&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA905-R96-010
March 1996
Assessment and
Remediation
of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENTS INTHE
SAGINAW RIVER AREA OF CONCERN
(§> United States Areas of Concern
• ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
-------
ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS (ARCS)
Assessment of Sediments in the
Saginaw River Area of Concern
SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
303 East Wacker Drive
Suite 320
Chicago, Illinois 60601
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0030, Work Assignment No. 1-48
SAIC Project No. 01-0833-07-1193-000
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview of the ARCS Program 1
1.2 Overview of the Saginaw River Area of Concern 3
1.3 Purpose and Organization of the Report 3
2. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY . . 6
2.1 Collecting and Processing Sediment Samples 7
2.1.1 Sampling Vessel 7
2.1.2 Grab Samples 7
2.1.3 Core Samples 8
2.1.4 Core Documentation 8
2.2 Characterizing Sediment by Remote Sensing 8
2.2.1 Geophysical Survey Design 9
2.3 Collecting, Storing and Handling Sediment Samples for Chemical Analyses and
Bioassays 9
2.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 12
3. RESULTS 14
3.1 Introduction 14
3.2 Availability of Sediment Quality Guidelines 17
3.2.1 Background on EPA EqP-Based Criteria 17
3.2.2 Background on NOAA Status and Trends Guidelines 19
3.3 Analysis of Chemical-Specific Data 23
3.3.1 Explanation of Data Presentation 24
3.3.2 Analysis by Chemical Parameter 26
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter 45
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location 47
4. CONCLUSIONS 120
4.1 Metals 120
4.2 Organic Chemicals 120
5. REFERENCES 121
APPENDIX A: SAGINAW RIVER ARCS SEDIMENT DATA TABLES A-l
APPENDIX B: SAGINAW RIVER ARCS RAW SEDIMENT DATA MAPS B-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1
FIGURE 1.2
FIGURE 3.1
FIGURE 3.2
FIGURE 3.3
FIGURE 3.4
FIGURE 3.5
FIGURE 3.6
FIGURE 3.7a
FIGURE 3.7b
FIGURE 3.8a
FIGURE 3.8b
FIGURE 3.8c
FIGURE 3.8d
FIGURE 3.9a
FIGURE 3.9b
FIGURE 3.9c
FIGURE 3.9d
FIGURE 3.lOa
FIGURE 3.lOb
FIGURE 3. lOc
FIGURE 3.lOd
FIGURE 3.1 la
FIGURE 3.lib
FIGURE 3.lie
FIGURE 3.lid
FIGURE 3.12a
FIGURE 3.12b
FIGURE 3.13a
FIGURE 3.13b
Page
ARCS PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION AREAS 2
SAGINAW RIVER AREA OF CONCERN •••••• ^
SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 AND 3 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 15
SAGINAW RIVER LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 2
SAMPLE LOCATIONS 16
SAGINAW RIVER LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 3
SAMPLE LOCATIONS 18
SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 AND 3 CHART NUMBER CROSS
REFERENCE 27
SAGINAW RIVER LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 2
CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE 28
SAGINAW RIVER LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 3
CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE 29
SURVEY 1 ARSENIC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 61
SURVEY 3 ARSENIC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 62
SURVEY 1 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 63
SURVEY 3 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 64
LLRS 2 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 65
LLRS 3 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 66
SURVEY 1 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 67
SURVEY 3 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 68
LLRS 2 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 69
LLRS 3 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 70
SURVEY 1 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 71
SURVEY 3 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 72
LLRS 2 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES .... 73
LLRS 3 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 74
SURVEY 1 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES ... 75
SURVEY 3 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES ... 76
LLRS 2 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 77
LLRS 3 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 78
SURVEY 1 MERCURY CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 79
SURVEY 3 MERCURY CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 80
SURVEY 1 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 81
SURVEY 3 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 82
n
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
FIGURE 3.13c
FIGURE 3.13d
FIGURE 3.14a
FIGURE 3.14b
FIGURE 3.15a
FIGURE 3.15b
FIGURE 3.15c
FIGURE 3.15d
FIGURE 3.16a
FIGURE 3.16b
FIGURE 3.17a
FIGURE 3.17b
FIGURE 3.18a
FIGURE 3.18b
FIGURE 3.19a
FIGURE 3.19b
FIGURE 3.20a
FIGURE 3.20b
FIGURE 3.20c
FIGURE 3.20d
FIGURE 3.21a
FIGURE 3.2Ib
FIGURE 3.22a
FIGURE 3.22b
FIGURE 3.23a
FIGURE 3.23b
FIGURE 3.24a
Page
. 83
. 84
. 85
. 86
. 87
. 88
LLRS 2 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . .
LLRS 3 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . .
SURVEY 1 SILVER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES
SURVEY 3 SILVER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES
SURVEY 1 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . .
SURVEY 3 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . .
LLRS 2 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 89
LLRS 3 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 90
SURVEY 1 ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 91
SURVEY 3 ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 92
SURVEY 1 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 93
SURVEY 3 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 94
SURVEY 1 BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 95
SURVEY 3 BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 96
SURVEY 1 CHRYSENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 97
SURVEY 3 CHRYSENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 98
SURVEY 1 FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 99
SURVEY 3 FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 100
SURVEY 1 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED FLUORANTHENE
CONCENTRATION VS. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 101
SURVEY 3 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED FLUORANTHENE
CONCENTRATION VS. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA .... 102
SURVEY 1 FLUORENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 103
SURVEY 3 FLUORENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 104
SURVEY 1 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS.
NOAA GUIDELINES 105
SURVEY 3 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS.
NOAA GUIDELINES 106
SURVEY 1 NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 107
SURVEY 3 NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 108
SURVEY 1 PHENANTHRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 109
in
-------
FIGURE 3.24b
FIGURE 3.24c
FIGURE 3.24d
FIGURE 3.25a
FIGURE 3.25b
FIGURE 3.26a
FIGURE 3.26b
FIGURE 3.26c
FIGURE 3.26d
FIGURE 3.27
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Page
SURVEY 3 PHENANTHRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 110
SURVEY 1 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED PHENANTHRENE
CONCENTRATION VS. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 111
SURVEY 3 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED PHENANTHRENE
CONCENTRATION VS. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 112
SURVEY 1 PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 113
SURVEY 3 PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 114
SURVEY 1 PCB CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 115
SURVEY 3 PCB CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 116
LLRS 2 PCB CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 117
LLRS 3 PCB CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 118
SURVEY 1 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED DIELDRIN
CONCENTRATION VS. EPA SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 119
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES 20
TABLE 3.2 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEYS - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES 25
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS IN SURVEYS 1 AND 3 45
TABLE 3.4 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS IN LLRS 2 AND 3 47
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 1 48
TABLE 3.6 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 3 49
TABLE 3.7 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - LLRS 2 50
TABLE 3.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - LLRS 3 51
TABLE 3.9 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS
AND ORGANICS 54
TABLE 3.10a SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR METALS ... 55
TABLE3.10b SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR
ORGANICS 56
TABLE 3.11 LLRS 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS 57
TABLE 3.12 LLRS 3 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANK FOR METALS 59
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the ARCS Program
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, in Section 188(c)(3), authorized the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to coordinate
and conduct a 5-year study and demonstration project relating to the control and removal of toxic
pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five
areas were specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in locating and conducting
demonstration projects: Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River,
Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York (see Figure 1.1). In response, GLNPO
undertook the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. ARCS was
an integrated program for the development and testing of assessment and remedial action alternatives for
contaminated sediments. Information from the ARCS Program activities is used to guide the development
of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs, as identified by the
International Joint Commission), as well as Lakewide Management Plans.
Although GLNPO is responsible for administering the ARCS Program, it is a multi-organization
endeavor. Other participants in the ARCS program include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), EPA headquarters offices, EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, Great Lakes State Agencies, numerous
universities, and public interest groups.
The Management Advisory Committee provides overall advice on A1CS Program activities. The
Management Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from the organizations noted above.
Three technical Work Groups identify and prioritize tasks to be accomplished in their areas of expertise.
These are the Toxicity/Chemistry, Risk Assessment/Modeling, and the Engineering/Technology Work
Groups. The Communication/Liaison Work Group oversees technology transfer, public information, and
public participation activities. The Activities Integration Committee coordinates the technical aspects of
the work groups' activities.
The overall objectives of the ARCS Program are:
• To assess the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes
Areas of Concern;
• To evaluate and demonstrate remedial options, including removal, immobilization and
advanced treatment technologies, as well as the "no action" alternatives; and
• To provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment problems and the
selection and implementation of necessary remedial actions in the Areas of Concern and
other locations in the Great Lakes.
Page 1
-------
Figure 1.1 ARCS Program Demonstration Areas
Saginaw River, Ml
Sheboygan Harbor, Wl
Buffalo River, NY
Ashtabula River, OH
Indiana Harbor, IN
CO
i
>
B
I
I
S
o
Ł
•o
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 1
The primary aim of the ARCS Program is to develop guidelines that can be used at sites
throughout the Great Lakes. Another goal of the ARCS Program is to develop and demonstrate sediment
remediation procedures that are scientifically sound, and technologically and economically practical. The
intent is to provide the environmental manager with methods for making cost-effective, environmentally
sound decisions. As a result, application of existing techniques is stressed over basic research into new
ones.
It is important to stress that the ARCS Program is not a cleanup program, and will not solve the
contaminated sediment problems at the five priority consideration areas. The Program will, however,
provide valuable experience, methods, and guidance that could be used by other programs to actually
solve the identified problems.
There are several important aspects of the management of contaminated sediments that will not
be fully addressed by the ARCS Program. Regulatory requirements and socioeconomic factors in
decision-making are two such aspects that will be critical in the choice of a remedial alternative (or
whether to remediate at all). While not addressing such issues in depth, the ARCS Program will identify
issues that need to be resolved before sediment cleanups can go forward.
1.2 Overview of the Saginaw River Area of Concern
This report will focus on the Saginaw River Area of Concern (see Figure 1.2). The Saginaw
River receives discharges from 87 industrial facilities and from 127 wastewater treatment plants, including
the cities of Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland. Historic eutrophicat.on and toxic materials have
created degraded conditions in the Saginaw River and Bay areas, and fish >,onsumption advisories have
been issued based on elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in fish tissues. Other
pollutants of concern found hi fish tissue include hexachlorobenzene, furans and dioxins, diphenylethers,
styrenes, and terphenyls.
Sediment contamination has been suspected for some time as a major factor contributing to the
degraded conditions in die Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay. Contaminants in the sediments include toxic
metals, PCBs, polybromated biphenyls, and DDT; the most highly polluted areas are located around
Saginaw and Bay City. Sediment contamination has been found both in surficial and deep sediments.
Sediment contamination is one of the reasons for the selection of the Saginaw River and bay area as one
of the AOCs by the International Joint Commission.
1.3 Purpose and Organization of the Report
The purpose of this report is to summarize and analyze the existing ARCS sediment data from
the Saginaw River Area of Concern (AOC), in order to aid conclusions regarding the nature and extent
of sediment contamination within the AOC. The report brings together data from four sampling surveys
that have not been provided hi a single source or in comparable formats.
Page 3
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 1
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
Bay City
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Figure 1.2 Saginaw River
Area of Concern
James Clements
Airport
\
N
Page 4
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 1
The Saginaw River sediments were sampled and analyzed for ARCS in four surveys: Survey 1
(December 1989) covered seven of the twelve Masters Stations in the affected part of the river basin;
Survey 2 (May 1990), performed by the Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS), included indicator assays
of core samples along the whole river section; Survey 3 (June 1990) included core and grab samples taken
at seven of the 12 Masters Stations; and the LLRS Survey 3 (June 1990) included indicator assays of core
samples in an intensive area of the Saginaw River near the Bay City Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This report uses sediment quality guidelines and criteria to analyze the relative impact of sediment
contamination and does not attempt to analyze or present actual biological impact data. The sediment
guidelines may not be robust measures of the absolute impact of sediment contamination but they provide
a good relative measure for the probability for impacts. The guidelines and criteria that are used in this
report are discussed in detail hi Chapter 3.
Chapter 2 of this report provides a complete description of the sampling and analytical methods
used in the collection and analysis of sediment samples from the Saginaw River. The text of Chapter
2 draws heavily from documents produced by the ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Workgroup.
Chapter 3 contains the summary and analysis of the data from the four sampling surveys. The
data are analyzed both by chemical and by location. A complete description of the guidelines and criteria
used for the analysis is presented in this chapter as well.
Chapter 4 presents the general conclusions which can be drawn from the results of the analysis.
PageS
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
2. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the methodologies used to sample and analyze the sediments hi the
Saginaw River area of concern (AOC). The methodology is discussed only to allow for an understanding
of the nature of the samples used to generate the data presented hi this report. The majority of the
material in this chapter was taken from the report entitled ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Sediment
Assessment Guidance Document (Filkins, et.al. 1993). The methodologies have been edited from this
reference for the purposes of presenting only the highlights of the sampling methodology. More detailed
information can be found hi die original report.
Assessment of sediment quality must begin by locating deposits of polluted sediments and by
collecting representative samples of them. The overall quality of the assessment depends on this, since
investigations based on non-representative samples should not be used to support any decision-making
processes.
In general, contaminants tend to be associated more with silty sediments of high organic content
than with clay or sand. Silts originate in part from suspended organic particles that absorb various
contaminants from the water column. Once they settle and are buried over time by newer sediments, the
original link with pollutant sources and water quality hi general may be broken.
Waters and sediments of each harbor in the Great Lakes possess a unique mosaic of chemical and
physical characteristics that reflects the sum of all its historic, anthropogenic alterations. These mosaics
of chemical and physical characteristics are sufficiently complex that conducting even a general inventory
is very difficult. Complete accounts of historic waste compositions, treatment and disposal practices are
seldom available. Changing industrial locations can sometimes be mapped, but provide little information
on waste disposal practices. Almost no prior surveys of contaminated sediments include the third
dimension of depth, since collecting long cores has been difficult until recently. Consequently, studies
of contaminated sediments usually involve a limited number of chemical and lexicological assays
performed on surficial samples. These conventional assays are usually expensive, time-consuming and
require relatively large volumes of material.
In most urban-industrial harbors, like those studied hi the ARCS Program, contaminant
distribution in sediments may be highly variable and "patchy". In shipping channels or wherever
navigational dredging occurs regularly, deposits of polluted sediments are likely to be thin. However,
where dredging was once practiced and then ceased years ago, thick layers of contaminated material may
accumulate. Sediment quality in these depositional areas can reflect a complex history of pollution events
occurring over a span of decades. Consequently, it is unrealistic to think that a few grab samples of
surficial sediment will accurately represent sediment quality. Too often, however, this approach to
sampling has formed the only basis for sediment quality assessment. Significant laboratory resources
have been spent analyzing sediment samples that may not adequately characterize the system.
The ARCS Program addressed this dilemma by conducting two suites of assays: a set of quick,
less expensive assays ("indicator assays") at a large number of reconnaissance stations, and conventional
chemical and toxicological assays, performed at a limited number of "Master" stations throughout the
study area. Multivariate equations relating the indicator values to the conventional assays were then
generated and used to predict endpoints for the conventional assays at the many stations at which only
Page 6
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
the indicator assays were conducted. The following sections provide details of the field, laboratory, and
statistical procedures employed.
Biological, chemical, and physical assessments were conducted for all the surveys. Three sample
matrices were analyzed; whole sediment (grain size, total and volatile solids, metals, solvent extractable
residue, organohalogens, and total organic carbon), sediment elutriates (ammonia and Microtox), and
sediment pore water (conductivity). The current document presents only the results of the whole sediment
chemical and physical analyses. Additional information on the biological assessments or the results of
porewater or elutriate analyses is contained in the ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Work Group Sediment
Assessment Guidance Document (Filkins, et.al. 1993) or the Biological and Chemical Assessment of
Contaminated Great Lakes Sediment (USEPA, 1993a).
For Survey 1, the sediment physical characterization included total organic carbon (TOC) and
percent solids. Sediment chemical characterization included the metals silver (Ag), arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead
(Pb), and zinc (Zn); organometals (butyltins and methyl mercury); acid volatile sulfide (AVS); and PCBs,
dioxins and Furans, organic pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
For LLRS 2 core samples, the sediment physical characterization included TOC, pH,
conductivity, ammonia, bromine, chlorine, Microtox bioassay, extract«ble residue, and particle size.
Sediment chemical characterization included the metals Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, and Zn, and total PCBs.
For Survey 3 Master Station grab and core samples, the sediimnt physical characterization
included TOC and percent solids. Sediment chemical characterization inch ded the metals Ag, As, Cd,
Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn; organometals (butyltins and methyl mercury); AVS; and PCBs,
dioxins and Furans, organic pesticides, and PAHs.
For LLRS 3 intensive zone core samples, the sediment physical characterization included TOC,
pH, conductivity, ammonia, bromine, chlorine, Microtox bioassay, extractable residue, and particle size.
Sediment chemical characterization included the metals Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, and Zn, and total PCBs.
2.1 Collecting and Processing Sediment Samples
2.1.1 Sampling Vessel
The sampling vessel, the Research Vessel Mudpuppy, capable of operating in shallow waters of
less than three feet (1 m), was needed for the ARCS work. It had a climate controlled cabin for electronic
equipment and was capable of lifting a ton (900 kg) of weight and 20 foot (6 m) sediment cores onto the
deck. Electronic instruments used in the vessel operations included: a marine radio, a fathometer, a
Global Positioning System (GPS), computers for data logging and ship's navigation, and a Loran-C
receiver serving as a backup for the ship's positioning system.
2.1.2 Grab Samples
Grab samples of surficial sediments were collected by steel Ponar or Van Veen grab samplers at
each master station and at a few reconnaissance stations where coring was not possible. Benthos samples
Page?
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
were collected prior to grab sampling for contaminants and bioassay analysis, to minimize disturbance
of the organisms. Five replicate samples were collected at each of the master stations. For more details
see USEPA (1993a).
2.1.3 Core Samples
Sediment cores were collected at each of the reconnaissance stations and at most of the master
stations. The coring unit used in the Saginaw was a specially designed corer developed at the Large Lakes
Research Station. The core length collected varied from 2 to 8 feet.
During the ARCS Program, each core was described and subsampled on board the sampling
vessel. In subsequent, post-ARCS sediment surveys, cores were cut into 3 foot (1 meter) sections and
transported to a shore-based facility where they were examined, described, and subsampled. This required
a slightly larger field crew, but increased the number of cores that could be collected in a day and also
facilitated in-field analyses of selected subsamples.
2.1.4 Core Documentation
Proper identification of individual cores and their subsamples was especially important in this
project because of both the number of samples collected and the number of laboratories receiving splits
of those samples. The visual characteristics of each sediment core total length, position of layers within
the core, and color, texture, and composition of the material were recorded. Ancillary information
collected in the field included percent fullness of the Ponar sampler and water chemistry information
(dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, and reduction potential) measured with a Hydrolab sonde
positioned 3 feet (1m) above the bottom.
2.2 Characterizing Sediment by Remote Sensing
In larger areas, remote sensing or profiling as a supplement to coring provides a means to
interpolate sediment quality between infrequent sampling points. Remote sensing ensured that the
locations of all principal sediment types were directly sampled for chemical analysis. Remote sensing
also measured whether sediment chemical contamination was associated primarily or entirely with selected
sediment deposits which have been geophysically mapped, or distributed hi a fashion apparently
independent of the mapped deposits. Seismic subbottom profiling and electrical resistivity are two
geophysical profiling techniques used for remote sensing sediment characterization. Seismic subbottom
profiling of sediments utilizes the reflection of sound waves from different subsurface sediment layers.
These layers, exhibiting interfaces of different elasticity of density, are distinguished as distinct layers
within the profile trace. Fine-grained sediments, such as clay, demonstrate high porosity, and are, if
uncompacted, poor acoustical reflectors. Coarse-grained sediments, such as sand, exhibit lower porosity
and tend to be good reflectors (Guigne' et al. 1991).
Electrical resistivity or conductivity profiling is the most common geophysical approach to
pollution-related land studies. Despite a wide range of instrumentation and procedures, all of these
techniques attempt to measure lateral and vertical variations in electrical resistivity or its reciprocal,
electrical conductivity. With the exception of clay-rich material, the electrical resistivity of sediments
is determined primarily by porosity, and pore fluid chemistry. For clay-rich sediments, the clay
PageS
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
mineralogy is also a significant factor. While it is generally not possible to separate the effects of
porosity, pore fluid chemistry, or mineralogy on resistivity measurements, the method is regularly used
in land studies for the detection and mapping of clay units or inorganically contaminated groundwater.
Thus, electrical resistivity surveys provide a reasonable supplement to the acoustic measurements.
Comparison of the electrical properties with actual cores would then provide a basis for associating the
electrical properties with sediment types.
In theory, the interpretation of the seismic trace is accomplished by "ground truthing" using
sediment cores collected at selected points along the ship's track followed during the seismic survey. The
visual description of core stratigraphy is compared to the seismic profile record for that position. A
comparison of the core profile to the seismic record allows interpretation of seismic reflectors (layers)
as sediment types, such as gravel, sand, silt and clay. The characterization of sediment stratigraphy
between cores is mapped using the interpreted seismic profiles, providing a complete picture of sediment
distribution in the study area.
2.2.1 Geophysical Survey Design
In portions of the study areas which were less than 100 meters wide, three equally spaced lines
parallel to the shoreline were surveyed. In wider portions of the study areas, three parallel lines were
utilized with an additional series of diagonal lines forming a diamond pattern overlying the parallel lines.
