Military Canal Special Study: Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, SESD Project 98-0062, October 1999, Volume 2 Of 2


USEPA Region 4
Military Canal Special Study
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida
SESD Project No. 98-0062
October, 1999
Final Report
Volume 2 of 2

-------
Appendix C
Toxicity Procedures
US EPA REGION 4 LIBRARY
AFC-TOWER 9th FLOOR
61 FORSYTH ST. SW
ATLANTA, GA 30303

-------
INTRODUCTION
This method estimates the acute toxicity of sediment samples from hazardous waste sites to the amphipod,
Hvalella azteca. The test utilizes 7-10 day old organisms in a 10-day static-renewal test. The effects include
the synergistic, antagonistic and additive effects of all the chemical, physical and biological components which
adversely affect the physiological and biochemical functions of the test organisms.
This test can be conducted as a single concentration test consisting of 100% site sediment and a control or as
a multi-concentration test consisting of five sediment concentrations and a control.
A. Apparatus and Equipment
1. 10 gallon aquarium for culturing — To test waste toxicity on-site or in the laboratory,
sufficient numbers of young must be available, preferably from a laboratory culture. A
method of producing juveniles of known age is described in Appendix XXVTII.A. If
necessary, organisms can be shipped from a supplier in well oxygenated water in insulated
containers. A listing of suppliers for toxicity testing organisms can be found in Appendix
XXVIII.B.
2. Sample containers — for sample shipment and storage (see SOP I, Sample Collection,
Packaging, Handling, and Shipping).
3. Environmental chamber, water bath, or equivalent facility with temperature control (25 ±
1 °C) and lighting control.
4. Water purification system — Millipore Milli-Q® or equivalent.
5. Balance — analytical, capable of accurately weighing 0.00001 g.
6. Reference weights, Class S — for checking performance of balance.
7. Test chambers — borosilicate glass 100 ml beakers.
8. Sieves — U.S. Standard Sizes #35 and #45 - to collect the smaller, more sensitive organisms
for testing.
9. Stainless steel forceps.
10. Teflon disks, cut to fit the inside of test chamber. Used to cover sediment when adding
overlying water to test chamber.
11. Transfer pipets, disposable polyethylene (Fisher cat. no. 13-711-7) used to transfer
organisms.
12. Wash bottles — for washing organisms from sieves and for rinsing small glassware and
instrument electrodes and probes.
13. Glass or electronic thermometers — for measuring water temperatures.
14. Bulb-thermograph or electronic-chart type thermometers — for continuously recording
temperature in environmental chambers.
15. National Bureau of Standards Certified thermometer (see USEPA 1991a, and Appendix
III.A, SOP III QAJQC.)

-------
16. pH, DO, and specific conductivity meters — for routine physical and chemical
measurements. Unless the test is being conducted to specifically measure the effect of one of
the above parameters, a portable, field-grade instrument is acceptable.
Reagents and Consumable Materials
1. Reagent water — a moderately hard water such as Moderately Hard Recon II (see recipe
SOP XXVIII.A) which does not contain amounts of substances which are toxic to the test
organisms (also see SOP IV, Water For Toxicity Testing and Culturing).
2. Test Samples — see SOP I, Sample Collection, Packaging, Handling, and Shipping and SOP
II, Sample Preparation and Processing.
3. Reagents for hardness and alkalinity tests (see USEPA 1991a and Appendix III.A, SOP UI
QA/QC.)
4. Membranes and filling solutions for dissolved oxygen probe, or reagents for modified
Winkler analysis, (see USEPA 1991a and Appendix IH.A, SOP III QA/QC.)
5. Standard pH buffers 4,7, and 10 (or as per instructions of instrument manufacturer) — for
instrument calibration (see USEPA 1991a). See also Appendix III.A, SOP IH QA/QC.
6. Specific conductivity standards (see USEPA 1991a). See also Appendix HI.A, SOP III
QA/QC.
7. Laboratory quality assurance samples and standards for the above methods. See also
Appendix ffl.A, SOP HI QA/QC.
8. Reference toxicant, KCI solution. See Reference Toxicants, SOP in QA/QC.
9. Hyalella food - YTM, a mixture of yeast, cereal leaves, and solids from the digestion of
Tetramin® fish food (see SOP), and algae, a 7 x 101 cell/ml suspension of the green alga
Selenastrum capricornutum (see SOP).
Test Preparation
1. Hvalella azteca. 7-10 days old, are used for the test. Organisms of the appropriate age (size)
are isolated using a series of sieves. Animals passing through a #35 sieve and retained by a
#45 sieve are used for toxicity tests. The organisms retained by the #45 sieve are gently
washed into a 500 ml glass beaker or bowl containing 200 ml moderately hard reagent water
at 25°C, fed, and then held overnight at 25°C. The next day, dead, non-mobile, or lethargic
organisms are discarded.
2. The single concentration test is conducted with six replicates of each sample sediment along
with six replicates of and appropriate control sediment. (Multi-concentration tests are also
conducted with six replicates of each of five dilutions of a test sample along with six
replidates of a control sediment.) Five animals are needed for each replicate (30 per test
concentration).
3. Tests should be initiated within six weeks of receipt of test samples (when samples are stored
at 4°C. Just prior to testing, measure the pH of the sediment. It should be between 5 and 8.
If not in this range, try to adjust the pH by mixing into the sediment drops of 0.1N NaOH or
HC1.
4. Control sediment (and dilution sediment for multi-concentration tests) can be (1) washed #70
silica sand, (2) a natural (reference)sediment tested and proven to be non-toxic to the test

-------
organism, or (3) if desired, an artificial sediment made to closely mimic various
characteristics of a specific test sediment. (e.g. if a test sediment is 90% fine sand and 10%
organic matter, a control (dilution) sediment can be made consisting of 90% fine silica sand
and 10% sphagnum peat, pH adjusted with 0.42% by weight calcium carbonate.) Specific
sediment characteristics can be determined by sediment analysis or by observation.
Procedure
1. Transfer 20 gm sample of test or control sediment to a 100 ml glass beaker. Compact
sediment by gently tapping the beaker on a table top. Place a teflon disk washed with
reagent water on the surface of the sediment. Carefully pour 80 ml of moderately hard
dilution water (e.g. moderately hard Recon II) over the disc. Then, carefully remove the
disc. For highly consolidated sediment (sand or shell), overlying water can be carefully
poured directly down the side of the beaker without first placing a disc on the sediment. Be
sure not to disturb the sample excessively. Place test chambers filled with sediment and
water into an incubator at 25 °C and allow to stand overnight before adding test animals.
2. Add 5 amphipods to each test chamber using a transfer pipet. Repeat the process until the
required number of organisms have been added to each chamber. Introduce the organisms
below the water surface so that air is not trapped inside their carapace, causing them to
float. If any organisms are floating, force them below the surface by directing a jet of water
from a pipet over them.
3. After the amphipods have been distributed to each test chamber, return to incubator.
Randomize the position of the test chambers in the incubator. The light quality and intensity
should be at ambient laboratory levels, approximately 10-20 nE/m2/s, or 50 to 100 foot
candles (ft-c), with a photoperiod of 16 h of light and 8 h of darkness. The test solution
temperature should be maintained at 25 ± 1°C.
4. Examine each test chamber after 2 hours. Replace any organisms that appear to be injured,
lethargic or dead. Also replace "floaters," the organisms with air still trapped under their
carapace.
5. Feed test organisms daily by adding 0.1 ml of YCTM and 0.1 ml of algae suspension to each
test chamber.
6. Replace approximately 80% of the overlying water (60 - 65 mis) every other day.
7. Monitor Water Quality (see Figure XXVJH.1). Measure and record the D.O. in at least one
replicate of each test sample before test animals are introduced and thereafter measure and
record D.O. in at least one replicate of each test sample daily, especially just before overlying
water is changed. The D.O. level falls below 40% saturation (approx. 3.2 mg/L) discontinue
feeding the YCTM between water changes. The D.O. should not be allowed to fall below 1.0
mg/L. Provide aeration only as a last resort.
8. Count the organisms only at day 0 and day 10. During the test, animals burrow and cannot
be counted easily without disturbing the sediment. However, during water changes, if live
animals are observed in a test chamber, a J should be placed on the data sheet.
Termination of the Test
1. The test is terminated after ten days of exposure. Count the number of surviving, dead, and
deformed amphipods, and record the numbers of each. The deformed organisms are treated
as dead in the analysis of the data.

-------
2. Determine toxicity by comparing the survival of amphipods in test samples to their survival
in the control.
F. Acceptability of Results
For test results to be acceptable, mean survival of test organisms exposed to the control sediment
must be at least 80%.
G. Calculations / Data Analysis for Single Concentration Tests
1. Express survival as the proportion surviving in each replicate (eg. if 8 of 10 organisms
survive, the proportion surviving is 0.8).
2. Transform the data using an arcsin square root transformation (see Appendix XX1II.B).
3. Perform the Shapiro-Wilks test on the data to test for normality.
4. Perform the Bartlett's Test on the data to test for homogenity of variance.
5. If the data passes the test for nomality and homogenity of variance, compare the
transformed data for each test sample against that of the control using Dunnett's procedure.
(Note: for a single concentration test, Dunnett's procedure is equivalent to the "t-test.").
If the test data fails either the test for nomalilty or the test for homogeneity of variance, the
statistical analysis is performed using either Steel's Many-One Rank Test or the Wilcoxon
Rank Sum Test as indicated in the flow chart on the next page.
When Dunnett's Procedure (or Bonferroni's T-test, or Steel's Many-One Rank Sum Test, or
Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test) indicates a significant difference in mortality between the control
and a test group, the test sample at that test concentration is considered "toxic."
The above analyses are best performed using a computer software program such as TOXSTAT. A copy of
TOXSTAT Version 3.3 can be obtained from:
Fish Physiology and Toxicology Laboratory
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie Wyoming 82071
(307) 745-8504

-------

-------
H. Calculations / Data Analysis for Multi-Concentration Tests Determining the LCj,,
The LCS0 is an estimate of the median lethal concentration. To calculate or estimate the LCM for a
multi-concentration test, follow the flow chart below. The first test of choice is the Trimmed
Spearman-Karber (see Appendix XXIII.M), followed by the Probit Analysis (see Appendix XXIII.L),
and finally the Graphical Method (see Appendix XXIII.N).
The analyses are best
performed using			
computer programs (see
SOP XXIII section 5). Software for the Probit Analysis and the Trimmed Spearman-Karber are available
from EPA's Environmental Monitoring systems Labortory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

-------
I. Test conditions are summarized in Table XXVIII.A.
Table XXVIII.A	SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE
AMPHIPOD mVAI FT T A AZTECA) 10-DAY WHOLE SEDIMENT TEST
1.	Test type:	Static with renewal of overlying water
2.	Test duration:	10 days
3.	Temperature (°C):	25 ± 1 °C
4.	Light quality:	Ambient laboratory illumination
5.	Light intensity:	10-20 fiE/m2/s (50-100 ft-c)(ambient laboratory levels)
6.	Photoperiod:	16 h light, 8 h darkness
7.	Test chamber size:	100 ml
8.	Test volume:	20 g sediment/80 ml overlying water
9.	Renewal of test sample:	None, but, replace overlying water (see below).
10.	Revewal of overlying water:	Every other day. Use moderately hard Recon II.
11.	Age of test organisms:	7 to 10 days
12.	No. animals per test chamber:	5
13.	No. replicate chambers	6
per test concentration:
14.	No. animals per test concentration: 30
15.	Feeding regime:	Feed 0.1 ml of Yeast Cerophyll TetraMin (YCTM) and 0.1 ml algae
suspension (7 x 107 cells/ml) daily.
16.	Aeration:	If D.O. level falls below 3.2 mg/L, suspend feeding YCTM
until the D.O recovers. Aerate only as a last resort.
17.	Test concentrations:	Undiluted sample and a control.
18.	Effect Measured:	Survival
19.	Test Acceptability;	80% survival in control

-------
Figure XXVIII.l.	SHORT - TERM CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST - AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL TEST
Industry/Study:		Date Start:		Species:		Aeration? (y/n):
Location:	 __ _ _	Date Stop:	Analyst:
Sample
Rep.
#
Survival
Dissolved Oxygen
Initial Water Chemistry
0
(#)
2
(O
4
(*0
6
(O
8
<«0
10
(#)
0
2
4
6
8
10
PH
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Hardness
(mg/L)
Conductivity
(mg/L)
Salinity
<%•)
Chlorin/
(mg/L)

1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















6



















1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















6



















1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















6



















1


















2


















3


















4


















S


















6

-------
REFERENCE:
USEPA. 1991a. Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Environmental Services Division, College Station Road, Athens, GA 30613.

-------
Section XXVIII.A
Revision No. 3
Date: December 11,1998
Page: 1 of 3
APPENDIX XXVTII.A.
pYALELLA AZTECA BOX CULTURE METHODS:
The techniques used in this SOP are based on methods described in Borgmann et al. (1989)
for the production of known age Hvalella azteca. Borgmann recommends collecting
uniform aged young (<1 week old) in a 5L aquarium for experimental purposes. He refers
to these as box cultures. The adults are returned to culture jars as a brood stock.
A. Culturing
1.	Hvalella azteca are cultured at 20°C, 16 hour light, 8 hour darkness at
ambient light levels (50-100 ft-c) and light aeration (~2-3 bubbles/s).
2.	Culture water used is well water or MH Recon II.
3.	Fifty adult H. azteca are isolated from the stock culture and placed in a 5L
aquarium or a 1 gallon battery jar containing 3 L temperature acclimated
water.
a.	Isolate adults from stock cultures using a #20 U.S. Standard sieve.
Wash the amphipods from the sieve into a collecting pan.
b.	Pipet the adults from the collecting pan into the aquarium, being
careful to introduce the organisms under the water surface.
c.	Stock the aquarium with adults in a 2 females:l male ratio.
d.	Select only gravid females (i.e., ova visible) and mature males (i.e.,
second gnathopods developed) or select pairs in amplexus.
4.	Each aquarium should contain 2-3 pre-soaked, conditioned paper towels.
Replace the towels as needed.
4. Feed box cultures daily.
a.	Mix 2.0 g ground Tetra-Min® fish flakes with 100 ml well water on a
stir plate for 5 min.
b.	Pipet 2 ml Tetra-Min® mixture. More may be required for larger
1 Method modified from NFCRC SOP, updated 6/29/89.

-------
Section XXVIII.A
Revision No. 3
Date: December 11,1998
Page: 2 of 3
animals. Use less if a large quantity of food remains from previous
feeding.
5. Once a week the juvenile amphipods are collected. The adults are returned
to a fresh battery jar to continue as brood stock.
a.	Remove the paper towels with tweezers. Rinse the towels with well
water from a wash bottle into the battery jar. Place the towels into a
deep sided glass collecting dish containing temperature acclimated
culture water. Rinse the towels again to ensure all amphipods are
removed.
b.	Empty the battery jar through a #20 and #60 sieve series. Wash the
#20 (adults) sieve contents into a collecting pan. Wash the #60
(juveniles) sieve contents into a 250 ml beaker.
c.	Count and pipet the adults into a fresh battery jar containing
temperature acclimated well water and pre-soaked, conditioned paper
towels.
d.	Pour the contents of the 250 ml beaker into a deep sided glass
collecting dish. Use an eye dropper or transfer pipet to remove the
juveniles from the detritus. Count them out into beakers or weigh
boats containing temperature acclimated water.
e.	Young can be maintained in 1 L beakers for extended periods of time
if fed daily and provided culture conditions described above.
i.	Feed young 0.2 ml Tetra-Min® mixture. Use more if
necessary. Reduce the amount if food remains from previous
feeding.
ii.	Place one pre-soaked paper towel in each beaker.
iii.	Renew water weekly. Follow sieving techniques described
above.
REFERENCES:

-------
Section XXVIII.A
Revision No. 3
Date: December 11,1998
Page: 3 of 3
Borgmann, U., K.M. Ralph, and W.P. Norwood. 1989. Toxicity test procedures for
Hyalella azteca, and chronic toxicity of cadmium and pentachlorophenol to Hyalella
azteca, Gammarus fasciatus, and Daphnia magna. Arch. Environ. Con tarn. Toxicol.
18(3).
NFCRC. 1989. Hyalella azteca Box Culture Methods, SOP: 85.175,08/24/89. National
Fisheries Contaminant Research Center, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia,
MO 65201.

