ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OF THE MARINE SEDIMENTS AT
. THE UNITED HECKATHORN
9
& SUPERFUND SITE
<£
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a technical assessment of the ecological
impacts of contamination at the study sites. Although various
sediment remediation concentrations are predicted based on
different ecological end-points, these are recommendations and
this document does not recommend a final remediation level.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation of use by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. '
Please cit.e__aa;
Lee II, H., Lincoff, A., Boese, B. L., Cole, F. A., Ferraro, S.
P., Lamberson, J. 0., Ozretich, R. J., Randall, R. C., Rukavina,
K. R., Schults, D. W., Sercu, K. A., Specht, D. T., Swartz, R. C.
and Young, D. R. 1994. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine
Sediments at the United Heckathorn Superfund Site. U. S. EPA,
ERL-N-269. Final Report to Region IX; Pacific Ecosystems Branch,
ERL-N, U. S. EPA, Newport, OR 97365.
-------
0005
LO
05
cn>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A project of this scope is possible only with the help of a
host of skilled and dedicated participants and friends willing to
put in long hours. The AScI employees at the EPA laboratory in
Newport, Oregon provided the following technical support:
Carolyn Poindexter extracted chemical samples and conducted GC/MS
data reduction; Scott Echols provided sample extraction, GC/MS
analysis and prepared final chemistry data reports; John Frazier
provided GC/MS analysis and final chemistry data reports; Michael
Becerra provided GC/MS data reduction and chemistry sample
extractions; Georges Paradis assisted in the field sampling,
chemical extractions, provided GC/MS data reductions and prepared
final chemistry data reports; Elizabeth Foster extracted chemical
samples and reduced GC/MS data; Laura Hoseltori provided chemical
sample extraction and GC/MS data reduction; Renee Zane sorted the
benthic samples; Jill Jones conducted grain size analysis;
Michele Redmond assisted -in conducting the amphipod bioassay;
John Sewall assisted in conducting the amphipod bioassay; Robert
Singleton assisted in conducting the amphipod bioassay; Martha
Winsor assisted in conducting the bioaccumulation tests and in
statistical design and analysis; Judith Pelletier assisted in
conducting the bioaccumulation tests, performed the lipid
extractions, summarized data, provided graphics and edited
portions of the document. Bryan Coleman of CSC kept the
computers running, without which we would not have been able to
analyze the data or write and assemble the document.
We appreciate the effort and skills of Capt. Jim Christman
(Monterey Canyon Research, Santa Cruz) for piloting the ship
during the October sampling and John Brezina (Dillon Beach, CA)
for piloting during the February sampling. The EPA in
Narragansett, Rhode Island assisted with this project gratis,
which we appreciate in these times of shrinking budgets; Dr.
Robert Burgess ran the Mulinia bioassays; Warren Boothman
conducted- the AVS/SEM analysis. Mike Buchman (NOAA) was aboard
October 10th to identify local fish obtained in the trawls. Dr.
Leslie Harris (Los Angeles County Natural History Museum) volun-
teered her taxonomic skills to verify polychaete identifications
while Dr. John Chapman (AScI and Oregon State University} made
sure his beloved amphipods were not misnamed. Despite the
confused disarray of the taxonomic status of west-coast mytilids,
Dr. Paul Scott of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
kindly took the time to verify our species designation of the
Mytilus collected at the site.
We greatly appreciate the effort and diligence of the three
EPA reviewers - Drs. Jim Lake and William (Skip) Nelson, both of
ERL-Narragansett, and Dr. Gary Chapman, ERL-N/PEB-Newport.
John Warden (EPA, Region VIII) helped initiate the Newport
crew into the intricacies of Superfund, but we went ahead with
the project anyway. Finally, we acknowledge the patience and
understanding of Dr. Harvey Holm, who was the Branch Chief at
Newport for most of this project.
ii
Csj
JEPA Headquarters Library
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 1
1.2. OVERVIEW OF REPORT 2
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 4
2.1. REGIONAL SETTING • 4
2.2. SITE HISTORY 5
2.3. NATURAL RESOURCES 6
2.4. AREAS ASSESSED 7
3.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 10
3.1. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS . 10
3.1.1. Sediments 10
3.1.2. Biota . 12
3.1.3. Toxicity and Laboratory Bioaccumulation Tests 14
3.2. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN . 16
3.2.1. Other Contaminants 16
4.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE MECHANISMS . ' 21
4.1. AQUATIC HABITATS ........... 21
4.2. AQUATIC SPECIES 21
4.2.1. Marine Organisms • 21
4.2.2. Birds 23
4.2.3. Marine Mammals 24
4.3. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND CHEMICAL TRANSPORT MECHANISMS 25
4.3.1. DDT, DDE, and DDD 25
4.3.2. Dieldrin 25
4.4. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 26
4.4.1. Aquatic Pathways 26
4.4.2. Food Web Relationships 26
5.0 CRITERIA AND TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . 33
5.1. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS 33
5.1.1. California Enclosed Bay and Estuaries Plan and
San Francisco Bay Regional Basin plan .... 34
5.1.2. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria, DDT . . 35
5.1.3. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria, Dieldrin 37
5.1.4. Endangered Species Act 38
5.1.5. California Endangered Species Act 39
5.2. TO-BE-CONSIDERED MATERIALS 39
5.2.1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Action
Levels 39
5.2.2. National Academy of Sciences Water Quality
Criteria 40
5.2.3. EPA Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria,
Dieldrin 40
5.2.4. EPA Interim Sediment Quality Criteria, DDT . 41
5.2.5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Effects Ranges 42
5.3. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 43
5.3.1. EPA Integrated Risk Information System ... 43
iii
-------
5.4. PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS 44
5.4.1. Field Study Needs 44
5.4.2. Summary of Receptors and Methods 46
6.0 GENERAL STUDY METHODS . . . 55
6.1. INTRODUCTION 55
6.2. STATION LOCATIONS AND OVERVIEW OF FIELD SAMPLING . 55
6.3. SAMPLE NUMBER SYSTEM . 57
6.3.1. Field Sample Numbers 57
6.3.2. Analytical Request Numbers 59
6.4. FIELD SAMPLING 60
6.4.1. -Test Sediment Collection .' 60
6.4.2. Control Sediment and Bioassay Organism
Collection 61
6.4.3. Benthic Community Sampling . . . 62
6.4.4. Collection of Infauna, Fish, and Mussels for
Tissue Residue Analysis 62
6.4.5. Field Measurements 63
6.4.6. Water Sample Collection and Transport
Methods 64
6.5. SEDIMENT STORAGE AND MIXING 64
6.6. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES . '. 65
6.6.1. Interstitial Water (IW) Collection 67
6.6.2; Water Column Water ... 67
6.6.3. Sediment Processing 68
6.6.4. Tissue Processing 68
6.6.5. Pollutant Quantitation 68
6.6.6. Quality Control ......... 69
6,6.7. GC/MS Scan and SIM Analysis 71
6.6.8. AVS and Simultaneously Extracted Metals . . 72
7.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY SITES 80
7.1. INTRODUCTION ." 80
7.2. METHODS 80
7.2.1. Sampling Methods .... 80
7.2.2. Grain Size Analysis . . 80
7.2.3. General Physical Characteristics 80
7.3. RESULTS/DISCUSS ION 81
8.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ' 86
8.1. SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER ..... 86
8.1.1. Introduction 86
8.1.2. Partitioning Theory 86
8.1.3. Methods 88
8.1.4. Results 89
8.1.5. Discussion • 92
8.2. OVERLYING WATER CONCENTRATIONS -. 120
8.2.1. Introduction . . . 120
8.2.2. Methods 120
8.2.3. Results 121
8.2.4. Discussion 122
8.3. INFAUNAL BIOACCUMULATION 130
8.3.1. Introduction . 130
8.3.2. Methods: 28-Day Bioaccumulation Test .... 130
8.3.3. Methods: Long-Term Kinetic Experiment . . . 132
iv
-------
8.3.4. Methods: Field Infauna 133
8.3.5. Results/Discussion 134
8.4. BYSSAL MUSSELS, MEGAFAUNA AND FISHES 161
8.4.1. Introduction 161
8.4.2. Methods 161
8.4.3. Results . . 163
8.4.4 Discussions 164
9.0 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 193
9.1. BENTHIC SURVEY 193
9.1.1. Introduction 193
9.1.2. Methods . . . 194
9.1.3. Results 198
9.1.4. Discussion • 201
9.2. SEDIMENT TOXICITY TO AMPHIPODS 214
9.2.1. Introduction 214
9.2.2. Methods 214
9.2.3. Results 215
9.2.4. Discussion 217
9.3. MULINIA GROWTH TEST 239
9.3.1. Introduction 239
9.3.2. Methods •. . 239
9.3.3. Results/Discussion 239
9.4. TROPHIC TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT-ASSOCIATED SDDT TO
PREY OF FISH-EATING BIRDS 242
9.4.1. Introduction 242
9.4.2. Methods 242
9.4.3. Results/Discussion 244
10.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND CLEAN-UP GOALS 254
10.1. INTRODUCTION 254
10.2. DDT AS A MAJOR BIOLOGICAL STRESS 254
10.3. LAURITZEN CHANNEL AS A CONTAMINATION SOURCE . .".256
10.4. EXTENT OF EXISTING EXPOSURE 257
10.4.1. Sediment and Interstitial Water
Concentrations 257
10.4.2. Overlying Water Concentrations .. 258
10.4.3. Exposure as Determined by Tissue Residues . 259
10.5. EXTENT OF EXISTING ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 261
10.6. POTENTIAL REMEDIATION LEVELS 262
10.6.1. Remediation Levels Based on Water Quality
Criteria 262
10.6.2. Remediation Levels Based on Tissue Residue
Criteria 263
10.6.3. Remediation Based on Benthic Community
Structure and Sediment Toxicity 265
10.7. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS 268
11.0 REFERENCES 284
-------
APPENDICES
4-1: A. LINCOFF, DECEMBER 8 AND 16, 1993 MEMOS: PHOTOGRAPHS OF
BIRDS AT THE UNITED HECKATHORN SUPERFUND SITE A-l
6-1: CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES A-3
6-2: DETAILED FIELD NOTES, FIELD'STATIONS A-5
6-3: CONVERSION OF "F" SAMPLE NUMBERS FOR WATER, MUSSEL AND
TRAWL SAMPLES IN FEBRUARY, 1992, TO STANDARD NUMBERING
PROTOCOL -. A-10
6-4: DETAILED FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES A-12
6-5: PROCEDURE FOR CLEANUP OF TISSUE AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES A-14
6-6: DETERMINATION OF TOTAL AND BOUND ORGANICS IN WATER . A-15
6-7: HOMOGENIZATION OF BIVALVE TISSUE USING LIQUID NITROGEN A-19
6-8: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - MASS SPECTROMETRY -. A-21
7-1: FIELD DATA MEASUREMENTS, UNITED HECKATHORN A-26
8-1: FIELD SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER CONCENTRATIONS A-30
8-2: BIOASSAY SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER CONCENTRATIONSA-35
8-3A: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE COMPOUNDS -
LAURITZEN CHANNEL A-37
8-3B: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE COMPOUNDS -
SANTA FE CHANNEL . A-41
8-3C: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE COMPOUNDS -
RICHMOND HARBOR CHANNEL A-44
8-3D: RECOVERY OF COMPOUNDS FROM NTIS REFERENCE MATERIAL, SRM
1941, ORGANICS IN MARINE SEDIMENTS A-46
8-4A: OVERLYING WATER CONCENTRATIONS ; . . . A-4 7
8-4B: MYTILUS TAXONOMY A-48
8-5: LONG-TERM KINETIC EXPOSURE WITH MACOMA NASUTA .... A-49
8-6: 28-DAY BIOACCUMULATION TEST. RESULTS WITH MACOMA NASUTA A-50
8-7: FIELD INFAUNA TISSUE RESIDUES A-52
8-8: -TISSUE RESIDUES IN FIELD-COLLECTED MUSSELS A-53
8-9: TISSUE RESIDUES IN TRAWL-COLLECTED FISH AND MEGAFAUNA A-54
8-10: METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF WHOLE-BODY TISSUE RESIDUES FROM
TISSUE AND REMAINDER PORTION CONCENTRATIONS A-55
"9-1: BENTHIC INFAUNA, >1.0 mm DATA A-73
9-2: BENTHIC INFAUNA, <1.0 mm, >0.5 mm DATA . A-84
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
3-1: Mean Concentrations of Toxicants and Apparent
Effects Thresholds (AET) : . 19
4-1: List of Migratory Birds in the Area ............ 28
4-2: Physico-chemical Properties and Bioaccumulation
Potential of DDT, DDE, DDD and Dieldrin 30
5-1: California Water Quality Objectives 47
5-2: Beneficial Uses of Central San Francisco Bay 47
5-3: EPA Water Quality Criteria for DDT 48
5-4: Summary of Saltwater Criteria Effects for DDT 49
5-5: EPA Water Quality Criteria for Dieldrin 50
5-6: Summary of Saltwater Criteria Effects for Dieldrin . ,. 50
5-7: Endangered species 51
5-8: FDA Saltwater Action Levels '. . 51
5-9: NAS Saltwater Action Levels 52
5-10: NOAA Effects Ranges in Sediments 52
5-11: IRIS Chronic Sub-lethal Toxicity Data 52
5-12: Preliminary Remediation Goals 53
5-13: Media and Receptors Studied, End-Points, Methods
to Predict Sediment Concentrations 54
6-1: Estimates of Detection Limits 74
6-2: Spiked Matrices and Reference Material Recovery .... 75
6-3: Interpretation of Scan Data Tables • 76
7-1: Sediment Grain Size Analysis Summary 83
8-1: Station Results for SDDT 101
-8-2: Station Results for Dieldrin 102
8-3: Station Results for Bulk Sediment Concentrations . . . 103
8-4A: Phase Distribution of Metabolites and Dieldrin .... 104
8-4B: Phase Distribution of Metabolites and Dieldrin .... 105
8-4C: Phase Distribution of Metabolites and Dieldrin .... 106
8-5A: Partition Coefficients 107
8-5B: Partition Coefficients • 108
8-6A: Sediment and Interstitial Water Concentrations
in Bioassay 109
8-6B: Within-Grab Variability 110
8-7: PCS Congeners in Sediments Collected Ill
8-8: Aroclor 1260 and 1254 Sediment Concentrations 112
8-9: Most Abundant Organic Pollutants in Sediments 113
8-10: Simultaneously Extracted Metals (AVS Analysis) .... 114
8-llA:Comparisons of EDDT Sediment Concentrations 115
8-11B:Comparisons of Dieldrin Sediment Concentrations .... 116
8-12A:EDDT and Dieldrin Concentrations in Overlying Water . . 126
8-12B:Average % Composition of SDDT in Overlying Water . . . 127
8-13: Water-Sediment Ratios for EDDT 128
8-14: Water-Sediment Ratios for Dieldrin 129
8-15: Comparisons of 28-Day and Steady-state Tissue
Residues 144
8-16: 28-Day Tissue Residues Corrected to Steady-State
Values 145
8-17: Simple Linear Regression Equations 153
vii
-------
8-18: Accumulation Factors from 28-Day Test 154
8-19: Mean SDDT and Dieldrin.Residues in Field Tissues . . . 155
8-20: Mean Accumulation Factors in Field Tissues 156
8-21: Comparisons of SDDT Residues in Macoma Bioaccumulation
Tests and Those of Other Organic Compounds 157
8-22: Species Observed at the Site 173
8-23: Estimated Diet, Trophic Levels, "and Mobility 174
8-24A:SDDT and Dieldrin in Mussel Tissues 176
8-24B:Average % Composition of SDDT in Mussel Tissues .... 177
8-25: Whole water Bioconcentration Factors in Mussels .... 178
8-26A:SDDT and Dieldrin in Megafauna and Fishes 179
8-26B:Average Composition of EDDT in Megafauna and Fishes . 183
8-26C:Minimum Average Concentration of EDDT and Dieldrin in
Pelagic and Benthic Fishes Based on 25 Individuals . . 185
8-27: Bioconcentration Factors in Pelagic Fishes 187
8-28A:SDDT and Dieldrin in Trawl Sediments 188
8-28B:Average % Composition of SDDT in Trawl Sediments . . . 189
8-29: Accumulation Factors in Benthic Fishes and Megafauna . 190
8-30: Concentration Gradients for SDDT 191
8-31: Concentration Gradients for Dieldrin 191
8-32: Overall Accumulation Factors 192
9-1: Taxa in Six Infaunal Index Groups 205
9-2: Linear Regressions on Measures of Community Structure
(SDDT) 206
9-3: Linear Regressions on Measures of Community Structure
(Dieldrin) 207
9-4: Hierarchical Regression on Infaunal Index 208
9-5: Hierarchical Regression on Log Number of Amphipods . . 209
9-6: Mean Abundance of Species 210
9-7: Eohaustorius Mortality in 10-Day Exposures 223
9-8: Species Composition/Abundance of Amphipods 224
9-9: Comparisons of Mortality 225
9-10: Abundance of Grandidierella 226
9-11: Results of Mulinia Growth Test 241
10-1: Summary of Violations of Water Quality for SDDT . . . .269
10-2: Summary of Violations of Tissue Residue Quality
for SDDT 270
10-3: Summary of Violations of Sediment Quality and Benthic
Community Structure for SDDT 271
10-4: Summary of Violations of Water Quality for Dieldrin . . 272
10-5: Summary of Violations of Tissue Residue Quality for
Dieldrin .273
10-6: Summary of Violations of Sediment Quality and Benthic
Community Structure or Dieldrin 274
10-7: Predicted SDDT Sediment Concentrations Required to
Achieve Water Quality Criteria 275
10-8: Predicted Dieldrin Sediment Concentrations Required
to Achieve Water Quality Criteria . . . 276
10-9: Predicted EDDT Sediment Concentrations Required to
Achieve Tissue Residue Criteria from Water 277
10-10:Predicted Dieldrin Sediment Concentrations Required
to Achieve Tissue Residue Criteria from Water 278
viii
-------
10-11-.Predicted DDT and Dieldrin Sediment Concentrations
Required to Achieve Tissue Residue Criteria from
Sediment 279
10-12:Predicted DDT and Dieldrin Sediment Concentrations
Required to Achieve Benthic Community and Sediment
Toxicity Guidelines '•. . 280
10-13:Summary of the Presence or Absence of Violations for SDDT
Criteria 281
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1: Richmond Harbor, Site Location ........ 8
2-2: Richmond Harbor, Detailed Map 9
3-1: Richmond Harbor Pesticide Concentrations
(Other Reports) '. 20
4-1: Aquatic Pollutant Fate and Exposure Pathways 31
4-2: Generic Food Web - 32
6-1: Map of October Sampling Sites ; 77
6-2: Map of February Sampling Sites ........... '. 78
6-3: Schematic of Grab Samples 79
8-1: Mean EDDT vs Station 117
8-2: Station Comparisons of Bulk Sediment Concentrations . . 118
8-3: Combinations of TOC, SDDT, and Sediment Concentrations' 119
8-4: Flow Chart for Tissue Samples ' 1 158
8-5: Uptake of EDDT ....."... 159
8-6: Homologous Tissue Residues by Station .... 160
9-1: Regressions on Measures of Macrobenthic Community
Structure and Composition (SDDT) 212
9-2: Regressions on Measures of Macrobenthic Community
Structure and Composition ( Dieldrin) .... 213
9-3: Abundance of Grandidierella vs Amphipods 227
9-4:. Mortality of 'Eohaustorius vs Dieldrin 228
9-5: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs EDDT Metabolites 229
9-6: Abundance of Amphipods vs Dieldrin 230
9-7: Abundance of Amphipods vs SDDT Metabolites 231
9-8: Abundance of Grandidierella vs Dieldrin 232
9-9: Abundance of Grandidierella vs DDT Metabolites .... 233
9-10: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs Grandidierella 234
9-11: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs Abundance of Amphipods . . 235
9-12: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs Toxic Units of Dieldrin . 236
9-13: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs Toxic Units of DDT
Metabolites ;..... 237
9-14: Mortality of Eohaustorius vs Sediment Grain Size . . . 238
9-15: Tissue Residues by Trophic Level: Laiiritzen Channel . 249
9-16: Tissue Residues by Trophic Level: Santa Fe Channel . . 250
9-17: Tissue Residues by Trophic Level: Richmond Harbor
Channel 251
9-18: Predicted Tissue Residues vs Sediment
Concentrations 252
9-19: Predicted Annual SDDT Residue in Prey vs
Feeding Duration ........ 253
.10-1: Summation of the Number of Violations of SDDT End-Points
in Tables 10-1 To 10-3 by Station 282
10-2: Summation of the "Exceedance-Factors" for SDDT End-Points
in Tables 10-1 To 10-6 by Channel 283
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From approximately 1947 to 1966, United Heckathorn and other
companies operated a pesticide formulating plant in Richmond,
California, on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The opera-
tions resulted in the release of DDT and other pesticides to the
shoreline and the Bay. Today, in the waters of Richmond Harbor
near the former plant, high levels of DDT and its metabolites,
the sum of which are referred to as SDDT, remain in marine sedi-
ments. DDT and dieldrin, another banned organochlorine pesti-
cide, bioaccumulate in marine organisms to the highest levels
found in the State of California. The Environmental Protection
Agency listed the site on the National Priorities List on March
14, 1990. This document presents the results of studies per-
formed by SPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980) to assess the
threats posed.to the marine environment by the contaminants re-
leased from United Heckathorn and to determine potential sediment
cleanup levels that will protect the beneficial uses of San
Francisco Bay.
The waters of Richmond Harbor are part of San Francisco Bay,
the West Coast's second largest estuary. The estuary sustains a
complex ecosystem containing thousands of species of fish, inver-
tebrates, birds, mammals, insects, amphibians, plants and other
life, as well as nearly half the waterfowl and shorebirds migrat-
ing along the Pacific flyway. Fish-eating birds, including
cormorants, grebes, loons, kingfishers, and California brown
pelicans, an endangered species, have.been observed feeding in
the most contaminated channels at the site.
The initial components of the study included a review of
previous studies of species and contamination in the area. High-
lights of this review include the findings that sediment concen-
trations of SDDT are elevated to acutely toxic levels in the
Lauritzen Channel and decline by over four orders-of-magnitude to
near background levels in the vicinity of Point Potrero. SDDT
and dieldrin concentrations are extremely elevated in transplant-
ed mussels and resident invertebrates in the Lauritzen Channel,
and decline by two orders-of-magnitude in the Inner Richmond
Harbor Channel. Fish caught in the Lauritzen Channel in 1986
contained extremely high levels of SDDT, which were comparable to
the levels measured in 1960. Finally, a study of migratory
waterfowl in San Francisco Bay found that only those which
wintered in Richmond Harbor significantly accumulated metabolites
of DDT. Although other chemicals are present in Richmond Harbor,
they have not been found at levels notably above background or
above levels which are likely to cause toxicity, in marked
contrast to the pesticides SDDT and dieldrin, which are several
orders-of-magnitude above background and were selected as the
contaminants of concern for the study.
The next preliminary phase of the study was a review of the
available standards, criteria, and scientific literature regard-
ing ecological impacts of the contaminants of concern to deter-
xi
-------
mine as far as possible the contaminant levels in various media
which could adversely impact sensitive organisms. This review
provided an indication of which ecological receptors were likely
to be the most sensitive and helped guide the selection of field
and laboratory studies. EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria,
the State of California's Water Quality Objectives for DDT and
dieldrin in Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (derived from EPA's
Ambient Water Quality Criteria} were identified as applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the site. The marine chronic objec-
tive for DDT is based upon, preventing bioaccumulation in fish to
levels that may result in harm to sensitive fish-eating marine
birds.
The major phase of this study involved field and laboratory
measurements of contaminant concentrations in various media and
the performance of standard benthic tests for determining
existing impacts from contaminated sediments. The study focused
on the two DDT compounds (4,4'-DDT and 2,4'-DDT), their meta-
bolites (4,4'-DDDf 2,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 2,4'-DDE), and
dieldrin. The studies .included bulk sediment toxicity testing,
benthic.community analyses, bioaccumulation testing, and chemical
analyses in sediments, interstitial waters, surface waters, and
tissues of infaunal organisms, mussels, and fish and shellfish
collected in trawls. An additional goal of this study was the
development of relationships between sediment contaminant concen-
trations and effects on key ecological receptors or pollutant
concentrations in other media. These relationships were then
used to predict the exposure and effects of EDDT and dieldrin to
water-column and sediment-associated organisms and the sediment
cleanup concentrations which would result in the attainment of
water quality objectives, would protect contaminant levels in
fish and shellfish tissues, and reduce toxic effects on benthic
organisms.
The major results of the studies are:
• Mean EDDT concentrations in unfiltered surface water from
the Lauritzen, Santa Fe and lower Richmond Inner Harbor
Channels were 50, 9 and 1 ng/L (nanogram per liter, or part
per.trillion), respectively. The mean dieldrin concentra-
tions in unfiltered water were 18, 2 ng/L and non-detect-
able, respectively. These results indicate that the
EPA/State's Water Quality Criteria are violated in the
Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels but are achieved in the
lower Inner Harbor Channel. Analysis of water-to-sediment
ratios indicates that the Lauritzen is a source of contam-
ination to the other channels.
• Sediment concentrations of EDDT declined from over 50,000
jig/kg {parts per billion, dry weight) in the Lauritzen
Channel to 12 jig/kg near Point Potrero. Dieldrin concentra-
tions declined from 570 /ig/kg in the Lauritzen to non-
detectable levels in the Inner Harbor Channel. These
xii
-------
results are consistent with those of previous researchers.
The strong concentration gradient indicates that Lauritzen
Channel is a source for SDDT and dieldrin to Santa Fe and
Richmond Inner Harbor Channels and, hence, to San Francisco
Bay.
In 28-day bioaccumulation tests using Macoma nasuta. steady-
state tissue levels of SDDT of over 70,000 fig/kg (dry) and
about 1,500 jig/kg dieldrin were obtained with Lauritzen
Channel sediments. Tissue levels declined to 80 pg/kg SDDT
and undetectable levels of dieldrin in clams exposed to
sediments near Point Potrero. These results are consistent
with those of previous researchers. Further studies
revealed that the tissue concentrations obtained at 28 days
were approximately half those obtained after a 90-day
exposure, which was sufficient to reach or closely approach
steady-state.
Tissue residues of SDDT and dieldrin measured in field-
collected benthic infauna were as high as 46,000 and 2,500
jig/kg (dry), respectively, in the Lauritzen Channel. Res-
.idues were about two orders-of-magnitude lower in benthic
organisms from the Inner Harbor Channel.
Tissue residues of SDDT and dieldrin measured in mussels
(Mytilus galloprovincialis) were 2,900 and 97 ng/kg (wet) in
the Lauritzen Channel, and declined to< 40 and 4 fig/kg in the
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. These results are consistent
with those of the State Mussel Watch program.
Tissue residues of SDDT in whole surfperch were approximate-
ly 7,500 /ig/kg (wet) in the Lauritzen Channel, 920 p.g/kg in
the Santa Fe Channel, and 100 /ig/kg in the Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel. Dieldrin levels were roughly 390, 40, and 2
fig/kg in the respective channels. The contaminant concen-
trations in fish from the Lauritzen Channel are in the same
range as those measured in the 1960s and exceed the levels
which may cause adverse impacts to sensitive fish-eating
birds by orders-of-magnitude. A sensitive bird which had no
other source of DDT in its diet and which consumed as little
as <1% of its diet, from the Lauritzen Channel could be
adversely affected. These concentrations may also cause
direct chronic effects such as reduced fry survival in fish.
The results for the Santa Fe Channel are an order-of-
magnitude lower but still exceed levels which may cause
adverse impacts to sensitive fish-eating birds. A sensitive
bird which consumed more than about 15% of its diet from the
Santa Fe Channel might be adversely affected.
Sediment toxicity tests using the amphipod Eohaustorius
estuarius indicated significant acute toxicity in sediments
from, the Lauritzen Channel. Toxicity at one of the Laurit-
xiii
-------
zen stations ranked among the most toxic sediments ever
tested at any site. Sediments from the Santa Fe Channel
displayed lower but significant toxicity relative to the'
amphipod's native Yaguina Bay, Oregon, control sediment but
were not significantly different from those found in the
Inner Harbor Channel or other San Francisco Bay locations.
EDDT was determined to be the primary cause of toxicity in
the Lauritzen Channel,
• An analysis of the benthic community indicated that "10 of 16
measures of community structure were significantly related
to SDDT concentrations. Based on the Infaunal Index, a
composite measure of the abundance of pollutant-sensitive
and pollutant-tolerant taxa, the Lauritzen Channel would
have to be cleaned-up to remediate the localized sites with
"changed" benthic communities.
• An analysis of benthic infauna indicated that amphipod
abundance -(with the exception of the pollutant-tolerant
Grandidierella japonica) was inversely related to ZDDT
concentration. The minimum ecological effects concentration
for amphipods was determined to be 100 /xg EDDT/gOC (100
parts per million organic carbon).
• A hierarchial regression analysis indicated that reductions
in the number of amphipods and the Infaunal Index were sig-
nificantly related to EDDT sediment concentrations even
after accounting for grain size and sediment organic content
•{TOO . Dieldrin did not significantly improve the
regression:
Overall, the results indicate that the gross contaminant
levels in the Lauritzen Channel threaten a variety of ecological
receptors at various trophic levels, including benthic and water
column organisms and fish-eating birds. Effects are likely to be
much less severe in the Santa Fe Channel, although the contami-
nant levels in fish are still significantly higher than the
levels which may threaten sensitive fish-eating birds. In the
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, the EDDT residues in whole fish
(115 jtg/kg wet) fall between the levels which are the basis of
the EPA/state chronic marine water quality criteria intended to
protect marine birds (150 ppb) and the National Academy of
Sciences recommendation (50 ppb) for protecting marine birds.
It appears, then, that the most sensitive ecological recep-
tors to sediment organochlorines in Richmond Harbor are fish-
eating marine birds. The only contaminated medium for which
regulatory criteria were identified is surface water. Non-
regulatory or surrogate criteria were also identified for fish
and shellfish tissues, benthic communities and sediments. It was
found that surface water concentrations were consistent during
different tidal cycles and seasons in each of the three channels
sampled, allowing the prediction of the sediment concentration
xiv
-------
required to achieve a protective water concentration. In
addition, the concentrations measured in the water column and the
concentrations measured in whole fish were found to agree
remarkably well with the concentrations predicted by the EPA
marine chronic Water Quality Criteria and State Water Quality
Objectives. This demonstrates that SDDT present in surface
waters is bioavailable and that it accumulates as predicted by
the applicable criteria.
The analysis of surface water pesticide concentrations in
the three channels indicates that the concentrations in the Santa
Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels are likely elevated by
approximately an order-of-magnitude over the concentrations which
would result from the respective local sediment concentrations,
due to the flux of contaminated water from the Lauritzen Channel.
This can confound the calculation of potential remediation goals
in the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels, making them
overly conservative, but it. also indicates that remediation of
the Lauritzen would have beneficial effects throughout the Inner
Harbor.
The final goal of the ecological assessment was to provide
sufficient information to develop site remediation goals for
contaminated sediments which would be protective of human health
and the environment. As indicated above, it was determined that
the minimum ecological effects concentration for benthic amphi-
pods was 100 jig EDDT/g organic carbon, which is equivalent to
1900 fig/kg (dry wt.) at 1.9% organic carbon. Sediment concentra-
tions exceeding this value might cause local chronic adverse
impacts to benthic organisms. EPA has reviewed-data for other
DDT contaminated sites, and found a similar threshold for benthic
amphipods. Cleaning-up sediment to this EDDT concentration would
reduce dieldrin concentrations below its proposed sediment
quality criterion of 17 ^ig/g organic carbon.
Analysis of the Lauritzen Channel data indicates that the
marine chronic Water Quality Criteria and State Objective of 1
ng/L for SDDT is likely to be achieved if the average channel
sediment concentration is below about 1,000 jtg/kg EDDT (dry wt.)
and the human health criteria and objective of 0.6 ng/L is likely
to be achieved if the sediment concentration is below 590 jxg/kg.
The NAS action level for SDDT for fish-eating birds, which is not
a regulatory criteria, is likely to be achieved if the average
channel sediment concentration is below 420 /xg/kg. In contrast
to the minimum ecological effects concentration for amphipods,
the potential sediment remediation concentrations to achieve
surface water criteria are a result of the particular hydrologic
conditions in the Richmond Harbor and are not likely to be
applicable to other ecosystems.
xv
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
From approximately 1947 to 1966, United Heckathorn and other'
companies operated a pesticide formulating plant in Richmond,
California, on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The opera-
tions resulted in the release of DDT and other pesticides to the
shoreline and the Bay. In'the late 1960's, DDT was implicated in
the rapid decline and endangerment of several predatory birds,
particularly bald eagles, peregrine falcons and brown pelicans.
The unintended toxicity of DDT to birds was promoted by its
persistence in the environment and its tendency to biomagnify in'
the food chain. The use of DDT was banned in the United States
in 1973. Today, in the waters of Richmond Harbor near the former
plant, high levels of DDT remain in marine sediments, and DDT and
dieldrin, another banned organochlorine pesticide, bioaccumulate
in marine organisms to theihighest levels found in the State of
California.
This document presents the results of studies performed by
the Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
commonly referred to as Superfund) to assess the threats posed to
the environment by the contaminants released from United Heck-
athorn, and to determine potential cleanup levels which will
protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay.
1.1. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The primary goal of this ecological assessment is to deter-
mine whether contaminants from United Heckathorn threaten the
marine environment, and if so, to determine potential cleanup
levels for pesticides in marine sediments which will protect the
organisms which reside in and feed off the sediments and waters
of Richmond Harbor.
The approach taken to determining whether the contamination
presents a threat to the environment focused on addressing the
following basic concerns for major components of the harbor
ecosystem:
1} Are marine sediments in Richmond Harbor contaminated at
levels which may be toxic to benthic organisms or
affect benthic community structure?
2) Does the water column contain contaminants at concen-
trations- which may be toxic to sensitive marine organ-
isms?
3) Have contaminants bioaccumulated in fish and shellfish
to levels which may be harmful to the organisms them-
selves, or to predators such as birds, marine mammals
and humans?
The initial components of the study included a review of
previous studies in Richmond Harbor, and of the available stan-
-------
dards, criteria, and scientific literature regarding ecological
impacts of the contaminants of concern to determine as far as
possible the contaminant levels in various media which could
adversely impact sensitive organisms. This review provided a
conceptual model of which ecological receptors were likely to be
the most sensitive and .helped guide the selection of-field and
laboratory studies.
The major phase of the study involved field and laboratory
measurements of contaminant concentrations in various media and
the performance of standard benthic tests for determining impacts
from contaminated sediments. The studies included bulk sediment
toxicity testing, benthic community analyses, laboratory bioaccu-
mulation testing, and chemical analyses in sediments, surface
waters, and tissues of field-collected benthos, fish, and shell-
fish. An additional goal was the determination of the relation-
ship between sediment contaminant concentrations and the concen-
trations in other media so that, for example, a sediment cleanup
concentration could be determined which would result in the
attainment of San Francisco Bay Water Quality Objectives or a
protective contaminant level in pelagic fish or mussel tissues.
Finally, the field and laboratory results were compared with
the available criteria and toxicity information to determine
which ecological receptors are likely to be threatened in various
media and areas of .the harbor, which is the most sensitive, and
what sediment concentration must be achieved to protect the most
sensitive receptor.
1.2. OVERVIEW OF REPORT
This ecological assessment is part of EPA's overall Remedial
Investigation of the United Heckathorn site. Other parts of the
Remedial Investigation include a human health risk assessment, an
investigation to map the areal and vertical extent of sediment
contamination in Richmond Harbor, and limited screening, surveys
in other media. The Remedial Investigation is being conducted
under CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
EPA relied on a number of guidance documents in planning,
conducting and reporting the results of this ecological assess-
ment, particularly Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume
II. Environmental Evaluation Manual (U.S. EPA, 1989a). Addi-
tional guidance documents (U.S. EPA, 1989b, 1991c, 1992a, and
I992b) are listed in the Reference Section.
The sections of this.report are organized as follows:
Chapter 2 - Site Description, provides a description of the
site's regional setting and a discussion of the site history
including probable major sources of releases to the environment,
government involvement, major contamination investigations, and
remedial activities to date. This is followed by brief de-
scriptions of natural resources, and areas assessed in the study.
Chapter 3 - Nature and Extent of Contamination, contains a
review of previous investigations of contamination of sediment
and biota in Richmond Harbor. These studies were used to identi-
fy the contaminants of concern which are the focus of this study.
-------
Chapter 4 - Ecological Receptors and Exposure Mechanisms,
contains a description of the aquatic habitats at the site and
species which are known or likely to be present. This is fol-
lowed by a discussion of environmental fate and chemical trans-
port and exposure pathways.
Chapter 5 - Criteria and Toxicity Assessment, discusses
various standards, criteria, and other information regarding tox-
icity which are used to assess ecological threats and determine
likely sensitive ecological endpoints for field measurement and
preliminary remediation goals for various media.
Chapter 6 - General Study Methods, describes field sampling
and laboratory procedures, and general analytical techniques.
Chapter 7 - Physical Characteristics of Study Sites, con-
tains a description of the physical characteristics of the sedi-
ments and environment at the study sites.
Chapter 8 - Exposure Assessment, discusses the results of
the analyses of sediment, interstitial waters, and the water
column, and bioaccumulation in infauna, fishes, and megafauna.
Chapter 9 - Effects Assessment, discusses the results of the
benthic survey and toxicity tests, and the.potential for delete-
rious residue levels in the prey of fish eating birds.
Chapter 10 - Risk Characterization and Cleanup Goals,
summarizes the observed or threatened adverse effects to ecologi-
cal receptors in the Richmond Harbor channels, and the water and
sediment concentrations required to achieve various ecological
criteria. . • .
-------
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
This chapter provides a description of the site's regional
setting and a discussion of the site history including probable
major sources of releases to the environment, government involve-
ment, major contamination investigations, and remedial activities
to date. This is followed by a brief description of natural
resources, and areas assessed in the study. More detailed
discussions of the results of previous studies, aquatic habitats
and species likely to be present are provided in subsequent
chapters.
2.1. REGIONAL SETTING
Richmond Harbor is located on the eastern shore of Central
San Francisco Bay, as shown in Figure 2-1. The approximate loca-
tion of the former United Heckathorn facility on the eastern
shoreline of the Lauritzen Channel in the Richmond Inner Harbor,
is shown in Figure 2-2. The Lauritzen Channel is bounded to the
south by the Santa Fe Channel, which links it to the Richmond
Inner Harbor Channel and San Francisco Bay. The present harbor
channels are the result of dredging and filling which began in
the early 1930s. Although the channel widths are variable, the
Lauritzen is roughly 1,500 feet (-457 meters) long, and 200 ft
(-61 m) wide, the Santa Fe is roughly•4,500 ft {-1,370 m) long
and 400 ft (-122 m) wide, and the Inner Harbor Channel is roughly
6,000 ft (-1,829 m) long and 1,000 ft (-305 m) wide. The total
area of the Richmond Inner Harbor is roughly one quarter of a
square mile (-0.65 square kilometer).
Richmond Harbor is highly industrialized and its shoreline
is dominated by petroleum and shipping terminals. Running clock-
wise around the Inner Harbor from Point Potrero are the Port of
Richmond's Marine Terminal for automobiles, Arco, Unocal, GATX,
Gold Bond, Castrol, Texaco, the Levin Richmond Terminal, Time
Oil, the Port of Richmond's Terminals 2 and 3, and an abandoned
automobile manufacturing plant. Other facilities include a small
yacht harbor, a number of boat yards, a lumber yard, a sand and
gravel company, and the California Oils Corporation. The shore-
line throughout the Inner Harbor is armored by concrete, rip rap,
rubble, and vertical piers.
The harbor channel depths have been maintained by dredging
at approximately 35 ft (-10.7 m, -5.8 fathoms). The Lauritzen
Channel varies in depth from approximately 10 ft (-3 m) at its
northern end to 40 ft (-12.2 m) at its mouth. Portions of the
channel have been periodically dredged. The most recent mainte-
nance dredging occurred in December, 1984 and January 1985, and
included a berth area about 120 ft (-36.6 m) in width on the
eastern side of the channel, from the Santa Fe northward about
850 ft (-259 m). The berth was dredged to a depth of approxi-
mately 41 ft (-12.5 m).
At the mouth of the Inner Harbor Channel, roughly l 1/2
miles (-2.4 km, -1.3 nautical mile) from the location of the
former united Heckathorn facility, lies Brooks Island. It is
-------
accessible only by boat, and is part of the East Bay Regional .
Parks District. The island is vegetated and surrounded by
shallow mudflats.
2.2. SITE HISTORY
United Heckathorn was a pesticide formulator operating from
approximately 1947 to 1966. Heckathorn received technical grade
pesticides from chemical manufacturers, ground them in air mills,
mixed them with other ingredients such as clays, and packaged
them for final use. DDT was the primary pesticide processed. In
1960, approximately 500 (short) tons (-455 metric tons) of DDT
and 20 to-25 (short) tons (-18.2 to 23 metric tons) of other
chemicals were processed at the site per month (Calif. Reg. Wat.
Poll. Contr. Bd., 1960). Although many pesticides were handled
by United Heckathorn, only DDT and several other persistent
organochlorine pesticides, including dieldrin, remain in signif-
icant concentrations (Levine-Pricke, 1990) .
United Heckathorn was reported to have routinely washed out
equipment containing pesticide residues. The wash water was
permitted to either run through drains into the adjacent Laurit-
zen Channel', or to seep into the ground. After approximately
1960, settling tanks were used to remove pesticides prior to
discharge, however California Department of Fish and Game staff
observed overflow and leakage from the tanks to the Lauritzen
Channel (Calif. Dept. Fish Game, 1960). A 1965 inspection again
found discharges from overflowing tanks used to settle pesticide
mill scrubber water (Calif. Dept. Fish Game, 1965).
United Heckathorn ceased operations in approximately 1966.
The Heckathorn buildings were demolished prior to 1970, and the
site has been used since for bulk storage of shipped materials.
In 1981, Levin Metals Corporation purchased the site from Parr-
Richmond Terminal Company. The Levin Richmond Terminal Corpora-
tion currently operates the site as a shipping and storage
terminal for bulk materials.
In 1982, the site was listed by the California Department of
Health Services as a State Superfund Site. In 1983, workers at
the site laying piles and clearing soils encountered pesticide
residues containing up to 77% DDT (Calif. Dept. Health Services,
1983). In 1986, during the excavation for a train- scale at the
site, an oily residue was encountered which contained up to 44%
DDT (Harding Lawson Assoc., 1986a). Approximately 60 cubic yards
(-46 cubic m) of this material was disposed of off-site in a
hazardous waste landfill.
Harding Lawson Associates began the first extensive investi-
gation of the site, on behalf of Levin, in 1983. The investiga-
tion included monitoring of groundwater, soils, air, and sedi-
ments and organisms in the Lauritzen Channel. The findings of
this investigation are presented in Harding Lawson Associates's
"Revised Draft Site Characterization and Remedial Action Plan,
Former United Heckathorn Site," dated November 6, 1986 (Harding
Lawson Assoc., 1986b).
The 1984-1985 survey by the California State Mussel Watch
-------
{SMW), published in 1986, included the first sampling of Richmond
Harbor (Calif. State Water Res. Contr. Bd., 1986). The results
for DDT in the Santa Fe Channel were described as "by far the
highest ever measured in mussels by the SMW program. " The
dieldrin measurement was also the highest ever measured by the
State Mussel Watch. The 1985-1986 Mussel Watch included a new
station in the Lauritzen Channel adjacent to the former United
Heckathorn plant site (Calif. State Water Res. Cbntr. Bd., 1987).
The results for total DDT were higher than those reported the
previous year for the Santa Fe Channel and again "the highest
ever measured in mussels in the history of the SMW Program." The
report concluded: "The results also suggest that the Lauritzen
Channel in the inner portion of the Harbor is the major source of
DDT to the Harbor."
Levine-Fricke performed additional site characterization for
its 1990 Remedial Investigation and 1991 Feasibility Study. One
of the findings of Levine-Fricke1 s 1990 study was the presence of
a highly concentrated pesticide deposit in the intertidal zone on
the shoreline of the Lauritzen Channel.
EPA listed the site on the National Priorities List on March
14, 1990. In September, 1990, EPA ordered the immediate removal
of the pesticide deposit found' by Levine-Fricke. In November,
1990, the Levin Richmond Terminal Corporation, the Montrose
Chemical Corporation of California, and the Rhone-Poulenc Basic
Chemicals Company, removed approximately 800 cubic yards (~608
cu. m) of soils and sediments, containing up to 100% DDT, from
the Lauritzen Channel shoreline. This removal revealed a layer
of pesticide residue-approximately three feet (rl m) thick
beneath the foundation of the former United Heckathorn building.
This deposit was removed in April, 1991. All remaining stock-
piles of contaminated soils and known soil pesticide "hot-spots"
were removed from the site in several actions which concluded in
May, 1993.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has performed several
studies in Richmond Harbor aimed primarily at assessing the
quality of sediments which would be removed in routine harbor
maintenance and in a proposed future deepening of the federal
navigation channel. A 1990' study of chemical contamination in
the channel done for the Corps by the Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory found that pesticide contamination in sediment core
samples generally dropped to non-detectable levels in the vicini-
ty of Point Potrero {Brown et al., 1990). A follow-up study by
Battelle in 1992 examined sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation
in the navigation channel (Pinza, et al., 1992). While the study
found little toxicity, the bioaccumulation of DDT in clams
exposed to sediments taken from the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
was up to 125 times the level in clams exposed to sediments at
the Alcatraz environs.
2.3. NATURAL RESOURCES
The waters of Richmond Harbor are part- of San Francisco Bay,
-------
California's largest estuary. The estuary sustains a complex
ecosystem containing thousands of species of fish, invertebrates,
birds, mammals, insects, plants and other life. The estuary also
plays an important part of the larger ecology of the Pacific
coast. Numerous migratory fish and birds use the Bay as a nurs-
ery and for spawning and wintering. The majority of the State's
salmon pass through the Bay and delta, as well as nearly half the
waterfowl and shorebirds migrating along the Pacific flyway.
Although Richmond Harbor encompasses only a fraction of a
percent of the area of San Francisco Bay and contains a less
diverse habitat than the Bay as a whole, its open-water channels
support a wide variety of resident and migratory species of fish,
shellfish and wildlife. Common organisms include clams, mussels,
crabs, shrimp, marine and estuarine fish, such as anchovies,
smelt, perch, croaker and gobies, and fish-eating birds, such as
cormorants and grebes. Harbor seals and the endangered Califor-
nia brown pelican are also seen in the harbor. Brooks Island, at
the mouth of the harbor, provides habitat for shorebirds and
supports nesting black-crowned night-herons, Caspian terns, snowy
egrets and gulls.
2.4. AREAS ASSESSED _
Previous studies were reviewed in order to determine the
likely extent of contamination from United Heckathorn. Based on
Battelle's chemical characterization of sediment cores in the
federal navigation channel, it appears that DDT concentrations
drop to very low or non-detectable levels in the vicinity of
Point Potrero. Based on this information, the areas chosen for
field studies were the Lauritzen, Santa Fe, and Richmond Inner
Harbor Channels.
-------
FIGURE 2-1. Site Location Map for Richmond Harbor (adapted from
White et al., 1993).
-------
I
o
o
(A
.0
2
-------
FIGURE 2-2. Map of Richmond Harbor (adapted from White et al.,
1993).
-------
TABLE 4-1. Birds known to nest in central or northern San
Francisco Bay or likely to regularly feed in the immediate
vicinity of Richmond Harbor.
Common Name
Taxonomic Group
Nests in SF or
San Pablo Bavs
Loons:
Common Loon
Red-throated/Pacific Loon
Grebes:
Pied-billed Grebe
Eared Grebe
Horned Grebe
Western/Clark's Grebe
Pelicans and Cormorants:
White Pelican
Brown Pelican (Endangered)
Double-crested Cormorant
Brandt's Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
Herons, Egrets and Bitterns:
*Great Blue Heron
Green-backed Heron
*Black-crowned Night Heron
*Great Egret
*Snowy Egret
American Bittern
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Waterfowl:
*Pintail Y
*Northern Shoyeler Y
*Mallard Y
*Scoters (Surf and White-winged)
Ruddy Duck Y
Scaups (Lesser and Greater)
Green-winged Teal
Canvasback
Redhead
Mergansers (Common and Red-throated)
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
American Widgeon
Canada Geese
Raptors and Owls:
Osprey (special concern)
Bald Eagle (Endangered)
Peregrine Falcon (Endangered)
Burrowing Owl (sp. concern)
Short-eared Owl (sp. concern)
Rails and Coots:
Black Rail
Clapper Rail (Endangered)
American Coot
(Cont'd.)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Feeds In/Around
Richmond Harbor
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Prev
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
vegy
prim
vegy
invert
vegy
vegy
vegy
invert
invert
fish
invert
invert
vegy
vegy
fish
omni
bird
invert
mamm
invert
invert
vegy
28
-------
TABLE 4-1 (cont'd.).
Common Name
Taxonomic Group
Nests in SF or
San Pablo Bavs
Shorebirds:
Snowy Plover (sp. concern) Y
*Semipalmated Plover y
*Black-bellied Plover
*Killdeer Y
*Western Sandpiper
*Least Sandpiper
*Dunlin
*Sanderling
*Dowitchers (Short- and Long-billed)
*Red Knot
Black Turnstone
Ruddy Turnstone
*Willet
*Marbled Godwit
Black-necked Stilt Y
*American Avocet Y
*Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Long-billed Curlew (special concern)
Red-Necked Phalarope
Water Pipit
Black Oystercatcher Y
Feeds In/Around
Richmond Harbor
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Prey
invert
invert
invert
invert
prim
prim
prim
prim
prim
prim '
invert
invert
omni
prim
prim
prim
invert
invert
invert
prim
invert
invert
Gulls, Terns, and other Seabirds:
*Bonaparte's Gull
*California Gull
Glaucous -winged Gull
Heermann ' s Gul 1
*Herring Gull
*Mew Gull
*Ring-billed Gull
Thayer's Gull
*Western Gull
*Caspian Tern
.*filegant Tern
Least Tern (Endangered)
*Forster's Tern
Common Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
omni
omni
omni
omni
omni
omni
omni
omni
omni
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
fish
KEY:
fish = consumes primarily fish
mixed = consumes invertebrates and fish
vegy = consumes primarily algae and plant material
mamm = consumes primarily terrestrial mammals
bird = consumes primarily birds
omni = diet usually omnivorous/scavenger
invert = consumes primarily small to medium sized invertebrates
prim = consumes primarily very small invertebrates or plankton
* = species that are particularly abundant in the Richmond
Harbor area relative to other members of their taxonomic
group.
"Y" indicates species known to occur in the area, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
29
-------
g
D
g
P
P
S
gg
PP
t i
_ _
*^ "^
•* CN
*-,*—
CO
• in
f- in
CM
0
^|
3 *~"
m SH
m Vi
*
V£
rO
,J
01
0
1
5
^
H
•
^
5
2
-H
4J
TO
•~i
in
'J*
CN
i
in
H
•d H
fd "rH ^^
d) CJ) iJ
u 30
[Vj O | \
"" "as" *^
-. O^l >0
iH d O> V£l
_„ J-* .. -^
•d
QJ 4J
X] 3
u o
fd r(
fa ^__ U
" s
^. Oin
in c in
^"e^
^-x
jfj
CO •
•H
fa
•— »
fa
U
01
o
J
no
0>
rH TO
5 q
•H 0
*Q S
"— ' ^-»
in in
• .
rH *4*
J
(d
-H
fi
CN
H
CO
CO
fa
ic]J
rH
n}
§
to
II II
*st* OO
(T\ CN
00 f
H H
•U -H
Q) (1)
CtJ
C
•n II
-H
pq .^
0) in
P oo
en
II H
m »
•rl
in-H
l> -H
on ^
rH
,-a
rl (d
(1)
U VI
a o
CO
n
CN
r* en
en ao
H en
H
OJ-H
*" 4J ft
I'rH
^
(O
-------
FIGURE 4-1. Aquatic pollutant fate and exposure pathways.
Adapted from Fava et al., 1984.
31
-------
1
10
I
*
-------
FIGURE 4-2. Generic food web. Adapted from IEHR, 1993.
32
-------
o
H
O
rn
o\
W
H
fa
-------
5.0 CRITERIA AND TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
This section discusses various standards, criteria, and
other information regarding toxicity which may be used to assess
ecological threats and provide the basis for establishing cleanup
levels at the United Heckathorn site.
The first are standards which have been adopted or promul-
gated under State or Federal environmental laws. CERCLA {Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
requires that remedial actions at Superfund sites meet all appli-
cable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of Federal
and State environmental laws, unless a waiver is justified.
EPA's ecological assessment guidance {U.S. EPA 1989a) specifical-
ly recommends determining whether any criteria are ARARs for a
site, stating: "If usable and applicable criteria exist, the
assessment should include sampling and monitoring plans to
determine the extent to which those criteria are exceeded by
environmental concentrations at the site."
Following the discussion of ARARs are discussions of non-
promulgated advisories or guidance issued by Federal or State
governments. These do not have the status of potential ARARs,
and are referred to as To-be-Considered-Material, or TBCs. Fin-
ally, additional scientific literature will be discussed under
Additional Resources.
After the review of the various standards and other resourc-
es, they will be integrated to determine likely sensitive ecolog-
ical endpoints, and preliminary remediation goals for various
media.
5.1. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS OF
FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.
The discussion below does not address all environmental laws
which are potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate to
all Superfund issues at the United Heckathorn site, but only
those which are relevant to this ecological assessment, or are
based upon an ecological measurement endpoint, such as fish and
shellfish tissue residues.
ARARS are generally divided into three categories: chemi-
cal-specific, location-specific, and action-specific. Chemical-
specific ARARs are concentration-based requirements for specific
chemicals in various environmental media such as sediments and
surface waters. Chemical-specific ARARs that apply to the water
column, fish and shellfish residues are identified below. Loc-
ation-specific ARARs are those which apply only in specific
locations. The beneficial uses of central San Francisco Bay are
location-specific ARARs. Action-specific ARARs generally affect
the choice of alternatives for remediation and are, therefore,
not discussed here.
33
-------
5.1.1. California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan and
San Francisco Bay Regional Basin Plan
The State of California has adopted water quality objectives
for toxic pollutants pursuant to the requirements of Section 303
of the Clean Water Act. The State's Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
Plan, adopted on April 11, 1991 (State Water Resources Control
Board Resolution No. 91-33; Calif. St. Wat. Res. Bd., 199lb),
contains the water quality objectives for DDT and dieldrin in
surface waters summarized in Table 5-1. These chemical-specific
objectives apply to all surface waters of San Francisco Bay,
including all channels and canals in Richmond Harbor. Although
the human health objectives are not. ecologically relevant, they
are listed because they are based upon achieving certain contam-
inant levels in fish and shellfish.
The values of the objectives in Table 5-1 are some two to
three orders-of-magnitude below the-levels which can be measured
using, standard analytic methods. Although research laboratories
can achieve these levels, routine demonstration of compliance is
problematic. However, all of the objectives above are based upon
achieving specific DDT and dieldrin residue values in fish tis-
sues, most of which are measurable using routine analytic meth-
ods. .Thus, fish tissue residues may serve as surrogate measure-
ment endpoints to approximate compliance with the water quality
objectives in the event that acceptable direct water column
measurements are unobtainable. The State's water quality object-
ives were based directly upon EPA1s Ambient Water Quality Criter-
ia for DDT and dieldrin, the derivation of which are discussed in
sections 5.1.2. and 5.1.3.
In addition to the chemical-specific objectives above, the
Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan (ibid.) contains the following
narrative objective:
"The concentration of toxic pollutants in the water
column, sediments, or biota shall not adversely affect
beneficial uses."
The chemical-specific water quality objectives discussed
above were also adopted into the Water Quality Control Plan for
the San Francisco Basin by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB, 1992). -In addition, the Basin
Plan lists the beneficial uses of Central San Francisco Bay,
which includes the waters at the site. These are a location-
specific ARAR. In order to meet the requirements of the narrat-
ive water quality standard above, the remedial action chosen for1
the site must achieve pollutant concentrations in the water
column,-sediments and biota which do not adversely affect the
beneficial uses listed in Table 5-2, including fishing and shell-
fish harvesting, estuarine habitat, fish spawning, and preserva-
tion of rare and endangered species.
The water quality objectives and beneficial uses discussed
above will be retained for consideration as potential remediation
goals in surface waters.
34
-------
5.1.2. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DDT
Although EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria are guidance
values and have not been promulgated under Federal law, they were
given special status under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthor-
ization Act of 1986 (SARA). Section 121 of CERCLA as amended by
SARA requires that remedial actions meet Water Quality Criteria
established under Section 304 or 303 of the Clean Water Act,
where relevant and appropriate.
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to publish
criteria for water quality that accurately reflect the latest
scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on health and welfare, including plankton, fish, shell-
fish, wildlife, and plant life, which may be expected from the
presence of pollutants in any body of water based on their whole
water concentration. EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria docu-
ments contain exhaustive reviews of scientific .literature regard-
ing fate and transport of pollutants, acute and chronic toxicity
to aquatic life, including insects, plants, fish and shellfish,
bioconcentration in aquatic organisms, and toxic effects on
wildlife. These are followed by a review of mammalian toxicity
and human health .effects, beginning with a pharmacokinetic dis-
cussion of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion,
and followed by a discussion of acute, subacute and chronic toxic
effects. The Water Quality Criteria Documents are an exception-
ally useful resource for the performance of ecological assess-'
merits and the criteria are often the basis of other standards and
advisories.
The Ambient Water Quality Criteria document for DDT was
published in October, 1980 (EPA 440/5-80-038; U.S. EPA, 1980a).
The criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life and
human health are listed in Table 5-3. California's Water Quality
Objectives for DDT listed in Section 5.1. were based directly on
these values. The human health values have been updated since
the original criteria publications in 1980 to reflect revised
carcinogenic potency values from EPA's Integrated Risk Informa-
tion System (IRIS) database {see Final Rule, 40 CFR Part 131, 57
FR 60848, December 22, 1992). Where the criterion was calculated
to achieve a specific -residue in fish tissue, the residue value
is listed below the criterion'in parentheses.
EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the protection of
saltwater aquatic life are, for most pollutants, based upon toxic
effects data for water column organisms. However, for DDT and
its metabolites, which bioaccumulate to high levels and may cause
toxicity to organisms at higher trophic levels, it was determined
that more restrictive criteria were necessary to achieve protec-
tive tissue residue levels than to prevent toxicity to water
column organisms and the organisms feeding on them.
In the criteria analysis of the toxicity of DDT and its
metabolites to aquatic organisms, suitable acute toxicity data
were available for eleven species of saltwater fishes and six
saltwater invertebrates, including a mollusk, a crab, and four
species of shrimp. The most sensitive organism was the brown
35
-------
shrimp, Penaeus aztecus. with a 96-hour LC50 of 0.14 (J.g/1. The
saltwater Final Acute Value derived from these data was 0.13 /xg/1
{130 ng/1). In tests on the metabolites ODD (TDE) and DDE,
values were available for three and one species, respectively.
These data were all higher than the Final Acute Value for DDT,
and were insufficient to,derive separate Final Acute Values for
the metabolites.
No chronic toxicity data were available for any saltwater
species, therefore,- no Final Chronic Value for DDT or metabolites
was determined. However, Final Acute-Chronic Ratios determined
by EPA for other chlorinated pesticides are typically in the
range of 2 (the lowest value allowable under the criteria devel-
opment guidance) to 10.. This suggests that chronic effects from
DDT to water column organisms would be unlikely below a range of
0.065 to 0.013 /tg/1 (65 - 13 ng/1).
Limited information on the sensitivity of saltwater aquatic
plant species, including algae and rooted vascular plants, indi-
cated that plants are much less sensitive to DDT than are fish or
invertebrates. DDT at a concentration of'10 /ig/1 reduced photo-
synthesis in saltwater diatoms, green algae, and dinoflagellates.
. Field and laboratory-generated bioconcentration factors for
DDT were available for over fifty species, including three salt-
water invertebrates and nine saltwater fish. Bioconcentration
factors for saltwater species ranged from 1,200 to 76,300, and
were similar in both field and laboratory tests. The geometric
mean of lipid-normalized bioconcentration. factors for both fresh-
water and saltwater aquatic life was determined to be 17,870.
The mean lipid concentration for saltwater species was 16%.
[Note: The criteria documents calculate lipid-normalized BCFs by
dividing by the percent lipid (e.g., 8} rather than the decimal
equivalent (e.g., 0.08).]
Maximum permissible DDT tissue concentrations were reviewed
from ten studies of toxic effects in birds, such as egg shell
thinning and duckling survival, and seven regarding, toxic effects
in fish, such as reduced sac fry, fry, and >fingerling survival.
Toxic impacts to fish, including sensitive life stages, were
found to occur at higher DDT tissue concentrations (3 to 11.36
mg/kg) than those which caused toxic impacts to birds {0.5 to 3.0
mg/kg). The lowest maximum permissible tissue concentration was
0.15 mg/kg (150 jig/kg) in fish, which was determined to be assoc-
iated with reduced -reproduction among endangered California brown
pelicans. This value was used, in conjunction with the geometric
mean bioconcentration factor and the percent lipid content (8%)-
of the major prey of the pelicans, the Northern anchovy, to
derive the Final EPA Marine Chronic Water Quality Criteria of
0.001 jtg/1 (1 ng/1) . However, the criteria document states that
because the-0.15 mg/1 fish tissue residue was associated with
reduced reproduction in pelicans, the final criterion of 0.001
jig/1 may not be low enough to protect this sensitive species.
The relative sensitivities of the receptors considered in
the development of EPA1s criteria for DDT are summarized in Table
5-4. . It is evident that because of bioaccumulation the most
36
-------
sensitive ecological receptors to DDT in the water column are
fish- eating birds. In addition, if a DDT water column concentra-
tion of l ng/1 or a surrogate residue level, in fish below 150
M9/fcg is maintained to protect birds, the water column concentra-
tion will be at least an order -of -magnitude below the level
likely to cause chronic toxicity to sensitive marine organisms,
two orders -of -magnitude below the level likely to affect sensi-
tive life-stages of fish, two to three orders -of -magnitude below
the level likely to cause acute impacts in fish and shellfish,
and five orders -of -magnitude below the level likely to cause
adverse effects in aquatic plants. If a water column concentra-
tion of 0.6 ng/1 or a surrogate fish tissue residue level of 32
/ig/kg is maintained to achieve a 10"6 excess cancer risk level
and the State Water Quality Standard for the protection of human
health, all water column ecological receptors likely will be
protected.
The EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria and tissue residues
discussed above will be retained for consideration as potential
remediation goals in surface waters and in fish and shellfish
tissues.
5.1.3. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dieldrin
The Ambient Water Quality Criteria document for dieldrin was
published in 1980 (U.S. EPA, 1980b) . The criteria for the pro-
tection of saltwater aquatic life and human health are listed in
Table 5-5. California's Water Quality Objectives for dieldrin
listed in Section 5.1.1. were based directly on these values.
The human health values have been updated since the original cri-
teria publications in 1980 to reflect revised carcinogenic poten-
cy values from EPA's IRIS database .(see Proposed Rule, 40 CFR
Part 131, 56 PR 58420) . Where the criterion was calculated to
achieve a specific residue in fish tissue, the residue value is
listed below the criterion in parentheses.
In the criterion analysis of the toxicity of dieldrin to
aquatic organisms, suitable acute toxicity data were available
for thirteen species of saltwater fishes and seven saltwater
invertebrates, including a. mollusk, a crab and five species of
shrimp. The most sensitive organism was the pink shrimp, Penaeus
duorarum. with a 96-hour LC50 of 0.7 jig/1. The saltwater Final
Acute Value derived from these data was 0.71 fj.g/1 (710 ng/1).
The only chronic study on a saltwater species found de-
pressed survival in mysid shrimp after 28 days at a geometric
mean dieldrin concentration of 0.73 M9/1- Tne Final Acute-
Chronic ratio for dieldrin was 8.5, resulting in a Final Chronic
Value for dieldrin of 0.084 /xg/1 (84 ng/1).
In the proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for dieldrin,
released in November, 1991 (U.S. EPA, 1991a; see Section 5.2.3.),
the Final Acute Value was revised to 0.6594 /zg/1, the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio to 5.748, and the Final Chronic Value to
0.1147 /*g/l.
Information on the sensitivity of saltwater aquatic plant
species, including algae and phytoplankton, indicated that they
37
-------
are much less sensitive to dieldrin than are fish or inverte-
brates. Productivity and growth rates were reduced at concentra-
tions of approximately 1,000 /ig/1.
Bioconcentration factors for dieldrin in saltwater fish and
shellfish ranged from 400 to 8,000 in the Eastern oyster. The
geometric mean of lipid-normalized bioconcentration factors was
determined to be 1,557. The mean lipid concentration used for
saltwater species was 16%. [Note: The criteria documents
calculate lipid-normalized BCFs by dividing by the percent lipid
(e.g., 8) rather than the decimal equivalent (e.g., 0.08).]
The final marine chronic criterion of 0.0019 fig/I (1.9 ng/1)
was derived to achieve the FDA Action level of 0.3 mg/kg in fish
oil. The criterion was obtained by dividing 0.3 by the biocon-
centration factor of 1,557, and by 100, the percent lipid content
of fish oil. The FDA Action level in whole fish-should be
achieved at a water column concentration of 0.012 ng/l (12 ng/1),
obtained by dividing 0.3 mg/kg by 1,557, and 16, the mean lipid
concentration of saltwater-fish.
.The relative sensitivities of the receptors considered in
the development of EPA's criteria for dieldrin are summarized in
Table 5-6. From the data in Table 5-6, it is apparent that if a
dieldrin water column concentration of 1.9 ng/1 or a surrogate
residue level in fish below 0.3 mg/kg is maintained to achieve
the FDA Action level in fish tissue, the water column concentra-
tion will be an order-of-magnitude below the level likely to
cause chronic toxicity to fish and shellfish, and five orders-of-
magnitude below the level likely to cause adverse effects in
aquatic plants. If a water column concentration of 0.14 ng/1 or
a surrogate fish tissue residue level of 0.0007 mg/kg is main-
tained to achieve a 10"6 excess human cancer risk level, all
water column ecological receptors considered in the development
of the criteria will be protected. It is important to note,
however, that toxic effects to marine birds were not considered
in the development of the criteria.
The EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria and tissue residues
discussed above will be retained for consideration as potential
remediation goals in surface waters and in fish and shellfish
tissues.
5.1.4; Endangered Species Act
The goal of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC §1531
et seq., is the conservation of species of fish, wildlife and
plants that are threatened with extinction. Protection of
endangered species is required on an individual rather than
population basis. Compliance with the Act at Superfund sites
requires the identification of any threatened or endangered
species, or its critical habitat, which will be affected by a
proposed remedial action.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the Federal
trustee for the protection of migratory birds, provided the
following list of endangered species and 'species of special
concern which are known to nest in Central or Northern San Fran-
38.
-------
Cisco Bay, and/or are likely to feed regularly in the immediate
vicinity of Richmond Harbor (Table 5-7).
The Pish and Wildlife Service believes that it is appropri-
ate to assume that some resident or migratory birds may consume
up to 100% of their diet from Richmond Harbor for significant
periods of time. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service
supports the use of a known sensitive species, such as brown
pelicans, for evaluating the potential risk to which a wildlife
community may be exposed from a known toxic contaminant. How-
ever, the Fish and Wildlife Service stressed that the tissue
residue basis of EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DDT
(0.15 mg/kg in prey) discussed in section 5.1.2., still resulted
in reproductive levels in pelicans which were 10 to 30% below the
levels needed to maintain a stable population. Thus, achieving
this level may not be sufficient to protect sensitive species
which may be present in the harbor.
5.1.5 California Endangered Species Act
The goal of the California Endangered Species Act (Califor-
nia Fish and Game Code §2050) is to conserve, protect, restore
and enhance any endangered or threatened species and its habitat.
Among the birds likely to nest or feed in the area (Table 4-1);
most of which are listed by the State as endangered or threatened
are also federally listed (Table 5-7) . The one exception is the
California Black Rail, a State threatened species.
The California Department of Fish and Game also submitted
the names of two potential plant species listed as rare that have
distributions in the general area of Richmond. These are Mason's
lilaeopsis, a minute, turf-forming perennial plant in the carrot
family, and Soft bird's-beak, a sparingly-branched, semi-
parasitic herbaceous annual plant in the -figwort family. The
known distribution of Mason's lilaeopsis, which is found on
saturated clay soils regularly inundated by waves and tidal
action, appears to be limited to the Bay delta. Soft bird's-beak
occurs in the coastal salt marshes and brackish marshes of
northern San Francisco and Suisun Bays.
5.2. TO-BE-CONSIDERED MATERIALS
To-be-considered materials are non-promulgated advisories or
guidance issued by Federal or State agencies. Superfund remedies
are not required to meet these criteria, but they may, nonethe-
less, be used as the basis for establishing cleanup levels in the
absence of applicable or sufficiently protective ARARs.
5.2.1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Action
Levels
Like .the State's human health water quality objectives
discussed above, the Federal FDA action levels are not ecologi-
cally relevant, but are discussed here because they are based
upon tissue residues in fish and/or shellfish. The FDA action
levels (Table 5-8) are guidance used to determine whether con-
taminated seafood and seafood products should be removed from the
39
-------
marketplace.
The PDA action levels will be retained for consideration as
potential remediation goals in fish and shellfish tissues.
5.2.2. National Academy of Sciences Water Quality
Criteria
The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of
Engineering published recommendations in 1972 for DDT and diel-
drin residues in composites of 25 or more whole fish of any
species within the same size range as those consumed by any bird
or mammal in the marine environment (Nat. Acad. Sci., 1972). The
recommendations are listed in Table 5-9.
The criteria document cites studies demonstrating DDE-
induced shell thinning in mallards, American- kestrels, Japanese
quail and ring doves, and an inverse relationship between shell
thickness and concentrations of DDE in eggs of wild populations
of herring gulls, double-crested cormorants, great blue herons,
white pelicans, brown pelicans, and peregrine falcons. The
document concludes that a wet-weight tissue range of 0.1 to 0.5
mg/kg (100 to 500 ppb) is "evidently higher than one which would
permit successful reproduction of several fish-eating and raptor-
ial birds."
The criteria for dieldrin is based upon hazard to fish-
eating birds such as the bald eagle, common egret, and peregrine
falcon, "which may accumulate lethal amounts from fish or"birds
which have not themselves been harmed." The document states that
dieldrin and closely related pesticides are substantially more
toxic to wildlife than are other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti-
cides, so that more conservative recommendations are, therefore,
necessary.
The National Academy of Sciences tissue residue recommenda-
tions above will be retained for consideration as potential"
remediation goals for the protection of marine birds, including
endangered species, species of special concern, and for the
protection of marine mammals.
5.2.3. EPA Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for
Dieldrin
EPA released proposed sediment quality criteria for dieldrin
for the protection of benthic organisms in November, 1991 (U.S.
EPA, 1991a). The criteria are based upon the equilibrium parti-
tioning (EqP) approach using the water quality criterion Final
Chronic Value and organic carbon partitioning coefficients to
estimate the concentration of sediment contaminants which will
not cause 'adverse effects to benthic organisms. The EqP approach
is intended to achieve the water quality criteria in sediment
interstitial water, and assumes that benthic (infaunal and epi-
benthic) species will have similar sensitivities as species
tested to derive the water quality criteria.
The Final Chronic Value was calculated from a data set
updated from the one used in the 1980 Ambient Water Quality
Criteria document discussed in Section 5.1.2. The Final Chronic
40
-------
Value for saltwater organisms was 0.1147 fj.g/1 in the water
column, which is the ratio of the Final Acute Value (0.6594 fig/1)
and the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (5.748).
The proposed criteria document states that, except possibly
where a locally important species is very sensitive or sediment
organic carbon is < 0.2%, benthic organisms should be acceptably
protected in saltwater sediments containing < 17 ug dieldrin/g
organic carbon, which is equivalent to 170 ppb at 1% organic
carbon. Included in the criteria statement are a lower confi-
dence limit of 7.7 /ig/g OC {77 ppb @ 1% TOO, "which might be
interpreted as a concentration below which impacts on benthic
species would be unlikely," and an upper confidence limit of- 36
(ig/g OC (360 ppb @ 1% TOC) , "which might be interpreted as a con-
centration above which benthic impacts would be highly likely."
In May, 1988, EPA released Interim Sediment Criteria Values
for Nonpolar Organic Contaminants (SCD #17; U.S. EPA, 1988),
which included values for dieldrin. The document contained EqP-
calculated criteria based on both the 1980 Final Chronic Value
and Final Residue Value (FRV) for dieldrin, but recommended that
those based upon the FRV be used. The interim criteria for diel-
drin based upon the FRV was 0.130 ug dieldrin/g organic carbon,
which is more than two orders-of-magnitude below the proposed
criteria. The FRV is the marine chronic value for dieldrin
listed in Table 5-5. Since this value is not based upon a toxic
endpoint but rather upon achieving the FDA human health Action
Level in fish oil, the ecological significance, of a sediment EqP
calculation based upon it is unclear. As discussed above, the
sediment criteria for the protection of benthic organisms ulti-
mately proposed by EPA is based upon a Final Chronic Value and
the assumption that benthic organisms will have similar sensi-
tivities as those used to develop the water quality criteria.
The Agency does not currently propose using residue-derived water
quality criteria as a basis for sediment criteria intended to
protect benthic organisms. This issue will be discussed further
in the examination of other guidance.
The proposed sediment quality criteria for dieldrin will be
retained for consideration as a potential remediation goal for
the protection of benthic organisms.
5.2.4. EPA Interim Sediment Quality Criteria for DDT
In May, 1988. EPA released Interim Sediment Criteria Values
for Nonpolar Organic Contaminants (SCD #17; U.S. EPA, 1988},
which included an interim sediment quality criteria value of
0.828 ug DDT/g organic carbon, which is equivalent to 8.28 ppb at
1% sediment organic carbon. The value was based upon an EqP
calculation using the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Final Resi-
due Value for DDT. The FRV is the marine chronic value for DDT
listed in Table 5-3. Since this value is based upon achieving a
specific tissue residue in fish eaten by brown pelicans, it is
not appropriate to perform EqP calculations using it to derive
sediment criteria to protect benthic organisms. As discussed
above, the sediment criteria for the protection of benthic organ-
41
.
-------
isms'ultimately proposed by EPA for dieldrin is based upon a
Final Chronic Value, rather than the Final Residue Value. The
Agency does not currently propose using residue-derived water
quality criteria as a basis for sediment quality criteria.
Therefore, the interim sediment quality criteria for DDT has not
been retained for consideration as a potential remediation goal.
5.2.5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Effects Ranges
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52 (NOAA/ 1991), entitled
The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-sorbed Contami-
nants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program, contains
an evaluation of data from a wide variety of sources and methods
which have been used to establish effects-based sediment levels.
Data were evaluated for numerous pollutants including DDT and
dieldrin. For each pollutant, the lower 10th percentile in the
data was identified as an Effects Range-Low (ER-L) and the median
was identified as an Effects Range-Median (ER-M) . NOAA states
that these values, listed in Table 5-10, are not to be construed
as NOAA standards or criteria.
NOAA reported confidence levels for the effects ranges cal-
culated f.or each pollutant, based in part on the degree of clus-
tering of results obtained'by different methods and authors.
Differences in results were not unexpected. As discussed by
NOAA, data were assembled "from more than one approach and often
from different methods used in any one approach. They included
data from studies that involved species with different contami-
nant sensitivities; therefore, they are less likely to be equiva-
lent and comparable." Other contributions to uncertainty include
the results of co-occurrence analyses which suffer from numerous
assumptions associated with matching biological and chemical data
collected in the field, including the assumption that the chemi-
cals that are quantified are those responsible for the effects
observed. - ' •
Despite the uncertainties, the data for some pollutants,
such as cadmium, are tightly clustered, and NOAA's reported
confidence in the effects ranges is very high. However, for DDT,
its metabolites, and dieldrin, the data on effects levels range
from over 3 to over 7 orders-of-magnitude, and NOAA's confidence
in the effects ranges calculated from the data is generally low.
The lack of data clustering for DDT and dieldrin may be due
in part to the fact that the data set is not carbon-normalized.
In addition, it should be noted that the lower values of the data
sets are dominated by the results of EqP calculations performed
using EPA's marine chronic criteria. Use of these data results
in the calculation of particularly low ER-Ls. As stated in the
discussions of EPA's interim sediment quality criteria .above, the
marine chronic criteria for both DDT and dieldrin are residue-
based, and the ecological significance of EqP calculations using
them is unclear. Use of these values in EqP calculations may
result in criteria which are orders-of-magnitude below the levels
necessary to protect benthic organisms. EPA is currently pro-
42
-------
posing EqP-derived sediment quality criteria based upon toxicity
test results rather than residue values.
Because of the low confidence reported by NOAA for the
effects ranges calculated for DDT, its metabolites, and dieldrin,
and the additional .concerns discussed above, these values have
not been retained for further consideration as potential remedi-
ation goals for sediments.
5.3. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Additional resources include information other than State
and Federal standard or advisories for acceptable levels in con-
taminated media which may be used to derive remediation goals.
5.3.1. EPA Integrated Risk Information System
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)contains
data which are used primarily in human health risk assessments.
However, the chronic toxicity data also have been used in assess-
ments of mammalian risk, and will be considered here in regard to
marine mammals.
The most sensitive marine mammal in San Francisco Bay is
probably the harbor seal, which is a permanent, breeding resi-
dent. Although field studies, including studies in San Francisco
Bay {Risebrough et al., 1979), have reported the presence of DDT
and other pesticides in harbor seals, it is necessary to associ-•
ate contaminant levels and effects. Studies done in the Wadden
Sea reported both the DDT concentration in fish and reproductive
failure in seals; however, it was concluded that the adverse
effects were caused by PCB contamination rather than DDT
(Reijnders, 1986).
IRIS contains reference doses for lifetime oral consumption
of DDT and dieldrin which were established based upon the results
of long-term feeding studies in rats. EPA's confidence in these
values is medium to low. The occurrence of liver lesions was
found to be the critical effect of both pollutants. Other
effects, including adverse effects on reproduction, have been
found to occur at higher doses.
The no-observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) and low-
observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL) for DDT and dieldrin doses.
in rats are presented in Table 5-11. When attempting to convert
toxicity data between species, it is necessary to adjust doses to
account for differences in the ratio of food consumption and body
weight. However, since consumption rates for both rats and
harbor seals are approximately 5% of their body weight per day
(IRIS and Dr. Diane Kopec, personal communication), estimations
for harbor seals can be made using the values above. An
estimation of a protective level in prey can be obtained by
dividing the NOAEL by a species sensitivity factor of 10 to
reflect the uncertainty in extrapolating toxicity data from the
rat to another mammal. This would result in a fish residue value
of 100 ppb for DDT and 10 ppb for dieldrin. The confidence in
this value would be low.
The values, estimated above are higher than the National
43
-------
Academy of Sciences recommendations for the protection of marine
mammals and fish-eating birds discussed in Section 5.2.2., which
were based on toxicity to birds and were retained for considera-
tion as potential remediation goals. In addition, while it is
known that some birds consume enough of their diet from Richmond
Harbor to significantly accumulate DDT (Ohlendorf et al., 1991),
such an assumption may not be reasonable for the harbor seal, a
much larger and far-ranging predator. Although harbor seals haul
out on Brooks Island and are occasionally seen in Richmond Harbor
channels, including the Lauritzen, their main breeding and haul-
out grounds are in the South Bay.
Based on the limited information above, it is unlikely that
harbor seals are the most sensitive ecological receptor to the
pesticide contamination in Richmond Harbor; and no additional
remediation goals have been established to protect marine
mammals.
5.4. PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
Preliminary ecological remediation goals were determined for
concentrations of DDT (total, including metabolites) and dieldrin
in surface waters, fish and shellfish tissues and sediments
(Table 5-12) .. Also listed in Table 5-12 are the CA/EPA and FDA
human-health levels.
A number of observations and conclusions were made in deter-
mining these preliminary goals. First, the most sensitive eco-
logical receptors to DDT and dieldrin in the water column are
likely to be fish-eating birds. If water column or surrogate
fish and shellfish tissue residue levels are attained that are
protective of sensitive birds, the water column concentrations
will likely be orders-of-magnitude below the levels necessary to
protect sensitive marine organisms in Richmond Harbor. Second,
State of California and EPA human-health water quality standards
and criteria for the protection of human health, and the tissue
residue levels upon which they were based, are more stringent
than the levels necessary to protect the most sensitive ecolog-
ical receptors considered during the development of the criteria.
Finally, a preliminary remediation goal for the protection of
benthic organisms was determined for dieldrin in sediments.
These levels are not directly comparable with the water column
remediation goals, and it is not known if achieving this goal
will result in the protection of water column organisms or
aquatic birds. No preliminary remediation goal was determined
for DDT in sediment.
5.4.1. Field Study Needs
Based on the preliminary remediation goals listed above, it
is clear that field measurement of chemical concentrations in the
water column, fish and shellfish tissues, and sediments are
necessary to determine if the goals are exceeded in the various
channels in Richmond Harbor.
The following additional types of field and laboratory
studies, routinely performed on contaminated sediments, were also
44
-------
selected. Guidance on methods for the assessment of contaminated
sediment is contained in Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(U.S. EPA, 1991C).
• Sediment bioaccumulation tests. Since the ultimate goal of
this ecological risk assessment is the determination of a
cleanup criteria for sediment, it will be necessary through
the field studies to establish the relationship between
sediment concentrations and the resulting concentrations in
the water column or in fish and shellfish tissues. Although
tissue residues in field-collected benthos will be analyzed,
it is uncertain whether sufficient tissues from comparable
organisms will be collected at each sampling location. Bio-
accumulation tests in the laboratory provide a controlled
analysis of the relationship between sediment concentration
and tissue residues and assure that sufficient tissue of the
same species will be available for analysis.
• Sediment interstitial water analyses, benthic community
analyses, and sediment toxicity tests. Sediment intersti-
tial water analyses will allow direct comparison of pore
water concentrations with water concentrations protective of
sensitive marine organisms. Both benthic community analyses
and sediment toxicity tests are standard measures which will
be used to determine a DDT level protective of benthic or-
ganisms, and to determine whether the preliminary remedia-
tion goal for dieldrin is appropriate to protect benthic
organisms.
One of the goals of ecological assessments is to collect
sufficient information to support decisions regarding remed-
iation, without collecting more information than is necessary.
The studies listed above require only about one week of field
work but will provide sufficient information to determine
compliance with all applicable criteria and to characterize risks
to benthic and water column organisms and higher predators
including fish-eating birds.
There are almost a limitless number of other studies which
could be performed, including detailed studies of any of the
approximately thirty species of fish and eighty species of birds
potentially affected by contamination at the site. However,
studies of more mobile species, particularly migratory species,
would require much more effort and would be subject to inherently
higher uncertainty regarding pollutant sources and effects than
the studies of sessile and relatively non-mobile organisms chosen
here. Furthermore, studies of higher organisms, especially
birds, are not necessary because criteria are available for their
protection (EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria and California's
Water Quality Objectives) which are based .upon achieving much
more easily measurable contaminant concentrations in fish and the
water column.
Some chemical manufacturers who have been identified as
45
-------
potentially liable for the site remediation have suggested
performing field surveys to attempt to quantify site consumption
rates of potentially impacted birds. The goal of these studies
would be to justify the allowance of contaminant levels in fish
which are higher than criteria levels, or to demonstrate that
consumption rates are insufficient to present risk. However,
even a field survey which did not involve tagging or tracking
would require significantly greater and longer-term effort than
the studies selected. Bird studies at some hazardous waste sites
have spanned years. A study at this site would have to be par-
ticularly rigorous because of the large number of species potent-
ially impacted, the presence of endangered species feeding in the
most contaminated areas, and the fact that based on historic
fish-tissue data, consumption rates below 1% may cause adverse
impacts. In addition, the meaning of any measured consumption
rate would be confounded by the unknown contribution of pesti-
cides from the rest of the bird's diet and by the unknown impact
of the extremely elevated contaminant levels in site channels on
factors such as avoidance and the availability of prey. Finally,
the data would not affect decision-making because EPA's Water
Quality Criteria and the State's Water Quality Objectives, which
are intended to be protective regardless of consumption rate, are
ARARs and must be achieved by the selected Superfund remedy
anyway.
In conclusion, for a very moderate field effort, the studies
chosen for this ecological assessment provide sufficient informa-
tion to characterize risk to sensitive ecological receptors,
develop protective cleanup levels, and support" decisions regard-
ing site remediation.
5.4.2. Summary of Receptors and Methods to Predict End-
Poxnts
The field and laboratory studies described above generate an
assortment of different types of data relating to various envi-
ronmental media and ecological receptors. Table 5-13 summarizes
the receptors studied and their primary exposure route, potential
end-points, methods to predict sediment concentrations related to
the end-points, and the potential effects of either other sedi-
ment pollutants or physical disturbance on the particular end-
point. Obviously, such a table is an overview and the reader is
referred to the appropriate sections for discussions of the meth-
ods, assumptions, and measures of uncertainty.
46
-------
TABLE 5-1. State of California water quality objectives.
Saltwater Aquatic .Life Human Health
Daily Average 30-day Average
(ng/1) (pg/D
DDT* 1.0 600
dieldrin 1.9 140
* The sum of the p,p' and o,p' isomers of DDT, ODD (TDE) , and DDE.
pg = picogram
TABLE 5-2. Beneficial uses of central San Francisco Bay.
Industrial Service Supply
Industrial Process Supply
Navigation
Water Contact Recreation
Non-contact Water Recreation
Commercial arid Sport Fishing
Wildlife Habitat
Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species
Fish Migration
Fish Spawning
Shellfish Harvesting
Estuarine Habitat
47
-------
TABLE 5-3. EPA ambient water quality criteria for DDT (fj.g/1) .
Saltwater Aquatic Life
Acute Chronic
DDT*
0.13
(residue value
wet)
0.001
(150}a
Human Health
0.00059
(32)b
* DDT and metabolites.
a The 0.001 ug/1 criterion is based upon achieving a whole body tissue wet
weight residue of 150 ppb in fish in order to protect the California brown
pelican, a sensitive piscivorous species. The criterion was obtained by
dividing 150 by 17,870, the geometric mean of lipid-normalized bioconcen-
tration factors, and by 8, the percent lipid content of anchovies - the
major prey of brown pelicans.
b The 0.00059 ug/1 criterion was based upon achieving a 10"6 excess cancer
risk level for the protection of human health, corresponding to a wet
weight residue of 32 ppb in fish and shellfish. The criterion may be
obtained by dividing 32 by 53,600; the average bioconcentration factor in
aquatic organisms. The updated IRIS carcinogenic potency factor used is
0.34 (kg-day/mg). The "criterion assumes total fish and shellfish consump-
tion rate of 6.5 g/day, of which 0.8 g/day is shellfish. If shellfish only
from the contaminated area are consumed, the corresponding residue value is
260 ppb.
48
-------
TABLE 5-4. Summary of saltwater criteria effects data for DDT.
Organism and Effect
Plants (reduced photosynthesis)
Acute toxicity to
fish and invertebrates
Reduced survival in fish fry
Chronic toxicity to sensitive
invertebrates
Reduced reproduction in birds
Human health 10"6 level
Water Cone.
(ftg/1)
10
Fish Tissue
(gq/kg. wet wt.
89 - 0.14
0.21 - 0.10a
0.065 - 0.013b
0.001
0.00059
6250 - 3000
150
32
a This range is not presented in the criteria document, but was calculated
from the reported fish tissue values for sac fry, fry and fingerling
survival, the geometric mean of the lipid-normalized bioconcentration
factor of 17,870, and the mean lipid content of 16% for saltwater fish.
b Not presented in the criteria document, but calculated from the criteria
Final Acute Value (0.13 ug/1) and the typical range of Acute-to-Chronic
ratios for chlorinated pesticides (2-10).
49
-------
TABLE 5-5. EPA ambient water quality criteria for dieldrin
Saltwater Aquatic Life
dieldrin
(residue value,
/xg/kg wet}
Acute
0.71
Chronic
0.0019
(300)a
Human Health
0.00014
{0.7)b
The 0.0019 ug/1 criterion was based upon achieving a residue of 300 ppb -
the FDA action level for dieldrin - in fish oil. The criterion was
obtained by dividing 300 by 1,557, the geometric mean of the lipid-
normalized bioconcentration factors, and by 100, the percent lipid content
of fish oil.
The 0.00014 ug/1 criterion was based upon achieving a. 10"* excess cancer
risk level for the protection of human health, corresponding to a residue
of 0.7 ppb in fish and shellfish. The criterion may be obtained by
dividing 0.7 by 4,670, the average bioconcentration factor in aquatic
organisms. The updated IRIS carcinogenic potency factor used is 16 (kg-
day/mg). The criterion assumes total fish and shellfish consumption rate
of 6.5 g/day, of which 0.8 g/day is shellfish. If shellfish only from the
contaminated area are consumed, the corresponding residue value is 5.7
ppb.
TABLE 5-6. Summary of saltwater criteria effects data for
dieldrin.
Water Cone.
Fish Tissue
Organism and Effect
Plants (reduced productivity)
Acute toxicity to
fish and invertebrates
Chronic toxicity to
fish and invertebrates
FDA Action level in fish tissue
FDA Action level in fish oil
Human health 10"6 level
(-88% fish, -12% shellfish)
Shellfish only
1,000
0.66
O.ll
0.012
0.0019
0.00014
0.00014
300
3001
0.7
5.7
1 = Concentration in fish oil.
50
-------
TABLE 5-7. Endangered species and species of special concern.
Common Name
Nests in SF or
San Pablo Bavs
Feeds In/Around
Richmond Harbor
Endangered- Species
Brown Pelican1
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Clapper Rail
Least Tern
Special Concern
Osprey
Burrowing Owl
Short -eared Owl
Snowy Plover
Long -billed Curlew
KEY:
fish = consumes primarily
mammal = consumes primarily
bird = consumes primarily
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
fish
terrestrial mammals
birds
j
fish
omni
bird
invert
fish
fish
invert
mammal
invert
invert
omni = diet usually omnivorous /scavenger
invert = consumes primarily
small to medium sized invertebrates -
1 = Observed feeding in Richmond Inner Harbor {see Section 4.2.2,
and Appendix 4 -1.
TABLE 5-8. Food and drug administration action levels.
(/ig/kg wet) Food Type
DDT (total) 500CT fish
dieldrin 300" fish, shellfish and fish oil
.a = U.S.- FDA Guideline 7420.08, 1978.
b = U.S. FDA Guidelines 7420.08, 1978 (fish and shellfish) and 7426.04, 1977
(fish oil).
51"
-------
TABLE 5-9. National Academy of Sciences saltwater action levels.
Residue Values in Whole Fish
DDT (and metabolites) 50 jig/kg {ppb, wet)
dieldrin 5 /xg/kg (ppb, .wet)
TABLE 5-10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
effects-ranges in sediment.
