WATER QUAUTY, AMBIENT TOXICITY AND BIOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND
TIDAL SAN JACINTO RIVER
OCTOBER 1991
TECHNICAL SECTION
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BRANCH
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
U.S. EPA-REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS, TX  75202-2733
                                         PROr

-------
  WATER QUALITY, AMBIENT TOXICITY AND BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
     IN THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND TIDAL SAN JACINTO RIVER
    Philip A. Crocker1, George J. Guillen .  Richard D.  Seiler2
        Elise Petrocelli , Michele Redmond , Willie Lane5,
              Terry A. Hollister6,  David W.  Neleigh
                       and George Morrison
                           October 1991
technical Section,Water  Quality Management Branch,  U.S.  EPA,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX  75202-2733

2Biology Program,  Texas Water Commission,  District 7, 5144 E. Sam
Houston Parkway N., Houston, TX  77015

3SAIC c/o U.S.  EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, South Ferry
Road, Narragansett, RI  02882

4SAIC c/o  U.S. EPA,  Hatfield Marine  Science Center,  2111 S.E.
Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR  97365-5260

 Environmental Analysis Section, Surveillance Branch,  U.S.  EPA,
Region  6,  1445 Ross  Avenue,  Dallas,  TX   75202-2733;   Present
address:  Compliance Monitoring Section, Houston Branch, U.S. EPA,
10625 Fallstone Road, Houston, TX  77099

6Inorganics Section, Houston  Branch,  U.S.  EPA, 10625  Fallstone
Road, Houston, TX  77099

technical Section,  Water  Quality Management Branch,  U.S.  EPA,
Region  6,  1445 Ross  Avenue,  Dallas,  TX   75202-2733;   Present
address:  Texas Section, RCRA Permits Branch, U.S. EPA, Region  6,
1445 Ross Avenue,  Dallas, Texas  75202-2733

8EPA,   Environmental  Research  Laboratory,   27  Tarswell  Drive,
Narragansett, RI  02882

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                     Page


Executive Summary	   iv

Recommendations	viii

Acknowledgements	   ix

INTRODUCTION	   1

METHODS AND MATERIALS	   2
     Study Design	   2
     Sample Collection and Handling	   3
     Toxicity Testing of Ambient Water	   4
     Toxicity Testing of Bottom Sediments	   6
     Nekton Survey	   6
     Physicochemical Measurements	   7
     Chemical Analysis	   7
     Data Evaluation	   8
     Quality Assurance	   9

RESULTS	   9
     Toxicity Testing of Ambient Water	   9
     Toxicity Testing of Bottom Sediments	  10
     Nekton Survey	  10
     Physicochemical Measurements	  12
     Chemical Analysis of Ambient Water	  13
     Chemical Analysis of Bottom Sediments	  15
     Chemical Analysis of Fish Tissue	  17

DISCUSSION	%	  18

LITERATURE CITED	  23

FIGURES	  27

TABLES	  32

APPENDICES	  73
     Appendix 1—Biological Survey of Shoreline Nekton
          Communities of the Lower Houston Ship Channel
          and Adjacent Waters (TWC segments 1001, 1005,
          1006 and 2422),  August 1988 and January 1989	  74
     Appendix 2—Detection Limits for Chemical Analyses
          of Water,  Sediment and Fish Tissue	 144
     Appendix 3—Field Data	 149
     Appendix 4—Quality Assurance Review of Fish
          Tissue Chemical Analysis	 163
                               11

-------
                             FIGURES

HO..  Title                                                  Page

1.   Location of Sampling Stations	 28
2.   Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Houston Ship Channel,
     Station 1	 29
3.   Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Tidal San Jacinto River,
     Station 6	 30
4.   Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Greens Bayou, Station 12	 31

                              TABLES

1.   Primary Sampling Stations	 33
2.   Tributary Sampling Stations	 34
3.   Survey Activities and Dates	 35
4.   Summary of Ambient Toxicity Results	 36
5.   Ambient Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow	 37
6.   Ambient Toxicity to Inland Silverside	 38
7.   Ambient Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp	 39
8.   Ambient Toxicity to Sea Urchin	 40
9.   Ambient Toxicity to Red Alga	 41
10.  Ambient Toxicity Results for Brays, Greens and
     Sims Bayous, September 1989	 42
11.  Sediment Toxicity to the Amphipod and Sheepshead
     Minnow (Elutriate)	 43
12.  Exceedances of Minima and Average Water Quality
     Standards for Dissolved Oxygen	 44
13.  Water Quality Criteria Exceedances for Total
     Residual Chlorine	 45
14.  Chemical Analysis of Ambient Water: Conventional
     Parameters	 46
15.  Chemical Analysis for Brays,  Greens and Sims
     Bayous, September 1989: Dissolved Metals and
     Conventional Parameters	 49
16.  Chemical Analysis of Ambient Waters:  Metals	 50
17.  Dissolved Metal Concentrations for Ambient
     Water Samples Collected in January 1991	 54
18.  Summary of Water Quality Criteria and Standards
     Exceeded	 55
19.  Chemical Analysis of Ambient Waters:  Organic
     Priority Pollutants	 56
20.  Chemical analysis of Sediments:  Metals and
     Conventional Parameters	 61
21.  Chemical Analysis of Sediments:  Organic Chemicals	 63
22.  Sediment Quality Percentiles Exceeded	 64
23.  Chemical Analysis of Edible Fish and Crab Tissue:
     Heavy Metals and Organic Priority Pollutants	 65
24.  Tissue criteria for Contaminants Detected in
     Edible Fish and Crab Tissue	 71
25.  Summary of Chemical Data for Edible Fish and
     Crab Tissue	 72
                               111

-------
                        Executive Summary

From 1988 to 1990 EPA-Region 6, in conjunction with the Texas Water
Commission,  conducted  a  water  quality  and  ambient  toxicity
investigation of the Houston Ship Channel/San Jacinto River.  The
primary purpose was to determine if there were toxic conditions in
the Ship Channel (segments 1006, 1007), tidal portions of the San
Jacinto  River  (segments  1001,  1005)  as  well as  three  tidal
tributaries (Brays, Greens and Sims Bayous).  This information was
gathered to better define  water quality management needs for these
waters, particularly with  regard to toxics control of point source
discharges.

The primary objective was  to collect and analyze ambient water for
priority pollutants, and to test ambient water for toxicity using
short-term  chronic marine testing  protocols.   These  protocols
incorporated the following test organisms: mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis
bahia), inland  silverside (Menidia beryllina),  sheepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus),  sea  urchin  (Arbacia punctulata)  and red
alga  (Champia  parvula).    Also,  chemical  analyses  of  bottom
sediments and fish tissue, and toxicity testing of sediments were
conducted on a limited scale.

Five surveys of the Ship Channel and tidal San Jacinto River were
completed during August 1988, January 1989,  February 1990, May 1990
and July/August 1990.   Sampling of the three tributaries took place
in September 1989.  Follow-up sampling for heavy metals was also
conducted at selected stations in January 1991.  The map presented
on the following page shows the relevant water quality segments and
sampling station locations.  The study was initiated using a core
sampling  network   of  nine stations,   including  two  stations  in
segments 1001  (#3,  4)  and 1006  (#1,  2),  four stations in segment
1005  (#5-8)  and a  reference  station  in Trinity Bay  at Umbrella
Point (#9, segment  2422).  This network was expanded in February
1990 to include stations  in the Ship  Channel Turning Basin (#10)
and Sims Bayou (#11),  both in  segment  1007, and Greens Bayou (#12,
segment 1006).   Two  additional stations  (1A  and 3A)  were also
established for nekton community monitoring.

The ambient toxicity results show no significant chronic toxicity
effects to  the sea urchin and  sheepshead minnow.    Significant
growth effects were found for the inland  silverside  for stations
1-8  in  January 1989  when compared to the reference  site (#9) .
However, these differences may have been due to exceptional growth
observed for fish  exposed to  reference site water.   In contrast,
in  July/August 1990,  growth  of inland  silversides exposed  to
reference site  water  was  significantly lower than growth in the
laboratory control.

Toxicity was most  pronounced  in the  algal  and  mysid tests, with
significant effects found  at each station at least once out of four
or five sampling events,  with the exception of  the  algal test at
station 5.  The most  impacted stations, where  toxicity was found
on three sampling events,  include stations  11 and 12 for the mysid
                              IV

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Region G CIS Center
 HOUSTON

Location  of Sampling Stations

-------
test.  Significant toxicity to the  alga  was  found three times at
stations  1  and 2, and  for each of  the  four sampling  events at
station 6 (downstream of Lynchburg Ferry).  The data indicate that
ambient  toxicity  in the  Ship  Channel  varies  temporally  and
spatially.   Accordingly,  the  potential exists for  impairment of
the  aquatic  life  use  designated   for  segments  1001  and  1005.
Ambient toxicity was most frequent  in industrialized portions of
the Ship Channel and its tidal tributaries.  Continued routine or
periodic  ambient  toxicity monitoring at fixed stations would be
useful to assess the long-term  impact and the  effectiveness of
point and/or nonpoint source toxics controls.

Dissolved oxygen data (DO)  indicate  that DO  may  be more limiting
to aquatic  life than toxic chemicals.   Water quality  standards
(WQS)  were  not achieved  in  segment  1005  during warm  weather
conditions.  DO water quality standards for this segment  are 4 mg/1
average and 3 mg/1 minimum.  Ship Channel segments 1006 and 1007,
and their smaller tributaries, had pronounced hypoxia during warm
weather  conditions.    However,   the DO  water quality  standards
(averages) of 2 mg/1  average and  1.5 mg/1 minimum for segment 1006
and 1 mg/1 (minimum)  for segment  1007 were not intended to support
aquatic life  uses.   In several  instances  DO concentrations fell
below the required minima, resulting in anoxic conditions.

Exceedances  of  chronic  aquatic  life  and/or  human health WQS or
criteria were found for  arsenic,  copper, cyanide, lead, manganese,
nickel, selenium, and total residual chlorine. However,  during the
course of this project segments 1006 and 1007  were required to meet
only acute criteria.  Nickel  water  quality standards exceedances
in Segment 1005 during  the  August 1988  survey were of particular
concern,   and  resulted  in listing this segment under the Section
304(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act ("short list").   Several organic
priority pollutant compounds were detected at low concentrations
including phthalate compounds, alpha  BHC,  gamma  BHC,  and several
volatile organic compounds.  Chloroform was frequently detected in
the 1-15 ug/1 range,  particularly at stations  1, 2, 10,  11 and 12.

Ship  Channel bottom sediments  were  relatively  nontoxic to  the
amphipod  (Ampelisca   abdita)  and   sheepshead  minnow   (elutriate
procedure),  with  the exception  of  stations  1,  6  and  11.    EPA
organic  priority  pollutants  were  not  detected  in  sediments
collected from Ship Channel stations.  However, several polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons,  a  phthalate,  and  pesticides were detected
in tributary sediments  (stations  11 and 12).  The metals  in highest
concentration  when  compared  with  the  reference  site included
aluminum, iron, manganese and zinc.    Other metals found at lower
concentrations include arsenic,  barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel and vanadium.

A variety of metals and organic priority pollutants were detected
in edible  fish  and crab tissue.   In  most  cases,  where detected,
concentrations were well below levels of concern.  Unfortunately,
detection  limits  for some organics  were  too high to  assess  the
                               VI

-------
carcinogenic  risk  to humans.   In some samples antimony  (Segments
1001  and  1005),  arsenic (all segments tested) and lead  (Segments
1001  and 1005) appeared slightly elevated.   There presently are no
legally binding  numeric criteria for  these contaminants in fish
tissue,  and  arsenic  is presently  under review by  EPA.   It is
difficult  to evaluate  the risk  to human  health  resulting from
consumption of fish tissue containing  arsenic since some evidence
suggests  that arsenic  in seafood  is  organically bound  and is
readily metabolized by humans. In a separate investigation (Crocker
and  Young 1990)  ,  fish  and crab  tissue collected from  the Ship
Channel contained elevated levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin.

A  nekton  survey  was  conducted  to compare  the  fish  community in
segments 1001, 1005, 1006 and 2422.  The cumulative number of taxa
found through seine collections was highest in segment 1001.  The
values for  segments 1005 and 1006  were  comparable.   Highest and
lowest gill  net  catch  rates  were observed in  segments  2422 and
1006, respectively.  Based on similar  biological and hydrological
characteristics  and the presence of  a commercial  blue crab fishery
observed in  segment  1006,  the previously established habitat use
designation for  this  segment  should be reevaluated.   In spite of
the low DO concentrations  the Houston  Ship Channel appears to be
sustaining a  fishery use.

Overall, the  results of the nekton survey, as well as statistical
trends analysis  for heavy metals  (Elliott 1990), provide evidence
that  water quality in the  Houston Ship Channel has improved over
the last 20 years.  However, water quality continues to be impacted
by a  combination  of  point and  nonpoint sources.    The  greatest
concerns based on  the study results are the low DO values for the
three Ship Channel segments  and tidal  tributaries  (Brays,  Greens
and Sims Bayous),  periodic exceedances of  state and EPA criteria
for toxic substances, and periodic occurrence of ambient toxicity
in all segments  tested.

Future water quality management efforts should focus on cumulative
reductions in biological oxygen demanding (BOD)  and  chemical oxygen
demanding (COD)  substances; nutrient loading; metals loading; and
whole  effluent  toxicity.     The state  of  Texas  is  presently
evaluating point  source loadings of  metals  to determine which
facilities require waste load allocations.  The newly adopted Texas
WQS will  require  application of  chronic aquatic  life and human
health standards,  and chronic whole effluent  toxicity testing of
discharges in segments 1006 and 1007.
                             VII

-------
                         Recommendat ions

Based on  the  results of this study the following recommendations
are offered?

lo Due to the  nickel  WQS excursions, the state's efforts to develop
a total maximum  daily load (TMDL)  on  nickel for the Houston Ship
Channel are justified.

2. TMDL"s may be necessary for other metals as well, particularly
coppero   Ambient and effluent data for copper and possibly other
heavy metals should  be evaluated to better define this needo  The
state has already taken steps to investigate these metals concerns.

3o The state and/or  EPA should conduct periodic (e.g., quarterly)
ambient toxicity testing at selected stations  as a means to assess
cumulative  toxic  effects  of  point and  nonpoint  discharges  on
aquatic life.

4o Based on the findings of the nekton  survey  conducted as part of
this study, the state should assign aquatic life uses for segments
1006  and 1007.   The  state has recently adopted  WQS  revisions
requiring  application of  chronic   aquatic life criteria,  human
health criteria, and chronic whole effluent toxicity testing for
these segments which would protect this use.

5. Periodic  monitoring of  antimony,  arsenic,  lead,  dioxins and
furans in edible tissue of fish and other  seafood organisms in the
Ship Channel and associated waters is recommended.

6. Future water  quality investigations should  attempt  to better
characterize  tidal  tributaries  to the  Ship  Channel,  including
Brays, Greens and Sims Bayous,  particularly with regard to ambient
concentrations,  sediment  contamination  and  sources  of  toxic
substances.

7. Presently,  tributary and Ship Channel segments are combined in
the  state water  quality  standards.     Based  on  the  different
hydrologic and habitat characteristics, the'State should consider
separating tributary and mainstem segments.

8. Long-term  efforts  should  focus on decreasing  BOD,  COD  and
nutrient  loading  to Ship  Channel segments  and tributaries  to
prevent the occurrence of hypoxic conditions during low flow, warm
weather conditions.
                              Vlll

-------
                         Acknowledgements

Many individuals played a significant role in these investigations.
We are  especially grateful to  the Texas Water  Commission (TWC)
staff which provided assistance  in the  field  as  well as input on
study design.   These  individuals  include  Randy  Palachek, Cathy
Albrecht, David Trimm  (presently with Entrix Corp.), Mark Luedke,
Linda Broach,  Jim Rice and Rusty  Evelo.  These  individuals were
constantly faced with—and overcame—adversity which took the form
of mechanical  failures of  the  sampling  vessels,  running aground,
extreme climatic conditions, long hours, and tight time frames.

Brian Cain  (U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service-Clear  Lake)  provided
valuable  input concerning  toxics  monitoring  activities  in  the
Houston Ship Channel,  and assisted in the reconnaissance survey.

Toxicity testing support was provided for  the  first  two surveys by
Robert  Burgess,  Pamela  Comelo,  Wendy Greene, Kathleen McKenna,
Deborah Robson,  Mark Tagliabue and Glen  Thursby,  all with SAIC-
Narragansett, RI.  Testing support on the final three surveys was
provided by Wayne McCulloch, Jeffrey Black and Virginia Soln, all
with EA Engineering, Science and Technology-Sparks, MD.

Chemical analyses of water and bottom sediments were conducted by
the U.S.  EPA  Regional  Laboratory,  Houston.    These analyses were
coordinated by Barbara Feldman,  Dave Stockton and Michael Daggett.
Fish tissue  analyses were performed under  contract with Versar,
Inc., McLean VA.  Harry Kreigh  (ESAT-Houston) and Mel Ritter (EPA-
Houston) reviewed the QA/QC for the Versar fish tissue data.

Bruce McDonell  (EPA-Dallas, presently  with  LCU Water  Research
Inst.) provided some valuable  ideas and field survey assistance.
Barbara Schrodt (EPA-Dallas)  produced  the  report  cover  and the
dissolved oxygen graphics.  Kelly Moseman (CSC-Dallas) produced the
map of  the  study area.  Kim Owen  (EPA-Dallas) typed appendix 3.
Mimi  Dannel   (EPA-Dallas)  developed  a  program  to  facilitate
calculation of the marine ammonia water quality criteria.

This study was funded  partly  by using  inhouse (EPA Region 6 and
TWC)  resources, and  partly  through considerable  funding provided
by U.S.  EPA Headquarters.  Funding was provided by Permits Division
(Contract 68-01-7310,  fish  tissue  analyses, August 1989)  and the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD)  These grants
included:   68-02-4254,  for fish  tissue analyses  conducted  in
January 1989; and 68-03-3529 and 68-C9-0012  for toxicity testing.
Two  104(b)(3)  grants   (X-006417-01-0  and  X-006425-01-2)  were
provided by  U.S. EPA Region 6 to the Texas  Water Commission  for the
nekton  survey  and for  field  sampling  assistance using funds
obtained from U.S. EPA Headquarters AWPD.

We appreciate  the  technical review of the draft  report by Sharon
Parrish, Diane  Evans and Mike  Morton (EPA-Dallas),  Dave Stockton
(EPA-Houston),  and  Randy  Palachek  and  Jeff Kirkpatrick (TWC-
Austin).
                            IX

-------
                           INTRODUCTION

The Houston Ship Channel  is  located  in  Harris County,  within the
San Jacinto River Basin on the southeast Texas coast.  It consists
of a dredged channel  created along portions of Buffalo Bayou and
the San  Jacinto River extending  for about 25 miles  between the
Turning Basin in Houston to its mouth at  Morgans Point on Galveston
Bay  (TWC 1987) .   This  inland portion of the  Ship Channel  is
comprised  of  three  segments  (1005, 1006  and  1007)  which  are
classified in the Texas Water Quality Standards (TWC 1988a; 1991).

Designated beneficial uses for Ship Channel  segments 1007 and 1006
include industrial water supply and navigation.  The water quality
standards  for dissolved  oxygen  (DO) are  1.0  mg/1 minimum  for
segment 1007,  and 2.0 mg/1 average and 1.5 mg/1 minimum for segment
1006.   The Texas  Water Commission  (TWC)  has recently  proposed
chronic whole effluent toxicity requirements for all discharges and
chronic  numeric criteria  for  these segments  (TWC  1991).    By
contrast, beneficial uses for segments 1001 include  primary contact
recreation,  non-contact  recreation  and high  aquatic life  use.
Designated uses for Ship Channel segment 1005 are the same, except
primary contact recreation is non included.   In  order to protect
the high aquatic life  use  in these segments the  DO water quality
standard was established as 4.0 mg/1 average; 3.0 mg/1 minimum.

The  Houston Ship  Channel is  heavily  impacted  by point  source
discharges.   The  wasteload  allocation lists approximately  400
industrial  and  municipal  facilities  which  discharge  directly or
indirectly to this  system  (TDWR 1984). This point source influence
has resulted  in an  effluent-dominated, tidally influenced  flow
regime.    The  system  is  also  impacted  by  nonpoint  sources,
particularly   urban   runoff,   and   intrusion  of  contaminated
groundwater.   Except  for  the  routine  fixed station  monitoring
conducted by  the  TWC, recent  studies to evaluate water quality
including analysis of  toxic  substances  in this system have  been
lacking.

Stanley  (1989)  has reviewed  the  growth  and development of  the
Houston  ship  Channel, as  well as  water  quality  trends.   Both
Stanley  (1989)  and Eckhardt  (1971)  mentioned that in  the  late
1960's some  considered the Houston  Ship  Channel  to be  the  most
polluted  waterbody  in  the   country,   and  possibly  the  world.
Stanley's (1989) review indicates  that reduced metals loading over
the  past  20  years  has  lead  to  more   substantial declines  of
concentrations in water than in sediments.  Arsenic, chromium and
lead in water have  shown the  strongest declines.  Arsenic, cadmium
and  lead  concentrations  in  sediments appear  to  be  trending
downward.    For many metals   the   high  degree  of  variability
complicates  determinations on  trends  (Stanley  1989).    Elliott
(1990)   evaluated   statistical  trends for  heavy metals  in  Ship
Channel waters during 1979-1989.  Ambient data had been collected
under the state monitoring network and  entered  into STORET.   The
analysis provided  evidence that  arsenic,  cadmium, chromium and
possibly  mercury   are  decreasing;   silver  and   selenium   are

-------
 increasing;  and copper has been relatively stable.

 This   investigation  included  sampling   of  five  water  quality
 segments:  (1)  Segment  1007,  Houston Ship  Channel/Buffalo  Bayou,
 which  extends  from a  point immediately  upstream of Greens  Bayou
 confluence  to  a  point 100 m upstream of  US  59 including  tidal
 portions  of  tributaries;  (2)  Segment 1006, Houston Ship Channel,
 which  extends  from immediately upstream of the San Jacinto  River
 confluence  to  a  point  immediately upstream  of Greens  Bayou,
 including tidal portions of tributaries;  (3) Segment 1005,  Houston
 Ship Channel/San Jacinto  River,  which  extends from the  confluence
 with Galveston  Bay at Morgans Point  to  a point 100  m  downstream
 of IH  10; (4) Segment 1001, Tidal San Jacinto River, which extends
 from a point from 100 m  downstream  of IH 10 to the Lake  Houston
 Dam; and  (5)  Segment 2422, Trinity Bay, served as a reference site.

 The present study was undertaken based on two concerns.   First, we
 were concerned that there was a high potential for toxic impact in
 segments  1001  and  1005 due to poor water quality  from upstream
 segments 1006 and 1007. Toxic impact to 1001 was believed possible
 due  to  upstream  saltwater  intrusion,   which  under  critical
 conditions, extends as  far  upstream  as the Lake Houston  Dam.  The
 second reason for this study related to the NPDES program.  Due to
 the effluent dominated nature of the Ship  Channel, we believed the
 potential  existed for  an ambient toxicity problem in the Ship
 Channel.   The  EPA  "Third Round Permit   Strategy" was designed
 primarily  to  control  whole   effluent    toxicity  of   individual
 discharges  rather  than   the  cumulative  effects  of  multiple
 discharges.  Thus, this investigation served also to evaluate the
 need for a separate strategy  to address multiple discharges.

 The overall purpose of the study was  to characterize water quality
 of  the Houston   Ship  Channel   and  tidal  san  Jacinto  River,
 particularly  with  relation  to  toxic   substances  and  ambient
 toxicity.   The primary objective was  to  collect  and chemically
 analyze ambient water  for EPA  priority   pollutants  and conduct
 ambient toxicity using short-term chronic marine  testing protocols.
 Chemical  analyses  of bottom  sediments and fish tissue, toxicity
 testing of  sediments and  a fish community  assessment  were also
 performed, but on a more limited scale.

                      METHODS AND MATERIALS

 Study Design

An attempt was made  to evaluate ambient  conditions  of segments
 1001,  1005,  1006 and 1007.  A fifth segment, 2422, Trinity Bay, was
also sampled  throughout  the  study.   This station,  located  at
Umbrella Point,  served as  a reference site since  it was located out
of direct influence of the Houston Ship  Channel.  Station locations
were not positioned immediately downstream of facility discharges
since we were more interested in overall water quality within the
segment than effects due to specific  points of influence.  Station
 locations are described in Tables 1 and 2.   A total of six surveys

-------
were conducted to address study objectives.   Specific components
evaluated during these surveys are presented in  Table 3.  Multiple
sampling  surveys  were conducted  to assess  water  quality during
different  seasons and  hydrological conditions.   The  first two
surveys in August 1988 and January 1989 consisted of nine stations,
one of which was a reference site located, for the most part, out
of the  influence  of  the  Houston Ship Channel,  in Trinity Bay.  A
third survey conducted in September 1989 addressed tidal portions
of three tributaries to  the Ship Channel:  Brays, Greens and Sims
Bayous.  The  remaining  three surveys,  completed in February, May
and July-August of 1990,  consisted of monitoring the  original nine
stations,  plus  three additional  ones:  the  Ship Channel Turning
Basin, and Greens and Sims Bayous.

Sample Collection and Handling

Water samples were collected in mid-channel using a Johnson-Keck
groundwater pump-type sampler or  a  Van Dorn sampler.  During the
first two surveys samples consisted of vertical  composites made up
of combined grab samples collected every five meters  (m), i.e., 1
m, 5 m, 10 m, 15  m,  etc.   During subsequent surveys only surface
water (1 m depth)  was collected  for  testing and chemical analysis.
It was  initially  thought that vertical  composite  sampling would
yield  more representative  samples  by taking  into  account the
salinity gradient typical of this  sub-estuary.   However,  after
examining the data it was apparent that there was little difference
between surface water, vertical composites, and bottom water from
a  toxicity and  toxic  constituent  standpoint.    Therefore,  for
subsequent sampling  only surface  water  was  sampled at depth of 1
m.  Samples were placed  in pre-cleaned containers which were first
rinsed  with  ambient site  water.    Sample container  type  and
preservation procedures were consistent with standard  methods  (U.S.
EPA 1984).   Samples  destined for dissolved  metals analysis were
filtered using a 0.45 micron membrane filter generally within a few
hours of  collection.   This period was  necessary based  on time
constraints during  sampling and  as a  precaution  to reduce the
possibility for sample  contamination in the field.   All samples
were  chilled  to  4°C immediately  after collection.   While  the
majority of water  samples were collected during surveys from August
1988-August 1990,  follow-up sampling was also conducted at several
stations in January 1991.  These samples were analyzed for arsenic,
copper, mercury and nickel.

Multiple samples per station were collected for toxicity testing.
During the first two surveys samples were  collected  on  Monday to
initiate toxicity tests,  with  subsequent  samples  collected  on
Wednesday and Friday  for test water  renewal.  During the remaining
surveys, this procedure was  abbreviated  by  collecting samples on
Monday and Wednesday  only,  and eliminating the Friday collection.

The majority of sediment samples  were  collected during  the first
two surveys (August 1988; January  1989) at stations 1-9.   Stations
11 and 12 were sampled during the final survey (July/August 1990).
Sediment samples were collected using a weighted Peterson Grab for

-------
channel  stations  and  an  Eckman  sampler  for  shallower  bayou
stations.  Samples consisted of composites of three grabs collected
from the  same site.   Upon collection samples were  combined and
gently but uniformly mixed.  Samples were  placed  in pre-cleaned
glass jars with teflon-lined lids using a teflon scoop.  Effort was
taken  to minimize headspace  in  samples.   Sample  preservation
consisted only of chilling samples to 4°C using wet ice immediately
after collection.

Fish and some crab samples were collected using gill nets.  Other
crab  samples  were  collected  from   baited crab  pots.    These
procedures are  consistent with  EPA recommended sampling guidance
(U.S. EPA 1982) .  The initial plan was to collect  five to six adult
specimens of  an economically important benthic fish species as well
as a  crab species  at each station  in  summer (August  1988)  and
winter (January  1989) .    However, it was soon realized that this
would not  always be possible based  on  time constraints,  species
availability and adverse weather conditions.  In most  cases we were
able to collect  at least  a few individuals  of each species which
were used  to make up  composite samples.  Upon  returning  to the
laboratory,  fish  were identified,   measured  in terms of  total
length, and wrapped in heavy duty aluminum foil which  had been pre-
rinsed with  hexane.    Crabs  were processed  similarly  although
carapace width was recorded rather than  total length.  The wrapped
samples were placed in Ziplock plastic bags  and refrigerated until
shipment.

Standard EPA chain-of-custody and sample handling procedures were
followed for water, sediment and tissue  (U.S. EPA 1983a).   Tagged
samples were place in ice  chests, chilled with wet ice or blue ice,
and  shipped   overnight by Federal  Express to  the  appropriate
laboratory.

Toxicity Testing of Ambient Water

A brief description of the standard marine chronic tests utilized
is provided below  (U.S. EPA 1988a) :

Sheepshead minnow  (Cyprinodon  variegatus)   larval   survival  and
growth  test;   sheepshead  minnow   embryo-larval   survival  and
teratogenicity test; inland silverside  (Menidia bervllina) larval
survival and  growth test; mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) survival,
growth  and  fecundity  test;  sea  urchin  (Arbacia  punctulatai
fertilization test;  and the algal  (Champia  parvula)  reproduction
test.  Sheepshead minnow,   inland silverside and mysid shrimp were
considered key ambient toxicity  indicators  since  all of  these
species  are  indigenous to the Galveston Bay system.   A  brief
description of the protocols used is given below.

The sheepshead  minnow embryo-larval  survival  and  teratogenicity
test was  performed  by the EPA Houston Lab.   For this  test  10
fertilized eggs <  18 h old were placed randomly in 400 ml nalgene
culture dishes  containing 250 ml  of test or control water.   Two
replicates were  used to test each water  sample.   Test water was

-------
renewed  daily.    Due to  the early  life stage  feeding was  not
necessary.    For  this   study  incidence  of  teratogenicity  and
mortality were combined as a reflection of worst case conditions,
although  incidence  of   terata  are  generally  rarely  observed.
Salinities of ambient test water did not require adjustment.

The sheepshead minnow survival and growth test was performed only
during the February 1990 survey under contract with EA Engineering,
Science and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MD  (EA).   For this test 10
larvae <48 h  post-hatch  were placed randomly in  1  liter beakers
containing 500 ml of test or control water.   Four replicates were
used to test each water sample.   Fish were fed and test water was
renewed daily.   Survival and growth (measured in dry weight per
individual) were monitored over a 7 day period.  Salinities of test
water did not require adjustment.

The inland silverside survival and growth test is very similar to
the sheepshead minnow test described  above.  Testing was performed
by ERL-Narragansett for the first two surveys and EA for the final
three surveys.  Ten larvae 
-------
reproduction) developed.  The number of cystocarps were counted and
toxicity  was expressed as the reduction  in number of cystocarps
compared  to  the control.   Salinities of test water were adjusted
to 30 o/oo using hypersaline  brine.

Toxicity  Testing of Bottom Sediments

Toxicity  of  bottom sediments  were tested using two protocols, the
amphipod  (Ampelisca abdita)  acute survival test and the sheepshead
minnow  embryo-larval  survival  and  teratogenicity  liquid phase
elutriate test.

The amphipod test  was performed by ERL-Narragansett for stations
1-9 during  the first and second  surveys  using  standard American
Society   for Testing  and  Materials  methodology   (ASTM  1990).
Application  of  this  methodology in  another Gulf coast estuarine
situation has been documented by Redmond et al. (1991).  Sediments
were  press  sieved (2  mm) to remove large  debris  and potential
predator  species.    The  test consisted  of 10  day  exposure  of
juvenile  amphipods   to  sediment   samples  under  flow-through
conditions.  Filtered and  aerated Narragansett Bay water taken from
a  relatively unimpacted  location  served  as  the water  source.
Thirty amphipods were placed in  each 900 ml canning jar containing
200 ml of sediment  and 600 ml of overlying  water.  Three replicates
were used for each sediment  sample.    After 10  days the test was
terminated and the  contents of each test vessel were sieved through
a 0.5 mm  screen.   Recovered  animals were  counted and any missing
individuals were counted as mortalities.

The sheepshead minnow liquid phase elutriate test was conducted by
the EPA Houston laboratory.   Sediment test  solutions were prepared
according to Green  et  al.  (1988) .  A volume of dilution  water equal
to four times the dry weight of the sediment was added to a nalgene
mixing bottle containing the appropriate amount of sediment.  This
material  was mixed end-over-end for 24 h,  after which  time the
suspension was  centrifuged  at 10,000 RPM's  for  10 minutes.   The
resulting eluate  was used  for  testing and renewals.   Sediment
eluates were tested at  100%  only.   The sheepshead minnow embryo-
larval survival and teratogenicity  test described above was used
to test toxicity of elutriates.

Nekton Survey

A  complete  description of  the  nekton  sampling procedures  is
presented in Appendix 1.   Nekton communities in  segments 1001,
1005,  1006 and 2422 were sampled in August 1988  and January 1989.
Three  stations  per  segment  were  sampled  using three  50  ft.
replicate hauls made  with  a 15 ft.  common sense  seine.   Two
stations  per segment  were  sampled  using  200   ft.  experimental
(multiple mesh size) gill nets.  Number  of  species, number of taxa,
and total number  of  organisms  were tabulated.    Shannon-Weiner
diversity (H1)  and Evenness  indices  (J)  were computed  for  each
gill-net and seine sample.

-------
In  addition,  field measurements  of  water temperature, dissolved
oxygen  (DO),  salinity,  pH and  secchi  disk readings taken during
nekton  surveys.   Both this and the nekton catch data were pooled
and subjected to a two-way analysis of  variance (ANOVA) to examine
segment and seasonal differences.  Catch data and the relationship
between  the   physicochemical  and  population  parameters  were
determined by  linear  correlation.

Physicochemical Measurements

Field Hydrolab measurements  including  pH, temperature, salinity,
conductivity,  dissolved oxygen  (DO),  as well  as  total residual
chlorine  (TRC) and secchi  disk measurements were recorded at each
station sampled.    TRC  was  measured  using a  field  titrimetric
procedure.   Physicochemical  measurements were  taken  for surface
water (1 ft.) and one or more vertical  profiles were taken for all
stations during each survey.  These profile measurements were taken
every 5-10  ft.,  i.e., 1,  10, 20, 30 ft.,  etc.  to  just above the
bottom.

Chemical Analysis

Water and sediment  samples were analyzed by the EPA Houston Lab.
A  listing of  all  conventional  and toxic  pollutants  and  their
corresponding  limits of detection  are presented  in  Appendix 2.
Water   samples  were  analyzed  using   standard  procedures  for
conventional  and  priority pollutants   (U.S.  EPA   1983a;  1984).
Sediments were analyzed following EPA interim guidelines  (U.S. EPA
1981).

Arsenic, selenium and thallium were analyzed with a Perkin & Elmer
5000 Atomic  Absorption Spectrophotometer.   Mercury was analyzed
with a  Spectro Products Inc. HG-3 Mercury Analyzer.  Other metals
were  analyzed  with  a  Jarrel Ash  ICP-1150  Spectrophotometer.
Volatile organics were analyzed with a Finnigan Model 4530 GC/MS,
and pesticides and PCB's were analyzed with a Tracer 560 GC/ECD and
HP 5890 GC/EDC.  Chemical concentrations for sediment were reported
on a dry weight basis.

Fish tissue analyses were  conducted under contract by Versar Inc.
Edible  tissue samples  of fish and crab were  prepared at  the
laboratory.  Fish tissue  consisted  of  skinned fillets while crab
tissue  consisted of only the whitish flesh picked off of the body
after removing the  carapace,  gill apparatus and internal organs.
A  listing of  parameters  analyzed are  presented  in  Appendix 2.
Arsenic, selenium and thallium were analyzed by atomic absorption
spectroscopy with Zeeman background correction using EPA procedures
(U.S.  EPA 1983).    Analysis  for  antimony,  beryllium,  cadmium,
chromium,  copper,   lead,   nickel,  silver and zinc was done  by
inductively  coupled plasma  (ICP)  using  EPA SW846 method  6010.
Mercury was  analyzed by cold  vapor atomic  absorption  using  the
method  in the U.S.  FWS manual  "Patuxent Analytical  Manual  for
Metals."    Pesticides  were  analyzed  using  national  Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) procedures which follow EPA method 8080.

-------
Volatile and semivolatile organics were analyzed following EPA OSW
Method 8240 and Method 8270, respectively.  These procedures were
developed by U.S. EPA-Region 4 (1988).

Data Evaluation

A combination of professional judgement, statistical procedures and
available criteria were used to evaluate data.  Toxicity data was
evaluated in  terms of statistical differences at P<0.05.   Such
determinations of significance are useful for differentiating the
degree of impact between sites.

Chemical water quality is evaluated primarily through comparisons
with U.S. EPA water quality  criteria (U.S. EPA  1976;  1986)  and
state water quality standards  (WQS) (TWC 1988a; 1991).  Unionized
ammonia  was  calculated  from  total  ammonia  using  procedures
presented by Hampson  (1977) and  compared with EPA criteria (U.S.
EPA 1989a) .  Individual dissolved oxygen measurements were compared
with DO  minima and state WQS,  while water column averages were
compared to the  average WQS.    The  state  defines the  average
concentration in tidal waters  to  be the  depth integrated mean of
the mixed surface  layer.   If there is stratification,  the mixed
surface layer, that portion of the water column from the surface
to the depth where conductivity is 6,000  umhos/cm greater than the
surface value.   In  some highly  stratified situations this  may
exclude bottom readings.

Sediments were evaluated using published national or state-specific
percentile levels (Greenspun and  Taylor 1979; Staples et al. 1985;
TWC 1988b).   These percentiles  have been  statistically  derived
using the STORET database.  In addition,  interim sediment quality
criteria (U.S. EPA 1988b) were used where appropriate.

Fish tissue data was assessed using EPA's risk-based approach for
carcinogens; reference doses (RfD's) were used for noncarcinogens
(U.S.  EPA-Region 4, 1991;  U.S.  EPA 1989b).  Fish tissue "levels of
concern" (LOG) were based on the following equations:

LOC=RL x BW for carcinogens or =RfD x BW  for noncarcinogens,
    ql*x CR                        CR

where:
ql*=Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg/day) "1
RfD=Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
RL=Risk Level (e.g., 0.0001 for cancer risk of 1 x 10-4)
CR=Consumption Rate (kg/day)
BW=Adult Body Weight (70 kg)

The consumption rate used was 0.015 kg/day as proposed by the TWC
(1991).   As  followed  by Crocker  and Young  (1990),  an LOG  for
carcinogens of  1  in 10,000  (1 x  10"4) served as  a  benchmark  to
establish potential problem sites/segments.  To develop information
on  the  risks  over  given  waterbodies,  fish  and  crab  tissue
concentrations were averaged by segment before comparing with the

-------
LOG.   Average  tissue  concentrations  specific  substances  were
calculated using the actual values when  detected, and one-half the
detection limit when not detected.

