PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE RELATED
AMBIENT TOXICITY IN AND AROUND
LOWER GALVESTON BAY
->
August 1995
Ecosystems Protection Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
Dallas, TX

-------
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE RELATED AMBIENT
TOXICITY IN AND AROUND LOWER GALVESTON BAY
Philip A. Crocker', Linda Broach2, Terry A. Hollister3,
David C. Stockton3 and Willie Lane3
August 1995
Ecosystems Protection Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
Dallas, TX
1	Ecosystems Protection Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202-2733
2	Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Region 12, 4150 Westheimer,
Houston, TX 77027
3	Houston Branch, U.S. EPA Regional Laboratory, 10625 Fallstone Road, Houston,
TX 77099

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1991 aquaculture researchers at the old SeaArama facility in Galveston
believed that mortality they were observing in their larval shrimp cultures was
a result of toxicity of ambient water in the Gulf of Mexico. The researchers
utilized near-shore Gulf of Mexico water for rearing larval shrimp. They
hypothesized that 2-butoxyethanol was the toxic agent, originating from Galveston
Bay waters flowing into the Gulf following heavy rainfall. However, data were
not available to support this hypothesis. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) in
a combined effort decided to conduct a water quality study to investigate these
concerns. The purposes of the study were to assess the potential for ambient
toxicity in lower Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico following rainfall events,
and to determine the need for additional studies for a more complete assessment.
A total of five stations were sampled during three sampling events: (I) November
1992, (II) June 1993 and (III) February 1994. Sampling stations included
Galveston Bay near Redfish Reef, Galveston Channel, and near-shore Gulf of Mexico
off Galveston Island. Two additional industrialized areas were also sampled,
Texas City Ship Channel and Chocolate Bay. An , attempt was made to sample
following significant rainfall in the Galveston Bay watershed to assess the
potential impact of nonpoint source pollution on bay water quality. Ambient
surface water samples were collected for chemical analysis of conventional
parameters, EPA priority pollutants (heavy metals, VOCs, semi-volatiles,
pesticides and PCBs), and chronic toxicity testing with mysids and inland
silversides.
Overall, chemical water quality was good for all sites. The chemical analysis
yielded no violations of state water quality standards. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate at the Gulf of Mexico station exceeded the EPA criterion for protection
of human health in February 1994, although the significance is doubtful as this
is a common lab contaminant. In November 1992 dissolved nickel approached the
state's chronic water quality standard at Chocolate Bay. Chronic toxicity data
for mysids and inland silversides, although limited, did not indicate significant
chronic effects to either species.
Because this was a screening study data should be considered preliminary.
Chemical and toxicity data indicate that aquatic life uses in the "open bay"
areas sampled are not impacted by toxic substances originating from non-point
sources. The need for future open bay type nonpoint source surface water studies
is considered low. Studies to assess localized and/or episodic effects of urban
stormwater discharges and industrial and agricultural runoff (e.g., western near-
shore areas of Galveston Bay; Chocolate Bayou upstream of the area sampled in
this study) would be of greater value.

