TC-3991-03
DRAFT REPORT
EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PLAN:
INITIAL DATA SUMMARIES
AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
SEPTEMBER, 1985
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X -- OFFICE OF PUGET SOUND
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
-------
Draft Report
TC-3991-03
EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PLAN:
DATA SUMMARIES
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
September, 1985
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
SUMMARY S-l
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS S-l
PHYSICAL SETTING S-2
CONTAMINANT SOURCES S-2
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION S-3
BIOACCUMULATION S-4
SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS S-4
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COMMUNITIES S-4
FISH PATHOLOGY S-5
MICROBIOLOGY S-5
IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC PROBLEM AREAS S-5
INTRODUCTION 1
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH 2
GENERAL FORM OF THE DECISION-MAKING APPROACH 2
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL INDICATORS 4
Target Chemicals 4
Biological Variables 5
Form of Indicators 6
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX 7
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS 8
PRELIMINARY ACTION CRITERIA 9
RANKING OF PROBLEM AREAS 10
11
-------
SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS 11
SOURCE EVALUATION 11
PHYSICAL SETTING 13
PROJECT LOCATION 13
DRAINAGE PATTERNS 13
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 14
BENEFICIAL USES 15
STUDY AREAS 15
DATA SUMMARIES 17
CONTAMINANT SOURCES 17
Wastewater Treatment Plants 17
Combined Sewer Overflows 21
Industrial Sources 23
Surface Runoff 28
Atmospheric Deposition 33
Accidental Spills 34
Groundwater 34
Source Loading Comparisons 39
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND BIOTA 41
Water Column Contamination 41
Sediment Contamination 42
Bioaccumulation 48
BIOASSAYS 50
Effluent Toxicity 50
Receiving Water Toxicity 51
Sediment Toxicity 51
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES 55
General Overview: Temporal Trends 55
General Overview: Spatial Trends 55
Data Synthesis 57
FISH PATHOLOGY 59
General Overview 59
Data Synthesis 60
INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY 61
111
-------
MICROBIOLOGY
General Overview
Data Synthesis
IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC PROBLEM AREAS
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
PROBLEM AREA RANKING
Ranking of Study Areas
Ranking of Study Area Segments
Ranking of Single Stations
Final Ranking of Problem Areas
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Data Evaluation Summary Tables
Appendix B. Bibliography of Selected Studies Used
in Source Evaluation and Elevation
Above Reference (EAR) Analysis
Appendix C. Document Identification Prefixes for
Sampling Station Labels
Appendix D. Source Data
Appendix E. Selected Sediment Contamination Data
Evaluated for Use in Elevation Above
Reference Analysis
Appendix F- Selected Bioaccumulation Data
61
61
62
65
65
66
66
67
68
68
70
1v
-------
FIGURES
(Figure follows the page indicated)
Number Page
1 Everett Harbor project area 1
2 General approach to the development of Everett Harbor
Action Plan 1
3 Preponderance-of-evidence approach to evaluation of toxic
contamination problems 2
4 Development of action-level criteria and preliminary
sampling plan design for toxicants 2
5 Theoretical example of relationship between sediment
contamination and an effects index 9
6 Project area drainage boundaries 13
7 Mean monthly BOD loads from area treatment plants 21
8 Historical Scott Paper mill BOD loading to Everett Harbor 24
9 Historical Weyerhaeuser Thermomechanical Plant BOD loading
to deep water diffuser 001 in South Port Gardner area 26
10 Everett Harbor pulp and paper mill discharges, 1983-1984 28
11 Ranking of daily BOD loading from major sources 39
12 Source ranking based on Pb+Cu+Zn loads 40
13 Reference conditions for total abundance by depth and
sediment type 59
14 Reference conditions for amphipod abundance by depth and
sediment type 59
15 Reference conditions for species richness by depth and
sediment type 59
16 Reference conditions for dominance index by depth and
sediment type 59
17 Locations of study area segments within East Waterway 67
-------
18 Ranking of study area segments within East Waterway based
on integration of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic
infauna indicators 67
19 Chemical indicators elevated above the 80th percentile in
Everett Harbor 68
20 Chemical indicators elevated above the 80th percentile in
East Waterway 68
21 Final ranking of study areas for interim action 68
vl
-------
TABLES
(Table follows the page indicated)
Number Page
1 Primary kinds of data used in problem area identification
and priority ranking 4
2 Preliminary list of contaminants and conventional variables
of concern in Everett Harbor 4
3 Theoretical example of the interrelationships among sediment
contamination, sediment toxicity, and biological effects
indicators 7
4 Preliminary action-level guidelines 9
5 Summary of ranking criteria for sediment contamination,
toxicity, and biological effects indicators 10
6 Everett wastewater treatment plant metals data 18
7 Comparison of diluted treatment plant effluent to water
quality criteria 18
8 Priority pollutant concentrations in Everett wastewater
treatment plant effluent 19
9 Lake Stevens Class II survey data 21
10 Average wastewater treatment plant pollutant loadings 21
11 Estimated peak combined sewer overflow rates 22
12 Estimated number of hours that overflows occurred at
monitored pump stations (1975) 22
13 Estimated CSO loadings 23
14 Permitted industrial discharges to Everett wastewater
treatment plant 23
15 Permitted industrial dischargers 23
16 Scott paper average pollutant data and estimated loading 25
17 Comparison of pulp mill effluent to water quality critiera 25
18 Scott mill loading estimates for formaldehyde, xylene,
and furfural 25
-------
19 Pollutants commonly found in paper-grade sulfite mill effluent 25
20 Comparison of Scott pollutant load estimates and U.S. EPA
survey estimates 26
21 Loading estimates for Weyerhaeuser sulfite mill outfalls 26
22 Weyerhaeuser kraft mill pollutant data from permit application 27
23 Pollutants commonly found in kraft mill effluent 28
24 Ranking of BOD loadings based on 2-yr average for Scott and
Weyerhaeuser outfalls 28
25 Drainage basin areas and flow estimates for surface runoff
sources in South Port Gardner 30
26 Summary of available water quality data for surface runoff
sources 30
27 Loading estimates for conventional pollutants and metals from
surface runoff sources based on a 1-yr storm 30
28 Estimated pollutant loadings for Quilceda and Allen Creeks 31
29 Snohomish River water quality data and average pollutant loads 32
30 Summary of bacteriological data for Tulalip landfill 35
31 Summary of available leachate data for Tulalip landfill 36
32 Summary of Everett tire fire data 37
33 Summary of monitoring well data at Mukilteo Fuel Support Point 38
34 Data limitations of selected studies used in detailed analyses
of sediment chemistry 44
35 Summary of metal concentrations in sediments from Puget Sound
reference areas 44
36 Summary of organic compound concentrations in sediments from
Puget Sound reference areas 44
37 Mean elevations above reference (EAR) values for selected
indicators of sediment contamination 46
38 Summary of selected bioaccumulation data from Puget Sound
reference areas 49
39 Summary of selected bioaccumulation data for Everett Harbor 49
40 Summary of receiving water bioassays in Everett Harbor 51
-------
41 Summary of sediment bioassays in Everett Harbor 51
42 Summary of mean elevation above reference (EAR) values for
amphipod and oyster sediment bioassays 55
43 Tentative habitat types for Everett Harbor benthic communities 56
44 Summary reference conditions for benthic infaunal community
variables 59
45 Dominant taxa by depth in central Puget Sound 59
46 Mean values and elevations above reference (EAR) for benthic
community variables 59
47 Reference conditions for liver lesions in English sole from
Everett Harbor 60
48 Elevation above reference (EAR) values for liver lesions in
English sole from Everett Harbor 60
49 Lesions in Dungeness crabs from Everett Harbor 61
50 Fecal coliform bacteria data and mean elevation above
reference (EAR) values for Everett Harbor 63
51 Action assessment matrix of average sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, and biological effects indices for Everett
Harbor study areas 65
52 Normalized rank scores for six study areas in Everett Harbor 67
53 Action assessment matrix of average sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, and benthic infauna indicators for study
segments within East Waterway 67
54 Action assessment matrix of highest sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, and benthic infauna indicators for study
segments within East Waterway 67
55 Summary of problem areas and potential sources 68
IX
-------
SUMMARY
The goals of the Everett Harbor Action Plan are to protect the marine
and estuarine ecosystem of Everett Harbor and the lower Snohomish River
against further degradation from anthropogenic inputs of contaminants,
to identify degraded areas that are amenable to restorative action, and
to protect recreational uses that are affected by contamination. Corrective
actions specified in the plan may include regulatory control of point and
nonpoint sources of contaminants, and removal of highly contaminated sediments.
Development of the plan involves use of a complex database to identify
toxic problem areas and rank them in terms of priority for corrective action.
Bacterial contamination problems are evaluated relative to Washington State
Standards for fecal coliform bacteria. The decision-making approach for
problem evaluation, the spatial distribution of contaminants in the Everett
Harbor system, and the ranking of problem areas for interim corrective
actions are explained in this report.
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
The decision-making approach relies on empirical measurements of the
environmental or public health threats of contaminated areas. Informa-
tion used in the decision-making process includes data on:
o Sources
Contaminant concentrations
Flow
o Sediments
Contaminant concentrations
Conventional physical/chemical characteristics
o Biological effects
Tissue contaminant concentrations (crab, English sole)
Liver lesions (English sole)
Benthic invertebrate community structure
o Sediment toxicity bioassays
Amphipod mortality
Oyster larvae developmental abnormality.
To compare study areas, the environmental contamination and effects
data are organized into a matrix of biological and toxicological indices
termed Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values. This Action Assessment
Matrix uses independent indices to indicate the magnitudes of contaminant
levels and biological effects. A decision to proceed with source evaluation
and ranking of problem areas is limited to areas that exceed a minimum
S-l
-------
action level. Action levels are determined through an intercomparison
of the contaminant, sediment toxicity, and biological indices for each
defined area.
The action-level guidelines are summarized as follows:
o Significant elevations above reference for any THREE OR
MORE INDICES defines a problem area requiring source evaluation
and remedial action evaluation.
o For ANY TWO INDICES showing significant elevations, the
decision to proceed with source and remedial action evaluations
depends on the actual combination of indices and the relative
usefulness of those indices in defining site-specific condi-
tions.
o When only a SINGLE INDEX is significantly elevated, a problem
area may be defined when additional criteria are met (i.e.,
the magnitude of the index is sufficiently above the significance
threshold to warrant further evaluation).
PHYSICAL SETTING
Everett Harbor is located adjacent to the eastern shore of Possession
Sound off the city of Everett, WA. For the purpose of this study, Everett
Harbor is defined as the area east of a line joining Elliott Point in Mukilteo
with the western point of Mission Beach at the entrance of Tulalip Bay.
The Everett Harbor project area also includes the Snohomish River estuary
east to Interstate 5.
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
BOD data are available for most pollutant sources in Everett Harbor.
A rough ranking of the major sources was developed based on average daily
BOD loading (Figure S-l). Where data were not available, loadings were
calculated from average discharge and BOD concentrations reported for other
similar sources. The Scott SW001 and Weyerhaeuser WK001 outfalls rank
as the two largest sources of BOD in the project area. Total discharge
from the tidegates in the lower Snohomish estuary ranks third and loading
from the Marshland Drainage District Canal ranks fourth, indicating that
surface water runoff from agricultural land in the basin is a major BOD
source. The remaining sources contribute smaller BOD loadings. It should
be emphasized that BOD loading may not correlate with toxicant or bacterial
loading among diverse sources.
A second source ranking was developed based on combined copper, lead,
and zinc loadings (Figure S-2). This ranking indicates that Weyerhaeuser
Outfall WK001 (54 Ib/day) is the largest metals source within the basin.
Other major metals sources are (in decreasing order) Powder Mill Gulch,
Everett wastewater treatment plant effluent, and Japanese Gulch. Selected
metals loadings for these sources are 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than
S-2
-------
5000-
4000-
^ 3000-
Q
O
O
2000^
1000-
fl
!
i
S
I
»
|
5
O
to
O
I
8
lU
l
W
Q
CO
O
3
co
ui
CD
LU
i
5
a) Snohomish River CS09 between Highway 99 Bridge and I-S Bridge.
Figure S-l. Ranking of daily BOD loading from major sources.
-------
60-i
50-
£ 40-
D
30-
N
+
.O
Q.
O 20 —
10-
O
CC
UJ
o
111
cc
LU
O
UJ
1
.
iu
uj
tL
O
S
g
a.
a
CO
3
CO
S
UJ
O
(O
O
m
LU
cc
o
O
5.
eS
CC
cc
LU
.
LU
LU
CC
O
S
c
i
5
CO
LU
LU
Figure S-2. Source ranking based on Pb+Cu+Zn loads.
-------
those estimated for industrial sources and a storm drain in the Commencement
Bay waterways, but roughly an order of magnitude less than those estimated
for the ASARCO smelter and the West Point wastewater treatment plant (Appendix
D, Table D-9).
There are insufficient data on organic pollutants to rank source loadings
in the study area. However, available data indicate that the Everett treatment
plant is a minor source of phenol (1.6 Ib/day), trichloroethylene (<0.5-6 lb/
day) and bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate (<0.3-1.2 Ib/day). In addition, data
from Scott Paper Company outfalls show that the plant is a source of phenols
(19 Ib/day), chloroform (19 Ib/day), and ethyl benzene (5 Ib/day). Loadings
for xylene and formaldehyde at the Scott facility are estimated at 20 Ib/day
and 170 Ib/day.
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Data on the physical and chemical characteristics of sediments are
limited, precluding detailed characterizations of most areas. Some problem
areas are apparent, however.
In general, the shallower areas have coarser sediments with lower
total organic carbon (TOC) than do those observed in the deeper areas.
This probably reflects the greater scour from wave action, currents, and
river flow at shallower depths. Protected backwater areas of the delta
and slips along the waterfront would be expected to accumulate fine-grained,
TOC-enriched sediments, but supporting data are limited. The most obvious
example of such accumulation is the East Waterway, where extensive sampling
has revealed large areas of fine-textured sediments and high concentrations
of TOC. These high TOC concentrations reflect the quiescent, depositional
environment of the East Waterway, and contributions of wood debris and
organic matter from wood products industries and pulp mill effluents.
Organic enrichment of the sediments appeared to extend a short distance
from the mouth of the East Waterway to some of the nearby sediments of
South Port Gardner. No other area had sufficient sampling intensity to
draw conclusions. The available data indicate that the sediments of most
other areas of Everett Harbor had TOC concentrations similar to those of
other areas of Puget Sound.
Available data also clearly identify the East Waterway and nearby
areas as major sites of elevated chemical concentrations in sediments.
However, the full extent of contamination cannot be clearly established
because the number of chemicals examined is fewer than that in other areas
of Puget Sound. Data from the East Waterway indicate that the problems
are associated primarily with organic chemicals, but that the highest concen-
trations are substantially lower than those observed in other industrialized
areas of Puget Sound (e.g., Elliott and Commencement Bays). Additional
sites where sediment concentrations of at least one toxic substance approach
those observed in the East Waterway include an area near Mukilteo, at least
one site in the lower Snohomish River, and the deep water, dredged-material
disposal site. These latter areas have received limited sampling and the
full extent of associated problems is unknown. The few samples collected
in other portions of the study area generally have shown concentrations
close to those observed in reference areas of Puget Sound.
S-3
-------
BIOACCUMULATION
Data on concentrations of toxic chemicals in marine organisms of Everett
Harbor are limited. Cunningham (1982) found elevated concentrations of
metals and a few organic priority pollutants (e.g., PCBs) in muscle and
liver tissue of English sole and rock sole, but did not detect acid-extractable
and volatile organic compounds or PAH. Malins et al. (1985) found PCBs
at an average concentration of 816 ppb (wet weight) in two composite samples
of 13 English sole livers collected from a site near the Defense Fuel Storage
Facility in Mukilteo. Aromatic hydrocarbons in stomach contents of English
sole from the same area were as high as 864 ppb for individual compounds,
which was about 54 times the reference value at President Point. In general,
contaminant concentrations in flatfish of Everett Harbor appear to be lower
than those measured in Commencement and Elliott Bays (Tetra Tech 1985a,b),
but data limitations preclude definitive conclusions at present.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS
Three different sediment bioassays involving four different species
have been conducted in Everett Harbor. Overall, these tests indicated
that sediments in the East Waterway are the most toxic. However, not all
areas of the harbor have been tested.
Among the sediments tested using the amphipod R. abronius, those
from the East Waterway appeared to be most toxic (BattelTe Northwest 1985;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985). Oyster larvae (Crassostrea gigas)
bioassays conducted by Chapman et al. (1984) and Battelle (1985) also found
sediments in the inner East Waterway to be toxic. Sublethal sediment bioassays
were conducted by Chapman et al. (1984) using the respiratory response
of the marine oligochaete Monopylephorus cuticulatus exposed to filtered
sediment elutriates. All stations which showed significant toxicity in
the oyster larvae bioassay also showed toxicity in the oligochaete respiration
tests, with one exception in Offshore Port Gardner. In addition, genotoxicity/
mutagenicity testing has been conducted using the anaphase aberration test
with cultured rainbow trout gonad cells (Chapman et al. 1984). Two of
the ten stations tested showed significant levels of anaphase aberrations.
Both stations were in the East Waterway.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
the Elevation Above Reference (EAR) analysis for benthic macroinvertebrate
conmunities used data from Parametrix (1984) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(1985). Values of all selected benthic community variables (i.e., total
abundance, species richness, amphipod abundance, and dominance) were depressed
(EAR >1) in all areas where benthic invertebrate data were collected.
But only the East Waterway exhibited mean EAR values that exceeded the
criterion value of 5 (>_80 percent depression) for all four benthic community
variables. Examination of total organic carbon levels in the East Waterway
showed the bottom sediments to be organically enriched 2-3 times above
levels commonly seen in central Puget Sound. In addition, several areas
in the waterway had chemical concentrations above levels where benthic
communities effects were observed in the Commencement Bay Superfund Investi-
gation (Tetra Tech 1985a). These data suggest that benthic communities
S-4
-------
in the East Waterway are heavily influenced by organic enrichment and toxic
contamination.
In the lower Snohomish River, three of four variables were depressed
from reference conditions by greater than 80 percent. Mean abundances
of amphipods in Port Gardner and at the disposal site were severely reduced
relative to reference conditions. The dominance index was also depressed
greater than 80 percent in Offshore Port Gardner.
FISH PATHOLOGY
Information on fish pathology in Everett Harbor was collected from
1978 to 1984 by Mai ins et al. (undated, 1985), Mai ins (1984), and McCain
et al. (1982). It primarily concerned liver lesions in English sole (Parophrys
vetui us), of which there are three major kinds: neoplasms, preneoplasms ,
and megalocytic hepatosis. Highest EAR values for all three lesions were
generally found in the East Waterway and off Mukilteo. Elevations of lesion
prevalences declined with increasing distance from the East Waterway.
The prevalences of all three lesions were significantly elevated (P<0.05)
at one transect immediately southwest of the East Waterway, while preneoplasms
and megalocytic hepatosis were significantly elevated (P<0.05) at one transect
at the mouth of the Snohomish River. Lesion prevalences were not significantly
elevated at one site located about 1 km west of the mouth of the Snohomish
River and at two sites between the East Waterway and Mukilteo.
MICROBIOLOGY
The Elevation Above Reference analysis used microbiological data from
the WDOE Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program and Singleton et al. (1982).
Results indicated that water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria
were violated in the Snohomish River and Ebey Slough during a single sampling
period in 1981. In addition, the geometric mean concentration of fecal
coliform bacteria at three stations below the Everett sewage treatment
plant was more than three times the standard. Long-term data for the periods
1973-1979 and 1980-1984 indicated that microbial contamination of Snohomish
River waters has increased over the last decade, but that water quality
standards have not been violated during the summer months. Winter data
were not available. Because concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria
generally increase during the winter in other areas of Puget Sound, it
is possible that water quality standards in the Snohomish River may be
violated during that season.
IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC PROBLEM AREAS
Analysis of problem areas and their priority ranking was performed
at three levels of spatial resolution. First, six study areas were ranked
using the Action Assessment Matrix and the ranking criteria discussed in
the Decision-Making Approach section. Second, portions (segments) of the
East Waterway, which ranked highest in the previous analysis, were evaluated.
Finally, individual stations were ranked on the basis of sediment chemistry
data alone. The final ranking of problem areas reflects information from
each level of spatial analysis, but is based primarily on study areas and
S-5
-------
segments. This approach provided representative data for several indicators
of contamination and effects, while maintaining a relatively high degree
of spatial resolution.
The final priority ranking for interim action is shown below in approximate
rank order within major priority categories:
o HIGHEST PRIORITY = East Waterway (Segments IF, 1C, 1A, IB,
IE, and ID)
o SECOND PRIORITY = South Port Gardner (Mukilteo), Port Gardner
Disposal Site, Snohomish River, East Waterway (Segments
G and H)
o NO IMMEDIATE ACTION = Offshore Port Gardner, Snohomish River
Delta.
The results are summarized in Figure S-3. The highest priority sites,
all of which were located in the East Waterway, exhibited evidence of high
contamination and biological effects. Organic compounds and metals in
these areas were generally elevated to levels more than 10 times reference
values. Sediment toxicity and infaunal indicators were also elevated sub-
stantially. The second priority sites showed evidence of elevated organic
compounds, but not metals. In addition, substantial sediment toxicity
or biological effects were observed. Although bioassay and infaunal indicators
were not significantly elevated in Segment 1H, this area was included in
the second priority group because of the extreme values for organic compounds
in sediments. Sites classified as requiring no immediate action showed
evidence of low contamination and lesser biological effects.
S-6
-------
Tulalip
Bay
Ebey
FTULALIP LANDFILL
^3 SURFACE RUNOFF
^ CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
Slough
Smith Island
MUKILTEO
ft
*
KILOMETERS
SJ NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
Figure S-3. Final ranking of study areas
for interim action.
12th Street
EVERETT
5-
PRIORITY FOR INTERIM ACTION
HIGHEST PRIORITY
R&vsl SECOND PRIORITY
I 1 NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
I | INSUFFICIENT DATA
(CLEAR AREAS)
-------
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department
of Ecology in cooperation with other agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels are developing a remedial action plan to correct problems
associated with toxic and bacterial contamination of Everett Harbor (Figure 1).
Remedial actions may include, for example, source control designed to reduce
specific contaminant emissions and cleanup of contaminated sediments.
An assessment of contamination and associated problems is provided in this
report, including a ranking of study areas in terms of priority for action.
Based on available data, this preliminary evaluation of problems and a
review of existing plans for corrective actions (see Tetra Tech 1985c)
form the basis for development of an interim action plan. The final action
plan will be developed after field studies are conducted to fill data gaps
and after a detailed evaluation of environmental hazards and pollutant
sources is conducted (Figure 2). The proposed field studies are described
in the Sampling and Analysis Design (Tetra Tech 1985d).
Development of a remedial action plan requires that the following
kinds of questions be answered for areas within the bay/river system:
1. Is the area contaminated?
2. Does the contamination result in adverse biological effects?
3. Is there a potential threat to public health?
4. Can the contaminant sources be identified?
-.
5. Would remedial action reduce the threat to the environment
or to public health?
Answering Questions 1-5 involves development of a complex information base,
including data on sources, fates, and effects of contaminants.
The decision-making approach used to identify and prioritize contamination
problems is presented in the next section. The project area and its physical
setting are described in the second section of this report. The third
major section provides summaries of existing data on 1) drainage patterns;
2) toxic substances of concern; 3) pollutant sources; 4) sediment contamination;
5) contamination of the water column; 6) bioaccumulation of toxic substances
in fish; 7) bioassays of water and sediments; 8) structure of benthic macro-
invertebrate corrmunities; 9) pathology of fish and invertebrates; and 10) micro-
biology. In the final section, the selected indicators of toxic contamination
are integrated and evaluated within the decision-making framework. The
result of the hazard evaluation process is a ranking of study areas in
terms of their priority for remedial action.
-------
EVERETT HARBOR AREAS
MUKILTEO
1 2
^•^^••••••^ NAUTICAL MILES
KILOMETERS
2 CONTOURS IN FEET
l) EAST WATERWAY
2) SOUTH PORT GARDNER
T) OFFSHORE PORT GARDNER
1 '
7) SNOHOMISH RIVER DELTA
T) SNOHOMISH RIVER
V) PORT GARDNER DISPOSAL SITE
(?) EBEY SLOUGH
(?) STEAMBOAT SLOUGH
(IT) UNION SLOUGH
Figure 1. Everett Harbor project area.
-------
nflTfl rni i CTTTON
UHIM I.ULLLI. 1 1UIN
1
DATA FVALUATION
4
PROBLEM-AREA
EVALUATION
A
^
k
f
DATA
GAPS
1
FIELD STUDY
DESIGN
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
POLLUTION SOURCE
EVALUATION
REMEDIAL ACTION
PLAN
Figure 2. General approach to development of Everett Harbor
Action Plan.
-------
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
Information on the extent of contamination, adverse environmental
effects, and potential threats to public health forms the basis for priori-
tization of areas for cleanup or source control. A decision-making framework
i? needed to integrate and evaluate complex scientific information in a
form that can be understood by regulatory decision-makers and the public.
The decision-making framework developed for the Everett Harbor Action Plan
incorporates a "preponderance-of-evidence" approach to identification of
toxic problem areas (Figure 3). Study areas that exhibit high values of
indices for contamination and adverse effects relative to a reference site
receive a ranking of "high priority" for evaluation of pollutant sources
anrj remedial action. The decision criteria used for the Everett Harbor
Toxics Action Plan are based on those used in the Commencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflats Remedial Investigation (see Tetra Tech 1984).
The decision-making framework incorporates existing scientific data
and accommodates new information as it becomes available (Figure 4). Available
data are used to select short-term remedial actions for the interim action
plan. As new data are collected, the decision criteria are re-evaluated
and, if necessary, revised. Development of the final action plan will
be based on an assessment of the new information and recent historical
data within the decision-making framework.
The approaches to evaluation of toxic contamination and bacterial
conamination are similar. For bacterial problems, however, Washington
state standards for fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in water and
shellfish can be used directly as a reference for evaluation of observed
concentrations (see section below, Data Summaries, Microbiology). Because
the decision-making process for toxic contamination is more complex, it
is explained further in the following sections.
GENERAL FORM OF THE DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
The decision-making process to evaluate toxic contamination problems
follows seven steps:
• Characterize sediment contamination, sediment toxicity,
and biological effects
• Quantify relationships among sediment contamination, sediment
toxicity, and biological effects
• Apply action levels to determine problem areas
t Determine problem chemicals in problem areas
• Define spatial extent of problem areas
2
-------
CONTAMINATION
SEDIMENT
FISH
SHELLFISH
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
SEDIMENT TOXICITY
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
FISH DISEASE
HUMAN HEALTH THREAT
(1) MAGNITUDE OF INDICATORS
f2) NUMBER OF INDICATORS
ACTION I CRITERIA
EACH
AREA
CLASSIFIED
AS:
HIGH PRIORITY
MEDIUM PRIORITY
LOW PRIORITY
NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
Figure 3. Preponderance-of-evidence approach to evaluation of
toxic contamination problems.
-------
REVIEW AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
IDENTIFY
BACKGROUND AREAS
IDENTIFY SUBSTANCES
OF CONCERN
COMPARE EVERETT HARBOR
AND SNOHOMISH RIVER
SITES WITH BACKGROUND
EVALUATE
DATA GAPS
RANK EVERETT HARBOR AND
SNOHOMISH RIVER SITES
BASED ON A FROM
BACKGROUND
RANK SUBSTANCES BASED
ON A FROM BACKGROUND
•^
r
DEVELOP SAMPLING
PLAN DESIGN
RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY
ACTION-LEVEL CRITERIA
EVALUATE
NEW INFORMATION
1
IDENTIFY
PROBLEM AREAS
RE-EVALUATE
ACTION-LEVEL CRITERIA
r—
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
L
"1
0
T
H
E
R
0
N
G
0
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
Q
P
R
0
G
A
M
S
_
Figure 4. Development of action-level criteria and pre-
liminary sampling plan design for toxicants.
-------
• Evaluate sources contributing to problem areas
• Evaluate, prioritize, and recommend problem areas and sources
for potential remedial action.
Four major premises underlie this approach. First, although preliminary
guidelines are specified, final criteria used to recommend problem areas
for source evaluation and possible sediment remedial action are not established
a priori because of limitations of the existing database. The decision
process is iterative so that new information may be incorporated as it
is acquired. Final criteria will be developed based on a full complement
of past and present data.
Second, it was determined that no single measure of environmental
conditions could be used in all cases to define adequately the requirements
for potential remedial action. Therefore, problem areas are recommended
for remedial action investigations using several measures of sediment contami-
nation and biological effects, each of which may be used independently
to identify potential problem areas. In this approach, when results of
these independent measures corroborate one another (i.e., there is a pre-
ponderance of evidence), a problem area is defined. There may be special
circumstances where corroboration is not needed and a single indicator
may provide the basis for recommending source control or remedial action.
Third, it is assumed that adverse effects are linked to environmental
conditions that result from source emissions and that these links may be
characterized empirically. Therefore, proof of specific causal agents
is not provided by these studies. Relationships between sources and effects
will be quantified where possible, for example by correlations of specific
contaminant concentrations and distributions with the occurrence of adverse
biological effects. These empirical relationships are used to define problem
areas and to provide a rationale for recommended remedial action. Direct
cause-effect relationships in the sense of laboratory verification studies
are not within the scope of the Everett Harbor investigation.
Even in the absence of consistent quantitative relationships between
sediment, chemistry, and toxicity/effeet indicators, it may be possible
to distinguish problem areas from unaffected areas on the basis of their
chemical characteristics. Assuming that the distinguishing characteristics
are somehow associated with the actual problem chemical, this analysis
is expected to provide clues to contaminant sources. A wide range of
contaminants is included for analysis to increase the probability of measuring
either the causative substances, or related substances from the same source
and with the same distribution in the environment.
Finally, a fourth premise is that the recommended remedial actions
may vary from location to location. For example, only removal of contaminated
sediments may be recommended where contamination originated only from past
sources and biological effects are apparent. In contrast, source control
may be recommended where contamination originates from an ongoing source
even though biological effects may not be apparent. In other cases, both
-------
sediment removal and source control may be recommended. To prevent recontami-
nation of newly cleaned areas, remedial actions should not be implemented
before sources have been fully controlled.
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL INDICATORS
The primary kinds of data used in the decision-making process are
shown in Table 1. Although many other variables are evaluated throughout
the decision-making process, those shown in the table form the basis for
problem identification and priority ranking for the interim action plan.
The rationale for choosing these selected indicator variables is provided
in the following sections.
Target Chemicals
A preliminary list of chemical contaminants of concern for the Everett
Harbor studies is given in Table 2. Substances on this list have one of
two properties: they can bioaccumul ate, with adverse biological effects
in the food chain if bioaccumulated, or they can produce adverse biological
effects even when not bioaccumulated. U.S. EPA priority pollutants that
were probably discharged into the study area in the past or are probably
being discharged now are included on the list. Compounds not on the U.S. EPA
list of priority pollutants also have been considered on the basis of their
local significance. Several conventional water and sediment quality variables
have been recommended for analysis. These conventional variables provide
a means of comparing areas with different bulk chemical or physical properties.
Three problems arise in defining contaminants of concern. First,
observed biological effects could result from a characteristic of the system
unrelated to the selected organic compounds or metals of concern (e.g.,
the deleterious effects of sediment anoxia on benthic communities). The
analysis of conventional sediment variables will permit an evaluation of
this possibility.
Second, sediments in portions of the study area appear to have elevated
concentrations of a wide range of contaminants associated with biological
effects in laboratory and limited field investigations. These contaminants
are all recommended for study. A cause-effect relationship has not been
demonstrated between contaminant levels and observed biological abnormalities
in the Everett Harbor system. Therefore, observed biological effects could
result from some unidentified substance or combination of substances for
which analysis has not been performed. The criteria for study design reduce
this concern in three ways:
• The decision process is iterative to account for new information
acquired as data gaps are filled
0 Because the preliminary contaminants of concern have different
analytical requirements, their analysis will enable co-detection
of a much wider set of compounds, thus permitting an ongoing
evaluation of additional significant contaminants
-------
TABLE 1. PRIMARY KINDS OF DATA USED IN PROBLEM
AREA IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITY RANKING
General Category
Data Type
Specific Indicator Variables
Pollutant source
Habitat condition
Indigenous organisms
Toxicity
Mass emissions
Sediment quality
Bioaccumulation
Benthic community
structure
Fish pathology
Acute lethal
Sublethal
• Pollutant concentrations
• Discharge flow
• Pollutant concentrations
• Contaminant concentrations
in tissues of English sole
• Total abundance
• Species richness
• Dominance
• Amphipod abundance
• Prevalence of liver lesions
in English sole
• Amphipod mortality
• Oyster larvae abnormality
-------
TABLE 2. PRELIMINARY LIST OF CONTAMINANTS AND CONVENTIONAL
VARIABLES OF CONCERN IN EVERETT HARBOR
Metals
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickle
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Zinc
Volatiles
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloroethane
Chiorodibromomethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Ethyl benzene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethylene
Toluene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Di chl oroethylene
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
Xylene
Base/Neutrals (excluding PCBs)
Halogenated Compounds
Hexachloroethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad iene
Bis(2-chloroethyoxy)methane
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Base/Neutrals (cont.)
Low Molecular Weight Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Azobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorene
Biphenyl
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2-Methylphenanthrene
3-Methylphenanthrene
High Molecular Weight Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
1-Methylpyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene/Triphenylene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(l)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)peryl ene
Phthalate Esters
Diethylphthalate
Bi s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-me-phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Acid Extractables
Cresol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
4-Nitrophenol
Pesticides and PCBs
a-Chlordane
Aldrin
a-Endosulfan
a-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
g-HCH
Y-HCH (lindane)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Hazardous Substance List Compounds
Benzoic acid
2-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Aniline
Benzyl alcohol
4-Chloroaniline
Dibenzofuran
2-Methyl naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Miscellaneous Substances
Manganese
Iron
Coprostanol
a-Tocopherol acetate
Ch1oromethylbenzene
Miscellaneous Substances (Cont.)
Carbazoles
Retene
Dibenzothiophene
Monochlorodehydroabietic acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid
Dehydroabietic acid
Isopimaric acid
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
-------
• An unanalyzed aliquot of each sample and all significant
chemical fractions during sample workup are preserved to
permit further analyses if required in the future.
Third, preliminary contaminants of concern must have the potential
to cause observed sediment toxicity or biological effects in the Everett
Harbor system. Several factors may affect the ability to correlate contaminant
distributions with observed sediment toxicity or biological effects. These
include synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects, as well as contaminant
phase associations. For example, substantially elevated sediment concentrations
of one contaminant group may not correlate with observed biological effects,
because the effects may be associated with a synergistic combination of
a second group of substances whose concentrations are only slightly elevated
in the affected area. A discriminant analysis yielding the parameters
that distinguish the affected area from adjacent unaffected areas may identify
the relevant substances. However, the ability to identify subtle and poorly
understood interactions such as synergism is limited. Although they may
not be distinguishable from other kinds of effects, synergistic effects
may be measured through the use of biological indicators explained below.
Biological Variables
Selection of individual biological and toxicological indicators was
based on the following considerations:
t Use of the indicator in past or ongoing studies in Puget
Sound
• Documented sensitivity of the indicator to contaminant effects
• Ability to quantify the indicator within the resource and
time constraints of the program.
Response variables were selected to characterize several important
kinds of toxicological or biological effects within each general category
(Table 1). For example, measurement of bioaccumulation in fishes and
invertebrates provides
• A measure of the bioavail abil ity of sediment or waterborne
contaminants
• A measure of the potential threat to human health resulting
from ingest ion of contaminated seafood
• Potential establishment of an important link between bioaccumu-
1 at ion and pathology.
Although a study of effects on fish populations is beyond the scope of
the current project, a study of effects on individual fishes is possible
through an assessment of liver lesion prevalence. Benthic macroinvertebrates
were selected because of their sensitivity to sediment contamination, their
-------
importance in local trophic relationships, and their ability to establish
site-specific response gradients relative to sediment contamination.
Form of Indicators
To rank areas based on observed contamination effects and to evaluate
the relative magnitude of these effects, a series of simple indices has
been developed for each toxicological and biological effect category (i.e.,
sediment toxicity, bioaccumulation, pathology, and benthic community
structure). The indices have the general form of a ratio between the value
of a variable at a site in Everett Harbor and the value of the same variable
at a reference site. The ratios are structured so that the value of the
index increases as the deviation from reference conditions increases.
Thus, each ratio is termed an Elevation Above Reference (EAR) index.
It should be noted that these indices are not used in lieu of the
original data (e.g., contaminant concentrations), but in addition to them.
The original data are used to identify statistically detectable increases
in sediment contamination, sediment toxicity, or biological effect indicators,
ar.c! to determine quantitative relationships among these indicators. The
indices are used to reduce large data sets into interpretable numbers that
reflect the magnitudes of the different indicators among areas.
The index for sediment toxicity is expressed as:
TIi = MSi/MRi
where:
MS-,- = Mortality or abnormality rate i at an Everett Harbor study
area
MR-J = Mortality or abnormality rate i at the Puget Sound reference
area(s).
The index for bioaccumulation is expressed as:
BIi = GSi/cRi
where:
C$.j = Tissue concentration of contaminant group i at an Everett
Harbor study area
CR-J = Tissue concentration of contaminant group i at the reference
area(s).
The fish pathology index is expressed as the elevation in the prevalence
of fish with liver lesions relative to the reference area:
PIi = PSi/PRi
-------
where:
= Percent of fish with liver lesion i at an Everett Harbor
study area
PR.J = Percent of fish with liver lesion i at the reference area(s).
Benthic community structure cannot be measured by a single indicator,
but by several community indicators associated with toxic biological effects
(e.g., abundance, species richness, and species dominance; see Table 1).
Most of the multiple benthic community structure indices (BCI) are derived
as the inverse ratio of values for these selected community indicators
at Everett Harbor sites relative to reference areas:
BCI = BCRi/BCSi
where:
= The value of a selected benthic community structure indicator
i at the reference area
BCSi = Jhe value of the same benthic community structure indicator
i at the study area.
An inverse ratio is used for most benthic community structure indices
because values for affected study sites would be lower than those at reference
sites. For example, contaminated sites will probably have reduced numbers
of species or reduced numbers of amphipods relative to reference sites.
An increase in the index would therefore reflect a decrease in absolute
value of the variable but an increase in adverse effect relative to reference
conditions.
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
The environmental contamination and effects indicators (EAR) are organized
into an "Action Assessment Matrix" used to compare study areas or "hot spots."
A simplified example of an Action Assesment Matrix is shown in Table 3.
Theoretical data, rather than actual site data, are used in this case
to develop a complete matrix. A detailed discussion of site-specific data
for the Everett Harbor decision-making process is presented in the chapter
on Identification of Toxic Problem Areas.
Theoretical information is presented in Table 3 to demonstrate how
information from multiple indicators can be integrated for an overall evaluation
and prioritization of different study areas without artificially combining
indices mathematically. For this example, only general indices such as
"sediment contamination", or "benthic macroinvertebrates" are used. In
the actual application of the approach, multiple indices for specific types
of sediment contamination will be evaluated, including separate measures
for organic compounds and metals. Similarly, the benthic macroinvertebrates
category will be replaced by more specific measures of benthic community
structure. Evaluation of information in this format enables the decision-
maker to answer the following questions:
-------
TABLE 3. THEORETICAL EXAMPLE OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS
AMONG SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT TOXICITY,
AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS INDICATORS
Scd iment
contamination 1
Toxicity
Bioaccumulation
Pathology
"Benthic
macroinvertebrates
A
,300
8.5
900
5.2
4. Ob
B
45|
2.0
1 20*1
2.6
1.2
C
800
10.0
1,100
8.0
5.0
D E F G H
75 8 50 4 12
4.5 2.2 3.5 2.5 3.0
|200| 13 45 1.8 2
2.8 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.6
1.3 1.1 1.2 1.05 1.08
Reference Value
1,000 ppb
10% mortality
10 ppb
5% prevalence
60 species
a Levels of one or more chemicals observed result in a significant human health risk.
b Benthic macroinvertebrate factors, in this case, represent the factor reduction
in numbers of species at the study site relative to the 60 observed at the reference
site. For example, at Site A, four times fewer species (15) are observed relative
to the reference site. Factors for all of the other indices represent increases
relative to the reference site values shown.
1 |- Indicates parameter for Areas A-H 1s significantly different from reference
parameter.
-------
1. Is there a significant increase in sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, or biological effects at any study area?
2. What combination of indicators are significantly elevated?
3. What are the relative magnitudes of the elevated indices
(i.e., which pose the greatest relative threats)?
The term significant is generally used in this report to mean statis-
tically significant at the 95 percent confidence level (a= 0.05). However,
note that application of statistical tests to existing data derived from
previous studies is not always appropriate, especially when data sets from
several studies are pooled. In this case, criteria other than a formal
statistical test are used to establish significance of an indicator (e.g.,
the concentration of a chemical in sediments from the study area exceeds
the upper end of the range of values from all Puget Sound reference areas).
The collection of synoptic data specified in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan will allow determinations of statistical significance for most indicators.
Tor an explanation of the significance determination for indicators (EAR)
based on existing data, refer to the later section on Preliminary Action
Criteria.
In the theoretical matrix given in Table 3, Areas E and 6 show no
significant increase in the various indices relative to reference conditions,
although the areas exhibit contamination at four to eight times reference
levels. As the general sediment contaminant index increases to 50 times
reference levels, only relatively minor increases in sediment toxicity
and bioaccumulation are observed, although a significant increase in human
health risk is associated with the bioaccumulation observed in Area B.
As sediment contamination increases above this level, the number of toxicity
and biological effects indices with significant elevations increases, and
the magnitudes of the indices also increase. Areas A and C have significant
elevations in all five indices. Area C poses the greatest overall threat
because it has the highest values in the four biological indices. Even
though sediment contamination is higher in Area A, the higher toxicity/
biological effects indicators in Area C suggest a relatively greater environ-
mental and human health threat than in Area A. As will be discussed later
in Preliminary Action Criteria, areas with gross sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, or biological effects measured by perhaps only one or
two of the indices may nonetheless be evaluated for source control and
sediment remedial action.
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
The development of quantitative relationships among possible causative
factors, sediment toxicity, and biological effects identifies threshold
concentrations above which changes in the indicators are detectable. These
"apparent effect thresholds" are a key part of the overall assessment because
they form the basis for identifying areas for further attention (i.e.,
evaluation of contaminant sources and potential remedial actions).
-------
The relationship among individual biological effects indices, sediment
toxicity, and corresponding levels of sediment contamination will be examined
to evaluate possible exposure-response patterns. The basic concept of
increased biological effects or sediment toxicity resulting from increased
sediment contamination is depicted in Figure 5 using an unspecified effects
index. Four study areas that have statistically elevated effects are shown
in the figure. Although there is an elevation in contamination relative
to reference conditions at the remaining five study areas, there are no
statistically detectable increases in the effect indicator above background
conditions. Thus, the level of sediment contamination corresponding to
Area X (arrow) represents an apparent threshold above which significant
effects occur. The greatest deviation from background conditions occurred
at Area Z, although greater sediment contamination was observed at Area Y.
Such deviations from a straightforward exposure-response relationship may
result from differences in the exact forms present, spatial heterogeneity
within the area, or differences in environmental conditions that affect
exposure routes. In this simplified example based on only one independent
effects index, Areas W, X, Y, and Z would be recommended for source/remedial
action evaluations. Area Z would be given the highest priority of these
^our areas.