Pollutant
DDT (total)
p,pf-DDT
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-ODD
Dieldrin
Effects Range (ppb)
Low Median
3
l
2.0
2.0
0.02
350
7.0
15.0
20.0
8.0
Confidence
Level
moderate
low
moderate/low
low
low
TABLE 5-11. ' IRIS chronic sublethal doses,
Pollutant
DDT
Dieldrin
NOAEL
1
0.
(mcr/kg)
1
LOAEL
5
1.
(mcr/ka)
0
NOAEL = NO Observed Adverse Effect Level.
LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level.
52
-------
TABLE 5-12. Preliminary remediation goals for DDT and dieldrin.
DDT and Metabolites
CA/EPA Marine Chronic
NAS Action Level
CA/EPA Human Health •
(based on -88% fish,
-12% shellfish)
FDA Action Level
Water
0.0013
0.00063
Sediment
OC)
Fish
Tissue
> wet)
150
50
32
5,000
Dieldrin
CA/EPA Marine Chronic
NAS Action Level
EPA Sediment Criteria
CA/EPA Human Health
(based on -88% fish,
-12% shellfish)
FDA Action Level
0.00193
7.7 - 36
0.000143
300b
5
0.7
300
a = The value listed is an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
of a Federal or State law (ARAR).
b = Concentration in fish oil.
53
-------
8
•H
4J
u
f*
IS
^ o
d
"o
•s-
Ij CQ
m 4->
M
o
m
rtf
4J
flj
w 5
a o
u
ii
IP
& a
Ii
o<
55
So
i 5
' IU
: K
5 t>
tu in
"fe"
g
S'
sy
5>
-S=-
IU
*5u1
CJ
!»!
i:
O UJ
!/
U
§o
g
85
UJ Zl
151
ft
K
sf
!g
V) £
II
*ei
> * ~-
yss
lsk
si
I
si
s 1
uj E
s o- y
5§S
a |
•- ED
6 ui
fe.
l|
i1
z
in ••
Si
ffl
(A
tH.
SUI
a •
A, uj ac
UJ UJ LU
Q u. f-
o <
—I Z UJ QC
i-» «t UJ < ^
oc z m -
u =i a: ui u
ui i— mr co —
'• i- iu a
O o u-:
-------
6.0 GENERAL STUDY METHODS
6.1. INTRODUCTION
This section covers the general sampling methods, including
the sampling numbering system, an overview of the analytical
techniques, and an overview of the samples taken. A more detail-
ed discussion of the methods can be found in the United Hecka-
thorn Superfund Site Study {U.S. EPA, 1991b) , the study plan and
QA/QC document that was produced by the ERL-N, Newport laboratory
for this study. Modifications to the methods described in U.S.
EPA (199lb) are identified in the appropriate sections of this
document and, as necessary, detailed descriptions of the modified
methods are given in an appendix. The locations of the sampling
sites are given in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.
Chain-of-custody procedures were followed during all field
collections and laboratory work at the EPA, ERL-N laboratory in
Newport, Oregon, and other participating laboratories. The
chain-of-custody procedures are summarized in Appendix 6-1.
6.2. STATION LOCATIONS AND OVERVIEW OF FIELD SAMPLING
Sample site locations were chosen considering results from
previous investigations (Long et al., 1988; Levine-Fricke, 1990;
Brown et al., 1990), and the goal to develop predictive relation-
ships. The criteria used included:
1. A wide range in sediment chemistry concentrations in
approximately a geometric series.
2. Sediment concentrations that bracket the interim EPA
marine sediment quality criteria for dieldrin (170
/•tg/kg, dry weight, at 1% TOO .
3. Sediment concentrations that bracket the interim EPA
marine sediment quality criteria for DDT (8.3 /Lig/kg,
dry weight, at 1% TOO .
4. Avoid confounding effects, such as sites near combined
.. sewer outfalls. .
5. Sites with as nearly similar sediment grain.size as
possible.
.6. Avoid sampling recently dredged areas or areas
subjected to ship disturbance (i.e., middle of
channel).
7. At least 10 feet of water to allow boat access.
Using the available data, we chose nine primary stations
(Stations 1-9) - four in Lauritzen Channel, two in Santa Fe Chan-
nel, and three in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (Figure 6-1) .
The Richmond Inner Harbor Channel station at the mouth of the
55
-------
Harbor was designated the local reference site in the field study
while local Oregon sites were used as controls in the laboratory
toxicity and bioaccumulation tests. An additional 11 sites
designated as "secondary" stations (Stations 009, 13-20, 22, 23}
were located between primary sites in the inner area and extended
into San Francisco Bay, past Point Richmond along the entrance
channel.
The standard procedure was to take five replicate sediment
grabs at each of the primary stations. Sediment for chemical
analysis and biological testing was then'collected from each grab
with cores. Eight replicate grabs were taken at one station,
Station 1, to obtain greater statistical power at a highly con-
taminated site. To measure within-grab variability, triplicate
cores for chemical analysis were taken from one of the grabs at
Stations 1, 5, and 7. To determine the effects of sediment
storage and mixing, pollutant concentrations in bioassay sediment
were compared to the field sediment samples that were processed
immediately. A single grab was taken at each secondary site for
chemical analysis. Additional grabs were taken at several of the
stations to collect infauna for tissue analysis. All the benthic
grab sampling was conducted in October, 1991.
The study was designed so that samples for sediment chemis-
try, sediment bioaccumulation testing, sediment toxicity testing,
and benthic community analysis were all taken from the same
grabs. The standard procedure at the primary stations was to
take separate sediment cores from each grab for analytical chem-
istry .{sediment chemistry core; bulk sediment and interstitial
water from same core), grain size analysis, a bioaccumulation
test beaker (laboratory sediment bioaccumulation core), and a
toxicity test beaker (sediment toxicity test core)(Figure 6-3).
This approach allows a direct correspondence between chemical
concentrations and biological responses on a 0.1 m2 scale. In
order to reduce the number of samples that were analyzed, only
three of the five (eight at Station 1) Sediment Toxicity Test
core samples were chemically analyzed. The remaining two (five
at Station 1) Sediment Toxicity Test core samples and all the
Laboratory Sediment Bioaccumulation Test core samples were used
as exposure sediments and were not analyzed for pollutants. The
appropriateness of using the pollutant concentrations from the
minimally disturbed Sediment Chemistry core samples for the acute
bioassay and bioaccumulation tests which used stored and mixed
sediments was evaluated by splitting the stored and mixed
Sediment Toxicity Test core samples into an analyzed T0 bioassay
storage sediment and a not analyzed acute bioassay exposure
sediment. The results from replicated Sediment Chemistry cores
were compared to the stored and mixed T0 bioassay storage
sediment to evaluate,if storage and mixing produced effects that
exceeded the within-grab variability of the cores.
Fish and benthic megafauna (i.e., larger .invertebrates
caught in trawls such as crabs and shrimp) were collected by
trawling in October, 1991 and February, 1992. Locations for
trawling were assigned over Station 8 in Richmond Harbor Channel,
56
-------
over Stations 5 and 6 in Santa Fe Channel, and from approximately
Station 1 to 2 in Lauritzen Channel. Locations for the October
and February trawls are given in Figure 6-1 and 6-2, respective-
ly. To increase the number of individuals, the infaunal species
(e.g., clams) caught in the February trawls were included in the
analysis of field-collected infaunal tissue residues.
Detailed station descriptions are given in Appendix 6-2.
As noted in the trip report (Specht, 1991, Section III), some
stations were changed or dropped from the original plan {U.S.
EPA, 1991b) due to conditions encountered in the field.
6.3. SAMPLE NUMBER SYSTEM
6.3.1. Field Sample Numbers
The sample numbering system is derived from the sample num-
bering protocol devised by the Pacific Ecosystems Branch, and, as
amended for this project, is detailed in Food Web Research Note
#167 (9/3/91) (internal planning document for the Bioaccumula-
tion/Stratozone Team, Newport, OR), excerpted here.
The sample code uses 8 characters (plus the 5 character
analytical request number, described below). The first character
is a letter which identifies the major operating unit where the
project originates; in this case, the lead unit is the Bioaccum-
ulation Team, and the letter is S. The second character is the
year of origin of the particular sample. The project started in
1991, so the second unit is !_. The third character is the pro-
ject designator, sequentially assigned. Any sample associated
with the October, 1991 sampling for this project can be identi-
fied by this third unit, which is C, designating Superfund/-
Lauritzen Channel/United Heckathorn. The third character for the
February, 1992 sampling is designated as A.
The fourth character is the task identifier. These are
letters assigned within the project sampling plan, and are as
listed below, starting with A, continuing through K.
Tasks:
A Alternate use assigned to designate sediment samples from
"~ the Sediment Chemistry cores.
B Sediment Chemistry (field sampling jars labeled B) Sed-
iment samples labeled A; interstitial water samples
labeled B.
C Laboratory Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests.
D Tissue Residues in Field-Collected Infauna.
E Sediment Toxicity Tests (field sampling jars labeled E)
Sediment samples from T0 bioassay storage sediments
labeled E; interstitial water samples labeled B.
57
-------
F Benthic Community Analysis.
G Benthic Recruitment (later dropped from study).
H Tissue Residues in Field-Collected Fish and Mussels.
I AVS (Acid-Volatile Sulfide) analysis.
J Grain size (particulates).
K Bioassay.
The fifth character designates the sample type:
S3 for sediment;
F for fecal sample;
T for tissue;
I for interstitial water;
O for overlying water;
X for standards;
B for blanks;
C for control samples.
The sixth through eighth character constitute the sample
number, 001-999. These numbers are assigned sequentially, or by
prearranged series, according the decision of the sampler and/or
project coordinator. In this series, the first two digits indi-
cate station number (01-23), and the last indicates grab number
from that station (1-8). One exception to this is the station
designated 009, from which one replicate series of samples was
completed before abandoning in favor of locating a more promising
control station.
The February, 1992 sample numbers are'designated S2A xxx,
indicating Bioaccumulation Team, 1992, Superfund/Lauritzen Chan-
nel/United Heckathorn Project, with the tasks, types and numbers
assigned as described above.
To summarize, the project sample code looks like this,
S1CDT023, from which one may deduce that this is a Bioaccumula-
tion Team project sample, taken in 1991, the specific project is
the Superfund/Lauritzen Channel/United Heckathorn Project, the
task is Tissue Residues in Field-Collected Infauna, tissue sam-
ple, and it is from the third grab of Station 2. Further quali-
fications, characterization or information about a sample are
contained as notes in the sample list.
The location of specific samples on the site maps {Figures
58
-------
6-1, 6-2) are indicated in the October, 1991 samples by the 6th
and 7th digits of the sample code. The "F" numbers for the
water, mussel, and trawl samples in February, 1992 (Figure 6-2}
are converted to specific sample numbers in Appendix 6-3.
6.3.2. Analytical Request Numbers
When the samples were processed in the analytical laborato-
ry, they were assigned a request number and a code designating if
a subsample or aliquot was taken and the type of subsample and
whether a sample was reinjected. The complete codes are given in
the electronic spreadsheet data files containing the raw data and
a modified version in Appendix 8-1. The average values of sub-
samples or reinjections were used in the present analysis, and
the use of the analytical request number is only necessary to
determine whether a value consists of the average (in Appendix 8-
1) or to determine the individual subsample/reinject value (in
electronic spreadsheet files).
The request number is found in the first 3 digits in the
individual sample number {e.g., 408). The next two digits indi-
cate whether a second or third subsample was taken. For all
sediment samples, the first digit is a "1" indicating the sub-
sample extract aliquot used for this study with the second digit
indicating whether the results of a second or third subsample
were reported; "1 0" indicates that no other subsample was taken,
"1 1" either indicates that the first extract was compromised and
a second subsample was processed in its place or that it was the
first of three subsamples ("11", "12", and "1 3") used to
evaluate analytical variability. When a single, entire tissue
sample or subsample was processed, the designation was "0 0". If
subsamples were taken to assess variability, three subsamples
were taken and they were designated as "0 l", "0 2" and "0 3" or
"1 0", "2 0" and "30". In all cases, the interstitial water
sample was subsampled to form two fractions, with "01"
identifying the total interstitial concentration and "02"
indicating the bound concentration. The free fraction was
determined by the difference between the total and bound
fractions.
With the tabulated values in Appendix 8-1, samples for which
reinjections of an extract were run are identified with a "R"
(for Reinject) after the sample number. The "ave" indicates that
the reported value is the average of the three injections of the
sample extract during a GC/MS run. The individual values of each
injection are given in the electronic spreadsheet data files.
When the sample name contains "ave" with no trailing-R, the value
is from averaging subsamples from a medium (e.g., sediment) and
not reinjections. Again, the individual values are given in the
electronic spreadsheet data files.
As an example, 408 10 S1CASXXX designates a sediment sample
that it is from request 408. The 1 of the 10 is the same for all
sediment samples. The number occupying the 0-position in this
example indicates that a single within-laboratory subsample was
planned for this sample and that it was successfully extracted.
59
-------
Any other number in the 0-position indicates that triplicate
subsamples were planned for this sample or that the first and/or
second subsamples were compromised in some way requiring addi-
tional subsamples to be taken. In tissue samples, a 00 indicates
that a single subsample (or the entire sample) was successfully
extracted; 10,20,30 or 01,02,03 indicate that triplicate sub-
samples were planned and extracted successfully. 408 12 S1CASXXX
would designate the second of three subsamples if 11 and 13 were
also taken, if not, 10 subsample was compromised. For inter-
stitial water samples 407 01 S1CBIXXX and 407 02 S1CBIXXX, the
codes would designate the total pollutant and bound pollutant
extracts, respectively.
6.4. FIELD SAMPLING
The detailed field sampling protocol in Section II of the
Trip Report (Specht, 1991) is excerpted and amended in Appendix
6-4 for the exact sequence of steps followed in sampling sedi-
ment, interstitial water, infauna, and related physical measure-
ments (Specht, 1991, Section II, p. 3). The remainder of this
Section'summarizes the procedures.
The October, 1991 sampling was accomplished from the R/V
Shana Rae, a commercially chartered 42' research vessel owned and
operated by Capt. Jim Christman of Monterey Canyon Research, 14
Mason St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060, (408)423-4864. A small inflat-
able boat (Zodiac®) was used in the collection of samples away
from the main operation or adjacent to the shore (mussel and
overlying water samples; observation; transfer of off-loaded
samples to shore for transport to UPS shipping point each mid-
afternoon) . February, 1992 sampling was accomplished from a
chartered 24' Boston Whaler® operated by Mr. John Brezina, P. 0.
Box 25, Dillon Beach, CA 94929, (707) 878-2853.
The length of the anchor line was about 50'(-15 m), the
average anchor scope was about 1:4, the average depth on station
about 30'(-10 m), the average swing at anchor was estimated to be
about 20' (-6m). Using the above approximations, we estimate
that the average distance between grabs to be not more than 2 m,
and probably on the- order of ~1 m.
6.4.1. Test Sediment Collection
The October, 1991 sediment samples (SICBSxxx) were collected
by a modified 0.1 m2 van Veen® grab (Kahlsico® #214WA265, all
stainless steel construction). The grab was operated with a
hydraulic winch and boom off the deck of the R/V Shana Rae while
at anchor. In general, the procedure involved lowering the grab
to within -l m of the bottom, stopping briefly, and then releas-
ing the grab to impact the sediment surface. The slack was then
taken up until taut and the grab was firmly closed. The sampling
depth was recorded from a snatch-block meter wheel (in feet),
verified by fathom markings on the cable, and the grab lifted
through the: water column and set down on the grab stand on deck.
The flaps were opened for inspection, and subsampling proceeded
if the contents were judged sufficient (i.e., at least 10 cm
60
-------
depth (those few .samples not quite reaching 10 cm are noted in
the field log; see Appendices 6-2 and 6-4), relatively even
fill).
For the primary stations, subsampling the grab consisted of
the following operations:
1) insert EH probe and thermometer to ~1 cm depth and
read mv at 30 seconds, temperature when stable; push
probe and thermometer to -5 cm and read as previously;
2) insert appropriate cores for given station, i.e.,
4.1 cm id glass corer for sediment chemistry, 3.6 cm id
plastic corer for grain size analysis, 2 each 7.6 cm id
glass corers, 1 each for 28-day Macoma nasuta sediment
bioaccumulation and amphipod sediment toxicity tests, 3
each 8.0 cm id plastic corers for benthic community
analysis, and a modified plastic 10 cc "Plastipak"
syringe for AVS sample, all to at least 10 cm depth.
3) The remainder of the grab contents were sieved to
collect infauna for tissue residue analysis.
4} In addition, several separate grabs were taken to
fill two 32 oz (-21) glass jars for long-term "kin-
etic" M. nasuta bioaccumulation bioassay tests.
At the secondary stations, subsampling the grab consisted of
the following operations:
1) Ea and temperature readings.
2) Coring for sediment chemistry and grain size.
3) Sieving the remainder for collection of infauna for
tissue residue analysis.
The AVS sample was immediately capped, bagged, labeled and
frozen on dry ice. Cores for sediment chemistry, sediment toxic-
ity, bioaccumulation tests, grain size and kinetic bioassay were
placed in appropriate containers and immediately placed on "gel"
ice in ice chests. The benthic community analysis samples were
immediately sieved in running seawater, picked and placed in pre-
labeled jars of buffered seawater formalin. The sieved infauna
from the residua of the grab were placed in white polypropylene
10 qt buckets of fresh seawater, aerators added, covered and
allowed to purge for 24 hours {temperature was periodically
checked, and gel ice packets added as needed to control tempera-
ture) . After purging, the infaunal sample was bagged and frozen.
6.4.2. Control Sediment and Bioassay Organism
Collection
Control sediment(S1CES001-003) for sediment toxicity
61
-------
testing was obtained at Ona Beach, about 7 miles south of the
Newport, Oregon lab, at the time of collection of the bioassay
organisms (week of October 6-11, 1991). Samples of surficial
sediment were dug from the north bank of Beaver Creek at Ona
Beach with a washed shovel, and transported to the laboratory in
clean plastic buckets. The sediment was .washed through a 1.0 mm
stainless steel sieve, salinity adjusted to 28*/--» and placed in
a covered polypropylene bucket in 4°C storage in the dark until
used.
Control sediment (SICKSxxx) and clams (Macoma nasuta) for
the bioaccumulation test were obtained from Idaho Flat, Yaquina
Bay, adjacent to the laboratory, on October 8, 1991. The' sedi-
ment was collected by skimming the top ~4 cm with a washed shovel
into washed polypropylene buckets, transported to the lab, passed
through a 1 mm stainless steel sieve, and stored in 1 gallon
glass jars (Teflon-lined cap) at 4°C in the dark. The jars were
rolled for 30 minutes on a rolling mill at 4°C twice daily to
assure that the sediment remained aerobic until used. A sub-
sample of. this sediment was included in the sediment-toxicity
test chemistry request as sample numbers S1CES005-007.
The clams were dug at the same location, sieved out at the
site on coarse (> 4 mm) Vexar® screens, collected in washed
buckets with ambient seawater, transported to the laboratory for
sorting, cleaning, weighing, measuring and numbering. Clams were
held in control sediment in ambient filtered running seawater
under a 12:12 day/night light cycle until used.
6-4.3. Benthic Community Sampling
Samples for benthic community analysis (SICFSxxx) were
obtained by vertically inserting three 8.0 cm i.d. cores {surface
area of each core ~0.005 m2) to at least 10 cm depth into each
grab sample. The cores were then lifted out by hand and the top
10 cm of the core was extruded through the top of the core using
a rubber plunger with a graduated stem. The three core samples
from a grab were combined in the field resulting in a 0.015 m2 x
10 cm deep sample. Sample contents were passed through stacked
1.0 and 0.5 mm mesh stainless steel sieves while being gently
washed with ambient seawater. The material retained on each
sieve was removed with spoons and forceps, placed in separate
pre-labeled sample jars, and preserved in a -buffered solution of
10% formalin in seawater. The individual jars were returned to
fitted wooden packing cases which were sealed with chain-of-
custody seals, off-loaded on arrival at the dock to the truck,
and kept locked up through transport to Newport, where they were
transferred to the Sample Custodian.
6.4.4. Collection of Infauna, Fish, and Mussels for
Tissue Residue Analysis
Most of the infaunal species for tissue residue analysis
(SICDTxxx) were collected- by sieving the remaining sediment in
grabs with ambient seawater through a #5 (4 mm) sieve.
Organisms were placed in 10 quart, white polypropylene pails
62
-------
containing aerated ambient seawater and sieved Yaquina Bay
control sediment and then allowed -24 hours to purge their gut
contents. These pails were loosely covered, placed on the deck
out of the sun, and the temperature periodically checked. Upon
arrival at the dock for the night, the pails were covered and
chain-of-custody seals applied. • The vessel was attended through-
out the night by the skipper. The samples were examined the-
following morning, and maintained until the 24 hour purging
period had elapsed. The animals were then rinsed of sediment and
wrapped in baked-out aluminum foil, placed in a pre-labeled
Bitran® Saranex double-lock closure bag and frozen on dry ice in
a cooler on deck. The coolers were resupplied with dry ice as
needed to maintain .temperature. Those containers were trans-
ferred to a truck that, was locked when unattended, maintained
with dry ice while under transport to Newport,, transferred to
laboratory freezers, and accepted by the Sample Custodian.
To increase the number of samples, incidental infauna
captured during the trawls were collected for tissue analysis.
The trawl infauna were treated the same as the grab infauna
except that the trawl infauna were not purged (see Appendix 6-2).
Fish and epibenthic invertebrate •{"megafauna") samples taken
in October, 1991 (SICHTxxx) and February, 1992 (S2AHTxxx) were
obtained by trawling with a 26' headrope otter trawl over a
station or from crab traps deployed at specific locations (Fig-
ures 6-1, 6-2). Most trawls were taken in a seaward direction.
Specific details are covered in Section IV of the Trip Report
(Specht, 1991) and Dr. David Young's field notes (1992a) from
February, 1992.
Mussel samples collected in October, 1991 (SICHTSxx) (Figure
6-1) and February, 1992 (S2AHT5xx) (Figure 6-2} were obtained at
three stations: Lauritzen Channel ferry rudder, Santa Fe Boat-
house float and Richmond Harbor Channel Buoy red nun #16 anchor
chain. Specimens were obtained from the intertidal zone, ranging
from points about 0.2 meters aboye to about 0.3 meters below the
water surface, except the sample from the Lauritzen Channel from
the rope NE of the ferry, which was from approximately mid-depth
(sample # "F-l", S2ADT-20X; -2 m depth), and the Ferry rudder
(sample "F-25", S2ADT-53X; 1.5-4 m depth). Sampling details are
covered in the Trip Report (Specht, 1991) , Sections V and VI, and
Dr. David Young's field notes (1992a) for the February trip, pp.
410008-410042.
6.4,5. Field Measurements
Temperature was.measured at 1 and 5 cm depth in the grab
contents with a glass mercury-filled field thermometer accurate
to ± 0.5°C; EH measurements were taken by inserting a Beckman EH
probe to 1 and 5 cm. All readings were allowed to equilibrate
for -30 seconds. The thermometer and probe were rinsed with
deionized water between grabs. The temperature of the overlying
water was taken before "cracking" the grab (and allowing the
overlying water to. slowly drain off, avoiding disturbance or.
erosion of the surface) . Salinity measurements were made on an
63
-------
intermittent basis with an AO® refractometer accurate to ~1%«,
and pH with a portable Radiometer® pH meter and combination probe
calibrated on site each day with appropriate buffers.
6.4.6. Water Sample Collection and Transport Methods
Overlying water samples were collected in.October,1991
(SlCHOxxx) and February, 1992 (S2AHOxxx) at low, mid and high
tide stages within ~1 m of the mussel sampling sites, and -0.3 m
below the surface, from the inflatable dinghy. The exact proce-
dure is related in detail in the transcription of Dr. David
Young's October Field Notes (1991b) in the Trip Report {Specht,
1991), Section VI, pages 3-4. Briefly, a -500 ml sample was
taken in a precleaned glass bottle, placed in an ice chest with
refrigerated gel-ice, returned to the vessel, .chain-of-custody
seals applied, and off-loaded with the rest of the samples for
transport by UPS to Newport each afternoon.
The February, 1992 samples were similarly collected, but
from a 24' Boston Whaler operated by Mr. Brezina (see Dr. David
Young's field notes (1992a, 1992b)). Samples were similarly
cooled with gel-ice in a cooler on deck. The coolers were stored
in the locked trunk of an automobile or in a locked motel room
during subsequent field work. The samples were periodically
resupplied with gel-ice, transported for air shipment to the
Oakland Airport at the conclusion of the field work, and trans-
ferred to the Sample Custodian at Newport for cold storage and
distribution. For further detail, see Dr. Young's notebook
(1992b), p. 402018.
6.5. SEDIMENT STORAGE AND MIXING
Sediment was returned to the Newport laboratory in plastic
ice chests, cooled by refrigerated gel-ice packets. Upon accept-
ance by the Sample Custodian, these pre-numbered sample contain-
ers were stored in the dark in a refrigerated (4°C) walk-in ven-
tilated cold room (ASTM, 1991) within laboratory S-118, which has
controlled access.
The Sediment Chemistry core samples were processed within
24-36 hours of collection and were not mixed before processing
{see Sections 6.6.1. and 6.6.3.). The IW samples were extracted
and the sediment solids were frozen within four to six hours of
separation. The sediment solids were extracted between one-half
and five months later.
The Sediment Toxicity Test and Laboratory Sediment Bioaccum-
ulation Test core samples were stored at 4°C for four to seven
days and one to two weeks, respectively, before they were mixed
gently (ASTM, 1991; U.S. EPA> 199lb) with a clean spatula, large
debris (e.g., shell) picked out, and portioned out for use in
bioaccumulation or toxicity tests. Bulk sediment (SlCKSxxx) for
the Macoma nasuta kinetic test was rolled twice a day, until
used, to avoid development of anoxic conditions (see Section
8.3.2.).
To determine the effects of sediment storage and mixing,
. 64
-------
three randomly selected Sediment Toxicity Test samples from each
station (sum 27) were mixed, and dispensed into two beakers, one
for chemical analysis and one for the amphipod toxicity bioassay.
The beaker contents used for chemical analysis are referred to as
the "T0 bioassay storage sediment" and was stored and mixed
exactly like the other bioassay sediments except that no amphi-
pods were added to the beakers. Later the same day (day 0}, the
beakers were sampled for interstitial water (Section 6.6.1.),
bulk sediment (Section 6.6.3.), and AVS (Section 6.6.8.").
Because of the need to reduce the number of samples, only
three of the five (eight at Station 1) Sediment Toxicity Test
core samples were analyzed. For these three samples, there is a
one-to-one correspondence between measured sediment concentration
values and toxicity; however, for the remaining two .(five at Sta-
tion 1) toxicity tests there is not such a correspondence. Sub-
sequently, all the toxicity and bioaccumulation results from a
grab were compared to the concentrations determined in the Sedi-
ment Chemistry core sample(s) from the same grab because only
some of the Sediment Toxicity Test core samples and none of the
Laboratory Sediment Bioaccumulation Test core sample were ana-
lyzed. The assumption was that the additional storage time and
mixing experienced by the Sediment Toxicity Test and Laboratory
Sediment Bioaccumulation Test sediments did not significantly
effect any of the parameters. A storage/mixing effect was tested
by comparing each T0 bioassay storage sediment concentration with
the minimally-disturbed within-grab Sediment Chemistry core
sample mean or its representative single value (in the
unreplicated grabs).
6.6. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Detailed analytical methods can be" found in Task A, Appendi-
ces A and B, of the United Heckathorn Superfund Site Study (U.S.
EPA, 1991b). Any changes to these methods are detailed in the
appendices of this document.
The pertinent appendices are Appendix 6-5 for the cleanup to
tissue and sediment samples, Appendix 6-6 for the determination
of total and bound pollutants in water, Appendix 6-7 for the
homogenization of tissue samples, and Appendix 6-8 for GC/MS
procedures.
Various chemistry methods are summarized below, while an
overview of the procedure is as follows. The analytical pro-
cedures focused on seven compounds - 2,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDE, 2,4'-'
DDD, 4,4'-DDD, 2,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDT, anddieldrin. Sediment
samples were centrifuged and the interstitial water (IW) was
subsampled for salinity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and
split into two total dissolved (DOC-bound and free) pollutant
subsamples. These various interstitial water fractions are con-
sidered "dissolved" because samples were centrifuged to remove
particles >0.45 /im. The free and DOC-bound pollutant fractions
were separated in an IW subsample by application of the subsample
to a C-18 reverse phase column (RFC).- The total and DOC-bound
65
-------
samples were liquid-liquid (L-L) extracted. The sediment pellets
resulting from centrifugation were frozen for one-half to five
months before they were thawed, then thoroughly mixed and
subsampled for total organic carbon (TOC), percent solids, and
pollutant analysis by sonication with acetonitrile and C-18 RFC
cleanup.
The reason that state-of-the-science methods are used for IW
analysis is because the traditional water methods (EPA 625 and
SW-846/8270) require 1 liter of sample. At most, a total of -50
ml of interstitial water is available from minimally disturbed
sediment, and analysis by GC/MS in the scan mode results in
methods-detection limits orders of magnitude higher than needed
for this study. The sediment/tissue extraction and quantifica-
tion method used in this study (Ozretich and Schroeder, 1986} has
been shown to be equivalent to other published methods, and it is
similar (sonication) to the sediment extraction method SW-
846/3550. Our quality control acceptance criteria result in more
accurate results because we internally correct for procedural
losses (SW-846 accepts, without correction, recoveries of -20% to
-140% of surrogate compounds added to water and sediment sam-
ples) ; our procedures insure degradation of DDT to less than 20%
as the SW-846 requirement, but, in addition, we make adjustments
to the DDD concentrations that make them more accurate given this
unavoidable dechlorination. Some or all of these procedures have
been used successfully in Swartz et al. (1989, 1990,. 1991),
Ferraro et al. (1990) .and DeWitt et al. (1992).
Carbon and.pollutant concentrations in the overlying water
are considered "total." Because the overlying samples were not
filtered or centrifuged the carbon and pollutant concentrations
include particulaterbound, DOM-bound, and free fractions. Water
column samples were subsampled for salinity and TOC determina-
tions and the remainders were L-L extracted for pollutant
analysis within 24 to 36 hours of sampling.
Pollutant quantitation was by capillary chromatography and
selected, ion monitoring using response factors relative to
surrogate internal standards added prior to sample extraction.
Procedural blanks, recovery of compounds from spiked matrices and
reference matrices and solutions were used to evaluate perfor-
mance. Pollutant identity was confirmed by retention time and
use of an ion pair -(the ratio of the major ion fragment to a
second fragment). If the ion pair was within 20% of the expected
ratio, the compound was considered confirmed. If the ion pair
deviated by more than 20% from expected, a second ion pair was
determined using a different secondary fragment. If this ion
pair was within 20% of expected, the compound was considered ver-
ified. Values confirmed using the second ion pair were marked
"NC" in the Appendices and computed at their stated values.
There is a high confidence in these values. Samples in which
neither of the ion pairs were within ± 20% of expected were not
considered verified ("NC3" in Appendices). Although the NC3
values were reported and the computations used their stated
value, these non-confirmed values should be considered as upper
66
-------
limits as some or all of the compound could be a non-target
compound (see Section 6.6.6.).
Values that initially exceeded the highest standard con-
centration were diluted, reanalyzed, and the reanalyzed value
reported. Values that were lower than the lowest standard but
above the detection limit are reported at their stated values.
Computations treated values that were less than detection limits,
-------
6.6.3. Sediment Processing
Sediment samples(i.e., pellet from the centrifugation in
Section 6.6.1.) were frozen after sampling IW, and extracted
within 1/2 to 5 months. The sediment pellet from centrifugation
was thawed and subsampled for pollutant, percent solids, and
total organic carbon analyses. The pollutant extract was
obtained by desiccating 2-g samples with sodium sulfate,
sonication in acetonitrile, and cleanup by passage through a C-18
solid phase cartridge (A-IV, U.S. EPA, 199Ib). Percent solids
were determined by oven-drying at 105° C (A-V, U.S. EPA, I99lb)
and total organic carbon {TOO was determined on acidified
samples (B-I, U.S. EPA; I991b) by high temperature combustion (B-
II, U.S. EPA, I991b). In addition to the C-18 cleanup, the
sediment extracts were passed through a column of silica gel
{Appendix 6-5).
6.6.4. Tissue Processing
Whole animals or dissected portions were frozen in liquid
nitrogen and pulverized with mortar and pestle (Appendix 6-7).
Subsamples were distributed for pollutant, percent solids, and
lipid determination. Pollutant extracts were obtained following
desiccation with sodium sulfate, sonication in acetonitrile, and
cleanup by passage through C-18 and aminopropyl solid phase
cartridges (A-XI, U.S. EPA, 1991b). In addition to the C-18
cleanup, the tissue extracts were passed through a column of
silica gel (Appendix 6-5). Percent solids of most tissues was
determined following freeze-drying, although some were oven-dried
because of insufficient tissue mass (A-XII, U.S. EPA, 1991b).
Lipid content was determined on freeze-dried subsamples using a
micro-volume technique that uses methanol- chloroform as the
solvents (B-V, U.S. EPA, 1991b).
6.6.5. Pollutant Quantitation
Samples for pollutant determination were amended with
surrogate internal standards in methanol prior to extraction (A-
IV and A-XI, U.S. EPA, 199Ib) and the targeted compounds were
quantified relative to these surrogates (i.e., any procedural
losses sustained by the surrogate are assumed to be sustained by
the targets resulting in recovery-corrected target concentra-
tions) . Loss of the surrogates was determined by the addition of
a recovery standard at the completion of the procedure when the
extract was at its final volume. The mass of surrogate com-
pounds, deuterated 4,4'DDE (DDE-d8) and 13C-heptachlor epoxide,
added to each sample was equivalent to the approximate historical
median concentrations of 4,4'DDD and dieldrin, respectively,
found within Lauritzen, Santa Fe, and Richmond Inner Harbor
Channels.-
Target compounds in the extracts were quantified using high
performance gas chromatography with mass spectrometer detection,
GC/MS (Appendix 6-8) . At least three mass fragments from each
target compound were monitored. Natural log transformations of
the non-linear detector response to standards, ranging over three
68
-------
orders-of-magnitude, were used to quantify the targeted com-
pounds .
Degradation of DDT to ODD and DDE was monitored during each
GC/MS run. Degradation was below 10% in all cases with the
exception of the quantitation of the "residual" tissue samples
(i.e., the carcass remaining after removing the flesh) from fish
and Crangon where the degradation was 21%. In all cases, ODD was
the dominant degradation product (70%-80%); only the areas of
2,4'-ODD and 4,4'-DDD (not DDE} were corrected for the likely
peak area contribution from their respective DDTs before response
factors of standards and sample concentrations were determined.
Not correcting for DDE formation from DDT would result in an
increase in the sum DDTs of less than 2%-3%, but could result in
substantial overestimates.of the true DDE concentrations. Normal
standardization procedures for DDT accommodate its degradation
and no additional procedures are necessary. Dry weight-normal-
ized concentrations were computed from the initial wet weight
concentrations using percent solids.
6.6.6. Quality Control
Spiked matrix and procedural blank samples were processed
with each set of samples, as were appropriate reference materials
when available. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)-originated solutions of the target compounds were quanti-
fied during each GC/MS run to evaluate accuracy based on indepen-
dently produced standard solutions.
Detection Limit Estimates;. During each GC/MS run, an esti-
mate of detection limit was made using a matrix blank sample to
obtain a concentration equivalent of a peak height 3-times the
noise in the chromatogram of the blank near or at the retention
time of the analyte (Appendix 6-8) . These estimates are found in
Table 6-1. Detection limits were in the low ppb or high ppt
range for sediments and tissues and in the low ppt range for
overlying and interstitial water. Detection limits for dieldrin
in the sediments from Station 4 were less than the other three
Lauritzen stations- because a different extract was analyzed-to
provide sufficiently low detection limits to quantify dieldrin at
this site, which was lower than at. the three other Lauritzen
stations.
Procedural Blanks; Concentrations in procedural blanks were
negligible for the sediment and water TOC determinations. Except
for procedural blanks above the detection limit for 4,4'-DDE in
interstitial water (request 407) at approximately 0.8 ng/L and
tissue (request 466) at 5 /xg/kg (dry), the blanks consistently •
contained no other targets above the detection limits. No pro-
cedural blank correction was made for any compound because often
(especially IW samples from request 407), samples would have
values of 4,4'-DDE below the detection limit.
Ouantitation Accuracy; At least once during each GC/MS run,
the NIST standard solution containing the seven compounds of
interest was quantified using standards with the targets origi-
nating from different sources. The data quality objective (DQO)
69
-------
for quantitation was an accuracy of ±15% of the expected concen-
trations, 4,4'-DDD averaged 82 ± 2% SE (n=l4) of the reported
value; the other five members of the DDT family averaged 91 ± 3%
SE {n=70} ranging from 87 to 94%. Dieldrin averaged 97 ± 2% SE
(n=14) of the reported value. The consistent transcendence of
the DQO by 4,4'-DDD in our standards suggested that an error had
been made in its preparation. Therefore, the tabulated values
for 4,4'-DDD are the result of multiplying the original values by
1.2 to correct for this initial inaccuracy.
Surrogate Recovery; Surrogate internal standard compounds
were added to each sample. DDE-d8 was used as the surrogate com-
pound for all analytes as the labeled heptachlor epoxide suffered
from inconsistent matrix interferences. The average recovery of
this surrogate, across all matrices, was approximately 90%, with
an occasional excursion from 40 to 110%. .This indicates that the
extraction and processing steps only occasionally resulted in
significant losses of analytes.' Any losses were internally cor-
rected, as the analytes were quantified relative to the surrogate
compound.
Spike and Reference Material Recovery: Matrices were amend-
ed (spiked) with masses of analytes and.processed as samples to
assess recovery as were Standard Reference Materials (SRM). The
results of the recovery determinations are found in Table 6-2.
Analytical Codes; Accompanying the concentration data for
the individual samples (Appendices 8-1, 8-2, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7,
8-8, 8-9) is a code column that contains clarifying information
where applicable:
L Below lowest calibration standard (accuracy is less certain)
NC Ratio of second ion to first quantifying ion exceeded ± 20%
of expected ratio from standards, ratio of third to first
ion within ± 20% (compound verified)
NC3 Ratio of second and third ion to quantifying ion exceeded ±
20% of expected ratio (compound not verified, upper limit
concentration),
NPA No peak area
-------
CRA Concentrated and reanalyzed (Station 4 dieldrin only)
Other acronyms used in the tables are:
LC Lauritzen Channel
RCH Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
SPCH Santa Fe Channel
SFCB Santa Fe Channel Boathouse
SFCP Santa Fe Boathouse Crabpot
Concentration Units:
Tissue
Sediment
Carbon normalized
sediment
ppb,
(wet and dry)
(dry only)
- ppm, fig/g OC (dry only)
Interstitial water .ppt, ng/L
Overlying water
Lipids
Sediment TOC
ppt, ng/L
decimal fraction, g/g (dry)
decimal fraction, g/g (dry)
•Water DOC and TOC mg C/L
6.6.7. GC/MS Scan and SIM Analysis
Three sediment extracts were selected to obtain a semi-
quantitative evaluation of what other compounds are present in
the study area. The extracts of samples S1CES021, S1CES063 and
S1CES09S were chosen for analysis from Lauritzen Channel, Santa
Fe, and Richmond Harbor Channels, respectively. Station 2 in
Lauritzen was chosen as representative of the high DDT/dieldrin
contaminated sites. Station 6 in Santa Fe was chosen as a "worst
case" estimate of PAHs and petroleum products based on the ob-
servation of oil during sampling. Station 9 in Richmond Harbor
was chosen because it was the local reference site in this study.
The extracts were reduced in volume to ~50 /xL to enhance the
signal strength and then scanned by GC/MS to detect compounds
yielding fragments in the spectrometer with mass to charge ratios
(atomic mass unit (amu)/z) in 0.1 amu/z increments between 50 and
600. From the scanning procedure, a total abundance chromatogram
was obtained that contained the abundance of each fractional mass
to charge ratio. Using mass fragment libraries of known com-
pounds and matching algorithms, qualitative information was ob-
71
-------
tained regarding the detected compounds. Semi-quantitative
information was obtained using the internal standards that had
been put into the samples prior to extraction in conjunction with
standard solutions that were scanned in the same manner.
The strategy was to scan standard solutions containing
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Aroclor 1254 (common
PCBs), and uncommon PCBs and deuterated PAHs that were added with
DDE-d8 to each sample of this study as surrogate internal stan-
dards. Using a post-run, selected-ion monitoring (SIM) program,
two or three characteristic mass fragments of the compounds in
standard solutions were looked for in the total abundance chroma-
togram of the extracts and quantified using retention times, ion
ratios, and response factors generated from the standard solu-
tions. Several compounds that were quantified in this mode had
no discernible peaks in the total abundance chromatograms. The
relative response of each selected PCB congener in the Aroclor
1254 mixture was used to compute an initial Aroclor 1254 (only)
concentration. The mass percent of each congener in Aroclor 1254
(Schulz, Petrick, and Duinker, 1989) was used to compute the
individual congener concentrations which were subsequently used
to quantify final Aroclor concentrations.
Total abundance chromatograms generated in the scan mode
were visually inspected and peaks rising above the background
noise were subjected to the Hewlett Packard library matching
program. If the many mass fragments found in a peak matched the
fragmentation patterns of known compounds, a compound name, Chem-
ical Abstract Service (CAS) number, and probability of match were
produced. When a peak was found that had no library match, the
abundance and mass of the most abundant fragment was recorded,
along with a. possible compound classification.
For those compounds not included in standard solutions,
estimates of concentrations were based on a response factor of
1.0 relative to the nearest internal standard, utilizing the
abundance (peak height) of the dominant fragment in the com-
pound's and internal standard's peak. To demonstrate the uncer-
tainty that could be expected in the concentrations of those
compounds for which we had no standards, both extracted-ion (SIM)
and total abundance peak (scan) results are reported for the com-
pounds for which we had standards. Differences found between SIM
and scan concentrations can be due to: arbitrarily assigning a
response factor to 1 to the scan calculations, differences
between the quant ion used for the SIM quantitations and the ion
used for the abundance-based scan calculations, and variations in
the ratio of peak areas to base peak abundances for the various
targets, especially where the peaks are broadened due to column
overloading. The SIM-based concentrations are the more accurate
values. All results from the mass fragment scanning analyses are
found in Appendices 8-3A, 8-3B, and 8-3C, with column heading
definitions found in Table 6-3.
6.6.8. AVS and Simultaneously Extracted Metals
-Acid volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously extracted
72 .
-------
metals (SEM) were determined on one of the TQ bioassay storage
sediment beakers from each of the 9 stations on day 0 of the
toxicity bioassay. The overlying water in these beakers was
removed and a sediment sample was withdrawn from the beaker into
an open-barrel 10 cc plastic syringe. Parafilm® was secured over
the open end of the syringe and, the sample frozen. The sample
was shipped frozen to the EPA laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode
Island for analysis of AVS and SEM.
AVS was determined by converting the solid phase sulfide to
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) using cold 1 M HC1. The released H2S was
trapped in sulfide anti-oxidant buffer and the sulfide measured -
using a sulfide-specific electrode. The SEM were determined by
inductively coupled plasma spectrometry from a filtered sample of
the sediment/acid solution after the AVS was released (DiToro et.
al.f 1990). The SEM included 6 metals expected to be AVS-reac-
tive (Cu, Cd, Ni, Pb, Ag and Zn).
73
-------
TABLE 6-1. Estimates of detection limits.
2.4'B 4.4'E 2.4'D dieldrin 4.4'D 2.4'T 4.4'T
INTERSTITIAL WATER (ng/L):
Req. 407: Field-collected 0.4 0.5 0.8 2.3 1.2 2.0 2.5
Req. 419: T0 Bioassay Sediment 2 2 220 3 5 4
Req. 401 and 452:
HATER COLUMN WATER (ng/L):
0.06 0.06 0.09 1.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
Req. 408: Field-collected
Lauritzen Channel
SEDIMENT (fig/kg, dry) :
Stations 1-3
Station 4
Everywhere else
Req. 420: T0 Bioassay Exposure
Lauritzen Channel
Everywhere else
Req. 400:
Field mussels
Req. 477/478:
Large Field epifauna
Req. 475/476:
Field infauna
Req. 466:
Laboratory Macoma
20
n
0.2
8
0.2
TISSUE
1
1/3
1/4
0.6
44
II
0.2
9
0.4
(pg/kg
2
2/2
2/2
1.2
62
n
0.4
14
0.4
, dry) :
4
2/5
2/4
3.0
100
20
0.8
53
1
10
17/15
17/23
18
44
n
.0.8
16
0.4
4
4/14
4/26
6
38
it
1
30
0.8
4
5/8
5/14
6
136
n
1.8
52
0.6
8
8/13
8/24
18
Detection Limits = dry weight normalized using wet to dry ratios of 2:1 and 6:1 for
sediment and tissue, respectively
Req. # = request number assigned to groups of samples processed together (first
three-digits of each sample number)
Req. #/Req. # = different detection limits for different analytical runs (higher
detection limits for higher concentration samples)
74
-------
TABLE 6-2.
recovery.
Spiked matrices and standard reference material {SRM)
2.4'E
4.4'E
dieldrin
4,4'D
2.4'T
4.4'T
Req. 407: expected
% of expected
INTERSTITIAL WATER SPIKE (ng/L):
HA 200 NA 200
MA 83 NA 119
1,000
114
NA
NA
1,000
106
Req. 401: expected
% recovery
Req. 452: expected
% of expected
WATER COLUMN WATER SPIKE (ng/L):
NA 20 NA 20 100 NA 100
NA 87 NA 108 99 NA 94
NA 20 NA' -20 100 NA 100
NA 97 NA 94 97 NA 99
Req. 408: expected
. % of expected
Req. 408: expected
% of expected
Req. 420: expected
% of expected
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SEDIMENT SPIKE Gig/kg, wet):
250
116
250
104
238
102
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
250
103
250
67
238
90
250
115
250
137
238
105
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
250
105
250
151
238
103
Req. 408: expected
% of expected
Req. 420: expected
% of expected
Req. 400: expected
% of expected
Req. 466: expected
% of expected
Req. 475: expected
% of expected
Req'. 477: expected
% of expected
Req. 400: expected
% of expected
Req. 466: expected
% of expected
Req. 475/477: expected
% of expected
STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1941 (pg/kg. dry):
(Chesapeake Bay sediment, F. Scott Key Bridge, MD)
NR
NR
NR
NR
480
98
493
99
1,000
105
500
113
9
204
9
174
NR
NR
NR
NR
TISSUE SPIKES Gig/kg, wet):
480
98
493
96
1,000
97
500
111
480
98
493
91
1,000
94
500
99
95
91
98
86
200
95
100
113
10
217
10
302
480
91
493
85
,000
96
500
94
NR , 1*
NR 3,100 (all NC3)
NR 1*
NR 1,500 (2 of 4
NC3, 2
-------
\1
TABLE 6-3. Interpretation of column headings of scan data
tables.
*COMPOUNDS - Surrogate internal or recovery standards deliber-
ately added to the sample and extracts to aid in quantitation.
COMPOUND NAME - Identified Chemical Name.
CAS # - The Chemical Abstracts Service register number for the
Target Name.
SCAN PROB. - The scan library search Probability-Of-Match number.
BASE PEAK ION - The mass of largest abundance in the spectra.
BASE PK ABUND SCAN - The abundance of the most abundant ion in
the mass spectra at.the total ion peak maximum.
nG/G CONC. SIM - Nanograms per gram concentration of sample on a
dry weight basis using an internal standard calibration based on
the quantitative base peak ion in the ID_file. For targets not
found in the ID_file, no values are reported.
nG/G CONC. SCAN - Nanograms per gram concentration of sample on a
dry weight basis using an internal standard based response factor
equal to one for all targets assigned to the internal standard.
SIM Q VALUE - The value reported in the quant output file for
qualitative ion ratio statistical fit where 100 is a perfect
match between expected qualitative ion ratios and measured ratios
for the sample. The algorithm has not been openly published by
Hewlett-Packard. Other characters are substituted here if the
integration has been redone manually (M), if no peak really
exists (NP), the ratio is manually determined but still is beyond
± 20% of the expected ratio (FQ), the secondary ion manual
integration is not easily determined (NS) and a Flat-Topped peak
was present indicating saturation of the detector because of
overloading of the column and detector with sample (FT).
76
-------
FIGURE 6-1. Map of October 1991 grab, water, mussel and trawl
samples.
Samples at stations are designated by:
1): a solid circular dot, denoting a primary station at
which replicate grabs were taken
2): a solid triangle, a secondary station
3}: a solid square, where tissue("T") (Mytilus gallo-
provincialis) and overlying water ("OW")
samples were taken
4): trawl samples are indicated on Figure 6-2.
77
-------
-------
FIGURE 6-2. Map of February, 1992 water, trawl, crab pot and
mussel samples and October, 1991 trawl lines.
Station numbers in open circles indicate a primary station
over which a trawl was conducted. Trawl lines are indicated by
arrows denoting direction; length approximates distance covered.
11F" series sample numbers indicate the sequential acquisi-
tion of tissue samples from trawls, traps, and harvesting mussels
(Mytilus galloprovincialis) from ropes, buoys or floating docks.
S2AHO-XXX numbers indicate locations of overlying water samples
{same location as M. galloprovincialis samples).
October, 1992 trawl lines are indicated by an arrow with a
circled number, denoting trawl path, direction and station
number; Sample series -200 cover Lauritzen Channel trawl
samples, -300 cover Santa Fe Channel trawl samples and -400
covers Richmond Harbor Channel trawl samples.
Some February trawl lines directly overlay October trawl
sites. February trawl lines are indicated by "F-" sample numbers
at that site flagged to the line.
78
-------
^
~H!?-! ;«, J-:---«v ::•>;«; - !:;~ t. J»« ••> =*;,*5 !«:-*.-!
Na^;\^^
y^<"';'l«'^'-T^< w»"'ss^* IVi v^i'-"J»vJ *-•"*» r I" *»%»^'.*<-»J'-V-.1''
Ww.-r~•-•i..l:r^.-fm.r-:r?:*•"'- ^Q prjmary
| Trawl Line
r:;i-Wj'*-;*?^;
;;;'j;:.;;£o l£.
...... - ..,.•:..,.'-K«<"S;iiV
l?^J^^?j|^-3y^!-^-Ti^^:!^8?'|-j!^!^!^1ir'-
:~.r-~--::3:--;--^-™.--, .^r:-^;-.^;^.^;;;.;;
F22
F34
RED
NUN
#16 c
S2AHO-009
010
012
-------
FIGURE 6-3. Schematic of the sampling from individual 0.1 M2
grabs. The "chemical alteration" is the T0 bioassay storage
sediment analyzed to determine the effects of storage and mixing
on pollutant concentrations. Core sizes are not to scale;
spatial arrangement of cores may vary with sample.
79
-------
United Heckathorn Superfund Site Study
Sediment Allocation from 1/10 m2 Grab
Geology
and AVS
Bulk
Chemistry
Free & Bound
Interstitial
Water
Benthic Analysis
Toxicity
Chemical
Alteration
Bioaccumulation
Field Bioaccumulation
-------
7.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY SITES
7.1. INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes the grain size analysis of the
sites, as well as other physical characteristics observed during
sampling.
7.2. METHODS
7.2.1. Sampling Methods
Sediment for grain size was sampled by inserting a 3.6 cm
i.d. plastic corer tube vertically into the center of the grab
upon opening on the deck stand. Once all sampler corers were in
place, and temperature and EH measurements were complete, the
corers were removed by gloved hand. Ten centimeters of the core
was extruded using a fitted, indexed plunger into a pre-labeled
glass container and sliced off with a clean Teflon-coated spat-
ula. The sample was immediately stored in an ice chest with pre-
cooled gel-ice. Cooled samples were transported to the Newport
laboratory by truck, and kept in 4°C temperature-controlled rooms
under chain-of-custody protocol until analysis.
7.2.2. Grain Size Analysis
Initially, eleven samples from the nine primary stations
were analyzed for grain size distribution, with one sample from
each of Stations 1-8 and one sample from three of eight grabs
from the reference Station 9. Within-grab replicates were ana-
lyzed at Stations 1, 2 and 7. Individual grabs within stations
were randomly chosen for analysis. TOG was determined on every
grab at a station. Complete grain size analysis was performed
for the eleven grabs according to standard sieve-pipette methods
of sedimentary petrology (Galehouse, 1971; Polk, 1980). Weights
of sediment size fractions from phi ($) classes -1 to 4 (sand
fraction) represent the net weight of sediment collected on
graded sieves. The values for * 5 through $ 8 (silt-clay or
"mud" fraction) were calculated by the pipette method described
in the "Laboratory Methods" section of the SEDANAL Users Manual
(Coleman and Wheeler, 1986, which is based on Folk, 1980 and
Galehouse, 1971). The balance of samples were later analyzed by
an abbreviated method based on Buchanan (1984) and Guy (1969) to
yield only sand, silt and clay fraction information. These
samples had been stored at 4°C in their original sample contain-
ers under Chain-of-Custody procedure, were released for analysis
August 18, 1993; the analysis was completed by September 21,
1993.
7.2.3. General Physical Characteristics
Sediment temperature and salinity of sediment surface water
were measured as previously described (Section 6.4.). The color,
texture and odor of the sediment were described as accurately as
possible under field conditions.
80
-------
7.3. RESULTS/DISCUSSION
Appendix 7-1 lists the detailed field observations and
measurements, including temperature, salinity, depth of sediment
in grabs, depth of overlying water, sediment color and odor, and
EH. Temperature of the sediment and overlying and surface water
wastrelatively constant, at ~18-19°C, salinity was constant at
-30%°; the EK data were generally inconclusive.
The study area appeared relatively quiet with respect to
currents, though sediment resuspension due to propwash of large
ships was observed at some locations, notably Stations 8 and 009,
and to a lesser degree Stations 5, 6 and 7. Sloping surfaces
with underlying gravel or rock on the edge of the channels inter-
fered with proper operation of the grab, and a number of grabs
were rejected. Overlying water depth varied from ~6 to -12 m,
except at station 9, which averaged ~3 m.
The grain size analysis is presented in Table 7-1. In
general, sample sites could be classed as silt to clay, occa-
sionally underlain by gravel, rock, industrial waste or fill,
trash and the occasional sunken barge, broken off piling, dock
lumber and other assorted debris. Based on the full sediment-
ological analysis at each station, Stations 1-8 were classed as
fine to very fine silt to clay with a mean grain size of 4.8 ±
1.7/mi and a median of 3.4 ± 0.4jun.
The variation in size classes among the sites (expressed as
the mean % and standard deviation, x ± sd), was relatively small;
gravel (based on selected grabs only) at 0.8 ± 1.4%, sand at 11.6
± 6.3%, silt at 44.8 ± 13.5% and clay at 43.2 ± 18.5%. Stations
1-5 had virtually no gravel, Station 5 had little sand and more
clay, Stations 2, 3,6 and 7 tended toward more sand and less
clay, but overall, the stations were fairly homogeneous.
Station 9, at the mouth of Richmond Harbor, is classed as a
"poorly sorted" medium silt with a mean grain size of 18.9 ±
3.0/xm and a median of 20.0 ± 7.8/Hti. The variance among grabs at
this site was greater than at the other stations, with 4.0 ± 1.2%
gravel, 15.9 ± 4.1% sand, 63.6 ± 15.6% silt and 18.1 ± 13.8%
clay. This station was on the edge of the channel, shoaling
quickly to the east from the channel to the west. The station
was abandoned after grab 3 of the first day due to decreasing
depth from the outgoing tide. Station 9 grabs 4-8 were obtained
the following day on a higher tide stage, and in slightly deeper
water, approximately 10-15 m south of the original location,
partly due to anchor swing differences due to opposite current
direction. It is not surprising, in retrospect, that a wider
variety of sediment types could be encountered in this small
area, which is the most exposed to tidal currents of all the
primary stations.
The replicate grain size analyses (selected grabs at Sta-
tions 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8) were reasonably close. There were
occasional "outliers" (i.e., the worst case, grab 7-1, the sand
fraction is <40% of the 5% difference in replicate sample
analysis that is considered an acceptable measure of precision).
Besides being a measure of the precision of the method, this
81
-------
similarity indicates that grain size does not vary appreciably on
a microscale {0.1 m2) .
The mean percent TOC at each of the primary stations is pre-
sented in Table 7-1. Standard errors for the TOC measurements,
values for within grab subcores, and TOC for the secondary
stations can be found in Table 8-1. The TOCs of the sites were
moderate, varying from about 0.9% to 3%. The highest TOCs were
at Station 1 in Lauritzen Channel and Station 6 in Santa Fe
Channel. The stations with the higher TOCs did not have a higher
percent of silt-clays compared to other stations.
82
-------
*
ft
|
03
•H
o
H
.3
u
n*!?
Z CO
w
o
Hi
!>
*l
1
Si M 1
3 W 3
§ CO
Q Q Q Q
M W • H W
fr< H H H
gg gg
CO CO CO CO
ss ss
al gg .
'as ss
l-l H H H
CO CO CO CO
H H H H
En fa fa b
SB ££
g£ gg
H M H CS
0* O* fM Q£ Ckt
HcNfi^^inwr^oo-iX Hrsrofi^*i/i
ooooooooo o oooooo
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO CO CQCOCOCOCOCO
OOUUOUCJUU. U U U U CJ U U
COCOCOCQCOCOCOCOCO CO COCOCOCOCOCO
oincsH cs ro r~ oo o u) u>inin tn oo
ff\ fl ^* ^Jj* ^* \O ^* rH fl OS r^ 00 C) tH ^3
of.H^.mt-00^0 «H cnfirsr-o*
in o «j* \o tn cs r^ cs \Q fi u)oo rHOfics^fi
Hrsu>u>iu>f)fi
•^oionnooooco fivr> oo^iioin^ivo
rHOOONOflO^*^ CTtCSCO O^OOinO^
oo to t^ CN fl in fio PI i"* in cs ^< n n fi n in
wu>*m in in
r- en w> «> w
oo in fi cs *
VD fj f) fl fl
o oo cs in fi
r- vo en en t-
rH i-H rH
00
o
fl
o
'.IX
o
CO
8
CO
ft M
r- H
rH O
r- cri
VO T»l
^< rH
CM^.
en o»
fl rH
r- *>
fl 1*
H
II II
IX -O
to
in
in
in
in
ii
a
gj
w 1
us
H rH H
rH CS rO f> ^1 in
in
m
03
-d
CS
-------
ft
a
I
ro
CO
•H
m
r^1
nJ
a
a)
N
-H
TO
c
•H
S
tr>
aj
a
O
^
3
O
s
Cj J0 i_i
~ *•* ™
a co
H
o
g*i
-co
|^
M
5
JP rf
CH
o
g GO
92?
M H 3
S co
pn
POORLY SORTED
«.
s
H
CO
g
H
CK
JH
o:
5
H CN
DS a:
i i
H CN CN rO •* in
o o o o o o
CO CO CO CO CO CO
^"3 ^«) ^HJ ^3 '^3' ^3
o o o o o o
CO CO CO CO CO CO
H ^ CN 00 in
ro ^< •* in in
i-i oo p- M oo in
en oo o co in CN
^ VD vo in vo vo
en tn CN vo m vo
vo in ro m vo GO
CN CN n n CN CN
<« in vo vo p- oo
CN
o
o
M
•
m
rH CN tN rn <* in
<9 «* <
£
?
r* T* •-* *"* •
Lfl VO U) VO VO VO
O ' O O O O O
CO CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o o
co co co co co co
P- VO in VO P- rH m
*f o o VD en ro CN
Hoin cNfNrorto
ro OA ^* CN CN rH VO
rHrHin VOCTtOOCO
P- m H H
•* 00 . <4< O VO VO CN
OOrHin CTlP-inrHP-
CN CN 00 VD VD in
^* CN P*1 ff\ CN ^* CN
o o in oiro<*ooi)<
PQ CN Cl
tl II II
in
IX TJ C
m •*
in
•
vo
rH
rH rH CN m ^" in
10
in vo vo vo vo VD
H M
f 1
IX rH H "CNI 7n •#
O O O O O O
CO CO CO CO CO CO
^••j IMJ |MJ |u^ |nj |_
O O O O O O
CO CO CO CO CO CO
VD rH VO CN O in
*a< ^ o H o H
CN H in rH H H H
O> O H H rH <* M
00 rH in CN^lVOOCN
H CN H CN ^ ^l CN
CN P- in ro on rH in
o o in locNP-mo
VO CN P- VO M m VO
rH 00 ^1 VO H in *
o CN in rHmvo^pp-
CN rH rH rH rH (N H
II II II
IX -O C
CO
1-1
rH rH rH CN Cri *4* ^*^
flj *O
AJ
vo p- p- p- p- p^ C
O
CD
-------
o
,
~r?
2
g
m
•H
m
^
cd
C
ffl
•H
m
G
-H
frt
^
tn
4J
d
<
a
PE! O
w o
*:£
H|
CO
W £-*
g j3
fa CO ..
|H U
Pi *H
W H
3- pC|
SS
in in IX
t^ Is* Is*
o o • o
mm tn
u u u
i_l f_4 ^
co to co
d Ol VO
rH O O
_J ^ >»«k lf\
T^ I™1 \^ LTJ
H oo in vo
do in «j< in
in in ro H
en co in d
^* ^* c*^ vo in
rn rn .^* t-c
H in vo o
d d vo in in
rH rH H
II II II
QA QT\
OH lXlgG
d 00
t-' r>'
rH
in in I-H
id
— -
Q
O
CO
§
O
•
*
rH
ioC
u
H d
CC D!
I |
H d n i< in in IK
OO CO CO OO CO 00 CO
o o o o o o . o
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
0 U U O U U U
mmt fmt f*M —Jj _J _1 _J
W CO Ol CO 03 CO CO
rH Is* 00 t^ ("4 OO VO
O* M H H H HO
....
vooi<
o o w
Oi 0. >
H > H H
co co co t
§ s s
5 ' 5 S
H - H H
0 QQ
PQ M W
H d ro 5C m
GA O1! O\ O^t (n
o o o o o
CO CO CO CO CO
CJ UU O O
CO CO CO CO CO
H in vo ^i oo
o o o o o
d H H r-t d
in t- rH eo en
d d d
r- in d en VD
o vo o o en
'co in 00 in •*
r* ^ N r> m •
O VD ro C~ rH
H rH H rH d
in •* d
n in M
VO d CO
H d H
H d m «* in
en 01 01 en en
IX d H
en d d
0 H H
CO CO CO
ra i 01
^43 M rl
O ft
A! - Olfl)
rH 0) 01 rl
O rl +J
ta 3 «J ffl
•O cj a)
g H ca
CJ rl C
ca JQ > 3
Sr||i
II l( &1 11
3
* rH
!d
-------
8.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section addresses the exposure assessment conducted at
the Lauritzen/Santa Fe/Richmond sites. It covers the measurement
of DDT, its metabolites, and dieldrin in the key physical media:
bulk sediment, interstitial water, and overlying water. Addi-
tionally, it covers the concentrations of these compounds in the
tissues of fish and invertebrates collected in trawls, mussels
collected on,hard surfaces, laboratory-exposed infauna, and
field-collected infauna. These measurements are used to document
the existing extent of contamination, to quantify how exposure
varies among species, and to develop models to predict the extent
of exposure at different remediation levels.
8.1. SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER
8.1.1. Introduction
The ecological significance of exposure to pollutants can be
evaluated from two perspectives - does the compound exceed con-
centrations that result in acute or chronic toxicity or, alterna-
tively, result in levels of bioaccumulation within prey species
deleterious to higher trophic levels? Prediction of these
effects requires estimates of the pollution concentrations in
bulk sediment, carbon normalized sediment, interstitial water,
and overlying water. The first three media are of importance to
organisms directly exposed to the contaminated sediment; whereas
overlying water concentrations are important to epibenthic
benthos (e.g., mussels), demersal and pelagic fish, and
potentially to sediment-dwelling organisms that ventilate
overlying water. Ingestion of contaminated prey also can be an
important uptake route with high KDW compounds such as DDT.
This section presents the results for DDT, DDT metabolites,
and dieldrin in the three sediment-related environmental media.
Concentrations in the overlying water are discussed in Section
8,2. while the importance of contaminated benthic prey to fish is
discussed in Section 9.4. To quantify the differences in the
exposure between field and laboratory tested infaunal organisms,
the comparison of bulk sediment and interstitial water concentra-
tions in the T0 bioassay storage sediment and field sediments 'is
presented. Although the environmental chemical analysis focused
on DDT and dieldrin, metals and other organic pollutants were
analyzed in bulk sediment from one station in each of the three
channels. This analysis is augmented by data from additional
studies of sediment contaminations in Lauritzen, Santa Fe, and
Richmond Channels specifically and in San Francisco Bay in
general.
8.1.2. Partitioning Theory
According to equilibrium partitioning (EqP) theory, within a
sediment the pollutant is found in three fractions at equilib-
rium; these fractions include: the freely dissolved (free), the
particle-associated, and the dissolved organic matter (DOM)-
86
-------
associated fractions. The concentration of free pollutant is
inversely proportional to the carbon -normalized equilibrium
partition coefficient of the larger carbon reservoir, the sedi-
mentary organic carbon, Koc (Equation 8-1) (DiToro et al. 1991).
However, the total (free and DOM-associated) dissolved intersti-
tial water concentration is controlled by the Koc of the much
smaller carbon reservoir, the DOM.
The following illustration of apparent equilibrium within
sediment:
sediment -associated <-----> free <-> DOM- associated
where the free plus DOM- associated fractions constitute the
typically- determined total pollutant fraction. This equilibrium
can be represented by the apparent equilibrium partition coeffi-
cient, K'oc and determined quantities:
K'oc = (sediment cone. /sediment OC) /f ree IW cone. ' Eq. 8-1
The units of K'oc are L/kgOC, and are demonstrated from the
following calculation of Koc for compound Z:
{ ( t^gZ/g (wet) ] *g (wet) /g (dry) ) * [g (dry) /gOC] *1, OOOgOC/kgOC) *L//*gZ (f ree)
OR
sediment cone. * l/% solids * l/% carbon * conversion * l/free cone.
It has been repeatedly shown that the Koc of a compound is
related to the compound's laboratory -determined octanol-water
partition coefficient, Kow. DiToro et al . (1991) suggested the
following relationship:
•logKoc = 0.983*logKow + 0.00028 Eq. 8-2
Calculation of log Koc- from Kow generated using the slow'
stirring method (DeBruijn, et al., 1989, values in Table 4-2}
yield the .following logKoc values (mean, S.E. and n) for
dieldrin, 4,4'-DDD, 4, 4 ' -DDT and .4, 4 ' -DDE: (5 . 309, . 003 , 9) ,
(6.112, .01,9) , (6.797, .01,9) , and (6.838,004,9), respectively.
Reported logKows of the 2,4' and 4,4' isomers of DDD and DDE,
using .different methods (O'Brien ,1974) were found to be essen-
tially indistinguishable (6.0 and 5.8, respectively), however,
these values are substantially different from the values of
DeBruijn, et al. No Kow values could be found for 2, 4 '-DDT.
Interstitial water concentrations are often predicted from
bulk sediment concentrations by using K00 and assuming equili-
brium partitioning (see DiToro et al., 1991). In this study,
however, interstitial water fraction concentrations were measured
directly for three main reasons. First, the freely dissolved
form of pollutants has been shown to be the bioavailable form.
Using several polynuclear aromatic and chlorinated compounds,
87
-------
Landrum et al. (1985) and Black and McCarthy (1988) demonstrated
that the rate of compound uptake by the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi
and the uptake efficiency of trout gills, respectively, was
directly proportional to the compounds' freely dissolved concen-
trations. Second, if the sediment is not at equilibrium, or if
different types of carbon have different partitioning behaviors,
the relationships between measured interstitial water pollutant
concentrations and the biological responses could be better pre-
dictors of effects than of assumed equilibrium. For example,
differential partitioning between natural and anthropogenic
carbon {e.g., petroleum) has been suggested (S. Karickhoff,
personal communication, in Lake et al., 1990). Third, measure-
ment of each interstitial water fraction allows calculation of a
site-specific Koc which could be used in predicting the environ-
mental fate of a contaminant. For example, the Koc values could
be used in any remediation project to predict the concentration
in interstitial water versus bulk sediment as a function of
changes in organic content.
With these relationships, the distribution of a sediment
pollutant among phases (K'oc) can be obtained explicitly by
determining free interstitial water concentrations and the
carbon-normalized concentrations in the bulk sediment. Impli-
citly, the free concentration can be calculated via Equations 8-1
and 8-2 from a compound's Kow and bulk sediment parameters or
correlatively by comparing Kow-derived Kocs with apparent equili-
brium partition coefficients, K«ocs. The fidelity of the free
concentration values would impact the utility of the carbon-
normalized sediment concentrations approach to exposure as it is
based upon the assumptions of equilibrium and an environment-
independent Koc for each compound. If the calculated and deter-
mined exposures were significantly different, deviations from the
.assumptions would have to be considered. .For example, if K'oc
for a compound was significantly correlated to TOC then freely
dissolved concentrations could not be accurately calculated from
sediment parameters using Kow. Similarly, if, at one site, one
compound- (of several being monitored) shows a K'0; that is
significantly different from other sites while the other
compounds show no such differences, non-equilibrium conditions
should be considered.
8.1.3. Methods
Sediments and interstitial water were collected and analyzed
as described in Section 6.6. The variances of the transformed
bulk sediment concentrations (Iog10 or Iog10-l) from the nine
replicated stations were tested for homogeneity by Fmax (Sokal and
Rohlf, 1981) and differences among mean concentrations were
determined by multiple comparisons tests (experimentwise o= 0.05)
using the Games and Howell method (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981) when
variances were heterogeneous.
To determine the effects of sediment storage and mixing on
concentrations and phase distributions, one randomly selected
bioassay core from three of five (eight from Station l) grabs
88
-------
from each station were separated into two beakers, one designated
the T0 bioassay storage sediment, the other, the biological
exposure sediment. If a storage and .mixing effect were present,
the T0 bioassay sediment would have to be significantly different
from the mean field core concentration of a grab with multiple
field chemistry cores, or the T0 bioassay sediment from one core
of a grab would have to be significantly different from the
undisturbed field sediment from a different core of the same
grab. The, first test of significance would use a mean core value
and t-test; the second test of significance would compare the
difference between the T0 bioassay storage sediment and field
sediment to a critical value of SE times twice the t.osdf- value.
cT-Cf > SE * 2 * 4.303 Eq. 8-3
where:
Cf and CT are the field and T0 bioassay storage sediment
concentrations
SE = (CV> * Cf}/ ^n calculated from the average CV of the
grabs with replicate field chemistry cores using Cf as the
best estimate of the core average for each grab without
replicate field chemistry cores
4.303 is the t.05(2] -value "with n = 3 (triplicate cores per
subsampled grabs) .
The critical value for sediment SDDT with a mean CV of 20%
is 1.0 Cf, e.g., if I (CT-Cf)/Cfl exceeds 1.0 the concentrations
are significantly different and may have come about from
differential treatment following sampling (i.e., storage and
mixing) . '
The apparent equilibrium partition coefficients, logK'oc, -
.were calculated using equation 8-1 with free being the difference
between total and bound concentrations. Mean apparent equili-
brium partition coefficients from the Lauritzen Channel stations
were compared to the mean calculated from all the other stations,
and both means were compared to K^-derived Kocs from equation 8-
2. Homogeneity of variances and differences of means were tested
using Fmax and t- tests, respectively.
8.1.4. Results
Average Station Results: Appendix 8-1 lists the individual
sample values for pollutant concentrations "in bulk sediment,
total interstitial water, and bound interstitial water, as well
as sediment TOC and interstitial water DOC. Table 8-1 presents
the average station concentrations (and standard errors) of SDDT
for free and total interstitial water concentrations, bulk
sediment concentrations on a dry weight basis, sediment
concentrations on a carbon normalized basis, average sediment
TOC, and logK'oc for each station and logK'oc for each station.
The mean logK'ocs for a station were calculated from the logKfocs
89
-------
calculated from the sediment and IW concentrations in -each grab.
When more than one core.was taken from a grab, the logK'oc and
other constituents from each core were averaged to represent the
grab. Table 8-2 presents the same data for dieldrin. Table 8-3
presents the average bulk sediment concentrations for all seven
compounds at each of the stations.
The means'and standard errors of SDDT for the primary
Stations 1 through 9 are plotted in Figure 8-1. The variances of
the untransformed and Iog1(j-transformed, dry weight and organic
carbon-normalized station means in the multiple comparisons were
heterogeneous- by Fmax. Statistical differences among the nine
primary stations in EDDT and dieldrin sediment concentrations
using the Games and Howell method are illustrated in Figure 8-2.
Distribution of Analytes Between Phases; Percentages of
2JDDT found in each of the metabolites and the ratio of dieldrin
to EDDT in the sediment and total dissolved phases for three
grabs from the Lauritzen Channel stations are found in Table 8-4A
(sediment) and 8-4B {interstitial water). The 4,4' isomers of
ODD and DDT dominate the bulk sediment averaging 50% and 37%,
respectively. In the interstitial water this ratio was not
maintained; 4,4'-ODD and 4,4'-DDT averaged 72% and 7% of the SDDT
with other metabolites making up a greater percentage than in the
sediment. The distribution of these compounds in upland samples
adjacent to Lauritzen Channel (Levine-Fricke, 1990) are presented
in Table 8-4C. The distribution of 2,4' and 4,4' isomers of DDT
(13% and 80% of the total, respectively) are very similar to the
distributions reported for technical DDT formulations (Gunther
and Gunther, 1971). Virtually all 2,4'-DDT, and 40% to 70% of
4,4'-DDT has apparently been metabolized in the Lauritzen Channel
sediment to their respective isomeric DDDs, with little differ-.
ence between the sediment and upland distributions of 4,4'-DDE.
In these samples, the majority (rarely less than 80%) of the
total IW concentration of any compound consisted of the freely
dissolved form. The partitioning between the freely dissolved
and the DOM-associated fractions were proportional to the Kows of
the compounds, and the K'ocs for DOM were much smaller than the
K'ocs of the sediment carbon. This is consistent with the
results of Landrum et al. (1984), Morehead et al. (1986), and
Servos and Muir (1990) with freshwater, and unpublished results
from this laboratory using seawater.
Apparent Partition Coefficients: Mean DOC and log of
average Kfoc values for all stations are found in Table 8-5A.
The average K'ocs from the Lauritzen Channel and elsewhere in the
study area are grouped and compared to Kocs computed from K^s
(Table 8-5B). Samples from the Lauritzen Channel have the
highest concentrations and the computed K'^s should be the most
reliable because they have the fewest unconfirmed values (NC3).
The K'ocs for both DDT isomers from Station 2, grab 5 were not
included in the station means or comparisons as they exceeded. the
mean values by two orders of magnitude and were determined to be
outliers by the method of Dixon (1950).
The Iog10-trans formed K'ocs of 4,4'-DDT and dieldrin from
90
-------
the two locations, Lauritzen Channel and the other sites, had
homogeneous variances (untransformed values did not by Fmax) ; the
mean K'ocs means were significantly different and not combined.
The variances of the untransformed and transformed K'ocs of 4,4'-
DDE and 4,4'-DDD from the two locations were significantly dif-
ferent; their means were compared using a t-test with variance-
weighted critical value, tBI and average S.E. (Sokal and Rohlf,
1981) and were found to be not significantly different.
The grand mean K'ocs of both locations were also compared to
the Kow-based Kocs. The variances of the Kow-based Kocs (DeBruijn
et al., 1989) were significantly smaller than the K'ocs. They
were so much smaller than those of the K'00s that the t-test was,
simply, a comparison of an untransformed K'oc mean to a single,
Kow-based, untransformed Koc value with no variance. Although the
mean dieldrin and 4,4'-DDT K'ocs from the Lauritzen samples were
not significantly different from the Kow-derived value (P>0.05);
they were larger by 0.15 log units (1.4-times) and 0.30 log units
(2.0-times),- respectively. Differences between the mean K'oc
values of the 4,4' isomers of ODD and DDE from Lauritzen Channel
and the K^-derived Koc values were significant {P<0.05 and
P<0.01, respectively). The K'ocs were lower: -0.10 log units
(0.8-times) and -0.68 log units (0.2-times) for 4,4'-DDD and
4,4'-DDE, respectively.
Similar to the Kow values reported by O'Brien (1974), there
were no significant differences between the apparent partition
coefficients of the isomers of DDE and DDD in the Lauritzen
samples. The maximum difference between the Kow-derived values
and K'oc for these two metabolites was 0.11 log units. Although
the isomers of DDT were also not significantly different, the
2,4' isomer was 0.34 log units lower.
Comparison of field vs. Tq bioassaystorage sediments: The
standardized differences [(bioassay-field)/field] in interstitial
water and bulk sediment concentrations and 'TOC in the T0 bioassay
storage sediment and corresponding field sediments are given in
Table 8-6A with the field concentration-normalized critical
values, (CT-Cf)/Cf from Eq 8-3. The individual values for the T0
bioassay storage sediment are given in Appendix 8-2.
Measurements of within-grab variability were used to dif-
ferentiate between spatial heterogeneity and storage/mixing
effects. Within-grab variability was determined at Stations 1,
5, and 7 (Table 8-6B). Because of the randomization of bioassay
cores for subsampling, the mean field sediment and T0 bioassay
storage sediment samples can be compared directly within single
grabs from only Stations 1 and 5. The mean CVs from the three
core-replicated stations (Table 8-6B) were used to calculate the
critical values from Eq. 8-3 for all 27 comparisons.
Comparing the bulk"sediment concentrations in the single T0
bioassay storage sediments to the mean of the corresponding
replicated field values resulted in two significant difference
(0.05-level, two-tailed test). The EDDTs and dieldrin in the
field samples from Station 1, grab 3, and Station 5, grab 5,
respectively, were greater.. In the interstitial water from grab
91
-------
3 at Station 1, 4,4'-DDE was significantly greater in the T0
bioassay storage sediment. For interstitial water from grab 1 at
Station 5, three compounds (2,4'DDE, 4,4'ODD and dieldrin) were
significantly greater in the T0 bioassay storage sediments than
the replicated field cores.
Of the hundreds of paired comparisons in Table 8-6A, only
the components of T0 bioassay storage sediment S1CES011 consistr .
ently surpassed the normalized critical values. This critical
value approach may have been too conservative in that it identi-
fied only two of the six compound/matrix/station combinations
that were found to be significantly different (using a Student's
t-test) from the core mean for that grab.
Sediment Scans; The individual values for the estimated
sediment dry weight concentrations of probable compounds found in
the GC/MS scan mode are given in Appendices 8-3A, 8-3B, and 8-3C,
with the codes to the data in Table 6-3. The compounds are
ordered by decreasing concentration, first in the SIM quantified
column followed by the SCAN-quantified column. Concentrations
determined in the scan mode using extracted ions averaged 100 ±
10%, S.E. (n=12) of the values determined previously in the SIM
mode. Using this method of quantitation on the extract of NTIS
reference material SRM 1941, (organics in marine sediment) re-
sulted in concentrations generally within ± 50% of the reported
concentrations for PAHs, PCB congeners, and organochlorine
pesticides (Appendix 8-3D).
The PCB congener concentrations are summarized in Table 8-7.
The PCB concentrations at Station 6 are 2-6 times higher than
Station 2, with low concentrations of only three congeners deter-.
mined at Station 9. Table 8-8 summarizes the Aroclor 1254 and
1260 concentrations. Table 8-9 summarizes the fifteen most
abundant compounds from the SIM runs, exclusive of PCBs, DDTs,
and dieldrin, in each of the three samples.
AVS and Simultaneously Extracted Metals; The AVS and five
metals (silver was not detected and therefore not reported) are
presented in Table 8-10. The SEM/AVS ratio ranged from 0.05 for
Lauritzen Channel Station 1 (grab 1) to 0.49 for Richmond Harbor
Station 9 (grab 2). Most other-samples had a SEM/AVS ratio of
about 0.1.
8.1.5. Discussion
. Sediment and'interstitial Water Concentrations; The among-
grab variability was greatest at Station 1 for both dieldrin and
SDDT with coefficients of variations (CV) exceeding 100% for
dieldrin and near. 60% for SDDT (Tables .8-1 and 8-2). The within-
grab (Table. 8-6B) and core, and among-grab and station variabil-
ities within this study area indicate a spatially heterogeneous
system. It was in anticipation of such heterogeneity that the
chemical and biological samples were taken from the same grab.
In general, Lauritzen Stations 1, 2 and 3 tended to form a high
contaminant group, Stations 4-7 a mid-level contaminant group,
and Stations 8 and 9 a low-level contaminant group (Figures 8-1
and 8-2) . ' The interstitial water concentrations show a similar
92
-------
spatial pattern from Lauritzen to Richmond Harbor.
The bulk, surficial sediment concentrations of EDDT and
dieldrin found in this study generally agree with those found in
previous studies in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (Table 8-llA
and 8-11B) with the highest concentrations found in Lauritzen
Channel and generally decreasing concentrations through Santa Fe
and Richmond channels to the entrance of Richmond Harbor.
Concentrations of total 4,4'-DDD in the interstitial water of
Stations. 14, 15, and 16 averaged 40 ± 13% of the values reported
by Brown et al. (1990) from composited upper (feet in length)
cores from three different sections of Santa Fe Channel that
included our station locations. Given the sampling and
analytical differences (Brown et al. made no corrections of DDD
from DDT degradation within instruments), and the horizontal and
likely vertical heterogeneity of the area (White et al. 1993),
the agreement is good. Brown et al. (1990) did not detect 4,4'-
DDT, its other dechlorination products, or dieldrin in"the IW of
sediment from these Santa Fe locations. The elutriate IW from
composites of the top one foot of sediment from White et al.
(1993) were from stations over a wider area than that of Brown et
al. and comparisons to individual samples from this study would
be problematic.
the concentrations of SDDT in the sediments of Lauritzen "
Channel Stations 1-3 (Table 8-3) are higher than the highest
average concentration (3,540 ng/g dry, Palos Verde, CA) reported
in the. National Status and Trends Program (NOAA, 1991) . Laur-
itzen Channel Station 4 and Santa Fe Channel Station 6 exceed the
second highest value reported by NOAA; all other stations in
Santa Fe Channel (5, 13-16) exceed the fifth highest reported
concentration of 75 ng/g dry (Santa Monica Bay, CA) . The con-
centrations from Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (Stations 7-9, 17-
23) are similar to the range of values reported in the NOAA
(1991) and the Long and Markel (1992) summaries of the basins of
San Francisco Bay. From this comparison, it is apparent that
Lauritzen Channel has some of the highest sediment concentrations
of DDT ever reported. Concentrations in Santa Fe are also high
in comparison to other sites in the country, while values in
Richmond are about equal to the regional values.
The distribution of EDDT (Figure 8-2} shows Station 6 in
Santa Fe Channel to be different from the other Santa Fe stations
and indistinguishable from Station 4 in Lauritzen Channel with a
SDDT gradient away from Station 6 toward the mouth of Lauritzen
Channel (Appendix 8-1). However, TOC was higher at this station,
and organic carbon normalization of the SDDT reduces the differ- .
ences, and any evidence of a gradient away from Station 6 in the
Santa Fe Channel vanishes as this,station becomes indistinguish-
able from all stations around it (Stations 5, 14, 15, 16 arid 7).
Comparison to Criteria: The measured sediment and intersti-
tial water concentrations can be compared to a number of water
quality and sediment standards, which can be used as guides to
the potential effects of contamination. The acute Water Quality
Criteria (WQC, 130 ng/L) for EDDT is surpassed in the intersti-
93
-------
tial water at four stations (1, 2, 3 and 6). Since this value is
based on toxicity, it is an appropriate measure of potential
effects on the benthos.
The chronic DDT WQC (1 hg/L) is surpassed in the intersti-
tial water of virtually every station in the study. The chronic
value is a bioaccumulation criterion' based on consumption of
contaminated fish by brown pelicans. As discussed in Section
5.2.4., the application of this bioaccumulation-based criterion
to interstitial water is not directly related to the protection
of the benthos. Based on the chronic/acute ratio, sensitive
invertebrates may experience chronic effects at about 13-65 ng/L
SDDT (Table 5-4}. Total interstitial water concentrations exceed
the upper range by at least 7-fold at four of the primary sta-
tions (1, 2, 3 and 6). At four of the remaining five primary
stations, the lower range is exceeded by about 1- to 9-fold.
For dieldrin, the acute WQC (710 ng/L) is not exceeded in
any of the interstitial water, samples; whereas, the chronic WQC
(1.9 ng/L) is exceeded or equaled at five stations (1-4 and 6).
As with DDT, the acute value is based on toxic effects and should
be applicable to the benthos while the chronic value is a bio-
accumulation-based criterion and is not appropriate for predict-
ing effects on the benthos. Assuming acute-to-chronic ratios of
2 to 10, concentrations of dieldrin of 71-355 ng/L could result
in chronic effects in sensitive benthic invertebrates (Table 5-
5). The upper range is not exceeded at any stations, while the
lower range is exceeded by up to 3-fold at three stations (Sta-
tions 1-3). The same three stations also exceed the interim
sediment quality criterion for dieldrin (17 M
-------
(Gunther and Gunther, 1971). In comparison, 2,4'-DDT formed a
trivial percentage in the sediment at most of the stations in
this study and the percentage of 4,4'-DDT was 40 to 70% less than
in the upland samples, with a concomitant increase in their
respective isomeric DDDs. SDDT in the upland samples was
approximately 100-times higher than dieldrin.
The differences between the distributions of DDT and its
metabolites in the- upland samples and sediment, and the sediment
and interstitial water are suggestive that the original material
entering the marine environment has been metabolically altered,
and that the interstitial water concentrations of these compounds
are not being controlled solely by their relative mass ratios
(Table 8-4). For example, 4,4'-DDT in the interstitial water
averaged 7.4% of the sum of DDTs, 40% in the sediment and 80% in
the upland samples. Within the Lauritzen Channel sediments-,
virtually all the 2,4'-DDT has been dechlorinated to 2,4'-DDD;
whereas only 40 to 70% of the 4,4-DDT has been converted. This
may be related to the approximate five-fold higher solubility of
the 2,4'-DDT isomer (26 vs. 5.5 ppb, Weil et al,, 1974). This
higher solubility would mobilize this isomer into the intersti-
tial water where dechlorination would proceed.
Dechlorination of 4,4'-DDT proceeded to the greatest extent
(80%) with the highest percentage of products as 4,4'-DDE (38%)
at Station 6 in the Santa Fe Channel (Table 8-4A) . Dechlorina-
tion through a co-metabolic process apparently is the dominant
biotransformation mechanism of DDT with DDD thought to be the
dominant endproduct under anaerobic conditions and DDE under
aerobic conditions (Johnsen, 1976). The oiled-sediment of Sta-
tion 6 apparently enhances the formation of DDE but not to the
exclusion of DDD as this compound remains the dominant dechlor-
ination product even at this station (62%).
Apparent Partitioning Coefficients; The defensibility of
setting a cleanup level to a single sediment concentration that
is protective of organisms based on a water (interstitial) con-
centration is inherently dependent upon the known and invariant
distribution of the pollutant between the bulk sediment solid and
liquid phases which is expressed as the Koc of the compound.
What are the methods that can be used to know the Kocs of the
compounds in this, study, how variable is each, and are they
comparable? bo our findings suggest that a site-specific Koc
would be more useful in subsequent studies of these sites? .
The analysis of the Kocs focuses on the Lauritzen data
because the variability of K'ocs doubled in samples from outside
Lauritzen Channel, reflecting analytical variability inherent in
interstitial water concentrations near the detection limit.
Also, many more of the calculations of K'oc from outside Lauri-
tzen Channel were based on NC3 (compound unconfirmed) and L
(concentration below lowest standard) values. For these reasons,
analysis of the Lauritzen samples should result in the most
accurate K'ocs and, as such, constitute the most appropriate
comparison of K'oc to those derived from Kow.
In Lauritzen Channel, Kows were able to predict K'ocs with
95
-------
varying degrees of success. The Kow-predicted interstitial water
concentrations of dieldrin and 4,4'-ODD averaged +40% and^-20% of
the measured concentrations, respectively. With more variation
in the dieldrin Kocs, its +40% deviation was not statistically
significant {Table 8-5B); whereas, the -20% of 4,4'-DDD was
significant. Neither difference is toxicologically significant
because the uncertainty of LC50s is on this order. For these two
compounds, Kows seem to be good predictors of freely-dissolved
concentrations.
However, the 0.30 log unit difference-between the K'oc and
Kow-based Koc of 4,4'-DDT, though not significant, would result in
a biologically significant Kow predicted concentration twice the
mean value determined in the Lauritzen Channel sediments. The
difference between the K'oc and Kow-based Kpc of 4,4'-DDE is
statistically different and would result in a biologically
significant und^r-prediction of 80%, (i.e., one fifth of the mean
determined concentrations).
What are some possible explanations for these discrepancies?
Are the K^s wrong for some compounds and not others? Is there
an analytical bias affecting some compounds and not others?
Analytical bias will be addressed first.
Uniform K'ocs for a compound should be found in a study area
if the compound had equilibrated with the sediment substrate it
had been transported to or was created within. In the case of
those compounds thought to be metabolically formed following
deposition of their .chemical precursors, the isomers of DDD and
DDE have K'ocs with standard errors of their means averaging 12%.
In comparison, their DDT progenitors and dieldrin had S.E.s that
were 2 to 5 times more variable.' The finding that DDT metabo-
lites had reasonably uniform K'ocs but the parent compound did
not, suggests that the initially deposited pesticides are not yet
equilibrated with the sediment of Lauritzen Channel. For exam-
ple, 8 of the 15 individual logK'ocs for 4,4'-DDT from Lauritzen
Channel were greater than 6.90, the Kow-derived Koc for 4,4'-DDT,
and tended to be associated with the highest sediment concentra-
tions (6 of 8 from Station 1). - If some of the DDT was still
present as the crystalline material {the likely form upon entry
into the marine system from the upland source), all DDT present
would be extracted in the analyses but only the outer surface of
the crystalline material would be in equilibrium with the inter-
stitial water. Because K'oc is based on the extractable masses
of pollutant an artificially high value would be computed for a
non-equilibrium sediment.
An additional indication of the non-equilibrium of 4,4'-DDT
can be found in the observation that the three lowest accumula-
tion factors (AFs), a measure of sediment bioavailability, occur
in the three sediments with the highest 4,4'-DDT concentrations
(Table 8-16). The other compounds did not display this pattern.
The lower 4,4'-DDT bioavailability at the highest sediment con-
centrations suggests that a portion of the 4,4'-DDT is in a less
bioavailable state, such as the crystalline phase. In addition,
the differences-in acute toxicity between the Palos Verde Shelf
96
-------
core sediments and the highest SDDT sediments of this study (Fig-
ure 9-5) may, in part, be attributable to non- equilibrium of the
Lauritzen Channel sediments.
Losses of compounds from interstitial water through sorption
to sampling equipment surfaces could contribute to higher K'^s.