-------
CERIOD APHNIA DUBIA WHOLE SEDIMENT SCREENING TEST
This SOP describes a 7-day survival/reproduction test utilizing whole sediment and the
cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia? The sediment is overayed with a non-toxic water which is
renewed daily after the first 48 hours.
A.	Apparatus and Equipment
Apparatus and equipment used are the same as for the standard EPA Ceriodaphnia
dubia test for aqueous samples (method 1002.0).
B.	Reagents and Consumable Materials
Reagents and consumable materials used are the same as for the standard EPA
Ceriodaphnia dubia test for aqueous samples (method 1002.0).
C.	Test Preparation
11. Organism culture is prepared the same as for the standard EPA
Ceriodaphnia dubia test for aqueous samples (method 1002.0). Isolate
neonates no more than 24 hours before starting a test. Neonate must be born
within 8 hours of each other.
2. Sample preparation
a.	Measure and record the pH of each test sediment The pH should be
between 6 and 9. If not, adjust the sediment pH by thouroughly
mixing drops of either 0.1 N HC1 or 0.1 NaOH into the sediment until
an acceptable pH is reached. Note: After mixing acid or base into the
sediment, let the sediment stand for at least 30 minutes to allow the
pH to stabilze before re-measuring the pH.
b.	Place 5 -10 g of test sediment in each of ten 30 ml glass beakers.
Gently tamp the beaker on a table top to spread the sediment evenly
over the bottom of the beaker. Now, carefully pour 15 ml DMW into
the beaker, taking care not to disturb the sediment. This is best
accomplished by laying a teflon disc on top of the sediment before
2 The Ceriodaphnia dubia 7-day survival/reproduction test can also be used as a
multiconcentration test if the NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) and LOEC
(Lowest Observed Effect Concentration) are needed (see Appendix A).

-------
SOPXVB
Revision No. 1
Date: 11/12/1997
Page:5 of 6
adding the overlying water. After adding the water, carefully remove
the disc using "clean" forceps.
b.	Prepare a control sample consisting of ten 30 ml beakers containing
either 5-10 g washed, fine sand or 5-10 g of a suitable non-toxic
reference sediment overlayed with 15 ml of DMW.
c.	Place filled beakers in a tray, cover with a glass plate to retard
evaporation of the overlying water, and place the tray in a incubator
at 25 ± 1 ° C to equilibrate overnight.
D. Procedure
1.	Add 0.1 ml algae suspension (3.5 x 10)and 0.1 ml YCT into each
beaker. When the temperature of the sample has reached 25 ± 1 °C,
transfer one neonate into each test chamber.
2.	Cover test chambers with a glass plate to retard evaporation and
return the chambers to the incubator.
3.	Within 2 hours of introducing animals to each test chamber, observe
each animal under a stereomicroscope at 5X to 8X magnification.
Replace any dead or injured animals and return the chambers to the
incubator.
4.	At day 1 (24 hrs.) Check each test chamber again. If 80% or more of
the control organisms are alive, add food to each test chamber and
then return the chambers to the incubator. If survival in the control
chambers is less than 80% terminate the test.
5.	On day 2 (48 hrs.) and subsequent days, remove 10 ml of overlying
water from each test chamber using a transfer pipette. This is best
done under a stereomicroscope at 5X to 8X magnification (see photo
1). In the process of removing the water, remove any baby
Ceriodaphnia that may have been born but take care not to remove
the mother Ceriodaphnia. Save the water and babies in a marked cup
for later examination and counting (see photo #2). After the water
and babies are removed, check the test chamber one more time to
make sure the mother animal is still in the chamber (see photo #3).
Now replace the overlying water with 10 ml of fresh DMW by slowly
ejecting the fresh water down the side of the test chamber using a
graduated syringe (see photo #4). Finally, add food to each chamber,

-------
SOP XVB
Revision No. 1
Date: 11/12/1997
Page:6 of 6
and return the chamber to the incubator.
6. Count and record the number of baby Ceriodaphnia removed from
each test chamber.
E.	Termination of the Test
The test is terminated after seven days or when at least 60% of the control
organisms have had three broods.
F.	Acceptability of Test Results
oAo/the resuj*s to acceptable, adult survival in the controls must be at least
o an surviving females must producted an average of 15 or more young.
G.	Calculations / Data Analysis for Single Concentration Tests
The calculations are the same as for EPA Method 1002.0. Use Fisher's Exact Test to
ana yze a ult survival and Dunnett's Test to compare the average number of young
produced in a test sample to average number of young produced in the control

-------
Table XVB.l
SOPXVB
Revision No. 1
Date: 11/12/1997
Page: 7 of 6
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE CLADOCERAN
(CERIOD APtlNIA DUBIA) SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION TEST: WHOLE SEDIMENT
1.Test	type:
2.	Temperature:
3.	Light quality:
4.	Light intensity:
5.	Photoperiod:
6.	Test chamber size:
7.	Test soil mass:
8.	Overlying water
(DMW) volume:
9.	Artificial soil
(control):
10.	Renewal of
overlying water:
11.	Age of test organisms:
12.	No. neonates per
test chamber:
13.	No. replicate test cham-
bers per concentration:
14.	No. neonates per
test concentration:
15.	Feeding regime:
16.	Aeration:
17.	Overlying water:
18.	Test concentrations:
19.	Dilution factor:
20.	Test duration:
21.	Endpoints:
22.	Test acceptability:
brood.
Static, renewal
25 ± 1°C
Ambient laboratory illumination
10-20 pE/m2/s (50-100 ft-cX»»bient laboratory levels)
16 h light, 8 h dark
30 ml
5-10 gm
15 ml
10 gm washed fine (20-mesh) sand
daily starting 48 hours after test begun.
Less than 24 h; and all released within an 8-h period
1
10
10
Feed 0.1 ml YCT and 0.1 ml algal suspension per test chamber daily.
None
Moderately hard synthetic water is prepared using Millipore Milli-Q® or equivalent deionized
water and reagent grade chemicals or Dilute Mineral Water (DMW — 20% Perrier). The hardness
must equal or exceed 25 mg/L (CaCO,) to ensure reproduction.
Undiluted sample and a control sedument
None for a single concentration test.
Seven days or until 60% of control females have three broods.
Survival and reproduction
80% or greater survival and an average of 15 or more young per surviving female in the control
group. At least 60% of the surviving females in the controls should have produced their third

-------
INTRODUCTION
This method estimates the acute toxicity of sediment pore water to the amphipod, Hvalella
azteca. The test utilizes 7-10 day old organisms in a 96-hr static test. The effects include
the synergistic, antagonistic and additive effects of all the chemical, physical and biological
components which adversely affect the physiological and biochemical functions of the test
organisms.
This test can be conducted as 100% (undiluted) sample and a control or as a multi-
concentration test consisting of five dilutions of the test sample and a control.
A. Apparatus and Equipment
1. 10 gallon aquarium for culturing — To test waste toxicity on-site or in the
laboratory, sufficient numbers of young must be available, preferably from a
laboratory culture. A method of producing juveniles of known age is described in
Appendix XXVIII.A. If necessary, organisms can be shipped from a supplier in well
oxygenated water in insulated containers. A listing of suppliers for toxicity testing
organisms can be found in Appendix XXVIII.B.
2. Sample containers — for sample shipment and storage (see SOP I, Sample
Collection, Packaging, Handling, and Shipping).
3. Environmental chamber, water bath, or equivalent facility with temperature control
(25 ± 1 °C) and lighting control.
4. Water purification system -- Millipore Milli-Q® or equivalent
5. Balance — analytical, capable of accurately weighing 0.00001 g.
6. Reference weights, Class S — for checking performance of balance.
7. Test chambers ~ borosilicate glass 50 ml beakers.
8. Sieves — U.S. Standard Sizes #35 and #45 - to collect the smaller, more sensitive
organisms for testing.
9. Stainless steel forceps.
10. Glass or electronic thermometers — for measuring water temperatures.
11. Bulb-thermograph or electronic-chart type thermometers -- for continuously
recording temperature in environmental chambers.
12. National Bureau of Standards Certified thermometer (see USEPA 1991a, a»d
Appendix III.A, SOP III QA/QC.)

-------
15. pH, DO, and specific conductivity meters — for routine physical and chemical
measurements. Unless the test is being conducted to specifically measure the effect
of one of the above parameters, a portable, field-grade instrument is acceptable.
B.	Reagents and Consumable Materials
1.	Reagent water ~ a moderately hard water such as Moderately Hard Recon II (see
recipe SOP XXVIII.A) which does not contain amounts of substances which are
toxic to the test organisms (also see SOP IV, Water For Toxicity Testing and
Culturing).
2.	Test Samples ~ see SOP I, Sample Collection, Packaging, Handling, and Shipping
and SOP II, Sample Preparation and Processing.
3.	Reagents for hardness and alkalinity tests (see USEPA 1991a and Appendix III.A,
SOP III QA/QC.)
4.	Membranes and filling solutions for dissolved oxygen probe, or reagents for
modified Winkler analysis, (see USEPA 1991a and Appendix III.A, SOP III
QA/QC.)
5.	Standard pH buffers 4, 7, and 10 (or as per instructions of instrument
manufacturer) — for instrument calibration (see USEPA 1991a). See also Appendix
III.A, SOP III QA/QC.
6.	Specific conductivity standards (see USEPA 1991a). See also Appendix III.A, SOP
III QA/QC.
7.	Laboratory quality assurance samples and standards for the above methods. See
also Appendix III.A, SOP III QA/QC.
8.	Reference toxicant, KC1 solution. See Reference Toxicants, SOP III QAJQC.
9.	Hyalella food - YCTM, a mixture of yeast, cereal leaves, and solids from the
digestion of Tetramin® fish food (see SOP), and algae, a 7 x 107 cell/ml suspension
of the green alga Selenastrum capricornutum (see SOP).
C.	Test Preparation
1. Hvalella azteca. 7-10 days old, are used for the test. The day before tests are to
begin, collect organisms of the appropriate age (size) using a series of sieves. Use
animals that pass through a #35 sieve but are retained by a #45 sieve. Gently wash
the organisms from the #45 sieve into a 500 ml glass beaker or bowl containing 200
ml moderately hard reagent water at 25 °C, feed 0.1 ml YCTM and 0.1 ml algae
suspension, and then hold overnight at 25 °C. The next day, discard dead, non-
mobile, and lethargic organisms.

-------
2.	Extract pore water from sediment using an approved method such as centrifugation
or vacuum extraction (see SOP II). Tests should be initiated within 48 hours of the
extraction. Until needed store extracted pore water at4°C.
3.	Before testing, measure the pH, conductivity, alkalinity, hardness, and salinity of
the pore water. The pH should be between 5 and 8. If not adjust the pH with 0.1N
NaOH or 0.1 N Hcl until an acceptable pH is attained.
2. The single concentration test is conducted with six replicates of each pore water
sample along with six replicates of and appropriate control water. (Multi-
concentration tests are also conducted with six replicates of each of five dilutions of
a test sample along with six replicates of a control water.) Five animals are needed
for each replicate (30 per test concentration).
4.	Any moderately hard water free of toxic components is acceptable as control (and
dilution) water. Moderately Hard Recon II or any of several modifications of Recon
II is widely used.
D. Procedure
1.	Pour 20 ml aliquots of each pore water sample into each of six 50 ml glass beaker.
Add a 2 cm square of Nitex screening (artificial substrate) to each chamber. Repeat
the procedure for the control water. Place the test chambers in the incubator at
25°C and allow the test samples to come to temperature before adding test animals.
2.	Add 5 amphipods to each test chamber using a transfer pipet Introduce the
organisms below the water surface so that air is not trapped inside their carapace,
causing them to float. If any organisms float, force them below the surface by
directing a jet of water from a pipet over them. Repeat the process until the
required number of organisms have been added to each chamber.
3.	After the amphipods have been distributed to each test chamber, add 0.2 ml of
YCTM and 0.2 ml of algae suspension to each chamber, and return the chambers to
the incubator. Randomize the position of the test chambers in the incubator. The
light quality and intensity should be at ambient laboratory levels, approximately 10-
20 jiE/m2/s, or 50 to 100 foot candles (ft-c), with a photoperiod of 16 h of light and 8
h of darkness. The test solution temperature should be maintained at 25 ± 1 °C.
4.	After 2 hours examine each test chamber. Replace any organisms that appear to be
injured, lethargic or dead. Also replace "floaters," the organisms with air still
trapped under their carapace. Return chambers to the incubator.
5.	Count and record the number of live organisms in each test chamber each day.
6.	At 48 hours add 0.2 ml YCTM and 0.2 ml algae suspension to each chamber.

-------
6.
Daily, measure and record the D.O. in at least one replicate of each test sample
daily. If the D.O. level falls below 1.0 mg/L, provide aeration at a rate of 100
bubbles per minute.
E.	Termination of the Test
1.	The test is terminated after 96 hours. Count and record the number of living
amphipods. Deformed organisms are treated as dead animals in the analysis of the
data.
2.	Determine toxicity by comparing the survival of amphipods in test samples to their
survival in the control.
F.	Acceptability of Results
For test results to be acceptable, mean survival of test organisms exposed to the control
sediment must be at least 80%.
G. Calculations / Data Analysis for Single Concentration Tests
1.	Express survival as the proportion surviving in each replicate (eg. if 8 of 10
organisms survive, the proportion surviving is 0.8).
2.	Transform the data using an arcsin square root transformation (see Appendix
XXIII.B).
3.	Perform the Shapiro-Wilks test on the data to test for normality.
4.	Perform the Bartlett's Test on the data to test for homogenity of variance.
5.	If the data passes the test for nomality and homogenity of variance, compare the
transformed data for each test sample against that of the control using Dunnett's
procedure. (Note: for a single concentration test, Dunnett's procedure is equivalent
to the "t-test.").
If the test data fails either the test for nomalilty or the test for homogeneity of
variance, the statistical analysis is performed using either Steel's Many-One Rank
Test or the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test as indicated in the flow chart on the next page.
When Dunnett's Procedure (or Bonferroni's T-test, or Steel's Many-One Rank Sum
Test, or Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test) indicates a significant difference in mortality
between the control and a test group, the test sample at that test concentration is
considered "toxic."

-------
The above analyses are best performed using a computer software program such as
TOXSTAT. A copy of TOXSTAT Version 3.3 can be obtained from:
Fish Physiology and Toxicology Laboratory
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie Wyoming 82071
(307) 745-8504

-------
DATA (Survival, Growth, Reproduction, etc.)
I
Hypothesis Testing
Transformation ?
I
Shaplro-Wilk's Test
I
Bartletfs Test
No Statistical Analysis
Recommended
Mi
Equal Number of


Replicates ?

'

»
T-T«t With
Bonfarroni
Adjustment
DunnetTs
Test
Four or More
Replicates 7
Equal Number of
*

Replicates ?


*
1
Steefs Many-One
Rank Teat
WNcoxon Rank
Sum Test With
Bonferroni
Adjustment
Endpoint Estimates
NOEC, LOEC

-------
H. Calculations / Data Analysis for Multi-Concentration Tests Determining the LC^
The LCm is an estimate of the median lethal concentration. To calculate or estimate the
LCm for a multi-concentration test, follow the flow chart below. The first test of choice
is the Trimmed Spearman-Karber (see Appendix XXIII.M), followed by the Probit
Analysis (see Appendix XXIII.L), and finally the Graphical Method (see Appendix
XXHI.N).
The analyses are best performed using computer programs (see SOP XXIII section 5).
Software for the Probit Analysis and the Trimmed Spearman-Karber are available from
EPA's Environmental Monitoring systems Labortory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.

