United Sl«t«l
t nvironm«ntjl P»ol«cfion
Ag«ncv
.jn-.f al M«. ..•-
J»Xl (slu.ii'iit Vn .!••»•: • id
A.lsh.njlun rx: ,'04bO
M»rcn 1987
tP* 430 9 86 OOS
Bioaccumulation
Monitoring Guidance:
Selection of Target Species
and Review of Available Data
Volume I
Cl
JL
o
sY'
Cl
Cl Cl
tora ^2M2?
roToToj ci ci
ij
'X'
W',
-------
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938
TC 3953-03
Final Report
BIOACCUMULATION MONITORING GUIDANCE:
SELECTION OF TARGET SPECIES AND REVIEW OF
AVAILABLE BIOACCUMULATION DATA
VOLUME 1
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Washington, DC 20460
March, 1987
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
PREFACE
This manual has been prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection in response to requests for guidance from U.S. EPA Regional
Offices and coastal municipalities planning 301(h) monitoring programs for
municipal discharges into the marine environment. The members of the 301(h)
Task Force of EPA, which includes representatives for the EPA Regions I, II,
HI, IV, IX and X, the Office of Research and Development, and the Office of
Water, are to be commended for their vital role in the development of this
guidance by the technical support contractor, Tetra Tech, Inc. The guidance
herein provides assistance in the selection of target species for bioaccumulation
studies for several major coastal areas of the United States.
This guidance is produced in two volumes. Volume I provides a review
of available information, selection methodology and specific guidance to
ensure, to the degree possible, that there is regional consistency in selection
of target species for bioaccumulation studies. Volume II contains a detailed
compilation of available tissue chemistry data for the recommended target
species.
The information provided herein will be useful to U.S. EPA monitoring
program reviewers, permit writers, permittees, and other organizations
involved in performing nearshore monitoring studies. Bioaccumulation monitoring
has become increasingly important in assessing pollution effects, therefore
this guidance should have broad applicability in the design and interpretation
of marine and estuarine monitoring programs.
11
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii
INTRODUCTION 1
RECOMMENDED TARGET SPECIES 2
GENERAL APPROACH 2
FISHES 3
Ranking Procedure 3
Primary Selection Criteria 4
Secondary Selection Criteria 6
Recommended Target Fish Species 7
LARGE MACROINVERTEBRATES 11
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS 15
TISSUE SELECTION 15
TIME OF SAMPLING 16
HISTORICAL DATA FOR TARGET SPECIES 17
APPROACH 17
DATA SUMMARIES 19
DATA GAPS 40
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 42
REFERENCES 44
111
-------
VOLUME II
APPENDIX A. SELECTION OF TARGET SPECIES FOR BIOACCUMULAT10N
MONITORING A-l
APPENDIX B. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HISTORICAL DATA REVIEW 8-1
APPENDIX C. EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL DATA SETS FOR TARGET
SPECIES C-l
APPENDIX D. COMPILATION OF HISTORICAL DATA ON PRIORITY
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN TISSUES OF RECOMMENDED
TARGET SPECIES Di
APPENDIX E. HISTORICAL DATA SETS ON TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS OF
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN RECOMMENDED SECONDARY
SPECIES E-l
1v
-------
FIGURES
VOLUME I
Number Page
1 Summary of recommended target species 43
-------
TABLES
VOLUME I
Number Page
1 Highest ranking candidate fishes for use as 301(h) bioaccumu-
lation monitoring species 8
2 Recommended large macroinvertebrate species for 301(h)
bioaccumulation monitoring 13
3 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) 20
4 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in liver
tissue of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) 21
5 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 22
6 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of English sole (Parophrys vetui us) 23
7 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in liver
tissue of English sole (Parophrys vetulus) 24
8 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) 25
9 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in liver
tissue of Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) 26
10 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of American lobster (Homarus americanus) 27
11 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of eastern rock crab (Cancer irroratus) 28
12 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) 29
13 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of yellow crab (Cancer anthonyi) 30
14 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in muscle
tissue of spiny lobster (Panulirus interrjptus) 31
v1
-------
15 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in whole
hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) 32
16 Summary.-of data on priority pollutant concentrations in whole
soft-shell clam (Hya arenaria) 33
17 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in ocean
quahog (Arctica islandica) 34
18 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in surf
clam (Spisula solidissima) 35
19 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in whole
edible mussel (Mytilus edulis) 36
20 Summary of data on priority pollutant concentrations in whole
California mussel (Mytilus californianus) 37
21 Concentrations of acid-extractable and volatile priority
pollutants in selected target species 39
VOLUME II
A-l Scores of bioaccumulation monitoring candidates on five
selection criteria A-l
A-2 Scientific and common names of species considered for bio-
accumulation monitoring A-13
0-1 Historical metals data compiled by study D-l
D-2 Historical organic chemical data compiled by study 0-51
0-3 Historical metals data sorted by species, tissue, and
sampling area D-172
0-4 Historical organic chemical data sorted by species, tissues,
and sampling area 0-222
0-5 Notes on specific historical data sets in Tables 0-1 through
0-4 D-343
E-l Historical data sets on tissue concentrations of priority
pollutants in recommended secondary species E-l
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document has been reviewed by the 301(h) Task Force of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, which includes representatives from the Water
Management Divisions of U.S. EPA Regions I, II, III, IV, IX, and X; the
Office of Research and Development - Environmental Research Laboratory -
Narragansett (located in Narragansett, RI and Newport, OR), and the Marine
Operations Division in the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office
of Water.
This technical guidance document was produced for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under the 301(h) post-decision technical support
contract No. 68-01-6938, Allison J. Ouryee, Project Officer. This report
was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under the direction of Dr. Thomas C. Ginn.
The primary authors were Dr. D. Scott Becker and Dr. Robert A. Pastorok.
Ms. Marcy B. Brooks-McAuliffe performed technical editing and supervised
report production.
V111
-------
INTRODUCTION
Monitoring the accumulation of toxic substances in tissues of marine
organisms is useful for assessing environmental impacts of specific wastewater
discharges or evaluating water quality from a regional perspective (e.g.,
Young et al. 1976, 1978a,b; Goldberg et al. 1983; Ladd et al. 1984). Under
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, periodic assessment of bioaccumulation
in marine organisms is specified as part of the biological monitoring programs
[40 CFR Part 125.62(b)(f1)]. Additionally, periodic assessment of the
conditions and productivity of commercial or recreational fisheries may
be required [40 CFR Part 125.63(b) (iv)]. Because the accumulation of toxic
substances in tissue can result in restrictions being placed on a fishery,
bioaccumulation can be used as one measure of the condition of a fishery.
The choice of target species is a key element of any bioaccumulation monitoring
program. Tissue concentrations of toxic substances in target species can
serve as indicators of contamination throughout the biological system.
At a minimum, the target species must be capable of accumulating toxic
substances representative of the study area(s), abundant enough over time
and space to allow adequate sampling, and large enough to provide adequate
amounts of tissue for analysis.
The primary purpose of this report is to provide guidance for selecting
target species for bioaccumulation monitoring studies to be conducted as
part of the 301 (h) sewage discharge program. Consistency among the monitoring
programs for Individual 301 (h) discharges ultimately will allow the development
of regional and national perspectives on the effects of sewage discharges
on marine and estuarine environments. In addition to recommending target
species for bioaccumulation monitoring, this report presents a compilation,
evaluation, and summarization of recent data on concentrations of priority
pollutants In those species. This data review should aid the interpretation
of 301 (h) monitoring results. For example, the data for a target species
at a particular discharge site can be compared with historical data for
that same species during different time periods and at various locations
throughout the United States.
1
-------
RECOMMENDED TARGET SPECIES
GENERAL APPROACH
The recommended target species include fishes and large macroinverte-
bratesl. These taxa were selected because 1} representatives are indigenous
to most habitats affected by 301(h) discharges, 2) individuals generally
are large enough to provide adequate tissue mass for bioaccumulation analyses,
and 3) many of these taxa support commercial or recreational fisheries.
A potential drawback 1n using these taxa 1s that all, except most bivalve
molluscs, exhibit some degree of movement. Some spatial and temporal patterns
of bioaccumulation could therefore be influenced by these movements.
Recommended fish and large macroinvertebrate species were selected
on the basis of several criteria. In general, the major requisites for
selection were that a species be relatively abundant near sewage outfalls
and that Its behavior create a substantial risk of bioaccumulation. To
make the selection process as site specific as possible, candidate organisms
were selected from data supplied 1n 301(h) applications from various munici-
palities. Information on fishes from Washington to California on the west
coast and from Massachusetts to Virginia on the east coast was sufficiently
quantitative to allow a detailed species selection analysis. In contrast
to these quantitative data sets, fish data from Florida, Alaska. Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii, and all large macroinvertebrate data
were qualitative. Several potential monitoring species were therefore
recommended for fishes at each of these five areas and for large macrolnverte-
brates at all locations, with final selection to be made following quantitative
site-specific surveys.
The detailed species selection analysis referred to above was based
upon primary and secondary criteria. Primary selection criteria were concerned
*In this document, the term "large macroinvertebrate" refers to a species
that Is too large to be sampled adequately by a conventional bottom grab.
-------
with ecological characteristics of organisms that would enhance their risk
of bioaccumulation (i.e., habitat and prey type) or facilitate sampling
and analytical procedures (i.e., geographic distribution, size, and abundance).
Secondary selection criteria considered additional factors that would enhance
the desirability of using particular species for monitoring purposes.
These included economic importance and status as a recommended bioassay
organism. Primary criteria were used to develop a list of the most desirable
bioaccunulation candidates at each discharge site, whereas secondary criteria
were used primarily to select a single recommended species from each group
of candidates.
In addition to the primary and secondary selection criteria identified
previously, two additional criteria were considered but rejected. The
"ecological importance" of each species was considered a desirable criterion,
but no means of objectively and unambiguously evaluating this criterion
for each species was available. A second possible additional criterion
was that a species was known to bioaccumulate contaminants based on historical
studies. This second criterion was rejected because studies have not been
conducted on most of the species considered.
FISHES
Ranking Procedure
The first step 1n ranking fishes for bioaccumulation monitoring was
to develop a list of the most abundant species near individual municipalities
applying for 301(h) modified permits. Adequate data sets were found for
28 localities (Table A-l), and evaluations were made for 115 species (Table
A-2). Once each species 11st was developed, fishes were scored from 1 to 3
on the basis of each of five primary criteria. A score of 3 signified
that a species was highly acceptable for bioaccumulation monitoring, whereas
a score of 1 Indicated that a species was marginal. A score of 2 was given
to intermediate cases. After all species had been considered, the scores
were summed across all five criteria. Fishes could then be ranked for
acceptability as bioaccumulation monitoring species on the basis of their
total scores. Species scoring 12 or greater out of the maximum of 15 were
-------
considered acceptable monitoring candidates and were evaluated further
with respect to the secondary criteria discussed below (I.e., economic
importance and status as a recommended bioassay species).
Site-specific abundances were based primarily on information collected
using otter trawls, because most historical 301(h) studies used these devices
and because most future 301(h) monitoring programs will use them to evaluate
whether balanced indigenous populations (BIPs) of fishes exist near particular
outfalls. It should be noted, however, that these otter trawls are biased
to catch soft-bottom demersal fishes, rather than pelagic species or species
that live near structures (e.g., rocks, coral). This bias was considered
acceptable for the requirements of the present target species evaluation
because fishes living near the bottom are better bioaccunulation candidates
than are water-column species (see Habitat section under Primary Selection
Criteria below) and because most 301(h) discharge sites are located in
soft-bottom environments rather than 1n habitats having considerable amounts
of structures. However, specific monitoring programs may require fishes
to be collected from the water column or from the vicinity of structures.
In such cases, sampling devices other than an otter trawl (e.g., mldwater
trawl, long-lines, hook and line, visual observations using divers or
submersibles) will be required. Because of the site-specific nature of
these objectives and sampling devices, guidance for the selection of target
species and sampling methods 1s not given 1n this document. Characteristics
of Individual species, other than site-specific abundances, were based
on Information presented 1n general regional references of fish ecology
and biology (I.e., Hlldebrand and Schroeder 1927; Blgelow and Schroeder
1953; Miller and Lea 1972; Hart 1973; Allen 1982; Grossleln and Azarovitz
1982).