In all cases, the intervals between survey lines were approximately one third of the channel width or finer
resolution. This survey geometry was efficient while it provided adequate coverage and an acceptable
number of tie-points (line intersections). The tie-points serve to evaluate the how reproducible of seismic
measurements taken at the "same point". The reproducibility of these mea urements is a function of the
reproducibility of the acoustical profiler and the ship's positioning system. In a quality assurance sense,
the number of tie-points used depends on the requirements established in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan. It ensured the geophysical profiling of all sediment areas with linear dimensions equal to one
quarter of the channel width.
The accuracy of sediment strata thickness and depth measured from the seismic record was limited
by the extent to which subsurface velocities were known. Marker beds seen within the "ground trudiing"
cores were compared to the seismic record for depth correction. When using cores for "ground truthing"
seismic records consideration must be given to core compaction which may occur during sample
collection. Compaction can be variable throughout the core with greater compaction occurring in the
upper core containing less consolidated sediment. The sediment character, corrected depth and thickness
of the strata were then mapped between core sites using seismic records.
2.3 Collecting, Storing and Handling Sediment Samples for Chemical Analyses and Bioassays
About 10 liters (L) of bulk sediment grab samples or 4 L of bulk core samples were collected
from sample stations in all four surveys. All chemical analyses of sediment samples were provided by
Battelle Laboratory hi Sequim, Washington. The chemical samples were collected by personnel of the
Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS) in Grosse Isle, Michigan.
Page 9
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
The percentage solids in each sediment sample was estimated by freeze drying the sample and
then comparing wet and dry weights. Freeze drying provided a fine, powdery sample that could be more
uniformly homogenized. The TOC in samples was determined with a Leco Model WR-12 carbon
determinator. Samples were pre-treated with concentrated hydrochloric acid to remove inorganic carbon.
Then the samples were burned at 800 °C in an oxygen atmosphere connected to a boat inlet that
transferred the evolved carbon dioxide (COj) directly into an organic carbon analyzer. Particle size was
determined with a Gilson Model WV-2 wet sieve, using U.S. Standard #18 (1 mm), 60 (250 urn), 230
(63 um) and 400 (38 um) sieves. Acid volatile sulfides (AYS) were determined according to the method
of Cutter and Oattes (1987).
The sediment samples were analyzed for total metals concentrations using USEPA Method 200.4
(USEPA 1990). These techniques are not intended to measure the biologically significant portion of
metals. The samples were completely dissolved by digestion with nitric, perchloric and hydrofluoric
acids in Teflon" pressure vessels and men analyzed by use of cold vapor atomic absorption, or graphite
furnace atomic absorption. For crustal elements that are difficult to dissolve with strong acids, a portion
of the freeze-dried samples was ball-milled to about 120 mesh, palletized, and analyzed with x-ray
fluorescence (Nielson and Sanders 1983).
In methylmercury analyses, the homogenized samples were digested in 10 milliliter (mL) of a 25
percent solution of potassium hydroxide hi methanol at 60 °C for 2 to 4 hours. Samples were allowed
to cool for 24 hours and an additional 10 mL of methanol was added and mixed well by shaking. Before
analysis undissolved solids were allowed to completely settle. The samples were analyzed with a cold
vapor atomic fluorescence technique (Bloom 1989). The technique is based on the emission of 254 nm
radiation by exiting mercury atoms hi an inert gas stream. An ethylating agent, sodium tetraethylborate,
was added to the sample digestate to form a volatile methylethylmercury derivative. The derivative was
then purged onto graphite carbon traps for pre-concentration and removal of interferences. Then the
samples were subjected to cryogenic chromatography and pyrolytic degradation to elemental mercury,
which was quantified with a cold vapor atomic fluorescence detector.
During analyses for organotins, samples were extracted with 0.2 percent tropolone in methylene
chloride, then filtered through glass wool. The filtrates were derivitized with 1 mL hexyl magnesium
bromide, a Grignard's reagent, and cleaned-up with a Florisil column. Organotin concentrations were
measured with a Hewlett Packard Model 5890 gas chromatograph equipped with a flame photometric
detector.
Three groups of organic chemicals were measured for each sediment sample: PAHs, PCBs and
chlorinated pesticides, and PCDDs and PCDFs. The analytical procedure for each chemical group
included solvent extraction, extract purification with column chromatography, and chemical quantification
with capillary column gas chromatography. In the analyses for pesticides and PCBs, aldrin, beta-BHC,
gamma-chlordane, 4,4'-DDD, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, heptachlor epoxide, Aroclor 1242
and 1254 were detected in some samples, but either a less than 25 percent difference between the two
gas chromatography columns for detected concentrations was observed, or the analyses were conducted
at secondary sample dilution factors.
PAHs in sediment samples were extracted according to the USEPA Method 3550 (USEPA 1986).
Before extraction, three isotopically labelled surrogate PAH compounds (DlO-fluorene, DlO-anthracene,
Page 10
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
DlO-pyrene) were added to the samples. Then the samples were extracted with methylene chloride in
a Soxhlet extractor. Potential interferences by pigments, lipids and other macromolecules were removed
by the use of the USEPA gel permeation chromatography (GPC) Method 3540 (USEPA 1986). Then
the extracts were exchanged into hexane and analyzed with the USEPA Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 8270 (USEPA 1986).
Aroclors quantified were 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 and 1260. Aroclors were
extracted from the sediment samples according to the USEPA Method 3550 (USEPA 1986). The GC
surrogate compound dibutyl chlorendate (DEC) was added to the samples, and the samples were
subsequently extracted with methylene chloride using sonication. Potential interferences by oily-type
materials from highly contaminated sediments, lipids, and other macromolecules were eliminated by use
of GPC or alumina column chromatography (USEPA 1986, Methods 3540 and 3610). Aroclors were
quantified by USEPA Method 8080 (USEPA 1986) using a DB-5 fused silica capillary column (0.25 mm
diameter x 30 m) and a Hewlett-Packard 5890 gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture
detector (GC/ECD) and a computer for data acquisition. A dual column analysis was always performed
simultaneously and the results from both columns were accepted if they showed no more than a 50
percent variation.
The USEPA isotope dilution Method 8290 (USEPA 1986) was used to extract and clean-up the
sediment samples for analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs. Isotopically labelled PCDDs and PCDFs were
added to the samples before extraction. The samples were extracted with benzene in a Soxhlet extractor
for 18 hours. Then a three step column chromatography procedure with acidified silica gel, alumina, and
AX-21 activated carbon on silica gel was used to enrich the samples and remove interferences.
Isotopically labelled 2,3,7,8-TCDD was added to the samples before the enrichment to determine the
efficiency of the method. Two internal standards were added to the samples after sample enrichment to
determine percent recoveries. The PCDDs and PCDFs were quantified with capillary columns gas
chromatography of groups of ion masses described in the USEPA Method 8290 (USEPA 1986).
Pore water samples were prepared by Battelle's Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim,
Washington from about 40 L of sediment samples. Aliquots of the 40 L samples were extracted in acid-
cleaned 500 mL Teflon jars by centrifugation in a modified clothing extractor at 2,000 RPM for 15
minutes. The pore water was decanted into clean 150 mL glass centrifuge tubes and then centrifuged
again at 2000 RPM for one hour. The pore water was then pipetted without filtration into 500 mL acid-
cleaned Teflon bottles, acidified to pH 2 with nitric acid (HNO3), and stored at room temperature for
metal analyses.
Immediately after preparation, water quality characteristics of the dilution water and 100 percent
elutriate samples were determined (APHA et al., 1975). Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) was measured with
a YSI Model 54-A oxygen meter. Conductivity (umhos/cm, corrected to 25 °C) was measured with a
YSI Model 33 S-C-T conductivity meter. The pH and alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) was determined by
burette titration. Ammonia (mg/L) was measured with an Orion 940E ionalyzer and a 95-12 ammonia
electrode. Turbidity (NTU) was measured with a Cole-Palmer Model 8391-35 turbidity meter.
Unionized ammonia was determined by converting the total ammonia measured in the samples to
unionized ammonia, and then correcting for pH and temperature (Thurston et al. 1974). After
preparation of the dilution water and 100 percent elutriates, samples for chloride (mg/L) were placed in
250 mL I-CHEM bottles, labeled, and stored at 4 ± 3°C until analysis with an Orion 940E ionalyzer and
Page 11
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
a 94-17B electrode. The pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were measured at the beginning and
end of each daphnid test hi the 100 and 25 percent treatments, and hi the dilution water control. About
500 mL of each 100 percent elutriate sample were placed hi Teflon bottles, acidified to pH 2 with
redistilled hydrochloric acid, and shipped via overnight courier to Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
hi Sequim, Washington for metals analyses.
Elutriate and pore water samples were analyzed for silver (Ag), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),
chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), and zinc (Zn). With
the exception of Hg and Zn hi elutriates, all pore water and elutriate samples were analyzed without
sample preparation. The Zn hi elutriates was quantified by flame atomic absorption. The Hg in elutriates
were analyzed for metals by cold vapor atomic fluorescence with sub-nanogram per liter (ng/L) detection
limits. Organics prevalent hi many of the samples were broken down before Hg analysis by use of a
bromine monochloride/UV oxidation procedure (Bloom and Crecelius 1983).
2.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance
Accuracy and precision of the chemical analyses were determined by analysis of one blank, one
matrix spike, one certified reference material, and one sample in duplicate or triplicate for each set of
20 samples. Acceptable recovery values ranged from 85 to 115 percent of the spike concentration for
organics and organometals. Analytical values for reference materials were acceptable if they were within
20 percent of the certified ranges. The acceptable coefficient of variation for duplicate or triplicate
sample analyses was
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 2
impact on the chemistry of the contaminants than the elutriate procedure. Pore water squeezers and
extractors are more expensive than the equipment required for elutriate preparation, however, and require
a greater volume of sediment to produce a comparable volume of liquid test media.
Data storage, retrieval and manipulation were performed using Paradox, a PC-based relational
database program. To facilitate use of the data, a user "shell" was created using the Paradox Applications
Language (PAL). The user shell was designed to allow easy access to the data, calculate RPDs for QC
checks, search for missing samples, format data for creation of icons and provide significant figure-
formatted output. Analytical data were checked for entry accuracy by the analyst, and the quality of the
data was verified by both the analyst and the project Quality Control coordinators by examination of the
QC data associated with each assay (blanks, replicate RPDs, reference materials, etc.). Data were not
used for statistical calculations (nor released to GLNPO) until all applicable QC criteria were met. Raw
data from this study are archived by GLNPO in their Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) database.
Page 13
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
3. RESULTS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary and analysis of the sediment chemical data collected from the
Saginaw River AOC based on the four major sampling surveys performed by the ARCS Program. The
purpose of the analysis is to provide a preliminary examination of the potential for chemical contaminants
to cause adverse impacts to aquatic life or uses of the Saginaw River system. Since the data presented
are chemical only and not biological, the analysis is limited in its ability to predict absolute biological
effects.
The data in this chapter are analyzed in two ways:
• On a chemical-by-chemical basis, providing an analysis of where unusually high and/or
potentially harmful concentrations of individual chemicals are found within the Saginaw
River AOC, and
• On a sample-by-sample basis, providing an analysis of which locations contain elevated
levels for the greatest number of contaminants.
The first type of analysis aids in the determination of which chemicals are of greatest concern.
The second analysis assists in determining which areas of the AOC suffer the greatest levels of sediment
contamination. The analysis relies on the comparison of measured sediment concentrations to chemical-
specific guidelines or criteria.
In order to estimate potential effects, benchmark criteria or guidelines were necessary against
which the potential for a given concentration of sediment contamination to cause environmental harm
could be assessed. USEPA has currently endorsed an equilibrium partitioning (EqP) based approach for
assessing sediment contamination (USEPA, 1993b-f). Unfortunately, this method has only been fully
developed for a limited number of heavy organic contaminants. A more comprehensive set of sediment
quality guidelines has been developed by Long and Morgan (1990) for the NOAA Status and Trends
program. The NOAA guidelines lack the lexicological precision of the EqP-based criteria, but their
applicability to a wider set of parameters makes them useful for the current analysis. Both EqP and
NOAA COSED guidelines are discussed more completely in Section 3.2.
The data presented in this section are based on the results of four primary sampling surveys.
Surveys 1 and 3 (performed in December 1989 and June 1990, respectively) consist of grab samples taken
from the 10 ARCS Saginaw River Master Stations. The locations and sample numbers of the Saginaw
River sampling stations for both of these surveys are shown in Figure 3.1. The other two surveys
referred to in this section, consist of a combination of 2 to 8 foot depth core samples and surface grab
samples collected by the Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS) at the Master Stations, plus a number of
additional sampling locations chosen to provide greater resolution on the areal extent and depth of
sediment contamination in the AOC. These two surveys are hereafter referred to as LLRS 2 and LLRS
3. The LLRS 2 survey, performed in May 1990, collected samples from 26 locations along the entire
length of the AOC. The locations of the LLRS 2 sample points are shown in Figure 3.2 . The LLRS
3 survey, performed in June 1990, collected 25 samples within the short (< 2 mile ) stretch near the Bay
Page 14
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
0701
0101 in
Saginaw Bay
0201
0301
Figure 3.1 Survey 1 and 3
Sample Locations
.1001
N
Page 15
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
SR21701
SR20801
SR21201
SR21301
SR20603
SR20303
SR20401
SR22101
R22301
SR22201
. SR20602
SR21901
SR20601
5R21002
Figure 3.2 LLRS 2 Sample
Locations
N
Page 16
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
City Wastewater Treatment Plant. The locations of the LLRS 3 sample points are shown in Figure 3.3.
Methods for sample collection and analysis are more fully described in Chapter 2.
3.2 Availability of Sediment Quality Guidelines
The need for easily applicable yardsticks to make decisions regarding the impact of contaminated
sediments is obvious. The primary EPA effort at preliminary sediment criteria development has focused
upon Equilibrium Partitioning based approaches (USEPA, 1993b-f) that utilize the concentration of
organic carbon in sediments along with a measure of the relative tendency of a contaminant to bind with
organic carbon (the partitioning coefficient) to predict the interstitial water concentration of the
contaminant within a particular sediment.
Other efforts have focused on the use of standardized bioassays, comparisons of concentration
and effects data (e.g., AETs and PELs), and leachate and elutriate testing, among others. A complete
overview of the available sediment assessment methods can be found in the Sediment Classification
Methods Compendium (USEPA, 1992).
3.2.1 Background on EPA EqP-Based Criteria
EPA has selected the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) method as its primary approach to developing
numeric sediment quality criteria for contaminated sediments. The EqP approach is based on three
primary observations about the toxicity of organic contaminants in sediment (USEPA, 1993b-f). These
are:
• The toxicity of non-ionic organic contaminants in sediments is most closely related to the
interstitial water concentrations of the contaminant rather than the bulk sediment
concentration of the contaminant;
• Non-ionic organic contaminants bind primarily to the organic carbon within the sediment
and partitioning models can relate the relative concentrations of contaminants bound to
organic carbon and in pore water; and
• Benthic and water column organisms show similar sensitivities to chemicals so that
currently established water quality criteria can be used to determine acceptable pore water
chemical concentrations.
The EqP model uses the bulk concentration of contaminant and organic carbon in the sediment
and a chemical-specific partitioning coefficient to predict the pore water concentration of the contaminant
at equilibrium conditions. The term "equilibrium conditions" indicates that sediment conditions are not
in a state of flux and that sufficient time has passed for sediment and pore water concentrations to
stabilize. Examples of non-equilibrium conditions include situations where there is significant erosion
or deposition of sediments or changes in contaminant concentrations.
Page 17
-------
Figure 3.3 LLRS 3 Sample Locations
SR33109C101
SR33210C101 \ SR33009C101 SR32709C101
SH32808C101
SR32806C101
SR33006C101
SR33809C101
SR30601CC01
SR33609C101 SR33S08C101
SR32706C101
SR32906C201
SR33204C101
A
So
fi
W)
I
s
a
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
There are several limitations to the EqP-based approach. The most obvious is that the method
is currently only applicable to non-ionic organic contaminants. This eliminates the approach as a tool
for determining the potential toxicity of lighter organic contaminants and toxic metals. Another drawback
is that complete criteria are currently developed for only five contaminants. These contaminants are the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)phenanthrene (USEPA, 1993f), acenapthene (USEPA, 1993b),
and fluoranthene (USEPA, 1993e), and the pesticides dieldrin (USEPA, 1993c) and endrin (USEPA,
1993d).
For the five EqP-based criteria that are currently available, only phenanthrene and fluoranthene
were analyzed for at the Saginaw River Master Station locations. A complete list of analytes for the four
Saginaw River surveys and the applicable sediment quality criteria are presented in Table 3.1.
3.2.2 Background on NOAA Status and Trends Guidelines
Several sets of sediment quality guidelines have been developed through comparison of sets of
sediment contaminant concentration data and associated biological impact data. The best known of these
was published in Long and Morgan (1990). In the Long and Morgan approach, sediment concentrations
of contaminants were compared to associated biological impacts data and evaluated to determine
concentration ranges in which biological impacts were likely to occur, based on a preponderance of
evidence approach.
The evaluation was performed by arranging all concentration data for a single contaminant in
ascending order. Only data that had associated effects data were utilized and only where that associated
data showed some measurable level of impact greater than zero. Therefore \ 11 data utilized in the analysis
are from sediments that have been associated with some adverse biological effect.
Long and Morgan used the tabulated data to determine two guideline numbers for each
contaminant. These are:
• An Effects Range-Low (ER-L) which corresponds to the lower 10th percentile of the
tabulated data; and
• An Effects Range-Median (ER-M) which corresponds to the 50th percentile of the
tabulated data.
The ER-M and ER-L values are not official NOAA standards but are intended to be useful as
guidance in the evaluation of bulk sediment chemistry data. They are utilized in this document with this
intent. Exceedances of chemical concentrations of ER-L and ER-M levels should not be construed as an
absolute indicator of biological impacts but only as a relative indicator for the potential for such.
Of the total number of sediment guidelines determined in the NOAA guidance, 25 are applicable
to the analytical data collected for the Saginaw AOC. A complete listing of all analytes and the
applicable NOAA guidelines is presented hi Table 3.1.
Page 19
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
PAHS
Bcnz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthenc
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorober.zenc
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Fluorcnc
Phenanthrenc
Anthracene
Fluoranthcnc
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chryscne
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey 3
Large
Lakes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
1,600 ng/g
2,500 ng/g
650 ng/g
2,100 ng/g
670 ppb
640 ng/g
1,380 ng/g
960 ng/g
3,600 ng/g
2,200 ng/g
2,800 ng/g
NOAA
ER-L
230 ng/g
400 ng/g
150 ng/g
340 ng/g
65 ng/g
35 ng/g
225 ng/g
85 ng/g
600 ng/g
350 ng/g
400 ng/g
EPAEqP
Criteria
180 ug/gOC
620 ug/gOC
Page 20
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1
ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Indeno(l ,2,3)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
X
Survey 3
X
X
X
Large
Lakes
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
NOAA
ER-L
EPAEqP
Criteria
PESTICIDES/MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS
Cis-chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan(alpha)
Endosulfan(beta)
Endosulfan sulfate
Toxaphenc
Lindane
Methoxychlor
a-BHC
b-BHC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 ng/g
15 ng/g
7 ng/g
8 ng/g
2 ng/g
2 ng/g
1 ng/g
0.02 ng/g
11 ug/gOC
Page 21
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
c-BHC
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Trans-chlordane
Dioxins and Furans
PCBs
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
Large
Lakes
X
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
400ng/g
NOAA
ER-L
50 ng/g
EPAEqP
Criteria
METALS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Silver
Arsenic
Mercury
Manganese
Methylmercury
Tributyltin
MBT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9 ug/g
145 ug/g
390 ug/g
50 ug/g
110 ug/g
270 ug/g
2.2 ug/g
85 ug/g
1.3 ug/g
5 ug/g
80 ug/g
70 ug/g
30 ug/g
35 ug/g
120 ug/g
1 ug/g
33 ug/g
0.15 ug/g
Page 22
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Dibutyltin
Parameters Analyzed
Survey 1
X
Survey 3
X
Large
Lakes
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
NOAA
ER-L
EPAEqP
Criteria
NON-METALS
Total Organic Carbon
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Extractable Residue
PH
Conductivity
Percent Solids
Solids, Total
Volatile Solids
Microtox
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
Grain Size
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3.3 Analysis of Chemical-Specific Data
This section reviews the analytical data on a chemical by chemical basis in order to determine
sampling locations associated with exceedances of criteria or guidelines. For the application of EqP-based
criteria, data were normalized using the sediment concentration of organic carbon. NOAA Guidelines
have been applied on a bulk chemistry basis. The fact that a location contains chemical concentrations
that exceed guideline levels is not an indicator of definite biological impacts but only of a heightened
probability for such. On the other hand, levels below guidelines for a single chemical are obviously not
Page 23
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
an indication that a sediment is "safe". The additive or synergistic effects of multiple contaminants are
not addressed by single chemical criteria or guidelines.
3.3.1 Explanation of Data Presentation
The data in this section of the report are presented both in narrative and graphical forms. The
narrative section provides:
• Summary statistics in the form of minimum, maximum, and median concentrations;
• The applicable sediment quality criteria or guidelines; and
• A narrative explanation of graphic data with conclusions on the areal distribution of high
concentration data.
The summary statistics are chosen to indicate the range of concentrations present (through the
minimum and maximum) and the central concentration (through the median) of a chemical. The use of
the median rather than average concentrations eliminates the effect of outliers and the averaging of non-
detect data. It should also be noted that the summary statistics presented for all surveys are independent
of core depth (i.e., the minimum value may be from a surface sample and the maximum value from a
subsurface core depth). However, any significant distinctions between core depths is noted in the text
for each chemical.