Data on sediment toxicity and biological effects are collected from
areas of low, moderate, and high sediment contamination, as well as from
areas with different kinds of contamination (e.g., metals and organic
substances). The resultant relationships among contaminant characteristics
and the kinds and degrees of measurable sediment toxicity or biological
effects are used to evaluate apparent effect thresholds and to prioritize
study areas. Moreover, the quantitative relationships form the basis for
predicting the environmental effects of alternative source control and
sediment remedial actions. Data acquired by implementing the Sampling
and Analysis Design (Tetra Tech 1985d) will be used to perform these evalu-
ations.
PRELIMINARY ACTION CRITERIA
The decision to evaluate potential sources of contamination and the
need for possible remedial alternatives applies only to those areas that
exceed a minimum action level. An "action level" is a level of contami-
nation or effects that defines a problem area. Action levels are determined
through a comparison of the contaminant, sediment toxicity, and biological
effects indices for each area in the matrix. Action levels are dependent
on the specific combination of indices. It is assumed that an area requires
no action unless at least one of the indicators of contamination, toxicity,
or biological effects is significantly elevated above reference levels.
The preliminary action criteria developed for the evaluation of problem
areas in Everett Harbor are shown in Table 4. The action-level guidelines
are summarized as follows:
• Significant elevation above reference for THREE OR MORE
INDICES identifies a problem area requiring evaluation of
sources and potential remedial action
-------
M
**
U
£
«»-
UJ
13
o
AreaZ
AreaX
AreaY
AreaW
O
Average Reference Index
Sediment Concentration
of Contaminant
O Reference
A Everett Harbor, not statistically significant
A Everett Harbor, statistically significant at
the 95% confidence level (a = 0.05)
Apparent Effect Threshold
Figure 5. Theoretical example of relationship between sediment
contamination and an effects index.
-------
TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY ACTION-LEVEL GUIDELINES
Condition Observed
Threshold Required for Action
I. Any THREE OR MORE significantly
elevated indices9
II. TWO significantly elevated
indices
Threshold exceeded, continue with
source and remedial action evaluation.
1. Sediments contaminated, but
below 80th percentile PLUS:
Bioaccumulation without an
increased human health risk
relative to that at the
reference area, OR
Sediment toxicity with less
than 40 percent mortality
or abnormalities, OR
Benthic community structure
indicates altered assemblage,
but less than 80 percent
depression.
2. Sediments contaminated but
below 80th percentile PLUS
elevated Fish Pathology
Any TWO significantly ele-
vated indices, but NO ele-
vated sediment contamina-
tion
No immediate action. Recommend
site for future monitoring.
III.
SINGLE significantly elevated
index
1. Sediment contamination
Threshold for source evaluation
exceeded if elevated contaminants
are considered to be biologically
available. If not, recommend site
for future monitoring.
Conduct analysis of chemistry to
distinguish site from adjacent
areas. If test fails, no immediate
action warranted. Otherwise, threshold
exceeded for characterization of
potential sources. Re-evaluate
significance of chemical indicators.
If magnitude of contamination exceeds
the 80th percentile for all study
areas, proceed with source and
remedial action evaluation.
-------
TABLE 4. (Continued)
Bioaccumulation
3.
4.
5.
Sediment toxicity
Benthic community structure
Fish pathology
Increased human health threat,
defined as: Absolute cancer risk
of 10~5 or greater for single chemical
at study area. For noncarcinogens,
exceedance of the acceptable daily
intake value is required.
Greater than 40 percent response
(mortality or abnormality).
80 percent depression or greater
(equals an EAR of 5 or greater).
Insufficient as a sole indicator.
Recormiend site for future monitoring.
Check adjacent areas for significant
contamination, toxicity, and/or
biological effects.
a Combinations of significant indices are from independent data types (i.e.
sediment chemistry, bioaccumulation, sediment toxicity, benthic infauna,
fish pathology).
Significant indices are defined as follows:
Sediment Chemistry and Bioaccumulation = Chemical concentration at study
site exceeds highest value observed at all Puget Sound reference areas.
Sediment Toxicity and Pathology = Statistically significant difference
between study area and reference area.
Benthic Infauna = Greater than an 80 percent depression (i.e., EAR >5)
for Interim Action Plan based on available data. For comprehensive AcfTon
Plan based on data collected during this project (cf. Tetra Tech 1985d) ,
a significant elevation will be defined as a statistically significant
difference between a study site and the reference area.
-------
• For ANY TWO INDICES showing significant elevations, the
decision to proceed with source and remedial action evaluations
depends on the actual combination of indices and the relative
degree to which they are site-specific
• Even when only a SINGLE INDEX is significantly elevated,
a problem area may be defined when additional criteria are
met (i.e., the magnitude of the index is sufficiently above
the significance threshold to warrant further evaluation).
Note that these action criteria are used to distinguish areas requiring
evaluation of sources and remedial action from those that do not require
immediate action.
Problem areas are ranked in terms of priority for action according
to three basic criteria. The first criterion concerns the number of indicators
that are significantly elevated. High priority would be assigned to an
area with elevated indices. For example, a study area with significant
elevation of liver lesion prevalences only would be viewed as less hazardous
to the environment or public health than an area with significant changes
in in all three biological effect indicators (benthic macroinvertebrates,
bioaccumulation, and liver lesion prevalence).
The second criterion concerns the magnitude of elevation. In this
assessment, the values of the individual indices represent relative deviation
from reference conditions and thus are assumed to represent relative environ-
mental hazards.
The final criterion concerns cause-effect relationships. This step
involves a determination of whether or not the quantitative (i.e., statistical)
relationships between observed sediment toxicity or biological effects
and sediment contamination of sediments are strong enough to link potential
causes and observed effects.
It is conceivable (but not likely) that significant sediment toxicity
or biological effects occur in areas without apparent contamination by
toxic substances. In such cases, it will be important to evaluate the
possibility that the observed conditions result from variables not measured
by available field studies. An attempt will be made to distinguish the
biological problem area from surrounding areas using chemical characteristics,
and to identify sources based on these distinguishing chemical characteristics.
RANKING OF PROBLEM AREAS
Although potential sources and remedial actions are evaluated for
each study area exceeding the action criteria just discussed, it is desirable
to rank these areas in terms of priority for action. This process is
independent of that used to establish apparent effect thresholds that define
a problem area. Criteria for ranking problem areas according to individual
indicators are shown in Table 5. Two ranking schemes are used. One uses
sediment chemistry indicators only, primarily to characterize the extent
10
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RANKING CRITERIA FOR SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION,
TOXICITY, AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS INDICATORS
Indicator
Criteria
Score
Metals (one or more)
Organic Compounds
(one or more)
Toxicitya
Macroinvertebrates0
Bioaccumulation
(Fish muscle)
Fish Pathology
(Liver lesions)d
Maximum Possible Score
Concentration not significant 0
Significant; EAR <10 1
Significant; EAR 10-<50 2
Significant; EAR 50-<100 3
Significant; EAR >100 4
Concentration not significant 0
Significant; EAR <10 1
Significant; EAR 10-<100 2
Significant; EAR 100-<1,000 3
Significant; EAR >1,000 4
No significant bioassay response 0
Amphipod OR oyster bioassay significant 2
Amphipod AND oyster bioassays significant 3
>40 percent response in EITHER bioassay 4
No significant depressions 0
1 significant depression 1
2 significant depressions 2
>_3 significant depressions 3
_>! variable with >_ 95 percent depression 4
No significant chemicals 0
1 significant chemical 1
2 significant chemicals 2
_>3 significant chemicals 3
Significant bioaccumulation of >_1 chemical
posing a human health threatc 4
No significant lesion types 0
1 significant lesion type 1
2 significant lesion types 2
X3 significant lesion types 3
>_5 percent prevalence of hepatic neoplasms 4
24
a Toxicity based on amphipod mortality and oyster larvae abnormality bioassays.
b Variables considered were total macrobenthic abundance, total number
of taxa, Amphipoda abundance, and dominance.
c Action Level Guidelines.
d Lesions considered
megalocytic hepatosis.
were hepatic neoplasms, preneoplastic nodules, and
-------
and magnitude of contamination. The other uses all biological indicators
to measure the response to chemical contamination. Rank scores assigned
to an area for individual biological indicators (i.e., bioassay, infauna,
bioaccumulation, pathology) are summed to obtain an overall rank for the
area. Similarly, rank scores assigned for the sediment chemistry indicators
(i.e., metals and organic compounds) are summed to obtain an overall rank.
If the final ranking based on sediment toxicity and biological effects
differs substantially from that based on sediment chemistry, then the lower-
ranking score may be disregarded. High priority sites may thus be designated
strictly on the basis of chemical contamination (i.e., no corresponding
biological problems apparent) or strictly on the basis of biological conditions
(i.e., no chemical contamination apparent).
SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS
Using the Action Assessment Matrix, contamination and effects may
be analyzed at several levels of spatial resolution (e.g., the entire project
area, the nine study areas shown in Figure 1, or individual stations).
Detailed examination of each study area is necessary because spatial hetero-
geneity of sediment contamination can be relatively high. For example,
past studies have identified apparent "hot spots" near contaminant sources,
based on sediment contaminant measurements and sediment bioassays. In
such situations, it is important to determine if broad-scale sediment toxicity
or biological effects detected in the area result only from localized
contamination.
Because of their mobility, fishes and crabs used in the bioaccumulation
and pathology assessments may not be appropriate for studying localized
effects. Therefore, data used for evaluations of localized "hot spots"
are limited to sediment contaminants, sediment toxicity, and benthic macro-
invertebrates. Quantitative relationships among these kinds of data can
be used to evaluate small-scale response gradients. Such relationships
can be used to predict the occurrence of biological problems in an area
where chemistry data are available but biological data are not.
SOURCE EVALUATION
The objective of source evaluation is to identify sources of contamination,
and in turn to guide remedial activities. The source evaluation described
in this report is based upon spatial and temporal characteristics of the
contamination observed in the problem area, the geochemical properties
of the individual or groups of contaminants, and characteristics of known
or potential sources. The types of sources considered include
• Recognized point and nonpoint land sources whose current
discharges are related compositionally to the observed sediment
or tissue contamination (e.g., runoff and effluent discharges,
atmospheric emissions, and groundwater seepage)
• Suspected point and nonpoint sources whose discharges may
vary compositionally over time
11
-------
• Undiscovered point sources
• Water transport of contaminants from outside the defined
area
• Probable historical contamination.
The objectives of the source evaluation include 1) ranking of sources
based on mass loadings and relative hazard of contaminants, 2) classification
of sources as historical or ongoing, and 3) identification of potential
responsible parties. When these objectives have been met, the analysis
reduces to an evaluation of whether potential action in these areas would
reduce threats to public health or the environment. As mentioned previously,
the need for possible control of sources in problem areas is evaluated
separately from the need to contain or remove contaminated sediments.
However, coordination of source control and sediment remedial action is
required where ongoing sources of sediment contamination result in sediment
toxicity and/or biological effects.
Four major categories of problem areas are defined, including
t Areas recommended for evaluation of source control only
• Areas recommended for evaluation of containment or removal
of sediments contaminated by historical sources
• Areas recommended for evaluation of source control and sediment
remedial action
• Areas in which projected recovery due to natural processes
make immediate remedial action unwarranted.
Problem areas recommended for some form of remedial action will be
ranked in order to allocate resources efficiently. As a starting point,
this prioritization will use the ranking based on contamination and biological
effects discussed earlier. Because the corrective actions are diverse
and largely site-specific, some areas may be given a high priority for
immediate source control, while others may be given a high priority for
immediate dredging studies.
It should be recognized that a detailed evaluation of sources based
on existing data is not possible (see later sections, Data Summaries and
Identification of Toxic Problem Areas). The approach just discussed can
be applied once further data on sources and synoptic data on environmental
conditions are available.
12
-------
PHYSICAL SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION
Everett Harbor is located adjacent to the eastern shore of Possession
Sound off the city of Everett, Washington (Figure 1). The bay opens towards
Saratoga Passage and for the purpose of this study is defined as the area
east of a line joining Elliot Point in Mukilteo with the western point
of Mission Beach at the entrance of Tulalip Bay. The Everett Harbor project
area includes the Snohomish River estuary east to Interstate 5. This area
is about 7 mi wide at the mouth and 3 mi wide from the inner harbor to
the outer boundary. The East Waterway and the entire portion of the Snohomish
River within the project area have been significantly altered from their
natural states. In the early 1900s, a dike was built to divert Snohomish
River flows southward along the Everett shoreline and to convert Port Gardner
into a freshwater port. The original dike extended from the south end
of Smith Island and paralleled the Everett shoreline. However, heavy siltation
occurred in the area upstream of Preston Point. As a remedy, a large gap
was cut in the dike near the old river mouth at Preston Point to allow
part of the river flows to travel out across the delta. The main portion
of the river flow still travels along the Everett waterfront and enters
Port Gardner near the East Waterway. Expansive intertidal sand flats and
seagrass beds exist west and north of the river entrance to Port Gardner.
Descriptions of drainage patterns, physical oceanography, beneficial uses,
and study areas within the Everett Harbor system are presented in the following
sections.
DRAINAGE PATTERNS
The project area encompasses about 110 rm'2 of primarily undeveloped
forest and agricultural lands within the Snohomish River drainage basin.
Project area drainage boundaries are roughly defined by Highway 9 on the
east and Casino Road to the south, and extend as far north as the Arlington
airport (see Figure 6).
The Snohomish River, the second largest river in the Puget Sound basin,
is the major source of fresh water to Everett Harbor. The Snohomish basin
extends to the crest of the Cascade mountains and covers about 1,700 mi2.
Annual flows measured near Monroe average 9,900 ft3/sec (1963-1983 USGS
records), with two distinct seasonal peaks - one in December and January
due to winter precipitation in the lower basin and a second in June due
to spring snowmelt.
The cities of Everett, Marysville, and Mukilteo are the major urban
areas in the basin. Surface water runoff from Everett, which is served
by a combined sanitary/storm sewer system, is treated and discharged at
the Everett wastewater treatment plant on the Snohomish River. Marysville
and Mukilteo are served by separate sewer systems. Storm drains from Marysville
13
-------
ARLINGTON
TULALIP INDIAN
RESERVATION
r
MARYSVILLE
PAINE FIELD
(COUNTY AIRPORT)
Figure 6. Project area drainage boundaries.
-------
discharge into Quilceda Creek, Allen Creek, and Ebey Slough. Most runoff
from Mukilteo and the surrounding areas is routed to the numerous small
streams that drain the southern portion of the study basin. The northern
part of the drainage basin, excluding the urbanized areas in Marysville,
is composed almost entirely of forest and agricultural lands. Surface
drainage is provided by Allen and Quilceda Creeks.
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Everett Harbor is located in the southeast corner of the Whidbey Basin
region of Puget Sound. It is heavily influenced by freshwater inflows
from the Snohomish River. Bathymetry in most of the project area is charac-
terized by the river delta, with depths ranging from 2 to 8 ft at mean
lower low water. The delta extends about 3 mi into the bay and then drops
off steeply to depths of 300-350 ft. The deepest areas are in the southwest
corner, extending into Possession Sound, where depths range between 100 and
500 ft.
The Snohomish River estuary is a delta-type estuary, with four main
branches or sloughs (Ebey Slough, Steamboat Slough, Union Slough, lower
Snohomish River). All slough channels are relatively shallow, with depths
during mean lower low tide ranging between 2 and 12 ft. The lower Snohomish
River is dredged, and has a mean depth during average flow conditions of
25 ft. It has been estimated that the Snohomish River channel conveys
approximately 70 percent of the total river flow (R.W. Beck & Associates
1980, Appendix D). Saltwater intrusions have been observed as far upstream
as 7 mi from Preston Point during the dry season (Shapiro and Associates,
Inc. and Driscoll 1978). The remaining flows are conveyed to Port Gardner
via the sloughs, primarily Steamboat Slough. Most Ebey Slough flows are
transferred to Steamboat Slough at their junction.
The sheltered position of Everett Harbor buffers the area from major
tidal currents. In addition, a shallow, submerged bar (40-110 ft deep),
located off the southern end of Camano Island, directs most tidal forces
from Puget Sound through Possession Sound to Saratoga Passage. Circulation
patterns within the study area have not been studied in detail. The ECOBAM
study concluded that Snohomish River flows are the major influence on circu-
lation in the harbor (English et al. 1976). Southwesterly flows predominate
during high water and spring runoff. The East Waterway is a confined basin
located directly east of the mouth of the Snohomish River. The ECOBAM
study indicated that the waterway shows significant stratification due
to weak currents and deep water (English et al. 1976).
The Snohomish River accounts for a large portion of the sediment load
transported into the bay. Average annual sediment transport has been estimated
at approximately 500,000 yd3 of bed load material and about 1,000,000 yd3
of suspended load. Material deposited along the river delta is composed
primarily of sand and coarse sand. Fine silts and mud are deposited beyond
the delta and in the deep-water areas in the southwest portion of the bay.
14
-------
BENEFICIAL USES
The Everett Harbor system is used for a variety of purposes. These
uses range from marine transportation to salmon fishing, and from beach
combing to waste disposal. In the context of this study, the term "beneficial
use" refers to activities that depend on a high degree of environmental
quality and that do not (as a direct consequence) adversely affect that
quality.
Beneficial uses can be placed into two categories: 1) resource-using,
and 2) non-resource-using. Resource-using activities include recreational
shellfish harvesting, commercial salmon fishing, and sport fishing. In
Everett Harbor, commercially important living resources include, but are
not limited to, crab (entire Snohomish River delta), salmon (entire bay
and estuary), and flatfish (most of the bay). A variety of seafoods are
harvested recreationally, such as surf perch, rock cod, true cod, squid,
butter clams, cockles, horseclams, and seaweeds. These are gathered either
by boat, on foot, or from several fishing spots along Everett's waterfront.
The Snohomish River is also used for recreational fisheries. Three
species of salmon (chinook, coho, and chum), steel head and sea-run cutthroat
trout, and resident cutthroat and rainbow trout are the most preferred
fish. Fishing occurs both from boats and from several public access points
along the river.
Non-resource-using activities include viewing, recreational boating,
picnicking, bicycling, and strolling. Because of the industrial and urban
nature of the Everett waterfront, activity at some public access points
is limited to viewing. There are five boat launches (one at Mukilteo State
Park, two on the Snohomish River, one at Ebey Slough, and one at Steamboat
Slough), and three waterfront parks.
STUDY AREAS
Discrimination of spatial patterns in contaminant distributions and
biological responses is a major objective of this project. To facilitate
spatial analysis, the project area has been divided into nine smaller areas
based on geographic features, bathymetry, and locations of major pollutant
sources (Figure 1). The East Waterway was defined as a distinct area.
The Snohomish River and estuary includes five areas. The remaining portion
of Port Gardner includes three areas: the deep, offshore areas; the southern
shoreline; and the Port Gardner Disposal Site. Area boundaries and major
features are as follows:
1. East Waterway—All of the East Waterway north and east of
a line from the Snohomish River mouth black can bouy "3A"
to the southern-most boundary of the old Weyerhaeuser Pulp
Mill dock.
2. South Port Gardner — Shore! ine areas (less than or equal
to 30 ft deep) from Elliot Point (Mukilteo) to the southernmost
boundary of the Weyerhaeuser Pulp Mill dock.
15
-------
3. Offshore Port Gardner—All deep water (>30 ft) areas of
Port Gardner exclusive of the Port Gardner Disposal Site
(see No. 6 below).
4. Snohomish River De1ta--The area west of a line between the
downstream boundary of Ebey and Smith Islands out to the
30-ft depth contour.
5. Snohomish River—The main navigable river channel downstream
from the Interstate-5 (1-5) bridge to the mouth (marked
by the black can bouy "3A").
6. Port Gardner Disposal Site—This area is the designated
disposal site.
7. Ebey Slough--The channel adjacent to the northern boundary
of Ebey Island west of 1-5 to a line downstream between
Priest Point and the western tip of Ebey Island.
8. Steamboat S1ough--The channel between Ebey and Smith Islands
west of 1-5 to a line between the western tip of Ebey Island
and the northwestern tip of Smith Island.
9. Union Slough--The portion of the slough west and north of
Interstate-5 (1-5).
During the data analysis phase, some of the above areas may be further
divided based on actual distribution of contamination and effects.
16
-------
DATA SUMMARIES
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Contaminant sources in the study area can be divided into seven major
categories: wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) ,
industrial discharges, surface runoff, groundwater, atmospheric deposition,
and accidental spills. There are five municipal wastewater treatment plants
in the Everett study area - Everett, Marysville, Lake Stevens, Mukilteo,
and Tulalip. The combined sewer overflow category covers the periodic
discharge of untreated wastewater from city combined sewer lines during
storm events. Only the Everett and Marysville systems have overflow points
in the sewer lines. Industrial sources consist of permitted and nonpermitted
discharges of wastewater from industrial sites. Two major pulp and paper
industries discharge treated process wastewaters to area waterways. The
remaining industries either discharge only noncontact cooling water and
storm water, or discharge process wastes into the municipal sewer system.
Surface runoff includes discharges to area waterways from storm drains,
natural stream channels, and direct surface runoff. Because of the rural/
agricultural nature of a large part of the study drainage basin, there
are very few city storm drain systems. Most surface runoff is conveyed
to area waterways via natural streams and creeks. The groundwater category
covers any subsurface transport of contaminants into the waterways. Atmospheric
sources consist of airborne pollutants deposited directly on the water
surface. Airborne material deposited initially on the land surface and
transported to area waterways via stormwater runoff is categorized as surface
runoff. The final category, accidental spills, covers the release of contam-
inants to the waterways from spills in the project area.
Conventional pollutant data generally are available for the NPDES-permitted
sites, which include the treatment plants and most industrial discharges.
Additional priority pollutant data are limited to a single analysis of
a sample from the Everett treatment plant and information provided in permit
applications from Scott and Weyerhaeuser companies. Data on pollutant
loadings from the remaining sources are generally not available. Evaluations
of source data sets are summarized in Appendix A, Tables A-l and A-2.
Available pollutant data and present approximate loading values for
the various sources in the study area are described in the following sections.
To give perspective on the significance of these pollutant levels, discharge
concentrations were compared with available U.S. EPA ambient water quality
criteria. Where sufficient data are available, a rough ranking of sources
based on pollutant loading has been developed. Also, to compare Everett
source loading values with other known pollutant sources in Puget Sound,
available loading data from the Commencement Bay Superfund study and the
Elliott Bay Toxics Action Plan are summarized in Table D-9 in Appendix D.
Wastewater Treatment Plants
There are five municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Everett
study area: Everett, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Mukilteo, and Tulalip.
Effluent from the Mukilteo and Tulalip plants is discharged directly into
Port Gardner. The Mukilteo plant, located at the southwest corner of the
project area, discharges into the South Port Gardner area. The Marysville
17
-------
and Lake Stevens plants discharge into Ebey Slough. Effluent from the
Everett plant is discharged into the Snohomish River area. See Map 1 for
locations of outfalls (except Lake Stevens plant outfall, which is east
of area shown on map).
Everett Plant--
The Everett treatment plant, constructed in 1960, treats wastewater
and stormwater flows from the city of Everett and leachate from the Cathcart
and Lake Stevens landfills in an aerated lagoon system. Prior to 1960,
raw sewage was discharged to Port Gardner and the Snohomish River via 14
outfalls. The location of the treatment plant outfall is shown in Map 1.
It extends through the dike along the river, and a tide gate is installed
at the end of the pipe. Pipe invert elevation is 3 ft below mean sea level.
Plant effluent is monitored daily for pH, BOD, TSS, fecal and fecal-strepto-
cocci coliform bacteria. Monthly summaries of the discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) for the 1983-1984 period are shown in Appendix D, Table
D-l (City of Everett 1984). Daily flow averaged 13.1 MGD, with BOD and
TSS loads of 2,840 Ib/day and 3,080 Ib/day, respectively. Fecal coliform
bacteria counts averaged (geometric means) 19/100 mL (l.lxlQiO/day loading)
and fecal streptococci bacteria counts averaged 28/100 mL (1.8xlQlO/day
loading).
The plant is currently overloaded. As a result, it does not consis-
tently meet the effluent limitations for BOD and TSS as established in
the NPDES permit. During the 1983-84 period, the average monthly BOD limit
(30 mg/L) was exceeded 9 times and the 30 mg/L TSS limit was exceeded 11
times. The city plans to expand the plant to handle increased loadings
projected for the year 2000. The EIS for the proposed expansion is currently
under review.
Metals data for plant effluent are available from the DMRs and a 1981
WDOE Class II inspection conducted at the plant. Under its NPDES permit,
quarterly effluent monitoring is required for chromium, copper, and zinc.
The Class II inspection was conducted in September and October, 1981.
Two sets of 6-h composited samples were taken on September 29, and October 13,
1981 and analyzed for conventional variables and metals.
A summary of available metals data is presented in Table 6. Concentra-
tions of chromium are consistently below 0.1 mg/L. However, concentrations
of zinc (0.02-7.16 mg/L) and copper (60.02-1.19 mg/L) showed a large degree
of variability. Average concentration of zinc was about 1.2 mg/L and average
copper concentration was about 0.2 mg/L.
A comparison of diluted plant effluent pollutant concentrations with
U.S. EPA freshwater criteria is displayed in Table 7. A dilution factor
of 50 was assumed by comparing average plant discharge (13.1 MGD) with
the minimum monthly flow in the Snohomish River (840 MGD). Using this
dilution factor, only the high range cadmium and chromium concentrations
exceeded the U.S. EPA criteria. All other metal and available organic
constituent concentrations were below the established freshwater criteria.
18
-------
TABLE 6. EVERETT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT METALS DATA (mg/L)
Cr
Cu
Zn
Cd
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
1983a
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
£ r\ i
sy ^ _L
0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.09
0.83
0.01
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
19849
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0.03
0.04
1.19
0.26
0.038
0.02
0.02
7.16
4.69
0.027
-
-
-
-
-
9/29/81b
<0.01
0.026
0.055
<0.001
0.025
<0.0002
0.018
0.003
10/13/81C
0.078
0.0027
0.033
<0.001
0.008
<0.0002
0.004
0.002
Avg.
<0.1
0.15
1.18
<0.001
0.016
<0.0002
0.011
0.002
a Quarterly sample results from discharge monitoring reports.
b WDOE Class II sample results, 6-h composite.
c WDOE Class II sample results, 8-h composite.
-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF DILUTED TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (ug/L)
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Phenol
Trichloroethyl
Everetta
(50:1)
<0.1
0.1
0.024-0.032
0.26-0.42
0.18-1
0.02-0.1
<0.04
0.22-0.48
0.026-0.054
1.8-3.5
0.28-0.3
ene <0. 1-1.1
Lake Stevens
(1,000:1)
-
-
<0.001
<0. 003-0. 006
0.023-0.026
<0.002
<0.002
<0.003
<0. 001 -0.002
0.035-0.041
Water Quality
Criteria*3
(Freshwater)
1,600
-
0.025
0.29
5.6
3.8
0.2
9.6
0.12
47
2,560
21,900
a Based on data in Table 8 below.
b Chronic water quality criteria or lowest reported chronic toxicity concen-
trations (U.S. EPA 1980).
-------
The city of Everett has recently begun to evaluate the treatment plant's
capacity to handle industrial wastes and plans to develop an industrial
pretreatment program. As part of the initial program development, the
city sampled several industrial discharges to the sewer system and analyzed
plant influent and effluent for priority pollutants.
Priority pollutant analyses are available for two 24-h composite samples
of Everett treatment plant effluent. The samples represent both "wet"
season (June 4-5, 1985) and "dry" season (December 18-19, 1985) conditions.
The results of the analyses are presented in Table 8. Zinc (0.09-0.174 mg/L)
and nickel (0.011-0.024 mg/L) were the metals with highest concentrations
in both "wet" and "dry" season samples. There was no consistent pattern
in metals concentrations based on season. Zinc and nickel concentrations
were higher in wet season samples, but concentrations of other metals were
either unchanged or lower in wet season samples. Phenol (14 ug/L) and
2 ethyl hexylphthalate (10.7 ug/L) were the major organic constituents
in "dry" season samples. The major "wet" season organic components were
phenol (15 ug/L) and trichloroethylene (52.9 ug/L). Approximate loadings
Tor the major constituents, based on an average daily discharge of 13.1 MGD
are listed below:
Load
(lb/day)
Zinc 10-19
Nickel 1-2.6
Chromium 1.4-2.2
Phenol 1.6
2-ethylhexyl phthalate <1-12
Trichloroethylene
-------
TABLE 8. PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
EVERETT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
Variable
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
T
Zn
Cn
Phenol
Lindane
2-ethyl hexyl phthal ate
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Di -n-butyl phthal ate
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dec. 18-19, 1984
(Wet Season)
<0.005
0.005
<0.01
0.0012
0.013
0.009
<0.001
<0.0002
0.024
<0.002
0.0013
<0.001
0.174
<0.006
14
0.06
10.7
trace
<5
<5
<5
June 4-5, 1985
(Dry Season)
<0.005
0.005
<0.01
0.016
0.021
0.05
0.052
<0.0002
0.011
<0.005
0.0027
<0.001
0.090
<0.006
15
<0.004
<2.5
<1.5
52.9
2.5
4.0
a 24-h composite samples. Metal concentrations in mg/L, organic
compound concentrations in ug/L.
-------
The plant has a history of operational problems. A 1982 Class II
inspection conducted by WDOE showed that BOD concentrations were 44 percent
higher in the effluent (230 mg/L) than in the influent (160 mg/L) (WDOE
1982). Also, prior to November, 1984, problems with operation of the downtown
pump station resulted in plant overloads approximately every 3 days (Leslie,
B., 30 May 1985, personal communication). Untreated wastewater was discharged
to Port Gardner during these periods. The plant also has problems with
sludge layer buildup, which decreases its treatment capability. (Plant
monitoring and operating problems were corrected in November, 1984.)
The city of Mukilteo is currently negotiating to have its wastewater
treated at either the Everett plant or at the Olympus Terrace plant. When
the contract is established, the Mukilteo plant will be closed permanently.
Transferral of wastewater is expected to be completed by the summer of
1986.
Marysville Plant--
The Marysville treatment plant, built in 1959, serves the city of
Marysville and the surrounding unincorporated area. The plant has recently
been upgraded, with the addition of a second lagoon cell, a chlorine contact
chamber, and influent aerator. Effluent from the plant is discharged to
Ebey Slough via a 150-ft outfall (see Map 1). BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform
bacteria are monitored on a weekly basis. Monthly summaries for the 1983-1984
period are presented in Appendix D, Table D-2 (City of Marysville 1984).
Discharge averaged 1.6 MGD, with a BOD loading of 250 Ib/day and TSS load
of 270 Ib/day. Fecal coliform bacteria counts averaged 24/100 ml (1.3xl09/day
loading).
Lake Stevens Plant--
The Lake Stevens treatment plant serves the city of Lake Stevens and
the area surrounding the lake, including Frontier Village. Plant effluent
is discharged to Ebey Slough, near the northeast corner of Ebey Island.
Plant effluent is monitored on a weekly basis for BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Monthly summaries for 1983-1984 are presented in Appendix D,
Table D-3 (Lake Stevens Sewer District 1984).
The plant began converting from an aerated lagoon system to a conventional
activated sludge system in June, 1984. While under construction, plant
capacity was significantly reduced as facility operations alternated between
the two existing lagoons. This is reflected in the increased BOD and TSS
loadings for August through October, 1984. However, review of the 1983
data indicates that the plant had difficulty meeting its permit requirements
(BOD=30 mg/L and TSS=75 mg/L) even before operations were disrupted by
construction activities. Average monthly discharges exceeded the BOD limit
seven times and the TSS limit was exceeded two times in 1983. Because
the 1984 records are not representative of normal plant effluent, only
the 1983 data were used to calculate average plant effluent characteristics.
Discharge averages 0.59 MGD with BOD loads of 200 Ib/day and TSS loads
of 250 Ib/day.
20
-------
A Class II inspection was conducted at the plant in 1981. Results
of metals analyses conducted on two samples of plant effluent are listed
in Table 9. Based on an average discharge of 0.59 MGD, copper and zinc
loadings were estimated at 0.11 and 0.19 Ib/day, respectively. Loadings
for other metals were less than 0.1 Ib/day.
Diluted effluent concentrations are compared with U.S. EPA freshwater
criteria in Table 7 above. A dilution factor of about 1,000 was determined
by comparing average Lake Stevens plant effluent (0.36 MGD) with minimum
monthly Snohomish River flow (840 MGD). Diluted concentrations for all
variables measured were substantially less than the freshwater criteria.
Tulalip Plant—
The Tulalip plant treats wastewater and storm-water runoff from the
developed areas around Tulalip Bay using an activated sludge system. Effluent
from the plant is discharged via diffusers extending about 200 ft into
Port Gardner (Map 1). Plant effluent is monitored on a weekly basis for
BOD, TSS and fecal coliform bacteria. The results of the monitoring reports
from 1983 to March, 1985 are presented in Appendix D, Table D-4 (Tulalip
Tribes of Washington 1984). Discharge averaged 0.22 MGD with BOD loadings
of 19 Ib/day and TSS loadings of 22 Ib/day. During the 2-yr period, monthly
effluent limitations for BOD (30 mg/L) were exceeded once and the TSS (30
mg/L) limit was exceeded twice.
Summary—
A comparison of mean monthly BOD loadings for the five plants during
1983 and 1984 is presented in Figure 7. Loadings for the Everett plant,
ranging from 1,240 Ib/day to 5,430 Ib/day, were the largest. BOD loadings
for Tulalip plant effluent were the smallest at 19 Ib/day. Except for
the months when the Lake Stevens plant was under construction, loadings
for the remaining three plants were similar and averaged about 230 Ib/day.
A summary of average treatment plant loading characteristics for
the same period is shown in Table 10. Effluent from the Everett plant
had the largest loadings in all categories. This is primarily due to the
fact that the Everett plant discharges on the order of 10 to 100 times
more flow than the other plants. The Mukilteo plant, which has the smallest
average discharge (0.15 MGD), ranked as the second largest source of BOD
loads (253 Ib/day). This is indicative of the operational problems experienced
at the plant. It should also be emphasized that the Mukilteo loads were
calculated from only 2 mo of data compared with 1 to 2 yr of data for the
other plants.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Most of Everett and the older areas of Marysville are served by combined
sewer systems, and therefore are subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
during rainfall events. CSOs are caused by an overload of the sewer system
due to the contribution of stormwater runoff from surrounding areas. There
are 25 overflow points in the Everett sewer system and 3 in the Marysville
21
-------
TABLE 9. LAKE STEVENS CLASS II SURVEY DATA (mg/L)
Cd
Cu
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
September 1-2, 1981
<0.001
0.02
<0.003
<0.02
<0.0002
<0.003
<0.001
0.035
September 28-29, 1981
<0.001
0.023
0.006
<0.003
<0.0002
0.002
0.002
0.041
-------
5000—1
5450
4000 H
3000 —
5
£
cT
§
2000 —
1000 —
. EVERETTWWTP
LAKE STEVENS
. TULALIP
MARYSVILLE
® MUKILTEO
I /
\ \ \ \ !
\i\ \i
:- !i ^
¥
•PLANT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
I 1 I I
F M AM
I
JJ
T I 1 1 T
ASOND
I 1 T T~l
FMAMJ
I Tn~TT~T
JASOND
1983
1984
Figure 7. Mean monthly BOD loads from area treatment plants.
-------
TABLE 10. AVERAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT POLLUTANT LOADINGS
Everetta Mukilteob Marysvillec
Flow (MGD) 13.1 0.15 1.6
BOD
(lb/day) 2,480 253 246
TSS
(lb/day) 3,080 116 274
Fecal col i form
(108/day) 180 13 5.5
Cr (Ib/day) <11
Cu (Ib/day) 20
Zn (lb/day) 153
Lake Stevens01
0.59
204
250
160
0.02
0.2
0.2
Tulalip6
0.22
30
14
7.5
-
-
-
a From 1983-84 plant records. Conventional variables sampled daily, metals
sampled quarterly.
b From November and December, 1984 plant records - weekly samples.
c From 1983-84 plant records - weekly samples.
d Conventional variables from 1983 plant records - weekly samples. Metals
from September 1 and 28, 1981 Class II inspection.
e From 1983-84 plant records - weekly samples.
-------
system. Everett CSOs locations are shown in Map 1. The number designates
the NPDES permit number for each individual CSO. The three Marysville
CSOs (located north of area shown in Map 1) function as emergency overflows
and only discharge in the event of an equipment or power failure. Two
of these CSOs, the Westside Pump Station and the 51st Avenue N.E. Pump
Station discharge to Quilceda Creek. The 67th Avenue Pump Station overflows
into Allen Creek.
None of the CSOs have ever been monitored for flow or chemical composi-
tion. As a result, the pollutant loading contribution from these sources
is largely unknown. Flow estimates for the Everett CSOs were generated
in the mid-1970s, using a computer model of the sewer system's hydraulic
capacity (CH2M HILL 1980, Appendix B). Peak discharge rates were calculated
for several different size storm events. The results of a storm having
a 1-yr recurrence interval are shown in Table 11. The 1-yr storm had a
total precipitation of 1.3 in a 19-h period. Maximum rainfall intensity
was 0.92 in/h.
In addition to the peak discharge estimates, data for 1975 flow monitoring
-------
TABLE 11. ESTIMATED PEAK COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RATES
Location
East Waterway
E006
E007
E008
E009
E011
Snohomish River
E014
E013
E017
E016
E018
E019
E026
E028
Bond Street
Wall Street
Hewitt & Bond Street
Everett & Federal
Pacific
15th Street
14th Street
Grand
Hayes
Syphon
Harrison
E. Pacific
E. 36th Street
1-yr Design
Storm (MGD)
5.6
17.0
35.0
8.4
6.4
_
16.0
7.6
31.0
15.0
49.0
63.0
122.0
Reference: CH2M HILL (1982).
-------
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOURS THAT OVERFLOWS
OCCURRED AT MONITORED PUMP STATIONS (1975)
Pump
Station
East Waterway
2
4
5
Snohomish River
7
8
9
Syphon
Port Gardner
14
1
Discharge Location
E006 Bond Street
E009 Everett & Federal
E011 Pacific
E013 14th Street
E013 14th Street
E017 Grand
E018
E002 Glenwood
E005 Crown Drive
Hours
311
114
94
0
10
437
54
1
37
Reference: CH2M HILL (1982).
-------
• Pump Station 16 has been modified and now functions as an
emergency overflow only. Discharge will occur only in the
event of a system failure.
Because data do not exist to characterize present CSO pollutant loads
in the study area, the results from the 1975 computer model of the Everett
sewer system have been used to simulate a worst-case situation. CSO volume
estimates derived .for four environmental receiving areas were presented
in the Lower Snohomish Basin 201 Facilities Plan (R.W. Beck and Associates,
1980, Appendix D). The predicted overflow volumes and loadings for the
1-yr storm event are presented in Table 13. Loadings were calculated using
pollutant concentration data from Metro's Toxicant Pretreatment Planning
Study (Cooley et al. 1984). Data from all four CSO stations (Lander, Hanford,
Denny, and Michigan) were combined to determine average concentrations
for conventional variables and metals.
Industrial Sources
The major source of information on industrial sources in the project
area is WDOE NPDES permit files. Area permits can generally be separated
into two main categories: direct and indirect dischargers. The direct
category consists of treated process wastewater, untreated noncontact cooling
water, and storm water that is discharged directly into area waterways.
The indirect category includes industrial wastewater discharges to area
municipal treatment plants via the sewer system. Indirect industrial discharges
are regulated under WDOE1 s NPDES program with industrial pretreatment permits.
Although the Lake Stevens plant treats effluent from the Hewlett Packard
Company, most indirect industrial wastewater discharges are treated at
the Everett plant, A summary of the pretreatment permits is presented
in Table 14. Loadings have been calculated from permit discharge limita-
tions.
A summary of the existing direct industrial discharges, organized
by study area, is presented in Table 15. Average loading characteristics
were obtained from the permit requirements and available plant monitoring
reports. The Scott pulp and paper mill located in the East Waterway and
the Weyerhaeuser Kraft mill on the Snohomish River are the major industrial
sources currently operating in the study area. Both plants discharge treated
process wastewaters to area waterways. Effluent from all other industrial
sources is composed of either noncontact cooling water or stormwater runoff.
Scott Pulp and Paper Mi 11--
The Scott mill produces ammonia-base, paper-grade, sulfite pulp; and
towel and tissue paper. The plant has operated at the site on East Waterway
since 1930. The locations of plant outfalls (prefix S) are shown in Map 2.
Currently, only the deepwater diffuser (SW001), the nearshore diffuser
(S003) and the secondary treatment plant outfall (S008) are operating.
Most of the old outfalls were abandoned in the mid-1960s when primary clarifiers
were installed (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 1967).
23
-------
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED CSO LOADINGS*
Flow (MGD)
BOD
TSS
COD
Cu
Pb
Zn
Total
.colifonn
bacteria
Concentration!
(mg/L)
-
63
119
150
0.09
0.17
0.23
5x1 06e
b
East Waterway
1.36
710
1,350
1,700
1.0
1.9
2.6
2.6xlQl4f
Loading (Ib)
Snohomish
Riverc
0.06
30
60
80
0.05
0.09
0.1
1.13xlQl3f
Snohomish
Riverd
1.07
560
1,060
1,340
0.8
1.5
2.1
2.02xlQl4f
S. Port
Gardner
0.66
350
650
830
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.24xlQl4f
a Based on flow for 1-yr storm (1.3 in) using 1975 model of Everett Sewer System
(R.W. Beck and Associates 1980, Appendix D).
b Average of four CSOs sampled in METRO'S Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study
(Cooley et al. 1984).
c Snohomish River downstream of Preston Point.
d Snohomish River between Highway 99 Bridge and 1-5 Bridge.
e No.7100 mL; from Ellis 1982.
"f Coliform bacteria loading in total number of organisms for 1-yr storm event.
-------
TABLE 14. PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO
EVERETT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Name
Flow
(gal/day)a Load (lb/day)a
Description
American Cold
Storage 5,000
Centrecon, Inc. 5,000
Kohkoku USA
TSS-42
BOD-4, COD-3, TSS-9
Cooling water,
Temp. 85° F
Concrete pole mfg.
Plastics mfg.
Steuart Seafoods 45,000
John Fluke 35,000
Boeing 207,000
Oil and grease-38
Ni-0.9
Cr-0.9
Cu-5
Ni-5
Cr-7
Cd-1.3
Zn-4.3
Pb-0.04
Phenol-16.4
Fish processing
Electronics instruments
Assembly plant
a From permit.
-------
TABLE 15. PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
Subarea
East
Waterway
S. Port
Gardner
Name
Scott Paper
Western Gear
Defense Supply
Center
Scott Paper
Flow
(MGD)
20.1
0.025
0.001
7.7
Load
(Ib/day)
BOD-5,800
TSS-9,700
-
Oil and
grease-0.1
BOD-4,300
TSS-3,200
Description
Pulp mill effl uent-
secondary treatment
Storm water
Storm water and fuel
Condensate
Paper mil 1 effluent-
primary treatment
Associated
Sand & Gravel
(via Pigeon
Creek #2)
Storm water
Oil and grease - 15 mg/L
TSS-25 mg/L
Snohomish
River
Western Gear 0.045
Weyerhaeuser
BOD-750
Storm water
Filter backwash
Steamboat
Slough
Weyerhaeuser 21
BOD-4,220
Lagoon effluent
-------
The deep-water diffuser was constructed in 1951 and was shared with
the Weyerhaeuser sulfite/thermomechanical plant until that plant closed
in 1980 (see Weyerhaeuser section). The diffuser extends about 2,000 to
3,000 ft into Port Gardner and discharges at a depth of approximately 300
ft. The nearshore diffuser discharges wastewater into the East Waterway
adjacent to the pulp mill.
