EPA903-R-97-C11
                           CBP/TRS 172/97
                             April 1997
 A Pilot Study for Ambient
          Toxicity Testing in
            Chesapeake Bay


                Year 4 Report
                    EPA Report Collection
                    Regional Center for Environmental Information
                    U.S. EPA Region III
                    Philadelphia, PA 19103
Chesapeake Bay Program
PniutJ on rtncled paprr

-------
^°r%
  1650 Arch St

-------
               A Pilot Study for
          Ambient Toxicity Testing
             in Chesapeake Bay

                Year 4 Report
             University of Maryland System
            Agricultural Experiment Station
          Wye Research and Education Center
               Old Dominion University
                  College of Sciences
          Applied Marine Research Laboratory
        Maryland Department of the Environment
               Chesapeake Bay Program
             410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
              Annapolis, Maryland 21403
                   1-800-YOUR-BAY
            http://www.epa.gov/chesapeake
                                U.S. EPA Region III
                                Regional Center for Environmental
                                 Information
                                1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
                                Philadelphia, PA 19103
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
                            FOREWORD

     This study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of water column and
sediment  toxicity  tests.    A  team  of   scientists   from two
Chesapeake Bay research laboratories and Maryland Department of
the Environment  worked jointly  to  complete this goal.    Water
column  toxicity  studies  and  overall  project management was
directed by  the University of Maryland's Agricultural Experiment
Station.  Sediment  toxicity tests and selected  sediment  chemistry
was managed by Old Dominion University Applied Marine Research
Laboratory.     Maryland   Department  of  the   Environment  was
responsible  for  selected  sediment  chemistry.    This  report
summarizes  data from  the  fourth year  of a  four-year ambient
toxicity testing program.  The following government agencies were
responsible for  supporting  and/or  managing this research:  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency  and Maryland  Department of the
Environment.

-------
                             ABSTRACT

     Data presented in this report were collected during the fourth
year of a research program designed  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  of  1994
at  six stations  in  Baltimore  Harbor  (Patapsco  River)  and  two
stations each in  the Sassafras, Magothy  and Severn Rivers.   The
toxicity of ambient estuarine water was assessed at all  stations by
using  the  following  estuarine  tests:  8  day  larval  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  two  different  48  hour
coot  clam,  Mulinia lateralis  embryo/larval  tests.   Toxicity  of
ambient estuarine  sediment was  determined by using the following
tests:  10  day  sheepshead  minnow  embryo-larval  test;   20   day
survival,  growth and reburial test with the amphipods Leptacheirus
plumulosus and  Lepidactylus dytiscus and  20  day polychaete worm,
Streblospio benedicti  survival and growth test.   Both inorganic and
organic  contaminants  were assessed  in  ambient  sediment   and
inorganic contaminants were measured in ambient water concurrently
with toxicity testing to assess  "possible" causes  of toxicity.
     Both  univariate  and   multivariate  (using   all  endpoints)
statistical techniques were used to analyze  the water column and
sediment toxicity data.  Results from univariate water column tests
with sheepshead minnows,  grass  shrimp and Eurytemora  showed  that
survival was not significantly reduced at  any of  the stations  when
compared with  the  controls.   Growth of  sheepshead  minnows  was
significantly reduced  at the Sassafras-Betterton  site but there
were no effects on growth at any of  the other 11  stations.   Growth
of grass shrimp and reproductive endpoints for Eurytemora were not
significantly reduced  at  any of the stations.  Percent normal shell
development  of  the coot clam  was  significantly  reduced  at  the
following  stations  during the  first  test:   Sassafras   River-
Betterton,   Sassafras  River-Turner  Creek, Baltimore  Harbor-Bear
Creek,  Baltimore   Harbor-Curtis Bay,  Baltimore  Harbor-   Middle
Branch, Baltimore Harbor-Northwest Branch, Baltimore Harbor-Outer
Harbor, Magothy River-Gibson Island, Severn River-50\301 Bridge and

                                ii

-------
Severn  River-Annapolis  Sailing School.   During test  2,  percent
normal  shell  development was  significantly reduced at  only the
Magothy  River-South  Ferry  station.   Results  from  multivariate
analysis using  endpoints  (survival,  growth and reproduction) for
all  water  column  tests  combined showed  significant differences
between the control  and  test conditions  at  all  sites  except the
Magothy River-South Ferry and the Baltimore Harbor-Curtis Bay  site.
In most cases, however, the toxicity  at these ten sites was judged
to  be  low  to  moderate  from  an  ecological perspective.  Metals
measured  at all stations were generally  low; only a copper  value
of 3.85 ug/L  at Baltimore Harbor-Bear Creek exceeded  the U. S. EPA
marine water quality criteria. The Maryland estuarine criteria of
6.1 ug/L was not exceeded.
     Results  from  univariate analysis  of  sediment  toxicity data
showed that sites within Baltimore Harbor (Patapsco River) produced
the greatest toxicological  effects of   the 1994 sites.  All of the
Baltimore Harbor sediments exceeded the Effects Range-Median  (ER-
Ms) for dibenzo (a,h)  anthracene as well as the metals,  lead, zinc
and chromium.   Nearly 100 percent mortality occurred in some test
organisms  at  the  Northwest Harbor  and Bear  Creek  sites.   The
Sassafras River sites showed moderate  toxicity, with the Betterton
site  sediments  resulting in  significant  effects in both  the L.
dytiscus and  S. benedicti  tests.  The ER-Ms were exceeded at the
Betterton site for  nickel and lead.  In the Magothy River, moderate
toxic effects were observed at both  sites, however Gibson Island
resulted in slightly greater mortality.   Gibson Island sediment
also exceeded the  ER-M for  lead by nearly 25 times.   South  Ferry
also exceeded the  Effects  Range Low  (ER-Ls)  for several metals.
The Severn River sites   showed toxicity at the Annapolis site in
two species,  while  only S.  benedicti  produced significant toxicity
at the Route 50 site.  The Annapolis sediment exceeded the ER-M for
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.    The  multivariate analysis of  the 1994
sediment data  indicated  that the  Sassafras  River  displayed no
significant overall  toxic  effect.   The  Magothy  sites exhibited
slight to moderate  toxicity, particularly  at the South River  site.
The Annapolis site on the Severn River  also displayed significant
but moderately  low toxicity.  The Baltimore  Harbor  sites showed
various degrees of toxicity from slight  (Outer  Harbor)  to  quite
high  (Bear Creek,  Northwest  Harbor), with moderate toxicity at
Sparrows Point, Middle Branch  and Curtis  Bay.
                               111

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                             Page
Foreword

Abstract
 Table of Contents ....................... iv

 1.    Introduction ......................  1-1

 2.    Objectives .......................  2-1

 3.    Methods  ........................  3-1

      3.1  Study Areas ....................  3-1
      3.2  Water Column Toxicity Tests ............  3-4
           3.2.1     Test Species  ..............  3-4
           3.2.2     Test Procedures .............  3-5
           3.2.3     Statistical Analysis   ..........  3-5
           3.2.4     Sample Collection,  Handling  and
                      Storage  ................  3-5
           3.2.5     Quality Assurance ............  3-6
           3.2.6     Contaminant Analysis and Water
                      Quality Evaluations   ..........  3-6
      3.3  Sediment Toxicity Tests ..............  3-7
           3.3.1     Test Species  ..............  3-7
           3.3.2     Test Procedures .............  3-7
           3.3.3     Statistical Analysis of Sediment
                      Data ..................  3-9
           3.3.4     Sample Collection,  Handling  and
                      Storage  ...............  3-12
           3.3.5     Quality Assurance ...........  3-12
           3.3.6     Contaminant and Sediment Quality
                      Evaluations  .............  3-13
      3.4  Analysis of 4  Year Data Base  ..........  3-16

 4.    Results  ........................  4-1

      4.1  Water Column Toxicity Tests ............  4-1

                                iv

-------
Table of Contents - continued                                Page

          4.1.1     Toxicity Data	- 4-1
          4.1.2     Contaminants Data	4-1
          4.1.3     Water Quality  Data	4-9
          4.1.4     Reference Toxicant Data	4-9
     4.2  Sediment Tests	4-9
          4.2.1     Toxicity Data	4-9
          4.2.2     Contaminants Data	4-19
          4.2.3     Pore Water Data	4-26
          4.2.4     Reference Toxicant Data	4-28

5.   Discussion	5-1

     5.1  Patapsco River	5-1
     5.2  Sassafras River	5-2
     5.3  Magothy River	5-3
     5.4  Severn River	5-4

6.   Analysis of Four Year Data Base	6-1
     6.1  Water Column Toxicity 	 6-1
     6.2  Sedidment Toxicity  	  6-10

7.   Recommendations	7-1

8.   References	8-1

     Appendices

          Appendix A
               Water quality conditions reported in test
               chambers during all water column tests.
               Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus
               (Cv),Eurytemora affinis (Ea),  Palaemonetes
               pugio (Pp)  and Mulinia lateralis (ML) .

          Appendix B
               Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds
               data from sediment toxicity tests.

-------
                             SECTION  1

                           INTRODUCTION

      The unique physical, chemical and biological characteristics
 of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  watershed  provides  habitat for  numerous
 aquatic  species.    Decline  of  various living  resources such  as
 submerged  aquatic vegetation,  anadromous fish  and the  American
 oyster has  been an area  of  concern  in recent years  (Majumdar  et
 al.,  1987).   Possible causes  of  these  declining resources  are
 fishing pressure,   nutrient enrichment, disease and pollution.   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.   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.  For the  purposes
 of this report,  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 an ongoing ambient toxicity monitoring program

                               1-1

-------
 (1990-1994).   Objectives from the first  three years of this effort
have been completed and reports have been published  (Hall et al.,
1991; Hall et al., 1992; Hall et al., 1994).
     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
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 as a spectrum of tests was needed to maximize our ability
to  identify  toxic conditions  in  the ambient environment  of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Suborganismal testing was not continued
after the frist two years.
     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
 (Hall et al., 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.
     Ambient toxicity  tests  for year three  were conducted at the
following locations during the fall of 1992 and  the spring of  1993:
Wye River - Manor  House, Wye River - Quarter  Creek, Nanticoke River
- Sandy Hill Beach, Nanticoke River - Bivalve Harbor, Middle River
- Frog Mortar and Middle River - Wilson Point.  Results from water
column testing  with  the coot clam  showed  consistent toxicity at
both  Middle  River  stations  during the  fall  and spring tests.

                                1-2

-------
 Concentrations  of copper,  lead, nickel and zinc were  reported  to
 exceed the EPA recommended  chronic marine water quality criteria  at
 one of the stations (Wilson Point).  The concentration of copper  at
 Frog Mortar Creek was below Maryland's acute estuarine criteria but
 exceeded EPA's recommended  marine acute criteria.  In addition, the
 concentration  of  nickel  at  Frog  Mortar  Creek  exceeded  EPA's
 recommended  marine chronic criteria.  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
 or  elevated  contaminants were  not  reported at  any of the  other
 sites with the water  column tests.
     Results  from  sediment toxicity testing  during  year  three
 showed a significant  reduction  in growth  for L. plumulosus  at the
 Nanticoke  -  Sandy Hill Beach site during the fall  of  1992.  Three
 times the  Effects Range-Low (ER-L)  for  mercury was found at this
 site.    Although  below  sediment  ER-Ls,   several  organics and
 pesticides were  also  confirmed at  this  site.   Elevated  levels  of
 unionized ammonia were 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.
 Concentrations of metals 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   (acid volitile  sulfides/simultaneous
extractable metals)data  indicated  the  lack of  bioavailability  of
these metals.   The contaminant  4,4-DDE was  also detected at the
 Frog Mortar site during the  fall sampling.   The purpose of  this
report  is  to present data  from the  fourth year  of testing and
 summarize all information collected  over the four year period using
a composite index approach  (multivariate  analysis)  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
 fourth year of testing; therefore, the first year report by Hall  et

                                1-3

-------
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  detail in Hall  et al.  (1994).
The goals of this  study  were  to conduct four water column and four
sediment  toxicity tests on  a broader spatial   scale  than  the
previous  efforts.   Water column  and sediment toxicity tests were
conducted at six  stations  in the Patapsco River and two stations
each  in  the  Sassafras, Magothy  and  Severn  Rivers.   Inorganic
contaminants were  evaluated in water and both organic and inorganic
contaminants were evaluated in sediment during these experiments.
                                1-4

-------
                            SECTION 2

                            OBJECTIVES

     This ambient toxicity study was a continuation of a research
effort previously conducted for three 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 fourth  year of this study were
to:
     •    assess  the toxicity of  ambient  estuarine  water  and
          sediment during the fall of 1994 at six stations in the
          Patapsco River and two stations  each in the Sassafras,
          Magothy and Severn Rivers of the Chesapeake Bay;

     •    determine  the  toxicity  of  ambient  estuarine  water
          described in the first objective by using the following
          estuarine  tests:  8  day  larval  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 tests;

     •    evaluate the  toxicity of  ambient sediment  described in
          the first  objective  by  using  the following estuarine
          tests: 10 day sheepshead  minnow  embryo-larval test;  20
          day amphipod, Lepidactylus  dytiscus and  Leptocheirus
          plumulosus survival,  growth and reburial test and 20 day
          polychaete worm,  Streblospio  benedicti  survival  and
          growth test;

     •    measure  inorganic contaminants  in  ambient  water  and
          organic   and   inorganic   contaminants   in   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;
                               2-1

-------
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 over
four years   using   a composite index approach for each
site.
                      2-2

-------
                             SECTION  3

                             METHODS

3.1  Study Areas
     Study  areas  were selected  to represent either  historically
impacted  locations,  locations of  unknown impact or  ecologically
important  areas  (Figures  3.1  and  3.2).  These  figures show  the
relationship of these  12 sites with  other areas  in  the  Chesapeake
Bay.  The  Sassafras   River  was   selected   because  it  is    an
ecologically important environment (e.g.  spawning area for striped
bass) with some documented potentially toxic organic conditions in
the  sediments  (Eskin et al., 1996).  Specific sites selected were
Betterton  (SASBT)  (39° 22 27 N  x 76° 03 01 W)  and  Turner  Creek
(SASTC)  (39° 21 47 N X 75° 59 03 W).
     The Magothy River was  selected to represent a highly urbanized
area with very few point sources. Potentially toxic organics have
also been reported in  this river by  Eskin et al.  (1996).  However,
due  to   limited   background  data  the  possible   influence   of
contaminants on  this system is  unknown.  Specific  locations were
near Gibson Island (MAGGI) (39°  03  36  N  x  76°  26 06 W)  and North of
South Ferry Point  (MAGSF)  (39° 04 36 N x  76° 30 05 W).
     The  Severn  River was  selected because  it  has  a  few  point
sources and potentially toxic orgnic compounds have been reported
in  the  sediment  of  this  river  (Eskin  et  al.  1996).  Limited
background  data  are   available  in  this  river  to  determine  if
contaminant problems  exist.   Locations selected for ambient testing
in this river were near the 50/301 Bridge  (SEV50)(39° 00 20 N x 76°
30 24 W)  and near the Eastport  sailing  school in  Annapolis (SEVAP)
(38° 58 01 N X 76° 28 18  W).
     The six sites in  the  Patapsco River (Baltimore  Harbor) were
selected due to previous contaminant problems reported  during  our
first and  second  year of  ambient toxicity  testing  (Hall et  al.
1991; Hall et al.,  1992). Five of these sites were used by Maryland
Department of the  Environment for their benthic monitoring program.
Therefore,  our ambient  data can  be  compared  with  the  benthic
community data to provide an overall assessment  of  the  ecological
status of  these  sites. Specific sites used for  ambient  toxicity
testing were as follows: Sparrows  Point  (BHSPT)(39° 12  29 N x  76°
30 27 W) ,  Outer  Harbor (BHOTH) (39°  12 32 N x  76°  31 29 W) , Bear
Creek (BHBCR)(39°  14  09 N x 76° 29 46 W),  Curtis Bay (BHCUB)(39° 12
23 N x 76° 34 49 W),  Lower  Middle  Branch  (BHMBR)(39° 15  10 N x  76°
35 18 W)  and Northwest Branch  (BHNWB)(39° 16 36  N x 76°  34 27  W).

                               3-1

-------
Figure 3.1
Sampling  locations were Sassafras  River-Betterton,
Sassafras  River-Turner  Creek/  Magothy  River-South
Ferry,  Magothy River-Gibson Island,  Severn River-
Annapolis  and Severn River-Route 50.
   South Ferry
    Junction Route 50
        Annapolis
                                                         Betterton
                                        Turner Creek
                                                      Gibson Island
                                         Lynnhtvtn
                                      'RFOLK'J
                                 3-2

-------
 Figure 3.2
Sampling locations in the Patapsco River (Baltimore
Harbor) were: Northwest Harbor,  Bear Creek,  Curtis
Bay, Sparrows Point, Middle Branch and Outer Habor.
Northwest Harbor
      Curtis Bay
    Middle Branch
                  ^iteimsSyfezsK *
                                                 Bear Creek
                                 Sparrows Point
                                                Outer Harbor
                              3-3

-------
3.2  Water Column Toxicity Tests
     The objectives  of the water  column toxicity  tests  were to
determine  the  toxicity  of  ambient  water  at  the  12  stations
described  above.  The  following tests  were  conducted at  these
stations during the  fall  of  1994:  8  day larval 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
copepoda E. affinis have been used in the previous three years of
ambient toxicity testing.  These test species were selected because
they meet most of the following criteria:  (1) resident Chesapeake
Bay species,  (2)  sensitive to contaminants  in  short time period
(less  than 10 d)  and  (3) standard  test organism  that  does not
require additional research.   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  (Hall  et  al.   1994).  Both
sheepshead minnows and grass  shrimp are  commonly used  in EPA's and
MDE's Whole  Effluent Toxicity Testing Program.  E.  affinis is an
extremely  abundant,  resident Chesapeake  Bay  zooplankton species
that  is sensitive  to  contaminants.    We  recently  developed   a
Standard Operating Procedure for this species that was used for
these tests  (Ziegenfuss and Hall,  1994).
     The coot clam,  M.  lateralis,  was a new species added to the
suite of test organisms  during the third year of ambient toxicity
testing.  This clam is a small (< 2 cm length) euryhaline bivalve.
It is a numerically dominant species in the mesohaline areas of the
Chesapeake Bay as well as numerous tributaries (Shaughnessy  et al.,
1990).   Embryo/larval development occurs  in the water column in
approximately  6-8 days.   It  is,  therefore, suitable  for water
column testing because the sensitive life 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

                                3-4

-------
 Petrocelli,  1990a;  1990b).

