EPA 903/R/00/006
CBP/TRS 230/00
March 2000
Ambient Toxicity Testing in
Chesapeake Bay
Year 7 Report
Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region III
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Printed for the Chesapeake Bay Program by the Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper 30% Postconsumer
-------
KegiomilC(;ntci tori n\iu)iunental Ii
USI.l'AUuponlll
1650Aicl\St
Fhiladclphia, PA 19103
-------
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Year 7 Report
March 2000
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
http://www.chesapeakeDay.net
U.S. EPA
Region?!
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Year 7 Final Report
March 2000
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Ronald D. Anderson
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Alan Messing
Ted Turner
Old Dominion University
College of Sciences
Applied Marine Research Laboratory
Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0456
Raymond W. Alden III
University of Nevada Las Vegas
College of Sciences
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
and
David Goshorn
Margaret McGinty
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
using a battery of water column and sediment toxicity tests in concert with both fish and benthic
community assessments. A team of scientists from two Chesapeake Bay research laboratories,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Versar Inc worked jointly to complete this goal.
Water column toxicity studies and overall project management were directed by Lenwood W. Hall,
Jr. of the University of Maryland's Agricultural Experiment Station. Sediment toxicity tests and
water/sediment chemical analysis were managed by Alan Messing of Old Dominion Universities
Applied Marine Research Laboratory. Margaret McGinty of Maryland Department of Natural
Resources was responsible for the fish community assessments and Ananda Ranasinghe of Versar
Inc. conducted the benthic community assessments. Raymond Alden was responsible for the water
and sediment index calculations. This report summarizes data from the seventh year of a seven-year
ambient toxicity testing program. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agencies Chesapeake Bay
Program Office supported this study.
-------
ABSTRACT
Data presented in this report were collected during the seventh year of a research program
designed to assess ambient toxicity of living resource habitats in Chesapeake Bay. The goals of this
study were to identify toxic ambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of
standardized, directly modified, or recently developed water column and sediment toxicity tests
concurrently with fish and benthic community assessments (index of biotic integrity approaches). The
toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment was evaluated during the late summer/early fall of
1997 at eight stations in the following areas: Elizabeth River (four stations) and South River (four
stations). The toxicity of ambient estuarine water was assessed at all stations by using the following
estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, survival and growth test; 8-d
Eurytemora affinis (copepod) life cycle test and two separate 48-h coot clam, Mulinia lateralis
embryo/larval tests. Toxicity of ambient estuarine sediment was determined by using the following
tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 20-d survival, growth and reburial test with the
amphipods Leptocheirus plumulosus and Lepidactylus dytiscus and 20-d polychaete worm,
Streblospio benedicti survival and growth test. Both inorganic and organic contaminants were
assessed in ambient sediment and inorganic contaminants were measured in ambient water
concurrently with toxicity testing to assess "possible" causes of toxicity. Both fish and benthic
communities were also assessed at the eight stations. An index of biotic integrity was determined for
each trophic group.
Both univariate and multivariate (using all endpoints) statistical techniques were used to
analyze the water column and sediment toxicity data. Results from univariate analysis of water
column data with Eurytemora affinis showed that survival was significantly reduced at the two
downstream stations in the South River. Other endpoints from the sheepshead tests (survival and
growth) and coot clam tests (percent normal shell development from two separate tests) were not
significantly different than the controls based on univariate analysis. Results from multivarite analysis
of water column data showed some degree of toxicity for most of the sites in the South River. Metals
were reported in the water column at concentrations suspected to be toxic at various South River
sites. Mercury concentrations of 0.47 ug/L exceeded the marine chronic criteria of 0.025 ug/L at the
upstream site. Chromium concentrations of 6.18 ug/L at the upstream site were also higher than
ambient concentrations but less than the marine chronic criteria. Nickel concentrations of 13.8 ug/L
exceeded the marine chronic criteria of 8.3 ug/L at one of the downstream sites. Chromium
concentrations of 45.7 ug/L were also above expected background concentrations and only slightly
less than the criteria of 50 ug/L at this site. Copper concentrations of 3.3 ug/L at the downstream site
exceeded the EPA marine chronic criteria of 2.9 ug/L but were less than Maryland's estuarine criteria
of 6.1 ug/L.
Water column toxicity was generally low at all four Elizabeth River sites based on univariate
analysis of data from the three water column tests. However, multivariate analysis showed that the
Western Branch (WB) site had a higher degree of toxicity when compared with other sites tested in
this river. Concentrations of metals in the water column were generally low in the Elizabeth River
with a few exceptions. Copper concentrations of 3.4 ug/L at the Elizabeth River South Branch site
(SB) were slightly higher than the EPA marine chronic criteria but lower than Maryland's estuarine
criteria. Somewhat elevated concentrations of chromium (12.8 ug/L) were also reported at SB.
Metals concentrations were generally lower at the Elizabeth River East Branch (EB) and mainstem
ii
-------
sites (EL). Copper concentrations of 3.1 ug/L at the Elizabeth River West Branch (WB) were only
slightly higher than the EPA marine chronic criteria
Sediment toxicity for the South River sites showed that L. dytiscus survival and S. benedicti
growth were significantly different from controls at all four sites. Survival of C. variegatus and S.
benedicti was also reduced at the upstream site. Multivariate analysis also showed higher toxicity at
the upstream sites. Potentially toxic concentrations of various contaminants were reported in South
River sediments. The pesticides Heptachlor Epoxide, Chlordane, and Endrin Aldehyde were reported
at all four sites. DDE and DDT concentrations exceeding ER-L values were reported at the upstream
and downstream sites. The highest number of pesticides (7) was reported at the upstream site (The
most toxic site based on univariate analysis). Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)
contamination in the South River was generally less severe than the Elizabeth River. Two to six PAHs
were detected at the various stations and only fluoranthene at one of the downstream sites exceeded
the ER-L value (Effects Range - Low value as defined by Long et al., 1995). These data do not
suggest a strong link between PAH exposure and biological effects in sediment. Total bulk metal
concentrations were variable among the South River sites. Exceedences of ER-L values occured for
five to eight metals at the three upstream sites. Nickel exceeded the ER-M value (Effect Range -
Median value as defined by Long et al., 1995) at the downstream site but concentrations of the other
metals were generally low at this site. The highest chromium concentration (183 ug/g) at one of the
downstream sites corresponds with the high chromium concentrations reported in the water column
at this station (46 ug/L). All South River sites had SEM/AVS ratios less than one thus suggesting that
toxicity due to metals is unlikely.
Sediment toxicity data for the Elizabeth river showed that L. dytiscus survival and S.
benedicti growth were significantly different from controls at all four sites. In addition, S. benedicti
survival was also significantly reduced at the WB (Western Branch) site. Results from the multivariate
analysis showed some but a modest degree of relative toxicity at all sites. The the WB site had the
highest degree of toxicity. Potentially toxic concentrations of various contaminants in sediments were
reported for various sites in the Elizabeth River. The pesticides Chlordane and Endrin Aldehyde were
detected in the sediment of all four sites. Endosulfan sulfonate was detected at the Southern Branch
(SB), Eastern Branch (EB) and Western Branch (WB); Heptachlor was detected at SB and mainstem
(EL). Total DDT concentrations exceeding the ER-L values were reported at EB and WB. The total
number of pesticides detected by site were as follows: EL (3), SB (4), EB (6) and WB (9). The WB
site, which had the highest number of pesticides detected, also had the highest degree of sediment
toxicity as three endpoints from the four tests species were different than the controls. The number
of detected PAHs at the four sites were as follows: WB (4, with no exceedences of ER-L or ER-M
values), EB (4, with three PAHs exceeding the ER-L values), SB (10, with five PAHs exceeding the
ER-L values) and EL (11, with two PAHs exceeding the ER-L values and 6 exceeding the ER-M
values). Although! the most contaminated site for PAHs was EL the toxicity at this site was not
significantly higher than the other three sites. Total bulk metals concentrations were fairly consistent
among sites as four to five metals exceeded the ER-L values and only one metal (mercury) exceeded
the ER-M value at EL. All sites except EL had SEM/AVS ratios greater than one thus suggesting
that metal toxicity may be possible at SB, EB, and WB.
Results from the fish IBI analysis from seining showed that three of the four sites in the South
River had IBI scores below the the reference condition. Trawl index scores for fish also ranged from
poor to fair at all four South River sites. The Elizabeth River sites could not be sampled for fish by
iii
-------
seining due to the presence of the macroalgae, Ulva latuca. Trawl index scores for the Elizabeth
River were poor at SB and WB, fair at EL and good at EB. The Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
(B-ZBI) showed that three of the South River sites were severely degraded or degraded and one site
was not degraded. All four Elizabeth River sites were classifed as degraded or severely degraded
based on B-EBI scores.
In summary, the sediment toxicity data, fish IBI data and the benthic IBI data from the South
River suggest that the two upstream stations are impaired due to contaminants or other stressors.
The water column toxicity data for the South River suggest some toxicity at the three downstream
sites. Due to the transient and ephemeral nature of contaminants in water, downstream biological
effects resulting from upstream sources is not unusual.
A final analysis of the toxicity and community metric data from the Elizabeth River shows that
the water column toxicity data (multivariate analysis) showed effects at the WB site, fish community
data shows effects at the SB and WB and the sediment toxicity data/benthic B-D3I data suggested
toxicity/biological impairment at all four sites. The close agreement between the sediment toxicity
data and the benthic community data suggest that the contaminant problems in the Elizabeth River
are primarily in the sediment.
IV
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office for supporting this study. We would like to acknowledge individuals from the University of
Maryland and Old Dominion University for technical assistance and the U. S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office and Maryland Department of the Environment for their comments on the study
design.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xiii
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Objectives 2-1
3. Methods 3-1
3.1 Study Areas 3-1
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests 3-1
3.2.1 Test Species 3-1
3.2.2 Test Procedures 3-2
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis 3-2
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-2
3.2.5 Quality Assurance 3-2
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations 3-3
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests 3-3
3.3.1 Test Species 3-4
3.3.2 Test Procedures 3-4
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data 3-4
3.3.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-5
3.3.5 Quality Assurance 3-5
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations 3-5
3.4 Analysis of 7 Year Data Base 3-6
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 3-8
3.5.1 Data Collection 3-8
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity Calculations 3-8
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions 3-9
3.5.4 Trawl Index 3-9
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS -CONTINUED
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 3-9
3.6.1 Data Collection 3-9
3.6.2 Laboratory Processing 3-9
3.6.3 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations 3-10
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests 4-1
4.1.1 Toxicity Data 4-1
4.1.2 Contaminants Data 4-1
4.1.3 Water Quality Data 4-1
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-1
4.2 Sediment Tests 4-2
4.2.1 Toxicity Data 4-2
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data 4-2
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data 4-4
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 4-4
4.3.1 Fish Community 4-4
4.3.2 Water Quality 4-5
4.4 Benthic Index ofBiotic Integrity 4-5
5. Discussion 5-1
5.1 Elizabeth River 5-1
5.2 South River 5-2
6. Analysis of Seven Year Data Base 6-1
6.1 Water Column Toxicity 6-1
6.2 Sediment Toxicity 6-4
7. References 7-1
8. List of Tables and Figures 8-1
Appendices
Appendix A - Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds data from sediment toxicity tests.
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
Appendix B - Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during all water column tests.
Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv), Eurytemora affinis (Ea) and Mulinia
lateralis (Ml)
Appendix C - Summary offish species by station and gear type. Total abundance for each species
at all stations is also presented.
Appendix D - Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species
biomass and B-IBI metric values and scores for each site.
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3 . 1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The
following abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption -
Inductively Coupled Plasma), AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride),
AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-DA (Atomic Absorption -
Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption - Cold Vapor) ......... 8-1
Table 3.2 Trophic classification, family, spawning location, and residency offish captured
at the eight sampling locations ................................. g_2
Table 4. 1 Survival data from 8 d toxicity tests with £ affinis and sheepshead minnow larvae
at 8 stations from 10/1/97 to 10/9/97 ............................... 8-4
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 10/1/97 to
10/9/97 experiments ..................................... 5.5
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48 h coot clam embryo/
larval tests conducted from 10/4/9 to 10/6/97 (Test 1) and
10/7/97 to 10/9/97 (Test 2) ....................................... 8.6
Table 4.4 Reproduction and maturation data for Eurytemora after 8 d tests at 8
stations from 10/1/97 to 10/9/97 ................................... 8_j
Table 4.5 Inorganic contaminants data from the 8 stations sampled during the
fall of 1997. Marine U.S. EPA chronic water quality criteria (WQC)
are listed beside each metal. All values exceeding the criteria are
underlined g.g
Table 4.6 Water quality parameters reported in the field during water sample
collection in the fall of 1997 ................................ 3.9
Table 4.7 Toxicity data (48 h LCSOs or ECSOs mg/L) from 1997 reference toxicant
tests conducted with cadmium chloride for the three test species.
Previous values from years 1 thru 6 are reported ...................... 8-10
Table 4.8 Survival data from C. vahegatus at the eight stations 8-11
IX
-------
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Survival data from L. dytiscus at the eight stations.
"(R)"= Reference, "(C)"= Control, "SE = Standard Error 8-12
Survival data from L. plumulosus at the eight stations.
"(R)"= Reference, "(C)"= Control, "SE" = Standard Error 8-13
Survival data from S. benedicti at the eight stations.
"(R)" = Reference,"(C)" = Control, "SE" = Standard Error 8-14
Particle size analysis of sediments from eight stations, references
and controls in toxicity tests 8-15
Growth data (dry weight and length) for L, dytiscus after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean
and SE of 5 replicates of 20 animals each at the start of the test.
Weight and length for each site are the mean of the remaining animals
for each replicate. (R)" = Reference,"(C)"= Control
8-16
Growth data (dry weight and length) for L. plumulosus after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean
and SE of 5 replicates of 20 animals each at the start of the test.
Weight and length for each site are the mean of the remaining animals for
each replicate. "(R)"=Reference, (C)"= Control
8-17
Growth data (dry weight and length) for S. benedicti after 20-day exposure
to sediment. Initial weight and length represent the mean and SE of 5 replicates
of 20 animals each at the start of the test. Weight and length for each site are the
mean of the surviving animals for each replicate.
"(R)" = Reference, "(C)" = Control 8-18
Pesticide concentrations for sediment samples from the eight stations and the
controls. (Note: single underlined values exceed "Effects Range -Low",
and the double underlined values exeed "Effects Range Median" as
defined in Long et al. (1995). NL=not listed, -=below detection limit
ND= not determined, a=observed theoretical detection limit. All values
are in ug/kg dry wt 8-19
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.17 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) concentrations for sediment
samples from the eight stations and the controls. (Note: single underlined
values represent concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Low and the double
underlined values represent concentrations exceeding the "Effects Range
-Median levels listed below as defined by Long et al. (1995).
NL=Not listed; -=Below Detection Limit. All values are in ug/kg 8-20
Table 4.18 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) percentages for test and control sites. All
data are based on sediment dry weight 8-21
Table 4.19 Inorganic contaminants for sediment samples from the eight stations
and the controls. (Note: single underlined values represent concentrations
exceeding "Effects Range-Low", and double underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Median" levels listed below as
defined in Long et al 1995). NA = not available; ~ = not listed;
< = values were less than those listed 8-22
Table 4.20 Average SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment
samples tested in 1997 8-23
Table 4.21 SEM analysis for test and control sediments. Concentrations for each
metal are expressed in umol per gram of sediment dry weight.
Detection limits are averages of all sediment for each element 8-24
Table 4.22 Chemical data for pore water extracted from test and control
composite samples 8-25
Table 4.23 Reference toxicant data results from water only, reference toxicant tests
for the seventh year of the ambient toxicity project. Test duration was
96 hours for all organisms except C. variegatus which ran for 9 days.
Cadmium chloride was used for all organisms 8-26
Table 4.24 Individual metric values for South River stations. Metrics were not
calculated for the Elizabeth River, as beach seining was not conducted 8-27
Table 4.25 Fish ffil values for the South River stations, 1997 8-28
Table 4.26 Mean Fish EBI scores for South River stations, 1989 to 1997 8-28
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.27 Trawl Index score and rating for each station sampled in the South
River and Elizabeth Rivers, 1997 8-29
Table 4.28 Summer mean dissolved oxygen concentrations above and below
the pycnoline for study sites 8-30
Table 4.29 Mean Secchi depth by station. The habitat requirement for one meter
restoration of S AV in the Chesapeake Bay for mesohaline and
polyhaline habitats is 0.97 meters 8-30
Table 4.30 B-IBI values and benthic community condition at 1997 ambient
toxicity sites 8-31
Table 5.1 Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity
toxicity tests along with the fish and benthic D3I data for ambient stations tested
in 1997. A yes (Y) means some significant level of toxicity or biological
impairment was reported. A no (N) means it was not 8-32
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for reference
and test sites presented in Figures 6.1 - 6.7. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overlap are indicated by "0", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X" while -
indicates no data taken for the period 8-33
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for references and
test sites presented in Figures 6.10 - 6.16. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overlap are indicated by an "O", those for which
the confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X" while -
indicates no data taken for the period 8-35
xn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Pagg
Figure 3.1 Eight sampling locations used for the 1996 Ambient Toxicity
Program 8-37
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-38
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-39
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-3 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-40
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the
Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a
detailed description of presentation.) 8-41
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for
Baltimore Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-42
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-43
Figure 6.6 Toxicity index results for the 1996 water column data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-44
Figure 6.7 Toxicity index results for the 1997 water column data 8-45
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation)
Figure 6.8 Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1997.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
The results are for the least toxic of the sites in the data set (see
Figure 6.9 for the remainder of the ranked data).
Also shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index
values (open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references (controls). The dashed
horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit observed
for any reference during the study and is included as a general
benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided in
Table 6.1 8-46
Kill
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.9 Summary of water column toxicity index results from 1990-1997.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set.
Also shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index
values (open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant difference from the reference (controls). The dashed
horizontal line is the maximu upper confidence limit observed
for any reference during the study and is included as a general
benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided in
Table 6.1 8-47
Figure 6.10 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-48
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-49
Figure 6.12 Toxicity Index results for 1992-93 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-50
Figure 6.13a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-51
Figure 6.13b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation.) 8-52
Figure 6.14 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-53
Figure 6.15 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-54
Figure 6.16 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-55
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.17 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1997.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
The results are for the least toxic half of the sites in the data set
(see Figure 6.18 for the remainder of the ranked data).
Also shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index
values (open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references. The dashed
horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit
observed for any reference during the study and is included
as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are
provided in Table 6.2 8-56
Figure 6.18 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1997.
The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values.
The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set
(see Figure 6.17 for the remainder of the ranked data). Also shown
are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values
(open bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying significant
differences from the references. The dashed horizontal line is the
maximum upper confidence limit observed for any reference during
the study and is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the
site numbers are provided in Table 6.2 8-57
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Anthropogenic activities in the rapidly growing Chesapeake Bay watershed have prompted
concerns about the relationship between contaminants (including adverse water quality such as
reduced dissolved oxygen) and biological effects on resident aquatic biota. Information derived from
the loading of toxic chemicals and/or chemical monitoring studies (exposure data) are not adequate
for assessing the ecological effects resulting from numerous sources such as multiple point source
effluents, nonpoint source runoff from agriculture, silviculture and urban sites, atmospheric
deposition, groundwater contamination, and release of toxic chemicals from sediments. The most
realistic and ecologically relevant approach for evaluating the adverse effects of toxic conditions on
living resources is by direct measurement of biological responses in the ambient environment. For the
purposes of this report, the ambient environment is defined as aquatic areas located outside of mixing
zones of point source discharges in the Chesapeake Bay.
Various state and federal agencies have supported studies designed to address the link
between contaminants and adverse effects on living aquatic resources in the ambient environment
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These ambient toxicity tests are designed to detect toxic
conditions on a much broader scale than traditional effluent toxicity tests. These tests are considered
a first tier type approach used as a screening tool to identify areas where ambient toxicity exists and
future assessment efforts are warranted. Biological responses such as survival, growth, and
reproduction of resident species are used to identify stressful conditions in the ambient environment
resulting from point and non-point sources.
The ambient toxicity testing approach is consistent with the the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy which has a commitment to develop and implement a plan for Baywide
assessment and monitoring of the effects of toxic substances, within natural habitats, on selected
commercially, recreationally and ecologically important species of living resources (CEC, 1989). This
commitment is also consistent with the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Living Resource
Monitoring Plan (CEC, 1988).
Previous ambient toxicity assessments in the Chesapeake Bay (1990-1996) have been
completed and reports have been published (Hall et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1992; Hall et al., 1994; Hall
et al, 1996; Hall et al. 1997a; Hall et al., 1998). General conclusions to date have shown that 54%
of the time water column tests conducted at 41 stations (16 rivers and harbors with multiple years of
testing at some sites) have suggested some degree of toxicity. The most toxic sites were located in
urbanized areas such as the Elizabeth River, Baltimore Harbor, Middle River and Willoughby Bay.
Water quality criteria for copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of
these sites. Some degree of sediment toxicity was reported from 61% of the ambient tests at 41
stations conducted during the seven year period (1990 - 1996). The Elizabeth River and Baltimore
Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas based on sediment results. Sediment toxicity
guidelines (Long and Morgan, 1990; Long et al., 1995) were exceeded for one or more of the
following metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
At the Elizabeth River station, nine of sixteen semi-volatile organics and two of seven pesticides
measured exceeded the Effects Range - Median as defined by Long et al., 1995 (ER-M values).
Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor sites;
pyrene and dibenzo (a, h) anthracene were particularly high at one of the stations (Northwest
1-1
-------
Harbor).
The goals of this study were to conduct a suite of water column and sediment toxicity tests
in concert with fish and benthic community assessments (IBI type approach) at four stations in the
Elizabeth River and four stations in the South River. The fish and benthic community assessments
were new components added to the ambient toxicity testing program in 1996 and continued in 1997
to provide field data for assessing the status of biological communities at the study sites. In order to
provide limited exposure data for correlation with the toxicity data and biological assessments,
inorganic contaminants were evaluated in water and both organic and inorganic contaminants were
evaluated in sediment during these experiments.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
This ambient toxicity study was a continuation of an assessment effort previously conducted
from 1990-1996 in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The major goal of this program was to assess
and determine the toxicity of ambient water and sediment in selected areas of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed by using a battery of standardized, directly modified, or recently developed water column
and sediment toxicity tests. Biological communities (fish and benthos) were also evaluated at the
study sites.
The specific objectives of the seventh year of this study were to:
• assess the toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment during the late summer/early fall
of 1997 at the four stations in the Elizabeth River and four stations in the South River;
• determine the toxicity of ambient estuarine water described in the first objective by using the
following estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus survival and
growth test; 8-d Eurytemora affinis (copepod) life cycle test and 48-h coot clam, Mulinia
lateralis embryo-larval tests;
• evaluate the toxicity of ambient sediment described in the first objective by using the
following estuarine tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 20-d amphipod,
Lepidactylus dytiscus and Leptocheirusplwnulosus survival, growth and reburial test and 20-
d polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth test;
• measure inorganic contaminants in ambient water and organic and inorganic contaminants in
sediment concurrently with toxicity tests to determine "possible" causes of toxicity;
• determine the relative sensitivity of test species for each type of test and compare between
test methods to identify regions where ambient toxicity exists;
• summarize water column and sediment toxicity data from 1990 to 1997 using a composite
index approach for each site; and
• assess the status offish and benthic communities at the eight stations using an Index of Biotic
Integrity approach
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 Study Areas
The rationale for selecting study sites in the Elizabeth River and South River are presented
below (Figure 3-1). The Elizabeth River was selected for the following reasons: (1) previous
ambient toxicity data from this program have only been collected at one site in this "Region of
Concern" in 1990; therefore, ambient toxicity data are very limited on a spatial scale and (2) ambient
toxicity baseline data are needed for the Elizabeth River and are supported by the Elizabeth River
Project in order to measure the progress of the watershed action Plan in reducing/eliminating toxicity.
Coordinates for the four Elizabeth River stations were as follows: ER-SB (36 48 42 x 76 17 20), ER-
EB (36 50 16 x 76 14 32), ER-EL (36 50 55 x 76 17 48) and ER-WB (36 51 32 x 76 20 25) (Figure
3-1).
The South River was selected for the following reasons: (1) this ecologically important river
has not been sampled during previous ambient toxicity sampling efforts and (2) data collected by
Maryland Department of Natural Resouces suggest that stressful conditions (sedimentation and/or
contaminants) may exist for fish communities due to urban development ( Margaret McGinty,
personal communication). Coordinates for the four South River stations were as follows: SR-1 (38
58 07 x 76 35 59), SR-2 (38 56 52 x 76 34 22), SR-3 (38 55 43 x 76 31 31) and SR-4 (38 54 42 x
76 29 35) (Figure 3-1).
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The objectives of the water column toxicity tests were to determine the toxicity of ambient
water at the eight stations described above. The following tests were conducted at these stations
during the late summer/early fall of 1997: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test;
8-d E. affinis life cycle test and two 48-h coot clam embryo/larval tests. A suite of metals was also
measured in ambient water used for these tests.
3.2.1 Test species
Larval sheepshead minnows and the copepod E. affinis have been used in the previous six
years of ambient toxicity testing. These test species were selected because they meet most of the
following criteria: (1) resident Chesapeake Bay species, (2) sensitive to contaminants in short time
period (less than 10 d) and (3) standard test organism that does not require additional research.
Larval sheepshead minnows are highly abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay organisms used
extensively in standard tests. Sheepshead minnows have demonstrated moderate sensitivity in
subchronic tests and are commonly used in EPA's and MDE's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
Program. E. affinis is an extremely abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay zooplankton species that is
sensitive to contaminants. We previously developed a Standard Operating Procedure for this species
that was used for these tests (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994).
The coot clam, M. lateralis, was a new species added to the suite of test organisms during
the third year of ambient toxicity testing. This clam is a small (< 2 cm length) euryhaline bivalve. It
is a numerically dominant species in the mesohaline areas of the Chesapeake Bay as well as numerous
tributaries (Shaughnessy et al., 1990). Embryo/larval development occurs in the water column in
approximately 6-8 days. It is, therefore, suitable for water column testing because the sensitive life
3-1
-------
stage occurs in the water column. The coot clam adds another dimension to the suite of test
organisms because it represents a type of species (bivalves) not represented during the first two years
of testing. This clam is not a standard test organism, however, the U.S. EPA has written a draft test
method for estimating toxicity of effluents using Mulinia (Morrison and Petrocelli, 1990a; 1990b).
We also developed a Standard Operating Procedure for testing Mulinia (Hall and Ziegenfuss, 1993).
3.2.2 Test Procedures
Test procedures and culture methods previously described in the year 1 report for the 8-d
larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test and 8-d E. affinis life cycle test were used for this
study (Hall et al., 1991). The test procedures for the coot clam described in the year 3 report were
also used for these experiments (Hall et al. 1994). The sources for the species were as follows:
sheepshead minnows, Aquatic Biosystems, Denver, Colorado; E. qffjnis, in-house cultures (orginally
from University of Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory) and coot clams (U. S. EPA
Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island).
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Univariate statistical tests described in Fisher et al. (1988) were used for each test species
when appropriate. The goal of this study was not to generate typical LC50 data with various
dilutions of ambient water. For each test species response, control and test conditions (100 percent
ambient water) were compared using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). A statistical
difference between the response of a species exposed to a control condition and an ambient condition
was used to determine toxicity. Dunnett's (parametric) or Dunn's (non-parametric) mean testing
procedures were used in cases where comparisons of a species response on a spatial scale was
necessary.
3.2.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the previous studies were
implemented (Hall et al., 1991). Ambient water was collected from all study areas and taken to our
toxicity testing facility at the Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, Maryland for testing.
Grab samples were used because they are easier to collect, require minimum equipment (no
composite samplers), instantaneous toxicity is evaluated, and toxicity spikes are not masked by
dilution. Grab samples collected from each station represented a composite of the water column (top,
mid-depth and bottom). A metering pump with teflon line was used to collect samples in 13.25 L
glass containers.
The time lapsed from the collection of a grab sample and the initiation of the test or renewal
did not exceed 72 hours. Water column samples were collected on days 0, 3 and 6 during the 8 day
tests. All samples were chilled after collection and maintained at 4°C until used. Water from each
ambient site and control was renewed in test containers every 24 hours. The temperature of the
ambient water used for testing was 25°C. Salinity adjustments (increase) were performed on samples
collected from less saline sites to obtain a standard test salinity of approximately 15 ppt.
3.2.5 Quality Assurance
A copy of our general Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual (including the
sheepshead minnow SOP) was submitted and approved by the sponsor prior to the study (Fisher et
3-2
-------
al., 1988). Standard Quality Assurance (QA) procedures used in our laboratory for The State of
Maryland's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program were followed (Fisher et al., 1988). These QA
procedures were also used during the previous six years of ambient toxicity testing study. Specific
SOPs for E. affinis (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994) andM laterally (Hall and Ziegenfuss, 1993) were
followed. The control water used for these experiments was obtained from a pristine area of the
Choptank River. The water was autoclaved and filtered with a 1 um filter. Hawaiian (HW) Marine
sea salts were used to salinity adjust samples to 15 ppt. The pH was also adjusted to 7.5 to 8.0 after
salinity adjustment.
Acute reference toxicant tests with cadmium chloride were conducted with the same stocks
of species used for ambient toxicity tests. Cadmium chloride was selected as the reference toxicant
because there is an established data base with this chemical for all of the proposed tests. Reference
toxicity tests were used to establish the validity of ambient toxicity data generated from toxicity tests
by ensuring that the test species showed the expected toxic response to cadmium chloride (Fisher et
al., 1988). The reference toxicant tests were conducted on each test species and source (of species)
once during this study using procedures described in Hall et al. (1991).
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
The contaminant analyses used for these studies provided limited information on selected
contaminants that may be present in the study areas. It was not our intention to suggest that the
proposed analysis for inorganic contaminants would provide an absolute "cause and effect
relationship" between contaminants and biological effects if effects were reported. Information on
suspected contaminants in the study areas may, however, provide valuable insights if high potentially
toxic concentrations of inorganic contaminants were reported in conjunction with biological effects.
Aqueous samples for analysis of inorganic contaminants listed in Table 3.1 were collected
during the ambient toxicity tests. These contaminants and methods for their measurement have been
used in our previous ambient toxicity testing study (Hall et al., 1991). Analytical procedures and
references for analysis of these samples are presented in Table 3.1. Total inorganic contaminant
analysis (dissolved metals) were conducted on filtered samples using 0.40 um polycarbonate
membranes. All samples were preserved with ultrex grade nitric acid. The Applied Marine Research
Laboratory of Old Dominion University conducted the inorganic analysis.
Standard water quality conditions of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and
conductivity were evaluated at each site after sample collection. These conditions were evaluated
every 24 hours at all test conditions during the tests.
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests
All tests and analyses were conducted according to the SOPs and QA plans previously
submitted to the sponsor. The methods described in this report are general summaries of those
protocols.
3.3.1 Test Species
Four animals were used to assess the potential toxicity of estuarine sediments: eggs of the
sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus); two amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus and
Leptocheirus plumulosus); and a polychaete worm (Streblospio benedicti).
3-3
-------
3.3.2 Test Procedures
All tests, with the exception of the C. variegatus egg test, were conducted for 10 days at 25°C
and monitored daily. Daily monitoring of the sheepshead egg test included an assessment of egg and
larval mortality, hatching success, and water quality parameters (Hall et al., 1991). The monitoring
continued until the test was terminated, at either two days following hatching of all control eggs or
at 10 days, whichever occurred first. On day 10 of the S. benedicti, L. dytiscus and L. plumulosus
tests, all replicate vessels were sieved to remove test animals from the sediment. Surviving animals
were counted, returned to the original test containers, and monitored daily for an additional 10 days.
At day 20, all site replicates were sieved once more to obtain counts of surviving animals. Survivors
were preserved to facilitate collection of length and weight measurements.
Test sediment samples were collected from four sites in the Elizabeth River, Virginia (ER-SB,
ER-EB, ER-WB, and ER-EL) and four sites in the South River, Maryland (SRI, SR2, SR3, and
SR4). Control sediments for each tested species consisted of native sediments in which the test
organisms were cultured or from which they were collected. The animals were placed in species-
specific control sediments to compare their responses to those of animals exposed to sediments from
the test sites.
Reference sediments were used to control for potential mortality occurring as a result of non-
toxic geochemical and physical characteristics of the sediment. These include Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) and particle size composition. Because of the large range in particle size distributions
observed both within and between test sites in past studies, two reference sediments were used with
each organism. These were selected to bracket the sediment particle sizes found at the test sites; i.e.,
one reference sediment had a higher percentage of sand than the most sandy test site, and one
reference sediment had a lower percentage of sand than the least sandy test site. Sites selected for
reference and/or control sediments were Lynnhaven sand, Lynnhaven mud, and Poropatank mud.
Lynnhaven mud was used as the control sediment for C. variegalus eggs and S. benedicti,
Lynnhaven sand was used as the control for L. dytiscus, and Poropatank sediment was used as the
control for L. plumulosus. Lynnhaven sand (99.3% sand) and Poropotank sediment (2.27% sand)
bracketed the particle size profile of all test samples, and were suitable for reference sediments as
well. Particle size analyses were performed on each of the 5 field replicates from all test sites to
determine sand, silt, and clay content.
Culture and maintenance procedures used for S. benedicti and L. dytiscus are as described in
Hall et al. (1991). Culture, maintenance, and test procedures for C. variegatus eggs and L.
plumulosus are described in Hall et al. (1993).
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data
The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential toxicity of ambient sediments by
comparing all test endpoints of each species to the endpoints observed in control sediments. This
approach is essentially similar to that used in the previous six years of the study (Hall et al., 1992).
Statistical differences between the endpoints for each species in control versus ambient sediments
were evaluated via ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). A priori tests of each endpoint in a given
treatment were contrasted to control responses to discern which sediments differed from control
endpoints. Mortality data were arcsine transformed prior to statistical analyses. Length and weight
were expressed as percentage of change from the mean initial length and weight measurements of
each test animal. Evaluation of total mortality for C. variegatus eggs was computed by adding egg
3-4
-------
mortality, larval mortality, and unhatched eggs remaining at the termination of the test. Unhatched
eggs were included in the total mortality variable, because previous observations revealed the
probability of hatching (and thus survival) decreases essentially to zero by test termination. Toxicity
was inferred in test sediments with endpoints that were significantly lower than those observed for
control sediments.
3.3.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
General sediment collection, handling, and storage procedures described in Hall etal. (1991)
were used in this study. Samples were collected at each site by Applied Marine Research Laboratory
(AMRL) and University of Maryland personnel and returned to the laboratory for testing. Sediments
were collected September 24-25, 1997, by petite ponar grab. True field replicates were maintained
separately and transported to the laboratory. Sediment was collected at each station by first randomly
identifying 5 grab sample locations within a 100 meter square grid. At each location a discrete field
replicate was collected for bioassays and stored on ice, while a separate subset from the same ponar
grab was placed into a handling container. Subsamples from all 5 random grab locations within the
station were placed into the handling container, homogenized, and distributed into sample containers
designated for chemical analyses. All samples were transported on ice in coolers, out of direct
sunlight. Bioassay samples were held in refrigerators at 4°C until initiation of the toxicity tests.