-------
2
INTRODUCTION
In the spring and summer of 1991, aquaculture researchers reported mortality of
the larval shrimp being reared at the old SeaArama facility located on Galveston
Island. The researchers hypothesized that the mortality of larval shrimp was due
to poor water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. The facility intake pipe which
supplied water for rearing shrimp was located in the Gulf, just offshore of
Galveston Island. The researchers further postulated that, following rainfall
events, Gulf water in the vicinity of the intake was highly dependent on water
quality in Galveston Bay. They solicited the assistance of a local university
to assess the possible chemical basis for the recurring larval shrimp mortality.
The university evidence suggested that the mortality was due to an organic
chemical, 2-butoxyethanol (CAS# 111762), which was apparently detected in water
samples collected at the facility following heavy rainfall events. Based on the
hypothesis put forth by the researchers, and preliminary analyses, the news media
capitalized on the threat of poor water quality, and specifically the detected
organic chemical, on the bay shrimp fishery. The news media coverage of these
events seemed to exacerbate the severity of the issue. The general public and
local fishermen were concerned about these reports of toxicity, as was the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Nix 1991). Data for supporting or
discarding the hypothesis were lacking.
Implication that 2-butoxyethanol acted as a toxic substance either at the
aquaculture facility, or in the bay is insupportable for the following reasons:
(1) No documentation, such as reports or data on the incidence of mortality or
water chemistry results, were produced by the researchers for inspection; (2) It
is unknown whether some aspects of the facility itself, such as pipes, tanks,
water conditioners, etc., caused a toxic effect; (3) Incidence of disease or
physiological condition of the organisms was apparently not assessed; (4)
Toxicity testing using standard methods (U.S. EPA 1988) and systematic toxicity
identifications (TIE) (U.S. EPA 1994) were not conducted to confirm that
mortality was toxicity-related, and, if so, to establish which toxicants may be
responsible; (5) Chemical analyses of ambient water and piped water at the
facility conducted by the TNRCC did not detect 2-butoxyethanol, although low
concentrations of a phthalate and two tentatively identified compounds (TIC) were
detected (TNRCC, unpublished data); and (6) concentrations of 2-butoxyethanol
found by the university were more than four orders of magnitude lower than
acutely toxic concentrations based on data contained in EPA's aquatic toxicity
database (AQUIRE 1995).
Based on the last point in particular, EPA does not believe the shrimp mortality
at the mariculture facility was affected by ambient concentrations of 2-
butoxyethanol. However, EPA felt the need to investigate the possibility of
ambient toxicity in Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico following rainfall
events. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this study was to collect
preliminary data to assess the potential for ambient toxicity in lower Galveston
Bay and the Gulf following rainfall events, and to determine if additional, more
intensive studies were needed for a more complete assessment of water quality.
A secondary purpose was to evaluate the potential for ambient toxicity in
waterbodies downstream of two heavily industrialized areas, Texas City Ship
Channel and Chocolate Bay. The project objectives were to conduct short-term
chronic toxicity testing and priority pollutant chemical analyses at a total of
five ambient stations in lower Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. This study
was a joint effort between the EPA Region 6 Office in Dallas, and TNRCC Region
12 in Houston.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling station locations are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. Two sampling
locations were selected based on the water quality concerns related to ambient
toxicity in Lower Galveston Bay following rainfall events: Galveston Channel and
the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston Island. The Redfish Island station was selected
as an indicator of overall bay water quality. Chocolate Bay and Texas City Ship
Channel stations were selected because these areas are considered to be of higher

-------
3
than average concern due primarily to heavy industrial influence.
Sampling took place on three dates: (I) November 12-13, 1992; (II) June 2-3,
1993; and (III) February 2-3, 1994. An attempt was made to sample after
significant rainfall, at least one inch in the Galveston Bay area, to assess the
potential collective impact of nonpoint sources on the lower bay system.
Multiple sampling events served to provide a temporal perspective, and to improve
chances of finding impacts. Because of the areal magnitude of Galveston Bay and
adjoining bay systems, and the limited number of sampling stations, this study
should be considered very preliminary. However, the study served its purpose,
i.e., to estimate potential impacts in several areas in the bay following
rainfall events, and to assess the need for more involved study.
Station 5, at the Gulf Coast Fishing Pier was accessed on foot, while all other
stations were sampled by boat. Field parameters, including water temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity and salinity were recorded at one foot
depth, and in some cases one foot off the bottom. Except for metals, grab
samples of ambient water were collected using a clean plastic bucket, or by
dipping the sample containers directly into the water. Five gallons of water
were placed in two 2.5-gallon collapsible plastic containers for the ambient
toxicity tests. All samples were tagged and preserved according to standard EPA
protocols. Water samples were hand delivered within 24 hours or shipped
overnight to the appropriate laboratory.
"Clean" procedures were followed for collection of dissolved heavy metals samples
(TNRCC 1994). This involved use of a hand pump to draw water through pre-cleaned
silicone tubing. The sample flowed through a disposable filter cartridge at the
end of the tube, and then directly into pre-cleaned, pre-acidified high density
polyethylene containers. These procedures minimized chances for contamination
and ensured that filtration and preservation were instantaneous. Samples for
total mercury were collected as above, but not filtered. Samples for dissolved
Chromium +6 were filtered, but were preserved in the laboratory subsequent to
fixation.
Chemical analysis included conventional parameters (ammonia, total suspended
solids, total organic carbon and in some cases chlorine and total dissolved
solids), dissolved heavy metal priority pollutants (including chromium +6), total
mercury, and the full suite of organic priority pollutants, except 2378-dioxin.
All chemical analyses were conducted using standard operating procedures (SOP)
by the EPA Regional Laboratory at Houston, Texas. Chronic toxicity testing with
mysid shrimp (Mvsidopsls bahia) and inland silverside (Menidia bervllinal was
conducted using standard methods (U.S. EPA 1988). This testing was performed by
the EPA Environmental Research Lab at Gulf Breeze, Florida. Mysids used for
testing were cultured on-site while the silversides were procured from a
supplier. It should be noted that ambient test waters exceeded the recommended
holding time of 36 hrs. This could not be avoided as it was not feasible to
sample each site more than once per sampling event. In November 1992 five
separate controls were tested for mysids and inland silverside. For other dates
a single control was run.
This study was preceded by the development of an approved quality assurance
project plan (QAPP) (U.S. EPA 1992). Quality assurance is discussed in the
results section of this report as appropriate. Chemical and toxicity data are
presented in tabular form. Chemical data were compared with the state water
quality standards (TNRCC 1991; 1994) and EPA water quality criteria (U.S. EPA
1993), while ambient toxicity data were assessed by statistically comparing
ambient water results with laboratory controls.
Prior to statistical analyses the survival and fecundity data were transformed
by taking the arcsine of the square root. Weight data were only tranformed (log,0
weight+1)) if needed to bring the variances of the means into statistical
equality (Harley's Test, P=0.05). If the data were not normally distributed by
the Shapiro-Wilks Test (P=0.01), the control and test water values were compared
using the nonparametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (P=0.05). Otherwise, the means