Appendix A presents the raw data collected from Surveys 1 and 3 and LLRSs 2 and 3. In
determining summary statistics, data from different surveys are not combined. The combining of the
data sets was considered inappropriate given the differences in both sampling (grab samples versus core
samples) and analytical methods between the surveys (refer to Chapter 2 for a complete description of
sampling and analytical methods).
The graphical portion of the analysis consists primarily of a series of bar graphs indicating the
relative level of contaminant concentration between various sampling locations within a given survey.
The use of bar graphs was chosen over maps since the number of sampling points and the number of
sampling depths in the various surveys make it difficult to present the data on maps in a way in which
data from the multiple sampling depths could be directly compared. However, for reference, maps
containing the data plotted for all surveys are provided in Appendix B.
The data in the bar graphs is separated by survey. Data in each of the graphs is arranged
downstream to upstream. The actual reach of the river covered by the graphs varies by the area covered
by the survey. Also, in order to simplify the cross references between the maps, graphs and text, the
sampling locations have been renumbered with single digit location identifiers. Table 3.2 presents a
cross-reference between the original sample numbers presented in Figures 3.1 through 3.3 and those used
in the remaining figures in this chapter. Figure 3.4 depicts the location of the renumbered sample
locations for Survey 1 and Survey 3. The renumbered sampling locations for LLRS 2 and LLRS 3 are
found in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 respectively. The bar charts (Figures 3.7 through 3.27) are located at the
end of the chapter (starting on page 61 of this report).
Page 24
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEYS - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES
SURVEY 1
SURVEYS
CHART ID
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
SAMPLED)
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SRI 1001
LLRS2
CHART D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SAMPLED)
SR21201C101
SR21301C101
SR21102C101
SR20201C101
SR20304C101
SR20302C101
SR20303C101
SR20401C101
SR20402C101
SR22101C101
SR21501C101
SR20603C101
SR20602C101
SR20601C101
SR21901C101
SR22001C101
SR21601C101
SR21701C101
SR22601C101
SR22501C101
SR20801C101
SR22401C101
SR22301C101
SR21801C101
CHART ID
1
2
5
6
8
16
24
SAMPLED)
SR30101
SR30201
SR30501
SR30601
SR30801
SR31601
SR32401
LLRS3
CHART D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SAMPLED)
SR30201CCX2
SR30201CCX3
SR32709C101
SR32706C101
SR32808C101
SR32806C101
SR32906C101
SR33009C101
SR33006C101
SR30501CC01
SR33109C101
SR33106C101
SR33210C101
SR33204C101
SR33207C101
SR33306C101
SR33309C101
SR33409C101
SR33411C101
SR33511C101
SR33508C101
SR33611C101
SR33609C101
SR30601CC01
Page 25
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEYS - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES
25
26
SR22201C101
SR21002C101
25
26
27
28
29
SR30601CCX2
SR30601CCX3
SR33812C101
SR33809C101
SR33911C101
The following features of the bar graphs should be noted:
• The numbers under each of the graphs correspond to the revised sample numbers for the
surveys presented in Figures 3.4 through 3.6.
• The parallel dashed lines through the graphs indicate the level of the applicable criteria
or guideline value for the contaminant, either NOAA or EPA EqP-based.
3.3.2 Analysis by Chemical Parameter
This section focuses on the chemicals for which either NOAA (ER-M and ER-L) or EPA (EqP-
based criteria) are available. All other data are provided in Appendix A.
Arsenic
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
3.6
N/A
6.4
N/A
Median
10.9
N/A
24.1
N/A
Maximum
16
N/A
217
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
33
NOAA
ER-M
85
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
Survey 1 had no exceedances of the ER-L or the ER-M guidelines for arsenic (see Figure 3.7a).
The maximum concentration of 16 ug/g, found just downstream of the Grand Trunk Railroad (sample
7), is well below the ER-L guideline.
Page 26
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
Sample 1
Saginaw
in
Bay
16
Figure 3.4 Survey 1 and 3
Chart Cross Reference
Numbers
1 numbers
Survey 3 numbers
N
-in
Page 27
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapters
18
19
21
Figure 3.5 LLRS 2 Chart
Cross-Reference Numbers
N
Page 28
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
2
E
8
3
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
Page 29
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
In Survey 3 surface grab samples, there was only one exceedance of the arsenic ER-L and ER-M
guidelines (see Figure 3.7b). This exceedance occurred about 1/4 mile downstream of the Bay City
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the intensive sampling zone (sample 16); the concentration found
was 92.9 ug/g. No other surface grab samples exceeded the ER-L or ER-M in Survey 3. In the deeper
core samples in Survey 3, however, all three sites for which cores were taken (sample sites 2, 5, and 6)
had concentrations in excess of the ER-L; the core sample taken approximately 1 mile downstream from
the intensive sample zone (sample 2) contained the highest arsenic concentration (217 ug/g) that also
exceeded the ER-M.
Cadmium
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
0.16
< 0.0026
0.42
0
Median
0.97
0.9
1.11
1.2
Maximum
10
7.1
17.4
19
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
5
NOAA
ER-M
9
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
In Survey 1, the ER-L and ER-M were exceeded in the sample near the Bay City WWTP in the
intensive sampling zone (sample 6), with a concentration of 10 ug/g. The ER-L and ER-M were not
exceeded at any other sample location in Survey 1 (see Figure 3.8a).
As shown hi Figure 3.8b, the ER-L and ER-M for cadmium were not exceeded at any location
in Survey 3 surface grab samples. It should be noted that sample location 6 was sampled during Survey
1 and Survey 3. The Survey 3 concentration for sample location 6 was 0.5 ug/g, while the Survey 1
concentration was 10 ug/g. However, hi the deeper core samples, exceedances of the ER-M and ER-L
for cadmium did occur. In particular, the core samples taken downstream of the intensive sample zone
(sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core) and adjacent to the Bay City WWTP within the intensive sampling
zone (sample site 6; 0-2 foot core) exceeded the ER-L for cadmium. In addition, the cadmium
concentration hi the 0.3-1 foot core sample from site 6 was the highest detected hi Survey 3 (17.6 ug/g);
this concentration exceeds the ER-M for cadmium.
In LLRS 2, the ER-L was exceeded at one sample location located just off-shore of the Bay City
WWTP in the intensive sampling zone, with a concentration of 7.1 ug/g detected hi the surface core (0-2
foot) sample. No other samples hi LLRS 2 exceed the ER-M or ER-L for cadmium (see Figure 3.8c).
In 12 of the 20 sites where deeper core samples were taken, the deeper core samples (2-4 foot) contained
higher concentration than the surface core samples. However, there were no geographical trends related
to these higher concentrations. None of the four surface grab samples (not shown on Figure 3.8c)
contained concentrations hi excess of the ER-L or ER-M guidelines.
Page 30
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
In LLRS 3, the ER-L was exceeded at five locations with concentrations ranging from 5.0 ug/g
to 19 ug/g (see Figure 3.8d). Four of the five ER-L exceedances were found in the surface (0-2 foot)
core samples. The maximum concentration of 19 ug/g was found in a 0-2 foot core sample taken near
the Bay City WWTP. This sample also exceeded the ER-M for cadmium. No other samples, including
the seven surface grab samples, exceeded the ER-M or ER-L guidelines.
Chromium
Survey
1
LLRS 2
3
LLRS 3
Minimum
40
4.4
24.7
4.5
Median
70
30
59
35
Maximum
319
240
687
590
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
80
NOAA
ER-M
145
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
As shown hi Figure 3.9a, the ER-L of 80 ug/g was exceeded at three of the seven Survey 1
sample stations. Two of the ER-L exceedances were found approximately 1 mile upstream and
downstream of the intensive sampling zone. The highest Survey 1 concentration, 319 ug/g, was detected
near the Bay City WWTP within the intensive sampling zone. This high concentration also exceeds the
ER-M guideline for chromium.
In Survey 3 surface grab samples, only one station, located at a master station between Veterans
Memorial Bridge and Lafayette Street, exceeded the ER-L and the ER-M for chromium with a
concentration of 95 ug/g (see Figure 3.9b). There were no other surface grab samples that exceeded
either the ER-L or the ER-M. In all of the deeper core samples, however, exceedances of the ER-M and
ER-L for chromium did occur. The highest concentration found (687 ug/g), that exceeded both the ER-L
and ER-M, was from the core sample taken adjacent to the Bay City WWTP within the intensive
sampling zone (sample site 6; 0.3-1 foot core). Other exceedances of the ER-M and ER-L also occurred
downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core), within the downstream
portion of the intensive sampling zone (sample site 5; 0-2 foot core), and in the 0-2 foot core sample
from site 6.
As shown in Figure 3.9c, core samples at four LLRS 2 survey sample sites exceeded the ER-M
for chromium. Core samples at six other samples sites in the LLRS 2 exceeded the ER-L. The
maximum concentration of 240 ug/g was found in the 0-2 foot core sample taken near the Bay City
WWTP. The other three ER-M exceedances occurred in 2-4 foot core samples located downstream of
the intensive sampling zone (sample site 4), just downstream of the Veterans Memorial Bridge (sample
site 20), and in between Veterans Memorial Bridge and Lafayette Street (sample site 21).
Page 31
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
There were eleven sample sites in LLRS 3 where the ER-L for chromium was exceeded (see
Figure 3.9d). At four of these locations, the ER-M was also exceeded. Two of the ER-M exceedances,
including the highest detected concentration of 590 ug/g, were found in the 0-2 foot sample cores taken
near the Bay City WWTP. The other high chromium concentrations occur in the southeast area of the
intensive sampling zone (sample sites 1, 3, and 7).
Copper
Survey
1
LLRS 2
3
LLRS 3
Minimum
16
2.1
16.6
3.7
Median
48
27
42.2
36
Maximum
187
230
375
360
EPAEqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
70
NOAA
ER-M
390
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
Survey 1 had only one exceedance of the ER-L and no exceedances of the ER-M for copper (see
Figure 3.10a). The exceedance of the ER-L occurred near the Bay City WWTP within the intensive
sampling zone; the detected concentration was 187 ug/g, which is well below the ER-M guideline of 390
ug/g.
Survey 3 surface grab samples did not exceed the ER-L or the ER-M with the maximum
concentration being 54.8 ug/g (see Figure 3.10b). Again, the deeper core samples in Survey 3 did
contain concentrations of copper that exceeded the ER-M and ER-L. The highest concentration found
(375 ug/g), that exceeded the ER-L, was from the core sample taken near the Bay City WWTP within
the intensive sampling zone (sample site 6; 0.3-1 foot core). Other exceedances of the ER-L and ER-M
also occurred downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core), within the
downstream portion of the intensive sampling zone (sample site 5; 0-2 foot core), and in the 0-2 foot core
sample from site 6.
As shown in Figure 3. lOc, the ER-M was not exceeded at any location in LLRS 2, but the ER-L
was exceeded at nine of the 26 stations sampled with concentrations ranging from 73 ug/g to 230 ug/g.
Five of these exceedances were from 0-2 foot core samples, located in the downstream area of the river
(sample sites 1 and 5), in the intensive sampling zone near the Bay City WWTP, and just upstream of
the intensive sampling zone (sample site 17). The maximum concentration was found in the 2-4 foot core
sample taken just upstream of the Veterans Memorial Bridge; the 4-6 foot cores at the same site and at
Liberty Street (sample site 19) also exceeded the ER-L for copper. The 2-4 foot sample cores in the
downstream area of the Saginaw River (sample sites 4 and 5) also exceeded the ER-L guideline for
copper.
Page 32
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
The ER-M was not exceeded at any location in LLRS 3 (see Figure 3.10d). The ER-L was
exceeded at 7 of the 29 stations sampled with concentrations ranging from 72 ug/g to the maximum
concentration of 360 ug/g, found in the 0-2 foot core sample just off of the Bay City WWTP in the
intensive sampling zone. High copper concentrations were also detected in core samples taken hi the
southeast area of the intensive sampling zone (sample sites 3, 7, 9, and 10).
Lead
Survey
1
LLRS 2
3
LLRS 3
Minimum
19
1.9
16.9
0.3
Median
55
34
39.8
32
Maximum
86
550
168.2
220
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
35
NOAA
ER-M
110
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
In Survey 1, the ER-L for lead was exceeded at six of the seven locations, with a maximum
concentration of 86 ug/g found at a station located near the Bay City WWTP (see Figure 3.1 la). The
ER-M was not exceeded at any of the locations.
As shown in Figure 3.1 Ib, Survey 3 surface grab samples exceed the ER-L at three of the seven
locations sampled. The maximum concentration of 68.7 ug/g occurs at a station located between Veterans
Memorial Bridge and Lafayette Street; the second highest concentration occurs just upstream of Lafayette
Street. The ER-M was not exceeded by surface grab samples at any of the locations. The Survey 3 core
samples did exceed the ER-M at two sites; the core sample taken near the Bay City WWTP within the
intensive sampling zone (sample site 6; 0.3-1 foot core) and the downstream of the intensive sample zone
(sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core).
The ER-L was exceeded at 17 of the 26 stations sampled, while the ER-M was exceeded at only
two locations in LLRS 2 (see Figure 3.1 Ic). Most of the exceedances were found in the 0-2 ft range with
the maximum concentration of 550 ug/g found hi the southeast end of the intensive sampling zone.
Relatively high lead concentrations (hi excess of the ER-L guideline) were also detected in 2-4 foot core
samples in the portion of the Saginaw River located downstream of the intensive sampling zone. All core
samples (0-2, 2-4, and 4-6 foot) at sample location 20 (downstream from the Veterans Memorial Bridge)
also showed high concentrations of lead.
In LLRS 3, the ER-L was exceeded at 17 of the 29 stations sampled while the ER-M was
exceeded at only two stations (see Figure 3.lid). The maximum concentrations of 220 and 180 ug/g
were found hi the 0-2 foot sample cores taken near the Bay City WWTP hi the intensive sampling zone.
High lead concentrations were also found hi core samples located in the southeast area of the intensive
Page 33
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
sampling zone (sample sites 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10), and in the 0-2 foot core sample taken about 2 miles
downstream of the intensive sampling zone (sample site 1). Finally, three of the seven surface grab
samples taken in the Saginaw River (not shown on Figure 3.lid), also exceeded the ER-L for lead.
These three surface grabs were taken from the area between Lafayette Street and Veterans Memorial
Bridge, within the intensive sampling zone near the Bay City WWTP, and just downstream of the
intensive sampling zone.
Mercury
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
0.048
N/A
0.039
N/A
Median
0.15
N/A
0.156
N/A
Maximum
0.28
N/A
0.676
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
0.15
NOAA
ER-M
1.3
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
The ER-M of 1.3 ug/g for mercury was not exceeded in either Survey 1 or Survey 3. The ER-L
was exceeded at three locations in Survey 1 with a maximum concentration of 0.283 ug/g found at the
sample site located near the Bay City WWTP (see Figure 3.12a). As shown in Figure 3.12b, the ER-L
was exceeded in surface grab samples at two locations in Survey 3, with the maximum concentration of
0.167 ug/g found outside of the ship canal just upstream of Lafayette Street. The mercury concentrations
hi the Survey 3 core samples were higher than the surface grab samples, but still below the ER-M. The
highest concentration of mercury in the core samples occurred near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive
sampling zone at the 0.3-1.0 foot core sample (0.676 ug/g). Other high concentrations that exceeded the
ER-L also occurred downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 -1.6 foot core) and
within the downstream portion of the intensive sampling zone (sample site 5; 0-2 foot core). Mercury
was not analyzed as part of LLRS 2 or LLRS 3.
Page 34
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
Nickel
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
15
1.1
8.3
3.7
Median
37
16
29.3
23
Maximum
157
120
316
290
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
30
NOAA
ER-M
50
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
In Survey 1, the ER-L for nickel was exceeded at five of the seven locations sampled (see Figure
3.13a). Only one sample location exceeded the ER-M with a concentration of 157 ug/g; the site was
located near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive sampling zone.
In Survey 3, the ER-M was not exceeded by any surface grab sample, however, the surface
samples exceeded at two of the seven locations sampled (see Figure 3.13b). The maximum concentration
found in surface samples was 37.9 ug/g, that occurred between Liberty Street and the Veterans Memorial
Bridge (sample site 8). Core samples at each of the three sites where core srimples were taken, however,
had nickel concentrations that exceed the ER-M. The highest concentration found was hi the core sample
taken near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive sampling zone at the 0.3-1.0 foot core sample (316 ug/g).
The ER-L was exceeded at seven of the 26 sample sites sampled under the LLRS 2, while the
ER-M was exceeded at only three sample sites (see Figure 3.13c). The highest concentration (120 ug/g)
was found hi the 0-2 foot core sample taken near the Bay City WWTP. The two other ER-M
exceedances occurred in 2-4 foot core samples; one located about 1 mile downstream of the intensive
sampling zone (sample site 4), and the other located between the Veterans Memorial Bridge and Liberty
Street (sample site 20).
As shown hi Figure 3.13d, the ER-L was exceeded at 12 of the 29 stations sampled, while the
ER-M was exceeded at only three stations under LLRS 3. The highest concentrations of 290 ug/g and
82 ug/g were found hi the 0-2 foot core samples taken near the Bay City WWTP hi the intensive
sampling zone. The other exceedances of the ER-M occurred hi the southeast section of the intensive
sampling zone hi both the 0-2 and 2-4 foot core samples. The majority of ER-L exceedances occur
within the 0-2 foot core samples throughout the intensive sampling zone.
Page 35
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
Silver
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
0.11
N/A
0.11
N/A
Median
0.58
N/A
0.36
N/A
Maximum
1.5
N/A
3.31
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
1
NOAA
ER-M
2.2
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ug/g)
The ER-M of 2.2 ug/g was not exceeded in Survey 1 (see Figure 3.14a). The ER-L was
exceeded at only one location, near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive sampling zone, at a
concentration of 1.5 ug/g.
In Survey 3 (see Figure 3.14b), neither the ER-L or ER-M were exceeded hi the surface grab
samples. However, the ER-M was exceeded at two of the three sites where core samples were taken.
The highest concentration was found in the core sample taken near the Bay City WWTP hi the intensive
sampling zone at the 0.3-1.0 foot core sample (3.31 ug/g); the other ER-M exceedance occurred
downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core). Silver was not analyzed
hi LLRS 2 or LLRS 3.
Zinc
Survey
1
LLRS 2
3
LLRS 3
Minimum
99
13
46.1
26
Median
352
100
197
130
Maximum
389
389
714
720
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
120
NOAA
ER-M
270
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ug/g)
In Survey 1, the ER-L and the ER-M for zinc were exceeded at six of the seven sample sites (see
Figure 3.15a). The maximum concentration, 389 ug/g, was found at the sample site closest to the
Saginaw Bay, about 1 mile downstream of the intensive sampling zone.
Page 36
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
As shown in Figure 3.15b, the ER-M for zinc was exceeded in Survey 3 surface grab samples
at three of the seven stations sampled, all of which are located upstream of the intensive sampling zone.
The concentrations at these three sites ranged from 347 ug/g to a maximum of 541 ug/g (at sample site
24, located just upstream of Lafayette Street in the ship canal area). Two other sample locations had
surface grab samples that exceeded the ER-L; in the southeast area of the intensive sampling zone (sample
site 5), and about 1 mile downstream of the intensive sampling zone (sample site 2). For Survey 3 core
samples, the ER-M was exceeded in two of the three core samples taken near the Bay City WWTP in
the intensive sampling zone (in the 0.3 -1.0 foot and 0 - 2 foot core samples). The 0.6 -1.6 foot core
sample zinc concentration at sample site 2 (224 ug/g) also exceeded the ER-L.
In LLRS 2, the ER-L for zinc was exceeded at 14 of the 26 stations sampled, while the ER-M
was exceeded at five stations (see Figure 3.15c). Three of the four ER-M exceedances occur in the 0 -
2 foot core samples, a maximum concentration of 510 ug/g found south of Lafayette Street outside of
the ship canal. Exceedances of the ER-L tend to occur throughout the Saginaw River in both the 0 - 2
and 2 - 4 foot core samples. The 4-6 foot core samples taken between the Veterans Memorial Bridge
and the Grand Trunk railroad (sample sites 19 and 20) also showed high concentrations of zinc. The
surface grab sample (not shown on Figure 3.15c) taken just downstream of the Grand Trunk railroad,
also contained high concentrations of zinc (270 ug/g).
In LLRS 3, the ER-L was exceeded at 18 of the 29 stations sampled while the ER-M was
exceeded at only two stations (see Figure 3.15d). The two ER-M exceedances occurred in 0 - 2 foot core
samples, with the maximum concentration of 720 ug/g found near the Bay City WWTP. The majority
of ER-L exceedances, found throughout the Saginaw Survey area, were attributable to the 0 - 2 foot core
samples. Other high zinc concentrations were found in several of the surface grabs taken in LLRS 3 (not
shown in Figure 3.15d), particularly at the site just downstream of the intensive sampling zone (site 0401
at 510 ug/g), near the Bay City WWTP outfall (site 0601 at 380 ug/g), and between Lafayette Street and
the Veterans Memorial Bridge (site 0801 at 360 ug/g).
Acenaphthene
Acenapthene was sampled for only in Survey 3. All surface grab and core samples were reported
as below detections levels. It should be noted however, that the reported detection levels at most sites
was above the ER-L value for acenaphthene (160 ng/g).