Discharges from both the deepwater and nearshore diffusers consist
of effluent from the plant's primary clarifiers and surface runoff. Clarifier
influent consists primarily of paper mill wastewater with small contributions
from pulp mill wastes, steamplant discharges, and filter backwash.
Outfall S008, located near the head of the East Waterway, was constructed
in 1980 to discharge effluent from the new secondary treatment (activated
sludge) system. Effluent from this outfall currently makes up 40-50 percent
of total plant discharge. The activated sludge system treats wastewater
from the pulp mill (80 percent) and the spent sulfite liquor (SSL) recovery
system (20 percent).
Hi storic Loading--P1ant BOD loadings for the period 1972-1984 are
presented in Figure 8 (Weyerhaeuser Company and Scott Paper Company, unpub-
lished, no date; and Scott Paper Company 1984). The data show a steady
decline in total plant BOD loading from a high of about 600,000 Ib/day
in 1973 to present levels of 10,100 Ib/day.
East Waterway: Except for the 4-mo period in 1978 when the plant
was shut down, BOD loading to the East Waterway remained relatively constant
at 37,000 Ib/day between 1972 and 1979. After construction of the secondary
treatment plant in 1980, this loading was reduced to about 5,800 Ib/day.
Port Gardner: BOD loading to Port Gardner, resulting from deepwater
diffuser discharges, averaged about 400,000 Ib/day between 1972 and 1974.
After construction of the SSL recovery system in 1974, loading decreased
to 240,000 Ib/day. BOD loadings declined again in 1978 (150,000 Ib/day),
primarily as a result of decreased pulp production. Then, in 1980, the
secondary treatment plant was completed, which in conjunction with another
decrease in pulp production, reduced BOD loads to Port Gardner to approximately
4,300 Ib/day.
Present Loading—Data on present day conventional pollutant loadings
from the Scott plant are available from the plant's discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs). Scott's NPDES permit requires daily monitoring of plant
effluent from each of the three outfalls (SW001, S003 & S008) for flow,
BOD, TSS,and pH. Monthly summaries of Scott's DMRs for the 1983-1984 period
are presented in Appendix D, Tables D-5, D-6, and D-7. During this period,
total plant discharges averaged 27.8 MGD, with BOD loads of 10,000 Ib/day
and TSS loads of 12,900 Ib/day. Over 70 percent of the plants wastewater
is discharged to the East Waterway, which accounts for 58 percent (5,850
Ib/day) of the total BOD load and 75 percent (9,730 Ib/day) of the total
TSS load.
24
-------
500-,
400-
re
"(0
S 300
O
o
o
1—
a
S
Q
O
m
200 -1
100 -
/--'--— sV-v
DEEP WATER
DIFFUSER
INNER HARBOR
(003 + 008)
1972 1973 1974
1975
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1984
Figure 8. Historical Scott Paper mill BOD loading to Everett Harbor.
-------
Priority pollutant data are available from Scott's NPOES permit application
(Scott Paper Company 1980) and from U.S. EPA's STORE! database (U.S. EPA
1985). STORE! data for a single sample (dated 3/12/80) from each outfall
and the two samples (undated) presented in the permit application were
combined to calculate an average pollutant concentration in the effluent
from each outfall. Loadings were then calculated using the average flows
from the 1983-1984 records. The results are presented in !able 16.
Copper, lead, and zinc are the primary metals found in all of the
outfalls. Average loads ranged from about 4 to 13 Ib/day. Phenols, chloroform
and ethyl benzene were the only organic constituents that were reliably
found in concentrations above analytical detection limits (10 mg/L). Effluent
from Outfall S008 had the largest loadings for phenols (11 Ib/day) and
chloroform (14 Ib/day).
There is no information available on the effectiveness of Scott diffuser
outfalls in diluting mill effluent. However, effluent concentrations are
less than the U.S. EPA saltwater criteria even when assuming a minimum
dilution factor of 10. The values shown in Table 17 represent the range
cf concentrations measured in the three major Scott outfalls (008, 001,
003).
In its permit application (Scott Paper Company 1980), Scott identified
three additional pollutants (formaldehyde, xylene, and furfural) that may
be present in plant effluent. Both xylene and formaldehyde are products
used by the plant. Xylene is used as a solvent for cleaning machinery
in the paper mill and formaldehyde used in the papermaking process to improve
strength. Furfural is a by-product of the papermaking process. Estimated
concentrations and loading based on average discharge are presented in
Table 18. Discharge from Outfall S004 has been eliminated since the permit
application was submitted. After 1981, all effluent that was previously
discharged from S004 was routed to the primary clarifiers and is now discharged
through Outfalls SW001 and S003. Additionally, xylene usage has been reduced,
which should decrease concentrations in plant effluent (Bailey, A., 15
July 1985, personal communication).
NPDES effluent limitations are set for BOD, TSS and pH. Also, U.S. EPA
has established additional requirements for trichlorophenol and tetrachloro-
phenol because they are frequently used as preservatives by the pulp industry.
As part of the investigation to propose these additional requirements,
U.S. EPA conducted a survey of effluent characteristics from the pulp and
paper industry (U.S. EPA 1982). For the paper-grade sulfite pulp category,
which the Scott mill is classified as, U.S. EPA identified 10 characteristic
priority pollutants and 10 nonconventional pollutants in treated pulp mill
effluent. A summary of the survey results for the paper-grade sulfite
pulp category is presented in Table 19. Approximate Scott mill loadings
have been calculated using the average concentrations from the U.S. EPA
survey of the paper-grade sulfite mill category based on an average discharge
of 12 MGD for Outfall S008. Loadings were calculated for SO'08 because
it discharges most of the plant's pulp mill wastes. Constituents with
the largest average loadings were chloroform (43 Ib/day), tetrachloroethylene
(21 Ib/day), and dehydroabietic acid (25 Ib/day).
25
-------
TABLE 16. SCOTT PAPER AVERAGE POLLUTANT DATA
AND ESTIMATED LOADING
Outfall
Q(MGD)
COD
TOC
NHo (mg/L)
Oil and grease
Fecal (No./lOO ml)
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Tl
Zn
Cn
Phenols (ug/L)
Chloroform
Ethyl Benzene
2 Ethyl Hexyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
4,6 Dinitro-o-Cresol
2,4 Dinitro Phenol
Methyl ene Chlorideb
Cone.
244
70
1.1
3.0
575
0.8
0.4
<2
<2
9
26
62
<0.2
9
1.5
<2
<11
97
<20
58.6
50
25
11
12
<10
<100
<100
<10
001
Load
7.7
15,700
4,500
71
193
1.7x1011
0.05
0.03
<0.1
<0.1
0.6
2
4
<0.01
0.6
0.1
<0.1
<0.7
6
<1
4
3
2
0.7
0.8
0.6
<6
<6
<0.6
Cone
296
70
2.3
4.5
19,000
0.5
0.2
<2
<2
11
28
60
0.26
9
<0.5
<2
<11
9
<20
62.6
29
48
13
<10
<10
<100
<100
18
003
Load
8.1
20,000
4,700
155
304
5.8x1012
0.03
0.01
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
2
4
0.02
0.6
<0.03
<0.1
0.7
0.6
<1
4
2
3
0.9
<0.7
<0.7
<7
<7
1
Cone.
286
77
0.32
6
<10
0.5
0.2
<2
1.0
5
28
32
<0.2
12
0.5
<2
20
33
<20
5.3
157
84
<10
13
<10
<100
<100
<10
004
Load
5
11,900
3,210
13
250
1.9x109
0.02
0.01
<0.1
0.04
0.2
1.2
1.3
<0.01
0.5
0.02
<0.1
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.2
7
4
<0.4
0.5
<0.4
<4
<4
<0.4
Cone.
869
283
11.6
3.5
40,000
1.3
0.4
<2
3.4
18
17
34
<0.2
30
2
<2
55
78
<20
111
138
<10
<10
<10
<10
<100
<100
<10
008
Load
12
86,900
28,300
1,160
350
1.8x1013
0.1
0.04
<0.2
0.34
1.8
1.7
3.4
<0.02
3
0.2
<0.2
5.5
7.8
<2
11
14
<1
<1
<1
<1
<10
<10
<1
a Outfall no longer used.
D All other priority pollutants <10 ug/L. Loads calculated using average
1983-1984 flow and NPDES application and STORET pollutant data (average).
Conventional concentrations in mg/L. Metals and organics in ug/L. Loads
in Ib/day.
Reference: Scott Paper Company (1980).
-------
TABLE 17- COMPARISON OF PULP MILL EFFLUENT
TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (ug/L)
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Phenol
Chloroform
Scott
(10:1)
0.05-0.1
0.02-0.04
<0.2-0.3
0.9-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-6.0
<0. 02-0. 03
0.9-3.0
0.2
0.9-10.0
6.0-11
3-14
Water Qualitya
Criteria
(Saltwater)
-
-
4.5
18
4.0
25
0.1
7.1
-
58
2,560
1,240
Weyerhaeuser
(40:1)
-
-
<0.025
-
6.5
0.1
0.006
<0.025
<0.025
1.0
<0.6
NO
Water Quality13
Criteria
(Freshwater)
1,600
-
0.025
0.29
5.6
3.8
0.2
9.6
0.12
47
2,560
21,900
a Chronic water quality criteria or lowest reported chronic toxicity concen-
trations for saltwater (U.S. EPA 1980).
b Chronic water quality criteria or lowest reported chronic toxicity concen-
tration for freshwater (U.S. EPA 1980).
-------
TABLE 18. SCOTT MILL LOADING ESTIMATES FOR FORMALDEHYDE,
XYLENE, AND FURFURAL
Formaldehyde Xylene Furfural
Cone. Load Cone. Load Cone Load
Outfall (mg/L) (Ib/day) (mg/L) (Ib/day) (mg/L) (Ib/day)
001 1.1
003 1.5
004 2.2
008
71 0.14
101 0.19
92 0.24
0.001
9
13
10 0.002-0.003 0.08-0.12
0.1
-------
TABLE 19. POLLUTANTS COMMONLY FOUND IN
PAPER-GRADE SULFITE MILL EFFLUENT
Treated Effluent (ug/L) Estimated Scott Loada
Average Range (Ib/day at Outfall S008)
Priority Pollutants
Benzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Trichlorophenol
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Toluene
Other Sulfite Mill Pollutants
Abietic acid
Dehydroabietic acid
Isopimaric acid
Pimaric acid
Oleic acid
Linoleic acid
Epoxystearic acid
Chlorodehydroabietic acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid
Trichloroguaiacol
40
7
210
433
37
106
36
80
210
29
76
246
17
17
70
34
7
39
1
2
(7-96)
(6-8)
(170-270)
(120-1,200)
(21-50)
(90-130)
(7-88)
(0-250)
(170-270)
(3-66)
(8-340)
(0-950)
(0-84)
(0-52)
(0-220)
(0-160)
(0-20)
(0-93)
(0-3)
(0-3)
4
0.7
21
43
4
11
4
8
21
3
8
25
2
2
7
3
0.7
4
0.1
0.2
a Calculated using an average daily flow of 12 MGD.
Reference: U.S. EPA (1982).
-------
Scott mill effluent has been analyzed for several of the U.S. EPA
survey variables. A comparison of plant loadings calculated from available
Scott data and from the survey data is presented in Table 20. Generally,
loadings calculated based on available data are on the lower end of the
range determined by the U.S. EPA survey data. This indicates that for
the other variables listed in Table 19, the lower range of loading values
may be more representative of actual Scott mill loads.
Weyerhaeuser--
Weyerhaeuser has operated three plants in the project area: a sulfite/
thermomechanical (TM) pulp mill on the East Waterway, a wood products plant
on the Snohomish River, and a Kraft pulp mill on the Snohomish River (Map
1). Only the Kraft plant is still operating. The sulfite/TM plant closed
in 1980 and the lumber mill closed in the fall of 1984.
Sulfite/TM Plant—The calcium-based sulfite pulp mill, which produced
paper and dissolving grade pulp, operated between 1936 and 1975. Before
v/astewater control systems were installed, the plant discharged an estimated
300,000 Ib/day BOD (WDOE 1982). Most of this effluent, composed primarily
of untreated sulfite waste liquor was discharged via the deep-water diffuser
(SW001), built in 1951 in conjunction with the Scott mill. Prior to 1951,
the wastes were discharged from the nearshore outfalls. Outfalls WT002
and WT003 discharged wastes from washing, bleaching, and drying processes
at the pulp mill. Outfall WT004 discharged stormwater runoff from the
south end of the facility and wastewater from limestone cleaning operations.
Outfall WT006 discharged stormwater runoff from the north end of the plant
and Outfall WT005 discharged filter plant backwash into Pigeon Creek #1.
Information provided in WDOE permit files listed the average pollutant
loads for the six sulfite mill outfalls (WDOE 1974) as shown in Table 21.
The sulfite mill was converted to a thermomechanical plant in 1975
in an effort to reduce pollutant loadings from the mill. As part of the
conversion, Outfalls WT002 and WT003 were sealed off and abandoned. Use
of Outfall WT005 was discontinued because there was no longer a need for
the filter plant. In addition, discharge from Outfalls WT004 and WT006
was limited to stormwater runoff from nonprocess areas. All process wastes
were treated at the newly constructed secondary treatment plant before
being discharged out the deepwater diffuser. Average effluent characteristics
from the biological treatment plant are listed below (WDOE 1974):
Flow (MGD) 3.48
BOD (Ib/day) 2,500
TSS (Ib/day) 3,500
Historic data on mean monthly BOD loading from the deepwater diffuser
for the period 1976-1981 were provided by Weyerhaeuser (Weyerhaeuser Company
and Scott Paper Company, unpublished, undated), and are displayed in Figure 9.
The large reductions in BOD loading that occurred with the 1975 conversion
from the sulfite mill to the thermomechanical mill are emphasized in the
graph. After 1976, fluctuations in BOD loading were caused primarily by
26
-------
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF SCOTT POLLUTANT LOAD ESTIMATES
AND U.S. EPA SURVEY ESTIMATES
Ammonia
COD
Dehydroabietic acid
Chlorodehydroabietic acid
Abietic acid
Isopimaric acid
Oleic acid
Phenol
Chloroform
Average
Loadsa Measured
at Scott (S008)
(Ib/day)
1,160
86,900
0.2
6
NDb
ND
ND
11
14
U.S. EPA
Survey Estimates
(Ib/day)
700-4,800
69,000-237,000
0-95
0-9
0.8-34
0-8
0-22
0-25
12-120
a Reference: Bailey, A., 9 August 1985, personal communication.
b ND = Not detected.
-------
TABLE 21. LOADING ESTIMATES FOR WEYERHAEUSER
SULFITE MILL OUTFALLS
Outfall
001
002
003
004
005
006
TOTAL
Flow
(MGD)
11.1
9.6
6.8
0.4
0.8
0.1
28.8
BOD
(lb/day)
230,000
9,000
3,000
100
—
—
242,000
TSS
(lb/day)
10,400
9,500
2,000
100
400
--
22,400
-------
• SULFITE MILL
300,000 Ibs BOD/DAY
10,000 -i
8000 -
n 6000 -
5
£
O
g 4000 -
2000 -
• CONVERTED TO
THERMOMECHANICAL MILL
PLANT CLOSED
PERMANENTLY
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Figure 9. Historical Weyerhaeuser Thermomechanical Plant BOD loading to deep water
diffuser (001) in South Port Gardner area.
-------
changes in pulp production at the TM mill. The TM mill was permanently
closed in December, 1980 because there was no market for the fluff-grade
pulp processed at the plant.
Wood Products Plant—The Weyerhaeuser wood products plant(s) operated
from the early 1900s until 1984. During that period, various lumber mills
produced lumber, presto logs, and wood chips at the site. Effluent from
barking operations was treated in clarifiers before being discharged to
the Snohomish River from the WW001 and WW003 outfalls (see historical discharges
just east of Preston Point on Map 1). Prior to 1983, cooling water was
discharged from the WW002 outfall. From 1983 until the last mill closed
in September, 1984, cooling water was routed to the Kraft lagoon system.
Also, there are 21 storm drains which serve the facility.
Loading data are generally unavailable for plant outfalls. Records
from 1977 for Outfall WW001 indicate a maximum daily flow of 0.96 MGD with
a corresponding BOD load of 2,981 Ib/day and TSS load of 2,220 Ib/day.
The facility is currently used to store pulp from the kraft mill.
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill-- The kraft plant, built in the early 1950s,
produces market-bleached pulp. Effluent from the facility is discharged
to both Steamboat Slough and the Snohomish River (Map 1). All wastewater
from pulping operations is pumped to the aerated lagoon system located
on Smith Island. Effluent from the lagoons is discharged to Steamboat
Slough via Outfall WK001. Additionally, all stormwater runoff from the
mill area is routed through the lagoons before discharge. Backwash from
the plant water filtration system is discharged to the Snohomish River
via Outfall WK004. The filter beds are backflushed once a day on a rotating
schedule. Outfall WK002 discharges noncontact cooling water to the Snohomish
River. Surface water runoff from Smith Island is discharged from Outfall
WK005.
Weyerhaeuser monitors lagoon effluent daily for BOD, pH, and flow.
Total plant TSS load, from the lagoon and filter backwash, is also recorded.
Lagoon effluent accounts for about 85 percent of plant TSS load, with filter
plant backwash making up the remaining 15 percent (Rupert, H., 6 June 1985,
personal communication). Monthly loading summaries for 1983-1984 are shown
in Appendix D, Table D-8. Discharge from the lagoon averaged 21 MGD with
a corresponding BOD load of 4,250 Ib/day. Total plant TSS load averaged
6,000 Ib/day.
Limited information on other pollutant levels in plant effluent is
reported in Weyerhaeuser1s 1983 permit application. Data are generally
from a single sample at each outfall. Only lagoon effluent was analyzed
for all priority pollutants. No priority pollutant metals were detected.
Chlorobenzene was the only organic constituent found in quantities above
analytical detection limits. The results are presented in Table 22. Weyer-
haeuser also reported that asbestos and cresol would be present in effluent
from all the outfalls. Concentration levels were not given. Because of
the limited number of analyses, no pollutant loadings have been calculated.
27
-------
TABLE 22. WEYERHAEUSER KRAFT MILL POLLUTANT
DATA FROM PERMIT APPLICATION
Q (MGD)
TOC (mg/L)
Fecal coliform bacteria
NH3 (mg/L)
Oil and grease (mg/L)
Cd (mg/L)
r.u
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Chlorobenzene
2-chlorophenol
Phenol
WK001
21
204
(No./lOO mL)
-------
Additional metals and conventional data for lagoon effluent are available
from a 4-h composite taken by the WDOE on September 29, 1981. The sample
was taken as part of the investigation of receiving water conditions for
the Hewlett Packard Plant study (WDOE 1982). A summary of the metals and
fecal coliform bacteria concentrations are presented in Table 22. Loadings
were calculated using an average discharge of 21 MGD. Copper (46 Ib/day)
and zinc (7 Ib/day) were the major metals found in the lagoon effluent.
A comparison of Weyerhaeuser lagoon effluent, diluted by a factor
of 40 to take into account mixing with Snohomish River flows, with U.S. EPA
freshwater quality criteria is shown in Table 17 above. With the exception
of copper, all constituents meet the established criteria.
A U.S. EPA survey of the pulp and paper industry has identified two
priority pollutants and an additional nine nonconventional pollutants commonly
present in effluent from market-bleached kraft plants (Table 23). There
are no data available on the concentration of these constituents in Weyerhaeuser
effluent. Effluent from the Weyerhaeuser mill should be comparable to
U.S. EPA survey results. The only major difference is its use of vanillin
black liquor (VBL), which may be a source of copper (Finske, F-, 20 June
1985, personal communication). VBL is a waste product from a vanilla extraction
plant that uses a copper catalyst in its production process. Data from
a 4-h composite taken on September 4, 1981, do show that copper is the
predominant metal in plant effluent. The copper load of 46 Ib/day was
between 6 and 1,000 times greater than the loads determined for any of
the other metals. Approximate Weyerhaeuser loadings for the variables
listed in Table 23 were calculated from the U.S. EPA survey results for
the kraft mill category, using the average discharge of 21 MGD from Weyerhaeuser
Outfall WK-001. The largest loadings occurred for abietic acid (134 Ib/day),
dehydroabietic acid (75 Ib/day), pimaric acid (75 Ib/day), and isopimaric
acid (71 Ib/day).
Weyerhaeuser also operates a solid waste disposal facility at the
Kraft plant. The site is permitted through the Snohomish County Health
Division for disposal of sawdust, woodchips, and waste CaC03. Leachate
from the site is collected and pumped to the lagoon system for treatment
prior to discharge into Steamboat Slough.
Summary--
A comparison of monthly BOD loads from the existing Scott and Weyerhaeuser
outfalls for the 1983-1984 period is shown in Figure 10. The large fluctu-
ation in loading, caused primarily by changes in production levels, makes
it difficult to distinguish between the individual outfalls. However.,
the Scott SW001 and Weyerhaeuser WK001 outfalls generally rank as the largest
sources, with the Scott S008 and S003 the smaller discharges. A ranking
based on the 2-yr average BOD loadings is presented in Table 24.
Surface Runoff
Most surface runoff from the study area is discharged into Everett
Harbor via natural stream channels. The primary sources are the main stem
t
28
-------
TABLE 23. POLLUTANTS COMMONLY FOUND IN KRAFT MILL EFFLUENT
Treated Effluent (ug/L)
Average Range
Estimated
Weyerhaeuser Load3
(Ib/day at Outfall VK001)
Priority Pollutants
Trichlorophenol
Chloroform
Other Kraft Mill Pollutants
Abietic acid
Dehydroabietic acid
Isopimaric acid
Pimaric acid
Oleic acid
Linoleic acid
Linolenic acid
Chlorodehydroabietic acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid
5
12
767
431
407
430
153
64
47
42
39
5-6
6-20
0-1,800
2-1,000
230-500
320-530
22-250
26-100
40-53
0-140
11-65
0.9
2.1
134
75
71
75
27
11
8
7
7
a Calculated using an average discharge of 21 MGD.
Reference: U.S. EPA (1982).
-------
7000 -i
6000-
5000 -
>« 4000
Q
g 3000
2000 -
1000 -
_ SCOTT001
•• SCOTT 003
SCOTT008
WEYERHAEUSER KRAFT MILL (001)
1 I I
O N D
1983
1984
Figure 10. Everett Harbor pulp and paper mill discharges, 1983-1984.
-------
TABLE 24. RANKING OF BOD LOADINGS BASED ON 2-YR AVERAGE
FOR SCOTT AND WEYERHAEUSER OUTFALLS
Flow BOD
(MGD) Ib/day
Scott SW001 7.7 4,280
Weyerhaeuser WK001 21 4,250
Scott S008 12 3,130
Scott S003 8.1 2,720
-------
and sloughs (Ebey Slough, Steamboat Slough, and Union Slough) of the Snohomish
River. Discharge from the small creeks, draining the portion of the basin
between Mukilteo and Everett, constitute only a small fraction of the area's
surface runoff. Because of the rural/agricultural nature of most of the
area, there are very few developed storm sewer networks. The urbanized
area in Everett is served by a combined sanitary and storm sewer system.
Consequently, most stormwater runoff from this area is treated and discharged
from the Everett wastewater treatment plant. Another source of runoff
is the tidegate system located in the low-lying areas around the Snohomish
Rivsr and the sloughs. Locations of major streams and discharge points
are shown in Maps 1 and 2.
Minimal data are available on the chemical composition of surface
runoff. A few of the streams discharging into the South Port Gardner area
were sampled in 1980 and 1981 as part of the South Everett Drainage Basins
Plan (City of Everett and Brown and Caldwell 1982). Pigeon Creek #1 and
the Marshland Drainage Canal were sampled in 1976 during the SNOMET Areawide
Water Quality Management Study (URS 1977a). However, most of the analyses
are from a single sample or a single event and are not very useful in charac-
terizing average pollutant loads. In addition, flow data are generally
unavailable for most streams, except the Snohomish River and Quilceda Creek.
The 208 study evaluated impacts from surface runoff by tracking the
degradation in Snohomish River water quality as it flowed downstream.
Runoff from agricultural lands was identified as the principal source of
BOD and fecal coliform bacteria. Most of the sampling for the analyses
was conducted in the upper Snohomish basin.
Because flow and chemical composition information does not exist for
most of the surface runoff sources, loading has been calculated based on
flow estimates and chemical data from other similar sources. To facilitate
comparisons with other source categories, flow estimates were based on
runoff generated from the same 1-yr storm (1.3 in) as was used in CSO flow
evaluations.
The SCS curve number method was used to estimate flow (U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service 1975). The technique uses information on land use and soil
characteristics within the basin to determine the runoff from a particular
storm event. Appropriate curve numbers for the calculations were selected
from the SCS manual and from the curve number matrix generated by the 208
study model (URS 1977b). Soil classification and land use information
were obtained from the South Everett Drainage Basins Plan Draft EIS (City
of Everett and Brown and Caldwell 1982) and the Soil Survey of Snohomish
County (Debose and Klungland 1983). Surface runoff pollutant loadings
in each study area are described below.
South Port Gardner Area--
The South Port Gardner drainage basin extends from the point at Mukilteo
on the west to about Federal Avenue in Everett on the east side. The area
is drained by 10 separate creeks and numerous small storm drains (Map 1).
Mukilteo is served by separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. There
29
-------
are only two Mukilteo city storm drains that discharge directly to Port
Gardner, both located in the northwest corner of Mukilteo. There are numerous
small storm drains serving the areas along Mukilteo Blvd. in southwest
Everett. However, most of the areas contributing to these storm drains
are small; consequently, discharge would be significantly less than the
major creek flows in the area.
Most of the central areas within each basin are undeveloped, tesidential
or commercial development is generally limited to the southern and northern
portions of the drainage basins. Japanese Gulch and Powder Mill Gulch
drain the largest industrial areas around Paine Field. Drainage area and
estimated discharge for the 1-yr storm for major streams and storm drains
are shown in Table 25.
Conventional pollutant metals data are available for samples taken
during several storm events between 1980 and 1981 in Powder Mill Gulch
and Glenwood Creek (City of Everett and Brown and Caldwell 1982). Conventional
pollutant data for Pigeon Creek #1 are available from two storms sampled
in December, 1976 (URS 1977a) . Additional Pigeon Creek #1 metals data
were obtained from the STORET data base (U.S. EPA 1985). Water quality
data for the remaining streams is either unavailable or is limited to analyses
of minimal chemical constituents from a single base flow sample. The available
chemical data are presented in Table 26.
Results from Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) sampling are presented
for comparison (U.S. EPA 1983). The NURP study sampled stormwater runoff
from 28 sites across the country. Although land use patterns at each site
varied from open/undeveloped to industrial, the data did not show a significant
statistical difference in chemical composition of runoff based on land
use. The large degree of variability in the individual storm events sampled
masked any difference between land use categories. For this reason, the
NURP study recommended using the mean concentrations from all 28 sites
combined when estimating stormwater runoff loadings. Available data from
samples taken in South Port Gardner generally fall within a similar range.
Pollutant loadings were calculated from the estimated flows and available
chemical data (Table 27). However, when no chemical data existed or where
available data were inadequate, the mean concentrations from NURP were
used to evaluate surface runoff loadings. As a result of using mean concen-
trations in the loading calculations, most variation in individual source
loads simply results from variation in basin size as reflected in the flow
estimates. Consequently, the largest basin, Powder Mill Gulch, was determined
to contribute the largest pollutant loading followed by Pigeon Creek #1,
Japanese Gulch, and Pigeon Creek #2.
There are no data available on the concentration of organic contaminants
in surface runoff from the basin. The NURP study showed that organic pollutants
are found much less frequently in urban runoff than metals or conventional
pollutants. The two organic constituents found most frequently were 2-ethyl-
hexyl phthalate (22 percent) and a-hexachlorocyclohexane (20 percent).
Concentrations varied between 4 and 62 ug/L for ethylhexyl phthalate and
0.0003 and 0.1 ug/L for a-hexachlorocyclohexane.
30
-------
TABLE 25. DRAINAGE BASIN AREAS AND FLOW ESTIMATES FOR
SURFACE RUNOFF SOURCES IN SOUTH PORT GARDNER
Japanese Gulch
Edgewater Creek
Narbeck Creek
Merrill and Ring Creek
Glenwood Creek
Seahurst-Glenhaven Creek
Phillips Creek
Powder Mill Gulch
Pigeon Creek #1
Pigeon Creek #2
Mukilteo Storm Drain fl
Mukilteo Storm Drain #2
Area
(ac)
935
200
450
800
400
185
105
1,280
973
900
47
326
Flow
(M gal)
5.6
0.3
1.9
2.4
0.6
1.3
0.003
9.4
6.4
4.2
0.3
0.9
a Flows based on 1-yr storm (1.3 in)
-------
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY DATA
FOR SURFACE RUNOFF SOURCES
TSS
(mg/L)
Powder Mill Gulcha
Narbeck Creekb
Glenwood Creekd
Pigeon Creek I2e
Pigeon Creek flf
Merrill Ring CreekQ
NURP (mean)
(90%)h
191
72
555
279
-
994
180
548
Cu
(mg/L)
0.043
_c
0.085
-
0.025
0.033
0.043
0.118
Pb Zn
(mg/L) (mg/L)
0.12 0.23
0.04
0.18 0.16
0.06
0.11 0.10
0.11
0.182 0.202
0.443 0.633
Fecal
Co li form
BOD Bacteria
(mg/L) (No./lOO mL)
-
-
-
-
3.6 182
-
12 12,000
19
a Average of four storms sampled in 1980-81.
b Single sample: TSS - storm flow, Zn - base flow.
c Dash indicates no data were available.
d Average of three storms sampled in 1980-81.
e Average of two storms sampled in April and May, 1981.
f Metals data from STORET, conventional variables data average of two storms
sampled in April and May, 1976.
9 Single sample: TSS - storm flow, Cu and Zn - base flow.
n 90th percentile for all urban sites.
-------
TABLE 27. LOADING ESTIMATES FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
AND METALS FROM SURFACE RUNOFF SOURCES BASED ON A 1-YR STORM
Source
South Port Gardner
Japanese Gulch
Edgewater Creek
Narbeck Creek
Merrill & Ring Creek
Glenwood Creek
Seahurst-Glenhaven Creek
Phillips Creek
Pigeon Creek #2
Powder Mill Gulch
Pigeon Creek #1
Mukilteo SD #1
Mukilteo SD #2
Ebey Slough
Quilceda Creek
Allen Creek
Ebey Slough SD
Snohomish River
Marshland Canal
Tidegates
Snohomish River near Monroe
TSS
(Ib)
8,400
450
2,850
3,600
2,800
1,950
5
6,300
15,000
-
450
1,350
_
-
5,700
_
-
BOD
(Ib)
560
30
190
240
60
130
3
420
940
1,470
3
90
2,460
820
380
3,5203
3,570
Pb+Cu+Zn
(Ib)
20
1
7
8
2
5
<1
15
31
6
1
2
_
-
14
_
-
1,100
a Based on a 24-h period.
-------
Ebey Slough--
The primary sources of surface runoff in the Ebey Slough area are
discharges from Quilceda and Allen Creek, with smaller contributions from
Marysville storm drains. The drainage basin extends from the eastern part
of the Tulalip Indian Reservation on the west to approximately Highway
9 on the east. The northern boundary extends as far as the Arlington airport
(see Figure 6 above). Quilceda Creek drains an area of about 38 mi* in
the western portion of the basin and Allen Creek drains about 13 rrn'2 -jn
the eastern section of the basin. There are insufficient data for either
Quilceda or Allen Creek to calculate pollutant loadings. To permit a comparison
with other sources in the project area, pollutant loadings were evaluated
from existing flow data and available chemical data from other similar
sources.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintained a gaging station on Quilceda
Creek between 1949 and 1969. During that period, annual discharge averaged
25 ft3/Sec (16.3 MGD), with a peak discharge of 325 ft3/Sec (210 MGD} reported.
Based on the 19-yr period of record, the USGS determined discharges for
several different recurrence intervals. The mean daily discharge having
a 1-yr recurrence interval (72 MGD) was selected as the flow most comparable
with the flows estimated for other sources in the project area.
There are no flow data for Allen Creek. A rough estimate of flow
was generated by multiplying the Quilceda Creek flow by the ratio of the
two drain basin areas (13/38). The resultant flow for Allen Creek was
24 MGD.
Because there are no water quality data for either Quilceda Creek
or Allen Creek, available data from sampling conducted in Portage Creek
were used to calculate pollutant loadings. Portage Creek drains an area
of about 20 mi2 north of the project area near Arlington. The basin is
similar to Allen and Quilceda basin in that land use in the basin consists
of a combination of undeveloped lands and agricultural lands. Portage
Creek was sampled during three storms in May, October, and December, 1976.
Average concentrations of conventional pollutants, along with calculated
Quilceda Creek and Allen Creek loadings, are shown in Table 28.
There are six storm drain outfalls in Marysville. Two discharge into
Allen Creek near 6th Street and three discharge into Quilceda Creek at
80th Street, 88th Street, and 100th Street. The sixth storm drain, serving
an area of about 500 ac on the southwest section of Marysville, discharges
into Ebey Slough, west of the Highway 509 bridge (see Map 1). Individual
pollutant loadings for the five storm drains that discharge into Allen
and Quilceda Creeks have not been calculated, but are accounted for in
total load estimates for each creek. Loading from the Ebey Slough storm
drain have been determined using the same procedure described for South
Port Gardner runoff sources. Briefly, loadings were calculated based on
flow estimated for a 1-yr storm event using NURP (U.S. EPA 1983) pollutant
data. Loading estimates are summarized in Table 27 above.
31
-------
TABLE 28. ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR
QUILCEDA AND ALLEN CREEKS
Portage Creek9
Water Quality
BOD 4.1 mg/L
Total coliform 1,007/100 mL
bacteria^
Fecal coliform 125/100 mL
bacteriac
Calculated
Quilceda Creek
2,460 Ib/day
3x1012
3xlOH
Loadsb
Allen Creek
820 Ib/day
9xlOll
IxlOll
a From URS 1977a, Appendix II.
b Calculated for the 1-yr recurrence interval flows (Quilceda Creek - 72 MGD,
Allen Creek - 24 MGD).
c Coliform bacteria loads reported in organisms/day.
-------
Snohomish River and East Waterway--
The Snohomish River, which drains an area of about 1,700 mi2f is the
primary source of surface water runoff in the Snohomish River area, as
well as the entire study area. Annual flow, measured about 20 mi upstream
near Monroe, averages 6,400 MGD. The basin is composed primarily of forest
and agricultural lands. Everett is the largest urban area in the basin.
Runoff from the agricultural areas in the upper basin has been identified
as the major source of BOD and fecal coliform bacteria in the river (URS
1977b). Average pollutant concentrations and loading are displayed in
Table 29.
Another major source of surface runoff is the Marshland Drainage District
canal. The canal provides drainage to about 13,000 ac of agricultural
land in the west side of the river and about 1,500 ac of urban land in
the southeast end of Everett. It discharges into the Snohomish River about
0.5 mi downstream of the point where Ebey Slough branches off the main
sten of the river. Conventional pollutant loads from the canal were monitored
during two storms in December, 1976 as part of the Snohomish County Water
Quality Management Study (URS 1977a). The average loadings from the two
storms are summarized below.
Flow 94 MGD
BOD 3,520 Ib/day
Total coliform bacteria 6.8xloH/day
Fecal coliform bacteria 9.5xlQlO/day
In addition, there are several smaller city and private storm drains
that discharge into the Snohomish River, downstream of Preston Point (see
Map 1). However, the size of the areas contributing flows to these storm
drains is small, generally less than about 40 ac. Consequently, pollutant
loadings are not expected to be significant. Most of the information available
at this time was obtained from the City of Everett, the Port of Everett,
and major industries along the Snohomish River.
Port storm drains serve facilities at Hewitt terminal, Norton terminal,
and the North Marina. There are approximately nine small drains that serve
the North Marina parking area. Although it was not possible to fit all
nine drain on the source location map (Map 1), all of these storm drains
discharge off the southern end of the marina. The city storm drains in
the area generally provide drainage only for Norton Avenue and adjacent
areas.
Surface runoff from the Scott mill is discharged via six different
outfalls (Maps 1 and 2). The north end of the property drains to the Port
of Everett storm drain at the head of the East Waterway. Runoff from areas
around the paper mill is routed through the primary clarifiers before being
discharged from Outfalls SW001 and S003. Runoff from the pulp mill area
is discharged directly from Outfall S003. The rest of the property is
served by three small drains.
32
-------
TABLE 29. SNOHOMISH RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
AND AVERAGE POLLUTANT LOADS9
Fecal coliform bacteria
Cu
Pb
Zn
Concentration
116/100 mL
0.008 mg/L
0.010 mg/L
0.021 mg/L
Load (Ib/day)
3xlOl3b
430
530
1,100
a Water quality data for USGS station near Monroe (USGS 1985). Loadings
calculated using average annual flow of 6,400 MGD.
b Fecal coliform bacteria load reported in organisms/day.
-------
All runoff from the Weyerhaeuser Kraft mill area is now routed through
the lagoon system and discharged to Steamboat Slough via Outfall WK001.
However, runoff from the wood products plant is still discharged to the
Snohomish River. The plant area is reportedly served by 21 separate storm
drains.
Snohomish River Delta, Steamboat Slough, and Union Slough--
Discharge from the sloughs and main stem of the Snohomish River is
the major source of surface water runoff in these three areas. Steamboat
and Union Sloughs convey an estimated 27 percent of total Snohomish River
(R.W. Beck and Associates 1980, Appendix D). Because there is very little
land surface within the project boundaries that drains into the delta and
the two sloughs, most of the loadings results from upstream sources. Runoff
from the low-lying agricultural areas around the sloughs is the only major
source within the basin. Most of the surrounding areas are diked to prevent
flooding. Runoff is regulated by numerous tidegates situated along the
banks. Total tidegate BOD loading, calculated for the 1-yr storm event
was estimated at 3,570 Ib (R.W. Beck and Associates 1980, Appendix D).
Atmospheric Deposition
The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) monitors major
point source emissions in the Everett Harbor area. A major source is defined
as one that emits at least 25 tons/yr of one or more of the pollutant variables
that are measured: total suspended particulate matter (TSPM), oxides of
sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide.
TSPM and associated contaminants are the only variables that could signifi-
cantly impact the waterways. The others are composed of primarily gaseous
phase compounds which are not likely to be deposited on the water surface.
According to PSAPCA records for 1982 (PSAPCA 1983), TSPM emissions
for the seven sources in the area was 797 tons/yr. Only a portion of the
material emitted will be deposited directly on the water surfaces within
the study area. Most will be carried out of the area by wind currents.
Some will be deposited on the land surface in the basin and would eventually
discharge into the waterways in stormwater runoff.
A rough estimate of air pollutant loadings has been made by assuming
that 10 percent of the annual particulate emissions or 80 tons/yr are deposited
directly on the water surface within the study boundaries. Street dust
data from an industrial site in Seattle, located at 4th Avenue South, and
South Michigan Street (Galvin and Moore 1982), was used to characterize
the pollutant composition of the deposited material:
33
-------
4th Avenue South at Deposited on Study
South Michigan Street Area Waterways
(ppm) (Ib/day)
Arsenic 40 0.02
Cadmium 1.4 0.0006
Chromium 50 0.02
Copper 117 0.05
Lead 460 0.2
Nickel 36 0.02
Zinc 540 0.2
These loadings, when distributed over the entire surface area of the waterways
in the study area, would be negligible.
Accidental Spills
Information on accidental spills in the region is kept in WDOE files.
Reports usually contain information on date and location of the spill,
* description of what and how much was spilled, and the cleanup measures
taken. There is not enough detailed information available to calculate
pollutant loading.
The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a file on marine spills. Records for
the study area are available back to 1973. The information stored includes
the date and location of the spill, type of material spilled, and estimated
quantity spilled. Location is given by latitude and longitude to the nearest
minute, making it impossible to identify the exact location of the spill.
Also, there is no information on the amount of material recovered from
cleanup operations, so loadings cannot be determined. The reported spills
consisted primarily of oil products (i.e., diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel,
and waste oil).
Groundwater
The study area is underlaid by a series of glacial deposits. The
primary aquifers occur in the alluvial deposits along the Snohomish River
valley, the Marysville sand formation located in the 3-mi wide trough east
of the Quilceda Plateau, and the Esperance sand formation, which underlies
the surface Vashon till deposits in most of the study area. In addition,
the perched groundwater in the soil and subsoils of the Vashon till is
a source of water supply for many rural homes in Snohomish County.
The Esperance sand aquifer is probably the most widespread source
of groundwater in the county. Deposit thickness ranges from 25 to 300
ft, with well yields averaging approximately 100 gal/min (Newcomb 1952).
Ihe Marysville sand formation extends from the surface to depths of 100
to 200 ft. The water table is generally shallow, with depths ranging from
10 to 15 ft. Well yields of 200 gal/min are common. Discharge from the
Marysville aquifer is to the main stem and tributaries of Ebey Slough.
34
-------
The shallow aquifer in the Marysville and alluvial deposits would
be most susceptible to contamination from land surface activities. Failure
of septic tanks in the Quilceda Creek basin has been reported as a potential
source of contamination in the Marysville sand aquifer (R.W. Beck and Associates
1980). The Esperance sand aquifer would be less susceptible to contamination
due to overlying Vashon till deposits, which exhibit relatively low perme-
ability. Most precipitation in the area washes off the till and enters
the surface water drainage system. Only a fraction of the precipitation
is able to percolate through the till and enter the Esperance sand aquifer.
Contamination is a potential problem in the perched water system in the
Vashon till deposits. The perched water table is shallow and receives
most recharge from precipitation in the area. Specific groundwater contam-
ination problems within the study area are described in the following section.
Tulalip Landfill--
The 150-ac landfill is located about 0.5 mi southwest of Marysville
on an island in the Snohomish River Delta (see Map 1). It was operated
by the Seattle Disposal Company between 1975 and 1979. The site was originally
excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 10 ft below mean sea level.
The excavated material was used to construct a dike around the perimeter
of the site. A canal was built, extending into the fill area, to provide
barge access. There is no provision for leachate collection at the landfill.
Garbage from Seattle was brought to the site by barge. Although there
were no records kept or quantity or type of material disposed at the site,
it has been estimated that about 95 percent of the material was from commercial
and industrial companies in Seattle. Other potential waste sources include
laboratories/hospitals, construction, paper/printing, utility companies,
sanitary/refuse, and fertilizer (Ecology and Environment 1984). The landfill
was closed in October, 1979, under U.S. EPA order because of concern over
wetland destruction and water contamination, and after complaints of odor
problems from Marysville residents.
