5EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905-R96-011
July 1996
Assessment and
Remediation
of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT IN THE
BUFFALO 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
Buffalo River Area of Concern
SEPTEMBER 27, 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 A
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th
Clwcago, 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
1. INTRODUCTION }
1.1 Overview of the ARCS Program 1
1.2 Overview of the Buffalo River Area of Concern 3
1.3 Purpose and Organization of the Report 3
2. SAMPLING AND ANALY950XMETHODOLOGY 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 7
2.1.4 Core Documentation 7
2.2 Characterizing Sediment by Remote Sensing 8
2.2.1 Geophysical Survey Design 8
2.3 Collecting, Storing and Handling Sediment Samples for Chemical Analyses and
Bioassays
2.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 12
3. RESULTS [;?
3.1 Introduction |~
3.2 Availability of Sediment Quality Guidelines 16
3.2.1 Background on EPA EqP-Based Criteria 16
3.2.2 Background on NOAA Status and Trends Guidelines I7
3.3 Analysis of Chemical-Specific Data 21
3.3.1 Explanation of Data Presentation 22
3.3.2 Analysis by Chemical Parameter 28
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter 38
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location ^0
4. CONCLUSIONS **
4.1 Metals °^
4.2 Organic Chemicals 85
5. REFERENCES 86
APPENDIX A: ARCS SEDIMENT DATA TABLES A'1
APPENDIX B: 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 3.4a
FIGURE 3.4b
Page
ARCS PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION AREAS 2
BUFFALO RIVER AREA OF CONCERN 4
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 14
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 15
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE . 25
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE . 26
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE -
INTENSIVE ZONE 27
FIGURE 3.5 SURVEY 1 ARSENIC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 49
FIGURE 3.6a SURVEY 1 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 50
FIGURE 3.6b SURVEY 3 CADMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 51
FIGURE 3.7a SURVEY 1 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 52
FIGURE 3.7b SURVEY 3 CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . 53
FIGURE 3.8a SURVEY 1 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES .... 54
FIGURE 3.8b SURVEY 3 COPPER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 55
FIGURE 3.9a SURVEY 1 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 56
FIGURE 3.9b SURVEY 3 LEAD CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 57
FIGURE 3.10 SURVEY 1 MERCURY CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 58
FIGURE 3.1 la SURVEY 1 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 59
FIGURE 3.lib SURVEY 3 NICKEL CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 60
FIGURE 3.12 SURVEY 1 SILVER CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 61
FIGURE 3.13a SURVEY 1 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 62
FIGURE 3.13b SURVEY 3 ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 63
FIGURE 3.14 SURVEY 1 ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 64
FIGURE 3.15a SURVEY 1 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 65
FIGURE 3.15b SURVEY 3 BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 66
FIGURE 3.16a SURVEY 1 BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 67
FIGURE 3.16b SURVEY 3 BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 68
FIGURE 3.17a SURVEY 1 CHRYSENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 69
FIGURE 3.17b SURVEY 3 CHRYSENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 70
FIGURE 3.18a SURVEY 1 FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 71
FIGURE 3.18b SURVEY 1 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED FLUORANTHENE VS. EPA
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 72
FIGURE 3.19 SURVEY 1 FLUORENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . . 73
FIGURE 3.20 SURVEY 1 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 74
FIGURE 3.21 SURVEY 1 NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 75
FIGURE 3.22a SURVEY 1 PHENANTHRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA
GUIDELINES 76
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Page
FIGURE 3.22b SURVEY 1 ORGANIC CARBON NORMALIZED PHENANTHRENE VS. EPA
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 77
FIGURE 3 23 SURVEY 1 PYRENE CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 78
FIGURE 3 24 SURVEY 3 PCB CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES 79
FIGURE 3 25 SURVEY 3 TOTAL PAH CONCENTRATION VS. NOAA GUIDELINES . 80
FIGURE 3 26 SURVEY 1 MEAN SAMPLE LOCATION EXCEEDANCES FOR METALS 81
FIGURE 3.27 SURVEY 1 MEAN SAMPLE LOCATION EXCEEDANCES FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS ^
FIGURE 3 28 SURVEY 3 MEAN SAMPLE LOCATION EXCEEDANCES FOR METALS 83
FIGURE 3.29 SURVEY 3 MEAN SAMPLE LOCATION EXCEEDANCES FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS 84
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES 18
TABLE 3.2 SURVEY 3 - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES 23
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS 39
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION 41
TABLE 3.5 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS AND
ORGANICS 44
TABLE 3.6a SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR METALS (RANK
OUT OF TOTAL 112 SAMPLES) 45
TABLE 3.6b SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR ORGANICS
(RANK OUT OF TOTAL 36 SAMPLES) 47
IV
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo 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 ARCS 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.
Pagel
-------
Figure 1.1 ARCS Program Demonstration Areas
Sheboygan Harbor, Wl
Indiana Harbor, IN
Sagfnaw River, Ml
Buffalo River, NY
Ashtabula River, OH
n
en
I
5?
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo 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 Buffalo River Area of Concern
This report will focus on the Buffalo River Area of Concern (see Figure 1.2). Since the 1940s, the
Buffalo River has experienced pollution problems such as excess nutrients, bacteria, and toxic chemicals.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants and controls on industrial discharges have reduced many
waterborne pollutants. Currently, the most pressing problems are discharges of persistent toxic
pollutants, careless disposal of hazardous wastes near waterbodies, combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
and sediments contaminated with toxic metals, industrial organic chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Both surficial as well as deeper sediments
throughout the Buffalo River are contaminated from years of industrial activity. Fisheries and benthic
populations are severely impaired; fish consumption advisories exist for many fish species. An increased
frequency of fish tumors and other deformities have also been reported. River sediments at some
locations are also contaminated with cyanide and metals to levels that prohibit open lake disposal of
dredge materials.
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
Buffalo 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 two sampling surveys that
have not been provided in a single source or in comparable formats. The two primary sampling surveys
are the survey of the 10 Master Stations performed in October, 1989 (Survey 1) and the intensive survey
of 37 sampling points performed in August, 1990 (Survey 3). Survey 2 was aborted due to sampling
difficulties and the data supplanted by Survey 3.
Page 3
-------
Figure 1.2 Buffalo River Area of Concern
N
I
w
&
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 1
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 in 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 Buffalo River. The text of Chapter 2 draws
heavily from documents produced by the the ARCS Toxicity/Chemistry Workgroup.
Chapter 3 contains the summary and analysis of the data from the two 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 Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
2. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the methodologies used to sample and analyze the sediments in the Buffalo
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 in 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 in the 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 in 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 in 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 lexicological assays, performed at a limited number of "Master" slalions ihroughoul ihe
study area. Mullivariale 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 Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
the indicator assays were conducted. The following sections provide details of the field, laboratory, and
statistical procedures employed.
2.1 Collecting and Processing Sediment Samples
2.1.1 Sampling Vessel
The sampling vessel, the Research Vessel Mudpuppy, capable of operating hi 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 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 GLNPO (1993).
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 Buffalo River was a model P-4 Vibrocorer, manufactured by
Rossfelder Corporation (La Jolla, California). This unit proved powerful enough to collect cores over 16
feet (5 meters) in length, even when they included several feet of clay. However, it should be noted that
few cores longer than 16 feet were collected even when the 20 foot core tube fully penetrated the bottom.
One obvious reason was that the cross-sectional area inside the core nose was about 10 percent less than
that of the core tube inner diameter, reducing the collected sediment volume by that much. Another
reason may be that friction inside the core tube can exceed the bearing strength of soft sediments,
resulting in a plugged core tube that continues to penetrate without collecting more sediment. In addition,
gaseous sediments may compress slightly when cored.
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,
Page?
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
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 (1
m) 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 in 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 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
PageS
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
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 measurements 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 truthing"
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
10 stations in Buffalo River, New York in October 1989. All chemical analyses of sediment samples
were provided by Battelle Laboratory in Sequim, Washington. The chemical samples were collected by
personnel of the Large Lakes Research Station (LLRS) in Grosse Isle, Michigan. For analyses, the
samples were divided as follows:
1. 50 grams (g) for metals, percentage solids, and total organic carbon (TOC);
2. 250 g for PAHs;
3. 50 g for tributyltin;
4. 20 g for acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and 20 g for methylmercury; and
5. 100 g for Ames and Mutatox assays.
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 urn) and 400 (38 urn) sieves. Acid volatile sulfides (AVS) 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 TeflonR pressure vessels and then 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
Page 9
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
of the freeze-dried samples was ball-milled to about 120 mesh, pelletized, 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 in 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 in 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, DIO-anthracene,
DIO-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).
Arodors 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
Page 10
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
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 (APRA 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
a 94-17B electrode. The pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity were measured at the beginning and
end of each daphnid test in the 100 and 25 percent treatments, and in the dilution water control. About
500 mL of each 100 percent elutriate sample were placed in Teflon bottles, acidified to pH 2 with
redistilled hydrochloric acid, and shipped via overnight courier to Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
in 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 in elutriates, all pore water and elutriate samples were analyzed without
sample preparation. The Zn in 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 in many of the samples were broken down before Hg analysis by use of a
bromine monochloride/UV oxidation procedure (Bloom and Crecelius 1983).
Page 11
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 2
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 <_ 20 percent.
During chemical analyses, three to five standards containing concentrations that bracketed the
expected range of concentrations in the samples were used for daily instrument calibrations. In analyses
of samples for metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, these standards were analyzed as matrix
spikes, and the slopes from linear regression analyses were used to estimate sample concentrations. The
minimum acceptable r2 in the regression analyses was 0.97. The standards for each sample set were
analyzed at the beginning and end of each analytical run. The analytical results were accepted if the
values for standards were within 90 to 110 percent of their certified values. For some samples analyzed
by atomic absorption, average response factors, rather than linear regression, were used for instrument
calibration. The accuracy of this calibration method was checked by dividing each response factor by
the average response value. The calibration values were accepted if they were within 5 percent of the
average response value.
During chemical analyses, the method's detection limits (MDL) was estimated according to
procedures in the USEPA Federal Register (1984).
Three sample matrices were analyzed; whole sediment (grain size, total and volatile solids, metals,
solvent extractable residue, organohalogens, and TOC), sediment elutriates (ammonia and Microtox), and
sediment pore water (conductivity). The elutriate creation procedure was originally designed to mimic
the rapid desorption of contaminants from sediments resulting from the open-water disposal of dredged
materials (Plumb 1981). Elutriates are cheaply and easily prepared, but the mixing of the sediment and
water may influence the availability of some contaminants by changing their oxidative states. Pore water
sampling better reflects the interstitial concentration of contaminants resulting from the partitioning of
chemicals from sediments, and appropriate sampling techniques probably have a lesser 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 "shell11 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 QC 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 12
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 3
3. RESULTS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary and analysis of the sediment chemical data collected from the
Buffalo River based on the two 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 Buffalo 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 Buffalo 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, 1993a-e). 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 two primary sampling surveys. Survey
1, or the Master Station survey, consists of grab samples taken from the ten ARCS Buffalo River Master
Stations. The locations and sample numbers of the Buffalo River Master Stations are shown in Figure
3.1. The second survey referred to in this section, Survey 3, consists of a series of 4 to 8 foot depth core
samples collected 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. The locations
of the Survey 3 sample points are shown in Figure 3.2. Methods for sample collection and analysis are
more fully described in Chapter 2.
Page 13
-------
FIGURE 3.1 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS (MASTER STATIONS)
fi
cw
BR10301G100
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
BR10901G100
BR10201G10O
BR10101G100
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
I
E
M*
I
2
E«
5"
a
o
n
BR10701G100
N
•Field Duplicate
O
g"
-------
FIGURE 3.2 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Loke
Erie
I
Buffalo River Sampling Sites
+ Sampling Station (labeled)
* Master Sampling Station
Scate: 11n-0.451ml
Buffalo. NY
BR31302
R31301
BR33202
BR3I402 BR30603 BR30801 » BR32501
BR30601 / BR30802
BR33201
33102
BR33501
33002
BR33401
BR30703
BR32004
BR32003
31903
BR334Q2
BR32402
BR30901
BR34001
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
BR32301
BR322Q2
N
•Field Duplicate
a
'C
**•
z
8
5
n
n
B1
1
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 3
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 (EPA, 1993a-e) 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 (EPA, 1993). 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.
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, 1993e), acenapthene (USEPA,
1993a), and fluoranthene (USEPA, 1993d), and the pesticides dieldrin (USEPA, 1993b) and endrin
(USEPA, 1993c).
Page 16
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 3
For the five EqP-based criteria that are currently available, only phenanthrene and fluoranthene were
analyzed for at the Buffalo River Master Station locations. A complete list of analytes for Master Station
samples 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 all 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 sediment guidelines determined in the NOAA guidance, 25 are applicable to the
analytical data collected for the Buffalo AOC. A complete listing of all analytes and the applicable
NOAA guidelines is presented in Table 3.1.
Page 17
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Parameters Sampled
Survey 1
(Master
Stations)
Survey 3
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
NOAA ER-L
EPA EqP
Criteria
PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphenol
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1,600 ng/g
2,500 ng/g
2, 100 ng/g
670 ng/g
640 ng/g
1,380 ng/g
960 ng/g
3,600 ng/g
2,200 ng/g
230 ng/g
400 ng/g
340 ng/g
65 ng/g
35 ng/g
225 ng/g
85 ng/g
600 ng/g
350 ng/g
180 ug/gOC
620 ug/gOC
Page 18
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Indeno(l,2,3)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Total PAH
Parameters Sampled
Survey 1
(Master
Stations)
X
X
X
X
X
Survey 3
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
2,800 ng/g
35,000 ng/g
NOAA ER-L
400 ng/g
4,000 ng/g
PESTICIDES
Cis-chlordane
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
1,2-D
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Expoxide
TCMX
Trans-chlordane
PCBs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 ng/g
15 ng/g
7 ng/g
8 ng/g
400 ng/g
2 ng/g
2 ng/g
1 ng/g
0.02 ng/g
50 ng/g
EPA EqP
Criteria
llug/gOC
Page 19
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Parameters Sampled
Survey 1
(Master
Stations)
Survey 3
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
NOAA ER-L
EPA EqP
Criteria
METALS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Silver
Arsenic
Mercury
Manganese
Mediylmercury
Tributyltin
MBT
Dibutyltin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9ug/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 20
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 ANALYTES AND SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
CHEMICAL
Parameters Sampled
Survey 1
(Master
Stations)
Survey 3
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NOAA
ER-M
NOAA ER-L
NON-METALS
Total Organic Carbon
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Extractable Residue
pH
Conductivity
Percent Solids
Solids, Total
Volatile Solids
Mircrotox
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
Iodine
Grain Size
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA EqP
Criteria
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
Page 21
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 3
probability for such. On the other hand, levels below guidelines for a single chemical are obviously not
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 Survey 3 results 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. In determining summary
statistics, Survey 1 and Survey 3 data are not combined. The combining of the two 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 location 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 Survey 3 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
by Survey 1 and 3 sample locations 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 starting from the ship canal up to the Con Rail bridge. Because of the greater number of
sampling locations and subsampling at multiple depths, Survey 3 data are presented in a somewhat
different format. 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 and 3.2 and those used in
the remaining figures in this chapter. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 depict the location of the renumbered sample
locations for Survey 1 and Survey 3, respectively. The bar charts (Figures 3.5 through 3.24) are located
at the end of the chapter (starting on page 49 of this report).
Page 22
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2 SURVEY 3 - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES
Organized by Chart Number
Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
35
36
37
Original Sample
BR34001
BR30201
BR30301
BR31301
BR31302
BR32801
BR30402
BR32701
BR32702
BR31402
BR34101
BR31601
BR30601
BR30603
BR30703
BR32503
BR32501
BR30901
Intensive Zone
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BR32003
BR32004
BR31903
BR33801
BR33702
BR31703
BR32102
BR32202
Organized by Sample Number
Original Sample
BR30201
BR30301
BR30402
BR30601
BR30603
BR30703
BR30801
BR30802
BR30901
BR31301
BR31302
BR31402
BR31601
BR31703
BR31903
BR32003
BR32004
BR32102
BR32202
BR32301
BR32402
BR32501
BR32503
BR32701
BR32702
BR32801
BR33002
Report
2
3
7
13
14
15
31
30
37
4
5
10
12
21
18
16
17
22
23
21
25
36
35
8
9
6
28
Page 23
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2 SURVEY 3 - CROSS REFERENCE TABLES
Organized by Chart Number
Report
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Original Sample
BR32301
BR32402
BR33402
BR33401
BR33002
BR33501
BR30802
BR30801
BR33102
BR33201
BR33202
Organized by Sample Number
Original Sample
BR33102
BR33201
BR33202
BR33401
BR33402
BR33501
BR33702
BR33802
BR34001
BR34101
Report
32
33
34
27
26
29
20
19
1
11
The following features of the bar graphs should be noted:
• The numbers under each of the graphs correspond to the revised sample numbers for Survey 1
and Survey 3, presented in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.
• 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.
• The Survey 3 graphs are grouped by sets of four in order to present various sampling areas and
multiple sampling depths.