Quality Assurance

Prior to  initiating this study a quality  assurance  (QA)  project
plan was  prepared  (U.S.  EPA-Region 6  1988),  which  served  as  a
framework for which analyses would be performed, survey schedules,
responsibilities, etc.  In general,  data generated for this study
was of good quality.  All of the laboratories performing analyses
have QA plans and standard operating procedures (SOP's) which are
consistently  followed.     SOP's  for  biomonitoring  laboratories
include reference toxicant testing.

During the August 1988 and February 1990 surveys, mysid  lab control
survivals were  78.0% and  79.5%,  respectively, which  failed the
criterion for acceptability of >80% outlined in U.S.  EPA (1988a).
While there is some  question concerning data quality for these test
results,  we believe that  these  values  are close enough  to the
criterion to warrant inclusion.

Another item concerns the lack of a laboratory control for mysids
and  inland  silversides  during  the  January  1989  survey.    A
laboratory control was omitted due to a shortage of test organisms.
Although this is a shortcoming, due  to the high survival exhibited
for the reference site (station 9),  we believe  these data to be of
sufficient quality  to warrant inclusion.

Finally,  the  U.S.  EPA (1988a)  recommends  that water  samples not
exceed a holding time of 36 h before being used in toxicity tests.
Due  to  practical  considerations,  since sampling  could only be
conducted  on two  instead of  three days  during  the  last three
surveys, this holding time was exceeded during the second half of
the 7 day tests.  However,  sufficient volume was provided to allow
daily  test water  renewal.   We believe this  approach did not
significantly compromise data quality.

The  EPA  Houston Laboratory maintains  records  of  all  QA/QC data
collected for the water  and sediment  analyses  performed for this
project.  The EPA Houston Laboratory also conducted a QA/QC review
of the Versar Inc.  fish tissue data.

                            RESULTS

Toxicity Testing of Ambient Water

Table  4  qualitatively  summarizes  all   of  the ambient toxicity
findings.   Tables  5-10  present the  ambient toxicity testing data
for the various protocols used.  There was no significant toxicity
observed for the sea urchin test conducted  one  time in August 1988
and  three times  in January  1989.    Because of  these findings,
continued  use of this  test was considered a  low priority.   In
addition,  no significant  toxicity  was  found  for  the sheepshead

-------
                                                                  10
 minnow  embryo-larval tests conducted at  four stations in August
 1988 and January  1989.  The sheepshead minnow growth  and  survival
 tests conducted at each of the 12 stations in February 1990  also
 showed  no  significant effects.

 The  inland silverside  test which was performed  at all  stations
 during  five surveys showed toxicity during the January 1989 survey.
 Stations   1-8   demonstrated  significantly  reduced  growth   when
 statistically compared  with the reference site.   ERL-Narragansett
 did not include a laboratory  control based on a  shortage of  test
 organisms, thus the only means of comparison was with the reference
 site.   The finding of significant toxicity in test  samples, while
 statistically correct, may only reflect the exceptional growth  rate
 observed in the control.  The reference site fish  had  a final  mean
 individual dry weight of 0.863 mg.  Weights  for test waters ranged
 from  0.605 mg  to 0.702 mg,  which are  greater than  the  0.50 mg
 criterion  for acceptable control growth.  Based on  these  factors,
 the occurrence of significant toxicity to  the  silverside should be
 considered inconclusive.  Ironically, the only other occasion where
 significant toxicity (growth)  effects were found was at the station
 9 reference site  during the July 1990 survey.

 Ambient toxicity was most pronounced for the mysid shrimp and algal
 tests, with significant effects found at least once (except for the
 alga at station 5) out of four  or five  sampling events.  Algal
 toxicity was most extreme at station 6  (San  Jacinto River below
 Lynchburg  Ferry)  where  significant effects were found  for each of
 the four sampling events.   Toxicity was  found  on three  sampling
 events  at stations 1 and 2 (Ship Channel below Greens  Bayou and at
 San Jacinto Monument) for  the algal  test,  and stations 11 and 12
 (Sims and  Greens  Bayous)  for the mysid.   Relative  toxicity of
 samples from these stations  treated with sodium  thiosulfate was
 slightly  greater  than  for  untreated  samples,  although  these
 differences  do  not  appear appreciable.    This  indicates  total
 residual chlorine was  not contributing  to the  observed  ambient
 toxicity.  Mysid mortality was greatest  (zero  percent survival) at
 stations 1, 2 and 4 (San Jacinto River at  IH10)  during  the July
 1990 survey.

 Toxicity Testing of Bottom Sediments

 Sediment toxicity testing results are presented in Table 11.  Based
 on the  difficulty of  sampling sediments  and funding constraints,
 sediment toxicity testing was somewhat limited in terms of  time and
 location.  Both  the sheepshead minnow elutriate and  amphipod tests
worked well with the Ship  Channel sediments.   In general sediments
were not very toxic.  Station 11 was the only station tested that
was toxic to the sheepshead minnow while stations  1  and 6 were the
only ones significantly toxic to the amphipod.

Nekton Survey

The following discussion is a brief  summary  of  the nekton survey
results. A complete discussion of the fishery and physicochemical

-------
                                                                   11
 data,  including statistical  analyses  are presented  in Appendix  1.

 Overall,  a  total  of  4993  organisms  comprising  41  taxa were
 collected  during both  study periods  with gill  nets and  seines.
 Both   seines  and  gill  nets  targeted  mainly  shoreline  fish
 populations.   Seines  served  to  selectively sample smaller  species
 (<5  inches  total length)  and juvenile life stages while the gill
 nets primarily targeted larger organisms at deeper depths (>6 ft.).


 A total of  789  organisms  representing 33 taxa were  collected from
 gill nets during the August 1988 and January 1989 surveys.   For all
 segments, catches were generally higher during the August sampling.
 Highest and lowest catch rates were generally observed for segments
 2422 and 1006, respectively.  Catch rates in segment 1001 were also
 generally higher than in  segments 1005 and 1006.

 Higher numbers  of  taxa  were  collected in  August  1988  than  in
 January 1989.  The highest number of taxa per segment was collected
 in segment 1001  in August 1988.   The fewest taxa were collected  in
 segment 1005 during January 1989.  The  relatively low number  of
 taxa may however be partly due  to the poor catch of one gill net
 which  was accidentally tangled due to  ship traffic.   The number  of
 taxa in segments 1005 and 1006  were similar during January 1989.
 Diversity  and  evenness  indices fluctuated  considerably   between
 stations with no apparent pattern.

 Several  patterns  in  species  composition  between  segments  and
 sampling events was observed.   Sea catfish (Arius felis)  was one
 of the numerically dominant taxa  in  all segments  during August
 1988.   In  addition,  blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)  were most
 abundant in  segments 1001 and  1006 during August  1988.   Species
 such  as Gulf  Menhaden   (Brevoortia  patronus)  and  gizzard shad
 (Dorosoma cepedianum) dominated  January 1989 gillnet catches.  Blue
 crab continued to be abundant in segment  1006 during January 1989.

 Seine  catches  yielded a  total  of  4204  organisms  representing  25
 taxa.  Significant spacial and temporal patterns in  abundance were
 observed.  Lower total number of organisms were generally observed
 in January  1989 collections.   Highest total  number of organisms
 were  collected  in  segments 1001  and 2422.   Although yielding
 significantly  lower number of taxa than segments  1001  and 2422,
 segment 1006 was not  significantly different than segment 1005.

 Diversity varied significantly between segments.  Diversity values
 in segment 1001 were  greater than  those  obtained from catches  in
 segment 1006.  Evenness did not vary significantly between stations
 and sampling periods.

 Except for segment 2422, August  1989 collections were dominated by
bay anchovy  (Anchoa  michilli).   Grass  shrimp  was  the dominant
 species collected in segment  2422 during this  period.  Segment 1006
also contained a high percentage of Gulf menhaden and spot during
August 1988.

-------
                                                                  12
Gulf menhaden was numerically dominant in seine collections within
segments 1005, 1006 and 2422 during January 1989.  However, grass
shrimp  (Palaemonetes  pugio)  was dominant in  segment  1001 during
January 1989.

While conducting this survey we also observed a commercial fishery
for  blue  crabs  in  segments  1001,  1005 and  1006 and  the lower
portions of  segment  1007.    Over  30  crab  pots  were  present in
segment 1006 alone during the survey in August 1988.  It appeared
that the majority of the crabbing in segments 1006 and 1007 was by
one or two  fishermen.  Crab pots randomly sampled  during the survey
in segments 1001, 1005 and 1006 were found to contain similar high
numbers of blue  crabs.   This  is the first  documented commercial
fishing activity in the Houston Ship Channel in recent times.  It
appears that, since 1990, crabbing has diminished or stopped.

Physicochemical Field Measurements

All  field  monitoring  data,   including water  temperature,  pH,
conductivity, salinity,  dissolved  oxygen (DO),  secchi  disk,  and
total residual chlorine (TRC) are presented in Appendix 3.

Salinity,  conductivity, temperature and pH  were  generally within
acceptable  ranges  for  support of  aquatic  life  and  were  in
compliance with WQS.  During several surveys,  particularly during
May 1990, salinity was unusually low due  to flooding resulting from
high winter  and  spring rainfall.  Surface  water temperatures at
stations located in segments 1006 and 1007 were generally several
degrees higher   than  the  reference  site,  probably  due to  the
influence of  numerous thermally altered effluent discharging to
Ship Channel segments.

A pH range of 6.5-9.0 must  be maintained  for all waters  in the
state.   The WQS for pH were not achieved  on two occasions, stations
5 and 7 in May 1991,  with values of 6.46  and  6.45,  respectively.
The pH excursions are considered to be relatively insignificant.

There were a considerable number  of  DO WQS  excursions observed
during the  course of this study (Table 12) .   Most  of the violations
took place during the August 1988 survey when temperatures were
high.  All excursions of the average mixed surface layer DO WQS
took place  at that time.  Many violations of  the DO minima WQS also
occurred during August 1988 survey.  However, DO minima violations
also took place  in numerous  instances subsequent to that survey,
particularly  at   tributary stations  and at  the  Turning  Basin
(Station 10).

These  comparisons of  measured concentrations with state  water
quality  standards  indicate  that  hypoxic  conditions  are  most
prevalent during  warm weather months.  During these periods depths
of >10  feet are most impacted (Figures 2-4) .  Upper segments of the
Ship Channel  (1006 and 1007)  and tidal tributaries were most prone
to hypoxic conditions.   However,  in  general, WQS  violations at

-------
                                                                  13
stations  were  more  pronounced in  1988 than  in 1990,  possibly
indicating temporal improvement of water quality.  Overall, the DO
data are reflective of an organically enriched system with limited
flushing and reaeration capacity.  It should be realized that while
a number  of  stations  showed no WQS  violations  as such,  the water
quality  standards  for segments 1006 and  1007  (including  tidal
tributaries) were  established  to protect  against nuisance/anoxic
conditions   rather   than   to  protect   aquatic   communities.
Accordingly, the relatively low frequency of standards violations
gives an  overly optimistic picture  of the  actual severity of low
DO conditions in these waters.

There were some problems with  the field  titrimetric method used to
analyze   total  residual   chlorine  (TRC).     First,   manganese
interference often hampered the precision of the test to accurately
quantify  TRC.   Data were  not  included  if  the  separate manganese
(Mn) interference test was not performed concurrently with the TRC
test.  Secondly, the  level of  detection of this field method was
supposed  to  have been approximately 0.1 mg/1.   In many instances
we  felt  that the  measurements lacked  this  level of  precision.
While we  do not disqualify the data,  we believe they  should be
interpreted  with   some  degree  of  caution.     A   summary  of
stations/times where TRC was detected (therefore, where EPA acute
and chronic  water  quality  criteria  of 13 ug/1  and 7.5  ug/1 were
exceeded) is presented in Table 13.   When detected, TRC was present
at fairly low levels.   TRC was not detected at stations 1, 2, 5 and
9.   For the most  part,  TRC was not detected  in  the laboratory
analysis, suggesting that the  substance volatilized during sample
handling  and storage.  While the data suggest a potential problem
with  TRC  both   in  tributary and  several  channel  stations,
measurement  methods  were  not  precise  enough  for  definitive
conclusions.

Chemical Analysis of Ambient Water

Data  for conventional water  quality parameters is  presented in
Tables 14 and 15.   Chloride,  sulfate, alkalinity, total suspended
solids (TSS), total organic carbon  (TOG),  total dissolved solids,
and sulfide concentrations were within ranges commonly observed in
the Galveston Bay system.

Total cyanide was  detected  only once, at station 6 (surface water)
in  January  1989,  at  a  concentration  of  30 ug/1.   This  value
exceeded  the WQS of  5.6 ug/1.   However, total  cyanide values are
not directly comparable  with  WQS which are in  terms  of cyanide
amenable to chlorination.  Total cyanide did not exceed the 20 ug/1
detection limit in bottom or vertical composite samples collected
at station  6.

TRC  (laboratory  analysis  of  collected  samples) was  detected at
station  3  on two  dates (August 1988; January  1989).   It was not
possible to compare these values to field measurements since on the
first  date  a  Mn  correction  test  was  not conducted to address
possible  Mn interference,  and on  the  second  date  TRC was  not

-------
                                                                   14
measured  in the field.

Oil and grease was undetected at most stations and times.  However,
it was detected  at relatively high concentrations at stations  1,
2 and 7  during January  1989.   This may have been  due to an oil
spill, industrial  discharges  or nonpoint source runoff.

Ammonia was most  elevated at the bayou stations.  The EPA marine
chronic aquatic life criterion of 0.035 mg/1 unionized ammonia (NH3)
(U.S. EPA 1989) was exceeded in Sims Bayou (station 11)  in May 1990
and July 1990.  NH3 concentrations for  these dates were 0.038 mg/1
and 0.053 mg/1, respectively.  The primary cause for  these elevated
concentrations is  believed  to be municipal  effluent  loading.

Tables  15-17   present  data  for  metals  in ambient water.   The
following  dissolved metals were  undetected:  aluminum,  antimony,
beryllium,  cadmium,  chromium,  cobalt,  mercury,   thallium  and
vanadium.  The dissolved metals which were detected,  as well  as
stations and concentration  ranges are listed below:

                                                  Range  of
Metals                        Stations            Detected
Detected                      Where Detected      Values (ug/1)

Arsenic                       1-3, 5, 6, 12       4.6-11.3
Barium                        1-12                69-184
Copper                        1,2,4,6,8           3.5-9.2
Iron                          1, 2, 5, 11         27-68
Lead                          2                   123
Manganese                     1-12                10-164
Nickel                        1-12                6.6-36
Selenium                      1                   60
Zinc                          1-12                19-78

Table  18  summarizes which  water quality  criteria   and  WQS  were
exceeded.   The parameters  of greatest  concern  are arsenic  and
nickel.  Arsenic exceeded EPA human health criteria  at stations 3
and 5 which are located in segments designated  for aquatic life
use.  Exceedances  of the criterion is  not necessarily applicable
for stations  1,  2,  10 and  12 which are not  designated  as such.
However,  detectable values at these stations indicate point source
contributions.  Nickel  exceedances were most evident  during the
first survey in August 1988, although a number of detected values
were found after this date.

An  additional series  of samples  were collected from  the  Ship
Channel in January 1991.   These samples were analyzed for arsenic,
copper, mercury and nickel (Table 17) .  Special effort was made to
reduce the copper level of detection as much as possible.  Through
ICP-Atomic Emission an instrument detection level  of  1 ug/1 copper
was achieved.   Arsenic, mercury and nickel were not detected at any
of the sites  sampled. Copper  exceeded  chronic WQS at stations 1,
4  and 8.   While these data  are  supported  through QA/QC data,  the
values should be  considered preliminary  based  on the limited

-------
                                                                  15
application of ICP-Atomic Emission in ambient marine waters. These
data indicate the need for more stringent point  source controls to
protect against chronic toxicity due to copper.

Table  19  presents  organic priority  pollutant  data  for ambient
water.  Most priority pollutant organic compounds were not detected
in  ambient waters.    Detected  compounds,  including  tentatively
identified compounds are listed below:

                                                  Range  of
Organics                      Stations            Detected
Detected                      Where Detected      Values (ug/1)

2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane    1, 2, 5, 6          7.6-76.2
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate  1, 3, 5, 7, 10-12   4-46
Chloroform                    1, 2, 5, 6, 10-12   2.1-15.6
Bromodichloromethane          10, 11              2.4-11
1,2-Dichloroethane            12                  3.8
Chlorodibromomethane          10                  3.1-4.8
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate          1, 9, 11            2-6
2,6-Dinitrotoluene            1                   8
1,1,2-Tridecane               1                   17

From this summary,  it is  evident  that  chloroform  and bis  (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate have the most widespread occurrence.   While
these compounds are also common laboratory contaminants, with one
exception,  they were  not detected  in  field  blanks which  were
collected, stored and analyzed in the  same manner as ambient water
samples.  The one exception was that phthalates were present in the
August 1988 field blank although this was a result of storing water
in a plastic container. Concentrations of these and other organic
priority pollutants were low, and no EPA water quality criteria nor
state WQS were exceeded.

Chemical Analysis of Bottom Sediments

Sediment  chemistry  data  are  presented  in Tables  20  and  21.
Antimony,  beryllium, cadmium, selenium,  silver  and  thallium were
undetected in all sediment samples.

The metals detected,  stations and the range of detected values were
as follows:

-------
                                                                   16
                                                  Range of
                              Stations            Detected
Metal Detected                Where Detected      Values fmq/ka)

Aluminum                      1-12                933-24,188
Arsenic                       11, 12              4.8-5.1
Barium                        1-12                6-356
Chromium                      1-12                2-59
Cobalt                        1-8, 11, 12         3-10
Copper                        1-12                2-48
Iron                          1-12                1,634-21,731
Lead                          1-9                 3-39
Mercury                       2, 11               0.3-0.4
Nickel                        1-8                 2-22
Vanadium                      1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12   5-43
Zinc                          1-12                9-695

The EPA has not yet developed sediment quality criteria for metals.
Therefore, assessment of  the  degree  of contamination is somewhat
problematic.    However,  the   data  were compared  to  the  85th
percentiles for  chemical  concentrations in  sediment  reported by
Greenspun  and Taylor  (1979)  and  TWC  (1988b).   Comparisons  of
measured concentrations with percentile values  are listed in Table
22.

The highest degree of metals  contamination  was found at stations
2  (Houston Ship  Channel near  monument)  and  11  (Sims Bayou).  TWC
and/or EPA 85th  percentile  value exceedances for zinc were found
at stations 1, 2, 5, 6  and  11.   Although there are no percentile
values to compare with  the data,  there appears  to be high sediment
concentrations of aluminum, iron and to a lesser degree,  barium.
As a general rule, these metals were  highest  in the industrialized
areas and lower in downstream  portions of Segment 1005, and lowest
at stations  9 (Trinity Bay reference  site)  and 3  (San  Jacinto
River).  Concentrations of  these metals at  stations 1 and 2 were
comparable to those at stations 11 and 12.

Priority pollutant organic compounds  were not detected in sediment
samples collected from stations 1-9 in August 1988 and January 1989
surveys.   However in July  1990 sediment samples  collected from
stations 11 (Sims Bayou) and 12  (Greens Bayou)  contained a number
of acid/base neutral compounds and pesticides (Table 21).  EPA has
not  completed development  on  marine sediment  quality  criteria,
although interim criteria  are available for two  compounds detected,
DDT  and Phenanthrene.    The  criteria  were  calculated using  an
assumed total organic carbon  concentration  of  1.5%,  which is the
overall average  for sediments collected from stations 1-8.  This
assumption  was  necessary since  TOC  data were not  collected  at
stations 11 and 12.  The DDT concentration of 230 ug/kg at station
12 exceeded  the  DDT criterion  of 12.4 ug/kg.   The phenanthrene
criterion  of  2085  ug/kg   was  not   exceeded  at  station  11
(concentration=506 ug/kg).

As with metals in sediment,  50th percentile  (median concentration)

-------
                                                                  17
and 85th percentile values have been published for organics using
EPA's STORET  database.   These percentile values  and  stations in
exceedance of these values are presented in Table 22.

This  comparison  indicates   that  station   11  has   elevated
concentrations  of  phenanthrene,   fluoranthene,  pyrene,  bis(2-
ethylhexyljphthalate and chlordane.  The type of contamination at
station 12 is somewhat different, with the presence of DDE and DDT
being most significant.   In  addition  to  the organic  priority
pollutants  found  at  these  two  sites,  a   great   number  of
unidentifiable (non-priority pollutant) acid/base neutral compounds
were found at relatively high concentrations.

Chemical Analysis of Fish Tissue

The  fish  tissue data  is  presented in Table  23.    Criteria,
considered to be levels of concern, used in evaluating fish tissue
concentrations  are  listed in  Table 24.   Table  25  presents an
average of all samples for fish and crab tissue by segment number.
Finally, Appendix 4 presents the QA review of the fish tissue data.

Average fish and crab tissue concentrations for the four segments
sampled  were  compared  with  the levels  of concern  in  order to
discern the degree of risk from fish  consumption.  Most priority
pollutant  metals  were detected in edible fish and crab tissue.
Mercury was detected  in fish but not  crab samples collected from
segments  1001,  1005  and  1006.   Concentrations were  an  order of
magnitude less than the FDA Action  Level of 1.0 mg/kg.  Copper and
zinc, which rarely reach dangerous levels in fish or crab tissue,
did not  appear elevated  in the three study segments compared to the
Trinity Bay reference site.

The three parameters of  greatest concern include antimony, arsenic
and lead.  The antimony level of concern was slightly exceeded for
fish in segments 1001 and 1005 and crabs in segment 1005.

The average concentrations of  arsenic in  tissue for segment 1005
(fish and  crab)  and  Segment  2422  (fish)  exceeded  a  risk level of
1 x  10  ,  assuming a consumption rate of  15 g/d.  Average tissue
concentrations of lead  for both crab and  fish from  segments 1001
and 1005 exceeded the level of concern,  0.833 mg/kg.  This value,
which serves  as the basis for the state's human health WQS for
lead, was developed recently  by the Texas Water Commission and the
Texas Department of Health.  It is based on existing knowledge on
the relationship between consumption rate and blood level.

For numerous oranic priority pollutants, detection limits were too
high to adequately assess risk to human health (Appendix 2).  Ten
organic  priority pollutants were  detected in  fish  and/or  crab
tissue,   although the  concentrations  found were  well below the
levels of  concern.   It is interesting to note  the  low levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOC's), ODD and DDE and phthalates for
these samples.  The greatest number of organic priority pollutants
were found in crabs  collected from Segment  1006 and  fish  from

-------
                                                                  18
                            DISCUSSION

A  similar ambient  toxicity investigation  was conducted  in the
Calcasieu Estuary June-July,  1988 (Cunningham et  al.  1990).  As
with  the present  study  the mysid shrimp chronic test  was more
sensitive than the inland silverside and sheepshead minnow tests.
In the present investigation the red algal test was comparable to
the mysid test in terms of sensitivity, although sites toxic to one
species were not necessarily toxic to the  other.  In both studies,
a number of possible toxicants were detected in the water column,
therefore, determination of which particular substances caused the
toxicity is problematic.  While both sites are heavily influenced
by  industrial discharges,  the  Calcasieu Estuary  had  a  higher
percentage of stations with toxic and contaminated  sediments.  The
results  of  this  study confirm  our belief  that  ambient toxicity
should  be evaluated over  time.   Only with  repeated,  continual
monitoring of ambient toxicity  at fixed stations can one develop
an  estimate  of  the  temporal variation of  toxicity for  a given
waterbody.  Ambient toxicity would not have been found to any great
degree had we sampled only once  or twice.  We believe the need for
repeated  fixed  station  ambient toxicity  is  greater  in complex
systems  such  as  the Houston  Ship Channel  and associated waters
where it is important to address seasonal influences,  changes in
treatment  efficiency  of  wastewater  discharges,  varying  flow
conditions, etc.   Likewise, it is advantageous  to have multiple
datasets  for  chemical parameters with which  to  evaluate water
quality conditions.

The ambient toxicity observed with mysid shrimp, alga,  and inland
silverside  indicate possible  toxic  impacts   to the  indigenous
aquatic community.   Presently EPA and the state of Texas require
use of  sheepshead minnow and mysid shrimp  under  the Third Round
NPDES  Permit  Strategy.     Continued  periodic ambient  toxicity
monitoring using mysids would be useful to  assess the effectiveness
of the  Third  Round Strategy.   Implementation  of  the Third Round
Strategy is roughly two-thirds complete, and it is not yet possible
to  fully gauge  its  effectiveness.   However,  undoubtedly  it  is
resulting in some water quality improvement.

An encouraging finding was  the  general  lack of sediment toxicity
in Ship Channel bottom sediments.   Exceptions to this were station
1 (below Greens Bayou), 6 (San Jacinto River near Lynchburg Ferry)
and 11 (Sims Bayou).  The occurrence of sediment toxicity was much
lower than that found in the Calcasieu Estuary (Cunningham et al.
1990),  where  about  two-thirds  of  the   stations  tested  were
significantly toxic  to  the amphipod.   There are two  possible
reasons which may have accounted for the relatively low incidence
of sediment  toxicity.    First,  sediments  were collected  in mid-
channel rather than as a  transect.  Ship Channel samples consisted
of three-part composites  generally collected from mid-channel.  For
the Calcasieu study,  samples were  collected  along a  transect
consisting of side-channel-side subsamples.  It is appropriate to

-------
                                                                   19
 include side  areas  since  they serve  as  habitat  for  benthic
 organisms,  and there  is  a greater  likelihood  for deposition of
 toxic  substances.   Secondly,  segments  1005,  1006  and 1007 are
 routinely  dredged.   Maintenance  dredging  would complicate  using
 sediments as an indicator of long-term contamination.  In addition
 to  sediment removal  and circulation  by dredging, another possible
 factor  which could  influence  the sedimentation process is ship
 traffic.   In  several instances large ships were seen  churning up
 bottom  sediments with their  propellers.   Considering the high
 volume  of ship traffic into and out of the Ship Channel, this could
 be  a significant  factor.   Bulk sediment metal concentrations were
 highest in industrialized areas, with lower  levels found as one
 proceeds downstream.   Aluminum and iron, while present naturally,
 seemed  to best portray this distribution.  The tidal bayou stations
 were the  only locations  where contamination by organic chemicals
 was evident.   Contaminants included bis (2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate
 (Greens and Sims  Bayous);  pesticides including chlordane,  DDE and
 DDT (Greens Bayou); and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons including
 phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene  (Sims Bayou).

 Under  Section 304(1)(B)  of the Clean  Water Act,  EPA included
 segment 1005 on the  "short list"  based on excursions of the  state
 water quality standard for nickel found in  this  study.   This  water
 quality standard  is  designed to  protect marine life from  chronic
 toxicity  due  to  nickel exposure.   Determination  of other  water
 quality  standards   violations  were  less   defensible  due  to
 limitations  of the  field measurement  as  in  the   case of  total
 residual chlorine, or were less widespread  in  occurrence.  In this
 study,  it was not possible to  fully  evaluate standards compliance
 for all parameters.   While in general the detection  limits for most
 organic priority pollutants was adequate, detection limits for some
 of  the  metals were  higher than  the  WQS.   These include mercury,
 silver, and in some cases in earlier  surveys  nickel, copper, lead
 and cyanide.   As the  survey progressed,   efforts were made  to
 improve detection levels.   However,  unfortunately,  it was not
 feasible to address all parameters.   Any  follow-up  studies  need to
 carefully consider detection  limits  as an  important data quality
 objective.

 Other  studies provide insight  on  point  sources  which  may  be
 contributing to ambient concentrations of nickel.  Goodman  (1989)
 calculated point  source loadings of  toxic  substances to the Ship
 Channel using discharge monitoring reports submitted by facilities
 to  the  State.   The  analysis  showed  that the majority of  nickel
 contributions  were made  in segment   1007, with approximately 9.35
 Ibs./day being discharged.   The  total  point source discharges to
 the Galveston Bay system was 17.66 Ibs./day.  The Gulf  Coast Waste
 Disposal Authority-Washburn Tunnel  (GCWA)  facility accounted for
 50% of the point  source discharges of nickel to the Bay.  In 1990
 EPA required  major  facilities discharging to  the  Houston Ship
 Channel to collect data on nickel  concentrations  in their effluents
 (Dannel 1991). A total of nine facilities were found to discharge
greater than one pound  per day of  nickel.  Results of this analysis
were in agreement with those in  Goodman (1989) in that the most

-------
                                                                   20
significant nickel discharger was GCWDA.  However, nickel loading
(13.5  Ibs./day)  using  the  recent  data  was  greater.    Other
significant dischargers  included  Occidental  (-10  Ibs./day), Rhom
and Haas (5.83 Ibs./day)  and the City  of Houston (4.105 Ibs./day).
The state is presently developing a total maximum daily load  (TMDL)
to better regulate nickel inputs to the Ship Channel.

Follow-up sampling conducted in January 1991 showed copper levels
in the  Ship Channel exceeding the  state chronic  WQS for copper.
These analyses  was  performed using  ICP-Atomic Emission whereby a
lower  detection  limit  was possible.   Although the  data  are
preliminary, the  results show copper WQS violations in the Ship
Channel, indicating the need to further investigate ambient levels
and sources of copper.

Volatile  organic  compounds   (VOC),  including  chloroform,  and
phthalates  were the organic compounds most  frequently detected.
These compounds were found at a number of stations  within the three
Ship Channel segments. Chloroform is commonly found in wastewaters
discharged  by  organic chemical manufacturers and pulp  and paper
mills.  There are several such facilities discharging to segments
1006 and 1007.   Overall, there were no EPA water quality criteria
for carcinogenic  organic chemicals  exceeded at the 1 x  10*5 risk
level.  However, analyses indicate that  a great number of both VOC
and Acid/Base  Neutral compounds were detected but could  not be
identified  using  the EPA Mass Spectral Library.  Thus,  it would
appear  that  non-priority  pollutants  are  more  prevalent  than
priority pollutant organics.

The nekton  survey provided useful data to  indicate  that segment
1006 supports an  aquatic community, as  well  as a  commercial blue
crab fishery.   State WQS presently do not designate an aquatic life
use for  this  segment.   Hydrologically  and  biologically,  segment
1005 was very similar to 1006,  particularly  in January 1989 when
gill net  data showed that  segments 1005  and 1006 had  a similar
number of taxa.   Similar  species compositions, catch rates, number
of taxa,  and  water  quality parameters (DO  and  salinity)  were
observed along the shoreline of these two segments.   The greatest
number of  taxa collected by gillnet  were  found  in  segment 1001
(August 1988) and 2422 (January 1989).

Additional observations by one of the  authors and unpublished data
collected by the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) during the study  period substantiate  the extensive use of
deeper waters of the Ship Channel by the nekton community.  Seiler
et al.  (1991)  compared nekton communities in segments  1006 and 1007
during  1988-89.   They  found 84 species overall, 76  species in
segment 1006  and  59 species in segment 1007.   Early life stages
were found,  indicating that the waterbody  is used as  a nursery
area.   They believe that  although  DO  was  seasonally  depressed
during  warm weather  periods,  this  does  not  have   a  completely
detrimental effect to shoreline nekton  communities.  This may be
due  in  part to better  reaeration  potential in  these  shallower
waters.  Another factor may be the ability of local populations to

-------
                                                                  21
tolerate and/or avoid hypoxic areas.  This avoidance may take the
form of diurnal or seasonal movements.

In the upper Ship Channel segments (1006, 1007), and particularly
the tributaries to the Ship Channel,  low DO  is  viewed as a major
limiting factor in support of healthy,  balanced aquatic communities
in these waters.   In fact, we  believe that hypoxia  may be more
important than the effects of toxic chemicals in  limiting this use.
The WQS for DO  in these  segments  are  designed to protect against
nuisance conditions  rather  than to protect  aquatic communities.
Nevertheless,  DO conditions are not so low  as to preclude use of
this waterbody by aquatic life.

The problem of low DO was most extreme during warm weather periods
(May-September)  when  stratification  develops  and  biological
activity increases.   Often DO would be within acceptable levels in
the upper 5-10 feet of the water column and decrease to levels of
<1 mg/1 at greater depths.   This is believed to  be due to organic
and  nutrient   loading primarily  from  municipal and  industrial
dischargers.    Hypoxic  conditions  in  the  Ship  Channel may  be
exacerbated by salinity stratification.  The tributaries are quite
impacted from algal blooms.  This is evidenced visually through the
water color, as well as through DO and pH depth  profiles.

Although a variety of metals and  organics were  present in edible
fish tissue,  most  concentrations  were  relatively low.   However,
three  metals,  antimony,  arsenic  and  lead, exceeded levels  of
concern.    Two  factors  which  could  possibly  have  influenced
concentrations of these metals in edible fish tissue were:  (1) in
several cases sea catfish was collected for tissue analysis.  This
species is an opportunistic benthic-feeding  species which is not
commonly consumed by humans.    (2)  When averaging  fish  and crab
tissue concentrations by segment,  one half of the detection limit
was used when one or more values were not detected.   Particularly
in the case of  antimony, which  had a  detection  limit of 3 mg/kg,
this procedure may have introduced bias.

The arsenic tissue  value  is based  on the EPA cancer potency factor
at a risk  level of  1 x 10 .  Arsenic was ubiquitous in fish and
crab  tissue  in the  four  segments  sampled.    Surprisingly  the
reference site  had the highest  level  in fish tissue.  Therefore,
the bioaccumulation of arsenic may not necessarily be entirely due
to point source discharges.    Since arsenic was  found in fish and
crab tissue taken  from the reference site,  it  is  possible that
arsenic bioaccumulation is ubiquitous.

EPA is presently reviewing the status of arsenic  with regard  to its
potency and its significance in seafood.  Some information suggests
that arsenic  in seafood  is  present as an organoarsenical and is
readily excreted once consumed  by man and  animals  (April 1990).
This uncertainty complicates interpretation  in  the  assessment of
human health risk.   A study by Texas A&M University in 1990 (TAMU
1991) detected arsenic in all edible fish tissues analyzed from the
Galveston Bay system.  Concentrations for sea catfish (Arius felis)

-------
                                                                   22
collected  from the mouth  of the  Ship  Channel at  Morgans Point
contained an average of 1.98 mg/kg wet weight  (range of 0.02-16.49
mg/kg).  In comparison,  average  values  for fish and crabs in the
present  study  ranged from  0.25  mg/kg to 2.16  mg/kg  wet weight.
Antimony fish tissue data from other studies was not available.

The  lead level of concern  (0.833 mg/kg) was  established by the
state of Texas Water  Commission  and Health Department and serves
as the basis for the human health WQS.  This level of concern was
exceeded for crabs and fish in segments  1001 and 1005.  In another
study, lead concentrations  in sea catfish collected from Morgans
Point were much lower,  averaging 0.01 mg/kg wet weight in edible
tissue (range:  0.0-0.08 mg/kg) (TAMU 1991).  Values for other fish
species collected at  this  site were similar,  the overall average
for Galveston Bay being 0.016 mg/kg.

In a previous study by Crocker and Young (1990), toxic equivalence
concentrations  (TEC)  of  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo furan in catfish, blue crab and oysters
exceeded EPA's fish tissue level of concern.  Subsequent to these
analyses, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) analyzed additional
seafood samples from the Ship Channel at Morgans Point, and upper
Galveston Bay  (TDH  1990).   Concentrations  of  these samples were
lower, but high enough to warrant concern  with regard to health
risk from consumption of seafood.  Based on  these findings the TDH
issued a fish consumption advisory for the Houston Ship Channel and
contiguous waters.  Both as a result of these analyses, and based
on presence of bleached kraft pulp and papermill discharges which
are known  to  contain dioxins  and furans,  EPA  included  the Ship
Channel  (Segment  1005)  on the 304(1)(B)  list.   This  designation
will  require  that  water quality  based  controls  for dioxin  be
established for dioxin dischargers.

-------
                                                                   23
                        LITERATURE CITED

April, Robert  W.  Memorandum to Cindy  Sonich-Mullin,  January 24,
1990.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

ASTM  (American Society  for  Testing and Materials).   1990.  Guide
for conducting solid  phase  10-day static sediment toxicity tests
with marine and estuarine amphipods, E 1167.

Crocker, Philip A.  and  Carl Young.  1990.  Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin and -dibenzofurans in edible fish tissue at selected sites
in Arkansas, Louisiana  and  Texas.   U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,  Region 6, Water  Quality  Management Branch,  Dallas,  TX.
March 1990.

Cunningham,  Patricia,  Randall  Williams,  Robert Chessin,  Keith
Little,  Philip A.  Crocker,  Michael Schurtz,  Charles Demas, Elise
Petrocelli, Michele Redmond, George Morrison and R.  Kirk Manuel.
1990.    Toxics  Study of  the  lower Calcasieu  River.   Research
Triangle  Institute,  Research  Triangle  Park,  NC.    NTIS#  PB90
226150/AS.

Dannel, Mary B.  1991.  Unpublished data: nickel concentrations in
Houston  Ship Channel  facility discharges.   U.S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency, Region  6,  Water  Quality Management  Branch,
Dallas, TX.

Eckhardt, B.   1971.   How we got  the dirtiest  stream in America.
Texas International Law Journal 7(l):5-28.

Elliott, Robert B. Memorandum to Jack V.  Ferguson, March 16, 1990.
Trends for heavy metals in the Houston Ship Channel and tidal San
Jacinto  River.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Region 6,
Dallas, TX.

Goodman, Timothy M.  1989.  Estimate of toxic material loading to
the Galveston Bay  system.  Masters Thesis, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX.  May 1989.

Greene,  Joseph C., Cathy L.  Bartels,  William  J.  Warren-Hicks,
Benjamin Parkhurst,  Gregory L. Linder,  Spencer A.  Peterson and
William  E.  Miller.   1988.   Protocols  for  short  term toxicity
screening of hazardous waste sites. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Greenspun,  R.L.   and  P.L.  Taylor.    1979.    Nonparametric  and
comparison to criteria approaches  to analyzing ambient water, fish
and sediment residue data for metals, pesticides and  several of the
non-pesticide  organic priority pollutants.   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data Support Division.

Hampson, B.L.  1977.  Relationship between total ammonia and free
ammonia  in  terrestrial  and  ocean  waters.  J.  Cons,  int.  Explor.
Mer. 37(2):117-122.

-------
                                                                   24
Redmond, Michele S., Kathleen M. McKenna, Elise A. Petrocelli, K.
John Scott, Philip A. Crocker and Charles R.  Demas.   1991.  Use of
toxicity  test with  the amphipod  Ampelisca  abdita  to determine
sediment toxicity in the lower Calcasieu  River Estuary, Louisiana.
Draft Manuscript.