Bacterial Contam inat ion--Because the landfill accepted wastes from
hospitals in the Seattle area, there was some concern over the possibility
of bacterial contamination from the site, particularly with respect to
antibiotic resistant bacteria. While the landfill was in operation, the
U.S. EPA took samples of water and sediment from various locations along
the landfill's barge canal and in Ebey Slough on three separate occasions:
August 6, 1974, October 7, 1974, and June 8, 1976. The range of bacterial
concentrations found in the samples is summarized in Table 30. Generally,
higher counts were associated with samples taken at high tide compared
with samples taken during low tide. The data indicate that coliform bacteria
counts were always higher in the barge canal samples when compared to the
reference station in Ebey Slough. Additionally, counts were highest in
samples taken from the head of the canal, where barge unloading occurred.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus , both human pathogens,
were found in all water samples taken near the landfill, and in Ebey Slough
samples. These organisms are important because they are associated with
eye, ear, and nose infections related to water contact sports. Of particular
35
-------
TABLE 30. SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA FOR TULALIP LANDFILL*
Total Coli form
Location Bacteria
Mouth of Barge Canal
Surface water
(No./lOO ml) 3,300->16,000
Bottom water
(No./lOO ml) 24,000-92,000
Sediment
(No./lOO g) 24,000-130,000
Head Barge Canal
Surface water
(No./lOO mL) 24,000-92,000
Bottom water
(No./lOO mL) 92,000-240,000
Sediment
(No./lOO g) 170,000-540,000
Ebey Slough (Reference)
Surface water
(No./lOO mL) 950->16,000
Bottom water
(No./lOO mL) 330-16,000
Sed iment
(No./lOO g) 680-95,000
Fecal Coli form
Bacteria
170-450
180-1,700
450-4,900
780-1,700
840-92,000
7,900-35,000
310-2,400
20-170
<1 80 -7, 000
Fecal
Streptococcus Pseudomonas Staphylococcus
Bacteria aeruginosa aureus
330-1,300 20-34 320-330
4,900-35,000 0-220 600-4,500
-
130-7,000 66-370 330-1,400
54,000-240,000 10-230 3,700-12,000
_
140-180 2-60 40-170
45-<180 0-17 50-280
.
a Samples taken at high and low tide.
Reference: Vasconcelos (1974a,b; 1976).
-------
concern was the resistance of these bacteria from the landfill samples
to antimicrobial agents.
Bacteria samples from the landfill were tested with 12 antimicrobial
agents commonly used by Seattle area hospitals for treatment of bacterial
infections. _S. aureus samples demonstrated a high resistance to most of
the antimicrobial agents, and compared with Ebey Slough samples, the canal
samples showed greater resistance. £. aeruginosa. found in lower concentrations
in both landfill and Ebey Slough samples than S^. aeureus, also exhibited
a high degree of resistance in the tests, although there was little difference
between landfill and Ebey Slough samples. All samples were resistant to
6 of the 12 antimicrobial agents used in the test.
The_ pathogen Clpstridium perfringens was also found in the sediment
samples in concentrations ranging from 200/100 g in Ebey Slough samples
to 7,000/100 g in samples taken at the head of the barge canal. _C. perfringens
is an organism associated with food poisoning and therefore is a significant
concern in fishable waters.
The results of the bacteriological sampling were a major factor in
forcing the eventual closure of the landfill. However, there has been
no recent sampling to determine whether bacterial problems still persist
at the site.
Chemical Contaminatioji--Samp1 ing has been conducted at the site on
two separate occassions since it was closed. During these visits, it was
reported that leachate was collecting in a ditch along side the entrance
road and along the base of the eastern portion of the landfill. Also,
seeps were found along the northern bank of the landfill, just east of
the old barge canal. Strong hydrocarbon odors were reported at the ponds
on the eastern edge of the landfill (Ecology and Environment 1984).
A leachate sample was collected by the Tulalip Fisheries Department
on February 23, 1983. The sample was analyzed for conventional pollutants
and select metals by the WDOE. The total organic carbon content was 180
mg/L. The concentration of zinc was 13 mg/L.
WDOE and Ecology and Environment inspected the site on September 11,
1984. During the inspection, two leachate samples were collected and analyzed
for priority pollutants. One sample was a composite of two small seeps
from the bank on the east corner of the old barge canal entrance and the
other was from a ditch along side the entrance road. Unfortunately, all
of the organics results have been qualified after quality assurance review.
Consequently, only the metals data are reported (see Table 31).
The preliminary site inspection report (Ecology and Environment 1984)
estimated that between 50 and 100 M gal of leachate are generated at the
site each yr. Due to the location of the landfill, leachate from the site
could enter both Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs. Based on the leachate production
estimates, daily metals loadings would range between 0.02 and 0.1 Ib/day
arsenic, 0.24 and 0.95 Ib/day chromium, 0.05 and 0.66 Ib/day lead, and
0.16 and 0.76 Ib/day zinc.
36
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE LEACHATE DATA
FOR TULALIP LANDFILL
As
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Bank Seeps at Barge
Canal Entrance
(ug/L)
15
206
-
289
-
138
Puddle by
Entrance Road
(ug/L)
49
415
758
48
457
333
-------
Everett Landfill--
The old landfill covered an area of about 70 ac adjacent to the Snohomish
River, near 40th Street in south Everett. It was operated by Snohomish
County between 1917 and 1974. Prior to 1966, the site was operated as
a burning dump. The landfill primarily accepted wastes from the Everett
area, but unknown quantities of unspecified acids and bases were disposed
of at the site. The site is now operated as a transfer station.
Because the landfill is unlined and leachate is not collected, there
is a high potential for leachate to contaminate groundwater in the area.
The water table beneath the site is shallow, with depths varying between
0 and 15 ft. Groundwater in the area generally flows toward the Snohomish
River; consequently contamination could eventually impact the river. The
recent tire fire at the facility in the fall of 1984 renewed interest in
the site as a potential pollutant problem.
In December 1984, WDOE collected samples to determine the chemical
composition of surface runoff and soils from around the landfill. The
samples consisted of two water samples (one sample was taken of surface
runoff or seep material and the other was taken from a drainage ditch which
collects runoff from the site and discharges into the Snohomish River),
five soil/ash samples (four samples were taken from surface soils in the
area and one sample was scraped from the side of the drainage ditch), and
two oil residue samples (samples were taken of oil floating on top of the
ditch). The results of the chemical analyses are summarized in Table 32.
The largest concentrations of PAHs were found in the oil residue samples.
Concentrations of LPAHs averaged 1,334 mg/kg and HPAH concentrations averaged
826 mg/kg. Dikes were installed in the drainage ditch to prevent oil from
reaching the Snohomish River. Approximately 20 bbl of oil were collected
and sent to Arlington for disposal. It is not known how much oil discharged
into the river before the dikes were installed.
The sample taken from the banks of the drainage ditch exhibited the
highest PAH content of all the soil samples. LPAH concentration was 4.18 mg/kg
and HPAH concentration was 15.4 mg/kg. These concentrations are higher
than that found in street dust samples from residential areas in Bellevue
and industrial areas in Seattle. In addition, the bank soil sample exceeds
the Fourmile Rock criteria for open water disposal. The other four soil
samples, taken from the tire fire area, would meet the Fourmile Rock criteria.
The metals results show that zinc is the predominate metal found in
both the soils and surface runoff from the site. Zinc concentrations ranged
from 89 to 125 ug/L in the water samples and from 196 to 129,800 mg/kg
in the soil samples. The sample with the largest zinc concentration was
taken directly in the burn area. In addition, dibenzofuran was detected
in the soil samples in concentrations ranging from 0.018 to 0.25 mg/kg.
WDOE sent the most contaminated sample for dioxin analysis. The results
are not available yet.
37
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF EVERETT TIRE FIRE DATA
Oil Samplesa Water Samples^ Soil Samples (mg/kg)
(mg/kg) (ug/L) c d d d
LPAH 1,352 1,315
HPAH 891 760
2 -Methyl -
naphthalene 380 230
ND
Dibenzofuran ND
Zn 89
Cu - - 31
Pb <1
As - - 10
Ag - <0.1
Cr - - 40
Cn <10 ug/L <10 ug/L
4.18 0
15.4
ND6
ND 0
125 196 129
28 108
<1 116
3 12.7
<0.1 0.3
10 32.1
0.37
.283
3.33
ND
.018
,800
140
705
31.4
1.1
32.9
1.36
2.642
3.81
0.190
0.250
61,200
230
128
11.0
0.4
328
0.85
1.280
0.610
0.420
0.060
22,200
84
56
7.4
0.1
28.5
<0.41
d
0.170
3.62
ND
80,000
164
204
13
0.4
20.2
<0.41
a Oil residue floating in drainage ditch.
b Surface water samples.
c Soil scraped from side of drainage ditch.
d Surface soils at site.
e ND = Not detected.
Reference: Kjosness (1984).
-------
The city of Everett recently hired a consultant to more thoroughly
investigate conditions at the landfill, but the report is not yet available.
In the meantime, a berm has been constructed around the site to prevent
runoff from migrating into the Snohomish River.
Mukilteo Fuel Defense Support Point--
The Mukilteo Fuel Defense Support Point (DFSP) is located in the southwest
corner of the study area. The facility consists of a marine fuel transfer
pier, a railroad tank car loading area, and 10 bulk fuel storage tanks
that hold aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel (JP-4). The site,
underlaid by unconsol idated coarse gravel, would provide a direct pathway
for any leaked or spilled material to enter area groundwater.
The facility conducted a groundwater study in 1982 and 1983 to determine
if groundwater contamination is a problem. Initially, five wells were
installed along the northern boundary of the site, with one additional
well placed upgradient of the tank at the southwest corner of the property.
After JP-4 was detected in two of the wells in the northeast corner of
the facility, near Tank 10 (Wells 4 and 6), an additional six wells were
installed around Tanks 9 and 10 to determine the extent of the contamination.
The first set of samples were taken in September 1982. All samples
were analyzed for purgeable organics and JP-4. Wells 4, 5, and 6 showed
measureable amounts of benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and chloroform.
Concentrations in the remaining wells were below detectable limits (10 ug/L).
The results for Wells 4, 5, and 6 are shown in Table 33. The laboratory
also identified the presence of methylated hydrocarbons in Wells 1 and
2, and cyclic compounds and substituted benzenes were identified in Wells
4 and 6. The laboratory did not quantify or identify specific compounds,
but reported that concentrations were in the part per million range.
After the initial round of sampling, all 12 wells were monitored each
month between May and July 1983. Samples were analyzed for JP-4 and its
volatile organic constituents (benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and chloro-
form). However, volatile organics were not analyzed in samples where JP-4
was detected. The results are summarized in Table 33.
Well 4 shows the greatest contamination, with JP-4 concentrations
steadily increasing from a low of <1 mg/L in September 1982 to a high of
450,000 mg/L in July 1983. Because the monitoring program was discontinued
after July 1983, it is not known whether the 450,000 mg/L represents the
maximum JP-4 concentration in the plume. JP-4 concentrations in Well 6
peaked at 72 mg/L in May 1983 and then declined to 22 and 27 mg/L in June
and July. JP-4 was detected in Well 9 in June, 1983 at a concentration
of 4 mg/L.
There are no data defining the volume of groundwater discharged from
the site to Possession Sound. Consequently, pollutant loadings cannot
be evaluated. Available data however indicate that the groundwater is
greatly influenced by tidal action. Daily groundwater levels varied by
about 2 ft, whereas tides varied by 10 to 13 ft.
38
-------
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL DATA
AT MUKILTEO FUEL SUPPORT POINT
Benzene (ug/L) (9/82)
Ethyl benzene (ug/L) (9/82)
Toluene (ug/L) (9/82)
Chloroform (ug/L) (9/82)
JP-4 (mg/L) (9/82)
(5/83)
(6/83)
(7/83)
Well 4
100-200
400-500
<10
<10
<1
8,400
200,000
450,000
Well 6
2,000-4,000
200-300
100-150
<10
1.1
72
22
27
Well 9
NAa
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
4
-
a NA = Not analyzed.
-------
Tank 10, which is the tank suspected of leaking JP-4 into the groundwater,
was empty at the time of the study and has remained empty since then.
This eliminates the source of the contamination, but no cleanup has occurred
at the site. There were no recovery operations conducted. Therefore the
site will be a continuing source of JP-4 contamination. The DFSP has performed
structural repairs on Tank 10, but plans additional adjustments before
putting the tank back into use (Randall, B., 9 August 1985, personal communi-
cation) .
The contamination found in Well 5, which is upgradient of Tank 1,
could be caused by the migration of contaminants due to tidal action.
There has been no investigation into the source of the contamination.
At this time, there are no plans for additional studies at the site.
Boeing Test Facility--
The 360-ac Boeing Test Facility is located in the eastern end of the
Tulalip Indian Reservation. The site was originally leased from the military
tribe during World War II as a magazine bunker and gunnery range. Boeing
has operated the site since the 1950s. It has been used as a fuel storage
and testing area. Materials reported stored at the facility include hydrazine,
peroxide, fluorine, JP-9, and PCBs. The major aquifer beneath the site
is the Esperance sand aquifer with depth to water table ranging between
4 and 5 ft.
Source Loading Comparisons
At this point, the significance of pollutant source loadings in Everett
Harbor cannot be determined. As an alternative, loading can be compared
with available source loading data from the Commencement Bay Superfund
study and the Elliott Bay Toxics Action Plan (Table D-8 in Appendix D).
Pollutant loadings from sources in Everett Harbor generally fall within
the lower range for most parameters.
Conventionals--
Pollutant data for most sources in the study area are either unavailable
or are limited to a few select conventional pollutant variables (BOD and
TSS). Because BOD data are available for most of the major sources, a
rough ranking of the major sources has been developed based on average
daily BOD loading (Figure 11). Where data were not available, loadings
have been calculated from average discharge and BOD concentrations reported
for other similar sources. Because of the limitations in the data, differences
in BOD loadings are often primarily a function of flow, particularly for
sources within major source categories. Also, loadings of bacterial and
toxic contaminants cannot be predicted from BOD data on diverse sources.
The Scott SW001 and Weyerhaeuser WK001 outfalls rank as the two largest
sources of BOD in the project area. Total discharge from the tidegates
in the lower Snohomish estuary ranks third and loading from the Marshland
Drainage District Canal ranks fourth, indicating that surface water runoff
39
-------
5000-
4000-
^ 3000-
.0
O
o
CO
2000-
1000-
rt
•wi
^^
n
•T
'
ilnnnn
8 S
5 « a t g*g , x|g§P:^
5 §y< o 'T 8
-------
from agricultural land in the basin is a major BOD source. Effluent from
Scott S008 and S003 outfalls, the Everett wastewater treatment plant, and
discharge from Quilceda Creek are the next largest BOD sources. The remaining
sources, which are comprised of the other four area treatment plants and
surface runoff, contribute much smaller BOD loadings. Although data are
not available to accurately define background BOD conditions in the Snohomish
River, a BOD concentration of 10 mg/L has been assumed for comparative
purposes. Using average Snohomish River flows of 6,400 MGD, the average
BOD loading is calculated at over 500,000 Ib/day, which is several orders
of magnitude larger than any of the individual sources within the study
area.
Source rankings based on loadings for other conventional pollutants
are not very useful because of variability and limitations in the available
data. For example, fecal coliform bacteria counts, although available
for some of the major sources, are subject to large daily fluctuations.
This makes it difficult to define representative loads. Data from the
Everett treatment plant monitoring program indicate that fecal coliform
bacteria concentrations vary over several orders of magnitude. Generally,
fecal coliform bacteria loads for the five treatment plants range from
a low of 0 organisms/day (measured at Tulalip treatment plant) to a high
of 3xl09 organisms/day (measured at Mukilteo plant). For comparison, fecal
coliform bacteria loads in the Snohomish River near Monroe and total tidegate
loads average about 1Q13 organisms/day. Similarly, fecal coliform bacteria
loads from the Weyerhaeuser and Scott pulp mill outfalls range between
109 and 1Q13 organisms/day. It should be emphasized though that pulp mill
loadings are based on only one or two analyses of outfall discharge. Addition-
ally, high pulp mill fecal coliform bacteria loading may result from Klebsiella,
a nonpathogenic bacteria common in pulp and paper mill effluent. Fecal
coliform bacteria loads for one of the major surface water runoff sources
in the study area, the Marshland Canal, were measured during two storms
and ranged between 1012 anc| io,14 organisms/day. There are no data on fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations in area CSO discharges. However, concen-
trations are expected to be highly variable, depending on the size of the
storm event and area served. Total study area CSO loads could be as high
as 108 organisms/day (based on 1-yr storm event flows, 3.2 MGD, and 10$
organisms/100 ml).
Metals--
Full-Scan priority pollutant metal analyses are available only for
Everett treatment plant, Scott, and Weyerhaeuser effluents. Other data
are limited to a few select metals analyses of some of the streams draining
the South Port Gardner area, Lake Stevens treatment plant effluent, and
Tulalip landfill leachate. Where possible, estimates of metals loadings
(copper + lead + zinc) have been calculated using existing data from other
similar sources. A summary of source rankings, based on the combined copper,
lead, and zinc loads is shown in Figure 12. The results indicate that
Weyerhaeuser Outfall WK001 (54 Ib/day) is the largest metals source within
the basin.
40
-------
60-1
50-
2T 40-
Q
N
+
.a
a.
30-
O 20-
10-
5
g
S
g
*
I.I
ffi
n
Figure 12. Source ranking based on Pb+Cu+Zn loads.
-------
Copper, at 46 Ib/day, is the major constituent of the lagoon effluent.
The other major metals sources in declining order are Powder Mill Gulch,
Everett treatment plant effluent, and Japanese Gulch. Again, for comparison
with background conditions, the Snohomish River flows account for a metal
load of nearly 2,100 Ib/day. Although metals concentrations in the Snohomish
River are not very high, the large flow generates a substantial loading.
Organic Compounds--
There is insufficient data on organic pollutants to rank source loadings
in the study area. However, available data indicate that the Everett treatment
plant is a minor source of phenol (1.6 Ib/day), trichloroethylene (<0.5-6
Ib/day) and bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate (<0.3-1.2 Ib/day). In addition,
data from Scott Paper Company outfalls show that the plant is a source
of phenols (19 Ib/day), chloroform (19 Ib/day) and ethyl benzene (5 Ib/day).
Also loadings for xylene and formaldehyde, which are chemicals used by
the plant, have been estimated at 20 Ib/day and 170 Ib/day, respectively.
There is not enough data for Weyerhaeuser kraft mill effluent to calculate
organic pollutant loads. Data from a U.S. EPA kraft mill survey indicate
that chloroform loading from the lagoon system outfall would range between
about 1 and 4 Ib/day.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND BIOTA
Chemical contamination of the water column, sediments, and biota are
discussed in the following sections. In each section, an overview of spatial
and temporal trends is provided. For selected indicators (i.e., sediment
contamination, bioaccumulation), data from recent studies are used to describe
existing conditions in detail.
Water Column Contamination
Water quality in the East Waterway and adjacent areas (the eastern
portion of South Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish River) has been the
subject of considerable study. Major problems have resulted from past
discharges of oxygen-demanding material from the pulp and paper mills located
adjacent to the East Waterway and a few miles up the Snohomish River.
Water quality investigations dating from at least the early 1940s repeatedly
discuss fish kills and disturbed benthic communities in a wide area near
the mouth of the river (Foster 1943; Townsend et al. 1941). Recent improvements
in waste treatment and the closure of one of the major pulp mills has led
to dramatic reductions in waste loadings and the virtual elimination of
major water quality problems.
Few studies have considered toxic chemicals in the water column in
the study area. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (1982) examined
concentrations of trace metals in the Snohomish River above the present
study area. Schell and Nevissi (1977) made a few measurements of trace
metals in the marine waters of the study area. Pavlou et al. (1977) reported
concentrations of PCBs in the water and particles collected on a single
cruise in Possession Sound. None of these studies indicated that problems
existed for any of the substances measured.
41
-------
The major limitation of water column studies in general is the transient
nature of water column effects. In response to changing river flows, tidal
mixing, and toxicant discharge rates, concentrations observed in the natural
system show large variations over both space and time. As a result, adequate
characterization of the system requires an enormous allocation of resources
to collect sufficient numbers of samples to obtain representative concen-
trations. At the present time, such intensive sampling has not been performed
for toxic chemicals in the Everett Harbor study area. Because most of
the chemicals of toxicological concern accumulate in the sediments, this
latter medium is a much more effective sampling matrix than the water column.
Sediments provide temporally integrated samples with which the spatial
distribution of areas of high chemical concentrations can be distinguished.
Sediment Contamination
The physical and chemical characteristics of sediments in the Everett
Harbor study area are reviewed in the following sections.
General Overview—
Conventional Variables—Data on sediment texture and total organic
carbon (TOC) content are summarized in Maps 3-6. The data are too limited
to provide detailed characterizations of most areas. In general, the shallower
areas have coarser sediments with lower TOC than do those observed in the
deeper areas. This probably reflects the greater scour from wave action,
currents, and river flow at shallower depths. Protected, backwater areas
of the delta and slips along the waterfront would be expected to accumulate
fine-grained, TOC-enriched sediments, but supporting data are limited.
The most obvious example of such accumulation is the East Waterway, where
extensive sampling has revealed large areas of fine-textured sediments
and high concentrations of TOC. The high TOC concentrations reflect not
only the quiescent, depositional environment of the East Waterway, but
also contributions of wood debris from wood products industries and of
organic matter from pulp mill effluents.
Organic enrichment of the sediments appeared to extend a short distance
from the mouth of the East Waterway to some of the nearby sediments of
South Port Gardner. No other area had sufficient sampling intensity to
draw conclusions. The available data indicate that the sediments of most
other areas of Everett Harbor had TOC concentrations similar to those of
other areas of Puget Sound. TOC content of sediments from these areas
was much lower than that from the East Waterway.
Toxic Chemicals--Past studies of toxic chemicals in the sediments of Everett
Harbor have been limited. Several recent studies, discussed in more detail
below, have examined portions of the project area intensively. The geographic
coverage of previous studies has been limited. Many areas of Everett Harbor,
particularly in the Snohomish River and sloughs, have not been sampled
at all (Map 7).
42
-------
The available data clearly identify the East Waterway and nearby areas
as a major site of elevated chemical concentrations in sediments. Even
in the East Waterway, the number of chemicals examined is fewer than that
in many other areas of Puget Sound (e.g., Elliott and Commencement Bays),
so that the full extent of any contamination cannot be clearly established.
Data from the East Waterway indicate that the problems are associated primarily
with organic chemicals and that even the highest concentrations are sub-
stantially lower than those observed in many other areas of Puget Sound
(e.g., Elliott and Commencement Bays). Additional sites where sediment
concentrations of at least one toxic substance approach those observed
in the East Waterway include an area near Mukilteo, at least one site in
the lower Snohomish River, and the deep-water, dredged-material disposal
site. These latter areas have received limited sampling and the full extent
of associated problems is unknown. The few samples collected in other
portions of the study area generally have shown concentrations close to
those observed in reference areas of Puget Sound.
Data Synthesis--
Choice of Indicators—Nearly 150 organic compounds and metals have
been measured in sediments collected from Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish
River. These chemicals include all of the trace metals that are considered
to be toxic and representative chemicals from most of the major types of
toxic organic chemicals (see Table 2 in Decision-Making Approach). Many
of these chemicals were detected at concentrations near the analytical
detection limits and in relatively few of the sediment samples. Spatial
distributions of many chemicals covaried with those of other toxic substances.
In addition, many of the substances were not accurately measured, or were
not measured with sufficient sensitivity in some studies. Therefore, only
the data for selected chemicals measured with a reasonable level of accuracy
by established analytical protocols are discussed in detail below.
Chemical indicators used for analysis of sediment contamination include
t Sum of low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(LPAH)
• Sum of high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(HPAH)
• Total PCBs
• Sum of the concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc
• Arsenic.
Concentrations of related chemicals were summed when the spatial distributions
of individual chemicals covaried strongly in sediments. The selected indicators
were found to be reasonable surrogates for a broad range of chemicals with
similar overall distributions in the system. They also represent a range
of sources and transport mechanisms. Finally, the selected indicators
are known to cause toxic responses in organisms under laboratory conditions.
43
-------
Available Data-The detailed synthesis of "current" (1981-1985) conditions
OT the sediments was developed primarily from the following documents:
• Anderson and Crecelius (1985), Crecelius et al. (1984)
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1985) - data from a series'
of studies evaluating sediment quality relative to possible
development of the East Waterway port for the Navy
• Battelle Northwest (1985) - a report presenting results
of a 2-yr, multiagency study of eight locations in Puget
Sound, including Everett Harbor
• U.S. EPA (1982, 1983) - unpublished results of sediment
chemical surveys of Everett Harbor performed in 1982 and
1983
• Malins et al. (1982, 1985) - data from three stations located
in and near the East Waterway (1982) and from two stations
located near Mukilteo (1985).
These studies represent all of the recent data that provided comparable
information for at least one of the indicator chemicals. All of the selected
data are from the years 1981-1985. In general, data from the studies chosen
for detailed analysis were measured by appropriate analytical procedures,
were supported by QA/QC programs, and gave results consistent with the
generally recognized concentrations in frequently sampled areas. Results
of the data evaluations for all studies and a summary of the sampling intensity
and variables measured from the accepted documents are shown in Appendix A,
Tables A-3 and A-4.
The selected sediment chemistry data for individual sampling stations
are given in Appendix E. As shown in Table 34, not all selected indicator
chemicals were measured (or they were not measured by appropriate procedures)
at all stations sampled during the studies listed above. None of the studies
analyzed for acid-extractable, volatile, or basic organic compounds.
Station Locations—Station locations for the selected studies are
presented in Maps 7 and 8. A nonuniform allocation of sampling effort
is apparent. Such spatial heterogeneity makes it difficult to distinguish
spatial trends in chemical concentrations.
Reference Area Data—The range of sediment concentrations of metals
and organic compounds in nine Puget Sound reference areas is summarized
in Tables 35 and 36. It is assumed that this range of reference concentrations
provides a reasonable measure of the possible variability in concentrations
in relatively uncontaminated sediments. Averaged data from six Carr Inlet
stations sampled in 1984 were used to calculate elevations above reference
(EAR) conditions for the reasons outlined below. However, the full range
of Puget Sound reference area data (collected from 1976 to 1984) is used
as the criterion for determining whether these elevations above reference
are significant (i.e, the contamination exceeds all Puget Sound reference
44
-------
TABLE 34. DATA LIMITATIONS OF SELECTED STUDIES USED
IN DETAILED ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY3
Study
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985
Anderson and Crecelius 1985
Battell e 1985
Mai ins et al . 1985
Crecel ius et al . 1984
U.S. EPA 1983
U.S. EPA 1982
Mai ins et al . 1982
LPAH
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
No
No
Na
Chemicals
HPAH PCB
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
No
No
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
No
No
Ace
Cu+Pb+Zn
Ace
Ace
Ace
Na
Ace
Ace
Ace
Na
a Ace = Acceptable data
Na = Not analyzed or not reported
No = Not acceptable
LPAH = Low molecular weight aromatic hydrocarbons
HPAH = High molecular weight aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls
Cu = Copper
Pb = Lead
Zn = Zinc
-------
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
SEDIMENTS FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Range
(mg/kg dry wt)
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
U O.lb-
1.9 -
0.07 -
5.6 -
O.f -
9.6 -
5 -
U 0.1 -
0.01 -
4 -
U 0.1 -
0.02 -
U 0.1 -
15 -
1.7
17
5.5
7.8
1.9
130
74
24
0.28
47
1.0
3.3
0.2
100
Mean
(mg/kg dry wt)
0.32C - 0.38d
7.2
2.3
6.9
0.67
54
32
9.8C - 9.8d
0.08
28
0.36C - o.62d
1.2
0.05C - O.12d
62
Detection
Frequency
12/32
34/34
26/26
4/4
24/24
38/38
28/28
21/28
38/38
26/26
16/24
26/26
8/22
26/26
Reference
Sitesa
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1
1,2,3,4,6,9
1-9
1,2,3,4,5,6,9
1,2,3,4,5,6,9
1-9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1,2,3,4,6,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1,2,3,4,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
a Reference sites: 1. Carr Inlet 4. Case Inlet 7. Nisqually Delta
2. Samish Bay 5. Port Madison 8. Hood Canal
3. Dabob Bay 6. Port Susan 9. Sequim Bay
b U: Undetected at the method detection limit shown.
c Mean calculated using 0.00 for undetected values.
d Mean calculated using the reported detection limit for undetected values.
Reference:
(Site 1) Tetra Tech (1985a); Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Sites 2 and 3) Battelle (1983).
(Site 4) Crecelius et al. (1975); Mai ins et al. (1980).
(Site 5) Mai ins et al. (1980).
(Site 6) Mai ins (1981).
(Site 7) Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Site 8) Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Site 9) Battelle (1983).
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
IN SEDIMENTS FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Substance
Phenols
65 phenol
HSL 2-methyl phenol
HSL 4-methyl phenol
34 2, 4-dimethyl phenol
Substituted Phenols
24 2-chlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
22 4-ch1oro-3-methyl phenol
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
HSL 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
64 pentachlorophenol
57 2-nitrophenol
59 2,4-dim'trophenol
60 4,6-dim'tro-o-cresol
58 4-nitrophenol
Low Molecular Weight Aromatic
55 naphthalene
77 acenaphthylene
1 acenaphthene
80 fluorene
81 phenanthrene
78 anthracene
HSL 2-methyl naphtha! en
Range
(ug/kg dry wt)
U 10 - 62b
U 10
U 10 - 32
U 1 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 10
U 10
0.1 - U 50
0.1 - U 10
U 0.5
U 0.5 - U 100
U 0.5 - U 100
Hydrocarbons
U 0.5 - U 40
U 0.1 - U 40
U 0.1 - U 40
U 0.1 - 40
5 - 170
U 0.5 - U 40
1 - 20
Mean
(ug/kg dry wt)
lie . ayd
14 - 20
—
...
—
—
...
...
0.02 - 33
—
—
—
...
5.6 - 22
0.08 - 17
0.48 - 17
3.0 - 19
19 - 35
2.7 - 22
7.5 - 9.5
Detection
Frequency
3/13
0/4
2/4
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/4
1/6
1/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
10/20
1/20
4/20
7/21
11/17
7/17
6/10
Reference
Sites*
1,2,3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,3,4,5,6
1,2,3,4,5,6
1,2,3,4,5,6
All
1,2,3,6,7
1,2,3,6,7
1,4,5,6
High Molecular Weight Aromatic Hydrocarbons
39 fluoranthene
84 pyrene
72 benzo(a)anthracene
76 chrysene
74 benzo(b) fluoranthene
75 benzo{k)fluoranthene
73 benzo(a)pyrene
83 indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
82 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
79 benzo(g,h,1)perylene
7 - 100
8 - 120
4 - U 40
U 5 - U 40
U 5 - 94
U 5 - 94
U 0.37- 40
U 0.37- 30
0.4 - U 5
3 - 20
32 - 41
30 - 41
3.7 - 23
6.4 - 26
17 - 33
17 - 33
9.3 - 10
7.4 - 9.2
0.08 - 4.1
3.8 - 7.2
17/22
16/22
8/17
8/17
12/21
12/21
10/14
6/12
1/5
2/6
All
All
1,2,3,6,7
1,2,3,6,7
All
All
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,4,5,6,7
1
1,7
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
26 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene
8 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
20 2-chloronaphthalene
9 hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
U 0.06- U 40
U 0.06- U 40
U 0.06- U 40
U 0.5- U 5
U 0.5- U 50
0.01- U 10
0.004 - 19
0.004 - 19
0.004 - 19
—
0.07 - 3.5
1/18
1/18
1/18
0/6
0/6
6/12
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1
1
1,4,5,6
-------
TABLE 36. (Continued)
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
12 hexachloroethane
xx trichlorobutadiene
xx tetrachlorobutadiene isomers
xx pentachlorobutadiene isomers
52 hexachlorobutadiene
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halogenated Ethers
18 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
42 bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43 bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
40 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Phthalate Esters
71 dimethyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phthalate
Miscellaneous oxygenated compounds
54 isophorone
HSL benzyl alcohol
HSL benzoic acid
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
HSL dibenzofuran
Organonitrogen Compounds
HSL aniline
56 nitrobenzene
63 n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
HSL 4-chloroaniline
HSL 2-nitroaniline
HSL 3-nitroaniline
HSL 4-nitroaniline
36 2,6-dinitrotoluene
35 2,4-dinitrotoluene
62 n-nitrosodiphenylamine
37 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
5 benzidine (4,4'-diamino-
biphenyl)
28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
U 0.5- U 50
U 0.03- U 25
U 0.04- U 25
0.03- U 25
U 0.03- U 25
not analyzed
0.3 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 10
U 10
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 50
9.0 - 11
U 20 - 760
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 130
U 10
U 25 - 430
not analyzed
U 5
U 1.0 - U 20
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 10
U 50
U 50
U 50
U 50
U 0.5 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5
U 0.5 - U 100
—
0.27 - 7.9
1.6 - 9.2
0.15 - 7.7
0.07 - 8.5
0/6
5/12
5/12
5/12
5/12
1
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
4'- 18
160 - 170
210 - 216
1/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/5
4/5
3/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/4
3/4
0/4
0/6
0/5
0/5
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/6
0/2
0/6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE 36. (Continued)
Pesticides
93 p.p'-DOE
94 p.p'-DDD
92 p,p'-DDT
89 aldrin
90 dieldrin
91 chlordan
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
98 endrin
99 endrin aldehyde
100 heptachlor
101 heptachlor epoxide
102 alpha-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 gairma-HCH (lindane)
113 toxaphene
PCBs
xx Total PCBs (primarily
1254/1260)
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
- u
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
3.1 - U 20
1.8 - 12
0/5
0/6
0/5
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/6
0/5
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/2
7/19
Reference sites: 1. Carr Inlet
2. Samish Bay
3. Dabob Bay
4. Case Inlet 7. Nisqually Delta
5. Port Madison
6. Port Susan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,3,4,6,7
Volatile Compounds
85 tetrachloroethene
38 ethylbenzene
U 4.1 - U 16
U 4.1 - U 16
0/8
0/8
2,3
2,3
c
d
An anomalously high phenol value of 1800 ug/kg dry weight was found at one Carr Inlet
station. For the purposes of reference area comparisons, this value has been excluded.
Mean calculated using 0.00 for undetected values.
Mean calculated using the reported detection limit for undetected values.
Reference:
(Site 1) Tetra Tech (1985a); Mowrer et al. (1977).
(Site 2) Battelle (1983).
(Site 3) Battelle (1983); Prahl and Carpenter (1979).
(Site 4) Mai ins et al. (1980); Mowrer et a!. (1977).
(Site 5) Mai ins et al. (1980).
(Site 6) Malins (1981).
(Site 7) Barrick and Prahl (in review); Mowrer et al. (1977).
-------
conditions). Recent Carr Inlet data are used as the basis for calculating
the values for elevations above reference because:
t The most complete reference data set is available for Carr
Inlet and includes synoptic data for metals, organic compounds,
grain size, organic carbon, and other conventional variables
• The lowest reference detection limits for most substances
of concern in Puget Sound embayments are available for Carr
Inlet
t Elevations above reference values for other urban embayments
(e.g., Commencement Bay) have been calculated with these
data, and therefore, will be directly comparable with those
for Everett Harbor studies
• Where chemicals were detected in more than one reference
area, the Carr Inlet samples usually had comparable or lower
values and on this basis appear to be reasonably representa-
tive of Puget Sound reference conditions.
The Carr Inlet samples collected in 1984 provide the most comprehensive
reference area data set for Puget Sound. These data include blank-corrected
analyses of six samples for the 13 U.S. EPA priority pollutant metals,
3 additional metals (including iron and manganese used as natural indicators),
78 U.S. EPA extractable priority pollutant compounds, 12 additional U.S. EPA
Hazardous Substance List compounds, and selected tentatively identified
compounds. Data for most of the organic compounds were corrected for potential
losses during sample preparation and analysis using the isotope dilution
technique and mass spectroscopy.
The most commonly analyzed contaminants in other reference areas were
metals and neutral organic compounds (especially hydrocarbons). With the
exception of selected hydrocarbon data from the Nisqually River delta and
Dabob Bay, analytical recovery data were not available for evaluation of
organic compound data from these other reference data sets. Phthalate
data were available for some reference areas other than Carr Inlet, but
were rejected because the data were apparently not corrected for potential
laboratory contamination, a common problem with this group of compounds.
Detection limits for some reference areas exceeded 50 ppb dry weight
for several organic compounds. Detection limits for the recent Carr Inlet
samples ranged from 0.5 to 50 ppb dry weight for almost all compounds.
To provide a comparable data set, a maximum detection limit of 50 ppb dry
weight was set for the acceptance of data from other reference areas included
in the ranges reported in Table 36. For the few reference data sets affected
by this cutoff, most of the relevant compounds have either been found at
levels below 50 ppb dry weight or have been undetected at low parts per
billion levels in the remaining reference areas. This cutoff makes the
determination of the significance of Everett Harbor contamination less
sensitive to limitations of some analytical methods and more sensitive
to the actual levels of compounds in reference areas.
45
-------
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--Dry-weight concentrations
°f selected chemical indicators in the sediments of Everett Harbor were
divided by the average concentration of the same indicators measured in
sediments of the reference area, Carr Inlet. The resulting Elevation Above
Reference values indicate the degree to which concentrations in the contaminated
areas exceeded those observed in a nonurban area of Puget Sound. Detailed
spatial distributions of the EAR values for the selected indicators are
presented in Maps 9-16.
A mean EAR value for each selected indicator was calculated over all
stations in each of the nine areas. These mean EAR values are presented
by area in Table 37. Of the selected indicators, the organic compounds
generally exhibited much higher EAR values than did the metals. Mean values
for some organic compound groups exceeded 50, while those for the metals
rarely exceeded 4. Specific characteristics of each area are discussed
below.
The East Waterway exhibited the highest elevations in the project
area for all indicator chemicals. Mean elevations for LPAH, HPAH, and
PCBs all exceeded 50, while the mean elevation for the sum of copper, lead,
and zinc reached 10. These chemical elevations were all above the significance
level (i.e., the concentrations were greater than the highest concentrations
observed in any reference area in Puget Sound). However, mean EAR values
were less than 20 percent of those noted in contaminated areas of Elliott
Bay.
Sediment contamination in the East Waterway was heterogeneous, and
EAR values for PAH and PCBs were higher in sediments at stations near the
head (north end) of the waterway. Maximum elevations in samples from individual
stations were near 500 for PAH and approximately 170 for PCBs. Elevations
for the sum of copper, lead, and zinc did not exceed 40 in the East Waterway.
These values are substantially lower than those observed in Elliott and
Commencement Bays, where EAR values at some stations exceeded 1,000 for
organic compounds and 100 for the sum of the metals (Tetra Tech 1985a,b).
Several cores have been sampled in the East Waterway. An upper layer
of sediment in these cores of about 1.3-m (4-ft) thickness included fine-
grained, organically enriched sediments of high toxic chemical contamination
(Anderson and Crecelius 1985). Concentrations of the indicator chemicals
in sediments below this distinctive surface layer were similar to those
found in reference areas of Puget Sound for PCBs and metals, but some enrichment
of PAH was noted (the maximum EAR for LPAH was 77 and the maximum EAR for
HPAH was 32). These elevated subsurface concentrations of PAH were observed
at the head of the waterway (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985).
Offshore Port Gardner showed sediment contamination similar to that
observed in the East Waterway, but at lower levels. Mean EAR values for
the organic indicator compounds were all significant, but metals concentrations
were within the range observed in reference areas.
46
-------
TABLE 37. MEAN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) VALUES
FOR SELECTED INDICATORS OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Area
East Waterway
Offshore Port
Gardner
South Port
Gardner
na LPAH
66 56*
20 18*
2 163*
Mean EARb
HPAH PCB
64* 59*
18* 9*
133* 19*
Cu+Pb+Zn As
10* 3
4 4
NA NA
Snohomish River
n-i 4.-.
ue i ta
Snohomish River
Port Gardner
Disposal Site
3
7
5
7
18*
4
18*
28*
33*
1
• 10
5*
3
3
3
2
3
4
a n = Total number of samples from designated area. Not all indicator
chemicals were measured in all samples.
b Mean of the elevation above reference for each chemical indicator at
all stations in each area. Asterisk (*) indicates significant EAR values
(i.e., concentrations greater than those observed in any Puget Sound reference
area).
NA = Data not available.
No data are available for Ebey, Steamboat, and Union Sloughs.
-------
One area with particularly high EAR values could be identified: the
southeastern portion of Area 2, near the East Waterway. The high concentrations
of contaminants in sediments of southeastern Port Gardner may reflect transport
from the East Waterway into the deeper portions of Everett Harbor or direct
discharges from the nearby pulp mill and City of Everett CSO outfalls.
The remaining deep-water area of Port Gardner has received limited
sampling. Sediment concentrations of the selected indicator chemicals
were not higher than those found in reference areas of Puget Sound. Much
of this area has not been sampled, however, and the eastern portion could
be a deposition zone for contaminants transported across the delta by the
river.
Within South Port Gardner, mean elevations of PAH exceeded those within
the East Waterway. However, these values reflect only the results of analyses
performed on two samples collected near the fuel piers at Mukilteo. One
of these samples had high elevations of PAH, and slightly lower elevations
of PCBs. The elevation of the PAH at that station was nearly as great
as the highest elevation measured in the East Waterway.
For the Snohomish River Delta, mean concentrations of the organic
indicator compounds were significantly elevated relative to reference
conditions. These mean values represented elevated concentrations of those
chemicals at one station near the mouth of the Snohomish River and at a
second station near Jetty Island, an area that has received dredged material
in the past. Sampling has been too limited to determine the distribution
of toxic substances in the sediments of the delta.
In the Snohomish River, all of the organic indicator compounds, but
none of the metals, exhibited significant mean EAR values. The higher
levels of organic compounds were actually measured in two samples collected
from the side-channel area at the city park just north of the marina.
How well these values represent the rest of the river is not known.
The Port Gardner Disposal Site has been sampled in several recent
studies, and five sediment samples have been analyzed. Only one sample
was analyzed for the organic indicator compounds using detection limits
low enough to obtain useful data. In this one sample, neither the metals
nor the LPAH exhibited significant elevations. However, the concentrations
of HPAH and PCBs were greater than the corresponding maxima observed in
Puget Sound reference areas. Because these elevations were derived from
only one sample, they may not be representative of the entire disposal
site.
No data on the levels of toxic chemicals in the sediments of Ebey,
Steamboat, and Union Sloughs were found during this study.
47
-------
Bioaccumulation
General Overview--
Limited data on concentrations of toxic chemicals in marine organisms
of Everett Harbor are available. As shown in the Data Synthesis section
below, elevated concentrations of metals and a few organic priority pollutants
(e.g., PCBs) have been found in muscle and liver tissue of two sole species
studied by Cunningham (1982). Acid-extractable and volatile organic compounds
and PAH were generally not detected in tissues of English sole and rock
sole (Cunningham 1982). Because detection limits were not reported, these
results should be interpreted with caution. Mai ins et al. (1985) found
PCBs at an average concentration of 816 ppb (wet weight) in two composite
samples of 13 English sole livers collected from a site near the Defense
Fuel Storage Facility in Mukilteo. Aromatic hydrocarbons in stomach contents
of English sole from the same area were as high as 864 ppb for individual
compounds, which was about 54 times the reference value at President Point.
In general, contaminant concentrations in flatfish of Everett Harbor appear
to be lower than those measured in Commencement and Elliott Bays (Tetra
Tech 1985a,b). However, data limitations preclude definitive conclusions
at present.
Data Synthesis--
Analysis of recent bioaccumulation data used to define toxic contamination
problems in the study area is presented in the following sections.
Choice of Indicators—Chemical indicators chosen for analysis of bioac-
cimulation EAR values are the same as those used to examine sediment contami-
nation:
• Sum of low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(LPAH)
• Sum of high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(HPAH)
t Total PCBs
t Sum of copper, lead, and zinc
• Arsenic.
These indicators represent a wide range of chemicals with varying persistence
and transport mechanisms, and they are potentially responsible for a variety
of biological effects. Furthermore, data for the other chemicals analyzed
in target species are too limited for spatial comparisons.