      3.2.2   Test  Procedures
      Test  procedures and culture methods previously  described in
 the year 1 report for  the  8  day  larval  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  test  procedures  for  the  coot  clam  described in
 the year 3 report were also used  for these experiments (Hall et al.
 1994) .    The  sources  for  the  four  species  were  as  follows:
 sheepshead minnows, Aquatic  Biosystems,  Denver, Colorado;  grass
 shrimp, S.P.  Engineering and Technology,  Salem,  Massachusetts; E.
 affinis, in-house cultures  (orginally from University of Maryland -
 Chesapeake  Biological  Laboratory)   and  coot  clams  (U.  S.  EPA
 Laboratory in Narragansett,  Rhode Island).
     3.2.3  Statistical Analysis
     Univariate statistical tests  described in Fisher et al.  (1988)
were used for each test species when appropriate.  The goal of this
study was not to generate typical  LC50 data  with various dilutions
of ambient water.   For each test species response, control and test
conditions  (100 percent ambient water) were compared  using  a one-
way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).  A statistical  difference between
the response  of a species  exposed  to a  control condition  and  an
ambient  condition  was  used  to   determine  toxicity.   Dunnett's
(parametric)  or Dunn's  (non-parametric)  mean testing  procedures
were used  in  cases where  comparisons  of  a  species response  on a
spatial scale was necessary.

     3.2.4  Sample Collection, Handling and Storage
     Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the
previous pilot study  were implemented  (Hall et al.,  1991). Ambient
water was collected from all study areas  and taken  to  our toxicity
testing  facility  at  the  Wye Research and  Education Center,
Queenstown, Maryland  for testing.
     Grab samples  were used because  they are easier to  collect,
require minimum equipment  (no composite  samplers), instantaneous
toxicity  is evaluated,  and  toxicity spikes  are  not  masked  by
dilution.  Grab samples collected from each station represented a
composite, of  the water  column (top,  mid-depth and  bottom).   A
metering pump  with teflon line was used to collect samples in 13.25
L glass containers.

                               3-5

-------
     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 less 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 three  years of  ambient  toxicity
testing study. The control water used  for  these experiments was
obtained from a pristine area of  the Choptank River.  The water was
autoclaved and filtered with  a  1  um filter.  Hawaiian (HW)  Marine
sea salts were used to salinity adjust samples to  15 ppt.  The pH
was also adjusted to 7.5 to 8.0 after salinity adjustment.
     Acute  reference  toxicant  tests  with cadmium  chloride  were
conducted with the same stocks of species used for ambient toxicity
tests.   Cadmium  chloride  was selected  as the reference toxicant
because there is  an established data base with this chemical for
all of the proposed tests.  Reference toxicity tests were used to
establish the  validity of  ambient toxicity data  generated  from
toxicity  tests   by ensuring  that  the  test  species showed  the
expected toxic response to  cadmium chloride  (Fisher et al.,  1988).
The reference toxicant tests  were conducted on each test species
and source  (of  species) once during this study using procedures
described in Hall et al.,  1991.

     3.2.6  Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
     The  contaminant   analyses  used for  these  studies  provided
limited information on  selected contaminants that may  be present in
the study areas.   It  was  not our  intention to  suggest  that the
proposed analysis for  inorganic   contaminants  would provide an
absolute "cause and effect relationship" between contaminants and
biological  effects if effects were  reported.    Information on
suspected contaminants in  the study areas  may,  however, provide
valuable  insights if  high potentially  toxic  concentrations of
inorganic contaminants  were reported in conjunction  with biological

                               3-6

-------
effects.
     Aqueous samples for analysis of inorganic contaminants listed
in  Table 3.1 were  collected during the  ambient toxicity  tests.
These  contaminants and  methods for their  measurement have  been
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  3.1.    Total inorganic
contaminant analysis were conducted on  filtered samples using  0.40
um polycarbonate membranes. The Applied Marine Research Laboratory
of Old Dominion University was responsible for inorganic analysis.
     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
twelve  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
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 six sites  in  the
Patapsco River (Bear Creek,  Curtis Creek, Middle Branch, Northwest
Harbor,  Outer  Harbor  and  Sparrows  Point),  two  sites   in   the
Sassafras River  (Betterton, Turner Creek), two sites in the Magothy

                               3-7

-------
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water
          samples.  The  following  abbreviations are used:  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
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method #
206
213
218
220
239
245
249
270
200
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
.3
.7
Reference
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
                                3-8

-------
River  (South Ferry,  Gibson  Island),  and  two  sites  from  the  Severn
River  (Junction Route  50, Annapolis).  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.
       Because  of the  large range in  particle  size between  test
sites  observed in past  studies, two  reference sediments were used
with each organism per  test.  These  reference sediments bracketed
the sediment particle sizes found  at  the  selected test sites.   For
example, 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.  benedict!  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 (97.55 percent sand)  and  Poropatank sediment  (1.14
percent  sand)  bracket  the particle  size of  all test samples  and
were therefore considered suitable as reference  sediments  as  well.
The test sediment  samples  were  also  analyzed for  sand,  silt,  and
clay  content,  and  the particle  size/composition  of   the  test
sediments (Table 3.2) were quite variable even  between replicates
at the same site.
     The culture  and  maintenance procedures used for the  polychaete
S. benedicti the  amphipod  Lepidactylus dytiscus are described in
Hall et  al.  (1991).   Leptocheirus plumulosus and  the sheepshead
minnow egg tests are described  in Hall et al. 1994.

     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

                                3-9

-------
Table 3.2   Particle  size  analysis  of  sediments  from  Twelve  stations  and
            references and controls used in toxicity tests.   Samples collected
            10/6-10/7/94.
Station
Annapolis Rl
Annapolis R2
Annapolis R3
Annapolis R4
Annapolis R5
Betterton Rl
Betterton R2
Betterton R3
Betterton R4
Betterton R5
Bear Creek Rl
Bear Creek R2
Bear Creek R3
Bear Creek R4
Bear Creek R5
Curtis Bay Rl
Curtis Bay R2
Curtis Bay R3
Curtis Bay R4
Curtis Bay R5
Gibson Island Rl
Gibson Island R2
Gibson Island R3
Gibson Island R4
Gibson Island R5
Junction Rt 50 Rl
Junction Rt 50 R2
Junction Rt 50 R3
Junction Rt 50 R4
Junction Rt 50 R5
Outer Harbor Rl
Outer Harbor R2
Outer Harbor R3
Outer Harbor R4
Outer Harbor R5
Middle Branch Rl
Middle Branch R2
% Sand
42.80
26.74
18.56
38.64
21.62
9.16
4.74
8.85
7.70
4.18
81.66
23.06
10.99
8.66
2.59
16.53
33.21
3.02
8.46
2.06
94.61
94.34
30.95
24.75
15.72
45.57
10.02
8.22
5.93
6.69
2.90
2.32
7.03
1.67
2.85
7.33
6.98
% Silt
35.61
46.62
52.75
37.72
49.57
65.92
66.52
65.30
66.46
69.93
11.40
53.84
56.50
63.48
74.25
50.54
40.51
65.50
54.68
64.40
3.00
3.04
43.60
47.42
53.36
33.65
54.59
55.42
56.16
55.66
57.57
58.89
54.69
60.39
55.95
63.59
64.39
% Clay
21.60
26.63
28.69
23.63
28.81
24.91
28.72
25.85
25.84
25.89
6.93
23.10
32.52
27.86
23.17
32.92
26.27
31.48
36.86
33.54
2.39
2.62
25.45
27.83
30.93
20.78
35.38
36.35
37.90
37.65
39.53
38.79
38.28
37.94
41.20
29.08
28.62
                                      3-10

-------
Table 3.2(con't) Particle size analysis of  sediments  from  Twelve  stations and
                 references  and  controls  used  in  toxicity  tests.    Samples
                 collected 10/6-10/7/94.
Station
Middle Branch R3
Middle Branch R4
Middle Branch R5
Northwest Harbor Rl
Northwest Harbor R2
Northwest Harbor R3
Northwest Harbor R4
Northwest Harbor R5
South Ferry Rl
South Ferry R2
South Ferry R3
South Ferry R4
South Ferry R5
Sparrows Point Rl
Sparrows Point R2
Sparrows Point R3
Sparrows Point R4
Sparrows Point R5
Turner's Creek Rl
Turner's Creek R2
Turner ' s Creek R3
Turner's Creek R4
Turner's Creek R5
Poropatank
Lynnhaven Mud
Lynnhaven Sand
% Sand
7.73
0.14
3.47
70.04
40.71
9.97
12.82
1.37
74.34
13.50
11.49
8.59
13.77
0.77
2.19
3.36
2.90
0.55
74.79
43.96
37.93
39.51
44.92
1.14
37.86
97.55
% Silt
63.55
4.88
67.90
19.97
39.62
58.01
54.73
59.97
15.87
52.94
53.53
54.54
0.18
61.57
66.04
60.72
64.24
64.90
17.71
38.47
47.09
44.82
39.10
63.77
48.97
1.18
% Clay
28.72
94.98
28.63
9.99
19.67
32.02
32.45
38.66
9.79
33.56
34.98
36.87
86.05
37.67
31.77
35.92
32.86
34.55
7.50
17.57
14.98
15.67
15.98
35.09
13.17
1.27
                                     3-11

-------
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
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 fourth 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 sediments  were  collected  October 7-8,  1994  by
petite  ponar  grab.    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 SOP's.  Laboratory quality assurance  procedures for
sediment and pore water and inorganic and organic  chemical analyses

                               3-12

-------
followed standard EPA 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  (TOC) 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.
benedict! 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 have 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 3.3 and 3.4.   Organic
analytical procedures used  were in accordance with  a modified AOAC
(Association Official Analytical Chemists) method 970.52M with  EPA

                              3-13

-------
Table 3.3
Concentrations for "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,
1990). NA=Not available.
Compound
               ER-M Concentration  (ua/a}
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
                        2.100
                        0.650
                        0.640
                        1.380
                        0.960
                        3,
                        2,
                        1.
                        2,
                        2,
                                             .600
                                             .200
                                             ,600
                                             .800
                                             .500
                                             NA
                                            0.260
                                             NA
                         3-14

-------
Table 3.4   Pesticides analyzed, utilizing a user-created calibration library.
            Sediment method  detection  limits  (MDL)  are reported  in  pg/kg dry
            weight.
COMPOUND
SEDIMENT MDL
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3', 5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
  0.0035
  0.0041
  0.0061
  0.0058
  0.0034
  0.0027
  0.0023
  0.0093
  0.0076
  0.0030
  0.0015
  0.0007
  0.0016
  0.0050
  0.0065
  0.0038
  0.0016
  0.0017
  0.0043
  0.0077
  0.0031
  0.0012
  0.0013
  0.0026
                                      3-15

-------
clean-up  3660A  for  sulphur.    Organophosphorus  compounds were
analyzed by  GC/FPD;  organochlorine compounds by GC/FCD using  EPA
508 GC conditions.  PAH's were analyzed  using EPA  method 550 HPLC
conditions.
     All sediment samples were analyzed  for acid volatile sulfides
(AVS) and Total  Organic  Carbon (TOC).   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  (inductively coupled  plasma atomic  emission
spectroscopy) following USEPA/SW-846, Method 6010 (see Hall et 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  ICP  following U.S.EPA 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  Four 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

                               3-16

-------
differences  between responses observed for  "clean"  ("reference")
conditions and those seen for test media  (water  or  sediments)  of
unknown  quality.    These analyses  are  based upon  the  summary
composite  indices first  developed  for the  toxicity axis  of  the
"sediment  quality triad" (Long and Chapman,  1985; Chapman,  1986;
Chapman et al. 1987,  Chapman  1990). This approach has been modified
to  provide confidence limits  on  composite indices designated  as
"ratio-to-reference mean" (RTRM)  indices  (Alden, 1992) .  Details of
the  calculation  of  the  RTRM indices  for  the  Ambient  Toxicity
Program are  presented  in the Year 3 report (Hall  et  al.,  1994).
     In order to make the RTRM indices more meaningful to managers,
a method  was developed  to  scale the values,  so  that they  range
between a "best case"  (uncontaminated)  condition,  represented by a
score  of  0  and a "worst case"   (highly  contaminated and  toxic)
condition,  represented  by  a  score  of 100.  A value  of 0  would
represent the median response of a reference test of uncontaminated
water or sediment, while a value of 100 would represent a condition
producing the maximum detrimental responses in all of the endpoints
(e.g.   no   growth,  reproduction,   or   survival   of  all   test
populations).  Not only does this sort of scaling  provide a  "frame
of reference" to  address  the question of  "how bad is this site?",
but  it allows  scores of RTRM indices from different years  (which
may have had different  numbers of endpoints) to be evaluated  on the
same scale.  This well-defined scaling system is much more readily
interpreted than the sediment quality triad RTR values  or the RTRM
indices, which have a reference value of 1,  but have  an open-ended
scale for toxic conditions, the maximum value of which depends upon
the number of endpoints,  the magnitude of  the  test responses,  and
the reference response values  used in the  calculations.
     The  scaled  RTRM  index,  hereafter designated  as  "toxicity
index" or TOX-INDEX, was calculated  as follows.   The  RTRM  values
and confidence limits were calculated as in previous years (Hall et
al., 1994) .  The reference median for any given site was subtracted
from  all  reference  and  test values  (medians,   lower and  upper
confidence limits).  This step scales the reference median  to  0.
The  values are then divided  by a "worst case" constant  for each
test data set.  This "worst  case"  constant is calculated  by  taking
the  test  data   set  and  setting  the  values   to  the  maximum
detrimental responses for each endpoint (e.g.  no survival, growth,
reproduction, hatching of eggs, etc.),  calculating the  RTRM  values
for these  "worst  case" conditions by dividing by the  appropriate
reference means  (i.e.,for the sediment data set,  each sample  was
matched to the  reference data set that  most closely matched  the
sediment characteristics)  and calculating the "worst case" constant

                               3-17

-------
as the mean of RTRM values for all  endpoints.  The division by the
"worst  case"  constant makes  all values  (medians  and confidence
limits) a  fraction  of  the "worst case" condition.   The TOX-INDEX
values are converted to a percentage scale by multiplying by 100.
The TOX-INDEX medians and  confidence limits for  test and reference
conditions of each site are plotted on  maps of the Bay to indicate
the  relative  toxicity  of  various  geographic  locations.  For
graphical  purposes, the  lower confidence limits of the reference
data are not shown,  unless the test confidence limits overlap those
of  the reference  conditions  (i.e. a  portion of  the confidence
limits for both  the test and reference  conditions  are  less than
zero).
     In order to provide  more information to the TOX-INDEX maps,
pie  charts are   included  to indicate  the relative  percentage of
endpoints  that  were shown  to  be different between the  test and
reference  data sets in the RTRM simulations.   Therefore,  a highly
toxic  site would not only be  shown to  have high TOX-INDEX values
which  display a  low degree of uncertainty  (i.e.,  to  have narrow
confidence   bands  that   are  well   separated   from  reference
conditions), but  it would also be shown to have a high percentage
of endpoints that were  adversely  affected by the toxic conditions.
     This type of presentation should provide managers with a tool
to evaluate the  relative ecological risk of the sites in comparison
to  each  other.    A site  with TOX-INDEX confidence  limits  that
overlap  those  of  a   reference   site,   and  which  displays  few
statistically significant endpoints,   would  be  expected  to pose
little ecological risk with respect to ambient  toxicity.   On the
other  hand,   a   site  displaying  a large  TOX-INDEX  value,  with
confidence  limits  that   are  well  separated for  the  reference
condition and with many significantly impacted endpoints would be
expected to pose a  much  greater  ecological  risk.   The ecological
significance  of  toxicity  at  sites with  intermediate  TOX-INDEX
scores would have to be interpreted through the best professional
judgement  of  scientists  and managers,  although  the  relative
magnitude  of  the values  does  provide  information on the relative
degree of toxicity with respect to  other  sites.  Although absolute
ecological  risk  assessments  would require  much  more  intensive
biological evaluations  of long-term population and community level
effects, TOX-INDEX provides a screening system that indicated the
relative ranking by which  regions can be prioritized for management
actions related  to toxicity.  Thus, the maps provide quantitative
indications of  the  magnitude,  certainty and  consistency of toxic
effects.
     The site location symbols in the TOX-INDEX maps  indicate the

                               3-18

-------
degree  to  which water  or  sediment  benchmarks  (water quality
criteria or ER-M values,  respectively)  were exceeded.   Thus,  the
maps also display the qualitative degree of chemical contamination.
                               3-19

-------
                             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,  reproduction  and  percent normal   shell
 development from the  four  estuarine  tests  conducted from 10/11/94
 to 10/19/94 (or 10/12/94  to 10/20/94) are presented in  Tables 4.1  -
 4.6. Survival  of sheepshead minnows, grass shrimp, and Eurytemora
 in the  controls was not significantly different  after 8 days of
 exposure  when  compared  with  the   12  ambient test  conditions.
 However, growth of sheepshead  minnows was significantly lower at
 the  Sassafras  River-Betterton  station  when  compared  with  the
 controls.   There  were no  significant  differences in  growth of
 sheepshead minnnows at the  other  11 stations when compared with  the
 controls. Growth of grass shrimp  was not significantly  different in
 ambient water from  the 12 stations when compared with the  controls.
 Reproductive endpoints for Eurytemora  (mean % gravid females  and
 mean  %   immatures)  at   all  the   ambient  stations  were   not
 significantly  different than the controls.
     Percent  normal  shell  development  for  the  coot  clam  was
 significantly  reduced  at the following  stations during the  first
 test:  Sassafras River - Betterton,  Sassafras River  - Turner  Creek,
 Baltimore  Harbor  - Bear  Creek, Baltimore Harbor -  Curtis Bay,
 Baltimore Harbor  - Middle  Branch,  Baltimore Harbor  -  Northwest
 Branch,  Baltimore  Harbor  - Outer Harbor,  Magothy  River -  Gibson
 Island,  Severn River - 50/301 Bridge and Severn River -  Annapolis
 Sailing School (Table 4.6).    For test 2, percent  normal  shell
 development was significantly reduced at  the Magothy River -  South
 Ferry.   There  were no significant  effects at any of  the  other
 stations.