Seiler, Richard  and George Guillen.   1991.   Utilization of the
upper  Houston Ship  Channel  by fish and macroinvertebrates with
respect to water quality trends. In;  Proceedings of  the Galveston
Bay Characterization Workshop,  February  21-23, 1991, Houston, TX.
Galveston Bay National Estuary  Program.  February 1991.  GBNEP P-
6.  Pp. 39-45.

Stanley, Donald,  W.  1989.  Historical  trends in water quality and
fisheries resources in Galveston Bay, Texas (Draft Report).  Report
prepared for the National Ocean Pollution Program Office, National
Oceanic  and  Atmospheric Administration,  Rockville,  MD by  the
Institute  for   Coastal  and   Marine  Resources,   East  Carolina
University, Greenville, NC.

Staples,  Charles A., A. Frances  Werner  and Thomas  J. Hoogheem.
1985.   Assessment  of priority pollutant concentrations  in the
United States using STORET  database.  Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 4:131-142.

TAMU   (Texas  A  &  M University).     1991.    Toxic contaminant
characterization  of aquatic  organisms  in  Galveston  Bay  (Draft
Report).  Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A &
M University, College station,  TX.  April 1991.

TDK.  1990.  Unpublished data for dioxins and furans (analysis by
Triangle  Laboratories,  Research Triangle Park,  NC  for the Texas
Department of Health, Austin, TX).  August 1990.

TDWR.  1984.  Waste  load evaluation  for  the  Houston Ship Channel
System in the San Jacinto River Basin.   Texas Department of Water
Resources, Austin, TX.  WLE-1.  July 1984.

TDWR.  1984.  Waste  load evaluation  for  the  Houston Ship Channel
System in the San Jacinto River Basin.   Texas Department of Water
Resources, Austin Texas.  WLE-1.  July,  1984.

TWC.  1987.  Intensive survey of the Houston Ship Channel System.
Texas Water Commission,  Austin, TX.  IS 87-09.  July 1987.

TWC.    1988a.    Texas  Water  Quality  Standards.    Texas  Water
Commission, Austin, TX.   April  29, 1988.

TWC.  1988b.    Texas  Water  Commission  percentiles, ranges  and
averages for some parameters in the Texas water quality database.
Texas Water Commission,  Austin, TX.

-------
                                                                   25
TWC.    1991.     Texas Water  Quality  Standards.    Texas  Water
Commission, Austin, TX.  July 1991.

U.S. EPA.  1976.  Quality criteria for water.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.  NTIS# PB-263943.

U.S. EPA.  1981.  Interim methods  for the sampling and analysis of
priority  pollutants   in  sediments  and  fish  tissue.     U.S.
Environmental   Protection   Agency,   Office   of  Research   and
Development, Cincinnati,  OH.  EPA 600/4-81-055.

U.S. EPA.  1982.  Sampling protocols for collecting surface water,
bed sediment,  bivalves, and fish for priority pollutant analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Water Regulations
and Standards.  Final Draft.

U.S. EPA.   1983a.   Methods for  chemical  analysis of  water and
wastes.    U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.   EPA-600/4-79-
020, revised March 1983.

U.S.  EPA.    1983b.    NEIC  policies  and  procedures.    National
Enforcement Investigation  Center, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency, Denver, CO.  EPA/330/9-78-001-R.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Guidelines establishing test procedures for the
analysis of pollutants under  the Clan Water  Act;  Final rule and
interim final rule and proposed rule.  Federal Register 49(209):!-
210.

U.S. EPA.  1986.  Quality criteria for water.  U.S. Environmental
Protection  Agency,  Office  of Water  Regulations  and  Standards,
Washington, D.C.  EPA 440/5-86-001.  May 1, 1986.

U.S. EPA.   1988a.   Short-term methods  for  estimating the chronic
toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine
organisms.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Environmental
Monitoring  and  Support  Laboratory, Cincinnati,  OH.   EPA/600/4-
87/028.  May 1988.

U.S. EPA.   1988b.   Interim  sediment criteria values for nonpolar
hydrophobic organic contaminants.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
May 1988.  SCD# 17.

U.S. EPA.   1989a.   Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
(Saltwater)-1989.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and  Standards,  Washington,  D.C.   EPA 440/5-88-
004.  April 1989.

U.S. EPA.   1989b.   Assessing human health  risks from  chemically
contaminated  fish  and  shellfish:  a  guidance  manual.    U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of  water regulations and
standards.  EPA-503/8-89-002.   September 1989.

-------
                                                                   26
U.S. EPA-Region 4.  Letter from Karen Gourdine, February 25, 1991,
containing  Toxic  Substances  Spreadsheet.    U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.

U.S. EPA-Region 4.  1988.  Extraction and analysis of organics in
biological tissue.  Method OB 3/88.   U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.  July 5, 1988.

U.S. EPA-Region 6.  1988.   Tidal  San Jacinto River project plan.
U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Region  6, Water  Quality
Management Branch, Dallas, TX.  July 1988.

-------
                                       27
FIGURES

-------
                                                                                              95°05'39»
                                                                                              95°03'34"
                                                                                              95°17'20'
                                                                                              95°16'00'
                                                                      flurne f flay

                                                                       hip  Channe I

                                                                         Scott Bay
 HOUSTON
 Figure  1
Location of  Sampling  Stations
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6 CIS Center

-------
                   DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
               HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL STATION 1
                              FIGURE 2
LJJ
LLJ
Q_
LU
Q
   0
     0
   10
   20
   30 -
2
i
DO (mg/l)
3     4
5
i
6
   40 -
                                         Legend

                                        • 8/1-3/88

                                          1/9-13/89

                                        • 2/19/90

                                          5/29/90

                                          7/30/90

-------
                    DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
               TIDAL SAN JACINTO RIVER, STATION 6
                               FIGURE 3
   10
   20
Q_
LJJ
Q
   30
   40
                       DO (mg/l)
                                     6
7
__!_
8
           Legend
           • 5/10/88
             8/2-5/88
           • 1/9-13/89
             5/30/90..
             8/1/90

-------
                   DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
                   GREENS BAYOU, STATION 12
                              FIGURE 4
     0
   5
LU
CL
LU
Q
   10 -
   15
                       DO (mg/l)
3
i
4
i
6
i
7
j
   20 J
                                   Legend

                                   • 9/25/89

                                    2/19/90

                                   • 5/29/90

                                    7/30/90

-------
                                      32
TABLES

-------
TABLE  1. PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS.
                                                                                                                    33



STATION SEGMENT* LOCATION**
RIVER MILE
FROM
GALVESTON
STATE STATION BAY***

TOTAL
DEPTH

-------
TABLE 2.  TRIBUTARY SAMPLING STATIONS, SEPTEMBER 1989.
                                                                                                                   34
STATION
BRAYS- 1
BRAYS-2
BRAYS-3
GREENS- 1
SEGMENT* LOCATION**
1007 BRAYS BAYOU, 100 M UPSTREAM OF 1-45
BRIDGE
1007 BRAYS BAYOU, 100 M UPSTREAM OF LAUNDALE
AVENUE BRIDGE
1007 BRAYS BAYOU. 100 M UPSTREAM OF 75TH
STREET BRIDGE
1006 GREENS BAYOU, 50 M UPSTREAM OF 1-10
BRIDGE
STATE STATION
STATION GC
(1007.9405)
(TUC 1987)
STATION ICC
(1006.9204)
(TUC 1987)
RIVER NILE
FROM
GALVESTON
BAY***
23.0 (3.3)
23.0 (2.3)
23.0 (1.6)
15.6 (3.8)
TOTAL
DEPTH
(FT.)
17
16
21
28
GREENS-2    1006

GREENS-3    1006


SIMS-1      1007



SIMS-2      1007


SIMS-3      1007
GREENS BAYOU AT RIVER BEND

GREENS BAYOU, 100 M DOWNSTREAM OF HARRIS
DRAINAGE CANAL; SAME SITE AS STATION #12

SIMS BAYOU, 100 M UPSTREAM OF GALVESTON
ROAD BRIDGE
SIMS BAYOU, 100 M UPSTREAM OF PARK PLACE
BOULEVARD BRIDGE

SIMS BAYOU, 100 M UPSTREAM OF SH-225
BRIDGE; SAME SITE AS STATION #11
STATION HB
(1007.9350)
(TWC 1987)
15.6 (2.5)

15.6 (0.4)


20.8 (3.5)



20.8 (2.5)


20.8 (1.5)
21

18


11



14


15
•SEGMENTS ARE LISTED IN THE STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS); THE WQS DO NOT
 DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NAINSTEM AND TRIBUTARY SEGMENTS.
**ALL RIVERINE STATIONS SAMPLED AT MID-CHANNEL
***FOR TRIBUTARY SEGMENTS THE RIVER MILE DISTANCE SHOWN IS FROM THE MOUTH OF THE TRIBUTARY TO
   GALVESTON BAY; THE VALUE IN PARENTHESES IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE MOUTH OF THE TRIBUTARY
   TO THE STATION LOCATION.  AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO POSITION STATIONS APPROXIMATELY ONE, TWO AND
   AND THREE MILES UPSTREAM OF THE SHIP CHANNEL.

-------
TABLE 3. SURVEY ACTIVITIES AND DATES*.
ACTIVITY DATE
ACTIVITY/DATE
AMBIENT WATER CHEMICAL ANALYIS
AUG-88
JAN -89
FEB-90
MAY -90
JUL-90
JAN-91 (METALS ONLY)
SEDIMENT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND
AUG-88
JAN -89
JUL-90
AMBIENT TOXICITY TESTING
AUG-88


JAN -89


FEB-90

MYSIDS***
MAY -90

JUL-90

1

8/1
1/12
2/20
5/29
7/30
1/H
TOXICITY
8/10
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1
2

8/1
1/12
2/20
5/30
7/31
1/H
TESTING**
8/10
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1
FISH AND CRAB TISSUE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND NEKTON
AUG-88
JAN-89
8/5

8/5
1/18
3

8/1
1/11
2/19
5/29
7/30


8/3
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1
SURVEY
8/3
1/18
4

8/1
1/11
2/20
5/30
7/31
1/H

8/3
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1

8/3
1/18
5

8/1
1/11
2/20
5/30
7/31


8/3
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1



6

8/2
1/12
2/20
5/30
7/31
1/14

8/2
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1

8/5
1/20
(MONTH/DAY) BY STATION
7

8/1
1/12
2/20
5/30
7/31


8/3
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1



8

8/1
1/12
2/20
5/30
7/30
1/14

8/10
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19
2/21
3/15
5/29
5/31
7/30
8/1

8/2
1/20
9 10

8/1
1/11
2/19 2/19
5/29 5/29
7/30 7/30


8/3
1/10


8/1
8/3
8/5
1/9
1/11
1/13
2/19 2/19
2/21 2/21
3/15 3/15
5/29 5/29
5/31 5/31
7/30 7/30
8/1 8/1

8/2
1/24
FIELD
11 12 BLANK

8/1
1/12
2/19 2/20 2/20
5/29 5/29 5/29
7/30 7/30 7/30
1/8



8/1 8/1







2/19 2/19
2/21 2/21
3/15 3/15
5/29 5/29
5/31 5/31
7/30 7/30
8/1 8/1



•SEP-89: AMBIENT WATER CHEMICAL ANALYSES AND TOXICITY TESTING IN BRAYS-1 TO -3: 9/20; GREENS-1 TO -3: 9/25;
 SIMS-1 TSIMS-1 TO -3: 9/12.
"TOXICITY TESTING USING THE AMPHIPOD WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN JUL-90; TESTING USING THE SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW TEST
  WAS CONUCTED ON THE FOLLOWING DATES AND STATIONS:  AUG-88 (4,5,9); JAN-88 (1,4,6,9); AND JUL-90 (9,11,12).
***DUE TO POOR CONTROL SURVIVAL IN THE MYSID TEST,  ADDITIONAL SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED IN MARCH FOR RETESTINO.
to
tn

-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF AMBIENT TOXICITY RESULTS.                                                                           36
TEST/DATE
STATION
123456789
10 11 12
AMBIENT WATER

SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW
        8/88
        1/89
        9/89
        2/90

INLAND SILVERSIDE
        8/88
        1/89
        2/90
        5/90
        7/90

MYSID SHRIMP
        8/88
        1/89
        9/89
        3/90
        5/90
        7/90

RED ALGA
        8/88
        1/11/89
        1/13/89
        2/90

SEA URCHIN
        8/88
        1/89

BOTTOM SEDIMENTS

SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW
        8/88
        1/89
        7/90

AMPHIPOD
        8/88
        1/89
- = NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITY
+ = SIGNIFICANT TOXICITY COMPARED TO CONTROL

-------
TABLE 5.  AMBIENT TOXICITY TO THE SHEEPSHEAO MINNOW.
                             EFFECTS AFTER SEVEN DAYS EXPOSURE (MEAN VALUES)
                                                                                                          37
AUG-88
...................
	 	 	
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
STATION (X) UT. (MG)*
LABORATORY CONTROL 97.0
1 SURFACE
1 COMPOSITE 97.0
1 BOTTOM
2 SURFACE
2 COMPOSITE
3 SURFACE
3 COMPOSITE
4 SURFACE
4 COMPOSITE 97.0
5 SURFACE
5 COMPOSITE
6 SURFACE
6 COMPOSITE 90.0
6 BOTTOM
7 SURFACE
7 COMPOSITE
8 SURFACE
8 COMPOSITE
9 SURFACE 100.0
10 SURFACE
11 (SIMS-3) SURFACE
11 ii •• D**
12 (GREENS-3) SURFACE
12 •• " D**
JAN-89
....................
	
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
(X) UT. (MG)*
95.0

100.0






95.0



90.0





95.0






SURVI\
(X)
94.0
97.0


92.5

97.5

97.5

100.0

92.5


92.5

92.5

92.5
95.0
95.0
92.5
92.5
100.0
FEB-90
FINAL
/AL MEAN DRY
UT. (MG)
0.19
0.13


0.16

0.18

0.16

0.18

0.17


0.21

0.21

0.19
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.17
 •ON THESE DATES ONLY SURVIVAL UAS EVALUATED.
"DUPLICATE SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AND TESTED FOLLOWING ADDITION OF SODIUM THIOSULFATE.
NOTE: NO SIGNIFICANT (P=0.05) EFFECTS WERE FOUND.

-------
TABLE 6.  AMBIENT TOXICITY TO THE INLAND SILVERSIDE.
                                                                                                                         38
                                                  EFFECTS AFTER SEVEN DAYS EXPOSURE (MEAN  VALUES)
AUG-88
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
STATION (X) UT. (MC)
LABORATORY CONTROL
1 SURFACE
1 COMPOSITE
1 BOTTOM
2 SURFACE
2 COMPOSITE
3 SURFACE
3 COMPOSITE
it SURFACE
4 COMPOSITE
5 SURFACE
5 COMPOSITE
6 SURFACE
6 COMPOSITE
6 BOTTOM
7 SURFACE
7 COMPOSITE
8 SURFACE
8 COMPOSITE
9 SURFACE
10 SURFACE
11 (SIMS-3) SURFACE
11 ii n D**
12 (GREENS-3) SURFACE
12 " " D**
93.3
91.1
84.4
97.8

93.3

95.6

91.1

91.1
95.6
95.6
97.8

95.4

87.2
91.1





0.579
0.536
0.600
0.564

0.570

0.548

0.596

0.596
0.551
0.560
0.609

0.633

0.576
0.584





JAN -89
	
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
(X) UT. (MG)
'
..*
96.7
96.7
100.0

93.3

90.0

100.0

100.0
93.3
100.0
96.7

93.3

93.3
96.7






0.641 b
0.610 b
0.702 b

0.629 b

0.646 b

0.605 b

0.646 b
0.678 b
0.679 b
0.634 b

0.618 b

0.634 b
0.863





FEB-90
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
(X) UT. (MG)
100.0
96.0


100.0

100.0

96.0

100.0

91.0


100.0

100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.86
0.82


0.94

0.88

0.91

0.88

0.97


0.86

0.86

0.97
1.02
0.96
0.74
0.83
0.87
MAY-90
	
FINAL
SURVIVAL MEAN DRY
(X) UT. (MG)
95
100.0


97.0

97.0

100.0

93.0

93.0


90.0

93.0

93.0
97.0
100.0
100.0
97.0
97.0
0.77
0.80


0.85

0.85

0.84

0.82

0.88


0.83

0.78

0.78
0.73
0.71
0.61
0.65
0.73
JUL
	 	
SURVIVAL
(X)
95.0
90.0


97.0

97.0

97.0

97.0

100.0


100.0

96.0

93.0
93.0
93.0
86.0
97.0
100.0
-90
FINAL
MEAN DRY
UT. (MG)
0.65
0.61


0.61

0.52

0.52

0.60

0.53


0.57

0.52

0.50 a
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.52
 *ON THIS DATE THE REFERENCE STATION UAS USED AS THE PERFORMANCE CONTROL.
"DUPLICATE SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AND TESTED FOLLOWING ADDITION OF SODIUM THIOSULFATE.
a-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM LABORATORY CONTROL.
b-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM REFERENCE STATION (#9).

-------
TABLE 7.  AMBIENT TOXICITY TO MYSID SHRIMP.
                                                                       EFFECTS AFTER SEVEN DAYS EXPOSURE (MEAN VALUES)
STATION
LABORATORY CONTROL
1 SURFACE
1 COMPOSITE
1 BOTTOM
2 SURFACE
2 COMPOSITE
3 SURFACE
3 COMPOSITE
4 SURFACE
4 COMPOSITE
5 SURFACE
5 COMPOSITE
6 SURFACE
6 COMPOSITE
6 BOTTOM
7 SURFACE
7 COMPOSITE
8 SURFACE
8 COMPOSITE
9 SURFACE
10 SURFACE
11 (SIMS-3) SURFACE
11 ii ii D**

SURVIVAL
(X)
78.0
87.5
87.5
92.5

85.0

72.5

90.0

87.5
90.0
77.5
85.0

95.0

82.5
90.0



AUG-88
FINAL
MEAN DRY
UT. (MG)
0.259
0.225
0.245
0.228

0.327

0.249

0.251

0.247
0.258
0.286
0.202

0.272

0.288
0.250




FEMALES
WITH (SURVIVAL
EGGS (X)j (X)
39.0 --*
35.0 96.9
28.0 93.8
61.0 87.5

56.0

44.0

52.0 90.6

56.0
68.0 90.6
39.0 93.8
57.0 81.3

63.0

77.0 84.4
59.0 84.4



JAN-89
FINAL
MEAN DRY
UT. (MG)

0.225 b
0.260
0.265





0.264


0.278
0.267
0.268



0.288
0.306



12 (GREENS-3) SURFACE
12 " » 0**





FEMALES
WITH SURVIVAL
EGGS (X) (X)
79.5
68.7 77.0
83.3
81.3
66.0

77.5

72.0
66.7
67.5

95.2 74.0
69.0
63.9
67.5

67.5
93.8
87.5 45.0 a
61.5
67.5
70.0
80.5
75.0
MAR-90
FINAL
MEAN DRY
WT. (MG)
0.33
0.32


0.34

0.35

0.34

0.34

0.32


0.32

0.33

0.27
0.27 a
0.26 a
0.23 a
0.25 a
0.23

FEMALES
WITH SURVIVAL
EGGS (X) (X)
88.0 99.0
52.0 92.0


61.0 88.0

79.0 93.0

74.0 87.0

55.5 82.0 a

70.0 95.0


70.0 74.0 a

89.0 60.0 a

75.0 57.0 a
37.0 a 86.0
21.0 a,b| 92.0
57.0 | 88.0
5.5 a.bj 78.0
50.0 a | 68.0 a
MAY-90
FINAL
MEAN DRY
WT. (MG)
0.42
0.39


0.37

0.43

0.40

0.39

0.42


0.43

0.38

0.37
0.39
0.36
0.34 a
0.32 a
0.37

FEMALES
WITH (SURVIVAL
EGGS (X)| (X)
84.0 94.0
80.0 0.0 a


80.0 0.0 a

72.0 34.0 a

90.0 0.0 a

57.0 77.0

82.0 69.0 b


81 .0 97.0

86.0 69 a

67.0 100.0
90.0 46.0 a
77.0 69.0 a
52.0 a 41.0 a
68.0 83.0
81.0 54.0 a
JUL-90
FINAL
MEAN DRY
WT. (MG)
0.38
--


--

0.41

--

0.41

0.35


0.43

0.35

0.40
0.39
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.38

FEMALES
WITH
EGGS (X)
70.0
0.0


0.0

0.0

0.0

63.0

25.0


39.0

33.0

54.0
17.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
0.0
 *ON THIS DATE THE REFERENCE STATION WAS USED AS THE PERFORMANCE CONTROL.
"DUPLICATE SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AND TESTED FOLLOWING ADDITION OF SODIUM THIOSULFATE.
a-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM LABORATORY CONTROL.
b-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM REFERENCE STATION (#9).
                                                                                                                                                                         OJ
                                                                                                                                                                         VD

-------
 TABLE 8.  AMBIENT TOX1CITY TO THE SEA URCHIN.
                                                                                                          40

LABORATORY CONTROL*
PERFORMANCE CONTROL**
1 SURFACE
1 COMPOSITE
1 BOTTOM
2 SURFACE
2 COMPOSITE
3 SURFACE
3 COMPOSITE
4 SURFACE
4 COMPOSITE
5 SURFACE
5 COMPOSITE
6 SURFACE
6 COMPOSITE
6 BOTTOM
7 SURFACE
7 COMPOSITE
8 SURFACE
8 COMPOSITE
9 SURFACE
10 SURFACE
11 (SIMS-3) SURFACE
12 (GREENS-3) SURFACE
PERCENT FERTILIZATION
AUG-1-88 | JAN-9-89 | JAN- 11 -89 | JAN- 13-89
82.3
93.7
87.8
92.2
91.7

92.4

94.1

97.9

97.7
97.9
97.3
94.7

97.8

98.4
97.7



98.3
64.7
100.0
99.0
99.7

99.7

99.7

99.7

100.0
99.3
100.0
99.0

100.0

97.3
98.0



99.7
100.0
100.0
99.7
100.0

100.0

100.0

99.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0

100.0

99.7
100.0



97.3
96.3
98.6
97.9
98.0

99.0

97.6

97.0

96.0
97.3
96.3
96.6

96.3

96.6
97.3



•LABORATORY CONTROL CONSISTED OF BRINE + DEIONIZED WATER.
"PERFORMANCE CONTROL CONSISTED OF AMBIENT WATER FROM NARRAGANSETT
  BAY, RI.
NOTE: NO SIGNIFICANT 
-------
TABLE 9.  AMBIENT TOXICITY  TO  THE RED ALGA.
                                                                                                                    41
                                                   REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS
STATION
LABORATORY CONTROL
PERFORMANCE CONTROL
1 SURFACE
1 COMPOSITE
1 BOTTOM
2 SURFACE
2 COMPOSITE
3 SURFACE
3 COMPOSITE
4 SURFACE
4 COMPOSITE
5 SURFACE
5 COMPOSITE
6 SURFACE
6 COMPOSITE
6 BOTTOM
7 SURFACE
7 COMPOSITE
8 SURFACE
8 COMPOSITE
9 SURFACE
10 SURFACE
11 (SIMS-3) SURFACE
12 (GREENS-3) SURFACE
AUG
-1-88
CYSTOCARPS
PRODUCED
MEAN (SO)
12.5
10.0
0.3
0.1
4.0

0.8

7.0

7.8

4.4
4.0
4.7
5.7

4.9

10.5
7.0



(2.1)
(2.8)
(0.2) a.b.c
(0.1) a,b,c
(2.8) b

(0.7) a,b

(2.4) b

(5.7)

(4.7)
(2.1) a,b
(3.0) b
(2.6) b

(2.4) b

(5.2)
(4.1)



JAN- 11 -89
CYSTOCARPS
PRODUCED
MEAN (SO)
45.8
48.2
3.1
23.9
35.2

19.0

37.2

25.3

58.3
34.3
25.4
45.7

43.0

22.0
28.5



(10.0)
(15.4)
(1.3) a,b,c
(2.2) a,b
(7.3)

(3.3) a,b

(1.2)

(9.7) a,b

(32.3)
(8.8)
(3.6) a,b
(4.0)

(13.4)

(0.8) a,b
(6.9) a,b



JAN-13-89
	
CYSTOCARPS
PRODUCED
MEAN (SO)
27.8
24.5
5.4
4.6
14.3

1.9

29.3

12.1

12.8
7.2
13.6
10.3

13.4

20.7
14.3



(7.2)
(11.4)
(4.9) a,b
(3.5) a.b
(7.5)

(0.5) a,b

(9.5)

(3.7) a,b

(7.2)
(3.2) a,b
(3.9)
(5.3) a.b

(4.5)

(8.4)
(3.5)



FEB
-19-90
CYSTOCARPS
PRODUCED
MEAN (SD)
16.8
21.9*
10.5


15.9

19.1

14.7

16.6

9.0


12.1

18.8

15.5
8.1
1.5
9.9
(3.7)
(1.7)
(1.0)


(4.2)

(3.2)

(5.7)

(3.4)

(3.3) d


(5.1)

(4.7)

(5.4)
(7.1) d
(0.7) c,d
(7.4) d
*ON THIS DATE A LOU SALINITY CONTROL WAS USED AS THE PERFORMANCE CONTROL BASED OR RELATIVELY LOU SALINITY
 OF AMBIENT UATER SAMPLES.
a-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM THE PERFORMANCE CONTROL (UATER FROM NARRAGANSETT BAY, RI).
b-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM THE LABORATORY CONTROL (BRINE + DEIOHIZED UATER).
c-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM THE REFERENCE SITE (STATION #9).
d-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM THE POOLED LOU SALINITY AND REGULAR LAB CONTROLS.

-------
                                                                                                    42
TABLE 10.  AMBIENT TOXICITY FOR BRAYS, SIMS AND GREENS BAYOUS,
           SEPTEMBER 1989.
STATION
    EFFECTS AFTER SEVEN DAYS EXPOSURE

    MYSID SHRIMP      SHEEPSHEAD FATHEAD    DAPHNIA
	  MINNOW     MINNOW     PULEX-48H
           FINAL      	
SURVIVAL   MEAN DRY   SURVIVAL   SURVIVAL   SURVIVAL
  (X)      WT. (MG)     (X)        (X)        (X)
BRAYS BAYOU
CONTROL
SALINITY CONTROL
BRAYS- 1
BRAYS- 2
BRAYS-3
GREENS BAYOU
CONTROL
GREENS- 1
GREENS-2
GREENS-3
SIMS BAYOU
CONTROL
SIMS-1
SIHS-2
SIMS-3

94.3

91.4
89.6
91.4

97.5
97.5
92.5
95.0

97.5
92.5
92.5
45.0 a

0.20

0.21
0.18
0.20

0.22
0.20
0.21
0.20

0.23
0.18 a
0.15 a
NM b

93.0

97.0
93.0
93.0

93.0
90.0
100.0
97.0

93.0
100.0
90.0
90.0

93.0 97.0
97.0 0.0
97.0 0.0*








93.0 97.0
100.0 100.0


•THERE WAS OX MORTALITY IN THE SALINITY CONTROL, INDICATING THAT
 EFFECTS OBSERVED FOR BRAYS-1 ARE DUE TO OSMOTIC INTOLERANCE RATHER
 THAN TOXICITY.
a-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM LABORATORY CONTROL.
b-NOT MEASURED.

-------
TABLE 11.  SEDIMENT TOXICY TO THE AHPHIPOO AND SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW (ELUTRIATE).
                                                                                                          43
                                          PERCENT SURVIVAL

                              AMPHIPOD           SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW ELUTRIATE

                          AUG-88    JAN-89      AUG-88      JAN-89     JUL-90
CONTROL*
LOW SALINITY CONTROL**
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
98.9
91.1
85.6
92.2
98.9
95.6
95.6
96.7
95.6
100.0
97.8



96.7

77.8 a
97.8
100.0
92.2
88.9
76.7 a,b
94.4
94.4
94.4



95.0




80.0
75.0



100.0



95.0

90.0


100.0

90.0


90.0



97.0









100.0

83.0 a
97.0
*AMPHIPOD CONTROL WAS A PERFORMANCE CONTROL CON I STING OF CLEAN SEDIMENT FROM
 LONG ISLAND SOUND, NY.
"THIS CONTROL WAS INCLUDED DUE TO THE RELATIVELY LOW INTERSTITIAL SALINITY
  ON THIS DATE.
a-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT (P=0.05) FROM THE CONTROL.
b-SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE REFERENCE SITE (STATION #9).

-------
                                                                                                             44
 TABLE 12.   EXCEEOANCES OF  MINIMA AND AVERAGE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN.*
EXCEEDANCES OF DO UOS-MINIMA
STATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
BRAYS- 1
BRAYS-3
GREENS -1
SIMS-1
SIMS-2
DATE
8/1/88
8/3/88
8/3/88
8/1/88
8/3/88
8/5/88

8/1/88
8/2/88
8/3/88
8/5/88
8/1/88
8/3/88

2/19/90
5/29/90
7/30/90
7/30/90
8/31/90
9/20/89
9/20/89
8/31/89
9/25/89
9/12/89
9/12/89
UOS
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0

3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
RANGE OF DEPTHS
EXCEEDING WQS (FEET)
10-40
10-40
15, 20
10-20
5-20
20

10, 15
1-45
1-45
1-40
25-45
25-40

36
35
10-30
10, 13
15
8, 16
10, 20
25
14, 27
10
13
EXCEEDANCES OF DO WQS-AVERAGE**
AVG. RANGE OF DEPTHS
DATE WQS CONC. EXCEEDING WQS (FEET)
8/1/88 2.0 1.26 1-25
8/3/88 2.0 1.18 1-30
8/1/88 2.0 1.79 1-30
8/1/88 4.0 3.27 1-20
8/3/88 4.0 3.11 1-20
8/1/88 4.0 3.45 1-22
8/3/88 4.0 3.44 1-24
8/1/88 4.0 3.02 1-15
8/3/88 4.0 3.45 1-15
8/2/88 4.0 2.24 1-40
8/3/88 4.0 2.26 1-40
8/5/88 4.0 2.16 1-25
8/1/88 4.0 3.61 1-35
8/3/88 4.0 3.41 1-40
8/3/88 4.0 3.84 1-35







•WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FROM TWC (1991); ALL WQS AND CONCENTRATIONS  IN  MG/L.

-------
                                                                                                          45
TABLE 13.  WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES FOR TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE.1
              STATION
DATE
TRC CONC.
(NG/L)
                          2/19/90
                          7/30/90
                          8/1/90
                0.1
                0.1
                0.1
                          5/30/90
                          7/31/90
                0.1
                0.1
               6

               7
               10
               11
8/2/88

7/30/90
8/1/90

1/13/89
7/31/90
8/1/90

2/19/90
7/30/90
8/1/90

2/21/90
7/30/90
8/1/90
0.15

TRACE (<0.1)
TRACE (<0.1)

0.5
0.1
0.1

TRACE (<0.1)
0.1
0.1

0.25
0.1
TRACE (<0.1)
               12
2/20/90
              (GREENS-3)  9/25/89
TRACE (<0.1)
TRACE (<0.1)
              •EPA ACUTE AND CHRONIC CRITERIA ARE
               0.013 MG/L AND 0.0075 NG/L,  RESPECTIVELY.

-------
TABLE 14.   CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS: CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS.
                                                                                                                         46
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*
ALKALINITY
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90
Jul-90

S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S
S
CONCENTRATION BY STATION (NG/L)
1 2

122
126 122
120
122
118 122
122
134 124
106 102
132 131
3


106


114

55
42
105
4 5


117 120


116 124

70 82
78 86
113 130
6

121
115
124
125
122
116
101
88
130
6 dup 7


122 121


122

117 106
88 88
132 130
8 9 10 11

83
118

114
114

98 102 170 188
98 104 114 184
128 107 160 174
FIELD
12 BLANK


6


<5

140 5
148 5
120 <5
AMMONIA (TOTAL)
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90
Jul-90
CHLORIDE
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90
S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S
S

S
c
B
S
C
B
S
S
TOTAL RESIDUAL
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90
Jul-90
CYANIDE
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90
Jul-90

S
c
B
S
C
B
S
S
S

S
c
B
S
C
B
S
S
S

0.80
0.51 0.36
0.27
0.71
0.64 0.53
0.43
0.84 0.69
0.15 0.07
0.18 0.31

12700
13000 7760
9580
8910
15700 13300
12900
3600 5110
198 566
CHLORINE

-------
TABLE  14.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF  AMBIENT WATERS: CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS.
          (CONTINUED)
47
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*
OIL & GREASE
Aug-88


Jan-89

Feb-90
May- 90
Jul-90
SULFATE
Aug-88

Jan-89

Feb-90
May- 90
SULFIDE
Aug-88

Jan-89

Feb-90
Jul-90
CONCENTRATION BY STATION (MG/L)


S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S
S

S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S

S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S
1

<5
<5
<5
79
7
63
<5
<5
<5

575
1590
1110
1300
1770
612
93

0.07
0.05
0.11
0.02
<0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
2


<5


33
16
<5
<5

1210


1700
675
146
,
0.05


0.01
0.02
3


<5


<5
<5
<5
<5

830


1280
17
62

0.07


<0.1
0.07
0.02
4


<5


<5
<5
<5
<5

1100


1320
220
121

0.08


0.02
0.04
0.01
5


<5


<5
<5
<5
<5

1330


1380
370
141

0.06


0.01
0.01
0.03
6

<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
7
<5
<5
<5

1960
1240
1970
1360
1420
1740
640
171

0.03
0.06
0.02
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
<0.01
6 dup


<5



<5
<5
<5

1510



660
142

0.03



0.04
0.01
7


<5


37
<5
<5
<5

1800


1570
750
171

0.04


0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Aug-88

Jan-89

Feb-90
May- 90
Jul-90
S
C
B
S
C
B
S
S
S
12000
14000
18000
15600
18500
21200
6000
679
5480
15300


20600
7550
1480
6770
11200


17700
495
425
5490
13900


19900
3440
1420
7780
15200


19700
4250
1720
7750
15900
17800
20600
20100
21700
23000
7150
1820
7530
17600



7450
1760
10600
20000


14200
9050
2160
8040
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Aug-88

Jan-89


Feb-90
May- 90
Jul-90
S
C
B
S
C

S
S
S
6
8
8
15
21
22
cc
24
27
9
14


25

44
32
8
8


20

15
26
12
11


18

33
17
12
12


18

36
30
9
16
21
47
17
22
16
30
51
10
21




27
57
8
28


24

31
63
11
8 9

<5
<5

6
8
<5 <5
<5 <5
<5 <5

1470
1520

1350
1640
725 250
34 30

0.06
0.02

0.01
<0.01
0.03 0.05
<0.01 <0.01

16000
21000

20200
23200
9900 3980
560 472
9500 4950

19
34

19
18

64 20
112 306
12 13
FIELD
10 11 12 BLANK


<5



<5 <5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5 <5

6


*
82 195 340 <1
45 126 71 <1

0.04



0.03 0.03 0.03 <0.01
0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01

536



1370 1320 9880 1
364 978 620 1
2490 1550 4410 <1

<2




9 78 20 <1
30 14 26 1
8 9 16 <1

-------
                                                                                                                  48
TABLE 14.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS: CONVENTIONAL  PARAMETERS.
           (CONTINUED)
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*


TOTAL ORGANIC
Aug-88 S
C
B
Jan- 89 S
C
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
Jul-90 S


1 2 3


CARBON
8
8 7 10
5
5
779
12 10 12
446
CONCENTRATION BY STATION (MG/L)

4 5 6 6 dup 7 8 9 10 11



4 4
7 6 4 5 <1 4
4
<1 <1
6
6 10 6 5 5 4 5 6 10
88776678 11
322232 <1 46

FIELD*
12 BLANK




1

. i
8 <1
1
*C • VERTICAL COMPOSITE SAMPLE
 S • SURFACE WATER GRAB SAMPLE
 B - BOTTOM GRAB SAMPLE

-------
 TABLE 15.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR BRAYS,  GREENS AND SINS BAYOUS,  SEPTEMBER  1989:
            DISSOLVED METALS AND CONVENTIONAL PRAMETERS.
                                                                                                                      49
CONCENTRATION BY STATION
BRAYS BAYOU
PARAMETER
DISSOLVED METALS (UG/L)
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
ALKALINITY
AMMONIA (TOTAL)
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
HARDNESS
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
1

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60
(MG/L)
168
1.26
<0.1
821
4140
17
2

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60

160
1.20
<0.1
1030
5740
21
3

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60

158
1.09
<0.1
1080
5930
26
GREENS BAYOU
1

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60

124
0.08
<0.1
1390
8380
22
2

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60

120
0.08
<0.1
1480
8760
32
3*

<60
<18.4
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<19.2
<10
<15.2
<60

118
0.03
<0.1
1690
10200
40
1

<60
<4.6
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<4.8
<10
<15.2
<60

184
1.12
<0.1
192
1100
13
SIMS BAYOU
2

<60
<4.6
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<4.8
<10
<15.2
<60

176
1.13
<0.1
387
2550
13
3*

<60
<4.6
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<4.8
<10
<15.2
<60

156
1.04
<0.1
548
3690
13
FIELD
BLANK

<60
<4.6
<5
<5
<10
<20
<30
<0.2
<20
<4.8
<10
<15.2
<60







•SIMS-3 AND GREENS-3 LOCATIONS WERE THE SAME AS STATION 1 STATIONS 11 AND 12, RESPECTIVELY;
NOTE: ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WERE NOT ANALYZED IN SEPTEMBER 1989.