Figure 3.6b shows the typical graphical presentation for Survey 3 data. The top two graphs (Graphs
A and B) present sampling points 1-15 and 35-37 shown in the map in Figure 3.4a. The bars are spaced
proportionately to downstream river distance starting from inside the shipping channel. Graphs A and B
are different in that they present samples from different core depths. Graph A presents data from 0-2
foot (solid bars) and 2-4 foot (hollow bars) samples. Graph B presents data from the 4-6 foot (solid bars)
and 6-8 foot (hollow bars) samples. The samples from the intensive sampling zone (samples 16 - 34
shown in Figure 3.4b) are omitted from these graphs and displayed in Graphs C and D. Graph C
presents data from 0-2 foot and 2-4 foot core samples; Graph D presents data from 4-6 foot and 6-8 foot
samples.
Page 24
-------
FIGURE 3.3 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE
N
fi
en
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Buffalo, NY
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
1
CD
W
I
e
5
5
n
I
n
ta
1
-------
FIGURE 3.4a BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE
N
Lake Erie
I
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
36
37
n
VI
I
5?
5"
5
It*
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
FIGURE 3.4b BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHART NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE -
INTENSIVE ZONE
16
19
22
23
Page 27
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
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
3
Minimum
<1.4
N/A
Median
12.1
N/A
Maximum
34
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)
Arsenic levels do not exceed the ER-M at any Survey 1 sample location. The ER-L is slightly
exceeded only in the southern end of the ship canal (34 ug/g). The lowest concentration of arsenic is
found within the ship canal, just downstream of the northern end where it was undetected at 1.4 ug/g.
Arsenic concentrations are shown relative to the ER-L and ER-M in Figure 3.5.
Cadmium
Survey
1
3
Minimum
0.03
0
Median
0.95
2.4
Maximum
4.0
33
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
5
NOAA
ER-M
9
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
Neither ER-L nor ER-M values were exceeded by Survey 1 Master Station samples (see Figure 3.6a).
Except for the southern end of the ship canal, all values are well below (less than 50 percent) the ER-L
value for cadmium.
The Survey 3 data, however, demonstrates numerous exceedances of both the ER-L and the ER-M
(see Figure 3.6b). The greatest exceedances were found in samples from the intensive sampling zone
(Figure 3.6b; Graphs C and D), especially at the 2-4 foot depth where seven samples exhibited
concentrations in excess of the ER-M. Four additional ER-M exceedances were found at 4-6 foot and
6-8 foot depths in the intensive zone. Several surface samples outside of the intensive zone also contained
ER-M exceedances (Samples 7 and 8 in Figure 3.6b; Graph A)
Page 28
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Chromium
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<13
6.4
Median
84.5
73.5
Maximum
312
2,500
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
80
NOAA
ER-M
145
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
Survey 1 sediment concentrations of chromium exceeded the ER-M at one location at the southern
end of the ship canal (Sample 1 in Figure 3.7a), with a value of 312 ug/g. The ER-L was exceeded at
four additional locations (Samples 3, 5, 6, and 7) with values ranging from 92 to 113 ug/g.
Survey 3 sediment concentrations exceeded the ER-M in 41 samples (Figure 3.7b). The majority of
the exceedances occurred within the intensive sampling area and below the surface (Figure 3.7b; Graphs
C and D). The highest concentration (2,500 ug/g) was found at the 6-8 foot depth in Sample 32. Most
of the exceedances of the ER-M were found within the 2-4 foot and 4-6 foot sections.
Copper
Survey
1
3
Minimum
8.2
9.1
Median
49.2
87.5
Maximum
148
1,100
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
70
NOAA
ER-M
390
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
Copper levels do not exceed the ER-M at any Survey 1 sample location (see Figure 3.8a). The ER-L
is exceeded at two locations; the southern end of the ship canal (148 ug/g) and just downstream of the
intensive survey area (89.7 ug/g). The lowest concentration of copper was found within the ship canal,
just downstream from the southern end of the canal.
Copper concentrations in Survey 3 samples were significantly higher, particularly in the intensive
sampling area (Figure 3.8b). Whereas there was a single ER-M exceedance outside of the intensive area
(just upstream of the intensive sampling zone), there were nine exceedances within the zone. The
majority of the exceedances were at core depths 2-4 feet and greater. A group of exceedances were
found at the 2-4 foot depth in samples 20, 22, 23, and 24, that correspond geographically to the outside
of the sharp river bend in the intensive zone.
Page 29
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Lead
Survey
1
3
Minimum
28.4
6.1
Median
68.6
170
Maximum
314
3,400
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
35
NOAA
ER-M
110
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
Lead levels exceed the ER-M or ER-L at all sampling locations except for Sample 2 within the ship
canal, just downstream from the southern end (see Figure 3.9a). The ER-M is exceeded in the southern
end of the ship canal (286 ug/g), at the Ohio Street bridge (314 ug/g), and downstream of the intensive
survey zone (143 ug/g). The ER-L is exceeded at all locations except within the ship canal (Sample 2).
Survey 3 lead concentrations also exceed the ER-M at the majority of the sampling locations (see
Figure 3.9b). While several surficial samples exceed the ER-M, samples from 2 foot and greater depths
most frequently exceed the guideline. The highest concentrations are found in the 2-4 foot sections of
samples 20 through 24 that correspond to outside of the sharp bend in the intensive survey area.
Concentrations in these samples range from 1,500 ug/g to 3,400 ug/g (about 14 and 30 times the ER-M,
respectively).
Mercury
Survey
1
3
Minimum
0.01
N/A
Median
0.12
N/A
Maximum
1.93
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)
As shown in Figure 3.10, mercury levels exceed the ER-L and ER-M at most Survey 1 stations
sampled (mercury was not an analyte in Survey 3). The ER-L is exceeded in 6 of the 10 stations located
within and downstream of the intensive survey area. The ER-M is exceeded at the southern end of the
ship canal (1.93 ug/g) and downstream of the intensive zone (1.62 ug/g).
Page 30
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Nickel
Survey
1
3
Minimum
5.2
4.3
Median
44.7
36
Maximum
57
180
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
30
NOAA
ER-M
50
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
As depicted in Figure 3.11 a, the ER-M for nickel is exceeded at three of the sample locations;
downstream of the intensive survey area, downstream of the Ohio Street bridge, and in the southern end
of the ship canal. The ER-L for nickel is exceeded at all sample locations except within the ship canal
(Sample 2). All remaining samples exhibit nickel levels between 3.4 and 47 ug/g.
The highest Survey 3 nickel concentrations were found in the 2-4 foot core depth at sample locations
20-24 within the intensive zone (Figure 3.lib; Graph C). Concentrations within this area range from
100-175 ug/g (2 to 3.5 times the ER-M). A second zone of high concentrations is found in samples from
the 4-6 and 6-8 foot sediment core depths at sample locations 27-32 (Figure 3.lib; Graph D). These
concentrations range from 55 to 110 ug/g.
Silver
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<0.03
N/A
Median
0.14
N/A
Maximum
0.46
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)
Silver concentrations in all Survey 1 samples were less than half of the ER-L for silver (Figure 3.12).
The highest concentration was found in the southern end of the Buffalo ship canal (0.46 ug/g). Silver
was not an analyte in Survey 3.
Page 31
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Zinc
Survey
1
3
Minimum
32
38
Median
210
325
Maximum
900
6,400
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
120
NOAA
ER-M
270
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ug/g)
The ER-L or ER-M are exceeded at all locations except within the ship canal (Sample 2) where zinc
was found at 32 ug/g level (see Figure 3.13a). The ER-M is exceeded at four locations with the greatest
exceedance at the southern end of the ship canal (900 ug/g or over three times the ER-M). The ER-M
is also exceeded downstream of the intensive sampling zone (389 ug/g), at Ohio Street (371 ug/g), and
at the mouth of the river (286 ug/g). The ER-L is exceeded at all other locations at levels from 142 ug/g
(at the Con Rail tracks) to 224 ug/g (between Ohio Street and Michigan Street).
Survey 3 zinc concentrations exceed both the ER-L and ER-M for zinc at the majority of sampling
locations and at most depths (see Figure 3.13b). As with other sampled metals, peak concentrations
occur within the intensive sampling zone at the 2-4 foot and 6-8 foot sampling depths. The maximum
zinc concentration of 6,400 ug/g occurs at the 2-4 foot depth in sample 21. Adjacent cores 20, 23, and
24 contain concentrations of 2,300 to 3,700 ug/g at the same depth.
Anthracene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<34
N/A
Median
205
N/A
Maximum
4,300
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 or ER-M are exceeded at all sampling locations except within the ship canal (Sample 2)
where anthracene is undetected at the 34 ng/g level (see Figure 3.14). The ER-M is exceeded at three
locations; at the river mouth (1,100 ng/g), at the southern end of the ship canal (1,700 ng/g), and
downstream of the intensive survey area (4,300 ng/g or more than four times the ER-M). All other
samples exceed the ER-L at levels ranging from 99 ng/g (at the ConRail tracks) to 640 ng/g at Ohio
Street. Anthracene was not sampled for in Survey 3.
Page 32
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Benz(a)anthracene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<21
74
Median
470
714
Maximum
3,500
34,680
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
230
NOAA
ER-M
1,600
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
Figure 3.15a presents the Survey 1 sample results for benz(a)anthracene. ER-M values were
exceeded at sample location 1 at the southern end of the ship canal (3,500 ng/g) and sample location 6,
just downstream from the intensive survey area (1,800 ng/g). All other samples exceeded the ER-L
except for the sample within the ship canal (Sample 2) that had a concentration below the detection limit.
Under Survey 3, benz(a)anthracene was only sampled at a limited number of discrete sampling
locations and depths (see Figure 3.15b). The highest levels of benz(a)anthracene were found within the
intensive sampling zone at the 4-6 foot and 6-8 foot sample depths. The maximum concentration was
found at location 22 in the sharp bend in the intensive zone (34,680 ng/g). Additional high
concentrations were detected at the upstream end of the intensive zone at 4-6 feet depth (ranging from
4,600 ng/g to 6,200 ng/g). Additional high concentrations were found in surficial samples 5, 7, and 9
in the stretch between the Michigan Street and Ohio Street bridges (ranging from 2,000 ng/g to 5,000
ng/g).
Benzo(a)pyrene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<27
62
Median
540
702
Maximum
5,800
24,577
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
400
NOAA
ER-M
2,500
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
One Survey 1 sample exceeded the ER-M for benzo(a)pyrene; Sample 1 at the southern end of the
ship canal contained benzo(a)pyrene at 5,800 ng/g (see Figure 3.16a). All other samples exceeded the
ER-L at concentrations between 440 ng/g and 1,300 ng/g, except for samples 2 (within the ship canal)
and 8 (within the intensive survey area).
Page 33
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
As with the other organic parameters sampled in Survey 3, benzo(a)pyrene was analyzed in a limited
number of locations at discrete depths. The distribution of high concentrations generally mirrors that of
benz(a)anthracene. Maximum concentrations were measured in the intensive zone at the 4-6 foot and 6-8
foot depths (Figure 3.16b; Graph D). The maximum concentration was found at location 22 in the sharp
bend in the intensive zone (24,577 ng/g). Additional high concentrations were detected at the upstream
end of the intensive zone at 4-6 feet depth (ranging from 3,700 ng/g to 4,200 ng/g). An additional high
concentration was found in the surface sediments at sample location 9, just downstream from the Ohio
Street bridge (4,400 ng/g).
Chrysene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<27
108
Median
650
866
Maximum
4,000
28,509
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
400
NOAA
ER-M
2,800
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
The ER-M for chrysene was exceeded at only one Survey 1 sample location, which was in Sample
1 from the southern end of the ship canal (see Figure 3.17a). All other chrysene samples exceeded the
ER-L except for the sample within the ship canal (Sample 2), that was reported below the detection limit
for chrysene.
Under Survey 3, chrysene was also analyzed in only a limited number of locations at discrete depths.
All surficial and sub-surface samples, except for Sample 2, exceeded the ER-L guidelines (see Figure
3.17b). Maximum concentrations were measured in the intensive zone at the 4-6 foot and 6-8 foot depths
(Figure 3.17b; Graph D). The maximum concentration was found at location 22 in the sharp bend in the
intensive zone (28,509 ng/g). Six additional intensive zone sub-surface samples were in exceedance of
the ER-M, with concentrations ranging between 4,002 ng/g and 17,900 ng/g. Additional ER-M
exceedances were found in the surface sample at sample location 9, downstream of the Ohio Street bridge
(4,632 ng/g), and within the intensive zone (at the upper- and lower-most ends of the area).
Fluoranthene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<55
N/A
Median
1,200
N/A
Maximum
7,500
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
620
ug/g OC
NOAA
ER-L
600
NOAA
ER-M
3,600
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g except as noted for the EPA EqP criteria)
Page 34
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
The ER-L and ER-M are exceeded at all Survey 1 sampling locations except within the ship canal
(Sample 2) where fluoranthene is undetected at the 55 ng/g level (see Figure 3.18a). The ER-M is
exceeded at two locations; at the southern end of the ship canal (7,500 ng/g which is over twice the ER-
M) and downstream of the intensive sampling zone (5,100 ng/g). All other samples exceed the ER-L
with concentrations ranging from 760 ng/g (upstream of the intensive zone) and 2,700 ng/g (at Ohio
Street). Fluoranthene was not an analyte in Survey 3.
The EPA EqP-based criteria for fluoranthene is 620 ug/gOC. When fluoranthene data for the Buffalo
River are normalized with respect to organic carbon, the distribution criteria exceedances change
somewhat from bulk sediment concentrations (see Figure 3.18b). At no location is the EqP-based criteria
for fluoranthene exceeded. The maximum level is now found downstream of the intensive zone (239
ug/gOC, less than 1/2 of the criteria). All other locations exhibit carbon normalized levels less than one-
quarter of the criteria.
Fluorene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<30
N/A
Median
106
N/A
Maximum
3,400
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)
As shown in Figure 3.19, two locations contained sediments with fluorene concentrations above the
ER-M. These are sample 1 at the southern end of the ship canal (1,800 ng/g) and sample 6 just
downstream from the intensive survey area (3,400 ng/g). Four other samples exceeded the ER-L at levels
from 46 ng/g to 400 ng/g. Four samples did not contain fluorene at levels above the detection limit.
Fluorene was not an analyte in Survey 3.
2-Methylnaphthalene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<29
N/A
Median
103.5
N/A
Maximum
20,000
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)
Page 35
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
As shown in Figure 3.20, the ER-M for 2-methylnaphthalene was exceeded at two Survey 1 sample
sites; at the southern end of the ship canal and just downstream of the intensive survey area. The highest
concentration was found at the southern end of the ship canal (20,000 ng/g). The ER-L was exceeded
at three sample locations, at the mouth of the Buffalo River (Sample 3), at the Ohio Street bridge (Sample
5), and in the intensive survey area (Sample 7). 2-methylnaphthalene was not detected at four sample
locations, two of which were located upstream of the intensive survey area (Samples 9 and 10). 2-
methylnaphthalene was not an analyte in Survey 3.
Naphthalene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<29
N/A
Median
75
N/A
Maximum
2,400
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)
The ER-M for naphthalene was exceeded at two Survey 1 sample sites; at the southern end of the ship
canal and just downstream of the intensive survey area (see Figure 3.21). The highest concentration was
found at the southern end of the ship canal (2,400 ng/g). The ER-M and the ER-L values for naphthalene
were not exceeded at any other sample location; naphthalene was not detected at four sample sites.
Naphthalene was not an analyte in Survey 3.
Phenanthrene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<36
N/A
Median
630
N/A
Maximum
10,000
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
180
ug/gOC
NOAA
ER-L
225
NOAA
ER-M
1,380
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g except as noted for the EPA EqP criteria)
The ER-L and ER-M are exceeded at all Survey 1 sampling locations except within the ship canal
(Sample 2) where it is undetected at the 36 ng/g level (see Figure 3.22a). The ER-M is exceeded at three
locations; the river mouth (1,400 ng/g), the southern end of the ship canal (6,100 ng/g), and downstream
of the intensive survey area (10,000 ng/g). All other samples exceed the ER-L. Phenanthrene was not
an analyte in Survey 3.
Page 36
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
The EPA EqP-based criteria for phenanthrene is 180 ug/gOC. When phenanthrene data for the
Buffalo river are normalized with respect to organic carbon, the distribution of criteria exceedances
change somewhat from bulk sediment concentrations. Only one location exceeds the criteria for
phenanthrene (see Figure 3.22b). The maximum level is now found downstream of the intensive zone
(469 ug/gOC). Most other locations exhibit carbon normalized levels less than one-half of the criteria.
Pyrene
Survey
1
3
Minimum
<68
N/A
Median
1,005
N/A
Maximum
6,700
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
350
NOAA
ER-M
2,200
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
Figure 3.23 presents the results from Survey 1 for pyrene. As shown in Figure 3.23, all samples
exceed either the ER-M or ER-L for pyrene, except one sample located in the ship canal (Sample 2),
which did not contain any detectable amounts of pyrene at 68 ng/g. Three sample locations had pyrene
concentrations greater than the ER-M, including at the southern end of the ship canal (6,100 ng/g), at
the Ohio Street bridge (2,500 ng/g), and just downstream from the intensive survey area (6,700 ng/g).
