903R94045
CBP/TRS 116/94
July 1994
A Pilot Study for Ambient
Toxicity Testing in
Chesapeake Bay
Year 3 Report
in
225
.C54
A52
1994
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on rtcycttd paper
-------
Regional Center for Environmental Information
US EPA Region IH
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
A Pilot Study for
Ambient Toxicity Testing
in Chesapeake Bay
Year 3 Report
July 1994
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
lino fin atAoa
1050 Arch Street (3PM52)
FhiMttlphia, PA 19103
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Year 3 Report
May, 1994
A Pilot Study for Ambient
Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Michael C. Ziegenfuss
Ronald D. Anderson
William D. Killen
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Raymond W. Alden, III
Peter Adolphson
Old Dominion University
College of Sciences
Applied Marine Research Laboratory
Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0456
-------
FOREWORD
This pilot study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of water column and
sediment toxicity tests. A team of scientists from two Chesapeake
Bay research laboratories worked jointly to complete this goal.
Water column toxicity studies were directed by Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
of the University of Maryland System's Agricultural Experiment
Station; sediment toxicity tests were managed by Raymond W. Alden,
III of Old Dominion University Applied Marine Research Laboratory.
This report summarizes data from the third year of a three-year
pilot study. The following government agencies were responsible
for supporting and/or managing this research: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and
Maryland Department of Environment.
-------
ABSTRACT
Data presented in this report were collected during the third
year of a research program designed to develop a method to assess
ambient toxicity of living resource habitats in Chesapeake Bay for
the purpose of identifying defined regions where ambient toxicity
levels warrant further investigation. 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. The toxicity
of ambient estuarine water and sediment was evaluated during the
fall (1992) and spring (1993) at two stations each in the Wye River
(Manor House and Quarter Creek), Nanticoke River (Sandy Hill Beach
and Bivalve Harbor) and Middle River (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point)
to address temporal and spatial variability. The toxicity of
ambient estuarine water was assessed at all stations by using the
following estuarine tests: 8 day sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon
variegatust survival and growth test; 8 day larval grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes pugio, survival and growth test; 8 day Eurytemora
affinis life cycle test and 48 hour coot clam, Mulinia lateralis
embryo/larval test. Toxicity of ambient estuarine sediment was
determined by using the following tests: 10 d sheepshead minnow
embryo-larval test; 10 day survival, growth and reburial test with
the amphipods Leptacheirus plumulosus and Lepidactylus dytiscus and
10 day polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth
test. Both inorganic and organic contaminants were assessed in
ambient water and sediment concurrently with toxicity testing to
determine "possible" causes of toxicity.
Results from water column testing with the coot clam showed
consistent toxicity at both Middle River stations during the fall
and spring tests. Concentrations of copper, lead, nickel and zinc
were reported to exceed the EPA recommended chronic marine water
quality criterion at one of the stations (Wilson Point). Criterion
recommended by EPA for both copper and nickel were exceeded at the
other Middle River station (Frog Mortar Creek). The only other
water column test showing significant effects was the E. affinis
test (reduced survival) conducted at the Wye River (Quarter Creek)
site during the spring test. Potentially toxic concentrations of
contaminants were not reported concurrently with toxicity.
Significant biological effects likely related to either adverse
water quality conditions or elevated contaminants were not reported
at any of the other sites with the water column tests.
Results from sediment toxicity tests showed a significant
reduction in growth for L. plumulosus at the Nanticoke River -
Sandy Hill Beach site during the fall of 1992. Three times the ER-
L-for mercury was found at this site. Although below sediment ER-
Ls, several organics and pesticides were also confirmed at the
site. Elevated levels of unionized ammonia was present at both
Bivalve and Sandy Hill Beach sites. Wye River Manor House produced
significantly reduced survival of L. dytiscus, and Wye River
Quarter Creek sediment significantly reduced growth of L.
plumulosus during the fall 1992 tests. Concentrations of metals
ii
-------
were low at both sites, however 4,4-DDT was detected at Manor House
during the fall sampling. Spring toxicity data revealed
significant reduction in survival in L. dytiscus at day 10 at the
Manor House site when mortality was adjusted for particle size
effects. Organic data indicated the presence of 4-methylphenol.
Neither survival or growth effects were observed at the Middle
River sites for either sampling period. Frog Mortar and Wilson
Point showed elevated levels (above ER-Ls) of some metals including
lead, zinc, mercury, and copper during the spring sampling.
AVS/SEM data indicated the lack of bioavailability of these metals.
The contaminant 4,4-DDE was also detected at the Frog Mortar site
in the fall sampling.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the following individuals or
organizations for assisting in this study: Ted Turner and Mark
Scott for technical assistance; Joe Stansberry and Gerald Dawson
for the use of their boats, and Versar, Inc. for contaminant
analysis. Ian Hartwell, Ron Klauda, Rich Batiuk, Mary Jo Garreis
and Deirdre Murphy are acknowledged for their comments on the study
design. Special consideration is extended to Mary Hancock and
Kellye Richardson for typing the report.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Objectives 2-1
3. Methods 3-1
3.1 Study Areas 3-1
3.1.1 Nanticoke River 3-4
3.1.2 Wye River 3-4
3.1.3 Middle River 3-4
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests 3-7
3.2.1 Test Species 3-7
3.2.2 Test Procedures 3-9
3.2.2.1 Coot Clam 3-9
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis 3-10
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and
Storage 3-10
3.2.5 Quality Assurance 3-11
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water
Quality Evaluations 3-12
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests 3-12
3.3.1 Test Species 3-12
3.3.2 Test Procedures 3-12
3.3.2.1 Cyprinodon variegatus .... 3-19
3.3.2.2 Leptocheirus plumulosus . . . 3-19
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment
Data 3-20
3.3.4 Sample Collection, Handling and
Storage 3-21
3.3.5 Quality Assurance 3-21
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality
Evaluations 3-22
3.4 Analysis of 3 Year Data Base 3-26
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests 4-1
4.1.1 Toxicity Data 4-1
4.1.2 Contaminants Data 4-10
-------
Table of Contents - continued
Page
4.1.3 Water Quality Data 4-12
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-12
4.2 Sediment Tests 4-12
4.2.1 Toxicity Data 4-12
4.2.2 Contaminants Data 4-28
4.2.3 Pore Water Data 4-36
4.2.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-37
5. Discussion 5-1
5.1 Nanticoke River 5-1
5.2 Wye River 5-2
5.3 Middle River 5-3
6. Analysis of Three Year Data Base 6-1
7. Recommendations 7-1
8. References 8-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Water quality conditions reported in test
chambers during all water column tests.
Hawaiian (HW) marine synthetic seasalt control
was reconstituted RO water with HW seasalts;
EST control was DeCoursey Cove water with
HW seasalts
Appendix B
Water quality conditions reported during
sediment toxicity tests
Appendix C
Organics and pesticide data from sediment
toxicity tests
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest and most productive
estuary. The unique physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the Bay watershed provides habitat for numerous
aquatic species. In recent years, there has been concern for this
estuary due to the decline of various living resources such as
submerged aquatic vegetation, anadromous fish and the American
oyster (Majumdar et al., 1987). Factors such as fishing pressure,
nutrient enrichment, disease and pollution are often postulated as
possible causes of these declining resources. The link between
contaminants (including adverse water quality such as reduced
dissolved oxygen) and biological effects has been of concern in
critical Chesapeake Bay habitat areas in recent years. Information
derived from the loading of toxic chemicals and/or chemical
monitoring studies are not adequate for assessing the biological
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 approach for evaluating the adverse effects of toxic
conditions on living resources is by direct measurement of
biological responses in the ambient environment. The ambient
environment is defined as aquatic areas located outside of mixing
zones of point source discharges.
Research efforts designed to address the link between
contaminants and adverse effects on living aquatic resources have
been supported by various state and federal agencies in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. For example, the Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy 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 consistent with
the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Living Resource
Monitoring Plan (CEC, 1988).
The idea for an Ambient Toxicity Testing Program was discussed
at an Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop held in Annapolis,
Maryland in July of 1989 (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1990) . The goals
of this workshop were to provide a forum on how to use biological
indicators to monitor the effects of toxic contaminants on living
resources in Chesapeake Bay. Recommendations from this workshop
were used to develop a three year pilot study (1990-1993).
Objectives from the first two years of this effort have been
completed and reports have been published (Hall et al., 1991; Hall
et al., 1992).
Results from our first year of this study demonstrated that
ambient toxic conditions were present in the Elizabeth River and
Patapsco River based on water column, sediment and suborganismal
tests (Hall et al., 1991). Data from sediment and suborganismal
1-1
-------
tests also suggested that toxic conditions were present at the
proposed reference site in the Wye River; water column tests did
not demonstrate the presence of toxic conditions at this reference
site. Several ambient stations in the Potomac River also had toxic
conditions based on water column and sediment tests. The need for
multispecies testing was supported by the water column tests as no
significant ranking of sensitivity among species was reported.
Results from the sediment tests showed that the amphipod test was
most sensitive, followed by the polychaete worm test and the grass
shrimp test. The need for integrated water column, sediment and
suborganismal testing was confirmed during our first year of
testing. A spectrum of tests was needed to maximize our ability to
identify toxic conditions in the ambient environment of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Ambient toxicity tests were conducted twice in the following
locations during the second year of this study: Potomac River-
Morgantown, Potomac River-Dahlgren, Patapsco River and Wye River
(Halletal., 1992). Significant biological effects (statistically
different from controls) were demonstrated from water column tests
during at least one sampling period for all stations except the
Patapsco River. The most persistent biological effects in the
water column were reported from the Wye River station as
significant mortality from two different test species was reported
from both the first and second test. Sediment tests demonstrated
significant biological effects for both tests at the Dahlgren,
Morgantown, and Patapsco River stations. Significant biological
effects were reported in sediment during the first Wye River test
but not the second.
The purpose of this report is to present data from the third
year of testing and summarize all information collected over the
three year period using a composite index approach based upon that
of the sediment quality triad (Alden, 1992). Many of the test
procedures described in the first year report were used for the
third year of testing; therefore, the first year report by Hall et
al. (1991) should be used to provide details on specific
procedures. One new water column test (coot clam, Mulinia
lateralis) and two new sediment tests (Cyprinodon variegatus,
sheepshead minnow embryo-larval and amphipod, Leptocheirus
plumulosus) were used in the third year; descriptions of the
testing procedures are provided in this report. The goals of this
study were to conduct four water column and four sediment toxicity
tests on a broader spatial and temporal scale than the previous
efforts. Water column and sediment toxicity tests were conducted
at two stations in the Wye River, Nanticoke River and Middle River.
Seasonal variability was assessed by conducting tests during the
fall (low flow) and spring (high flow). Inorganic and organic
contaminants were evaluated in both water and sediment during these
experiments.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
This pilot ambient toxicity study was a continuation of a
research effort previously conducted for two years 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.
The specific objectives of the third year of this study were
to:
• assess the toxicity of ambient estuarine water and
sediment during the fall and spring at two stations each
in the Wye, Nanticoke and Middle Rivers of the Chesapeake
Bay to address temporal and spatial variability issues in
these three rivers;
• determine the toxicity of ambient estuarine water
described in the first objective by using the following
estuarine tests: 8 day sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon
variegatus survival and growth test; 8 day larval grass
shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio survival and growth test, 8
day Eurytemora affinis life cycle test and 48 hour coot
clam, Mulinia lateralis embryo-larval test;
• evaluate the toxicity of ambient sediment described in
the first objective by using the following estuarine
tests: 10 day sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 10
day amphipod, Lepidactylus dytiscus and Leptocheirus
plumulosus survival, growth and reburial test and 10 day
polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and
growth test;
• measure inorganic and organic contaminants in ambient
water and sediment concurrently with toxicity testing 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;
• identify longer term test methods development or follow
up survey design needs (if any) to support baywide
assessment of ambient toxicity; and
• summarize water column and sediment toxicity data from
ambient toxicity tests conducted during the 1990-1993
pilot study in the Chesapeake Bay.
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 study Areas
Study areas were selected to represent ecologically important
but not overtly contaminated (e.g. Elizabeth River) environments of
the Chesapeake Bay. Selecting these type areas provided a true
measure of the ambient toxicity testing approach and the
sensitivity of this approach for identifing potentially toxic
ambient areas in the Bay watershed. Information provided by
Maryland Department of The Environment (MDE), Maryland Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Maryland Department of Agriculture
(MDA) was used in the station selection process. Stations selected
for study were located outside of point source discharge mixing
zones.
The rivers selected for the 1992 and 1993 study were the
Nanticoke, Wye and Middle Rivers (Figure 3.1). A description of
these three rivers, along with appropriate rationale for station
selection in each river, is presented below. Two estuarine sites
in each river were selected for ambient toxicity testing to provide
data on spatial variability.
3.1.1 Nanticoke River
The Nanticoke River is a major tributary of Chesapeake Bay
that provides valuable habitat for commercially important species
such as softshell clams, blue crabs and anadromous fish. This
river was historically one of the four major spawning areas for
striped bass in the Maryland waters of Chesapeake Bay (Kohlenstein,
1980). The Nanticoke represents a typical eastern shore river
bordered by wetland habitats, agricultural activity (non-point
source inputs), few point source discharges, and low population
density.
Proposed testing sites downriver from Chapter Point were
selected to insure that salinity would be present during the spring
test period (Figure 3.2). Water quality data from previous studies
on the Nanticoke River indicate that saline conditions were
detected year-round below Long Point (Stroup et al., 1991).
The two sites selected in the Nanticoke River were Sandy Hill
Beach and Bivalve Harbor. Sandy Hill Beach was downriver from the
mouth of Quantico Creek in Wicomico County (38° 21' 24" N, 75° 51'
21" W) . The Quantico Creek drainage includes a waste treatment
facility at the Poplar Hill Pre-release Unit as well as
agricultural run-off. Elevated coliform counts (39-75 MPN/100 ml)
have been frequently detected at this site (Deirdre Murphy,
personal communication). Bivalve harbor in Wicomico County was
located at 38° 19' 17" N, 75° 53' 22" W. The Taylor Oil Company
discharge is located near this site (upstream). Elevated coliform
counts (23-93 MPN/100 ml) have also been observed at this site
(Deirdre Murphy, personal communication).
3-1
-------
Figure 3.1 Nanticoke River, Wye River and Middle River locations used
for ambient testing.
Middle River
3-2
-------
Figure 3.2 Nanticoke River sampling sites located at
Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve Harbor.
A" ' ••*
,T> -.'Ji2 Bivalve Harbor
^ . •'
Ragged Pt
Roaring Pt
3-3
-------
3.1.2 Wve River
The Wye River was selected for testing during the previous two
year pilot study to represent a reference or relatively "clean"
background area (minimal point source input). The site previously
selected was located at Wye Narrows above the Manor House (38° 53'
12" N, 76° l' 54" W) (Figure 3.3). Results from sediment toxicity
testing in year 1 and both sediment and water column tests from
year 2 suggested this area may have toxic conditions (Hall et al.,
1991; Hall et al., 1992). The rationale for retaining this site in
year 3 was to provide data from at least one site for three
consecutive years for temporal comparisons within each test type
(water column or sediment) and among the two different test types.
For example, in year 1 toxic conditions were not identified with
water column tests but biological effects were reported in year 2.
Sediment tests demonstrated effects during both years. Retaining
the Wye River site for three years, therefore, provided insight on
annual variability with both types of tests.
The other site selected for testing on the Wye River was
upriver from DeCoursey Cove near the mouth of Quarter Creek (38°
55' 00" N, 76° 10' 00" W) (Figure 3.3). This site was near MDE
shellfish program station 08-02-013A where elevated coliform counts
(23-93 MPN/100 ml) have been detected following rain events
(Deirdre Murphy, personal communication). Inorganic and organic
contaminants have been detected in soft shell clam tissue at two
sampling sites in close proximity to this proposed sampling site.
Concentrations of the following contaminants were reported in
softshell clams in 1985: arsenic (0.74 ug/g), cadmium (0.15 ug/g),
copper (7.03 ug/g), mercury (0.001 ug/g), and chlordane (0.019
ug/g). In 1986, arsenic (0.1 ug/g), cadmium (0.13 ug/g), copper
(8.41 ug/g), and mercury (0.007 ug/g) were detected (Deirdre
Murphy, personal communication).
3.1.3 Middle River
Middle River is a western shore tributary of Chesapeake Bay
located north of Baltimore. Two stations were selected in this
river to represent possible effects from densely populated urban
areas with numerous point source discharges. Both sites were
selected in close proximity to Wilson Point to insure that saline
conditions would be present during the spring testing period. MDE
has monitored this region from 1984 through 1989 and characterized
it as a salinity transition zone where seasonal salinity ranged
from about 2 to 7 ppt.
Site #1 was located east of Wilson Point near Galloway Point
at the mouth of Frog Mortar Creek (39° 18' 30" N, 76° 24' 10" W)
(Figure 3.4). This site was likely influenced by the water quality
of"Frog Mortar Creek. A "fish kill" was reported by MDE in Frog
Mortar Creek in June of 1989 (Poukish and Allison, 1989).
Approximately 100 fish (perch, carp, sunfish and catfish) were
reported dead with no known probable cause. Sediment contaminants
data collected by MDE indicated detectable levels of arsenic (25
ug/g), mercury (0.3 ug/g), nickel (50 ug/g), lead (100 ug/g) and
3-4
-------
4)
CO
3
O
as
O
c
CO
-o
4)
u
(0
O
O
en
4)
CO
60 •
C X.
i-l 41
,-H 41
Q. t-i
B U
(0
tn Vj
41
4)
0)
3
, c
03
3
ao
3-5
-------
Figure 3.4 Middle River sampling sites located at
Wilson Point and Frog Mortar Creek.
Glenn L. Martin
State Airport
3-6
-------
zinc (250 ug/g) in sediments found east of Wilson Point (Deirdre
Murphy, personal communication). The site was also located
downriver (approximately one mile) from the Glen L. Martin State
Airport permitted discharge. Numerous marinas were also present in
this area.
Site #2 was located west of Wilson Point (39° 18' 30" N, 76°
24' 45" W) (Figure 3.4). This site was likely influenced by
numerous marinas from Cow Pens Creek, Dark Head Creek and Hopkins
Creek. The sampling site was located downriver from the Chesapeake
Industrial Park permitted discharge on Dark Head Creek
(approximately 1.25 miles). A chemical spill containing chromium,
occurred in Cow Pens Creek in January 1988. In April 1989, MDE
found detectable concentrations of inorganic contaminants in water
samples taken from Cow Pens Creek in the vicinity of Glen L. Martin
Airport. Arsenic (2.2 ug/L), cadmium (10 ug/L), copper (48 ug/L),
chromium (50 ug/L), lead (126 ug/L), mercury (0.2 ug/L), nickel (40
ug/L) and zinc (276 ug/L) were detected (Deirdre Murphy, personal
communication). In March of 1990, a "fish kill" was reported by
MDE in which approximately 100 yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish
and gizzard shad were found in Dark Head Creek (Charles Poukish,
personal communication). No probable cause for the "fish kill" was
determined.
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The objectives of the water column toxicity tests were to
determine the toxicity of ambient water at two stations each in the
Nanticoke, Wye and Middle Rivers. The following tests were
conducted at these six stations during the fall of 1992 and the
spring 1993: 8 day sheepshead minnow survival and growth test; 8
day larval grass shrimp survival and growth test; 8 day E. affinis
life cycle test and two 48 hour coot clam embryo/larval tests. A
suite of metals and organics was also measured in ambient water
used for these tests.
3.2.1 Test species
Larval sheepshead minnows, larval grass shrimp and the copepod
E. affinis have been used in the previous two year pilot ambient
toxicity testing study. These tests 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. Both larval sheepshead minnows and
larval grass shrimp are highly abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay
organisms used extensively in standard tests. Sheepshead minnows
have demonstrated moderate sensitivity in subchronic tests.
Juvenile and adult grass shrimp are generally considered resistant
species, however, larvae have been used to report biological
effects in previous ambient tests (Table 3.1). E. affinis is an
extremely abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay zooplankton species
that is sensitive to contaminants. This copepod is not a standard
test organism. However, we have conducted successful life cycle
3-7
-------
Table 3.1 Summary of water column test species responses from 1990
and 1991 ambient toxicity testing.
Test Species
Number of
Tests
Number of
Tests with
Significant
Effects
Percent of Tests
with Significant
Effects
E. affinis 16
Sheepshead Minnow 16
Grass Shrimp 16
Mysid Shrimp 8
Ceriodaphnia sp 4
(freshwater)
P. promelas 3
(freshwater)
2
5
2
0
1
12.5
31
12.5
0
25
3-8
-------
toxicity tests with this species during the past two years of
ambient testing and a detailed method for conducting life cycle
toxicity tests with E. affinis has been published in the primary
literature (Hall et al., 1988).
