United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905-R97-020
December 1997
&EPA Sediment Assessment
Of Hotspot Areas In The
Duluth/Superior Harbor
"'
-------
SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT OF HOTSPOT AREAS IN THE
DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR
Submitted to
Callie Bolattino, Project Officer
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
by
Judy L. Crane and Mary Schubauer-Berigan
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
and
Kurt Schmude
University of Wisconsin
Lake Superior Research Institute
1800 Grand Avenue
Superior, Wisconsin 54880
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
u
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgments ix
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations x
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Description 2
1.3 Project Objectives 3
1.4 Project Tasks ..4
2.0 Methods 5
2.1 Field Methods 5
2.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey and Site Selection 5
2.1.2 Sediment Collection 5
2.1.2.1 Sampling with a small MPCA boat 5
2.1.2.2 Sampling with the R/V Mudpuppy 6
2.2 Sample Tracking 8
2.3 Laboratory Methods 9
2.3.1 Chemical Analyses 9
2.3.2 Sediment Toxicity Tests 9
2.3.3 Benthological Community Structure 9
2.3.3.1 Sample processing 9
2.3.3.2 Enumeration of benthic invertebrates 10
2.3.3.3 Quality control 11
2.3.3.4 Calculations 11
3.0 Results 12
3.1 Site Information 12
3.1.1 Sample Locations 12
3.1.2 Site and Sediment Descriptions 12
3.1.2.1 Bay south of the DM&IR taconite storage facility 12
3.1.2.2 Bay east of Erie Pier 12
3.1.2.3 Howard's Bay 12
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.2.4Kimball'sBay 13
3.1.2.5 Bays north and south of the M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 plant 13
3.1.2.6 Minnesota Slip 14
3.1.2.7 City of Superior WWTP 14
3.1.2.8 Slip C 15
3.1.2.9 WLSSD and Miller and Coffee Creek Embayment 15
3.2 Chemical Analyses 16
3.2.1 Particle Size 17
3.2.2 Total Organic Carbon 18
3.2.3 Ammonia 18
3.2.4 Total Arsenic and Lead 18
3.2.5 AVS and SEM 19
3.2.6 Mercury 19
3.2.7 Dioxins/Furans 20
3.2.8 PAHs 20
3.2.8.1 PAH fluorescence screen 20
3.2.8.2 PAHs by GC/MS 21
3.2.9 PCBs 22
3.2.9.1 Total PCBs 22
3.2.9.2 Congener PCBs 22
3.3 Toxicity Tests 23
3.3.1 Acute Toxicity to Hyalella azteca 23
3.3.2 Acute Toxicity to Chironomus tentans 24
3.3.3 Chronic Toxicity to Chironomus tentans 24
3.4 Benthological Assessments 24
3.4.1 Sampling Design 24
3.4.2 Ecology and Feeding Habits of Abundant Benthic Organisms 25
3.4.2.1 Oligochaetes: Naididae and Tubificidae 25
3.4.2.2 Polychaetes: Manayunkia speciosa 25
3.4.2.3 Phantom midges: Chaoborus 26
3.4.2.4 True midges: Chironomus 26
3.4.3 Site Assessments 26
3.4.3.1DMIR sites 26
3.4.3.2 ERP sites 27
3.4.3.3 HOB sites 27
3.4.3.4 KMB sites 27
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.4.3.5 MLH sites 28
3.4.3.6 MNS sites 28
3.4.3.7 STP sites 28
3.4.3.8 SUS sites 28
3.4.3.9 WLS sites 29
3.4.4 Chironomid Deformities 29
3.4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 29
4.0 Sediment Quality Triad Approach 30
4.1 Background 30
4.2 Application of the Triad Approach to the Duluth/Superior Harbor 31
4.3 Other Applications of the 1994 Data Set 32
4.4 Development of Hotspot Management Plans 34
5.0 Recommendations 35
References 38
Appendix A Sediment Chemistry Data
Appendix B Sediment Toxicity Test Reports for Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Appendix C Benthological Community Data
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Total relative contamination factors (RCFs) for surficial sediments
(i.e., 0-30 cm) collected during the 1993 sediment survey of the
Duluth/Superior Harbor 41
Figure 2-1. Location of study sites 42
Figure 3-1. Map of DMIR sample sites 43
Figure 3-2. Map of ERP sample sites 44
Figure 3-3. Map of HOB sample sites 45
Figure 3-4. Map of KMB sample sites 46
Figure 3-5. Map of MLH sample sites 47
Figure 3-6. Map of MNS sample sites 48
Figure 3-7. Map of STP sample sites 49
Figure 3-8. Map of SUS sample sites 50
Figure 3-9. Map of WLS sample sites 51
Figure 3-10. Total lead depth profiles for Howard's Bay 52
Figure 3-11. SEM/AVS depth profiles for three Howard's Bay sites 53
Figure 3-12. Mercury depth profiles for three WLSSD sites 54
Figure 3-13. Depth profile of mercury at Slip C 55
Figure 3-14. Depth profile of screening PAHs at Slip C 56
Figure 3-15. Depth profile of total PAHs (by GC/MS) at Slip C 57
Figure 3-16. Depth profile of normalized PAHs (by GC/MS) at Minnesota Slip 58
Figure 3-17. Depth profile of normalized PCB concentrations (ng/g oc) at the
Slip C sites 59
Figure 3-18. Diagrams of: a) Tubificidae, b) Manayunkia speciosa, c) Chaoborus, and
d)Chironomus 60
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Sectioning Scheme for Chemical Analyses Performed at each Site 62
Table 2-2. Summary of Sediment Analytical Methods 64
Table 3-1. Site Coordinates for the 1994 Sediment Survey 65
Table 3-2. Description of Field Results for DM&IR, Erie Pier, and Kimball's Bay
Areas (DMIR 1-4, ERP 1-5, and KMB 1-5) 67
Table 3-3. Description of Field Results for Howard's Bay (HOB 1-15) 68
Table 3-4. Description of Field Results for M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 Plant and
Grassy Point Embayment (MLH 1-10) 70
Table 3-5. Description of Field Results for Minnesota Slip (MNS 1-5) 71
Table 3-6. Description of Field Results for City of Superior WWTP Embayment
(STP 1-8, STP 10, STP 12) 72
Table 3-7. Description of Field Results for Slip C (SUS 1-8) 74
Table 3-8. Description of Field Results for WLSSD and Miller/Coffee Creek Embayment
(WLS1-20) 76
Table 3-9. Particle Size Distribution of all Sample Sites and Depth Profiles 80
Table 3-10. TOC Results for all Sample Sites and Depth Profiles 86
Table 3-11. Ammonia Results for Selected Sites and Depth Profiles 93
Table 3-12. Total Arsenic and Lead Results for Howard's Bay Samples 95
Table 3-13. AVS Results for Selected Sites 96
Table 3-14. SEM Results for Selected Sites 99
Table 3-15. SEM'AVS Ratios for Selected Sites 101
Table 3-16. Comparison of SEM Lead and Total Lead Concentrations in Howard's Bay 104
Table 3-17. Mercury Results for Selected Sites and Depth Profiles 105
Table 3-18. TCDD and TCDF Results for WLS and KMB Samples 109
Table 3-19. Screening PAH Results for Selected Sites 111
Table 3-20. PAH Results (by GC/MS) for Selected Sites 114
Table 3-21. TOC-Normalized PAH Results for Selected Sites 120
Table 3-22. Total PCB Results for Selected Sites 125
Table 3-23. Subset of Seven PCB Congeners 130
Table 3-24. Results for Seven PCB Congeners at Selected Sites 131
Table 3-25. Mean Survival (%) of H. azteca and C. tentans Exposed to Test Sediments 136
Table 3-26. Normalized Survival (%) offf. azteca and C. tentans Exposed to
Test Sediments 137
Table 3-27. Mean Total Abundance (individuals/m2) and Taxa Richness Values for the
Benthological Community Survey 138
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 3-28. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the DMIR Sites (n=3) 142
Table 3-29. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the ERP Sites (n=3) 143
Table 3-30. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the HOB Sites (n=3) 144
Table 3-31. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the KMB Sites (n=3) 146
Table 3-32. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the MLH Sites (n=3) 147
Table 3-33. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the MNS Sites (n=3) 148
Table 3-34. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the STP Sites (n=3) 149
Table 3-35. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the SUS Sites (n=3 for SUS 1-7; n=l for SUS 8) 150
Table 3-36. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in
Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group
for the WLS Sites (n=3) 151
Table 3-37. Number of Chironomid Larvae with Menta Deformities 153
Table 4-1. Triad Analysis Endpoints for Sediment Quality in the Duluth/Superior
Harbor 154
Table 4-2. Number of Surficial Sites Sampled for each Component of the Sediment
Quality Triad 155
vm
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Judy Crane, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), with
assistance from Mary Schubauer-Berigan, formerly of the MPCA, and Kurt Schmude, University of
Wisconsin (UW)~Lake Superior Research Institute.
The study design and quality assurance project plan were developed by Mary Schubauer-Berigan.
Field sampling was coordinated by Mary Schubauer-Berigan with assistance from MPCA,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) personnel. Kurt Schmude, and other personnel from the UW-Lake Superior Research
Institute, collected and processed sediment samples for enumeration of the benthological
community. GLNPO's research vessel (R/V), the Mudpuppy, and vibracorer device were used for
the collection of sediment samples.
Sediment toxicity tests were conducted by the MPCA Toxics Unit which included Carol Hubbard,
Harold Wiegner, Patti King, Jerry Flom, and Scot Beebe. Chemical analyses were performed by the
following analytical laboratories: mercury - Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene; PAHs (by
GC/MS) - Huntingdon Engineering and Environmental, Inc.; dioxins, furans, PCBs, and particle
size - Trace Organic Analytical Laboratory, Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI); and PAH
screen, AVS, SEM, ammonia, TOC, total lead, and arsenic - Central Analytical Laboratory, NRRI.
Excel spreadsheet support was provided by Scot Beebe, James Beaumaster, Jeff Canfield, and Janet
Rosen. Graphical support was provided by James Beaumaster. Word processing support was
provided by Jennifer Holstad, Janet Eckart, and Janet Rosen.
This project was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) GLNPO through
grant number GL995636. Rick Fox and Gallic Bolattino provided valuable input as the successive
GLNPO Project Officers of this investigation.
IX
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
AgNO3 Silver Nitrate
AOC Area of Concern
AR Analytical Replicate
As Arsenic
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
AVS Acid Volatile Sulfide
Cd Cadmium
cm Centimeter
CMD Classical Multi-dimensional Scaling
Co Company
Cu Copper
CV Coefficient of Variation
DM&IR Duluth, Masabe, and Iron Range
DMIR DM&IR Stockpile
DSD Duluth Steam District
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ER Extraction Replicate
ERP Erie Pier
Fe Iron
ft Feet
GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GIS Geographic Information System
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GPS Global Positioning System
Hg Mercury
HOB Howard's Bay
LFC International Joint Commission
KC1 Potassium Chloride
kg Kilogram
KMB Kimball's Bay
LEL Lowest Effect Level
LOD Limit of Detection
LOQ Limit of Quantitation
LSRI Lake Superior Research Institute
m Meter
mg Milligram
MLH M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 and Grassy Point area
mm Millimeter
MN Minnesota
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
MNS Minnesota Slip
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
N North
N/A Not Applicable
ND Not Detected
NEL No Effect Level
NH3 Ammonia
Ni Nickel
NRRI Natural Resources Research Institute
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NQ Not Quantifiable
OC Organic Carbon
OMOEE Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PDOP Position Dilution of Precision
PPDC Post Process Differential Correction
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCF Relative Contamination Factor
R-EMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
RTR Ratio-to-Reference Value
R/V Research Vessel
SA Selective Availability
SD Standard Deviation
SEL Severe Effect Level
SEM Simultaneously Extractable Metals
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SQG Sediment Quality Guideline
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SUS Slip C
TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (as in 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
TCDF Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (as in 2,3,7,8-TCDF)
TOC Total Organic Carbon
XI
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
ug Microgram
UMD University of Minnesota-Duluth
UWS University of Wisconsin-Superior
VC Vibrocorer
W West
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WI Wisconsin
WLS WLSSD/Coffee and Miller Creek Bay
WLSSD Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
wt. Weight
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Zn Zinc
Xll
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The St. Louis River and the Duluth/Superior Harbor consist of a variety of habitat types, ranging
in character from relatively pristine streams and wetlands to an industrialized harbor containing
two Superfund sites. Many current and former dischargers have contributed to the contamination
of sediments within this Area of Concern (AOC). Currently, there are only a few permitted point
source discharges to the waters of the AOC. These include (in Minnesota): the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD), which collects and treats both municipal and industrial
wastes for the entire region of the AOC from Cloquet to Duluth. In Wisconsin, current major
NPDES dischargers to the waters of the AOC include the Superior Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), Murphy Oil-Superior Refinery, and Superior Fiber Products (whose
wastewater is transported to WLSSD for treatment).
The geological setting, anthropological history, and recent environmental knowledge about the
AOC are documented in the Stage I Remedial Action Plan (RAP) document [Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)/Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),
1992]. During the past five years, the MPCA and its collaborators have been actively involved in
delineating the extent of sediment contamination in the St. Louis River AOC. These studies
include:
Preliminary assessment of contaminated sediments and fish in the Thomson, Forbay, and
Fond du Lac Reservoirs (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1996)
Survey of sediment quality in the Duluth/Superior Harbor: 1993 sampling results
(Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1997)
Sediment assessment of hotspot areas hi the Duluth/Superior Harbor (this report)
Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) surveying,
sampling, and testing: 1995 and 1996 sampling results [draft report in process of being
prepared by the MPCA, Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)]
Sediment remediation scoping project at Slip C in the Duluth Harbor (report to be prepared
by the MPCA during the spring of 1998)
-------
Development of sediment quality guidelines for the St. Louis River AOC (new project begun
October 1,1997)
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in the Duluth/Superior Harbor (new project begun
October 1,1997).
The above investigations have been, or are being, conducted with the cooperation and financial
support of the U.S. EPA. These studies will support the assessment and hotspot management
plan goals of the Phase I sediment strategy for the RAP. The chemistry data from most of these
investigations are being entered into two similar, but separate, geographic information system
(GlS)-based databases for the Duluth/Superior Harbor. The databases are maintained by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).
In this report, the results of the 1994 sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior
Harbor will be presented. Due to the large number of figures and tables in this report, all of them
have been moved to the end of this report.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A general assessment of sediment contamination in the Duluth/Superior Harbor was conducted
during 1993. The results of this MPCA investigation indicated that polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination was widespread throughout the harbor (Schubauer-Berigan
and Crane, 1997). Heavy metal, mercury, selected pesticide, and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) contamination was also of concern at several sites. The Duluth portion of the harbor was
generally more contaminated than the Superior portion of the harbor (Figure 1-1).
The USX Superfund site was the most contaminated site evaluated in the 1993 sediment survey
(Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1997). This site, along with the Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund
site, have been undergoing additional investigations as part of the potentially responsible parties
legal obligations. Other sites that were rated highly for further study included: Hog Island Inlet
and Newton Creek, the bay surrounding WLSSD and Coffee/Miller Creek outfalls, Fraser
Shipyards, Minnesota Slip, area between the M.L. Hibbard Plant/Duluth Steam District (DSD)
No. 2 and Grassy Point, and in the old 21st Ave. West Channel. Other areas, such as Slip C and
off the city of Superior wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) outfall, were listed as medium
priority. It is important to note that this 1993 study was limited in scope and was not meant to
characterize large areas as to the extent of contamination.
The results of the 1993 sediment survey were used to shape the scope of this project. The
MPCA, in cooperation with GLNPO and WDNR, conducted a sediment survey of the following
hotspot areas during the fall of 1994:
-------
Bay south of the DM&IR taconite storage facility
Bay east of Erie Pier
Howard's Bay (including Fraser Shipyards)
Area north of Grassy Point and in the vicinity of M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2
Minnesota Slip
City of Superior WWTP
Slip C
WLSSD, Miller Creek, and Coffee Creek Embayment
Kimball's Bay (reference site).
The two Superfund sites and the Hog Island Inlet/Newton Creek sites were not included in this
study due to other in-depth investigations that were already underway at these sites. Two sites
that were ranked low priority for further study in the 1993 sediment investigation were included
in this survey. Erie Pier was included because of acute sediment toxicity that was observed at the
1993 sample site. DM&IR was included to confirm the 1993 observation that this site was not
very contaminated.
A sediment quality triad approach (Long and Chapman, 1985) was used in this study to
characterize sediment quality at each site. Synoptic measures of sediment chemistry, sediment
toxicity, and benthological community structure were made at selected sites. A short-list of
contaminants was measured in various core sections based on the results of the 1993 sediment
survey. Ten-day sediment toxicity tests, using Hyalella azteca (H. aztecd) and Chironomus
tentans (C. tentans), were used to assess biological effects under controlled conditions. The
benthological community structure was used to assess in situ biological effects. Sediments that
demonstrated a high degree of concordance among all three measures were considered to have
degraded sediment quality and pose a risk to the environment. Sediments that showed
concordance between two of the three measures may or may not be degraded and warrant further
investigation.
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this investigation were to:
Perform site-specific assessments of sediment contamination, toxicity, and benthic
community structure at areas identified during the 1993 sediment survey as having elevated
contamination. A similar Triad assessment was performed at a reference site (i.e., Kimball's
Bay).
Develop a sediment management plan for study sites where the presence of contaminants are
associated with toxicity and/or impaired benthic communities.
-------
1.4 PROJECT TASKS
Specific project tasks included the following:
Measure concentrations of selected contaminants at eight contaminated sites, and one
reference site, in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. Contaminants of concern included: PCBs,
PAHs, PAH screen, TCDD and TCDF, mercury, lead, arsenic, simultaneously extractable
metals (SEM) (i.e., cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc), and ammonia. In addition, total
organic carbon (TOC), acid volatile sulfide (AVS), and particle size were measured.
Perform sediment toxicity tests with H. azteca (10-day survival) and C. tentans (10-day
survival and growth) at half of the locations within each site (selected on a worst-case basis)
using EPA-developed methodologies.
Conduct a benthic community assessment at each site by sampling macrobenthos at all of the
locations within each site, identifying organisms to the lowest possible classification, and
using community evaluation metrics to determine the ecological status of the benthic
community.
Use the sediment quality triad approach to integrate chemistry, toxicity, and benthic
community assessment data.
Develop sediment management plans for areas with contaminated sediments in the
Duluth/Superior Harbor.
-------
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
2.1 FIELD METHODS
2.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey and Site Selection
The sites examined in this study were located in the St. Louis River and Duluth/Superior Harbor,
downstream of the Kimball's Bay area (Figure 2-1). General site selection resulted from analysis
of the data from the 1993 Duluth/Superior Harbor sediment survey (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane,
1997). Contaminated sites were also selected in consultation with WDNR and GLNPO sediment
personnel. The area of Kimbali's Bay was selected as a "clean" reference site for the eight hotspot
areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor.
A stratified random sampling approach was used for final site selection within each of the nine
areas. Sampling locations were obtained by placing a grid (of a size appropriate to generate the
desired number of samples at each site) over the site map. The grid size was determined by the
size of the area to be sampled, as well as the complexity of contaminant sources or hydrodynamics
of the site. For example, at the WLSSD and Miller and Coffee Creek embayment site, a grid size
of 150 m was used to more finely distinguish the three contaminant sources. A larger grid size of
400 m was used at the M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 and Grassy Point area to bracket contamination
over a wider area.
During July and August of 1994, several locations to be sampled intensively during
September 1994 were scoped out during reconnaissance surveys. Specifically, locations in the
WLSSD and Miller/Coffee Creek embayment, the area in Howard's Bay near Fraser Shipyards,
and the bay near Barker's Island and the City of Superior WWTP were surveyed with the
assistance of the WDNR survey team. In these reconnaissance surveys, the pre-selected grid
points were evaluated for the suitability of the substrate for surficial sediment sampling. The
geographical coordinates were surveyed by the WDNR team, and the global positioning system
(GPS) coordinates were recorded by MPCA staff. All sample coordinates were recorded with a
Trimble Pathfinder Basic Plus GPS. These GPS coordinates were used to revisit the sites during
the actual sampling in September 1994; however, the final (official) sampling coordinates are
those recorded in the field during sampling.
2.1.2 Sediment Collection
2.1.2.1 Sampling with a small MPCA boat
The bays north and south of the M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 plant (MLH sites), as well as the bay
south of the DM&IR taconite storage facility (DMIR sites), were sampled prior to Kimball's Bay
-------
and the other sites in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. A small MFC A vessel was used for the field
sampling. This was necessitated by the shallow water depths at these sites (i.e., 1-3 m) and/or
difficulty of access (caused by anchored wood debris) experienced by the R/V Mudpuppy during
the 1993 survey. The ten sites in the M.L. Hibbard Plant/DSD No. 2 and Grassy Point bays, and
five sites in the DM&IR bay, were sampled during August 22-24,1994. At each of the ten
locations in the Hibbard Plant/Grassy Point bays, geographical coordinates were ascertained using
a GPS unit. At each site location, a minimum of 100 data points were collected with the GPS unit
while tracking at least four satellites (3D mode) with a position dilution of precision (PDOP) value
of less than six. Recorded data were downloaded on a personal computer daily, and the error
caused by selective availability (SA) was eliminated utilizing post process differential correction
(PPDC). This process was carried out using Pfinder software version 2.54 and base files from the
Minnesota Power Base Station in Duluth. These final coordinates were accurate to within 2-5 m
and were used to construct site maps.
After positioning and anchoring the boat, two types of sediment core samples were collected at the
MLH sites: several gravity cores, which collected the top 13.5-22 cm of sediment, and a single,
long manually-driven core (collected with a Livingston corer), which collected sediment to the
bottom of the soft penetrable layer (0.4-0.95 m). The shorter surficial (gravity) cores were
combined to provide sufficient material for analysis of selected contaminants (Table 2-1) and
where indicated, toxicity tests. In addition, three individual gravity cores collected from each
location were sieved through a standard 40-mesh screen, and the residue was preserved in a
formalin solution within 24 hours of collection for enumeration of the benthos. The water and soft
sediment depths were measured at each site using a sediment poling device similar to that
developed by the WDNR sediment team.
The gravity core samples for chemistry and toxicity were decanted of their overlying water. Next,
the samples were either placed directly into a precleaned sample jar (in the case of the chemistry
samples), or combined and homogenized in a large acid- and solvent-cleaned glass bowl where
they were split into two, 1-L jars for toxicity testing. Each deep Livingston core was extruded on
site and visually described from the surface to maximum depth. The bottom 15-27 cm section of
the core was then removed from the core and placed into a 1-L glass jar for later homogenization
and subsequent splitting for chemical analysis.
At the DM&IR taconite storage facility site, a Ponar sampler was used because of the presence of
large amounts of taconite pellets. The pellets made the sediment too heavy to be collected with a
gravity corer. Only surficial samples were collected for toxicity, benthos, and contaminant
analysis. After collection with the Ponar sampler, the samples were treated similar to those from
the MLH sites.
2.1.2.2 Sampling with the R/V Mudpuppy
The other sites were sampled during September 21 to October 3,1994 using GLNPO's research
vessel (RAO, the Mudpuppy. The R/V Mudpuppy is a monohull aluminum barge with an overall
length of 9.2 m, a 2.4 m beam, and a draft of 0.5 m (Smith and Rood, 1994). It is designed for
-------
collecting deep cores, using a vibrocorer, in shallow areas. The sites were sampled in the
following order during the fall of 1994.
WLSSD/Miller and Coffee Creek embayment (WLS 1 -20): September 21,23,26-27
Slip C (SUS 1 -8): September 22 and October 3
Howard's Bay (HOB 1-15): September 27-29
City of Superior WWTP (STP 1-12): September 29-30 and October 3
Minnesota Slip (MNS 1-5): September 30
Erie Pier embayment (ERP 1 -5): October 4
Kimball's Bay (KMB 1 -5): October 4.
The sampling protocols for core collection were the same for all sites within all locations, and are
summarized as follows. The predetermined geographical coordinates were used to guide the R/V
Mudpuppy to the sampling position. The GPS unit, rather than the boats Loran unit, was the
device of record for locating the desired position. In all cases, positioning was confirmed by
sighting the boats position with reference to visual landmarks. The R/V Mudpuppy was then
triple-anchored on-site, water depth measured, sampling start time noted, and the final position
recorded on the GPS unit.
The R/V Mudpuppy was accompanied by a small boat operated by researchers from the University
of Wisconsin-Superior (UWS); they processed the benthos samples. Small (i.e., 5 cm diameter)
gravity cores were used for sampling benthos, toxicity, and surficial chemistry samples because of
their non-disruptive nature and ability to obtain a relatively undisturbed sediment-water interface.
The vibrocorer was used to sample sediments deeper than 15 cm where desired. Benthos samples
were collected prior to the vibrocores at each site by deploying the gravity corer one to three tunes
per replicate (depending on the depth sampled at each general location). Three benthos sample
replicates were collected at each site. The benthos core replicates were sieved in the field using a
wash bucket (Wildco, Saginaw, MI) with a U.S. no. 40 mesh (425 vim opening). The debris
material was placed in a glass sample jar, preserved with 10% formalin solution containing rose
bengal stain, and labeled. Samples were brought to the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI)
for storage and processing on a daily basis. The number of cores per replicate and sampled depth
were recorded in the study field notebook, along with a description of the sediment substrate.
After the collection of the benthos samples, several short gravity cores were obtained at each site
for the surficial chemistry and toxicity samples. The number of cores collected varied by site;
generally, cores were collected until sufficient volume was obtained to perform chemistry and/or
toxicity analyses (i.e., about 2.5 L). The number, depth, and physical description of cores thus
collected were recorded in the field notebook. The cores were decanted of overlying water and
placed directly into a precleaned 1-L jar (chemistry samples). The toxicity samples were
combined and homogenized in an acid- and solvent-cleaned glass mixing bowl and split into two
1-L glass jars. All samples were immediately placed on ice. At the end of each day, the samples
were transferred to a storage refrigerator at the MPCA's Duluth Regional office.
-------
Deeper core sections for chemical analyses were obtained using the vibrocorer on board the R/V
Mudpuppy. As in the 1993 sediment assessment project, a 3-m long core tube, lined with a 4-mm
wall thickness butyrate core tube liner, was attached to the vibrocorer head. Cores were collected
according to the standard operating procedures (SOPs) detailed in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) (Schubauer-Berigan, 1994) and in Smith and Rood (1994). Cores were, in general,
driven to the point of refusal at each site. Core displacement and measured length were recorded.
A single vibrocore sample was collected at each site.
The vibrocore was processed on board the R/V Mudpuppy immediately after collection. Before
lifting anchor, the sample processing crew extruded the core on the boat deck. The core was
sectioned by sawing off the top 15 cm of the core to provide the first (surficial) section. This
section was discarded, because surficial sediment was analyzed using samples collected by the
gravity corer. The core was then sectioned at succeeding 15 cm intervals. The sections retained
for chemical analysis depended on the sampling goals, which varied from site-to-site. Table 2-1
gives the sectioning scheme for cores collected at each of the nine areas. A 15-cm section length
provided sufficient sample volume (approximately 1.5 L) to perform all the analyses required for
each section.
The visual characteristics of the core sections were described in the field notebook. The core
section was then decontaminated by scraping away and discarding the outer 2-3 mm, using a
solvent- and acid-cleaned Teflonฎ spatula. Individual core sections were placed into a 4-L acid-
and solvent-rinsed glass container and homogenized by stirring. Homogenized core sections were
placed into precleaned 1-L glass jars and left on ice while on board the R/V Mudpuppy. At the
end of each day, the samples were delivered on ice to a storage refrigerator at the MPCA's Duluth
Regional Office.
2.2 SAMPLE TRACKING
The benthos samples were transported to LSRI on a daily basis during field sampling. After field
sampling was completed, the toxicity test samples were brought directly to the MPCA Toxicology
Laboratory in St. Paul, MN where the tests were conducted. The samples were stored at 4ฐ C in a
refrigerator in a controlled access room. Within one month of field collection, most of the
refrigerated core sections for chemical analysis were apportioned into precleaned jars by a MPCA
technician and were delivered to the contract laboratory. The Wisconsin State Laboratory of
Hygiene could not store all of the mercury samples. Thus, they requested batches of samples to be
sent to them over a period of several months. All samples for chemical analyses were
accompanied by sample tracking forms, which tracked the sample conditions and handling by
MPCA and contract personnel.
Formal chain-of-custody procedures were not followed since the sample data were not intended to
be used for enforcement purposes.
-------
2.3 LABORATORY METHODS
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the chemical analyses, toxicity testing, and benthos
sampling are appended to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for this project (Schubauer-
Berigan, 1994). The methods are cited in the following sections for reference purposes.
2.3.1 Chemical Analyses
A summary of the analytical procedures used in this investigation are given in the QAPP
(Schubauer-Berigan, 1994) and in Table 2-2. A PAH fluorometric screening method was used to
provide a low-cost procedure for locating PAH-contaminated sediments. This method was
calibrated using PAH results determined by EPA Method 8270.
2.3.2 Sediment Toxicity Tests
Sediment toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to
benthic invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella
azteca (H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
The toxicity tests were conducted using the procedures described in U.S. EPA (1994a). The test
organisms (H. azteca and C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable, mini-flow
system described in Benoit et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994a). The test apparatus consists of 300
mL, glass-beaker test chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic
headbox. The beakers have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water
exchange, while containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to
deliver water at an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon
to provide exchange of overlying water. Overlying water for the tests was nonchlorinated well
water. The overlying water was monitored daily for pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.
The Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans tests were required to meet quality assurance (QA)
requirements such as acceptable control sediment survival (i.e., mean survival of 80% for H.
azteca and 70% for C. tentans), and acceptable performance on reference toxicant tests (i.e., test
results within two standard deviations of the running mean). Reference toxicant tests were not
performed with C. tentans, because they do not survive well in water-only tests.
2.3.3 Benthological Community Structure
2.3.3.1 Sample processing
Sample tracking work sheets were created for all samples, and the date and initials of the person
performing the activity was entered for each step in the processing procedure. Samples were
initially decanted to remove the formalin, and the debris was rinsed on a U.S. no. 40 mesh sieve
-------
(i.e., 425 pm opening). The debris was either picked immediately to remove all organisms, or it
was represented with 70% ethanol for later processing. All organisms were systematically picked
from the debris by placing a spoonful of debris in a large gridded petri dish, placing the dish on a
light table, and viewing it under low power (i.e., 7X magnification) through a dissecting
microscope with additional overhead light. The entire sample was picked in this way. The
organisms were placed in 1-dram vials and preserved in 70% ethanol for later identification and
long-term curation. The sample debris was placed into a properly labeled storage jar (i.e., 50 to
120 mL) for later quality control checks and long-term storage.
2.3.3.2 Enumeration of benthic invertebrates
Organisms were separated into three groups: Chkonomidae/Chaoboridae/Ceratopogonidae
(midges), Oligochaeta (worms), and all other invertebrates. All of the "other invertebrates" were
identified by the Senior Taxonomist, Dr. Kurt L. Schmude (UWS LSRI). Empty mollusc shells
were disregarded. Pieces of invertebrates were picked and counted if the piece was determined to
have come from a live organism at the time of collection and it did not belong to an existing
specimen. However, only pieces of oligochaetes with the anterior portion, showing the mouth
opening, were mounted and identified; other pieces of oligochaetes were not counted.
Invertebrates were identified to the following taxonomic levels:
Bivalvia - genus
Gastropoda - family or species
Nematoda - nematodes
mites - mites
Oligochaeta - genus or species
Polychaeta - species
Turbellaria - turbellaria
Hirudinoidea - species
Diptera - genus, species group, or species
Trichoptera - genus
Ephemeroptera - genus or species.
Immature tubificid oligochaetes do not have well developed sexual structures, which are necessary
for definitive identification of several species. Consequently, these individuals were separated into
three groups: 1) immature tubificids without dorsal hair chaetae; 2) immature tubificids with
dorsal hair chaetae; and 3) very immature tubificids lacking all chaetae. Although specimens in
these three groups likely represent species with individuals already identified from the same
replicate, these groups were treated as separate taxa and were included in taxa richness counts
All midges and worms were mounted on slides using Hoyer's mounting medium. One midge was
mounted per cover slip, and up to three cover slips were mounted per slide. Up to ten worms were
mounted per cover slip, with one to two cover slips per slide. About 1,500 slides were prepared
An undergraduate biology student was trained by the Senior Taxonomist to assist in the
identification of midges and worms. However, all identifications were made or verified by the
10
-------
Senior Taxonomist. Data for each sample were recorded on separate data sheets and arranged in a
three-ringed binder according to site and station.
2.3.3.3 Quality control
The sample tracking work sheets were used to record the steps through which each sample went in
the sample processing and identification procedures. Quality control (QC) checks were performed
on the picking procedure. One randomly chosen sample out of every ten samples was immediately
repicked for accuracy; a total of 25 samples were repicked by the Senior Taxonomist
2.3.3.4 Calculations
The core sampler had an inner diameter of 1.62 inches (or 4.13 cm). Thus, the total surface area of
bottom substrate collected per core was calculated as 13.4 cm2. The data were converted to
numbers of organisms per square meter by using the following conversion factors:
1 core per replicate = 747.4
2 cores per replicate = 373.7
3 cores per replicate = 249.1
The Ponar grab sampler was 6x6 inches, which was equivalent to 232.2 cm of surface area of
bottom substrate collected per grab. A conversion factor of 43.06 was used for Ponar samples.
11
-------
CHAPTERS
RESULTS
3.1 SITE INFORMATION
3.1.1 Sample Locations
Figure 2-1 shows the overall locations of the hotspot areas sampled in the Duluth/Superior Harbor.
The Kimball's Bay area was included as a reference site. The precise location of the coring
stations within the nine general areas sampled are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-9. The
geographical coordinates of these stations are provided in Table 3-1.
3.1.2 Site and Sediment Descriptions
3.1.2.1 Bay south of the DM&IR taconite storage facility
Five sites were sampled in the bay south of the DM&IR taconite storage facility (DM1R 1-5;
Figure 3-1). A small MPCA vessel was used to sample the sites on August 23,1994. Because all
the sediments at these locations were a dark brown silty clay with a high concentration of taconite
pellets, the gravity corer could not be used. Instead, a Ponar grab sampler was used to obtain the
surface sediments. A single Ponar was used per benthos replicate (Table 3-2).
3.1.2.2 Bay east of Erie Pier
The small bay east of Erie Pier and southwest of the International Welding and Machinists site
was sampled for benthos enumeration, toxicity testing, and surficial chemistry analysis (Table
3-2). Five sites, ERP 1-5, were visited hi this area (Figure 3-2) on October 4, 1994. Three cores
per replicate were used for benthos enumeration. Toxicity tests were conducted using surficial
sediment from sites ERP 1,2, and 3. The gravity corer obtained very short cores at this site (5-8
cm in depth). The physical descriptions of the sediments obtained from these sites are provided in
Table 3-2. The sediments were quite variable in this bay.
3.1.2.3 Howard's Bay
Fifteen sites were sampled within Howard's Bay (HOB 1-15) (Figure 3-3). Eight of these sites
were sampled for toxicity testing using a "worst-case" approach. Benthos and chemistry samples
were taken for surficial sediments at all sites (Table 3-3). Two additional sediment sections, from
the vibrocore, were submitted for chemical analyses (as described hi Table 2-1).
The visual description of the Howard's Bay sediments is given hi Table 3-3. Samples HOB 1,2,3,
5,7, and 11 were located hi the shipping lane within Howard's Bay, with site HOB 1 being closest
to the mouth of the bay and site HOB 15 closest to the end of the bay (Figure 3-3). Sites HOB 4,
12
-------
6, and 10 were located north of the Howard's Bay shipping channel, and south of the Main St.
(Superior) peninsula.
Sites HOB 8 and 9 were just outside the entrance to active Dry Dock No. 2. These sites seemed
very well-scoured. The substrate was extremely hard red clay (with a bit of grit overlying the clay
at site HOB 9). Because this hardpan was nearly impossible to sample with the vibrocorer, deep
cores were not taken at these two sites. The gravity corers were able to obtain only very short
cores at these two sites (5 cm deep). Due to the great water depth at this location (7.0 m), it was
not possible to manually push the core deeper into the sediment as was done at the MLH sites.
Sites HOB 12 and 13 were located just outside the entrance to Dry Dock No. 1 (also active). The
gravity corers were able to penetrate a bit deeper into these sediments (10 cm); however, these
sites were also well-scoured, with the hardpan located very close to the surface. Therefore,
vibrocore samples were not collected at these two sites.
Sites HOB 14 and 15 were located at the terminus of the bay, past the boundary of the dredged
channel. Site 15 was sampled as far to the end of the bay as the Mudpuppy could venture. The
two sites were very different from one another. The surface sediment from HOB 14 was very
similar to those sediments north of the shipping channel, consisting of a loose, flocculent sand/clay
mixture atop clay. The deep core was very stiff red and brown clay to the bottom (0.45 m). The
surface sediment from site HOB 15 was very similar: dark brown loose clay with gritty sand. In
contrast, deep sediment from this site contained very heavy black oil, for the entire depth, from
0.15-1.2 m. An oil slick was apparent on the water surface while sampling.
3.1.2.4 Kimball'sBay
An area of KimbaH's Bay, just west of Billings Park, was used as a reference site based on the
results of the 1993 survey. Only surficial samples were obtained from these sites. Five sites were
sampled (KMB 1-5) on October 4,1994 (Figure 3-4). Sites KMB 1,2, and 3 were located in the
large, open area of KimbaH's Bay, whereas sites KMB 4 and 5 were located in two smaller arms of
the bay. Toxicity tests were conducted with sediment from sites KMB 4 and 5. Three gravity
cores were collected per replicate for the benthos enumeration (Table 3-2).
Sediment descriptions of the sites are given in Table 3-2. Sediments from these sites were
described, in general, as soft brown clay with or without the presence of an oxidized iron layer
near the top of the gravity core.
3.1.2.5 Bays north and south of the M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 plant
Ten sites were sampled from the bays. Samples for toxicity tests were collected at sites MLH 1-6
as a "worst-case" evaluation (Table 3-4). Sites MLH 1-4 were on the north side of the M L
Hibbard/DSD No. 2 plant, and sites MLH 5-10 were in the bay south of the plant (Figure 3-5) A
gravity corer was used to collect surficial sediments at most of the locations. However at sites
MLH 2,3, and 6 (which had less penetrable gritty fly ash), the corer was modified by duct-taping
it to a grappling hook in order to sample the appropriate layer (i.e., 0-15 cm). The sub-surface
13
-------
sediments were sampled with a Livingston corer to obtain the deepest layer possible. Chemical
analyses were performed on two sections from each site: 0-15 cm and the deepest layer obtainable
(Table 3-4).
3.1.2.6 Minnesota Slip
Five cores (MNS 1-5) were collected in Minnesota Slip, the northeastern-most slip in the
Duluth/Superior Harbor, just inside the Duluth entry (Figure 3-6). Four core sections were
collected and analyzed for sediment chemistry at each site. Three gravity cores per replicate were
used for the benthos enumeration (Table 3-5).