The remaining samples range in concentrations from 690 ng/g (within the intensive survey area) to 2,100
ng/g (at the river mouth). Pyrene was not an analyte in Survey 3.
Total PCBs
Survey
1
3
Minimum
N/A
43.9
Median
N/A
1,124.29
Maximum
N/A
49,935.16
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
50
NOAA
ER-M
400
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
Total PCBs were not analyzed as part of Survey 1. As shown in Figure 3.24, most Survey 3 samples
exceeded the ER-M or ER-L for total PCBs. Surface samples throughout the river exceeded the ER-M,
with the highest value located at the downstream end of the intensive survey area (10,036 ng/g). The
highest concentrations of total PCBs, however, were found in the sub-surface sediment cores (4-6 and
6-8 foot core depths) located upstream from the sharp bend in the intensive survey area. The highest
values occur in the 6-8 foot cores in the furthest upstream sample sites within the intensive survey area
(Sample 34).
Page 37
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
Total PAHs
Survey
1
3
Minimum
880
N/A
Median
26,147
N/A
Maximum
177,330
N/A
EPA EqP
Criteria
N/A
NOAA
ER-L
4,000
NOAA
ER-M
35,000
N/A - Not available
(All units are in ng/g)
As shown in Figure 3.25, total PAH concentrations for all Survey 1 samples except for within the
ship canal (Sample 2), exceed the ER-M or ER-L values. The two sample locations with the highest
concentrations exceed the ER-M. These high concentrations are found in the southern end of the ship
canal (177,330 ng/g) and just downstream of the intensive survey area (116,070 ng/g). All other samples
exceed the ER-L, with the values ranging from 6,801 ng/g (within the intensive survey area) to almost
67,000 ng/g (upstream of the ConRail bridge). Total PAHs were not sampled for under Survey 3.
Dieldrin, DDT, DDD, and DDE
No pesticides were analyzed for under Survey 1. However, under Survey 3 several pesticides were
monitored for, and the majority of sample values were found below detection limits. However, for two
of the four pesticides for which ER-M and ER-L values are available (DDT and DDD), the few detectable
values were found to exceed both the ER-M and ER-L. This was particularly true in the sub-surface
samples located between the Ohio Street bridge and the Michigan Street bridge (Samples 4, 6, 7, and 9).
3.3.3 Ranking by Chemical Parameter
To provide a preliminary indication of which chemicals may be of concern in the Buffalo River AOC,
a simple comparative analysis was performed based on 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 two surveys are
not combined, therefore each parameter may have two mean exceedance values (if the parameter was
analyzed in both 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 are presented in Table 3.3.
Page 38
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Survey 1
Mean
Exceedance
Relative Rank
Survey 3
Mean
Exceedance
Relative
Rank
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
0.13
0.13
0.67
0.15
1.05
0.40
0.83
0.09
1.06
8
7
4
6
2
5
3
9
1
N/A
0.51
1.44
0.42
2.72
N/A
0.84
N/A
2.41
N/A
5
3
6
1
N/A
4
N/A
2
Organics
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.88
0.616
1.67-
0.54
0.45
0.41
0.96
0.24
0.99
3.23
6
7
2
8
9
10
5
11
4
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.01
1.19
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page 39
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RELATIVE RANKS FOR
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Survey 1
Mean
Exceedance
1.35
N/A
Relative Rank
3
N/A
Survey 3
Mean
Exceedance
N/A
15.88
Relative
Rank
N/A
1
N/A - Not Available
Of the nine toxic metals analyzed for in the Buffalo River AOC, zinc, lead, nickel and chromium
rank the highest of the metals in both Survey 1 and Survey 3. The high concentrations for these
parameters were particularly found in the subsurface samples in Survey 3.
As for the organic chemicals, the highest ratios were found for the PAHs 2-methylnaphthalene and
phenanthrene in Survey 1. In Survey 3, total PCBs had the highest mean exceedance (on average a
sample was found at almost 16 times the ER-M value). Also under Survey 3, chrysene and
benzo(a)pyrene were found on average to exceed the ER-M value. It should be noted that many of the
ER-M exceedances for the organics were found in the deeper sediment cores, as opposed to the surface
sediment.
3.3.4 Analysis by Sample Location
The second portion of the analysis of Buffalo 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.
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 four 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 Buffalo River AOC.
As shown in Table 3.4, sample sites 1 (at the southern end of the ship canal) and 6 (downstream of
the intensive survey area) had the greatest number of ER-M exceedances for both metals and organic
chemicals under Survey 1. Under Survey 3, the greatest number of exceedances tend to occur in three
areas of the Buffalo River AOC, two of which are located in the intensive survey area. The locations
within the intensive survey area include sampling locations 30 - 34 (the most upstream sample stations
within the intensive survey area) and sampling locations 21-27 (at the sharp turn within the intensive
Page 40
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
survey area). The third location within the Buffalo River AOC is for sampling locations 4 - 9 (between
the Ohio Street and Michigan Street bridges. It should also be noted that the greatest number of
exceedances generally occurs in the 2-4 foot core samples.
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION
Sample Site 1
Reference Number Toxic Metals
Organic Pollutants
(PAHs and PCBs)
Survey 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
0
1
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
2
9
0
0
0
1
Survey 3
1
2
3
4
5
,*
6
Core Depth (Feet)
0-2 2-4
2 3
0 0
3 3
0 3
2 0
2 3
4-6
—
—
0
2
—
3
6-8
—
—
--
—
—
—
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8
_ _ _ _
Q
0 - - -
o — — -~
2 _
0 -----
Page 41
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION
Sample Site
Reference Number
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Toxic Metals
5
4
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
2
3
0
0
4
2
0
2
3
6
0
5
0
3
5
6
—
6
5
6
3
3
—
3
3
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
4
3
0
—
2
4
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
2
2
—
—
0
5
—
0
2
—
—
2
0
—
—
Organic Pollutants
(PAHs and PCBs)
2
—
3
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
3
—
0
0
0
—
0
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
0
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
~
—
—
—
Page 42
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF NOAA ER-M EXCEEDANCES BY SAMPLE
LOCATION
Sample Site
Reference Number
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Toxic Metals
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
1
0
1
0
6
4
6
—
1
—
3
6
4
6
0
0
—
1
—
—
—
—
0
0
6
—
—
—
Organic Pollutants
(PAHs and PCBs)
0
—
—
0
—
2
0
0
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
3
—
3
3
—
~
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
- No Data
The second analysis performed provides a preliminary indication of which locations may be of
concern in the Buffalo River AOC, using a simple comparative analysis based on the relative exceedance
of the ER-M value. In particular, the average of the mean exceedances of chemical concentrations
(shown previously in Table 3.3) 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 two surveys are not combined,
therefore each location may have two mean exceedance values (if a sample was analyzed at a location in
both 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).
Table 3.5 presents the mean exceedance values determined for each Survey 1 sample location, and
ranks them in relation to all other locations. Figures 3.26 and 3.27 present bar graphs of the mean
exceedances for the metals and organic chemicals for Survey 1 sample sites, respectively. As shown,
sample location 1 (southern end of the ship canal) possesses mean exceedances greater than one for both
metals and organics. Sample location 6 Oust downstream from the intensive survey area) possesses the
highest mean exceedance of all locations for organic chemicals. Survey 1 sample location 5 (at the Ohio
Street bridge) also ranked high for both metals and organic chemicals. The results of the comparative
analysis follow the results of the total number of exceedances analysis.
Page 43
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.5 SURVEY 1 MEAN EXCEEDANCE VALUES AND RANKS FOR METALS
AND ORGANICS
Sample
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Metals
Mean
Exceedance
1.35
0.06
0.54
0.4
0.72
0.71
0.39
0.32
0.29
0.25
Relative
Rank
1
10
4
5
2
3
6
7
8
9
Organics (PAHs and PCBs)
Mean
Exceedance
5.08
0.002
0.61
0.21
0.72
2.69
0.33
0.16
0.19
0.33
Relative
Rank
1
10
4
7
3
2
5
9
8
6
Table 3.6 presents the mean exceedance values determined for each Survey 3 sample location and
sediment core depth, and ranks them in relation to all other locations and core depths. Figures 3.28 and
3.29 present bar graphs of the mean exceedances for the metals and organic chemicals for Survey 3
sample sites, respectively. As shown, a trend similar to Survey 1 exists in that the highest ranked Survey
3 sample locations are mostly within the intensive survey area for both metals (particularly sample
locations 25 - 27) and organic chemicals (sample locations 21 - 25). The highest mean exceedances also
tend to occur in the sub-surface samples at each location (particularly the 2-4 foot cores for metals and
the 4-6 foot cores for organic chemicals). Several sample locations within the stretch of river between
the Ohio Street and Michigan Street bridges also had relatively high mean exceedances for organic
chemicals (sampling locations 5 and 9).
Page 44
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.6a SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR METALS (RANK OUT OF TOTAL 112
SAMPLES)
Sample
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Core Depth
0-2 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
1.04
0.07
1.27
0.5
1.36
0.72
1.81
1.32
0.46
0.54
0.38
0.42
0.64
0.43
0.61
3.07
0.31
0.33
0.34
Relative
Rank
46
112
38
68
33
55
25
36
73
66
83
77
58
76
60
12
99
95
93
2-4 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
1.89
0.11
1.29
1.51
0.13
1.68
1.9
0.89
1.71
0.5
0.38
2.46
1.17
0.22
0.86
3.19
0.35
1.59
2.92
Relative
Rank
23
111
37
32
109
28
22
50
27
69
84
18
41
105
51
10
89
31
14
4-6 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
0.23
1.04
-
2.38
1.83
-
1.74
1.35
0.53
0.81
0.59
0.18
1.32
1.26
0.3
2.63
0.97
Relative
Rank
-
-
104
45
-
19
24
-
26
34
67
52
62
108
35
40
100
15
48
6-8 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.47
0.72
0.8
3.02
-
-
0.93
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
54
53
13
-
-
49
Page 45
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.6a SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR METALS (RANK OUT OF TOTAL 117
SAMPLES)
Sample
Location
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Core Depth
0-2 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
0.34
0.62
0.38
0.33
0.56
0.36
0.33
0.36
0.3
0.42
0.45
2,58
2.14
0.34
0.65
0.42
0.33
0.34
Relative
Rank
92
59
82
96
63
86
98
87
101
79
74
16
20
91
57
78
97
90
1-4 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
SM
-
11.94
5.46
6.99
1.66
0.36
0.66
0.39
3.69
1.63
4.57
-
0.47
-
1.07
3.14
0.54
Relative
Rank
5
-
1
6
3
29
88
56
81
9
30
7
-
72
-
44
11
65
4-6 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
0.44
-
1.14
2.03
-
1.14
1.27
3.86
2.53
6.46
0.22
0.26
-
0.5
-
0.37
0.21
0.39
Relative
Rank
75
-
42
21
-
43
39
8
17
4
106
102
-
70
-
85
107
80
6-8 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
0.97
0.25
-
-
-
-
-
0.61
0.55
7.49
-
-
-
-
-
0.33
Relative
Rank
-
-
47
103
-
-
-
-
-
61
64
2
-
-
-
-
-
94
- No Data
Page 46
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.6b SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR ORGANICS (RANK OUT OF TOTAL 36
SAMPLES)
Sample
Location
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
19
20
22
24
26
28
Core Depth
0-2 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
0.08
2.16
0.27
1.54
0.72
2.86
1.86
0.6
0.36
0.36
1.08
0.35
10.43
0.28
0.16
0.32
0.2
0.36
0.22
5.86
Relative
Rank
36
11
31
14
17
9
13
22
26
24
16
27
4
30
34
28
33
25
32
6
2-4 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4-6 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.44
-
0.68
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
18
-
-
-
-
6-8 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.32
-
11.24
-
28.3
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
3
-
10
-
Page 47
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.6b SURVEY 3 MEAN EXCEEDANCE AND RANK BY SITE FOR ORGANICS (RANK OUT OF TOTAL 36
SAMPLES)
Sample
Location
29
31
32
33
34
36*
37
Core Depth
0-2 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
0.53
5.23
1.37
0.12
1.89
0.66-0.67
0.29
Relative
Rank
23
8
15
35
12
19-21
29
2-4 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4-6 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
26
-
-
0.06
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
2
-
-
37
-
-
-
6-8 Feet
Mean
Exceed.
-
29.83
-
-
-
-
Relative
Rank
-
1
-
-
-
-
• No Data
Sample 36 was analyzed as three duplicate samples
Page 48
-------
Figure 3.5 Survey 1 Arsenic Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
80
60
I
40
20
ER-M = 85
34
0 L
ER-L = 33
1 2
13
11.8
12.812.1 12.1
10.5
45 67
Master Station Sample Number
8
6
CM
1
5?
5"
s
8.;
10
n
B1
-------
5
!
Figure 3.6a Survey 1 Cadmium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
10
8
6
1
3
4
2
ER-M = 9
—
ER-L = 5
4
-
1.6
1.4 .0
11
II I V 0.7 069 0.57
II I I I I 1
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
Ł
I
\
0
•*»
R
5"
9
e
1
5
^'
fi
n
o
!
-------
era
t/i
Figure 3.6b Survey 3
35
30
25
I 20
Ł•
01
3
10
5
0L_,
- ER M - 9
H 0-2 ft n 2-4 ft
. ..?«•!-...•.* j
ll
35
30
25
li
a
e-
="15
01
3
10
5
0
-
— ER-M =-9
N 1
ifi 17 16
1 i
3 456789 H! ] '
Sample Number
9 20
122 23
Cadmium Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
in (.
nsi*e
S.iniphnq
D-spdyeiJ Bcio*
_l J 1
24 25 26 27 26
Qamnlo Mumhor - IntPtlQIVj
1!
29 .30 1
P
Are.
4
'^
\
32
—
• o-
A
l
35 -
30 -
"
25 -
„
|20 -
•6
51 15 -
= I
l-
10 f- I IM -9
10 1
I
r
fHl -,
5 f-
1-
„ L. . _.
f, " 7 U , 2
c
2ft
LII 2-4 it
J
30
25
I 20
S
•o
•&15
10
5
n
-
_
- 6R M * 9
• 4-6 ft [ ] 6-8 ft
B
I
1 1 11
1, 1!
-J 4 S 6 : B (t in 111? 13 14 15 3S 36 37
Sample Number
• 4-6 ft 1~] 6-8 ft U
ER t - S
-
3334 " '617
I ll L 1 1 _L
1
S
n
CA
i
i
3
S
o
3
§
CA
5*
F*-
5T
58
=5
0
8
>
°
o
"S-
Sample Number - Intensive Area ^*
-------
350
300
250
200
0)
D)
3
150
100
50
Figure 3.7a Survey 1 Chromium Concentration vs.
312
ER-M = 145
1"
ER-L = 80
13
1(
77
)0 1
NOAA Guidelines
39
92
7
o
5
6
46
I
12 3 45 6789 10
Master
Station Sample Number
n
>
i
3
e
i
i
%
5'
2
1
?
•o
5
-------
J?
ora
&
Figure 3.7b
1,400
1.200
1,000
*-
'o
S 800
•o
Ul
g> 600
400
200
0
1,400
1.200
1,000
O)
1 800
•D
Ol
!> 600
400
200
• 0-211
~
—
-
ER M - 145
. ER-L .80
12 3 45
-
6 7
Sa
Survey
n 2-4 it
""j _j
e 9 10 M
mple Number
3 Chromium Concentration vs. NOAA
2
A
In ensile Sampling
Displayed Below
i,
B 0-2 ft D 2-4 n
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
.
ER M = 145
j_ ER-L . 80
0
1 1
3";
,j ,
S Ib
.... J
3d 37
C
d
1,400
1.200
1.000
2
01
01
5 800
•D
Ol
g1 600
400
200
0
1.400
1,200
1,000
O)
1 800
•D
|> 600
400
200
0
Guidelines
• 4-611
—
~ ER M ; 145
J 3 4
-
-
-
_
~ ER M = 14[
S
1
1617 18 19 202
i
6-8 ft
.789 10 1
Sample Number
• 4-6 ft n
i
1
6-8 ft
1 B
ln»ns,,e Samphn,
Dsoa»eaB,o»
1
13 1314
25
1
1
30 31
1 ll t
5 35 36 37
00
D
i
32 0334
1
Ł
3
$
^
o
rfi
jt
CL
3
K"
a
,_*
Ł3*
w
C
P5
o"
s
o
n
r
j?
J»
Sample Number - Intensive Area
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
Figure 3.8a Survey 1 Copper Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
400
300
O>
0)200
100
0
JR-M ..= .390
ER-L = 70 c
8.2
89.7
7 60
49.6
II 41.<3 34.6
I
II 1
• • •
12 3 45 6789 10
Master
Station Sanrmle Nui
mber
s
o
W)
Ł
jŁ
o
Op
1
1
5'
I
5"
|
n
n
>?
-------
ore
»
in
tn
Figure 3.8b Survey
1,200
1.000
800
Ł
0)
Ł• 600
•O
0)
^1
3
400
200
Q
— ER M = 390
EB-L = 70
_J A
1,200
1,000
800
Ł
O>
1
Ł• 600
•o
01
3
400
200
0
—
•
~
.