-------
Table XXVIH.B SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE
AMPHIPOD ^HYAI.FI I A AZTECA1 SURVIVAL TEST FOR PORE WATER
1.
Test type:
Static
2.
Test duration:
96 hours
3.
Temperature (°C):
25±1#C
4.
Light quality:
Ambient laboratory illumination
5.
Light intensity:
10-20 jiE/mVs (50-100 ft-c)(ambient laboratory levels)
5.
Photoperiod:
16 h light, 8 h darkness
6.
Test chamber size:
50 ml
6.
Test solution volume:
20 ml
7.
Renewal of test
concentrations:
None
8.
Age of test organisms:
7 to 10 days
9.	No. animals per test chamber: 5
10.	No. replicate chambers	6
per concentration:
11.	No. animals per concentration: 30
12.	Feeding regime:	0.2 ml YCT and 0.2 ml Selenastrum at beginning of test and at 48 hours.
None
13.	Cleaning:
14.	Aeration:
15.	Test concentrations:
16.	Effect Measured:
17.	Test Acceptability:
None, unless D.O. concentration falls below 1.0 mg/L. Rate should not exceed
100 bubbles per min.
Undiluted sample and a control water.
Survival
80% survival in control

-------
Figure XXVIII.1. SHORT - TERM CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST - AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL TEST
Industry/Study:	 Date Start:	 Species:	
Aeration? (y/n):	
Location:	Date Stop:	Analyst:
Sample
ID*
Rep.
#
Survival
Dissolved Oxygen
Initial Water Chemistry
•
2
4
{0
6
\S)
8
10
m
0
2
4
i
8
10
PH
Alkalinity
(mjs/L)
Hardness
(mg/L)
Conductivity
(mg/L)
Salinity
(X.)
Chlorine
(me/L)

1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















*



















1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















t



















1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















*



















1


















2


















3


















4


















5


















«

-------
REFERENCE:
USEPA. 1991a. Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Environmental Services Division, College Station Road, Athens, GA 30613.

-------
Preservatives for Pore water analyses:
Nutrients--H2S04 and refrigeration
metals~HN03 and refrigeration
organics-refrigeration
alkalinity-none
hardness-none
D.O.-none
pH-none
Pore water were not filtered prior to chemical analyses or use in toxicity tests. They were
obtained by centrifugation of the sediments at 5,000 g for 10 minutes. The Pore water was then
decanted off for use in tests.

-------
References for Toxicity section:
(17) USEPA sediment methods from previous version of report.
(18) ASTM. 1993. Standard guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with freshwater
invertebrates. Method E1383-93. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for
Testing and Materials pp. 1173-1199.
(19) Long, E. R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse
biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.
Environ. Management 19:81-97.
(20) Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Keenleyside, C.G. Ingersoll and L.J. Field. 1996. A
preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. 2.
Great Lakes Research 22:624-638.
(21) MacDonald Environmental Sciences, Ltd. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment
Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Report submitted to: Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL. 126 pp.
(22) Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1992. Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Ontario, Canada.
(23) Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, N.E.
Kemble and D.R. Mount. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations
using the amphipod Hyallela azteca. J. Great Lakes Research 22:602-623.
Remember: If you used the date for Persaud et al. which is a reference for the sediment
guidelines given in my tables, that date should be 1992, not 1995.
I guess you didn't refer to the NOAA study in your portion. I indicated that it was a 1995 study
that is still unpublished when I mentioned it near the end of the toxicity section.

-------
Appendix D
Surface Water Data and Figures

-------
Station	101
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond.
11/13/97
1338
0
25.27
7.55
20.60
5.18
33000


1
25.11
7.70
20.90
4.77
33500


2
25.01
7.64
20.90
4.58
33500


3
25.06
7.65
21.10
4.60
33700


4.1
24.95
7.61
21.70
4.26
34900


5.1
24.90
7.61
22.00
4.15
34900
Station
102






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
pH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/13/97
1403
0
25.04
7.82
20.50
5.77
32800


1
25.54
7.80
20.50
5.46
32800


2
25.11
7.76
20.60
4.88
33000


3
24.48
7.67
21.00
3.92
33400


4
24.93
7.61
21.50
4.27
34300


5
24.96
7.61
20.80
4.24
34700


6.1
24.97
7.62
22.40
4.01
35600


7.1
24.96
7.63
22.50
3.93
35700
Station
103






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/13/97
1500
0
25.82
7.86
20.30
6.15
32700


1
25.80
7.80
20.40
4.50
32600


2
25.48
7.78
20.60
5.23
32900


3
24.96
7.68
21.00
3.95
33600


4
24.90
7.59
21.50
3.75
34300


5.1
24.98
7.60
22.10
3.95
35100


6
24.97
7.61
22.10
4.00
35100


7.1
24.91
7.62
22.80
3.40
36000


7.5
24.90
7.62
22.80
3.33
36100
Station
104






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/13/97
1535
0
26.30
7.83
19.1
6.74
30900


1
26.20
7.79
19.3
5.82
31300


2
25.29
7.71
20.9
4.15
33200


3
24.91
7.60
21.3
3.95
34000


4
24.93
7.60
21.7
3.87
34700


5
24.94
7.60
21.9
3.84
34800


6
24.88
7.61
22.6
3.55
35700


7
24.84
7.61
22.8
3.37
36200


7.5
24.81
7.62
22.9
3.34
36300
Station
105






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/13/97
1551
0
26.16
7.81
19.00
5.95
30500


1
25.28
7.75
20.40
5.10
32600


2
25.01
7.71
20.60
4.73
32900


3
25.05
7.67
21.00
4.32
33500

-------
Station	106
Date Time
11/13/97 1618
Station	107
Date Time
11/13/97 1655
Station	108
Date Time
11/13/97 1715
Station	109
Date Time
11/14/97 925
4
24.90
5
24.92
6
24.87
7
24.85
8
24.68
Depth
Temp
0
25.95
1.1
25.08
2
24.91
3
24.82
4
24.80
5
24.91
6
24.94
7
24.88
8
24.75
8.8
24.75
Depth
Temp
0
25.14
1
25.16
2
25.08
3
24.85
4
24.84
5
24.98
6
24.97
7
24.91
8
24.82
8.4
24.80
Depth
Temp
0
25.36
1
25.28
2
25.10
3
25.03
4
24.98
5
24.93
6
24.94
7
24.88
8
24.84
9
24.75
9.4
24.73
Depth
Temp
0
25.28
1
25.21
2
25.24
3
25.17
7.63
21.40
7.59
21.80
7.61
22.70
7.63
22.90
7.64
23.30
PH
Salinity
7.80
19.00
7.77
20.40
7.76
20.60
7.67
20.90
7.59
21.20
7.58
21.80
7.60
22.40
7.62
22.80
7.62
23.10
7.62
23.20
PH
Salinity
7.80
20.40
7.75
20.50
7.74
20.60
7.62
21.00
7.59
21.20
7.59
22.10
7.62
22.50
7.62
22.90
7.60
23.00
7.59
23.00
PH
Salinity
7.78
20.20
7.77
20.40
7.75
20.50
7.72
20.70
7.70
21.00
7.61
21.70
7.59
22.00
7.54
22.50
7.58
22.80
7.55
23.10
7.50
23.20
pH
Salinity
6.92
19.60
7.23
19.50
7.18
19.50
7.16
19.80
3.75	34000
3.69	34700
3.62	35900
3.53	36200
3.23	36800
DO	Cond
5.78	30800
5.36	32700
5.19	32900
4.12	33300
3.55	33800
3.81	34600
3.81	35500
3.57	36200
3.19	36600
3.03	36700
DO	Cond
5.49	32700
5.31	32700
5.13	33000
3.91	33600
3.82	33900
3.87	35100
3.73	35700
3.43	36200
2.95	36400
2.96	36500
DO	Cond
6.32	32400
5.60	32600
5.02	32900
4.95	33100
4.62	33300
3.79	34700
3.83	34900
3.41	35700
3.22	36100
2.73	36500
2.57	36600
DO	Cond
1.53	31800
1.52	31600
1.35	31400
1.10	31400

-------


4
25.13
7.19
19.80
1.50
31700


5
25.16
7.38
20.00
1.66
32100


6
25.17
7.43
21.10
3.60
33900


7
25.16
7.54
21.50
3.71
34300


8
25.15
7.57
21.70
3.65
34500


9
25.15
7.58
21.70
3.63
34600


11.1
25.15
7.57
21.70
3.52
34400
Station
110






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/14/97
955
0
25.26
7.29
19.7
1.30
31700


1
25.25
7.22
19.6
1.15
31600


2
25.24
7.20
19.7
1.08
31600


3
25.25
7.20
19.7
1.12
31700


4
25.21
7.22
20.1
1.80
32200


5
25.20
7.28
20.4
2.56
32200


6
25.21
7.46
21.2
3.60
33900


7
25.21
7.54
21.4
3.74
34100


8
25.15
7.57
21.6
3.35
34500


9
25.14
7.57
21.7
3.40
34500


10
25.16
7.59
21.8
3.60
34600


11.2
25.17
7.61
21.7
3.60
34600
Station
111






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/14/97
1016
0
25.47
7.21
19.7
1.26
31600


1
25.43
7.21
19.7
0.98
31700


2
25.42
7.20
19.7
0.86
31800


3
25.36
7.20
19.8
0.87
31900


4
25.28
7.24
19.9
1.39
32000


5
25.26
7.29
20.2
2.30
32600


6
25.21
7.38
21.1
2.80
33500


7
25.19
7.52
21.6
3.52
34300


8
25.17
7.58
21.7
3.59
34600


9
25.18
7.61
21.8
3.63
34600


10
25.18
7.62
21.8
3.66
34700
Station
112






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
pH
Salinity
DO
Cond
11/14/97
1100
0
25.62
7.26
19.90
1.53
31900


1
25.61
7.25
19.90
1.40
32000


2
25.54
7.25
20.00
1.46
32100


3
25.52
7.27
20.10
1.52
32200


4
25.52
7.27
20.10
1.50
32300


5
25.51
7.27
20.40
1.86
32S00


6
25.26
7.41
21.40
3.55
33500


7
25.20
7.55
21.70
3.44
34400


8
25.22
7.60
21.70
3.75
34600


9
25.22
7.62
21.80
3.72
34600


10
25.22
7.63
21.80
3.71
34700
Station
113






Date
Time
Depth
Temp
pH
Salinity
DO
Cond

-------


1
27.23
6.98
18.90
1.20
30540
113


2
27.26
6.98
19.00
1.15
30660
110


3
27.03
6.97
19.20
0.90
30800
109


4
26.12
7,02
20.00
0.73
32090
96


5
25.48
7.15
21.10
0.75
33660
87


6
25.36
7.22
21.30
1.51
34050
80


7
25.30
7.29
21.40
2.09
34190
-18


8
25.29
7.33
21.50
2.25
34300
-60


9.4
25.28
7.35
21.50
2.31
34320
-65
Station
125







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/15/97
1520
0
27.24
7.01
18.70
2.14
30290
140


1
27.30
7.00
18.80
1.66
30370
133


2
27.30
6.99
18.90
1.41
30450
123


3
26.99
7.01
19.10
1.36
30940
106


4
26.14
7.06
20.10
1.23
31950
62


5
25.41
7.18
20.60
1.82
32960
-80


6
25.39
7.21
20.80
1.81
33310
-83


7
25.36
7.25
21.00
1.96
33560
-71


8
25.34
7.27
21.10
2.01
33640
-77


8.5
25.35
7.28
20.40
0.27
32920
-116
Station
126







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/15/97
1555
0
27.48
7.04
18.20
2.46
29650
121


1
27.49
7.02
18.30
2.18
29750
114


2
27.32
7.01
18.70
1.67
30130
110


3
26.75
6.99
18.70
1.23
31040
12


4
25.60
7.04
19.70
1.32
31780
-85


5
25.62
7.04
19.90
1.00
32050
-79


6.8
25.44
7.16
20.60
1.61
33010
-107
Station
127







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/15/97
1620
0
26.68
7.06
15.50
2.26
25600
84


1
27.48
7.00
17.90
1.83
28900
75


2
26.95
6.96
18.80
1.05
30310
78


3
26.00
7.01
19.20
1.02
31000
73


4
25.84
7.02
19.40
0.93
31130
68


5
25.73
7.03
19.50
0.83
31470
59


6
25.69
7.02
19.60
0.86
31620
58


7
25.41
7.10
20.00
1.20
32260
7


7.4
25.47
7.12
20.30
1.35
32510
-29
station
128







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/16/97
908
0
25.62
7.23
17.70
2.00
28670
-36

1
25.54
7.24
18.10
1.72
29230
-88


2
25.39
7.24
19.10
1.38
30930
-152


3
25.42
7.24
19.00
1.29
30850
-163


4
25.40
7.23
19.30
1.25
31110
-174

-------
Station
202
Date
11/13/97
1400
Station
Date
11/13/97
203
1510
Station
Date
11/13/97
204
1602
Station
Date
11/13/97
205
1653
Depth
Temp
pH
DO
Cond
ORP
1
25.32
8.02
8.90
1052
52
2
25.74
8.03
8.87
1033
55
3
25.19
8.01
8.82
1048
58
4
25.04
7.98
8.83
1193
59
5
25.02
7.98
8.78
1121
61
6
24.97
7.97
8.71
1196
62
7
24.76
7.97
8.75
1195
63
8
24.80
7.82
8.39
4180
71
9
24.71
7.62
7.29
OFF
82
10
24.73
7.55
6.42
OFF
81
10.5
24.71
7.51
6.52
OFF
79
Depth
Temp
pH
DO
Cond
ORP
1
26.27
7.95
9.03
917
65
2
25.65
7.99
9.10
981
66
3
25.34
8.01
9.09
1007
66
4
24.80
7.97
8.81
958
69
5
24.60
7.92
9.02
951
71
6
24.85
7.96
8.76
1016
73
7
24.45
7.97
8.67
1150
73
8
24.52
7.91
8.26
2110
76
9.2
25.02
7.51
8.17
OFF
66
Depth
Temp
PH
DO
Cond
ORP
1
25.61
7.94
9.05
943
47
2
25.43
7.95
9.02
1000
49
3
25.34
7.94
8.95
970
50
4
24.73
7.89
8.54
875
53
5
24.62
7.85
8.57
867
55
6
24.63
7.87
8.80
994
55
7
24.47
7.91
8.66
1024
55
8
24.45
7.75
8.21
3470
65
9
25.08
7.52
7.30
OFF
76
10.1
25.19
7.63
9.30
OFF
69
Depth
Temp
PH
DO
Cond
ORP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.8
25.78
25.67
25.02
24.78
24.69
24.58
24.43
24.54
25.35
7.95
7.94
7.91
7.86
7.85
7.91
7.98
7.84
7.50
9.25
8.96
8.74
8.62
8.60
8.78
8.78
8.41
7.58
846
873
894
830
888
955
1054
2900
OFF
72
72
75
77
78
78
76
84
90
206

