1M
?»r
Hi
in
<00
111
«?l
111
401
101
•?»
407
40f
410
411
«'l
111
414

i 4M

411

III


4fl

i 4](

[417
lit
_12i
«*'.
uiU.
43i
Hlil
1111
ML
_U1
-lit










































•fn*thvl-






























































































































































=5=:















































































































































































i.j.t-ifi
••BHHMIMIII























MM
4M
M»
>UT
.141
'»»
.171
J»l
-»J 	
JIM
•»«»
J1Z 	
»Jt7
an
^HJ 	
TTl
J4J 	
JH 	
DMt
Mil
101T I
rui 1
1.0M I
1.4M I
»t«t
• 11
74|
JM
t.»4
Ml

•M
.411



.711

.Ml

.ait

041
Oil
ati
.in
in
.01)
.171
101
000
.701
111
UO
170
.Oil
241
Ml
7M
JOT
4»7
470
4M
.Oil
.Ml
.177
.441
too
.714








































































































































































































i-mss:
01
O.I

OIH









019
007
0 17
001
2
It4
j 	 2J
	 «J«
001
041
012

tl |














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































j





|












1
1


T













j —




-------
-i

-------
ff
ft
8
8
I
1
                                                                                                        =
                                                                                                             995
                                                                                                           99999
            I

-------

-------




!"77f
"7
"f

711
7*1
7»4
'•1
711
707
711
700
711
701
701
r»j

7lf
7ti
7«7
7if

•00
•91
«»
•41
• 04

• 01
• 07
•00
• 00
110
• 11

• 19
• 14
• 10
• It
• 17
• IB
Mi.
•11
-ill
-1U
JU
^
-Hi
Jill
-111
-Ui
-•21
Lilt
JUi
-lii
-ill
Oil
-111
-Ui
rfj
|7
! 17








«Wh>l-























































•MMMn*












































	 L2!
	 iSl
























































0.01





















































	 Jto
	 OJ
, 	 I*
	 2J
	 2
	 t<
	 !
	 L.






















































•Z
«*
«
*•
H
at
JH
0!
•.'








m^












































	 t»ir
««-W
»•'*»!
1 M
'370
O'M
	 MJfJ
'«*«
	 til
	 2.«
	 ti
	 oj.








1 l-lrl













































1 «-»-»•"
> 	
	
« 	






















































0*40
0714
ttti 	























































«"'
nooi
"•«'
	 tat
»i*
	 tii
__!OJ»























































1 to
• 	 H
1 	 It
• 	 til









U4IMMMV
0.11
0411










































0'0«
> 	






















































lomomMi***
4.0*3
Tii
1U2
03*4
0'


	 tooo






0.0*4












































w
..07
04H
««
*
«
4'M
MM
001
	 a

-------
8
a
a
9
a

:
         j,


                                                                            a
                                                                            !
                                                                                     a


-------

-------
f'A-Mu

-------







•w

TB~-

TB 	

"1J ~

•B—

	
	
	
J
i
	 1
f~ ~
-TSti
TiT
tu
T7TT
•nrr
TT
7TT
tii
TTF
TT77
•sir
•fnr
mr
mr
TnT
•ftoT
TToT
7i>r
wr
tiir
•iT
nrr
TTT
1 >'• i
77T
T!iT
JiT
TiT
^
It—
il.
ITT
foTT
»rr
77T
TTT
rtrr
mn
mn
MI
TIT
7J71
rnrl
TTT
ITT
•7T
RT
7TT
WT
ttT
TTl
trn
Tfil
TTT1
""M
ivr
•srn
TTT
7»T
im
77T
TR-
T»T1
T7T
WT
«rl
»rr
Tti^
nr1
s«r
TT
RT1
ITT
i5T
SIT
iTT
BTJ
JFTJ
ITT
FTP
TT
TT
TT
Fir1!
TT
TT

-------






























TS-





















































































i
























100 0»
wo>
io7~
00 0>
»0
« 0»
I'O
iotSco






13— f-
















tMO
SoTo —
100 O>
100 0»
MOO
1000
MOO
MOO
I000>
toTo"