A summary of significant adverse effects (mortality, reduced
growth, etc.) reported from ambient toxicity testing with these
species in 1990 and 1991 is presented in Table 3.1. Results from
these previous ambient toxicity studies demonstrates that the top
three species can detect toxic conditions in ambient salt water.
Mysid shrimp were not used in year 3 because they were not
sensitive to ambient water during the second year of testing and
they are not resident to the Chesapeake Bay. Ceriodaphnia and
fathead minnows were not used because they are freshwater species
and we did not test any freshwater stations during this study.
The coot clam, M. lateralis, was a new species tested during
year 3. 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 stage occurs in the water
column. The coot clam adds another dimension to the suite of test
organisms because it represents a class of organisms (bivalves) not
presently represented. 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).
3.2.2 Test Procedures
Test procedures and culture methods previously described in
the year 1 report for the 8 day sheepshead minnow survival and
growth test, 8 day larval grass shrimp survival and growth test and
8 day E. affinis life cycle test were used for this study (Hall et
al., 1991). The sources for these species were as follows:
sheepshead minnows, Aquatic Biosystems, Denver, Colorardo; grass
shrimp, S.P. Engineering and Technology, Salem, Massachusetts, and
E. affinis, in-house cultures (orginally from University of
Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory).
3.2.2.1 Coot Clam
Methods proposed for culturing and testing the coot clam were
modified from Morrison and Petrocelli (1990a). Adult brood stock
were obtained from U.S. EPA laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode
Island and Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Wachapreaque,
Virginia. Cultures were maintained in our laboratory at test
salinities of 15 ppt and temperatures of 25°C with a photoperiod of
16:8 (L:D.). Adult clams were held in 18L glass aquaria containing
2.5 cm of sandy substrate. The clams were fed four times weekly
with a 2L phytoplankton mixture (50/50 v/v) of Tetraselmus suecica
and Isochrysis galbana. Phytoplankton were cultured in F/2 media
following the procedures described by Guillard (1975).
Embryos used for testing were obtained by spawning
3-9
-------
approximately 20 fertile adult clams. The animals were placed in
a crystallization dish and covered with clean culture water. The
dish was chilled to 4°C in a refrigerator, then rapidly warmed to
28°C in a hot water bath. After several animals had released
gametes, the eggs and sperm were suspended and mixed.
Fertilization was confirmed by examining the eggs microscopically
at 100 x magnification. Fertilized eggs were readily observed by
shape, uniform color and presence of polar body. Eggs were
collected and concentrated in a beaker by passing them through a
72um mesh screen.
Ambient toxicity tests were conducted in 20 ml glass
scintillation vials with 3 replicates per condition (ambient water
and control) . Each vial contained 10 ml of test solution and
approximately 750 embryos that were 2 hours old or less. To
determine the amount of embryo stock to add to each vial, 750 was
divided by the number of embryos/ml in stock solution. Between 0.1
and 0.2 ml embryo stock were added to each vial.
Embryos were counted by diluting the stock solution of embryos
1:20. One ml was sampled from the diluted stock and dispensed into
a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. The number of embryos in the
chamber was usually between 188 and 375. This number was
multiplied by 20 to determine the number of embryos in stock
solution. There were between 3,750 and 7,500 embryos per ml.
Vials were then capped and placed in a biological incubator to
control temperature (25°C) for 48 hours. The test was terminated
by adding 0.5 ml of formalin to each vial following 48 hours of
exposure. One hundred larvae per replicate were examined under a
microscope (100 x) for shell development by transferring larvae and
solution from the bottom of a test vial to a counting chamber.
Test results were evaluated by determining the reduction of the
proportion of clams with normal shell development. Test organisms
from the ambient water were compared with the controls. Two 48
hour tests were conducted per site during each 8 day testing
period. Each test was conducted with a different batch of water.
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Statistical tests described in Fisher et al. (1988) and Hall
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, a control was compared with one test condition (100
percent ambient water). A simple T-test was used for this
comparison. A statistical difference between the response of a
species exposed to a control condition and an ambient condition was
used to determine toxicity. Analysis of Variance or Dunnetts
Procedures was used in cases where comparisons of a species
response on a spatial or temporal scale was necessary.
3.2.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the
previous pilot study were implemented (Hall et al., 1991). Ambient
water was collected from all study areas and taken to our toxicity
3-10
-------
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 11.25
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. 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. The temperature of the ambient water used for testing was
25°C. Salinity adjustments (increase) were performed on samples
collected from saline sites to obtain a standard test salinity of
15 ppt.
3.2.5 Quality Assurance
A copy of our Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual was
submitted and approved by the sponsor prior to the study (Fisher et
al., 1988). Standard Quality Assurance (QA) procedures used in our
laboratory for The State of Maryland's Effluent Toxicity Testing
Program were followed (Fisher et al., 1988). These QA procedures
were used during the previous two years of ambient toxicity testing
study.
Two control water conditions were used during the October
testing period. Grass shrimp and Mulinia control water consisted
of reconstituted water (reverse osmosis) with Hawaiian Marine
synthetic sea salts. Eurytemora control water was prepared by
adding Hawaiian (HW) Marine sea salts to autoclaved estuarine water
(DeCoursey Cove). Two control conditions designated EST-Control
for the DeCoursey Cove water and H W-Control for the reconstituted
(RO) water with sea salts were used in the larval sheepshead test.
The EST-Control was the true control used for statistical analyis.
The synthetic control condition was used as an experimental
condition to compare with the growth data from the EST-Control.
One control water condition consisting of Indian River Water
(Indian River Inlet, Delaware) diluted to 15 ppt with RO water was
used for all species during the April testing period.
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 was an established data base with this chemical for
all of the proposed tests species except the coot clam. 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.
3-11
-------
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
The contaminant analyses proposed 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 and organic 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 contaminants were reported in conjunction with
biological effects.
Aqueous samples for analysis of organic and inorganic
contaminants listed in Table 3.2 were collected during the ambient
toxicity tests. These contaminants and methods for their
measurement have been evaluated in our previous ambient toxicity
testing study (Hall et al., 1991). Analytical procedures and
references for analysis of these samples are presented in Table
3.3. Total inorganic contaminant analysis were conducted on
filtered samples using 0.40 urn polycarbonate membranes.
Four liter whole water samples were collected for organic
contaminants analysis (Table 3.2) . Organic contaminants other than
those identified in Table 3.2 (non-target organics) were measured
if GC/MS peaks were identified. Detailed procedures for preparing
samples for inorganic and organic analysis are described in detail
in Hall et al. (I988b). Contaminant analysis was conducted at
least one time on aqueous samples collected from each station per
experiment. Versar, Inc. was responsible for all organic and
inorganic analyses.
Standard water quality conditions of temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity was 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
Sediment samples (100 percent ambient sediment samples) from
six stations were tested using four organisms: eggs of the
sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus, the amphipods Lepidactylus
dytiscus and Leptocheirus plumulosus, and the polychaete worm
Streblospio benedicti.
3.3.2 Test Procedures
All tests were conducted for 10 days at 25°C and monitored
daily. Daily monitoring in the sheepshead test included the
assessment of egg and larval mortality, hatching success and water
3-12
-------
Table 3.2 Concentrations of the following organic and inorganic
contaminants were evaluated in water.
Contaminant
Detection Limit (ug/L)
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
DOE
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Perylene
Fluorene
Phenanthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.70
0.90
0.70
0.70
1.1
1.0
1.7
0.7
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
0.2
5.0
3.0
5.0
3-13
-------
Table 3.3 Analytical methods used for organic and inorganic
analysis in water samples. The following abbreviations
are used: GC-EC (Gas Chromatography - Electron
Capture), GC-MS (Gas Chromatography - Mass
Spectrometry), Atomic Emission - ICP (AE-ICP), AA-H
(Atomic Absorption - Hydride), AA-F (Atomic
Absorption - Furnace) and AA-DA (Atomic Absorption -
Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption - Cold
Vapor).
Contaminant
Halogenated Hydro-
carbon Pesticides
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
Base-Neutral
Extractable Organic
Compounds
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
GC-EC
GC-EC
GC-MS
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method I
608
608
625
206.3
213.2
218.2
220.2
239.2
245.1
249.2
270.3
289.1
Reference
u. s.
1984
U. S.
1984
U. S.
1984
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
U. S.
1979
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
3-14
-------
quality parameters (Hall et al., 1991) until the end of the test.
On day 10 of the S. benedicti, L. plumulosus, and L. dytiscus
tests, mortalities were recorded, and the animals were returned to
the original test containers. The organisms were then monitored
daily for an additional 10 days. Numbers of live animals were
recorded on day 20. Any living organisms were preserved for length
and weight measurements.
The sediment samples were collected from two sites in the Wye
River (Manor House, Quarter Creek), two sites in the Middle River
(Wilson Point, Frog Mortar), and two sites in the Nanticoke River
(Bivalve Harbor, Sandy Hill Beach). The salinity at all sites was
between 8-14 parts per thousand (ppt) at sampling, except for the
Middle River stations (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point) which were 5.1
ppt at sampling. All samples were adjusted to 15 ppt prior to
testing by sieving with 15 ppt control water. Control sediments
for each species consisted of native sediments from the area in
which the test organisms were collected or naturally occur.
Control and reference sediments (see below) were tested with each
set of test samples. Reference sediments were employed to assist
in determining any possible naturally occurring geochemical and
physical conditions inherent to the sediment being tested which may
influence mortality.
Sediment for performing particle size analysis was collected
from each of the test stations several weeks prior to initiation of
the toxicity tests, in order to select a reference sediment for
each set of test samples. It was determined from the initial
sediment collection and particle size analysis that the test sites
ranged from 8.83 percent to 90.65 percent sand (Table 3.4). The
initial sediment samples from Manor House and Quarter Creek were
36.20 percent and 8.83 percent sand, respectively. Particle size
analysis of samples from Wilson Point and Frog Mortar revealed
90.65 percent and 81.41 percent sand, respectively, and Bivalve and
Sandy Hill Beach had 80.67 percent and 68.60 percent sand,
respectively. Because of the large range in particle size between
test sites, two reference sediments were used with each organism
per test. These reference sediments bracketed the sediment
particle sizes found at the selected test sites; i.e., one
reference sediment most closely matched the test site with highest
sand proportion and one reference most closely matched the test
site with highest silt/clay proportion. Reference and control
sediments were designated as follows: (1) Lynnhaven sand, (2)
Lynnhaven mud, and (3) Poropatank sediment. Lynnhaven mud was used
as the control sediment for S. benedicti and C. variegatus eggs,
Lynnhaven sand was used as the control for L. dytiscus, and
Poropatank sediment was used as the control for L. plumulosus.
Lynnhaven sand (100 percent sand) and Poropatank sediment (1.79
percent sand) bracket the particle size of all test samples and
were therefore considered suitable as reference sediments as well.
The actual test sediment samples were collected and again analyzed
for sand, silt, and clay content. The particle size/composition of
the test sediments (Table 3.5) were quite variable between
replicates but median values were similar to those collected and
3-15
-------
Table 3.4 Initial particle size analysis of sediments from six
stations, references and controls used in toxicity
tests. Samples were collected 9/16-9/22/92.
Station
Manor House
Quarter Creek
Wilson Point
Frog Mortar
Bivalve
Sandy Hill Beach
Poropatank
Lynnhaven Mud
Lynnhaven Sand
% Sand
36.20
8.83
90.65
81.41
80.67
68.60
1.78
24.69
100.00
% Silt
25.45
34.01
4.73
14.27
4.88
7.48
36.76
61.90
0.00
% Clav
38.35
57.15
4.62
8.32
14.45
23.92
61.46
13.41
0.00
3-16
-------
Table 3.5 Particle size analysis of sediments from six
stations and references and controls used in
toxicity tests. Set #1 was collected 10/7/92. Set
#2 was collected 4/15/93.
Station
Set #1:
Manor House Rl
Manor House R2
Manor House R3
Manor House R4
Manor House R5
Quarter Creek Rl
Quarter Creek R2
Quarter Creek R3
Quarter Creek R4
Quarter Creek R5
Wilson Point Rl
Wilson Point R2
Wilson Point R3
Wilson Point R4
Wilson Point R5
Frog Mortar Rl
Frog Mortar R2
Frog Mortar R3
Frog Mortar R4
Frog Mortar R5
Bivalve Rl
Bivalve R2
Bivalve R3
Bivalve R4
Bivalve R5
Sandy Hill B. Rl
Sandy Hill B. R2
Sandy Hill B. R3
Sandy Hill B. R4
Sandy Hill B. R5
Poropatank
Lynnhaven Mud
Lynnhaven Sand
% Sand
68.60
85.89
42.12
40.57
14.96
3.03
3.79
5.07
66.75
8.81
79.54
73.40
22.38
20.70
7.37
85.27
84.50
23.73
42.20
3.05
78.88
76.12
67.51
51.66
30.72
58.68
7.22
6.35
17.65
8.64
1.78
24.69
100.00
% Silt
14.62
5.62
22.58
21.26
33.08
47.50
46.68
44.63
13.42
45.26
11.41
15.23
46.88
49.58
44.81
9.92
10.34
34.19
28.69
65.04
9.30
10.96
14.64
33.80
33.46
20.34
45.56
44.34
25.33
42.69
36.76
61.90
0.00
% Clav
16.77
8.48
35.29
38.17
51.96
49.47
49.54
50.29
19.82
45.93
9.05
11.36
30.74
29.72
47.81
4.81
5.15
42.07
29.12
31.92
11.82
12.92
17.85
14.54
35.82
20.98
47.22
49.31
54.02
48.67
61.46
13.41
0.00
3-17
-------
Table 3.5 continued
station
Set #2:
Manor House Rl
Manor House R2
Manor House R3
Manor House R4
Manor House R5
Quarter Creek Rl
Quarter Creek R2
Quarter Creek R3
Quarter Creek R4
Quarter Creek R5
Wilson Point Rl
Wilson Point R2
Wilson Point R3
Wilson Point R4
Wilson Point R5
Frog Mortar Rl
Frog Mortar R2
Frog Mortar R3
Frog Mortar R4
Frog Mortar R5
Bivalve Rl
Bivalve R2
Bivalve R3
Bivalve R4
Bivalve R5
Sandy Hill B. Rl
Sandy Hill B. R2
Sandy Hill B. R3
Sandy Hill B. R4
Sandy Hill B. R5
Poropatank
Lynnhaven Mud
Lynnhaven Sand
% Sand
85.97
53.40
31.73
12.62
14.41
3.11
90.87
9.27
78.81
82.86
51.19
65.06
87.67
71.28
17.20
87.82
21.96
3.96
0.54
1.31
83.00
82.64
92.81
58.47
66.26
8.83
52.08
8.47
4.63
25.02
9.72
3.60
100.00
% Silt
7.20
20.94
31.81
33.69
36.13
50.13
3.18
38.98
7.20
4.91
22.95
16.77
3.36
15.40
37.93
6.71
44.58
54.40
45.39
49.24
7.26
6.43
2.38
23.28
14.56
44.80
23.48
42.96
49.54
46.75
69.19
40.65
0.00
% Clav
6.82
25.66
36.46
53.69
49.46
46.77
5.96
51.75
13.99
12.23
25.87
18.18
8.97
13.32
44.87
5.47
33.46
41.64
54.07
49.45
9.75
10.93
4.81
18.25
19.18
46.37
24.44
48.57
45.83
28.23
21.08
55.75
0.00
3-18
-------
analyzed initially.
Culture and maintenance procedures used for S. benedicti and
the amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus are as described in Hall et al.
(1991) . Leptocheirus plumulosus and the sheepshead minnow egg test
were not used in year 2 of this study, therefore, culture and
maintenance procedures for this organism are described below.
3.3.2.1 Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinodon variegatus adults were maintained in accordance
with laboratory tested methods and guidance from general
literature. Animals were cultured at 20 ppt salinity in 20 gallon
holding tanks maintained at ambient laboratory light and
temperature (approx. 20°C). Adult breeders were maintained in a
200 gallon tank in an elevated "breeder" basket at 20 ppt salinity
25 C and a 16L:8D photoperiod. Breeders were fed a commercial
marine blend flake food by automated apparatus 10 times per day and
supplemented with Artemia nauplii twice daily. Eggs were collected
daily below the baskets and transferred to clean one gallon
aquaria. These aquaria were then placed into 25°C incubators and
aerated. Approximately 90 percent water changes were performed
until the eggs were 48 hours old when they were ready for placement
into test chambers.
A series of test containers was set up according to the
methods outlined in the ASTM "Standard Guide for conducting solid-
phase 10 day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and
estuarine amphipods" (ASTM, 1990). Two centimeters of sediment
were placed into each of five replicate 2 liter test containers
with 750 ml of overlying water. Ten 48 hour old embryos were
placed into a cylindrical mesh egg chamber. The chamber was then
gently placed into the sediment such that the sediment passed
through the bottom mesh and was allowed to contact the eggs.
Control sediment consisted of mud (Lynnhaven mud). Test containers
were monitored daily for oxygen, temperature, and pH. Number of
animals live/dead eggs, live/dead larvae, and number hatched was
also recorded. The fish were not fed. The test was performed a
total of ten days from test initiation or two days post hatch for
all controls whichever occurred first.
3.3.2.2 Leptocheirus plumulosus
Leptocheirus plumulosus cultures were maintained in accordance
with laboratory tested methods and guidance from DeWitt et al
(1992) . Animals were cultured at 20 ppt salinity in 20 gallon
tanks maintained at ambient laboratory light and temperature
(approx. 20°C) . One to two cm of native sediment was placed on the
bottom of the culture tanks and enriched with food supplement
weekly. Food consisted of approximately 50:50 mixture of ground
commercial marine flake food and powdered alfalfa. Fifty percent
water changes were performed weekly. Animals were harvested on a
monthly basis and were either used for testing, culture expansion,
or simply culled. Culture tanks are constantly gently aerated and
filtered. Test animals were collected for testing by siphoning the
culture sediment from the tanks and passing it through a stacked
3-19
-------
series of sieves. Those animals which passed through a 710 micron
sieve but were retained on a 500 micron sieve were used for the
tests. When insufficient numbers of organisms were obtained from
ongoing cultures, animals were collected from the field. Field
collected animals were brought to the laboratory, acclimated, and
held for a minimum of 48 hours for observation before being used in
tests. The general health of the population was assessed, and any
unhealthy or damaged organisms were discarded. All tanks holding
amphipods were fed as described above. Fifty percent weekly water
changes were also performed. Field collected animals were used in
tests evaluating toxicity of sediments collected in the fall 1992
sampling period, while lab reared animals were used in the spring
tests.
A series of test containers was set up according to the
methods outlined in the ASTM "Standard Guide for conducting solid-
phase 10 day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and
estuarine amphipods" (ASTM, 1990). Two centimeters of sediment
were placed into each of five replicate 1 liter test containers
with 700 ml of overlying water. Twenty animals were added to each
test vessel and monitored for 10 days. Control sediment consisted
of mud (Poropatank). A subset of the test animal population was
selected for initial length and weight measurements. All length
measurements were conducted using the Optimas Image Analysis
system. Test containers were monitored daily for oxygen,
temperature, and pH. Number of animals emerged from the sediment
was also recorded. The amphipods were fed 25 mg of ground Ulva
spp./Tetramin flake food in a 3:1 ratio per test container every
three days throughout the duration of the test. At the end of ten
days, animals were sieved from test containers and mortality was
recorded. Surviving animals were then returned to the test
containers for an additional 10 day period. On day twenty, animals
were again sieved from the containers and mortality recorded. Any
live amphipods were then placed into vessels containing control
sediment and allowed to rebury. Reburial behavior was recorded
after one hour. Animals were then resieved from the containers and
preserved for growth measurements.
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data
The goal of this study was not to generate LC50 data from
dilution series tests. The main objective was to evaluate for each
test species, the response (mortality, growth, etc) when tested in
100 percent ambient sediment, as compared to a control.
Statistical differences between the responses of species exposed
to control and ambient sediments were used to determine the
toxicity. Evaluations relative to particle size effects were made
based on the response seen in the reference sediments. Sheepshead
egg data were evaluated using ANOVA contrasts and compared to the
controls. Evaluation of total mortality was assessed by combining
egg mortality, larval mortality, and unhatched eggs remaining at
the termination of the test. Unhatched eggs were included as
mortality based upon previous observations and the assumption that
probability of hatching and thus survival decreases essentially to
3-20
-------
zero by test termination.
For all other tests the statistical approaches that were
employed in the first two years of the study (Hall et al., 1992)
were again utilized in the third year. Basically, the analyses
consisted of analysis of variance (ANOVA) models with A. priori
tests of each treatment contrasted to the controls. Arcsine
transformations were used for the percent mortality data.
Mortality was corrected for particle size effects using the
regression equations presented in year 2 of the study. Length and
weight were expressed as percentage of change from the initial
length and weight measurements.
3.3.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
The general sediment sample collection, handling, and storage
procedures described in Hall et al. 1991 were used in this study.
Sediment samples were collected at each site by Applied Marine
Research Laboratory (AMRL) personnel and returned to the laboratory
for testing. The first set of sediments was collected October 7,
1992 by petite ponar grab. The second set of sediment samples was
collected by petite ponar grab on April 15, 1993 at the same sites.