Descriptions of the sediments obtained from Minnesota Slip are given in Table 3-5. Of all the
areas sampled in this sediment assessment, the Minnesota Slip core sections showed the highest
degree of oil contamination.
3.1.2.7 City of Superior WWTP
The outfall of Superior's WWTP is on a small peninsula, adjacent to the dredged Superior Front
Channel. Two sites were sampled on the northwest side of the outfall, and eight in the bay to the
southeast of the outfall and near Barker's Island (Figure 3-7). Toxiciry test samples were collected
at sites closest to the outfall location: STP 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. The sampling protocol called for three
sediment sections to be analyzed from these sites: 0-15 cm (collected with the gravity corer), as
well as 15-30 cm and 30-45 cm (collected with the vibrocorer). A total of three vibrocorer nose
cones were lost at sites STP 3 and STP 5; therefore, extreme care had to be taken not to penetrate
the clay too deeply on subsequent sampling attempts.
Descriptions of the sediments sampled in this area are given in Table 3-6. Because of the
difficulty involved with coring some of the sediments, it was decided to drop site STP 11, along
the Superior Front Channel. In addition, site STP 10, which was hi the deeper portion of the bay,
was very sandy in the surficial sediment layer. Attempts to find softer sediment in this area were
unsuccessful; therefore, it was decided not to vibrocore these sediments in order to prevent the
potential loss of another nose cone. Site STP 9 could not be sampled due to the shallow water
depth. Sites STP 6-8 were located hi the center of the bay. Again, because of concerns about
losing nose cones, the vibrocoring was limited to approximately the top 0.4 m to avoid the hard
sand layer below.
From site STP 8, the water depth was not suitable for sampling until the area near site STP 10. The
final site in this bay, STP 12, was quite different from the other sites. The surficial sediment was
soft, loose brown clay, with a slight oil sheen. A deeper core was obtainable here: approximately
0.9 m. Each section in this core was contaminated with heavy, black oil which was mixed with
either sand or clay. Because this was such an unusual site, 3 vibracore sections were taken from
this core at 15-30 cm, 30-46 cm, and 76-91 cm. All of these samples from STP 12 were submitted
for PAH analysis. The source of the oil was unknown. However, it is of note that this site was
14
-------
about 30 m from the outfall of a city creek. This area was not known to be contaminated (Scott
Redman, WDNR, personal communication).
3.1.2.8 SlipC
Eight sites were sampled in Slip C on September 22,1994 and October 3,1994 (SUS 1-8). The
cores were sampled sequentially from the furthest inward site (SUS 1) to near the mouth of the slip
(SUS 8, Figure 3-8). Four sites (SUS 1,3,5 and 7) were sampled for toxicity testing, and all sites
were sampled for surficial benthos enumeration and surficial chemical analysis. Because of the
complex nature of the contamination found in this area in the 1993 survey, four sediment layers
were sent for chemical analysis from each site (Table 2-1).
Visual descriptions of the sediments obtained from this slip are provided in Table 3-7. At site
SUS 8, the closest to the mouth of the slip, only a single 10-cm surface sediment core was
obtained after many attempts. It consisted of coarse sand. No vibrocoring was attempted at this
site due to the hard sand substrate. A large amount of fibrous, woody material was found hi the
sediments south of the Georgia-Pacific Corp. Plant.
3.1.2.9 WLSSD and Miller and Coffee Creek Embayment
The bays southwest of WLSSD and south of the outfalls of Miller and Coffee Creeks were
sampled during September 21-27,1994. Twenty-three sites were visited within this embayment.
However, core samples could be obtained at only 19 of the 23 planned sites (Figure 3-9). Due to
heavy rip-rapping of logs, shallowly buried in sediments near the western edge of the embayment,
samples from sites WLS 20-23 could not be collected.
Three sites (WLS 6,9, and 11) were located in the formerly dredged 21st Avenue West shipping
channel. The rest of the sites were located in the shallow portions of the bay; all sites were north
of the maui shipping channel, bounded by Rice's Point, the WLSSD facility, and the DM&IR
taconite storage facility.
Surficial sediments were obtained for benthos enumeration and contaminant analysis at all 19
sites. Vibrocores were collected at each site for analysis of contaminants in the buried sediments.
Table 2-1 indicates the analytes measured in each core section. Samples for toxicity testing were
collected at 10 of the sites (Table 3-8): WLS 1,2, 3,4,6, 8,12,13,14, and 16. A "worst-case"
approach was used in deciding which samples should be tested for toxicity. That is, locations
expected to have the most highly-contaminated sediments in a given area (based on'the 1993
survey and knowledge of potential contaminant sources) were tested for toxicity.
Descriptions of the sediment samples collected are provided hi Table 3-8. In general, there was
great uniformity within each site in terms of the sediment appearance of the surficial sediment
samples collected with different coring devices for the benthos enumeration, toxicity tests and
chemical analysis. As detailed in Table 3-8, oil was present in many core sections, whereas coal
chunks were present in a few core sections. Many sections also contained fibrous material and
occasional wood chips.
15
-------
3.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Chemical results are presented in graphical and/or tabular format in the following sections. The
analytical data is provided in electronic format in Appendix A. All chemical concentrations given
in this section are reported on a dry weight basis. The potential sources of contaminants to the
Duluth/Superior Harbor were described in the 1993 sediment survey report (Schubauer-Berigan
and Crane, 1997) and will not be repeated here.
In order to interpret the chemical data, it is useful to compare the data to some kind of benchmark
such as a criteria or guideline value. The U.S. EPA has developed draft sediment quality criteria
for five nonionic organic compounds: acenaphthene, dieldrin, endrin, fluoranthene, and
phenanthrene (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Additional sediment quality criteria will be developed by the
EPA for nonionic organic compounds and for metals once the methodology has been approved.
The Great Lakes States and EPA Regions will use the EPA's sediment criteria to assist in the
ranking of contaminated sediment sites needing further assessment, to target hotspots within an
area for remediation, and to serve as a partial basis for the development of State sediment quality
standards. These criteria will also be used to assist in selecting methods for contaminated
sediment remediation and for determining whether a contaminated site should be added or
removed from its list of designated Areas of Concern (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
The State of Minnesota has not developed sediment quality criteria, or guidelines, for
contaminants. The MPCA has secured a grant from GLNPO (for FY98-99) to develop site-
specific sediment quality guidelines for the St. Louis River AOC. These biologically-based
guidelines will utilize matching sediment chemistry and toxicity data. Where data gaps exist,
regional and national data will be used to develop guideline values.
In the meantime, other jurisdictions from Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States (e.g.,
New York) have developed sediment quality values (Crane et al., 1993) which may be useful to
compare to the results of this investigation. The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
(OMOEE) guidelines may be the most useful to compare to the results of this survey, because their
guidelines are based on freshwater toxicity data. Many other jurisdictions incorporate marine data
into their derivation of guidelines or criteria. The OMOEE currently uses a three-tiered approach
in applying sediment quality guidelines (Persaud et al., 1993):
No Effect Level (NEL): the level at which contaminants in sediments do not present a threat
to water quality, biota, wildlife, and human health. This is the level at which no
biomagnification through the food chain is expected.
Lowest Effect Level (LEL): the level of sediment contamination that can be tolerated by the
majority of benthic organisms, and at which actual ecotoxic effects become apparent.
16
-------
Severe Effect Level (SEL): the level at which pronounced disturbance of the sediment
dwelling community can be expected. This is the concentration of a compound that would be
detrimental to the majority of the benthic species in the sediment.
In some cases, background levels of contaminants may exceed the LEL value. In this case, the
background level should be used in place of the LEL value. For northeastern Minnesota, there is
insufficient data for most contaminants to determine background concentrations. The OMOEE
guidelines are only used in this report as general benchmark values since they have no regulatory
impact in Minnesota.
3.2.1 Particle Size
All of the samples were analyzed for particle size distribution. A detailed analysis of the
following size ranges was performed:
fine clay: <0.08 urn
medium clay: 0.08-0.2 um
coarse clay: 0.2-2 um
fine silt: 2-5 um
medium silt: 5-20 um
coarse silt: 20-53 um
sand and gravel: >53 um.
None of the samples contained any sediment in the fine clay and medium clay fractions. The size
distributions were further simplified into the following ranges (Table 3-9):
clay: 0-2 um
silt: 2-53 um
sand and gravel: >53 um.
The sand and gravel (>53 um) and silt (2-53 fim) fractions were the most dominant fractions. Red
clay (0-2 um) exceeded 45% at some of the Howard's Bay sites (especially HOB 11). The
surficial sediments from KMB 4 and KMB 5 were over 25% clay. Most of the depth profiles at
the other sites had a clay content less than 20%.
Some of the sandiest sediments were found at Erie Pier (especially ERP 2-5) and Slip C
(especially SUS 5-7 and the deepest core sections of SUS 1, SUS 2, and SUS 4). Some of the
"high" sand and gravel values for the inner SUS sites may actually be due to wood chunks and
wood fibers in the sediments resulting from operations at the nearby Georgia-Pacific plant This
plant produces compressed wood products. High sand and gravel concentrations exceeding 9Qฐ/
were also found in selected core sections of the following sites: HOB 6, MLH 6 MLH 8 MNS 4
MNS 5, and WLS 4.
17
-------
The highest silt content (i.e., 66.7%) was measured in the 189-204 cm core segment of WLS 1.
This site was located closest to the Miller and Coffee Creek outfalls. The next highest silt
measurement (i.e., 66.3%) was found in the 30-45 cm segment of STP 4. This site was located
east of the city of Superior WWTP outfall. The highest surficial silt content of 64.3% was
measured in the 0-20 cm core segment of WLS 9. This site was located in the 21st Avenue West
Channel which is no longer dredged.
The WLS and STP sites generally had the highest silt concentrations. This appears to be
predominately due to the deposition of silt particles from stormwater and effluent discharges. The
KMB and DMIR areas also had several surficial sites exceeding 45% silt; most of these sites are
not dredged.
3.2.2 Total Organic Carbon
All of the samples were analyzed for TOC (Table 3-10). The lowest TOC value of 0.18% was
measured in the 60-76 cm segment of MLH 8; this sample was composed of coarse brown sand.
The highest TOC value of 27% was noted at two WLS sites: WLS 5 (30-45 cm), which contained
oil and coal chunks, and WLS 8 (90-105 cm) which contained wood fiber. Other high TOC values
were recorded in sediments containing either oil, fly ash, coal, or wood detritus. Most of the
surficial samples were below 5% TOC.
3.2.3 Ammonia
Surficial ammonia was measured at five of the hotspot areas, as well as Kimball's Bay
(Table 3-11). In addition, ammonia was measured in the bottom core segment of the WLS sites
(Table 3-11). The lowest ammonia concentration of 3.3 mg/kg was measured in the upper 5 cm of
ERP 5. The highest ammonia concentration of 219 mg/kg was measured in the 0-21 cm segment
of WLS 11; this site was located in the old 21st Ave. West Channel. The ammonia concentrations
were compared to the Ontario Open Water Disposal guidelines of 100 mg/kg ammonia. Two sites
in Kimball's Bay, two sites in Minnesota Slip, six surficial sites in the WLSSD/Coffee and Miller
Creek embayment, and seven deep sites of this embayment exceeded the Ontario guidelines.
3.2.4 Total Arsenic and Lead
Total arsenic and lead were measured at all of the depth profiles for the Howard's Bay sites (Table
3-12). All but five samples exceeded the OMOEE LEL value of 6 mg/kg for arsenic. The 15-30
cm segment of HOB 14 exceeded the OMOEE SEL value of 33 mg/kg arsenic. All but four
samples exceeded the OMOEE LEL value of 31 mg/kg lead. Three sites exceeded the OMOEE
SEL value of 250 mg/kg lead. These sites included the: 5-20 cm segment of HOB 1 (1,500
mg/kg), 30-45 cm segment of HOB 4 (1,350 mg/kg), and 0-10 cm segment of HOB 13 (269
mg/kg). HOB 1 was located in the navigation channel west of the Highway 53 bridge, HOB 4 was
located northeast of the shipping channel, and HOB 13 was located at the entrance of Dry Dock
No. 1 (Figure 3-3). Figure 3-10 shows the depth profile of lead at each of the HOB sites; in some
cases, only a surficial sample could be collected due to the hard sand substrate.
18
-------
3.2.5 AVS and SEM
AVS and SEM were measured at Kimball's Bay and four of the hotspot areas (i.e., DMIR, ERP,
HOB, and MLH sites). AVS results are given in Table 3-13, whereas the SEM results for
cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc are given in Table 3-14. The individual SEM values were
normalized for AVS and summed together in Table 3-15.
SEM/AVS ratios greater than 1.0 indicate bioavailability of the divalent metal, and hence a greater
chance of toxicity to benthic biota (Ankley et al., 1994). The SEM/AVS depth profiles for three
Howard's Bay sites are shown in Figure 3-11. The SEM/AVS ratios were much greater in the
deeper sections of the HOB sites than in the surficial sections. The highest SEM/AVS ratio of 46
was recorded in the 30-45 cm section of HOB 7. Unless this section was re-exposed to the
surface, it presents a low risk to biota since they would not be exposed to the deeper sediments.
For the surficial SEM/AVS ratios, the highest value of 17 was recorded for the 0-5 cm section of
HOB 8; copper and zinc contributed the most to this exceedance. HOB 8 was located at the
entrance of Dry Dock No. 2.
Thirty-eight percent of the surficial sites exceeded a SEM/AVS ratio of 1.0, including all four
DMIR sites. Erie Pier and Kimball's Bay had the lowest SEM/AVS ratios, except for one site at
each location which exceeded 1.0.
The SEM lead and total lead values for Howard's Bay are compared to each other in Table 3-16.
For the two sites grossly contaminated with total lead [i.e., HOB 1 (5-20 cm) and HOB 4 (30-45
cm)], the corresponding SEM results were much lower. This indicated that much of the lead at
these core sections was not bioavailable.
3.2.6 Mercury
Mercury was measured at most of the sample sites, except for the ERP and DMIR sites. Most of
the samples exceeded the OMOEE LEL of 0.2 mg/kg (Table 3-17). Mercury concentrations
ranged from nondetectable at a few HOB sites to 3.9 mg/kg in the 30-45 cm section of WLS 12
(Figure 3-12). This later value exceeded the OMOEE SEL value of 2.0 mg/kg mercury. The 15-
30 cm section of WLS 13 was also high in mercury with a concentration of 2 9 me/kg (Figure
3-12).
The depth profile of mercury at Slip C is shown hi Figure 3-13. For the most inland samples,
mercury peaked in the 30-45 cm section. This section was characterized by a lot of woody
fibrous material with oil interspersed in it. Although the inland sites were located near the'
Georgia-Pacific plant, other potential historical sources of contamination would need to be
evaluated before determining the source of this contamination.
The Howard's Bay mercury samples were not analyzed in a timely manner. The samples were
stored in whirlpak bags for approximately two years before analysis. As a result of this lone
19
-------
storage period, some of the environmental replicates had unacceptable QC for precision (Table
3-17).
The deepest core sections of the SUS and WLS sites were generally low in mercury (i.e., <0.2
mg/kg mercury). Thus, anthropogenic inputs from point and nonpoint sources have contributed to
the mercury load hi the more recently deposited Duluth/Superior Harbor sediments.
3.2.7 Dioxim/Furans
The upper two core sections of the WLS samples, in addition to the surficial KMB samples, were
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan). The analysis of the WLS samples
proved difficult due to an abnormal sediment matrix. Some WLS samples contained cresosote-
like chunks that interfered with the sample extraction.
As shown in Table 3-18, some samples had 0% surrogate recovery. Since there was not enough
sediment left over for the 0-15 cm sections of WLS 1, 2, 6, and 8 to be rerun, no results were
available for these samples. Acceptable TCDD results were obtained for 10 WLS samples,
whereas 17 WLS samples had acceptable TCDF results. For the WLS samples, TCDD ranged
from 3.4-22 pg/g and TCDF ranged from 0.7-37 pg/g. Neither TCDD or TCDF were detected at
any of the KMB sites.
3.2.8 PAHs
3.2.8.1 PAH fluorescence screen
The PAH fluorescence screen was used as an inexpensive, semi-quantitative technique to evaluate
a large number of samples for PAH contamination. Samples from the KMB, MLH, MNS, SUS,
and WLS sites were measured using this technique (Table 3-19). Qualitatively, the screening
method did not appear to correlate well with the corresponding quantitative PAH results (Table 3-
20). In most cases, the screening method grossly over-estimated the total PAH concentrations as
measured by GC/MS by one to two orders of magnitude. This difference may be partly due to
differences in the number of PAH compounds measured by each technique. Sixteen PAH
compounds were measured by the GC/MS method, whereas compounds containing aromatic rings,
such as PAHs, were measured in the fluorescence screen. Thus, other compounds besides PAHs
may have been measured in the PAH screen.
Some PAH fluorescence results underestimated the GC/MS results by one to two orders of
magnitude at the MNS, SUS, and WLS sites. No comparisons could be made for the STP samples
as quantitative results were only obtained on one core; the screening method was not run on the
STP samples.
Figure 3-14 contains the depth profile of screening PAHs measured in Slip C. In comparison,
GC/MS-determined PAHs for selected core sections of this boat slip are shown in Figure 3-15.
20
-------
Due to the variability in the screening PAH results, it was not possible to estimate the GC/MS
PAHs, with a high degree of confidence, for the missing core sections.
For this study, the screening PAH data were of limited usefulness for designating sites that
warranted quantitative PAH analysis. Physical observations about the sediment core sections
provided a good (and less expensive) indicator of PAH contamination. That is, samples that
appeared oily or contained fly ash, coal tar, coal, or wood product appeared to have the greatest
PAH contamination in this study. Thus, for the Duluth/Superior Harbor, physical observations
about the samples may provide a quick way of pre-selecting samples for quantitative PAH analysis
during field collection.
3.2.8.2 PAHs by GC/MS
Sixteen PAH compounds were quantified, by GC/MS, on selected samples from the KMB, MLH,
MNS, STP, SUS, and WLS sites (Table 3-20). The PAH results were normalized for TOC in
Table 3-21.
The data in Table 3-20 were compared to the OMOEE LEL values for available PAH compounds
and total PAHs. For values less than the detection limit, one-half the detection limit was used to
calculate total PAHs. Some of the results presented in Tables 3-20 and 3-21 were merged from
two separate sample runs. This was done because some PAH compounds exceeded the upper
calibration limit when the samples were run on the GC/MS. In this case, the sample was diluted
and rerun to bring the values within the calibration limit. The combined data results, then,
represent all the acceptable values from the first run plus the second run dilution values for
compounds that exceeded the calibration limits in the first run. Some results were only presented
by the analytical laboratory at a secondary dilution factor; these results are flagged in Tables 3-20
and 3-21.
Most of the surficial sediments had total PAH concentrations that exceeded the OMOEE LEL
value of 4,000 ug/kg, except at Kimball's Bay (mean = 2,000 jig/kg) and a few other sites. The
OMOEE SEL site-specific organic carbon normalized total PAH value was only exceeded in the
15-30 cm segment of MNS 4. As indicated in the 1993 sediment survey of the harbor, PAH
contamination appears to be widespread in the harbor (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1997). The
highest surficial PAH contamination occurred at Minnesota Slip (Figure 3-16). The PAH
concentrations at various depth intervals were also high at this site. Slip C (SUS sites) also had
widespread PAH contamination.
PAHs were measured in the bottom core segment of the 19 WLS sites. Only one of these samples
WLS 9, exceeded the OMOEE LEL value. This site was located hi the 21 st Ave. West Channel
which was used as a disposal site for dredged material shortly before the Erie Pier confined
disposal facility was built (Al Klein, Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication
September 11,1997). Thus, the sediment profile for WLS 9 was not representative of the rest f
the WLS sites.
21
-------
The proportion of PAH compounds present at each site was not examined. This procedure, in
addition to the use of multivariate statistics, could be used to determine sources of PAHs. There
are likely to be several historical and current sources of PAHs to the harbor resulting from the
incomplete combustion of coal and wood, as well as from coal tar sources, coking operations, coal
gasification plants, nonpoint runoff, and atmospheric transport and deposition of PAH compounds.
3.2.9 PCBs
3.2.9.1 Total PCBs
Congener-specific PCBs were measured at KimbalFs Bay and four hotspot areas (MNS, STP,
SUS, and WLS sites). The congeners were summed to yield total PCB concentrations
(Table 3-22). Nearly all of the core depths sampled exceeded the OMOEE No Effect Level (NEL)
of 10 ng/g PCBs. The OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs was exceeded at most of the sites,
except Kimball's Bay and some of the deeper core sections of the hotspot sites. The OMOEE SEL
value of 530 ng/g organic carbon was not exceeded at any of the sites.
The highest PCB concentrations were located in the 30-45 cm core segment of WLS 12 (1,270
ng/g) and WLS 1 (1,220 ng/g). WLS 12 was located south of the WLSSD outfall, whereas WLS 1
was the closest site to the Miller and Coffee Creek outlets. PCBs were also high in the 15-30 cm
segment of SUS 5 (1,140 ng/g). The depth profile of PCBs for the SUS sites are given in Figure
3-17. The highest peak of normalized PCBs occurred in the 15-30 cm section of SUS 5. This
sediment section was very oily when it was collected.
3.2.9.2 Congener PCBs
A subset of seven PCB congeners (Table 3-23) were selected for presentation in Table 3-24. The
full distribution of PCB congeners are available from the MPCA upon request. Congener numbers
101, 128, and 180 were selected due to their high priority for potential environmental importance
based on potential for toxicity, frequency of occurrence in environmental samples, and relative
abundance in animal tissues (McFarland and Clarke, 1989). Congener numbers 18, 52, and 201
were included on McFarland and Clarke's (1989) secondary list of important congeners.
Congener number 6 was selected to provide a representative dichlorobiphenyl measured in the
samples.
The distribution of congeners may provide an indication of different sources of PCBs to the
watershed. However, it was beyond the scope of this project to evaluate the data in that way.
Congener numbers 52 and 101 generally had the highest concentrations relative to the rest of the
congener subgroup. PCB congeners were detected even hi the deepest core sections of the WLS
sites down to 250 cm (i.e., at site WLS 6). Site WLS 6 was located in the 21st. Ave. West
Channel; this channel received dredged material for a few years during the 1970s. Thus, a deep
layer of sediments has been deposited at this site since PCBs came into production this century.
22
-------
3.3 TOXICITY TESTS
The 10-day toxicity tests were conducted on six batches of samples, all of which were run within
two months of sample collection. The two month holding time was acceptable for this study.
Detailed information on the sample collection and handling, methods, water quality and survival
results, data analysis, and H. azteca reference toxicant test results are provided in MPCA
laboratory reports given in Appendix B. In general, the pH ranges of all the toxicity tests were
acceptable. However, dissolved oxygen concentrations occasionally fell below 40% saturation in
the C. tentans tests. Temperature was slightly less than the recommended range of 23 ฑ 1ฐC (U.S.
EPA, 1994a) for most tests (i.e., down to 19.5ฐC).
In order for the test to pass, the mean control survival for H. azteca had to be greater or equal to
80%. For C tentans, a mean control survival of 70% or greater was required for the test to pass.
Survival data from acceptable tests were analyzed statistically using TOXSTAT (Gulley and
WEST, Inc., 1994), a statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. All
survival data were expressed as a proportion and were transformed using an arc sine-square root
transformation prior to analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk's test for normality and Bartlett's test for
homogeneity of variance were run on the transformed data. Next, an Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was conducted. Next, the data were analyzed statistically using either a one-tailed
Dunnett's test (p = 0.05) or nonparametric statistical analysis, as needed. A sample was
considered toxic when mean percent survival was significantly lower than mean control survival.
3.3.1 Acute Toxicity to Hyalella azteca
Table 3-25 shows the mean percent survival of//, azteca resulting from the 44 toxicity tests. One
batch of six tests, shaded in Table 3-25, failed due to barely unacceptable control survival (i.e.,
78%). For this batch of tests, two of the samples had 80% survival, and the corresponding
reference toxicant controls had acceptable survival (i.e., 93%). Therefore, the H. azteca culture
appeared to be healthy. Although the results were not analyzed statistically, due to control failure,
the mean percent survival in SUS 7 (i.e., 45%) and STP 6 (i.e., 50%) appeared to be highly
depressed relative to the control.
Of the tests that had acceptable control survival, five samples had significantly less survival than
the corresponding controls: DMR1, ERP 2, HOB 12, HOB 13, and MLH 4. Of these sites, only
DMIR 1 had significant mortality in the C. tentans test as well. The specific cause of toxicity
could not be determined.
In Table 3-26, the test survival was divided by the corresponding control survival to yield a
normalized survival value. This procedure allowed non-contaminant effects to be separated from
contaminant effects. Because sample survival was examined relative to the control survival it is
possible to have percent survival numbers greater than 100%. The U.S. EPA's Environm tal
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) considers sediments with survival less than SQฐ/
be toxic, and less than 60% to be very toxic (Strobel et al., 1995). Of the statistically signific ฐt ฐ
samples designated in Table 3-26, all five samples had normalized survival values less than SO0/
23
-------
one sample, HOB 13, was very toxic with a normalized survival of 59%. Five other samples,
including two samples that barely failed the toxicity test (e.g., STP 6 and SUS 7), also had
normalized survival less than 80%. Samples ERP 1 (73%), HOB 11 (77%), and WLS 3 (78%)
appeared to have toxicity due to contamination. Qualitatively, STP 6 (64%) and SUS 7 (58%)
appeared to be toxic and very toxic, respectively.
3.3.2 Acute Toxicity to Chironomus tentans
The survival of C. tentans in the 10-day sediment toxicity tests is given in Table 3-25. Two
batches of tests failed due to unacceptable control survival (i.e., <70%). The test batch including
ERP 3, KMB 4, KMB 5, STP 6, STP 7, and SUS 7 barely failed with a corresponding control
survival of 68%. The test batch including HOB 7, HOB 8, MNS 1, MNS 3, STP 1, STP 4, SUS 5,
WLS 12, WLS 13, WLS 14, and WLS 16 had a larger control failure of 52% mean control
survival. Qualitatively, some interpretation can be provided for the previous batch. The later
batch had too much control mortality to qualitatively interpret the test results.
Of the samples that had acceptable control survival, three samples (DMIR 1, SUS 3, and WLS 1)
had significantly less survival than the corresponding controls. The specific cause of toxicity
could not be determined. All three of these samples had normalized survival less than 80%; SUS
3 was very toxic with a normalized survival less than 60% (Table 3-26).
Of the other samples that had acceptable control survival, STP 3 and SUS 1 appeared to have some
toxicity due to contamination. Of the samples which barely failed the toxicity test, KMB 4
appeared to be toxic and SUS 7 was extremely toxic. SUS 7 was the only sample that had 0%
mean survival.
3.3.3 Chronic Toxicity to Chironomus tentans
Growth (weight) was measured at the end of the C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Although
the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not calibrated
with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of the balance
may have drifted with time. Due to this quality assurance problem, the growth data could not be
analyzed statistically.
3.4 BENTHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
3.4.1 Sampling Design
A total of 241 samples were collected from nine areas within the Duluth/Superior Harbor during
August to October 1994. At each site, four to twenty stations were designated, and three replicate
samples were collected with a gravity core sampler. Exceptions to this sampling design were as
follows:
24
-------
the DMIR sites were sampled with a Ponar grab sampler (6x6 inches)
site WLS 20 was not sampled
sites STP 9 and STP 11 were not sampled
ERP 4 was sampled, but the samples were misplaced. These samples were discovered too
late to have them enumerated.
only one replicate was taken at site SUS 8.
3.4.2 Ecology and Feeding Habits of Abundant Benthic Organisms
Although the macroinvertebrate fauna varied throughout the harbor, some organisms were
commonly found at most of the sites. Section 3.4.3 discusses the mean total abundance and taxa
richness values for each hotspot area and KimbalFs Bay. This section provides a brief summary
of the most abundant organisms found, including their ecology and feeding requirements [as
described hi Pennak (1978)]. The most abundant organisms hi the harbor have adapted to living in
a slow moving water environment and have developed strategies to tolerate low dissolved oxygen
conditions. Some of these organisms are also pollutant tolerant, thus giving them a competitive
advantage for living in contaminated sediments.
3.4.2.1 Oligochaetes: Naididae and Tubificidae
The Naididae and Tubificidae are oligochaetes (i.e., aquatic earthworms). They are commonly
found hi the mud and debris substrate of streams and lakes, especially hi stagnant areas. They are
sometimes abundant in masses of filamentous algae. These organisms ingest substrate down to 2-
3 cm below the surface, digesting the organic component as it passes through their alimentary
canal. Food may consist of filamentous algae, diatoms, or miscellaneous plant and animal
detritus.
Tubificids, especially Tubifex tubifex, are concentrated in areas contaminated with sewage. This
species is usually considered an indicator of organic pollution, especially where the water is 10-
60% saturated with oxygen. Most tubificids build tubes and project the posterior end of their body
in the water to circulate it and make more oxygen available to the body surface (Figure 3-16).
This movement allows them to thrive in low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Many species
are able to withstand the complete absence of oxygen for extended periods of time. Tubificid
oligochaetes were abundant at all of the areas sampled hi this survey.
3.4.2.2 Polychaetes: Manayunkia speciosa
Manayunkia speciosa has some of the same habitat and food preferences as the oligochaet
(Figure 3-16). M. speciosa is widely distributed hi the Great Lakes region. It is 3-5 mm 1
25
-------
inhabits a tube built of either mud or sand and mucus. This species was abundant at certain
stations of Kimball's Bay, Minnesota Slip, WLSSD embayment, and the M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2
and Grassy Point areas.
3.4.2.3 Phantom midges: Chaoborus
Chaoborus are in the order Diptera. The larvae are abundant everywhere in large ponds and lakes.
Chaoborus migrate daily, being confined to the bottom waters and mud during the day and
migrating to the surface waters at night. Chaoborus are predatory and catch small Crustacea and
insect larvae. They are able to extract oxygen from the water at low concentrations through the
use of a pair of pigmented air sacs in the thorax and another pair in the posterior end of the
abdomen (Figure 3-16). Chaoborus were abundant at some stations of Howard's Bay and
Kimball's Bay.
3.4.2.4 True midges: Chironomus
Chironomid larvae (e.g., blood worms) occur everywhere in aquatic vegetation and on the bottoms
of all types of sluggish, fresh water bodies (Figure 3-16). They are mostly herbivorous and feed
on algae, higher aquatic plants, and organic detritus. They build flimsy tubes of organic detritus,
algae, and/or small sand grains and silt. Most of their food comes from plankton derived from the
outside water and caught on temporary nets extending across the diameter of the tube.
Chironomid larvae are an important food item for young and adult fishes. Chironomids were
commonly found in Kimball's Bay, the DM&IR site, Erie Pier, Howard's Bay, and Slip C. They
were noticeably absent from Minnesota Slip.
3.4.3 Site Assessments
The following subsections provide mean total abundance and taxa richness values for each of the
sites included hi this study. The reference site at Kimball's Bay was intended to be used as an
unimpacted site by which the other site data could be compared to. However, Kimball's Bay was
not an appropriate reference site due to the low abundance and richness of organisms. Thus, there
was no benchmark by which to classify the benthic community as being healthy or impacted to
some degree. In general, most of the sites had low species richness and included taxa that were
tolerant of moderate perturbations. Oligochaetes and chironomids were the dominant organisms.
Similarly, a benthic study of three other Great Lakes AOCs (Buffalo River, NY; Indiana Harbor,
IN; Saginaw River, MI) showed that oligochaetes and chironomids comprised over 90% of the
benthic invertebrate numbers collected from depositional areas (Canfield et al., 1996).
3.4.3.1 DMIR sites
Except for DMIR 4, this area was characterized by very low mean total abundance (215-1,120
organisms/m2) and taxa richness values (3 to 7) (Table 3-27). Tubificids dominated the fauna at
these sites, comprising 73-82% of the fauna (Table 3-28). DMIR 4 was exceptional by having a
26
-------
mean total abundance of 2,985 organisms/m2 and a richness value of 17; one replicate had a
richness value of 23, which was the highest recorded richness value for the entire study. Eight
taxa of chironomids, 6 taxa of other insects, 9 taxa of tubificids, and 4 other taxa were present
amongst all of the sites (Appendix C).
3.4.3.2 ERP sites
Total mean abundance values were 4,900 to 14,283 organisms/m2 and taxa richness values were 7
to 17 (Table 3-27). Site ERP 3 had the greatest values for each metric, whereas site ERP 5 had the
lowest values. Chironomids, tubificids, and naidid oligochaetes dominated the fauna at these sites
(Table 3-29). Chironomids were especially diverse, with 8 to 11 taxa collected at sites ERP 1-3;
only 4 taxa were collected at ERP 5 (Appendix C). The greatest values of chironomid abundance
and richness for all areas sampled during this study were found at ERP 3, with mean values of
3,654 larvae/m2 and 11 taxa. Oligochaetes were also diverse at ERP 2, with 7 taxa present; naidid
oligochaetes were absent at ERP 1 and very few were present at ERP 5. ERP 4 was not sampled.
3.4.3.3 HOB sites
Mean total abundance values for HOB 1-7 and HOB 10-15 ranged from 2,740 to 15,114
organisms/m2 with mean taxa richness values of 6 to 15 (Table 3-27). Tubificids and chironomids
comprised the majority of the fauna (35-73%), with Pisidium ranging from 2-27% and Chaoborus
0-24% (Table 3-30). HOB 8 and 9 appeared to be severely impacted, with a mean total abundance
value of 249 organisms/m2 and a mean taxa richness value of 1 for both stations. These sites were
located outside the entrance to active Dry Dock No. 2, and they appeared to be well-scoured. The
substrate was extremely hard red clay which was difficult to sample. Thus, physical factors may
have had a limiting effect on the biota at HOB 8 and 9. The types of taxa observed at the HOB
sites are given in Appendix C.
3.4.3.4 KMB sites
Kimball's Bay was chosen as the reference site. However, mean values of total abundance and
taxa richness were low, with total organisms averaging 1,578 to 4,734 organisms/m2 and richness
values averaging between 3 to 8 at the five sites (Table 3-27). KMB 3 had the greatest abundance,
with chironomid midges, tubificid oligochaetes, and the polychaete Manayunkia speciosa each
comprising 25-32% of the faunal composition (Table 3-31). However, the chironomids and
tubificids had low diversity of only 3 to 4 species at this site (Appendix C). The most abundant
taxon was the phantom midge Chaoborus spp. at sites KMB 4 and 5, ranging from 498 to 3 986
larvae/m and comprising 66-73% of the fauna (Table 3-31). Since, Chaoborus migrate vertically
on a diurnal basis, the abundance of this organism varies daily.
It appears that Kimball's Bay was not suitable as a reference site. The macroinvertebrate fauna in
the bay was low in abundance and diversity. This may be caused by unsuitable bottom substr t
or possibly low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The bay does not appear to have a substantial inlet
feeder stream and it may be sheltered from the main flow of the St. Louis River Thu th no
27
-------
levels may be a limiting factor. The most abundant benthic organisms in Kimball's Bay were
tolerant of low DO levels.
3.4.3.5 MLH sites
2
Mean total abundance values for the 10 MLH sites ranged from 2,491 to 10,214 organisms/m ;
mean taxa richness values were low, ranging from 2 to 8 (Table 3-27). Tubificids were the
dominant group at sites MLH 1-3 and MLH 10, comprising 42-69% of the fauna (Table 3-32).
Manayunkia speciosa accounted for 33-79% of the fauna at sites MLH 4-9 (Table 3-32). The
types of taxa observed at the MLH sites are given in Appendix C.
3.4.3.6 MNS sites
Minnesota Slip was dominated by oligochaetes. Tubificids had very high mean abundance values
of 9,218 to 50,656 individuals/m2, which comprised 59-89% of the fauna (Table 3-33). Naidid
oligochaetes were also relatively abundant. Mean abundance values for total oligochaetes were
10,131 to 53,231 individuals/m (Appendix C), which was the highest mean abundance value
recorded for oligochaetes for the entire study. These two groups comprised 64-93% of the fauna
and had taxa richness values ranging from 5 to 12 in the replicates. The clam Pisidium was
relatively abundant at all stations with mean abundance values ranging from 1,163 to 2,907
clams/m2. Nematodes were abundant at sites MNS 3 and 4, and Manayunkia speciosa was found
at site MNS 4 in large numbers. The insects, especially chironomids, were nearly absent. MNS 2
had the highest mean value for total abundance recorded for this study, with 57,051 organisms/m2
(Table 3-27). Overall, all stations recorded high mean total abundance values.
3.4.3.7 STP sites
Mean total abundance values ranged from 623 to 15,695 organisms/m2, and mean taxa richness
values ranged from 2 to 13 (Table 3-27). Site STP 8 had low total abundance and richness values.
The fauna at all the STP sites was dominated by tubificids (21-61%); naidids were abundant at site
STP 3 (41%) (Table 3-34). The types of taxa observed at the STP sites are given in Appendix C.
3.4.3.8 SUS sites
Oligochaetes were the dominant group at sites SUS 1-6, comprising 70-90% of the fauna, with
tubificids making up 62-85% (Table 3-35). Chironomids accounted for 53% of the fauna at site 7.
Mean total abundance values were relatively high at sites SUS 1-5 and SUS 7, with a range of
5,605-45,839 organisms/m2 (Table 3-27). Mean taxa richness values ranged from 7 to 13 (Table
3-27). Site SUS 6 had lower mean values of 2,118 organisms/m and a richness of 3; tubificids
were absent at this site. Replicates B and C were not taken at site SUS 8 due to the sandy
sediments. The types of taxa observed at the SUS sites are given in Appendix C.
28
-------
3.4.3.9 WLS sites
Mean total abundance values ranged from 1,121 to 38,116 organisms/m2, and mean taxa richness
values ranged from 2 to 15 at the nineteen WLS sites that were sampled (Table 3-27). Tubificid
oligochaetes were the dominant group, comprising 28-78% of the fauna. When tubificids were
less than 50% of the fauna, Manayunkia speciosa accounted for 17-57% of the fauna (Table 3-36).
Pisidium was relatively common, making up 9-26% of the fauna at sites WLS 1-11. The types of
taxa observed at the WLS sites are given in Appendix C.
3.4.4 Chironomid Deformities
Deformities in the menta of chironomid larvae were recorded. Chironomus and Procladius were
the only taxa that showed larval deformities (Table 3-37). Since the sample size was small, the
results should be viewed as preliminary information. Chironomid larval deformities have been
studied more intensely in a similarly contaminated AOC, the Buffalo River, NY. The genus
Chironomus frequently displayed mentum abnormalities in the Buffalo River, whereas the genus
Procladius appeared to either be more tolerant of industrial pollution, or else responded to a
different suite of contaminants than did Chironomus (Diggins and Stewart, 1993). Chironomus
generally display 0-3% abnormal menta at non-industrial sites (Diggins and Stewart, 1993).