'000*
tooo
200
fl
IwiHw






« |

















EOOO
1000
MOO
JCO'O 1
1000
WOO
1000
XIOO
i
coo
lotl)J13






T5—
















ifo —

ism
too
>oo
*o>
(joj,_
«0
~o —
oooTT
00
ntmo
iB






















(iro—
coco
1 100
1000
1100
cooT-
1100
:i o
EOOO
100
KO'O
l»
^mt
m.TW
^•1
^•1




	
—
•8S-
Otl
in
in
TH
TT
fit
IT!
in
in

CM
MC
fit
ur
TiT
oTr
•floe
lot
•or
far
TnT
7ST
me
ToT
nr
liT
nr
XT
fir
toTF
itT
wr
TiT
titT
tT
•r
ITT
K
TiT
ST1
/r
r/rr
XI
PTTI
PcTT
7T
rnr
roTT
ir
ST
7?r
ir
~TT
ii
rr
rni
mjj
r
-------
lit 1
lit I
tit I
tit i
lit i
Itt 1
Bit
lit
tit
tit
|it
fir

-------

-------

-------
1
J.
1
1
1
!_
i
i
»
A
i
i
.i
i_
"
«
IT
'•
.»«
"•»
"••
n
r
r
ia
	 * 	
Pa»*»HW
12
12
. '2!
121
1*1
13C
113
114
13!
137
111
141
	 !«•
147
ISO
151
1S9
172
112
**4T
IIS
in
119
1(2
193
194
19SIC
t»«IE
197 i
1911
199 I
200 e
202 1
203 1
2048
205 B
20118
207 B
201 B
: 	 1 — ; —
Baaaw. 19(7 a and k
Baaaaa. 1917 a and b
laaaaa. 1997 a and b
HBaaoM. 1997 a and b
BaaaM! I9a7 a and b
taaaaa. 1917 a and b
aaaaai. 1997 a and b
MJMM. 1997 a and b
taaaaa! 1917 a and b
la«K.. 1«» a and b
Sanaa. 1997 a and b
taaaaa. 1997 a and b
MOM. 1917 a and b
*•«••• '«•» • •"""5
•MM. 1917 a and b
BMOM. 1997 a and b
Sanaa! 1997 a and b
Sana.. 1997 a and b
Baaaaa. 1997 a and b
BaaaM. 1997 a and b
aaaaai. 1997 a and b
Sanaa, 1917 a and b
Baaaaa. 1997 a and b
into. 1917 a andb
Baaata. 1917 a and b
BaaaM. 1M7 a and b
BaaaM. 1917 a and b
BaaaM. 1997 a and b
BaaaM. 1997 a and b
BaaaM, 1917 a and b
BaaaM. 19(7 a and b
Buata. 19(7 a and b
Mau», 19(7 a and b
laaaM. 19(7 a and b
la«M. i((7 a and b
laaaM. 1997 a and b
iaaaM. 1997 a and b
laaaM. 1917 a and b
laaaM. 1917 a and b
laaaM 1W7 a and b
laaaM. 1M7 a and b
laaaM. 1917 a and b
laaaM. 1M7 a and b
laaaM, 19*7 a and b
laoiM 1917 a and b
laaaM. 1 9(7 a and b
laaaM. 1917 a and b
laaaM 19*7 a and b
laaaM 19(7 a and b
laaaM. 1997 a and b
laaaM. 1997 a and b
«aaM, 19(7 a and b
•BOM, 19(7 a and b
•outo. 19(7 a and b Is
1 •
STFP am* MB*
;ig«^«« *•"•, —
ITFP outfall aiana
STFP outfall uana
[STFP outfall Mna
STFP outM! aiana
STFP outfall aiana
tTFP outfall Dana
STFP oulMI uana
STFP auKM uana
ITFP outfall aiana
ITFP outfa* alana
iTFP oullall uana
TFP outfall aiana
STFP oullall aiana
STFP outfall liana
TFP ounall uane
TFP outfall aiana
TFP outfall uana
TFP outfall aiana
TFP OUIMI uana
TFP anno* Mna
TFP outfox Mna
TFP outfall aiana
STFP outfall aiana
STFP outfall alana
STFP outfall anna
STFP outfall Mna
STFP outfall aiana
STFP outfall uana
$TFP outfall uana
»TFP outfaa uana
ITFP outfal uana
>TFP outiaH uang
ITFP outfaa Mna
ITFP omlaa Mna
ITFP outfall uana
ITFP auttui uana
ITFP autlM uana |<
ITFP outtui uana
STFP outf.il uana
STFP outfUl uana
ITFP outfall uang
(TFP ouriui uana
ITFP outlaw uana
iTFP autfUl uana
>TFP ouMm uane
ITFP outfall Mna
>TFP outtaK uana
ITFP outtM «na
TFP outtui along
TFP outton Mne f
tTFP outfall Mna If;
TFP outfaN aiona I
TFP outiui uana If
*'•"
*«»'»
A1S1J
*«*"
A2B12
*««»
A3B11
\»ia
•'an
i2bll
03611
a»1J
rtaii
«»'»
«»"
«»»"
«»»'»
'»'»
">«»
»*"
4012
4btl
"»»'
022
»»'
2b22
2b21
»»'
»« I
'Ml
«•»
"»«
MM'
»»'
•»»
M<
»»
12021 |
•»'
021
»«
o»» i
I2b21
a»»
nb2i I
13021
»»
11021 1
M»
ib2i 1
b2l
'»»»
2b23 |
Ib21
*»" '
«»««
4223.1
4222.96
«»»»»»
	 **«-ty
4223.2(1
«»«»»
4222.92
	 4220.244
4220 521
4220.521
4222.191
4222. ISi
4223.328
4222.9S
	 ««».(*'
4223 311
«2i ua[
4224 0741
4224 015
4224 Ol|
422374
4223 73
4223 714
4223 391
4221 437
42 20.21 9|
4220 113
4219129
4219(09
4220.531
7053.91
70S3.SK
7093.11
MB*.**
70*1.444
^««»
70S2.M
70(1.93
7080394
70S0.39
7050.211
705022;
7053*21
7051.195
7051.474
^<»»'»«
7050.213
7041*91
7°«»»^
	 *>««.«*
7041 139
7041 947
7041 9*»
7041 452
7
-------