-------
TABLE 16.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS: METALS.
50
PARAMETER/
STATION NUMBER
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE* 1
ALUMINUM
Aug-88


ANTIMONY
Aug-88

Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

ARSENIC
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

BARIUM
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
BERYLLIUM
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90

Jut -90


C <100
S <100
B <100

C <60
S
C <60
S <60
B <60
S <60
S <60
S/T <60
S <60
S/T <60

C <18.4
S <18.4
B <18.4
C <46
S <46
B <46
S <18
S 8.9
S/T 7.4
S 5.3
S/T <18

C 86
S 86
B 73
C 123
S 121
B 114
S 100

C <5
S <5
B <5
C <5
S <5
B <5
S <5
S <5
S/T <5
S <5
S/T <5
2

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
•
<46
-
-
<18
6.5
<4.6
5.2
<18

80
-
-
118
-
-
93

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
3

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18
<4.6
<4.6
5.3
<18

156
-
-
183
-
'
81

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
4

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18
<4.6
<4.6
<4.6
<18

103
-
-
173
-
-
81

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
•
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18
4.6
5.2
<4.6
<18

82
-
-
130
-
-
84

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
6

<100
<100
<100

<60

<60
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<46
<46
<46
<46
<46
<46
<18
<4.6
4.9
<4.6
<18

74
78
69
126
119
119
87

<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
6 dup

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<46
-
-
-
-
-
<18
<4.6
<4.6
<4.6
<18

75
-
-
-
-
-
87

<5
<5
<5
-
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
7

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18
<4.6
<4.6
<4.6
<18

70
-
•
167
-
-
87

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
8

<100
:
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60
<60
<60
<60
<60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18
<4.6
<4.6
<4.6
<18

69
-
-
116
-
-
80

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
9 10 11

.
<100
-

.
<100
.
.
.
<60 <60 <60
<60 <60 <60
<60 <60 <60
<60 <60 <60
<60 <60 <60

.
<18.4
.
-
<46
.
<18 <18 <18
<4.6 <4.6 <4.6
<4.6 <4.6 <4.6
<4.6 5.4 <4.6
<18 <18 <18

118
.
.
184
.
-
87 117 94

.
<5
-
.
<5
-
<5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5
FIELD
12 BLANK

<100
-
-

<60

<60
-
-
<60 <60
<60 <60
<60 <60
<60 <60
<60 <60

<18.4
-
-
<46
-
-
<18 <18
9.1 <4.6
11.3 <4.6
5.6 <4.6
<18 <18

<10
-
-
<10
-

143 <10

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5 <5
<5 <5
<5 <5
<5 <5
<5 <5

-------
TABLE 16.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS: METALS.
          (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                            51
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*
CADMIUM
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
S/T
CHROMIUM
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
S/T
COBALT
Aug-88 C
S
B
COPPER
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
S/T
IRON
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S

1

«5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

10
11
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
*10

<20
<20
<20

<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<10
<20
<20

44
68
32
<25
<25
<25
<25

2

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

<10
-
-
<10
-
-
<10
<10
<10
^10
<10

<20
-
-

<20
-
-
<20
-
-
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20

33
-
-
<25
-
-
<25

3

<5
•
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

<10
•
-
<10
-
-
•00
<10
<1Q
<10
<10

<20
-
-

<20
-
-
<20
-
-
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20

<25
-
-
<25
-
-
284

4

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

<5
-
-
<10
-
-
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10

<20
-
-

<20
-
-
<20
-
-
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20

<25
-
-
<25
-
-
<25

5

<5
-
-
<5
-
-
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

<10
-
-
<10
-
-
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10

<20
-
-

<20
-
-
<20
-
-
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20

28
-
-
<25
-
-
<25
STATION NUMBER
6 6 dup 7

<5 <5 <5
<5 <5
<5 <5
<5 - <5
<5
<5
<5 <5 <5
<5 <5 <5
<5 
-------
TABLE 16.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS: METALS.
          (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                            52
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*
LEAD
Aug-88 C
S
8
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
S/T
MANGANESE
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
MERCURY
Aug-88 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
NICKEL
Aug-88 C
S
B
Jan-89 C
S
B
Feb-90 S
May-90 S
S/T
Jul-90 S
S/T
STATION NUMBER
1

<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<5
9.2
<5
<5

83
96
53
51
68
23
79

<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

29
29
<20
<20
<20
<20
<10
7.6
<6
<6
7.1
2

<30
-
—
123
-
•
<30
<5
6.4
<5
<5

77
-
-
31
-
-
70

O.2
-
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

33
-
-
<20
-
-
<10
<6
6.9
<6
6.1
3

<30
-
.
<30
-
»
<30
<5
5.2
<5
<5

136
-
-
12
-
-
12

<0.2
-
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

36
-
-
<20
-
-
<10
<6
<6
<6
<6
4

<30
-
.
<30
-
.
<30
<5
6.2
<5
<5

75
-
-
28
-
-
34

<0.2
-
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

<20
-
-
<20
-
-
<10
<6
6.5
<6
<6
5

<30
•
.
<30
•
.
<30
<5
5.7
<5
<5

67
-
-
26
-
-
35

<0.2
-
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

27
-
-
<20
-
-
<10
<6
8.3
<6
<6
6

<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<5
5.4
<5
<5

36
65
11
25
43
<5
43

<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2

30
27
<20
<20
<20
<20
<10
<6
<6
<6
6.1
6 dup

<30
-
-
<30
-
-
<30
<5
5.2
<5

-------
TABLE 16.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT WATERS:  METALS.
           (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                                      53
PARAMETER/
DATE/
SAMPLE TYPE*
SELENIUM
Aug-88
Jan-89
Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

SILVER
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

THALLIUM
Aug-88


Jan-89


Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

ZINC
Feb-90
May-90

Jul-90

VANADIUM
Aug-88


STATION NUMBER

C
S
B
C
S
B
S
S
S/T
S
S/T

C
S
B
C
S
B
S
S
S/T
S
S/T

C
S
B
C
S
B
S
S
S/T
S
S/T

S
S
S/T
S
S/T

C
S
B
1
60
<48
<48
<48
<48
<19
<20
<20
<4.8
<48

<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10

<3.8
<3.8
<3.8
<76
<76
<76
<15
<3.8
<3.8
<3.8
<38

32
<30
<30
<40
<40

<30
<30
<30
2 3
<48 <48
<48 <48
<19 <19
<20 <20
<20 <20
<4.8 <4.8
<48 <48

<10 <10
-
-
<10 <10
.
-
<10 <10
<10 <10
<10 <10
<10 <10
<10 «10

<3.8 <3.8
-
-
<76 <76
-
-
<15 <15
<5 <5
<3.8 <3.8
<3.8 <3.8
<38 <38

30 51
<30 <30
<30 <30
<40 <40
<40 <40

<30 <30


•
<48
<19
<20
<20
<4.8
<48

<5
-
-
<10
-
-
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10

<3.8
-
-
<76
•
- '
<15
<5
<3.8
<3.8
<38

19
<30
<30
<40
<40

<30


5
<48
<48
<19
<20
<20
<4.8
<48


-------
TABLE 17.  DISSOLVED METAL CONCENTRATIONS FOR AMBIENT WATER COLLECTED IN
           JANUARY 1991.
                                                                                                         54
CONCENTRATION IN UG/L
STATION OR SITE
1
2
4
6
8
FIELD BLANK
«nnrkc
DATE
1/14
1/14
1/14
1/14
1/14
1/8
ARSENIC
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
COPPER
4.9
4.2
9.2
3.5
7.2
2.3
MERCURY
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
NICKEL
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22

-------
TABLE  18.   SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS EXCEEDED.


PARAMETER
AMMONIA
(UNIONIZED)
ARSENIC


COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MANGANESE

NICKEL
SELENIUM
CRITERIA

TYPE*
EPA- AQUATIC LIFE

ERA-HUMAN HEALTH
(1 x 10-5)

STATE UQS
STATE UQS
STATE WOS
EPA- AQUATIC LIFE
(U.S. EPA 1976)
STATE UQS
STATE UQS

WAI lie
VALUE
(UG/L)
35

1.4


4.37
5.6
5.6
100

13.2
54

CAUDI C
oAJIrLt
DATE
MAY-90
JUL-90
MAY-90
•
JUL-90
JAN-91
JAN -89
JAN-89
AUG-88
FEB-90
AUG-88
AUG-88
^flUPCUTDATmU QV CTATtflU /tW*/l \
CONCcNTKATlUN BT 5TAT ION (Uu/L/
TYPE** 123456789 10
S/T

S/D 8.9 6.5
S/T 7.4 4.6
S/D 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.4
S/D 4.9 9.2 7.2
C/T 30
C/D 123
C/D 136
S/D
C/D 29 33 36 27 30 26 20 34
C/D 60


11 12
38
53
9.1
11.3
5.6




164


•AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA ARE CHRONIC VALUES FOR MARINE WATERS; CHRONIC CRITERIA NOT ENTIRELY
 APPLICABLE IN SEGMENTS 1006 (STATIONS 1, 2, 12) AND 1007 (STATIONS 10,  12) DUE THE
 LACK OF A DESIGNATED AQUATIC LIFE USE.
**C=VERTICAL COMPOSITE; S-SURFACE GRAB; D=DISSOLVED; T=TOTAL, UHOLE UATER.
                                                                                                                                                      Ul
                                                                                                                                                      Ln

-------
                                                                     56
 TABLE  19.
CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  AMBIENT  WATERS:
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS.
      ORGANIC
 DATE/
 STATION*
COMPOUND**
CONCENTRATION
   (UG/L)
Aucr-88

1


1 Surface



1 Bottom

2

3


4

5
6 Duplicate


6 Surface

6 Bottom

7

8

9

Field Blank



Jan-89

1
1 Unknown Compound  (ABN)
2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)  Phthalate
1 Unknown Compound  (ABN)
2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)  Phthalate
1 Unknown Compound  (ABN)

ND

Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)  Phthalate
5 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

1 Unknown Compound  (ABN)
2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

2-Methoxy-2-Methyl-Propane  (VOC)***

ND

Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)  Phthalate

ND

ND

Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)  Phthalate
18 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
(17 of Which are Phthalates)
2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
1,1,2-Tridecane (ABN)***
     4
    38.1

    18
     4
    42.3

     9.8

     7.6

    15
     7
     8
     4-94
    76.2

    21.8

     5
    30.1

    30.5
    46
   709****
    63-530
     8,32
    17

-------
                                                                     57
TABLE 19  (CONTINUED)
STATION
1
1 Surface
1 Bottom
2
3
4
5
6
6 Surface
6 Bottom
7
8
9
Field Blank
Feb-90
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 Duplicate
7
COMPOUND
Chloroform
2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
Chloroform
ND
4 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 Unknowns (ABN)
ND
ND
ND
ND

1 Unknown Compound (ABN)
C6H12 Isomer (VOC)***
1 Unknown Hydrocarbon (VOC)
Chloroform
1 Unknown Compound (ABN)
Chloroform
ND
Unknown Hydrocarbon (VOC)
2-Methoxy-2-Methylpropane (VOC)**
ND
1 Unknown Comound (ABN)
1 Unknown Compound (ABN)
CONC.
3
13,41
4.6

4-43





4,35





13
5.9
3.7
9
4.6

7.1
7.8

4
4
                                                               6.5

-------
                                                                    58
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)

STATION        COMPOUND

               ND

               ND
                                                       CONG.
8

9

10
11
12



Field Blank

Mav-90

1
3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

10
1 Unknown Compound (ABN)
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Chlorodibromomethane

2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
2 Unknown Hydrocarbons  (VOC)

1 Unknown Compound (ABN)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform

ND
               Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
               Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
               6 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
               2,6-Dinitrotoluene

               6 Unknown or Tent. Ident. Comp. (ABN)
               (Includes 2 Dimethyl Benzene Isomers
               and 1 Trimethyl Isomer)

               Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

               1 Unknown Compound (ABN)

               1 Unknown Compound (ABN)

               2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)
                     ;
               1 Unknown Compound (ABN)

               1 Unknown Compound (ABN)

               Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
               1 Unknown Compound (ABN)

               Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
               Chloroform
               Bromodichloromethane
               Chlorodibromomethane
5
9.3
6.7
2.7

5,28
6.3
2.4
5.1,7.6

7
3.8
3.6
                                          6
                                         25
                                          5-9
                                          8

                                          4-6
                                         12

                                         32

                                         23

                                          4,30

                                         28

                                         26

                                          2
                                          6

                                         19
                                         12
                                          7.8
                                          3.1

-------
                                                                    59
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)

STATION        COMPOUND                                CONC.

11             Di-n-Butyl Phthalate                      4
               Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate             28
               11 Unknown Compounds  (ABN)                4-140

12             Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate             11
               Alpha-BHC                                 0.125
12             Ganuna-BHC (Lindane)                       0.041

Field Blank    ND

Jul-90

1              10 Unknown Compounds  (ABN)                4-43
               Chloroform                                3.6

2              6 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 6-41
               Chloroform                                2.7

3              2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 4,9

4              1 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 7

5              7 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 4-26
               Chloroform                                2.3

6              7 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 4-23
               Chloroform                                2.3

7              10 Unknown Compounds  (ABN)                4-51

8              13 Unknown Compounds  (ABN)                4-35

9              ND

10             1 Unknown Compound  (ABN)                  5
               Chloroform                               15.6
               Bromodichloromethane                     11
               Chlorodibromomethane                      4.8

11             4 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 5-43
               Chloroform                                4.7

12             2 Unknown Compounds (ABN)                 5,6
               Chloroform                                2.1

Field Blank    l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-Trifluoro-          6
               methane  (VOC)***

-------
                                                                    60
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
*Aug-88 and Jan-89 data are for vertical composite samples, except
where specified  otherwise;  data  for later dates are  for surface
water.

**0nly parameters which were  detected  were listed;  ABN=acid/base
neutral compound; VOC=volatile organic compound.

***Tentatively identified compound.

****pield  blank  water  was  exceptionally  high  in  phthalates
resulting from storage of water in plastic cubitainers.

-------
TABLE 20.  CHEMICAL  ANALYSIS  OF SEDIMENTS:  METALS AND CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS.
                                                                                                                     61
PARAMETER/
DATE
ALUMINUM
Aug-88
Jul-90
ANTIMONY
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
ARSENIC
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
BARIUM
Aug-88
Jul-90
BERYLLIUM
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
CADMIUM
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
CHROMIUM
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
COBALT
Aug-88
Jul-90
COPPER
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
IRON
Aug-88
Jul-90
LEAD
Aug-88
Jan-89
Jul-90
MANGANESE
Aug-88
Jul-90
CONCENTRATION BY STATION (MG/KG DRY WEIGHT)
12345678

21603 24188 2153 3080 6473 9093 24293 11650


<16.8 <19.2 <8 <6.2 <7.5 <7.9 <18.4 <10.9
<7.9 <15.8 <5.8 15.8 <7.9 <14.1 <15.7 <9.3


<4.5 <5.7 <2.2 <2.3 <2.6 <2.6 <6.1 <3.2
<3.6 <4.8 <2.7 <3.3 <2.4 <4.3 <4.2 <3.9


300 206 16 23 51 65 206 122


<1.4 <1.6 <0.7 <0.5 <0.6 <0.7 <1.5 <0.9
<0.7 <1.3 <0.5 <1.3 <0.7 <1.2 <1.3 <0.8


<1.4 <1.6 <0.7 <0.5 <0.6 <0.7 <1.5 <0.9
<0.7 <1.3 <0.5 <1.3 <0.7 <1.2 <1.3 <0.8


59 56 5 6 12 14 41 18
26 37 3 22 6 21 18 15


8 10 <2.7 <2.1 3 4 9 5


31 23 <2.7 3 5 6 15 8
20 20 3 16 7 17 15 12


18769 21451 2489 2943 6106 7541 21731 11053


39 31 5 7 8 8 23 9
34 31 5 25 19 30 25 19
•

313 780 84 58 205 329 1528 496


9 11 12

963
23800 15600

<7.8
<5.3
<81 <59

<2.0
<2.5
5.1 4.8

6
206 356

<0.6
<0.4
<7 <5

<0.6
<0.9
<7 <5

2
2
57 21

<2.6
9 9

<2.6
2
48 21
""
1634
19200 14700

5
3
<40 <29

54
382 361

-------
 TABLE 20.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS: METALS AND CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
            (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                                      62
 PARAMETER/
 DATE
                                          CONCENTRATION BY STATION (MG/KG DRY WEIGHT)
                                                                                                           11
                                                                                                    12
MERCURY
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
                 <0.3
                 <0.2
 0.3
<0.3
                                               <0.3
                                                  0.5
                    <0.2
                    <0.2
                                                                                      <0.2
                                                                                      <0.2
                                                                                                          0.4
                                                                                                  <0.2
NICKEL
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
  16
  13
                             19
                             14
                                     <2.7
                       2
                       8
   6
<2.6
                                                                     6
                                                                     9
  18
   7
   9
   7
                                                                                                <2.6
                                                                                                           22
                                                                                                    15
SELENIUM
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
                                     <0.6
                                     <0.7
                    <0.6
                     0.9
<0.7
<0.6
                                                                  <0.7
                                                                     <0.8
                                                                                                <0.5
                                                                                                <0.7
                                                                                                          <23
SILVER
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90

THALLIUM
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
                 <2.8
                 <7.6
<3.2
<2.6
                            1.2
                                     <0.5
                                     <5.7
                                               <2.6
                    <0.5
                      <7
                                        <0.6
           1.3
          <2.4
          <0.5
            <9
                                                           <2.6
                                                           <8.8
                                                                                      <0.7
                                                                                      <8.2
                                                                                                <0.9
                    <0.4
                    <5.2
                                                                                        <9.4
                                                                                                                    6.6
VANADIUM
    Aug-88
    Jul-90
                   28
            33
                                                                    13
                                                                              35
                                                             18
                                        <3.9
                                                                                                           43
                                                                                                    31
ZINC
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
                  152
                  134
           144
           140
                                       17
                                       26
                      33
                     135
  38
 695
                                                                    32
                                                                   245
  91
 109
  44
  84
   9
  32
                                                                                                          229
                                                                                                   155
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
CYANIDE
    Aug-88

SULFUR*
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
    Jul-90
                 30.1
                  137
            27
           126
                                     16.5
                                     6.16
                    8.86
                    56.2
13.7
 4.9
                                                                  23.8
                                                                  36.1
  12
67.6
16.5
90.1
  ND
3.65
                                                                                                           23
                                                                                                    18
TOC
    Aug-88
    Jan-89
3590
3410
                           3310
                           1750
                                      323
                                      728
                     515
                    1650
 734
 923
                                                                  1220
                                                                  1540
1500
1690
1550
1780
 251
 542
•TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED USING EPA METHOD  625.

-------
TABLE 21. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS: ORGANIC CHEMICALS*.
STATION   COMPOUND                      CONCENTRATION  (UG/KG DRY WT)


11        PHENANTHRENE                               506
          FLUORANTHENE                               737
          PYRENE                                     782
          BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE            15,200
          CHLORDANE                                  381
          16 UNKNOWN COMPOUNDS  (ABN)               2,200-23,000
          1 UNKNOWN HYDROCARBON                      300

12        BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE               972
          4,4'-DDE                                     20
          4,4'-DDT                                   230
          11 UNKNOWN COMPOUNDS  (ABN)                 800-18,000


"DATA FOR JULY  1990;  NO ORGANICS DETECTED AT OTHER SAMPLING STATIONS/TIMES,

-------
TABLE 22.  SEDIMENT QUALITY PERCENTILES EXCEEDED.

PARAMETER
CHROMIUM
COPPER
MERCURY
NICKEL
ZINC
PHENANTHRENE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BIS(ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CHLORDANE
DDE
DDT

REFERENCE; PERCENTILE LEVEL
TWC (1988b); 85THX
I WC (19886); 85THX
TWC (19886); 85THX
TWC (19886); 85THX
TWC (19886); 85THX
U.S. EPA (1979); 85THX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
GREENSPUN AND TAYLOR (1979); 85THX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
TWC (1988b); 85thX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
TWC (19886); 85thX
GREENSPUN AND TAYLOR (1979); 85THX
STAPLES et al. (1985); SOTHX
TWC (19886); SSthX
GREENSPUN AND TAYLOR (1979); SSTHX
If A f 1 1C
VALUC
(MG/KG)
36
34
0.30
19
140
170
0.5
0.5
O.S
1
8.9
0.002
0.001145
0.0001
0.0065
0.018
0.0001
0.008
0.019
CONCENTRATION BY STATION (MG/KG)
DATE 1 2 5 6 11 12
1/89 37
7/90 «8
8/88 0.3
7/90 o.4
8/88 19
7/90 22
8/88 152 144
1/89 140 695 245
7/90 229 155
7/90 0.506
7/90 0.737
7/90 0.782
7/90 is.2
7/90 0.381
7/90 0.020
7/90 0.230
                                                                                                                                                          01

-------
                                                                     65
TABLE 23.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF EDIBLE FISH AND CRAB TISSUE:  HEAVY
           METALS AND ORGANIC  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS.
DATE/
STATION/                                             CONCENTRATION
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION*       CONTAMINANTS                (MG/KG)***


Aua-88

STATION 1

Blue Crab                 Arsenic                          0.3
fCallinectes sapidus)     Chromium                         0.75
N=7; CW-Not Recorded      Copper                           9.8a
Lipid Content=0.595%      Cyanide                         <0.5l
                          Selenium                        14b
                          Zinc                            27

STATION 2

Sea Catfish               Arsenic                          0.25b
(Arius felis)             Chromium                         0.65
N=5; TL=27.9 cm           Copper                           0.48a-c
Lipid=1.995%              Cyanide                         <0.51
                          Mercury                          0.11
                          Zinc                            24
                          Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate     l.2d

Blue Crab                 Arsenic                          0.39
(Callinectes sapidus)     Chromium                         1.9
N=7; CW=14.5 cm           Copper                           5.9°
Lipid Content=0.418%      Zinc                            32
                          Tetrachloroethene                0.02lc

STATION 3

Blue Crab                 Chromium                         0.68
(Callinectes sapidus)     Copper                           7.6a
N=7; CW=12.8 cm           Cyanide                         <0.51
Lipid Content=0.395%      Silver                           0.48b'c
                          Zinc                            41
                          Dichloromethane                  0.091

STATION 4

Sea Catfish               Antimony                         4b
(Arius felis)             Arsenic                          0.36b
N=5; TL=28.0 cm           Chromium                         1.1
Lipid Content=2.385%      Copper                           1.5a
                          Cyanide                          1.48
                          Lead                             5.5

-------
                                                                     66
TABLE 23  (CONTINUED)

STATION/DESCRIPTION

STATION 4, Cont'd...
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=7; CW=14.7 cm
Lipid Content=0.795%
STATION 6

Sea Catfish
(Arius felisl
N=5; TL-Not Recorded
Lipid Content=1.995
DUPLICATE-FISH
Sea Catfish
(Arius felisl
N=5; TL-Not Recorded
Lipid Content=1.995%
Blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=7; CW-Not Recorded
Lipid Content=0.596%
DUPLICATE-CRAB
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=7; CW-Not Recorded
Lipid Content=0.394%
CONTAMINANTS

Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
DDE

Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
DDE

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
DDE

Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethene

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Silver
Zinc
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethene
CONG.
 36
  0.450d'e
  0.031

  1.7
  7.2s
  4.9C
  1.5b
 37
  0.27d'e
  3.8"
  1.0b
  1.4
  1.2a
  7.8
  0.86b
 21
  0.32d'e
  0.1

  0.6b
  0.48C
  0.54a
  0.11
 23
  0.33d'c
  0.084

  4.2b
  1.3
  5.9a
  6.7
  1.2b
 33
  0.37d'e
  0.32d'e
  0.035

  0.52
  0.68
  7a

 <0.51
  0.52b
 35
  0.12d
  0.03

-------
                                                                    67
TABLE 23  (CONTINUED)

STATION/DESCRIPTION

STATION 8

Sea Catfish
fArius felisl
N=5; TL=29.2 cm
Lipid Content=1.986%
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=6; CW=14.4 cm
Lipid Content=1.583%
CONTAMINANTS
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
DDE
Dichloromethane
Toluene

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Dichloromethane
Diethyl Phthalate
STATION 9 (Reference Site)
Sea Catfish
(Arius felis)
N=5; TL=27.1 cm
Lipid Content=1.194%
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=7; CW=16.2 cm
Lipid Content=0.396%
Jan-89

STATION 1

Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=5; CW-Not Recorded
Lipid Content=0.79%
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Dichloromethane
        »
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Diethyl Phthalate
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Selenium
CONG.
  3.3b
  2.4b
 . 1
  1.1"
  5.2
  0.63b
 29
  0.67d'e
  0.023
  0.05
  0.013e

  0.68
  0.84
  5.8a
  5.8
  0.61b
  0.66b
 36
  0.73d'e
  0.0186
  1.7d
  4.2°
  0.64
  0.81a
  0.56
 23
  0.33d'6
  0.05

  0.25
  0.65
  6.2a
 36
  1.0d-e
  0.95b
 12a
  9.8
 <0.5

-------
                                                                     68
TABLE 23  (CONTINUED)

STATION/DESCRIPTION

STATION 1, Cont'd...
STATION 2

Spot**
(Leiostomus xanthurusl
N=3; TL=23.5 cm
Lipid Content=0.4%
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=5; CW=15.3 cm
Lipid Content=0.58%
STATION 3

White Bass**
(Morone crysops)
N=5; TL=30.4 cm
Lipid Content=1.19%
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=5; CW=14.9 cm
Lipid Content=0.39%
CONTAMINANTS

Silver
Zinc
Chloroform
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDE
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Silver
Zinc
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Chloroform
Di-n-Butyl Phthaiate
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyandide
Selenium
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Toluene
CONG.

  1.2b
 51
  0.037
  0.077
  0.064
  0.028
  0.0236
  0.38°
  1.1"
  2.4C
  1.02
  0.56C
 15
  0.066
  0.34

  0.54b
  1.4a
  6.6
 <0.5
  l.l8
  0.9b'c
 38
  0.045
  0.5
  0.034
  0.015e
  0.042e
  0.5b
  l.O8
  2.1C
  0.6
  0.1
  0.86
  7.6
  0.29d'e
  0.033

  0.43b
  1.2a
  6.9
 <0.5
  0.568
 32
  0.23C
  0.0266

-------
                                                                    69
TABLE 23  (CONTINUED)

STATION/DESCRIPTION

STATION 4

White Bass**
(Morone crysops)
N=5; TL=29.3 cm
Lipid Content=1.57%
STATION 4, Cont'd...
Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus)
N=5; CW=16.4 cm
Lipid Content=1.38%
STATION 6

Striped Mullet
(Mugil cephalus)
N=l; TL=44.2 cm
Lipid Content=2.58%
STATION 8

Red Drum**
fSciaenops ocellatus)
N=4; TL=40.8 cm
Lipid Content=0.4%
STATION 9

Spotted Seatrout
(Sciaenops ocellatus)
N=8; TL=25.2 cm
Lipid Content=1.34%
CONTAMINANTS
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc

Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Zinc
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethene
DDE
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Selenium
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Selenium
Zinc
CONG.
  0.37b
  1.1°
  1.4C
  0.69
  0.22
  0.96
  7.5

  0.46
  0.85a'c
 10
 <0.5
  1.1"
  0.83b'c
 35
  0.23C
  0.33C
  0.0346
  l.l8
  0.94C
  0.73
  6.8
  0.026
  0.023
  0.071
  0.58-c
  0.88C
  0.53
  0.87
  4.8
  0.92a'c
  0.94C
  1.83
  0.93
  7.0

-------
                                                                    70
TABLE 23 (CONTINUED)

   *TL=Average total length; CW=Average carapace width.

  **Due to limited fish numbers, these samples contained other
   species as described below:

     Station 2 included one striped mullet;
     Station 3 included one yellow bass; and
     Station 4 included one spot and one striped mullet.
     Station 8 included one striped mullet.

***The following footnotes relate to the analytical results:

     •indicates  duplicate  analysis  is  not within  control limits;
     blndicates  sample  recovery  not within  control  limits;
     clndicates  detected value between contract required detection
      limit and the instrument detection limit;
     Indicates  possible contamination due  to presence  of
      contaminant in blank; and
     'Estimated  value,  used when the  mass  spectral  data indicates
      the presence of a compound that meets the identification
      criteria but the  result  is less than the specified detection
      limit.

-------
                                                                                                           71
 TABLE 24.  TISSUE  CRITERIA  FOR  CONTAMINANTS DETECTED IN EDIBLE FISH AND CRAB TISSUE*.


PARAMETER
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM (III)
COPPER
MERCURY
LEAD
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
CYANIDE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
ODD
DDE
DICHLOROMETHANE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE


CARCINOGEN
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES***
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO


q1* OR RfD
RfD=0.0004
q1*»1.75
RfD=1
-
RfD=0.0003
-

Rf 0=0.003
-
RfD=0.02
q1*=0.014
q1*=0.0061
q1*=0.34
q1*«0.24
q1*=0.0075
RfD*0.1
RfD=0.8

RfD=0.2
RfO=0.09


DATE
(1/87)
(6/21/88)
(3/88)

(2/89)
(10/89)

(6/88)

(3/88)
(2/89)
(6/88)
(8/88)
(9/88)
(1/89)
(1/87)
(9/87)
(10/80)
(8/90)
(6/88)
TISSUE CRITERIA (MG/KG)
NON- CARCINOGEN FDA
OGEN 10-5 10-4 LEVEL
1.87
0.027 0.27
4667
-
1.0
0.833**
5.4
1*
-
93.3
3.33 33.3
7.65 76.5
0.137 1.37
0.194 1.94
6.22 62.2
467
3733
1.17 11.7
933
420
*SOURCE OF TISSUE CRITERIA (EXCEPT LEAD): EPA-REGION 4 (1991); CALCULATED USING LATEST ql* OR RfD
 AND FISH CONSUMPTION RATE OF 15 G/DAY.
••LEVEL OF CONCERN FOR LEAD DEVELOPED BY TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND TEXAS WATER COMMISSION.

-------
 TABLE  25.  SUMMARY OF  CHEMICAL DATA  FOR  EDIBLE  FISH AND CRAB TISSUE*.
                                                                                                                    72



SAN JACINTO
RIVER TIDAL


PARAMETER
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUM
SILVER
ZINC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
DDD
DDE
DICHLOROMETHANE
D I ETHYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
TOLUENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
SEGMENT

CRAB

0.28
1.11
7.93
-0.44
3.1

0.54
0.77
36.3
0.32



0.032

0.4
0.021


1001

FISH
2.33
0.41
1.07
1.67
0.92
3.5
0.12
0.69
0.5
17.0
0.27


0.017


0.34

0.019

TISSUE
HSC/SAN
RIVER
SEGMENT

CRAB
3.0
1.01
1.03
6.03
-0.34
4.8


0.78
32.3
0.53


0.014
0.97

0.3
0.084


CONCENTRATION (MG/KG WET WEIGHT)
JACINTO

1005

FISH
2.2
0.85
0.90
0.93
0.4
4.1
0.06
0.37
0.45
16.9
0.337

0.022
0.045
0.025



0.015
0.019
HOUSTON
CHANNEL
SEGMENT

CRAB

0.55
4.01
8.03
-0.44


4.11
0.65
37.0

0.027
0.056
0.052


0.463
0.022
0.013
0.024
SHIP

1006

FISH

0.32
0.88
1.44
-0.77

0.08

0.41
19.5
0.69






0.039
0.176


TRINITY BAY
SEGMENT 2544

CRAB FISH

0.25 2.16
0.65 0.78
6.2 0.88
1.2


0.59

36.0 15.0
0.253



0.33
1.0






FISH
TISSUE
rPITPDTA
vKI 1 CK1A
(MG/KG)
1.87
0.27
4667
-
93.3
0.833
1.0
5.4
14
-
33.3
76.5
1.37
1.94
62.2
3733
467
933
420
11.7
*AVERAGE VALUES FOR FISH AND CRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED AT STATIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE SEGMENTS; VALUES
ARE LISTED IF THE PARAMETER WAS DETECTED IN ONE OR MORE SAMPLES FROM A GIVEN SEGMENT; WHERE A
PARAMETER WAS NOT DETECTED, ONE-HALF THE DETECTION LIMIT WAS USED IN CALCULATING THE AVERAGE; SEE
PREVIOUS TABLES LISTING ALL DETECTED VALUES AND DESCRIBING TISSUE CRITERIA.

-------
                                         73





APPENDICES

-------
                                                                   74
Appendix 1

Biological Survey  of Shoreline  Nekton Communities of  the Lower
Houston Ship Channel and Adjacent Waters  (TWC segments 1001, 1005,
1006 and 2422), August 1988 and January 1989.

-------
                                                             75
  Biological Survey of Shoreline Nekton Communities
of the Lower Houston Ship Channel and Adjacent Waters
       (TWC  segments  1006,  1001,  1005  and  2422)
            August 1988  and January 1989

          Performed in partial fulfillment
               of  EPA Section  104(b)(3)
               Grant No. X-006425-01-2
                  George J. Guillen
                         and
                  Richard D. Seiler

                Texas  Water Commission
              Field Operations Division
                     District 7
                    Houston,  Texas
                    April 8, 1991

-------
                                                                   76
                             ABSTRACT

The  most  recent comprehensive  characterization  of the  nekton
communities of the  lower portion (TWC segments 1006 and 1005) of
Houston  Ship  Channel  (HSC)  was last conducted by  Chambers and
Sparks (1959). During that study they found very few organisms in
the  HSC  above the  confluence of  the San  Jacinto River.   Data
collected by the Texas Water Commission monitoring program at two
water intake structures  during the 1970's indicated that segment
1006 generally had a higher number of species annually than segment
1007  (TDWR  1980) .   Little or  no data has been  collected  on the
nekton communities  of  the lower or  upper  (TWC segment  1007) HSC
since the late 1950's.

The  purpose of this  survey  was to  determine if there  were any
identifiable trends in nekton  abundance  that  might be related to
monitored water quality in segments 1006 ,1005 and 1001.  Shoreline
nekton communities were sampled during August 1988 and January 1989
with gillnets  and seines.  Numbers of individuals per taxa, numbers
of taxa  and total number of organisms were  tabulated.   Shannon-
Weiner diversity (H1)  and evenness  indices  (J)  were calculated for
each  gillnet  and  seine  sample.   Water  temperature  (C),  pH,
conductivity (uMHOS), salinity (ppt), dissolved oxygen (ppm), and
secchi disc turbidity (in.) were  also measured  during  sampling
events.

Segment 1006 generally exhibited lower salinities whereas segment
1001 and 2422  exhibited higher  salinities. Higher dissolved oxygen
(DO)  levels were observed  during  January  1989 sampling  at all
segments than  in August  1988.  DO was not significantly different
between segments 1005 and 1006  during both August 1988 and January
1989.  DO  levels were significantly  higher  in segments  1001 and
2422 when compared to segments 1005 and 1006.

Highest and lowest  gillnet catch rates were observed in segments
2422 and 1006 respectively.  Higher number of taxa were collected
in segment 1001 during August 1988.   The sea catfish, Arius felis.
was numerically dominant in all segments during August 1988.  The
blue crab was also numerically abundant in segments 1001 and 1006
during August  1988.   Blue crab  and/or Gulf  menhaden,  Brevoortia
patronus dominated January 1989 catches.

Overall,  lower total number of organisms were observed in January
1989 seine collections.  The highest total number of organisms were
collected in segments  1001 and 2422.  The highest cumulative number
of species collected occurred in segment 1001.  Segments 1005 and
1006 had similar number  of taxa.   Gulf menhaden was prevalent in
January  1989 seine  catches.   August  1989  seine collections were
generally dominated  by bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) .  Significant
positive correlations between number of taxa, H1, J and dissolved
oxygen were observed.   These  correlations were  strongly related to
similar spacial trends between stations.

Based on similar  biological  and  hydrological  characteristics and

-------
                                                                   77
presence of  a commercial blue  crab fishery observed  in segment
1006, the previously  established  aquatic habitat use designation
for segment 1006 may need to be reevaluated.
                           IOTROKHJCTXOBJ

The  most  recent  comprehensive  characterization  of the  nekton
communities of the lower portion of Houston Ship Channel (HSC) was
last conducted by Chambers and Sparks  (1959).  During that study
they found very few  organisms  in the HSC above the confluence of
the San Jacinto River.   Little or no data has  been collected on the
nekton communities of  the lower  (TWC  segments  1006  and 1005)  or
upper (segment 1007)  HSC since the late 1950"s. Data collected by
the Texas Water Commission monitoring program at two water intake
structures during the 1970"s indicated that segment 1006 generally
had a higher  number  of species annually  than segment 1007 (TDWR
1980).   Since then gradual improvements in  overall water quality
have been documented through reductions in conventional pollutant
loading and  increased  levels  of  dissolved  oxygen  (EPA  1980 and
Kirkpatrick 1987),

In conjunction with  the hydrological, chemical and toxicological
data  collected   during  the  current   overall   survey  updated
information on the shoreline nekton communities inhabiting the HSC
and  San  Jacinto  River was  needed.    Ecological  surveys  provide
information  on  long-term  cumulative  impacts  of  physical  and
chemical alterations  of water quality  and associated habitat on
aquatic life.  This information complements short-term surveys of
existing water and sediment quality.   Shoreline nekton communities
were selected  for several  reasons  over other components  of the
ecosystem.  Fish and  macroinvertebrates are normally higher in the
food chain and therefore  temporally integrate effects  on lower
trophic  levels  (e.g.   benthic  organisms  and  herbivores).    In
addition,  due  to  dredging activities  and  ship  traffic  benthic
communities would be  heavily influenced and  potentially confound
any  water quality  related  trends.    Finally  the  taxonomy  and
identification of fish and common  macroinvertebrates  is  fairly
simple and facilitates  quick determination of species abundance.
Shoreline nekton communities were  sampled  during August 1988 and
January 1989  with  gillnets and seines.  Nekton communities were
sampled at designated stations located in segments 1001,  1005, 1006
and 2422  during  these two months.   Additional  sampling stations
were also  established in segments 1001 and  1006 to provide more
spatial coverage (Table  1).

A total of  3  sampling stations  per segment were  sampled with a 15
ft. minnow seine in segments 1001,  1005, and  1006  (n=9)  (Table 1).
Only 1 station  (station  9)  was  sampled  in  segment 2422.  At each

-------
Table 1. Nekton sampling stations monitored during August 1988 and January 1989.
STATION GILL/SEINE SEGMENT ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION
1
1A
2
3
3A
4
6
7
8
9
10
G/S
S
G/S
G/S
S
G/S
G/S
S
G/S
G/S
G
1006 Greens Bayou confluence
1006 State monitoring station 1006.0125, Lat./Long. 29 44' 16 N / 95 06' 36 W
1006 HSC at the San Jacinto Monument
1001 San Jacinto River at the Cafe
1001 San Jacinto River at the Railroad Bridge (0.75 miles due north of 1-10)
1 001 San Jacinto River at 1-1 0
1 005 San Jacinto River (HSC) at CM 1 25
1 005 San Jacinto River (HSC) at CM 1 1 4
1005 San Jacinto River (HSC) at CM 99
2422 Trinity Bay at Umbrella Point
2422 Replicate shoreline station located approximately 0.75 miles west of station 9
                                                                                                                               00

-------
                                                                   79
station three 50 ft. replicate hauls were made with a 15 ft. common
sense seine.  The dimensions of  the common sense seine were 15 ft.
long by 4 ft. deep constructed of 35 Ib test 1/8 inch nylon delta
weave square mesh net material  with  heavy  lead lines.   The seine
was pulled  parallel to  shore for a distance  of 50 feet prior to
landing on  the  shoreline.   All  fish  and macroinvertebrates were
removed, identified to  lowest taxa,  and enumerated.   Numbers of
individuals per taxa, numbers of taxa and total number of organisms
were  tabulated.    In   addition,  water  temperature  (C),  pH,
conductivity  (uMHOS), salinity  (ppt) and dissolved  oxygen (ppm)
were measured with a Hydrolab Surveyor II multiparameter meter at
1  ft.  depth.    Secchi  disc   turbidity   readings  were  taken
sporadically  to the  nearest  0.5 inch.    All measurements  and
calibration procedures  followed  standardized methods  used by the
TWC (Buzan et al. 1987).