-------
Date Time Depth Temp	pH	DO Cond
ORP
11/16/97 1230 1	25.76	7.84	6.88	758	226
2	25.67	7.83	8.83	757	229
3	25.60	7.83	8.79	757	230
4	25.50	7.83	8.77	759	232
5	25.32	7.83	8.83	760	233
6	25.24	7.82	8.82	762	234
7	25.17	7.82	8.73	754	236
8	25.21	7.76	3.59	1214	241
95	25.82	7.55	7J3	3490	249
Station 213	a
Date Time Depth	Temp	pH	DO	Cond	ORP
11/15/97 1318 1	25.69	7.82	9.06	772	224
2	25.71	7.82	9.01	760	226
3	25.73	7.82	8.99	776	227
J	25.74	7.83	8.94	767	228
*	SI!	782	883	763	230
7	777	865	1066	233
a	?	781	869	90*	233
q	7 67	861	1520	235
.!	25 69	7.66	8.18	2440	221
SWo„ 2,4	2597	761	776	3770	217
Date Time Depth	Temp	pH	D0	Cond	ORP
11/15/97 1345 1	25.65	7,84	9.41	746	210
2	25.67	7.84	9.90	743	214
j	25.71	7,84	9 09	743	218
4	25.69	7,84	901	745	221
£	25.63	7.84	8.99	744	223
®	25.65	7.83	8.98	747	226
;	25.63	7,84	9.03	756	226
8	25.86	7.77	9.11	1670	226
9	2584	777	8.85	2000	229
Station	215
Date Time Depth	Temp	pH	D0	cond	ORP
11/15/97 1415 1	25.71	7.86	9.40	742	200
t	785	925	750	204
a	?!'??	785	9.13	744	209
Z	till	7.84	9.O6	742	213
r	llcl	782	9 06	938	216
7	2'?	780	9 04	1012	216
a	2"?1	777	902	1321	213
q	ob'X	778	911	1292	207
»	25.54	7.77	9t4	1560	2Q7
194
Station	216
Date Time Depth	Temp	ph	do	Cond	ORP

-------
Station	601
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
820
0
23.89
7.87
0.2
11.10
478
37


1
23.91
7.85
0.2
11.07
478
40


2
23.91
7.85
0.2
11.06
478
42


3
23.90
7.84
0.2
11.04
478
45


4
23.90
7.83
0.2
11.03
478
47


5
23.90
7.83
0.2
11.02
478
49


6
23.90
7.82
0.2
11.00
478
50


7
23.89
7.82
0.2
10.99
478
51


8
23.90
7.82
0.2
10.99
478
52


9
23.90
7.81
0.2
10.96
478
52
Station

10
23.91
7.80
0.2
10.64
479
-129
602




Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
906
7.90
23.84
7.84
0.2
11.17
480
42
Station
603




Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
927
8
23.72
7.75
0.2
10.27
488
52
Station
604




Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
947
0
23.86
7.78
0.2
10.33
486
87
Station
605
8
23.56
7.71
0.2
10.24
491
88
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
1010
0
23.71
7.78
0.2
10.27
491
121


1
23.71
7.75
0.2
10.13
491
119


2
23.65
7.74
0.2
10.12
491
117


3
23.68
7.74
0.2
10.11
491
116


4
23.68
7.74
0.2
10.12
491
115


5
23.51
7.74
0.2
10.61
493
114


6
23.39
7.73
0.2
10.81
495
113


7
23.39
7.73
0.2
10.84
495
113
Station
606
7.4
23.40
7.73
0.2
10.85
494
112
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
1152
0
24.05
7.92

11.81
476
166
Station
607
8.2
24.04
7.88

11.83
479
162
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
111/18/97
1258
0
24.24
7.90

11.57
490
148


7.2
23.96
7.95

12.73
492
144

-------
Station	608
Date
Time
Depth
Temp
pH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
1315
0
24.22
7.86

10.71
502
146


1
24.12
7.82

10.62
503
140


2
24.15
7.81

10.64
505
139


3
24.10
7.82

11.16
504
138


4
23.94
7.82

11.45
505
136


5
23.87
7.86

11.90
504
134


6
23.88
7.86

11.97
492
131


7
23.88
7.87

11.97
491
130


7.2
23.88
7.88

12.18
490
129
Station
609







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
1419
0
24.28
7.87

10.76
517
158


7.3
23.96
8.00

13.30
512
154
Station
610







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/18/97
1455
0
24.21
7.88
0.2
10.84
486
162


7.5
23.63
8.04
0.2
15.21
489
157
Station
801







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/19/97
1342
0
23.14
7.57
0.2
8.99
524
154


5.1
22.91
7.26
0.2
4.18
545
-284
Station
802







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/19/97
1348
0
23.23
7.57
0.2
8.51
532
3


1
22.97
7.52
0.2
8.39
537
15


2
22.61
7.48
0.2
8.22
536
22


3
22.56
7.48
0.2
8.16
535
28


3.6
22.58
7.50
0.2
8.54
534
32
Station
803







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/19/97
1352
0
23.13
7.61
0.2
9.43
537
37


4.3
22.54
7.49
0.2
8.21
536
44
Station
701







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
PH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP
11/19/97
1557
0
24.21
7.73
0.2
9.47
483
58

8.2
23.95
7.80
0.2
10.90
482
58
Station
702







Date
Time
Depth
Temp
pH
Salinity
DO
Cond
ORP

-------
11719/97 1601	0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7.8
Station	703
Date Time Depth
11/19/97 1608	0
8.7
24.15
7.70
0.2
24.06
7.71
0.2
24.06
7.70
0.2
23.98
7.71
0.2
23.95
7.70
0.2
23.94
7.68
0.2
23.93
7.68
0.2
23.93
7.68
0.2
23.93
7.68
0.2
Temp
PH
Salinity
24.11
7.73
0.2
23.91
7.66
0.2
9.02	482	61
9.05	482	60
9.21	482	61
9.55	483	61
9.70	483	62
9.79	483	62
9.90	483	63
10.04	483	63
10.10	483	63
DO Cond	ORP
9.40	482	59
9.45	483	16

-------
Station 101
CD
0
0
-1
-2
Q_ -3
0
°-4.1
-5.1





/
'






/
*
/
/
/

¦
¦
I









¦ 1
/
/
J



¦
.
>



.




:









0
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH
8

-------
Station 101
0
CD
a.
a)
o
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000
32000 34000
36000
0

A ¦


-1

A ¦


-2

A »


-3

A ¦


-4.1

¦ A


-5.1

¦ ~


24.4
24.6 24.8 25 25.2
Temp (C)
Temperature * Conductivity
25.4

-------
d)
0)
Q.
CD
Q
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6.1
-7.1
0
Station 102
	
	


	
Vt

T
1




j yf-

I-
i
1













*
/
¦
i
¦
k











m
j


1
—-—		
	—_
-<—»			


_____—
			4	—_
I
6
8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO pH

-------
Station 102
28000
0)
a)
-1
-3
Q- r
0 -O
Q
-7.1
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000 32000 34000
23 23.5
24 24.5 25
Temp (C)
36000
!
! |


I 1



	


*






















!
i I






	1
	
-


T




—

_ J

		
—
\
. - -
	
jv

.







—



	:
25.5 26
Temperature Conductivity

-------
Station 103
CD
CD
0
-1
-2
-3
£ ~4
Q-_5 1
CD 1
Q -6
-7.1
-7.5
1

1








m
!
f
-
¦
/



\
\




i




J





\
1 \
V


1




I




/
—| —


'











I

0
6
8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO ^pH

-------
Station 103
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000	40000
0
a "4
-7.5
23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26
Temp (C)
! I I J i i
Li	
i
I	-J—U- i
	4	[	| !
T
• X -

	i
7
/
m

I i
• r r

i
' \


-



,
.

*
-
		

		 |	 	|		T		

I


/
'_L	

I
T
! \
>_ j A	 • 	-	- 	
	1	i	J	!	1		
1
	|	
Temperature Conductivity

-------
Station 104
0
-1
^ -2
£ -3
£ ~4
Q.
0 -6
-7
-7.5
0
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH

-------
Station 104
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000	40000
I I I I I . 1	 II 	1
| | ! |
; ' | j | | j :


		-J




.
. .
i
i ...	 		 	


\ j
*

LI	
\ 1
	,					,	
1 T i f 1 1 1 1 1 M
A j
1 1 1	1
23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5
Temp (C)
* Temperature Conductivity

-------
0
-1
cn2
£-3
.c-4
q._5
o °
~ -6
-7
-8
0
Station 105

I I










J*


*
/
-




X




?

. /

— -¦




/
A ¦
y*
r


I



1
I




t
¦



1






..








/
/






	
A
	
	

	


DO (mg/l)/ pH
6
8
DO - pH

-------
Station 105
20000
0
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000 30000 35000
40000
CD-2
CD
M—
£-4
Q.
S"6
-8
23 23.5 24
24.5 25 25.5
Temp (C)
¦ ¦ j— ¦ -r 	 III I I I I I I I I

	T				

• —
	j			1	

	j_	i j
..... 	 .. -, - ~ 	

,m *
-

	j	 .1	, 	
-
J

! | 1
	1_ J
A.
_. iv\ ...... . L	
	j	1 	-j	j


. .1	il 		1 .
: : ! ... .1	aL.	;		J		Vi	: 	

	;			,	j	:			1	;
26 26.5
Temperature Conductivity

-------
Station 106
-1.1
0 °
f "5
CD
Q -7
-8.8
0	2	4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH

-------
Station 106
20000
CD
CD
.-1.1
_ -3
£ -5
Q.
® -7
Q
-8.8
23.5
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000 30000 35000

.
24
f
I-
r
/
;	j— -
¦


24.5 25
Temp (C)
25.5
40000
26
Temperature — Conductivity

-------
Station 107
-1
~cd _q
0 °
«+—
f "5
0
Q -7
-8.4
0	2	4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO — pH

-------
Station 107
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000	40000
— -1
-t—»
£ -5
Q-
0 -7
Q '
-8.4
24.4 24.6 24.8	25 25.2
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity

——r—, i	I
!		
_ ill



—i
T
n
1 • \
! ; \


r\
r V
	 i 	 —¦—


				 		• 				 i		

		





/ \
/ \
i / \
	 __
	
-—	

i	


	

\ /
1







	
'

.

	V	

\
A



¦

	
*
1	1	*			j——	 	—
_V			i	

		j	J	J	j
.
J	 		 .
*
	1	


	i	1

-------
Station 108
0
_ -2
0)
&
a. -6
0
° -8
-9.4

! I I I



i L ^
A ¦
I
•
¦

.


j
T
/
X



/
—
1




f


T~ ~~Ti



/ i
!
T
/
/


/ i
/
j i
1



I





i
		
	
i
0
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH
8

-------
Station 108
a)
-------
Station 109

0

-2
"o5

-------
Station 109
Q)
-------
Station 110
CD
CD
Q.
-------
Station 110
28000
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000 32000 34000
36000
CD
CD
Q.
CP
O
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11.2
24.6
24.8
25
Temp (C)
i
/
¦
I
4
\
~
A
25.2
25.4
Temperature a Conductivity
-------
Station 111
0
-2
a)
£ -4

-
a. -6
a>
° -8
-10
0
6
DO (mg/l)/ pH
¦
i
.
8
DO - pH
-------
Station 111
CD
CD
Q.
a -s
25000
0
-2
-4
-6
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000
-10
35000
I
•
! ! I \
w
A
y-
_
J
i
t, "
W --
\ ^
_.


,
• J	|	J.		 1	~		J	!		

J
¦
„ i_ 1	 ] 	I- 					i		 1	1 		I						—
	 .

¦
i i _ ... . ... • ... _*¦_ . ' —_ 	I . 		
	| " "T"
	J.		X	
"
X
. 	A. -- -
1 ! 1 1 ! ! i 1 	-- ! - i -1	!	1	
24.8 24.9 25
25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 112
0
_ -2
"CD
£ -4
Q. -6
CD
° -8
-10
	
r
__		




j

\ _
tk



	—
	__—
i	
		—.—.—_—
I







		
		
	
—¦


—^—		_		

\
t

	—

~
a






*
	
f— H
	

i

0
8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO pH
-------
Station 112
a)
0)
28000
0
-2
-4
f "6
& -8
-10
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000 32000 34000
24.6 24.8
25 25.2 25.4
Temp (C)
36000
I ! i i J ! ; _ '
T
Y j

T
d
*
• !

¦

*

wt



T
J I /



Mr~- ¦ ¦ " 4k -



• m

T
:
Y
1




	1	i	i	j	;	I	F—-4	
25.6 25.8
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 113
0

~


i
j k


	 » i
_ -2






CD
& -4
Q. -6
0

	 _ i I ! ! . J._



•
~ —~-A




K


	_	
\ I
\ I
° -8
-10.3


V
V


¦
i
k



*
0
4	6
DO (mg/l)/ pH
y
:
8
DO - pH
-------
Station 113
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
28000 30000 32000 34000 36000
25 25.2 25.4 25.6
Temp (C)
- Temperature Conductivity
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
10.3
24
-------

-2
0

£
-4
_C;

Q_
-6
CD

Q
-8

Station 114
4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO ¦ pH
-------
Station 114
CD

Q.
0)
Q
28000
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000 32000 34000
36000
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-9.4
Trrrr
\
— V
*
4	1 •-<-
¦~T
¦-
f
*
*
A
A
24.6 24.8
25 25.2 25.4 25.6
Temp (C)
25.8 26
*- Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 115
0
a;
Q.
a)
O
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-9.6





	rj
T
¦p


	1—„	r—
+
¦i

1

! ! ""**—
¦ T
\
L
T



1 n]

	 		 .
7
+
\
"
i
•
i





:


t
m

& —• ¦ — —i— -
m

	1
—i—:—i		
¦i
	
0
4	6
DO (mg/l)/ pH
8
DO pH
L
-------
Station 115
CD
0
Q.
-------

Station 116
0	2	4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH
k.
-------
Station 116
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000	32000	34000	36000
III!


I	|







A-






*
*
0
Q) "2
£ -4
o. "6
8 -8	:
m
' r
' J
¦
-10.1
*
A
J	L
24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26 26.2
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 117
ORP (mV)
0	200	400
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO --- pH • ORP
-------
Station 117
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
20000	25000	30000	35000
~ -1
-4—'
£ -3
£ -5
Q.
a) 7
a
-8.8
24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
CD
0
Q.
-------
Station 118
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
20000	25000	30000	35000
_ -1
CD °
~ -5
a. -7
Q -9
-11.3
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
t
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-10.6
Station 119
ORP (mV)
240	260	280	300
2	4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 119
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000
_	-1
®	-3
o	°
^	-5
f.	-7
CD
-10.6
23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27
Temp (C)
Temperature ¦ Conductivity


	.. I	
! *







*




-J—





v


¦





~ ¦ ' | ' ~~


P








A
A. ¦
HI









	 		







-
..


¦1








			a	
	.!	L...

¦
<



A,
*•





T


¦ m
• \
	



.

_ _ 			
A
• i





.



•»
:	:		1		 			L	I... X
¦ i
	1	
	1	



U—\
	-1-	

-------
Station 120
200

0

-2
0


-4
a,
-6
o
-8
Q
-9.6
0
ORP (mV)
250	300
4	6
DO (mg/l)/ pH

I . a	

!
[
i

\

!



r t
:



r		




r- ¦



[¦• ¦ .
L



_









	

l\

2


" ¦		 ' "



IT





. .. 		 .