-------
88
88
                                                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                                                       i

-------
HI 0
PS
r"°
li«re 1
ICO
HO 	





100
100

00

CO'O
100
too
ico'b
too
noo
100
too
so'o
Cl 0
zoo
too
900
(00
10
iOO
00
00
{00
ore
II 0
iro
coo
010
•00
• 10
:tl'
>OE
tov
>to
•0
Itt
ilE
III
[•t
ItO
1

















































M

















































A
etE 	
Tt 	


i\













































n

















































X

















































- •








• >




Hi
iE't
;o?i

» t
il t
It'S
l» t
M'CI
IC'tt
It It
IO'(I
It IZ
U'tr
wt»
It OS
U.'tl
rc'tz
rt IE
it n
it it
Wff
not
rt it
rC'*«
» IS
MZ
10'S
I^'EI
KOI
n't
IS
tort
1C
t»-»t
IZ'EI
»

















































e

















































4

















































o

















































N

















































PI
tso
«T5 	
E»TE 	
ttTT 	
ml 	
ZFo 	
an










tc o


tE 0

M 0
90 0
Et 0
El 0
•t 0
EC 0
K 0
It 0
91 0
V£ 0
10
1C 0
to
rt'o
M'O
ti 0
no
rto
wo
M'O
•C'O
IE'0
IfO
•1 0
EZ'O
ic o
11 0
C9 0
It 0

">
TT
TT
—

tTT

MI







lit
1C I


'*'
>lt
CC 1
EEI
ill
1*1
Itt
• il
Li 1
til
Hi
tii
Cil
til
ill
til
191
'•
Ml
1*1
Iti
>tl
ttt
It I
itl
191
•1
91
*«
•<
it



-------

-------
IMl
• 4
ff
••
It*
*•!
l«»
191
111
IU
114
111
ltt
Us
TM
!»
rn
MI
ta»
77!
14»
14.
l,!«l
"I
1M
111
"•
h.oj
b»J
!•»
••
•'
••
170
"TST
— ttl
_ — ass
17.2.
13.11
JO 14
33.M
S2.lt
	 24.1!
M.17
31.1t
10.7*
31 .4*
M.OS
t.72
21. M
4122
It!
21.27
2313
23.1*
2255
2121
55155
31.42
44 11
112.
20 2«
SIM
304S
40.3
67 IS
».4«
_ 	 UJ
17.11
I.H
42.
'«*«
l.«
11 M
12.M
1S.M
11.33
31.1
431
	 1*1
	 1114
4.51
771
4.71
4.0t
3.1*
t.ll
7.72
10.143
1.741
11.14
7472
U.WI
II.MI
1.122
1.0711
_..„ , '*•»»
'»


	 21 	
	 121
»"»
1.745
	 SM
=•
	 11
3.31
	 &M
It
M«*
i*,»7
*««
	 1107
"-»
25.32
| 	 ZZJS
Mill
I 	 aa
iTii
21.11
»o««
27.41
	 MJ
	 M.M
»«»»
»««
	 Jta
	 »ii
22.M
'«»'
«*.M
33.17
'•«•
"0*
y
"•«
15 	
"W
120.M
	 ZiS
"•«
52.121
<*•'•
»«'»
'»o«
»
4.71
121
'T»«
10
»'•»
11.1*
	 32J|
	 4S__