A total of two stations per segment were sampled with gillnets in
segments 1001, 1005,  1006 and 2422 (Table 1).   At each station one
gillnet was fished suspended from the bottom  (1 to 5-10 feet) for
an average of 18 hours.   Experimental gillnets which measured 200
ft by  8 ft long were  used.  Each  gillnet was constructed of 8
individual  25 ft. panels.   Each of the panels was constructed of
one of the  following square  inch mesh sizes:  \,  1, 1%,  2, 2\, 3,
3%, 4.  The smaller  size mesh was fished  nearest to the shoreline.
Upon  retrieval  all  fish  and  macroinvertebrates were  removed,
identified to lowest taxa,  and enumerated.  Numbers of individuals
per taxa,  numbers  of  taxa  and total  number of  organisms were
tabulated.     Water  temperature  (C) ,  pH,   conductivity  (uMHOS),
salinity  (ppt)  and  dissolved oxygen  (ppm)  were measured with a
Hydrolab Surveyor II multiparameter meter,  generally at 1 ft. and
bottom depth  during initial  deployment and/or retrieval.   Secchi
disc turbidity readings  (0.5  in. increments)  were taken during some
sampling events.

Shannon-Weiner  diversity  (H1)   and   Evenness  indices  (J)  were
computed for  each gillnet and seine  sample  (Ludwig and Reynolds
1988).   Collections  with    zero catch were  deleted  from  the
analysis.  In collections having only one species a J value of zero
was assigned to  the sample.

Data  from  1  ft. measurements  of  water temperature,  dissolved
oxygen,  salinity,  pH and  secchi disc readings  obtained during
gillnet and seine sampling were pooled  and  subjected  to further
statistical analysis.   Two-way analysis of  variance  (ANOVA)  was
used  to examine segment  and seasonal  differences in  selected
shallow  water   (<1   ft.)  parameters  (water  temperature,  D.O.,
salinity, and pH) .  When significant (alpha < 0.05),  differences
were  observed Tukey's  multiple  range test  was used to  examine
trends in these  parameters between segments and sampling periods.
When significant interactions between segment and sampling periods
occurred the data was reclassified according to a cell means model,
where each cell corresponded to  a segment-sampling  period grouping
(e.g.  August-1006).   The reclassified data was then subjected to a

-------
                                                                   80
one-way ANOVA  and  Tukey's multiple range test if necessary.  The
relationship  of hydrological  variables was  further ascertained
through linear correlation analysis.  All analyses were conducted
using the SAS statistical analysis software  package  (SAS Institute
Inc. 1988) .

Catch data and computed parameters  from seine collections were also
subjected  statistical analysis using  a nested  two-way  ANOVA to
examine segment  and seasonal differences.   All catch parameters
were  subjected  to  the  Shapiro-Wilk  test  for normality (SAS
Institute  Inc.  1988).    Only total  catch  exhibited consistent
deviation  from  the normal  distribution and was  therefore  log
transformed  (In (catch  + 1))  prior to  further analyses.   The
distribution   of  log  transformed  total  catch  data  was  not
significantly  different   from  a  normal  distribution.     When
significant differences (alpha <0.05) were detected using the ANOVA
test, Tukey's  multiple range test was  used to examine trends in
population parameters  between segments and sampling  periods. When
significant  interactions  between segment  and  sampling  periods
occurred the data was reclassified  according to a cell means model,
where each cell corresponded to a segment-sampling period grouping.
The reclassified data was then subjected to  a one-way ANOVA and
Tukey's multiple range test if necessary. The  relationship between
water temperature,  salinity, dissolved oxygen and turbidity (secchi
disc)  and  population  parameters  were  determined  by   linear
correlation analysis.   Due to the small sample size, statistical
analyses of gillnet catches were not conducted.

                            STUDY AREA

The Houston Ship Channel  (segments 1005, 1006 and 1007) system is
part  of  the  San Jacinto River  Basin  and  is located south  of
Houston,  Texas  at  the  northwestern  corner  of  the  Galveston  Bay
system.  The Houston Ship Channel  is a deep channel that has been
dredged at mid-channel to a depth of approximately 40 ft. (12 m) to
allow for passage of ocean-going ships and vessels.  Channel widths
range from 404 to 2,592 ft. from the Turning  Basin to Morgans Point
at the bottom of segment 1005.    The middle and  lower  portions
(segments 1006 and 1005)  of the Houston Ship Channel were studied
during this study.  Advective velocities range from 0.020 to 0.030
ft/s under low flow conditions (TDWR 1984).

The San Jacinto River (segment 1001) is tidal from the  Lake Houston
to the Houston Ship Channel.  Average depths range from 6.2 to 18.4
ft.  (Kirkpatrick 1987).   During  low flow conditions of  the  San
Jacinto  River,  widths   can  range  between  230  to  3,350  ft.
(Kirkpatrick 1987) . Advective velocities range from 0.0007 to 0.004
ft/s during low flow conditions (TDWR 1984).

Trinity Bay (segment 2422) covers an area of 337 km2.  The area is
an open bay system varying in depth from 2 to 8 ft.   Discharges
from the Trinity River heavily  influence the salinity regime  and
water quality  of this bay segment.  The  purpose of establishing
this station was to primarily provide baseline water quality data

-------
                                                                   81
on a system not influenced by the loading of the HSC.  Biological
data  was  predominately collected  at  this  station to  provide
supplemental information for that effort.

All of  the stations sampled  with gillnets and seines  were open
sandy and/or muddy substrate shorelines.   Very  little submerged
aquatic  vegetation (SAV)  or  attached  algae was observed  at any
station.   Stations  sampled in  segments 1006 usually  contained
various  type of debris  (e.g.  tires,  concrete,  barrels)  along the
shoreline.   Stations   in  segment  1001  usually  contained  some
submerged brush.  Although not sampled an extensive coastal marsh
system was located in the adjacent lower portions of segment 1001.
Stations in segments 1005  possessed very little shoreline debris
and/or cover.

Segment  2422 was an open bay area characterized by having varying
amounts  of concrete  riprap  and  submerged pilings.   Constant wind
induced wave action was usually  present.   The other three segments
were well protected but still  subjected to extensive wind and ship
induced wave action.

In general the amount of physical variability between stations was
minimal.   The  majority of variation in  nekton populations would
most  probably  be  induced  by water  quality fluctuations.   This
hypothesis is further reinforced based on known permitted discharge
data.    Segments 1006,  1005,  1001 and  2422 have the  highest to
lowest amounts of permitted discharge rates  (361.57, 37.22, 15.88,
0.9 MGD, respectively)  (TWC 1990).
A detailed listing of hydrological data is provided in Appendices
1, 2, 3, and 4.  Hydrological monitoring conducted during gillnet
and  seine  collections  revealed  significant  trends  in  water
temperature between sampling events and segments  (Tables 2, 3, 4).
There were significant interactions between segments and collection
period  (Table  2) .   Analysis of water  temperature  data indicated
that little variation was  observed in  surface water temperatures
between  segments during August  1988  (Tables 3 and  4)    During
January  1989  water temperatures  in segment  1005  and 1006  were
significantly higher than 1001 and 2422 (Table 4).

Significant trends  in  salinity  (conductivity)  between  sampling
events and segments were observed  (Table 5).   In general,  salinity
gradients  appeared  more  distinct  during  the  initial  gillnet
sampling  in August (Fig.  1) .   Segment 1006  generally exhibited
lower salinities whereas segment  1001  and  2422  exhibited higher
salinities  (Fig.  1) .  Due  to  interaction  between seasonal  and
geographical trends  this pattern  was   not  consistent  temporally
(Tables 6 and 7).

Significant shoreline dissolved oxygen  trends  were observed during

-------
                                                                                 82
Table 2. Analysis of variance of dependent variable temperature (TEMP).(l ft,
         readings).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
TIME
SEGMENT*TIME
DF
7
34
41
3
1
3
F Value
547.47


10.68
3465.15
4.85
Pr > F
0.0001


0.0001
0.0001
0.0065
DF - degrees of freedom, F Value - computed F test statistic.
Pr > F - probability of observing a greater F if Ho is true.

-------
                                                                                83
Table 3. Analysis of variance of variance and mean and standard deviations of
dependent variable temperature (TEMP) using interaction corrected cell means
model.  (1 ft. readings).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
DF
7
34
41
F Value
547.47
Pr > F
0.0001
CELL
SEGMENT
MO.  N
        Mean
                      -TEMP-
                    SD
1001
1001
1005
1005
1006
1006
2422
2422
 1
 8
 1
 8
 1
 8
 1
 8
6
5
6
7
6
6
3
3
12.9666667
28.9000000
15.3000000
29.1857143
15.1500000
29.0000000
13.0000000
28.1666667
0.65319726
0.74161985
0.52535702
1.29412592
0.60249481
0.54772256
0.10000000
0.76376262

-------
                                                                                84
Table 4.  Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD)  test for variable:  TEMP
         (Alpha- 0.05  Confidence- 0.95  df- 34 USE- 0.595987
         Critical Value of Studentized Range- 4.563).   Comparisons
         significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.
CELL
Comparison

-------
                                                                   85
Table 5. Analysis of variance and mean and standard deviations of
         dependent variable salinity  (SAL).  (1 ft. readings).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
TIME
SEGMENT*TIME
DF
7
36
43
3
1
3
F Value
4.74
3.23
0.01
7.93
Pr > F
0.0008
0.0335
0.9103
0.0003
Level of
SEGMENT

1001
1005
1006
2422

Level of
TIME

JAN
AUG

Level of
SEGMENT

1001
1001
1005
1005
1006
1006
2422
2422
                  -SAL-
 N

12
13
13
 6
 N

22
22
  Mean

15.5750000
15.4923077
14.2846154
17.4166667
                  -SAL-
  Mean

15.2636364
15.5772727
          SD

       1.90268948
       3.45626521
       2.52680502
       1.20069424
Level of
TIME

JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
          SD

       2.53725488
       2.85989208

      	SAL	
    N

    6
    6
    6
    7
    7
    6
    3
    3
  Mean

16.4833333
14.6666667
12.7833333
17.8142857
15.2428571
13.1666667
17.8333333
17.0000000
   SD

1.14789663
2.16024690
2.71765831
2.02684366
2.07593926
2.71416040
0.28867513
1.73205081

-------
                                                                   86
Table 6. Analysis of variance of dependent variable salinity
        (SAL) using interaction corrected cell means model.
        (1 ft. readings).

Dependent Variable: SAL

Source                  DF         F Value     Pr > F

Model (CELL)             7           4.74     0.0008
Error                   36
Corrected Total         43

-------
                                                                   87
Table 7. Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD)  test for
         variable: SAL (Alpha= 0.05  Confidence= 0.95  df= 36
         MSE= 4.454325 Critical Value of Studentized Range=
         4.547). Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are
         indicated by •***'.

                       Simultaneous            Simultaneous
                           Lower     Difference     Upper
         CELL            Confidence    Between   Confidence
      Comparison            Limit       Means       Limit
SEGMENT/MO.  SEGMENT/MO.
2422
2422
2422
2422
2422
2422
2422
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
2422
2422
2422
2422
2422
1001
1001
1001
1001
1006
1006
1001
1001
1006
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
JAN -
AUG -
AUG -
AUG -
1005
2422
1001
1006
1001
1006
1005
2422
1001
1006
1001
1006
1005
1001
1006
1001
1006
1005
1005
1006
1001
1006
1006
1005
1006
1005
1005
AUG
AUG
JAN
JAN
AUG
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
JAN
AUG
AUG
JAN
JAN
JAN
AUG
AUG
JAN
JAN
JAN
AUG
AUG
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
JAN
-4.664
-4.708
-3.449
-2.093
-1.632
-0.132
0.251
-4.702
-2.445
-1.056
-0.628
0.872
1.255
-4.282
-2.926
-2.465
-0.965
-0.582
-0.218
-2.535
-2.101
-0.601
-1.699
-1.316
-2.418
-2.035
-3.535
0.019
0.833
1.350
2.590
3.167
4.667
5.050
-0.019
1.331
2.571
3.148
4.648
5.031
0.517
1.757
2.333
3.833
4.217
3.700
1.240
1.817
3.317
2.076
2.460
1.500
1.883
0.383
4.702
6.374
6.149
7.274
7.965
9.465
9.849 ***
4.664
5.107
6.199
6.923
8.423 ***
8.807 ***
5.315
6.440
7.132
8.632
9.015
7.618
5.016
5.735
7.235
5.852
6.235
5.418
5.801
4.301

-------
            GILLNETS  8/88
                                           GILLNETS  1/89
   SALINITY (PPT)
                                  SALINITY (PPT)
*Q
20
15
10
5
0

	
	
	
- 	 	


	
1006 1001 1006 2422
SEGMENTS
fl- MEAN «/- 2SD
20
15
10
5
n
zu
15
10
6
0
. 1 	 i
i i
-&-
i
1006 1001 1005 2422
SEGMENTS
0-MEAN«/-2SD
SEINES 8/88
SALINITY (PPT)






20
16
10
6
n
SEINES 1/89
SALINITY (PPT)
1 1 .


       1006
1001       1005

  SEGMENTS
                                   2422
                   MEAN »/- 2SD
                                                      1006
1001       1005

  SEGMENTS
                                                                  MEAN •/- 2SD
1 Segment 2422 dale • 1 meaiurement.
                                              • Stgmcnl 2422 data • 1 m«aiur«m«nt.
                                                                                  2422
Figure 1. Salinity trends measured during gillnet and  seine collections.  Note:   2 SD
 	   ~                                      *
                                                                                  00
                                                                                  00

-------
                                                                    89
Table 8. Analysis of variance and mean and standard deviations of
         dependent variable dissolved oxygen (D.O). (1 ft.
         readings).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
SEGMENT
TIME



Total


SEGMENT*TIME
Level of
SEGMENT
1001
1005
1006
2422
Level of
TIME
JAN.
AUG.
Level of
SEGMENT
1001
1001
1005
1005
1006
1006
2422
2422

N
11
12
13
6

N
22
20


TIME
JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
JAN
AUG
DF
7
34
41
3
1
3


Mean
9.24545455
5.54166667
5.07692308
8.23333333


Mean
8.04545455
5.33000000


N
6
5
6
6
7
6
3
3
F Value Pr > F
23.54 0.0001


34.57 0.0001
52.88 0.0001
0.19 0.9020


SD
2.10872646
1.48658139
1.83537183
1.43898112
__nrt_ — __ _ ____ —

SD
2.07427033
2.14674785
nr» _ _ _ _ ____

Mean SD
10.5000000 1.67332005
7.7400000 1.55659886
6.7000000 0.79246451
4.3833333 1.00681014
6.4571429 0.55933634
3.4666667 1.38948432
9.5333333 0.11547005
6.9333333 0.30550505

-------
                                                                   90
Table 9.  Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD)  test for
         variable: DO (Alpha= 0.05  Confidence= 0.95  df= 34
         MSE= 1.283651 Critical Value of Studentized Range=
         3.820). Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are
         indicated by '***«.
  SEGMENT
Comparison
Simultaneous             Simultaneous
   Lower     Difference     Upper
 Confidence    Between   Confidence
   Limit       Means       Limit
1001
1001
1001
2422
2422
1005
- 2422
- 1005
- 1006
- 1005
- 1006
- 1006
-0.541
2.426
2.915
1.162
1.646
-0.760
1.012
3.704
4.169
2.692
3.156
0.465
2.565
4.981
5.422
4.222
4.667
1.690

***
***
***
***


-------
                                                                                91
Table 10.  Analysis of variance and mean and standard deviation values of
           dependent variable pH (1 ft. readings).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
SEGMENT
TIME



Total


SEGMENT*TIME
Level of
SEGMENT
1001
1005
1006
2422
T ^\ro 1 f\ *F
J_iC VC X \J L
TIME
1
8
Level of
SEGMENT
1001
1001
1005
1005
1006
1006
2422
2422

N
11
11
12
6

N
20
20
Level
TIME
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
DF
7
32
39
3
1
3


Mean
8.06363636
7.55454545
7.39166667
7.85000000

Mean
7.76000000
7.62000000
of

N
6 8
5 7
5 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
3 7
3 7
F Value
7.98


16.19
1.95
1.13
. PH ......

SD
0.28730725
0.26594600
0.23532698
0.12247449
. pu ....... 	
SD
0.35451969
0.36935221
	 . pu ...

Mean
.18333333 0
.92000000 0
.50000000 0
.60000000 0
.48333333 0
. 30000000 0
.90000000 0
. 80000000 0
Pr > F
0.0001


0.0001
0.1717
0.3500












SD
.27141604
.25884358
.12247449
.35213634
.07527727
.30983867
.00000000
.17320508

-------
                                                                                92
Table 11.  Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD)  test for variable:  PH
          (Alpha- 0.05  Confidence- 0.95  df- 32 MSE- 0.058896
          Critical Value of Studentized Range- 3.832)  Comparisons  significant
          at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.


SEGMENT
Comparison
1001 - 2422
1001 - 1005
1001 - 1006
2422 - 1005
2422 - 1006
1005 - 1006
Simultaneous
Lower
Confidence
Limit
-0.1201
0.2287
0.3975
-0.0382
0.1296
-0.1116
Simultaneous
Difference
Between
Means
0.2136
0.5091
0.6720
0.2955
0.4583
0.1629
Upper
Confidence
Limit
0.5473
0.7895
0.9464
0.6292
0.7871
0.4373




***
***

***


-------
                                                                                 93
Table 12, Analysis of variance and mean and standard deviation values of
          secchi disc measurements.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
TIME
SEGMENT*TIME
DF
7
23
30
3
1
3
F Value
4.11


2.67
17.70
1.92
Pr > F
0.0046


0.0711
0.0003
0.1539
Level of
SEGMENT
 N
                 •SECCHI-
  Mean
          SD
1001
1005
1006
2422
 8
11
 9
 3
26.8750000
17.2727273
24.3333333
22.6666667
        9.3264218
        6.3732395
        8.9721792
       14.4337567
Level of
TIME
 N
                 •SECCHI-
  Mean
          SD
1
8

Level of
SEGMENT
18
13
26.3888889
16.6923077
Level of
TIME
       7.72420861
       8.34050973
            Mean
                   -SECCHI-
                    SD
1001
1001
1005
1005
1006
1006
2422
2422
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
    5
    3
    6
    5
    5
    4
    2
    1
32.2000000
18.0000000
19.8333333
14.2000000
26.6000000
21.5000000
31.0000000
 6.0000000
6.30079360
6.
1.
 .00000000
 .47196014
8.78635305
9.68504001
8.38649708
0.00000000

-------
                                                                                94
Table 13.  Correlation between hydrological variables.  (Pearson Correlation
          Coefficients / Prob > |R|  under Ho:  Rho-0 /  Number of Observations)

SECCH1


TEMP


PH


SAL


DO


SECCHI
1.00000
0.0
45
-0.83235
0.0001
45
0.28381
0.0800
39
-0.19819
0.1919
45
0.44982
0.0028
42
TEMP
-0.83235
0.0001
45
1.00000
0.0
57
-0.27209
0.0534
51
-0.01799
0.8943
57
-0.61412
0.0001
54
PH
0.28381
0.0800
39
-0.27209
0.0534
51
1.00000
0.0
51
0.24346
0.0852
51
0.87762
0.0001
51
SAL
-0.19819
0.1919
45
-0.01799
0.8943
57
0.24346
0.0852
51
1.00000
0.0
60
0.30763
0.0236
54
DO
0.44982
0.0028
42
-0.61412
0.0001
54
0.87762
0.0001
51
0.30763
0.0236
54
1.00000
0.0
54

-------
           GILLNETS  8/88
   D.O. (PPM)
      1006
               1001       1005
                 SEGMENTS

                  MEAN •/- 2SD
                                  2422
                                                          GILLNETS  1/89
                                                 D.O. (PPM)
1*
10
s
e
4

n

-
















	 ~




n
TT


-
\f
10
B
6
4

n
n
-e-
-
- -0- u
	

1 1 1 1
                                                    1006
                                                              1001       1006
                                                                SEGMENTS

                                                                MEAN •/- 230
                                                                                2422
 14

 12

 10

  8

  e

  4

  2

  0
   D.O. (PPM)
      1006
             SEINES 8/88
               1001       1006
                 SEGMENTS
                                  2422
                  MEAN •/- 2SD
                                                           SEINES 1/89
                                               20
                                               16
                                               10
                                                 SALINITY (PPT)
                                                    1006
                                                              1001       1006
                                                                SEGMENTS
                                                                                2422
                                                              Q MEAN -/- 2SD
                                             • Scemtot 2422 d*li • 1 mtiiur»m«nt.

Figure 2.  Dissolved oxygen  trends measured during gillnet  and  seine collections.
8»9m«nl 2422 dill • 1 m««»urtmtnl.
                                                                                                10

-------
                                                                   96
the survey (Table 8).  Higher dissolved oxygen levels were observed
in all segments during January 1989 sampling,  than in August 1988
(Tables 8 and 9 and Fig. 2). Highest dissolved oxygen levels were
generally recorded at most stations located in segment 1001, while
lowest  levels  were  recorded  at  station  1  in  segment  1006
(Appendices  1,  2,   3,  and  4,  and Figs.  2).  During August 1988
dissolved oxygen levels in  segment 1006  sometimes fell  below 2.0
ppm (Figs. 2) . Results of statistical analyses indicate that during
both sampling periods dissolved  oxygen levels  were significantly
higher in segments  1001 and  2422 when compared to segments 1005 and
1006  (Table  9) .   Dissolved oxygen  levels were  not significantly
different between segments  1005 and 1006 (Table 9 and Fig.  2).

Statistically  significant  trends in  pH were  observed  between
segments (Tables 10).  Although significant the maximum difference
between average measurements was less than 0.7 pH units (Table 10).
Segment 1001 pH levels were significantly higher than in segments
1005 and 1006 (Table 11).  Lowest pH levels were generally observed
in 1006 (Table 11).


Secchi disc readings varied  between 10 and 41 inches (Appendices 1,
2, 3,  and 4, and Table 12). Individual stations measurements varied
considerably between sampling events and were heavily influenced by
wave action generated by passing ships. Although not statistically
significant the lowest mean secchi disc readings were observed in
segment 1005 (Table 12).   Secchi  disc measurements made during the
August 1988 were significantly higher than in January 1989 (Tables
12).

Significant  linear  correlations  between  various  hydrological
variables were  observed  (Table  13) .   Secchi disc readings were
highly  negatively  correlated  with  water  temperature.    This
relationship is primarily  due to the previously documented seasonal
trend in water temperature and turbidity (Tables 3  and 12) . Similar
negative correlations between dissolved oxygen and temperature can
be attributed to  documented seasonal  and spatial  trends between
segments  (Tables 3 and 8).

Less stronger positive correlations between dissolved  oxygen and
salinity were also  observed  (Table 13).  This association is partly
attributable  to observed  spatial patterns  in these  parameters
(Tables  6  and  8).  Weaker correlations between pH  and  water
temperature are difficult to interpret.


BIOLOGICAL DATA

Overall a total  of 4993 organisms comprising 41 taxa were collected
during both study periods with gillnets and seines (Appendices 5,
6, 7, 8,  9,  10,  11, 12,  13 and  14).   Although  no statistics are
presented here on  organism  lengths the seine  selectively sampled
organisms <  5  inches  total length  (TL), while  the gillnets were
more selective toward larger organisms.  The majority of fish and

-------
                                                                   97
invertebrates collected were juveniles of estuarine species.  Both
seines and gillnets primarily targeted shoreline fish populations.
The gillnets  did however  sample  at deeper  depths  (>6  feet)  on
occasions.  This  contrasts to the studies conducted by Chambers and
Sparks (1959)  which utilized trawling gear to sample side bays and
deeper channel locations in segments 1005  and 1006.

Gillnets

A total of 789  organisms representing 33  taxa were  collected in
gillnets during January 1989 and August  1988  (Appendices 5 and 6).
For all segments total catches were generally higher during August
1988 than in January  1989 (Fig. 3) .  Highest and lowest catch rates
were  generally  observed in  segments  2422 and 1006  respectively
(Fig. 3).  Catch rates in segment 1001 were also generally higher
than in segments 1005 and 1006.

Higher number of taxa were collected in August 1988 than in January
1989 (Fig. 4) . The  highest number of taxa per  segment was collected
in segment 1001 during August 1988.  The lowest number of taxa was
collected in segment 1005 during January 1989.  This low number of
taxa may  however be  partly due  to the poor  catch of one gillnet
which was  accidently tangled by ship traffic. Number  of taxa in
segments 1005 and  1006 were similar during January 1989 (Fig. 4).
Diversity  (H1)  and  evenness  (J)  indices  fluctuated erratically
between stations with no apparent pattern (Appendices 5 and 6).

Several  patterns  in species  composition between  segments  and
sampling events were  observed.  Hardhead catfish,  Arius  felis.  was
one of the numerically dominant  taxa in  all segments during August
1988  (Fig.  5).   In addition,  blue crab, Callinectes sapidus were
numerically abundant in segments 1001 and  1006 during August 1988.
Species such  as Gulf menhaden,  Brevoortia patronus.  and gizzard
shad, Dorosoma cepedianum.  dominated January 1989 gillnet catches
(Fig. 5) .  Blue  crab  continued to be abundant  in catches in segment
1006 during January  1989.

Seines

Seine  catches  yielded a total  of  4204  organisms representing 25
taxa  (Appendices 7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13, and  14).   Significant
spatial and temporal  patterns in abundance were observed (Tables 14
and 15).   Lower  total number of organisms were generally observed
in January 1989 collections (Figs. 6 and 7).  Highest total number
of organisms were collected in segments 1001 and  2422  (Table 14 and
15).  Catch rates in segments 1005 and  1006 were not significantly
different  (Table 15).

Significant differences in number of taxa collected were observed
between segments (Tables 16 and  17) .  The highest  number of  taxa in
sample collections were generally observed in segment 1001 samples
(Table  17 and Figs.  8  and 9).    Although yielding  significantly
lower number of taxa than segments 1001 and 2422, segment 1006 was
not  significantly  different than  1005 (Table 17) .  '  Due  to the

-------
                                                                   98
Table 14. Analysis of variance of seine catches (ln(total catch +
          D).
Source
Model
Error
SEGMENT
DATE
SEGMENT* DATE
STATION (SEGMENT)
DF
13
44
3
1
3
6
F Value
5.25
14.79
6.67
2.14
1.06
Pr > F
0.0001
0.0001
0.0132
0.1086
0.3983

-------
                                                                   99
Table 15. Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD) test for
          variable: seine catch (Alpha= 0.05  Confidence= 0.95
          df= 44  MSE= 1.276232).  Critical Value of Studentized
          Range= 3.776).  Comparisons significant at the 0.05
          level are indicated by '***'.
         SEGMENT
        Comparison
Simultaneous            Simultaneous
   Lower    Difference     Upper
Confidence    Between   Confidence
   Limit       Means       Limit
1001
1001
1001
2422
2422
1005
- 2422
- 1005
- 1006
- 1005
- 1006
- 1006
-0.788
0.770
1.497
-0.276
0.455
-0.278
0.644
1.790
2.532
1.146
1.888
0.742
2.076
2.810
3.566
2.568
3.320
1.762

***
***

***


-------
                                                                   100
Table 16. Analysis of variance of number of taxa in seine
          collections.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
DATE
SEGMENT*DATE
STATION (SEGMENT)
DF
13
44
57
3
1
3
6
F Value
6.01


20.76
2.80
0.79
1.26
Pr > F
0.0001


0.0001
0.1015
0.5069
0.2949

-------
                                                                   101
Table 17. Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD) test for
          variable: seine taxa (Alpha= 0.05  Confidence= 0.95
          df= 44  MSE= 1.951659 Critical Value of Studentized
          Range= 3.776). Comparisons significant at the 0.05
          level are indicated by '***'.
           SEGMENT
          Comparison
Simultaneous            Simultaneous
    Lower    Difference     Upper
 Confidence    Between   Confidence
    Limit       Means       Limit
1001
1001
1001
2422
2422
1005
- 2422
- 1005
- 1006
- 1005
- 1006
- 1006
-0.703
1.140
2.368
-0.425
0.807
-0.016
1.069
2.402
3.647
1.333
2.578
1.245
2.840
3.663
4.926
3.092
4.350
2.507

***
***

***


-------
          AUGUST  1988
  NO. OF ORGANISMS (MEAN AND RANGE)
     1006
             1001      1005
               SEGMENTS
                             2422
        JANUARY  1989
NO. OF ORGANISMS (MEAN A RANGE)
1OU
140

120

100
SO
eo

40
20
t\





	 	

f"j

-B-
: c 	 	 -."::: 	
i i i

[!••
•f
EF-- •






,
1ZU

100

BO

eo

40
20
n


•• • - 	



	 : 	

I- 	


	 -- 	
—
	









-
i


	












,
                                             1006
           1001      100S
             SEGMENTS
                                                                      2422
Figure 3. Gillnet catches during the survey.

-------
  CUMULATIVE NO. OF TAXA/SEGMENT

           (GILL NET COLLECTIONS)
  20 -i
        1006
                 1001
                           1006
                                    2422
                   SEGMENTS


                HH AUGUST 1968 HH JANUARY 1989



Figure 4. Cumulative number of taxa collected with gillnets.
                                                 o
                                                 u>

-------
               SEGMENT 1006
                                        SEGMENT 1001
  C. sapldus
   60%
                 0. cepedlanum
                    20%
A. (ells
 33%
                  Other spp.
                    10%
               M. cephaius
                 20%
             C. sapldus
              31%
            Other spp.
              36%
                                                       B. patronus
                                                         52%
                    A. (ells
                    17%,
                                                                       E. saurus
                                                                         14%
          C. sapldus
            27%
      JANUARY 1989
   AUGUST 1988
       Other spp
         48%

JANUARY 1989
        Other spp.
          42%
AUGUST 1988
               SEGMENT 1005
                                        SEGMENT 2422
D. cepedlanum
   80%
                           A. (ells
                            60%
                  Other spp.
                   .20%
                             Other spp.
                               36%
                                           D. cepedltnum
                                              17%
                                M. undulatus
                                   11%
      JANUARY 1989
            Other spp.
              40%

   AUGUST 1988
                                                              B. patronua
                                                                47%
                            Othar spp.
                              47%
JANUARY 1989
AUGUST 1988
Figure 5. Species composition of gillhet  collections.
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       *».

-------
             SEGMENT 1006
             SEGMENT 1005
  NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN A RANGE)
  NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN & RANGE)
JU
26

20

16

10

6

n

•

.

-

t-











TTT












*u
36

30

26
20
16

10

6
n





-




'

















, ,






                    1A            2
                 STATIONS
                  STATIONS
so
eo
40
20
             SEGMENT 1001
  NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN A RANGE)
                    3A
                 STATIONS
300

260

200

160

100

 60
             SEGMENT 2422
  NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN & RANGE)
                     0
                  STATIONS
Figure  6. Number  of organisms  collected  with seines  during August 1988
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 Ui

-------
             SEGMENT 1006
40
30
20
10
  NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN ft RANGE)
                    1A            2
                 STATIONS
                                               eo
                                               60
                                               40
                                               30
                                               20
                                               10
                                                         SEGMENT 1005
                                             NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN A RANGE)
                                                             STATIONS
           SEGMENT 1001
NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN ft RANGE)
                                                            SEGMENT 2422
1£UU
1000
BOO
600
400
200

-
-
-
-




' * *
i i i
~
3 3A 4
STATIONS
                                               200
                                               150
                                               100
                                               60
                                                 NUMBER OF ORGANISMS (MEAN ft RANGE)
                                                                 STATIONS

  Figure 7. Number  of organisms  collected with seines during January  1989

-------
            SEGMENT 1006
 NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN & RANGE)
   1A
STATIONS
                                          SEGMENT 1005
                              NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN A RANGE)
                                                    4
                                                              STATIONS
            SEGMENT 1001
 NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN & RANGE)
                   3A
                STATIONS
                                         SEGMENT 2422
                              NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN & RANGE)
                                              STATIONS
Figure 8. Number of taxa collected with seines during August 1988.

-------
            SEGMENT 1006
  NUMBER OF TAXA(MEAN »RANGE)
            SEGMENT 1005


 NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN & RANGE)
3.0
3
2.6
2
1.6
1
0.6
0




















1 1A 2
STATIONS
&.0
3
2.5
2
1.6
1
0.6
0













1 1






678
STATIONS
            SEGMENT 1001
10
 NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN A RANGE)
           SEGMENT 2422
                                             e
NUMBER OF TAXA (MEAN & RANGE)
       3           3A           4                                9

                STATIONS                                      STATIONS



 Figure 9.  Number of taxa collected with seines during January 1989.
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             00

-------
                                                                   109
strong relationship between effort and number of species collected,
and  the  higher number of  replicate  collections made in segments
1001,  1005,  1006, it  was  necessary to delete  segment  2422 from
examination of the cumulative number of species per segment.
Based on the cumulative number of  species observed segment 1001 had
the  overall  highest  number  of taxa  collected   (Fig.    10).
Cumulative number of taxa  was similar in January  1989 collections
made within segments 1005  and 1006.

Diversity (H1) varied significantly between segments (Tables 18 and
19) .  Diversity values  in segment  1001  were greater  than those
obtained  from catches  in segment 1006 (Table 19 and Figs.  11 and
12).  Evenness  (J) did not vary significantly between stations or
collection periods (Table  20).  Evenness (J) was  extremely variable
during the study  period ranging from 0 to  0.994  (Figs. 13 and 14).

Significant correlations between dissolved oxygen, pH and number of
species   (SPP),  diversity  (H1),  and  evenness  (J)   (Table 21).
Positive  correlations  between  number of species,  H1  and J  and pH
was  partly  attributable  to  similar  spatial  patterns between
stations  and/or  segments  (Tables 11,  17,  and 19 and Figs.  13 and
14).   Positive  correlations between number of species,   H', J and
dissolved  oxygen was primarily due  to  spatial  patterns in these
parameters  (Tables  9,  17  and  19 and Figs.  13  and 14).   Highest
values of these parameters were generally observed in  segments 1001
and  2422, which  also had the highest dissolved  oxygen levels.

Gulf menhaden  was  prevalent  in seine  collections within  all
segments during January 1989 (Fig. 15) .  Grass shrimp  (Palaemonetes
puqiol was however numerically dominant in segment 1001 collections
during January  1989.     In contrast,  sheepshead minnow was a co-
dominant  taxa in segment 1006  (Fig.  15).

Except for segment 2422  August 1989  collections were dominated by
bay  anchovy  (Figs.  15) .   Grass  shrimp was  the dominant species
collected in  segment  2422 during this period.  Segment  1006 also
contained a high percentage of Gulf menhaden and spot  during  August
1988.

While conducting this survey we also observed an extensive fishery
for  blue crabs  in segments  1006,  1005  and 1001 and  the lower
portions  of 1007.  Over 30 pots were present  in segment  1006 alone
during the survey in August 1988.   The majority of the crabbing
.occurring in 1006  and   1007  was  primarily  conducted by  1-2
fisherman.    Crab pots  randomly sampled during the  survey in
segments  1001,  1005 and 1006 were  found  to  contain similar high
numbers  of blue  crabs.  This  is the first documented commercial
fishing activity in the  Houston  Ship  Channel  in recent times.

-------
                                                                   110
Table 18.  Analysis of variance of diversity H' of seine catches,
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
DATE
SEGMENT*DATE
STATION (SEGMENT)
DF
13
40
53
3
1
3
6
F Value
1.66


4.73
0.01
0.96
0.60
Pr > F
0.1099


0.0064
0.9233
0.4187
0.7258

-------
                                                                   Ill
Table 19. Tukey's Studentized multiple range (HSD) test for
          variable: seine H1 (Alpha= 0.05  Confidence= 0.95  df=
          40  MSE= 0.144898)   Critical Value of Studentized
          Range= 3.791. Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level
          are indicated by  '***'.
           SEGMENT
          Comparison
Simultaneous            Simultaneous
    Lower    Difference     Upper
 Confidence    Between   Confidence
    Limit       Means       Limit
1001
1001
1001
2422
2422
1005
- 2422
- 1005
- 1006
- 1005
- 1006
- 1006
-0.312
-0.018
0.136
-0.325
-0.166
-0.196
0.172
0.332
0.504
0.160
0.332
0.172
0.657
0.682
0.873
0.644
0.830
0.541


***




-------
                                                                   112
Table 20. Analysis of variance of eveness (J) of seine
          collections.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
SEGMENT
DATE
SEGMENT*DATE
STATION (SEGMENT)
DF
13
40
53
3
1
3
6
F Value
1.39


2.37
1.02
0.82
1.20
Pr > F
0.2060


0.0848
0.3180
0.4892
0.3240

-------
                                                                                113
Table 21. Correlation between hydrological variables and catch.  (Pearson
          Correlation Coefficients / Prob > |RJ  under Ho:  Rho-0
          / Number of Observations).
SECCHI
TEMP
PH
SAL
DO
CATCH
-0.08578
0.5844
43
0.18613
0.1736
55
0.24638
0.0879
49
0.06982
0.6025
58
0.17398
0.2174
52
SPP
-0.22260
0.1514
43
0.13235
0.3354
55
0.59271
0.0001
49
0.15557
0.2436
58
0.50021
0.0002
52
H
0.00289
0.9861
39
-0.03346
0.8176
50
0.53743
0.0002
44
0.08650
0.5380
53
0.49826
0.0004
47
E
0.05905
0.7210
39
-0.11446
0.4287
50
0.34468
0.0220
44
0.14394
0.3038
53
0.41243
0.0040
47

-------
            CUMULATIVE NO. OF TAXA/SEGMENT
 N
 U
 M
 B
 E
 R

 O
 F

 T
 A
 X
 A
12 -
10 -
 8 -
 4 -
    2 -
             1006
                           August 11 • • d*atroy*d
                          1001

                      SEGMENTS
                       AUGUST 1988 HH JANUARY 1989
100S
Figure 10. Cumulative number of taxa collected with seines.

-------
   AUGUST SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
          SEGMENT 1006
 DIVERSITY K(MEAN & RANGE)
  AUGUST SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
          SEGMENT 1005
DIVERSITY K(MEAN & RANGE)
1.2
1
o.e
o.e
0.4
0.2
0
-



•

-


1 1A 2
STATIONS
i.«:
1
0.6
o.e
0.4
0.2
0
-
-
•
•
-


-



e





_







7 e
STATIONS
   AUGUST SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
           SEGMENT 1001
 DIVERSITY H*(MEAN & RANGE)
1.Z
1
0.8
o.e
0.4
0.2
0
1
• fl.
u
•





3 3A 4
STATIONS
  AUGUST SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
          SEGMENT 2422
                                        0.8
                                        o.e
                                        0.4
                                        0.2
DIVERSITY H'IMEAN A RANGE)
                                                        STATIONS

Figure 11.  Diversity (H1)  of seine  collections during August  1988

-------
   JANUARY SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
            SEGMENT 1006
 1
O.B
o.e
0.4
0.2
  DIVERSITY K(MEAN A RANGE)
                  1A           2
                STATIONS
  JANUARY SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
          SEGMENT 1005
DIVERSITY KtMEAN A RANGE)
                                          0.8
                                          0.6
                                          0.4
                                          0.2
              STATIONS
   JANUARY SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
            SEGMENT 1001
  DIVERSITY K(MEAN A RANGE)
1.6
0.5
  JANUARY SEINE DIVERSITY DATA
          SEGMENT 2422
DIVERSITY K(MEAN A RANGE)

"


.