J
1 RL •
ti 1
n i
1617 IB 1
•
| 0-211 D 2-4 It
j .
1 r i
Sample Number
1
202 2
| 0-2 ft D 2-4 ft
1
?
3 Copper Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
D,s»
I
1J 14
aypo Below
I I
A
1 000
800
Ł
O)
QJ
Ł- 600
13
Ol
•&
3
400
r
200
r
i
ER L -70 I
1 .1
5 35 36 T 12 3 4 5
•
6 7
4-6
—
—
ft [_ 6-8(1 I
8 9 1
0
i
"
1
B
Disoiayeo Beiovs,
o
II i
Sample Number
1 or\n r- — i
JlLQ
23 4 25 2627 28
2
c
1.000
800
i —
Ł
Ol
O
>. fiOO
3 30 3 1 32
333d
•a
DI
-&
400
200
0
• 4-6 ft n
P
.
_
— ER U - 390
"...
i
Samnle
Numk
ipr -
6-8 (t
Intensive
D
j
1
Area
>
n
r/i
k
Si
s
3
&
^
0
5JP
o.
3
u>
2^
w
e
F
•<*
§
n
"S-
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
e:
arq
in
350
300
250
200
O)
150
100
50
0
Figure 3.
286
9a Survey 1
Lead Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
314
ER-M=110 -|Q7
ER-L = 35
28:4
i
66.9
14
2.7
70.2
5C
>-7 46
•7 42.6
12 3 45 6789 10
n
en
!
0
$
I
5*
?
w
5"
5
8
n
63
•o
if
Master Station Sample Number
-------
65
OQ
2,000
1,500
1 ,000
|i
500
IER M = 110
ERL .35
2,000
1,500
e-1,000
•o
500
ER-M * IK
EflA..-..??...
o V^
Figure 3.9b Survey 3 Lead Concentration vs. IMOAA Guidelines
17 IB 19
0-2 ft D 2-4 it
i
I .::-] ;i
156789 10 "
Sample Number
• 0-2 ft
G 2-4 It
202 22 342 2627 26 29 303132
Sample Number - Intensive Area
2,000 i—
1,500
>- 1.000
S1
Bl
500
4-6 It G 6-8 It
B
Intensive Sampling
Displayeo Below
]=L:^:|dfcU==Lt
156789 10 II 12 1314 15 3536 37
Sample Number
2,000
1,500
2
Ol
1
>• 1.000
•o
Ol
01
500
_
-
•
ER M 'IK
i
•=\==
G
t
4-6 ft
• 6-8 ft
r
°
Sample Number - Intensive Area
fi
1
!
sr
S5
5"
S
n
n
•o
(*>
-------
°8
Figure 3.10 Survey 1 Mercury Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2
1.5
D)
0) 1
3
0.5
0
r
ya
ER-M=.1,3
0.62
ER-L = 0.15
0.01
1.62
0.32
0.18
0.23
IO 13
1 0.06 0.06
1 1 1
12 3 45 6789 10
Master
Station Sample Number
o
k
Ł
I
5*
n
03
c
=?
to
5"
&
O
n
n
"1
-------
^§
Figure 3.11 a Survey 1 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
60
50
40
0)
0)30
3
20
10
o
5'
—
—
7
51.5
50.2
ER-M = 50
45
ER-L = 30
5.2
I
47
44.4
43
39.6
34X
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
n
VI
k
I
S-
2,
S.
3
I
5*
8f
w
c
=5
S*
•<"
^
1
n
I
s
-------
2s
150
g>
'5
• 100
50
o Vf
Figure 3.11b Survey 3 Nickel Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
200
~ 0-211 [ | 2-4 I
150
01
3
e-100
TJ
Ol
01
50 h
EH-l . 30
5 6 7 89 10 11
Sample Number
12 n 14 IS 15 J6 V
0-2 ft 2-4 It
202122 23 24 25 2627 ?B 29 3031.12
Sample Number - Intensive Area
200
150
.c
en
I
Ł• 100
TJ
I!
50 \-
150
01
1
- too
50 -
4-6 ft | ] 6-1
5 ft ' B 9 id I I
Sample Number
4-6(1 | 6-8 ft
B
D
2021222324 25 2627 28 29 30312
Sample Number - Intensive Area
i
i
5T
W
I
ET
5
o
n
n
63
T3
<*>
-------
ft
2f—
.5
2
1.5
•5?
O)
3
0.5
Figure 3.1 2 Survey 1 Silver Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
ER-M = 2.2
~
ER-L = 1
X46 0.44
0.22 0.21
I0-16 1 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12
I Mill
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
6
en
3
1
o
I
IM*
1
w
e
B
to
*
$
§
n
§"
"S-
-------
•8
1,000
800
600
O)
0)
400
200
0
Figure 3.13a Survey 1
9C
)0
Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
371 3
ER-M = 270 286
ER-L = 120
32
1
22
>4
39
1<
35
165.7 159.1 14?
3
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
o
en
!
o
i
I
3*
s-
; Buffalo
&
I
n
§•
•o
w
-------
1
Figure 3.13b Survey 3 Zinc Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
4,000
3.000
Ł
Ol
I
Ł• 2,000
•Q
i
1,000
ER-M =270
ER L . 120
o '-" — j
4.000
3.000
Ł
o>
01
Ł-2.000
•o
O)
0.
3
1.000
0
"
-
IR M = 270 I
ER L - IZOl
1617 18 M
1
• 0-2(1 D 2-411
..-
" •
4567
| «...
89 '0 11
Sample Number
6400
20 2
???
1
4 W "?677~~ S
2
A
Intensive Sampling
1
1
13 M
1
9 30 1
aved Below 1
L d
1 1 i
4,000
3.000
c.
01
1
Ł• 2.000
H
a
1.000
• 4-6it n e-s (t B
Intensive Sampling
EflM =270 . 1 Displayed B*lo-
••••"••••••!" t tt |v t
5 3536 37 O.j 3 5 8 9 10 1 12 13 M 15 3536 37
Sample Number
C
1 • 0-2 M
D 2-4 ft
!___
1
J. i
3.000
'u
S
Ł• 2.000
•o
0)
gj
3
1.000
n
• 4-611 L] 6-8 ft Q
f^R M ^ 270 1 | 1
f'S-i . 120 Ill 1
• 1 t it t I t
$
VI
t
0
o.
3*
ft
mm*
9
_
C
?
5"
5
n
•o
fft
Sample Number - Intensive Area
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
3*
TO
(T
Ł
Figure 3.14 Survey 1 Anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
2,000
1,500
D)
0)1,000
c
500
4,300
,700
-
1,100
ER-M =960
ER-L = 85
<34
6'
170
1
w
240
120 100 99
I i r
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
o
VI
i
1
i
1
5°
1
5*
3*
8
B"
•a
w
-------
hfl
|
ft
Figure 3.1 5a Survey 1 Benz(a)anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
4r\r\r\ ____^___ .
,000
3,000
TO 2,000
1,000
0
,500
-
-
ER-M = 1600
1,800
870
680
ER-L = 230
<21
460
470
I 260 310 330
I I
12 3 45 6789 10
Master
Station Sample Number
Ł
n
en
[
e
§'
I
5*
f
w
e
5*
0
!
>•
8
n
•^
«*>
-------
2s
ore
Figure 3.15b
8,000
6,000
Ł
Ol
1
>• 4,000
•c
2.000
0 L
E H M - 160U
f R 1 ' iU
.1
'..
Survey
• 0-2 M
e ^
!
3 Benz(a)anthracene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
A
i
i
i
i
B
Only first cross-section analyzed for BAA
1
,n,,,lVll,S ,*.,,„
... " ..I"!-
Sample Number
8.000 '
6000
Ol
1
>• 4,000
-o
0)
C!
2,000
0
3 800
t H M I bOO
ER L = 230 1 Ł
617 t6 1ft
1
20 22
23
|
• 0-211
25 2fi27
1
26 29 30 :i
C
3? 33 34
8.000
6.000
3>g dry weight
Łi
"o
8
D
2.000
0
-
tH M - IhOO
ER-L =230
1617
13
600 24
iOO
• 4-6 ft i 6-8 ft
D
fi
W3
i
8"
1
o
eŁ
i
B
a
sr
w
txj
c
5*
o
5
3
O
o
o
63
•s
Sample Number - Intensive Area
2.' 23 24 25 2627 28 29 3031 32
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
I
3,000 "
2,500
2,000
0)
0) 1 ,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 3.1 6a Survey 1 Benzo(a)pyrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
,800
ER-M =2500
ER-L = 400 ^
<27
1,2
600
'0
1,3
00
00
620
3f
4^
>0
K) 4e
>o
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
73
n
VI
o
i
5*
03
5"
s
4
R
n
T3
W
-------
2s
8
Figure
5.000 i-
4.000
•§,3.000
o
5
•a
o
|> 2.000
1.000
E R M . 2800
ERL =atX)
2 1 4
3.
1
6bŁ
56789 1
>urvey
ll
0 1 1 i „>
3 B
:
13 1J
er
=
izo(a)|
—
A
• 0-211
Sampling
~ 1
Dyrene Concei
i
i
itration vs. NOAA Guidelines
B
Only first cross-section analyzed for BAP
i
1$ 3S3G 37
Sample Number
5.000
4000
1, 3.000
>.
•o
01
|>2000
1,000
0
3 800
• 0-2 ft
ER M i 2BOO
ERL -<00
1
1
617 18 19 2022
23
I
24 25
I
1
2627 26 29 3031 32
5.000 i --
c
4,000
i
1, 3,000
I
i >,
•a
; 01
33 34
g> 2,000
1.000
0
•
-
13600_ 24
Efl M 2800
ER L ,400
600
• 4-6 ft r 6-8 ft
1617 IB 19 2022 23 24 25 2627 28 29 3031
D
32 3334
>
n
fr
$
B
§
o
^5
&
s
S
K
a
a-
W
1
b
S
*
8
"O
if
U)
Sample Number - Intensive Area
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
"8
Figure 3.17a Survey 1 Chrysene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
4,000
000
3,000
.0)
D)
C
2,000
1,000
0
ER-M =2800
1,100
ER-L = 400
<27
12
1,200
610
2,600
690
440 47°
45 67
Master Station Sample Number
8
9
480
10
6
n
sr
w
o
5
n
-------
S
n
Figure 3.17b Survey 3 Chrysene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
4,000
Ł• 2.000 -
1,000 -
0 4
4,000
3,000
t 2,000
T3
•S1
O)
c
1,000
ER M - 2800
-
-
• ER-L -400
1
A
• 0-2 ft
Intensive Sampling
Oqplay*d Below
4 B 10 II 12 1314 15 3536 37
Sample Number
ER M = 2800
0-211
B
Only first cross-section analyzed for Chrysene
1617 18 19
2022 23 24 25 2627 28 29 303132
Sample Number - Intensive Area
4,000
3,000
01
Ł• 2,000
I
1,000
0
r-
•
~ FR-M = 280
•
-
EHI .400
17
657 2F
509 5:
96 6
472 7
32 6.
1617 I' 19 2022 23 24 25 2627 28 29 3031
'22
D
• 4-6 ft
D 6-8 ft
1
12 3.114
sr
re
o
5
s
n
to
13
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
era
6,000 /
5,000
4,000
U 3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Figure 3.1 8a Survey 1 Fluoranthene Concentration vs
,500
ER-M =3600
1,9
ER-L = 600
<55
00
1,2
5,100
2,700
00
9Ł
.NOAA
Guidelines
1,2
JO
760
00
8'
10
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
n
0
i
§'
5*
s-
W
ST
S
0
n
o
w
-------
I
Figure 3,18b Survey 1 Organic Carbon Normalized Fluoranthrene
vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
^f\f\ .. . .. . .- -. . - ... . - --.^...T.-.TT- ..
700
600
^500
O
0
O)
f 400
"(if
C
1 300
2
o
"" 200
100
SQC = 620ug/g OC
II
. I I
1
12 3 4
lili
5 6 7 8 9 10
Master Station Number
fe
n
3
$
o
|
5*
-------
1 ,000
Figure 3.19 Survey 1 Fluorene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
,800 3,400
800
600
•5?
c
400
200
I
o
ER-M =640
400
ER-L = 35
<30
380
140
46
<50
12
45 67
Master Station Sample Number
8
9
10
n
VI
W
e
s
I
n
r
<*>
-------
Figure 3.20 Survey 1 2-Methylnaphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
20.000
1,000
800
600
o>
B>
c
400
200
0
ER-M = 670
470
ER-L = 65
<29
790
180
<67
140
59
%i/\j/
1 <42 <57
12 3 45 6789 10
Master
Station Sample Number
?0
n
•
i
Ł
Tf\
I
3
§
X
a'
|
I
5"
a
$
o
n
0
Z
•a
IT
-------
2,000
1,500
D)
C
1,000
500
0
3P
Figure 3.21 Survey 1 Naphthalene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
,400
ER-M =2100 2,100
ER-L = 340
230 19Q
<29 I <67 I
8§3 <47 45 <57
1 R
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
O
W3
i
1
3
VI
B
%
^
0
*"*>
§'
§
5'
^%
re
W
c
?
—
a
•<
Q
n
B1
•o
sr
-------
•8
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 3.22a Survey 1 Phenanthrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
>,100 10,000
--
~~
ER-M =1380 1,400
ER-L = 225
<36
5t
2,700
30
6Ł
50
5<
460
I
W 52
>0
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
|
o
1
5'
n
93
ST
&
$
5
-------
Figure 3.22b Survey 1 Organic Carbon Normalized Phenanthrene
vs. EPA Sediment Quality Criteria
500
400
O
O
•§300
^
"of
c
0)
.c
§ 200
c
0)
Q.
100
0
SQC - 1 80 ua/a OC
VJ vx Vrf' «™ 1 W uy/y .^r,?!1^ :
1 <14.4ug/gOC 1 |
III!
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Number
1*3
cn
3
s
i
3*
3'
§
a
c
1
o
s
s
•n
1
n
B1
•a
0*
-------
3?
ore
n
oe
Figure 3.23 Survey 1 Pyrene Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
3,000
2,500
2,000
D)
o> 1 ,500
c
1,000
500
0
.,100
-
ER-M =2200
2—H (\n
,1uu
ER-L = 350
<68
6,700
2,Ł
880
100
1,100
690 7
910
50
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
1
a
i
i
•^
0
•*!
I
1
5'
w
e
=5
65
o"
s
I
n
n
B1
•o
w
-------
•8
Figure 3.24 Survey 3 PCB Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
12,000 r
10,000
8,000
>- 6.000
•
4,000
2,000
12,000 r-~
10,000
8,000
01
1
e- e.ooo
•o
Ol
01
4,000
2,000
IR M = 400
R'L - 56
0-2 It
I
Sample Number
0-211
,,...|...
2f> '.''
Sample Number - Intensive Area
B
Only first cross-section analyzed for PCB
12,000
10,000
8,000
24,486 38,200 45.264 49.935
6,000
•o
Ol
4,000
2,000
4-611
D e'-eu")
16 17 IB
20 21D 2223 24
2627 2B 29 3031 32D
Sample Number - Intensive Area
n
en
i
5?
W
§
5T
&
O
n
n
SB
w
-------
JB)
3
oo
o
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Figure 3.25 Survey 1 Total PAH Concentration vs. NOAA Guidelines
7,330 116,070 66,969
...
ER-M =35000
20,830
ER-L=4000
880
8,8
. . . . O -O- • • fa •&• f^
oo,.
148
JOU
31,464
8,901
6,801
1
I
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
n
V)
1
i
i
I
5'
HH
n
03
1
ST
f
§
n
•o
i
-------
Figure 3.26 Survey 1 Mean Sample Location Exceedences for Metals
I
00
10
8
o
o
c 6
0) °
•o
u
0)
u
X
0)
s 4
E
2
0
—
.
-
1 .35
tr\ rr/rv /V-TH
--;;••" 0.72 0.71
°f4 0.4 1 1 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.2E
06 | | 1 1 1 1 1
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
|
o
•n
1
1
9*
5-
93
5}
es
5"
5
3
o
n
s*
69
•o
w
-------
Figure 3.27 Survey 1 Mean Sample Location Exceedences for Organic Chemicals
10
8
0)
o
5 6
•o
0)
o
X
0)
c
8 4
E
2
--
-
2.I
1.08
061 0:72
I °,21 I
39
°-33 0.16 0.19 °-3"
• •• 1
12 3 45 6789 10
Master Station Sample Number
6
en
f
2,
i
§
S
sr
5'
gr
w
Ł5
Ł1
o
5
^
§
n
n
B1
-------
•a
ee
arc
(T
S
Figure 3.28
10
g
0
u
s 6
T3
0)
0)
U
X
0)
c
S 4
E
2
p
•
—
-
I
1 1
A
Q U Ł I 111 1!
Survey 3
0-2 feet 2-4 feet
Mean Sample Location Exceedances
i
I
ft
c
,
i'.M.".
..
IH'":!",'!'"'
I
11
10 p
A
8
QJ
U
Ł 6
TJ
0)
0)
O
X
0)
c
S 4
E
2
i
-
-
-
-
' "L .. !
Sample Number
11 94
10 p
8
0)
o
S 6
•o
OJ
QJ
X
QJ
c
S 4
E
,J
0
.1.