Unlike the 1990 and 1991 studies in which composite samples
were collected, true field replicates were maintained separately
for transport to the laboratory. Sediment was collected at each
site by first randomly identifying 5 grab sample locations along a
100 meter square grid. At each site a discrete field subsample was
collected for bioassays and stored on ice. A separate subset from
the same ponar grab series was placed into a handling container.
Subsamples from all 5 sites within a station were serially placed
into the same handling container. When all 5 sites within the
station had been sampled, the entire batch was homogenized and
distributed into the sample containers designated for chemical
analyses. All samples were transported on ice, out of direct
sunlight. Bioassay samples were held in refrigerators at 4°C until
initiation of the toxicity tests. Samples for chemical analysis
were frozen and stored until tested. All samples were analyzed
within EPA recommended holding times.
3.3.5 Quality assurance
All quality assurance procedures submitted previously to the
sponsoring agency were implemented following the testing protocols
and associated SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). Laboratory
quality assurance procedures for sediment and pore water and
inorganic and organic chemical analyses followed EPA Standard
Quality Assurance Guidelines.
Toxicity test sediment controls consisted of sediment from
sites where either the animals were collected, or the animals are
naturally resident. Reference sediments were used to compare the
effects non-toxicity related parameters such as sediment particle
size, ammonia, nitrate, and total organic carbon (TOG) had on the
test animals. Because of the apparent notable effect particle
size has upon survival, and the large heterogeneity of particle
size at the sites, two references sediments (high percent sand,
high percent silt/clay) were used for C. variegatus and S.
3-21
-------
benedicti to bracket the particle sizes encountered at the test
sites. Only one reference was used for each of the amphipods. It
was necessary to use only one reference because the control
sediment for each animal represented one end of the particle size
scale in each case. The control for the L. dytiscus was at the
high end of the sand scale, while the control for L. plumulosus
represented the high end of the silt/clay scale. Other physico-
chemical parameters were measured for comparison, but not
controlled for in the references.
Static acute non-renewal water-only reference toxicant tests
were performed for each species during each sampling period.
Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant for each animal
because the existing laboratory data base is available for this
chemical. Reference toxicant information was used to establish the
validity and sensitivity of the populations of animals used in the
sediment test. Seasonal changes in sensitivity has been observed
previously in L. dytiscus (Deaver and Adolphson, 1990), therefore
consideration of this QA reference data is paramount to proper
interpretation.
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations
Contaminants were evaluated concurrently with toxicity tests.
It was not our intention to suggest that the presence of inorganic
and organic contaminants provide an absolute "cause and effect"
relationship between contaminants and any observed biological
effects. Information on suspected contaminants does however,
provide valuable insights if high concentrations of potentially
toxic contaminants were reported in conjunction with biological
effects.
Sediment samples for organic contaminants analysis were
collected in conjunction with bioassay sediment samples. The
contaminants assayed are listed in Tables 3.6 and 3.7. Organic
analytical procedures used were in accordance with USEPA methods
3550 and 8270 (USEPA, 1986) and are detailed in Hall et al. (1991).
Samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCP) as well
as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in accordance with USEPA
Methods 3550 and 8080 (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). Organic analysis was
conducted at both samplings (Set 1 and Set 2) for all sites.
All sediment samples were analyzed for acid volatile sulfides
(AVS) and Total Organic Carbon (TOG). Samples 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 analytical
procedures for both AVS and TOC are described in Hall et al., 1991.
Pore water samples were removed from all sediment samples by
squeezing with a nitrogen press. All pore water samples were
filtered then frozen until analyses of ammonia, nitrite and
sulfides were conducted. These analyses were conducted on all
samples. Details of the methods are described in Hall et al.,
1991.
All sediment samples were analyzed for the following bulk
metals: aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, tin and
zinc, using an ICP following USEPA/SW-846, Method 6010 (see Hall et
3-22
-------
Table 3.6 Semi-volatile organic compounds analyzed, utilizing
a user-created calibration library. Sediment method
detection limits (MDL) are reported in Mg/kg dry
weight.
CAS NO.
65-53-3
95-57-8
111-44-4
108-95-2
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
100-51-6
39638-32-9
95-48-7
91-57-6
67-72-1
621-64-7
106-44-5
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-7
65-85-0
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
88-74-4
91-58-7
208-96-8
84-66-2
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
132-64-5
100-02-7
COMPOUND
Aniline
2-chlorophenol
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Phenol
1 , 3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
2 -methy Ipheno 1
2-methylnaphthalene
Hexachloroethane
n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
4 -methy Ipheno 1
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-nitrophenol
Benzoic acid
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
1,2, 4-tr ichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
2,4, 5-trichlorophenol
2-nitroaniline
2-chloronaphthalene
Acenaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
2 , 6-dinitrotoluene
3-nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
4-nitrophenol
SEDIMENT MDL
14.5
13.2
11.2
11.9
11.9
12.5
11.9
27.1
5.9
15.8
9.2
21.8
13.2
13.9
11.2
6.6
27.1
18.5
15.8
9.9
21.8
15.2
4.6
26.4
22.4
20.5
25.7
37.0
44.9
37.6
9.9
5.9
9.9
48.2
247
9.9
43.6
7.9
268
3-23
-------
Table 3.6 continued
CAS NO.
121-14-2
86-73-7
7005-72-3
84-66-2
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
85-01-8
118-74-1
87-86-5
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
218-01-9
91-94-1
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
103-33-3
92-87-5
COMPOUND
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
4-chlorophenylphenylether
Diethylphthalate
4-nitroaniline
4,6, -dinitro-2-methylphenol
n-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-bromophenylphenylether
Phenanthrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pent ach lor opheno 1
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
3,3' -dichlorobenzidine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenz ( a, h) anthracene
Benzo (ghi ) perylene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
SEDIMENT MPT.
43.6
9.9
20.5
9.9
279
122
19.1
41.6
9.2
37.6
136
9.9
5.9
10.6
10.6
17.8
17.8
14.5
101
12.5
7.3
13.9
13.9
15.2
16.5
17.8
16.5
7.3
24.4
3-24
-------
Table 3.7 Method detection limits for organochlorine
pesticides and PCBs. Detection limits for sediment
are reported in ng/kg dry weight.
CAS NO.
391-84-6
301-85-7
391-86-8
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
1024-57-3
959-98-8
60-57-1
72-55-9
33213-65-9
72-20-8
72-54-8
1031-07-8
50-29-3
72-43-5
57-74-5
80001-35-2
2385-85-5
7421-93-4
12574-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
COMPOUND
0-BHC
/8-BHC
6-BHC
Lindane
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endosulfan II
Endrin
4,4' -ODD
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4' -DDT
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Mirex
Endrin aldehyde
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
SEDIMENT MDL
0.714
0.559
1.062
0.616
0.819
0.608
0.570
0.859
0.898
0.528
0.745
1.240
0.469
1.500
3.420
5.0
5.0
10.0
1.000
2.410
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
3-25
-------
al., 1991). In addition, a Simultaneously Extractable Metals (SEM)
analysis was conducted on all samples to use with the AVS data to
determine the potential toxicity of the sediment due to metals.
The sample for the SEM analysis was obtained from a step in the AVS
procedure. The AVS method was detailed in Hall et al. 1991. 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. The sample was then diluted
to volume with deionized water. The concentrations of the SEM were
determined by EPA-600/4-79-020 Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes (U.S. EPA, 1979). Cadmium, lead, copper, nickel,
and zinc were determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic
emission spectroscopy (ICP) following USEPA method number 200.7.
Mercury was determined by cold vapor generation following USEPA
method number 245.1. The concentrations were then converted to
micromoles per gram dry sediment and were added together to give
total SEM.
3.4 Analysis of Three 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 indicies first developed for the toxicity axis of the
"sediment quality triad" (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman, 1986;
Chapman et al 1987, Chapman 1990). Recently, this approach has
been modified to provide confidence limits on several optional
composite indicies (Alden, 1992).
Although details of the approach can be found in Alden (1992) ,
the overall approach can be summarized as follows. The entire
toxicity data base (i.e., all lethal and sublethal data for all
species) is utilized to form a composite index for each collection
site, which is compared to a similar index for the reference
sites(s). The "ratio-to-reference mean" (RTRM) method described in
Alden (1992) involves a three step process (see Figure 3.5). In
the first step, the values of the endpoints or their reciprocals
(depending on direction of response, to make increasing values
representative of a greater "impact") from the combined set of
"test" and "reference" toxicity data are standarized by dividing
the "reference" site means for each variable. Thus, the
standardized reference site toxicity data should average to a value
of 1, while the mean of the test site data will be variable,
depending upon the degree of impact.
The second step in the process involves bootstrap simulations
(see, for example, Efron, 1979a,b; Diaconis and Efron, 1983). The
computer assembles "new" data sets containing randomly selected
samples (with n = the number of samples in the original data sets)
from both the "test" and "reference" groups. Mean values are
3-26
-------
Figure 3.5 General Procedure for Calculating RTRM Indices and Confidence Limits
Assemble Data from Reference
and Test Sites
Step 1: Data Standardization
• Standardize Data To RTRM Values by Dividing
All Data By Means of
Reference Data.
Step 2: Bootstrap Simulations
• Randomly Select 5 Replicates from Each
Data Set;
• Calculate Means for Each Endpoint;
• Calculate Grand Mean Across Enpoints;
• Repeat 1,000 times;
• Calculate Median, 5th and 95th percentiles for
Grand Means; These Represent the RTRM
Index and 95% Confidence Limits.
Step 3: Plotting RTRM Indices
• Plot RTRM Index and Confidence Limits for
Reference and Test Stations;
• Observe Whether Confidence Limits Overlap
(No Overlap = Statistically Significant
Differences)
3-27
-------
calculated for each variable in each group of the simulated data
sets. The simulation process is repeated 1,000 times. The
resulting output represents a rough approximation of the "universe"
of possible mean values that could be produced by the data
distributions of the two groups. Thus, the medians of grand means
(i.e. 50th percentile of the 1,000 grand means of all variable
means) and probabilities representing confidence limits can be
determined empirically (i.e. the 95% confidence limits are set by
the 5th and 95th percentiles), without assumptions concerning the
data distributions.
For an example of steps 1 & 2 of the procedure, hypothetical
data sets for mortality of organisms in replicate treatments
exposed to sediments could be 5%, 10%, 15%, 5%, and 10% for a
"reference" site (mean - 9%) and 30%, 40%, 50%, 30%, and 55% for a
"test" site (mean = 41%). All data are divided by the mean of the
"reference" mortalities (9%) to produce RTRM-standardized data:
0.55, 1.11, 1.67, 0.55, and 1.11 (mean =1.0) for the "reference"
data set; and 3.33, 4.44, 5.55, 3.33, and 6.11 (mean = 4.56) for
the "test" site. Randomly selected groups of 5 values (i.e. random
selection with replacement) are taken from each of these two
standardized data sets by the process of Bootstrap Simulation.
Mean values are calculated for the simulated "reference" and "test"
data sets and the process is repeated at least 1,000 times. The
median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile are calculated for the
two data sets consisting of the 1,000 simulated means for each
site. For the hypothetical example, the method produced values of
0.99 (confidence limits = 0.77 to 1.44) for the "reference" site
and 4.53 (confidence limits = 3.76 to 5.42) for the "test" site.
Thus, for this example, the median RTRM index for the "test" data
set is well above 1.0 and the confidence limits do not overlap with
those of the "reference" site, so this difference is presumed to be
statistically significant. In an actual example, more than one
endpoint would have been processed at the same time and the data
set of means would have been for the grand means of the means of
all endpoints (i.e., the mean of the five replicates for each
endpoint would have been averaged with the means of all other
endpoints during each of the 1,000 simulation runs to produce a
data set of grand means).
The third step of the process involves plotting the medians of
the grand means and confidence limits of the "reference" and "test"
data sets for comparison purposes. Highly impacted "test" sites
should have medians which are higher than those of "reference"
sites (i.e., »1), with no overlap in the confidence limits. If
these graphs are plotted on the same scale for various sites, they
provide a visual summary of the relative degree of impact, as well
as the variability of the responses. The summary composite indices
for each site were calculated and plotted for the water column and
sediment toxicity data sets.
Several deviations from the original method (Alden, 1992) were
mandated by the structure of certain data sets. During the 1990 and
1991 studies, the sediments were collected as composites of
numerous grabs and then split for testing as laboratory replicated.
This is the traditional method of handling sediments for toxicity
3-28
-------
testing which is reflected in numerous ASTM and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers methods (e.g. ASTM, 1990; UASCOE, 1991). However, true
field replicates were collected in 1992-1993 to comply more closely
with the process and philosophy of the new method (Alden, 1992) for
calculating the summary composite indices and confidence limits.
Each of the true replicates for the 1992-93 data were compared to
the reference site that most closely matched its particle size
characteristics (e.g. sandy versus muddy). The degree of spatial
variability incorporated in the 1992-1993 data would be expected to
be greater than for the previous two years. Likewise, the water
column testing protocols were for a renewal experimental design, so
true field replicates cannot be followed through the experiment.
Furthermore, laboratory replicates could not be followed through
each of the experiments (i.e., replicate #1 in one experiment was
not directly connected to replicate #1 in another; etc.) and the
number of replicates for various experiments was variable due to a
variety of logistical reasons. Therefore, the computer program for
the bootstrap simulations was modified to randomly select each
endpoint independently from the others in the simulation of each of
the 1,000 observations.
3-29
-------
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 Toxicity Data
Survival, growth, percent normal shell development and
reproduction data from the four estuarine tests conducted from
10/6/92 to 10/14/92 are presented in Tables 4.1 - 4.4. Control
survival from the E. affinis tests (19 percent) were not
acceptable. Therefore, comparisons of survival and reproduction
data from the controls with various stations was not warranted.
The reason(s) for poor control survival can not be definitively
explained. Our speculation is that low survival in the controls may
be related to the presence of metals in this water (see Section
4.1.2) or stressed cultures of this copepod. The source for the
metals contamination is not known but to our knowledge this has not
occurred before. The occurrence of stressed cultures of this
copepod is another factor that may have contributed to the low
survival. Survival was less than 66 percent (mean of 43 percent at
all stations) at all test locations. This is unusually low survival
for this species based on our previous studies (Hall et al., 1991;
Hall et al., 1992).
Survival of sheepshead minnow larvae at all stations except
the controls and Wye River-Manor House was greater than 85 percent
after 8 days. Although the control survival was below an
acceptable level (55 percent), the test was still valid according
to our SOP because of the high survival in the other test
conditions (Fisher et al., 1988). Low survival in the controls may
have been related to contamination of the control water as
previously discussed or unhealthy stock of larvae. The low
survival of larvae in the Wye River-Manor House test condition (10
percent) was likely related to the presence of nematocysts from
jellyfish that were found in the sample. There was no significant
difference in growth when comparing controls with the various other
test conditions.
Survival and growth of grass shrimp were not significantly
reduced in ambient water from any of the stations when compared
with the controls (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). The percent normal shell
development for the coot clam was significantly reduced at both
Middle River stations when compared with the controls (Table 4.3).
This significant reduction in percent normal shell development at
both Middle River stations occurred in both tests.
Survival, growth, percent normal shell development and
reproduction data from the second set of experiments conducted from
4/13/93 to 4/21/93 are presented in Tables 4.5 to 4.8. A
significant reduction in survival of E. affinis was reported at the
Wye River-Quarter Creek station. Survival of this copepod at all
other locations was not significantly different than the controls.
4-1
-------
T3 CU
CO O
O
•H
01 M
01
it D"1
>H C
ty**tH
3
TJ 0
C rH
(t rH
O
o
C CU
C £5
•H 4J
TS O
it
Q) £J
43 U
01 (t
a a)
0)
CU C
01
01
- c
01 O
•H -H
•rH
•H 01
> 4J
>H .01
3 0)
CO 4J
H
'I'
(U
rH
£3
(0
EH
01
en
vo
•s^
0
rH
c
o
T3
0)
-p
o
3
T3
C
O
o
CU
M
Q)
01
4J
c
a)
6
•H
CU
a*
X
JH
Q)
•H
fli
w
,—j
T5
TJ
•H
•g
T1
X
(C
• ^
d)
•rH
OS •
01
•H
^
}_l
3
c
0)
U
04
(U
•H
(t
rH
3
€
3
H
C
O
•H
4J
(t
4J
01
(U
•H
U
0)
a
w
en r<- vo en
H rt vo n
rH
rH
-rH
33 Q)
£>
>irH 0)
•O (0 01
C > 3
(t -H O
CO CQ 33
1 1 lH
O
Q) Q) C
rH 0 0 S
000
M -H -H I
-P 4-> 4->
C C C 0)
O (t (t >i
U 2 2 2
01
•H
C
•H
<*H
VM
it
.
W
_ rH VO in
vo ^* in
o
VO
0
r-
0
en
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
^
• (t
4-1 4J
* PU ^H
U C S
o
>H 01 tT>
CD rH O
P -H ^
(t
3 1 1
O< rH
Q) Q) 0
1 rH rH ^
T3 T3 4->
Q) -O T3 C
>i-H -H 0
2 S S U
T3
(U
£:
01
Q,
Q)
(U
W
« «
co en
o in
en en
O CO
en en
O CO
en en
O CO
en en
O CO
en en
o o
0 O
O 0
0 0
rH
rH
•H
33 Q)
^
>irH
C >
{Q -rH
W CQ
1 1
a) a)
o o
o o
•H -H
4J 4J
C C
fO (^
2 2
01
o
c
c
•H
2
•3 « •
o °° f*>
H co en
n o o
H en o
H
n f") o
H en o
J.J
in in o
H en o
in o o
H O O
CO O O
H O O
CO O O
rH O O
CO O O
n o o
•
4J
0) • O4
01 ^1
3 U C
o o
33 ^i 01
0) rH
>H 4-> -H
0 ^ 2
C (C
(0 3 I
s a
0)
1 1 rH
T3
QJ Q) 73
>i >i-H
2 2 S
CO
CO
CO
CO
in
en
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
J_,
(0
4J
o
s
tp
o
rH
fc
1
0)
H
'O
T3
•H
S
„ vo VO
en en en
0 O 0
o o o
H H H
000
O 0 0
H rH H
0 O O
O O O
O O O
o o o
o o o
o o o
0 O O
0 O O
0 O O
0 0 O
rH
rH
•H
K 0)
>
>irH
T3 (0
C >
(t -H
CO CQ
1 1
0) 0)
rH O O
o o o
r4'H -H
4J 4J 4J
C C C
O it (t
U 2 2
P^
03 f=
01 -r<
H .f,
O c/l
vo o
en o
H
VO O
en o
H
vo o
en o
H
vo o
en o
O 0
o o
O 0
0 0
O 0
o o
o o
o o
Q) •
01 M
3 U
o
£C rH
CD
M 4-J
O ^H
C (t
(t 3
s a
i i
a) cu
^"1 r^*
2 2
01 O
en o
i-H
vo o
en o
H
VD O
en o
rH
VO O
en o
vo o
en o
vo o
en o
_^
^^
VO O
G\ O
VO O
en o
^
• it
4J 4J
CU M
o
c s
o
01 tp
rH O
•H r-4
2 fc.
1 I
CU (U
rH H
T3 T3
T3 'O
•H -H
2 S
4-*
Ul
0)
jj
W.
•
4J 01
4J -H
0) <4H
C
C ^i
3 rH
Q rH
0)
0) T-N
j^
4J e
o> u
C MH
01 01
3 -P
01
in >i
0 O
• O
O 4->
(t
VI g
CU
a c
4J >i
(fl £)
4J T3
C 0)
0) 01
V-i 3
CU (t
<«H O
*M
t3 rH
CU
rH -H
4J rH
C
(t >1
O 4J
•rH -H
J 1<
•rH (y
C i t
•H 0
CO S
a -a
4-2
-------
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae and
grass shrimp larvae from the 10/6/92 to
10/14/92 experiments.
Sheepshead larvae drv weiaht (initial
0=0.14 ma)
Station
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Point
Middle-Frog Mortar
Grass Shrimp larvae
0.13 ma)
Station
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Point
Middle-Frog Mortar
n x
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
dry weiaht finiti
n *
20
16
20
20
20
20
20
weiaht at dav
(ma at d=81
0.27
0.21
0.40
0.31
0.31
0.36
0.27
al weiaht at
(ma at d=8)
0.62
0.54
0.63
0.70
0.69
0.60
0.58
± S.E.
0.17
0.02
0.08
0.19
0.04
0.08
0.08
day 0 -
± S.E.
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03
4-3
-------
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48h coot
clam embryo/larval tests conducted from 10/9/92 to
10/11/92 (test 1) and from 10/12/92 to 10/14/92 (test
2).
Station
Test 1
Percent Normal
Test 2
Percent Normal
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
± S.E.