I \
j _






\








\
T







J
	 ! 1	








		 j T
i ^









350
8
DO
pH
ORP
-------
Station 120
0)
a)
CL
0)
a
25000
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-9.6
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000
4~~
* :








23.5 24
24.5 25 25.5
Temp (C)
35000
T ' *"1

~


.... . .1. . 		L . 		 . i 	
m m
\ /
J
/
-¦» - - — 	




*
*
i
26 26.5
*- Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 121
150
ORP (mV)
200	250
(D
0)
Q.
-------
Station 121
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000
30000
35000
0

I ' I I i ! I
A
¦
¦

CD z
-4

~ -
"A.
¦





f_ -6
3 -8

M
m
¦ u
¦I
~
~
~
*

-10.1

*
A
	;	:	

23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27
Temp (C)
* Temperature * Conductivity
-------
Station 122
ORP (mV)
0	100 200	300	400
	
/
/
	
I	
	
|_	1	
	-¦
	•

t
t ¦ -



"IT
J
A




j
J






-		T
W 	
k-	—
L
*—	—



	1


-i




-




J ,

- -


\
L	 - ^



m


\









! >
i i
i
! |



¦ 1
	




DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH . ORP
-------
25000
-------

Station 123
-------
Station 123
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000
0
£ -4
f. "6
a -8
-9.1
23 24 25 26 27 28
Temp (C)
Temperature * Conductivity
-------

Station 124
ORP (mV)
0	200	400
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH - ORP
-------
Station 124
25000
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
30000
35000
CD
CD
¦1
3
£ -5
Q.
CD y
Q
-9.4
23
24
t
4
t
25 26
Temp (C)
f
¦
27
A
k
28
Temperature Conductivity
-------
MM
n
Station 125
-------
Station 125
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
25000	30000	35000
—	-1
a>
£	-3
£	-5
Q.
0 7
~ '
-8.5
23 24 25 26 27 28
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 126
-------
Station 126
25000
-------
Station 127
ORP (mV)
0	100 200 300 400
0
o -2
Q)
^ -4
-4—»
CL
-7.4
0	2	4	6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 127
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
I	I	I—I—
J 	I	 . j	J
_	_J_


	j	



~~ a.
a. M

1
A
.... ....... M . i.- -
T
a.
•
*


r
\
*








T
A
1 ! ! 1 i i I I 	}. ....
!	1
23 24 25 26 27 28
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 128
0
_	-1
"cu	o
<1)	-O
£	-5
Q.
(D	7
Q
-9.7
0
ORP (mV)
100	200
300



	


i—r-—



7




[_ ..


¦
- - ¦


. / ..


r. _ -




¦



/









t 7
\r









i /



1









...... ..J






J
\







T






	





I






i







' i

	j-j
i
i

8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH .
ORP
-------
Station 128
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
20000	25000	30000	35000
^ "1
£ -3
£ -5
Q.
0 7
Q '
-9.7
25 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 202
0
d)
CL
(D
Q
260
280
ORP (mV)
300
320
340
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
10.5
i
	
1 	1 	
	—

j
[ 	 i ' "" "T_ ' "T ' _ |
i

i
i
1
j

f\	
1	

L	 !
1
i
I
j
I
!

"\ i
VI

i
i	
j
!

!
1

\


illL
i
T
i




i—4—
i
	f		
i
1 ,
	 Li
i
-7	1
j i


	 	

	H
" ""
\
	J
1 1
—rf-i
i
j







4
• 1
|
i
j |







_ P
j ,
! .







TT
j ;
T '
l






i
11/
i i
; j
. j ....... . J
j	i

—
: _
-!	

	


5 6 7
DO (mg/l)/ pH
8
DO —-pH
ORP

-------
Station 202
-------



Station 203




29
i0



300
ORP (mV
r)
310


320
_"1

-


1
l
I J _. i
i m
I
'
i

i


1

'

~1


1
i
| \
Tl
r~
i

	 - ia
\ !

a) -3
0)







!
T
!
	
1
i
I
|







i
! ^

't ' 1
!
!
{

/I


^ _5



_


!
• r
i
i
/
1


\ i
\ 1
V i


f V







\
l
i
!

Jr i

Q.
 Cm

:

;
"1
i
i -
1 1 i
1 * i
i 1

•

5.5
6
6.5
I 1 I '
7 7.5 8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
i
8.5
i
s
9.5




1
o
o
- PH
•
ORP



-------
I
Station 203
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	1000	2000	3000

. _!	
.

i
1

	
i
	!


*
\




^ ^ ;


*
>
			i					
¦
^sLJ		 . 	i	 . .. .



/

_ 		



*
Jr
-





iw .	L	X-


j ....

		


m
j







~~~v"—~——L1
—-






i


*
U	



I

M		i	
22 23 24 25 26 27
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 204
-------
Station 204
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	2000	4000
^ "2
£ -6
Cl
0	o
Q
-10.1
23 23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 205

-1
^^

0)
-3
d)


-5
Q.

CD
.7
Q
1
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
DO (mg/l)/ pH
-*r- DO - pH ORP
ORP (mV)
300	320	340
-------
Station 205
0
-1
| "3
_c -5
-4—»
CL
a -7
-9.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1000	2000
23 23.5
24 24.5 25
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
3000
_ J ! 	I . ...
	1_	 L	4	 	
	1 L
] \
	¦]—	I r t ~
1
	 ;	 i i ,, i.

i
—

•
; | . /
! /
			 ^ .

"T \
-
_
r
, ! .... . j

.
\! 1 :
1 	" J- . IS		J[ - .1	

¦ 		—-—
	i !
-		 ] — —-i
1 !
~ ~i i i 1

|
25.5 26
-------
Station 206
-------
Station 206
0
-------
Station 207
300
ORP (mV)
320	340
360
-1
0)
CD
Q.
-------
Station 207
0
-1
I"3
.c-5
CL
s-7
-9
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
5000

24.4 24.6
24.8 25 25.2
Temp (C)
10000
25.4 25.6
- Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 208
ORP (mV)
570	580	590	600
_ -2
"ft A
0 -4
M—
£ -6
Q_
d) q
Q -O
-10
4	5	6	7	8	9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO — pH ORP
-------
Station 208
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	5000	10000
~	-2
a>
£	-4
£	-6
Q.
CD o
Q
-10
24.2 24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
•	




i
_ i


-



	









	




¦
- -4
*
•





*L.






k





r






k


—
f
l
.





,
¦
k -


				
	
	 _
..



		—f-	1~ - . ---t	 — ¦

—•		 -4-	




















... 	
..





—
p~














. 		

		—


	!	}	:	1	

—i—
	


	
| I
	-			



-------
Station 209
280
_	-2
"	,
0)	-4
4—
£	-6
Q.
-------
Station 209
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	5000	10000
— -2
£ -6
Q_
CD o
O
-10
24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8
Temp (C)
-	TemperatureConductivity
-------
Station 210
(0
(D
CL
CD
Q
480
ORP (mV)
500	520
540
-2
-4
-6
-8
10
I
i 	


l
l i		 ;

	
i



I





V
!
|


/
/
1
-j- . .
!



	



I



I ... .. ..

—
•




i
i
j



j


	j	.
\
v
i
i
¦






_





i
1











°
-4
v i
,	







H












£




i
i




?—
/ >

i
1
i

S.

I

	i
h" - *


¦ !


6.5
7 7.5
DO (mg/l)/ pH
8
8.5
DO
PH
ORP
-------
Station 210
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	2000	4000	6000
~ -2
£ -6
Q.
0 Q
Q
-10
24.2 24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 211
ORP (mV)
440	460	480	500
_ -2
"53 A
O -4
M—
£ -6
CL
CD n
Q -8
-10
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
^ DO -m- pH ^ORP
-------
Station 211
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	2000	4000
— -2
-t—»
£ -6
Q.
<1) o
Q
-10
24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 212
ORP (mV)
440	460	480	500
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 212
0
-1
I "3
4—
^ -5
-t—»
Q-
s
-9.5
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
2000
4000
1 1

_ _ L. !
	L. 1
! - - !
T
— t T
|

¦
i
. ... .. i ... . 1 . . . . wz ....

1
1

¦
¦
J




k

r
/ ; .
			 i i 	i	 : 	1	
	1 	...



1
	 r —
	j	j: - -
w
I


V-—__
! 1 <¦
_;.. .|


		 	 		 - ,		
—i—i—
		1	
	1	
i
24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 213
ORP (mV)
440	460	480
_ -2
(L) -4
4—
£ -6
CL
-------
Station 213
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	2000	4000
~ -2
g -4
£ -6
Q.
<1) o
Q
-10
24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
¦-	Temperature
-------
Station 214
ORP (mV)
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO - pH . ORP
-------
Station 214
0
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1000
2000
-1
I-3
B'5
Q.
s-7
-9

\
I
25.3 25.4
25.5 25.6 25.7
Temp (C)
25.8 25.9
Temperature
-------
Station 215
ORP (mV)
400	420	440	460
.	1	t—	 	!	—i	!			i—		!	!	t	
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO - pH -^-ORP
-------
Station 215
0
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1000
2000
CD
CD
Q.
C1J
O
-2
-4
-6
-8
-9.5
25.3
t
-
-
Jf
i
-* ¦
X
25.4
25.5 25.6
Temp (C)
25.7
25.8
Temperature
-------
1
Station 216
-------
Station 216
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	1000	2000	3000
cr- "2
£ -4
£ -6
Q_
0 o
Q
-10
24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------

Station 217


ORP (mV)

430
440
450 460
470
_ -2
0) .
0 -4
4—
£ -6
CL
(D Q
Q -8
-9.6
5	6	7	8	9 10
DO (mg/l)/ pH
^ DO — pH ORP
-------
Station 217
0
-1
I"3
4—
jo -5
-+—»
CL
£"7
-9
24.5
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1000
25	25.5
Temp (C)
2000

4
				 .. 	I		i	 X		 .......



i. . L!
	_ | . ...	i	V

¦
/ i
- -t	r \ 	
¦a
\
k
1 	L	 	V ¦	


¦
. . . J- -	- - - •


T
\
L


¦v
——-1 >
*


. .. 1

26
Temperature
-------
Station 218
ORP (mV)
420	440	460
_ -2
"55 ,
-------
Station 218
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	1000	2000	3000
-2
£ -6
Q_
CD q
Q
-10
24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 219
ORP (mV)
400 420	440 460	480
_ -2
a> A
(L) -4
£ -6
CL
Q -8
-10
5	6	7	8	9 10
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO pH ORP
-------
Station 219
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	500	1000	1500
~ -2
£ -6
Q.
CD o
Q
-10
25	25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 220
ORP (mV)
460	465	470
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH ORP
-------
Station 220
0
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
1000
2000
~ -2
-------
Station 221


ORP (mV)

400
420
440 460
480
_ -2
0) A
0 -4
4—
£ -6
a
-------
Station 221
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	500	1000	1500
~ -2
£ -6
Q.
0) o
Q
-10
24.4 24.6 24.8 25 25.2 25.4
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
I


[ i .

i


	


1
¦









A.





	
.


........ .








r








		
Pv

'







t T
	M.	







1



—	






—si;











~~~ -
r—		
	
—	I	




t i" " r
-------
Station 222


ORP (mV)

400
420
440 460
480
_ -2
o A
CD -4
£ -6
Q.
(1) Q
Q -0
-10
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
^ DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 222
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
0	500	1000	1500
cr- "2
® -
^ -4
£ -6
Q.
a) o
Q
-10
24.7 24.8 24.9 25 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
1

	1—n
i
•

		
. 4-.








V. .i










r r
/!:











' f






	r—1——




I

	





	
	1

T
1
T
•
	A

	-

	j_




		[	


/


_! 1 _L_












j
N

h	t—H


	
	
r

	
	

-I	



	
-------
Station 301
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
DO (mg/l)/pH
DO -m- pH ORP
ORP (mV)
420	440
-------
Station 301
-------
Station 302
ORP (mV)
250 300 350 400 450
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO ^ pH ^ ORP
-------
-1
©
£ -5
t "7
0 Q
Q "9
-10.8
Station 302
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
830	840	850
¥
m
w
-
j—
N!
>

~
24.8	25	25.2	25.4
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 303
ORP (mV)
350	400	450
_ -2
a> „
-------
Station 303
810
~	-2
£	-4
£	-6
Q_
CD	o
Q
-10
24.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
815 820 825 830 835
\
it
r-i
¦ I
I

25	25.2
Temp (C)
840
t
*
1
25.4
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 304
ORP (mV)
300	350	400	450
-1
cp -3
-------
Station 304
820
-------
Station 401
0
CD
CL
CD
Q
340
360
ORP (mV)
380 400
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-10.7
6.5
420
7.5 8 8.5
DO (mg/l)/ pH
I	

!
	!	
I
!
j		

	1	



—
-



i
i
|
|

l!









r


!
!

i
	

i
- j _ ..





\





1
I
.

I

* i
j


\






"






¦ i
i



\



i

-
L





j




v


I
i






. _i






\
\




* 1




,L	.j




\








i







\


!

!
1
i

i
i
1








. 1

!
j

i
!

	_|


11
i=j


!
i
—¦f—



f	<	

!







	
9.5
DO - pH
ORP
-------
Station 401
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
800 810 820 830 840 850
— -2
i
0 „
£ -4
£ -6
Q_
CD o
Q
-10
25.1 25.12 25.14 25.16 25.18 25.2
Temp (C)
Temperature
-------
Station 402
-------
Station 402
780
-2
-4
-6
0 "8
-10
CD
-------
Station 403
ORP (mV)
400	410	420	430
-2
"CD -4
CD
£ "6
f. -8
0)
Q -10
-12
5	6	7	8	9 10
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH • ORP
-------
-1
a) "3
£ -5
f "7
0 Q
O -9
-11
Station 403
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
790	800	810	820
24.8	25	25.2	25.4
Temp (C)
Temperature
-------
Station 404
ORP (mV)
380	400	420	440
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO pH + ORP
-------
Station 404
760
-1
CD
r-
!& "5
£ _7
CL
® O
q -9
-11
24.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
780	800
25	25.2
Temp (C)
820
___	.	I 				-1	- i - 	
» ! .

A ¦
~ Ml



£
		 	— •" ~j	 *

—.				





m



•
........
	 -	r- • ¦ 		


f
* *
¦ *
				— |	 ... . ....



¦



-V
L
V L	M

T r	

25.4
Temperature
-------
Station 405
0
<1>
300
-2
-4
— -6
o. -8
-------
Station 405
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
760	780	800	820
^ -2
o -4	^-1
^ R
-b	*			-¦
o. -8	t
d)	<¦
Q-10
-12 L	:	 ;		; j I
24.8	25	25.2	25.4
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 406
ORP
340	360	380	400
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO -m-pH ORP
-------
Station 406
740
-1
£ -5
£ "7
° n
Q -9
-11
25
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
760	780
1—r

r —r
-I	1-
:¦
.

25.1
25.2
Temp (C)
25.3
800
25.4
Temperature
-------
Station 407
ORP (mV)
300	350	400
DO (rmg/l)/ pH
DO — pH ORP
-------
Station 407
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
670	680	690
1
3
5
7
9
8
!	T			1	n
	



	
				Pi			fj

	:
•




	 ... ---I	„
\
I
i			 • 	


k ¦¦ a'
- ;	
4
*
, m

		
			 1- 		-
\
i. *






i 		T"
	
N

23.8 23.85 23.9 23.95 24
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 408
ORP (mV)
300	350	400
_	-2
a3	A
-------
Station 408
650
23.95
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
660
670
24
24.05
Temp (C)
24.1
24.15
Temperature
-------
Station 409
ORP (mV)
300	350	400
;	1	1	1	1	——,	1	1	1	1	1	1	
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
. DO —-pH ^ ORP
-------
Station 409
625
J? "2
a) -4
Q.
a>
Q
-6
-8
-10
23.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
630	635
23.9	24
Temp (C)
640
24.1
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 410
ORP (mV)
440	442	444	446
_ -2
0> A
(D -4
M—
£ -6
CL
d) o
Q -8
-10
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO -m- pH —ORP
, i
j j
i
			
i

1
j
	1
I



i
1


i i



—



1 j

	





.


i
	|.._
i
[
i

1


^"



*

. ..j


1
.	I . . ...

~
k

_



¦ »¦

.


i

.



.
¦
!






f

1
i






.

1
1

|

!
1




!
1


r
j
1
1



,

r
i

i
i


!	i	
. .. T —	
	!	1	1	
i
•

i
i
1
-------
Station 410
595
—	-2
£	-4
S	-6
Q.
0	o
Q
-10
24
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
600	605
24.02 24.04 24.06 24.08
Temp (C)
610
	 - I. _			-
—	M	:
t
i













-
. i







¦ A
——-—-	—
-

I
	1	

1




!

1 ¦"—-
•— *
		—			
		





*
i




T
E


. as* '








	i	
•-
	L
"
——i—-

rC j
> "
		<	
	 ~ "
24.1
Temperature —
-------
Station 411
a>
a)
440 442
-1
-3
-5
£ -7
CL '
-------
Station 411
585
-1
~0
£-5
£ -7
Q -9
-11
23.9
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
590	595
600
I
			... 		....	 ..j...			 .j.					