10 r --- - - -
c
il i
• 0-2
\ 1 2-4
H
n
I
• 4-6 feet
for
6-8 leet
! (
Metals
B
il
lr«tt>ll',,,c S,l"i[]||M()
nf';pi."i,v-'ir!'.;r.u "
1, i, I
Sample Number
____
• 4-6 feet [.'.
8 -
0
u
S 6
u
0)
0)
u
X
QJ
C
S 4
E
2
i
0
. 1 [ 1
.
A
•
6-8 feet
D
...._!_
..i.
g
o
1/3
i
1
i
S
^*
0
*^>
(T
CL
1
3
^
MB*
3
^*-
M^
•J
c
"•**
fts
5"
S
S
o
n
n
ET
"S.
w
Samole Number - Intensive Area
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
2?
TQ
2
Figure 3.2!
i n
! U
8
0)
u
u
X
0)
S 4
E
2
3 Survey 3 Mean Sample Location Exceedances for Organic Chemicals
A
i
• 0-2 feet
B
Only first cross-section analyzed
\
0-
•
L
L
1 1
u
11
1 ,
Sample Number
tr -i.i
\ r\
10 |
8 -
0)
u
I 6 "
1
u
X
o
c
ra *
a 4
E
2 -
o -
i >
h
•
i
0-2 leel
,
1
C
.
IU
8
u
u
1 6
u
X
o
c
S 4
E
2
0
.
-
'
-
_
11 24
1
26 0 29 83
D
Ll 4-6 (eel
• 6-8 feet
-
1
Ł
n
1
v>
I
o
V)
if.
1
&
3'
5
53
1
5*
5
S
o
n
n
B1
I
w
Sample Number - Intensive Area
. •. . ]JI
Sample Number - Intensive Area
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Chapter 4
4. CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes the results from two sediment sampling surveys performed in the Buffalo
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 and lead pose the highest
potential risk for impacts of biota in the Buffalo River. Nickel, chromium, and mercury may also be
considered a potential risk, since the NOAA ER-M was exceeded at many stations, however, the
magnitude of exceedance, on average, was lower than zinc and lead.
The areas where metal contamination of sediment occurred most significantly is in the southern end
of the Buffalo River ship canal and downstream of the intensive survey area (based on surface samples
from Survey 1), as well as throughout the intensive survey area (based on sub-surface samples from
Survey 3).
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 Buffalo River AOC. On average, the total PCB concentration at a
site was almost 16 times higher than the NOAA ER-M guideline. Other organics that on average
exceeded, or came close to exceeding, the NOAA ER-M include the PAHs 2-methylnaphthalene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene (based on Survey 1 data). The PAHs chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene on average
exceeded the NOAA ER-M based on the limited Survey 3 results.
The Survey 1 locations with the most frequent and highest ER-M exceedances are in the southern end
of the ship canal and the station downstream of the intensive zone. The Survey 3 results show that PAH
exceedances occur primarily in the intensive survey area, along the sharp bend in the river. PCB
exceedances however, most frequently and significantly occur in the upstream and downstream areas
within the intensive survey area. Most significant exceedances of the NOAA ER-M for organic chemicals
tend to occur in the deeper sediment cores, as opposed to the surface sediment.
Examination of the master station (Survey 1) sediment data under the EPA endorsed EqP-based
criteria and the NOAA guidelines indicate two 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 the master survey) indicate that only phenanthrene should be
considered as a potential source for adverse biological effects in the Buffalo River and only at a single
location. The highest carbon normalized concentration for fluoranthene is 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 downstream of the intensive zone as opposed to the
southern end of the ship canal that contained the peak concentrations for the bulk sediment analyses.
Page 85
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC _ Chapters
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 methyhnercury by aqueous phase ethylation,
followed by cryogenic gas chromatography with cold vapor atomic fluorescence detection. Canada
Journal of Fish. Aquatic Sci. 46(7): 1 13 1-1 140.
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. Anal. 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.,
Filkins, J.C., V.E. Smith, I.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 86
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo 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, Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA GLNPO). 1993.
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). 1993a. 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). 1993b. 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). 1993c. 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). 1993d. 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). 1993e. 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 87
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Appendix A
APPENDIX A
BUFFALO RIVER
ARCS SEDIMENT DATA TABLES
Page A-l
-------
BUFFALO RIVER - DATA TABLES
Table
able A-1 Survey 1 - Metals
Fable A-2 Survey 1 - PAHs
Parameter
Table
Parameter
Table A-3 Survey 1 - Nonmetals
Table A-4 Survey 1 - Additional
Parameters
Table A-5 Survey 1 - Dioxins and
Furans
Table A-6 Survey 1 - Grain Size
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benz(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
Iodine
Conductivity
Microtox
TOC
Solids
Methyl mercury
Tributyltin
Dibutyltin
Methylbutyltin
AVS
Several parameters
Five levels
Table A-7 Survey 3 - Metals
Table A-8 Survey 3 - PAHs
Table A-9 Survey 3 - Nonmetals
Table A-1 0 Survey 3 - Additional
Parameters
Table A-1 1 Survey 3 - Grain Size
Table A-1 2 Survey 3 - Pesticides
Table A-1 3 Survey 3 - PCBs
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Ni
Zn
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
PH
Conductivity
Microtox
TOC
Extresidue
Five levels
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Cis-Chlorodane
Trans-Chlorodane
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Congener Total
A-2
-------
TABLE A-1 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 - METALS (ug/g dry wt)
SAMPLE-ID
BR10101G100
BR10201G100
BR10301G100
BR10401G100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR1 0701 G 100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
Ag
0.46
<0.03
0.44
0.22
0.16
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
As
34.00
<1.4
13.00
11.80
<4.5
12.80
12.10
12.10
10.50
8.20
Cd
4.00
0.03
1.40
1.00
1.60
1.20
0.90
0.70
0.69
0.57
Cr
312.00
<13
113.00
77.00
100.00
"109.00
92.00
70.00
56.00
46.00
Cu
148.00
8.20
67.00
49.60
60.00
89.70
48.70
45.60
41.30
34.60
Fe (%
dry weight)
5.50
0.33
4.40
4.20
5.40
4.24
4.13
3.72
3.42
2.96
Hg
1.93
0.01
0.62
0.18
0.32
1.62
0.23
0.13
0.06
0.08
Mn
1,386.00
39.70
685.00
789.00
673.00
630.00
726.00
731.00
726.00
556.00
Ni
57.00
5.20
45.00
50.20
47.00
51.50
44.40
43.00
39.60
34.40
Pb
286.00
28.40
107.00
66.90
314.00
142.70
70.20
50.70
48.70
42.60
Zn
900.00
32.00
286.00
224.00
371 .00
389.00
195.00
165.70
159.10
142.30
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 - PAHs (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
1-4-DCB 2-MNAPH
NAPH DM-PH
DBF
FLUORE PHEN
ANTH FLUORA PYRENE
BBPH
BR 01 01
BR 02 01
BR 03 01
BR 04 01
BR 05 01
BR 06 01
BR 07 01
BR 08 01
BR 09 01
BR1001
SAMPLE ID
BR 01 01
BR 02 01
BR 03 01
BR 04 01
BR 05 01
BR 06 01
BR 07 01
BR 08 01
BR 09 01
BR1001
730
<18
810
58
380
590
68
54
<26
<36
BAANTH
3,500
<21
680
460
870
1,800
470
260
310
330
20,000
<29
470
<67
180
790
140
59
<42
<57
BISPH
39,000
880
7,000
3,100
8,800
41 ,000
14,000
2,400
2,700
59,000
2,400
<29
230
<67
190
2,100
83
<47
45
<57
CHRYS
4,000
<27
1,100
610
1,200
2,600
690
440
470
480
<86
<34
<73
<79
<63
<48
<45
<56
<50
<68
DNOPH
38,000
<84
<180
<200
6,300
24,000
7,800
210
560
1,300
1,600
<30
120
<71
140
1,200
63
<50
<45
<61
BFLUOR
7,000
<30
1,000
640
1,400
1,500
670
550
610
770
1,800
<30
400
<71
380
3,400
140
<50
46
<61
BKFLUOR
9,500
<41
910
650
1,200
1,500
600
370
460
430
6,100
<36
1,400
580
2,700
10,000
680
460
540
520
BAPYR
5,800
<27
470
600
1,200
1,300
620
350
440
460
1,700
<34
1,100
170
640
4,300
240
120
100
99
INDPYR
3,800
<45
520
<100
640
990
250
78
220
160
7,500
<55
1,900
1,200
2,700
5,100
990
760
1,200
840
BGHIPER
3,800
<55
620
<130
460
1,100
260
<91
240
170
6,100
<68
2,100
880
2,500
6,700
1,100
690
750
910
SUMPAH
177,330
880
20,830
8,948
33,380
116,070
31,464
6,801
8,901
66,969
15,000
<79
<170
<180
1,500
6,100
2,600
<130
210
1,500
1-4-DCB = 1,4 Dichlorobenzene
NAPH = Naphthalene
2-MNAPH = 2-Methylnaphthalene
DM-PH = Dimethyl phthalate
DBF = Dibenzofuran
FLUORE = Flourene
PHEN = Phenanthrene
ANTH = Anthracene
FLUORA = Fluoranthene
PYRENE = Pyrene
BBPH = Butyl benzyl phthalate
BAANTH = Benz(a)anthracene
BISPH = Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
CHRYS = Chrysene
DNOPH = Di-n-octyl phthalate
BBFLUOR = Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BKFLUOR = Benzo(k)fluoranthene
BAPYR = Benzo(a)pyrene
INDPYR = lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
BGHIPER = Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 NON METALS
SAMPLE-ID
BR10101G100
BR10201G100
BR10301G100
BR10401G100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR10701G100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
AMMONIA
(mg/L)
2.5
0.7
5.8
4.9
4.3
5.5
5.0
7.0
18.2
5.3
BROMINE
(ug/gDW)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CHLORINE
(ug/gDW)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IODINE (ug/g
DW)
*
*
*
A
*
*
*
*
*
*= Data to be provided at a later date
TABLE A-4 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 - ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS SAMPLED
Methyl-
SAMPLE ID
BR10101G100
BR10201G100
BR10301G100
BR10401G100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR10701G100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
pH Conduct.
(S.U.) (uS/cm)
9.2
7.35
6.92
7.09
7.32
7.21
7.31
7.14
6.9
7.01
1162
774
872
821
1080
979
999
1474
1266
870
Mlcrotox
(EC 50)
40
100
44
100
66
7
100
100
100
100
TOCi%)
8.93
0.25
2.02
1.85
1.73
(2.1-2.2)
1.71
1.74
2.19
1.93
Solids (%)
29.98
73.89
50.55
46.81
52.42
(47.7-49.1)
44.13
45.87
41.74
42.82
mercury
(ng/gdrywt)
1.63
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
(2.1-3.4)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
TBT
(ng/gdrywt)
26.0
<0.05
14.0
3.1
4.6
(3.3-3.4)
2.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
DBT
(ng/g dry wt)
36.0
0.69
4.6
2.6
2.5
(2.5-4.6)
<0.89
0.94
<0.92
<0.97
MBT
(ng/dry g)
15.0
<0.5
<0.76
<0.8
<0.69
(1.1-1.7)
<0.89
<0.85
<0.93
<0.98
AVS
(uM/g)
161
1.26
5.83
4.18
16.9
(10.4-10.7)
5.67
2.58
5.12
13.5
A-5
-------
TABLE A-5 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 - DIOXINS AND FURANS (pg/g dry wt)
SAMPLE-ID
BR10101G100
BR 1 0201 G 100
BR10301G100
BR 1 0401 G 100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR 1 0701 G 100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
SAMPLE-ID
BR10101G100
BR10201G100
BR10301G100
BR10401G100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR10701G100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
2378-
TCDF
7.6
<2.2
4.4
<2.2
<3.7
5.2
4.7
<2.4
<2.0
<2.2
Total
HxCDF
67.0
ND
24.0
26.0
12.0
110.0
54.0
5.6
8.7
13.0
Total
TCDF
51.0
ND
12.0
1.5
ND
37.0
10.0
ND
ND
ND
123-478-
HxCDD
9.2
<1.1
<1.2
<1.7
<1.1
<1.4
<2.0
<0.8
<0.8
<0.9
2378-
TCDD
<2.0
<2.3
<1.0
<1.7
<1.7
<2.1
<1.3
<1.3
<1.9
<0.9
123-678-
HxCDD
36.0
<0.9
<3.2
<2.4
<1.8
<3.5
<1.5
<1.4
<1.1
<1.2
Total
TCDD
12.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
123-789-
HxCDD
19.0
<1.0
<2.1
<1.7
<1.8
<1.8
<1.4
<0.8
<0.5
<1.4
12378-
PeCDF
1.7
<0.8
1.0
<1.3
<0.7
<0.7
2.7
<0.6
<0.7
<0.7
Total
HxCDD
190.0
ND
14.0
ND
8.0
14.0
ND
ND
5.0
4.0
23478-
PeCDF
2.8
<0.6
<1.1
<2.2
<1.5
<1.0
<1.1
<1.6
<1.5
<1.3
1234-
678-
HpCDF