Primary Selection Criteria
Habitat-
It was assumed that fishes living 1n close contact with bottom sediments
have a greater risk of bloaccumulation than fishes that spend a greater
amount of time 1n the water column. The rationale for this assumption
-------
1s that contaminant uptake through the skin or gills would be enhanced
by close contact with sediments and Interstitial waters. Accordingly.
fishes that burrow or bury In sediments and those lacking swimbladders were
given a score of 3. Fishes having swimbladders and known to spend considerable
time near the bottom were scored 2. Pelagic fishes were scored 1.
Prey Type-
It was assumed that fishes feeding upon sedentary Infaunal and small
epifaunal organisms have a higher risk of bloaccumulatlon than fishes preying
upon mobile, water-column organisms. The rationale for this assumption
is that stationary prey near outfalls have a higher probability of being
contaminated by toxic compounds in discharged effluent than do more mobile
prey. Fishes preying almost exclusively upon infauna and small epifauna
were therefore scored 3. Fishes preying upon mobile prey as well as Infauna
and small epifauna were scored 2. Fishes that preyed almost exclusively
on mobile or water-column prey were scored 1.
Geographic Distribution--
Widespread species are more desirable for 301 (h) monitoring programs
than are locally restricted fishes. By using widespread species, withln-species
comparisons among dischargers are facilitated, and variations In the kinds
and degrees of bloaccumulatlon can be evaluated. These comparisons will
allow bloaccumulatlon to be evaluated from a regional perspective, without
including the uncertainties Inherent 1n comparing results collected from
different species. Thus, fishes found to be abundant In three or more
states were scored 3. Species found to be abundant 1n two states or only
one state were scored 2 or 1, respectively. Nate that California was subdivided
into two regions (northern and southern) to coincide with the natural faunal
break that occurs at Point Conception. Species occurring In both California
regions were given a score of 2.
-------
S1ze--
Larger species are more desirable for monitoring programs than are
smaller species "because adequate amounts of tissue for,contaminant analyses
can be obtained from single organisms or relatively few organisms pooled.
Compositing of many organisms, and the uncertainties associated with It,
can thereby be avoided. Length was used as the index of fish size, because
that variable was reported more consistently in the regional references
than was weight. Fishes with maximum (west coast) or common sizes (east
coast) greater than 50 cm (20 in) were scored 3, those larger than or equal
to 25 cm (10 in) but smaller than or equal to 50 cm (20 in) were scored
2, and those smaller than 25 cm (10 in) were scored 1.
Abundance—
Abundant species are more desirable for monitoring purposes than are
rarer species. The probability of capturing adequate numbers of Individuals
for bloaccumulatlon analyses 1s enhanced by the use of abundant species.
Whenever possible, the abundances used to rank species near specific outfalls
were pooled across seasons and years to represent time-averaged, long-term
patterns. Because the abundances of most species vary seasonally, Individual
monitoring programs should be designed to accommodate the seasonal patterns
of Individual target species. Fishes ranking in the top one-third of the
most abundant species near each outfall were scored 3, and those 1n the
middle third or lower third were scored 2 or 1, respectively.
Secondary Selection Criteria
Economic Importance--
Species having commercial or recreational Importance were ranked higher
than species having no economic Importance. Because one objective of 301(h)
monitoring 1s to assess commercial and recreational species near discharges,
use of an economically Important species for bloaccumulatlon monitoring
will contribute simultaneously to two aspects of the monitoring program.
-------
Bloassay Species--
Species recommended for use 1n bloassays by Peltier and Weber (1983)
were ranked MgheV than species not recommended for these tests. Information
regarding Impacts on these species will thereby be maximized. However,
this does not Imply that results of the bloassays and bioaccumulatlon studies
are related directly.
Recoirmended Target Fish Species
Results of the species selection analyses are presented In Appendix A,
Table A-l. Scientific names of the 116 fishes considered during the species
selection process are presented In Appendix A, Table A-2. A discussion
of the results is provided below.
Candidate monitoring species identified by the detailed species-selection
analysis are listed In Table 1. These species ranked highest (I.e., scores
>12) on the basis of the primary selection criteria.
Inspection of Table I shows that certain fishes were candidate monitoring
species at several sites within a larger geographic region. It is recommended
that, as far as possible, these species be used for bloaccumulation monitoring
at all outfalls within each region. This use of a regional monitoring
species will allow valid comparisons among different discharge sites.
For Massachusetts and Rhode Island, winter flounder fPseudopleuronectes
amerlcanusl 1s the recommended monitoring species. In addition to being
the highest ranking species at every locality within this region, winter
flounder Is economically Important and Is a reconmended EPA bloassay species.
For New Jersey and Virginia, spot (leiostomus xanthurus) was the highest
ranking species at all three localities considered. This species is also
economically Important and Is a recommended EPA bloassay species. It is
therefore reconmended that this species be used for bioaccumulatlon monitoring
within this region.
-------
TABLE 1. HIGHEST RANKING CANDIDATE FISHES FOR USE AS
301(h) BIOACCUMULATION MONITORING SPECIES
State Locality
MASSACHUSETTS Swanpscott
Lynn
South Essex
Boston
Fall River
New Bedford
RHODE ISLAND Newport
NEtf YORK Upper East River
Lower East River
Lower Hudson River
NEW JERSEY Cape Hay
VIRGINIA Portsmouth
Virginia Beach
Score
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
13
13
12
12
13
13
13
12
12
13
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
12
13
12
12
Secondary Selection Criteria
Economic Bloassay
Species Importance Species
Winter flounder
Yellowtall flounder
Ocean pout
Wlndowpane
Winter flounder
YelloMtall flounder
Ocean pout
Winter flounder
Vellowtall flounder
Wlndowpane
American eel
Ocean pout
Winter flounder
Vellowtall flounder
Ocean pout
Wlndowpane
Winter flounder
Wlndowpane
Winter flounder
Scup
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Scup
Weakflsh
Winter flounder
Wlndowpane
Weakflsh
Spot
Scup
American etl
Hogchoker
Spot
Red hake
Wlndowpane
Summer flounder
Spot
Summer flounder
Atlantic croaker
Hogchoker
Spot
Red hake
Sunnier flounder
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
NO
NO
Yes
Vet
NO
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
NO
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NO
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
NO
NO
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NO
HO
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
8
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
State
CALIFORNIA
(NORTHERN)
CALIFORNIA
(SOUTHERN)
MSHIN6TON
Locality
San Francisco
Oakland
Monterey
Santa Cruz
Watsonvllle
Goleta
Santa Barbara
L.A. County
Orange County
Hyperion
Oceanslde
Escondtdo
San Ell jo
San Diego
Central Puget Sound
Score
14
12
12
IS
IS
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
12
12
IS
12
12
14
12
12
12
IS
13
12
12
15
13
12
12
14
14
14
14
13
12
Species
English sole
Pacific sanddab
Big Skate
English sole
Starry flounder
Pacific staghorn sculpln
English sole
Cur If In sole
English sole
English sole
Cur If in sole
Dover sole
Pacific sanddab
Long spine conbflsh
Spotted cusk-eel
English sole
Pacific sanddab
Dover sole
Curl fin sole
English sole
Dover sole
Pacific sanddab
English sole
Dover sole
Longsplne conbflsh
Big skate
California skate
Dover sole
Blackbelly eel pout
Pacific sanddab
English sole
Dover sole
English solt
Pacific sanddab
Longsplne conbflsh
English sole
Dover sole
Rock sole
Spotted ratflsh
Rex sole
C-0 solt
Secondary Selection Criteria
Economic Bloassay
Importance Species
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YM
• V *
Yes
Yes
NO
No
No
M_ —
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
WAA
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
VAA
Yes
M
Yes
1^*
HO
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
1 W
No
No
No
Yes
No
nu
Na
nu
Yes
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
NO
No
-------
Fish assemblages within the New York Harbor area were quite varied,
and no species Has found In the top-ranked group at more than one locality.
However, winter flounder scored II in the Lower Hudson River and Lower
East River, and spot scored 11 1n the Upper East River. Because these
two fishes are the recommended monitoring species for the regions north
and south (respectively) of the New York Harbor area, 1t 1s recommended
that either one be selected as a monitoring species for each locality within
New York Harbor, depending upon site-specific availability.
For northern California, English sole (Parophrys vetulus) was the
highest ranking species at all five localities considered. Because this
species Is also economically important, and 1s a recommended EPA bloassay
species, It 1s reconrnended that this fish be used for bloaccemulation monitoring
in northern California.
For southern California, Dover sole (Microstores pacific us) was the
highest ranking species at six of the nine localities considered. Because
this species also 1s economically important, it 1s recommended that this
fish be used as the primary bioaccumulatlon monitoring species for southern
California. Because Pacific sand dab (Citharichthys sordid us 1 was ranked
highly at five of the nine localities and because this species is economically
Important, it 1s recommended as an alternate bioaccumulatlon monitoring
species, in case Dover sole cannot be sampled adequately.
At one of three southern California localities where Dover sole was
not ranked highest (I.e., Santa Barbara), English sole was the highest
ranking species. The fish assemblages at the remaining two localities
(I.e., Escondldo and Ocean side) were unique to the California area because
neither Dover sole nor English sole were among the highest ranking fishes.
Consequently, the highest ranking species at these sites [I.e., California
skate (Raja Inornatal and longsplne combflsh fZaniolepIs latipinnis).
respectively] were also unique. Because English sole 1s the recommended
monitoring species for northern California, 1t 1s recommended that this
fish be used for that purpose off Santa Barbara. At Escondldo and Oceanside,
It Is recommended that every effort be made to capture sufficient numbers
of either English sole or Dover sole for bioaccumulatlon analyses. Possible
10
-------
strategies Include Increased number of hauls; sampling at dawn, dusk, or
night; and sampHng during different seasons.
For the Puget Sound area, both English sole and Dover sole were tied
for the highest ranking with rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata) and spotted
ratfish (Hydrolagus coll lei). The spotted ratfish is not recommended because
of its lack of economic importance. Because English sole and Dover sole
are recommended monitoring species for California, it is recommended that
they also be used for monitoring in Puget Sound. Determination of which
of these two species to use at each locality should be based on site-specific
availability.
As mentioned previously, fishes from Florida, Alaska, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii could not be evaluated using the detailed
species selection analysis. Therefore, a number of candidate monitoring
species were tentatively recommended. Final selections should be made
following quantitative site-specific surveys. For all of the above areas
except Alaska, it is recommended that territorial chaetodontlds (butterflyfishes
and angel fishes) or pomacentrids (damselfishes) be used for bioaccumulation
monitoring. Because these fishes live on reefs, they are frequently found
near outfall pipes and associated armor. In addition, their territorial
behavior should ensure that these fishes spend most of their time near
sampling stations. Because many of these species are relatively small,
compositing may be required. For Alaskan bioaccumulation studies, 1t 1s
recommended that a pleuronectid (righteye flounder) be selected for monitoring
purposes. Of the pleuronectlds found in Alaska nearshore habitats, English
sole 1s the preferred monitoring species because it Is also a recommended
monitoring species for Washington and northern California.
LARGE MACROINYERTE8RATES
As mentioned previously, historical 301(h) data regarding large macro-
Invertebrates has been largely qualitative. The main deterrent to collecting
quantitative data has been use of an otter jtrawl for sampling. Although
this device will efficiently capture many large soft-bottom macroinvertebrates,
1t will not adequately sample organisms associated with cover (e.g., kelp.
11
-------
eelgrass, rocks, coral) or organisms that reside below the sediment surface
(e.g., burrowing molluscs). If sufficient numbers of these species cannot
be captured using an otter trawl, alternate kinds of sampling gear should
be used (e.g., traps, dredges).
Large macrolnvertebrates considered as bloaccumulation monitoring
candidates were either large bivalve molluscs or large decapod crustaceans,
primarily because individuals generally are large enough to provide adequate
tissue mass for bioaccumulatlon analysis and because many of these species
are commercially or recreationally Important. Bivalve molluscs are preferred
over decapod crustaceans because they are relatively sedentary. However,
because it was uncertain whether adequate abundances of large bivalves
could be found at each discharge site, large decapod crustaceans were recom-
mended as alternate monitoring species.