-------
4
were compared using parametric statistics: t-Tests (P-0.05) (in the November 1992
testing in which there was a separate control for each ambient water treatment);
or ANOVA (P=0.05) followed by Dunnett's Test (P=0.05). Reference toxicant
testing using copper II sulfate pentahydrate was conducted for each of the three
test series as a means of checking test organism health and sensitivity. LC50's
values for the reference toxicant tests were calculated using the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber Method (Hamilton et al. 1977).
RESULTS
Field Conditions and Conventional Parameters
Antecedent rainfall data are summarized in Table 2 and field parameter data are
presented in Table 3. In general salinities were lowest during the second
sampling event in June 1993. This may be due to a greater lag time between
rainfall and the initiation of sampling compared to the other dates. As a whole
the field parameters were within normal ranges, although in some cases dissolved
oxygen (DO) was super-saturated. This may be due to rapid increases in surface
water temperatures and/or algal blooms. Concentrations of ammonia were low at
all stations, chlorine (lab analysis for one date) was undetected, TOC was below
detection, and TSS and TDS (analyzed on one date) were within normal ranges.
Priority Pollutants
None of the priority pollutant metals exceeded state water quality standards.
Dissolved nickel at station 4 (Chocolate Bay) in November 1992 approached the
state chronic standard of 13.2 ug/1 (Table 4). On that same date and location
copper was detected but did not exceed the state chronic standard of 4.37 ug/1.
These metals were not detected in subsequent sampling events, although this may
be explained by the higher detection levels for June 1993 and February 1994
analyses (see Appendix A).
None of the organic priority pollutants exceeded state water quality standards.
For the most part volatile organic compounds (VOC), semi-volatile compounds, PCBs
and pesticides were not detected. In only one case was an EPA water quality
criterion exceeded. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was found at station 5 (Gulf of
Mexico) at a concentration of 65 ug/1 in February 1994, exceeding the criterion
for protection of human health (1 x 10'5) of 59 ug/1. In June 1993, di-n-
butylphthalate was tentatively identified at a concentration of 33 ug/1 at
station 2 (Texas City Ship Channel). This concentration was well below the EPA
human health water quality criterion; aquatic life criteria are not available.
Water quality standards are not available for the above phthalates. The
representativeness of the phthalate data is somewhat questionable since
phthalates are common lab contaminants.
Tentatively identified and unknown compounds were also detected during the
organic chemical analyses, although such data are considered to be of limited
usefulness. In November 1992, semi-volatile unknowns were detected at
concentrations of 8 ug/1, 10 ug/1, 6 ug/1 and 17 ug/1 for stations 1, 2, 3 and
5, respectively. In June 1993, a semi-volatile unknown was detected at station
2 at a concentration of 4 ug/1. Thiobismethane (CAS# 75183), a tentatively
identified VOC was detected at concentrations of 6 ug/1 and 59 ug/1 at stations
2 and 3, respectively. No data are available on the toxicity of this chemical
to aquatic life (AQUIRE 1995). In February 1994, semi-volatile unknowns were
detected at concentrations of 4 ug/1, and 7 ug/1 at stations 2 and 5,
respectively. One VOC unknown was also found at a concentration of 33 ug/1 on
this date at station 2.
Ambient Toxicity Testing
Reference toxicant testing is a means of assessing test organism health and
sensitivity. This testing was done in conjunction with ambient water testing for
the three sampling events (I-III). sensitivity of mysids and inland silverside
was approximately the same after seven days exposure to the reference toxicant,