3.4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The overall average picking efficiency was 92.4% (i.e. 7.6% of all organisms were missed during
the first pick). Eleven of the 25 QC samples failed the 10% picking error level. However, ten of
these samples were represented by very low numbers of total organisms (approximately 26);
missing only a few specimens can artificially increase the picking error percentage, but have
negligible impact on data interpretation. The remaining sample had a picking error of 16% with a
total organism count of 275. The person who picked this sample failed to recognize 38
polychaetes that were hidden inside of their debris tunnels. This problem was immediately
corrected and no further problems occurred. A picking efficiency of 96.9% (i.e., 3.1% picking
error) is the result of the QA checks if the eleven samples just mentioned were disregarded. In
summary, the QC checks for the picking efficiency procedure passed LSRI's internal error levels.
29
-------
CHAPTER 4
SEDIMENT QUALITY TRIAD APPROACH
4.1 BACKGROUND
The Sediment Quality Triad (Triad) is an effects-based approach that can be used to describe
sediment quality. With this approach, data from synoptic chemical and physical analyses, whole-
sediment toxicity tests, and benthic community surveys are integrated to yield information on the
range of clean to degraded sites in an area. Thus, a weight-of-evidence approach is used to
develop an overall characterization of sediment quality. The Triad approach has been used
successfully at other sites to:
prioritize areas for remedial actions
determine size of contaminated areas
verify quality of reference areas
determine contaminant concentrations always associated with effects
describe ecological relationships between sediment properties and biota at risk (Chapman,
1992).
The three components of the Triad approach provide complementary data. However, no single
component of the Triad can be used to predict the measurements of the other components
(Chapman, 1992). The following assumptions apply to this approach:
The Triad approach allows for: 1) interactions between contaminants in complex sediment
mixtures (e.g., additivity, antagonism, synergism); 2) actions of unidentified toxic chemicals;
and 3) effects of environmental factors that influence biological responses (including toxicant
concentrations).
Selected chemical contaminant concentrations are appropriate indicators of overall chemical
contamination.
Bioassay results and values of selected benthic community structure variables are appropriate
indicators of biological effects (Chapman, 1992).
Triad data can be evaluated using several procedures, including ratio-to-reference (RTR) values
and non-RTR methods (e.g., ranking and multidimensional scaling). With the RTR approach, all
site data is normalized to reference site values by converting them to RTR values (Chapman,
1990). Thus, the values of specific variables (e.g., normalized concentrations of a particular
contaminant, percent mortality in a particular bioassay, number of taxa) are divided by the
corresponding reference values. The reference site may be a single station or an area containing
several stations for which data are averaged. Mean indices of contamination, toxicity, and
benthic community structure can be developed and plotted on triaxial plots (Chapman, 1992).
The RTR approach has the following shortcomings:
30
-------
substantial loss of information during the conversion of multivariate data into single
proportional indices
loss of any spatial relational information
inability to statistically assess significance of spatial impacts
requirement of an appropriate reference station.
Ranking and multi-dimensional scaling methods reduce some of the problems associated with
the RTR approach. Kreis (1988 as cited in Canfield et al., 1994) has developed procedures to
rank toxicity, benthos, and chemistry data. Simple ranking can also be done by ranking the sites
relative to each other for each endpoint (Table 4-1). The average of these rankings across
endpoints orders the sites from impacted to clean sites, relative to each other. Either equal
weightings can be given to each endpoint or a weighting system may be applied. Sites with very
low and very high average rankings have the greatest degree of concordance among endpoints.
Sites with intermediate average rankings could either have intermediate performance for all
endpoints, or high performance for some endpoints and low for others, averaging out to
intermediate.
Simple ranking can be used to combine information across endpoints with different scales.
However, it loses the magnitude of the differences between sites by ranking the data. For
example, sediment toxicity results of 0%, 40%, and 45% survival would be ranked as 1,2, and 3.
Thus, no indication would be given that there was a greater difference between the 0% and 40%
survival results than the 40% and 45% results. Classical multi-dimensional scaling (CMD) can
be used to represent multi-dimensional distances in fewer dimensions for easier display and
interpretation (Frank Dillon, EVS Consultants, personal communication, 1997). Two-
dimensional plots can be made using CMD to show how the sites differ in their performance of
the endpoints. The CMD plot confirms the characteristics of the sites already identified by
ranking. In addition, the plots can provide an indication of how far these sites fall outside the
normal range.
4.2 APPLICATION OF THE TRIAD APPROACH TO THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR
HARBOR
For this study, the number of surficial sites sampled for each component of the Triad (Table 4-2)
was as follows:
sediment chemistry: 80 sites
sediment toxicity: 44 sites
benthological community survey: 80 sites (including SUS 8, which was not sampled for
chemistry/toxicity, and excluding ERP 4 which was sampled for chemistry only).
Sediment toxicity tests could not be performed at all of the sites due to budget constraints
Therefore, the Triad approach could be applied to a maximum of 44 sites that had all thre
components. Of this subset of sites, six sites barely failed the toxicity tests for both H
and C. tentans; these results would need to be interpreted qualitatively rather than quantitatT11
31
-------
Eleven additional sites failed the toxicity test for C. tentans at too great of a level to even
evaluate the data qualitatively (i.e., 52% control survival was observed rather than the minimum
requirement of 70%). Therefore, a weighting factor would need to be applied to compensate for
the paired toxicity tests that had excessive control mortality in the batch of eleven C. tentans
samples.
Kimball's Bay was not an appropriate reference site for the benthic community survey due to
low mean values of total abundance and taxa richness. Both sediment toxicity tests for KMB 4
and KMB 5 barely failed the control survival requirements for H. azteca and C. tentans.
Qualitatively, when the sample survival results were normalized for control survival, the C.
tentans results for KMB 4 appeared to be toxic. The cause of this toxicity could not be
determined.
Because Kimball's Bay was not an appropriate reference site, the Triad data could not be
evaluated using the RTR approach. Another approach, the simple ranking system, could not be
used consistently for the sediment chemistry results. This was because the suite of contaminants
measured at each hotspot area varied depending on the major contaminants of concern
determined in the 1993 sediment survey. The MNS, SUS, and WLS sediment chemistry was
comparable since all sites had quantitative PAHs, PCBs, mercury, and ammonia data collected in
addition to TOC and particle size. As discussed in the following sections of this report, each of
the above sites had other contaminants of concern (e.g., heavy metals) which represented a data
gap in the 1994 results. Although ranking could be done for the subset of MNS, SUS, and WLS
sites, the uncertainty of excluding other contaminants of concern would need to be addressed.
Some of the other hotspot areas (e.g., Howard's Bay) had SEM/AVS measurements, but did not
have any PAH or PCB measurements done even though these were designated contaminants of
concern at the 1993 sample sites. In order to conduct this study at the number of hotspot sites
desired, it was necessary to reduce the number of expensive organic analyses that were
conducted. For Howard's Bay, PAHs should be included in any future surveys due to potential
sources of PAHs from historical coal piles and coal-burning ship traffic.
Classical multi-dimensional scaling was not considered for interpreting the triad data. This was
because the MPCA lacks the in-house statistical expertise and statistical software necessary to
carry out this data evaluation. The data interpretation would also be hindered by not having an
appropriate reference site.
4.3 OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE 1994 DATA SET
In this study, the sediment chemistry data were compared to OMOEE sediment quality guideline
values for available contaminants. The MPCA, with assistance from a consultant, will be
developing sediment quality guidelines for the St. Louis River Area of Concern during federal
fiscal years 1998 -1999. These biologically-based guideline values will be based on site-specific
chemistry/toxicity data and will be augmented with regional and national data, where necessary.
The matching sediment chemistry and toxicity data from this study will be pooled with other
synoptic data to evaluate correlations between contaminant concentrations and sediment toxicity.
32
-------
In addition, Smith et al. (1996) have developed biologically-based sediment quality assessment
values for freshwater systems; their values may provide another valuable benchmark that St.
Louis River AOC sediments can be compared to. For future development of hotspot
management plans in the St. Louis River AOC, the MPCA plans on comparing sediment (Juallty
to our own guideline values. Other jurisdictional guideline (or assessment) values would be used
to fill in data gaps for chemicals the MPCA is unable to develop guideline values for.
Of the 44 sites tested for acute toxicity in this survey, ten sites appeared to be toxic to H. azteca
(Table 3-26); this included two sites that barely failed the control survival requirement of 80%.
Seven sites appeared to be acutely toxic to C. tentans (Table 3-26); this included two sites that
barely failed the control survival requirement of 70%. The cause of this toxicity could not be
determined. Detailed sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation tests would need to be
conducted to pinpoint the causative agent(s) responsible for toxicity. Although these types of
tests have been successfully used for water column and effluent samples, they are still under
development for application to sediment samples.
The Duluth/Superior Harbor is contaminated with bioaccumulative contaminants such as
mercury, PCBs, and PAHs. The MPCA will be collecting moderately contaminated sediments
from the harbor during the summer of 1998. These sediments will be sent to a toxicology
laboratory where 28-day bioaccumulation tests with Lumbriculus variegatus will be conducted
for mercury, PCBs, and PAHs. This small scope project will help to address the question of how
much do these contaminants bioaccumulate in benthic invertebrates.
The mean total abundance for the benthological community ranged from 215 organisms/m at
DMIR 1 to 57,051 organisms/m2 at MNS 2. Differences in abundance between stations may be
due to a number of factors, including: 1) differing contaminant levels; 2) variation in substrate,
which would preclude colonization by the invertebrates; 3) depth of the station, which may
prohibit invertebrates because of wave action or ship/boat traffic; and/or 4) other unmeasured
variables (Canfield et al., 1994).
The benthos data collected during this survey will serve as a valuable baseline to compare status
and trends of benthological surveys conducted at similar time periods in the future. As part of
the R-EMAP project, which is being carried out in the St. Louis River AOC, the benthological
community structure of 140 sites (most randomly selected) is being statistically compared to
physical (e.g., particle size, TOC), chemical (i.e., screening PAHs, mercury, AVS/SEM), and
sediment toxicity test results (i.e., Microtox and 10-day toxicity tests with H. azteca and C.
tentans). Based on preliminary results, some of the variance in the R-EMAP benthological data
appears to be due to physical factors which affect the type of habitat available to them. At
several sites in this survey, the benthological community was dominated by pollution-tolerant
organisms that were able to withstand the stresses of a low oxygen environment. Although
dissolved oxygen was not measured in this survey, several of the major organisms found in this
survey had physiological/behavioral adaptations to increase their ability to absorb oxygen from
the overlying water. The high species richness that occurred at some of the sites (e.g., Minnesota
Slip) was due to the high number of pollutant-tolerant taxa rather than a diverse assemblage of
organisms.
33
-------
4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF HOTSPOT MANAGEMENT PLANS
One goal of this study was to use the Triad approach to assist the MFC A in developing sediment
management plans for hotspot areas hi the Duluth/Superior Harbor. The Triad data interpretation
would have been one component of this process. Phase II of the RAP Sediment Strategy for the
St. Louis River AOC lists the following components for the development of hotspot management
plans:
determine potentially responsible parties
determine community goals for the site
determine clean-up goals
map site to determine extent of problem and volume of contaminants
develop remediation scenarios with costs
conduct a feasibility study
explore potential sources of funds.
The above factors will need to be developed through remediation scoping projects at designated
hotspot sites. This process is currently taking place at the Slip C site. Additional sediment core
sampling for quantitative PAHs, PCBs, mercury, lead, TOC, and particle size was conducted
during June 1997. These data will be pooled with previously collected data to develop three-
dimensional maps of sediment contamination, at depth, in Slip C. From these maps, volumes of
contaminants will be estimated. Other sites recommended for remediation scoping projects are
listed in the next chapter of this report.
34
-------
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study provided key information on contaminant distributions, benthological community
structure, and potential sediment toxicity at hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. As
such, this study accomplished the assessment goals of the RAP sediment strategy. The database
arising from this study will provide a valuable link with other sediment data generated for the
Duluth/Superior Harbor. This data compilation will allow Minnesota and Wisconsin state
agencies to move forward to Phase II of the RAP strategy: development of hotspot management
plans. The MPCA is already conducting a sediment remediation scoping project at Slip C which
will result in a hotspot management plan. For the USX and Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund
sites, the MPCA Site Response section is working towards Phase III of the RAP strategy (i.e.,
implementation of a remediation action). Similarly, sediment remediation is being planned for
the Newton Creek and Hog Island Inlet contaminated area in Superior.
In the 1993 sediment survey report, several general recommendations were made for the
management of contaminated sediments in the harbor (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1997).
For this study, recommendations are listed below which pertain to the results of this survey.
Conduct sediment remediation scoping projects at the following hotspot sites [recommend
using a risk-based approach which utilizes local or regional sediment quality guidelines (to
be developed in FY98-99 by the MPCA) to screen contaminants of concern]:
Minnesota Slip: contaminants of concern for this slip should include PAHs, PCBs,
and mercury. In addition, the following contaminants, which exceeded the OMOEE
LEL guideline values at the 1993 sample sites, should be considered: cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and p,p'-DDD + o,p'-DDT. Toxaphene has also
been detected in this slip. TOC and particle size would be important ancillary
measurements. Sampling should be prioritized in the middle part of the slip.
WLSSD/Coffee and Miller Creek Embayment: contaminants of concern for this area
should include PAHs, PCBs, mercury, and ammonia. In addition, the following
contaminants, which exceeded the OMOEE LEL guideline values at the 1993 sample
sites, should be considered: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
dieldrin, p,p'-DDE, and p,p'-DDD + o,p'-DDT. Other contaminants (i.e., dioxins,
furans, toxaphene) detected in the 1993 survey should be considered as well. TOC
and particle size would be important ancillary measurements. A sediment
remediation scoping project for this site could be tied into a proposed 21st Ave. West
Channel habitat enhancement project.
Howard's Bay: contaminants of concern for this area should include arsenic, lead,
copper, nickel, zinc, and mercury. In addition, the following contaminants, which
35
-------
exceeded the OMOEE LEL guideline values at the 1993 sample sites, should be
considered: PAHs, PCBs, aldrin, dieldrin, and p,p'-DDE. TOC and particle size
would be important ancillary measurements. The area around Howard's Bay used to
have many historical coal pile storage areas, as well as the historical production of
coal-powered ships. Thus, PAHs are an important contaminant to include in any
future surveys of this area. The 1993 sediment site near Fraser Shipyards also had the
highest aldrin and dieldrin levels observed in that survey (Schubauer-Berigan and
Crane, 1997) and should be evaluated further.
Embayment surrounding the M.L. Hibbard plant/DSD No. 2 and Grassy Point:
contaminants of concern for this area should include PAHs, mercury, and zinc. In
addition, the following contaminants, which exceeded the OMOEE LEL guideline
values at the 1993 sample sites, should be considered: arsenic, chromium, PCBs, and
p,p'-DDD + o,p'-DDT. TOC and particle size would be important ancillary
measurements.
Superior WWTP: contaminants of concern for this area should include PCBs and
mercury. PAHs were measured at only one core in the 1994 survey and were found to
be elevated; thus, additional information needs to be collected on the distribution of
PAHs at this site. In addition, the following contaminants, which exceeded the
OMOEE LEL guideline values at the 1993 sample sites, should be considered:
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. TOC and particle size
would be important ancillary measurements.
Promote the funding and implementation of a habitat enhancement project at the 21st Avenue
West Channel, located east of WLSSD. The general concept of this project has wide ranging
support from the Harbor Technical Advisory Committee, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Detroit District. If funding is secured, this project would allow for the disposal of
clean dredged material from Erie Pier into the 21 st Avenue West Channel. Clean dredged
material could also be used to cap the contaminated sediments in the WLSSD/Coffee and
Miller Creek Embayment; a wetland would be created as a result of this action. This project
would need to determine contaminant loadings from Coffee and Miller Creeks to ensure the
area does not get recontaminated.
Determine more appropriate reference sites, than Kimball's Bay, for benthological
community surveys. The statistically random sampling design of the R-EMAP project may
reveal more appropriate reference sites in the St. Louis River AOC.
Conduct hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling in the Duluth/Superior Harbor.
Hydrodynamic modeling will determine the long-term movement of water masses and
associated contaminants in the harbor. Since contaminants are strongly associated with the
fine sediment fraction, sediment transport modeling can focus on the dynamics of suspended
sediments in the harbor. In particular, the hydrodynamics and sediment transport of
Minnesota Slip needs to be studied to determine if contaminants focus hi this slip from other
36
-------
harbor sources. This modeling effort will also serve as the basis for any future environmental
fate modeling that may be conducted for selected contaminants. In addition, hydrodynamic
and sediment transport modeling is needed to address how potential changes to the waterfront
(i.e., resulting from remediation) may affect the circulation patterns and sediment transport in
the harbor.
Conduct a contaminant loading study for the Duluth/Superior Harbor (or on a smaller scale
for well-defined hotspot areas). Preferably, annual and seasonal loadings would be
calculated for WLSSD and the Superior WWTP, as well as for combined sewer overflows,
stormwater runoff, and river and creek discharges. This information will be especially
important for sites designated to be remediated.
Discontinue the use of the PAH fluorescence screening technique on sediments from this
AOC. Instead, physical observations of the sediment core sections can provide an effective
visual screen for samples which should be analyzed for quantitative PAHs. Thus, samples
which appear oily or contain fly ash, coal tar, coal particles, and/or wood products should be
prioritized for quantitative analysis.
37
-------
REFERENCES
Ankley, G.T., N.A. Thomas, D.M. Di Toro, D.J. Hansen, J.D. Mahony, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swartz,
and R.A. Hoke. 1994. Assessing potential bioavailability of metals in sediments: A
proposed approach. Environ. Manage. 18:331-337.
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal system
for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated sediments.
Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Canfield, T.J., N.E. Kemble, W.G. Brumbaugh, F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll, and J.F. Fairchild.
1994. Use of benthic invertebrate community structure and the sediment quality triad to
evaluate metal-contaminated sediment in the Upper Clark Fork River, Montana. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 13:1999-2012.
Canfield, T.J., F.J. Dwyer, J.F. Fairchild, P.S. Haverland, C.G. Ingersoll, N.E. Kemble, D.R.
Mount. T.W. La Point, G.A. Burton, and M.C. Swift. 1996. Assessing contamination in
Great Lakes sediments using benthic invertebrate communities and the sediment quality triad
approach. J. Great Lakes Res. 22:565-583.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality triad approach to determining pollution-induced
degradation. Sci. Total Environ. 8:815-825.
Chapman, P.M. 1992. Sediment quality triad approach, pp. 10-1 through 10-18 in Sediment
Classification Methods Compendium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA 823-R-92-006.
Crane, J.L., A.M. Crampton, and J.P. Stecko. 1993. Development of interim sediment quality
criteria for contaminated sites in British Columbia. Prepared for Industrial Waste and
Hazardous Contaminants Branch, Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, BC. EVS Consultants, North Vancouver, BC. 45 pp. +
appendices.
Diggins, T.P. and K.M. Stewart. 1993. Deformities of aquatic larval midges (Chironomidae:
Diptera) in the sediments of the Buffalo River, New York. J. Great Lakes Res. 19:648-659.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT 3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 16:405-415.
McFarland, V.A. and J.U. Clarke. 1989. Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential
toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners: Considerations for a congener-specific
analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 81:225-239.
38
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)/Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR). 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan, Stage One. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI.
Pennak,R.W. 1978. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States. John Wiley & Sons: New
York, NY.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management
of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario (Revised). Report No. ISBN 0-7729-9248-7. Ontario
Ministry of Environment and Energy, Water Resources Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Schubauer-Berigan, M. 1994. Quality assurance project plan: Sediment contaminant assessment
at hotspots in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water
Quality Division, Duluth, MN.
Schubauer-Berigan, M. and J.L. Crane. 1996. Preliminary contaminant assessment of the
Thomson, Forbay, and Fond du Lac Reservoirs. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Water Quality Division, St. Paul, MN. 80 pp. + appendices.
Schubauer-Berigan, M. and J.L. Crane. 1997. Survey of sediment quality in the Duluth/Superior
Harbor: 1993 sample results. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R97-005.
Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Keenleyside, C.G. Ingersoll, and L.J. Field. 1996. A
preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J.
Great Lakes Res. 22:624-638.
Smith, V.E. and S.G. Rood. 1994. Sediment Sampling Surveys, pp. 33-56 in ARCS Assessment
Guidance Document. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago IL EPA-905-B94-
002. 316pp.
Strobel, C.J., H.W. Buffum, S.J. Benyi, E.A. Petrocelli, D.R. Reifsteck, and D.J. Keith. 1995.
Statistical summary: Emap-estuaries Virginian Province -1990 to 1993. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI. EPA/620/R-94/026.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. EPA's contaminated sediment management strategy. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 823-R-94-001.
39
-------
FIGURES
40
-------
Surficial Sediment (0-30 cm):
Total RCF of 17 contaminants
3-17
18-29
30 - 39
O40-49
86-91
Minnesota Slip
SlipC
WLSSD
Hearding Island
Duluth, MN
Lake Superior
Interlake Superfund Site
n
A
Total RCF 117: ranges from clean sites to potential
to affect some sensitive water uses.
Total RCF > 18 : will affect sediment use by some
benthic organisms.
0
H h-
1
Kilometers
3
31
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Figure 1-1. Total relative contamination factors (RCFs) for surficial sediments (i.e., 0-30 cm) collected during the 1993 sediment
survey of the Duluth/Superior Harbor (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane, 1997). RCF values were calculated for 17 contaminants by
normalizing the contaminant concentration by the respective Ontario Low Effect Level (LEL) guideline value.
41
-------
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Lake Superior
WLSSD/Mller Creek/
Coffee Creek
Inteflake/Duluth Tar
Superfund Site
USX Superfund
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
N
A
Figure 2-1. Location of study sites.
42
-------
Bay South of the DM & IR
Taconite Storage Facility (DMIR Sites)
DM &IR Taconite
Storage Facility
Meters
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Figure 3-1. Map of DMIR sample sites.
43
-------
Bay East of Erie Pier (ERP Sites)
50 0 50 100 150
Meters
I Minnesota Pollution
' Control Agency
International Welding
& Machinists
2'
Duluth/Superior Harbor
11
A
Figure 3-2. Map of ERP sample sites.
44
-------
Howard's Bay (HOB Sites)
Duluth/Superior Harbor
100 0 100 200 300
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Meters
Figure 3-3. Map of HOB sample sites.
45
-------
Kimball's Bay (KMB Sites)
Dwights
Point
Duluth/Superior Harbor
if
A
100 0 100 200 300
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Meters
Figure 34. Map of KMB sample sites.
46
-------
Grassy Point (MLH Sites)
Minnesota Power
Hibbard Plant
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Duluth/Superior Harbor
; . '. 'emi /""""^
100 0 100 200 300
N
A
Meters
Figure 3-5. Map of MLH sample sites.
47
-------
Minnesota Slip (MNS Sites)
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Dulut
Basi|Slorthem
Canal Park
Duluth Entertainment
Convention Center
N
50
50
Meters
i Minnesota Pollution
' Control Agency
Figure 3-6. Map of MNS sample sites.
-------
11
A
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
* Outfalifcation
City of Superio
WWTP
Barker's
Island
City of
Superior WWTP
(STP Sites)
100 0 100 200 300
Meters
Figure 3-7. Map of STP sample sites.
49
-------
Slip C (SUS Sites)
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Meters
Figure 3-8. Map of SUS sample sites.
50
-------
WLSSD, Miller Creek, and Coffee Creek
Embayment (WLS Sites)
Miller Creek
Duluth/Superior Harbor
I Minnesota Pollution
' Control Agency
Rices Point
21stAve.West
Channel
tern Section
100 0 100 200 300
Meters
1^
A
Figure 3-9. Map of WLS sample sites.
51
-------
Howard's Bay
1,600
15-30 Core Depth
i \
o-
2 3 HฐB HOB HQB ~~IT~~T- N^
5 6 HฐB HOB HQB ~T-
8 HฐB HOB HQB *f-
SiteCode 1ฐ 11 "? HฐB HOB
14 15
Figure 3-10. Total lead depth profiles for Howard's Bay.
52
-------
t
0-15
15-30
30-45
HOB 4
f
0-15
15-30
30-45
HOB 5
HOB 7
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SEM/AVS
Figure 3-11. SEM/AVS depth profiles for three Howard's Bay sites.
53
-------
0-19
WLS 12
1.5 2 2.5
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt)
35
0-18
15-30
30-45
155-170
WLS 13
1.5 2 2.5
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt)
160-175
WLS 16
0.5
1 1.5 2
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt)
25
3.5
Figure 3-12. Mercury depth profiles for three WLSSD sites.
54
-------
SlipC
Bttm 15
30-45
15-30
Core Depth (cm)
0-15
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
Site Code
SUS6
SUS7
Figure 3-13. Depth profile of mercury at Slip C.
55
-------
0>
g, J
o *
(0 >,
I -O
< O)
Q- ^
"J5 2*
SlipC
Bttm 15
30-45
Core Depth
15-30 (Cm)
suss
0-15
SUS4
Site Code
SUS5
SUS6
SUS7
Figure 3-14. Depth profile of screening PAHs at Slip C.
56
-------
60,000
SlipC
SUSS
SUS4
Site Code
SUS5
30-45
Core Depth
0-15 (cm)
SUS6
SUS7
Figure 3-15. Depth profile of total PAHs (by GC/MS) at Slip C.
57
-------
18
Minnesota Slip
Core Depth
(cm)
MNS 1
MNS2
MNS 3
Site Code
MNS 4
MNS 5
Figure 3-16. Depth pro file of normalized PAHs (by GC/MS) at Minnesota Slip.
58
-------
to
DO
O
Q-
"S
SlipC
Bttm 15
30-45
15-30
Core Depth
(cm)
SUS3
0-15
SUS4
suss
Site Code
SUS6
SUS7
Figure 3-17. Depth profile of normalized PCB concentrations (ng/g oc) at the SlipC sites.
59
-------
Figure 3-18. Diagrams of: a) Tubificidae, b) Manayunkia speciosa, c) Chaoborus, and
d) Chironomus (Pennak, 1978).
60
-------
TABLES
61
-------
Table 2-1. Sectioning Scheme for Chemical Analyses Performed at each Site
DM&IR
Stockpile
DMIR
0-15 cm
A VS/SEM, TOC, particle size
Erie Pier
ERP
0-8 cm
AVS/SEM, NH3, TOC, particle size
Howard's Bay
HOB
15
0-15 cm &
15-30 cm &
30-45 cm
Hg, Pb, As, AVS/SEM, TOC, particle size
Kimball's Bay
KMB
0-15 cm
Hg, TCDD/F, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, AVS/SEM, NH3, TOC,
particle size
M.L.Hibbard/
DSD No. 2
and Grassy
Point
MLH
10
0-22 cm &
Bottom 15cm
Hg, PAHs, PAH screen, AVS/SEM, TOC, particle size
Minnesota
Slip
MNS
0-15 cm
15-30 cm
30-45/95-125 cm
Bottom 15cm
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, NH3, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAH screen, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, TOC, particle size
Superior
WWTP
STP
10
0-15 cm
15-30 cm
30-45 cm
Bottom 15 cm
Hg, PCBs, PAHs (1 core), NH3, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAHs (1 core), TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAHs (1 core), TOC, particle size
Hg, PAHs (1 core), TOC, particle size
62
-------
Table 2-1. Continued
Site Code Number of
SUS
Sections Analyzed
0-21 cm
15-30 cm
30-45 cm
Bottom 15 cm
Analyses Performed
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, NH3, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAH screen, TOC, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, particle size
Hg, PCBs, PAH screen, TOC, particle size
WLSSD and
Miller/Coffee
Creek Bay
WLS
19
0-15 cm
15-30 cm
30-45 cm
Bottom 15 cm
Hg, TCDD/F, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, particle size, TOC, NH3
Hg, TCDD/F, PCBs, PAH screen, particle size, TOC
Hg, PCBs, PAH screen, particle size, TOC
Hg, PCBs, PAHs, PAH screen, particle size, TOC, NH3
63
-------
Table 2-2. Summary of Sediment Analytical Methods
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDD &
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Method
(description)
SW846
(GC/MS)
Sample cleanup
acid/base, AgNO3/silica gel,
Cu, alumina, carbon
PCBs
PAHs
Hg
As
Pb
AVS
SEM
Ammonia
TOC
PAH fluorometric
analysis
EPASW846-8081 Florisil
(capillary column GC)
Method 8270 GPC
(capillary column GC)
EPA 245.5 N/A
(cold vapor AAS)
EPA 206.5 N/A
(hydride generation)
Nitric acid/hydrogen N/A
peroxide digestion.
Flame/furnace AAS
Allen etal. (1991) N/A
(photometer)
Allen etal. (1991) N/A
(atomic absorption)
KC1 extraction (Soils N/A
method 33.3:
exchangeable ammonia)
Total organic carbon* N/A
Sample ignition method 1
N/A None
Technical Report EPA/COE - 81-1.
64
-------
Table 3-1. Site Coordinates for the 1994 Sediment Survey
Site ID
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1*
MLH2*
MLH3*
MLH4*
MLH5*
MLH6*
MLH7*
MLH8*
MLH9*
MLH10*
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
Latitude
46ฐ45'02.2"N
46ฐ45'03.7"N
46ฐ45'02.4"N
46ฐ44'58.4"N
46ฐ44'38.9"N
46ฐ44'39.5"N
46ฐ44'39.6"N
46ฐ44'35.4"N
46ฐ44'35.9"N
46ฐ44'34.7"N
46ฐ44'22.8"N
46ฐ44'18.9"N
46ฐ44'18.4"N
46ฐ44'15.5"N
46ฐ44'16.0"N
46ฐ44'13.4"N
46ฐ44'11.3"N
46ฐ44'10.6"N
46ฐ44'12.3"N
46ฐ44'10.6"N
46ฐ44'09.0"N
46ฐ44'08.0"N
46ฐ44'06.6"N
46ฐ44'03.5"N
46ฐ42'29.0"N
46ฐ42'31.7"N
46ฐ42'16.7"N
46ฐ42'16.7"N
46ฐ42'00.6"N
Missing
Missing
Missing
46ฐ44'12.0"N
46ฐ44'02.8"N
46ฐ44'02.4"N
46ฐ44'03.0"N
46ฐ43'52.7"N
46ฐ43'52.7"N
46ฐ43'52.7"N
46ฐ47'01.2"N
46ฐ47'00.6"N
46ฐ46'58.5"N
46ฐ46'57.7"N
46ฐ46'54.8"N
Longitude
92ฐ07'43.0"W
92ฐ07'36.4"W
92ฐ07'29.6"W
92ฐ07'44.1"W
92ฐ08'26.3"W
92ฐ08'16.3"W
92ฐ08'08.0"W
92ฐ08'23.7"W
92ฐ08'11.2"W
92ฐ05'58.2"W
92ฐ05'35.6"W
92ฐ05'29.3"W
92ฐ05'24.3"W
92ฐ05'24.4"W
92ฐ05'20.4"W
92ฐ05'19.5"W
92ฐ05'19.5"W
92ฐ05'18"W
92ฐ05'15.4"W
92ฐ05'13.9"W
92ฐ05'16.3"W
92ฐ05'14.4"W
92ฐ05'09.1"W
92ฐ05'05.7"W
92ฐ09'30.0"W
92ฐ09'10.2"W
92ฐ09'11.0"W
92ฐ09'30.2"W
92ฐ09'31.8"W
Missing
Missing
Missing
92ฐ08'48.0"W
92ฐ09'13.6"W
92ฐ08'59.0"W
92ฐ08'47.1"W
92ฐ09'14.6"W
92ฐ08'59.4"W
92ฐ08'47.8"W
92ฐ05'51.1"W
92ฐ05'50.4"W
92ฐ05'48.9"W
92ฐ05'48.4"W
92ฐ05'48.5"W
Date
8/23/94
8/23/94
8/23/94
8/23/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
9/27/94
9/27/94
9/27/94
9/27/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/28/94
9/29/94
9/29/94
9/29/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
10/4/94
8/22/94
8/22/94
8/22/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
8/24/94
9/30/94
9/30/94
9/30/94
9/30/94
9/30/94
* Geographical coordinates represent a single, uncorrected measurement.
65
-------
Table 3-1. Continued
Site ID Latitude
^B^ B^^^a ^^^ H^ ^B1^-ltM^-B^^^^^^ I^^MB ^^^M - - - -
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP8
STP10
STP12
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS8
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS 16*
WLS 17*
WLS 18*
WLS 19*
46ฐ43'50.9"N
46ฐ43'46.7"N
46ฐ43'45.4"N
46ฐ43'39.5"N
46ฐ43'35.5"N
46ฐ43'37.0"N
46ฐ43'32.5"N
46ฐ43'32.3"N
46ฐ43'27.5"N
46ฐ43'23.1"N
46ฐ46'16.4"N
46ฐ46'16.6"N
46046'18.3"N
46ฐ46'19.6"N
46ฐ46'20.9"N
46ฐ46'22"N
46ฐ46'23.7"N
46ฐ46'26"N
46ฐ45'46.6"N
46ฐ45'44.5lfN
46ฐ45'42.1'fN
46ฐ45'42.4"N
46ฐ45'35.9"N
46ฐ45'36.5"N
46ฐ45'36.3"N
46ฐ45'28.8"N
46ฐ45'31.8'TSI
46ฐ45'31.4"N
46ฐ45'23.6"N
46ฐ45'25.2"N
46ฐ45'20.3"N
46045'19.1"N
46045123.7"N
46ฐ45'22.2"N
46ฐ45'17.2"N
46ฐ45'16.6"N
46045'18.0tfN
Longitude
92ฐ04'14.4nW
92ฐ04'21.3"W
92ฐ04'06.7"W
92ฐ04'06.3"W
92ฐ03'55.9"W
92ฐ04'06.9"W
92ฐ04'04.9"W
92ฐ03'50.8"W
92ฐ03'54.5"W
92ฐ03'55.2"W
92ฐ06'39.2"W
92ฐ06'37.2"W
92ฐ06'35.7"W
92ฐ06'33.5"W
92ฐ06'30.6"W
92ฐ06'27.3"W
92ฐ06'25.3"W
92ฐ06'20.6"W
92ฐ07'11.5"W
92ฐ07'03.5"W
92ฐOT10.0"W
92ฐ0704.9"W
92ฐ07'12.6nW
92ฐ07'06.4"W
92ฐ06'58.0"W
92ฐ0702.r'W
92ฐ07'02.1"W
92ฐ06'54.6"W
92ฐ06'54.2"W
92ฐOT20.7"W
92ฐOT20.7"W
92ฐ0708.4"W
92ฐ0701.6"W
92ฐ0724.4"W
92ฐ0717.4"W
92ฐ0708.0"W
92006'01.0'1W
Date i
9/29/94
9/29/94
9/29/94
9/29/94
9/30/94
10/3/94
10/3/94
10/3/94
10/3/94
10/3/94
9/22/94
9/22/94
9/22/94
9/22/94
9/22/94
9/22/94
10/3/94
10/3/94
9/21/94
9/21/94
9/21/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/23/94
9/26/94
9/26/94
9/26/94
9/26/94
9/26/94
9/26/94
9/27/94
9/27/94
* Geographical coordinates result from a single, unconnected measurement at starred sites
66
-------
Table 3-2. Description of Field Results for DM&IR, Erie Pier, and Kimball's Bay Areas (DMIR 1-4, ERP 1-5, and KMB 1-5)
Site
Number
DM1R1*
DMIR 2*
DMIR 3*
DMIR 4*
ERP1
ERP 2
ERP 3
ERP 4
ERP 5
KMB 1
KMB 2
KMB 3
KMB 4
KMB 5
Water Depth
(m)
6.1
10.7
5.2
8.8
1.04
0.67
0.89
1.13
1.52
1.83
2.68
3.26
3.96
3.05
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
# Cores for
Toxicity
1
1
1
1
21
18
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
8
Chemistry
1
1
1
1
8
9
9
9
6
5
7
5
5
5
Vibrocore
Length
(m)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sections
Collected
(*)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Depth (cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
Description
Other field information not recorded
(( CC CC <( tt
(( CC CC CC CC
CC CC CC CC CC
Loose clay over stiff clay; surface algae and
detritus
Oxidized Fe layer (1cm) over red sand
Thin oxidized Fe layer over red sand
Loose silty clay with detritus (2 cm) over stiff
brown clay
Thin oxidized Fe layer over reddish brown sand
Soft brown clay with detritus
Thin oxidized Fe layer over soft gray clay
Thin oxidized Fe layer over dark brown clay
Silty brown clay (2 cm) over thicker clay with
black streaks
Soft brown silty clay
* Sample collected with a Ponar.
NA= Not Applicable
67
-------
Table 3-3. Description of Field Results for Howard's Bay (HOB 1-15)
Site
Number
HOB!"
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
>
i
HOB 7
Water Depth
(in)
9.75
8.23
8.75
4.33
8.90
1.28
8.20
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
Chemistry
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
Vibrocore
Length
(m)
0.20
1.38
0.45
1.00
0.45
0.45
0.82
Sections
Collected
(#)
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Depth (cm)
0-5
0-5 (VC)
5-20 (VC)
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
Description
^^^^^^^^^"
Brown sandy clay (slight oil sheen)
Brown sandy clay (slight oil sheen)
Brown sandy clay (slight oil sheen)
Sandy orange clay, some detritus (slight oil
sheen)
Loose sandy clay (slight oil sheen)
Loose sandy clay with wood and detritus
(slight oil sheen)
Sand with shiny particles (5 cm) over pink
and brown clay
Soft brown clay with plant fibers (slight oil
sheen)
Stiff, brick-colored clay
Sand/grit (3 cm) over pink and brown clay
Soft pink and brown clay
Soft pink and brown clay with wood detritus
Loose, flocculant, oxidized Fe (3 cm) over
soft brown clay
Dark brown clay (10 cm) over red clay
Red clay (5 cm) over dark brown clay with
some oi! smears
Dark gritty sand (2 mm) over red clay (5 cm)
over black clay with oily coal chunks (5 cm)
over red sand
Clay with sand and coal chunks, no oil
Coarse red sand, few pebbles
Fluffy silt/clay with black grit (5 cm) over
brown clay
Sandy brown clay, some oil and detritus
Uniform sandy brown clay with some
detritus, less oil
^IA= Not Applicable
VC= Vibrocorer
68
-------
Table 3-3. Continued
Site
Number
HOBS
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
Water Depth
(m)
6.80
7.01
0.91
7.01
5.64
5.49
4.36
3.81
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
# Cores for
Toxicity
10*
NA
23
20
20
21
12
14
Chemistry
10*
7
5
3
6
8
3
5
Vibrocore
Length (m)
NA
NA
0.95
0.40
NA
NA
0.45
1.20
Sections
Collected (#)
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
Depth
(cm)
0-5
0-5
0-10
15-30
30-45
0-15
10-25
25-40
0-10
0-10
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-10
15-30
30-45
I
Very sticky red clay. Ponar sample was oily,
whereas gravity core samples for benthos
were not oily.
Fine sandy grit (1 cm) over hard red clay
Sandy grit with some clay (oil sheen)
Dark brown clay with detritus over dark sand
with some clay
Uniform dark brown clay/sand
Floccy orange particles (3 cm) over reddish
clay
Uniform stiff red clay with some detritus
Stiff red clay over brown clay with detritus
Gritty sand over hard red/gray clay
Soft, loose clay/silt with gritty sand over red
clay
Loose, sandy clay over stiffer clay, some oil
in tox./chem. samples
Very stiff red clay with a few rock chips
Less stiff brown clay with some detritus
Dark brown, loose clay with some sand
Heavy black oil and sand
Heavy black oil with sand and some wood
chunks
NA= Not Applicable
* A Ponar grab sampler was used to collect toxicity and surface chemistry samples due to compacted substrate.