Samples for chemical analysis were stored as required for all analyses.
3.3.5 Quality Assurance
All quality assurance procedures were submitted previously to the sponsoring agency, and
were implemented during sediment collection and analysis. Toxicity test control and reference
sediments were used as described in Section 3.3.2. Laboratory quality assurance procedures for
organic and inorganic chemical analyses, and for sediment pore water analyses, followed USEPA
Standard Quality Assurance Guidelines.
Static acute non-renewal, water-only reference toxicant tests were performed for each species
used for sediment toxicity testing. Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant because there
is an established data base for this chemical for all species used. Reference toxicant information was
used to verify the health and sensitivity of the test animals.
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations
Contaminants were evaluated concurrently with toxicity tests. Quantification of suspected
contaminants provides valuable insights if high concentrations of potentially toxic contaminants are
observed in conjunction with biological effects.
Sediment sample collection for organic and inorganic contaminants analysis is described in
Section 3.3.4. Organic and inorganic contaminant analytical and quality control results are listed in
Appendix A. PAHs were extracted and analyzed in accordance with SW-846 Methods 3550, 3640,
and 8270 (USEPA, 1994). Pesticides and Aroclors were extracted and analyzed in accordance with
SW-846 Methods 3350, 3640, and 8081 (USEPA, 1994).
Sediment samples were also analyzed for acid volatile sulfides (AVS), Total Organic Carbon
(TOC), ammonia, nitrite, and sulfides occurring in sediment pore water. Samples analyzed for TOC
were frozen until analysis, at which time they were thawed, then homogenized by gently stirring.
Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS using the method of DiToro et al., (1990). Details of the
3-5
-------
analytical procedures for both AVS and TOC are described in Hall et al. (1991). Pore water samples
were extracted from sediment using a nitrogen press. All pore water samples were filtered and frozen
until analyses were conducted. Details of the methods are described in Hall et al. (1991).
Bulk metals analyses were performed for all samples. Sediments were digested according to
Method 3050 in EPA/SW-846. Mercury was digested and analyzed according to Method 245.1 and
tin was analyzed according to Method 282.2 in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(USEPA-600/4-79-020). Arsenic and selenium were analyzed in accordance with APHA (1995),
using a modification of Method 3114B. Aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc were analyzed according to EPA/SW-846. Sediments were also analyzed for Simultaneously
Extractable Metals (SEM). The sample for the SEM analysis was obtained from the AVS procedure
mentioned above. The SEM sample was the sediment suspension remaining in the generation flask
after the cold acid extraction had been completed. The sediment suspension was filtered through a
0.2 micron membrane filter into a 250 ml volumetric flask, and was then diluted to volume with
deionized water. The concentrations of the SEMs were determined by the same analytical methods
as bulk metals. The concentrations were then converted to micro moles per gram dry sediment and
summed to yield total SEM. SEM results were used in conjunction with the AVS data to estimate
the potential toxicity of the sediment due to metals.
3.4 Analysis of Seven Year Data Base
A series of summary statistical analyses were conducted in order to provide environmental
managers with summary information concerning the relative toxicity of water and sediments from the
collection areas. These analyses also provide quantitative indicators of the degree of confidence
which may be given to differences between responses observed for "clean" ("reference") conditions
and those seen for test media (water or sediments) of unknown quality. These analyses are based
upon the summary composite indices first developed for the toxicity axis of the "sediment quality
triad" (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman, 1986; Chapman et al. 1987 and Chapman 1990). This
approach has been modified to provide confidence limits on composite indices designated as "ratio-to-
reference mean" (RTRM) indices (Alden, 1992). Details of the calculation of the RTRM indices for
the Ambient Toxicity Program are presented in the Year 3 report (Hall et al., 1994).
In order to make the RTRM indices more meaningful to managers, a method was developed
to scale the values, so that they range between a "best case" (uncontaminated) condition, represented
by a score of 0 and a "worst case" (highly contaminated and toxic) condition, represented by a score
of 100. A value of 0 would represent the median response of a reference test of uncontaminated water
or sediment, while a value of 100 would represent a condition producing the maximum detrimental
responses in all of the endpoints (e.g. no growth, reproduction, or survival of all test populations).
Not only does this sort of scaling provide a "frame of reference" to address the question of "how bad
is this site?", but it allows scores of RTRM indices from different years (which may have had different
numbers of endpoints) to be evaluated on the same scale. This well-defined scaling system is much
more readily interpreted than the sediment quality triad RTR values or the RTRM indices, which have
a reference value of 1, but have an open-ended scale for toxic conditions, the maximum value of
which depends upon the number of endpoints, the magnitude of the test responses, and the reference
response values used in the calculations.
The scaled RTRM index, hereafter designated as "toxicity index" or TOX-INDEX, was
calculated as follows. The RTRM values and confidence limits were calculated as in previous years
3-6
-------
(Hall et al., 1994). The reference median for any given site was subtracted from all reference and test
values (medians, lower and upper confidence limits). This step scales the reference median to 0. The
values are then divided by a "worst case" constant for each test data set. This "worst case" constant
is calculated by taking the test data set and setting the values to the maximum detrimental responses
for each endpoint (e.g. no survival, growth, reproduction, hatching of eggs, etc.), calculating the
RTRM values for these "worst case" conditions by dividing by the appropriate reference means
(i.e.,for the sediment data set, each sample was matched to the reference data set that most closely
matched the sediment characteristics) and calculating the "worst case" constant as the mean of
RTRM values for all endpoints. The division by the "worst case" constant makes all values (medians
and confidence limits) a fraction of the "worst case" condition. The TOX-INDEX values are
converted to a percentage scale by multiplying by 100. The TOX-INDEX medians and confidence
limits for test and reference conditions of each site are plotted on maps of the Bay to indicate the
relative toxicity of various geographic locations. For graphical purposes, the lower confidence limits
of the reference data are not shown, unless the test confidence limits overlap those of the reference
conditions (i.e. a portion of the confidence limits for both the test and reference conditions are less
than zero).
In order to provide more information to the TOX-INDEX maps, pie charts are included to
indicate the relative percentage of endpoints that were shown to be different between the test and
reference data sets in the RTRM simulations. Therefore, a highly toxic site would not only be shown
to have high TOX-INDEX values which display a low degree of uncertainty (i.e., to have narrow
confidence bands that are well separated from reference conditions), but it would also be shown to
have a high percentage of endpoints that were adversely affected by the toxic conditions.
This type of presentation should provide managers with a tool to evaluate the relative
ecological risk of the sites in comparison to each other and aid in targeting mitigation efforts on a
spatial scale. A site with TOX-INDEX confidence limits that overlap those of a reference site, and
which displays few statistically significant endpoints, would be expected to pose little ecological risk
with respect to ambient toxicity. On the other hand, a site displaying a large TOX-INDEX value,
with confidence limits that are well separated for the reference condition and with many significantly
impacted endpoints would be expected to pose a much greater ecological risk. The ecological
significance of toxicity at sites with intermediate TOX-INDEX scores would have to be interpreted
through the best professional judgement of scientists and managers, although the relative magnitude
of the values does provide information on the relative degree of toxicity with respect to other sites.
Although absolute ecological risk assessments would require much more intensive biological
evaluations of long-term population and community level effects, TOX-INDEX provides a screening
system that indicates the relative ranking by which regions can be prioritized for management actions
related to toxicity. Thus, the maps provide quantitative indications of the magnitude, certainty and
consistency of toxic effects.
The site location symbols in the TOX-INDEX maps indicate the degree to which water or
sediment benchmarks (water quality criteria or ER-M values, respectively) were exceeded. Thus, the
maps also display the qualitative degree of chemical contamination.
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
3.5.1 Data Collection
3-7
-------
All sites were sampled monthly for fish assemblages during the summer index period (July,
August, and September, 1997). This period reflects the time of greatest fish species diversity and
abundance in the Chesapeake Bay due to the function of the estuary as a spawning and nursery habitat
for anadromous, marine, and estuarine resident species.
Sites on the South River were sampled inshore using a 30.5 m x 1.2m beach seine with 6.4
mm mesh. The seine was pulled with the tide employing the quarter sweep method. Two seine hauls
were conducted per site with a 30 minute interval between each haul to allow for repopulation of the
seine area. Fish from the first seine haul were held and released after completion of the second seine
haul. Seine data were not collected from Elizabeth River. Several sites were deemed sampleable,
however, macroalgae (Ulva latucd) abundance precluded efficient sampling.
In the channel adjacent to the seining areas, fish were sampled using a 3.1 m otter or box trawl
with 12.8 mm stretch mesh and 50.8 cm by 25.4 cm doors. All sites on both the South River and the
Elizabeth River were sampled with a single trawl tow pulled with the tide at two knots for five
minute.
All fish captured in the seine and trawl were identified to species, counted, and minimum and
maximum length recorded for each species. Age of game and commercial species was also recorded.
Scales were collected for fish when age determination could not be made in the field. When field
identification was not possible, specimens were retained for later laboratory evaluation.
Water quality parameters were sampled using a Hydrolab H20. Water temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and salinity were measured at bottom, mid-water and surface depth
profiles near the trawl area for each site. Water clarity was measured with a Secchi disc. Detailed
sampling methods are described in Carmichael et al., 1992a.
Fish catch data and water quality data were recorded in the field on standardized data sheets.
All data sheets were verified prior to leaving the sampling site. Data sheets were again proofed in the
laboratory for errors and omissions. Data were keypunched into ASCII files, then compared to the
original field sheets to locate any data entry errors. Corrected data files were then converted to PC-
SAS data sets. Data were proofed again using a computerized quality control program designed for
the project. Finalized data sets were created for analysis and computation of IB I metrics.
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity (TBI) Calculations
Data for each site were summed for the entire summer season. Data were prepared using a
program which assigns spawning location, feeding strategy, and area of residence (freshwater,
estuarine or marine species) for each species (Table 3.2). These assignments were made based on the
adult life stages of each species.
Nine metrics were used to calculate the EBI score by site. The metrics were divided into three
categories: Richness Measures - total number of species, number of species caught in bottom trawl,
number of species comprising 90% of the catch; Abundance Measures - number of anadromous fish,
number of estuarine fish, total number of fish with menhaden removed; Trophic Measures -
proportion of planktivores, proportion of carnivores, proportion of benthivores. Abundance and
proportion metrics were then normally transformed and ranked into thirds and assigned a value of 5,
3, or 1. All metrics in the upper third were given a five; middle third a three; and lower third a 1.
Planktivores were ranked in reverse because increasing trends in abundance are quantitatively
associated with increases in pollutant loadings (Vaas and Jordan, 1990). The individual ranks were
then summed to give a total for each site. This total represents the IBI score. A more detailed
3-8
-------
description is presented in Carmichael et al., 1992b.
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions
Reference IBI conditions were established based on examining numerous years of existing
data for the Wicomico River. The 95% confidence intervals about the mean IBI score for the
Wicomico River were calculated. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (IBI score of 31)
was identified as the cut off point for reference systems (any value below this is not meeting the
reference standard).
3.5.4 Trawl Index
A trawl index was calculated for each station. The index was derived by calculating the mean
rank of the monthly bottom trawl richness measures for each station. The mean ranks were then
assigned a narrative rating of good (mean rank greater than 1.33), fair (mean rank between 0.67 and
1.33 ), and poor (mean rank less than 0.67).
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
3.6.1 Data Collection
Benthic samples for the Ambient Toxicity study were collected at the eight sites during the
summer of 1997. Surface and bottom water temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen
concentration (DO), and pH were measured at each site. Three biological samples were collected at
each site using a Young Grab which samples an area of 440 cm2 to a depth of 10 cm. The samples
were seived through a 0.5 mm screen using an elutriative process. Organisms retained on the screen
were transferred to labeled jars and preserved in 10% buffered formalin stained with rose bengal ( a
vital stain used to aid separation of organisms from sediment and detritus).
Two sub-samples containing approximately 120 ml of surface-sediment were collected for
grain-size and carbon analysis from an additional grab sample at each site. They were frozen until
processed in the laboratory.
3.6.2 Laboratory Processing
Organisms were sorted from detritus under dissecting microscopes, identified to the lowest
practical taxonomic level, and counted. Oligochaetes and chironomids were mounted on slides,
examined under a compound microscope, and identified to genus and species. Ash-free dry weight
biomass was measured for each species by drying the organisms to a constant weight at 60 °C
followed by ashing in a muffle furnace at 500 °C for four hours.
Silt-clay composition was determined for one of the two sediment sub-samples collected at
each sampling site. The other sample was archived for quality assurance purposes (Scott et al. 1988).
Sand and silt-clay particles were separated by wet-sieving through a 63// stainless steel sieve and
weighed using the procedures described by Plumb (1981) and Buchanan (1984).
3.6.3 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations
Analyses were performed in the context of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benthic
Community Restoration Goals which use the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-EBI) to measure
goal attainment. The B-EBI and the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Community Restoration Goals are
described below.
3-9
-------
The B-IBI is a multiple-attribute index developed to identify the degree to which a benthic
assemblage meets the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benthic Community Restoration Goals (Ranasinghe
et al. 1994, updated by Weisberg et al. 1997). The B-IBI provides a means for comparing the relative
condition of benthic invertebrate assemblages across different habitats. It also provides a validated
mechanism for integrating several benthic community attributes indicative of "health" into a single
number that measures overall benthic community condition.
The B-IBI is scaled from 1 to 5, and sites with values of 3 or more are considered to meet
the Restoration Goals. The index is calculated by scoring each of several attributes as either 5, 3, or
1 depending on whether the value of the attribute approximates, deviates slightly from, or deviates
strongly from values at the best reference sites in similar habitats, and then averaging these scores
across attributes. The criteria for assigning these scores are numeric and habitat-dependant.
Benthic community condition was classified into three levels based on the B-IBI. Values less
than or equal to 2 were classified as severely degraded; values from 2 to less than 3.0 were classified
as degraded; and values of 3.0 or more were classified as meeting the goal.
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
4.1 Water Column Tests
The following results from water column tests are presented below: toxicity data,
contaminants data, water quality data and toxicity data from reference toxicant tests.
4.1.1 ToxicitvData
Survival, growth, reproduction and percent normal shell development from the three estuarine
tests conducted from 10/1/97 to 10/09/97 are presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Based on univariate
analysis, survival of Eurytemora was significantly reduced at two of the South River stations (SR-3
and SR-4) but not at the other six stations (Tables 4.1). Reproduction and maturation of Eurytemora
was not significantly reduced at any of the stations (Table 4.4). Sheepshead minnow survival and dry
weight was not reduced at any of the stations (Table 4.1 and 4.2). The percent normal development
for the coot clam was also not reduced at any of the stations (Table 4.3).
4.1.2 Contaminants Data
Inorganic contaminants data from the eight stations are presented in Table 4.5. Metals
concentrations were generally higher in the South River than the Elizabeth River. Mercury
concentrations of 0.47 ug/L exceeded the marine chronic criteria of 0.025 ug/L at SR-1. Chromium
concentrations of 6.18 ug/L at SR-1 were also higher than ambient concentrations but less than the
marine chronic criteria. Nickel concentrations of 13.8 ug/L exceeded the marine chronic criteria of
8.3 ug/L at SR-2. Chromium concentrations of 45.7 ug/L were also above expected background
concentrations and only slightly less than the criteria of 50 ug/L. Copper concentrations of 3.3 ug/L
at SR-4 exceeded the EPA marine chronic criteria of 2.9 ug/L but were less than Maryland's estuarine
criteria of 6.1 ug/L. Copper concentrations of 3.4 ug/L at the Elizabeth River South Branch site (SB)
were slightly higher than the EPA marine chronic criteria but lower than Maryland's estuarine criteria.
Somewhat elevated concentrations of chromium (12.8 ug/L) were also reported at SB. Metals
concentrations were generally low at the Elizabeth River East Branch (EB) and mainstem sites (EL).
Copper concentrations of 3.1 ug/L at the Elizabeth River West Branch (WB) were only slightly
higher than the EPA marine chronic criteria.
4.1.3 Water Quality Data
Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected three times at all stations are
presented in Table 4.6. These ambient water quality conditions appeared adequate for survival of
test species. Water quality conditions reported in test containers during testing are reported in
Appendix B. All of these parameters also appeared adequate for survival of test species.
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data
Forty-eight hour LC or EC50 values for the three test species exposed to cadmium chloride
during reference toxicant tests are presented in Table 4.7. These toxicity values were compared with
the values from the previous six years for all species except the coot clam, where four years of data
were available. The sheepshead minnow LC50 of 1.34 mg/L is within the range reported for the first
six years (0.51 to 2.3 mg/L). The LC50 for Eurytemora (0.261 mg/L) is slightly higher than the
highest value reported during the previous six years but this value is still within an acceptable range
(within a factor of 1.5). The EC50 for the Coot clam (0.082 mg/L) is similar to the highest value of
4-1
-------
0.069 mg/L reported from year 5. The reference toxicant data in Table 4.7 demonstrates that the test
species from the various sources are healthy and the ambient toxicity data were valid.
4.2 Sediment Tests
Results from sediment analyses include toxicity data, sediment chemistry data, and results
of reference toxicant tests.
4.2.1 Toxicitv Data
Survival data from sediment toxicity tests are presented in Tables 4.8 through 4.11. For
species in which survival is affected by the percent of sand, silt, and clay in the sediment, predicted
mortalities were adjusted using the results of particle size analyses performed on all replicates for each
test site. There was substantial variation in particle size/composition between replicates of test sites,
and between test sites (Table 4.12). For the 20-day tests, mean control survival for all species at
day 10 was greater than 90%, and greater than 83% at day 20, except for Leptocheirusplumulosus,
which was 49% at day 20. It is unlikely that this is a result of test animal fitness, since survival was
>96% at day 10 for more than half the sediments tested. Additionally, survival at 20 days was 83%
in sediment from SR4, suggesting that animal health at test initiation was not the cause of the control
mortalities. Overall mean survival for the C. variegatns egg test was 90% in control sediment
(Lynnhaven mud).
The only C. variegatus egg survival endpoints that differed from controls were observed in
sediment from SRI, which exhibited reduced overall survival (70%), and elevated percentage of dead
eggs (26%). Particle size adjusted L. dytiscus survival was significantly different from controls at
days 10 and 20 in SRI and SR2 South River sediments, and also in SB, EB, and EL Elizabeth River
sediments. Leptocheirus plumulosus survival was not significantly different from control sediment
in any of the test or reference sediments at day 10, but survival was significantly different from
controls at day 20 in sediment from Elizabeth River stations SB, EL, and WB. Particle size adjusted
S. benedicti survival was significantly different from control survival on day 10 in sediment from site
WB, and from control survival at day 20 in sediment from SRI and WB.
Results of growth analyses for the amphipods (L dytiscus and L plumulosus) and S.
benedicti are presented in Tables 4.13-4.15. Analysis of Z. dytiscus and L. plumulosus growth data
indicated no significant differences in weight or length for any test sediments when compared to
controls. S. benedicti lengths were significantly different from controls in sediment from all sites
except SR3, SB, and Poropotank Mud. S. benedicti weight differed significantly from controls in all
sediments except Poropotank Mud.
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data
Several pesticides were detected in all sediments, including reference and control sediments
(Table 4.16). Chlordane and endrin aldehyde were detected in all sediments, with the highest
concentrations detected in sediment from the Elizabeth River (site EL), which had concentrations
of 19.7 and 55.6 ug/kg dry weight, of chlordane and endrin aldehyde, respectively. Chlordane
concentrations were lowest in sediment from South River station SR4 (3.5 ug/kg dry wt.), while
endrin aldehyde was lowest in Lynnhaven Sand (6.9 ug/kg dry wt.). Mean concentrations of
chlordane were slightly higher at the Elizabeth River stations (mean concentration of 14.0 ug/kg dry
wt.) than in the South River stations (mean concentration of 10.5 jig/kg dry wt.); however, chlordane
concentrations at all test sites were comparable to that of the Poropotank River control sediment
(17.2 ug/kg dry wt.). Total DDT was detected in excess of the ER-L value at stations SRI and SR4
4-2
-------
m the South River (17.8 and 4.3 ug/kg dry wt, respectively) and at stations EB and WB in the
Elizabeth River (24.3 and 3.1 ug/kg dry wt., respectively). At stations SRI, SR4, and WB, DDE was
the only DDT congener detected, whereas at station EB, ODD was the only congener.
The test site with the greatest number of different pesticides detected was WB. At this site
lindane, delta-BHC, heptachlor epoxide, chlordane, endosulfan II, endrin aldehyde endosulfan
sulfate, and 4,4'- DDE were all detected (Table 4.16). The test site with the least apparent pesticide
contamination was EL; only heptachlor, chlordane and endrin aldehyde were detected at this site
A comparison among control sites showed that the greatest number of pesticides were detected in
Poropotank River sediment. The pesticides detected were beta-BHC (8.6 ug/kg dry wt.), delta-BHC
(18.5 ug/kg dry wt.), dieldrin (10.6 ug/kg dry wt.), chlordane (17.2 ug/kg dry wt.),' and endrin
aldehyde (19.2 ug/kg dry wt.). The control site with fewest pesticides was Lynnhaven Sand, with
only chlordane and endrin aldehyde detected (7.6 and 6.9 ug/kg dry wt., respectively).
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in all samples (Table 4.17). The
greatest number and concentrations of PAHs were observed for Elizabeth River stations (Table 4.17)
At site EL, the ER-M concentration was exceeded by acenaphthylene, phenanthrene, pyrene benzo
(a) anthracene, chrysene, and benzo (a) pyrene. The [£PAH] at EL of 83,107 ug/kg dry wt was
nearly twice the ER-M concentration. The WB site was the only Elizabeth River Station that did not
exceed an ER-L for any PAH. South River sites had fewer numbers and lower concentrations of
PAHs detected. Fluoranthene at Site SR2 (852 ug/kg dry wt.) was the only PAH exceeding the ER-
L for all South River sites. SRI had the fewest numbers and lowest concentrations of PAHs for all
South River test sites. The only control sediment to exceed an ER-L for PAHs was Lynnhaven Mud
with a fluoranthene concentration of 614 ug/kg dry wt. Fluoranthene was the only PAH detected in
Poropotank sediment and was present at a concentration of 118 ug/kg dry wt. Fluoranthene was
detected at all sites except for SB, EL, and WB in the Elizabeth River.
The toxicity of non-ionic organic chemicals presented above is related to the organic content
of the sediment. At present there is no readily accessible data base for comparison of TOC normalized
data, therefore the TOC analysis from this study was included for future comparisons TOC analysis
results are listed in Table 4.18. Percentage TOC (by dry wt.) ranged from 0.07% for Lynnhaven
Sand to 4.6% for Poropotank Mud. TOC values varied the most in South River sediments from
0.52% at SR4 to 4.3% at SR2. TOC values among the Elizabeth River sites were relatively
consistent, and ranged from 1.7% at WB to 4.0 at EB.
Inorganic analysis results for bulk metals are listed in Table 4.19. Sediments from all test sites
exceed ER-L values for at least one metal. South River sites had slightly more metals exceeding ER-
L concentrations than those observed in Elizabeth River sites. The Ni concentration observed for
SR4 sediment (62.2 ug/g dry wt.) exceeded the ER-M. Site EL in the Elizabeth River had a Hg
concentration of 0.961 u_g/g dry wt., which also exceeded the ER-M. Arsenic exceeded the ER-L
at all sites with the exception of SR4, Lynnhaven Sand, and Lynnhaven Mud. Poropotank sediment
had As and Pb concentrations of 15.14 and 55.4 Mg/g dry wt., respectively, and were the only two
metals to exceed ER-L values for any control site.
The results of SEM/AVS analyses are listed in Table 4.20, and include the SEM/AVS ratio
used to predict metal bioavailability in sediments. If the ratio is greater than one then toxicity is
predicted. It should also be noted that if the total concentration of metals is very low then toxic
effects may not be observed. If the SEM/AVS ratio is less than one it is assumed that toxic effects
may not be observed as lower ratios are associated with reduced metal bioavailability. Ratios ranged
from 0.019 for Lynnhaven sand to 2.136 for site EB in the Elizabeth River. Three stations in the
Elizabeth River had SEM/AVS ratios greater than one thus suggesting potential metal toxicity (SB
4-3
-------
EB, and WB). SEM concentrations are given in Table 4.21. The mean sum of all SEM values were
generally higher for the Elizabeth River Stations that the South River stations
Sediment pore water was analyzed for naturally occurring toxicants such as ammonia nitrate
and sulfide at all stations and the controls (Table 4.22). Ranges for the various parameters were-
ammonia (2.96 to 21.73 mg/L), nitrite (0.0005 to 0.0309 mg/L) and sulfide (0.009 mg/L to 0 2676
mg/L). Ammonia concentrations were converted to percent unionized ammonia (toxic form) with
values ranging from 0.12 to 0.84 mg/L. Unionized ammonia concentration were generally higher in
the South River than the Elizabeth River.
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data
The relative sensitivities of each set of test organisms was evaluated by using cadmium
chloride reference toxicant tests (Table 4.23). All test LCSOs were within the ranges of previous
tests. The data suggest that the test organisms were healthy and the test results were valid.
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
4.3.1 Fish Community
A summary of the fish data for all sites on the South River (using seine and trawl data)
showed that 3361 individuals representing 24 species were captured. Atlantic menhaden Atlantic
silverside and Bay anchovy were the most dominant species, representing 77% of the total catch
(Appendix C). Data from the Elizabeth River (trawl only) sites showed that 291 individuals
representing 7 species were captured. Atlantic croaker, Bay anchovy and Weakfish were the most
dominant species, representing 96% of the catch (Appendix C).
Individual metric values for all South River stations are presented in Table 4 24 Station SR-2
showed a significantly lower total abundance in comparison to SR-1, SR-3, and SR-4 Total number
of species captured per station in the South River was somewhat similar ranging from 12 to 17 with
the highest number of species captured at station SR-3. Species richness measures (number of species
composing 90% of catch) were moderately variable ranging from 2 at station SR-4 to 7 at station SR-
2. The number of species captured in the bottom trawl were comparable at all South River stations
except SR-2, where only 1 species was captured. Trophic measures showed the proportion of
planktivores at all South River stations to be clearly dominant over carnivores and benthivores
Flsh ffil scores for the South Rtor were 29 for sites 1 and 2, 39 at site 3, and 27 at site 4
(Table 4.25). Compared to the reference conditions, site 3 is the only site to meet the reference
standard of 3 lor better. Table 4.26 shows the mean IBI scores for all sites from 1989 to 1997 The
mean scores show a slight improvement in scores along the downstream gradient
The trawl index scores in Table 4.27 displays the trawl index scores for both river systems
The South River scores ranged from 0.33 (poor) to 1.33 (fair). The upstream sites (1 and 2) scored
poor and the lower sites (3 and 4) scored fair. The Elizabeth River scores ranged from 0 33 (poor)
to 2.00 (good). The South and West branches were classified as poor, the maintem as fair and the
hast Branch as good. '
4.3.2 Water Duality
Summer mean dissolved oxygen concentrations at all stations on the Elizabeth River met the
requirements recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. Only two out of four stations on the South River met these requirements Mean
dissolved oxygen values were greater than 5.0 mg/L above the pycnocline and greater than 3 0 mg/L
4-4
-------
below the pycnocline at all stations except SR-1 and SR-2 (Table 4.28). Summer mean Secchi depth
measurements were below the criteria for SAV recovery (0.97m) at all sites on the South River
except station SR-3 (Table 4.29). In comparison, secchi depth measurements on the Elizabeth River
were above the SAV recovery criteria for all sites except ER-EB (Table 4.29).
4.4 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species biomass and
benthic IBI scores for each site are presented in Appendix D. The mean number of taxa (11.3 to 15.7)
and mean abundance measurements (2,219 to 4,719 per sq. meter) in the Elizabeth River were
generally higher than the South River (mean number of taxa was 0 to 12; mean abundance 0 to 6,114
per sq. meter) There were no benthic species collected at the South River (SR-2) site.
The B-IBI scores for the Elizabeth River ranged from severely degraded at EB (1.67) to
degraded at the other three sites (2.33 to 2.67) (Table 4.30) Benthic communities in the South River
were severely degraded at SR-1 and SR-2 (1.0), degraded at SR-3 (2.33) and met the restoration
goal at SR-4. These data suggest that the two upstream stations in the South River had impaired
benthic communities but the condition of these benthic communities improved as you move down
river.
4-5
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Elizabeth River
The water column/sediment toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data and the
community metric data for fish and benthos (IBI calculations) presented in this report allows a
cumulative "weight of evidence approach" for assessing the condition of each respective river (Table
5.1). The water column toxicity data from all Elizabeth River sites generally showed minimal toxicity
based on univariate analysis. However, the multivariate analysis showed toxicity at the WB site. The
link between inorganic contaminants and biological effects is generally weak since concentrations of
metals in the water column from all four Elizabeth River sites were very low. Concentrations of
chromium (12.8 ug/L) at SB and copper (~ 3 ug/L at WB and SB) were above background
concentrations. Sediment toxicity data for the Elizabeth river showed thatZ. dytiscus survival and
S. benedicti growth were significantly different from controls at all four sites. In addition, S. benedicti
survival was also significantly reduced at the WB (Western Branch) site. Results from the multivariate
analysis showed some degree of toxicity at all sites with the highest toxicity reported at the WB site
( a similar result reported from the water column toxicity data). Potentially toxic concentrations of
various contaminants in sediments were reported for various sites in the Elizabeth River. The
pesticides Chlordane and Endrin Aldehyde were detected in the sediment of all four sites. Endosulfan
Sulfonate was detected at SB, EB and WB; Heptachlor was detected at SB and EL. Total DDT
exceeding the ER-L values of Long et al. (1995) were reported at EB and WB. The total number of
pesticides detected by site were as follows: EL (3), SB (4), EB (6) and WB (9). The WB (western
Branch) ,which had the highest number of pesticides detected, also had the highest degree of
sediment toxicity as three endpoints from the four tests species were different than the controls.
The number of detected PAHs at the four sites were as follows: WB (4, with no exceedences
of ER-L or ER-M values), EB (4, with three PAHs exceeding the ER-L values), SB (10, with five
PAHs exceeding the ER-L values) and EL (11, with two PAHs exceeding the ER-L values and 6
exceeding the ER-M values). Althought the most contaminated site for PAHs was EL the toxicity at
this site was not significantly higher than the other three sites.
Total bulk metals concentrations were fairly consitent among sites as four to five metal
exceeded the ER-L values and only one metal (mercury) exceeded the ER-M value at EL. All sites
except EL had SEM/AVS ratios greater than one thus suggesting that metal toxicity may be possible
at SB, EB, and WB.
Fish data from the Elizabeth River show that there is not a established gradient of effects in
the river. Based on the trawl index information, the Southern Branch (SB) and Western Branch (WB)
(highest water and sediment toxicity) showed depressed fish communities. The Eastern Branch (EB)
and mainstem (EL) showed good and fair communities, respectively. The water quality measures
reported during fish sampling did not always support the fish measures. The site with the lowest trawl
index score did show the lowest dissolved oxygen concentration, but the highest secchi depth.
Conversely, the site that showed the highest trawl score, showed adequate dissolved oxygen, but the
lowest secchi depth. The fish communities at the four Elizabeth sites were variable and there was no
consistent stressor that could explain the suboptimal communities.
The Benthic IBI data showed that three sites were degraded (EL, SB, and WB) and one site
was severely degraded (EB). The benthic community data are in general agreement spatially as some
degree of impairment was reported at all sites (Table 5.1). The fish community data and the benthic
community data only agree for the SB and WB sites where some degree of impairment was reported
5-1
-------
for both biological communities (Table 5.1). Based on the B-CBI values, the benthos seem to be
responding somewhat differently to the ambient conditions of the Elizabeth River than the fish. The
difference in responses between the two biological communities could be attributed to temporal
scales, or stressor types. Fish are mobile, and can move from an area that is temporarily stressed (i.e.
episodic hypoxia events) and quickly repopulate the area when the stressed is relieved. Because
benthos are not mobile, they may suffer community disturbance from sediment contaminants such as
PAHs, pesticides and metals consistently reported in all Elizabeth River sites. It is also quite possible
that the different biological communities are responding to different stressors. The fish are influenced
by large scale water quality effects. The benthos are subject to smaller scale disturbances, of water
and sediment quality. Fish and benthos also respond differently to soluble versus non-soluble
contaminants. Fish are more likely to be stressed by contaminants that are water soluble and can be
accumulated from the water. In contrast, benthos are more likely to be impacted by sediment bound
(non water soluble) contaminants. Another factor that should also be considered with these
somewhat different results is the predatory actions of the fish community on the benthos. The areas
where the fish community appeared unstressed (sites EB and EL) are areas where the benthic
community is depressed. Lack of agreement between the fish and benthic IBI data, does not detract
from the use of these data in determining some degree of biological impairment for the various
Elizabeth River sites. Similar results have been reported by other investigators. For example, Yoder
and Rankin (1994) have reported a larger percentage of disagreement than agreement between fish
and benthic IBI data for large freshwater river systems in the State of Ohio.
A final analysis of the toxicity and biological community metric data shows that the water
column toxicity data (multivariate analysis) showed effects at the WB site, fish community data
shows effects at the SB and WB and the sediment toxicity data/benthic B-IBI data suggested
toxicity/biological impairment at all sites (Table 5.1). The close agreement between the sediment
toxicity data and the benthic community data suggest that the contaminant problems in the Elizabeth
River are primarily in the sediment. These data support previous ambient toxicity data from 1990 in
the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River (near the Atlantic Woods Industries) where a high degree
of toxicity was reported in the sediment (Hall et al., 1991).
5.2 South River
A discussion of the South River "weight of evidence" for assessing water column/sediment
toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data, and community metric data for fish and
benthos is presented below (see Table 5.1). Results from water column toxicity tests in the south
River showed Eurytemora survival was significantly reduced at SR-3 and SR-4. Significant effects
from endpoints with other water column test species was not reported based on univariate analysis.
However, multivariate analysis suggested effects at the three downstream sites (SR-2, SR-3 and SR-
4). Various metals (copper, mercury and nickel) exceeding water quality criteria were reported in the
South River. Concentrations of chromium (46 ug/L) that were clearly above ambient conditions but
slightly below the water quality criteria (50 ug/L) were also reported.