-------
5
copper II sulfate pentahydrate. Four day LC50 values for the three test dates
were 445, 599 and 513 ug/1 copper II sulfate pentahydrate for the inland
silverside, and 618, 684 and 691 for the mysid. These values, if expressed as
copper concentration, are 0.81, 1.1 and 0.93 times the published LC50 for Menidia
peninsulae (Mayer 1987; data for M^. bervlllna were not available). LC50s for
Mvsidopsis bahia were 0.87, 0.96 and 0.97 times the published LC50 value for
Mvsidopsis bahia (Lussier et al. 1985). These data indicate that the health and
sensitivity of organisms used in the toxicity tests were normal.
In November 1992 mean survival, weight and fecundity of mysids in test waters was
not statistically different than control values, except at station 5 where mean
survival of 98% was greater than the control survival of 83% (Table 5). Control
fecundity was inadequate since mysids were too immature at the end of the test
to distinguish sexes with certainty. Mean survival and weight for inland
silversides in the treatments were not significantly different than the
respective controls (Table 6).
In June 1993, mysid control weight was only 0.08 mg, which did not achieve test
acceptability criterion of 0.20. The mean control weight for the control was
significantly lower than four of the five treatments (stations 1, 3, 4 and 5).
The reason for the low control weight was not determined. Also the control
fecundity acceptability criterion of 50% of female mysids with eggs was not
achieved because the mysids were too immature for sexes to be differentiated.
Fecundity is not a mandatory test criterion. However because of inadequate
control weight the June mysid data should be considered conditional. Survival
was good in both the control and test water treatments. All test water weights
and fecundities were higher than control values, suggesting (not proving) the
absence of toxicity.
In the June 1993 testing of inland silversides, no significant differences
between control and test water survival and weight were found, indicating the
absence of ambient toxicity to this species. However, these data need to be
qualified in that two to seven fish jumped out of the weight pans in four of the
six treatments. Statistical comparisons were based on the number of fish
remaining in the pans.
In the February 1994 testing of inland silversides, no significant differences
were observed between the control and the ambient water endpoints measured,
however, the inland silverside data need to be qualified. This was a truncated
retest, necessitated by excessive mortality in the first test's control. The
mortality may have been due to fish remaining too long in the counting beakers.
The small sample size limited the effectiveness of the statistical analysis. For
the mysids, mean control weight was significantly less than for one treatment
(station 3), although control weight was good and, visually, differences were
slight. No significant differences were observed for mysid survival and
fecundity.
DISCUSSION
The EPA human health criterion for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was exceeded at the
Gulf of Mexico station on one date. The state does not have water quality
standards for this chemical. Its significance is unknown, since there are no
obvious sources, and because it is a common lab contaminant. However, its
presence deserves note, and any future monitoring should include this parameter.
Nickel and copper were were detected but did not exceed standards. Neither metal
exceeded state water quality standards. Possible sources of these metals include
point source industrial discharges located on Chocolate Bayou. The Chocolate
Bayou/Bay system has not been well studied and future assessment of water quality
during dry and wet weather would be worthwhile if resources are available.
Aside from the criteria exceedance, the chemical data did not show elevated or
otherwise unusual concentrations of conventional and priority pollutants. By the
same token, the chronic toxicity tests did not demonstrate the occurrence of
ambient water toxicity. This is encouraging in that it appears that designated