However, losses of compounds spiked into reference interstitial
water at relatively high concentrations were negligible (Table 6-
2} . DDE formed in the chromatography instruments- from the de-
gradation of DDT (self-correcting in standardization) also could
have contributed to the deviations in K'ocs. However, DDE formed
in sediment samples would result in higher K'ocs, not the observ-
ed lower values. "Created" DDE in interstitial water samples
would yield values in the direction observed, but would unlikely
increase the free concentration by the ~5-fold needed to account
for the 0.68 log unit lower K'00 of 4, 4' -DDE. Therefore, poten-
tial analytical artifacts, sorption and creation of DDE are not
reasonable explanations for these deviations from Kow predic-
tions .
Errors in determining the Kow values could also contribute
to the difference between the observed and predicted Kocs. For
4, 4,' -DDT, the range of reported Kow values is at least two
orders -of -magnitude, but less for the other compounds. Clearly
Kow values must be critically evaluated, especially earlier
determinations for low solubility compounds. The technology of
determining Kow has improved in recent years and the slow- stir-
ring method used by DeBruijn, et al. (1989) results in reproduc-
ible, minimally biased values for low solubility compounds.
However, the similar Kws of the 4,4" isomers of DDT and DDE
found by DeBruijn et al. are in contrast to the solubility (Weil
et al. 1974) and vapor pressure data of Spencer (1975) which show
DDE to have significantly higher values for both solubility (14
vs. 6 ppb) and vapor pressure (65 vs 7.3 x 10"7 torr) ; generally
inversely related to Kow (Isnard and Lambert, 1989) . The
significantly lower K'oc of 4, 4 '-DDE than the Kw-based Koc value
is in the direction that the relative solubility and vapor
pressure data would suggest DDE should lie relative to DDT.
Therefore, close evaluation of K^s using relational physical
chemical information must be made before they can be considered
for a priori predictions of interstitial water concentrations.
For two of the four compounds for which state-of-the-art
determined K^s were available, K^ was an adequate predictor of
measured freely-dissolved interstitial water concentrations in
equilibrated sediments; for 4, 4 '-DDE and 4, 4 '-DDT it was not.
Although K'oc and Kow-derived Koc for 4, 4 '.-DDT are indistinguish-
able, the Kow-derived Koc may more accurately predict IW concen-
trations in equilibrated sediments. Biologically- significant
overestimated IW concentrations of 4, 4 '-DDT could result from
calculations based on concentrations from non- equilibrated
sediment using either Koc value (Equations 8-1 and .8-2). Until
the discrepancy for 4, 4 '-DDE can be explained, continued field
determinations of equilibrium partition coefficients of this
compound (and other compounds) should be made. These findings
97
-------
suggest that Kow is.not necessarily an accurate predictor of
interstitial water concentrations for all chemically similar
compounds, even when the best current methods have been used to
determine Kow.
The WQC for DDT-consists of a summation of the concentra-
tions of each isomeric form of DDT and its dechlorination pro-
ducts. In this study the dominant forms of DDT that contribute
to the IW are 4,4'-DDT and ODD. Each would contribute "to the IW
in proportion to its Koc and its contribution to the makeup of
the bulk sediment (Table 8-4A) . Using the Kow-derived K^ of
these two compounds (Table 8-5B), the combinations of relative
bulk sediment composition,- total sediment concentrations, and
organic carbon content that result in IW concentrations exceeding
the-WQC of 130 ng/L (combined 4,4'-DDT and DDD concentrations)
are plotted in Figure 8-3. One observation from this figure
suggests that as DDT is dechlorinated to DDD, a sediment ini-
tially with. IW concentrations below the WQC could exceed the
criterion in time.
Sediment Mixing; Previous unpublished data on homogenized
and non-homogenized sediments suggest that the interstitial water
components are elevated after mixing. Only the components of a
single T0 bioassay storage sediment sample (grab l of Station 1)
were consistently different from its corresponding field chem-
istry sample, i.e., differences surpassed, a critical value (Table
8-6A} . This suggests that any changes in sample composition due
to storage and mixing were no greater than the differences ex-
pected from two cores taken from the same grab. Using concen-
trations determined in the field chemistry samples for the toxi-
city and bioaccumulation experiments places an uncertainty on
these values that are the same as the within grab uncertainty
(Table 8-6B) and not the generally lower subsampling uncertainty
(Tables 8-1 and 8-2) of determining the concentrations in the
same sediments used for the biological exposures.
Compounds Other Than DDT and Die!drin: According to current
theory on metal bioavailability (DiToro et al. 1990}, when acid
volatile sulfide (AVS) is present in excess to simultaneously '
extracted metals (SEM)(both expressed on a molar basis), the
metals are bound in a non-bioavailable phase. A ratio of SEM/AVS
<1 indicates that metals would not be at high enough concentra-
tions in the pore water to cause toxicity. As all the ratios in
this study were substantially less than 1.0, none of the toxic
effects can be attributed to the measured metals.
Not unexpectedly, the pollutant scans identified many
organic compounds at the sites in addition to EDDT and dieldrin.
The compounds are dominated by combustion products and petroleum
hydrocarbons, with many individual compounds present at 1,000- -
20,000 ppb. Both Stations 2 (Lauritzen Channel) and 6 (Santa Fe
Channel) had many more compounds identified than did extracts
from Station 9 (Richmond Harbor). Although Stations 2 and 6 have
similar numbers of identifiable compounds, the two stations are
different in the kinds and concentrations of compounds present.
Station 2 contains pg/g (ppm) concentrations of high molecular
98
-------
weight PAHs and a complex mixture of industrial compounds in the
50 to 900 ppb range. Station 6 is dominated by 1-20 ppm concen-
trations of alkylated and non-alkylated PAHs, including several
thiophene compounds, all of which are indicative of petroleum
hydrocarbon products (Lake et al. 1979). The fifteen highest
concentration compounds, all .of which are PAHs, averaged 65 -times
higher in the Station 6 extract than Station 2 (Table 8-9) .
These results are consistent with oil sheens observed at Station
6 during sampling and later in the laboratory. It should be
noted this station was chosen for the scan analysis because the
presence of the oil sheen suggested high PAH concentrations.
Therefore, concentrations of PAHs are most likely higher at
Station 6 than at the other Santa Fe stations.
PAH concentrations two to three times higher than found in
this study have been reported for Lauritzen Channel (Levine-
Fricke, 1990) and similar concentrations have been reported for
Richmond Harbor Channel from composited long cores (McPherson et
al. 1989; Brown et al. 1990; Pinza/ et al. 1992). The high PAH
concentrations from Santa Fe that we found were not reported by
EVS (McPherson et al. 1989) in composites from the end of this
channel. Our Santa Fe Channel station. Station 6, was one that
was sampled in the Levine - Fricke study, but unfortunately PAH
determinations were not done on samples from outside of Lauritzen
Channel. In a recent draft report of White et al. (1993), the
homogenized top 1 foot of sediment from SF-25 (very near our
Station 6) was described as "very oily in appearance, " and con-
tained a total PAH concentration exceeding 24,000 M9/k9 (dry).
The sum of 15 PAH concentrations for Station 6 (149,000
A*g/kg, Table 8-9) exceeds the average of the peripheral areas of
San Francisco Bay by an order -of -magnitude (Long and Markel
1992). Islais Creek had the highest reported value of 132,000
Mg/kg. The sum- PAH concentrations of the Lauritzen Channel
sample (8,900 /xg/kg) were similar to the moderately contaminated
peripheral areas of San Francisco Bay; whereas, the sum- PAH con-
centrations from the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel sample (1,700
M9/k9) were similar to the average of all the sampled basins of
San Francisco Bay (Long and Markel, 1992) . The sum- PAH concen-
tration from: Station 6 exceeded the highest average value from
the National Status and Trends Program (Hud/Rar.Est.NY) by a
factor of 3.9 (NOAA, 1991). The sum-PAH concentrations from
Station 2 exceeded approximately 75% of the reported values;
whereas the -Station 9 values exceeded approximately 25% of the
reported values (NOAA, 1991) .
The PCB congeners at the study site were assumed to have
originated from Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260. Preliminary
estimates of Aroclor 1242 based on tetrachlorobiphenyl congeners
were not possible because only two tetrachloro- congeners were
found in each sample and neither was characteristic of Aroclor
1242 (Schulz, Petrick and Duinker, 1989) . Four of the five
heptachlorobiphenyl congeners are present in Aroclor 1260 at
greater than ten times higher percentages than in Aroclor 1254'.
To estimate more precise and unbiased Aroclor concentrations, the
99
-------
four highest mass-percent heptachlorobiphenyl congeners were
assumed to have come entirely from Aroclor 1260. This gave a
maximum concentration for Aroclor 1260 and in the presence of an
equal concentration of Aroclor 1254 would be an overestimate of
the true concentration by 10% at most. With the concentration of
Aroclor 1260 fixed, its contribution to the mass of non-hepta-
chlor congeners was determined by mass percent {Schulz, Petrik
and Duinker 1989), subtracted, and the concentration of Aroclor
1254, free of Aroclor 1260 interference, was calculated. The
average estimated concentrations of Aroclor 1260 and Aroclor 1254
based on different heptachloro- and pentachloro- congeners are
given in Table 8-8, with Aroclor 1254 about twice as abundant as
1260.
Aroclor concentrations were about five times as high at the
Santa Fe site than in Lauritzen (Table 8-8). Sediment TOC was
higher at Santa Pe than Lauritzen (3.97 vs 1.76%, respectively)
and organic carbon normalization significantly reduces the
differences between the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channel Aroclor
concentrations. However, organic normalization does not explain
the differences in PAHs between these two sites.
White et al. (1993) reported Aroclor 1254 (110 to 470 ppb)
in the upper two to six feet of recent sediments in Lauritzen
Channel, no other Aroclor was found above detection limits. In
the Santa Fe Channel Aroclor 1254 concentrations averaging ~150
ppb, and ranging from 5 to 110 ppb have been reported from
composited cores by McPherson et al. (1989), and White et al.
(1993), respectively. Aroclor 1254 concentrations averaging ~50
ppb for Richmond Harbor Channel have been reported by McPherson
et al. (1989), and Pinza et al. (1992). Aroclor 1260 at -30 ppb
was reported in Richmond Harbor Channel core composites
{McPherson et al., 1989).
The Aroclor 1254 concentration (~600 ppb dry) found at
Station 6 in Santa Fe Channel is similar to the concentrations
(600 ppb to 1800 ppb) that were reported for surface sediment
from the Palos Verde shelf (Ferraro et al. 1990) but exceeded the
110 ppb. value reported from 0-4 foot deep composites from a close
station (White et al. 1993). From a station close to our Station
2 in Lauritzen Channel, White et al. (1993) reported an Aroclor
1254 concentration of 201 ppb compared to our value of 118 ppb.
The sum of 20 PCB congeners (Table 8-7} for Stations 2 and 6 are
similar to the average (290 .± 250 ppb, mean ± S.D.) of the peri-
pheral areas of San Francisco Bay, and the Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel concentrations are similar to the average (45 ± 35 ppb,
mean ± S.D.) of the basins within San Francisco Bay (Long and
Markel 1992). In comparison to the nationwide, National Status
and Trends, concentrations (NOAA, 1991), the Lauritzen and Santa
Fe Channel PCB values represent a moderate level of contamination
by these compounds and the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel result
represents a.low level of contamination.
100
-------
TABLE 8-1. Station results for EDDT for interstitial water and
sediment concentrations.
STATION
1
2
3
4
13
.5
6
14
15
16
7
17
8
18
009
9
19
20
22
21
23
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON
AVE S.E.
2.38%
1.78%
1.73%
1.46%
1.55%
1.49%
2.98%
1.51%
1.46%
1.35%
1.08%
1.34%
1.18%
1.25%
1.22%
0.87%
1.14%
1.10%
0.76%
1.05%
1.02%
0.09%
0.16%
0.05%
0.05%
NA
0.01%
0.32%
NA
NA
NA
0.03%
NA
0.03%
'NA
NA
0.02%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
AVE
4487.5
1952.7
889.5
99.6
20.7
32.3
381.0
19.8
19.7
NA
23.0
NA
9.21
32.5
NA
5.44
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
SUM DOT
FREE IW
ng/L
S.E.
2469.4
576.4
223.6
36.1
NA
38.6
90.0
NA
NA
4.36
4.29
NA
3.11
NA
n
8
5
5
3
1
4
5
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
AVE
3258.7
2115.7
977.5
122.6
26.3
58,0
463.0
27.1
21.8
16.6
28.4
NA
6.75
42.1
15.3
21.5
5.55
HI
CO
CO
CO
SUM DDT
TOTAL !W
ng/L
S.E. n
1123.9
588.2
229.8
14.9
NA
30.0
104.6
NA
NA
NA
3.0
3.0
NA
NA
16.4
NA
8
5
5
5
1
4
5
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
5
1
SUM DOT
SEDIMENT
fig/kg (dry)
AVE S.E.
f(l$it
47829
26005
2744
556
420
2345
730
522
696
368
132
82.5
38.4
24.0
11.6
16.6
14.6
11.2
18.5
14.6
17628
9613
5853
109
NA
24.2
578
NA
NA
NA
46.0
NA
4.5
NA
NA
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
SUM DDT
SEDIMENT
M9/SOC
AVE S.E.
3500
2712
1524
189
36.0
28.3
90.2
48.2
35.9
51.6
34.8
9.81
6.99
3.08
1.98
1.34
1.47
1.33
1.47
1.76
1.43
959
474
367
11.5
NA
1.73
33.7
NA
NA
NA
5.33
NA
0.31
NA
NA
0.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
SUM DDT
log'Koc
AVE S.E.
6.07
6.17
6.25
6.36
6.24
5.96
5.37
6.39
6.26
NA
6.22
NA
5.93
4.98
NA
5.20
7.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.18
0.11
0.15
NA
0.20
0.12
NA
NA
0.10
0.23
NA
0.10
NA
n
8
5
5
3
1
3
5
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
DETECTION LIMIT: meaningless for EDDT
AVERAGES OF INDIVIDUAL CORES FROM SINGLE GRAB SAMPLES:
STAT.GRAB AVE S.E. n AVE SJE. n AVE S.E. n
AVE
S.E.
AVE
S.E.
AVE
S.E. = standard error of mean
n = number of grabs, cores, or subsamples per calculation
NA = meaningless calculation (e.g., a standard deviation with n=1, negative free concentration)
NI - no interstitial water, sample lost
CO = value lost because of carry over
S.E.
1
5
7
3
1
1
2.4%
1.5%
1.0%
0.02%
0.05%
0.04%
3
3
3
AVERAGES OF SUBSAMPLES FROM
STAT
1
5
7
.GRAB
1
1
1
AVE
1.9%
1.4%
1.1%
S.E.
0.06%
0.06%
0.03%
n
3
3
3
1261.1
6.1
24.9
SINGLE
AVE
NA
NA
NA
403.2 3 1360.5
1.4 3 147.6
3.6 3 32.3
CORE SAMPLES:
S.E. n AVE
NA
NA
NA
415.6 3 33251
133.0 3 408
3.9 3 512
S.E. n AVE
167422
528
487
1989
63
64
S.E.
43685
70
34
3
3
3
n
3
3
3
1383
28
51
AVE
8692
39
46
92
5
5
S.E.
2260
6
3
3
3
3
n
3
3
3
6.04
6.05
6.29
AVE
6.21
6.70
6.37
0.11
0.64
NA
S.E.
0.10
0.07
0.03
2
3
1
n
3
3
3
101
-------
TABLE 8-2. Station results for dieldrin for interstitial water
and sediment concentrations.
STATION
1
2
3
4
13
5
6
14
15
16
7
17
8
18
009
9
19
20
22
21
23
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON
AVE S.E.
2. 38%
1.78%
1.73%
1.46%
1.55%
1.49%
2.98%
1.51%
1.46%
1.35%
1.08%
1.34%
1.18%
1.25%
1.22%
0.87%
1.14%
1.10%
0.76%
1.05%
1.02%
0.09%
0.16%
0.05%
0.05%
NA
0.01%
0.32%
NA
NA
NA
0.03%
NA
0.03%
NA
NA
0.02%
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
DIELDRIN
FREE !U
ng/L
AVE S.E.
219.3
167.8
52.5
16.4
0.00
0.02
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
NA
89.5
24.7
14.1
1.1
NA
0.02
1.77
NA
NA
NA
0.34
NA
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
2
5
5
4
2
DIELDRIN
TOTAL IU
ng/L
AVE S.E.
231.4
167.8
101.6
16.9
0.00
1.10
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NI
0.00
CO
CO
89.7
24.7
19.1
1.2
NA
0.90
1.77
NA
' NA
NA
0.34
NA
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
DIELDRIN
SEDIMENT
/tg/kg (dry)
AVE S.E.
748.0
527.9
441.8
35.7
16.9
5.54
78.4
16.9
9.35
11.1
9.46
2.97
1.73
0.00
0.00
0.63
2.35
1.91
0.00
0.00
3.44
299.7
158.6
119.7
1.07
NA
1.16
12.8
NA
NA
NA
1.46
NA
0.46
NA
NA
0.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
DIELDRIN
SEDIMENT
pg/goc
AVE S.E.
35.2
28.7
25.8
2.46
1.09
0.374
2.59
1.12
0.642
0.824
0.889
0.221
0.150
0.000
0.000
0.072
0.207
0.173
0.000
0.000
0.338
16.1
8.2
7.3
0.1
NA
0.079
0.232
NA
NA
NA
0.147
NA
0.040
NA
NA
0.072
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n
8
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
1
1
5
1
5
.5
1
1
DIELDRIN
iog'Koc
AVE S.E.
5.19
5.20
5.73
5.18
NA
6.18
5.49
NA
NA
NA
6.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.02
0.72
NA
0.34
n
7
5
5
5
2
1
3
DETECTION LIMIT:
-0.0
2.3
AVERAGES OF INDIVIDUAL CORES FROM SINGLE GRAB SAMPLES:
STAT.GRAB AVE
JLIU-
AVE
S.E.
AVE
S.E.
100/20(Lauritzen stations: 1-3/4)
0.8 (all other stations)
AVE
S.E.
AVE
S.E.
AVE
S.E. = standard error of mean
n = number of grabs, cores, or subsamples per calculation
NA = meaningless calculation (e.g., standard deviation with n=1)
NI = no interstitial water, sample lost
CO = value lost because of carry over
S.E.
t 3
5 1
7 1
AVERAGES
ST AT. GRAB
1 1
5 1
7 1
2.4%
1.5%
1.0%
0.02%
0.05%
0.04%
OF SUBSAMPLES
AVE
1.9%
1.4%
1.1%
S.E.
0.06%
0.06%
0.03%
3
3
3
FROM
n
3
3
3
52.0
1.9
1.3
SINGLE
AVE
NA
NA
NA
NA 1 49.6
NA 1
0.7 3
CORE SAMPLES:
S.E. n
0.6
1.3
AVE
NA
NA
NA
2.4 3 182.5
0.6 3 8.0
0.7 3 9.5
S.E. n AVE
2679
8
11
14.8
0.2
1.0
S.E.
79
2
1
3
3
3
n
3
3
3
7.6
0.5
1.0
AVE
142
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.02
0.1
S.E.
8
0.2
0.1
3
3
3
n
3
3
3
5.19
5.46
5.49
AVE
5.36
NA
5.85
NA 1
NA 1
NA 1
S.E. n
0.02 3
0.05 3
102
-------
•0
oo
c
o
-H
OJ
o
a
o
o
1
•H
•d
®
CD
0)
o
M-l
ra
CO
d
. o
•H
4->
ct
4J
03
(M (0
H
-I
-o s.
• • «
> 60 (X
>in«-«
«MT-«-
ooco
in tn
• •
«- o
«o
•
o
• *O CO O -"df1 K- >O ^T
CXU-l<- IMlA ^
t IA 00
» • . ^* o N. CK *o in r*- K> ^
SfSo^^0:^o:~«cavlo^0>0'0<0~1A'0
^ 60 ^7 ^F in T~ ^^ Ptj C\J O* >o to PJ CO ^f
^r^^h-in-Ytoi^in-Ofx-ooMN
»••» ra«M (M
oo
•
in
rj
ui-ooOst eo •
Q f^ in • • \f\
^St2§ fcfi
OjTJ
K>f\Jh-O (MN-
O
o
>OO(MO>O * • o^
(MOKI-* -K>
nooo KIOO
-
(\i r-
• •
mo
rg
co
•
o
CK»-«
• • • coin M>-
•oioco o
N-fM
3. . h»- • • «
o-froro <-m
i-i\i>o!>J M
•OfvlCvl
>OIM
i*- a.
• •
«— o
. . .ro KI *"• of- ^ >» >o mt^ S. o o orn com
tn
£&
O^OO OM
OO OO O O
O
eoo. O*OCM«-K>
«-o<*
o
c
a
2
41
10
II
-------
§
•d
0}
ao
1
•^
rq • u> • • • •
oHnoHooooooo
o
OJ
in
I1
a
§
^ Q J
00
s w^
(N
m
•
o
w
pe!
s
5
U
oc-minr«]
-------
rfJLO -**• -*"
ov or* or* or* or* or* or* or* or* or* ov vf
ro
•
r~-
*
H
W^jlO <^O *** _*•» _t<^*'**'cAPrfP(AP*' U> H «* O in
o
HH H HHHHH H
Q
i
§
H
en
D
Q
•»
^
II
I
^<
c^
n
H
D
§
II
Q
Q
Q
Q
II
O
H
Q
Q
"I*
*
II
Q
Q
«!f
d
II
in
o
H
_
-------
(U
G
a
m
o
d
-H
3
d
•H
0)
-H
•a
•a
d
TO
-H
i-H
o
«
1
o
DQ
O
-H
4J
JQ
M
-H
t)
(U
m
u
00
1
w
w
•D
H
n
O H •*
H H O I
N r- in m
H iH VD in
00 rH ^l VO
f*. OO OO p»
dp dp dp dP
in in oo
> dp dp
in
ii
EH
g
Q
(N
II
EH
CM
§
21
CO
o
H
v\ n
*
(N *
-------
CO
4J
-H
•H
O
.Q
QJ
g
E-"
Q
Q
-H
fc
•a
rH
0)
-H
TJ
00
4J
C
0)
•H
U
-H
O
U
-U
-H
-U
(D
M
0
'•- *. tf (M
o in in -o •<
§
K1 o in KI
-o
-o
. «-coeo «-o> (o
r\l MCO T-< vOx» < < < ••
• z . . z z z >o :
i!£z!2
in o oo o in in *o in *Q in «o in. »O »O in ^j- in
25S
>«
ro
>
•< o <> -o in
g sg
•o
M £>•(?- ^ co in eo
01
ID
D)
"ffl
i
u
J]
10
t_
O)
H-
o
5
u
Q.
Jr J> O -
a S in- — i-
D o V 01
»>_>»- 10 JJ
.Q n n a)
0 a) o
O
H
• lil <
<- (/> Z
-------
0}
(U
4J
1
a
m
8
a
•H
•O
r-l
0)
•H
•O
M
O
4-1
OQ
C
0)
o
•H
4-1
M-l
0)
O
O
a
o
M
04
-U
03
nJ
I
in
•8
L.
01
CM
i
CO
v>
H
O
I—
O
J
"*.
•"*•
(0
1
^
*
0)
fe
!H
|
D)
C
3
U
X
41
1
.
"g
(D
in
%
^
v>
a
01
*•-
o
«»
O)
o
01
I
"S
^^
c
o
O
O
ng all determina
«>
c
c_
0)
a
i—
g
1
j xt
o in
tx.
so"
a a
«- CM
O i-
xx
rvf
H
O
o
in
XX XX
IM «-
CM CM
« «
«- -o
in
xT « Z Z
^f
UJ
a
• « * «
- * * *
X* « * *
•^
tfl tfi <0
01 C Ol
303
o 4J a
> a >
—• u> —
ife"5
a f
6S
1
«i
(0
z
M
Z
l>-
n
e~
n
^ >
•*_
^
1
z
»
CM
V
g
£
+J
^
1 f
41
••+- Vt
i 3
. to
t . ^
c
there signified
auritzen Channel
£
(U
c
1
o
0
4-1 .
CJ
4-1
t_
8-
L.
&
0
4>*
g
8
l«
t- C
10 4->
CO
0) *-•
•M
^.iS
^j
"O O
~S ^ _r
> o . >
o u
M 01
01 C Q.
DO -01
— • W 01
a E t-
"D O to
O »-> 01
•4-.C -•
g « ^
S HI O
I-M- 0
4^ H- •
3TJ °
£— 0
4-^4^ •
C O
"o S "3 •
c *• oto
at — — > •
at c i o
g.? s«,s
^"cofS:
4-> c 4-* .
«*- 01 E .C CB .
O E 4-< i—
O 01 <0 (0 i
«- C O 4J ~- «>
ave = standard e
- Lauritzen cha
. = standard err
= not significan
**, *** " signif
from DeBruijn,
UJ O • CO -
e/> _J z * co
CO
o
-------
TABLE 8-6A. Sediment and total interstitial concentrations in T0
bioassay storage sediment compared to field sediment.
STANDARDIZED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T0 BIOASSAY AND FIELD VALUES
(BIOASSAY-FIELD)/FIELD
! Critical value/Cfl
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
10 S1CES011
10 S1CES013
10 S1CES01S
12 S1CES021
10 S1CES022
10 S1CES023
10 S1CES032
10 S1CES033
10 S1CES034
ave S1CES041
ave S1CES042
10 S1CES044
10 S1CESOS1
10 S1CES054
12 S1CES055
10 S1CES062
10 S1CES063
10 S1CES065
10 S1CES073
10 S1CES074
10 S1CES075
10 S1CES081
10 S1CES082
10 S1CES084
10 S1CES091
10 S1CES092
10 S1CES095
Interstitial water:
(critical value/Cfl
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
419
0 1 S1CBI011
0 S1CBI013
0 S1CB1015
0 S1CBI021
0 S1CBI022
0 S1CBI023
0 S1CBI032
0 SI CB 1 033
0 SI CB I 034
0 S1CBI041
0 S1CBI042
0 1 S1CBI044
ave S1CBI051
0 1 SI CB 1 054
0 S1CBI055
0 S1CBI062
0 S1CBI063 -
0 S1CBI065
0 S1CBI073
0 S1CBI074
0 1 S1CB1075
0 1 S1CBI081
0 1 S1CBI082
0 1 S1CB1084
0 1 S1CBI091
0 1 S1CBI092
0 1 S1CBI095
: 0.3
0.61
0.00
-0.01
0.04
0.15
0.08
-0.06
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.16
0.03
-0.03
-0.01
-0.03
-0.04
-0.25
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.11
-0.02
0.01
0.03
0.13
-0.04
0.05
DOC
: 0.8
0.11
0,31
0.46
-0.11
0.31
0.24
2.90
0.15
-0.23
-0.26
-0.16
0.16
0.05
-0.17
0.16
0.41
-0.19
-0.69
-0.74
-0.76
-0.71
-0.23
-0.07
-0.19
-0.54
-0.47
0.89
0.8
1.10
-0.15
0.20
0.39
0.73
0.20
ERR
0.23
ERR
-1.00
ERR
ERR
-0.13
-0.39
0.15
0.18
0.16
0.06
0.01
-0.13
-0.10
-0.16
-1.00
ERR
-1.00
ERR
ERR
2.4'E
4.6
65.42
1.30
1.99
•0.41
0.18
0.10
-0.38
0.02
0.00
ERR
-1.00
-1.00
6.26
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
6.97
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
-1.00
0.4
0.91
-0.06
-0.04
0.33
0.37
0.05
-0.07
0.28
-0.26
-0.40
0.22
0.45
-0.17
-0.21
0.01
-0.04
1.66
0.36
-0.05
-0.11
-0.15
-0.14
-0.43
-0.16
-0.04
-0.01
-0.51
4.4'E
2.4
49.87
2.29
1.32
-0.14
0.39
-0.10
-0.08
0.43
0.53
0.28
-0.51
-0.27
0.65
0.66
ERR
0.63
4.26
3.26
-1.00
ERR
0.50
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
-1.00
0.6
1.29
-0.14
-0.27
-0.18
0.08
-0.19
-0.32
0.44
-0.05
-0.35
0.01
0.05
-0.33
-0.07
-0.21
0.26
0.07
0.27
-0.02
-0.24
0.10
-0.18
-0.35
-0.33
0.10
0,37
-0.04
2,4-0
1.9
36.41
1.75
1.77
-0.38
0.94
0.06
0.05
1.33
0.35
0.18
-0.41
-0.09
-0.10
0.38
ERR
0.44
4.70
2.96
0.65
0.44
0.35
-1.00
ERR
-0.09
ERR
ERR
-1.00
0.6
1.37
0.08
0.43
0.24
-0.18
0.35
0.32
0.71
0.55
ERR
ERR
ERR
-0.48
3.10
-0.09
-0.22
-0.31
0.16
-0.33
-0.22
-0.56
-1.00
ERR
-1.00
ERR
ERR
-1.00
dieldrin
4.6
7.61
0.21
4.93
0.01
0.22
0.09
-0.15
0.59
0.60
-0.10
-0.38
-0.29
9.03
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
-1.00
-1.00
ERR
-i.oo
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
0.5
1.96
-0.16
-0.06
0.01
0.47
0.01
-0.37
0.47
0.08
-0.38
-0.28
-0.13
-0.24
-0.09
-0.11
-0.10
1.15
0.05
0.10
-0.22
0.05
-0.31
-0.43
-0.39
0.10
0.00
-0.20
A.4-D
1.3
31.56
2.23
1.97
-0.42
0.43
-0.02
0.16
1.31
0.24
0.19
-0.25
0.30
0.94
0.63
ERR
0.07
1.76
2.39
0.13
ERR
0.64
-0.13
-1.00
ERR
ERR
ERR
-1.00
5.0
18.05
-0.76
-0.26
21.40
0.71
1.85
29.70
ERR
0.92
ERR
ERR
ERR
-0.91
0.36
ERR
-0.10
-0.72
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
-0.05
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
2.4'T
5.0
23.69
5.32
ERR
-0.88
4.25
-0.30
ERR
ERR
-0.89
ERR
-1.00
-1.00
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
-1.00
2.4
0.98
-0.47
-0.13
1.79
1.09
0.13
0.38
1.02
-0.35
0.17
-0.48
1.03
-0.61
-0.78
-0.56
-0.74
-0.74
-0.55
1.19
-0.35
-0.53
-0.63
-0.77
-0.98
-1.00
-1.00
-0.32
4.4'T
5.7
22.07
4.27
0.53
-0.91
4.61
-0.26
-0.67
ERR
-0.87
-0.57
-1.00
-0.18
-0.97
-1.00
ERR
1.26
ERR
-0.84
1.23
ERR
-1.00
8.47
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
1.0
1.51
-0.31
-0.11
0.70
0.78
0.05
-0.02
0.68
-0.12
-0.27
-0.30
0.24
-0.34
-0.32
-0.17
-0.11
0.50
0.15
0.22
-0.23
-0.09
-0.31
-0.51
-0.56
-0.17
-0.25
-0.30
SODTs
3.7
32.19
2.44
1.84
-0.53
0.61
-0.04
0.11
1.32
-0.06
0.11
-0.41
-0.05
-0.80
-0.24
ERR
0.56
2.76
1.87
0.28
NA
-0.25
1.77
1.00
NA
ERR
ERR
-0.79
ERR =conparisons where values uere compromised in some way, or the field value was zero
109
-------
u>
rt
o
-H
i— 1
|
4-1
O
O
H
CO
Q)
I
-H
• —
p
o
-H
U
fti
-H
s
r
J«l
o
CO
4J
c
d)
•H
U
•H
4-1
4-1
(1)
w
O
o
>.
-H
rH
•H
"§
•H
M
ff
O
(rt
• w
tn
-H
5
•H
.
•
00
*
TABLE
cores
* •
"m
•H
CO
rt
i
X!
CJ1
._!
r^
(D
$
k1
•o
•"•^
PH
£5
PL]
H
Q
CO
03
c™
c
w
«
«•
_
^
o
p
*-
<#
^
E
•r1
T
i—
a
-i-
•a
Q
*
^*
c*>
W
""
«4*
^"
w
^
c*>
u
8
a
PC
p:
CD
•)
*z
0
STATI
•
O P» C>) O CO
H C«J CM (N
t** i> CN
CN in y> ^j1 H
CO 00 Vfl C"" VO
u> rn H on
H H rH
U3 ^< CO C^l »*
H
« * c- CNt-
H H H
CJ ^P f"0 C^ Ol
H H H H
*
f+\ 1,0 ps. QO r**
H
*5j* 00 * 00 C**1 CO
Cg H • H
rH VD 00 in ^
n rtj < w> <(
o S 55 o &
H H
av en co tn cs
m H rH M H
r** ro ^ rH ro
fs -O\ CJ\ 00
H
VjQ " (Y) LO CD ^P
m in M m H
U> H C^ CO CT>
H r- in •* csj
Is* co ro ro oo
H CO P*
rH
r-» o co in H
H Ol rH H
os m m ro
*•
p^
0)
Q
*•
H in r*- § co
o
iH
tH
-------
TABLE 8-7. PCB congeners in sediment collected from Lauritzen
Channel {Station 2), Santa Fe Channel (Station 6}, and Richmond
Inner Harbor Channel (Station 9). PCBs are listed by congener
number with values in /^g/kg (dry) .
PCB
Congener #
Lauritzen
Santa Fe Richmond
118
153
52
138
99
110
149
180
44
105
174
136
141
183
176
170+190
66
101
95
9
15
17
9
5
7
6
5
-------
TABLE 8-8. .Aroclor 1260 and Aroclor 1254 sediment concentrations
(ng/g, dry).
Aroclor 1260
Mean ± S.D. n
Aroclor 1254
Mean ± S.D. n
Lauritzen Channel:
S1CES021 60 ± 16 ng/g 4
118 ± 21 ng/g 6
Santa Fe Channel:
S1CES063 252 ± 117 ng/g 4
607 ± 310 ng/g 4
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel:
S1CES095
-------
TABLE 8-9. Fifteen most abundant organic pollutants identified
in SIM run (excluding PCBs, DDT derivatives and dieldrin) in
sediment collected from Lauritzen Channel (Station 2), Santa Fe
Channel (Station 6) and Richmond Inner Harbor Channel {Station
9) . Values are in jug/kg (dry) .
Compound
Lauritzen
Santa Fe Richmond
Phenanthrene 290
Fluoranthene 728
Pyrene 1,235
Benzo(a}Anthracene 440
Naphthalene 154
Fluorene . 79
Acenaphthene 31
Chrysene 1,016
1-methyl-naphthalene 77
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 1,700
2-methyl-naphthalene 190
Benzo(a)Pyrene l,274
Anthracene 328
Benzo(e)Pyrene 1,015
1-methyl-phenanthrene 45
19,555
17,648
16,548
14,851
14,539
10,967
10,165
10,073
9,660
7,448
6,917
5,740
4,701
4,134
3,473
41
117
158
62
24
6
7
72
8
84
13
108
10
70
7
113
-------
n
01
0)
to
>l
(H
I
CO
m
H
1
-d
o
(D
i
03
3
O
(U
1
-H
CQ
CQ
[>
CO
"w"
^1
°!
*p
8£
0
H «•
a a.
0
pq"^-
DJ ;3
0
g"^
t>3 H2
0
p"^.
o^
.^
W ^
*
o
H
E-i
CO
pi}
i^
ft
§
CQ
in
o
o
CN
o
i>
H
H
«-
cn
CN
CO
CN
a\
in
\D
CN
rt
H
CO
vo
CO
in
ro
H
H
H
rH
0
CO
8
H
CO
vo
H
o
o
•*
CN
o
CN
00
CN
cn
in
U)
in
m
p-
H
«•
O
»
CO
f*.
CN
CN
m
CN
o
CO
w
o
H
CO
cn
o
o
m
00
m
oq
o
t.
o
CO
III
o
H
CQ
oq
CN
o1
S
CN
O
O
r-
\o
CN
CN
o
ff)
cn
cn
00
in
cn
CN
o
H
H
00
CN
00
O
to
Pel
CJ
H
CO
m
«a*
o
H
H
i-i
0
o
o
CO
CN
H
H
m
cn
^
H
O
H
ro
CN
cn
CN
en
o
CO
O
H
CO
i
I
C
-H
g
-H
4J
-------
CO
H
rH
• s?
O 0
- .,
o in
U) VD
CN I"
i
O
O
K H
rO
m
vo
1
PO
.
o
,•
^
CO
CA
H
»
s
CO
555
i
CN
CN
^^
[»•
cy\
i
r*>
vo
CO
»
CD
(U
•H
Qi
CO
0
H
O
O
m
ro
vo
00
a\
H
..
?>
c^j
jg
CO
H
H
^^
H
CT\
t
H
VO
CO
o\
H
f£
S
pq
CO
^*
H
m
0
H
0
_
H
i
. O
in u>
CO U)
CN PI
i
ro
O
CN
"m
Q)
j_>
-H
cn m
oo o
t.
- u
•
CO Qi
t> ®
00
ro
1
O O
C- H
f) ro
CN
i
O
^-'
O O
rH O
CN CN
i. o
rH O\
l""1 ^^
1
0
r-
H
0
CA
<^ r-,
rH CO
-rH
-H CO
^1
fa rH
• rt
0
flj-rl
__J tl
flJ CO
cn
CN
>-.
o
H
i
^~
CN
^-,
in
i
n
•— •
o o
U> "Sj1
CN in
i
o
ro
"~*
0 0
0 0
^1 ^4
» «
^ CN
CN C**
i
O
o
in
ro
a\.
H
^
.
rH
(t
*
V
0)
-H
in
m
-
o\
H
H
^^
O ^C
CN CO
'
H
**-^
'co in
O -si<
co ro
CN
i
o
CN
S
r~t ^-~%
QP^ t^
l> CO
m t^
CO C-
ro r-
^*
vjf
ps.
CN
s>.
•o
4J
CO
4J
c
Prese
tH S
-H O
4J C
il
O-H
%
^ S.9
-------
PQ
o
o
CQ
•H
a
(d
CO
a
•H
a
o
-H
JJ
2
JJ
o
c
o
o
•O
0)
0)
c
-H
M
rH
pq
^
TO
^
H
.in
•
H
i
O
,-^
00 0]
• 1
o o
•—-
CM-VO
r- r-
i
c-
vo
1— 1
CD
a)
JJ
-H
(Ti CQ
00 O
(Ti Qi
^* M
Q
- o
CO ft
* vl)
25
CO
ro
CN VD
ro H
tN
1
o
o o
vo o
^* VD
•. »
f<1 CO
^"
1
H
O
O\ •—.
H CQ
(U
-H
o) a
^i rt
u !3
-H m
^_i
fcj iH
tfl
O
d M-I
•H i-l
> 3
cr\
M
in
•
o
i
(N
•
O
VO
•
o ^~
H
i
IN
O
H ro
iH rO
i
H
*"
^ O
in co
eg oo
t
o
ro
"^^
ro
(Ti
a\
rH
1.
•
r-H,
tJ
-U
(U
(U
JJ
•H
£
in
m
^-,
rO
i
O
^-^
m •— ~
^-
ro oo
01 r~
i
VD
~
CO CO
ro ^
«jt t*-
i
VD
m
^^
^i
"O
rj
JJ
CQ
JJ
0)
m
PI
£
jj
•0
0)
ti
m
0)
V
v
c
0)
id
pa
5
tn
I
H
nl~
JJ H
§3
O JJ
ID
- 0)
o
0. 0
Oi
s°.
Mr7
..J?
a a
H -H
CO rl
A 0
DO QI
rH
0)
rl
t!
Ed
oo -a
rH fl
VO U
H ~-rj
i a\ oi
ro O
HO'
M
H in r~ H
CQ CQ CQ CQ
C fi t3 {3
o o o o
-H -H -H -H
4J 4J JJ 4J
WJ flJ flJ flJ
jj jj jj jj
W CQ Ol CO
II II II II
H
-------
FIGURE 8-1. Mean SDDT (dry weight normalized) with standard errors versus
station number.
100000
90000
s 8000°
U 70000
J 60000
D 50000
T 40000
30000
20000
10000
0
c
SumDDT vs Station
[ug/kg(dry) mean +/- SE]
imp
MM
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
^M
mm
^^
1123456789
STATION NUMBER
117
-------
FIGURE 8-2. Station comparisons of bulk sediment for SDDT and dieldrin.
Station numbers are arranged in ascending order from lowest to highest
mean pollutant concentration on a dry-weight and dry-weight-organic carbon
normalized basis. Multiple comparisons of Iogi0-transformed data were by
the Games and Howell method because the variances were heterogeneous.
Underlines and vertical bars indicate which stations are not significantly
different (P<0.05).
Lowest Concentration^ — > Highest Concentration
SDDT
Dry-weight normalized:
Dry-weight-OC normalized:
Dieldrin
Dry-weight normalized:
Dry-weight-OC normalized:
9
9
8
8
2
I
118
-------
FIGURE 8-3. Combinations of TOC, %DDT and sediment concentra-
tions consisting of 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDT that result in inter-
stitial water (IW) concentrations exceeding the WQC for SDDT of
130 ng/L (combinations to the right and below the labeled TOC
percentages yield IW concentrations in excess of the WQC).
, %DDT, and TOC Yielding WQC Bxcedences
119
_
-------
8.2. OVERLYING HATER CONCENTRATIONS
.8.2.1. Introduction
Overlying water can be a pollutant uptake route for pelagic
organisms, such as fish, and for epibenthic invertebrates living
off the sediment bottom, such as byssal mussels. This section
presents concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin measured in whole
water samples collected in the three channels. These values are
used to assess the present exposure of pelagic fishes and mussels
and are compared to the ambient Water Quality Criteria for SDDT
and dieldrin. Additionally, the water and sediment concentra-
tions are used to derive water-sediment ratios that can be used
to predict the sediment concentrations required to achieve
various overlying water concentrations.
8.2.2. Methods
Because the intertidal byssal mussel Mytilus spp. is so
widely used as an indicator organism for pollutant bioaccumula-
tion from water, whole water samples were collected at the same
locations and water depths from which the Mytilus galloprovin-
cialis samples were obtained. The water and mussel collection
sites are illustrated in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. In Lauritzen
Channel, the site was the metal rudder on the northern end of an
abandoned ferryboat hull resting on the bottom of the eastern
bank of the channel. In Santa Fe Channel, the site was a slip
near the southeast end of a floating boathouse situated near the
northeast bank of the channel. In Richmond Inner Harbor Channel,
the site was a metal channel buoy (No. 16) situated at the.mouth
(southern end) of the channel.
Water (and mussel) samples were collected during both the
primary (October, 1991) and secondary (February, 1992) surveys.
During the first survey, a single water sample was collected from
each of the three sites on three successive days'(Oct. 7-9),
such that the set of three samples for a site covered as large a
range of tidal heights as possible. The mean of these values
constitute a 72 hour average water concentration, the sampling
of- the three channels was repeated during the second survey;
however, to obtain estimates of precision, a set of triplicate
water samples was collected at each of the three sites within a
one-hour period on Feb. 7, 1992 at an intermediate tidal height
(4.4-4.6 ft.).
Owing to the trace (parts-per-trillion) levels of the toxic
organic pollutants anticipated in the water samples, as little
processing of the samples as possible was conducted. As de-
scribed in Section 6.4.6., water samples were collected in
pre-cleaned 500 ml glass Wheaton bottles from a depth of about
0.3 meter, filling completely and recapping the bottles before
withdrawal above the water surface. At the end of each day of
water sampling, the cooler containing that day's water samples
was sent via air freight to the Newport laboratory. The samples
arrived the following morning for immediate processing of the
unfiltered whole water samples. During the second survey, at
120
-------
each of the three sites an additional pre-cleaned sample bottle
{selected randomly) was opened, held upside down just above the
water surface for approximately ten seconds, and then recapped
and bagged. These three "empty bottle travel blanks" were pro-
cessed to obtain information on possible contamination of the
water sample bottles, during transport, to and from the collection
sites, and as a result of the uncapping and recapping process.
8.2.3. Results
Appendix 8-4 lists the values for the individual water
samples while Table 8-12 summarizes the data for both surveys,
the estimated analytical detection limits, and laboratory and
field procedural blank values. Blanks usually were near or below
the detection limits; therefore, none of the water concentration
values have been corrected for blanks. All concentrations below
the detection limit have been treated as zero values for the
summary statistics, as discussed in Section 6.6. The tidal
ranges for. the October and February sampling periods are shown in
Table 8-12.
The results listed in Table 8-12 show that the dieldrin
concentrations measured in the triplicate samples of near-surface
water collected in February, 1992 from the Santa Fe Channel site
(1.7, 1.7, and 1.7 ng/L) were very precise, even though their
average was less than a factor of two above the detection limit
of the method (1.0 ng/L) . A similar result is seen for the
corresponding EDDT concentrations from the Richmond Channel site
(1.5, 1.5, and 1.3 ng/L). For the five cases yielding measurable
concentrations, the relative standard error values are all less
than ± 15 percent. There is no reason to conclude that this
level of precision is not approximately representative of what
would have been achieved by replicate sampling during the first
survey.
Application of the Student's t-test to the results in Table
8-12 showed that for both EDDT or dieldrin there were.no signif-
icant differences (p<0.05) between the measurable concentrations
obtained for the October, 1991 and the February, 1992 concentra-
tions from a given channel site. Thus, the six sample values for
SOOT or dieldrin at a site were averaged to obtain an estimate of
the typical near-surface whole water concentration during the
study period.
Standard ANOVA procedures were conducted to test the null
hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the
two survey average concentrations of EDDT and or dieldrin in the
whole water samples from the three channel sites. This H0 was
rejected (p<0.00i) for both pollutants. Application of the
Multiple Range Test showed that, in both cases, the Lauritzen
Channel concentration was significantly different (p<0.05) from
the concentrations measured at the other two channels, and that
the EDDT concentrations in the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel samples were significantly different (p<.05).
121
-------
8.2.4. Discussion
Applicability of Whole Water Samples: The unfiltered, whole
water values measured here include freely dissolved, DOM-associ- '
ated, and particulate-associated pollutants. These values are
compared to the WQC value for EDDT of 1.0 ng/L (the Saltwater'
Final Residue Value) which is based on bioaccumulation rather
than aquatic toxicity as the critical' path. Even though such
whole water samples are consistent with EPA's conservative policy
of applying water quality criteria on a whole-effluent toxicity
basis ("Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control", EPA Office of Water Report No. EPA-440/4-85-032,
September 1985), it is worth examining how these whole water
concentrations potentially affect the bioconcentratiori factors
(BCF) derived in this study. (As discussed in Section 8.4., the
bioconcentration factors in this study are referred to as BCFUW
to point out that they were derived from unfiltered water.)
The relationship used to derive the WQC value utilizes the
geometric mean (17,870) of available (percent lipid) normalized
BCF values (24 field-generated data points for 22 freshwater fish
and invertebrate species, and 18 laboratory-generated data points
for 16 fish and invertebrate species) . The mean of the -three
channel averages for the .(wet wt.) BCFUW values for SDDT, obtain-
ed from the mussel whole soft tissue and whole surface water
samples from the three channels, is 46,000 (Section 8.4.). Since
the mussels average about 1.3 percent lipid, the corresponding
normalized BCFUW value is about 35,000. Thus, an agreement
within a factor of 2 is obtained between the field-derived
normalized BCFUW values in this study and the normalized BCF
value of about 18,000 used to derive the chronic WQC for SDDT.
A similar situation exists for dieldrin. The WQC of 1.9
ng/L (the Saltwater Final Residue Value) is calculated using a
geometric mean (1,557) of two normalized BCF values (1,160 for
freshwater mussel (Lampsilis silicruoidea) and 2,300 for.spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus)) . In comparison, the mean of the three
channel average for the mussel (wet wt.) BCFUW value for dieldrin
is 8,200, and the corresponding normalized BCFUW is about 6,300
(Section 8.3.). In this case, there is agreement within a factor
of 4. -
For neither pollutant are the normalized BCFUW values ob-
tained from this field study markedly lower than the reference
normalized BCF values, which would be expected if the whole water
concentrations reported here were biased high owing to dominance
of a particulate-associated phase of SDDT and dieldrin concen-
trations that was not bioavailable. Further, as discussed in
Section 8.4., similar agreement was obtained between the field-
derived normalized BCFUW values for SDDT and for dieldrin in
fishes obtained in this study, and those used to derive the salt-
water WQC values. The similarity in the field and laboratory
BCFs probably was due, to a large part, to the low suspended load
of the water, as indicated by the lack of any noticeable turbid-
ity.
122
-------
Violations of Water Quality Criteria;
A major objective of the water sampling program was to
document the exposure of the water-column organisms to the target
pollutants. In view of the large gradients in distributions of
SDDT in -the survey area•observed previous to this study, it
seemed probable that large spatial gradients could lead to
significant temporal variation in near-surface water
concentrations as a result of tidal transport. Thus, in the
first {multi-day survey), the three collections per site were
spread over as large a period {three days) and tidal height range
(~ 2 to 6 ft.) as was practical..
The results listed in Table 8-12 show that much greater
variability in near7surface water concentrations was obtained in
the first survey than in the second. The major difference in
these two surveys was that the first incorporated a broad tidal
height variation while the second (where the triplicate sets all
were collected at one intermediate tidal height) did not. Assum-
ing that the high precision obtained- from the second survey is
representative of the single sample results obtained over varying
tidal height in the first survey, it is reasonable to conclude
that the temporal differences observed in the first survey are at
least partly a result of tidal transport, and therefore, averag-
ing over a broad range of tide and time provided the most repre-
sentative average concentrations for SDDT and dieldrin. Thus, by
incorporating data from receiving water samples collected on four
separate days at different tidal stages, we have obtained average
values for pollutant whole water concentrations that should be
applicable to the EPA chronic Water Quality Criteria for EDDT
(1.0 ng/L) and for dieldrin (1.9 ng/L) as a 24-hour average (U.S.
EPA 1980a; U.S. EPA 1980b).
The average value for SDDT (1.0 ± 0.3 ng/L) obtained at the
.mouth of Richmond Inner Harbor Channel is similar to the detec-
tion limits for the DDT compounds, and only three times the over-
all mean (0.3 ± 0.2 ng/L) of the three average blank values.
Thus, it is possible only to state that the whole water concen-
tration of EDDT at that site is similar to the chronic WQC value
of 1.0 ng/L. However, these data do indicate that there was an
approximate 50-fold gradient in the average concentration of SDDT
in the whole water samples obtained along the transect joining
the three sites. The average values obtained for the Santa Fe
Channel (8.6 ± 1.3 ng/L) and Lauritzen Channel (50 ± 6 ng/L)
sites both substantially exceed the chronic WQC value. • None of
the sites exceed the acute DDT WQC value of 130 ng/L.
Dieldrin was not detected at the Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel-site, and the average concentration (1.8 ± 0.4 ng/L)
obtained for the Santa Fe Channel site was less than twice the
detection limit (1.0 ng/L). Thus, again it is possible only to
state that the whole water concentration of dieldrin at that site
is similar to the WQC chronic value of 1.9 ng/L. At the minimum,
however, there was an approximate 20-fold gradient in the average
concentration of dieldrin in the whole water samples obtained
along the transect. The average value obtained for the Lauritzen
123
-------
Channel site (18 ± 3 ng/L) substantially exceeds the WQC chronic
value of 1.9 ng/L.
The water samples presented here are based on near-surface
water samples and the design did not address possible vertical
stratification in water concentrations. If such stratification
existed, it seems likely that the near-surface water samples
collected represented minimum rather than maximum concentrations
(or at least the lower rather than the higher portion of a. con-
centration range) . For example, water closer to the bottom might
have contained somewhat higher concentrations owing to a diffus-
ion gradient from the surficial sediment- overlying water inter-
face, or owing to a contribution from a nepheloid layer contain-
ing higher concentrations of particle-associated pollutants. If
so, epibenthic invertebrates and demersal fishes would have
experienced higher, not lower, whole water concentrations. Thus,
the present data may underestimate the water • exposure of bottom
organisms to a .certain extent.
Water-Sediment Ratios: One approach to predicting overlying
water concentrations is to derive empirical water-sediment ratios
(WSR) from the water and sediment values for each of the sites. .
The sediment concentration required to achieve any particular
overlying whole water concentration can then be predicted from:
where
Cs = C^/WSR Eq. 8-3
Cs = sediment concentration (pig/kg dry)
Q, = target whole water concentrations (jtg/1)
WSR = water-sediment ratio (kg/1)
This approach assumes that there is a relatively predictable
relationship between water and sediment concentrations at each
site but does not assume equilibrium partitioning. The assump-
tion of a relatively constant ratio is supported by the similar-
ity in EDDT and dieldrin water concentrations taken over three
stages of the tidal cycle on a single day (February sampling) and
by the similar mean values of EDDT and dieldrin from samples
taken four months apart. This consistency over several temporal
scales indicates that local WSRs are sufficiently constant to
predict long-term or "average" surface water concentrations.
However,-higher water concentrations, and hence higher WSRs,,
would be expected after storms or other events that resuspend
sediments or transport water with a substantially higher concen-
tration into a channel. Additionally, the WSRs are based on
surface water concentrations, and bottom water may have somewhat
different, and presumably higher, WSRs.
The WSRs for EDDT are given in Table 8-13 and dieldrin in
Table 8-14. These values are based .on the average water concen-
tration (Table 8-12) and average sediment concentration (see
124
-------
Table 8-31) for each of the channels. The range in WSRs based on
the maximum and minimum water concentrations from both sampling
periods are given as an indication of the potential range in the
values. The higher WSRs for dieldrin presumably reflect its
higher solubility compared to DDT and its metabolites (Table
4-2). The use of the WSRs to calculate the sediment
concentrations to achieve various water quality values is
discussed in Section 10.
The WSRs can also generate insight into the movement of
water-borne contaminants. The WSR for EDDT for Lauritzen Channel
is about 10-fold lower than that for Santa Fe and Richmond Inner
Harbor Channels, which are very similar. The WSR for dieldrin is
also lower in the Lauritzen than in the Santa Fe. A possible
explanation is that the more highly contaminated Lauritzen water
is tidally mixed with the Santa Fe and Richmond Harbor water,
resulting in a water concentration and, hence, WSR values in
these two channels higher than would be expected from exchange
with the local sediment.
The 4+ foot tidal range that occurred during the October,
1991 sampling is a likely mechanism for mixing of Lauritzen water
with the other sites. In the four cases in the October survey
where average concentrations were more than twice the detection
limit of the method, the highest concentration of SDDT or
dieldrin was obtained in the water sample collected at the lowest
of the three tidal stages at a given site. This observation is
.consistent with the hypothesis that the Lauritzen Channel bottom
sediments were the principal source of the observed contamination
to the overlying water, and that this contamination was
transported from Lauritzen Channel to the Santa Fe Channel and
Richmond Channel sites as evidenced by higher concentrations
there under ebb tide conditions.
125
-------
-Hja
CQ
oo
U
§
U
o
H
n
O
CO
r-
o
o
H
CTl
o
vo
in
o
o
fi
0)
N rH
4J (U
10
u) in m in
H H H H
in. in ^
...
00 O (N
^f in in
HHH
00
oo o
H H
o o
o o
H H
00 *f
. •
H O
vo m
. .
00 H
HHO
in
OOO
00
O
0
H
H
V
CO
CO
o
OJ
o
H fNJ H H
\f V
^ji in fo
• • .
o\ CN o
il H
IX S
CO
vo
H
o
o
m
•
H
O i
H i
o m
* *
H O
O O O I
• • • I
H . H H i
V V V
f)
H
0
v^
O1
H
V
Q
v
oo
H
0
H
CN
rO
H
O
M
O O i
• « i
H H i
V V
in u> in
« » •
H O O
II II
IX S
• CQ
o
in
o
o
o o
H H
V V
oq
O
O
O i
> i
H i
1 1
ivo
o
>
o
«j
m
4J
>
H
4J
U
(D
ti.3
TOO
tfWU
a
«
Q
CQ
n
£
J
M -H
0) rH
0) o S3
H JJ
io £
CJ fl)
04) fl$
§ 0 EH
IJQ Q
» ffl D
t-~~ W
I *W E t-H
e M i g
H a 5 a
IBJ30
vo
-------
TABLE 8-12B. Average percent composition of 25DDT measured in
overlying water samples.
SITE
2,4'DDE 4,4'DDE 2,4'ODD 4,4'ODD 2,4'DDT 4,4'DDT
October, 1991 Samj
Lauritzen Channel
Average
SE
Santa Fe Channel
Average
SE
Richmond Channel1
Average
SE
February, 1992 San
Lauritzen Channel
Average
SE
Santa Fe Channel
Average
SE
Richmond Channel
Average
SE
pies
0.3%
0.2%
3.1%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
tiples
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.2%
6.3%
1.5%
3.7%
3.7%
3.5%
0.1%
3.9%
0.4%
5.4%
0.4%
15.7%
0.7%
15.3%
0.8%
26.6%
6.8%
17.1%
0.1%
25.1%
6.0%
31.5%
8.3%
58.4%
3.0%
60.8%
11.9%
61.8%
4.7%
51.4%
0.7%
54.8%
4.5%
53.0%
3.5%
6.9%
0.8%
5.8%
4.1% '
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
0.1%
5.9% "
• 0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
f-
14.9%
2.2%
8.8%
3.6%
7.8%
7.8%
18.7%
0.7%
10.3%
0.8%
9.8%
9.8%
N = 3 for all samples, except the October Richmond Channel sample; see (1)
below
N
2 as all DDT isomers were below detection limits:
127
-------
£-»
Q
Q
5-1
O
0)
o
-H
OJ
2
4J
C
I
•H
•d
(D
0}
Q)
iJ
I
rH
00
I
o
g S H
X
o
H
X
CTi
O
H
X
VD
CO
O
O
4J
-rl
5
C
O
4J
U
0)
JJ
•3
a
a)
oo
-------
d
•H
r-t
•o
rH
(U
-H
•a
(Q
o
-H
fl
a)
•d
(D
CQ
i
r4
at
I
GO
•«
H
w
CO
I
o
X
vo
X!
o\
H
H
O
H
X
VO
H
m
o
r-
00
H
o
o
ITZEN
i
o
X
r-
o
H
O
H
X
CO
ID
O
H
X
H
VO
CO
rH
O
O
K
0}
g
VO
H
PS
U
•H
E
g
-H
U
U
ID
4J
m
ID
oo
0)
rH
I
O
-H
4J
id
JJ
c
ID
u
g
u
rl
0)
ID
4J
T>
ID
JJ
id
id
°-d
a a)
W T)
* 3
C!4J
-rl O
S C!
II
•H
CN
H
i
CO
ID
rH
I
g
JJ
2
jj
C
d)
u
g g
ID
JJ
id
jj
m
0)
CD
-------
8.3. INFAUNAL BIOACCUMULATION
8.3.1. Introduction
Accumulation of sediment pollutants by infaunal organisms
can result in deleterious effects on the benthos while predation
on contaminated infauna can serve as a route by which pollutants
enter the food web. To quantify the potential for these effects,
one goal of the bioaccumulation study was to assess the present
extent of bioaccumulation of DDT, its metabolites, and dieldrin
in infauna. The other goal was to derive values for sediment
bioaccumulation models, which would allow prediction of infaunal
tissue residues at different sediment pollutant concentrations.
One method used to assess bioaccumulation was 28-day
bioaccumulation tests with Macoma nasuta. Besides assuring
sufficient biomass for analytical analysis, laboratory tests with
a single species allow direct among-site comparisons {Lee, 1992;
Boese and Lee, 1992). As a check on whether 28 days was suffi-
cient to approach steady-state tissue residues> a long-term
kinetic study using sediment from one site was conducted. The
extent of bioaccumulation also was assessed by measuring tissue
residues in field-collected infauna.
The primary sediment bioaccumulation model used in this
study is the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) bioaccumulation model
{Rubinstein et al., 1987; Lake et al., 1987, 1990; Ferraro et
al., 1990, 1991; Lee, 1992; Landrum et al., 1992; Boese and Lee,
1992). This model was chosen, in part, because it directly
accounts for differences in sediment TOC and because it does not
require extensive toxicokinetic data. A key parameter in the
model is the "accumulation factor" (AF), the measure of pollutant
partitioning between sediment carbon and tissue lipids. The
approach taken was to derive AFs from the laboratory and field
infauna for each of the compounds. These site-specific AFs could
then be used to predict tissue residues in infaunal organisms at
different pollutant and/or TOC concentrations.
8.3.2. Methods: 28-Day Bioaccumulation Test Sediments:
A standard 28-day sediment bioaccumulationtest(Lee et al.,
1989, 1993; ASTM, in progress) was conducted using sediment {ap-
proximately lOOg) from each for the first five grabs at Stations
2-9 and the first eight grabs at Station 1. The sediment was
transported to Newport and stored at 4°C for approximately 1 to 2
weeks before being used in the bioaccumulation test. Control
sediment was surface sediment (top 5 cm) collected from the test
organism collection site in Yaquina Bay (Idaho Point mud flat),
Newport, Oregon.
Test Organisms: As a surface-deposit feeder, the tellinid
bivalve M. nasuta is an appropriate organism to measure sediment
bioavailability and it is frequently used in the assessment of
dredge materials (e.g., U.S. EPA/ACE, 1991). One to two weeks
before the experiment, M. nasuta (25 to 32 mm length) were
collected from the Idaho Point Mud Flat, Yaquina Bay, Newport,
Oregon. Clams were maintained in sediment from their collection
130
-------
site in fiberglass water tables which were supplied with flow-
through seawater (12-17°C, 25-32%°) - Twenty-four hours before
the start of the test, clams were removed from the holding
facility, verified as to species, measured {anterior to posterior
valve length), blotted dry, weighed, and a sequential number
written on one valve with an indelible marking pen.
Experiment Initiation and Maintenance: Twenty-four hours
before the start of the test, sediment from each grab was homoge-
nized by stirring, and then 100 g portions individually placed
into numbered, 250 ml beakers which were then submerged into an 8
liter aquarium. Each aquarium was supplied with flow-through
filtered seawater (1 /zm) at approximately 5 to 10 turnovers per
day (25-32%°) via gravity feed. Individual aquaria contained 5
beakers (i.e., the experimental units) all of which were col-
lected from the same station so as to reduce possible cross
contamination. (A discussion of experimental units, pseudo-
replication, and the importance of avoiding cross-contamination
as they relate to bioaccumulation tests is given in Lee et al.
(1989), Lee et al. (1993), and ASTM (in progress)). An addi-
tional 5 control beakers containing approximately lOOg of sedi-
ment collected from Yaquina Bay were prepared and placed in a
separate aquarium. The purpose of this negative control was to
test for system contamination and the viability of the test
organisms. All exposure aquaria were contained within a vented
biological exposure cabinet that had a controlled lighting cycle
(12L:12D).
After the beakers containing the sediment had been submerged
for 24 hours, numbered clams were randomly assigned to treatment
groups with one clam placed on the sediment surface in each
beaker. Five clams that had been assigned to the T0 control
group were sampled immediately prior to the exposure, composited
into a single sample and prepared for pollutant and lipid
analysis (Figure 8-4).
During the 28-day exposure period, water temperature was
checked daily (Mon - Fri) and turnover rate of each of the
aquaria was determined." Beakers were checked daily (Mon - Fri)
for obvious mortalities, and to determine if clams remained
buried during the test.
Sampling; At the end'of 28 days, clams were removed from
the beakers and allowed to purge their gut contents by placing
individual clams in 250 ml beakers containing lOOg of Yaquina Bay
control sediment for 24 hours. Purge beakers were segregated by
treatment in aquaria (8 liter) supplied with seawater at the same
temperature, salinity, and flow rates used in the 28-day test.
After purging, clams were weighed, sized, shucked, and the
pallial fluid discarded. Soft-tissue from each individual clam
was then frozen in liquid N2 and ground into a fine powder using
a mortar and pestle which was prechilled and filled with liquid
N2. The frozen powdered tissue was then separated into two
weighed portions, placed in sealed vials, and stored (-80°C)
until analyzed for lipids and pollutants (Figure 8-4) .
Data Analysis; Values below detection limits were used as
131
-------
zero (0) in calculating means and standard errors. 28-day tissue.
pollutant concentrations were corrected to steady-state tissue
residues using factors determined in the long-term kinetic
exposure described below. Mean tissue residue values were
compared among stations (ANOVA) and then compared individually to
the mean tissue residues in the control and reference sediment
treatments (t-test). The dry-weight residues for M. nasuta
reported here can be converted to wet-weights using a dry/wet
ratio of 0.147 (Specht and Lee, manuscript).
The accumulation factors were calculated from the EqP
bioaccumulation model:
Ct/L = AF * C3/TOC
or:
AF = (Ct/L)/(Cs/TOC)
Eg. 8-4
Eq. 8-5
Where:
Ct = Tissue pollutant cone, (jug/kg -dry-tissue) , values
corrected to steady-state.
L = Tissue lipid cone, (g lipid/g dry-tissue; decimal
fraction).
Cs = Sediment pollutant cone, (/ig/kg dry-sediment)
TOC = Total Organic Carbon content of sediment {g carbon/g
dry-sediment; decimal fraction).
AF = Accumulation Factor (g OC/g lipid).
AFs were calculated for each compound using, the individual
tissue residue and sediment concentrations from each individual
grab. -No AF was calculated if either the residue or the sediment
concentration was below the detection limit. AFs were compared
among stations (ANOVA) and regressed against TOC and sediment
pollutant concentration in order to determine if these factors
contributed to AF variation. Note that AFs are also referred to
as the "biota sediment accumulation factor" (BSAF).
8.3.3. Methods; Long-Term Kinetic Experiment
Sediments; ~-
Sediment used xn the kinetic exposure was collected from
Station l. Because of the large sediment requirement, the
sediment.was collected from several separate grabs taken after
those used to collect sediment for the 28-day-test or chemical
analysis. This sediment was homogenized by stirring and placed
into 1 gallon glass jars. These were stored at 4°C and rolled
twice daily for 30 minute intervals on a rolling mill to assure
that they remained aerobic. The control sediment used in this
132
-------
experiment was the same as that used for the 28-day test.
Test Organisms; Same as 28-test.
Experiment Initiation and Maintenance; As in the 28-day
test, test and control sediments (approximately lOOg) were placed
in 250 ml beakers in 8 liter aquaria with test and control sedi-
ments segregated into separate aquaria. The experiment was con-
current with the 28-day test. Test and control sediments were
changed in all remaining beakers following the 28-day and 60-day
sampling periods. Additionally, two gram portions of the appro-
priate sediment type was added to each beaker three times a week.
Sediments were added/replaced so as to maintain a more constant
pollutant concentration and to assure that the available food in
the surface layer fed on by M. nasuta was not depleted. This
replenishment sediment had been stored (4°C) since collection in
one gallon glass jars and rolled twice daily for 30 minute
intervals on a rolling mill to maintain aerobic conditions.
Sampling; Five clams exposed to the test sediment were
sampled following 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 28, 42, 60, and 90 days of
exposure, while five control clams were sampled following 28, 60,
and 90 days of exposure. Clams exposed for 28-90 days were
purged in- control sediment for 24 hours before homogenization.
However, clams exposed for 1-10 days were not purged but immedi-
ately homogenized. It was decided not to purge these clams
because depuration during purging could reduce the initially low
tissue residues below detection limits. Sample preparation for
pollutant arid lipid analysis was identical to that used in the
28-day test (Figure 8-4) with the exception that the five clams
from each sampling interval were combined into a single composite
sample before splitting into the lipid and pollutant analytical
portions.
Data Analysis; Tissue residues for each pollutant were
plotted against exposure time and the time to steady-state
visually evaluated. When the slope of the plot approached zero,
the steady-state tissue residue was estimated from the mean of
the tissue residues at that and all subsequent sampling periods.
In cases where the uptake -curve did not become asymptotic, the
steady-state tissue residue was estimated from the highest value
attained at either day 60 or day 90. The steady-state values
were used to determine a steady-state correction factor for 28-
day tissue residues at all stations.
8.3.4. Methods; Field Infauna Organisms Collection and
Sample Preparation:
Infauna collected from grabs (October, 1991 sampling} were
purged for 24 hours by placing them in buckets (one bucket for
each station) which contained Yaquina Bay control sediment (see
Section 6.4.4.). This sediment was covered with water from the
collection site and aerated with a bubbler. After 24 hours, the
organisms were removed from purge buckets and frozen for shipment
back to Newport. The incidental infauna caught in the trawl
samples in the February sampling period were not purged. In
Newport, bivalves were thawed and then prepared for tissue
133
-------
pollutant and lipid analysis using the same method as in the 28-
day test {Figure 8-4). For Pachycerianbhus fimbriatus. the
entire organism was homogenized and similarly prepared for
pollutant and lipid analysis. Individual organisms were analyzed
when possible; however, in several cases it was necessary to
composite individuals of the same species from the same, site in
order to obtain sufficient tissue for analysis.
Data Analysis; Both the infauna collected in grabs and
trawls were used to increase the number of replicates. AFs.were
calculated for infauna captured in grabs using the average
station sediment concentrations (Table 8-1 and 8-2) . Average
station sediment concentrations were used because some of the
infauna were collected from additional biological grabs from
which sediment concentrations were not analyzed. The average
sediment concentrations for the trawl stations were used to
calculate AFs in individuals captured in trawls (Table 8-30 and
8-31). As in the 28-day analysis, values below detection limits
were set to zero (0) in calculating means and standard errors but
were excluded in calculating AFs. To determine if there were
differences in uptake by feeding type, the AFs for the filter-
feeding bivalves collected from the Lauritzen Channel, Tapes
japonica and Musculus senhousia. were compared (t-test) to the
AFs derived from Macoma nasuta., a deposit feeder, also collected
from the"Lauritzen Channel.
8.3.5. Results/Discussion:
Macoma nasuta, - Survival and Growth; Measures of live wet
weight and shell length from day 0 of the 28-day and 210-day
kinetic (90 day uptake/120 depuration phase which is not dis-
cussed here) laboratory exposures show that M. nasuta grew
slowly, if at all. Because the season for rapid growth for this
clam in Oregon is normally May to July, when phytoplankton
sedimenting from the water column are abundant, lack of growth
from mid-October through early May is not unexpected. The
indication of growth in the 4 remaining individuals at day 210
could, in fact, have resulted from increased phytoplankton
concentrations from mid-April to mid-May in the flow-through
aquaria. Although not much growth took place, mortality was low
(-4%) and within suggested guidelines (Lee et al., 1989, 1993).
The low mortality and maintenance of weight indicates that the
sediments constituted an adequate substrate and diet for these
clams. The lack of substantial growth obviated the need to
incorporate growth dilution into the bioaccumulation calcula-
tions. . -
Long-Term Kinetic Exposure: The individual residue values
from the kinetic exposure are listed in Appendix 8-5. Ideally, a
28-day laboratory bioaccumulation test estimates tissue residues
within 80% of the steady-state value (Lee et al., 1989, 1993).
The plot of EDDT versus time (Figure 8-5) is typical of the
results for dieldrin and DDT metabolites. It .is apparent from
these plots that the time to steady-state usually required more
than 42 days of exposure. Thus, with two exceptions, steady-
134
-------
state tissue residues were estimated as the average of the tissue
pollutant concentrations at days 60 and 90. The two exceptions
were 2,4'-DDT and 4,4'-DDT. For 2,4'-DDT, the 90-day residue was
below detection limits, suggesting analytical or sampling error.
However, there was no apparent difference between the day 42 and
60 values; therefore, the estimate of steady-state was calculated
as the mean of those two values. For 4,4'-DDT, the tissue
residue appeared not to attain steady-state by 90 days of
exposure. Therefore, 'the best estimate of steady-state is the
highest tissue residue attained in the experiment (i.e., day 90).
As these, two compounds constituted less than 2% of the EDDT in
tissues, any error associated with estimating their steady-state
tissue residues would introduce negligible error in estimating
the EDDT steady-state tissue residue.
Comparison of 28-day composite residues to the steady-state
tissue residues (Table 8-15) indicates that the 28-day exposure
generally attained only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the apparent steady-
state values. Although the kinetic study was conducted only with
sediment from Station l, the percentage of the steady-state resi-
dues attained should be applicable to the other stations based on
the first-order kinetic bioaccumulation model:
Ct(t) »
(1 -
-k2t
e )
Eq. 8-6
Where:
Ct(t) = pollutant concentration in tissue at time t
Cs = pollutant concentration in sediment.
ks = sediment uptake rate coefficient
(g-sed-g-tissue"1-day"1)
k2 = elimination rate constant, (day"1)
t = time (days)
Pollutant uptake of many dissolved and sediment-associated
pollutants are accurately described by this first-order kinetic
model (e.g., Spacie and Hamelink, 1982; Davies and Dobbs, 1984;
Landrum et al., 1983, 1992) and plots of the present data are
generally consistent with the model. This model predicts the
time to steady-state is a function of the elimination rate con-
stant, k2, and independent of the pollutant concentration (see
Lee et al., 1989, Landrum et al. 1992). Therefore, the correc-
tion factors derived from Station 1 (Table 8-15) are applicable
to the other, stations.
28-Day Test Tissue Residues; The individual (uncorrected)
residue values from the 28-day exposures are listed in Appendix
8-6. Table 8-16 presents the mean 28-day laboratory tissue
135
-------
residues for M. nasuta that have been corrected to steady-state
for each of the pollutants and stations. Table 8-16 also
presents the individual residue values for the eight M. nasuta
captured in grabs at the same stations.
The corrected laboratory results compare favorably to tissue
residue in Macoma collected at the same stations. Sixty-three
percent of the dieldrin and DDT derivative tissue residues in the
field M. nasuta fall within the 95% confidence intervals of the
corrected 28-day tissue residues (Table 8-16). Of the sixteen
comparisons for EDDT and dieldrin, only one field value deviated
by more than 3-fold from the laboratory residue. These results
indicate that the corrected 28-day tissue residues can predict
field tissue residues in the same species within 2- to 3-fold.
Table 8-16 also compares 28-day tissue residues from test
sediments to Yaquina Bay control (Station.0) and Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel Station 9, which is used as a local reference
sediment. For EDDT, all residues from the test stations were
significantly different than control and reference residues (t-
test, p<0.05). For individual DDT derivatives and dieldrin, test
organisms exposed to Lauritzen Channel sediment and, to a lesser
extent, those exposed to Santa Fe Channel sediment tended to have
tissue residues that were significantly different than control
and reference M. nasuta. Exceptions are 2,4'-DDT and 2,4'-DDE,
where tissue residues were near detection limits, and dieldrin
and 2,4'-DDD in clams exposed to sediment from Station l, due to
high variability.
Mean 28-day tissue residues are displayed in homologous
groups by station (Figure 8-6) using a multiple range test
(Scheffe Method). For most compounds, residues in Lauritzen
Channel Stations 1-3 were similar and higher than the other sta-
tions. Tissue residues in clams exposed to Stations 5-7 sedi-
ments were similar but lower than those from Lauritzen Channel.
Residues at Station 4 at the mouth.of Lauritzen Channel were
intermediate in concentration. .This -is suggestive of a graded
response from the suspected source of the pollutant in Lauritzen
Channel to other areas in the study site.
Regression Bioaccumulation Models: Regression models of the
natural log of the 28-day tissue residues in Jd. nasuta versus the
natural log of the bulk sediment concentration, organic-normal-
ized sediment concentration, and total interstitial water concen-
tration were determined for SDDT and dieldrin (Table 8-17). All
interstitial water samples
-------
where TOC was found to be important.
The EDDT total interstitial water concentration regression
model was not as good as those with the bulk or carbon normalized
sediment concentrations. For dieldrin, however, the interstitial
water explained more of the variation than the bulk sediment or
organic normalized concentrations. The poorer regression with
EDDT interstitial water concentrations could be a result of
ingested sediment rather than interstitial water being the dom-
inant uptake route for DDT, as was found for hexachlorobenzene
uptake into M. nasuta (Boese et'al., 1990). Alternatively, the
poorer fit may be due to the greater variation inherent in
interstitial water measurements at the part per trillion (ppt)
level compared to sediment measurements at ppb or ppm levels.
Based on the r2 values, the regression model using carbon-
normalized concentrations is the best predictor of SDDT residues;
whereas, the regression using the interstitial water concentra-
tion is the best predictor of dieldrin tissue residues. Both of
these regressions explain approximately 90% of the variation,
allowing precise predictions of the residues of both compounds.
It is important to note that these equations are based on 28-day
tissue residues, so that the predicted SDDT residue would have to
be multiplied by 2.9 and the predicted dieldrin residue by 1.7 to
estimate the steady-state tissue residues (see Table 8-15). It
is also important to note that these equations are based on M.
nasuta. and they may not accurately predict residues in other
species, especially filter feeders, as discussed below.
EqP Bioaccumulation Model; Table 8-18 presents the APs for
each of the stations and pollutants calculated from the corrected
28-day tissue residues. As expected, AFs showed much less among-
station variation than did the tissue residues. Significant
differences among stations were noted only for dieldrin, 2,4'-
DDT, and 4,4'-DDT (ANOVA, p<.05). The differences noted for
2,4'-DDT may be discounted due to the limited data set. Likewise
the differences noted for dieldrin are likely due to a single AF
value. For 4,4'-DDT, Stations 8 and 9 had significantly greater
AFs than all the other sites, which were statistically indistin-
guishable (multi-range test, Scheffe method). These higher AF
values occurred in the two stations with the lowest TOC and
pollutant concentrations among the primary stations, which is
consistent with previous reports of higher AFs in low TOC and/or
low pollutant concentration sediments (Rubinstein et al., 1987;
McElroy and Means, 1988; Ferraro et al., 1990; Lake et al.,
1990).
AF values (Table 8-18) compare favorably to values (cor-
rected to steady-state) reported by White et al., (1993) for M.
nasuta exposed to sediment composites from the same study area.
In general, White's AF values for 4,4 DDT, 4,4 DDD, 4,4 DDE, and
dieldrin fall within the upper part of the range of values for
stations in Lauritzen Channel and the Santa Fe Channel. White's
mean values for dieldrin in the Santa Fe Channel and for SDDT in
Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels are within 2 to 3-fold of our
overall mean value (AF =0.9 and 1.51, respectively). White's
137
-------
mean dieldrin AF for Lauritzen Channel is 4-fold higher {AF =
5.76) than ours. These AF differences are likely due to the
larger tissue bioaccumulations for EDDT and dieldrin that occur-
red in White's study compared to ours (see below discussion head-
ing: Comparison of DDT and dieldrin Residues to other Studies). .
However, this reasoning cannot explain White's AFs for Richmond
Harbor (mean AF for SDDT and dieldrin = 48.4 .and 40.5), which are
the highest AF values ever reported.
Although mean AFs were similar across stations, there could
be as much as an order-of-magnitude variation within individuals
exposed to the same sediment. These results suggest that bio-
logical variation (e.g., feeding rate) rather than site condi-
tions (e.g., grain size) have the major effect on AFs. Much of
this biological variation can be "averaged out" by pooling the
samples from all the sites. Thus, 95% confidence limits for the
pooled AFs for EDDT and dieldrin have less than a 2-fold range
(Table 8-18). Therefore, the EqP bioaccumulation model using the
overall mean AFs in Table 8-18 could be used to predict mean
tissue residues of EDDT and dieldrin in M. nasuta with an accu-
racy of about two-fold. Extrapolation of AF values from M.
nasuta to other species would result in- a less accurate predic-
tion, and as discussed below, could overestimate tissue residues
in filter feeders.
Field Infauna Tissue Residues and AFs; The mean SDDT and
dieldrin tissue residues for field-collected infauna by species
within a channel and pooled across species are given in Table 8-
19, while Appendix 8-7 lists the individual values. Because the
of the need to obtain sufficient biomass for chemical analysis,
field tissue-residue values are limited to larger bivalves and
Pachycerianthus fimbriatus. a tube-dwelling sea anenome. Al-
though the taxonomic representation was limited, these organisms
were the biomass dominants. Mollusks constituted 63.-8% of the
average biomass at all the stations, while P. fimbriatus con-
stituted over 90% of the biomass at one station.
The residues in the field-collected Macoma and filter-
feeders showed the same pattern as the laboratory-exposed Macoma.
Tissue residues of both SDDT and dieldrin are at least 10-fold
higher in Lauritzen Channel than in Santa Fe Channel; while
residues are about 2-fold to 10-fold higher in Santa Fe than in
the Richmond Harbor Channel.
.The mean accumulation factors derived from the field tissue
residues are summarized in Table 8-20. Field AFs for M. nasuta
were similar to the corrected laboratory Macoma values, and all
the site values were within 2-3 fold of the overall laboratory
value. The AFs for both SDDT and dieldrin were higher for field-
collected M. nasuta than the filter-feeding bivalves. In
Lauritzen, the M. nasuta AF for SDDT were approximately 20-fold
and 6-fold higher than those for Tapes japonica and Musculus
senhousia. respectively (p<0.05, t-test). For dieldrin, these AF
differences were also significant (p<0.05, t-test). Across all
the sites, Macoma nasuta AFs were about 8-fold larger than the
filter-feeder average. These results are consistent with other
138
-------
studies that have found lower AFs in filter-feeding organisms
compared to deposit feeders (e.g., Lake et al., 1990).
As a result of these species-specific differences, predators
on benthic organisms could have substantially different exposures
depending upon their preferred infaunal prey.' In general, the
AFs for M- nasuta would be the best predictor of residues in the
prey of predators feeding on Macoma and polychaetes, many of
which ingest sediment. The filter-feeder "AF would be 'the best
predictor of residues in the prey of predators feeding on surface
bivalves, such as Musculus. The average of all the species would
be the best predictor of residues in the prey of generalist
predators. The use of these AFs to predict exposure to benthic
feeding fishes is discussed in Section 9.4.
The average site AFs for both BDDT and dieldrin show a
pattern of the lowest values in Lauritzen and the highest values
in Richmond (SDDT) or Santa Fe (dieldrin
-------
Harbor. Another potential advantage of the EqP model is that it
directly accounts for differences in sediment TOC and/or in lipid
content of the organism. Conversely, the advantage of the
regression equations is that they do not require lipid values or
TOC if the bulk sediment regressions are used. We recommend
using the EqP model for M. nasuta if both TOC and lipid data are
available; otherwise, use the bulk sediment regressions. For
other species, we recommend using the EqP model with AF values
derived from the species of concern or, if not available, from
species of the same feeding type.
Comparison of DDT and Dieldrin Residues to Other Studies;
The studies most comparable to the present one are the assessment
of bioavailability of sediment pollutants off the Los Angeles
County sewage outfall (Ferraro et al., 1990) and at the United
Heckathorn site (White et al., 1993).
In the Ferraro study, a 28-day sediment bioaccumulation test
was conducted with M. nasuta. though only 4,4'DDD and 4,4'DDE
were analyzed. Los Angeles differs from San Francisco Bay in .
that 4,4' DDE rather than 4,4'DDD is the dominant metabolite,
presumably because of different degradation pathways during
sewage digestion. The highest total tissue residues of 4,4' ODD
and 4,4' DDE in clams exposed to the Southern California sediment
was 20,000 M9/^9 (dry weight). In comparison, the total residue
of the two 4,4'-metabolites was 29,240 /jg/kg after 28 days expos-
ure to Station 1 sediment (Table 8-21). Thus, Macoma tissue
residues were up to a third higher in.the most contaminated area
of Lauritzen Channel than off the Los Angeles County sewage
discharge, a site known for DDT contamination.
In the White et al., (1993) study, sediment cores were taken
from multiple sites in the Lauritzen Channel, Santa Fe Channel,
and Richmond Harbor study areas, and a 28-day bioaccumulation --
test was conducted using M. nasuta. Test sediments used in this
28-day test were composites which combined the upper 1 ft of
multiple cores from.the study area. Three of these composites
(Comp LC, Comp USFC, and Comp 1HC-1) roughly correspond, respect-
ively, to Stations 1-4, 5-6 and 7. - •
Clams exposed to Lauritzen Channel sediment (Comp LC) in
White's study, took up approximately twice the EDDT (mean =
35,000 /xg/kg dry weight) . in a 28-day test compared to the clams
in the present study .(mean = 16,000 fig/kg dry weight)1. Clams
exposed to Comp LC bioaccumulated 3 times the dieldrin (mean =
2,100 /tg/kg dry weight) than those in the present study (mean =
670 /ig/kg dry weight) . Uptake of BDDT and dieldrin at the other
two comparable sites was also greater than in the present study.
As in the present study, the dominant DDT isomer taken up by the
test organisms was 4,4 DDD, which accounted for 70 to 90% of the
SDDT tissue residue (ibid) . Isomers of 2,4 DDT were not reported
•Tissue residue values from the present study that are
compared to White's values are 28-day values and have not been
corrected to steady-state.
140
-------
in White et al. (1993).
The reason why clam 28 -day SDDT and dieldrin bioaccum-
ulations are 27fold greater in White's study than in ours is not
readily apparent. Exposure methods were nearly identical and
were conducted at approximately the same time of year. Exposure
sediment pollutant concentrations and TOG were similar,
especially in the Lauritzen Channel test sediments (mean SDDT in
our study = 50,500 jtg/kg dry weight, Comp LC composite = 53,886
^g/kg dry weight) .
Comparison of DDT and Dieldrin Residues to Other Compounds:
We had intended to indirectly compare DDT and dieldrin tissue
residues to other compounds. To do this we measured PAH and PCB
sediment concentrations at three selected sites (Stations 2,6,
and 9) in the study area (Tables 8-7, 8-8, and 8-9) . The M-
nasuta tissue residues were then estimated using site specific
AF's derived from a 28-day bioaccumulation test conducted by
Battelle (Pinza et al,, 1992). However, after our study, White
et al., (1993) conducted an additional 28-day bioaccumulation
test in the study area. In that study, a 2 8 -day M. nasuta bio-
accumulation test was conducted using composite sediments from
Lauritzen Channel (Comp LC) , Santa Fe Channel (Comp USFC) and
Richmond Harbor (1HC-1) . These sediments are directly comparable
to some of the sediments used in the 28-day test in the present
study (Table 8-21) . M. nasuta tissue residues for PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and metals were measured. Using these data provides
a more direct approach to the assessment of the relative ecolog-
ical risk associated with SDDT and dieldrin.
In White |:s study, M. nasuta bioaccumulated pesticides in
addition to dieldrin. These included endrin, aldrin, chlordane
(trans- and cis-), and endosulfan. The greatest bioaccumulations
of these other pesticides occurred in clams exposed to Lauritzen
Channel sediments, with tissue residues of trans -Chlordane being
the largest (700 /*g/kg dry weight) . Bioaccumulations of these
pesticides were also measured in some of the clams exposed to
sediments composited from Santa Fe Channel. However, in many of
cases the values were at or near instrument detection limits
(ibid) .
White et al. (1993) reported that PAH's and PCB's were
bioaccumulated by clams exposed to all of their composite test
sediments. The greatest uptake occurred from exposures to
sediment from Lauritzen Channel (Comp LC) and in sediments from
the upper reaches of the Santa Fe Channel (USFC) . Total PAH's
for these two sites was approximately 5,500 /ig/kg dry weight
(Table 8-21). PCBs were bioaccumulated to the greatest extent in
clams exposed to Lauritzen Channel sediment, with residues of
approximately, half that amount measured in clams exposed to
sediment composites from the upper and lower reaches of the Santa
Fe Channel (ibid) .
Comparison of these values to tissue residues of SDDT
(Table 8-21) , indicates that DDT dominates the tissue residues in
clams exposed to Lauritzen Channel sediment. However, in Santa
Fe Channel and Richmond Harbor, PAH's become the largest contri-
141
-------
butor to tissue residues. In Santa Fe Channel, this result may
be partially explained by the high sediment PAH concentrations
found at our Station 6 (Table 8-9) , which was included in the
Comp USFC sediment used- in White's study. As discussed in
Section 6.6.7, Station 6 was chosen as a "worst case" for PAH
contamination based on the oil observed in the sediment. This
observation was confirmed by White et al., (1993) who found that
sediment composites from the upper reaches of the Santa Fe Chan-
nel (Comp USFC) had a total PAH concentration of 9,000 jig/kg dry
weight. This concentration was considerably greater than that of
sediment from the lower reaches of the Santa Fe Channel {1,800
M9/k9 drY weight) . Therefore, the large relative contribution to
tissue residues of PAHs in the upper Santa Fe Channel may repre-
sent a localized phenomenon.
PCB's increased in relative importance in Santa Fe Channel
and Richmond Harbor, but concentrations in clam tissue was always
less than for EDDT (Table 8-21) . The measured tissue residue of
Aroclor 1254 in Lauritzen sediment (ibid) was a trivial percent-
age of the SDDT residues measured in M. nasuta (Table 8-21) . The
measured Aroclor 1254 tissue residue (ibid) was in the same range
of PCB residues in measured in M. nasuta (300-530 /*g/kg dry
weight) exposed to sediment from a reference site in Santa Monica
Bay, California (Ferraro et al., 1990). Although PCB residues
were relatively more important in the Santa Fe Channel, they were
still only a quarter of the Santa Fe SDDT residues. Santa Fe
Channel and Richmond Harbor PCB residues (Table 8-21) were lower
than residues at the Santa Monica reference site, and thus did
not appear to constitute a high residue in an absolute sense.
As mentioned previously and in Section 3.1.3., Battelle
(Pinza et al., 1992) conducted 28-day sediment bioaccumulation
with M. nasuta and the polychaete Nephtys ceasoides using sedi-
ment from the Inner Richmond Harbor, San Francisco Bay and off-
shore reference sites. Pinza 's COMP V and COMP VI cover the west
and east side of Richmond Harbor Channel, respectively. Our
Stations 8, 17, 18, and 009 fall within COMP V. The only com-
pounds other than DDT and dieldrin showing significant (p<0.1)
increases in tissue residues in comparison to the San Francisco
Bay references were Aroclor 1254 and pyrene. When compared to
the offshore reference sites, significant uptake of f luoranthene ,
chrysene, lead, and arsenic were observed in some cases. Though
this study showed a few compounds had significantly elevated
residues compared to reference sites, the relative increases were
not large, especially when compared to DDT metabolites.
Metal data reported by White et al., (1993) were similar to
that reported by Pinza et al. (1992). Based on the AVS and SEM
analysis (Table 8-10) , concentrations of bioavailable metals are
not sufficient to result in toxicity.
These comparisons indicate that SDDT is by far the dominant
bioaccumulable compound in Lauritzen Channel. Besides being high
in a relative sense, the residues are very high in an absolute
sense, with S(4,4'-DDD+ 4, 4 '-DDE) residues at Lauritzen exceeding
those found in Macoma exposed to the most contaminated sediment
142
-------
off the Los Angeles County sewage discharge (Perraro et al.t
1990}. Although, Lauritzen Channel dieldrin.residues were less
than a tenth of the EDDT residues, they were considerably greater
than the measured PCB residues and about half of the total PAH
residues measured by White et al. (1993). In the heavily oiled
sediments of the upper reaches of the Santa Fe Channel, total PAH
residues exceeded EDDT residues by several fold. EDDT residues
were sufficiently low in the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel that
PAHs rather than SDDT were the dominant residue.
143
-------
TABLE 8-15. Comparison of 28-day and steady-state pollutant
tissue residues in Macoma nasuta from the kinetic exposure with
sediment from Station 1.
Tissue residues = M9/kg, dry weight. 28d Ct = tissue
concentration at 28 days {composite sample from kinetic expos-
ure} , SS Ct = calculated tissue concentration at steady-state, %
SS = percent of steady-state attained after 28-days, SS Factor =
factor used to correct 28-day tissue residues to steady-state
tissue residues.