Sediment toxicity for the South River sites showed that L. dytiscus survival and S. benedicti
growth were significantly different from controls at all four sites. Survival of C. variegatus and S.
benedicti was also reduced at SR-1. Multivariate analysis showed effects at the two upstream sites
(SR-1 and SR-2). Potentially toxic concentrations of various contaminants were reported in South
River sediments. The pesticides Heptachlor Epoxide, Chlordane, and Endrin Aldehyde were reported
at all four sites. DDE and DDT concentrations exceeding ER-L values were reported at SR-1 and
SR-4. The total number of pesticides detected by site rnaged from 4 to 7. The SR-1 site, which had
5-2
-------
the highest degree of sediment toxicity, also had the highest number of pesticides detected.
PAH contamination in the South River was generally less severe than the Elizabeth River.
Two to six PAHs were detected at the various stations and only fluoranthene at SR-2 exceeded the
ER-L value. These data do not suggest a strong link between PAH exposure and biological effects
in sediment.
Total bulk metal concentrations were variable among the South River sites. Exceedences of
ER-L values occured for eight metals at SR-2, six metals at SR-3 and five metals at SR-1. Nickel
exceeded the ER-M value at SR-4 but concentrations of the other metals were generally low at this
site. The highest chromium concentration (183 ug/g) at SR-2 corresponds with the high chromium
concentrations reported in the water column at this station (46 ug/L). All South River sites had
SEM/AVS ratios less than one thus suggesting that toxicity due to metals is unlikely.
Fish community data and concurrent water quality information for the South River suggest
that the biological habitat conditions are not meeting the prescribed reference standards. Historical
information supports this pattern as degraded conditions have been reported to follow a gradient from
upstream to downstream. Habitat conditions are generally poor upstream and improve downstream
where there is an increase tidal influence. Carmichael, et al, 1992b , showed a correlation between
land use and water quality, and water quality and bottom trawl diversity. The correlation suggested
that urbanized areas (greater than 21% urban), had a degrading effect on the water quality and fish
assemblage. The South River watershed, which is highly urbanized (21.85%) is likely responding to
these urbanization effects.
The benthic IBI data showed that the three upstream sites were severely degraded or
degraded (SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3) while the downstream site meets the restoration goal (SR-4). There
is also a clear trend for benthic IBI scores gradually increasing (improving) from upstream to
downstream. Both the fish and benthic community data suggest impairment for the two upstream
sites but these data are in contrast for the two downsteam sites. The predatory actions of reasonably
healthy fish communities at SR-3 maybe influencing (impairing) benthic communities at this site. At
SR-4, the stressed fish community may not be impairing the benthic community and therefore the
community is relatively healthy. The different results for the fish and benthic communities may also
be related to temporal scale issues (fish respond to larger scale problems, benthos to smaller scale
problems) or stressor types (fish generally respond to water soluble contaminants, benthos respond
to sediment contaminants). As discussed above in Section 5.1 for the Elizabeth River, the lack of
agreement between the benthic and fish IBI data at the two downstream sites does not detract from
the value of these data in measuring the status of biological communities.
In summary, the sediment toxicity data, fish IBI data and the benthic IBI data suggest that the
two upstream South River stations are impaired due to contaminants or other stressors (Table 5.1).
The water column toxicity data for the South River also suggest some toxicity at the three
downstream sites. Due to the transient and ephemeral nature of contaminants in water, downstream
biological effects resulting from upstream sources is not unusual.
5-3
-------
SECTION 6
ANALYSIS OF SIX YEAR DATA BASE
6.1 Water Column Toxicity
The results of Toxicity Index calculations for water column toxicity for the 1990, 1991, 1992-
93, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 experiments are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6,
and 6.7, respectively. The species tested and the number of endpoints used varied slightly from year
to year. Therefore, comparisons of index values within the figures for same year are more
comparable than those of different years. The Toxicity Index calculations were generated for each
station and year from concurrent reference (control value) and test conditions and therefore they
provide interpretation on the relative magnitude of the toxic response of the various sites. This
analysis also provided a degree of confidence that could be given to differences between reference
and test values. A summary of comparison of Toxicity Index values for reference (control) and test
sites is presented in Table 6.1.
The Toxicity Index analysis for the 1990 data in Figure 6.1 showed that the Elizabeth River
was clearly the most toxic site tested as the median for the index of the test condition was clearly
greater than the reference (control). The confidence limits for the reference and test condition did
not overlap at this location. Nearly half of the endpoints displayed significant differences between
the reference and test conditions. The results from the Elizabeth River are not surprising since
significant mortality was observed in two of the three tests that were conducted. The second most
toxic station identified with the Toxicity Index analysis was the Patapsco River, for which significant
mortality was reported in one out of three tests. However, the confidence interval was fairly wide
(indicating variability) for this station and there was no difference in the median values for the
reference and test site. The results from the Indian Head, Freestone Point, Possum Point,
Morgantown, Dahlgren and Wye River stations indicated no significant difference, with index values
between the reference and test conditions for the 1990 tests. Both Morgantown and Dahlgren
stations did show limited biological effects with one of the tests (significant mortality with the
sheepshead minnow test). However, these results from the test condition were not significantly
different than the reference when all endpoints from all tests were combined for the final index
calculations.
The Toxicity Index calculations for the 1991 experiments are presented in Figure 6.2. Four
water column tests with two endpoints for each test were used to determine the final values for two
testing periods (summer and fall). The Wye River site showed the most significant effects, as
significant mortality was reported for two different test species during different testing periods.
Although the median values from the reference and test sites were different, there was overlap of
confidence limits with these two conditions. A comparison of reference and test index values for the
Patapsco River, Morgantown and Dahlgren sites showed no significant differences. However,
reduced growth of the sheepshead minnow was reported at both the Morgantown and Dahlgren sites
during the summer experiments.
The results from the 1992-93 experiments presented in Figure 6.3 include experiments
conducted during the fall (1992) and spring (1993) at each of the 6 sites (2 sites per river). The most
toxic sites were reported at both Middle River stations (Wilson Point and Frog Mortar Creek).
Results from the coot clam toxicity tests (2 tests per experiment conducted in the fall and spring)
showed consistent toxicity at both sites. Although median values were similar for both Middle River
sites, the variability at Wilson Point was much greater than at Frog Mortar. Water quality criteria
were exceeded at both sites. The results from Toxicity Index analysis at the other 4 sites showed
6-1
-------
no difference between the reference and the test condition. The only other biological effect reported
at any of these 4 sites was significant mortality of E. affinis at the Quarter Creek site during the spring
experiments.
The results of the 1994 experiments are presented in Figure 6.4a and 6.4b. The Toxicity
Index values from the Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers were quite similar to those of the
corresponding references (Fig. 6.4a). However, the confidence limits for all sites in these rivers
except South Ferry (Magothy) did not overlap the limits for the reference condition. Thus, the sites
displayed statistical differences that appeared to be negligible in an ecological sense. On the other
hand, Sparrows Point in Baltimore Harbor displayed significant toxicity (Fig. 6.4b). The Curtis Bay
exhibited no toxic effects, while the other Baltimore Harbor sites displayed statistically significant but
negligible toxicity.
The results of the 1995 studies are presented in Figure 6.5. The Toxicity Index values for the
Lynnhaven River were not significantly different from the reference. In the James River basin, the
James River "Above", the James River "Below" and the Willoughby Bay sites displayed Toxicity
Index values which were significantly greater than the respective references, but the values for former
two sites were only slightly greater than the reference condition in overall magnitude. The York
River sites also displayed negligible to low water column toxicity: the Pamunkey "Above" and York
River "Below" sites had Toxicity Index values that were not significantly different from the
references; the York River "Above" had only a very slight elevation of toxicity above controls; and
the Pamunkey "Below" displayed a low to moderate level of toxicity, similar to the magnitude
observed for the Willoughby Bay site.
Figure 6.6 presents the results of the 1996 studies, which focused on the Chester and the
Patuxent Rivers. The water from all of the sites except Jack Bay in the Patuxent River exhibited
significant differences in Toxicity Index values compared to the reference conditions. However, the
Broomes Island site in the Patuxent and the CHS (Skillet Point) site in the Chester River had
somewhat higher values. The water from the Chalk Point site in the Patuxent and the CH6 (Scott's
Point) site in the Chester River had the lowest levels of toxicity. The values from the remaining sites
were intermediate and indicative of moderately low toxicity.
The results of the 1997 studies are presented in Figure 6.7. Samples were collected in the
South and Elizabeth River. The water from all sites in both rivers displayed significant differences in
Toxicity Index values compared to the control conditions. Three of the sites on the South River (SR-
2, SR-3 and SR-4) exhibited a moderate degree of toxicity. Toxicity Index values ranked in the top
third of all values observed since ambient toxicity testing was initiated in 1990. Eurytemora affinis
survival was significantly reduced at all three of these sites. Site SR-1 was somewhat lower in
toxicity. The Toxicity Index values for all sites in the Elizabeth River ranked in the top half of the data
sets collected to date, but the relative toxicities of most sites were much lower than the level observed
during the 1990 in the Elizabeth River (see discussion of sediment data below). Normal development
of coot clam larvae was the most impacted endpoint for these sites. While the index values from all
sites in the Elizabeth River were significantly greater than the control conditions, the Western Branch
site showed the highest degree of toxicity, ranking 6th from the top among all sites tested since 1990.
A summary of the seven year water column data base using the Toxicity Index analysis
(Figures 6.8 and 6.9) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
• the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest water column toxicity were as follows:
• Baltimore Harbor, Sparrows Point (1994)
• Patuxent River, Broomes Island (1996)
• Willoughby Bay (1995)
6-2
-------
• Middle River (1994)
• Pamunkey River, below West Point in the York River
basin (1995)
• Elizabeth River (1990) and Western Branch site (WB) (1997)
• Chester River, Site CH-5, Skillet Point (1996)
• the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of water column toxicity were:
Chester River, Site CH-2, Tarns Point (1996)
South River; Site SR-2, SR-3 and SR-4 (1997)
James River, above and below Newport News (1995)
Elizabeth River, Mainstem (EL) (1997)
Chester River, Site CH-4, Melton Point (1996)
Patuxent River, Buzzard Island (1996)
Wye River, Manor House site (1991)
Elizabeth River; Southern Branch (SB) and Eastern Branch (EB) (1997)
South River, SR-1 (1997)
Patapsco River (1990)
Magothy River, Gibson Island site (1994)
• the sites (listed geographically, from north to south)
that displayed water column toxicity that was low in magnitude, but significantly
different from reference (control) responses were:
• Sassafras River (1994)
• Baltimore Harbor; Bear Creek, Middle Branch, Northwest Harbor and
Outer Harbor sites (1994)
• Chester River, Site CH-6, Scotts Point (1996)
• Patuxent River, Chalk Point (1996)
• Severn River (1994)
• York River, above Cheatham Annex (1995)
• the sites that displayed no significant water column toxicity were:
Baltimore Harbor, Curtis Bay (1994)
Magothy River, South Ferry (1994)
Wye River (1990, 1992-3)
Patuxent River, Jack Bay (1996)
Nanticoke River, Bivalve and Sandy Hill Beach sites (1992-3)
Potomac River; Dalgren (1990, 1991), Freestone Point (1990), Indian Head
(1990), Morgantown (1990, 1991), and Possum Point (1990)
Pamunkey River, above West Point (1995)
York River, below Cheatham Annex, (1995)
Lynnhaven River (1995)
Stations listed as having greatest or low to moderate toxicity are candidates for future
assessments. The spatial and temporal scale for water column toxicity testing, number of
contaminants measured (based on loading and associated use data) and frequency of contaminant
monitoring should be increased at these stations (or adjacent areas) to develop a better understanding
6-3
-------
of causality.
6.2 Sediment Toxicity
The results of the Toxicity Index calculations for sediment toxicity for the 1990, 1991, 1992-
93, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 studies are summarized in Figures 6.10 through 6.16, respectively.
It should be noted that the species and the number of endpoints tested varied slightly from year to
year, so comparisons of index values within the figures (within the same year) are more comparable
than those between figures. Nonetheless, the comparisons of concurrent reference and test
experiments provide insight into the relative magnitude of the toxic responses of the various sites.
Table 6.2 summarizes the comparisons presented in Figures 6.10 - 6.16.
During the 1990 study, the Elizabeth River was clearly the most toxic of the sites, since all
species displayed nearly complete mortality during the first 10 days of the experiment (i.e., the median
for the index for the test data was greatly separated from the median for the reference data, with little
variation; Figure 6.10). The Elizabeth River provides an example of the worst case Toxicity Index
values. The confidence limits of the test data index values were well separated from those of the
corresponding reference sites for a number of other sites: Patapsco River; Wye River; and the
Freestone Point, Possum Point and Dahlgren sites on the Potomac River (although the latter two sites
displayed a considerable degree of variation in index values). The Indian Head and Morgantown sites
on the Potomac River displayed only slight separation between the median index values for the test
and reference conditions. Thus, the magnitude of potential toxicity appears to be less for the Indian
Head and Morgantown sites than for the others. It should be noted, however, that all sites selected
for the first year of the study were those considered "suspect" due to the results of previous studies,
so it is not surprising that most displayed significant deviations from the reference conditions.
The 1991 study involved an assessment of the effects of short-term temporal variability (a
summer versus a fall collection) on the apparent toxicity of sediments from four sites. The separation
between test and reference treatments was greatest for the Patapsco River site, with less separation
being displayed for Dahlgren, Morgantown, and the Wye (Figure 6.11). The results of the Patapsco
River index comparison were remarkably similar to those observed for the 1990 study. The Dahlgren
site index values, which were quite variable in the 1990 study, were still separated from the reference
values in the 1991 study. The small degree of separation observed between the Morgantown index
limits and reference limits in 1990 was also observed for 1991. The Wye River index limits were only
slightly separated from the reference limits due to the fact that only one of the two sets of experiments
displayed significant differences between test and control treatments. This slight variability in
responses could be due to temporal variation in toxicity, but is more likely due to small scale spatial
heterogeneity (i.e., sediments were taken from the same general station, but there may have been
patchiness in sediment quality in the grabs composited for the two sets of tests). Overall, the degree
of variability observed in the Toxicity Index limits for the combination of the two sampling events was
quite small for all four sites. The patterns were remarkably consistent with those observed at these
same sites during the previous year.
The 1992-93 study also involved two sampling periods during the Fall and Spring. The test
and reference Toxicity Index limits overlapped for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.12).
Thus, the sites in the Middle River (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point), the Wye River (Quarter Creek
and Manor House), and the Nanticoke River (Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve) appeared to contain
sediment displaying little or no overall toxicity compared to reference conditions. It should be noted,
however, that the Frog Mortar sediments were quite heterogenous in character and they displayed
somewhat elevated metals in the composite samples (see Hall et a}., 1994). Therefore, there may be
6-4
-------
patches of contaminated sediments at this site, which may have produced responses in a few of the
field replicates. The purpose of taking true field replicates at two different times during the 1992-93
study was to produce confidence limits to indicate the probability of observing the same sort of
response if the site were sampled again, so the observed variability provides insight into the variation
in sediment quality expected for this site.
The results of the 1992-3 studies on the two Wye River sites (Quarter Creek and Manor
House) displayed little difference from the reference conditions, which is in contrast to the apparent
toxicity observed in 1990 and one of the sampling period of the 1991 study. The Wye River Manor
House site was sampled during the first four years of testing.
The 1994 studies focused upon the Sassafras River, the Annapolis region, and the Baltimore
Harbor/Patapsco River (Figure 6.13a and 6.13b). The Sassafras River sites displayed no sediment
toxicity (Figure 6.13a). The Magothy River sites exhibited slight to moderate toxicity, particularly
for the South Ferry site, which was highly variable (Figure 6.13a). The Annapolis site on the Severn
River also displayed significant but moderately low toxicity. On the other hand, the Toxicity Index
limits from the Severn River site at the Route 50 bridge overlapped those of the reference site. The
Baltimore Harbor sites showed various degrees of toxicity from slight (Outer Harbor) to quite high
(Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor), with most displaying moderate toxicity (Sparrow Point, Middle
Branch and Curtis Bay; Figure 6.13b). All Baltimore Harbor sites contained sediments that exceeded
ER-M values for 3 or more contaminants.
The 1995 studies focused on sites in the James River and York River basins and a site in the
Lynnhaven River (Figure 6.14). The Toxicity Index was elevated for the Willoughby Bay site, which
is located near the mouth of the James River and in the vicinity of heavy military, residential, and
marina activities. The James River site below Newport News displayed Toxicity Index values that
were also significantly elevated relative to the reference, but the degree of toxicity was lower than
for the Willoughby site. None of the other sites displayed overall significance in the Toxicity Index
comparisons to references, although the Lynnhaven site was the only one to display no significant
endpoints in the univariate comparison of confidence limits.
The 1996 studies focused on the Chester and the Patuxent Rivers (Figure 6.15). All sites in
the Chester River displayed some degree of toxicity. The CH2 (Tarns Point) and CH4 (Melton Point)
sites in the Chester River had sediments that produced a low to moderate level of toxicity, while
sediments from the CHS (Skillet Point) and CH6 (Scotts Point) sites were associated with a higher
degree of toxicity. The magnitude of toxicity displayed by sediments from the latter two sites was of
the same overall magnitude as that observed during earlier studies for the South Ferry site in the
Magothy River and two of the sites (Possum Point and Dahlgren) in the Potomac River (see below).
In contrast, sediments from the Patuxent River were, for the most part, not significantly toxic. While
the median toxicity index values (5-10 on the toxicity index scale) for the Patuxent River sites were
somewhat higher than for the reference condition, variation in results made these differences not
statistically significant except for the Buzzard Island site. The Buzzard Island site displayed a
moderately low level of toxicity that was statistically greater than the reference condition.
The 1997 studies were conducted at four sites in the South River and four stites in the
Elizabeth River (Figure 6.16). While there was significant sediment toxicity at six of the eight sites,
the degree of toxicity was moderately low. South River sites 1 and 2 displayed the highest level bf
toxicity, but Toxicity Index values only ranged from 7 to 12%. Streblospio benedicti survival and
growth, Leptocheirusplwmdosiis growth and fish egg hatching success were the endpoints that were
most affected in the experiments conducted at these sites. Conversely, SR-3 and SR-4 (downstream
sites in the South River) displayed no significant toxicity.
6-5
-------
The sediments from all the Elizabeth River sites displayed significant but low levels of toxicity
(Figure 6.16). Clearly, the toxicity of the Elizabeth River sediments studied in 1997 was considerably
less than the degree of toxicity detected at one Elizabeth River site in 1990 (Hall et al., 1991). The
toxicity of the sediments has decreased during the intervening seven years and/or the toxicity of the
sediments is highly patchy. There has been a considerable degree of management effort focused on
the Elizabeth River during the 1990s (e. g. the Elizabeth River Project; pollution control actions of
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; activities associated with the Region of Concern
status of the Cheapeake Bay Program), so it is entirely possible that the degree of
contamination/toxicity has significantly decreased. However, it should be noted that the Elizabeth
River site studied in 1990 was selected because it was expected to be extremely contaminanted and
served as a positive control during the developmental phases of the Ambient Toxicity Testing
Program. The 1990 samples were taken in the proximity of a Superfund site that was highly
contaminated were creosote (PAHs). The 1997 samples were taken to be more representative of the
Elizabeth River mainstem and its three tributary branches. Thus, the apparent decrease of toxicity may
have been due to site selection in a patchy system. Nonetheless, the more representative 1997 samples
indicate that the overall toxicity of the sediments in relatively modest.
A summary of the six year sediment data base using the Toxicity Index analysis (Figures 6.17
and 6.18) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
• the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest sediment toxicity were as follows:
Elizabeth River (1990)
Baltimore Harbor, Northwest Harbor, Bear Creek, Sparrows Point, Curtis
Bay, and Middle Branch sites (1994)
James River Basin, Willoughby Bay site (1995)
Chester River; Sites CH-5, Skillet Point and CH-6, Scotts Point (1996)
Magothy River, South Ferry site (1994)
Potomac River; Possum Point and Dahlgren sites (1990)
the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of sediment toxicity were:
Patapsco River sites (1990, 1991)
Potomac River; Freestone Point (1990) and Dahlgren (1991)
Chester River, Site CH2, Tarns Point (1996)
South River, SR-1 (1997)
Severn River, Annapolis site (1994)
Wye River, Manor House site (1991)
Chester River, Site CH-4, Melton Point (1996)
James River site, below Newport News (1995)
Patuxent River, Buzzard Island site (1996)
Baltimore Harbor, Outer Harbor site (1994)
• the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed sediment toxicity that
was low in magnitude, but significantly different from reference responses were:
a Magothy River, Gibson Island site (1994)
6-6
-------
• Wye River, Manor House site (1990)
• South River, SR-2 (1997)
• Potomac River; Morgantown (1990, 1991) and Indian Head (1990) sites
• Elizabeth River; Mainstem (EL), Western Branch (WB), Eastern Branch (EB)
and Southern Branch (SB) (1997)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that displayed no significant
sediment toxicity were:
Middle River; Frog Mortar and Wilson Point sites (1992-3)
Sassafras River; Betterton and Turner Creek sites (1994)
Wye River; Quarter Creek and Manor House sites (1992-3)
South River; SR-3 and SR-4 (1997)
Patuxent River; Broomes Island, Jack Bay, and Chalk Point sites (1996)
Nanticoke River; Bivalve and Sandy Hill Beach sites (1992-3)
Pamunkey and York River sites (4 sites) (1995)
James River, site above Newport News (1995)
Lynnhaven River site (1995)
Future assessments are recommended for stations that fall into the categories of greatest
toxicity or low to moderate toxicity. In order to develop a better understanding of the "cause and
effect" relationship, the spatial and temporal scale of testing and the organic and inorganic
contaminant measurements (based on loading and usage data for the area) should be expanded.
6-7
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
Buchanan, J. B. 1984. Sediment analysis. Pages 41-65. In: Holme, N. A. and A. D. Mclntyre (eds)
Methods for study of marine benthos. IBP Handbook No. 16 2nd Edition. Blackwell Sci.
Publ. Oxford, England.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, M. Roberts, and S. Jordan. 1992a. Fish Sampling in Eight
Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final Report CBRM-HI-92-2. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division. Annapolis, MD.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, and S. Jordan. 1992b. Development and Testing of Measures of
Ecological Integrity and Habitat Quality for Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final report to
Maryland Coastal and Watershed Resources Division. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division.
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1988. Chesapeake Bay living resource monitoring plan.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1989. Chesapeake Bay basinwide reduction strategy.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality Triad -an example.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5: 957-964.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality Triad approach to determining pollution-induced
degradation. Sci. Tot. Envrion. 97-8: 815-825.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination,
toxicity and infaunal community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco
Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 75-96.
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony,-D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, MB Hicks, S.M. Mayrand and M. S.
Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediment; the role of acid volatile sulfide.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
Fisher, D.J., D.T. Burton, L.W. Hall Jr., R.L. Paulson and C.M. Hersh. 1988.Standard operating
procedures for short-term chronic effluent toxicity tests with freshwater and saltwater
organisms. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology Section,
Shady Side, MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden and P. Adolphson. 1997. Ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 5 Report. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden III, A. Messing, T. Turner, D. Goshorn and M.
McGinty. 1998. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 6 Report. EPA
903/R/98/017 CBP/TRS 210/98. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., R. D. Anderson, W. D. Killen, M. C. Scott, J. V. Kilian, R..M. Alden, III and P.
Adolphson. 1996 . Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 4 Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr. and M.C. Ziegenfuss. 1993. Standard operating procedures for conducting embyro-
7-1
-------
larval toxicity tests with the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis. Effluent, ambient water, single-
multiple chemical or porewater toxicity tests. Report. University of Maryland, Wye
Research and Education, Center, Queenstown, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III and P. Adolphson.
1994. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 3 Report.
CBP/TRS 116/94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, III, E. Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Debert-
Hastings. 1991. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Volume 1 -
Year 1 Report CBP/TRS 64/91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson; W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III, E.
Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Shaw. 1992. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 2 report. CBP/TRS 82/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 16: 105-115.
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 Technical
Memorandum Nos. OMA 52. Seattle, WA.
Long, E. R., D. D. McDonald, S. L. Smith, and R. D. Cable. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
Manag. 19: 81-97.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990a. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine organisms: supplement: Test method
for the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis, embryo/larval test. Draft report. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, R.I.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990b. Mulinia lateralis - Microscale marine toxicity test.
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI.
Plumb, R. H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples.
Technical Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers
Technical Committee of Criteria for Dredge and Fill Material, U. S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Ranasinghe, J. A., S. B. Weisberg, J. Gerritsen and D. M. Dauer. 1994. Assessment of Chesapeake
Bay benthic macroinvertebrate resource condition in relation to water quality and watershe
stressors. Final report CBRM-GRF-94-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Scott, L. C., A. F. Holland, A. T. Shaughnessy, V. Dickens, and J. A. Ranasinghe. 1988. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay: Data
summary and progress report. PPRP-LTB/EST-88-2. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, MD.
Shaughnessy, T.J., L.C. Scott, J.A. Ranasinghe, A.F. Holland and T.A. Tornatore. 1990. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay:
Data summary and progress report (July 1984-August 1990). Report Volume 1. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division,
7-2
-------
Annapolis, MD.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1979. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Test methods for evaluating solid
waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 Third Edition. U. S. EPA Cincinnati, OH.
Vass, P. A. and S. J. Jordan. 1991. Long term trends in abundance indices for 19 species of
Chesapeake Bay fishes: Reflections in trends in the Bay ecosystem. In: J. A. Mihursky and
A. Chancy (eds). New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management
Partnership. Proceedings of a Conference. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No.
137. Solomons, MD, p. 539-546.
Weisburg, S. B., J. A. Ranasinghe, L. C. Schafmer and J. B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine index of
biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20: 149-158.
Yoder, C. O. andE. T. Rankin. 1994. Biological criteria program development and implementation
in Ohio. In: W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp 109- 144.
Ziegenfuss, M.C. and L.W. Hall, Jr. 1994. Standard operating procedures for conducting acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity tests with Eurytemora affinis, a calanoid copepod. Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
7-3
-------
SECTION 8
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
-------
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The following
abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption - Inductively Coupled Plasma),
AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride), AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-
DA (Atomic Absorption - Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption -
Cold Vapor).
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method #
206.3
213.2
218.2
220.2
239.2
245.1
249.2
270.3
200.7
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
3-1
-------
Table 3.2 Trophic classification, family, spawning location and residency offish captured at the
eight sampling locations.
1 -, 's£HM3ttKAif* > ..
American eel
A losa pseudoharengus
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura marina
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchelli
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Chain pickerel
Esox Niger
Gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
Hogchoker
Trinecles maculatus
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
Naked Goby
Gobiosoma base
Northern pipefish
Syngnathus fuscus
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Silver Perch
Bairdiella chrysura
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
ijijtf&wc
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Benthic
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
' s&Bttur' "
Anguillidae
Sciaenidae
Clupeidae
Belonidae
Atherinidae
Engraulidae
Pomatomidae
Cyprinidae
Esocidae
Clupeidae
Solidae
Atherinidae
Cyprinodontidae
Gobiidae
Syngnathidae
Centrarchidae
Sciaenidae
Sciaenidae
- &AWKl£C*£K»T
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Estuarine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Marine
!
-------
Striped anchovy
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
Striped killifish
Fundulus majalis
Summer Flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
Threespine stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Weakfish
Cynoscion regalis
White perch
Morone americana
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Engraulidae
Moronidae
Cyprinodontidae
Bothidae
Gasterosteidae
Sciaenidae
Moronidae
Percidae
Marine
Freshwater
Anadromous
Estuarine
Marine
Estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
Anadromous
Freshwater
Anadromous
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
8-3
-------
Table 4.1 Survival data from 8-d toxicity tests with E. affinis and sheepshead minnow
larvae at 8 stations from 10/01/97 to 10/09/97.
Species
E. affinis
Sheepshead
minnow
Station
Control
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
Control
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
1
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cumulative Percent Survival Per Day
234567
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
93
• 100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
88
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
88
100
100
98
-
-
100
100
98
100
100
88
100
100
98
8
90
65
64
88
64
55
73
18*
35*
100
98
98
98
100
85
100
100
98
Indicates significant difference from control value (P<0.05).
8-4
-------
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 10/01/97 to 10/09/97
experiments.
Sheepshead larvae dry weight (initial weight at day 0=0.13 mg).
Station natdS (mgatd=8) ±S.E.
CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
44
41
42
40
44
35
46
41
40
1.40
1.63
1.53
1.77
1.60
1.10
1.51
1.63
1.31
0.033
0.056
0.065
0.086
0.075
0.264
0.064
0.038
0.190
8-5
-------
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48h coot clam embryo/larval tests
conducted from 10/04/97 to 10/06/97 (test 1) and 10/10/97 to 10/12/97 (test 2).
Test 1 Test 2
Station Percent Normal ±S.E. Percent Normal ±S.E.
CONTROL 95.6 0.83 92.3 1.42
ER-WB 92.3 1.91 92.7 1.63
ER-EL 92.1 1.57 91.8 0.83
ER-EB 90.6 3.17 91.8 0.46
ER-SB 87.4 1.02 90.0 1.26
SR-1 89.5 ' 2.58 , 92.0 0.61
SR-2 93.5 0.67 88.2 0.25
SR-3 94.4 2.20 92.7 2.29
SR-4 94.7 1.03 91.2 0.36 -
8-6
-------
Table 4.4 Survival, reproduction and maturation data for Eurytemora after 8d tests at 8
stations from 10/01/97 to 10/09/97.
Mean Percent Mean Percent
Station Survival ±S.E. Gravid Female ±S.E.
CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
89.6
65.1
64.1
88.4
63.9
54.6
72.8
18.5*
35.4*
7.89
13.50
18.60
3.89
21.90
' 16.00
6.48
6.42
6.25
0.0
34.7
8.2
52.0
28.9
39.0
15.0
0.0
26.7
0.00
12.30
5.89
5.70
10.70
19.50
5.00
0.00
9.03
Mean
Percent
Immature
92.0
12.8
12.2
6.4
5.8
8.1
25.0
22.9
12.5
±S.E.
0.32
6.26
5.31
2.20
5.77
4.23
5.00
15.70
7.98
indicates significant difference from control value (PO.05).
8-7
-------
•
.g
fc
<^ •
o
UN +o
ON 00
0 C
0 T3
i— i CD
ON «
en
0 §
O C3
t> 5
ON <<
ON
C 3
O •+_*
C ea
g ^
*S3 U
I'H
5 0
c fa
s"^
a < ^
c &< c
5?nW T:
OO ^
o co -a
c >-; c
HH nJ 3
£
K
£
ffl
[i
«
CO
en
_o
-^r
^ o
cs g
oo §
0 0
en ^*
i— i t^*
— < O
00 ^
CN .
o ?
vo ON
en ^
0 0
in o
O r-.'
ON CN
m m
0 0
^*> ro
N^X ON
en v— '
< -o
0
0
q
r-H
V
en
r~
"3-
vq
oo
CN
VO
"3"
CN
m
r-~
m'
"3-
00
V£5
o"
m
^"•^^
Ui
U
*
c
f
o
o
\7
2 §
CN' ^
0
VO
*•
^*-
^j
fl'
•X-
0
m
c^
oo r^,
2 «8
m
V
m
CN
V
>o
CN
V
in
CN
V
in
CN
V
in
CN
V
m
CN
V
in
^"O
vM
V
0.
a,
o
o
_cu
-3
o
a
-------
Table 4.6 Water quality parameters reported in the field during sample collection in the
fall of 1997.
Date Station
9-30-97 ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
10-3-97 ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
10-6-97 ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
Temp
(C)
22.9
21.0
21.9
20.9
20.0
.20.0
20.0
20.0
21.3
19.2
20.9
20.0
17.5
18.0
17.5
17.5
22.7
21.4
21.9
21.0
21.0
20.5
200
200
Salinity
(PPt)
20.8
20.8
22.0
22.4
12.0
12.0
14.0
14.5
21.5
21.0
22.5
22.0
12.0
12.5
14.0
14.5
21.5
20.5
21.0
22.0
12.0
12.5
12.5
14.5
Cond.
(umhos/cm)
30800
30900
32800
32000
16000
19000
20500
21000
32000
30000
33000
32000
16500
17500
19500
20500
33000
31000
33000
33000
17500
18000
19500
21000
Dissolved
oxygen
-
-
-
-
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.6
6.3
7.1
6.1
7.1
8.8
8.6
8.8
9.2
6.9
6.8
7.0
7.5
8.2
80
8.4
8.6
PH
7.75
7.77
7.75
7.90
7.58
7.72
7.77
7.86
7.54
7.62
7.56
7.72
7.62
7.72
7.88
7.96
7.80
7.79
7.80
7.97
7.64
7.78
7.92
7.98
8-9
-------
g
"O
03
O .
O
o t
O O
co n.
•ti 4>
CD
05
O
0) *->
g co
I S
£ &
£ s
r- P
o\ tfa
C* M
— -
i/">
Ui
>H
•<«-
UH
>
5
S
;
O:
V>|
tJ
CO
(U
'3
CD
O
00
-------
CO
n
_o
'5
re
•4—*
CO
•4—*
r*
"op
"3
(D
r-|
• ^ l.
t ,
a
~
"^
Q
h/1
U
E
3
00
OO
T^-
jo
,0
re
a
e
0
l«
•c
c?
a
C.
$
f,
Q
^
4J
£
CJ
R
S3
xO
0^
"R
_>
'>
t«
s
CO
N=>
0^
j;
_O
•4^
R
>tw
CO
V)
.Si
'S
o
o,
CO
5
j!
J
J * <--,
. 0 § 0 0
O H 0 0
! ^0 S 00
00 (N O O
O CN O O
•/I CN O O
o o o o
g 0 0 0
,_,: -xt >
•*^i
G
1
^
'r~*
3
^
U
o
p
oo
o
o
o
0
o
oo
oo
0
0
o
CN
CQ
00
o
p
H
1—4
0
0
0
o
o
oo
oo
0
o
oo
oo
PQ
W
0
o
^
o
0
0
o
o
VO
oo
0
o
*xT
oo
J
w
0
o
•xf
0
0
0
o
o
VO
oo
o
o
o
oo
m
^
o
p
CN
o
o
o
o
o
oo
ON
0
o
oo
ON
Q?
00
J
§ §
2 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O CN
ON ON
0 0
0 0
O CN
ON ON
^ — ^
B 6
:§ s
J P-,
m
o
o
II
11
^
*p
"c
0
o
s
£
"c
o
«
eg
<1— i
-3
_>,
(-H
3
o
CH
'2
_oo
CO
CO
3
"«
o
•3
• M
*
O
2
0
0
*
^o1
(U
CO
0
ex
X
'*~"X
G
_O
•4—*
aj
G
CO
•4— •
•4— »
CO
^
• <— < •**—!,
^1
oo Q
^ »?
Ox Ox
,—• o
0 o
o _
^ *
•9t ^"^
^•""N 'Q
T3 CO
CO co
co o
g ex
a* x
*, °
0 CO
=tt 00
i-' 00
>x CD
f?r\ ^
OO s— •*
00 ^
co -a
*s ^
CD ^
Q, «
II %
CO ^
00 II
00 _.