     4.1.2 Contaminants Data
     Inorganic contaminants data  from the 12 sites  are  presented in
Table 4.7. Metals were generally low at all location based  on  the
one grab sample collected  at each  station  during  the study. Only
 one metal (copper value of  3.85 ug/L at the  Baltimore Harbor  - Bear
 Creek station)  exceeded the U.S. EPA  marine water quality

                               4-1

-------
Table 4.1 Survival  data  for sheepshead  minnow larvae  after 8 d
          tests at 12 stations from 10/11/94 to 10/19/94.
                      Cumulative Percent Survival Per Day

Station                    123456:
CONTROL                   100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
SASBT(Sassafras-Betterton)100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
SASTC(Sassafras-Turner C.)100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHBCR(Bal Harb-Bear Cr.)  100 ICO  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHCUB(Bal Harb-Curtis B.) 100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHMBR(Bal Harb-Middle B.) 100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHNWB(Bal Harb-NW Br.)    100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHOTH(Bal Harb-Outer H.)  100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
BHSPT(Bal Harb-Sparrows P)100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
MAGGI(Magothy-Gibson I.)  100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
MAGSF(Magothy-South F.)   100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
SEV50(Severn-Rt.50)       100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
SEVAP(Severn-Annapolis)   100 100  100  100  100  100  100   100
                               4-2

-------
Table 4.2 Survival data for grass shrimp larvae after 8 d tests at
          12 stations from 10/12/94 to  10/20/94.
                      Cumulative Percent Survival  Per  Day

Station               1    2    3    4    5     6     7     £
CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
100
100
100
100
100
96
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
96
96
96
100
100
96
96
100
100
96
100
100
100
96
96
96
100
100
96
96
100
100
96
100
100
100
96
96
96
100
100
96
96
100
100
96
100
100
100
92
96
92
100
100
96
96
100
96
96
100
100
100
92
96
92
100
100
96
96
100
96
96
100
100
100
92
92
92
100
96
96
96
100
96
92
100
96
100
88
92
92
96
84
92
96
96
96
88
100
96
100
                               4-3

-------
Table 4.3 Survival  data for  Eurytemora.  after
          stations from 10/12/94 to 10/20/94.
8 d  tests  at 12
        Mean Percent       Mean Percent
Station   Survival  ±S.E. Gravid Female  ±S.E.
Mean Percent
 Immature   ±S.E.
CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
93.2
81.8
76.7
72.6
94.8
96.3
89.7
83.4
69.2
66.1
88.0
61.5
52.5
7.2
4.2
10.6
10.0
8.5
13.6
6.5
5.6
22.5
4.3
7.0
18.6
7.5
55.2
37.9
41.8
43.2
43.4
53.7
44.4
43.6
23.2
41.2
58.1
42.4
43.9
3.1
5.9
5.9
6.8
8.1
7.3
8.8
6.2
7.9
6.1
10.8
4.0
2.4
6.8
5.1
2.8 '
1.7
12.9
1.6
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
1.6
3.1
2.5
2.9
2.8
1.7
3.7
1.6
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.6
3.1
                                4-4

-------
Table 4.4 Growth  data  for  sheepshead  minnow  larvae   from  the
          10/11/94 to  10/19/94  experiment.  Growth  data are the
          mean final weight per individual at day 8.
  Sheepshead  larvae  dry weight (initial  weight at day 0=0.16 mg)
Station
n
Mean Wt. (Mg)
                              ±S.E.
CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
38
40
29
39
29
38
40
30
39
38
40
40
39
1.44
1.13a
1.36
1.42
1.39
1.59
1.33
1.52
1.18
1.48
1.47
1.34
1.37
0.064
0.036
0.038
0.092
0.064
0.046
0.154
0.056
0.076
0.068
0.044
0.024
0.024
"Significantly  different  at  P<0.05  using Dunnett's test.
                               4-5

-------
Table 4.5 Growth data for grass shrimp larvae from the 10/12/94 to
          10/20/94  experiment.    Growth  data are  the mean  final
          weight per individual at day 8.
  Sheepshead larvae dry weight (initial weight at day 0=0.14 rag)

Station             n         Mean Wt.  (mg)        ±S.E.
CONTROL             22             0.81            0.047
SASBT               23             0.80            0.025
SASTC               21             0.76            0.041
BHBCR               24             0.88            0.050
BHCUB               22             0.82            0.070
BHMBR               23             0.80            0.023
BHNWB               24             0.73            0.039
BHOTH               24             0.78            0.042
BHSPT               24             0.77            0.034
MAGGI               22             0.80            0.037
MAGSF               24             0.82            0.054
SEV50               14             0.81            0.046
SEVAP               25             0.76            0.039
                                4-6

-------
Table 4.6. Percent normal shell development from two 48 h coot clam
          embyro/larval tests conducted from 10/14/94 (Test 1) and
          from 10/17/94 to  10/19/94  (Test 2).
Station
CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
Test 1
Percent
Normal ±S.E.
98
87
89
91
92
91
92
89
94
90
95
91
93
.0
.2a
.Oa
.8a
.3a
.7a
.6a
.3a
.4
.3a
.7
. la
. Oa
0.
0.
3.
3.
1.
1.
2.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
0.
68
74
91
6±
57
34
00
54
18
03
13
86
95
Test 2
Percent
Normal ±S.E.
95.
92.
93.
96.
93.
94.
95.
96.
93.
93.
86.
95.
93.
2
5
7
5
5
3
7
7
3
6
9a
4
7
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
94
72
26
01
68
87
82
45
74
22
28
20
03
asignificantly different at P<0.05 using Dunnett's test.
                               4-7

-------
"31 Q)
CTi ^
CTi rd
H
,—,
"4H rj
o ex

rH ^
rH
t| 1 .
. rH

•rH -P
•P P
rd O
.p rd
U)
rtj
CM 0-i
H W

(1) .
XI CO
-p .
^
6
0 Q)
c
n i ,
^"^ -H
j_l
^d frt
•P 2
rd

W '
-P '?•
C
rd ^

•rH ^
s ^
rd ~>
-P °
8 .
O -^r
•H G\
c ^
rd rxj
CT1 rH
O 0
H ;^-

r-
.
**

Q)
rH

rd
EH





•
-o
0)
C
•H
rH
(1)
T3
C
p

0)

rd

rd
•rH
rH
Q)
-p
•H
^_|
O

O
r{
1 i

tr
c
•H
T3
0
a)
o
X
0)

w
0)
rH
rd
$>

H
rH
i^C


rH
rd
.p
Q)
e

r;
rj
rd
(1)

0)
T3
•H
(/)
Q)
X!

'O
Q)
W
•H
rH










O-l

H
CO


0
in
' ^
CO

fe
o

s
*•

H
O
o



EH

C/3
K
CQ


ffi
EH
u) o
c »
0 «
•H
4J
rd S
•P ^
CO M
CQ

DH
CQ

S
CQ


CQ
D
U
K
CQ


e<
u
CQ
X
CQ

U
EH
<
CO


EH
CQ
CO

CO

,_,
18 J
— ^
w tn
rH 3.
rd
4-> U
a) a

C7»
^
•
H



in
(N
H


CTi
^i*
•
H


n
•
rH


f-»
n
•
H



CM

CM



O
0>
•
H


CTi
^*
•
H



in
in
H'



n
rH
%
H


rH
0
t
H


in
CM
H





, — .
1
N_»"

U)
<

o
m
•
o
V


o
in
o
v

o
\r\
U }


V

0
in

o
v


o
in

o
v


0
in
•
0
V


o
in
•
o
V

Q
in

o



o
m
o
v


0
m

o
v

o
in
o
v

Q
in

v


	 	 	
CO
,
Ol


TJ
U

CM
n H
• *
CM r\i



O 
in
o



in
CM
t
O
V

in
CM
0
V

CTi
in
0




^~,
^f
in
*•— ^

O
CO

o

o
H
V


o

o
H
V

O
•
O
rH
V

O
•
0
H
V


O
•
0
rH
V

O

0

V

0

o
H
V


0
*
0
rH
V


O
O
rH
V


O

0
rH
V
o
o
rH
V

0
O
H
V



*-*.

-------
 criteria.

      4.1.3 Water  Quality  Data
      Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected
 three times  at  all  stations  are presented  in Table  4.8.    The
 temperature and salinity of ambient water collected from all  sites
 was  adjusted to  25°C  and 15 ppt before  testing.   Ambient  water
 quality conditions appeared  adequate for 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 LC  or  EC5C values  for the  four  test species
 exposed  to  cadmium chloride during  reference toxicant tests  are
 presented in  Table 4.9. These toxicity values were compared with
 the  values from the previous  three years for all species except the
 coot clam where  only  year 3  data were available.  Toxicity values
 for  grass shrimp,  sheepshead minnows and Eurytemora in  this  study
 were similar  to  values reported during the first  three years.  In
 all  cases  the fourth  year values were between  the  low  and  high
 values for the first three years  (except for E. affinis)   Data from
 the  reference toxicant tests indicate that test species  from the
 various sources are 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.

          4.2.1 Toxicity Data
     Survival results, from toxicity tests of the twelve estuarine
sediments from the Patapsco,  Sassafras,  Magothy, and Severn Rivers
for amphipods,  worms and sheepshead minnow eggs  are included  in
Tables 4.10 through  4.16.  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 4.14 through 4.16.
       Survival  in controls  was greater  than 84 percent  and  74
percent at day 10 and day 20, respectively,  for both amphipods  and
the polychaete worm.   Survival data are  summarized in  Tables 4.10-
4.13.   Significant mortality was observed in all species compared
with controls.  Both S. benedict! and L. dytiscus showed the

                                4-9

-------
Table 4.8 Water quality  parameters reported in  the  field during
          water sample collection for the Fall of 1994.
Date Station
10-11-94 SASTC
SASBT
MAGSF
MAGGI
SEVAP
SEV50
BHCUB
BHNWB
BHMBR
BHBCR
BHSPT
BHOTH
10-14-94 SASTC
SASBT
MAGSF
MAGGI
SEVAP
SEV50
BHCUB
BHNWB
BHMBR
BHBCR
BHSPT
BHOTH
10-17-94 SASTC
SASBT
MAGSF '
MAGGI
SEVAP
SEV50
BHCUB
BHNWB
BHMBR
BHBCR
BHSPT
BHOTH
Temp
(C)
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
17.5
17.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
18.0
16.0
16.3
16.5
17.0
17.0
16.5
17.0
16.0
16.5
16.0
16.0
16.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
16.0
14.0
15.5
14.5
16.0
15.5
14.0
Salinity
(ppt)
1.5
1.0
10.0
11.5
12.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
11.5
11.0
2.0
2.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
12.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
2.0
2.5
10.5
10.5
12.0
11.5
12.5
13.0
11.5
11.5
12.0
12.0
Cond
umhos/cm
2200
1750
13000
14500
15500
14000
15500
17000
16000
15000
16000
15000
2200
2750
13500
14000
15000
14000
15000
17500
16500
15000
15500
15500
—
—
14200
14000
16000
15000
15500
17000
14500
15000
15500
15000
DO
9.6
10.1
7.2
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.6
6.7
7.8
7.8
7.2
8.2
9.1
8.6
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.0
6.7
5.9
7.7
6.1
6.9
7.5
8.5
9.3
8.6
8.8
9.0
8.8
6.6
7.3
8.6
8.3
6.7
7.2
PH
7.23
8.23
7.42
7.74
7.93
7.80
7.81
7.62
7.93
7.98
7.88
7.80
7.37
7.76
7.68
7.80
7.95
7.88
7.81
7.62
8.02
7.60
7.86
7.84
7.40
7.67
7.55
7.76
8.05
7.94
7.61
7.44
8.01
7.97
7.63
7.65
                               4-10

-------
Table 4.9 Toxicity data  (48 h  LC50s  or  EC50s  mg/L)  from reference
          toxicant tests conducted with cadmium chloride  for the
          four test species.  Previous values from year 1,  2 and 3
          are reported.

                               48 h       Previous  48 h LC50 values
Date      Species              LC50       Yr.l       Yr.  2     Yr. 3
                           (95% Conf  Int)
09/23/94  Grass shrimp         0.723      0.502      0.230      1.340
                           (0.594-0.882)

09/29/94  Sheepshead minnow    0.710      0.510      1.540      1.180
                           (0.610-0.830)

09/09/94  E. affinis           0.143      0.021      0.095      0.120
                           (0.111-0.184)

11/10/94  Coot clam            0.008a     	      	      0.005a
                           (0.008-0.009)

a Value  is an  EC50  (percent normal shell development is the
 endpoint).
                                4-11

-------
 o
-p
                                                                                                                            (!)
                                                                                                                           rH
                                                                                                                            U
rH


O
 O
•a
 0>
-P
 u

73

 §
+J
M
O
M
IH
U
     rfl
     73

 CD  fd
 C  -P
 O  W
•H
-P  II
 n)
-p  t
 in  w
 Q)
 >
rH

 01


-P


 0)
     w
 id  ^

 to  ^f,

 o  :
 CO
     oT
     o
     c
     0)
     1-1
     01
 _
 I
73  £
Cn
 3  rH
W  rH
                              CO
                          TJ
                          ID
                          4-1
                          10
                          3
                          •r-i
                          •O
                                                                                     in  in  r-  r-
                 O
                 CN
                      rd
                      Q
                                                   ro o  IN  CN  en
                                                                rH  (N
                                                                             rH  O
                                                                                         rH  O
              rd
              >
             •rl
              >
              1-1
              3
             W
                              •O
                               0)
                              4->
                               (0
                               3
                              •n
                              •0
                               (d
                               a
                                           *************
                                           oooooooooooooo
                                           oooooooooooooo
                                               CN  O  Cn  O  01  rH
                                                                            O  n  
                                                                                 n      n       co
                              73
                               0)
                              4J
                               U
                               3
                              •n
                              •0
                              rt
                              0)
                              4->
                              W
                              3
                              •n
                              •O
                              (B
X!
 rd
H
                  CO
                  
(0
4-1
W
CN
ro
r-
CO
o
o
i£>

*
o
0
VO
ID







to
•rl
i-H
o
ft
cd
c
c

*
ro
in
r-
r-

CO
,_,

*
O
0
rH
in







c
0
4-1

01
4-1

0)
m
*
t-
en
in
CN
CN

r-

*
o
0
0
CN






V
01
0)

o

J^
a
0)
m
*
-*
00
^
in
r~
ro

*
o
0
ro
ro






^
(d
ca

to
•rl
4->
^
3
U
*
CO
CTl
CN
CO
O

rH
rH
*
O
o
0
r-



73
c
rd
i-H
CO
H

c
o
CO
X!
•rl
0
ffi
rH
ro
CO
CO
r^-
vo
CN
*
o
o
CTi
in


O
in

4J


C
0
•rl
4->
u
c
3

*
ro
r-
r~"
CN
in
V0

*
o
o
o
in




H
0
XI
1-1
cd
K

J_|
01
4J
3
O
*
CN
CN
CO
^
O
o
<*

*
o
o
rH
in



r;
0
C
10
i^i
m

01
rH
73
73
•rl
S
*
r-
in
rH

O
o
rH

*
0
O
rH


0
X!
i-l
to
33

4J
CO
Q)

rj
4J
i-l
O
2
*
f^
CN

rH
*
0
o
ro
in





^
^_i
^i
0)
tc

r^
-P
3
0
M
*
<*
VO
r-

VD
ro

*
0
O
CTi
t


-P
C
•>H
0
P!

CO
3
0
l-i
^i
cd
ft
w
o
ro
CO
CO
ro

cr.


O
O
r~
p-


^
01
0)

u

CO
••
^1
01
c
^
j3
H
*
in
r-
CN
to

CO
.

*
o
o
<*
in


*~*
K
•*— '

V^
C
td
4-1
(d
ft
o
Vj
0
PH
^
•^r
CTi
en

o
Q

rH

O
O
cn
en
U

73
C
rd
W

C
01
^
rd
X*
C
c
r>1
J
                                                                                                                       in
                                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                                        ft
                                                                                                                       4-1

                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                        U
                                                                                                                        1-4
                                                                                                                       M-l
                                                                                                                   C
                                                                                                                   Q)

                                                                                                                   0)

                                                                                                                  M-l

                                                                                                                  73

                                                                                                                   >i
                                                                                                                  rH
                                                                                                                  4-1

                                                                                                                   10
                                                                                                                   u
                                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                                  4-1
                                                                                                                  •rl
                                                                                                                   C
                                                                                                                   Dl
                                                                                                                  •rl
                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                                       H
                                                                                                                       H
                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                       Z,
                                                                                                                                rd
                                                                                                                                ft

                                                                                                                                73
                                                                                                                                0)
                                                                                                                                -P
                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                -rl
                                                                                                                                73
                                                                                                                                01
                                                                                                                                >-l
                                                                                                                                ft
                                                                                                                                73
                                                                                                                                0)
                                                                                                                                4->
                                                                                                                                CO
                                                                                                                                D
                                                                                                                                •n
                                                                                                                                73
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                1-1
                                                                                                                                3
                                                                                                                                CO

                                                                                                                               4J

                                                                                                                                0)
                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                (-1
                                                                                                                                01
                                                                                                                                ft

                                                                                                                                CO
                                                                                                                               •rl
                                                                                                                            J-l

                                                                                                                            3

                                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                                           4J
                                                                                                                            tj
                                                                                                                           •H
                                                                                                                           73
                                                                                                                            0)
                                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                                           •Q
                                                                                                                            CO

                                                                                                                            73

                                                                                                                            (0

                                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                                            3
                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                            W
                                                                                                                                     0)
                                                                                                                                73  >ri
                                                                                                                                Q)  M-l
                                                                                                                                4J   Q)
                                                                                                                                CO
                                                                                                                                3   Q)
                                                                                                                                •n  N
                                                                                                                                T3  -rl
                                                                                                                           CN

                                                                                                                           Cd

                                                                                                                           O
                                                                          4-12

-------
0
-p
CTl
O
rH
S
O
•o
Q)
-P
O
3
•O
C
0
U
0)
IH
Q)
£ ci
01 W
Q) «
r j y
•o
lH
rd
01 C
°3
" C/l
-P
CO s
0) W
rH '
3 ^
"^ 0
a) M
£ C
4J O
^ °
rd n
£
3 r?
to ~-
O =
3 ^
E Q)
3 o
Q. 0)
• 0)
^ *W
e «
o
in ||
<4H
rd X
•P  &
> rH
1-1 -^
3 rH
M rH


rH
"^
^

01
rH
i!
rd
H


















O
CN

t>
rd
Q





rd
-H
3
W
CrP






O
r~
J>
rd
Q


















in
i  O
 tncojrdcn
                          ,-ivj4j(-i
                        4->  X  —  73
                         C   Q)  U  C
                             Q)  «—  rd
                             S-l      W

                                 c  c
rH  JJ   1H
 O   1H  O  01
    0  ffi
C -rH
Q)  tn  3  -   4-1   >
S      O  SH  rd   rd
                                                                       in
                                                                       o
                                                                       CO
                                                                       rH
                                                                       0
                                                                       o
                                                                       1-1
                                                     -p
                                                      c
                                                      0)

                                                      01
                                                     tH
                                                     MH
                                                     -H
                                                     •o
                                                                       c
                                                                       rd
                                                                       o
                                                                       c
                                                                       en
                                                                      •H
                                                                      W
                                                                      K

                                                                      o
                                                                      "Z.
                                          4-13

-------
                                                                                                                                  Q)
                                                                                                                                  N
                                                                                                                                 -rH
                                                                                                                                  01
 0
4-1
cn

rH
 O
 S-l
•d
 0>
4->
 CJ
 3
n

 o
 u

 OJ
 rH
 0)
03  0

B)  M
OJ  W
     rd
 .  "0
,n   C
    co
rd
4-1
TO

0)
 »   c
5   o
•P  U


ti."