Compound
2, 4 '-DDE
4,4' -DDE
2,4' -DDD
4,4' -DDD
2,4 '-DDT
4,4' -DDT
SDDT
Dieldrin
28d Ct
31.4
1,335.5
2,393.7
27,905.
30.0
150.6
31,847.
730.4
SS Ct
74. 8a
2,749.0a
4,334.3a
85, 095. a
54. 7b
1,634.6C
93, 384. a
l,248.4a
% SS
42
49
55
33
55
9
34
58
SS Factor
2.4
2.1
1.8
3.0
1.8
10.8
2.9
1.7
a = Mean of 60 and 90 day samples used to estimate SS.
b = Mean of 42 and 60 day samples used to estimate SS.
c = 90 day sample used as estimate of SS.
144
-------
TABLE 8-16. Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in 28-day
test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in field-
collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: 2,4'-DDE
STATION
CONTROL
"0"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEAD Y-
STATE
MEANS
1.25
98.20
89.34
90.37C
16.48CR
22.84
22.44
25.43
3.19
1.69
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL (CORRECTED
TO STEADY- STATE)
0.0 - 5.21
0.0 - 222.77
0.0 - 219.53 '
0.0 - 180.87
4.50 - 28.45 •
0.0 - 83.65
0.0 - 55.01
0.0 - 92.29
0.0 - 9.24
0.0 - 8.98
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
61.60
95.05
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd). Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M- nasuta.
COMPOUND: 4,4'-DDE
STATION
CONTROL
"0"
1
2
3 -
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY -
STATE
MEANS
10.31R
2,677.78CR
2,865.59CR
3,085.79CR
574.95CR
219.64CR
594.84CR
137.61CR
60.21CR
18.46C
N
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE .
INTERVAL {CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
6.54 - 14.08
1,466.06 - 3,889.51
1,445.64 -.4,285.54
2,266.39 - 3,905.19
485.23 - 664.66
149.79 - 289.49
368.29 - 821.41
36.90 - 238.31
42.77 - 77.66
10.76 - 26.18
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
1,693.96
•3,345.12
1,737.90
2/662.43
475.90
1,901.00
422.12
-
-
150.14
-_
3 OF 8
Tissue residues are in /jg/kg dry tissue weight.
"N" = the number of clams per treatment in the laboratory exposure.
The 95% confidence limits are for the laboratory residues corrected to steady
state.
Superscripts "C" and "R" denote that the laboratory tissue residues at a site
were significantly different than the Control or Reference residues (t-test,
p<0.05).
Field values are individual residues for the eight clams collected in grabs.
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd) , Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: 2,4'-ODD
STATION
CONTROL
IIQII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY-
STATE
MEANS
0
4,491.66
5,092.48°
4,733.22CR
"428.35CR
104.94
115 . 74CR
90.52
9.55
. 1.71
N
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL (CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
NA
0.0 - 10,020.2
155.90 - 10,029.0
1,074.54 - 8,391.91
329.87 - 526.83
0.0 - 242.96
57.67 - 173.80
0.0 - 233.27
0.0-27.67
0.0 - 9.04
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
2,661.46
4,298.73
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd). Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed"in
28-day test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M, nasuta.
COMPOUND: 4,4'-DDD
STATION
CONTROL
n 0"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY -
STATE
MEANS
3.60R
40,508. 7CR
44,159.2CR
61,147.8CR
6,641.24CR
1,058.97CR
1,085.95CR
761.36CR
158.26CR
32.27C
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL (CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
0.0 - 10.30
23,061.0 - 57,956.4
15,212.6 - 73,105.7
11,220.5 - 111,075.0
5,717.23 - 7,565.26
20.53 - 2,097.41
838.56 - 1,333.33
205.57 - 1,317.16
96.67 - 219.84
14.39 - 50.16
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
19,408.87
34,805.90
15,217.10
23,252.72
3,207.17
12,770.97
1,041.60
-
-
490.47
-
4 OF 8
Tissue residues are in /jg/kg dry tissue weight.
"N" = the number of clams per treatment in the laboratory exposure.
The 95% confidence limits are for the laboratory residues corrected to steady
state.
Superscripts "C" and "R" denote that the laboratory tissue residues at a site
were significantly different than the Control or Reference residues (t-test,
p<0.05).
Field values are individual residues for the eight clams collected in grabs.
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd) . Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day test, corrected to 'steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: 2,4'-DDT
STATION'
CONTROL
"O"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY-
STATE
MEANS
0
4.93
20.14
36.02
12.04
14.31
1.67
15.03
0
0
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL (CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
NA
0.0 - 18.61
0.0 - 69.71
0.0 - 88.79
0.0 - 28.86
0.0 - 59.86
0.0 - 6.99
0.0 - 51.50
NA
NA
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
60.11 .
1,639.47
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd) . Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: 4,4'-DDT
STATION
CONTROL
"0"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY -
STATE '
MEANS
31.51
3,424.63CR
6,654.82CR
5,413.14C
1,328.84CR
259.17
349. 96C
• 329.22
124.52
65.82
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL {CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
0.0 - 131.79
2,668.42 - 4,180.83
2,455.66 - 10,854.0
124.19 - 10,702.1
538.82 - 2,118.85
0.0 - 557.71
0.0 - 734.20
0.0 - 784.17
0.0 - 356.94
0.0 - 217.24
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
1,017.39
1,483.46
595,67
839.14
170.83
223.97
152.67
-
-
39.76
-
6 OF 8
Tissue residues are in /zg/kg dry tissue weight.
"N" = the number of clams per treatment in the laboratory exposure.
The 95% confidence limits are for the laboratory residues corrected to steady
state.
Superscripts "C" and "R" denote that the laboratory tissue residues at a site
were significantly different than the Control or Reference residues (t-test, -
p<0.05) .
Field values are individual residues for the eight clams collected in grabs.
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd). Tissue residues-in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: SDDT
STATION
CONTROL
"0"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEADY -
STATE
MEANS
27.68R
5i,945.1CR
56,776.3CR
72,617.4CR
8,300.09CR
1,616.31CR
2,181.45CR
1,215.19CR '
288.81CR
79.17C
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL {CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
6.29 - 49.07
25,268.9 - 78,621.3
18,767.8 - 94,784.9
16,885.9 - 128,349.0
7,064.33 - 9,535.86
374.18 - 2,858.44
1,591.76 - 2,771.14
139.56 - 2,290.83
165.89 - 411.74
29.28 - 129.06
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C . I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
24,903.40
45,667.74
17,550.67
29,678.87
4,076.08
15,745-. 15
1,692.21
-
-
718.91
"
4 OF 8
Tissue residues are in fig/kg dry tissue weight.
"N" = the number of clams per treatment in the laboratory exposure.
The 95% confidence limits are for the laboratory residues corrected to steady
state.
Superscripts "C" and "R" denote that the laboratory tissue residues at a site
were significantly different than the Control or Reference residues (t-test,
p<0.05).
Field values are individual residues for the eight clams collected in grabs.
-------
TABLE 8-16 (cont'd) . Tissue residues in Macoma nasuta exposed in
28-day.test, corrected to steady-state values and residues in
field-collected M. nasuta.
COMPOUND: DIELDRIN
STATION
CONTROL
"0"
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
REFERENCE
9
CORRECTED
STEAD Y-
STATE
MEANS
5.40
1,354.37
1,669.98CR
1,392. 3CR
141.29CR
32.31
68.92C
29.20
0
0
N
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL (CORRECTED
TO STEADY -STATE)
0.0 - 22.60
0.0 - 2,846.15
641.60 - 2,698.36
569.84 - 2,214.75
39.74 - 242.85
0.0 - 75.97
0.0 - 145.73
0.0 - 94.11
NA
NA
FIELD VALUES WITHIN 95% OF C. I.
INDIVIDUAL
FIELD
VALUE (S)
-
822.74
2,550.45
632.14
747.87
95.69
311.89
50.56
.
-
-------
TABLE 8-17. Simple linear regression equations of natural log
(In) of SDDT and dieldrin tissue residues {TR} in Macoma nasuta
exposed for 28 -days in a laboratory test versus the natural log
of the bulk sediment concentration, organic -normalized sediment
concentration and total interstitial water concentration.
Units are as follows: TRa = ^9/^9 dry weight; Bulk sediment = /ig/kg dry
weight; Carbon Normalized Sediment concentrations = (/xg/kg OC) ; Total
Interstitial Water = ng/1. .
EDDT: BULK SEDIMENT
LN TR = 1.353 + 0.787 LN (X)
SDDT: CARBON-NORMALIZED SEDIMENT'
LN TR = -3.166 + 0.860 LN (X)
SDDT: TOTAL INTERSTITIAL WATER
LN TR - 2.434 + 0.957 LN (X)
DIELDRIN: BULK SEDIMENT
LN TRb = -0.354 + 1.089 LN (X)
DIELDRIN: CARBON-NORMALIZED SEDIMENT
LN TRb = -2.579 + 1.196 LN (X)
DIELDRIN: TOTAL INTERSTITIAL WATER
LN TR = 2.988 + 0.726 LN (X)
r2 = 0.925, p<0.01, n = 39
r2 = 0.931, p<0.01, n = 39
r2 = 0.733, p<0.01, n = 34
r2 = 0.729, p<0.01, n = 36'
r2 = 0.731, p<0.01, n = 36
0.892, p<0.01, n = 23
a = In order to convert predicted 28-day tissue residues to steady-state,
multiply the predicted 28-day values by 2.9 for SDDT and 1.7 for dieldrin (see
Table 8-15).
b = Natural logs of tissue concentrations were determined from (concentrations
+ 1} to account for 0 (below detection limit) tissue concentrations.
153
-------
TABLE 8-18. Accumulation factors determined from residues in
Macoma nasuta in 28-day bioaccumulation test corrected to steady-
state values.
STAHON
ill")
nU.
#1 Mean
SE
Range
N
#2 Mean
SE
Range
N
#3 Mean
SE
Range
N
#4 Mean
SE
Range
N
#5 Mean
SE
Range
N
#6 Mean
SE
Range
N
#7 Mean
SE
Range
N
US Mean
SE
Range
N
#9 Mean
SE
Range
N
2,4>DDE
0.46
0.13
0,15-0.92
5
0.81
0.42
0.18-2.01
4
0.68
0.50
0.25-1.68
3
0.10
1
3.68
2.90
0.34-9.46
3
0.53
0.13
0.37-0.79
3
2.58
1.92
0.21-6.37
3
2.40
1.21-3.59
2
NA
4,4'DDE
1.09
0.29
0.52-2.15
5
1.33
0.29
0.59-2.34
5
2.03
0.56
0.96-3.94
5
1.58
0.13
1.22-1.90
5
1.60
0.25
0.90-2.09
4
0.74
0.27
0.29-1.51
4
0.92
0.20
0.59-1.45
4
1.59
0.34
1.00-2.44
4
2.45
0.47
1.87-3.38
3
2,4'DDD
0.52
0.11
0.30-0.92
5
0.74
0.22
0.39-1.55
5
0.99
0.37
0.19-2.24
5
0.61
0.08
0.38-0.84
5
0.85
0.36
0.31-1.90
4
0.30
0.07
0.11-0.41
4
0.44
0.19
0.11-0.96
4
0.58
0.48-0.68
2
1.13
1
POLLUTANT
4,4
-------
TABLE 8-19. Mean SDDT and dieldrin tissue-residues (jig/kg, dry
weight) in field-collected infauna. Grab and trawl collections
are combined.
-------
TABLE 8-20. Mean accumulation factors in field-collected
infauna. Grab and trawl collections are combined.
ND = no data, B = Bivalve, C = Cerianthid, FF = Filter feeder, SDF = Surface-
deposit feeder, P. = Predator
SITE
LAURITZEN
SANTA FE
RICHMOND
FIELD AVERAGE -
FILTER FEEDERS2
FIELD AVERAGE -
DEPOSIT FEEDERS3
FIELD AVERAGE •
ALL SPECIES*
SPECIES
(TAXON/FEED1NG TYPE)
Hacoma nasuta (B/SDF-FF)
Husculus senhousia (B/FF)
Pachycerinthus fimbriatus
(C/P)
Tapes japonica (B/FF)
MEAN LAURITZEN
Macoma nasuta (B/SDF-FF)
Pachycerinthus fimbriatus
(C/P)
Potamocorbula amurensis
(B/FF)
MEAN SANTA FE
Macoma nasuta (B/SDF-FF)
Potamocorbula amurensis
(B/FF)
MEAN RICHMOND
N
EDDT/DIELDRIN
6/6
7/7
31/3'
7/7
23/23
1/1
3/1
2/1
6/3
1/0
1/0
2/0
17/15
8/7
31/26
EDDT'
AF
0.419
0.072
0.077
0.021
0.148
1.014
0.321
0.112
0.366
2.50
0.823
1.67
0.10
0.75
0.289
DIELDRIN
AF
0.932
0.135
0.222
0.084
0.339
2.297
0.512
0.461
1.092
ND
NO
ND
0.13
1.13
• 0.426
1 = Sample 475 3 S1CDT026 excluded
2 = Mean of individual values for Potamorcorbula. Musculus and Tapes
3 = Mean of individual values for Macoma
4 = Mean of individual values for all species
156
-------
C
-H
4J
d
a
•H
•d
CD
01
•d
CD •
ta m
o-d
&
CD O
nJ S
o
m
o
-H
O1
O
CD
O iJ
O
CO
CD IH
0 O
•d
-H DO
m CD
CD 0
•H O
H 4J
P to
P (U
4J
IN
°§
m -H
o oj
m rH
m 3
£ o
U O
•rl
A
CM H
I O
CO 4->
rd
•o
o>
m
o
0) H
CO
3-H
m m
-SS
4J
«3
0) CO
Vl 03
3-H
(Q 4J
0> 03 ^J
d QJ ZT
9-S
oo
•a m
Cncri
Cn
d) nj
m -u
-H
4-1 O
4J
lH-rl
Q)
m.
3 05
r-« 4J
.nj
H ^
10 0
dp
^f [*•
m
^
dtp
iH O
GO
rH LO
eg
H oV>
c- »
in VD
in r->
E-i
i #
u
0) VD
m
n3
1J CD
•™j 1 1
rt -H
0) CO
0
03
H
<* 0
4
H rH
fO erV>
• ^
O
H in
rH °
m oo
s I
EH
T §
U M
H ^"*
I
U
Richmond
Site 7
c
O O
"gssil
M C ft CO Ol
II II II II
id I] CJTI
_
-------
FIGURE 8-4. Flow chart for tissue samples.
Shuck clam and
discard shell
Freeze tissues in
liquid nitrogen
Homogenize with
mortar and pestle
Split homogenate
into 2 portions
0.5 to 1.5 grams
158
-------
FIGURE 8-5. Macoma nasuta tissue uptake of SDDT versus
laboratory exposure time to sediment collected from Lauritzen
Channel (Station 1).
159
-------
HI
Q.
ID
Q
O
CO
-------
FIGURE 8-6. Homologous tissue residues by station.
Station numbers are arranged in ascending order from lowest to highest
mean pollutant concentration. Analysis was done using one-way ANOVA and a
multiple range test (Scheffe method) on the natural log of 28-day tissue
residues. Underlines indicate which stations are not significantly different.
Lowest Concentration
SDDT
098 7 5
Highest Concentration
DDT
098
DDT
089
576 4132
6 1 5 2 74.3
4,4'-DDD
0 9
8
2,4!-DDD
0 9 8 7 5 6 4 2 1 3
2,4'-DDE
0 9
Dieldrin
8 9
4,4'-DDE
0 9 8 7 5 4 6 ' 123
8 5 7
Note: Both stations 8 and 9 below detection limits for dieldrin.
160
_
-------
8.4, BYSSAL MUSSELS, MEGAFAPNA, AND FISHES
8.4.1. Introduction
This section presents concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin
measured in intertidal mussels, demersal fishes, megafauna {large
epibenthic invertebrates such as crabs and shrimp), pelagic
fishes, and surficial sediments of trawl transects. The object-
ives of this portion of the study were: (1) To document existing
concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin in invertebrates and fishes
occupying both the benthic zone and the overlying water column of
the three channels and (2) To relate these concentrations to
water and sediment concentrations in an effort to provide
predictive capabilities. Specifically, the results are used to
obtain field-derived estimates of bioconcentration factors to
predict exposure from water and accumulation factors to predict
exposure from sediment. The analysis focuses on EDDT rather than
the individual metabolites because the Water Quality Criterion is
based on the total DDT. This section also lists the mega-
invertebrate, fish, bird, and mammal species observed at the
sites. These observations help identify the larger invertebrate,
.fish, and wildlife species potentially at risk at these sites.
8.4.2. Methods
As described in Section 6, specimens of the byssal
mediterranean mussel Mytilus qalloprovincialis were collected
from one site in each of the three channels on October 7, 1991
and on February 7, 1992. [Note: The taxonomy of Mytilus species
is in dispute. Currently, electrophoretic and sophisticated
morphometric analyses are required to resolve species. The
Mytilus have been tentatively identified as M. galloprovincialis
or a hybrid between M. galloprovincialis and M. trossulus. Dr.
Paul Scott of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History has
kindly reviewed specimens from our specimen archive, and agrees
with that judgement, stating that all could be grouped under M.
galloprovincialis for the purposes of this excercise {Scott,
pers. comm., Appendix 8-4B; Coan et al., in prep.).] Specimens
approximately 4 to 6 cm in length were removed from the substrate.
within the intertidal zone ranging between points about 0.2 meter
above to about 0.3 meter below the water surface. Generally, at
least 30 mussels were obtained from each collection. Each
specimen was rinsed in ambient water to remove as much sediment
as practical, wrapped in pre-cleaned aluminum foil, and then
placed in a pre-cleaned glass container with a Teflon-lined cap.
The container then was placed in a metal cooler under dry ice,
and returned frozen to the laboratory in Newport, Oregon
following the Chain-of-Custody protocols. Following the October
survey, Mytilus californianus were collected from the rocky
intertidal zone of the central Oregon coast near Newport as
control specimens.
All mussel specimens from a given site and date were
measured, and those falling within the size range 4.0 to 6.0 cm
in length were enumerated. Five specimens then were randomly
161
-------
selected. The whole soft tissue of each mussel {minus byssal
threads) was excised in a fume hood using solvent-rinsed glass
cutting boards and metal dissection tools. Each sample then was
transferred to a pre-cleaned glass container for homogenization
and analysis of water content and DDT and dieldrin residues on
the individual mussel tissue. An aliquot of each mussel homo-
genate also was analyzed for lipid concentration.
Bottom trawls were used to collect fishes and epibenthic
megafauna. Trawls were conducted'along one transect in each of
the three study channels (Figures 6-1 and 6-2) during both the
October and February surveys. As with the mussels, specimens
were rinsed in ambient seawater to remove sediment, wrapped in
pre-cleaned aluminum foil, and then placed in pre-cleaned glass
containers with Teflon-lined caps (except for the foil-wrapped
Cancer crab specimens, which were too large for the glass con-
tainers) . These containers were placed in metal coolers under
dry ice, and returned frozen to the laboratory in Newport, Oregon
following the Chain-of-Custody protocols. The taxa were ident-
ified and specimens dissected (or selected whole) as described
above.
For all specimens judged to be of sufficient size (wet
weight exceeding i gram ), the tissues were separated into two
samples - edible tissue and remainder; otherwise, the entire
specimen was taken for analysis. For two organisms, the bay
shrimp Crangon franciscorum and the shiner surfperch Cymatogaster
aggregatusf both fractions were analyzed, and the resultant wet
weight concentrations were combined with the corresponding frac-
tions of the whole body weights to obtain whole body wet weight •
concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin. In these cases, lipid con-
tent was determined only on the edible tissue portion.
Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) were used to predict uptake
from water in pelagic fishes and mussels. Site specific BCFuws
were calculated by:
BCF,,
wet tissue residue/whole unfilt. water cone. Eq. 8-6
These were obtained by first calculating individual mussel
BCFUW values relative to the appropriate average water value
{based on the six whole water samples collected from the site
during the two surveys. Table 8-12), and then determining median
and average BCF values for a given survey and site. These values
are designated BCFUW to indicate that they are based on
unfaltered water concentrations. The difference between a BCFUW
and a BCF based on filtered or free water concentrations will
depend upon the contribution of the particulate-bound phase of
the whole water sample, which in turn depends upon the extent of
sorption of the compound, the particulate load of the water, and
bioavailability of the sorbed versus'the dissolved pollutant. If
there is a significant contribution from the particulate phase,
the BCFUW will be lower than a BCF based on free water concentra-
tions. As discussed above {Section 8.2.4.), the bioconcentration
factors obtained from the mussel tissue and whole water concen-
162
-------
trations in the study are higher, not lower, than those used to
derive the WQC values for EDDT and dieldrin. These results
indicate that the contribution to a whole water concentration
from the particulate phase of the whole water samples was not of
primary importance, as it led to no measurable decrease or
negative bias in the empirical BCFUW values relative to the WQC
literature benchmarks. When comparing the bioconcentration
factor values -from this study to literature BCFs it is also
important to note that the BCFUW values reported here are based
on wet tissue residues and, in some cases, on muscle rather than
whole body residues.
The equilibrium partitioning bioaccumulation model was used
to predict uptake of sediment contaminants in demersal organisms.
The accumulation factors (AFs) for demersal organisms were cal-
culated using Equation 8-4 and the estimates of EDDT-and dieldrin
sediment concentrations for a trawl. To obtain estimates of the
surficial sediment exposure concentrations for the trawl-caught
organisms, the sediment concentrations were averaged for any
stations that a trawl covered as well as any stations immediately
bracketing the trawls. The stations averaged for each site were:
Stations 1, 2, and 3 for the Lauritzen Channel trawls; Stations
13, 5, 6, and 14 for the Santa Fe Channel trawls; and Stations
17, 8, and 18 for the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel trawls.
8.4.3. Results
Table 8-22 lists the species observed during sampling. The
invertebrates include both the epifaunal megainvertebrates as
well as some larger infaunal invertebrates dug up by the trawls.
(The smaller infaunal species sieved from the grab samples are
discussed in Section 9.1. and listed in Appendix 9-1 and 9-2.)
The Mytilus cralloprovincialis were observed on hard surfaces in
each of the channels while the fish and large crustacean species
were observed in the trawls. The birds, marine mammals, and
human activities were observed from ship or shore during the
October, 1991 and February, 1992 surveys. Appendix 4-1 lists the
birds observed during two brief sampling trips in November and
December, 1993 to assess the presence of birds in the more
contaminated sections of Richmond Harbor. The feeding types and
expected mobility of the fish and megafauna captured in the
trawls are listed in Table 8-23. "Resident" is used in this
report to indicate species that have a confined range and largely
limited to one channel. "Non-resident" refers to species that
have a larger range and are expected to swim between the channels
and perhaps out of Richmond Harbor into San Francisco Bay. •
Appendix 8-8 lists the individual residue and lipid values
for all the mussels on a dry weight basis. Median and average (±
S.E.) values for the wet weight concentrations of SDDT and
dieldrin obtained from each site and survey are listed in Table
8-24A, as well as combined 1991-92 values for each site. Average
{± S.E.) values for lipid content (as percent of wet weight) and
decimal fractions of dry-to-wet weight ratios for each site and
survey also are presented. Table 8-24B gives average values for
163
-------
the percent contribution to the SDDT concentrations in the mussel
samples by the six DDT residues.- Table 8-25 lists corresponding
values for the field-determined, whole water bioconcentration
factors (BCFUW) . Combined survey {1991-92} median and average
BCFUW values for a given site also are listed.
Appendix 8-9 lists the individual values for all the mega-
fauna and fishes. Median and average (± S.E.) values for the wet
weight concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin (and average percent
lipid values) are listed in Table 8-26A, with overall average
dry/wet weight tissue ratios to allow the conversion into dry
weight residues. Average values for the percent contribution to
the 2DDT values for these biota by the six DDT residues are
listed in Table 8-26B, while Table 8-26C lists the minimum
average concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin based on 25-fish
samples in each of the channels. For those fishes principally
inhabiting the water column, bioconcentration factors were
calculated employing the same approach as was with Mytilus BCFUW
{Table 8-27).
Table 8-28A- lists the median and average (± S.E.) values for
the sediment dry weight concentrations of SDDT, dieldrin, and TOC
for the sediment stations estimated to best represent the trawl
transects. Carbon-normalized values for each of the three site
transects also are listed. Table 8-28B lists average values for
the percent contribution to the EDDT values by the six DDT
residue in these sediments. Table 8-29 lists the median and
average (± S.E.) values for the accumulation factors from the
equilibrium partitioning bioaccumulation model (see Equations 8-4
and 8-5). These AF values were obtained by first normalizing a
given individual benthic megafauna wet weight concentration to
the wet lipid content of that sample, and then dividing this
value by the corresponding average TOC normalized sediment
concentration for the stations representative of"the trawl
transect (Table 8-28A). Table 8-32 gives the overall average AFs
for several combined taxa (error values for the numerator and
denominator were not propagated to the resultant quotient).
Table 8-30 summarizes the average EDDT sediment concen-
trations at the three trawl sites, SDDT water concentrations in
the three channels, and residues in species primarily exposed to .
water contaminants {mussels and shiner surfperch) and sediment
contaminants (gobies). Table 8-31' summarizes the same inform-
ation for dieldrin. Estimates of within site and among-season
variation for the summarized data are given in their respective
tables in Sections 8.2. and 8.4.
8.4.4. Discussion
Species Present and Food Web Relationships; A wide variety
of organisms were observed during sampling, including several
higher trophic level predators (Table 8-22). The main prey of
the fish and megafauna captured in the trawls (Table 8-23) were
estimated from the investigator's general knowledge of the
species or similar species. The average positions of these prey
in the food web were estimated using classical trophic level
164
-------
concepts .{Odum, 1971; Mearns, 1982}. Assuming that each prey
taxa contributed approximately equally to a given predator's
diet, 'an average position in the food web for that diet was
obtained. This .number is called the trophic level assignment
(TLA) of the predator's diet (Mearns, 1982). The TLA of the
predator itself is defined as 1.0 unit higher than the TLA of its
diet. The resulting TLA values are similar to previous
independent trophic level assignments made by Dr. Alan Mearns for
the same or similar species (in Young, 1988), which lends
credence to our assignments.
With the exception of the anchoveta, all the fish and mega-
fauna feed partially or primarily on benthic invertebrates. This
trophic link establishes a direct mechanism by which sediment
contaminants can be transported to higher trophic levels. Sev-
eral species, such as the flatfish and gobies, also have direct
physical contact with sediment, which is another route by which
sediment contaminants could accumulate in these higher trophic
level organisms. Flux of sediment contaminants into the water
column would be the primary method of exposure for anchoveta.
Several of the larger fish, as well as Cancer crabs, feed on
other fish or megafauna. In such cases, these higher trophic
level predators would be indirectly exposed to sediment assoc-
iated contaminants even if they did not feed on infaunal inverte-
brates or have contact with the sediment. Because DDT is known
to biomagnify (Woodwell et al., 1967; Risebrough, 1969; Wurster,
1969; Macek et.al., 1979; Mearns and Young, 1980; Young, 1982,
1988; Kucklick et al., 1994), the resultant residues would be
greater than for other neutral organic pollutants that do not
show this tendency (e.g., PAHs). In the case of non-resident
predators, their feeding in contaminated sites and subsequent
migration would be a mechanism of transporting EDDT and dieldrin
into San Francisco Bay proper. Although the actual mass of
pollutant moved through this biologically-mediated mechanism may
be small compared to physical fluxes, it is important to recog-
nize that the pollutant is in a bioavailable form (Swartz and
Lee, 1980).
The fish- and invertebrate-consuming birds and marine
mammals observed during the October and February surveys were
Brown pelicans, curlew, cormorants, seagulls, and Harbor seals.
Brown pelicans, seagulls, and the curlew were all observed feed-
ing. Harbor seals were observed in all three channels, and the
one observed diving in Santa Fe may have been feeding. A fisher-
man was also observed in the Lauritzen Channel, as well as in the
adjoining Parr Canal. The two trips in November and December,
1993 also recorded a large number of bird-species (Appendix 4-1).
These observations confirm that the fish and megafauna in the
Lauritzen/Santa Fe/Richmond system are a food source for higher
trophic levels, including top predators. Therefore, tissue
residues in the prey of these higher trophic level species are an
ecologically relevant measure of exposure and the resulting.
impacts on both birds and marine mammals, as well as of potential
human exposure.
165
-------
Mussel Residues: The Mytilua galloprovincialis soft tissue
average wet weight concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin {Table 8-
24A) for the October survey were substantially (although not
significantly) higher than those: obtained for the February
survey. However, the average lipid content values also were two
to three times higher for the October samples. On a lipid-
normalized basis, the average survey values of EDDT or dieldrin,
for all three channels, generally agreed within a factor of about
three and were not significantly different. For EDDT, the wet
weight values span a three order-of-magnitude difference between
the average (± S.E.) concentration measured for the Lauritzen
Channel specimens (2,900 ± 1,100 ppb) and that obtained for the
central Oregon coast control specimens (1.4 ± 0.1 ppb).
Corresponding values for dieldrin (97 ± 36 ppb vs. <1.7 ppb}
yield a two order-of-magnitude difference, at the least. Average
concentrations of the two pesticides in the mussels fell by
factors of about 72 and 24, respectively, between the Lauritzen
and Richmond Channel sites. These results document the extensive
degree of contamination of the Lauritzen Channel ecosystem by
these two pollutants.
The combined-survey average concentrations of the residues
in the mussels did not exceed the FDA action level for fish for
either DDT,or dieldrin-in any of the channels, although this
level for SDDT (5,000 /tg/kg wet weight) was exceeded by the
average for the specimens collected in October 1991 from the
Lauritzen Channel. However, on average the residues exceeded the
HAS standard for DDT to protect fish-eating birds (50 MST/kg wet)
by 58-fold in Lauritzen Channel and -7-fold in Santa Fe Channel,
as well as the NAS standard for dieldrin (5 /xg/kg, wet) by about
19-fold in Lauritzen and 4-fold in Santa Fe. The mussel dieldrin
residue in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel was slightly below the
standard. Mussels are consumed by various shorebirds, including
oystercatchers, surf scoters, and white-winged scoters (Shaw et.
al, 1988), of which the latter two are abundant in the Richmond
Harbor area (Table 4-1). Therefore, there is a direct ecological
link between DDT and dieldrin contamination in mussels and expos-
ure to shorebirds. Because of the magnitude of" the exceedance,
mussels from Lauritzen and/or Santa Fe Channels would only have
to constitute a relatively small portion of these shorebirds1
diets to result in a exposure equal to or greater than that of
birds feeding 100% of the time on prey at the NAS standards.
The mean wet weight concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin in
mussel soft tissue from the Lauritzen Channel 1991-92 specimens
are similar to the values reported for a sample of "resident bay
mussels" (identified then as Mytilus edulis) collected in March
1986 near this site by the California State Mussel Watch Program
(State Water Resources Control Board, 1988)(but see Section
8.4.2.}. The respective values for SDDT are 2,900 (± 1,100)
M9/kg in this study versus 2,831 jig/kg in the Mussel Watch
Program. For dieldrin, the corresponding values are 97 (±36)
jug/kg versus 176 M9/k9 for this study and Mussel Watch, respect-
ively. Although the database is small, this comparison indicates
166
-------
that .no ecologically significant decrease in SDDT or dieldrin
contamination in M. galloprovincialis has occurred in Lauritzen
Channel over the 5-6 year interval.
Mussel' Bioconcentration Factors: Neither the average wet
weight tissue/whole water bioconcentration factors (BCFUW) for
SDDT nor for dieldrin are significantly different among the three
channels (Table 8-25). The overall mean of the three average
BCFUW values for EDDT is 46,000 ± 5,800. This value falls within
the range of BCF values for DDT (1,200 to 76,300) reported for
saltwater species (Section 5.1.2.). The corresponding overall •
mean BCFUW for dieldrin, 8,200 ± 2,800, is in agreement with the
upper end of the range (400 - 8,000) reported for fish-or
shellfish (Section 5.1.3.).
On a wet weight basis, the overall mean of the six -channel-
survey average percent lipid values for the mussel soft tissues
was 1.3 ± 0.3 percent. This corresponds to average percent
lipid-normalized BCFUW values for EDDT and dieldrin of about
35,400 and 6,300, respectively. [NOTE: These values are normal-
ized to lipids based on division by the percent, lipid (1.3%)
rather than on the decimal fraction of lipids (0.013) for con-
sistency with Section 5. If they were normalized on a decimal
fraction, the values would be 100-fold greater, and would have
the units of g-water/g-lipid.] These results are in reasonable
agreement with the values cited in Sections 5.1.2. and 5.1.3. for
the geometric mean of percent lipid-normalized BCF values for DDT
(17,870) and. dieldrin (1,557).
Residues in Benthic Megafauna and Fishes: The steep spatial
gradient in pesticide residues observed in the sessile filter-
feeding mussel also was observed in the epibenthic gobiid fish
(probably Lepidogobius lepidus. the bay goby) and the pelagic
(though benthic feeding) shiner surfperch Cymatogaster (Table 8-
26A) . Both fish species, which are believed to be resident, as
discussed below, were collected from all three trawl transects.
Average whole body concentrations obtained for these two resident
fish species, mussels, surficial sediment, and overlying water in
the three sampling areas are summarized for SDDT in Table 8-30
and dieldrin in Table 8-31.
The average whole body concentrations for EDDT and dieldrin
in surfperch in the Lauritzen Channel specimens (7,500 ± 1,500
and 390 ± 90 /tg/kg wet wt., respectively) exceed the interstate
commerce limits of 5,000 and 300 jig/kg wet wt., respectively,
established for seafoods by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(See Section 5.2.1.). The whole body concentration in the single
goby specimen from Lauritzen Channel (5,400 £ig/kg wet wt.) also
exceeded the FDA action level. Although it is not likely that
Lauritzen Channel surfperch and gobies are part of interstate
commerce, this finding is relevant in view of our observations
that recreational and/or subsistence fishing takes place in
Lauritzen Channel, as well as the neighboring Parr Canal.
The shiner surfperch, as a water column species, is a
potential prey item for pelicans and other fish-eating birds;
thus, the WAS standards are ecologically relevant measures of
167
-------
potential effects on birds. EDDT residues in whole surfperch
exceed the NAS standards by orders-of-magnitudes in two of the
sites - 150-fold and 18-fold in the Lauritzen and Santa Pe
Channels, respectively - and by 2-fold in Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel. The level of exceedance for dieldrin is about half that
for DDT, with exceedances of 78-fold and 8-fold in Lauritzen and
Santa Fe, respectively. The dieldrin standard is not exceeded in
the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
One limitation of the comparison to the NAS standards is
that our comparison is based on fewer than 25 individuals whereas
NAS (1972) recommends 25 or more. To address this issue, the
whole body fish concentrations from each channel and habitat
{i.e., benthic or pelagic) were combined to calculate a corre-
sponding projected lower limit average whole body residue for a
group of 25 individual fish specimens, of equivalent composition
regarding fish species and size to those sampled. The procedure
used is as follows: For a given species, the average whole body
concentration was multiplied by the total number of individuals
("i" in Table 8-26A) that contributed to the number of samples
(n) to obtain the combined average value. The resultant values
for each fish species sampled from the channel and habitat then
were summed / and the total was divided by 25 to obtain the
projected minimum average whole body concentration for 25
individual fish specimens of equivalent species composition and
size. Note that this procedure assumes a zero pollutant
concentration for the balance of the fish specimens that would
have been needed to obtain a total of 25 individual fish.
Therefore, the projected 25-fish average is an absolute minimum
residue.
The results (Table 8-26C) show that, for EDDT, the projected
minimum average whole body concentration for pelagic fish from
Lauritzen, Santa Fe, and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels are 1504,
171, and 54 /ig/kg weight wet, respectively. Corresponding values
for benthic fishes are 216, 246, and 30 /xg/kg {note that the
first value is based on only one goby specimen that contained
5,400 /xg/kg EDDT). In five of the six cases, the projected
minimum average whole body EDDT concentration for 25 fish exceeds
the NAS standard of- 50 jug/kg. For dieldrin, the projected
minimum average whole body concentrations from the three channels
are 79, 5, and 1 jig/kg wet weight, while corresponding values for
benthic fishes are 8, 7 and 1 /*g/kg (again, the first value is
based on the concentration of 1 fish divided by 25). In four of
these six cases, the projected minimum average whole body
concentration exceeds the NAS dieldrin standard of 5 /xg/kg.
Overall, in nine of twelve cases, the NAS standards were exceeded
for the target, pesticides even when using an approach that
generates the lowest possible average residue for a 25 fish
sample.
As was the case for the intertidal mussel tissues, the
results for the fish specimens collected from Lauritzen Channel
in 1991-92 are consistent with those for fishes sampled there in
1986 (summarized in Section 3.1.2.). The mean EDDT value
168
-------
obtained for muscle tissue of the shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster
aggregatus) is 2,000 {± 410) fig/kg wet weight, .compared to values
ranging up to 1,400 /*g/kg wet weight reported for muscle tissue
of white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) collected there in 1986
(Cal. Dept. Fish & Game, 1986). Similarly, the mean whole body
SDDT concentration for the 1991-92 Lauritzen Channel shiner
surfperch specimens, 7,500 (± 1,500) /ig/kg wet weight, is similar
to the value of 13,600 /ig/kg wet weight obtained for a whole
shiner surfperch collected there in 1986 (ibid.). Again, there
is no evidence that SDDT levels in the biota of Lauritzen Channel
has changed substantially over this 5-6 year interval.
Bioconcentration Factors for Pelagic Fishes: A BCF is an
ecologically meaningful measure only if the individuals are
exposed to a relatively, constant water exposure of the pollutant
for a period sufficient to approach steady-state residues. (The
BCF approach also assumes that the water is the predominant
source of uptake.) As discussed in Section 8.2., overlying water
concentrations appear relatively stable in the three channels.
However, non-resident organisms swimming among the sites would be
exposed to a varying pollutant concentration. The BCFs of such
mobile species should show less correspondence to the local water
concentrations and greater variation among individuals and sites.
The average BCFUW values for SDDT in muscle tissue of the
shiner surfperch, Cymatogaster. show a relatively small within-
site variation; In terms of among-site variation, the averages
vary by less than 2-fold among the three sites (Table 8-27) and
the overall mean of 36,000 (± 5,900) of the three sites has a
relative standard error (RSE = S.E./mean) of only 16 percent.
Similar precision is obtained for the whole body BCFUW values for
2DDT, which have an overall mean of 119,000 ± 16,000 and an RSB
of only 13 percent. In view of the 50-fold gradient in average
water concentration of EDDT over the three sites, this among-site
similarity is a strong indication of the resident nature of this
pelagic species. Additionally, there was no indication of a
strong seasonal, variation as the October and February muscle
tissue values in Santa Fe Channel varied by less than 2-fold.
Dieldrin BCFuws showed the same consistency both between the •
Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels and seasonally. The muscle
tissue and whole body BCFUW values had overall means of about
8,000 ± 1,200 (RSE = 15 percent) and 22,000 ± 200 (RSE - 1
percent), respectively, and the October and February muscle
tissue BCFUW values again agreed within a factor of 2.
The low variation in BCFuws for both compounds within-sites,
among-sites, and seasonally indicates that although the data set
was relatively small, these empirically derived BCFuws should be
predictive of residues in similar sized shiner surfperch to
within about 2-fold.
Further confidence in this approach is provided by a
comparison of the BCFUW values for the shiner surfperch muscle
and the Mytilus whole soft tissue samples. The respective
overall average (± S.E.) lipid concentrations (wet weight basis)
for these two tissue classes, 2.0 ± 0.2 and 1.3 ± 0.3 percent,
169
-------
are not significantly different, rendering such a comparison
meaningful. For EDDT, the average BCFUW values for the surfperch
and mussel are 36,000 ± 5,900 and 46,000 ± 5,800, respectively.
The corresponding values for dieldrin are 8,000 ± 1,200 and 8,200
± 2,800. The good agreement obtained lends support to the
hypothesis that the principal uptake route of 2JDDT and dieldrin
to the surfperch is via the water, and the BCFUW approach
provides a useful predictive capability.
In contrast to the shiner surfperch, the BCFUW values for
whole anchovy, a species expected to move in and out of the
channels, showed a wide variation among sites, with average
values of 2,000, 78,000, and 17,000, respectively. Although the
overall mean of these average BCFuws {32,000 ± 23,000} is similar
to that of the surfperch, the anchovy's large RSE of about 70
percent and lack of correlation with water or sediment concen-
trations is indicative of this species' highly mobile nature.
The muscle tissue sample of the single white croaker
Genyonemus from Richmond Inner Harbor Channel had a BCFUW of
44,000, similar to the three-channel average (36,000) for the
shiner surfperch. The two muscle samples of striped bass
(Morone) from Lauritzen Channel had an average BCFUW of 6,700 (±
3,600). The fact that this value is well below that of the
resident surfperch suggests that the bass had spent the majority
of their lives in less contaminated waters. This hypothesis is
supported by the relatively low BCFUW for dieldrin (1,400 ± 820)
in the bass compared to the surfperch's average for Lauritzen
Channel (6,700 ± 1,400) and Santa Fe Channel (9,200 ± 1,200)i In
general, the wide range of BCF values for the anchovy, white
croaker, and striped bass may well reflect the variability caused
by the mobility of such fishes.
Accumulation Factors for Demersal Fishes and Megafauna; The
equilibrium partitioning bioaccumulation model (see Section 8.3.)
can be applied to demersal fishes and epibenthic invertebrates -
that have regular, direct contact with the sediment. As with the
BCFUW, there is an implicit assumption of a relatively constant
exposure. Levels of EDDT and dieldrin sediment contamination are
essentially constant over the life span of a demersal fish or
benthic invertebrate. However, as with the water exposure, move-
ment along the contamination gradient would result in a varying
exposure.
The field-derived accumulation factors for individual taxa
(Table 8-29) are generally less consistent than the BCFuws. A
likely contributing cause is the steeper concentration gradient
in sediment than water (see Tables 8-30 and 8-31). With this
steeper concentration gradient, small movements (e.g., 10-100 m)
by demersal organisms would result in greater exposure differ-
ences than equivalent movements by pelagic organisms, so that
relating residues to an average channel sediment concentration
would introduce greater variation than.using a corresponding
average water concentration. In addition, with two exceptions
only three or fewer samples of each species were analyzed for any
site and season.
170
-------
For these reasons, it is more meaningful to average over the
entire region rather than'seek resolution among sites. The
demersal fish and megafauna were separated into four classes each
containing at least four AF values: shrimp (Crangon) muscle, crab
muscle, whole juvenile flatfish, and whole gobiid fish (Table 8-
32) . For six of the eight taxa-compound AF values, the 95
percent confidence interval includes zero, indicating that the
variation is too great to allow precise predictions. The shrimp
demonstrate the most variable AFs of the four taxa. Only for
SDDT in crab muscle and whole gobiid fish tissues are the average
AF values significantly above zero.
One approach to predicting the general trends of sediment-
associated uptake in fish/mega fauna is to use the gobies or crabs
as "indicators". That is, to use the AFs from taxa that best fit
the assumptions of the model (e.g., are not highly mobile and
have constant contact with the sediment) and that have reasonably
tight confidence limits as indicators of the accumulation of
sediment-associated contaminants. Of the two taxa, the gobies
are the better candidate indicator because they are less mobile
than crabs. As mentioned, the goby SDDT AF, 0.63, is-signif-
icantly above zero and therefore should be a reasonably precise
predictor of SDDT accumulation in this species. Although the
goby dieldrin AF, 1.9, is not significantly different than 0, it
is possible to use the mean value as a general indicator of the
accumulation trends.
Another approach to generating an overall prediction of
general tendencies is to average the three taxa, excluding the
fobies. The resultant mean of .the three average AF values for
DDT is 1.2 ± 0.7, which is not significantly different from the
mean value of 0.63 for the goby. For dieldrin, the three-taxa
mean is 5.2 ± 3.8, which again does not differ significantly from
the goby mean (1.9) . Thus, these combined means agree with those
of the goby within factors of about 2 and 3, respectively. They
also agree, within factors of about 1.5 and 3.5, with the overall
values determined for M. nasuta in the laboratory exposures
(Table 8-18) and show the same trend with dieldrin having a
larger AF than EDDT. (It should be noted that AF values
generally are based on whole organism concentrations; thus, the
use of AF values based on muscle or other tissue concentrations
assumes that the pollutant is distributed among organs based-
solely on lipid content) .
These indicator and combined species values can be compared
to the theoretical equilibrium value (1.7) predicted for infaunal
organisms by McFarland and Clark (1986) . The goby EDDT value is
within a factor of 3 of the predicted value while the dieldrin
value approximately equals the calculated value. The combined
species AFs agree with the theoretical value within factors of
about 1.5 and 3, respectively.
The indicator and combined species AFs for SDDT can also be
compared to AFs for Dover sole Microstomus pacificus collected
over very large sediment gradients of 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDE) and PCB
1254 in the Southern California Bight (Young et aJ., 1991).
171
-------
Those researchers found that the AF fugacity model can success-
fully predict tissue concentrations of these high Kow (5.8 - 6.5}
neutral organic contaminants. Specifically, the overall average
AF values for 4,4'-DDE in muscle and liver tissue of specimens
from five highly contaminated stations off Los Angeles were 1.4 ±
0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.4, respectively, compared to the whole body goby
means of 1.3 ± 0.3 for 4,4'-DDE and 0.63 ± 0.18.for EDDT. The
critical factors appears to be the ability to obtain sufficiently
large numbers of samples of epibenthic organisms which are rela-
tively non-mobile and which are in contact with the bottom
sediment.
The general agreement between the indicator species AFs and
the composite species AFs, field-derived AFs in fish/megafauna
and laboratory-exposed infauna, the field-derived AFs and the
theoretical AF value, and the DDE AF in Southern California and
Richmond Harbor fish/megafauna all indicate that the equilibrium
partitioning bioaccumulation model has sufficient precision to
predict the general trends of accumulation in fish/megafauna with
direct sediment contact. The various empirical and theoretical
approaches generate AF values clustering around 1.2 for SDDT and
1.8 for dieldrin. In general, the most precise predictions
should be for the goby, the indicator species, and the least for
the shrimp.
Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: The results of the Califor-
nia Mussel Watch Program (State Water Resources Control Board,
1988} indicate that in March 1986 mean concentrations (fig/kg wet
wt.) of other chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyl
mixtures (PCB) in intertidal Mytilus in Lauritzen Channel were
substantially lower than those for EDDT (2,800) and, in most
cases, dieldrin (180). Values observed for other chlorinated
hydrocarbons were: aldrin (13); Echlordane '(55); trans-nonachlor •
(12); endrin (15); HCH-alpha (1)-; HCH-delta (l) ; heptachlor (2) ;
hexachlorobenzene (1) ; EPCB (140); toxaphene (110). Other target
compounds were below l /*g/kg wet weight or were not detected.
These results further confirm the dominant nature of the DDT and
dieldrin contamination at this site.
172
-------
^r
nJ
.Q
*-
i
L.
rsl
*J xx Ul
— CO Ul 3
CO 4X 3 — '
22X2
3.83 £
30 "D • •
• ID i- 5 a. a
•MDljj S o1"81
cJ!.22Sg§.2
ai —• a cn
M 0 10 3 C C. Q
C.— x> O CD CO
CO < ID 1- E O C.
E u a a ra
oo o. 'a. xx
CO
U) 3
o
u
franc is
i
g
a>
c.
u
3
"3
0
1
1
l_
u
ID
-g •
CO 5 CL
3 c. u
4-> U
ag *;
.8 =
0)
X
5
a
c.
.a
\ Pachycerianthus fim
1 Asychis elongate
CO «
O 4-*
01 ID
C L.
OX
— • 4
X —
t-
o
Misc. polychaetes (
ggregata
a
0)
1
0
X
"2
CO
"3
X 10
1
§
cn
1
Ul
E
m
%
4J
tocot
8
1
"3
4X
01
i
a
£
10
a
ID
Morone saxi tails
1 Cvmatogaster aggreg
3
!S
o
1 Engraulis mordax
1
a
4
c.
a
u
1
!
CA
O
1
8
— 1
Didoqobius
01
_*
1
01
X '
01 y^
-C ^^
z
a;§r§
i
0
u
Ql«4-
a.
t
01
g
X
0
£-8
^s
^
£
5
XX
,3
5
1.
CA
1
ra
1
O
_c
I
CO
10
01
C
c.
01 •
4J-C
• ID U
t- 3 4J
01 ID
*J C 0
O O *J
— O
4^—- 4t
c- rxT
t* O 4-<
O t- IA
OCO
K
• • C.
t*.
g*
CO 0)
tH c.
M
Ctt
|
U
a
c
ept
pe
U *^
SI
-------
TABLE 8-23. Estimated diet, trophic levels (TL), and mobility of
the fishes and megafauna collected in the trawls.
Trophic level of fish and megafauna based on the trophic level of their
estimated diet. Trophic levels of Reference Consumers are independent trophic
level estimates for similar fish and megafauna from the Southern California
Bight (by Dr. A. Mearns in Young, 1988) . Also provided are estimated
classifications regarding the "resident" or "non-resident" nature of the
species.
Consumer/
Size
Diet
Taxa
TL
FISH /MEGAFAUNA
Crangon
Shrimp
3-5 cm
Cancer
Crab
7-12 cm
Gobiid
Fish
4-6 cm
Detritus 1.5
Benth. Inv.1 2.5
Copepods 2.0
Mollusks2 2.25
Benth. Inv.l 2.5
Smelt 2.5
Flatfish 3.25
Benth. Inv.1 2.5
Copepods 2.0
Pleuronec. Benth. Inv.^.5
Engl.Sole Copepods 2. 0
4 cm
Platichth. Polychaetes.2.25
Starry Fl. Mollusks1 2.25
9 cm Clam siph, 2.0
Citharich. Crustacea 2.0
Sp.Sanddab Pelag.Fish 3.25
8 cm Tube Orgs. 2.75
Gammariids 2.5
Mysiids • '2.5
Polychaetes 2.25.
Genyonemus Benth.Inv.1 2.5
Wh.Croaker Gammariids 2.5
7-11 cm Crabs 3.5
Shrimp 3.0
Cymatogast.Copepods 2.0
Surfperch Gammariids 2.5
6-9 cm Foul. Orgs 2.5
Diet Consumer Res/ Reference
TL TL Non-Res Consumer TL
2.0 3.0 Res?
Prawn
2.5 3.5 Non-Res Crab
2.25 3.25 Res
2.25 3.25 Res
2.25 3.25 Res
2.50 3.5 Res
Sanddab
2.75 3.75 Non-Res Wh. Croak.
Ye1.Croak.
2.25 3.25 Res
Top Smelt
Croakers
3.5
3.5
Mudsucker 3.5
Dover Sole 3.5
Dover Sole 3 .5
3.75
3.7
3.7
3.3
3.7
174
-------
TABLE 8-23 (cont'd.). Estimated diet, trophic levels (TL), and
mobility of the fishes and megafauna collected in trawls.
Consumer/
Size
Diet
Taxa
TL
Anchoveta Copepods 2.0
Anchovy Zooplank. 2.0
5-7 cm Phytopl. 1.0
Larvae 2.0
Morone Mysiids 2.0
Str. Bass .Shrimp 3.0
7-10 cm Small Fish 3.0
Amphipods 2.5
Sanddabs 3.5
Diet Consumer Res/
TL TL Non-Res
Reference
Consumer TL
1.75 2.75 Non-Res Anchovy
2.8
2.5 3.5 Non-Res Topsmelt 3.3
INFAUNA
Macoma
Bivalve
Mollusk
Deposit &
Suspension
Feeder
Musculus Suspension
Bivalve Feeder
Mollusk
Bivalve
Mollusk
Suspension
Feeder
1.0
l.O
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Res
Res
Res
Potamocor. Suspension 1.0 2.0
Bivalve Feeder
Mollusk
Pachyceri." Suspension 2.0 3.0
Burrowing Feeder/Pred.
Anemone
Res
Res
1 - Benthic invertebrates include predaceous polychaetes and other trophic
level 3 infauna as well as deposit-feeding or filter-feeding invertebrates.
2 = Mollusks includes predaceous snails.
175
-------
TABLE 8-24A. EDDT and dieldrin in Mytilus galloprovincialis soft
tissues (/ig/kg wet weight)*.
Site
SPOT
Oct. Feb. Combined
Dieldrin
Oct. Feb. Combined
Lauritzen (Mvtilus cialloprovincialis)
Median
Average
Std.Err.
{n)
2,600
5,100
1,700
5
670
680
150
5
Santa Fe (M. galloprovincialis)
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
480
520
42
5
110
ISO
67
5
Richmond {M. galloprovincialis)
Median 40 36
Average 40 40
Std.Err. 12 6
(n) 5 5
Control (M. californianus)
(Oregon Coast)
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Anal. Blank
1.5
1.4
0.1
5
<3.8
1,600
2,900
1,100
10
440
350
69
10
38
40
6
10
100
170
56
5
32
30
3
5
<2
2
1
5
23
25
3
5
6
8
2
5
3
5
2
5
57
97
36
10
18
19
4
10
3
4
1
10
*Average (± std. error) values of lipid content (as percent of wet weight) for
the October vs. February surveys are as follows. Lauritzen Channel: 1.42 ±
0.33 vs. 0.48 ± 0.07; Santa Fe Channel: 2.27 ± 0.10 vs. 0.86 ± 0.17; Richmond
Inner Harbor Channel: 1.71 ± 0.27 vs. 0.95 ± 0.17; Oregon Coast Control:
1.05 ± 0.14. Corresponding values for the decimal fraction of the dry-to-wet
weight ratio are as follows: Lauritzen Channel, 0.17 ± 0.015 vs 0.089 ±
0.003; Santa Fe Channel, 0.20 ± 0.005 vs. 0.10 ± 0.016; Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel, 0.18 ± 0.013 vs. 0.11 ± 0.006; Oregon Coast control, 0.18 ± 0.003.
Individual sample values are listed in Appendix 8-8.
176
-------
TABLE 8-24B. Average percent, composition of EDDT in mussel
tissues.
Site/Survey 2,4'DDE 4,4'DDE 2,4'ODD 4,4'DDD 2,4'DDT 4,4'DDT
Oct. 1991
Lauritzen
Average
SE
Santa Fe
Average
SE
Richmond
Average
SE
Control
Average
Feb. 1992
Lauritzen
Average
SE
Santa Fe
Average
SE
Richmond
Average
SE
0.69%
0.08%
0.97%
0.04%
1.99%
0.24%
0.00%
0.95%
0.07%
0.95%
0.26%
1.00%
0.08%
11.25%
1.50%
14.14%
0.39%
25.13%
1.37%
100.00%
10.60%
0.87%
15.46%
1.11%
17.28%
0.87%
12.73%
1.07%
11.94%
0.62%
10.57%
0.50%
0.00%
10.13%
0.57%
10.65%
0.37%
10.15%
0.45%
Average and standard error (SE) composition of
specific residues) measured in soft tissues of
52.95%
2.52%.
61.87%
0.43%
47.05%
3.51%
0.00%
31.95%
0.89%
47.03%
0.77%
40.74%
1.31%
5.74%
0.65%
1.74%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
• 0.00%
17.44%
0.45%
7.66%
0.51%
8.41%
0.60%
16.64%
2.25%
9.35%
0.20%
15.26%
2.01%
0.00%
28.94%
0.51%
18.25%
0.95%
22.42%
1.22%
EDDT (% contribution by
Mvtilus qalloprovincialis .
N = 5 for each site/survey.
177
-------
TABLE 8-25. Whole water bioconcentration factors (BCFUW, wet
weight) for EDDT and dieldrin in Mytilus galloproyincialis.
Site
jQct.
SDPT
Feb. Combined
Dieldrin
Oct. Feb. Combined
Lauritzen
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Santa Fe
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Richmond
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
51,000
102,000
35,000
5
40,000
40,000
12,000
5
13,000
14,000
3,000
5
28,000
33,000
10,000
5
32,000
58,000
22,000
10
56,000
61,000
4,900
5
13,000
20,000
7,800
5
51,000
41,000
8,000
10
38,000
40,000
6,300
10
5,600
9,600
3,100
5
18,000
17,000
1,800
5
1,300 3,500
1,400 5,500
180 2,000
5 10
3,600 9,900
4,200 11,000
1,100 2,400
5 10
10
Overall average 68,000 22,000 46,000
13,300 2,800 8,300
s based on average whole water concentrations for a given site (Table
8-10).
178
-------
TABLE 8-26A. SDDT and dieldrin in megafauna and fishes
wet weight) and average percent lipid (wet weight).
UDDT Dieldrin
Site Oct. Feb. Combined Oct. Feb. Combined
Lauritzen Channel
BEOTHIC:.
Cranaon-Muscle
Median 76 <2.6
Average 76 <2.6
Std.Err.
(n/i)* 2/5 2/5
Ave. Lipid (%} 1.5 1.5
Crangon - Remainde r
Median
Average
Std.Err
(n/i)*
Cranaon- Whole**
Median
Average
Std.Err.
Cancer-Muscle
(n/i)*
Ave. Lipid (%) •
Gobiid-Whole
(n/i)*
Ave. Lipid (%)
PELAGIC:
Cymatogaster -Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
360
1/1
0.94
76
76
4
2/5
1.5
470
470
27
2/5
310
' 310
4
2/5
5400
1/1
2.2
Ave. Lipid {%)
1900
2000 -
410
5/5
2.1
Cvmatogaste r-Remainder
Median 12,100
Average 10,300
Std.Err 2,000
(n/i)* 5/5
Cvmatoaaster- Whole**
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n/i)*
Morone -Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n/i)*
Ave. Lipid (%)
Anchove ta - Whol e
(n/i)*
Ave. Lipid (%)
8300
7500
1500
5/5
330
330
180
2/2
1
98
1/1
1
.3
.8
11
1/1
0.94
120
120
25
5/5
2.1
500
520
120
5/5
340
390
90
5/5
25
25
15
2/2
1.3
15
1/1
1.8
21
21
21
2/5
12
12
12
2/5
200
1/1
2.2
179
-------
TABLE 8-26A (cont'd.). EDDT and dieldrin in megafauna and fishes
(jig/kg wet weight) and average percent lipid (wet .weight) .
SPOT Dieldrin
Site Oct. Feb. Combined Oct. Feb. Combined
Santa Fe Channel
BENTHIC:
Cranaon-Masc1e
Median 36 <2.6
Average 35 2
Std.Err. 6 2
* 1/1 1/1
Ave. lipid {%) 3.1 1.7
CymatoqaBter-Remainder 1300
(n/i)* 1/1
Cvmatocraster-Whole** 920
(n/i)* 1/1
Anchoveta-Whole 670
(n/i)* 1/5
Ave. Lipid (%) 1.9
28.
28
3
5/5
2.9
370
370
72
2/2
2.4
19
17
1/5
5
4
"2
3/24
3
3'
1
3/24
22
1/1
1.8
<2.6
1/2
1.9
7
1/1
1.4
14 16
16
1/1 1/1 2/2
3.1 1.7 2.4
55
1/1
40
1/1
1.9
180
-------
TABLE 8-26A(cont'd.) - SDDT and dieldrin in megafauna and fishes
(jug/kg wet weight) and average percent lipid (wet weight) .
Site
Oct.
ZDDT
Feb. Combined
Dieldrin
Oct.Feb. Combined
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
BENTHIC:
Cranoon-Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
Ave. Lipid {%)
Crangon - Remainder
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n/i) *
Crangon-Whole**
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n/i)*
Cancer-Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
Ave. Lipid {%)
Ganger -Egg mass
Median
Average
Std.Err.
Ave. Lipid (%)
Gobiid-Whole***
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n/i)*
Ave. Lipid (*}
Citharichthvs- Whole
(n/i>*
Ave. Lipid (%)
2200
1/10
1.6
160
1/1
5 7
5 730
1 590
2/70 3/80
1.5 1.5
41
41
3
2/70
24
24
3
2/70
26
24
4
5/5
0.81
220
220
5
2/2
7.0
110 120
110 130
15 19
2/3 3/4
1.1
60
1/4
69
1/10
1.6
3
3
3
2/70
6
25
18
3/80
1.5
<2.6
<2.6
1.5
2/70
2
2
2
2/70
2
3
1
5/5 -
0.81
2
2
2
2/2
7.0
<8.3
1/1
9
9
3
2/3
1.1
<2.6
1/4
6
6
3
3/4
181
-------
TABLE 8-26A (cont. fd) . SDDT and dieldrin in megafauna and fishes
(/ig/kg wet weight) and average percent lipid (wet weight) .
Site
Oct.
ZiDDT
Feb. Combined
Dieldrin
Oct. Feb. Combined
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
PELAGIC:
Cvmatocraster-Muscle
Median 17
Average 24
Std.Err. 9
(n/i)* .5/5
Ave. Lipid (%) 1 ..6
Cvmatogaster-Remainder
Median 130
Average 130
Std.Err. 55
(n/i)* 5/5
Cvmatoqas.ter - Whole* *
Median 91
Average 100
Std.Err. 21
(n/i)* , 5/5
Genvonemus-Muscle 44
(n/i)* 1/3
Ave. Lipid (%) 1.9
Anchoveta-Whole 170
(n/i)* 1/5
Ave. Lipid {%) 1.8
<2.6
1
1
5/5
1.6
<2.6
<2.6
5/5
2
2
5/5
4,
1/3
1.9
4
1/5
1.8
* Number of samples analyzed (n), and total number of individuals (i)
contributing to these samples; (n) is less than (i) if individuals were
composited .
** Values calculated by combining weighted concentrations in
muscle tissue and "residue", the remaining tissues.
*** The October 1991 values are estimates obtained from muscle
tissue measurements and the median ratios of whole body to
muscle tissue concentrations for SDDT (3.9) and dieldrin (3.2)
obtained for Cvmatooaster.
Average dry/wet ratios:
Anchoveta =0.21
Cancer muscle =0.18
Cancer eggs =0.31
Citharichthvs =0.22
Crangon muscle = 0.25
Cvmatogaster muscle = 0.22
Genvonemus muscle = 0.21
Gobiid whole =0.21
Morone muscle = 0.20
182
-------
Table 8-26B. -Average percent composition of 2DDT in fish and
megafauna.
October, 1991 Samples
Site/Species 2,4'DDE 4,4'DDE 2,4'DDD 4,4'DDD 2, 4'DDT 4,4'DDT
Lauritizen Channel
BENTHIC:
Cancer antennarius (muscle): n=l
Average 0.00% 81.59% 2.25% 13.22% 0.00% 2.93%
PELAGIC:
Cvmatogaster aggegata (muscle): n=5
Average 0.42% 28.62% 9.07% 49.86% 3.29% 8.75%
SE 0.08% 2.44% 1.15% 3.41% 0.86% 1.43%
Morone saxitails (muscle): n=2
Average 0.67% 33.54% 7.43% 42.36% 5.24% 10.76%
SE 0.20% 0.33% 0.21% 4.65% 2.65% 1.92%
Anchoveta (whole): n=l
Average 0.00% 20.13% 9.07% 49.44% 5.87% 15.49%
Santa Fe Channel
BENTHIC:
Gobiid fish (whole): n=5
Average 0.34% 26.27% 1.88% 65.55% 0.34% 5.62%
SE 0.02% 0.72% 0.07% 0.72% 0.05% 0.05%
PELAGIC:
CvmatoqaBter aggegata (muscle): n=l
Average 0.47% 35.60% 6.44% 47.15% 2.17% 8.18%
Anchoveta (whole): n=l
Average 0.53% 26.38% 6.10% 51.43% 3.98% 11.58%
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
BENTHIC: .
Crangon franciscorum (tail muscle): n=l
Average 20.50% 20.24% 15.44% 17.12% 14.82% 11.88%
Gobiid fish (muscle): n=l
Average 6.49% 26.78% 5.72% 43.72% 5.76% 11.52%
PELAGIC:
Cvmatogaster aggegata (muscle): n=5
Mean 1.41% 40.60%' 7.61% 43.50% 1.75% 5.14%
SEM 0.99% 4.85% 2.01% 2.13% 1.11% 2.13%
Genvonemus lineatus (muscle): n=l
Average 1.20% 31.01% 4.96% 54.76% 0.00% 8.07%
Anchoveta (whole): n=l
Average 1.01% 38.56% 5.20% 42.23% 3.02% 9.98%
183
-------
Table 8-26B (Cont'd).
February, 1992 Samples
Site/Species 2,4'DDE 4,4 < DDE 2,4'DDD
4,4'DDD 2,4'DDT 4,4'DDT
Lauritzen Channel
BENTHIC:
Crangon franciscorum (tail muscle)1: n=2
Average 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
SE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Gobiid fish (whole):n=l
Average 0.09% 44.00%
Santa Fe Channel
BENTHIC:
Crangon franciscorum (tail muscle) : n=3
Average 0.79% 52.27% 3.47% 38.66%
SS 0.79% 1.79% 0.06% 3.40%
Citharichthys stiqmaeus (whole): n=l
Average 1.01% 29.14% 3.08% 45.83%
Paroohrvs vetulus (whole): n=l
Average 0.00% 21.48% 7.19% 47.18%
Platichthvs stellatus (whole): n=l
Average 0.81% 29.83% 4.27% 60.05%
PELAGIC;
Cvmatogaster aggreaata (whole): n=l
Average 0.36% 29.13% 6.72% 53.90%
Richmond Inner Harbor channel
BENTHIC:
Cranaon franciscorum (tail muscle)2: n=2
0.58% 45.91% 0.44% 8.98%
0.00% 4.82%
0.00% 2.43%
4.17% 16.77%
2.73% 21.43%
0.96% 4.09%
2.41% 7.48%
Average 0.00% 100.00%
SS 0.00% 0.00%
Cancer antennarius (muscle) : n=5
Mean 0.13% 91.94%
SE 0.13% 3.95%
Cancer antennarius (embrvo mass)
Average 0.35% 87.67%
SE 0.11% 3.47%
Gobiid fish (whole) : n=2
Average 0.31% 16.75%
SS 0.31% 0.22%
Citharichthvs stiomaeus (whole) :
Average 1.86% 23.09%
0.00%
0.00%
1.18%
0.49%
: n=2
1.27%
0.34%
2.85%
0.07%
n=l
5.63%.
0.00%
0.00%
6.28%
3.85%
9.43%
2.79%
72.71%
1.04%
46.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.14%
0.14%
0.46%
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
9.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.34%
0.34%
0.82%
0.16%
7.38%
1.49%
13.21%
1 = Only 4,4'DDE detected, probably owing to very small sample sizes
(approximately 0.2 and 0.4 g wet weight).
2 a Only 4,4'DDE detected, probably owing to small sample sizes (approximately
1.6g and 2.4 g) , and lower EDDT concentrations in Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel.
184
-------
TABLE 8-26C. Minimum average whole-body concentration (jig/kg wet
weight) of SDDT and dieldrin in pelagic and benthic fishes
adjusted to 25 individuals. The subtotal (N) is the actual
number of individuals the 25 individual estimate is based on.
I. PELAGIC FISHES
TAXA N
Lauritzen Channel
SDDT
PRODUCT
DIELDRIN PRODUCT
Cvma t ocras t e r 5
Anchoveta 1
SUBTOTAL 6
MIN. CONC. 25
Santa Fe Channel
Cymatogaster 1
Anchoveta 5
SUBTOTAL 6
MIN. CONC. 25
Richmond Channel
Cymatogaster 5
Anchoveta 5
SUBTOTAL 10
MIN. CONC. 25
7500
98
1,504
920
670
171
100
170
54
37,500
98
37,598
920
3,350
4,270
500
850
1350
5
1
6
25
1
5
6
25
5
5
10
25
390
15
79
40
17
5
2
4
1
1,950
15
1/965
40
85
125
10
20
30
185
-------
TABLE 8-26C (Cont'd). Minimum average whole-body concentration
(MS/kg wet weight) of EDDT and dieldrin in pelagic and benthic
fishes based on 25 individuals. The subtotal (N) is the actual
number of individuals the 25 individual estimate is based on.
I. BENTHIC FISHES
TAXA N DDDT PRODUCT N DIELDRIN PRODUCT
Lauritzen Channel
Gobi id l
MIN. CONC. 25
Santa Fe Channel
Gobi id 5
Citharicthys 1
Parophrvs 2
Platichthys • 1
SUBTOTAL 9
MIN. CONC, 25
Richmond Channel
Gobi id 4
Citharicthys 4
SUBTOTAL 8
MIN. CONC. 25
5,400
216
680
2,200
200
140
246
130
60
30
5,400
3,400
2,200
400
140
6,140
520
240
760
1
25
5
1
2
1
9
25
4
4
8
25
200
8
28 .
22
0
7
7
6
0
1
200
140
22
0
7
169
24
0
24
186
-------
TABLE 8-27. . Bioconcentration factors (BCFUW, wet weight) for
SDDT and dieldrin in pelagic fishes.
site
Oct.
IJDDT
Feb. Combined
Dieldrin
Oct. Feb. Combined
Lauritzen Channel
Cvmatoqaster - Muscle
Median 38,000
Average 40,000
Std.Err. 8,200
(n) 5
Cvmatogaster - Whole
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Morone - Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Anchoveta - Whole
Santa Fe Channel
166,000
151,000
30,000
5
6,700
6,700
3,600
2
2,000
Cvmatoqaster - Muscle
Median 55,000 32,000
Average
Std.Err.
(n) 1 1
Cvmatoqaster - Whole 107,000
Anchoveta - Whole 78,000
Richmond, channel
Cymatogaster - Muscle
Median 17,000
Average 24,000
Std.Err. 9,100
(n) 5
Cvtamogaster - Whole
Median 91,000
Average 100,000
Std.Srr. 21,000
(n) 5
Genyonemus - Muscle 44, 000
Anchoveta - Whole 17,000
43,000
43,000
12,000
2
6,400
6,700
1,400
5
19,000
22,000
4,900
5
1,400
1,400
820
2
850
10,400 7,900
9,500
9,200
9,200
1,200
2
22,000
based average whole water concentrations for a given site {Table 8-10) .
187
-------
TABLE 8-28A, EDDT and dieldrin concentrations in trawl transect
sediments.
TOG EDDT Dieldrin EDDT Dieldrin
SITE Fraction (uq/kq dry wt.) (uq/q PC)1
Lauritzen (n=3)2
Median 0.0178 47,800 530 2,440 26.9
Average 0.0197 50,500 570 2,570 29.1
Std.Err. 0.0021 15,000 91 760 4.6
Santa Fe (n=4)2
Median 0.0153 640 17 34.2 0.90
Average 0.0188 1,010 29 53.8 1.57
Std.Srr. 0.0037 450 17 23.8 0.88
Richmond (n=3}2
Median
Average
Std.Err.
0.0125
0.0126
0.0005
82
84
27
1.7
1.6
0.9
6.53
6.70
2.14
0.19
0.12
0.07
1 = Organic carbon normalized values based on average TOC value for
each channel
2 = Number of station means included in transect mean. See text for
specific stations included.
188
-------
TABLE 8-28B. Average percent composition of EDDT in trawl
transect sediments.
Site
2,4'DDE 4,4'DDE 2,4'ODD 4,4'DDD 2,4'DDT 4,4'DDT
Lauritzen Channel:
Santa Fe
Richmond
Average
SE
Channel :
Average
SE
(n=3) l
0.1%
0.0%
(n=4) 1
0.8%
0.2%
Inner Harbor Channel
Average
SE
0.9%
0.3%
2.1%
0.2%
12.9%
4.0%
: (n-3)
10.3%
1.5%
7.7%
1.2%
10.4%
0.3%
i
9.4%
0.4%
44.6%
7.6%
58.8%
6.6%
58.0%
2.7%
2.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
43.5%
8.4%
16.0%
2.3%
21.2%
4.5%
Organic carbon normalized values based on average TOC value for each
channel.
189
-------
TABLE 8-29. Accumulation factors for
benthic fishes and megafauna.
EDDT and dieldrin in
Site/Species
Lauritzen Channel
Crangon - Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
Cancer - Muscle
Gobiid - Whole
Santa Fe channel
Cranuon - Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Srr.
(n)
Gobiid - Whole
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Oct.
UDDT
Feb.
Combined
Oct.
Dieldrin
Feb. Combined
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.000
2
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
3
0.04
0.44
0.43
0.02
5
0.59
0-.61
0.06
5
0.31
0.07
0.07
3
Citharichthvs - Whole
Parophrvs - Whole
Platichthvs - Whole
Richmond Channel
Crangon - Muscle
Median 21
Average
Std.Srr.
(n)
Cancer - Muscle
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Cancer - Embryo
Median
Average
Std.Err.
(n)
Gobiid - Whole
Median
Average
Std.Brr.
(n)
Citharichthys - Whole
2.2
0.20
0.19
0.05 0.07
0.05 6.9
0.02 6.8 .
2 3
0.45
0.43
0.07
5
1.2
1.2
0.9
2
1.4
1.4
0.2
2
0.49
0.78
0.33
35 1.6 3.1
1.6 13
1.6 11
2 3
2.2
2.4
0.9
5
0.34
0.34
0.09
2
6.1
6.1
2.3
2
best representing the trawl transects (Table 8-28).
190
-------
TABLE 8-30. Concentration gradients for EDDT.
Channel EDDT
Lauritzen
Santa Fe
Richmond
Water
50
8.6
1
Sediment 1
50,500
1,010
84
Mussel
2,900
350
40
Gobiid
5,400
680
130
Surfperch
7,500
920
100
1 = Sediment cone, based on stations covered by trawls as well as any stations
immediately"bracketing the trawls. See text for specific stations included.
Water = ng/L
Sediment = jig/kg dry
Mussel, gobiid, and surfperch = ng/kg wet (whole body)
TABLE 8-31. Concentration gradients for dieldrin.
Channel Dieldrin
Lauritzen
Santa Fe
Richmond
Hater Sediment1
18 570
1.8 29
<1 1.6
Mussel
97
19
4
Gobiid
200
28
6
Surfperch
390
40
. 2
1 - Sediment cone, based on stations covered by trawls as well as any stations
immediately bracketing the trawls. See text for specific stations included.
Water = ng/1
Sediment = pg/kg dry
Mussel, gobiid, and surf perch = /ig/kg wet (whole body)
191
-------
TABLE 8-32. Overall average accumulation factor values {and 95
percent confidence intervals).
Organism
Shrimp Muscle
Crab Muscle
Flatfishes
Avg. 3 taxa1
Gobiid Fish
Total DDT
Avg.
95% CI n
2.6 -3.5
8.8 8
0.36 0.13 - 0.60 6
0.77 -0.76 - 2.3 4
1.2 -- --3
0.63 0.21 - 1.1 8
Dieldrin
Avg.
95% CI n
12.8 -35 - 61 3
2.4 -0.03- 4.85
0.56 -2.3 - 3.4 2
5.2 -- -- 3
1.9 -0.50 - 4.3 8
1 = Mean of the means of shrimp muscle, crab muscle and flatfish.
192
-------
9.0 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
This section covers the ecological effects assessment con-
ducted at the Lauritzen/Santa Fe/Richmond sites. The purposes of
the effects assessment were to quantify the nature and extent of
any existing ecological impacts, to determine the role of SDDT
and dieldrin in causing any observed impacts, and to develop
models predicting the type and extent of ecological effects as a
function of the concentrations of the dominant pollutant stress-
ors. The approaches used in assessing ecological effects were a
survey of macrobenthic community structure and composition, two
types of sediment bioassays, and modeling the exposure of-fish-
eating birds to contaminated prey.
9.1. BENTHIC SURVEY
9.1.1. Introduction
The primary purpose of the macrobenthic field study was to.
determine if a concentration-response relationship exists between
SDDT and dieldrin concentrations in sediments or interstitial
water and macrobenthic community structure and composition at the
United Heckathorn Superfund site (U.S. EPA, 1991b). According to
Brown et al. (1990), Levine-Frick (1990), and Pinza et al.
(1992), DDT and its metabolites and dieldrin are the primary
sediment contaminants at the study site. In this study, EDDT and
dieldrin sediment concentrations.were found to vary by 5 and 4
orders-of-magnitude, respectively (167,421 to 8 /*g EDDT/kg, dry
wt and 2,679 to 0 fig dieldrin/kg, dry wt) , among samples (Appen-
dix 8-1). In contrast, metals contamination at the site is
probably unimportant since SEM/AVS ratios were < 1 (Table 8-10),
and with the exception of Station 6, PAH sediment contamination
is low to moderate (Table 8-9). The variability of sediment
temperature (18-20°C) , salinity (30-31%') and water depth (10-38
feet) (Appendix 7-1) was small and probably not ecologically
significant. Sediment grain size (%silt+clay; range: 99.8-
71.7%)(Table 7-1) and total organic carbon (TOC; range: 4.0-
0.7%)(Appendix 8-1) also did not vary greatly. Nevertheless,
because sediment characteristics are known to affect the
structure and composition of benthic communities (Sanders, 1958;
Bloom et al., 1972), the potential influence of %silt+clay and
TOC on two measures of macrobenthic community structure was
addressed using hierarchical regression (Section 9.1.2.).
Obvious effects of shipping disturbance were dealt with by a
priori deletion of suspect data (see Section 9.1.2.}. While
other factors such as competition and predation may influence
benthic community structure and composition, they are difficult
or impossible to measure accurately and their consideration was
beyond the scope of this study.
In summary, the main factors considered in this study were
the degree of SDDT and dieldrin sediment contamination. Avail-
able data from this and previous studies indicated that these two
contaminants were probably important contributing factors if not
193
-------
the principal causes of any alterations in the macrobenthos.
Furthermore, as-the contaminants of concern, SDDT and dieldrin
would be the focus of any remedial actions. Concentration-
response relationships between sediment or interstitial water
chemistry and measures of macrobenthic community structure and
composition found in this study could be used as best predictors
of the kind and amount of change in the macrobenthic community
structure measures investigated following any reductions in EDDT
and dieldrin sediment contamination as a result of remediation.
No other quantitative studies of both the sediment chemistry and
the macrobenthos have been previously conducted in the study
area.
9.1.2. Methods
Field sampling methods are described in Section 6.4. Basic-
ally, macrobenthic infauna were sampled (sample unit = three
replicate 8.0 cm i.d. cores, totaling 0.015 m2, x 10 cm deep)
from each replicate grab sample at primary Stations 1 through 9
and at secondary Stations 22 and 23 (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Eight
replicates were taken at Station 1, five replicates at Stations 2
through 9, and single samples were, taken at Stations 22 and 23.
Infauna were separated from the sediment using stacked 1.0 and
0.5 mm mesh sieves and were preserved in a buffered solution of
10% formalin in seawater. All macrobenthic analyses in this
section are based on data obtained from only the 1.0 mm mesh
sieve collections {Appendix 9-1). At the time of this writing,
organisms in the 0.5 mm mesh samples have been identified
(Appendix 9-2) but the data analysis is incomplete. (Note:
Results of statistical analyses completed to date on the 0.5 mm
mesh samples are in general agreement with the results reported
here for the 1.0 mm mesh samples). Station 8 samples were
excluded from the macrobenthic analyses because the sampling crew
observed severe physical disturbance of the bottom sediment from
the propeller wash of deep-draft ships passing that station (see
Section 7.2. and Specht, 1991). The field sampling crew did not
observe disturbance of bottom sediments by prop wash at any other
station, and since there was an extreme paucity of animals only
at Station 8 (Appendix 9-1), there is no evidence of physical
disturbance by prop wash being a major factor affecting the
benthos at the other stations.
In the laboratory, preserved samples were transferred to 70%
ethanol and stained with rose bengal. Animals were sorted with
the aid of either a 3-diopter magnifier or a dissecting micro-
scope (6-12x) and each sample was subsequently resorted under a
.dissecting microscope. Animals found in each sample were sep-
arated into major taxonomic groups (Polychaeta, Mollusca, Crus-
tacea, "others") and placed in small containers with Nitex®-
screen bottoms which were allowed to drain onto absorbent paper
for 5 minutes prior to weighing. Group biomasses (± 0.01 g, wet
wt) were determined by subtracting the container weight from the
container plus sample weight. The weights of a clump of mussels,
Musculus senhousia. in replicate 2 at Station 2, and a large
194
-------
anthozoan, Pachycerianthug f imbriatus. in replicate 4 at Station
7, were subtracted from the biomass estimates to remove the
skewing effect of one or a few exceptionally large individuals.
Specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxon, usually
species, and counted. EPA's in-house taxonomists, Faith Cole and
Waldemar De Ben, performed all identifications and cross -verified
specimens in all but two taxa; Leslie Harris (Los Angeles County
Natural History Museum) verified the Polychaeta and John Chapman
(AScI, Newport, OR) verified the Crustacea.
The infauna data (Appendix 9-1) were used to determine the
following measures of macrobenthic community structure and com-
position per 0.015 m2 x 10 cm deep sampling unit:
(1) number of species,
(2) numerical abundance of all taxa,
(3) biomass of all taxa (g, wet wt) ,
(4) Infaunal Index (aka the "Infaunal Trophic Index"). This
is a biotic index developed by Word (1978) to characterize
macrobenthic community responses to pollution in the
Southern California Bight. In this study, we used the six
group version of the Infaunal Index (Word, 1990; see Table
9-1 for- a list of taxa in each group). The formula is:
j ' J
Infaunal Index = 100 - [20. ( E (i-1) Nj / S Nj)] Eq. 9-1
where Ni = number of individuals in group i, j = 6 specific
groups of animals differing in their sensitivity to pol-
lution, and 20 is a scaling factor to obtain index values
from 0 (highly polluted) to 100 (unpolluted) ,
(5) a Dominance index equal to the minimum number, or
fraction,, of species whose combined abundance was equal to
75% of the individuals (Swartz et al., 1985b, 1986), ,
(6) Brillouin's (1962) Index,
s
H = (1/N) (Iog10 N! - S Iog10 n3!)
Eq. 9-2
where N = total number of individuals in s species and n3
number of individuals in the jth species (j =1, 2,...s),
(7) the complement of Simpson's (1949) Index:
(n^ - 1) / N (N-l)
195
s
1-Simpson's Index = 1 - S
j-l
Eq. 9-3
-------
(8) Mclntosh's (1967) Index:
J"8"
= N - l E n^
Mclntosh's Index = N - l E n^2 / N - /N Eq. 9-4
(9) number of Amphipoda,
(10) number of Amphipoda excluding Grandidierella iaoonica.
(11) number of Crustacea, -
(12) number of Mollusca,
(13) number of Polychaeta,
(14) Polychaeta biomass (g, wet wt) ,
(15) Mollusca biomass (g, wet wt) ,
(16) Crustacea biomass (g, wet wt) .
Measures 1 to 3 are commonly used in pollution studies
(Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978) . The Infaunal Index was a sen-
sitive indicator of oil pollution in Puget Sound (Ferraro et al.t
1989) and sewage -industrial pollution in the Southern California
Bight {Ferraro et al., in press). Brillouin's Index is the
appropriate information theory index for measuring a collection's
diversity (Pielou, 1966, 1975). The complement of Simpson's
Index is the probability that two individuals chosen at random
and independently from a population will belong to different
species. Mclntosh's Index is a Euclidean distance measure which
ranges from 0 when only one species is present to a maximum of 1
when individuals are evenly distributed among species. According
to Washington (1984), Simpson's and Mclntosh's Index are suitable
for pollution studies. Magurran (1988) describes the character-
istics, relative merits, and shortcomings of these and other
diversity indices for investigating pollution and other environ-
mental .effects. Numerical abundance and biomass by major taxa
are measures of taxonomic composition. Measure (10) was chosen
because G. naponica appears to be a pollution tolerant species at
the study site (see Sections 9.2.3. and 9.2.4.) and elsewhere
( Swart z, unpublished data) .
Our statistical models were simple linear [Y = ! (X)] and
hierarchical multiple linear regression [Y = £(Xlt X2, X3, X4)]
(Cohen and Cohen, 1975; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983; Neter et
al., 1989). The dependent variables (Ys) were the sixteen mea-
sures of community structure identified above. The independent
variables (Xs) for the simple linear regression were logi0(SDDT
/*g/g OC) and Iog10 (dieldrin+1 jig/g OC) . The null hypothesis for
the simple linear case was that no significant (p < 0.05)
196
-------
functional relationship exists between the independent variables
and dependent variables. The simple linear regressions ignore
possible effects of other variables on the dependent variable.
The independent variables for the hierarchical regression were:
Xa m %silt+clay, X2 = TOC, X3 = log10(EDDT jug/g OC) , and X4 =
Iog10 (dieldrin+l ng/g OC) . The order of entry of the independent
variables in the hierarchial regression (Xi through X4) was
chosen to determine if EDDT and dieldrin sediment concentrations
account for a significant amount of the variation in the depen-
dent variables beyond that accounted for by sediment %silt+clay
and TOC. Log10{SDDT /xg/g OC) (X3) was given priority entry into
the regression model over log™ (dieldrin+l /xg/g OC) (X;) because
bioassay results and toxic unit analyses indicate EDDT is the
principal ecotoxicological factor at the study site (Section
9.2.4.). The close proximity of sediment chemistry and macro-
benthic infauna samples (samples were taken from the same grab
and were at most a few cm apart) allows strong inferential link-
age between exposure conditions and potential biological effects.
The sediment chemistry variables were log -trans formed to
meet the assumptions of linear regression. The log10(Y+l) trans-
formation was used for dieldrin concentrations because zero ( 4/n) and large (>3 or <-3) standardized residuals
(Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Observations with |DFFITS| > 1 or
|DFBETAS| > 1 were identified as outliers in the hierarchical
multiple regression analyses (Neter et al., 1989). Analyses were
conducted on the complete data set and after sequentially remov-
ing the largest outlier. A regression was considered significant
and robust if the probability of significance (p) was <. 0.05
after removal of outliers.
We calculated simple linear regressions for four independent
variables for both EDDT and dieldrin (sediment concentration in
M9/k9' drY wt and. M9/9 OC an<* interstitial water concentrations
in ng/L, total and ng/L, free) to determine the medium and unit
of measurement which best predicted the variability in the depen-
dent variables. In summary, we found little or no difference be-
tween units of measurement within a medium and sediment concen-
tration was usually a better predictor than the corresponding
interstitial water concentrations (see Section 9.1.3.). Based on
these results, and because organic compounds, such as DDT and
dieldrin, tend to be most closely associated with the organic
carbon fraction in sediments (Karickhoff et al., 1979; DiToro et
al., 1991), we report results only for EDDT and dieldrin sediment
concentrations normalized to sediment TOC.
We report the regression equations, coefficients of deter-
mination (r2 = the proportion of the variance in the dependent
variable explained by [attributable to] the independent
197
-------
variable), and the probability of significance of the simple
linear regressions. Figures are-plots-of the dependent variable
as a function of the independent variable and include the least-
squares linear regression line. Pearson product-moment correla-
tions (r) are reported in each figure. We report only the
results of the hierarchical regression analyses for the two
measures (Measures 4 and 10, above) which had the highest r2s in
the simple linear regressions on Iog10 (EDDT pg/g OC) . We report
the correlations among the variables in the hierarchical
regression model, the unstandardized (B) and standardized (P)
regression coefficients, the Y intercept, the squared semipartial
correlations (sr2) , and the multiple correlation coefficients (R2
and R2 adjusted) of the complete model. All statistical analyses
were performed using SAS (1985).
9.1.3. Results
Diversity, as measured by the Dominance, 1-Simpson's, and
Mclntosh's indices, and the number and biomass of Mollusca sig-
nificantly increased with increasing Iog10 (SDDT [ig/g OC) while
the Infaunal Index, number of Amphipoda, number of Amphipoda
excluding G. japonica. and number and biomass of Crustacea sig-
nificantly decreased (Table 9-2; Figure 9-1). The regressions of
number and biomass of Crustacea on log10(SDDT /xg/g OC) , however,
were not significant (p > 0.05) after removing an outlier (Sta-
tion 23). There was no significant regression of number of
species, abundance, total biomass, Brillouin's Index, and number
and biomass of Polychaeta on log10(SDDT /xg/g OC) (Table 9-2;
Figure 9-1).
The probabilities of significance and r2s in the simple
linear regressions of each of the sixteen dependent variables on
log10(EDDT fig/g OC) and Iog10 (EDDT jzg/kg, dry wt) were similar.
Sediment TOC was fairly constant among the stations in the study
area (Appendix 8-1), and, consequently, there was little differ-
ence between regressions calculated using SDDT concentrations on
a sediment dry weight and TOC-normalized basis. Four fewer
measures (Dominance, number and biomass of Crustacea, and number
of Mollusca), however, were significantly related to log10{EDDT
ng/L, total) than to log10(SDDT yug/g OC) , and five fewer measures
{Dominance, number of Amphipoda, Crustacea, and Mollusca, and
Crustacea biomass) were significantly related to the log10(SDDT
ng/L, free) than to Iog10 (EDDT /xg/g OC) . The generally poorer -
predictive ability of SDDT interstitial water compared to EDDT
sediment concentrations may have been due to higher analytical
variability, greater number of below detection limit values for
interstitial water chemistry, and smaller sample size due to
missing data (n = 41 for interstitial water SDDT and n = 45 for
sediment SDDT) (Appendix 8-1).
Diversity (Dominance, Brillouin's, 1-Simpson's, and
Mclntosh's indices), total biomass, and Mollusca biomass signif-
icantly increased while the Infaunal Index and number of Amphi-
poda excluding G. japonica significantly decreased with
increasing Iog10(dieldrin+1 /zg/g OC) (Table 9-3; Figure 9-2).
198
-------
Removal of outliers had no affect on the probabilities of sig-
nificance of the regressions and little affect on r2s. There was
no significant regression of number of species, abundance, number
of Amphipoda, Crustacea, Mollusca, and Polychaeta, and Polychaeta
and Crustacea biomass on Iog10 (dieldrin+1 /xg/g OC) (Table 9-3;
Figure 9-2). As with EDDT, the results of simple linear regres-
sion analyses were similar for the independent variables
Iog10 (dieldrin+l /xg/g OC) and Iog10 (dieldrin+1 /ig/k
-------
variables has no effect on the coefficients in the complete
regression model though changes may occur in the sr2s associated
with each independent variable as it is entered into the model.
Reversing the order of log10(SDDT ^ig/g OC) and 16g10 (dieldrin+i
Mg/g OC) , therefore, yields the same regressions as in Tables 9-4
and 9-5 but the sr2s change and both Iog10 (dieldrin+l /ng/g OC) and
logi0(£DDT /zg/g OC) are found to account for a significant amount
of the variation in the Infaunal Index and Iog10'{number of amphi-
pods excluding £. laconical after accounting for the effects of
the preceding independent variables.
The regression coefficient for log10(2DDT jtg/g OC) in the
Infaunal Index multiple regression {B = -5.936; Table 9-4)
indicates that for any given sediment %silt+clay and TOC, on
average, each additional log10(EDDT fig/g OC) unit change ia
associated with a decrease of 5.936 units in the Infaunal Index
(Cohen and Cohen, 1975). The regression coefficient for
log10(SDDT /zg/g OC) in the Iog10 (number of amphipods excluding G.
