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

-------