The recommended large macroinvertebrate species for each region are
presented in Table 2. As with fishes, regional uniformity of target species
is preferred. However, because many large macroinvertebrates exhibit a
greater degree of site specificity than fishes, it 1s expected that various
dischargers within a region may use different monitoring species. The
species chosen by each discharger should be present near the zone of initial
dilution (ZIO), at the ZID boundary, at farfleld stations, and 1n the reference
areas. The abundance and distribution of potential monitoring species
should be determined prior to monitoring, using sampling devices other
than an otter trawl.
The use of small macrolnvertebrates (e.g., polychaetes, amphlpods,
small molluscs) as bioaccumulatlon monitoring species Is attractive because
many of these species are relatively sedentary. However, use of small
Infauna presents several potential problems. Because these species are
small, considerable effort and expense 1s required to sample enough tissue
for laboratory analysis. Because the distributions of many of these species
are strongly dependent on sediment characteristics, U 1s unlikely that
the same species can be found 1n adequate abundances within the ZID, at
the ZIO boundary, at farfield stations, and in the reference areas. Thus,
spatial patterns of bioaccumulatlon will probably be based on Interspecific
12
-------
TABLE a'. RECOMMENDED LARGE MACRO INVERTEBRATE SPECIES FOR
301(h) BIOACCUMULATION MONITORING
Region Recommended Species*
Massachusetts to Virginia American lobster (Homarus americanus)
Eastern rock crab (Cancer irroratusj
Hard clam (Mercenana mercenarla)
Soft-shell clam tftya~arenaria)
Ocean quahog (ArctTFa~is1andica)
Surf clam (Spisuia solidissima)
Edible mussel (MyTllus eduils)
Alaska to California Spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus)
Dungeness crab (Cancer maglster)
Rock crab (Cancer~antennar1us)
Yellow crab (Cancer anthonyl)
W1
Red crab (Cancer productus)
Edible mussel (Mytnus edullsj
California mussel (MyTilus californianus)
Florida, Virgin Islands, and Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
Puerto Rico
Hawaii Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicHiatus)
a Additional species that may occur at specific discharge sites and are
considered acceptable bioaccumulation monitoring species include the American
oyster (Crassostrea virglnica) and the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas).
13
-------
comparisons, which are very difficult to Interpret. Finally, depuration,
if required, will be difficult or impossible because many organisms will
be Injured or kfiled during the sieving and sorting processes.
If small macroinvertebrates will be used as monitoring species, it
is recommended that the Hacoma spp. be considered as the primary candidates.
These species are generally found in large abundances in organically enriched
sediments and are consumed by a variety of fishes. In addition, because
Macoma spp. are deposit feeders, they have considerable potential for ingestion
of sediment-associated contaminants.
14
-------
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS
This section briefly discusses two important sampling variables for
bioaccumulation monitoring that must be selected after the target species
have been identified: the tissue(s) to analyze and the time(s) to collect
the organisms. Because these variables are highly dependent on the objectives
of individual monitoring programs, only general recommendations and guidance
can be given.
TISSUE SELECTION
For fishes, it is recommended that edible muscle and/or liver tissue
be analyzed for contaminants. Contaminants in edible muscle tissue represent
the compounds that are retained by fishes in a form that allows transfer
to humans and thereby results In possible restrictions being placed on
commercial or recreational fisheries. Liver tissue is closely associated
with regulation and storage of many toxic compounds (Fowler 1982). Contaminant
concentrations in liver tissue can therefore be used to estimate the range
of contaminants being assimilated by the fishes, and to evaluate the possible
effects of those contaminants on the health of the fishes. Chemical analyses
of liver tissue can also be used to establish links between bioaccumulation
and histopathology data.
For crabs and lobsters, it 1s recommended that edible muscle and/or
hepatopancreas tissue be analyzed for contaminants for purposes analagous
to those described previously for fish muscle and liver tissue. For bivalve
molluscs, contaminant analyses should be conducted on all soft-body tissues.
For whole-body analyses of bivalve molluscs, depuration may or may
not be required, depending on the objectives of each particular monitoring
study. If organisms are not depurated, contaminants In the gut contents
that have not been Incorporated Into body tissue will be Included in the
results. Because most predators consume whole bivalves, Including gut
15
-------
contents, results from undepurated organisms provide an accurate estimate
of the total amount of contaminants available to most predators. Depuration
is most appropriate for estimating the amount of contaminants that are
retained in the tissue of a bivalve mollusc and may thereby pose a health
threat to that organism. However, the depuration process must be conducted
carefully to ensure that all individuals depurate completely and to avoid
contaminating organisms during the process. From the standpoint of commercial
and recreational fisheries, depuration is not always conducted before organisms
are consumed by humans. Therefore, evaluation of undepurated organisms
provides a conservative (i.e., worst-case) estimate of contaminant concen-
trations in economically important bivalves.
TIME OF SAMPLING
The reproductive cycles of marine organisms exert a major influence
on the tissue levels of many contaminants (review 1n Phillips 1980). Thus,
the time of sampling for bioaccumulation monitoring is an important consider-
ation. Ideally, the target species should be sampled when tissue contaminant
concentrations are expected to be at their highest levels, so that the
worst-case conditions of bioaccumulation can be evaluated. An effort should
therefore be made to coordinate the time of sampling with the reproductive
cycle of each target species. If such an effort is made, the sampling
period for each monitoring program will depend upon the species (fish and
large macroinvertebrate) selected for analysis. Once a sampling period
is chosen for a species, it should remain constant over time, so that valid
interannual comparisons can be made.
16
-------
HISTORICAL DATA FOR TARGET SPECIES
Historical data on priority pollutant concentrations In tissues of
the reconmended target species Identified 1n the previous section are presented
below. These data were compiled to assist the interpretation of 301(h)
monitoring data. For example, the data for a target species at a particular
discharge site can be compared with historical data for the same species
during different time periods and at various locations throughout the United
States. The following sections present the approach, data summaries, and
data gaps for the compilation of historical data on priority pollutant
concentrations in tissues of the recommended target species.
APPROACH
Relevant literature on priority pollutant concentrations In tissues
was compiled by: 1) a manual search of Tetra Tech files and the University
of Washington library system; 2) computerized searches of NTIS, Oceanic
Abstracts, and Envlrollne data bases; 3) examination of the bibliographies
contained In recent reviews of bloaccumulatlon literature (e.g., Phillips
1980; annual marine pollution review articles In the Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation); and 4) personal contacts with scientific
Investigators. Data 1n the 301(h) applications that were not also available
In the published literature were judged to be of questionable quality (e.g.,
because of small sample sizes, lack of methods documentation, or Inadequate
QA/QCy. Therefore, these limited data were not Included 1n the data review.
The literature search covered only January, 1974, through September, 1984.
Earlier data were excluded because of the relatively primitive nature of
analytical methods used to determine contaminant residues. The Initial
compilation of literature was limited to Information on resident populations
of target species from locations along the east and west coasts of the
United States, from Hawaii, and from the Caribbean Islands. These are
the locations of 301 (h) sewage discharges. Tissue concentrations measured
17
-------
in laboratory exposures (e.g., bioassays) were not Included in this review
because such data are not directly comparable with field data.
After the initial literature compilation, each study was evaluated
according to the criteria presented in Appendix 8. Data were rejected
for any of the following reasons:
• Inadequate documentation of sampling sites, dates, or methods
• Improper methods for sample collection, processing, or analysis
• Lack of analytical standards
• Lack of quality assurance/quality control specifications.
A total of 64 data sets were evaluated, and 34 of these were accepted
for inclusion in the historical data base (Appendix C). Because of the
large amount of acceptable mussel data, only representative data from recent
studies were compiled (Appendix 0). Major data gaps are described at the
end of this section. Data for species recommended secondarily as target
organisms (i.e., Macpma spp., Pacific oyster, American oyster, and Pacific
sanddab) were not compiled. However, references to those data are presented
in Appendix E.
Data were compiled for muscle tissue and liver tissue of target fish
species, for muscle tissue of target macroinvertebrate species, and for
whole-body tissue (soft tissue) of target bivalve species. Data for a
specific body part (I.e., foot) of the ocean quahog and the surf clam were
also Included, because of the relatively small amount of data for whole-body
analyses 1n these species. Initially, available data for all priority
pollutants were compiled. Because only one study provided analyses for
all volatile and acid-extractable priority pollutant compounds, the limited
data for these pollutants were not included in the final Appendix tables.
Data for these compounds are presented separately later In the text.
18
-------
The data were compiled initially by study (Appendix 0, Tables 0-1
and 0-2) and then sorted by species, tissue, and general sampling area
(Appendix D, Table 0-3 and 0-4). Before examining the tissue concentration
data, sampling locations were classified into two general sampling areas:
1) areas near known sources of contamination and 2) areas removed from
known sources of contamination. The original authors' classifications
for sampling locations were used whenever they were available. In most
cases, sampling locations were classified by examining the authors' description
of the sampling site relative to known locations of pollutant discharges.
The data for each species were summarized by taking the median and overall
range of the compiled data. The median was derived from whatever values
were reported by the original authors (e.g., means, medians, and individual
organism observations). Those original values appear in the "Value" columns
of Tables 0-3 and 0-4 in Appendix 0. The median was used rather than the
mean because it is biased less by extreme values. Detection limits for
"undetected" results were included in the determination of the median.
The "overall range," which is presented in the results section below, 1s
the range of observations in the "Value", "Minimum", and "Maximum" columns
of Appendix 0 tables.
DATA SUMMARIES
The complete data compilations are shown in Appendix 0, Tables 0-1
through 0-4, including data on all metals and 28 organic compounds on the
priority pollutant list. The chemicals that have received the most attention
in bioaccumulation studies of target species are metals, PCBs, DDT, and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Only a few studies (Maiins et
al. 1980; MacLeod et al. 1981; Ladd et al. 1984; Tetra Tech, 1985b) analyzed
for a wide variety of organic priority pollutants.
A summary of results for each species and tissue type Is provided
in Tables 3-20. The general lack of a substantial difference In tissue
contaminant concentrations between areas near and removed from known contaminant
sources (Tables 3-20) is probably due to the subjective classification
of sites by the original authors or the present reviewers, the wide range
of reference conditions represented by samples collected from a broad geographic
19
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN MUSCLE TISSUE
OF WINTER FLOUNDER (Pseudopleurpnectes amerlcanus)
Near Contaminant
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wt.1
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organ 1cs (ppb wet wt.]
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2 ,4-tr Ichlorobenzene
Hexachl orobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
:PCB
Aldrln
Oleldrln
Chlordane
DOT
SOOT, 000. DOE
OOE
000
SEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
aBHC
flBHC
TBHC
Sources
Median4 Rangeb
O.OOS
0.002
0.011
0.117
0.060
0.021
0.025
4.170
2.00
0.60
0.70
0.90
1.80
1.10
0.90
0.90
0.90
100.00
0.40
0.90
7.00
2.00
12.00
10.00
0.40
0.60
0.90
< 0.001 <
< 0.001
< O.OOS
0.070
0.030
< 0.019
< 0.018 <
1.420
< 0.60
< 0.60 <
< 0.60
< 0.60
< 1.40 <
< 0.80 <
< 0.80 <
< 0.60
< 0.60
50.00
< 0.20 <
< 0.80
6.00
< 1.40
3.00
1.00
< 0.20 <
< 0.40 <
< 0.80
0.100
0.180
1.350
1.100
0.120
0.500
0.800
6.480
6.00
0.80
1.00
6.00
2.00
4.00
1.60
1.00
1.20
560.00
0.80
4.00
8.00
4.00
26.00
10.00
0.80
1.00
2.00
(n)C
29
0
29
28
28
S
28
29
0
28
0
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
47
6
6
6
6
39
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
6
Removed
Median
0.085
0.085
0.490
0.230
0.040
0.180
0.500
4.250
1.22
0.88
0.92
0.92
1.95
1.13
1.10
0.92
0.92
38.00
0.72
1.13
1.08
1.64
5.50
2.15
0.72
0.92
0.92
from Contaminant Sources
Range
< 0.070 <
< 0.070 <
0.120
0.150
0.023
0.140
< 0.500 <
1.930
< 0.63
< 0.63 <
< 0.63 <
< 0.63 <
< 1.47 <
< 1.05 <
< 0.84 <
< 0.63 <
< 0.63 <
0.100
0.100
1.270
0.340
0.106
0.350
0.600
6.220
6.90
1.00
1.15
1.15
2.30
1.38
1.20
1.15
1.15
5.00 140.00
< 0.42 <
< 0.84 <
0.84
< 1.05 <
< 3.00
1.68
< 0.42 <
< 0.63 <
< 0.63 <
0.92
1.38
1.68
2.07
35.00
4.20
0.92
1.15
I. IS
I")
6
0
6
6
6
5
6
6
0
6
0
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
0
0
16
4
4
4
4
12
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
4
* Median of •Value" column for given species and tissue 1n Appendix Tables D-3 and D-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value/ 'Minimum/ and "Maximum* columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shorn.