-iaponica) multiple regression (B = -0.483; Table 9-5) indicates
that for any given sediment %silt+clay and TOC, on average, each
additional log10(SDDT //g/g OC) unit change is associated with a
decrease of 0.483 units in the Iog10 (number of amphipods exclud-
ing G. japonica). The similarity in the regression coefficients
for log10(2JDDT /xg/g OC) in the simple linear regression (B =
-6.564).(Table 9-2) and the multiple linear regression (B =
-5.936) (Table 9-4) for the Infaunal Index indicates-that changes
in the Infaunal Index as a function of log10(SDDT jKJ/g oc) are
similar whether or not the effect of %silt+clay and TOC is taken
into account. The same conclusion follows for the regression
prediction equations for Iog10 (number of amphipods excluding G.
-iaponica) . The log10(SDDT /zg/g OC) regression coefficients in
this case are -0.311 for the simple regression model (note: Bs
given in Table 9-2 are calculated on untransformed data; the ps
and rs of the regressions did not change appreciably for untrans-
formed and log-transformed dependent variables in Tables 9-2 and
9-3) and -0.483 (Table 9-5) for the multiple regression model.
Table 9-6 is a list of infaunal species (.> 1.0 mm) having
abundances > 5 in the total collection, their Infaunal Index
group, and numerical abundance by station groupings determined by
significant (p <. 0.05) differences in the log10(£DDT /xg/g OC)
among stations determined by Student-Newman-Keuls test. Species
most abundant at Stations 1-3 (e.g., Exoaone lourei. Tubificidae
Groups 1, 2 and 3, Zeuxo normani. Musculus senhousia. and
Grandidierella japonica) are tolerant of DDT and dieldrin or are
local populations with (evolved) -tolerance, or are species with
behavioral or other mechanisms which reduce their exposure to DDT
and dieldrin in the sediments in which they live. Species most
abundant at Stations 4-7 (e.g., Theora lubrica. Pseudopolydora
paucibranchiata. Cossura sp., Cirratulid sp. A, and Tharyx spp.)
are probably moderately tolerant of DDT and dieldrin, while
species which were only collected at Stations 9, 22, or 23
(Cryptomya californica. Phoronis cf. pallida. Glycinde
polycrnatha. Phot is brevipes. and Turbellaria spp.) may be
200
-------
sensitive to DDT and/or dieldrin.
9.1.4. Discussion
Regression analyses do not establish cause-and-effect; con-
comitant variation does not necessarily imply causation. Regres-
sion analyses, however, can be used to identify possible or pro-
bable causal relationships, to screen out causal relationships
(i.e., if the regression of Y on X is not significant, X is very
unlikely to cause Y), to establish useful predictive empirical
relationships, and for statistical control (Sokal and Rohlf,
1981). The ability to infer probable causal relationships with
regression improves with greater understanding of the scientific
or mechanistic interrelationships among-the variables.
In this study there is no confusion of potential cause and
effect. Toxic effects of the insecticides DDT and dieldrin on -
many animals are well documented (WHO 1989a, 1989b). There is a
priori reason, therefore, to believe that high concentrations of
2JDDT and dieldrin in sediments may affect the biota by reducing
or excluding sensitive taxa and, perhaps, increasing tolerant
taxa. The converse proposition - that the biota cause, or
significantly affect, the high EDDT and dieldrin sediment
contamination at the study site - is not worthy of consideration.
At a minimum, one can not rule out the possible effect of
SDDT and dieldrin on those community structure measures for which
there were significant regressions in Tables 9-2 through 9-5.
The regressions are also the best available predictors of macro-
benthic community changes which may occur as a result of remedia-
tion of contaminated sites in the study area. As noted earlier
(Section 9.1.1.), some environmental variables (e.g. temperature
and salinity) were essentially constant in the study area, and,
therefore, could be ignored; good faith actions were taken to
ensure only relevant data were used in generating the regres-
sions; and hierarchical regression was used to statistically
control for the potential effects of sediment %silt+clay and TOG
on the Infaunal Index and Iog10 (number of amphipods excluding G.
laponica) (Tables 9-4 and 9-5). If the regressions reported in
this section are used for prediction, extrapolations should not
be made beyond the joint region of the observations used in cal-
culating the regressions (Neter et al.r 1989).
As sediment concentrations of EDDT increased, the Infaunal
Index and the number of Amphipoda (especially after excluding the
pollution tolerant species, G. japonica) decreased while diver-
sity and the number and biomass of Mollusca increased (Table 9-2;
Figure 9-1). The same trends were present for dieldrin but the
regressions for number of Amphipoda and Mollusca were not signif-
icant (Table 9-3; Figure 9-2). The positive relationship between
diversity and SDDT and dieldrin sediment concentrations'primarily
reflects a more even distribution of individuals among species in
the more highly contaminated sediments since there was no signif-
icant trend in either the number of species or abundance (Figures
9-l,a,b and 9-2,a,b).
In general, crustaceans (especially amphipods) are sensitive
201
-------
to DDT (Sanders, 1969; WHO, 1989a; Nebeker et al., 1989; and see
Section 9.2.). The observed inverse relationship between the .
number of Amphipoda and SDDT sediment concentration (Figure 9-
l,i,j) is further evidence of amphipod sensitivity to DDT. DDT
and dieldrin are insecticides (WHO, 1989a,b), and some
crustaceans may be sensitive to DDT and dieldrin by reason of
phylogenetic affinity (both insects and crustaceans are in the
phylum Arthropoda). Mollusks, on the other hand, are generally
insensitive to DDT (WHO, 1989a). The mollusk Macoma nasuta had
high survival in the laboratory even when exposed to the most
highly contaminated Lauritzen Channel sediment (Section 8.3.).
Though mollusks can persist and may even thrive in areas 'con-
taminated with DDT and dieldrin, this does not mean there is no
biological effect resulting from molluscan exposures to these
contaminants. Bioaccumulated contaminants in mollusks and other
tolerant taxa can move up the food chain and affect animals at
higher trophic levels (see Section 9.4.).
Infaunal Index values decreased with increasing EDDT and
dieldrin sediment concentrations (Tables 9-2 and 9-3; Figures
9-l,d and 9-2,d). Infaunal Index values decreased with increas-
ing EDDT even after accounting for the possible influence of
sediment %silt+clay and TOC (Table 9-4). The Infaunal Index is a
measure of the proportion of animals by feeding categories and
sensitivity to pollution (Word, 1978, 1980, 1990; Mearns and
Word, 1982). High Infaunal Index values occur when the benthic
fauna is dominated by pollution-sensitive detrital feeders, while
low values occur when the benthic fauna is dominated by
pollution-tolerant deposit feeders. Depressed Infaunal Index
values in this study to a large extent reflected decreases in the
abundance of the sabellid polychaete, Euchone limnicola. the
amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, and the phoronid, Phoronis cf.
pallida. and increases in the abundance of dorvilleids, oligo-
chaetes, and capitellid polychaetes.
The Infaunal Index was the response variable with the
strongest relationship (highest rz; Tables 9-2 and 9-3) with SDDT
and dieldrin sediment concentrations. Almost 50% of the variance
in the Infaunal Index could be accounted for by the logarithm of
the TOC-normalized SDDT or dieldrin sediment concentrations. The
proportion of the variance uniquely attributable to log10(EDDT
pg/g OC) after accounting for sediment %silt+clay and TOC was 36%
(Table 9-4; 53% after removing outliers) (Note: removal of out-
liers may increase or decrease sr2) . The proportion of the vari-
ance of Iog10 (number of amphipods excluding G. japonica) uniquely
attributable to log10(SDDT /-ig/g OC) after accounting for sediment
%silt+clay and TOC was 40% (Table 9-5; 45% after removing out-
liers) . . .
Other physical, biotic, and chemical factors (physical dis-
turbance of the sediment, predation, competition, other sediment
contaminants, etc.) may have affected the distribution and'abun-
dance of the infaunal biota at the study site and consequently
the values of our measures of macrobenthic community structure.
However, there is no evidence and no a priori reason to believe
202
-------
that any of these other factors were more important than EDDT and
dieldrin sediment contamination or that they varied so closely
with EDDT and dieldrin sediment concentrations as to render our
regressions spurious. The previous statement is especially true
for the Infaunal Index and the Iog10 (number of amphipods exclud-
ing £. japonica) where, after accounting for sediment %silt+clay
and TOC, and the amount of variance explained by log10(EDDT p.g/g
OC) was about 40% {Tables 9-4 and 9-5). As noted in Section
9.1.1., metals contamination does not appear to be a factor
(Table 8-10), PAH contamination was highest at Station 6 (Table
8-9), a station only moderately contaminated with EDDT and
dieldrin, and the only evidence of physical disturbance of the
bottom sediment was at Station 8 (and those data were deleted).
Our analyses (Tables 9-2 to 9-5) and observations (Table 9-6} of
the macrobenthic community, therefore, suggest that EDDT and/or
dieldrin sediment contamination are probably among the more
important if not the most important factors affecting the macro-
benthos at contaminated sites in the study area. Sediment bio-
assays and other ecotoxicological evidence (Section 9.2.4.)
strongly suggest that the EDDT concentration was the dominant
factor causing acute toxicity to sensitive amphipods.
The regression equations in this report (Tables 9-2 to 9-5)
allow prediction of changes in macrobenthic community structure
and composition at the study site as a function of the logarithm
of the TOC-normalized EDDT and dieldrin sediment concentrations.
Regressions with higher r2s or R2s are more likely to provide
better predictions. Since the independent variables, log10(EDDT
jtig/g OC) and Iog10 (dieldrin+l /ig/g OC) , formed three easily
identifiable groups by stations (Stations 1-3, 4-7, and 9, 22,
and 23, representing high, intermediate, and low concentrations
of EDDT and dieldrin, respectively (Figures 9-1 and 9-2),
predictions of macrobenthic changes are probably best made in
increments of the independent variable(s) corresponding to these
three station-groups.
For example, Infaunal Index estimates obtained using the
formula in Table 9-2 and values of 2,732 fig EDDT/g OC (the mean
for Stations 1-3) and 86 jug EDDT/g OC (the mean for Stations
4-7), are 67 and 77, respectively. The regression-based predic-
tion, therefore, is that the Infaunal Index would increase from
about 67 to about 77 if EDDT was reduced to about 86 fig SDDT/g OC
at Stations 1-3. Predictions of the Infaunal Index made using
the multiple regression model (Table 9-4) and appropriate values
of the independent variables do not differ appreciably (± ~l)
from those using the simple regression model.
According to Bascom et al. (1978), Infaunal Index values of
83-100 indicate "control", of 60-100 indicate "normal", of 30-60
indicate "changed", and of 0-30 indicate "degraded" benthic con-
ditions in the Southern California Bight. If one assumes that
these benchmarks are also appropriate for the study area, then
remediation may be required at Stations 1-7 to obtain "control11
conditions at EDDT- and dieldrin-contaminated sites in the study
area (Figure 9-l,d). To obtain "normal" conditions, remediation
203
-------
may be required at Stations 1-3 (Figure 9-l,d).
Judgments on appropriate remedial actions can also be made
using only data internal to this study. For example, the lowest
Infaunal Index value in a sample from sediments with low concen-
trations of SDDT and dieldrin was 68 (at Station 23), and the
lowest Infaunal Index value in a sample from sediments with mod-
erate concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin was 62 (replicate 5 at
Station 6) (Figure 9-1,d). If either of these Infaunal•Index
values were taken as -the cleanup criterion, then remediation may
be required at Stations 1-3. Obviously, this approach could be
applied using other criteria (e.g., means or lower confidence
limits of the Infaunal Index or other measures of community
structure at uncontaminated sites).
204
-------
TABLE 9-1.
study.
Taxa in the six infaunal index groups in the present
Lauritzen Channel Infaunal Index Groups
Detrital Feeders
Group 1
Water Column
Streblospio benedicti
Asychis elongata
Atnaena occidentalis
Eupolymnia heterobranchia
Euchone limnicola
Macoma cf. balthica
Macoma nasuta
Ampelisca abdita
Phoronis cf. pallida
Amphipholis squamata
Aoroides columbiae
Caprella mutica
Dulichia. rhabdoplast is
Group 2
Sediment/water interface
Exogone lourei
Nephtys caecoides
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Polydora ligni
Polydora socialis
Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata
Tharyx spp.
Cirratulus cirratus
Cirratulidae sp A
CLirri formia spirabrancha
Cossura sp.
Notomastus tenuis
Mediomastus spp.
Arenicolidae
Nippoleucon hinumensis
Zeuxo normani
Photis brevipes
Boccardia proboscidia
Cirratulidae, unid.
Caulleriella alata.
Leptochelia dubia
Sarsiella sp A
Eudorella pacifica
Sipuncula unid.
Theora lubrica
Group 3
Burrowing
Heteromastus filiformis
Deposit Feeders
Group 4
Interface
Eteone lighti
Leitoscoloplos pucrettensis
Group 5
Buried
Not present
Group 6
Anaerobic Sediment
Interface and buried
specialized feeders
Schistomeringos
longicornis
Armandia brevis
?Barantolla sp.
Capitella spp.
Tubificidae group 1
Tubificidae group 2
Tubificidae group 3
205
-------
TABLE 9-2. Simple linear regression equations, coefficients of
determination {R2), and significance probability (P) of sixteen
measures of community structure (Y) on X = log10(SDDT jig/g OC) .
Y
Number Species
Abundance
Total Biomass
Infaunal Index
Dominance
Brillouin's Index
1- Simpson's Index
Mclntosh's Index
Number Amphipoda
Number Amphipoda
(excluding Grandi
Number Crustacea
Number Mollusca
Number Polychaeta
Polychaeta Biomass
Mollusca Biomass
Crustacea Biomass
=
- 13
= 82
= 0.
= 89
- 2.
- 0.
= 0.
- 0.
= 16
A
.38!
.22
624
.49
769
611
659
475
.09
- 16.78
dierella
= 15
= 12
= 37
= 0.
= 0.
= 0.
.96
.84
.26
297
049
074
± B(X)
- 0
- 2
+ 0
- 6
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
- 4
.072
.606
.200
.564
.507
.036
.047
.054
.758
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
- 5.619 X
japojilca)
•3
+ 3
+ 2
- 0
+ 0
- 0
.944
.000
.001
.022
.297
.018
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r2
.0003
.0027
.0529
.4923
.1049
.0599
.1796
.1858
.1929
.2628
.1252
.0957
.0036
.0067
.1578
.1112
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
.9172
.7366
.1283
.0001
.0300
.1050
.0037
.0031
.0025
.0003
.0171
.0386
.6963
.5934
.0069
.0252
***
*
**
**
**
***
*
*
**
*
Symbols highlight significant regressions: * = 0.01 < P < 0.05,- ** = 0.001 <
P < 0.01; *** = P < 0.001.
206
-------
TABLE 9-3. Simple linear regression equations, coefficients of
determination {R2), and. significance probability (P) of sixteen
measures of community structure (Y) on X = Iog10 (dieldrin+l /iig/g OC)
Y
Number Species =
Abundance =
Total Biomass =
Infaunal Index =
Dominance =
Brillouin's Index =
1
-Simpson's Index =
Mclntosh's Index =
Number Amphipoda =
A ± B
1.2
71
0.
84
2.
0.
0.
0.
10
.49
.55
656
.09
935
620
691
511
.27
Number Amphipoda = 10.30
(excluding Grandidierella
Number Crustacea =
Number Mollusca =
Number Polychaeta =
Polychaeta Biomass =
Mollusca Biomass =
Crustacea Biomass =
10
16
35
0.
0.
0.
.27
.84
.11
262
173
050
+ 1.
+ 7.
+ 0.
- 12
+ 1.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
- 6.
(X)
012
035
551.
.08
280
095
097
111
107
X
X
X .
X
X
X
X
X
X
- 7.753 X
iaponica)
- 3.
+ 3.
+ 8.
- 0.
+ 0.
- 0.
854
401
948
017
714
022
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r2
.0129
.0050
.1040
.4289
.1724
.1070
.1940
.2036
.0818
.1288
.0308
.0317
.0184
.0011
.2346
.0401
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
.4580
.6447
.0307 *
.0001 ***
.0046 **
.0283 *
.0025 **
.0019- **
.0568
.0155 *
.2490
.2420
.3739
.8316
.0007 ***
.1870
Symbols highlight significant regressions: * = 0.01 < P < 0.05; ** = 0.001 < P <.
0.01; *** = P < 0.001.
207
-------
TABLE 9-4. Hierarchical regression of the infaunal index (Y)
%silt+clay (XI), TOC (X2) , log10(2DDT /xg/g OC) (X3) , and
Iog10 {dieldrin+l pig/g OC) (X4) .
on
XI
X2
X3
X4
Correlations (r)
Y
-0.06
-0.35*
-0.70***
-0.65***
XI
.-0.02
-HO. 10
-0.04
X2
+0.51***
+0.45**
X3
+0.92***
B
Y Intercept
0.003
6.155
-5.936
-1.399
88.75
sr2
P incremental
0.003 0.00
0.004 0.12**
-0.634 0.36***
-0.076 0.00
R2 = 0.49***
R2 adj . = 0.44***
= P < 0.05; ** = P < 0.01; *** = P < 0.001.
208
-------
TABLE 9-5. Hierarchical regression of the log(10) number of amphipods
excluding Grandidierella japonica (Y) on %silt+clay (XI), TOC (X2),
log10(SDDT pig/g OC} (X3), and Iog10 (dieldrin+1 /xg/g OC) (X4) . .
XI
X2
X3
X4
Y
-0.15
-0.36*
-0.75***
-0.61***
Correlations (r)
XI X2 X3 B
-0.000
-0.02 1.935
+0.10 +0.51*** -0.483
-0.04 +0.45** +0.92*** 0.360
Y Intercept = 1.135
sr2
P incremental
-0.006
0.028
-1.160
0.438
R2 .
R2 ad j . =
0.02
0.13***
0.40***
0.03
0.59***
0.55***
= P < 0.05; ** = P < 0.01; *** = P < 0.001.
209
-------
U)
Al
0)
o
•a
O
0)
rH
rH
O
O
4J
-H
z
CD
(U
•H
U
O4 g
14-1
O
S
in
H
o
o
0)
o
C
I
i!
i
tn o
§
co
ffl^f
o
CM
0
•O
CM
CM
•O
41
1
a
*•••.
c
o
u
c
f*
s
o
. c.
L.
o
in
0
CO
,_
-0
CM
(M
(M
41
!
8
(0
C
L.
%
II Cirriformia spi
o
CM
CO
c_
<0
,_
CM
CM
41
41
a
1
8
1 Polydora ligni
•o
o
CM
O
o
rs.
r-
o
01
4^
a
"o
,_
§
o
u
41
U
|
ro
0
o
,_
s,
CM
i-
CM
01
ychaet
8
41
n
f
a
&
*-
a
t
a
1
I>
-------
M
o
ft
a
polychaet
»
E
^m
t-
§
w
a:
(V
0
o
(M
O
-
bivalve
IB
*
0)
<
c
i
g
X
0
,_
0
"O
0
•^
o
(M
O
(M
«!
a
1
8
1
a
•C
u
•«—
1
o
M
O
'
I
•g
i
10
'5
L
4-1
|
:
0
PJ
CO
a
(M
0
«
o
.'
I
1
a
a
IL
4-
a
m
o
•o
o
-o
o
in
(M
>,
(VI
„
-------
FIGURE 9-1. Sixteen measures (a-p) of macrobenthic commun-
ity structure and composition as a function of log10(SDDT
/•tg/g oc}.
Regressions plotted as solid lines (see Table 9-1 for
regression equations); r = product-moment correlation
coefficient.
212
-------
W
c
8 „ «
0 *&
P*^\
H .
u
^
^
f.
•*
f*.
•5L
S
i A
UJ
q % «
d
H
O
52;
-
a. "
«— »—
*j *~
»«
?*•
^
«>.,^
#
o>
•
<
Q
<*
CO
£
g 1
S « 5
E-« | p
hft « W
N>^J w n
HA 52£
s 2 °
^•5
H§ ?»
i— i ry
W#*h ^C<
*? o
« ^ B
S <
0S co
II
•
H
1
56 o 6 60
S o o o o
*
*
*
***
z
§
- 1
o 2
8 ?!
«^ = ?
a> i o
*g
H^ 7s
Q Ǥ
o
o3
H
I
'I
o
o
o
o\
o
as
CO
C
w
0 w cv
o N ,7
f*!01 JO
II N fO5
II
*•( ^
-.
3
-/
i*»
ftl
S ^
lO
*-<
o
4
O
a c,01^
i— i *"
o
DJ
O,
C/D
Di
*-
^*
'"" 1"l—
• *""
ro
%• *
«fc
«>
.
01
o
i—i
m
E-«
o
frH
o,
S'
z
o I
p « 5
E-1 I «-
00 " m
\ g •
«) o o
*g
§^ ra w
II w
Ȥ
O ^g
3 e
n
w
H
I
in
oo
-------
n
C
C\2
O
II
P
CO
D
O
d
(N H o cn co f* u> in ^ n oj
HHHOOOOOOOO
o
o
o
H
I
*
*
CO
CO
CM
Z
o
!l
V) D
Z ^^
O Of
H§
w T „
o J-g
° g
£8
n
s
p
CO
PC
CO
o
o
a»
Q
o
E-
bfl
H|
O
o
H
I
•8
z
o
»g
J.K
0} H
i °
I
CO 01
HOOOOOOOO
CO
d
0)
w
o
55
CM
o>
ro
o
o
H§
O
S
H
I
«
CM
co c
CM
Z
g <
G» <
J..B
D] D
h/j Z "
BP o o O)
5- S —
W N
w .|
^
n
cn co
in
CO
o
co
0,
»—I
CO
cn
O
O
E-
00
o
O -3
H
I
OJ <
3*00
^1
QtO CM
- CM
W « §
o JL g
^ g
JH HOOOOOOO
-------
*
«
to
o
I-
z
0
i!
O
&
PQ
§W
OOOOOOOOO
*
*
—•*»
10
o
d
Q
o
a«
o;
w
W
-
o
o
H
I
O
H
g
O -3
H
I
s
2
.1 =
I fc~
CO
«
o
II
Q OT CM
Q • £
W » o
8 S
O H
J W
n
O
O
CO
I
o
K
m
eo
i
•g
*
ID
6
II
"
0 0
CM
CM
2
O
S
in
*-i
o
o
o
n
o
H
CM
00000
O
~ Jo»
CO
U
§ 60. 0060000
o
"
w
oS
H
I
en
o
Z
2 °
&-
u
H§
M
O
o
0-3
H
I
CO
i
M
-------
w
£j
oo
o
d . -
*'
75^
2
»H
9 1
\ " -H
00
co"
CO
2 - si
m
E-
H
• ^ N O CO VO ^*
i— J t (
£ HHHHOOO
W
C
CO
o
0 c
" " «*
J-,
*»B^
I ~
M **JP
s
10 r.
S r. J?
O
•I
S « °
o *
>5
0
ou
Ed
s o o o
$ o o o .
^ n N H
1 «-
J*~
1 »
-^
o>
)
(N O
0 0
*~
'•8!*"
«-
^J
1
^
o>
O
^
o
o
^0
(N v^
5
HQ
Q
O
03
H
1
j,
ro
CJ
O
H
(NN^
?
E-T
J ^^
Q
w
CJ
oS
H
1
o»
1
«M
CO
§
§
^
n
o
1
OB
J^
n
z
o
g
H
CQ
n
o>
1
n
s
g
u
o
CM
N
g
I
CO
B
CO
«
o
1
VJ
n
o
CO
i
I
11
•
*
CO
CO
d
£
a
s
lO
o
•
o
\
^
CO
CO
o
1— 1
m
-------
FIGURE 9-2. Sixteen measures (a-p) of macrobenthic commun-
ity structure and composition as a function of Iogi0{diel-
drin+1 /*g/g OC) .
Regressions plotted as solid lines (see Table 9-2 for
regression equations); r = product-moment correlation
coefficient.
213
-------
CO
d
r-
q
CD
II
(H
CM
n
CM*
M
a
o
d '%
\
W K
u ^ »
< on
«-
T
.-
o_ •- .
,1&
^r
^
-W
Cfc>
Q
n
o
o
E-
Qfl
""•s^
bA
(N -^
-
^^*
^
>— «
K
*3
W
Q
>^-'
0
O
J
O
§60660
m 0 0 0 0
-3 <* m (N H
CO
CM
2
• o
H
0) <
J,£3
to n
2
0 0
CO CM
1! "
0> 0
i~g
n
ll
*•
*
*
*
m
**"
X
P
z
cncn
o
O
o
o\
o
co
o
in
n
o
o
E-
cafi
"^!
CO
CM
z
o
< CO II
- i o
f H
1
DRIN
^ CO CM
J
pq -1
O
O
?i
w
C
«_ b
(0
u>
*0-l
r>.
m«n
O>
ro
O
O
CO
d
CO
CM
1 O
CJ
01
en <
%±b
. CO II
—N Z
i-H O O
+1
Z tO CM
iS
? 2
K
w
O
3
fe
O
H
CN
9
CO
CO
<
o
m
j
<
O>
in
ro
HO
ro
o
o
CO
CM
-> z
M g
^ °> <
30 i H
3_ — to
. CO II
-«. z
-i O O
2 CO CM
s „ «
g ?i
i "i
*— ii
O •
O
-------
CO
CO
Q
55
»—i-
CO
55
•—*
O
d
2
PQ
CM
on
05!HOO\COts'U>lfl^r'l
o> en
O
O
00
«3
o
3
HOOOOOOOO
O>
n
N
O
CO . II
z
o o
§
z S3
•—< VJ
CM
»i
-I
co
*
*
CM
O
CO)
*
*
O
o
00
60
W
S
•s^x
o
2
CO
CM
O
. CO II
CH* O O
ii
g
^ O)
CO
^
o
CO
PL,
S
H—i
CO
o>
o>
o
o
E->
CO)
-t-
2
2
a
o
CO
CM
CO II
o o
p
0} CM
HOOOOOOO
-------
CO
00
0
II
^o
H
« o
*••* S
T
^ <
i-6
tn II
i o
g
CO CM
II W
? §
I p
O O O O O
o>
o
N
2
O
&
B5
cu
s
05
W
ffl
cf
i«o^
n
O
O
do
co •<
. CO II
CH" o o
^ en CM
£3 „ CM
Ql " •*
a> fz
3 at
j.
O
o
OOOOOOOOO
CO
D
05
O
D5
m
s
P
_«o^
o
o
«sfl «
CO
CM
Z
O
^- o> <
Cjfl [ f—
^ ^ «
. CO II
cr o o
S ?'8
05 " z
Q ? 2
T I i*
O
o
OOOOOOOOO
-------
n
G
00
o
<£
N
O
d
eo
OT
o
s
o
3
O
04
(/}
C
¥
0
^J
W
«**-
^><~
&
to
F
«»
0) •
M O
n
u
o
£-
00
-, bn
(N J
«t
*^^\
^^
+
2
s
^S
w
S,
o
3
*— 1
o
n
N
^•>
O
P
(A <
J,fc
en ll
o o
P
g
co co
iS
« 0
-5
^
it
•
tj
w
d
II
S-,
s
* — *
M
2
m
*— i
o
d
CU)
OT
CO
<
S
O
1— 1
CQ
<
H
<
E-
ff\
\fJt
D
Cki
n
O
o
E-
Qfl
eo
CM
- z
o
S1 o> ^
* ^B
RIN +
i £
DIE
o
o
o
HHHHOOOOO
inoinoinoinoiflo
^•^{OnOlOJHHOO
o oooooooooo
o o
I
CM
CM
z
o
E - E
STA
CO
c
lO
1-1
o
•
o
X
PU
«
w
«
o
o
en
""o"
o
H
CO
CO
O
o
H
00
^ T S
3. ~ w
LOG
2 CO CM
H3 ?l
s -g
O Jo
*
*
*
00
§ O
N
2
00 ^H
t: q
d
\
00
m
5
CO
§
o
o
o
CO
CM
O
c*g
N J J, 6
. CO II
— ^s
^H O O
+1
^ CO N
2 iS
-9 !P
us
s !
o •
3
<*»
-------
9-2. SEDIMENT TOXICITY TO AMPHIPODS
9.2.1. Introduction
The first objective of this portion of the study was to
examine relations between sediment contamination by SDDT and
dieldrin, acute sediment toxicity to the amphipod, Eohaustorius
estuarius. and the abundance of amphipods at nine sites in the
Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor area. The
second objective was to identify the lowest concentrations of DDT
and dieldrin that were associated with effects on the survival
and abundance of amphipods. The final objective was to evaluate
the relative contribution of these compounds to toxicity and
biological impacts in the study area. This evaluation was based
on independent data on the toxicity and effects of DDT and
dieldrin on amphipods (Swartz et al., 1986, 1991; Nebeker et al.,
1989; Ferraro et al., 1991; Hoke and Ankley, 1991).
9.2.2. Methods
Sediment and macrobenthos samples were collected on October
7-10, 1991 at a total of 9 stations: 4 in the Lauritzen Channel
(Stations 1-4), 2 in the Santa Fe Channel (Stations 5-6), and 3
in the Richmond Harbor Channel (Stations 7-9). Five 0.1 m2 van
Veen grabs were taken at each station, except for Station 1 where
8 grabs were taken. Three 8.0 cm id cores, with a total area of
0.015 m2, were taken from each grab for macrobenthic analysis.
In contrast to the community analysis (Section 9.1.) in which
only the 1.0 mm results were analyzed, the analysis of the amphi-
pods in this section is based on the combination of amphipods
.retained on the 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens. Other procedures are
described in Section 9.1. . • -
Ten-day sediment toxicity tests were conducted with the
amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius according to the ASTM (1990)
guide. E. estuarius was selected as the test species because it
is relatively sensitive to sediment contaminants and tolerant of
a broad range of natural sediment features (e.g., grain size,
interstitial water salinity). On October 14, 1991 the sediment
sample from each grab was mixed by hand with a spatula. Large
pieces of shell or other debris were removed and approximately
175 mL of sediment were placed in a 1 L glass beaker to form a 2
cmodeep layer. The sediment was covered by 775 mL of filtered,
28V" seawater, which was aerated through a 1 mL glass pipet.
The beakers were placed in a 15° C water bath.
On October 9, 1991, approximately 2000 amphipods (3-5 mm
total length) were collected from the shallow subtidal area along
the north bank of Beaver Creek at Ona Beach State Park, Oregon.
The amphipods were counted and placed in glass bowls containing a
2 cm deep layer of 0.5 mm-screened sediment from the Ona Beach
site. The bowls were submerged in a flowing seawater table until
the initiation of the experiment.
On October 15, 1991, the amphipods were recovered from sed-
iment by sieving the contents of the bowls through a 1.0 mm
screen. Amphipods were sequentially sorted into lots of 20 indi-
214
-------
viduals, were recounted, and then each lot was placed into a ran-
domly assigned 1 L experimental beaker. Most amphipods quickly
swam or sank to the bottom and buried in the sediment. After 10
days the contents of the beakers were sieved through a 6.5 mm
screen and the survivors counted. Apparently dead individuals
were examined under a microscope for signs of life. Missing
specimens were counted as dead (Swartz et al., 1985a). Survivors
were tested, to see if they were able to rebury in clean sediment
(ASTM, 1990). Since 99.2% of the survivors were able to rebury,
we only report the mortality data in this report.
A toxicity test beaker was prepared for each sediment sample
from each grab. Thus, there were 8 replicates for Station 1 and
5 replicates for Stations 2-9. In addition, negative and posi-
tive controls were conducted. Negative controls were 10 day
mortality tests in 5 beakers with amphipod collection site (Ona
Beach) sediment. The QA/QC requirement for the negative control
is <. 10% mortality (ASTM, 1990). The negative control sediment
was a fine-grained (178.0 [m median diameter, 98.8% sand), low-
organic content (0.03% TOG) sand {DeWitt et al. 1992). Positive
control was a 4 d mortality test in an unreplicated dilution
series of cadmium (spiked as CdCl2) in 28 ppt seawater (without
sediment) at nominal concentrations of 30, 15, 7.5, 3.8, 1.9,
0.94, and 0.00 mg Cd/L. The QA/QC requirement for the positive
control is that the cadmium 4 d LC50 be within 2 standard devia-
tions of the mean 4 d LC50 in previous tests. The mean cadmium 4
d LC50 for the previous 16 positive control tests with E. estu-
arius in our laboratory is 11.8 mg/L (mean ± 2 SD = 6.3 - 17.2
mg/L). The negative and. positive control beakers were processed
exactly the same as the beakers containing sediment from Stations
1-9, except for the lack of sediment and shorter test duration of
the positive control. Apparent, field-derived LC50 estimates for
SDDT were calculated for concentrations based on sediment samples
from both the grab cores at the time of field collection and the
bioassay chambers at the initiation of the toxicity tests (i.e.,
the T0 bioassay storage sediment). There was no statistically
significant difference between these LC50 estimates. Sediment "
chemical concentrations in the samples from the grab cores are,
therefore, used in this report to allow comparisons of toxicity,
biology, and bioaccumulation results with a single data set for
sediment chemistry.
Statistical comparisons between chemical, toxicological, and •
biological analyses were made by correlation, ANOVA, and Student-
Neuman-Keuls multiple range test (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). LC50s
were calculated by probit analysis (Finney, 1971).
9.2.3. Results
Sediment Toxicity; The control results of the sediment tox-
icity test with E. estuarius met all QA/QC requirements. Mean
mortality in the negative control sediment (amphipod collection
site, Ona Beach, Oregon) was 3.0%, well within the ASTM (1990)
requirement of negative control mortality < 10% (Table 9-7). The
cadmium 4 d LC50 in seawater was 16.9 mg/L, within 2 standard
215
-------
deviations of the mean 10 day LC50 (11.8 mg/L) of the positive
control for the previous 16 experiments with E. estuarius in our
laboratory.
Mean mortality of E. estuarius exposed to sediment from the
Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor transect
ranged from 23.0 to 66.3% (Table 9-7). Mean mortality in'sedi-
ment from Station 1 was significantly different from the negative
control (Ona Beach) sediment and sediment from all other stations
on the transect. Mean mortality in sediment from Stations 1, 2,
3, and 6 was significantly different from the negative control
sediment. Sediment from two of the eight grab samples from Sta-
tion 1 caused 100% mortality of test specimens.
The bioassay data indicate a toxicity gradient along four
stations from the head to the mouth of Lauritzen Channel (Table
9-7). Also, the mean toxicity at the stations in the Lauritzen
Channel (42.0%) was greater than mean toxicity in the Santa Fe
Channel (30.0%) or Richmond Harbor Channel (23.7%).
Amphipod Fauna; Eight species of amphipods were collected
along the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor
transect (Table 9-8). Three species were found in the Lauritzen
Channel, two in the Santa Fe Channel, and seven in the Richmond
Harbor Channel. Only.two individuals were collected at Station
8, a site at which the macrobenthic community is greatly dis-
turbed by prop scour (see Section 7.2. and Specht, 1991). Only
one amphipod species, Grandidierella japonica was abundant in the
Lauritzen Channel. Corophium heteroceratum was abundant in the
Santa Fe and Richmond Harbor Channels.- Ampelisca abdita was
abundant at Richmond Harbor Station 9.
The abundance of G. japonica was inversely related to that of
other amphipods (Figure 9-3) . Where G_. japonica was abundant or
common. (Lauritzen Stations 1-4), all other amphipods were rare or
absent. Where other amphipods were abundant or common (Stations
5, 6, 7, 9), G. japonica was rare or absent.
Sediment Chemistry: The mean concentration of dieldrin and
the sum of DDT metabolites (EDDT) and the total organic carbon
along the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor
transect are given in Tables 8-1 and 8-2. There was a very
strong gradient of chemical contamination along the transect.
The first three stations in the Lauritzen Channel (Stations 1-3)
were highly contaminated by both dieldrin (25.8-35.2'/tg/g OC) and
£DDT {1,520-3,500 /ig/g OC) . The concentrations of dieldrin and
EDDT at the other six stations were about an order-of-magnitude
or more below the concentrations at Lauritzen Stations 1-3. How-
ever, a contamination gradient is evident even at these six sta-
tions, with minimal concentrations of dieldrin (0.07 jtg/g OC) and
EDDT (1.3-4 #g/g OC) at Station 9, farthest from the Lauritzen
Channel. Concentrations of organic carbon-normalized dieldrin
and EDDT were highly correlated among the nine stations (r «
0.93, p < 0.001).
The concentration of Aroclor 1254 was 118 /*g/kg (6.7 pg/g OC)
at Station 2, and 607 /zg/kg (20 ^g/g OC) at Station 6 (Table 8-
8). The concentration of Aroclor 1260 was about half that of
216
-------
Aroclor 1254 at Stations 2 and 6. The presence of neither
Aroclor 1254 nor 1260 was confirmed in the sediment from Station
9. Aroclor 1242 was not detected at Stations 2, 6, or 9. PAH
concentrations were also substantially higher at Station 6 than
at Station 2, and lowest at Station 9 (Table 8-9).
The concentrations of AVS and most metals were highest at
Stations 1 and 6 and lowest at Stations 8 and 9 (Table 8-10) .
The ratio of total SEM/AVS on a molar basis ranged from 0.05 at
Station l to 0.48 at Station 9.
Relations between Chemistry. Toxicity'and.Amphipod^Abundance;
The high correlation between dieldrin and EDDT results in
virtually identical patterns in the relations between both chem-
ical parameters and the biological response indicators {toxicity
and amphipod abundance). There were no substantial differences
in mortality of E. estuarius at concentrations of dieldrin < 3
(ig/g OC or at concentrations of SDDT < 200 /Kj/g OC (Figures 9-4,
9-5). At Lauritzen Stations 1-3, where the concentrations of
dieldrin and EDDT ranged from 25-35 pg/g OC and 1,500-3,500 pg/g
OC, respectively, there were significant increases in sediment
toxicity.
The abundance of amphipods (excluding G. japonica) in the
field was reduced at stations with lower chemical contamination
than that at which toxicity began to increase. Amphipod abun-
dance was variable, but often > 40 individuals/0.1 m2 at dieldrin
and EDDT concentrations of < 3 fig/g OC and < 100 (ig/g OC, respec-
tively (Figures 9-6, 9-7). Few or no amphipods (except G. japon-
ica) were collected at Stations 1-4, where the concentrations of
dieldrin and EDDT ranged from 2.46-35.2 /ig/g OC and 189-3,500
M9/9 OC, respectively.
The abundance of fi. japonica was positively correlated to the
toxicity (r = 0.29, p < 0.05; Figure 9-10) and SDDT and dieldrin
contamination gradients (r = 0.54-0.58, p < 0.001; Figures 9-8,
9-9) . G. japonica was most abundant when the concentration of
the sum of DDT metabolites exceeded 1,500 ng/g OC, the
concentration of dieldrin exceeded 25 jtg/g OC, and the mortality
of E. estuarius in laboratory toxicity tests exceeded 35%.
The abundance of amphipods other than G. japonica was inver-
sely correlated to sediment toxicity (r = -0.34, p < 0.05, Figure
9-11). • Mortality of E. estuarius was highest at Lauritzen Sta-
tions 1-3 where few or no amphipods except G. japonica were col-
lected.
9.2.4. Discussion
Relative Contributions of DDT and Dieldrin to Impacts; The
correlations between dieldrin, EDDT, toxicity, and amphipod
abundance along the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond
Harbor transect are characteristic of sediment contamination
gradients within which many parameters of chemistry, biology and
toxicity may be significantly related to one another (Swartz et
al., 1985b). The correlations demonstrate covariance, not
causality. Experimental evidence is necessary to discriminate
the relative contributions of dieldrin and EDDT to biological
217
-------
impacts. Fortunately, experimental and field data are available
to make this discrimination. The experimental data come from
sediment toxicity tests in which DDT or dieldrin were spiked into
uncontaminated sediment {Nebeker et al., 1989, Hoke arid Ankley,
1991}. The- field data are comparisons of contaminant-toxicity-
biology relations between Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel
/Richmond Harbor Channel transect (present study) and the DDT
contamination gradient'on the Palos Verdes Shelf, CA (Swartz et
al., 1985b, 1986, 1991; Ferraro et al., 1991).
The 10 day LC50 of dieldrin in sediment to the amphipod,
Hyalella azteca is 1,955 /ig/g OC (mean for three sediments,
range: 1,073 - 3,682 /*g/g OC; Hoke and Ankley, 1991). The 10
day LCSO of 4,4'DDT in sediment to the amphipod, H. azteca is 371
jug/g OC (mean for three sediments, range: 272 - 473 jug/g OC;
Nebeker et al., 1989). The 10 d LC50 of PCB (Aroclor 1254) in
sediment to R. abronius is 2,600 (ig/g OC '(Swartz et al., 1988).
These LC50 estimates can be used to convert the concentrations of
dieldrin and EDDT to toxic units. A toxic unit is the concentra-
tion of a chemical that kills 50% of test specimens in a toxicity
test (Sprague, 1970). The number of toxic units of PCB, dieldrin
or DDT in a sediment sample is therefore the measured concentra-
tion divided by the LC50. Sediment concentrations of PAH com-
pounds were converted to toxic units by the EPAH model (Swartz et
al., in review) • .
When the dieldrin concentrations on the Lauritzen Chan-
nel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor transect (Figure 9-4) are
divided by the dieldrin LC50 for H. azteca, the maximum concen-
tration of dieldrin toxic units is: (Station 1 cone.)/(LC50) =
(35.2 /ig/g OC)/(1,955 jtg/g OC) = 0.018 toxic units (Figure 9- -
12). At a maximum concentration of 0.018 toxic units, dieldrin
was unlikely to contribute to the toxicity of Lauritzen Channel
sediment to £. estuarius. At Station 2 there were 0.003
sediment toxic units of Aroclor 1254 and 0.284 sediment toxic
units of PAHs. In contrast, the maximum concentration of SDDT
toxic units in the Lauritzen Channel was: (3,500 /xg/g OC)/(371
jxg/g OC) » 9.43 toxic units (Figure 9-13). EDDT toxic units at
Stations 2 and 3 were 7.30 and 4.10, respectively. These concen-
trations were more than sufficient to account for the observed
mortality. At Lauritzen Station 2, the toxic unit ZDDT concen-
tration was 25 times greater than that of PAHs, 500 -times greater
than that of dieldrin, and 2,500 times greater than that of Aro-
clor 1254. The EDDT concentration in sediment decreased substan-
tially at Stations 4 and 6 to,0.50 and 0.25 toxic units, respect-
ively. Such levels of contamination might cause a slight in-
crease in percent mortality, although a statistically significant
increase relative to the negative control was only found at Sta-
tion 6 (Table 9-7), where the PAH toxic unit concentration
increased to 1.66. As noted in Section 6.6.7., Station 6 was
chosen as a "worst case" for oil contamination. Sediment at
Stations 5 and 7-9 contained less than 0.1 toxic units of SDDT,
and exerted no significant toxicity relative to the control.
Sediment at Station 9 had less than 0.01 toxic units of Aroclor
218
-------
1254 and PAHs,
AVS is the sediment phase that determines the toxicity of
metals that form insoluble sulfides (DiToro et al., 1990). No
metal toxicity would be expected when the sum of the molar con-
centrations of divalent metals is less than that of AVS. Thus,
metals (Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cd, Ag) were unlikely to contribute to
the toxicity observed at the Lauritzen Channel /Santa -Pe Chan-
nel/Richmond Harbor stations because the metals/AVS molar ratio
was always < 0.48.
The toxic unit analysis of the relative contributions of PAH,
Aroclor 1254, dieldrin and EDDT is based on an interspecies
extrapolation of LC50 values. H. azteca and E. estuarius have
similar sensitivity to fluoranthene, another neutral organic com-
pound. Comparative toxicological data show that the 10 d LC50
for fluoranthene in sediment differs only by a factor of 3 among
these amphipod species (15.4, 10.6, and 5.1 mg/kg for H. azteca.
E. estuarius and R. abronius . respectively; DeWitt et al., 1989}.
Thus, the potential error associated with interspecies extrapol-
ation of LC50s is probably small relative to the major difference
in the toxic unit concentrations of DDT, dieldrin, PAH, and Aro-
clor 1254 in the Lauritzen Channel.
The second independent evaluation of DDT as the cause of toxic
effects is based on the apparent, correspondence between DDT-
toxicity relations in the Lauritzen Channel and the Palos Verdes
Shelf, another site where DDT is a dominant contaminant. In
surveys of surficial sediment near the Los Angeles County sewage
outfall on the Palos. Verdes Shelf in 1980, 1983, and 1986,
mortality in toxicity tests with the amphipod, Rhepoxynius
abronius . never exceeded 23%, EDDT never exceeded 300 M9/9 OC,
and there was no significant correlation between DDT and toxicity
(Figures 9-5, 9-13; Swart z et al., 1985b, 1986; Ferraro et al.,
1991) . In 1985, sediment toxicity tests with .£. abronius were
conducted on sediments from sections of 50 cm deep cores collect-
ed on the Shelf near the outfall (Figures 9-5, 9-13; Swartz et
al., 1991). EDDT in the core sections was as great as 2,000 M9/9
OC, mean mortality was as high as 90%, and mortality was signifi-
cantly correlated. with SDDT. The relation between EDDT and
sediment toxicity to amphipods is very similar on the Palos
Verdes Shelf and along the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/ -
Richmond Harbor transect (Figure 9-5) . The apparent 10 day LC50
for EDDT based on field data for the Lauritzen (2,500 /xg/g OC)
and Palos Verdes (1,044 /*g/g OC) investigations agree within a
factor of three, despite differences in test species.
There is also good agreement between EDDT and the distribu-
tion of amphipods in the Lauritzen Channel and on the Palos
Verdes Shelf (Figure 9-7; Swartz et al., 1985b, 1986; Ferraro et
al., 1991) . In the Lauritzen .Channel, few. or no amphipods
(except G. japonica) were collected at EDDT greater than about
100 /ig/g OC. On the Palos Verdes Shelf few or no amphipods were
collected at EDDT greater than about 200 pg/g OC.
Thus, two independent kinds of data implicate EDDT as a major
factor causing sediment toxicity and amphipod population impacts
219
-------
in the Lauritzen Channel. First, the metals/AVS molar ratio and
the toxic units of dieldrin, Aroclor 1254 and SPAH are too low,
while the toxic units concentration of EDDT is sufficient to
exert acute toxicity. Second, the concentration-response
patterns among sediment toxicity,. amphipod abundance, and EDDT
are very similar in two independent sites of DDT contamination.
Together, these data provide good evidence that EDDT is the
dominant ecotoxicological factor in the Lauritzen Channel.
Effects Concentrations for SPOT; The 10 day LC50 for SDDT in
field-collected sediment was 1,044 ^g/g OC for R. abronius in the
Palos Verdes Shelf study and 2,500 /Kj/g OC for E. estuarius in
the Lauritzen Channel. The threshold for 10 day toxicity
occurred at about 300 /*g/g OC in both studies (Figure 9-5) .
.Chronic effects of EDDT on amphipod populations in the field were
evident at concentrations lower.than those that caused acute tox-
icity in the laboratory. Amphipod abundance sharply declined at
SDDT concentrations between 100-300 jtg/g OC on the Palos Verdes
Shelf and in the Lauritzen Channel (Figure 9-7). The minimum
ecotoxicological effects concentration appears to be about 100 /zg
SDDT/g OC.
Comparison of Toxicity to Other Coastal Sites: Mean mortality
of E. estuarius in the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/-
Richmond Harbor (33.2%) is comparable to mean mortality of E.
estuarius in the NW portion of the Hylebos Waterway, WA (38.3%),
another Superfund site (DeWitt et al., 1989). Few other data are
available on the toxicity of sediment from contaminated field
sites to E. estuarius. However, the present bioassay data can be
compared with sediment toxicity surveys conducted with R. abron-
ius in other U.S. coastal areas (Table 9-9), since E. estuarius
is typically only slightly less sensitive than R. abronius
(DeWitt et al., 1989). Lauritzen Station l with a mean mortality
of 66.2% is a severe case of sediment toxicity. It ranks between
the Houston Ship Channel, TX and the creosote-contaminated Eliza-
beth River, VA among the cases reported by Swartz et al. (1989).
The mean mortality in sediment from all,stations in the Lauritzen
Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Harbor (33.2%) is typical of
urbanized embayments that contain some sites of severe sediment
contamination, e.g., San Diego Bay, CA.
Pinza et al. (1992) conducted sediment toxicity tests, with R.
abronius on composites of sediment samples from each of three
groups of five stations in Richmond Inner Harbor. They found no
significant difference from their reference sediment at two sets
of stations within the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (mean per-
cent mortality = 17% and 13%). There.was a statistically signif-
icant increase in mortality-of amphipods exposed to a composite
sediment sample from five stations on the southeast bank of the
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (mean percent mortality = 42%).
The mean percent mortality of R. abronius for all of the Pinza et
al. (1992) toxicity tests .of Richmond Harbor sediment (24.0%) is
virtually identical to the mean percent mortality of E. estuarius
in the present .toxicity tests of Richmond Inner Harbor sediment
(23.7%, Table 9-7). .
220
-------
White et aJ. (1993) conducted sediment toxicity tests with R.
abronius on composites of sediment samples from the Lauritzen
Channel, Santa Fe Channel, and Richmond Inner Harbor. They ob-
served 100% mortality of R.. abronius exposed to four composites
from the Lauritzen Channel, 26% mortality in composites from the
mouth of Lauritzen Channel and the Santa Fe Channel, and 11-15%
mortality in the Richmond Inner Harbor. The spatial distribution
of mortality of R. abronius reported by White et al. (1993) is
very similar to that reported here for E. estuarius. except that
R. abronius was more sensitive to Lauritzen Channel sediment than
B. estuarius.
Sediment contamination and toxicity can be very patchy, even
on small spatial scales (Swartz et al., 1982, 1989). Patchiness
is shown at Station 1 by the wide range in percent mortality from
35 - 100% for sediment samples from the eight grabs taken only
meters apart (Table 9-7, 9-9). Mortality was 100% in sediment
from two of the grabs, indicating the occurrence of small patches
of sediment that cause extremely high toxicity.
In the absence of chemical contamination, E. estuarius is
tolerant of a very broad range of sediment conditions. Mortality
of E. estuarius in apparently uncontaminated sediment collected
in Puget Sound and the central Oregon coast averaged 5.6% and
rarely exceeded 20% (Figure 9-14; DeWitt et al,, 1989). In con-"
trast, even at stations with low SDDT and dieldrin concentrations
(e.g., Stations 8 and 9) mean mortality of E. estuarius was > 23%
(Table 9-7, Figures 9-4,9-5, 9-12, 9-13). Some unknown fac-
tor (s), apparently, are causing a higher background level of mor-
tality in the present study area than in the Puget Sound/Oregon
reference stations. These unknown factor(s) may be unmeasured
contaminants, natural sediment features, or interactions between
several factors. They are probably not sediment grain size,
salinity, dieldrin, or 2JDDT.
Tolerance of Grandidierella japonica to Sediment Contamin-
ation; G. japonica has been recommended as a sediment toxicity
test species in a number of research and regulatory projects
including the U.S. program for evaluating the acceptability of
dredged material for ocean disposal (Reish and LeMay, 1988;
Nipper et al., 1989; ASTM, 1990; U.S. EPA/COE, 1991). Limited
toxicological comparisons with other amphipods have shown that G.
japonica has comparable or lower sensitivity to field sediments
and reference toxicants (Anderson et al., 1988; Hong and Reish,
1987). Field validation of the acceptability of an amphipod as a
toxicity test species assumes that the distribution of the spec-
ies along pollution gradients is positively related to the dis-
tribution of sensitive species and negatively related to contam-
ination and toxicity (Swartz et al., 1985b). However, the abun-
dance of G. japonica along the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Chan-
nel/Richmond Harbor transect was negatively related to that of
other amphipods (Figure 9-3) and positively related to sediment
toxicity to both E. estuarius and R. abronius and chemical con-
tamination gradients (Figures 9-8, 9-9, 9-10; White et al.,
1993} . G. japonica had a similar distribution in San Diego Bay,
221
-------
where it was most common when other amphipods were rare or absent
and 10 day sediment toxicity to the 'amphipod, £. abronius was
highest (Table 9-10). The suitability of G.. japonica as a
sediment toxicity test species is questionable because of its
natural presence and possible stimulation in contaminated, toxic
sediment avoided by other amphipods.
Field and toxicological data show that most amphipod species
have a relatively high sensitivity to sediment contaminants,
especially for chemicals such as DDT that are designed to kill
arthropods {Swartz et al. 1985b). This does not appear to be
true for G, japonica. because it was abundant in habitats occup-
ied by few or no other amphipod species, and it tolerated sedi-
ments that caused severe acute toxicity to E. estuarius and R.
abronius. G. japonica should therefore be excluded in the -
present study from analyses of relations between toxicity,
chemical contamination, and the abundance of sensitive species.
222
-------
TABLE 9-7.
estuarius. during
Channel /Santa Fe
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Negative Control
Student -Newman - Keuls
Station
Percent
Mortality
10 -day exposures to sediment from the
Channel /Richmond Inner Harbor transect.
i
20
3
5
4
5
51
2
5
1
0
2
14
11
10
7
4
12
5
2
5
1
multiple
1 2
66
.2 43.
Num
3
9
8
7
3
5
8
2
8
7
0
range
3
0 36.
ber D
rab N
4
11
9
8
4
9
3
6
2
4
0
test
6
0 32.
ead (N=20)
5678
12 13 7 20
12
6
5
5
4
8
7
7
2
2 .
5894
0 28.0 24.0 24.0 23.0
Lauritzen
Mean
Number
Dead
13
8
7
, 4
5
6
4
4
4
0
7
23.
.2
.6
.2
.6
.6
.4
.6
.8
.8
.6
0
Negative
Control
3.0
Positive Control: Cadmium (mg/L) : 35 18 8.7 4.6 2.2 1.1 0.0
Mortality (N = 20): 19 6 7 3 2 1 1
4 d LC50 (± 95% C.L.) = 16.9 (13.1-21.7) mg/L cadmium
1 = Mortality adjusted for double seeding.
2 a Means connected by a solid line are not significantly different (p>0.05}.
223
-------
TABLE 9-8. Species composition and abundance of amphipods along
the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Fe Channel/Richmond Inner Harbor
transect. . •
Amphipod Species
Grandidierella japonica
Caprella mutica
Corophium heteroceratum
Ampelisca abdita
Listriella goleta
Dulichia rhabdoplastis
Caprella incisa
Aorides columbiae
Number of Individuals/ 0.0 75 m2
Station
123456789
28 64 14 • 6 2 1
2
1 7 34 70 2 18
13 77
1
6
. . 2
1
adjusted to five grab basis.
224
-------
TABLE 9-9. Comparison of the mortality of Eohaustorius estuarins in
sediment from the Lauritzen Channel/Santa Pe Channel/Richmond Inner
Harbor transect (*) with the mortality of Rhepoxynius abronius at
other U.S. Coastal sites {Swartz, 1989).
Sediment Source
Percent Mortality
Mean Range
Comment
Yaquina Bay, OR
NW Santa Monica Bay, CA
Palos Verdes Shelf, CA
San Diego Bay, CA
2
7
16
29
Mean Lauritzen/Santa Fe/Riehmond* 33.2
Nearshore Commencement Bay, WA 38
South San Francisco Bay, CA 45
Hylebos Waterway, WA 52
Houston Ship Channel, TX 60
Lauritzen Channel (Station 1)* 66.12
Elizabeth River, VA 78
New York Bight, NY 88
San Diego, CA, Station 28 97.5
Eagle Harbor, WA, Station 8 100
0-5 Atnphipod collection site
0-5 Reference site
0-40 Near sewage outfall
0 - 100 56 stations
5 - 100 Mean, Present study
5-95 9 stations
20 - 100 26 stations
5 - 100 26 stations, Superfund
site
45-80 5 stations
35 - 100 Worst case, Present study
30 - 100 Creosote contamination
80 - 95 Sludge Dump site
90 - 100 Worst case, San Diego
Creosote contamination
225
-------
TABLE 9-10. Abundance of Grandidierella -iaponica in relation to
that of all other amphipod
to Rhepoxynius abronius at
Swartz, unpublished data) .
Station
28
27
29
11
15
40
33
13
44
Percent
• Mortality
97.5
58.0
24.0
12.5
12.0
11.0
10.0
8.0
2.5
species, and 10 -day
nine stations in San
Amphipod Dens it
Grandidierel la
japonica
5.2
2.6
5.2
10.4
3.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
sediment toxic
Diego Bay (R.
y (N/0.1 m2)
Other
Amphipods
6.5
0.0
9.1
19.5
2.6
72.8
102.6
75.4
843.2
226 •
-------
FIGURE 9-3. The abundance of Grandidierella japonica in
relation to the abundance of other amphipods.
227
-------
o
o
o
00
E
T_
o
o
CM
O
O
O
00
O
CD
O
CM
l/O/N 'SQOdlHdlAIV
3
r-J
CM
Q
i
5
-------
FIGURE 9-4. Mortality of Eohaustorius estuarius in relation to
the concentration of dieldrin.
228
-------
o
o
o
CO
CO
o
§
CL
Q
_!
UJ
Q
CO
«
o
o
o
o
CO
o
CD
O
CM
CO
O
00
-------
FIGURE 9-5. Mortality of Eohaustorius estuarrus in Lauritzen
Channel/Richmond Harbor sediment and Rhepoxynius abronius in
Palos Verdes Shelf sediment in relation to the sum of the
concentrations of DDT metabolites.
229
-------
o
o
Jl
w
DC
O
ffl
DC
X
Q
^g
X
o
DC
LU
N
h-
oc
3
•
>M
1
CO
LU
DC
8
LU-
LU
X
CO
CO
LU
O
DC
LU
^
CO
3
Q.
*
:
• '
.
• ~
** «* •
<* » '
** :
SfiHr— ' ~
* ^s^ -
^^ i~H
• '— ' »n ~
>
•^
CC
CO
U_
UJ
X
CO
LU
0
CC
LU
^
2
CL
°
dL^D :
^^wf
^ M
B« *n -
*
4n
B^r
• pCJ
M.
I I
i — i
• *
^^H k^«
1 , 1 , 1 , 1 *, 1
D
D
*»p^
IK
0
0
o
o
co~
o
0
0
o
0
CO
o
o
<•••••§
T
o
CO
o
^™
CO
O O O O O
CO CD ^t CM
o
I
co"
LU
O
CD
LJJ
2
Q
Q
LL
O
ID
C7)
AIRViUOIAI
-------
FIGURE 9-6. The abundance of amphipods (excluding Grand!. diere11a
japonica) in relation to the concentration of dieldrin.
230
-------
o
o
o
CO
00
o
O
o>
=1
CC.
Q
_J
LU
Q
CO
•
o
o
CM
O
O
O
00
o
CO
O
CM
L'O/N 'A1ISN3Q QOdiHdlAIV
CO
-------
FIGURE 9-7. The abundance of amphipods (excluding Grandidierella
japonica) in relation to the sum of the concentrations of DDT
metabolites.
231
-------
I
o
CO
I
0
^y
0
0
DC
HI
P-
£
§
f
0
0
0
<-»
n
UJ
1
OT
u_
1
UJ
W
(0
UJ
Q
Ui
tn
O
i
-
;
' m
H~
•
-
.
rn'lFJ
^ffi"
n n HB.
\ \ t — i
• B *
^^" i i .
ib ;
• n
H
,
_
n m •
n :
-
i i , i , i , i i i , i , i
o
o
o
0
co"
o
o
-------
FIGURE 9-8. The abundance of Grandidierella j aponica in relation
to the concentration of dieldrin.
232
-------
o
o
o
CO
o
CO
DC
Q
_j
UJ
Q
CO
•
o
CO
o
o
o
00
o
CO
o
CM
I-'O/N VOINOdVP V113U3iaiONVHO
-------
FIGURE 9-9. The abundance of Qrandidierella japonica in relation
to the sum of the concentrations of DDT metabolites.
233
-------
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
8 o
D>
o
8 83
§ °
2 ca
LU
S
S I-
CT Q
Q
U_
s|
CO
CO
o
o
o
oo
o
CO
o
CM
I/O/N VOINOdVr V11BU3IQIQNVBO
-------
FIGURE 9-10. Mortality of Eohaustorius estuarius in relation to
<" the abundance of Grandidierella -iaponica.
234
-------
o
o
O
GO
CD
E
T"
•
O
5
I
ex.
s:
oS
-------
FIGURE 9-11. Mortality of Eohaustoriug estuarius in Lauritzen
Channel/Richmond Harbor sediment and Rhepoxynius abronius in
Palos Verdes Shelf sediment in relation to the abundance of
amphipods (excluding Grandidierella japonica).
235
-------
cc >
O HI
CD
DC
X CO
g i
^ HI
O
CO
CO
HI
DC Q
^ tE
W W
N >
t CO
§8
5 S
D
CT
n
n •
8 E
8 8
O
D_
S S
O
o
o
00
o
CD
O
!N30d3d
o
CM
-------
FIGURE 9-12. Mortality of Eohaustorius estuarius in relation to
toxic units of dieldrin.
236
-------
O
il
DC
Q
O
o
o
00
o
CO
o
CM
o
•
o
o
o
o
•
o
o
o
o
00
o
Q
AlflVlHCMI !N30H3d
-------
FIGURE 9-13, Mortality of Sohaustorius estuarius in Lauritzen
Channel/Richmond Harbor sediment and Rhepoxynius abronius in
Palos Verdes Shelf sediment in relation to toxic units of the sum
of DDT metabolites.
237
-------
O
O
J o
ID
O
X
O
-§
o
«
o
o
o
o
00
O
CO
O
CM
o
o.
•
o
-------
FIGURE 9-14. Mortality of Eohaustorius estuarius in relation to
sediment grain size.
238
-------
QC
QC
X
Q
§
g
or
D
03
CO
o
111
HI <
£ %
or O
§ 9
n
n
n
n
n
n
'n
rP ~
n
D
o
o
o
00
(D O
1
LJJ
LU
O
OJ
O
o
o
00
o
(O
o
CM
-------
9-3- MULINIA GROWTH TEST
9.3.1. Introduction
Growth and scope-for-growth have been used to assess the sub-
lethal effects pollutants have on sensitive organisms. A new
sublethal test that uses growth in juveniles of the bivalve
Mulinia lateralis is under development by EPA and SAIC at ERL-
Narragansett (Burgess, 1991). This test has the advantages that
it is short-term, easy to perform, and uses laboratory-cultured
organisms {Burgess, 1991). Although in the developmental stage,
the Mulinia growth test was used for a preliminary assessment of
any sublethal effects due to sediment contamination.
9.3.2. Methods
The Mulinia growth test was conducted by SAIC at the ERL-
Narragansett laboratory. Ten laboratory-cultured Mulinia {2-3 mm
shell length, 0.8 ± 0.1 mg each) were placed into separate 150 ml
glass chambers which contained about 50 ml of test or control
sediment and 100 ml of seawater. These sediments were the unused
portions of sediment collected for the 28-day bioaccumulation
test from Stations 2-9 and Yaquina Bay control sediment {Station
0). Station 1 was excluded as not enough was available to
perform the test. These sediments had been stored for approxi-
mately 30 days (4°C) before the start of the Mulinia test.
Additionally, Mulinia were exposed to two additional controls:
Long Island Sound sediment (a local reference sediment) and to a
performance control beach sand that had been rinsed with deion-
ized water.
Each sediment treatment consisted of five replicates.
Exposure was for seven days at ambient temperature {about 20°C).
During the exposure, small volumes (<1 ml/day) of concentrated
algal culture were added to each chamber as a food source. This
culture consisted of Isochrysis and Tetraselmis. each at an
approximate concentration of 50,000 cells per ml.
After seven days, bivalves were separated from the sediment,
the number of live organisms determined for each replicate,
dried, weighed, and the change in weight during the exposure
determined.
9.3.3. Results and Discussion
Table 9-11 presents the results of this test. No significant
differences were noted in mortality between test and control
sediments. Reduced growth relative to the sand,control was noted
in Mulinia exposed to sediment from Stations 5, 7 and 9. Station
9 also exhibited reduced growth in comparison to the Long Island
Sound reference sediment. The lack of a reduction in growth at
the highly contaminated Lauritzen stations suggests that Mulinia
is not sensitive to the concentrations of these pesticides. This
result is consistent with previous experience with this test that
has shown Mulinia to be relatively insensitive to organic contam-
inants but quite sensitive to metals (Burgess, personal communi-
cation) .
239
-------
The apparent reductions in growth that occurred at Stations 5,
7, and especially 9 are difficult to explain. EDDT and dieldrin
concentrations were lower at these stations than at the Lauritzen
stations that did not show reduced growth {Table 8-1 and 8-2) and
metal concentrations were relatively low at these sites (Tables
8-10}. Although analysis for acid volatile sulfides (Table 8-10)
suggests that metal in sediment from Station 9 may have been more.
bioavailable than at other sites, AVS was still present in excess
relative to simultaneously-extracted metals, implying that there
should not have been any toxic effects attributable to metals.
Therefore, the growth effect noted at these stations is
unexplained.
240
-------
TABLE,9-11. Results of seven day Mulinia growth test.
STATION
SAND CONTROL
0 YAQUINA
BAY .
CONTROL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 REFERENCE
LONG ISLAND
REFERENCE
MORTALITY (%)
2±5
0
2±5
4±9
4±9
2±5
2±5
0
8±8
2±5
0
WEIGHT CHANGE (mg)
0.9±.01
0.7±0.1
0.7±0.1
0.7±0.2
0.7±0.1
0.6±0.2a
0.7±0.1
0.6±0.3a
0.7±0.2
0.4±0.2ab
0.7±0.2
values are Means ± SD.
a m Significantly different than Sand Control (t-test, p<0.05)
b = Significantly different than Long Island Sound Reference Station {t-test,
p<0.05).
241
-------
9.4. TROPHIC TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT-ASSOCIATED SDDT TO PREY OF
FISH-EATING BIRDS
9.4.1. Introduction
Contaminated sediments can serve as the ultimate pollutant
source for higher trophic levels by the trophic transport of
pollutants from contaminated benthic organisms to their predators
and then through the pelagic food web. Because DDT' and its
metabolites biomagnify, the potential for contamination of the
prey of aquatic birds and marine mammals is of particular con-
cern. This section predicts the transport of sediment EDDT to
higher trophic levels by coupling the equilibrium partitioning
(EqP) bioaccumulation model for infaunal prey with the expo-
nential biomagnification model (EBM) for their fish predators.
These fish residues are then compared to the NAS standard to
protect fish-eating birds. The purpose of this analysis is to
identify trends. That is, the models are used to predict the
general pattern of uptake at the various sites and to bracket
1ikely exposures.
9.4.2. Methods
The EBM assumes a constant percentage increase in tissue
residues between each trophic level, which is represented in the
model by the "trophic step amplification factor" (TSAF)(Young,
1988) . The EBM makes a different set of assumptions than the
application of the EqP model to fish. In particular, it assumes
that prey concentrations are the main factor controlling concen-
trations at higher trophic levels and it does not assume thermo-
dynamic equilibrium between the organism and sediment, though it
implicitly assumes steady-state conditions. One advantage of the
EBM model is that it has been field validated for 4,4'-DDE using
several marine food webs in Southern California (Young, 1988).
Another advantage is that it predicts residues in higher trophic
levels for which the EqP model is inappropriate because of the
higher trophic level species' limited direct contact with
sediment.
According to the exponential biomagnification model, the
pollutant concentration at a particular trophic level can be
predicted by:
(TLy-TLx)
TRy = TRx * TSAF ' Eq. 9-5
where:
TRy = tissue residue in predator, trophic level y (/xg/kg,
wet)
TRx = tissue residue in prey, trophic level x (jig/kg, wet)
TSAF = trophic step amplification factor (unitless)
TLy = trophic level of predator {unitless)
TLx = trophic level of prey (unitless)
242
-------
This formula is equivalent to:
In TRy = In (TRx) + {TLy - TLx) * In TSAF. Eq. 9-6
The trophic level of the predator has to be greater than its
prey (i.e., TLy > TLx) though trophic levels can have fractional
values (e.g., 3.5). Tissue residues are on a whole body basis
and can be in wet, dry, or lipid-normalized weights. Wet
weights are used in the present analysis. The trophic step
amplification factor for 4,4'-DDE in 11 Pacific ecosystems aver-
aged 3.3, with a median of 1.8 and.a range of 0.48 to 10 (Young,
1988). For this trend analysis, the median value for 4,4'-DDE
(1.8) is used as the estimate for EDDT. No TSAF is available for
dieldrin, though it is likely to be. smaller because of dieldrin's
lower Kow.
Tissue residues in infauna, the base of the benthic food web,
are calculated using the EqP bioaccumulation model (see Section
8.3.). Substituting the EqP model for TRx in Equation 9-6, the
formula for a fish feeding on the benthos becomes:
TRy
where:
(AF * L * CS/TOC) * TSAF
(TLy-TLx)
Eq. 9-7
AF = accumulation factor (g OC/gL)
L = lipids (decimal fraction, wet weight)
Cs - pollutant cone, in sediment (jtg/kg, dry)
TOC = total organic carbon of sediment (decimal fraction, dry
weight)
Different sediment conditions can be modeled by substituting
different values for the bulk sediment concentration and/or TOC.
Modeling different benthic prey items can-be accomplished by
substituting different lipid and/or AF values. The average site
sediment concentrations of EDDT and TOC for trawls (Tables 8-28A
and 8-30) are used in this analysis.
The.benthos is assigned a trophic level of 2.0 (Table 8-23),
which should closely approximate the trophic level of either
filter or deposit feeders. The wet lipid concentration of the
benthic prey is set at 1.0%, which is equivalent to a dry lipid
weight of about 5-7%. Use of a wet lipid concentration generates
a wet tissue residue in the benthos and higher trophic levels.
To bracket residues in different prey types, three sets of AFs
are used for each of the sites.. The first is the overall average
AF (0.289) based .on all the species caught in. the grabs and
trawls at all the sites (Table 8-20). Since it is based on a
larger number of replicates, the overall average for all sites
should be a better predictor than the site-specific AFs, which in
243
-------
one case is based on only two samples. The second is the average
of all the field-caught filter feeders (0.10; Table 8-20). The
third AF is the mean of the laboratory values for Macoma nasuta
corrected to steady-state residues. The Macoma AF is used as an
estimate for deposit-feeding infauna. To give each station equal
weight, the Macoma AF is calculated as the mean of the station
means, which results in a slightly different value than the mean
of the individual AFs given in Table 8-18 (0,924 vs. '0.90).
The predicted results are compared to observed residues in
gobiids and shiner surfperches. • Both are relatively non-mobile
so their tissue residues should reflect local conditions, and
whole body tissue concentrations are available at all of the
sites. Both species are assigned a trophic level of 3.25 (Table
8-23) . Gobiids primarily feed on benthic prey, and so are an
excellent species to model the trophic transport of sediment-
associated pollutants. However, as a bottom species, they are
less likely to be prey for fish-eating birds. Shiner surfperch,
by feeding on benthic invertebrates as well as water-column •
organisms, have a connection with sediment-associated pollutants
though it is not as strong as with the gobiids. However, as a
water-column organism, they are more likely to be preyed upon by
fish-eating birds.
9.4.3. Results/Discussion
The equilibrium partitioning bioaccumulation and exponential
biomagnification models, like all models, are subject to a number
of uncertainties. These are examined in relation to the accuracy
required for a^trend analysis. The EBM is relatively insensitive
to the likely range of errors in trophic level assignments. For
example, underestimating the trophic level (TL) by 0.5 trophic
level would result in underestimating residues by about 34%. An
error of a full trophic level, which is unlikely, would result in
an error equivalent to the TSAF, or 1.8-fold in this analysis.
Because it is multiplicative, errors in the value of the TSAF can
have a greater effect, especially on higher trophic levels. When
starting at trophic level 2 as the.base of the food web, use of
the mean TSAF for 4,4'-DDE instead of-the median (3.3 vs. 1.8)
(Young, 1988) results in about a 2-fold higher residue at trophic
level 3 and more than a 3-fold higher residue at trophic level 4.
Potentially greater sources of error relate to estimating the
residues in infaunal prey at the base of the benthic food web.
One assumption is that the fish feed only in the modeled sites
(e.g., Lauritzen Channel). Fish that-spend time feeding in less
contaminated sites will have a lower tissue residue than
predicted. Conversely, fish that feed in more contaminated sys-
tems will have a higher than predicted residue. The extent of
this error is related to the mobility of the species and the
spatial pattern of contamination. The error should be greater
with higher trophic level predators (TL > 3.5), which tend to be
larger and more mobile, than with smaller benthic predators such
as Cymatogaster and gobiids.
Another source of uncertainty relating to the prey is the
244
-------
composition of the infaunal prey species. Residues in deposit-
feeding infauna can be 2-fold to 20-fold higher than in filter-
feeding species (Table 8-20), so that prey composition can have a
major effect on a predator's exposure. To bracket this source of
ecological variation, infaunal prey residues were estimated using
AFs for three different prey types. Prey residues predicted
using the overall field AP were used to model the diet of gener-
alist predators feeding on filter-feeding bivalves and deposit-
feeding Macoma and polychaetes. Use of this overall average
field AF assumes that the invertebrates caught in the grabs/-
trawls approximate the biomass of the consumed prey, or at least
that the AFs for the various taxa are in similar ratios to those
consumed. The AF for filter feeders was used as the predictor
for predators specializing on filter-feeding bivalves while the
AF for Macoma was used as the predictor for fish ingesting
sediment-ingesting infauna, such as deposit-feeding polychaetes
and Macoma. The average lipid content used in calculating
benthic tissue residues also could introduce an error, though it
is unlikely that differences from the 1.0% (wet) would introduce
more than a 50-100% error.
Predicted tissue residues for trophic levels 2-to 4 and
observed residues in gobiid and shiner'surfperch at each of the
three sites are presented in Figures 9-15, 9-16, and 9-17. Com-
parison of observed to predicted fish tissue residues offers a
check on the validity of this approach. Both the observed gobiid
and shiner surfperch tissue residues were within 3-fold of the
residues predicted with the overall field AF. at all three sites.
The overall AF overestimated goby and shiner perch residues in -
the Lauritzen Channel but underestimated them in the Santa Fe and
Richmond Channels. The higher than predicted residues in the
Santa Fe and Richmond Channels may be due to movement of heavily
contaminated benthic prey from Lauritzen into less contaminated
sites or feeding forays by the gobys and shiner surfperch into
Lauritzen Channel. In any case, the similarity between observed
and predicted residues is encouraging, especially when it is
considered that.BDDT sediment concentrations varied by more
600-fold among.the three sites compared to the less than 3-fold
difference in observed/predicted residues.
The models also correctly predicted expected patterns. For
both species at all three sites, the observed residues fell
between those predicted for fish feeding exclusively on filter-
feeding prey and those feeding on deposit-feeding prey. This
result was expected as few fish feed exclusively on filter
feeders or deposit feeders, and the result supports the conten-
tion that the filter-feeding and deposit-feeding AFs bracket the
residues in benthic prey.
Although it does not validate the models per se, these results
support the use of these coupled models as a predictive tool over
a wide range of sediment concentrations for fish feeding at
trophic level 3.0 to 3.5 feeding on benthic prey. No large fish
predators were analyzed, so it is not possible to check the
models for higher trophic levels (TL > 3.5) . Because of the
245
-------
uncertainties involving mobility, the predictions for trophic
levels above 3.5 or for highly mobile species should be
considered as potential rather expected residues.
One method of assessing the significance of the predicted
residues is to compare them to the National Academy of Science's
standard of 50 /*g/kg SDDT (wet weight) in fish to protect fish-
eating birds. Because small bottom-feeding fish, such .as gobiids
and shiner surfperches, are potential prey for certain fish eat-
ing birds, this is an appropriate ecological criterion. The
models predicts that fish residues will exceed this criterion by
over 100-fold to almost 1000-fold in Lauritzen Channel, depending
upon which AF is used (Figure 9-15). In the Santa Fe Channel,
the NAS criterion will be exceeded by 2- to 20-fold (Figure 9-
16). Given the extent of these violations, it is apparent that
fish-eating birds in either of these channels would be at sub-
stantial risk. In Richmond Harbor Channel, the models predict
fish residues below the criterion.when the overall average field
and filter-feeding AFs are used but above the criterion when the
deposit-feeder AF is used (Figure 9-17). Thus, whether a viol-
ation occurs will depend upon the specific diet of a given fish
species. .
The coupled models also can be used to predict the sediment
concentrations required to achieve a 50 /xg/kg residue in trophic
level 3.25 benthic feeding fish (Figure 9-18). The predicted
sediment concentrations are 2.6 pg/g OC when the deposit-feeder
AF is used, 8.3 /ig/g OC when the overall field AF is used, and
23.9 (ig/g OC with the filter-feeder AF. Assuming a TOC of 0.019
g OC/g, these values are equivalent to bulk sediment con-
centrations of 49 jig/kg, 158 fig/kg, and 454 /xg/kg, respectively.
Lower sediment TOCs would require proportionately lower bulk
sediment concentrations. As mentioned, it is unlikely that fish
prey,exclusively on deposit feeders or filter feeders, so the
prediction based on the overall AF is probably the best general
estimate.
Any other criterion can be calculated as a direct proportion
of the NAS standard. For example, to meet the human health
criterion {32 jzg/kg, see Section 5.1.}, the required-sediment
concentration would be 64% (i.e., 32/50) of the residues based on
the NAS. standard. This results in bulk sediment concentrations
of 31 fig/kg, 101 fig/kg, and 291 /xg/kg, for the three AFs, respec-
tively, at a TOC of 1.9%. These predictions are for trophic
level 3.25 fish, which tend to be small. Predictions for larger,
higher trophic level sport fish would generate lower sediment
concentrations.
The above analysis assumes that birds consume fish only from
the respective channels. Because the NAS standard is based on
chronic rather than acute effects, it is possible to predict bird
exposure to DDT as a function of the time spent feeding in each
channel by calculating a yearly average DDT residue in their fish
prey. A year is an ecologically relevant time frame for
predicting chronic effects of DDT because of the very slow depur-
ation rate in birds. Additionally, a year.relates to the breed-
246
-------
ing and/or migratory cycle of most birds.
The annual average fish residue is calculated by multiplying
the number of days a bird feeds in a particular channel by the
average fish residue in -the channel divided by -3 65 days. An
average fish residue above 50 /xg/kg would indicate that the aver-
age annual DDT residue in fish exceeded the NAS standard, whereas
an average below 50 ug/kg would indicate that the standard was
not exceeded. This approach assumes that any fish the birds con-
sume outside of the modeled channel contain no DDT. To the
extent that this assumption is violated, the approach underesti-
mates the annual exposure to DDT, although not the contribution
from the particular channel. This approach also assumes a con-
stant feeding rate and that the timing of the consumption of DDT
does not influence its physiological effect. These calculations
are made using the overall field AF, which should be the best
predictor for fish predators consuming a variety of benthic taxa.
Use of the filter- feeder AF or deposit -feeding AF would increase
or decrease, respectively, the allowable duration in proportion
to the differences in the AFs.
Figure 9-19 shows the annual average prey residues as a
function of the number of days feeding in each of the three
channels. The predicted EDDT fish residues in Lauritzen Channel
are so high that the annual average prey concentration exceeds
the 50 M9/k9 NAS standard with slightly more than one day (about
28 hours) of feeding by birds. With such a short exposure
period, even incidental feeding within Lauritzen Channel would
exceed the NAS standard. Pelicans and other fish -eat ing birds
were observed feeding in Lauritzen {see Section 4.2.2.); so it is
highly likely that individual birds, if not populations, spend at
least several days over a year feeding in the Lauritzen Channel.
Additionally, migrating birds flying through the area could feed
for several days within Lauritzen, thereby exceeding the NAS
standard on a yearly basis.
Fish- eat ing birds would have to feed for about 2 months, or
about 17% of a year, in the Santa Fe Channel to exceed the NAS
standard on an annual basis. At this duration, more than inci-
dental feeding would be required to exceed the NAS standard and
migratory birds would be at a lower risk. However, local indi-
viduals and populations could be at risk. The Santa Fe comprises
about 25.8% of the combined Richmond, Santa Fe, and Lauritzen
Channels. Therefore, a bird that fed proportionally among the
three channels would ingest about 26% of its prey from the Santa
Fe Channel, resulting in an annual average fish residue exceeding
the NAS standard based on fish consumed from the Santa Fe Chan-
nel .-
In the Richmond Channel, the predicted fish residue, "40 £tg/kg,
is below the NAS standard so according to the models, birds could
consume their entire diet in Richmond Channel without exceeding
thiSi standard. However, it is important to recognize that the 3-
fold uncertainty observed when comparing the goby and surfperch
residues to predicted values would include the NAS standard.
Additionally, fish selecting for deposit -feeders would be likely
247
-------
to exceed the NAS standard. Therefore, it is possible that
individual birds or bird populations that feed extensively in
Richmond Channel could exceed the NAS standard on an annual
basis. Birds that only feed intermittently in Richmond Harbor
Channel should not be at risk. In any case, the risk is much
less than in the other two channels. .
248
-------
FIGURE 9-15. Predicted tissue residues of SDDT by trophic-level
in Lauritzen Channel.
Overall field accumulation factor (0.289) used to model prey
for a generalist fish predator. Filter-feeding accumulation
factor (0.010) used to model prey for a predator feeding on
filter-feeding bivalves. Deposit-feeding accumulation factor
(0.924) used to model residues in prey for a fish preying on
sediment-ingesting polychaetes and Macoma.
249
-------
80
m
•D
g i
Q §
*-* fi
w o
gfc. 3(H
70-
60-
50-
40-
H
p
Q
C/)
20-
10-
0
PREDICTED SUM DDT RESIDUES
LAURITZEN CHANNEL
OBSERVED RESI-
DUES IN SHINERS
OBSERVED RESI-
DUES IN GOBIIDS
Z4
3 3.2 3A 3.G 3.3 4
TROPHIC LEVEL
-------
FIGURE 9-16. Predicted tissue residues of EDDT by trophic level
in Santa Fe Channel.
Overall field accumulation factor (0.289) used to model prey
for a generalist fish predator. Filter-feeding accumulation
factor (0.010) used to model prey for a predator feeding on
filter-feeding bivalves. Deposit-feeding accumulation factor
(0.924) used to model residues in prey for a fish preying on
sediment-ingesting polychaetes and Macoma.
250
-------
1800
H 1600-
1400-
•«
£ 1200-
w 1000-
800-
O 400-
1 200-
PREDICTED SUM DDT RESIDUES
SANTA FE CHANNEL
OBSERVED RESI-
DUR IN SHINERS
OBSERVED RESI-
DUE IN GOBIIDS
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
TROPHIC LEVEL
-------
FIGURE 9-17. Predicted tissue residues of UDDT by trophic level
in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
Overall field accumulation factor (0.289) used to model prey
for a generalist fish predator. Filter-feeding accumulation
factor (0.010) used to model prey for a predator feeding on
filter-feeding bivalves. Deposit-feeding accumulation factor
(0.924) used to model residues in prey for a fish preying on
sediment-ingesting polychaetes and Macoma.
251
-------
250
PREDICTED SUM DDT RESIDUES
RICHMOND CHANNEL
200-
PQ
w
D
Q
150-
1(XH
50-^
OBSERVED RESI-
DUE IN GOBIIDS
OBSERVED RESI-
DUE IN SHINERS
s 3 a!
TROPHIC LEVEL
-------
FIGURE 9-18. Predicted tissue residues of EDDT versus organic-
normalized sediment concentrations in trophic level 3.25 fish,
feeding on different types of benthic prey.
Overall field accumulation factor (0.289) used to model prey
for a generalist fish predator. Filter-feeding accumulation
factor (0.010) used to model prey for a predator feeding on
filter-feeding bivalves. Deposit-feeding accumulation factor
(0.924) used to model residues in prey for a fish preying on
sediment-ingesting polychaetes and Macoma.
252
-------
600
ffl
PU
p^
w
p
p
HH
w
w
Q
P
D
w
PREDICTED SUM DDT IN
TROPHIC LEVEL 3.25 FISH
DEPOSIT-FEEDER AF
NAS STANDARD
(50 UG/KG)
5 10 15 20 25
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION (UG/G PC)
30
OVERALL AF (0.289) FF AF (0.10)
OF AF (0.924)
NAS STANDARD
-------
FIGURE 9-19. Predicted average annual SDDT residue in prey
(fish) as a function of the duration birds feed in each of the
channels. Prey residues above 50 jug/kg indicate that the NAS
standard for DDT is exceeded on an annual basis. Fish residues
predicted using overall field AF (0.289) for benthic prey.
253
-------
PREDICTED AVERAGE PREY (FISH) CONC. AS
FUNCTION OF DAYS BIRDS FEED IN CHANNEL
PP
CU
o
u
^""s
ffi
£9
>
cu
1000003
10000=
1000=
MAS ACTION LEVEL
100
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
DAYS
-------
10.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND POTENTIAL REMEDIATION LEVELS
10.1. INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes the exposure and effects data from the
previous sections (Table 10-1 to 10-6). These data are used to
estimate the overall existing ecological risk, the importance of
Lauritzen Channel as a contaminant source for other sites, and
the relative toxicological importance of EDDT. Then, sediment
concentrations of SDDT and dieldrin required to achieve'different
remediation criteria are predicted (Table 10-7 to 10-12) using
the models developed in previous sections.
Several of the ecological criteria summarized in the tables
overlap, as for example, the water concentration and the corre-
sponding residue for a residue-based Water Quality Criterion.
When possible, it is worthwhile examining criteria from different
perspectives as independent models could generate different
values with different levels of uncertainty. Additionally, there
is a higher level of certainty if two or more approaches converge
to a similar prediction. End-points of less direct ecological
significance were included in the tables. In particular, chronic
WQC for SDDT and dieldrin, which are based on protecting fish-
eating birds, are applied to the interstitial water concentra-
tions. Such comparisons are useful in comparing the extent of
contamination across sites, generating insight into the potential
for bioaccumulation -in demersal fishes or benthic invertebrates
that may be prey for birds (e.g., certain shrimp), and as an
indication of the upper limit for overlying water concentrations
during resuspension events. Nonetheless, such comparisons should
not be given the same weight in determining remediation levels as
the comparison of the overlying water concentrations to the
chronic WQC. The summary and predictive tables include values
based on human health end-points. These values are presented for
comparative purposes only.
It is important to note that this document does not establish
or advocate any remediation level, and the sediment clean-up
concentrations presented here are for consideration and evalua-
tion only. This study is part of a larger evaluation of Richmond
Harbor and the final decision on remediation will take into
account these additional data (e.g., White et al., 1993) and any
other pertinent information.
10.2. DDT AS THE MAJOR TOXICOLOGICAL STRESS
Richmond Harbor, like most urbanized near-coastal ecosystems,
is subject to a variety of anthropogenic stresses. Other than
SDDT and dieldrin, the most important types of anthropogenic
stresses in Richmond Harbor appear to be physical disruption from
ships and other sediment-associated neutral organic pollutants.
Depending upon the extent and spatial pattern of these stresses,
they could obscure the ecological effects of SDDT and dieldrin,
thereby making these pollutants seem less toxic (e.g., a toxicant
254
-------
seem less toxic {e.g., a toxicant with the opposite pattern of
SDDT could obscure the relationship between sediment
concentrations and amphipod mortality). Conversely, if these
stresses were spatially correlated with EDDT and dieldrin, they
could result in spurious correlations.
It is critical to recognize, however, that the effects of
these additional stresses potentially affect only some of the
measurements of ecological exposure and risk (Table 5-13). In
particular, the predictions based on amphipod toxicity and
benthic community structure could be affected by additional
stresses. End-points based on Water Quality Criteria or tissue
residues rely solely on the concentration of the compound, and
the presence or absence of other pollutants or stresses is
irrelevant.
There are a number of lines of evidence establishing SDDT as
the major cause of toxicity and benthic community alterations.
First is the very high SDDT sediment concentrations (Tables
8-11A) . Although the AET and ER-M were not retained as end-
points, the comparison of the SDDT sediment concentrations to
these indices indicates that EDDT far exceeds potentially adverse
levels in many areas of Richmond Harbor (see Section 3.2.).
Additionally, the comparison of the concentrations of other
neutral organic pollutants to these indices indicated that they
were not the major stressor in the more heavily contaminated
portions of Richmond Harbor (Section 3.2.).
The second line of evidence is that SDDT sediment concen-
trations explained a significant amount of the variation in 10 of
16 measures of benthic community structure (Table 9-2). In
addition, SDDT sediment concentration explained a highly signifi-
cant amount of the variation in the two sensitive macrobenthic
indicators, Infaunal Index and number of amphipods excluding G.
japonica. after accounting 'for the possible effects of sediment
%silt-clay and TOC. Dieldrin sediment concentration did not
explain a significant amount of the variation in these two macro-
benthic indicators after accounting for the possible effects of
sediment %silt-clay, TOC and SDDT sediment concentration (Tables
9-4 and 9-5).
The third line of evidence is a correlative-comparative
approach, in which sediment toxicity and amphipod abundance were
found to be similarly related to EDDT sediment concentrations at
Richmond Harbor and in Southern California (Section 9.2.). It is
unlikely•that similar spurious relationships between amphipod
distributions and sediment EDDT concentrations would occur at two
independent sites.
The fourth, and perhaps the strongest, line of evidence is
the application of toxic units to the amphipod toxicity test data
(Section 9.2.).' The maximum concentrations of dieldrin and EDDT
in Lauritzen Channel in toxic units were 0.018 and 9.43, respec-
tively, indicating that SDDT was the dominant ecotoxicological
factor. The toxic units of PAHs and PCBs were not sufficient to
explain the toxicity in Lauritzen'. Toxic units of SDDT were
lower in Santa Fe, but may have been sufficient to contribute to
255
-------
acute toxicity and/or chronic toxicity. PAHs were relatively and
absolutely more important in the Santa Fe Channel, especially in
a localized oiled area, where PAHs may have been the major
stressor. SDDT toxic units were low in Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel, indicating that this pollutant was not a dominant
stressor. The application of the EDDT chronic effects levels to
the interstitial water concentrations (Table 10-l) supports the
contention that SDDT concentrations are sufficient to explain the
observed acute toxicity in Lauritzen and may contribute to
chronic toxicity in the Santa Fe.
Taken in total, the comparative, correlative, and experi-
mental evidence demonstrates that SDDT is the major toxicological
stress in Lauritzen Channel. SDDT probably contributes to any
chronic toxicity in Santa Fe Channel, though total PAHs may be
the dominant toxicant in localized "hot spots" of oil contamin-
ation. In Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, the toxicological
importance of SDDT, and dieldrin, is greatly diminished and other
pollutants or physical disturbances are probably the major
stresses.
10.3. LAURITZEN CHANNEL AS A CONTAMINATION SOURCE
The summary in Table 8-30 illustrates the steep spatial
gradients in SDDT concentrations in five distinct ecosystem .
components (sediment, overlying water, and mussel, goby, and
surfperch residues) over the relatively short distances separat-
ing the three channels. With the exception of the 50-fold
gradient in average, sediment concentration, concentrations drop
by factors of about 5X to 10X from Lauritzen Channel to Santa Fe
Channel. The decrease obtained over the interval between the
Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels range from about 6 to
12 fold. A corresponding comparison for dieldrin is presented in
Table 8-31. Again, the steepest gradient between Lauritzen and
Santa Fe is observed in the average sediment concentrations
(approximate 20-fold decrease), with the other values decreasing
by factors of 5X to 12X. Between the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel sites, concentrations decrease by factors of 4X to
20X.