U (u
T3 J^n
rt O
CD -tJ
Qw 03
i
xO xO
ON ON
8-11
-------
^
o
fc
W
T3
J3
-o
r^
=
-4— '
00
II
II
W
00
^
*
o
Ul
"S
0
U
II
Q
CD"
o
c
CD
JTH
^O
CD
^
II
g
co
C
O
*-»
C3
•K
•4->
f-*
00
'C
(D
r-;
-*->
•%
CO
3
U
•2
•«>^
"X
•^
^3
S
,2
Cn
01
rt
T3
13
>
"g
oo
ON
—L.
^T
(11
Uj1
3
n3
H
M
CO
•o
-2
Cfl
S
•5s
8 <
^
Q
CTL!
PH
CO
•a
•^^
CO
3
— "S5
c« es
> c
'> p
1C
3
CO
*
CO
•a
cu
-*—
en
3
«"
o
rt
Q
ta
CO
•a
J
en
P
•o5
C5
fj
P
CJ
_o
-4-^
_rt
CO
§
CJ
w ^
S -a
'O >S
CD "^
£2,
oo[ >-^
r-
in
vd
*
0
0
•^
CO
CN
^r4>
^J
c>
*
o
o
•*
oo
CO
CO
^"H
*
i — i
oo
vd
TT
i/~\
M )
m
CO
*
O
o
vd
CO
5
00
8 S
v»
H 2
JL, ^~
CN "I
2 "
00 CN
in ON
— " CN
I'l
^ N
OO ON
vq m
co od
0 °
0^ °°
^ 53
m r-
m m
CN m'
* *
o o
o o
r-^ ^
^ m
2 CO
&
00 00
VO
"^"
ON
CN
ON
od
VO
CN
^"
O
*
0
o
ON
•*
CN
vq
•rf
CN
OO
0
ON
CN
in
vd
o
q
in
oo
•f
&
00
t^
Tt
*
in
^r
r~^
CN
m
CN
i— <
#
in
CN
vd
vo
VO
•^
#
c~-
CN
ON
in
vo
CO
•*'
*
0
q
od
TT
m
00
-*
Tf
0
*
in
VO
CN
TT
ON
CO
CO
#
o
q
od
ON
CN
O
1-~H
*
VO
ON
co'
VO
in
00
*
o
q
od
-3-
CQ
W
r- H
O
>
s
o
s
s
.2?
OO
#
^^
w
H
O
2
co°
"o
.CD
l-n
53
CD
CD
_N
'GO
JS
*o
'•S
cd
P-
T3
CD
•4—<
"O
<1J
I-C
cx
;_
.2
1
C/3
3
^
Cd
13
>
• .— <
£
C/J
-4— »
-~4
C
CU
C/J
i — "
CO
. _J
£
£3
CO
&2
2
=0
4
-------
§
w
•2
CO
g
F-. (/->•—'
p O rn
CN
ON o in CN NO r-
•"3" ro m in O ON
,=. -! ON
CN vo
r-
00
Ol
CN
W
00
0
U
CO
Q|
0)
o o o o
0 0 0 O
0 * ~ 0 0
P g
"
m
cx>
(N r-
oo ON
03
ts
£
U
'E
Z3
00
oooooooooo
pCJppCSppppCJ
O^O'OTfrtro^tvdrovO
ONONONONCX5CNCXir--OOON
00
^^ rs r-i •*
& & & <& CQ CQ
00 00 00 00 OO W
p
o
\/
o
o
c
CO
O3
03
|
O3
|
03
^ ^
g ^
O -rt
fcO
00
_u
J3
CO
H
—'
-------
i
w
•H
CO
II
w
co
o
O
o
§
0
CN MD <0
co
•4—*
O
o
o;
col
co
S
•^—>
o
o
c
OS
o
.£?
CO
*
a,
CO
3
CO
U
-H
to
~
^3
ca
H
o
i
col
— CN
w
H
O
w
H
O
2:
8-14
-------
Table 4.12 Particle size analysis of sediments from eight stations, references and controls
used in toxicity tests.
Station
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropatank
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
EB
EB
EB
EB
EB
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
SRI
SRI
SRI
SRI
SRI
SR2
SR2
SR2
SR2
SR2
SR3
SR3
SR3
SR3
SR3
SR4
SR4
SR4
SR4
SR4
Replicate
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
~\
3
4
5.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
%SAND
99.3254
29.3575
2.2682
58.2380
59.8110
54.8144
34.4744
41.0905
44.1134
25.6410
55.6721
17.5305
21.6687
70.3107
56.9430
14.1496
0.9626
0.5534
96.1040
30.1116
25.4505
51.7372
16.2830
24.1866
74.9934
4.4424
4.5990
9.6912
19.1298
16.0079
12.3850
13.4326
6.9083
6.2473
18.5739
4.2679
4.4075
4.0140
85.5833
76.4262
64.2603
68.9391
96.1632
%SILT
0.0000
43.1728
20.1414
20.6257
14.2993
15.3935
24.2972
11.0083
40.7165
51.8648
16.9025
36.4176
41.0652
8.6396
13.1550
30.8361
44.6912
30.1310
1.1783
26.1683
27.0088
29.9243
38.9284
27.2174
6.2516
33.2927
35.7974
35.1772
37.9732
26.9932
26.4487
34.1349
33.3669
39.2570
34.8667
33.0456
29.0231
32.8734
5.2731
11.7760
20.4576
16.2806
-0.1485
%CLAY
0.6746
27.4697
77.5904
21.1363
25.8897
29.7921
41.2285
47.9012
15.1701
22.4942
27.4254
46.0519
37.2662
21.0498
29.9020
55.0144
54.3462
69.3157
2.7177
43.7201
47.5407
18.3385
44.7886
48.5960
18.7549
62.2649
59.6036
55.1316
42.8970
56.9989
61.1662
52.4325
59.7248
54.4957
46.5593
62.6865
66.5694
63.1126
9.1436
11.7977
15.2821
14.7802
3.9853
8-15
-------
2
CTJ
M Pi
;S G OS
.^ « .2
§,CN "H-
•&£ 2
I S'E
o3 t->
"2 =
ID
l/l
0)
P K S
2 5
O
w
gj
D
W
Cu
bi
'S
H
ro
l^\
V )
r-
in
o
d
CO
oo
CN
CO
d
ON
CN
1—4
CO
d
Os
CO
CO
•*
d
r~
i (
MD
oo
O
d
co
ON
0
•<*
d
Tt
ON
CO
CN
d
ro
in
00
ro
d
NO
CO
CN
CO
d
CO
co
0
ON
c^
d
•* VO r-l
O CO CN
ON co co
co -^ •*
r- NO
ON t^
ON -<4;
co co
co t-~ O\
CO r—I NO
>-< ON co
•^ ro' ^
ON
•
-------
•£ « £
S> §
•3 . U
si-11
O -B >s
*" >H
§ ^
n e
"2 "o 'S
111
» « •>
? c b
^ S *
-o e 32
ca ts o
£
x>
ca
H
W
oo
%
oo
.1
S
3
*^k
S
•^r
m
o
r— '
0
ON
CN
ON
CO
ON
r-
ro
o
o
C5
•*
0
o
in
ca
'S
y— H
r--sj-r.t---<3-._.,r^rnin
^ggg^^lg^p!
^^§^§8-s§g
00oOooOOoo
^2^S>S°v°'I;:J'O-^-ro
S^J^S'(N
oo.»-n
0
d
V
a
1/3
1
"c
o
o
c
03
t—1
CO
CO
^
>>
ca
0
4*H
iwt
5)
/*:
JJ
c-
8-17
-------
g>
'S 4)
> —
> -o
.2 S--
r~z O
is £
H=i 00 C
co ' S r9
c =£ U
g > II
C* =
"-• to O
If—* t/J ^^
13 5 £-
co
OJ «
2| 8
0 CM C
S ° 2
^-* .. di
w t! C5
O 03 ,•£ =
Cd j_, /-~\
-0 rt Oi
6 43 ^
CN 2
03 •
fe » £
££'E
OD ^ *^
• « (3 3
CJ CO CO
> C "
•s- 03 -G
Is?
CO U C
-S -G 03
•rt — S
C S
-2 1) (T)
"> co £i
1 s -
£ a
OO I-
i_ 03
in
•^-'
-2
.3
t2
•1 £}o£:U25Nlot~-CNt--CN'*oO
cd S-^^^^^oo^^ooincN
• 0ooc?;00vOr-0t^- ,
S .2 _ „ „ „. m"fe& !
§ « sggggssa^isas ;
•)
in
o
d
V
^a
w
1
r^
o
o
C
03
C/3
CO
_O
>,
C
03
O
I— (
I—1
3)
o
(•
8-18
-------
CO b>.
Jilt
cS t^ W)
*& W)
,—1 — r
ii /^N —j
£3 u-> -1-
S ON C
&<*•;:
'*r T— H W
*o - >
^b <" =
.S ^<
CO g^
i> nJ.t:
0 C S
Hjr •-« •— <
r^ TI
°lg c
co c o
's's^
£•8 o
0 " £
§03-0
*D ",— < c3 w
J3 S 0 0
~ .2 vn .-a
•g-g 2 w
ws s
co i .G
Cu*-!
0 M> >
•— c !>
03 03 O
wPi 0
*•> co -°
§11
«fe t
u QJ ,.
SUM
,2 o _,
** S
1 ' 'T^ •*— >
r- 01 o
o > > i .
=-> 9 o
CD V T3
"O i) ;>
'3 £P §
• " C ^
"^^ fT* ^T^
CO "5 °
/1\ py' u J
^^o^
H oZ £
e-
c
0
^
CO T
C *5
C •*
^
t— 1
c
aj
» •=
11
>-,
>J
CQ
£
CQ
fi
CQ
oo
rr
fV*
t-M
oo
m
Pi
OO
CN
K
00
—1
c*
oo
s
w
^
w
Q
"^ 's
O .3
•s P-I
c
Compound
,
i
i
_l
2
J
2
r^
0
U
*T"
S
CO
3,
cs
VO "1 CN NO (N
' ' ' ' -OO 22 ' ' t~~ O ' ' ON ' ' ' ' '
^ S ' ^ ' ' ' ^
;_J in in oo
,,,,.,. NO ON
^ ' ' ' vd
— ^r-ra °o^vo —I
CN ' ' ' S ^ ' ^ ' ' £ -' ' « ' ' ^
\o r- NO
'ON. ON • • > wi • • ' ' •
^^ in
, , , , ^ ON °5 ^ "
1 ' TT -x ' i r- ' • ' ' ' ~3
—. <^ !_, ^ ^
TJ- t^ m
1 vd ON ' ' ' § ' — ' ' ' •
^ — ^ TT
NO * 0 oil
^ ' ^ ' ' ' ^ ' ' ' ' J '
in oo in TT
' ' ' 'NOT^-'od1 ' 't^-1 ' ' > ' '
ON tN « fsl
~^ °^ in NO ^ f^
in1 ' ' 'vo1 ••! i^Xt i-Xi i i
—, i, CN in S 2
m TJ- ^ oo ** °°
' ' ' ' 'in'odSoo' ' ^ ' ' ' ' ^ '
JKJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ^J
2222222222222222^2
dddddd'-i>J^i-iJJJJJj
•5
^e
iiii r-;
'5
tn
O
'a
' ' ' ' %
O
C
o
O
•3. 1
*^j"
^r"
iii "O
CO
Q"
i ml Q
"' ' •*' ' Q
, ^ i
J ,
2 -• S 's -S
> CO
™ Jyj
o WJ
^ NO = =-
^ * vo H r~:
— • Q •«•
0 o
-------
00
"g £
•fa *- 0
C C -~
o CD u
o S CQ
.CO."
*-' CD '
C oo *O
o3 1) ~
"±± *o "o
w C ^
, «^H II
i-G !T? -»
.SP-S d
CD G I^H
0 3 ^
~ JS IT)
S ^
O O -—
ifa "O
s "g "s
•& * w |
S O M -^
05 £ c! C/3
M 0 0
C nJ -J
S «U S
•§ g^
*0 03 g
u ^^^ c
oo P* i—
l_ 00 D
^2 ^ *o
1/3 Sa «
J « ^
*-» ** o
g 00 ~
i— i --< Qj
•*— » >-« ^
S 1? T3
c 8 £
S 0 to
w s^ .^^
O^N ,
O
'-r*'' M "7t
W C J>
< -B I
Si* td r^
^ ^—> r-i
I g.s
"S ° "o
03 d >
^ C! OO
_G oo S C^
CJ ^ -S
O t, (V ^
•^3 O- „ 00
03 -, 03 3 ' —
^ >• ^^ °^
ID 00 (O
"o CD .s J2
3 C T3 03
C --i CD >
>-. L, CL) ,
X;
^ 0 'S
•* '™ -^ o
ja « § ti
j2 o n -2
KS 7; o o
E-H C_^ o T3
,,
C
"o
a
o
o
cu
j2
u
g -a
•** 3
g S
j
c
>
C3 ' l— '
"S «
H vi
>
ca
w
w
CQ
00
^.
oo
CO
00
2
00
^4
&
00
___
w
w
o „_
^ C
O H
tj >-J
Q
•a
0
a
c
0
U
oo oo
rf\ 0 ro
, , , , i i . — ^ , i , O i , i ' i CN
vol - r-
^" '"t VO ^
i i i i i i ff) i i i r*5 i O ' ' ' ^
' . *-^ j^ CN
•* ^ - ^
TT 0 "0 ro °°
ii'ir^iiit^vo^-'ii''®
VO CN — f> ^
s If g • | • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' '| 1
^|| ^ •* ^ vo ^| ool
l l i i^TiTj-ir^-i i i OO i ' ' OO
OO t*^- CN OOJ CN
t- CNl
i ,
O vo OO "^ •— ' r- o
,,,, 10 , ^r ro oo ' *~ ' i ^ ' ' ' ^— <
— • 1" CN oo CN CO 10
*~^
CN ON vo ON _^
i,ii,,inooON,C\ U?
OO CN — i 10 2
r^ vo ^^
^ S j^
or-,c-,(-,oooooo , ,o , ,-> -,S
0§§§002000S'-J ^
fsl ^^ — « i— ' 10 CN ^H rs ^-* ^£
^
§5S2|g|SSSg^g^^^ §
vOONO\ONCNCN^°1°00>/^OCN(N'000kn _]
rj-'u-loNONC c 5J
s ^ u ~ aj
H 35 >, o g
o ^ °£ ^2 "^i
u gnSJiTJ'Sjj
g | s g o « i 1 1 | ^! || M
'S'^'o.s'S ""= -2/e^^^S^--— '^S<
•ScTc35Jn2g53o^ooo2co&"
•s.ggog-SgSS&SSgs^gi
rauo^;^:C^>%(D,Cuu(u^ri;(U o
^<<(i(X
-------
Table 4.18 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) percentages for test and control sites. All data are
based on sediment dry weight.
Site Total Organic Carbon (%)
SRI 3.49
SR2 4.34
SR3 3.06
SR4 0.521
SB 2.39
EB 3.97
EL 3.24
WB 1.66
LS ' 0.073
LM 1.27
PM 4.65
8-21
-------
CO
CD
3 *•>
"5 §
> co t~l
-a § H
CD .2 '
.5 « .'.
•n is ^a -s
CD C 3 R
« s| 1
3 C '3 S
/!•» O ^> Tt
<1^ Q g 0)
T— < ^ Cy
W) -J- 4^ X
•i s g s
co co " n)
. . CD II ,
4) »i " b
-K O. n c
^ ccJ ON 12
O s. X; ON co
"S 1? *"* ~
0 e 13 «
o .5 ^! <4-<
i) T^ ^ O
£ -§ g) S
-a c § oo
c 3 S 2
«
C ^ — a
•B § *S s
« -a c cs
•*-J -r--i J ^H
co T3 ^t-H co
^ C « .t5
r^ Cd " r-<
^H 1— (
oo „« 2 .«
« > > "S
.8 J II
•^J 1 — 1 ^- ^J
_, ' CD O
S S)-0 £
O c T3
* « ^ Q
co OH to
^ w — -d
^ 0 2. £
P .U CD CO
S G > ^3
co rri w .-.
>-H ^^ QJ
•4— ' ~ •• CO
C _. - O
|.s S^s
^ "S =3 §
s s 1 -
t-c X i co
O CD CD co
co 00 ^
co e C
*i X S CD
c ° .53 IH
cs vc 05 CD
r- rrj ^>
.5 £ g >
F3 "e 0 co
§ g cS §
•*— * f ^ ^^ ^
i-H V ^*H JT-i
S C pj cd
8 8 s >
0 " M II
'S S •= v
§ oo T5 • -
00 cD K -0
i- V* J^ CD
O CX 0 *-;
C CD X co
i — i u* CD 1 — i
ON
•sf
CD
1
H
'oo
~5b
a.
al
C
'6
TO
•^— >
c
o
U
ON! f
£-1 H "
N| ^1 "
CN W
c-l ° ^
^s -
— V£
^|2 s
1 r
OOl If
•^1 oo C
i-^-il CNl .»/"
r- oc
300 VC
p -
0 C
_DI ^ ^
£1 2 S
r- *— '
r^l °' °'
vJI co oo
»-,! °l ^
U H °°
V-'l »— <| r— 1
_, «N ON
0 ^ °^
^1 CO CN
C0| ^0 CN
<1 co r~-
1 CN CN
oo o
— i CN m
r
j <-
'1 S
1
1 ^o
•-H
1
1 ^
m
1 ^1-
00
vo
•^^-
r-
'd-
CO
0
ON
O
»— *
vo
ON
i 1
•St
VO
CO
CO
CO
ff!
oo
H ON o
! S S
5 ^H r-
1 O O
1 rj- v
) O C
\ CN CX
) in -s
) i— c "S
o c
1 ^11 ""
1 CN t-
VO »—
>i**U
I vo r-
CN VC
9 c
0
CO 00
o o
*-< r--
^ ^
°^ ON
CO VO
vo r-~
vo —!
CO Tt
co in
•si- vo
CO VO
0 0
CN ON
•si- —
•sr vd
m •— i
O vo
oo in
•sf ^r
CN
^f
& m
C/3 00
01 T;
^ p
-1! P
-< -s)
^ r~
1 OC
i c
3 --
r —
r u-
5 C
> oc
4 c^
r-
o
-*
0
1 <^N
OO
CN
ON'
t>-
CO
•sl-
oo
CN
ON
O
r-
CN
VO
>n
ON
^3-
CN
ffl
w
t p
-1 p
1 p
t V£
j
5
3
J V
< f
) V
> c
oc
r-
1 s
^
0
ON
r— J
»-H
00
K
r-
oo
0
•si-
r-
p
CN
r^
o
r-
ON
m
CN
CN
J
m
•> -s
^ 0
•^1 p
5 O
^
V-
) O
1 C*
1 0
J c.
ir
C
T—
CN
0
O
oo
m
oo
in
•sr
•si-'
CO
in
CN
in
in
ON
vo
ON
CO
oo
i— t
i
l-l r- — i CN
° <*? wS 2
^1 ,-H vo ~
V
N. m <— ' vo
i o o m
•<• "> - CN
O
N ON f-~ CN
4 r-- in oo
J O CN •sf
j o o o
V
i r- oo co
J °°. 0 CN'
V
m "3- r-
CN VO -st-
000
0 O 0
V V
ON > C3
« « 0
lie
>. >, 0
J -J OH
oq
CN
VO
CO
o
oo
t— H
o
0
r_l
oo
*— <
T— 1
co
o
o
CO
"Cf
CN
r~~
CO
CN
vo
CO
CO
•si-
CN
r-'
ON
O
o
o
oo
p
o
m
•si;
CN
r-
C
_o
o
13
00 >— '
03
^
CD
<
0 O
in --<
— i "3-
t r
i i
i i
ON vo
O — '
CN m
>n .— i
*~; ^
O,.— *.
t^»J
t*-- oo
s «
•si- o
co r~-
CN
— • o
oo r--
CO
CN VO
-^ ON
CN O
»„• r~-
oo l
j
a>
M)
r£
CO
>-i
co C
-5 -2
-a
fe n u
<4— t O t-H
PJ j S
8-22
-------
Table 4.20 Average SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment samples
tested in 1997.
Sample ID
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
SB
EB
EL
WB
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropotank
Mean AVS
(umol/g)
96.44
80.84
14.47
1.39
2.26
2.78
12.97
4.71
0.98
2.53
5.94
Mean SEM
(umol/g)
2.947
4.548
4.312
0.613
3.870
5.939
5.513
5.886
0.107*
0.881
1.255
SEM/AVS Ratio
0.031
0.056
0.298
0.441
1.712
2.136
0.425
1.250
0.109*
0.348
0.211
* Value is sum of the detection limits for all metals examined. The resulting SEM:AVS ratio is
the theoretical maximum for this site.
8-23
-------
t+H
O
ca
ab
CD
a
"o
GO
GO
0)
0)
03 O
| 2
G £
r- t°
F£- HH
'—I
2 ^
o
o
§ S
.£ s
"O ~
m s
GO C
1 "a
£.§
o r>
T3
§Q
-*—»
GO *J
0
ON
•*
O
CN
^1-
O
O
•<*•
CN
0
0
o
m
o
o
CN
O
o
0
"3-
&
CO
o
r-
oo
CO
in
o
o
0
0
?
ON
ON
in
'CN
ON
m
o
o
ON
•"3-
CO
0
oo
m
00
o
VO
0
o
0
CQ
CO
ON
CO
ON
in
in
o
o
0
0
0
V
oo
ON
VO
Tj-
Tf
vo
O
o
o
r-
co
0
o
o
oo
o
r-
o
o
o
CQ
W
CO
in
m
-3-
0
O
0
o
?
CN
OO
in
^f
ON
VO
O
O
r-
Tt-
Tf
o
m
o
"3-
O
o
o
o
_1
W
vo
oo
oo
in
Tf
o
o
0
0
0
\f
f— <
r— (
in
t^
CO
o
o
m
VO
CN
O
"3"
m
^r
o
oo
o
o
CQ
•5*
•>
r~-
0
o
*
CO
o
o
0
0
?
CO
ON
O
0
?
CO
0
o
?
r-
0
0
\J
ON
O
O
V
CN
CN
O
O
o
V
•o
c
ca
CO
c
,
^
_,
oo
oo
O
CN
O
o
0
?
in
VO
r-
o
0
o
o
o
Tj-
co
o
o
>n
t —
O
o
VO
o
o
o
T3
2
s
r—
S
>
5
~
H
>,
m
in
CN
r—(
vo
0
o
o
o
o
V
VO
CO
o
^— 1
0
o
o
o
t— -
0
0
CO
»— H
o
o
o
o
o
^t
c
-2
"o
Q.
8
o
ex,
vo
o
o
0
o
m
ON
o
in
CN
o
•*
•^t
CN
0
o
ON
CO
o
•<^-
Tf
o
o*
01
•"£H
r~*
f~<
u
(—1
o
"o
22
"5
Q
c
1
ca
£
GO
o
.S
"S
T3
(D
00
00
8-24
-------
Table 4.22 Chemical data for pore water extracted from test and control composite samples.
Site Name
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
SB
EB
EL
WB
Lynn Sand
Lynn Mud
Porop. Mud
Ammonia
(mg/L)
16.49
13.24
6.86
21.73
6.50
8.89
11.96
8.70
2.96
15.13
8.84
Nitrite
(mg/L)
0.0008
0.0015
0.0005
0.0031
0.0006
• 0.0005
0.0012
0.0005
0.0309
0.0008
0.0007
Sulfide
(mg/L)
0.0748
0.2676
0.0220
0.0120
0.0135
0.0263
0.0263
0.0149
0.0106
0.2289
0.0092
Unionized
Ammonia
(mg/L)
0.6365
0.5315
0.2375
0.8390
0.2250
0.3076
0.4445
0.2726
0.1239
0.4599
0.3414
NOTE:* EPA criteria for continuous concentrations for saltwater aquatic life. Values for
sediment exposure concentrations have not been determined.
8-25
-------
Table 4.23 Reference toxicant data results from water only, reference toxicant tests for the
seventh year of the ambient toxicity project. Test duration was 96 hours for all
organisms except C. variegatus, which ran for 9 days. Cadmium chloride (CdCU
was used for all organisms. '
Species
C. variegatus
L. dytiscus
S. benedicti
L. plumulosus
Toxicant
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl2
LCso
fmg/L)
0.78
0.71
2.19
0.23
95% CIs
fmg/L)
0.56-1.00
0.42-1.03
1.42-2.98
0.12-0.36
Historic Mean
LCsoimaia
0.795
2.975
3.819
0.717
8-26
-------
Table 4.24. Individual metric values for South River stations. Metrics were not calculated for the
Elizabeth River sites, as beach seining was not conducted.
M<&fc ! : ;, \-
Total abundance with menhaden removed
Abundance estuarine individuals
Abundance anadromous individuals
Proportion of carnivores
Proportion of planktivores
Proportion of benthivores
Total number of species
Number of species captured in bottom
trawl
Number of species comprising 90% of
catch
South River Stations
$tei- -
916
743
90
0.11
0.85
0.04
15
3
4
$K~2 '• ,
207
68
51
0.26
0.49
0.25
14
1
7
SR-3
914
665
73
0.05
0.86
0.09
17
4
5
* gfe4
702
656
3
0.02
0.95
0.03
12
4
2
8-27
-------
Table 4.25. Fish ffil values for South River stations, 1997.
Year
1997
Station
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
ffil Score
29
29
39
27
Table 4.26. Mean Fish IBI scores for South River stations, 1989 to 1997.
Station
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
IBI Score
27
28
30
31
8-28
-------
Table 4.27. Trawl Index score and rating for each station sampled in the South and Elizabeth
Rivers, 1997.
River
Station
Trawl Index Score
Rating
South
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
0.67
0.33
1.00
1.33
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Elizabeth
ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
0.33
2.00
1.33
0.67
Poor
Good
Fair
Poor
8-29
-------
Table 4.28. Summer mean dissolved oxygen concentrations above and below the pycnocline for
study sites.
River
South
Elizabeth
Station Above Pycnocline Mean
DO (mg/L)
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
4.5
6.2
8.2
7.9
5.6
5.9
6.2
6.6
Below Pycnocline Mean
DO (mg/L)
1.4
1.4
3.5
5.6
4.6
5.3
5.2
5.2
Table 4.29. Mean Secchi depth by station. The habitat requirement for one meter restoration of
SAV in the Chesapeake Bay for mesohaline and polyhaline habitat is 0.97 meters.
River
South
Elizabeth
Station
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
Mean Secchi Depth (m)
0.62
0.87
1.04
0.79
1.41
0.86
1.19
0.99
8-30
-------
Table 4.30. B-CBI values and benthic community condition at 1997 ambient toxicity sites.
River
Station
B-EBI Value Benthic Community Condition
Elizabeth River
South River
EB
EL
SB
WB
Station 1 (SRI)
Station 2 (SR2)
Station 3 (SR3)
Station 4 (SR4)
1.67 Severely Degraded
2.33 Degraded
2.67 Degraded
2.33 Degraded
1.00 Severely Degraded
1.00 Severely Degraded
2.33 Degraded
3.67 Meets Goal
8-31
-------
Table 5.1. Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity tests
(multivariate or univariate analysis), along with the fish and benthic IBI data for ambient stations
tested in 1997. A yes (Y) means some significant level of toxicity or impaired biological response
was reported. A no (N) means it was not.
Station
ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-WB
ER-EL
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
Water
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Result
Sediment
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Fish3
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Benthos
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
If either the fish seining or trawling data suggested impairment "yes" was included.
8-32
-------
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for references and test sites presented in Figure 6.1-6.7. Comparisons for
which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X",
while "-" indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN (15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER'S CREEK (21)
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
O
O
O
O
-
-
-
-
O
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
O
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
O
1994
X
O
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
8-33
-------
Table 6.1 (cont.)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RIVER CH2 (34)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (41)
SOUTH RIVER -SRI (42)
SOUTH RIVER - SR2 (43)
SOUTH RIVER - SR3 (44)
SOUTH RIVER - SR4 (45)
ELIZABETH RIVER - EL (46)
ELIZABETH RIVER - EB (47)
ELIZABETH RIVER - WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER - SB (49)
1995
0
X
X
O
X
X
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-34
-------
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.10- 6.16. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X", while "-" indicates no data
taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (S)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN (15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HE AD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER'S CREEK (21)
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
•
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
O
O
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
0
1994
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
O
X
O
-
-
8-35
-------
Table 6.2 (cont.)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RJVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (3 1 )
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RIVER CH2 (34)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (41)
SOUTH RIVER - SRI (42)
SOUTH RIVER - SR 2 (43)
SOUTH RIVER - SR 3 (44)
SOUTH RIVER - SR 4 (45)
ELIZABETH RIVER - EL (46)
ELIZABETH RIVER - EB (47)
ELIZABETH RIVER - WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER - SB (49)
1995
O
O
O
O
0
X
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
O
O
X
O
X
X
0
O
X
X
X
X
8-36
-------
Figure 3.1 Eight stations sampled during the 1997 Ambient Toxicity Program.
South River-1
South River-2
South River-3
South River-4
MIDDLE RIVER ,ff '\
BALTIMORE:
Elizabeth River-EL
Elizabeth River-EB
Elizabeth River-WI
Elizabeth River-SB
8-37
-------
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Indian Head
$ 30-
& 20 -
£ 10 -
I 0
-10
Patapsco River
Reference
Test
50
Freestone Point
I 30
^20
| 10
^ 0
-10 J
50
^ 40
u ,n
x 30
*" 20
| 10
^ 0
-10
Reference Test
Possum Point
Reference lest
Dahlgren
^40 -
•§30-
20 -
fjio-
* o-
-in -1
0
Test
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 € 1-2 03+
*Test is significantly separated from reference
8-38
Test
-------
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
£-40
.o on
S30
"20 -i
Patapsco River
-10
Wye River
Reference
Test
50
£-40
| 30
"~ 20 -i
Dahlgren
o
-10
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0
1-2
3 +
*Test is significantly separated from reference
8-39
-------
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Wilson Point
40
30-|
20
10
0
50
Reference
Test
Reference
50
Quarter Creek
>40-
o 30-
^ 20-
5 10"
1 oj
(5
Reference Test £
50-
^.40-
i 30-
^20-
S 10'
i o-
i n ~
Bivalve
o
ND
§?
1
Frog Mortar
Test
Manor House
Reference
Test
Sandy Hill Beach
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 € 1-2 • 3 +
*Test is significantly separated from reference
8-40
-------
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Severn
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
Junction Route 50 |;
io1
0
Reference
Test
50
'40
30
^•40
o
Annapolis
10-
Reference
Test
Betterton
Test
Turner Creek
Reference
Test
Gibson Island
Location Symbol Key
Reference
Test
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
OO C 1-2 • 3 +
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-41
-------
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation.)
50
Northwest Harbor
_o
JS 30 -
_ 20 -
0
O 10 -
^ 0
Reference
Test
50
'40
,0 30-
^ 20-
0
O 10-
0
Curtis Bay
Reference
Test
50
o 40-
,§ 30-
520-
Middle Branch
Reference
Test
MIDO.E RIVER
N BALTIMORE
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 € 1-2 03 +
rTest is significantly separated from reference
Test
8-42
-------
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Pamunkey Below
York River Above
I40
£ 30
(D 2O
I 10
o
Reference
Test
Pamunkey Above
! 3O-
2O-
• 10
' o--
-10
Reference
Test
James River Above
so
f
3O
20 -
10
O
Reference
Test
James River Below
o
1
10 -
0 -
Reference
Test
" York River Below
so
Reference
Test
Willoughby Bay
Reference
Test
Lynnhaven River
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 • 3+
Reference
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-43
-------
Figure 6.6 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Chalk Point
CH6
Reference
Location Symbol Key
S 2O
^ 10
O
Test _7 V1 lwy Reference
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 O 1-2 • 3+
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-44
-------
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 water column data, (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation)
South River-1
Elizabeth River-EL
River-SB
||30
55 20
S 20
I 10
0 --
Reference
o ---
Location Symbol Key
Test ' ' Reference
Concentrations Exceeding WCQ
O 0 Cl-2 03+
*
••
Test
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-45
-------
« £ 0 2>
o •£ o c
5 « c 'g
^3 " £ -n
> « S3 ^
x P£ g
O 5 •— rZ
•a § -a g
C g •*-• J-.
~ « §>
§< |g«
LH • c/3 1— . -:
™ CJ OT o ^°
.11 .s^
"H -o £ U "§
y o js c H
£ •* o. H c
_ e M w c
-2 I =3 •§ £
H* "** W *J
GO c*-. W3 *-. O
.S ° c 'p ^2
*n v-« '— *•" £>
^OO—o
o -a a u 2
o c -a o o.
S 2 g g 2
•a c in TD es
0 U 0 IS 'C S
o -a x o H
" "> 0 -C ^
g^ljg
1'sSlf
t^^ • *•• *^ 03
>>-«.a o is
'S o § £ g
x -2 H ^ S)
f2 § a ^ «
" •" •£ — «
= M r 2 a
E SI fe ^ -a
t 0 liS C 4)
— " w o -a
O O *- O 3
" - 'S ^"3
o t s g .E
« ^ 0 C to
«! a = g^
tu. cs o vj; e
0 « -o o «
~w *-* IS u
s S g^-o*
E 2 S^ 2
2 « S5 g 2
^P^^l
°° 0
\O U>
2
CO
E
(S) sjuiodpug JUBoum6!s jueojad
§ § S § 8
S »
i-
i
M *
tcj ^
E i
*^ ^ ^B
__ 1
Pxl •
k-J y
SI ' t
El t
KI •
t/^ N^ ^H
1
Jr
r
FT7] A
lAl V
S *
1
[x] p
ic
i
El p
m
i— *
M~7I 1
El p
El •
§
M y
i^j M
fxl •
'^ ^
4
'T
r\yi /M
K '•
ii
I
i
M ll
2SJ '•
^ :f
Fvl 1 1
£SI 'P-
F
§ g g o lo
xepui Ajjosxoi jajBM i
o
D
0)
0
c
8-46 £
(V
"oi
a:
0
N
'V
J=
i
\
/
<
«
'
a
1
fc
^M
>
o
4
<9
^_
3?
1o
^Pe
^
^
<£>•
°c
^x
%
x
V
V
D)
O
DC
TJ
0)
0)
k.