	1	
.

4 ' ¦
!
~ H



A 	_



T
y
¦



—


	




____	^
'


			
k	.	



*
*¦
\



*
	X	-J	








	i		—	

24
Temp (C)
24.1
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 412
ORP (mV)
440 444 448 452 456 460
-1
^ -3
0)
£ -5
f -7
CD
-10.8
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH


I
1
i
'

i L	i . '
—
h	
i
i
	



j
j
1		
1

r
I
1
j
j
F i
!. . 1 M


i

!
i
i

...


1
1
j	
1
j

!

f " '
1
!
,





i
t" "
i
{

?L	


!








¦
|
a
|




I
1
i
I




	_j
"






f—-

|
!



r ' ""







» 	
¦


:

i - -







i
i







r n
i



'







I







:
,


. 1 .


















i



!








I
...
|
	J




:




j
i


i
i
i
1






X.



i
! !


I
1
!


!

	
.. . i

	



1 ' T
	i	!—1—
	

s
i
~"t
—

* DO — pH - ORP
-------
Station 412
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
540	550	560	570
1	.

!
1


T
		
—¦— — 1




	
'
.
.






. — —



-s.









		










J
1
A.


	 — -. 		 —	,	—	

1
	*		J	


i
	
-
—jL	

—,——,—i	


24.05 24.07 24.09 24.11 24.13 24.15
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 413
ORP (mV)
420 425 430 435 440
7 8	9 10 11 12
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH — ORP
-------
Station 413
530
-1
0) "3
-5
£ _7
Q. '
® Q
Q -9
-11
23.9
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
540

f
.1
+
1
24	24.1
Temp (C)
550
¥
¦
-
24.2
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 414
500
-1
"a)
& -5
f "7
0 o
Q -9
-11
23.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
510	520
530
i . ' -
	 	 f ...
mm




¦ «
* 	 t - 	 - —
- f i £—


1

_			¦ /-"I


	

			—,	;		 ...... ... 									i.	



is,		 A


*




• at

•»
			:		__ I 	

me -
24	24.2
Temp (C)
24.4
-*-¦ Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 414
-------
Station 415
ORP (mV)
410	420	430
-2
0) -4
-------
Station 415
480
_ -2
© _4
©
~ -6
o. -8
©
Q-10
-12
23.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
490 500 510
520
	1	!	

					
			


			.	L		>	L						j
—
i . . .1 		 			J			—					.J	i.		t					1...—				—i

Lji. . ¦¦

^	

-
_

	 7 - — I
*
_


i		 '
. 	 	 1	 					1	_	i	1		Jk	i		



		—~ I
... . .





T
.1
"
	










T
ml A.

	
	


24	24.2
Temp (C)
24.4
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 416
390
ORP (mV)
400	410
420
_ -2
0) A
a) -4
M—
£ -6
Ql
 i






\
r

i
. .
! S

i
,







\
..... ..
-44--
. -U - .J


t i
i

l
i
J J






	
-


... i,.
„ ... .j
i !
; !
"
hi n
	 ,





.
*
,


-

i

i

?
/










i"H ;
tM	
¦
i
, i
~
-


—-





	\	1	
" " "


I
	r	








7 8 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
10 11 12
* DO - pH
ORP
-------
Station 416
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460	480	500	520
. -2
o	*
-4	T	- r
£ -6	f
O	* *
S "8	* *
* *
-10 			 r	¦	
23.8	24	24.2 24.4 24.6
Temp (C)
¦ Temperature Conductivity
-------
*



Station 417





170
ORP(mV
175
i Si". >
)
180
i
	,	j	

185

-2

1
! i
T T"4
H 4

—i	
!
i
	^
\
\


! I
I i I i
i ;
|._			i		
"T1
j
i
!
	


CD
/i \
-4

;
i
i
1
|

1

Q)
~4—
! t n
¦ i
T
L		t	-	...
i
|	
!
_„l	
i
	 ....
\

S-
-6
!

i
i
1
|
	 	
T

Q_
i i j j.
!
i

\ i
\i
1
1 -

\

0
-8
1 1
I ^
|

i



Q
i | j
r 		I--"" ~,li
i

i" 	
I iKs.
!
	
\


¦10
	l. r	11	
!
;
	1 .
!
!
!
	¦-{•
i
i
I
__j	
i-
_t


2

	;	t	1	1	;	1		
4 6 8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
—i	1	
10
12



a DO
- pH
—
ORP



-------
Station 417
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
440 460 480 500 520
c "2
® ,
g -4
£ -6
Q.
<15 p
Q "b
-10
23.5	24	24.5
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 418
ORP (mV)
405	410	415	420
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO — pH ORP
-------
Station 418
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460	480
23.9 24 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7
Temp (C)
Temperature
-------

Station 419
400
_	-2
a>	A
<1)	-4
4—
£	-6
Q.
d)	p
Q	-8
-10
ORP (mV)
410
420
;




1 i
i |


I
I



T
i



I
j
:
_ . ..

,
... m
V
i


1

i


		 ....
,

T
i




i
. .. .... 4. .. .. 	

, -


i i *



1 1




•
i


\









\
j
i
— - - . 4. . - .... 4


_ J	.

—



1



	
"
~j. .....
	.j
¦ ———"




i
i




L
" 			—
,


!



..

...



6	8
DO (mg/l)/ pH
10
12
- DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 419
440
~ -2
^ -4
£ -6
Q.
(1) o
Q
-10
24.1
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460	480
500
I I I




'

- — 		J 1





>






	'

T
A
T
1







!•		_L
T
A
* —
*
/
mm


	....




l_	








—






. _






i i


	 , f * .	
	L		1	




	 m *
	ar^	a.	 - -




i 1
i 1 i


24.2
24.3 24.4
Temp (C)
24.5
24.6
Temperature
-------
Station 420
ORP (mV)
414	416	418	420
_*i	!	'	j ! !	'•	I	!	!	j	1	
l [ f' j " T j~~t j ft
	

I


.. 	_l


	L "1
i
•



A











\





I
i
i

!

\
t
-t—+—
L 1

L	
I
. |
1	i _ .
I 1

1 '
I

i
i
/
/
	

i 1 "7
r	 i i —
i
'
1 w
! !
i
i

-------
Station 420
a?
CD
Q.
CD
a
450
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-10.8
23.5
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460 470 480
24	24.5
Temp (C)
490
. .		
	
1



L
.

/
_
m.
r
	L .. 1 /¦.


		 ,
T V
- 1






m
	,		
/
• 4
\ /
ji





				
		 		££	







— jm
• j
1


	r-O _




25
Temperature
-------
Station 421
-------
Station 421
0)
a)
Q.
0)
Q
450
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-10.9
24
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460 470 480
24.2	24.4
Temp (C)
490
!
	1	
	j	—	



	 -	!	 	
T
¦


. ... a
i
: j 	 ...

y
a


. . 	 _j		 ... .. - .
w
1
f-
. . _L 			 _...	 .
L '
^ a'







**—
-
			

1	




		~ ' ' T-- 1	:__q
~ ~ """

24.6
Temperature
-------
Station 422
ORP (mV)
405 410 415	420 425
"1 j~~1—I 1 -j—\~f~\—Ft
_0 	i	1 _	| ^ j	j | |	I
"53 	iZZIXj^r~~r~~I	1 t"
_5 	I	j	_|	\»l 	|.	 ,|	| j j 	L	\
q. ~ 		~~1 r ~	I"	~~"j-^r—]	—	*	 i I 	 	i
!	i	i
-11 -I	1	i—j	i	¥^~	r	*	j™.-j—|		
j	j	,	i	,	i
2	4	6	8 10 12
DO (mg/l)/ pH

i


m

—



I
! .


1
i
—
.


I



i
j
t
j


		*

r~
«
I—J

1






i

X.
i
i
i





i
	



i
j
-
» ! l
T'"			
L	,



T
j
j
—



			




.. .....

' |— 1
i





i
•
j
" 1


<
i


	
	


T" " 	




i

' , :i .


\





1
i
		I _ . _ ¦

L ...
L.


j
I
|


	 ...
i




- DO - pH • ORP
-------
-------
Station 423
ORP (mV)
400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 440
_ -2
"S A
(D -4
M—
£ -6
Q.
d) Q
Q -0
-10
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DO (mg/l)/ pH
a DO - pH • ORP
I



	—	
	





	

i




\

;

i
i





f






T\ i
! X i
. J V ! j

i

		
T		
•
i
. .









! .
r r
i
U-.
- -W-
i
i
i
1







¦


. . _ .


i
i
4—
i

	
1
		












\ \


i

••



—
!



!

i—
i
	1






!
i
!


k	

\
i
i
1-	
1	











i
i
i
j
.1





L



	
!

	


!
. ! 	.
r
I	


	




T
T
I
7 1
^ !
1

T





r i
1
-------
Station 423
465
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
470
475
^ "2
a) -4
-6
® -8
-10
Q_
0
Q
24.3
*
»*
1*
-
.
r
*
24.4
24.5
Temp (C)
24.6
*
a.
24.7
Temperature
-------
Station 424
(D

Q
250
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
10.6
ORP (mV)
300	350
400

I
\
		

r
!
-
_
	!	


1

!
|

--
I
!
I.
¦
,
,,




i 1

r



r
I
L

" 	 ~1

X
1
i
w

:




J
1
1
. ........

-¦
"
,



\

.. 4


!


|
¦








1




















T
_ L	



.. 	









i
_ i.





\







1
' • i















!





. . .

—







.. j__ ..... ,
!
M








i i

-•
i
i

_ ---)
-.	•

7 8 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
10 11
DO - pH
ORP
-------
Station 424
CD
d)
Q.
-------
Station 425
ORP (mV)
440	445	450	455
_ -2
"S A
(U -4
£ -6
Q_
d) Q
Q -8
-9.7
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 425
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
475 477 479 481 483 485
— -2
£ -6
Q.
CD o
Q
-9.7
23.66	23.68	23.7	23.72
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 426
ORP (mV)
430	435	440	445
DO (mg/l)/ pH
* DO - pH • ORP
-------
Station 426
470
_ -2
c5 _4
Cl) H
^ "6
Q. -8
CD
Q-10
-12
23.66
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
472 474 476 478
480

	I		 J	
L _J.

j


I
i—




¦
1






¦ a.



j
i			

1
¦





i
	[l_		

1
1 i
¦
			 	
	
	,	-
	—		
—.—		
_j-
				
'
1
¦ ¦
¦ A.




			


¦
1

»
L


	 1 ""1




L	,






¦
— —	—	 — — • -


: ___J J
i
' a
1

	
- -		I.		

ft 4


	1	1	1	1	1	
23.68	23.7
Temp (C)
23.72
Temperature
-------
Station 501


ORP (mV)


430
435
440
445
450
-1
~0D -3
Q)
^¦5
Q.
s-7
-9
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
^ DO pH ORP
-------
Station 501
460
-1
I"3
1-5
Q.
s-7
-9
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
465 470 475 480 485
490


	1	
|

	1	 !	 1 1	-	






i 1








i
. .




1
i

	T :	"V
. 1			 .. - « -






+ p
_ 	_Z 	





			<
Z_ i I
:		l_:






1 / 1
/
	q	:i
	1	
I i

i i	[—,
23.5 23.55 23.6 23.65 23.7 23.75 23.8
Temp (C)
Temperature
-------
Station 503
ORP (mV)
300	350	400
. !	—,	 .
4 5 6 7 8 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
-------
Station 503
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
460 465 470 475 480 485 490
— -2
£ -4
£ -6
Q.
CD o
Q
-10
23.5 23.55 23.6 23.65 23.7 23.75 23.8
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity

. 		!		 i ...J
	

r—zl
	1	
a.
.





m
\
\
a
T
1





				



	i	_	

*
*
1


	

A ¦ 1



			
		i	 	1		
Lr
— —,	 	— -¦
s
¦

. i




	
*
. . A.
/
i /
¦
		;	



[/ i
				Mr— 		A		--
		 I	


		i__	

•
1 \
	L_._^	4.		

i	
	 r—[""" t
.


•


	f	t	1	1	I	
	


J—	1	
—
	1	
-------
Station 505
-------
Station 505
478
-1
| "3
sz -5
-4—'
CL
& -7
-8.7
23.6
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
480	482
484
I
r
A
1
23.7	23.8
Temp (C)
23.9
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 601
ORP (mV)
0	100	200	300
0
^ -2
-------
Station 601
470
CD
<1)
0
-2
-4
Q. "6
a -8
-10
23.8
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
472 474 476 478
480
i	
—j—

	^


i
k		 ]		

	




„		 - |. 			



		.
1
	1


- - — 	r	r 	 '


.
*
		j—	 			


1

1
*
•


1
'


		;	

.
.		 :					
_ _ .


h	,	
¦
/
	r-- i	






	t







1
	^
t - -

_.. _	
\

	
¦ ¦
*
—""" r "~r "i
			l—i

"1
	

23.85 23.9 23.95
Temp (C)
24
Temperature
-------
Station 605
ORP (mV)
340	350	360	370
0
o> -2
a
r -4
a.
-7.4
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
^ DO - pH ^ ORP
-------
Station 605
486
0
o> .9
&
£ "4
Q_
£ -6
-7.4
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
491
496
¦

| |

I I i I I
_







i
i
T
1




1
-




]

K

. 	























f- , .







T







1
V
L





" :
I	'	



I T	


•
	

23 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8
Temp (C)
Temperature
-------
Station 608
-------
Station 608
470
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
480 490 500
510
0
2
4
6
2
! i ! I
i 1 L 1 1
_
W- 	I — ... i	i	L.






| ... 1
I 1
.

-t	b
i

4k





¦
*
-
r



	1	'

*
\
\
\





. i	 j	




,


	,		
			j	
A










1
m
f J
/


	 	_





		
„ . . ...
,




	 	.
j j	
—J




	1	1	i	
23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 23.9 24 24.1 24.2 24.3
Temp (C)
Temperature Conductivity
-------
Station 702
ORP (mV)
300 302 304 306 308 310
l	
	
-—A

- ¦
	
i
4—
i
i
!
,	
i
	 _
4	
-i	
I
i
i
!
—[
t
!
i








. .1 _
i


i














i









I
1
l













1 |
i
t


\
¦ "i








1


i


\








i
i
1


i
i


\
v
;
I
i	
	


	
		«y
i
J J
*
!
!
1
i
K f
!
i
i
i
¦|	


	
\
	
1
i	
!
	
!				i		—!	1	—?	!	1		]	'	
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DO (mg/l)/ pH
DO — pH ORP
-------
Station 702
480
CD
0
Q.
-------
Station 802
ORP (mV)
200 220 240 260 280
0
4—
^ -2
Q. 0
CD -3
Q
-3.6
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
DO (mg/l)/ pH
- DO - pH — ORP

1
1
I
1
	
T
I
i



\ i

1




r


/
/







J
t


/- -
/
/
v
%







_ ...1



—"1
\
I
1
1
V !