These sharp gradients in both sediment and water concentra-
tions away from Lauritzen Channel in both SDDT and dieldrin
strongly indicate that Lauritzen Channel is the ultimate source
of contamination to the surrounding sites. Because of the high
concentrations in Lauritzen Channel, the mass transport of mini-
mal amounts of water or sediment could result in ecologically
significant transport of SDDT or dieldrin. For example, mixing 1
liter of unfiltered Lauritzen overlying water with 49 liters of
Richmond Inner Harbor water (assuming 0 SDDT concentration) would
result in a water concentration at the SDDT Water Quality Criter-
ion of l ng/L. With the 5-6 foot tidal range, there is a mechan-
ism for the daily movement of water and suspended particles out
of Lauritzen Channel into Santa Fe. Because SDDT water and
sediment .concentrations are about an order-of-magnitude higher in
256
-------
Santa Fe Channel than in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, the Santa
Fe Channel is probably a secondary source of contamination to the
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. Exchange of water between Rich-
mond Inner Harbor Channel and San Francisco Bay would ultimately
transport Lauritzen contaminants not sequestered in Santa Fe and
Richmond Channels into the San Francisco Bay ecosystem.
Besides the strong spatial gradients, three additional lines
of evidence support the contention that Lauritzen Channel is a • •
pollutant source. First, the higher water-to-sediment ratios for
both EDDT and dieldrin in the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor
Channels are suggestive of the movement of more contaminated
water into less contaminated sites (see Section 8.2.). Second,
the higher AFs found in the field infauna in Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel suggests ingestion of suspended particles with a
higher concentration than found in the Richmond Inner Harbor bulk
sediment (see Section 8.3.). The last set of data are the higher
mussel residues/sediment concentration ratios for EDDT and
dieldrin in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, which again suggest
transport of more contaminated particles and/or water from
Lauritzen Channel {see Section 8.3.)
With the high Kocs of dieldrin, DDT and its metabolites,
transport associated with particulate matter probably is more
important than movement of dissolved compounds. Sorbed contam-
inants can either be transported on suspended particulates or by
bed load transport of surficial sediment particles.
The practical consequence of this outfluxing of pollutants
is that remediation of Lauritzen Channel should reduce exposure
in Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels, improving eco-
logical conditions even if no remediation actions were taken in
these two channels. Remediating Lauritzen Channel should have
the largest, or at least the most rapid, impact on the water
concentrations and water-borne exposures in the Santa Fe and
Richmond Inner Harbor Channels. To account for this possibility,
both the site-specific WSR and the Lauritzen Channel WSR are used
to predict WQC related remediation levels in the Santa Fe and
Richmond Inner Harbor Channels. This assumes that the Lauritzen
Channel WSR reflects the "normal" pollutant flux from sediment in
the absence of transport of higher concentration material. Re-
ducing the pollutant input should also reduce SDDT and dieldrin
sediment concentrations in the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor
Channels, though any measurable reduction could take years.
10.4 EXTENT OF EXISTING EXPOSURE
10.4.1. Sediment and Interstitial Water Concentrations
The sediment data from this study unequivocally demonstrate
that portions of Richmond Harbor are extensively contaminated
with SDDT (Tables 8-1, 8-2, 8-llA, B, 8-30, 8-31). Sediment con-
centrations of SDDT in Lauritzen Channel are the highest reported
in San Francisco Bay (Table 8-llA) and among the highest in the
country. The Santa Fe Channel also has high concentrations when
compared to other parts of San Francisco Bay. The average sedi-
257
-------
ment concentration of the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel does not
indicate extensive SDDT sediment contamination, with sediment
concentrations about equal to the regional averages, though sev-
eral stations at the end of the channel have moderate concentra-
tions -(Tables 8-1) .
Presently, there are no regulatory criteria with which to
compare these bulk SDDT sediment concentrations. However, the
SDDT interstitial water concentrations can be compared to the
toxicity-based acute WQC and chronic toxicity effects levels
predicted from acute/chronic ratios (see Section 5.1.2.). The
mean SDDT interstitial water concentration in Lauritzen Channel
exceeds the acute WQC by 13-fold (Table 10-1). This strongly
suggests that bulk sediment concentrations are sufficiently high
to result in acute mortality of certain benthic species. The
mean Santa Fe EDDT interstitial water concentration is 2-fold
higher than the acute value, but this violation is due to high
concentration at a single station (Station,6). Thus, SDDT-
related impacts on benthic species may be expected at least at •
certain locations in the Santa Fe Channel. The SDDT interstitial
water concentrations in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel bracket the
chronic effect predicted from acute/chronic ratios, suggesting
that, at worst case, SDDT could cause chronic impacts on the most
sensitive benthic species.
Dieldrin sediment concentrations showed the same spatial
pattern as SDDT with very high concentrations in Lauritzen
Channel, regionally high concentrations in the Santa Fe Channel,
and about regional values in the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
(Table 8-11B). These sediment concentrations can be compared to
the interim sediment quality criterion for dieldrin (17 /Ltg/g OC) .
The mean concentration in Lauritzen Channel exceeds the SQC value
(Table 10-6), with the highest station twice the criterion
concentration. Neither site averages nor the stations with .the •
highest concentrations exceeded the criterion in Santa Fe or
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
10.4.2. Overlying Water Concentrations
Concentrations in the overlying water showed the same
pattern as the sediment pollutants, with average concentrations
of SDDT in whole water samples decreasing approximately 50-fold
between Lauritzen and Richmond Inner Harbor .Channels (Table •
8-30). The corresponding decline for dieldrin was at least
20-fold (Table 8-31). The average concentrations of SDDT for
whole water samples from the Lauritzen Channel (50 ng/L) and the
Santa Fe Channel (8.6 ng/L) both substantially exceed EPA's
ambient Water Quality Criteria chronic value of 1.0 ng/L (Table
10-1), indicating that adverse levels of bioconcentration would
occur at these sites. Although the acute WQC, which is based on
toxicity, was not violated, the Lauritzen SDDT water concentra-
tion was 40% of the value, suggesting that the water concen-
tration may be high.enough to result in chronic toxicity in
sensitive water-column species.
Dieldrin concentrations in the overlying water were less
258
-------
than l/10th the acute WQC at all sites (Table 10-4), suggesting
that the concentrations are below those that would cause acute or
chronic water column toxicity. However, the average concentra-
tion in the Lauritzen Channel whole water samples substantially
exceeds the residue-based WQC chronic value of 1.9 ng/L. The
overall mean Santa Fe value just exceeds the criterion. The
Richmond water is below the detection limit of 1.0 ng/L. These
results indicate that the overlying water dieldrin concentrations
are high enough to result in detrimental levels of bioconcen-
tration in the Lauritzen Channel and possibly in the Santa Fe
Channel.
10.4.3. Exposure as Determined by Tissue Residues
One ecological impact of tissue residues in fish and benthic
organisms is as a biologically-mediated exposure route to higher
trophic levels, including fish-eating birds and wildlife. The
chronic Water Quality Criteria and NAS residues for EDDT and
dieldrin are designed to protect these higher trophic levels.
Besides impacts on higher trophic levels, residues can impact the
contaminated organism directly. Chronic DDT residue levels of
3,000 - 6,250 fig/kg (wet), based on reduced survival in fish fry,
were reported in EPA's AWQC document (U.S. EPA, 1980a) (Table 5-
4). These residues are used herein to predict the potential for
reproductive impacts in both fish and benthic invertebrates.
Mussels; Mussels are frequently used as a bioindicator
organism for water exposures. The average concentrations of SDDT
and dieldrin in the whole soft tissues of Mytilus galloprovinci-
alis from Lauritzen Channel are three and at least two orders-of-
magnitude greater, respectively, than those measured in control
specimens of M. californianus from the central Oregon coast.
Residues of SDDT and dieldrin in Lauritzen mussels were also 72X
and 24X, respectively, higher than in Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel. The EPA chronic WQC-based residue and NAS standards are
based on concentrations in fish, but are used here for comparison
since several bird species feed on mussels. EDDT residues exceed
the chronic WQC based residue and the NAS standard for DDT in
both Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels (Table 10-2). With
dieldrin, the chronic WQC residue is not violated in any of the
sitesi versus the NAS standard which is violated in Lauritzen and
Santa Fe Channels (Table 10-5).
Fish; To gain a better statistical representation, the
"fish" residues in Tables 10-2 and 10-5 are based on the average
of the whole body residues in gobiids and shiner surfperch. Both
species appear to be residents and are assigned to trophic level
3.25. Surf perch are water-column organisms but prey on bottom
fauna, potentially accumulating pollutants both from the water
column and from the benthos. Gobys are benthic and presumably
accumulate most or all of their contaminant load from benthic
prey and/or direct contact with the sediment. The combined
average "fish" residue should generally represent residues in
resident fish of a similar trophic level. In any case, the
residues of the two species are within about 50% of each other
259
-------
The average whole body concentrations in the composite fish
exceed the FDA interstate commerce seafood limit for EDDT in
Lauritzen Channel and is 98% of the FDA value for dieldrin
(Tables 10-2 and 10-5). The combined fish residue also substan-
tially exceeds the chronic SDDT WQC residues to protect fish-
eating birds in Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels. The more
stringent NAS standard for SDDT is violated in Lauritzen, Santa
Fe, and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels. These data indicate that
existing SDDT fish residues are sufficiently high to pose a risk
to higher trophic levels, including pelicans, throughout much of
Richmond Harbor.
Anchovy, an important prey item for the endangered brown
pelican, was captured in all three channels. Anchovy differ from
surf perch and. gobiids.. in that they have little direct association
with the benthos and are highly mobile and, presumably, any
individual spends limited time within Richmond Harbor. Anchovy
residues exceed the WQC residue for EDDT in both Santa Fe and
Richmond Inner Harbor Channels. The NAS residue for SDDT was
exceeded in all three channels (Table 8-26A) , with a residue more
than 10-fold greater than the standard in the Santa Fe Channel.
The NAS dieldrin residue also was exceeded by several fold in
both the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels. These results indicate
that anchovy, and presumably other mobile fish, swimming into
Richmond Harbor can accumulate ecologically harmful levels of
EDDT and dieldrin during a transient exposure. Because of the
slow depuration of EDDT and dieldrin (e.g., DDT half life of 63-
428 days in menhaden, Warlen et al., 1977), it is likely that
these contaminant loads will be retained for a sufficient
duration for the anchovy to reenter the San Francisco Bay food
web. Thus, the contamination in Richmond Harbor can result in
the exposure of fish, wildlife, and piscivorous birds in San
Francisco Bay even if these species or individuals do not feed in
Richmond Harbor.
Benthic Invertebrates; For sediment-associated pollutants,
the residues in the laboratory-exposed Macoma nasuta corrected to
steady-state offer the most accurate measure of sediment bio-
availability in benthic organisms. SDDT and dieldrin residues
ranged over 2 to 3 orders-of-magnitude from Lauritzen to Richmond
Inner Harbor Channel (Table 8-16, 10-2, 10-4)-. The SDDT and
dieldrin tissue residues in clams exposed to Lauritzen Channel
sediment are among the highest ever reported. Residues in
filter-feeding benthos are several fold lower than those in M.
nasuta but still contain high residues and show the same spatial
pattern (Table 8-19).
The Macoma residues can be compared to the WQC-based residues
and NAS standards for fish (Table 10-2 and 10-5} . As discussed
previously, benthic bivalves are potential prey for diving birds,
so that the application of standards related to protecting birds
is ecologically relevant. The average SDDT residue in M. nasuta
exceeds both the chronic WQC and the NAS residues in all stations
out to Station 7 in the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. For
dieldrin, the WQC residue criterion is exceeded only in Lauritzen
260
-------
Channel while the dieldrin NAS standard is closely approached or
violated in both Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels.
10.5. EXTENT OF EXISTING ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Relating changes in benthic community structure to pollutant
stress is a frequently used method of determining the extent and
nature of the biological effects of sediment contamination {e.g.,
Long and Chapman, 1985; Swartz et al., 1986; Chapman et al.,
1987; Ferraro et al., in press). While no single or set of meas-
ures of community indices captures the complexity of a benthic
community, the Infaunal Index and the abundance of amphipods have
been used successfully to-describe or predict changes in a var-
iety of benthic communities {Mearns et al., 1982; Swartz et al.,
1982). These two measures also had the strongest relationship
with sediment SDDT concentrations {Table 9-2).
Bascom et al.'s {1978) criteria for "control" {II > 83) and
"changed" {II <=60) benthic conditions are used as criteria for
the Infaunal Index. The former value would indicate the sediment
pollutants were having no or a negligible effect on the commun-
ity, while the latter would indicate that sediment pollutants
were having a sufficient impact to change the relative abundance
of various key species groups. Although none of the site means
were below the 60 criterion, there were several individual values
below 60 in Lauritzen Channel, indicating a stressed condition.
With one exception,,the control value of >83 was obtained only in
the Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, Station 9.
Sediment bioassays are the second general method of assessing
the biological impacts of sediment contamination. These con-
trolled laboratory tests complement the field survey. In partic-
ular, they are not subject to effects from rion-chemical stresses
(e.g., temperature, salinity, physical disturbance) or biological
interaction (e.g., predation, competition) that can influence the
results of a benthic survey. Eohaustorius estuarius displayed
toxicity in all of the stations, with the mean toxicity in
Lauritzen Channel significantly greater than the control
sediment. The amphipod mortality at Lauritzen Channel Station 1
ranks among the worst cases of sediment toxicity reviewed by
Swartz et al. (1989). The cause of the approximately 20%
reduction in survival of E. estuarius at the low SDDT
contaminated stations in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel relative
to the amphipod's native Yaquina Bay, Oregon sediment is
unexplained and probably not related to SDDT or dieldrin.
Relations between SDDT, sediment toxicity, and amphipod
abundance in this investigation correspond with those on the
marine Palos Verdes Shelf. The threshold for 10-day toxicity
occurred at about 300 p.g/g OC. The abundance, of amphipods in the
field {excluding Grandidierella japonica) was reduced at SDDT
concentrations greater than about 100 /ig/g OC. This 100 pg/g OC
is taken as the minimum ecological effects concentration for
amphipods. The average SDDT concentration in Lauritzen Channel
exceeds this effects level by almost 20-fold. The minimum
ecological effects concentration is not exceeded in the Santa Fe
261
-------
or Richmond Inner Harbor Channels.
10.6. POTENTIAL REMEDIATION LEVELS
The relationships established from the laboratory and field
studies allow predictions of sediment concentrations of EDDT and
dieldrin required to achieve various water column, tissue resi-
due, or benthic community end-points. Predictions of these
potential remediation levels are based on the assumption that the
local marine sediments are the ultimate source for the SDDT and
dieldrin contamination at each of the sites. To the extent that
runoff, erosion, or transport from other sites contribute to the
exposure, the predictions for the required sediment clean-up
levels may be overly conservative (i.e.,.. lower than required).
In particular, transport of contaminants from the Lauritzen
Channel is likely to make predictions for other channels
conservative.
There is uncertainty associated with all these predictions,
and the reader is referred to the appropriate section for dis-
cussion of the underlying assumptions and the empirical measure-
ments of variability (e.g., standard error, etc.}. In nearly all
cases, the uncertainties associated with a measurement or model
are relatively small compared to the more than three order-of-
magnitude range in sediment SDDT concentration. A few of the
predictions are either based on the tails of the regression or
using/predicting dieldrin sediment concentrations that are close
to or below the sediment detection limit. There is more uncer-
tainty in these predictions.
A standard TOC of 1.9% was used to convert any predictions
based on organic carbon normalized sediment concentrations to
bulk sediment concentrations.
10.6.1. RemediationLevels Based onWater Quality
Criteria
It is possible.to predict the sediment concentration required
to achieve an overlying water criterion if there is a consistent
relationship between sediment and water concentrations. The
range in the maximum and minimum water-to-sediment ratios (WSR)
for both SDDT and dieldrin is only about 2-fold to 5-fold over
both sampling periods (Tables 8-13 and 8-14). This relatively
low variability indicates that whole water concentrations can be
predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy from sediment
concentrations, at least during non-storm conditions. The
sediment concentration required to achieve a water concentration
can be predicted from:
Cs = Cw/WSR
Eq. 10-1
where
Cs = sediment concentration {/*g/kg 'dry)
262
-------
Cw = target water concentration (/zg/1)
WSR = water-sediment ratio (kg/1)
Table 10-7 gives the predicted EDDT sediment concentrations
required to achieve various water quality criteria, while Table
10-8 gives the equivalent sediment concentrations based on diel-
drin WQC. Although specific stations are identified in Tables
10-7 and 10-8, achieving water concentrations is best based on '
channel averages or major portions of channels rather than a
localized "hot spot".(i.e., Station 6).
None of the Lauritzen Channel would have to be remediated
based on the sediment concentrations to achieve the acute.WQC for
SDDT or dieldrin. However, all of the Lauritzen stations would
have to be remediated to achieve the SDDT sediment concentration
based on the chronic SDDT WQC, while Stations 1-3 would have to
be remediated based on the chronic dieldrin WQC.
The extent of remediation required in the Santa Fe and
Richmond Inner Harbor Channels depends upon which WSR is used.
To achieve the chronic SDDT WQC with the channel-specific WSRs,
all of the Santa Fe would have be remediated as well as the
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel to between Stations 7 and 8. For
dieldrin, the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channel averages
are below the sediment concentrations.
As discussed in Section 8.2., the higher WSRs in the Santa Fe
and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels may be due, at least in part,
to the flux of contaminated water from Lauritzen Channel. If the
Lauritzen Channel is remediated, any elevation due to this flux
would be greatly reduced or completely eliminated. Under this
scenario, it would be more appropriate to use the Lauritzen
Channel WSRs and the corresponding sediment concentrations.
Using the Lauritzen Channel WSR, the average Santa Fe Channel
EDDT sediment concentration is below the 1010 M9/k9T SDDT sediment
remediation level. This approach suggests that the Santa Fe
would not have to be cleaned-up to achieve the chronic EDDT and
dieldrin WQC if sediment concentrations in the Lauritzen Channel
were reduced.
10.6.2. Remediation Levels Based on Tissue Residue
Criteria
Pelagic Tissue Residues; With a method of predicting
water concentrations, it is possible to determine the sediment
concentrations required to achieve tissue residue criteria in
organisms whose major route of exposure is through the overlying
water. The equation for this prediction is based on the follow-
ing equation:
CS - TR/(WSR * BCFUW)
where
TR = Tissue residue (/jg/kg wet)
263
Eq. 10-2
-------
where
TR
Tissue residue (jig/kg wet)
BCFUW = Bioconcentration factor based on unfiltered water,
for whole body (I/kg)
This approach is applied to mussels and shiner surfpeirch for
SDDT and dieldrin (Tables 10-9 and 10-10). Because some of• the
surfperch uptake may be from ingestion of benthic prey (Table 8-
23) , the use of a BCFUW model may overestimate the actual uptake
from water alone. Therefore, the remedial sediment concentra-
tions predicted from surfperch may represent lower limits for
sediment remediation for organisms with a water uptake exposure.
Using the Lauritzen Channel WSR for all channels, Stations
1-3 would have to be cleaned-up based on the chronic WQC SDDT
tissue residues in mussels (Table 10-9). Up to Station 4 in
Lauritzen Channel would also have to be cleaned-up based on the
chronic SDDT WQC in shiner surfperch and the NAS SDDT residue in
mussels. The Santa Fe Channel would have to be cleaned-up to
achieve the NAS SDDT residue in surfperch. Remediating for SDDT
would reduce dieldrin below its required sediment concentration
for the equivalent ecological criterion (Table 10-10) except at
Station 7 which exceeds the NAS remediation sediment value based
on shiner surfperch.
Using the channel-specific WSRs results in "about 10-fold and
2-fold lower sediment concentrations for SDDT and dieldrin,
respectively. All stations in the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Chan-
nels would require remediation to achieve chronic WQC SDDT resi-
dues in mussels, while the end of Richmond Inner Harbor, Stations
7 and 17,.would also require remediation based on the surfperch.
The SDDT sediment concentration to achieve the more stringent NAS
residue is achieved at around Station 8 and seaward based on
mussels. When surfperch are used, the SDDT concentrations are
below the NAS remediation concentration only at the reference
station (Station 9) and stations in San Francisco Bay (Stations
19-23). A number of peripheral and basin sites in San Francisco
Bay exceed the SDDT sediment concentration required to achieve
the NAS SDDT residue in surfperch (Table 8-11A), suggesting the
violations in cleaner portions of Richmond Inner Harbor Channel
may represent regional contamination.
Anchovy are important prey items for pelican and other fish-
eating birds, and their present residues of SDDT or dieldrin
violate the chronic WQC or NAS standard in each of the three •
channels. Unfortunately, the mobility of anchovy violates the
assumption that the fish will be exposed to a constant water
concentration for a sufficient duration to approach steady-state
tissue residues; therefore it is not appropriate to use Equation
10-2. Rather, a kinetic approach is needed to accurately predict
residues in mobile species with a transient exposure (Lee, 1992),
but the rate constants are not available. However, any remedia-
tion that protects a resident species, such as the surfperch,
264
-------
should generally protect a mobile species with a shorter exposure
duration.
Benthic Tissue Residues; Residues in benthic fish and
invertebrates are ecologically important both as a source of
contamination for birds and marine mammals, and in the detri-
mental effects they have on the contaminated organisms. Accurate
predictions of residues in M. nasuta can be made either using the
equilibrium partitioning (EqP) bioaccumulation model or linear
regressions. The EqP model is used in this analysis since it
allows for direct incorporation of TOC, which could change during
a remediation involving sediment removal. EDDT residues in a
trophic level.3.25 benthic fish are predicted using the exponen-
tial biomagnification- model (EBM) trophic model and the EqP
model. Dieldrin residues are predicted by the EqP model only
(Table1 10-11} . Because the AFs for gobiids are used in the EqP
models, the fish is referred to as "gobiid" in Table 10-11,
though the results should generally apply to any benthic-feeding
trophic level 3.25 fish (see Section 9.4.).
The sediment concentrations to'achieve the chronic WQC SDDT
residues in fish and invertebrates range from about 200 to 500
jig/kg (Table 10-11) . These UDDT sediment concentrations are
exceeded at all stations up to about Station 7 in Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel. The NAS standard for SDDT results in violations
up to Station 8 using the sediment concentrations based on the
EqP predictions with gobiids and £J- nasuta.
With dieldrin, the sediment concentrations based on the
chronic WQC residues in gobiids are exceeded only in the most
contaminated section of Lauritzen Channel (Stations 1-3). The
dieldrin sediment concentrations based the NAS standard using M-
nasuta is presently violated through Station 7, while the lower
concentrations based on the gobiids is also violated at Station
17. The dieldrin"concentration derived from gobiids is also
violated at Station 23 even though the stations between Stations
7 and 17 had lower or non-detectable concentrations. The viola-
tion at Station 23 could reflect analytical variation at these
low sediment concentrations or spatial heterogeneity.
Using the SDDT effects-based tissue residue for fish fry,
remediation would be required at Stations 1-3 based on both
benthic invertebrates and. benthic fish.
10.6.3. Remediation Based on Benthic Community
Structure and Sediment Toxicity:
Sediment concentrations and benthic community parameters
tended to group into "high", "intermediate", and "low" pollutant
groups (Section 9.1.}. One approach to determining remediation-
concentrations is to compare these group Infaunal Indices values
to the "control" and "changed" values. None of the mean group
Infaunal Indexes are below the criterion for "changed", though
values less than 60 were observed at the high pollutant stations
(Stations 1-3) (Table 10-12). The occurrence of these localized
"changed" portions of the benthic community in Lauritzen Channel
suggest that the community as.a whole is approaching its assim-
265
-------
tion should result in "normal" (>60) Infaunal Index conditions at
all sites within the channel. If the goal were to obtain
"control" Infaunal Index conditions (II =• 83} at all sites,
remediation would require cleaning up the Lauritzen, Santa Fe,
and parts of the Richmond Inner Harbor Channels (Stations 1-7) to
approximately the EDDT concentrations in the low pollutant group.
A regression approach can be used with the same data and . •
criteria to predict a remedial EDDT sediment concentration. The
advantage of using a regression is that the sediment concentra-
tion for a specific Infaunal Index value can be predicted, but it
must be recognized that the regression explained only about 50%
of the variation. Using the goal of obtaining "control" condi-
tions at all sites, the predicted clean-up, concentration is 9.7
M9/9 oc d84 M9/k9 @ 1.9% TOG) . This would require .clean-up of
all the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels, as well as Station 7 of
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, a result similar to that obtained
by comparing group means .
It is also possible to use the regressions to predict what
SDDT sediment concentration would cause a specified value or
percentage decline compared to a zero pollutant exposure (i.e.,
change from the value of the Y- intercept in the regressions in
Tables 9-2 through 9-5). The advantage of this approach is -that
it normalizes any change to local conditions rather than using
standards {i.e., 83 and 60} developed for Southern California
Bight communities. A 20% decline in the Infaunal Index is
tentatively suggested here as a indicator of an ecologically
significant change in benthic community structure and function.
The 20% decline is consistent with the use of 20% amphipod
mortality as a decision point in the evaluation of dredge
materials (EPA/ ACE, 1991) . The SDDT sediment concentration
resulting in an Infauna Index equal to 80% .of, the 0 SDDT value
(II80=71.59) is 533 fig/g OC (10,126 /ig/kg at 1.9% TOO. Stations
1-3 in Lauritzen Channel violate this concentration and would
require clean-up.
The same relative approach to local zero pollutant conditions
can be used with amphipod density. The predictions can.be made
with all amphipod species or with Grandidierella japonica. a SDDT
tolerant species, excluded. Both regressions are highly signifi-
cant (P<0.01) (Table 9-2) . A 20% reduction in amphipods w/o G.
japonica is predicted to occur at a SDDT concentration of 3.96
^9/9 oc (75 fig/kg at 1.9% TOO, resulting in present violations
up to and including Station 8 in Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
Including G. japonica results in a slightly higher sediment
remediation concentration (4.75 /ig/g OC or 90 M9/k9> » as expected
by the addition of a pollutant tolerant species, but the
difference is minimal.
The laboratory toxicity test offers an independent method of
predicting remedial concentrations protective of benthic organ-
isms (Table 10-12) . The 10 -day LC50 for SDDT with Eohaustorius
estuarius was 2,500 /ig/g OC (47,500 jig/kg, dry}. Because this
sediment concentration results in 50% acute mortality, it is not
ecologically protective. A more protective value from the sedi-
266
-------
isms (Table 10-12) . The 10-day LC50 for SDDT with Eohaustorius
estuarius was 2,500 /xg/g OC (47,500 pig/kg, dry). Because this
sediment concentration results in 50% acute mortality, it is not
ecologically protective. A more protective value from the sedi-
ment bioassay is the threshold for toxicity in the 10-day test,
300 /ig/g OC (5700 /xg/kg @ 1.9% TOO . This concentration would
require the clean-up of most of Lauritzen Channel (Stations 1-3).
Because 300 /*g/g OC is a threshold for toxicity, species
more sensitive than E. estuarius may experience toxicity at this
sediment concentration. And, in fact, since these tests were
completed, Rhepoxynius abronius showed 0 survival in Lauritzen
Channel sediment (White et al., 1993), suggesting it is more
sensitive than E. estuarius to EDDT. As a method to account for
more sensitive species as well as chronic exposures, the amphipod
toxicity data were combined with the field distribution data for
seven amphipod species (excluding G. japonica) to generate a
minimum ecological effects concentration for EDDT of 100 pg/g OC
(1,900 jttg/kg SDDT at 1.9% TOO. (The field data used in deriving
the minimum ecological- effects concentration included small
amphipods (>0.5mm <1.0-mtn) which were not used in the amphipod
regressions and, therefore, is a different data set.) This
ecological criterion would require remediation of all of
Lauritzen Channel.
The minimum ecological effects concentration is several fold
higher than the predictions based on the amphipod regressions.
Part of the reason for the difference is that the minimum ecolog-
ical effects concentration approach assumes .there is a toxico-
logical threshold while the linear regression has no threshold.
Additionally, the variability in the field density of amphipods,
especially at low EDDT sediment concentrations was high (Figures
9-1, i, j). Consequently, the accuracy of the regressions at low
SDDT sediment concentrations is low. Nonetheless, these two
approaches should bracket the SDDT sediment concentration needed
to protect amphipods, with the minimum ecological effect
concentration the more accurate.
Although EDDT is considered the major cause of sediment
toxicity, the question remains whether remediating the DDT-
contaminated sediment would reduce dieldrin to a sufficient
extent. An interim sediment quality criterion has been developed
for dieldrin that can be used to determine what areas would
require remediation based on toxic effects on benthos by this
compound alone. The interim SQC of 17 jig/g OC indicates that
Stations 1-3 in Lauritzen should be remediated based on dieldrin
concentrations. All the ecologically protective benthic pre-
dictors considered here require clean-up of these stations, as do
most of- the other water and tissue criteria considered previous-
ly. Therefore, at least in terms of effects on the benthos,
cleaning-up the EDDT contaminated sediment would assure suffi-
cient remediation of dieldrin contamination.
267
-------
10.7. SUMMATION OF VIOLATIONS
Gaining a perspective of the overall ecological risk in an
assessment with multiple end-points is difficult for no other
reason than the magnitude of numbers to comprehend. One quali-
tative method of summarizing the data is to sum the number of
end-points that were violated in each channel. That is, simply
count all the end-points listed in Tables. 10-1 to 10-3 that
exceeded each of the criteria. Table 10-13 summarizes the viola-
tions by sets, while Figure 10-1 presents these data graphically.
One limitation of simply summing the number of violations is that
it does not differentiate between a site that violates a criter-
ion by orders-of-magnitude versus one that barely exceeds it. To
account for differences in magnitude, the "exceedance factors"
(the values given in Tables 10-1 to 10-3) are summed for each of
the channels. (Figure 10-2). This, analysis is limited to DDT
since it is the dominant pollutant. All human health criteria
are excluded from both calculations.
It must be recognized that .these summations are qualitative
aids to visualizing the data and not quantitative assessments.
The summations would change depending upon the number of criteria
included and how the criteria are expressed. For example,
including both the water concentration for a residue-based WQC
and the corresponding residue tends to give this criterion more
weight. Additionally, all criteria are treated equally, when, in
fact, all- criteria are not of the same ecological or regulatory
significance.. In particular, prediction of sediment concentra^-
tions to achieve the WQC in overlying water should be given
special consideration because of the WQC's regulatory standing.
Nonetheless, Figures 10-1 and 10-2 are useful in gaining a .
qualitative understanding of spatial distribution of the total
ecological impact.
The sites divide into three general groups based on the
distribution of the number of violations (Figure 10-1). .The
distribution of exceedance factors by channel (Figure 10-2) shows
a much sharper gradient than the distribution based on the
presence/absence of violations. This sharper gradient is not
surprising given the large concentration difference among the
channels. Although the gradient is sharper, the pattern is
similar to that with the presence/absence data.
The difference between the two types of representations
points out that while there were a number of criteria violations
in the Santa Fe Channel and at the end of .the Richmond Inner
Harbor Channel, the extent of these violations tended to be small
relative to the Lauritzen Channel. Clearly, cleaning-up
Lauritzen Channel would result in the greatest reduction in the
extent of violations. As discussed previously, cleaning-up the
Lauritzen Channel also would reduce the flux of EDDT and dieldrin
into the Santa Fe and Richmond Inner Harbor Channels, which may
be sufficient to correct some of the violations observed at these
stations.
268
-------
(D
_J
<
o •—
g£"«
If- UJ
ac -£
o 5* <
M W 3
SANTA FE
INTERSTITIAL
WATER2
(9
UJ Z
ill
»J
Z <
UJ £T-
~*5
LAURITZEN
OVERLYING
WATER
2ui
UJ -J
Of
u
CRITERION
__ll
x,V
5t
0^
— 'O
Ol 1
=103
I- Ol
(-> JO
• ID
0 1-
41
0 *
— o
O) i
g.2
0 -O
O 1—
•s* 1
OIOD
01
«- i—
— o
=tto
0 01
SI
1
g
X
i
a
II
X
o
*
^
o
o
o
EPA Saltwater
Chronic WQC4
1
1
Kl
O
£
o
o
X
• '
o
II
X
x
o
X
,
o
X
CM
X
K
51
1
8
o_
' O)
ro*
o
o
So o
Chronic Toxicity
ensitive Invertebr
Predicted from
Acute/Chronic Rat
v>
3!
XI
f\jl
a
ii
1
s!
s
in
o
o
o
o
"3
01
ct>
r
X
X
X
o
-------
g*x
5iT
a ..
RICHMON!
MUSSEL!
OP
RICHMON
MACOMA
UJ
"•«
1^
(A
SANTA FE
MUSSELS
SANTA F
MACOMA'
3E
111
3
Lu w
IM-J
1— UJ
oe v)
3 *"
UJ^
LAURITZ
MACOMA
g
CRITERI
VALUE
§
i
ct
u
5
CM
in oo
^ W
JD
a
i
CO
S«5
2
CO
15 •
J3
CO
1-
<
CM
*
000
So
t-TI O
O n^. O
84J
0
'**" QC •"•
0) Q
eg
CD
X
s
o
X
CM
O
o
1
§5
0°"
i X
o •
• o
a
X
Kl
O
i
X
*"^
o
X
H
t) «H
r) •
I) ^f 1)
^ H _3
id
01
4J
m
o
-O
tt)
jj
u
8
n
o
o
0)
O
r-
XI *J O
(3
nJ J3
0)
•O-O
« 'v.
CO 4J
-------
111
Z
X
u
a
z
o
u
in
z
<
u
Ul
H-
111
Z
u
Ul
(SI
1
o
111 -J
M 5
of
CJ
CRITERION
^ 1
o^i!
*- n
11
t—
^_
•- CO
*** 4jg
a"-
i
U L>
U GO
W O)
is
H Bl
C -s.
X
%^
D)
•^%
Dl
4
O
in
of toxicity with E.
estuarius
•o
"o
1
* c.
f
t-
X
0
X
in
0
3
I
1
o>
^
D>
a
o
o .
£
toxicologicat effects
. on amphipods .
O U
u c
0 0
u
"E
I
win T
CO •
.™-
u.
-o
4s:
v en
lu
^^ tn
ij^
*^ DJ
u.
•L. v^
o -^ S.~Z
«- w ui n
4^ E C i-
c c. ID en
0 OJC 0)
u z u o
°
A
rooo'o
Ai A V V
.j_, i-* «— ^«
„ ""-
s
A
"a
a
c
«•*
i
1)
^P
o
o
z
9
•
d
sO
V
tfl
1
1
§'
o •
"c
i
N*
o
sb
1-
Jilt
""Tj
1
a
i—
. o
^
8i
*" «>
!5 2
X
o
V
s
4J
i,
o
u
o
"4-1
73
0)
•o
£J
, — f
u
c
M
n
4J
G
CO
M
0
ti «
cu
4J
(0
•H
O
M
a
a
(0
•a
CP
M
a>
73
-H
to
c
0
0
JJ
0
c
75
c
c
u
-H
i-l
a,
c
s
0
^
^
o
"M
73
0)
(0
nj
o
1
(D
UJ
TJ
•H
n
CD
«
II
T
•
J2
V)
10
3
H"
3
PJ
a
w
D
OT
H
m
•H
M
0)
1
tn
T!
t-i
73
(7
C
•H
4->
to
3
10
£>
QJ
-H
73
d)
n
3
n
4->
w
{jj
4J
^>f
M
O
4J
(0
M
O
Q
(0
^H
— cue
OO
r-
CTl
^ i
f
HJ
4J
Q)
0
O
*0
CQ
>i6
T< O
C M
O t-l
n m
i
i i
o
00
a
o
•
73 —
IQ CTi
(0 en
(0 r-l
II
1-
cs
-------
E-l -~ Al
3
iEv
Z r- UJ
X W t
O K S
» HI 3
0£ r-
og
!?s
isl
02 o
UlS
* OT 1-
r-
ac
UJ *°
LAURITZEN
INTERSTITIAL
WATER1
SB is
J°
Ul -1
at
CJ
S
ttf
UJ
U
«* <•%
o> •
o.
o
o
o
u
g f
u 'C
g.£
5 D>
So
<9
m
x-
o
s
o
X
o
0
d
«
a
5
(M
O
**-
"L. c
is D)
g!
«3 a
1
o
o
o
o 2
5 >
in >.
Sw
a
st
XI
XI
^5
XI
si
xl
CM
0.1
ru
Dl
o
o
o
-C
11
c«
11
li
t5S
f*
g
ce
signific
ess ecologica
Of
•o
•rl TJ-H
e ® A
-H-O
I r-l fl) 0>
cS-5
O X 4J
-rl 0) (d
•<*
•o .
i o O
U IM
at J3
4J U C
ffl-H 0
fl^T!
& 3 S
8-H T3 H
m-H
C m
-------
CQ en
a
i!
O u.
Of
is
s *"
ee *
*«
i S
1C rj
06
UJ
*^n
^ CO
3C u!
g
0J
li
< §
I— Q
< S
«fl
LAURITZEN
FISH2
LAURITZEN
MUSSELS
z
*"*<
11
z
o
«- >
g
CRITERION
3
(M
*
CO
.Z?
XI
a
i—
co
«* Jj5
3
CO
»—
^Q
1
1^ «
x>
(0
t-
cb
<9
i—
i
CO
h- «5
<0
•O
2
a
t-
i
1
i
11
X
"o
§
X
o
0
X
o
o
X
in
o
o
o
X
^
o
X
•o
o
o
X
(M
O
o
X
•
o
X
d
d
Ul
W
^j>£
O xx
O
!5
•<'*"•"-
o 3
•p
5
f*;
O
X
OJ
o
X
(X
«*
X
K1
a
i
a
ii
f^ j;
• . tn
° S^'Z .J?C
•>. tj — in •>. «
4Z O> •» — ' D) Z
M *i U II sl^
iZ m
~ i.
II
c °
§01
= 8-
^ o «
S S'£
"o*"
Is
X
oo
d
CO
o
X
Kl
o
fcXJ
X
X
in
*~
O^l
ml
£1
3
o>
>i C
ra o>
=t I
in
l|
||
O ^j
if
D.
X
O
O
X
o
o
X
in
o
o
o
X
*
o
1
o
X
IM
O
o
X
X
d
o
O)
m 4-*
a«
o
fi
^i
—
Q
-------
4J
-H
d
^
0
o
0
-r-t
41 •
u "d
d d)
a) d
JQ-H
rH
*d ^
d
m m
o d
o
ra -H
d, t
•U
O nJ
•H i-t
4J O
rt -H
3>
-H
d
Ol-H
d ^
-H T3
4J H
CD 0)
•H -H
XV
O
M
iw O
O
(D C
*-» O
3 U
!l
§"" 01
CA
^ O
«^ O
-QM
fel
•H ^
§^
•o
.1
••- CD
c"o.
5g
^ I-
fll 4f
3 p» ^ i*
CQ i
•o
d
y> *
1 0)
0 M
r-l d
4-)
H U
aS
EH 01
It
w t-
£.
41 *
r* L)
l_
C
is
o5
ae <->
n
UJ
a:
o
z
r^
ae
(N
UJ
1
u
UJ
**•
4
1
•^J
UJ
2
J
U
z
r^j
^
S
1
g
^4 UJ
O£ 3
u
Q
Ul
—
u
OJ IM
N i
•CO
o
5 2)
• 10
tMI-
^ i
^00
^^ fll
• >
^•D
s|
fl
01
X
X
o
c>
^
o
o
X
•
^
t,
o
O)
>*
s
h-
XX
?
sl
O 0
»x
0) (A
^_j
g°
u u
'ii
51
UJ V
u
a
UL
'
.
.B
CO tU
rH ^^
tn
. 3.
• P-
U> H U>
H fO
t ^
m ct\ o
rH O 4J
O
• r>
• \J3 •. •
*# a\ r-
H in r- 6
01 ID m t-i
ggS1"
-H -H -H 4D
JJ 4J *J O>
CO CO CQ CK
II II II II
t-l M fl •*
-------
0)
4J
O ^
-H o
n* Cn
Vi G
4-> -H
Q) rtl
U rH
G O
O-H
U >
4J m
G G
0%
w
H
H
10
i
n
in
m
4J
w
VD
00 -
H V£>
H i
in
CO
0)
cn
ro
o
rH
X
o\
o
r-
H
CO
O I
to t-
4J
CO
CO
M QJ
0% fl
* O
o a
o
H
X
H fi
o O
ro
o
H
X
o
H
&J
0)-H
tn
-------
0)
O
m nj
jj
o CQ
d
&
(1)
nJ
u
^ a
•d -H
tnd
A: o
--S.-H
01 M
3.CU
-^ -U
-H
0} W
C U
O
-H CD
JJ fl
fd-H
O
u
G-H
(U U
t3 ra
a)
CQ U
-H
Pi «H
-H -H
M U
•O tu
«* C
- O
01 —
VO
ITZEN
VD
H
i
ro -
• Ml
(N '
in
nj
jj
w
4J
CO
ro 0)
•* fl
- O
H a
o
H
X!
H
VO
H
n
«)
in
nJ
CO
o a
ID O
en *—
UJ Q)
^ C
> O
CN C!
(N '—
o
H
X
H
fO
cq
CO
"
ro
J
Q
v
0
CJ
CO
a
o d
vo 0
03
o
H
VD
H
ro
a
-H
a
•H
0)
U
§
0) 01
M 0
O -H
id AJ
Vi (d
X) rl
O AJ
AJ C
0)
•o g
OI-H
m -c
3 0)
m
JSi.
(U
C AJ
gg
<< (U
rH J3
I AJ
00
0) -H
II
AJ
a «)
-H -H
C «
-H 0
CH4J
•rl "u
A)
id oi
C AJ
-rl AJ
*O C
0) 0)
m u
> c
0)
g-o
•H (D
C
oi
w
0)
id
rH
g
rH
g
O
AJ
A
-H
CO
01
O
a
o
c
o
m
AJ
-rl
s
-rl
g
-rl
AJ
U
0)
4-1
01
•O
0)
XI
VI
O
4J
-------
4J ro*
o
T3
(U C
•H -H
x;
o a
fti O
•H
0 M
4-> (!)
4J
-O-H
a) 5-1
M U
-H
&d
0) -H
M 4J
m.
^"^ ii^H
>iO
M-H
Tf >
tn m
x a
•v. O
Cn-H
=3.4J
•'-' ItJ
4J
m m
a
0 U
-H -H
4J U-l
nj -H
M U
4-J (0
a a
<1> CO
o
c
o •
o a>
fc
-U 3
C CD
0) C
rl -H
ft O
a •
1 E
. •d--
o> G *
1 0)
Offt
u5
i-l
*°%
||!
z « ">
1B§
5t
0
in
**^ n
uj 2 z
^ *^ UJ
t-^Ot
s
1 w
in
N^
^ «JP
£ ta |JJ|
** ^2 z
s
z
u o „
Sinzle
C^g
CJ ¥^k lil
*- UJ t3 S.
(fl <3 =j
i?z.
S3*-1 w
!§§!
g UJ *
** .
XX
^ ^
s s
UJ 3E xx
S O O
3 » n
S
Hi
u
"•»
I
^s
xx
_
M .
«0»
in (0
cn
xx
x»-
^U-
~*
W
"
XS
-*
It
M *
w
S
CM«:
S
1
S*
1*1 «
XX
V M
O «r-
*~ DO
** 4)
IX ^
• "S
01-
UJ
rx)
i—
5
"7
f»
in
a
CO
£
d
*
ID
CO
£
o'xx
xtiA^
a
V
cn
xx
«£
M
PJ-O
«— i
in
4t
a
tn
Kl
5^S
a
**£
~5A
Cfl ^~
*_*
s
SIS
1— *-•
XX
^
™ s
IM O
m c
T
o
^
X
ex
.
o
UI
u.
.
g
o
*s
"Es
<0
2
si
CO
tx.eo
^fflU
tn
XX
jx?
5*
4*
O)
S
glc
"1
tn
C
fc^
V
cn
v „
o ^
to
X
o ^
»- "S
*~ *~
o
u
oe
xx
N.
m a)
i AJ
00
QJ-H
38
H-H
4J
a «
•H -H
C >
[>
-rl 0
CnjJ
m co
O 0
-------
G
o
V4
Q)
X.-H
O M
nl O
0 tn
U «
-H
•O 4J
0) (U
^ rH
•H 0
&-H
>
i-H
M 4J
'd ns
4J
tn in
^J
---. o
tJVH
3.
«J •
M (I)
4J r4
fl 3
a) m
o o
§£
U 0)
4J M
C 0)
(D 4J
6 n]
-H £
•0 „
(U g
(0 O
i-l
d «M
.,_i
r4 01
•O tt)
rH D
T3 (tf •
(U -H B
4-J VH x-x
0 0)4*
•H 4->
T3-H ns
0 rH 4J
M U CQ
PH — '
0) =
• -a >,
0-H J3
IH m
i tv -d
o M a>
I of
^
0 "_,
St*- to
=el
•tuix
IK =) «
:r a
< m S
3 t3
in
Hj * ^^
xs QC
~ XX m
to *^ ^-
'!j si
z
in
tn ^w
UJ ^J? K
w si
.Z
|Sz»s
*J uj **^ UJ
illl
u [J w
tj O
3 ro ^^*i_
_i
3=2 5*.1
^
j
* ^ *"*•
a uj S
gis
* to ^-
^1^
_l
u
1
XX
1
0*~
"~*
£
-4
evi*~
"^
?
«~
N- ^
4-»
^
**
4-*
CO
*M^
?
M *""
V
(O
•w
Ow a>
m c
4p ,j.
2 T
00
2!
^
UJ
N
d£
3
XX
(r_
*
c_
in *
of*
in
4V
53
.
^
M"
"*?
CO
XX
•o
Kl
^
^* *o
in
to
^^
xt
K1
«—
O ,
*"•«
a
4->
to
o 9
Kg
'J
"I
*p >t
^- t
co
X
ro aj
r—
UJ
i—
s
s
If—
1
*r"
o *
«•" 4
in
4V
CO
s
SJ^
4W
CO
s
K>
h- *
SO
CO
/-x
*?
XX
(M £
5I
t>. «J
= 1
V xt
£ T
00
01
K r?
tl
i
5
_T
*"M
.^
in ^f1 •
o'"" °
3s>
"
^
^!
^
OJ
»
^*
• to
^x
o c
O £
*!-*
ttl
s!
^
1
•Q JU
n
*~
g
u
o;
-*
**M
x^"
0"? .
'-^S
So,'
xl*~
^
XX
j^
^""" W
xi
*1
> ^i
=!
Tt
CO 0)
0) ' U
X! rl 0)
0) -U
3 Bj -rl
US 4-1
J3
^ 0) 3
^5 a
oo 0
c
0)-rl ^3
H O)
H -rt J3
JJ
C (d rl
-H -H O
rl 4J
c Id
-H O
B14J g
u
(DO) -rl
03 4J
•H T3 Id
4-J M
id CQ AJ
0 01
4J-H U
di» r^
•*-» w«
0) id 0
•H JJ 0
•O C -H
ca o
rl g •&
0) U O
JJ jQ
id JJ
* C 0)
0> rH
1 'O "§
•rl 0)
C (0 0)
-H On
g.-O id •
0) rl X-,
•O jj o) in
(3 -rl Id •
•O oo
§ S ^ *ti
E ft Id rH
X 0) 4) (3
JB JH r* H
II II
H N
CN
i
00
a>
rH
£
to
g
-H
JJ
id
H
JJ
C
0)
u
ft
co
0)
4-1
id
rH
B
rH
(0
U
O
4J
0)
rH
43
•N
CO
tn
O
ft
O
C
O
m
00
r-
OJ
o> o>
rn
in
-------
0) 03
> d
.
in
O
4-1 U
-H
TJ <*-4
*H
,-. 0)
>i-U
M 2
T> O
r4
tn
A< 0)
\^!
O)(d
=t4J
~£
tn
a -u
o a
•H I)
4J g
nj -H
M -O
4J s
«-H~
•H S 4t
M
TJ ra ni
r-i 6 i-1
i
a M ja
ctf O
TJ
E-< C <1>
9-H tJ
Q m
w m o
4J -H
•a cj-d
>
in
S S"
tn *vj
111 U C
zo
ui
o oy
zo v^
»-o >*.«>
Sro»- a
• fc-» «->"
u < a M
Q — o; a c
tu > u- slJ
KB: s
u .1P " ^_ -**
5 "" <»-
St2
" ^"xx
ir
->* - •««
*O CM •—
H CM
U ^* ut
S •?
in in«-
o_
S
« O. V>
*-* CT "fc-'
g-^ **
o
o
a
°rs
« 1- 1
_ *>
II J_
u _ id •
-H TJ B W
CO
U -O -rl i 03
r-t fi rH 0)
a) 4J a) 3
0) T3 -H -H
rH C 4J 03
S 0 0
U 4) k
•H EH ft
J3 Q n ai
4J k - 3
O C U
C W -H H
-H k 10
•-H TJ O
O 0) rH
41-O d) O
•H T3
ffl Oi -O
-------
a
-H
iJ
n5
rH
(U O
-H
^ m
u a
rt o
-H
O J-i
4J ttj
JJ
-H a
J-l 0)
•a g
rH -H
•H a>
"O 03 •
M TJ^
O fl **:
rt
Q (D 4-)
Q V< CO
13 O
d) p >i
4-> P JQ
O 4->
-H CD 13
•o l4J
V4 4-> fd
P^ -r-i U
C-H
M E-H
rH O
I O G
O O
»H O -H
1-3 4-> 4->
Sa-H
t— UJ
uJ m
£ <
a
u
o
TOXI
9-9
X
0
CO
1
8
i
S
I*.
go
U Ul
oe
1|
I—
U
i
§
g
c
at 4-»
W
• O %-*
_
o
o ai
o u
RCL
s<
u>
UJ
ee
"°"g "
w^g
UJ < .
•5^5
UJ Z
&a*
^g»
i 1
- *
CJ
Q
S-
>o
. a.
o«
g
"tsi
*S
S§N
81*
ss:
P ~*
u
o
IK
a
X
UJ
i
! i- ui
iis
u.
i
i
So
=t>~
_
X
Ul •
00
CL
(9
o
•o
Ul
ea
x
ui
a
g
o
i
UI
g
X
Ul
a
UJ
z
:c
u
a ea,L
X
Ul
i
8
UJ
0 POLLUTAN
89.49 = 71
§°
x "
in t j
ic
-
(J
§1
li
u-~
£1
S£w
S§7
i— jjjjin
ss
a
o
CRITER
8
•a
T)
B
a
i4->
-rl «M-rl
VI-rl Vf
•a— U 4J U
OH g
CD
-------
TABLE 10-13. Summary of the presence ("X) of violations for SDDT end-
points in Tables 10-1 to 10-3.
CRITERION
WATER:
Acute WQC - Overlying Water
Chronic WQC - Overlying Water
Acute WQC - Total IW
Chronic - Total IW
Chronic Toxicity to Inverts. - Overlying
water
Chronic Toxicity to Inverts. - Total IW
CA. WQ Objective - Overlying
CA WA Objective - Total IW
TISSUE RESIDUES:
Basis Chronic WQC - Macoma
Basis Chronic WQC - Mussels
Basis Chronic WQC - Composite Fish
Reduced Survival in Fish Fry - Macoma
Reduced Survival in Fish Fry - Mussels
Reduced Survival in Fish Fry - Composite
Fish
HAS Residue - Macoma
NAS Residue - Mussels
NAS Residue - Composite Fish
SEDIMENT/BENTHIC COMMUNITY:
Sed. Cone. > LC™ W/Eohaustorius
Sed. Cone. > Threshold toxicity
w/Eohaustorius
Sed. Cone. > Min. Ecological Effects Cone.
Mean Infaunal Index > 83
Any Infaunal Index < 60
Greater than 20% Eohaustorius mortality
Greater than 20% reduction amphipods
SUMMATION:
LAURITZEN
.
X '
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
SANTA FE
.
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
-
-
X
X
X
.
-
-
X
-
X
X
15
RICHMOND
.
•••Of
.
X
-
~x
~x
X
-
.
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
.
-
-
-
-
X
X
9
~X = Value equal to criterion or range brackets criterion.
281
-------
FIGURE 10-1. Summation of the number of violations of SDDT end-
points in tables 10-1 to 10-3 by channel. Human.health criteria
not included.
282
-------
SUM DDT
LAURITZEN SANTA FE RICHMOND
CHANNEL
WATER ITISSUE iBENTHIC
-------
FIGURE 10-2. Summation of the "exceedance factors" for EDDT end-
points in tables 10-1 to 10-6 by channel. Human health criteria
not included.
283
-------
SUMMATION OF EXCEEDANCE FACTORS
SUM DDT
B WATER
i TISSUE
• SQC
LAUFUTZEN SANTA FE RICHMOND
-------
11.0 REFERENCES
ASTM. 1990. Guide for conducting 10-day static sediment toxi-
city tests with marine and estuarine amphipods. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Series. E 1367-90.
ASTM Standard Methods
ASTM. 1991. Standard Guide for Collection, Storage, Character-
ization, and Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing.
Draft Proposed Standard E 1391-00, approved November, 1990.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Anderson, J. W., S. M. Bay, and B. E. Thompson. 1988. Charac-
teristics and effects of contaminated sediments from southern
California. Final report to California State Water Resources
Control Board, Sacramento, CA, 120 p.
Atlas, E., R. Foster and C. S. Giam. 1982. Air-sea exchange of
high molecular.weight organic pollutants: Laboratory studies.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:283-286.
Bascom, W., A. J. Mearns, and J. Q. Word. 1978. Establishing
boundaries between normal, changed, and degraded areas. Annual
Report to Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, pp.
81-94.
BEIA. 1989. The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology
Guide. Volumes I-IV. BEIA Health and Safety Research Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Black, M. C. and J. F. McCarthy. 1988. Dissolved organic macro-
molecules reduce the uptake of hydrophobic organic contaminants
by the gills of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 7:593-600.
Bloom, S. A., J. L Simon and V. D. Hunter. 1972. Animal-sedi-
ment relations and community analysis of a Florida estuary. Mar.
Biol. 13: 43-56.
Boese, B. L. and H. Lee II. 1992. Synthesis of Methods to Pre-
dict Bioaccumulation of Sediment Pollutants. EPA ERLN-232.
(Available from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific
Ecosystems Branch, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, OR.
87p.)
Boese, B. L., H. Lee II, D. Specht, R. Randall and M. Winsor.
1990. Comparison of aqueous and solid phase uptake for hexa-
chlorobenzene in the tellinid clam, Macoma nasuta (Conrad): A
mass balance approach. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:221-231.
284
-------
Brillouin, L. 1962.
Academic Press, NY.
Science and information theory. 2nd ed.
Brown, B., N. P. Kohn, E. A. Crecelius, J. A. Ward and B. N.
Bjornstad. 1990. Environmental evaluations for deepening of
Richmond Harbor and Santa Fe Channels. Prepared by Pacific
Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract
DE-AC06-76RLO. San Francisco, CA.
Buchanan, J. B. 1984. Sediment Analysis. Chapter 3. In:
Holme, N. A. and A. D. Mclntyre (eds). 1984. Methods for the
Study of Marine Benthos, IBP Handbook 16. Blackwell Scientific
Publications. Palo Alto, CA. pp. 41-65.
Burgess, R. M. 1991. (Abstract) Development of a short-term
sublethal sediment toxicity test with the marine bivalve, Mulinia
lateralis. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Contamina-
tion. 12th Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1986. Pesticide
laboratory report no. P-1019, dated August 4, 1986. Pesticide
Investigation Unit, Environmental Services Branch, California'
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1960. Pollution -
United Heckathorn - Contra Costa County, Fish Kill. Memorandum;
August 18, from H.E. Pintler.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. Pesticide pollu-
tion by Chemwest Co. Memorandum, January 18, from F.W. Kemp,
600 So. 4th St, Richmond.
California Department of Health Services. 1983. -Memorandum,
October 6, from R. Jackson, M.D.
California Regional Water Pollution Control Board. 1960.
Memorandum of United Heckathorn Inspection of June 15, 1960.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1986. California
State Mussel Watch, 1984-85, Water Quality Monitoring Report No.
86-3 WQ.
*
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1987. California
State Mussel Watch, 1985-86. Water Quality Monitoring Report No.
87-2 WQ.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1988. California
State Mussel Watch, 1986-87. Water Quality Monitoring Report No.
88-3.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 199la.
Substances Monitoring Program, 1988-89, No. 91-1 WQ.
285
Toxic
-------
California State Water Resources Control Board. 199Ib.
tion No. 91-33, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan.
Resolu-
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1992. Toxic
Substances Monitoring Program, 1990 Data Report, No. 92-1 WQ.
Chapman,.?. 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.
Coan, E. V., P. H. Scott and F. R. Bernard. (in Prep.) Bivalve
Seashells of Western North America. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. (See Appendix 8-4B
for mytilid portion of the relevant bibliography.)
Cohen, J. and P. Cohen. 1975. Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Wiley, NY.
Coleman, B. and R. Wheeler. 1986. SEDANAL Users Manual: A Pro-
gram for Grain Size Analysis of Selected Unconsolidated
Sediments. Produced by Computer Sciences Corporation in support
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Lab-Narragansett, Pacific -Division, Mark 0. Hatfield
Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon 97365. EPA Supervisor,
S. P. Ferraro, PhD.
Connolly, J. P. and C. J. Pederson. 1988. A Thermodynamic-based
evaluation of organic chemical accumulation in aquatic organisms.
Env. Sci. Technol. 22 (1) :99-103.
Davies, R. .P. and A. J. Dobbs. 1984. The prediction of biocon- •
centration in fish. Water Res. 18:1253-1262.
DeBruijn, J., F. Busser, W. Seimen, and J. Hermens. 1989.
Determination of octanol/water partition coefficients for hydro-
phobic organic chemicals with the "slow-stirring" method.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:499-512.
DeWitt, T.H., R.J. Ozretich, R.C. Swartz, J.O. Lamberson, D.W.
Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, J.K.P. Jones, L. Hoselton and L.W.
Smith. 1992. The influence of organic matter quality on the
toxicity and partitioning of sediment-associated fluoranthene.
Environ. Tox. Chem. 11:197-208.
DeWitt, T. H., R. C. Swartz and J. 0. Lamberson. 1989. Measur-
ing the toxicity of estuarine sediment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
8:1035-1048.
286
-------
DiToro, D. M., J. D. Mahoney, D. J... Hans en, K. J-. Scott, M. B.
Hicks, S. M. Mayr and M. S. Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium
in sediments: the role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
DiToro, D. M., C. Zarba, D. J. Hansen, W. Berry, R. C. Swartz, C.
E. Cowan, S. P. Pavlou, H. E. Allen, N. A. Thomas and P. R.
Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality
criteria for nonionic organic chemicals by using equilibrium
partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:1541-1583.
Dixon, W. J. 1950. Analysis of extreme values. .Ann.'Math.
Stat. 21:488-506.
Eadie, B. J., N. R. Morehead and P. F. Landrum. 1990. Three-
phase partitioning of hydrophobic organic compounds in Great
Lakes waters. Chemosphere 20:161-178. -
Edwards, C. A. 1966. Insecticide residues in soils. Residue
Rev. 13:83. .
Fava, J., J. Gilford, R. Kimerle, R. Parrish, T. Podoll, H.
Prichard and N. Rubinstein. 1984. Workshop Summary, Conclusions
and Recommendations. In: K. L. Dickson, A. W. Maki, and W. A.
Brungs, eds.. Fate and Effects Of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in
Aquatic Systems. Sixth Pellston Workshop. Florissant, Colorado.
August 12-17, 1984.
Ferraro, S. P., F. A. Cole, W. A. DeBen and R. C. Swartz. 1989.
Power-cost efficiency of eight macrobenthic sampling schemes in
Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:
2157-2165.
Ferraro, S., H. Lee II, R. Ozretich and D. Specht. 1990. Pre-
dicting bioaccumulation potential: A test of a fugacity-based
model. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 19:386-394.
Ferraro, S., H. Lee II, L. M. Smith, and R. Ozretich. 1991a.
Accumulation factors for eleven polychlorinated biphenyl conge-
ners. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 46:276-283.
Ferraro, S. P., R. C. Swartz, F. A. Cole, and D. W. Schults.
1991b. Temporal changes in the benthos along a pollution
gradient: discriminating the effects of natural phenomena from
sewage-industrial wastewater effects. Estuarine Coastal Mar.
Sci. 33:383-407.
Ferraro. S. P., R. C. Swartz, F. A. Cole and W. A. DeBen. (In
press). Optimum macrobenthic sampling protocol for detecting
pollution impacts in the southern California Bight. Environ.
Monit. Assess.
287
-------
Firmey, D. J. 1971. Probit Analysis. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Folk, R. L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Roc
Publ. Co., Austin, TX. pp. 40-50.
Hemphill
Galehouse, J.S. 1971. In: R.E. Carver, ed., Procedures in
Sedimentary Petrology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY. pp.
69-94.
Gunther, F. A., and J. D. Gunther. 1971. Residues of pesticides
and other foreign chemicals in foods and feeds. Residue Rev.
36:69-77.
Guy, H. P. 1969. Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment
Analysis: .U. S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations, Book 5, Ch. Cl. 58 pp.
Harding Lawson Associates.
Train Scale Excavation.
1986a. Interim Remedial Measures,
Harding Lawson Associates. I986b. Revised Draft Site Charact-
erization and Remedial Action Plan, Former United Heckathorn
Site, Richmond, California. (William F. Frizzell and James C.
Davies, Registered Professional Engineers, Harding Lawson Asso-
ciates, 7655 Redwood Blvd., P. 0. Box 578, NovatO, CA 94948; HLA
Job No. 8429,004.02; November 6, 1986.)
Hoke, R. and G. Ankley. 1991. Results of dieldrin sediment
spiking study conducted in support of U. S. EPA development of
sediment quality criteria. In: Draft Sediment Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Hong, J. S. and D. J. Reish. 1987. Acute toxicity of cadmium to
eight species of marine amphipod and isopod crustaceans from
southern California. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 39:884-888.
Howard, P. H. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation
Rates... Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI.
IEHR. 1993. Institute for Evaluating Health Risks: Bioaccum-
ulation Project. IEHR Bulletin 3:1-3. (Unable to verify, BIOSIS
doesn't list)
Isnard, P. and S. Lambert. 1989. Aqueous solubility and n-
octanol/water partition coefficient correlations. Chemosphere.
18:1827-1853.
Johnsen, R. E. 1976.
Residue Rev. 61:1-28.
DDT metabolism in microbial systems.
288
-------
Kahlsico (Catalog). 1984. No. 214WA265 Improved Van Veen Grab.
Kahl Scientific Instrument Corporation, P.O.Box 1166, El Cajon
(San Diego") , CA 92022-1166.
Karickhoff, S. W., D. S. Brown and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption
of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res. 13:
241-248.
Kucklick, J. R., T. P. Bidleman, -L. L. McConnell, M. D. Walla and
G. P. Ivanov. 1994. Orgariochlorines in the water and biota of-
Lake Baikal, Siberia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28:31-37.
Lake, J. L., C. Norwood, C. Dimock, and R. Bowen. 1979. Origins
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in estuarine sediments.
Geochim. Cosmochim Acta 43:1847-1854.
Lake, J. L., N. I. Rubinstein, H. Lee II, C. A. Lake, J. Heltshe
and S. Pavignano. 1990. Equilibrium partitioning and bioaccumu-
lation of sediment-associated contaminants, by infaunal organisms.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1095-1106.
Lake, J. L., N. I. Rubinstein and S. Pavignano. 1987. Predicting
bioaccumulation: Development of a partitioning model for use as
a screening tool in regulating ocean disposal of wastes. In: K.
L. Dickson, A. W. Maki and W. A. Brungs, eds., Fate and Effects
of Sediment-bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Sixth Pellston
Workshop, Florissant, CO. August 12-17, 1984.
Landrum, P. F., B. J. Eadie, W. R. -Faust, N. R. Morehead and M. J.
McCormick. 1983. Role of sediment in the bioaccumulation of
benzo(a)pyrene by the amphipod, P_o.n-toppr_eia hoyi. In: M. W.
Cooke and A. J. Dennis, eds., Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons;
Eighth International Symposium on Mechanisms. Methods. and
Metabolism. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, pp 799-812.
Landrum, P. F., H..Lee II. and M. J. Lydy. 1992. Toxicokinetics
in aquatic systems: Model comparisons and use in hazard assess-
ment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:1709-1725.
Landrum, P. F., M. D. Reinhold, S. R. Nihart and B. J. Eadie.
1985. Predicting the bioavailability of organic xenobiotics to
Pontoporeia hoyi in the presence of humic and fulvic material and
natural dissolved organic matter. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:459-
467.
Lauenstein, G. G. and D. R. Young. 1986. National Status and
Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Benthic Surveil-
lance Project: Cycle III Field Manual. NOAA Technical Memoran-
dum NOS OMA 28. National Ocean Service, NOAA. 26 pp.
289
-------
Lee II, H. 1992. Models, muddles, and mud: Predicting bio-
accumulation of sediment-associated pollutants. In: G. A.
Burton, ed., Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI. pp. 267-293
Lee II, H., B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht and R.
Randall. 1989. Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumula-
tion Tests. EPA/600/x-89/3.02 . 232 p.
Levine-Fricke. 1990. Remedial Investigation, United Heckathorn
Site, Richmond, California. May 17. SFUND Records CTR 3737-
00118. 89. p.+ references.
Levine-Fricke. January 11, 1991. Interim Remedial Actions
Performed Along the Embankment. United Heckathorn Site, Rich-
mond, California.
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. Poll. Bull. 16: 405-
415.
Long, E., D. MacDonald, M. B. Matta, K. Vandness and M. Buchman.
1988. Status and trends in concentrations of contaminants and
measures of biological stress in San Francisco Bay. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NOAA/TM/NOS/OMA-41. 275.. pp.
Long, E. R. and R. Markel. 1992. An evaluation of the extent
and magnitude of biological effects associated with chemical
contaminants in San Francisco Bay, California. NOAA Tech. Memo,
NOAA/TM/NOS/ORCA-64. NOAA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation
and Assessment, Rockville, MD. 86 p.+ appendices.
Macek, K. J., S. R. Petrocelli and B. H. Sleight III. 1979.-'
Considerations in Assessing the potential for, and significance
of,-biomagnification of chemical residues in aquatic food chains.
In: L. L- Markins and R. A. Kimmerle, eds., Aquatic Toxicology.
ASTM STP 667. American Society for Testing and Materials, .
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 251-268.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 179 p.
Marine Bioassay Laboratories. 1987. Bioassay/Bioaccumulation
Assessment for Proposed Disposal of Dredged Material from Santa
Fe Channel and Richmond Harbor Channel. Report for the San
Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
McElroy, A. E. and J. C. Means. 1988. Factors affecting the
bioavailability of hexachlorobiphenyls to benthic organisms. In:
W. J. Adams, G. A. Chapman and W. G. Landis, eds., Aquatic Toxic-
ology and Hazard Assessment,. Vol. 10. ASTM STP 971. pp. 149-158
290
-------
McFarland, V. A. and J. U. Clarke. 1986. Testing bioavailabil-
ity of polychlorinated biphenyls from sediments using a two-level
approach. In: R. G. Willey, ed.f Proc. Seminar on Water Quality
R&D; Successful Bridging between Theory and Application. Hydro-
logic Engineering Res. Ctr. , Davis, CA. pp. 220-229.
Mclntosh, R. P. 1967. An index of diversity and the relation of
certain concepts to diversity. Ecology 48:392-404.
McPherson, C. A., E. A, Power and P. D. S. Grindlay. 1989.
Chemical characterization and bioassay testing of sediments from
Richmond Harbor. Report prepared for U.S. ACE, SF District, San
Francisco, CA. Contract No. DACW07-88-D-0008. EVS'Project No.
2/274-09.3 and .2/274-9.11; EVS Consultants, Inc.
Mearns, A. J. 1982. Assigning trophic levels to marine animals.
In: W. Bascom, ed., Biennial Report for the Years 1981-1982.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach,
CA. pp. 125-141.
Mearns, A. J. and J. Q. Word. 1982. Forecasting effects of
sewage solids on marine benthic communities. In: G. F.' Mayer,
ed., Ecological stress and the New York Bight: science arid
management. Estuarine Research Foundation, Columbia, South
Carolina, pp. 495-512.
Mearns, A. J. and D. R. Young. 1980. Trophic structure and
pollutant flow in~a harbor ecosystem. In: W. Bascom, ed.,
Biennial Report for the Years 1979-1980. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA. pp. 287-308.
Morehead, N.R., B.J. Eadie, and B. Lake. 1986. The sorption of
PAH onto dissolved organic matter in Lake Michigan waters.
Chemosphere 15:403-412.
National Academy of Sciences, 1972.
R3-73-033, March, 1973.
Water Quality Criteria, EPA-
NOAA. I99la. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-
sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends
Program. NOAA TM/NOS/OMA-52. NOAA Office of Oceanography and
Marine Assessment, Rockville, MD.
NOAA. 1991b. National Status and Trends Program - Second
summary of data on chemical contaminants in sediments from the
National Status and Trends Program. NOAA TM/NOS/OMA-59. NOAA
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Rockville, MD. 29p.
NOAA. 1992. An Evaluation of the Extent and Magnitude of Bio-
logical Effects Associated with Chemical Contaminants in San
Francisco Bay, California. NOAA TM/NOS/ORCA-64.
291
-------
Nebeker, A. V., G. S. Schuytema, W. L. Griffis, J. A. Barbitta
and L. A. Carey. 1989. Effect of sediment organic carbon on
survival of Hyalella azteca exposed to DDT and endrin. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 8:705-718.
Neter, J., W. Wasserman and M. H. Kuter. 1989. Applied linear
regression models. Second Edition. Irwin, IL.
Nipper, M. G., D. J. Greenstein and S. M. Bay. 1989. Short-
long-term sediment toxicity test methods with the amphipod
Grandidierella laponica. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:1191-1200.
and
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology.
B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 574 p.
Third Edition. W.
O'Brien, R. D. 1974. Nonenzymic effects of pesticides on mem-
branes. In: R. Hague and V. H. Freed, eds., Environmental
Dynamics of Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY. pp. 331-
342.
Ohlendorf, H. M., K. C. Marois, R. W. Lowe, T. E. Harvey, P. R.
Kelly. 1991. • Trace elements and organochlorines in surf scoters
from San Francisco Bay, 1985. Environ. Monit. Assess. 18:105-
122.
Oliver, B. G. and J. J. Niimi. 1985. Bioconcentration factors
of some halogenated organics for rainbow trout: Limitations in
their use for prediction of environmental residues. Environ.
Sci. Tech. 19:842-849.
Ozretich, R.J. and W.P. Schroeder. 1986. Determination of
selected neutral priority organic pollutants in marine sediment,
tissue, and reference materials utilizing bonded-phase sorbents.
Anal. Chem. 58:2041-2049.
Pearson, -T. H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession
in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine
environment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 16:229-311.
Pielou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different
types of biological collections. J. Theor. Biol. 13:131-144.
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological diversity. Wiley, NY.
Pinza, M. R., J. A. Ward, H. L. Mayhew, J. Q. Word, K. K. Niyogi
and N. P. Kohn. 1992. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Dredged
Material from Richmond Harbor. Battelle Sciences Laboratory,
Sequim, WA. Prepared for the U. S. ACE, Contract DE-AC06-76RLO
1830. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. October,
1992. PNL-8389, UC-000.
292
-------
Reijnders, P. J. H. 1986. Reproductive failure in common seals
feeding on fish from polluted coastal waters. Nature-324:456.
Reinert, R. E. 1972. Accumulation of dieldrin in an alga
(Scenedesmus obliquus), Daphnia magna. and the guppy. J. Fish.
Res. Board. Can. 29:1413-1418.
Reish, D. J. and J. A. LeMay. . 1988. Bioassay manual for dredged
materials. Contract DACW-09-83R-005. U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA.
Risebrough, R. W. 1969. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in marine
ecosystems. In: M. W. Miller and G. G. Berg, eds., Chemical
Fallout. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL. pp. 5-
23.
Risebrough, R. W., D. Alcorn, S. G. Allen, V. C. Anderlini, L.
Booren, R.L. DeLong, L. E. Fancher, R. E. Jones, S. M. McGinnis,
and T. T. Schmidt. 1979. Population Biology of Harbor "Seals in
San Francisco Bay, California. Presented to The Marine Mammal
Commission, October 30, 1979. Bodega Institute of Pollution
Ecology.
Rubinstein, N. I., J. L. Lake, R. J. Pruell, H. Lee' II, B.
Taplin, J. Heltshe, R. Bowen and S. Pavignano. 1987. Predicting
bioaccumulation of sediment-associated organic contaminants:
Development of a regulatory tool for dredged material evaluation.
Internal report. U.S. EPA 600/X-87/368, Narragansett, RI. p.
54+ appendices.
Rubinstein, N. I., E. Lores and N. Gregory. 1983. Accumulation
of PCBs, mercury, and cadmium by Nereis virens. Mercenaria
mercenaria. and Palaemonetes pugio from contaminated harbor
sediments. Aquat. Toxicol. 3:249-260.
Sanders, H. L. 1958. Benthic Studies in Buzzards Bay. I.
mal-Sediment relationships. Limnol. Oceanogr. 5:245-258.
Ani-
Sanders, H. 0. 1969. Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean
Gammarus lacustris. Technical Paper #25 of the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, DC.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1992.
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin,
amended September 16, 1992.
San Francisco Estuary Project. 1992. Status and Trends Report
on Aquatic Resources in San Francisco Bay, March, 1992.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS® User's Guide:
Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute, Gary, NC.
293
Statistics,
-------
Schulz, D. E., G. Patrick and J. C. Duinker. 1989. Complete
characterization of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in commer-
cial Aroclor and Clophen mixtures by multidimensional gas chroma-
tography-electron capture detection. . Environ. Sci. Technol.
23:852-859.
Scott, P. 1994. Personal Communication. (See Appendix 8-4B).
Servos, M. R. and D. C. G. Muir. 1989. Effect of suspended
sediment concentration on the sediment to water partition
coefficient for 1,3,6,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 23:1302-1306.
Shaw, W. N., T. J. Hassler and D. P. Moran. 1988. Species pro-
files: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) -- California sea
mussel and bay mussel. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.
82(11.84). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 pp.
Skoog, D. A. 1976. Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry. 3rd
Edition, p 59-60. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, NY (Appendix 6-7.)
Simpson, E. H.
688.
1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:
Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. W. H.
Freeman and Co. New York.
Spacie, A. and J. L. Hamelink. 1982. Alternative models for
describing the bioconcentration of organics in fish. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 1:309-320.
Specht, D. T. 1991. Trip Report. United Heckathorn/Lauritzen
Channel Superfund Sampling Trip, 4-11 October 1991, Richmond, CA.
Bioaccumulation & Stratozone Team, Pacific Ecosystems Branch,
ERL-N/Newport, U.S. EPA, 2111 SE Marine Science Dr., Newport, OR
97365. Submitted December 12, 1991.
Spencer, W. F. 1975. Movement of DDT and its derivatives into
the atmosphere. Residue Rev. 59:91-117
Sprague, J. B. 1970. Measurement of pollutant toxicity to fish.
II. Utilizing and applying bioassay results. Water Res. 4:3-32.
Swartz, R. C., F. A. Cole, D. W. Schults and W. A. DeBen. 1986.
Ecological changes on the Palos Verdes Shelf near a large sewage
outfall: 1980-1983. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:1-13.
294
-------
Swartz, R. C., W. A. DeBen, J. K. P. Jones, J. 0. Lamberson and
F. A. Cole. 1985a. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine
sediment toxicity. In: R. D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R. C.
Banner, eds., Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment; Seventh
Symposium. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia. ASTM STP 854, pp. 284-307.
Swartz, R. C., W. A. DeBen, K. A. Sercu and J. 0. Lamberson.
1982. Sediment toxicity and the distribution of amphipods in
Commencement Bay, Washington, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
13:359-364.
Swartz, R. C., P. F. Kemp, D. W. Schults and J. 0. Lamberson.
1988. Effects of mixtures of sediment contaminants on the marine
infaunal amphipod, Rhepoxvnius abronius. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
7:1013-1020.
i ,
Swartz, R. C., P. F. Kemp, D. W. Schults, G. R. Ditsworth and R.
L. Ozretich. 1989. Acute toxicity of sediment from Eagle Har-
bor, Washington, to the infaunal amphipod, Rhepoxynius abronius.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:215-222.
Swartz, R. C. and H. Lee II. 1980. Biological processes
affecting the distribution of pollutants in marine sediments.
Part 1. Accumulation, trophic transfer, biodegradation and
migration. In: R. A. Baker, ed.. Contaminants and Sediments.
Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. pp.
533-553.
Swartz, R. C., D. W. Schults, G. R. Ditsworth, W. A. DeBen and F.
A. Cole. 1985b. Sediment toxicity, contamination, and macro-
benthic communities near a large sewage outfall. In: T. P.
Boyle, ed., Validation and Predictability of Laboratory Methods
for Assessing the Fate and Effects of Contaminants in Aquatic
Ecosystems. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia. ASTM STP 865, pp. 152-175.
Swartz, R. C.f D. W. Schults, T. H. DeWitt, G. R. Ditsworth and
J. 0. Lamberson. 1990. Toxicity of fluoranthene in sediment to
marine amphipods: A' test of the equilibrium partitioning
approach to sediment quality criteria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
9:1071-1080. .
Swartz, R. C., D. W. Schults, J. 0. Lamberson, R. L. Ozretich and
J. K. Stull. 1991. Vertical profiles of toxicity, organic
carbon, and chemical contaminants in sediment cores from the
Palos Verdes Shelf and Santa Monica Bay, California. Marine
Environ. Res.' 31: 215-225.
295
-------
Swartz, R. C., D. W. Schults, R. L. Ozretich, J. O. Lamberson, F.
A. Cole, T. H. DeWitt, M. S. Redmond and S. P. Ferraro. (In
review). £PAH: A model to predict the toxicity of field-
collected marine sediment contaminated by polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. To be submitted to Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 1983. Using multivariate
statistics. Harper and Row, NY. .
U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA. 1990. Tide Tables, 1991. High and
Low Water Predictions. West Coast of North and South America.
Including the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA,
National Ocean Service.
1991. Tide Tables, 1992. High and Low Water.Predictions.
West Coast of North and South America. Including the Hawaiian
Islands. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service.
U.S. EPA/ACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material for Ocean
Disposal. (Testing Manual), U.S. EPA Report No. 503/8/91/001,
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. I980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DDT.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division. EPA 440/5-80-038; U.S. GPO 720-016/4353 1-3.
U.S. EPA. 1980b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dieldrin. '
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division. EPA 440/5-80-019; NTIS PB 81-117301.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Interim Sediment Criteria Values for Nonpolar
Organic Contaminants. SCO #17.
U.S. EPA, 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume
II, Environmental Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1-89/001.
U.S. EPA. . I989b. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
U.S. EPA. I991a. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin.
U.S. EPA. 199lb. United Heckathorn Superfund Site Study. (EPA
planning document prepared by ERL-N, Newport, OR, Henry Lee II
Project Manager). EPA-600/X-91/121. ERL-N No. N-199. 43 p. +
appendices^
U.S. EPA.
Sediments.
199lc. Handbook, Remediation of Contaminated
EPA/625/6-91/028.
U.S. EPA. 1992a.
EPA/630/R-92/001.
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
296
-------
U.S. EPA. I992b. ECO Update: Developing a Work Scope for
Ecological Assessments. OSWER Publication 9345.0-051, May, 1992
U.S. FDA.
7426.04.
1977. Guideline for dieldrin in fish oil. No.
U.S. FDA. 1978.
No. 7420.08.
Guidelines for dieldrin in fish and shellfish.
Veith, G. D., D. L Defoe and B. V. Berstedt. 1979. Measuring
and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish.
J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 36:1040-1048.
Warlen, S. M., D. A. Wolfe, C. W. Lewis and D. R. Colby. 1977.
Accumulation and retention of dietary C-DDT by Atlantic menhaden.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:95-104.
Washington, H. G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indi-
ces. A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems.
Water Res. 18: 653-694.
Weil, L., G. Dure and K. E. Quentin. 1974. Solubility in water
of insecticide chlorinated hydrocarbons and polychlorinated
biphenyls in view of water pollution. Z. Wasser Abwasser Forsch.
7:169-175.
White, P. J., N. P. Kohn, W. W. Gardiner and J. Q. Word. 1993.
The Remedial Investigation of Marine Sediment at the United
Heckathorn Superfund Site. Report Prepared by Battelle/Marine
Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency {Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830). October, 1993.
WHO... See World Health Organization, below.
Woodwell, G. M., C. W. Wurster and P. A. Isaacson. 1967. DDT
residues in an East Coast estuary: A case of biological
concentration of a persistent insecticide. Science 156:821.
Word, J. Q. 1978. The Infaunal Trophic Index. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project. Annual Report, pp.
19-39.
Word, J. Q. 1980. Classification of benthic invertebrates into
Infaunal Trophic Index feeding groups. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project. Biennial Report. 1979-1980. pp.
103-121.
Word, J. Q. 1990. The Infaunal Trophic Index, a functional
approach to benthic community analysis. Ph.D. thesis. Universi-
ty of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 237 p. + Appendix A, 8 p.
and Appendix B, 35 p.
297
-------
World Health Organization. 1989a. Environmental Health Criteria
83: DDT and its derivatives - environmental aspects. World
Health Organization, Geneva, 98 pp.
World Health Organization. 1989b. Health and Safety Guide No.
21: Aldrin and dieldrin health and safety guide. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Young, D. R. 1988. Report on the assessment and application of
pollutant biomagnification potential in near-coastal waters. EPA
Internal Report 600/X-88/295. ERL-N No. N-065.
Young, D. 1991a.
October, 1991.
Field Notebook #410. pp. 410000-410007.
Young, D. 1991b. Laboratory Notebook #402. pp. 402001-402011.
October, 1991.
Young, D. 1992a.
February, 1992.
Young, D. I992b.
February, 1992.
Field Notebook #410. pp. 410008-410044.
Laboratory Notebook #402. pp.. 402016-402018.
Young, D. R, A. J. Mearns and R. W. Gossett. 1991. Bioaccumula-
tion of p,p'-DDE and PCB 1254 by a flatfish bioindicator from
highly contaminated marine sediments of Southern California. In:
R. A. Baker, ed., Organic Substances and Sediment in Water -
Biological. Vol. 3. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI. pp. 159-
169.
298
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4-1: MEMORANDA, RECORDS OF BIRD PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . A-1
APPENDIX 6-1: CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES A-3
APPENDIX 6-2: DETAILED FIELD NOTES, STATION DESCRIPTIONS . . A-5
APPENDIX 6-3: CONVERSION OF "F" SAMPLE NUMBERS FOR WATER, MUSSEL
AND TRAWL SAMPLES IN FEBRUARY, 1992 TO STANDARD NUMBERING
PROTOCOL A-10
APPENDIX 6-4: DETAILED FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES ...'.. A-12
APPENDIX 6-5: PROCEDURE FOR CLEANUP OF TISSUE AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLES A-14
APPENDIX 6-6: DETERMINATION OF TOTAL AND BOUND ORGANICS IN
WATER A-15
APPENDIX 6-7: HOMOGENIZATION OF BIVALVE TISSUE USING LIQUID
NITROGEN A-19
APPENDIX 6-8: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - MASS SPECTROMETRY ... A-21
APPENDIX 7-1: FIELD DATA MEASUREMENTS, UNITED HECKATHORN/-
LAURITZEN CHANNEL A-26
APPENDIX 8-1: FIELD SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER
CONCENTRATIONS (SEDIMENT = /iG/KG DRY; INTERSTITIAL WATER =
NG/L) A-30
APPENDIX 8-2: BIOASSAY SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL WATER
CONCENTRATIONS
A-35
APPENDIX 8-3A: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE
COMPOUNDS - LAURITZEN CHANNEL (*=INTERNAL STANDARDS) . A-37
APPENDIX 8-3B: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE
COMPOUNDS - SANTA FE (*=INTERNAL STANDARD) A-41
APPENDIX 8-3C: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PROBABLE
COMPOUNDS - RICHMOND CHANNEL (*=INTERNAL STANDARD) . . A-44
APPENDIX 8-3D: RECOVERY OF COMPOUNDS FROM NTIS REFERENCE
MATERIAL, SRM 1941, ORGANICS IN MARINE SEDIMENTS (QUANTIFIED
IN SCAN MODE USING EXTRACTED IONS) A-46
APPENDIX 8-4A: OVERLYING WATER CONCENTRATIONS
A-47
A i
-------
APPENDIX 8-4B: MYTILUS TAXONOMY A-48
APPENDIX 8-5: LONG-TERM KINETIC EXPOSURE WITH MACOMA NASUTA A-49
APPENDIX 8-6: 28-DAY BIOACCUMULATION TEST RESULTS WITH MACOMA
NASUTA A-50
APPENDIX 8-7: FIELD INFAUNA TISSUE RESIDUES ' A-52.
APPENDIX 8-8: TISSUE RESIDUES IN FIELD-COLLECTED
MUSSELS
A-53
APPENDIX 8-9: TISSUE RESIDUES IN TRAWL-COLLECTED FISHES AND
MEGABENTHOS ..;.... A- 54
APPENDIX 8-10: METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF WHOLE-BODY TISSUE RESI-
DUES FROM TISSUE AND REMAINDER PORTION CONCENTRATIONS A-55
APPENDIX 9-1: BENTHIC INFAUNA DATA, >1.0 MM SIEVE SIZE
A-73
APPENDIX 9-2: BENTHIC INFAUNA DATA, <1.0 - >0.5 MM SIEVE
SIZE A-84
A ii
-------
APPENDIX 4-1. Andrew Lincoff memo of 12/8/93, photographs of
birds at the United Heckathorn superfund site.
A l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
~ . 75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
MEMORANDUM
Subject:
From:
To:
December 8, 1993
Photographs of birds at the United
Heckathorn Superfund Site.
A. Lincoff £X. _
Remedial Project Manager
Site file
On the afternoon of November 30, 1993 a brief field visit
was made to the Richmond Inner Harbor to obtain photographic
documentation of presence of birds in the channels investigated
in the ecological assessment and marine remedial investigation.
The photographs were taken by myself from the Region 9 Research
Vessel Johnson which was ^piloted by Peter Hufeby and crewed by Ken
Hendrix of the Environmental Support Branch. The photographs
were taken with a Ricoh single lens reflex camera with a 135 mm
zoom lens. All photographs were taken at 135 mm. The film used
was Kodak Gold 100. The locations are abbreviated as: Richmond
Inner Harbor Channel, RIHC; Parr Canal, Parr; Lauritzen Channel,
LC; and Santa Fe Channel, SFC.
Photo No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 .
11
12
13
14
Species/Type
Location Time
Comments
ate a fish
loon RIHC 1:04
hawk RIHC 1:05
gull RIHC 1:06 one of two
no photo, tern? seen feeding in RIHC —
grebe RIHC 1:08 diving
grebe RIHC l:il
grebe and loon RIHC 1:11
no photo, another grebe seen RIHC —
grebe RIHC 1:14
coots RIHC 1:16
great blue heron Parr 1:18
tern? Parr 1:19
sandp iper? Parr 1:20
— no photo, several coots —
grebe Parr 1:24
two of -ten
at shoreline
diving
— no photo, cormorant and coots seen in SFC —
Cal. brown pelican SFC 1:30
cormorant LC 1:32 took off from water
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
—'ho photo, grebe and long-billed brown
shorebird seen in LC —
15 grebe . LC 1:43
16 loon SFC 1:47
17 loon SFC 1:47
18 wandering tattlers SFC 1:49
19 wandering tattlers SFC 1:49
— no photo, coots seen —
20 wandering tattler SFC 1:53
21 C.B. pelican and gulls SFC 1:56
22 Cal. brown pelican SFC 1:56
— ho photo, grebes seen in SFC —
23 double-crested cormorant SFC
24 cormorants SFC
25 Cal. brown pelican SFC
26 loon LC
— no photo, grebe seen in SFC,
adjust engines —
27 cormorant SFC 2:27
28 cormorant SFC 2:27
29 coots and grebes Parr 2:33
30 coots Parr 2:33
31 Cal. brown pelican RIHC 2:42»
General observations: Coots and gulls were the most numerous
birds in the Inner Harbor. Grebes were the most numerous bird
which feeds primarily on fish (using the descriptions in Table 4-
1 of the 1993 draft Ecological Assessment).
same bird as 17
sandpipers seen
same birds as 19
taking off
same bird as 22
2:00
2:04
2:09 took off from water
2:14 grebe also seen
paused to
same bird as 28
-------
-3-
1. Loon, Richmond Dinner Barbor'Channel. ȣ 1: 04 p.m.,
11/30/93. ' •' .".;'>:-^^""
2. Hawk, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. 1:05 p.m., 11/30/93,
-------
-4-
3.x Gull, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. ^1:06 p.m., 11/30/93
4. Grebe, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. 1:08 p.m.,
11/30/93.
-------
-7**"Ca i
J/J-U 4£Ar*\.-
5. Grebe, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
11/30/93.
-
1:11 p.m.
6. Grebe and loon, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. 1:11
p.m., 11/30/93.
-------
-6-
7. Grebe, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. 1:14 p.m.;;; 11/30/93
.
8. Coots, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel. 1:16 p.m., 11/30/93,
-------
-7-
9. Great blue heron/ Parr
10. Tern?, Parr Canal. 1:19 p.m., .11/30/93.
-------
-8-
11. Sandpiper?, Parr Canal. 1:20 p.m., 11/30/93.
•
12. Grebe, Parr Canal. 1:24 p.m., 11/30/93,
-------
13. California brown pelican,. Santa Fe Channel. 1:30 p.m.,
11/30/93.
14. Cormorant, Lauritzen Channel. 11/30/93.
-------
-10-
i. ^ *•* - - -S." • ^ • .?-—•"^"" ,, ~^t^!
IS. Grebe, Lauritzen Channel. 1:43 p.m., 11/30/93
16. Loon, Santa Fe Channel. 1:47 p.m., 11/30/93.
-------
-11-
•:\M
17. Loon, Santa Fe Channel (same bird as 17). 1:47 p.m.,
11/30/93. .
18. Wandering tattlers, Santa Fe Channel. 1:49 p.m.,
11/30/93.
-------
-12- .
19. Wandering tattlers, Santa Fe Channel (same birds as
1:49 p.m., 11/30/93.
19
20. Wandering tattler, Santa Fe Channel.
11/30/93.
1:53 p.m.-,
-------
-13-
21. California brown pelican and gulls, jsanta Fe Channel.
1:56 p.m., 11/30/93.
22. California brown pelican, Santa Fe Channel (same bird
as 22). 1:56 p.m., 11/30/93.
-------
-14-
23. Double-crested cormorant, Santa Fe qhannel. 2:00 p.m.
11/30/93.
f
24. Cormorants, Santa Fe Channel. 2:04 p.m., 11/30/93,
-------
-15-
25. California brown pelican, Santa Fe qhannel. 2:09 p.m.
11/30/93.
26. Loon, Lauritzen Channel. 2:14 p.m., 11/30/93
-------
-16-
27. Cormorant, Santa Fe Channel. 2:27 p.m., 11/30/93
28. Cormorant, Santa Fe Channel. 2:27 p.m., 11/30/93
-------
-17-
29. Coots and grebes, Parr Canal. 2:33 p.m., 11/30/93
30. Coots, Parr Canal. 2:33 p.m., 11/30/93.
-------
-18-
31. California brown pelican, Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel. 2:42 p.m., 11/30/93.
-------
APPENDIX 4-1 (Cont'd). Andrew Lincoff memo of 12/16/93,
Baykeeper tour/ photographs of birds at the United Heckathorn
superfund site.