20
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMAfir OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN LIVER TISSUE
OF WINTER FLOUNDER (Pseudopleuronectes amerlcanus)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant
Metals {pom wet wt.)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organ Ics (ppb wet wt.]
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pjrrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2 ,4-tr Ichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Nchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
2PCB
Aldrln
OleldHn
Chlorda/ie
DOT
1DDT, DOO. OS
ODE
000
ZEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
0BHC
T8HC
Median4
0.175
0.168
0.045
6. 450
0.065
0.300
0.800
28.000
70.80
1.39
1.39
1.44
1.97
1.68
1.86
1.S4
4.05
4550.00
6.79
6.79
15.20
27.30
665.00
247.44
13.58
6.94
13.58
Rangeb
0.042
< 0.010
< 0.025
1.440
< 0.030
< 0.094
« 0.076
15.000
11.60
< 1.04
< 1.04
< 0.84
< 1.04
< 1.04
< 1.40
< 1.04
< 0.29
400.00
< 0.58
< 0.58
13.00
< 2.60
55.00
< 0.87
< 1.16
< 0.87
< 1.16
0.800
< 0.300
< 0.600
13.800
0.170
< 1 .000
< 1 .500
45.000
130.00
< 1.74
< 1.74
< 2.03
< 2.90
< 2.32
< 2.32
< 2.03
< 7.80
10000.00
< 13.00
< 13.00
17.40
< 52.00
1600.00
494.00
< 26.00
< 13.00
< 26.00
(n)C
30
0
29
18
28
10
28
29
0
28
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
40
2
2
2
2
38
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
Removed from Contaminant Source
Median Range (n)
0.101 0.050 0.265 6
0
0.082 0.052 0.233 6
0.021 < 0.018 0.047 6
3.490 1.470 9.350 6
0
0.076 < 0.030 < 0.111 6
0.119 < 0.061 0.386 6
0
28.550 23.300 35.700 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1200.00 250.00 4140.00 25
0
0
0
0
305.00 100.00 650.00 12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Median of 'Value' column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
» Overall range of data 1n 'Value,* •Minimum." and 'Maximum* columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
Zl
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF SPOT (Lelostomus xanthurus)
Pollutant
Metals (ppn wet w&)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic; (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 .2 ,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
ZPCB
Aldrln
01eldr1n
Chlordane
DDT
COOT. ODD, DOE
DOE
ODD
lEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oftHC
6BHC
YBHC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median" Range0 (n)C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240.00 240.00 290.00 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Btmoved froa Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.00 30.00 30.00 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Median of 'Value' column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value,' "Minimum," and "Maximum' columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection Unit shown.
22
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF ENGLISH SOLE (Parophrys yetuius)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant
Metals (ppm w«t wt.)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphtnene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
8enzo{a)anthracene
8enzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-tHchlorobenzene
HexacMorobenzene
Olcnlorobenzefle
Hexachlorobutadlene
IPCB
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Chlordane
oor
COOT. OOD, ODE
DOE
ODD
CEridosulfan
Endrln
Heotachlor
HepUchlor eooxldt
oBMC
88HC
PW<*W
YBMC
Median8
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
40.00
40.00
171.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Range0
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
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
U
(n)c
10.00
<1322.00
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
<
u
c
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
15.00
42.00
41.00
354.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
95.00
93.00
95.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
a
teaoved ffOB Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
10.00
54.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
40.00
40.00
36.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
U
<
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
<
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10.00
54.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
40.00
40.00
36.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
U 50.00
U 10.00
< 54.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 10.00
U 20.00
U 10.00
U 40.00
U 40.00
< 36.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
50.00
50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
U 50.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
I
1
1
0
1
• Median of "Value* coluan for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables D-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value,' "Minimum,' and 'Maxim*' columns In Appendix Tables D-J
jnd 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown. ,.„..,. ^*^.»^«
< - maximum value of mean shown; mean calculated using detection Halts for undetected
results. 23
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IH
LIVER TISSUE OF ENGLISH SOLE (Parophrys vetulus)
Po Mutant
Metals (ppra wet wt.)
Stiver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zfnc
Organic! (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(ajpyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2 ,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadfene
0»C8
AldMn
OfeldMn
Chlordane
DDT
EDDT, 000, ODE
DOE
ODD
EEndosuIfan
Endrtn
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
aBHC
0BHC
YBHC
Near
Median'
0.895
0.775
5.450
0.924
34.600
2.50
12.50
4.20
2.23
2.50
7.20
9.20
5.00
4.60
4.60
4.60
2.30
2.40
2111.40
0.46
7.20
21.60
86.70
0.42
0.48
Contaminant Sources
Range0 (n)c
0.639
0.459
3.510
0.637
29.400
< 6.24
2.00
< 0.23
< 1.00
< 0.80
< 0.24
< 0.48
< 0.24
< 0.24
< 1.00
0.92
< 0.24
0.40
420.20
< 0.07
0.96
2.50
12.20
< 0.07
< 0.09
1.430
1.090
12.600
1.210
38.900
62.10
< 81.60
14.40
18.40
14.40
< 45.60
52.80
< 170.40
36.00
264.00
888.00
< 7.20
2064.00
8054.60
69.60
20.70
144.90
1382.40
12.00
24.00
0
0
7
2
7
0
2
0
0
7
19
18
19
8
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
19
19
19
19
17
0
19
19
0
19
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
17
Removed
Median
1.490
3.060
28.400
1.20
1.20
1.40
1.13
1.20
1.40
4.00
2.00
1.80
7.20
2.10
2.00
0.21
592.00
0.08
2.00
6.30
20.00
0.11
0.08
fron Contaminant Sources
Range (n )
1.490
3.060
28.400
< .05
< ,05
< .26
< .05
< .05
< .26
< 2.10
< 1.89
< 1.68
< 1.40
2.00
0.81
0.20
331.80
< 0.04
0.24
2.40
12.60
< 0.08
< 0,06
1.490
3.060
28.400
< 4.80
< 16.80
< 7.20
< 1.20
< 4.80
< 33.60
< 14.40
< 7.20
< 7.20
10.50
28.80
< 2.40
2.40
1521.60
< 0.24
2.10
12.00
79.20
< 0.48
< 0.48
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
I
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
* Kedlan of "Value" column for given species ami tissue In Appendix Tables' 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value." "Minimum," and "Maximum- columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
24
-------
TA8LE 8. SUMMARY OF DATA OK PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF DOVER SOLE (Microstores padf 1cm)
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wt.]
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Z1nc
Organic* {ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluor ene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-trkhlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutad 1en«
i'PCB
Aldrln
Oleldrin
Chlordane
OUT
SOOT. 000, 00£
ODE
ODD
SEndosulfan
EndMn
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
5BHC
TBHC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median* Rangeb (njc
0.005 < 0.005 0.050 7
0
0.004 < 0.002 U 0.750 7
0.013 < 0.008 U O.OSO 7
0.084 0.058 0.150 7
0.055 0.021 0.122 2
0.036 < 0.026 U 0.500 7
0.073 < 0.069 0.330 7
0
2.150 1.900 9.850 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1100.00 37.00 6300.00 33
0
0
0
0
10650.00 40.00 98000.00 40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0.005 < 0.005 0.025 7
0
0.003 < 0.002 U 0.750 7
0.012 0.009 U O.OSO 7
0.074 0.052 0.130 7
0.157 0.050 3.170 1
0.043 < 0.037 U 0.500 7
0.078 < 0.070 U 0.330 7
0
1.980 1.720 9.500 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.00 6.00 1400.00 15
0
0
0
0
37.00 13.00 2700.00 IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
« Median of 'Value' column for given species and tissue 1n Appendix Tables 0-3 and D-4.
b Overall range of data in 'Value.' 'Minimum,' and 'Maximum' columns In Appendl* Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
-------
TABLE 9. SIHHARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
LIVER TISSUE OF DOVER SOLE (Mlcrostomus paclflcus)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wt.l
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organlcs fppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Pnenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluor an thene
Ben zo(a) anthracene
Benzofajpyrene
Chrjrsene
Pyrene
l,2.4-tr1chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Hexachl or obutad 1ene
ZPCB
Aldrln
Oleltfrln
Cnlordane
DOT
SOOT. 000. ODE
DOE
000
SEndosulfan
Endrln
HepUchlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
flBHC
TBHC
'.Median9
O.IOO
1.300
0.356
0.204
3.295
1.240
0.080
0.152
0.660
26.100
20.00
7.00
6.00
27.00
17000.00
2600.00
270000.00
19000.00
549.00
3.00
Ranged
0.091
1.300
0.190
0.100
1.900
0.050
< 0.050
< 0.044
0.650
23.000
20.00
7.00
6.00
27.00
760.00
168.00
29000.00
19000.00
549.00
3.00
0.246
1.500
1.050
O.S82
8.270
0.296
0.650
1.300
0.970
40.200
20.00
7.00
6.00
27.00
56000.00
46000.00
1100000.00
19000.00
549.00
3.00
Removed from Contaminant Sources
[n)C Median Range (n)
7 0.103 0.060
3 3.100 3.100
10 0.842 0.428
7 0.051 < 0.034
10 2.300 1.580
5 0.126 0.078
7 0.200 < 0.130
7 0.438 < 0.098
3 1.200 1.200
10 24.600 16.500
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
I
0
27 71.00 7.00
0
0
0
3 13000.00 13000.00
24 385.00 160.00
1
1
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0.153
3.100
1.600
0.126
2.970
0.329
0.350
1.300
1.200
43.600
5600.00
13000.00
1100.00
7
1
8
7
8
2
7
7
I
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• Median of 'Value* coTimw for given specfes and tlsiue In Appendix Tablet 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In "Value.' 'Minimum,' and 'Maximum' columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U » undetected at detection limit shown.
26
-------
TABLE la SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF AMERICAN LOBSTER (Honarus amerlcanus)
Pollutant
Metals (ppm Met wtT.)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organics (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2 ,4-trl chl orobenzene
Hexachl orobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexachl orobutadlene
EPCB
Aldrln
Dieldrln
Chlordane
DOT
COOT. ODD. DDE
DOE
000
EEndesulfn
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
08HC
6BHC
YBHC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median*
0.390
0.020
0.375
4.725
0.175
0.175
0.350
13.950
6.45
0.92
1.28
3.30
2.07
1.15
1.24
4.95
0.63
165.00
0.08
2.25
1.43
SO.OO
8.00
0.14
0.19
0.09
Range0 (n)c
0.100
0.011
<0.100
2.270
0.040
0.080
0.200
5.750
< 0.64
< 0.51
< 0.69
< 1.10
< 1.36
< 1.02
< 0.68
< 1.10
< 0.04
40.00
< 0.02
< 0.02
1.05
< 0.21
6.30
< 0.05
< 0.02
< 0.02
0.730
0.360
0.520
9.460
0.500
0.460
0.600
18.030
9.20
< 1.47
5.10
23.00
< 4.20
< 2.10
< 2.10
46.00
1.15
410.00
< 0.10
6.40
4.80
U 50.00
13.20
< 0.21
0.80
0.23
6
0
36
6
6
36
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
36
6
6
6
36
0
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
6
Removed
Median
0.555
0.014
0.380
11.475
0.150
0.260
0.400
16.845
7.20
1.35
1.25
1.44
3.80
1.64
1.64
1.53
0.02
40.00
0.04
0.07
0.07
50.00
6.81
0.13
0.06
0.07
from Contaminant Sources
Range
0.500
0.010
0.260
7.470
0.060
0.250
0.300
14.440
< 0.88
< 0.76
< 0.76
< 0.76
< 1.90
< 0.95
< 0.95
< 1.10
< 0.02
1.00
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.04
0.22
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
0.610
0.120
0.500
15.480
0.360
0.270
< 0.500
19.250
9.50
< 3.60
< 3.60
< 3.60
< 9.00
< 5.40
< 5.40
< 3.60
0.08
200.00
< 0.04
< 0.18
1.90
U SO.OO
15.20
< 1.44
< 0.09
< 0.09
(n)
2
0
12
2
2
12
2
2
0
2
0
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
19
6
6
6
16
0
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
6
• Median of 'Value* column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value/ 'Minimum.' and 'Maximum' columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and D-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection Unit shown.