1
—







\
i \
\
\


j


T n
i





-------
Station 802
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
525	530	535	540
_ 0
a> 1
£ 1
£ "2
Q
-------
Appendix E
Magnitude and Extent of Chemical Contamination and
Toxicity in Sediments of Biscayne Bay and Vicinity.
Final Draft
-------
NOAA Technical Memorandum NQS ORCA xxx	9/10/98
National Status and Trends Program
for marine environmental quality
Magnitude and Extent of Chemical Contamination and
Toxicity in Sediments of Biscayne Bay and Vicinity.
FINAL DRAFT
Silver Spring, Maryland
September, 1998
U.S. Department of Commerce
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Afoniimfratinn
Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment
National Ocean Service
1
-------
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA xxx
Magnitude and Extent of Chemical Contamination and
Toxicity in Sediments of Biscayne Bay and Vicinity.
Edward R. Long
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Gail M. Sloane
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Geoffrey I. Scott, Brian Thompson
National Marine Fisheries Service
R. Scott Carr, James Biedenbach
U. S. Geological Survey
Terry L. Wade, Bobby J. Presley
Texas A & M University
K. John Scott, Cornelia Mueller
Science Applications International Corporation
Geri Brecken-Fols, Barbara Albrecht
TRAC Laboratories, Inc.
Jack W. Anderson
Columbia Analytical Services, Inc.
G. Thomas Chandler
University of South Carolina
National Oceanic and National Ocean Service
Atmospheric Administration
FINAL DRAFT
Silver Spring, Maryland
September, 1998
United States
Department of Commerce
William M. Daley
Secretary
D. James Baker
Under Secretary
W. Stanley Wilson
Assistant Administrator
2
-------
Magnitude and Extent of Chemical Contamination and
Toxicity in Sediments of Biscayne Bay and Vicinity.
ABSTRACT
The toxicity of sediments in Biscayne Bay and many adjoining tributaries was
determined as part of a bioeffects assessments program managed by NOAA's
National Status and Trends Program. The objectives of the survey were to
determine: (1) the incidence and degree of toxicity of sediments throughout the
study area; (2) the spatial patterns (or gradients) in chemical contamination and
toxicity, if any, throughout the study area; (3) the spatial extent of chemical
contamination and toxicity; and (4) the statistical relationships between
measures of toxicity and concentrations of chemicals in the sediments.
The survey was designed to characterize sediment quality throughout the
greater Biscayne Bay area. Surficial sediment samples were collected during
1995 and 1996 from 226 randomly-chosen locations throughout nine major
regions. Laboratory toxicity tests were performed as indicators of potential
ecotoxicological effects in sediments. A battery of tests was performed to
generate information from different phases (components) of the sediments.
Tests were selected to represent a range in toxioological endpoints from acute
to chronic sublethal responses. Toxicological tests were conducted to measure*
reduced survival of adult amphipods exposed to solid-phase sediments;
impaired fertilization success and abnormal morphological development in
gametes and embryos, respectively, of sea urchins exposed to pore waters-
reduced metabolic activity of a marine bioluminescentlbacteria exDosed to'
organic solvent extracts; induction of a cytochrome P-450 reporter gene svstem
oo^^ds^^s^d^solid^ase sedfmerts1
Contamination and toxicity were most severe in several peripheral canals and
tributaries, including the lower Miami River, adjoining the Jin axis oTthe toy
In the open basins of the bay, chemical concentrations and toxicity generally
were higher in areas north of the Rickenbacker Causeway than south of t
Sediments from the main basins of the bay generally were less toxic than those
from the adjoining tributaries and canals. The different toxicity tests, however
indicated differences in seventy, incidence, spatial patterns, and spatial extent
in toxicity. The most sensitive test among those performed on all samples a
bioassay of normal morphological development of sea urchin embrvos '
indicated toxicity was pervasive throughout the entire study area The least
sensitive test, an acute bioassay performed with a benthic amph'ipod, Mcated
toxicity was restricted to a very small percentage of me area.
Both the degree and spatial extent of chemical contamination and toxicity in this
study area were similar to or less severe than those observed in many other
areas in the U.S. The spatial extent of toxicity in all four tests performed
throughout the bay were comparable to the "national averages" calculated bv
NOAA from previous surveys conducted in a similar manner
3
-------
Several trace metals occurred In concentrations in excess of those expected in
reference sediments. Mixtures of substances, incfuding pesticides, petroleum
constituents, trace metals, and ammonia, were associated statistically with the
measures of toxicity. Substances most elevated in concentration relative to
numerical guidelines and associated with toxicity included polychlorinated
biphenyls, DOT pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, hexachloro
cyclohexanes, lead, and mercury. These (and other) substances occurred in
concentrations greater than effects-based guidelines in the samples that were
most toxic in one or more of the tests.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program administered by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts a nationwide
program of monitoring and bioeffects assessments. As a part of this program,
regional surveys are conducted to determine the toxicity of sediments in
estuarine and marine environments. Biscayne Bay was selected by NOAA for
this survey because data from the NS&T Program Mussel Watch and data from
previous surveys of the bay had shown a potential for toxicity and other adverse
biological effects. In addition, no bay-wide information had been generated on
the toxicological condition of the bay sediments and several agencies had
indicated a need for this type of data and a willingness to assist NOAA in
collecting them.
The study area was defined as extending from Dumbfoundling Bay at the north
end to Little Card Sound at the south end, seaward to the barrier islands or reef,
and landward to the shoreline or saltwater control structures. This area was
determined to encompass a total of 484 kilometers2 of the sea floor. During
1995 and 1996, 226 samples were collected from randomly-chosen locations
and tested for toxicity and analyzed for chemical concentrations. Data from
these tests and analyses are included in this report. Samples for benthic
community analyses were collected at one-third of the stations; however, data
from those analyses are not included in this report.
Toxicity in this survey of Biscayne Bay and vicinity was determined using a suite
of four laboratory tests done on all 226 samples: (1) percent survival of marine
amphipods (Ampelisca abdita) in 10-day tests of solid-phase (bulk) sediments;
(2) changes in bioluminescent activity of a marine bacterium, Photobacterium
phosphoreum, in 15-minute Microtox bioassays of organic extracts; (3)
fertilization success of the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata in one hour tests of
the sediment pore water; and (4) normal embryological development of A.
punctulata in 48-hour tests of the pore water. In addition, a life cycle test of the
reproductive success of a meiobenthic copepod was performed on 15 samples
and cytochrome P-450 reporter gene system (RGS) assays were performed on
121 samples. The concentrations of trace metals, pesticides, other chlorinated
compounds, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and sedimentological features
of the sediments were determined in all samples.
Wide ranges in both chemical concentrations and toxicity were observed
throughout the survey area. In the amphipod survival tests, highly significant
toxicity was observed in samples that represented 62 km2,13% of a total of 484
km2. This estimate is similar to the average of 10.9% calculated from studies
performed throughout other U. S. bays and estuaitos. The spatial extant «f
toxicity in the tea urchin tests of fertilization success tn 100% pom waters was
47%, again, similar to the national average of 42.6%. In the Microtox tests,
toxicity was apparent over 51% of the area, slightly lower than the national
average of 61%. Highly elevated and moderately elevated responses in the P-
450 RGS assays occurred in samples collected in 1996 that represented 3.3%
5
-------
and 0.0%, respectively, of the study area. Results from Biscayne Bay were
comparable to those for northern Puget Sound (2.7% and 0.0%, respectively).
Results from some tests showed relatively good concordance with those from
other tests. Overall, the data indicated that the sediments collected in the
peripheral tributaries were much more toxic than those from the open water
basins of the bay. Samples from the tower Miami River were most toxic in the
amphipod survival tests, the least sensitive of the four tests performed bay-wide.
Samples from Black Creek Canal also were highly toxic. The cytochrome P-
450 RGS assays also indicated higher induction rates in samples from canals
and tributaries, indicative of the presence of mixtures of organic compounds.
Copepod life cycle assays showed impaired reproductive success in all 15
stations relative to controls - samples from the lower Miami River were the most
toxic.
Chemicals of highest concern were those that were elevated relative to
numerical guidelines in the most samples, showed strongest concordance with
measures of toxicity, and were most elevated in concentrations in samples in
which toxicity was most severe. Several substances met these criteria,
including copper, lead, mercury, DDTs and PCBs. Concentrations of cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc exceeded reference levels in many samples.
Patterns in chemical contamination generally followed patterns in toxicity, but,
there were several exceptions to this overall observation. Some samples with
very low chemical concentrations in the southern reaches of the bay were
highly toxic and a few samples with high chemical concentrations were not
toxic, possibly reflecting heterogeneity within the samples. However, elevated
concentrations of mixtures of trace metals, PAHs, PCBs, and other chlorinated
substances from samples collected in the lower Miami River were highly
correlated with reduced amphipod survival. Many samples from the lower
Miami River had relatively high concentrations of these substances and caused
very severe toxicity in the amphipod tests. Somewhat different mixtures of
substances were highly correlated with toxicity observed in the urchin tests
performed on samples from the canals of south bay. Results of the P-450 RGS
assays were highly correlated with mixtures of high molecular weight PAHs,
PCBs, and other organic compounds.
The spatial extent of elevated chemical concentrations, however, was 2% or
less for all substances, indicating that significant contamination was restricted to
the small peripheral canals and tributaries of the system. Of the 226 samples
analyzed, 33 (14.6%) had at least one chemical concentration that exceeded a
mid-range numerical sediment quality guideline. These 33 samples
represented about an area of about 3.5 km2 (0.7% of the total). Both the
percentages of samples that exceeded numerical guidelines and the surficial
extent of contamination as compared to the guidelines were lower than
observed elsewhere in comparable studies performed elsewhere in U S
estuaries.
6
-------
Results of this survey indicated that the concentrations of chemical mixtures
were sufficiently elevated in some sediments to contribute to acute and
sublethal toxicity in laboratory tests. Concentrations of individual chemicals
were elevated in only a very small portion of the total survey area - restricted
mainly to the narrow canals and tributaries. The toxicity tests confirmed that
toxicity, as measured with the acute amphipod survival test, was restricted in
surficial extent to a small percentage of the area. However, toxicity as
measured with the sublethal urchin and Microtox tests was much more
pervasive. The ecological significance of the elevated chemical concentrations
and significant toxicity will be estimated when analyses are completed on the
benthic community samples.
7
-------
INTRODUCTION
Background. As a part of the National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program,
NOAA conducts assessments ot the adverse biological effects of toxic
chemicals in selected regions and estuaries. Studies are performed to
determine bioeffects of toxicants in fishes, bivalve molluscs and sediments.
This report is one in a series of regional reports on sediment quality. Previous
reports have been produced for the Hudson-Raritan estuary, Long Island
Sound, Boston Harbor, Tampa Bay, San Diego Bay, San Pedro Bay, southern
California estuaries, western Florida, panhandle, and South Carolina/Georgia
bays and summarized in Long et al. (1996).
Biscayne Bay was selected by NOAA for this survey because data from the
NS&T Program Mussel Watch and from previous surveys of the bay
(summarized below) had shown a potential for toxicity and other adverse
biological effects. In addition, no bay-wide information had been generated on
the toxicological condition of the bay sediments and several agencies had
indicated a need for this type of data and a willingness to assist NOAA in
collecting them. As part of requirement of dredging studies, toxicity tests had
been performed on sediments from the lower Miami River; however, there were
no data generated for the majority of the Biscayne Bay area.
The study area for this survey extended from Dumfoundling Bay in the north to
the Little Card Sound bridge in the south, west to the mainland of the south
Florida peninsula and the saltwater control structures of selected canals, and
east to Miami Beach and the barrier islands (Figure 1). In this report, portions
of the area are referred to as north bay, central bay, and south bay, following
SFWMD (1994). North bay extends from Dumfoundling Bay to the
Rickenbacker Causeway, central bay extends from Rickenbacker Causeway to
Black Point, and south bay extends from Black Point to Arsenicker Keys and
Mangrove Point.
The study area was divided into nine sampling zones that conformed to the
major physiographic basins of the study area (Figure 1). Zone 1 was the
northern-most region and included Dumbfoundling Bay, Mauie Lake, Oieta
River, and portion of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) (Figure 2). Zone 2
extended to study area southward along the ICW to the Broad Ave. Causeway
(Figure 3). Zone 3 extended from the Broad Ave. Causeway to the 76th St.
Causeway and included the lower Biscayne Canal (Figure 4). Zone 4 ranged
from the 76th St. Causeway south to the Julia Tuttle Causeway and included
ttie Lrtt'o River and Indian Creek (Figure 4). In zone 5, samples were collectec
between the Julia Tuttle Causeway and the MacArthur Causeway (Figure 5V
Zone 6 included the Port of Miami from MacArthur Causeway to the
Rickenbacker Causeway (Figure 6) and the lower Miami River/'Seybold
Canal/Tamiami Canal from Bricked Point to the railroad bridge (Figure 7)
jLl!?6"*led f^°T *he Rickenbacker Causeway south to the 25°35' latitude
(Figure 8) and included portions of Coral Gables Canal (Figure 9) and
Snapper Creek Canal (Figure 10) seaward of the saltwater control structures.
Zone 8 extended from the 25°35' latitude to the vicinity of Turkey Point (Figure
8
-------
11) and included portions of Black Creek/Gould's Canal, Princeton Canal,
Military Canal, Mowry Canal, and North Canal (Figures 12-13). In the
southernmost area, zone 9 extended from the vicinity of Turkey Point to the
Little Card Sound bridge (Figure 14).
Historical Data on Contamination. Biscayne Bay has been highly modified
by numerous dredge and fill projects, most of which were completed during the
1920's to 1940's (SFWMD, 1994). As early as the 1970's, environmental
scientists have recognized that chemical pollutants were entering the bay from
the Miami River and other canals and altering the chemistry of the system
(Waite, 1976). Many different studies have been conducted in recent years on
the concentrations and distributions of potentially toxic chemicals in Biscayne
Bay and adjoining canals. The geographic scope and objectives of these
studies differed, but, nevertheless, the data from these studies provided a
relatively consistent picture of chemical contamination in the surficial sediments
of the bay.
The largest of these studies was performed by Corcoran et al. (1983) who
collected samples from 205 locations throughout the area. The samples were
initially analyzed for hydrocarbons; however, some selected samples were
analyzed later for other substances. Their study area was equivalent to that of
the NOAA study reported herein; i.e., from Dumfoundling Bay (25°58'N) in the
north to Card Sound (25°24'N) in the south. In the first year of their survey, 155
samples were collected at locations scattered throughout the area. All stations
locations were carefully selected with criteria intended to provide data to
represent conditions in specific areas; none of the stations were randomly
chosen. Total hydrocarbon analyses of Soxhlet, organic-solvent, extracts were
performed with gas chromatography of core sections from the upper 5 cm. of
sediments.
In the samples from the first year, highest hydrocarbon concentrations were
found in the lower Miami River, especially at a site near the the monorail bridge
(2449 ug total aromatic hydrocarbons/g) and near the railroad bridge (459
ug/g). Other samples with relatively high hydrocarbon concentrations were
collected in several other areas, including an area east of Mowry/Military/North
canals, near the Miami Beach marina, near the Sunset Beach marina, in lower
Little River, near the Sunny Isles Bridge, and several isolated statiohs in the
northern portion of the bay. Lowest concentrations were reported for stations
down the north-south axis of the bay and in south bay.
In the second year of this study, Corcoran et al. (1983) collected additional
samples as a confirmation step mostly in the areas shown in the first year to
have relatively high concentrations. These armlyswrconfirmed that high
hydrocarbon concentrations were apparent in samples from the Miami River,
Little River, Military Canal, Oleta River, Indian Creek, and Gould's Canal.
Concentrations invariably dropped quickly beyond the mouths of these canals.
To confirm this observation, they reported an inverse relationship (correlation
coefficient of -0.54) between water salinity and hydrocarbon concentrations.
9
-------
The overall pattern In the concentrations of both total hydrocarbons and
aromatic hydrocarbons was one in which the highest concentrations generally
occurred in the lower Miami River, followed by concentrations in marinas and
other canals mostly in the northern and central regions of the bay. Lowest
concentrations were reported for samples collected throughout most of south
bay. In addition, although relatively high hydrocarbon concentrations were
apparent in many sediment samples, analyses of bulk water and fish tissues at
many of these locations failed to show elevated concentrations, indicating that
these substances were readily sorbed to the sediments (Corcoran et al.,1983).
Corcoran (1983) also analyzed some samples collected during the
hydrocarbon study (Corcoran et al.f1983) for pesticides and trace metals.
Detectable concentrations of endosulfan (14.5 to 1014.3 ng/g), p,p'+o,p'-DDT
(to 52.7 ng/g), and Aroclor 1254 (3.6 to 58.6 ng/g) were reported in the samples.
Mercury concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 0.16 ug/g, copper from 2.0 to 7.7
ug/g, lead from 1.0 to 32.0 ug/g, zinc from 4.4 to 72 ug/g, and cadmium
concentrations were 0.1 ug/g or less. Highest concentrations of most
substances occurred in the sample from the Little River.
In 1984 Corcoran et al. (1984) reported the concentrations of additional
substances from 45 of the samples archived from 1983 hydrocarbon survey.
Highest concentrations of DDTs (p,p'+o,p') again were reported for the canals:
Little River (up to 52.7 ng/g), Oleta River, Gould's Canal/Black Creek, and near
Turkey Pt. (2 to 6 ng/g). Concentrations outside the canals ranged from less
than 2 to 17.3 ng/g for both total DDTs and DDEs. Phthalate acid esters were
found in detectable concentrations in 43 of the 45 samples.
Corcoran et al. (1984) also reported detectable concentrations of endosulfan in
the Miami River (124.2 ng/g), C-102 canal, Mowry Canal, Little River (1014.3
ng/g) and Dumfoundling Bay samples. They reported that herbicides (2, 4, 5-T
and 2, 4-D, and silvex) were found in 78% of samples and probably occurred
with dioxins as impurities. PCBs were detected in 69% of samples with the
highest concentrations occurring in samples from the canals; for example 1016
ng/g from a north bay station. PCB concentrations, excluding samples from the
canals, ranged from less than 2 ng/g to 307.5 ng/g. The highest concentrations
of chromium, cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc were found in samples from the
canals and lakes.
Most of the historical data on chemical concentrations were compiled and
summarized by Schmale (1991) to identify large-scale patterns in contamination
in the bay. The data showed a familiar pattern: highest concentrations of most
substances in peripheral canals, rivers, streams, and marinas and lowest
concentrations down the central north-south axis of the bay. Analyses of
ethyoxy-resorufin-deethylase (EROD) and glutathione-s-transferase (GST)
activities in fish tissues at many locations in the bay showed differences among
fish and sampling locations, often coincident with elevated chemical
concentrations in the sediments.
10
-------
Based upon their review of available chemical data, the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD, 1994) concluded that water and sediment
quality degradation were problems in Biscayne Bay. They identified chronic
problems with contamination by sewage in portions of Biscayne Bay and
identified trace metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
tributyl tins as substances which had accumulated in the sediments of the
central bay. They cited data showing elevated sediment contamination,
occurrence of deformed fish, and elevated liver enzyme activities in fish as
evidence of pollution problems. They identified leachates from the Munisport
landfill and ammonia in north bay as problems.
SFWMD (1994) recommended the initiation of a sediment monitoring program,
monitoring of chemical concentrations in bivalve and fish tissues, and the use of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) sediment quality
guidelines in the identification of sites of concern. They identified many
different projects which were completed and others that are planned to help
improve water and sediment quality. A synopsis of data from analyses of fresh
water and sediment performed during 1991-1995 in many south Florida canals
indicated the presence of many pesticides, inoluding atrazine, ametryn,
bromacil, simazine and norflurazon in water samples and DDE, DDD, and
amtetryn in sediments (Miles and Pfeuffer, 1997).
Goals and Objectives. The overall goal of this study was to provide a
characterization of the toxicological condition of sediments in Biscayne Bay and
vicinity, including saltwater reaches of key tributaries, as a measure, or
indicator, of adverse biological effects of toxic chemicals. Based upon chemical
analyses of sediments reported in previous studies it appeared that there were
relatively high probabilities that concentrations were sufficiently high in some
regions of the study area to cause acute toxicity. Data from toxicity tests were
intended to provide a means of determining whether toxic conditions actually
occurred throughout any of the area.
Several specific technical objectives were established to serve as guides for the
sampling designs and analytical plans. The objectives of the study were to:
(1)	determine the incidence and degree of toxicity of sediments throughout the
study area;
(2)	determine the spatial patterns (or gradients) in chemical contamination and
toxicity, if any, throughout the study area;
(3)	determine the spatial extent of chemical contamination and toxicity;
(4)	determine the statistical relationships between measures of toxicity and
concentrations of chemical substances in the sediments.
This report includes the data collected to satisfy all four objectives. Data to
satisfy an additional objective (to determine if resident benthic populations were
adversely affected in contaminated sediments) are not reported in this
document. Benthic community data will be reported in a subsequent document.
11
-------
METHODS
fiamniino design. The study area included saltwater portions of the three
major components of Biscayne Bay as defined by SFWMD (1994). A stratified
-random sampling design similar to those used in previous surveys (Long et ai.,
1996) was applied in Biscayne Bay. The study area was subdivided into 74
irregular-shaped strata (Figures 2-14). Large strata were established in the
open waters of the bay where toxicant concentrations were expected to be
uniformly low. This approach provided the least intense sampling effort in areas
known or suspected to be relatively homogenous in sediment type, benthic
communities, and water depth in regions relatively distant from contaminant
sources. In contrast, relatively small strata were established in canals and
urban harbors nearer suspected sources in which conditions were expected to
be heterogeneous or transitional. As a result, sampling effort was more intense
in the smaller strata than in the large strata. The large strata were roughly
equivalent in size to each other and the small strata were roughly equivalent in
size to each other.
This approach combines the strengths of a stratified design with the random-
probabilistic selection of sampling locations. Data generated within each
stratum can be attributed to the dimensions of the stratum. Therefore, these
data can be used to estimate the spatial extent of toxicity with a quantifiable
degree of confidence (Heimbuch, et al., 1995). Strata boundaries were
established to coincide with the dimensions of major basins, bayous,
waterways, etc. in which hydrographic, bathymetric and sedimentological
conditions were expected to be relatively homogeneous.
Within the boundaries of each stratum, all possible latitude/longitude
intersections had equal probabilities of being selected as a sampling location.
The locations of individual sampling stations within each strata were chosen
randomly using GINPRO software developed by NOAA applied to digitized
navigation charts. In most cases three samples were collected within each
stratum; in a few small strata only one or two stations were sampled. Four
samples were collected in two large strata. Usually, four alternate locations
were provided for each station in a numbered sequence. The coordinates for
each alternate were provided in tables and were plotted on the appropriate
navigation chart. In a few cases the coordinates provided were inaccessible by
boat; these station locations were rejected and the vessel was moved to the
next alternate. In small confined canals, the vessel was occasionally moved out
of the center of the channel to avoid collisions with other boat traffic.
A total of 226 samples was collected; 105 during March-May, 1995 and 121
dunng May-July, 1996. Each location was sampled only once. Nine sampling
zones were established within the study area to aid in planning field operations.
, ®s® zo"le.s had no statistical relevance; however, some of the results were
plotted within base maps prepared for each zone to aid clarity.
Sgmply collection, At each station the sampling vessel was piloted to the first
alternate location for the sample collection. If the station was inaccessible or if
12
-------
the material at the location was only coarse sand with no mud component, that
alternate location was abandoned and the second (third, or fourth, if needed)
alternate was sampled. In almost all cases the first or second alternates were
acceptable and were sampled. In one very unusual situation, strata 3 and 4 in
zone 6 (eastern end of the Port of Miami channel), only hard limestone rock was
encountered in numerous trials; therefore, necessitating a change in the size
and boundaries of those strata.
Vessel positioning and navigation were aided with a differential-corrected,
Trimble NavGraphic XL Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and a
compensated LORAN C unit. Both systems generally agreed well with each
other when both were operational. Both were calibrated and their accuracy
verified each morning at a. known location within the study area.
Samples for toxicity and chemical testing were collected with a Kynar-lined
0.1m2 modified van Veen grab sampler (also, known as a Young grab)
deployed with an electric windless aboard the state of Florida IWs Raja and
Lafiitte. The grab sampler and sampling utensils were acid washed with 10%
HCI at the beginning of each survey, and thoroughly cleaned with site water
and acetone before each sample collection. Usually, 3 or 4 deployments of the
sampler were required to provide a sufficient volume of material for the toxicity
tests and chemical analyses. The upper 2-3 cm. of the sediment were sampled
to ensure the collection of recently-arrived materials. Sediments were removed
with a plastic medical scoop and accumulated in a stainless steel pot. The pot
was covered with a Teflon plate between deployments of the sampler to
minimize sample oxidation and exposure to shipboard contamination. The
material was carefully homogenized in the field with a stainless steel spoon
before it was distributed to prepared containers for each analysis. At some
locations in the south bay region, the grab sampler would not penetrate the firm
coarse shell hash and sand. Samples at these locations were collected 2-3 cm.
deep by divers pushing one-liter plastic jars horizontally through the sediments.
Compositing of these samples was conducted the same way as those collected
with the grab.
Samples for benthic community analyses were collected at one station
randomly chosen within each stratum. Triplicate samples were collected at
each station with a Young-modified, pettite (0.413 cm3) van Veen grab.
Samples for both toxicity/chemistry analyses and the benthic community
analyses were collected at the same location. The entire contents of samples
that were at least 5 cm. deep were retained and sieved in the field with a 0.5
mm. sieve. Material retained on the sieve was preserved in 10% buffered
formalin with Rose Bengal. Samples were rejected if the jaws of the gr$b were
open, if the sample was partly washed out or if the sample was less than 5 cm.
deep. A fourth sample was collected at each location and material retained for
total organic carbon and grain size analyses.
Sample jars for each toxicity test and chemistry analysis were sealed to prevent
leakage and outside contamination and shipped in ice chests packed with
frozen water bottles or blue ice to the testing laboratories by overnight courier.
13
-------
Samples for toxicity tests were kept chilled until extractions or tests were ^
initiated. Samples for chemical analyses and cytochrome P-450 tests were Kept
frozen until thawed for analyses. All samples were accompanied by chain o
custody forms which included the date and time of the sample collection, ana
station designation.
Locations of the individual sampling stations for each sampling zone are
summarized in Tables 1 (for 1995) and 2 (for 1996). Field log notes containing
additional information on water column properties, and sediment characteristics
at each station during sample collections are listed in Appendices A and B.
Multiple toxicity tests and complete chemical analyses were performed on all
226 sediment samples. Data from samples collected during 1995 and 1996
were merged and treated as equivalent and comparable.
Amphipod survival test. The amphipod tests are the most widely and
frequently used assays in evaluations of marine and freshwater sediments
performed in North America. In all cases and in this study, they are performed
with adult crustaceans exposed to relatively unaltered, bulk sediments. The
species Ampetisca abdita was chosen as the test species because of several
strong attributes. This species has shown relatively little sensitivity to nuisance
factors such as grain size, ammonia, and organic carbon in previous surveys.
In previous surveys performed by the NS&T Program, this test has provided
wide ranges in responses among samples, strong statistical associations with
toxicants, and small within-sample variability.
Ampetisca abdita is an euryhaline benthic amphipod that ranges from
Newfoundland to south-central Florida, and along the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The amphipod test with A. abdita has been routinely used for sediment toxicity
tests in support of numerous EPA programs, including the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in the Virginian, Louisianian, and
Carolinian provinces (Schimmel et al., 1994).
In the first year of the Biscayne Bay survey, amphipod assays were conducted
by Science Applications international Corporation, (SAIC) in Narragansett, R.I.
In the second year, these tests were performed by TRAC Laboratories, Inc. in
Pensacola, FL. In accordance with NOAA requirements, all tests were initiated
within 10 days of the date samples were collected.
In tests performed in 1995, amphipods were collected by SAIC from tidal flats in
the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River, a small estuaty flowing into Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island. Animals were held in the laboratory in pre-sieved
uncontaminated ("home") sediments under static conditions. Fifty percent of the
water in the holding containers was replaced every second day when the
amphipods were fed. During holding, A. abdita were fed laboratory cultured
diatoms (Phaeodactylum tricomutum). Control sediments were collected by
SAIC from the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) reference station of the U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. These sediments have been
tested repeatedly with the amphipod survival test and other assays and found to
14
-------
Table 1. Station locations - 1995.
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
2
1
1
1,1
North Bay
2
1
2
2,1
North Bay
2
1
3
3,3
North Bay
2
2
4
1,1
North Bay
2
2
5
2,1
North Bay
2
2
6
3,1
North Bay
2
3
7
1,1
North Bay
2
3
8
2.1
North Bay
2
3
9
3.1
North Bay
6
1
10
1,1
Port of Miami
6
1
11
2.1
Port of Miami
6
1
12
3.1
Port of Miami
6
2
13
1.3
Port of Miami
6
2
14
2.1
Port of Miami
6
2
15
3,1
Port of Miami
6
3
16
1,1
Port of Miami
6
20
17
1,2
Port of Miami
6
20
18
2,1
Port of Miami
6
4
19
1,2
Port of Miami
6
4
20
2,1
Port of Miami
6
4
21
3,3
Port of Miami
6
5
22
1,1
Port of Miami
6
5
23
2,4
Port of Miami
6
5
24
3,2
Port of Miami
6
R6
25
1,3
Port of Miami
6
R6
26
1,8
Port of Miami
6
R6
27
3,12
Port of Miami
6
7
28
1,1
Port of Miami
6
7
29
2,1
Port of Miami
Latitude Longitude Depth (m)
25° 54.820 N
80°
08.069 W
4.30
25° 54.593 N
80°
08.162 W
5.50
25° 54.411 N
80°
08.062 W
5.50
25° 55.231 N
80°
07.617 W
2.50
25° 54.245 N
80°
07.564 W
4.00
25° 54.398 N
80°
07.593 W
3.75
25° 53.443 N
80°
08.871 W
2.50
25° 54.144 N
80°
08.272 W
5.00
25° 54.189 N
80°
07.938 W
4.00
25° 46.760 N
80°
11.110 W
4.50
25° 46.407 N
80°
10.914 W
4.00
25° 46.472 N
80°
10.936 W
1.20
25° 46.928 N
80°
10.668 W
11.0
25° 46.696 N
80°
10.218 W
11.0
25° 46.629 N
80° 09.973 W
11.0
25° 46.445 N
80°
09.435 W
10.5
25° 45.712 N
80'
10.558 W
1.4
25° 45.201 N
80°
10.270 W