Page 37
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
Anthracene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<8
N/A
<60
N/A
Median
38
N/A
<250
N/A
Maximum
70
N/A
800
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
85
NOAA
ER-M
960
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
The ER-L and ER-M were not exceeded for anthracene at any location in Survey 1 (see Figure
3.16a). All but one of the surface grab samples in Survey 3 were reported as below detection levels; the
one detection was from the surface grab taken in Saginaw Bay (Survey 3) that exceeded the ER-L (see
Figure 3.16b). It should be noted however, that the reported detection limits for all samples were above
the ER-L, but well below the ER-M. In the Survey 3 core samples, anthracene was found above
detection levels and above the ER-L in two sample cores, the highest of which (800 ug/g) occurred
downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core). The other ER-L
exceedance was found in the 0-2 foot core taken near the Bay City WWTP.
Benzfafanthracene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
15
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
160
N/A
340
N/A
Maximum
300
N/A
2,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
230
NOAA
ER-M
1,600
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
In Survey 1, the ER-L for benz(a)anthracene was exceeded at one station near the Bay City
WWTP (see Figure 3.17a). The concentration at this site was 300 ng/g. The ER-M was not exceeded
at any location hi Survey 1.
Page 38
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
As shown in Figure 3.17b, benz(a)anthracene was detected at four of the seven surface grab
samples taken hi Survey 3. The highest surface grab sample value of 690 ng/g was found at a location
south of Lafayette Street; all four samples exceeded the ER-L of 230 ng/g, but all stations were well
below the ER-M of 1,600 ng/g. All Survey 3 core samples except one exceeded the ER-L for
benz(a)anthracene. The highest concentration in Survey 3 (2,000 ng/g) was found downstream of the
intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 -1.6 foot core).
Benzo(a)pyrene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<6
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
210
N/A
<250
N/A
Maximum
310
N/A
440
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
400
NOAA
ER-M
2,500
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
As shown hi Figure 3.18a, all stations sampled hi Survey 1 were below both the ER-L and ER-M
for benzo(a)pyrene.
In Survey 3, the ER-M was not exceeded by any sample, but the ER-L was exceeded at one
station south of Lafayette Street with a concentration of 440 ng/g (see Figure 3.18b). None of the core
samples were reported above analytical detection levels.
Chrysene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
24
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
310
N/A
320
N/A
Maximum
500
N/A
2,200
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
400
NOAA
ER-M
2,800
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ng/g)
Page 39
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
There were no exceedances of the ER-M for chrysene hi Survey 1 (see Figure 3.19a). The ER-L
was exceeded at two locations with the maximum concentration of 500 ng/g found near the Bay City
WWTP hi the intensive sampling zone.
In Survey 3, two surface grab samples exceeded the ER-L (see Figure 3.19b). The highest
concentration hi the surface grab samples (600 ng/g) was found south of Lafayette Street (sample site 24).
All three sample locations for which core samples were taken had concentration exceeding the ER-L; the
highest concentration of chrysene (2,200 ng/g) was found hi the core sample taken downstream of the
intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 -1.6 foot core).
Fluoranthene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
36
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
160
N/A
490
N/A
Maximum
280
N/A
1,400
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
620
ug/gOC
NOAA
ER-L
600
NOAA
ER-M
3,600
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ng/g)
As shown hi Figure 3.20a, all the Survey 1 sample sites were well below the ER-L guideline of
600 ng/g, with the maximum concentration reported at 280 ng/g.
In Survey 3, two surface grab samples exceeded the ER-L, with the maximum concentration at
1,200 ng/g, found downstream of Lafayette Street (see Figure 3.20b). High fluoranthene concentrations
were also found hi the Survey 3 core samples, with ER-M exceedances found at two of the three sites.
The highest concentration (1,400 ng/g) was detected hi the core sample taken downstream of the intensive
sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core). The 0-2 foot and 0.3 - 1.0 foot core samples taken
near the Bay City WWTP also contained fluoranthene concentrations in excess of the ER-M (870 ng/g
and 1,000 ng/g, respectively).
The EPA EqP-based criteria for fluoranthene is 620 ug/gOC. When fluoranthene data for the
Saginaw River are normalized with respect to organic carbon, the distribution of criteria exceedances
changes somewhat from bulk sediment concentrations. At no location hi either Survey 1 or Survey 3 is
the EqP-based criteria for fluoranthene exceeded (see Figures 3.20c and 3.20d). The maximum level is
now found hi the intensive sample zone near the Bay City WWTP (9.27 ug/gOC).
Page 40
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
FJuorene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<7
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
25
N/A
<250
N/A
Maximum
69
N/A
300
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
35
NOAA
ER-M
640
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
Two stations sampled in Survey 1 exceeded the ER-L of 35 ng/g with concentrations of 38 ng/g
and 69 ng/g (see Figure 3.21a). All stations were well below the ER-M guideline of 640 ng/g.
In Survey 3, all surface grab samples were below the detection limits, which were reported above
the ER-L, but below the ER-M (see Figure 3.21b). All but one Survey 3 core sample were reported
below detection limits. The one detection (300 ng/g) was hi the core sample taken downstream of the
intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 -1.6 foot core).
2-Methylnaphthalene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<6
N/A
<60
N/A
Median
38
N/A
<250
N/A
Maximum
63
N/A
270
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
65
NOAA
ER-M
670
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
In Survey 1, there were no exceedances of the ER-L or the ER-M for 2-methylnaphthalene (see
Figure 3.22a). the highest reported concentration (63 ng/g) was found near the Bay City WWTP in the
intensive sampling zone.
Page 41
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapters
In Survey 3, all sample concentrations were reported below detection limits, except for one
surface grab sample taken in the Saginaw Bay (sample site 1). As shown hi Figure 3.22b, the
concentration at this site (270 ng/g) exceeds the ER-L, but is well below the ER-M for 2-
methylnaphthalene. All of the Survey 3 core samples were reported below detection levels.
Naphthalene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<6
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
40
N/A
<250
N/A
Maximum
55
N/A
270
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
340
NOAA
ER-M
2,100
N/A - Not Available
(All units are in ng/g)
In Survey 1, all concentrations found were well below the ER-L of 340 ug/g (see Figure 3.23a).
In Survey 3, all sample concentrations were reported below detection limits, except for one
surface grab sample taken hi the Saginaw Bay (sample site 1). As shown hi Figure 3.23b, the
concentration at this site (270 ng/g) does not exceed the ER-L or ER-M for naphthalene. All of the
Survey 3 core samples were reported below detection levels.
Phenanthrene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
27
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
270
N/A
510
N/A
Maximum
390
N/A
3,300
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
180
ug/gOC
NOAA
ER-L
225
NOAA
ER-M
1,380
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ng/g except as noted for the EPA EqP Criteria)
Page 42
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
As shown in Figure 3.24a, the ER-L for phenanthrene is exceeded at 5 of the 7 stations sampled
in Survey 1. The highest concentration of 390 ng/g was found in the sample located in the intensive
sampling zone near the Bay City WWTP. There are no exceedances of the ER-M hi Survey 1.
In Survey 3, six of the seven surface grab sample stations had samples that exceed the ER-L;
phenanthrene was undetected at the Michigan Street sample location (see Figure 3.24b). One of the three
core sample sites under Survey 3 contained a sample that exceeded the ER-M; the highest value (3,300
ng/g) was found hi the core sample taken downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 2; 0.6 -
1.6 foot core). All four core samples taken near the Bay City WWTP hi the intensive sample zone
exceeded the ER-L, as well as the two core samples taken hi the southeast area of the intensive sample
zone.
When phenanthrene Survey 3 data for the Saginaw River are normalized with respect to organic
carbon, the distribution of criteria exceedances changes from bulk sediment concentrations. No locations
exceed the EqP-based criteria for phenanthrene. In Survey 1 (see Figure 3.24c), the maximum level is
found near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive zone, at 18.75 ug/gOC that is well below the EqP-based
criteria of 180 ug/g OC. In Survey 3, all values are well below the EqP-based criteria, with the
maximum value being 69.57 ug/g OC, located again near the Bay City WWTP (see Figure 3.24d).
Pyrene
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
44
N/A
<160
N/A
Median
550
N/A
880
N/A
Maximum
670
N/A
6,600
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
350
NOAA
ER-M
2,200
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ng/g)
As shown in Figure 3.25a, five of the seven stations sampled in Survey 1 were above the ER-L,
with concentrations ranging from 460 ng/g to the maximum concentration of 670 ng/g. The reported
concentrations of all the samples were well below the ER-M.
In Survey 3, the ER-L was exceeded at five of the seven surface grab samples taken, with
concentrations ranging from 710 ng/g to 1,800 ng/g (see Figure 3.25b). The maximum concentration
hi the surface grab samples was found south of Lafayette Street. All three sample locations for which
core samples were taken had concentrations exceeding the ER-L; the highest concentration of pyrene
(6,600 ng/g) was found hi the core sample taken downstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site
2; 0.6 - 1.6 foot core). The other ER-M exceedance (2,700 ng/g) was found in the 0.3-1.0 core sample
taken near the Bay City WWTP.
Page 43
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
Total PCBs*
Survey
1
LLRS2
3
LLRS3
Minimum
<260
78.34
<29
16.18
Median
<460
863.27
335
500.68
Maximum
60,000
34,427.37
87,100
10,991.24
EPAEqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
50
NOAA
ER-M
400
N/A - Not Available
(All units are hi ng/g)
* Total PCB concentrations under Surveys 1 and 3 were derived by summing the individual PCS
Aroclor values for each site.
As shown hi Figure 3.26a, the majority of samples taken for PCBs in Survey 1 were reported
as below detection levels that were above the ER-L and ER-M. Several samples in Survey 1 did contain
high detectable concentrations of PCBs, including those found near the Bay City WWTP in the intensive
sample zone and in the area just downstream from the intensive sample area (sample site 4). High
concentration of PCBs were also detected at sample site 10, that is the furthest upstream station in the
survey.
In Survey 3, PCBs were detected hi both the surface grab and core samples (see Figure 3.26b).
The highest concentrations occur hi the core samples taken near the Bay City WWTP, ranging hi
concentrations from 96 ng/g to 87,100 ng/g.
In LLRS 2, all samples contained detectable amounts of PCBs, several of which exceeded the ER-
M for PCBs (see Figure 3.26c). The highest concentration occurs hi the 0 - 2 foot core sample taken
near the Bay City WWTP. The second highest concentration (14,523.35 ng/g) occurs hi the 0 - 2 foot
core sample taken on the southern shore of the river, just upstream of the intensive sample zone (sample
site 17). Subsurface core samples (2-4 foot cores) also contained high PCB concentrations, particularly
in the area about 1 mile downstream of the intensive survey zone (sample sites 4 and 5).
High concentrations of PCBs also were found hi LLRS 3 samples (see Figure 3.26d). Many of
the high concentrations are from the 0 - 2 foot core samples, with the highest concentration (10,991.24
ng/g) found hi the southeast area of the intensive sample zone. Other high concentrations were found
hi samples from areas just upstream and downstream from the Bay City WWTP.
Pesticides
No pesticides were analyzed for under LLRS 2 or 3. However, under Surveys 1 and 3 several
pesticides were monitored for, and the majority of sample values were found below detection limits.
However, for the four pesticides for which ER-M and ER-L values are available (dieldrin, DDT, DDD,
Page 44
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
and DDE), the few detectable values in Survey 1 were found to exceed both the ER-M or ER-L. In
Survey 3, the few detectable values were found to exceed the ER-M or the ER-L. This was particularly
true in the surface grab samples located in the furthest downstream areas as well as in Saginaw Bay.
When Survey 3 dieldrin data for the Saginaw River are normalized with respect to organic
carbon, the distribution of criteria exceedances changes from bulk sediment concentrations. No locations
exceed the EqP-based criteria for dieldrin. In Survey 1 (see Figure 3.27), the maximum level (about 5
ug/gOC) is found about 1 mile upstream of the intensive sample zone (sample site 7).
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter
To provide a preliminary indication of which chemicals may be of concern in the Saginaw River
AOC, a simple comparative analysis was performed based the relative exceedance of the ER-M value.
In particular, the mean measured value of each parameter (assuming zero for any nondetect value) was
compared to the ER-M value for the parameter. The resulting ratio (herein referred to as the "Mean
Exceedance") was calculated for each chemical within each survey. Data between the four surveys are
not combined, therefore each parameter may have four mean exceedance values (if the parameter was
analyzed in all four surveys). The ER-M was chosen for comparative purposes since one was available
for all chemicals discussed in Section 3.3.2, and was assumed to be a better indicator for concern (as
particularly compared to the ER-L).
Once mean exceedance values were determined, the values were ranked. For the purposes of
ranking, metals and organic parameters were ranked separately and separate ranks were determined for
each survey. The results of the ranking for Surveys 1 and 3 are present xl in Table 3.3. Table 3.4
presents the ranking for LLRSs 2 and 3.
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN SURVEYS 1 AND 3
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Survey 1
Mean
Exceedance
0.12
0.22
0.7
0.15
0.48
Relative Rank
Survey 3
Mean
Exceedance
Relative Rank
Metals
8
6
3
7
4
0.51
0.32
0.88
0.18
0.51
4
7
2
8
5
Page 45
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN SURVEYS 1 AND 3
Chemical
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Survey 1
Mean
Exceedance
0.12
0.97
0.27
1.21
Relative Rank
9
2
5
1
Survey 3
Mean
Exceedance
0.18
0.97
0.35
0.83
Relative Rank
9
1
6
3
; " Organics ;
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PCBs
0.042
0.095
0.074
0.105
0.044
0.038
0.053
0.018
0.176
0.2
20.51
9
5
6
4
8
10
7
11
3
2
1
0.078
0.264
0.022
0.161
0.14
0.052
0.024
0.008
0.519
0.61
18.52
7
4
10
5
6
8
9
11
3
2
1
Page 46
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.4 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN LLRS 2 AND 3
Parameter
Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
LLRS 2
Mean
Exceedance
0.16
0.38
0.12
0.43
0.46
0.54
Organies
Total PCBs
10.83
Relative
Rank
5
4
6
3
2
1
N/A
LLRS 3
Mean
Exceedance
Relative
Rank
0.25
0.47
0.13
0.39
0.59
0.58
5
3
6
4
1
2
' '
4.79
N/A
Of the nine toxic metals analyzed for in Surveys 1 and 3, zinc, nickel and chromium rank the
highest of the metals in both surveys. The high concentrations for these parameters were particularly
found in the subsurface samples in Survey 3.
As for the organic chemicals, the highest mean exceedances hi both Surveys 1 and 3 were found
for PCBs and the PAHs phenanthrene and pyrene. PCBs had the highest mean exceedance (on average
a sample was found at about 20 times the ER-M value). It should be noted that the highest of the ER-M
exceedances for PCBs were generally from the 0 - 2 foot core sediment samples.
In LLRS 2 and LLRS 3, zinc, nickel, chromium and lead had the highest mean exceedances of
the metals. PCBs had the highest mean exceedance hi both surveys; the average exceedance hi LLRS
2 was almost 11 tunes the ER-M and hi LLRS almost five tunes the ER-M.
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location
The second portion of the analysis of Saginaw River sediment samples focuses on which sample
locations are of concern. For purposes of this analysis, sample locations are examined in one of two
ways; the number of chemicals that exceed the NOAA guidelines at a sample site, and the relative
exceedance of the guidelines at the site.
Page 47
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
One difficulty directly comparing sampling locations stems from differences in the total number
of parameters sampled and the number of samples collected from different locations. While some
locations are sampled at three sediment core depths, others are sampled at only two. Several parameters
have been sampled at only a few sampling locations and usually only at one depth (typically surface
samples). In light of these differences, an analysis by sample location was still performed to provide a
preliminary indication of the areas of concern within the Saginaw River AOC.
As shown in Table 3.5, the surface grab samples taken near the Bay City WWTP had the greatest
number of ER-M exceedances for both metals under Survey 1. Under Survey 3, the greatest number of
exceedances tend to occur in three areas of the Saginaw River AOC, two of which are located in the
intensive sampling area (see Table 3.6). The locations within the intensive survey area include sampling
locations 5 (the southeast and downstream area within the intensive survey area) and sampling location
6 (near the Bay City WWTP). The third location within the Saginaw River AOC is for sampling location
2 (located about 1 mile downstream of the intensive sampling zone). It should also be noted that the
greatest number of exceedances generally occurs in the deeper core samples.
As shown in Table 3.7, the greatest number of exceedances in LLRS 2 tend to occur in the same
three areas of the Saginaw River AOC, two of which are located in the intensive sampling area. The
locations within the intensive survey area include sampling locations 10 (the southeast and downstream
area within the intensive survey area) and sampling location 14 (near the Bay City WWTP). The third
location within the Saginaw River AOC is between the Grand Trunk Railroad and Veterans Memorial
Bridge sampling location.
Finally, in LLRS 3, the greatest number of exceedances occur in the intensive sampling area,
again in the southeast and downstream area within the intensive survey area and near the Bay City
WWTP (see Table 3.8).
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION - SURVEY 1
Sample Site
2
2
Duplicate
(no PCBs)
3
4
4
Duplicate
(PCBs only)
Metals
1
1
1
1
"**
Organics
0
0
0
1
1
Page 48
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M
LOCATION - SURVEY 1
BY SAMPLE
Sample Site
6
7
9
10
Metals
4
1
1
0
Organics
1
0
0
1
- No Data
TABLE 3.6
TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION -
SURVEYS
Sample Site
1
(Duplicate 1)
1
(Duplicate 2)
1
(Duplicate 3)
2
5
6
6b
8
16
24
Metali
Surface
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1
0
1
Depth 1*
-
-
-
4
2
3
5
-
-
-
Depth 2*
-
-
-
0
1
0
0
-
-
-
Surface
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
0
1
0
Organics
Depth 1*
-
-
-
2
1
1
1
-
-
-
Depth 2*
-
—
—
1
0
1
1
-
-
-
-No Data
* Core depth* vary per sample. Depth 1 for lample rites 5 and 6 is 0-2 foot; for sample 2 0.6-1.6 foot, and for sample 6b 0.3-1
foot. Depth 2 for samples 5 and 6 is 2-4 foot, for sample 2 1.6-3 foot, and for sample 6b 1-2.6 foot.
Page 49
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.7 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION - LLRS 2
Sample Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
101
Surface Gnbi
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0-2 Foot Cores
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
-
2-4 Foot Corea
-
0
-
2
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
-
1
-
4-6 Foot Corea
-
-
-
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
1
2
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
Page 50
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.7 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION - LLRS 2
Sample Site
202
401
702
Surface Grabs
0
0
0
0-2 Foot Cores
-
-
-
2-4 Foot Core*
-
i
-
4-6 Foot Corel
-
-
-
-No Data
TABLE 3.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION - LLRS 3
Sample Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Duplicate)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Surface Grabs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0-2 Foot Cores
-
-
0
0
0
0
3/3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-4 Foot Cores
0
-
0
-
0
-
3/3
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
4-6 Foot Cores
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
Page 51
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.8
TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE LOCATION - LLRS 3
Sample Site
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
101
201
401
601
801
Surface Grmbi
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
1
1
1
0-2 Foot Corel
0
0
0
0
3
-
-
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
2-4 Foot Core*
-
0
-
0
0
5
-
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
4-6 Foot Coret
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-NoDaU
The second analysis performed provides a preliminary indication of which locations may be of
concern hi the Saginaw River AOC, using a simple comparative analysis based the relative exceedance
of the ER-M value. In particular, the average of the mean exceedances of chemical concentrations
(shown previously in Tables 3.3 and 3.4) was compared to the ER-M value. For purposes of this
analysis, two different mean exceedances were calculated for each sample location for each survey; one
for all metals and one for all organic chemicals (PAHs and PCBs). Data between the four surveys are
not combined, therefore several locations may have four mean exceedance values (if a sample was
analyzed at a location in all four surveys). The ER-M was chosen for comparative purposes since one
was available for all chemicals discussed in Section 3.3.2, and was assumed to be a better indicator for
concern (as particularly compared to the ER-L).
Page 52
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 3
Table 3.9 presents the mean exceedance values determined for each Survey 1 sample location,
and ranks them in relation to all other locations. As shown, sample location 6 (near the Bay City WWTP
in the intensive sampling zone) possesses mean exceedances greater than one for both metals and
organics. Sample location 7 (just downstream from the Grand Trunk Railroad) possesses a relatively high
mean exceedance for metals, as does sample site 2 (located about 1 mile downstream of the intensive
sampling zone) for organic chemicals (primarily PCBs).
Table 3.10a and Table 3.10b present the mean exceedance values determined for each Survey 3
sample location for metals and organic chemicals, respectively. The highest mean exceedances for both
metals and organics occur in three areas of the Saginaw River AOC, two of which are located in the
intensive sampling area. The locations within the intensive survey area include sampling locations 5 (the
southeast and downstream area within the intensive survey area) and sampling location 6 (near the Bay
City WWTP). The third location within the Saginaw River AOC is for sampling location 2 (located about
1 mile downstream of the intensive sampling zone). It should also be noted that the high mean
exceedances occur in the deeper core samples.
As shown in Table 3.11, the highest mean exceedances for metals hi LLRS 2 occur in the
intensive sampling area. The locations within the intensive survey area include sampling locations 10 (the
southeast and downstream area within the intensive survey area) and sampling location 14 (near the Bay
City WWTP). In LLRS 3 (Table 3.12), the high mean exceedances for metals occur hi the intensive
sampling area, in the southeast and downstream area within the intensive survey area and near the Bay
City WWTP. The highest mean exceedance was found in the 2-4 foot core samples near the Bay City
WWTP.