-B-

3 3A 4
STATIONS
i.*
1.2
1
0.8
o.e
0.4
0.2
0
-

-
-






-
8
STATIONS
 Figure 12.  Diversity  (H1) of seine collections during  January  1989.
                                                                                        CTi

-------
     AUGUST SEINE EVENESS DATA
            SEGMENT 1006
1.2


 1


0.8


o.e


0.4


0.2


 0
  EVENE3S J (MEAN & RANGE)
                  1A
                STATIONS
                                                AUGUST SEINE EVENESS DATA
                                                       SEGMENT 1005
                                           o.a
                                           o.e
                                           0.4
                                           0.2
                                             EVENES3 J (MEAN & RANGE)
                                                           STATIONS
     AUGUST SEINE EVENESS DATA
            SEGMENT 1001
0.7

o.e

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
  EVENESS J (MEAN A RANGE)
       t
                  3A
                STATIONS
                                                AUGUST SEINE EVENESS DATA
                                                       SEGMENT 2422
0.7

o.e

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
                                             EVENESS J (MEAN & RANGE)
 Figure 13. Eveness (J) of seine collections during August
                                                           STATIONS

                                                           1988.

-------
    JANUARY SEINE EVENESS DATA
           SEGMENT 1006
0.8
o.e
0.4
0.2
  EVENES3 J (MEAN ft RANGE)
                  1A
               STATIONS
    JANUARY SEINE EVENESS DATA
            SEGMENT 1005
 1


0.8


o.e


0.4


0.2
  EVENESS J (MEAN ft RANGE)
               STATIONS
    JANUARY SEINE EVENESS DATA
            SEGMENT 1001
  EVENESS J (MEAN A RANGE)
l.z
1
0.8
o.e
0.4
0.2
-
- tt -B. i




3 3A 4
STATIONS
    JANUARY SEINE EVENESS DATA
           SEGMENT 2422
  EVENESS J (MEAN & RANQE)
                                         0.8
                                         0.6
                                         0.4
                                         0.2
                                                            9
                                                         STATIONS
 Figure  14. Eveness (J)  of seine collections during  January 1989.
                                                                                      oo

-------
             SEGMENT 1006
                                     SEGMENT 1001
           B. patronus
             46%
C. variegatus
   40%
                   B. patronus
                     28%
                Other spp.
                  14%
        A. mitchilli
          36%
           Other spp.
             12%
    JANUARY 1989
      L. xanthurus
         24%
AUGUST 1988
             P. pugio
              44%
B. patronus
  20%
                                                                    A. mitchilll
                                                                      84%
           Other spp.
             16%
                            F. similis
                                                     12%
                                                    JANUARY 1989
                         AUGUST 1988
             SEGMENT 1005
                                    SEGMENT  2422
 B. patronus
   75%
             A. mitchilli
               11%
    JANUARY 1989
          Other spp.
            30%
AUGUST 1988
                                               B. patronus
                                                 89%
                                               P. pufllo
                                                71%
     JANUARY 1989
                                                                                    Other spp.
                                                                                       8%
                                                                                 P. setiterus
           21%
AUGUST 1988
 Figure 15. Species composition  of seine collections.
                                                                                                   V£>

-------
                                                                   12CT
                            DISCUSSION

Estuarine fish populations  are  characterized  by the overwhelming
seasonality  in  utilization  of  shallow water habitats which  is
partly attributable to spawning periods and resulting recruitment
by immature stages.  Due to the dynamic nature of estuaries these
species are  often  subjected to wide variations  in  water quality
(e.g. salinity fluctuations  during  floods). As a consequence the
majority of species utilizing these  estuarine  habitats are adapted
to a highly variable salinity regime.  Zein-Eldin and Renaud (1986)
documented the wide salinity tolerance range  of white  and brown
shrimp.  Many other species exhibit similar tolerances (Copeland
and Bechtel 1974).   Less data is available to substantiate claims
that some species can tolerate low dissolved oxygen levels (Heath
1987).   However,  some species such as bay anchovy and sea catfish
have been known to tolerate low dissolved oxygen levels (1.5 ppm)
for various periods of time  (Muncy and Wingo 1983; Robinettev1983).

The  purpose  of  this  survey was  to determine  if there  are any
identifiable trends in nekton abundance that might be attributable
to monitored water  quality in segments  1006 and/or 1005.  Based on
this survey  it was difficult to discern whether any large scale
relationship exists.   Segment 1001 presents  what  is perhaps the
best  'control1  area  we have  to compare  nekton communities  in
segment 1006.  Segment 1005, which also has a  high quality aquatic
habitat use  designation,  also serves  as a downstream comparison
(TWC 1990).  The  water chemistry and nekton communities in segment
1001 were significantly different from 1006 in many ways.  Higher
dissolved oxygen levels, numbers of  organisms,  number of taxa, and
diversity  (H1) were observed in segment  1001.   It  appears that
segment 1006 nekton communities have been impacted by adverse water
quality.    Based  on  the  smaller  differences  observed  in  the
population parameters between segment 1001  and 1006 during January
1989, effects of  these  impacts may be less severe in winter months.
Extremely low dissolved oxygen levels  (<2.0 ppm) were observed at
Station 1 in segment 1006 during August 1988.   Remaining stations
in segment 1006 yielded collections with similar catches to those
in segments 1001 and 1005.

Hydrologically and biologically  segment 1005 was very similar to
1006.  This was  especially  true during the January 1989 sampling
period.  Similar  species compositions,  catch rates, number of taxa
and water quality  parameters (dissolved  oxygen and salinity) was
observed along the  shoreline zone of  the these two segments.  As
previously mentioned the shoreline  zones were  also very similar in
physical characteristics.

Based on the water quality variables monitored  dissolved oxygen was
the only variable  which appeared to vary  in  a consistent manner
which might influence the nekton community.   However, as previously
mentioned segments  1005 and  1006 appeared to have similar dissolved
oxygen regimes in the shoreline zone (excluding the upper reaches
of 1006 at station 1, near Greens Bayou).

-------
                                                                   121
The study documents the extensive use  of  the  HSC and San Jacinto
river as habitat for adult and immature species of crustaceans and
fish.     Preliminary   observations  made  on concurrent  projects
conducted during the study period by one of the authors and other
agency  (NOAA)  personnel  substantiates the  extensive use  of  the
deeper  waters of  the channel  by  nekton.    That  data  has  not
presently been analyzed.   Future analysis and publication of that
data will clarify the comparative utilization of deep and shallow
water habitats within the HSC.

During the late  1950's little  if any aquatic  life  was collected
and/or observed in segment  1006  (Chambers  and Sparks 1959).  Since
then  as  a result  of   increased  state  and  federal  environmental
regulation and resulting  improvements  in  wastewater  treatment
technology and resulting water quality, the overall utilization of
these areas by shoreline  nekton communities in  the Houston Ship
Channel has improved.   Based on similar biological and hydrological
characteristics and presence of a  commercial blue  crab fishery
observed in 1006, the  previously established  aquatic habitat use
designation for segment 1006 may need to be reevaluated.

-------
                                                                   122
                         LITERATURE CITED

Buzan,  D.,  P. Rogues and B. Griffin.  1987. Texas Water Commission
     Water Quality Monitoring Procedures Manual. Austin,  Texas.

Chambers,  G.V. and A.K. Sparks. 1959. An ecological survey of the
     Houston Ship Channel and adjacent bays.  Publications of the
     Institute of Marine Science 6:213-250.

Copeland,  B.J. and T.J. Bechtel. 1974. Some environmental limits of
     six Gulf coast estuarine organisms.  Contributions in Marine
     Science 18: 169-204.

EPA (U.  S. Environmental  Protection Agency). 1980.  A water quality
     success story: Lower Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay.
     Office  of  Water  Planning and Standards.  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Washington,  D.C.

Heath,  A.G.  1987. Water pollution and fish physiology. CRC Press.
     Boca Raton, Florida.

Kirkpatrick, J. 1987.   Intensive survey of  the Houston Ship system:
     segments 1001,  1005, 1006, 1007,  1013, 1014, 2421, 2426, 2427,
     2428,  2429,  2430,  2436.  February 26-28,   1985.   Texas Water
     Commission. IS 87-09.  Austin, TX.

Muncy,  R.J.  and W.M. Wingo. 1983.  Species  profiles: life histories
     requirements of  coastal  fishes and   invertebrates  (Gulf of
     Mexico) — sea  catfish and gafftopsail catfish.  U.S. Fish and
     Wildlife Service, Division  of Biological  Services,  FWS/OBS-
     82/11.5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

Robinette,    H.R.   1983.      Species   profiles:   life  histories
     requirements of  coastal  fishes and   invertebrates  (Gulf of
     Mexico)  —  bay anchovy  and striped  anchovy.  U.S.  Fish and
     Wildlife Service, Division  of Biological  Services,  FWS/OBS-
     82/11.14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.

SAS Institute Inc. 1988.  SAS/STAT Users Guide. Release  6.03 ed. SAS
     Institute Inc. Gary, N.C. 1028.  pp.

TDWR. 1980.  Houston Ship  Channel Monitoring  Program 1973-1978.
     Texas Department of  Water Resources Report  LP-122. April 1980,
     Austin, Texas.

TDWR. 1984.  Waste Load  Evaluation for the Houston Ship Channel
     System in the  San Jacinto River Basin.   Texas Department of
     Water Resources Report No. WLE-1, July 1984,  Austin, Texas.


TWC  (Texas  Water  Commission). 1990.  The  state  of  Texas  Water
     quality  inventory.   10th  edition.   LP 90-06.  Texas  Water
     Commission. Austin,  TX.

-------
                                                                   123
Zein-Eldin,  Z.P.  and  M.L.  Renaud.  1986.  Inshore  environmental
     effects on brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus.  and white shrimp, P,
     setiferus. populations  in coastal  waters,  particularly  of
     Texas.  Marine Fisheries Review 48: 9-19.

-------
Appendix 1. Physical and hydrological data collected in the field during August 1988 gillnet collection.
STATION SEGMENT
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
8
8
9
9
1006
1006
1006
1006
1001
1001
1001
1001
1005
1005
1005
1005
2422
2422
DEPLOY.
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
SET
PICKUP
DATE
8-4-88
8-5-88
8-4-88
8-5-88
8-2-88
8-3-88
8-2-88
8-3-88
8-4-88
8-5-88
8-1-88
8-2-88
8-1-88
8-2-88
TIME SECCHI TOTAL TEMP. (C)
(IN.) DEPTH(FT)
1709 •••••••
953 1 3 *
1912 33
1 320 * • • • • *

1303 18
1013 24.5
1830 26


1 630 20 *

938 •*••••
5 30.0

6 28.5


6 30.0
****** 28.0
16 28.5
5.5 28.0
4 28.0
5 29.0
****** 27.5
PH
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.8
8.2
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.4
8.2
7.7
7.9
7.9
COND. SALINITY
(uMHOS) (PPT)
19000
15500
22000
19000
23000
24000
25000
25000
27500
31500
31000
29000
29000
10.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
14.7
20.0
20.0
18.0
18.0
D. O.
(PPM)
3.9
1.4
2.9
6.4
7.7
9.3
6.0
3.3
3.2
5.3
5.2
7.2
6.6
Note: (1) Hydrological measurements made at one foot depth. (2) * denote measurement not made. (3) Total depth refers to sampled area.
                                                                                                                                   NJ

-------
Appendix 2. Physical and hydrological data collected in the field during January 1989 gillnet collections.
SECCHI TOTAL DEPTH
STATION SEGMENT DATE DEPLOY. TIME (IN.) DEPTH FT. FT.
1 1006 1-16-89 SET 1549 34 14 1
5
10
13
1 1006 1-17-89 PICK 1135 33 12 1
5
10
2 1006 1-17-89 SET 1657 28 3 1
2 1006 1-18-89 PICK 1225 10 3 1
3 1001 1-17-89 SET 1517 30 17 1
5
10
15
3 1001 1-18-89 PICK 930 35 16 1
5
10
15
4 1001 1-17-89 SET 1728 24 13 1
5
10
TEMP
(C)
15.6
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.2
15.2
15.3
14.7
16.1
13.6
13.2
13.2
13.1
13.9
13.8
13.7
13.1
13.1
13.2
13.1
PH
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
8.5
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.8
7.8
COND.
(uMHOS)
23800
24000
25900
25900
24900
24900
25100
27900
19400
25300
26900
27000
27100
24800
25400
26000
27100
29000
29000
29000
SAL.
PPT
14.0
14.4
14.8
15.7
15.0
14.9
15.1
17.0
11.3
15.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
14.9
15.3
15.7
16.3
17.7
17.7
17.7
D.O.
(PPM)
5.9
5.9
5.8
6.3
5.6
5.6
5.8
6.5
7.3
12.0
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.9
7.9
7.8
8.2
Note: (1) "*• denote measurement not made. (2) Total depth refers to sampled area.
                                                                                                                                     in

-------
Appendix 2. Physical and hydrotogical data collected in the field during January 1989 gillnet collections.
SECCHI TOTAL DEPTH
STATION SEGMENT DATE DEPLOY. TIME (IN.) DEPTH FT. FT.
4 1001 1-18-89 PICK 1110 41 11 1
5
10
6 1005 1-19-89 SET 1153 21.5 5 1
4
6 1005 1-20-89 PICK 838 17 5 1
4
8 1005 1-19-89 SET 1430 20 5 1
4
8 1005 1-20-89 PICK 935 20 5 1
4
9 2422 1-23-89 SET 1540 31 4 1
3
9 2422 1-24-89 PICK 900 	 3 1
3
TEMP
(C)
12.7
12.7
12.9
15.8
15.8
15.7
15.7
14.5
14.5
14.9
14.9
13.0
13.0
13.1
13.1
PH
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
COND.
(uMHOS)
28000
28200
28300
19800
19900
15600
16550
27400
27600
23500
23700
29300
29300
28700
28600
SAL
PPT
17.0
17.2
17.3
11.5
11.7
8.9
9.0
16.7
16.8
14.1
14.2
18.0
18.0
17.5
17.5
D.O.
(PPM)
9.6
9.6
9.4
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.2
7.9
8.0
7.6
7.7
9.6
9.9
9*
.4
9.6
Note: (1) * * * denote measurement not made. (2) Total depth refers to sampled area.
                                                                                                                                      tvi
                                                                                                                                      ON

-------
Appendix 3. Physical and hydrological data collected in the field during August 1988 seine collections.
SEGMENT STATION
1006
1006
1006
1001
1001
1001
1005
1005
1005
2422
1
1A
2
3
3A
4
6
7
">8
9
DATE
8-1-88
1-8-88
8-1-88
8-2-88
8-3-88
8-3-88
8-1-88
8-1-88
8-1-88
8-1-88
TIME SECCHI DEPTH
(IN.) (FT.)
1545
1443
1404
1951
1543
1626 *
1312
1228
1131
0947
19
21
>7
12
13
6
6.5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TEMP.
(C)
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
30 **
28
PH
7.42
7.72
7.68
7.8
8.2
7.77
7.46
7.68
COND. SAL.
(uMHOS) (PPT)
20000
25500
25500
19000
25500
30500
29000
29000
23000
13
16
16
12
16
17
18
19 **
15
D.O.
(PPM)
2.8
5.3
4.5
6.4
9.3
5.3
4
7
Note: (1) Hydrological measurements made at one foot depth. (2) * denote measurement not made. (3) Total depth refers to sampled area.
                                                                                                                                   N>

-------
Appendix 4.  Physical and hydrological data collected in the field during January 1989 seine collections.
SEGMENT
1006
1006
1006
STATION
1
1A
2
DATE
1-17-89
1-16-89
1-16-89
TIME
1135
1110
1023
SECCHI
(IN.)
33
28
TEMP.
(C)
15.21
14.72
14.66
PH
7.46
7.52
7.54
COND.
(UMHOS)
24900
26000
27700
SAL.
(PPT)
15
15.6
16.9
D.O.
(PPM)
5.6
6.53
6.72
1001
1001
1001
1005
1005
1005
2422
3
3A
4
6
7
8
9
1-17-89
1-17-89
1-17-89
11-19-89
1-19-89
1-19-89
1-23-89
1517
1403
1315
1130
1312
1430
1540
30
31
>13
21.5
20.5
20
31
13.57
12.33
12.3
15.77
15.21
14.5
12.98
8.54
8.36
8.3
7.41
NA
7.51
7.91
25300
27900
28100
19800
23400
27400
29300
15.2
16.9
17.2
11.5
14
16.7
18
12.04
11.73
12.06
6.11
6.53
7.85
9.61
Note: (1) Hydrological measurements made at one foot. (2) *** denote measurement not made.
                                                                                                                                   co

-------
Appendix 5.  August 1988 gillnet catch statistics.
STATION
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
1
Green Bayou
1006
2
S.J. Mon.
1006
3
Cafe
1001
4
SJ@I-10
1001
6
CM 125
1005
8
CM 99
1005
9
U.Pt.#1
2422
10
U.Pt. #2
2422
INVERTEBRATES

Callinectes sapidus
Menippe mercenaria
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus setiferus

FISH

Elops saurus
Brevoortia patronus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Ictalurus furcatus
Arius fells
Bagre marinus
Fundulus grandis
Morone chrvsops
Micropterus salmoides
Lobotes surinamensis
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Archosargus probatocephalus
Lagodon rhomboides
Bairdiella chrysoura
Cvnoscion arenarius
7
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
8
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
5
5
0
0
21
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
7
0
0
84
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
3
0
2
26
1
0
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
                                                                                                                                 10

-------
Appendix 5. August 1988 gillnet catch statistics.
STATION 1 2
Green Bayou S.J. Mon.
SEGMENT 1006 1006
SPECIES COLLECTED
Cvnoscion nebulosus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogonias undulatus
Poqonias cromis
Sciaenops ocellatus
Muqil cephalus
Polvdactvlus octonemus
Scomberomorus maculatus
Citharichthys spilopterus
Paralichthys lethostiqma
Unidentifiable fish
COMMUNITY STATISTICS
Total # of Organisms
Mean # of Organisms/Segment
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Mean # of Species/Segment
Diversity (H')
Eveness (J1)
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

20
-
6
-

-
1.543
0.779
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1

39
30
6
9

6.0
1.243
0.694
3 4
Cafe SJ@I-10
1001 1001
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1

58
.
10
-

-
1.650
0.717
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
0

63
61
16
18

13.0
2.181
0.786
6
CM 125
1005
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0

49
-
7
-

-
0.956
0.491
8
CM 99
1005
0
1
0
0
1
0
5
6
0
1
0

42
46
10
13

8.5
1.727
0.750
9
U.Pt.#1
2422
0
0
36
1
0
0
4
0
0
3
0

147
-
11
-

-
1.345
0.561
10
U.Pt. #2
2422
2
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
0

114
131
13
15

12.0
1.384
0.539
                                                                                                                                           10
                                                                                                                                           o

-------
Appendix 6.  January 1989 gillnet catch statistics.
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
                                 1          234         6        8        9        10
                             G.Bayou  S.J. Won.   Cafe  SJ@I-10   CM 125   CM 99   U.PtJI   U.Pt. #2
 1006      1006    1001     1001      1005     1005
	  	* tangled	
                        2422
2422
INVERTEBRATES
Callinectes sapidus
FISH
Alosa chrvsochloris
Brevoortia patronus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Morone chrysops
Morone mississippiensis
Morone saxatilis x chrvsops
Bairdiella chrysoura
Cynoscion arenarius
Cynoscion nebulosus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogonias undulatus
Pogonias cromis
Sciaenops ocellatus
Muqil cephalus
Paralichthys lethostiqma

Total # of Organisms
Mean # of Organisms/Segment
     0
     0
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
5
5
0
5
29
0
4
2
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
46
_
 3
 2
 2
 0
 2
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 2
 0
 0
 0
 3
 0

14
30
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
_
0
1
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
28
15
2
20
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
8
1
53
_
     7
    62
    14
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
     1
     5
     1
     0
     2
     0
    10
     0

   104
  78.5

-------
Appendix 6. January 1989 gillnet catch statistics.


SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of species
per segment
Mean # of Species/segment
Diversity (H1)
Eveness (J1)
1
G. Bayou
1006

3
-

-
0.950
0.865
2
S.J. Mon.
1006

4
4

3.5
1.332
0.961
3
Cafe
1001

7
-

-
1.259
0.647
4
SJ@I-10
1001

6
9

6.5
1.772
0.989
6
CM 125
1005
* tangled
2
-

-
0.693
1.000
8
CM 99
1005

4
4

3.0
0.639
0.461
9
U.Pt.#1
2422

9
-

-
1.601
0.728
10
U.Pt. #2
2422

9
12

9.0
1.372
0.625
                                                                                                                                            to

-------
Appendix 7. Seine catch statistics (or segment 1006. August 1988.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
GREENS BAYOU
1
1006

2
1006

3
1006

MEAN
1006

01AOXYCHEM
1
1006

2
1006

3
1006

MEAN
1006

*2 SAN JACINTO
1
1006

2
1006

MON.
3
1006


MEAN GRAND MEAN
1006 1006

INVERTEBRATES
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes puqio
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus seiiferus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
FISH

Elops saurus
Bfevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Arius lelis
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
Oliooplites saurus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Leioslomus xanthurus
Poqonias cromis
Mugil cephalus
MUQJI curema
Paralichthvs lethostioma
Svmphurus plagiusa
Sphoeroides parvus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
11.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.3
0.3
. 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
                                                                                                                                                                               U)
                                                                                                                                                                               to

-------
Appendix 7. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1006, August 1988.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
GREENS BAYOU
1 2 3
1006 1006 1006

0 35 0
0 1 0
_
(MAOXYCHEM #2 SAN JACINTO MON.
MEAN
1006

11.7
0.3
1
1 2
1006 1006

37 21
5 4
-
3 MEAN 1
1006 1006 1006

11 23.0 2
2 3.7 1
6
2 3
1006 1006

1 19
1 2
_ _
MEAN
1006

7.3
1.3
2
GRAND MEAN
1006

14.0
1.8
7
species per segment                                                                          ^

Diversity (H1)                          -        0.000          -      0.000     0.703     1.142      0.689     0.845      0.000     0.000     0.515      0.172           0.339

Eveness (J)	-	0.000	      0.000     0.137     0.824      0.994     0.652      0.000     0.000     0.205      0.068	0.240
                                                                                                                                                                                 to
                                                                                                                                                                                 •fe.

-------
Appendix 8. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1006, January 1989.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
GREENS BAYOU
1
1006

2
1006

3
1006

MEAN
1006

#1AOXYCHEM
1
1006

2
1006

3
1006

MEAN
1006

#2 SAN JACINTO
1
1006

2
1006

MON.
3
1006


MEAN GRAND MEAN
1006 1006

INVERTEBRATES
Mysidae spp.
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes puqio
Penaeus setiferus
FISH
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Cyprinodon varieqatus
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
Micropoqonlas undulatus
Sciaenops ocellatus
Gobiosoma bosci
Citharichthys spiloplerus
Svmphurus plaqiusa
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Diversity (H1)
Eveness (J1)
0
0
0
0

9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
-

0.000
0.000
0
0
3
0

20
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
3
•

0.787
0.717
0
0
2
0

15
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
2.0
3

0.394
0.359
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
-

0.000
0.000
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
-

0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-

-
-
0
0
0
0 '

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.7
2

0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0

0
0
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
-

0.287
0.414
0
0
0
0

0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
-

0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0

2
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
-

0.429
0.619
0
0
0
0

1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1.7
3

0.239
0.344
0
0
1
0

5
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1.4
5

0.211
0.234
                                                                                                                                                                    OJ
                                                                                                                                                                    m

-------
Appendix 9. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1001. August 1988.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
#3 S.J. RIVER AT CAFE
1
1001

2
1001

3
1001

MEAN
1001

#3A S.J. RIVER AT R.R.
1
1001

2
1001

3
1001

MEAN
1001

#4 S.J. RIVER AT 1-10
1
1001

2
1001

3
1001

MEAN GRAND MEAN
1001 1001

 INVERTEBRATES
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes puqio
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus setilerus
0
11
0
3
0
11
1
5
0
2
3
6
0.0
8.0
1.3
4.7
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
8
0.0
1.0
0.0
6.7
0
166
0
48
0
0
0
8
0
15
0
8
0.0
60.3
0.0
21.3
0.0
23.1
0.4
10.9
 FISH
 Elops saurus
 Brevoortia patronus
 Anchoa mitchilli
 Arius (elis
 Fundulus orandis
 Fundulus similis
 Menidia beryllina
 Oligoplites saurus
 Cvnoscion nebulosus
 Leiostomus xanthurus
 Poqonias cromis
 Muoil cephalus
 Mugil curema
 Paralichthvs lethostiqma
 Svmphurus plagiusa
 Sphoeroides parvus
0
0
130
0
0
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
167
0
0
0
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
86
0
0
0
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.0
0.0"
127.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0
0
19
0
0
2
38
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
1
18
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
42.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
32.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.3
0
0
751
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
763
0
0
1
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
330
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
614.7
0.0
0.3
1.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
261.7
0.0
0.1
0.7
21.1
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
                                                                                                                                                                               UJ
                                                                                                                                                                               o>

-------
Appendix 9. Seine catch statistics (or segment 1001, August 1988.
STATION                        #3 S.J. RIVER AT CAFE                   #3A S.J. RIVER AT R.R.                    #4 S.J. RIVER AT 1-10
REPLICATE                      1         2         3       MEAN       1         2        3       MEAN       1         2         3       MEAN   GRAND MEAN]
SEGMENT                     1001      1001      1001      1001       1001      1001      1001      1001       1001      1001      1001      1001        1001
SPECIES COLLECTED
Total # of Organisms               162       197       111      156.7        67        60       132      86.3       996       793       360     716.3         319.8
Total # of Species                    5         6         7        6.0         7         5         7       6,3         4         4       ' 7       5.0           5.8
Cumulative # of                      ___8---9---7            13
species per segment
Diversity (H1)                     0.716     0.629     0.869      0.738      1.117     0.946     0.885     0.982      0.766     0.188     0.398     0.451         0.724
Eveness (J)	0.445     0.351     0.446      0.414      0.599     0.588     0.455     0.547      0.552     0.144     0.205     0.300	0.420
                                                                                                                                                                      Co
                                                                                                                                                                      -J

-------
Appendix 10. Seine catch statistics tor segment 1001, January 1989.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
INVERTEBRATES
Mysidae spp.
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes puoio
Penaeus setilerus
FISH
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitcnilli
Cyprinodon varieqatus
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
MicfQpoQonias undulatus
Sciaenpps ocellatus
Gobiosoma bosci
Ciiharichihvs spilopterus
Svmphurus plaqiusa
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # ot
species per segment
Diversity (H')
Eveness (J1)
« S.J. RIVER AT CAFE
1 2 3
1001 1001 1001

0
0
13
0

0
0
0
7
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
29
3
-

1.066
0.970

0
0
9
1

1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
4
-

1.006
0.726

0
0
41
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
47
2
-

0.382
0.551
MEAN
1001

0
0
21
0

0
0
0
6
0
3
2
•0
0
0
0
32
3.0
6

0.818
0.749
#3A S.J
1
1001

0
2
19
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
22
3
-

0.485
0.442
RIVER AT R.R.
2 3 MEAN
1001 1001 1001

0
0
21
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
25
5
-

0.661
0.411

0
1
20
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
24
4.0
8

0.573
0.427
#4 S.J.
1
1001

0
1
1
1

34
1
0
0
28
0
4
0
0
0
2
72
8
-

1.219
0.586
RIVER AT 1-10
2 3
1001 1001

0
0
3
1

14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
20
5
-

0.984
0.611

0
3
5
0

2
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
1
0
1
18
7
-

1.816
0.934
MEAN GRAND MEAN
1001 1001

0
1
3
1

17
0
0
0
10
0
2
0
1
0
1
37
6.7
9

1.340
0.710

0
1
15
1

6
0
0
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
1
31
6.2
13

0.910
0.629
                                                                                                                                                                              Co
                                                                                                                                                                              oo

-------
Appendix 11. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1005. August 1988.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
INVERTEBRATES
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes PUQJQ
Penaeus azlecus
Penaeus setiferus
FISH
Elops saurus
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Arius (elis
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
Oligoplites saurus
Cvnoscion nebulosus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Pogonias cromis
Muqil cephalus
Muqil curema
Paralichthvs lethostigma
Svmphufus plagiusa
Sphoeroides parvus
#6 S.J. RIVER @ CM
1 2
1005 1005

2
14
0
0

0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
3

1
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
3
1005

1
1
0
1

0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#7 S.J. RIVER @ CM 1 14 #8 S.J. RIVER @ CM 99
MEAN 1 2 3 MEAN 1 2 3 MEAN GRAND MEAN
1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005

1.3
5.3
0.0
1.3

0.3
0.0
31.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0

0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
1

0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1.7
0.0
0.0
0.3

0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3

1
0
0
1

0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
3

0
0
13
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
1

0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.3
1.0
0.0
1.7

0.0
0.0
7.7
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.1
2.1
0.0
1.1

0.1
0.0
15.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
                                                                                                                                                                              CO
                                                                                                                                                                              vo

-------
Appendix 11. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1005, August 1988.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Diversity (H')
Eveness (J)
#6 S.J. RIVER @ CM 125
1
1005

51
4
-

0.829
0.598
2
1005

46
5
-

0.549
0.341
3
1005

24
4
-

0.514
0.371
MEAN
iocs

40.3
4.3
6

0.631
0.437
#7 S.J. RIVER @ CM 114
1
1005

2
1
-

0.000
0.000
2
1005

17
2
-

0.362
0.523
3
1005

11
4
-

0.886
0.639
MEAN
1005

10.0
2.3
4

0.416
0.387
#8 S.J.
1
1005

7
5
-

0.095
0.963
RIVER @ CM 99
2
1005

34
4
-

1.103
0.796
3
1005

10
3
-

0.639
0.582
MEAN
1005

17.0
4.0
6

0.612
0.780
GRAND MEAN
1005

22.4
3.6
9

0.553
0.535

-------
Appendix 12. Seine catch statistics lor segment 1005, January 1989.
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
INVERTEBRATES
Mysidae spp.
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes puqio
Penaeus seliferus
FISH
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Cvprinodon variegatus
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
Micropoqonias undulatus
Sciaenops ocellatus
Gobiosoma bosci
Citharichlhys spilopterus
Svmphurus plagiusa
Total # of Organisms
Total 0 of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Diversity (H1)
Eveness (J1)
06S.J.RIVER @CM 125
1 2 3
1005 1005 1005

0
0
0
0

32
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
34
3
-

0.264
0.241

0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
2
-

0.562
0.811

0
0
0
0

9
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
14
3
-

0.830
0.756
MEAN
1005

0
0
0
0

14
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
2.7
3

0.552
0.603
#7S.J. RIVER @ CM 114
1 2 3
1005 1005 1005

0
0
1
0

24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
2
-

0.168
0.242

0
0
0
0

1
11
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
3
-

0.535
0.488

0
0
0
0

34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
1
-

0.000
0.000
MEAN
1005

0
0
0
0

20
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
2.0
4

0.234
0.243
#8 S.J. RIVER @ CM 99
1 2 3
1005 1005 1005

0
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
-

0.637
0.918

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-

-
-

0
0
1
0

13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
3
-

0.485
0.442
MEAN GRAND MEAN
1005 1005

0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1.7
4

0.561
0.680

0
0
0
0

13
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
2.1
5

0.449
0.509

-------
Appendix 13. Seine catch statistics for segment 2422, August 1988.
                                                                                                 142
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
INVERTEBRATES
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes pugio
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus setiferus
FISH
Elops saurus
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Arius felis
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
Olidoplites saurus
Cvnoscion nebulosus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Pogonias cromis
Mugil cephalus
Mugil curema
Paralichthvs lethostigma
Svmphurus plagiusa
Sphoeroides parvus
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Diversity (H1)
Eveness (J)
#9 UMBRELLA PT.
1 2
2422 2422

2
1
0
17

0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
4
-

0.828
0.604

2
1
0
40

0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
5
-

0.841
0.523
3
2422

4
188
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
193
3
-

0.133
0.121
MEAN
2422

2.7
63.3
0.0
19.0

0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
89.7
4.0
6

0.601
0.416

-------
Appendix 14. Seine catch statistics for segment 2422, January 1989.
                                                                                          143
STATION
REPLICATE
SEGMENT
SPECIES COLLECTED
INVERTEBRATES
Mysidae spp.
Callinectes sapidus
Palaemonetes pugio
Penaeus setiferus
FISH
Brevoortia patronus
Anchoa mitchilli
Cvprinodon variegatus
Fundulus grandis
Fundulus similis
Menidia beryllina
MicroDOQonias undulatus
Sciaenops ocellatus
Gobiosoma bosci
Citharichthys spilopterus
Svmphurus plagiusa
Total # of Organisms
Total # of Species
Cumulative # of
species per segment
Diversity (H1)
Eveness (J1)
#9 UMBRELLA PT.
1 2
2422 2422

1
0
1
0

227
15
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
245
5
-

0.309
0.192

0
1
5
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
5
-

1.303
0.810
3
2422

0
0
2
0

7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
-

0.530
0.764
MEAN
2422

0
0
3
0

78
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
88
4.3
6

0.714
0.589

-------
                                                                    144
Appendix 2

Detection Limits for Chemical Analysis of Water, Sediment and Fish
Tissue.

-------
                                                                   145
Appendix 2.
Detection Limits for Chemical Analysis  of  Water,
Sediment and Fish Tissue.
Parameters Analyzed
                                     Detection  Limits*
                Water
Sediment   Fish Tissue
Heavy Metals

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selemium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc

Conventional Parameters

Alkalinity
Ammonia
Chlorine
Cyanide
Oil & Grease
Sulfide
TDS
TSS
TOC
                fua/11
 (mo/kg)
fug/kg)
100
60
18
5
5
10
20
20
5-30
5-30
0.2
6-20
20
10
3.8
30
30-40
9.6-135
18.4
6.1
1.5
1.5
3.1
2.1-5.0
6.1
1.0s
9.2
0.2
6.1
1.6
3.1
1.3
5.0-40
1.5

3.0
0.25
0.2
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5
5.0
0.1
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.2
                 fmg/1)

                  5
                  0.01
                  0.01
                  0.02
                  5
                  0.01
                  1
                  1
                  4
 fmg/kg)
(mg/kg)
            0.5
Acid/Base Neutral Compounds

Phenol
bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether
2-Chlorophenol4
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-MethyIphenol
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)Ether
4-Methylphenol
                  fug/1)   fug/kg)
           fug/kg)
4
2
4
2
2
4
2
6
2
6
2000
1000
2000
1000
1000
2000
1000
3000
1000
3000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100

-------
APPENDIX 2  (CONTINUED)
                          146'
PARAMETER

Acid/Base Neutral Compounds.
Continued

N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Diroethylphenol
Benzoic Acid
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-MethyIphenol
2-MethyInaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
DimethylPhthalate
Acenaphthy1ene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Diethylphthalate
4-Chlorophenylphenyl Ether
Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenylphenyl Ether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Benzidine
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)Anthracene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
                                 WATER
SEDIMENT
                                                     FISH
6
2
2
4
10
6
10
2
6
2
2
4
2
8
2
10
6
6
2
8
2
2
8
2
30
8
2
6
6
2
8
2
8
20
4
8
2
15
2
2
2
2
20
2
4
10
8
4
8
4
3000
1000
1000
2000
5000
3000
5000
1000
3000
1000
1000
2000
1000
4000
1000
5000
3000
3000
1000
4000
1000
1000
4000
1000
15000
4000
1000
3000
3000
1000
4000
1000
4000
10000
2000
4000
1000
7500
1000
1000
1000
1000
10000
1000
2000
5000
4000
2000
4000
2000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
5400
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
5400
1100
5400
1100
1100
1100
1100
5600
5600
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
5400
5600
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
2200
1100
1100
1100
1100

-------
APPENDIX 2 (CONTINUED)
                                                                    147
PARAMETER

Acid/Base Neutral Compounds.
continued

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Volatile Compounds

Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichrloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Methyl-2-Pentanone
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Bromoform
Bromodichloromethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
O-Xylene
M-Xylene and/or P-Xylene
 WATER
  fug/1)
SEDIMENT
  fmg/kg)
                      FISH
  (uq/ka)
8
8
8
8
8
8
4000
2000
4000
4000
4000
4000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
fug/1)
fmg/kg)
5
100
100
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
5
2
5
2
5
5
5
5
250
5000
5000
100
250
250
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
250
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
250
250
250
250
250
100
100
100
100
250
100
250
100
250
250
250
250
fug/kg)
                        25

                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        50
                        25
                        25
                        25

                        25
                        25

                        25
                        50
                        50
                        50
                        50
                        50
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        25
                        50
                        25
                        25

-------
APPENDIX2 (CONTINUED)
                                                                      148
PARAMETER
Pesticides and PCBs
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4, 4 -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4, 4 -ODD
Endrin aldehyde
Endosulfan sulfate
4, 4 -DDT
Methoxychlor
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Toxaphene
PCB Aroclor-1016
PCB Aroclor-1221
PCB Aroclor-1232
PCB Aroclor-1242
PCB Aroclor-1248
PCB Aroclor-125
PCB Aroclor-1260
WATER
fug/11
0.040
0.060
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.200
0.200
2.000
0.500
3.000
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
SEDIMENT
(mq/kg)
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
40
40
40
50
40
40
50
50
50
150
200
200
500
2000
3000
2000
1000
2000
1000
1000
FISH
fug/ken
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
100
100
100
200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
* Values  are generalized;  DL's varied to some  extent based on
  sample  dilution.

-------
                                                                    149
Appendix 3



Field Data.

-------
FIELD DATA
DO=Dissolved Oxygen
SD=Secchi Disk Depth
TRC=Totat Residual Chlorine
DATE/
STATION TIME (H)
1 8/1/88*
1720







1 8/3/88
1445







1 1/9/89
1535



1 1/11/89
1521



1 1/12/89*
U36



1 1/13/89
1224



1 2/19/90
1730



1 2/20/90*
1300
DEPTH
(FT.)
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
10
20
30
40
1
10
20
30
40
1
10
20
30
40
1
10
20
30
40
1
10
20
30
34
1

TEMP.