27
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF EASTERN ROCK CRAB (Cancer Icroratus)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant
Metals fppm wet wt*)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
8enio(a)anthracene
8enzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
IPCB
Aldrln
Oleldrln
Chlordane
DOT
COOT, ODD, DOE
DOE
000
EEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
BBHC
TBHC
Median*
0.270
1.900
0.100
0.600
7.755
0.180
0.470
0.900
40.080
1.20
1.14
1.33
1.33
3.80
1.90
1.71
1.33
0.06
40.00
0.08
0.06
0.57
0.40
6.46
0.20
0.20
0.20
Range
0.160
1.900
< 0.060
< 0.300
3.240
0.160
0.260
< 0.300
29.070
< 0.80
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 2.00
< 1.40
< 1.20
< 1.00
< 0.04
30.00
< 0.06
< 0.04
< 0.20
< 0.19
1.20
< 0.19
. < 0.08
< 0.08
D
0.790
1.900
1.000
1.340
25.400
0.190
O.S50
3.400
64.600
< 1.33
< 1.40
< 1.40
< 1.40
< 4.00
< 2.00
< 2.00
< 1.60
< 0.20
60.00
< 0.20
< 0.08
1.80
1.20
14.00
< 0.40
< 0.20
< 0.20
(n)c
9
1
9
9
8
3
5
9
0
8
0
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
Removed
Median
0.250
0.080
0.970
6.750
0.155
0.490
0.500
37.245
1.10
1.17
1.33
1.40
3.90
1.94
1.80
1.40
0.11
40.00
0.06
0.04
0.82
1.10
6. 45
0.21
0.08
0.08
fran Contaminant Source
Range (n)
0.140 0
< 0.070 < 0
0.2SO 1
3.690 10
0.150 0
0.300 0
< 0.300 < 1
4.180 59
< 1.00 <
< 1.10 <
< 1.00 <
< 1.20 <
< 2.00 <
< 1 .60 <
< 1.40 <
< 1.20 <
< 0.04
.810
.270
.390
.040
.160
.640
.600
.260
1.40
1.60
1.60
1.80
4.40
2.10
2.00
1.80
0.22
0.40 70.00
< 0.04 <
< 0.04 <
< 0.06
< 0.22
2.00
< 0.09 <
< 0.0? <
< 0.07 <
0.20
0.20
1. 10
1.60
8.00
0.60
0.20
0.20
8
0
8
8
7
2
7
8
0
8
0
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
6
• Median of "Value* column for given species and tissue 1n Appendix Tables D-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In 'Value." "Minimum," and "Naxltmn* colons In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
28
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF OUNGENESS CRAB (Cancer wolster)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant Median4 Range0
Metals (ppm wet wt. )
Silver
Arsenic
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Mercury 0.230 0.230 0.230
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organlcs (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluor an thene
Benzo(a)antnracene
Benzof a jpyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
Kexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
CPCB
Aldrln
Oleldrln
Chlordane
DDT
LOOT. 000, DOE
DOE
000
lEndosul fan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxtde
o3HC
0BHC
YBHC
(n)4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0
0
0
0
0
0.050 0.050 0.050 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• Median of "Value" column for given species and tlssue'in Appendix Tables 0-3 and D-4.
D Overall range of data In "Value," "Minimum." and "Maximum" columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and D-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
29
-------
TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF YELLOW CRAB (Cancer anthonyl)
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wt«)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic; (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
8enzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2 ,4-tr1chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexach 1 orobut ad1 ene
EPCB
AldMn
D1eldr1n
Chlordane
DOT
COOT, ODD, DOE
DOE
000
IEndosulf*n
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
B8HC
Y8KC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median* Range0 (n)c
0.098 0.090 0.190 2
0
0.007 0.004 0.010 2
0.080 0.050 0.090 2
7.840 7.840 7.840 1
0.064 0.023 0.210 3
0.260 0.220 0.510 2
0.140 0.030 0.450 2
0
25.200 25.200 25.200 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
190.00 190.00 190.00 1
0
0
0
0
1500.00 1500.00 1500.00 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
taMved from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0.220 0.080 0.290 1
0
0.010 < 0.010 0.010 1
0.040 < 0.020 0.060 1
13.000 3.600 15.000 1
0.071 0.068 0.170 1
0.040 < 0.040 < 0.050 1
0.150 < 0.150 < 0.160 1
0
97.000 34.000 210.000 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
> Median of "Value* column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and D-4.
" Overall range of date In "Value,* •Minimum," and 'Maximum" colons 1n Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive nedlan.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
30
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
MUSCLE TISSUE OF SPINY LOBSTER (Panullrus Interruptu>)
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wt:)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzofajpyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-trfchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexach 1 orobutadl ene
1KB
Aldrln
OleldMn
Chlordane
DOT
I DDT, ODD. DOE
DOE
000
CEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
68HC
T8HC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median4 Range0 (n)C
0.050 < 0.010 0.060 1
0
0.020 < 0.010 0.040 1
0.030 < 0.020 0.030 1
0
0.280 0.210 0.480 1
O.OSO < 0.050 < 0.050 1
0.230 < 0.230 < 0.260 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed froa Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0.015 < 0.010 0.030 2
0
0.010 < 0.010 0.030 2
0.030 0.010 0.100 2
0
0.265 0.092 0.380 2
0.055 < 0.050 < 0.080 2
0.205 < 0.090 0.210 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Median of 'Value* column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In "Value,* "Minimum,* and "Maximum" coluans In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection Halt shown.
31
-------
TABLE IS. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
WHOLE HARD CLAM (Hercenarla mercenarlal
.Pol Tut ant
Metals (opm wet w&)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organ Ics (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluor ant hene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1,2,4-tMchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hex ach 1 orobut ad 1 ene
EPCB
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Chlordane
DOT
IOOT, ODD. DOE
DOE
ODD
CCndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
08HC
68HC
-rBHC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median* Range0 (n)C
0
0
0.200 U 0.002 0.486 15
0
2.800 1.120 5.780 IS
0
0
0.321 U 0.002 1.480 1
0
19.500 0.326 S3. 300 IS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0
0
0.200 0.100 0.400 16
0
1.900 1.000 2.600 16
0
0
0
0
14.550 7.500 29.300 16
0
0
0
0.1S 0.10 0.20 2
0
0.75 0.70 0.80 2
0.20 0.10 0.30 2
0
0
0.45 0.30 0.60 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Median of "Value" column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-1 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In "Value.* "Minimum," and "Maximum* columns In Appendix Tables D-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
32
-------
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
WHOLE SOFT-SHELL CLAM (Mya arenarlal
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wti)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Ztnc
Oryanics (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a )anthracene
Benzofajpyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 .2 ,4-tr1chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexach 1 orobutadl ene
EPCB
Aldrln
D1eldr1n
Chlordane
DOT
COOT. DOO. DOE
DOE
DOO
EEndosul fan
Cftdrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
0BHC
YBHC
Sar Contaminant Sources
Range0 (n)C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155.40 144.40 162.30 6
0
114.85 89.90 121.10 6
30.25 25.30 71.50 6
8.25 7.40 11.40 6
25.15 21.50 38.90 6
54.90 47.30 98.80 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed froa Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0
0
0
0
0
0.100 0.100 0.100 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.50 9.40 17.40 5
0
10.20 7.70 14.20 6
2.75 2.00 4.50 6
3.30 2.30 S.50 6
7.90 5.90 8.90 6
6.15 5.30 7.90 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• Median of "Value* colun for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables D-3 and 0-4.
0 Overall range of data fn "Value." "Minimum." and "Maxlmun" colons In Appendix Tables D-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive nedlan.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection Unit shown.
33
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
OCEAN QUAHOfi (Arctic* Ulandlca)
Pollutant
Metals loom wet wf.)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo( a ) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachl orobutadl ene
IPCB
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Chlordane
DOT
COOT. 000. ODE
ODE
ODD
EEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
oBHC
BBHC
Y8HC
Near Contaminant Sources
Median9 Range0 (n)<=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Removed from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
1.410 0.580 2.620
2 .825 2.410 3.900
0.390 < 0.060 0.900
0.710 0.260 2.500
2.820 0.100 7.160
0.100 < 0.060 1.170
1.850 < 0.500 7.000
1.400 < 0.900 2.600
13.100 2.400 25.800
1.00 U 1. 00 9.10
1.80 U 1.00 4.00
1.00 U 1.00 6.00
11.00 1.50 26.80
6
6
15
16
18
IS
18
16
0
18
0
25
0
25
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Median of "Value" column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
0 Overall range of data In "Value." "Minimum." and "Maximum* columns 1n Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
34
-------
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
SURF CLAM (Splsula solldlsslna)
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wtl)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (upb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1 ,2,4-tr1chlorobenzene
Hexachl orobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachl orobutadl ene
3>C8
AldMn
Dleldrln
Chlordane
DOT
IOOT, ODD, DOE
OOE
000
ZEndosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Q8HC
BBHC
TBHC
Near
Median*
2.00
0.95
1.00
2.20
3.20
1.52
1.52
1.28
0.04
30.00
0.08
0.08
0.45
0.45
1.90
0.16
0.08
0.08
Contaminant Sources
Range0 (n)c
< 0.44
< 0.44
< 0.66
< 0.90
< 1.32
< 0.88
< 0.66
< 0.66
< 0.02
20.00
< 0.03
< 0.02
0.16
< 0.15
0.45
< 0.05
< 0.03
< 0.02
4.50
< 1.50
< 1.50
9.50
5.70
< 4.00
3.80
3.80
0.19
40.00
< 0.11
0.88
1.14
3.80
3.80
< 0.19
< ,0.13
0.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
7
Removed from Contaminant Sources
Median Range (n)
0.725 0.190
2.170 1.460
0.130 < 0.110
0.615 < 0.480
3.230 2.870
0.075 < 0.050
0.600 < 0.390
0.700 < 0.600
10.150 9.100
2.00
1.12
1.20
2.30
3.20
1.50
1.50
1.44
0.05
20.00
0.08
0.15
0.30
0.60
0.45
0.15
0.10
0.10
< 0.99
< 0.92
< 0.92
< 1.12
< 2.30
< 1.32
< 1.15
< 0.99
0.02
10.00
< 0.04
< 0.05
< 0.06
< 0.30
< 0.08
< 0.10
< 0.03
< 0.05
1.630
2.630
0.150
0.950
3.830
< 0.080
0.800
< 0.700
18.500
4.80
< 1.92
< 2.40
6.00
< 7.20
< 4.80
< 4.80
< 2.40
0.17
70.00
< 0.10
3.20
0.92
1.68
2.40
< 0.24
< 0.13
< 0.14
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
0
10
0
7
7
7
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
7
• Median of 'Value* column for given species and tissue in Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data 1n "Value." "Minimum," and "Maximum" columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
35
-------
TABLE 1* SUMMARY OF DATA ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
WHOLE EDIBLE MUSSEL tMytllui edults)
Hear Contaminant Sources Ratovcd
Pollutant
Metals (ppm wet wC)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.)