-------
6
uses in open bay and ocean waters are not Impaired by toxic substances
originating from nonpoint sources, although intensive biological sampling would
be required to fully assess aquatic life uses. Although data were limited,
sampling was conducted on three separate dates, and two test organisms were
utilized as indicators of toxicity to the aquatic community.
The intent of this study was to evaluate potential for episodic toxicity in
ambient waters due to nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources of pollution originate
from a number of different land uses including residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural and undeveloped uses. While data are considered
preliminary, there does not appear to be a major threat which would impair
designated fishery uses at least for the portions of the waterbodies sampled.
We suspect the threat of nonpoint sources of toxic substances is much greater
along western near-shore areas of Galveston Bay which receive considerable urban
and industrial stormwater loading. Fecal coliform levels are elevated in this
portion of the bay suggesting the negative influence of stormwater inputs.
Contaminants may be patterned similarly. Tributaries within the bay system have
historically been more impacted than open bays. Impacts of agricultural
pesticides to water quality are likely to be of a localized, episodic nature in
areas which are heavily farmed for rice and other crops.
With the exception of the Redfish Island station, sampling locations were
situated relatively close to the shore. However, these area° '-ere sparsely
populated (with the possible exception of the Gulf of Mexico site), were not
situated near tributary inputs, were far downstream of point source discharges,
and were not heavily farmed. Thus, it should be evident that the suite of
stations sampled do not represent a "worst case scenario" for nonpoint source
toxics assessment. The results of this study indicate that additional open bay
ambient toxicity studies are of relatively low priority. Should funds be
available for nonpoint source toxics assessment in Galveston Bay, a smaller scale
approach (e.g., subwatershed scale) should be taken to evaluate water quality in
higher risk areas. Such waters include tributaries receiving agricultural
runoff, near-shore areas near stormwater inputs, and streams and bayous in
residential, urban and industrial land use areas.
CONCLUSIONS
A study to assess toxic nonpoint source impacts in lower Galveston Bay was
completed. Data should be considered as preliminary screening results and were
used to determine the need for more involved study. Both priority pollutant
chemical analyses and chronic toxicity testing were performed for surface water
samples collected from five stations on three sampling dates. None of the state
water quality standards were exceeded. With the exception of EPA criteria
exceedance for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at the Gulf of Mexico station, priority
pollutants were either undetected, or present at low concnetrations. Toxicity
test data for mysids and inland silversides did not indicate significant toxicity
to either species. Although data are limited, ambient toxicity was not
significant. These data indicate that aquatic life uses in the areas sampled are
not impacted by nonpoint sources toxics. The need for future "open bay" type
nonpoint source surface water studies is considered low. Should funding become
available, studies to assess localized and/or episodic effects of stormwater
inputs and agricultural runoff would be of greatest value.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Toxicity tests and statistical analysis of test data were conducted principally
by Roman S. Stanley of the EPA Lab in Gulf Breeze Florida. Mr. Stanley also
reviewed and commented on the draft report. Jim Moore, also at the Gulf Breeze
Lab, coordinated with Region 6 on the testing schedule and administrative aspects
of the testing. This testing was completed under contract #68033479 (work
assignment 4-04). We acknowledge the assistance of Lisa Feldman of the EPA
Houston, Texas, Lab, and other lab personnel for coordinating and carrying out
the chemical analvses.

-------
LITERATURE CITED
AQUIRE. 1995. Aquatic toxicity information retrieval (database). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Lab, Duluth, MN.
Hamilton, M.A., R.C. Russo and R.V. Thurston. 1977. Trimmed Spearman-Karber
method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays.
Environmental Science and Technology 11(7):714-719; Correction 12(4):417 (1978).
Lussier, S.M., J.H. Gentile and J. Walker. 1985. Acute and chronic effects of
heavy metals and cyanide on Mvsldopsis bahia (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Aquatic
Toxicology 7:25-35.
Mayer, F.L., Jr. 1987. Acute Toxicity Handbook of Chemicals to Estuarine
Organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/8-
87/017.
Nix, H. G. (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL) December 12,
1991 letter to B.J. Wynne, III (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, TX)
concerning seawater contamination.
TNRCC. 1991. Texas Water Quality Standards. Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Austin, TX. July 1991.
TNRCC. 1994. TexaB Water Quality Standards (Draft). Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Austin, TX. November 1994.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine , organisms. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-87/028.
U.S. EPA. 1992. QA/QC project plan for lower Galveston Bay ambient toxicity
study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Management Branch,
Dallas, TX. October 1992.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Marine toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) guidance
document, Phase I (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.

-------
Ja
Houston
Trim ty
Bay
TEXA'
1111
Figure 1. Sampling Station Locations.

-------
Table 1. Sampling Station Locations.
STUDY	STATE
STATION #	STATION #	LOCATION	LATITUDE	LONGITUDE
1	24390025	Lower Galveston Bay Southeast of	29°30'30"	94°52'37"
Redfish Island at Channel Marker 2
2	-	Texas City Ship Channel at Channel	29°22'37"	94°51 '52"
Marker 15
3	24390450	Galveston Channel between	29o20'02"	94°46'32"
Seawolf Park and USCG Station
4	-	Chocolate Bay at Channel Marker 16	29°11'47"	95°09'23"
5	-	Gulf of Mexico at end of Gulf Coast	29014'53u	94°50'09"
Fishing Pier in Galveston