41
63
38
50
59
Oa
Oa
5
8
10
2
12
0
0
+
85
92
90
91
88
8a
31a
S.E.
5
2
1
2
2
2
13
a indicates significant difference with Kruskall Wallis or
Dunnetts Test (p < 0.05).
4-4
-------
Table 4.4 Reproduction (brood size) and proportion of gravid
females for E. affinis for various test conditions
from the 10/6/92 to 10/14/92 experiments.
E. affinis brood size comparisons following 8-d exposures.
Station n x nauplii produced s.E.
Proportion of gravid females
Station
n
x percent females
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
0
4
5
5
0
0
2
-
39.5
34.2
41.6
-
-
54.5
-
4.6
4.6
6.5
-
-
1.5
± S.E.
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
24.7
38.7
34
-
51.0*
42.0
0
2.6
0.7
8.7
-
4.9
4.9
* Significant difference with Kruskal-Wallis Test (p < 0.05).
4-5
-------
a
g
•H •
r4 CO
x: en
CO ^
H
CO CN
CO ~^
to *r
M
o> o
4J
C n
«3 en
0) n
(0 rH
> ^
to
-H e
o
O MH
C
C CO
•H C
e o
•H
tO <0
0) -P
X! CO
10
QJ
0) -P
X3 tO
CO
TJ
CO .p
•H O
-H TJ
^4 C
(C O
• tn
• UJ
&3 4J
g (1)
Oil
+^
T3 -P
_J «4
r^ iu
> QJ
r4 r4
3 (0
in
•
^1*
Q)
rH
X)
rtj
EH
00
;>,
to
Q
JH r^
QJ
0.
rH
tO VO
>
-H
M
3
co in
_p
c
Q)
Q)
Q)
> f>
'^j
(fl
rH
3 CM
e
3
U
rH
0
10
-p
CO
QJ
•H
O
0)
a
CO
^
rH o o en CN •<* in
co vo t*» in in vo vo
rH
K QJ • tO
> -p -p
>irH Q) . Pn ^
TJ rtJ CO >H O
C > 3 U C 2
(C -H O O
CO 03 X Li CO O>
II QJ rH O
Q) QJ ^ 4J -H U
.^ ^^ O lj ^s G£J
rH O O C (0 1 1
O O O «J 3 QJ QJ
M -H -H S3 CX iH rH
•P -P -P 1 1 T3 TJ
C C C QJ QJ TS TJ
O 10 10 >i >i'H -H
U Z Z S S 2 2
CO
•H
C
•H
<4H
-p -p
>,rH QJ . On H
"O <0 CO l-i O
C > 3 U C 2
(0 -H O O
CO CQ K >H CO CP
II Q) rH O
0) Q) U P -H (-1
^^ ^^ O lj ^^ fy .
rH O O C tO 1 1
O O U <0 3 Q) QJ
S_| -H -H 2 O »H rH
4J +J p 1 1 T3 T3
C C C QJ QJ T5 T3
O tO 10 >i >^-H -H
U Z Z 3 3 2 2
TD
(C
Q)
X! CO
W 5
a o
QJ C
QJ C
X! -H
CO 2
00 VO (N •* VO VO 00
co en en co r^ en co
CO VO VO CN ^3* VO CO
co en en en oo en co
CO VO VO CN VO VO 00
co en en en en en co
CN O VO fN O VO CO
en o en en o en co
H rH
CN O VO CN O VO CO
en o en en o en oo
H H
VO O VO CN O VO CO
en o en en o en co
rH rH
VO O VO CN O VO 00
en o en en o en co
H H
E QJ • (0
> -P P
>,rH Q) • CU JH
TJ <0 U) >H O
C > 3 U C 2
«3 -H O O
CO CQ X JH CO CP
II QJ rH O
Cl) Q) K P -H V-t
^ ^ O IH S fe
rH O O C (C 1 I
O U O fO 3 QJ QJ
IH -H -H 2 CX i >I-H -H
U Z Z 3 2 2 2
a
E
-H
co
CO
to
(0
t
•p
CQ
Q)
EH
CO
Q)
C
C
3
Q
0)
X!
-P
C
•H
CO
3
in
0
o
VI
a
P
P
c
QJ
QJ
MH
-H
T3
-p
C
rd
o
<4H
C
J
,w
4-6
-------
Table 4.6 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae and grass
shrimp larvae from the 4/13/93 to 4/21/93
experiments.
Sheepshead larvae dry weight (initial weight at day 0=0.16 mg)
Station
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
x (ma at d=8)
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
1.79
1.74
.53
56
1.43
1.45
1.68
1,
1,
± S.E.
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.13
Grass shrimp larvae dry weight (initial weight at day 0»0.10)
Station
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nant icoke-B iva1ve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
D x fma at d=8)
22 0.41
24 0.39
24 0.40
18 0.39
19 0.38
22 0.41
22 0.40
± S.E.
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
4-7
-------
Table 4.7 Percent normal shell development from two 48h coot clam
embryo/larval tests conducted from 4/16/93 to 4/18/93 (test 1)
and 4/19/93 to 4/21/93 (test 2).
Test 1 Test 2
Station Percent Normal ± Percent Normal
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Point
Middle-Frog Mortar
94.3
72.7
90.0
92.3
86.0
22a
Oa
1.2
16.4
3.5
2.4
5.9
19.1
0
95.7
59.3
93.7
96.0
94.7
22.7*
52.7"
1.8
15.8
2.8
1.2
1.2
16.5
17.7
8 significantly different with Dunnett's Test (p < 0.05).
4-8
-------
Table 4.8 Reproduction (brood size) and proportion of gravid
females for E. affinis exposed to various test
conditions from the 4/13/93 to 4/21/93 experiments.
E. affinis brood size comparisons following 8-d exposure.
Station n x nauplii produced S.E.
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
29.6
35.8
35.0
36.4
12.3
33
35.8
6.7
6.8
6.0
6.9
6.2
6.0
3.6
Proportion of gravid females
Station
Control
Nanticoke-Sandy Hill
Nanticoke-Bivalve
Wye-Manor House
Wye-Quarter Cr.
Middle-Wilson Pt.
Middle-Frog Mortar
n
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
x % females
36.6
25.9
32.6
56.0
45.6
42.9
41.6
± S.E.
8.0
13.3
7.7
9.7
18.5
0
15.4
4-9
-------
There was no statistical difference in mean number of nauplii
produced or mean number of gravid females when all test conditions
were compared with the controls (Table 4.8). However, it is
noteworthy that the station with the lowest survival (Wye River-
Quarter Creek) also had the lowest mean number of nauplii produced
(12.3) when compared with the control value of 29.6.
Survival and growth of both sheepshead minnow larvae and grass
shrimp larvae were not significantly lower in any of the ambient
conditions when compared with the controls (Tables 4.5 and 4.6).
The percent normal shell development for the coot clam was
significantly lower in both tests at the Middle River-Wilson Point
and Middle River-Frog Mortar stations when compared with the
controls (Table 4.7). The percent normal shell development for the
controls in both tests (>94 percent) was excellent.
4.1.2 Contaminants Data
Inorganic contaminants (trace metals) data from the six
stations during both the fall and spring experiments are presented
in Table 4.9. Concentrations exceeding recommended U.S. EPA
chronic marine water quality criterion were underlined in the table
(U.S. EPA, 1987). Detection limits for all metals were less than
the EPA recommended chronic water quality criteria. Both copper
and nickel were reported at potentially stressful concentrations in
the fall control sample (exceeding recommended U.S. EPA marine
chronic criteria) from one grab sample. This is the first time we
have observed any potentially stressful concentrations of
contaminants from the Wye Research and Education Center's
laboratories' seawater system. As mentioned previously, we do not
know the source of these metals.
Arsenic was below detection limits or only slightly above them
at all stations. Cadmium was also below detection limits at all
locations with the exception of the fall sample measured from the
Middle River-Wilson Point station (2.7 ug/L). Total chromium
ranging from 1.5 to 9.0 ug/L was detected at all stations during
both experiments; however, none of these concentrations exceeded
the EPA recommended water quality criterion of 50 ug/L.
Concentrations of copper exceeding the EPA recommended marine
chronic criterion of 2.9 ug/L were reported at both Middle River
stations during the fall and spring. The State of Maryland's
estuarine acute copper criterion of 6.1 ug/L was exceeded twice at
Wilson Point and once at Frog Mortar (Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1991).
Lead was detected at Sandy Hill, Quarter Creek, Wilson Point
and Frog Mortar. The recommended EPA marine water quality criteria
(5.6 ug/L) for this metal was exceeded at Wilson Point during the
fall sample (9.8 ug/L). Values for both mercury and selenium were
below detection limits at all stations. Nickel was detected at all
six stations; water quality criterion was exceeded at both Middle
River stations during the fall. Zinc was also detected at all
stations and the criterion was exceeded at the Wilson Point station
during the fall.
None of the organic contaminants listed in Table 3.2 were
measured above detection limits in any of the samples collected
4-10
-------
0 U
i M a
3 e
n a
<7\ « O
\«-H
<-l fl C
iH O
x a u
•* « c,
c M a.
•H fi U
U 4J
a 0 •
n a co
(N -H
W 3 73
\ <0 0
V 0
•-I 0 O
p4 0
<-\ 3
«J rH
h. «
o *j 0
i-l C
^ k 0
0 0 73
6k *J C
0 3
0 9
J3 »H
.p PH ,H
0 <
C *J
•H C •
k 0 D*
3 U C
H) JH« Ol
c *J tn
0
•H C 0 •
0 4J P
4J 73 00
U C H
X 3-H
-* M k •
Oj (0 3 ^i
0 73 0.
0 e u
4J 0 0 •
U *J W
a at -< •
O » O D
pH 0<-^
0 0 o u
4J 4J k O
0 0 b S
73 X —
73
a c 0
4J • 0-H
c a u
a *J • 0
C C V 4J
•H 0 0. -H
SB -(
0 -H C O
4-» U 0
c 0 a >,
0 D.p-1 4J
o X-H-H
0 3 ^
U 0
•H .—>4J 3
C <*> 0 &
0 ^^
^"X 0 k
U H U 0
O
O PH
•p >
C-H ^
00) r*
55 ,*
b
2 PH a
OB W
o =
• ~-
i-i J
0 \
2£
o o o
M r|o CD
. . J . . J . .
rMr>H>f>ooo)rno
V V V V >o O
o -a u 3 .a
o c
4-11
-------
from the six stations during either the fall or spring experiments.
Detection limits were generally below U.S. EPA recommended water
quality criteria for those organics with published criteria. A
minimum of one sample was analyzed from each station for each
experiment.
4.1.3 Water Quality Data
Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected
three times at all stations during both experiments are presented
in Table 4.10. The temperature and salinity of ambient water
collected from all stations was adjusted to 25°C and 15 ppt before
testing. Ambient water quality conditions appeared adequate for
the survival of test species. Water quality conditions reported in
test containers during testing are reported in Appendix A. All
parameters appeared adequate for survival of test species.
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data
Forty-eight hour LC50 or EC50 values for the four test species
exposed to cadmium chloride during reference toxicant tests are
presented in Table 4.11. These toxicity values were compared with
the values from the two previous years (except for the coot clam).
Toxicity values for grass shrimp larvae, sheepshead minnow larvae
and E. affinis nauplii in this study were similar to values
reported in the first two years. Since the coot clam has not been
tested in previous years, we can not make any annual comparisons
from data collected in our laboratory. However, another
investigator has previously reported a 48 hour EC50 of 0.010 mg/L
for cadmium chloride with the embryo/larval stage of the coot clam
(George Morrison, personal communication). This value is similar
to our 48 hour EC50 of 0.005 mg/L. Data from the reference
toxicant tests generally indicate that test species from various
sources were healthy and ambient toxicity data were valid.
4.2 Sediment Tests
The following results from sediment toxicity tests are
presented below: toxicity data, contaminants data, and data from
reference toxicant tests. A summary of the water quality
parameters monitored during each sediment toxicity test and the
range of each parameter is included in Appendix B.
4.2.1 Toxicity Data
Survival results from toxicity tests of the six estuarine
sediments from the Wye, Nanticoke, and Middle Rivers for amphipods,
worms and Sheepshead minnow eggs are included in Tables 4.12
through 4.15. Those stations that were significantly different
from the controls are so indicated. Growth data (mean length and
dry weight) for amphipods and worms after 20 day exposure to
sediments are included in Tables 4.16 and 4.17. Amphipod reburial
data are shown in Tables 4.18 and 4.19.
Survival and growth data from toxicity tests conducted
10/17/92-11/6/92 on the first set of sediments from the six
stations are summarized in Tables 4.12, 4.13 and 4.16. Survival in
controls was greater than 92 percent and 65 percent at day 10 and
4-12
-------
Table 4.10
Water quality parameters reported in the field
during water sample collection for Fall 1992 and
Spring 1993 ambient toxicity experiments. Stations
were Nanticoke River Bivalve Harbor (NR-BH),
Nanticoke River Sandy Hill Beach (NR-SHB), Wye
River-Manor House (WR-MH), Wye River Quarter Creek
(WR-QC), Middle River Wilson Point (MR-WP), and
Middle River Frog Mortar Creek (MR-FMC).
Date
10/6/92
10/9/92
10/12/92
4/13/93
4/16/93
4/19/93
Station
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
NR-SHB
NR-BH
WR-QC
WR-MH
MR-WP
MR-FMC
Temp (C)
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
14.0
14.5
16.5
17.0
18.0
17.5
16.0
16.5
16.5
16.0
17.0
17.5
15.0
16.0
11.0
10.5
13.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.9
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
13.5
Salinity
(ppt)
10.0
14.0
13.5
11.1
5.5
6.0
9.0
13.5
13.0
12.0
4.5
4.5
9.0
13.0
13.5
13.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
7.0
10.0
10.0
1.5
1.25
4.5
8.9
11.0
9.9
1.0
0.9
3.0
7.5
10.5
8.0
1.0
1.0
Cond
umhos/cm
13000
14000
18000
16500
6000
6500
12500
18000
17500
17000
6000
6500
12000
17000
18000
17000
6500
6500
3900
9000
14000
13000
1450
1400
6500
12000
15000
14000
1000
850
4000
10000
14000
12000
1020
1200
DO
(mg/L)
—
—
8.6
8.5
9.6
9.6
9.2
9.4
9.0
8.6
9.2
9.0
—
—
8.6
8.0
9.2
9.0
10.2
11.0
11.1
10.7
10.6
10.4
8.7
9.2
10.6
10.2
9.0
9.0
9.7
10.2
11.4
9.1
9.4
9.6
PH
7.30
7.80
7.89
7.81
6.50
6.58
7.31
7.85
7.86
7.85
6.25
6.58
7.20
7.83
7.87
7.88
7.58
7.49
6.9
7.3
8.1
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.2
8.0
8.3
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.2
7.8
8.5
7.9
7.3
7.6
4-13
-------
Table 4.11 Toxicity data (48h LCSOs or ECSOs mg/L) from
reference toxicant tests conducted with cadmium
chloride for the four test species. Previous
values from year 1 and 2 are reported.
Date
12/1/92
11/17/92
11/17/92
1/2 / / y j
Species
Grass shrimp
Sheepshead minnow
E. af finis
Coot clam
48h
LC50
1.34
1.18
0.12
OA A C*
. UUD
Previous
Yr 1
0.502
0.510
0.021
48h LCSOs
Yr 2
0.23
1.54
0.095
"value is an EC50 (percent normal shell development is the
endpoint).
4-14
-------
(U II
4J S
•P 0?
(0 —
s
fM
VO
•H
T3
cu
c
CO
XI
CO
C
w
Ul
3
O
10
•H
-P
TJ
B «J
O T3
ti £"*
P
3-H
0>
10 ^
0)
X
S > «3 ,djC
C«JrHO>Cr4C
0)
3 U
a)
^>
C )H
•H (0
O .P
o
(0 ••^'O
cu u c
CQ *- (0
CO
rH C
•H «J
K *J
4-15
-------
o
a
•H| «
(
O|
CO
0)
03
O
CIX
O
4J
C ^
•H id
o ^J
o
C £
O
CU
CQ
a -a c
^-^ 0 (0
S co
C C C
id a) cu
.p > >
id
(0
rH
id
U3
•r*
o
•H
a)
a)
CO
w
0)
<4H
0)
•o
C Q)
03
•rH
•P'
•o
U3
0)
rH
U
(C
a
'TJ
T3 CU
0) -P
4J 0
-r-i Q)
a
-------
0)
4J
3
•O
C
o
U II
0) s
0) CO
VI -
•P
•P 05
(Q
II
U
3 s
•P --»
RJ a
o —
w
O s
•H
10 (N
^ Cft
• VO
O ^
rH
o I~l
>H O
t.
(0 CM O
^J ^ J^
«J *->. JH
*O Is* &3
rH
«j o )H
> H S C
M O 1X3
3 M -P
CO <«H CO
CO
H
•
•«*
0)
rH
ft
10
EH
W
CO
CD
C
W
0)
>
••^
I-H
rfP
LI
X!
01
•H
Cn
0)
•H
lj
C*r>
W
•o
0)
£^
t)
(0
X
W
tn
VJ
f— 1
(T3
>
•H
>
3
CO
4P
OTj-noot-n o
H H H rH
OOOOOOOOO
coocoto^*rcooir>
^* vo co ^* \f) if) r^ o co
rH
Io o o o o o
• • * * • •
ooo«o««oo
o o o o o o
ooo«o««oo
o o o o o
H H rH rH rH
oooocooooo
H
OOOOOOOOO
CM
A — U
0 ^
(0 -^^» ^
x Q) a c -a
0) 4J OQ — • «3 3
a) a) c ^ co s
W 01 M -H «J rH JxJ
3 3OOP rHCCC
4J O CUin •H(Od)Q)
UltOCXM O 0) K P > >
0) O O 0) C £ > irjiOn)
•H a> -H M -P o rH >, cux: x:
D«J-P§3-H2-HflO>i>i
CO K* CO SS O S fa 00 CO CU iJ iJ
•
o
^J
o
c
e
> -H
•H T3
rH 0)
CO
Cn
C >i
•>H flj
C rH
•H O
(0 -^
e -P
Q) rH
PI* *^
01
x:
01 -H
a> x:
4J
c
Q) -H
•P C
O
O -P
(0
c c
o a)
•^ ^P
4-> >i
_rf kj
(0 X
c • o
•H 01
S Q) P
C PC
0) «J 0)
4J 0 -H
•H O
1 1 ^ >r^
nj a 0) C
^ 01 -H
(0 (1)
rH X2 ^H
-P O
fl\
\v
> C 4J
•H -H rH
rH 3
T3 01
<4H 0) Q)
o x: )H
O
M 4-> (0
0) (0
X) XJ T3
g Q)
3 x: e
C 01 3
•H 01
II <4H 0)
• ^H
rH t> O O<
(00) C
•H 3 M -P
> rH Q) -H
r4 O -P rH
3 C ti (0
CO -H O -P
*^H W
• • 'O O
0) C S
•P M
0 *
"Z * *
4-17
-------
(Q -
C rH
O O
•H n
•P -P
tO C
-P O
CO U
X II
en =
a cT
4J •>
(0 0)
o
O
PC
T3 —
C r
to
o\
04
in
T3
• -a
r3l Q) O
son
O 3 W
H «3
0) P
(0
CO
II
10
•H 4J
> 01 =
j_i H) Pd
3 EH CO
CO r
«3
H
H
00
O
CM
> H
to
1C
<0
a
a
D
pa
ca
•o
o
•u
a
oooooooo
oooooooo
oooooooo
oooooooo
CM
pa
CO
g
oooooooo
oooooooo
voincvrgninoao
^"vovovoeor>>(N(T>
O
0
tO -^T3
CU PC C
03 >— (0
CO
oooooooo
oooooooo
•^ ^" n o
nj to
rH >i OU£!
C7> <0 T3 O C
O > C r4 C
n -H (0 O >i
b PQ CO CU J
CU
0) CU
(/I
Ol
•H
P
tO
P
CO
C
•H
3 U O P
O
O
(0
CU O
ca
(0
to
CO
Q) C
r< 4J O
O n 01
C 10 rH
1C 3 -H
S as
O 0) X
c c
(0 CU
CP <0 -O
o > c
n -H «j o
r^ QQ rrt ^^
(Tj (0
ax:
o c
c
4-18
-------
H
CO
O
4J
a
O
M
> H
GO
4J
a
(0
W
>
C
•O
0)
c
•H
4->
O
O
H m H
-| -H (0
J3 U ~
o ^
(0 -^ T3
CO
•H a a) oj
> ro ro ID
rH >,
0) C
4-> O
CCi-iCC
in
o
o
y
a
Ul
4-1
c
o
o
0)
c
(0
ui
to
c
(0
u
c
cr>
-H
CO
0)
(0
id
•H
(0
4->
0)
O
0)
A
(0
10
•H
rH
to
•H
4->
O
•H
TJ
0)
C
0)
u
0)
0)
C 0)
(Q N
Ul
3
U
(0
a
j
T3
T3 0)
0) 4-)
4J O
Ul -H
3 'D
•o 0)
T3 >-l
W
EH
O
4-19
-------
e
o
•o o
CO M
P M
u u
3
•O 73
C M
O fl)
O -O
C
0) «J
M 4J
(U CO
(0
•P =
W W
0) CO
• O
W ^
C 4J
O C
•H O
•P O
U)
•H O
(0 •«-'
s
Q)
-P «T
o
•P C
IT5 0)
0)
M-l
0)
«
o
g m
o a\
•O O
(0 ro
> en
•H -^.