Available Data—Recent data on priority pollutant concentrations in
muscle and liver of English sole were compiled from Cunningham (1982).
Examination of similar data for rock sole (Cunningham 1982) did not reveal
substantial differences between these two fish species. Mai ins et al. (1980)
48
-------
analyzed aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, chlorinated butadienes, and carbazoles
in two composite samples of livers from 13 English sole collected near
the Defense Fuel Storage Facility at Mukilteo.
Station Locations — Station locations for selected bioaccumul ation
data sets are shown in Maps 17 and 18. Not all of the selected chemical
indicators have been measured at all stations. Recent bioaccumulation
data are missing for many areas of Everett Harbor, including the upper
Snohomish River estuary, the Snohomish River Delta and Sloughs, the Port
Gardner Disposal Site, and most of South Port Gardner (with the exception
of Mukilteo).
Reference Area Data--Bioaccumulation data for target species collected
from Puget Sound reference areas are summarized in Table 38. A complete
listing of the data is provided in Appendix F, Table F-l. Where more than
one sample was analyzed at a station, the mean is presented in Table F-l.
Method detection limits and/or quantitation limits were included in calculations
of means and sums.
Although reference area data are limited, there is reasonable agreement
among studies. Most contaminants were below method detection limits or
quantitation limits. Relatively high concentrations were observed only
for PCBs in liver tissue of English sole, from Port Madison in particular.
Data from Port Madison will not be used in the analysis below. Discovery
Bay, Carr Inlet, and Case Inlet appear to be adequate reference areas based
on the limited data in Table 38. Data from Carr Inlet, which were used
to calculate EARs, included quantitation limits or method detection limits
for some chemical indicators. Thus, some EAR values could be larger than
the values reported in the next section.
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--Bioaccumulation data for
target species and selected chemical indicators in Everett Harbor are summarized
in Table 39. Examination of the original data from Cunningham (1982) indicated
that PAH were not detected in any tissue samples, with the following exceptions:
t Naphthalene was detected but not quantified in muscle tissue
of English sole and rock sole
• Fluorene was found at 2 ppb in one sample of English sole
muscle.
Despite the relatively small number of samples analyzed, 13 organic priority
pollutants and 12 metals have been detected in tissue samples collected
from Everett Harbor (Cunningham 1982).
Because the bioaccumulation data for reference areas are so limited,
a range of values was not available for comparison with the Everett Harbor
data. Consequently, the significance of the EARs could not be established
by the criteria developed a priori (see above, Decision Making Approach).
Data on PCB and copper concentrations in English sole muscle from Commencement
Bay indicate that the mean concentration at a station in the study area
is statistically different (P<0.05) from the reference site mean at an
49
-------
TABLE 38. SUMMARY OF SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA
FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Sample Type/Area Reference
Concentrations (organics = ppb, metals = ppm)
LPAH HPAH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn As
English Sole-Liver
Port Madison
Case Inlet
Carr Inletb
Enql ish Sole-Muscle
Discovery Bay
Carr Inlet
Mai ins et al . 1980
Mai ins et al . 1980
Tetra Tech (1985a)
Gahler et al . 1982
Tetra Tech (1985a)
<7.4 <13
<6.5 <19
<220 U280
U29 . U1400
<100 U100
590
340 329
260 323
<13 6.1
36 <4.0
3.2
7.9
NOTE: All values are expressed on a wet weight basis. See Appendix F for complete
data listing.
a Only copper and zinc were analyzed or acceptable.
b Average value for total PCBs in two samples of normal (not diseased) livers.
U = Undetected at the method detection limit shown.
-------
TABLE 39. SUMMARY OF SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA
FOR EVERETT HARBOR
Sample Type/ Area
English sole - muscle
East Waterway
Snohomish River
Snohomish River
Gedney Island
English sole - liver
East Waterway
Snohomish River
Snohomish River
Gedney Island
S. Port Gardner
(Mukilteo)
Station
WD141-3
WD141-2
WD141-4
WD141-5
WD141-3
WD141-2
WD141-4
WD141-5
MA14-1
Mean Concentration (ppb, wet weight) and EARC
nb
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
13
PCBs
ppb
52
73
190
49
540
440
1,500
460
816
EAR
1.4
2.0
5.3*
1.4
2.1
1.7
5.8*
1.8
13*
Cu+Pb+Zn
ppb
5,600
5,700
6,600
6,500
89,000
93,000
EAR
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.8
2.9
As
PPb
2,100
900
1,400
1,500
1,500
2,000
EAR
0.26
0.11
0.18
0.19
a Station locations are shown on Maps 17 and 18. WD141 stations are from Cunningham (1982).
MA stations are from Mai ins et al. (1985).
b n = Number of individuals. Some analyses were conducted on composite samples.
c Reference data from Carr Inlet were used to calculate elevation above reference (EAR) values.
Reference data for arsenic in liver were not available.
Asterisk (*) indicates significant EAR, as discussed in text.
-------
EAR of about 5 or greater (Tetra Tech 1985a). For some PAH (e.g., naphthalene),
an EAR of 10 or greater was required to achieve a statistically significant
difference between the study site and reference area. Therefore, for this
initial assessment of Everett Harbor data, an EAR of 5 or greater was defined
as significant.
As shown in Table 39, significant elevations of selected contaminants
in English sole tissue were found only for PCBs at the mouth of the Snohomish
River and at the Mukilteo site. PCBs and the sum of copper, lead, and
zinc were consistently elevated at all study sites relative to the reference
area. In contrast, arsenic concentrations in muscle tissue of English
sole from Everett Harbor were always lower than those from Carr Inlet.
Because of limited sample sizes and possible differences among studies
due to different methods, conclusions can not be drawn at this time.
The limited data available for metals suggest that metals are not
accumulating to abnormally high concentrations in tissues of target species
from the project area. This tentative conclusion is consistent with results
of Harper-Owes (1983), who summarized data on metals concentrations in
annelids, crustaceans, molluscs, and bottom fish from the Duwamish River.
In 18 cases representing various combinations of different organisms with
metals, the only case of a statistically significant elevation was for
lead in annelids, crustaceans, and molluscs combined.
BIOASSAYS
In bioassays, test organisms respond only to the bioavailable fraction
of toxicants in contaminated water and sediments. At present, this fraction
cannot be determined by routine chemical analytical techniques. Thus,
bioassays should be used in conjunction with chemical data when characterizing
ecological impacts of contaminated sediments or water. Addition of benthic
infaunal community data to sediment bioassay and chemistry data provides
for the triad of indicators recommended by Tetra Tech (1985a,b) and Long
and Chapman (in press) for site-specific analysis of benthic environmental
conditions.
Effluent Toxicity
Major effluent discharges, such as those of the Scott paper mill and
Everett sewage treatment plant, are regulated under NPDES permits, and
generally require a freshwater salmonid bioassay to monitor compliance.
Although such bioassay data are of less environmental relevance than receiving
water bioassays with sensitive marine organisms, salmonid bioassays have
been useful in determining and controlling some forms of effluent toxicity.
For instance, Spencer (1982) described how such tests determined that one
of Scott Paper Company's outfalls was discharging effluent toxic to juvenile
salmon in 1981 and 1982. Subsequent investigation revealed that the toxicity
was due to zinc in scrap rubber tires being used as a fuel supplement.
The use of these tires as fuel was stopped, and the effluent ceased to
be toxic in these freshwater tests.
50
-------
Receiving Water Toxicity
Receiving water toxicity measurements in the Everett Harbor area have
been made through the Ecological Baseline and Monitoring program (ECOBAM),
which was instituted by the WDOE in 1972 and continued until 1981 (Spencer
1982). Data are available only for the period 1972 to 1975; the final
report on the full program is in preparation.
As shown in Table 40, both lethal and sublethal bioassay tests have
been performed in situ or with waters collected from the East Waterway
and South Port Gardner off Mukilteo. Livebox toxicity studies with salmon
fry were performed at four areas of the East Waterway in spring of 1974
and 1975 (English et al. 1976). All areas were acutely toxic to the salmon
fry, although there was evidence for a slight decrease in toxicity in 1975.
Details of possible further testing and of any temporal trends will not
be available until the ECOBAM final report is released.
Comprehensive annual tests of receiving water toxicity were conducted
using the oyster larvae bioassay (English et al. 1976; Cardwell and Woelke
1979). Water samples for testing were collected at the surface and at
various depths in the water column. Sample collection methods and laboratory
QA/QC procedures were adequate, including the use of a reference toxicant.
A progressive decrease in receiving water toxicity was noted from 1972
to 1975, and was ascribed to improvements in pulp-mill effluent treatment
(English et al. 1976). The trend toward improved conditions continued
through 1976 (Cardwell and Woelke 1979). Data for 1978 through 1981 will
not be available until the ECOBAM final report is released.
Sediment Toxicity
General Overview--
As shown in Table 41, three types of sediment bioassays involving
four different species have been conducted in Everett Harbor. The most
intensive sampling has been conducted in the East Waterway.
The Rhepoxynius abronius sediment bioassay developed by Swartz et
al. (1985a) has been widely used in Everett Harbor. However, not all studies
have used fresh sediments for testing. Studies conducted by Chapman and
Fink (1983) at two stations and by Chapman et al . (1984) at ten stations
both used previously frozen sediments. Significant toxicity as measured
by this test was noted at both stations tested by Chapman and Fink (1983)
but at only one station (the innermost station in East Waterway) tested
by Chapman et al. (1984). Much higher levels of toxicity were determined
by Cummins (1984), whose results are also reported by Battelle Northwest
(1985). Testing by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1985) using composite
samples of fresh sediments also showed relatively high toxicity in East
Waterway sediments.
The discrepancy between results of testing with fresh and frozen sediments
was noted by Chapman et al. (1984), who suggested that freezing caused
an apparent reduction in toxicity in these specific tests. Accordingly,
51
-------
TABLE 40. SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER BIOASSAYS IN EVERETT HARBOR
Area Test Organism Reference
In situ exposure studies
East Waterway Acute lethal Salmon fry, English et al. (1976)
Oncorhynchus spp.
Laboratory studies ;
Mukilteo Acute lethal and Pacific oyster larvae, English et al. (1976)
sublethal Crassostrea gigas Cardwell and Woelke
(1979)
-------
TABLE 41. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS IN EVERETT HARBOR
Area
Medium
Organism
Comment
Reference
Acute Lethal
BioassayT
All Everett
Harbor study
areas
Sediment
Rhepoxynius
abronius
Response related to area,
with evidence of spatial
variability within each
area. Evidence for differ-
ential response with sediment
storage (fresh vs. frozen).
Chapman and Fink (1983)a;
Chapman et al. (1984)9;
Cummins (1984); U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1985);
Battelle Northwest (1985)
Sublethal Bioassays
All areas except
Snohomish River
Estuary
Sediment,
sediment slurry
Elutriate filtrate
Cr a s s o s t re a
gig as (larvae)
cuticulatus
Response related to area
tested; mortality/abnormality
response dependent on
type and concentration
of sediment tested. Sediments
tested fresh or frozen.
Significant respiratory
response occurred dependent
on area tested. Sediments
tested after freezing.
Chapman et al. (1984)3;
Battelle Northwest (1985)
Chapman et al. (1984)a
Genptpxicity/Muta-
genicity Bioassays
All areas except
Snohomish River
Estuary
Organic chemical
extract
Salmo gairdneri
(gonad cells)
Significant response (anaphase
aberration) occurred dependent
on area tested. Sediments
tested after freezing.
Chapman et al. (1984)*
a Testing done with frozen sediments.
-------
for the purpose of this assessment, only tests with R. abronius and fresh
sediments are considered in quantifying toxicity. The detailed study by
Chapman et al . (1984) does, however, indicate that the inner portion of
the East Waterway is relatively more toxic than other areas tested. This
pattern conforms to that found in tests with fresh sediments.
The oyster larvae (Crassostrea gigas) bioassay has been used in Everett
Harbor in two studies. Chapman et al. (1984) performed the test with frozen
sediments and found that the inner areas of the East Waterway were most
toxic. Studies by Battelle Northwest (1985) also showed that toxicity
was present in the East Waterway, but the usefulness of the data are in
question, as described below.
Two separate oyster larvae bioassays tests were performed by Battelle
Northwest (1985). The first test (August, 1983) involved serial dilutions
of sediment from their Station 2 (Station B9-2 in Map 20). Sediment concen-
trations of 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, and 100 g/L (wet weight) were tested. Only
the 10 and 100 g/L concentrations produced greater than 10 percent mean
abnormalities (control value as 8.9 percent mean abnormalities). The second
test apparently involved only the 10 g/L concentration at Stations 1-7
and 11 and was conducted in May, 1984. These results indicated that significant
toxicity was present only at Station 5 (located approximately 700 m from
the head of the East Waterway in the center of the channel ; see Station
B9-5 in Map 20). Battelle Northwest (1985) noted problems with their technique,
including the fact that "many quantitative subsamples contained too few
larvae for determination of survival and scoring of normal versus abnormal."
Mention is made of correcting the data by selected recounts, but the validity
of these data cannot be determined based on the information provided in
the report. Details of the exact test methodology are not provided, but
it is assumed that standard procedures (Chapman and Morgan 1983; ASTM 1984)
were used. Although the water in bioassay containers was not oxygenated
during the test, examination of raw data indicates that dissolved oxygen
levels either remained relatively constant or actually increased during
the bioassay. Both the sediments and the larvae remove oxygen from the
water during the 48-h exposure period. Typically sediment oyster larvae
bioassays show a reduction in oxygen by the end of the test. Due to the
apparent loss of quantitative control in this test and to uncertainties
associated with the techniques used for the Battelle Northwest (1985) oyster
larvae bioassay, these data are not considered further.
Sublethal sediment bioassays have also been conducted using the respiratory
response of the marine oligochaete Monopylephorus cuticulatus exposed to
filtered sediment elutriates (Chapman et al. 1984). This test was more
sensitive than the amphipod acute lethality test, but less sensitive than
the oyster larvae test. All stations showing toxicity to oyster larvae
also showed toxicity in oligochaete respiration tests, except Station CH8-19
(Map 19) in Offshore Port Gardner. All testing was conducted with frozen
sediments.
Genotoxicity/mutagenicity testing has been conducted using the anaphase
aberration test with cultured rainbow trout gonad cells (Chapman et al. 1984).
Two of the ten stations tested, both in the East Waterway, showed significant
52
-------
levels of anaphase aberrations. Testing was done with frozen sediments,
but because this test involves a chemical extraction procedure, sediment
freezing is of less concern than with direct exposure tests. Of more concern
is the fact that the chemical extraction is specified for organic compounds,
and nonpolar compounds (e.g., metals) are generally excluded from testing.
Data Synthesis--
Recent sediment bioassay data are synthesized below for analysis of
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values.
Choice of Indicators—Because of the frequent use of the amphipod
and oyster bioassays and the existence of standardized techniques for both
(Chapman and Morgan 1983; Swartz et al. 1985a), both kinds of assays were
selected as indicators of sediment toxicity. The infaunal amphipod Rhepoxynius
abronius is more sensitive to sediment toxicity than are other small infaunal
crustaceans, polychaetes, and bivalves (Boesch 1982; Connell and Airey
1979; Hansen 1974; McGrath 1974; Steimle et al. 1982; Swartz et al. 1979).
Physiologically, amphipods are ideal animals for testing sediments because
their burrowing behavior maximizes time spent in sediments and hence exposure
to sediment contaminants. R. abronius is native to Puget Sound, where
it serves an important functional role both as predator on small benthic
invertebrates and as prey of fish and larger invertebrates (Ambrose 1984;
Manzanilla and Cross 1982; Oliver et al . 1982; Van Blaricom 1982). Data
from R. abronius bioassays can be directly compared to data on the field
distribution of this species. This coupling of data sets can provide powerful
evidence for ecological impacts of contaminated sediment.
The design of the amphipod assay has contributed to its wide use.
Testing of whole sediments (vs. elutriates) is a more realistic approach
in sediment bioassays, because exposure more closely resembles field con-
ditions. The predictive value and sensitivity of this assay have been
confirmed in field studies in which abundance of R. abronius decreased
along an increasing pollution gradient (Swartz et al. 1981, 1982, 1985b) .
Further, an interlaboratory comparison designed to test the robustness
of this assay demonstrated agreement among five separate laboratories using
seven different test sediments (Mearns et al. in press).
Bioassays with oyster embryos were initially developed to test water
samples (Woelke 1972) and later modified for sediment (Chapman and Morgan
1983; Schink et al . 1974). Despite problems associated with obtaining
a year-round supply of high-quality gametes and with correlations of response
with variables other than toxicants (e.g., dissolved oxygen, organic compounds,
parasites), this assay is widely used as a standard method for seawater
samples [American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1984] and has
been applied to sediment samples. In sediments, response may be also correlated
with biological oxygen demand and organic content (Tetra Tech 1985a).
Despite claims that the method has not been "fully worked out and validated
specifically for sediments" (Stober and Pierson 1984), useful information
has been generated (Long 1984). Important limitations of the oyster embryo
bioassay are that the species used is not native to Puget Sound and the
oysters are planktonic during the embryo to prodissoconch stages used in
53
-------
the test (i.e., they are not normally in contact with sediments or benthic
communities during this time). Thus, the test is an indicator of sediment
toxicity, but it lacks the direct ecological relevance of the amphipod
test.
Although there is not always full agreement, data generated with amphipod
and oyster embryo bioassays tend to be highly correlated (Tetra Tech 1985a).
Thus, these tests largely appear to be responding to the same chemical
conditions.
Available Data and Station Locations—Because of major differences
between amphipod sediment bioassay results in Everett using frozen and
fresh sediments, only tests with fresh sediments were accepted for the
database (Appendix A, Tables A-5 and A-6). Because the ability of the
amphipod bioassay to distinguish differences in survival between control
and treatment sediments is dependent on both the number of replicates and
the number of individuals per replicate (see Table 1 in Swartz et al. 1985a),
only those studies with a minimum of four replicates and 20 amphipods per
replicate were chosen for the database.
On the basis of the above criteria, only amphipod bioassay data generated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1985) and by Battelle Northwest (1985)
were useful. The former study comprised composite samples from six areas
in the East Waterway. The latter study comprised seven stations in the
East Waterway and one in Offshore Port Gardner.
Only two studies using oyster larvae bioassays have been conducted
in the Everett Harbor area. One of these (Battelle Northwest 1985) used
fresh sediments. However, the results of this study lacked adequate QA/QC
control and thus were excluded from consideration. The other study using
oyster larvae bioassays (Chapman et al. 1984) was adequate in all respects
except for the use of frozen sediments. Rather than totally exclude oyster
larvae bioassay data from an already sparse database, it was decided for
the purpose of this initial data analysis to include the oyster larvae
data of Chapman et al. (1984). This study comprised eight stations in
the East Waterway and two stations in Offshore Port Gardner.
The selected bioassay database represents adequate spatial coverage
of the East Waterway and adjacent areas of Offshore Port Gardner. However,
there are no sediment bioassay data for any other area. In particular,
data are required for Mukilteo, the area inshore of Jetty Island, the Snohomish
River Delta and Sloughs, and outer Port Gardner.
Reference Area Data—For amphipod bioassays, sediments used as native
sand controls in the accepted studies were used for reference purposes.
In both accepted studies, these controls consisted of sediments from West
Beach, Whidbey Island. For both studies combined, mean amphipod mortality
was low (less than or equal to 5 percent). Oyster larvae bioassay reference
data were also provided by sands from West Beach (mean abnormality 1.6
percent).
54
-------
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis—Within each study, mortality
or abnormality (as appropriate) was compared between test and control sediments
using appropriate statistical methods. Dividing the test sediment means
for each station by the control average yielded a ratio indicating the
relative magnitude of sediment toxicity as an Elevation Above Reference
(EAR) value. Results of these analyses are provided in Table 42 and are
shown in Maps 21 and 22.
To obtain mean EAR values for the two areas tested (East Waterway
and the southeastern portion of Offshore Port Gardner), data from all stations
within each area were averaged separately for the amphipod and oyster bio-
assays. For the East Waterway the mean elevation (EAR) was 8.5 for amphipods
and 12.8 for oyster larvae. Stations were spread through the East Waterway,
providing good spatial coverage. For Port Gardner the mean elevation was
3.1 for amphipods and 5.2 for oyster larvae. Stations were concentrated
near shore, generally within a 1-mi radius from the entrance to the East
Waterway. There is no information for other areas of Port Gardner.
The above analysis indicates that the East Waterway sediments are
mure toxic than those from Port Gardner. Similar conclusions were determined
by Long (1984) in a review of available sediment bioassay data for Puget
Sound.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
An evaluation of 13 documents containing benthic infaunal data for
Everett Harbor from 1972 to 1985 is presented in Appendix A. Before summarizing
the recent data, a general overview of benthic infaunal communities in
the project area is presented.
General Overview: Temporal Trends
Smith (1977) and Smith et al . (1975) looked at changes in abundant
species at intertidal sites along Mission Beach, Jetty Island, and the
lower Snohomish River. The ECOBAM (English et al . 1976) study examined
seasonal variability of subtidal benthic communities at three sites south
of Port Gardner. These studies indicate that seasonal variations in species
abundance and richness occur, but trends appear to be unique to the species
and the sites sampled. This differs from the general seasonal trends observed
in other areas of Puget Sound, where maximum total abundance and richness
occur in summer and early fall (Dexter et al. 1981).
General Overview: Spatial Trends
Three studies conducted since 1980 provide a limited assessment of
present conditions in intertidal and subtidal infaunal communities of Everett
Harbor.
Intertidal and Nearshore Communities--
Distribution of Habitats--Some limited marine benthic habitat information
for Everett Harbor is available from historical data and is based on substrate
55
-------
TABLE 42. SUMMARY OF MEAN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR)
VALUES FOR AMPHIPOD AND OYSTER SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS
Area/ Study
East Waterway
Battell e North-
west 1985
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
1985
Chapman et al .
1984
Amphipod
Mean
Mortality
Station3 (Percent)
B9-1
B9-2
B9-3
B9-4
B9-5
B9-6
B9-7
reference
U8-E1, E4
U8-E2, E5, E7, E8, Ell
U8-E3, E6, E9
U8-E10, E13
U8-E12, E14, E15, E16
U8-E17, E18, E19, E20
reference
CH8-13
CH8-14
CH8-15
CH8-16
CH8-17
CH8-21
CH8-22
CH8-23
reference
56
29
33
58
86
11
10
5
26
31
21
31
36.5
17.5
3
Oyster
Mean
Mortal ity
(Percent) EARb
11.2*
5.8*
6.6*
11.6*
17.2*
2.2
2.0
8.7*
10.3*
7.0*
10.3*
12.2*
5.8*
46.7 29.2*
31.7 19.8*
12.5 7.8*
15.8 9.9*
10.1 6.3*
8.1 5.1
11.3 7.1*
26.5 16.6*
1.6
Offshore Port Gardner
Battelle North-
west 1985
Chapman et al .
1984
B9-11
reference
CH8-19
CH8-20
reference
26
1.0
5.2*
2.1 1.3
12.9 8.1*
1.6
3 Station locations are shown in Maps 19 and 20.
is original author's designation.
Number after the prefix
D Asterisk (*) indicates significant difference between study-site sediments
and control sediments. Station EAR values are shown in Maps 21 and 22.
-------
type and presence of sea grass beds. The majority of the intertidal/nearshore
areas in Everett Harbor are sand or muddy sand habitats. Higher intertidal
elevations near Priest Point and along the South Port Gardner beach are
often cobble and gravel mixed with sand. Extensive eelgrass beds are found
in the shallow areas throughout the Snohomish River Delta.
Benthic Community Variables--Smith (1977) and Smith et al. (1975)
described the intertidal benthic communities along Mission Beach, Jetty
Island, and within the lower Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs. Polychaetes,
molluscs, and amphipods were abundant in each area, but characteristic
dominant taxa varied.
Capitellid polychaetes, the bivalve Macoma balthica, and nemerteans
were the most abundant infauna along Mission Beach. Although they were
less abundant when compared to Mission Beach, the bivalves Macoma balthica
and Cryptomya californica, as well as nemerteans, were the dominant taxa
along the Jetty Island beach. Stations sampled in lower Ebey and Steamboat
Sloughs showed a shift in dominant taxa, with the polychaete Manayunkia
aestuarina, ol igochaetes, and the amphipod Corophium salmonis being most
abundant. Duncan and Kassebaum (1984) samplecT the beach adjacent to the
Port Gardner disposal site and found characteristic taxonomic groups varied
by substrate type. Nemerteans, amphipods, arid barnacles accounted for
the greatest percentage of the total macroinvertebrate abundance in the
mixed cobble-gravel habitat at higher intertidal elevations. Molluscs
were most abundant in the sand habitats.
Subtidal Communities--
Distribution of Habitats—Based on depth, sediment grain size, general
bottom topography, and species assemblages, subtidal habitats within Everett
Harbor were characterized by Harmon and Serwold (unpublished) during the
1970s. More recent studies have collected limited data on benthic habitats
from a few areas in Everett Harbor.
In this study, six habitat types were identified based on depth, sediment
grain size, general bottom topography, and community structure (Table 43).
Grain size and TOC characteristics of study area sediments were described
earlier (see above, Chemical Contamination of Water, Sediments, and Biota,
Sediment Contamination, and Maps 3-6).
Community Variables — Infaunal species assemblages in Puget Sound have
been shown to be strongly associated with depth and sediment type (Lie
1968; Word et al . 1984). Data from nonurban areas in central Puget Sound
indicate that shallow, sandy habitats are dominated by the ostracod Euphilomedes
carcharodonta, the bivalve Psephidia lordi, the amphipod RhepoxyriTus abroniusT
and the gastropod Bittium spp., while deep, muddy sediments are characterized
by the ostracod Euphilomede^ j^roducta, the polychaete Mediomastus spp.,
and the bivalves Axinopsida lerricata and Macoma carlottensis (Word et
al. 1984).
Shallow sand and muddy sand habitats in Everett Harbor are generally
represented by the same taxa that dominate the Puget Sound central basin,
56
-------
TABLE 43. TENTATIVE HABITAT TYPES FOR
EVERETT HARBOR BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
Depth Habitat Type
50-100 ft Shallow sand Shallow muddy sand
100-300 ft Shelf sand Shelf sandy mud
ft < Transitional habitats-
(steep slope)
500 ft + •« Deep water mud
-------
although these communities are also represented by taxa more typically
found in finer sediments (e.g., Axinopsida serricata, Nebalia pugettensis).
These alterations in benthic community structure in areas recently sampled
in Everett Harbor may reflect the higher levels of organic carbon in the
sediments. A recent study by Battelle Northwest (1985) concluded that
Everett Harbor had the greatest percent of organic carbon in sediments
of all the embayments examined. The East Waterway benthic communities
are dominated by Capitella capitata, indicating a high level of physical
disturbance or potential pollution.
The deeper (250 ft) stations sampled in Everett Harbor are dominated
by taxa characteristic of much deeper, finer sediments. The stations sampled
are from two open-water disposal sites (currently inactive). These areas
are surrounded by much deeper regions, which may act as areas of recruitment
for the shallower disposal sites, accounting for the less typical dominant
fauna.
Data Synthesis
Choice of Indicators--
Recent data (1984 to present) for Everett Harbor subtidal benthic
conrmunities were summarized in this study using the following four variables:
• Species richness
• Total abundance
t Amphipod abundance
• -Dominance.
Species richness (number of taxa) and total abundance (number of individuals)
are commonly reported variables in benthic studies and have been used exten-
sively to evaluate pollution effects (e.g., Pearson and Rosenberg 1978).
Power analyses have shown that species richness is a more precise measure
of community changes than are other benthic variables. Significant statistical
differences can be detected using a few (>_ 2) 0.1-m2 samples, making this
variable an efficient tool for evaluating community responses to pollution.
Because total abundance generally exhibits more within-station variability
than does species richness, it is a less powerful statistical measure than
is species richness. But changes in total abundances do occur in response
to pollutant stresses (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978; Tetra Tech 1985a).
Amphipod abundance was included in the existing data summaries to
facilitate the identification of toxic problem areas. Amphipods are among
the infaunal groups most sensitive to environmental degradation (Bellan-Santini
1980; Oakden et al. 1984). Swartz et al. (1982) have shown a correlation
between amphipod abundance and sediment toxicity (i.e., depressed amphipod
abundances occur in areas of sediment contamination).
57
-------
Dominance is defined as the minimum number of species that contributes
75 percent of the total abundance in a given sample (Swartz et al. 1985b) .
This index is easily calculated and provides useful information on the
distribution of individuals among the species in a benthic community.
It is also free of many of the practical and theoretical problems that
plague most diversity indices (Washington 1984).
Available Data--
Data from the last 5 yr that met the criteria for acceptance were
used to characterize Everett Harbor benthic communities and to identify
toxic problem areas (See Appendix A for sunmary of data evaluation). Intertidal
data were not evaluated further because of their limited use in defining
toxic problem areas. The following two studies were accepted for use in
characterizing subtidal benthic infaunal communities and defining problem
areas:
• U.S. Navy Homeport EIS (Parametrix 1985)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Navy Analysis of Sediments
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985).
Station Locations—
Twenty stations were sampled in Everett Harbor as part of the two
accepted subtidal benthic community studies (Maps 23, 24). Ten of the
stations were in the East Waterway. Additional stations were located at
the Everett Harbor Disposal Site (1 station), the Snohomish River Delta
(3 stations), Offshore Port Gardner (3 stations), and the Snohomish River
(3 stations).
Reference Conditions--
Benthic community structure varies greatly in response to sediment
type and depth. Numbers of individuals and taxa, as well as the presence
or absence of certain species, characterize a given sediment type at a
given depth stratum. Because of this variability, multiple reference conditions
were defined to represent combinations of habitat depths with sediment
types.
Data collected in the summer of 1982 from central Puget Sound during
the Seahurst Baseline Study (Word et al. 1984) were evaluated to provide
reference conditions for areas of Everett Harbor. Reference station depths
ranged from 50 to 720 ft. Four sediment types were represented among the
stations sampled. Sand was the dominant sediment type from 50 to 200 ft.
Most 400-ft stations occurred on the steep eastern slope in the central
basin. This area appears to be transitional between sand and mud, and
is characterized by three sediment types—sand, muddy sand, and sandy mud.
The deepest stations were primarily mud, although a few stations were sandy
mud.
58
-------
Mean values for each of the four selected variables within a given
substrate and depth category were calculated in this study using selected
Seahurst stations (Table 44). Benthic community structure at the reference
stations was closely associated with depth and sediment type. Each depth
stratum had characteristic, numerically dominant taxa that occurred at
most of the stations sampled (Table 45). Total abundance was greatest
at the 50-ft depth and decreased with increasing depth thereafter (Figure 13).
Anphipod abundance also decreased with increasing depth (Figure 14). Variables
reflecting number of taxa (total taxa, dominance index) displayed a slightly
different pattern. Maximum values occurred at 200 ft and decreased at
the deeper stations (Figures 15 and 16).
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--
Mean reference values (Table 44) were used to calculate Elevations
Above Reference (EAR) for each study area station (see Maps 25-32). For
each station in the study area, habitat conditions (depth and grain size)
were matched to a corresponding set of reference conditions. A mean EAR
for each community variable was then calculated for each area where more
than one station was sampled.
Examination of mean EAR values showed that the values of all benthic
community variables were depressed (EAR > 1) for all areas where benthic
data were collected (Table 46). Only the East Waterway had mean EAR values
that exceeded the criterion value of 5 (>80 percent depression; see above,
Decision-Making Approach) for all benthic community variables.
Several specific sites within the East Waterway contributed to the
overall depression of benthic indicators from reference conditions. Dominant
species (including Capitella capitata and Nebalia pugettensis) at all four
stations in the innermost harbor are considered to be pollution tolerant.
One station within the western portion of the inner harbor had severely
depressed abundances and number of taxa. Examination of total organic
carbon levels in East Waterway showed the bottom sediments were enriched
2-3 times above levels commonly seen in central Puget Sound. Several areas
within the waterway had chemical concentrations above levels where benthic
communities effects were observed in the Commencement Bay Superfund Study
(Tetra Tech 1985a) . The benthic communities in the East Waterway appear
to be heavily influenced by both organic enrichment and toxic contamination.
In the lower Snohomish River, three of four variables were depressed
from reference conditions by greater than 80 percent. Mean abundances
of amphipods Port Gardner and at the disposal site were severely reduced
relative to reference conditions. The dominance index was also depressed
greater than 80 percent in Offshore Port Gardner.
FISH PATHOLOGY
General Overview
Information on fish pathology in Everett Harbor was collected from
1978 to 1984 by Malins et al. (undated, 1985), Mai ins (1984), and McCain
59
-------
TABLE 44. SUMMARY REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR
BENTHIC INFAUNAL COMMUNITY VARIABLES^
Depth
50 ft
75-100 ft
200 ft
300-400 ft
600 ft +
Sediment
Type
sand
sand
sand
sand
muddy
sand
sandy
mud
sandy
mud
mud
Total
Abundance
x" (s.d.)
635 (106)
546 (143)
433 (96)
386 (184)
609 (115)
474 (177)
335 (93)
184 (76)
Total
Tax a
x" (s.d.)
73 (23)
79 (16)
88 (20)
74 (16)
82 (3)
64 (1)
62 (17)
43 (10)
Amphipod
Abundance
"x (s.d.)
51 (16)
46 (22)
18 (3)
20 (21)
33 (16)
13 (5)
15 (4)
21 (6)
Dominance
Index
x" (s.d.)
10 (10)
12 (7)
26 (9)
20 (3)
17 (4)
11 (8)
16 (11)
14 (4)
a Based on mean No./O.I m2.
s.d. = Standard deviation.
-------
TABLE 45. DOMINANT TAXA BY DEPTH IN CENTRAL PUGET SOUNDa
Depth Species
50-100 ft Euphilomedes carcharodonta (c)
Rhepoxynius abronius (c)
Psephidia Jordi(m)
Bittiurn Tpp. (m)
200 ft Nereis spp. (p)
Euphilomedes producta (c)
Megacrenella columbiana (m)
400 ft Mediomastus spp. (p)
Potamilla m:ce1ata (p)
Sigambra tentaculata (p)
600 ft and deeper Ax in ops-id a serricata (m)
Macoma carlottensis (m)
a Taxa greater than 33 percent frequency.
p = Polychaeta
c = Crustacea
m = Mollusca
-------
CO
z
g
I
a:
HI
TDO-i
600-
500-
LU 400-
§
LU
o
\
ID
CO
300-
200-
LU 100-
SAND
SAND
SAND
Bar = i Standard deviation
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
. MUDDY SAND
-SANDY MUD
SAND
SEDIMENT) >
TYPES
SANDY MUD
MUD
I I I I " \
0 25 50 75 100 200
300
DEPTH (feet)
400
500
600
Figure 13. Reference conditions for total abundance by depth and sediment type.
-------
UJ
m
70 -i
60 -
50 -
40 -
30-
UJ
UJ
DC
10 -
SAND
SAND
SAND I
I I I I
0 25 50 75 100
Bar = i Standard deviation
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
MUDDY SAND
-SAND
ALL
SEDIMENT I
TYPES
SANDY MUD
I
MUD
SANDY MUD
200
I
300
400
500
I
600
DEPTH (feet)
Figure 14. Reference conditions for amphipod abundance by depth and sediment type.
-------
100 -
w
-£
o 90 ~
1
UJ
0 80-
z
UJ
EC
UJ
1 |
LL.
W 70 -
cc
1
cc
O 60-
u_
LU
|
ol 50~
UJ
cc.
^
X
^ 40 -
O
z
z
UJ 30-
0
SANDI
1
0 25
<
i
SAND(
I SAND
Bar = i Standard deviation
II"!
50 75 100 200
^^
»
ALL ,
SEDIMENT! 1
TYPES
<
• -
••-
m MUDDY SAND
ISAND
f SANDY MUD
I
^_
ALL i
SEDIMENT < (
TYPES J
1 SANDY MUD
• MUD
1 1 1
300 400 500 600
DEPTH (feet)
Figure 15. Reference conditions for species richness by
depth and sediment type.
-------
0.
HI
Q
<
LJJ
O
Q
35—1
30-
25-
20 —
X
LU
O
z 15 H
111
O
10-
5-
SAND
SAND<
I
25
SAND
Bar = ± Standard deviation
ALL
SEDIMENT I
TYPES
-SAND
-MUDDY SAND
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
SANDY MUD
• SANDY MUD
MUD
50
I I
75 100
200
I
300
400
I
500
1
600
DEPTH (feet)
Figure 16. Reference conditions for dominance index by depth and sediment type.
-------
TABLE 46. MEAN VALUESa AND ELEVATIONS ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR)
FOR BENTHIC COMMUNITY VARIABLES
Mean
Mean Total Mean Mean Total Mean Amphipod Mean
Abundance EARb Taxa EAR Abundance EAR
East Waterway 561 7.8* 21 10.6* 20 55.3*
Offshore Port
Gardner 458 3.6 24 1.0 3 9.1*
Snohomish River
Delta 197 4.4 17 4.5 21 4.8
Snohomish River 127 7.7* 17 6.6* 7 32.8*
Port Gardner
Disposal Sitec 260 3.3 25 2.3 1 55.5*
Mean
Dominance Mean
Index EAR
3 6.3*
2 12.0*
4 2.7
5 3.3
4 4.8
a Mean values based on x/0.1 m2.
b Asterisk (*) indicates significant EAR as defined in text.
c Based on one station only.
-------
et al . (1982), and primarily concerned liver lesions in English sole (Parophrys
vetulus). The three major kinds of lesions found in English sole incl tided
neoplasms, preneoplasms, and megalocytic hepatosis. Although the cause
of these lesions in field-caught specimens has not been determined, morpho-
logically similar lesions have been induced in laboratory mammals and fishes
following exposure to carcinogens (Mai ins et al. 1984). Thus, it is possible
that such lesions represent effects of toxic contamination in Everett Harbor.
At present, it is unknown whether any of these lesions negatively influence
the affected fish.
Data Synthesis
Available Data and Station Locations--
English sole were sampled at eight locations in Everett Harbor (Maps
17 and 18). McCain et al. (1982) sampled two locations (Transects MC1-1
and MC1-2) in October, 1978 and April, 1979. Malins et al. (undated) sampled
fish at four locations (Transects MA13-1 to 4) in August-September, 1982.
Malins (1984) occupied two locations (Transects MA15-1 and 2) in January-March,
1984. Finally, Malins et al. (1985) sampled a single location (Transect
MA14-1) off Mukilteo in June-July, 1983.
Reference Conditions--
Reference data (Table 47) with which lesion prevalences in Everett
Harbor were compared were taken from studies conducted by Malins et al. (1982,
1984, 1985), Landolt et al . (1984), and Tetra Tech (1985a). These data
were collected throughout Puget Sound, from Discovery Bay in the north
to Case Inlet in the south. As shown in Table 47, prevalences of lesions
in the combined reference areas were very low (i.e., less than 2 percent).
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--
Elevation above reference (EAR) values (Table 48) were calculated
by dividing the prevalence of each kind of liver lesion in each Everett
Harbor study area by the corresponding prevalence observed at all reference
sites combined (see Map 33). In addition, prevalences of liver lesions
in Everett Harbor were compared statistically with prevalences at the reference
sites using a 2x2 contingency formulation and the chi-square criterion.
All three lesions were significantly elevated (P<0.05) only at Transects
MA13-1 / MA15-1 in East Waterway and Transect MA14-1 off Mukilteo. Prevalences
of neoplasms and megalocytic hepatosis were significantly elevated (P<0.05)
at Transect MA13-2, immediately southwest of the East Waterway. Preneoplasms
and megalocytic hepatosis were significantly elevated (P<0.05) at Transect
MA15-2 at the mouth of the Snohomish River. None of the three lesions
exhibited significantly elevated (P>0.05) prevalence at Transects MA13-3
and -4. Highest EAR values for all three lesions were generally found
in the East Waterway and off Mukilteo. EAR values at the remaining transects
generally declined continously with increasing distance from the East Waterway.
60
-------
TABLE 47. REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR LIVER LESIONS IN
ENGLISH SOLE FROM EVERETT HARBOR
Study
Mai ins et al . (1982)
Mai ins (1984)
Mai ins et al . (1985)
Landolt et al . (1984)
Tetra Tech (1985a)
Reference Area
Case Inlet
Port Susan
Port Madison
Discovery Bay
President Point
Useless Bay
President Point
Seahurst
Point Pully
Saltwater Park
Carr Inlet
TOTAL
PERCENT
N
34
33
38
51
20
16
40
93
40
30
120
515
--
Neoplasms
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prevalence (%)
Preneoplasms
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
10
1.9
Megalocytic
Hepatosis
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
1.9
-------
TABLE 48. ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) VALUES FOR LIVER LESIONS
IN ENGLISH SOLE FROM EVERETT HARBOR
Area/Station
East Waterway
MA13-1/MA15-1
S. Port Gardner
MA13-2
MC1-1
MA13-3
MA14-1
Snohomish
River Delta
MA 13 -4
MA15-2
Snohomish River
MCI -2
N
86
30
26
31
66
30
17
11
Elevations Above Reference
Neoplasms Preneoplasms
100* 9.1*
67* 1.7
0 0
32 3.4
76* 8.8*
0 0
59 9.3*
0 0
(EAR)a.b
Megalocytic
Hepatosis
26*
8.8*
0
0
22*
0
12*
0
a Because prevalence of neoplasms at the reference sites was 0 percent,
0.1 percent was used as the denominator when calculating EAR values.
b An asterisk denotes that an EAR was significant; i.e., lesion prevalence
was significantly elevated (P<0.05) over its reference value (comparisonwise
error rate = 0.0063).
-------
INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
Mai ins et al . (1982) collected 40 Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister)
from Everett Harbor in November, 1982. Twenty individuals were collected
from the East Waterway and 20 individuals were collected immediately outside
the mouth of the Snohomish River. Histopathological analyses showed that
substantial percentages of crabs from both areas were affected by one or
more lesions (Table 49). The authors concluded that lesion prevalences
in Everett Harbor crabs were relatively high, but were generally lower
than prevalences observed in crabs from the Duwamish River and the Commencement
Bay waterways. No comparisons with prevalences at reference areas were
made.
MICROBIOLOGY
General Overview
Microbial contamination of water and shellfish has long been considered
a public health risk. Swimming in water or consuming shellfish that are
contaminated with enteric bacteria and viruses can result in gastroentritis,
nausea, diarrhea, typhoid fever, cholera, and hepatitis. Based on past
research, the bacteria of primary concern are enteric pathogens excreted
in human and animal feces, such as Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocollitica,
Campy!obacter fetus, Vibro parahaemolyticus, and VibrTo' jholera (Munger
et al. 1979). The National Shellfish Sanitation Program was formed in
1937 to establish and enforce bacteriological standards for commercial
shellfish harvesters (Houser 1965; Munger et al. 1979, 1980).
The current Washington state standards for commercial shellfish grounds
and recreational use are based on the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria
in water and shellfish tissue [Washington Administration Code (WAC) 173-201-045;
Lilja, J., 6 June 1985, personal communication]. The fecal coliform bacteria
standard for waters used for harvesting shellfish are stricter than the
U.S. EPA standards for primary recreational waters (200 organisms/100 mL)
because of the feeding mechanism of shellfish. Clams, oysters, and mussels
feed by filtering small particles from the water. Bacteria and viruses
are attached to these particles and are therefore concentrated in the gut
of filter-feeding bivalves (Colwell and Listen 1960; Kelly et al. 1960;
Mitchell et al . 1966). This was verified in Puget Sound by Munger et al.
(1979), who observed that the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria
in butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus) collected from Puget Sound beaches
was 59 times higher than that in the surrounding waters.