O
4^
(0
-------
ea H V
•* ™ «5
"— ' "« C ,fc
° /— s S1 W ""
H -; "co i-c .X
C -2 60(2
CO ^ C r_J ^
"O **-« ?* 4) n*
y o .2 u. f— i
o "c .§* S -S
^^ ^-* w ^ ^5
SO lt-i to «_. CJ
c o -s •= -o
' ™H *•* r* "^
*rj ^ • ""* *"• ^
O ^^ f^j rt. ^
o -r; c y rr
cs | g 5 |
0 JJ O C en
C "^ Si O ^
2 ^ 2 ° "c
u °° c & |
« ^ o g =
« S u 3 "
.ti 00 S "
y E £ 2 _^
,c iu _j .S ^
. ^^ ca p
r- y-v c m
CN ^J « U -J2
r— * C^ Q ^
i _^ ^^ c/5 77
o 5 c "^
O> CO » ^
1—1 t** -"^ -o "«
-2^ _g •- o <'•"" E"1 co
HI • (•• c/5
^— ; y5
c to ^ £ rt
~ o 'S § "^
" -S 'E ^"o
Jj WH ^ U C
S «« , ^; C t-
eg M 5 r- "P
O
O U)
.S3
(E) S}uiodpu3 jUBO.mu6.is juaojad
O O Q O O
^ CO CD ^ f^
1 IS • 'i
•P— •, ._____._ , i
[X] 1 • 1 '
[X} 1 • 1 ,
S i 1 i '
„ i
S3 * ' i
Hi i '
._, i
E ' i i ,
i
fr-7i ,
W 1 • 1 1
|
IS • • !
1
Kl v 1
13 =0
K K
S • l
E3 i • '
[X] 1 •
E! i • i
HI n ,
i
Ki rin
i
S •
0 i •
13 4
IE *
i
S f
C
Kl if
§ ° g ° 'L°
xapuj Ajjojxoj. jajBM _j
o
0)
8-47 £
0)
0)
o
•<•
ft»
^f>
£
•c^
^
^>
•%>
c^
^1^
* I
«". O)
* 0)
^ cc
TO
^
-------
Figure 6.10 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Indian Head
Reference
Test
Freestone Point
50
Reference
Test
Possum Point
50 T-
f40]
19 So-
i 20
Reference
Test
Dahlgren
so r
040 J
§20
Reference
Test
Patapsco River
50
0401
.2r
o40 .
fso.
§20 -
I10'
oo
n -
O
*
Reference
Test
Wye River
Reference
Test
Morgantown
(3
*
Reference
Test
Elizabeth River
Location Symbol Key
-------
Figure 6.il Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C 1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-49
-------
Figure 6.12
Toxicity Index results for 1992-1993 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Wilson Point
Frog Mortar
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C 1-2 • 3+
rTest is significantly separated from reference
8-50
-------
Figure 6.13a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the
Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.)
South Ferry
50
50
Reference
Betterton
Tesf
Turner Creek
Reference
Test
Gibson Island
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 •
Reference
Test
*Test is significantly separated from reference
8-51
-------
Figure 6.13b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from
Baltimore Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
Northwest Harbor
100
Bear Creek
Reference
Test
Reference
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
0-0 €-1-2 •-3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-52
-------
Figure 6.14 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for detailed description of presentation.)
so
Pamunkey Below
40 '
30-
2O-
1O-
o
Reference
Test
Pamunkey Above
*•»
^40 -
£
3O -
-------
Figure 6.15 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Chalk Point
CH6
Reference
Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 • 3+
Reference
Test
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-54
-------
Figure 6.16 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 sediment data. (See Section 3.4
for a detailed description of presentation.)
SOLTI River-1
Elizabeth River-EL
Reference
Test
Elizabeth River-EB
Reference
Test
Elizabeth Rrver-WB
Reference
Test
Elizabeth River-SB
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Test -7 — >~j Reference
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
OO Cl-2 • 3+
Test
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-55
-------
f K § •£
L_J *O » •*•*
^ 0 cfc 00
C/5 « CO C
§ ^ S 'S
J3 u c «n
03 c3 u a>
g I i g (S) sjuiodpua ;ueo!jfu6|s juaojad
"2 2 *o h
c x ^ tiJ o
T" w e u 5 o o o o
^ g g t: *• * °> » w c
H <; « c
X p « (N
H _2 '« <2 0
r*j co MA «— » i™— i
.§2 .sl-s
«« £ £ H
g ^ JS « c
c c n. j§ —
2^f|
.E 2 f E I
•S w .S — o
!"S S.8 S.
o '« "2 c H
« E g-S «
•a P (*-, c 52
y i: o c fe
"c ,0 u 0 ,0
g ^ eo " g
2 00 « J- g
u -: c o. =
IS ^ g a «u
oo y >- 3 -ts
« 3 ^ P "
.-i g, o. e o
« :- (U 2 J=
W U -S E C
£ U -0 'S 0
00 C 2 co
• s-' CO fc .«
s - ^ ^ :2
c^ , « 15
— . (*_ j_» ^ 1-
^ 'S "S c
:§ o g fS s>
£ x H co
^ 0 o ^ en
Hi -G J2 re
= H "H 2 "^
M«s c-s
•= 0 en 0 ^
^3 .c .r; s3 o
w i_ C co .5
'~ cS ^ o 22
w TT t^ s
r- W -T-J t*—
= - g cu >,
= « = u "2
-1 u O _c ^ I
y: c! o -s « 1
IS dj
rv^i r^^*'^^^^^
K7I I — m^-\
I2SI 1 •,J
1
IS Mi
E3 •?
i
S nu
IE at
IVI 1 — • — i
LA] 1 — ^_J
IS ojo
KI nc
IE nb
i
i
IS W3
P771 b
^1 •
1
IS(B
fs?! n
lAi w
(VI a <
»i • ^W
[
rf^JL
l^
an-
i
nsh
!_ IJRi
aih
i
r\/i mb *,
12Sl DP
1
Ufp
i
B*,
Vr
HI,
»,
- S § g § o-o
0 T-
1 xapuj Aiiopcoj. juaiujpes _.
EP O
U. D
O)
G>
rr
TJ
0)
£
0)
k.
O
*•«
-------
§•£
•u o
C J3
fl
'u S
.s s^ g
rS T) -o tu
C JJ ^3
^ o '—' -^ ~
^=2 ^ S 5
>^"i '5 "^ ^
• - .y o
o g^
_c ^£
to
cc
CO
£ o
O "U
Jn -. E O u T3
' s I -b §
a 1= p
CO
I "5 ^ •-
-j co tr o
K £J 8 -
sjuiodpug meoufu6|s
8
S
2
§
8
on
OB
: • i
rw~n
i n •
1 • ~'l
o
to
o
*-•
(6
8-57
cu
o
-------
APPENDIX A
Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds data from sediment toxicity tests
-------
O)
a
z
D
o
a.
O
o
UJ
O
UJ
CO
UJ
O
O
UJ
K
UJ
o
o:
(£.
3
C75
CL
< cn
& S
w £
=5 <
CD ro
c; ^
o o
O O
(s^.
o>
X
o
ro
To
ro
5
ro
10 "S I
CO £ ~Z
§ p
•- o i
S? ^ CM w
O CO ^
CN r*- r- c c co
-~-i^O5O) ro_< CD"X
? S CN 9 .S> - 0. o> 2
•Q-OCMCMCgUJg^
C^£3or- .— "~> C/> ^" y)
cna>T-T-LLCtI3.c.a
iZ
T3 "O "b TO _£-' ra
CD CD CD CD i: ~
o .2 o N . ™ S
CD CD CO ->> •£ Q- a
oS-ggg^-i-iS
UO:UJ<£«EU-U-^
CDCDCD CD 2 — -c ro ro 2
rorororococcDroroi5
DDQQ£<5OQX
o
u
0)
eg
1
3
CD
O
u
cu
Dg
S*
t
o>
^3^
of
Ll-
CN
O
O
cu
cc
S?
I
o>
3.
X
a
o
o
CD
1
^
i"
0.
o
o
CD
cc
v°
i
^)
3
S
CO
U-
>
o
o
CD
a:
5?
1
N
CD
CD
J2
|
-z.
O)
0
_j
_j
cr
5
CNOfCNtOT-OCN-q-T-f^-tnOCM
SSS?S!?SS!?S?fi{ScS
cno> m T- co T-O'fl;
cdcNOcdr-Tj:cocDC>oai'a-cor~-
r*~T— r— COT— O>T— Lnc3>T— O>T— T— T—
on^qrttowT-cMco^T^Trcq
tNCNCNCNCOlOincOCOTCOCOCD!--
CN CN CO CO
CO CO CO CO LO * ^ CM CO ^- CO CN Q ry.
SSInSS2^f2SSS3^S
r^cocoootDcOTj-^oojo^tr-
lT)lT)i-cOOioiomtoiomioio^!2 o
S
15
D
15
o
o o>
j-- C
to c
1 0
c >
o —
-D ?
CD £
CD "E
CD b
CD ro
"ro ~
> 3
CD c
c -S
ro o
omi>-o->T-cNj "o. 2
CNjT-cOT-CNCNJ ,Q-Q.J2 -. Q.
coc^'O'c: 5- E
IHII5 ^ f
Z CM 1— Q- CN CM" « 1—
A-l
-------
O O
CD CO
O O
in in
-
£ K
O UJ
o o
UJ UJ
j K
a: at
S £
< Q.
to
X
a:
i
% •
O)
CD
• ce
co a; CL
^£ r^ £
'o. '5. co
WWW
o
in
a.
m
o
Q.
UJ
CO
c
.a
CD
C
"O CD
v «
~ g
1 ™
E ra
o ^
CN "5
o>
r- r- N. r-
cn o> en o>
o 35 o CN *?
•S CN co CN CM
E o o o ?
c
CO _
Dl —
c 5
^ a
~v -o
£ CD
g -
S Z = <-> J= co
O O O CD X C
ro ra O CC UJ <
UJ
to 8
S a:
£•
5? °
to o
50
ID
cc
'o
"re
il
o
c
o _
a =*
to
~o
c
IT
o"
c
o —
o §>
to
5
a
a. :=:
E ¥
re =
CO
.
E
CD
'a.
to
•D
C
^
O
a.
E
o
O
o
o
Is
m c
**— ^
a! z
*) fT\
N *~
0 CN
T T
CO CO
o r^
oo •q-
CO -fl-
CD CO
r-. co
CO Tf
CD r*"-
CO ?
T- CO
r-.' en
r- co
CD CO
r-- co
CO TT
CN r-
iri cb
r-- en
o o
o o
CV CM
_j _J
O
•z.
UJ
X
X
II
CM CL
^ m
en
CD
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
in
,-
r~-
CO
iri
CO
$
.,_
*
t—
^
0
o
T—
_J
2
UJ
,4-DICHLOROBENZEI
•«-
CD
CO
'
CO
CO
^~
•o-
0
in
^-
8
^j.
CD
in
^.
ci
in
T_
cb
in
^
CO
in
o
o
•«—
_,
S
Ul
•^
1
>-
a.
-NITROSO-DI-N-PRO
Z
^
CO
o>
en
CO
00
CM
"*
r~-
o
CO
ix_
fc
j^
CD
CO
N-
o
CO
^
r-'
^
p;
o
0
_,
2
UJ
UJ
N
,2,4-TRICHLOROBEN
*—
0
N.
O)
CO
CN
CN
a>
m
m
m
0
co
in
iri
«-;
^
co
o
CM
CM
O
O
CM
_J
0
LU
X
Q.
•CHLORO-3-METHYLi
•q-
'-
CO
CO
,_
CO
CM
CO
CO
g
en
CO
h-
co
cb
o
CO
§
a>
cb
r-
cn
cb
r-
o
0
_,
S
CENAPHTHENE
-------
SURROGATE RECOVERY ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
Data File Path:
Data File:
Historical Data File:
US EPA CBP Manufacturer:
Amtox 97 Parent ID:
09/24-10/10/97 WSID:
09/30 & 10/10/97 Date Made:
10/29/97 Amount Added:
11/20/97 Concentration:
PE Autosystem
RJMII
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\pest\data\atox97
psurrsed.xls
pest\qc\history\surr\090897.xls
Supelco
P2736
1830
10/03/97
1 ml
400 ng/ml
AMRL Log
Number
blk!029
50596
50597
50598
50599
50600
50601
50602
50603
50604
50605
50606
ms50604
ms50604d
TCMX Added
(ng/ml) FV
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
DCB Added
(ng/ml) FV
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
TCMX Cone.
(ng/ml) FV
236.7
273.0
260.4
317.8
427.5
367.6
477.4
440.2
479.1
645.2
414.3
332.0
331.4
321.6
DCB Cone .
(ng/ml) FV
368.1
364.6
447.1
446.3
352.4
451.6
385.2
458.5
313 .0
467.4
363.7
273 .0
374.5
418 .4
TCMX Percent
Recovery
59.2
68.3
65.1
79.4
106.9
91.9
119.3
110.1
119.8
161.3
103 .6
83.0
82.9
80.4
DCB Percent
Recovery
92.0
91.2
111.8
111.6
88.1
112.9
96.3
114.6
78.3
116.9
90.9
68.3
93.6
104.6
QC Advisory Limits(USEPA CLP 1991):
60-150%
A-3
-------
H
UJ
UJ
<
<
0
CO
o
ORGANII
_j
UJ
-j
|
CO
O
Z
o
0.
o
o
Z
0
I
(J
O
Z
<
I
01
(_)
UJ
CL
CO
X
o:
•£}
i 1 * Is «
m in § Q,r--co2j_
EEm w Q. •»- ^ T-
O) » T3
o * >- co
» -J -^ S> -• T3
.-.CD T OJ "D
"5. "§ f 9 ^ 1
'5. 'o. co J5 co ^ To E
WWW 5 Q- & Q <
•o
0)
s
E E
D. roo5O)ro2 <
£] §3j°gj°<^uj
Dll|SSo!53
•D T> "b -b
CO (U CO CD
Q 0 .2 'O N^ ^
jplllllj
oo'co'r3To^o(''c
1!
ra 5-
-C Q.
"ro
a
_CO _CD
ro ro
"fQ "^
D Q
X
§
CD
O
tn
~0)
V
'5.
CO
1r
^
"to
"G
g'
t5
CD
a.
CD
iZ
'ro
Q
o
to
i
f
CO
t
E
O
a
5?
3?
Q
CO
3?
CO
o
c
o
o
Q
CO
u
c
O
o
co
5
at
a
£
m
CO
u
c
o
o
a
'5.
CO
o
"•
5^
a
a.
cc.
a
a.
a:
[ecovery
C£
^»
?
o
u
CO
OL
I
"Si
c
1
"Bi
c
1
c
I
c
•D
C
D
O
o
O
o
s_
CM
CO
•«•
g
*—
CO
•6
f~~
-^
D
CO
co
C3)
r^
D
0
0
o
o"
X
op
s
cu
c:
CO
T3
C
— 1
O
CO
m
CO
CO
CO
O)
CO
CO
o
0)
in
a>
CD
CO
o
0
0
o
o
^1
o
s
'a.
CD
X
CM
CO
"3-
CO
CO
0)
^
CM
iri
0
CM
CM
r--
C3
CM
O
O
O
C
2
<
^ O5 ^
CO CO CO
i- CM CO
CO T CM
co in o
co TT in
f- •>- r-.
m « •»
°!§5
co ">: «
s°2
r- CO LO
co T-: rvl
T- CM a>
co tr TJ-
CO CO CM
T^ iri CM
•«• CM CD
CO M- TJ-
O O O
o o o
o o o
|i9
S "c V
a uj -^
to
1
£.
o
to
T3
CO
^,
1
o
"c
CD
E
o
"co
W
Q- M
0 |
5 £
^- o
O
A-4
-------
OT
Q
O
a.
til o
II
08
UJ UJ
o:
UJ
O
a:
(£.
O)
•0 r^
CD O5
T3 O
II
< o _co
5 CM "S
„ °3 ° ,n
f^ c CD -S2
i^r^i— cj) co ^~i x
gg;S>ro?3.o)=Q.^ _
SOCOCD-^ c^LUco 5
ECoo^e^W^w
• •=
P — = o ^= CO £
ct
O
CD X
e
OOOOJXCS^-..^-^
co coOCt:uj< t cn^gLLL.
££3S^a^SS
o o'coTo^olo c^ c cu^oTc}
OOQQOQS
3
ST
co
o
o
t~- • *- co
r— in co h-
O h^- C75 O5
r~- co T- CN
T- CD f- CD
O O5 O O
O5 h~ C7> CT)
•^- TJ- m co
^- m T- en
•^ o TJ-" co
m m in in
^r Tf in oo
T— in f- cj>
T O TI- CO
in m in m
•
^j* h^ C75 in 'c1
CO O5 •<— O CZ
«- CD T-" ^r — i
co in co co Q
O
•«r r- 05 in
CO C35 t— O
T- CO T^ tj-
CD in co CD
T3 T3
r~ Is- c
O O 3
. „ CD CD o
^- CO o O O.
o o m m c
g 1° CO CO g
S § 5 2 0
•0- CO •>- ... O CO
- ^ V 5 0 CM
in co co Q T- o
CO TJ- CO *~ CM "-
ST
CQ
5? ._ ^T
-^ CD ST 0
S^ fc|
Z >~ T" ^ Q.
— ' ? ct ° °
c -g bS" £ o
cu 9- ^ ^ j= S
N J3 ^ CL O- -Q
^ o ^ o 5 IT
o 2 a. g 2
CO
' USEPA
CD
"o
CO
c
I
CO
(—
3
c
o
T5
ro
"x
CD
CD
"co
5
CO
CO
^
'co
Q.
S.
CO
x:
1-
A-5
-------
CO
o
z
o
a
o
o
m
o o
CO CD iv.
O O o
$ "8 g
E £ S
O
CD
'5. 'o. to
CO CO CO
co
O >.
cc a
O HI
< o
o o
LU LU
«J
U. LU
S £
< a.
co
X
ce
8
c
a
o
'c
^
CO
if
a
CD
°
E
CD CN
O T-
•=> < O T- ^
2 - =
^f O
< r--
2 CN
e ^
CD _ <
,O) — CL
c T CO
il IT Zl
O
CO
-*;
o
O
•b
—
tj
^
"o
O
(T>
D
cu
'CD
o
0)
a:
CD
CO
Q
•b
S
ro
"x
LU
a>
CD
Q
"D
CU
_>,
CD
C
CU
CD
D
^
CU
2
to
_c
'«
—
c
<
o
-d
CU
5
i
CO
0-
II
m
CO
D
_5>
LL
m
CO
Q
m
U
Q
"S
o
o
LO
X
0
•k ®
PS
»*
H
S
* a
u *
a *
a
<*> 0>
,_ K
a)
1 °
" (p
ai
#> 01
w o
S o
0)
a
o
SH
0 w
Q 3
CO
S
u
E rH
O -v.
u tn
3
CO
s
0}
H rH
a ~-,
S en
« 3
u
•O
E
3
O
a
6
o
u
0)
o u
n
m "
a/ 2
g) 2
Q:
S <«
2 °°
, 1
' CN
CN H
O CM
u> •*
5 S
CN CN
S 5
CN CO
*r "3*
CN CN
r- co
0 0
0 0
CN CN
0
z
Id
T^
a
0
O J
J O
S 2
U B
CN CL
^- l/l
cn
1
VO
m
CO
CN
V
o
s
Tf
o
s
o
o
H
[d
2
u
N
Z
m
O
B:
o
0
rH
D
I
^r
*
\o
H
*""*
r-j
CO
co
en
r-
^
CO
cn
H
CO
r-
0
o
rH
Cd
2
y
2
, ~]
^*
a
O
a
i
2
i
H
Q
i
O
0
a;
EH
JH
2
2
r-
CO
en
i
en
ro
CO
CN
in
H
rH
CO
H
H
in
H
CO
ro
H
O
O
rH
Ed
2
Ed
C"3
2
td
CQ
0
0
J
X
u
EH
TJ.
_
CN
rH
O
rH
r-
i
ro
CN
CN
tn
p-j
^
r-
cn
0
CN
cn
en
rH
O
O
CN
, *)
O
2
Ed
a
j
^H
X
Ed
2|
i
n
6
o:
o
K
U
'
rH
tH
CO
rH
^
'
*•
rH
m
CN
P
VD
in
CN
^)
in
o
o
rH
Ed
2
td
h
X
rt
2
Ed
O
Li
H
O
CO
1
o
rH
O
fO
CO
m
u>
in
in
o
o
CN
j
O
2
Ed
X
O
o;
M
2
^
vo
rH
cn
i
^
CN
CO
ro
(N
r-f
*
CO
rH
H
CN
H
rr
CO
H
rH
O
O
rH
Ed
2
Ed
D
0
H
O
OS
£H
M
2
Q
•c*
CN
r-
<-i
ro
O
H
i
cn
o
tn
cn
£
0
H
CO
rH
O
CN
rH
0
O
CN
i-3
0
2
Ed
E
OH
Pi
S
T"
a
rH
M O
-H >
.£
rH
e m
0 C
/I 14_J
T] ro
(D
^ _r^
•rl 4J
d) S
•o
C/l
cn cu
D A:
3 -H
i— H pt
rfl m
X
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Ins t rument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data Pile:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
N/A
N/A
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No.:
Matrix:
Sample wt.(g)
Organics
Method Blank
blk!022
Glassware
N/A
N/A
McDaniel
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry (ug/kg)dry
Tag
None Detected
A-7
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50596.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SRI
50596
Sediment
29.9
74.4
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Dot. Limit
(ug/kg) dry (ug/kg) dry
Tag
206-44-0
56-55-3
Fluoranthene 227
Benzo(a)anthracene 84.6
10.6
17.8
A-8
-------
AMRL " '
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
ROM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50597.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC (yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SR2
50597
Sediment
30.4
81
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry (ug/kg)dry
Tag
206-44-0
129-00-0
56-55-3
205-99-2
Fluoranthene 852
Pyrene 289
Benzo(a)anthracene 196
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 599
10.6
10.6
17.8
13.9
A-9
-------
~ AMRL
OEGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
3S3832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
US EPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50598.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SR3
50598
Ssdimsnt
30.4
73
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
85-01-8
206-44-0
129-00-0
56-55-3
205-99-2
50-32-8
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo ( a ) pyrene
ISO
446
238
88.1
211
377
9.2
10.6
10.6
17.8
13.9
15.2
A-10
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt.(g):
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II % Moisture:
USEPA 8270 modified GPC(yes=2,no=l) 1
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97Data Released By: Rob McDaniel II
b50599.xls
Organics
SR4
50599
Sediment
30
29
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
85-01-8
206-44-0
56-55-3
205-99-2
50-32-8
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
30.6
205
17.7
53.1
32.7
9.2
10.6
17.8
13.9
15.2
•"»S
j
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
A-ll
-------
' AMRL" " '
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
ROM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50600.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SB-B-01
50600
Sediment
30.3
52.9
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry (ug/kg)dry
Tag
91-20-3
208-96-8
86-73-7
85-01-8
120-12-7
129-00-0
56-55-3
205-99-2
50-32-8
191-24-2
Naphthalene
Acenaphthal ene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (g,h, ijperylene
49.7
129
38 .2
382
307
779
104
1000
5950
2810
4 .
5.
9.
9.
9.
10.
17 .
13.
15.
16.
.6
.9
.9
.2
.9
,6
.8
.9
.2
.5
A-12
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h: \labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50601.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organ ics
EB-B-01
50601
Sediment
30.1
58.8
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry tug/kg)dry
Tag
85-01-8
206-44-0
56-55-3
50-32-8
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
84.1
746
270
881
9.2
10.6 •
17.8
15.2
A-13
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-SO
RJM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h: \labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50602.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
EL-F-01
50602
Sediment
30.5
60.1
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg) dry (ug/kg) dry
Tag
91-20-3
208-96-8
83-32-9
85-01-8
129-00-0
56-55-3
218-01-9
20S-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
191-24-2
Naphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Acenaph thene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
173
3320
334
3390
15700
12100
4050
23700
6650
11100
2590
4.6
5. 9
9.9
9.2
10. 6
17.8
14.5
13. 9
13.9
15.2
16.5
A-14
-------
AMRL ' ~ " •
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50603.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix .-
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
WB-A-01
50603
Sediment
29.8
51 . 9
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
85-01-8
56-55-3
218-01-9
205-99-2
COMPOUND
Phenanthrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg) dry (ug/kg) dry Taer
63.4
27.9
16.5
343
9 .2
17 . 8
14 .5
13.9
A-15
-------
—— — - AMRL " —
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
ROM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50604.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Lynn Sand
50S04
Sediment
30.4
19.8
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry (ug/kg)dry
Tag
206-44-0
205-99-2
50-32-8
Fluoranthene 434
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 50.1
Benzo(a)pyrene 106
10.6
13.9
15.2
A-16
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
362832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
RJM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h: \labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50605.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organ ics
Lynn Mud
50605
Sediment
30.2
47.3
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
Cone.
(ug/kg)dry
Det. Limit
(ug/kg)dry
Tag
206-44-0
205-99-2
Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
614
109
10.6
13 .9
A-17
-------
~ AMRL " ~~ — 1
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
10/10/97
10/10/97
10/22/97
11/24/97
Finnigan MAT Incos-50
ROM II
USEPA 8270 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\bna\data\atox97
b50606.xls
Laboratory :
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) .-
% Moisture:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Poropotank
50606
Sediment
30.2
78.5
1
Rob McDaniel II
CAS NUMBER
206-44-0
COMPOUND
Cone. Det. Limit
(ug/kg) dry (ug/kg) dry-
Tag
Fluoranthene
118
10.6
A-18
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
N/A
N/A
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
blkl029.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt :
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight :
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Method Blank
blk!029
Glassware
1
1
1
1.59
0
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-S4-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ng/ml)FV Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta -BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
236.7
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
23.6 J
41.7
BDL
26.7
BDL
74 .6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
368.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
Tag (ng/ml)FV
C ND
24 .0
19.0
U 28.0
U 20.0
U 21.0
C 36 .0
C 19.0
30 .0
C 25.0
18 .0
C 43 .0
42 .0
U 16.0
25.5
116 .0
81.0
U 151.0
200 .0
25.0
C ND
10.0
16 .6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16.6
16.6
ND- Sot Determined
: - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
? - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL ror multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-19
-------
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
VA DEQ Laboratory:
Amtox 97 Sample ID:
363832 Sample No.:
N/A Matrix:
N/A
10/07/97
11/13/97
PE Autosystem
ROM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\labs\ecal\organics\analysis\pest\data\amtox97
Organics
Method Blank
Blkl007
Water
AMRL Data File: bllcl007.xls
Data Released By: Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
534S9-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone .
Compound (ug/L) Tag Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
157.52 c
BDL U
BDL
BDL
BDL U
BDL U
BDL U
BDL
BDL
8.04 J C
BDL
BDL U
BDL
BDL U
11.77 c
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL U
BDL
192.05 C
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
(ug/L)
ND
10
10
1.9
1.9
4 .2
3 .1
2.2
10
50
5.6
2.5
10
2.8
10
4 .7
10
10
5.6
25
ND
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS conf-rmation
M - compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmat-
: - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed present
o - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
KDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest poir.t of calibration
A-20
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path-
AMRL Data File :
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . . \analysis\pest\data\atox97
ms50604 .xls
DATA SHEET
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt •
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt •
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Matrix Spike
50604
Sediment
30.01
1
1 59
80.16
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
S3469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
21096-82-5
Sample Cone .
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
331.44
BDL
107.74
103 .62
123.95
BDL
46.81
BDL
BDL
63 .81
43 .94
341.28
425 . 78
BDL
BDL
462.19
78.18
BDL
BDL
BDL
374 .46
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
c
C
U
U
c
c
c
p
x_
c
u
u
c
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.71
0 . 62
0 . 82
0 61
Occ
.DO
1 06
0 . 57
0 86
5 00
0 . 53
0 90
-i 94
J_ - Z *i
OA *7
. rt /
0 . 75
3 H 1
. *± £.
2 4 ]_
5n n
. u u
1 . 50
ND
MT"1
WU
10 . 00
16 .60
16 .60
16 .60
16 .60
16 .60
16 .60
i c. £ n
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-21
-------
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
353832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
ROW II
USEPA 8031 modified
h:\. . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
ms50604d.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix :
Sample wt. (g) :
Wet Wt :
Dry Wt :
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPCfyes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Matrix Spike
50604
Sediment
30.09
1
1
1.59
80.16
2
Rob McDaniel
Dup.
II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ng/ml)FV Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1250
325.63
BDL
96.27
95.86
75.15
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
60.87
83 .82
318.12
421. 84
BDL
BDL
497.51
129.70
BDL
BDL
BDL
418.43
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
U
C
C
U
C
C
C
U
U
C
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg)dry
ND
0.71
0.62
0.82
0.61
0.56
1.06
0.57
0.86
5.00
0.53
0.90
1.24
0.47
0.75
3 .42
2.41
5.00
1.50
ND
ND
10. 00
16. SO
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.50
NT>- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
32L - Below detection limit
MD1 for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-22
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
AmtOX 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . . \analysis\pest\data\atox97
p5059S.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt :
Dry Wt :
Pan Wt :
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SRI
S0596
Sediment
29 .89
1
1
1.59
25.65
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
75-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone .
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta -BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4' -DDE
Dieldnn
Endrin
4,4 ' -DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Sndrin Ketone
DCB (Surr}
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
273 ..0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.5
8.4
10.4
17.8
8.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
30.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
364 .6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
U
U
U
U
C
C
C
C
C
U
C
U
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1. 1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0 .9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3 .4
2.4
5 .0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confir-ned by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-23
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
353832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . . \analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50597.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt. (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SR2
50597
Sediment
30.08
1
1
1.59
18.96
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4' -DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
260 -3
BDL
15.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
16.9
BDL
9.5
BDL
5.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
33.5
BDL
BDL
13 .7
447.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
u
C
u
u
C
u
C
C
u
u
u
C
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3 .4
2.4
5 .0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
N3- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/XS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calicration
A-24
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. .-
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\. . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50598.xls
DATA SHEET
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt :
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt :
% Dry Weight :
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SR3
50598
Sediment
30.07
3_
1
1 . 59
27.05
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12572-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone .
Compound (ug/kg} dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha-BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCS (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
3 17 ..8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
96.5
24 .8
BDL
18.5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
27.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
446.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
0
0
u
C
C
u
C
u
U
u
c
c
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0 . 7
0 .6
0 . 8
0 . 6
0 . 6
1 . 1
0 . 6
0 . 9
5 . 0
0 . 5
0 . 9
1 . 2
0 . 5
0 . 7
3 . 4
2 . 4
5 . 0
1 . 5
ND
ND
10 . 0
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 .6
KD- Not Determined
C - compound confirmed by secondary GC colu-n analyse, but concentration not suffer for GC/MS confirmation
K - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analyse, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS con-
- Confound confirmed by secondary GC column analysxs, concentratxon sufficient for GC/MS analysxs, and GC/MS con xl.ed o
o - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit con.i.mea p
BDI, - Below detection limit
MDL for rn.lti-cotrpor.ent analytes based on lowest point of calxbratxon
a-cn
!
e.-ce
A-25
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/25/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
ROM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\ . . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50599.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt :
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SR4
50599
Sediment
30.04
1
1
1.59
71.04
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-S
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12S72-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCS (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
427.5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.6
BDL
3.5 J
4.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
352.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
u
'0
u
u
C
u
C
C
u
u
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1. 1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3.4
2.4
5.0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16.6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16 .6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC colurr. analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirnation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC colurn analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC colurrr. analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/.XS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
Id, for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-26
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File-
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
ROM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\...\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50600.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. .-
Matrix:
Sample wt.(g):
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
SB-B-01
50600
Sediment
30.25
1
1
1.59
47.11
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
50-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
534S9-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 ' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCS (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
367. &
BDL
BDL
6.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
19.7
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
49.0
BDL
41.5
BDL
451.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
Tag (ug/kg) dry
C ND
U 07
0 Q _ g
C 08
U 0.6
U 06
U 1.1
Of:
. D
0 Q _ 9
C c: n
*- D . U
Or
. D
IT no
"-1 u . y
I'j
. /.
Or
. D
U 07
U1 A
j . 4
C 94
*— £ . *t
5 . 0
C 1 c.
*— X . J
ND
CMF)
IV L>
10.0
1 C £T
-Lb . b
-] C fT
io . b
16.6
*l f- £•
±b . b
1 c. c
-Lb . b
16.6
16 .6
- Not Determined
C - compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concent
GC asis*
ration not sufficient for GC/MS confi^
on sufficienc for GC/MS
.
331 - Below detection limit
t-Cl for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-27
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No . :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . . \analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50601.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt :
Pan wt :
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
EB-B-01
50601
Sediment
29.99
1
1
1.59
41.18
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-S4-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone .
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
477. .4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
14.3
BDL
3.9
BDL
24.3
BDL
BDL
17.9
BDL
5.4
BDL
385.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
U
u
U
u
u
u
C
C
C
u
u
C
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/fcg) dry
ND
0 .7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3 .4
2.4
5.0
1. 5
ND
ND
10 .0
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for raulti-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-28
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. .-
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\ . ..\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50602.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
EL-F-01
50602
Sediment
30.14
1
1
1.59
39.91
2
Rob McDaniel
II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
ND- Not Determined
Compound
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4'-ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr}
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Sample Cone.
(ug/kg)dry
440..2
BDL
BDL
9.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
19.7
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
55.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
458.5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
Tag (ug/kg)dry
C
u
C
u
u
u
u
u
C
u
u
u
C
u
C
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3.4
2.4
5.0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16.6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16.6
16 .6
'
3DL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-29
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No. .-
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst :
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/24/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h: \ . . . \analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50S03.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCS ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt. (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt :
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPC (yes=2 , no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
WB-A-01
50603
Sediment
29.94
1
1
1.59
48.1
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
75-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-3S-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma -BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4, 4 '-ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
479,1
BDL
2.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.4
3.7
BDL
2.4 J
3 .1
BDL
BDL
BDL
35.8
BDL
11.5
BDL
5.6
BDL
313 .0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
u
C
u
u
C
C
u
C
C
C
u
C
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
3 .4
2.4
5.0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16 .6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed oy secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-30
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
RJM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\. . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50604.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No . .-
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight :
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Lynn Sand
50604
Sediment
30.42
1
1
1.59
80.16
2
Rob McDani
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound Jug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX ( Surr . )
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 '-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCS (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
645 .2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
7 g
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
467.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
Tag (ug/kg) dry
M ND
0 7
n G.
u . o
Op
. o
U 0.6
Un £.
u . o
U 11
'-' j. . j.
Oc
. b
OQ
. y
C 5.0
Or
. t?
OQ
. y
U 10
*-' -i. . ^
Or
. 5
U n i
** \j . i
•5 A
J . *±
C 0 A
*- <£. . <±
UC rj
J . U
1 . 5
MFi
WJJ
C ND
10 . 0
-) (T (•
J. D . O
16 . 6
-\f f
-Lb . b
-i (~ f
-Lb . b
-if- f-
-Lb . b
1C C
-Lb . b
T £ C
ND- Not Determined
C - compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not suffxd-nt for GC/MS confirmation
:: " r;;::: bbyy :::s£ GGCC cor anars- —- — <««/«-.i^rt™^
-- - Compound detecte/blr::^!!:: L°S Z?£^ Z^™™ """^ '" '^ -*"" »"
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-31
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID :
Contract No. :
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument :
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
~ AMRL ~
ORGANICS ANALYSIS
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE
OS EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
09/29/97
09/30/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
ROM II
USEPA 8081 modified
h:\. . .\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p50605.xls
DATA SHEET
and PCB ANALYSIS
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Pan Wt :
% Dry Weight :
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Data Released By:
Organics
Lynn Mud
50S05
Sediment
30.15
1
1
1.59
52.71
2
Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Sample Cone.