> If)
^ CN
3 -^
CO ID
If)
0)
«J
EH
a
<*>
in
in in
<0
SI
a
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
oo^^Tj'^^rrM^'vo
ooooooooo
VO^OOCOOOfMO
u ^
CO
3
4J
(D
0) 0) C JH
W ^ -H «5
3 U O 4J
o
c^
C T3
0)
ffl ~
co S
r-t X
rH C C C
•H nj >
0) C S > (0 «3 «3
^ 4J O rH >, Ort3'dOCC
C«3-HO>C^iCC
•P
O
c
T>
•H 3
> rH
^ O
3 C
b
z
4-20
-------
CU • CU
g] -p E-)
•P 10 (V
-P 4J
C U
CU 0) -P
(0 .C OJ
0) 4-1 0)
•P
O
•H
0)
c
CU
A
wl a) o • •
"2 % o o
10
CD
- *
(0
3
a
J
4->
r-l C
O 0)
(»j p3
•H
o o»8
0) X •"
x G ei
">S
IKS
•0 3 W
CU U „
WO).
(0
R] (0 Q
i) -a cn
-l 1-1 CD (0
O «3 E Q
""-d
X3 r^ -l -H (C
U O 4J
u
u
<0 *™^ 'O
cu « c
CQ >-» (0
w
a
p^ o cu DC
(1) C £ >
4J O rH >
M w cn C
3 -H M -H (0
O s fa CQ cn
c c
us cu
•P >
10 (0
ax
o c
^ c
o >
0)
CO
3
0
rH 33
(0
•H J-|
4-> O
•H C
C (0
CU 4->
CU C
PM -H
U O
Q) O
CQ ^~'
rH C
CU C
4-> O
*-l U
(0 rH
3-H
cxs
O 0) X
CP (0
o >
^ "H
fe CQ
(0
T3 O
C ^
fl O
CO CU
C
C
><
4-21
-------
oooooooooo
XI
£
0)
H«H
3
r-l (Q
o o
0)
t/i
4-1
C
o
o
C
(0
X!
4J
tn
(A
a>
4->
o
o
VO
0)
X! CJ —
O ^
(0 ^ TJ
>j a) a -a c
•HI to ^ y >
(0 DCS?' -i -H «J O
4-22
-------
CO
OHHOnHHCNO
ooooooooo
OHfMHfSOHCNJ
OOOOOOOO I
0) (fl
oonoooooo
ooooooooo
OOCNOHOCMH
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO I
ooooooooo
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO I
i TJ
Q)
e
f
Re
O (C g Q O
fl)
r-H
XI
(fl
U
U
•H
•P
T3
0)
U)
3
O
(0
•H M
•P O
•H C
C (0
H S
fl) -P
fl) C
>H-H
U O
0) C
-P O
(0 rH
3 "H
as
«j
s-i
o
o
03
> C
•H (0
CQ CO
C
a) -P
0) fl) C
W Vj -H
3 U O
(0
o
K
o
(C
fl)
CQ
(X
r4 O
(DCS
O
•P O >-i tfl
•H C (0 rH
C C
•H «J
CQ C/3
U C
— (0
CO
c c
(0 0)
-p >
03 (0
ax:
o c
>H C
O >i
a. J
4-23
-------
w
c/i
oooooooooo
^•OHOHOHMOO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
ooicooor-inocs
,-IHHHHHHHH
OOOOOOOOO
3
TJ
Q)
3
C
•H
-P
C
o
o
0)
A
>
in
o
•
o
V
a
in
,H
O
^
4J
C
o
-P
c
u
CQ
«
4-24
-------
Table 4.18 Amphipod (Lepidactylus dytiscus) reburial data after 10
day exposure to sediments. Table shows percent of
surviving animals able to rebury within one hour.
Station % Reburial S.E.
Set 1:
Manor House 100.00 0.00
Quarter Creek 100.00 0.00
Wilson Point 97.08 4.06
Frog Mortar 100.00 0.00
Bivalve 100.00 0.00
Sandy Hill Beach 100.00 0.00
Poropatank 100.00 0.00
Lynnhaven Sand 100.00 0.00
Set 2:
Manor House 95.00 5.00
Quarter Creek 90.00 10.0
Wilson Point 84.00 7.48
Frog Mortar 73.33 12.5
Bivalve 80.00 12.2
Sandy Hill Beach 97.14 2.86
Poropatank 100.00 0.00
Lynnhaven Sand 97.13 1.86
Significantly less than control (p<0.05).
Percent sand is listed beside control and reference,
4-25
-------
Table 4.19 Amphipod (Leptocheirus plumulosus) reburial data after 10
day exposure to sediments. Table shows percent of
surviving animals able to rebury within one hour.
Station % Reburial S.E.
Set 1:
Manor House 100.00 0.00
Quarter Creek 100.00 0.00
Wilson Point 100.00 0.00
Frog Mortar
Bivalve
Sandy Hill Beach 100.00 0.00
Poropatank
Lynnhaven Sand 100.00 0.00
Set 2:
Manor House 100.00 0.00
Quarter Creek 100.00 0.00
Wilson Point 100.00 0.00
Frog Mortar 100.00 0.00
Bivalve 100.00 0.00
Sandy Hill Beach 100.00 0.00
Poropatank 100.00 0.00
Lynnhaven Sand
*significantly less than control (p<0.05).
NOTE: Percent sand is listed beside control and reference.
4-26
-------
day 20, respectively, for both amphipods and the polychaete worm.
No test sites had significantly less survival than the controls.
Only the survival in the Poropatank reference sediment was
significantly reduced in the L. dytiscus tests. L. dytiscus is a
sand dwelling amphipod, which would be more likely to be impacted
by the high percent of silt/clay associated with this sediment than
any associated toxics. Sheepshead egg data are summarized in Table
4.13. Poor hatching success and egg survival was seen throughout
the tests with the exception of the Lynnhaven sand reference.
Although overlying oxygen levels remained within test criteria, it
is suspected that, in those sites with higher levels of silt/clay,
low oxygen conditions were present near the sediment surface where
the eggs rested. Therefore, no significant difference between
sites and the controls could therefore be distinguished. Further
modification of aeration was instituted during the spring 1993 test
period.
Growth data indicated significant reduction in growth both in
the Quarter Creek and Sandy Hill Beach sites in the L. plumulosus
tests for length and weight. S. benedicti experienced a
significant reduction in length in the Lynnhaven Sand sediment.
This is presumed to be as a result of the low silt/clay composition
and associated low TOC of this sediment which may have presented
food limitations, despite the feeding regime employed for this
animal. No other sites exhibited significant growth reduction.
All sites did show some growth over the initial population length
and weight parameters with the exception of L. dytiscus weight at
Sandy Hill Beach and length at Frog Mortar. However, growth rates
of L. dytiscus are relatively slow and small growth differences are
expected. Reburial data are shown in Table 4.18. No significant
differences were observed between sites.
Survival and growth data from toxicity tests conducted
5/25/93-5/14/93 on the second set of sediments from the six
stations are summarized in Tables 4.14, 4.15 and 4.17. Control
survival at day 10 was 90 and >93 percent in the L. dytiscus and S.
benedicti tests, respectively. Slightly reduced but acceptable
control survival was seen at day 20. L. plumulosus experienced
reduced control survival at day 10 and day 20. A possible
hypotheses is a sudden increase in pore water ammonia
concentrations at test initiation. This cause is suspected because
the over-wintering sediment would have contained high TOC and
associated but as yet undegraded nitrogenous detrital matter. The
unnatural sudden increase in sediment temperature prescribed by the
testing protocol would cause rapid increase in bacterial
degradation, elevating ammonia concentrations to stressful levels.
These hypotheses are currently being investigated. L. plumulosus
also exhibited high mortality in the Lynnhaven sand reference
sediment, however this was attributed to two other factors: 1) the
inability of the juvenile amphipods to effectively scavenge among
the larger grained sand particles with associated low TOC and 2)
the insufficient food particle size offered during the test. Food
availability appeared to have been limited. Subsequent
investigations demonstrated that this assumption was correct.
Of the test sites, only Manor House resulted in reduced
4-27
-------
survival, as indicated at day 10 adjusted for particle size effects
(63.16 percent survival). L. dytiscus also showed reduced
survival in the Poropatank reference sediment compared with
controls. This is again attributed to the high percentage of
silt/clay present in the site compared to their native sediment
(100 percent sand).
No reduction was seen in growth at any of the sites compared
with controls. Only the reference site for the S. benedicti showed
significant reduction in growth compared to controls. The rate was
not only reduced, but the polychaetes lost weight compared to the
initial length and weight data. This observation is attributed to
the low food availability, despite feeding during the test.
Similarly, because of limited food availability in the Lynnhaven
sand, reference sediment survival and therefore growth data for L.
plumulosus were not available. Reburial data indicated that no
significant differences existed between test sites and controls. It
is notable that Frog Mortar and Bivalve Harbor had noticeable
effects in several of the replicates in the L. dytiscus test;
others showed little response, thus producing large standard errors
(Table 4.18). This variability in response may reflect spatial
heterogeneity in sediment quality at these sites.
4.2.2 Contaminants Data
Toxicity of chemicals in sediments is determined by the extent
to which chemicals bind to the sediments. There are many factors
that influence the binding capabilities of a particular sediment.
The toxicity of non-ionic organic chemicals is related to the
organic content of the sediments, and it appears that the
bioavailability of sediment-associated metals is related to the
concentration of Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS) present in the
sediment (DiToro, 1990). Sediment samples from the six stations
and the controls were analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and
Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS). The results are shown in Tables 4.20
and 4.21. At present, there is no readily accessible data base
for comparison of TOC normalized data, therefore the TOC analysis
from this study was included to allow for future comparisons. The
AVS approach to sediment contaminants evaluation is still
developmental and has been published only recently (DiToro, 1990).
To appropriately interpret the AVS data, simultaneously extractable
metals (SEM) must also be analyzed. The data for SEM are presented
in Table 4.22. In evaluating the AVS values, a ratio of the sum of
the SEM to the total AVS is calculated. If the ratio is greater
than one (1), toxicity is predicted, although if the total
concentration of metals is very low, toxic effects may not be
observed. If the SEM:AVS ratio produces a value less than one, it
is assumed that there is sufficient AVS present in the sediment to
bind with the metals, rendering them non-bioavailable and therefore
non-toxic. Evaluation of the SEM to AVS ratio is included in Table
4.23. All stations had ratios much less than one, therefore
toxicity due to metals was not indicated.
Inorganic contaminants data from the eight stations are
presented in Table 4.24. All test sites had concentrations above
the detection limits for ten of the eleven metals analyzed. The
4-28
-------
Table 4.20 Total Organic Carbon for sediment samples from the six
stations and the controls. All data is on a dry weight
basis. Set 1 was tested October 17 through November 6,
1992. Set 2 was tested May 25 through June 14, 1993.
Station Total Organic Carbon f%)
Set 1: Set 2:
Manor House 3.12 2.65
Quarter Creek 2.19 1.07
Wilson Point 1.24 1.38
Frog Mortar 2.07 1.68
Bivalve 1.02 1.04
Sandy Hill Beach 3.04 2.79
Lynnhaven Sand 0.37 <0.37
Lynnhaven Mud 1.44 3.08
Poropatank 3.62 2.69
4-29
-------
Table 4.21 Acid Volitile Sulfides for sediment samples from the six
stations and the reference and controls. All data are on
a dry weight basis. Set 1 was tested October 17 through
November 6, 1992. Set 2 was tested May 25 through June
14, 1993.
Station AVS (u. mol/al
Set 1: Set 2:
Manor House 12.6 4.6
Quarter Creek 15.3 3.7
Wilson Point 6.5 2.3
Frog Mortar 11.0 3.3
Bivalve 5.4 4.1
Sandy Hill Beach 19.9 10.5
Lynnhaven Sand 4.9 3.4
Lynnhaven Mud 12.0 26.8
Foropatank 11.2 7.8
4-30
-------
0) O
03
'8
CM
. C
•<
Q)
(fl
«
B *
Ul
10 O
« 0
•*
52
o> £
0)
(0
o c
a
S*
w
>i .
rH ^
W CO
•H
C
«J
S T3
•H 0)
W CM W
(N
CM
0)
a>
0)
o
Q
O
U
•o
(0
0)
U
i4
0)
e
3
•H
e
73
m
o
Ot-liHCNOOOOO
OOOHOOOOO
voinooinntnorHvo
OOOHOOOOO
ooooooooo
OOHCMOOOOO
ooooooooo
OOHCMOOOOO
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
vvvvvvvvv
HHHCMOHOOH
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
0>
C C C
4J
(C «3
fi a
(d TJ C C O
C(drHO>CCC
3 -H M -H
as fc 0
o
cu
4-31
-------
TJ
Q)
3
C
•H
•P
C
o
u
(N
(N
•
T
0)
rH
.Q
«J
EH
|
c7
o
c
•r*
Cv
r-l
vV
X
0
•H
z
J-l
fll
M/
Q
Q
O
O
<0
IS
s,
•^
li
M
3
O
i_i
rH
(U
s
€
3
•H
£
frt
w
to
U
(N
-P
0)
w
1
1
*)•
r»
r-
o
^j-
o
m
o
VO
CO
o
o
in
a\
o
o
n
r-
o
0
in
o
o
o
o
0
V
VO
H
0
0
t-»
••* t-»
0 0
en vo
vo in
O H
o o
en •*
VO 00
o rg
o o
CTl CO
TP rg
O H
0 0
in in
0 0
0 0
0 0
o o
0 0
V V
H CO
H rH
O 0
O 0
X
V -P
iH
10
•H
00
•
CQ
rH
rH
•H
X
>i
TJ
to
w
Tf
^r
o
o
a\
n
o
o
0
o
o
o
in
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
in
0
o
o
o
o
V
o
o
o
0
T3
c
10
w
c
0)
>
tO
J3
C
c
>
•J
in
rg
in
H
r
1C
£
C
>,
J
n
J
tO
4->
to
a
0
r^
o
&
in
o
o
o
•
o
"t
0
o
o
•
o
VO
o
o
o
•
o
o
n
o
o
•
o
n
o
o
o
o
•
0
o
o
o
o
•
o
ca
-P
•H
g
•H
rH
c
o
•H
4-J
O
a)
-P
0)
Q
4-32
-------
Table 4.23
Average total SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for
sediment samples tested in 1992/1993.
Set 1:
Manor House
Quarter Creek
Wilson Point
Frog Mortar
Bivalve
Sandy Hill Beach
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropatank
Set 2:
Manor House
Quarter Creek
Wilson Point
Frog Mortar
Bivalve
Sandy Hill Beach
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropatank
Mean AVS
12.6
15.3
6.5
11.0
5.4
19.9
4.9
12.0
11.2
4.6
3.7
2.3
3.3
4.1
10.5
3.4
26.8
7.8
Mean SEM
0.73
1.00
1.09
2.03
0.36
0.88
0.04
0.85
0.92
0.77
0.69
1.36
2.84
0.38
1.43
0.04
1.53
1.22
Ratio
0.057
0.065
0.168
0.187
0.067
0.044
0.008
0.071
0.082
0.167
0.186
0.591
0.861
0.093
0.136
0.012
0.057
0.156
4-33
-------
(fl r C O
i-t 5 1C C
O O -H
•J-0 II
0)
.p
c
o .
o c
(!) PH
1 tt>
(C -O
4J 0)
338 -
:***
SgRs
QO g -O rH
§C°S«
SS^o
^8S£
•P C _
O
C0<§
&»•§
(-1 -P
O O T3
CSC
H ^- (C
4) (fl
w -o
rH Q)
(JJ 4J
> OJ
(1) -H
0)
X)
rtJ
EH
d
o
.p
(t
c
•H
e
«3
+J
C
O
U
cy>
CO
O CO (N
a
co H ro v£>
.-t
000000000
CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ
ooooooooo
v
o vo HO
vooooocncomvoo
rH H OJ C1
v
o
oj n o co
^f »* in H
o o o H o
r»
vo oo r*«
o ^ ra
o o o
ooooooooo
v
oo en in
^3 ^^ f^ f"^ ^Q ^5 ^^ CO Lrt
^3 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^* CO ^5 rH ^J*
H H fM OJ V H H
00
(N
O
t
O
to
•
O
fM
•
O
VO
O
O
in
o
TJI
Ol
uil
in
o
o
ooooooooo
OOOOOOCNOO
OOOOOOCOOO
00
-------
<3)
3
C
•H
•P
C
o
o
^*
(N
•
M«
(!)
rH
J2
10
£H
0
"X
0
_
4J
C
(Q
C
"e
fl
4-)
C
o
0
• *
H
•P
0)
CO
^r in co
CI H H en n
rH
J I-J J .J
q Q Q Q o
tO| CQ CQ CQ 03
co o r* n
H 01 CM VO
VI ^* H ^ vo
o o o o
a. , J ,
in H volco
H H Trim
W ^* in P*
Sd H co in CM
H H CM
CM t*» o o
in ^* ^* en
tJ} O O H rH
o o o o
*Ji fs. g^l
a* • M
in oo eg co
CM H H O
rH
CNCNOt-
U| M co r* in
N H rg n
r^ n co co
fO CO rH CM
•O M H vo in
o o o o
in en in vo
Ml in ^r vo en
•^ oj in co
o o o o
o o o o
rHj in en H cj
co H CM en
i-i rH rH rH
J^
0) P
0) 0) C V4
W ^I-H (C
3 O O -P
o a, i-i
X ^ 0
(DCS
V4 P O
0)1 O V-l W tji
-P C «3 rH O
•H (TJ 3 -H ^
w s a 2 fc.
H O C- CO H
O\ ^f rH t*» CO
H VO O CO
lj J lJ hJ iJ
a Q a Q o
CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ
O O t^ CM
in H rH en H
o CM o ^r t
o o o o o
v o
o co o o o
r> M o H o
^ t^ in o in
H (N H
o
0 0
^ CM m r>) in
t rt o en in
H rH rH
co H vo en H
H r- o en in
o o o o in
o o o o o
V
o
T* in ^- vo vo
r» in o en H
in r-
VO CO VO ^" ^*
rH f^ O ^* rH
H
O O VO O O
H O O O O
rH in r> o in
VO O O (N
CM (N n
r;
O
<0 TJ
> -P
> (C fl (0
rH >,£! X! Q-
«J T3 C C 0
> C C C U
CQ CO (4 tJ fti
rH
O
CM
rH
0
o
in
o
CM
o
VO
o
o
o
in
o
o
H
O
in
o
o
o
H
O
C)
in
CM
4J
•H
e
•H
rH
C
O
•H
-P
O
o
-P
0)
Q
O 0
CM C""-
H CM
'Z. Z
1 1
1 1
in o
rH
O 0
r> in
in
rH (*">
O rH
O O
r* en
n
o in
CO T
rH
in en
n in
CO CO
1 1
I j
..
0)
C
«3
i-i
in
P C
U (0
0) -H
<4H O Q)
u j s
4-35
-------
eleventh metal, tin, was below detection limit at all sites. The
Lynnhaven sand site had concentrations below detection limits for
cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium and tin in the first set
of sediments. The Lynnhaven sand sediment tested with the second
set of sediments also had concentrations of mercury, selenium, and
tin below detection limits. Sediment-sorbed contaminants have been
extensively studied by Long and Morgan (1990). They have
established a table of concentrations at which biological effects
would be expected if these contaminants were present in the
sediment. The lower ten percentile of data for which biological
effects were observed was established as the "Effects Range-Low"
(ER-L) ; and median concentrations for which biological effects were
observed were identified as the "Effects Range-Median" (ER-M) . Long
and Morgan (1990) indicate that the ER-L and ER-M values can be
used for comparisons between sites. The concentrations of
toxicants in the sediments of the sites are compared with the ER-L
or ER-M values, which are used simply as "benchmarks" for the
relative degree of contamination. Those contaminants with
concentrations exceeding the ER-L fall into a category that Long
and Morgan (1990) consider to be the "possible" effects range for
toxic effects. Contaminant concentrations above the ER-M fall in
the category of "probable" toxic effects. Of course, many
biogeochemical factors influence biological availability of
contaminants in sediments, so comparisons of "bulk" chemical
concentrations against these benchmark values represent rough
attempts at ranking the relative potential of various sediments for
toxicity. These comparisons are believed to be overly conservative
in many cases, so theoretically-based approaches such as the
SEM/AVS method described above should be given more weight in the
interpretation of the data.