There have not been any documented cases of human illness as a result
of eating commercially harvested shellfish from the state of Washington.
Because of this, the standards for allowable concentrations of fecal coliform
bacteria in the water column and shellfish tissue are considered conservative
(Lilja, J., 6 June 1985, personal communication).
61
-------
TABLE 49. LESIONS IN DUNGENESS CRABS FROM EVERETT HARBOR
Lesion
Type
Necrosis
Granulomas
Mel am" zed
nodules
Tissue
Type
Gill
Eye
Hepatopancreas
Bladder
Antenna! gland
Thoracic ganglion
Midgut
Gill
Eye
Hepatopancreas
Bladder
Antennal gland
Thoracic ganglion
Midgut
Gill
Eye
Hepatopancreas
Bladder
Antennal gland
Thoracic ganglion
Midgut
Inner Harbor
% affected
(n=20)
5
15
20
10
45
45
10
10
0
10
25
15
5
5
35
5
10
10
0
0
5
Outer Harbor
% affected
(n=20)
5
15
25
10
25
45
5
25
0
15
30
10
5
15
45
10
0
10
0
0
0
-------
Data Synthesis
Choice of Indicators--
Because fecal coliform bacteria have been used widely as a microbial
indicator of water quality, the following analysis is based on available
data for fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in Port Gardner and the
Snohomish River estuary. Data on microbial indicators other than coliform
bacteria are not available for the project area. However, U.S. EPA has
proposed the use of enterococci bacteria in place of fecal coliform bacteria
because of the close correspondence in the distributions of enterococci
bacteria and pathogenic microbes. Microbiological indicators of water
quality will be evaluated further during an upcoming workshop sponsored
by U.S. EPA.
Available Data and Station Locations--
Bacteriological measurements in the Everett Harbor area have been
made principally through the Ecological Baseline Monitoring Program (ECOBAM)
(English et al. 1976) and through the WDOE Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
Program (U.S. EPA 1985). Data available from ECOBAM (1973-1981) include
only total coliform bacteria concentrations and thus are of little use
in estimating the extent of fecal contamination. Fecal coliform bacteria
data from the WDOE Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program were obtained
from intermittent monitoring of nine stations since 1973. Four of these
stations (PSS008, PSS015, PSS019 and PSS020 in Map 34) were monitored on
a regular basis from 1980 through 1984. In addition to the WDOE monitoring
data, Singleton et al. (1982) analyzed unreplicated grab samples for fecal
coliform bacteria collected from both the Snohomish River and Ebey Slough
in 1981. No data on the levels of fecal coliform bacteria in shellfish
from the Everett Harbor project area were found.
Reference Data--
Reference data for microbiological indicators are based on Washington
State standards for coliform bacteria concentrations in water [WDOE and
Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and in shellfish
tissue (DSHS)].
The maximum allowable fecal coliform bacteria levels for commercial
shellfish harvesting areas certified by the Washington Department of Social
and Health Services are as follows:
• Shellfish tissue - 230 organisms/100 g
• Water - A median of 14 organisms/100 ml with not more than
10 percent of the samples exceeding 43/100 ml (note: this
is virtually identical to standard for Class A marine waters,
see below).
WDOE standards for fecal coliform bacteria for the waters of the project
area are as follows:
62
-------
Class A Marine - "...shall not exceed a geometric mean value
of 14 organisms/100 ml with not more than 10 percent of
samples exceeding 43 organisms/100 ml" [WAC 173-201-045(1)
• Class B Marine - "...shall not exceed a geometric mean value
of 100 organisms/100 ml, with not more than 10 percent of
samples exceeding 200 organisms/100 ml" [WAC 173-201-045(3)
(c)d)(B)]
• Class A Freshwater
Special Case - "Snohomish River from mouth and east
of longitude 1220 13' 40» w upstream to latitude 47°
56' 30" N ... shall not exceed a geometric mean value
of 200 organisms/100 ml with not more than 10 percent
of samples exceeding 400 organisms/100 ml" [WAC 173-201-0-
80(98)]
For the remainder of the navigable portion of the Snohomish
River - "...shall not exceed a geometric mean value
of 100 organisms/100 ml, with not more than 10 percent
of samples exceeding 200 organisms/100 ml" [WAC 173-201-
045(2)(c)(i)(A)].
Note that the apparent problem of "double standards" (i.e., WDOE vs. DSHS)
is avoided because the entire Class B Marine waters area is uncertif iabl e
due to the number of potential pollutant sources, and not necessarily to
the abundance of fecal coliform bacteria.
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--
The following analyses used data from the WDOE Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Program and Singleton et al . (1982). The fecal coliform bacteria
standards (WAC 173-201-045) do not stipulate the period of time that the
data should encompass for the calculation of the geometric mean bacterial
concentration (1 yr, 2 yr, or the entire period of record). The following
analyses were conducted on data from two time periods: 1973-1977 and 1980-
1984. Data from stations sampled by Singleton et al . (1982) were grouped
by geographic location to obtain an adequate sample size for calculation
of a geometric mean. EAR values were calculated by dividing the geometric
mean bacterial concentration by the appropriate standard stipulated in
WAC 173-201-045 (Table 50). For example, the geometric mean concentration
at Station PSS019 (located in Class A marine waters) was 2 organisms/100 ml.
The regulations stipulate that fecal coliform bacteria in Class A marine
water will not exceed a geometric mean of 14 organisms/100 ml, with not
more than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 43 organisms/100 ml. Therefore,
the calculated EAR is 0.14 (Table 50). In addition, only 2 percent of
the samples exceeded 43 organisms/100 ml. EAR values were calculated in
a similar manner for other stations (see Map 34 and Table 50).
63
-------
TABLE 50. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA DATA AND MEAN
ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) VALUES FOR EVERETT HARBOR
Area
Possession Sound
at Tulalip
Port Gardner-
Heyerhaeuser
Dock
Port Gardner-
Pier 3
Port Gardner-
Scott Dock
Possession Sound-
East Gedney
Island
Snohomish River-
Highway 99
Snohomish River-
South Smith
Island
Snohomish River-
power lines
(Lowell)
Snohomish River-
above Everett
sewage treatment
plant
Snohcmlsh Rlver-
below Everett
sewage treatment
plant
Ebev Slough-
Harysvllle
Ebey Slough-
downstrean of
Marysville
sewage treat-
Dent plant
Station
PSS002
PSS005
PSS006
PSS009
PSS019
PSS015
PSS015
PSS016
PSS018
R1-R6
R7-R9
PSS020
PSS020
E17
Number Fecal Col i form Bacteria/100 ml
of Minimum Maximum
Years Samples Value Value Geometric Mean EAR
1973-1976 46 1 40 3
1973-1976 46 0 160 4
1980-1984 35 6 5.400 91
1973-1976 46 1 220 14
1980-1984 34 1 59 2
1973-1979 46 2 660 83.2
1980-1984 37 10 710 147
1973-1975 19 0 450 54
1973-1977 32 2 600 55
1981 6 400 600 490
1981 3 470 780 629
1973-1979 32 10 800 86
1980-1984 38 4 2.100 139
1981 2 37 2.600 310
0.21
0.04
0.91°
0.14
0.14
0.42
0.74°
0.27
0.28
2.45C
3.15C
0.43
0.7fll>
1.551:
Water Use
Classifications
Class A-Marine
Class B-Harine
Class B-Mar1ne
Class B-Marine
Class A-Marine
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Class A-Freshwater
Reference
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA,
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA,
EPA.
EPA,
EPA,
Singleton
Singleton
U.S.
U.S.
EPA,
EPA.
Singleton
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
et al.
et al.
Region
Region
et al.
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
X (1985)
(1982)
(1982)
X (1985)
X (1985)
(1982)
a Washington state standards for fecal collform bacteria 1n the water column
are defined In the text.
D More than 10 percent of the samples exceeded state standard.
c Inadequate number of samples to detemlne If 10 percent of samples exceeded
standard.
-------
In Table 50, elevations (EAR) greater than 1 indicate that the geometric
mean concentration exceeded the standard while values below 1 indicate
that the geometric mean concentration was below the water quality standard.
The calculated elevations indicate that standards for the geometric mean
concentration were not exceeded at the WDOE Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
Program stations. The geometric mean concentration at Station PSS008 was
close to exceeding the standard (EAR=0.91), while the geometric mean concen-
tration at Station PSS019 was much lower than the standard (EAR=0.14).
Although the geometric mean concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria at
the WDOE monitoring stations did not exceed the geometric mean standard,
water quality standards were violated at both Stations PSS008 and PSS020,
where more than 10 percent of the samples exceeded 200 organisms/100 ml
and 400 organisms/100 ml, respectively. This indicates that the variability
was great, with high individual values recorded even though the geometric
mean complied with the standard. During a single sampling period in 1981,
the water quality standard based on the geometric mean concentration was
violated at stations in the Snohomish River and Ebey Slough sampled by
Singleton et al. (1982). The geometric mean concentration of fecal coliform
bacteria at three stations below the Everett sewage treatment plant was
^cre than three times the standard (Table 50).
To examine recent temporal trends in microbial contamination, EAR
values were calculated for the period 1973-1979 and the period 1980-1984
using the WDOE monitoring data from the two stations with long-term records.
The 1980-1984 elevations calculated for Stations PSS015 (EAR=0.74) and
PSS020 (EAR=0.70) were higher than the 1973-1979 values (EAR=0.42 for Station
PSS015 and EAR=0.43 for Station PSS020). This suggests that the microbiological
quality of the Snohomish River estuary may have degraded slightly in recent
years compared to the mid- to late-1970s.
Note that sampling was not conducted during the winter months, which
are generally characterized by high rainfall and surface water runoff.
Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria generally increase during periods
of high rainfall and surface water runoff in the Puget Sound area (Tomlinson
and Patten 1982; Lilja, J., 6 June 1985, personal communication). Even
though the WDOE database is limited (sampling not conducted during the
winter months), seasonal trends are apparent, with fecal coliform bacteria
increasing during the late fall. Taking this into account, it is probable
that the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria would be higher in the
winter months, thereby increasing the geometric mean and perhaps causing
some stations to exceed the standards.
64
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC PROBLEM AREAS
In this section, the selected data for indicators of sediment contamina-
tion, toxicity, and biological effects are integrated to evaluate toxic
contamination problems in Everett Harbor. Analysis of problem areas and
their priority ranking was performed at three levels of spatial resolution.
First, six of the nine study areas described previously were ranked using
the Action Assessment Matrix and the ranking criteria discussed in the
Decision-Making Approach section. Second, portions (segments) of the East
Waterway, which ranked highest in the previous analysis, were evaluated.
Finally, individual stations were ranked on the basis of sediment chemistry
data alone. The final ranking of problem areas reflects the information
gained from each level of spatial analysis, but is primarily based on study
areas and segments. This approach provided representative data for several
indicators of contamination and effects, while maintaining a relatively
high degree of spatial resolution in the most contaminated area (East Waterway).
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Analysis of six study areas within the Everett Harbor system was performed
using the Action Assessment Matrix. Elevation above reference (EAR) values
compiled from different kinds of studies are shown in Table 51. Data were
not available for Ebey, Steamboat, and Union Sloughs. Reference values
are shown at right on the table. For benthic infauna, mean reference conditions
across all habitats are shown for comparison. As discussed previously,
benthic infauna EAR values were calculated by matching sediment type and
depth of the study area site to similar conditions in the reference area.
For perspective in interpreting Table 51, note that:
t 40 percent response corresponds to an EAR of about 10 for
the amphipod bioassay and an EAR of about 25 for the oyster
bioassay
• 80 percent depression of a benthic infaunal variable corresponds
to an EAR of 5, and 95 percent depression corresponds to
an EAR of 20
• 5 percent prevalence of neoplasms corresponds to an EAR
of 50
t 80th percentile of sediment chemistry based on the ranking
of all stations (Appendix D) corresponds to EAR values of
58 for LPAH; 72 for HPAH; 65 for PCBs; and 11 for the sum
of copper, lead, and zinc.
Significant elevations for one or more indices of sediment contamination
were found in all six areas. However, only the East Waterway showed a
significant elevation for selected metals. Average sediment chemistry
indices were generally highest in the East Waterway, followed by South
Port Gardner and the Snohomish River. Sediment toxicity and biological
65
-------
TABLE 51. ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX OF AVERAGE SEDIMENT
CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT TOXICITY, AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS INDICES FOR
EVERETT HARBOR STUDY AREAS
Elevation Above Reference
South Offshore Snohomish Port Gardner
East Port Port River Snohomish Disposal
Variable Waterway Gardner Gardner Delta River Site Reference
Sediment contamination
LPAH r~~56~* """50"!
HPAH 64 45 !
PCB 59 ,_ 12 j
Cu+Pb+Zn L__1_Q_J ~~4~
Arsenic ~3 4
Sediment toxicity
Amphipod mortality 8.5
Oyster abnormality 13
Benthic infauna
Total abundance 7.8
Total taxa 11
Amphipod abundance 55
Dominance index 6.3
Fish pathology
Fngl ish sole . .-
Neoplasms 100 | 72 I
Preneoplasms 9.1 4.7
Meg. hepatosis 26 | 13
Bioaccunulation
English sole muscle
PCB 1.4
Cu+Pb+Zn 1.4
Arsenic 0.26
7 18"! 4 <79
1 L 18] | 28 ! ,r 33l <41
"1 L_lQj L__5J <6
3333 35,000
4334 3,370
3.1 4.
PsTTl 1.
3.6 4.4 7.7 3.3 449/0.
1.0 4.5 6.6 2.3 71/0.
9.1 4.8 33 | 56| 27/0.
12 2.7 3.3 4.8 16/0.
I 2l| 0
3.3 0 1.
[474] 0 1.
3.6 36
1.5 <4,000
0.14 7,900
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
0%
6%
1 m2
1 m2
m^
1 m2
0%
9%
9%
Ppb
ppb
ppb
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values are based on average conditions within each area.
No data were available for Ebey, Steamboat, and Union Sloughs.
I |= Significant EAR.
For sediment contamination only:
| | - Significant, EARnOO.
r~~~j = Significant, EAR<100.
LPAH - Low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
HPAH - High molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
-------
effects variables were also highest in the East Waterway. Significant
elevations of liver lesion prevalences in English sole were found in the
East Waterway, South Port Gardner, and the Snohomish River Delta, whereas
none of the selected lesions were observed in a limited sampling (n=ll English
sole) of the Snohomish River. Substantial elevations of bioaccumulation
indices were not observed, but limitations of the available data preclude
any conclusions at present.
As indicated by the missing values in Table 51, data gaps exist for
all indices in the three sloughs and for sediment toxicity, bioaccumulation,
and pathology in most study areas. Data for benthic infauna are limited
to a few stations in each of five study areas. Because the data are limited,
all study areas were included in the priority ranking analyses presented
below.
PROBLEM AREA RANKING
As discussed in the introduction to this section, action-priority
rankings were developed for three levels of spatial resolution: study
areas, segments within areas, and single stations. These three levels
of spatial analysis are discussed below, followed by final results of the
ranking analysis. For consistency, the highest rank is always applied
to the site with the highest priority for source evaluation and remedial
action.
Ranking of Study Areas
The ranking criteria presented in the Decision-Making Approach section
(Table 5) were applied to the Action Assessment Matrix (Table 51) to establish
the priority order of study areas. Because data on biological effects
are missing from many study areas, rankings based on sediment chemistry
and biological indicators were not established separately. Also, the limited
data for bioaccumulation did not allow assessment of public health risks.
The final rank for a study area was obtained by first summing ranks for
different indicator categories and then normalizing the actual sum of ranks
to the maximum attainable with the available data. This normalization
step was necessary to avoid bias towards lower values for study areas with
missing data.
If all data were present for an area, the maximum possible rank score
would be 23, based on the sum of the following maximum rank scores for
different data types:
• Maximum of 4 each for organic compounds and metals, with
a maximum sum of 8 for sediment contamination
t Maximum of 4 for sediment toxicity
• Maximum of 4 for benthic infauna
• Maximum of 4 for English sole pathology
t Maximum of 3 for English sole bioaccumulation.
66
-------
TABLE 52. NORMALIZED RANK SCORES FOR SIX
STUDY AREAS IN EVERETT HARBORa
Area Score
East Waterway 65
South Port Gardner 50
Port Gardner Disposal Site 50
Snohomish River 38
Offshore Port Gardner 25
Snohomish River Delta 25
a Normalized ranks score is the percentage
of total possible rank. Higher scores
indicate higher priority problem areas.
See text for explanation.
-------
A maximum possible score was determined for each area. The actual rank
score for each area was then normalized to the maximum possible score and
multiplied by 100.
Normalized rank scores for the six study areas are presented in Table 52.
The East Waterway ranked highest, with particularly high individual scores
for indices of sediment toxicity, infauna, and pathology. South Port Gardner
and the Port Gardner Disposal Site ranked as the next highest priority
problem areas. However, few data are available for the disposal site,
and the single high infauna EAR of 56, indicating a severe depression of
amphipod abundance, had a strong influence on the rank. Offshore Port
Gardner and the Snohomish River Delta ranked as the lowest priority areas.
Ranking of Study Area Segments
A more detailed spatial analysis of potential problem areas in the
East Waterway was performed. Because of the limited data for bioaccumulation
and pathology, these indicators could not be used to rank site-specific
problems. Thus, only the EAR values for sediment chemistry, toxicity bioassays,
and benthic infauna were used in the following analysis. Data limitations
precluded similar analyses of areas other than the East Waterway.
First, maps of East Waterway stations were overlaid to determine study
area segments suitable for analysis. The objective was to define the smallest
site possible while maximizing the number of indicators with available data.
In most cases, clusters of stations were easily identified. A boundary was
drawn around each station cluster to define study area segments (Figure 17).
For example, in the northern portion of the East Waterway, segment boundaries
were drawn to enclose bioassay stations that were represented by a single
composite sample (e.g., Stations U8-E10 and U8-E13 in Map 20). Infaunal
stations (e.g., Station U5-E5 in Map 24) and sediment chemistry stations
(e.g., Stations B6-E10 and B6-E13 in Map 8) enclosed by these boundaries
were then included in the corresponding segment. Distributions of stations
within segments are shown in Figure 17. Each segment was assigned an alpha-
numeric code, where the number indicates the area in which the segment
is located and the letter identifies the specific site.
Two sets of data were compiled for segment-specific EAR values, using
the Action Assessment Matrix format. One matrix was based on mean elevations
using data from all stations. The other was based on the highest elevations,
using data from the single "worst" station within each segment. The high-
elevation method was used to avoid loss of information about peaks of contami-
nation and effects through averaging. Criteria used to rank study area
segments were the same as those used for larger study areas (see above,
Decision-Making Approach, Table 5). Ranks for different indicators were
summed and normalized to a maximum possible rank score.
The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 53 and 54 and Figure 18.
In general, segments that ranked high by one method also ranked high by
the other method. A large difference between the two ranks assigned to
a segment indicates substantial heterogeneity in conditions within the
segment. Examples of relatively heterogeneous segments are Segments 1C,
IE, 1G, and 1H. All other segments were ranked similarly by both methods.
67
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
B SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ONLY
BENTHIC INFAUNA ONLY
BIOASSAY ONLY
• SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY + BIOASSAY *
YARDS
METERS
Figure 17. Locations of study area segments within East
Waterway.
-------
TABLE 53. ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX OF AVERAGE SEDIMENT
CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT TOXICITY, AND BENTHIC INFAUNA INDICATORS FOR
STUDY SEGMENTS WITHIN EAST WATERWAY
Variable
East Waterway Segment Elevations
C D E F
Reference
Sediment chemistry
LPAH r "23]
HPAH 24!
PCB 70]
Cu+Pb+Zn , 13 j
As 2.8
Sediment toxicity
Amphipod bioassay 7.0
Oyster bioassay 20
Benthic infauna
Total abundance 1.5
Total taxa 18
Amphipod abundance 250
Dominance index 10
i 56
102
87 i
LJLlJ
3.5
7.2
0.6
12
36
11
"T91,
41!
84
,..UJ
2.4
9.4
18
2.1
18
130
12
"TO1 r"25] D
21 37
42 48!
L..15j u?.JLJ L.
2.6 3.3 t
10 15
7.1
61 ]
41 ;
85
11 ;
2401 791 i 46 1 <41 pDb
49; 58; 1 190 | <79 ppb
89 j 19! i 34 ; <6 ppb
22J L5.7j S.5.3J <35,000 ppb
\.l 3.6 3.0 3,370 ppb
12 2.2 2.0 4.0%
13 |6.3| 1.6%
1.6 1.3 3.9 449/0.1 m?
3.4 1.7 4.5 71/0.1 m2
25 I 111 0.9 27/0.1 m*
M 2.1 2.4 16/0.1 m2
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values are based on average conditions within each area.
= Significant EAR.
For sediment contamination only:
= Significant, EAR^IOO.
j = Significant, EAR<100.
LPAH - Low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
HPAH - High molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
-------
Variable
TABLE 54. ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX OF HIGHEST SEDIMENT
CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT TOXICITY, AND BENTHIC INFAUNA INDICATORS FOR
STUDY SEGMENTS WITHIN EAST WATERWAY
East Waterway Segment Elevations
C D E F
Reference
Sediment chemistry
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
Cu+Pb+Zn
As
Sediment toxlcity
Amphipod bioassay
Oyster bioassay
Benthic Infauna
Total abundance
Total taxa
Amphipod abundance
Dominance index
25
26
75
L3."8J
7.0
20
1.5
18
250
10
140
340
170
Xs"
8.7
0.6
12
36
11
110
120
120
15
11
29
2.1
18
130
12
r~24?
25!
45!
19'
i — fyj
3.0
1 io|
61
41
85
11
r~5~2~!
77!
63!
23[
17
7.1
1 420
|9T
[T30
p39
L§;?J
12
17
1.6
3.4
25
7.1
160
170
26
8.3!
2.2
6.3
1.3
1.7
2.2
110 <41 ppb
580 <79 ppb
51 <6 ppb
7.0 35,000 ppb
5._3_j 3,370 ppb
2.0 4.0%
1.6%
5.0 449/0.1 m2
4.5 71/0.1 m2
1.4 27/0.1 m2
2.8 16/0.1 m2
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values are based on average conditions within each area.
= Significant EAR.
For sediment contamination only:
= Significant, EAR>100.
= Significant, EAR<100.
i 1
LPAH - Low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
HPAH - High molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
-------
AVERAGE RANK
METHOD
HIGHEST RANK
METHOD
1F
1A,1B,1C
1D
1E
1G
1H
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
1C.1F
1A,1B
1E
10
1G
1H
Figure 18. Ranking of study area segments within East Water-
way based on integration of segment chemistry,
toxicity, and benthic infauna indicators.
-------
Ranking of Single Stations
Single stations were ranked according to sediment concentrations of
the selected indicators (Appendix E, Table E-2). The most contaminated
sites were generally located in the East Waterway. Stations that ranked
above the 80th percentile for each chemical variable are indicated by area
in Appendix E, Table E-l. The number of chemical indicators elevated above
the 80th percentile is shown for each of the highest ranked stations in
Figures 19 and 20. Three sites in the East Waterway ranked above the 80th
percentile for all four indicators (arsenic was excluded from this analysis
because of generally low concentrations in sediments throughout the project
area). These are
t Station B8-30 off Piers D and E at the head of the East
Waterway
t Station B9-1 near the pulp mill discharge (No. S-008) at
the northeast corner of the East Waterway
• Station B9-4 near CSO (No. E-011) and the pulp mill discharge
(S-003).
These stations generally fell within segments that ranked high by one or
both methods in the analysis discussed in the previous section.
Final Ranking of Problem Areas
The final ranking of study areas was based on the Action Assessment
Matrix (Table 51) and normalized rank scores (Table 52). To avoid loss
of information due to averaging results from multiple stations, the final
ranking for East Waterway segments was based on the highest rank method.
As shown in Figure BP30 above, segments tended to cluster into groups.
Two of the segments scored above 80 on the normalized rank scale. Four
segments scored between 60 and 70, and two segments scored below 45. Because
rank scores for study areas (Table 52) and segments (Figure 18) are not
directly comparable, mean EAR values for all indicators were examined to
determine the ranking of study areas relative to East Waterway segments.
The final priority ranking for interim action is shown below in approximate
rank order within major priority categories:
• HIGHEST PRIORITY » East Waterway (Segments IF, 1C, 1A, IB,
IE, and ID)
• SECOND PRIORITY = South Port Gardner (Mukilteo), Port Gardner
Disposal Site, Snohomish River, East Waterway (Segments G
and H)
t NO IMMEDIATE ACTION = Offshore Port Gardner, Snohomish River
Delta.
The results are summarized in Figure 21 and Table 55. The highest priority
sites, which were all located in the East Waterway, exhibited evidence
of high contamination and biological effects. In these areas, organic
68
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • HISTORICAL
TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
EVERETT
1 2
NAUTICAL MILES
KILOMETERS
2 CONTOURS IN FEET
Figure 19. Chemical indicators elevated
above the 80th percent!le
in Everett Harbor.
STATIONS WHICH WERE SAMPLED (T^HRAH > 80TH PERCENTILE
FOR FOUR CHEMICAL INDICATORS
Cu + Ft) + Zn > 80TH PERCENTILE
€>
ILPAH > BOTH PERCENTILE
)PCBs > 80th PERCENTILE
-------
WHICH WERE SAMPLED
FOR FOUR CHEMICAL INDICATORS
> BOTH PERCENTILE
> 80TH PERCENTILE
+ Pb + Zn > 80TH PERCENTILE
> 80th PERCENTILE
P
250
CONTOURS IN FEET
EVERETT
-<3 SURFACE RUNOFF
^ cso
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
0 250 500
YARDS
METERS
0
500
Figure 20. Chemical indicators elevated above the 80th
percentile in East Waterway.
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
PRIORITY FOR INTERIM ACTION
HIGHEST PRIORITY
SECOND PRIORITY
NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
Figure 21. Final ranking of study areas
for interim action.
I | INSUFFICIENT DATA
(CLEAR AREAS)
-------
TABLE 55. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AREAS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Area/Segment
Highest Priority
EWSC IF
EWS 1C
EWS 1A
EWS IB
EWS IE
EWS 10
Second Priority
S. Pt. Gardner
Pt. Gardner Disposal
Site
Snohomlsh River
EWS 1G
EWS 1H
No Immediate Action
Offshore Pt. Gardner
Snohomish River Delta
Organics
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
0
2
Metals
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Rank
Bioassays
4
3
3
2
4
2
_
-
.
2
0
2
-
Scorea
Bioaccum-
Infauna Pathology ulation
4
4
4
4
-
4 - -
4
4
400
1
0
2
0 2
Potential Major Sourcesb
Scott Outfall S003
Scott Outfall S008, Norton
Terminal SD, Historical
Scott Outfalls
No local sources
No local sources
No local sources
No local sources
Defense fuel storage facility;
Mukilteo wastewater treat-
ment plant
Dredged material disposal
Upstream sources - Tidegates,
Marshland Canal; CSO E016 & E017
Hewitt and Bond St. CSO (E008)
Bond St. CSO (E006); Historical
Weyerhaeuser Sulfite/TM plant
outfalls
No local sources
Tulalip sewage discharge;
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill effluent;
Snohomish River estuary;
Tulalip landfill
a Rank scores are based on average elevation above reference values (Tables 51 and 53 ) and
ranking criteria (Table 5).
b Potential sources may include historical contributions, especially within the East Waterway.
c EWS = East Waterway segments (see Figure 17 for locations of segments).
-------
compounds and metals were generally elevated to levels more than 10 times
reference values, and sediment toxicity and infaunal indicators were elevated
substantially. The second priority sites showed evidence of elevated organic
compounds, but not metals. In addition, substantial sediment toxicity
or biological effects were observed. Although bioassay and infaunal indicators
were not significantly elevated in Segment 1H, this area was included in
the second priority group because of the extreme values for organic compounds
in sediments, especially high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons. Sites classified as requiring no immediate action showed evidence
of low contamination and lesser biological effects.
A detailed evaluation of specific sources of the environmental contami-
nation just discussed is not possible with the available data. However,
potential sources were identified near contaminated areas (Table 55).
Identification of potential sources was usually based on proximity of the
source to the contaminated area. Because limited data are available on
source quality and contaminant loadings, further data collection and analysis
are needed to relate environmental contamination to sources.
69
-------
REFERENCES
Ambrose, W.G., Jr. 1984. Increased emigration of the amphipod Rhepoxynius
abronius (Barnard) and the polychaete Nephtys caeca (Fabricius) in the
presence of invertebrate predators. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 80:67-75.
AMBR001F
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1984. Standard practice for
conducting static acute toxicity tests with larvae of four species of
bivalve molluscs. ASTM-E724-80. American Society of Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. 11.04:259-275.
ASTM002F
Anderson, J.W., and E.A. Crecelius. 1985. Analysis of sediments and soils
for chemical contamination for the design of U.S. Navy Homeport facility at
Zast n'aterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Battelle Northwest, Sequim, WA.
35 pp.
BNWS006F
Bailey, A. 15 July 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Bailey, A. 9 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Barrick, R.C., and F.G. Prahl. (In review). Hydrocarbon geochemistry of
the Puget Sound Region. III. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment.
BARR005D
Battelle Northwest. 1983. Draft tables of chemical and biological analyses
of selected sediments from Puget Sound. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
27 pp.
BNWS002D
Battelle Northwest. 1985. Detailed chemical and biololgical analyses of
selected sediments from Puget Sound. Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA Region X,
Seattle, WA. 300 pp.
BNWS009D
R.W. Beck and Associates. 1980. Lower Snohomish Basin 201 facilities plan.
Technical Appendix D. Water quality considerations, Snohomish County,
Washington. Prepared for Snohomish County Planning Department, Everett, WA.
SCPD006F
Bellan-Santini, D. 1980. Relationship between populations of amphipods and
pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:224-227.
BELL101F
70
-------
Boesch, D.F. 1982. Ecosystem consequences of alterations of benthic
community structure and function in the New York Bight region. In:
Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. G.F.
Mayer (ed). Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC. 715 pp.
BOES002F
Cardwell, R.D., and C.E. Woelke. 1979. Marine water quality compendium for
Washington State. Vol. II: Data. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, WA. 528 pp.
CARD002F
CH2M HILL. 1978. Lower Snohomish Basin 201 facilities plan. Technical
Appendix B. Infiltration inflow analysis for the city of Everett, Snohomish
County, Washington. Prepared for Snohomish County Planning Department,
Everett, WA.
SCPD004F
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1983. Additional marine sediment toxicity
tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning studies, METRO
Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C. 28 pp.
CHAP012D
Chapman, P.M.,
larvae. Bull
CHAP004F
and J.D. Morgan. 1983. Sediment
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:438-444.
bioassays with oyster
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, P. Mitchell, R.M. Kocan,
and M.L. Landolt. 1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon
Puget Sound biota. Ill: Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish, and Bellingham
Bays. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS QMS 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockvilie, MD.
CHAP008F
Colwell, R.R., and J. Listen. 1960. Microbiology of shellfish. Bacterio-
logical study of the natural flora of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas).
Appl. Microbiol. 8:194-209.
COLW001F
Connell, A.D., and D.D. Airey. 1979. Life-cycle bioassays using two
estuarine amphipods, Grandidierella lutosa and G_. lignorum. to determine
detrimental sublethal levels of marine pollutants. S. African J. Sci.
75:313-314.
CONN 201F
Cooley, R., R. Matasci, M.S. Merrill, and Brown and Caldwell. 1984.
Collection system evaluation. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical
Report A2. METRO Toxicant Program Report No. 4B. Municipality of Metropoli-
tan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MET0052F
Crecelius, E.A., M.H. Bothner, and R. Carpenter.
arsenic, antimony, mercury, and related elements
Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:325-333.
CREC001F
1975. Geochemistry of
in sediments of Puget
71
-------
Crecelius, E.A., N.S. Bloom and J.M. Gurtisen. 1984. Distribution of
contaminants in sediment cores and muds, balance of contaminants discharged
to East Waterway and Port Gardner, Everett, Washington. Draft Report.
Prepared for U.S. EPA Region X and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Battelle
Northwest, Sequim, WA.
BNWS008D
Cummins, J. 1984. Data tables and figures for bioassay, sediment chemis-
try, benthic infauna, and station locations. Puget Sound Survey. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
BNWS004D
Cunningham, D. 10 November 1982. Memo: Assessment of toxic pollutants in
English sole and rock sole in Everett Harbor and Port Gardner. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 28 pp.
WDOE141F
Debose, A., and M.W. Klungland. 1983. Soil survey of Snohomish County
area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington, DC. 197 pp.
USDA001F
Devoigne, D. 14 June 1984. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Tulalip Tribes, Everett, WA.
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Andersen, and E.A. Quinlan. 1981. A summary of know-
ledge of Puget Sound related to chemical contaminants. NOAA Technical
Memorandum OMPA-13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Boulder, CO. 435 pp.
DEXT001F
Ecology and Environment. 1984. Preliminary site inspection report of
Tulalip landfill. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, WA. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Seattle, WA.
EAEI001F
English, T.S., R.E. Pine, G.S. Jeane II, A. Moore, R.D. Cardwell, C.E.
Woelke, M.I. Carr, E.W. Sanborn, M.I. Malkoff, D.S. Kisker, and D.R.
Roetcisoender. 1976. Ecological baseline and monitoring study for Port
Gardner and adjacent waters. A summary report for the years 1972 through
1975. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
WDOE135F
Everett, City of. 1984. Wastewater treatment plant 1977 N.P.D.E.S. Permit
WA-002449-0 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. City of
Everett, WA.
WDOE156F
Everett, City of, and Brown and Caldwell. 1982. Draft environmental impact
statement for the south Everett drainage basins plan. City of Everett, WA.
EVER005F
72
-------
Finske, F. 20 June 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. WA.
Foster, R.F. 1943. Sources of pollution in the Snohomish River drainage
area. Pollution Series Bulletin No. 24. Washington State Pollution Commis-
sion, Olympia, WA.
FOST001F
Gahler, A.R., R.L. Arp, and J.M. Cummins. 1982. Chemical contaminants in
edible non-salmonid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Services Division, Seattle, WA. 117 pp.
GAHL001F
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. METRO
Toxicant Program Report No. 2. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Seattle, WA. 160 pp.
MET0036F
Hansen, D.J. 1974. Aroclor 1254: effects on composition of developing
estuarine animal communities in the laboratory. Contrib. Mar. Sci.
18:19-33.
HANS101F
Harmon, R., and J. Serwold. Unpublished. Maps of sediment and biological
characteristics in Everett Harbor and Port Susan. Shoreline Community
College, Seattle, WA.
HARM002F
Harper-Owes. 1983. Water quality assessment of the Duwamish Estuary,
Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0026F
Houser, L.S. (ed). 1965. National shellfish sanitation program manual of
operations. Part 1, sanitation of shellfish growing areas. Public Health
Service Publication, Washington, DC. 32 pp.
USPH001F
Huntamer, D. 1985. Analyses of Everett tire fire soil and water samples,
Everett, Snohomish County. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
WDOE188F
Kelley, C.B., W. Areisz, and M.W. Pusnell. 1960. Bacterial accumulation by
oyster Crassostrea virginica on the Gulf Coast. Tech. Report F60-4,
U.S. Department of Public Health Services, Washington, DC.
USPH002F
Lake Stevens Sewer District. 1984. 1983 N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA-002089-3 and
1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. Lake Stevens, WA.
WDOE150F
Landolt, M.L., D.B. Powell, and R.M. Kocan. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume VII, Section 8, Fish health.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 160 pp.
UWFR015F
73
-------
Leslie, B. 30 May 1985. Personal Comunication (conversation with Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). City of Mukilteo, WA.
Lie, U. 1968. A quantitative study of benthic infauna in Puget Sound,
Washington, U.S.A. in 1963-1964. Fiskeridir. Skr. Ser. Havunders. 14:229-
556.
LIE 001F
Lilja, J. 6 June 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Peter Nix).
Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA.
Long, E.R. 1984. Sediment bioassays: a summary of their use in Puget
Sound. NOAA Ocean Assessments Division, Seattle, WA. 30 pp.
LONG004F
Long, E.R., and P.M. Chapman. (In press). A sediment quality triad:
measures of sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community
composition in Puget Sound. Submitted to Mar. Pollut. Bull.
LON6005F
Malins, D.C. 1981. Data from sediments collected from central Puget Sound,
1979-1980. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 5 pp.
MALI010F
Malins, D.C. 1982. Letter to D. Moos. Re: pathological conditions of
English sole and rock sole in Everett Harbor. NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 3 pp.
MALI012F
Malins, D.C. 1984. 21 November 1984. Letter: pollution-related problems
with bottomfish in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center,
Seattle, WA. 8 pp.
MALI015F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O. Hodgins. 1980.
Chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities in central and southern
Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-2. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 295 pp.
MALI002F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, H.O. Hodgins, and
S.L. Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in fish and
invertebrates from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-19. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.
MALI003F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.-L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl,
P.G. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and
H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases of
bottom-dwelling fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Technol.
18:705-713.
MALI009F
74
-------
Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, L.D. Rhodes, M.S. Myers, B.B. McCain,
and S.-L. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in marine sediment and biota from
Mukilteo, Washington: relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic
lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus). JNCI 74:487-494.
MALI014F *~^
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, M.S. Myers, D.W. Brown, and S.-L. Chan. No date.
Liver diseases of bottom fish from Everett Harbor, Washington. Unpublished
report. NOAA Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 6 pp.
MALI013D
Manzanilla, E., and J.N. Cross. 1982. 1981-1982 Biennial Report. South.
Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long Beach, CA.
MANZ001F
Marysville, City of. 1984. 1983 municipal sewage treatment plant
N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA-002249-7 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring
Reports. City of Marysville, WA.
WDOE152F
McCain, B.B., M.S. Myers, and U. Varanasi. 1982. Pathology of two species
of flatfish from urban estuaries in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MCCA001F
McGrath, P. 1974. Benthic macrofaunal census of Raritan Bay; preliminary
results. In: Paper 24 in Hudson River Ecology, Third Symposium on Hudson
River Ecology, 22-23 March 1973. Hudson River Environmental Society, Inc.,
NY. 40 pp.
MCGR201F
Mearns, A., R. Swartz, J. Cummins, P. Dinnell, P. Plesha, and P.M. Chapman.
(In press). Interlaboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity test using
the marine amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. Submitted to Aquat. Toxicol.
MEAR003F
Mitchell, J.R., M.W. Presnell, E.W. Akin, J.M. Cummins, and O.C. Lice.
1966. Accumulation and elimination of poliovirus by the eastern oyster.
J. Epidem. 84:40-50.
MITC001F
Mowrer, J., J. Calambokidis, N. Musgrove, B. Drager, M.W. Beug, and S.G.
Herman. 1977. Polychlorinated biphenyls in cottids, mussels, and sediment
in southern Puget Sound, Washington. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
18:588-594.
MOWR001F
Moyer, W. 10 June 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). CH2M HILL, Bellevue, WA.
Munger, S.F., A.A. Heywood, R.T. Dutton, and R.G. Swartz. 1979. A survey
of the microbiological quality of shellfish on King County beaches.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0086F
75
-------
Hunger, S.F., T.F. Wetzler, A.A. Heyward, and R.G. Swartz. 1980. Isolation
of Yeisimia interocolitica from Saxidomus giganteus harvested from Seattle
beaches. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for
Microbiology, May, 1980.
MUNG001F
Newcomb, R.C. 1952. Ground water resources of Snohomish County, Washing-
ton. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1135. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
USGS035F
Oakden, J.M., J.S. Oliver, and A.R. Flegal. 1984. Behavioral responses of
a phoxocephalid amphipod to organic enrichment and trace metals in sedi-
ments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 14:253-257.
OAKD001F
Oliver, J.S., J.M. Oakden, and P.N. Slattery. 1982. Phoxocephalid amphipod
crustaceans as predators on larvae and juveniles in marine soft bottom
conmunities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 7:179-184.
OLIV001F
Olivers, C. 28 May 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). City of Everett, WA.
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. 1982. Estuarine and coastal
pollutant transport and transformation: the role of particulates. FY-80-82
Summary Report. FY82 Annual Report. NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 228 pp.
PMEL001F
Parametrix, Inc. 1985. Benthos of Everett Harbor, 1984. Draft report to
U.S. Department of the Navy, San Bruno, CA. 19 pp.
USDN005D
Pavlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, W. Horn, and K.A. Kroglund. 1977. Polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCB) in Puget Sound. Baseline data and methodology. Special
Report No. 75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR. 252 pp.
UWD0008F
Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 16:229-311.
PEAR001F
Prahl, F.G., and R. Carpenter. 1979. Role of zooplankton fecal pellets in
the sedimentation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Dabob Bay, Washing-
ton. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43:1959-1972.
PRAH001F
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1983. 1982 point source emis-
sions. Unpublished data. PSAPCA, Olympia, WA. 6 pp.
PSAP002F
76
-------
Randall, B. 9 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Defense Fuel Supply Center, Cameron Station, VA.
Rupert, H. 6 June 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer). Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett, WA.
Schell, W.R., and A. Nevissi. 1977. Heavy metals from waste disposal in
central Puget Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:887-893.
SCHE101F
Scott Paper Company. 1980. Scott Paper Company Everett plant 1980
N.P.D.E.S. permit. Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
WDOE155F
Scott Paper Company. 1984. Scott Paper Company Everett plant 1983 and
1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
WDOE155F
Shapiro and Associates, and A.L. Driscoll. 1978. Snohomish estuary
wetlands study. Volume II: base information and evaluation. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 335 pp.
COES015F
Singleton, L.R., D.E. Norton, and C. Haynes. 1982. Water quality of the
Snohomish River Estuary and possible impacts of a proposed Hewlett Packard
manufacturing plant. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 90 pp.
WDOE143F
Smith, J.E. 1977. A baseline study of invertebrates and of the environ-
mental impact of intertidal log rafting on the Snohomish River delta. Final
Report. Washington Cooperative Fishery Unit, College of Fisheries, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, WA. 84 pp.
SMIT302F
Smith, J.E., R. Conley, and C. Detrick. 1975. A report on the benthic
infauna and fish populations of Jetty Island and Mission Beach (Everett,
Washington). Washington Cooperative Fishery Unit, College of Fisheries,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 20 pp.
SMIT301F
Spencer, J.F. 1982. Testimony on Puget Sound toxic chemical pollution to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Attachments: bioassays
(Port Gardner), sulfite mills, shellfish harvests and closures. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
WDOE139D
Steimle, F., J. Caracciolog, and J.B. Pearce. 1982. Impacts of dumping on
New York Bight apex benthos. In: Ecological Stress and the New York
Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer (ed). Estuarine Research
Federation, Columbia, SC. 715 pp.
STEI101F
77
-------
Stober, Q.J., and K.B. Pierson. 1984. A review of the water quality and
marine resources of Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 256 pp.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for the toxicity
of sediment to marine macrobenthos. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 51:944-
950.
SWAR010F
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole.
1981. Sediment toxicity, contamination, and benthic community structure
near ocean disposal sites. Estuaries 4:258.
SWAR014F
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, K.A. Sercu, and J.O. Lamberson. 1982. Sediment
toxicity and the distribution of amphipods in Commencement Bay, Washington,
USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:359-364.
SWAR011F
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K.P. Jones, J.O. Lamberson, and F.A. Cole.
1985a. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity.
pp. 284-307. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Sym-
posium. R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.C. Bahner (eds). ASTM STP 854.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
SWAR009F
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole.
1985b. Sediment toxicity, contamination and macrobenthic communities near a
large sewage outfall. ASTM STP 865:152-175. American Society of Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
SWAR008F
Tetra Tech. 1984. A decision-making approach for the Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund Project. Prepared for the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 64 pp.