As discussed previously in section 3.3.2, high PCB concentrations were detected in both LLRS
2 and LLRS 3. The highest concentrations occurred in the intensive survey zone (near the Bay City
Wastewater Treatment Plant and the southeast area) and about 1 mile downstream of the intensive survey
zone.
Page 53
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.9 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS
AND ORGANICS
Sample Site
2
2
Duplicate
(no PCBs)
3
4
4
Duplicate
(PCBs only)
6
7
9
10
Metals
Mean
Exceedance
0.435
0.451
0.439
0.398
"™
1.11
0.466
0.318
0.147
Relative Rank
5
3
4
6
~~
1
2
7
8
Organics (PAHs and PCBs)
Mean
Exceedance
0.075
0.112
0.102
0.468
2
15.55
0.01
0.031
0.63
Relative Rank
8
5
6
4
3
1
7
9
2
- No Data
Page 54
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.10a SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR METALS
Sample Site
1
(Duplicate 1)
1
(Duplicate 2)
1
(Duplicate 3)
2
5
6
6b
8
16
24
Surface
Mean
Exceedance
0.214
0.1997
0.175
0.216
0.282
0.129
-
0.462
0.534
0.49
Relative Rank
12
13
14
11
10
17
-
8
6
7
Core Depth 1*
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
1.108
0.645
0.886
2.29
-
-
-
Relative Rank
-
-
-
2
4
3
1
-
-
-
Core Depth 2*
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
0.142
0.619
0.166
0.378
-
-
-
Relative Rank
—
-
-
16
5
15
9
-
-
-
-No Data
* Core depths vary per sample. Depth 1 for sample sites 5 and 6 U 0-2 foot; for sample 2 0.6-1.6 foot, and for sample 6b 0.3-1 foot.
Depth 2 for samples 5 and 6 is 2-4 foot, for sample 2 1.6-3 foot, and for sample 6b 1-2.6 foot.
Page 55
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.10b SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR ORGANICS
Sample Site
1
(Duplicate 1)
1
(Duplicate 2)
1
(Duplicate 3)
2
5
6
6b
8
16
24
Surface
Mean
Bxceedance
0.23
0.076
0.022
0.1S1
0.249
0.022
-
0.134
0.202
0.245
Relative Rank
10
15
16(tie)
12
8
16(tie)
-
13
11
9
Core Depth 1*
Mean
Bxceedance
-
-
-
0.829
1.066
20.07
0.331
-
-
-
Relative Rank
-
-
-
5
3
1
6
-
-
-
Core Depth 2*
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
0.104
0.267
1.054
6.47
-
-
-
Relative Rank
-
-
14
7
4
2
-
-
-
-No Data
* Core depths vary per sample. Depth 1 for sample sites 5 and 6 is 0-2 foot; for sample 2 0.6-1.6 foot, and for sample 6b 0.3-1 foot.
Depth 2 for samples 5 and 6 is 2-4 foot, for sample 2 1.6-3 foot, and for sample 6b 1-2.6 foot.
Page 56
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.11 LLRS 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS
Sample
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Surface Grabi
Mean
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0-2 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
0.48
0.23
0.18
0.44
0.63
0.38
0.25
0.06
0.1
1.24
0.34
0.28
0.17
1.14
0.28
0.16
0.61
0.19
0.12
0.31
0.66
0.61
0.2
0.22
0.12
0.12
Relative
Rank
15
36
42
17
11
20
35
62
59
1
24
31
43
3
30
44
13
40
53
28
9
12
39
37
54
52
2-4 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
-'
0.15
-
0.83
0.56
-
0.34
0.04
0.16
0.27
0.13
0.18
0.29
0.11
0.11
0.03
0.09
0.37
0.12
0.95
0.47
0.42
0.15
0.04
-
0.21
Relative
Rank
-
47
-
7
14
-
25
63
45
32
50
41
29
57
58
65
60
22
56
5
16
18
46
64
-
38
4-6 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
-
0.27
-
0.37
-
0.09
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
-
-
0.75
0.83
0.12
0.26
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
33
-
21
-
61
-
-
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
8
6
55
34
-
-
-
-
Page 57
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.11 LLRS 2 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANKS FOR METALS
Sample
Site
101
202
401
702
Surface Giaba
Mean
Bxceedance
0.14
0.32
0.33
0.4
Relative
Rank
48
27
26
19
0-2 Foot Core*
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
2-4 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
-'
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
4-6 Foot Core*
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
- No Data
Page 58
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.12 LLRS 3 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANK FOR METALS
Sample
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Duplicate)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Surface Gobi
Mean
fixceedance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.10
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
49
-
0-2 Foot Corel
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
0.53
0.06
0.37
0.33
0.96
0.32
0.56
0.65
0.05
0.18
0.06
0.15
0.26
0.13
0.16
0.37
0.33
0.14
0.36
0.19
0.44
1.00
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
16
54
22
26
3-4
30
11
8
57
46
55
42
34
45
40
23
28
44
24
37
19
2
-
2-4 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
6.88
-
0.33
-
0.22
-
0.93
-
0.29
0.56
-
0.08
-
-
0.07
0.59
0.32
0.26
0.055
-
0.57
-
0.37
0.12
2.87
Relative
Rank
7
-
25
-
35
-
5-6
-
32
13
-
51
-
-
53
9
29
33
56
-
10
-
21
47
1
4-6 Foot Corel
Mean
Exceedance
-
0.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.08
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
48
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Page 59
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.12 LLRS 3 MEAN SITE EXCEEDANCES AND RANK FOR METALS
Sample
Site
26
27
28
29
101
201
401
601
801
Surface Grabs
Mean
Exceedance
-
-
-
-
0.18
0.22
0.56
0.46
0.54
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
38
36
12
17
14
0-2 Foot Core*
Mean
Exceeds ncc
-
0.17
0.54
0.45
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
39
15
18
-
-
-
-
-
2-4 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
-
0.07
0.16
0.14
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
52
41
43
-
-
-
-
-
4-6 Foot Cores
Mean
Exceedance
0.31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-No Data
Page 60
-------
Figure 3.7a Survey 1 Arsenic Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
100
ER-M = 85
80
60
I
40
ER-L =33
20
0
2 3
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
fi
W)
1
a
U»
-------
100
80
60
|
40
20
0
Figure 3.7b Survey 3 Arsenic Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 85
—
—
—
ER-L-33
i
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
i
1 2 5 66x 16
8 24
Survey 3 Sampie Number
6
CM
Ł
5*
if
i
5
•o
sr
-------
-------
Figure 3.8b Survey 3 Cadmium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
12
10
8
o>
o) 6
0
ER-M = 9
ER-L =5
17.4
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
• grab
D 0-2 ft
8
24
ro
B
o
n
1
-------
1
8!
12
10
8
•Si a
O) D
3
4
2
0
Figure 3.8c LLRS 2 Cadmium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
D 0-2 ft I
—
ER-M = 9
ER-L = 5
II 1
'1 "i 'a '
4
1
il
II
| 2-4 ft
I 1 l,i
he? as a i is 3 4 s ie 7 is 19 o i ^ <=•> «« ^
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
Cfl
o
1
cr
A
1
?
n
-------
Figure 3.8d LLRS 3 Cadmium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
12
10
8
ER-M = 9
ER-L = 5
I
I
0-2 ft n 2-4 ft
LlOJ
12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
x
n
en
I
9
1
a
4
=
O
n
to
•o
-------
Figure 3.9a Survey 1 Chromium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ER-M = 145
ER-L =80
2 3
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
fi
V)
I
if
I
1
S
if
5
n
-------
Figure 3.9b Survey 3 Chromium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
350
300
250
200
I
150
100
50
-
-
—
-
—
687
ER-M = 145
- ER-L =80
—
-
I
1
1 grab
n 0-2 ft
i
1 2-4 ft
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
8 24
n
i
I
a
|
a*
f
i*
i
5
s
§
n
n
sf
"S.
-------
n
S
Figure 3.9c LLRS 2 Chromium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
250
200
150
_ ER-M = 145
100
50
0
ER-L =80
6' 1 - H U 1U
I
•flflb 'Ib'l/
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
1
n
-------
Figure 3.9d LLRS 3 Chromium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
300
250
200
O)
"BM50
3
100
50
0
ER-M = 145
1
ER-L = 80
L
0-2 ft M 2-4 ft
JL
I
Q_
1
I
1
1 2345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
6
en
sr
5'
I
5
if
5
n
o
g"
•o
-------
I
Figure 3.1 Oa Survey 1 Copper Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
400
300
100
0
..ER,!yi.=.390..
ER-L =70
2 3
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
fi
en
5?
5*
**
n
&
ore
I
a
ft
ft
I
-------
Figure 3.1 Ob Survey 3 Copper Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
400
300
5*
B)200
3
100
0
ER-M = 390
-
—
—
—
ER-L =70
i
r
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
1 1 1
1 2 5 66x 16
8 24
Survey 3 Sample Number
fi
V)
I
3
1
e
3
|
E*
I
I
I
§
n
!
-------
400
300
D)
B>200
3
100
0
Figure 3.1 Oc LLRS 2 Copper Concentration vs
FR-M = 390
-
—
-
—
-
—
-
ER-L =70
1 I
1 i
D 0-2 ft • 2-4 ft
111
1
1
. NOAA Guidelines
I
I — »T "2 — "3 "3 -V6' / b U 1U IT li! IS 4 1& Ib / 18 is* u t*. <-*,
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
ARCS - Assessment of Sa
K
s
?
1
5
I
o
n
I
5
-------
Figure 3.1 Od LLRS 3 Copper Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
400
300
*
100
ER-M = 390
ER-L = 70
I
• -11 •
I
2345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
fi
§
o
I
&
s
5
n
1
-------
Figure 3.11 a Survey 1 Lead Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ER-M =
ER-L = 35
2 3
6 7
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
3,
K
5"
i
!
>
n
f
-------
120
100 -
80 -
c
60 -
40 -
20 -
Figure 3.1 1b Survey 3 Lead Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
168
ER-M = 110
—
—
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
ER-L=35
1
I
2 5 66x 16 8 24
Survey 3 Sample Number
i
K
i
I
f
-------
Figure 3.11c LLRS 2 Lead Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
200
150
50
ER-M =
0 LJT
ER-L = 35
Iff-i 'ytf'iu
0-2 ft • 2-4 ft
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
fi
1
5
1
-------
120 -
100 -
80 -
5 60 -
40 -
20 -
Figure 3.11d LLRS 3 Lead Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
—
—
—
-
-
1
I
ER-M = 110
r
ER-L - 35
i—i
II
i
|-i
• o.
D2-
I
-2ft
-4ft
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
I
*
&
I
I
1
-------
1.4
1.2
1
0)0.8
O)
3
0.6
0.4
0.2
'
Figure 3.1 2a Survey 1 Mercury Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 1.3
—
-
r .
—
-
—
—
- ER-L = 0.15
I -
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
o
1
1
S
e
1
sr
5"
f
|"
a
\
^
§*
!
-------
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
00.8
3
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0
Figure 3.1 2b Survey 3 Mercury Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 1.3
—
—
ER-L=0.15
i i
1
1 1
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
•
T I 1
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
8 24
n
i
Ł
s?
5*
1
5
I
-------
I
Figure 3.13a Survey 1 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
150
100
O)
3
ER-M = 50
50
0
ER-L = 30
23
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
en
5?
a
ff
|
B
^
1
-------
1
8
Fiqure 3.1 3b Survey 3 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
** * 316
150
100
3
50
0
ER-M = 50
ER-L=30
I
,
r
,
I
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
8 24
e
S'
I
1
n
I
-------
Figure 3.13c LLRS 2 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ER-M = 50
ER-L = 30
'v
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
I
I
I
-------
I
Figure 3.13d LLRS 3 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
100
80
60
|
40
20
1
ER-M = 50
ER-L = 30
i
290.
0-2 ft D 2-4 ft
I
I
12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
st
•»•
s
-------
Figure 3.14a Survey 1 Silver Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2.5
1.5
I
0.5
0
ER-M = 2.2
ER-L =1
2 3
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
fi
CO
i.
i
1
-------
I
Figure 3.1 4b Survey 3 Silver Concentration vs.
2.83 3.31
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
ER-M = 2.2
"
-
-
ER-b=1
I
1
NOAA Guidelines
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
1
I grab
D 0-2 ft
I
1 2-4 ft
8 24
Ł
CO
1
1
e
i
er
a
t
-------
I
«
«4
400
300
•5*
B200
3
100
0
Figure 3.1 5a Survey 1 Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
-
-
-
-
ER-M = 270
ER-L=120
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
1
i
3
3*
f
*
s
*
g
n
I
o*
-------
Figure 3.1 5b Survey 3 Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
400
300
§200
100
ER-M = 270
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
714 Ml
r
ER-L=120
-
0 "
1
i
2 5 66x 16 8 24
Survey 3 Sample Number
Ł
5
i
|
e
•*>
1
5T
a
3
B'
i
&
$
>
o
n
w
-------
Figure 3.15c LLRS 2 Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
500
400
300
ER-M = 270
200
ER-L=120
100
0
I
oo
0-2 ft • 2-4 ft
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
fi
I
8
-------
300
Figure 3.15d LLRS 3 Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
420 720
250
200
o>
^)
3
100
50
0
ER-M = 270
1
L
0-2 ft 2-4 ft
ER-L = 120
12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
i
I
1
5
8
o
B1
1
-------
Figure 3.1 6a Survey 1 Anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
1,000
800
600
O)
c
400
200
0
ER-M = 960
ER-L =85
U L
23
±
6
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
fi
en
I
1
s
to
1
-------
I
Figure 3.1 6b Survey 3 Anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
ER-M = 960
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
ER-L =85
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
grab
0-2 ft
2-4 ft
8
24
fi
CO
!
&
5°
I
fi
n
§"
1
-------
I
5
Figure 3.17a Survey 1 Benz(a)anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
1,500
1,000
500
0
ER-M = 1600
ER-L =230
II I
23
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
i
sr
5*
8
I
1
-------
Figur
1,500
1,000
500
0
e 3.1 7b Survey 3 Benz(a)anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 1600
—
_
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
—
ER-L =230
n
!
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
8 24
o
en
e
sr
9
5-
n
1
?
I
f
-------
Fig
2,500
2,000
1,500
o>
1,000
500
0
ure 3.1 8a Survey 1 Benzo(a)pyrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 2500
-
—
-
- ER-L =400
ll I I I „,
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
n
c«
Ł
I
5*
?
I
§
I
CM
-------
1
*
Figi
2,500
2,000
1,500
JD>
C
1,000
500
0
jre 3.1 8b Survey 3 Benzo(a)pyrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 2500
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
—
- ER-L =400
•
•
grab
0-2 ft
2-4 ft
| |
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
8 24
fi
co
e
1
ff
a'
!
8
n
•o
w
-------
Figure 3.19a Survey 1 Chrysene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
3,000
2,500
2,000
o>
1,500
1,000
500
0
ER-M = 2800
- ER-L=400
23
6 7
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
3*
1
-------
a?
Figure 3.19b Survey 3 Chrysene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2,500
2,000
1 ,500
1,000
500
0
- ER-M = 2800
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
_
- ER-L =400
-
1
I
:
•
1 grab
] 0-2 ft
1 2-4 ft
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 Sample Number
16 8
24
I
en
I
a
1
5
6
n
-------
g
Fi(
4,000
i
3,000
"§ 2,000
1,000
0
gure 3.20a Survey 1 Fluoranthene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
;R-M = aeoo
~
—
—
-
;R-L =600
Mill i
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
n
en
i
sr
M*
A
I
?
§
o
I
-------
a?
•8
Figure 3.20b Survey 3 Fluoranthene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
4,000
3,000 -
"& 2,000
1,000 -
0
ER-M = 3600
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
ER-L =600
-
II
I
:
•
1 grab
] 0-2 ft
1 2-4 ft
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
8 24
n
en
1
&
o
•o
-------
Figure 3.20c Survey 1 Organic Carbon Normalized Fluoranthrene
Concentration vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
I
700
600
500
0
O
CD
§>400
"of
c
1
c 300
2
o
3
FT*
I-M
200
100
0
SQC = 620ug/g OC
-
—
—
"2 "3 ""4 6 7 9 10
Master Station Number
Ł
o
Ł
1
a'
f
gi
B.
1
1
3
§
n
B1
!
-------
Figure 3.20d Survey 3 Organic Carbon Normalized Fluoranthene
vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
700
600
500
o
o
1*400
*o
Ł
300
o
J3
U_
200
100
0
SQC = 620ug/g OC
jj
2 56
Master Station Number
16
8
24
*
OJ
5T
•«•
9
5-
-------
Figure 3.21 a Survey 1 Fluorene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
700
600
500
ER-M - 640
400
I
300
200
100
0
ER-L =35
23
Survey 1 Sample Number
10
i
i
-------
Figure 3.21 b Survey 3 Fluorene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
700
600
500
ER-M = 640
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
400
en
o>
c
300
200
100
0
ER-L =35
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
z
grab
0-2 ft
2-4 ft
8
24
n
VI
1
1
S
-------
Figure 3.22a Survey 1 2-Methylnaphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
700
600
500
400
O)
c
300
200
100
0
ER-M = 670
ER-L=65
I ,
<6
l_l__l I I
23467
Survey 1 Sample Number
n
CO
sr
a
$
-------
O
OS
Figure 3.22b Survey 3 2-Methylnaphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
700
600
500
400
1
c
M f\f\
300
200
100
0
ER-M = 670
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
—
_
-
—
ER-L =65
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
-
-I 25 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
8 24
*
cn
j
»»
s.
1
5*
5
R
n
!
-------
A
I-*
3
Figure 3.23a Survey 1 Naphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2,500 r
2,000
1,500
|
1,000
500
ER-M=2100
ER-L =340
0 L*-
2 3
Survey 1 Sample Number
<6
10
1
H
4
-------
Figure 3.23b Survey 3 Naphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,
500
0
ER-M=2100
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
- ER-L =340
2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
grab
0-2 ft
2-4 ft
8 24
n
TJ
sr
-------
%
Fie
1,400
1,200
1,000
o> 800
O)
c
600
400
200
0
jure 3.24a Survey 1 Phenanthrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
h- ER-M = 1380
-
—
—
—
—
ER-L =225
I
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
o
I
i
19.
1
&
S
n
-------
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600 -
400
200 -
0
I
lure 3.24b Survey 3 Phenanthrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
7 2000
- ER-M = 1380
Missing bar indicates concentration
_ below detection limit
• grab
D 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
ER-L =225
—
-I 2 5 66x 16 16 8 24
Survey 3 - Sample Number
fi
C/3
i
Ł
5*
f
f
5
o
I
-------
Figure 3.24c Survey 1 Organic Carbon Normalized Phenanthrene Q
Concentration vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
200
150
O
O
O)
"of
| 100
c
CO
c
0)
Q.
50
0
SQC = 180 ua/a oc
>2?rt».T*;..7T.M.y.?r..My.'.y..>r.Sr:
_
—
Mill
23 467 9 10
Master Station Number
%
e
••*
cr
5*
t
Ł
«E.
i
?
s
^
* ^
§"
i
«*>
-------
Figure 3.24d Survey 3 Organic Carbon Normalized Phenanthrene
vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
200
150
O
o
I
1100
*-
(0
0)
Q.
50
0
SQC = 180ug/g OC
I I II . . I
2 5 6 16 8 24
Master Station Number
fi
en
I
99
1
S
if
1
-------
2Cf\f\
,500
2,000
1,500
5
c
1,000
cnn
OUU
'
Figure 3.25a Survey 1 Pyrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 2200
—
—
_
—
ER-L =350
I
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
Ł
•
|
2,
f
3'
§
5?
9*
3-
n
Ł
i*
i
f
5
Q
S
!
-------
2,500
2,000
1,500
1
1,000
500
0
Figure 3.25b Survey 3 Pyrene Concentration vs.
6600 21000 2700
ER-M = 2200
- Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
• grab
0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
- ER-L =350
-
NOAA Guidelines
1 2 5 66x 16 8 24
Survey 3 - Sample Number
Ł
ft
w
i
**
e
•*•
1
5
?
!
s
if
5
ft
ft
B1
T3
S
(*»
-------
3,000
2,500
2,000
"9)1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 3.26a Survey 1 PCB Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
67,900
-
-
—
—
<430 <340
ER-M = 400
<430 ER-L =50 <430
23467 9 10
Survey 1 Sample Number
V3
1
ft
I
a*
?
I
§
f
-------
3,000
2,500 -
2,000 -
1,500
1,000 -
500
0
Figure 3.26b Survey 3 PCB Concentration's. NOAA Guidelines
370087100 28000
—
-
Missing bar indicates concentration
below detection limit
ER-M = 400
1
ER-L =50 1
1
1
j 1
:
|
1 2 5 66x 16
Survey 3 - Sample Number
•
1 — |
1=1
8
grab
0-2 ft
2-4 ft
24
n
i
e
3*
B*
1
!
&
1
n
I
CM
-------
"8
Figure 3.26c LLRS 2 PCB Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
34427
14,000
12,000
10,000
0 8,000
|>
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
—
—
-
—
—
-
ER-M = 400
•••ffiZSQl
I 1
n 0-2 ft
• 2-4 ft
L- "T 2 — 3 "* "5 6 7 '89 10 11 — 12 13U 15 Ifl/ TB ^""50 21 ** ** z«z5
Large Lakes Survey 2 - Sample Number
If""
ARCS - Assessment
2,
3
3
f
|
5
Chapter3
-------
Figure 3.26d LLRS 3 PCB Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
12,000
10,000
8,000
"B> 6,000
4,000
2,000
0
ER-M = 400
0-2 ft D 2-4 ft
i
12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829
Large Lakes Survey 3 - Sample Number
fi
w
Sf
a'
I
c
O
\ A
\
-------
Figure 3.27a Survey 1 Organic Carbon Normalized Dieldrin
Concentration vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
12
10
8
O
O
I!
t 6
2
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 4
4. CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes the results from four sediment sampling surveys performed in the
Saginaw River Area of Concern (AOC). This section presents several preliminary conclusions based on
examination of the data resulting from the survey.