2  £
 O  :

*O    ..
 £   «>
 R   o
 cu   g
-Q   Q)

co  i2
     Q)
 O
 -H   ||
VH

 rd  ^
4J  pr*
 rd  ^
T3  =
 rd  ^
 >  cn
•H  -^
 >  rH
 Vi  -^
 3  rH
W  rH
CN
 rd
H
                                 Cfl
                                •d
                                 0)
                                •p
                                 M
                    O
                    CN
                     rd
                     Q
            rH
             rd

            •r-|
             >
             VH
             3
            CO

            dP
                                H
                                cn
                                -o
                                 OJ
                                •d
                                 a
                                 a
                                H
                                (0
                                •O
                                 0)
                                •P
                                 ia
                                H
                                CO
                                •d
                                 01
                                •0
                                 a
                     rd
                     Q
                     in
                     a
                     c
                     a
                     co
                                 •P
                                 O
                                 73
                                 0)
                                 CO
vD
O
in
rH
r-
vo
vo
CN
VD
O
in

vo
VD
CN
ro
VO
in

ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
vo
in
1

ro
ro
ro
ro








in
•rH
rH
O
ft
rd
C
C

CN
CO
CN
rH
r-
vo
vo
•*
CN
CO
CN
rH
£
$

ro
CN

O
0
00
«*
VO
ro
CN
1

0
o
CO
•*








C
o
4-1

0)
4-1
4-1
0)
m
in
*t
**
H
r-
VD
ro
••a1
^
oo
0
rH
ro
ro
ro

vo
*t
t~H
00
ro
ro
in
ro
cn
CN
1

r-
vo
o
in







y
Q>
0)

U

VI
cd
cu
CQ
ro
cn
rH
rH
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
cn
rH
rH
ro
ro
ro
ro
VO
00
in

ro
ro
cn
*•
VO
CO
in
i

ro
ro
cn
^







^
rd
CQ

cn
•rH
4J

3
U
o
CN
•*
rH
oo
vO
«*
^
CN
00

0
o
oo
CN
o
in
ro

vo
cn
oo
«*
<*
O
rH

o
0
rH
•<*




13
C
rd
i-H
cn
H

c
0
cn
ja
•H
o
o
o
rH

ro
ro
cn
CN
CN
O
0
rH
ro
ro
cn
CN
vo
•31
vO

ro
ro
rH
""
vO
•«*
vO

ro
ro
rH
'fr



O
in

4-1
CC

C
O

4-1
U
C
3


i-H
in
r-l
f-
VO
CN
VO
t
rH
in
H
VO
CN
VD
rH
*!•
o

r^
VO
<*
^
rH
»*
O

VO
VO
^J,
f~





rH
0

J_l
(0
DM

^J
OJ
4J
3
0
o
o
00

r-
VO
•*
rH
O
o
00

VO
i-H
o
in
ro

ro
ro
ro
ro
O
in
ro

ro
ro
ro
ro




r]
U
c
rd

m

ci)
r-l
T3
•a
•rH
2
in
rH
ro

vD
t^

cn
•3-
CN

o
o
00
rH
0
CN

rH
ro
ro
«*
*t
O
CN

f^
VO
CN


rH
O

^
rd
as

4J
cn
(U

r]
-P
i_i
o
z
0
rH
ro
rH
CN
0
VO
in
O
in
ro
rH
ro
ro
ro
in
in
oo
oo

cn
«*
t-H
VD
ro
*fr
00

O
0
0
vo






£>,
^
t-l
0)
fe

A
4-1
3
0
W
ro
CTi
CN
rH
ro
ro
r-
ro
ro
cn
CN
rH
ro
ro
ro
CN
00
CN

r-
vo
vo
*•
CN
00
CN

t^
VO
VO
•^



1 1
C
•rH
0
cu

in
U
o
VH
VH
rd
ft
w
in CN in in
O •<* oo in
r- r- r-i r-
rH H
O ro r- oo
O ro vo ro
CN rH CN in
ro vo oo r~
cn cn in cn
CN o co cn
in cn rH vo
rH rH
ro c°^ r^~ r^
ro VD vo vo
r~ CN CN vo
ro vo CO ^r
00 Ol O CN
CN O o in
cn cn o oo

ro vo O 'i'
ro vo O ro
CTl CN O t-
^r vo o r-
rH
CO CN O VD
CN ^ O 'I'
cn r~ o vo

n n o t~-
ro ro O vo
CTl rH O 00
^ VD o m
— P?
O -^
•«—-•
1^4 _,^ rr4
t-*i "^^ \J
Q) CU T3 C
CJ) — 3 rd
•H S W
U X
C C C
cn rd 0) Q)
» 4J ^ ^
VH rd rd rd
Q) ft J3 rC
C 0 C C
Vi VH C C
3 O >i >i
EH 04 J nJ
                                                                                                                         in
                                                                                                                         O

                                                                                                                         C3
                                                                                                                         V
                                                                                                                         ft
                                                                                                                         4-1
                                                                                                                         C
                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                         u


                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                         1-1
                                                                                                                         4-1
                                                                                                                          C
                                                                                                                          0)
                                                                                                                         •rH
                                                                                                                         •a
                                                                                                                         4J
                                                                                                                          C
                                                                                                                          rd
                                                                                                                          U
                                                                                                                         •H
                                                                                                                         MH
                                                                                                                          W
                                                                                                                          *
                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                 •rH
                                                                                                                                 4-1
                                                                                                                                 1-1
                                                                                                                                 cd
                                                                                                                                 ft

                                                                                                                                 •a
                                                                                                                                 ai
                                                                                                                                  Q)
                                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                                                  ft
                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                 MH

                                                                                                                                 •a
                                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                                 4-1
                                                                                                                                 cn
                                                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                                                 -r~>
                                                                                                                                 •a
                                                                                                                                 rd
                                                                                                                                  rd
                                                                                                                                  >
                                                                                                                                 •H
                                                                                                                                  >
                                                                                                                                  rH
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                  cn

                                                                                                                                 4-1

                                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                                  ft

                                                                                                                                  cn
                                                                                                                                 •rH
                                                                                                                                  rd

                                                                                                                                 •rH

                                                                                                                                  rH
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                                                 •U
                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                 •H
                                                                                                                                 •a
                                                                                                                                  (D
                                                                                                                                 •a

                                                                                                                                 rd

                                                                                                                                 CO

                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                                                 -H
                                                                                                                                 T3    •
                                                                                                                                  0)   cn
                                                                                                                                 4-1  4-1
                                                                                                                                  cn   u
                                                                                                                                  3   0)
                                                                                                                                 •n MH
                                                                                                                                 •O  VM
                                                                                                                                 <   Q>
                                                                                                                          H
                                                                                                                          EH
                                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                                                 s
                                                                                                                                 z
                                                                           4-14

-------
Table 4.13  Survival data  from  C.  variegatus at the  twelve stations.    Tests were
            conducted from 10/11/94 to 11/1/94.  "(R)"  = Reference, "(C)"= Control.

Species Station
C. variegatus
Annapolis
Betterton
Bear Creek
Curtis Bay
Gibson Island
Junction Rt.50
Outer Harbor
Middle Banch
Northwest Harbor
South Ferry
Sparrows Point
Turner ' s Creek
Poropatank (R)
Lynnhaven Mud (C)
Lynnhaven Sand (R)
% Survival


40.00*
80.00
4.00*
16.00*
76.00
70.00
40.00*
38.00*
0.00*
50.00*
2.00*
70.00
88.00
94.00
100.00
%Hatched


42.00*
80.00
4.00*
26.00*
86.00
70.00
42.00*
42.00*
2.00*
64.00*
6.00*
72.00
90.00
94.00
100.00
%dead fish


6.66
0.00
0.00
48.61*
10.22
0.00
4.16
22.86
100.00*
37.94*
75.00*
3.13
2.22
0.00
0.00
%dead eggs


38.00*
10.00
14.00
24.00
10.00
12.00
18.00
22.00
18.00
22.00
28.00*
10.00
8.00
6.00
0.00
 Note:
* indicates significantly different from control (a=0.05).
% Survival =!-[ (Dead fish + dead eggs at test termination)/(# eggs
exposed)]*100.
% Dead fish = (Dead fish)/(# hatched)*100
% Dead eggs = (Dead eggs)/(# exposed)*100
% Hatched = (# hatched)/(# eggs exposed)*100
                                     4-15

-------
m
4->
rH 01

(d

01 in
4-> OJ
C -rl
fl) U
E fl)
"H ft
T! in
fl)
01 x:
o
0 (d
4-> fl)
fl) 0)

3 cd
01 E
O -H
ft C
X (d
0)
0
>i CN
cd
TD MH
1 O
o
CN 0)
0)
rl 4J
d) cd
4-) U
MH -H
Cd rH
ft
to fl)
J3 M
o
to in
"H
•i-J '1 1
£°
H
• w
r-3
T)
i-i C
O 
c c
i -P
SH DI
•o c
~ fl)

(d
4-1 T!
(d c
T) (d

x: 4J
4-> X!
3 en
0 -H
SH 0)
O 3


^?
(_j
.
^

(!)
rH
.Q
(d


fl)
^1
fl)


01
in
i)
EH

»
tt~]
U
cd
fl)

E
O
MH
in
rH
td
E
•H
C
cd

Cn
c
•rH
>
•rl
>
^|
3
01
0)
4-1
MH
0

C
cd
at
E
0)
x:
4-1

01
-rH
0)
4->
cd
u

i-H
ft
0)
^j

x;
u


fl)

4-1

4-1
o


































•
1— 1
0

-P
c
o
u

II
E
,— »,
u
aT
o
c
0)

0)
MH
0)
«
II

=
c?
— '

•
^*
o^
- — _
1— 1
--K^
»H
1 — 1

x:
en

0
l_)
<~]
-P

^*


^
"-^
O
rH

-a
a)

0
3
•a
c
o
u















,
K

W








^
E
c
x;
4J
D
c
0)
ni













K
W







0
E
JJ
+J
0
•H
0)
3£










^
*
01
fl)

(d
MH O
O -H
i— I
VH D
0) 0)
.Q «

3 0)
S, 3

EH
















0)
4^

W



Cfl ^J1 rH O
r~* CT> ^ o
O «* m o
o o o o











o ** r» o
in CTV ro o
O rH 00 O
^* m ^ o














rH CTI in o
CN O O O
O H rH O
O 0 0 O









CN CT> CT» O
00 CTi vO O
CM in ^ o
0 O 0 0





















• in in in o














01

O 01 C 0)
10 -H 0 Q)
-H i-H rH 4-1 iH
4J rd O VH U
>, -H ft Q)
T3 4J cd 4J JH
•H C 4-> cd
• C C Q) 0)
t-5 H (f, 03 03



CTi
CN
*r
o











n
rH
00
in














^
rH
O









rH
CTl
in
0





















in















r*1
cd
m

in
•rl
4J

3
U



oo oo
n o
n CN
0 0











oo m
rH CTl
in *j-














ro rH
O «*
rH O
0 O









*3* ^D
o m
in 'i1
0 0





















^r •*











0
•O in
C •
td 4->
rH K
01
H C
0
C -rl
O 4-)
in o
.Q c
•rl 3
O i-)



ID m
00 CN
<* in
O O











^ oo
r- oo
in in














in ^
rH O
rH CN
O 0









in ID
CN >t

0 0





















*r ^













i-l .*"!
0 0
Q C
M td
td 03
K
0)

i> -a
4J T3
3 -rl
O S



O vD
O in
O fl
0 0











O fl
o oo
O ro
O in














O CN
O *!•
O rH
O O









0 0
o r~
O VO
0 0





















O in









iH
o

1-1
cd
ffi >1

1) ^1
01 fl)
D fe

x: x:
-p -P
H 3
o o
Z W



CN fl
fl i£i
fl rH
0 0











fl vD
fl fl
in o














oo oo
CTI in
o o
0 O









CN U3
IO CTl
•rj" CO
0 0





















in in











-P X
C 0)
•rl 0)
O VH
pi, o

01 01
^ •.
0 SH
VH 0)
VH C
id s-i
ft 3
W H



oo o
^i" m
CN O
0 0











^* rH
fl **
O fl
in ^














00 CN
fl O
*!• rH
O O









O CN
iO ("^
'S' fl
0 O





















^ in







^^
O
N«^

— T3
V. C
— cd
w
^
c n
(d D
•P >
td (d
ft x:
o c
H C
0 >i
P-l rj




















































.
^^
in
o
•
O

V

ft


01
,-H
0
SH
4J
C
O
U

c
td
£Z
4J

01
01
fl)
rH

r*1
rH
JJ
C
td
u
•rl
MH
•iH
C
DI
-rl
W
*
4-16

-------
1-1
r-l (0
(fl 4-1 fl)
•H CO M
4-1 0)
•rl 0) 5
C X!
H 4-1 CD
• 4-1 CO
CO (fl Q)
C CD
01 fl) •
£ -rl £
•rl O U
•D Q) (0
01 ft 0)
CO CO
£
0 .C 0
4-> O >H
(fl m
0) 0)
H CO
3 CO rH
CO i — 1 {fl
o a g
ft £ -H •
X -rl C rH
fl) C (fl O
m u
(fl O C C
•O CN -rl O
1 > O
O MH -r|
CN 0 > II
>4 CO 3 ~*
fl) fl) CD O
MH cfl 0> =
•(fl 0 .C
•rl 4J »
CD rH 0)
3 a m o
Cfl 0) 0 C
OH 0)
-H C H
3 in (0 Q)
E fl) MH
3 MH £ 0)
"HO «
d 0)
Q X! II
• W 4J
t-3 =
T) CD *—
Vl C -H K
O (fl ^
MH 0) =
C 4J
^~ (fl (fl .
X! fl) O «*
4-1 £ -H CTi
C fl) ft rH
0) XI 0) ^
rH 4-> M rH
T) 4-1 Xi
C C 0 X!
(fl fl) (fl DI
CO 0) 3
4-> 0) 0
X! IH in H
a* ft o x;
•rl fl) MH 4J
0) S-i
3 (fl •<*
X! 4J CTi
>i 4-1 (0 -^
M O> Q rH
•DC rH
^ 0) \
rH . O
(fl 4-1 rH
4J TJ CD
(fl C 0> T3
"O (fl 4-> fl)
x: 4-1 o) u
4J X! X! 3
3 tTi 4-1 T3
0 -rl C
JH 0) MH 0
O 5 0 U
in
rH
0)
•8








•
W.
W




-~
a
fc
N—
,£
4J
O
C
0)
»J












W
W





^
H
g
Jj
x;
D
-rH
0)
IS









•K
*
CO
0)
4-1
(fl
IH 9
O '"J
rH
i, Q
fl) ^
X! ^
§ «
» 2
EH









1
CO
3
CO
O
-H
3
E
3
"H

[**• kD
O rH
O O
o oo
O ro
O ro

•* CN
O f
O 0
O 0

00 ro
i£> O
O ^*
O O












in in














CO
.,_!
r-l rH
(0 0
•rl ft
4J (fl
•rl C
C C
M (£
r~-
ro
•^
o
rH
rH
U3
U3

CTi
O
O

O
CTi
ro
O












in














C
O
_p
^
0)
4J
4J
0)
pa
O ro
O in
O *3*
o o
^D ^*
O 00
o oo
O in
O rH
O <£>
0 O
o o
*
O CN
O <£>
O CN
o o












^D ^*













y ^1
fl) (0
at m
1-1
rj CD
.(-1
M 1 1
(fl S-l
fl) 3
pa u
CN CTi
O 00
CN rH
o o
t~- in
CN CTv
ro ro

0 rH
en vo
o o
0 0

CN rH
r- oo
^r in
o o












in in









o
•0 in
C •
(fl 4->
rH K
CO
M C
0
C -rl
0 4J
CO U
13 C
•rl 3
O h>

CN
ro
o
in

O
H
O












^t





^-v
K
•^

•d
c
rfl
w

c
0)
^
(0
X!
C
C
K*1
j

















in
o
o
V
ft
to
r— ^
O
S-l
4J
c
o
o

c
(0
4-1
CD
CO
0)
rH

JX|
rH
4-1
C
(fl
U
-rl
MH
• t-l
c
cn
•rl
w
*

                          4-17

-------
-P
cfl
rH 4-1
CO 01
-r-|
4-1 11
C -P
H
4->
• Cfl
01
4-1 01
C Q)
1) -H
E u
•H D
•O ft
11 01
01
£
0 U
4-1 Cfl
11
D
1-1 01
3 rH
01 cfl
0 E
ft -H
X C
1) cfl

>i in
Cfl rH
TJ
1 *4H
0 0
CN
01
H 0
0 4-1
4-1 Cfl
l(H U
Cfl -rl
rH
••H ft
•U 0
0 H
-rH.
t3 in
0)
C 4 I
Q) O
•Q
W
• M
to
T3
IH C
0 cfl
4-1
c
— cfl
£ 0

Cn E
C 0
i) x;
rH 4-1
•a 4J
c c
cfl 0
01
4-1 0
XI 1H
cn ft
-rl Q)
0 Vl
XI
>i 4->
Vi C"
T3 n
— Q)
rH
cfl
4-1 "O
cfl C
•O rt

X* 4-J
4J x;
S cn
O -rl
V-l 0
O S
i~H
0
rH
X3
EH


0

0

01
4J
01
0

.
x;
u
cfl
0

S
0
VI

01
rH
Cfl
E
•H
C
cfl

Cn
C

>
•rl
£>
^|
3
01

0

4-1
*4-4
o

c
cfl
0
0
4-1
01
-rl

0
4-1
cfl
O
-,-1
t-H
ft
0
>H
_£
U
cfl
0

^
O
cfl
4->
cfl
Q
4-1
01
0
-P

0
r]
4-1

M-l
O



























,
rH
O

4-1
C
o
u

II
z
^-^
u

;

0
U
c
0
SH
0
0
II
K

r

•
^
CT.

tH
~^^
rH
1-1
XI
cn
3
0
Vi

-P
rH
rH
O
rH

•a
0
4-1
o
3
•a
c
o
u















w
w


_(-Ki


^^
—
-P
D
0














1
J

wl





0
4-1
0
0
»^











*
*
01
0
4-1
"I
Number
ue Repl
ji
H









0
.-y
w
       oooooooooooooooo
              *****
       oooooooooooooooo

       oooooooooooooooo
       oooooooooooooooo

       ooooodoooo'ddooo'cD
•H
•u
0
•H
•a
Q)

S
Initial
Annapolis
Betterton
Bear Creek
Curtis Bay
Gibson Island
Junction Rt.50
Outer" Harbor
Middle Banch
Northwest Harbor
South Ferry
Sparrows Point
Turner ' s Creek
Poropatank (R)
Lynnhaven Mud (C
Lynnhaven Sand (:
                                                                   in
                                                                   o

                                                                   o

                                                                   v

                                                                   ft
                                                                   4-1
                                                                   C
                                                                   O
                                                                   U

                                                                   C
                                                                   cfl
                                                                   a
                                                                   4J

                                                                   (0
                                                                   Dl
                                                                   Q)
C
cfl
U
-H