The fall (set 1) sampling period revealed one site (Sandy Hill
Beach) which exceeded the ER-L values for mercury. No other
site/metal combination exceeded these values, although lead was
suspect at the Frog Mortar site with a concentration of 34.0 ug/g.
The spring 1993 sampling analysis revealed concentrations for
copper and lead above the ER-L values at Wilson Point and Frog
Mortar. Mercury and zinc also surpassed the ER-L values at Frog
Mortar. Elevated concentrations of mercury (0.551 ug/g) were also
observed at the sediment collected from the Poropotank
control/reference site. Many of these concentrations were
substantially higher during the spring sampling compared with the
fall period. No sediments had levels at the median effects range
or greater.
The results of semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides
analyses in sediment samples are presented in Appendix C. The Wye
River Manor House sediment was the only sample with compound
concentrations above the detection limit with 4-methylphenol
concentration of 541 ug/Kg dry sediment weight. Neither fall or
spring sampling events resulted in the collection of sediments
containing pesticide or semi-volatile organic contaminants which
exceeded the ER-L values (Long and Morgan 1990).
4.2.3 Pore Water Data
4-36
-------
Sediment pore water was analyzed for sulfide, ammonia, and
nitrite for all stations and the controls. The pore water data are
shown in Table 4.25. Ammonia concentrations were converted to
percent unionized ammonia for comparison with EPA criteria
continuous concentrations for saltwater aquatic life.
4.2.4 Reference Toxicant Data
The relative sensitivities of each set of test organisms was
evaluated with reference toxicant tests. The results of each
reference toxicant test conducted with each batch of amphipod,
worms and Sheepshead minnows are shown in Table 4.26. All
organisms were tested using cadmium chloride (CdCl2). All test
LC50's were within the range of the previous reference toxicant
tests conducted, with the exception of the fall (set 1) data for S.
benedictl which exhibited higher LCSO's than previous reference
tests. Because the survival in the control sediment was 92 percent
at day ten, the increased sensitivity was attributed to the marked
difference in initial size of the animals used in the tests as
compared to the spring (set 2) animals. Although this increased
sensitivity did seem to decrease overall survival when compared
with the results of the spring sampling, it did not elucidate
additional statistically significant results.
4-37
-------
Table 4.25 Chemical data for pore water samples from the six
stations and the references and controls (expressed
in mg/L).
Total
Ammonia
Nitrite Sulfide
*Unionized
Unionized Ammonia
Ammonia Criteria
Set 1:
Manor House 3.913 0.0063 0.015 0.028
Quarter Creek 7.368 0.0048 0.016 0.061*
Wilson Point 6.197 0.0105 0.008 0.040*
Frog Mortar 4.818 0.0099 0.010 0.001
Bivalve 7.742 0.0141 0.011 0.067*
Sandy Hill Beach 3.913 0.0199 0.016 0.025
Lynnhaven Sand 10.011 0.5496 0.045 0.063*
Lynnhaven Mud 22.843 0.0090 0.051 0.125*
Poropatank 4.537 0.0150 0.018 0.027
Set 2:
Manor House 2.066 0.0090 <0.007 0.011
Quarter Creek 2.636 0.0075 0.0089 0.012
Wilson Point 1.017 0.0108 0.0089 0.022
Frog Mortar 1.131 0.0054 0.0250 0.001
Bivalve 2.157 0.0123 0.0112 0.009
Sandy Hill Beach 1.291 0.0108 0.0135 0.022
Lynnhaven Sand 1.223 0.0084 0.0110 0.013
Lynnhaven Mud 16.527 0.0093 0.0733 0.026
Poropatank 5.089 0.0135 0.0089 0.033
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
035
035
035
035
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
035
035
035
035
035
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.035
* USEPA Water Quality Criteria for saltwater aquatic life based
upon unionized ammonia (mg/L) Criteria Continuous
concentrations.
** Indicates concentrations which exceed EPA criteria
4-38
-------
Table 4.26 Reference toxicant data results from 96-hr, water
only, reference toxicant tests for the third year of
the ambient toxicity project. Cadmium chloride
(CdCl2) was used for all organisms.
Organism
L. plumulosus
L. dytiscus
Test
Set *
1
2
1
2
LC50 & CIS
Chemical (ma/L)
CdCl,
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl,
0.73
0.95
3.49
3.43
1.01-0.53
1.26-0.71
4.47-2.72
4.81-2.46
Historical
Mean
1.16
4.18
S. benedicti
1
2
CdCl,
CdCl,
1.97
5.53
2.49-1.55
6.18-4.95
4.80
C. varieaatus
1
2
CdCl,
CdCl,
0.64
0.47
0.83-0.49
0.50-0.44
0.58
4-39
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Han'ticoke River*
The Nanticoke River represents a typical eastern shore river
bordered by wetland habitats, agricultural activity (non-point
source inputs), few point sources and low population density. The
Nanticoke River is one of the four major spawning areas for striped
bass in Maryland waters of Chesapeake Bay. The ambient stations
used in this river were generally downstream from the primary
spawning area of this anadromous species although the Sandy Hill
Beach and Bivalve Harbor areas are potential habitats for larvae or
young juvenile life stages.
This was the first year we conducted ambient toxicity tests in
the Nanticoke River; therefore, comparisons with previous data
collected during this pilot study were not possible. Previous
ambient toxicity data from this river were generated from in situ
and on-site studies from 1984 to 1990 with striped bass prolarvae
in the spawning area approximately 6 to 10 miles upriver from our
ambient toxicity stations (Hall et al., 1993). Results from these
studies have demonstrated that acidic conditions (low pH, monomeric
aluminum and other metals) in habitat water during the spring can
reduce survival of prolarval striped bass although these conditions
are not present every year. Ambient toxicity data from water
column tests during this study with the four test species did not
demonstrate the presence of adverse water quality or contaminant
conditions at either station during the fall or spring tests.
Organic contaminants were not detected in the water column during
our experiments and concentrations of all metals were below the EPA
recommended water quality criteria. It is noteworthy, however, that
concentrations of chromium, lead, nickel and zinc were consistently
detected at our stations. Maximum concentrations of lead 4.3 ug/L
(spring sample from Sandy Hill Beach) and nickel 6.6 ug/L (spring
sample from Sandy Hill Beach) were only slightly lower than the EPA
recommended chronic water quality criterion.
The sediment data obtained from the 1992-1993 sampling period
indicated no significant decrease in survival in any of the four
test species during sediment testing. Although not statistically
significant, a potential pattern of reduced survival was observed
in the amphipods and worms during the fall sampling. Growth data
also indicated that significant reduction in L. plumulosus length
and weight occurred compared with controls. Although AVS/SEM
ratios were determined to be below one, total mercury
concentrations from this site were determined to be three times the
ER.-L. Organic compound and pesticide analyses indicated the
presence of Aldrin 5.04 ug/kg sediment dry weight for sediment
collected at the Bivalve site. Traces of several organics and
pesticides were also confirmed in both Bivalve Harbor and Sandy
Hill Beach sites' sediments. Unionized ammonia was greater at the
Bivalve site than at any other test sites in the fall sampling,
although Lynnhaven Mud (control and reference) was nearly twice as
5-1
-------
high. The values may be indicative of the high TOC associated with
these sites. The ammonia concentration did exceed the saltwater
quality continuous criteria, but these concentrations are not
strictly comparable. The AMRL has investigated ammonia toxicity
tolerances for several estuarine sediment dwelling organisms and
has concluded that higher ammonia tolerances may be the rule for
benthic species, as sediment pore water ammonia is often greater
than the overlying water column ammonia concentrations.
5.2 Wye River
The Wye River was selected for testing during the first two
years of this study to represent a reference or relatively "clean"
background area (absence of point sources). Both Wye River
stations tested during this study (Manor House and Quarter Creek)
were located in rural areas where the major land-use is dominated
by agricultural activity. This is the third year that ambient
toxicity tests have been conducted at the Manor House station but
the first year for testing at the Quarter Creek station. Results
from our previous water column testing during 1990 (first year) did
not demonstrate the presence of toxic conditions at the Manor House
station although both sediment and suborganismal testing did
suggest adverse conditions (Hall et al., 1991). Contrasting data
were reported during the second year of water column testing as
toxic conditions were reported during two separate tests using two
different test species (Hall et al., 1992). A significant reduction
in survival of sheepshead minnows was reported during the first
test in 1991 while significant reductions in survival of E. atfinis
were reported during the second test. In the present study, we
reported significant reductions in survival of sheepshead minnow
larvae at the Manor House station in the fall experiment and a
significant reduction in survival of E. affinis in the spring at
the Quarter Creek station. The reported mortality for sheepshead
minnows was likely related to the presence of cnidarian nematocysts
from jellyfish (David Nemazie, personal communication) and not the
presence of adverse contaminants or water quality conditions. The
reduction in survival of E. affinis was likely related to a
stressful condition in the water. Based on three years of data at
the Manor House station, it appears that the biological effects
from water column toxicity data from the third year (significant
biological effects from one species and one test) were more severe
than the first year (no biological effects) but less pronounced
than the second year. Water column contaminants data collected
during this study do not suggest the presence of adverse conditions
as all organic compounds measured were below detection limits and
all metals values were below the EPA recommended chronic marine
water quality criteria.
Wye River Manor House sediment results produced significantly
reduced survival of L. dytiscus at both 10 and 20 days at the fall
sampling. No growth effects were observed at Manor House site,
however, Quarter Creek did exhibit some reduction in growth by L.
plumulosus at the fall sampling. No growth or survival effects
were seen in L. plumulosus in the spring sampling event.
5-2
-------
Concentrations of metals were well below ER-L's for all metals
analyzed. Unionized ammonia values for these sites were also
below toxicity limits for freshwater and were, therefore, not
considered a factor, however, Quarter Creek ammonia values were
nearly twice that of the EPA continuous criteria for saltwater at
the fall sampling. Organic compounds and pesticide analyis
indicated the presence of 4-Methylphenol at the Manor house site
during the spring sampling, however, this did not seem to effect
test survival in any species. The pesticide 4,4-DDT was also
detected at the Manor House site during the fall sampling period,
but was not confirmed by secondary GC/MS analysis because it was
below the detection limit.
5.3 Middle River
The Middle River was selected for this study to represent a
perceived "marginally" polluted area with a dense urban population,
various point sources and numerous marinas. Both the Wilson Point
and Frog Mortar stations were located in a salinity transition zone
where seasonal salinity ranges from 2 to 7 ppt. This was the first
year for ambient toxicity experiments in Middle River; therefore,
comparisons of data from previous studies is not possible.
Background data collected by Maryland Department of the Environment
has shown that "fish kills" occur in this area and various metals
have been reported at potentially stressful conditions in both the
water column and sediment (Charles Poukish, personal communication,
and Deirdre Murphy, personal communication).
Significant biological effects were not reported from E.
affinis, sheepshead minnow or grass shrimp water column toxicity
tests. However, water column toxicity data from 8 coot clam
experiments showed consistent toxicity (reduced normal shell
development) at both the Wilson Point and Frog Mortar Creek
stations during the first and second tests in the fall and the
spring. These biological effects were consistent with
concentrations of various metals reported at potentially toxic
concentrations in the water column. Water column concentrations of
copper (10.1, 3.3 and 6.4 ug/L), lead (9.8 ug/L), nickel (25.5 and
13.9 ug/L) and zinc (134 ug/L) were reported to exceed the EPA
recommended water quality criteria in the fall and/or spring at
Wilson Point (U.S. EPA, 1987) . The zinc value of 134 ug/L is
greater than the 48 hour EC50 value of 116 ug/L previously reported
for the coot clam and the maximum copper (10.1 ug/L) and nickel
(25.5 ug/L) concentrations are approximately half the 48 hour ECSOs
for this species (Morris and Petrocelli, 1990b). At Frog Mortar
Creek, copper (4.7, 9.9 and 4.8 ug/L) and nickel (10.4 ug/L) were
reported to exceed the EPA recommended chronic marine criteria.
Neither survival nor growth data from sediment tests suggested
the presence of adverse conditions in sediment at either the Frog
Mortar or Wilson Point sites at either sampling time. However,
lead, zinc, mercury and copper were above the ER-L values at both
sites during the spring sampling. The AVS/SEM values indicate the
lack of bioavailability of these metals. The metabolic byproduct
of DDT, 4,4-DDE, was measured (1.65 ug/Kg dry) and confirmed at
5-3
-------
Frog Mortar, however, no effects were observed over the short test
duration. Ammonia concentrations at Frog Mortar were low at both
sampling times, however, the unionized ammonia concentrations at
Wilson point (0.040 mg/L) exceeded the EPA continuous criteria of
0.035 mg/L in the fall sampling.
5-4
-------
SECTION 6
ANALYSIS OF THREE YEAR DATA BASE
6.1 Water Column Toxicity
The results of multivariate composite index calculations for
water column toxicity for the 1990, 1991 and 1992-93 experiments
are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, respectively. The
species tested and the number of endpoints used varied slightly
from year to year (i.e., three water column tests for 1990, four
tests for 1991 and 1992-93). Therefore, comparisons of index
values within the figures for same year are more comparable than
those of different years. The composite index calculations
generated for each station and year from concurrent reference
(control value) and test conditions, therefore, 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 RTRM indices for control
(or reference) and test sites is presented in Table 6.1.
The RTRM analysis for the 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. 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
RTRM analysis was the Patapsco River as significant mortality was
reported in one out of three tests. However, the confidence
interval was 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
indictated 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 multivariate composite 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
6-1
-------
Figure 6.1 RTRM analysis for the 1990 water column data (see Section 3.4
for details).
1990 Water Column RTRM Analysis
Head
Pstapeoo River
Beftnoce Tart
Freartone Point
Tart
Taet
6-2
-------
Figure 6.2 RTBM analysis for the 1991 water column data (see Section 3.4
for details).
1991 Water Column RTRM Analysis
Patapoco
6-3
-------
Figure 6.3 RTRM analysis for the 1992-93 water column data (see Section 3.4
for details).
1993 Water Column RTRM Analysis
Frag Mortar
Quarter Creek
Reference
Tert
6-4
-------
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of RTRW indices for reference and
test sites presented in Figures 6.1 - 6.6. 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.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
ELIZABETH RIVER
MIDDLE RIVER:
FROG MORTAR
WILSON POINT
NANTICOKE RIVER:
BIVALVE
SANDY HILL BEACH
POTOMAC RIVER:
DAHLGREN
FREESTONE POINT
INDIAN HEAD
MORGANTOWN
POSSUM POINT
WYE RIVER:
MANOR HOUSE
.QUARTER CREEK
WATER COLUMN
1990
0
X
•*
•-
aa
"
0
0
o
0
o
0
—
1991
0
-
— —
~
..
"
0
"
—
0
o
o
-
1992-3
—
—
X
X
0
0
.^
"
—
—
"
o
o
SEDIMENT
1990
X
X
.^
-
. ^
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
1991
X
—
— —
"
• •
"
X
—
•-
X
--
X
-
1992-3
-
—
0
0
0
0
..
—
—
«
--
o
0
6-5
-------
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. The results from RTRM
analysis at the other 4 sites showed 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.
A summary of the three year water column data base using the
RTRM analysis showed the following ranking of toxicity for the
various sites:
• the Elizabeth River (1990) and the Middle River (1992-93)
were the most toxic sites tested during the first three
years of the Ambient Toxicity Testing Program
• the Wye River test site in 1991 had a median value for
the composite index greater than the control value but
there was an ovelap with the confidence interval between
the test and reference sites
• the Patapsco River tested in 1990 showed some toxicity as
evidenced by the wide confidence interval; however, the
test condition on the average was not significantly
different than the control.
• the five Potomac River sites (Indian Head, Freestone
Point, Possum Point, Morgantown and Dahlgren) tested in
1990 and two sites tested in 1991 (Morgantown and
Dahlgren) generally showed no significant effects.
• the composite index for the reference and test conditions
at both Nanticoke River sites (1992-93) were similar,
thus suggesting no significant effects.
6.2 Sediment Toxicitv
The results of the multivariate composite index calculations
for sediment toxicity for the 1990, 1991, and 1992-93 studies are
summarized in Figures 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. All index
values except those from the Elizabeth River are plotted on the
same scale for comparison purposes. The Elizabeth River toxicity
responses were so great (100 percent mortality for all species
tested) that the index values for this site had to be plotted on a
greater scale. It should be noted that the species and the number
of endpoints tested varied slightly from year to year, so
6-6
-------
Figure 6.4 RTRM analysis for the 1990 sediment data (see Section 3.4
for details).
1990 Sediment RTRM Analysis
Head
Reference Test
Freestone Point
I,
*
0
10
Reference Test
Possum Point
-I-
Reference Test
Morgantown
Reference Test
Patapsco River
Reference Test
Wye River
Reference Test
Dahlgren
Reference Test
Elizabeth River
Reference
Test
6-7
-------
Figure 6.5 RTKM analysis for the 1991 sediment data (see Section 3.4
for details).
1991 Sediment RTRM Analysis
£10
1 *1
$ 6-
1 4
Morgantown
Patapsco
Reference Impacted
Reference Impacted
Reference Impacted
Reference Impacted
6-8
-------
Figure 6.6 RTKM analysis for the 1992-93 sediment data (see Section
3.4 for details).
Frog Mortar
1993 Sediment RTRM Analysis
Quarter Creek
C 4
V
S 2
1
en
0J
Reference Impacted
Wilson Point
. 8
X
g 4
T3 2
V
03 0
Reference Impacted
Reference Impacted
Manor House
Reference Impacted
Sandy Hill Beach
Reference Impacted
Bivalve
Reference Impacted
6-9
-------
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 6.1 summarizes the
comparisons presented in Figures 6.1 - 6.6.
During the 1990 study, the Elizabeth River was clearly the
most toxic of the sites, since all species displayed 100 percent
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 no variation; Figure 6.4).
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 multivariate index values for the test and reference
conditions, even though some of the individual endpoints were
significantly different from the controls for these sites. 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 6.5). 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 less variable but 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
-1* Mathematical methods are currently being explored to allow
the scaling of all values between zero and the maximum possible
score for any given experimental series (e.g. a scale expressed as
a percent of maximum impact; but a numerical benchmark for the
reference condition should be maintained). If successful, such a
scaling system should allow a more direct comparison between
studies employing differing numbers of endpoints. However,
differences in the sensitivity of different endpoints would not be
resolved by scaling.
6-10
-------
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 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 index limits overlapped
for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.6). 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 (as evidenced by
particle sizes ranging from approximately from 0.5 to nearly 90
percent in replicate samples shown in Table 3.5; and by the large
confidence limits for responses in Figure 6.6). Furthermore, this
site displayed somewhat elevated metals in the composite samples
(as evidenced by values of copper, mercury, lead, and zinc which
exceeded ER-L levels in the second set composite sample; Table
4.24). Therefore, there may be 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 all
three years of testing.
To summarize, an overview of the multivariate index results
produces a qualitative ranking of sediment quality of the sites
from most toxic to least toxic, as follows:
• the Elizabeth River site contained sediments that were, by
far, the most toxic of those studied during the first three
years of the Ambient Toxicity Program;
• the Baltimore Harbor (Patapsco River) site contained
sediments which were the second most consistently toxic
among the sites studied;
• the Freestone Point, Possum Point, and Dahlgren sites on the
6-11
-------
Potomac River had sediments that produced the next greatest
separation between test and reference responses, although
the responses in the Dahlgren site experiments displayed a
large degree of variability in 1990 and a diminished level
of apparent toxicity in 1991, suggesting spatial
heterogeneity in sediment quality;
• the sediments from the Wye River Manor House collection site
exhibited some apparent toxicity in 1990 and in one of the
two experiments in 1991, but the Manor House and Quarter
Creek sites did not show toxicity in 1992-93.
• the Indian Head and Morgantown sites on the Potomac River
had sediments which produced responses which were only
slightly different from the reference conditions, but these
subtle toxic effects displayed a low degree of variability
and were observed to be consistent during several sampling
events for the latter site;
• the Frog Mortar and Wilson Point sites on the Middle River
and the Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve Harbor sites on the
Nanticoke River had sediments that produced responses that
were not significantly different from those from the
reference site experiments, although the Frog Mortar site
replicates did display a considerable degree of variability
in the responses, possibly due to small scale heterogeneity
in contaminant patterns for certain heavy metals.
6-12
-------
SECTION 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are suggested after three years
of ambient toxicity tests in Chesapeake Bay:
• A battery of both water column and sediment tests should be
conducted concurrently in ambient areas to maximize our
ability to identify "regions of concern" in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed
• When selecting suspected contaminated regions for future
ambient toxicity testing, background data from chemical
monitoring, biological community status assessments and
toxicity tests should be used to provide guidance.
• The ambient toxicity testing approach should be used to
assess the status of important living resource habitats (ie,
spawning areas of anadromous fish). This approach could be
added to an array of multi-metric assessment tools that are
currently under development with the long term goal of
targeting tributaries and watersheds for nonpoint source
monitoring and remediation. The goals of such a targeting
effort would be to determine where management-based habitat
improvement programs should be focused, based on the status
of biological communities and other environmental
indicators.