-------
Table 2. Rainfall 10 Days Prior to Sampling.
INITIAL	WEATHER
SAMPLING	SAMPLING	STATION
EVENT	DATE	LOCATION	DAILY RAINFALL IN INCHES
11/2 11/3 11/4 11/5 11/6 11/7 11/8 11/9 11/10 11/11 Total
I	11/12/92	Houston Avg* .37 T	.01 T	T	.09 .57 1.04**
Galveston	T	.01	.80 .19 1.0**
5/23 5/24 5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 Total
II	6/2/93	Houston Avg .22 1.13 .11 .24 . 03 . 23 . 09 .11 .56	2.72
Galveston	.93 . 09	. 04	T	.37	1.45
1/23 1/24 1/25 1/26 1/27 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 Total
III	2/2/94	Houston Avg .02 .02 .18 .09 .27 .94 .16 .12	T	1.8
Galveston	.06 . 01 .07 .15	. 04 .33
•Average of 11-12 stations in the Houston area;
"Total rainfall was 2.54" and 4.48" for Houston and Galveston, respectively, if rainfall for 11/1 was taken into account.

-------
Table 3. Sample Collection Information and Field Data.
STATION
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
TEMPERATURE
P«
DO
CONDUCTIVITY
SALINITY


(H)
(FT.)
C°C)
(mg/l)
(uMho/cm)
(o/oo)
1
11-13-92
1010
1
17.09
7.82

39,900
_

6-2-93
1045
1
26.23
8.28
8.34
16,500
8.5

6-2-93
1045
19
25.25
8.13
7.33
20,100
13.6

2-2-94
1528
1
10.18
7.67
9.14
33,400
20.8
2
11-13-92
1311
1
18.28
7.89
7.64
44,000
28.5

6-2-93
1155
1
25.93
8.31
7.77
23,400
13.5

6-2-93
1155

25.86
8.30
7.84
22,600
14.4

2-2-94
1630
1
11.34
7.64
10.03
39,300
25.0
3
11-13-92
1215
1
17.31
7.82
7.43
41,000
26.2

6-2-93
1301
1
26.67
8.45
9.34
27,300
18.3

6-2-93
1301
25
25.84
8.33
7.24
31,300
18.8

2-2-94
1700
1
10.30
7.72
10.17
37,000
23.4
4
11-12-92
1504
1
20.29
7.81
7.60
34,800
21.9

11-12-92
1504

20.27
7.79
7.47
35,700
22.5

6-3-93
1000
1
25.91
7.78
6.45
23,200
13.6

6-3-93
1000

25.91
7.75
6.41
23,000
14.1

2-3-94
0950
1
8.50
7.73
12.72
26,600
16.1
5
11-12-92
1716
1
18.96
8.01
7.61
46,000
30.0

11-12-92
1716
12
19.01
7.99
7.84
46,000
30.0

6-2-93
1440
1
26.65
8.46
7.99
29,300
18.2

6-2-93
1440
12
26.68
8.45
8.03
28,900
18.1

2-2-94
0928
1
9.11
7.42
10.22
41,000
26.2

-------
Table 4. Concentrations of Heavy Metals and Conventional Parameters.
STATION 1	STATION 2	STATION 3	STATION 4	STATION 5	BLANK

11/92
6/93
2/94
11/92
6/93
2/94
11/92
'6/93
2/94
11/92
6/93
2/94
11/92
6/93
2/94
11/92
6/93
2/94
DISSOLVED HEAVY METALS (Ufl/l)*
















ARSENIC
<3
<5.8
<3
<3
<5.8
<3
<3
<5.8
<3
<3
<5.8
<3
<3
<5.8
<3
<3
<5.8
<3
CADMIUM
<0.25
<1
<1
<0.25
<1
<1
<0.25
<1
<1
0.26
<1
<1
<0.25
<1
<1
<0.25
<1
<1
CHROMIUM +6
<25
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
COPPER
1.7
<5
<5
1.8
<5
<5
<1
<5
<5
2.3
<5
<5
1.2
<5
<5
<1
<5
<5
LEAD
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
MERCURY
<0.2
<0.2
.**
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.2
<0.2
-
TOT. MERCURY*
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
-
-
<0.2
NICKEL
1.5
<10
<10
<1
<10
<10
1.4
<10
<10
11
<10
<10
3.7
<10
<10
<1
<10
<10
SELENIUM
<50
<5.8
<12
<50
<5.8
<12
<50
<5.8
<12
<50
<5.8
<12
<50
<5.8
<12
<50
<5.8
<12
SILVER
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ZINC
2.3
<10
<10
4.6
<10
<10
1.2
<10
<10
5.5
<10
<10
5.3
<10
<10
4.3
<10
<10
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (ma/I)
















CHLORINE
•
<0.1
.
-
<0.1
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<0.1
-
-
<0.1
.
_
_
_
AMMONIA-N
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.05
<0.1
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.10
-
-
.
TOC
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
-
-
.
TSS
64
24.8
12
12
11
15
32
16
10
62
11
20
27
52
50
-
.
_
TDS
-
-
21,000
-
-
23,100
-
-
23,100
-
-
15,900
-
-
23,100
-
-
-
*All values are for the dissolved fraction, except for total mercury.
**Not analyzed.