	 «•
«'*«
0.201
»"•
0.1M
0.119
	 SJH
«"
o»»»
	 «JK
0.077
«"»•
0.117
o»««
»B»*
«»»«
3 	
0.173
'»*»
O.OM
°»'»
1 ^
	 &*j
	 U*
	 ill
	 U«
I.M
»«
7M
4.77
	 LS*
.11
	 su
1.71
	 !i«2
	 1*
	 i«a
	 iSZ
	 L*
S.I
	 Mj
	 US
	 3.71
">"
S.02J
	 LS2
i.ilj
	 1«»
5.131
	 L!»
'»«»
"«»
'»«
1..3
	 ZJSS
1.242
N
*"
24.SI
»•*«
	 iSi
«»««
	 1»
— «a

	 Ml__

	 fti 	

	 4i 	
• 14.27
1.79
10.1
2..W
32.14
14.11
	 Sill
"««
M«*
10.32
U.71
13.M
«^»«
12
14.15
	 ««
13 1<
20.0!
21.1
31.1!
40.'
23.11
	 !1S!
»M
»«>
zn
7S4J
	 SLM
M.12
^M
«*M
»«•«
»
	 1»>
»»»
"•

-------
i * fM dm «M< 0*1

11
'»
TT
»»
'•
T*
??
?'
*'
u*.
»1
»«
M^
SI
L>jJ
11
.*»
,?..•
»•
"
.?•
«•
LiiJ

««

.«!

47
«•
41
LuJ

H
Si

"

IT.
SI
••


>»

LI

••
17
• •
L£
'0
''
•a
73

7S


•
•
10
1
I
9
4
1
•
17
•
1*
•
1
»
i
	 *L
TTW5
- ««a
0.03
0004
5!o"
O.OM
o.o»

0.02

>*
*

o.«
0.02









0.001



0.001
0.02:
0001



0.001

0.001


0.001



0031
0.02!


0.007
0.01 1
nd
0.019
0.021
0.001
0.001
0.009




t
0.003
0.012
0.00*
0.001
0.00*
0.024
0002
0.003
0002
0.002
0005
0.004
0.003
0005
0.000
Ml ..





































































1 	 ' 	





































































— ffi_





































































— it —





































































•a





































































	 ««

























































j











*•





































































*T





































































	 *"





































































*»





































































*•












































































































































-------
WA dm MX tm
it
£
£1
*•
1M
121
1*1
H,
b«rJ
LM


"J
Ml
Ml
Ml

111
L!
in
L J
UJ
Mi
U4.
IIS

'?T
in
lit
in
'.M
131
111
114
111
11»
117
111
111
141
141
141
14J
144
141
141
14T
141
141
1>l
111
111
1IJ
114
111
111
117
III
111
1*1
1(1
1*1
1(9
1(4
1*1
1*1
111
1 *l
1*1
171
»*•
OOOJ
O.OM
1 0.0311
0.031
0.004
000*
1 00311
0.014

0.007
0.00*




0.014
O.OS2

0.021
0.019
0.001
0.000
0.021
0.047
0.017
0.014
0.01*
0.017
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.004
000«
0.01
0.012
ooia































— m —


































































*N


































































- |


































































•»


































































"~~*5 I


































































*»































































" 1































































i


— il —


































































*"


































































*»


































































*»


































































— *»



































































-------
i  to f M
_1_
LJL.
(_!_
..!_
_•_

JJ.
"



LiiJ
?•
Ji
.11

ii

?•

ii
-£JL

21
it
>f
»«
it
,ft
ST

t
. 1

1
»
4
I
t
7
. t
f
t
11
»?
«»
14
II
1*
J7
(1
«•
tt
11
'»
tl
•«
II
t«
>'
tt
>•
Tt
ri
M
71
'«
T»
»•
77
T«
*•
It
It
II
»
14
II
••
17
II
If
>•
•1
It
JLJ.
•»




















































































M




















































































M



















































,





















I










	 •
























.



























































«? 	




















































































- •




















































































I •




















































































| 	 5 	




















































































	 H__




















































































*




















































































	 U—








































'











































*» 1




















































































«





















































































-------

-------
>• IM
_1_
.J
n
tT
i«.
.3.1
11
J?
m
UiJ

01


4 1
41
44

41
44
47
4t
4V
>•


Li
14

I*
LL
1 •
!•
l*
1 1

•a
84

it
IT
4C

7t
1
^
73
'4
71
•
77
•
•
•
1
2
^
«
If
•
17
•
•
•
1
f

0.0*
OM
000
04(3
0 43»
0.12!