Compound (ug/kg) dry Tag
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4' -DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
414.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
12.7
5.9
BDL
5.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
363.7
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Tag
C
u
u
u
C
C
u
C
u
u
u
C
C
Detection Limit
(ug/kg) dry
ND
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5.0
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.5
0 .7
3 .4
2 .4
5.0
1.5
ND
ND
10.0
16 .6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16 .6
16.6
16 .6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but concentration not sufficient for GC/MS confirmation
M - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, but failed GC/MS confirmation
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient for GC/MS analysis, and GC/MS confirmed presence
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit
SOL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi-component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
A-32
-------
Contractor:
Contract ID:
Contract No.:
Date Collected:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Instrument:
Analyst:
Method:
AMRL File Path:
AMRL Data File:
AMRL
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE and PCB ANALYSIS
US EPA CBP
Amtox 97
363832
10/10/97
10/10/97
10/29/97
11/20/97
PE Autosystem
ROW II
OSEPA 8081 modified
h:\...\analysis\pest\data\atox97
p5060S.xls
Laboratory:
Sample ID:
Sample No. :
Matrix:
Sample wt . (g) :
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt :
Pan Wt:
% Dry Weight:
GPC(yes=2,no=l)
Organics
Poropotank
50606
Sediment
29.98
1
1
1.59
21.51
2
Data Released By: Rob McDaniel II
CAS #
Compound
Sample Cone .
Detection Limit
877-09-8
319-84-6
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
319-85-7
319-86-8
1024-57-3
959-98-8
5103-71-9
72-55-9
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-54-8
33213-65-9
50-29-3
7421-93-4
72-43-5
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
2051-24-3
80001-35-2
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
TCMX (Surr.)
alpha -BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldnn
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane
4,4 ' -DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -ODD
Endosulfan II
4,4 '-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
DCB (Surr)
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
332.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8.6
18.5
BDL
BDL
17.2
BDL
10.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
19.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
273 . 0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
j.ag tug/Kg) dry
C ND
Un *7
u . /
n n c
U U . D
0 . 8
0 . 6
Cft C
U . O
C*1 1
1 . 1
Oc
. o
Un Q
0 „ 9
Cc n
5 . 0
0 . 5
C 0.9
17 ~\ 1
*-> -L . £
0 . 5
Un *7
U . /
3,
. 4
CO A
£ . *t
5 . 0
1 . 5
ND
C ND
10 . 0
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16 . 6
16.6
ND- Not Determined
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, but: concentration not sufficient for GC/MS conf
M - Compound confined by secondary GC column analysis, concentration sufficient f~™ confirm
P - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column analysis, concentration suf !n o GC MS ™l£.'' a^d C/
J - Compound detected below calculated method detection limit analysis, and GC/MS con
BDL - Below detection limit
MDL for multi -component analytes based on lowest point of calibration
firmed presence
A-33
-------
APPENDIX B
Water quality conditions reported in test chambers
during all water column tests. Test species were
Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv), Eurytemora affinis (Ea)
and Mulinia later-alls (Ml)
-------
Date Test Station
Species
10/01/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/01/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/02/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
DO (mg/L)
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.6
67
Sal(ppt)
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
' 22
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
pH
8.03
7.99
7.97
8.01
8.06
7.91
8.04
7.98
8.08
8.03
7.99
7.97
8.01
8.06
7.91
8.04
7.98
8.08
8.13
8.05
8.04
8.05
8.09
8.02
8.11
T(c;
23.0
25.4
24.9
25.7
26.2
25.6
25.4
25.6
25.5
23.0
25.4
24.9
25.7
26.2
25.6
25.4
25.6
25.5
24.8
24.9
25.0
24.7
24.9
25.0
24.9
B-l
-------
Date Test Station
Species
SR-3
SR-4
10/02/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR7.0-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/03/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/03/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
DO (mg/L)
6.7
6.7
5.9
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.2
6.4
6.2
8.0
7.0
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.9
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.3
Sal (ppt)
23
22
22
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
22
22
22
pH
8.09
8.07
7.92
7.90
7.85
7.90
7.96
7.92
7.94
7.94
7.95
8.45
8.23
8.31
8.39
8.39
8.23
8.16
8.22
8.10
7.94
7.90
7.88
7.87
793
7.92
T(C)
25.0
25.0
25.2
24.9
25.0
24.9
24.9
25.2
24.6
24.9
25.0
25.2
25.2
25.3
25.1
25.1
25.2
25.1
25.1
25.0
25.1
24.6
25.5
24.7
24.8
25.2
B-2
-------
Date Test Station
Species
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/04/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/04/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/04/97 Ml CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
DO (mg/L)
6.1
6.5
6.0
9.2
7.9
9.1
8.2
8.4
7.0
7.5
7.8
8.0
5.8
5.6
6.4
5.7
6.1
6.6
5.6
6.5
5.7
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
Sal (ppt)
22
6.5
22
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
23
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
22
23
23
22
23
pH
7.90
22
7.91
8.49
8.21
8.34
8.32
8.30
8.02
8.10
8.15
8.18
7.79
7.68
7.85 -
7.69
7.81
7.92
7.75
7.91
7.76
7.89
7.96
7.91
8.02
7.95
T(C;
24.9
7.96
25.1
25.0
25.2
25.0
25.0
25.2
25.1
25.2
25.1
25.0
25.0
24.8
25.3
24.6
24.8
25.1
24.3
25.1
25.0
22.6
24.9
233
24.6
24.4
B-3
-------
Date Test Station
Species
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/05/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/05/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/06/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
DO (mg/L)
6.7
7.3
7.4
7.5
8.3
7.4
8.3 -
7.8
7.6
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.1
5.0
5.4
5.2
5.0
5.2
5.3
4.9
5.4
5.2
8.8
8.1
8.8
8.4
Sal (ppt)
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
22
23
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
22
PH
7.96
7.99
7.95
7.93
8.43
8.17
8.31
8.28
8.25
8.08
8.14
8.16
8.12
7.69
7.62
7.68
7.62
7.73
7.81
7.68
7.78
7.64
8.57
8.30
8.51
8.45
T(C)
23.9
23.9
24.9
25.4
25.3
25.0
25.4
25.4
25.3
25.3
25.4
25.4
25.1
25.0
24.9
25.0
25.0
25.1
24.9
25.1
25.0
24.7
25.4
25.5
25.3
25.5
B-4
-------
Date Test Station
Species
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/06/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/06/97 Ml CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/07/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
DO (mg/L)
7.7
8.9
8.4
8.4
7.8
5.3
5.6
6.2
5.6
6.8
6.6
6.4
7.0
6.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.2
7 1
6.9
6.8
7.0
8.5
6.9
8.1
Sal (ppt)
23
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
pH
8.24
8.38
8.32
8.43
8.25
7.66
7.67
7.77
7.64
7.95
7.89
7.86
7.99
7.82
8.05
7.95
7.90
7.92
7.89
7.92
793
7.87
7.90
8.32
7.98
8.21
T(C)
25.4
25.5
25.6
25.6
25.5
25.4
25.5
25.2
25.5
25.3
25.4
25.6
25.3
25.4
25.5
25.7
25.6
25.5
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.2
25.1
25.2
25.3
25.2
B-5
-------
Date Test Station
Species
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/07/97 Cv CONTROL
ER^WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/08/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/08/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
DO (mg/L)
7.3
7.4
8.2
8.0
8.1
7.79
5.7
5.8
6.6
5.7
6.2
6.9
6.5
7.5
6.1
8.6
7.3
8.6
7.5
7.5
8.7
8.1
7.9
8.0
4.9
5.3
Sal (ppt)
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
23
23
22
23
22
22
22
22
23
23
24
22
23
23
22
23
22
22
23
pH
8.10
8.09
8.20
8.19
8.23
8.15
7.66
7.72
7.90
7.68
7.88
8.01
7.88
8.08
7.81
8.35
8.06
8.40
8.03
8.14
8.35
8.22
8.33
8.25
7.51
7.61
T(C)
25.2
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.1
25.2
25.2
25.4
25.0
25.3
25.1
25.5
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.1
25.4
25.2
25.3
25.3
25.1
25.3
25.3
25.0
25.2
25.3
B-6
-------
Date Test Station
Species
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/09/97 Ea CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/09/97 Cv CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
DO (mg/L)
5.0
5.3
5.1
6.7
6.8
7.3
5.6
8.8
7.3
8.0
7.2
8.3
8.2
7.1
8.0
7.9
4.4
55
5.0
4.7
4.2
5.9
6.5
5.9
5.0
Sal(ppt)
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
24
22
22
23
22
24
23
22
23
23
22
23
22
22
22
22
pH
7.54
7.60
7.56
7.87
7.84
7.99
7.69
8.45
8.18
8.25
8.11
8.31
8.41
8.23
8.33
8.30
7.57
7.71
767
7.55
7.56
7.87
7.96
7.83
7.69
T(C)
25.0
25.4
24.8
25.3
25.0
25.3
25.2
25.5
25.5
25.4
25.5
25.5
25.4
25.5
25.3
25.3
25.2
25.
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.4
25.7
25.2
25.7
B-7
-------
Date Test Station
Species
10/10/97 Ml CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
10/12/97 Ml CONTROL
ER-WB
ER-EL
ER-EB
ER-SB
SR-1
SR-2
SR-3
SR-4
DO (mg/L)
7.0
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.9
7.5
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.7
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.4
Sal (ppt)
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
pH
8.09
7.96
7.96
8.04
7.96
7.89
7.94
7.92
7.95
8.14
7.99
8.01
8.00
8.09
7.97
8.05
8.02
8.02
T(C)
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.6
25.6
25.4
25.3
25.6
25.7
25.6
25.5
25.5
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
Summary offish species by station and gear type.
Total abundance for each species at all stations is also presented.
-------
§1£fKBf ••••- ' * '
SR-1
SR-2
s&critf /**•'
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Carp
Chain pickerel
Gizzard shad
Inland silverside
Mummichog
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Gizzard shad
Inland silverside
Mummichog
Pumpkinseed
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Yellow perch
SEg^CATClE
19
2
59
25
1
1
3
7
28
32
20
3
1
86
1
37
1
27
1
2
30
31
1
14
5
6
46
3
i mwkc&tof
626
1
1
4
C-l
-------
SWtipp-^ W/.T ,
SR-3
SR-4
•SJPISOQESr "'"'>, ??'" * " ••••••"
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Gizzard shad
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Mummichog
Northern pipefish
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Summer flounder
Threespine stickleback
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Gizzard shad
Naked goby
Northern pipefish
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
^aea^&afca.
7
46
621
69
88
5
4
36
11
18
76
8
5
1
1
65
1
15
1
351
28
9
3
1
2
9
3
1
TOAwiK&waaar - '
3
13
456
1
3
274
1
1
C-2
-------
sfjrreis , > ^
ER-SB
ER-EB
ER-EL
ER-WB
-•$$$€$$$ *t-,' ,
Bay anchovy
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Silver perch
Spot
Weakfish
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Naked goby
Spot
Weakfish
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
SEE*® CATCH
=
TO&m
-------
APPENDIX D
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances
species biomass, and B-IBI values and scores for each site
-------
CO
CD
r^
CD
CD
• •
UJ
CO
t— 4
— ^
—J
cr
o
"•"^
r^
CD
OJ
»- CO
UJ
CC 1—
UJ I-H
I w
3 >-
CO 1-
)— 1
- o
CO 1-1
0 X
I 0
t- t-
2
UJ 1—
m 2:
Q £
2 ca
< s
K <
2
UJ
o
cr
>
z
UJ
^_
O
f—
i
O
CD
'I N II || |,
ii ii ii
II II II
i! " 'i
" 'i i
ii - ii !! !!
II CD II ||
!! - i! !!
!•' " -
8 ii SI
" ' II M ii /•>
" <- " ii §
II 0> II || "
ii -Q ii n w
11 E H 'I m
11 <" II H m
11 *-" 'I " 2
!! °- " ' 3
co i! ii ' '" -°
" n -H
" I1 <-
i! £ '" ii -
ii « ii !! <
!! Q " 'I %
" " ii M
jj ii ii ii
ii n ii
n
',' »
!,' !! " '
" i' i! i!
» 'i
11 ii i
i! ii i! S ! > -o
M uj II >• ll 13
H H ii i_ M ...
(1 n M *^ " ^*
I' CO II .-. || -D
i= m ii o: ii co
j^ -n II C3 II t.
H -L. tj • || N n i n -—
ii I f • ii , i: § £ s I
i £ i ? : 5 s 2 : : 5-
hiSjf rsiiis
r; -tF DC ii -^ • ii M || >
li tj -H co > Q. i i! m " *
i< — . " -"^ " ^ '"H 1 11 CD
\ss liisiis»ii = ii^
Sis? JSSJIigSS.
II -H -H ,-t || (- || c E 2 -tj o
| £ -H Q. 1, 0 II -H -5 S -3 S
II
II II II II
ii ii '" B
" II II II
II II II II
II II II
11 II
" ii ii ii n
ii I' T
ii " m- ii ii
n , n " UJ n
" — ii ii N n
II OJ || ,1
!! > » 11 ••
11 •H ii ii — - i
ii K ,'i ii ^ " "
5 ii ii o i! ii
1^ " " = » »
S " " — n ii
ii « ^ ii ii c !! i! 5
' N CO II II 0 S 1 ^
1^ ,n " 'I • CJ II II ^>
^ 0 II II CO >, || ||
"-1 'I II X II II
? ii i! ° " " ^
i* c ii it n jj ,
i p = n n — -a ii ii o
cu o ii u s cu n „ o
« i - > !' "to
, ' " 11 f"* ii n
- •• ii n j= o ii ii j-,
v - ii ii +-< oj ii ii a
% ro 11 u a. co n n S
s 5 ii !! a S ii i! A
,, s a H i) Q ^ a
II II II II 1
11 II — II II — II
cu
—
O r— ^—
00
oj en a> o o
^ *r to o co
i—* ....
ni ^r co o CM
> OJ CM CO C\J
"p"*
d» -^-»
^ rr- A°
«° • — -^
>
+J +4 .,-4 ._(
CO CO •*-* 4-J
O O -H -H
•-I — •> C/J CO
T3 T3 C C
c c cu 0
— S — - -H L_
O ^ CM c
H — -C 0 •-
O O ' CO
S 0) >— o o
o c_ ^
c c co o o
o a: co > Q
— c s ^ ^
ra 3 o c. a)
— — -^ n: o
^1 < C2 0 C
II — II —
II II
II II
II II o\°
II II
II II S
II II 3
II 11 O
II II
U ||
II II
II II X
II II CO
II II 2
II II
II II
II II
II II
11 II
II II
II II
II II C
II II -H
II II ^^
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II >
II II CU
ii ii a
u n
II II "D
II II -M
II II CO
II II
II II
II II
II II C
ii ii ca
II II CU
II II S
ii — - n
ii '— u
II CU II
II 4-J II
II 0) II
II S II
n u
U • II CO
II CT II
ii co ii a.
II II CU
n c. u cr
II CU II
II C. II
u - _• n
II n
II UJ II
II O II
II "Z. II CM
II < II
ii Q ii a.
II 2 II 0)
ii n n cr
II CQ II
ii < n
ii n
II O II
II I-H II
ii 2: ii
n t— u ••—
II 2 II
n uj n a.
II CO II CU
n u cr
n ii
n ii
ii u
n n —
n n
M II
II 11
II II
II M
U II
II II
II II
II II
11 11
II II
II II
II II
11 11
II II
II M
M II
II II
II II
II II
It 11
II II
II II
M 11
11 II
11 U
II |j
II II
1 II
II II
II II
I II
1 II
1 II
1 II
1 — II —
^^~ ~**~ ' ' — — _^ _ . _
CO CO r- O Ol O"i r«^ ~*
'— uj co r*- -r- co to
S S & g g S g g g s
SgSSSS^gg
COI^-incOCM-r-'r-T-^'0
!g£a1S-g°°c,
CO TT T- CM
CO LO O CD [S. r*i rr\ m
~lr ~i* ^^ *" i^* tv c'j ^~ CM TT
incDconoT-i^coN.^
S § - 2 2 ° ™ «' * CD
CMOJCMCOCOCVJ
mCMTfOJOJOJOJCOCDOJ
ISiJJgoocJo'mis.ix.
ocowco05050'^""
SmS^SS''^03"
SSSg05;:'00'
•jincoincoinrr^r en
COCDCNJCDCMTi— r\i
CO [^ in OJ r- ,_
coojcDTincDco in co
S^^^SiS10 " §
^
_ — uj
ra co co -i-i
•M 4-1 4_, ^_, _
ra 4-< 03 a to ~
^ 0 C f-l o 0
o -H
UJ CXCO-H^^lr-Hto
CU CO O CO O C, f-< '^ O ^
•'n5'S-2m-0°""-H
•*~^CXCCOS4-ii — 1 CO
Ocntnoccaoocuro
orao-H.-< recj'o =
'^=-— i — o^^co^n
*-O.QCXOO"OO-H"
•H-^OJCOCUOO-^OCU
J= -D C- '_ +-. = .^ -H >, ^
->_cu4-
-------
,— ^
CO
—
^
C5
O)
7!
v—
UJ
CO
>— 4
a
tr
o
v-^
[>^
O5
O>
V—
CC
UJ
-S
~"i
CO
.»
CO
o
}—
^
UJ
cn
2
.
1—
J— f
C_J
1— 1
X
0
h-
t—
"Z.
UJ
CO
^
<£
«—
T3
4_j
C
O
o
1
—— -
C™
cu
4_j
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[I
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
a?
S
3
O
X
ca
2
c
•H
^
>
CU
a
•a
CO
c
co
cu
2"
— .
CO
c.
cu
cr
CM
a.
cu
cc
., —
a.
CU
cc
—
m
CM
03
05
o
O)
^*
CM
lO
CO
o
•*-
O5
CO
73
O
C.
O
C_
CU
4*/
CU
CU
c
o
cu
4-J
UJ
in ^r CM O} *r
O5 O) O5 O5 O5
05 ^3* ^r ^" T
o o o o o
O5 ff 00 CO ^T
T OJ P"* f^"* OJ
OJ CD CM OJ CO
|jO OJ OJ CM OJ
00 CO P*~ h» OJ
o o OJ oj to
CO
OJ*
r- LO CO LO
G) T *^r ^r
ir> in co
• CO
c: o o
.,-i _-, ^^ ca
O O -M
o w c ro
^ -i—i Zi —
03 ca 07 c. n
•(— t o »~* ^n
^7 4-> ^C X ••— 1
^ C- '— C3 t-
c a? nj -M >»
co s T; o +-*
OJ CD O ••-* cococococoocoincoo
CO f^» t*" CO CO CO C7l O) O^ O5 C^
d 05 O^ O) C7) O) O5 O) O) O5 CO
T—
^r ^r ^* ^r OJ oj oj CAJ oj oj oj
ooooooooooo
T ^" ^ ^ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
CMCMCMCMCOCQCOtDCOCOCO
inininin/^j^^^r~-i-r-
LO UT) CO CO
rr -3- oj OJ
tO tO CO CO C"9 CO
T -C OJ OJ CM CM
CO
CM
cn
•<-?
03 i—i
•H a>
o o: o t.
3 -*-1 -r-* O O3 C -O
cow^oi) oca
^ *i-< i — i cr c_ i, c_ r— - 1
O J^ — CJ Q. CL r3 O
/— ' *-• CJ O 4-J D C_ 03
••— ( r-i^ OtDOWCvOC/5 ••-*
C— C3 O ~^~ "^ *ji qj c ,
-«-'J2-'Hr3 C3tOOO-^'O3
C/5 1. 09 — ™ C. "^ S ' — f
CCrsCUO^-J"- 'C-CO >i f~H
O S — ~ O CO CO — i—i c/) CJ
f— ' o co >> ^ c. H i—* f— f n -^>
oot-i— ic.osw>»aiC-
"C ftl C3 O rH -H CC COJ^r— ( ID
UJSd.c.
^
o
t-H
CQ
O
t—t
T*
1—
•z.
UJ
ca
ii
ii
n
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
|{
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
II
n
u
ii
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
11
n
n
u
(i
u
11
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
u
n
n
11
ii
n
ii
n
n
11
u
n
ii
n
ii
n
u
u
ii
ii
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
M
n
n
ji
n
n
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
ii
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
0?
5
0
X
CO
2
c
•,-1
S
>
O
C/3
C
CO
cu
CO
a.
cu
tr
CM
f*
CU
cc
T~
ex
cu
CO
CO
CO
CO
•>~
o
O5
o
O5
O
O
O
o
in
CO
O5
Q
O
CO
CO
T—
T—
-
o
O5
O
cn
o
o
O5
o
a>
o
o
CO
4-1
CO
C
c
•H
a.
o
-i-l
a.
CO
o
o
.^4
^
r"!
CO
CO
a.
CO
05
CM
CO
CO
••—
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
in
o
o
CO
CO
.
o
CO
CO
r—
o
CO
.,-H
r—\
CU
ca
^"
0
o
L-
a>
4_^
CO
*—
CO
^
0)
O-
1— I
<
•f t~~
cn co
co ^r
T 1*-
CO CM
CO CM
T- O
0 0
O K
O CM
O CM
O 0
0 0
*- O
CO O
r*- o
o o
o o
o r*-
CO CM
in CM
.
o o
f1*- r*«
CM CM
CM
-------
.-^
CO
CD
•-^
Is-
03
O)
T—
• •
T~
UJ
CO
t~-f
o
oc
o
^^
Is-
CD
CD
•r-
cc
UJ
s
s
r;
ca
..
co
o
T"
t—
2
LU
03
Q
2
<
t—
2
UJ
S
2
O
cc
>
2
UJ
S
O
I—
t-
0
a
^_^
•c
4-1
c
o
o
.c
o
c
re
c_
03
C
c_
a>
a)
a
UJ
. .
c
o
•1-1
4-»
(O
4->
CO
co
LU
1-
h- (
CO
>
1—
t-H
o
t-H
X
o
1—
t—
•z.
LU
f-H
m
s
<
^^
•
•o
4-1
C
0
o
1
*~*.
C-
eu
+J
CO
s
•
cr
C/)
L-
cu
Q.
C/J
E
co
c.
a
00
CO
<
s
o
t—4
CO
o
t—l
^"
(—
2
LU
OQ
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ir
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ji
11
II
II
II
»°
S
3
O
X
CO
S
c
•tH
S
>
CO
Q
•o
4-1
CO
c
co
cu
2
_ __
CO
a.
CO
a
CM
a.
a>
cc
T—
CL
co
cr
.1 -i
CD T-
Is- OJ
T in
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
0 O
Is- Is-
Ol OJ
OJ OJ
0 0
0 0
o o
o o
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0 O
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
0 O
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
IO
-,H
e:
c_
0
V-
•H CO
i-l 3
••-I C
S- CO
o
CO -H
3 C-
•M CO
CO £
CO CO
=:
0 C
C- O
CO O
4-1 3
co co
CO CO
CO 0
LO CO
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0 0
0 0
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0 0
o o
o o
o o
o o
0 O
'o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
O 0
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
O 0
0 O
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
™
—
1_
CO
4-<
co in
4-i O
CO CJ
CO
•H CO
o 3
= '-
CO CO
4-1
CO C.
3 O
4-1 4-i
CO CO
co co
E —
0 CJ
•H O
•0 -H
CO C.
2 CO
CD O
T en
CO CO
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ CM
OJ OJ
O 0
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
CM CM
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
•r4
4-i
CJ
-H
"O
co c.
cr 0.
CO CO
_Q
in
O CO
•H ~
o -t— 1
CO O
0 CJ
i— 1 -H
« H—
CO -H
C— jn
-rJ 3
CO f-
03 CO
r_ ,3.
Is- Is-
IO Is-
m CM
•V OJ
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
CO CO
0 O
o o
OJ OJ
LO in
0 O
0 0
Is-
OJ
OJ
0
0
LO
LO
^*
o
o
N-
OJ
OJ
o
o
CO
•H
L.
(0 CO
CO 4-1
'_ -1-1
» 1 — 1
3 0
O CO
CO 0)
C- "3
4-1 C
CO -H
Q. CJ
o >>
•r-4 f-t
Q C3
LO CO t-
Is- O CO
Is- CO CO
Is- Is- Is-
OJ OJ OJ
OJ OJ OJ
O 0 O
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
CO CO CO
o o o
o o o
OJ OJ OJ
LO LO LO
o o o
o o o
Is-
OJ
CM
o
0
Is- r^
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
Is- Is- Is-
OJ OJ OJ
OJ OJ OJ
O O 0
0 O O
CO
C CO
•H 3
O 4-1
CO CO
3 -H
If. 1_
•H 4->
> CO
CJ O
1 1 T-1
o
CO C
•H 3
CO CO O.
CO G_
C O CO
•i-l O -H
4-i JC X
L. '_ CO
CO <0 4--
s ~ o
CO O -H
2 c- cr.
LO CD
rr LO
CO CO
r-- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
o o
O 0
O 0
o o
o o
CO CO
O 0
o o
CO CO
Is- Is-
Of—}
t_J
0 O
O 0
Is-
OJ
CM
o
o
Is-
OJ
OJ
o
o
CO CO
4-1 J2
CO O
cr i-i
3 -H
1— 1 '—
4-1
CO
•H CO
'_ CO
>•> 4-i
4-* O
CO X3
< LU
CO Is-
Is- CO
CO CO
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0 0
0 0
0 O
o o
0 0
o o
o o
CO CO
0 O
o o
CO CO
Is- Is-
CD CD
0 0
o o
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
O 0
CO
-^
o
0.
p ^
o :£
t-J CO
o
r— CO
~
CD 1-
0 =
CO =
uj 6
r- m
0 «-
OT CD
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
0 0
0 0
o o
O 0
O 0
o o
0 0
CO CO
o o
0 0
CO CO
Is- Is-
Of~l
CO
•z. a.
CO OJ
LO !*-
CD CD
Is- Is-
OJ CM
OJ OJ
0 O
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
o o
o o
CO CO
0 O
0 0
CO CO
Is- Is-
O[— •.
>-J
O 0
0 O
r^.
OJ
OJ
o
o
Is-
OJ
OJ
o
o
CO C.
CO CO
cr J2
CO CO
t- rH
CO O5
co co
O CO
0 -H
"O S
0 >-
i— 1 CO
<—f 3
>* CO
51 Q.
CO 0
CO O
CD O
T~
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
0 0
0 0
CO CO
O 0
o o
CO CO
Is- Is-
o o
O 0
Is- Is-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
O 0
0 O
CO
4-1
3
c.
t_
O CO
CJ •-!
CO CO
£- i — i
O !-<
•c co
M ~
O 3
Q. I-
— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1C H
LO II
O) II
I--* ii
O II
II
II
II
II
CO II
CO II
CO II
CO II
O II
II
II
II
II
r-— ii
Is- II
OJ II
OJ II
O II
11
II
II
II
O II
Is- II
CO II
LO II
II
O M
II
II
II
LO II
T II
in ii
•q- II
II
O 1!
II
II
II
II
II
LO II
in ii
CD II
• II
0 II
II
II
II
II
II
CO II
CO II
CO II
CO II
• II
O II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CO II
CO II
CO II
S II
O II
•H II
03 II
II
r-l II
co ii
•M II
O II
1— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
D-3
-------
co
o>
o>
CD
cr
o
IX
O)
CD
cr
UJ
CO
LU
CO
>-
- O
CO I-H
O X
z
LU
03
Z
o
cr
z
LU
O
cn
II —
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
Jl
II
II
II
II
11
II
II =
II CU
U 4-i
11 1O
II C
II -H
II 03
II S
II
II ••
II C
II 0
II -H
II 4->
II OJ
II 4->
11 CO
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
— - —
rx
en
en
T—
in
£_
CO
-O
e=
CU
4->
a.
co
CO
cu
•M
OJ
Q
T3
3 o-
S co
CU TT
C T
"H O
rH
OJ O
.C
>, •-
rH OJ
O CU
O- C_
<
4-> "0
03 CU
•M i— 1
•H a.
-a s
OJ 03
2T CO
!_
CO
>
•H
cr
r~
4-»
CO
O
03 .2
M C3
•H 1_
rH O
LJ
O
. . r-
T3 3
CO O
-C >
to
f_ . .
CO C_
4-i 03
OJ CU
S 0
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
J]
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1-
z
LU
S
o
cr
rH
>
Z
LU
S
o
1-
1—
o
00
- n
n
u
ii
n
n
u
n
ii
u
n
n
M
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
|]
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
O
in
CD
*—
— •*
4->
a.
a.
—
>,
4-1
•rH
C
•rH
rH
OJ
CO
0
o
- — .
c
f~
4-1
a.
a>
a
CO
TT
•
CO
[x
^->
a?
•^•^
>>
03
rH
O
1
•H
rH
•H
C/5
J->
C
CO
£
•rH
-o
cu
CO
TT
'
in
. — *
rH
•
ra
s
^-,
CI
CO
01
>,
X
o
^^
CO
>
rH
o
CO
CO
•rH
Q
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1!
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
>-
t—
r-4
cr
o
LU
h-
z
r-H
0
hH
h-
O
r-H
m
LU
o
X
LU
Q
Z
>-H
O
r-H
^~
t—
Z
LU
cn
n
u
n
11
ii
n
u
it
n
u
u
n
n
fi
u
u
u
u
n
n
it
u
u
11
n
il
n
n
ii
ii
ii
11
u
ii
u
ii
n
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
n
ii
ii
it
n
n
ji
u
ii
u
n
11
n
n
u
n
11
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
11
u
n
n
ii
n
ii
ii
n
ii
n
ii
ii
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
!!
11
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
1
II
CO
. .
•a
CO
c_
o
o
CO
to
cu
+->
3
J3
•H
C.
4-1
4-t
<
%
•o
cu
-o
03
c_
C35
CU
Q
C
O
•rH
4->
•H
•o
C
O
o
CO
CO
CM
0
c_
0
0
V)
»-H
00
I-H
.
C2
CU
c
O T- T-
o
CO
co oj ix co in
3 T in co co
rH
oj in /x f*«. co
> CM CM T OJ
,-^
c\° -~ -
— -^ cA°
ov° ™
CO •— J?
a co —
c to o
03 CO C CO
"O 03 O! to
C S T3 03
3 O C S
-Q 'H 3 o
< 03 J2 -H
< CQ
CU CO CO CO
•H -H CU CU
0 O -H -H
cu cu o o
a. a. co cu
co co a. a.
CO CO
co cu
•H -H > >
4-> 4-> -rH -rH
OJ O3 4-1 4->
O O -H -H
•H -H CO CO
T3 T3 C C
rH rH CO CO
C C C C
o o o o
•H -H -H 'H
4-14-^4-14^
3333
rH rH rH rH
rH rH rH rH
O O O O
a. o- o_ a_
cu
£_
o co in co T-
o
CO
QJ T CM LO lO CO
3 o ••— in co cn
i-H • OJ
OJ CO CM O ^3" O
> - In
. — „
— - of
0
CO C. OJ C
C =t = = w
-H _ -x. Q .,s.
O O i CO
S co — • co o
'0 s_ e.
- c to o cu
O CO CO > Ci
C "O 03 H
— C = C CL
03 D O — cu
-C J2 -H OJ CO
co < cn o Q
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
If
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
11
It
II
;i
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
:i
u
;i
n
n
ii
ii
n
.1
:i
M
,_.
L.
CO
•H
CU
s
a-
CO
c_
cu
•a
4-1
CO
c
CO
zs
CO
a.
cu
cc
OJ
c.
CO
cc
,—
ex
CO
cr
—
T
CD
CM
Y-.
T
00
O)
o
•sr
•*r
IX
o
OJ
OJ
m
^^
in
CO
in
o
IX
^_
T
CO
en
o
•
^~
0
o
in
•si-
CO
CO
CO
•sr
O)
CO
rr
CD
CO
rr
in
in
T
o
0
in
TT
co
CO
—
OJ
-r-1
OJ
C
C
••H
r?
O
-rH
r>_
to
o
5
•H
'_
r- \
03
c_
CO
O_
co rr
CO CO
CO ix
T en
•r- m
co ^~
lx co
Ol CO
OJ
en m
CM rr
co in
O) TT
OJ CO
V CO
CM i-
V ••-
IX CO
Ol CO
01
•r cn
— in
CO T-
CM ^r
co •—
•"?• t—
—
03
w
ra
rH
• O
a. -H
CL rH
CO 03
to ra
CD O
-G
rH r-
o •=.
a -H
•H 0
*- o
•H CJ
"H o
h- <
m co
CO CO
rx co
co en
co m
•r- in
en ^~
CO O
|x OJ
OJ (x
01 in
CO T-
CO CO
-- o
'— v
cn T-
co cn
co in
^r in
~r~ ^r
-rj
—
c_
03
4-' -H
CO 4^
O CJ
CJ -rH
^J
to co
3 C
— CO
CO JO
*-i
CL O
O -i-l
jj c.
CJ tO
O! O
— rH
O -O
O CO
•H L_
Q. 4-*
CO CO
IX
IX
CO
CO
CO
'"
CO
OJ
,_
CO
in
CO
un
CD
CT>
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CT3
OJ
•rH
03
4-1
•rH
,__,
o
CO
CO
£2
H
o
>,
r-H
o
T—
.,_
cn
TJ-
1
in
•^j-
CM
IX
*TJ-
CO
CO
in
IX
in
^r
CO
CD
•TT
^
OJ
to
3
CU
03
S
•rH
o
_J
— —
CO O>
OJ CO
CD CD
in co
T Ol
CO CO
CM CM
OJ O
T- O
CO O
CD IX
ix CM
CO OJ
in co
T CM
CO CO
Ol CM
in co
^- CM
CO
•-4
;r
^
• o
a. s-
£L -H
tO i— 1
tO u-
O
rH tO
r~\ —
O w
•H CO
O C3
O =
to o
C '_
4-J O
•-H 4-1
CJ CJ
— i z:
D-4
-------
. — *
CO
CD
"-.
N-
CD
CD
T—
• •
T—
UJ
CO
t—»
Z3
CC
O
f^s.
CD
O)
^
LU
^
O
1—
f—
0
a
•a
^_J
c
0
CJ
E
CO
CO
c
•r-t
CO
s
..
cc
0
•H
4-1
os
-i-i
CO
-~~
CO
LU
1—
t— 1
CO
>-
1—
1— «
o
1— 1
X
o
1—
1—
•z.
LU
t— 1
03
^
<£
•O
4-1
C
0
O
1
. — *
c_
CO
4^
cu
E
o-
co
c_
cu
a.