69
-------
Table 3-4. Description of Field Results for M.L. Hibbard/DSD No. 2 Plant and Grassy Point Embayment (MLH 1-10)
Site
Number
MLH 1
MLH 2
MLH 3
MLH 4
MLH 5
MLH 6
MLH 7
MLH 8
MLH 9
MLH 10
Wtiter Depth
(m)
1.52
1.04
1.52
2.13
2.26
1.92
2.32
2.44
2.53
3.20
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
# Cores for
Toxicity
10
6
5
7
6
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemistry'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Vibrocore
Length
(in)
0.4
0.95
0.52
0.50
0.47
0.40
0.87
0.76
0.79
0.95
Sections
Collected
(#)
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
1
Bottom
Depth (cm)
0-13.5
25-40
0-22
80-95
0-20
37-52
0-20.5
30-50
0-17.5
32-47
0-21
25-40
0-17
72-87
0-15.5
60-76
0-22
52-79
0-21
75-95
Description
Gritty, uniform black/brown sediment
Same as upper section
Silt with ash throughout, strong sultide odor,
slight oil sheen
Uniform, dark granular fly ash
Ash with some silt, strong sulfide odor
Fine clay/ash over wood chips and detritus
Very fine brown clay/silt, some ash, oil sheen
Soft brown clay over coarse brown sand with
wood chips and detritus
Soft brown clay/silt with oxidized Fe layer on
surface
Thick brown clay over black ash/wood chips
(5cm)
Reddish brown sand with black wood chips,
grit, and detritus
Uniform sand with fly ash
Soft, light brown sandy clay with some fine
black granular material
Brown sand with some clay
Soft brown clay/silt with some wood fibers
Coarse brown sand
Soft brown silty clay with some wood chips
and black striations
Gray clay and wood fibers (12 cm) over
densely packed wood fibers
Soft brown silty clay
Brown clay with black bands of
undecomposed organic fibers
NA= Not Applicable
70
-------
Table 3-5. Description of Field Results for Minnesota Slip (MNS 1-5)
'
Site
Number
MNS 1
MNS 2
MNS 3
MNS 4
MNS 5
Water
Depth (m)
5.03
5.00
5.06
4.88
4.27
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
3
3
3
3
3
# Cores for
Toxicity
17
NA
13
NA
NA
Chemistry
6
6
3
4
5
Vibrocore
Length (m)
0.54
1.60
0.60
0.60
0.65
Sections
Collected (#)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-10
9-24
24-39
39-54
0-12
15-30
95-125
145-160
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-15
0-15(VC)
15-30
30-45
0-10
5-20
20-35
35-50
Description
Soft, oily silt/clay
Black, oily sand/silt/clay with some detritus
Black, very oily sand/clay
Very oily, stiffer black sand/clay
Loose, dark brown silt/clay
Black, oily, sandy clay with some detritus
Black, oily, sandy clay
Uniform, black oily sand (with white bits and
red fibers)
Gritty silty/clay over silt and some oil/detritus
Soft, oily silt/clay with some detritus
Soft, brown clay (3 cm) over oily detritus (5
cm) over non-oily reddish sand
Oily reddish sand, little detritus
Loose, oily clay (5 cm) over stiff clay
Loose clay (3 cm) over oily sand with detritus
Very coarse sand, slightly oily, large rocks
Fine sand, no oil, some detritus
Silt with detritus over soft clay (slight oil
sheen)
Coarse red sand over detritus over sand, no oil
Very coarse, rocky sand
Rocks and detritus with oil smell (slight oil
sheen) over coarse sand
NA= Not Applicable
VC= Vibrocorer
71
-------
Table 3-6. Description of Field Results for City of Superior WWTP Embayment (STP 1-8, STP 10, STP 12)
Site
Number
STP1
STP 2
STP 3
STP 4
STP 5
STP 6
STP 7
STP8
Water Depth
(m)
7.01
4.02
3.60
2.44
3.17
2.13
2.31
3.20
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
2
2 (A)
3(B&C)
2
2
2
2
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
22
NA
15
13
NA
13
12
NA
Chemistry
4
7
6
6
4
3
4
4
Vibrocore
Length (m)
0.82
0.25
0.60
0.96
NA
0.38
0.23
0.30
Sections
Collected
ffl
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
Depth (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
10-25
0-10
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
0-15
7-23
23-38
0-15
5-23
0-15
0-15(VC)
15-30
Description
Ftoccy orange mat (3 cm) atop loose sandy
clay; toxJchcm samples had slight oil sheen
Loose dark brown clay with detritus
Dark brown clay/sand, slight oil sheen
Dark brown clay/sand (10 cm) over more
gray/black clay/sand
Sand with a bit of clay, strong sulfide odor
and oil
Sandy grit atop clay/sand with some detritus,
slight oil sheen
Fine brown sand with some detritus
Fine brown sand (5 cm) over coarse red sand
Oxidized granular layer (5 cm) over soft,
gray-brown clayey sand
Soft, uniform brown clay, little detritus
Stiffer, uniform brown clay
Oxidized Fe layer (1 cm) over soft brown
clay/silt
Oxidized Fe layer atop soft silt/clay with
detritus
Large wood chunks over soft silt/clay
Stiffer brown clay
Thin oxidized Fe layer over red clay (7 cm)
over brown clay, slight oil sheen
Loose brown clay with wood chunks and oil
sheen over sand
Thin oxidized Fe layer over silt/clay over
brown clay
Loose brown clay with oil sheen
Brown soft clay with oil sheen, red sand at
bottom2cm
NA= Not Applicable
72
-------
Table 3-6. Continued
Site
Number
STP10
STP12
Water Depth
(m)
2.74
4.36
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
3
3
# Cores for
Toxicity
NA
NA
Chemistry
10
5
Vibrocore
Length (m)
NA
0.91
Sections
Collected
(#)
1
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-10
0-10
15-30
30-46
76-91
Description
Coarse reddish sand with some clay
Soft, loose brown clay with oil sheen and
detritus
Soft brown clay with heavy oil and detritus
Black/brown silty sand
Black, fibrous silt over brown clay, oily smell
NA= Not Applicable
73
-------
Table 3-7. Description of Field Results for Slip C (SUS 1-8)
Site
Number
SUS 1
SUS 2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
r-
Water Depth
(m)
6.40
6.40
5.72
5.97
5.79
n Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
2
2
2
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
12
NA
10
NA
17
Chemislry
4
4
4
4
5
Vibrocore
Length (m)
1.60
1.26
1.55
1.15
0.54
Sections
Collected (#)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-21
15-30
30-45
145-160
0-20
15-30
30-45
111-126
0-18.5
15-30
30-45
140-155
0-20
15-30
30-45
100-115
0-15
15-23
24-38
39-54
Description
Dark brown silty sand, some oil
Soft, fibrous sandy silt, oil spots
Soft, fibrous sandy silt (10 cm) over more
oily material
Light brown coarse sand
Dark brown silty sand
Soft, grainy, dark brown silty sand, oil
spots
Firmer silty sand with fibrous layer near
bottom
Coarse sand with some clay pockets
Oily, dark brown, soft silty sand
Fibrous sand with woody material
Fibrous sand atop pure sand, some oily
spots
Sand atop thick fibrous layer
Dark brown sand, few fibers/oil spots
Sandy silt mixed with oil, few fibers
Oily, fibrous sand/silt; distinct layer of
fibers at bottom
Black sand with small pockets of fibers
Soft brown silt with some oil spots, few
fibers
Very oily sand/silt atop sand
Dark brown sand
Sand atop fibrous layer including large
chunk of wood
NA= Not Applicable
74
-------
Table 3-7. Continued
Site
Number
SUS6
SUS7
SUS8
Water Depth
(m)
6.76
7.62
7.32
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
3
1
# Cores for
Toxicity
NA
17
NA
Chemistry
4
9
NA
Vibrocore
Length (m)
1.30
0.78
NA
Sections
Collected
(#)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
None
Depth (cm)
0-18.5
15-30
30-45
115-130
0-5
15-30
30-45
63-78
0-10
Description
Oily, black-gray sand
Rust-brown sand with white specks, some
sticks
Sand with a few fibers
Sand with a few fibers
Wood and plant detritus atop red sand
Oily soft brown clay with detritus over red
sand
Reddish sand and wood detritus, oil smell
Red sand, no oil
Coarse sand; could only collect 1 replicate for
benthos
NA= Not Applicable
75
-------
Table 3-8. Description of Field Results for WLSSD and Miller/Coffee Creek Embayment (WLS 1-20)
Site
Number
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS4
WLS5
r
Water Depth
(m)
2.29
2.49
2.08
2.34
1.92
r
H Cores per
Benthos Rep.
1
2
2
2
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
10
11
9
8
NA
Chemistry
4
5
3
4
3
Vibrocore
Length (m)
2.04
1.82
1.88
1.21
1.50
Sections
Collected
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
189-204
0-15
15-30
30-45
167-182
0-18.5
15-30
30-45
173-188
0-20
15-30
30-45
105-120
0-18
15-30
30-45
135-150
Description
Soft brown silt, slight oil odor
Soft, fibrous silt with heavy oil
Black oil and fibers (5 cm) over soft
brown silt
Uniform brownish-gray clay
Soft brown silt, some oil and fibrous
material
Uniform gray-brown clay, slightly oily
Stiff, gray-brown clay
Uniform dark brown clay
Gray-brown silt/clay mixture with
fibers
Sandy with very fine silt, few fibers
Silty clay with some wood chunks
Dark brown clay with plant detritus
Loose, brown sihy clay, slight oil, Hate
detritus
Sand with little detritus, no oil, some
stones
Similar to 15-30 cm section
Grayish-brown clay with a few stones
Soft brown sihy clay, some oil
Brown sihy clay, some oil; coal
chunks and fibers at bottom of section
Coal/sand/clay with abundant oil
blooms
Very fibrous, organic brown stratum
with some larger wood chips
NA-Not Applicable
76
-------
Table 3-8. Continued
Site
Number
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS 10
Water Depth
(m)
6.80
5.33
3.28
7.92
1.98
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
2
2
2
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
6
NA
5
NA
NA
Chemistry
4
4
4
3
5
Vibrocore
Length (m)
2.50
0.5
1.05
1.60
1.50
Sections
Collected
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-19
15-30
30-45
235-250
0-20
5-20
20-35
35-50
0-20
15-30
30-45
90-105
0-20
15-30
30-45
145-160
0-15
15-30
30-45
135-150
Description
Loose silty clay with black oil streaks
Soft brown silt with oil sheen
Same as 15-30 cm section
Soft, gray clay with fibers
Soft brown silt/clay with oil spots
Soft silt with a lot of oil
Loose silt/clay (5 cm) over oily sand
Sand with oily coal chunks and small red
clay pieces
Very oily silty clay with fibers
Grayish-brown, stiff fibrous clay
Stiff gray-brown clay with fewer fibers
Peaty organic cattail-like detritus
Soft brown silt/clay with oil at bottom 5 cm
Heavy oil (5 cm) over fibrous clay with oil
streaks
Uniform, soft gray fibrous clay
Uniform, stiff fibrous clay
Brown soft silt over very oily layer (3 cm)
Uniform clay/sand, no visible oil
Uniform sandy clay, no visible oil
Dry brownish sand, no fibers present
NA= Not Applicable
77
-------
Table 3-8. Continued
r
Site
Number
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
Water Depth
(m)
10.52
2.13
2.13
2.44
2.59
-
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
2
2
2
3
# Cores for
Toxicity
NA
8
7
10
NA
Chemistry
3
3
3
3
8
Vibrocore
Length (m)
1.60
1.68
1.70
1.55
1.82
Sections
Collected
<-'
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-21
15-30
30-45
145-160
0-20
15-30
30-45
153-168
0-20
15-30
30-45
155-170
0-15
15-30
30-45
140-155
0-10
15-30
30-45
165-180
Description
!
Soft, oily brownish-black silt
Soft silty clay with some oil (10 cm) over
heavy oil (5 cm)
Black oily soft clay, few fibers, some coal
pieces
Sandy clay with a few oil spots and fibers
Very soft silt with black oil streaks
Uniform, soft brown silty clay, no odor
Mostly soft, black/oily silty clay
Stiff, uniform brown clay
Dark clay/sand with oil spots, some fibers
Soft brown clay (5 cm) over heavy oil
Heavy oil (10 cm) over oil/wood chips
Stiff heavy clay
Silty clay, some oil sheen and wood chips
Uniform, stiff brown clay, no oil, some fibers
Uniform, stiff brown clay, some fibers
Brown clay, paper at bottom of section
Sand/clay over black oil (few cm)
Oily black sand with some silt
Oily sand with some coal
Clay/sand with some black oil
NA= Not Applicable
78
-------
Table 3-8. Continued
Site Number
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS 20
Water Depth
(m)
2.06
2.06
2.21
2.29
# Cores per
Benthos Rep.
2
3
2
2
# Cores for
Toxicity
8
NA
NA
NA
Chemistry
3
7
4
3
Vibrocore
Length (m)
1.75
0.68
1.71
1.96
Sections
Collected
(*)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Depth (cm)
0-20
15-30
30-45
160-175
0-15
15-30
30-45
50-65
0-15
15-30
30-45
156-171
0-20
15-30
30-45
181-196
Description
Soft brown silt/clay, some oil
Soft silt/clay (10 cm) over black oil
Heavy black oil (7 cm) over stiff brown clay
Uniform, stiff brown clay with some fibers
Soft brown silt/clay, slight oil sheen, some
detritus
Uniform, brown fibrous sand, no oil
Uniform sand with wood chips, no oil
Sandy brown clay with wood chips, no oil
Soft silty clay (10 cm) atop oil
Soft brown clay with reddish streaks
Stiff brown clay with red and gray streaks
Uniform, stiff brown clay with fibers
Soft silty clay (10 cm) atop oil, little detritus
Stiff brown fibrous clay with some pink clay
Same as 15-30 cm section
Very stiff brown clay with some wood chips
Too hard-bottomed to sample. Site appeared
to have 5 cm of sediment on top of logs.
NA= Not Applicable
79
-------
Table 3-9. Particle Size Distribution of all Sample Sites and Depth Profiles
Site Code
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
HOB1
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
Sand
& Gravel
>53 jim
48.5
22.6
29.2
30.0
60.8
98.2
94.8
89.5
94.0
67.4
42.3
45.1
57.8
49.9
70.2
52.8
40.9
27.7
89.1
61.9
47.8
56.5
48.8
64.0
40.5
32.9
50.4
37.8
96.1
73.5
80.7
17.0
16.3
76.4
41.9
21.6
56.1
Percentages in different ranges
Silt
53-2 urn
41.8
58.8
54.2
54.4
31.6
1.2
3.9
8.2
4.4
24.4
41.4
37.6
30.4
36.6
20.3
35.4
38.9
36.2
7.2
27.9
36.2
31.1
38.9
27.0
43.0
45.8
34.4
42.3
3.2
18.5
14.0
24.7
38.0
17.3
41.6
24.9
28.8
Clay
2-0 urn
9.7
18.6
16.6
15.6
7.6
0.6
1.3
2.3
1.6
8.2
16.3
17.3
11.8
13.5
9.5
11.8
20.2
36.1
3.6
10.2
16.0
12.4
12.3
9.0
16.5
21.3
15.2
19.9
0.7
8.1
5.3
58.3
45.7
6.3
16.5
53.5
15.1
Comments
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
manually run
manually run, mostly sand
manually run, mostly sand
manually run, sand/fines
manually run, sand
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
coarse sand - manually run
red clay
red clay
Average of analytical replicates
red clay
80
-------
Table 3-9. Continued
Site Code
STP6
STP12
STP12
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
Core
Depth
(cm)
23-38
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
145-160
111-126
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
Sand
& Gravel
>53 urn
29.3
39.7
54.6
71.8
70.6
72.8
67.5
80.9
-
85.9
45.9
67.4
83.4
84.4
98.2
98.1
91.4
69.6
71.6
87.8
77.9
96.3
98.1
99.0
97.7
90.9
79.8
92.5
93.7
97.6
99.6
28.2
46.9
49.7
32.9
29.3
15.7
Percentages in different ranges
Silt
53-2 urn
55.6
43.8
35.2
22.3
22.6
21.2
26.1
14.7
-
10.9
44.8
28.8
13.5
12.6
1.4
1.5
7.2
25.5
23.6
9.8
18.6
2.8
1.5
0.8
1.8
7.4
16.9
6.4
5.2
2.0
0.3
58.9
41.5
38.8
51.5
53.4
62.5
Clay
2-0 urn
15.2
16.6
10.1
5.9
6.8
5.9
6.4
4.4
-
3.2
9.2
3.8
3.1
3.0
0.4
0.4
1.4
4.8
4.8
2.3
3.5
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.5
1.8
3.3
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.1
12.9
11.6
11.5
15.6
17.4
21.8
Comments
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Insufficiant sample for analysis
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
manually run
manually run
manually run, slag chunk and sand
manually run
manually run
manually run
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
slag chunk in subsample
manually run
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
83
-------
Table 3-9. Continued
Site Code
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
Sand
& Gravel
>53 fim
19.1
25.5
16.6
40.9
18.2
32.4
37.3
30.0
71.0
36.9
82.3
50.4
31.8
35.4
26.6
62.2
96.1
38.5
46.1
28.0
24.7
38.4
69.6
20.4
15.6
26.7
55.8
80.6
12.8
67.7
43.0
31.4
34.0
20.5
16.1
97.7
78.9
Percentages in different ranees
Silt
53-2 urn
60.1
55.8
64.3
46.2
61.4
51.6
45.9
48.8
22.1
48.5
14.2
38.6
49.9
51.2
56.2
30.9
2.8
45.5
40.9
56.0
60.4
47.3
20.2
62.2
61.6
57.7
36.1
15.2
65.7
28.1
43.3
50.3
50.4
61.0
63.6
1.6
16.4
Clay
2-0 urn
20.8
18.7
19.0
12.9
20.4
16.1
16.7
21.1
6.9
14.6
3.5
11.1
18.3
13.5
17.2
7.0
1.1
16.0
13.0
16.0
14.9
14.3
10.3
17.3
22.9
15.6
8.1
4.2
21.5
4.2
13.7
18.3
15.6
18.5
20.3
0.7
4.8
Comments
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
sand, manually run
wood fiber
sandy clay
Average of analytical replicates
manually run
Average of analytical replicates
84
-------
Table 3-9. Continued
Site Code
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Sand
& Gravel
>53 um
34.6
78.5
25.2
31.5
68.9
20.0
12.4
42.7
31.9
71.7
17.9
65.0
36.4
46.7
20.4
22.2
55.2
15.1
43.5
65.9
89.2
68.6
22.8
81.1
80.1
25.1
31.4
28.3
48.5
34.8
75.6
41.8
31.7
Percentages in different ranges
Silt
53-2 \im
49.5
16.6
61.9
51.8
21.4
63.5
65.9
41.7
55.2
22.5
61.4
30.8
41.9
42.0
66.7
63.7
39.8
66.5
48.0
29.6
7.1
25.6
58.7
14.9
16.5
61.4
55.3
58.6
40.7
52.8
21.1
47.0
53.1
Clay
2-0 urn
15.6
5.0
12.9
16.6
9.7
16.5
21.7
15.6
12.9
5.8
20.7
4.2
21.7
11.3
12.9
14.1
5.0
18.4
8.5
4.5
3.7
5.8
18.5
4.1
3.4
13.5
13.3
13.2
10.8
12.4
3.3
11.3
15.2
Comments
Average of analytical replicates
wood fiber
large chunk of wood in sample
1 large pebble with finer material
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
sandy
aulpy organics, manually run
Average of analytical replicates
Average of analytical replicates
85
-------
Table 3-10. TOC Results for all Sample Sites and Depth Profiles
Site Code
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
% Organic
Carbon
2.5
2.3
2.9
2.6
2.9
0.28
2.9
1.6
0.46
1.3
3.8
3.5
2.5
3.2
2.4
3.0
2.8
0.90
1.8
3.0
2.2
3.2
3.9
5.2
3.7
3.0
3.3
2.6
0.66
2.7
3.2
0.32
0.92
3.7
% Std Dev
0.02
0.06
0.21
0.18
0.19
0.49
0.02
0.01
%RSD
0.93
3.6
8.1
7.7
4.8
9.5
2.3
0.19
Replicate
Type
AR
AR/ER
ER
AR
AR/ER
AR
ER
AR
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
86
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
% Organic
Carbon
4.3
0.67
4.1
2.2
0.32
2.9
1.9
0.34
4.7
4.4
2.2
1.7
3.1
2.2
2.8
5.0
7.1
12
6.6
6.5
0.89
3.8
4.8
6.3
3.4
2.0
19
15
2.4
2.1
2.4
1.3
0.18
15
4.1
% Std Dev
0.06
0.83
0.07
0.01
0.10
0.09
0.40
1.9
0.19
0.69
i
% RSD
1.4
19
3.2
0.14
1.5
2.7
2.1
13
15
4.6
Replicate
Type
ER
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR/ER
AR
AR
ER
AR
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
87
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP8
STP10
STP12
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP6
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15(VC)
0-10
5-20 (VC)
9-24
15-30
15-30
15-30
20-35
24-39
95-125
30-45
30-45
35-50
39-54
145-160
45-60
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-10
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
7-23
% Organic
Carbon
4.0
4.8
3.2
3.5
2.6
2.4
1.6
3.4
3.8
4.6
1.9
0.67
4.2
6.7
4.0
2.2
2.9
4.0
4.6
4.1
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.2
5.0
3.4
4.1
4.0
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
% Std Dev
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.28
0.16
0.59
0.16
0.25
%RSD
0.35
0.58
14
0.50
6.9
7.3
14
4.8
6.3
Replicate
Type
ER
AR
AR
ER
AR
ER
AR
ER
AR
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
STP7
STP8
STP12
STP1
STP3
STP3
STP4
STP6
STP12
STP12
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
Core
Depth
(cm)
5-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
23-38
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
% Organic
Carbon
3.2
5.0
4.7
2.3
2.0
1.8
4.6
3.6
3.7
6.4
4.7
3.5
4.9
4.3
2.3
1.9
2.7
19
19
4.8
2.8
0.83
0.33
3.0
15
11
3.6
4.3
0.80
0.28
1.4
% Std Dev
0.13
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.91
0.74
0.08
0.01
% RSD
5.9
1.6
1.1
4.0
4.9
3.9
0.58
0.40
Replicate
Type
AR/ER
AR
AR
ER
AR
AR
AR
ER
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
89
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
Core
Depth
(cm)
145-160
111-126
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
% Organic
Carbon
1.4
2.7
3.1
3.2
2.4
1.1
0.29
2.9
2.3
3.1
3.0
4.9
3.7
3.5
4.5
3.8
1.7
3.6
4.9
4.7
5.6
2.6
4.7
2.8
2.7
4.4
3.3
1.0
3.5
1.1
8.7
2.8
3.7
3.9
% Std Dev
0.60
0.07
0.80
0.05
0.83
0.11
0.93
0.09
% RSD
19
6.7
16
1.0
32
4.1
11
2.5
Replicate
Type
AR
ER
AR/ER
AR
AR/ER
AR
AR
AR/ER
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
90
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
% Organic
Carbon
2.4
2.6
4.2
3.5
4.3
2.3
1.8
3.7
3.0
1.9
2.7
3.3
1.0
4.5
0.76
27
3.6
1.4
5.8
3.1
0.79
3.5
5.0
6.8
3.5
3.9
6.9
2.8
1.5
2.7
% Std Dev
0.02
0.34
1.0
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.18
% RSD
0.49
11
3.7
0.98
0.61
1.1
12
Replicate
Type
AR
ER
AR
ER
AR
AR
ER
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
91
-------
Table 3-10. Continued
Site Code
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
% Organic
Carbon
3.7
5.2
6.1
4.3
17
2.2
1.6
27
3.1
0.38
1.7
4.4
3.4
2.4
2.6
4.6
3.3
1.7
1.8
% Std Dev
0.24
0.22
0.06
0.06
% RSD
1.4
9.9
0.24
1.4
Replicate
Type
AR
ER
AR
ER
AR = Analytical replicate
ER = Extraction replicate
92
-------
Table 3-11. Ammonia Results for Selected Sites and Depth Profiles
Site Code
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP8
STP10
STP12
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
L 0-10
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
Sediment
Ammonia Cone.*
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
32.8
12.3
12.2
17.4
3.30
11.1
12.1
57.1
119
178
116
138
45.1
23.1
10.2
43.3
8.32
96.9
29.2
55.5
36.3
29.4
68.5
15.1
91.5
40.7
90.4
49.6
38.9
27.5
27.4
35.1
89.7
33.6
80.2
72.3
23.8
119
79.9
84.4
* Values in bold exceed the Ontario Open Water Disposal Guidelines of 100 mg/kg ammonia.
ER = Extraction replicate
93
-------
Table 3-11. Continued
Site Code
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS 11
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
189-204
167-182
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
ER
Sediment
Ammonia Cone.*
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
123
15.5
219
150
101
63.2
24.9
101
19.5
21.9
65.8
70.4
176
25.9
125
30.5
6.69
ND
183
164
32.3
30.6
104
41.9
97.1
101
68.3
52.1
81.3
102
*Values in bold exceed the Ontario Open Water Disposal Guidelines of 100 mg/kg ammonia.
ER = Extraction replicate
94
-------
Table 3-12. Total Arsenic and Lead Results for Howard's Bay Samples
Site Code
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-5
0-5 (Vibr)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
Total As
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
12.0
7.82
23.7
27.3
16.7
9.59
12.9
20.5
24.3
26.6
8.21
17.7
27.5
19.3
23.1
14.2
11.6
22.6
13.0
22.3
27.0
1.40
12.9
10.3
22.1
mm m
5.35
13.6
18.8
10.6
7.62
0.00
7.19
3.34
17.4
17.7
5.11
Total Pb
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
20.1
9.08
111
92.5
78.5
89.3
28.1
163
113
34.1
94.5
215
132
104
194
99.5
73.1
125
67.3
8.17
123
76.2
37.0
67.7
132
182
42.0
Wf^Si^^^^^m^.
79.6
10.9
140
61.2
48.5
215
120
Vibr = Sample collected with a vibrocorer
ER = Extraction replicate
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL values.
Bold grey cell values exceed the OMOEE SEL values.
95
-------
Table 3-13. AVS Results for Selected Sites
Site Code
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 7
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5 (Vibr)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-15
0-10
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
Sulfide Cone.
(umol/g)
(dry wt.)
1.02
7.49
7.24
3.33
2.62
3.23
0.32
0.86
1.11
0.13
1.82
0.29
3.52
3.33
7.96
6.15
1.26
2.49
0.36
0.10
3.80
3.55
3.12
3.92
3.85
3.01
3.05
21.7
-------
Table 3-13. Continued
Site Code
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH9
MLH10
MLH1
MLH2
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
Sulfide Cone.
(umol/g)
(dry wt.)
0.19
0.34
-------
Table 3-13. Continued
Site Code
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
Replicate
Type
ER
Core
Depth
(cm)
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
Sulfide Cone.
(umol/g)
(dry wt.)
-------
Table 3-14. SEM Results for Selected Sites
Site Code
DMIR1
DMR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOB 5
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5 (VC)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
Cadmium
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(drywt.)
0.845
0.822
0.890
0.794
0.741
0.113
0.194
0.310
0.144
0.819
0.711
1.23
1.24
1.05
1.32
0.462
1.21
1.17
0.838
0.528
1.08
1.32
1.51
1.01
1.34
0.933
1.54
1.55
1.54
1.46
0.201
0.688
0.606
0.825
1.08
0.963
Copper
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
13.0
8.67
15.3
15.0
10.8
1.50
2.77
2.74
2.31
14.8
21.2
29.9
28.2
28.6
34.6
11.4
39.3
194
27.4
13.3
40.1
29.1
65.3
26.7
29.4
3.10
36.9
42.6
44.5
43.5
1.51
18.9
18.8
22.6
23.9
23.5
Nickel
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(drywt.)
7.25
4.56
8.23
6.35
7.00
1.52
4.13
5.14
1.88
7.29
4.51
12.8
11.4
11.8
11. 9
6.42
13.5
14.1
9.92
6.19
12.2
13.8
16.6
12.3
10.0
2.24
17.7
14.2
14.2
12.1
2.18
4.14
7.19
6.32
7.21
8.12
Lead
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
20.2
19.7
19.0
14.0
15.8
2.29
4.65
4.93
6.14
20.7
8.22
111
83.2
177
139
47.5
142
97.9
21.0
50.7
277
161
253
108
172
-------
Table 3-14. Continued
Site Code
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
Cadmium
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
1.35
0.962
1.18
1.13
-------
Table 3-15. SEM/AVS Ratios for Selected Sites
Site
Code
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP4
ERP5
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
MLHI
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MLHI
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-8
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
SEM/AVS
Component Ratios
Cd
0.0064
0.00014
0.00052
0.0011
0.00040
0.023
0.0085
0.0071
0.053
0.0062
0.0023
0.0030
0.0034
0.0057
0.011
0.0038
0.0021
0.0035
0.0016
0.017
0.0026
1.0 indicate that AVS binding potential will be exceeded, and metals will
either be bioavailable in the interstitial water or will be available to bind with TOC.
101
-------
Table 3-15. Continued
Site
Code
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOBS
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-5
0-5 (VC)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
SEM/AVS
Component Ratios
Cd
0.0040
0.022
0.0031
0.0033
0.0012
0.0019
0.0033
0.0043
0.029
0.073
0.0013
0.0031
0.0030
0.0035
0.0030
0.00055
NA
0.0026
0.037
0.11
0.071
NA
0.023
0.029
NA
NA
0.00073
Cu
0.13
1.2
0.13
0.13
0.057
0.088
0.14
0.25
8.4
4.2
0.057
0.20
0.12
0.27
0.14
0.021
NA
0.11
1.8
5.4
3.7
NA
1.1
1.6
NA
NA
0.031
Ni
0.068
0.27
0.062
0.058
0.025
0.033
0.087
0.092
0.67
1.6
0.029
0.067
0.060
0.074
0.069
0.0079
NA
0.057
0.65
1.9
1.1
NA
0.26
0.66
NA
NA
0.012
Pb
0.055
0.14
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.28
1.3
0.99
0.067
0.43
0.20
0.32
0.17
0.038
NA
0.097
1J
5.2
2.2
NA
2.0
1.8
NA
NA
0.063
Zn
0.43
1.1
0.63
0.58
0.23
0.39
0.41
0.89
6.4
5.6
0.23
0.74
0.64
0.70
0.57
0.13
NA
0.49
7.0
23
12
NA
4.7
8.0
NA
NA
0.21
Total
SEM/AVS
0.68
2.7
0.98
0.90
0.42
0.62
0.82
1.5
17
12
0.38
1.4
1.0
1.4
0.95
0.20
NA
0.76
11
35
19
NA
8.1
12
NA
NA
0.32
Note: SEM/AVS ratios of >1.0 indicate that AVS binding potential will be exceeded, and metals will
either be bioavailable in the interstitial water or will be available to bind with TOC
102
-------
Table 3-15. Continued
Site
Code
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
SEM/AVS
Component Ratios
Cd
0.0044
NA
0.084
0.089
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.00073
0.0084
0.0028
0.0020
0.00045
0.00053
Cu
0.22
NA
4.5
3.9
NA
6.8
NA
NA
NA
0.031
0.25
0.051
0.050
0.014
0.018
Ni
0.08
NA
13
1.3
NA
2.5
NA
NA
NA
0.013
0.26
0.057
0.033
0.0093
0.013
Pb
0.20
NA
5.0
2.7
NA
9.9
NA
NA
NA
0.058
0.060
0.027
0.034
0.0074
0.0096
Zn
0.97
NA
20
15
NA
26
NA
NA
NA
0.20
1.2
0.42
0.40
0.081
0.11
Total
SEM/AVS
1.5
NA
30
23
NA
46
NA
NA
NA
0.30
1.7
0.56
0.52
0.11
0.16
Note: SEM/AVS ratios of >1.0 indicate that AVS binding potential will be exceeded, and metals will
either be bioavailable in the interstitial water or will be available to bind with TOC.
103
-------
Table 3-16. Comparison of SEM Lead and Total Lead Concentrations in Howard's Bay
Site Code
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-5
0-5 (Vibr)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
mean
standard deviation
median
range: low
high
SEMPb
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
20.7
8.2
111
83.2
177
139
47.5
142
97.9
21.0
50.7
277
161
253
108
172
117
79.6
108
8.2
277
Total Pb
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
20.1
9.1
111
92.5
78.5
89.3
28.1
163
113
34.1
94.5
215
132
269
104
194
109
72.8
94.5
9.1
269
Site Code
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
mean
standard deviation
median
range: low
high
SEMPb
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
-------
Table 3-17. Mercury Results for Selected Sites and Depth Profiles
Site Code
HOB1
HOB1
HOB 2
HOBS
HOBS
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOBS
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 2
HOBS
HOBS
HOB 4
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 7
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-5
0-5 (VC)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
O-S(ponar)
0-5
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-15
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.088
ND
0.490
0.486
0.382
0.320
0.460
0.052
0.552
0.500
0.980
0.190
0.210
0.540
0.310
0.717
0.417
0.350
0.516
0.633
0.485
0.659
ND
0.506
0.440
0.911
0.668
0.603
0.600
0.760
ND
0.242
0.207
Mean
Mercury
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.434**
0.302**
0.720**
0.573**
0.473**
0.790**
0.602**
0.224**
Site Code
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 2
HOBS
HOB 4
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 15
Replicate
Type
ER
ER
ER
ER
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
25-40
30-45
30-45
30-45
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0350
0.030
ND
mi^Mlf
liPBll
0.560
0.061
0.678
0.666
0.550
ND
0.500
0.100
0.160
0.230
0.640
0.654
Mean
Mercury
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.672**
0.647**
** = QC was exceeded
ER = Environmental replicate
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 0.2 mg/kg mercury.
Bold and shaded values exceed the OMOEE SEL value of 2 mg/kg mercury.
105
-------
Table 3-17. Continued
Site Code
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15(VC)
0-10
5-20 (VC)
9-24
15-30
15-30
15-30
20-35
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.039
0.062
0.280
0.180
0.220
0.240
0.044
0.710
0.500
0.460
0.030
0320
0.230
0.450
0.170
0.038
0.160
0360
0.015
0.020
0.009
0.011
-------
Table 3-17. Continued
Site Code
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-5
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
145-160
111-126
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.260
0.160
0.370
0.470
0.600
0.270
0.043
0.047
0.270
0.490
0.970
0.490
0.240
0.064
0.028
0.240
0.170
0.180
0.089
0.590
0.170
0.120
0.031
0.260
0.260
0.360
0.540
0.760
0.520
0.600
1.500
0.720
0.260
0.550
0.750
0.790
0.720
0.470
Site Code
WLS 16
WLS17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20J
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.920
0.230
0.170
0.810
0.320
0.029
0.290
0.030
1.700
0.480
0.900
0.072
0.400
0.049
1.300
0.260
?&&W-$
0.040
0.046
0.980
0.140
0.280
0.400
0.410
0.018
1.000
0.040
0.100
0.520
0.310
0.082
0.660
0.047
0.760
||^jpjg
0.760
0.057
0.042
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 0.2 mg/kg mercury.
Bold and shaded values exceed the OMOEE SEL value of 2 mg/kg mercury.
107
-------
Table 3-17. Continued
Site Code
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Mercury
Cone.
(mg/kg)
(dry wt.)
0.140
0.037
0.056
0.210
0.140
0.038
0.047
0.088
0.160
0.210
0.042
0.870
0.029
0.190
0.046
0.030
0.035
0.280
0.050
0.088
0.024
0.027
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 0.2 mg/kg mercury.
Bold and shaded values exceed the OMOEE SEL value of 2 mg/kg mercury.
108
-------
Table 3-18. TCDD and TCDF Results for WLS and KMB Samples
Site
Code
WLS1*
WLS 2*
WLS 3
WLS 4**
WLS 5
WLS 6*
WLS 7**
WLS 8*
WLS 9**
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 8
WLS 10
WLS 11
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
TCDD
(Pg/g)
No Result
No Result
7.1
6.4
ND
No Result
4.4
No Result
ND
ND
7.7
3.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.4
ND
NQ
ND
5.3
22
5.4
ND
ND
ND
12
TCDD
Detection
Limit
(Pg/g)
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
-
1.8
4.1
-
-
3.3
6.8
2.9
6.5
7.2
2.9
4.0
1.5
-
1.5
3.3
3.7
-
-
-
2.4
4.2
3.0
-
TCDF
(Pg/g)
No Result
No Result
NQ
16
22
No Result
28
No Result
40
NQ
8.4
6.4
5,7
NQ
5.8
9.5
NQ
7.5
5.5
12
5.3
ND
0.9
ND
9.3
34
21
ND
ND
0.7
37
TCDF
Detection
Limit
(Pg/g)
-
-
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
0.4
-
-
-
2.2
0.3
-
-
AR = Analytical Replicate; ND = Not Detected; NQ = Not Quantifiable
* No result due to 0% surrogate recovery
** Surrogate recoveries outside of acceptable QA limits
109
-------
Table 3-18. Continued
Site
Code
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS17
WLS18
WLS 19
KMB 1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB 5
KMB5
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
TCDD
(Pg/g)
ND
6.8
ND
ND
3.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCDD
Detection
Limit (pg/g)
6.9
9.6
1.7
-
3.0
2.9
4.7
3.0
5.3
1.5
4.6
2.1
1.6
2.8
TCDF
(Pg/g)
ND
12.3
ND
ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
TCDF
Detection
Limit (pg/g)
1.1
-
0.5
0.2
8.1
1.7
3.5
0.6
0.5
1.6
2.7
13
5.1
9.1
8.8
AR = Analytical Replicate; ND = Not Detected; NQ = Not Quantifiable
110
-------
Table 3-19. Screening PAH Results for Selected Sites
Site Code
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS5
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15(VC)
0-10
5-20 (VC)
Screening
PAH Cone.
(Hg/kg)
(dry wt.)
2,400
15,300
37,400
8,900
4,300
53,400
7,000
18,200
52,700
47,100
9,200
107,000
32,400
142,000
33,900
900
2,900
24,200
1,800
1,200
1,600
1,100
<700
7,100
56,000
2,800
2,800
2,900
6,900
7,000
337,000
3,800
Site Code
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
SUS 1
SUS2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
SUS 6
SUS 7
SUS 1
SUS 2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
SUS 6
SUS 7
SUS1
SUS 2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
Core
Depth
(cm)
9-24
15-30
15-30
15-30
20-35
24-39
95-125
30-45
30-45
35-50
39-54
145-160
45-60
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
Screening
PAH Cone.
(ug/kg)
(dry wt.)
1,200
4,700
1,600
223,000
41,000
1,000
3,700
1,800
404,000
6,000
2,400
2,300
6,600
5,800
317,000
7,100
228,000
135,000
223,000
140,000
900
1,600
2,900
216,000
240,900
39,500
84,500
1,000
900
375,000
6,200
83,600
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) = 2,000 jig/Kg.