-------
                                                                                                                           151
^STATION
    1

    i
DATE/TIME

2/21/90
1255

5/29/90*
1220
              5/31/90
              1145

              7/30/90*
              1334
              8/1/90
              1234

              8/1/88
              1830
    2         8/3/88
              1527
              1/9/89
              1625
              1/11/89
              1433
              1/12/89*
              1257
              1/13/89
              1053
DEPTH

 1
 1
10
20
30
40
42
                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
                     1
                     5
                    10
                    15
                    20
                    25
                    30
                    35
                    40

                     1
                     5
                    10
                    15
                    20
                    25
                    30
                    35
                    40

                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40

                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40

                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40

                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
TEMP.

17.36
pH

7.36
COND.

12500
28.3
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.1
29.14
30.81
30.28
30.20
29.98
29.98
31.05
30.18
30.18
30.16
30.13
30.08
30.04
29.85
29.79
29.73
31.49
31.05
30.33
30.00
30.00
29.98
29.89
29.87
29.87
16.68
16.70
16.70
16.73
16.70
17.12
16.64
16.20
15.96
15.33
17.24
17.06
16.75
16.24
16.37
16.21
16.25
16.28
16.28
16.06
7.15
7.15
7.16
7.20
7.27
7.45
7.19
7.30
7.24
7.35
7.68
7.79
7.49
7.47
7.34
7.35
7.37
7.35
7.36
7.45
7.60
7.68
7.32
7.30
7.25
7.24
7.27
7.27
7.38
7.42
7.44
7.68
7.69
7.78
7.88
7.92
7.60
7.62
7.68
7.74
7.85
7.57
7.57
7.64
7.72
7.68
7.53
7.52
7.51
7.53
7.54
1163
1163
1162
1159
1153
1149
1246
9220
1161
17700
26800
30600
11430
24100
24000
24100
24500
24700
25900
27300
31000
33000
23400
23700
24200
24900
25100
25600
27700
28700
29200
29600
29600
29900
30400
31200
28000
29000
30300
31800
34100
28800
29200
29600
31700
31500
28700
29000
29200
29900
32300
SALINITY

 6.9
                                        0.1
                                        0.1
                                        0.1
                                        0.1
                                        0.1
                                        0.1

                                        0.1
                                                    4.8
                                                    6.3
                                                   10.3
                                                   16.3
                                                   18.9

                                                    6.1
                                                   14.5
                                                   14.3
                                                   14.6
                                                   14.7
                                                   15.2
                                                   15.6
                                                   16.9
                                                   19.2
                                                   20.3

                                                   14.1
                                                   14.2
                                                   14.5
                                                   15.1
                                                   15.1
                                                   15.7
                                                   16.9
                                                   17.6
                                                   17.9

                                                   18.2
                                                   18.3
                                                   18.4
                                                   18.6
                                                   19.9

                                                   17.1
                                                   17.8
                                                   18.7
                                                   19.6
                                                   21.5

                                                   17.7
                                                   18.0
                                                   18.3
                                                   19.2
                                                   20.3

                                                   17.6
                                                   17.7
                                                   17.9
                                                   18.3
                                                   19.9
DO

6.71
                                         1.16
                                         1.11
                                         1.05
                                         1.00
                                         1.10
                                         1.23

                                         2.03
                                                      3.58
                                                      1.82
                                                                                                     06
                                                                                                     77
                                                                                                     15
                                                                                     4.20
                                                      2.03
                                                      1.98
                                                      1.82
                                                      1.77
                                                      1.68
                                                      1.54
                                                      1.77
                                                      1.95
                                                      2.14

                                                      2.50
                                                      2.32
                                                      1.55
                                                      1.21
                                                      1.21
                                                      1.60
                                                      1.79
                                                      1.89
                                                      1.94

                                                      6.43
                                                      6.40
                                                      6.44
                                                      6.50
                                                      6.49

                                                      6.04
                                                      6.05
                                                      6.41
                                                      6.62
                                                      6.75

                                                      6.42
                                                      6.26
                                                      6.40
                                                      7.36
                                                      6.48

                                                      6.71
                                                      6.65
                                                      6.63
                                                      6.58
                                                      7.54
                                                                                               SO
                                        7.0
                                                                                                            TRC
                                         9.0


                                         23.6
                                                     36.0


                                                     28.0
                                                     31.5

-------
                                                                                                                         152
STATION

  2
 2


 2


 2
 DATE/TIME

 2/19/90
 1530
 2/20/90*
 1327

 2/21/90
 1224

 5/29/90
 1324
           5/30/90*
           1051
           5/31/90
           1123

           7/30/90
           1400
 2


 2


 3
7/31/90*
1145

8/1/90
1218

8/1/88
0950
          8/3/88
          1121
          8/5/88
          1514
          1/9/89
          1329
          1/11/89*
          1046
 DEPTH

  1
 10
 20
 30
 33
  1
 10
 20
 30
 40
 45

  1
 10
 20
 30
 40
 47
                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
                    44
  1
  5
 10
 15
 20

  1
  5
 10
 15
 20

  1
 10
 20

  1
 10
20

  1
10
20
 TEMP.

 17.15
 17.21
 16.91
 16.35
 16.24

 17.41
             16.61
                                28.40
            30.41
            30.64
30.46
30.37
30.37
30.25
30.20

30.67
30.27
30.29
30.26
30.26

33.19
30.78
30.59

15.96
16.02
16.19

15.25
14.86
14.79
 pH

 7.39
 7.35
 7.47
 7.76
 7.83

 7.57
              7.57
                          7.21
              7.41
              7.46
7.64
7.56
7.56
7.50
7.65

7.55
7.46
7.49
7.61
7.61

8.54
7.58
7.37

8.44
8.39
8.33

8.33
8.06
8.02
 COND.

 13010
 13590
 15900
 18700
 20700

 14450
                                      14270
28.08
27.99
27.94
27.93
27.87
27.87
27.93
27.90
27.90
27.87
27.86
27.87
7.26
7.26
7.27
7.32
7.38
7.38
7.19
7.18
7.18
7.18
7.18
7.15
2470
2480
2490
2550
2620
2610
2460
2450
2470
2480
2500
2500
                                                         2440
31.85
30.68
30.30
30.04
29.96
29.97
7.31
7.28
7.61
7.80
7.87
7.82
10920
11660
20400
28700
33200
33300
                                     11280
                                     15200
 17400
 17500
 18400
 19400
 19500

 18200
 18700
 19400
 20100
 20300

 16300
 19600
20500

25300
25800
27000

26300
28000
28300
 SALINITY

 7.2
 7.6
 9.1
 11.0
 12.2

 8.1
                           8.1
                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.9
                                        0.9
                                        0.9

                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.8
                                        0.9

                                        0.8
                           5.9
                           6.3
                           11.9
                           17.5
                           20.7
                           20.7

                           6.1
                                        8.6
10.0
10.1
10.8
11.3
11.4

10.5
10.8
11.3
11.8
11.9

9.3
11.4
12.1

15.2
15.6
16.2

15.8
17.1
17.2
 DO

 6.21
 5.74
 5.67
 6.15
 6.21

 6.12
                                                                   7.26
                                          3.87
                                          3.89
                                          4.06
                                          4.28
                                          4.81
                                          5.04

                                          3.66
SD
TRC
                                                                                                   67
                                                                                                   74
                                                                                                   84
                                                                                                   02
                                                                                                   12
                                                                   3.57
                                                                   3.58
                                                                                                   69
                                                                                                   24
                                                                                                   22
                                                                                                   41
                                                                                                   45
                                                                   4.43
                                                                   3.76
4.42
3.57
2.85
2.81
2.68

5.24
2.63
2.45
2.63
2.58

13.20
3.17
1.33

10.07
 9.06
 8.53

9.03
7.82
7.83
                                                                                                             6.5
                                                                                                  8.0
                                          11.0


                                          28.4
34.5


35.5


25.5
                                                                                                 25.0
                                                                                                 15.0
                                                                                                 23.0

-------
                                                                                                                         153
STATION    DATE/TIME

  3        1/13/89
           1053
 3         2/19/90*
           1057
           2/21/90
           1H3
           5/29/90*

           5/31/90
           1040
           7/30/91
           1106
           8/1/90
           1150

           8/1/88*
           1050
           8/3/88
           1243
           8/5/88
           1542
           1/9/89
           1401
           1/11/89
           1318
           1/13/89
           1159
DEPTH

 1
 5
10
15
20

 1
 5
10
15
19
 1
 5
10
15
20
25

 1
 5
10
15
20
 1
 5
10
15
20
22

 1
 5
10
15
20
24

 1
13
25

 1
10
19

 1
10
20
 1
 5
10
15
19
TEMP.

14.94
14.97
15.11
15.63
15.66

15.4
15.4
15.5
15.9
16.2

15.51
25.0

28.55
28.32
28.32
28.25
28.24
28.22

31.31
30.82
30.81
30.68
30.62

31.86
PH

8.26
8.25
8.22
8.11
8.09

7.8
7.9
8.0
7.7
7.7

7.70
6.56

7.19
7.16
7.13
7.14
7.14
7.15

8.21
8.14
7.88
7.68
7.63

8.40
COND.

26200
26200
26400
27200
27800

795
813
957
3720
6450

1157
653
654
653
650
660
661

8720
8760
10380
11140
11390

9950
30.14
29.96
29.82
29.81
29.79
29.77
30.21
30.02
29.95
29.91
29.83
29.82
34.28
31.30
30.30
14.75
14.88
15.48
15.54
15.24
15.42
15.26
15.28
15.35
15.29
15.25
7.62
7.55
7.54
7.53
7.50
7.50
7.48
7.48
7.46
7.46
7.43
7.41
8.53
7.96
7.41
7.91
7.91
7.88
7.80
7.72
7.66
7.75
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
22900
22900
22900
23000
22900
23000
23100
23100
23300
23300
23300
23300
21500
22000
23000
28800
28900
29200
29900
30400
30200
29900
30000
30100
30200
30200
SALINITY

15.8
15.9
16.0
16.6
16.9

 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 1.4
 3.2

 0.1
 0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

4.5
4.5
5.5
6.0
6.2

5.3
                                        13.
                                        13.
                                        13.
                                        13.
                                        13.
                                        13.7

                                        13.7
                                        13.8
                                        13.9
                                        13.9
                                        13.9
                                        13.9

                                        12.8
                                        13.0
                                        13.8

                                        17.6
                                        17.7
                                        18.0

                                        18.4
                                        18.7
                                        18.9
                                        18.5
                                        18.3
                                        18.6
                                        18.4
                                        18.6
DO

8.37
8.35
8.11
7.84
7.91
SD

 24.0
             TRC
                                                                  9.45
6.2

4.93
4.74
4.47
4.40
4.43
4.31

9.03
8.43
5.70
4.47
4.16

9.17
                                         3.95
                                         3.61
                                         3.42
                                         3.31
                                         3.23
                                         3.19
                                           76
                                           75
                                           38
                                           35
                                         3.20
                                         3.18

                                         15.06
                                         7.50
                                         3.01
                                         7.33
                                         7.32
                                         7.53

                                         7.33
                                         6.96
                                         7.81
                                         7.50
                                         7.50
                                         7.55
                                         7.55
                                         7.60
                       0.1
  11.0
  21.3
0.1
                                                                                         0.1
                                         24.0
                                         22.0
                                         14.0
                                         32.0
                                         24.0

-------
                                                                                                                         154
STATION

 4
 4


 4


 4
DATE/TIME

2/19/90
1140
2/20/90*
1205

2/21/90
1106

5/29/90
1250

5/30/90*
1119
           5/31/90
           1022

           7/30/90
           1150
           7/31/90*
           1200

           8/1/90
           1138

           8/1/88*
           1205
          8/3/88
          1350
          8/5/88
          1557
          1/9/89
          1426

          1/11/89*
          1342

          1/13/89
          1300
DEPTH

 1
 5
10
15
20
22
 1
 5
10
15
20
22
                     1
                     5
                    10
                    15
                    20
                    25
                     1
                     5
                    10
                    15

                     1
                     5
                    10
                    15

                     1
                     5
                    10

                     1
                    10

                     1
                    10

                     1
                    5
                    10
                   15
TEMP.

14.74
14.72
15.02
15.88
16.10
16.11

15.76
            16.17
            24.0
                               28.06
                               31.13
                               31.83
PH

7.83
7.83
7.77
7.73
7.60
7.80

7.73
             7.60
             7.08
                         7.68
                                            8.33
                         8.36
COND.

2998
2990
6160
10220
11670
12440

4400
            10500
27.55
27.51
27.49
27.48
27.46
27.46
7.54
7.54
7.54
7.54
7.55
7.55
2320
2320
2320
2310
2330
2320
                        1830
32.18
30.98
30.86
30.74
30.73
30.73
8.38
8.10
8.11
7.84
7.75
7.63
12420
12720
12860
13160
13230
13600
                                                        12210
                                                        12400
30.64
30.34
29.95
29.92
30.87
30.41
30.08
30.06
32.60
30.70
30.66
15.65
15.65
15.50
15.49
15.47
15.47
15.54
15.45
7.52
7.48
7.44
7.45
7.54
7.51
7.50
7.46
7.85
7.88
7.53
7.86
7.87
7.74
7.75
7.72
7.71
7.72
7.74
24300
24400
25100
25300
24300
24400
24400
24500
33600
23900
23800
29600
29700
30800
31000
30500
31000
31000
30800
SALINITY

1.1
1.1
2.9
5.5
6.4
6.8

1.9
                                                    5.6
                                                    1.0
                          0.7
                          0.7
                          0.7
                          0.7
                          0.7
                          0.7

                          0.5
                                                   6.8
                                                   7.0
                                                   7.1
                                                   7.3
                                                   7.3
                                                   7.5

                                                   6.7
                                                                       6.8
                                                   14.5
                                                   14.6
                                                   15.1
                                                   15.2

                                                   14.5
                                                   14.6
                                                   14.6
                                                   14.6

                                                   14.1
                                                   14.0
                                                   14.1

                                                   18.2
                                                   18.3

                                                   19.0
                                                   19.1

                                                   19.1
                                                   19.2
                                                   19.2
                                                   19.2
DO
SD
TRC
                                                                                                 8.40
                                                      10.28
                                                      6.40
                              6.08
                              6.07
                              6.04
                              6.06
                              6.20
                              6.15

                              6.85
                                                      9.63
                                                      7.26
                                                      7.75
                                                      5.96
                                                      5.31
                                                      4.50

                                                      8.0
                                                                  8.69
                                                      3.49
                                                      3.27
                                                      2.69
                                                      2.66

                                                      3.89
                                                      3.27
                                                      3.38
                                                      3.27

                                                      6.51
                                                      4.42
                                                      3.98

                                                      6.97
                                                      6.98

                                                      6.81
                                                      6.88

                                                      7.18
                                                      7.09
                                                      7.12
                                                      7.20
                                                                                                           11.5
                                                                              0.1
                                                   16.0


                                                   18.9
                                                   20.5


                                                   20.5


                                                   21.0
                                                                                                             0.1
                                                                             .**
                                                    23.0


                                                    16.0

-------
                                                                                                                          155
•STATION

    5
    5


    5




    5


    5




    5


    5
DATE/TIME

2/19/90
1205
2/20/90*
1148

2/21/90
1049

5/29/90
1330

5/30/90*
1144
5/31/90
1013

7/30/90
1210
7/31/90*
1217

8/1/90
1125

5/10/88
                    DEPTH
TEMP.
PH
                                                        CONO.
              8/2/88*
              0945
              8/3/88
              1730
1
5
10
11
15.16
15.15
15.15
15.18
7.68
7.73
7.74
7.79
7550
7780
8330
8330
                                             15.50
                                             16.18
24.5
                                            7.81
             6.86
                                                          6.46
                         8380
            12370
SALINITY

3.8
4.0
4.3
4.3

4.3
6.8
                          1.0
DO
SD
                                                                                                            TRC
1
5
10
15
1
1
5
10
15
1
1
1
10
20
30
40
45
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
27.55
27.53
27.53
27.53
28.03
30.84
30.73
30.67
30.56
30.83
30.73
24.29
24.18
24.16
24.09
24.05
24.03
30.04
29.93
29.86
29.74
29.76
29.80
29.84
29.85
29.85
29.85
30.55
30.52
30.42
30.32
30.17
30.01
29.94
29.88
29.84
29.83
7.51
7.51
7.50
7.49
7.63
7.63
7.54
7.53
7.51
7.63
7.88
7.22
7.27
7.28
7.28
7.28
7.28
7.37
7.33
7.34
7.32
7.34
7.36
7.42
7.42
7.45
7.49
7.33
7.32
7.32
7.32
7.34
7.35
7.40
7.50
7.54
7.60
2760
2760
2760
2760
2470
13420
13630
13660
14000
13040
15600
19000
19400
20100
21300
23300
23800
24900
25000
25100
25600
26000
26500
28300
29800
30500
31700
25000
25100
25300
25500
26400
26700
27900
29700
30700
31700
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
7.5
7.6
7.6
8.0
7.2
8.9
11.1
11.4
11.2
12.6
14.0
14.1
15.0
15.0
15.1
15.3
15.9
16.1
17.5
18.3
18.9
19.9
15.0
15.1
15.3
15.5
16.0
16.3
17.1
18.2
18.9
19.7
                                         8.01
8.21
               6.4
                                                      5.79
                                                      5.77
                                                      5.81
                                                      5.84

                                                      6.27
                                                      4.96
                                                      4.75
                                                      4.74
                                                      4.43

                                                      4.40
                                                      5.85
                                                      3.82
                                                      4.33
                                                      4.46
                                                      4.43
                                                      4.40
                                                      4.36

                                                      2.80
                                                      2.62
                                                      2.32
                                                      2.09
                                                      1.97
                                                                                                     03
                                                                                                     08
                                                                                                     12
                                                                                                     20
                                                                                                   2.11
                                                                                       .52
                                                                                       .41
                                                                                       .43
                                                                                       .25
                                                                                       .17
                                                                                       .93
                                                                                       .08
                                                                                     2.34
                                                                                     2.24
                                                                                     2.21
                                                   7.0
                                                     15.0


                                                     23.6




                                                     27.5


                                                     20.0
                                                                                                 23.0
                                                                0.15
                                                                  23.0

-------
                                                                                                                         156
STATION

  6
DATE/TIME

8/5/88
0930
            1/9/89
            1140
            1/11/89
            0944
           1/12/89*
           1243
           1/13/90
           1038
           2/19/90
           1225
           2/20/90*
           1128

           2/21/90
           1036

           5/29/90
           1358

           5/30/90
           1030
 6


 6
5/31/90
1005

7/30/90
1240

7/31/90
1130
DEPTH

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40
44
                                           TEMP.
pH
                                                        COND.
                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
                    47
30.83
30.40
30.35
30.30
30.32
30.32
30.32
30.33
30.33
16.25
16.54
16.47
16.55
16.71
16.07
15.48
15.20
14.83
14.83
17.05
16.90
16.65
16.00
15.30
15.71
15.76
15.94
15.95
15.99
15.80
16.35
16.39
16.21
16.05
16.02
7.33
7.34
7.34
7.37
7.42
7.53
7.60
7.66
7.68
7.81
7.83
7.84
7.86
7.90
7.68
7.80
7.86
7.92
7.93
7.70
7.61
7.64
7.72
7.84
7.68
7.67
7.76
7.72
7.77
7.72
7.81
7.85
8.07
8.18
8.17
25300
26200
26400
27200
28100
30300
31600
33000
33600
31100
31500
32500
33000
34900
30600
32300
33500
35500
36000
30400
30700
31000
33300
35300
30300
30600
30900
31300
32200
11020
14830
17000
19200
23300
24400
                                16.09
                                16.44
                                24.5
            27.48
            27.48
            27.47
            27.46
            27.45
            27.44

            27.95
            31.06
            30.39
                         7.62
                         7.41
                         6.56
7.59
7.59
7.60
7.60
7.63
7.62

7.62
7.26
7.41
            13140
            16300
2870
2890
2910
2950
2980
2990

2720
13060
13030
               SALINITY

               15.2
               15.8
               16.0
               16.5
               17.2
               18.8
               19.5
               20.6
               20.8

               19.2
               19.4
               20.2
               20.5
               21.7

               18.9
               20.1
               20.9
               22.5
               22.7

               18.8
               18.9
               19.1
               20.3
               21.9

               18.7
               18.8
               19.1
               19.4
               19.8

               6.0
               8.4
               9.8
               11.2
               13.9
               14.6

               7.3
               9.1


               1.0
1.0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.0


7.2


7.2
               DO

               2.17
               2.04
               1.93
               2.05
               2.34
               2.48
               2.55
               2.71
               2.73

               7.17
               7.06
               7.06
               7.13
               7.19

               6.40
               6.84
               7.02
               7.33
               7.26

               6.89
               7.37
               6.66
               6.81
               7.51

               7.30
               7.42
               7.03
               7.57
               8.29
          SD

          29.0
           TRC
               7.04
               7.61
                                         6.60
5.95
5.92
5.97
6.06
6.27
6.37

5.89
3.12
3.91
                                                                                                           25.0
                                                                                                           25.0
11.0
                                                                                                             12.0
24.4
31.0

-------
                                                                                                                         157
STATION

  6
DATE/TIME

8/1/90
1111
           8/1/88*
           1910
           8/3/88
           1700
           8/5/88
           0910
           1/9/89
           1046
           1/11/89
           0902
           1/12/89*
           0930
           1/13/91
           0924
DEPTH

 1
10
20
30
40
48

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40
50

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40
                                           TEMP.
PH
                                                        COND.
30.83
30.44
30.41
30.16
30.00
29.98
30.11
30.18
30.29
30.21
30.16
29.98
29.83
29.79
29.77
29.76
30.69
30.67
30.50
30.19
30.05
29.91
29.91
29.89
29.85
29.80
30.06
30.01
30.08
30.14
30.18
30.21
30.24
30.23
30.21
30.21
15.90
15.78
16.15
16.43
16.58
14.81
14.92
14.80
14.74
14.76
14.69
16.40
16.31
15.61
15.38
14.93
15.36
15.57
15.81
15.89
15.89
7.72
7.64
7.68
7.78
7.81
7.81
7.64
7.55
7.67
7.68
7.66
7.53
7.65
7.71
7.81
7.86
7.58
7.57
7.58
7.53
7.54
7.56
7.54
7.65
7.69
7.71
7.42
7.46
7.45
7.41
7.59
7.68
7.78
7.83
7.87
7.88
7.77
7.73
7.68
7.75
7.84
7.87
7.86
7.89
7.95
7.95
7.97
7.72
7.77
7.78
7.89
7.88
7.64
7.67
7.68
7.71
7.76
15200
17500
22300
31400
35700
35000
26600
26400
26900
27200
27300
28700
31000
32500
35400
36200
26400
26300
26700
27800
28500
29500
29100
31400
32200
33600
26100
26700
27200
28300
29500
31800
34200
36900
38900
40200
32500
32400
33200
34800
35600
32700
33700
35200
36600
36600
37000
32000
32000
34000
34300
36700
30700
30800
31200
32300
32900
SALINITY

8.6
10.1
13.2
19.8
22.4
22.5

16.1
16.0
16.3
16.4
16.7
17.0
19.1
20.7
22.1
22.8

15.9
15.9
16.2
16.9
17.5
18.1
17.9
19.4
20.0
20.9

15.8
                                                                       16.3
                                                                       16.5
                                                                       17.3
                                                                       18.1
                                                                       19.7
                                                                       21.4
                                                                       23.3
                                                                       24.8
                                                                       25.7

                                                                       20.1
                                                                       20.1
                                                                       20.8
                                                                       21.8
                                                                       22.6

                                                                       20.4
                                                                       21.0
                                                                       22.0
                                                                       23.2
                                                                       23.0
                                                                       23.4

                                                                       19.8
                                                                       19.9
                                                                       21.0
                                                                       21.7
                                                                       23.2

                                                                       18.8
                                                                       19.1
                                                                       19.4
                                                                       20.0
                                                                       20.6
DO

5.41
4.14
3.60
3.09
2.97
2.92

3.76
3.84
4.44
4.71
3.80
2.81
2.71
2.80
2.89
2.76

4.37
4.65
4.00
3.34
3.01
2.78
2.87
2.88
2.77
2.81

3.44
3.25
3.25
3.33
3.48
3.76
3.87
3.64
3.51
3.49

7.34
7.39
7.30
7.26
7.35

7.34
7.16
7.25
7.24
7.24
7.12

7.04
7.02
7.20
7.00
7.50

7.78
7.82
7.69
7.60
8.05
SD

30.5
                                                                                                                        TRC
                                                                                                           26.0
                                                                                                  25.0
                                                                                                  25.0
                                                     35.0
                                                     27.5

-------
                                                                                                                         158
STATION

  7
DATE/TIME

2/19/90
1315
           2/20/90*
           1106

           2/21/90
           1015

           5/29/90
           1420

           5/30/90*
           1000
 7


 7
5/31/90
0950

7/30/90
1253

7/31/90*
1112

8/1/90
1055
           8/1/90*
           2000
           8/3/90
           1625
DEPTH

 1
10
20
30
40
45
                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
                    43
 1
10
20
30
40
44

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
48
TEMP.

16.17
16.11
16.15
15.96
15.84
15.88

16.06
                                16.28
                                24.5
            28.11
            31.16
                                           29.94
PH

7.83
7.88
7.94
8.16
8.25
8.25

7.64
                         7.69
                         6.45
             7.74
             7.73
                         7.68
COND.

14700
15000
16800
23100
27900
28900

16200
                         17000
27.60
27.57
27.41
27.32
27.18
27.05
7.72
7.72
7.77
7.78
7.85
7.85
3430
3420
3490
3540
3560
3600
            3200
            14620
                         14690
30.71
30.37
30.46
30.11
30.02
30.02
30.39
30.35
30.25
30.12
30.06
30.06
29.91
29.82
29.80
29.79
30.58
30.21
30.26
29.95
29.93
29.81
29.78
29.80
27.79
29.79
29.80
7.75
7.76
7.79
7.80
7.80
7.80
8.18
8.10
7.96
7.90
7.92
7.93
7.88
7.90
7.93
7.94
7.67
7.66
7.62
7.62
7.63
7.71
7.82
7.83
7.89
7.90
7.89
14470
18400
21200
33800
35500
35800
29400
29400
29600
31200
31900
31900
34300
35300
37400
36800
28400
28800
29100
29900
30100
31800
33500
33700
35500
36500
36700
SALINITY

8.3
8.5
9.5
13.5
16.8
17.7

9.2
                          9.8
                                        1.0
               1.4
               1.4
               1.4
               1.4
               1.5
               1.5

               1.2
               8.2
                          8.2
                                       8.1
                                       10.7
                                       12.5
                                       21.1
                                       22.3
                                       22.5

                                       18.0
                                       18.1
                                       18.2
                                       19.2
                                       19.7
                                       19.9
                                       20.6
                                       22.0
                                       23.5
                                       23.3

                                       17.3
                                       17.6
                                       17.8
                                       18.4
                                       18.5
                                       19.8
                                       20.9
                                       21.1
                                       22.3
                                       22.9
                                       23.2
                                                                                                 DO
SO
             TRC
                                                                                      7.10
                              9.16
                                         7.20
               6.38
               6.43
               6.61
               6.59
               6.86
               7.11

               6.51
               6.16
                              5.37
                                         5.71
                                         4.81
                                         4.26
                                         3.18
                                         3.06
                                         3.13

                                         8.06
                                         7.01
                                         5.70
                                         4.70
                                         4.56
                                         4.65
                                         4.16
                                         3.54
                                         3.30
                                         3.25

                                         4.90
                                         4.39
                                         3.86
                                         3.55
                                         3.44
                                                                                                   40
                                                                                                   63
                                                                                                   55
                                                                                                   56
                                                                                                   37
                                                                            11.0
11.0


17.7


25.5


25.5
                                                                                                                         (trace)

                                                                                                                         <0.1
                                                                                                                         (trace)
                                                                                                  22.0
                                                                                                 29.0
                                                                                                 3.31

-------
STATION

8
DATE/TIME

8/5/88
0747
           1/9/89
           0939
           1/11/89
           0839
           1/12/89*
           0820
           1/13/89
           0850
           2/19/90
           1337
           2/20/90*
           1048

           2/21/90
           0958

           5/29/90
           1450

           5/30/89
           0938
 8


 8
5/31/90
0930

7/30/90*
1312
DEPTH

 1
 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40

 1
10
20
30
40
48
                                           TEMP.
pH
COND.
                     1
                    10
                    20
                    30
                    40
                    48
29.96
30.01
30.01
30.07
30.09
30.18
30.25
30.29
30.30
30.29
15.69
16.03
16.38
16.39
16.48
14.58
14.70
14.72
14.70
14.68
15.68
15.46
15.42
15.08
14.91
15.29
15.46
15.63
15.56
15.45
15.57
15.65
15.66
15.35
15.33
15.36
7.71
7.76
7.77
7.82
7.85
7.88
7.93
7.96
7.97
7.96
7.90
7.92
7.96
8.02
8.00
7.92
7.91
7.92
7.94
7.95
7.76
7.82
7.80
7.83
7.93
7.72
7.71
7.72
7.75
7.70
8.02
8.07
8.15
8.24
8.19
8.20
29100
30100
30800
32200
33800
36700
38500
40400
41800
42100
34100
34800
36600
37600
38400
34700
36400
37300
37900
38200
33700
34100
35200
37000
38000
32100
32300
33100
34700
36200
16900
19800
22800
26700
29500
29700
                                15.73
                                15.96
                                24.5
            27.12
            27.11
            27.18
            27.27
            27.34
            27.61

            27.62
           31.34
                         7.70
                         7.67
                         7.64
7.95
7.95
7.93
7.87
7.83
7.68

8.08
7.65
            17000
            19200
2390
2440
2620
3010
3400
5930

562
15900
SALINITY

17.9
18.5
19.0
20.0
21.0
23.2
24.3
25.8
26.7
27.0

21.2
21.8
23.1
23.6
24.3

21.8
22.8
23.5
24.0
24.2

20.9
21.4
22.1
23.3
24.0

19.9
20.1
20.4
21.6
22.6

9.6
11.5
13.6
16.2
18.2
18.3

9.7
               11.2
                           1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.8

0.0
8.8
                              DO

                              4.59
                              4.66
                              4.72
                              4.85
                              4.63
                              4.39
                              4.36
                              4.45
                              4.31
                              4.32

                              7.37
                              7.31
                              7.29
                              7.41
                              7.20

                              7.01
                              7.31
                              7.37
                              7.42
                              7.41

                              7.10
                              7.06
                              7.14
                              7.27
                              7.26

                              7.89
                              7.76
                              7.78
                              7.48
                              8.52
          SO

          25.0
            TRC
                              8.80
               9.08
                              7.4
6.76
6.76
6.69
6.50
6.58
5.87

7.17
6.76
                                                                                                  26.0
                                                                                                  32.0
                                                                                                              0.5
                                                                                                              (Trac
10.0
6.0


23.6

-------
160
STATION
8

8




9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10




10

10




10

10




10

DATE/TIME
7/31/90
1049
8/1/90
1036



8/1/88*
0815
8/3/88
0930
8/5/88
1510
1/13/89***
0830
2/19/90*
1130
2/21/90
0952
5/29/90*
1115
5/31/90
1U5
7/30/90*
1250
8/1/90
H10
2/19/90
1100



2/21/90
1358
5/29/90
1145



5/31/90
1235
7/30/90
1154



8/1/90
1322
DEPTH
1

1
10
20
30
40
1
3
1
3
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
10
20
30
36
1

1
10
20
30
35
1

1
10
20
30
35
1

TEMP.
29.82

30.69
30.36
30.33
30.25
30.14
29.58
29.57
29.25
29.23
31.00

10.67

13.00

13.00

25.00

30.00

32.5

30.0

16.92
18.13
18.13
18.00
17.90
18.08

28.5
28.4
28.4
28.5
28.2
28.93

31.03
29.51
29.91
29.94
29.92
30.75

PH
7.74

8.07
8.07
7.82
7.83
7.82
7.73
7.71
7.86
7.86
.

7.83

7.71

6.93

8.2

6.9

7.4

8.0

7.22
6.96
6.90
6.90
6.83
7.17

7.05
7.03
7.03
7.03
6.98
7.13

7.26
7.01
7.10
7.14
7.26
7.54

COND.
16200

18500
19200
25800
34100
35700
25900
26100
30200
30200
-

29700

.

.

756

.

11000

9000

1900
9650
10430
10800
11200
4770

548
582
563
563
573
602

4760
11540
14700
15900
17200
12190

SALINITY
9.2

10.6
11.3
15.5
21.3
22.4
15.6
15.7
18.6
18.6
15.0

18.2

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

6.0

0.5
5.1
5.6
5.8
6.1
2.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.2
6.3
8.3
9.0
9.8
0.1

00 SO
5.56 21.5

7.04 25.5
5.64
4.45
3.89
3.77
5.26 21.0
5.28
5.82 22.0
5.76
10.4 27.5

9.12

10.8

10.6

7.9

8.3

7.6

4.2

5.02
2.23
1.77
1.16
0.51
9.79

1.15 8.0
1.09
1.12
1.17
0.48
2.15 9.0

4.34 37.0
0.10
0.57
0.91
1.16
2.82 12.0

TRC
0.1

0.1




«0.1

.**

-

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1

<0.1
(Trace)



<0.1

<0.1




<0.1

0.1




0.1


-------
                                                                                                                          161
STATION

  11




  11


  11
  11
  11
  12
  12
  12
  12
  12


  12




  12
Brays-
  1

Brays-
  1
Brays-
 2
DATE/TIME

2/19/90*
1216
2/21/90
1334

5/29/90*
1100
5/31/90
1215

7/30/90*
1233
8/1/90
1342

2/19/90
1400
2/20/90
1242

2/21/90
1307

5/29/90*
1240
5/31/90
1157

7/30/90*
1310
8/1/90
1244

8/31/90
9/20/89*
1200
9/20/89*
1300
DEPTH

 1
 5
10
12
 1
 5
10
15
16
                                 1
                                 5
                                10
                                12
 1
 5
10
                                           TEMP.
             pH
                                                         COND.
 1
 5
10
15
18
 1
 5
10
13
 1
15

 1
 8
16

 1
 8
15
17.85
17.73
17.83
18.21
18.2
28.00
27.90
27.93
28.00
27.92
29.18
31.30
30.18
30.18
30.10
31.48
17.66
17.18
17.41
17.62
17.48
28.41
28.37
28.30
28.20
28.10
28.78
31.75
30.64
30.39
30.35
7.53
7.53
7.50
7.20
7.54
7.54
7.52
7.51
7.47
7.46
7.73
7.74
7.74
7.57
7.36
7.67
7.35
7.30
7.22
7.49
7.35
7.36
7.39
7.41
7.46
7.47
7.53
7.70
7.32
7.21
7.23
2340
2360
2840
8570
2270
1570
1570
1560
3630
4000
1390
2870
3130
4830
6650
2190
5960
7300
11290
6830
9000
965
952
943
924
921
998
7360
8920
10240
11050
            31.24
30.23
29.19

28.08
28.40
29.92

27.14
29.28
29.58
             7.92
8.17
7.15

8.37
7.05
6.87

8.00
6.97
6.93
            5470
810
4730

942
9000
11430

1309
10820
12880
                           SALINITY

                           0.7
                           0.8
                           1.0
                           4.3

                           0.1
                                        0.3
                                        0.3
                                        0.3
                                        1.5
                                        1.6

                                        0.2
                                                    1.1
                                                    1.2
                                                    2.2
                                                    3.3

                                                    0.7
                                        2.9
                                        3.6
                                        6.1

                                        3.4
                                                                                   4.7
                                        0.0
                                        0.0
                                        0.0
                                        0.0
                                        0.0

                                        0.0
               3.7
               4.6
               5.5
               6.0

               2.6
0.0
2.1

 0
4.6
6.2

0.2
5.9
7.1
                              DO

                              4.66
                              4.62
                              4.08
                              2.32

                              6.12
                         SO
                                                                                                                         TRC
                                            59
                                            58
                                            40
                                            04
                                            00
                                                                                                  6.49
                                                       5.84
                                                         36
                                                         53
                                                         02
                                                                                                  4.03
                                         4.38
                                         4.21
                                         4.41

                                         4.51
                                                                  9.48
                                          2.13
                                          2.23
                                          2.19
                                          2.51
                                          2.55

                                          3.80
               6.73
               2.69
               1.37
               1.01

               5.80
7.00
0.48

9.80
0.12
0.13

6.32
1.06
2.43
                                                                                                              0.25
                                          24.0
                                                     24.0


                                                     21.3




                                                     29.0
                                                                                                              10.0
            9.0


            16.5




            23.5
25.6
                                                                                                             31.1
                                                     0.1
                                                                                                                         (Trac(|
                                                                                                                         (Tract)
                                                                              
-------
                                                                                                                          162
RATION
            DATE/TIME
DEPTH
TEMP.
P«
COND.
SALINITY
                                                                  00
                                                                             SO
                                                                             TRC
fays-
eens
1
Weens
1
Veens
2
Veens

•eens
r
^B-
Ijs-

9/20/89*
1420
8/31/89
1300
9/25/89*
1140
1/11/89
1622
9/25/89*
1258

9/25/89*
1400
9/12/89*
1400
9/12/89*
1313
9/12/89*
1043
1
10
•20
1
25
1
14
27
1

1
10
20
1
9
17
1
5
10
1
7
13
1
7
14
28.50
29.63
29.78
30.89
29.19
24.48
26.96
27.27
17.64

25.73
26.20
26.55
26.22
26.13
26.40
29.62
29.35
29.90
30.62
30.70
30.37
30.09
29.99
30.30
8.02
6.97
6.92
8.03
6.99
7.67
7.09
7.03
7.58

7.58
7.24
7.21
7.40
7.34
7.34
7.75
7.63
7.15
7.69
7.52
7.09
7.50
7.37
7.09
2240
12700
14140
2290
7740
6170
13890
15300
13280

9910
13800
15200
14240
15300
16500
3890
1890
1600
1970
4710
7150
4000
4900
9860
0.7
7.0
7.9
0.7
3.9
3.0
7.7
8.7
7.4

5.3
7.7
8.7
7.9
8.6
9.4
0.3
0.5
1.7
0.5
2.1
3.6
1.7
2.2
5.2
6.22 33.5 <0.1
0.13
0.17
8.61
0.20
5.10 31.50 <0.1
0.44
0.31
5.32

5.13 20.0 <0.1
2.08
1.61
3.32 19.7 <0.1
2.63 (Trace)
2.38
4.04 18.5 <0.1
3.85
0.16
4.43 - <0.1
3.14
0.18
4.34 31.1 <0.1
3.37
1.45
t  'Chemical analyses conducted on these samples.
  •Manganese interference was not measured.
•••Sample destined for chemical analysis collected on 1/12/89;  field data
   not collected on that date.

-------
                                                                   163
Appendix 4
Quality Assurance Review of Fish Tissue Chemical Analysis.