—
UJ
O
~ZL
^^
Q
•z.
3
03
<£
0
1 — 1
•E
t—
Z
LU
03
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!|
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
11
CJP
E
O
X
CO
S
c
•H
S
>
CU
Q
T3
4-1
CO
c
CO
cu
Cg
—
CO
a.
cu
cc
CM
a.
cu
cc
^ —
a.
cu
cr
1 !-.-
0> CO
^r in
O) O)
in co
•3- CM
o o
CO CM
Is- T-
CM CO
CM '—
r>- CM
CM LO
in co
^ CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
cc
• i— 4
o
CO
3
(f_
•r-( C3
> -o
cu O
^H C.
O
co C-
•-I 0>
CO i-'
O H 13 •— '
•<-> o x
1- i— 1 CO
CU • — t •— '
= >< u
0 JZ — 1
•z. c_ cr
o w r~-
en en o)
O) O O5
CO CO CO
CM CM CM
0 O O
CM CM CM
1— T— -1—
CO CO CO
CM CO CO
10 r- !•>-
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO CO
CM CM
re
4-1
re
i— i
Z;
o re
re o
4-j re -H
C CO JZ
CU CD i-1
4J J3 i-l
o re
re ^2
1- CO
j^ *~^ re
— — ==
re o o
o ca o
•.-i •=. re
CO < 2
O
o
o
T-
CO
CM
O
CM
••—
CO
CO
r~
CO
CM
TO
CU
C
•*-t
o
o
^
CO
CO
0)
r~
4-J
C
CO
CU
•z.
CO
h^
CM
CM
CO
cn
f^
o
cn
^>
i^-
cn
CM
CM
in
in
O)
CO
r^-
r^.
CM
CM
CO
O)
T—
O
CJ
CI
re
•^j
j;
^
o
«^
r-J
re
-M
O
II
II
II
o n
CM II
II
II
II
II
in n
T- II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
•^ H
1- II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CO II
m n
o n
ii
ii
u
1!
II
II
N- II
T II
||
II
II
II
II
in ii
i— n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
u
n
T II
-- II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
in u
— n
ii
n
u
n
n
i
ii
i
u
n
i
ii
i
M
n
ii
n
i
re i
X II
re ii
1— ii
i
"- ii
0 II
n
— ii
CU 1
.Q II
= II
^ II
II
I
I
I
1
II
II
II
—
a>
Tr
E
CO
c.
CO
o.
CO
c:
re
t_
C3
v_^
CO
CO
<
o
H- 1
03
O
KH
1~
h-
^*
LU
03
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
M
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
11
II
11
II
II
II
:i
n
n
u
u
u
11
n
a?
E
3
O
X
re
^
c
•r-l
^
2>
CO
4-1
CO
C
cu
CO
Q.
CC
CM
a.
QJ
cc
•< —
a.
cu
cc
cocJO^mincocor~r-.rr
'-cooinocors-i— mcncM
CM'Tininincoco^rs»fs^co
cocomin^r^i^i^-r^r^N.
•"-T-ininCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
COCOTTCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
'-'-OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
mcnN-i^-i^i^r^-t^^-i^o
inoCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMO
TOTCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
^rin^— *~oooo o o f~
O5CMCOCOOOOOOOCO
co m ^— ^™ o o o o o o i~
ooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOO
CMCMcncoi^^r^i^-i^-h-cM
^— •> — f^OCMCMCMCMCMCMLO
CMCMCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCM-r-
*— -T— OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
^TcoLomr^r*-r'^f^r^-rs*-rw
CO'-inLOCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
COCOTTCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
'-'-OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
coo}inN.rs-r*-r^-rv-r**rs-rs-
•"-OinCMCMCMCMCMOJCMCM
COCDTCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
'-OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
mci^r^r^r^t^-r^-r^-r^
inoCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
-S-CnCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
^
CO '—
re re ---I re
•^ —> — -^ -H
re re re ;_ oo j-j
C ^ -H O O O
••-i 51 —i co o -H ~ • re
C. CO C_ ^ — Hi — 1 COCOC-T3
CO ^ ^^ -i— 1 ^3 CC O CO
O co -t"-1 ^ re ^— C— co co o
**-•* o "~^ re — re o .0 o
C-i — \ i—i recoco4~* uj —
COC.OCOO — 3CLOCOCU
O O CO ^ t— ' "O O rH "^ •»— i
— , ) —j re co cu I—' O- ~r~^ o
oocjcoccre = oioo "~
••~* o'dre*4^ reoo
;_ y^ ^ — ^ Q f^J ^ , | .,—1 (JJ
— O "-4 O O — -r-t O — H— CC
re I—* o ^ cy co £ o cu '"-H o
— •^H >x ~ — • -r-J •--* •'-( L. O CO
C* CD i^-* CJ ' * CJ O o . j — i
2^ IO"^< — IC/3CO! — LU
D-5
-------
^— -.
CO
O5
^^
IV.
O5
OT
^*
• •
T—
UJ
CO
H- 1
r?
cc
o
- — '
IV.
O5
en
ec
UJ
2
s
Z3
CO
—
CO
o
t—
•z.
LU
m
Q
•z.
<
1—
•z
LU
S
2
0
cc
hH
>
2
LU
2
o
1-
h~
O
CO
-— -
.
•o
•M
c
o
o
E
CU
4->
CO
C
•H
CO
£
• •
C
o
•H
4->
CO
+-<
co
co
LU
h-
>— 4
co
>-
H-
>— i
0
H-l
X
o
)-
1—
•z.
LU
>-*
ca
_ _
,
•o
+j
c
0
o
t
^_
c_
0>
4->
CU
S
a-
CO
I_
CU
Q.
CO
£:
TO
f
C3
CO
CO
25
o
t— I
m
o
z
(—
•z.
LU
CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CU
Q
•a
+j
co
c
ca
CD
2
__
CO
ex
CU
cr
CM
ex
0)
cr
-J —
ex
CU
CC
«_
*-
tO
CO
IV.
CM
CM
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
to
o
o
iv.
CM
CM
0
.
0
1^-
CM
CM
o
0
00
c
CO
o
l-f
f^
o
co
c
o
o
3
CU
-J
CO
rv.
CO
LO
10
^T
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
f\I
*.>J
CO
f\J
k>*
o
o
CM
IO
o
o
10
to
V
o
.
o
CO
0)
c
-r-t
4->
c_
CD
S
CD
2:
LO
0
O5
iv.
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
LO
o
o
rv.
CM
CM
o
•
o
r--
C\l
CM
o
.
o
to
^
•r4
o
C/5
3
f-
•H
>
0)
1— 1
to
-H
in
CL
o
CU
j£
t_
03
-o
o
ex
CM
CO
OJ
tv.
CM
CM
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
m
^
o
o
N.
CM
CM
o
0
JV.
CM
CM
o
•
o
CO
4-1
co
<— I
^
o
eo
4-1
^
OJ
•r-1
a:
;_
**^
—
re
C5
• l-t
CO
CO
^
O)
N.
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
CO
N.
o
o
o
IV,
CM
CM
o
•
o
03
(f>
cu
a
o
VI
•H
r~
0
CO
c.
<
If)
t~~
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
0
o
CO
IV.
o
o
o
iv.
CM
CM
o
.
o
CO
o
•H
-£Z
4-i
•->
CO
n
CO
^
o
o
en
s
CO
r-
O)
r~-
CM
OJ
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
0
CO
r-
0
o
o
(^
CM
g
o
ro
U)
O)
^*
•H1
c
-
o
o
o
1^-
CM
CM
0
.
o
^
CO
CD
o
o
•^
o
.— 1
rH
^
^—
D-
o
o
o
r«.
CM
C\J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
CO
IV.
o
o
o
rv.
CM
CM
o
o
en
3
•M
CO
•H
L.
+J
CO
o
4-1
o
c
^
r*
w
•H
X
CO
4-1
o
•H
cr
^.
Oi
to
CO
o
CO
CO
V
o
ff\
UJ
CO
^
o
CO
o
CO
to
o
a>
IO
CO
o
en
o
0)
in
o
CO
co
TT
o
CO
IO
CO
^
o
H
en
^
CO
4->
o
1—
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
If
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
1
D-6
-------
CO
OJ
1^.
OJ
en
~
LU
CO
hH
^3
rr
o
is^
en
OJ
*- CO
r AND BENTHOS, SUMMER
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITE
1 —
-z.
LU
^
o
CC"
I-H
>
"Z.
LU
S
o
1—
h-
o
ca
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
Jl
II
jl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
Jl
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II —
r^-
OJ
OJ
LO
c.
CO
.0
E
CD
4-1
0.
co
CO
CO
4-1
CO
Q
•C "0 E
Of—
t •
c re a
Station: Southern Bra
Habitat: Polyhaline S
Sampled Area: 0.044 s
,_
CO
>
-rH
cr
JZ
4-1
CO
Jd
CO .Q
N CO
-H C_
i-H O
LU
CJ
•• c
~ ^
CO O
£2 >-
CO
CO C-
4J CO
CO CO
S 0
— —
— 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
n
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
N
II
II
II
II
II
1!
11
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
11
• II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
1 —
-
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
n i
n i
u i
n i
u i
n i
n i
u i
u i
n i
n i
it -i
n n
it ii
n it
it n
n n
it 11
n it
u ii
n n
u ii
n u
n ii
u u
n ii
n n
u u
n u
u u
n n
u n
n it
u • ii
n n
it ii
ii it
it ii
u it
u n
u u
n it
II CD II
11 OJ II
II - II
11 ^T II
II i— II
II II
II II
II . — • 11
Salinity (ppt): 21.00
Sediment Silt -Clay (»0
n n
M ii
n ii
M n
n n
u n
u n
n n
it n
n ii
ii n
M u
n ii
n n
11 CJ II
u • u
II CO II
II II
11 II
II •• II
II . — . il
II r- 1 II
II II
II O II
II — II
11 II
II II
II C 11
II O CO II
II CJ II
II O >. II
11 i— X II
II O II
II II
ii — -a ii
II E CO II
u • — • > n
ii •— i n
II -C O II
II 4-1 CO II
II C- CO II
II CO -H II
II Q C II
II II
1 il
— 11 —
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
jl
11 CD
II
II
II "D
II CO
II C_
II 0
II O
II CO
II
It CO
ii cu
11 4-<
ii 3
It -2
II -H
II C-
II 4-1
II 4-1
II <
II
II %
11
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
It
II
II
II
II
>- II
1- II
I-H 11
CC II
C3 n
LU II
1— II
1C INDEX OF BIOTIC IN
Condition: Degraded
Score
z n
I— ii cu
"Z. II 3
LU 11 ,-H
CO II CO
II "~r»
11 -^
II
||
II
II
H
II
U
II
II
11
11
[|
II
[I
||
II
II
11
||
11 f**
II CD
II
II f\j
11
11
II O
u c_
II O
II O
11 CO
II
II I-H
II a
II >-<
11
ii a
II
11
— II — —
CO
O CO •—
0
CO
CO TT OJ CO O
3 OJ CO LO CD
-H
CO CO O CO O
> T -r- ,-
o\° — .
~ ^ £. -,
co ^- (jf>
O CO • — •
c co o
co to c to
"O CO CO CO
C E T3 CO
3 O C £
-Q --H 3 o
< CO J3 -H
< CO
CO CO
CO CU to to
•H -H CO CO
O O -H -H
CO CO O O
Q. a. co co
co co a. a.
CO CO
co co
> > CO CO
••-I -H > >
4-1 4-1 -H -H
CO CO 4-* 4-1
O O -H -H
•H -H CO (O
•a ~o c c
c c cu co
I-H M CO CO
1 Pollution
5 Pollution
1 Pollution
Pollution
5
aj r- co — co
CM OJ CO CD LO
- CO • • -
CM ^r o oj co
T
7 °E
CD
CD O
CJ C
"- ~^
* *""'
^3 C
— X
-0 <
x a>
— =z - — - >H [_l_
CJ • — CM e~
•H ^ 4: 5 i!
_CD O ' CO
S co ~— cu o
1 O 1_ f->
C C CO O CO
O C3 CO > c
— "O CO • ,- 1
— — = c: c.
CO 3 O '_ CU
CO < £2 CJ Q
— II — 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II 1
II II
II 1
II II
II II
II II
II 1]
It II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
It II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II 11
It II
II It
II II
II It
II II
II II
II II
II 11
II II
II It
II II
II — . II
11 '— II
II CO II
II 4-1 II
II CO 11
II E II
tC ABUNDANCE (per sq.
II z II
11 1— II
II 'Z. II
II LU II
II CO II
II II
il II
II II
It II
II II
II II
II 11
II II
11 II
II II
II II
II II
11 II
II II
II 11
1! II
II II
II [I
II 11
M II
II II
:i ii
II M
11 II
II II
II II
Ii II
II il
n n
1! II
II '!
II II
1 II
1 II
1 II
1 II
1 II
1 II
1 11
1 II
1 — II —
—
oP
E
3
CJ
X
re
S
c
•H
s
>
cu
Q
•a
4_i
CO
c
ca
cu
2
CO
a.
cu
cc
OJ
a.
cu
cr
a. i
CO •
cr >
*
— ,
!
•
;
1
1
1
!
1
'
'
U
1
1
'
i
,
'
',
,
1
1
' oj TJ- v
• CO h. TT
' T CO CO
1
1 co oj ^3*
1 r^ IO ^—
1 h- CD T-
• CM i- i-
'
'
'
' CD O) T-
• CO to rr
• CD CD CO
;
1 V O TJ"
• LO OJ O
i OJ O CO
' CO f^ O
1 [f) lf\ ^f
,
' CO O O
• *- O CO
i CO O O
i *- O CO
i oj i—
'
.
1 CO OJ LO
i h- LO LO
• h- CD en
• OJ -i-
co CM -^ e
co ao rr r
i- CO CO C
OJ
CD OJ -q- C
CO LO i- C
CO CO 1- T
CO
-rH
•* =.
4~f C_
o o
•H 4_
•O • -H
cu a. .H
C C. -H
CU CO f-
JO
co to
o co 3
•H -o 4-< re
CL -H co cu
co O cc c
O 0 E -H
^H -H O -M
H S- C_ C_
a> -H cu co
'— -Q 4-1 =
4-i 3 CO CO
CO 1— Z "Z.
•V t*- CO LO 1^ CO OJ
co oj oj en o> oj oj
£? ^ r: J5 co ^ co
N- C\j OJ CO CO C3J CO
•<3- CO CO LO CO CO LO
i— CO CO T CM CM ^~
CM OJ CM O4 TJ* CM CM
co co i— -r— CM r-- T-
O) O) CO CO CD rr CO
I*1"-. N* T— T -j f\t *•?*
i^« i^« T~ T~ tM CO ^~
T LO CO CO O O O
OJ T- If) O CO CO CO
CO LO l-v CD LO LO LO
*?• en co co co LO LO
r- LO CD CD CM TT TT
r— T—
O 1^ T- CO CO CO CO
-- CM en CD co CM CD
M OJ
U CO CO LO CO T- LO
0 CD CO <3- CD OJ -3-
X
CO
I-H: CO
CL C
E -H
0 0
ca o co
4-^ z:
o. cu ca ca H-
Q. CO to 4-1 -H -H
to -a -H co c- >
o J2 4-1 re cu
CO CL E -H 4-i ^
o o ca CL -r-t
r— I c_ re I-H to
CL CO CO O O -H
O 4-1 13 CO tO
^H CO 4-i CO d.
o ^: to .—i o o
0 CO M T3 CO
CO CU S 0) C ^
O C O 4-i -H '_
4-> O -H -H O C3
•H CO "O CL >, ~
CO *J CO CO i— 1 O
— 1 LU 2 CJ O CL,
D-7
-------
, — .
CO
O)
-^,
1^
05
05
t—
• •
T—
LU
CO
t— *
^
a:
o
•*— •
h-
05
O5
T—
a:
LU
2*
s
ZD
CO
—
CO
0
^
^z
LU
CQ
Q
•z.
<
1—
~z.
LU
^
^
O
cr
>— i
>
"Z.
LU
^
O
h-
1—
0
cn
f .
•a
4-1
C
O
o
r"
O
C
re
t_
ca
c
CD
r*
4-t
3
O
CO
c
o
•H
4-f
re
4_|
CO
CO
LU
1—
H-t
CO
>.
1—
H-(
o
hH
X
o
I—
1—
•z.
LU
t— <
CQ
s
.
•a
4-1
cr
o
o
1
^^
c_
CD
4-*
0)
e
.
CT
CO
C-
cu
CL
^^
LU
O
•z.
<^
Q
•z.
m
o
^
i—
•z.
UJ
CO
—
II
11
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tl
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
11
II
"~"~
dP
=
3
O
X
re
^
c:
•rH
2
>
cu
Q
•o
4.1
CO
c
(T3
cu
2
— ~_
CO
CL
cu
cr
CM
CL
cu
cr
T
Q.
cu
cr
—
—
O5 CM
CO O5
O5 O5
T- n
O5 OJ
O O
in OJ
in co
in CM
in m
i- CO
O5 OJ
in
ry
CO
CM
CO
—
Q
-H
4_»
re c.
4-J -H
•i-l i— (
^H ^
0 .
>. 4->
O CO
3 i—l
CJ 3
03 CJ
r-l
CO
= —1
3 CD
•i-f 1_
JT 0
Q. —
O O
C- Q)
o re
O '
IN. CO O
O5 O5 O
O5 05 O
V—
CO CO CO
CM OJ OJ
O O 0
OJ OJ OJ
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
IN. IN. [N.
CO CO
OJ OJ
CO
OJ
0)
03 re
C 4-1
O 3
re i- c
M re '_
•z o
~O CD CJ
CD CJ
= o re
~ —
re o o
^ i — ! ™
2: ' — 1 >•*
•rH >. f-H
0 .= 0
_J CL, CL,
IN.
T—
*- m
05 *-
o
CO
O T-
o —
o
O5 O
O5 O
IN. OJ
co
t—
IN. 0
O5 CO
T
•r- m
C5 -i-
0
CD
CO CO
CO i-
0
0 *-
o *-
o
CD
CJ (0
C X
re re
~ [—
c
3 M-
— O
<£
L
,-J o>
re j2
_* —
O 3
h- Z
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
M
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
~-
CU
E
•
CO
c_
cu
c.
CO
~
03
L.
O
• —
CO
CO
^g
o
1— <
m
o
i— i
~~
r—
~£
LU
it
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
j|
II
11
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
M
n
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
1!
II
II
II
II
11
11
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
'1
11
—
3
O
X
OJ
S
c
.,-j
s
03
O
^-»
o
4-1
CO
C
cc
cu
CO
CL
cr
CM
CL
cr
^ —
CL
£—
•9-O'O-O5C\t' cj re co (n
O • O +J 3 3
*-CL-H CO raCDiJ- OCU-H
•H CL "s3 * 4-1 re -H CO ->H -H L_ C_
i — 1 CO CD CL CO "C C_ 'H !> 4-< 4-* CD
•H c CL 4-< o re .c? CD re CL co >
y— CO CD CO -H CL 4-1 = r-\ 4-< -*H 3 r-H
O^2 CLO-Hre -i-l •— 1 O 3
co i— i corac>— I corn.— ireo
3CLO CUOCUOCO-^OCU'H
— • O -H TO — 4JC03COCL CO
CO i— 1 CL CU -rH tO CU J-'CL COS"-(
re o co c o f—^ i~ cu co o re 3 3 cu
= CJ O *H o <-H T3 re CU C_ l~ *H —
O CO "^ 4^ "^ CD CD C ~ V 3 cj f~" Ci
L_ O ^ C_ ^— 4—* C '"H O ^ ^~ O ^ CZ
CD 4—1 O CU '«~4 '"H O O **H d 4™1 «~H O O
w '"H C_ £: n f~> Q^ >^ "^ ~^ ^ >^ ^ CJ
o a) +~* oj 3 co 4—* *— i cj o ^> ^~* cj re
HZ i CO ^* H~ CJ 1 1 i dO ^S Cl. C_2 CO C_^ t
D-8
-------
*-^
•o
c
o
o
s.
o
c
(0
C-
c
c_
Q)
jr
+->
3
O
co
. .
c
o
CO -H
OJ CO
~- •*->
h- CO
O) ^
O)
T-
• •
^-
QJ
CO
»-H
z>
cc
0
^-^
N.
CD
«
»- co
LU
CC 1-
LJJ i— i
s co
s
13 >
CO h-
HH
- o
CO I-H
O X
z o
h- h-
z
LU h-
02 2
LU
Q 1-1
Z. CO
< s
<
I—
"Z.
LU
2
•z.
o
cc
1-H
>
•z.
LU
2
0
I—
1—
o
CQ
— II —
II
II
II dp
II
II E
II 3
II 0
II
II
II
II X
II 03
II S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II C
II -H
II S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II >
• II CO
T3 II Q
•t-1 II
C II T3
O II -M
O II CO
II
> II
II
— - II C
C- II 03
O) II O)
•I-1 II S
o
f- CO O
en en o
T—
N. f- !•*•
CM CM OJ
CM OJ OJ
O O O
O O O
O O O
0 O 0
O O O
O O 0
. . •
O 0 O
^- ^- ^~
CO CO CO
O O 0
o o o
CO CO CO
!*- r- r--
o o o
0 0 O
o o o
__ .«.
r^ P*-
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
O 0
0 0
r-
OJ
OJ
o
o
— — —
o
OJ 03
C ^
O —
03 '- C
« 03 L.
- o
T3 CO O
>
•H >% i— 1
O — 0
_! C- 0-
— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CO II
1^ II
r^ u
CT> II
0 II
u
u
u
n
T- II
O) II
0 II
T II
• II
O II
II
II
11
II
CO II
T II
CO II
OJ 11
• II
O II
II
II
II
II
in n
T II
0 II
N- n
• ii
O II
II
II
— II
II
CO II
t-~ II
1^- II
a> u
• ii
o n
n
n
u
ii
n
CO II
r-~ n
OJ II
i^- ii
• n
o n
n
n
n
n
n
••— u
o n
O II
•^- n
• M
O II
II
11
II
— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
VI II
•s> II
o: ii
= n
o n
•H II
a u
ii
i— i n
03 11
— ' II
O 11
:— n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
11
D-9
-------
CO
O5
Is-
O5
O5
CO
r-H
Z3
CC
N.
CO
a>
co
LU
CC
LU
CO i—
>-H
- O
CO HH
o x
i o
LU
a
o
CC
>
LU
O
CO
.c
o
c
CO
t_
CO
c
!_
CO
-M
to
CO
S
c
o
•r-l
4->
co
4_J
CO
N.
05
m
T—
..
LO
t_
OJ
_Q
E
CO
4_t
C.
CU
CO
CO
4-1
co
Q
73
^
^
C
•H
i— 1
CO
.C
o
CO
CO
^
•—
en
•H
"T"
. .
4~J
CO
4-1
•H
.O
(O
"T~
C_
CD
>
-•-(
rr
r*~
ifj
CD
.£!
re
N
•H
, — 1
LU
-£;
CO
_^
CO
CD
-M
CO
5£
^
o-
to
TJ-
T
0
O
CO
CU
c_
<3H
•o
CU
r-t
C.
S
CO
CO
o
C3
^
o
CT
d
^
O
c_
CO
CO
C3
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
f|
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
n
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
II
II
n
H
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
n
I—
•z.
LU
2
•z.
o
CC
r— t
^>
•z.
LU
^
O
1—
1—
o
m
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
ii
n
M
n
n
n
ii
ti
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
\\
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
M
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
M
ii
n
n
n
ii
M
n
n
it
ii
0
o
r-
i —
. — .
4-1
O-
CL
*-^
>,
4-1
• H
C
•i-t
i—t
CO
CO
o
T^
- — •
~
— "
f
1_>
c.
CO
o
LO
T—
CO
LO
. — *
a?
—
;>*
CO
1— 1
O
i
4-J
r-l
•H
CO
•M
C
CO
S
• H
•a
cu
CO
CM
CD
—
i — i
^
O5
E
—
d
CO
d
>,
X
C
T^
CO
>
, — I
o
CO
CO
•r-\
a
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Jl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
>-
1—
CC
o
LU
1—
•z.
r-H
O
1—
o
ca
LU
0
X
LU
Q
•z.
t— i
O
r-H
~r-
1—
"Z.
LU
CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
|J
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!l
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
CD
•a
CO
c_
0
o
CO
to
CO
•H
3
.a
•H
c_
4->
4-1
^
5t
•a
cu
•a
CO
c_
C3
CU
Q
• .
C
o
•H
•H
•H
-a
c
o
0
CO
CO
CM
- •
CD
t_
O
O
CO
r— 1
a
t-H
a
CO
£_
O CO CO
o
CO
CU CO CM TT T
1— 1
CO CO CD LO O
> CO -r- LO CO
-— ^
0? ^~*
"~~ T £.
CO -— • ok°
O CO — -
c to o
co to c to
"O ca co to
c E "a co
3 0 C S
J3 -H 3 0
< CD J3 -H
< m
to to
cu co to to
•r-1 -H CO CO
O O -H -H
CO CU O O
a. a. co co
co co a. a.
CO CO
cu co
> ^ CO 0}
4** 4-> -H -H
ca ca 4-1 4-1
0 O -rt -H
"H -H to CO
•O T3 C C
^ C CD CD
r-l r-l CO CO
c c c c
o o o o
•H *H -H -H
4-1 4-J 4-1 4-*
3 3 3 n
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 r-H
I— 1 1— 1 I—I r-H
O O O O
Q. a. Q. Q.
cu
r_
O CO CO i- •—
o
CO
cu en co ••— a> co
3 O CM T CO CO
r-H - CO ...
CO CM CO O CM LO
> LO
, — ,
"— Cv°
o? —
CO
CD O
o c:
C CO
ro ~
"o —
d 3
3 -Q
X <
cu :_
"C5 CO CO
— '— ~
i-1 -— O CO
CM > cu
C- E • — • -H LU
CO -^ CM C
CC •% E := -M
•H — --. 0 -H
CO G3 ' CO
S CD — • CO O
• 0 '- C-
c: c co o co
O CO CO > C
~ ~ a -H
CC C — c Q_
CO 3 o — O
-C j3 — i ca cu
CO < CO O C
n
n
n
ii
n
ti
n
n
n
H
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
u
n
ii
n
n
n
u
j|
ii
ii
N
n
u
ii
n
n
|l
n
u
u
ii
ii
n
u
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
M
n
n
u
n
u
n
ii
u
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
*-^
z.
cu
•4-<
co
.
cr
to
f_
CO
a.
LU
O
•z.
Q
•z.
ID
m
o
3:
t—
•z.
LU
m
n
n
n
n
n
u
M
u
u
u
M
u
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
u
n
n
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
u
tl
n
n
n
u
n
n
ii
n
u
u
u
u
n
u
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
M
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
11
ii
n
n
n
n
w°
E
O
X
CO
2
c
•H
2
;>
CO
.
•a
+j
CO
c
CO
CO
2:
CO
a.
CO
CC
CM
a.
cu
CC
T-
a.
CD
CC
a>
C\J
LO
fN.
CM
p-.
CO
^~
O5
LO
fs*»
CO
LO
CO
LO
^~
Is-
CM
CM
O
CM
>^-
O5
LO
0
LO
N.
•r»
r^
CM
N.
co
03
4->
CO
to
• M
_C3
g=
ca
to
^3
4->
CO
CO
g
Q
• rH
•a
CO
^
CM
^.
CO
CD
CO
CD
CD
CO
CO
•r-
co
N.
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
^.
CD
CO
CO
N.
CM
CM
CD
CO
CD
^ —
•rH
+j
0
•H
•a
CO
c
r-i
Q
• r-l
C.
«
O
r"T
CO
c_
4-1
CO
CO
LO
CO
Q
LO
CM
CO
CO
^.
co
0
CO
••-
CD
ID
^*
co
CO
en
LO
Q
LO
CM
.
a.
a.
to
•^
•H
O
O
\^_
• r-f
O
^
f —
Is-
co
CO
O5
LO
^_
^~
CD
CM
N-
T
CO
CO
CO
CM
Y_
en
LO
Y_
O)
CO
CO
CO
-M
CO
c:
•H
CL
Q
•H
CL
Q
d
O
•H
f_
r- •
CO
r_
CO
n
f~
Q
O)
O)
LO
T—
CO
CM
to
o
CO
r-.
CO
LO
N.
CO
CM
LO
G)
LO
^_
co
•1-1
c_
co
•H
r-l
Q
to
0)
TO
-r4
Q
>.
O
LO
CM
O)
to
CO
^
o
CO
•*-
CO
CO
CM
CO
CD
CO
to
CD
CO
^
3;
c_
ca
4->
CO
o
o
to
3
CO
•H
Q
•H
a>
ca
r-
fj
Q
.-H
Q.
CO
,j.
0)
^
t—
^.
O
CO
••-
o
CD
CM
CO
CO
-, —
CD
^3-
•T—
^
.
/"*
o
to
CO
•rH
d
Q
[_
O
.C
CO
IO
O)
CO
CO
CO
CM
^
CM
CD
CM
O
CO
LO
CO
CD
CO
CM
co
CD
CO
•H
£
O
•H
rH
•H
it^
CO
4_*
CO
CO
E
c_
cu
4_*
CD
"—
CO
CO
O3
CO
CO
CO
CM
«
CM
CD
CM
O)
|s.
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
to
.
a.
0.
to
to
0
, — 1
o
Q
, — 1
o
o
to
Q
4-1
•H
CO
T
^
Oi
^_
O5
o
o^
T
CM
LO
CO
O
CO
•r~
O5
co
£Z
E
a>
C3
CO
E
E
CO
O
D-10
-------
^•^
CO
O)
~~,
1^.
Cn
ro
T—
••
LU
CO
i— i
Z3
cc
o
r»-
O5
0)
T—
CC
UJ
S
S
ZD
CO
«
CO
o
a:
\—
2
LU
ca
Q
2
<
i—
•Z.
LU
^
2
0
CC
H- «
>
~^
LU
S
O
i—
h-
O
a
•o
4-J
c
0
0
r~
O
C
CO
c_
en
c
!_
0)
en
0}
S
. .
c
o
•H
-r-l
CO
•M
CO
x^
CO
LU
1—
1— 1
CO
>
1—
t-H
o
hH
X
o
1—
1—
•z.
LU
H-t
ca
s
<
•a
c
o
o
1
^~v
c
CU
-H
CD
E
cr
cn
c_
CD
Q.
^^
UJ
O
-z.
<
Q
•z.
n
ca
<
CJ
*— <
~*~
i—
•z.
LU
ca
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ij
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CD
Q
•a
•>->
CO
c
CO
cu
S
— ~-
n
a.
01
cc
C\J
a.
CD
cc
i —
a.
CD
—
0 CD
CO CO
cn cn
co in
CD T
0 O
(O CO
CO f~
cn CM
CO CM
N- r^-
CM CM
CM CM
in
•c-
CO CO
CD CM
CO
^
• rH
O
CO
—
U_
•r-l
>
CJ
r— I
cn
•rH
cn c.
CL d.
0 cn
cu
V p»
t_ =
CO 0
™ O
O 03
C- S
O T CD
o> CT> cn
cn cn cn
in in co
o
T—
CO CO
CM CM
O O
CM CM
T— T—
CO CO
CO CO
fv. (V.
CO
CM
CO
CM
05
CU
c
•H
O
O
^
CO CO
CD
cn c
CD --H
r~ 4_t
•M t_
C CD
CO =
CD CD
"Z. ~Z.
fx.
T—
cn CM
0 T-
^r
CD
CD O
CO -r-
CD
CO tf)
CD T-
O "-
IJ
CM
CO CO
LO -r-
CO
CO
CO CM
CO T-
co
CM O
CO T-
•rr
co
cn CM
0 T-
TJ-
CO
CD
O CO
C X
CD CO
TJ h-
c
•=, «-
^ 0
1_
rH O
C3 .d
4-* —
o r:
1— "Z
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II.
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
f
cu
•H
E
CT"
CO
!_
CD
a.
CO
~
CO
c_
O
—
CO
CO
<
o
t-H
m
o
I— 4
"T-
H-
2
LU
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
\\
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CA°
£
o
X
CO
2
c
•H
s
CD
O
4->
CO
c
co
CD
2
CO
c.
cr
CM
c.
cc
r—
a.
CU
cc
in rs. f- co-r-N-CMcocoocni^coTr
••— ocom->— cocMi^coN-coocMTr
co^Tincocoi^r^cocococncncn
co CM in in i^~ ^-tor^-r^-f^f^r^-N.!*^
COCOLOinCMCMLOCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
COCOTTCMCMTrCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
coooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooo
OCMCMCMCMCMOCMCMOOOOO
OCMCMCMCMCMOCMCMOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
COCDCOCOOOCMOOCOCOCOCOCO
CMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooo
coo>cocoi-~r^-r~r^r^cMcocococo
CMCOCOCOCMCMCMCMCM-r-OOOO
T-OOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooo
CMLO^r^r^f^-t^N-^- ^* f*-
COinCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM CM
tOTTCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM CM
ooooooooo o o
ooooooooo o o
co^-r^r^r^r^- r^r^ r^-
COCMCMCMCMCM CMCM CM
CDCMCMCMCMCM CMCM CM
COOOOOO 00 0
oooooo oo o
rs~^-^~inr*~rs~inrs-tv-r^fs-
CMCMCMinCMCMLOCMCMCMCM
CMCMCMTCMCMTCMCMCMCM
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
=
~
w c_
O3 -H 03 03
4-. ^ j^t .-) +j cn
ai 03 c_ cn 4-> <& -^
c • -M o o o -—I :-
-H C. CO -H -M ~& O WC
p t/5 -H t_ rH CO CD Q. -H 13 CD
JDCO--H.DCC. ^1 CO
OCOEE-M4— C-CDCO C13 CT3U
•HOra-H CDJ2 -C OO
C_rH •— fCO-M COCLOJ -HS
• WC.WO3Q.OO)Q.CJ2C"
C-Cr— t-M CO -H C. "-> CT3 = =''-*
COOOCOCDrCOtOOCOCCD^I —
•H O C3 *O E C3 O O *H -H CT ^
c3 C- co s c o — <~* •*"* co c cr
c-; O. O O -H — OJ2"^-OOCOOQ3
OCC4-'-HOCUOO-'-4C_CD = OO
O L.-H'G ^4-J-H L.JD O-t-* = 2 C-
COrtOCDi— ((DCL-MDjCOCDl-O
^ CL. I IS O !TT CO CO 1 — d- ^ O 1 ^
D-ll
-------
-*-^
T3
•H
C
O
{J
-C
o
c
co
ca
c
c_
O>
4-1
CO
cu
s
• -
c
o
— . -H
CO -M
0) ca
"•"^ •+-•
(^ CO
Oi ^
o
• •
*—
LU
CO
h- 1
Z)
a:
^
en
O)
•— CO
LU
cr t-
LU M
S CO
2
D >-
CO 1-
- o
CO 1-1
a x
z o
1— 1-
"Z.