Values entered in bold are greater than the limit of detection (LOD), but less than the LOQ.
Ill
-------
Table 3-19. Continued
Site Code
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
145-160
111-126
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
Screening
PAH Cone.
(Hg/kg)
(dry wt.)
34,900
88,200
78,000
5,800
37,100
457,000
155,000
93,900
14,800
48,600
16,900
222,000
3,500
83,000
23,400
74,300
411,000
37,200
18,200
40,000
23,100
52,400
34,700
32,400
133,000
44,200
224,000
48,100
14,600
4,200
55,900
17,500
65,300
87,100
188,000
800
Site Code
WLS9
WLS10
WLS 11
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
Screening
PAH Cone.
(Hg/kg)
(dry wt.)
49,500
1,400
145,000
30,600
191,000
900
4,100
96,600
21,400
900
10,700
574,000
900
134,000
8,300
9,000
150,000
122,000
1,200
146,000
3,300
141,000
172,000
135,000
900
4,800
370,000
146,000
700
28,900
19,000
15,600
1,300
1,900
27,900
21,000
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) = 2,000 jig/Kg.
Values entered in bold are greater than the limit of detection (LOD), but less than the LOQ.
112
-------
Table 3-19. Continued
Site Code
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS 17
WLS18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Screening
PAH Cone.
(ug/kg)
(dry wt.)
34,600
2,100
110,000
1,000
21,300
1,000
800
800
62,700
1,300
24,800
<700
<700
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) = 2,000 ug/Kg.
Values entered in bold are greater than the limit of detection (LOD), but less than the LOQ.
113
-------
Table 3-20. PAH Results (by GC/MS) for Selected Sites
Site
Code
KMB
1-C
2-C
3-D
4-D
5-D
MLH
1-D
2-C
3-D
4-D
5-D
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-D
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
Lowest Effect Level
PAHs (ug/kg dry wt.)
Acene
1
3
<31
<30
<39
<26
10
25
<67
<69
3
26
27
<68
63
NA
Aceny
3
8
<31
<30
<39
38
26
70
220
170
17
160
80
200
49
NA
Anth
9
16
60
31
57
100
14
100
310
220
26
290
140
350
170
220
Bena
41
98
320
200
360
260
28
270
1,000
780
84
1,100
450
1,200
420
320
Benap
46
100
290
210
390
210
20
230
940
750
71
1,300
440
1,100
460
370
Benb
75
160
360
240
420
350
35
330
1,300
1,000
110
1,600
610
1,400
600
NA
Beng
27
19
85
160
480
120
11
100
420
430
41
710
280
510
310
170
Benk
21
33
140
110
180
110
12
98
420
400
28
600
230
480
250
240
Chry
40
97
320
210
380
340
33
330
1,100
830
93
1,100
570
1,300
520
340
Diben
8
13
54
37
66
28
<11
33
130
110
12
170
61
150
69
60
Fluo
4
7
41
<30
41
43
22
59
160
130
11
100
59
150
91
190
Flut
52
130
440
280
480
670
98
640
1,900
1,400
160
1,800
1,100
2,200
860
750
Indp
27
42
160
120
210
94
<11
110
400
330
31
680
220
400
260
200
Naph
12
28
150
80
91
130
130
430
1,300
850
63
660
240
900
350
NA
Phen
17
32
130
90
150
330
70
300
650
550
55
460
420
690
390
560
Pyrn
46
120
370
230
380
580
71
480
1,500
1,200
130
1,500
870
1,700
690
490
Total
430
900
3,000
2,000
3,700
3,400
590
3,600
12,000
9,200
940
12,000
5,800
13,000
5,600
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
114
-------
Table 3-20. Continued
Site
Code
MLH
1-C
2-C
3-D
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-C
MNS
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
Core
Depth
(cm)
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-10
Lowest Effect Level
PAHs (ug/kg dry wt.)
Acene
5
12
<26
2
<0.96
1
<0.9
<0.8
<2.3
99
260
310
650
810
230
NA
Aceny
12
67
54
6
<0.96
3
<0.9
<0.8
<2.3
200
53
140
130
190
130
NA
Anth
17
54
68
4
<0.96
2
<0.9
<0.8
<2.3
370
850
780
1,400
1,800
700
220
Bena
64
110
250
13
1
5
4
<0.8
3
1,400
4,100
4,600
5,300
8,000
2,500
320
Benap
57
63
220
11
2
4
3
<0.8
3
1,400
3,900
3,600
3,900
5,000
1,900
370
Benb
80
120
330
14
3
6
5
<0.8
7
2,000
6,700
6,600
7,100
9,300
3,100
NA
Beng
32
23
120
32
2
20
2
<0.8
7
840
920
630
890
850
470
170
Benk
26
32
120
5
<0.96
2
1
<0.8
2
720
1,500
2,200
1,900
3,100
830
240
Chry
62
130
330
13
2
5
4
<0.8
5
1,300
9,800
5,700
6,500
8,600
2,700
340
Diben
8
10
33
2
<0.96
O.89
<0.9
<0.8
<2.3
190
620
430
440
580
200
60
Fluo
7
45
44
3
<0.96
1
<0.9
<0.8
<2.3
240
380
440
780
1,100
290
190
iฃlut_
120
340
610
31
4
14
8
<0.8
8
1 2,200
9,500
h!4,000
13,000
20,000
5,500
750
Indp
33
21
110
8
2
3
2
<0.8
3
870
1,700
2,200
2,100
2,800
950
200
Naph
23
1,000
260
15
1
10
7
2
6
950
140
160
390
330
110
NA
Phen
47
110
270
16
3
8
3
<0.8
6
1,100
4,500
5,700
8,400
12,000
3,300
560
Pyrn
100
260
520
29
4
12
8
<0.8
7
2,100
7,700
9,800
9,800
15,000
4,500
490
Total
690
2,400
3,400
200
27
96
50
8
62
16,000
53,000
57,000
63,000
89,000
27,000
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
115
-------
Table 3-20. Continued
Site
Code
MNS
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
STP
12-D
12-C
12-D
12-D
sus
1-D
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
6-C
7-D
Core
Depth
(cm)
24-39
95-125
30-45
15-30
20-35
0-10
15-30
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
Lowest Effect Level
PAHs (ug/kg dry wt)
Acene
790
1,300
980
7,600
55
74
220
59
83
82
110
1,700
230
110
190
56
NA
Aceny
190
350
240
570
49
<26
120
39
82
40
45
87
100
31
<53
21
NA
Anth
2,000
2,600
2,000
13,000
120
110
220
140
360
170
240
2,800
430
260
720
150
220
Bena
6,800
10,000
8,300
22,000
450
460
650
510
1,300
610
830
3,600
1,400
740
1,800
440
320
Benap
4,600
7,200
5,400
17,000
380
430
480
530
1,300
610
870
3,300
1,600
780
2,100
430
370
Benb
8,100
11,000
9,500
21,000
520
540
710
670
1,900
890
1,200
4,100
2,100
980
2,200
560
NA
Beng
790
1,800
780
4,700
96
170
94
210
360
410
540
1,200
1,000
460
960
260
170
Benk
2,100
2,300
2,800
8,800
190
230
280
210
450
300
390
1,600
800
310
750
190
240
Chry
7,900
10,000
8,500
22,000
490
530
700
630
1,300
740
950
3,400
1,700
790
1,900
480
340
Diben
530
740
640
1,600
46
80
99
96
220
120
160
540
270
140
290
79
60
Fluo
960
1,800
1,400
9300
54
110
410
120
230
110
160
2,600
320
140
190
91
190
Flut
17,000
23,000
20,000
65,000
1,200
860
1,200
880
2,600
1300
2,100
9,100
3,500
1,700
4,500
870
750
Indp
2,400
3,500
3,100
7,700
210
250
260
270
670
370
480
1,500
850
420
860
220
200
Naph
420
690
520
5,400
23
90
110
150
240
120
170
530
240
110
63
89
NA
Phen
10,000
16,000
13,000
75,000
640
650
i2,600
500
1,200
780
1,000
10,000
2,200
1,000
2,500
620
560
Pyrn
13,000
20,000
14,000
44,000
1,200
700
1,100
800
2,200
1,100
1,700
7,200
3,000
1,400
4,900
750
490
Total
78,000
110,000
91,000
320,000
5,700
5300
9,200
5,800
14,000
7,800
11,000
53,000
20,000
9,400
24,000
5300
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
116
-------
Table 3-20. Continued
Site
Code
sus
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-D
6-D
7-D
WLS
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-D
6-D
7-C
8-C
9-C
10-C
11-C
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
Lowest Effect Level
PAHs (ng/kg dry wt.)
Acene
360
220
78
200
28
33
61
88
53
70
58
47
45
30
72
42
17
36
NA
Aceny
130
<71
64
210
<17
<17
30
88
540
78
87
86
77
52
140
76
35
80
NA
Anth
500
310
200
440
62
58
100
260
160
220
190
170
170
100
260
150
56
130
220
Bena
1,000
980
520
1,400
180
140
240
1,400
860
920
1,000
860
880
410
1,100
720
230
520
320
Benap
960
1,100
550
1300
190
120
250
1,300
790
830
920
780
860
500
1,000
710
270
620
370
Benb
1,400
1,400
760
1,800
280
180
320
2,200
1,200
1,400
1,500
1,300
1,400
660
1,600
1,100
380
900
NA
Beng
480
410
240
680
100
75
120
850
510
550
600
510
560
350
600
440
180
410
170
Benk
400
480
250
610
100
75
120
720
370
400
490
400
380
270
480
350
150
300
240
Chry
1,400
1,300
600
1,400
210
150
240
1,700
920
960
1,100
890
940
530
1,200
780
290
690
340
Diben
130
130
72
180
25
<17
31
260
150
170
190
160
170
69
200
140
42
74
60
Fluo
530
260
130
250
49
50
68
110
71
too
83
80
74
50
140
73
31
70
190
Flut
2,500
2,200
1,200
3,000
430
360
570
2,900
,600
,700
,900
,500
,600
880
1,900
1,300
460
1,000
750
Indp
430
420
240
650
93
63
110
870
510
560
630
530
580
280
640
470
140
330
200
Naph
280
250
100
190
46
81
60
63
58
99
74
170
140
95
310
150
74
220
NA
Phen
2,600
1,700
910
1,600
350
380
440
930
590
700
600
420
470
320
670
400
150
370
560
Pyrn
2,100
2,200
980
2,700
370
300
520
2,400
1,300
1,400
1,600
1,300
1,400
820
1,700
1,100
440
930
490
Total
15,000
13,000
6,900
17,000
2,500
2,100
3,300
16,000
9,700
10,000
11,000
9,200
9,700
5,400
12,000
8,000
2,900
6,700
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
117
-------
Table 3-20. Continued
Site
Code
WLS
12-D
13-D
14-D
15-D
16-D
17-D
18-D
19-D
1-D
2-D
3
4
5
6-D
7-D
8
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
Lowest Effect
,evel
PAHs (ng/kg dry wt.)
Acene
42
30
43
<22
46
<21
<12
36
<25
<29
<1.5
2
3
<20
36
<4
NA
Aceny
74
65
91
29
83
28
21
83
<25
<29
<1.5
2
4
<20
<17
<4
NA
Anth
170
140
180
64
190
65
37
160
46
50
<1.5
5
5
31
64
<4
220
Bena
580
470
730
250
600
220
120
540
220
270
2
16
21
110
190
<4
320
Benap
590
470
750
250
590
220
140
600
200
220
3
13
14
90
160
<4
370
Benb
810
650
1,000
350
820
320
200
780
280
350
5
21
27
130
230
<4
NA
Beng
330
260
460
150
350
120
83
300
130
150
3
13
15
52
110
25
170
Benk
270
230
300
120
280
100
74
280
100
110
<1.5
7
7
50
77
<4
240
Chry
690
570
790
280
740
270
150
640
250
290
2
21
19
130
210
<4
340
Diben
85
71
110
35
86
28
21
88
33
45
<1.5
3
3
<20
25
<4
60
Fluo
110
86
97
36
110
39
22
97
33
<29
<1.5
4
6
24
43
<4
190
Flut
1,200
970
1,400
570
1,200
500
280
990
440
510
7
39 ^
37
250
440
9
750
Indp
290
240
420
130
290
100
76
320
110
140
2
8
12
50
90
6
200
Naph
370
290
230
83
400
170
71
400
67
46
2
10
11
80
56
5
NA
Phen
540
420
520
190
550
200
100
380
160
150
3
22
18
100
250
5
560
Pym
1,000
840
1,200
490
1,100
470
250
900
370
460
5
32
31
210
370
8
490
Total
7,200
5,800
8,300
3,000
7,400
2,900
1,600
6,600
2,500
2,800
38
220
230
1,300
2,400
79
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
118
-------
Table 3-20. Continued
Site
Code
WLS
9-C
10-C
11-D
12
13
14
15-D
16
17-D
18
19
Core
Depth
(cm)
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Lowest Effect Level
PAHs (ug/kg dry wt.)
Acene
48
3
<20
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
28
<1.3
15
<1
<1.1
NA
Aceny
84
3
23
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
32
<1.3
23
<1
<1.1
NA
Anth
180
8
47
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
85
<1.3
57
<1
<1.1
220
Bena
710
22
150
2
<1.2
<1.2
310
2
160
<1
<1.1
320
Benap
600
20
130
2
<1.2
<1.2
270
2
140
<1
<1.1
370
Benb
830
24
180
4
2
<1.2
360
5
190
1
2
NA
Beng
350
13
81
6
<1.2
<1.2
150
5
77
7
<1.1
170
Benk
310
10
69
2
2
<1.2
150
<1.3
65
<1 .
<1.1
240
Chry
780
24
160
2
<1.2
<1.2
360
2
170
<1
<1.1
340
Diben
94
3
<20
<1.4
<1.2
<1.2
42
<1.3
19
<1
<1.1
60
Fluo
110
5
33
<1.2
<1.2
61
<1.3
41
<1
<1.1
190
Flut
1,500
47
320
2
2
610
5
320
<1
1
750
Indp
330
10
68
<1.2
<1.2
150
2
65
<1
<1.1
200
Naph
180
17
96
3
<1.2
100
2
170
2
<1.1
NA
Phen
570
20
140
2
1
290
3
160
<1
<1.1
560
Pyrn
1,200
39
270
5
3
1
510
4
290
<1
1
490
Total
7,900
270
1,800
40
19
12
3,500
35
2,000
17
12
4,000
Bold values exceed OMOEE LEL values.
NA = Not applicable.
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
PAH Codes: Acene = Acenaphthene
Aceny = Acenaphthylene
Anth = Anthracene
Bena = Benz(a)anthracene
Benap = Benzo(a)pyrene
Benb = Benzo(b)fluoroanthene
Beng = Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benk = Benzo(k)fluoroanthene
Chry = Chrysene Indp = Indeno( 1,2,3 - cd)pyrene
Diben = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Naph = Naphthalene
Fluo = Fluorene Phen = Phenanthrene
Flut = Fluoranthene Pyrn = Pyrene
119
-------
Table 3-21. TOC-normalized PAH Results for Selected Sites
Site
Code
KMB
1-C
2-C
3-D
4-D
5-D
MLH
1-D
2-C
3-D
4-D
5-D
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-D
1-C
2-C
3-D
4
5
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-12
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-17
0-21
0-17
0-15.5
0-20
0-20
25-40
80-95
37-52
30-50
32-47
OMOEE SEL
Normalized PAHs (ng/kg oc dry wt.)
Acene
59
160
500
680
700
260
140
210
510
530
380
680
560
540
1,800
230
63
87
88
23
NA
Aceny
160
440
500
680
700
760
370
580
3,300
2,600
1,900
4,200
1,700
3,200
1,400
600
350
360
250
23
NA
Anth
400
940
1,900
1,400
2,000
2,000
200
830
4,700
3,400
2,900
7,600
2,900
5,600
5,000
850
280
450
160
23
370,000
Bena
1,900
5,800
10,000
9,100
13,000
5,200
390
2,200
15,000
12,000
9,400
29,000
9,400
19,000
12,000
3,200
580
1,700
540
67
1,480,000
Bcnap
2,100
5,900
9,400
9,500
14,000
4,200
280
1,900
14,000
12,000
8,000
34,000
9,200
17,000
14,000
2,800
330
1,500
460
76
1,440,000
Benb
3,400
9,400
12,000
11,000
15,000
7,000
490
2,800
20,000
15,000
12,000
42,000
13,000
22,000
18,000
4,000
630
2,200
580
130
NA
Beng
1,200
1,100
2,700
7,300
17,000
2,400
160
830
6,400
6,600
4,600
19,000
5,800
8,100
9,100
1,600
120
800
1,300
100
320,000
Benk
960
1,900
4,500
5,000
6400
2,200
170
820
6,400
6,200
3,100
16,000
4,800
7,600
7,400
1,300
170
800
210
23
1,340,000
Chry
1,800
5,700
10,000
9,500
14,000
6,800
460
2,800
17,000
13,000
10,000
29,000
12,000
21,000
15,000
3,100
6?0
2,200
540
81
460,000
Diben
370
760
1,700
1,700
2,400
560
77
280
2,000
1,700
1,300
4,500
1,300
2,400
2,000
420
53
220
100
23
130,000
Fluo
170
400
1,300
680
1,500
860
310
490
2,400
2,000
1,200
2,600
1,200
2,400
2,700
340
240
290
130
23
160,000
Flut
2,400
7,600
14,000
13,000
17,000
13,000
1,400
5,300
29,000
22,000
18,000
47,000
23,000
35,000
25,000
6,000
1,800
4,100
1,300
200
1,020,000
Indp
1,200
2,500
5,200
5,400
7,500
1,900
77
920
6,000
5,100
3,500
18,000
4,600
6,300
7,600
1,600
110
730
320
76
320,000
Naph
540
1,600
4,800
3,600
3,200
2,600
1,800
3,600
20,000
13,000
7,100
17,000
5,000
14,000
10,000
1,200
5,300
1,700
620
67
NA
Phen
770
1,900
4,200
4,100
5,400
6,600
990
2,500
9,800
8,500
6,200
12,000
8,800
11,000
11,000
2,400
580
1,800
670
130
950,000
Pym
2,100
7,000
12,000
10,000
14,000
12,000
1,000
4,000
23,000
18,000
15,000
39,000
18,000
27,000
20,000
5,000
1,400
3,500
1,200
210
850,000
Total
20,000
53,000
97,000
91,000
130,000
68,000
8,300
30,000
180,000
140,000
100,000
320,000
120,000
210,000
160,000
34,000
13,000
23,000
8,300
1,300
10,000,000
NAป Not applicable
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
120
-------
Table 3-21. Continued
Site
Code
MLH
6
7
8
9
10-C
MNS
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
Core
Depth
(cm)
25-40
72-87
60-76
52-79
75-95
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-10
24-39
95-125
30-45
15-30
20-35
OMOEE SEL
Normalized PAHs (ng/kg oc dry wt.)
Acene
41
35
220
8
2,400
6,500
6,500
20,000
23,000
9,600
19,000
19,000
24,000
400,000
8,200
NA
Aceny
130
35
220
8
4,900
1,300
2,900
4,100
5,400
5,400
4,500
5,200
6,000
30,000
7,300
NA
Anth
79
35
220
8
9,000
21,000
16,000
44,000
51,000
29,000
48,000
39,000
50,000
680,000
18,000
370,000
Bena
200
310
220
20
34,000
100,000
96,000
160,000
230,000
100,000
160,000
150,000
210,000
1,200,000
67,000
1,480,000
Benap
170
230
220
21
34,000
98,000
75,000
120,000
140,000
79,000
110,000
110,000
140,000
890,000
57,000
1,440,000
Benb
240
350
220
43
49,000
170,000
140,000
220,000
260,000
130,000
190,000
160,000
240,000
1,100,000
78,000
NA
Beng
830
170
220
45
20,000
23,000
13,000
28,000
24,000
20,000
19,000
27,000
20,000
250,000
14,000
320,000
Benk
79
100
220
15
18,000
38,000
46,000
59,000
88,000
34,000
50,000
34,000
70,000
460,000
28,000
1,340,000
Chry
210
320
220
31
32,000
240,000
120,000
200,000
240,000
110,000
190,000
150,000
210,000
1,200,000
73,000
460,000
Diben
19
35
220
8
4,600
16,000
9,000
14,000
16,000
8,300
13,000
11,000
16,000
84,000
6,900
130,000
Fluo
58
35
220
8
5,800
9,500
9,200
24,000
31,000
12,000
23,000
27,000
35,000
490,000
8.100
160,000
Flut
580
630
220
55
54,000
240,000
290,000
410,000
570,000
230,000
400,000
340,000
500,000
3,400,000
180,000
1,020,000
Indp
120
160
220
19
21,000
42,000
46,000
66,000
80,000
40,000
57,000
52,000
78,000
400,000
31,000
320,000
Naph
420
500
1,200
42
23,000
3,500
3,300
12,000
9,400
4,600
10,000
10,000
13,000
280,000
3,400
NA
Phen
340
240
220
37
27,000
110,000
120,000
260,000
340,000
140,000
240,000
240,000
320,000
3,900,000
96,000
950,000
Pyrn
500
630
220
47
51,000
190,000
200,000
310,000
430,000
190,000
310,000
300,000
350,000
2,300,000
180,000
850,000
Total
4,000
3,800
4,500
410
390,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1,100,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
2,300,000
17,000,000
850,000
10,000,000
NA = Not applicable
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
O = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
121
-------
Table 3-21. Continued
Site
Code
STP
12-D
12-C
12-D
12-D
SUS
1-D
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
6-C
7-D
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-D
6-D
7-D
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
15-30
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
OMOEE SEL
Normalized PAHs (ng/kg oc dry wt.)
Acene
1,800
4,700
1,600
1,300
1.700
3,100
35,000
5,300
4,800
10,000
2,100
2,400
2,000
2,200
4,600
3,500
12,000
4,400
NA
Aceny
320
2,600
1,000
1,300
850
1,300
1,800
2,300
1,300
1,400
780
870
320
1,800
4,900
1,100
3,000
2,100
NA
Anlh
2,700
4,700
3,800
5,600
3,600
6,800
57,000
10,000
11,000
38,000
5,600
3.300
2,800
5,600
10,000
7,800
21,000
7,100
370,000
Bena
11,000
14,000 '
14,000
20,000
13,000
24,000
73,000
32,000
32,000
95,000
16,000
6,700
8,900
14,000
32,000
22,000
50,000
17,000
1,480,000
Benap
10,000
10,000
14,000
20,000
13,000
25,000
67,000
37,000
34,000
110,000
16,000
6,400
10,000
15,000
35,000
24,000
43,000
18,000
1,440,000
Benb
13,000
15,000
18,000
30,000
19,000
34,000
84,000
49,000
43,000
120,000
21,000
9,300
13,000
21,000
42,000
35,000
64,000
23,000
NA
Beng
4,100
2,000
5,700
5,600
8,700
15,000
24,000
23,000
20,000
50,000
9,600
3,200
3,700
6,700
16,000
12,000
27,000
8,600
320,000
Benk
5,600
6,000
5,700
7,000
6,400
11,000
33,000
19,000
13,000
39,000
7,000
2,700
4,400
6,900
14,000
12,000
27,000
8,600
1,340,000
Chry
13,000
15,000
17,000
20.000
16,000
27,000
69,000
40,000
34,000
100,000
18,000
9,300
12,000
17,000
32,000
26,000
54,000
17,000
460,000
Diben
2,000
2,100
2,600
3,400
2,600
4,600
11,000
6,300
6,100
15,000
2,900
S70
1,200
2,000
4,200
3,100
3,000
2,200
130,000
Fluo
2,700
8,700
3,200
3,600
2,300
4,600
53,000
7,400
6,100
10,000
3,400
3,500
2,400
3,600
5,800
6,100
18,000
4,900
160,000
Flut
21,000
26,000
24,000
41,000
28,000
60,000
180,000
81,000
74,000
240,000
32,000
17,000
20,000
33,000
70,000
54,000
130,000
41,000
1,020,000
Indp
6,100
5,500
7,300
10,000
7,900
14,000
31,000
20,000
18,000
45,000
8,100
2,900
3,800
6,700
15,000
12,000
22,000
7,900
320,000
Naph
2,200
2,300
4,000
3,800
2,600
4,800
11,000
5,600
4,800
3,300
3,300
1,900
2,300
2,800
4,400
5,800
29,000
4,300
NA
Phen
16,000
55,000
14,000
19,000
16,000
28,000
200,000
51,000
L 43,000
130,000
23,000
17,000
15,000
25,000
37,000
44,000
140,000
31,000
950,000
Pym
17,000
23,000
22,000
34,000
23,000
48,000
150,000
70,000
61,000
260,000
28,000
14,000
20,000
27,000
63,000
46,000
110,000
37,000
850,000
Total
130,000
200,000
160,000
220,000
160,000
310,000
1,100,000
460,000
410,000
1,300,000
200,000
100,000
120,000
190,000
400,000
310,000
750,000
240,000
10,000,000
NA = Not applicable
C - Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
122
-------
Table 3-21. Continued
Site
Code
WLS
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-D
6-D
7-C
8-C
9-C
10-C
11-C
12-D
13-D
14-D
15-D
16-D
17-D
18-D
19-D
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-20
OMOEE SEL
Normalized PAHs (ng/kg oc dry wt.)
Acene
3,000
2,300
2,200
1,900
960
1,200
860
1,600
1,100
1,000
1,000
860
640
770
420
980
380
220
820
NA
Aceny
3,000
23,000
2,500
2,900
1,800
2,100
1,500
3,100
2,000
2,000
2,200
1,500
1,400
1,600
1,100
1,800
1,000
780
1,900
NA
Anth
9,000
7,000
7,100
6,300
3,500
4,600
2,800
5,800
3,900
3,300
3,600
3,500
3,000
3,200
2,500
4,000
2,300
1,400
3,600
370,000
Bena
48,000
37,000
30,000
33,000
18,000
24,000
12,000
24,000
19,000
14,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
13,000
9,600
13,000
7,800
4,400
12,000
1,480,000
Benap
45,000
34,000
27,000
31,000
16,000
23,000
14,000
22,000
19,000
16,000
17,000
12,000
10,000
13,000
9,600
12,000
7,800
5,200
14,000
1,440,000
Benb
76,000
52,000
45,000
50,000
26,000
38,000
19,000
36,000
29,000
22,000
25,000
16,000
14,000
18,000
13,000
17,000
11,000
7,400
18,000
NA
Beng
29,000
22,000
18,000
20,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
13,000
12,000
10,000
11,000
6,700
5,500
8,200
5,800
7,400
4,300
3,100
6,800
320,000
Benk
25,000
16,000
13,000
16,000
8,200
10,000
7,700
11,000
9,200
8,800
8,300
5,500
4,900
5,400
4,600
6,000
3,600
2,700
6,400
1,340,000
Chiy
59,000
40,000
31,000
37,000
18,000
25,000
15,000
27,000
20,000
17,000
19,000
14,000
12,000
14,000
11,000
16,000
9,600
5,600
14,000
460,000
Diben
9,000
6,500
5,500
6,300
3,300
4,600
2,000
4,400
3,700
2,500
2,000
1,700
1,500
2,000
1,300
1,800
1,000
780
2,000
130,000
Fluo
3,800
3,100
3,200
2,800
1,600
2,000
1,400
3,100
1,900
1,800
1,900
2200
1,800
1 700
1,400
2,300
1,400
820
2,200
160,000
Flut
100,000
70,000
55,000
63,000
31,000
43,000
25,000
42,000
34,000
27,000
28,000
24,000
21,000
25,000
22,000
26,000
18,000
10,000
22,000
1,020,000
Indp
30,000
22,000
18,000
21,000
11,000
16,000
8,000
14,000
12,000
8,200
9,200
5,900
5,100
7,500
5,000
6,200
3,600
2,800
7,300
320,000
Naph
2,200
2,500
3,200
2,500
3,500
3,800
2,700
6,900
3,900
4,400
6,100
7,600
6,200
4,100
3,200
8,500
6,100
2,600
9,100
NA
Phen
32,000
26,000
22,000
20,000
8,600
13,000
9,100
15,000
10,000
8,800
10,000
11,000
8,900
9,300
7,300
12,000
7,100
3,700
8,600
950,000
Pym
83,000
56,000
45,000
53,000
26,000
38,000
23,000
38,000
29,000
26,000
26,000
20,000
18,000
21,000
19,000
23,000
17,000
9,200
20,000
850,000
Total
550,000
420,000
320,000
370,000
190,000
260,000
150,000
270,000
210,000
170,000
190,000
150,000
120,000
150,000
120,000
160,000
100,000
59,000
150,000
10,000,000
NA = Not applicable
C = Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D = Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
Full name of PAH codes at end of Table.
123
-------
Table 3-21. Continued
Site
Code
WLS
1-D
2-D
3
4
5
6-D
7-D
8
9-C
10-C
11-D
12
13
14
15-D
16
17-D
18
19
Core
Depth
(cm)
189-204
167-182
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
OMOEE SEL
Acene
340
280
12
51
19
460
2,200
7
1,500
680
590
16
18
25
1,100
14
460
29
31
NA
Aceny
340
280
12
44
22
460
530
7
2,700
870
1,400
16
18
25
1,200
14
700
29
31
NA
Anth
1,200
960
12
130
29
1,400
4,000
7
5,800
2,000
2,800
16
18
25
3,300
14
1,700
29
31
370,000
Bena
5,900
5,200
36
370
120
5,000
12,000
7
23,000
5,800
8,800
45
18
25
12,000
33
4,800
29
31
1,480,000
Bcnap
5,400
4,200
48
300
82
4,100
10,000
7
19,000
5,300
7,600
50
18
25
10,000
46
4,200
29
31
1,440,000
Normalized PAHs (ng/kg oc dry wt.)
Benb
7,600
6,700
77
490
160
5,900
14,000
7
27,000
6,300
11,000
100
68
25
14,000
120
5,800
65
130
NA
Beng
3,500
2,900
52
300
88
2,400
6,900
93
11,000
3,400
4,800
120
18
25
5,800
110
2,300
440
31
320,000
Benk
2,700
2,100
12
150
39
2,300
4,800
7
10,000
2,500
4,100
50
44
25
5,800
14
2,000
29
31
1,340,000
Chry
6,800
5,600
38
490
110
5,900
13,000
7
25,000
6,300
9,400
55
18
25
14,000
39
5,200
29
31
460,000
Diben
890
860
12
65
17
460
1,600
7
3,000
790
590
!6
18
25
1,600
14
580
29
31
130,000
Fluo
890
280
12
100
34
1,100
2,700
7
3,500
1,300
1,900
16
18
25
2,300
14
1,200
29
31
160,000
Flut
12,000
9,800
110
910
220
11,000
28,000
35
48,000
12,000
19,000
100
68
63
23,000
100
9,700
29
72
1,020,000
Indp
3,000
2,700
28
190
71
2,300
5,600
21
11.000
2,500
4,000
50
18
25
5,800
35
2,000
29
31
320,000
Naph
1,800
880
26
220
65
3,600
3,500
19
5,800
4,500
5,600
80
74
25
3,800
48
5,200
130
31
NA
Phen
4.300
2,900
51
510
110
4,500
16,000
20
18,000
5,300
8,200
68
59
58
11,000
63
4,800
29
31
950,000
Pym
10,000
8,800
82
740
180
9,500
23,000
30
39,000
10,000
16,000
too
74
58
20,000
80
8,800
29
78
850,000
Total
68,000
54,000
620
5,100
1,400
59,000
150,000
290
250,000
71,000
100,000
910
560
500
130,000
760
61,000
1,000
670
10,000,000
NA-Not applicable
C - Results merged from two separate sample runs.
D - Analysis at a secondary dilution factor.
PAH Codes:
Acene - Acenaphthene
Aceny ป Acenaphthylene
Anth = Anthracene
Bena = Benz(a)anthracene
Bcnap = Benzo(a)pyrene
Benb - Benzo(b)fluoroanthene
Beng - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benk = Benzo(k)fluoroanthene
Chry = Chrysene
Diben - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluo = Fluorene
Flut = Fluoranthene
Indp = Indeno(l,2,3 - cd)pyrcne
Naph'Naphthalene
Phen = Phenanthrene
Pym = Pyrene
124
-------
Table 3-22. Total PCB Results for Selected Sites
Site Code
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
KMB5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS5
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15(VC)
0-10
0-10
5-20 (VC)
9-24
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
20-35
24-39
95-125
30-45
30-45
35-50
39-54
145-160
45-60
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-15
0-15
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
Total
PCBs
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
16.2
19.9
64.9
44.7
60.1
66.9
259
313
270
405
148
90.5
99.4
55.4
119
195
581
64.4
115
58.1
259
75.0
250
87.6
107
496
50.9
113
78.6
74.5
109
58.9
155
Mean PCB
Cone.
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
63.5
95.0
89.7
Standard
Deviation
4.80
6.29
35.8
% Organic
Carbon
2.2
1.7
3.1
2.2
2.8
2.8
4
4.8
3.2
3.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.6
3.4
3.8
4.6
1.9
1.9
0.67
4.2
6.7
4
2.2
2.9
4.0
4.6
4.1
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.6
4.1
Total
PCBs
(ng/g OC)
(dry wt.)
738
1170
2090
2030
2270
2390
6480
6520
8440
11600
5690
3770
3960
3460
3500
5130
12600
3390
4720
8670
6170
1120
6250
3980
3690
12400
1110
5140
2620
2190
3210
1640
3780
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs
AR = Analytical Replicate
125
-------
Table 3-22. Continued
Site Code
STP6
STP6
STP7
STP8
STP10
STP12
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP6
STP7
STP7
STP8
STP8
STP12
STP1
STP3
STP4
STP6
STP12
STP12
SUS1
SUS 1
SUS2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
SUS 6
SUS 7
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-10
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
7-23
5-23
5-23
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
23-38
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
Total
PCBs
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
69.6
64.7
109
140
121
116
139
213
35.6
48.1
62.6
99.7
101
88.1
86.3
549
145
21.1
69.2
81.5
353
30.4
220
190
121
326
132
134
95.0
102
MeanPCB
Cone.
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
67.2
100.4
87.2
205
Standard
Deviation
3.46
0.919
1.27
21.2
% Organic
Carbon
3.4
3.4
3.2
5
3.4
4.1
4
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
5
5
4.7
2.3
1.8
4.6
3.6
3.7
6.4
4.7
4.7
3.5
4.9
4.3
2.3
1.9
2.7
Total
PCBs
(ng/g OC)
(dry wt.)
2050
1980
3410
2800
3560
2830
3480
4730
913
1420
1960
3120
3140
1760
1740
11700
6300
1170
1500
2260
9540
475
4681
4040
3460
6650
3070
5830
5000
3780
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs
AR = Analytical Replicate
126
-------
Table 3-22. Continued
Site Code
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WISH
WLS12
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
145-160
111-126
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
Total
PCBs
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
535
410
131
315
1140
44.4
97.4
295
275
88.1
83.6
259
65.0
57.9
57.6
43.7
98.1
20.8
106
120
55.3
14.1
145
120
241
283
491
203
205
822
732
301
112
150
396
Mean PCB
Cone.
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
85.9
111
Standard
Deviation
3.18
63.6
% Organic
Carbon
19
19
4.8
2.8
0.83
0.33
3
15
11
3.6
3.6
4.3
0.80
0.28
1.4
1.4
2.7
3.1
3.2
2.4
1.1
0.29
2.9
2.3
3.1
3
4.9
3.7
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.8
1.7
3.6
4.9
Total
PCBs
(ng/gOC)
(dry wt.)
2820
2160
2730
11300
137000
13500
3250
1970
2500
2447
2380
6020
8120
20700
4110
3120
3630
671
3310
5000
5030
4860
5000
5220
7770
9430
10000
6490
5860
18300
17300
7920
6590
4170
8080
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs
AR = Analytical Replicate
127
-------
Table 3-22. Continued
Site Code
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS 12
WLS13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
Total
PCBs
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
491
346
366
424
215
94.3
93.6
271
590
13.8
117
40.5
422
460
571
679
4.40
Mean PCS
Cone.
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
94.0
441
Standard
Deviation
0.495
26.9
% Organic
Carbon
4.7
5.6
2.6
4.7
2.8
2.7
2.7
4.4
3.3
1
3.5
1.1
8.7
8.7
2.8
3.7
3.9
Total
PCBs
(ng/gOC)
(dry wt.)
10400
6180
14100
9020
7680
3490
3480
6160
1790
1380
3340
3680
4850
5070
20400
18400
113
No Data Available
AR
AR
21.3
535
77.2
876
14.6
10.8
463
44.0
42.9
14.1
18.2
1220
15.3
23.8
435
39.0
43.5
19.6
0.778
6.01
2.6
4.2
3.5
4.3
2.3
1.8
3.7
3
3
1.9
2.7
3.3
1
1
4.5
0.76
819
12700
2210
20400
635
600
12500
1470
1450
742
674
37000
1530
1960
9670
5130
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs
AR = Analytical Replicate
128
-------
Table 3-22. Continued
Site Code
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
189-204
167-182
173-188
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
Total
PCBs
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
61.9
453
168
63.2
700
167
727
740
1270
74.2
31.4
26.S
740
58.7
19.3
30.5
90.6
78.7
50.4
40.8
27.9
45.5
65.5
71.4
46.1
49.9
515
14.5
54.7
22.1
14.1
35.4
26.9
33.0
24.2
37.5
23.2
40.0
Mean PCB
Cone.
(ng/g)
(dry wt.)
734
45.6
68.5
18.1
Standard
Deviation
9.19
6.79
4.17
5.66
% Organic
Carbon
27
3.6
1.4
5.8
3.1
0.79
3.5
3.5
5
6.8
3.5
3.9
6.9
2.8
1.5
2.7
3.7
5.2
6.1
6.1
4.3
17
2.2
2.2
1.6
27
3.1
0.38
L L7
4.4
4.4
3.4
2.4
2.6
4.6
3.3
1.7
1.8
Total
PCBs
(ng/gOC)
(dry wt.)