-------
13
Table 5. Mysid Toxicity Results.
NOVEMBER 1992	JUNE 1993	FEBRUARY 1994
PERCENT WEIGHT PERCENT	PERCENT WEIGHT PERCENT	PERCENT WEIGHT PERCENT
STATION	SURVIVAL (MG) U/ EGGS	SURVIVAL (MG) W/ EGGS	SURVIVAL (MG) W/ EGGS
CONTROL
87*
0.28*
51.3*
90
0.08
0
95
0.26
62.5
1
95
0.29
71.9
85
0.22
16.7
90
0.26
45.8
2
95
0.28
53.1
95
0.12
47.9
95
0.31
75.0
3
98
0.25
28.1
95
0.21
19.8
98
0.33
71.9
4
90
0.24
36.5
95
0.20
4.2
93
0.28
62.5
5
98
0.31
57.3
95
0.22
19.8
95
0.32
47.9
~Values are the means for five separate controls (survival, weight, fecundity): (1) 85%, 0.30 mg, 47.9%;
(2) 95%. 0.29 mg, 62.5%; (3) 90%, 0.23 mg, 31.3%; (4) 83%, 0.26 mg, 49.0%; (5) 83%, 0.30, 65.6%.

-------
Table 6. Inland Silverside Toxicity Results.

NOVEMBER
1992
JUNE
1993
FEBRUARY
1994

PERCENT
WEIGHT
PERCENT
WEIGHT
PERCENT WEIGHT
STATION
SURVIVAL
(MG)
SURVIVAL
(MG)
SURVIVAL
(MG)
CONTROL
85*
1.25*
80
1.27
100
1.35
1
97
1.43
97
1.14
100
1.31
2
80
1.23
97
1.13
93
1.28
3
97
1.52
93
1.07
100
1.33
4
90
1.37
100
1.06
100
1.25
5
87
1.34
93
1.31
100
1.27
~Values are
the means for five separate controls (survival;
weight): (1) 80%,
1.24 mg;
(2) 93%, 1
.21 mg; (3) 87%,
1.36 mg;
(4) 87%, 1.17
mg, (5)
77%, 1.26 mg.

-------
15
Appendix A. Detection Levels for Chemical Parameters.
DETECTION LEVEL BY SAMPLING DATE
COMPOUND (UNITS)
NOVEMBER 1992	JUNE 1993	FEBRUARY 1994
SEMI-VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (UG/L)
Acenaphthene
2
2
2
Acenapththylene
2
2
2
Anthracene
2
2
2
Benzidine
20
20
20
Benzoic Acid
10
10
10
Benzo(a)Anthracene
8
8
8
Benzo(a) Pyrene
8
8
8
Benzo(b)FIuoranthene
8
8
8
Benzo(g,h,i)PeryIene
8
8
6
Benzo(k)FIuoranthene
8
8
8
Benzyl Alcohol
4
4
4
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)Methane
2
2
2
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether
2
2
2
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)Ether
2
2
2
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
4
4
4
4-Bromophenylphenyl Ether
8
8
8
Butylbenzylphthalate
4
4
4
Carbazole
10
10
10
4-Chloraniline
4
4
4
2-ChIoronapthaIene
2
2
2
2-Chlorophenol
4
4
4
4-Chlorophenylphenyl Ether
8
8
8
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
8
8
8
Chrysene
8
8
8
Dibenzofuran
2
2
2
D i benzo(a,h)Anthracene
8
8
8
1,2 -D i chIorobenzene
3
3
3
1,3-D i chIorobenzene
3
3
3
1,4 -D i chIorobenzene
3
3
3
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
10
10
10
2,4-D i chIorophenoI
6
6
6
Diethylphthalate
2
2
2
2,4-Dimethylphenol
6
6
6
Dimethylphthalate
2
2
2
2,4-Dinitrophenol
30
30
30
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
6
6
6
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
6
6
6
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
20
20
20
Di-n-Butylphthalate
2
2
2
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
4
4
4
FIuoranthene
2
2
2
Fluorene
2
2
2
HexachIorobenzene
2
2
2
HexachIorbutadiene
5
5
5
HexachIoropentadi ene
10
10
10
HexachIoroethane
3
3
3
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)
8
8
8
I sophorone
4
4
4
2-Methylnapthalene
2
2
2
2-Methylphenol
6
6
6
4-Methylphenol
6
6
6
Napthalene
2
2
2
2-Nitroaniline
8
8
8
3-Nitroaniline
8
8
8
4-Nitroaniline
8
8
8
Nitrobenzene
2
2
2
2-Nitrophenol
10
10
10
4-Nitrophenol
13
13
13
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4
4
4
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine
6
6
6
PentachIorophenoI
15
15
15