TTB 010F
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investi-
gation. Final Report. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
TTB 051F
Tetra Tech. 1985b. Elliott Bay Toxics Action Plan: initial data summaries
and problem identification. Draft Report, EPA Contract 68-03-1977. Prepared
for U.S. EPA Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA.
TTB 061D
Tetra Tech. 1985c. Remedial activities and plans. Everett Harbor Toxics
Action Plan. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 59 pp.
TTB HID
78
-------
Tetra Tech. 1985d. Sampling and analysis design for development of Elliott
Bay Toxics Action Plan. Final Report. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 69
pp.
TTB 112F
Tomlinson, R., and M. Patten. 1982. Puget Sound monitoring program.
Annual report for the water quality review board. Unpublished report.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 30 pp.
MET0087F
Townsend, L.D., A. Eriksen, and H. Cheyne. 1941. Pollution of Everett
Harbor. Pollution Series Bulletin No. 3. Washington State Pollution
Commission, Olympia, WA. 56 pp.
TOWN001F
Tulalip Tribes of Washington. 1984. Wastewater treatment plant 1977
N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA-002480-5 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring
Reports. Tulalip Tribes, Marysville, WA.
WDOE189F
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1385. U.S. Navy Homeport facility at East
Waterway, Everett Harbor, Washington: biological and chemical analyses of
sediments. Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 15 pp.
USDN008D
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1982. Geohydrologic study No.
38-26-0203-83, Defense Fuel Support Point, Mukilteo, WA, 12-17 July 1982.
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen Proving Gnd, MD.
AEHA001F
U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1983. Groundwater monitoring reports of
the Defense Fuel Support Point, Mukilteo, WA. Prepared for U.S. Defense Fuel
Supply Center, Cameron Station, VA. U.S. Air Force Logistics Center,
Mukilteo, WA.
USAF001F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water quality criteria
documents: availability. Federal Register 45:79318-79379. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
EPA 017F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Port Gardner deep water
sediment survey. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 18 pp.
EPAX019F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Development document for
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard point source category. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 273 pp.
EPA 048F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the nationwide
urban runoff program. Volume I. Final Report. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
186 pp.
EPA 049F
79
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Everett Harbor area STORE!
water quality data, 1973-84. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
EPAX015F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X. 1983. Metals analyses for
Everett Harbor deep water sediment survey. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA. 1 pp.
EPAX020F
U.S. Federal Water Control Administration, and Washington State Pollution
Control Commission. 1967. Pollutional effects of pulp and paper mill
wastes in Puget Sound. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Portland, OR. 473 pp.
USFW001F
U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. Flow data for Quilceda Creek and Munson
Creek, near Marysville, Washington, 1949-1969. U.S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma, WA. 4 pp.
USGW001F
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Urban hydrology for small water-
sheds. Technical Release No. 55. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA. 109 pp.
SCS 001F
URS. 1977a. Snohomish County Metropolitan Municipal Corporation/King
County 208 water quality management plan. Technical Appendix II. Water
quality sampling. URS Company, Seattle, WA. 167 pp.
URSC006F
URS. 1977b. Snohomish County Metropolitan Municipal Corporation/King
County 208 areawide water quality management plan. Technical Appendix
III. Water quality modeling. URS Company, Seattle, WA. 236 pp.
URSC007F
VanBlaricom, G.R. 1982. Experimental analyses of structural regulation in
a marine sand community exposed to oceanic swell. Ecol. Monogr. 52:283-305.
VANB002F
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974a. Bacteriological results of seawater and sediment
samples taken from Ebey Slough and the barge canal passing through the
Tulalip landfill operation, October 7, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 4 pp.
EPAX021F
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974b. Bacteriological results of four grab samples
taken at the leachate and several points on the barge canal on August 8,
1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 3 pp.
EPAX022F
80
-------
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1976. Bacteriological results of water and sediment
samples collected on June 8, 1976 from Tulalip landfill site. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 12 pp.
EPAX023F
Washington Department of Ecology. 1974. Fact sheet for Weyerhaeuser
Company sulfite pulp mill N.P.D.E.S. Permit application. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 6 pp.
WDOE187F
Washington Department of Ecology. 1982. Weyerhaeuser pulp mills on Everett
Harbor. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 3 pp.
WDOE138F
Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review
with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 18:653-694.
WASH001F
Weyerhaeuser Company. 1983. Weyerhaeuser Company Everett kraft mill 1983
N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA-00300-0. Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett, WA.
WDOE149F
Weyerhaeuser Company, and Scott Paper Company. Unpublished. ECOBAM.
Pollution abatement costs from 1951-1980 and BOD discharge values. Weyer-
haeuser Corporation, Everett, WA. 10 pp.
WEYC001D
Woelke, C.E. 1972. Development of a receiving water quality bioassay
criterion based on the 48-hour Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryo.
Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 93 pp.
WDOF001F
Word, J.Q., P.L. Striplin, K. Keeley, J. Ward, P. Sparks-McConkey, L.
Bentler, S. Hulsman, K. Li, J. Schroeder, and K. Chew. 1984. Renton sewage
treatment plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume V, Section 6,
Subtidal benthic ecology. University of Washington Fisheries Research
Institute, Seattle, WA. 461 pp.
UWFR013F
81
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA EVALUATIONS SUMMARY TABLES
-------
APPENDIX A
Data evaluations are summarized for individual study types (pollutant
source, sediment contamination and bioaccumulation, sediment bioassays,
subtidal and intertidal benthic infaunal communities and fish pathology)
in the following appendix. Two summaries are provided for each study type.
The first table lists the evaluation summaries for all documents reviewed
for Everett Harbor. A summary of the scope of the accepted studies follows
in a second table.
The first table lists the document code of each study evaluated.
Full references can be found in Everett Harbor library list. The remaining
information includes the final conclusion as to whether or not the study
was acceptable for the purposes of source evaluation and problem area identifica-
tion, and the adequacy of the procedures for sample collection, sampling
handling, quality assurance, and analyses. In the case of biological studies,
analyses refer to statistical analyses. In all other cases the term refers
to laboratory analytical techniques.
A summary of the scope of the accepted studies follows each of the
above tables. The format for the accepted studies table varies by study
type but all present the following information: document code (full reference
is in Appendix B), author/year citation, period of study, type of samples
taken, variables measured or analyzed, number of stations, number of replicates
per station and number of times a station was sampled during the study
period.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDIES
Document No.
AEHA001F
EAEI001F
EPA 049F
EPAX015F
EPAX021F
EPAX022F
EPAX023F
EVER005F
URSC006F
USAF001F
USGS032F
USGW001F
WDOE143F
WDOE149F
WDOE150F
WDOE152F
WDOE153F
WDOE155F
WDOE156F
WDOE188F
WDOE189F
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SC
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
SH
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
QA
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AM
N
A
A
N
A
A
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
DL
N
A
A
N
A
A
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Comments
Mukilteo Defense Fuel Support
Point - groundwater
Tulalip - leachate (metals)
NURP study
Pigeon Creek #1
Tulalip landfill - bacteria
Tulalip landfill - bacteria
Tulalip landfill - bacteria
South Port Gardner - runoff
Marshland Canal ;
Pigeon Creek #1
Mukilteo - groundwater
Snohomish River near Munroe
Statistical summary of
Quilceda Creek flow
Snohomish Estuary study
Weyerhaeuser Co. DMR
Lake Stevens DMR
Marysville DMR
Mukilteo DMR (only 11-12/84)
Scott Paper Co. DMR
Everett DMR
Everett tire fire
Tulalip DMR
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample
Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical Methods, DL = Detection Limits
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDIES
Document No.
AEHA001F
EAEI001F
EPA 049F
EPAX015F
EPAX021F
EPAX022F
EPAX023F
EVER005F
URSC006F
USAF001F
USGS032F
USGW001F
WDOE143F
WDOE149F
WDOE150F
WDOE152F
WDOE153F
Authors
U.S. Army Environ-
mental Hygiene Agency
Ecology and
Environment
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA, Region X
Vasconcelos
Vasconcelos
Vasconcelos
Everett, City of
URS Company
U.S. Department of
the Air Force
U.S. Geological
Survey
U.S. Geological
Survey
Singleton et al.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Lake Stevens
Sewer District
Marysville, City of
Mukilteo, City of
Year
1982
1984
1983
1985
1974a
1974b
1976
1982
1977
1983
1985
1985
1982
1984
1984
1984
1984
Samples
GW
LE
RO
IND.RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RO
GW
RS
RS
WWTP.IND.RS
I NO
WWTP
WWTP
WWTP
Variables
Period
JP-4, Benzene, 1982-1983
Ethyl benzene,
Toluene, Chloroform
PP
PP.BOD.TSS,
Nutrients, Fecal
Metals.Nutrients,
BOD, TSS
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
BOD, TSS, Metals
Metals, BOD, TSS,
0, Fecal .Nutrients
JP-4, Ethyl
benzene, Toluene,
Ch 1 oroform, Benzene
Q
Q
Metals, BOD, TSS,
Q, Fecal .Nutrients
BOD, TSS, 0,
PP (one time only)
BOD.TSS.Q, Fecal
BOD.TSS.Q, Fecal
BOD.TSS.Q, Fecal
1984
1983
1972-1984
1974
1974
1976
1980-1981
1976-1977
1983
1963-1984
1947-1969
1980-1981
1983-1984
1983-1984
1983-1984
1983-1984
No.
Stations
12
2
81
1
4
4
10
4
-30
12
1
1
-50
2
1
1
1
No.
Replicates
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Times
4
1
Varies
Varies
1
1
1
1-2
3 Storms
3
Daily
Daily
Varies
Daily
Weekly; only 1983
data representative
Weekly
Weekly;only 1984
data acceptable
-------
TABLE A-2. (CONTINUED)
Document No.
WDOE155F
WDOE156F
WDOE188F
WDOE189F
Authors
Scott Paper Co.
Everett, City of
Huntamer
Tulalip Tribes "
Year
1984
1984
1985
1984
Samples
IND
WWTP
S.LE
WWTP
Variables
BOD , TSS, Q,
PP (one time only)
BOD.TSS.Q, Fecal,
Cr.Cu.Zn
Metals, PAH
BOD, TSS, Q, Fecal
Period
1983-1984
1983-1984
Dec 1984
1983-1984
No.
Stations
3
1
9
1
No.
Replicates
0
0
0
0
No.
Times
Daily
Daily.metals - quarterly
1
Weekly
SAMPLES: GW - Groundwater, IND - Industrial Discharge, LE - Leachate, RO - Runoff,
RS - Receiving Stream, S - Soils, WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
VARIABLES: BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Fecal - Fecal Coliform Bacteria,
Metals - Metals, PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
PP - Priority Pollutants, Q - Flow, TSS - Total Suspended Solids
-------
TABLE A-3. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION AND BIOACCUMULATION
Document No.
BATE001F
BNWS006F
BNWS007F
BNWS008D
BNWS009D
COES010F
EPAX005D
EPAX010F
EPAX019F
EPAX020F
JSAI004D
MALI002F
MALI003F
MALI014F
USDN008D
UWD0008D
SCHE103F
WDOE141F
Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
SC SH QA AM DL Comments
Nonpertinent chemistry
A A A A Metals data o.k.
Organics - some reservations
No date - scope of work
A A A A Metals o.k.
Organics - some reservations
A A A A Metals o.k.
Organics - some reservations
Review of Battelle work
Repeat of data in BNWS009D
No pertinent chemistry,
older review paper
N N N N M-A Metals o.k.
0-1 Organics all below detection
A N N N M-A Metals o.k.
0-1 Organics all below detection
No pertinent chemistry
No data from Everett
A A A A Metals o.k.
Organics need orig. data
A A A A A PAHs and PCBs only;
bioaccumulation data
A A A A A Metals o.k.
Organics with reservations
Outdated PCB data
Outdated metals data
A A N N A Bioaccumulation;
EPA Manchester Lab
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not
Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical
Available, SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample
Methods, DL = Detection Limits
A-5
-------
TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION AND BIOACCUMULATION STUDIES
o>
Document No.
BNWS006F
BNWS008D
BNWS009D
EPAX019F
EPAX020F
MALI 003 F
MALI014F
USON008D
WDOE141F
Authors
Anderson and
Crecelius
Crecelius et al.
Battelle Northwest
U.S. EPA, Region X
U.S. EPA, Region X
Mai ins et al.
Mai ins et al.
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Cunningham
Year
1985
1984
1985
1982
1983
1982
1985
1985
1982
Samples
23
6
25-'83
8- '84
35
11
3
2
11
English sole
Rock sole
(liver and
muscle)
Variables
Metals, PAH,
PCB, conv.
Metals, PAH,
PCB, conv.
Metals, PAH,
PCB, conv.
Metals
Metals, conv.
Metals, PAH,
PCB, pesticides
PAH
Metals, PAH,
PCB, conv.
Priority
pollutants
Period
1985
1984
1983-
1984
1982
1983
1981
1984
1984
October
1982
No.
Stations
23
6
25- '83
8- '84
35
11
3
2
11
3-4 5
No.
Replicates
1-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3-4
No.
Times
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE A-5. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS
Document No.
BNWS009D
USDN008D
CARD002F
WDOE135F
CHAP012F
CHAP008F
LONG004F
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
SC
A
N
A
A
N
A
SH
A
N
A
A
I
I
QA
N
N
A
A
A
A
AM
A/I
A/ 1
A
A
A
A
A/0
AO
A
0
OM
A
AOM
AOM
Comments
Use only detailed survey
data for amphipods
Composite samples, Everett
Harbor
Water column tests only
Water column tests only
Sediments frozen before
testing
Use only oyster larvae data
Overview of sediment
BNWS004D
No
bioassays
Only data; other info in
BNWS009D
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available,
SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical Methods,
A/0 = Amphipods (A), Oysters (0), or Miscellaneous (M).
A-7
-------
TABLE A-6. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAY STUDIES
Document No.
BNWS009D
USDN008D
CHAP008F
3>
l
00
Authors
Battelle Northwest
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Chapman et al.
Year
1985
1985
1984
Samples
8
75
10
Variables
Amp hi pod
mortality
Amp hi pod
mortality
Oyster
abnormality
Period
Apr-May
1984
Spring 1985
Spring
1983
No.
Stations
8
6
10
No.
Replicates
5
4
2
No.
Times
1
1
1
-------
TABLE A-7. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR BENTHIC INFAUNA STUDIES
Document No.
BNSW009D
COES014F
JSAI004D
SMIT301F
SMIT302F
SPEA001F
USDN001D
USDN002D
USDN005D
USDN008D
UWD0010F
WDOE135F
EPAX017F
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
SC
I
I
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SH
I
I
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
I
I
A
QA
I
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
N
N
N
AM Comments
A Grab subsampled
No data, general habitat
descriptions
No quantitative data
N Historical data.
Data prior to 1979
N Historical data.
Data prior to 1979
N
EIS - see USDN005D for data
N Conditional acceptance of
crab data - no infauna
N Sort error high for benthic
samples
Samples had high percent
of woodchips
No species information on
quantitative data
Historical data ECOBAM
A Intertidal data from beach
adjacent to disposal site
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample
Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical Methods
A-9
-------
TABLE A-8. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED BENTHIC INFAUNA STUDIES
Document No.
USDN005D
USDN008D
Authors
Parametrix
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Year
1984
1985
Samples
45
55
Variables
Species rich-
ness, abundance
Species rich-
ness, abundance
Period
July
1984
February
1985
No.
Stations
9
11
No.
Replicates
5
5
No.
Times
1
1
-------
TABLE A-9. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR FISH PATHOLOGY STUDIES
Document No.
MALI009F
MALI012F
MALI013D
MALI014F
MALI015F
MCCA001F
Yes/No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SC
A
I
I
A
I
A
SH
A
I
I
A
I
A
QA
N
N
N
N
N
N
AM
A
I
I
A
I
A
DL
N
N
N
N
N
N
Comments
Subset of data in MALI013D
Subset of data in MALI013D
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample
Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical Methods, DL = Detection Limits
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-10. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED FISH PATHOLOGY STUDIES
Document No.
MALI013D
MALI014F
MALI015F
MCCA001F
Authors
Mai ins et al.
Mai ins et al.
Malins
McCain et al.
Year
Undated
1985
1984
1982
Samples*
ES
RS
ES
ES
ES
Variables
Liver
lesions
Liver
lesions
Liver
lesions
Liver
lesions
Period
Aug-Sep
1982
June-July
1983
Jan-March
1984
Oct 1978
April 1979
No.
Stations
ES = 4
RS = 1
1
4
2
No.
Replicates
ES = 30-66
RS = 43
60
16-20
37
No.
Times
1
1
1
2
*ES = English sole, RS = Rock sole.
-------
TABLE A-ll. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR MICROBIAL CONTAMINANT STUDIES
Document No.
EPAX015F
WDOE143F
WDOE135F
EPAX012F
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
No
No
SC
N
N
N
N
SH
N
N
N
N
QA
N
N
N
N
AM
A
A
A
N
DL
I
A
N
N
Comments
Water
Water
Total
column
column
coliforms
only
Effluent only
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH = Sample Handling, QA = QA/QC, AM = Analytical Methods, DL = Detection Limit
A-13
-------
TABLE A-12. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED MICROBIAL CONTAMINANT STUDIES
Document No.
WDOE143F
EPAX015F
Authors
Singleton et al.
U.S. EPA, Region X
Year
1982
1985
Samples
Water
Water
Variables
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Period
1981
1973-1984
No.
Stations
24
9
No.
Replicates
0
0
No.
Times
1
19-83
I
t—I
-t*
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECTED STUDIES EVALUATED FOR USE IN SOURCE
EVALUATION AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECTED STUDIES EVALUATED FOR USE IN SOURCE
EVALUATION AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) ANALYSIS
AEHA001F
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1982. Geohydrologic study No.
38-26*0203-83, Defense fuel support point, Mukilteo, Washington, 12-17 July
1982. U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
BATE001F
Bates, T.S., and R. Carpenter. 1979. Organo-sulfur compounds in sediments
of the Puget Sound basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43:1209-1221.
BNWS004D
Cummins, J. 1984. Data tables and figures for bioassay, sediment chemis-
try, benthic infauna, and station locations. Puget Sound Survey. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
BNWS006F
Anderson, J.W., and E.A. Crecelius. 1985. Analysis of sediments and soils
for chemical contamination for the design of U.S. Navy Homeport facility at
East Waterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Battelle Northwest, Sequim, WA. 35
pp.
BNWS007F
Battelle Northwest. 1985. Scope of work. Biological and chemical analysis
of sediments for the design and construction of U.S. Navy Homeport facility
at East Waterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Battelle Northwest, Sequim, WA. 6 pp.
BNWS008D
Crecelius, E.A., N.S. Bloom and J.M. Gurtisen. 1984. Distribution of
contaminants in sediment cores and muds, balance of contaminants discharged
to East Waterway and Port Gardner, Everett, Washington. Draft Report.
Prepared for U.S. EPA Region X and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Battelle
Northwest, Sequim, WA.
BNWS009D
Bat'telle Northwest. 1985. Detailed chemical and biololgical analyses of
selected sediments from Puget Sound. Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA Region X,
Seattle, WA. 300 pp.
\
CARD002F
Cardwell, R.D., and C.E. Woelke. 1979. Marine water quality compendium for
Washington State. Vol. II: Data. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, WA. 528 pp.
B-l
-------
CHAP008F
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, P. Mitchell, R.M. Kocan, and
M.L. Landolt. 1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget
Sound biota. Ill: Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish, and Bellingham Bays.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMS 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD.
CHAP012D
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1983. Additional marine sediment toxicity
tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning studies, METRO
Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C. 28 pp.
COES010F
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Analysis of sediments and soils for
chemical contamination for the design and construction of U.S. Navy Homeport
facility at East Waterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. Final Report.
Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 20 pp.
COES014F
Shapiro and Associates, and A.L. Driscoll. 1978. Snohomish Estuary
wetlands study. Volume I: summary. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
WA. 162 pp.
EAEI001F
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1984. Preliminary site inspection report of
Tulalip landfill. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, WA. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Seattle, WA.
EPA 049F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the nationwide
urban runoff program. Volume I * Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protec*
tion Agency, Washington, DC. 186 pp.
EPAX005D
Bauer, R. 1983. Data tables: metals concentrations and sediment charac*
teristics for eight Puget Sound sites. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 8
pp.
EPAX010F
O'Neal, G., and J. Seeva. 1971. The effects of dredging on water quality
in the Northwest. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 158 pp.
EPAX012F
Scott Paper Company. 1980. N.P.D.E.S. permit application for the Everett
Plant of Scott Paper Company. For the Washington Department of Ecology.
U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 32 pp.
EPAX015F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Everett Harbor area STORET
water quality data, 1973*84. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
B-2
-------
EPAX017F
Duncan, B.P., and C. Kassebaum. 1984. Results from Everett Beach study.
U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 7 pp.
EPAX019F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Port Gardner deep water
sediment survey. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 18 pp.
EPAX020F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X. 1983. Metals analyses for
Everett Harbor deep water sediment survey. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA. 1 pp.
EPAX021F
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974. Bacteriological results of seawater and sediment
samples taken from Ebey slough and the barge canal passing through the
Tulalip landfill operation, October 7, 1974. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle,
WA. 4 pp.
EPAX022F
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974. Bacteriological results of four grab samples taken
at the leachate and several points on the barge canal on August 8, 1974.
U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 3 pp.
EPAX023F
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1976. Bacteriological results of water and sediment
samples collected on June 8, 1976 from Tulalip landfill site. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA. 12 pp.
EVER005F
Everett, City of, and Brown and Caldwell. 1982. Draft environmental impact
statement for the south Everett drainage basins plan. City of Everett,
WA.
JSAI004D
Jones and Stokes Associates. 1983. Feasibility study for habitat develop*
ment using dredged material at Jetty Island, Everett, Washington. Draft
Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 63 pp.
LONG004F
Long, E.R. 1984. Sediment bioassays: a summary of their use in Puget
Sound. NOAA Ocean Assessments Division, Seattle, WA. 30 pp.
MALI002F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O. Hodgins.
1980. Chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities in central and
southern Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA*2. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 295 pp.
MALI003F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, H.O. Hodgins, and
S.*L. Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in fish and
invertebrates from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA*19. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.
B-3
-------
MALI009F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.*L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl,
P.6. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and
H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases of
bottom*dwelling fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Techno!.
18:705*713.
MALI012F
Malins, D.C. 1982. Letter to D. Moos re: pathological conditions of
English sole and rock sole in Everett Harbor. NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 3 pp.
MALI013D
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, M.S. Myers, D.W. Brown, and S.*L. Chan. No Date.
Liver diseases of bottom fish from Everett Harbor, Washington. Unpublished
report. NOAA Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 6 pp.
MALI014F
Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, L.D. Rhodes, M.S. Myers, B.B. McCain,
and S.*L. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in marine sediment and biota from
Mukilteo, Washington: relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic
lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus). JNCI 74:487*494.
MALI015F
Malins, D.C. 21 November 1984. Letter: Pollution*related problems with
bottomfish in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center,
Seattle, WA. 8 pp.
MCCA001F
McCain, B.B., M.S. Myers, and U. Varanasi. 1982. Pathology of two species
of flatfish from urban estuaries in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
SCHE103F
Schell, W.R., and R.S. Barnes. 1974. Lead and mercury in the aquatic
environment of western Washington State, pp. 129*165. In: Aqueous*Environ*
mental Chemistry of Metals. A.J. Rubin (ed). Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,
MI.
SMIT301F
Smith, J.E., Conley, R., and C. Detrick. 1975. A report on the benthic
infauna and fish populations of Jetty Island and Mission Beach (Everett,
Washington). Washington Cooperative Fishery Unit, College of Fisheries,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 20 pp.
SPEA001F
Spearman, J.W. 1981. Baseline environmental condition report for proposed
dredge disposal and beach nourishment on Jetty Island, Everett, Washington.
Prepared for the Port of Everett by Jay W. Spearman, Kirkland, WA.
B-4
-------
URSC006F
URS. 1977. Snohomish County Metropolitan Municipal Corporation/King County
208 water quality management plan. Technical appendix II. Water quality
sampling. URS Company, Seattle, WA. 167 pp.
USAF001F
U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1983. Groundwater monitoring reports for
the Defense Fuel Support Point, Mukilteo, WA. Prepared for U.S. Defense
Supply Center, Cameron Station, VA. U.S. Department of Defense, Department
of the Air Force, Mukilteo, WA.
USDN001D
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1984. Draft environmental impact statement.
Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) homeporting in the Puget Sound area, Washington
State. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, CA.
USDN002D
Parametrix, Inc. 1985. Dungeness crab survey of Everett Harbor and
vicinity, 1984*1985. Draft report to U.S. Department of the Navy, San Bruno,
CA. 15 pp.
USDN005D
Parametrix, Inc. 1985. Benthos of Everett Harbor, 1984. Draft report to
U.S. Department of the Navy, San Bruno, CA. 19 pp.
USDN008D
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. U.S. Navy Homeport facility at East
Waterway, Everett Harbor, Washington: biological and chemical analyses of
sediments. Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 15
pp.
USGS032F
U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. Flow and water quality data from 1962 to
1983 for the Snohomish River near Monroe, WA. U.S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma, WA.
USGW001F
U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. Flow data for Quilceda Creek and Munson
Creek, near Marysville, Washington, 1949*1969. U.S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma, WA. 4 pp.
UWD0008F
Pavlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, W. Horn, and K.A. Kroglund. 1977. Polychlor*
inated biphenyls (PCB) in Puget Sound. Baseline data and methodology.
Special Report No. 75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR.
252 pp.
UWD0010F
University of Washington Department of Oceanography. 1974. Port Gardner
oceanographic survey: biological, chemical, and geological studies of an
area influenced by sulfite pulping wastes, in Puget Sound, near Everett,
Washington. University of Washington Department of Oceanography, Seattle,
WA.
B-5
-------
WDOE135F
English, T.S., R.E. Pine, G.S. Jeane II, et al. 1976. Ecological baseline
and monitoring study for Port Gardner and adjacent waters. A summary report
for the years 1972 through 1975. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA.
WDOE141F
Cunningham, D. 10 November 1982. Memo: Assessment of toxic pollutants
in English sole and rock sole in Everett Harbor and Port Gardner. Washing*
ton Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 28 pp.
WDOE143F
Singleton, L.R., D.E. Norton, and C. Haynes. 1982. Water quality of the
Snohomish River Estuary and possible impacts of a proposed Hewlett Packard
manufacturing plant. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 90 pp.
WDOE149F
Weyerhaeuser Company. 1984. Weyerhaeuser Company Everett kraft mill 1983
N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA*00300*0 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports.
Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett, WA.
WDOE150F
Lake Stevens Sewer District. 1984. 1983 N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA«002089*3 and
1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. Lake Stevens, WA.
WDOE152F
Marysville, City of. 1984. 1983 municipal sewage treatment plant
N.P.D.E.S. Permit WA«002249*7 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring
Reports. City of Marysville, WA.
WDOE153F
Mukilteo, City of. 1984. City of Mukilteo wastewater treatment plant 1977
N.P.D.E.S. permit and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. City of
Mukilteo, WA.
WDOE155F
Scott Paper Company. 1984. Scott Paper Company Everett plant 1980
N.P.D.E.S. Permit and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. Scott
Paper Company, Everett, WA.
WDOE156F
Everett, City of. 1984. Wastewater treatment plant 1977 N.P.D.E.S. Permit
WA*002449*0 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports. City of Everett,
WA.
WDOE188F
Huntamer, D. 1985. Analyses of Everett tire fire soil and water samples,
Everett, Snohomish County. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
WDOE189F
Tulalip Tribes of Washington. 1984. Wastewater treatment plant 1977 N.P.D.
E.S. Permit WA*002480*5 and 1983 and 1984 Discharge Monitoring Reports.
Tulalip Tribes, Marysville, WA.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION PREFIXES FOR
SAMPLING STATION LABELS
-------
Document Number
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION PREFIXES FOR
SAMPLING STATION LABELS
Author-Date
Station
Prefix Codes
BNWS004D
BNWS006F
BNWS008D
BNWS009D
CHAP008F
EPAX015F
EPAX019F
EPAX020F
MALI003F
MALI012F
MALI013D
MALI014F
MALI015F
MCCA001F
USDN005D
USDN008D
WDOE141F
WDOE143F
Cummins 1984
Anderson and Crecelius 1985
Crecelius et al . 1984
Battell e Northwest 1985
Chapman et al . 1984
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1985
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1983
Mai ins et al . 1982
Mai ins 1982
Mai ins et al . No Date
Mai ins et al . 1985
Mai ins et al . 1984
McCain et al . 1982
Parametrix, Inc. 1985
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985
Cunningham 1982
Singleton et al . 1982
B4
B6
B8
B9
CHS
EP15
EP19
EP20
MA3
MA12
MA13
MA14
MAI 5
MCI
U5
U8
WD141
W143
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
SOURCE DATA
-------
TABLE D-l. EVERETT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
Q BOD
(MGD) (mg/L)
BOD TSS
(Ib/day) (mg/L)
TSS Fecal a p-Sa
(Ib/day) (f/100 mL) (#/100 ml)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
2-yr
Avg
15.4
16.2
13.4
10.5
10.3
11.7
9.6
10
10.4
9.4
18.3
14.9
4,549 MG
14.5
15.9
15.2
13.8
14.4
12.9
10.9
10.4
11.4
10.9
16.4
16.6
4,979 MG
13.1
15
18
18
32
22
31
27
27
32
38
33
19
23
27
32
33
39
32
14
13
16
29
24
17
25
1,880
2,910
2,020
2,750
1,880
3,090
2,190
2,270
2,770
2,940
5,430
3,410
509 ton
2,750
3,660
4,110
3,730
4,660
3,390
1,240
1,430
1,390
2,640
3,190
2,390
527 ton
2,840
13
13
13
44
32
28
42
42
38
27
31
20
19
25
29
21
49
42
32
38
26
34
30
17
1,750
1,740
1,480
3,690
2,780
2,690
3,360
3,440
3,330
2,140
4,810
2,560
513 ton
2,310
3,300
3,590
2,410
5,800
4,570
2,940
3,270
2,350
3,050
3,980
2,460
610 ton
3,080
3
5
6
14
11
12
20
5
6
4
8
9
3. 9X109 /day
9
6
11
4
15
7
10
46
4
12
28
212
7
16
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
<2
22
4
3.5xlQ9/day
4
9
18
4
23
9
5
-
3
19
17
460
1.8xlQlO/day 3.2xlQlO/day
19
28
a Fecal = fecal coliform bacteria.
Geometric mean.
F-S = fecal streptococci coliform bacteria.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-2. MARYSVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
Q BOD BOD TSS TSS Fecal a
(MGD) (mg/1) (Ib/day) (mg/L) (Ib/day) (#/100 ml)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
2-yr
Avg
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
518 MG
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
616 MG
1.6
11
18
28
20
16
28
22
28
20
26
17
18
19
20
17
26
21
27
29
30
23
24
30
30
23
110
195
280
233
186
326
256
356
266
325
226
225
46 ton
253
300
141
216
280
225
200
283
270
200
250
291
44 ton
246
32
30
16
29
30
41
26
38
19
15
28
29
42
19
25
24
20
22
22
24
14
20
20
4
25
320
325
160
337
350
477
302
481
253
187
373
362
60 ton
560
285
116
340
260
183
150
200
198
133
166
56
40 ton
274
82
200
25
12
18
28
16
40
17
10
13
11
2xlQ9/day
10
8
10
9
8
7
8
8
10
10
10
6
5.5xlQ8/day
24
a Fecal = fecal coliform bacteria. Geometric mean.
D-2
-------
2-yr
Avg
1984
TABLE D-3. LAKE STEVENS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
Q BOD BOD TSS TSS Fecal a
(MGD) (mg/L) (Ib/day) (mg/L) (Ib/day) (#/100 ml)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.7
214 MG
47
26
30
32
30
72
69
34
52
50
31
30
312
137
138
141
126
348
288
124
227
169
250
185
37 ton
42
50
37
40
57
49
84
76
72
52-
39
30
279
268
170
175
237
237
350
273
314
176
340
185
45 ton
<2
250
<5
<5
8
490
3,500
4
2,800
<2
1,800
25
1.6xlOlO/day
0.59
42
204
53
250
740
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
Total
2-yr
Avg
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
201 MG
0.66
28
26
30
56
37
49
71
147
114
219
53
196
169
193
299
198
241
308
821
532
1,003
61 ton
268
51
67
57
56
54
83
73
364
82
308
76
357
436
366
299
288
408
317
2,034
385
1,413
97 ton
389
<4
34
490
<3
9
17
30
49
21
21
2xlQ9/day
68
a Fecal = fecal coliform bacteria. Geometric mean.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-4. TULALIP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
Q BOD BOD TSS
(MGD) (mg/L) (Ib/day) (mg/L)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1985
J
F
M
2-yr
Avg
_
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.26
0.33
64 MG
0.25
0.27
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.24
75 MG
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.22
_
32
17
-
10
10
10
-
10
11
14
23
8
9
7
8
11
3
9
5
7
9
7
7
5
15
11
_
40
23
-
16
15
13
-
18
26
42
6,000 Ib
36
20
14
10
14
18
5
13
7
10
16
14
5,400 Ib
11
8
35
19
—
33
7
10
_
20
15
37
15
10
16
14
10
10
14
13
12
15
7
12
27
10
15
13
8
4
14
TSS Fecal a
(Ib/day) (#7100 ml)
—
41
10
10
.
33
29
37
24
15
19
6,700 Ib
27
24
15
21
21
21
25
12
16
40
17
30
8,216 Ib
23
14
23
22
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
-
10
100
95
112
102
84
114
90
-
-
-
92
41
76
7.4xlQ8/day
80
-
113
90
a Fecal = fecal coliform bacteria. Geometric mean.
D-4
-------
Total
2-yr
Average
TABLE D-5. SCOTT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
0
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
0
J
A
S
0
N
D
Q
(MGD)
5.8
6.1
6.3
8.8
7.4
6.9
8.8
9.3
8.6
8.5
9.8
6.4
2,482 MG
7.8
8.4
9.2
7.6
8.6
8.8
8.9
10.1
8.0
9.9
8.8
7.9
Outfall
BOD
(mg/L)
58
55
53
73
55
52
68
57
52
54
55
65
64
82
67
85
96
77
79
72
66
72
63
85
1 001
BOD TSS
(Ib/day) (mg/L)
2,813
2,794
2,764
5,297
3,370
2,994
5,177
4,445
3,718
3,751
4,551
3,497
590 ton
4,194
5,698
5,168
5,227
6,912
5,671
5,868
6,061
4,389
6,055
4,671
5,572
46
46
39
51
39
40
45
36
30
41
39
43
46
47
42
38
60
61
47
75
69
85
53
61
TSS
(Ib/day)
2,237
2,316
2,053
3,664
2,400
2,264
3,321
2,838
2,149
2,906
3,161
2,288
482 ton
2,990
3,284
3,203
2,476
4,256
4,464
3,468
6,347
4,620
7,143
3,981
3,999
3,133 MG
7.7
62
973 ton
4,280
49
768 ton
3,420
D-5
-------
Total
2-yr
Average
TABLE D-6. SCOTT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Q
(MGD)
4.2
6.5
5.5
8.9
9.0
14.2
13.5
12.2
10.9
8.4
4.8
7.2
3,160 MG
6.8
4.1
5.7
7.7
9
10.5
10.1
10.7
11.7
4.9
4.1
5.1
Outfal
BOD
(mg/L)
54
43
38
54
28
22
43
21
22
28
38
54
53
93
77
53
39
34
30
36
39
68
57
84
1 003
BOD TSS
(Ib/day) (mg/L)
1,883
2,401
1,756
3,973
2,173
2,689
5,012
2,185
2,024
1,906
1,533
3,301
455 ton
2,840
3,222
3,545
3,374
2,869
2,884
2,515
3,117
3,732
2,307
1,922
4,130
44
43
28
44
24
21
22
14
15
24
40
40
38
53
43
30
22
20
14
34
44
78
48
63
TSS
(Ib/day)
1,558
2,355
1,268
3,615
1,846
2,448
2,538
1,443
1,250
1,614
1,559
2,361
357 ton
2,149
1,841
1,991
1,854
1,639
1,704
1,205
3,165
4,155
2,607
1,653
2,514
2,722 MG
8.1
539 ton
43
2,720
35
398 ton
2,070
D-6
-------
TABLE D-7. SCOTT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
2-yr
Average
OutfaV
Q BOD
(MGD) (mg/L)
10.1
10.4
10.6
7.4
10.7
10.8
11.6
14.7
14.8
13.3
11.8
11.1
4,102 MG
13.0
11.1
12.7
13.8
14.5
13.6
13.0
14.6
13.4
12.8
12.6
11.6
4,657 MG
12
22
24
36
30
39
47
48
38
31
36
25
36
45
22
36
52
39
21
21
19
24
26
18
14
31
1 008
BOD TSS
(Ib/day) (mg/L)
1,918
2,051
3,263
2,167
3,500
4,259
4,643
4,704
3,742
4,021
2,470
3,388
592
4,800
2,357
3,813
5,941
4,619
2,388
2,283
2,314
2,656
2,847
1,946
1,331
552
3,130
37
45
77
65
74
81
95
88
72
91
79
107
ton
123
49
80
132
100
62
79
45
77
76
42
34
ton
75
TSS
(Ib/day)
3,174
3,941
7,046
3,446
6,628
7,363
9,576
10,704
9,089
10,213
7,635
10,055
1,323 ton
13,007
5,260
8,448
15,074
11,875
7,101
8,341
5,500
8,706
8,391
4,512
3,252
1,472 ton
7,660
D-7
-------
TABLE D-8. WEYERHAEUSER KRAFT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1983-1984)a
1983
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
Avg/day
1984
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
Average
2-yr
Average
Q
(MGD)
17.2
18.6
18.4
20.4
21.5
20.4
19.0
22.5
22.0
22.6
23.7
23.1
7,549.2 MG
20.8
22.8
21.5
19.1
19.9
21.3
20.8
20.2
21.6
21.8
20.5
23.3
21.1
7,721.6 MG
21.2
21
BOD
(mg/L)
27
22
22
22
23
21
21
26
26
23
25
34
24.3
23
18
25
18
26
33
24
28
23
22
23
25
24
24
BOD
(Ib/day)
3,870
3,410
3,374
3,740
4,121
3,570
3,325
4,875
4,767
4,332
4,938
6,546
4,255
4,370
3,225
3,979
2,985
4,615
5,720
4,040
5,040
4,179
3,759
4,466
4,396
4,247
4,251
TSS
(001+004)
(Ib/day)
4,900
6,000
5,000
5,100
5,700
5,300
6,500
6,000
6,500
6,400
8,000
9,000
1,140 ton
6,200
6,700
5,900
5,200
4,700
6,900
8,000
5,800
5,200
4,700
5,000
5,500
6,900
1,080 ton
5,900
a Flow and BOD reported for outfall WK001.
for outfalls WK001 and WK004 combined.
TSS reported
D-8
-------
TABLE D-9. POLLUTANT LOADING (LB/DAY) FOR OTHER KNOWN SOURCES IN PU6ET SOUND BASIN
Name
Type
As
Cu
Pb
Hg
Zn
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
Occidental a Kaisera
Chemical Mfg. Aluminum Mfg.
0.65
0.43
0.39 0.51
0.006
0.25 1.8
<0.05
<0.15
ND
Pennwalta
Chemical Mfg.
3.9
2.4
0.16
0.28
0.4
—
—
—
ASARCO9
Copper Smelter
478
154
14
—
122
--
--
--
West Pointb
Municipal WWTP
3.8
91
76
0.3
144
15
0.4
0.5
Site urn SDb
Storm Drain
1.8
0.57
0.36
--
1.23
—
--
--
a Tetra Tech (1985a).
b Tetra Tech (19855).
D-9
-------
APPENDIX E
SELECTED SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION DATA EVALUATED
FOR USE IN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE E-l. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY FOR STATIONS GROUPED BY STUDY AREA:
CONCENTRATIONS (OR6ANICS=PPB, METALS=PPM; DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE VALUES
Everett Harbor Concentrations (dry wight basis) and ERR Values
Station
B9-3
B9-6
B9-9
EP20-14
Average
B9-1
B9-4
EP15-2
EP19-32
B6-30
Average
B9-11
B9-2
B9-5
B9-7
89-6
EP15-1
EP15-3
EP19-31
EP19-34
EP20-13
EP20-15
Average
B9-10
B9-13
Average
B9-12
B9-14
B9-15
B9-16
B9-17
B9-1B
EP15-5
EP19-26
EP19-28
EP19-33
EP20-22
NR3-2
M-29
Area
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 B
1 B
1 B
1 B
1 B
1 B
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 0
1 D
1 D
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 I
1 E
1 E
IE
1 E
1 E
LPflH
Core
685.2
1033.7
959.5
1164.6
836.1
1407.0
5809.0
2304.7
1072.0
1236.3
767.5
877.5
4680.0
3450.0
2013.9
973.9
665.6
819.8
669.0
632.2
727.9
1079.9
111.0
1970.0
2110.0
LPflH
EM
21.6
25.2
23.4
28.4
20.4
34.3
141.7
56.2
26.1
30.2
16.7
21.4
114.1
84.1
49.1
23.8
16.2
20.0
16.3
15.4
17.8
26.3
2.7
46.0
51.5
HPflH
Cone
1770.4
2067.4
1916.9
2329.2
1676.2
1750.0
26557.0
8076.1
2143.9
2472.6
1535.0
1755.0
9630.0
1920.0
3242.8
1947.8
1331.2
1639.5
1336.0
1264.4
1455.8
2159.8
30.2
5960.0
5100.0
6110.0
ItfUUl
EM
22.4
26.2
24.3
29.5
21.2
22.2
336.2
102.3
27.1
31.3
19.4
22.2
121.9
24.3
41.0
24.7
16.9
20.8
16.9
16.0
16.4
27.3
0.4
75.4
64.6
77.3
PCB
Cone
391.0
451.0
421.0
585.0
391.0
74.0
1035.0
521.3
717.0
666.0
364.0
336.0
445.0
485.0
502.5
272.0
232.0
252.0
261.0
286.0
377.0
238.0
352.0
209.0
PCB
EM
65.2
75.2
70.2
97.5
65.2
12.3
172.5
86.9
119.5
111.3
60.7
56.0
74.2
80.8
63.8
45.3
38.7
42.0
46.8
47.7
62.8
39.7
58.7
34.8
Cu+Pb+Zn
Cone
456.5
430.6
546.6
432.3
467.1
529.4
393.6
247.0
250.0
510.0
386.0
337.0
257.0
534.8
359.9
509.1
436.0
366.0
312.0
424.0
403.4
389.4
393.5
664.0
393.6
526.8
346.6
306.5
310.0
163.6
804.8
71.0
390.0
200.0
256.0
335.0
327.0
331.9
Cu+Pb+Zn
EM
13.1
12.3
15.6
12.4
13.3
15.1
11.2
7.1
7.1
14.6
11.0
9.6
7.3
15.3
10.3
14.5
12.5
10.5
6.9
12.1
11.5
11.1
11.2
19.0
11.2
15.1
9.9
8.8
8.9
4.7
23.0
2.0
11.1
5.7
7.3
9.6
9.3
9.5
As
Cone
7.2
12.8
7.4
10.8
9.6
10.7
6.5
9.9
15.0
15.2
11.9
3.2
4.9
(2.5
7.6
7.5
12.2
14.1
12.0
17.0
11.8
8.5
9.0
7.4
10.0
8.7
8.9
6.2
7.7
6.9
14.9
5.3
8.5
7.0
15.0
17.0
13.9
19.0
13.2
As
EM
2.1
3.8
2.2
3.2
2.6
3.2
2.5
2.9
4.5
4.5
3.5
0.9
1.5
0.0
2.3
2.2
3.6
4.2
3.6
5.0
3.5
2.5
2.7
2.2
3.0
2.6
2.6
1.8
2.3
2.6
4.4
1.6
2.5
2.1
4.5
5.0
4.1
5.6
3.9
Upper 20th Percentile Indicated by 1000
LPflH HPflH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
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
1000
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
0
1000
0
1000
1000
0
0
1000
1000
0
1000
1000
0
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average 1 E 1042.9 25.4
2927.3 37.1
290.5 48.4
320.2 9.1
11.2 3.3
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued).