229
12600
12000
1090
22600
21100
20800
21000
25400
1090
897
687
10700
2100
1290
1130
2450
1510
826
748
649
268
2980
3110
2880
185
16600
3820
3220
502
411
1040
1120
1270
526
1140
1370
2220
Bold values exceed the OMOEE LEL value of 70 ng/g PCBs
AR = Analytical Replicate
129
-------
Table 3-23. Subset of Seven PCB Congeners
IUPAC
Number
6
18
52
101
128
180
201
Congener Name
2,3' dichlorobiphenyl
2,2',5 trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',5,5' tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5,5' pentachlorobiphenyl
2',3,3',4,4' hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'octachlorobiphenyl
130
-------
Table 3-24. Results for Seven PCB Congeners at Selected Sites
Site
Code
KMB1
KMB2
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
KMB5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS5
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
STP6
STP6
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-8
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-12
0-15
0-15
0-15(VC)
0-10
0-10
5-20 (VC)
9-24
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
20-35
24-39
95-125
30-45
30-45
35-50
39-54
145-160
45-60
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
PCB Congener Number (ng/g OC)
6
-
3.86
2.51
23.8
20.3
25.4
5.00
0.75
4.79
12.2
3.63
15.1
24.9
95.4
-
-
19.5
-
49.7
380.05
11.2
-
7.07
-
146
29.6
65.3
-
-
-
-
2.49
-
-
6.24
18
12.9
10.2
27.4
25.7
19.2
32.1
256*
106
100
162
66.5*
118
102
41.6
56.6
128
268
32.9
14.9
50.4
-
-
330
517
237
166
117*
178
65.2
34.9
38.9
17.6
49.4
42.4
64.4
52
22.4
22.4
70.2
53.8
45.0
46.1
1830*
1380*
1420*
990*
84.2
80.9
84.1
88.8
-
159
462
92.1
45.6
280
158
9.6
203
124
167
348
24.2
39.2
78.0
51.1
105
46.8
110
64.6
58.9
101
40.9
58.5*
88.6
97.7
125
112
203
182
355
614
146
171
177
95.4
199
306
764*
139
243
287
417
25.0
284
235
92.4
702*
8.82
106
132
106
126
87.4
210
83.2
85.8
128
-
-
19.5
10.7
14.2
22.6
76.5
89.0
114
157
25.4
43.6
50.1
41.2
56.2
70.8
16.2
-
69.9
78.0
2.64
57.7
48.2
55.2
176
-
77.1
18.7
19.9
25.4
13.8
46.7
15.0
13.0
180
3.26
36.1
61.8
70.7
78.4
95.2
91.5
112
198
239
44.5
83
106
30.4
68.7
89.5
178
45.8
39.4
53.3
102
37.7
95.3
64.0
21.1
179
-
125
59.6
41.5
43.7
27.1
83.5
30.8
29.4
201
4.60
9.7
16.1
16.2
17.6
24.7
22.5
28.0
49.8
82.8
22.0
33.8
43.5
13.1
15.9
30.9
54.5
14.5
37.9
79.4
30.5
20.3
39.4
23.1
11.3
54.7
-
75.9
16.5
14.0
16.0
9.34
26.5
13.9
12.2
AR = Analytical replicate
* = Congeners eliminated by COMSTAR
- = Sample either below the detection limit or not quantifiable
131
-------
Table 3-24. Continued
Site
Code
STP7
STP8
STP10
STP 12
STP1
STP 2
STP 3
STP 4
STP 6
STP 7
STP 7
STP 8
STP 8
STP 12
STP 1
STP 3
STP 4
STP 6
STP 12
STP 12
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
SUS 6
SUS 7
SUS 1
SUS 2
SUS 3
SUS 4
SUSS
SUS 6
SUS 7
SUS 1
SUS 2
SUS 3
Core
Depth
(cm)
0-15
0-15
0-10
0-10
15-30
10-25
15-30
15-30
7-23
5-23
5-23
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
23-38
30-46
76-91
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-5
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-23
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
PCB Congener Number (ng/g OC)
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.8
8.50
-
-
-
-
-
29.3
8.83
7.97
-
-
9.63
1.96
-
-
-
-
5.61
2.85
4.71
0.74
0.39
1.00
-
5.75
5.86
-
-
-
-
-
18
65.1
40.7
128
36.6
64.7
51.9
80.4
51.4
56.3
59.8
76.1
35.1
45.3
221
105
140
46.6
62.3
138
51.9 *
346 *
229 *
177
61.4
80.5
184
168
135
40.0
26.4
73.7
110
88.9
96.2
54.7
46.3
95.1 *
64.2 *
52
93.6
97.4
111
85.7
129
167
33.7
54.4
79.1
91.2
90.9
66.7
67.0
401
231
62.0
43.8
67.0
299
7.6
153
140
113
295
118
201
184
156
85.2
60.7
-
378
6250
690
76.3
45.3
87.9
2.7
101
169
120
170
165
187
254
8.94
64.1
88.4
149
151
59.5
57.6
680
375
25.3
65.8
109
519
10.4
222
179
175
299
154
306
255
177
131
92.4
93.2
501
9378
802
121
97.7
134
4.93
128
30.0
36.1
39.1
40.7
37.1
60.3
3.35
14.7
20.5
36.9
37.5
16.1
16.5
118
76.7
5.42
12.8
20.9
99.4
2.88
50.3
35.1
46.6
75.6
45.5
60.2
42.0
19.5
32.6
28.0
48.8
129
2680
79.0
30.9
25.4
43.8
2.42
180
57.9
57.3
73.4
65.3
70.5
97.4
5.68
19.2
30.4
55.4
54.2
26.1
25.6
250
106
2.67
22.2
37.5
161
3.08
108
110
106
135
42.8
104
97.3
65.9
61.6
42.8
56.0
179
1510
150
60.1
53.1
60.9
5.56
201
19.6 1
24.2
24.6
19.1
20.3
32.8
7.60
8.12
16.1
27.1
24.3
15.2
15.6
62.4
34.5
7.68
11.3
15.4
111
3.06
29.2
28.6
27.2
5.10
22.0
32.2
33.0
22.7
11.8
9.88
15.3
40.4
148
47.4
20.0
14.1
0.273
1.59
AR = Analytical replicate
* = Congeners eliminated by COMSTAR
- = Sample either below the detection limit or not quantifiable
132
-------
Table 3-24. Continued
Site
Code
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS1
SUS2
SUSS
SUSS
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
WLS17
WLS18
WLS18
WLS19
WLS1
WLS2
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
24-38
30-45
30-45
145-160
111-126
140-155
140-155
100-115
39-54
115-130
63-78
0-15
0-15
0-17
0-20
0-18
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-20
0-15
0-20
0-19
0-18
0-15
0-5
0-18
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-20
15-30
15-30
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
PCB Congener Number (ng/g OC)
6
2.57
-
-
8.90
0.93
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.6
-
2.80
4.77
4.63
11.6
-
10.3
8.79
19.4
17.9
6.59
4.18
7.63
11.4
14.1
7.13
12.3
12.9
5.26
5.21
1.66
12.2
26.8
-
18
125 *
175
128
551
239
158
88.5
54.6
12.6
32.9
117
172
216
80.5
77.8
90.6
117
117
64.4
64.6
263
302
144
74.5
64.8
112
125
99.6
204
126
102
49.4
42.2
69.5
275
14.1
52
41.5
24.9
374
1010
151
127
145
53.8
18.1
40.8
118
95.5
327
148
181
258
329
380
195
203
708
705
340
242
158
348
473
265
653
412
325
134
137
241
534
29.8
101
73.8
270
456
1337
189
197
196
64.6
18.4
34.0
167 *
76.7
287
306
358
468
656 *
578
272
319
1070 *
1140 *
430
325
225
473
631
423
797
529
443
204
213
524 *
1340 *
53.9 *
128
23.9
75.7
51.1
68.3
6.66
121
39.0
16.7
-
9.27
45.2
-
-
45.0
43.9
45.6
66.5
101
47.8
52.7
197
173
55.7
48.7
39.2
92.6
104
61.7
125
102
63.1
21.5
23.1
28.1
121
-
180
79.3
146
124
188
77.2
148
62.1
17.0
3.54
28.7
86.2
-
-
122
115
213
235
218
146
149
290
253
172
155
103
139
177
102
238
160
138
64.1
66.9
100
544
8.24
201
21.3
32.2
36.7
57.1
36.1
35.4
12.7
8.09
1.70
11.3
29.4
-
-
29.1
28.6
44.1
57.9
60.1
32.6
32.5
84.0
75.5
35.4
41.4
28.3
39.1
49.0
29.9
61.8
43.5
42.6
16.6
16.7
37.1
133
1.56
AR = Analytical replicate
* = Congeners eliminated by COMSTAR
- = Sample either below the detection limit or not quantifiable
133
-------
Table 3-24. Continued
Site
Code
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS 11
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
Core
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
5-20
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
20-35
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45 |
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
PCB Congener Number (ng/g OC)
6
10.6
-
9.85
6.86
56.1
39.4
-
-
18
33.2
14.6
20.6
94.8
292
283
2.80
3.89
52
77.5 *
200
132
156
860
764
4.6
6.5 *
101
237 *
244
351
231
1470 *
1200
7.36 *
6.40 *
128
9.52
-
37.5
85.4
135
55.3
-
-
180
82.7
86.0
92.8
96.8
435
416
-
-
No Data Available
3.23
18.2
-
113
3.06
3.16
31.1
-
-
2.14
2.85
78.5
5.00
7.00
8.40
-
2.09
22.7
29.3
11.2
15.2
-
26.2
7.10
207
37.2
158
22.0
25.5
150
26.8
23.8
27.2
4.40
748
124
529
458
141
78.59 *
291
317
468 *
493
5840
769
r 22.4 *
503
80.6
816
27.8
24.9
571
33.7
34.4
26.5
23.4
886
74.0
63.0
396
205
4.9
509
443
25.8
1000.0
184.8
1110
55.9 *
630
125 *
1390^
42.2 *
40.2 *
909
85.9 *
83.8 *
53.5 *
39.1 *
1720 *
85.0
79.0
592
286
3.35
601
693 *
19.3
1230
211
733
4.36
106
6.55
239
-
-
146
-
-
-
-
283
-
-
97.9
18.2
0.63
65.3
70.9
6.84
139
43.9
67.9
14.3
322
43.1
339
-
0.73
229
28.8
27.8
3.69
5.34
1280
-
6.00
182
73.4
1.30
282
270
-
400
53.6
240
201
24.7
21.2
32.8
37.6
111
110
-
-
3.64
82.7
13.2
132
-
0.57
76.9
7.08
6.75
-
3.32
288
2.00
4.00
75.2
30.7
0.54
81.8
84.2
0.386
107
11.2
73.1
AR = Analytical replicate
* = Congeners eliminated by COMSTAR
- = Sample either below the detection limit or not quantifiable
134
-------
Table 3-24. Continued
Site
Code
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
WLS1
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 3
WLS 4
WLS 5
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 7
WLS 8
WLS 9
WLS 10
WLS 11
WLS 12
WLS 12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 15
WLS 16
WLS 17
WLS 18
WLS 19
Core
Depth
(cm)
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
189-204
167-182
173-188
173-188
105-120
135-150
235-250
235-250
35-50
90-105
145-160
135-150
145-160
153-168
153-168
155-170
140-155
165-180
160-175
50-65
156-171
181-196
Replicate
Type
AR
AR
AR
AR
PCB Congener Number (ng/g OC)
6
27.6
16.4
1.37
5.69
14.6
3.30
-
5.33
0.76
1.35
1.73
3.44
4.43
1.63
1.24
2.27
2.73
3.13
1.41
35.5
10.5
5.88
1.59
2.50
1.47
2.08
-
1.30
-
4.12
2.22
18
782
344
47.5 *
226 *
71.7
234
501 *
103
89.9
82.2
173 *
315 *
179 *
137 *
40.1 *
116
85.9
45.0
36.1 *
185
94.7
59.4
142 *
45.7
238 *
465 *
71.2
187 *
131 *
474 *
796 *
52
1110
1050
12.6
39.7
25.4
453
68.8
71.1
50.3
94.3
46.0
22.3
23.8
18.4
8.0
101
122
98.8
7.9
502
139
92.9
10.5
13.9
11.2
10.8
15.0
10.2
38.2
14.7
18.3
101
801
1860
16.1
28.7
19.4
750
50.8
76.5 *
45.2
135
70.6
19.5
22.5
22.6
8.24
169
164
145
6.15
962 *
197
155
11.6
12.7
14.7
14.6
23.5
8.91
46.7
21.2
20.0
128
72.6
294
24.3
3.47
6.10
128
11.6
1.39
2.55
18.4
8.46
-
-
5.35
-
19.1
15.9
24.4
-
0.000
10.5
20.0
0.455
1.14
-
-
30.8
-
1.52
-
-
180
236
411
25.2
-
-
176
28.5
-
-
36.2
20.0
-
-
-
-
43.6
71.4
59.4
-
368
18.4
48.8
-
-
-
-
33.8
-
15.8
-
-
201
71.4
155
14.4
-
1.96
81.3
4.29
-
-
13.0
7.50
-
-
0.233
0.71
12.3
20.0
18.8
0.148
69.4
15.8
11.2
-
0.227
0.59
-
19.6
-
4.55
-
-
AR = Analytical replicate
* = Congeners eliminated by COMSTAR
- = Sample either below the detection limit or not quantifiable
135
-------
Table 3-25. Mean Survival (%) of//, azteca and C. tentans Exposed to Test Sediments
Sample #
DMIR01
DMIR 02
DMIR 03
DMIR 04
ERP01
ERP02
ERP03
HOB 07
HOBOS
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB04
KMB05
MLH01
MLH02
MLH03
MLH04
MLH05
MLH06
MNS01
MNS03
STP01
STP03
STP04
STP06
STP07
SUS01
SUS03
SUS05
SUS07
WLS 01
WLS 02
Mean Survival (%)
H. azteca
70*
95
82
98
67
58*
80
96
100
95
68
55*
52*
85
78
^"*7*&
?^80$%.
75
80
90
65*
82
92
89
100
79
80
96
50 , .
r,->-68t,-,
85
92
96
: 45, ;;
85
90
C. tentans
72*
88
72
75
78
90
60
60
28
80
70
70
72
80
80
48
65
75
70
70
72
82
92
28 ;.
30
$*
62
--.-65.^
, ' i.ซ,.o8*^j|ji
V^OMS
72
55*
-:.<* 40 ,ซ,
ssT-J, O'a,?ซi
68*
90
Sample #
WLS03
WLS04
WLS06
WLS08
WLS12
WLS 13
WLS 14
WLS 16
Mean Survival (%)
H. azteca
72
98
90
90
96
96
96
93
C. tentans
80
78
80
80
58
45
50
42
*Mean survival significantly less than control survival at p = 0.05.
Shaded values indicate unacceptable contol survival.
136
-------
Table 3-26. Normalized Survival (%) of H. azteca and C. tentans Exposed to Test Sediments
Sample #
DMIR01
DMIR02
DMIR 03
DMIR 04
ERP01
ERP02
ERP03
HOB 07
HOBOS
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB04
KMB05
MLH01
MLH02
MLH03
MLH04
MLH05
MLH06
MNS01
MNS03
STP01
STP03
STP04
STP06
STP07
SUS01
SUS03
SUS05
Normalized Survival (%)
H. azteca
76*
103
93
111
73
63*
||pl03--'vsf|
108
112
108
77
63*
59*
97
89
^:^MQO./-t'T
:?103
85
91
102
74*
93
100
100
112
89
87
108
.\64Vs'--;
. >v87.,:, -
92
100
108
C. tentans
76*
93
88
91
92
106
*&.>,-... 54'^SeK- '.:'.
91
80
80
82
91
91
'>;::;J:f;7l4fr.;
-.a-96v: -
91
85
85
88
100
97
..-;-n54-."""i.
*?$&$M%%
73
-il^sps.^^
100 1.
-^ylpO'y-.-^;
76
58*
N "_ -.' ".- ^^'-ji~^ ^' ,...'.
i^jjdS /7n,. ^.
Sample #
SUS07
WLS01
WLS02
WLS03
WLS04
WLS06
WLS08
WLS 12
WLS13
WLS 14
WLS 16
Normalized Survival (%)
H. azteca
^::.*58 /:?
92
98
78
107
98
98
108
108
108
104
C. tentans
<-:\- >;;';Q. ^
72*
95
84
82
84
84
112
" -87' ...,.
96
81
*Mean survival significantly less than control survival at p = 0.05.
Shaded values indicate unacceptable contol survival.
137
-------
Table 3-27. Mean Total Abundance (individuals/m2) and Taxa Richness Values for the
Benthological Community Survey
Site
DMIR1
DMIR2
DMIR3
DMIR4
ERP1
ERP2
ERP3
ERP5
HOB1
HOB 2
HOB 3
HOB 4
HOBS
HOB 6
HOB 7
HOB 8
HOB 9
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
KMB1
KMB2
#of
Replicates
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
~
Mean
Total
Abundance
215
1,120
804
2,986
7,640
6,311
14,283
4,900
3,238
7,308
11,751
7,100
9,135
3,737
15,114
249
249
2,740
2,865
3,073
6,975
8,221
4,484
2,325
1,578
SD*
149
637
813
1,318
1,998
2,233
5,887
1,007
1,556
4,245
12,697
4,758
3,102
1,318
3,462
249
249
1,556
778
1,416
2,215
4,244
1,515
1,767
943
Mean
Taxa
Richness
3
6
7
18
11
13
17
7
6
11
10
9
10
8
15
1
1
6
6
7
10
9
10
4
4
_
SD*
~
2
6
5
2
3
5
3
2
4
6
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
0
4
3
1
2
*SD = standard deviation
138
-------
Table 3-27. Continued
Site
KMB3
KMB4
KMB5
MLH1
MLH2
MLH3
MLH4
MLH5
MLH6
MLH7
MLH8
MLH9
MLH10
MNS1
MNS2
MNS3
MNS4
MNS5
STP1
STP2
STP3
STP4
STP5
STP6
STP7
STP8
#of
Replicates
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
Total
Abundance
4,734
2,408
2,491
9,965
8,968
3,986
2,491
3,737
6,228
4,733
3,737
4,484
10,214
30,643
57,051
32,138
20,429
15,612
6,726
15,695
5,813
2,367
1,370
2,865
3,363
623
SD*
2,157
380
1,977
3,835
4,485
2,625
1,726
2,589
4,315
2,625
1,495
3,955
4,379
2,377
2,129
13,133
7,029
5,775
6,014
2,451
5,107
1,079
1,142
2,253
1,495
216
Mean
Taxa
Richness
8
3
3
7
8
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
5
9
14
13
12
14
9
13
9
5
3
3
5
2
SD*
1
0
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
2
3
2
3
3
6
1
6
2
3
1
1
1
*SD = standard deviation
139
-------
Table 3-27. Continued
Site
STP10
STP12
SUS1
SUS2
SUS3
SUS4
SUSS
SUS6
SUS7
SUS8
WLS1
WLS2
WLS3
WLS4
WLS5
WLS6
WLS7
WLS8
WLS9
WLS10
WLS11
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS15
WLS16
#of
Replicates
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
Total
Abundance
1,993
7,225
27,279
45,839
25,411
45,092
14,449
2,118
5,605
7,848
2,989
1,121
8,636
7,349
8,096
23,293
22,048
24,041
34,379
17,190
21,301
34,006
38,116
14,823
15,321
25,037
SD*
249
3,770
7,502
20,611
4,546
6,740
8,121
1,415
1,713
747
647
4,245
431
1,556
12,713
6,981
3,178
9,908
4,592
7,130
15,239
19,572
5,745
10,772
8,898
Mean
Taxa
Richness
_
9
10
13
13
13
10
3
7
10
3
2
7
5
6
12
9
13
13
9
10
9
13
11
8
10
SD*
2
1
10
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
4
4
3
*SD = standard deviation
140
-------
Table 3-27. Continued
Site
WLS17
WLS18
WLS19
#of
Replicates
3
3
3
Mean
Total
Abundance
36,041
11,460
14,699
SD*
18,657
2,403
4,427
Mean
Taxa
Richness
15
6
9
SD*
2
2
1
*SD = standard deviation
141
-------
Table 3-28. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and
Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group for the DMIR Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
DMIR1
158(90)
73%
~
14(25)
7%
~
14(25)
7%
~
~
14(25)
7%
14(25)
7%
'
"
-
DMIR 2
919(585)
82%
~
~
~
3%
158(90)
14%
~
~
14(25)
1%
~
~
-
DMIR 3
632(151)
79%
"
14(25)
2%
~
100(25)
12%
"
43 (75)
5%
-
2%
-
-
DMIR 4
1765(807)
59%
Less 1%
100(25)
3%
2%
"
273 (108)
9%
~
~
646 (258)
22%
76 (66)
2%
-
1%
1%
142
-------
Table 3-29. Mean Densities (number/m ), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and
Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group for the ERP Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
ERP1
2907 (288)
38%
~
249 (249)
3%
1163(1372)
15%
2%
1661 (144)
2%
~
332 (288)
4%
2491 (498 )
33%
"
*
1%
1%
ERP 2
332(381)
5%
2076 (627)
33%
~
249 (249)
4%
~
166(288)
3%
1%
3073 (875)
49%
-
~
166(144)
3%
3%
ERP 3
4235 (3670)
30%
1578(381)
11%
2408 (801)
17%
1080(575)
8%
498 (432)
3%
498 (659)
3%
1%
1%
3654 (2014)
26%
~
1%
~
1%
ERP 5
1661 (381)
34%
415(519)
8%
1993 (659)
41%
~
83 (144)
3%
~
2%
581 (381)
12%
~
~
~
-
143
-------
Table 3-30. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each
Macroinvertebrate Group for the HOB Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Mematoda
Turbellaria
iivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
:phemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
HOB 1
1827(875)
56%
249 (432)
8%
332 (575)
10%
-
"
"
3%
5%
498 (249)
15%
83 (144)
3%
"
*"
-
HOB 2
3239 (2625)
44%
249 (432)
3%
830 (761)
11%
249 (249)
3%
"
1412(801)
19%
1%
1%
913(519)
13%
249 (249)
3%
-
HOB 3
7474 (8084)
63%
1744(1510)
15%
166(144)
2%
498 (863)
4%
"
374 (647)
3%
2%
747 (989)
6%
498 (571)
5%
~
-
HOB 4
3986(3391)
57%
~
249 (249)
5%
623 (778)
9%
2%
623 (432)
9%
7%
623(216)
9%
125 (216)
2%
249 (432)
4%
*
-
HOBS
4609 (778)
50%
249 (432)
3%
166(288)
3%
1%
1%
997 (432)
11%
1%
1868(1121)
20%
872 (940)
9%
-
HOB 6
747 (659)
20%
"
~
332(381)
9%
~
83 (144)
2%
4%
2%
1744(498)
47%
~
249 (0)
7%
332 (575)
9%
-
HOB 7
8221 (3193)
54%
997 (778)
7%
166(144)
2%
872(571)
6%
2%
374 (0)
2%
2%
2%
2367 (432)
16%
1121(0)
7%
-
_
-
HOBS
-
"
~
83 (144)
33%
~
83 (144)
33%
83 (144)
33%
-
-
-
144
-------
Table 3-30. Continued
Taxon
Tubificidae
Sfaididae
Polychaeta
Mematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
HOB 9
-
"
~
~
~
"*
~
83 (144)
33%
166(144)
66%
"
~
-
HOB 10
830(1229)
30%
"*
747( 249)
27%
~
~
913 (627)
33%
83 (144)
3%
83 (144)
3%
83 (144)
3%
-
HOB 11
1495 (647)
52%
~
374 (374)
13%
4%
498(216)
17%
"
"
249(216)
9%
125(216)
4%
"
"
-
HOB 12
830(801)
27%
249 (249)
8%
332(381)
11%
~
83 (144)
3%
5%
3%
249 (0)
8%
747 (249)
24%
166 (288)
5%
83 (144)
3%
3%
HOB 13
4401 (1007)
63%
~
166(144)
2%
249 (249)
4%
1%
913 (943)
13%
1%
1%
415(519)
6%
415(144)
5%
1%
2%
HOB 14
5481 (2903)
67%
249(216)
3%
747 (747)
9%
~
2%
3%
498 (432)
6%
249 (432)
3%
374 (374)
5%
249(216)
3%
-
HOB 15
1910(1007)
43%
~
166 (288)
4%
498 (498)
11%
249 (249)
6%
415(381)
9%
4%
2%
997 (498)
22%
"
"
"
-
145
-------
Table 3-31. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and
Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group for the KMB Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
KMB1
498 (432)
21%
581 (1007)
25%
581 (381)
25%
166(288)
7%
~
3%
~
249 (432)
11%
"
83 (144)
4%
83 (144)
4%
-
KMB2
166 (288 )
11%
~
166(288)
11%
249 (249)
16%
"
415(381)
26%
~
~
332(144)
21%
249 (249)
16%
~
"
-
KMB3
1495 (898)
32%
~
1246 (863)
26%
~
249 (249)
5%
2%
249 (249)
5%
1163(144)
25%
249 (249)
5%
~
-
KMB4
664(381)
28%
"
~
~
~
83 (144)
3%
~
~
83 (144)
3%
1578(627)
66%
-
-
-
KMB5
581 (144)
23%
"
'
~
~
~
~
~
1827(1696)
73%
-
-
3%
146
-------
Table 3-32. Mean Densities (number/in2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each
Macroinvertebrate Group for the MLH Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
MLH1
5730(3021)
58%
997 (432)
10%
1246(1556)
13%
~
498 (432)
5%
"
1246(432)
13%
"
2%
-
MLH 2
3737(1295)
42%
997 (432)
11%
498 (863)
6%
997(1142)
11%
~
747 (747)
8%
249 (432)
3%
~
1744(1726)
19%
~
"
-
MLH 3
2740(1556)
69%
~
6%
m
~
997(1142)
25%
"
m
'
-
MLH 4
249 (432)
10%
*
1246(1556)
50%
498 (432)
20%
"
"
249 (432)
10%
249 (432)
10%
"
-
MLH 5
498 (432)
13%
m
1495 (1495)
40%
"
~
6%
1246(1142)
33%
249 (432)
7%
"
-
MLH 6
498 (432)
8%
249 (432)
4%
3488 (3452)
56%
4%
"
498 (432)
8%
249 (432)
4%
997 (863)
16%
"*
~
"
-
MLH 7
-
3737 (2242)
79%
'
249 (432)
5%
249 (432)
5%
498 (432)
11%
~
"
-
MLH 8
747 (0)
20%
~
1246 (1 142)
33%
7%
249 (432)
7%
249 (432)
7%
~
747 (0)
20%
~
7%
MLH 9
747 (747)
17%
"
2491 (3021)
56%
6%
*
498 (432)
11%
249 (432)
6%
"
249 (432)
6%
~
-
-
MLH 10
5481 (1881)
55%
~
2491 (2402)
25%
2%
"
498 (863 )
5%
-
997(1142)
10%
249 (432)
2%
-
-
-
147
-------
Table 3-33. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and
Percent Composition of each Macroinvertebrate Group for the MNS Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Irichoptera
miscellaneous
MNS1
27072 (2355)
88%
664 (288)
2%
-
Less 1%
913(144)
3%
1744(498)
6%
1%
""
~
"
~
-
MNS 2
50656 (2920)
89%
2491 (659)
4%
Less 1%
Less 1%
1%
2907(761)
5%
Less 1%
83 (144)
Less 1%
~
"
-
MNS 3
25245 (10240)
79%
3322 (2972)
10%
1%
1744(249)
5%
1%
1163(381)
4%
Less 1%
~
83(144)
Less 1%
-
MNS 4
13287 (6602)
65%
830(144)
4%
1993 (249)
10%
1661 (144)
8%
1%
1910(575)
9%
1%
83 (144)
Less 1%
~
-
1%
Less 1%
MNS 5
9218(3915)
59%
830 (575 )
5%
249(432)
2%
581 (144)
4%
498 (659)
3%
2823 (943)
18%
2%
2%
166(288)
1%
~
-
415 (144)
3%
2%
148
-------
Table 3-34. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each
Macroinvertebrate Group for the STP Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
STP1
3737(2616)
56%
997(1415)
15%
374 (374)
6%
4%
4%
374 (647)
6%
~
2%
498 (432)
7%
2%
~
-
STP 2
8470 (2755)
54%
1121(374)
7%
1993(216)
13%
2%
"
498(571)
3%
1%
~
3114(940)
20%
~
1%
~
-
STP 3
1204 (730)
21%
2408 (2800)
41%
-
"
1080(1123)
19%
332(381)
6%
1%
1%
540(190)
9%
"
~
"
1%
STP 4
1370(718)
58%
125 (216)
5%
125 (216)
5%
~
374 (0)
16%
125(216)
5%
125(216)
5%
125 (216)
5%
~
"
"
-
STP 5
498 (432)
36%
"
~
125(216)
9%
125(216)
9%
125 (216)
9%
125 (216)
9%
~
249 (432)
18%
~
125(216)
9%
"
-
STP 6
1744(1312)
61%
-
374 (374)
13%
"
"
~
~
4%
623 (778)
22%
~
""
""
-
STP 7
1495 (989)
44%
-
374 (374)
11%
"
249(216)
7%
4%
1121(374)
33%
~
~
-
STP 8
374 (0)
60%
-
-
"
"
~
~
249(216)
40%
-
~
~
-
STP 10
830 (144)
41%
83 (144)
4%
-
"
4%
166 (144)
8%
4%
4%
581 (144)
29%
4%
-
-
-
STP 12
3571 (1935)
49%
332(381)
5%
249 (0)
3%
"
-
2076 (1254)
28%
-
-
997 (898)
14%
-
-
-
-
149
-------
Table 3-35. Mean Densities (number/m2), with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each
Macroinvertebrate Group for the SUS Sites (n=3 for SUS 1-7; n=l for SUS 8)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
iydrachnida
Chironomidae
Other Diptera
[richoptera
SUS1
21549(4819)
79%
3114(2830)
11%
Less 1%
1%
1495 (747)
5%
~
Less 1%
498(571)
2%
m
SUS 2
30892(13161)
67%
8595 (5389)
19%
1%
1%
3737(1629)
8%
Less 1%
1%
1495 (747)
3%
~
SUS 3
15820(3668)
62%
2118(1201)
8%
1%
1121(374)
4%
1%
3986(1142)
16%
1%
1619(1312)
6%
SUS 4
38490 (5505)
85%
1370(432)
3%
~
2%
1619(1201)
4%
1619(778)
4%
1%
~
872 (778)
2%
~
Less 1%
SUSS
10463 (6921)
72%
747 (374)
5%
2%
374 (374)
3%
747 (647)
5%
1%
1%
1370(532)
9%
~
249 (432)
2%
SUS 6
-
1246(1201)
59%
~
~
~
6%
~
623 (432)
29%
"
125 (216)
6%
SUS 7
623 (778)
11%
1495 (1295)
27%
2%
~
125 (216)
2%
2990 (747)
53%
249 (216)
4%
'
SUSS
747
10%
3737
48%
"
~
374
5%
"
5%
2616
33%
*
""
150
-------
Table 3-36. Mean Densities (number/m2) with Sample Standard Deviations in Parentheses, and Percent Composition of each
Macroinvertebrate Group for the WLS Sites (n=3)
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
Hydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
WLS1
1246 (863)
42%
249 (432)
8%
498 (432)
17%
747 (747)
25%
'
"
249 (432)
8%
-
WLS 2
872 (571)
78%
125 (216)
11%
125(216)
11%
-
WLS 3
3107(2488)
59%
374 (374)
4%
1246(1556)
14%
3%
1370(778)
16%
291 (259)
3%
WLS 4
4360(1881)
59%
125(216)
2%
774 (774)
10%
2%
1495 (374)
20%
498(571)
7%
WLS 5
5232 (374)
65%
872(216)
11%
2%
1370(778)
17%
3%
125(216)
2%
125(216)
2%
~
WLS 6
16442(12028)
71%
125 (216)
1%
997(571)
4%
1%
3363(1121)
14%
1246(1079)
5%
997 (778)
4%
"
WLS 7
12083 (5046)
55%
2865 (2625)
13%
1%
5730(571)
26%
1%
623(571)
3%
374 (374)
2%
"
WLS 8
11584(989)
48%
1246 (571)
5%
5854 (2544)
24%
3%
3488 (2058 )
15%
997(216)
4%
1%
1%
-
WLS 9
24290 (12028)
71%
374 (647)
1%
623 (216)
2%
Less 1%
6602 (1415)
19%
1619 (216)
5%
2%
-
WLS 10
6477 (571)
38%
249 (432)
1%
7847 (2966)
46%
"
"
1619(432)
9%
"
872 (432)
5%
1%
-
151
-------
Table 3-36. Continued
Taxon
Tubificidae
Naididae
Polychaeta
Nematoda
Turbellaria
iivalvia
Gastropoda
tydrachnida
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
iphemeroptera
Trichoptera
miscellaneous
WLS 11
14325 (7770)
67%
747 (0)
4%
"
1%
"
3861 (2544)
18%
374 (374)
1%
1868(374)
9%
-
WLS 12
23667 (8703 )
70%
9218(6646)
27%
249 (432)
1%
'
"
"
872 (432)
3%
WLS 13
29522(17777)
77%
5605 (0)
15%
1121(1347)
3%
'
'
747 (747)
2%
1121(374)
3%
-
WLS 14
5730 (3668)
39%
872(571)
6%
6104 (1726)
41%
2%
1%
747 (374)
5%
1%
747 (747)
5%
1%
-
WLS 15
4484(2616)
29%
125(216)
1%
8719(7788)
57%
2%
747 (989)
5%
2%
747 (374)
5%
-
WLS 16
17813 (4520)
71%
4609 (3925)
18%
997(1079)
4%
Less 1%
"
498 (863)
2%
"
"
997 (940)
4%
-
WLS 17
14699(4850)
41%
1744(1515)
5%
17522(13831)
49%
Less 1%
581 (519)
2%
Less 1%
"
913(381)
3%
Less 1%
Less 1%
-
WLS 18
3239(1312)
28%
6104(2158)
53%
1121(747)
10%
623 (571)
5%
2%
'
125 (216)
1%
"
"
-
WLS 19
5730(1201)
39%
4609 (2830)
31%
1121(747)
8%
2242 (0)
15%
"
'
872 (571)
6%
"
"
-
152
-------
Table 3-37. Number of Chironomid Larvae with Menta Deformities
Site Genus # Larvae with Deformities
DMIR4 Procladius 1 of 21 larvae (4.8%)
SUS 2 Procladius 1 of 12 larvae (8.3%)
WLS 4 Procladius 1 of 4 larvae (25%)
WLS 7 Chironomus 1 of 2 larvae (50%)
WLS 13 Procladius 1 of 6 larvae (16.7%)
WLS 19 Procladius 1 of 6 larvae (16.7%)
153
-------
Table 4-1. Triad Analysis Endpoints for Sediment Quality in the Duluth/Superior Harbor
TRIAD ELEMENT
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Toxicity Tests
Benthic Community Structure
RANKING APPROACH
Based on magnitude of exceedances of OMOEE guideline
values and SEM/AVS ratio exceedances of 1.0
Based on measured response for each endpoint:
H. azteca survival
C. tentans survival
Based on results of each community metric:
Abundance
Taxa richness
Percent oligochaetes
Percent chironomids
Percent taxa which are chironomids
154
-------
Table 4-2. Number of Surficial Sites Sampled for each Component of the Sediment Quality
Triad
Site Code
DMIR
ERP
KMB
HOB
MLH
MNS
STP
SUS
WLS
Total
Triad Component
Sediment
Chemistry
4
5
5
15
10
5
10
7
19
80
Sediment
Toxicity
4
3
2
8
6
2
5
4
10
44
Benthos
Survey
4
4
5
15
10
5
10
8
19
80
155
-------
APPENDIX A
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA
-------
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA FILES
The below files are provided on the computer disk at the back of this report. All files are in
Microsoft Excel version 5.0. Since all of the files are compressed, access the Readme.txt file
first for directions on how to read the files.
File Name
Description
94pahtoc.xls
m94pcbco.xls
mp94aspb.xls
mp94avs.xls
mp94hg.xls
mp94nh3.xls
mp94pahg.xls
mp94pahs.xls
mp94pcbs.xls
mp94ps.xls
mp94sem2.xls
mp94toc.xls
sem_pb.xls
semavsra.xls
sumtcdd.xls
test sem.xls
PAH results (by GC/MS) normalized by TOC
Selected PCB congener results normalized by TOC
Total arsenic and lead results for Howard's Bay samples
AVS results
Mercury results
Ammonia results
PAH results (by GC/MS)
Screening PAH results
Total PCB results
Particle size results
SEM results
TOC results
Comparison of SEM lead and total lead results for Howard's
Bay
SEM/AVS results for selected sites
TCDD/F results
SEM/AVS results for selected sites
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST REPORTS
FOR HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 1
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 2
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 4
APPENDIX A - Statistical Analyses
u
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 5
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 6
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 7
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 8
in
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of seven of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
During August 22-24, 1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff collected the
seven sediments referred to in this report. The composited samples were collected from the
harbor using a gravity corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC at the Duluth MPCA office until
they were transported to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory in St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Seven sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to 10-day sediment toxicity tests
using the procedures described in U.S. EPA (1994). The test organisms (H. azteca and C.
tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable, mini-flow system described in Benoit
et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker test
chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The beakers
have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange while
containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver water at
an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to provide
exchange of overlying water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately 14
days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing in Superior,
WI. On the test set up day, MPCA personnel picked up the organisms from the supplier and
transported them to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory.
On September 13, 1994, seven samples (DMIR 03, DMIR 04, MLH 01, MLH 02, MLH 03,
MLH 04, and MLH 05) and the control sediment were separately homogenized by hand, and 100
mL of each sediment was placed in a test beaker (Batch #1). Each sediment test was set up with
four replicates of//, azteca and four replicates of C. tentans. Approximately 100 mL of aerated,
artesian well water was added to the beakers, and the sediments were allowed to settle for
approximately two hours before the organisms were added. For each sediment, ten organisms
were placed in each of eight beakers in a random fashion.
-------
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken in one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded in a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
file at the MPCA.
The test was terminated on September 23, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed in aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 110ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. The resulting survival data were analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc.,
1994), a statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, due
to a quality assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (Nad) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used in this test. Due to a shortage of test organisms, only two replicates of five
organisms each were set up per concentration instead of three replicates.
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, and temperature in the overlying water of
the test beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and in Tables 1,2,
and 3, respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.8 to 9.0 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 7.6 to 8.4 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment (U.S.
EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 2.4 to 6.5 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). All dissolved oxygen concentrations
were within acceptable limits (i.e., greater than 40% saturated).
-------
The temperature of the overlying water in each glass box was measured and ranged from 22.0ฐC
to 24.0ฐC for both tests (Table 3). The recommended temperature range for these tests is 23 ฑ
1ฐC (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H. azteca in the control was 88% with a range of 80% to 100%.
For the control sediment containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 70% to 100% with
a mean of 82%. Survival for these controls was acceptable, and both tests passed.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 65% in the MLH 04
sediment to 98% in the DMIR 04 sediment. Mean percent survival of C. tentans in the test
sediments ranged from 70% in the MLH 02 and MLH 03 samples to 82% in the MLH 05 sample.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no. conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
Most of the survival data were transformed using an arc sine-square root transformation before
being analyzed statistically using Dunnett's test. A one-tailed test was used to test the alternative
hypothesis that sample survival was less than control survival. Thus, it was not necessary to
include the H. azteca mean percent survival data for DMIR 04 (98%) and MLH 03 (90%) which
exceeded the control survival of 88%.
Only the survival of H. azteca in the MLH 04 sediment was significantly less than the control.
The survival of organisms in all other sediments was not significantly less than the respective
controls as determined by 1-tailed Dunnett's tests at p=0.05. Results of the statistical analyses of
these data are included in Appendix A.
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride Solution
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 8.0 to 8.6. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.4 to 7.9 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 22.0ฐC to 24.0ฐC. Survival of the organisms in the control was less than 90% (i.e.,
-------
80%) which was unacceptable. Thus, the health of the H. azteca used in the test was suspect, and
the test failed. The test was also suspect due to an inadequate number of replicates (i.e., two
replicates instead of three) used in the test.