-------
Appendix A, Continued
DETECTION LEVEL BY SAMPLING DATE
COMPOUND (UNITS)	~
NOVEMBER 1992	JUNE 1993	FEBRUARY 1994
Phenanthrene	2
Phenol	4
Pyrene	2
Pyridine	20
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene	3
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol	6
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol	6
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (UG/L)
Acetone	2.5
Acrolein	50
Acrlonitrile	50
Benzene	1
Bromodichlororoethane	1
Bromoform	1
Bromomethane	2.5
2-Butanone	2.5
Carbon Disulfide	2.5
Carbon Tetrachloride	1
Chlorobenzene	1
Chloroethane	2.5
Chloroform	1
Chloromethane	2.5
Dichloromethane	1
1.1-Dichloroethane	1
1.2-Dichloroethane	1
1.1-Dichloroethene	1
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene	1
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene	1
1.2-Dichloropropane	1
Cis-1,3-Dichtoropropene	'1
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene	1
Ethylbenzene	2.5
2-Hexanone	2.5
Methylene Chloride	2.5
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone	2.5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	1
Tetrachloroethene	1
Toluene	2.5
1.1.1-Trichloroethane	1
1.1.2-Trichloroethane	1
Trichloroethene	1
Vinyl Chloride	2.5
m- and p-Xylene	2.5
o-Xylene	2.5
PESTICIDES AND PCBS (UG/L)
Alpha-BHC	0.05
Beta-BHC	0.05
Delta-BHC	0.05
Gamna-BHC	0.05
Heptachlor	0.05
Aldrin	0.05
Heptachlor Epoxide	0.05
Endosulfan I	0.05
Dieldrin	0.05
4,4'-DDE	0.05
Endrin	0.05
Endosulfan II	0.05
4,4'-D0D	0.05
Endrin Aldehyde	0.10
Endrin Ketone	0.10
Endosulfan Sulfate	0.10
2
4
2
20
3
6
6
5
100
100
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
5
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
05
05
10
10
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
2
4
2
20
3
6
6
5
100
100
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
5
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.5
5
5
5
2
2
5
2
2
2
5
5
5
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

-------
17
Appendix A, Continued
DETECTION LEVEL BY SAMPLING DATE
	
COMPOUND (UNITS)
NOVEMBER 1992	JUNE 1993	FEBRUARY 1994
4,4'-DDT	0.10	0.10	0.10
Methoxychlor	0.20	0.50	0.50
Alpha-Chlordane	0.05	0.05	0.05
Ganma-Chlordane	0.05	0.05	0.05
Toxaphene	2.0	5.0	5.0
Aroclor-1016	1.0	1.0	1.0
Aroclor-1221	2.0	2.0	2.0
Aroclor-1232	1.0	1.0	1.0
Aroclor-1242	1.0	1.0	1.0
Aroclor-1254	1.0	1.0	1.0
Aroclor-1260	1.0	1.0	1.0
DISSOLVED METALS (UG/L)
Arsenic	3.0	5.5	3.0
Cadmium	0.25	1.0	1.0
Chromium +6	25	10	10
Copper	1.0	5.0	5.0
Lead	5.0	5.0	5.0
Mercury (Dissolved and Total) 0.2	0.2	0.2
Nickel	1.0	10	iO
Selenium	50	5.8	12
Silver	0.5	0.5	0.5
Zinc	1.0	10	10
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS (MG/L)
Chlorine	NA	0.1	NA
Anrnonia-Nitrogen	0.01	0.01	0.01
Total Organic Carbon	111
Total Dissolved Solids	NA	NA	1
Total Suspended Solids	111
NA = Not analyzed
V	.	i
,	J '	\	N,	A

-------