0 001

fl
0 004
0.014

0 001


0. 141
0.001
0.004

0 Oil
0 033
0 031
0 321
OMI
0.432


0.347
O.OtJ
0.121
0079
0 1ft]

0171
0.04
0 041
0.043
0 1S1
0.147
01*7
0
o
0
00*2
002
0043
003*
0 14
00*4







	 2
- *•




















































































»




































































































i
















































































































































i






















i

















i
i











































































































































































































































































































































































































-------
s
I

-------
IOWA I


JL
J.

•


J_
11
11

11
U
"
"
u.
If
u
»«
11
If
''





I
»
i;,
»<
1?
11
»•
it
!„',
»•
»•
«•
in
41
11
««
•«»
«•
«'
Af
«•
!1
11
>*
>»
14
1»
14
'»
11
>f
>•
11
LI.
S3.
14
'•
'•
'»
'•
LI
'0
'l
'?
'»
'«
11
'•
TT
±
't
I*
11
'»
l»
l«
If
I*
IT
'•„
'•
'•
''
»
±
	 ir 	




























































































	 B 	





























































































































































































0 M
e.ia


o.oa
o.oa
0.04
0.01!
O.Oi
O.M
O.I«
O.MV
o.7i
0.541
O.MI
O.MI
0.01'
o.«
o.ai:

O.ttl
0.01
0.01
00*
0.1*
O.lti
O.tM
0.001
(
0.001
0.141
o.on
0.104
0.1«
0.071
O.OM
0.001
«
0.001
O.OOj
0.001
O.OM
0011
0.034
0.003
O.OM
O.OM
0.1*4
0.004
0.004
O.OM
O.OM
0.041
O.OM
o.4oe
0.239
0.4M
O.MI
0.241
0.3M
O.OM
0.171
O.OM
0.141
0.1M
0.13J
0.0*1
0.047
O.OM
0.11
0.211
0.1M
0
o
e
O.OM

0.071
0.03)
0.1M
0061
0001
0
0.001
0.003
0.001
0
0.003
0003
	 ee —

















































































•







•































































































	 5 	



3 ft
1.4

1.41
4.4
4.C
0.01

o.w
4.01
t.41
0.21
(.21
SOI
2.M
5.75
O.M
3.11
3.M

*.H


0.04
2 IS
2.M
2.M
1.4J

2.M
1.M
O.M
4.M
2 04
2.M
1.M

4.M
S.M
1.41
44 M
3.39
I.M
4 S3
3.39

2.M
3 13
11. 43
2.27
7.M
3.33
1.72
Sit
15 W
2 00
S.M
4.11
4.01
4.21
2.12
3.M
5.24

1M
2.M
1 M
12S
1 M


000
1000

7 JO
1 IS
034
220
ISO
1 20
007
420
3.33
2.22
7.14
447
5.00
4.17
600




tt 0;
10.*

39.01
10.01
11.0'
o.o:

I7.1i
Ta.i:
to.o
72.0.
12*1.01
M.*j
40.7.
13*.*
24.01
Tt.*
10.01

32.04
10.M
10.04
f.1!
17.41
20.fi
Ufi
0 0(
0.01
0.0(
tt(
O.Oi
24.4i
4S 21
10.*4
21 .M
40(
0.0(
1.0J
1.01
O.OC
0.01
3.11
12.M
S.0«
0.41
1S.OC
10 23
7.14
1.03
2.M
5.49
S.ll
22.04
273.39
20 70
78.71
71.11
5444
40.S7
10.04
00.33
34.21
10 f7
1704
2O.t9
0.71
OM
11 04
1§.57
30.03
2403
0.00
0.00
0.00
S.M
1 27
12. Jl
1200
74»
21.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
000




fr"n*°6
24 1'
1f.«


17.3!
0.3!
13. f

24.21
07 0'
00 71
00 IH
160J1
SO.*
40.4!
3*2.01
12. li
10004
17 M

24.01
12.fi
20.01
7.M
10. 7!
25.71
10.24
1 4i
0 0(
2.K
17.31
12.41
24.11
110 SI
27.14
21 21
0 M
0 M
1.01
3.39
2M
0.01
2.M
12.M

11.M
13.M
20 M
5.71
1.02
O.M
7.M
7 00
21.11
337.M
24 02
44 M
100.03
45.09
47.71
10.M
03.M
32.M
11.22
16.17
15.03
4 1C
0.71
10 01
1544
52.20
16.27
0.00
0.00
O.M
0.27
2.0)
21.4)
13.71
0.24
17.00
1.43
0.00
111
4.21
1.07
'0.00
2. SO
200

-------
i
£
                                                                                              I-
                                                                                                    ;

                                                                                                    t

                                                                                                    I

                                                                                                    S

-------