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
8enzo( a ) a nthracene
Benzo(a}pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Olchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
IPCB
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Cnlordane
DOT
COOT. 000. DOE
ODE
000
oEndosulfm
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
o8KC
68HC
fflHC
Median'
0.050
1.400
0.500
0.345
1.420
0.057
0.310
0.470
0.430
22.000
0.10
145.00
0.09
2.20
44.80
24.30
150.30
34.00
0.17
1.00
0.44
0.46
0.17
0.41
Range0 (n)c
O.OOS
1.400
0.043
0.170
0.790
0.020
0.070
0.090
0.430
9.000
< 0.09
44.00
U 0.09
0.34
20.30
4.30
60.00
10.20
U 0.17
U 1.00
U 0.10
0.43
U 0.17
0.17
18.300
1.400
1.810
0.760
3.290
0.084
0.740
11.000
0.430
60.000
0.16
886.00
U 0.09
95.00
177.60
136.20
708.60
260.30
U 0.17
U 1.00
2.60
0.72
0.41
0.83
35
1
35
9
35
8
26
35
1
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
23
6
7
8
15
0
15
15
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
Median
0.020
1.400
0.310
0.410
1.200
0.040
0.310
0.480
0.590
17.400
156.10
65.80
44.55
1.65
92.05
28.50
0.09
42.50
0.09
0.52
4.70
67.00
80.00
65.00
45.00
1.00
0.10
0.53
0.17
0.15
from Contaminant Sources
Range
0.002
1.400
0.140
0.410
0.600
0.010
< 0.050
< 0.030
0.590
8.000
45.90
10.70
7.00
0.80
47.60
15.40
< 0.09
U 1.70
U 0.09
0.17
1.2B
U 0.52
2.80
2.10
U 0.17
U 1.00
U 0.10
0.33
U 0.17
U 0.05
0.120
1.400
1.300
0.410
6.000
0.120
1.660
2.690
0.590
55.200
284.30
242.20
154.30
33.10
137.60
142.30
0.81
240.00
0.84
31.00
41.40
383.00
530.00
420.90
259.00
4.80
0.34
0.71
U 0.17
0.22
(n)
74
1
75
1
75
4
73
74
1
75
0
0
0
28
0
28
28
28
12
28
0
5
0
0
6
5
5
5
7
0
7
7
7
5
5
0
5
5
5
a Median of "Value" column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In "Value." •Minimum." and "Max1nun" columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
36
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF DATA OK PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
WHOLE CALIFORNIA MUSSEL (My til us californlanm)
Near Contaminant Sources
Pollutant
Hetals (ppm *et wti)
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Organic* (ppb wet wt.J
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dlchlorobenzene
Hexach 1 or obut ad 1 ene
IPCB
Aldrln
Dleldrfn
Chlordane
DOT
lOOT. ODD. DOE
DOE
ODD
oEndosulfM
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
o8HC
0BHC
Y8HC
Median9
0.570
1.700
0.400
0.590
1.500
0.030
0.380
1.200
0.290
30.900
0.09
32.00
0.09
1.05
3.60
1.47
116.65
24.00
0.17
1.00
0.10
0.17
0.70
0.17
0.20
Range0 (n)c
0.100
1.700
0.220
0.590
0.590
0.030
0.100
0.620
0.290
20.700
U 0.09
U 1.70
U 0.09
0.33
2.24
U 0.52
11.00
1.30
U 0.17
U 1.00
U 0.10
U 0.16
0.40
U 0.17
0.17
0.790
1.700
0.930
0.590
1.900
0.030
0.600
1.400
0.290
48.300
0.76
50.00
U 0.09
1.90
6.03
4.14
239.00
33.00
U 0.17
U 1.00
U 0.10
0.17
1.00
U 0.17
0.22
5
1
6
1
6
1
S
5
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
Rawed from Cantamlnnivt SaurcM
Median Range (n)
0.029
2.000
1.100
0.280
1.100
0.020
0.430
0.185
0.470
23.850
0.22
0.32
1.20
S.OS
0.22
4.36
2.87
0.22
3.08
7.17
0.09
1.70
0.09
1.20
1.28
0.52
4.74
0.54
0.17
1.00
0.10
0.16
1.70
0.17
0.10
0.003
0.720
0.090
0.067
0.430
0.000
0.210
< 0.030
0.310
10.000
U 0.08
U 0.11
U 0.22
U 0.11
U 0.11
U 0.11
U 0.22
U 0.11
U 0.22
0.97
U 0.09
U 1.70
U 0.09
0.21
0.05
U 0.52
0.88
U 0.43
U 0.17
U 1.00
U 0.10
U 0.16
1.00
U 0.17
U 0.05
1.810 103
3.100 8
3.480 105
0.797 15
2.400 104
0.160 14
1.300 89
4.500 104
0.990 8
47.000 104
U 0.88 16
10.90 16
10.30 16
65.50 16
5.79 16
65.60 16
25.20 16
9.54 16
30.00 16
23.40 16
0
0.55 26
0
0
62.00 31
U 0.09 28
4.00 28
6.55 28
14.00 26
0
87.40 28
10.00 28
2.40 28
U 1.00 16
U 0.10 16
0.24 23
8.20 5
U 0.17 5
0.15 5
• Median of "Value" column for given species and tissue In Appendix Tables 0-3 and 0-4.
b Overall range of data In "Value," "Minimum." and "Maximum" columns In Appendix Tables 0-3
and 0-4.
c Number of values used to derive median.
NOTE: U • undetected at detection limit shown.
37
-------
area, small numbers of samples, or movement of mobile organisms. Note
that all data 1n the "Value" columns of Tables 0-3 and 0-4, Including detection
limits and "les's-than" quantities, were Included 1n the determination of
median values presented in Tables 3-20, but that qualifiers are not shown
in association with the medians.
The limitations of these data summaries should be kept in mind when
monitoring data from a specific 301 (h) site are compared with a "median"
or "range" determined from historical data. First, different methods were
used to collect, process, and analyze samples. The kinds of data reported
by the original authors varied from values for tissue samples from individual
organisms to means, medians, or ranges of values from composite samples
consisting of a varying number of individuals. Therefore, the data are
not strictly comparable among studies. Also, because the number of analyses
available for a given species and tissue type generally 1s small, medians
and ranges presented herein should be interpreted with caution.
Concentrations of volatile chemicals and acid-extractable organic
compounds in target species from studies that passed the screening criteria
are presented in Table 21. Based on these data, concentrations of acid-
extractable and volatile organic priority pollutants are expected to be
low 1n tissues of target species from most environments. Possible exceptions
are tMchlorophenpl, pentachlorophenol, tetrachloroethylene, and benzene.
None of the acid-extractable and volatile priority pollutants except pentachloro-
phenol are expected to persist 1n water or organism tissues, and most have
a relatively low b1oaccumulat1on potential (Tetra Tech 1985a). Nevertheless,
data 1n Table 23 suggest that monitoring of priority pollutants in these
compound classes should be continued to allow further evaluation of their
significance based on a larger database.
Concentrations of detected volatile and acid-extractable organic compounds
1n samples from Commencement Bay and Carr Inlet (Puget Sound), as shown
1n Table 23, are maximum possible mean values calculated by using detection
limits for "undetected* results from Individual samples. It should also
be noted that the frequency of detection for many of these substances in
muscle tissue of Individual organisms Is relatively low. even near continuous
38
-------
TABLE 21. CONCENTRATIONS OF ACIO-EXTRACTA8LE AND
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SELECTED
TARGET SPECIES (ppb, wet weight)
Pollutant
Devtr
Solt-L*
Ptlot
Verde*
»ttf
English
Ccmnencc-
atnt Bay
Vattrwayt
Solt-Mb
Carr
Inltt
English Solt-LMt
Commence*
xcnt Bay Carr
Vattrvayi Inltt
English
Camnct-
Mnt Bay
Valtrwi/S
SoU-LOC
Carr
Inltt
Canctr Cribf-H*
Conntnct-
•cnt Bay Carr
Vattmays Inltt
Acid Extractablts
PhtflOl U 10
Z.4,6-tr1chlorephtno1 85
Ptntachlorophtnol 70
VoUtllti
23
23
73
U 20
U 20
1168
U 6S
U 131
U 2S2
U SO
U 100
U 200
< 113
U 183
U 367
U 100
U 200
U 400
U 24
U 20
U 67
U 23
U 20
U 80
Dlchlorottnant
1,1.1-tHchlorMthtne
Chloroform
1.2-dtchlorotthylefle
Trlcnlorot thy lent
Tttrachloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Itnrtnt
Ethyl bwutnt
Tel urn*
U 0.3
US
U 10
U0.3
4
»
U0.3
S2
0.3
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
IS
s
s
s
s
M
10
s
IS
11
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
IS
s
s
s
s
10
s
s
11
NA
M
M
KA
M
M
m
M
MA
M
NA
M
W
M
M
NA
NA
M
M
M
HA
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
NA
m
NA
M
m
m
HA
HA
m
NA
M
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Key to abbreviations:
L
IN
10
N
U
NA
Liver (condition unspecified)
Horaul liver
Diseased liver
Muscle
Undetected (detection Italt shown)
Not analyzed
• 6C/HS (volatfles and phenol) or SC/EC (chlorinated phenols) analysts of 1-S composite samples
containing i-io livers from fish collected 6 km northwest of Whites Point sewage discharge
site (Gossett et al. 1983).
or 10 (Carr Inlet) Individual
or 4 (Carr Inlet) Individual
Us for •undetected* results
b 6C/MS analysts of add extractables In 75 (Commencement Bay) w
fish samples; GC/MS analysis of volatile! In 16 (Connencement Bay) 01
fish samples. Values are means calculated using detection \\m
(Tttra Tech. IMSb).
c 6C/MS analysis of composite liver samples, either normal condition (IN) or diseased (10)
(Tetra Tech. unpublished data). Values are means calculated using detection llmlti for 'undetected*
results. Number of composite samples per value Is U for normal livers and 12 for diseased
livers from Motorways, and Z for normal livers and 1 for diseased livers from Carr Inlet.
«C/NS analysis of 19 (C
IMSb).
encement Bay) or 7 (Carr Inlet) Individual crab samples (Tttra
39
-------
wastewater sources (Tetra Tech, 1985b). For English sole muscle in Commencement
Bay (Table 23), -for example, the detection frequency was 1 1n 75 samples
for pentachlorqjphenol and 3 in 16 samples for toluene. Tetrachloroethylene
and toluene were each detected 1n one of four English sole muscle samples
from Carr Inlet. Other acid-extractable and volatile priority pollutants
not shown in Table 23 were undetected in the Commencement Bay and Carr
Inlet samples (Tetra Tech, 1985b).
DATA GAPS
Relatively little data exist for concentrations of some priority pollutants
in tissues of the recommended target species. In general, only the metals
have been investigated adequately. Gaps in the historical database will
preclude comparisons of 301 (h) monitoring data with past conditions. The
most important data gaps for contaminants and target species are as follows:
• Volatile compounds and phthalates in tissues of all target
species
• Priority pollutants in tissues of selected target species
from tropical waters [e.g., spiny lobster (Panullrus spp.),
damsel fishes (Pomacentridae), and angel fishes and butterfly-
fishes (Chaetodontldae)]
• Priority pollutants in liver and muscle tissue of spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus), 1n muscle tissue of Oungeness crab
(Cancer maqister) and western rock crab (Cancer antennarius).
and 1n ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) from areas near
known sources of contamination
• PAH and pesticides other than DDTs in Dover sole (Microstotnus
pacificus) and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes amerlcanus)
(especially reference areas for the latter)
-------
• Metals 1n English sole (Parophrys vetulus) muscle and 1n
surf clams (Splsula solid1ss1ma) from areas near known sources
of contamination
• Organic priority pollutants In hard clam (Mercenarla mercenarla)
and 1n the spiny lobster (Panullrus interruptus)
• Metals, pesticides, and PCBs in soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria).
Data on metals in English sole muscle and liver are currently available
(Tetra Tech, 1985b), but were not available in time for Inclusion in this
report.
41
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
At a minimum, a target species selected for 301(h) bioaccumulation
monitoring must be capable of accumulating toxic substances representative
of the study area(s), abundant enough over time and space to allow adequate
sampling, and large enough to provide adequate amounts of tissue for analysis.