 Cn
-.H
W
                                    4-18

-------
greatest number of sites with significant mortality effects.   Bear
Creek and Northwest Harbor (Patapsco River) sites showed the lowest
survival for both L. dytiscus and L.  plumulosus on both day 10 and
day 20, while S. benedicti demonstrated the lowest survival at the
Middle Branch (Patapsco River) and Annapolis (Severn River) sites.
In  the Cyprinodon  variegatus  egg  tests,  Bear Creek,  Northwest
Harbor, Sparrows Point and Curtis Bay sites resulted in the lowest
survival  (Table 4.13).  On day  20, significantly  reduced survival
in  the L.  dytiscus was  only  observed  in  the Baltimore  Harbor
(Patapsco) sites with the exception of Betterton and Gibson Island
when adjusting for particle size effects. Taking into consideration
all  potential significant  survival  effects  after particle  size
adjustment,  Patapsco  river  sites had 83% "hits",  Sassafras  River
50%, Magothy River 66% and Severn  41%.   Those sites with the least
number of  "hits"  were Turners Creek and Junction  Route  50 with 2
hits each, both with S. benedicti.
     Significant reduction in growth of L. plumulosus was reported
in the Curtis Bay sediment.   It should be noted that there were no
survivors in the Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor sites:  therefore,
no growth data could be analyzed  for these  sites.   Lynnhaven sand
also caused decreased growth as compared with controls,  however it
is suspected that  this was caused  by insufficient food as indicated
by the  relatively low TOC  (see Table 4.7)  and not by  toxicity.
Particle size in the Lynnhaven Sand reference is nearly 100%  sand.
It is expected that food sources become limited during the test for
L. plumulosus.  The natural control sediment  for L.  plumulosus is
only approximately  2%  sand.   For this reason it is  expected that
survival in this reference would  be low  after  20 days  of exposure
to uncontaminated but highly  sand-laden  sediments.
     A number of sediments resulted in significantly reduced length
in S. benedicti  (Table 4.16).  Only four of the twelve sites failed
to demonstrate  reduced lengths;  Annapolis,  Outer Harbor,  Middle
Branch, and Turners Creek.
     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 many  sediment-associated metals is  related to
the concentration of  Acid  Volatile Sulfides (AVS)  present  in  the
sediment (DiToro, 1990).  Sediment samples  from  the'  twelve stations

                               4-19

-------
and the controls were analyzed for Total Organic Carbon  (TOC)  and
Acid Volatile Sulfides (AVS).  The results are shown in Tables  4.17
and 4.18.   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 (DiToro, 1990)  and  has  yet  to be  incorporated into  a
standarized method for determining sediment  quality criteria.  To
appropriately interpret the  AVS  data,  simultaneously  extractable
metals (SEM)  must also be analyzed.  The data  for SEM are  presented
in Table 4.19.  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
4.18.   All  stations had ratios much less  than  one,  therefore
toxicity  due to metals  would not normally be  indicated.  AVS in
both the Bear Creek and Curtis Bay sediments is greatly  elevated,
therefore some consideration of the formation  of sulfuric  and other
acids in the  anoxic zones must be considered as a potential natural
"toxicants",  and may lead  to mortality.   Additionally,  because  the
SEM value in the  Bear  Creek sediments  is  relatively high when
compared to the other sites, the potential exists  for  toxicity to
occur when these sediments  are  exposed  to  oxidizing  conditions,
whether in an aerated toxicity test or during winter storm events
in the field.
     Inorganic  contaminants data  from  the  twelve  stations   are
presented in  Table 4.20.  All  test sites  had concentrations above
the detection limits  for  ten  of  the  eleven metals  analyzed.   The
eleventh metal,  tin,  was  below detection limit at  several sites.
The Lynnhaven sand and Lynnhaven mud sites had concentrations below
detection  limits  for  mercury,  and  tin,  while   the Poropotank
sediment  was below the detection  limit  for  mercury.   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

                               4-20

-------
Table 4.17    Chemical data (TOC)  for sediment  samples  from the six  stations and the
              controls.   All  data  are on  a  dry  weight basis.


Station                  Total Organic Carbon  (%)

Annapolis                          1.94
Betterton                          2.89
Bear Creek                         6.23
Curtis Bay                         3.75
Gibson Island                      1.07
Junction Rt.50                     2.37
Outer Harbor                       3.97
Middle Banch                       2.97
Northwest Harbor                   8.59
South Ferry                        2.45
Sparrows Point                     4.60
Turner's Creek                     2.21
Poropatank (R)                     3.53
Lynnhaven Mud (C)                  1.39
Lynnhaven Sand (R)s               <0.36
                                      4-21

-------
Table 4.18 Average SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment samples
           tested in 1994.
Annapolis
Betterton
Bear Creek
Curtis Bay
Gibson Island
Junction Rt.50
Middle Banch
Northwest Harbor
Outer Harbor
South Ferry
Sparrows Point
Turner's Creek
Lynnhaven Sand
Lynnhaven Mud
Poropatank
Mean AVS

  8.97
 21.96
294.00
136.44
  7.12
 11.49
 21.48
 77.69
 69.51
 22.44
 59.69
 25.20
  5.19
  4.85
 25.76
Mean SEM

 4.476
 3.249
39.872
 8.213
 2.258
 4.057
 5.682
 7.837
11.441
 2.771
15.412
 2.657
 0.000
 0.947
 1.189
Ratio

0.499
0.148
0.136
0.060
0.317
0.353
0.265
0.101
0.165
0.123
0.258
0.105
0.000
0.195
0.046
                                           4-22

-------
rH
-P
Q)
£
U
id
Q)
M
0
MH
01
C
0
4->
id
4->
C
0)
CJ
C
0
U
en
00
o
rH
i
t-*
o
rH
•o
0)
4-1
0
0)
rH
rH .
0 -P
U C
(U
01 g
4-> -rl
C "O
Q) Q)
6 01
•C tH
Q) 0
01
g
vi id
O Vl


01 Vl
4-> Q)
C ft
Q)
e__)
1— 1
•rl 0
t3 g
Q) 3
01
C
Vl -rl
O
m 73
Q)
01 01
-rl 01
01 0)
>1 rl
rH O,
id x
C Q)
id
g Q)
w i-i
W «J




Ch
iH
•
^

0)
rH
JQ
id
EH









i|
col |







01 C
c id
"H 0)
N! g




,
0) C
0 Q)
•H g








•O C
id id
0) 0)
J g








Q) C
D id
0 0)
0 g
o









p*
3 C
p
o















a
4.

V






*D CT> £^
. t- t* £•
^ CN
.. __ 0^
^* n ~^







rH rH JO
ro CN °j
n o! «





t-~ O rH
CN r- in
000








^* rH CN
rH o r~
CN CN 00
O . 0 O








VD O O
r^ o o
in o o
000










in CN oo
"3* in vo
O O CN
o o o










y
01 C CD
•HOC!)
rH 4J Vl
O M U
ft 0)
j| id 4-> vi
J C 4J Id
H C Q) 0)
3| < 03 O






n co
rH in
CN CN
CO CN







n o
r*l O
VD 00
in rH





in r-
<£> 00
f~ rH
O o








r~ in
rH rH
CTl rH
o o








VD ID
a> in
VD rH
0 0










n o
0 0
CN O
o o







•a
c
id
r-H
>l 01
id H
03
C
01 0
4-1 01
Vl Q
3 -H
U O






rH
**
•*
^|







n
en
co





5
o








VD
ID
O








in
r-
rH
rH










•*
in
rH
O








^_j
O

^1
id
K

J_j
0)
4->
3
O






r-
in
0
*







CN






«

C
O
-rl
-P
U
C
3







CN
00
in







en
0





CN
o








CN
rH
in
o








ID
r-
oo
0










O
o
o
o







rj
0
c
id
VI
m

Q)
rH
•o
T3
•rl
g






r-
ro
CD
r^







CN
00
in





in
CN
CN
O








00
O
1
J-)
Vl
0)


(-J
4J
3
0
co






CN
rH
in
rH







0
CN
rH





H
CN
0








in
n
rH
rH








00
en
rH
rH










in
rH
d






4J
C
-rl
0
CM

01
u
O

Vl
id
ft
CO






I
CN







>D
00
rH






id

in
ID o
§ 8
O o
o d
MH
o

tn
4J
•rl
g
-rl
0 rH
I |

CU
4-1
0)
TD

^
O
rH
CU

m
0 CU
O Vl
O Q)
Q
01
0)
3
1
id
01 Vl
-P 3
•^ U
g Vl
-r-l Q)
r-l g

C rH
0 rH
•rl Hi
-P *
O
0) U
4-> H
0) O
Q S
4-23

-------
•a
01
in
in
0)
iH
ft
X
01

01
tl
H
to
r-H
(0
4J
01

.c
o
(8
0)
.H
0
m
01
c
O
•rH
4-1
(ti
!H
4-1
C
0)
U
C
o
u

.
<*
CTi
^^
CO
"*^
o
rH
1
r~
^»
O
rH

•a
0)
4-1
u
0)
r-H
rH
O •
0 JJ
tn Q)
•P e
C -rl
0) T>
e a)
•H in
•a
01 MH
w o

n e
O (B
4H V4
Dl
in
"H >H
in oi
>i ft
rH
(ti rH
C O
(a e
3
•• 2
— we
- W -H
4-1
c
0
u


tyi .
rH
,
*t

0)
rH
X!
(ti
EH











3 cti
col OJ
2







01 C
C| (ti
•H 0)
N| 2








,__)
0) C
.* (ti
U 0)
•H 2






T3 C
(0 (0
0) 0)
i-l 2









Mean









Cadmium
Mean































o
0
0
o







0
o
o
o









o
0
o
o






0
o
o
o









o
o
0
0









o
o
o
d









•a
c
(ti
co

c
0)
>
(ti
JS
c
c
>1
ij








r-
•^1
Oi
0







o
H
00
o









o
o
0
o






r~-
«*
0
0









CTi
CO
0
C3









0
O
O
o










TI
3
2

C
0)
>
(0
£
C
C
>i
J








CTl
CO
rH
r-l







ro
t
i-H
•
rH









O
o
0
o






VD
•*!•
0
O









O
o
o
o









o
o
o
o








•a
3
2

X
C
(ti
-P
O
ft
0
VI
o
14
PK


















If)
O
0
O
o







r-H
^J
0
o
o
o






tf>
0
o
o
o









o
in
0
O
O









n
o
0
0
•
o














c
0
•r|
4-1 tn
O 4-1
0) -H
4-1 E
0) -H
Q 1-5

















•
sites
rH
rH
(0

(-1
0
MH

in
4-1
0)
in
J3
4-1
o
XI
c
•rl

If)
O
o
0
o
0

MH
o

in
4J
•rl
e
•rl
rH
0
4-1
0
0)
4-1
0)
TD

3
O
rH
01
XI
01
r-l
OJ
in
0)
3
rH
(ti
>

>1
(-1
3
U
!H
0)
2

rH
rH
<

• •
U
H
O
z
4-24

-------
  0
  l-l
 -p
  c
  0
  u
 sco
 O  rd   C

 I   73   II
 Q)  01
 Cn  2   I
 C   I    I
 rd  0)
 K  Cn  •»
     C   0)
 r-H
  (U

 H

  0)
 £
 4-1


  0
 tn
 (U
 rH
 a

 rd
 tn

 4-1
 c
 Q)
 e
 •H
 •a
 Q)
 to
          rd
          rd
      •P  «
      U
      0)  CO
      MH  4->  -H
      iw  O   rd
      W  Q)   >
      r    MH   rd
          MH
      Cn  H  4->
      C  =    0
      ••-»       C
      •a  tn
 01
 0)
 o  -a  <
 X   0)  S
 01   a>
     o    •
 tn   x  —
 C   0)  O
 o       en
•H   tn  m
4->   C  rH
 rd   O
 1H  -H   v
4-1  4-)  C
 C   rd  rd
 0)   i4  en
 U  4-1  V-l  TD
 C   C  O   01
 0   0)
o   o
     C  73
              2  -P
                   w
     0   C  rH
     U   rd
              01
 in   4J   Cn  in
 0)   C   C   O
 VH   01   0  rC
 a  in  j  4-1
 01   01
 VH   M   C   C
     a -rH   rd
 co   fli      £
 0)   M  73  4J
 3        0)
rH   in   c   cn
 rd   01  -rH   to
 >   3  MH   0)
    rH   0)  rH
73   rd  73
01
c
.rH
rH
rH
01
T3
c
3

0)
rH
01
C
•rH
tn

• •
0)
4-1
0
z
>

TJ
0)
c
•rH
rH
rH
0)
73
C
3

0)
rH
rQ
3
o
73

73
C

tn
rd

3
O
rH
0)
rQ

73
01
-P
cn
•rH
rH

CO
rH
Q)
>
01
01
IH
0)
s

cn
0)
3
I-H
rd
>

II

V

• *.
73
0)
4-1
cn
•rH
o
CN
X!
 rd
E-i
                       C

                       (



                       VH
                      •0

                       0

                      "o
                                        01
                                       4-1
                                       -rH

                                       W




VC
c
f
OC
C
CC
C



O
H
rH


CO
CN

0
VO
CN
O

VO
in
in

VO

0
in

en
oo
rH

ro
00
O

CM
Oi
in
o
o
ro
CM
CM






tn
.rH
r-H
0
a
rd
c
c




o
II CN
Ur
II CM



t-
ro
in

en
rH
in


r
\«
t
0
CO
ro
O

•
vO
CN|



1
.1
10
•*
1 ro


1
d

VOl
CM
in|
O
rH
CM
oo






y
Q)
0)
rH
U

J-l
rd
01
co.




oo
in
ro
CN
CO
CO
o



o
CO
rH


ro
ro
en
CN
O
CM
O

inl
r-
vo|

<*

Cn
in
0
'I1
vO


CN
in
rH

CMl
H

o
0
vO
ro
ro






C
O
-p
rH
01
4-1

0)
m




1 "-1
VO
1 •*

ro
m
ro



O
rH
cn


CM
r-
ro
ro
O
VD
O


m
rs



S
CM

rH
CO
rH

^
«*
'CN


r^
CN
rH
O
O
r-
CO
rH





^
rd
m

in
.rH
4-1

3
U




»r-
r*i
M
o
CM
ro
O


O
CM
r-
o


ro
00
rH
CTi
m
o
o

oo
in
in
CN

in

rH
cn
VO
in


CN

o

ro
ro
CM
O
0
rH
0
rH


73
c
rd
rH
in
M

C
0
CD
X!

O




VC
t—
CN
rH
0
ro
O
V


in
r-
CN


in
r^
•*
<*
in
CN
o

•H
VO
vO

rH

ro

in
CN
rH

en
0
rH

•^
r-
in
o
o
in
in
CM

O
in
.
4-1
K

C
O
•rH
-P
O
C
3
•-3




01
ro
liro

VO
O
rH



O
rH
CN


ro
r-


O




II o-
o-
II r-
rH
O
P"
o
y


o
•<*
rH


rH
ro
CM
rH
VC
rH
O

en

3

^

oo
ro
•*
cn
CM


m
o
rH

ro
ro

O
CN
en





r^l
^)
^(
01
fe

r]
4->
3
O
W




9 in
m
v£


0
VC
rH


00
en
ro


o
vO
m
^
"d1
»*•
o

1-
00
r-
rH



2

VO
O^
ro

cn
rH
CM

OI


O
o
o
ro

4->
C
-H
0
a,

in
^
0

rH
rd
a
w




«ro
«-j
rH
VO
VO
t
o


VO
CM
en
o


ro
^f
ro
in
cn
0
o

ro
in
ro

en

r-
rH

VO
CN
rH

ro
vO
O

en
cn;

o
o
CM
CO
rH

y
01
01
J_(
u

cn
fc
^i
01
c
SH
3
H



vO o
rH . r-
• CN i-
CM t- r-
rH rH rr
O O r~
ro ro IT
O O
V V

CM <* C
•* O OC
O CN VC
O O O

o
VO
ro CO O
O rH ro
rH CN
000
ro ro ro
O O O
O O O
V V V
O CO rH
CM
• CM en
rH rH rH
0
in
rH r- ro

O CN 00
rH rH
rH
cn
vo CM r-
O CM rH
CM in

oo
^J1 O rH
rH 00 'tf
O rH O

O rH r-
rH ^T CN
rH CM •*
00 O O
•* 0 0
ro •* O
rH 0
•H ro

•o
C 73
rfl 3
W 2

C C C
CD 01 rd
> > 4-1
rd rd rd
rC rC D.
CCO
C C rH
>i >i 0
































































ro
O
O

O


rH
O
ro
0


in
rH
0
o


VO
o
o
o

o
ro
o

O
ro
O
O

ro
O
O
o
ro
O
O


0
ro
O
O
in
rH
o

o
rH
O
ro
O






C
O
•rH
-P 4->
O -rH
0) E
4-1 -H
01 J
Q

















































• •
0)
CT
C
rd


in
4-1
u
01
IfH
IfH
W
                                                                                                                                         O  O
                                                                                                                                         CM  f-
                                                                                                                                         rH  CM
                                                                                                                                        O  O
                                                                                                                                        ro  in
                                                                                                                                             rH  ro

                                                                                                                                             O  rH
                                                                                                                                        in  o
                                                                                                                                        ro  rH
                                                                                                                                        O  O
                                                                                                                                        r>  en
                                                                                                                                            ro
                                                                                                                                             O  in
                                                                                                                                             CO  •<*
                                                                                                                                             in  cn
                                                                                                                                             ro  in
                                                                                                                                             ro  oo
                                                                                                                                            ft!
                                                                                                                                            M
                                                                                                                                            D

                                                                                                                                            2
                                                                                4-25

-------
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.
     Inorganic analysis revealed one site  (Bear Creek) exceeded the
ER-M values for cadmium.  Lead and zinc were found  to  exceed either
the ER-L or ER-M at every test site,  while  chromium exceeded either
one or the other of  these  levels  at  all but  Betterton, Gibson
Island and South Ferry. Similarly, mercury values exceeded either
ER-L or ER-Ms at  all but Turner Creek and Gibson Island.  Arsenic
exceeded these values  at all  but Gibson  Island.  Copper was not as
widespread, however concentrations measuring nearly 3  times the ER-
L were observed  in  Bear Creek  sediments,  and  the Sparrows Point
and Outer Harbor sites had values  approaching  twice to three times
the ER-Ls.
     The results  of organic pesticides and semi-volatile  compound
analyses  in sediment  samples  are  presented  in  Appendix  B. No
pesticides  exceeded either the ER-L or ER-M  for  these compounds
(Long  and Morgan  1990).  Contamination by semi-volatile organic
compounds was  widespread,  and  exceeded the ER-Ms  at a number of
Baltimore Harbor  (Patapsco River) sites.   Most notably were the
high concentration of  both pyrene  and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.  Some
of the values  reached nearly  five times  the  ER-M for pyrene and
over 22 times the ER-M for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.   Both  of these
values were observed at the Northwest Harbor  site in the  Patapsco
River.