A 2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
MEMORANDUM
Subject:
From:
To:
December 16, 1993
Baykeeper Tour/ Photographs of birds at
the United Heckathorn Superfund Site.
A. Lincoff
Remedial Project Manager-
Site file
On the morning of December 13, 1993 Denise Klimas, the
Region's NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator, arranged a field
visit of the Inner Richmond Harbor and United Heckathorn Site
aboard the Baykeeper to familiarize staff of other resource
agencies with the site. In addition to myself, Ms. Klimas and
Mike Herz, the pilot of the Baykeeper, were Michael Martin of the
CA Dept. of Fish and Game, John Lindsay of NOAA, Jim Haas of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Jim Bybee of the National
Marine Fisheries Service. During the visit I discussed the site
contamination and Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
and took the following photographs. The photos were taken with a
Ricoh single lens reflex camera with a 135 mm zoom lens. The
film used was Kodak Gold 100. The locations are abbreviated as:
Richmond Inner Harbor Channel, RIHC; Parr Canal, Parr; Lauritzen
Channel, LC; and Santa Fe Channel, SFC. The first 28 photographs
were taken between 9:55 and 10:10 a.m. The last 6 were taken
between 10:10 and 10:30 a.m. Where not specifically identified,
gulls are most likely western gulls, cormorants are most likely
double-crested cormorants, and grebes are most likely western
grebes.
Photo No.
Species/Type
Location Time
Comments
1 Cal. brown pelicans SFC
2 Cal. brown pelican SFC
3 Cal. brown pelican LC
4 Cal. brown pelican LC
5 cormorant and gull LC
6 double-crested cormorant LC
7 coots LC
8 western gulls . LC
9 Cal. brown pelican LC
10 Cal. brown pelican LC
9:55
same bird as 3
double-crested and western
same bird as 9
Printed on Recycled Paftr
-------
-2-
11 Cal. brown pelican LC
12 gull LC
13 Cal. brown pelican LC
14 Cal. brown pelican LC
15 Cal. brown pelican LC
16 coots LC
17 cormorants LC
18 Cal. brown pelicans SFC
19 pelican, gull and cormorant
20 Cal. brown pelicans SFC
21 Cal. brown pelicans SFC
22 Cal. brown pelicans SFC
23 double-crested cormorant SFC
24 western grebe
25 Cal. brown pelican
26 Cal. brown pelican
27 cormorant
28 grebes
29 kingfisher
30 Cal. brown pelicans
3l cormorant
32 human fishermen
33 sandpiper
34 grebes
SFC
same bird as 9
same bird as 14
pelican, SFC
pelican feeding
feeding
feeding (most same .as 21)
SFC
SFC
SFC
SFC
SFC
SFC
LC
SFC
Parr/RIHC
Parr
SFC/RIHC
10:10
10:30
same bird as 26
on pole
group of -14
General observations: Numerous pelicans, grebes, cormorants,
gulls and coots were seen in the Richmond Inner Harbor,
particularly the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channels. Loons were
also seen. The group of pelicans seen feeding in the Santa Fe
Channel (photos 19-22) was at the confluence with the Lauritzen
and numbered 6 or 7.
-------
-3-
1. California brown pelicans, Santa Fe Channel. 9:55
a.m., 12/13/93.
2. California brown pelican, Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93
-------
-4-
3. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
4. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel, same.as
bird 3. 12/13/93.
-------
5. Double-crested cormorant and western gull, Lauritzen
Channel. 12/13/93.
6. Double-crested cormorant, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
-------
7. Coots, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93.
8. Western gulls, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93,
-------
-7-
9. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
10. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel, same bird
as 9. 12/13/93.
-------
-8-
11. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel, same bird
as 9. 12/13/93.
12. Gull, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93.
-------
-9-
13. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^wM^^WK~w.,gmM.H._B.^^_^_^^_^_H__...MM_l___,_-.:, , , ..-*.*. • . •' *-«r-i—
14. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
-------
-10-
15. California brown pelican, Lauritzen Channel, same bird
as 14. 12/13/93.
16. Coots, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93
-------
-11-
17. Cormorants, Lauritzen Channel, pelican, Santa Fe
Channel. 12/13/93.
18. California brown pelicans, Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93
-------
-12-
19. California brown pelican feeding, gull and cormorant,
Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93,
20.. California brown pelicans, Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93
-------
-13-
21. California brown pelicans feeding, Santa Fe Channel.
12/13/93.
22." California brown pelicans feeding, Santa Fe Channel.
Most are same birds as in photo 21. 12/13/93.
-------
-14-
23. Double-crested cormorant. Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93
24. Western grebe,: Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93.
-------
-15-
25. California brown pelican, Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93^
26. California brown pelican, Santa Fe Channel. Same bird
as 25. 12/13/93.
-------
-16-
27. Cormorant, Santa Fe Channel. 12/13/93.
-:T—...... ->• •••_• ;—••.-»-^rr->?^->v"
T "'' '••"
28. Grebes, Santa Fe Channel. 10:io a.m., 12/13/93
-------
-17-
29. Kingfisher (on pole). 12/13/93.
30. California brown pelicans, Lauritzen Channel. 12/13/93.
-------
I
-18-
31. Cormorant, Santa Fe Channel
. Human fishermen, Parr Canal/ Richmond Inner Harbor
Channel confluence. 12/13/93.
-------
-19-
33. Sandpiper, Parr Canal. 12/13/93
Srebes, Richmond Inner Harbor Channel/ Santa Fe Channel
confluence. Group of approximately 14 birds. 10:30
a.m., 12/13/93.
.
-------
APPENDIX 6-1. Chain-of-custody procedures.
All Superfund site samples collected were maintained under
tight chain-of-custody procedures consistent with the National
Enforcement Investigation Center 1978 guidelines as revised in
1986 (NEIC, 1986). Any sample collected was logged on Chain-of-
Custody forms supplied by U.S. EPA Region IX, and identified by
an eight digit sample number explained elsewhere in this report.
In addition to the Chain-of-Custody forms, bound notebooks were
prenumbered and assigned to personnel working on the project.
Notebooks were individually pre-nunibered 400, 401, and up to 449.
Each page within those notebooks were pre-numbered using a six
digit number starting with the notebook number followed by the
page number. For example, page one in notebook 400 was numbered
400001. For the purpose of this report, we have split specific
custody procedures into two (2) main categories {Field Operations
and Laboratory Operations).
FIELD OPERATIONS
All field operations were, coordinated by the U.S. EPA Field
Coordinator, David T. Specht, and all water, sediment, and
biological samples taken remained in the direct custody of the
field crew doing the sampling. Once the sampling was completed,
the samples, and one copy of the appropriate chain-of custody
form, were placed into shipping containers and officially sealed
with official U.S. EPA seals signed by the .field coordinator, or
alternate, and dated. Shipping containers were delivered to
Newport, OR by the United Parcel Service (UPS) overnight service
and/or trucked back by the sampling crew. All sampling and
shipping operations were documented in the field notebooks of the
sampling crew.
LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Upon arrival at the U.S. EPA laboratory in Newport, Oregon,
the shipments were accepted by the sample custodian, Robert C.
Randall, and placed into custody in the Superfund Laboratory {L-
118). Only the sample custodian, his alternate - Kathy Sercu,
and the Facilities Manager - David Sweitzer had official access
to this-space. The space was located in the laboratory.wing of
the Pacific Ecosystems Branch (PEB) Laboratory and contained a
walk-in controlled temperature room, maintained at 4°C, and a
chest freezer. For the record, Robert C. Randall was assigned to
other duties as of October, 1992 and David T. Specht assumed the
duties of sample custodian as of December 28, 1992.
To maintain strict custody of all Superfund samples, the
laboratory wing was also locked and it remained locked after the
first Superfund sample arrived. Persons on the Pacific Ecosys-
tems Branch Telephone List had key access to the laboratory wing.
A 3
-------
Other persons needing to enter the space were required to sign in
at the reception desk and remain under escort of an authorized
person.
Custody for all samples that.arrived at Newport was accepted
by the sample custodian who logged them in and documented the
shipping containers and samples received. Documentation includ-
ed: .
* A description of the shipping container, how it was officially
sealed, and if the seal/s were intact
* Who broke the seal/s on the shipping container and the date
that they broke it.
* A list of items in each shipping container including a descrip-
tion of the samples, the sample numbers, the log sheets, and
a description of the packing materials used.
T
Sample custody was transferred to others within the PEB
laboratory by having them sign for the samples (in the custody
log). All sample operations were documented in the sample
analysis log of the persons doing the work. After the analyses
were completed, the samples and custody of them was returned to
the sample custodian who documented that in the custody log.
Samples shipped to other sites for analysis were shipped
officially sealed and with completed custody transfer forms.
Person/s receiving those samples were asked to accept and main-
tain official custody of them. Custody for samples returned was
accepted by the sample custodian using procedures described
above.
COMPLIANCE WITH CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES
Neither the original sample custodian, Robert C. Randall,
nor his replacement, David T. Specht, noted any violations of
chain-of-custody with the field or laboratory samples.
A 4
-------
APPENDIX 6-2. Detailed field notes,,station descriptions.
The following list is excerpted from the sampling plan and
annotated to reflect the actual field activity.
II. U.S. EPA SAMPLING PLAN, UNITED HBCKAIHOBN/LAURITZEN CANAL
U.S. EPA
Station I
Levine-Fricke
Station f
>roximate
Geographic Location
Lauritzen Canal, west side', across from former
Bldg 1 complex, ~50' offshore
(Changed in the field to LC-2, former EPA alternate station #10;
mid-channel, 20-23' depth)
LC-11 Lauritzen Canal, west side, across from former
Bldg 2 complex, ~50' offshore, -250' south of EPA
stn #1
(Changed in the field to LC-5, former EPA primary station #1, -20-
25' off west shore; -20' depth)
LC-14
Lauritzen Canal, west side, across from former
Bldg 4, -20-25' off west shore, -500' south of EPA
stn #2;
LC-17
Lauritzen Canal, west side, across from pile-
supported dock, -20-30' off west shore, -750'
south of EPA stn #2, near mouth of canal
SFC-9
Santa Fe Channel, at westerly widening of boat
basin, -25-50 N of south shore
SFC-11 Santa Fe Channel, -20-30' off center of pier at
head of Wharf St., south shore
RI-l-C-41 Head of Richmond Channel, at mouth of Santa Fe
Channel, -150-200'E of west shore
RI-l-C-33 Midway along Richmond Channel, -800' S of EPA Stn
#7, -150-200' E of west shore
Trawls:
200
RI 1 C 24 At mouth of Richmond Channel, -1000' S of EPA Stn
8, -150-200' E of west shore, -at west shore mouth
of Richmond Channel at Point Potrero
(Changed in the field to the opposite (east) side of the channel,
-100 SSE of red nun #16, in 10-12' depth, out of the ship channel;
the present RI-l-C-24 location became alternate station *-009.)
Lauritzen Canal
Starting at the N end of Lauritzen Canal, proceeding southerly
to its junction with Santa Fe Channel (~ EPA Stn #4)
A 5
-------
(Changed in the field, starting approximately 1/2 the distance
between station 1 and 2, proceeding southerly towards station 2,
where the cod-end of the net snagged on the bottom and tore off.
The cod end (-6-7*) was recovered by gaffing a floating line
attached to and trailing the cod-end. A substantial sample was
recovered intact from the salvaged net. Due to damage to the gear,
no subsequent sampling was attempted.)
300 Santa Fe Channel
Starting at the NW boat.basin (EPA Stn #13), proceeding SE to
its junction with the head end of the Richmond Harbor Channel
(EPA Stn #7)
(Changed in the field to encompass station 6 to station 5.)
400 Richmond Harbor
Starting at the N end of the Richmond Channel Harbor at EPA
Stn #7, proceeding southerly to EPA Stn #9
(Changed in the field to ~5 minute tows encompassing.station 8.)
Mussel samples;
500-510-520 Santa Fe Channel mussels, to include Lauritzen Canal and Richmond
Harbor Channel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
Tissue residues in" field-SlCHT-501-505 mussels, SFCh
collected mussels -511-515 ", LCh
-521-525 ", RHCh
Overlying water at mussel S1CHO-501 high-tide overlying water
collection site -502 mid-tide, SFCh
-5031ow-tide
SlCHO-511high-tide " "
-512mid-tide, LCh
-5131ow-tide . •
SlCHO-521high-tide
-522mid-tide, RHCh
-5231ow-tide
.Idaho Flat Yaquina Bay, OR IBulk Sed (TOC, IW), gr sz
Control + incidental infauna
Sediment Toxicity: S1CES-005 -006
-007
(See Lamberson, 1991)
Interstitial waterSlCEI-005
Chemistry -006
-007
(See Lamberson, 1991)
S1CCS-001 Purging sediment added to contaminated sets
-002 Purging sediment added to controls
Sohaustorius Yaquina Bay, OR I Bulk Sed (TOC, IW), gr sz
Heaven + incidental infauna
Sediment Toxicity: S1CES-001
-002
-003
A 6'
-------
(See Lamberson, 1991)
Interstitial water S1CEI-001
chemistry --002
-003
(See Lamberson, 1991)
ALTERNATE STATIONS;
*009
*13
*14
*15
*16
*17
*18
*19
*20
*21
RI-l-C-24
LC
At mouth of Richmond Channel, -1000' S of EPA Stn
8, -150-200' E of west shore, ~at west shore mouth
of Richmond Channel at Point Potrero
Lauritecn Canal; — "mid-channGl, — aligned with N end
"
of Bldg 1 complex,—--100' E of west ohorc
(Changed in the field to primary station #1)
LC-4 Lauritsen Canal, aligned with "center of Bldg 1
complex, -35' W of cast ohore off abandoned
1 pilinga
(Station not sampled. Considered to be superfluous to primary
stations in the area.)
LC-7 Lauritacn Canal,—aligned with • center of Bldg 3
complex;—-20' W of caat ohoro off abandoned
pilingo
(Station not sampled. Considered to be superfluous to primary
stations in the area.)
SFC-3 Santa Fe Channel, at westerly head of boat basin, -50 SE
of north shore piers
SFC-15 Santa Fe Channel, -400' E of 2-36"CMP, ~300'N
"south shore, -1000' E of EPA Stn# 6
SFC-16 -Center of Santa Fe Channel, S of west shore mouth
of Lauritzen Canal
SFC-18 Center of Santa Fe Channel, -250' E of mouth of
Lauritzen Canal
RI-l-C-37 North end of Richmond Harbor Channel, -1200' S of
Santa Fe Channel mouth, -500' E of west shore
RI-l-C-28 North end of Richmond Harbor Channel, -2000'S of
Santa Fe Channel mouth, -500' E of west shore
RI-l-C-21 Main Richmond Harbor Channel, -1000' N of Brooks
Island, due south of most westerly slip of Point
Potrero facility, -200' S of dredged channel
RI-l-C-10 Main Richmond Harbor Channel, -1650' E of Point
Richmond, -1000' S of pier, -mid-channel
RI-l-C-3 Main Richmond Harbor Channel, -4000' W of Point
Richmond, -3500' E of Chevron Wharf, on N side of
dredged channel
(*21B: station *21 resampled after station *22 because of insufficient
benthos sample; the first sample, out of the incompletely filled grab,
yielded a variety of organisims more typical of a relatively undisturbed
station, i.e., brittle stars, amphipods, etc. It was deemed desirable to
obtain a measured 10 cm core for benthos analysis. The station was
automatically relocated by Loran-C coupled to the vessels' autopilot
A 7
-------
control mechanism
{Station 21 Loran C lat 37'54.85'N, long 122*24.ll'W
E of green #3 off Point Richmond
' W of' green #5 off Point•Richmond.)
Upon receipt in Newport, the Sample Coordinator changed this number
to *23)
*22 South of and parallel with the west end of the
breakwater extending westerly from Brooks Island.
Aligned with range markers for outer channel.
*23 (See Station *21 above)February, 1991 cruise:
Crabtrap, trotline locations:
F-l Heavy rope trailing into water from piling 15 m N of N end of ferry,
Lauritzen Canal, within -30 m of Stn 1; mussels, attached to rope ~2 m
below surface, or -halfway to the bottom (estimated @ ~13').
F-4 Santa Fe Channel, S end Boathouse, crabpot "C".
F-21 Santa Fe Channel, S end Boathouse, crabpot "C".
F-22 Richmond Harbor Channel crabpot, off S end Richmond Terminal #3 pier,
E side of channel.
F-24 Lauritzen Canal, N end ferry rudder, ~ 0.5 m below surface (mussels).
F-25 Lauritzen Canal, Nylon rope hanging from piling -40 m N of N end of
ferry, -halfway between Stn 2 & Stn 1, mussels collected from -1.5 -> -4 m
down rope.
F-26 Lauritzen Canal, ferry rudder, black flakes from surface of rudder.
F-30 Santa Fe Channel Boathouse, 2nd slip, (same location as October '91
mussel samples; -0.25 m below surface.
F-33 Santa Fe Channel Boathouse, crabpot
F-34 Richmond Harbor Channel (Terminal 3 pier) crabpot
F-35 Richmond Harbor Channel, Buoy red nun #16, anchor chain, ~1 m depth,
mussels.
February Trawl lines:
F-2, F-3 Trawl lines in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 1, ~50 m in
length.
F-5-10, F-12-14 Trawl lines in Santa Fe Channel, in the vicinity of Stns.
5-6, -200 m in length.
F-15-18 Trawl lines in Richmond Harbor Channel, in the vicinity of Stn 8,
-200 m.
F-19-20 Trawl lines in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 1, -50 m.
F-23 Trawl line in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 1, -50 m.
F-27 Trawl line in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 2 -> Stn 1, -50
m.
F-28 Trawl line in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 2 -> Stn 1, -50
m.
A 8
-------
F-29 Trawl line in Lauritzen Canal, in the vicinity of Stn 2 -> Stn 1, ~50
m.
F-31 Trawl line in Santa Fe Channel, over Stns. 5, 6, ~200 m.
F-32 Trawl line in Richmond Harbor Channel, over Stn 8, ~200 m.
Overlying water samples:
S2AHO-001-004 Water column samples at Lauritzen Canal mussel collection
site, N ferry rudder, within ~1 m of stn.; -0.5 below surface.
S2AHO-005-008 Water column samples at Santa Fe Channel Boathouse, 2nd slip,
within ~1 m of stn.; -0.5 below surface.
S2AHO-009
-0010
-0012 Water column samples at Richmond Harbor Channel, Buoy red nun
#16, within ~1 m of stn.; -0.5 below surface.
A 9
-------
APPENDIX 6-3. Conversion of "F" sample numbers for water, mussel
and trawl samples in February, 1992 to standard numbering
protocol.
The temporary designations (F- numbers) by David Young assigned in the
field for mussel and trawl samples are converted to the original scheme.
F-l(LC) = S2ADT20_ Lauritzen Channel; submerged rope attached to outer
piling, ~15m N of N end ferry rudder, ~2m off bottom; 02/06/92@09:30
F-2(LC) = S2ADT21_ Lauritzen Channel; 2nd trawl, ~5m off line of outer
pilings; proceeding N ~50m; 02/06/92@09:54
F-3(LC> = S2ADT22_ Lauritzen Channel; 3rd trawl, same area;
02/06/92010:10
F-4(SFCB) = S2ADT50_ Santa Fe Ch.; contents of crabpot "C" off boathouse
mussel station.; 02/06/92@10:58
(F-5 -> F-10, ALL FROM 1ST TRAWL):
F-5{SFCH) = S2ADT30_
F-6(SFCH) = S2ADT30_
F-7(SFCH) = S2ADT30_
F-S(SFCH) = S2ADT30_
F-9(SFCH) = S2ADT30_
F-IO(SFCH) = S2ADT30_
(F-ll -> F-14, ALL FROM 2ND TRAWL):
F-ll(SFCH) = S2ADT32_
F-12(SFCH) e S2ADT32_
F-13(SFCH) a S2ADT32_
F-14(SFCH) = S2ADT32_
(F-15 -> F-18, ALL FROM SAME TRAWL):
F-15{RCH) = S2ADT40_
F-16{RCH) = S2ADT40_
F-17(RCH) = S2ADT40_
F-18(RCH) = S2ADT40
(F-19, 20 FROM SAME TRAWLf:
F-19(LC) = S2ADT23_
F-20(LC) = S2ADT23_
F-2KSFCP) = S2ADT33_
F-22(RCH) = S2ADT44
F-23(LC) = S2ADT24
F-24{LC) = S2ADT51~
F-25(LC) = S2ADT53
F-26(LC) = S2ADT5C
F-27(LC) = S2ADT25_
F-28(LC) = S2ADT26_
F-29(LC) = S2ADT27_
F-30(SFCB) = S2ADT50_
F-31(SFCH) = S2ADT34
A 10
-------
APPENDIX 6-3 (cont'd.). Conversion of "F" sample numbers for
water, mussel and trawl samples in February, 1992 to standard
numbering protocol.
F-32{RCH) = S2ADT45_
F-33(SFCB) = S2ADT50_
F-34{RCH> = S2ADT46^
F-35{RCH) = S2ADT52
Overlying water samples were taken on 2/7/92 at the previous mussel stations
(SIGHTS ):
North end rudder)
Lauritzen Channel Ferry:
S2AH0001
S2AH0002
S2AHO003
S2AHO004 (BLANK)
Santa Fe Channel: (® Boathouse dock)
S2AHO005
S2AHO006 (BLANK)
S2AHO007
S2AHO008
Richmond Harbor Channel: (® Buoy 16)
S2AHO009
S2AHO010
S2AHOOI1 (BLANK)
S2AHO012
LC = LAURITZEN Channel TRAWLS
SFCH = SAN FRANCISCO CHANNEL TRAWLS
SFCB = SAN FRANCISCO BOATHODSE
SFCP = SAN FRANCISCO BOATHOUSE CRABPOT
RCH = RICHMOND CHANNEL TRAWLS
A 11
-------
APPENDIX 6-4. Detailed field sampling procedures.
The following data was collected and recorded in the field log at each
station:
1) Station name and number - Chain-of-CUBtody numbers
2) Station coordinates, dead reckoning landmarks, Loran C coordinates
if available
3} Weather conditions, sea state, etc.
4) Time on station
5) Time off station
6) Time start grab
7) Time to finish grab
8) Station depth
9) Grab depth
10) Wash out (yes, no, comments)
11) Color, odor, unusual contents, general remarks on character of
sediment
12) Temperature of sediment, overlying water, salinity of surface water,
EH of sediment at 1 & 5 cm depth
13) Presence of birds or marine mammals in the sampling area, notes on
behavior (i.e., feeding, etc.)
Sequence of procedures:
1) Record field data 1-4 above -
2) Winch operator deploys van Veen grab with assistance of 1 grab
handler - record station depth and time of grab -
3) Grab retrieved on-board by 2 grab handlers, placed on grab stand -
4) Open flaps, accept or reject grab on basis of contents depth -
5) Insert E, probe and thermometer to 1 cm depth, wiggle probe, read mv
at ~30 seconds, temperature when stable; push probe and thermo-
meter down to "5 cm, wiggle, read mv at "30 seconds, temperature
when stable - remove probe and thermometer and rinse with
deionized water -
6.1) Insert appropriate cores for given station, i.e., 1 ea. 4 cm glass
corer, 1 ea 4 cm plastic corer, 2 ea. 7.6 cm glass corers, 3 ea
7.6 cm plastic corers, all to 10 cm depth., and 1 ea. modified
syringe for AVS, to depth of device ("5 cm).
6.2) "4 cm" glass corer was fabricated of borosilicate glass tubing,
has an actual i.d. of ~4.1 cm, o.d. of "4.45 cm, and was used to
take the sample for sediment chemistry, including TOC [SICBSxxx,
later subdivided at the laboratory to include SlCASxxx];
6.3) The "4 cm" plastic corer was fabricated of "1 mm wall translucent
plastic pipe with an i.d. of 3.6 cm and o.d. of "3.85 cm, and was
used to take the sample for sediment grain size [SICJSxxx];
6.4) The "7.6 cm" glass corers were fabricated of borosilicate glass
tubing, have an actual i.d. of "7.6 cm and o.d. of "8.0 cm., and
were used to take the sample for Laboratory sediment
bioaccumulation [SICCSxxx] and sediment toxicity [SICESxxx] ;
6.5) The "7.6 cm" plastic corers were fabricated from NSF Schedule 40
PVC pipe, are "8.0 cm i.d., and were used to take the Benthic
Community Analyses [macrobenthos] sample [SICFSxxx];
6.6) The "modified syringe" was fabricated by cutting the distal end
off of a 10 cc BD9604 "Plastipak" plastic syringe, and was used to
take the sample for AVS analysis [SICISxxx].)
Sediment sample containers were placed in ice chests (cooled with gel-
ice) aboard deck, which were off-loaded at the dock after sealing
with glass filament reinforced tape and chain-of-custody seals.
One member of the sampling crew was detailed to deliver the sealed
containers to the local UPS office each afternoon to transport the
day's samples to the Newport EPA laboratory by overnight delivery.
These containers were received, logged in and placed in tempera-
A 12
-------
ture-controlled rooms at 4°C, and custody of individual samples or
sample sets was transferred to appropriate individual
investigators upon demand to the sample custodian (see Appendix 6-
2 for Chain-of-custody procedures in the field and the
laboratory) .
7) Insert AVS sampler beside corers, push barrel into sediment ~10 cm,
to second "click" of seal, while holding plunger still; remove AVS
corer, invert, wipe clean with towel, cover exposed end with
plastic wrap and secure with rubber band. Place apparatus in zip-
loc bag, seal and label, place in cooler with dry ice.
8) Insert gloved hand to bottom of corer tubes, remove corer from grab,
insert extruder in bottom of corer, expel overlying water if any,
and extrude 10 cm of core into sample container, bucket for
benthos; after all corers have been removed, dump residual grab
contents into sieve"to obtain incidental macrobenthos.
9) Take and record miscellaneous data, i.e., items 6-12 {salinity, odor
of sample, color, texture, anomalous contents, etc.) -
10) Provide plastic cores to sieving station for macrobenthos, which are
washed through the sieve with running seawater, picked and
contents placed in labeled jars, preserved with formalin. Jars are
gently shaken to distribute formalin. Cores are rinsed with
seawater.
11) Dump and wash residual of grab into square coarse sieve to obtain
incidental infauna. Rinse grab with seawater. Rinse glass cores
with ethanol, allow to dry by evaporation.
12} Record time to finish processing of grab, and start of next grab
cycle.
13) Record all Chain-of-custody information for samples taken at this
station.
14) If vessel is not anchored, confirm location before dropping grab
for start of next cycle.
A 13
-------
APPENDIX 6-5.
samples.
Procedure for cleanup of tissue and sediment
This procedure is intended to remove biogenic material from
sample extracts that have been previously cleaned up using the
Bond Elut technique. The eluant, 50% methylene chloride/40%
hexane/10% isooctane will elute the PCBs, PAHs, DDT, dieldrin,
and most other organochlorine pesticides while leaving the bio-
genic compounds on the column. Samples should be in isooctane
and should be 1 mL or less in volume.
Materials •
EM Science Silica Gel 60 {70-230 mesh) or equivalent, activated
130°C for 8h
Baked-out (325°C, 8 h) Pasteur pipets
solvent rinsed glass wool
50% methylene chloride/40% hexane/10% isooctane, Omnisolv grade
or better ..
Champagne funnel
Procedure
1. Place a small piece of glass wool into a Pasteur,pipet, push-
ing it down until it reaches the point where the pipet begins to
narrow. Using the champagne funnel add 4 cm of silica gel to the
column. Tap the column lightly so .that the top of the silica gel
layer is level.
2. Rinse the. column with 4 mL of hexane. Discard the rinse.
3. Place an 8 mL vial (with teflon septa cap) under the end of
the column to collect the cleaned up sample extract.
4. Apply the sample extract to the column being careful not to
disturb the surface of the silica gel. After the sample has
moved completely onto the column rinse the sample vial three
times with the 50% methylene chloride/40% hexane/10% isooctane
solvent. Apply each rinse to the column.
5. Apply 6 mL of 50% methylene chloride/40% hexane/10% isooctane
to the column.
6. After the flow from the column has stopped cap the vial and
store the extract in the refrigerator or concentrate the sample
under a flow of nitrogen, spike with the recovery standard,
transfer'to a GC vial and store the sample in the freezer.
A 14-
-------
APPENDIX 6-6..
water.
Determination of total and bound organics in
The procedure is designed to determine the concentrations of
freely dissolved, and dissolved organic matter (DOM)-associated
concentrations of neutral non-polar organic pollutants. The
procedure is modeled after that of Landrum (ES&T, 18, 187-192,
1984). The procedure is based on the observation that freely
dissolved compounds will adsorb to a C-18 solid phase surface if
they come into contact with it. The DOM-associated compounds
will not. If the contact time is too long, previously DOM-
associated compounds can adsorb to the C-18 surface because these
two forms are in equilibrium.
Equal volumes of a water sample are treated in different
ways. One volume is passed through a C-18-containing cartridge,
the other is not. Both volumes are then liquid/liquid extracted
following addition of surrogate compounds. The extractable com-
pounds in the SPE-treated sample fraction are considered to be
bound to the DOM, and the compounds from the other fraction con-
stitute the total extractable concentrations (freely dissolved
plus DOM-associated).
Due to low and variable recoveries of the freely dissolved
compounds from the SPE column, this fraction is not recovered.
Instead, the concentrations of freely dissolved compounds are
determined by the difference between the total and the bound
concentrations. Our and Landrum1s experiences with this proce-
dure suggest that the recovery of the freely dissolved portion of
the sample from the column is only moderately efficient, often
about 50-80%.
MATERIALS:
Eckman Slough IW (filtered)
timer
25 mL graduated pipet
C-18 columns (200-mg, 3 mL, #1210-2025)
filtered bay seawater (building tap)
PREPARATION:
1. Mark an IW collection tube at the 23 mL, 33 mL, 43 mL, and 53
mL levels. This will allow you to determine the volume available
for the Total (TOT) and Bound (END) fractions, and DOC. Once the
samples are received, compare their volumes to the marked tube.
Equal volumes will go to the TOT and BND fractions, 1 and 2. If
under 23 mL is found, no DOC will be taken. Samples between 23
and 33 mL, 33 and 43 mL, and 43 and 53 mL will have 10 mL, 15 mL,
and 20 mL samples taken for both fractions. Sample volumes
exceeding 53 mL will have 25 mL subsamples taken. DOC samples
(if requested) will be 3 mL, and will be placed in narrow tubes.
A 15
-------
2. Prepare Bond Elut columns (C-18, 200 mg, 3 mL, #1210-2025) by
rinsing them with clean filtered seawater, SW. Mount several
columns at once into the Vac Elut box. To ensure contact of all
surfaces of the cartridge with the rinsing SW, initially fill
each column with SW, attach plastic connector and plastic 50 mL
reservoir. Add "40 mL of SW to each reservoir and pull through
the columns at a vacuum of "11 inches of Hg. When through,
continue to pull air for ~1 minute, store in zip-lock bag.
3. Obtain IW blank matrix for spiking: IW from zero-spiked
sediment from toxicity testing experiments {PI provided), or
filtered Eckman Slough IW for use with field-collected sediment
IW. 25 mL and 40 mL of Eckman IW is placed into 40-mL flat-
bottomed vials for QAMB and QAMS, respectively. The QAMS vial
will be marked at the 25 mL level, spiked (following SOP 4.08,
step 2 with vortexing) with target compounds {solution C) , equi-
librated for one half hour, and given to the IW collectors.
For field samples there will be 10 mL fractions taken for
TOT and END from the QAMB and QAMS (remaining following QAMS-SIP
sampling) . A 10 mL TOT-only sample will be taken from the QAMS-
SIP sample. If requested, take a DOC from the QAMB only (others
contain solvent!).
Different volumes for these QC samples may be-specified for
processing with toxicity testing samples.
4. STDMIX-1,-2 are mixtures of solutions (surrogate, recovery
[with, -1 or without, -2] target spiking) that are used during a
daily session of processing samples. They are prepared to verify
the concentrations of these solutions on the days they were used.
Because of the dissimilar solvent types used they must first be
combined with the universal solvent toluene before they are
mutually dissolved in isooctane, the solvent used on the GC/MS.
The goal is to determine these concentrations with a minimum of
manipulations. STDMIX-1 and STDMIX-2 will be prepared on extrac-
tion and blowdown days, respectively-. For these IW samples the
STDMIXs will use larger volumes than .were used in the samples
because solvent evaporation needs to be reduced or eliminated!
See protocol for instructions.
SAMPLE PROCESSING:
l. Place up to 4, labeled 40-mL vials for the END fraction (2)
into the wooden block in the cylindrical Vac Elut chamber, making
sure needles are directed into each vial.
With all openings of the Vac Elut closed with red plugs,
engage vacuum pump, close black knob and pump down to the
appropriate vacuum*.
{* Pull the sample through the column at the optimum rate of
A 16
-------
12 ml/min. This rate tends to vary with IW viscosity (vacuum of
10 inches of Hg will work with QC samples, higher, 11-13, will be
needed for "real" samples. This is why the time is recorded so
that vacuum can be adjusted for following samples. For real
samples start with 11 inches.. If a sample is clearly passing too
slow or fast, adjustments can be made in the vacuum, by using the
knurled brass knob).
[ 12 mL/min: 10 mL = 50 sec, 15 mL = 1 min, 15 sec,
20 mL = 1 min,40 sec, 25 mL = 2 min,5 sec ]
2. Shake sample vigorously (recording color, turbidity, etc.};
using a 25-mL graduated pipet with bulb, draw up the predeter-
mined volume and dispense it into the vial to contain the first
fraction (TOT), immediately using the same pipet, draw up the
volume for the second, END fraction.
Quickly exchange the plug over the correct vial with a
cleaned column, immediately begin transferring the sample to the
column (do not use reservoir) and begin timing. Stop timer when
sample has entered the C-18 bed and then add "0.5 ml of filtered
seawater from Pasteur pipet to the column as soon as the sample
has gone through. Do not allow the column to go dry before
adding this rinse. Release the vacuum as soon as the rinse has
been pulled through by using the black knob. You need not turn
off pump I As soon as vacuum is zero, replace used column with
plug and reengage vacuum with black knob. Record passage time on
benchsheet margin. Dispense 3 mL DOC sample using the same
pipet.
Between sample groups the Vac Elut manifold is cleaned by
taking out the wooden block and replacing it with the standard
manifold in the rinse position. With the vacuum on, use the tip
of a glass syringe barrel as a wick, and direct a stream of
methanol from a squirt bottle into the Luer fitting of the
needles that were used. Attach the barrel and direct
approximately 1/2 mL of methanol into it. When the interior of
each needle is rinsed remove the lid and swab the exterior of the
needle with a methanol-wetted Kimwipe.
SURROGATE SPIKING/EXTRACTION/BLOWDOWN:
1. Add surrogate solution (water miscible, standard A) to the
vials containing the TOT and END fractions, and the QC samples
following SOP 4.08 step 3 with 15 second vortexing followed by a
half hour equilibration.
2. Extract the samples, reduce the extract volume, and add the
recovery standard B to the specified final combined volume (25 or
50 jiL) following SOP 4.08 steps 4-9. For example, if final
A 17
-------
combined volume is 25 /^L and the volume of standard B that is
needed is 15 /uL, initially reduce the volume to below 25 /tL, add
B, mix and transfer to gc vial insert or conical gc vial.
A 18
-------
APPENDIX 6-7.
nitrogen.
Homogenization of bivalve tissue using liquid
This procedure is designed for the rapid homogenization of tissue
samples. It is appropriate for use with samples of approximately
5 grams or less. Larger samples should be done in 5 gram or
smaller pieces and combined. As of Dec. 1991 it has been demon-
strated on clams and mussels (shucked) but should do well on
other tissues. The first time this SOP is followed it should be
done with someone experienced in the procedure.
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
top-loading balance (3-decimal places)
spatula
mortar and pestle(s)
400 ml beaker
foam cooler, small
liquid nitrogen (coordinate with Bruce Boese)
glass vials (40 ml or appropriate size)
poly weigh boats
acetone
gloves: latex or vinyl are fine, one heavy glove is nice
paper towels
1. Cover clean mortar and pestle(s) with aluminum foil and place
in a freezer to cool. Thaw specimens if frozen.
2. Wipe dry and weigh each bivalve to three decimal places on a
tared weighing boat.
3. Rinse a scalpel with acetone in the hood, cut the adductor
muscles and pry the shell open. Remove byssal threads if present
and discard, tease mantle, gonads and all other tissues from the
shell. Holding the tissue in the shell, drain off and discard
the pallial fluid. Scrape the dissected tissue into a tared
weighing boat and record the weight to 3 decimal places. It will
likely be easier to dissect half of the animal at a time from the
shell, cutting the two halves apart near the shell hinge.
4. Open the valve and direct a stream of liquid nitrogen into a
400 ml beaker placed inside a foam cooler. Place a stainless
steel spatula in the beaker to chill it. Half fill a pre-chilled
mortar with liquid nitrogen from the beaker, place the pestle in
the mortar and allow them both to become completely chilled,
adding more liquid nitrogen if necessary. After the mortar and
pestle are thoroughly chilled, add additional liquid nitrogen so
that a pool of nitrogen is present in the mortar.
5. Drop the dissected tissue into the middle of the pool of
nitrogen, wait a few seconds, and press the pestle straight down
on the tissue. This should flatten out the freezing tissue.
A 19
-------
Grind the sample with the mortar until it is roughly uniform in
tiny pieces (like sand) and fully homogenized. Add more nitrogen
if necessary until the process is complete. Note: if the tissue
sample is a large one, cut it into chunks that are approximately
5 grams or less in size and homogenize one chunk at a time.
6. Scrape the homogenized sample into pre-labeled, pre-weighed
(to 3 decimal places), acetone rinsed vials with the chilled
spatula. Place the cap back on the vial but DO NOT TIGHTEN THE
CAP UNTIL THE SAMPLE HAS PARTIALLY THAWED. IF A VIAL AT
CRYOGENIC TEMPERATURES IS SEALED AND ALLOWED TO WARM, IT CAN
EXPLODE -SENDING GLASS SHARDS ACROSS THE ROOM AND POSSIBLY
RESULTING IN INJURY!
7. Wipe .out the mortar and wipe off the pestle with a clean
paper towel or Kim-wipe. . It is unpractical to use a newly
cleaned and chilled mortar and pestle with each sample so thought
must be given to an appropriate sample homogenization order and
grouping. Little cross-contamination is likely if the analyte
concentrations in the samples are not vastly different and the
mortar and pestle are kept frozen so that the frozen sample
particles are easily wiped out between homogenizations.
8. After the tissue has been allowed to partially thaw, seal and
weigh the vial to 3 decimal places. Obtain the sample weight by
difference. Place the sample in the freezer pending further
analysis.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Liquid nitrogen can be safely handled if care is taken to
avoid direct exposure, the nitrogen containing beaker is only
briefly handled with fingertips and light gloves, and super-
cooled instruments such as the mortar are only briefly and
lightly held or heavy gloves used. Most dangerous is tightening
the cap on a sample immediately after tissue transfer, creating a
bomb. Acetone exposure should be avoided.
A 20
-------
APPENDIX 6-8. Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry.
This procedure describes the standard procedure for
analyzing environmental sample extracts by GC/MS in the selected-
ion monitoring mode.
Materials
HP 5890 II Gas Chromatograph
HP 5970B Mass Spectrometer
HP 1000 computer with RTE-A Rev. F and AQUARIUS software "
Method
A. Daily system checks
1. Replace the septum if necessary.
2. Check the inlet, oven and interface temperatures.
3. Check the MS vacuum. The vacuum must be below 5.0 x 10"5
prior to operation of the mass spectrometer. Operation of the
mass spectrometer at higher pressures may result in damage to the
electron multiplier.
3. Perform autotune, using PFTBA as the calibrant, following the
manufacturers instructions. Use the FORCED TUNE option. A hard,
copy of the autotune report and the spectrum should be filed for
future reference.
4. Check for the presence of leaks using the MS. Use Autotune
conditions and scan m/z's 18, 28, 32 with the PFTBA vial closed.
The m/z 32 peak should be less than 1000 abundance units prior to
beginning an analysis. File a hard copy of the leak check
results with the autotune report.
5. Inject 3 pL of isooctane to check syringe cleanliness and to.
check for carryover. Clean syringe or elevate column temperature
to the highest operating temperature for a brief period {<30 min}
if peaks are observed for this injection.
6. Inject the lowest calibration standard for the analysis to be
performed. Check the peak shapes and sensitivity. Loss of sens-
itivity for the low standard may require additional manual tun-
ing, cleanup of the insert, or installation of a new column. If
DDT breakdown is not a concern a highly contaminated sample
extract or high level standard may be injected in an attempt to
remove active sites in the system.
7. Inject the highest calibration standard to be used for the
analysis. Check the peak shapes, especially checking for peaks
which may have saturated the detector. Check the resolution
A 21
-------
between phenanthrene and anthracene or a similar pair of com-
pounds whose peak maximums are 8 scans or less apart.
8, If DDT is to be analyzed, inject l /iL of 1,000 ng/mL 4,4'-DDT
in isooctane to check for DDT breakdown. If the % breakdown
defined in equation 1 is greater than 20%, clean or replace the
inlet insert- or remove a portion of the front end of the GC
column.
% Breakdown DDT = (Area ODD + Area DDE *100) (1)
(Area ODD + Area DDE + Area DDT)
B. 'Sample analysis
1. Create a GC/MS sample sequence using BEDIT. The sequence
name should follow the convention SE_---.
2. The following general order should be used when analyzing
samples:
a. Initial Calibration Standards (low to high with a solvent
blank following the high level standard)
b. SRM or "traceable" solution to assess calibration
accuracy
c. DDT degradation check (if necessary)
d. 5 samples
e. calibration standard
f. solvent blank
g. 5 samples
h. repeat d-f until all samples are analyzed
To reduce the possible effect of carryover it may be necessary to
run a solvent blank after every standard and/or group blanks •
(QAB, QAMB) and low level samples together. A DDT degradation
check should be included after every 10 samples if DDT is a
target analyte.
C. Data Reduction
l. All SIM data files should be1 background subtracted using
the SFX command.
2. Quantitation and peak detection should be carried out by
using the AQUARIUS software routines on the HP 1000. Make sure
that the ID files and calibration files are correct (RT's, ISTD
concentrations) prior to using the QT command. WARNING: ALL
MANUAL INTEGRATIONS ARE LOST IF THE DATA FILES HAVE TO BE RE-
QUANTED FOR ANY REASON. THE CORRECT ID AND CAL FILES MUST BE
USED THE FIRST TIME. DO NOT CHANGE THE ID OR CAL FILE PRIOR TO
PRINTING OF THE CLP FORMS. THIS WILL CAUSE A FAILURE-IN CLP FORM
GENERATION.
A 22
-------
2A. An alternative calibration may be obtained by using an EXCEL
spreadsheet macro. The spreadsheet allows for the use of a power
regression and may be easier when the list.of compounds is less
than 15. Use of the EXCEL calibration requires the result be
calculated in the final FOCCALC spreadsheet not the quant re-
ports. In this case the quant reports and CLP forms are to be
regarded as reporting the peak areas, RT's , and ion ratios only,
not the actual analyte concentrations.
3. Regardless of the calibration method chosen analytes are
quantitated using the method of internal standards and the
results are calculated from the peak areas for the internal
standard and analyte, the response factor (or slope, intercept)
from the calibration curve, and the amount of internal standard
spiked into the sample (on a sample concentration basis).
4. The calibration standards run with the samples should be used
for calibration.
D. Peak Identification
1. All peaks obtained from a SIM analysis must elute within 0.01
RRT units of the expected RRT where RRT = RT target/ RT surrogate
IS. Any peak obtained by the data system but failing this
criterion is reported as "failed RRT".
2. The characteristic (or qualitative) masses must have ion
ratios within 20% of the mean ion ratios obtained from the
calibration standards during the sample set analysis. Alterna-
tively, the "Q" value must be greater than 80 or greater than
that obtained from the calibration standards. Caution should be
used when using the "Q" as this value is not updated following
manual integration. Compound results may be reported with
different qualifying codes depending upon whether 1 or more of
the qualifying ratios were acceptable.
3. The peak area of the quant ion must be greater than three
times the signal to noise. The peak area corresponding to three
times the signal to noise may be estimated as described in
Appendix A or by use of the RPN SNR (signal to noise ratio)
function available in the RTE-A operating system.
E. Quality Assurance
1. All peaks in the samples and standards should be checked to
verify proper integration. Peaks improperly integrated will be
manually integrated.
2. The-results for the procedural (QAB) and matrix (QAMB) blanks
will be checked for the presence of analytes of interfering
peaks.
A 23
-------
3. The results for SRM or "traceable" solutions will be checked
to assess calibration accuracy. The results for these solutions
should normally fall between 80 and 120 % of-their true values.
4. The entry of all hand entered data will be verified.
5. The carryover from high level standards will be monitored.
6. The recoveries of surrogate standards in the sample must be
greater than 20%.
7. The range of surrogate recoveries in a sample must be less
than 25%; a disproportionately high or low recoveries indicative
of enrichment discrimination and may mean the use of one or more
of the surrogates for purposes of quantitation has been compro-
mised.
8. If any analyte concentration exceeds the upper limit of the
calibration range the analysis must be repeated after appropriate
dilution of the sample.
9. Documentation of autotune, calibration, surrogate recover-
ies, " q" values (or ion ratios) and RRTs must accompany each set
of analyses.
F. Data Backup
l. All data files will be backed up on tape as soon as practical
after an analysis, is completed.
2. Backup tapes of quant files will.be made in time intervals
that minimize potential data loss. Backups will be made weekly
depending on instrument usage.
G. Instrument Maintenance
1. Maintenance schedules are given in the instrument manuals.
H. Troubleshooting
1. Refer to the GC/MS instrument log book, data system log book,
instrument manuals, or senior chemistry personnel when trouble-
shooting problems.
I. Signal to noise ratio determination
The signal to noise ratio is measured in a matrix blank to
obtain a minimum peak area for use in estimating a method detec-
tion limit. The instrumental detection limit may be obtained by
measuring the signal to noise in a solvent blank.
1. Use the SNR command to determine the noise over a retention
A 24
-------
time range approximately equal to the peak width. The noise
should be measured in a region that is close to the peak of
interest (usually within 0.5 minutes) and that does not contain
any obvious peaks.
2. Convert the noise reported by SNR (in abundance units) to a
minimum peak height corresponding to 3 S/N.
A. Adjust the noise (baseline standard deviation) for the
time interval over which the noise was estimated using equation 1
to determine the RMS noise.
RMS = [(SNR noise) * 5] / d
Table I. Values of d1
(1)
number
of scans
7
8
9
10
11'
12
13
14
15
_d_
2.704
2.847
2.970
3.078
3.173
3.258
3.336
3.407
3.472
B. The minimum peak height equals 3 * RMS noise.
3. Convert the minimum height to a minimum area measurement.
A. There are a number of ways to do this one of which
utilizes .the INT command to report both the peak height and the
peak area of compounds in the lowest calibration standard.
4. Estimate the method detection limits by calculating the con-
centrations that would result from targets present at the minimum
peak areas in the QAMB. Use the reported ISTD areas for calcula-
tion.
5. The procedure file SFE_03 utilizes the above method to
estimate minimum peak areas. The following G-global values may
be passed to SFE_03; 1G = data name, 2G = compound name, 3g =
ion#, 4G = SIM group #, 5G = noise start time, 6G = noise stop
time, 7G = d, 8G = area/height ratio.
References:
1 Skoog, D. A. 1976. Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry.
Edition.. Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, NY. p 59-60.
A 25
3rd
-------
a.
u. a.
oeo
re a: ca ro >-
• 3 u. u. -i
en to CO > h- >- O >- co
3 UI >- • _J _J -1 U »- U t- UJ -I 3
IA X U. U < (9 <9 UJ UIU> —I O Z I— O « O
_ ct v>c/i c/i ca i—en u. i-
55 ^ ui <* ui «3 3 3 • to o: ^-o.
UJ ••!—<•-• M t- -J —I » z <» O M U O
to u- « z w »<>«>u.izoe z ro
ex u i-ca u. u. » 1/1 c/> o < ca »
uicn^JXSM in aT< 5 5 co'oT o z o tT
X o. o ui ca uj 3 —i-i —i ui uj s i—ui 5—
xca^^uxcatfoDi^cjuucacDu UID.X
— a; < a: z> a: =1 asz>-z o
n?>o^Jca5ai3«>32S33s ua
5? -
o_
X ui ui X 3 -uj z
a. -> co a. z E lu ~ ~
a. _i - -MI _i uj c
;i<
8 ..g
S
I UJ
<3°1
-to •
_ _ . *-> X UJ Oi
- ca:
§i— — z ae a. u uj ui DC u
O O -» «< -ou)<—i mo
ca S o. co 03 -jo 3 S u-
= co a. -x -coo i- O
3
CO
o i—
— o •
x to en
o o
Z O Of
: z o IM -m in o x • —
!|- -isa^1"!^1
Su zto«pco>-ppx
: ui x a <
: H- uj "-
_ S88§ 5zt5o-
co -X uj<-o. >-< aece »caujin
E c/l O z (3 co E ne E >- < u- -J z Z(\J
j oe < « uj Q > «_io«o < ui uj
CVIIM(MJr\J(MfMr\ir>JCMC>IIM. fs_ !>. !>. ,
OOOOO-
, s s = = : = =
ex
r
o
CM
<
ooococoototoooooraoocaoocouiotocoooooeoooeooocooeou^ooooooo
r"?"*" A AA AA AA (A AAAA ABB II Alllt
< « «M<
o >-o o o 000 o co Q o o o z o o ca Q o co o zo
=
i g i 5 i i ri i 2 S 2 g
i g g g § i i 8! 2 g
i iiii * * iiii ii iiiii it i 11111
ooooooooininininu-ioooooooooootnouMnooooouMfMAOOOu-iiriinu-i
ooo
CXCXOV
oooooi/iu^i/>u^iAOOOOOOOOOOOOOinmoooooommooouM/%imn
O
o
o
o
o o o
o o «-
ooooooooooooo
-------
IV
I
c
(D
N
•H
M
o
X!
4J
O
a)
•d
o
4-)
-H
03
U
a
0)
rd
I
•O
«H
(D
•H
-P
C
O
u
X
PM*
^
o z
(A UJ
a. , ca
uio <
a -j
uj o
to u
*°" o
Suiin
co i—(3
sli
co i- o
to
uj ee
a.
i
a-9-w
a. a.
O —1
Z OKI I—
uj ro CK
UJ U. CD
-o£ "- cc to
> O I
J Ul I
VI
< a o
I UJ
u « => >-
S"d
i^5S
(-O I- CO
to
o
. UJ I— I— I—
><- oo o
!< z zz
I ct
>UI Z Z Z
!%S22
to
z
O UJ UJ (
to atct:
O3 £0 ^ ^ ^ I—
I—< ZZO.<«
OGC I— I— Ul H- I— t—
_i ci tocootototo
(M N (M CM (\J ->
Ul
Of
ini/Mni\jr\J
o 1*1 ci m ro z
IV Sj IM OJ RJ I-
S^SSSz
to O > z m
geo>-Q toS:
CO >- O V> UJ <
IO T- OC Z O Of CO
O to a: 3 to
i-
Iiu<-tOI— >— I— I— I— I— f-h-l—
t^vi^^^mi/ivjiiJUJ 2CQ*-*<43tEZ
o u fie o 3c z ^ o O O uj uj ^ ^j o o "* uj uj
^ujuujurM«-**-«zzcKcDCD33t!i o o o o o o o
AA . A A 3 A AIVOAA *~ A A >T A A A V
U « <
• -
— o: o
u. oae
(>^(><>c>coooocJc>
oooaooooaooooo
ggg!
oo £
o
o
OOOC»u>uiu>t/tu>unaiaiau»tnv>
-------
X!
U
d
Q)
N
•rt
M
^
J
53
o
u
0
Ul Ul
£ OQ«.
0
^J
1
r- g^
X <*
H £«
Q
M ui a:
PM fe 3?
^ w z
4
CO
i
^
i
g
9C
(M
vT
1—
O
in
i
in*
«**
A
t
O-
N!
'
CO
1—
a
Z
in
(M
i
o
CO
A
1
in
£
§
tn
CM
1
X)*
in
z
i—
CO
CO
o
Ul
vt
A
i
|
5
^
O
•0
Ul
Of
to
O
i—
Ul
1
ce
Ul
u
1
i
o.
•*s.
0
«-*
o
X
X
1
u
CO
5
5
m
t-
f
2
c:>
in
A
i
•o
in
Ul
|
CO
u.
u.
o
o
o
t
to
CO
o
1—
i
CL
crt
A
1
1
o
X.
0
(M
i
t-
i
o
z
JE
CM
CM
in
in
A
i
o
in
in
Ul
O
X
en
u.
u.
O
M
CO
CO
o
t—
a.
CO
A
•
|
O
•*..
o
%^
o
K1
O
-------
anne
G
Q)
M
4J
-H
i
JS
o
0)
•a
d>
4-1
•rt
CO
-U
a
g
0)
M
CO
to1
ri
4J
.3
•a
rH
en w w « w
coooooococotncowcoto
QOQQQ O 0000000
SSSoozSS3So'x2S:e':e^SIE!EI*:a:
ocoeaeaeaecvii— 1-1—>-t-t>j>->->->->-<\j(\i(Mrjnjc\jrj
H-»-»-l—t-«-OOOOO«-33r3nr5^-^-^-J-^-^-^-
c»u>c/iio^commmm mcai
o OOO o'
CJOUCJUZ
:^i
uuucjuzzzzzz;
2 * * £ 5 * £ £ £ S S I
*->-»-i-i-<««<'
M X) o «n ca eo o o
«- •- M •*«-«- m ir>
UJUJUJUJUJUJUJ
uuuuuuu.u.u.u.u.u.3:3:zzzKUu-aec>u.^
b.u.u.u.u.U.OUcA(nu>OT_i—i—i.j_i_iaeaeacaeoeafcfl_iaecn-ioe
«—fVIIO**l/ll»— •— CMM-^in*— *-C>Jf^-CMIVfMKIIlOfl
OOOOOO»-»-»-«-«-»-
-------
Cn
tn
a.
a
I
"•d
"i-r-n
K- m ^ PO in •»* «-
•o co MM
UJ
!§
-^UNOKiKiinco-j-^
ro r^-»r>l ^
a
si
•• t<-inoaOOxtO(
in (\j •* -o «- in o< •«(Mo3r^t
^ 8* "
•org «*
m«- in
«- ru -o > •-
£
«-po r*J -roo«-in>d'ino
> 09 5 *» f«- M -* «»Kl«-COs» -*ir> «- Kl N.inO'-^'-'-'-'OCM Sin CMCMK COKIin«-«- Kl5 «-CM tflr CMCM RcM in.- OfXI *-.*'~\f\>n °~ °~ ~*~
O<
Ki
KI •-
-1 0
«-ot\ioir>
inmcM'«*r<-«-in«-cM«-ocoor'iooOio
«~com -O in IA O CM in ^ «- »- N. »-m ^r<-»-
C>C> CM-4 >O O- 03 N-
—I—I Kl _J _I_I_T_I_I_J_I_I —I _l _I_I_IKIKI_IZ_IKIOZ-JO
—
999 99
o<*coornooo*a-«-oT~tmminmir\
• i— co • i- co • • i- co • i— co • i- co •»- co • i- co • i- co • t— m • i- co -H-CD • i- co • i- co
o o o oo o o o o o o o o
oo (MO CM i- o o o o o o
«-«-«-fMe> -*•* inin
N. coco *- •- IMf
UU < (J O 5 (0 < O O < O CJ < O O < CJ CJ < CJ CJ < U < U U «J U < UU < CJ U < CJ O
>>O>"-«-O*~ O*~ O*~ O*~ O> o"" O*~ O*~ O^_«-"T
COrVr^COKKCOCCOK^COKKe3Kr^aOKKcar^l^«I^KCOKK«ON^KCON.r>-CON.r>-a>N.h-
ooo oo oo gogoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O
«!
-------
m
d
o
-H
JJ
0)
o
d
o
u
OJ
4J
ns
•H
0}
M
0)
4J
a
•a
a
1
-H
•8
CQ
'O
•H
(D
-H
a
o
o
00
M
%
2
01
§
ii
ii
>» o >*•»-in «-
CM U
1
8
^
• Q-
o o of ui
• o.
oxoeiu
< z aeui
u.2
-I Q
«
9
K.
I O
O KI —1
i C.
9
9 9
«M CM CM oo
Kl «— CO «—
DO €N*
OK»>» t
K-J- in-o o>i
«n *o •— «
«- r- CM
oaOK)<-(MO
- «- »-
•"'
Q C
eocot-^o *-*-KKJO Kl5»7 cy«-
CM *~ (\J*~ *•
Q
in K -ON. CM ~* (\I-J- CMCOr^O CM O «- h- >O CO •<) O K) h> O O O O
-in;*»-pr- O»- into —- -o j*«ngiK> JQ o
f inoto m txo os
in rt ^ ITI »o ** CM
<* f>- *-KI c
o —i
-*»-«- in
' §" " 8
_, _,_,„•--!, O^
o* z •o' .^ o"'
Q* oZ J o Z
Q
_
o
oao^<^cviin>
in oo «- o ^ «—
•o «- CM «- -
CM M «
KI c> o eo «— st *o «~
in r»»- in*-
»-«-•*
<-ino-«eor\iin*- o«-
«-oro
ro
« KI -J —I
°5
90*0
—iV—t—iv
99 9 99
99 9
ocoo«-ooiMr--o
in •*
• •— CD •!
o o
)O }>.«- ^l
> F- • o
I .-to "-
> o o
'»-m • i-oa • i—m • t- m • I-oo • i-oo .1-00 • i—CD • t-CD • t-co • i-oo
i o o o o o o o o o o
in o in r- <-CM -tin CMOO cor- m CM * >*• ^*-
- - -
co - «-o «- o> «- N. »-«9 «-o «-m «-co «-»-
o o «- o o o o o o»- o«- orj o«-
• • • • • • . . • >CM*
ooooooooooo
in tn «— «-
inmOOO'-'-'-
«-(M "-P4 «-CM »-«M »-CM "-CM •- «M «- CM «-IM «-CM *- P4 *>»- CM «J »- > O
«-oo»-oo»-oo»-oo»-oe«-ooi-oo»-oo«-oo»-oo»-eo moo IBOOT-OO
H
ro
-------
05
G
O,
-H
XJ
fi
iJ
(D
O
C
O
O
4J
e
at
-H
4J
m
M
a>
4J
d
-H
1
rt
4J
a
i
•H
•d
(U
m
(U
00
H
ft
Si
-a u
g
o
a c
•c-ejco-or-ro-juio.r--co*fr
CM o
1
UJ
MKIM «MOMz
'
UK)
Z O
Kt
CJ
Q
9 9
99
in«M «-
S!
o
*£
99 9 99 99J99 99 99 99 99 99
ooooouoooo moocooo-4'OOOooooo>-oo«-ooo
ooooo«--joooijejc>oo'-ooedoooo'oooo>ooot>ooo
o
'-ooeo
K O O O Of O 0£
a z z z^oz o
9
oooooooo
> o
o z
a
Ns»r>jNi
**" 5fl*~
IM «M
9
« w •- «- K- w «- ru M
»- si-*- OM«-0«-
ru f-»- KI PJ -8 esj o. ^
PJ CM CM «- CM
J^,z-l JJ.
9 9 9'
CM«-O-«WOO»-OOO
rt
U _I_)-J
M Kl
u cj
9
9
IM «-(
<
os o
OZ
ru CM CM
oooooMO'«sf-Goooocooo
oo<«*-Ki<-
" o> inh-in o«-Kt M
-O CM N*
-I -1-1 KI
O M* M"W z
KIOOfMOOrMOOCMUO«-OO«OOOMOO^^(MaCMOCMOOCM(9C9CMOOCMOO<\ioO
** f M •** »* M
•^•^•^m^t^^in^o^o^o^o-o
i—co • i-to • t-co • i—en • t- m • i-en • i-cd • H- co • i—-co •»-eo • i—eo • t-en . t~ co
oooooooooooooo
CMCO in«-
rvi r^-* T-O o^t CMO
B O> M* CM* O* O
o MM M<0 Oh- " >* S=
«-0f-0-- -(MOi-O
.
» *— • OCM
in I-CO .
»- O O
OJ
ro
-------
tn
c
o
•H
4J
8
4J
d
a)
o
G
O
O
M
0)
-U
•H
U
-H
4J
m
b
0)
iJ
c
-H
•o
«
id
•o
QJ
CO
•d
H
(U
JJ
c
8
rH
I
00
X
JH
S
-oooroooc\jooooofvjoo«-oofMooooooo
•» cp o in o- o co r»> co in r»J o-ooro >O >»o
r-in. «o N. t>- «- •* o
in f^«- (h . ^
C\J U
g
u
OOO OO fM(M OinOOO OOOO OOO O OOO O OO OOOOOOOO O--OOOO
in in co
88 8
8 S
O I
o
»»
>»
<•
OJ 1
si
4^2
t ^
U O Q-u
w < aeu
< z a: tu
u oe
>f> —> t
: u -s
8 G 0
r*>« cj o O <
of)_>o o o. z z z a.
2 2
99 ^9 9 99 99 99 99 99
9
|y"> O «- >O O O
O
U
< <
Z Z
ro u -o
M
o
»
rt
u
_ _ -
99
O> O>K)COOO Oin
z ro z
- u -
_ _J _1 Z — I — I
99 9
O O O -* CO -O 1T\O
eo o ocxmocM-o (M in in PM %roo>(MOin
••OKI o «-»»• m o o «-»* o «-
• CM o o«-mo rr-
3
oo o
u u o
88
8
< u -i< < < < < <
a. u z -a. a. a. a. a. a.
z z •> co eoooM^orJo
99 99 9 99
o oca o it o-o
«-oo«-oo»-o
K1K1 O CO *-O
«*
88 8
u
88
8
99 9 9 99 9 99 99 9J9
999999 989 9 9
oooooorjooooorJuio
&d
in in - CO O «-*- 4XMIMC
a> atin v>
O»-CMO
OO»-0
O«-(NO«-OJO»-«MO »-C\IO»- (MO >OJ O «- O «-
-------
01
c
o
•H
4J
2
-U
a
(U
u
a
o
0)
4-)
c
8
i§
§
u
Ul S
Q U
-t u
g
u
S
?9
99 99 99 99
w-oooooooo^t-ooo
a _,
_j .j _i
9 99
o oo oo •* o
*^ K> in «o »* N. *o o *o o ^ •—
o
u
> N- h- CM »- CM in *o N* «- O CO CM O * N-CO •* M
Soooioooomeo o irv <>• S- M KI (\i -*
O in M M
S
o.O>* O O •» N. •* CO O '
o
CJ
8
-IS -t_,8-l
8=1 8 J=JQ •
Z -I ZZ-IZ
9
9 9
eor\jo.j-K.ooo of^rooooco-o
8-i
-—.Q
-I Z —I
9
eo «-CM om eo
O <- C\J O <- T- O O-tfOOKlOOCM
in KI KI
CM in*- O(M O
vv> ui co
^o^o^o^o^o^o-^oSo^o^o^"
C3t-OO»-OO»-OO«-OO»-OO«-OO»-"-«-OO»-OO«-OO
2]|fefegfeSgfefe§fefe§fefe|fefe|8|fefe|feS§fefe
m
rt!
-------
tn
Cn
a.
ti
4J
•d
"
m
0}
4J
N"'i
«S
0)
^ :
H- UJ
§8
i U
1- UJ
§
B
(JM^Q O«-
UJQ
0 O
Ul UI
O
tJ _1
Dl "V
...5..S
u o oe in
M < Of UI
i
S5
in ^7 CM in ^3 o* ^^ ^3 o *~ *o KI **^ f^ O* O* O* *— ^3 O* co *~
s-cvi^-o^- o eo CM «* o *«>
R
<-lfO _l
g9z 9
9 99 89 z9 99 99 99 99Z99
KY *-<-
OJ
Q
9 9
. — •- M o o~ M »- (M
hM(M(M mM »»«- N-CM Kr- in •* «- O «- «- *- «-
uu
K» IA «- «- eo h- i
o. eo in O.K-
O CV4IM
CM
ooO»-eo>O'
«- oJ- o^
_i a _i.
9 ^8 9 -•
o cv «-
JG98->9-1B8-'89-'o9z-19orJ9Q-19 99 99 99
-IM -I -I
9z99
S-
•
in in
f- 00 • 1- CO • I—OS • t- CO • I-CO • >-CD • t- CO • t- CO • I—CO • I- CO • I- CO • t-CO • t- CD -I— IB
oooooooooooooo
v~ t*" ^s ^j fo KI co ^~ KI ^^ in o^ eo . ^^ ^^ in oo r^ oo CM ^~ *— ^~ —
rio or~ a r^ ^"O 5 rgt^ «rO» «^ ^J »-c> o «*<^^>«<«>«-4'^finminUMnin
inin •-»- rj «M
<-<->-(MCMrMCMCM
•-OOi-OOi-OOrMOOrMOOrM
•*•»«-«-«- CM (M «M •* •* T-T-
MM^'<^-4l<«^-di>f>»4'in
OOOOOOOO^tOOinOOinO
UOOIUOUUJOLIIllUUUJUUUJUUUICJCJUJCJCJUIiHlClcJOCJLlOCJUIOOilJOOIllOO
T-(M «-CM »-CM »- > o o > o
«-OO«-00»-00»-OO«-OO«-OO»-OOT-00«-OO
-------
0)
d
o
•H
(d
4J
a
o
a
o
u
nJ
r-J
(d
-H
•H
4->
2
0)
rd
G m
(U jj
•£%
•H
i tO
CM „
I "
00 .
(U
c ai
i
V
inooeoooinootoooroooooor-ooooooooooocooooooooo
«- <
O
«- K1t> <*0 h-»O»-CM^ Kl
«- * Kl «-
_
zS9
ll
£
.. u .. o
u o u c
o .tO«M«-PJinKl'*
«- »- ro «~ O> o IM rj •- •j1 «-
_ _
o o
vv
•Kl «~O>O
ii* S* K32
Q oQKT 0
KI
u
— < -i fo r*> »ro -i -J -ro -
u u uo a u um u p p-iio u m
zzzvvzzozVV -i M _i _i i«l — i -i fo — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i . — i — i -i — i
99 z9zz9zz9^99z99z99z99-'99 99 99 99 99
—i < •
10 DC U -I I
_ __
9z99
S 8
_ _
99
_i_iro_i rt
z99z9~\z
_ _ j v~ ^g j\| _
OKI " ~ •* Ki ~ in in o eo ~ 5r ' CM"" K»
«- CM KI
_
Q9
s _,;
_________ _
99 99 99 99 9 9
•o-o ~j-o K>O.«-CM ^- CM
Kl •- N-CM C3KI
99 9 99 -9 99 9J99 9 J9 9 9 99
oooaoooooooooo
• i- to • i- a) • i- m • i- to -i—
ooooo
COO r^--*
85l
KI o
in • o •
CM>* -o
o«- o«-
KI eo
o
-o*-
o-
«-r»-
o
CM in ir>m COCM ca
«-• CM- «-• CM
o in «-«- «-o »-
- -
i • i—en •»- m «i— ca • t- m
o o o o
ruf- CM -O CM CO tvj-r
of<|iii»*i|lf*>ttf«it^eiiiig>fcaiiig>iiit>ji»«ii^<>mfinig*fi
-------
APPENDIX 8-3A. Estimated sediment concentrations of probable
compounds -Lauritzen Channel (* = internal standards).
Sediment: S1CES021
COMPOUND NAHE
4,4' - DDT
4,4' - DOO
2,4' - DOO
8ENZO b FLUORANTHENE
BENZO - a - PYRENE .
PYRENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO - e - PYRENE
2,4' - DDT
BENZO k FLUORANTHENE
4,4' - DDE
*d-12 - PERYLENE
*d8 - NAPHTHALENE
*d - 10 ACENAPHTHENE
*d-10 FLUORANTHENE
*d-12 CHRYSENE
*d-12 BENZO b FLUORANTHENE
*d12 - BENZO (ghi) PERYLENE
FLUORANTHENE
INDENO [1,2,3-cd] PYRENE
BENZO [ghi] PERYLENE
DIELDRIN
BENZO [a] ANTHRACENE
PERYLENE
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE
DIBENZ [ah] ANTHRACENE
2 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2,6 - DI - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
FLUORENE
1 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
2,4'-DDE
1- CH3 - PHENANTHRENE
2,3,5 - TR1 - CH3 NAPHTHALENE
BtPHENYL
MI REX
ACENAPHTHENE
cis-CHLORDANE
PCB - 052 TETRA
PCS - 153 HEXA
HEPTACHLOR
PCB - 101 PENTA
trans-NONACHLOR
ALDRIN
PCB - 138 HEXA
PCB - 118 PENTA
PCB - 095 PENTA
PCB • 110 PENTA
PCB - 149 HEXA
PCB - 105 PENTA
PCB - 180 HEPTA
PCB - 099 PENTA
PHTHALATE ESTER, bis(2-ETHYL HEXYL)
CAS #
50293
72548
-
-
50328
129000
218019
192972
789026
207089
72559
0
434
435
141628
-
-
206440
193395
191242
60571
56553
198550
120127
85018
53703
91576
91203
166
-
86757
92524
-
-
-
603112
SCAN
PROB
%
99
99
-
-
83
94
86
79
93
94
99
62
96
69
86
-
.
95
75
81
95
81
81
94
96
67
88
96
88
-
83
92
-
-
-
BASE
PEAK
ION
235
235
235
252
252
202
228
252
235
252
246
264
136
164
212
240
264
288
202
276
276
79
228
252
178
178
278
142
128
152
156
166
142
246
192
170
154
272
154
375
292
100
326
409
66
326
149
BASE PIC
ABUND
SCAN
252773
226344
202154
89417
181678
252859
165924
151897
57201
119452
71326
85545
154071
96400
164945
117261
37505
47790
182754
48873
53528
30538
58645
70109
96765
91758
22530
27133
30325
9038
12069
7756
5794
-
nG/G
CONC.
SIM
16473
9061
2501
1700
1274
1235
1016
1015
1002
901
845
845
845
845
845
845
845
845
728
709
626
511
440
329
328
290
227
190
154
146
86
79
77
55
45
40
34
32
31
18
17
15
13
12
10
9
9
9
8
7
6
6
5
5
3
nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
1502
1345
1201
2336
4747
1502
1387
3969
340
3121
424
2235
845
845
845
845
845
845
1086
1002
1098
181
348
1832
984
933
0
143
173
193
57
123
0
0
0
49
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SIM
Q
VALUE
1.M.FT
M.FT
95
98, M
98
96, FT
99, FT
98
H
H
96
97
97
94
99
93
98
96
81
99, K
97
78
97,H
98, M
97
98
98,H
97,M
98, M
95, M
97, H
97,M
99
31,M
82, H
99,M
43,NS,IP
84,N
85
58,H,FQ
99.M
74.NS.IP
82.H.FQ
94
62,H,NS
96, M
S2,H,FQ
1.H.FQ
79.IP
74.H
29,FQ,NS
92, M
13,M,NS
29, NS
A 37
-------
APPENDIX 8-3A (cont'd.). Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Lauritzen Channel (* = internal standards).
Sediment: S1CES021
COMPOUND NAHE
PCB - 141 HEXA
PCB - 174 HEPTA
PCB - 170 + 190 HEPTA
PCB - 136 HEXA
PCB - 066 TETRA
PCB - 176 HEPTA
PCB - 183 HEPTA
1-(1-PROPYN-1-yl)-2-
-------
APPENDIX 8-3A (cont'd.). Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Lauritzen Channel (* = internal standards).
Sediment: S1CES021
COMPOUND NAME
PKENY
N-DEUTiRIO - .ALPHA.-NITROBENYLIOENE
BEN20 [a] ANTHRACENE , 7.12-DIMETHYL
POOR MATCH (ALKANE ?)
TETRA DECANOIC ACID , METHYL ESTER
BENZ [j] ACEANTHRYLENE , 3-METHYL
BENZENE , 1,1'-(2-CHLOROETHYLlDENE)BIS[4-CHLO
3-<4-NITROPHENYLMETHYL)-6-NITROISOBENZOFU
1,1' : 2',1««-TERPHENYL-
BENZENE , 1,1'-ETHENYLIDENEBIS[4-CHLORO-]
EICOSANE , 10-METHYL-
PYRENE , 1,3- DIMETHYL
1,5-NAPHTHYRIDIN-4-AMINE
BENZENE , 1-CHLORO-2-[2-CHLORO-1-(4-CKLORO....
BENZ [a] ANTHRACENE, 12-METHYL
HEPTANE , 3-ETHYL -5- HETHYL
ANTHRACENE , 2-CHLORO-
ALKANE
PENTA DECANAL
ALKANE
14- ISO-20-EPIDEHYDRO PSEUDO ASPIDO SPERHIO
CHRYSENE , 5-METHYL
2,5,9-TETRADECATRIENE , 3,12-DlETHYL
4-ACETYL AMlNO-3-PHENYL-OUINOLlNE-2(1H>-ONE
BENZO [2,1-b:3,4-b'] BISBENZOFURAN
p,p' - ODD
9- OCTA DECYNE
NAPHTHALENE , 1,3- DIMETHYL
PENTACENE , 6,13-01 HYDRO
NO MATCH
ANDROSTANE , (5.BETA.)-
BENZO[b]NAPHTHO [1,2-dlTHIOPHENE
3-ETHYL-1-METHYL NAPHTHALENE
PYRENE , 1,3- DIMETHYL-
PCB , 2,4,6- TRI CHLORO
BENZENE , 1-CHLORO--2-[2,2'-DICHLORO-1-(4-CKLO
NAPHTHALENE , 1,6,7- TRI METHYL
L- TYROSINE , H-(T8IFLUOROACETYL>-,BUTYL ESTE
NAPHTHALENE ,1,7- DIMETHYL
2,3- BENZO CARBAZOLE
BENZO tcl PHENANTHRENE , 5,8-DIMETHYL
NO MATCH
ETHYL DIBENZOTHIOPHENE-1-CARBOXYLATE
BENZO tcl PHENANTHRENE , 5,8-DIMETHYL
N-N-PROPYL-302-CYCLOHEXENE-1.2-DICA8BOXIKID
1H-INOENE , 1-CD1PHENYLKETHYLENE)-
NO MATCH
NO HATCH
ALKANE
N-C1-CYCLO HEXYL ETHYL) ANILINE
NO MATCH
OXIDOHIMACHALENE
BENZOIC ACID , 4-CYANO- , 3-METHOXYPHENYL ES
NAPHTHALENE , 1,6,7- TRI METHYL
CAS #
59473846
57976
70412474
124107
3343100
2642800
85164416
84151
2642811
54833237
64401214
27392683
14835940
2422799
52896909
17135783
.
0
.
91740124
3697243
74685873
91622638
222231
72548
35365594
575417
0
-
438233
205436
17179418
64401214
35693926
3424826
2245387
5282984
575371
0
54986639
.
34724715
54986639
54815188
13245904
.
-
.
58008176
.
64825849
53327110
2245387
SCAN
PROB
X
43
59
35
77
60
89
31
68
86
74
75
29
92
41 .
67
64
-
72
-
37
72
58
38
43
94
59
96
25
-
47
54
67
64
96
71
78
30
96
41
66
-
45
67
59
28
-
.
.
43
.
36
43
68
BASE
PEAK
ION
242
256
123
74
266
235
178
230
178
57
230
145
212
209
57
206
57
57
57
280
242
123
278
258
235
55
156
280
64
245
234
155
230
256
246
170
95
156
217
256
165
256
256
196
284
145
95
123
120
141
161
253
170
BASE PK nG/G
ABUND CONC.
SCAM SIM
12643
12417
10079
9875
4760
16405
16301
16014
8991
8774
14520
7916
7826
8816
10598
6475
6468
10981
10195
3127
7582
6142
2913
7107
9546
5576
8677
2613
5176
5129
8477
4925
8360
4725
8036
4450
4432
7080
5387
5167
4010
4661
4578
3422
1675
3289
3251
4733
3475
1381
4681
3145
2517
nG/G SIM
CONC. 0
SCAN VALUE
106
104
102
100
98
97
97
95
91
89
86
80
80
• 74
67
66
66
65
65
64
63
62
60
59
57
57
55
54
53
52
50
50
50
48
48
45
45
45
45
43
41
39
38
35
34
33
33
30
29
28 .
28
26
26
A 39
-------
APPENDIX 8-3A (cont'd.). Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Lauritzen Channel.
Sediment: S1CE5021
CAS #
COMPOUND NAME
SCAM BASE
PROB PEAK
_* JLQM
ALKANE - - 57
ALKANE - - 71
PCB , 2,2',3,4 - TETRA CHLORO 52663599 90 292
1H-INDENE , OCTAHYORO-2,2,3.3.7,7-HEXA METHYL 54832836 59 193
PHENOL , 4-(2-PHENYlETHENYl>-, (£>- 6554989 59 181
NO MATCH . 55
BENZENE , 2,4-DJCHLORO-1-(2-CHLOROETHENYL)- 45892475 95 208
THIAZOLO[5,4-d3PYRJHIOINE , 5,7-OICHLORO 13479884 41 170
2,4-DIMETHOXY-2',4',6l-TRIMETHYL8IPHENYL 72968980 52 256
4-SENZYL PYRIDINE-3-CARBON1TRILE 67839638 48 193
NAPHTHALENE , 1,2- DIMETHYL 573988 91 156
ALKANE - - 55
BENZOFURAN , 3-CH3-2-(1-METHYL£THENYL)- 23911582 43 158
BASE PK nG/G
ABUHD CONC.
SCAN SjH
3794
3727
2298
3615
2213
2112
3118
1907
2258
2922
2244
1243
1584
nG/G SIM
CONC. Q
SCAN VALUE
24
24
23
23
22
21
20
19
19
19
14
13
9
A 40
-------
APPENDIX 8-3B, Estimated sediment concentrations of probable
compounds - Santa Fe Channel (* = internal standard).
Sediment: S1CES063
COMPOUND NAME
PHENANTHRENE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BENZO [a] ANTHRACENE
NAPHTHALENE
FLUORENE
ACENAPHTHENE
CHRYSENE
1 - CHS - NAPHTHALENE
BENZO b FLUORANTHENE
2 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
BENZO - a - PYRENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO - c - PYRENE
1- CH3 - PHENANTHRENE
INDENO [1,2,3-cd] PYRENE
BENZO [ghi] PERYLENE
2,3,5 - 3 NAPHTHALENE
{match = 1,4,6 - (CH3}3>
BENZO k FLUORANTHENE
2,6 Dl - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
{1,5 DI- CH3 > =99
BIPKENYL
PERYLENE
4,4' - DDD
*d8-NAPHTHALENE
*d-10 ACENAPHTHENE
*d-10 FLUORANTHENE
*d-12 BENZO b FLUORANTHENE
*d12-BENZO (ghi) PERYLENE
DIBENZO [ah} ANTHRACENE
4,4' - DOE
ACENAPKTHYLENE
PHTHALATE ESTER, bis(2-ETHYL HEXYL)
2,4' - DDD
PHENANTHRENE , 2,5-DIHETHYL
HEPTACHLOR
DJELORIN
*d-8 4,4« - DDE
PCB - 118 PENTA
PCS - 153 HEXA
2,4'-- DDE
•PCB - 030 TRI
*PCB - 065 TETRA
PCB - 052 TETRA
PCB - 138 HEXA
PCB - 099 PENTA
PCB - 110 PENTA
PCB • 149 HEXA
PCB - 180 HEPTA
PCB - 044 TETRA
PCB - 105 PENTA
PCB - 174 HEPTA
PCB - 136 HEXA
PCB - 141 HEXA
PCB - 183 HEPTA
PCB - 176 HEPTA
PCB - 170 + 190 HEPTA
DIBENZOFURAN , 4-METHYL
DIBENZOFURAN , 4-METHYL .
HEPTA COSANE
DOCOSANE , 9- BUTYL
CAS #
258
252
56553
91203
86737
83329
218019
90120
-
91576
50328
832699
193395
191242
2131422
292
571619
92524
198550
354
434
435
0
.
53703
348
208968
603112
.
3674666
.
-
-
7320538
7320538
593497
55282149
SCAN
PROB
_%
93
94
15
95
56
40
31
89
-
88
87
71
66
64
69
89
-
99
95
-
92
88
-
.
.
64
96
95
-
.
73
.
-
.
89
89
88
84
BASE
PEAK
ION
202
202
228
128
166
154
228
142
252
142
252
252
192
276
276
170
252
156
154
252
235
136
164
212
264
288
278
246
152
149
235
206
100
254
326
360
246
186
292
360
326
326
360
394
326
394
360
360
394
394
394
182
182
57
57
BASE PIC
ABUND
SCAN
250859
255324
55744
240432
129318
228639
215246
175227
219354
97581
144649
28528
33864
52944
86279
169949
137579
50932
30176
"11000
19630
34233
25438
10219
26245
36172
7383
225151
178537
241430
240032
nG/G
CONC.
SIM
19555
17648
16548
14851
14539
10967
10165
10073
9660
7448
6917
5740
4701
4134
3473
3049
2274
2187
2050
1704
1676
1506
1345
980
980
980
980
980
892
808
558
365
237
174
129
122
94
62
60
52
49
49
39
31
29
22
20
20
18
15
11
11
9
6
6
4
0
0
0
0
nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
0
12515
12740
2777
7799
11515
20376
0
6982
0
5696
6288
0
2797
631
1102
1307
4716
0
2797
5512
3940
2552
980
980
980
980
980
388
1307
1184
0
0
367
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20049
15905
12046
11985
SIM
0
VALUE
FT
FT
FT
FT
76
92 FT
FT
FT
98
FT
97
FT
FT
H
99 NS
H
H
77
FT
93
H
M
99
H
92
90
N
97
M
94
95
H
89
FQ
84, FQ
N
M
92, NS
K
H
M
H
M
H
H
H
N
M
M
H
M
M
A 41
-------
APPENDIX 8-3B (cont'd.). Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Santa Fe Channel.
Sediment: S1CES063
CAS #
COMPOUND NAME
HEPTA DECANE , 9- OCTYL
TETRA COSANE
BENZOtb]NAPHTHO[2,3-d] FURAN
OCTA OECANE
1,1'-BIPHENYL , 2-METHYL
1,1'-BIPHENYL , 4-METHYL
PENTA DECANE , 2,6,10,14- PROPANE
HEXA DECANE
UNDECANE , 3,6- Dl-METHYL
DIBENZOFURAN , 4-HETHYL
1,3 DI - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
BENZO [c] PHENANTHRENE
PHENANTKRO[4,5-bed]THIOPHENE
PYRENE , 4,5-01 HYDRO
BENZ la] ANTHRACENE , 7- METHYL
NO MATCH -- HUGE PEAK ( AB = 1,000,000 )
PHENANTHRENE , 9-ETHYL
PHENANTHRENE , 2,5-DIMETHYL
UNKNOWN
11 H - BENZO [ a ] FLUORENE
HEXA TRIA CONTANE
2,2" -BI NAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE , 1,4,6- TRI CH3
1 - ETHYL - NAPHTHALENE
BENZENE , 1,1'-(1,2 -ETHENEDIYL)-, BIS
1,2 DI - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
HEXA TRIA CONTANE
CHRYSENE , 3- METHYL
1- HYDROXY CH3 PYRENE
2,3 DI - CK3 - NAPHTHALENE
2-ETHYL- 4,4'- BI PYRIDINE
N - CH3 - DI8ENZ(E,G) ISO INDOLE
2,7 DI - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
PKENANTHRENE , 2,7-DIMETHYL
CHRYSENE , 5-METHYL
KEXA DECANE , 2,6,10,14 - TETRA METHYL
HEPTA COSANE
4- ISO PROPYL ANTI PYRENE
NAPHTHACENE , 5,12- di HYDRO
BENZ [a] ANTHRACENE , 7- METHYL
1,4-ETHENO ANTHRACENE , 1,4- DI HYDRO
N-CH3-DIBENZ(E,G) ISO INDOLE
1,1' -BI NAPHTHALENE
BENZO (A) PYRENE -- 4,5 OXIDE
1,2 - BENZO PERYLENE
DIBENZO [ah] ANTHRACENE
SCAN
PROB
7225641
646311
243425
593453
643583
644086
1921706
593497
239350
217594
123955
2381217
1705846
195197
101815
27208373
2381217
2381217
2381217
630068
2320323
3674699
0
544763
17301289
7320538
575417
195197
30796920
6628984
2541697
3674757
3674666
2381217
630068
612782
2131422
1127760
103300
573988
630068
3351313
0
581408
0
59788157
582161
1576698
3697243
638368
593497
479925
959024
2541697
27765964
59788157
604535
0
0
53703
BASE
PEAK
JS
79
83
52
70
69
47
89
79
89
82
67
70
83
47
71
41
63
71
59
76
67
89
78
87
69
7,1
97
31
40
42
73
92
97
84
83
49
80
96
49
97
85
68
21
92
25
52
96
92
53
89
89
25
73
80
67
52
67
37
62
71
BASE
ABUND
ION
57
57
218
57
168
165
57
57
234
228
56
216
242
228
168
226
216 .
216
215
57
153
206
195
57
57
182
156
228
208
204
242
76
191
206
252
216
57
254
155
141
57
156
57
242
218
156
240
231
156
206
242
57
57
215
229
242
204
231
254
268
276
278
PK nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
236180
235406
227760
224950
120474
112068
96112
163589
162477
155552
153526
150957
149265
144726
72594
129572
127941
116179
109869
189245
59027
58819
55401
98894
55264
54073
145219
93608
92571
88891
87724
1000000
47667
42636
123050
68192
119302
55733
30276
82628
30128
70852
75360
39396
38956
52588
34474
56675
46920
16488
28547
38625
41229
22241
21993
21971
249751
37141
19750
34458
25622
22394
nG/G
CONC.
HH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SIM
Q
SCAN
11801
11760
11372
11229
10739
9984
8555
8167
8105
7758
7656
7534
7452
7227
6472
6472
6390
5798
5492
5410
5267
5247
4941
4941
4920
4818
4716
4675
4614
4430
4390
4364
4247
3797
3532
3410
3410
2777
2695
2675
2675
2307
2164
1960
1940
1715
1715
1613
1531
1470
1429
1245
1184
1102
1102
1102
1090
1062
980
980
980
857
VALUE
A 42
-------
APPENDIX 8-3B (cont'd.). Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Santa Fe Channel.
Sediment: S1CES063
CAS #
COMPOUND NAME
1,7 01 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
I.I1:?1 ,1"- TERPHEMYL
ANTHRACENE , 2-METHYL
BERZ [j] ACEANTHRYLENE, 3- CH3
2 - ETHYL • NAPHTHALENE
ANTHRACENE , 1-METHYL
POOR HATCH
ANTHRACENE , 9-METHYL < 1 - CH3 - PHENAN >
BENZ tj] ACEANTKRYLENE, 3- CH3
2- (3-METHYL BENZOYL) BENZOIC ACID
ALKANE -- NO MATCH
PYRENE , 1.3 (CH3)2
1,2' - BI NAPHTHALENE
DELTA.4a, lOb ETC
2,2' -81 INDOLYL
BI PYRIMIDIKE TETRONE ETC.
NO MATCH
BENZENE , 1,1'-METHYLENEBISt4-ISO CYANO-
PYRENE , 1,3- (CH3J2
2,2' -01 DEUTERIO - 1,1' -BI NAPHTHALENE
9K - FLUORENE , 3- CK3
9H - CARBAZOLE
NO NATCH
POOR MATCH
2,3-DlKYDRO FLUORANTHENE
BENZO [ 1,2-b: 4,3-b1 3 DI THIOPHENE, 1-PHENYL-
BENZ [j] ACEANTHRYLENE, 3- CH3
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DiBENZOTHIOPKENE , 3 - METHYL
??
METHYL - FLUORENE
01BENZO THIOPHENE
NO MATCH
9H - FLUORENE , 2-CH3
(Z) -3-PHENYL-2-PROPENAL ((Z) -CINNAMALDEHYDE
9H - FLUORENE , 2,3- (CH3)2
9H • FLUORENE , 2,3- (CH3)2
9H - FLUORENE , 2 - METKOXY
3,6 - DIMETHYL DIBENZO THIOPHENE
1,1-bis (p-TOLYL) ETHANE
BENZENE, PENTACHLOROMETHOXY-
??
NO MATCH
NO MATCH
SCAN
PROB
575371
84151
613127
93007
939275
610480
779022
93007
2159377
.
64401214
4325740
67938889
40899998
62880879
-
956627
40899998
0
2523399
86748
.
30339878
16587589
93007
132650
16587523
65753799
0
132650
1430973
57194691
4612639
4612639
2523468
31613044
0
1825214
88441218
.
-
BASE
PEAK
J>
95
40
78
52
66
63
20
82
34
-
58
73
52
32
70
-
52
26
60
91
83
-
25
47
52
42
56
95
30
58
69
81
48
86
48
42
13
43
25
27
.
-
BASE
ABUND
1QN
156
215
192
266
141
192
252
192
266
119
57
230
254
232
278
95
218
230
254
165
167
119
69
203
266
266
184
198
210
165
184
119
165
131
179
179
196
208
195
133
205
179
57
PK nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
25271
15208
171661
26018
22098
154585
22816
146913
22292
11027
14377
10353
10342
17798
9748
12043
8913
8436
8737
7832
86236
70452
6145
6273
70155
8989
8868
51508
43840
40886
39200
39205
5612
35084
4152
25874
19747
17044
16121
14221
2228
7852
7408
1988
nG/G
CONC.
SIM
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SIM
Q
SCAN
817
755
749
735
715
675
653
641
633
551
551
510
510
510
490
470
449
429
429
388
376
307
306
306
306
265
245
225
191
178
171
171
163
153
122
113
86
74
70
62
61
34
32
9
VALUE
A 43
-------
I
APPENDIX 8-3C. Estimated sediment concentrations of probable
compounds -Richmond Inner Harbor Channel (* = internal standard).