As discussed earlier, detailed criteria that allow candidate target species
to be ranked objectively include habitat, prey type, geographic distribution,
size, and abundance. Secondary criteria which can be used to discriminate
among the highest ranking candidate target species include economic importance
and use of a species for other kinds of biological effects tests (e.g.,
bioassays).
The target species recommended for 301(h) bioaccumulation monitoring
programs are shown In Figure I. The species chosen for monitoring 1n the
vicinity of each discharge will depend on the site-specific availability
of the recommended species. To the extent possible, the same species should
be monitored for all discharges within a region. In most cases, a benthic
macrolnvertebrate species and a demersal fish species should be chosen
for the monitoring program. For most bioaccumulation studies, fish contaminant
analyses should be conducted on edible muscle and/or liver tissue. Contaminant
concentrations should be determined in muscle and/or hepatopancreas tissue
of crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters) and in all soft-body tissue of bivalve
molluscs.
42
-------
FISHES
"7
INVERTEBRATES
LOCATION
/> ///
,/v/
~7
MASSACHUSETTS'
RHODE ISLAND ~~*
MEWJERSEY/
vmoMu
FIOWQMJSVW
PUCmOfttOOMMMM
^^
i-
>
X" 1
NOTE: See Table 2 In text and Appendix lafateA-2 tor sctenUfic names ol recommended target species
Figure 1. Summary of recommended target species.
-------
REFERENCES
Alexander, 6.V.. .and D.R. Young. 1976. Trace metals 1n southern Cal1forn1an
mussels. Mar. Pjollut. Bull. 7:7-9.
Allen. M.J. 1982. Functional structure of soft-bottom fish communities
of the southern California shelf. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California,
San Diego. CA. 577 pp.
Anderson, C.O., D.J. Brown. B.A. Ketschke. E.M. Elliott, and P.L. Rule.
1975. The effects of the addition of a fourth generating unit at the Salem
Harbor electric generating station on the marine ecosystem of Salem Harbor.
Massachusetts Division Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA. 47 pp.
Behrens, W.J., and I.U. Duedall. 1981. The behavior of heavy metals In
transplanted hard clams, Mercenarla mercenarla. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Her.
39:223-230.
Belton, T.J., 8.E. Ruppel, and K. Lockwood. 1982. PCBs (Aroclor 1254)
in fish tissues throughout the state of New Jersey: A comprehensive survey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Cancer and
Toxic Substances Research, Trenton, NJ. 36 pp.
Bel ton, T.J., B.E. Ruppel, K. Lockwood. and M. Borlek. 1983. PCBs in
selected finfish caught within New Jersey waters 1981-1982 (with limited
chlordane data). New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office
of Science and Research. Trenton, NJ. 36 pp.
Bigelow, H.B., and U.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.
Fish. Bull. 74. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington. DC. 577 pp.
Brown. D.A. 1977. Increases of Cd and the Cd:Zn ratio in the high molecular
weight protein pool from apparently normal liver of tumor-bearing flounders
(Parophrys vetulus). Mar. Blol. (Berl.) 44:203-209.
Brown, D.A.. R.W. Gossett. G.P. Hershelman, C.F. Ward, and J.N. Cross.
1984. Municipal wastewater contamination in the Southern California Bight.
1. Metals and organic contaminants in sediments and animals. Submitted
to Mar. Environ. Res. 27 pp.
Butler, P.A., and R.L. Schutzmann. 1978. Fish, wildlife, and estuaries:
Residues of pesticides and PCBs in estuarine fish, 1972-1976. National
Pesticide Monitoring Program. Pestle. Monit. J. 12:51-59.
Chi Ids, E.A., and J.N. Gaffke. 1974. Lead and cadmium content of selected
Oregon groundfish. J. Food Sc1. 39:853-854.
Clark. R.C. 1983. The biogeochemistry of aromatic and saturated hydrocarbons
in a rocky 1ntert1dal marine community in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 268 pp.
44
-------
deGoeij, J.J.M., V.P. Gulnn. D.R. Young, and A.J. Mearns. 1974. Neutron
activation analysis of Dover sole liver and marine sediments, pp. 189*200.
In: Comparative'Studies of Food and Environmental Contamination. International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
Eganhouse, R.P., and D.R. Young. 1978. Total and organic mercury In benthlc
organisms near a major submarine wastewater outfall system. Bull. Environ.
Contain. Toxlcol. 19:758-766.
Elsenberg, M., and J.J. Topping. 1984a. Organochlorlne residues In shellfish
from Maryland waters, 1976-1980. J. Environ. Sd. Health, Part B. 198(7):
673-688.
Eisenberg, M., and J.J. Topping. 1984b. Trace metal residues In shellfish
from Maryland waters, 1976-1980. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B. 19B(7):
649-672.
Energy Resources Company, Inc. 1983. Organic pollutant levels In the
ocean quahog (Arctlca 1sland1ca) from the northeastern United States.
Contract NA-81-FA-CU00137Prepared for NOAA, Highlands, NJ by Energy Resources
Company, Inc., Cambridge, MA. 14 pp.
Engineering Science Incorporated. 1977a. Oceanographlc Investigations
1n central Monterey Bay, survey activities January-March, 1977. Prepared
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. Engineering
Science Inc., Berkeley, CA. 26 pp + Appendices B, C, 0, F.
Engineering Science Incorporated. I977b. Oceanographlc Investigations
1n central Monterey Bay, survey activities April-June, 1977. Prepared
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. Engineering
Science Inc., Berkeley, CA. 24 pp. * Appendix 0 + Section 1.7.
Engineering Science Incorporated. 1977c. Oceanographlc Investigations
1n central Monterey Bay, survey activities July-September, 1977. Prepared
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. Engineering
Science Inc., Berkeley, CA. 39 pp. + Appendices A, B, C.
Engineering Science Incorporated. 1978. Oceanographlc Investigations
In central Monterey Bay, survey activities October-December, 1977. Prepared
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. Engineering
Science Inc., Berkeley. CA. 22 pp. + Appendices B, C, D.
Environmental Research Consultant. 1976. Watsonvllle wastewater treatment
facility design project. Pre-deslgn and pre-dlscharge ocean study. Final
Report. 57 pp.
FarMngton, J.S., R.W. RUebrough, P.L. Parker, A.C. Davis, and B. deLappe.
1982. Hydrocarbons, polychlorlnated blphenyls, and DDE 1n mussels and
oysters fron the U.S. coast, 1976-1978. The mussel watch. MTIS PB83-133371.
Scrlpps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA.
45
-------
Farrlngton, J.W.. E.D. Goldberg, R.W. Rlsebrough. J.H. Martin, and V.T. Bowan.
1983. U.S. 'Mussel Watch' 1976-1978: An overview of the trace-metal,
DOE, PCB, hydrocarbon, and artificial radlonucUde data. Environ. Sc1.
Technol. 17:490-496.
Fowler, S.W. 1982. Biological transfer and transport processes, pp. 1-65.
In: Pollutant Transfer and Transport 1n the Sea, Vol. II. G. Kullenberg
(ed). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gadbols, D.F. 1982. Hydrocarbon analysis of targeted fin and shellfish
species and sediments collected from northeastern U.S. coastal waters.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA. 39 pp.
Gadbois, D.F., and R.S. Maney. 1983. Survey of polychloMnated biphenyls
1n selected finflsh species from United States coastal waters. F1sh. Bull.
81:389-396.
Genest, P.E., and W.I. Hatch. 1981. Heavy metals In Mercenaria mercenaria
and sediments from the New Bedford Harbor region of Buzzard's Bay, Massa-
chusetts. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxlcol. 26:124-130.
Gerhart, E.H. 1977. Pesticides 1n fish, wildlife, and estuaries: Concen-
tration of total mercury 1n several fishes from Delaware Bay, 1975. Pestle.
Monlt. J. 11:132-133.
G1u11o, R.T., and P.F. Scanlon. 1985. Heavy metals In aquatic plants,
clams, and sediments from the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Implications for waterfowl.
Sc1. Total Environ, 41:259-274.
Goldberg. E.D., V.T. Bowen, G.H. Farrlngton, J.H. Martin, P.I. Parker,
R.W. Rlsebrough, W. Robertson, E. Schneider, and Gamble. 1978. The mussel
watch. Environ. Conserv. 5:101-125.
Goldberg, E.D., M. Koide, V. Hodge, R. Flegal, and J. Martin. 1983. U.S.
mussel watch: 1977-1978 results on trace metals and radionuclides. Estuar.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 16:69-93.
Gossett, R.W., D.A. Brown, and D.R. Young. 1983. Predicting the bioaccumu-
latlon of organic compounds In marine organisms using octanol:water partition
coefficients. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14:387-392.
Grelg. R.A., and D.R. Wenzloff. 1977. Trace metals in finflsh from the
New York Bight and Long Island Sound. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8:198-200.
Grelg, R.A., B.A. Nelson, and D.A. Nelson. 1975. Trace metal content
1n the American oyster. Mar. Poll. Bui. 6(5):72-73.
Grelg, R.A., D.R. Wenzloff, A. Adams, B. Nelson, and C. Shelpuk. 1977.
Trace metals 1n organisms from ocean disposal sites of the middle eastern
United States. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxlcol. 6:395-409.
Grosslein, M.D., and T.R. Azarovltz. 1982. F1sh distribution. MESA New
York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY.
182 pp.
46
-------
Hall, R.A., E.G. Zook, and G.H. Meaburn. 1978. National Marine Fisheries
Service survey of trace elements 1n the fishery resource. 1978-796-220/13
Region 10. Washington, DC. 313 pp.
Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Bull. 180. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Ottawa. 740 pp.
Hlldebrand, S.F., and W.C. Schroeder. 1927. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay.
Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Vol. 43. Washington.
DC. 366 pp.
Jan, T., M.O. Moore, and D.R. Young. 1977. Metals in seafood near outfalls.
pp. 153-157. Ir
El Segundo, CA.
pp. 153-157. In: Coastal Water Research Project - Annual Report 1977.
El • "
Kolde, M., D.S. Lee, and E.O. Goldberg. 1982. Metal and transuranlc records
In mussel shells, byssal threads and tissues. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sc1. 15:
679-695.
Ladd, J.M., S.P. Hayes, M. Martin, M.D. Stephenson, S.L. Coale, J. LInfield,
and M. Brown. 1984. California state mussel watch: 1981-1983. Trace
metals and synthetic organic compounds In mussels from California's coast,
bays, and estuaries. Biennial Report. Water Quality Monitoring Report
No. 83-6TS. Sacramento, CA. 81 pp.
Larsen, P.F. 1979. The distribution of heavy metals 1n the hard clam,
Mercenarla mercenarla, In the lower Chesapeake Bay region. Estuaries 2:1-8.
Latouche, Y.O., and M.C. Mix. 1981. Seasonal variation 1n soft tissue
weights and trace metal burdens 1n the bay mussel, My til us edulls. Bull.
Environ. Contarn. Toxlcol. 27:821-828.
Latouche, Y.D., and M.C. Mix. 1982a. The effects of depuration, size,
and sex on trace metal levels 1n bay mussels. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:27-29.
Latouche, Y.D., and M.C. Mix. 1982b. Seasonal variations of arsenic and
other trace elements 1n bay mussels (My til us edulls). Bull. Environ. Con tarn.
Toxlcol. 29:665-670.
Lee, R.F., 0. Lehsau, M. Madden, and W. Marsh. 1981. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons 1n oysters (Crassostrea vlrglnlca) from Georgia coastal waters,
analyzed by high-pressure liquid chromatograpny. pp. 341-345. In: Proceedings
of the 1981 Oil Spill Conference, March 2-5. 1981, Atlanta, GA.
Louma, S.N., and C.R. Strong. 1981. Variations 1n the correlation of
body size with concentrations of Ca and Ag 1n the bivalve Ma coma balthlca.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sc1. 38(9):1059-1064.
MacGregor, J.S. 1974. Changes In the amount and proportions of ODT and
Us metabolites. DDE and ODD. 1n the marine environment off southern Cali-
fornia, 1949-72. F1sh. Bull. 72:275-293.