• Community metric approaches with fish, invertebrates, or
other trophic groups which assess "impact observed
responses" should be conducted concurrently with ambient
toxicity tests which determine "impact predicted" responses.
The use of both test approaches will provide a more complete
strategy for assessing the impact of contaminants on
specific areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• Water column and sediment ambient toxicity tests with
resident Chesapeake Bay plant species (submerged aquatic
vegetation and/or phytoplankton) should be conducted (or
developed if needed) in concert with the present battery of
animal tests.
• Statistical analysis of ambient toxicity data should be
conducted to provide environmental managers with summary
information concerning the relative toxicity of water and
sediment from the collection sites. These analyses should
provide quantitative indicators of the degree of confidence
which may be given to observed differences between ambient
areas and reference areas (controls).
7-1
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
Alden, R.W. 1992. Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments:
I. Confidence limits for the triad. In press, Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry.
ASTM, 1990. Standard Guide for Conducting 10 day Static Sediment
Toxicity Tests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods. ASTM E
1367-90. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
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.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1990. Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity
assessment report. CBP/TRS 42/90, Annapolis, MD.
Deaver, E. and P.C. Adolphson. 1990. Evaluation of the amphipod
Lepidactylus dytiscus as a sediment toxicity test organism.
SETAC poster & manuscript (in review).
DeWitt, T.H., G.R. Dittsworth, and R.C. Swartz. 1988. Effects of
natural sediment features on survival of the Phoxocephalid
Amphipod, Rhepoxynius abronius. Mar. Envir. Res. 25: 99-
124.
DeWitt, T.H., M.S. Redmond, J.E. Sewall and R.C. Swartz. 1992.
Development of a chronic sediment toxicity test for marine
benthic amphipods. CBP/TRS 89/93 December 1992.
DeWitt, T.H., R.C. Swartz and J.O. Lamberson. 1989. Measuring the
acute toxicity of estuarine sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
8: 1035-1048.
Diaconis, P. and B. Efron. 1983. Computer-intensive methods in
statistics. Sci. Amer. 248:116-130.
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks,
S.M. Mayr and M.S. Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in
sediment; the role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
Efron, B. 1979a. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jacknife.
Annals of Statistics. 7: 1-26.
Efron, B. 1979b. Computers and the theory of statistics: Thinking
the unthinkable. Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics Review. 21: 460-480.
8-1
-------
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.
Guillard, R.R.L. 1975. Culture of phytoplankton for feeding
marine invertebrates. In; Culture of Marine Invertebrate
Animals (W.L. Smith and M.H. Chanley, eds.) pp 29-60. Pleum
Publishing, New York, NY.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.J. Bushong and M.A. Unger,
1988a. Striped bass contaminant and water quality studies in
the Potomac River and Upper Chesapeake Bay: Annual contaminant
and water quality evaluations in east coast striped bass
habitats. Report. The Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology Section, Shady side, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., S.J. Bushong, W.S. Hall and W.E. Johnson. 1988b.
Acute and chronic effects of tributyltin on a Chesapeake Bay
copepod. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:41-46.
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.
Hall, L.W. Jr., S.E. Finger and M.C. Ziegenfuss. 1993. A review of
in situ and on-site striped bass contaminant and water quality
studies in Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 14:3-15.
Kohlenstein, L.C. 1980. Aspects of the population dynamics of
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) spawning in Maryland
tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Report JHU PPSE T-14,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Citing
Program, 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.
Majumdar, S.K., L.W. Hall Jr., and H.M. Austin. 1987. Contaminant
Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources.
Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, PA.
Maryland Department of Environment. 1991. Aquatic Life Criteria -
Copper. Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore, MD.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990a. Short-term methods for
8-2
-------
estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving
waters to marine and estuarine organisms: supplement: Test
method for 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.
Poukish, C.A. and J.T. Allison. 1989. 1989 Fish Kill Summary.
Technical Report # 107, Maryland Department of Environment,
Baltimore, 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, Annapolis,
MD.
Stroup, C.F., A. Brindley and P.F. Kazyak. 1991. Characterization
of the current biological communities within the Nanticoke
River in the vicinity of the Vienna SES. Department of
Natural Resources, Report Number, PPSE-8-18, Annapolis, MD.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.L.P. Jones, J.O. Lamberson and F.A.
Cole. 1985. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine
sediment toxicity. In: R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy and R.C.
Bahner, eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh
Symposium. STP 854. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 287-307.
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). 1984.
Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Federal Register 49
(209): 43234-43442.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1984.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-
79-017. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985.
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms. 3rd ed. W.H. Peltier and C.I.
Weber, eds., EPA-600/4-85-013. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. 216
PP-
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1986.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Laboratory Manual
Physical/Chemical Methods. U.S. EPA SW-846. Washington, DC*
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1987.
Water quality criteria summary. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and
Standards Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1989.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. EPA 440/5-88-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
8-3
-------
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA/ACOE (United States Environmental Protection Agency and
the United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1977. Ecological
Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters; Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public
Law 92-532 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972) . Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill
Material. July 1977 (second printing April 1978) Environmental
Effects Lab, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
8-4
-------
APPENDIX A
Water quality conditions reported in test chambers
during all water column tests. Hawaiian (HW)
marine synthetic sea salt control was (reconstituted)
RO water with HW sea salts; EST control was
DeCoursey Cove water and HW sea salts.
-------
Experiments were conducted with Eurytemura affinis (Ea), Palaemonetes
pugio (Pp), Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv) and Mulinia lateralis (ML) .
Date
10/6/92
10/6/92
10/7/92
10/7/92
10/8/92
Test Station
Species
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
T
25
25
25
25
26
25
24
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Sal
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
15
15
14
15
15
14
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
Do
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.2
8.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.2
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.1
7.6
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.7
6.5
6.3
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.2
7.3
7.2
6.8
pH
8.56
7.91
9.16
9.18
8.11
8.19
8.65
8.56
7.91
9.16
9.18
8.11
8.19
9.08
8.38
8.24
8.57
8.67
8.33
8.32
8.42
8.11
7.99
8.04
8.31
7.97
7.95
8.45
8.29
8.09
8.44
8.38
8.19
8.20
8.01
A-l
-------
10/8/92
10/9/92
10/9/92
10/9/92
10/9/92
10/10/92
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
ML NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
14
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
16
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
16
15
16
15
6.1
6.3
6.1
5.6
6.2
6.0
5.4
8.1
7.1
8.3
7.7
7.1
7.2
7.7
5.9
6.1
6.6
5.9
6.0
6.1
5.3
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.7
8.3
7.1
8.0
8.0
7.4
7.3
7.7
7.82
7.71
7.72
7.73
7.75
7.80
7.80
8.44
8.05
8.51
8.35
8.01
8.00
8.18
7.71
7.66
7.71
7.67
7.66
7.65
7.78
8.19
8.05
9.08
8.85
8.28
8.20
8.20
8.03
8.19
8.05
9.08
8.85
8.28
8.20
8.20
8.54
8.12
8.60
8.61
8.12
8.24
8.11
A-2
-------
10/10/92
10/10/92
10/11/92
10/11/92
10/11/92
10/12/92
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
14
15
16
14
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
17
15
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.3
5.7
5.5
6.8
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.7
6.8
6.5
8.1
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.5
6.6
6.0
6.1
5.9
5.6
6.1
6.0
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
5.7
6.3
7.1
6.7
8.4
7.8
7.8
7.7
8.2
8.5
8.4
7.83
7.74
7.73
7.71
7.58
7.72
7.87
8.37
8.08
8.72
8.64
8.07
8.22
8.07
7.85
8.40
8.13
8.44
8.50
8.15
8.25
8.11
7.94
7.74
7.66
7.74
7.67
7.83
7.90
8.03
7.87
8.24
8.18
7.73
7.91
7.92
7.78
8.54
8.30
8.50
8.42
8.40
8.10
8.30
A-3
-------
10/12/92
10/12/92
10/12/92
10/13/92
10/13/92
10/13/92
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
CV NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
ML NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
15
15
16
16
15
17
15
15
15
15
17
15
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
6.8
6.4
6.2
5.9
6.5
5.9
5.9
6.6
6.3
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.1
6.8
7.0
7.5
7.8
7.9
8.3
7.4
8.1
7.5
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.1
6.2
5.9
5.6
6.4
6.0
5.6
6.3
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.4
6.1
5.6
8.09
7.84
7.78
7.83
7.89
7.85
7.93
8.08
7.92
8.10
8.09
7.88
7.97
7.99
7.83
8.45
7.95
9.05
9.10
8.20
8.19
8.22
8.54
8.27
8.47
8.48
8.33
8.32
8.28
8.11
7.85
7.76
7.77
7.84
7.78
7.80
8.03
7.83
8.13
8.15
7.82
7.79
7.97
7.70
A-4
-------
10/14/92
10/14/92
10/14/92
10/15/92
10/16/92
10/17/92
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
EST Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
CV NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
CV NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
HW Control
EST Control
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
24
24
25
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
14
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
14
15
15
15
16
16
8.1
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.8
6.1
5.8
6.2
7.6
6.2
5.5
6.0
5.6
6.1
5.6
6.0
5.4
5.4
5.5
6.4
5.6
6.8
6.3
7.3
6.4
5.9
6.0
6.1
5.8
6.8
6.4
7.5
6.8
6.2
6.0
6.7
5.7
7.8
7.4
8.1
7.0
5.9
5.9
8.50
8.15
8.33
8.30
8.21
8.21
8.15
8.22
7.74
7.57
7.67
8.07
7.76
7.78
7.96
7.75
7.90
7.80
7.79
7.68
7.84
7.67
8.17
7.85
8.18
8.13
8.10
7.91
7.97
7.90
8.07
7.86
8.27
8.13
8.21
8.00
8.01
7.94
8.20
7.82
8.65
8.44
8.52
8.13
8.11
8.00
A-5
-------
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/13/93
4/14/93
4/14/93
4/14/93
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
14
14
14
15
13
13
15
14
14
14
15
13
13
15
14
14
14
15
13
13
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.8
8.1
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.8
8.1
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.8
8.1
7.2
8.0
8.0
9.1
8.7
9.0
9.2
8.5
5.5
6.2
6.1
5.7
6.4
6.6
5.5
6.3
5.6
5.8
5.4
5.6
6.0
6.3
9.14
8.94
9.22
9.22
8.64
8.58
7.98
9.14
8.94
9.22
9.22
8.64
8.58
7.98
9.14
8.94
9.22
9.22
8.64
8.58
7.98
8.67
8.44
8.90
8.87
8.61
8.62
8.30
8.47
8.44
8.77
8.72
8.19
8.27
7.51
8.42
8.03
8.63
8.62
7.92
7.98
7.54
A-6
-------
4/15/93
4/15/93
4/15/93
4/16/93
4/16/93
4/16/93
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
26
26
26
25
25
25
26
25
24
24
25
24
24
24
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
9.6
9.5
10.2
10.0
10.7
10.2
9.8
5.5
6.6
6.0
5.5
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.6
6.3
6.1
5.7
5.9
6.1
5.8
9.7
9.3
11.0
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.5
6.1
7.3
6.3
6.4
5.9
7.8
6.2
5.4
6.1
5.5
5.9
6.1
6.4
5.5
8.75
8.70
8.99
8.89
8.86
8.87
8.63
7.76
7.87
7.99
8.07
7.67
7.84
7.42
8.09
8.00
8.38
8.35
7.75
7.76
7.41
8.84
8.79
9.14
9.12
9.05
9.03
8.93
7.85
8.10
8.07
8.12
7.79
8.13
7.70
7.99
7.93
8.21
8.37
7.81
7.92
7.50
A-7
-------
4/16/93
4/17/93
4/17/93
4/17/93
4/18/93
4/18/93
ML NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
23
23
23
23
23
23
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
24
25
24
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
14
15
14
14
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
15
15
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.6
9.1
7.3
8.7
8.4
8.8
9.0
8.8
9.4
9.6
5.3
7.2
5.8
6.0
6.4
7.6
5.6
5.1
5.9
4.8
4.9
5.6
5.7
4.6
9.2
8.9
9.5
9.6
9.2
9.8
9.2.
7.1
8.8
7.0
7.8
7.6
7.9
6.7
9.16
8.80
9.32
9.33
8.71
8.81
7.95
8.92
8.80
9.00
8.99
8.86
8.96
8.72
7.87
8.14
8.06
8.10
7.91
8.31
7.68
7.86
8.06
8.26
8.31
7.87
7.99
7.37
8.75
8.57
8.82
8.75
8.61
8.74
8.59
7.87
8.18
8.04
8.16
7.84
8.20
7.71
A-8
-------
4/18/93
4/19/93
4/19/93
4/19/93
4/19/93
4/20/93
CV NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
ML NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
24
24
24
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
24
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
24
23
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
14
14
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
15
15
15
14
14
15
6.1
6.8
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.9
5.8
9.6
9.3
9.7
10.2
9.5
10.0
9.8
6.8
8.8
7.5
9.8
9.4
8.0
5.8
4.9
8.2
4.8
5.5
5.4
5.6
4.0
8.7
8.6
8.8
8.8
8.8
9.1
7.4
8.6
8.6
8.8
8.9
8.4
8.8
8.5
8.14
8.36
8.23
8.31
7.81
7.99
7.82
8.77
8.64
8.74
8.80
8.62
8.76
8.57
7.94
8.24
8.11
8.59
8.48
8.26
7.63
7.80
8.35
8.06
8.17
7.71
7.85
7.42
9.23
8.95
9.27
9.22
8.71
8.78
8.01
8.72
8.65
8.83
8.82
8.57
8.67
8.40
A-9
-------
4/20/93
4/20/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
4/21/93
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Ea NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Pp NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
Cv NR-SHB
NR-BH
MR-FMC
MR-WP
WR-MH
WR-QC
Control
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
25
24
24
25
24
23
25
24
24
24
24
25
24
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
14
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
15
15
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
7.1
7.6
8.5
11.2
10.2
7.8
6.3
4.9
8.1
5.4
5.6
5.0
5.4
4.5
8.4
8.3
8.5
8.3
8.7
8.4
8.1
9.2
9.1
11.2
13.6
14.0
7.1
6.5
5.9
11.5
6.5
7.7
5.5
6.0
5.1
8.03
8.12
8.38
8.86
8.70
8.15
7.79
7.83
8.46
8.21
8.28
7.68
7.81
7.27
8.76
8.66
8.80
8.82
8.63
8.55
8.43
8.47
8.40
8.84
9.10
9.20
8.10
7.84
7.78
8.78
8.17
8.40
7.69
7.80
7.32
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
Water quality conditions reported
during sediment toxicity tests
-------
Sediment Water Quality Conditions Reported in Tests
Date
10/17/92
Test Station
Species
Ld
D.O.
PH
10/18/92 Ld
10/19/92 Ld
10/20/92 Ld
10/21/92 Ld
10/22/92 Ld
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.6
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.7
2.8
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.7
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.5
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.8
7. 0
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.6
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.4
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.1
6.9
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.5
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.4
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.1
7-. 8
B-l
-------
10/23/92 Ld
10/24/92 Ld
10/25/92 Ld
10/26/92 Ld
10/27/92 Ld
10/28/92 Ld
10/29/92 Ld
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
6.2
7.2
7.0
6.7
6.3
6.5
7.3
7.1
6.5
6.8
7.0
7.1
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.2
6.6
6.9
6.5
7.0
6.2
6.3
7.1
6.4
6.5
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.4
6.7
6.3
6.2
6.8
6.6
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
6.6
7.0
7.3
7.1
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.2
7.3
7.4
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.8
7.4
7.0
7.2
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.1
8.1
7.2
6.8
7.3
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.1
7.4
7.5
6.8
B-2
-------
10/30/92 Ld
11/1/92
Ld
11/2/92
Ld
11/3/92
Ld
11/4/92
Ld
11/5/92
Ld
11/6/92
Ld
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.1
7.2
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.5
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.1
7.2
6.9
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.2
6.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.3
6.7
7.1
7.2
6.6
7.0
7. 0
7.1
7.2
7. 1
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
6.9
6.9
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.9
7.5
7.6
7.1
6.9
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.7
7.1
6.6
7.0
7.1
6.8
6.9
7.2
6.7
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7. 1
B-3
-------
11/7/92
Ld
10/17/92 Sb
10/18/92 Sb
10/19/92 Sb
10/20/92 Sb
10/21/92 Sb
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
WR-MH
NR-SHB
WR-QC
PR-MR
MR-FM
MR-WP
NR-B
BB-Control
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
23
23
24
24
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.0
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.6
7.1
7.3
6.2
6.8
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.7
6.3
7.1
6.3
7.1
6.5
6.7
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.2
7.1
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7. 6
7.0
7. 6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.3
6.9
7.5
7. 1
7.1
7. 1
7.2
6.9
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.0
B-4
-------
10/22/92 Sb
10/23/92 Sb
10/24/92 Sb
10/25/92 Sb
10/26/92 Sb
10/27/92 Sb
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
25
25
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.8
6.7
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.3
7.0
7.5
7.0
6.9
7.4
6.4
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.4
6.6
6.5
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.7
4.7
6.7
6.6
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.3
6.5
6.7
5.8
6.5
7.1
7.3
6.8
6.8
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.2
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.2
6.8
7. 1
7.8
7.0
7.0
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.1
6.6
7.0
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.2
B-5
-------
10/28/92 Sb
10/29/92 Sb
10/30/92 Sb
11/1/92
Sb
11/2/92
Sb
11/3/92
Sb
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.0
6.7
5.9
6.8
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.3
7.0
6.7
6.2
6.0
6.9
7.1
7.1
6.0
6.8
6.9
6.0
7.0
7.1
6.4
6.3
6.8
6.3
6.8
6.6
7.0
6.7
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.0
7.1
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.8
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.5
7.0
5.6
7.3
7.4
6.8
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.2
7.5
6.8
6.9
7.4
7.9
7.8
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.3
6.9
6.8
7.4
7.1
8.0
7.1
7.5
7.8
8.0
8.1
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.9
6.9
7.2
7.7
7.7
7.1
r.i
B-6
-------
11/4/92
Sb
11/5/92
Sb
11/6/92
Sb
11/7/92
Sb
10/17/92 Lp
10/18/92 Lp
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
PR-MR
MR-WP
BB-SR
PC-Control
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-B
MR-FM
NR-SHB
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6.8
6.8
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.2
6.5
7.2
7.3
6.1
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.3
6.8
7.0
5.9
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7. 1
6.4
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
5.9
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.1
6.9
6.7
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
6.8
6.6
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.9
8.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.2
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.2
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.2
6.9
7.0
7.6
7.4
7.4
B-7
-------
10/19/92 Lp
10/20/92 Lp
10/21/92 Lp
10/22/92 Lp
10/23/92 Lp
10/24/92 Lp
10/25/92 Lp
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.1
6.6
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.2
6.8
6.1
6.6
7.1
6.0
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.4
6.8
6.1
7.0
6.6
7.1
4.6
6.1
6.8
7.1
6.1
6.9
5.2
6.8
6.8
6.1
6.7
6.7
7.1
6.2
7.2
7.0
6.7
6.3
6.5
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.3
7.1
6.6
7.0
6.6
7.1
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.7
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
6.8
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.1
6.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
6.8
6.8
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.3
7.4
6.2
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.1
6.8
7.1
B-8
-------
10/26/92 Lp
10/28/92 Lp
10/29/92 Lp
10/30/92 Lp
11/1/92
Lp
11/2/92
Lp
11/3/92
Lp
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6.7
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.0
7.3
6.8
6.9
6.2
6.8
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.1
6.7
7.0
7.1
6.8
6.9
7.1
6.8
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.7
6.4
6.7
6.8
7.0
6.1
7.0
7.1
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.9
6.4
6.6
6.9
6.8
7.0
6.8
6.5
6.7
7.0
6.2
7.2
6.9
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.1
8.1
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
6.9
7.2
7.8
7.5
6.9
7.1
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.6
8.0
8.1
7.3
7.2
7.7
7.4
6.9
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.6
8.0
8.1
6.9
7.2
8.0
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
B-9
-------
11/4/92
Lp
11/5/92
Lp
11/6/92
Lp
11/7/92
Lp
10/20/92 Cv
10/21/92 Cv
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
WR-MH
WR-QC
MR-WP
PR-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.6
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.2
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.3
6.7
7.1
6.6
7.1
6.6
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.5
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.1
7. 1
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.5
7.3
6.6
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.7
6.1
7.1
7.0
6.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.1
6.6
6.8
7.2
6.7
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.2
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
6.8
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.4
B-10
-------
10/22/92 Cv
10/23/92 Cv
10/24/92 Cv
10/25/92 CV
10/26/92 Cv
10/27/92 Cv
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
BB-SR
PR-MR
NR-B
MR-WP
PC-Control
NR-SHB
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
24
7.5
6.3
6.2
6.7
6.7
6.0
4.3
4.8
6.9
7.3
6.5
6.8
6.8
6.1
6.1
4.5
6.3
7.0
7.3
6.6
7.0
6.7
6.3
6.2
5.9
6.1
6.5
7.3
6.8
3.8
6.8
6.5
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.5
7.3
5.8
6.1
5.2
6.7
7.1
7. 1
7.1
7.4
7.3
6.5
6.2
6.0
6.5
6.2
6.0
7.0
6.8
7.8
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.6
7.2
6.5
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.5
6.8
7.1
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.8
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.7
6.2
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
B-ll
-------
10/28/92 Cv
10/29/92 Cv
10/30/92 Cv
BB-SR 25
PR-MR 2 5
NR-B 2 5
MR-WP 2 5
PC-Control 25
NR-SHB 25
MR-FM 25
WR-QC 24
WR-MH 24
BB-SR 24
PR-MR 2 5
NR-B 25
MR-WP 25
PC-Control 25
NR-SHB 25
MR-FM 24
WR-QC 24
WR-MH 24
BB-SR 24
PR-MR 24
NR-B 25
MR-WP 25
PC-Control 25
NR-SHB 24
MR-FM 25
WR-QC 24
WR-MH 25
BB-SR 25
7.4
6.8
3.8
6.8
6.5
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.5
7.3
4.5
2.4
2.9
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.2
2.3
6.0
5.6
6.0
5.8
6.7
5.9
6.2
6.2
2.3
6.0
7.5
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.8
6.6
7.1
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.4
8.1
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.3
6.8
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.7
Spring, 1993
Date Test
Species
4/29/93 C.v.