LU 1—
cn ~z.
LU
Q 1-1
Z CD
< 2
1—
z.
LU
s
"Z.
0
cr
t— i
z.
UJ
^>
o
h-
i—
O
ca
— u —
u
u
II aP
II
II E
II 3
II O
II
II
II
H X
II CO
II S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II C
II -H
II S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II >
• II CD
T3 II Q
•M II
d II "O
O II +->
O 11 CO
II
' II
II
^ II C
C- II CQ
CD II CD
•M II 2
S II
II
• II
O" II
CO II
II
c. ii n
CD II
Q. II 0.
II CD
co ii cr
£ II
CO II
C— II
a ii
•~^ II
II
C/) II CM
CO II
< ii a.
S II CD
o ii cr
t-H II
ca u
n
O II
1—1 u
3C II
1— II •—
•z. ii
LU II Q.
m ii CD
ii cr
u
u
n
n —
ii
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
11
n
u
u
ii
n
ii
ii
n
u
n
n
n
— n —
_. ^— — _
CO f- O
.
CO CO O
O) a> o
•^«
r^ r^ Is*"
OJ OJ OJ
OJ OJ OJ
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
0 O 0
O O 0
. • •
000
^- T— T-
CO CO CO
o o o
o o o
CO CO CO
r*" r**- r***
O 0 O
0 0 O
o o o
.
f-
OJ
OJ
o
o
^
OJ
OJ
o
0
f-
OJ
OJ
o
0
ca
c
•H
o
CO
^
H-
ra •«-(
CD >
C CD
•H .H
o
o co
— -f-H
to ca co
CD C.
co c o
•— ±J V*
4J C. £_
c CD ca
to E "O
Q) CU O
Z. Z. Q.
—
— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
OJ II
CO II
CO II
in ii
O II
II
II
II
II
OJ II
CO II
»- II
CO II
• II
O II
II
II
II
II
CM II
CO II
CO II
»- II
• II
O II
II
II
II
II
•— II
O) II
O II
T II
O II
II
II
— 11
II
O) II
O II
T II
CO II
• II
O II
II
II
II
II
OJ II
CO II
CO II
LO II
• II
O II
II
II
II
M
II
OJ II
co ii
T- II
CO II
• II
O II
II
II
II
— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
CO II
CO II
ro II
£ II
0 II
•H ||
cn ii
11
•H II
CO II
•H II
0 II
1— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
— II
D-12
-------
997/98
CRU
1^
0>
O)
i- CO
UJ
3C I—
UJ >-l
S CO
s
a >-
CO h-
h-<
CO 1-4
O X
z o
I- t-
BE
RONMENT AND
AMBIENT
o
(—
I—
o
en
8
ii
ii
i
ii
- II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
IV f
co •w
0)
i.
^
-t-J
to
i.
O
1—
CO
•
II h-
II i— <
II DC
II O
II UJ
II h-
— II —
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II 10
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
"O
-------
"^
13
•M
C
O
o
cr
CO
• •
C
o
•H
•M
CO
4J
CO
s— *
CO
O)
Is-
OT
CJ>
" •
T—
LU
CO
HH
3
CC
CO
*—'
Is-
en
O)
T- CO
LU
CC 1—
LU H- 1
S CO
IS
^3 >-
CO h-
t— 1
- 0
CO l-c
o x
X 0
H- t-
"Z.
LU 1-
03 2
LU
Q l-l
Z CD
< S
<
1—
2:
LU
s
o
cr
K— <
>
2!
LU
O
1—
h-
O
£2
II
II
II
II d?
||
ii m
n =i
II O
ii
n
n
II X
II ca
ii S
II
n
n
H
n
n
II
II C
II -H
II S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II >
II CO
II O
It
II "O
II 4-<
II CO
II
II
II
*— II C
S- II CO
CD II O)
•M II S
0) II
£ II
II
• II
CT II
CO II
II
t- II CO
O> II
Q. II C-
II QJ
CO II CC
E II
03 ||
C- II
O II
• — II
II
CO II CM
CO II
< II Q.
2 II 0)
O II CC
l-l II
m ii
II
O II
l-l II
I II
1— II ••-
2 II
LU II Q.
03 II CU
II CC
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Is- CO O
CO LO O
CD CO O
v in *-
i— ^r •»—
T- O O
o o o
...
o o o
CO T- O
CM T- O
o o o
o o o
...
o o o
r»- Is- r-
•*r ••- o
o o o
O 0 0
o o o
*— f- T
CD CM O
O 0 O
O O O
O O O
^.^ .^_ ^^
TT n i—
f CM T-
*- O O
O O O
o o o
LO -r-
T 1—
O 0
0 0
o o
CO UO
c\j ^r
o o
0 0
o o"
H
4-i
O 0)
H CO
•o - >
II
O II
1— II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
— II
D-14
-------
CO
O5
r-.
CO
CO
LU
CO
rH
13
CC
o
OT
O)
i- CO
LU
CC I-
LU I—I
S CO
CO I-
hH
- o
CO 1-1
o x
X O
1— H-
LLJ 1—
CD 2
UJ
Q 1-1
•Z. CD
< S
•z.
LU
O
CC
o
CD
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
11
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
I!
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II II II II II II
II II II II CD II II
II II II II C- II II a?
II II II II O i- T- II II
II II II II U HUE
II II II II CO II II 3
II II II II II II O
II II II II 11 II
II II CO CO II II LO II II
r^ ii noon ii CD o o o o 11 n
CO It II • • II II •• 3 O O O O II II X
o> ii ii LO CD ii ii t3 rH ii ii re
i- || II OJ II II cu co O O O O II II 2
II II --II II '- > O O II II
II l| ^~- 11 II O T— T- II II
CO 11 11 -— a? ~— *— II II C
CO OJ II || 3 C- II II 3 O> ~— 0\° II II •*•'
3 •• II II -H CO II II £> O CD «-* II 11 S
< CO II II CO O II II -H C 09 O II II
II II C- II II C- CO 10 C 09 II II
•• •• II II CD rH II II -H T3 CO CO 01 II II
CD CU 11 || Q. CO II II •!-> C E "3 CO II II
•MEN II E -H II II < 3 O C E II II
CO -H II II CU O II II -O -H 3 O II H
Q 1— II II 1— h- H II 3t < CO J2 -H II II >
II II II II < CO II II CU
II II II II 09 01 II II O
II || II II 09 CD 01 09 II II
II || . II II --4 -fH CD CU II II ~U
II II II II CJ CJ -H -H II II -t-J
II II II II CU CD U U II II CO
ii ii ii ii a. a. CD cu ii ii
ii u ii ii co co a. a. n n
II II II II CO CO H II
II II 11 H CD CU II II C
II II II II > > CD CD II II CO
II II II II -H -.H > > II II CD
II II *T II II +-• •»-> -H -r-l II II S
II || T- II >- II t3 CO CO 4-" +-> II — II
I) || • II 1— II 0) O O -H -H II £_ II
II II O II rH II T3 -H -H 01 CO II CD II
ii ii LO ii cc ii co -a -a c c n -M n
E II II HOME- C C CD CD II CD II
CD • II II •• II LU II Cn I-H I-H CO CO II E II
c cr ii ii -^ II 1— it co II II
•H 09 II II O aP H Z II Q C C C C II - II CO
rH II h- II CO ^- II I-H II O O O O II CT II
CO ^- II Z II • II 11 >> -H -H -H -H II 09 II Q.
.C T II LU II i- >> II O II rH +J -M -H -M II II CD
OJ O O II 2 II T- CO II rH II CU 3333 II C- II DC
CC 09 • II Z II rH II t— 11 C_ rH rH i-H rH II CU II
CO CD O II O II •• O H O II CO rH rH rH rH II Q. II
2 ii cr ii — - • n I-H ii > o o o o ii — ii
•• II hH II -H -H II CO II CU Q. O. Q. Q. II II
C 5 CO II > II O. rH II II CO II LU II
o o cu ii z ii a. -H n LL. ii ii o ii
•H _l C_ II LU II ~- CO II O II •• II Z II OJ
•H < II II H II C II < II
CO •• II 2 11 >< -M II X II O II a II CL
4-' 4-" ~a ii o ii +•" c: ii LU ii -H cu ii z ii cu
CO CO CU II 1— II -H CU II Q II -rJ C- II 3 II CC
•H rH || 1— || C E II Z: H •-< 0 -r- T- T- II CD II
•H a. ii o n ••-* -H n I-H ii -a o ii < ii
J3 E ii ca ii rH -a ii ii c co n n
CO CO II II CO CU II O II O II O II
:r co ii ii co co ii rH ii o n IH n
II II II = 11 11 I II
II II II 1— II CD O O O O O II 1— II i-
ii n ii z: 11 3 o o o o n z ii
H || II LU II rH • II LU II Q.
II II II CD II CO O O O O II 03 II CD
II II II II > II II CC
II II II II II II
II II II II II II
II II II II II 11
II II II II II II —
II II II II — • II II
II 11 II II — - d>° II II
II II II H a? ' — II II
II II H II • — II II
II II LO II II CU II II
II II • II II CU O II II
II II O II H O C II II
II II II II C CO II II
ii ii ii ii a ~o ii ii
II 11 •• II II -3 c II II
II II "- II II C 3 II II
£_ II II rH II II 3 .d II 11
cu ii ii — ii ii .a < ii ii
> ii ii en n n x < n n
•H II II E H II 0) £_ II II
CC II 11—11 II ~O CD CD 11 II
11 II II HOC '-. TS II II
JZ- J3 II II C II HO rH ~~. O CD II 11
•M 03 II II CO CD H II CM > CD II II
3 I- II II - O9 II II i- t- = — -H LL. II II
O O II 11 CO >> H I' CU — - OJ c: II II
CO II II X 11 11 C % = = +-1 II II
C9 II II OH II 0 -i-l — - -. O -H II II
• • C II II •• II H '-. CU G9 . CO II II
— 3 II 11 -— "O II HO S CD — ' CU O II II
cu o ii ii s cu ii ii o '0 c_ a. ii ii
.s >- II ii — ' > ii ii co c: c co o cu ii ii
•J9 II II rH II II O CO CO > Q II II
C_ •• II II JZ O II II r-i C ~ CO -H || ||
CU C- II II +J CO II II CD C C E C Q. II II
•M CO II II O. 09 II II I-H CO 3 O L. CD II II
CO CD II II CD -H II II ' _C _O -H re CU II II
SOU II Q Q H H CO CO < CD O Q II II
II II II II II II
II II II II II II
•a
c
33
o
M-
01
CO
•H
CO
o
£_
o
o
•z.
II II
II II
II II a?
II II
o ii HE
II II 3
II II O
II II
nil
11
II II
O O II II X
11 II CO
11 II ^
ii i!
II II
11 II
11 II
II II
II II
II II
O O II II C
II II -H
II II 2
II II
11 11
II II
II II
II II
II II
O O II II >
o o u n cu
• II II O
o o n n
II II T3
II II 4_l
II II CO
II II
II II
11 II
O O II ~— II C
- II C_ II CO
O O II 01 II CD
II 4H || ^2
ii cu ii
II E II
II II
II - II
ii cr ii —
n 01 n
o o n n
II t- II CO
II CD II
n a. n a.
II II CU
II CO II CC
II E II
II 03 II
II £_ 11
II CD II
II — II
O O II II
II CO II OJ
II CO II
II < II Q.
II 2 II cu
n o ii cr
II rH II
II CD II
II II
11 O II
II I-H II
O O II X II
II t— II f~
II z II
II LU II Q-
ii ca ii a>
II II CC
H II
II II
II II
II II —
II II
11 II
II II
II II
II II
[1 II
11 II
II II
II II
II 11
11 II
CU 11 II
o ca ii ii
C X II II
co co n n
•O h- II II
C II II
3 H— U II
J2 0 II II
< II II
t» II II
rH a; ii n
Ct3 jQ II [I
•*-* = II II
O 3 11 II
h— S H II
11 II
II 11
U j|
n n
11 II
n u
n ii
n ii
ii n
n — n —
D-15
-------
CO
O)
O)
en
UJ
co
CC
o
a>
O)
cr
UJ
co
UJ
co
^3 >
CO I-
rH
- O
CO rH
O X
I O
ffl -Z.
UJ
Q rH
z. a
< 2
O
cr
>
LU
O
ca
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
[i
h-
cn
01
-, —
_
CO
CM
4->
CO ^—
z: in
D3 ••
Z! O
< T-
. . . •
co co
4-> £
CO -H
Q t-
•Q
3
ss»
co E
c
•H cr
•-H CO
CO
r- ^
0 T
CO CO O
CC CO
co s o
. . r- . *
C O3 CO
O i-l CO
•H Z C_
4-1 «cC
CO ..
4-1 4-J -a
CO CO CO
•H rH
•r4 0.
-0 E
ca co
Z CO
r_
0)
>
•H
a.
' — r>
4-1 CO
Z3 c_
O C3
CO
C3
• • c
i_j ZJ
CO O
to
c. • •
CO t_
4-" CO
ca a>
3 0
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
11
f-
z,
UJ
=5
O
CC
rH
>
Z.
UJ
2
0
1-
t-
O
03
II II II
II II 11 CO
II II II C-
II II II O lO CO
II II II O
II II II CO
II II II
II II II
II O CM II II CD
ii cn TT ii ii co i1-. co to co
ii • • ii ii -• zj CD co r- f-
ii •q- co ii n -a I-H • • • •
II CM II II CO CO S- O O) CM
II •• II II C_ > T- -q-
ii •• • — -ii no
II — • a? II II CJ
II O — ' II II CO
II — II II . — .
II C II II « ,j!>
II CO O II II CD — • ^^ oP
II C— JZt II II 4-* op *— •• •— «
II ZJ C_ 1| II Z3 CO (jp
ii -H co ii ii n o co *~
II CO O II II -H C 03 0
ii c. M ii c_ ca co c co
II CO rH II || 4-1 T3 CO CO CO
ii Q. co ii ii 4-> cz £ -o ca
II £ 4J II II < Z! O C E
11 CD O II II J2 -rH ZJ O
II 1— 1— II II 36 < CD JO --H
II II II < CO
II II tl CO CO
II II II CO CO CO CO
II . II II -H -H CO CO
II II II CJ CJ -H -H
ii II II co co u u
ii ii ii a. a. co co
u n n co co a. a.
II II II CO CO
n u n co co
It II 11 > i> flJ 03
II II II -H -r-l > >
II in II II 4-1 4-1 -H -H
II !•- II >- II CO CO 4-> 4-1
II • II 1— II O O -H -H
II CM II rH || -H -r-l CO CO
II O) II CC II T3 T3 C C
II II CD II C C CO CO
II •- II UJ II rH rH CO CO
II — » II (— II
tt O cf \\ Z \\ C C C C
II O ^— II rH II O O O O
II • II II "O -H -r-l -H -H
II CM >* II O II CO 4-i 4-J 4-> 4->
II T- CO II rH II "D ZJ ZJ ZJ ZJ
II rH II 1— II CO r-H rH rH rH
II •• O II O II t_ ,-4 ,-H ,-H rH
II — • II rH || CD O O O O
ii 4-1 4-1 ii m ii co Q- a. 0. o.
II Q. i-H II II Q
ii a. -H ii u- ii
ii ^ co ii o ii ••
II II II C
II >. 4-> II X II O
II 4-< C II UJ II -H CO
II -r-l CO II Q II 4-i C_
ii e e ii z ii -in o i- i- T- co
II ft -H II rH II "O O
n rH -a ii n c co
II co co n o II o
II CO CO II rH || O
II II z II
II II r- II CO CD r-- T O CO
II II "Z. II ZJ h- T CO CO CM
II II UJ II rH . TT
11 II CD II CO T- O ^- CM
II II II > -r- (s.
II II II
II II II
II II II
II II II
II II II — .
II II II —* a?
11 II II dP *—
II II II ^-
II TT II II CO
II • II II CO O
ii in ii ii o c
II II II C CO
II II II CO —
ii •• ii ii -a c
tl —- II II C ZJ
II rH II II Z! J3
ii -- ii ii -a <
II O3 II II X <
II E II II co '_
II — - II II T5 CO CO
ii ii ii co c <- ~a
II C II II CO rH ^- O CO
ii in co ii ii CM > co
II • CO II II CM c_ E -^ -H u_
II T >, II II 0> ^ CM C
II X II II •• *~ 3£ = £ 4->
ii on ii o -r-t — ~- o -H
ii •• ii ii t- co a • co
ii . — • 73 ii no 3 o — ' co o
ii = co ii no . o t- a.
II — > II II CO C C CO O CD
ii rH n ii o ca co > Q
II -C O II II rH C ~ CO -iH
ii 4-> c/> ii ii CD c c: = c a.
II a. to n n >-H ca r; o t_ co
n co -H n n i r: r! -H co co
II Q Q II II CD CO < CD O Q
II II II
II 11 II
u u II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
31
II
II
II ^-»
II '-
II CO
II 4-1
II co
II E
II
II
n cr
II CO
H
n '-
II CO
ii ca-
ll —
ii
II UJ
u o
II Z.
n <
II Q
II "Z
II ID
II CD
II <
II
II O
II rH
II Z
II 1—
II Z.
II UJ
II CD
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n —
u
n
II c*0
II
II £
II ZJ
II O
II
II
II
II X
ii ca
II 2
II
II
II
u
II
II
II
II c
II -H
II "S.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II >
II CO
II Cj
II
ii -a
II 4-1
II CO
n
u
n
II C
II (3
ii co
II S
II
u
u
II
II —
u
n
II CO
II
ii a.
n co
II CC
n
n
n
n
n
n
II CM
II
ii a.
II CO
n cr
u
n
H
n
n
u
II T-
n
II C.
II CO
n cr
n
u
n
n —
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
M
n
n
n
n
u
CD CO
Is- CD
in i-~
O) CM
O CO
•Vf T—
*f O
T—
T—
r-. in
CO CO
r-- T-
•
co in
co *r
^~
O CO
CM
CO CM
O i-
CO CO
r~- T-
o a>
CO h-
in co
— —
CD CO
CO CM
^~
co in
CM T
in
— —
CO
0
c.
o
J=
ca a.
CJ CO
•H E
-C CD
4-1 C_
rH 4-1
CO
n ca
CO O
E C
o — <
O c_
cn co
s o
CO O
CO O
o o
^*
CO CO
CM CM
O O
CM CM
CO CO
T— T-
CO CO
I-- r--
~~ — —
CO
CM
CO
CM
— _
•H
4-1
O
•H
co -a
CO CO
c c
•H (1)
o .a
o
ZJ O
CO -rH
a.
to co
CO O
-C rH
4-* .C
C CO
ca t_
CO 4-1
Z. CO
II
II
II
II
11
to ii
II
II
11
II
II
O T II
in n
Is- u
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
in T n
O II
CM II
n
n
u
n
n
n
CO O II
h- O II
r- o u
h- II
CM II
II
II
II
II
O O II
• - II
l~- "3- II
^r n
u
n
n
n
n
o ^ n
in ii
r^- n
n
n
n
u
u
ii
u
n
in •v n
o n
CM II
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
n
CD T II
CO II
CO II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
CO II
o ca ii
C X II
CO CO II
•a H- n
c n
z: M- n
n o n
< n
C- II
rH CO II
co n n
4-1 E II
0 ZJ II
h- z: n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
D-16
-------
*"" "*
•a
+J
c
o
o
n
cr
w
s:
0
•H
•M
CO
•M
CO
^_^
CO
O)
h»
en
OD
»
LU
CO
t-H
rs
a:
o
N.
o
en
T- CO
LU
cr t-
LU I-H
s co
rs >
co H-
H- .
W 2
o x
|g
LU 1-
CQ S
LU
Q l-H
Z CO
< s
<
t-
•z.
LU
2
•z.
0
tr
>
•z.
LU
2
O
t—
H-
0
CD
II
II
II o°
II
II £
II 3
i! °
ii
n
II X
II co
ii s
II
II
II
II
II
jj
II
II C
II -H
!i s
n
n
n
M
u
n >
n a>
ii a
II
II 'O
II -M
II CO
||
ii
o
-^ II C
C- II CO
a> ii a>
•M II S
CO II
E II
II
• II
cr n —
to II
n
c- n cr>
CO II
CX II Q.
» 05 o
1 co o> en o o o
(
' CM fs. T— CO T— -r—
• co CM en CM T- T-
i CD I-- O O O O
1 h- O O O O O
' O O O O O O
I
1 O O T- O O O
. O O T- O O O
1 o in o o o o
' O O O O O O
' O O O O O O
1
1
• co ^r co co (^ r^
. CM Y~ ^r v f^ {")
' CO T- O O O O
• T o o o o o
' O O O O O O
•
• en ^r oj co 03 rr
• co T- rr o o o
i CO CO O O O O
' C\) O O O O O
1 O O O O O O
(
• CM O *- i-
• CO O 05 •^-
' co in o o
' t*- O O O
• o o o o'
!
(
•
1 (O N CO •>-
' CO CM OJ t~
• n t*- o Q
• o o o o
' 0 O O o"
V* M*
^T ^~ CO ^~
•*- -i- CM 1-
CD O O 0
^D ^3 O ^D
o o o o
1
1
'
1
1
1
,
•H
C/5 -t-J
0 0 .
t- -H .
O • CO T3 •
— Q. CU CU .
co CL a. c c
O CO CO -H 0) i
•H H O J3
JZ CU CO O i
+-* £- 0} 3 (3 O •
•— i +-1 "a eo +•> -H .
ca -H o a. •
^2 CO O K> C3 CO i
= o a> jr o
CO O -H JZ C? i~~ f '
= - O JO
O -^ -H C C5 0)
O S_ J2 CO -H C_
CO CO U CU i-H 4-i i
S O H Z O CO
- ' II
1 II
1 II
' II
II
i |j
' II
' II
' II
1 H
1 T II
' CO II
1 CM II
• CO II
1 • II
' O II
' II
II
1 II
1 II
' O) II
1 m n
• CO II
• O II
' O II
' n
• n
M
1 n
• CO II
1
-------
CO
m
en
O)
UJ
co
>—i
CC
o
O)
en
••- CO
UJ
CC I—
UJ I-H
- o
CO t-i
o x
z o
i— ^-
UJ t-
m z.
UJ
a >-i
z. en
< ^
o
CC
LLI
•s
o
O
ca
TT
CC
CO
c
o
•rH
4~>
a
H-I
co
r*-
O)
O3
T—
-
CO
CM
4_>
to
Zl
0>
3
<
• •
CU
4_i
CO
Q
•Q
C
co
CO
c
•H
i-l
CO
JZ
o
to
cu
2-
(—
O)
•H
~T~
. •
•H
CO
•H
• rH
J2
CO
3:
£_
CU
>
•rH
CC
r~
4_J
3
O
CO
~Z3
co
• —
to
r_
cu
4-<
CO
S
in
• .
CM
*—
• -
CU
c:
•rH
1—
.
CT
to
^
^
O
0
. .
CO
co
L.
^
•o
CO
r-i
0-
E
CO
CO
o
co
:_
O
o
c
3
O
>-
. .
t-
co
cu
0
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
jt
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
il
II
II
n
u
u
n
n
II
u
n
n
II
II
n
n
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
II
II
II
II
u
!l
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1—
Z
UJ
^
Z.
o
CC
HH
^>
Z
UJ
"**
o
1—
h-
o
CO
ii
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
u
n
n
u
u
u
n
u
n
ii
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
M
u
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
u
u
n
1)
ii
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
n
u
M
n
u
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
u
n
M
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
u
n
ii
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
11
n
u
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
co in
^f fs.
. .
T O
CM
• • ^-~.
*~* otf3
O —•
«^_r-
C
cu o
!_ J2
3 C_
4-> CO
to o
£_
tU rH
Q. CO
e H->
tu O
1- h-
•
T—
CO
.
!-—
CO
. .
._— *
0 *
T- co
1-1
• • O
•— * t
•H +-"
O. rH
O. -rH
•~" CO
2>t 4-^
+-• C
•rH CO
C E
•rH -rH
r-i -a
CO CO
CO CO
CO
CO
. — t
1— 1
— —
G3
E
•-^
c
Is- CO
• CJ
CO 5*
X
0
• — - 73
s tu
rH
JZ 0
4-< CO
Q. to
CO -rH
d Q
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
>•
}—
HH
CC
UJ
I—
rH
O
rH
f—
O
1— 1
m
u.
o
X
UJ
Q
•^
HH
O
HH
~T"
1—
Z
01
m
n
u
u
n
u
u
u
it
ii
u
u
it
u
ii
n
u
n
u
u
n
u
u
n
ii
n
u
n
n
u
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
|t
ii
u
u
n
u
n
M
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
ii
u
it
u
n
n
M
u
u
n
n
n
ii
u
u
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
u
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
CD
. .
•D
CU
c_
0
o
CO
tn
cu
4-t
3
o
•H
C_
4-1
4_t
<£
at
i-l
to
O
O
tn
•H
CU
tu
^g
. •
C
o
•H
•H
• rH
•D
C
O
o
r-~
CO
CO
cu
I_
O
o
CO
rH
ca
rH
I
CO
cu
£_
O
CO
OJ •r- CO CO CD
3 i- -r- CO O
CO CO O Is- CO
> CM CO
^— ^
<*> ~
"^P-** r^O
6? — —
03 N™<* dP
O CD ^"
C CO O
to to c co
TJ to co tn
C E ~O CO
3 o c e
J3 -H 3 O
< CO .C5 -H
< CO
CU CO CO CO
•rH -H CO CO
0 0 -H -rH
CU CO U U
Q. Q. CU ' CU
CO CO Q. Q.
CO CO
cu cu
•H -H > >
4-» 4-J -rH -rH
CO CO 4-* •*-*
O O -H -H
•rH -rH tO CO
73 73 c c
rH rH CO CO
C C C C
o o o o
•H -H -rH .rH
H-* H-* 4-* 4-1
3333
r-l i— 1 rH rH
rH rH rH rH
0000
a. a. a. a.
CD
C.
O CO CO IO CO
o
CO
co in co in m in
3 Is- m ••— m ••—
rH • CO
CO CM T CO O CM
> CM in
,
^~ ""
* —
cu
cu o
o cz
c: co
co 73
"w CT
C 3
3 .e
JO <
X <
cu c.
•a co co
c s_ -a
hH — . O CO
CM > CO
C- = — -H U.
a> ~- CM c
C 5C E = 4->
•rH — ~^ O -rH
CO C5 i CO
5 CO — • CO O
' O '_ C.
C C CO O CO
O CO CO > Q
C 73 CO -H
C C E C Q.
CO 3 O '_ CU
.C J2 -iH CO CU
CO < CO O Q
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
.V-*
£_
CU
4-1
CU
E
.
CT
to
c_
CO
a.
LU
O
^
Q
Z
CO
o
HH
T~
1—
UJ
CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
tfp
£
3
a
X
to
2
c
•rH
2
>
tu
•o
4^
tn
c.
CO
0)
^g
CO
a.
cu
CC
CM
0-
a>
CC
Y—
a.
CO
CC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
o
CM
O)
in
T—
Y—
CO
T
,_
•"Cf
^f
O
CO
^J-
CD
T—
CO
CM
0
CM
O
in
r*.
7-
C}
in
•, —
T—
to
•H
E
C_
O
if-
•H
rH
•H
\^_
CO
3
4-«
to
E
O
cu
CO
o>
Q
in
f^
|v^
O)
T-
in
O
CM
CO
T
CC
CO
O5
O)
O
*g-
CO
N.
^
O)
T—
in
o
CM
T—
T
CO
.
o
a.
CO
CO
cu
T3
•rH
Q
0
•H
i^_
•rH
f>
3
1—
O) T-
m Is-
co r~
cj co
CO CO
O} CO
CO 10
co in
CO T
CO i-
in en
0 0
^
co m
TT in
CO ^~
r*- in
co tn
co m
CM in
co in
a> T
CO CO
CO CO
to
•H
73
•H
£_
• rH
> CO
4_i
CO -rH
•rH i— 1
C- O
cu a.
rH
rH CO
CU '-.
N 3
^ •—
co +j
CO >,
Is-
^-
CO
CO
CM
in
o
m
CM
IS.
CO
CO
CO
T_
CM
,_
^
CO
o
CM
^.
V
CO
CO
CM
m
• rH
rH
rH
CO
f—
u
4-1
• rH
E
C3
=
O
03
CO CO
*- T
O) 0)
in CD
in co
^ CO
o o
m
CM
m r-.
T- O
T CO
O CM
T- CJ
CD CO
O CO
CO ^~
CO
CO
o
in
CM
in CD
in co
CD
4-1
CO
to
i—
O
.
Q.
CO
co O
O
t- O
O —
Q.
E •!•*
CU O
C_ -H
4-> H-
•H
CO .Q
= 3
O 1—
•H
C_ ^
CO E
O)
CO
en
CD
CO
7—
•S-
^v
CM
•>—
CO
CO
CO
CM
T—
CD
CO
•«•
T—
^~
CD
CO
•rH
*->
0
73
C
ja
o
•rH
C.
0
rH
O
CU
4-1
O T
CO CO
O3 O)
^ in
'r"r ^
.^.
CO O
CT> CO
CM CM
O Is-
CO CM
*CT CO
T- CM
CO
CM
co in
CM T
to
•a
0
c.
o
ca i_
CU CO
C 4->
•rH CU
CJ SZ
O
3 CO
CO C
0
CO 4-i
-C CO
•M 1-
c a>
cu >.
O5
CO
O>
CO
CM
CO
CM
O
O
rs.
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
Q
•rH
<—
Jl->
rH
CO
O
CO
:=
0
CO
2
D-18
-------
. — .
•o
•M
c
o
o
T
tr
co
. .
c.
o
•iH
•H
TO
4-J
CO
^^
CO
en
^_
N.
O)
O3
T—
• •
T—
LU
CO
t—t
^3
cr
o
i-~
O)
O>
•>- CO
LU
cr i-
LU Hi
S CO
^
ID >
CO h-
*-H
- 0
CO 1-H
o x
a: o
1— H-
2
LU 1—
CO 2
LU
Q w
2 CO
< S
<
h-
LU
^»
2
O
CC
(—4
>
^y
LU
S
O
1—
1—
o
CD
^^
•a
+j
c
o
o
t
^•K.
£_
cu
-t-*
cu
E
cr
CO
c_
cu
Q.
- _ -
LU
O
<
a
2
CO
O
H-4
P
2
1 1 1
CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
o\°
E
•3
CJ
X
TO
S
C
•H
S
>
CU
Q
T3
-t-J
CO
C
TO
CU
S
~_
CO
0-
co
CC
CM
a.
cu
cc
,_
Q.
cu
CC
oj in r-
O5 O O)
O3 CJ) CD
CO tO CO
CM ^r CM
o o o
CM •q- CM
i- CM T-
CO CO CO
^-- f^J ^_
C\J C\J CD
LO 10 r-
tr>
T
CO CO
CM C\J
CO
CM
TO CO
•H C
C CC
a; o o
^ C3 CD
O C i—l
^H a> cu
•H
C_ CS (0
4-> -H -H
= CO
« O T3
o
G) 0
T-
CO CO
OJ CJ
o o
CM CM
r— f-
CO CO
CO (O
f~ r^
co
OJ
CO
CM
07
^
«
o
,— I
•H 3
c_ =
Q) ^
> --<
<— 1 d.
^
O en
^
en :-
• H --H
0 CU
c_ j:
0) CJ
C 0
0 W
CU CL
CO CU
_J _J
03
T CO
ff-l
^LJ
CO i-
CO i-
co o
o
K^
0
CO O
CO CM
CO T-
m
UJ
•q-
TT CM
T- ^»
Y—
CO
CO ••-
CO T-
•q-
C35 CO
O i-
^T
•g-
cu
O TO
C X
03 TO
•a i—
c
D M-
J3 O
<
r-H 0)
TO J2
•M =
O 3
1— 2
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
If
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
11
11
11
II
II
— -
CO
4->
E
•
O*
03
£_
a.
CO
m
03
£_
a
*~^
CO
CO
<
o
KH
a
o
i— i
~T~
1—
2
LU
P~l
II
II
II
II
tl
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
;i
'I
;i
H
H
ii
ii
ii
ii
d?
e
3
O
'X
CO
s
c
•H
S
>
a>
•Q
4-<
co
c
(O
CU
s
CO
o
cl)
CC
CM
a.
4)
CC
r—
O-
QJ
CC
OCM-— cooc>r~cocof-coo)cnooo
cococoOTTf-cocicncncncncnooo
Lor^cocoooso^ooooooiooo
^ T~ T—
cncMTr-.mfOOf-cococomcocoi—
LOCDCDCM'q-COOOCMCOCOCOTCMCMi-
COi-COf-OCOiOlOCMOOOOOOO
coencMCMcM'-oooooooooo
CMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OCOCMLOOCOCOIOOCOOOOOOO
ococo^rmcoojTOcMOooooo
oco^rmi^-ooooooooooo
trcO'-'-o-'-oooooooooo
••-ooooooooooooooo
cDcococMini-coco-r-cof-.cnco-'-cor-.
cotnt-cnLOLOTincocMcococM'-T-o
^3 ^P r^ LO CO ^~ O4 CNJ ^~ ^D ^D ^D ^D CD ^D C3
IOCMOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooo
^r-cMTri-LOLOiocoinh-coin-r-co'q-
^f 0^ CO ^~ *^T CO CO ^D P** ^T CNJ OJ ^~ ^*~ ^D ^D
OlO^r-COCMtNCMOOOOOOOO
r^-COCMCM'-'^-OOOOOOOOOO
T-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
c\jo4'- OJ
or-cMLoooj-r-ooJoo oo
•^•tOCM-^CMT-OOOOO OO
T-OOOOOOOOOO OO
CO CO
-H 3 CO
CO = -H CO ~
•iH '— CO +J O O
T3 O O O r-4 O-
•H >t- C_ -H D O -i-l
t- -H OTO- T3 COEi-t-03
•H rH -H £ 0303-H^HO-CCi. c TOrH4-i>C
•MOf-i-ira-HCO CU03C)C.CU^|O
C3 -1-1 'H CUSO ^ ^ CU ^3C3
•Hr-i^:co^:cuoco o^nco oc
— o-^3ot-3cucaOi— ICUDCU cu
0>C.^H+J^4-<0>'O+-'-H-H C-CCO
i — 1 CO CO -H -H CU CL — CO -H O •>-* 03
i— ico^eoscocoonjco^-Hcucucu-H
cut. s ECUO.CO cojZJ-'C.s
M~COOTOOJ^-HOi— (COTjOCUCUO
C^ = c_sc-MV-O^20)C_OC_C+-'
cu-i-'Ocuo-^c-'-icncowTO-i-'cu oco
C-C3O-MCJC_TOJ2-H'_OSC.C..c3a)raraa)r:^^j-it;'3cu^TO'O
SOS~SC_>2I— OCOUJLU_JZ— IO
r.
c
n
CO
CO
CO
CM
D-19
-------
------- |