     4.2.3  Pore  Water Data
     Sediment  pore  water  was  analyzed  for sulfide,  ammonia, and
nitrite for all stations and  the controls.   The pore water data are
shown  in  Table 4.21.   Ammonia concentrations  were converted to
percent unionized ammonia  for  comparison  with EPA' criteria for

                               4-26

-------
Table 4.21 Chemical data for pore water samples from the twelve  stations and the
           references and controls.
Site:
Total
Ammonia
 (ma/L)
Nitrite
(ma/L)
Sulfide
(ma/L)
Unionized
Ammonia
(ma/L)
Unionized
Toxicity
Limits
(ma/L)
Annapolis            4.34
Bear Creek           8.69
Betterton            3.98
Curtis Bay          17.55
Gibson Island        6.56
Junction Rt.50       3.12
Middle Banch         4.16
Northwest Harbor    14.78
Outer Harbor         4.13
South Ferry         12.16
Sparrows Point       5.65
Turner's Creek       6.52
Lynnhaven Sand       3.67
Lynnhaven Mud        6.10
Poropatank           2.51
           0.0142
           0.0029
           0.0029
           0.0110
           0.0049
           0.0055
           0.0119
           0.0006
           0.0156
           0.0032
            ,0119
            .0090
           0.0462
           0.0225
           0.0095
0.
0.
 0.0043
 0.0154
 0.0056
 0.0117
 0.0043
 0.0043
 0.0105
 0.0289
 0.0056
 0.0179
 0.0056
 0.0105
 0.0400
 0.0228
 0.0092
 0.0350
 0.2724
 0.0796
 0.4398
 0.0834
 0.0397
 0.0529
 0.3704
 0.0525
 0.2433
 0.0456
 0.0526
 0.0920
 0.0311
 0.0502
0.0130
0.0517
0.0326
0.0410
0.0206
0.0206
0.0206
0.0411
0.0411
0.0326
0.0130
0.0130
0.0082
0.0326
0.0326
                                      4-27

-------
continuous concentrations for saltwater aquatic life.  Values for
sediment  exposure  concentrations   have   not  been  determined.
Therefore   these  "comparison"   values   should    be   extremely
conservative,  as it  is  suspected  that sediment  organisms have
developed  either a  greater  tolerance  for  ammonia, or  exhibit
behaviors or physiological responses which enable them to live in
high ammonia environments.

     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  4.22.    All
organisms were  tested using cadmium chloride  (CdCl2) .   All test
LCSO's were  within  the range of the previous reference toxicant
tests conducted,  with  the exception of the L.  plumulosus data which
exhibited higher  sensitivity to cadmium than previous  reference
tests.  Because the survival in the control  sediment  was 84 percent
at day ten, the increased  sensitivity was attributed to the slight
reduction  in initial size  of the  animals used in  the  tests as
compared  to  the previous tests.   This increased  sensitivity in
reference  tests  did  seem to  decrease  overall negative  control
survival when compared with previous data.
                               4-28

-------
Table 4.22   Reference toxicant data results from 96-hr, water only, reference toxicant
             tests for the fourth year of the ambient toxicity project.  Cadmium chloride
             (CdCl2)  was  used  for  all  organisms.
Organism
Chemical    LC50 S CIs lma/L}
Historical
   Mean
L. plumulosus         CdCl2        0.25 (0.128-0.494)
                                              1.06
L. dytiscus
CdCl2        2.40 (1.78-3.23)
    3.76
S. benedicti
CdCl2        2.07 (1.65-2.60)
    4.26
CL. variegatus         CdCl2        0.94 (0.730-1.21)
                                              0.697
                                            4-29

-------
                             SECTION  5

                            DISCUSSION

 5.1 Patapsco River
     The  Patapsco River  (Baltimore  Harbor)  area has  historical
 contaminant problems that have been documented during our previous
 ambient toxicity testing programs (Hall et al.,  1991; Hall et al.,
 1992)  and  other  studies  (Eskin et  al.,  1994).  Most  of  the
 contaminant problems have been reported  in sediment and not  the
 water  column.    Results  from  the   1994  effort  were  somewhat
 consistent with this trend except for the  toxicity  observed with
 the coot  clam.  During the first  test  with this bivalve  species,
 reduced  shell  development was  reported  at all Baltimore Harbor
 sites  (5  sites)  except Sparrows Point. However, during  the second
 test no  biological effects were  reported at any  of the  6 sites.
 These results suggest that occasional  toxicity  can  be observed in
 the water column at  the  various Baltimore  Harbor sites.  Possible
 causes of toxicity cannot be identified.  The metals  data available
 from these tests do  not  generally suggest  that high, potentially
 toxic concentrations are available although copper  did  exceed  the
 marine water quality criteria at  the Bear Creek station.  Due to
 the lack  of  organics data  from this  study,  the  role of organic
 contaminants cannot  be assessed.
     The sediment data obtained from  the  fall 1994  sampling period
 indicated significant decrease in  survival in all  of the Baltimore
 Harbor  sites.     Streblospio  benedicti   and L.  dytiscus   tests
 indicated significant differences in  survival at  day  ten  after
 adjustment for particle size  at all  sites.  At  day  20,  only  Outer
Harbor failed to produce  significant mortality for  both  species.
Leptocheirus plumulosus resulted  in  high  significant mortality at
 both the Bear Creek  and Northwest Harbor  sites.  Growth  reduction
was seen  only  at the Curtis  Bay  site  in the L. plumulosus  test,
however,  S.  benedicti revealed length  reductions in  all  but  Outer
Harbor and Middle Branch.  Inorganic contaminants were particularly
high at Bear  Creek,  exceeding the  ER-Ms for Cd,  Cr,  Pb,  and Zn  and
ER-Ls for As,  Cu, Hg  and  Ni.    All of these sites  exceeded the  ER-
Ms for Pb, Zn and Cr.  Although the  AVS/SEM values were  all  below
one, it  is  believed that because of  the  presence of   excessive
metals concentrations in the  sediment, sufficient oxidation  takes
place at  the  sediment water interface to  oxidize the sulfide-metal
complexes, produce bioavailable forms  of  these  metals,  and induce
toxicity.    The TOC at several of these sites  (Bear  Creek, Curtis
Bay, Outer Harbor, Northwest  Harbor,  and  Sparrows point)  exceeded

                               5-1

-------
those  found  in  the  Poropotank control  and  reference sediment
suggesting much greater inputs of carbon sources than would occur
naturally.   It is currently unclear  if the  major  source of this
input is  point-source  or  non-point  urban  run-off.  Ammonia levels
were also elevated at the  Bear Creek, Curtis  Bay and Northwest
Harbor sites.  The unionized ammonia toxicity limits were exceeded
at  every  Patapsco river  site,  sometimes  by as much  as 10 times
(Curtis Bay).
     Pesticide analysis indicated the presence of  metolachlor at
five of the  six harbor sites.  In addition,  DDD, was found at the
Outer Harbor site,  and  the Bear Creek sediments contained alachlor,
methoxychlor and  trichlorbiphenyls.    None  of these,  however,
exceeded the ER-Ls.  Every site  in the Patapsco  River exceeded the
ER-Ms of  at  least  one semi-volatile compound.  The most prevalent
of  these  was dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, which  exceeded  the  ER-M at
every site.  Pyrene was also present  above the ER-Ms  at multiple
sites.   Naphthalene,  phenanthrene,  benzo(a)pyrene,  fluoranthene
were also found above the  ER-Ms in the Patapsco River  (Appendix B).
     The  above sediment toxicity data can be compared with Long-
term benthic (LTB)  monitoring data  collected during the Maryland
Department of Environment Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring
Program.   The LTB data  for August 1994  from  Ranasinghe  et al.
(1995) showed  that the benthic  index of biotic integrity  (B-IBI)
indicated  either  degraded  or  severely degraded conditions  were
present in  5 of  the Baltimore Harbor  sites  evaluated during our
ambient toxicity   study  (Outer  Harbor, Bear Creek,  Curtis  Bay,
Middle River and  Northwest  Branch).  The Sparrows  Point ambient
toxicity  site  was  not evaluated  during  the LTB  sampling.   The
results from LTB  sampling are in general  agreement with the data
from our ambient toxicity testing.
5.2 Sassafras River
     The  Sassafras  River is an  ecologically important ecosystem
(e.g.,  spawning  area  for  striped  bass)  with  some  documented
contaminants present in the  sediment  (Eskin  et al.  1994). Toxicity
data  from  ambient  water  column  tests   are  not  available  from
previous studies for comparison. Results from water column tests  at
the Betterton site,  located  at the mouth of the  river,  did  suggest
the presence  of toxicity from both the  Eurytemora and coot  clam
test.   This was  the  most significant water column toxicity reported
from any of the  12 stations tested during 1994. Significant  reduced
shell development from the coot clam test at Turner Creek  (test  1)
also suggested  the  presence of water column  toxicity.  The  limited

                               5-2

-------
contaminants data available (metals data only)  did not provide any
insight  on possible  causes  of  toxicity.
     Betterton  and  Turners  Creek  sediment  resulted  in  fewer
significant toxicity results compared with  those  of  the Baltimore
Harbor sites.   While  Betterton  demonstrated toxic responses in both
L. dytiscus and S. benedicti,  Turner Creek showed  toxicity only in
the S. benedicti  tests.  Particle  size  results  indicated that the
Turner Creek site was substantially more  sandy  than  the Betterton
site, possibly affecting survival of the S.  benedicti.   There were
no growth effects in the Turners Creek  sediment, however reduction
in the S. benedicti  length  was  reduced  in the Betterton sediment.
TOC  was  not notably increased compared  with  controls at  either
site.   The SEM data  for both sites was low relative to most of the
other tests sites, but  still  elevated in comparison to reference
and control sites (Table 4.18).  Bulk metals may have been partially
responsible for  toxicity at both  sites,  as nickel and  zinc  were
greater  than  the Median Effect Range at  the Betterton  site,  and
arsenic,  lead and mercury were  greater  than  the  ER-L  at Betterton.
(Long and Morgan, 1990).  Turner Creek  sediment also exceeded the
ER-Ls  for  arsenic,  chromium,  lead,  nickel  and  zinc.   Ammonia
concentrations  were  above  the continuous  water  column  toxicity
limits, -however  they were  relatively consistent with  the  control
and reference sediment concentrations.   Pesticides were found only
in trace mounts at both sites.   No  semi-volatile organic compounds
exceeded the ER-M's  in  the  Sassafras River  sediments.

5.3 Magothy River
     The Magothy River  is located  in a highly urbanized area  with
very few  point  sources.  Potentially toxic organic contaminants have
been reported  in sediments of  this  river (Eskin  et al.,  1994).
This was  the first year  of  ambient  toxicity  testing in  this river;
therefore background data  are  not  available for comparison.   The
water column results from at least one coot clam  test  at  both the
Gibson   Island  and  South  Ferry   station  suggested   toxicity;
biological effects were not reported from any of  the  other  water
column tests.  Concentrations of  metals in the water column were not
high or  potentially  toxic  and organics  data were not  reported.
Therefore, potential causes of toxicity can not  be  identified
during the coot clam tests.
     The  South Ferry   site exhibited   sediment  toxicity  in  all
species except  L. plumulosus.  At day 20 neither L. dytiscus  or S.
benedicti demonstrated  the  same significance toxicological  effects
compared with  controls  as  they had at  day  10 when adjusting  for
particle size effects.   The Gibson Island site showed a  similar

                                5-3

-------
 pattern,  however mortality was still significant at day 20 in both
 L.  dytiscus  and  L.  plumulosus.   No  statistically  significant
 mortality was  observed  in the C.  variegatus  egg tests.   Reduction
 in  growth was observed  at  both  sites in the S. benedicti  tests,
 while  no other growth effects were observed.   TOC was  relatively
 low in the Gibson  Island sediment and is  probably   related to the
 relatively high sand  content at  the site.   Total SEM  was  also
 relatively low at both  Gibson Island and South Ferry  test sites
 when compared  with the  other  tests sites,  but was  above those for
 the reference  and  control sites.   Bulk metals analyses revealed
 lead concentration exceeding the ER-M by nearly  25  times at Gibson
 Island.  This  elevated lead content was not observed when SEM was
 measured, but could account  for  toxicity observed at  the  Gibson
 Island  site.    The  source  of  this  contamination  is  currently
 unknown.   South Ferry  was contaminated  with  levels of  arsenic,
 lead,  mercury and  zinc which exceeded  the ER-Ls.   South  Ferry
 sediments contained measurable  levels of gamma-chlordane  while
 Gibson Island sediment had   trace  levels.     No  semi-volatile
 organic  compounds  exceeded  the  ER-M's  in the   Magothy  River
 sediments.
 5 . 4  Severn River
      The  Severn River is an ecologically important river (e.g.  blue
 crabs,  key bay fish species)  with  few point  sources.  Eskin et al.
 (1994)  have  reported  the presence  of  toxic  compounds  in  the
 sediment  of this river.  Background water  column toxicity  data are
*not  available for comparison with our data. Our results  from the
 first  coot clam  test  suggest the presence of  toxic conditions in
 the  water column  from both the Annapolis and Route  50 stations. No
 effects were reported during the second coot clam  test or any of
 the   other  water  column  tests.    These  results  suggest  that
 occasional toxicity can occur  in  this river.  Possible causes of
 toxicity   can  not  be  identified  although  the metals  that  were
 measured  during this study can likely be eliminated due  to the low
 concentrations reported.
      The  Route 50 sediment caused significant mortality only in S.
 benedicti at both day 10 and 20 when  adjusting for particle  size
 effects.   Lepidactylus  dytiscus showed significant mortality  only
 prior to  particle size adjustment.   Cyprinodon variegatus and L.
 plumulosus  revealed  no   increased  mortality   over   controls.
 Annapolis sediment  caused increased mortality  in  S.  benedicti as
 well as in C.  variegatus tests.  When adjusting for particle size,
 no significant mortality was observed, in the L.  dytiscus test, and

                                5-4

-------
L. plumulosus  also did not indicate increased  toxicity.   The  only
growth effects observed were  for S. benedict! at the Route 50 site.
Total organic carbon at both  sites was moderate with respect to the
other test sites, and was  lower than that found at  the Poropotank
reference/control   site.     Carbon  loading  was   therefore   not
considered a  concern at these  sites.   The particle  size  at  the
Annapolis site was shifted  more toward the sand end of  the spectrum
when compared  with  the other test sites.   Only Gibson Island  and
Turner Creek appeared  to be  more  heavily sand-laden.   Of  all  the
test sites, Annapolis  had  the highest SEM/AVS ratio value, 0.499
(Table 4.18).   This  may have  resulted from the low AVS  which may be
somewhat correlated to the  high sand content of the  sediment.   The
Route 50 site had the second highest ratio of  all the tests sites
at 0.353.   The bulk metals  at Annapolis show chromium and  zinc
above the ER-M, and  arsenic,  lead,  mercury and nickel above the  ER-
L.  Junction Route  50  resulted in a similar pattern,  except that
only zinc  was  above the ER-M (Table 4.20).   Pesticide  analysis
showed the presence  of trifluralin  in the  Annapolis   sediment.
Additionally,   the  semi-volatile  compound dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
was present above the ER-M at the Annapolis site(Appendix  B).
                               5-5

-------
                             SECTION  6

               ANALYSIS  OF  THE  FOUR  YEAR  DATA  BASE

 6.1 Water  Column  Toxicity
     The results  of multivariate  composite  index  calculations for
 water  column  toxicity  for the  1990,  1991,  1992-93,  and  1994
 experiments are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,  6.4a and 6.4b
 respectively.  The species tested and the  number of  endpoints used
 varied slightly  from  year  to year (i.e.,  five water  column  tests
 for  1990,  four  tests for  1991,  1992-93  and  1994).    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  TOX-INDEX values  for
 control  (or reference) and  test sites is  presented in Table  6.1.
     The TOX-INDEX analysis for the 1990 data in Figure  6.1 showed
 that the Elizabeth River  was clearly the most toxic site  tested, as
 the median for the index of the test  condition  was clearly greater
 than  the  reference   (control).   The  confidence  limits  for  the
 reference  and test condition  did not overlap at this  location.
 Nearly half of  the  endpoints  displayed  significant differences
 between the reference and  test conditions.   The results  from the
 Elizabeth River are not surprising since significant mortality was
 observed in two of the three estuarine tests that were  conducted.
 The second most toxic  area  identified with the TOX-INDEX  analysis
 was the Patapsco  River as significant mortality was reported in one
 out of three tests.   However, the confidence   interval  was fairly
wide (indicating  variability)  for this station  and  there was no
 difference in the median values for  the reference and  test  site.
 The results from  the  Indian Head, Freestone Point,  Possum Point,
Morgantown,   Dahlgren  and  Wye  River   stations  indicated   no
 significant difference with index values between the reference and
 test conditions for the  1990 tests.  Both Morgantown  and  Dahlgren
 stations  did show limited biological  effects  with  one  of the  tests
 (significant mortality with  the sheepshead minnow  test).   However,
these  results from  the  test   condition  were  not  significantly
different than the reference when all endpoints from all  tests were
 combined for the  final index calculations.
     The multivariate  composite index calculations for  the 1991

                                6-1

-------
 Figure  6.1    TOX-INDEX results for the  1990  water column data.
                (See Section 3.4  for a detailed description of
                presentation).
  50
       Indian  Head
!y 30-
  20-
  10-

i
  -10
     o
      Reference
                Test
     Freestone Point
     Reference
               Test
      Possum Point
  50
  40-1
  20
 -10
     Reference
               Test
  50
        Dahlgren
£40 1
•i3l
£ 20}
 ' 0
 -10
     Reference
                Test
                                                        Patapsco
£.40-
530
^20-
5 10
f o-
in .
o

ou
£- 40
° in
"X 30
•- 20-
!'°
^ o-
.in.
O

                                                     Reference
                                                                Test
                                                       Wye River
Reference
                                                                Test
                                                       Morgantown
                                                     Reference
                                                                Test
                                                         Elizabeth
                                                      Reference
                       Location Symbol Key
                  Concentrations Exceeding WQC
                    O 0      € 1-2      03+
            Test is significantly separated from reference
                                   6-2
                                                                Test

-------
 Figure 6.2    TOX-INDEX results for the  1991 water column  data
               (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description  of
               presentation).
  50
£-40
£30-
& 20-
        Potapsco
 Z  0
 -10
     Reference
              Test
  50
£-40-
-§30-
*~ 20-
         Dahlgren
0
I
10-
  0
 -10
    Reference
              Test
                                                     Wye River
                                                   o
                                                    Reference
                                                             Test
                                                     Morgantown
Reference
Test
                         Location Symbol Key
                    Concentrations Exceeding WQC
                      OO      O  1-2      03+
                                 6-3

-------
Figure 6.3    TOX-INDEX results for the  1992-3  water column data.
              (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
              presentation).
  50
Wilson Point
                                                    Frog Mortar
 g 30-
 fc 20-
 | 10-
   o
     Reference
         Test
Quarter Creek
 £40
 o 30'
 £ 20-
 JB 10
 I 0
   -10
                                                     Manor House
      Reference   Test
         Bivalve
ou-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
in.
O

                                                              Test
                                             Sandy Hill Beach
WJ
40
30"
20-
10
0
^_^
( ^)
V_^



                                                    Reference
                                                              Test
                       Location  Symbol Key
                  Concentrations Exceeding  WQC
                     O 0     O 1-2      03+
          * Test is significantly separated from  reference
                                 6-4

-------
Figure 6.4a
TOX-INDEX results  for the 1994 water column  data
for the Severn, Magothy and sassafras Rivers.   (See
Section 3.4 for a  detailed description of
presentation).
 50
       South Ferry
   Junction Route 50
                                                50
                                               £40
                                               o
                                        Betterton
                                                   Reference
                                               Test
                                                    Turner Creek
au-
1"
O 30'
5 10-
(3
*
                                                   Reference
                                               Test
   Reference
Test
Location Symbol  Key
                                                50
                                              £"40-
                                              ^ 20-
                                              0
                                              O ID'
                                                    Gibson Island
Reference
Test
                  Concentrations Exceeding WQC
                    O 0     O  1-2      • 3+
           Test is significantly  separated from reference
                                6-5

-------
Figure 6.4b   TOX-INDEX results for  the 1994 water column data
                for Baltimore  Harbor sites.   (See  Section  3.4  for a
                detailed description of presentation).
           Northwest Harbor
50
*«•
£30
s20
P 10
(3
*
           Reference
                    Test
        50
             Curtis Bay
      J3 30
      520
      5 10
         o
           Reference
                    Test
Middle Branch
o 40
JO 30
| 10
O


*
                                                         Bear Creek
                                           Reference    fesf
                                           Sparrows Point
                                                      Reference
                                                                Test
                                                       Outer Harbor
                                          "FOLK!
so
40
30
20
10
-^
(m
^-^

*
^* DafAr£»rw~a 7«ac+
           Reference   Test      Location  Symbol Key
                       Concentrations Exceeding  WQC
                          O 0      € 1-2      03+
                * Test is  significantly separated from reference
                                   6-6

-------
Table 6.1  Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.1  - 6.4.
          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
BEAR CREEK
MTDDT P RRAMPH
NORTHWEST HARBOR
OUTER HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
SPARROWS POINT
ELIZABETH RIVER
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND
SOUTH FERRY
vjinriT P RTVPT?