Station Arta
tt-fll
E15-4
EP19-29
EP19-30
EP20-16
EP20-23
Average
89-19
EP15-6
EP19-17
EP19-21
EP19-22
EP19-23
EPI9-24
EP19-27
EP20-17
RA3-1
66-28
Average
I9-S3
B9-A4
EP15-7
U6-3
UB-4
EP19-18
Average
B9-A2
EP19-25
EP19-35
Epeo-21
EP1S-11
U8-6
U8-7
U8-8
EP19-10
EP19-11
EP19-12
EP19-13
EP19-14
EP19-15
EP19-16
EP19-19
EP19-20
EP19-5
EP19-9
EP20-19
EP20-20
BB-25
BB-2£
Bfl-27
AVERAGE
F
F
F
F
F
F
1 F
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1 6
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
t
t
•
t
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
LMH LPflH
Cone EAR
2730.0 66.6
17180.0 419.0
9955.0 242.8
1660.0 40.5
1540.0 37. £
6500.0 158.5
3233.3 78.9
537.0 13.1
4480.0 109.3
183.0 4.5
2310.0 56.3
1877.5 45.8
2360.0 57.6
370.0 9.0
315.0 7.7
423.0 10.3
1215.0 29.6
716.0 17.5
1546.0 37.7
520.0 12.7
729.3 17.6
HPflH HPAH KB KB
Cone EAR Cone EAR
520.0 6,6 273.0 45.5
7220.0 91.4 800.0 133.3
3870.0 49.0 536.5 89.4
388.0 4.9
1420.0 18.0 114.0 19.0
2900.0 36.7 80.0 13.3
13692.0 173.3 156.0 26.0
4600.0 58.2 116.7 19.4
106.0 1.3 39.0 6.5
255.0 42.5
4460.0 56.5 130.0 21.7
8371.0 106.0 307.0 51.2
46096.0 583.5 302.0 50.3
14758.0 186.8 206.6 34.4
421.0 5.3 291.0 48.5
400.0 5.1 134.0 22.3
1029.0 110 43.0 7.2
2135.0 27.0 20.0 3.3
4036.0 51.1 18.0 3.0
612.0 7.7 75.0 12.5
1325.0 16.8 85.0 14.2
1334.0 16.9 20.0 3.3
1553.0 19.7 56.4 9.4
Cu+Pb+Zn
Cone
593.0
1267.0
1360.0
494.0
356.4
644.8
785.9
214.4
152.0
207.0
196.0
201.0
152.0
133.0
228.0
290.1
209.5
198.3
82.7
193.5
245.0
210.9
154.1
209.0
182.5
368.0
231.0
20). 0
222.5
173.0
151.9
154.8
144.8
152.0
150.0
48.0
88.0
111.0
174.0
131.0
178.0
123.0
73.0
92.0
77.8
183.4
132.5
204.8
153.7
134.8
Cu*Pb*Zn
EAR
16.9
36.2
38.9
14.1
10.2
18.4
22.5
6,1
4.3
5.9
5.6
5.7
4.3
3.8
6.5
8.3
6.0
5.7
2.4
5.5
7.0
6.0
4.4
6.0
5.2
10.5
6.6
5.9
6.4
4.94
4.34
4.42
4.14
4.34
4.29
1.37
2.51
3.17
4.97
3.74
5.09
3.51
2.09
2.63
2.22
5.24
3.79
5.85
4.39
3.9
As
Cone
16.1
18.1
20.0
14.0
11.6
14.3
15.7
8.4
6.1
23.0
15.0
10.0
13.0
7.0
12.0
9.7
19.0
10.3
12.1
6.4
10.3
7.7
5.8
11.8
18.0
10.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
9.8
6.8
9.1
8.7
8.3
19.0
46.0
4.0
12.0
10.0
20.0
18.0
15.0
13.0
17.0
13.0
5.1
8.8
10.0
16.1
9,8
13.5
Ai
EAR
4.8
5.4
5.9
4.2
3.4
4.2
4.7
2.5
1.8
6.8
4.5
3.0
3.9
2.1
3.6
2.9
5.6
3.1
3.6
1.9
3.1
2.3
1.7
3.5
5.3
3.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
2.9
2.02
2.70
2.5B
2.46
5.64
13.65
1.19
3.56
2.97
5.93
5.34
4.45
3.86
5.04
3.86
1.51
2.61
2.97
4.78
2.91
4.0
Upper 20th Percent lie Indicated by 1000
LPflH HPflH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
0
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued).
Station Are*
Nftl4-fl
KU4-B
AVERAGE
UB-10
U8-11
UB-3
AVERME
UB-1
UB-2
EP19-1
EP19-2
EP19-3
EP19-4
NA3-3
HN^MU.
EP19-6
EP19-7
EP19-B
EP20-1B
Ufl-5
AVERAE
3
3
4
4
4
5
S
5
S
5
5
5
6
6
t
6
6
LPflH
Cone
1332.0
12030.0
6661.0
743.0
93.0
421.0
380.0
1106.0
J44.0
162.0
168.0
LPAH
EM
32.5
293.4
163.0
18.1
2.4
10.3
9.3
27.0
18.1
4.0
4.0
mwuj
Cone
56%. 0
15340.0
10517.0
3280.0
991.0
2135.5
2494.0
4029.0
32.0
2185.0
2616.0
2618.0
umui
ERR
72.1
194.2
133.1
41.5
12.5
27.0
31.6
51.0
0.4
27.7
33.1
33.1
PCS
Cone
29.0
200.0
114.5
(1
23.0
(1
7.7
68.0
115.0
1.2
61.4
32.0
32.0
PCS
EAR
4.8
33.3
19.1
0.0
3.8
0.0
1.3
11.3
19.2
0.2
10.2
5.3
5.3
Cd+Pb+Zn Cu+Pb+Zn
Cone
120.6
120.9
107.9
116.5
175.6
162.4
56.0
76.0
101.0
84.0
109.2
98.0
111.0
107.0
106.5
156.6
116.2
EM)
3.45
3.45
3.06
3.3
5.02
4.64
1.60
2.17
2.69
2.40
3.1
2.80
3.17
3.06
3.10
4.47
3.3
At
Cone
9.3
6.0
4.3
6.5
11.0
12.9
12.0
8.0
14.0
10.0
6.0
10.6
7.0
16.0
19.0
6.6
10.3
11.8
fe
EAR
2.76
1.79
1.28
1.9
3.26
3.83
3.56
2.37
4.15
2.97
1.78
3,1
2.08
4.75
5.64
2.02
3.06
3.5
Upper 20th Percent lie Indicated by 1000
LPflH
0.0
1000.0
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
M
ufvuj
Iflmt
0.0
1000.0
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
KB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cu+Pb+Zn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STATION PREFIX CODES are identified in Appendix C.
NOTE: When detection limits were not available, values of "0"
were deleted and not included in averages.
E-3
-------
TABLE E-2. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA FOR STATIONS RANKED BY CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION (ORGANICS=PPB, METALS=PPM; DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
Stition Area LPflH LPAH
Cone EM
EPHO-14 A
B9-* A
EP19-32 B
EP20-13 C
EP19-34 C
B9-2 C
EP20-15 C
EP19-31 C
NA3-2 E
EP19-33 E
B9-16 E
EP19-26 E
EP19-28 E
EP20-22 E
EP19-29 f
EP20-23 F
EP20-16 F
EP19-30 F
EPI9-27 6
EP19-24 6
EP19-22 6
EP19-21 G
EP19-17 6
EP19-23 G
EP20-17 6
NA3-1 6
B9-A4 * H
EP19-1B H
EP19-25 *
EP20-21 t
EPI9-35 t
EPI9-13 2
EP19-10 2
EP20-20 2
EP19-11 2
EP19-5 2
EP19-9 2
EP19-12 2
EP19-14 2
EP20-I9 2
EP19-19 2
EP19-16 2
EP19-15 2
EP19-20 2
U8-10 4
EP19-3 3
«ft3-3 3
EP19-1 5
EP19-2 5
EP19-4 5
EP20-IB 6
EP19-8 6
EP19-7 6
EP19-6 6
Stition
EP20-14
B9-6
EP19-32
EP19-34
EP20-15
EP20-13
EP19-31
B9-2
EP20-22
EP19-26
EP19-33
EP19-2B
B9-16
EP20-23
EP19-29
EP19-30
EP20-16
EP20-17
EP19-27
EPI9-22
EP19-24
EP19-21
EP19-23
EP19-17
EP19-18
B9-fl4
EP19-25
EP19-35
EP20-21
EP20-20
EP19-12
EP19-10
EP19-16
EP19-20
EP19-5
EP19-11
EP19-9
EP19-15
EP19-I4
EP19-19
EP20-19
EP19-13
ue-io
EP19-2
EP19-I
EP19-3
EPI9-4
EP19-6
EP19-7
EP19-8
EP20-1B
B9-1B
MB3-3
B9-fl3
Area HPflH HPflH Station ATM PCB PCB Station Arta Cu*Pb+Zn Cu+Pb+Zn Station ATM IM As
Cone EAR Cone EAR Cone EAR Core ERR
1 A B9-6 A MA3-2 1 E HA14-B 3
1 A EP20-14 A HA3-1 1 6 HflH-A 3
1 B EP19-32 B MAM-B 3 B9-5 1 C (2.5 0.0
1 C EP19-31 C NA14-A 3 B9-11 1 C 3.2 0.9
1C B9-2 C MA3-3 5 EP19-12 2 4.0 .2
1 C EP20-13 C EP19-12 2 48.0 1.4 U8-9 4 4.3 .3
1 C EP19-34 C EP19-1 5 56.0 1.6 B9-2 1 C 4.9 .5
1 C EP20-15 C B9-18 1 E 71.0 2.0 EP20-19 2 5.1 .5
1 E EP20-22 t EP19-5 2 73.0 2.1 B9-1B 1 t 5.3 .6
1 E B9-18 E EP19-2 5 76.0 2.2 UB-3 1 H 5.8 .7
1 E B9-16 E EP20-19 2 77.8 2.2 NA3-3 5 6.0 .8
1 E EP19-2B E B9-A3 1 H B2.7 2.4 U8-I1 4 6.0 .8
1 E MA3-2 E EP19-4 5 B4.0 2.4 EP15-6 1 6 6.1 .8
1 F EP19-33 E EP19-13 2 88.0 2.5 B9-14 1 E 6.2 .8
1 f EP19-26 E EP19-9 2 92.0 2.6 B9-A3 1 H 6.4 .9
1 F EP20-16 F EP19-6 6 9B.O 2.8 EP15-11 2 6.8 2.0
1 F EP20-23 f EP19-3 5 101.0 2.9 EP20-18 6 6.8 2.0
16 EP19-29 F EP19-8 6 107.0 3.1 EP19-24 IB 7.0 2.1
IB EPI9-30 F Ufl-9 4 107.9 3.1 EP19-26 1 E 7.0 2.1
1 G EP19-17 6 EP20-1B 6 108.5 3.1 EP19-6 6 7.0 2.1
1 6 EP19-21 6 EP19-14 2 111.0 3.2 B9-3 1 A 7.2 2.1
1 G EP19-23 6 EP19-7 6 111.0 3.2 B9-9 1 A 7.4 2.2
1 6 EP19-27 G U8-10 4 120.6 3.4 B9-10 1 0 7.4 2.2
1 6 EP19-22 6 UB-11 4 120.9 3.5 B9-8 1C 7.5 2.2
1 H B9-19 6 EP19-20 2 123.0 3.5 B9-7 1C 7.6 2.3
1 H EP19-24 6 EP19-16 2 131.0 3.7 B9-15 1 E 7.7 2.3
1 « EP20-17 6 Bfl-25 2 132.5 3.8 EP15-7 1 H 7.7 2.3
1 • EP19-1B H EP19-24 1 G 133.0 3.8 EP19-2 5 8.0 2.4
1 * EP19-35 * UB-B 2 144.8 4.1 UB-8 2 8.3 2.5
2 EP19-25 t EP19-11 2 150.0 4.3 B9-19 1 G 8.4 2.5
2 EP20-21 t UB-* 2 151.9 4.3 EP20-15 1 C fl.5 2.5
2 EP19-9 2 EP15-6 1 G 158.0 4.3 B9-4 1 B 8.5 2.5
2 EP19-12 2 EP19-23 1 6 152.0 4.3 EP15-5 1 E 8.5 2.5
2 EP19-13 2 EP19-10 2 152.0 4.3 U8-7 2 8.7 2.6
2 EP19-14 2 BB-27 2 153.7 4.4 EP20-20 2 8.8 2.6
2 EP19-5 2 UB-4 1 H 154.1 4.4 B9-16 IE 8.9 2.6
2 EP19-11 2 Ufl-7 2 154.8 4.4 B9-12 1 E 8.9 2.6
2 EP19-10 2 U8-5 6 156.6 4.5 UB-fi 2 9.1 2.7
2 EP19-20 2 UB-2 5 162.4 4.6 U8-10 4 9.3 2.8
2 EP19-15 2 B9-16 1 E 163.6 4.7 EP20-17 1 6 9.7 2.9
2 EP19-16 2 EP15-11 2 173.0 4.9 B8-27 2 9.8 2.9
2 EP20-20 2 EP19-15 2 174.0 5.0 EP20-21 1 § 9.8 2.9
4 EP20-19 2 U8-1 5 175.6 5.0 EP15-2 1 B 9.9 2.9
5 EP19-19 2 EP19-19 2 178. 0 5.1 BB-25 2 10.0 3.0
5 EP19-3 5 EP20-20 2 183.4 [sTI] EP19-4 5 10.0 3.0
5 EP19-4 5 B9-A4 1 H 193.5 5.5 B9-13 1 D 10.0 3.0
3 EP19-I 5 EP19-21 1 B 196.0 5.6 EP19-14 2 10.0 3.0
6 EP19-2 5 EP19-86 1 E 200.0 5.7 EP19-22 1 6 10.0 3.0
6 EPI9-6 6 EP19-22 1 G 201.0 5.7 B9-fl4 1 H 10.3 3.1
6 EP20-1B 6 BB-26 2 204.8 5.9 U8-5 6 10.3 3.1
6 EP19-8 6 EP19-35 1» 207.0 5.9 BB-28 16 10.3 3.1
1 E 30.2 0.4 EP19-7 6 EP19-17 1 G 207.0 5.9 B9-1 1 B 10.7 3.2
5 32.0 0.4 U8-10 4 (1 0.0 EP19-1B 1 H 209.0 6.0 EP20-14 1 A 10.8 3.2
1 H 105.0 1.3 U6-9 4 (1 0.0 BB-28 1 6 209.5 6.0 U8-1 5 11.0 3.3
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued).
I
in
Stition ATM
ue-9
B9-18
UB-5
118-3
uB-6
EP15-11
Ufl-1
U8-7
BB-27
89-A3
B9-U
89-13
69-12
88-25
69-15
Ufl-1 1
B9-7
B9-4
69-8
B9-3
B9-10
B9-9
B9-11
89-17
UB-2
B9-1
uB-a
B9-5
NH14-A
EP15-2
EP15-6
BB-26
B9-19
EP15-5
68-29
UB-4
B9-ffi
B9-fll
EP15-3
EP15-7
EP15-1
Bfl-30
BB-2B
KA14-B
E15-4
4
1 E
6
1 H
2
2
5
2
2
1 H
1 £
1 D
1 E
2
1 E
4
1 C
1 B
1 C
1 A
1 D
1 fl
1 C
1 E
5
1 B
2
1 C
3
1 B
1 6
2
1 6
1 E
I E
1 H
1 *
IF
1 C
1 H
1 C
1 B
1 6
3
i r
LPflH
Cone
99.0
111.0
162.0
183.0
315.0
370.0
380.0
423.0
520.0
537.0
632.2
665.6
669.0
716.0
727.9
743.0
767.5
638. 1
877.5
885. 2
973.9
1033.7
1072.0
1079.9
1108.0
1164.6
1215.0
1236.3
1332.0
1407.0
1540.0
1546.0
1660.0
1970.0
2110.0
2310.0
2360.0
2730.0
3450.0
4480.0
4680.0
5809.0
6500. 0
12030.0
17180.0
LPAH
EAR
2.4
2.7
4.0
4.5
7.7
[Ml
9.3
10.3
12.7
13.1
15.4
16.2
16.3
17.5
17.8
18.1
18.7
20.4
21.4
21.6
23.8
25.2
26.1
26.3
27.0
28.4
29.6
30.2
32.5
34.3
37.6
37.7
40.5
48.0
51.5
56.3
57.6
66.6
84.1
109.3
114.1
141.7
158.5
293.4
419.0
Stition
B9-19
EP15-11
B9-A2
B9-A1
68-25
UB-9
U8-6
B9-14
BB-26
89-13
BB-27
89-12
EP15-6
B9-15
B9-7
B9-4
EP15-2
B9-B
B9-3
EP15-3
B9-10
B9-9
UB-7
B9-11
B9-17
B9-1
B9-5
U8-1
UB-5
NA3-1
U6-11
UB-2
Ufl-fl
EP15-7
NR3-2
hfl!4-fl
EP15-5
B8-29
E15-4
U6-3
EP15-1
68-28
MA14-B
Bfl-30
UB-4
RTM iiMwi
Cone
1 6 388.0
2 400.0
1 t 421.0
1 F 520.0
2 612.0
4 991.0
2 1029.0
1 E 1264.4
2 1325.0
1 D 1331.2
2 1334.0
1 E 1338.0
1 6 1420.0
1 E 1455.8
1 C 1535.0
1 B 1676.2
1 B 1750.0
1 C 1755.0
1 A 1770.4
1 C 1920.0
1 D 1947.8
1 A 2067.4
2 2135.0
1 C 2143.9
1 E 2159.8
1 B 2329.2
1 C 2472.6
5 2494.0
6 2618.0
1 6 2900.0
4 3280.0
5 4029.0
2 4036.0
1 H 4460.0
1 E 5100.0
3 5694.0
1 t 5960.0
1 E 6110.0
1 f 7220.0
1 H 8371.0
1 C 9630.0
1 6 13692.0
3 15340.0
1 B 26557.0
1 H 46096.0
HPflH
EAR
4.9
5.1
5.3
[6.6|
7.7
12.5
13.0
16.0
16.8
16.9
16.9
16.9
18.0
18.4
19.4
21.2
22.2
22.2
22.4
24.3
24.7
26.2
27.0
27.1
27.3
29.5
31.3
31.6
33.1
36.7
41.5
51.0
51.1
56.5
64.6
72.1
75.4
77.3
91.4
106.0
121.9
173.3
194.2
336.2
563.5
Stition
NA3-3
UB-8
U8-7
68-27
Ufl-1 1
NA14-A
UB-5
B9-A3
U8-6
1)8-1
EP15-2
68-25
MA3-1
nn or
DO CD
EP15-6
UB-2
EP15-7
EP15-11
BB-28
MA14-B
68-29
B9-13
B9-17
69-04
69-10
B9-A1
B9-12
B9-14
B9-fl2
UB-4
U6-3
B9~8
EP15-5
B9-7
B9-15
69-3
69-4
EP15-1
B9-9
EP15-3
B9-1
B9-5
B9-11
E15-4
66-30
ATM
5
2
2
2
4
3
6
1 H
2
5
1 B
2
1 6
2
1 6
5
1 H
2
1 6
3
1 E
1 D
I E
1 H
1 D
IF
1 E
1 E
1 t
1 H
1 H
1 C
1 E
1 C
1 E
1 A
1 B
1 C
1 A
1 C
1 B
1 C
1 C
1 F
1 B
KB
Cone
1.2
18.0
20.0
20.0
23.0
29.0
32.0
39.0
43.0
68.0
74.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
114.0
115.0
130.0
134.0
156.0
200.0
209.0
232.0
238.0
255.0
272.0
273.0
281.0
286. 0
291.0
302.0
307.0
336.0
352.0
364.0
377.0
391.0
391.0
445.0
451.0
485.0
585.0
668.0
717.0
800.0
1035.0
PCB
EAR
0.2
[To]
3.3
3.3
3.8
4.8
5.3
6.5
7.2
11.3
12.3
12.5
13.3
14.2
19.0
19.2
21.7
22.3
26.0
33.3
34.8
38.7
39.7
42.5
45.3
45.5
46.8
47.7
48.5
50.3
51.2
56.0
SB. 7
60.7
62.8
65.2
65.2
74.2
75.2
80.8
97.5
111.3
119.5
133.3
172.5
Station flrti CutPb+Zn Cu+Pb+Zn
Cone EAR
Ufl-3
69-19
EP20-21
EP19-27
EP19-25
EP15-7
EP15-2
EP19-32
EP19-28
B9-2
EP20-17
B9-14
B9-15
EP19-31
EP20-22
B8-29
EP19-33
69-11
69-12
EP20-16
B9-7
EP15-3
B9-A2
EP20-15
EP15-5
B9-13
B9-4
EP20-13
EP19-34
B9-6
EP20-14
EP15-1
B9-3
EP19-30
69-8
68-30
69-1
69-5
B9-9
89-A1
EP20-23
B9-10
B9-17
E15-4
EP19-29
H
G
*
6
t
H
B
B
£
C
6
E
E
C
E
E
E
C
E
F
C
C
t
C
E
D
B
C
C
A
A
C
A
F
C
B
B
C
A
F
F
D
I
F
r
210.9
214.4
222.5
228.0
231.0
245.0
247.0
250.0
256.0
257.0
290.1
306.5
310.0
312.0
327.0
331.9
335.0
337.0
346.8
356.4
359.9
366.0
368.0
389.4
390.0
393.6
393.6
403.4
424.0
430.6
432.3
436.0
458.5
494.0
509.1
510.0
529.4
534.8
546.8
593.0
644.8
664.0
804.8
1267.0
1360.0
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.3
8.3
8.8
8.9
8.9
9.3
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.9
10.2
10.3
10.5
10.5
U.I
11.1
11.2
11.2
11.5
12.1
12.3
12.4
12.5
13.1
14.1
14.5
14.6
15.1
15.3
15.6
16.9
18.4
19.0
23.0
36.2
38.9
Station ATM Ai
Cone
EP20-16
U8-4
EP20-13
EPI9-31
EP19-27
EP19-13
EP19-1
EP15-1
69-6
UB-2
EP19-20
EP19-9
EP19-23
68-29
B9-fl2
EP20-22
EP19-30
EP19-3
EP15-3
EP20-23
B9-17
EP19-19
EP19-21
EP19-32
EP19-35
EP19-25
EPI9-28
68-30
EP19-7
BB-26
69-fll
EP19-5
EP19-34
EP19-33
EP19-16
EP19-18
E15-4
EP19-10
MA3-1
MA3-2
EP19-B
EP19-15
EP19-29
EP19-17
EP19-11
1 F 11.6
1 H 11.8
1 C 11.8
1 C 12.0
1 6 12.0
2 12.0
5 12.0
1 C 12.2
1 A 12.8
5 12.9
2 13.0
2 13.0
1 6 13.0
1 E 13.2
1 t 13.5
1 E 13.9
1 f 14.0
5 14.0
1 C 14.1
1 F 14.3
1 E 14.9
2 15.0
1 6 15.0
1 B 15.0
1 f 15.0
1 • 15.0
1 E 15.0
1 B 15.2
6 16.0
2 16.1
1 F 16.1
2 17.0
1 C 17.0
1 E 17.0
2 18.0
1 H 18.0
1 F 18.1
2 19.0
1 6 19.0
1 E 19.0
6 19.0
2 20.0
IF 20.0
1 6 23.0
2 46.0
As
EAR
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.8
(M!
5.0
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.9
6.8
13.6
STATION PREFIX CODES are Identified 1n Appendix C.
NOTES: Percentlles calculated on measured values; blanks not counted.
I I » minimum data value that Is above maximum reference value.
» 80th percentile threshold value. Stations below the line
are above the 80th percentile.
When detection limits were not available, values of "0" were detected
and not included in averages.
-------
APPENDIX F
SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA
Organics = ppb wet weight
Metals = ppm wet weight
-------
TABLE F-l. SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA FOR
PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREASf
Organics ppb wet weight
.
CD 0*
CO >
i— 01 C •— OJ
Metals ppm wet weight ™S.° ™^o!
0, -5 OJ •—
x: « -c c
1/1 (A Z U) I/I I— I
C -r- C -r-
•t- r— +J -r- •— OJ
PPI Pollutant 5,5,2 £52
65
34
21
2?
24
31
57
58
59
60
64
5
28
35
36
37
56
61
62
63
1
55
77
78
81
80
39
72
73
74
75
76
79
82
83
34
8
9
20
25
26
27
Phenols
phenol
2, 4-di methyl phenol
Substituted Phenols
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
oara-chloro-meta cresol
2-cnlorophenol
2,4-dicnlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2 ,4-d i ni t rophenol
4 ,6-di ni tro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
Organonitroyen Compounds
benzidine
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1 ,2-di pnenyl hydrazi ne
nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodipropylamine
Low Molecular Weight Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
acenaphthene <
naphthalene <
acenaphthylene <
anthracene <
phenanthrene <
fluorene <
High Molecular Height PAH
fluoranthene <
benzo(a)anthracene <
benzo(a)pyrene <
benzojbjfluoranthene <
benzojk (f luoranthene
chrysene <
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a,h (anthracene
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
pyrene <
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1 ,2 ,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-di chl orobenzene
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
0
U
1.20 < 1.050 U
1.20 < 1.050 <
1.20 < 1.050 U
1.40 < 1.260 U
1.20 < 1.050 U
1.20 < 1.050 U
1.40 < 1.260 U
4.00 < 2.100 U
2.00 < 1.890 U
2.00 a < 1.890 a U
U
1.80 < 1.680 U
U
U
U
1.40 10.500 0
U
2.00 2.100 U
U
4.40 b < 0.400 b U
U
U
J= O +J
O i/l OJ
OJ •—
F— .c C
•M 'en t-
50.000
50.000
100.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
200.000
200.000
200.000
200.000
100.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
25.000
92.600
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25 .000
25.000
50.000
25.000
25 .000
50.000
25.000
25.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
aj i— cct
o
OJ l_
a--- o
•— — o
CD UJ Q
10.000
20.000
80.000
40.000
10.000
40.000
20.000
2000.000
4100.000
250.000
40.000
50.000
20.000
5.000
10.000
500.000
30.000
500.000
10.000
2.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
30.000
70.000
40.000
200.000
60.000
60.000
300.000
240 .000
300.000
20 .000
20.000
1.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
OJ
.C *O 4->
O ul 0)
1- .C 'c
in *-*
n •!—
*J en C-
OJ C *0
h- LU O
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
100.00
25.00
68.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
54.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Gahler et al
Dungeness en
Discovery Baj
10.000
20.000
80.000
40.000
10.000
40.000
20.000
2000 .000
4100.000
250.000
40.000
50.000
20.000
5.000
10.000
500.000
30.000
500.000
10.000
2.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
30.000
70.000
40.000
200.000
60.000
60.000
300.000
240.000
300.000
20.000
20.000
1.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
U
U
U
0
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
Tetra Tech,
Cancer spp.,
Carr Inlet
23.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
100.00
25.00
80.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10. UO
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10 .00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10. OU
10.00
20.00
33.00
20.00
F-l
-------
TABLE F-1. (Continued)
21
Ol
J=
vl 1/1 J
PPI
Pollutant
U C «
- UJ O
r- •— U
.C CT> 1/1
flj C -.-
(9 UJ Q
10 U CD
•M V» >»
(U I/I [_
0) 0)
. .
o a. ai
OI I/I r-
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
52 hexachlorobutadiene
12 hexacnloroethane
S3 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halogenated Ethers
18 bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4U 4-chlorophenyl ether
41 4-bromophenyl ether
42 bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43 bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Phthalates
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phthalate
7U diethyl phthalate
71 dimethyl phthalate
PCBs
106-112 IPCBs
Miscellaneous Oxygenated Compounds
129 TCOO (dioxin)
t>4 isophorone
Pesticides
B9 aldrin
9U dieldrin
91 chlordane
92 4,4'-DDT
93 4,4'-DDE
94 4,4'-DDO
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
98 endrin
99 endrin aldehyde
100 heptachlor
101 heptachlor epoxide
102 alpha-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 yamma-HCH
113 toxaphene
Volatile Haloyenated Alkanes
6 tetrachloromethane
10 1,2-dichloroethane
11 1,1,1-trichloroethane
13 1,1-dichloroethane
14 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16 chloroethane
23 chloroform
32 1,2-dichloropropane
44 dichloromethane
4b chloromethane
46 bromomethane
47 bromoform
48 dichlorobromomethane
bl chlorodlbromomethane
0.20
0.210
U bO.OOO
U 100.000
30.000
10.000
500.000
40.00 U
40.00 U
U
30.000
10.000
500.000
!>94.00
336.000
260.000 < 13.000
U 25.000
36.00 0 10.000
U 10.00
40.00
40.00
0
U
U
U
U
50
25
60
50
50
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
0
5
200
40
5
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
U
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
U
U
U
U
U
5.000
200.000
40.000
5.000
5.000
U
0
U
U
U
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
U 25
U 25
< 512
U 25
U 25
U 25
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
0
U
10
20
3
10
50
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
35.00
10.00
21.00
18.00
10.00
10.00
U
0
U
U
U
U
10
20
3
10
50
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0
U
U
1331.00
10.00
540.00
53.00
10.00
10.00
22.00
U 10.00
< 0.08 < 0.042 U
U
< 0.08 c < 0.042 c U
12.00 6.300 0
20.00 d 12.600 d U
U
U
U
U
U
U
< 0.08 < 0.105 U
U
U
0
U
< 0.08 < 0.063 U
100.000
100.000
1UO.OOO
10U.OOO
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100. DUO
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100. QUO
100.000
100.000
U
U
U
<
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1.000
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.000
.000
.000 e
.000 e
.000 e
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.uoo
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.000
.000
.000
.000 e
.000 e
.000 e
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.uoo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
0
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
bO.OU
50.00
bO.OO
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
F-2
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
l_
O 0)
CO >
, —
r- 0) C
10,— 0
O i/t
0) "* "5
£ (O
v) M £
C *r-
PPI Pollutant 5£<£
Volatile Halogenated AUenes
29 1,1-dichloroethylene
30 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
33 1,3-dichloropropene
85 tetrachloroethylene
87 trichloroethylene
88 vinyl chloride
Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons
4 benzene
38 ethyl benzene
86 toluene
•
U 0. l_~
O Ol Ol Ol •—
CO > L. > m
• • -r- • c
flj I— »i—
o *> .c o *J
4-1 I/I Ol O Ul Ol
O> ^— Ol r—
•C C 1- JI C
c •»- *""*
UJ O
5.00
5.00
20.00
7.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
11.00
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0)
u
i/i
C\J 2
s§
1— t »
• >
— c. «
ID U CO
*> »/> >»
01
I- C >
Ol Ol O
r- C7t U
£ C v>
ID 3 -r-
'J> O O
10.000
10.00U
20.000
10.UOO
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.0UO
10.000
•
0. 01
£o
CL tn
•f
Ol irt t—
tfcf5
" 0 L.
4-> C U-
t— oltj
Volatile Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
7 chlorobenzene
Volatile Unsaturated Carbonyl
Compounds
2 acrolein
3 acrylonitrile
Volatile tttiers
19 2-chloroethylvinylether
Metals
U 10.000 U 5.00 U 10.UOO
U 200.000
U lUO.UOO
U 100.00 U 200.000
U 100.00 U 10U.OOO
U 10.000 U 100.00 U 10.000
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmi urn
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
U 0
1.490 0
U
3.060 7
0
U 0
0 0
< 0
.001
.400
.200
.060
.380
.160
.020
U
0
U
U
U
28.400 24.600
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
.070 <
.200
.005
.006 <
.060 <
.420 U
.460
.040 <
.230 <
.070 <
.010
.040
.200
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
.07 U
.94
U
.02
.19
.38
.22
.06
.12
.17 U
.01
U
.72
0.070
7.200
0.005
0.021
0.060
4.300
0.360
0.070
1.600
0.070
0.195
0.040
52.600
U
<
<
<
<
<
1.00
2.37
0.15
0.24
8.06
0.20
0.04
0.11
0.14
0.20
47.43
aValues are for benzofluoranthenes. presumably both (b) and (k) isomers.
''Author does not specify which isoraer of dichlorobenzene.
cValues are for a-chlordane only.
dValues are for both o,p and p,p isomers.
eValue is assumed to represent both o,p and p,p isomers.
^Organic compounds reported as ppb wet weight. Metals reported as ppm wet weight.
F-3
-------
Smith Island
! WEYERHAEUSER
WOOD PRODUCTS PLANT
E V E R E T
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
TIDEGATE
MUNICIPAL WWTP
PIGEON CREEK #2
SEAHURST-GLENHAVEN CREEK
MUKILTEO tu
FUEL DEPOT ffi 5
MUKILTEO
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
KILOMETERS
Contaminant sources and selected industry
locations in Everett Harbor.
MAP 1
(AG) ASSOC. SAND & GRAVEL
(WG) WESTERN GEAR
(WK) WEYERHAEUSER-KRAFT
(WP) WEYERHAEUSER WOOD PRODUCTS
(WT) WEYERHAEUSER SULFITE/TM MILL
(S) SCOTT
(E) EVERETT
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
SCOTT
EVERETT
WESTERN GEAR
250
YARDS
METERS
CONTOURS IN FEET
Contaminant sources and selected industry
locations in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
MAP 2
-------
Sediment Chemistry: Sediment grain size (percent fines)
in Everett Harbor.
MAP 3
D 0 - 25% 2 51 75%
3 26 - 50% | 76 - 100%
• -.. INTERTIDAL AREAS
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
0 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
250
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
Sediment Chemistry: Sediment grain size (percent fines)
in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
-------
Bay •' \
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
5.1 - 10%
10.1 - 31%
INTERTIDAL AREAS
Sediment Chemistry: Percent total organic carbon in
Everett Harbor.
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
A
0 - 1%
1.1 - 2%
2.1 - 3%
3.1 - 5%
5.1 - 10%
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
Sediment Chemistry: Percent total organic carbon in
East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
-------
MA3-1*
BB-E19*
B8-28 • • EP19-24
EP19-22
EP19-17 • •
\ EP20-17
\ EP19-18
EP2D-21 I
Z /<
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
Sediment Chemistry: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in Everett Harbor.
MAP 7
SAMPLING STATION
INTERTIDAL AREAS
-------
EP19-30
30
EVERETT
EAST WMERWAY EP19-29
. B8-29 •
B6-E16 EP20-23
BB-EI?-^ /EP19-28
EP19-26 B6-E18
SAMPLING STATION
250
500
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
YARDS
METERS
500
Sediment Chemistry: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
MAP 8
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • HISTORICAL
TIDEQATE
MUNICIPAL WWTP
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for low
molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in
Everett Harbor.
MAP 9
O NOT SIGNIFICANT ^f SIGNIFICANT, 10 -100 x
0 SIGNIFICANT,<10 x REFERENCE ^B SIGNIFICANT, 100 -1000 x
REFERENCE - <41 ppb
-------
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT.-OO x REFERENCE
SIGNIFICANT, 10-100 x
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 x
REFERENCE = <41 ppb
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
250 500
YARDS
METERS
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for low
molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in East
Waterway of Everett Harbor. MAP 10
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIOEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
EVERETT
LANDFILL
*•>•••* X .', <
'
9 NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for high
molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in
Everett Harbor. MAP 1
O NOT SIGNIFICANT ^f SIGNIFICANT, 10 -100 x
0 SIGNIFICANT, <10 x REFERENCE ^B SIGNIFICANT, 100 -1000 x
REFERENCE - 79 ppb
-------
30
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
A SIGNIFICANT.OO x REFERENCE
SIGNIFICANT, 10-100 x
(SIGNIFICANT, 100-1000 x
REFERENCE = 79 ppb
-
-------
...-• Bay' \
'ISEE
.. (INSERT
BELOW
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • EXISTING Q
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for
polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs) in Everett Harbor.
MAP 13
O NOT SIGNIFICANT ^B SIGNIFICANT, 10 -100 x
OSIGNIFICANT.OO x REFERENCE ^ft SIGNIFICANT. 100 -1000 x
REFERENCE - 6 ppb
-------
a
30
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
0 SIGNIFICANT, <10 x REFERENCE
SIGNIFICANT, 10-100 x
| SIGNIFICANT, 100-1000 x
REFERENCE = 6 ppb
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
250 500
YARDS
METERS
250
CONTOURS IN FEET
500
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for
polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs) in East Waterway of Everett
Harbor. MAP 14
-------
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • HISTORICAL
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for
copper, lead, and zinc in Everett Harbor.
MAP 15
O NOT SIGNIFICANT ^ft SIGNIFICANT. 10 - 50 X
0 SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE ^fc SIGNIFICANT, 50 -100 X
REFERENCE = 34 ppm
-------
EVERETT
f-AST VmERWAY
o
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 x REFERENCE
SIGNIFICANT, 50-100 x
REFERENCE = 34 ppm
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
250 500
YARDS
METERS
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference for
copper, lead, and zinc in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
-------
Fish Pathology and Fish Bioaccumulation: Sampling
stations for selected data sets in Everett Harbor.
MAP 17
FISH TRAWL/PATHOLOGY
• BIOACCUMULATION
INTERTIDAL AREAS
(TRAWL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE)
-------
EVERETT
-30
FISH TRAWL/PATHOLOGY
BIOACCUMULATION
TRAWL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
250
500
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
YARDS
METERS
500
Fish Pathology and Fish Bioaccumulation: Sampling
stations for selected data sets in East Waterway
of Everett Harbor. MAP 18
-------
EVERETT
NAUTICAL MILES /
CONTOURS IN FEET
0 OYSTER LARVAE BIOASSAY
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAY
SAMPLES WERE COMPOSITED
• INTERTIDAL AREAS
Sediment Bioassay: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in Everett Harbor.
-------
/ /
CH8-16
-)[
B9-4
4B9-5 >U8-E14\ EVERETT
30
WATERWAY
U8-E16
CH8-23
0 OYSTER LARVAE BIOASSAY
• AMPHIPOD BIOASSAY
SAMPLES WERE COMPOSITED
250
500
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
YARDS
METERS
500
Sediment Bioassays: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
MAP 20
-------
-
-------
250
YARDS
METERS
500
CONTOURS IN FEET
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICA
OYSTER LARVAE REFERENCE = 1.6%
• • STATIONS WERE COMPOSITED
a
30
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAY
EAR (°/o MORTALITY)
O 0 - 5 (0 - 5), NOT SIGNIFICANT
5 - 25 (5 - 25)
25 - 50 (25 - 50)
AMPHIPOD MEAN REFERENCE = 4%
OYSTER LARVAE BIOASSAY
EAR (°/o ABNORMALITY)
A <1 (^CONTROL), NOT SIGNIFICANT
<15.6(<25)
15.6-31.2(25-50)
»31.2(»50)
Sediment Bioassay: Elevations above reference for
amphipod and oyster larvae bioassays in East Waterway of
Everett Harbor. MAP 22
-------
1 2
NAUTICAL MILES
KILOMETERS
2 CONTOURS IN FEET
Benthic Infauna: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in Everett Harbor.
MAP 23
• SUBTIDAL SAMPLING STATION
INTERTIDAL AREAS
-------
U5-E2
EAST WATERWAY
SAMPLING STATION
0 250
CONTOURS IN FEET
Benthic Infauna: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
MAP 24
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
I Disposal t
t Area I
NAUTICAL MILES
KILOMETERS
2 CONTOURS IN
O <1-0 x REFERENCE
• 1.0- 5.0 x
A 5.1 -10.0 x
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for total
abundance in Everett Harbor.
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
O <1.0 x REFERENCE
1.0- 5.0 x
5.1 -10.0 x
>50.1 x
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
-
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN FEET
O<1-0 x REFERENCE
1.0- 5.0 x
5.1 - 10.0 x
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for total
number of taxa in Everett Harbor.
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS. SEE TEXT
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
Q <1.0 x REFERENCE
1.0- 5.0 x
I 5.1 - 10.0 x
10.1 -50.0 x
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
•<) SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
Q INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
250 500
YARDS
METERS
250 500
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for total
number of taxa in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
cso
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for amphipod
abundance in Everett Harbor.
MAP 29
O <1-0 X REFERENCE A 10.1 . 50.0 X
01.0- 5.0 X ^f
05.1 - 10.0 X ^B 5s50'1 x
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
O <1.0 x REFERENCE
1.0- 5.0 x
5.1 - 10.0 x
3=50.1 x
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
-
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOURS IN Fl
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for dominance
index in Everett Harbor.
MAP 31
-------
EVERETT
EAST WATERWAY
<1.0 x REFERENCE
1.0- 5.0 x
5.1 - 10.0 x
>50.1 x
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS, SEE TEXT
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
250 500
YARDS
METERS
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference for dominance
index in East Waterway of Everett Harbor.
-------
EVERETT
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
NAUTICAL MILES
KILOMETERS
2 CONTOURS IN FEET
Fish Pathology: Elevations above reference for liver lesions
in English sole in Everett Harbor.
MAP 33
NOT SIGNIFICANT N = NEOPLASMS
SIGNIFICANT, <50 x REFERENCE p _ PRENEOPLASMS
SIGNIFICANT. 50 - 100 x M . MEGALOCYTIC HEPATOSIS
\ SIGNIFICANT, >100 x ^™^HFISH TRAWL
TRAWL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
REFERENCE = 0, 1.9. 1.9%
-------
<£ S
^« EP15-PSS008
. -/£•
• EP15-PSS005
7J9 * >
„x' V^ - <* ^ ^
\ X ^)/ * ^ \ S U
_»v V EP15-PSS016.
oP
x "'/WSwr'/ ' , '' ' ' '/™'#', "'/"","*'>> 'V *s - •> * < ^
'<,2$^ «'/,, »M;>^/> > <. '^'-^' "^ '^t"-< % ^ :" /•: -v\
' %///>'/ '/,/'?+*//r '^%^M^'f\'"'a^i'-'/f^'^^' ^ > ''' '^ ^ - • » "-
1 X ^ ' ^W^/f'"' '?''""?*** "\ •* ^ " * V .r
NAUTICAL MILES ^f> , '' ' '\'/ ' ^ \,' f
Microbiology: Sampling stations for selected data
sets in Everett Harbor.
MAP 34
SUBTIDAL SAMPLING STATION
INTERTIDAL AREAS
-------
SURFACE RUNOFF
CSO
• INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
D INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - HISTORICAL
A TIDEGATE
O MUNICIPAL WWTP
NAUTICAL MILES '
CONTOURS IN FEET
Microbiology: Elevations above reference for fecal coliform
bacteria in water samples from Everett Harbor.
MAP 35
1 0 - 0.5 x REFERENCE
(0.51 -1.0 x
) 1.01 -3.0 x
|3.01 -5.0 x
REFERENCE .
B 100 ML (SEE TEXT)
------- |