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
------- |