4.1 Metals
The only available guideline numbers for metals were taken from the NOAA Status and Trends
guidelines document (Long and Morgan, 1990). Comparison of bulk sediment concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc indicate that zinc, nickel and chromium pose
the highest potential risk for impacts to biota in the Saginaw River.
The areas where metal contamination of sediment occurred most significantly is in the intensive
sampling zone, near the Bay City Wastewater Treatment Plant and in the southeast area of the zone. The
location just upstream of the intensive sample area (near the Grand Trunk Railroad) also contained high
metals concentrations. The metals contamination in these areas generally occurred in the shallow core
samples (around the 0-2 foot depth).
4.2 Organic Chemicals
Based on the NOAA guideline numbers, total PCBs is the organic pollutant that poses the greatest
risk in contaminated sediment in the Saginaw River AOC. On average, the total PCB concentration at
a site ranged from five to 20 higher than the NOAA ER-M guideline. Other organics that on average
came close to exceeding, the NOAA ER-M include the PAHs phenanthrene and pyrene (based on Survey
1 and 3 data only).
The high PCB concentrations generally occurred within the intensive sampling zone near the Bay
City Wastewater Treatment Plant and in the southeast area. High concentrations were also detected in
core samples taken about 1 mile downstream of the intensive sampling zone.
Examination of the Survey 1 and 3 sediment data under the EPA endorsed EqP-based criteria and
the NOAA guidelines indicate two slightly differing sets of conclusions. The examination of carbon
normalized data for fluoranthene and phenanthrene (the two PAHs for which EqP-based criteria are
available and that were sampled in Surveys 1 and 3) indicate that neither chemical should be considered
as a potential source for adverse biological effects in the Saginaw River. This differs in that there were
samples that did exceed the NOAA ER-M values for each chemical. Most of the carbon normalized
concentrations for phenanthrene and fluoranthene are less than one half of the criteria value considered
to be protective of sensitive biota. For both of these contaminants the peak normalized concentration is
found at the location near the Bay City Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Page 120
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 5
5. REFERENCES
APHA (American Public Health Association), American Water Works Association and Water Pollution
Control Federation. 1975. Standard method for the examination of water and wastewater, 14th ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Bloom, N. 1989. Determination of picogram levels of methylmercury by aqueous phase ethylation,
followed by cryogenic gas chromatography with cold vapor atomic fluorescence detection. Canada
Journal of Fish. Aquatic Sci. 46(7): 1131-1140.
Bloom and Crecelius. 1983. Determination of mercury in seawater at sub-nanogram per liter levels.
Mar. Chem. 14:49-59.
Brandon, D.L., C.R. Lee, J.G. Skogerboe, J.W. Simmers, and H.E. Tatem. 1989. Information
Summary Area of Concern: Saginaw River, Michigan. Miscellaneous Paper D-89-xx, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brannon, J.M., D. Gunnison, D.E. Averett, J.L. Martin, R.L. Chen, and R.F. Athow, Jr.. 1989.
Analyses of Impacts of Bottom Sediments From Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
on Water Quality. Miscellaneous Paper D-89-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Cutter, G.A. and T.J. Oattes, 1987. Determination of dissolved sulfide and sedimentary sulfur
speciation using gas chromatography and photoionization detection. Aral. Chem. 59:717.
Guigne', J.Y., N. Rukavina, P.H. Hunt, and J.S. Ford. 1991. An Acoustic Parametric Array for
Measuring the Thickness and Stratigraphy of Contaminated Sediments. J. Great Lakes Res.,
17(1): 120-131.
Filkins, J.C., V.E. Smith, J.E. Rathburn, and S.G. Rood. 1993. ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Work
Group Sediment Assessment Guidance Document (Chapters 3-5). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, Large Lakes and Rivers Research Branch, Grosse
Island, MI.
International Joint Commission. 1987. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Appendix A. Progress
in Developing Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin. Report to the
International Joint Commission Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ontario.
Lee, C.R., D.L. Brandon, J.W. Simmers, H.E. Tatem, and J.G. Skogerboe. 1989. Information
Summary Area of Concern: Buffalo River, New York. Miscellaneous Paper EL-89-xx, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan, 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, Washington.
Page 121
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Chapter 5
Nielson, K.K. and R.W. Sanders. 1983. Multielement analysis of unweighed biological and geological
samples using backscatter and fundamental parameters. Adv. X-ray Anal. 26:385-390.
Plumb, R. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1.
Thurston et al. 1974. Aqueous ammonia equilibrium calculations. Technical Report No. 74-1 (MSU-
FBL TR 74-1). Fisheries Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 18 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993a. Biological and Chemical Assessment of
Contaminated Great Lakes Sediment. EPA 905-R93-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993b. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Acenapthene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993c. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993d. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993e. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993f. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Method 200.4. Sample preparation procedure
for spectrochemical analyses of total elements in sediments. Version 1.0. Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Test methods for evaluating solid waste:
physical/chemical methods. 3rd Ed. SW-846, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Page 122
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Appendix A
APPENDIX A
SAGINAW RIVER
ARCS SEDIMENT DATA TABLES
Page A-l
-------
SAGINAW RIVER - DATA TABLES
Table Parameter Table Parameter
Table A-1 Survey 1 - Inorganics
Table A-2 Survey 1 - PAHs
Table A-3 Survey 1 - PCBs
Table A-4 Survey 1 - Pesticides
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
Dibutyltin
Methylbutyltin
Tributyltin
Methyl mercury
AVS
Solids
TOC
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Dibenzofuran
Dimethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1016, 1221, 1232, 1242,
1248, 1254, 1260
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endosulfan(alpha)
Endosulfan(beta)
Endosulfan Sulfate
Heptachlor Epoxide
Heptachlor
ODD
DDE
DDT
A-BHC
B-BHC
C-BHC
Chlordane-alpha
Chlordane-gamma
Methoxychlor
Table A-4 (continued)
Table A-5 Survey 1 - Dioxins and
Furans
Fable A-6 Survey 3 - Inorganics
Table A-7 Survey 3 - PAHs
Table A-8 Survey 3 - PCBs
Table A-9 Survey 3 - Pesticides
Endrin Ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
Lindane
Toxaphene
24 parameters
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
AVS
Solids
Methyl mercury
TOC
Dibutyltin
Methylbutyltin
Tibutyltin
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dibenzofuran
Dimethyl phthlate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1242, 1254, 1260
Aldrin
Chlordane-alpha
Chlordane-gamma
A-BHC
B-BHC
C-BHC
Lindane
DDD
DDE
A-2
-------
SAGINAW RIVER - DATA TABLES
Table
Parameter
able A-9 (continued)
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Endosulfan (alpha)
Endosulfan (beta)
Endosulfan Sulfate
-leptachlor Epoxide
HEptachlor
vlethoxychlor
Toxaphene
able A-10 Survey 3 - Dioxins and
curans
25 parameters
Fable A-11 Large Lakes Survey 2
Fe
Ni
Pb
Zn
Dry Fraction
Moist Fraction
Volume Fraction
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
Conductivity
Extractable Residue
Mircotox
pH
TOC
Grain size - Five levels
Table A-12 Large Lakes Survey 3
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Pb
Zn
Dry Fraction
Moist Fraction
Volume Fraction
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
Conductivity
Extractable Residue
Microtox
PH
TOC
Grain Size - Five levels
Table A-13 Large Lakes - PCBs
Congener Total
A-3
-------
TABLE A-1 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 - INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
SR10201G100
SR10201G200
SR10301G100
SR10401G100
SR10601G100
SR10701G100
SR10901G100
SR11001G100
SAMPLE ID
SR10201G100
SR10201G200
SR10301G100
SR10401G100
SR10601G100
SR10701G100
SR10901G100
SR11001G100
AG
(ug/g)
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.52
1.5
0.63
0.25
0.11
DBT
(ng/g
11
14
21
7.4
10
9
5.8
2.3
AS
(ug/g)
12.7
13.6
13.1
10.9
3.6
16
9.1
5.1
MBT
(ng/g
<1.1
<1.1
<1
<0.9
1.2
<1.1
<0.8
<0.6
CD
(ug/g)
1
0.93
0.92
0.99
10
1
0.57
0.16
TBT
(ng/g
20
19
15
14
6.9
12
8.3
2.2
CR
(ug/g)
74
84
90
73
319
84
46
40
METHYLH
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
cu
(ug/g)
49
46
49
45
187
51
31
16
AVS
4.93
4.36
5.99
5.6
15.46
3.61
5.82
1.54
FE
(%)
2.8
2.8
3.1
2.6
1.5
3.2
1.8
1.2
SOLIDS
(%)
36
37
36
44
56
33
42
64
HG
(ug/g)
0.162
0.141
0.166
0.152
0.283
0.177
0.111
0.048
TOC
(%)
3.17
3.21
2.99
2.57
2.08
3.02
3.85
0.97
MN
(ug/g)
671
672
819
661
334
817
374
305
Nl
(ug/g)
35
38
37
35
157
43
28
15
PB
(ug/g)
56
58
55
51
86
58
39
19
ZN
(ug/g)
386
389
352
326
381
372
319
99
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 - PAHS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID ANTRACE
BAA
BAP
BBF
BGHIPER BKFLUOR BBPH CHRYS 14DCB BISPH DBF DMPH
SR10201
SR10201
SR10301
SR 10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
SAMPLE ID
SR10201
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
42
70
66
54
38
30
19
<8
FLUORA
130
190
190
160
160
280
130
36
140
180
170
160
300
190
64
15
FLUORE
27
34
38
<12
69
25
<15
<7
180
240
280
260
210
310
<13
<6
INDPYR
'120
110
220
210
160
200
<22
<10
150
400
220
130
310
320
61
<7
2MNAPH
35
41
41
37
63
48
17
<6
190
160
310
270
290
220
<27
<13
NAPH
34
46
35
48
55
53
27
<6
200
220
280
300
400
220
61
<9
DNOPH
<36
54
2200
76
430
<49
<42
<19
<34
<51
1300
270
<25
240
<39
<18
PHEN
220
310
340
270
390
290
99
27
290
330
400
300
500
390
120
24
PYRENE
470
670
550
460
570
570
190
44
47
33
33
47
130
52
25
<4
1700 18
2400 22
13000 <16
1900 20
4200 38
3800 <18
840 <15
170 <7
80
76
99
110
68
77
21
16
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 - PCBS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10401
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
PCB1016
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
PCB1221
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
PCB1232
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
PCB1242
<430
<340
1500
<390
1700
60000
<430
<430
440
PCB1248
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
PCB1254
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
7900
<430
<430
2300
PCB1260
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
A-6
-------
TABLE A-4 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 - PESTICIDES (ng/g)
SAMPLE ID
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10401
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
SAMPLE ID
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10401
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
ALDRIN
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
360
<43
<43
<26
A-BHC
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
390
<43
<43
<26
DIELDRN
<43
<34
62
85
<39
<30
96
90
<26
B-BHC
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
ENDRIN
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
45
<43
<26
C-BHC
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
ENDOSULFAN
(ALPHA)
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
CHLORDANE-
ALPHA
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
ENDOSULFAN
(BETA)
<43
<34
<40
120
<39
<30
130
<43
<26
CHLORDANE-
GAMMA
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
140
<43
<43
<26
ENDOSULFAN
SULFATE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
METHOXY
CHLOR
<220
<170
<200
<196
<200
<150
<220
<220
<130
HEPTACHLOR
EPOXIDE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
190
<43
<43
<26
ENDRIN KETONE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
HEPTACHLOR
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
140
<43
<43
<26
ENDRIN
ALDEHYDE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
DDD
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
LINDANE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
<43
<43
<26
DDE
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
140
<43
<43
<26
TOXAFEN
<430
<340
<400
<390
<390
<300
<430
<430
<260
DDT
<43
<34
<40
<39
<39
<30
180
<43
<26
A-7
-------
TABLE A-5 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 1 - DIOXINS AND FURANS (pg/g dry wt)
SAMPLE
ID
SR10201
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
SAMPLE
ID
SR10201
SR10201
SR10301
SR10401
SR10601
SR10701
SR10901
SR11001
1234-678-
HPCDD
700
1300
530
640
1100
630
300
160
234-678-
HXCDF
5.5
11
6
29
17
6.4
<3.6
<2.3
HPCDD_T
1200
2300
980
1200
1900
1200
550
300
HXCDF_T
750
820
680
2100
1500
950
430
210
1234-678-
HPCDF
1100
1300
770
1200
1900
1100
540
400
OCDDJT
5700
14000
4100
4900
9300
5000
2200
1300
1234-789-
HPCDF
46
57
40
63
69
85
26
12
OCDFJT
1400
2800
1100
1300
2700
1300
610
400
HPCDFJT
2200
3000
1600
2300
4000
1800
980
770
12378-
PECDD
13
14
9.5
15
22
17
7.3
4.2
123-478-
HXCDD
7.3
5.6
10
6.9
12
8.9
3.3
1.7
PECDDJT
74
86
60
73
120
110
50
15
123-678-
HXCDD
42
69
32
39
100
48
21
11
12378-
PECDF
170
220
220
1800
630
210
130
34
123-789-
HXCDD
17
30
9.5
16
26
20
11
5.6
23478-
PECDF
140
160
150
2500
540
200
120
29
HXCDDJT
360
460
270
340
620
360
200
98
PECDFJT
820
790
790
8700
2800
1000
650
170
123-478-
HXCDF
160
180
190
880
400
270
110
41
2378-
TCDD
14
17
11
13
38
12
9.3
5.9
123-678-
HXCDF
37
45
35
200
76
61
28
7.4
TCDD_T
140
140
100
120
230
160
94
54
123-789-
HXCDF
19
22
17
88
46
30
13
4.1
TCDF_T
1300
1300
1100
22000
4900
1400
950
320
A-8
-------
TABLE A-6 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR30101G100
SR30101G200
SR30101G200
SR30101G300
SR30101G300
SR30201G100
SR30501G100
SR30601G100
SR30801G100
SR31601G100
SR32401G100
Core Samples
SR30201C1X2
SR30201C1X3
SR30501C101
SR30501C102
SR30601C101
SR30601C102
SR30601C1X2
SR30601C1X3
SR30602C102
SR30602C1X2
AG
(ug/g)
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.27
0.36
0.17
" 0.56
0.5
0.55
2.83
0.11
1.08
0.8
1.34
0.16
3.31
0.35
AS
(ug/g)
41.1
6.4
.
6.7
25.0
16.6
15.2
12.0
92.9
14.4
217.0
24.1
60.2
59.5
14.5
21.5
40.6
70.1
CD
(ug/g)
0.79
0.73
.
0.80
0.51
0.89
0.50
2.00
2.93
1.11
5.52
0.49
4.88
2.34
6.90
0.42
17.40
1.18
CR
(ug/g)
42
67
51
24.7
34
34.8
95
58
59
292
29.6
154
161
255
35.3
687
86
CU
(ug/g)
20.3
24
23
24
33.1
18.3
54.8
51.9
49.8
150.7
16.6
86.3
84.2
142.8
26.6
375
42.2
HG
(ug/g)
0.096
0.092
0.092
0.071
0.094
0.039
0.094
0.156
0.167
0.621
0.106
0.352
0.648
0.296
0.171
0.676
0.273
MN
(ug/g)
304
340
336
293
379
99
397
492
549
578
250
460
569
292
155
604
194
Nl
(ug/g)
18.5
19.7
18.5
15.3
28.5
8.3
37.9
30.9
29.3
40.2
11.7
53.3
43.5
114.4
11.9
316.0
30.2
PB
(ug/g)
25.2
26.8
22.6
29.8
34.2
16.9
68.7
58.0
67.7
110.9
17.4
70.5
91.0
75.8
24.0
168.2
39.8
SE
(ug/g)
0.82
0.87
0.78
<0.79
<0.81
<0.74
1.22
2.04
1.06
3
<0.8
<0.85
1.67
<0.84
<0.75
<0.94
<0.76
ZN
(ug/g)
69.8
81.6
72.7
166.3
219.0
56.3
347.0
367.0
541.0
224.0
46.1
219.0
197.0
298.0
62.0
714.0
111.6
A-9
-------
TABLE A-6 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - INORGANICS
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR30101G100
SR30101G200
SR30101G200
SR30101G300
SR30101G300
SR30201G100
SR30501G100
SR30601G100
SR30801G100
SR31601G100
SR32401G100
Core Samples
SR30201C1X2
SR30201C1X3
SR30501C101
SR30501C102
SR30601C101
SR30601C102
SR30601C1X2
SR30601C1X3
SR30602C102
SR30602C1X2
AVS
4.55
4.95
3.91
3.26
3.69
1.2
5.83
3.23
8.87
5.04
4.93
7.44
10.01
10.92
36.82
8.39
4.6
SOLIDS
(%)
55.08
56.83
56.29
55.24
61.34
76.36
47.28
52.08
48.74
53.05
67.53
59.04
53.8
64.37
49.21
76.31
73.47
METHYLH
<0.15
<0.21
<0.12
<0.17
<0.14
<0.14
<0.15
<0.17
<0.16
<0.22
<0.21
<0.14
<0.22
<0.23
<0.26
<0.11
<0.24
TOC DBT
(%) (ng/g dry wt)
1.07
0.96
1.12
1.33
1.42
0.23
3.63
2.89
4.02
4.96
1.48
3.07
2.91
1.89
4.15
0.85
0.6
<0.4
0.5
3.3
3.0
2.7
0.7
3.7
6.1
5.6
3.1
<0.4
4.2
1.9
6.3
25.7
<0.3
6.6
<0.4
MBT
(ng/g dry
wt)
<0.4
0.4
<0.8
1.4
0.8
0.4
0.7
1.8
0.9
2.8
<0.2
1.6
1.3
3.0
11.6
0.8
3.1
<0.8
TBT
(ng/g dry
wt)
0.4
0.5
1.0
6.2
3.9
0.8
6.6
10.0
9.2
<0.6
<0.4
4.0
<0.9
3.9
33.0
0.7
7.0
<0.4
A-10
-------
TABLE A-7 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - PAHS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR32401
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR31601
SR30801
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
Core Samples
SR30201X2
SR30201X3
SR3050101
SR3050102
SR3060101
SR3060102
SR30601X2
SR30601X3
ACENAP
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<420
<170
<170
<290
<170
ANTH
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
800
<190
<250
<310
210
<170
<290
<170
BAA
690
<160
340
<250
250
<340
270
<250
<260
2000
<190
720
630
750
220
950
350
BAP
440
<160
220
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
BBF BGHIPER
600
<160
300
<250
<230