4/30/93
C.v.
5/1/93
C.v.
Station
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
D.O.
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.4
7,
7
0
,0
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.2
PH
8.1
8.2
8.0
8.0
7.5
7.9
8.2
8.0
8.1
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.5
7.6
B-12
-------
5/2/93 C.v.
5/3/93 C.v.
5/4/93 C.v.
5/5/93 C.v.
5/6/93 C.v.
5/25/93 LdO
MR-FM
B-13
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PC-MR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
20
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.2
7. 3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7. 1
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.9
7.8
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.3
7.1
6.8
6.3
6.8
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.8
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.4
6.8
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.1
7.2
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.8
7.4
6.7
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.7
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.2
6.7
7.1
7.6
7.8
-------
5/26/93
Ldl
5/27/93
Ld2
5/28/93
Ld3
5/29/93
Ld4
5/30/93
Ld5
5/31/93
Ld6
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.9
7.8
5.5
7.4
7.9
8.0
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.1
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.9
8.0
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.9
8.1
8.1
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.8
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
8.0
8.1
B-14
-------
6/1/93 Ld7
6/2/93 Ld8
6/3/93 Ld9
6/4/93 LdlO
6/5/93 Ldll
6/6/93 Ldl2
6/7/93 Ldl3
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.1
7. 1
7.1
6.8
6.1
6.9
6.8
6.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.7
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.6
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.0
7. 1
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.5
6.9
7.5
7.3
6.7
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.4
7.0
7.4
7.4
6.2
7.3
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.6
B-15
-------
6/8/93
Ldl4
6/9/93
Ldl5
6/10/93
Ldl6
6/11/93
Ldl7
6/12/93
Ldl8
6/13/93
Ldl9
6/14/93
Ld20
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.1
6.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7. 1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.2
7.9
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.5
6.4
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.3
7.8
7.2
7.5
6.8
7.3
7.5
7.9
7.4
5.9
7.5
6.9
5.9
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.3
6.1
7.1
6.6
5.7
7.0
7.3
7.8
7.3
5.8
7.0
6.5
5.5
7.1
7.0
7.7
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.4
B-16
-------
5/25/93
SbO
5/26/93
Sbl
5/27/93
Sb2
5/28/93
Sb3
5/29/93
Sb4
5/30/93
Sb5
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
25
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.3
5.2
6.9
6.3
6.4
7.0
6.8
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.0
7. 1
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.3
5.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.7
B-17
-------
5/31/93 Sb6
6/1/93
Sb7
6/2/93
Sb8
6/3/93
Sb9
6/4/93
SblO
6/5/93
Sbll
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
7. 1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.6
7.0
7.7
7.8
6.9
7.7
7.2
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.5
B-18
-------
6/6/93
Sbl2
6/7/93
Sbl3
6/8/93
Sbl4
6/9/93
Sbl5
6/10/93
Sbl6
6/11/93 Sbl7
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.0
6.9
7. 0
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.9
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.7
7. 1
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.2
B-19
-------
6/12/93 Sbl8
6/13/93
Sbl9
6/14/93
Sb20
5/25/93
LpO
5/26/93
Lpl
5/27/93
Lp2
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
PR-MR
BB-SR
PC-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
25
24
25
24
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
6.8
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.7
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.1
6.7
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.0
7.6
7.4
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.9
7.7
7.6
6.9
7.0
7.2
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.1
7.6
7.9
6.8
7.7
6.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.9
8.0
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
B-20
-------
5/28/93
Lp3
5/29/93
Lp4
5/30/93
Lp5
5/31/93
Lp6
6/1/93
Lp7
6/2/93
Lp8
6/3/93
Lp9
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
7.0
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.2
7. 3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7. 1
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
B-21
-------
6/4/93
LplO
6/5/93
Lpll
6/6/93
Lpl2
6/7/93
Lpl3
6/8/93
Lpl4
6/9/93
Lpl5
6/10/93
Lpl6
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7. 1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
7. 1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.7
8.0
7.1
7.1
7.3
6.9
7.1
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.7
7 .6
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.1
7.5
7.8
7.3
B-22
-------
6/11/93
Lpl7
6/12/93
Lpl8
6/13/93
Lpl9
6/14/93
Lp20
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
MR-WP
MR-FM
WR-QC
WR-MH
NR-SHB
NR-B
BB-SR
PR-MC
26
26
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
26
25
25
25
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.1
.1
.2
.6
.1
.0
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
.2
.1
.0
.1
.0
.1
. 1
.1
.2
.0
.1
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.3
.2
.2
7.7
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.3
6.8
7.6
8.0
6.7
7.6
7.0
7.5
7.1
6.6
7.5
7.8
6.7
7.4
6.9
7.3
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.7
6.7
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.9
5.3
B-23
-------
APPENDIX C
Organics and pesticide data
from sediment toxicity tests
-------
ates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory.
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Wilson Point
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 42321
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-44-54
91-20-3
91-57-3
132-64-5
86-73-7
85-01-8
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
218-01-9
117-81-7
205-99-2
04/15/93
4/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.03
Compound
4-Methylphenol
Naphthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Cone.
(Mg/Kg dry)
19,2
35.0
27.9
6.9
12.2
71.0
25.0
142
149
58.9
62.0
83.8
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
J
J
J
J
J
J,B
J
J
J
J,B
J
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
«43.7
Detection
Limit
(/xg/Kg dry)
370
152
304
149
227
290
195
350
350
479
413
459
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in QC blank
C-l
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Frog Mortar
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42322
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
04/15/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.04
Compound
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
Otg/Kg dry)
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 54.0
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
91-20-3
91-57-3
132-64-5
86-73-7
85-01-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
218-01-9
117-81-7
205-99-2
Naphthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
55.8
44.6
10.9
18.7
97.9
28.1
32.7
173
184
77.6
104
115
J
J
J
J
J
J
J,B
J
J
J
J,B
J
152
304
149
227
290
265
195
350
350
479
413
459
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
C-2
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Quarter Creek
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42323
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
117-81-7
04/15/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.01
Compound
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cone.
(Mg/Kg dry)
10.9
142
21.8
23.1
74.5
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
J,B
J
J
J,B
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/tg/Kg dry
= 43.9
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
265
195
350
350
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
C-3
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Manor House
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42324
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-44-4
84-66-2
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
117-81-7
04/15/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.01
Compound
4-Methylphenol
Diethylphthalate
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cone.
(/ig/Kg dry)
541
26.5
11.7
39.7
36.5
36.6
50.6
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
J
J,B
J
J
J,B
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
«57.7
Detection
Limit
(Aig/Kg dry)
370
226
265
195
350
350
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
C-4
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Sandy Hill Beach
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 42325
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
56-55-3
117-81-7
04/15/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.05
Compound
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cone.
(/xg/Kg dry)
25.0
39.8
59.8
60.1
19.4
42.9
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
J,B
J
J
J
J,B
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
jig/Kg dry
«63.0
Detection
Limit
Oig/Kg dry)
265
195
350
350
587
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
C-5
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Bivalve
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 42326
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
84-66-2
84-74-2
129-00-0
56-55-3
117-81-7
04/15/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.08
Compound Cone.
(Mi/Kg dr
Dithylphthalate 15.2
Di-n-butylphthalate 23.8
Pyrene 19. 1
Benzo( A) Anthracene 13.6
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 33.1
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
y)
]
J,B
J
J
J,B
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
Hg/Kg dry
= 35.2
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
226
195
350
587
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
C-6
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Poropatank
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42327
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-44-5
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
117-81-7
04/08/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.05
Compound
4-Methylphenol
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cone.
(Atg/Kg dry)
139
39.0
20.2
24.3
99.6
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
J,B
J
J
J,B
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/xg/Kg dry
= 59.3
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
370
195
350
350
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-7
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Mud
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42328
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
84-66-2
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
117-81-7
205-99-2
04/08/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.08
Compound
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Cone.
Og/Kg dry)
25.2
32.8
56.1
49.3
119
37.3
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J
B
J
J
J,B
J
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
Hg/Kg dry
«53.3
Detection
Limit
(Hg/Kg dry)
226
195
350
350
413
459
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-8
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
84-74-2
117-81-7
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Sand
04/08/93
04/16/93
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.09
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
Di-n-butylphthalate 32.8
Bis(20ethylhexyl)phthalate 38.2
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
B,J
B,J
MAES
42329
04/30/93
06/15/93
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 19.1
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
195
413
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-9
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-46-7
84-74-2
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Manor House
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.06
Compound
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
(/tg/Kg dry)
226 J,B
11.8 J
MAES
41273
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 57.58
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
241
195
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-10
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Datf*Q<
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-46-7
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Quarter Creek
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.05
Compound
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
0*g/Kg dry)
194 J,B
MAES
41274
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
jig/Kg dry
= 57.91
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
241
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-ll
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-46-7
84-74-2
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Frog Mortar
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.15
Compound
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
Gig/Kg dry)
163 J,B
20.2 J
MAES
41275
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 49.01
Detection
Limit
(jig/Kg dry)
241
195
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-12
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-46-7
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Wilson Point
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.05
Compound
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
(/ig/Kg dry)
94.3 J,B
MAES
41276
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/xg/Kg dry
«40.78
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
241
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-13
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
84-74-2
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Bivalve
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.13
Compound
Di-n-butylphthalate
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
(/xg/Kg dry)
7.6 J
MAES
41277
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/xg/Kg dry
= 41.60
Detection
Limit
(pig/Kg dry)
195
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-14
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
106-46-7
84-74-2
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Sandy Hill Beach
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.03
Compound
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
Og/Kg dry)
121 J,B
10.5 J
MAES
41278
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
«61.54
Detection
Limit
(Hg/Kg dry)
241
195
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-15
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
106-46-7
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Mud
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
41279
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
PJM
Sediment
30.06
Compound
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
dug/Kg dry)
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
jig/Kg dry
= 52.10
Detection
Limit
Oig/Kg dry)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
125
J,B
241
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-16
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
106-46-7
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Sand
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 41280
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
10/07/92
10/08/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.04
Compound
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
(/ig/Kg dry)
10/13/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 22.39
Detection
Limit
(Aig/Kg dry)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
102
J,B
241
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-17
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Poropatank
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 41417
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
10/14/92
10/15/92
EPA 8270
RJM
Sediment
30.05
Compound
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Cone. Tag
(/ig/Kg dry)
10/20/92
10/29/92
INCOS 50
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 69.16
Detection
Limit
(/tg/Kg dry)
None detected
N/A - not applicable
J - Compound detected below the calculated method detection limit.
B - Compound detected in blank
C-18
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory: Organics
Project ID: Ambient Toxicity
Sample ID: Manor House
Dates:
Collected: 10/07/92
Received: 10/12/92
Method: Modified 3550/8080/8140
Analyst: SGM
Matrix: Sediment
Sample w/v: 30.18
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
MAES
41273
10/14/92
10/23/92
Instrument: PE Autosystem
Data Released By: T.L. Price Jr
Units:
% Moisture:
/xg/Kg dry
= 57.58
CAS No.
Compound
Cone.
Oig/Kg dry)
Tag
Detection
Limit
Gig/Kg dry)
50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 27.7
1031-07-8 Endosulfan Sulfate 9.03
U
B,U
3.83
0.66
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-19
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Quarter Creek
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.46
Compound Cone.
(Kg/Kg dry)
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
MAES
41274
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
^g/Kg dry
==57.91
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
1031-07-8
Endosulfan Sulfate
23.2
B,U
0.66
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-20
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory: Organics
Project ID: Ambient Toxicity
Sample ID: Frog Mortar
Dates:
Collected: 10/07/92
Received: 10/12/92
Method: Modified 3550/8080/8140
Analyst: SGM
Matrix: Sediment
Sample w/v: 30.15
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
MAES
41275
10/14/92
10/23/92
Instrument: PE Autosystem
Data Released By: T.L. Price Jr
Units:
% Moisture:
/xg/Kg dry
= 49.01
CAS No.
Compound
(/ig/Kg dry)
Cone.
Tag
Detection
Limit
(/tg/Kg dry)
72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 1.65
1031-07-8 Endosulfan Sulfate 4.91
C
B,U
0.594
0.66
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-21
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory: Organics
Project ID: Ambient Toxicity
Sample ID: Wilson Point
Dates:
Collected: 10/07/92
Received: 10/12/92
Method: Modified 3550/8080/8140
Analyst: SGM
Matrix: Sediment
Sample w/v: 30.07
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
MAES
41276
10/14/92
10/23/92
Instrument: PE Autosystem
Data Released By: T.L. Price Jr
Units:
% Moisture:
/xg/Kg dry
= 40.78
CAS No.
Compound
(/ig/Kg dry)
Cone.
Tag
Detection
Limit
Oxg/Kg dry)
959-98-8 Endosulfan I 10.7
1031-07-8 Endosulfan Sulfate 4.91
U
B,U
0.99
0.66
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-22
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
309-00-2
959-98-8
1031-07-8
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Bivalve
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.61
Compound Cone.
(jig/Kg dry)
Aldrin 5.04
Endosulfan I 8.49
Endosulfan Sulfate 3.13
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal'
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
C
U
B,U
MAES
41277
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/xg/Kg dry
= 41.60
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
0.66
0.99
0.66
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-23
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
76-44-8
959-98-8
1031-07-8
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Sandy Hill Beach
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.11
Compound Cone.
(/tg/Kg dry)
Heptachlor 0.465
Endosulfan I 12.2
Endosulfan Sulfate 3.30
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,U
U
B,U
MAES
41278
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
= 61.54
Detection
Limit
Oig/Kg dry)
0.924
0.990
0.660
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-24
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory: Organics
Project ID: Ambient Toxicity
Sample ID: Manor House
Dates:
Collected: 10/07/92
Received: 10/12/92
Method: Modified 3550/8080/8140
Analyst: SGM
Matrix: Sediment
Sample w/v: 30.18
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
MAES
41273
10/14/92
10/23/92
Instrument: PE Autosystem
Data Released By: T.L. Price Jr
Units:
% Moisture:
fig/Kg dry
= 57.58
CAS No.
Compound
(fig/Kg dry)
Cone.
Tag
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
50-29-3 4,4-DDT 27.7
1031-07-8 Endosulfan Sulfate 9.03
U
B,U
3.83
0.660
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-25
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
1031-07-8
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Quarter Creek
Contractor: MAES
Sample No.: 41274
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.46
Compound Cone.
(Mg/Kg dry)
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
==57.91
Detection
Limit
(tig/Kg dry)
Endosulfan Sulfate
23.2
B,U
0.660
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-26
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
391-85-7
309-00-2
1031-07-8
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Mud
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.01
Compound Cone.
(ftg/Kg dry)
beta-BHC 5.57
Aldrin 5.60
Endosulfan Sulfate 2.71
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal;
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
C
U
B,U
MAES
41279
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/xg/Kg dry
= 52.10
Detection
Limit
(jigJKg dry)
0.627
0.660
0.660
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-27
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Sand
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
41280
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
10/07/92
10/12/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.02
Compound Cone.
(Mg/Kg dry)
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
10/14/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
«22.39
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
309-00-2
Aldrin
4.44
U
0.660
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-28
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Poropatank
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
41417
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
391-86-8
1024-57-3
10/14/92
10/19/92
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.04
Compound Cone.
(/xg/Kg dry)
delta-BHC 8.35
Heptachlor Epoxide 2.26
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
U
C
10/21/92
10/23/92
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/ig/Kg dry
= 69.16
Detection
Limit
Oig/Kg dry)
0.693
0.627
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compoi
und confirmed by secondary GC column anal;
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-29
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Wilson Point
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42321
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
58-89-9
72-55-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.03
Compound
Lindane
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
Cone.
0*g/Kg dry)
0.00414
0.0473
0.375
0.129
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal'
Extracted: 04/26/93
Analyzed: 05/24/93
Instrument: PE Autosystem
Data Released By: T.L. Price Jr
Units: Mg/Kg dry
% Moisture: «43.70
Detection
Tag Limit
(/xg/Kg dry)
J,C 1.19
J,C 0.594
J,U 0.528
J.U 0.660
/sis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
030
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Frog Mortar
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42322
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
72-55-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
72-43-5
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.02
Compound
4,4'-DDE
4,4 '-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
U - Compound not confirmed by
C - Compound confirmed by sec(
Cone.
(/xg/Kg dry)
0.0434
0.0366
0.124
0.0525
secondary GC analysis
andary GC column anal;
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,C
J,u
J,U
J,u
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
^g/Kg dry
= 54.00
Detection
Limit
(/xg/Kg dry)
0.594
0.528
0.660
50.0
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-31
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v.
CAS No.
72-55-9
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Quarter Creek
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.06
Compound Cone.
(yug/Kg dry)
4,4'-DDE 0.0434
Endosulfan II 0.0125
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.0641
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,c
J,u
J,c
MAES
42323
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
= 43.90
Detection
Limit
(/xg/Kg dry)
0.594
0.825
0.660
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-32
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
391-84-6
1024-57-3
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Manor House
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.04
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
alpha-BHC 0.00658
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0186
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.0711
Endrin Kepone 0.0131
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal;
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,U
J,U
J,c
B.J.U
MAES
42324
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
/Kg/Kg dry
= 57.70
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
0.0792
0.627
0.660
0.825
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-33
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
72-54-8
1031-07-8
72-43-5
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Sandy Hill Beach
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.10
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
4,4'-DDD 0.0126
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.0561
Methoxychlor 0.0269
Contractor:
Sample No. :
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,U
J,c
J,C
MAES
42325
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
^g/Kg dry
=63.00
Detection
Limit
(Mg/Kg dry)
0.528
0.660
50.0
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compoi
und confirmed by secondary GC column anal;
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-34
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Bivalve
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42326
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
04/15/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.05
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
= 35.20
Detection
Limit
0*g/Kg dry)
1031-07-8
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0895
J,C
0.660
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-35
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
1031-07-8
53494-70-5
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Poropatank
04/08/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.19
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.0683
Endrin Kepone 0.00203
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,C
J,C
MAES
42327
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
«59.30
Detection
Limit
(jig/Kg dry)
0.660
0.825
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-36
-------
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
72-55-9
53494-70-5
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Mud
04/12/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.06
Compound Cone.
Gig/Kg dry)
4,4'-DDE 0.00200
Endrin Kepone 0.00582
Contractor:
Sample No.:
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,U
J,U,B
MAES
42328
04/26/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
= 53.30
Detection
Limit
(/ig/Kg dry)
0.594
0.825
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-37
-------
Laboratory:
Project ID:
Sample ID:
Dates:
AMRL
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
IDENTIFIED PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
Organics
Ambient Toxicity
Lynnhaven Sand
Contractor:
Sample No.:
MAES
42329
Collected:
Received:
Method:
Analyst:
Matrix:
Sample w/v:
CAS No.
58-89-9
33213-65-9
04/09/93
04/16/93
Modified 3550/8080/8140
SGM
Sediment
30.12
Compound Cone.
Otg/Kg dry)
Lindane 0.00645
Endosulfan II 0.00826
U - Compound not confirmed by secondary GC analysis
C - Compound confirmed by secondary GC column anal;
Extracted:
Analyzed:
Instrument:
Data Released
Units:
% Moisture:
Tag
J,C
J,u
04/23/93
05/24/93
PE Autosystem
By: T.L. Price Jr
Mg/Kg dry
= 19.10
Detection
Limit
Gtg/Kg dry)
1.19
0.825
ysis, 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.
B - Retention time match to component in QC blank primary GC column analysis
C-38
------- |