SUMMARY
Survival of H. azteca in the control sediments was acceptable (i.e., greater than 80%), and
sample MLH 04 caused significant toxicity to H. azteca (p=0.05). Although the reference
toxicant test failed, the health of the culture appeared to be acceptable for use in the toxicity test.
Control survival was acceptable hi the C. tentans test (i.e., greater than 70%), and none of the test
sediments resulted in significantly lower survival of C. tentans when compared to the control
survival (p = 0.05).
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control 1
C. tentans H. azteca
7.6 7.8
7.7 8.0
7.6 7.9
7.8 8.0
8.0 8.1
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.7 8.0
7.8 8.0
7.7 8.0
7.6-8.0 7.8-8.1
DMIR 03
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.9
8.0 8.2
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.7 7.9
7.8 8.1
7.7 8.0
7.7-8.0 7.8-8.2
DMIR 04
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 7.9
8.1 8.1
8.0 8.0
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.1
8.0 8.1
7.9-8.1 7.9-8.1
MLH01
C. tentans H. azteca
8.3 9.0
8.0 8.2
7.9 8.2
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.1
8.2 8.5
8.1 8.3
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.3
7.8 8.0
7.8-8.3 8.0-9.0
>JT"C 3(S
'fern
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
MLH02
C. tentans H. azteca
8.4 8.3
8.1 8.1
8.1 8.1
8.1 8.2
8.2 8.2
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.1
8.2 8.2
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.1
8.1-8.4 8.1-8.3
MLH03
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 8.2
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
8.2 8.2
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.2
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.1
7.9-8.2 8.0-8.2
MLH04
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.1
* 8.0 8.0
8.0 8.0
8.1 8.1
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.0
8.1 8.1
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.1
8.0-8.1 7.9-8.1
MLH05
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
8.1 8.1
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.1
7.9-8.1 8.0-8.1
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control 1
C. tentans H. azteca
5.5 5.5
4.5 5.6
4.4 5.3
5.1 5.5
5.0 6.1
4.3 5.9
3.0 6.0
3.7 5.9
4.5 6.1
3.9 5.9
3.0-5.5 5.3-6.1
OMIR 03
C. tentans H. azteca
5.2 6.5
4.7 5.7
3.8 5.5
4.3 5.6
4.8 5.6
4.9 5.5
4.1 5.5
2.7 5.6
3.2 5.7
2.4 5.8
2.4-5.2 5.5-6.5
DMIR04
C. tentans H. azteca
4.8 5.9
4.5 5.5
3.3 4.5
4.4 4.6
4.6 5.8
3.7 5.1
4.2 5.6
5.5 5.3
4.1 5.4
3.7 5.8
3.3-5.5 4.5-5.9
MLH01
C. tentans H. azteca
5.0 5.6
5.0 5.5
4.5 5.7
4.6 5.8
5.3 6.1
4.7 6.0
4.7 6.3
4.5 5.9
4.3 6.1
3.9 6.3
3.9-5.3 5.5-6.3
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
MLH02
C. tentans H. azteca
6.5 6.1
5.0 5.8
4.6 5.7
4.1 5.4
5.2 6.2
5.1 6.1
4.9 6.2
5.4 6.1
5.2 6.1
4.2 6.4
4.1-6.5 5.4-6.4
MLH03
C. tentans H. azteca
5.4 5.5
4.9 5.9
4.9 5.5
5.1 5.5
5.2 6.0
5.3 5.7
5.0 6.2
4.7 5.8
4.5 6.1
4.4 6.3
4.4-5.4 5.5-6.3
MLH04
C. tentans H. azteca
5.8 6.0
4.8 5.9
4.1 5.8
5.2 5.7
5.4 6.0
5.2 5.8
4.9 6.0
5.9 6.0
5.3 6.4
5.0 6.5
4.1-5.9 5.7-6.5
MLH05
C. tentans H. azteca
5.5 6.0
4.8 5.9
4.1 5.7
5.0 5.5
5.0 5.9
5.7 5.9
4.0 6.0
5.0 6.3
4.1 6.4
3.5 6.3
3.5-5.7 5.5-6.4
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control 1
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
24.0 24.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5-24.0 22.5-24.0
DMIR 03
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
24.0 24.0
24.0 24.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.5-24.0 22.5-24.0
DMIR 04
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
24.0 24.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.5-24.0 22.5-24.0
MLH01
C. tentans H. azteca
24.0 24.0
24.0 24.0
24.0 24.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.5-24.0 22.5-24.0
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
MLH02
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0-23.5 22.0-23.5
MLH03
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0-23.5 22.0-23.5
MLH04
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0-23.5 22.0-23.5
MLH05
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
23.5 23.5
23.5 23.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0-23.5 22.0-23.5
(o%
o
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch #1
CONTROL #1
DMIR03
DMIR04
MLH01
MLH02
MLH03
MLH04
MLH05
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca
88%
82%
98%
75%
80%
90%
65%*
82%
Chironomus tentans
82%
72%
75%
75%
70%
70%
72%
82%
* Significantly less survival than the control, p = 0.05.
-------
APPENDIX A
Statistical Analyses
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
6 sediments (4 replicates per sediment)
control
0.90000000
0.80000000
1.00000000
0.80000000
mlh 1
0.90000000
0.80000000
0.60000000
0.70000000
mlh 2
0.90000000
0.70000000
0.70000000
0.90000000
mlh 4
0.80000000
0.60000000
0.50000000
0.70000000
mlh 5
0.80000000
0.90000000
0.70000000
0.90000000
dmir 3
0.80000000
0.90000000
0.80000000
0.80000000
A-l
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
FILE: 94MUD1.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 6
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
IDENTIFICATION
control
control
control
control
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 5
mlh 5
mlh 5
mlh 5
dmir 3
dmir 3
dmir 3
dmir 3
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.9000
0.8000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.6000
0.7000
0.9000
0.7000
0.7000
0.9000
0.8000
0.6000
0.5000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
0.7000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
TRANS VALUE
1.2490
1.1071
1.4120
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
0.8861
0.9912
1.2490
0.9912
0.9912
1.2490
1.1071
0.8861
0.7854
0.9912
1.1071
1.2490
0.9912
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.1071
A-2
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella dzteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
control
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 5
dmir 3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.107
0.886
0.991
0.785
0.991
1.107
1.412
1.249
1.249
1.107
1.249
1.249
1.219
1.058
1.120
0.942
1.149
1.143
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
control
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 5
dmir 3
0.021
0.024
0.022
0.019
0.016
0.005
0.145
0.156
0.149
0.138
0.125
0.071
0.073
0.078
0.074
0.069
0.062
0.035
11.91
14.73
13.29
14.67
10.86
6.21
A-3
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOKY))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.322
W - 0.931
Critical W (P - 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.73
Table Chi-square value = 15.09 (alpha - 0.01. df = 5)
Table Chi-square value = 11.07 (alpha = 0.05, df = 5)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-4
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOKY))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
OF
5
18
23
SS
0.181
0.322
0.502
MS
0.036
0.018
F
2.021
Critical F value = 2.17 (0.05.5.18)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 Hyalella azteca 9/13/94
File: 94MUD1.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho:Control treatment
NUM OF Minimum Sig Diff
GROUP IDENTIFICATION REPS (IN ORIG. UNITS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
control
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 5
dmir 3
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.181
0.181
0.181
0.181
0.181
X of DIFFERENCE
CONTROL FROM CONTROL
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
0.125
0.075
0.225
0.050
0.050
A-6
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
8 sediments (4 replicates per sediment)
control
1.00000000
0.80000000
0.80000000
0.70000000
mlh 1
0.70000000
0.80000000
0.80000000
0.70000000
mlh 2
0.70000000
0.50000000
0.70000000
0.90000000
mlh 4
0.70000000
0.80000000
0.70000000
0.70000000
mlh 5
1.00000000
0.90000000
0.60000000
0.80000000
dmir 3
0.50000000
0.80000000
0.80000000
0.80000000
dmir 4
0.80000000
1.00000000
0.50000000
0.70000000
mlh 3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
A-7
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
FILE: 94MUDlch.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 8
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
IDENTIFICATION
control
control
control
control
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 4
mlh 5
mlh 5
mlh 5
mlh 5
dmir 3
dmir 3
dmir 3
dmir 3
dmir 4
dmir 4
dmir 4
dmir 4
mlh 3
mlh 3
mlh 3
mlh 3
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.7000
0.5000
0.7000
0.9000
0.7000
0.8000
0.7000
0.7000
1.0000
0.9000
0.6000
0.8000
0.5000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
1.0000
0.5000
0.7000
0.7000
0.7000
0.7000
0.7000
TRANS VALUE
1.4120
1.1071
1.1071
0.9912
0.9912
1.1071
1.1071
0.9912
0.9912
0.7854
0.9912
1.2490
0.9912
1.1071
0.9912
0.9912
1.4120
1.2490
0.8861
1.1071
0.7854
1.1071
1.1071
1.1071
1.1071
1.4120
0.7854
0.9912
0.9912
0.9912
0.9912
0.9912
A-8
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
File: 94MUDlch.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IDENTIFICATION
control
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 5
dmir 3
dmir 4
mlh 3
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
MIN
0.991
0.991
0.785
0.991
0.886
0.785
0.785
0.991
MAX
1.412
1.107
1.249
1.107
1.412
1 . 107
1.412
0.991
MEAN
1.154
1.049
1.004
1.020
1.164
1.027
1.074
0.991
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
File: 94MUDlch.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IDENTIFICATION
control
mlh 1
mlh 2
mlh 4
mlh 5
dmir 3
dmir 4
mlh 3
VARIANCE
0.032
0.004
0.036
0.003
0.050
0.026
0.069
0.000
SD
0.180
0.067
0.190
0.058
0.223
0.161
0.262
0.000
SEM
0.090
0.033
0.095
0.029
0.112
0.080
0.131
0.000
C.V. %
15.62
6.38
18.91
5.69
19.17
15.67
24.37
0.00
3/20 An-
A-9
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
File: 94MU01ch.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D - 0.662
W = 0.942
Critical W (P - 0.05) (n = 32) = 0.930
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 32) = 0.904
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
File: 94MUDlch.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Hartley's test for homogeneity of variance
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
These two tests can not be performed because at least one group has
zero variance.
Data FAIL to meet homogeneity of variance assumption.
Additional transformations are useless.
A-10
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #1 CHIRONOMIDS 9/13/94
File: 94MUDlch.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
STEEL'S MANY-ONE RANK TEST
Ho:Control
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 2
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 2
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 4
APPENDIX A - Statistical Analyses
u
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 5
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 6
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 7
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 8
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans}. Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of eleven of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
During August 23-24, 1994 and September 21-23,. 1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) staff collected the eleven sediments referred to in this report. The samples were
collected from the harbor using a gravity corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC until they were
transported to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory in St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Eleven sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to the 10-day sediment toxicity
test using standard methods for this analysis (U.S. EPA, 1994). The test organisms (H. azteca
and C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a mini-flow system (Benoit et al., 1993;
U.S. EPA, 1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker test chambers held in a
glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The beakers have two, 1.5 cm
holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange while containing the test
organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver water at an average rate of
32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to provide exchange of overlying
water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately 14
days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing, Superior,
WI prior to the test set up.
On October 4,1994, eleven samples (DMIR 01, DMIR 02, MLH 06, SUS 01, SUS 03, WLS 01,
WLS 02, WLS 03, WLS 04, WLS 06, and WLS 08) and the control sediment were separately
homogenized by hand, and 100 mL of each sediment were placed in a test beaker. Each sediment
test was set up with four replicates of H azteca and four replicates of C. tentans. Approximately
100 mL of aerated artesian well water was added to the beakers, and the sediments were allowed
to settle for approximately two hours before the organisms were added. For each sediment, ten
organisms were placed in each of eight beakers in a random fashion.
-------
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken in one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded in a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
fileattheMPCA.
The test was terminated on October 14, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed in aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 100ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. The survival data were analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc., 1994), a
statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, due to a
quality assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (Nad) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used in this test. Three replicates of five organisms each were set up per
concentration.
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and in Tables 1,2, and 3,
respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.1 to 8.1 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 6.9 to 8.0 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment (U.S.
EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 3.7 to 6.4 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 1.7 to 6.1 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). All dissolved oxygen concentrations
were within acceptable limits (i.e., greater than 40% saturated).
-------
The temperature of the overlying water in each glass box was measured and ranged from 21.5ฐC
to 23.0ฐC for both tests (Table 3). The recommended temperature range for these tests is 23 ฑ
1ฐC (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H. azteca in the control was 92% with a range of 90% to 100%.
For the control sediment containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 80% to 100% with
a mean of 95%. Survival for these controls was acceptable, and both tests passed.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 70% in the DMIR 01
sediment to 98% in the WLS 04 sediment. Mean percent survival of C tentans in the test
sediments ranged from 55% in the SUS 03 sample to 92% in the MLH 06 sample.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
Most of the survival data were transformed using an arc sine-square root transformation before
being subjected to statistical analysis. A one-tailed test was used to test the alternative
hypothesis that sample survival was less than control survival. Thus, it was not necessary to
include the H. azteca mean percent survival data for DMIR 02 (95%) and WLS 04 (98%) which
exceeded the control survival of 92%. When TOXSTAT was run on the rest of the H, azteca
samples, the data were non-normal due to the survival of the WLS 03 replicates (i.e., 90%, 20%,
90%, and 90%). This resulted in Steel's Many-one Rank test being run on the data set. None of
the sample survivals were significantly less than the control survival (QC = 0.05). However,
because the replicate survival for WLS 03 was consistently high (i.e., 90%) except for one
replicate (i.e., 20%), this sample was removed from the data set so that a stronger, parametric
statistical analysis could be conducted. When Dunnett's test was used, DMIR 01 had
significantly less H. azteca survival than the corresponding control (p = 0.05).
For C. tentans, Dunnett's test was used to determine that DMIR 01, SUS 03, and WLS 01 had
significantly lower survival than the control (p = 0.05). Results of the statistical analyses of
these data are included in Appendix A.
-------
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride Solution
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 7.8 to 8.5. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.4 to 8.3 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 21.0ฐC to 22.5ฐC. Survival of the organisms in the control was less than 90% (i.e.,
53%) which was unacceptable. Although two of the control replicates had 100% survival at the
end of the test, the third replicate experienced complete mortality of the Hyalella. The reason for
this complete mortality could not be determined. Thus, the test failed.
SUMMARY
Although the survival of H. azteca in the control sediment was acceptable (i.e., greater than
80%), the corresponding reference toxicant test failed due to poor control survival in one of the
replicates. The reason for this reference toxicant failure could not be determined. From the
H. azteca data that were analyzed statistically, only DMIR 01 had significantly less survival than
the corresponding control survival (p = 0.05).
Control survival was acceptable in the C. tentans test (i.e., greater than 70%), and only the
survival of organisms in the DMIR 01, SUS 03, and WLS 01 sediments was significantly less
than that of the control as determined by a 1-tailed Dunnett's test (p=0.05).
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #2
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.7-7.9 7.7-7.8
DMIR01
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 8.0
8.0 8.1
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.8-8.0 7.9-8.1
DMIR02
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
8.0 7.9
8.0 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.8-8.0 7.7-7.9
MLH06
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.8-8.0 7.9-8.0
SUS01
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.6
7.5 7.5
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
8.0 7.8
7.5 7.6
7.9 7.8
7.5-8.0 7.5-7.8
SUS03
C. tentans H. azteca
6.9 7.1
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.9
7.9 7.9
8.0 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
6.9-8.0 7.1-7.9
-ATC
No measurements taken on this day.
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
WLS01
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.6
7.7 7.7
7.2 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.7 7.8
7.2-7.9 . 7.6-7.8
WLS02
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.9
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.8
7.7 7.8
7.7-8.0 7.7-7.9
WLS03
C. tentans H. azteca
7.6 7.6
7.6 7.7
7.7 7.7
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.7
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.9
7.6-8.0 7.6-8.0
WLS04
C. tentans H. azteca
7.3 7.4
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.3-8.0 7.4-7.8
WLS06
C. tentans H. azteca
7.6 7.7
7.8 7.7
7.7 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.8
7.6 7.7
7.9 7.9
7.6-7.9 7.7-7.9
WLS08
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 7.6
7.7 7.6
7.8 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.9
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.7-8.0 7.6-7.9
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #2
C. tentans H. azteca
5.8 4.9
5.3 5.8
3.5 5.3
2.8 5.5
3.0 5.7
4.2 6.0
3.5 6.3
3.0 6.0
3.7 5.4
2.8-5.8 4.9-6.3
DMIR01
C. tentans H. azteca
5.6 5.5
5.8 6.0
3.7 5.4
3.2 5.4
3.6 5.9
2.5 5.5
3.9 6.0
4.7 6.2
3.4 5.9
2.5-5.8 5.4-6.2
DMIR02
C. tentans H. azteca
6.1 5.4
5.0 5.5
3.7 3.8
3.6 4.5
1.7 5.3
2.7 5.8
3.5 5.8
3.8 5.5
3.1 5.5
1.7-6.1 3.8-5.8
MLH06
C. tentans H. azteca
4.9 6.3
5.9 6.3
3.4 5.6
3.4 5.5
4.3 6.4
4.7 6.4
4.3 6.4
4.3 6.3
4.2 6.1
3.4-5.9 5.5-6.4
SUS01
C. tentans H. azteca
5.9 5.1
5.1 5.5
4.2 5.2
3.8 5.5
3.3 5.7
3.5 5.4
3.4 5.4
3.5 5.4
3.6 5.0
3.3-5.9 5.0-5.7
SUS03
C. tentans H. azteca
5.1 5.4
5.7 5.5
4.3 5.6
4.2 5.0
3.9 5.1
3.8 5.0
4.3 5.4
5.1 5.2
4.1 5.3
3.8-5.7 5.0-5.6
No measurements taken on this day.
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
WLS01
C. tentans H. azteca
5.8 5.9
5.2 5.9
4.4 5.7
4.0 5.3
4.4 6.1
4.1 5.6
4.2 5.6
3.9 5.2
4.2 5.0
3.9-5.8 5.0-6.1
WLS02
C. tentans H. azteca
5.9 5.3
5.6 5.3
3.2 5.1
3.7 5.2
4.5 5.4
4.6 5.5
4.3 5.2
4.2 5.8
3.8 5.4
3.2-5.9 5.1-5.8
WLS03
C. tentans H. azteca
5.9 5.5
4.9 6.0
3.9 5.2
3.5 5.4
3.7 6.0
3.0 5.8
4.1 6.3
4.4 5.6
4.5 5.2
3.0-5.9 5.2-6.3
WLS04
C. tentans H. azteca
6.1 6.4
5.0 5.5
3.2 4.7
2.9 3.7
2.0 5.0
3.0 4.8
3.8 5.3
3.3 4.9
3.4 5.1
2.0-6.1 3.7-6.4
WLS06
C. tentans H. azteca
5.4 5.3
5.4 5.3
4.0 5.2
3.2 4.9
4.2 5.6
3.8 5.3
4.1 5.9
3.8 5.6
3.3 5.4
3.2-5.4 4.9-5.9
WLS08
C. tentans H. azteca
5.5 6.1
5.4 6.0
4.2 5.3
3.6 5.1
4.4 6.0
4.1 5.6
4.6 5.8
3.9 5.3
4.2 5.6
3.6-5.5 5.1-6.1
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #2
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.5-23.0 21.5-23.0
DMIR01
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5-23.0 21.5-23.0
DMIR 02
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0-23.0 22.0-23.0
MLH06
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.5-23.0 21.5-23.0
SUS01
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0-23.0 22.0-23.0
SUS03
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
22.0 22,0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5-23.0 21.5-23.0
* No measurements taken on this day.
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
Range
WLS01
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
22.0 22.0
21.5-22.5 21.5-22.5
WLS02
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.0-23.0 22.0-23.0
WLS03
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5-22.5 21.5-22.5
WLS04
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5-22.5 21.5-22.5
WLS06
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5-22.5 21.5-22.5
WLS08
C. tentans H. azteca
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.5-22.5 21.5-22.5
QMac
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival offfyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch #2
CONTROL #2
DMIR01
DMIR02
MLH06
SUS01
SUS03
WLS01
WLS02
WLS03
WLS04
WLS06
WLS08
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca
92%
70%*
95%
92%
85%
92%
85%
90%
72%
98%
90%
90%
Chironomus tentans
95%
72%*
88%
92%
72%
55%*
68%*
90%
80%
78%
80%
80%
* Significantly less survival than the control, p = 0.05.
-------
APPENDIX A
Statistical Analyses
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
9 SEDIMENTS (4 replicates per sediment)
CONTROL WLS 6
0.9 0.8
0.9 0.9
0.9 1.0
1.0 0.9
MLH 6 WLS 8
1.0 0.8
1.0 1.0
0.9 1.0
0.8 0.8
SUS 1 DMIR 1
0.9 0.8
0.8 0.6
0.9 0.8
0.8 0.6
SUS 3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
WLS 1
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
WLS
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
A-l
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
FILE: 94MUD2X.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS:
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
MLH 6
MLH 6
MLH 6
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 3
SUS 3
SUS 3
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 8
WLS 8
WLS 8
WLS 8
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.9000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
1.0000
0.9000
1.0000
0.7000
1.0000
0.7000
1.0000
0.9000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.6000
0.8000
0.6000
TRANS VALUE
1.2490
1.2490
1.2490
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.1071
1.4120
1.2490
1.4120
0.9912
1.4120
0.9912
1.4120
1.2490
1.4120
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
1.4120
1.2490
1.1071
1.4120
1.4120
1.1071
1.1071
0.8861
1.1071
0.8861
A-2
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2C Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
MIN
1.249
1.107
1.107
1.107
0.991
1.107
1.107
1.107
0.886
MAX
1.412
1.412
1.249
1.412
1.412
1.412
1.412
1.412
1.107
MEAN
1.290
1.295
1.178
1.295
1.202
1.254
1.254
1.260
0.997
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2C Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
VARIANCE
0.007
0.022
0.007
0.022
0.059
0.016
0.016
0.031
0.016
SD
0.081
0.147
0.082
0.147
0.243
0.125
0.125
0.176
0.128
SEM
0.041
0.073
0.041
0.073
0.121
0.062
0.062
0.088
0.064
C.V. %
6.32
11.35
6.95
11.35
20.22
9.93
9.93
13.97
12.81
A-3
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2C Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 34MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.582
W = 0.926
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 36) = 0.935
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 36) = 0.912
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2C HYALELLA 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 5.08
Table Chi-square value = 20.09 (alpha = 0.01. df = 8)
Table Chi-square value = 15.51 (alpha = 0.05. df = 8)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-4
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2C Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
OF
8
27
35
SS
0.287
0.582
0.869
MS
0.036
0.022
F
1.667
Critical F value - 2.31 (0.05.8.27)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho: Control treatment
TRANSFORMED
GROUP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IDENTIFICATION
MEAN
CONTROL
MLH
SUS
SUS
WLS
WLS
WLS
WLS
DMIR
6
1
3
1
2
6
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
.290
.295
.178
.295
.202
.254
.254
.260
.997
MEAN CALCULATED IN
ORIGINAL UNITS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.925
.925
.850
.925
.850
.900
.900
.900
.700
T STAT
-0
1
-0
0
0
0
0
2
.051
.076
.051
.850
.342
.342
.291
.825
SIG
*
Dunnett table value = 2.53 (1 Tailed Value. P=0.05. df-24.8)
A-5
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 Hyalella azteca 10/4/94
File: 94MUD2X.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho:Control treatment
NUM OF Minimum Sig Diff
GROUP IDENTIFICATION REPS (IN ORIG. UNITS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CONTROL
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.191
0.191
0.191
0.191
0.191
0.191
0.191
0.191
% of DIFFERENCE
CONTROL FROM CONTROL
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.075
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.225
A-6
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
7 sediments (4 replicates per sediment)
control
0.80000000
1.00000000
1.00000000
1.00000000
MLH 6
1.00000000
0.90000000
1.00000000
0.80000000
SUS 1
0.70000000
0.90000000
0.80000000
0.50000000
SUS 3
0.70000000
0.40000000
0.40000000
0.70000000
WLS 1
0.60000000
0.90000000
0.40000000
0.80000000
WLS 2
0.80000000
1.00000000
0.80000000
1.00000000
WLS 3
0.70000000
0.90000000
0.90000000
0.70000000
A-7
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
FILE: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 7
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
IDENTIFICATION
control
control
control
control
MLH 6
MLH 6
MLH 6
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 1
SUS 3
SUS 3
SUS 3
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 2
WLS 3
WLS 3
WLS 3
WLS 3
REP
1
ป 2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9000
1.0000
0.8000
0.7000
0.9000
0.8000
0.5000
0.7000
0.4000
0.4000
0.7000
0.6000
0.9000
0.4000
0.8000
0.8000
1.0000
0.8000
1.0000
0.7000
0.9000
0.9000
0.7000
TRANS VALUE
1.1071
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
1.2490
1.4120
1.1071
0.9912
1.2490
1.1071
0.7854
0.9912
0.6847
0.6847
0.9912
0.8861
1.2490
0.6847
1.1071
1.1071
1.4120
1.1071
1.4120
0.9912
1.2490
1.2490
0.9912
A-8
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUO\94MPR2C.DAT
ROOKY))
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IDENTIFICATION
control
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 3
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
MIN
1.107
1.107
0.785
0.685
0.685
1.107
0.991
MAX
1.412
1.412
1.249
0.991
1.249
1.412
1.249
MEAN
1.336
1.295
1.033
0.838
0.982
1.260
1.120
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
Fi1e: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT
ROOT(Y))
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IDENTIFICATION
control
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 3
VARIANCE
0.023
0.022
0.038
0.031
0.062
0.031
0.022
SD
0.152
0.147
0.196
0.177
0.248
0.176
0.149
SEM
0.076
0.073
0.098
0.088
0.124
0.088
0.074
C.V. %
11.41
11.35
18.97
21.11
25.26
13.97
, 13.29
^a_c 3(rt(
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
ROOKY))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.688
W = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 28) - 0.924
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 28) = 0.896
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.22
Table Chi-square value = 16.81 (alpha = 0.01. df = 6)
Table Chi-square value = 12.59 (alpha = 0.05, df = 6)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-10
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
Fi1e: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT
ROOKY))
ANOVA TABLE
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
6
21
27
SS
0.811
0.688
1.499
MS
0.135
0.033
F
4.130
Critical F value = 2.57 (0.05.6.21)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT
ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
Ho:Control
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 CHIRONOMIDS 10/4/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR2C.DAT .Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
ROOKY))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho:Control ^Treatment
NUM OF Minimum Sig Diff
GROUP IDENTIFICATION REPS (IN ORIG. UNITS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
control
MLH 6
SUS 1
SUS 3
WLS 1
WLS 2
WLS 3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
0.219
% of DIFFERENCE
CONTROL FROM CONTROL
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
0.025
0.225
0.400
0.275
0.050
0.150
Critical values use k = 6. are 1 tailed, and alpha = 0.05
A-12
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #2 ADD'L C.tentans
6 sediments (4 replicates per sediments)
4
4
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
WLS 4
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
WLS 6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
WLS 8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.6
DMIR 1
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
DMIR 2
0.9
0.9
0.9
A-13
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
FILE: 94MPR2CD.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 6
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
WLS 4
WLS 4
WLS 4
WLS 4
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 6
WLS 8
WLS 8
WLS 8
WLS 8
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
DMIR 1
DMIR 2
DMIR 2
DMIR 2
DMIR 2
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.6000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.6000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
0.7000
0.9000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
TRANS VALUE
1.1071
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
1.1071
1.1071
1.2490
0.8861
1.4120
1.1071
0.8861
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
0.8861
0.9912
0.9912
1.1071
0.9912
1.2490
1.2490
1.1071
1.2490
A-14
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUNI2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONTROL
WLS 4
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
DMIR 2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.107
0.886
0.886
0.886
0.991
1.107
1.412
1.249
1.412
1.249
1.107
1.249
1.336
1.087
1.128
1.123
1.020
1.214
94 MUDPUPPY RUNI2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONTROL
WLS 4
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
DMIR 2
0.023
0.022
0.047
0.029
0.003
0.005
0.152
0.150
0.216
0.171
0.058
0.071
0.076
0.075
0.108
0.086
0.029
0.035
11.41
13.79
19.15
15.27
5.69
5.85
A-15
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOKY))
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.391
W = 0.934
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) - 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 5.71
Table Chi-square value = 15.09 (alpha = 0.01. df - 5)
Table Chi-square value = 11.07 (alpha = 0.05, df = 5)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-16
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
5
18
23
SS
0.242
0.391
0.633
MS
0.048
0.022
F
2.233
Critical F value = 2.77 (0.05.5.18)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
94 MUDPUPPY RUN#2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUNI2 ADD'L C.TENTANS
File: 94MPR2CD.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho: Control treatment
GROUP
1
2
3
4
5
6
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
WLS 4
WLS 6
WLS 8
DMIR 1
DMIR 2
NUM OF
REPS
4
4
4
4
4
4
Minimum Sig Diff
(IN ORIG. UNITS)
0.164
0.164
0.164
0.164
0.164
% of
CONTROL
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
DIFFERENCE
FROM CONTROL
0.175
0.150
0.150
0.225
0.075
uc
A-18
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 3
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 3
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 5
APPENDIX A - Statistical Analyses
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 6
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 7
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 8
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 9
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of eleven of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
During September 22-30,1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff collected the
eleven sediments referred to in this report. The composited samples were collected from the
harbor using a gravity corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC at the Duluth MPCA office until
they were transported to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory in St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Eleven sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to the 10-day sediment toxicity
test using the procedures described hi U.S. EPA (1994). The test organisms (H. azteca and
C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable, mini-flow system described hi
Benoit et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker
test chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The
beakers have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange
while containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver
water at an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to
provide exchange of overlying water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately 14
days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing in Superior,
WI. On the test set up day, MPCA personnel picked up the organisms from the supplier and
transported them to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory.
-------
On October 18, 1994, eleven samples (HOB 07, HOB 08, MNS 01, MNS 03, STP 01, STP 04,
SUS 05, WLS 12, WLS 13, WLS 14, and WLS 16) and the control sediment were separately
homogenized by hand, and 100 mL of each sediment was placed in a test beaker (Batch #3).
Each sediment test was set up with four replicates of//, azteca and four replicates of C. tertians.
Approximately 100 mL of aerated, artesian well water was added to the beakers, and the
sediments were allowed to settle for approximately two hours before the organisms were added.
For the C. tentans test, ten organisms were placed hi each of four beakers hi a random fashion.
Due to an insufficient number of H. azteca from the supplier, the four beakers for each sediment
sample were seeded as follows: seven organisms (Control #3, HOB 07, HOB 08, MNS 01,
MNS 03, STP 04, replicates A and D of WLS 12, WLS 13, WLS 14, WLS 16), six organisms
(STP 01, SUS 05, replicate B of WLS 12), and five organisms for replicate C of WLS 12.
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken hi one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded hi a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
file at the MPCA.
The test was terminated on October 28, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed hi aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 100ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. The survival data were analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc., 1994), a
statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, due to a
quality assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (NaCl) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used hi this test. Due to a shortage of test organisms, only two replicates of
three organisms each were set up per concentration.
-------
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and in Tables 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.6 to 8.3 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 7.7 to 8.4 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment (U.S.
EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 2.5 to 6.6 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 2.0 to 6.9 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). On days five, six, seven, eight, and
nine, the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the MNS 03 sediment beakers containing both
C. tentans and H. azteca were less than 40% saturated. On days six, seven, and nine, the
dissolved oxygen concentration in the MNS 01 beakers containing C. tentans were less than 40%
saturated. The acceptable test range for dissolved oxygen is greater than 40% saturation (U.S.
EPA, 1994). The organisms continued to be fed throughout the test.
The range of temperature values in the beakers containing H. azteca and C. tentans were both
20.5ฐ to 23.0ฐC (Table 3). The recommended temperature range for these tests is 23 ฑ 1ฐC
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H. azteca in the control was 89% with a range of 86% to 100%.
The survival of this control was greater than 80%, and the test passed. For the control sediment
containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 30% to 80% with a mean of 52%. Survival
for this control was less than 70% and, therefore, unacceptable. The C. tentans test failed for the
batch of sediments included in this test.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 79% in the STP 01
sediment to 100% in the HOB 08 and MNS 03 sediments. Two H. azteca sediment tests
appeared to be mis-seeded. For WLS 16, it appears that replicate C was not seeded and replicate
B was double seeded with 14 organisms. A weighted average was used to determine the mean
percent survival of the three replicates which had been seeded (i.e., 93%). For WLS 12, an extra
organism was found in two of the replicates; it was assumed that an error had been made in
-------
recording the initial number of organisms. A mean percent survival of 96% was calculated for
WLS12.
Mean percent survival of C. tentans in the test sediments ranged from 28% in the HOB 08 and
MNS 01 samples to 65% in the STP 04 sample.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
A one-tailed Steel's Many-one Rank test was used to test the alternative hypothesis that sample
survival of H. azteca was less than control survival. Thus, it was not necessary to include the
H. azteca mean percent survival data for samples which exceeded the control survival of 89%.
The survival data for the control, MNS 01, and STP 01 were transformed using an arc sine-
square root transformation prior to statistical analysis. Neither MNS 01 or STP 01 were toxic to
H. azteca when compared to the control sediment (oc = 0.05).
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride Solution
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 8.0 to 8.4. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 21.0ฐC to 23.0ฐC.
There were not enough H. azteca to run the standard reference toxicant test; therefore, a test with
two replicates per concentration containing three organisms each was run. The test met quality
assurance requirements for control survival (i.e., > 90%) indicating that the H. azteca used in this
test were healthy. The LCSO value for this test was 2.29 g/L NaCl as determined by the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber method. A control chart will be developed for this test once five data points
are obtained. The LC50 value determined from this test will be flagged since an insufficient
number of organisms and replicates were run for this test.
SUMMARY
Survival ofH. azteca in the control sediments was acceptable (i.e., greater than 80%) and none of
the test sediments resulted in significantly lower survival of H. azteca when compared to the
control survival (QC = 0.05).
Control survival in the C. tentans test was unacceptable; therefore, the test failed. As a result, no
conclusions may be drawn as to the toxicity of these sediments to C. tentans.
-------
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #3
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.8
8.0 7.9
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
8.0 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.8-8.0 7.8-8.0
HOB 07
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 *
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8-8.0 7.7-8.0
HOBOS
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 *
8.1 8.0
8.1 8.0
7.9 7.9
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.9
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.0
8.1 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.8-8.1 7.9-8.0
MNS01
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 *
7.8 7.7
7.7 7.7
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.9 7.8
8.1 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.7-8.1 7.7-8.0
MNS03
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.9
8.1 8.0
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.8
8.0 7.8
8.0 8.0
8.0 7.9
7.8-8.1 7.8-8.0
STP01
C. tentans H. azteca
8.1 8.0
8.1 8.0
8.1 8.1
8.2 8.0
8.1 8.1
8.0 7.9
8.1 8.0
8.2 8.2
8.3 8.2
8.2 8.1
8.0-8.3 7.9-8.2
ซ^
^
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
STP04
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 *
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.8
8.0 7.9
8.1 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.7-8.1 7.8-8.0
SUS05
C. tentans H. azteca
8.2 8.2
8.4 8.3
8.3 8.3
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.1
7.8 8.0
8.0 8.1
8.3 8.2
8.2 8.3
8.2 8.2
7.8-8.4 8.0-8.3
WLS12
C. tentans H. azteca
* 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.8 7.8
7.8-7.9 7.8-7.9
WLS13
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 *
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.8
8.0 7.9
7.8 7.9
8.0 7.9
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.8-8.0 7.8-8.0
WLS14
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 *
7.7 7.6
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
8.0 7.9
8.1 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.7-8.1 7.6-8.0
WLS16
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 *
7.8 7.7
7.8 7.7
7.8 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.8
7.9 7.8
8.1 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.7-8.1 7.7-8.0
t-C
* No measurement was taken because, given the short amount of time that had passed since the organisms were placed in the beakers, it was assumed that the
difference in water quality between this and the other beaker for this sediment was negligible.
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #3
C. tentans H. azteca
6.2 *
5.4 5.7
5.5 5.8
5.3 5.2
5.0 5.6
5.5 6.2
4.9 5.6
4.6 5.7
5.3 5.8
4.2 5.0
4.2-6.2 5.2-6.2
HOB 07
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.5
5.5 5.5
5.5 5.9
4.2 4.9
5.1 5.5
4.7 6.0
4.0 5.1
3.9 4.8
4.6 5.0
3.5 4.5
3.5-5.5 4.5-6.5
HOBOS
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.5
5.8 5.3
4.9 5.7
4.5 4.6
4.5 5.2
4.6 5.5
4.4 5.4
4.0 5.4
4.5 6.0
4.0 5.0
4.0-5.8 4.6-6.5
MNS01
C. tentans //. azteca
6.4
5.2 5.2
4.6 5.2
4.3 5.2
4.3 5.1
4.3 5.1
3.6 5.4
3.3 5.4
4.1 5.7
3.0 4.9
3.0-6.4 4.9-5.7
MNS03
C. tentans H. azteca
6.8 6.6
5.1 5.4
4.2 5.1
4.0 3.9
4.0 4.8
2.4 2.9
3.0 2.5
2.1 3.1
2.4 3.0
2.0 3.4
2.0-6.8 2.5-6.6
STP01
C. tentans H. azteca
6.7 6.6
5.4 5.7
5.1 5.6
4.7 5.1
4.8 5.5
4.8 5.7
4.4 5.2
4.9 6.2
5.8 6.5
4.7 5.7
4.4-6.7 5.1-6.6
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
STP04
C. tentans H. azteca
6.2 *
5.5 5.8
5.6 5.8
4.9 4.8
5.3 5.7
5.1 5.7
4.5 5.4
4.2 5.6
5.5 6.0
3.9 4.8
3.9-6.2 4.8-6.0
SUS05
C. tentans H. azteca
6.8 6.6
6.1 6.3
5.1 5.9
5.5 5.6
5.0 5.4
4.5 5.8
4.2 5.0
5.0 5.4
4.6 5.6
4.7 5.2
4.2-6.8 5.0-6.6
WLS12
C. tentans H. azteca
6.9 *
5.7 5.7
5.2 5.8
4.1 5.4
5.2 5.8
5.2 5.7
3.5 5.1
4.4 5.4
4.6 5.9
4.3 5.1
3.5-6.9 5.1-5.9
WLS 13
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.4
5.4 5.8
5.3 5.7
4.2 4.8
5.0 5.8
4.7 5.2
4.5 5.4
4.5 5.5
4.6 5.6
4.1 5.3
4.1-5.4 4.8-6.4
WLS 14
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.0
4.9 4.9
5.1 5.1
4.2 4.4
4.7 5.3
5.0 5.5
4.4 5.2
4.7 5.3
5.5 5.5
4.5 5.3
4.2-5.5 4.4-6.0
WLS 16
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.4
5.5 5.2
5.6 5.9
4.7 4.7
5.2 5.5
4.9 5.4
4.5 5.3
4.5 5.0
5.0 5.5
4.4 5.1
4.4-5.6 4.7-6.4
* No measurement was taken because, given the short amount of time that had passed since the organisms were placed in the beakers, it was assumed that the
difference in water quality between this and the other beaker for this sediment was negligible.