47
-------
MacLeod. W.O.. L.S. Ramos. A.J. Friedman. 0.6. Burrows, P.6. Prohaska,
O.L. Fisher, and O.W. Brown. 1981. Analysis of residual chlorinated hydro-
carbons, aromatic hydrocabons, and related compounds 1n selected sources.
sinks, and blot*; of the New York Bight. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-6.
National Marine fisheries Service. Seattle. HA. 84 pp.
Mallns, D.C., B.B. McCain. D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O. Hodglns.
1980. Chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities 1n central and
southern Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-2. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, UA. 295 pp.
Mallns. D.C.. B.B. McCain, O.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks. H.O. Hodglns, and S. Chan.
1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities 1n fish and Invertebrates
from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-19. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 168 pp.
Matthews, T.D., J.V. Boyne, R.A. Davis, and O.R. Simmons. 1979. The
distribution of copper and Iron 1n South Carolina oysters. J. Environ. Sci.
Health. Part A. 14(8):683-694.
McOermott, D.J., 6.V. Alexander. O.R. Young, and A.J. Mearns. 1976. Metal
contaninatlon of flatfish around a large submarine outfall. J. Water Pouut.
Control Fed. 48:1913-1918.
McDermott-Ehrllch, D.J., M.J. Sherwood, T.C. Heeson, O.R. Young, and A.J.
Mearns. 1977. Chlorinated hydrocarbons 1n Dover sole. Mlcrostomus paclflcus;
Local migrations and fin erosion. F1sh. Bull. 75:513-517.
McDermott-Ehrllch, D.J., D.R. Young, and T.C. Heeson. 1978. DOT and PCB
1n flatfish around southern California municipal outfalls. Chemosphere
7:453-461.
Mearns, A.J., M.J. Allen, and M. Sherwood. 1974. An otter trawl survey
of Santa Monica Bay, May-June, 1972. Technical Memorandum 209. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo. CA. 24 pp.
Miller, B.S., B.B. McCain, R.C. Wlngert. S.F. Borton, and K.Y. Pierce.
1976. Ecological and disease studies of fishes near METRO-operated sewage
treatment plants on Puget Sound and the Ouwamlsh River. FRI-UW-76Q8.
Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 135 pp.
Miller, D.J., and R.M. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes
of California. F1sh Bulletin 157. California Department of F1sh and
Game, Sacramento, CA. 249 pp.
Mix, M.C., R.T. R11ey, K.I. King, S.R. Trenholm, and R.L. Schaffer. 1977.
Chanlcal carcinogens 1n the marine environment. Benzo(a)pyrene In economically-
Important bivalve molluscs from Oregon estuaries, pp. 421-431. In: Fate
and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1n Marine Organisms and Ecosystems.
D.A. Wolfe (ed). Pergammon Press, Inc. Elmsford, NY.
Mix, M.C., and R.L. Schaffer. 1979. Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations 1n
mussels (Mytil us edulls) from Yaquina Bay, Oregon during June 1976-May
1978. Bull. Environ. Contarn. Toxlcol. 23:677-684.
48
-------
Mix, M.C., S.J. Hemingway, and R.L. Schaffer. 1982. Concentrations 1n
somatic and gonad tissues of bay mussels, HytHus edulls. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Tox1col< 28:46-51.
Mix, M.C., and R.L. Schaffer. 1983a. Concentrations of unsubstltuted
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 1n bay mussels (MytHus edulls) from
Oregon, USA. Mar. Environ. Res. 9:193-209.
Mix, M.C., and R.L. Schaffer. 1983b. Concentrations of unsubstltuted
polycycllc aromatic hydrocarbons 1n softshell clams from Coos Bay, Oregon.
USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14:94-97.
Oceanographic Services, Inc. 1978. Summary of pre- and post-discharge
receiving water monitoring for the city of Santa Barbara. May 1975-August
1977.
O'Conner, T. 1976. Investigation I of heavy metal concentration of sediment
and biota 1n the vicinity of the Morgan town steam electric generating stations.
Power Plant Siting Program Report No. PPSP-MT-76-1. Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.
Okazakl, R.K., and M.H. Panletz. 1981. Depuration of twelve trace metals
1n tissues of the oyster Crassostrea gjgas and C. vlrglnica. Mar. B1ol.
63(2): 113-120. "— *
Ovlatt, C.A., and S.W. Nixon. 1973. The demersal fish of Narragansett
Bay, an analysis of conmunlty structure, distribution and abundance. Estuarine
Coastal Mar. Sc1. 1:361-378.
Palmer, J.B., and G.M. Rand. 1977. Trace metal concentrations In two
shellfish species of commercial Importance. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxlcol.
18:512-520.
Pandullo Quirk Associates. 1977. Biological and chemical oceanographIc
studies, fish and macroinvertebrates. Prepared for Cape May County Municipal
Utilities Authority. 30 pp + appendices.
Peltier, W., and C.I. Weber. 1983. Methods for measuring the acute toxlclty
of effluents to aquatic organisms (3rd edition). Draft document prepared
for U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. 20 PP.
Phelps, H.L. 1984. A research program 1n determination of heavy metals
in sediments and benthlc species 1n relation to nuclear power plant operation.
Final Technical Report. 1974-1982. NASA-CR-173537. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Washington, DC.
Phelps. H.L.. D.A. Wright, and J.A. Mlhursky. 1985. Factors affecting
trace metal accumulation by estuarlne oysters Crassostrea vlrglnica. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 22:187-197.
Phillips, D.J.H. 1980. Quantitative aquatic "biological Indicators: their
use to monitor trace metal and organochlorlne pollution. Applied Science
Publishers, Ltd., London, UK.
49
-------
Pruell, R.J., E.J. Hoffman, J.G. Qulnn. 1984. Total hydrocarbons, polycycllc
hydrocarbons and synthetic organic compounds In the hard shell clam Mercenarla
fflercenarla purchased at commercial seafood stores. Mar. Environ. ResT
11:163-181.
Rasmussen, L.F., and O.C. Williams. 1975. The occurrence and distribution
of mercury In marine organisms In BelUngham Bay. Northwest Sc1. 49:87-94.
Ray. S., O.W. McLeese, and I.E. Burrldge, 1981. Cadmium 1n tissues of
lobsters captured near a lead smelter. Mar. Pollut. Bull, 12:383-386.
Raytheon. 1973. Annual Report, January 1972-Decanber 1972. Lynn Harbor-Nahant
Bay ecological system. Prepared for New England Electric System.
Reid, R.N., J.E. O'Reilly, and V.S. Zdanowlcz. 1982. Contaminants in
New York Bight and Long Island Sound sediments and demersal species, and
contaminant effects on benthos, summer 1980. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-F/NEC-16. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA. 97 pp.
Rlsebrough, R.W., J.W. Chapman, R.K. Okazakl, and T.T. Schmidt. 1978.
Toxicants 1n San Francisco Bay and Estuary. A report to the Association
of Bay Area Governments. Bodega Bay Institute of Pollution Ecology, Berkeley,
U n •
Roberts, A.E., D.R. H111, E.C. T1fft. 1982. Evaluation of New York Bight
lobsters for PCBs, DOT, petroleum hydrocarbons, mercuryj and cadmium.
Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxlcol. 29:711-718.
Ruddell. C.L., and O.W. Rains. 1975. The relationship between zinc, copper,
and the basophlls of two crassostreid oysters C. glgas and C. virgin lea.
Comp. Blochem. Physlol. 51(A):585-591. "~~
Sanders, M. 1984. Metals 1n grab, oyster, and sediment 1n two South Carolina
estuaries. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15(4):159-161.
Schell, w.R., and A. Nevlssl. 1977. Heavy metals from waste disposal
in central Puget Sound. Environ. Sc1. Technol. 11:887-893.
Sherwood, M.J., A.J. Mearns, D.R. Young, B.B. McCain, R.A. Murchelano,
G. Alexander, T.C. Heeson, and T.-K. Jan. 1978. A comparison of trace
contaminants In diseased fishes from three areas. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA. 115 pp.
Sherwood, M.J., A.J. Mearns. D.R. Young, B.B. McCain, R.A. Murchelano,
G. Alexander, T.C. Heeson, and T.-K. Jan. 1980. A comparison of trace
contaminants 1n diseased fishes from three areas. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA. 131 pp.
Smokier, P.E., O.R. Young, and K.L. Card. 1979. ODTs 1n marine fishes
following termination of dominant California Input: 1970-77. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 10:331-334.
50
-------
Stout, V.F., and F.L. Beezhold. 1981. Chlorinated hydrocarbon levels
In fishes and shellfishes of the northeastern Pacific Ocean, Including
the Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Fish. Rev. 43:1-12.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1980. Draft technical evaluation of Hampton Roads Sanitation
District Chesapeake-Elizabeth Treatment Plant Section 301(h) application
for modification of secondary treatment requirements for discharge Into
marine waters. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
308 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1981. Draft technical evaluation of City of Lynn Wastewater
Treatment Plant Section 301(h) application for modification of requirements
for discharge into marine waters. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, UA. 302 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1983. Technical review of city of Oceanside (California)
Section 301{h) application for modification of secondary treatment requirements
for discharge Into marine waters. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA. 97 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1985a. 81 oaccumulation monitoring guidance: estimating
the potential for bioaccumulation of priority pollutants and 301(h) pesticides
discharged Into marine and estuarlne waters. Prepared for U.S. EPA. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, UA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1985b. Commencement Bay nearshore/tldeflats remedial
Investigation. Final Report. Prepared for the Washington Department of
Ecology and U.S. EPA. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Thomson, E.A., S.N. Luoma, C.E. Johansson, and O.J. Cain. 1984. Comparison
of sediments and organisms in Identifying sources of biologically available
trace metal contamination. Water Res. l8(6):755-765.
Weaver, G. 1984. PC8 contamination In and around New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Environ. Sci. Techno!. 18:22A-27A.
Wenzloff, O.R., R. A. 6re1g, A.S. Merrill, and J.W. Ropes. 1979. A survey
of heavy metals 1n the surf clam, Splsula solidIssima, and the ocean quahog,
Arctlca islandica. of the mid-Atlantic coast of tne united States. F1sh. Bull.
77:280-2851
Young, D.R., and D.J. McDermott. 1975. Trace metals in harbor mussels.
pp. 139-142. In: Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA.
Young, D.R., and 6.V. Alexander. 1977. Metals 1n mussels from harbors
and outfall areas, pp. 159-165. In: Coastal Water Research Project Annual
Report. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo,
CA.
Young, D.R., D.J. McDermott, and T.C. Heeson. 1976. DDT In sediments
and organisms around southern California outfalls. J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed. 48:1919-1927.
51
-------
Young, O.K., T.-K. Jan, and T.C. Heeson. 1978a. Cycling of trace metai
and chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes 1n the Southern California Bight, pp. 481-
496. In: -Estuarlne Interactions. M.L. Wiley (ed). Acadmeic Press, New
York, NY. :
£
Young, O.R., M.O. Moore, G. V. Alexander, T.-K. Jan, O.J. McOermott-Ehrlich,
R.P. Eganhouse, and P. Hershelman. 1978b. Trace elements In seafood organisms
around southern California municipal wastewater outfalls. Publ. No. 60.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA. 104 pp.
Young, D.R., 6.V. Alexander, and O.J. McDermott-Ehrlich. 1979. Vessel-
related contamination of southern California harbours by copper and other
metals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 10:50-56.
Young, O.R., A.J. Mearns, T.-K. Jan, T.C. Heeson, M.O. Moore, R.P. Eganhouse,
6.P. Hershelman, and R.W. Gossett. 1980. Trophic structure and pollutant
concentrations in marine ecosystems of southern California. CalCOFI Rep.,
Vol. XXI:197-206.
Young, O.R., M.D. Moore, T.-K. Jan, and R.P. Eganhouse. 1981. Metals
1n seafood organisms near a large California municipal outfall. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 12:134-138.
52
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
We regret the supply of the publication entitled
"Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: Selection'of Target Species and
Review of Available Data - Volume I" (EPA 430/09-86-005) (March 1987)
is depleted. We do not plan to reprint, but copies may be purchased
from the following address.
Instruction Resource Center (IRC)
1200 Chambers Road Room 310
Columbus.Ohio 43212
Telephone: (614) 292-6717
Ordering Number: 109U
Paper Copy Cost: S4-r-9
------- |