FROG MORTAR
WILSON POINT
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE
SANDY HILL BEACH
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN
FREESTONE POINT
INDIAN HEAD
MORGANTOWN
POSSUM POINT
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON
TURNER'S CREEK
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS
JUNCTION ROUTE 50
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE
QTIARTFR TRFFK
1990
--
-
--
--
-
0
-
X
..

--



--


-
0

0
0
0
1
0


--
--
-
0

-
1991
-
--
--
-
--
0
-
—
..

--



--


-
o

-
--
0
--


--
--
--
0

-
1992-3
-
-
--
-
--
--
-
—
_.

-
x


X
0

o


--
--
-
-


--
--
--
0

0
1994
X
0
X
X
X
-
X
„
X

o



--


--


--
--
-
-
X

X
X
X


--
                                                      6-7

-------
experiments are presented in Figure 6.2.  Four water column tests
with two endpoints for each test were used to determine the final
values for two testing periods  (summer  and fall).   The Wye River
site showed the most significant effects as significant mortality
was  reported for  two different test  species during different
testing periods.  Although the median values from the reference and
test sites were different, there was overlap of confidence limits
with these  two  conditions.   A  comparison of  reference  and test
index values for the Patapsco River, Morgantown  and Dahlgren sites
showed no significant differences.  However, reduced growth of the
sheepshead minnow was reported at both the Morgantown and Dahlgren
sites during the summer experiments.
     The results from the 1992-93 experiments presented in Figure
6.3 include experiments conducted during the fall (1992) and spring
(1993)  at each of the 6 sites  (2  sites per river).  The most toxic
sites were reported at both Middle River  stations (Wilson Point and
Frog Mortar Creek).  Results from the coot clam toxicity tests  (2
tests  per experiment conducted  in the  fall  and  spring)  showed
consistent toxicity  at both sites.  Although  median  values were
similar  for  both Middle River  sites,  the variability at Wilson
Point was greater than at Frog Mortar.  Water quality criteria were
exceeded at both sites.   The results from TOX-INDEX 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 Wye
River-Quarter Creek site during the spring experiments.
     The results of the 1994 experiments  are  presented in Figure
6.4a and 6.4b.  The TOX-INDEX values from the Severn,  Magothy and
Sassafras Rivers were guite similar to those of the corresponding
reference sites  (Figure 6.4a).  However, the confidence limits for
all sites  in these rivers  except  South Ferry  (Magothy)  did not
overlap the limits  for the  reference  condition.  Thus, the sites
displayed statistical differences  but they were  of questionable
ecological significance.   In Baltimore Harbor,  Sparrows Point site
displayed  significant toxicity  (Figure   6.4b)  while  Northwest
Harbor,  Bear  Creek,  Middle  Branch,   and  Outer  Harbor  showed
statistically significant but ecologically minimal toxicity.  The
Curtis Bay exhibited no toxic effects.
     A summary of  the four  year  water column  data base using the
TOX-INDEX analysis  showed the following ranking of toxicity for the
various sites:

     •    the Elizabeth River (1990), the Middle River  (1992-93) ,
          and Sparrows Point in  Baltimore Harbor (1994) were the

                               6-8

-------
     most  toxic sites tested during the first four  years  of
     the Ambient Toxicity Testing Program;

•    the Wye River-Manor House 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;  Wye River-
     Manor  House  site  tested  in 1990  and  Wye River  (Manor
     House  and  Quarter  Creek  sites)  tested  in   1992-93
     displayed no water column toxicity;

•    Baltimore Harbor showed variable toxicity:

     •    in  1990,  the  Patapsco  River  site  showed  some
          toxicity  as  evidenced  by   the  wide   confidence
          interval;  however,  the  test  condition   on  the
          average  was not significantly different than the
          control;

     •    in  1991,  the Patapsco  River  site displayed  no
          toxicity;

     •    in 1994,  Sparrows  Point displayed  significant water
          column toxicity, while the other  5 sites displayed
          little   (Bear Creek,   Middle  Branch,  Northwest
          Harbor,  Outer Harbor)  or no  (Curtis Bay)   overall
          toxic effects.

•    the (1994) TOX-INDEX values for  the Severn,  Sassafras,
     and one  of  the Magothy  River  sites  (Gibson   Island)
     displayed  statistically  significant   differences  from
     those  from the reference conditions, but the  magnitude  of
     the water  column  toxicity  appeared to be  minimal for
     these areas.

•    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 water  column
     effects;

•    the composite  index for the reference and test  conditions
     were similar  at  both Nanticoke River  sites  (1992-93),
     thus suggesting no significant water column effects.

                          6-9

-------
6.2 Sediment Toxicity
     The results of the multivariate composite index calculations
for sediment toxicity  for the 1990, 1991, 1992-93,  and  1994  studies
are  summarized   in  Figures  6.5,  6.6,   6.7,   6.8a  and   6. 8b
respectively.  It should be noted that the species and the number
of  endpoints  tested  varied  slightly  from  year  to  year,   so
comparisons  of  index  values within the  figures  (within the  same
year)  are more comparable than those between figures.  Nonetheless,
the  comparisons  of  concurrent  reference  and test  experiments
provide insight into the relative magnitude  of  the toxic responses
of  the  various  sites.    Table  6.2  summarizes  the  comparisons
presented in Figures  6.5 - 6.8.
     During  the  1990  study,  the Elizabeth  River  was  clearly the
most  toxic  of  the  sites,  since  all  species displayed  nearly
complete  mortality during  the  first  10  days of  the experiment
(i.e.,  the median  for  the index  for  the test data  was greatly
separated  from the median for  the  reference data,  with  little
variation; Figure 6.5).  The Elizabeth River provides an example  of
the worst case TOX-INDEX values.  The confidence limits of the  test
data   index   values  were   well   separated  from  those  of  the
corresponding reference sites for a number of other sites: Patapsco
River;  Wye  River;  and  the Freestone Point,  Possum Point  and
Dahlgren sites on the Potomac River (although the  latter two sites
displayed a considerable degree of variation in index values).  The
Indian  Head  and  Morgantown sites  on the  Potomac  River displayed
only slight separation between the median multivariate  index values
for the test  and  reference conditions.  Thus, the magnitude  of
potential  toxicity appears to  be less  for the  Indian  Head and
Morgantown sites than for the others. It should be noted, however,
that all sites selected for the  first year of the  study were those
considered "suspect" due to the  results of previous studies, so  it
is not surprising that most displayed  significant deviations  from
the reference conditions.
     The 1991 study involved  an assessment of the effects  of short-
term temporal  variability  (a summer  versus a fall collection)  on
the apparent toxicity of sediments from four sites. The separation
between test and reference  treatments was greatest for  the Patapsco
River  site,  with  less  separation being  displayed  for Dahlgren,
Morgantown, and the Wye (Figure  6.6).   The results of the Patapsco
River  index  comparison were remarkably similar to those observed
for the 1990 study.  The  Dahlgren site index values, which  were
quite  variable  in  the 1990 study, were still separated from the
reference values in the 1991 study. The small degree of separation

                               6-10

-------
 Figure 6.5    TOX-INDEX results for  the 1990  sediment data.
                (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description  of
                presentation).
       Indian Head
 50
                                                       Patapsco River
0401
 20
 10
     Reference
                Test
     Freestone Point
50'
•040"
lao-
•s
m 20
=5 10-
(3




*
m^m

     Reference
               Test
      Possum Point
 50
|40l
§20
     Reference
               Test
        Dahlgren
 50
040'
£30-
§20'
=0 10 •
  0
     3
Reference
               Test
                                                       O
                                                      Reference
                                                                 Test
                                                         Wye River
                                                      Reference
                                                                 Test
                                                         Morgantown
                                                       (3
                                                      Reference
                                                                 Test
                                                       Elizabeth River
                         Location Symbol Key
                                                      Reference
                                                                 Test
                   Concentrations Exceeding  ER-M
                     OO      €  1-2      • 3+
              * Test is  significantly separated  from reference
                                   6-11

-------
Figure 6.6   TOX-INDEX results for the  1991 sediment data.
             (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
             presentation).
                                                  Wye River
 50
                     Location Symbol  Key
                Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
                  O 0     € 1-2     03+

              Test is significantly  separated from reference
                              6-12

-------
Figure 6.7
TOX-INDEX results ofr the 1992-3 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation).
      Wilson Point
                                      Frog Mortar
                                                       Hill Beach
   Reference
**>
o40
'x
^30'
"E20
lio-
1 °"
Trt -1






— •••• 	 ••••
                     Location Symbol Key
                Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
                  O 0     € 1-2     03+
         * Test is significantly separated from reference
                              6-13

-------
 Figure 6.8a
TOX-INDEX results for the 1994  sediment  data  for
the Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers.   (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation).
      South Ferry
 50
o40
                                                       Betterton
     Junction Route 50
     Reference   Test     Location Symbol  Key
                 Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
                   O 0      O  1-2     • 3+
                                    Reference    Test
               Test is significantly separated from  reference
                                6-14

-------
 Figure 6.8b   TOX-INDEX results for the 1994  sediment from the
              Baltimore Harbor sites.  (See Section 3.4 for a
              detailed description of presentation).
   Northwest Harbor
                                     Bear Creek
100
   Reference
Test
Test
              Concentrations Exceeding  ER-M
                   o-O       €-1-2     0
             Test is  significantly separated from reference
                             6-15

-------
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM  indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures  6.5  -  6 8
          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
BEAR CREEK
CURTIS BAY
MIDDLE BRANCH
NORTHWEST HARBOR
OUTER HARBOR
PATAPSCO RIVER
SPARROWS POINT
ELIZABETH RIVER
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND
SOUTH FERRY
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR
WILSON POINT
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE
SANDY HILL BEACH
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN
FREESTONE POINT
INDIAN HEAD
MORGANTOWN
POSSUM POINT
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON
TURNER'S CREEK
ANNAPOLIS
JUNCTION ROUTE 50
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE
QUARTER CREEK
1990
--
--
--
--
--
X
--
X
--
--
--
-
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
-
--
--
-
X
--
1991
--
--
--
-
--
X
--
	
--
-
--
--
--
--
X
--
-
X
--
-
-
--
--
X
--
1992-3
--
--
--
-
--
-
-
	
--
--
0
o
o
0
--
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
o
0
1994
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
	
X
X
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
0
0
X
0

--
                                                         6-16

-------
observed between the Morgantown  index  limits  and  reference  limits
in 1990 was also observed for  1991. The Wye River index limits were
only slightly separated  from  the reference  limits due to  the fact
that only one of the two sets of experiments displayed significant
differences  between test  and control  treatments.   This  slight
variability  in  responses  could  be due to  temporal variation  in
toxicity,  but   is  more  likely  due  to  small   scale  spatial
heterogeneity  (i.e.,  sediments were taken  from the  same general
station, but there may have been patchiness  in sediment quality  in
the  grabs  composited  for  the two  sets of  tests) .  Overall, the
degree  of  variability observed  in the TOX-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  TOX-INDEX  limits
overlapped for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.7).
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 (Hall et al.,  1994).
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; Hall  et al.,  1994).    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 the
first three years of testing.
     The 1994 studies focused upon the Sassafras,  Severn, Magothy
Rivers and the  Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco  River (Figures  6.8a and
6.8b).  The Sassafras River  sites displayed little sediment  toxicity
(Figure  6.8a).    The  Magothy River  sites  exhibited  slight  to

                               6-17

-------
moderate toxicity,  particularly the South  Ferry  site,  which was
highly variable  (Figure  6.8a).   The Annapolis site on the  Severn
River also displayed significant but moderate to low toxicity.  The
TOX-INDEX limits from the Severn River  site  at the  Route 50  bridge
overlapped those of  the reference site.   The Baltimore Harbor sites
showed various  degrees of toxicity from slight (Outer Harbor)  to
quite high (Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor),  with  most displaying
moderate toxicity  (Sparrows  Point,  Middle Branch and Curtis Bay;
Figure 6.8b).  All Baltimore  Harbor sites  contained sediments that
exceeded ER-M values for  3 or more contaminants.
     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
          four 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;  Northwest Harbor sediments were
          the most  toxic, followed by  Bear Creek,  Curtis Bay and
          Sparrows  Point, Middle Branch and Outer Harbor;

     •    the Possum Point, Freestone Point,  and Dahlgren sites  on
          the 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 Magothy River  sites  (Gibson Island and  South  Ferry)
          contained the next most toxic sediments;  followed  by the
          Severn  River sites in the vicinity of  Annapolis; the
          toxicity of sediments  in  this region generally appears  to
          be  statistically  significant  but  of   moderately  low
          overall magnitude;

     •    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.
                               6-18

-------
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.
                     6-19

-------
                            SECTION 7

                         RECOMMENDATIONS

     The following recommendations are suggested after four years
of ambient toxicity tests in Chesapeake Bay:

       •  The ambient toxicity testing approach  (water column and
          sediment tests) should  be used  to assess the status of
          important living resource habitats (e.g.,  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 (first tier 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 and assessing ecological risk.

     •    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.  This  would provide  a plant indicator
          that would  be useful for  identifying the  presence of
          herbicides  in the Chesapeake Bay.

     •    When selecting suspected contaminated regions for future
          ambient toxicity testing, background  data from chemical
          monitoring,  biological community status assessments and
          toxicity tests (if available)  should  be used to provide
          guidance.
                               7-1

-------
                             SECTION  8

                            REFERENCES

Alden, R.W.  1992.  Uncertainty  and  sediment  quality assessments:
     I.  Confidence limits for the triad. Environ.  Toxicol.  Chem.
     11:645-651.
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).
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.
Eskin,  R.A.,  K.H.  Rowland and  D.Y. Alegre.  1996.  Contaminants in
     Chesapeake Bay Sediments:  1984-1991.  CRP/TRS 145/96,  U.S.  EPA
     Chesapeake Bay Program  Office,  Annapolis, MD.
Fisher,  D.J., D:T.  Burton, L.W.  Hall Jr.,  R.L.  Paulson  and  C.M.
     Hersh.  1988.   Standard operating  procedures for  short-term
     chronic  effluent toxicity tests  with freshwater and saltwater
     organisms.      Johns   Hopkins   University,   Applied   Physics
     Laboratory, Aquatic  Ecology Section, Shady  Side, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr.,  M.C. Ziegenfuss,  R.D. Anderson,  W.D. Killen,  R.W.
     Alden, III  and P. Adolphson.   1994.  A pilot study for ambient
     toxicity testing in  Chesapeake  Bay - Year 3 Report.   CBP/TRS
     116/94.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Chesapeake Bay
     Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

                               8-1

-------
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss,  S.A.  Fischer,  R.W. Alden,  III,  E.
     Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Debert-Hastings.  1991.   A pilot study
     for  ambient toxicity testing  in  Chesapeake Bay.  Volume 1  -
     Year  1  Report  CBP/TRS 64/91.   U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Chesapeake  Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss,  S.A.  Fischer,  R.D. Anderson, W.D.
     Killen, R.W.  Alden, III, E.  Deaver,  J.  Gooch  and  N.  Shaw.
     1992.    A  pilot  study  for   ambient  toxicity  testing   in
     Chesapeake  Bay  -  Year  2  report.   CBP/TRS  82/92.   U.S.
     Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Chesapeake   Bay   Program
     Office, Annapolis,  MD.
Long,  E.R.  and P.M.  Chapman.  1985.  A sediment quality  Triad:
     Measures  of  sediment  contamination,  toxicity  and   infaunal
     community composition in Puget Sound.   Mar.  Pollut. Bull. 16:
     105-115.
Long, E.R.  and L.G.  Morgan.   1990.  The potential for biological
     effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the  national
     status and trends program.  National Technical Memorandum Nos.
     OMA  52.   Seattle, WA.
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.
Morrison,  G. and  E. Petrocelli.    1990a.   Short-term methods for
     estimating the chronic toxicity of  effluents  and receiving
     waters  to marine and estuarine  organisms:  supplement: Test
     method for 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.
Ranasinghe, J.A.,  S.B. Weisberg and L.C. Scott.   1995.  Chesapeake
     Bay  Water  Quality  Monitoring  Program,   Long-term   Benthic
     Monitoring and Assessment Component,  Level 1  Comprehensive
     Report, July 1984-December  1994.   Prepared for  the  Maryland
     Department of Natural Resources by Versar,  Inc.   Columbia, 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.
U.S. EPA  (United States  Environmental Protection Agency).   1979.
     Methods for chemical analysis  of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-

                               8-2

-------
     79-020.   U.S.  EPA,  Cincinnati,  OH.
Ziegenfuss,  M.C. and  L.W.  Hall, Jr.   1994.    Standard  operating
     procedures for conducting acute and chronic aquatic toxicity
     tests with Eurytemora affinis, a calanoid copepod.   Report.
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Chesapeake Bay Program
     Office,  Annapolis,  MD.
                               8-3