\iflo
A .
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #3
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
22.5 22.5
20.5-22.5 20.5-22.5
HOB 07
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
22.5 22.5
20.5-22.5 20.5-22.5
HOBOS
C. tentans H. azteca
* 22.5
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.5 22.5
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
MNS01
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
MNS03
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
22.5 22.5
20.5-22.5 20.5-22.5
STP01
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
22.5 22.5
20.5-22.5 20.5-22.5
Sample
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
STP04
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
SUS05
C. tentans H. azteca
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.5 22.5
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
WLS12
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
22.5 22.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
22.5 22.5
20.5-22.5 20.5-22.5
WLS13
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.5 22.0
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
WLS14
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
WLS16
C. tentans H. azteca
22.5 *
23.0 23.0
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
* No measurement was taken because, given the short amount of time that had passed since the organisms were placed in the beakers, it was assumed that the
difference in water quality between this and the other beaker for this sediment was negligible.
~
~
.yrc
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival oiHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch#3
CONTROL #3
HOB 07
HOB 08
MNS01
MNS03
STP01
STP04
SUS05
WLS12
WLS13
WLS14
WLS16
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca
89%
96%
100%
89%
100%
79%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
93%
Chironomus tentans*
52%
60%
28%
28%
30%
58%
65%
40%
58%
45%
50%
42%
*Control survival was unacceptable for C. tentans (i.e., <70% survival). Thus, the C. tentans
tests failed for this batch of sediments.
-------
APPENDIX A
Statistical Analyses
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
3 sediments (4 replicates per sediment)
CONTROL
0.86000000
0.86000000
0.86000000
1.00000000
MNS 1
1.00000000
1.00000000
0.57000000
1.00000000
STP 1
1
1
1
0.17
A-l
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
FILE: 94MUD3.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION REP
VALUE
TRANS VALUE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
MNS 1
MNS 1
MNS 1
MNS 1
STP 1
STP 1
STP 1
STP i
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0.8600
0.8600
0.8600
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.5700
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.1700
1.1873
1.1873
1.1873
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
0.8556
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
1.4120
0.4250
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
File: 94MUD3.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
CONTROL
MNS 1
STP 1
4
4
4
1.187
0.856
0.425
1.412
1.412
1.412
1.243
1.273
1.165
A-2
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
File: 94MUD3.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
6RP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
I CONTROL 0.013 0.112 0.056 9.04
2 MNS 1 0.077 0.278 0.139 21.85
3 STP 1 0.244 0.494 0.247 42.35
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
File: 94MUD3.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
0= 1.001
W = 0.784
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 12) = 0.859
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 12) = 0.805
Data FAIL normality test. Try another transformation.
Warning The first three homogeneity tests are sensitive to non-normal
data and should not be performed.
A-3
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
File: 94MUD3.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.58
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05. df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #3 HYALELLA
File: 94MUD3.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
STEEL'S MANY-ONE RANK TEST Ho:Control treatment
TRANSFORMED RANK CRIT.
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN SUM VALUE df SIG
1 CONTROL 1.243
2 MNS 1 1.273 20.50 11.00 4.00
3 STP 1 1.165 20.50 11.00 4.00
Critical values use k = 2. are 1 tailed, and alpha = 0.05
A-4
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 4
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 2
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 4
APPENDDC A - Statistical Analyses
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 5
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 6
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 7
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 8
in
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of six of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
During September 28-29,1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MFC A) staff collected the
six sediments referred to in this report. The composited samples were collected from the harbor
using a gravity corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC at the Duluth MPCA office until they
were transported to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory in St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Six sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to the 10-day sediment toxicity test
using the procedures described in U.S. EPA (1994). The test organisms (H. azteca and
C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable, mini-flow system described in
Benoit et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker
test chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The
beakers have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange
while containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver
water at an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to
provide exchange of overlying water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately
14 days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing
(Superior, WI) prior to the test set up.
On November 1, 1994, six samples (HOB 10, HOB 11, HOB 12, HOB 13, HOB 14, and
HOB 15) and the control sediment were separately homogenized by hand, and 100 mL of each
sediment was placed in a test beaker (Batch #4). Each sediment test was set up with four
replicates of H. azteca and four replicates of C. tentans. Approximately 100 mL of aerated,
artesian well water was added to the beakers, and the sediments were allowed to settle for
approximately two hours before the organisms were added. For each sediment, ten organisms
were placed in each of eight beakers in a random fashion.
-------
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken in one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded in a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
file at the MPCA.
The test was terminated on November 11, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed in aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 100ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. The survival data were analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc., 1994), a
statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, due to a
quality assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (NaCl) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used in this test. Three replicates of five organisms each were set up per
concentration.
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and in Tables 1,2, and 3,
respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.4 to 8.2 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 7.5 to 8.1 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 3.8 to 6.7 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 2.2 to 6.4 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). It should be noted that on Days 3, 5, 8
and 9, the dissolved oxygen concentration of the C. tentans beakers containing samples HOB 13,
-------
HOB 14, and HOB 15 was unacceptable (i.e., less than 40% saturated). Also, on Day 6, the
dissolved oxygen concentration of the water in the C. tentans beaker of HOB 14 was
unacceptable, as it was on Day 7 in the C. tentans beakers of HOB 13 and HOB 15. The
organisms continued to be fed throughout the test.
The temperature of the overlying water in each glass box was measured and ranged from 20.5ฐC
to 23.0 ฐC in both tests (Table 3). The recommended temperature for these tests is 23 ฑ 18C
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H. azteca in the control was 88% with a range of 80% to 100%.
For the control sediment containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 80% to 90% with a
mean of 88%. Survival for these controls was acceptable, and both tests passed.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 52% in the HOB 13
sediment to 95% in the HOB 10 sediment. Mean percent survival of C. tentans in the test
sediments ranged from 70% in the HOB 11 and HOB 12 samples to 80% in the HOB 10, HOB
14, and HOB 15 samples.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
All data were transformed using an arc sine-square root transformation before being subjected to
statistical analysis. A one-tailed statistical test was used to test the alternative hypothesis that
sample survival was less than control survival. For H. azteca, Dunnett's test was used to
determine that HOB 12 and HOB 13 had significantly lower survival than the control (p = 0.05).
For C. tentans, a nonparametric statistical test (i.e., Steel's Many-one Rank test) had to be used
due to 0% variance in the HOB 14 replicates. None of the C. tentans test sediments were toxic
compared to the control sediment (
-------
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride Solution
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
vessels for this test were made daily for the tests 96-hour duration. A daily count of surviving
organisms in each vessel was also made.
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 8.1 to 8.5. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.6 to 8.3 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 20.0ฐC to 21.8ฐC. The mean percent survival of the organisms in the control was
greater than 90% (i.e., 100%) which was acceptable.
The LC50 for this reference toxicant test was 3.80 g/L NaCl as determined by the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber method. A control chart will be developed for this test once five data points
are obtained.
SUMMARY
Control survival of H. azteca in both the reference toxicant test and the sediment test was
acceptable (i.e., greater than 90% and 80%, respectively). Survival of H. azteca in the test
sediments was statistically less than the control (p = 0.05) in only two samples: HOB 12 and
HOB 13.
Control survival in the C. tentans test was acceptable (i.e., greater than 70%). Survival of
C. tentans in all of the test sediments was not significantly less than that of the control
(oc = 0.05).
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #4
C. tentans H. azteca
7.6 7.7
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.2
7.8 7.8
7.9 8.0
7.7 7.7
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.1
7.9 8.1
7.6-8.0 7.7-8.2
HOB 10
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.8
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.7 7.7
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.7-8.0 7.7-8.0
HOB 11
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 7.8
7.9 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.7 7.8
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.7 7.8
7.9 8.0
7.7-7.9 7.8-8.0
HOB 12
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.8
8.1 8.2
8.1 8.2
7.8 7.9
8.0 8.1
7.5 7.4
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.2
8.0 8.0
8.1 8.2
7.5-8.1 7.4-8.2
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
HOB 13
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 7.7
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.6 7.7
7.8 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.8 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.6-8.0 7.7-8.0
HOB 14
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.1
7.9 8.0
7.6 7.6
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.8 8.0
7.6-7.9 7.6-8.1
HOB 15
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.7
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.6 7.6
7.9 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.9
8.0 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.6-8.0 7.6-8.0
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #4
C. tentans H. azteca
* 5.6
5.8 6.2
5.1 6.6
5.1 6.5
5.5 6.4
4.0 6.1
3.7 5.2
4.5 5.4
4.2 5.5
4.4 5.8
3.7-5.8 5.2-6.6
HOB 10
C. tentans H. azteca
*' 6.4
5.9 6.4
5.6 6.2
5.0 6.1
5.9 6.2
4.0 5.9
4.7 5.8
4.7 5.7
4.3 5.8
4.1 5.6
HOB 11
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.1
5.8 6.3
5.4 6.6
5.0 6.0
5.2 6.1
3.7 5.7
4.1 5.2
4.3 5.3
4.0 5.3
3.5 5.3
4.0-5.9 5.6-6.4J 3.5-5.8 5.2-6.6
HOB 12
C. tentans H. azteca
6.4 6.7
6.0 6.6
5.0 6.5
5.5 6.2
5.3 6.4
4.1 5.3
4.6 5.8
4.6 5.7
4.0 5.7
4.3 6.1
4.0-6.4 5.3-6.7
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
HOB 13
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.0
5.7 6.2
4.8 5.2
3.2 3.8
3.6 4.7
3.1 4.2
3.9 5.3
3.4 5.1
3.0 4.6
2.9 - 4.7
2.9-5.7 3.8-6.2
HOB 14
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.5
5.2 6.2
4.2 5.3
3.0 4.4
3.6 5.1
2.2 4.7
3.3 5.2
3.8 5.0
3.0 4.9
3.1 5.1
2.2-5.2 4.4-6.5
HOB 15
C. tentans H. azteca
* 6.0
5.5 6.0
4.4 5.4
2.8 4.5
4.5 5.5
3.2 4.7
3.6 5.2
3.3 5.2
2.9 4.5
3.1 4.7
2.8-5.5 4.5-6.0
* No measurement was taken because given the short amount of time that had passed since the organisms were placed in the
beakers, it was assumed that the difference in water quality between this and the other beaker for this sediment was negligible.
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #4
C. tentans H. azteca
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.7 20.7
20.7-23.0 20.7-23.0
HOB 10
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.8 20.8
20.5-22.0 20.5-22.0
HOB 11
C. tentans H. azteca
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.8 20.8
HOB 12
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
20.8-23.0 20.8-23.0j 21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
HOB 13
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.6 20.6
20.5-22.0 20.5-22.0
HOB 14
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
22.5 22.5
22.0 22.0
21.0 21.0
23.0 23.0
23.0 23.0
22.0 22.0
22.0 22.0
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.0-23.0 21.0-23.0
HOB 15
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
22.5 22.5
23.0 23.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.8 20.8
20.5-23.0 20.5-23.0
s
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch #4
Control #4
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca
88%
95%
68%
55%*
52%*
85%
78%
Chironomus tentans
88%
80%
70%
70%
72%
80%
80%
Significantly less survival than the control, p=0.05.
-------
APPENDIX A
Statistical Analyses
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
HOB 10
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
HOB 11
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
HOB 12
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.7
HOB 13
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.8
HOB 14
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
HOB 15
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
A-l
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro - Milk's test for normality
D = 0.837
W = 0.950
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 28) = 0.924
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 28) = 0.896
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.15
Table Chi-square value - 16.81 (alpha - 0.01, df = 6)
Table Chi-square value - 12.59 (alpha - 0.05. df = 6)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-2
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
FILE: 94MPR4H.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 7
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
1.0000
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
0.5000
0.6000
0.8000
0.8000
0.4000
0.4000
0.7000
0.7000
0.1000
0.6000
0.6000
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
0.6000
0.7000
0.7000
0.9000
0.8000
TRANS VALUE
1.4120
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
1.4120
1.1071
1.4120
1.4120
0.7854
0.8861
1.1071
1.1071
0.6847
0.6847
0.9912
0.9912
0.3218
0.8861
0.8861
1.1071
1.2490
1.2490
1.4120
0.8861
0.9912
0.9912
1.2490
1.1071
A-3
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.107
1.107
0.785
0.685
0.322
0.886
0.991
1.412
1.412
1.107
0.991
1.107
1.412
1.249
1.219
1.336
0.971
0.838
0.800
1.199
1.085
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
0.021
0.023
0.026
0.031
0.113
0.049
0.015
0.145
0.152
0.162
0.177
0.336
0.222
0.122
0.073
0.076
0.081
0.088
0.168
0.111
0.061
11.91
11.41
16.68
21.11
41.94
18.54
11.29
A-4
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
6
21
27
SS
0.983
0.837
1.820
MS
0.164
0.040
F
4.112
Critical F value = 2.57 (0.05.6.21)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 HYALELLA 11/01/94
File: 94MPR4H.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE ROOKY))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho .-Control treatment
NUM OF Minimum Sig Diff % of DIFFERENCE
GROUP IDENTIFICATION REPS (IN ORIG. UNITS) CONTROL FROM CONTROL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.295
0.295
0.295
0.295
0.295
0.295
33.8
33.8
33.8
33.8
33.8
33.8
-0.075
0.200
0.325
0.350
0.025
0.100
A-6
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
0.80000000
0.90000000
0.90000000
0.90000000
HOB 10
1.00000000
0.40000000
0.90000000
0.90000000
HOB 11
0.50000000
0.60000000
0.90000000
0.80000000
HOB 12
0.80000000
0.70000000
0.80000000
0.50000000
HOB 13
0.80000000
0.80000000
0.40000000
0.90000000
HOB 14
0.8
0.80000000
0.8
0.80000000
HOB 15
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
A-7
-------
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D - 0.734
W = 0.917
Critical W (P - 0.05) (n - 28) = 0.924
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 28) = 0.896
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Hartley's test for homogeneity of variance
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
These two tests can not be performed because at least one group has
zero variance. V\oฃ> tH
Data FAIL to meet homogeneity of variance assumption.
Additional transformations are useless.
A-8
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
FILE: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 7
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
IDENTIFICATION
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 14
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
HOB 15
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
0.4000
0.9000
0.9000
0.5000
0.6000
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.8000
0.5000
0.8000
0.8000
0.4000
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
TRANS VALUE
1.1071
1.2490
1.2490
1.2490
1.4120
0.6847
1.2490
1.2490
0.7854
0.8861
1.2490
1.1071
1.1071
0.9912
1.1071
0.7854
1.1071
1.1071
0.6847
1.2490
1.1071
1.1071
1.1071
1.1071
0.9912
1.1071
1.2490
1.1071
A-9
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
Fi1e: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1.107
0.685
0.785
0.785
0.685
1.107
0.991
1.249
1.412
1.249
1.107
1.249
1.107
1.249
1.214
1.149
1.007
0.998
1.037
1.107
1.114
94 MUDPUPPY RUM #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTROL
HOB 10
HOB 11
HOB 12
HOB 13
HOB 14
HOB 15
0.005
0.102
0.044
0.023
0.060
0.000
0.011
0.071
0.319
0.210
0.152
0.244
0.000
0.106
0.035
0.159
0.105
0.076
0.122
0.000
0.053
5.85
27.75
20.86
15.21
23.55
0.00
9.48
3/i-l/fl-
A40
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #4 CHIRONOMIDS 11/01/94
Fi 1e: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR4C.DAT
STEEL'S MANY-ONE RANK TEST
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Ho:Control
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 5
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 2
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 4
n
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 5
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 6
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 7
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 8
in
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of six of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
During October 3-4, 1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff collected the six
sediments referred to in this report. The samples were collected from the harbor using a gravity
corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC at the Duluth MPCA office until they were transported to
the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory hi St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Six sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to the 10-day sediment toxicity test
using the procedures described in U.S. EPA (1994). The test organisms (H. azteca and
C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable, mini-flow system described in
Benoit et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker
test chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The
beakers have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange
while containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver
water at an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to
provide exchange of overlying water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately 14
days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing (Superior,
WI) prior to the test set up.
On November 11,1994, six samples (ERP 03, KMB 04, KMB 05, STP 06, STP 07, and SUS 07)
and the control sediment were separately homogenized by hand, and 100 mL of each sediment
was placed hi a test beaker (Batch #5). Approximately 100 mL of aerated, artesian well water
was added to each beaker, and the sediments were allowed to settle for approximately two hours
before the organisms were added. Each sediment was set up with four replicates of//, azteca and
four replicates of C. Tentans. For each sediment, ten organisms were placed in each beaker in a
random fashion.
-------
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken in one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded in a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
file at the MPCA.
The test was terminated on November 21, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed in aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 100ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. Usually, the resulting data are analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc.,
1994), a statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, the
controls failed for both of these tests which invalidated the survival data. Due to a quality
assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (NaCl) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used in this test. Three replicates of five organisms each were set up per
concentration.
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and hi Tables 1,2, and 3,
respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.2 to 8.5 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 7.4 to 8.4 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 2.8 to 6.9 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 1.8 to 6.7 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). It should be noted that on Days 4,7, 8,
-------
and 9, the dissolved oxygen concentration in the STP 06 sediment beaker containing C. tertians
was less than 40% saturated, which is out of the acceptable test range for dissolved oxygen. On
Days 4, 5, 7, and 8, the dissolved oxygen concentration in the H. azteca beaker of STP 06 was
below the acceptable concentration. The organisms continued to be fed throughout the test.
The temperature of the overlying water in each glass box was measured and ranged from 20.5 ฐC
to 23.0 ฐC in both tests (Table 3). The recommended temperature for these tests is 23 ฑ 1ฐC
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H azteca in the control was 78% with a range of 70% to 100%.
For the control sediment containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 50% to 90% with a
mean of 68%. Survival for these controls was less than the required mean percent survival of
80% and 70%, respectively. Therefore, both tests failed.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 45% in the SUS 07
sediment to 80% in the ERP 03 and KMB 05 sediments. Mean percent survival of C. tentans in
the test sediments ranged from 0% in the SUS 07 sample to 68% in the STP 06 and STP 07
samples.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
Since both controls failed, the data for these tests were not analyzed.
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride Solution
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 8.1 to 8.6. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.8 to 8.1 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 20ฐC to 21ฐC (temperature was recorded only the first 70 hours of the test).
Survival of the organisms in the control was greater than 90% (i.e., 93%) which was acceptable.
-------
The LCJO for this reference toxicant test was 4.83 g/L NaCl as determined by the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber method. A control chart will be developed for this test once five data points
are obtained.
SUMMARY
Survival of the H. azteca in the reference toxicant test was acceptable (i.e., greater than 90%),
indicating that the H. azteca organisms used in the toxicity test were healthy. However, survival
of H. azteca in the control sediments was unacceptable (i.e., less than 80%). Therefore, the
toxicity test failed.
Control survival was unacceptable in the C. tentans test (i.e., less than 70%), resulting in the
failure of this test.
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley, D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #5
C. tentans H. azteca
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.9 7.9
8.1 8.2
8.0 8.1
8.1 8.0
7.9 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.6 7.7
7.8 8.0
7.6-8.1 7.7-8.2
ERP03
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.1 8.1
8.1 8.2
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.8
7.7 7.7
* *
7.7-8.1 7.7-8.2
KMB04
C. tentans H. azteca
7.7 7.8
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
8.4 8.5
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.1
8.0 8.3
7.9 8.0
7.5 7.4
7.7 7.9
7.5-8.4 7.4-8.5
KMB05
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
7.8 8.0
8.0 7.9
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.5 7.6
* *
7.5-7.9 7.6-8.0
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
STP06
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.9
7.9 7.9
7.9 7.9
8.2 8.3
7.9 8.0
7.8 8.0
8.0 8.0
7.9 7.9
7.7 7.6
7.8 7.9
7.7-8.2 7.6-8.3
STP07
C. tentans H. azteca
7.9 8.0
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.8
8.1 8.2
8.0 8.0
8.0 8.2
8.0 8.0
7.8 7.7
7.6 7.6
* 8.0
7.6-8.1 7.6-8.2
SUS07
C. tentans H. azteca
7.4 7.2
8.2 8.1
8.0 8.1
8.4 8.4
8.2 7.8
8.2 8.2
8.2 8.1
8.1 8.2
7.7 7.4
7.9 7.7
7.4-8.4 7.2-8.4
* pH meter was dropped and reading was questionable.
<^ut
3/fl-/^
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
Day
0 '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #5
C. tentans H. azteca
6.7 6.7
5.8 6.2
5.5 5.8
5.9 6.0
5.5 6.0
5.9 5.5
5.7 5.4
5.1 5.0
4.4 4.4
3.8 4.3
3.8-6.7 4.3-6.7
ERP03
C. tentans H. azteca
6.4 6.4
58 6.2
5.9 6.2
6.1 5.8
6.3 5.6
6.4 5.6
5.9 6.3
5.6 5.6
3.8 4.4
5.2 5.1
3.8-6.4 4.4-6.4
KMB04
C. tentans H. azteca
6.2 6.1
6.3 6.0
6.0 6.2
5.8 5.9
6.1 6.1
6.2 5.2
5.9 5.1
5.3 4.6
4.4 4.0
4.1 4.3
4.1-6.3 4.0-6.2
KMB05
C. tentans H. azteca
6.7 6.9
4.6 5.0
6.0 6.1
6.0 6.0
6.2 5.7
6.1 5.7
6.1 5.7
5.0 5.0
4.3 4.9
4.3 4.4
4.3-6.7 4.4-6.9
/
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #5
C. tentans H. azteca
21.8 21.8
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.8 20.8
21.2 21.2
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
22.5 22.5
20.8-22.5 20.8-22.5
ERP03
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.8 21.8
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
22.5 22.5
21.0-22.5 21.0-22.5
KMB04
C. tentans H. azteca
20.5 20.5
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.8 21.8
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
20.5-23.0 20.5-23.0
KMB05
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0-22.5 21.0-22.5
3/Rffl
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
STP06
C. tentans H. azteca
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.8 20.8
21.2 21.2
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
22.5 22.5
20.8-22.5 20.8-22.5
STP07
C. tentans H. azteca
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.8 21.8
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
22.5 22.5
21.0-22.5 21.0-22.5
SUS07
C. tentans H. azteca
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
21.5 21.5
21.0 21.0
20.5 20.5
20.8 20.8
21.0 21.0
22.0 22.0
23.0 23.0
20.5-23.0 20.5-23.0
W .^L
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch #5
Control #5
ERP03
KMB04
KMB05
STP06
STP07
SUS07
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca1
78%
80%
78%
80%
50%
68%
45%
Chironomus tentan^
68%
60%
48%
65%
68%
68%
0%
Control survival was unacceptable (i.e., < 80% survival). Therefore, this test failed.
Control survival was unacceptable (i.e., < 70% survival). Therefore, this test failed.
-------
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
WITH
HYALELLA AZTECA AND CHIRONOMUS TENTANS
ON SEDIMENTS FROM THE DULUTH/SUPERIOR HARBOR:
1994 Sampling Results - Batch # 6
Conducted by
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Monitoring and Assessment Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
April 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING 1
METHODS 1
RESULTS 2
SUMMARY 4
REFERENCES 4
APPENDLX A - TOXSTAT Analysis
APPENDDC B - Reference Toxicant Control Chart for Hyalella azteca
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements 5
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) 6
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius) 7
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans 8
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of a sediment assessment of hotspot areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor, sediment
toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute (survival) and chronic (growth) toxicity to benthic
invertebrates. Acute effects were measured in separate 10-day toxicity tests to Hyalella azteca
(H. azteca) and Chironomus tentans (C. tentans). Growth was measured at the end of the
C. tentans test to assess chronic effects. Survival and growth endpoints were compared to
organisms similarly exposed to a reference control sediment collected from West Bearskin Lake
(Cook County, MN).
A total of 44 sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing. This report presents the
results of three of these sediment samples.
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING
On September 29, 1994 and October 4, 1994, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MFC A) staff
collected the three sediments referred to in this report. The samples were collected from the
harbor using a gravity corer. The samples were stored at 4ฐC at the Duluth MPCA office until
they were transported to the MPCA Toxicology Laboratory in St. Paul, MN.
METHODS
Three sediment samples and a control sediment were subjected to the 10-day sediment toxicity
test using the procedures described in U.S. EPA (1994). The test organisms (H. azteca and
C. tentans) were exposed to sediment samples in a portable mini-flow system described hi Benoit
et al. (1993) and U.S. EPA (1994). The test apparatus consists of 300 mL, glass-beaker test
chambers held in a glass box supplied with water from an acrylic plastic headbox. The beakers
have two, 1.5 cm holes covered with stainless steel mesh, to allow for water exchange while
containing the test organisms. The headbox has a pipette tip drain calibrated to deliver water at
an average rate of 32.5 mL/min. The glass box is fitted with a self-starting siphon to provide
exchange of overlying water.
The H. azteca used for this test were 1 to 3 mm long, and the C. tentans were approximately 14
days old. These organisms were supplied by Environmental Consulting and Testing (Superior,
WI) prior to the test set up.
On December 6, 1994, three samples (ERP 01, ERP 02, and STP 03) and the control sediment
were separately homogenized by hand, and 100 mL of each sediment was placed in a test beaker
(Batch #6). Approximately 100 mL of aerated, artesian well water was added to each beaker,
and the sediments were allowed to settle for approximately two hours before the organisms were
added. For each sediment, nine H. azteca were placed in each of four beakers hi a random
fashion, and ten C. tentans were placed randomly in another four beakers. An insufficient
number of H. azteca organisms were received from the supplier to seed each beaker with ten
organisms.
-------
The organisms were exposed to 16 hours of light and eight hours of darkness for the duration of
the ten-day test. Each day, two liters of aerated water from the artesian well at Stroh Brewery in
St. Paul, MN were exchanged in each test chamber. On weekdays, 1-L was exchanged in the
morning and 1-L in the afternoon. On weekends, the two liters were passed through the
chambers all at once. Water quality measurements (i.e., pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
of the overlying water were taken in one beaker of each of the quadruplicate sets of each of the
sediments. The results, along with daily observations involving the physical appearance of the
sediments and organisms, were recorded in a laboratory notebook. This notebook is retained on
fileattheMPCA.
The test was terminated on December 16, 1994. The sediments were sieved through 40 mesh
screens, and the sieved material was sorted for organisms. The organisms found were counted,
and the number of alive and dead organisms were recorded. Organisms not found were recorded
as missing and presumed dead. The C. tentans that survived were placed in aluminum weighing
dishes, dried at approximately 100ฐC for at least four hours, desiccated to room temperature, and
weighed.
Growth (weight) of the C. tentans and survival of both organisms were used as the endpoints for
these tests. The survival data were analyzed using TOXSTAT (Gulley and WEST, Inc., 1994), a
statistical software package obtained from the University of Wyoming. However, due to a
quality assurance problem, the growth data were not analyzed.
A 96-hour, reference toxicant test with H. azteca in sodium chloride (NaCl) was run in
conjunction with these toxicity tests to determine the acceptability of the H. azteca used. Four
concentrations of NaCl solution (i.e., 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.2.5 g/L) and a control (aerated, artesian
well water) were used in this test. Three replicates of five organisms each were set up per
concentration.
RESULTS
Water Quality
Measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature in the overlying water of the test
beakers were made daily. These measurements are summarized below and in Tables 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.
The range of pH values in the beakers containing H. azteca was 7.6 to 8.1 (Table 1). The water
in the C. tentans beakers had a pH range of 7.5 to 7.9 (Table 1). The pH fluctuations during
these tests were acceptable since they did not vary more than 50% within each treatment
(U.S. EPA, 1994).
The dissolved oxygen concentration ranged from 3.6 to 7.4 mg/L in the H. azteca beakers and
from 3.0 to 7.0 mg/L in the C. tentans beakers (Table 2). It should be noted that on Days 8 and
9, the dissolved oxygen concentration in the STP 3 sediment beaker containing C. tentans was
-------
less than 40% saturated, which is out of the acceptable test range for dissolved oxygen. The
organisms continued to be fed throughout the test.
The temperature of the overlying water in each glass box was measured and ranged from 19.5ฐC
to 21.5ฐC in the H. azteca beakers and from 19.5ฐC to 21.0ฐC in the C. tentans beakers (Table 3).
The recommended temperature for these tests is 23 ฑ 1ฐC (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Test Endpoints
Survival Data
The mean percent survival of the test organisms is summarized below and in Table 4.
The mean percent survival of H. azteca in the control was 92% with a range of 89% to 100%.
For the control sediment containing C. tentans, percent survival ranged from 70% to 90% with a
mean of 85%. Survival for these controls was acceptable, and both tests passed.
Mean percent survival of H. azteca in the test sediments ranged from 58% in the ERP 02
sediment to 80% in the STP 03 sediment. Mean percent survival of C. tentans in the test
sediments ranged from 62% in the STP 03 sample to 90% in the ERP 02 sample.
C. Tentans Growth Data
Although the dried C. tentans were weighed, the balance on which they were weighed was not
calibrated with standard weights. Therefore, the data are suspect since the internal calibration of
the balance may have drifted with time. Thus, no conclusions can be made regarding chronic
toxicity (growth).
Data Analysis
All survival data were transformed using an arc sine-square root transformation. A one-tailed
statistical test was used to test the alternative hypothesis that sample survival was less than
control survival. For H. azteca, a nonparametric statistical test (i.e., Steel's Many-one Rank test)
had to be used due to non-normal data. Only the survival of H. azteca in the ERP 02 sediment
was significantly less than the control (a = 0.05). For C. tentans, Dunnett's test was used to
determine that none of the test sediments were toxic compared to the control sediment (p = 0.05).
Results of the statistical analyses of these data are included in Appendix A.
Reference Toxicant Test with Hvalella azteca in Sodium Chloride:
The pH of the overlying water in the reference toxicant test ranged from 8.1 to 8.7. The
dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.5 to 8.3 mg/L, and the temperature of the overlying water
ranged from 20.0ฐC to 22.0ฐC. Survival of the organisms in the control was greater than 90%
(i.e., 100%) which was acceptable.
-------
The LCSO for this reference toxicant test was 4.45 g/L NaCl as determined by the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber method and was within plus or minus two standard deviations of the running
mean (Appendix B). The running mean for this test, which was 3.82 ฑ1.14 g/L with a CV of
30%, was based on the previous five acceptable reference toxicant tests performed by this
laboratory.
SUMMARY
Survival of H. azteca in the control sediment was acceptable (i.e.. greater than 80%). Survival of
the H. azteca in the reference toxicant test was also acceptable (i.e., greater than 90%). Survival
of the H. azteca in the ERP 02 sediment was significantly less than the corresponding control
survival (a = 0.05).
Control survival was acceptable in the C. tertians test (i.e., greater than 70%), and there was no
statistically significant difference between survival of the C. tentans in any of the test sediments
with the control sediment.
REFERENCES
Benoit, D.A., G. Phipps, and G.T. Ankley. 1993. A sediment testing intermittent renewal
system for the automated renewal of overlying water in toxicity tests with contaminated
sediments. Water Research 27:1403-1412.
Gulley,D.D. and WEST, Inc. 1994. TOXSTAT3.4. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-94/024.
-------
TABLE 1. Daily Overlying Water pH Measurements
Day
0*
1*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #6
C. tentans H. azteca
7.5 7.8
7.5 8.0
7.6 7.7
7.6 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.6 7.8
7.5 7.6
7.7 7.8
7.5-7.7 7.6-80
ERP01
C. tentans H. azteca
7.6 7.6
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.8
7.7 7.9
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.8
7.7 7.8
7.7 7.8
7.6-7.7 76-7.9
ERP02
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.9
7.8 8.1
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.8 8.0
7.8 7.9
7.8 7.9
7.9 8.1
7.8-7.9 7.9-8.1
STP03
C. tentans H. azteca
7.8 7.8
7.8 7.9
7.6 7.7
7.9 7.8
7.7 7.7
7.7 7.8
7.6 7.7
7.7 7.8
7.6-7.9 7.7-7.9
t
Both of the pH meters were inoperable. Therefore, no measurements could be taken.
i
-------
TABLE 2. Daily Overlying Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
^
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.Range
Control #6
C. tentans H. azteca
6.2 6.3
6.5 6.4
5.9 6.3
5.3 6.1
4.1 5.8
5.2 5.5
5.9 6.0
4.6 5.0
4.6 4.8
4.2 5.3
4.1-6.5 4.8-6.4
ERP01
C. tentans H. azteca
6.4 6.7
6.4 6.5
5.5 6.1
5.5 6.2
3.9 6.0
5.1 5.8
5.1 6.1
4.8 5.8
4.8 5.0
4.6 5.2
3.9-6.4 5.0-6.7
ERP02
C. tentans H. azteca
7.0 7.4
6.8 6.4
5.9 6.7
5.0 6.3
4.6 5.5
4.5 5.5
4.9 6.0
4.6 5.2
4.3 4.9
4.3 5.1
4.3-7.0 4.9-7.4
STP03
C. tentans H. azteca
6.8 6.8
6.2 6.6
5.9 6.6
4.9 6.0
4.2 5.2
4.4 5.4
4.9 5.5
3.9 4.2
3.0 3.6
3.2 4.3
3.0-6.8 3.6-6.8
-------
TABLE 3. Daily Overlying Water Temperatures (Degrees Celsius)
Day
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Range
Control #6
C. tentans H. azteca
19.5 19.5
20.4 20.4
20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.2 20.2
20.2 20.2
20.0 20.0
20.2 20.2
19.5-20.5 19.5-20.5
ERP01
C. tentans H. azteca
19.5 19.5
20.6 20.6
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.8 20.8
19.5-20.8 19.5-20.8
ERP02
C. tentans H. azteca
19.5 19.5
20.4 20.4
20.2 20.2
20.0 20.0
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.5 20.5
20.2 20.2
20.0 20.0
20.4 20.4
19.5-20.5 19.5-20.5
STP03
C. tentans H. azteca
19.5 19.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
19.5 19.5
21.0 21.5
20.5 20.5
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
21.0 21.0
19.5-21.0 19.5-21.5
U,
>-v
It
-------
TABLE 4. Mean Percent Survival ofHyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans
Batch #6
Control #6
ERP01
ERP02
STP03
Mean Percent Survival
Hyalella azteca
92%
67%
58%*
80%
Chironomus tentans
85%
78%
90%
62%
* Significantly less survival than the control, a = 0.05.
C-
-------
APPENDIX A
TOXSTAT Analysis
-------
94MUDPUPPY RUN #6 HYALELLA 12/6/94
4
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
0.89
1.00
0.89
0.89
ERP 1
0.11
0.89
0.89
0.78
ERP 2
0.56
0.44
0.67
0.67
STP 3
0.78
0.89
0.67
0.89
A-l
-------
TITLE: 94MUDPUPPY RUN #6 HYALELLA 12/6/94
FILE: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR6H.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
SRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 2
ERP 2
ERP 2
ERP 2
STP 3
STP 3
STP 3
STP 3
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.8900
1.0000
0.8900
0.8900
0.1100
0.8900
0.8900
0.7800
0.5600
0.4400
0.6700
0.6700
0.7800
0.8900
0.6700
0.8900
TRANS VALUE
1.2327
1.4034
1.2327
1.2327
0.3381
1.2327
1.2327
1.0826
0.8455
0.7253
0.9589
0.9589
1.0826
1.2327
0.9589
1.2327
A-2
-------
94MUDPUPPY RUN #6 HYALELLA 12/6/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR6H.DAT Transform: ARC SINECSQUARE
ROOKY))
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.662
W= 0.826
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 16) = 0.887
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 16) = 0.844
Data FAIL normality test. Try another transformation.
Warning The first three homogeneity tests are sensitive to non-normal
data and should not be performed.
94MUDPUPPY RUN #6 HYALELLA 12/6/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR6H.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 9.11
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01. df - 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df - 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-3
-------
94MUDPUPPY RUN #6 HYALELLA 12/6/94
File: S:\MA\CHUBBAR\TSD\94MUD\94MPR6H.DAT
ROOKY))
STEEL'S MANY-ONE RANK TEST
Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE
Ho:Control
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
4
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
ERP 1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
ERP 2
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
STP 3
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
A-5
-------
TITLE: 94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
FILE: 94MPR6C.DAT
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)) NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 1
ERP 2
ERP 2
ERP 2
ERP 2
STP 3
STP 3
STP 3
STP 3
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0.9000
0.9000
0.7000
0.9000
1.0000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.900C
0.8000
0.5000
0.7000
0.5000
TRANS VALUE
1.2490
1.2490
0.9912
1.2490
1.4120
1.1071
0.9912
0.8861
1.4120
1.1071
1.2490
1.2490
1.1071
0.7854
0.9912
0.7854
A-6
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.328
W = 0.953
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 16) = 0.887
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 16) = 0.844
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.30
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01. df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05. df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
A-7
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1
2
3
4
CONTROL
ERP 1
ERP 2
STP 3
4
4
4
4
0.991
0.886
1.107
0.785
1.249
1.412
1.412
1.107
1.185
1.099
1.254
0.917
A-8
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
CONTROL
ERP 1
ERP 2
STP 3
VARIANCE
0.017
0.052
0.016
0.025
SD
0.129
0.227
0.125
0.159
SEM
0.064
0.114
0.062
0.080
C.V. %
10.89
20.68
9.93
17.39
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
3
12
15
SS
0.254
0.328
0.582
MS
0.085
0.027
F
3.104
Critical F value = 3.49 (0.05,3,12)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
A-9
-------
94 MUDPUPPY RUN #6 CHIRONOMIDS 12/6/94
File: 94MPR6C.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
APPENDIX B
Reference Toxicant Control Chart
for Hyalella azteca
-------
7.00 -r
H. azteca Reference Toxicant Control Chart
6.00 >
5.00
4.001
3.00!:
2.00
1.00..
0.00
2345
Test Number
ป LC50 (g/L) Mean = 3.82 g/L
Upper Control Lit* = 6.10 g/L Lower Control Lin* = 1.54 g/L
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C
BENTHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY DATA
-------
APPENDIX C
BENTHIC MACROEWERTEBRATE DATA FILES
The below data files contain the benthological abundance and taxa richness data. Due to the
large size of these files, each site file is split into an oligochaete and insect data file. All files are
in Lotus 1-2-3, version 2.3, and are provided on the computer disk at the back of this report.
Since all of the files are compressed, access the Readme.txt file first for directions on how to read
the files.
DMIR Sites
dmirinse.wkl
dmirolig.wkl
ERP Sites
erpinsec.wkl
erpoligo.wkl
HOB Sites
hobinsel.wkl
hobinse2.wkl
hoboligl.wkl
hobolig2.wkl
KMB Sites
kmbinsec.wkl
kmboligo.wkl
MLH Sites
mlhinsec.wkl
mlholigo.wkl
MNS Sites
mnsinsec.wkl
mnsoligo.wkl
STP Sites
stpinsec.wkl
stpoligo.wkl
SUS Sites
susinsec.wkl
susoligo.wkl
WLS Sites
wlsinsel wkl
wlsinse2.wkl
wlsoligl.wkl
wlsolig2.wkl
C-l
------- |