390
270
<250
<260
680
<190
310
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
BKFLUOR
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
620
<190
280
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
BISPH
1000
310
840
1000
8300
1000
1900
910
2300
4000
420
1900
21000
22000
170000
31000
740
BBPH
<290
<160
370
1300
2800
340
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
5200
2000
<170
<290
<170
CHRYS
600
<160
330
<250
270
440
270
<250
<260
2200
<190
740
690
790
<170
1000
320
12DCB
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
680
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
13DCB
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
1100
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
14DCB
290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
1300
<190
450
<310
<170
<170
340
<170
DBF
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
DMPH
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
A-11
-------
TABLE A-7 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - PAHS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR32401
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR31601
SR30801
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
Core Samples
SR30201X2
SR30201X3
SR3050101
SR3050102
SR3060101
SR3060102
SR30601X2
SR30601X3
FLURANT
1200
<160
630
500
420
580
270
<250
<260
1400
<190
610
490
870
250
1000
370
FLURENE
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
300
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
INDPPYR
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
2MNAPH
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
NAPH
<290
<160
<200
<250
<230
<250
270
<250
<260
<290
<190
<250
<310
<170
<170
<290
<170
DINO
<290
<160
<200
<250
2000
<250
<270
<250
1000
<290
<190
380
6600
4500
<170
8800
<170
PHEN
1000
<160
720
510
460
580
270
<250
<260
3300
<190
950
1100
1200
350
1300
440
PYRENE
1800
<160
880
710
750
1000
270
<250
<260
6600
260
2000
2100
2000
850
2700
880
A-12
-------
TABLE A-8 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - PCBS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR32401
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR31601
SR30801
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
Core Samples
SR30501
SR30601
SR30201
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR30601
SR30601
PCB1242
<38
95
370
240
470
21.4
210
260
<72
3700
79000
<29
4300
62
410
96
28000
PCB1254
<38
<25
120
95
<87
94
<34
76
95
<3200
8100
<29
<2600
100
<35
<25
<2700
PCB1260
<38
<25
<29
<32
<32
<38
<34
<34
<33
<3200
<3800
<29
<2600
<38
<36
<25
<2700
A-13
-------
TABLE A-9 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 • PESTICIDES (ng/g)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
SR30201
SR30501
SR30601
SR30801
SR31601
SR32401
Core Samples
SR302X2
SR302X3
SR30502
SR30501
SR30602
SR30601
SR306X2
SR306X3
ALDRIN
4.6
4.6
3.8
8
9.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.7
460
1400
<260
A-CHLOR
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
G-CHLOR
5.7
<3.8
<3.3
5.9
<2.8
<2.5
9
<3.2
7
<360
5.3
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
A-BHC
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
880
<260
B-BHC
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
6.4
<2.8
3
<3.8
9
<3.9
<360
7
<3.9
<320
4.1
<270
<380
<260
C-BHC
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
LINDANE
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<33.0
<2.8
<2.5
17
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ODD
<3.4
<3.4
7.6
8.4
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
13.0
<360
<2.9
6.4
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
DDE
3.9
<3.4
<3.3
5.6
<2.8
<2.5
11.0
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
DDT
<3.4
3.9
13.0
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
DIELDRN
<3.4
<3.4
3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
7.7
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ENDRIN
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
4.1
<360
<2.9
4.5
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
A-14
-------
TABLE A-9 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 • PESTICIDES (ng/g)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
SR30201
SR30501
SR30601
SR30801
SR31601
SR32401
Core Samples
SR302X2
SR302X3
SR30502
SR30501
SR30602
SR30601
SR306X2
SR306X3
ENDRNAD
<3.4
<3.4
17
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ENDRNKT
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
12
<3.8
16
<3.9
-
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ENDSFNA
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
12
<3.2
6
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ENDSFNB
<3.4
<3.4
9.4
<3.3
7.7
<2.5
11
5.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
ENDSFNS
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
HEPCLPX
11
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
16
<2.5
17
40
15
<360
5.3
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<500
<260
HEPTCHL
<3.4
<3.4
<3.3
<3.3
<2.8
<2.5
<3.8
<3.2
<3.9
<360
<2.9
<3.9
<320
<2.5
<270
<380
<260
METHXYC
<17
<17
<17
<16
<14
<25
<19
32
<19
<1800
<15
<19
<1600
<13
<1350
<520
<1300
TOXAFEN
<34
<34
<33
<33
28
<2.5
<38
<3.2
39
<3600
<29
<39
<3200
<25
<2700
<3800
<2600
A-15
-------
TABLE A-10 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - DIOXINS AND FURANS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID 1234-678- HPCDD_T 1234-678-
HPCDD HPCDF
Grab Samples
SR32401
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR31601
SR30801
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
Core Samples
SR30501
SR30601
SR30201
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR30601
SR30601
0.31
0.04
0.7
0.18
0.43
0.7
0.22
0.21
0.21
2.5
3.8
0.05
0.2
0.034
12
0.0095
1.4
0.55
0.074
1.1
0.31
0.79
1.3
0.42
0.39
0.39
4.4
6.4
0.086
0.35
0.034
22
0.016
2.5
0.21
0.049
0.52
0.28
0.54
0.93
0.45
0.44
0.44
9.4
4.3
0.23
0.55
0.98
39
0.11
2.4
1234- HPCDFJT 123-478- 123-678- 123-789- HXCDDJT 123-478- 123-678- 123-789-
789- HXCDD HXCDD HXCDD HXCDF HXCDF HXCDF
HPCDF
0.068
0.0045
0.044
0.033
0.021
0.061
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.45
0.24
0.064
0.037
0.079
1.1
0.015
0.11
0.77
0.12
1.7
0.57
1.3
2.1
0.81
0.78
0.77
18
10
0.45
1.1
1.7
74
0.18
5
0.0041
0.0011
0.0062
ND
ND
0.0095
0.002
0.0019
0.0028
0.03
0.019
ND
0.0017
ND
0.095
ND
ND
ND
0.0034
ND
0.0093
0.018
0.06
0.013
0.013
0.011
0.26
ND
ND
0.018
ND
ND
ND
0.067
0.015
0.0026
0.015
0.0039
0.013
0.027
0.0061
0.0067
0.0065
0.098
0.066
ND
0.0066
ND
0.21
ND
0.022
0.19
0.033
0.28
0.087
0.16
0.46
0.065
0.15
0.12
1.5
1.2
0.022
0.12
0.097
3.3
0.0037
0.38
0.2
0.095
0.23
0.35
0.12
0.29
0.073
0.069
0.052
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.22
ND
ND
0.26
1.8
0.041
0.024
0.043
0.06
0.025
0.082
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.28
0.22
0.21
0.042
0.13
0.72
0.052
1.6
0.019
0.0089
0.015
0.016
0.007
0.022
0.0082
0.0068
0.073
0.088
0.046
0.014
0.036
0.19
0.011
0.11
A-16
-------
TABLE A-10 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - DIOXINS AND FURANS (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
Grab Samples
SR32401
SR30601
SR30501
SR30201
SR31601
SR30801
SR30101
SR30101
SR30101
Core Samples
SR30501
SR30601
SR30201
SR30601
SR30501
SR3020i
SR30601
SR30601
234-678- HXCDFJT
HXCDF
0.0058
0.0038
0.0076
0.0046
0.0021
0.011
0.0019
0.001
0.021
0.021
0.023
ND
ND
0.098
0.0029
0.035
0.61
0.2
0.49
0.66
0.34
1.2
0.37
0.32
0.23
5.9
4.6
1.9
0.51
0.88
22
0.44
5.6
OCDDJT OCDF_T
2.6
0.34
5.1
1.8
4.1
6.4
2.2
2.5
2.2
25
34
0.55
1.9
0.18
12
0.089
14
0.85
0.089
1.6
0.53
0.94
1.8
0.73
0.65
0.54
12
10
0.29
0.79
1.2
56
0.14
4.3
12378- PECDDJT 12378- 23478- PECDF_T
PECDD PECDF fPECDF
ND
0.0013
0.015
ND
ND
0.02
0.0044
0.0035
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.056
ND
0.028
0.031
0.0038
0.024
0.011
ND
0.15
0.027
0.02
0.026
0.4
0.31
ND
0.026
ND
0.99
ND
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.26
0.48
0.11
0.25
0.05
0.046
0.036
0.55
1.9
1.5
0.18
0.52
0.85
0.34
2.8
0.11
0.25
0.19
0.69
0.072
0.16
0.032
0.03
0.023
0.4
1.5
0.67
0.13
0.33
0.85
0.21
2.1
0.56
0.85
0.94
2.5
0.28
0.94
0.22
0.21
0.12
2.7
7.8
3.8
0.64
2
8.1
1.1
11
2378-
TCDD
0.0083
0.0013
0.011
0.0052
0.0062
0.032
0.0042
0.004
0.0045
0.016
0.11
ND
0.0036
ND
0.019
ND
0.042
TCDDjr
0.064
0.0057
0.05
0.038
0.017
0.23
0.026
0.025
0.018
0.14
0.74
0.0012
0.0093
0.014
0.4
0.0022
0.32
2378- TCDF T
TCDF
0.29
1.6
0.71
1.7
0.24
0.58
0.11
0.11
0.099
1.3
6.3
1.5
0.49
1.1
2.7
0.87
8.6
1.1
3.1
1 fi
1 . VJ
34
VJ.T^
0.46
i 7
i . /
0.33
0.29
0.23
Q 4
kJ.T
•1C
1 \J
0.96
3.8
Q fi
&*\J
1 fi
1 '\J
20
A-17
-------
TABLE A-11 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 2 LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE DATA FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR20201C101
SR20201C102
SR20202G100
SR20302C101
SR20303C101
SR20303C102
SR20303C103
SR20304C101
SR20304C102
SR20304C103
SR20401C101
SR20401C102
SR20402C101
SR20402C102
SR20402C103
SR20601C101
SR20601C102
SR20601C201
SR20601C202
SR20602C101
SR20602C102
SR20603C101
SR20603C102
SR20801C101
SR20801C102
SR20801C103
SR21002C101
SR21002C102
SR21002C201
SR21002C202
SR21101G100
SR21102C101
SR21201C101
SR21301C101
SR21301C102
CADMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
1.3
3.7
1.2
2.1
0.2
1.2
1.7
2.2
2.7
1.1
<0.0026
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.1
7
0.2
7.1
<0.0026
1
3.5
0.9
1
4.8
2.1
0.7
<0.0026
0.4
<0.0026
4.8
0.7
0.9
2.1
0.8
0.9
CHROMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
34
160
24
58
23
50
42
140
120
31
7
6.8
13
25
9.8
240
17
220
18
24
60
35
21
140
150
11
19
30
19
140
12
19
100
30
17
COPPER
(ug/g dry wt)
35
150
25
59
25
40
46
120
89
31
4.4
3.4
8.8
19
2.9
180
15
160
16
13
29
30
14
73
68
11
19
29
19
73
9.4
18
89
23
12
IRON
(% dry wt)
1.3
1.8
1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.9
1.7
1.8
2
0.3
0.36
0.51
0.52
0.52
1.3
0.6
1.2
. 0.9
0.27
0.93
2.1
1.3
1.2
1.7
0.59
1.4
2.3
1.4
1.2
0.32
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.2
NICKEL
(ug/g dry wt)
24
76
16
29
11
17
20
46
40
23
5.8
4.9
7.9
9.8
7.6
120
7.1
110
6.7
15
16
23
16
37
27
8.8
8
21
8
37
14
14
33
21
14
LEAD
(ug/g dry wt)
40
67
35
36
26
62
68
60
61
34
5
2.9
16
36
9.4
76
16
84
24
26
31
40
22
57
34
19
11
19
11
57
8.5
23
48
27
15
ZINC
(ug/g dry wt)
360
250
250
160
210
150
170
210
180
110
41
15
39
35
25
350
52
320
82
50
78
120
67
280
140
45
82
93
82
280
78
77
170
98
64
DRY_FR
0.52
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.65
0.71
0.64
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.77
0.81
0.7
0.75
0.74
0.63
0.71
0.64
0.72
0.85
0.71
0.48
0.68
0.57
0.57
0.77
0.65
0.52
0.66
0.52
0.75
0.66
0.6
0.62
0.56
MOIST_FR
0.48
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.35
0.29
0.36
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.23
0.19
0.3
0.25
0.26
0.37
0.29
0.36
0.28
0.15
0.29
0.52
0.32
0.43
0.43
0.23
0.35
0.48
0.34
0.48
0.25
0.34
0.4
0.38
0.44
VOL_FR
0.08
0.079
0.044
0.052
0.037
0.043
0.059
0.066
0.073
0.07
0.011
0.008
0.042
0.02
0.024
0.061
0.024
0.046
0.024
0.005
0.007
0.086
0.034
0.062
0.057
0.024
0.043
0.067
0.048
0.1
0.008
0.048
0.083
0.04
0.083
AMMONIA
mg/L
15
34
2.2
6.4
14
26
27
14
17
7.5
2.2
3.6
9
15
7.8
13
13
13
15
0.46
11
6.9
0.51
19
12
11
5.4
1.4
3.3
1.5
0.91
8.2
7.2
15
18
A-18
-------
TABLE A-11 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 2 LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE DATA FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR21401G100
SR21501C101
SR21501C102
SR21601C101
SR21601C102
SR21701C101
SR21701C102
SR21702G100
SR21801C101
SR21801C102
SR21901C101
SR21901C102
SR22001C101
SR22001C102
SR22001C103
SR22101C101
SR22101C102
SR22201C101
SR22301C101
SR22301C102
SR22401C101
SR22401C102
SR22401C103
SR22501C101
SR22501C102
SR22501C201
SR22501C202
SR22501C203
SR22601C101
SR22601C102
SR22601C103
CADMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
0.9
1.7
0.6
3
0.9
0.6
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.5
2.2
0.2
0.2
<0.0026
<0.0026
3.7
0.7
0.2
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
3
1.1
3.3
3.3
0.6
<0.0026
3.2
CHROMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
38
88
16
94
11
17
33
46
32
4.4
54
11
14
7.4
7.2
83
21
13
17
22
43
44
40
31
150
38
170
140
20
27
200
COPPER
(ug/g dry wt)
40
35
12
110
6.3
18
42
52
49
2.1
40
14
' 19
6.7
5.5
64
25
12
16
20
55
66
41
48
230
60
170
120
19
20
110
IRON
(% dry wt)
2
1.1
1.2
1.6
0.8
0.8
2.2
2.5
0.93
0.4
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.4
1.8
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.1
2.6
1.3
2.5
2.9
1.1
1.4
2.1
NICKEL
(ug/g dry wt)
24
22
12
48
8.2
12
24
22
17
2.8
20
5.8
5.5
1.1
1.1
25
11
8.6
14
15
24
20
18
16
67
15
58
40
7.2
8.8
38
LEAD
(ug/g dry wt)
34
35
13
53
6.8
34
66
42
23
3.1
28
19
45
1.9
2.1
550
84
6.1
17
7.3
76
65
38
48
120
59
160
160
11
9.4
98
ZINC
(ug/g dry wt)
200
110
51
250
34
100
170
270
94
15
87
57
74
15
13
210
99
89
140
62
510
250
110
180
350
210
350
300
57
52
230
DRY_FR
0.45
0.66
0.66
0.57
0.58
0.7
0.53
0.42
0.71
0.85
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.8
0.83
0.67
0.58
0.65
0.67
0.65
0.49
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.54
0.55
0.7
0.7
0.6
MOIST_FR
0.55
0.34
0.34
0.43
0.42
0.3
0.47
0.58
0.29
0.15
0.31
0.31
0.36
0.2
0.17
0.33
0.42
0.35
0.33
0.35
0.51
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.36
0.36
0.46
0.45
0.3
0.3
0.4
VOL_FR
0.074
0.037
0.041
0.065
0.044
0.029
0.072
0.098
0.031
0.003
0.041
0.04
0.057
0.019
0.017
0.25
0.066
0.061
0.041
0.04
0.1
0.077
0.093
0.046
0.25
0.049
0.12
0.11
0.036
0.04
0.099
AMMONIA
mg/L
8.1
1.1
6.8
8.8
7.7
8.1
33
7.5
5.1
1.9
2.7
5.5
5.9
4.1
2.2
8
8
7
7.7
8.8
18
25
13
11
16
15
39
16
18
15
28
A-19
-------
TABLE A-11 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 2 LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE DATA FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR20201C101
SR20201C102
SR20202G100
SR20302C101
SR20303C101
SR20303C102
SR20303C103
SR20304C101
SR20304C102
SR20304C103
SR20401C101
SR20401C102
SR20402C101
SR20402C102
SR20402C103
SR20601C101
SR20601C102
SR20601C201
SR20601C202
SR20602C101
SR20602C102
SR20603C101
SR20603C102
SR20801C101
SR20801C102
SR20801C103
SR21002C101
SR21002C102
SR21002C201
SR21002C202
SR21101G100
SR21102C101
SR21201C101
SR21301C101
SR21301C102
BROMINE
(ug/g dry wt)
0.08
0.35
0.062
0.056
0.076
0.11
0.044
0.26
0.3
0.027
0.026
0.006
0.041
0.065
0.009
0.14
0.05
0.063
0.054
0.047
0.13
0.036
0.008
0.23
0.17
0.049
0.029
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.031
0.047
0.12
0.026
0.008
CHLORINE
(ug/g dry wt)
2.4
21
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.8
1.5
13
9.9
1
1.4
0.46
1.1
0.94
0.49
20
1.7
1.8
1.5
3.3
3
1.9
0.75
7.2
2.3
0.79
1.6
0.88
1.3
1.3
1
3.4
5
0.77
0.76
CONDUCT
(uSiemens)
1250
2280
971
1350
2460
1570
2050
1850
1040
1470
1360
1280
1690
1940
1980
2420
2400
1640
2760
3650
1390
1770
3440
1030
922
752
1510
620
1500
2370
EXTR_RES
(ug/g dry wt)
410
4100
670
420
430
1200
990
2700
2200
170
170
<65
410
660
120
3000
320
3900
310
380
710
290
98
1100
1100
400
340
<86
340
<140
<88
710
880
<100
<160
MICRO.
(EC-50)
100
100
100
100
100
100
45
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
PH
7.14
7.15
7.3
6.95
7.34
7.51
7.6
7.21
7.19
6.96
7.36
7.6
7.12
7.12
6.33
7.34
7.28
7.21
7.17
6.99
7.18
7.07
7.02
7.22
6.99
7.13
7.15
7.08
7.22
7
7.11
7.19
7.15
7.09
7.19
TOC
(% dry wt)
4.2
4.3
1.8
2.1
1.1
2.9
2
2.6
0.3
3
0.83
0.32
1
1.7
1.4
2.5
0.82
2.1
0.77
<0.14
1.5
2.7
1.6
2.9
2.9
0.6
1.2
2.6
1.5
2.1
0.4
2.4
3.3
2
3
GT38
(% dry wt)
8
9
14
10
4.5
3.1
2.3
7.6
7
5
1.2
0.85
2.3
3.7
6.2
6.3
1.8
6.5
2.4
1.9
2.3
5.3
2.3
11
10
3.3
3.4
5.1
3.1
4.3
1.6
4.8
3.3
12
3.5
GT63
(% dry wt)
61
14
60
36
33
28
30
32
29
16
62
44
60
34
68
52
49
53
29
86
45
22
21
47
14
38
28
12
28
11
64
56
15
47
22
GRAIN SIZE
GT250
(% dry wt)
3.8
0.89
3.8
7.6
33
37
16
8.1
6.1
3.4
28
45
20
21
5.4
13
44
14
33
0.038
47
4.5
13
6
1.7
24
28
2.5
29
6.6
28
1.8
23
4.5
27
GT1000
(% dry wt)
3
0.14
0.33
2.6
1.7
3.6
0.68
0.47
0.59
0.47
0.42
1.2
0.8
1.5
0.23
0.28
1.2
0.4
0.28
0.17
11
0.94
1.6
0.15
0.18
1.2
1.9
0.51
1.2
0.56
0.2
1.6
4.6
1.7
0.92
LT38
(% dry wt)
24
69
21
46
26
27
49
52
59
74
5.7
7.3
17
29
17
28
10
27
26
6.1
11
74
48
37
71
25
38
78
38
78
4.6
33
47
37
42
A-20
-------
TABLE A-11 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 2 LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE DATA FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR21401G100
SR21501C101
SR21501C102
SR21601C101
SR21601C102
SR21701C101
SR21701C102
SR21702G100
SR21801C101
SR21801C102
SR21901C101
SR21901C102
SR22001C101
SR22001C102
SR22001C103
SR22101C101
SR22101C102
SR22201C101
SR22301C101
SR22301C102
SR22401C101
SR22401C102
SR22401C103
SR22501C101
SR22501C102
SR22501C201
SR22501C202
SR22501C203
SR22601C101
SR22601C102
SR22601C103
BROMINE
(ug/g dry wt)
0.029
0.11
0.005
0.25
0.019
0.12
0.1
0.044
0.22
0.006
0.14
0.047
0.025
0.006
0.007
0.095
0.045
0.013
0.026
0.021
0.16
0.15
0.11
0.12
0.56
0.082
0.31
0.82
0.022
0.034
0.44
CHLORINE
(ug/g dry wt)
1.8
2.4
0.53
14
1.4
2
1.8
2.3
4.1
0.33
4.9
1.3
0.96
0.88
0.43
1.6
1.6
1.2
2.2
1.3
5.2
8.5
3.1
7.9
9.6
5.3
5.8
6.4
1.2
1
3.8
CONDUCT
(uSiemens)
1600
1530
1790
1190
1690
2120
1620
1270
835
1160
- 2610
4750
5150
2020
4100
1090
1140
1450
2790
6750
12700
1680
2130
1690
2640
1240
EXTR.RES
(ug/g dry wt)
290
600
<29
2200
210
430
450
420
720
<21
890
150
350
<93
<24
540
370
1500
210
210
900
1200
1000
860
2700
1100
1700
5900
220
320
2700
MICRO.