Sediment: S1CES095
CAS #
COMPOUND MAKE
*d-8 NAPHTHALENE
*d-10 ACENAPHTHENE
*d-10 FLUORANTHENE
*d-12 BENZO b FLUORAHTHENE
*d-12 BENZO (ghi) PERYLENE
PYRENE
FLUORANTHENE
BENZO - a - PYRENE
BENZO [ghi] PERYLENE
INOENO [1,2,3-cd] PYRENE
BENZO b FLUORANTHENE
CKRYSENE
BEN20 k FLUORANTHENE
BENZO - C - PYRENE
*d-8 4,4' - ODE
BENZO [a] ANTHRACENE
PHENANTflRENE
PERYLENE
*PCB - 030 TRI
*PCB - 065 TETRA
PHTHALATE ESTER, bis(2-ETHYL HEXYL)
NAPHTHALENE
2 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
DIBENZ [ah] ANTHRACENE
1 - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
1- CH3 - PHENANTHRENE
FLUORENE
4,4' - ODD
2,6 - DI - CH3 - NAPHTHALENE
BIPHENYL
DIELDRIN
2,3,5 - TRI - CH3 NAPHTHALENE
PCS-153 HEXA
HEPTACNLOR EPOXIDE
4,4' - DOE
4,4' - DDT
HEPTACHLOR
PCB-149 HEXA
PCS-138 HEXA
CIS - CHLORDANE
2,4 - DDD
ALKANE
CYCLOHEXASILOXANE
HEXA DECANOIC ACID,
TETRA DECANOIC ACID
KEPTA DECANE, 2,6,10,15- TETRAMETHYL
DI ETHYL PHTHALATE ESTER
9-OCTA DECANOIC ACID (Z)-, METHYL ESTER
NONA COSANE C29 H60
TETRA SILOXANE,
KEPTACOSANE CMW=380> C27 H56
NENE ICOSANOIC ACID, METHYL ESTER
OCTA COSANE C28 H58
PENTA DECANOIC ACID, METHYL ESTER
NONA DECANE
TRIA CONTANE CMW=422> C30 H62
DOCOSANE, 11-BUTYL-
KEXA TRIA CONTANE ?? {MW=506> C36 K74
ElCOSANE CMU=282> C20 H42
OODECAMETKYL
METHYL ESTER
METHYL ESTER
SCAN
PROS
434
435 '
0
N/A
252
258
50328
191242
303
-
274
292
192972
52663624
56553
203
198550
603112
209
540976
112390
124107
54833486
266
112629
630035
141628
593497
6064900
630024
7132641
629925
630068
13475768
630068
112958
BASE
PEAK
X
96
94
-
94
93
95
72
75
-
89
-
-92
81
84
94
81
59
•
52
94
95
88
86
71
86
79
99
86
86
98
29
73
95
81
BASE
ABUNO
ION
136
164
212
264
288
202
202
252
276
276
252
228
252
252
326
228
178
252
186
292
149
128
142
152
178
278
142
154
192
166
235
156
154
79
170
79
353
246
235
100
360
360
375
235
57
73
74
74
57
149
55
57
73
57
74
57
74
57
57
57
57
57
PK nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
86074
70954
249623
163728
. 61583
73304
46471
24979
12873
9814
13780
18017
11770
18024
7941
19906
21439
11424
15451
2491
734
1939
4370
607
2110
48476
65156
46171
36115
65711
24405
22781
38545
55397
46957
. 12805
43695
12256
12218
27996
40905
21391
30445
nG/G
CONC.
SIM
695
695
695
695
695
157.6
116.7
107.5
101.2
88.8
83.8
71.5
70.5
69.5
67
61.7
41.4
41.1
35
35
30.1
24.1
12.5
10.2
10.1
9.0
7.6
7.1
6.7
5.7
4.9
4.4
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.5
1.1
1.0.
.0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SIM
Q
SCAN
~695
695
695
695
695
204.1
129.4
106.0
145.3
110.8
58.5
50.2
50.0
,76.5
67
55.4
210.0
48.5
35
35
43.0
20.1
5.9
19.0
42.8
0.0
0.0
5.9
20.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
547.1
526.1
452.2
353.7
278.9
239.0
223.1
163.6
154.2
130.7
125.4
121.7
120.0
119.7
118.8
113.9
90.8
84.8
VALUE
__
97
97
99
97
97
98
98
99
97
98, M
97
9,M
97
15, M
98
95,M
80
86, M
98,M
67, M
89, M
94, M
84
89, K
89, M
97
86, M
99
79.M,
77,M
87,K
1.M.NS
M
M,NS
91,M,NS
16, M
M,NS
21,M,NS
M,FQ
H,FQ
99,M
38,M,NS
A 44
-------
APPENDIX 8-3C (cont'd.) . Estimated sediment concentrations of
probable compounds -Richmond Inner Harbor Channel.
Sediment: S1CES095
CAS #
COMPOUND NAME
ALKANE
17-OCTADECENE-14-yn-1-ol
KU = 472 C20 H40 05 Si4
PENTA OECANE C15 H32
ALKANE
ALKANE
NO HATCH
HO MATCH
ALKANE
1,1'-8If>KENYL, 2,2*,3,4- TETRA CHLORO
1,1' - BIPHEMTL, 2,4,6-TRICHLORO
NO NATCH
ALKANE
ALKANE
1-CYANOMETHYL-7-CH3-OIBENZOTHIOPHENE
NO MATCH
ALKANE
ALKANE
N-{2-ACETOXYETHYL >-1-1SOQUINOLONE
ALKANE
NO NATCH
ALKANE
ALKANE -
ALKANE
ALKANE
PHTKALATE ESTER
1H - INDENE, 2,3 (OH}2, 1,1,3 (CH3)3, 3 PHENYL
ALKANE
ALKANE
NO HATCH
ALKANE
ALKANE
ALKANE
ALKANE
I.I'-BIPHENYL, 2,,2I,3,3',5,5<.6,6'- OCTA CHLORO
ALKANE
NO MATCH
BENZOLghi]FLUORANTHENE
ALKANE
DI8ENZO [A,K] PYRENE
ALKANE
N-METHYL-DIBENZ(E,G)!SOINDOLE
ALKANE
ALKANE
ACETLYLENE DICARBON 1C ACID, DIMETHYL ESTER
NO MATCH
SCAN
PROB
18202283
37148655
629629
'52663599
35693926
88113977
68152216
3910358
2136994
203123
0
59788157
85111406
BASE
PEAK
_x
55
28
67
99
99
28
43
68
99
42
59
45
20
BASE
ABUND
ION
57
79
73
57
57
57
69
79
67
292
256
55
56
56
237
74
57
55
231
57
55
57
57
57
57
74
221
57
57
79
57
74
58
57
430
55
191
226
57
302
57
231
177
57
385
151
PK nG/G
CONC.
SCAN
8533
7134
6662
21909
6176
5882
5868
5555
4217
4125
4064
3972
13559
13292
12698
3534
11383
11310
7080
3047
2983
3559
10220
3144
9021
2544
2520
3045
2432
2399
2056
1991
2308
1852
6205
1644
1598
5616
1732
4466
1105
2540
848
922
321
848
nG/G
CONC.
SIM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SIM
Q
SCAN
83.6
69.9
65.3
61.0
60.5
57.6
57.5
54.4
41.3
40.4
39.8
38.9
37.8
37.0
35.4
34.6
31.7
31.5
30.1
29.8
29.2
28.7
28.5
25.4
25.1
24.9
24.7
24.6
23.8
23.5
20.1
19.5
18.6
18.1
17.3
16.1
15.7
15.6
U.O
12.4
10.8
10.8
8.3
7.4
3.6
3.6
VALUE
A 45
-------
APPENDIX 8-3D. Recovery of compounds from NTIS reference mater-
ial, SRM 1941, Organics in Marine Sediments (quantified in scan
mode using extracted ions).
COMPOUND
PERYLENE
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE
BENZO b FLUORANTHENE
BENZO k FLUORANTHENE
BENZO - a - PYRENE
PYRENE
CHRYSENE and TRIPHENYLENE
BENZO - e - PYRENE
FLUORANTHENE
BENZO [a] ANTHRACENE
INDENO£1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
BENZO [GHU PER YLENE
4,4' - DDT
4,4< - ODD
4,4« - DDE
01ELDRIN
CIS-CHLORDANE
TRANS-NONACHLOR
PCB - 052 TETRA
PCS - 153 HEXA
PCB - 101 PENTA
PCB - 138 HEXA
PCB - 118 PENTA
PCB • 105 PENTA
PCB - 180 HEPTA
PCB - 066 TETRA
REPORTED
cone
ng/g
399
194
573
610
422
543
968
554
453
1072
517
549
459
1.07
9.99
9.35
0.61
1.98
0.94
9.94
21.1
21.1
23.9
14.6
5.53
13.7
21.5
RECOVERY
*
71
52
54
154
130
97
90
250
131
81
191
109
116
4238
103
138
2317
73
61
416
189
164
85
114
85
103
19
A 46
-------
m
o
-H
4J
m
g
o
o
0)
H5
0}
g
"rl Q>
m y d
t> i-H £ Vl
id O 9)
• U rH 4J
g a
w a v .
— || 0)
ON - fl) ,
a u » > H
CJ fa rj Q qj
H u> u d
en l>i is
— C U (D
i-t rH -H Id
o a)
A tn X 4J
o n_ M 3
*j o d-n n
W O _l V V U.
.o >O««-«-0 «-
U CJ U —I _J
JL 9 *-_,*'*«» 3
..
_1 V _l
eMOr->ooc>oi
iriT-omo -J-M ooo '
Q
:-i z
9 -1 _T9 Jl
oioo 0.0-^00 o 3
-TO -t O rOKI O OO O
C 8
s
(^•-•-•O*- IMKHMlTl«-lf>
MO «-«-OOOO
s &
£ 3 8GB 8
3_.3 ^*.*-*^^
U. u. _1 —1 —1 V _l
5oMO- fc- r- r- t- .
Of at at at at at at
at at at at at at at
oooooooooooo
OJfMOJOOOOOOOO
>ooooooooooo
r_> o CJUZKZ x
00 OUlLU.urllrOOOU
-------
APPENDIX 8-4B. Mytilus taxonomy.
A 48
-------
Paul H.Scott, Associate Curator
SANTA BARBARA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Department of Invertebrate Zoology
,2559 Puesta del Sol Road
Santa Barbara. California 93105 USA
j
Phone (805) 682-4711,ext. 319
I FAX (805)569-3170
Internet: inverts@sbmnh.rain.org
Message date: April 20,1994 j
i
Message to: David T. Specht, EPA Office of Research and Development
FAX number: 1-503-867-4049
i
Pages including this one: 4 i
i
Dear David,
Finally I have examined all of the Myff/us specimens that you sent last June! I am in agreement with your
initial assessment that most specimens are Mytilus galloprovinciafis, with a slight possibility of a couple of
Mytilus trossulus, or hybrids. For your purposes, I suspect it is fine to call them all IW. ga/foprov/nc/afe.
For my identifications I have primarily referred to: Seed, Raymond. 1992. Systematics evolution and
distribution of mussels belonging to the genus Mytilus: an overview. American Malacologies Bulletin 9(2):
123-137. i
I have attached to this fax, the approach we have taken In my forthcoming book on west coast bivalves (to
be published In late 1994 or early 1995). You may cite mis if you wish as: Coan, E.V., P. H. Scott, and F.
R. Bernard. In Prep. S/Va/ve Seashells of We$tem\North American. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History, Santa Barbara, California. I would be happy to send you the mytilid portion of the bibliography if
you are intrested. ;
Please accept my sincere apologies for taking nearly a year to get back to you with an answer. I must
admit I dread working with these impossible mussels, and yours were no exception to the vexing problems
in the group. ,
Feel free to contact me if you have further question's. I will be out of town from 22 April - 2 May.
Cordially,
Paul Scott
-------
Genus Mjtllui Linnaeus, 1758
%
Myttliu Linnaeus, 1758. Type species (SD Anton, 1839; ICZN Opinions 94, 1926, & 333, 1955): M. tdulls Linnaeus. 1758. Recent,
northeastern Atlantic.
EumytiSui Dieting, 1900. Type species (M?* MytHus eJvlis Unnaeus, 1758.
Crastimytiiut Scariato & Starobogatov, 1979. Type species (QD):Mytilus coruscus A. A. Gould, 1861. Recent, northwestern Pacific.
Pacifimyiilut Kafanov, 1984. Type species (OD): kfytilia califomiauia Conrad, 1837. Recent, northeastern Pacific.
Shell inequilateral, subtriangular and inflated. Periostracum thick, usually black or dark brown. Umbones terminal. Sculpture absent, or of
low radial ribs that are divaricate in tome species, sometimes with concentric undulations. Hinge with tmaH ventral dysodont teeth and obscure
tubercles, with marginal crenulations in some. Ligament external, attached to a nymph.
A temperate and cold water cosmopolitan genus, due to the very wide dispersal of members of the MyHlus edutis complex, in part as a result
of shipping activity the past 500 years. Morphologically, the group is remarkably consistent, but several additional generic units have been
proposed, one or two of which may be valuable at the subgeneric level after more careful evaluation. Additionally. Myttlus califomlainu
Conrad, 1837, has sometimes been assigned to Creiiomyiilus .Soot-Ryen, 1955, but absence of marginal crenulations on the pitted
pseudonymphal ridge show it to be a Myiiltu. j.j. The name is derived form the diminutive of the Latin mya, a sea mussel; the gender, is
masculine.
There has been much recent study of the species of the Mylilus edulis complex- the smooih-sheDed .\fytilut - from various points of view.
At least three distinct taxa are involved. In the well-studied case of M. edulii and Af. gatloprovincialit in Europe, although the two taxa .
hybridize, and the hybrids are fertile, apparently larvae of hybrids are less viable, and this, together with differences in breeding times, are
sufficient to maintain species integrity.
to one of the many unanswered questions about this complex, M. tdalif itself has not yet been introduced into the northern Pacific by
shipping or other means, although it is now present on both coasts of South America. Live specimens can be seen for sale in fish markets on
the West Coast, imported from the western Atlantic. Perhaps it is just a matter of time before the taxonomic situation becomes still more
complicated! Mytilus edulis, which is also illustrated here (Plate 15: xxxx), is narrow and elongate, rounded dorsally, somewhat blunt
anteriorly, with a narrower ventral surface. The hinge is dark blue and curved. The anterior adductor muscle scar is large, and the posterior
byssal retractor scar is narrow and elongate. .
The native smooth mytilid of the North Pacific is Mytilus trossulus, which also occurs across the Arctic and in northern Europe. Mytifas
galloprovincialis has been introduced into the eastern Pacific. The two form hybrids in central California, and it remains to be seen how
distinct the species will remain. Populations in the Pacific north of Washington and in Asia have yet to be studied in detail, so there are many
unresolved questions, and it b not easy to assign some material to a particular species.
Mytilus galloprovlnclalh Lamarck, 1819 Plate 15: la,b,c,
MEDITERRANAN MUSSEL
Mylltus galloprovlnclatis Lamarck, 1819: 126; M. tdulls diegensls Coe, I945a: 28; ?Af. (MyiHtu) edults shirmmiskii Scariato &
Starobogatov, 1979a: 108; plus various synonyms in other parts of the world
Triangular, expanded dorsally; anterior end pointed Ventral margin broad laterally. Hinge light in color, straight Anterior adductor muscle
scar tiny; posterior byssal retractor scar broad. Length to 150 mm.
From approximately Westport, Mendocino Co., California (39.<5°N) (McDonald & Koehn. 1988). to KlanzaniDo. Colima. Mexico (39.1°N)
[LACM], but occurrences south of central Baja CaEfomia are probably sporadic and do not represent breeding populations, in the intertidal
zone -5m. Forming hybrids with M. irostulus in central California. Preliminary information suggests that populations may now be living in
Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Native to the Mediterranean, western France, and Britain and Ireland. Also
introduced in other pans of the world, including South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia from Japan and Korea south to Hong Kong.
[ts introduction in Asia probably occurred long before that in the eastern Pacific.
Literature: IH. MacDonald & Koehn (1988), Seed (1992). See also literature listed below.
-------
Mytilus trossulus A. A. Gould. 1850 Plate 15: xxxxx
FOOLISH MUSSEL . ' •
MyUlus trosiulta A, A. Gould. 1850c: 344; M. glomeratts A. A. Gould. 1851: 92; A, A. Gould. 1853: 402; M. pedroanus Conrad, 1855b: 15;
M. edulis "normalis' Carpenter, 1857b: 197; M «. latissimus Carpenter, 1857b: 197; M. septtntfionallt Clessin, 1887: 58; M ficus DaO,
1909a: 113, M. fttyttlus) editlls kuaakinl Scarlato & Starobogatov, 1979a: 109; M. edulis dtcllvls Petrov, 1982: 77.
Outline variable, frequently expanded dorsaHy, as in M. galtoprovittcialis. Ventral surface relatively wide laterally, anterior end pointed
Hinge plate dark to light in color, curved. Anterior adductor muscle scar relatively small; posterior byssal retractor muscle scar relatively long
and narrow. Length to 90 mm.
Some guesswork is involved in the listing of synonyms, based on the assumption that Mytilus galloprovincialis was introduced into the
eastern Pacific after 1900. Clearly, more study is necessary.
In the Arctic from Banks Island, Northwest Territories (72.0°N). west to Point Barrow, Alaska (7l.4°N) [LACM], throughout the Bering
Sea, south to central California, and probably sporadically to southern California (about 33.5°N). From central California southward, forming
hybrids with At. galtoprovliictolis. Eastward throughout the Aleutian Islands to Siberia, probably northern Japan. Also with disjunct
populations in the Baltic Sea and northeastern Canada. In the intertidal zone, on rocks and pilings. Records from as far back as the Miocene in
western North America are probably this species.
Additional study is needed concerning the relationships of Mytilus eoruscia A. A. Gould, 1861, described from Japan and made the type
species ofCrasslnntilut Scarlato & Starobogatov, 1979. Whereas the subgeneric unit may not be useful, it is undoubtedly a distinct species of
the M. edulis group. !t grows to a very large size, and specimens may be very flattened. Mytilus crassitesta Lischke, 1868, is apparently a
synonym. There has been some confusion in the literature between this species and the very different CreHomyUlia grayaims (Dunker, 1853).
Literature: J. H. MacDonald & Koehn (1988), N. L. MacGirutie (1959:157), E. J. Moore (1983:61), Scarlato (1981: 245-246). Seed (1992).
See also literature listed after next species.
Literature on the Mytilus eJulit species group
There may be more literature on "Myttlus edvlts" than on any other mollusk. Because it is has only recently become understood that more
than one species is involved, we cannot be certain in many cases which species was studied. Indeed, in some cases, more than one species
may have been included in a single study. There would be little point in trying to divide the literature into species. The categories are selected
here to aid in finding desired literature, but of course these categories overlap
General: Field (1922), Haderiie & D. P. Abbott (1980: 361-363), Gosling (1992), Lubinsky (1980: 22-24), Lutz (I977a), E. J. Moore (1983:
61). Mossop (1922). Rankin (1918), Soot-Ryen (1955:19-2:), K. M. While (1937).
Anatomy & Morphology: Carnker (1979X Craig A Hallam (1963), Faussek (1897a), Femandes & Seed (1983X Hemming (1S83X Fritz et al
(1991), Giusti (1970), Kefanov & Romeiko (1987), Kellogg (1915: 652-656), Kessel (1940), La Course & Northrop (1978, 1981), Lutz & Hidu
(1978.1979), Mitton (1977), Rosen et al. (1978), Seed (1968), Soot-Ryen (1927), Theisen (1982X Trueman (1950). Waldron et al. (1976)
Ecology: B. L. Bayne & Widdows (1978X Coe (1946, 1948, 1953, 1956). D. A. Hancock (1965), Harger (1968, 1970a-c, 1972a-c), Harger
& Landenberger (1971X LevuUon & Lassen (1978aX C. L. Newcombe (1935a). Paine (1976), Paris (1960), Paul et al (1978), Petraitis (1978).
K. P. Rao (1953b), Raubenheimer & Cook (1990), Reish (1964a, b), Ross & Goodman (1974), Seed (I969a, b, 1980a), Suchanek (1981), van
Winkle (1970),
Genetics. Relationships & Distribution: Ahmad & Beardmore (1976), Ahmad & Sparks (1970), Barsott & Meluza (1968), Beaumont et al
(1989), Boyer (1974), Crespo et al (1990), Gosling (1984), Gosling & Wfflans (1981, 1985), W. S. Grant &, Cherry (1985). A. R Hodgson &
R. T. F. Bernard (1986a, b), Hoeh et al. (1991), leyama &. Inaba (1974), Knudsen (1980), Koehn (197SX Koehn &. Mitton (1972), Koehn a
al (1973, 1976, 1984), Lassen & Turano (1978X Levinton & Koehn (1976), Levinton & Lassen (1978b), Levinton & Suchanek (1978X
Lubtasky (1958), J. H. MacDonald & Koehn (1988), J. A. MacDonald et al. (1991), Milkman & Koehn (1977), Mtoon & Koehn (1913X
Newfcirk (1980), Sarver (1988), Scarlato & Statobogatov (1979e), Seed (1978b, 1990, 1992), Skibinski & Beardmore (1979), Skftinski et al
(1978a, b, 1980,1983), A G. Smith (1944), Theisen (1978), Viinlli & Hvflson (1991), Varvio et al (1988), N P. Wilkins et al. (1983).
Parasites: F. R. Bernard (1969), Bradley & Siebert (1978), S. A. Campbell (1970), Giusti (1967X Pauley et al. (1966).
Physiology. B. F. Brown & R. C. Campbell (1972X Carr & Reish (1978), Coe (1945bX Coksman A Trueman (1971), Davenport (1983X
Dodd (1965). Fankboner et al. (1978). Gaffiiey & Diehl (1986), OiHes (1972), Jokumsen & Fyhn (1982), JCrgensen (1982). La Course &
-------
Northrop (1983). R. F. Lee et al. (1972), Malone & Dodd (19S7). J. M. Martin & Stcplienson (1990X S. M. Martin et aL (1975). Pickeru
(1965), Price (1983), K. P. Rao (1954), Read (1962), Read & Cunningham (1967), Reish & Ayen (1968), Ro*ii & Reish (1976).
Reproduction & Growth: Barrels (1879a), Battle (1932), Board (1983), Breeze et al. (1963), R. A- Brown et al. (1976X Coe (1945b),
Davalos (1983). De Schweinitz & Lutz (1976), Emmett t\ al. (1987), Gosling & Wfllans (1985X Hines (1979X Jamieson (1992), Jamieson &
Heritage (1988), Jesperaon & Olsen (19S2), JOrgensen (1976, 1981), Kniprath (1978), D. R. Moore &, Reish (1969X Nelson (1928), Page
(1988), Prieur (1983), Richards (1946), Seed (1969a, b), Strathmann (1987 322-325), B. R. Wilson A Hodglan (1967).
-------
(d
4J
P
m
rt
O
u
0>
Vi
ra
o
0)
o
0)
d
-H
4-)
C
O
o -
cno n
=1.0) OS
fj P4
RUM
-a
(D
H
a
- ro ui CM vt o
(M &> *o in r^>
CO
•o
- (M Kl r» M O O>
-egT-^*
- » O to
. «— *- f^ in in *o O* tn
h, KI «- in i- o in
in Q* CM ry o» in o«
0-0 U 00
o 5S
»22
I Q O
ru
o ft o« F~
«-«- «J KIM »*
^S
oooooooooooo
«
-------
id
id
d
o
u
03
4J
m
(U
4J
(D
0)
d
o
•H
J->
id
o
o
id
o
•H
&
a
CO
(N
i
00
§
P(
OU
<
• -d
id d
0) Q) Id
M 3
O id (U
-H^ > 4J
•u id d
id a) -.-H
3o^
rH &
Id II K"
C^4 w
£ J3 M -
o id a)
•H - U g
fl)Ai -H
CQ O ffi aJ
II d
o o o
X-H
• d w iJ
DO o n d
-H -H O fl)
oa o 4->
id *d n)
•Q d *• V^
O r<
jj O O 0)
Oi aj JH -H
-H 0) 4J
u>-d id
id -H rl
P *J «w
to ro -H CQ
CO ^ O rH
•H -H 0) -H
jj u PI id
to b
K'-lT) d II
w a> s H
m id o
d n
O m ?
p§
m
-3 *
r3
a. o « 'm
d 43
-H u
CM
o> d - d
^1 O 4J -H
id -H -H M
g (D
CQ JJ -H M-l
0) D3 rH *-|
3 M 0)
rH -H d 4-»
id -H H
•d AJ ii
m d) u H
n d
CQ M i-3 4J Id
-H 3 Q O 0)
EH O V d M
a
I
s
c
N
«* O K»f«-
"I9'^|S;9T^'^C
8^8
So ir> %» - CM o. «- ^ CK eo r- o in o o^ «- M •* >o in pi r>j -o M in -* <\i in cor>
«- CM o >i CM in &, p. «- S «- «» oj •- CM o> o eo «- CM t> K- rfl r>- in ^ ro o CM oin o orj
>~ *- •* .- o in >o CM F- * o cv to -O o «n c\J %» o> ^O «J f^ o -* «- ^ •* •- «-
CJ CJCJ 00 (JKIKI <-> M K» Kl Kl Kl <->
Z ZZZZZCJCJZCJCJOUUZ
ZZ Z ZZZZ
inK*«-r*-in«j'CM-jS.o-Jr--*-KieO—i
O S- •- 0 CO P. Kl in CO r- O r<- CM f- «-N- •- CO O "O
K» •» «- CM >o >o -» CM in o in.» S. in >o 3 »- eo CM CM CM •» CM in-~ -—
Kl KI KI CM Ki«- •» »» «*• in «— m o>«- eo CM «-«-
CM in o
CM «\j CM
" cj" cj"iJ" cj" i/o «j" u • o
Z z ZZ Z ZZ Z Z Z
IKI~JCM_J«g«-—I«-
s*
o in CM«* cvj •- •*
in «- in M «-
oa oooaaoo
r«-*-toinco-o*-cMocM«-ea
«- «- M «- in cv »g «- O
i
CM oo«o«~in oin CVM»- com eo o«-o eo •-t
cMro>-^OcMCM%a-ooKicM>o2cMV>o> OCMCM CMO-N-OO «-M-* CO OCMK»»- CV
CM«-C>«-CMC>Kir>-^^-in«*MN.fMCM
CM"-"- «- CM CM ^^-»-»»«-»-
ear- o f^r"""
~- *- in -* h- >*
<3 -1
Z
LJ -J CJ CJ *J -J -J
z z ->z z z
r- O >* h~ «- r- eo o >o «x -" CM<-_I
O
<
lKii!V
«o«-
. .. . O'OOiOc>
^>WKIKiOKlKIKlO»-CM«-
((icMcacO'-cM
oof«- cv CM -*
m »- «- o «» in o cM«*r»- r»-«» o>
_ f«- •* o o co f>- N- m K. N. in oo Is- cvo m o^t ^oo >o
. cor-N- «-o>o«*cMt>CMS.o oin m -o oo«o ro o*> CM
a o ro KI r\i to «— ^o o —i KI in <6 in _i _i
* . . V • • •"19 .""^t CM Kl
Kl CV^ K)
~*G!O^KiincMin-4'-4iin«*-»st-'*Kt«*in'Oin'>*insj-^st«*^*'»'Oinin<3cMCMK)Ki~r>»-«-»<«inminin*o-o-o-eoeocOeoeo
O O O «~ ^ *~ »" •— ^ ^v^^^cMCMCMCMIMCMrMrvJCMKIKIKlKlfOKtKtKlKIKl <^ ** -* ** si- **
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
i-i—i—t-i—i—i-»-t-i-i—t-»-i-i->-i-i-i->-t-i-t-h-i->-i-i-t-i—i-t-i—>-.(—i—i—i-
UOOUUUUUOUOOUUUOUUOOOOOOUUUOOUUCJUUUUUU
UtJOUOOUUOUUUUUUUUUUtJUUUOUUUUUUUCJU U U U U O
-------
(C
u
3
m
I
00
ft
Q
°
-*l
o
o
S
(M
QJ
^
U
ail
8989998^
§eo«-r\i
»* KI •- <
-
Mii
— _ _ _
89^^899^89
8999899989
;z .y
CO vt sfl (MOO
- - - -- ->^^j ,
*
OO O K> IM CM
SeooaOapaoa
'V V 0-?OKJin-^
S-h-O 1AK>-*
CM —I—I CO —I —I -I
o<-aaooaooa
u • v v u ' v v u v
CM CM
Sr-j-
•*in
OOOOOOOOOO
«-rJK>-» m«
I
ouoouuuoou
-------
t»
OO
X
M
O
04
S
lected by
C=Lauritzen
first and
=Bess
d and
xc
ute
CO
Di
=
eled S2ADT were col
e less specific. L
n check, NC3=Failed
specified error,
ention time, DRA
e ight basis. S
locaons for these
ration curve, NC=Fai
detection limit, ERR
Peak, Fails RRT=Fai
we
ti
esidues values
ther than grab
SFCH=Santa Fe
on check, NPA=No
r, value not re
d
od
ode
ode
V V V • l_ -
M O r* r* O O O O CM *G ** |A >O in *O K* Kl P*-
rsiin;*Ki«-in o M o -4 -o «- <> eo -» N. eo CM CM •» «-in%t«-eot--ooeoo
•.03OKI-»-l--^
Ov<-GOo*-<-o CM CM eo o «-
•» in e> F. in «- *» mo in CM *» » »» KI KI Kl
PM^»CM«-«-
fR
a ss
ZKIZZ
-o - -
K,»
.— O LJ
o:
a o
!9
> >* CM in N- O ^O «— Ni ^ r* <> O »— Kl *-.—I r- in n* >o. uo
Z Z
:^^9??99'
o o o •* -o •>» oo n- KI •* en o -a *» o> in CM fu co oo
KI o»o co -o o> s5 o> fi ^ >o in >-CM ro «- »- o oo P- « - S «o «* o ft .
in r\J •- Ki eo »* o> eo to eo -o K. in r- ro «-
2
U -
2 -1
•-coin oincoojf~HAO-*l/>r~ «-«-CO O« O» oRo,5r52-*^eOKi«-iniMO-»ineo
«-KICM«-»- •*«- ^^^ ^ •- «- K1K>
QK1
r i
CJ<\1«- Kl CM OJ CM CM CM CM
O -U
CMaoo(
«-in«-"eo' " "tn^Kit<-inKioc>«Mor>-o»-"o in»-«-oeo«-o
— *• KI «o «- eo S- o o r- eo -O eO«- »- «*«-«- o •>* o «- •* O eo OOO>
O -^ in in f- in -* r~- co h- or- r-f«- >o in c\j«- a o« n» in^o
OOOOOOOO I O OO O O O O O O
-------
a
O
•*
-a-
G
-r»
o u B! A! £! £
q "O o
s 5 n
m -H u u o> •*
a) u a) 3 ~
3 U 0)
rj -H 0\ II M O
6 . u £ :>,
_. 4) fc _ w
tj • q) w "O Vi
rtj m [^ (y ^
4J -H »(H O
Q 03*0 -H 4J %-H •"
X T) M Hi 4J 4J
S353I13-8
g *o > -rl -rl «l
® Q) O O 4J 03 "3\
3 rH rH rH U CM g"
§oc
T-
roin
£ g
o a
aa
v v
U U U U
* l/MTk O *
i ro K(«»-
u u u u
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
XZZZX O O O O O
UOOUU_I_I_J—I-IUUOUCJ t- t- I- <- I-
U.U.U.U.U. cz
uxamuiw
gggg
U U U U I
OOOOO
OUUUUUCJCJUCJUUUUUC
r\l(\ll\IC\ltM I I
muMtiti'if'ir*)
l— I-OOOOO
«~
OO
>>O
CMPJOJ CM -* •-
i«- *- •& f)t*--& co
U U U O U U U I
«- *~ F-
. K»CO
(Mo j
o«-«- o^»-
ooooooooooooooo
>ininsK5pcoS5'
^eSSoo csoooo^o
ooooooooooooooo
_
u> ta in tn
in
if>
IM
CO
g
en
in
a
Kl
3J
E v
3 i
g"
-------
o» -o
*H (3
PiO
S§
a -o
O 4-1 0)
m 4->
. a M 3
•H -H r-H
& «
t3 U fd
a ss a>
-H CU
«H (1) Ol'
o > a
h 3 d
m * u *
o
5 c-H4J
•u u w c
-U* M
j M II
I 43 H
a
(U
t~3
*S>'
•n 01 o i
£< -H i-l
g oj a>
*8
m >, J
S«H
3w «
•HOC
M-I 2
m m
»-j d 43
1-2"
0 ^ S
a> 2fi
•H
4J
U
4)
4J
(!) m
^J CQ
i!
I fe-
td m o *! to
M a> -H - e
fO M 00 -O
»o st CM ** in i
KI KI CM CM KI KI
U O O O L) KI O
zz.zzz u -at
incM KI»-
CM
_ oOT-Oin*-tOr
-«KI-§^ ^>
CM«- ,-,-,-
KIKIO 4 U4U4U
44-IUUZ £ z £ z £ z . -CL
0.0. 22 Z Z Z UKIZ
O
g«-f^>
ON «-
•OKICO
in K- o KI 5 - .- o >»• *r «o •- «-CM
lP- OJ «- CVI «- »- T- »- KI
)<-N-rj«O OO«-CMO> CMCV
O CM r-*- -O
«- CM «-
KI KI CJ
U U z
» - KI in «- •- CM KI «- «n co oo
- -
. KI <* -o o CM s»*-o«-»
- -
CMCO O^ «- •-
in «—«—«-<
»O
•-IM sfO
KI«-«M CMPJ
»KI
u
OKi«-_JKnn— iin«-
-
ro O o «cu oin<~eooeo
vr- CM «- O 00 O CM CO KI M S. N O o «O I*- in
OO oKo(>o^OKiinK>Kl'-Kto O>K-o inineo oOOOOOOOOOOOO
> OOKI OM«O «-O in O CV Is- O CO «- •-
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo |£ ^ ^ ^ £ i-|
•'irauMiocAtn gj
- ^'t- •*• >~- ••--•- 10 Ol
!«.<«-*»-<«->»-«' al
lalalalalfcj ..
I ^1 ^1 **l *^l ° ^
iuiulcj|ul4 E
'. '. > cl Sit) f 2l °J S)-K ol u • ol I-I-D oro 51 i-i i-i i_i L.I i_i c_i i_i c.i
*"I **I ° 2 "H'- "~ °i °1 °l ™ °v- "I °1 °r~ "i1" °1 "o *• •* "\ *>l •'I ul o
111 111 1 lllllllllll ll
uuuuuuuuo:
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU_I_I_JUUUOUUUU to to «>
^•fMgggrTTr-T'-r-TrMM'srin^^
(MCMIM
•y
5o
^
I
LT)
rt!
-------
APPENDIX 8-10. Method for Calculation of Whole-Body Tissue
Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS Wt.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ©
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONG.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONG.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ® •
DISSECTION X CONC.
2 ,4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT &
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/OR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT f
PORTION WEIGHT. 3
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/OR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
SIGHT 201
repl 1, 2, & 3
Cvmatoaaster
aqcrrecrata
Skinned fillets
na
27.055
28.9%
27.055
5
318; x = 276
269; rsd =
242; 13.8%
26,263; x = 23,206
22,716; rsd =
20,640; 12.3%
9,844; x = 8,572
7,904; rsd =
7,969; 12.9%
41,826; x = 35,877
32,790; rsd =
33,015; 0.1%
4,028; x = 3,506
3,167; rsd =
3,324; 13.1%
11,503; x = 9,957
9,109; rsd =
9,259; 13.5%
81,395
3,009
6,456; x = 5,592
4,957; rsd =
5,362; 13.9%
207
SIGHT 211
repl 1, 2, & 3
Cvmatoqaster
aqqreqata
Dissection residua
na
66.611
71.1%
61.442
5
2,731; x = 7,483
4,596; rsd =
15,121; 88.9%
193,705; x =199,655
203,896; rsd =
201,365; 2.7%
97,185; x = 96,697
95,787; rsd =
97,119; 0.8%
550,273; x =549,852
552,671; rsd =
546,610; 0.6%
42,298; x = 35,304
33,039; rsd =
30,574; 17.5%
137,485; x =133,022
131,956; rsd =
129,625; 3.1%
1,022,013
15,343
59,417; x = 60,083
60,350; rsd =
60,483; 1.0%
902
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
Whole
Body
Whole
93.666
na
100.0%
na
5
7,759
222,862
105,269
585,729
38,810
142,979
1,103,408
11,780
65,675
701
A 55
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and .Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
•.4,4' ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
SIGHT 202
Cvmatoaas ter
aaoreaata
Skinned fillets
na
5.011
33.9%
5.011
1
30
1,226
294
1,758
238
435
3,982
795
582
116
SIGHT 212
Cvmatoqaster
aqqreqata
Dissection residua
na
9.778
66.1%
9.217
1
117
11,206
3,941
24,230
3,403
7,324
50,220
5,136 .
5,867
600
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
na
14.789
na
100.0%
na
1
147
12,432
4,235
25,988
3,640
7,759
54,202
3,665
6,449
- 436
A 56
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SIGHT 203
Cymatogaster
aaareaata
Skinned fillets
na
6.408
32.9*
6.408
1
49
3,256
1,531
5,776
386
1,190
12,188
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS II 1,902
(SUM/GR WET WT) = II
NG/G WET WEIGHT ||
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DXELDRXN, NG/PORTION
798
CONCENTRATION
DZELORIM (SUM/GR II 125
WET WT) = NG/G WW ||
SIGHT 213
Cvmatogaster
aaareaata
Dissection residua
na
13.089
67.1%
12.367
1
223
24,490
5,707
41,859
1,623
6,584
80,484
6,149
2,644
202
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
19.497
na
100.0%
na
1
271
27,746
7,238
47,634
2,009
7,773
92,672
4,753
3,442
177
A 57
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations,
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4- DDE , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4' DDT , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
SIGHT 204
Cymatoaaster
aaareaata
Skinned fillets
na
3.782
35.2%
3.872
1 '
17
2,054
345
2,925
86
.. 283
5,709
1,474
217
56
SIGHT 214
CYmatocraster
aggregata
Dissection residua
na
7.050
64.1%
6.704
1
247
15,031
8,890
50,203
2,383
8,932
85,686
12,154
3,525
500
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
10.992
na
100.0%
na
l
263
17,085
9,235
53,128
2,469
9,215 -
91,395
8,315
3,742
340
A 58
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT © PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONG.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT 0
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT <8
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 "ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4' DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
{SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT . |
PORTION WEIGHT ©
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
SIGHT 205
Cvmatoqaster
aacrreaata
Skinned fillets
na
5.823
34.0%
5.823
1
51
3,409
1,425
10,101
240
949
16,715
2,778 ,
566
97
SIGHT 215
Cvmatocaster
acrcrrecrata
Dissection residua
na
11.307
66.0%
10.633
1
441
26,877
14,925
83,242
2,748
12,913
141,145
12,483
4,738
419
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
Whole
Body
Whole
17.13
na
100.0%
na
i
492
30,286
16,351
93,343
2,988
13,681
157,320
9,184
5,304
310
A 59
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations,
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/ PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 "DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
1
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
S2AHT 341
Cvmatoaaster
aaareaata
Skinned fillets
na
5.985
37.2%
5.985
1
6
474
109
877
39
122
1,628
272
85
14
S2AHT 342
Cvmatoaaster
aaareaata
Dissection residua
na
10.098
62.8%
9.293
1
50
2,949
909
7)866
273
1,050
13,097
1,297
555
55
RECONSTI -
TOTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
16.083
na
100.0%
. na
1
56
3,423
1,018
8,744
312
1,172
14,725
916 .
641
40
A 60
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations,
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONG.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONG.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4' ODD , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ©
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4' ODD , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ©
DISSECTION X CONC .
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
SIGHT 401
Cvmatocraster
acrcrreaata
Skinned fillets
na
6.801
36.2%
6.801
1
0
41
11
52
0
9
114
17
0
0
SIGHT 411
CvmatoQaster
agcrreqata
Dissection residua
na
11.993
63.8%
11.140
1
24
180
48
588
24
36
899
75
0
0
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
18.794
na
100.0%
na
1
24
221
59
640
24
45
1,013
54
0
0
A 61
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations,
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG . GROSS WT . ,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 "DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
|i
SUM CONCENTRATION i
DDT CONGENERS 1
{SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT |
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW j
SIGHT 402
Cvmatoqaster
aqqreaata
Skinned fillets
na
2.732
33.1%
2.732
1
1
22
5
30
2
7
.67
25
0
„
SIGHT 412
Cymatoqaster
acrarecrata
Dissection residua
na
5.532
66.9%
4.837
1
11
111
28
503
17
39
708
128 ;
0
0
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
8.264
na
100.0%
na
1
12
133
32
533
19
45
775
94
0
0
A 62
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT 8 PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT |
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR -
WET WT) = NG/G WW
SIGHT 403
Cvmatocraster
acrqrecrata
Skinned fillets
na
9.731
31.0*
9.731
1
29
168
60
236
30
43
567
58
55
6
SIGHT 413
Cvmatoqaster
acrareaata
Dissection residua
na
21.650
69.0%
20.213
1
43
844
281
3,529
152
217
5,066
234
325
15
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
31.382
na
100.0%
na
1
72
1,013
•342
3,765
181
260
5,633
179
380
12
A 63
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of-Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE .
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
SIGHT 404
Cvmatoaaster
acrarecrata
Skinned fillets
na
3.696
31.0%
3.696
1
0
18
3
12
0
0
33
9
0
0
SIGHT 414
Cvmatoaaster
aaareoata
Dissection residua
na
8.245
69.0%
7.046
1
8
214
33
635
16
33
940
114
0
0
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
11.941
na
100.0%
na
1
8
232
36
647
16
33
973
81
0
• 0
A 64
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method
Tissue Residues From Tissue and
for Calculation of Whole-Body
Remainder Portion Concentrations,
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
, SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
{SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT |
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
SIGHT 405
Cvmatoaaster
acrcrreaata
Skinned fillets
na
3.957
33.3%
3,957
1
0
19
0
18
0
0
36
,
0
0
SIGHT 415
Cvmatoqaster
acrcrreaata
Dissection residua
na
7.936
66.7%
6.728
1
8
214
32
714
32
40
1,040
131
0
0
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
11.893
na
100.0%
na .
1
8
233
-32
732
32.
40
1,076
91
0
0
A 65,
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT © PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
V
• PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,'4'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
{SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
S2AHT 221
Cranaon
franciscorum
tail muscle
na
0.441
43.5%
0.441
3
0
32
0
0
0
0
32
73
0
0
S2AHT 222
Cranaon
franciscorum
Dissection residua
(estim.)*
na
0.576*
56.9%
0.516*
3
0
167
13
94
0
10
285
375
24
24
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
1.013
na
100.0%
na
3
0
199
- 13
94
0
10
317
. 313
24
24
estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undisseated individuals remaining in sample.
A 66
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT 3
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4' DDD , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT |
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDR1N , NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
S2AHT 251
Cranqon
franciscorum
tail muscle
na
0.342
37.2%
0.342
2
0
27
0
0
0
0
27
79
0
0
S2AHT 252
Cranqon
f ranci scorum
Dissection residua
(estim.)*
na
0.576*
62.7%
0.516*
2
0
170
*N
9
65
0
11
254
441
0
0
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
0.919
na
100.0%
na
2
0
197
9
65
0
11
281
306
0
0
estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undissected individuals remaining in sample.
A 67
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues. Prom Tissue" and Remainder Portion Concentrations-.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET HEIGHT
TISSUE WBIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT @ PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
S2AHT 301
Crangon
franciscorum
tail muscle
na
5.685
46.0%
5.685'
10
0
109
. 7
•j
75
0
14
204
SUM CONCENTRATION II
DDT CONGENERS I 36
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WST WEIGHT ||
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
0
0
S2AHT 302
Crangon
f ranciscorum
Dissection residua
(estiro.) *
na
7.536*
61.0%
6.560*
10
15
354
23
528
38
68
1,025
156
38
6
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
12.362
na
ioo.o%-
na
10
15
463
29
603
38
81
1,229
99
38
3
* = estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undiesected individuals remaining in sample.
A 68
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSU1 SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @>
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDS, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT &
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT J
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
S2AHT 321
Cranqon
f ranc i s corum
tail muscle
na
6.015
43.3%
6.015
10
0
144
9
90
0
20
263
44
37
6
. S2AHT 322
Crangon
f ranci scorum
Dissection residua
(estim.)*
na
7.973*
57.4%
7.119*
10
16
423
16
917
56
80
1,507
189
0
0
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
whole
13.889 -
na
100.0%
na
10
16
567
25
1,006
56
100
1,770
127
37
3
estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undissected individuals remaining in sample.
A 69
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT © PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4' ODD , NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'ODD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
. WET WT) = NG/G WW j
S2AHT 343
Cranaon
franciscorum
tail muscle
na
7.436
46.5%
7.436
10
4
92
7
85
0
0
188
25
0
•
S2AHT 344
Crangon
franciscorum
Dissection residua
(estim.) *
na
8.963*
56.1%
7.905*
10
9
296
9
905
63
54
1,335
149
72
8
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
15.986
na
100.0%
na
10
13
387
16
990 •
63 '
54
1,523
95
72
5
estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undissected individuals remaining in sample.
A 70
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cont'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4,4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/OR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT J
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIN, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW
S2AHT 402
Crangon
franciscorum
tail muscle
na
19.073
41.4%
19.073
60 .
0
76
0
0
0
0
- 77
2
0
0
S2AHT 403
Cranqon
franciscorum
Dissection residua
(estim.)*
na
26.350*
57.2*
22.510*
60
0
158
0
1,001
0
0
1,159
44
0
0
RECONSTI -
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
46.072 '
na
100.0%
na
60
0
235
0
1,001
0
0
1,236 '
27
0
0
estimated from dissection length and whole .weight data by proportion from
undissected individuals remaining in sample.
A 71
-------
APPENDIX 8-10 (Cbnt'd.). Method for Calculation of Whole-Body
Tissue Residues From Tissue and Remainder Portion Concentrations.
SAMPLE NUMBER
TISSUE SOURCE
(species)
TISSUE TYPE
ORIG. GROSS WT.,
GRAMS WET WEIGHT
TISSUE WEIGHT @
DISSECTION, G WT WT
PERCENT OF GROSS
WET WEIGHT
TISSUE SAMPLE, G
WET WEIGHT ® PREP
NUMBER INDIVIDUALS
IN COMPOSITE
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ©
DISSECTION X CONC.
4 ,4 'DDE, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT ®
DISSECTION X CONC. -
4,4'DDD, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
2, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
4, 4 'DDT, NG/PORTION
SUM ALL DDT
CONGENERS, NG
SUM CONCENTRATION
DDT CONGENERS
(SUM/GR WET WT) =
NG/G WET WEIGHT j
PORTION WEIGHT @
DISSECTION X CONC.
DIELDRIK, NG/PORTION
CONCENTRATION 1
DIELDRIN (SUM/GR
WET WT) = NG/G WW |
S2AHT 452
Cranqon
franc i scorurn
tail muscle
na
6.095
45.6%
6.095
10
0
28
0
0
0
0
27
'
35
•
S2AHT 453
Cranaon
f ranciscorum
Dissection residua
(estim.)*
na
6.943*
51.9%
6.504*
10
0
49
0
201
14
0
264
38
0
0
RECONSTI-
TUTED SUM
WHOLE
BODY
Whole
13.374
na
100.0%.
na
10
0
76
0
201
14
0
291
22
35
3
= estimated from dissection length and whole weight data by proportion from
undissected individuals remaining in sample.
A 72
-------
APPENDIX 9-1. Benthic infauna data, >1.0 mm sieve size.
STATION 1
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
GRAB
8 TOTAL PCT.
21 2139
FHEORA LUBRICA
18 2124 PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
18 1822 EXOGONE LOUREI
1
6
1
30 2166 GRAND IDIERELLA JAPOMICA
_
1
1
2
4
3
-
-
19 2132 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3 ...
18 1800 CAP1TELLA SPP
18 1835 CIRRATULUS C1RRATUS
"5
1
-
-
.
-
19 2131 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2 ...
18 2125 HARHOTHOE I HSR T CAT A
18 2123 POLYDORA LIGMI
1
2
-
1
-
1
18 1684 SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG I CORN IS
21 2164
18 2126
WSCULUS SEN NOUS I A
EUCHONE LIMN I COLA
-
1
-
-.
18 2135 CIRRATULID SP A ' -
21 1544 HACOHA NASUTA
10 1636 HETERONEHERTEA SPP - -
18 1757 POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
-
-
1
1
1
1
19
18
-
3
2
.
-
2
-
1
2
-
2
-
-
1
-
36
15
3
4
5
-
-
4
3
2
-
-
1
1
-
-
1
19 2130 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1 -
18 2128
HETEROMASTUS FILIFORMIS
.
1
.
.
18 1673 THARYX SPP - - - -
18 1719
18 2137
10 1635
18 2148
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENSIS
ETEONE LIGHT I
TUBULANUS SPP
NEANTKES ACUHINATA
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
1
.
1
-
.
1
-
-
-
32 2151 ZEUXO NORMAN! ....
5 2154
18 2160
18 2127
18 1670
21 2167
TOTAL
Infauna I
PACHYCERIANTHUS FIKBRIATUS
DOSSURA SP
CIRRI FORM! A SPIRABRANCHA
HEDIOMASTUS SPP
TAPES jAPOmCA
Index
-
-
- .
-
•
18
56.25
-
-
-
-
•
7
75,00
-
-
1
-
•
14
77.78
-
1
-
1
"
53
64.00
-
1
.
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
~
77
58.79
34
6
1
9
-
-
-
2
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
1
• -
-
.
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
•
57
63.08
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
.
-
1
-
-
-
-
•
-
m,
9
90.00
6
Z1
16
-
3
4
8
1
2
-
4
5
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
• -
-
1
72
63.79
103
71
22
18
10
9
9
9
8
7
6
6
5
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
307
33.55
23.13
7.17
5.86
3.26
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.61
2.28
1.95
1.95
1.63
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.65
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
o;33
0.33
0.33
Biomass (9 wet weight)
Annelida
HoUusca
Crustacea
Other
0.015
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.095
0.000
0.015
0.000
1.344
0.516
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.230
0.020
0.050
0.155
0.629
0.053
0.017
0.167
0.431
0.064
0.000
0.026
0.320
0.000
0.064
0.126
2.869
0.009
0.000
Total biomass
0.032 0.110 1.860 0.344 0.854 0.662 0.410 3.004
A 73
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic• infauna data.
STATION 2
United Heckathorn Super-fund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
GRAB
18 2124 PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
18 1822 EXOGONE LOUREI
21 2139 THEORA LUBRICA
32 2151 ZEUXO NORMAN 1
18 2160 COSSURA SP
19 2131 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
19 2132 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
21 2164 HUSCULUS SENHOUS1A
18 1684 SCHISTOMERINGOS LONGICORNIS
18 2123 POLYDORA UGNI
30 2166 GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
18 2127 CIRRI FORHIA SPIRABRANCHA
18 2126 EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
19 2130 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
18 2125 HARMOTHOE IMBRICATA
21 2167 TAPES JAPONICA
18 1719 LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENSIS
18 1800 CAPITELLA SPP
18 2135 CIRRATULIO SP A
18 2136 ASYCHIS ELONGATA
18 1673 THARYX SPP
26 2038 NARPACTICOID COPEPOD
18 2128 HETEROMASTUS FILJFORMIS
5 1643 ANTHOZOA UN ID
18 2162 SPHAEROSYLLIS SP A
18 1835 CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
30 2173 CAPRELLA MUTICA
18 1692 PODARKEOPSIS GLABRA
18 1667 NOTOMASTUS TENUIS
18 2137 ETEONE UCHTI
18 2129 CIRRATULIDAE, UN ID
20 2020 PHI LINE SP A
18 1670 NEOIOMASTUS SPP
18 2149 LUHBR1NER1S TETRAURA
TOTAL
Inf auna I Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Hollusca
Crustacea
Other
1
34
3
22
8
3
2
2
1
4
5
11
2
15
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
1 ,
-
-
1
- '
1
-
-
1
-
-
•
120
75.18
0.152
0.943
0.047
0.000
2
55
77
25
19
27
30
27
17
21
13
4
13
2
15
3
6
2
7
5
1
2
3
2
2
.
1
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
1
382
54.77
1.457
15.992
0.051
0.032
3
11
23
9
11
9
3
5
6
-
2
-
2
1
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
2
.
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
92
69.73
" '
0.165
2.999
0.020
0.000
4
10
3
32
1
.
-
-
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
-
1
2
1
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-•
.
-
-
- ,
69
68.97
0.237
1.414
0.017
0.000
5 TOTAL
24
11
16
5
-
3
3
6
-
2
6
5
1
-
.
-
2
-
-
2
.
-
-
.
.
.
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
88
71.38
.0,289
3.515
0.045
0.000
134
117
104
44
39
38
37
31
27
24
24
23
21
19
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
751
PCT.
17.84
15.58
13.85
5.86
5.19
5.06
4.93
4.13
3.60
3.20
3.20
3.06
2.80
2.53
1.07
1.07
0.93
0.93
0.80
0.67
0.67
0.53
0.53
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Total biomass
1.142 17.532 3.184 1.668 3.849
A 74
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.)
Benthic infauna data.
STATION 3
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
21 2139
18 2124
18 2126
18 1822
18 2160
18 2127
18 2135
19 2130
21 2164
19 2131
18 1684
18 2123
32 2151
18 2125
19 2132
30 2166
18 1673
21 2171
18 1800
18 2136
18 2148
20 2020
18 1670
21 2167
18 2150
18 1719
18 1692
18 2137
21 1544
18 2134
21 2169
18 2129
TOTAL '
THEORA LUBR1CA
PSEUOOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
EUCHONE LINK I COLA
EXOGONE LOURE1
COSSURA SP
CIRRI FORM! A SPIRABRAHCHA
CIRRATULID SP A
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
SCHI STOKER I NCOS LONG1CORNIS
POLYDORA LI GUI
ZEUXO NORMAN I
HARMOTHOE 1HBRICATA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPOHICA
THARYX SPP
HACOMA BALTHICA
CAPITELLA SPP
ASYCH1S ELOHGATA
NEANTHES ACUMIHATA
PHILINE SP A
MEDIOHASTUS SPP
TAPES JAPONICA
OPHIOOROMUS PUGETTENSIS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENStS
PODARKEOPSIS 6LABRA
ETEONE LIGHTI
HACOHA NASUTA
STREBLOSPIO BEMEDICT1
POTAHOCORBULA AMURENSIS
CIRRATULIDAE, UNID
1
16
44
11
1
6
-
1
2
.
1
2
3
-
3
2
4
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
1
_
-
98
2
15
1
1
10
6
5
4
1
7
3
2
-
4
2
-
1
1
2
-
-
1
2
1
-
1
-
•
1
-
•
1
-
72
GRAB
3
21
2
3
1
3
4
1
-
1
-
2
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
•
.
-
41
4
31
1
3
.
2
3
4
4
-
4
1
1
-
-
2
-
2
1
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
™
.
-
62
5
29
11
2
7
-
3
3
4
3
2
-
2
2
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
1
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
1
T
.
1
76
TOTAL
112
59
20
19
17
15
13
11
11
10
7
7
6
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
349
PCT.
32.09
16.91
5.73
5.44
4.87
4.30
3.72
3.15
3.15
2.87
2.01
2.01
1.72
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.15
0.86
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
InfaunaI Index
Biwnass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Mollusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
76.00 69.05 72.63 54.00 63.50
0.069
0.185
0.029
0.000
0.125
1.255
0.021
0.000
,105
.508
,000
0.000
0.120
0.633
0.000
0.000
0.065
2.307
0.020
0.000
0.283 1.401 0.613 0.753 2.392
A 75
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
STATION 4
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
18 2160 COSSURA SP
21 2139 THEORA LUBR1CA
18 2124 PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
18 2126 EUCHONE LIHNICOLA
18 1822 EXOGONE LOUREI
18 1684 SCHISTOHERINGOS LONGICORNIS
18 2123 POLYDORA IIGNI
18 2127 CIRRIFORHIA SPIRABRANCHA
21 2164 NUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
18 2135 C1RRATUUD SP A
19 2130 TUBIFICIOAE, GROUP 1
18 1673 THARYX SPP
18 1800 CAPITELLA SPP
32 2151 2EUXO NORMAN I
30 2166 GRANDIDIEREUA JAPON1CA
18 2125 HARMOTHOE IHBRICATA
18 1670 NEDIOMASTUS SPP
5 2138 ACT IN ARIA SPA
5 1643 ANTHOZOA UN ID
18 1757 POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
3 2152 CNIDARIA, UNIO
10 1636 HETERONEHERTEA SPP
18 1719 LEITOSCOIOPLOS PUGETTENSIS
18 2137 ETEONE LIGHT!
21 2167 TAPES JAPONICA
30 2168 COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUH
TOTAL
Infauna I Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Mo I lusca
Crustacea
Other
1
19
35
31
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
-
1
'
-
1
-
-
.
-
1
1
1
-
122
70.86
0.292
0.944
0.015
0.039
2
47
30
14
1
1
1
1
1
-
2
.
1
.
4
-
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
.
-
-
-
106
79.19
0.271
0.013
0.018
0.002
GRAB
3
8
31
46
2
-
1
1
3
2
1
,
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
.
-
1
97
78.10
0.117
0.418
0.036
0.000
4
15
16
18
5
4
1
3
1
3
-
1
-
.
-
2
2
1
-
-
1
.
1
.
-
-
74
78.80
0.084
0.481
0.023
0.000
5
41
9
1
-
-
.
-
-
-
—
2
-
1
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
„
.
.
-
-
54
74
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
130
121
110
11
9
8
8
8
8
7
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
453
.67
.089
.098
.000
.000
PCT.
28.70
26.71
24.28
2.43
1.99
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.55
1.10
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.66
0.44
0.44
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Total biomass
1.290 0.304 0.571 0.588 0.187
A 76
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.)
Benthic infauna data.
STATION s
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 run sieve size
COLLECTED 10/08/91
18 2160 COSSURA SP
21 2139 THEORA LUBRICA
18 2127 CIRRI FORMIA SPIRABRANCHA
18 2124 PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
18 1673 THARYX SPP
30 2168 COROPH1UM HETEROCERATUH
19 2132 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
18 1719 LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENSIS
18 2126 EUCKONE LIMN I COL A
18 2123 POLYOORA LIGMI
19 2130 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
18 2135 CIRRATULID SP A
18 1670 MEDIOHASTUS SPP
18 2153 AMAENA OCCIDENTALIS
5 2154 PACHYCERIANTHUS FIMBRIATUS
19 2131 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
20 2020 PHILINE SP A
TOTAL
Inf auna I Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Mollusca
Crustacea
Other
1
10
20
3
5
-
-
-
-
-
1
.
-
-
-
-
-
1
40
80.00
0.337
0.335
0.000
0.000
2
7
26
2
1
2
4
1
-
1
-
.
2
-
1
-
-
-
47
77.65
0.204
0.454
0.021
0.007
GRAB
3
17
22
-
-
1
1
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
45
73.33
0.033
0.418
0.017
2.357
4
30
24
2
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
*
60
75.56
0.271
0.276
0.000
0.000
5
39
8
6
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
-
2
-
-
-
-
69
73
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
103
100
13
8
6
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
261
.67
.491
.072
.011
.000
PCT.
39.46
38.31
4.98
3.07
2.30
2.30
1.92
1.53
1.15
1.15
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
Total biomass
0.672 0.686 2.825 0.547 0.574
A 77
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
STATION 6
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/08/91
21
18
18
30
18
18
18
18
20
18
18
19
19
19
18
18
3
18
18
2139
2124
2126
2168
2123
2127
2135
1719
2020
1673
2160
2132
2131
2130
1684
1710
2152
1822
1800
THEORA LU8R1CA
PSEUOOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
EUCHONE LIMN I COLA
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUH
POLYDORA LIGNI
CIRRI FORHIA SPIRABRANCKA
CIRRATULID SP A
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENSIS
PHIL1NE SP A
THARYX SPP
COSSURA SP
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
TUB1FICIDAE, GROUP 2
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONGICORNIS
NEPKTYS CAECOIDES
CNlDARtA, UNID
EXOGOHE LOUREI
CAP I TELIA SPP
TOTAL
1
19
15
12
-
6
2
1
1
1
2
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
62
2
17
14
7
6
2
-
2
1
2
-
2
-
-
1
.
-
1
-
-
55
GRAB
3
11
4
6
1
1
3
1
1
-
1
_
1
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
30-
4
10
7
4
3
-
2
1
1
-
-
_
.
.
. .
.
-
.
-
-
28
5
' 21
7
-
7
-
2
- •
.
-
-
_
1
1
-
,
1
-
.
1
41-
TOTAL
78
47
29
17
9
9
5
4
3
3
3
2
1
216
PCT.
36
21
13
7
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.11
.76
.43
.87
.17
.17
.31
.85
.39
.39
.39
.93
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
InfaunaI Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Mollusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
82.86 80.69 80.00 82.67 61.54
0.057
0.279
0.000
0.000
0.054
0.378
0.028
0.012
0.114
0.196
0.016
0.000
0.034
0.339
0.022
0.000
0.097
0.601
0.068
0.000
0.336 0.472 0.326 0.395 0.766
A 78
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.) . Benthic infauna data.
STATION 7
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 irni sieve size
COLLECTED 10/08/91
18
21
18
18
30
18
18
18
18
18
18
21
19
19
32
26
18
18
18
18
30
18
21
20
5
40
18
5
21
10
21
30
18
18
19
28
2160
2139
2124
1822
2168
2126
2123
1670
1800
2127
1719
2169
2130
2131
2151
2038
1684
2125
1817
1942
2157
2162
2167
2020
2154
2155
2156
2138
1544
1635
2164
2166
2150
2135
2132
2175
COSSURA SP
THEORA LUBRICA
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
EXOGONE LOUREI
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUM
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
POLYDORA L1GNI
MEDIOKASTUS SPP
CAPITELLA SPP
C1RR1FORH1A SPIRABRANCHA
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTENS1S
POTAMOCORBULA AMURENSIS
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
ZEUXO NORMAN I
HARPACTICOID COPEPOO
SCH I STOKER I NCOS LONGICORNIS
HARHOTHOE IHBRICATA
AUTOLYTUS SP A
EUPOLYHINA HETEROBRANCHIA
AHPELISCA ABDITA
SPHAEROSYJLLIS, SP A
TAPES JAPONICA
PHI LINE SP A
PACHYCER I ANTKUS F I MBR I ATUS
AMPHIPHOLIS SQUAHATA
ARENICOLIDAE SP A
ACTINARIA SPA
HACOMA NASUTA
TU8ULANUS SPP
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
OPH100ROMUS PUGETTENSIS
CIRRATULID SP A
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
NIPPOLEUCON HINUMENSIS
1
28
15
9
1
7
15
4
2
2
-
1
. ,•
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
-
.
1
-
.
.
-
2
6
18
12
1
6
3
1
-
-
- '
2
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
1
.
-
-
1
-
-
GRAB
3
6
10
9
- •
1
1
-
-
.
-
2
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
4
36
36
10
30
4
2
12
2
3
6
.
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
2
-
2
1
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
.
1
.
1
1
5
29
16
9
1
8
3
-
5
2
-
.
2
1
-
1
-
1
.
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
105
95
49
33
26
24
17
9
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PCT.
24.53
22.20
11.45
7.71
6.07
5.61
3.97
2.10
1.64
1.40
1.17
1.17
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
TOTAL
89
54
31
174
80
428
InfaunaI Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Molluscs
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
79.38 80.00 76.67 73.45 73.60
0.089
0.091
0.042
0.000
0.045
0.252
0.043
0.023
0.054
0.091
0.006
0.000
0.294
0.212
0.022
20.610
0.980
0.141
0.049
0.000
0.222 0.363 0.151 21.138 1.170
A 79
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
STATION 8
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 ram sieve size
COLLECTED 10/07/91
18 1793
18 2125
18 2126
21 2139
30 2168
NEPHTYS CORNUTA FRANCISCANA
HARHOTHOE IMBR1CATA
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
THEORA LUBRICA
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUH
1 2
1
GRAB
1
1
4
2
5
1
5
1
4
• TOTAL
1
1.
3
10
1
TOTAL
InfaunaI Index not calclutated
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Mollusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
16
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.029
0.007
0.000
0.016
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.008 0.000 0.018 0.043 0.047
A 80
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.).
Benthic infauna data.
STATION 9
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mn sieve size
COLLECTED 10/07/91
18
50
30
18
21
21
21
18
18
18
18
30
18
19
32
10
21
18
10
18
18
5
30
18
21
21
30
18
5
21
18
31
2126
2140
2157
2124
2167
1893
2139
2160
2161
2125
1822
2168
2136
2132
2151
1636
2066
1670
1635
2153
1684
2138
2172
1800
1544
2164
2166
1757
1643
2169
2158
2174
EUCHONE LI UN I COL A
PHORNONIS CF. PALLIDA
AHPELISCA ABDITA
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRANCHIATA
TAPES JAPONIC A
CRYPTONYA CAL I FORMICA
THEORA LUBR1CA
COSSURA SP
GLYCINDE POLYGNATHA
HARHOTHOE 1HBR1CATA
EXOGONE LOUREI
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUM
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
ZEUXO NORMAN I
HETERONEHERTEA SPP
PELECYPOO, ERODED
MEDIOHASTUS SPP
TU8ULANUS SPP
AMAENA OCCIDENTAL IS
SCHISTOHERINGOS LONGICORNIS
ACT IN ARIA SPA
CAPRELLA INCISA
CAPITEllA SPP
MACOHA MASUTA
NUSCULUS SEHKOUSIA
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
ANTHOZOA UNID
POTAHOCORBULA AMUREMS1S
7BARANTOLLA SP
HEH1GRAPSUS SP
TOTAL
1
- 9
2
2
-
2
-
2
4
3
-
3
1
-
1
3
-
3
-
-
-
.
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
37
2
34
1
9
3
2
2
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
1
-
-
1
1
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
.
-
79
GRAB
104
4
23
4
3
2
4
1
1
1
.
1
-
-
-
-
-
.
1
1
-
.
-
-
1 "
-
-
4
8
126
1
3
6
-
1
1
-
2
»
1
2
2
1
1
-
1
-
-
^
.
2
-
-
-
-
5
31
34
-
4
1
6
-
»
2
2
1
1
1
-
3
-
1
1
1
_
-
-
1
-
1
-
TOTAL
186
167
35
14
14
10
10
10
9
7
7
7
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
PCT.
35.84
32.18
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.74
.70
.70
.93
.93
.93
.73
.35
.35
.35
.96
.77
.77
.77
.77
.58
.39
.39
.39
.39
.39
.19
.19
.19
.19
0.19
-
-
.
-
151
-
-
1
-
159
-
1
.
1
93
1
1
519
0
0
0
0
.19
.19
.19
.19
InfaunaI Index
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Hotlusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
87.50 91.15 99.28 97.12 97.03
0.105
0.195
0.016
0.675
0.268
0.168
0.023
0.007
0.436
029
027
0.114
0.854
0.148
0.027
0.000
0.438
0.604
0.038
0.139
0.991 0.466 2.606 1.029 1.219
A 81
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
STATION 22
United Heekathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
TOTAL
PCT.
30 2168
30 2157
21 1893
18 2126
21 2165
10 2142
10 1636
30 1511
18 2143
50 2140
18 2125
18 1670
TOTAL
Infauna I
COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUM
AMPELISCA ABDITA
CRYPTONYA CAL I FORMICA
EUCHONE LI KM I COL A
GEMMA GEMMA
PALEONEMERTEA SPP
HETERONEMERTEA SPP
PHOT IS BREVIPES
EUSYLLIS SP
PHORNONIS CF. PAL LI DA
HARMOTHOE IMBRICATA
MED10HASTUS SPP
index
25
10
9
5
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
63
96
39.68
15.87
14.29
7.94
6.35
3.17
3.17
3.17
1.59
1.59
1.59
1.59
.84
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Hoilusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
0.012
0.164
0.165
0.028
0.369
A 82
-------
APPENDIX 9-1 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
STATION 23
United Heckathorn Superfund Study >=1.0 mm sieve size
COLLECTED 10/09/91
TOTAL
PCT.
30 2168
30 1511
4 2147
18 2126
21 1893
18 2144
18 1684
21 2139
18 1697
18 2145
20 2146
18 2136
21 2167
18 1670
21 2169
TOTAL
Infauna I
COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUH
PHOT IS BREVIPES
TURBELLARIA SPP
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
CRYPTOMYA CALIFORNIA
ARMANOIA BREV1S
SCH I STOKER I NCOS LONGICORNIS
THEORA LUBRICA
PHYLIODOCE LONGIPES
HALOSYONA BREVITOSA
TURBOHILIA SPP
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
TAPES JAPONICA
HEDIOMASTUS SPP
POTAMOCORBULA AHURENSIS
Index
69
8
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
101
67.
68.32
7.92
4.95
3.96
2.97
1.98
1.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
• 0.99
0.99
0.99
78
Biomass (g wet weight)
Annelida
Kollusca
Crustacea
Other
Total biomass
0.340
0.102
0.417
0.018
0.877
A 83
-------
APPENDIX 9-2. Benthic infauna data, 0.5 mm sieve size.
LAURfTZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
FILEitltzbio.dat
21 2139 THEORA LUBRICA
18 2124 PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
19 2131 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
19 2132 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
30 2166 GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
18 1684 SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG ICO
18 1822 EXOGONE LOIRE I
18 1800 CAPITELLA SPP
18 1835 CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
18 2125 HARHOTHOE IMBRICATA
18 2126 EUCHONE LIMN I COLA
18 2123
POLYDORA LIGHI
1
2
6
10
10
1
2
6
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
9
2
1
-
2
18 2160 COSSURA SP
19 2130 TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
3
-
3
6
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATION
4
19
18
6
7
8
7
1
5
1
2
. -
1
5
36
16
9
15
6
1
3
3
1
.3
3
-
21 2164 MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA . -
21 2167 TAPES JAPONICA ...
10 1636 HETERONEKERTEA SPP
18 2135 CIRRATUL10 SP A -
21 1544 MACOMA NASUTA
32 2151
ZEUXO HORMANI
-
-
1
1
1
-
18 1719 LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
18 2148
MEAHTHES ACUH1MATA
-
1
18 1757 POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
-
1
1
1
. -
.
-
1
- .
-
18 1673 THARYX SPP . . . .
18 2137
18 1670
ETEONE LIGHT!
MEDIOMASTUS SPP
-
-
.
.
1
.
.
1
5 2154 PACHYCERIANTHUS FIHBRIA
1
-
1
.
1
1
-
1
1
.
.
1
10 1635 TUBULANUS SPP .....
18 2162 SPHAEROSYLLIS SP A
1
-
.
.
•
6 7
37 3
8 1
31 11
12 8
10 - •
11 1
5
-1
2 1
3
3
3 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- -
1
.
- - 1
.
1
. -
1
.
5 2138 ACTINARIA SPA .-...,.
18 2128 HETEROHASTUS FILIFORMIS
1
18 2127 CIRRIFORMIA SPIRABRANCH
.
1
.
-
-
-
.
- '
8 TOTAL
8 111
21 76
6 75
. 7 49
2 45
12 37
22 34
6 14
10 12
3 12
1 12
9
9
8
5 6
1 4
3
3
1 3
1 3
2
2
2
2
.
.
-
•
.
1
1
1
PCT.
20.52
14.05
13.86
9.06
8.32
6.84
6.28
2.59
2.22
2.22
2.22
1.66
1.66
1.48
1.11
0.74
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.37
0.37
.0.37
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
TOTAL
48
19
25
78
103
129
32
107
541
A 84
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'di). Benthic infauna data.
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 HH SIEVE SIZE
FILE:tltzbio.dat
18
18
21
19
19
18
18
32
30
21
18
18
19
18
18
18
21
18
IB
18
18
18
26
5
18
18
18
18
18
30
18
18
18
20
18
18
18
21
18
28
18
18
23
2124
1822
2139
2131
2132
1684
2160
2151
2166
2164
2126
2123
2130
2127
1800
1673
2167
2125
1719
2135
2136
2128
2038
1643
2137
2162
1835
1670
2150
2173
1692
1757
1667
2020
1982
1793
2129
2169
2149
2175
2176
2177
2181
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
.EXOGONE LOURE!
THEORA LUBRICA
TU8IFICIDAE, GROUP 2
TUSIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
SCHISTOHERINGOS LONG I CO
COSSURA SP
ZEUXO NORMAN I
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
POLYDORA LIGNI
TUBIFICIOAE, GROUP 1
CIRRIFORHIA SPIRABRANCH
CAPITELLA SPP
THARYX SPP
TAPES JAPONICA
HARMOTHOE IMBRICATA
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
CIRRATULID SP A
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
HETEROMASTUS FILIFORM IS
HARPACTICOID COPEPOO
ANTHOZOA UNID
ETEONE LIGHTI
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP A
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
MEOIOHASTUS SPP
OPH10DROMUS PUGETTEMSIS
CAPRELLA HUTICA
POOARKEOPSIS GLABRA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
NOTOMASTUS TENUIS
PHI LINE SP A
ARM AND I A BREVIS
NEPHTYS CORNUTA FRANCIS
CIRRATULIDAE, UNID
POTAMOCORBULA AHURENSIS
LUH8RINERIS TETRAURA
NIPPOLEUCON HINUKENSIS
BOCCARDIA PROBOSCIDEA
CAULLERIELLA ALATA
SARSIELLA SP A
TOTAL
1
49
8
29
11
4
11
8
9
25
2
22
8
2
2
-
5
-
1
1
-
-
1
-
1
-
.
2
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
207
STATION
2 3
58
93
36
64
66
45
40
23
10
29
5
16
25
14
11
5
9
4
2
5
1
2
3
2
2
.
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
.
-
-
576
14
23
12
8
11
8
15
15
1
9
1
3
3
3
.2
-
-
2
-
-
-
1
1
.
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
137
2
4
15
10
36
21
8
13
4
6
19
1
9
5
5
1
-
1
2
3
2
1
2
-
-
-
1
.
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
166
5
26
17
19
27
10
13
6
13
9
7
4
5
2
5
1
1
-
-
2
-
2
-
-
1
.
1
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
175
TOTAL
162
151
132
131
99
90
73
66
64
48
41
37
37
25
14
12
11
10
7
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1261
PCT.
12.85
11.97
10.47
10.39
7.85
7.14
5.79
5.23
5.08
3.81
3.25
2.93
2.93
1.98
1.11
0.95
0.87
0.79
0.56
0.48
0.40
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
A 85
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= O.S MM SIEVE SIZE
FlLEttltzbio.dat
21
19
18
18
18
18
19
19
18
18
21
18
18
30
18
18
18
18
32
5
18
18
21
21
18
18
20
18
21
18
18
21
18
18
21
18
28
2139
2131
2124
1684
2160
2126
2132
2130
2135
1822
2164
2127
1835
2166
2123
2125
1673
1800
2151
1643
1719
2137
2171
2066
2136
2148
2020
1670
2167
2129
1692
1544
2049
2150
2169
2134
2175
THEORA LUBRICA
TUBIFIC1DAE, GROUP 2
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG I CO
COSSURA SP
EUCKOHE LIMN {COLA
TUBIFICIOAE, GROUP 3
TUB1FICIDAE, GROUP 1
CJRRATULID SP A
EXOGONE LOUREI
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
CIRRI FORM! A SPIRABRANCH
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
POtYDORA LIGNI
HARMOTHOE IMBRICATA
THARYX SPP
CAPITELLA SPP
ZEUXO NORMAN I
ANTHOZOA UN ID
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
ETEONE ILGHTI
HACOMA BALTHICA
PELECYPOO, ERODED
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
NEANTHES ACUMINATA
PHtLINE SP A
MEDIOMASTUS SPP
TAPES JAPONICA
CIRRATULIDAE, UN ID
PODARKEOPSIS GLABRA
MACOMA NASUTA
SPIONIDAE, UNID
OPHIODROMUS PUGETTENSIS
POTAHOCORBULA AMURENSIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT I
NIPPOLEUCON HINUHENSIS
1
20
4
60
7
9
19
6
5
4
2
4
.
1
13
8
5
-
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
.
-
-
. -
.
.
-
1
-
2
20
22
1
14
11
4
5
9
9
12
8
5
5
1
-
4
1
.
4
-
-
1
2
-
-
1
2
1
.
- .
-
-
1
1
1
-
-
STATION
3
23
9
3
12
17
9
5
1
1
4
1
5
-
-
1
- •
3
.
-
2
2
1
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
3
4
31
28
1
13
10
10
15
11
5
1
-
3
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
1
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
5
32
15
12
9
3
3
3
7
8
7
4
3
7
-
2
1
1
6
2
3
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
2
1
-
1
-
TOTAL
126
78
77
55
50
45
34
33
27
26
17
16
14
14
12
10
9
8
7
5
3
3
3
2
2
- 2
2
2
2
PCT.
18
11
11
7
7
6
4
4
3
.21
.27
.13
.95
.23
.50
.91
.77
.90
3.76
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.46
.31
.02
.02
.73
.45
.30
.16
.01
.72
.43
.43
.43
.29
.29
.29
.29
.29
.29
:14
.14
.14
.14
0.14
-
-
-
.
-
1
.
-
-
0
0
0
.14
.14
.14
TOTAL
172
145
99
142
134
692
A 86
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
LAUR1TZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE
FlLE:tltzbio.dat
18
21
18
18
18
18
19
18
19
18
18
21
18
18
5
30
18
19
32
18
18
18
18
5
45
18
18
3
10
18
18
21
30
28
2160
2139
2124
1684
2126
1822
2130
1800
2131
2135
2123
2164
2127
1670
1643
2166
1673
2132
2151
2125
1719
1835
1793
2138
2028
2148
1757
2152
1636
1982
2137
2167
2168
2175
COSSURA SP
THEORA LUBRICA
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG I CO
EUCHONE LI MM I COLA
EXOGONE LOUREI
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
CAPITELLA SPP
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
CIRRATUL1D SP A
POLYDORA LIGNI
MUSCULUS SEMHOUSIA
CIRRIFORHIA SPIRABRANCH
MEDIOMASTUS SPP
ANTHOZOA UN ID
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
TKARYX SPP
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
ZEUXO NORMAN I
HARHOTHOE IHBRICATA
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
NEPKTYS CORNUTA FRANCIS
ACT 1 NAD I A SPA
SIPUKCULIO UN ID
NEAKTHES ACUHINATA
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
CNIDARIA, UN ID
HETERONEMERTEA SPP
ARM AND I A BREVIS
ETEONE LIGHT I
TAPES JAPONICA
COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUM
NIPPOLEUCON HINUMENSIS
SIZE
1
29
49
32
21
7
12
7
' 7
3
10
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
-
-
1
2
.
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
STATION 4
2 3
63
34
17
1
1
1
1
-
-
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
1
-
.
-
-
-
-
24
40
48
10
8
1
7
5
11
2
4
5
3
-
1
•
-
-
-
2
-
-
1
-
•
.
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
4
24
23
22
3
8
8
2
4
1
1
6
3
3
1
1
3
-
1
-
2
1
-
.
-
1
-
1
-
1
—
-
-
-
-
5
56
10
1
'
4
-
5
2
2
-
-
.
-
1
.
-
1
1
-
-
1
-
1
-
•
-
-
-
-
• -
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
196
156
120
35
28
22
22
18
17
15
14
14
10
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
PCT.
27.22
21.67
16.67
4.86
3.89
3.06
3.06
2.50
2.36
2.08
1.94
1.94
1.39
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.69
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.42
0.28
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
TOTAL
203
137
175
120
85
720
A 87
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
LAURITZEH CHANWEL
FILE:tltzbio.dat
>= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
STATION 5
234
TOTAL
PCT.
18
21
18
18
18
19
19
18
18
18
18
19
30
18
18
18
18
5
20
18
18
2160
2139
1673
2135
2124
2131
2132
1670
2127
1719
1684
2130
2168
2126
2123
1800
2153
2154
2020
1835
2178
COSSURA SP
THEORA LUBRICA
THARYX SPP
CIRRATULID SP A
PSEUOOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
NEOIOHASTUS SPP
CIRRI FORM! A SPIRABRANCH
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
SCH I STOKER I NCOS LONG I CO
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUH
EUCHONE LIMN I COLA
POLYDORA LIGHI
CAP I TEL LA SPP
AMAENA OCCIDENTAL IS
PACHYCERIANTHUS FIMBRIA
PHILINE SP A
CIRRATUIUS CIRRATUS
MALHGRENIELLA HACGINITI
TOTAL
28
32
6
1
7
3
.
6
3
3
-
2
-
2
2
1
-
-
1
1
-
98
29
29
8
11
8
4
4
3
2
2
12
1
4
2
1
-
1
.
-
•
1
122
19
22
1
4
-
2
3
.
-
2
1
1
1
1
-
-
.
1
.
.
-
58
47
27
5
-
2
1
2
2
3
.
4
.
-
1
-
-
.
.
.
-
94
48
8
8
2
2
6
7
3
6
3
.
1
2
1
1
.
.
.
-
.
-
98
171
118
28
18
17
17
15
14
13
13
13
9
7
6
5
470
36
25
5
3
3
3
3
2
.38
.11
.96
.83
.62
.62
.19
.98
2.77
2
2
1
1
1
.77
.77
.91
.49
.28
1.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
.21
.21
.21
.21
.21
.21
A 88
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
LAUR1TZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
FILE-.tltzbio.dat
21
18
18
18
30
18
18
18
18
19
18
18
19
20
19
18
3
30
18
21
18
21
28
2139
2126
2124
2160
2168
2123
1684
2127
2135
2132
1719
1673
2131
2020
2130
1710
2152
2157
1822
2164
1800
2169
2175
THEORA LUBRICA
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
COSSURA SP
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUM
POLYDORA L1GNI
SCKISTOMERIKGOS LONGICO
CIRRI FORNIA SPIRABRANCH
CIRRATULID SP A
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
THARYX SPP
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
PHILINE SP A
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
NEPHTYS CAECOIDES
CNIDARIA, UNID
AHPEUSCA ABDITA
EXOGONE LOUREI
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
CAP1TELLA SPP
POTAMOCORBULA AMURENSIS
NIPPOLEUCON HINUHENSIS
TOTAL
1
32
20
19
16
-
6
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
1
111
STATION
2 3
21
10
14
21
7
3
2
-
3
1
2
-
-
2
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
. -
88
11
10
5
2
4
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46
6
4
11
15
8
6
7
2
4
2
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58
5
23
10
7
-
16
1
-
2
-
2
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
-
-
1
1
- .
68
TOTAL
98
65
53
45
34
13
13
9
9
6
5
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
371
PCT.
26
17
14
12
9
•3
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.42
.52
.29
.13
.16
.50
.50
.43
.43
.62
.35
.08
.81
.81
.81
.27
.27
,27
0.27
0
0
0
0
.27
.27
.27
.27
A 89
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data.
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
FILE:tltzbio.dat
1
STATION 7
234
TOTAL
PCT.
18
21
30
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
18
18
18
19
18
21
32
26
18
30
21
20
18
18
18
21
30
18
18
10
21
18
5
5
18
5
40
28
23
31
30
2160
2139
2168
2124
2126
1670
1800
1822
2123
2131
2130
1684
1719
2125
2132
2127
2169
2151
2038
1817
2157
2167
2020
1942
1793
2162
2164
2166
2135
2156
1635
1544
2150
2138
2154
1835
1643
2155
2175
2181
2182
2184
COSSURA SP
THEORA LUBRICA
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUM
PSEUDOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
EUCHONE LIMN! COL A
MEDIOMASTUS SPP
CAPITELLA SPP
EXOGONE LOUREI
POLYDORA LIGNI
TUBIFIC1DAE, GROUP 2
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 1
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG I CO
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
HARMOTHOE 1HBRICATA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
CIRRI FORHIA SPIRABRANCH
POTAHOCORBULA AMURENSIS
ZEUXO NORMAN I
HARPACTICOID COPEPOD
AUTOLYTUS SP A
AMPELISCA ABDITA
TAPES JAPONICA
PHI LINE SP A
EUPOLYMINA HETEROBRANCH
NEPHTYS CORNUTA FRANCIS
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP A
HUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
GRAND ID IERELLA JAPONICA
CIRRATULID SP A
ARENICOLIDAE SP A
TUBULANUS SPP
MACOMA NASUTA
OPHIODROMUS PUGETTENSIS
ACTINARIA SP A
PACHYCERIANTHUS FIHBRIA
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
ANTHOZOA UN ID
AMPHIPKOLIS SOUAMATA
NIPPOLEUCON HINUMENSIS
SARSIELLA SP A
CRAB ZOEA
LISTRIELLA GOLETA
43
31
22
10
21
16
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
-
-
-
.
.
2
-
-
-
1
.
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
-
20
27
22
14
9
1
6
2
2
1
-
3
3
4
1
-
2
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
.
-
20
18
4
11
6
4
1
.
-
• -
-
1
3
-
1
.
-
-
.
.
-
-
2
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
73
53
12
10
6
4
22
31
18
6
4
3
.
2
2
6
2
2
4
3
-
2
-
2
1
2
2
-
1
.
-
1
1
-
46
24
10
' 10
11
17
6
2
4
3
6
2
2
-
1
-
2
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
1
.
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
'-
1
-
-
-
.
1
202
153
70
55
53
42
37
36
28
13
12
10
9
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
19
8
6
6
5
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.54
.34
.85
.95
.70
.31
.68
.55
.54
.64
.52
.26
.14
.88
.88
.76
.76
.51
.51
.38
.38
.38
.38
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
.13
TOTAL
164
122
71
281
153
791
A 90
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.), Benthic infauna data.
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
FILE:tltzbio.dat
18
50
30
18
19
18
21
18
18
21
18
30
18
21
23
18
32
28
18
30
1
18
10
21
5
32
21
18
28
10
18
18
18
30
5
54
19
29
18
31
30
18
21
18
18
30
21
29
2126
2140
2157
1822
2132
2160
1893
1670
2161
2167
2124
2168
2125
2139
2181
1800
2151
1600
2162
2180
1645
2136
1636
2066
1643
1599
2164
1719
2175
1635
1684
1757
2153
2172
2138
2179
2131
2185
2158
2174
2166
2178
1544
1793
2135
2183
2169
2186
EUCHONE LI MM I COL A
PHORNONIS CF. PALL I DA
AHPELISCA ABDITA
EXOGONE LOUREI
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 3
COSSURA SP
CRYPTOMYA CALIFORNIA
MEDJOMASTUS SPP
GLYCINDE POLYGNATHA
TAPES JAPONICA
PSEUOOPOLYDORA PAUCIBRA
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUM
HARNOTHOE IM8RICATA
THEORA LUBRICA
SARSIELLA SP A
CAPITELLA SPP
ZEUXO NORMAN I
EUDORELLA PACIFICA
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP A
DULICHIA RHABDOPLASTIS
FORAMINIFERA UNID
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
HETERONEHERTEA SPP
PELECYPQO, ERODED
ANTHOZOA UNID
LEPTOCHELIA DUBIA
HUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEK
KIPPOLEUCON HINUHENSIS
TUBULANUS SPP
SCH1STOHERINGOS LONGICO
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
AMAEHA OCCIDENTAL IS
CAPRELLA INCISA
ACT I MARIA SP A
LIGHTIELLA SERENDIPITA
TUBIFICIDAE, GROUP 2
PARANTHURA ELEGANS
7BARANTOLLA SP
HEKIGRAPSUS SP
GRANDIDIERELLA JAPONICA
KALMGREHIELLA NACGINITI
HACOHA NASUTA
NEPHTYS CORNUTA FRANCIS
CIRRATULID SP A
AOROIDES COLUHBIAE
POTAMOCORBULA AHURENSIS
HUNNA SP
TOTAL
1
13
5
4
19
11
7
-
4
5
6
1
4
-
2
-
-
5
2
2
1
-
. -
-
3
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
• -
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
1
.
-
-
99
STATION
2 3
42
1
15
10
10
9
11
6
3
2
3
5
4
4
5
-
-
-
1
4
-
2
-
1
1
-
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
.
1
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
147
151
4
57
3
4
6
4
3
4
5
7
2
1
4
3
1
.
2
.
1
1
-
-
-
2
-
1
-
1
1
-
-
" 1
-
.
-
1
-
-
.
.
1
1
1
-
.
.
-
273
9
4
22
132
1
25
18
12
-
6
-
6
3
5
3
1
.
-
1
1
1
.
.
2
1
-
.
1
-
1
-
.
-
-
2
-
.
.
2
1
.
.
-
-
-
-
1
.
1
249
5
48
39
-
12
7
10
13
7
8
1
5
2
3
-
1
6
.
1
2
.
5
1
4
-
1
2
1
-
.
1
-
1
1
-
.
2
.
-
-
1
.
.
.
-
-
.
1
-
186
TOTAL
276
181
77
69
50
44
• 28
26
20
20
19
18
11
11 '
9
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
954
PCT.
28.93
18.97
8.07
7.23
5.24
4.61
2.94
2.73
2.10
2.10
1.99
1.89
1.15
1.15
0.94
0.73
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.52
0.52
0.42
0.42
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
A 91
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.). Benthic infauna data,
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= 0.5 MM SIEVE SIZE
FILE:tltzbio.dat
STATION 22
TOTAL
PCT.
30 2168
30 2157
21 1893
18 2126
18 1670
30 1511
28 1600
10 2142
21 2165
21 2169
10 1636
18 1982
18 1719
18 2143
32 1599
18 2160
21 2164
50 2140
18 1684
18 2125
23 2181
COROPHIUH HETEROCERATUH
AHPELISCA ABDITA
CRYPTOMYA CALI FORMICA
eyCHPM LIHHICOLA
HED10HASTUS SPP
PHOT IS BREVIPES
EUDORELLA PACIFICA
PALEONiMERTEA SPP
GEHKA GEMMA
POTAMOCORBULA AMURENSIS
HETEROHEMERTEA SPP
ARMANDIA BREVIS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS PUGETTEN
EUSYLLIS SP
LEPTOCHELIA DUB I A
COSSURA SP
MUSCULUS SENHOUSIA
PHORMONIS CF. PALL IDA
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG I CO
HARMOTKOE 1WBR1CATA
SARSIELLA SP A
90
18
17
14
10
7
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
48.39
9.68
9.14
7.53
5.38
3.76
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
1.61
1.08
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
TOTAL
186
A 92
-------
APPENDIX 9-2 (cont'd.) . Benth.ic infauna data,
LAURITZEN CHANNEL - >= O.S MM SIEVE SIZE
FlLE:tltzbio.dat
STATION 23
TOTAL
PCT.
30 2168
30 1511
28 1600
18 1670
21 1893
18 1982
4 2147
18 2126
21 2139
18 1684
30 2157
21 1538
21 2170
18 2145
20 2146
18 1761
40 1889
18 2160
21 2165
21 2167
18 2136
21 2169
18 1697
23 2181
COROPHIUM HETEROCERATUM
PHOT IS BREVIPES
EUDORELLA PACIFICA
HEDIOHASTUS SPP
CRYPTOMYA CALI FORMICA
ARHANDIA BREVIS
TURBELLARIA SPP
EUCHONE LIMN I COL A
THEORA LUBRICA
SCHISTOMERINGOS LONG ICO
AHPELISCA ABDITA
MYSELLA TUMIDA
CLINOCARDIUH NUTTALLI
KALOSYDNA BREVITOSA
TURBONILLA SPP
PRIONOSPIO LIGHTI
OPHIUROIDEA.UNID
COSSURA SP
GEMMA GEMMA
TAPES JAPOMICA
ASYCHIS ELONGATA
POTAMOCORBULA AMURENSIS
PHYLLOOOCE LONGIPES
SARSIELLA SP A
199
24
19
10
9
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
66.78
8.05
6.38
3.36
3.02
1.68
1.68
1.34
1.34
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
TOTAL
298
A 93
-------
DATE DUE
MAY - 5
2006111- £AM£7
»
£(3-3fcfe^
Demco, Inc. 33-293
U.S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
-------
f
ft >.*'•' •
? ^. ?:••;
k: ? '•!' i'.
J
-------
|