-------
                     APPENDIX A










 Water quality conditions reported in test chambers




    during water  column tests.   Test  species  were




Cyprinodon variegatus  (Cv),  Eurytemora affinis  (Ea),




 Palaemonetes pugio (Pp) and Mulinia lateralis  (ML)

-------
Water quality conditions reported during ambient toxicity tests.
Date Test Station
Species
10/11/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/12/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/12/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
T(C)

22.2
24.1
24.0
24.0
24.1
23.8
23.9
23.7
23.9
24.0
24.2
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.6
24.0
23.7
23.7
23.5
23.7
23.5
23.8
24.1
23.8
23.6
23.5
24.0
24.6
24.0
23.7
23.7
23.5
23.7
23.5
23.8
24.1
23.8
23.6
23.5
Sal (ppt)

15
14
15
16
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
DO (mg/L)

7.2
7.1
6.7
7.1
6.9
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.6
7.2
6.5
6.7
6.7
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
PH

7.93
7.85
8.11
7.85
7.94
7.78
7.90
7.85
7.80
7.91
7.81
7.76
7.76
7.82
7.85
8.08
7.71
7.85
7.70
7.82
7.70
7.71
7.82
7.87
7.69
7.69
7.82
7.85
8.08
7.71
7.85
7.70
7.82
7.70
7.71
7.82
7.87
7.69
7.69
                                          A-l

-------
10/12/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/13/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/13/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
23.5
23.9
23.8
23.9
23.7
23.5
23.9
23.7
23.7
23.9
23.8
23.8
24.2
24.5
24.8
24.6
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.2
24.5
24.3
24.6
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.3
24.1
24.1
24.0
24.1
24.1
24.3
24.1
24.1
24.1
15
15
15
16
14
14
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
14
14
14
16
14
14
15
14
14
6.4
6.4
6.4
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.7
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.3
7.8
7.5
7.2 .
7-6
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.4
7.81
111
7.79
7.91
7.81
7.78
111
7.83
7.74
7.79
7.78
7.73
6.55
8.16
8.17
8.20
8.07
8.06
8.13
8.14
8.09
8.11
8.08
8.12
8.04
8.06
7.85
7.95
7.94
7.87
7.90
7.87
7.89
7.93
7.89
7.89
7.90
7.87
7.84
A-2

-------
10/13/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/14/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/14/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
24.8
25.0
24.8
24.7
24.7
24.7
25.1
24.5
25.0
25.0
24.7
24.6
24.8
24.8
24.5
24.5
24.3
23.8
24.8
24.4
24.0
24.0
24.2
24.2
24.4
24.2
24.2
24.1
24.1
23.9
23.5
23.8
24.2
23.9
23.9
24.1
24.1
23.9
24.2
15
15
16
16
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
15
15
15
16
15
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
14
15
15
16
17
15
15
14
16
15
15
15
15
14
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.4
—
7.6
7.5
8.0
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.4
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.6
6.4
7.87
7.92
7.91
7.94
7.88
7.89
7.88
7.87
7.90
7.90
7.88
7.84
7.82
8.14
8.24
8.27
8.09
8.10
7.99
8.13
8.08
8.10
8.10
8.13
8.01
8.10
7.85
7.94
7.90
7.91
7.95
7.93
7.95
7.95
7.90
7.93
7.95
7.88
7.88
A-3

-------
10/14/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
*1 0/1 4/94 ML CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/15/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
24.4
24.9
24.2
23.9
24.2
24.2
25.1
24.6
24.2
24.9
24.4
24.2
24.3
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
24.7
25.0
25.0
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.9
24.6
24.8
24.7
24.7
25.0
24.9
15
15
16
17
15
15
15
16
15
14
15
14
14
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
6.3
6.2
6.5
7.9
7.6
7.5
6.6
7.0
6.9
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.8
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7.1
7.0
7.8
6.2
6.5
6.3
6.8
6.3
6.3
6.8
6.7
6.4
6.2
7.80
7.85
7.85
8.14
8.07
8.05
7.89
7.96
7.92
7.87
7.88
7.85
77Q
7.93
7.82
7.99
7.80
7.76
7.84
7.88
7.57
7.90
7.96
7.89
7.75
7.61
7.95
8.00
8.07
7.79
7.84
7.81
7.91
7.84
7.80
7.92
7.92
7.80
7.75
* Temperature (~25C), salinity (15ppt), D.O. (>5.0 mg/L) and pH (as written) were
  measured in the renewal water after temperature, salinity and pH adjustment.
                                     A-4

-------
10/15/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/15/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/16/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
23.8
23.9
23.9
23.6
23.7
23.6
23.7
23.7
23.5
23.9
23.7
23.4
23.7
24.5
24.8
24.6
24.4
24.5
24.5
25.1
24.6
24.5
24.7
24.5
24.4
24.6
25.0
25.0
25.1
25.1
25.1
24.6
24.4
25.0
24.3
25.3
24.8
24.4
24.8
15
16
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
14
15
14
14
64
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.2
6.5
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.2
7.0
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.7
7.80
7.90
7.83
7.85
7.84
7.85
7.89
7.85
7.86
7.85
7.85
7.83
7.81
7.74
7.81
111
7.98
7.87
7.92
7.82
7.81
7.81
7.78
111
7.72
7.71
8.01
8.12
8.13
7.97
7.90
7.95
8.03
7.96
7.94
7.96
7.90
7.91
7.91
A-5

-------
10/16/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/16/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/17/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
23.2
23.0
23.2
23.0
22.9
23.6
23.2
23.1
23.0
22.9
23.1
22.9
23.0
24.8
24.9
24.8
24.7
25.1
24.6-
24.7
24.8
25.1
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.9
25.0
25.4
25.8
25.7
24.8
25.2
25.4
25.7
25.3
25.2
25.5
25.4
25.0
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
15
14
15
14
15
14
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.7
8.5
8.1
7.0
6.6
7.0
6.7
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.2
7.5
7.0
6.6
6.8
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.9
7.86
8.01
7.88
7.94
7.90
7.93
7.97
7.92
7.97
7.91
7.92
7.90
7.86
7.85
7.90
7.95
8.39
8.27
8.02
7.90
7.96
7.97
7.81
7.88
7.87
7.87
7.96
8.13
7.96
7.86
7.89
7.94
7.93
7.87
7.87
7.90
7.92
7.87
7.87
A-6

-------
10/17/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/17/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
*1 0/1 7/94 ML CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
25.5
25.6
25.2
24.9
24.9
25.7
25.0
25.0
25.5
25.1
25.3
25.4
25.0
25.9
26.2
25.4
25.5
25.1
26.0
26.3
26.0
25.1
26.0
26.0
25.7
25.7

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.1
6.2
6.2
9.2
7.5
7.3
6.9
7.5
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.1
6.2

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7.83
7.96
7.86
7.83
7.79
7.88
7.93
7.89
7.85
7.85
7.86
7.82
7.82
7.70
7.85
7.79
8.44
8.06
8.06
7.94
8.05
7.69
7.79
7.86
111
7.71
7.93
7.86
7.97
7.41
7.59
7.96
7.88
7.88
7.83
7.98
7.92
7.92
7.61
Temperature (~25C), salinity (15ppt), D.O. (>5.0 mg/L) and pH (as written) were
measured in the renewal water after temperature, salinity and pH adjustment.
                                    A-7

-------
10/18/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/18/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/18/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
25.1
25.2
25.8
25.4
25.1
24.9
25.4
25.7
25.4
25.4
24.7
25.8
24.7
25.2
25.3
25.3
25.0
24.9
25.1
25.1
25.3
25.2
25.3
25.1
25.1
25.2
25.8
26.6
25.3
25.9
25.4
26.2
26.5
26.4
25.4
26.3
26.2
25.5
25.3
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
15
14
14
15
14
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
6.8
7.0
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
8.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
8.3
6.5
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.2
5.3
5.2
5.6
6.8
6.5
5.3
5.2
5.6
5.1
5.4
5.7
5,5
5.5
8.02
8.12
8.06
7.89
7.93
7.98
7.98
7.97
7.92
7.97
8.00
7.97
7.94
7.89
7.94
7.88
7.83
7.83
7.87
7.94
7.85
7.81
7.86
7.86
7.86
7.85
7.67
7.73
7.76
8.01
7.93
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.60
7.69
111
7.73
7.66
A-8

-------
10/19/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/19/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/19/94 Cv CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
25.8
25.1
24.6
24.3
25.6
26.0
25.6
24.1
25.6
25.7
24.9
24.8
25.1
24.9
25.0
24.8
25.4
25.5
24.7
24.6
25.6
25.0
25.1
24.8
24.7
25.1
25.9
26.2
27.0
26.3
26.9
25.4
26.4
25.9
26.6
26.5
25.9
26.0
26.5
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
6.6
7.0
6.8
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.3
5.9
6.3
6.2
6.0
6.3
5.9
6.5
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.1
6.0
6.1
6.5
5.5
5.8
7.1
6.7
6.0
5.4
5.7
6.1
6.3
7.6
6.6
6.5
8.10
8.27
8.16
7.96
8.02
8.02
8.07
8.11
8.03
8.07
8.10
8.08
8.04
7.96
8.04
7.96
7.86
7.86
7.95
8.05
7.89
7.89
7.97
7.96
7.95
7.86
7.95
7.79
7.79
8.06
7.96
7.83
7.69
7.73
7.78
7.82
8.14
7.91
7.85
A-9

-------
10/20/94 Ea CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
10/20/94 Pp CONTROL
SASBT
SASTC
BHBCR
BHCUB
BHMBR
BHNWB
BHOTH
BHSPT
MAGGI
MAGSF
SEV50
SEVAP
26.1
26.7
26.3
26.2
26.2
26.5
26.0
26.2
26.2
26.3
26.2
26.4
26.3
26.2
25.8
25.4
25.0
25.1
26.0
25.4
24.9
25.7
25.6
25.6
25.8
25.0
15
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
16
7.5
8.1
7.7
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.6
7.6
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.6
8.3
6.9
6.8
7.3
7.3
6.5
7.1
8.03
8.16
8.05
7.82
7.92
8.00
7.98
7.97
7.94
7.98
7.98
7.98
7.96
8.02
8.24
8.05
7.90
7.95
7.98
8.43
8.01
8.03
8.09
8.13
7.92
8.01
A-10

-------
                 APPENDIX  B
Pesticides and semi-volatile compounds data




    from sediment toxicity tests (ug/g)

-------
 Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds  (Note: underlined values represent
 concentrations exceeding  "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
 Hydrocarbons, as defined  by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Turner Creek
                 Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/al
Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2 , 2' , 4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
         tr.
         tr.

         tr.
         tr.
   0.0035
   0.0041
   0.0061
   0.0058
   0.0034
   0.0027
   0.0023
   0.0093
   0.0076
   0.0030
   0.0015
   0.0007
   0.0016
   0.0050
   0.0065
   0.0038
   0.0016
   0.0017
   0.0043
   0.0077
   0.0031
   0.0012
   0.0013
   0.0026
                                           B-l

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Betterton
          Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration lua/a)
Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
           tr.
           tr.
           tr.
   0.0035
   0.0041
   0.0061
   0.0058
   0.0034
   0.0027
   0.0023
   0.0093
   0.0076
   0.0030
   0.0015
   0.0007
   0.0016
   0.0050
   0.0065
   0.0038
   0.0016
   0.0017
   0.0043
   0.0077
   0.0031
   0.0012
   0.0013
   0.0026
                                           B-2

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Bear Creek
   Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/al
   Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
     0.027
    tr.
     0.0258
     0.0157
    tr.
    tr.

     0.0261
     0.0057

     0.0032
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                           B-3

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Curtis Bay
     Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration
  Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Cr.lorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
•'ermethrin
1,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
.,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
. ,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
".ethoxychlor
      tr.

      tr.

       0.01650
      tr.
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                           B-4

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Gibson Island
      Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration 
-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Junction Rt 50
          Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration
     Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2' ,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
           tr.
           tr.
           tr.
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
  .0012
  .0013
                                         0,
                                         0.
                                         0.0026
                                           B-6

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Outer Harbor
       Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
    Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
         0.0053
        tr.
         0.01340
        tr.
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                           B-7

-------
 Organics  analysis  data  for  pesticide  compounds  (Note: underlined values represent
 concentrations  exceeding  "Effects  Range-Medium" levels  for selected polynuclear  aromatic
 nydrocarbons, as defined  by Long and  Morgan,  1990).
 Sample  Location:Middle  Branch
         Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
 Compound
Concentration (ua/al
                                                                   Detection Limit
 Hexachlorobenzene
 Aldrin
 Alpha-BHC
 Beta-BHC
 ODD
 DDE
-DDT
 Dieldrin
 Endrin
 Heptachlor
 Heptachlor Epoxide
 Alpha-Chlordane
 Gamma-Chlordane
 Alachlor
 Metolachlor
 Trifluralin
 Chlorpyrifos
 Fenvalerate
 Lindane
 Permethrin
 2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
 2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
 2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
 Methoxychlor
          tr.
          tr.
           0.00854
0..0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                            B-8

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Northwest Harbor
       Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
        tr.
        tr.
 0.0035
 0.0041
 0.0061
 0.0058
 0.0034
 0.0027
 0.0023
 0.0093
 0.0076
 0.0030
 0.0015
 0.0007
 0.0016
 0.0050
 0.0065
 0.0038
 0.0016
 0.0017
 0.0043
 0.0077
 0.0031
 0.0012
 0.0013
 0.0026
                                           B-9

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:South Ferry
        Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2 ' ,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
         tr.

         tr.
         tr.
          0.005
  0.0035
  0.0041
  0.0061
  0.0058
  0.0034
  0.0027
  0.0023
  0.0093
  0.0076
  0.0030
  0.0015
  0.0007
  0.0016
  0.0050
  0.0065
  0.0038
  0.0016
  0.0017
  0.0043
  0.0077
  0.0031
  0.0012
  0.0013
  0.0026
                                           B-10

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Sparrows Point
  Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
  Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
   tr.
   tr.

    0.02770
   tr.
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                          B-ll

-------
Organics analysis data for pesticide compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Annapolis
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration lug/a)
Detection Limit
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Beti-BHC
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Permethrin
2,3', 5-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
2,2 ' ,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
     tr.
     tr.
      0.0017
     tr.
0.0035
0.0041
0.0061
0.0058
0.0034
0.0027
0.0023
0.0093
0.0076
0.0030
0.0015
0.0007
0.0016
0.0050
0.0065
0.0038
0.0016
0.0017
0.0043
0.0077
0.0031
0.0012
0.0013
0.0026
                                           B-12

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Curtis Bay
   Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
::ibenzo (a,h) anthracene
iienzo (g,h,i) perylene
     0.27
     0.04
     0.59
     0.719
     0.162

     0.78
     0.987
     0.846
     0.661
    0.0050
    0.0020
    0.0020
    0.0020
    0.0002
    0.0030
    0.0030
    0.0003
    0.0004
    0.0002
    0.0002
    0.0004
    0.0002
                                           B-13

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons,  as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Middle Branch
                                       Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
                                   Concentration (ua/g]
                                                                  Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
                                         0.135

                                         0.029
                                         0.269
                                         0.044
                                         1.5
                                         1.25
                                         0.283

                                         0.966
                                         2.63
                                         1.82
                                                                      0.0050
                                                                      0.0020
                                                                      0.0020
                                                                      0.0020
                                                                      0.0002
                                                                      0.0030
                                                                      0.0030
                                                                      0.0002
                                                                      0.0003
                                                                      0.0002
                                                                      0.0001
                                                                      0.0003
                                                                      0.0001
                                           B-14

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
nydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Northwest Harbor
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
                                   0.0050
                                   0.0020
                                   0.0020
                                   0.0020
                                   0.0002
                                   0.0030
                                   0.0030
                                   0.0003
                                   0.0003
                                   0.0002
                                   0.0002
                                   0.0003
                                   0.0001
                                          B-15

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons,  as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Outer Harbor
   Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluor anthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno •(!, 2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene


0.05
0.909
0.058
0.701
2.2
0.34
0.501
2.14
2.31
1.12
1.58
0.0060
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0002
0.0030
0.0030
0.0003
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
0.0002
                                           B-16

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Sparrows Point
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration 
-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Betterton
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
      0.126
      0.024
      0.215
      0.031
      0.395
      0.237
      0.063
      0.103
      0.121
      0.339
      0.246
      0.204
    0.0050
    0.0020
    0.0020
    0.0020
    0.0002
    0.0030
    0.0030
    0.0003
    0.0003
    0.0002
    0.0002
    0.0003
    0.0001
                                           B-18

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
r.ydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Turner Creek
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/a)
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno ( 1, 2 , 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
0.254

0.046
0.318
0.047
0.26
0.384
0.064

0.101
0.18
0.063
0.152
0.0040
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0002
0.0030
0.0030
0.0002
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0001
                                          B-19

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:South Ferry
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration lua/a}
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
      0.519

      0.083
      0.643
      0.094
      1.12
      1.22
      0.102
      0.326
      0.297
      0.382
      0.213
      0.299
   0.0040
   0.0020
   0.0020
   0.0020
   0.0002
   0.0030
   0.0030
   0.0002
   0.0003
   0.0002
   0.0001
   0.0003
   0.0001
                                           B-20

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Gibson Island
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/cM
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
      0.124

      0.031
      0.139
      0.033
      0.38b
      0.283
      0.064

      0.056

      0.051
      0.147
   0.0040
   0.0020
   0.0020
   0.0010
   0.0002
   0.0030
   0.0030
   0.0002
   0.0002
   0.0002
   0.0001
   0.0003
   0.0001
                                           B-21

-------
Organics analysis data for semis-volatile compounds (Note:  underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
nydrocarbons,  as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Junction Rt 50
  Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ua/cn
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2 ,3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
0.164

0.044
0.2
0.055
0.6
0.563
0.152

0.231
0.408
0.248
0.273
0.0040
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0002
0.0030
0.0030
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0003
0.0001
                                           B-22

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds  (Note: underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium" levels for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons, as defined by Long and Morgan, 1990).
Sample Location:Annapolis
    Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
Compound
Concentration (ug/cO
Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno  (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
iBenzo (g,h,i) perylene
      0.191
   0.0040
   0.0020
   0.0020
   0.0020
   0.0002
   0.0030
   0.0030
   0.0003
   0.0003
   0.0002
   0.0001
   0.0003
   0.0001
                                           B-23

-------
Organics analysis data for semi-volatile compounds (Note:  underlined values  represent
concentrations exceeding "Effects Range-Medium"  levels  for selected polynuclear aromatic
Hydrocarbons,  as defined by Long and Morgan,  1990).
Sample Location:Bear Creek
Collection Dates:10/7/94-10/8/94
                                    Concentration (ug/gl
                            Detection Limit
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluor ant hene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
0.21


0.98
0.052
1.82
6.94
0.784

3.81
3.24
3.55
2.35
0.0050
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0002
0.0030
0.0030
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0001
                                           B-24

-------