150.0
<1.8
13.0
11.0
12.0
23.0
15.0
7.8
2.8
5.2
Total
PeCDF
52.0
ND
33.0
19.0
16.0
83.0
36.0
9.7
3.1
3.5
1234-
789-
HpCDF
9.1
<1.1
<1.9
<4.2
<1.7
<3.8
<3.1
<0.95
<0.7
<0.8
12378-
PeCDD
<3.3
<0.9
<1.3
<0.9
<1.4
<1.5
<0.9
<0.6
<0.7
<3.5
Total
HpCDF
640.0
3.8
42.0
32.0
34.0
61.0
46.0
22.0
15.0
27.0
Total
PeCDD
3.6
ND
ND
5.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
1234-
678-
HpCDD
1200.0
6.5
64.0
43.0
52.0
54.0
39.0
28.0
33.0
36.0
123-478-
HxCDF
3.8
<0.7
1.6
<7.1
<1.5
<2.4
11.0
<2.7
<1.5
<1.2
Total
HpCDD
2000.0
12.0
120.0
74.0
93.0
100.0
69.0
50.0
59.0
61.0
123-678-
HxCDF
<2.5
<0.6
<0.8
<1.0
<0.8
<1.1
3.6
<1.5
<0.6
<0.7
OCDF
780.0
<3.9
39.0
26.0
32.0
42.0
34.0
21.0
20.0
20.0
123-789-
HxCDF
4.2
<0.7
<2.3
<2.5
<2.2
<1.2
<1.5
<1.4
<1.1
<1.6
OCDD
12000.0
53.0
560.0
340.0
400.0
400.0
290.0
250.0
250.0
260.0
234-678-
HxCDF
2.8
<1.0
<1.1
<1.1
<1.1
10.0
<2.3
<0.9
<1.0
<0.9
A-6
-------
TABLE 6 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1 - GRAIN SIZE
SAMPLEJD
BR10101G100
BR10201G100
BR10301G100
BR10401G100
BR10501G100
BR10601G100
BR 1 0701 G 100
BR10801G100
BR10901G100
BR11001G100
> 1 mm
11.7
0.3
2.8
0.2
14.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.5
1.6
250 u - 1 mm
11.7
38.3
4.1
0.6
14.1
0.7
0.7
0.8
2
10.3
63 u -250 u
30.5
58.5
30.3
6.9
14.6
4.7
6.3
9.2
18.9
23.3
38 u - 63 u
7.6
0.2
7
3.7
5.2
5.4
5.1
9.5
10
7.9
<38u
43.7
0.9
54
92
51.5
89.1
86.4
74.3
67
55.8
A-7
-------
TABLE A-7 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - METALS (ug/g)
SAMPLE-ID
BR30201C101
BR30201C102
BR30301C101
BR30301C102
BR30301C103
BR30402C101
BR30402C102
BR30402C103
BR30601C101
BR30601C102
BR30601C103
BR30601C104
BR30601C105
BR30603C101
BR30603C102
BR30603C103
BR30603C104
BR30703C101
BR30703C102
BR30703C103
BR30703C104
BR30801C101
BR30801C102
BR30801C103
BR30801C104
BR30802C101
BR30802C102
BR30802C103
BR30802C104
BR30901C101
BR30901C102
BR30901C103
BR30901C104
BR31301C101
BR31301C102
BR31301C103
BR31302C101
BR31302C102
Cd
0.40
0.00 LDL
4.90
6.20
0.70
9.30
3.00
2.80
3.00
4.60
2.20
2.00
0.40
2.50
0.50
0.60
2.60
2.80
5.00
8.00
2.00
9.20
16.00
0.80
26.00
1.50
4.40
0.70
1.80
1.10
1.70
1.30
1.30
2.70
7.70
3.00
3.80
1.00
Cr
6.40
15.00
160.00
220.00
25.00
310.00
270.00
200.00
58.00
130.00
21.00
14.00
14.00
34.00
17.00
23.00
64.00
65.00
110.00
160.00
90.00
550.00
1,400.00
45.00
2,500.00
53.00
360.00
36.00
95.00
24.00
47.00
42.00
29.00
41.00
300.00
130.00
130.00
8.60
Fe (%
Cu dry weight)
9.10
14.00
160.00
210.00
30.00
280.00
230.00
190.00
78.00
140.00
54.00
35.00
17.00
55.00
32.00
26.00
120.00
74.00
98.00
160.00
91.00
340.00
600.00
40.00
980.00
67.00
250.00
36.00
110.00
50.00
84.00
68.00
49.00
61.00
230.00
130.00
150.00
12.00
0.40
0.70
4.30
4.30
1.40
4.10
4.20
3.80
3.40
3.50
2.70
1.80
1.30
2.20
2.20
1.90
3.00
3.30
4.00
5.10
4.00
8.00
13.00
2.90
15.00
3.30
7.00
2.60
4.00
2.90
2.80
2.50
2.50
2.70
4.10
4.00
4.10
0.90
Pb
10.00
18.00
250.00
210.00
34.00
280.00
320.00
430.00
130.00
260.00
200.00
170.00
8.10
44.00
20.00
8.50
150.00
120.00
180.00
250.00
160.00
580.00
940.00
18.00
1,600.00
60.00
260.00
9.10
59.00
39.00
110.00
64.00
43.00
91.00
230.00
220.00
370.00
11.00
Nl
4.30
6.00
43.00
45.00
12.00
57.00
46.00
41.00
36.00
37.00
27.00
20.00
14.00
24.00
24.00
19.00
28.00
32.00
36.00
46.00
31.00
67.00
72.00
27.00
110.00
35.00
64.00
25.00
42.00
34.00
34.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
43.00
40.00
41.00
7.50
Zn
38.00
67.00
660.00
590.00
140.00
890.00
1 ,300.00
1,100.00
270.00
580.00
180.00
130.00
57.00
290.00
110.00
85.00
360.00
260.00
340.00
620.00
450.00
860.00
1 ,200.00
95.00
1 ,500.00
200.00
680.00
93.00
210.00
160.00
220.00
160.00
140.00
220.00
700.00
510.00
620.00
81.00
Table A-7-Page 1/3
A-8
-------
TABLE A-7 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - METALS (ug/g)
SAMPLE-ID
BR31402C101
BR31402C102
BR31402C103
BR31601C101
BR31601C102
BR31601C103
BR31703C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C102
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C102
BR32003C103
BR32003C104
BR32004C101
BR32004C102
BR32004C103
BR32102C101
BR32102C102
BR32102C103
BR32102C104
BR32202C101
BR32202C102
BR32202C103
BR32202C104
BR32301C101
BR32301C102
BR32402C101
BR32402C102
BR32402C103
BR32501C101
BR32501C102
BR32501C103
BR32503C101
BR32503C102
BR32503C103
BR32701C101
BR32701C102
Cd
2.00
2.50
4.40
1.60
7.00
2.20
1.30
1.20
2.90
4.50
9.90
12.00
4.80
9.30
1.00
1.40
1.30
1.30
27.00
2.70
2.70
0.90
6.90
3.40
0.90
1.40
33.00
1.20
6.10
2.10
1.00
20.00
0.50
3.00
2.30
1.20
9.30
4.00
Cr
36.00
47.00
190.00
35.00
280.00
93.00
22.00
34.00
160.00
280.00
350.00
320.00
140.00
390.00
32.00
40.00
46.00
32.00
1,100.00
110.00
88.00
29.00
450.00
340.00
35.00
50.00
860.00
31.00
270.00
220.00
30.00
1,200.00
30.00
51.00
290.00
51.00
160.00
92.00
Fe (%
Cu dry weight)
65.00
64.00
210.00
57.00
240.00
120.00
36.00
43.00
130.00
190.00
300.00
290.00
110.00
330.00
45.00
51.00
56.00
51.00
1,100.00
150.00
97.00
47.00
460.00
340.00
38.00
69.00
670.00
50.00
210.00
150.00
47.00
680.00
35.00
69.00
130.00
51.00
150.00
98.00
2.90
3.10
3.50
3.10
11.00
3.90
1.90
2.90
4.00
6.00
7.40
7.50
5.00
7.10
2.70
2.40
2.10
3.30
22.00
3.90
4.10
3.30
34.00
5.50
3.00
3.90
17.00
3.00
5.30
4.10
2.30
4.00
2.70
2.00
3.00
2.30
4.20
3.60
Pb
87.00
82.00
230.00
56.00
540.00
160.00
240.00
35.00
600.00
440.00
740.00
770.00
200.00
680.00
32.00
42.00
42.00
43.00
3,400.00
240.00
220.00
32.00
1 ,800.00
420.00
8.90
78.00
1,600.00
48.00
350.00
230.00
50.00
350.00
6.10
66.00
180.00
57.00
260.00
190.00
Ni
37.00
33.00
39.00
34.00
68.00
38.00
16.00
32.00
39.00
54.00
57.00
58.00
35.00
55.00
31.00
29.00
24.00
36.00
180.00
35.00
42.00
36.00
140.00
54.00
30.00
40.00
120.00
34.00
47.00
37.00
29.00
51.00
28.00
26.00
34.00
26.00
45.00
37.00
Zn
290.00
220.00
780.00
200.00
1,400.00
400.00
220.00
140.00
420.00
2,100.00
1,700.00
1,800.00
880.00
1 ,700.00
130.00
150.00
93.00
180.00
6,400.00
680.00
490.00
150.00
2,300.00
990.00
97.00
320.00
3,700.00
160.00
750.00
510.00
140.00
640.00
85.00
150.00
410.00
150.00
580.00
410.00
Table A-7 - Page 2/3
A-9
-------
I
3
g
to
UJ
cc
tn
oc
UJ
cc
o
u.
a
UJ
CD
c
N
z
Ł
^^
Ł
•o
3
O
u
u
Q
3
Q.
i
888
ooo
CM 00 O)
888
LO LO CO
CO ^ ^
888
ooo
r^- co oo
CO CM
ooo
i- 00 00
CO ^ CO
ooo
ooo
in o o
co T- h-
CM CM
ooo
ooo
en o o
CO CO (•«.
CM CM
ooo
O CM rr
CM in r~
i- CM CO
ooo
ooo
g 0 0
CM* c\j cvj
CO CO CO
DC DC DC
CD CD CD
o
o
00
(M
8
00
CO
8
o
00
o
CO
o
o
00
o
o
en
in
o
in
CM
o
0
i
DC
CO
8
o
o
o_
8
o
8
o
8
8
"*
o
o
o
^J
CM
o
o
o
in
o
m
CO
CM
0
0
o
CO
DC
m
o
o
o
o
CO.
8
O5
"3"
O
O
O
§
'*
o
o
o
fv».
CM
O
o
o
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
0
0
1
CM
CO
cc
m
8
°.
T-
8
CM
CO
o
o
O)
CM
0
CM
O
o
in
^tf"
o
o
CM
o
o
T—
1—
o
0
C\J
8
CO
CO
DC
m
o
o
00
T—
8
CO
CO
o
o
^.
in
8
CO
o
o
•*
in
o
o
o
CO
o
in
T—
CM
O
0
8
CO
CO
DC
m
8
§
co_
o
o
in
in
o
o
o
CM
m
8
^n
o
o
o
fs..
CM
O
O
O
CM
O
CO
00
CO
O
O
I
CO
CO
DC
m
8
ro
CO
0
0
in
o
o
o
CM
0
^
o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
o
CO
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CO
CO
DC
m
8
o
CD
o
o
CO
CO
o
o
••a-
•^-
0
CM
o
o
00
^f
o
o
in
CM
o
o
Y—
o
o
o
CO
cc
CD
8
o
00
o
o
CM
o
o
o
•^-
o
CM
o
o
^-
in
o
o
CO
CM
o
o>
0
CM
o
o
o
CO
DC
m
888888888888888888888888
ddddddddddddddodddddddddd
T~ CM T~ CM co T- T— co ^~ oo o) CM ^ ?~ *~ in ^* in in CD ^— CM co
••-" i-" CM" co" »-"
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
CM^frCOCOCDCOCOfCOCOCncOCOCJJCMCOCOCOCO^-ineOCOCM
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
o o CM o d h*> in o CM o d d co o in *~ d o o o d ^~ ^ i^-
T-T- T-O5 CM OOCOi— in CO i- i— T- CO
T— ^
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
CMCOCOCOdcMCMCOCOCOcdcOCMCMCOCMI^COCO^-lriCMCMCM
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
cocdodcodr^-^dr^ddiriiridirir^dddddiriiricD
10 r^ ^f co ^~ ^f 10 r*^ LO co GO h^ ^^ ^f CD ^~ 05 co ^~ c^ ^~ 10 ^f ^f
in T- TJ-CO in CMT-i-^cM
§00000000000000000000000
ooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOCMOOfOCOO>OOOOOC35T)-OOOCMOOOOOO)l^-^-
CDTtCMCOh>-CMCMOCOTfOCDCMC>JI^.COI^COCOCOOCMCOCO
CO CM COO_ CO COi-i-i-CO
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
T- CM CM i-
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ ^ Tj" ^J" **}•
cocococOcOcococoocococOcocOcocOcocococococococo
LTcna:a:cccnLTLTLTLrLTcna:a:ccixa:LTa:cn[rcccca:
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
JO
CO
0)
D)
CO O
Q. -i-
CO
-------
TABLE A-8 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - PAHs (ng/g)
SAMPLE-ID
BAA
BBF
BAP
BKF CHRYSENE
BR30201C101
BR30301C101
BR30402C101
BR30601C101
BR30603C101
BR30801C101
BR30801C104
BR30901C101
BR31301C101
BR31302C101
BR31402C201
BR31601C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C103
BR32301C101
BR32501C101
BR32501C101
BR32501C101
BR32702C101
BR32801C101
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C201
BR33201C203
BR33202C101
BR33402C101
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C103
BR33702C101
BR33702C103
BR33802C101
BR33802C104
BR34101C101
74
1,558
2,282
1,154
806
1,963
4,647
358
714
2,507
504
374
471
3,926
14,949
262
34,680
436
466
496
479
4,851
924
5,901
412
301
103
2,602
360
5,349
472
6,263
580
1,537
401
21 ,267
553
97
1,324
1,542
1,139
489
1,700
2,467
506
805
1,701
618
585
451
2,556
11,921
379
20,623
487
505
568
523
3,772
1,046
3,361
340
391
59
1,242
522
3,414
747
4,826
598
1,333
567
14,855
735
76
1,318
1,538
1,123
552
1,522
2,195
412
794
1,812
549
527
436
2,688
13,842
324
24,577
446
456
484
457
4,450
992
3,683
328
318
62
1,265
433
3,786
624
4,191
702
1,617
474
13,559
640
73
1,007
1,245
897
395
1,050
1,652
386
670
1,469
449
447
378
2,380
10,721
294
20,894
389
413
423
408
3,564
795
2,636
275
294
38
962
417
3,036
530
2,819
495
1,150
441
8,788
568
117
1,715
2,617
1,349
886
2,530
6,222
541
866
2,776
668
549
549
4,002
14,177
403
28,509
562
628
667
637
4,632
1,134
6,472
517
441
108
3,067
530
5,396
671
7,732
681
1,796
573
17,857
730
A-11
-------
TABLE A-9 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - NONMETALS
SAMPLE-ID AMMONIA (mg/L) BROMINE(ug/g DW) CHLORINE(ug/g DW)
BR30201C101
BR30201C102
BR30301C101
BR30301C102
BR30301C103
BR30402C101
BR30402C102
BR30402C103
BR30601C101
BR30601C102
BR30601C103
BR30601C104
BR30601C105
BR30603C101
BR30603C102
BR30603C103
BR30603C104
BR30703C101
BR30703C102
BR30703C103
BR30703C104
BR30801C101
BR30801C102
BR30801C103
BR30801C104
BR30802C101
BR30802C102
BR30802C103
BR30802C104
BR30901C101
BR30901C102
BR30901C103
BR30901C104
BR31301C101
BR31301C102
BR31301C103
BR31302C101
BR31302C102
6.2
5.3
22 GUS
31 GUS
9.4
22 GUS
31 GUS
0.34 LLS
27 GUS
18
16
17
6.1
1.1
0.79
7.5
5.2
5
4
3.2
2.7
24 GUS
19
6.2
46 GUS
16
17
0.78
0.5
49 GUS
36 GUS
72 GUS
120 GUS
17
40 GUS
7.6
9.2
0.27 LLS
0.015
0.017
0.48
0.22
0.1
0.17
0.62
1
0.082
0.23
0.053
0.03
0.004 FBK
1.2
0.011
0.006 FBK
0.15
0.16
0.38
0.52
0.26
0.014
2.9
0.078
1.8
0.067
0.33
0.004 FBK
0.19
0.019
0.022
0.059
0.44
0.033
0.049
0.1
0.18
0.007 FBK
0.99
0.94
4.7
4.1
2.6
5.4
8.4
4.7
3.5
6.6
1.8
1.4
0.55 FBK
12
0.94
0.88
3.7
5.5
12
15
11
1.4
39
1.5
18
2.3
4
0.88 FBK
3.4
1.5
2
4.1
11
0.59 FBK
4.1
1.7
3.5
0.77
Table A-9 - Page 1/3
A-12
-------
TABLE A-9 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - NONMETALS
SAMPIP-ID AMMONIA (moA.) BROMINE(ug/g DW) CHLORINE(ug/g DW)
BR31402C101
BR31402C102
BR31402C103
BR31601C101
BR31601C102
BR31601C103
BR31703C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C102
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C102
BR32003C103
BR32003C104
BR32004C101
BR32004C102
BR32004C103
BR32102C101
BR32102C102
BR32102C103
BR32102C104
BR32202C101
BR32202C102
BR32202C103
BR32202C104
BR32301C101