-------
                                                                                164
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGION VI
_^                           HOUSTON BRANCH
                           66O8 HORNWOOD DRIVE
                           HOUSTON. TEXAS 77O74

Memorandum

Date:     March 20, 1989

Subject:  Data Review^Fs/nns for San Jacinto River Study
                            ^•••i
From:     Michael"TLr^j^ggett, Chief, Organic Section, 6E-HO

To:       Philip A. Crocker, Technical Section, 6W-QT

Enclosed you will find the data review forms for the San Jacinto River
Study which you requested.

Should you have any questions or need any further assistance, please
feel free to call on roe.

-------
                                                                                 165
si*. ^ArM 7lk-ciM~70
Case No.
Revieued Bv I1\ * C' fc [f

Samole No. L^C&X/ I / £-, 1L
Iff
'T^i \ /( *^ >^y
' V
i .^^.^ i ,, „
ORGANIC QA CHECKLIST 7/O~$ f^ / ' fr^
f

TtK
P^V
^ /
Y I
6,
'
Laboratory \/\jl-£r3\
//Z^r C /U- r/ CVPJPrV^ ~"7Y f (
Matrix (f i-^uT N v^f- / C-'J
fleet. « ???607l(;/ W A?3
o y *c r\ , O £s~t/\S /
/ /
/

OVERALL COMMENTS (To be completed by
VOA
1. Holding Times ^ /»
2. Tuning/Performance
3. Calibrations
4. Blanks
5. Surrogate Recovery 	
6. Matrix Spike/Duplicate
7. Compound Identity
8. Case Assessment
A
A
A

A
j0
^
EPA PERSONNEL)
SNA PEST OTHER
fsflft- MA
A U.
A A
A- A
A A
A U
ft U
P LX^
COMMENTS OR CLflRIFICflTIONS (See flttached)




ft ~ Acceptable - ftll itens delivered; all criteria net.
P - Provisional - Data usable; some non-essential revleu items missing or _




_ criteria uere not met.




U - Unacceptable - Data unusable; essential revieu missing or criteria not met.

-------
                       COMMENTS/CLARIFICATIONS
                                                                       166
                       REGION  VI  CLP QA REVIEW
CASE              t      SITE          -       r       LAB
The following is a summary of sample qualifiers used by Region VI in
reporting this CLP Case data:
         No.         Acceptable     Provisional   Unacceptable
         VGA	
         BNA        	   _
         PEST       	   _
         OTHER
COMMENTS:

-------
Review of San Jacinto River Fish and Crab VGA, BNA and Pesticide Data   167

Data package is considered as provisional for BNA and VOA analysis of
six (6) fish and eight (8) crab tissue samples. Because of problems with
the pesticide analysis portion of these samples, the data for pesticides
is considered as not usable. Nothing of significance was found for the
target compound list (TCL) compounds in the BNA and VOA fractions save
for the usual lab/processing contaminants such as phthalates (BNA) and
solvents such as acetone and dichloromethane (VOA). Several fish samples
were reported bythe lab to contain low ppb, from 20 to 100 ppb, of DDE
pesticide, but it is opinion of 6E-HO that the identification here is
false positives combine with poor chromatography and that no measurable
DDE was found in these fish. Although most QC criteria of the methods
was met, the resultant identities and amounts reported for some compounds
in each of the various fractions leaves the overall Case assessment less
than acceptable. Probably the best thing about this data is that no VOA
compounds such as halogenated hydrocarbons were found and that no TCLs
were found in the BNAs save for pphthalates; also the pesticide data
show that except  for four or five compounds, the remainder of the pesticidP
target list was not present in these samples.

For the pesticdes, the present of DDE was indicated by a very small peak
on the backside of very large hump; the integration areas seem to be wrong
and the confirmation analysis for all samples showed a large negative
deflection in the backside of the peak; areas reported by the confirmation
analysis quantitation report were inconsistent with the GC chromatograms
for the capillary runs on DB-5 for fish samples reported positive on the
mixed-phase GC column. A prime example of this is in sample Fish 8:
here DDE was found at 23 ppb; the fish 8 QC sample, not spiked with DDE,
was  reported as 55 ppb;  fish 8 matrix spike duplicate was reported with
DDE well below the 20 ppb detection limit, i.e., not found. The last run
seems to be the only one of the three for fish 8 that has the correct
area counts for the primary GC analysis using the mixed phase column.

For the fish and crab samples, the matrix spikeduplicate data for the
pesticides was incredibly poor. Recoveries of 170-1200% for fish and       i
180-2400% ( the lab reported 2405%) for crab spikes for lindane, heptaclor,
and aldrin. These recoveries were due to the combination of interferences,
poor chromatography and/or poor judgement. The CLP/SW846 methods used
here may be good for water and soils, but perhaps not so good for tissue.

-------
                                                                        168
Review of San Jacinto River Data- continued-page 2

Presuming that the QC data from the matrix spikes is suppose to be indicative
of the recoveries from these matrices, then all detection limits and recover-
ies are in doubt. Some of the pesticide data is good; crab samples #1,#3,
#4.  and #6 showed acceptable data with little or no problems. Most of
the sample data for the primary analytical GC column, the mixed phase,
showed huge "humps" which effectively blotted out all pesticides from
about lindane to dieldrin ( includes heptaclor, hept. epoxide and aldrin )
making the detection limits and identities very difficult-see Crab#2,
Fish#2, #4, #6.#6A,#8.#9 and Crab#6A,#8. In addition, the data for Crab #9
was mixed up, the chromatograms obviously not those of a sample and the
same was true for Crab 6A MSD; the data included for these two crab samples
was either mixed up and is mislabelled or some other data was used-.

For the VOAs, almost all samples, but especially the crab tissues, were
reported with extremely high amounts of solvents such as acetone and 2-but-
anone. Crab 3 (5ppm),crab 4 (13ppm),#6 (54), 6A (1), #8 (35) and #9 (6ppm).
Lower amounts of acetone were reported for the fish. The lab offered no
explanation, save to say that such data was reported. Clearly such amounts
make no sense and must be due to some other source but the tissue such
as vial or tissue grinder contamination. In fish #2, VOA QC sample, the
MS has dichloromethane as not detected (ND) and 2-butanone as 110 ppb;
the MSD here has lOOOppb and ND, respectively. Such solvent related data
for acetone, etc., is to be dismissed or rejected for these samples and
must not be used to indicate the presence or absence of these compounds
in these tissue samples. The VOA data do show the absence of any target
compounds such as volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons or aromatics.

For the BNAs nothing of significance was found if the phthalates are dis-
counted. Many non-TCLs were found as tentative identified compounds, TICs,
should be considered as not due to the sample. TICs seen in the BNA fish/crab
were often seen in the blanks or are qualified by the lab as "B". Some
TICs were not qualified by the lab but should have been given a flag.
For example, Fish 2 has TICs  at scans 253,728,877,1939 and 2260 which
match those for blank SBLK96 (which is a crab blank) at scans 247,737,1690
and2254,respect. Another example is Fish 9, scan 247 is "B" flagged by
the lab in the TIC list, but scan 253 in Fish 2_see above- was not given
a "B" flag although they are the same material.

-------
                                                                        169
Review of San Jacinto River Data- continued-page 3

The VGA and BNA had good QC data to support their analyses. The data packages
were complete. Fish #2 was used for VOA QC and Fish #8 was the BNA QC
sample. Here all QC parameters were within CLP windows although no limits
exist for tissue samples for such surrogate and spike recvoeries. Although
some of chromatography here for the BNAs is poor, due to interferences
form the fish oils, etc., the sample data for the target compounds is
good.

In other instances of BNA TICs which were questionable, some other examples]
are where the BNA data for the crab shows a TIC at about scan 2250 and
resultant data for samples is "B" qualified ,but for the fish data, the
same scan 2250 or so BNA TIC shows up repeatedly and is not qualified
in the fish samples.In crab #3, the TIC 1,1,2-Tricchloroethane is given
at an estimated value of 210 ppb; this compound is a VOA target compound
which was not found in the VOA to a detection limit of 50 ppb. How can
this be a legitimate material due to the tissue sample as found in the
BNA? Again, for Crab #3, scan 322 looks like 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
at an est SOOppb; this target VOA  was not found at the 50 ppb level.
Scan 1047 in Crab 4 is listed as est. 980 "JB"; scan 1045 in Crab 3 is
the same thing with no "B".

In summary most BNA non-target compounds or TICs appear to be due to solvent
and/or processing artifacts. Many such TICs are qualified by the lab as
"B" related, but many TICs are not qualified and probably should be given
such flags. The confusion thus exist over what is/or isn't present in
the samples as non-target compounds.

Report Conclusions and recommendations- Do not use pesticide data, especialTy
for the three compounds reported at such extremely high recoveries, as
evidence for presence or absence of such pesticides in the samples. Because1
of problems in the pesticides, this data should not be used at all. BNA
and VOA data should be used with caution. The VOA and BNA data showed
the absence of target compounds except for some solvents such as acetone
in the VOA and phthalates in the BNA. Non-targets or TICs should be dismisJd
for the BNAs; many of the VOA TICs could be legitmate, such as the sulfur
compounds or the amines.

-------
                                                                                  170
^
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                      REGION  VI
                                  HOUSTON BRANCH
                                66O8 HORNWOOD DRIVE
                                HOUSTON. TEXAS 77O74


                                 INORGANIC QC CHECKLIST
Site 54,if'3?- /
Reviewed by/t/^/'-v/r///1 Xv^/v^Xrv
Date .i> . .^?.a ~ Jr
Sy-fS— ??.
l,tt<;A#
y f 'r,^,^
?*/
-JTfofi} 2£ r&R .rrx-r-^V^ cr/1^
•-•fryov^ r-^x/   -S/X  F7.S/S
                                                            -ry/.M///*?.
 .. -
Acceptable   - All items delivered; all criteria met
Provisional  - Data usable; some non-essential review items missing or criteria were
               not met
Unacceptable - Data unusable; essential review items missing or criteria not met

-------
                                                                             171'
CASE NO.
                 y £--;?-/
                               INORGANIC QA CHECKLIST
                                 CONTINUATION PAGE
                                                  SITE
COMMENTS:
7 MS x&'fl
D//)
                                                       77}
                                                                             '•'/;
7,

                                                          Afs^'ic  ^^.s/j/i-
                 D/D A?-

-------
                                                                                 172
                                 INORGANIC QA CHECKLIST
                                  CONTINUATION PARE
CASE NO. & S0_ AT- ?-. /
COMMENTS:
                         C/r/7fV. st/JV fif? Piif  TV  /^fartf/x  /fyg
Dtt/r
S=2c-r
r
                                                         ft. A

                                                J:A'

-------
                                                                         173'
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         REGION 6 - HOUSTON BRANCH
                            6608 HORNWOOD DRIVE
                            HOUSTON, TX   77074
                           ORGANIC QA CHECKLIST

Site 	San Jacinto River	      Contract No.

Task 	219	      Contractor _

                                          Matrix 	
                                                            68-02-4254
                                                              Versar
Versar Project Number:  5037.219.2
Reviewed by  Harry A. Kreigh - ESAT
Date 	December 18. 1989	
                            Fish/Crab
Sample No.
                 2F
8F
3C
                 3F
                             9F
            4C
                 4F
                             1C
                 6F
                             2C
OVERALL COMMENTS (To Be Completed by EPA Personnel)

1.
2.
"
Holding Times
Tuning/Performance
VGA
P
A
BNA
P
A
PEST
P
P
OTHER
N/A
N/A
3.  Calibrations

4.  Blanks

5.  Surrogates

6.  Matrix Spike/Duplicate

7.  Compound Identity

8.  Case Assessment
                                                                 N/A
                                                                 N/A
                                                                 N/A
                                                                 N/A
                                                                 N/A
                                                                 N/A
COMMENTS OR CLARIFICATIONS  (See Attached)

A - Acceptable - All items delivered; all criteria met.
P - Provisional - Data usable; some non-essential review items missing
    or criteria were not met.	
U - Unacceptable - Data unusable; essential review items missing
    or criteria not met.	
NA - Not Applicable

-------
                                                                        174
                          COMMENTS/CLARIFICATIONS
                            REGION 6 QA REVIEW

Task 	219	    Site     San Jacinto River        Lab     Versar

The following is a summary of sample qualifiers used by Region 6
in reporting this CLP data:

   No.          Acceptable         Provisional         Unacceptable

   VGA        	     	10	     	

   BNA        	     	10	     	

   PEST       	     	10	     	

   Other           N/A	     	     	
COMMENTS:  The case consisted of 6 composite fish samples and 4 composite
crab samples for organic priority pollutants by SW-846 Methods 8240, 8270,
and 8080.  Sample holding times could not be verified due to missing
chain-of-custody records and conflicting sample receipt dates.  VOA sample
2F exceeded the linear calibration range for acetone and 2-butanone and had
an outlying surrogate recovery, but was not reanalyzed due to an
insufficient amount of sample.  Pesticides were indicated > CRQL in samples
2F and 4C, but were not reported due to performance problems on the
confirmation column, and the samples were not reanalyzed.  The BNA and
Pesticide extracts were split following GPC clean-up, but conflicting
dilution factors were reported for the two fractions.
    Acetone, 2-butanone, phthalates, G-BHC, ODD, and DDE were reported in
the samples.  Results for 6 fish samples and 4 crab samples are provisional
due to problems with holding times, instrument performance, calibrations,
surrogate and MS/MSD recoveries, and compound identification and
guantitation.

1.  Holding Times - Provisional.  The laboratory reported conflicting
sample receipt dates of 1/25/89 or 5/25/89.  VOA analyses were performed
from 6/2/89 to 6/14/89.  Split BNA/Pesticide extractions were performed on
6/2/89 and the BNA analyses were completed on 6/15/89.  Pesticide/PCB
analyses of the fish extracts were completed on 7/24/89.  The crab samples
were re-extracted on 7/25/89 due to unspecified sample preparation problems
and the Pesticide/PCB analyses were completed on 8/18/89.  The laboratory
was requested to resubmit chain-of-custody records to document sample
collection and receipt dates.  Sample results are provisional pending
submission of the requested documentation.

-------
                                                                         175
                           ORGANIC CLP/QA REVIEW
                             CONTINUATION PAGE

TASK 	219	                       SITE     San Jacinto River

COMMENTS:

2.  Tuning/Performance - Provisional.  BFB and DFTPP met GC/MS tuning
criteria.  Although summaries of internal standard areas were not provided,
VOA and BNA internal standard areas were within QC control limits.
    Results for ODD and endosulfan sulfate are estimated in sample 4C due
to a severe baseline disturbance on the confirmation column.  The sample
was not reanalyzed even though both compounds were indicated > CRQL on the '
primary column.  The ODD identification in sample 6F is tentative and the
result is estimated due to inconsistent quantitation on the primary and
confirmation columns.  DDD peak integration was questionable on the
confirmation column due to a severe baseline disturbance just prior to peak
elution.  Result for G-BHC in sample 2F is estimated because the compound
was indicated > CRQL on the primary column, but was not reported due to a
major interference on the confirmation column.

3.  Calibrations - Provisional.  Acetone results are estimated in sample 8F
and all crab samples because the compound failed %D calibration criteria.
Results for 2-butanone are unusable in samples 1C, 2C, 3C, and 4C because
the compound failed minimum RRF criteria.  Acetone and 2-butanone results
for sample 2F are estimated because the sample concentrations exceeded the
linear calibration range and the sample was not reanalyzed.  Those results
should be used with caution.  Results for DDD and DDE are estimated in
sample 1C because those compounds failed %D calibration criteria.

4.  Blanks - Acceptable.  The method blanks contained acetone, methylene
chloride, 2-butanone, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.  Sample results < lOx
the maximum blank levels should be considered estimates.  The VOA compound
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was reported as a TIC in the BNA blank.  The
Pesticide/PCB blank was not contaminated by target compounds.

5.  Surrogates - Provisional.  Results associated with VOA surrogate S3 are
estimated in sample 2F because the surrogate recovery exceeded QC control
limits and the sample was not reanalyzed.  BNA surrogate recoveries met QC
guidelines.   The DEC recovery for PBLK87 exceeded the advisory QC limit due
to coeluting interferences, but sample surrogate recoveries were within the
control limits.

6.  Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate - Provisional.  Most VOA and BNA
MS/MSD recoveries met QC requirements, but nearly all Pesticide MS/MSD
recoveries exceeded the control limits for %RPD.  The DDD result for sample,
2F is estimated as a consequence.

-------
                                                                        176
                           ORGANIC CLP/QA REVIEW
                             CONTINUATION PAGE

TASK 	219	                       SITE     San Jacinto River

COMMENTS:

7a. Compound Identity - Provisional.  High concentrations of acetone and
2-butanone were reported for most VOA samples.  Chlorinated hydrocarbons
and toluene were also present in some samples.  The 2-butanone result for
sample 4F is estimated because the reported value is inconsistent with the
raw data.  The toluene results for sample 2C, 3C, and 4C were flagged "X"
due to mass spectral interferences.  Those identifications should be
considered tentative as a consequence.
    Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-butylphthalate were reported for
BNA.  Those results should be considered estimates due to possible
laboratory contamination.  Sample spectra met identification criteria.
Numerous TICs were characterized as organic acids, sulfur compounds, or
alcohols.  The BNA results may have been miscalculated due to an incorrect
dilution factor.  The laboratory bench sheets for the split BNA/Pesticide
extracts list conflicting extract volumes (2 or 3 mis) for GPC clean-up.
The reported BNA quantitation limits may also be too low based on the
raw data and should be used with caution.  BNA results are provisional
pending laboratory clarification.
    ODD, DDE, and G-BHC were reported for Pesticide/PCBs.  Results for
G-BHC in sample 4F and ODD and DDE in sample 1C are estimated because the
confirmation data yielded lower concentrations than the reported values.
Pesticide/PCB results should be considered provisional pending verification
of the dilution factor for GPC clean-up.

7b. Data Completeness - Provisional.  Chain-of-custody records were omitted
from the data package.  BNA: The surrogate recoveries reported for sample
3C on Form II (p. 300006) were inconsistent with the raw data.
Pesticide/PCB; A chromatogram (p. 100140) was missing for PBLK96.
Inconsistent sample peak areas were reported in the following data:
    Sample 1C - p. 100011 and 100013
    Sample 2C - p. 100018 and 100020
    Sample 2CMS - p. 100144 and 100146.
Page 10037 was missing from the raw data for sample 4C.  The laboratory was
notified of omissions and needed corrections.

8.  Case Assessment - Data for 6 fish samples (2F, 3F, 4F, 6F, 8F, and 9F)
and 4 crab samples (1C, 2C, 3C, and 4C) are provisional due to problems
with holding times, instrument performance, calibrations, surrogate and
MS/MSD recoveries, and compound identification and quantitation.

-------
                                                                 177
                            Page 1 of 2

                            In Reference to:  Project:  5037.219.2
                            EPA Contract: 68-02-4254;  Task 219
            REGIONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
                          FAX Record Log

     Date of FAX:        	December 20,  1989	
     Laboratory Name:    	Versar   	
     Lab Contact:        	Dr. Reza Karimi	

     Region:
     Regional Contact:   	Harry Kreigh - ESAT

     FAX initiated by:   	Laboratory        X   Region

In reference to data for the following samples:

Priority pollutants in fish/crab tissue

Summary of Questions/Issues:

A. General
   1. Please submit chain-of-custody records.  Various
      documentation list receipt dates as 1/25/89 or 5/25/89.

   2. Split BNA and Pesticide/PCB extractions were performed on
      6/2/89.  The BNA bench sheets indicate 3 mis of the initial
      4 ml extract were processed by GPC, while the Pesticide/PCB
      bench sheets for the  fish samples indicate 2 mis of the
      4 ml extract were processed by GPC.  Which is correct?
      Please correct the erroneous dilution factor and resubmit
      Form Is for the affected fraction.

B. VOA
   1. Samples 2CRE, 3CRE, and 4CRE: 2-butanone should be
      reported.  Include spectra.

   2. Sample 4F: The reported 2-butanone concentration is
      inconsistent with the raw data.  Please recheck the
      calculation.

C. BNA
   1. Sample 3C: The surrogate recoveries are incorrect on Form
      II "(p. 30006) .

   2. I cannot reproduce the reported quantitation limits.   Based
      on the reported dilutions, a 20 g sample and the lowest
      calibration standard  (20 ng/ul), I calculated a
      quantitation limit of 740 ug/kg.  Please explain.

-------
                                                                  178
                                           Page 2 of 2

To: Dr. Reza Karimi  Versar
In Reference to: Project: 5037.219.2; Task 219
EPA Contract: 68-02-4254

Summary of Questions/Issues:

D. Pesticide/PCB

   1. PBLK96: p. 100140 is missing.

   2. Sample 2F: G-BHC was indicated > CRQL on the primary
      column, but was obscured by interference on the
      confirmation column.  Why wasn't the sample reanalyzed on
      the third column?

   3. Sample 6F: The area reported for ODD on the confirmation
      column may be high due to an unstable baseline.  Please
      perform a manual integration.

   4. The following raw data report  inconsistent sample areas:
      Sample 1C: pages 100011 and 100013
      Sample 2C: pages 100018 and 100020
      Sample 2CMS: pages 100144 and  100146

   5. Sample 4C: p. 100037 is missing.  A severe baseline
      disruption precluded detection of ODD and endosulfan
      sulfate on the confirmation column.  Why wasn't the sample
      reanalyzed?

Summary of Resolution:

Please fax your response to  items Al, A2, and C2 to:
(713) 981-7330.

Other resubmissions can be sent to the following address:
                             US EPA Region 6 Laboratory
                                6608 Hornwood Drive
                                Houston, TX  77074

If you have  any questions, please  contact me at  (713) 953-3430.



                                 £./
                	//^  ) /r     ^-<           December  20.  1989
                Signature/                     Date


Distribution:  (1)  Lab  Copy,(2) Region Copy,(3)  SMO  Copy
 •7

/

-------
                                                                                  179
                                        April  20,  1989
Phil Crocker
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency
Region VI
Water Quality Management  Branch  (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Subject:  Response  to  QC  Review  and Delivery of Work Plan for San Jacinto
          River Fish and  Crab  Sample Analysis II (EPA Contract
          No. 68-02-4254,  Task 219)

Dear Phil:

    Attached is our laboratory's response  to the QC review you forwarded
to us last month.   Several  issues have been  clarified and data corrections
made where necessary.  Also enclosed is  the  work plan and cost estimate
for the subject task.  We  will not initiate  sample analysis until you have
(1) reviewed and responded to  the attached QC discussion and (2) approved
the enclosed work plan.   If you  feel  all  is  in order and approve our
initiation of laboratory  efforts,  please  call Liz Bryan of EPA-OTS at
(202) 382-3873.  If you have any questions concerning the attached please
call me or Judy English.   We look forward  to working for you again.
                                        Sincerely,
                                        Douglas  A.  Dixon
                                        Director
                                        Exposure Assessment Division
Attachment
cc:  J. Bernarding
     G. Contos
     File 5037.219.1/8571H
     File 5030.015.1
   6850 VERSAR CENTER* P.O. BOX 1549 •SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22151 • TELEPHONE: (703) 750-3000

-------
                                                                               180
                   SAN JACINTO RIVER FISH AND CRABS
                          GC ORGANIC ANALYSIS
                       VERSAR PROJECT 5030.15.2
     The EPA data  review  noted  a number of problems with the  pesticide
analyses of the fish and crabs.   These are discussed  below.

     The  EPA   review  stated  that   there   were  problems  with   the
identification and quantification of DDE in the samples,  specifically in
fish #8.  We agree that the identification of DDE was difficult in these
samples  due  to  the  interferences  present.    The  reasons   for  the
inconsistency in the DDE results can be seen in a more  detailed analysis
of  the  chromatograms.    There  was  a  large  interference  (the  "hump"
mentioned   in   the  EPA  review)   in   the  middle  of  the   pesticide
chromatograms.    Data  interpretation,  due  to  the  complexity  of  the
chromatograms,  was primarily based on  retention times  and  raw  areas
alone,  rather  than  qualitative  peak  analysis.   While  the  sample
chromatography was poor for the  sample, its MS, and its MSD, the analyst
had little  or  no  recourse short of reextraction  and reanalysis.   Since
all of the sample was used  in the original  extraction,  we   could  not
reextract.  Packed column data  for sample #57653, it's  MS  and MSD were
integrated  by  three different methods.  The  integration method,  chosen
by the software, resulted in different baselines and  different  areas for
the three analyses.  Only one of the results from the capillary analyses
was anomalous.   This  may indicate the  influence of the negative  peak
(detector quenching) in the region of the DDE peak, but the  results were
consistent  for  two of the three capillary injections.    The DDE results
could  probably  be determined at or  just below the  reported limit,  but
the results may  be slightly inflated due to  the various  integration
methods.   We believe  that the  capillary  column data  is more accurate
than  the  packed column data.   However,  in accordance  with a  CLP style
quantitation, sample  results are reported from  packed  column  analyses,
as capillary data  are not acceptable under current protocol.  Within the
restrictions of the requested method,  no capillary columns  are included
in the list of acceptable columns.

     Reanalysis of the raw data was  not possible, as  the data  was not
stored electronically.   This being the  case, the raw data included on
the chromatogram  reports  was the only data available.    With electronic
storage the analysts could have  reconstructed the chromatograms, set the
baselines appropriately,  and modified the peak  integration  parameters.
While  this  would  not'have solved  all  of the problems  associated  with
these  analyses,   it   would   have   greatly  reduced  the  discrepancies
represented  in  the  packed  column  analytical  results.    Since  these
analyses were done we have implemented a system where all data  files are
stored  electronically.    This  should  help in future  analyses of  this
type.

     The major  problem  with  the pesticide analyses was the  interference
in the center of the chromatogram.   The interfering compounds  caused a

-------
                                                                               181
large hump  in the  packed  column chromatograms and  a  large dip in  the
capillary chromatograms.  As the EPA reviewer stated, this affects  about
5  compounds  in  the  center region  of  the  chromatograms.    Further
laboratory investigation is  being conducted  to determine  the nature  and
source of  the  contamination observed,  as  well  as  to  define  the most
appropriate  clean-up  procedure for  the  interference.    No  remaining
sample extract  is  available, so we have no  options  for a more detailed
investigation into the samples previously extracted.   For  future work we
might conduct  a study on  some  unrelated  samples  to determine  the most
appropriate and effective procedural modifications.

     The EPA  review noted  the  high spike  recoveries  for three of  the
pesticides.    These   three   compounds  elute  in  the  center  of  the
chromatogram  where  the   interfering   compounds  were  present.     The
interferences resulted  in  the high  recoveries.   The recoveries  for  the
remaining three  spiked compounds were  all   reasonable, indicating that
extraction efficiency  was  acceptable and  that  compounds  were  not lost
during  processing.    The  major problem  is  the  interfering  compounds
discussed above.   We  are  confident that  the recoveries  would  improve
dramatically if the interferences were not present.

     Sample 57654  was  mis labelled  as 57653MSD in both the  quantitative
analysis and  the  confirmation  analysis.    While  this appears to be  a
clerical  error,  logbook   and  sample  data  concur   as  labeled.   This
indicates  to   us  that  the  error  was  one  of mechanical,   rather than
clerical nature.   The  analytical sequence  was programmed  appropriately,
as indicated  in  the instrument  injection log, however sample  57654  was
mistakenly placed  in the  autosampler location for sample 57653MSD,  and
vice versa.   This  problem  was  noted in the  data  interpretation,  as  the
recovery data was correct  as reported,  however no corrections  were made
for the  chromatogram labeling,  nor was  any other documentation of  the
problem  included.   It is,  as yet,  unclear why no documentation of  the
error was included, and it is clearly an ommission on our  part.

     In  summary,  the  pesticide  data  had  one   major   weakness;   the
interfering compounds  in the center of the  chromatogram.    This affects
the results  for about five  of the pesticides.   The  analysis  for  the
remaining pesticides did not have major problems.   Our corrective action
in  response  to  this  problem is to  identify  the  source  of  the
interferences, and either eliminate the source or  add cleanup steps that
will eliminate the interferences.
Reza A. Karimi, Section Chief
Gas Chromatography Section
Laboratory Operations

-------
                                                                               182
       INC.
                    SAN JACINTO RIVER FISH AND CRABS
                         GC/MS ORGANIC ANALYSIS
                        VERSAR PROJECT 5030.15.2
The following comments  have  been  prepared in response to data  validation
performed by Melvin  Ritter  of US  EPA Region VII.  GC/MS organic  analyses
of fish and crab tissue samples were performed  in November  1988.


Volatile Organic Analysis

The data reviewer has indicated a  concern for the amount  of acetone and 2-
butanone  confirmed   present  in both the  fish  and  especially  the  crab
analyses.  The statement that "these results make no  sense  and must be due
to some other source but the tissue..."  is not  necessarily  accurate.

     Acetone and 2-butanone confirmed present  in  the majority of  the
     fish and crab  samples  does not  appear to be due to  laboratory
     contamination.   Although the  presence of these two compounds  may
     often result from background  levels present  in the laboratory,
     concentrations   are typically  less  than  10  ppb  (ug/kg).    The
     sources of the  acetone  and  2-butanone  in  the tissue  samples
     quantified  at   part  per  million   levels  must  be   further
     investigated.   Laboratory prepared  reagent blanks  were extracted
     and  analyzed.    No  contamination  was  observed which may  have
     resulted  from   the sample containers  used  to store the  fish
     fillets and the crab tissue.  Also,  the blanks did  not  indicate
     contamination from the tissue grinder apparatus.
                     \
     Acetone  can  be   generated   from   biogenic  sources   including
     metabolism  and  biological  fermentation   or degradation.  The
     storage of the tissue prior to homogenization (e.g.  temperature,
     aerobic vs.  anaerobic  conditions)   may have  contributed to  the
     levels of volatile compounds  present.  The samples were received
     by  Versar  in  a frozen  state  and  they remained  frozen for an
     extended period of time  ("6  weeks) prior to authorization  for
     sample preparation,  extraction,  and analysis.  After  the  whole
     fish  and  crabs  were   prepared into   analyzable  samples,  the
     tissues were  stored  in  an  area that was  free  from  volatile
     organics.

The review  indicates that inconsistencies were present  in  target analyte
identifications  in   the  VOA  QC  sample:  the   matrix   spike  contains
2-butanone,  but methylene  chloride  is  not detected  whereas  the matrix
spike  duplicate  sample has  methylene chloride present at  a concentration
of 1000 ppb with no 2-butanone.

     Target  analytes  in  the  volatile  MS  and MSD  QC analyses  did
     exhibit some sample  variations,  however the identifications  and
     quantifications  are correct.    The  matrix  spike  aliquot  was
     analyzed on October 21, 1988 (GC/MS File No.U4628).

-------
                                                                               183'
        .

Fish & Crab Tissue Samples
April 12,  1989 - Page 2


     The Initial  analysis of the matrix spike duplicate  aliquot  was
     noncompl i ant  and  was  not  submitted  with  the  data  package.
     Reanalysis was not  performed until November 9,  1988  (GC/MS  File
     No. U4859). The fish fillet sample used for  the USD analysis  was
     acquired from a different subsample bottle.  This bottle was  not
     maintained  in the  refrigerator  used  to isolate samples  from
     external volatile organics.


Semivolatile Organic Analysis (BNA)

Specific problems  were  questioned pertaining  to  the use  of  "B"  flags  for
tentatively  identified  compounds reported  in semivolatile analyses.   Mr.
Ritter has noted  that "Fish 2 has TIC's at scans 253,  728,  877,  1939  and
2260 which match  those  for blank SBLK96 (which is  a  crab blank)  at scans
247, 737,  1690 and 2254, respect."

     Nontarget compounds  detected in  the reagent blanks extracted in
     conjunction with  fish samples  cannot  be applied  to  analyses of
     crab samples. The blanks extracted for each  matrix were  prepared
     independently. SBLK49  applies  only to the fish  samples.   Other
     semivolatile reagent blanks apply to crab samples only.

Additional  examples cited by the reviewer were evaluated.

     Reevaluation  of  B  flags  applied  to semivolatile  analyses of all
     fish  samples  resulted  in  corrections  to Scan  253  in Fish  2
     (Station 2) and Scan 1939 for Fish 6 (Station  6).

Volatile target  analytes were  noted  by   the  reviewer  on  two  library
searched peaks present in the semivolatile  analysis of Crab sample #3.

     Nontarget  analytes  represent  tentative  identifications  only.
     The identity  of compounds  eluting at  scans   173  and  322  were
     listed  on  the  TIC  summary page as  "unknown"  and  "unknown
     chlorinated hydrocarbon".  These  are  the identifications chosen
     by the GC/MS chemist based upon the purity;  fit,  and reverse fit
     search  parameters.   For a  hit  to be  a  positive identification
     all three  values are  typically  greater than  900.   Purity  and
     reverse   fit  values   are  usually   greater   than   800   for
     consideration  of  compound  specific   identifications.     These
     values were 759,952,784 and 651,977,651 for  compounds present at
     scans  173  and  322,  respectively.   The  EPA/NBS  mass  spectral
     library contains over 42,000 entries;  due to the search  routine,
     improper identifications can be made by the  software. Also,  the
     library  selects  TIC   compounds  without   regard  to  relative
     retention times.

-------
                                                                                      184
               INC.
        Fish  & Crab  Tissue  Samples
        April  12,  1989  -  Page  3
             These chlorinated  solvents although  not confirmed  present in
             these field  samples  nor  in  the laboratory  reagent  blanks are
             sometimes   an   artifact   of   the   methylene    chloride
             (dichloromethane)  used  for the semivolatile extractions.
        Another specific use  of flags was  questioned for scan 1045 in Crab #3.

             TIC present at  scan  1045  in Crab 3  correlates  to scan 1054 in
             SBLK96.   TIC Form revised with  B  flag added.

             It is  important  to note that  the  nontarget semivolatile compound
             present   at  scan  "1936  is  oleyl alcohol.    This  compound is
             sometimes detected  in laboratory  reagent  blanks.    It  is an
             artifact  of  the  glass   wool  used   during  filtration  and
             concentration  of the  organic  sample extracts.  However the Merck
             Index  states that  this compound  is  also a  constituent of  fish
             oil;  therefore,  Melvin  Ritter's  comments that  "Non-targets or
             TICs   should  be  dismissed   for  the  BNAs"   is   not  accurate.
             Nontarget compounds not  flagged with a "B" should be considered
             as being  present in the tissue  samples.    Oleyl  alcohol (Scan
             "1936)  may also  be a  constituent of  the field samples although
             flagged  with a "B".
        Revised data summary forms attached.
/••~" ..-••'	.,--'   s/^.j'^.t.'^-z---nyi 11  12th,  1989
'""""    Lawrence P. Pollack
        GC/MS Data Quality Manager
        Laboratory Operations

-------
                                                                                                                                 185
   Uersar Inc.,  Laboratory  Operations
(,   ,850 Versar Center,  Springfield  Vfl  22151   (703)  750-3000
                                Organic* Analysis  Data Sheet
                                            (Page  4)
                                Tentatively Identified Cotpound5
I  SAMPLE ID
ISTATION 2
     1
     2
     3
     4
     5
     6
     7
     8
     9
   110
   '11
   112
   113
   114
   115
   116
   117
   US
   119
   120
   121
   122
   123
   124
   125
   126
   127
   128
   129
   130
:rr=rr==:

CAS
NaBber











:_==_=__ — ____=_=_i_tiS5==s====ss— — -- — — rzs_=B==sraj

1 Coipound
1 Naie
(UNKNOWN ORGANIC ACID
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN ORGANIC ACID
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
rsssrssrss;

(Fraction

BNA
IBNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
IBNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
'

.
RT oflcanl
V^j
239
253
728
877
1554
1571
1692
1791
1939
1968
2260
CSSS5SSSCS&SSSSSS
Estimated 1
torjcentration 1
Tug/Kg^pr ug/D!
4,100 J
1,500 If
1,000 J A
8,300 J
3,900 J
550 J
5,000 J
2,500 J
1,300 J,B
4,400 J
36,000 J


                                                                                                      ============

-------
  Inc.,  Laboratory Operations
Versa? Center,  Springfield VA  82151   (703)  750-3000
                        Organics Analysis  Data  Sheet
                                    (Page  4)
                        Tentatively Identified  Cotpounds
I  SAMPLE ID     I
(STATION 6      I
                                                                                                                        186
r====r=====r==:
CAS
Nuiber
1
I
\ 3 96-92-0
I
m i
1 6
|7
1*
79 1
(0
1
2
113
1
116
1:
120
mz
123
1
126
(6
9
130
•. 	
Essgsggg~ggggggggssggggggFgrHeagggr"ggg=!e====-=?g^TTgrrgTg
Cotpound
Naie
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
3-PYRIDINECARBOXAHIDE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN ALDEHYDE
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN









.

•====S==7S=
Fraction
EgSSSSSSSS"
UNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA
BNA







'



•2S CSC SSSSBSSS
1
RT or/Scan
^
252
750
696
1065
1192
1444
1478
1675
1690
1939
1967
2266











Estimated
^oag|ntration
lug/KTfcr ug/1)
1,400 J,B
E,800 I
4,500 J
420 J
480 J
1,200 I
4,000 J
2,300 J
3,300 J
2,200 l£
9,200 J
37,000 J












-------
                                                                                                                              1871
Uersar Inc., Laboratory Operations
,€50 Versa? Center,  Springfield VA  22151  (703)  750-3000
                             Organics Analysis Data Sheet
                                         (Page 4)
                             Tentatively Identified Cotpounds
                                                                               I  SAKPLE ID
                                                                               ICRAB 3
esesssssss
 GAS
Hutber
I
                                        Compound
                                          Kaie
I
(Fraction   RT
I
                                                       =r=ss=rs====s=rssrss=ss=sss-Bsssrsrz==ssSrrSs==rsz=:
  1
  I
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  I 100-52-7
  9
110
 11 10433-34-
112
113
114
(15
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
126
129
130
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN ORGANIC ACID
(UNKNOWN CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON
IBENZALDEHYDE (ACNHDOT)
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
IBENZENEETHANAKINE,  N-(l-KETHYLETHYLIDENE)-
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN HYDROCARBON
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN AKIDE
(UNKNOWN ORGANIC ACID
(UNKNOWN
(UNKNOWN
                                                                 IBHA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
                                                                 IBNA
&>*-
"Scan
^
'SSSSff
173
180
189
241
258
292
322
382
566
731
775
888
961
1006
1045
1079
1312
1583
1681
1702
1928
2223
Estimated 1
jgfiBfieatration 1
(ug/Kq^r uj/l)l
210 J
4,200 J
4,400 J
1,700 J
720 J
1,600 J
510 J
750 J
2,900 J
340 J,B
560 J
300 J
630 J,B
280 J
650 J >l
200 J \
2,600 J
330 J
2,700 J,B
340 J,B
3,100 J,B
2,000 J,B

-------