(EC-50)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
54
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
67
100
100
100
100
PH
7.26
7.08
7.11
7.11
7.03
7.13
6.86
7.21
7.2
7.38
7.36
7.13
7.19
7.07
7.08
7.19
6.93
6.9
7.22
7.04
7.09
6.9
6.94
7.15
7.07
7.26
7.37
7.26
7.03
6.69
7.11
TOC
(% dry wt)
3.5
1.2
0.78
2.8
2.1
1.2
2.3
2.8
1.5
<0.13
1.3
1.6
1.6
0.44
0.3
3.1
3
1.4
2
1.2
4.1
7.5
2.4
1.6
3.9
1.5
4.4
4.3
1.3
1.1
3.8
GT38
(% dry wt)
8.5
5.4
3.2
9.2
9.1
3.1
18
11
5.1
0.1
7.9
1.8
2.7
1.9
1.8
5.3
4.1
8.3
5
2.1
15
11
8.2
9.4
8.2
10
10
7
7.1
8.6
13
GT63
(% dry wt)
17
35
27
37
78
38
18
10
28
13
46
40
31
36
41
26
28
36
55
13
31
35
45
58
14
53
20
8.8
33
30
32
GRAIN SIZE
GT250
(% dry wt)
7.6
26
6.7
9.9
4
35
1.5
0.75
42
77
15
37
19
30
38
8.2
23
19
17
31
2.1
16
17
11
1.4
6.2
4.9
0.88
25
8.3
1.6
GT1000
(% dry wt)
2.1
3.5
0.73
1.1
4.7
4.7
0.1
0.031
1.8
6.7
0.36
0.9
32
3.2
7
1.4
2.8
2.4
0.16
0.11
0.28
1.4
3.9
0.67
0.23
0.26
0.31
0.054
0.7
0.6
0.14
LT38
(% dry wt)
57
30
53
42
17
20
62
80
23
1.1
26
19
23
9.5
9.4
38
41
33
22
53
44
36
28
21
59
29
63
82
33
48
53
A-21
-------
TABLE A-12 S AGIN AW RIVER SURVEY 3 - LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR30101G100
SR30201CCX2
SR30201CCX3
SR30201G100
SR30501CC01
SR30501CC02
SR30501G100
SR30601CC01
SR30601CC02
SR30601CCX2
SR30601CCX3
SR30601G100
SR30801G100
SR31601G100
SR32401G100
SR32706C101
SR32709C101
SR32709C102
SR32806C101
SR32808C101
SR32808C102
SR32906C101
SR32906C102
SR32906C201
SR32906C202
SR33006C101
SR33006C102
SR33009C101
SR33106C101
SR33106C102
SR33109C101
SR33204C101
CADMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
1
7
0.8
0.6
5.1
3
1.1
4.5
1
19
1.3
0.7
2.4
1
0.9
0.5
3.7
1.1
0.7
1.4
1.2
4.7
5.6
4.3
5.6
4.8
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
1
CHROMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
26
250
15
16
120
110
26
150
11
590
40
11
54
38
35
6.7
110
35
23
29
19
160
230
160
230
96
55
29
15
8.4
4.5
24
COPPER
(ug/g dry wt)
19
140
10
20
82
72
30
110
12
360
72
8.8
47
41
45
5.4
62
36
26
44
25
160
120
160
120
66
36
27
12
8.2
3.7
19
IRON
(% dry wt)
1.1
2.5
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.3
0.9
1.1
0.6
2.6
0.8
0.3
0.1
1.6
2
0.4
1.4
2.4
0.7
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.5
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.6
NICKEL
(ug/g dry wt)
15
32
7.9
13
44
33
24
82
7
290
24
7.1
31
24
22
5.1
32
24
25
23
16
75
57
76
57
37
19
17
11
7.2
3.7
15
LEAD
(ug/g dry wt)
16
100
8.7
22
63
76
32
220
17
180
32
12
58
46
62
4.1
56
57
72
67
32
83
100
85
100
55
38
29
7.8
4.1
0.3
10
ZINC
(ug/g dry wt)
78
240
45
170
220
190
220
150
50
720
130
51
360
380
510
35
190
150
140
180
110
440
270
400
270
210
110
250
58
34
26
57
DRY_FR
0.53
0.52
0.67
0.63
0.59
0.55
0.67
0.7
0.78
0.48
0.8
0.75
0.52
0.54
0.49
0.79
0.68
0.57
0.68
0.54
0.63
0.55
0.57
0.54
0.49
0.61
0.61
0.69
0.67
0.7
0.81
0.84
MOIST_FR
0.47
0.48
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.33
0.3
0.22
0.52
0.2
0.25
0.48
0.46
0.51
0.21
0.32
0.43
0.32
0.46
0.37
0.45
0.43
0.46
0.51
0.39
0.39
0.31
0.33
0.3
0.19
0.16
VOL_FR
0.035
0.12
0.055
0.041
0.072
0.09
0.042
0.036
0.021
0.12
0.049
0.016
0.088
0.075
0.11
0.016
0.053
0.076
0.053
0.093
0.069
0.096
0.092
0.095
0.085
0.065
0.15
0.04
0.053
0.042
0.016
0.018
AMMONIA
mg/L
0.72
18
14
4.6
11
20
5.2
12
17
20
14
2.2
5
7.4
11
2.2
14
18
13
20
19
18
23
19
18
12
17
20
4.4
8
4.5
7.8
A-22
-------
TABLE A-12 S AGIN AW RIVER SURVEY 3 - LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR33207C101
SR33207C102
SR33207C103
SR33210C101
SR33306C101
SR33306C102
SR33309C101
SR33309C102
SR33409C101
SR33409C102
SR33411C101
SR33411C102
SR33508C101
SR33508C102
SR33511C101
SR33609C101
SR33609C102
SR33611C101
SR33611C201
SR33809C101
SR33809C102
SR33812C101
SR33812C102
SR33911C101
SR33911C102
CADMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
1
0.3
0.6
<0.0026
0.7
3.3
0.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.1
0
2.4
3
0.6
2.7
2.4
2.9
1
4.6
0.6
1.3
0.6
5
1.2
CHROMIUM
(ug/g dry wt)
34
9.2
10
7.9
15
130
20
63
43
45
54
8.9
58
130
26
78
81
63
21
92
17
22
4.6
86
17
COPPER
(ug/g dry wt)
29
7.8
8.7
6.7
12
85
15
47
41
31
61
7.4
42
68
17
54
42
53
21
64
19
18
5.2
56
18
IRON
(% dry wt)
0.8
8.1
1
6.9
0.4
2
0.5
1.2
0.8
1
1.2
0.8
0.6
1.6
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.3
0.7
NICKEL
(ug/g dry wt)
24
6.8
7.4
5.5
16
35
15
23
37
16
29
6.5
39
33
12
49
22
24
16
44
12
16
3.8
25
8.3
LEAD
(ug/g dry wt)
24
2.4
3.6
2.4
8.5
75
17
37
32
37
27
0.3
24
77
12
28
43
50
22
43
22
14
11
49
20
ZINC
(ug/g dry wt)
120
34
35
35
53
190
72
110
160
90
130
31
110
180
47
120
130
150
89
170
79
58
41
130
55
DRY_FR
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.78
0.8
0.6
0.83
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.73
0.76
0.76
0.65
0.82
0.8
0.7
0.59
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.8
0.58
0.63
0.69
MOIST_FR
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.22
0.2
0.4
0.17
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.35
0.18
0.2
0.3
0.41
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.2
0.42
0.37
0.31
VOL_FR
0.033
0.028
0.062
0.012
0.084
0.053
0.012
0.027
0.027
0.041
0.035
0.02
0.16
0.048
0.027
0.013
0.044
0.061
0.05
0.036
0.033
0.014
0.005
0.046
0.034
AMMONIA
mg/L
8.5
7.3
5.5
6.5
6.5
17
4.6
14
20
17
7.4
13
12
17
2.9
9.4
11
9.2
9.3
13
14
2.2
2.9
14
13
A-23
-------
TABLE A-12 S AGIN AW RIVER SURVEY 3 - LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR30101G100
SR30201CCX2
SR30201CCX3
SR30201G100
SR30501CC01
SR30501CC02
SR30501G100
SR30601CC01
SR30601CC02
SR30601CCX2
SR30601CCX3
SR30601G100
SR30801G100
SR31601G100
SR32401G100
SR32706C101
SR32709C101
SR32709C102
SR32806C101
SR32808C101
SR32808C102
SR32906C101
SR32906C102
SR32906C201
SR32906C202
SR33006C101
SR33006C102
SR33009C101
SR33106C101
SR33106C102
SR33109C101
SR33204C101
BROMINE
(ug/g dry wt)
0.039
0.58
0.033
0.2
0.14
0.063
0.13
0.18
0.033
0.13
0.16
0.049
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.011
0.075
0.064
0.082
0.16
0.066
0.71
0.27
0.17
1.4
0.35
0.05
0.063
0.021
0.022
<0.017
0.035
CHLORINE
(ug/g dry wt)
1.5
9.6
1
4.4
4.2
1.5
5.3
5.3
1.5
22
26
2.1
6.1
4.7
4.2
0.93
2.1
1.8
4.5
3
2.3
29
8.1
13
16
9.3
1.4
2.6
2.2
2.1
1.2
2.9
CONDUCT
(uSiemens)
370
3420
1020
1370
1980
1070
1890
2580
3460
1880
686
9470
1030
1590
2120
5340
14500
2390
1690
1370
2010
1740
2120
1350
1340
1400
845
1360
830
2820
EXTR_RES
(ug/g dry wt)
<150
1600
540
390
650
560
240
4300
270
2400
930
710
590
330
1000
130
680
420
1300
970
530
4000
3500
1600
4600
2000
270
410
770
1100
250
460
MICRO.
(EC-50)
100
51
100
100
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
83
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
100
80
100
100
84
45
100
100
100
100
PH
7.47
7.14
7.11
6.94
7.18
6.94
7.1
7.24
7.28
7.15
7.27
7.31
7.25
7.22
7.22
6.88
6.75
7.05
7.04
7.22
7.18
7.17
7.2
7.14
6.99
7.11
7.23
6.82
7.3
7.18
7.33
TOC
(% dry wt)
1
4.8
2
1.9
3.1
2.9
1.7
2.1
0.54
4.9
3.4
<0.2
4.6
3.1
3.1
1
3.7
4.5
1.2
3.7
1.8
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.5
2.2
4
1.5
1.8
1.7
0.63
0.49
GT38
(% dry wt)
13
9.3
10
6.1
6.8
6.7
9.9
4.4
1.2
8
3.9
1.5
14
13
14
1.3
5.2
5.4
2.6
6.2
4.8
14
6.4
15
5.9
10
5.5
3.2
9.4
7.8
1.4
4.1
GT63
(% dry wt)
57
22
72
78
48
22
61
50
39
22
49
58
52
41
23
59
50
10
54
35
34
23
13
26
6.1
45
39
46
52
62
80
46
GRAIN SIZE
GT250
(% dry wt)
0.89
1.8
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.5
9.3
24
45
5.7
31
40
2.7
5.5
5.3
29
8.8
2.3
24
3.8
4.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.51
1.8
8.1
23
5.9
1.9
6.9
32
GT1000
(% dry wt)
0.025
0.34
0.89
0.65
0.84
0.78
0.27
0.98
1.2
0.52
1.6
0.34
0.41
0.57
1.4
0.32
0.59
0.98
4.2
2.7
1.1
0.21
0.27
0.28
0.11
0.17
2.7
1.2
1.7
0.28
0.62
1.7
LT38
(% dry wt)
29
68
21
13
38
68
18
21
12
63
12
2.3
30
38
55
9.5
32
76
15
56
53
59
77
54
91
40
50
26
31
26
7.6
11
A-24
-------
TABLE A-12 SAGINAW RIVER SURVEY 3 - LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR33207C101
SR33207C102
SR33207C103
SR33210C101
SR33306C101
SR33306C102
SR33309C101
SR33309C102
SR33409C101
SR33409C102
SR33411C101
SR33411C102
SR33508C101
SR33508C102
SR33511C101
SR33609C101
SR33609C102
SR33611C101
SR33611C201
SR33809C101
SR33809C102
SR33812C101
SR33812C102
SR33911C101
SR33911C102
BROMINE
(ug/g dry wt)
0.11
0.01
0.022
0.016
0.041
0.073
0.037
0.17
0.066
0.05
0.081
0.008
0.081
0.18
0.019
0.09
0.24
0.08
0.015
0.2
0.07
0.037
0.012
0.12
0.12
CHLORINE
(ug/g dry wt)
7
1.4
1.4
0.54
2.9
2.1
1.5
2.5
6.3
1.6
11
1.3
7.4
2.9
1.4
7.3
2.4
2.3
0.92
8
1.3
2.8
0.58
4.4
8.8
CONDUCT
(uSiemens)
881
871
1220
1880
1570
1650
961
1690
1410
1800
1520
1510
3450
1500
2350
2920
1530
1460
2350
2700
1900
1390
1350
3820
EXTR_RES
(ug/g dry wt)
1600
220
210
<81
350
970
270
1200
780
370
1200
200
1100
1400
140
1400
1800
1200
220
1900
730
600
1600
1300
2600
MICRO.
(EC-50)
100
100
100
100
90
91
100
100
70
100
100
100
77
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
PH
7.09
6.9
7.32
7.43
7.04
7.1
7.27
6.93
7.18
6.97
6.98
7.38
6.99
6.98
7.26
7.05
6.96
6.99
7.09
6.97
7.02
7.19
7.26
7.01
7.06
TOC
(% dry wt)
0.84
3
1.2
0.31
0.43
4.2
0.44
2.2
1.5
2.3
2.8
1
1.7
2.1
0.4
0.44
2.8
4.5
1.5
2.5
1.9
0.74
0.42
2.4
2.6
GT38
(% dry wt)
6.6
8
7.3
2.7
3.6
4.9
2.4
4.3
6.7
3.6
5.8
7.1
4.4
9.8
0.94
3
6.3
8
2.4
6.8
1.9
2.2
0.52
7.7
2.1
GT63
(% dry wt)
53
65
69
74
46
23
40
42
51
44
37
74
39
38
29
38
43
26
31
48
27
39
27
37
52
GRAIN SIZE
GT250
(% dry wt)
22
1.6
1.5
16
39
0.11
47
22
30
26
21
1.1
45
12
61
39
29
14
29
16
38
47
100
16
39
GT1000
(% dry wt)
0.52
0.72
2.4
0.66
0.33
0.35
0.055
0.34
0.73
0.25
1
0.27
0.55
1.7
0.37
0.28
1
0.19
2.2
0.37
0.76
0.95
2.4
0.78
1
LT38
(% dry wt)
15
28
25
9.2
7.9
61
5.5
27
12
26
31
19
12
36
8.2
12
21
52
40
29
30
10
6.3
36
14
A-25
-------
TABLE A-13 SAGINAW RIVER - SURVEYS 2 AND 3
LARGE LAKES RECONNAISSANCE DATA FOR MASTER STATIONS
SAMPLE ID
SR20201C101
SR20201C102
SR20304C101
SR20304C102
SR20304C103
SR20401C101
SR20601C101
SR20601C202
SR20801C101
SR20801C101
SR20801C101
SR20801C102
SR20801C103
SR20901C101
SR21002C101
SR21201C101
SR21601C101
SR21601C102
SR22401C102
SR22501C101
SR22501C102
SR22501C203
SR32709C101
SR32709C102
SR32808C101
SR32808C102
SR32906C101
SR32906C102
SR33006C101
SR33006C102
SR33106C101
SR33106C102
SR33207C101
SR33207C102
SR33207C103
SR33309C101
SR33309C102
SR33409C101
SR33409C102
SR33609C101
SR33609C102
SR33809C101
SR33809C102
SR33911C101
SR33911C102
PCBs(ng/g dry wt)
1527.54
13546.44
8997.32
12062.38
125.92
103.16
34427.37
560.27
867.44
861.74
864.8
126.84
120.16
191.39
120.45
2334.74
14523.35
78.34
452.71
1331.05
1873.49
245.48
215.42
544.66
175.6
92.41
10991.24
4534.97
1474.8
62.54
209.24
27.07
3242.59
35.11
32.84
1060.87
1725.38
3183.65
500.68
7622.21
307.54
7307.77
16.18
654.56
24.97
A-26
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Saginaw River AOC Appendix B
APPENDIX B
SAGINAW RIVER
ARCS RAW SEDIMENT DATA MAPS
PageB-l
-------
SAGINAW RIVER - CONCENTRATION MAP TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Parameter
Metals
PCBs
PAHs"
Dioxin
Furan
Additional Parameters
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
1242
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
AVS
TOG
Survey
(1&3)
B-3
B-9
B-20
B-30
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-41
B-42
B-43
B-44
B-45
B-46
B-47
Survey(1 &3) and
LLRS 2 (0-2ft)
B-10
B-15
B-21
B-26
LLRS 2
0-2ft
B-4
B-32
LLRS 3
0-2 ft
B-5
B-11
B-16
B-22
B-27
B-33
LLRS 2
2-4H
B-6
B-12
B-17
B-23
B-28
B-34
LLRS 3
2-4ft
B-7
B-13
B-18
B-24
B-29
B-35
LLRS 2
4 -6ft
B-8
B-14
B-19
B-25
B-30
B-36
B-2
-------
Soginow
Bay
Saginaw River
16
13.1
12
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
14.4
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Arsenic Concentration (ug/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in = 1.117mi
LDL = Less Than Detection limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-3
-------
2.1
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
0.8
Bay City
'Waste Water
Treatment Plant
4.8
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
< 0.0026
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.440 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
< 0.0026
B-4
-------
Saginaw River
intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
0.7
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
N
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3>
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.200 ml
B-5
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
0.9
< 0.0026
< 0.0026
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
2.1
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
liddle Ground
Island
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.439 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
4.8
0.4
N
B-6
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.200 ml
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-7
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
< 0.0026
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.400 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
•T"
N
B-8
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
84
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
95
'EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
idle Ground
Island
Chromium Concentration (ug/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.150 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-9
-------
Saginow
Bay
89
Saginaw River
23
19
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Rant
49.8
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
* Master Station - surface sample
(data from surveys 1 and 2)
o Sampling Station - depth 0-2 ft
(data from survey 2)
Scale: 1 in =1.129 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
12
N
B-10
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
64
Belinda St. •( -j Q
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.207 mi
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-11
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
68
2.1
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.446 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-12
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
19
42
31 47
85
72 36
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.204 mi
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-13
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
5,5
110
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
120
Bay City
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
e Ground
Island
11
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 2.555 km
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
T
N
B-14
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
48
27
68.7
48 M 84
Bay City
67.7
53 45 4035 16
58^Ok=JnAn4
26 36
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
iddle Ground
Island
Lead Concentration (ug/g)
* Master Station - surface sample
(data from surveys 1 and 3)
o Sampling Station - depth 0-2ft.
(data from survey 2)
Scale:! in =1.111 mi
6.1
LDL = Less Than Detection Umits
James Clements
Airport
*
N
B-15
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
N
Lead Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.109 ml
B-16
-------
Saginaw River
7.3
66
9.4
34
Saginow
Bay
15
1
62
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Lead Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in =1.441 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
19
N
B-17
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Lead Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in » 0.200 km
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-18
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
98
Bay City
' Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Lead Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.440 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Umits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-19
-------
Saginaw River
0.177
0.094
Saginaw
Bay
o.m
0.166
Bay City
'Waste Water
Treatment Plant
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Mercury Concentration (ug/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in =1.150 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
).048
James Clements
Airport
N
B-20
-------
Saginaw
Bay
33
Saginaw River
21
12 30
7.2
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Bay City
A/aste Water
Treatment Rant
Nickel Concentration (ug/g)
* Master Station - surface sample
(data from surveys 1 and 3)
O Sampling Station - depth 0-2ft.
(data from survey 1 and 2)
Scale: 1 in =1.173 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-21
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
49
15
11
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
N
Nickel Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.145 ml
B-22
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
24
8.8
58 7.1
67 Bay City
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
27
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Nickel Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.391 mi '
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-23
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St.
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Nickel Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.153 mi
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-24
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
38
Bay City
' Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Nickel Concnetration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.449 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-25
-------
Saglnaw
Bay
Saginaw River
98
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
347
541
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
319
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
* Master Station - surface sample
(data from surveys 1 and 3)
• Sampling Station - depth 0-2 ft
(data from survey 2)
Scale: im= 1.150mi
IDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-26
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
250 180 190
®~47 ®-130
Belinda St.
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.224 km
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
N
B-27
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
64
170
52
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.429 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
93
James Clements
Airport
'T'
N
B-28
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
79
Belinda St.
180 9° 110
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.204 ml
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-29
-------
Soginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
300
45
230
25
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Bay City
EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
iddle Ground
Island
110
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 2.456 km
LDL = Less Than Detection Umits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-30
-------
Saginaw River
<430
115
Saginow
Bay
<430
<340
Boy City
' Waste Water
Treatment Plant
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples (surveys 1 & 3)
® Sampling Station
Scale: Tin =1.150 mi
LDL = Less man Detection umits
r2740
James Clements
Airport
N
B-31
-------
1331.05
867.44
Saginow
Bay
2334.74
Saginaw River
103.16
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
8997.32
"EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 1.445 mi
120.45.
.LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
T
N
B-32
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Belinda St. 28000* 7622
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
3700'
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
N
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Depth 0-2 ft. (survey 3)
©Sampling Station
• master station
Scale: 1 in = 0.225 km
B-33
-------
Saginaw River
126.84
Saginow
Bay
12062.38
BayCHy
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.438 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
T
N
B-34
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
120.1
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Depth 4-6 ft. (survey 2)
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.449 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-35
-------
Saginaw River
Intensive Sampling Area
Navigation Channel
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
N
PCB Concentration (ppb)
Depth 2-4 ft. (survey 3)
©Sampling Station
•master station
"depth 4-6 ft. sample
Scale: 1 In = 0.198 ml
Chesapeake and Ohio
Railways
B-36
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
30
<260
Bay City
v Waste Water
Treatment Plant
• EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Anthracene Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: Tin =1.201 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-37
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
190
Boy City
<340
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
690
- EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Benzo(a)anthracene Concentration
Surface Samples (ppb)
® Sampling Station
Scale: Tin =1.201 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-38
-------
Saginaw
Bay
Saginaw River
<250
440
310
280
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
- EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Benzo(a)pyrene Concentration
Surface Samples (ppb)
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in =1.201 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
<6
James Clements
Airport
N
B-39
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
280
iddle Ground
Island
580
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
1200
- EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Fluoranthene Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.162 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-40
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
53
<250
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Napthalene Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in =1.158mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-41
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
580
290
Bay City
' Waste Water
Treatment Plant
-EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Phenanthrene Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: Tin =1.149mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
^27 Airport
N
B-42
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
570
1000
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
- EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Pyrene Concentration (ppb)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in =1.153 mi
LOL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-43
-------
Soginow
Boy
Saginow River
160
230
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
64
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Dioxin Concentration (pg/dry g)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in =1.164 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
N
B-44
-------
Saginow
Bay
Saginaw River
1400
950
1100
1700
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
- EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Furan Concentration (pg/dry g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in= 1.150 mi
LDL = Less Than Detection Umits
r320
James Clements
Airport
N
B-45
-------
Soginow
Boy
Saginow River
5.83
5.62
3.61
5.99
Boy City
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Acid Volcatlle Sulfldes (uM/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: Tin =1.150mi
LOL => Less Than Detection Limits
James Clements
Airport
-1.54 4;
N
B-46
-------
Saginow River
3.02
3.63
4.02
Saginaw
Bay
3.85
2.99
Bay City
Waste Water
Treatm >nt Plant
. EPA Center for Ecological
Research and Training
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: Tin = 1.152 mi
IDL = Less Than Detection Limits
1.97
James Clements
Airport
N
B-47
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 748-159
------- |