BR32301C102
BR32402C101
BR32402C102
BR32402C103
BR32501C101
BR32501C102
BR32501C103
BR32503C101
BR32503C102
BR32503C103
BR32701C101
BR32701C102
8.5
45GUS
23GUS
6.5
18
9.8
1.9
13
11
5.5
15
5.2
11
4.5
19
10
2.3
11
30GUS
9.6
7.8
0.4
16
6.2
5.1
25GUS
18
10
8.9
10
22 GUS
25GUS
0.57
15
14
13
16
28 GUS
0.085
0.065
0.45
0.075
0.74
0.41
0.028
0.085
0.83
1.4
0.56
0.69
0.084
0.57
0.018
0.023
0.25
0.09
3.1
0.95
0.21
0.014
0.29
3.9
0.15
0.017
1.4
0.048
1.9
2.1
0.071
0.054
0.003 FBK
0.19
8.5
0.98
0.16
0.35
4.2
2.4
4.2
3.1
8.8
8
1.1
2
60
12
7.4
13
3.5
9.1
1.4
1.7
11
4.6
28
13
3.9
1.1 FBK
3.9
37
1.9
0.94 FBK
14
3
15
13
4
3.7
0.46 FBK
5.8
160
12
3.9
5.4
Table A-9 - Page 2/3
A-13
-------
TABLE A-9 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - NONMETALS
SAMPLE-ID AMMONIA (mg/L) BROMINE(ug/g DW) CHLORINE(ug/g DW)
BR32702C101
BR32702C102
BR32702C103
BR32801C101
BR32801C102
BR32801C103
BR33002C101
BR33002C102
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C101
BR33201C102
BR33201C103
BR33202C101
BR33401C101
BR33401C102
BR33401C103
BR33402C101
BR33402C102
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C102
BR33501C103
BR33501C104
BR33702C101
BR33702C102
BR33702C103
BR33802C101
BR33802C102
BR33802C103
BR33802C104
BR34001C101
BR34001C102
BR34101C101
BR34101C102
BR34101C103
11
16
18
28GUS
34GUS
25GUS
12
0.93
22 GUS
3.4
27 GUS
16
14
140 GUS
28 GUS
30 GUS
38 GUS
24 GUS
34 GUS
9.6
42 GUS
12
28 GUS
12
10
60 GUS
8.6
20 GUS
26 GUS
13
15
9.8
6.4
24 GUS
17
12
0.042
0.54
0.26
0.063
1.4
1.5
0.068
0.062
3.9
0.094
0.009 FBK
6.1
0.01 FBK
0.052
0.027
0.054
1.9
0.035
0.031
4.2
0.037
6
3.6
0.33
0.007 FBK
1.6
0.036
0.023
1.5
1.2
0.24
0.062
0.15
0.023
0.034
0.063
2.4
9.2
4.4
0.09 FBK
21
21
2.3
5.2
100
2.6
0.89 FBK
13
0.86 FBK
3.2
2
2.3
20
2
2.8
25
1.5
55
41
4.6
1.4
18
1.5
2.1
16
5.8
2.7
3.1
3.6
1.7
1
1.6
Table A-9 - Page 3/3
A-14
-------
TABLE A-10 - BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS SAMPLED
SAMPLEJD
BR30201C101
BR30201C102
BR30301C101
BR30301C102
BR30301C103
BR30402C101
BR30402C102
BR30402C103
BR30601C101
BR30601C102
BR30601C103
BR30601C104
BR30601C105
BR30603C101
BR30603C102
BR30603C103
BR30603C104
BR30703C101
BR30703C102
BR30703C103
BR30703C104
BR30801C101
BR30801C102
BR30801C103
BR30801C104
BR30802C101
BR30802C102
BR30802C103
BR30802C104
BR30901C101
BR30901C102
BR30901C103
BR30901C104
BR31301C101
BR31301C102
BR31301C103
BR31302C101
BR31302C102
Conduct. Extresidue Microtox
uS/cm ug/gdrywt EC 50
1150
2190
1840
3490 GUS
3530 GUS
2470
4970
2770
2390
3050 GUS
3590 GUS
2970 GUS
1590
2990 GUS
3870 GUS
1720
2350
2480
3100 GUS
4220 GUS
4340 GUS
2530
2180
NSQ
2290
2430
3870 GUS
NSQ
NSQ
2070
NSQ
NSQ
NSQ
2400
5990
NSQ
2070
NSQ
170 PNQ
1,000
3,100
5,200
1,900
3,200
5,500
4,300
2,200
4,200
3,000
1,400
120 PNQ
8,100
3,600
140 PNQ
5,700
3,000
9,700
17,000
6,900
2,200
12,000
400
26,000
680
5,100
170 PNQ
860
1,100
1,000
3,900
17,000
1,700
910
760
2,700
150 PNQ
100
100
62
23
85
42
25
20
100
39
100
100
100
80
100
100
47
100
100
100
85
6.8
5.7
37
6.2
100
16
100
46
100
100
22
94
100
78
48
92
100
pH TOC
ug/g dry wt
7.16
7.74
7.04
6.88 LLS
7.03
6.88 LLS
6.76 LLS
6.97 LLS
6.96 LLS
7.09
6.97 LLS
7.13
7.3
7.51
7.55
7.47
7.54
7.5
7.04
7.07
6.89 LLS
7.05
8.41 GUS
7.59
7.81
7.5
7.11
7.2
7.98
6.9 LLS
7.14
7.09
7.07
7.01
7.59
7.26
6.99 LLS
7.87
0.27 LDL
0.27 LDL
2.3
2.5
0.49 PNQ
2.7
3
1.9
1.8
2
1.6
1.2
0.27 LDL
0.74 PNQ
0.83 PNQ
0.6 PNQ
3.1
2
2.2
6.2
4.4
4
4.7
1.1
5.4
2.3
2.1
1.3
0.75 PNQ
2.3
1.9
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.4
3.3
2.1
0.81 PNQ
Table A-10- Page 1/3
A-15
-------
TABLE A-10 - BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS SAMPLED
SAMPLEJD
BR31402C101
BR31402C102
BR31402C103
BR31601C101
BR31601C102
BR31601C103
BR31703C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C102
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C102
BR32003C103
BR32003C104
BR32004C101
BR32004C102
BR32004C103
BR32102C101
BR32102C102
BR32102C103
BR32102C104
BR32202C101
BR32202C102
BR32202C103
BR32202C104
BR32301C101
BR32301C102
BR32402C101
BR32402C102
BR32402C103
BR32501C101
BR32501C102
BR32501C103
BR32503C101
BR32503C102
BR32503C103
BR32701C101
BR32701C102
Conduct. Extresldue Mlcrotox
uS/cm ug/g dry wt EC_50
2180
4320 GUS
5090 GUS
1770
5550 GUS
NSQ
2880 GUS
1860
NSQ
NSQ
2120
2710
NSQ
3910 GUS
2350
3510 GUS
3440 GUS
1800
NSQ
NSQ
1940
2210
709
NSQ
NSQ
2250
1240
2190
NSQ
NSQ
3040 GUS
5890 GUS
NSQ
3690 GUS
4500 GUS
NSQ
31 80 GUS
3060 GUS
1,200
1,200
5,000
1,300
6,900
4,100
560
680
2,200
4,300
8,300
12,000
3,900
6,400
350 PNQ
520
2,500
1,300
24,000
13,000
1,800
170 PNQ
5,300
20,000
840
680
1,100
480
11,000
5,300
8,200
1,500
32 LDL
3,700
9,700
10,000
1,800
3,300
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
32
31
32
100
32
100
100
100
100
22
21
57
100
41
5.1
74
100
33
100
37
43
100
9.1
100
84
100
100
100
100
pH TOC
ug/g dry wt
6.65 LLS
6.72 LLS
6.78 LLS
6.85 LLS
7.23
7.37
6.93 LLS
7.12
7.24
7.03
7.95
7.65
7.02
7.55
7.19
7.02
7.21
6.54 LLS
7.38
7.48
7.09
7.43
8.7 GUS
7.86
7.82
6.84 LLS
7.41
7.17
7.06
7.01
7.25
7.33
8.22
6.93 LLS
7.1
6.8 LLS
6.59 LLS
7
2.3
1.7
2.5
2.2
4.6
2.5
0.34 PNQ
2
2.5
4.2
5.2
3.9
2.4
3.6
2.1
2.9
0.77 PNQ
2.3
3.6
3
2
1.9
1
3.5
0.61 PNQ
1.7
4.3
2.3
3.6
3.2
1.7
3.2
0.4 PNQ
2.7
2.3
1.2
2.6
2.5
Table A-10- Page 2/3
A-16
-------
TABLE A-10 - BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS SAMPLED
SAMPLEJD
BR32702C101
BR32702C102
BR32702C103
BR32801C101
BR32801C102
BR32801C103
BR33002C101
BR33002C102
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C101
BR33201C102
BR33201C103
BR33202C101
BR33401C101
BR33401C102
BR33401C103
BR33402C101
BR33402C102
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C102
BR33501C103
BR33501C104
BR33702C101
BR33702C102
BR33702C103
BR33802C101
BR33802C102
BR33802C103
BR33802C104
BR34001C101
BR34001C102
BR34101C101
BR34101C102
BR34101C103
Conduct. Extresidue Mlcrotox
uS/cm ug/gdrywt EC 50
2990 GUS
4640 GUS
4420 GUS
1890
3180 GUS
5820 GUS
1720
3030 GUS
1400
3200 GUS
2100
4360 GUS
NSQ
8160 GUS
1480
1120
2380
1640
3870 GUS
NSQ
NSQ
3090 GUS
3700 GUS
1800
NSQ
NSQ
NSQ
1260
NSQ
NSQ
NSQ
4430 GUS
5170 GUS
1320
NSQ
NSQ
1,300
6,600
3,800
1,200
7,200
9,800
950
850
18,000
700
160 PNQ
4,100
120
2,100
660
1,000
12,000
430
970
12,000
490
22,000
21,000
2,300
210
17,000
1,800
640
18,000
5,800
5,700
1,300
2,400
530
700
1,600
100
60
41
100
68
49
100
100
60
20
100
100
100
5.2
100
100
29
100
100
17
100
14
8
100
100
33
100
100
9.8
16
15
100
100
100
100
100
pH TOC
ug/g dry wt
7.11
7.15
7.16
6.9 LLS
7.13
6.85 LLS
7.27
7.06
6.92 LLS
10.8 GUS
6.91 LLS
6.67 LLS
7.14
7.78
7.19
7.21
7.53
6.75 LLS
6.87 LLS
7.71
6.69 LLS
7.15
7.07
7.07
6.92 LLS
6.73 LLS
7.38
6.91 LLS
7.07
6.87 LLS
7.3
7.46
8.6
7.1
7.36
7.07
1.7
2.5
3
2
2.4
3.3
3
2.3
5
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.2
2
1.6
3.7
2.5
2.2
2.7
1.9
3.4
7.1
2.1
2.3
3.9
1
2
2.7
2.2
2.8
3.2
3.3
2
1.6
1.5
Table A-10- Page 3/3
A-17
-------
TABLE A-11 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - GRAIN SIZE (% dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
G1000U
L1000250U
L25063U
L6338U
LT38U
TOTAL
BR30201C101
BR30201C102
BR30301C101
BR30301C102
BR30301C103
BR30402C101
BR30402C102
BR30402C103
BR30601C101
BR30601C102
BR30601C103
BR30601C104
BR30601C105
BR30603C101
BR30603C102
BR30603C103
BR30603C104
BR30703C101
BR30703C102
BR30703C103
BR30703C104
BR30801C101
BR30801C102
BR30801C103
BR30801C104
BR30802C101
BR30802C102
BR30802C103
BR30802C104
BR30901C101
BR30901C102
BR30901C103
BR30901C104
BR31301C101
BR31301C102
BR31301C103
BR31302C101
BR31302C102
0.15
6.1
0.13
5.9
2.1
0.38
2.3
1.7
0.22
0.71
0.27
9.5
16
2.5
2.7
4.2
11
0.3
0.52
1.2
3.9
2.3
4.2
3.9
0.45
1.9
11
1.5
0.65
0.45
0.073
0.69
0.54
0.61
0.088
0.082 ,
12
1.1
38
37
0.91
1.1
5.8
1.1
2.1
1.6
1.9
2
3.5
38
28
8.5
5.8
3.9
8.8
1.9
2.2
2.8
3.6
2.3
12
1.2
4.3
5.1
15
1.2
6.6
1.1
1.5
1.7
4.6
1.4
1.1
1
5
0.24
53
38
16
11
49
19
14
15
19
21
39
16
7.6
42
24
2.9
11
22
20
9.7
19
8.9
15
1.1
12
13
15
0.88
4.3
15
12
36
26
29
18
19
9.9
22
0.29
2.7
9.6
8
13
11
11
11
13
12
13
2.7
1.2
7.6
9.6
1
4.7
11
12
6-3
12
7.4
6.4
0.84
8
11
5.5
0.54
1.3
11
7.5
11
12
12
9.7
11
8.5
33
6.4
17
72
76
30
76
71
60
67
64
44
33
47
36
53
87
63
63
67
82
59
69
60
93
67
79
46
94
74
75
72
51
64
57
77
73
62
39
98
100
99
100
100
110
100
89
100
99
99
99
100
97
95
99
98
98
100
100
97
90
97
100
91
110
92
99
87
100
1 \J\J
93
&\J
100
1 \J\J
110
1 1 \J
qq
\?
-------
TABLE A-11 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - GRAIN SIZE (% dry wt)
SAMPLEJD
BR31402C101
BR31402C102
BR31402C103
BR31601C101
BR31601C102
BR31601C103
BR31703C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C102
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C102
BR32003C103
BR32003C104
BR32004C101
BR32004C102
BR32004C103
BR32102C101
BR32102C102
BR32102C103
BR32102C104
BR32202C101
BR32202C102
BR32202C103
BR32202C104
BR32301C101
BR32301C102
BR32402C101
BR32402C102
BR32402C103
BR32501C101
BR32501C102
BR32501C103
BR32503C101
BR32503C102
BR32503C103
BR32701C101
BR32701C102
G1000U
0.55
1.3
1.1
0.2
1.6
0.3
5.7
0.07
5.9
3.1
4.4
4.8
0.81
13
1.1
12
4
0.31
0.6
2.6
0.15
0.082
0.4
0.29
0.12
2.7
8.9
0.12
0.65
0.79
0.2
0.76
0.29
4.5
4
7.5
0.048
0.12
L1000250U
2.3
5.5
7.2
0.79
5.7
1.1
61
0.78
4.1
8.9
4.2
4.2
1.5
3.6
2
6.2
9.2
0.25
1
4
0.44
0.18
7.5
1.6
0.62
1.8
15
0.31
1
1.3
6
1.7
0.26
2.4
4.2
11
1.1
1.2
L25063U
11
15
15
4.7
17
12
25
23
17
17
12
13
11
8.1
16
20
34
3.7
8.6
39
6.1
5.1
32
29
3.7
12
15
8.9
6.9
25
24
12
0.53
15
25
41
6.2
16
L6338U
9.5
6.9
8.3
5.3
8.2
12
1.2
16
10
6.2
8.1
8
11
5.7
8.5
5.8
3.7
6.3
6.8
7.7
6.5
7.7
5.1
13
2.3
8.8
7.5
10
9
14
10
9.6
0.6
9.1
13
7.3
5.3
7.7
LT38U
68
65
93
67
63
6.1
60
64
60
67
67
79
65
72
64
46
83
76
46
86
93
56
53
93
77
51
83
84
60
61
79
98
66
61
28
80
75
TOTAL
98
96
96
100
99
88
99
100
100
95
97
97
100
96
99
110
97
93
93
99
99
110
100
97
99
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
110
95
92
100
Table A-11 - Page 2/3
A-19
-------
TABLE A-11 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - GRAIN SIZE (% dry wt)
SAMPLE ID
G1000U
L1000250U
L25063U
L6338U
LT38U
TOTAL
BR32702C101
BR32702C102
BR32702C103
BR32801C101
BR32801C102
BR32801C103
BR33002C101
BR33002C102
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C101
BR33201C102
BR33201C103
BR33202C101
BR33401C101
BR33401C102
BR33401C103
BR33402C101
BR33402C102
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C102
BR33501C103
BR33501C104
BR33702C101
BR33702C102
BR33702C103
BR33802C101
BR33802C102
BR33802C103
BR33802C104
BR34001C101
BR34001C102
BR34101C101
BR34101C102
BR34101C103
14
3.3
9.5
0.26
0.36
1
1.2
0.15
0.43
34
0.067
1.4
0.027
2.7
0.11
0.5
0.93
0.085
0.58
1.2
0.19
0.35
1.1
0.087
0.24
0.45
3.3
0.62
0.59
0.48
2.9
0.27
0.82
0.59
5.2
11
11
4.6
5.5
0.6
0.96
1.5
0.94
0.61
2.1
17
1.1
2.8
0.43
1.6
0.21
2.4
1.9
0.29
1.2
1.1
0.63
2
1.1
0.57
1.3
2.4
2.2
3.3
2.2
6.1
7.2
2
1.3
0.59
6.8
11
17
9.8
18
7.5
11
7.7
15
7.7
20
19
21
43
43
11
6.7
13
12
8.4
16
9.4
9.2
20
15
11
18
16
15
32
3.5
35
32
4.7
3.1
9.5
19
30
6.2
10
8.7
7.4
12
8
14
8.6
11
3.3
12
8.7
16
9.7
7.8
8.8
11
9.6
9.2
8.5
7.8
10
10
8.6
8.8
10
5.9
13
11
6.5
8
2.6
2.3
10
9.9
12
57
80
56
85
76
82
67
84
66
26
67
41
45
66
86
76
72
82
72
74
78
69
72
80
70
74
67
70
63
48
49
92
93
76
53
64
110
110
98
100
100
100
98
100
99
100
100
96
100
91
100
100
97
100
99
95
96
100
100
. 100
98
100
94
120
80
96
99
100
100
97
94
130
Table A-11 -Page 3/3
A-20
-------
TABLEA-12 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - PESTICIDES (ng/g dry wt)
Heptachlor Cis- Trans-
SAMPLE ID Heptachlor Epoxlde Chlorodane Chlorodane Dieldrln 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT
BR30201C101
BR30201C102
BR30301C101
BR30301C103
BR30402C101
BR30402C103
BR30601C101
BR30601C105
BR30603C101
BR30603C104
BR30801C101
BR30801C101
BR30801C104
BR30801C104
BR30901C101
BR30901C104
BR31301C101
BR31301C103
BR31302C101
BR31302C102
BR31402C201
BR31402C203
BR31601C101
BR31601C103
BR31903C101
BR31903C103
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C101
BR32301C101
BR32501C101
BR32702C101
2 U
20 U
20 U
10 U
40 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
2 U
10 U
100 U
100 U
200 U .
200 U
2 U
20 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
20 U
2 U
100 U
100 U
2 U
60 U
2 U
2 U
9 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
40 U
20 U
100 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
84
100 U
2 U
20 U
2 U
52
4 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
40 U
2 U
10 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
100 U
2 U
10 U
100 U
20 U
20 U
2 U
2 U
4 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
40 U
40 U
40 U
177
20 U
2 U
10 U
40 U
100 U
1000 U
200 U
200 U
20 U
10 U
20 U
106
20 U
2 U
10 U
26
20 U
2U
20 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
20 U
10 U
2 U
4 U
20 U
2 U
20 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
20 U
2 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
40 U
100 U
100 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
40 U
2 U
2 U
4 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
100 U
20 U
2 U
2 U
40 U
100 U
100 U
1000 U
1000 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
100 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
13
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
20 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
20 U
40 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
100 U
10 U
59
10 U
40 U
88
100 U
2000 U
2000 U
10 U
40 U
10 U
152
20 U
2 U
20 U
41
10 U
169
10 U
2 U
10 U
57
20 U
10 U
20 U
40 U
10 U
20 U
20 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
20 U
2 U
137
10 U
73
2 U
40 U
20 U
100 U
1000 U
1000 U
10 U
20 U
2 U
42
10 U
10 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
54
10 U
100 U
100 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
100 U
40 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
Table A-12-Page 1/2
A-21
-------
TABLE A-12 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - PESTICIDES (ng/g dry wt)
Heptachlor Cls- Trans-
SAMPLEJD Heptachlor Epoxlde Chlorodane Chlorodane Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT
BR32702C103
BR32801C101
BR32801C103
BR33002C103
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C201
BR33201C203
BR33202C101
BR33402C101
BR33402C103
BR33501C101
BR33501C103
BR33501C103
BR33702C101
BR33702C103
BR33802C101
BR33802C104
BR34101C101
BR34101C103
10 U
2 U
100 U
100 U
SOU
20 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
20 U
2U
200 U
200 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
40 U
2 U
100 U
100 U
50 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
40 U
2U
10 U
10 U
2 U
100 U
100 U
50 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
128
10 U
121
100 U
50 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
20 U
20 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
40 U
2 U
100 U
100 U
50 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
200 U
200 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
40 U
10 U
100 U
100 U
200 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1000 U
1000 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
40 U
2 U
163
100 U
200 U
2 U
10 U
2 U
2 U
10 U
20 U
2 U
1000 U
1000 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
49
2 U
44
100 U
200 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
20 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1000 U
1000 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 U
10 U
10 U
Table A-12-Page 2/2
A-22
-------
TABLEA-13 BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3 - TOTAL PCBs (ng/g dry wt)
SAMPLEJD
Congener Total
BR30201C101
BR30301C101
BR30402C101
BR30601C101
BR30603C101
BR30801C101
BR30801C101
BR30801C104
BR30801C104
BR30901C101
BR31302C101
BR31402C201
BR31601C101
BR31903C101
BR31903C103
BR31903C103
BR32003C101
BR32003C101
BR32102C101
BR32102C103
BR32102C103
BR32301C101
BR32501C101
BR32702C101
BR32801C101
BR33002C103
BR33102C101
BR33201C203
BR33202C101
BR33402C101
BR33402C103 __,
BR33501C101
BR33501C103
BR33501C103
BR33702C101
BR33702C103
BR33801C101 '
BR33801C104
BR34101C101
79.03
2595.31
3364.77
1057.22
138.38
14830.5
7256.88
49935.16
45264.24
233.72
1124.29
649.32
316.49
179.49
841 1 .02
6690.64
10035.56
8709.45
137.85
5135.21
1233.59
315.36
767.11
386.73
601.71
6341.76
1961.2
43.9
1700.59
115.75
1778.42
525.84
24486.84
38200.48
161.97
181.48
136.6
2436.2
219.17
A-23
-------
ARCS - Assessment of Sediments in the Buffalo River AOC Appendix B
APPENDIX B
BUFFALO RIVER
ARCS RAW SEDIMENT DATA MAPS
Page B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
BUFFALO RIVER - CONCENTRATION MAP PAGE NUMBER
Table
Metals
PAHs
Nonmetals
Pesticides
PCBs
Additional Parameters
Grain Size
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Ammonia
Bromine
Chlorine
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Congener Total
Conductivity
Microtox
TOC
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Tributyltin
Extractable Residue
Dry Weight of Sample
<38 u (%)
30 u- 63 u (%)
63 u - 250 u (%)
250 u - 1 MM (%)
>1 MM (%)
Survey 1
Surface
B-3
B-4
B-10
B-16
B-22
B-28
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-42
B-43
B-49
B-50
B-51
B-52
B-56
B-60
B-64
B-68
B-72
B-73
B-74
B-75
B-76
B-77
B-78
B-90
B-91
B-100
B-105
B-110
B-111
B-112
B-117
B-118
B-123
B-128
B-132
B-137
0-2«
B-5
B-11
B-17
B-23
B-29
B-37
B-44
B-53
B-57
B-61
B-65
B-69
B-79
B-83
B-87
B-92
B-96
B-101
B-106
B-11 3
B-11 9
B-124
B-129
B-133
B-138
2-4ft
B-6
B-12
B-18
B-24
B-30
B-38
B-45
B-80
B-84
B-88
B-93
B-97
B-102
B-107
B-114
B-120
B-125
B-134
B-139
Survey 3
4-6ft 6-8ft Intensive Zone
B-7
B-13
B-19
B-25
B-31
B-39
B-46
B-54
B-58
B-62
B-66
B-70
B-81
B-85
B-94
B-98
B-103
B-108
B-11 5
B-121
B-126
B-130
B-135
B-140
B-8
B-14
B-20
B-26
B-32
B-40
B-47
B-55
B-59
B-63
B-67
B-71
B-95
B-9
B-15
B-21
B-27
B-33
B-41
B-48
B-82
B-86
B-89
B-99
B-104
B-109
B-11 6
B-122
B-127
B-131
B-136
B-141
B-2
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
N
Lake Erie
"V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
10.5
B-3
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Michigan St.
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Ohio St
0.03
Buffalo, NY
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
0.69
Con Rail
B-4
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
1.1
5.2
1.4
0.9
1.3
B-5
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
,20
1.7
< 0.0026 \\
8.3
27
6.9
B-6
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
0.5
1.3
2.7
B-7
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
1.3
B-8
-------
Lake
Erie
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Cadmium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-9
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
312
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
56
B-10
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
30
24
130
50
32
29
B-11
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
1200
47
300
280
620 1100 45°
B-12
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
30
42
B-13
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
29
Con Rail
88
35
B-14
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Chromium Concentration (ug/g)
Depth Or2ft.
0 Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-15
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
148
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
41.3
B-16
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo River Ship Canal
120
280
Ohio St
Buffalo, NY
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
50
B-17
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SUVEY 3
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
680
84
210
540 1000
B-18
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
35
68
120
150
340
B-19
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
49
Con Rail
97
38
B-20
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Copper Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-21
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
IRON CONCENTRATIONS (% dry weight)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
5.5
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
3.42
B-22
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
IRON CONCENTRATIONS (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
N
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
2.3
2.9
4.8
B-23
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
IRON CONCENTRATIONS (%
Depth 2-4 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
2.8
5.9
22
B-24
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
IRON CONCENTRATIONS (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
2.7
2.5
3-1 3.9 5.5
B-25
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
IRON CONCENTRATIONS (%)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
"V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
4.1 ~ 3
B-26
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Iron Concentration (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Reid Duplicate
B-27
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
48.7
Con Rail
B-28
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
50
39
180
43
32
B-29
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
350
110
350
B-30
350
1600
3400 1800
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
6.1
64
95 240
B-31
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
43
220
B-32
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
i Lead Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-33
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
MANGANESE CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
1386
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
726
Con Rail
B-34
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Michigan St.
Buffalo River Ship Canal
0.18
Ohio St
0.01
1.93
Buffalo, NY
1.62
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
0.06
B-35
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
5.2
57
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
39.6
B-36
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
29
34
48
36 36
B-37
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
51
34
B-38
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
28
28
35
54
B-39
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
29
Con Rail
42
30
B-40
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
: Nickel Concentration (ug/g)
! Depth 0-2ft.
! ® Sampling Station
I Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-41
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
SILVER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
0.46
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
0.12
B-42
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
900
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
159.1
B-43
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2ft.
N
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
140
510
160
160
150
160
-320
180 150
B-44
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
ZINC CONCENTRATION (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
N
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
640
220
67
970
B-45
3700
6400 2300
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
85
160
78 68°
-1600
680
510
990
B-46
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
ZINC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
x\
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
140
490
97
B-47
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
23C
860
Lake
Erie
-260
150
Zinc Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
690
"Field Duplicate
B-48
140
150
320
N
\
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
730
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-49
-------
Buffalo River
470
Lake
Erie
20000
2 - Methylnaphthalene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field DupNcate
B-50
-------
Buffalo River
1100
Lake
Erie
1700
Anthracence Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-51
-------
Buffalo River
680
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
3500
Benzo (a) anthracene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
© Sampling Station
Scale:! in = 0.450 mi
Station 100)
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-52
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
34680
B-54
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
B-55
-------
Buffalo River
470
Lake
Erie
Benzo (a) Pyrene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0 450 mi
Buffalo. NY
5800
'Field Duplicate
B-56
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
457
412
B-57
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
Con Rail
24577
B-58
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
'V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
B-59
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
7000
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
610
Con Rail
B-60
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
523
506
B-61
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
'V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
20623
B-62
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ug/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Michigan St.
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Ohio St.
Buffalo, NY
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
14855
B-63
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
"V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
9500
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
460
B-64
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
N
Lake Erie
-v
Michigan St.
1469
Buffalo River Ship Canal
1245
73
Buffalo, NY
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
408
386
B-65
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
Con Rail
150
20894
B-66
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Michigan St.
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Ohio St
Buffalo, NY
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
Con Rail
B-67
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 1
CHRYSENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Lake Erie
"V
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
<27
4000
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
470
B-68
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHRYSENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
N
Lake Erie
xv
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
637
541
681
549 403
B-69
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHRYSENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
28509
B-70
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
CHRYSENE CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
'Y
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
B-71
-------
Buffalo River
1900
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
7500
Fluoranthene Concentration(ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
1200
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-72
-------
Buffalo River
400
Lake
Erie
1800
Fluorene Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In - 0.450 ml
380
Buffalo. NY
3400
46
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-73
-------
Buffalo River
520
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
3800
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-74
-------
Buffalo River
230
Lake
Erie
Naphthalene (ng/g)
Surface Samples
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
2400
'Field Duplicate
B-75
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
-------
Buffalo River
1400
Lake
Erie
6100
Phenanthrene Concentration(ng/g)
Surface Samples
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
540
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-76
-------
Buffalo River
2100
Lake
Erie
6100
Pyrene Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo, NY
750
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-77
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
2.5
Ammonia Concentratton (mg/L)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In -0.450 ml
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-78
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
9.8
49
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)
Depth 0-2 ft.
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In-0.450 ml
10
N
•Field Duplicate
B-79
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
6.4
36
Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
60 30
a
joe
^
" 30
1 ________ — 34*
-\ 23
I 8.9
\
18
— -*.
Station 1001
1 .6 km upstream
16
N
•Field Duplicate
B-80
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)
Depfh 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
0.57
13
9.8
10
6.2
72
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-81
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
24
43*
27
19
3.4
15
Lake
Erie
13
0-2CT
28
8.7*
1.9
&
-24
Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)
Depth O2ft.
® Samptlng Station
Scale: 1 In -0.0845 ml
•Reid Duplicate
B-82
0.4
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
0.071
0.019
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Bromine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 11n -0.450 ml
0.028
0.048
N
•Field Duplicate
B-83
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
8.5
0.1
Bromine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: I In-0.450 ml
0.054
0.022
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
1.4
1.9
0.29
N
•Field Duplicate
B-84
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
0.003
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Bromine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
3.9
2.1
0.95
N
'Field Duplicate
B-85
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Bromine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
'Field Duplicate
B-86
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
3.1
Chlorine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft.
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In « 0.450 ml
1.1
1.5
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
"Field Duplicate
B-87
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
9.9*
3.7
3.6
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Chlorine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
N
•Field Duplicate
B-88
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
1.4
2.3
\
\
r ^
0.89
Lake
Erie
5.5
-7.4
-1.4
®-2. V
Chlorine Concentration (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
2.7*
1.1
2.6
•2.3
0.94
-1.1
'Field Duplicate
B-89
N
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
DDT Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
73
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
NA indicates not applicable.
B-90
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
jffalo. NY
11
Dieldrin Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0 450 mi
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
NA indicates not applicable.
B-91
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
PCB CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 0-2 ft.
Buffalo, NY
\ V
Buffalo River Ship Canal \\ 602
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
768
234
'Field Duplicate
B-92
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
PCB CONCENTRATION (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 2-4 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
Con Rail
B-93
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
PCB CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 4-6 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
'Field Duplicate
N
44
38200
24487*
6342
1778
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
Con Rail
3848
B-94
1234
5135*
-------
BUFFALO RIVER SURVEY 3
PCB CONCENTRATIONS (ng/g dry wt)
Depth 6-8 ft.
Lake Erie
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo River Ship Canal
N
Station 1001 located
1.6 km upstream
1122
'Field Duplicate
B-95
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Conductivity (umho/cm)
Depth 0-2 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In-0.450m)
Buffalo. NY
690
770
210
70
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-96
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
890
500
170
Conductivity (umho/cm)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: I in = 0.450 mi
240
-9
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
"Field Duplicate
B-97
-------
Buffalo River
530
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Conductivity (umho/cm)
Depth 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
890'
-9
'Field Duplicate
B-98
Station 1001
6 km upstream
N
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Conductivity (umho/cm)
Depth o-2ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
Field Duplicate
B-99
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
40
Microtox (Relative %)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-100
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Microtox (Relative %)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo, NY
100
84
100
100
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-101
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Microtox (Relative %)
Depth 2-4 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
100
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-102
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Microtox (Relative %)
Depth 4-6 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001-
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-103
-------
Lake
Erie
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Microtox (Relative %)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
*Field Duplicate
B-104
-------
Buffalo River
2.02
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scate: 1 in = 0.450 mi
8.93
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-105
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
1.7
2.7
<0.27
2.3
32
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.450 ml
N
'Field Duplicate
B-106
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
.6 km upstream
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
N
•Field Duplicate
B-107
-------
Buffalo River
0.49
Lake
Erie
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale:! in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
0.4
1.2
2.2
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-108
-------
2.1
Buffalo River
intensive Zone
2.3-
2.2-
1.9
-5.2
®-
Lake
Erie
i.34
®-
-2.5
-2.3
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
0 Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
0-2.3
®-2.3
•Field Duplicate
B-109
1.9
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Total Solids (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-110
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Volatile Solids (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.450 ml
17
Buffalo, NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-111
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
<0.05
26
Tributylin Concentration (ng/g)
Surface Samples
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
1.3
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-112
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
1300
Extractable Residues (ug/g)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In - 0.450 ml
1300
1100
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-113
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
2400
6900
5300
1100
24000
Station 100)
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-114
-------
Buffalo River
1900
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
Depth 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
120
32
10000
3900
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
13000
20000
N
•Field Duplicate
B-115
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
211
2200
190*
160
68C
3000
-350
-8300
Lake
Erie
640
Extractable Residue (ug/g)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
-680
<»-490
950
660
730*-
430
680
170
•Field Duplicate
B-116
N
-------
Buffalo River
50.55
Lake
Erie
Dry Weight of Sample
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
29.98
41.74
Station 1001
,6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-117
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size <38u (%)
Surface Samples
©Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In - 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
43.7
67
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-118
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size < 38ug (%)
Depth of 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
66
92
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-119
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size <38um (%)
Depth 2-4 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: I in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
57" 79
61
93
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-120
-------
Buffalo River
30
Lake
Erie
Grain Size < 38um (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in = 0.450mi
Buffalo. NY
98
28
46
60
53
51
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-121
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
66
69
79
63
26
72
®-78
68*
60
82*
Lake
Erie
0-70
6.1
®-83
Grain Size < 38um (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
0 Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
0-70
0-83
93
•Field Duplicate
B-122
N
r
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
7.6
Grain Size 38u - 63u (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo, NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
*Field Duplicate
B-123
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size 38u - 63u (%)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
9.7
2.6
8.8
10
7.7
Station 1001
6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-124
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Grain Size 38um - 63um (%)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
9.6
2.3
7.5
5.1
7.5
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-125
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Grain Size 38um - 63um (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
0.6
7.3
13
Station 100)
6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-126
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Grain Size 38um - 63um (%)
Depth o-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
•Field Duplicate
B-127
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size 63u - 250u (%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-128
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo, NY
Grain Size 63u - 250u (%)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
15
24
4.7
15
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
"Field Duplicate
B-129
-------
Buffalo River
49
Lake
Erie
Grain Size 63um - 250um (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
39
29
36
Station 1001
.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-130
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
Grain Size 63um - 250um (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
0 Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
Field Duplicate
B-131
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
11.7
Grain Size 250u-lMM(%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 In = 0.450 ml
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-132
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Grain Size 250ug - 1MM (%)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
0.18
N
'Field Duplicate
B-133
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
1.7
1.5
1.3
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
Grain Size 250um -1 mm (%)
Depth 2-4 ft.
0 Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
7.5 15
N
•Field Duplicate
B-134
-------
Buffalo River
5.8
Lake
Erie
Buffalo. NY
Grain Size 250um - 1mm (%)
Depth 4-6 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
0.26
1.7
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-135
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
2.3
0.97*
5.1-
Lake
Erie
1.9
-4.2
0.78
3.3
17
«K).63
0.18*
0.21-
61
0.94
®\\ 0.29
0.31
Grain Size 250um -1 MM (%)
Depth 0-2ft.
© Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
®-0.25
•Field Duplicate
B-136
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size > 1MM(%)
Surface Samples
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 ml
Buffalo, NY
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-137
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size > 1MM(%)
Depth 0-2 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale:! In = 0.450mi
Buffalo, NY
4.5
0.2
0.27
0.31
0.082
0.45
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
'Field Duplicate
B-138
-------
Buffalo River
Lake
Erie
Grain Size > 1MM(%)
Depth 2-4 ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo, NY
0.76
0.82
0.073
Station 100)
6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-139
-------
Buffalo River
2.1
Lake
Erie
Grain Size >1 MM (%)
Depth 4-6 tt.
® Sampling Station
Scale:! in = 0.450 mi
Buffalo. NY
0.29
7.5
3.3
2.6
0.79
0.29
0.69
Station 1001
1.6 km upstream
N
•Field Duplicate
B-140
-------
Buffalo River
Intensive Zone
2.7
2.3
0.067
\
0.27*
34
1.1
-4.4
0.07
0.042*
-1.2
0.11-
Lake
Erie
0.62
Grain Size > 1MM(%)
Depth 0-2ft.
® Sampling Station
Scale: 1 in = 0.0845 mi
5.7
®-0.24
•Field Duplicate
B-141
1085
112
-2.7
0.082
N
*'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 748-159
------- |