25° 46.064 N
80°
08.336 W
3.50
25° 46.316 N
80° 08.572 W
4.50
25° 46.179 N
80°
08.588 W
4.50
25° 46.159 N
80°
10.077 W
8.0
25° 45.959 N
80°
09.931 W
8.4
25° 46.353 N
80'
10.745 W
8.4
25° 45.813 N
80° 09.537 W
2.9
25° 45.403 N
80°
09.376 W
1.2
25° 45.166 N
80°
10.086 W
1.5
25° 45.110 N
80°
08.690 W
2.0
25° 45.450 N
80°
08.710 W
2.7
-------
labia 1 (continued)
Zone No. Strata Mo. Sample Wo. Station No. location
6
7
30
3.1
Port of Miami
6
8
31
1,1
Port of Miami
6
8
32
2,1
Port of Miami
€
8
33
3,1
Port of Miami
6
9
34
1.1
Port of Miami
e
9
35
2,1
Port of Miami
6
9
38
3,1
Port of Miami
6
10
37
1,1
Port of Miami
6
10
38
2.2
Port of Miami
6
10
39
3,1
Port of Miami
6
11
40
1.1
Port of Miami
6
11
41
2,1
Port of Miami
6
11
42
3.1
Port of Miami
6
12
43
1.1
Port of Miami
6
12
44
2.1
Port of Miami
6
12
45
3.1
Port of Miami
6
13
46
1,1
Miami River
6
13
47
2,1
Miami River
6
13
48
3,1
Miami River
6
14
49
1,1
Miami River
6
14
50
2.1
Miami River
6
14
51
3,1
Miami River
e
1$
52
1.1
Miami River
6
15
53
2,1
Miami River
6
15
54
3.1
Miami River
6
16
55
1,1
Miami River
6
16
56
2.2
Miami River
6
16
57
3,1
Miami River
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
25' 45.536 N
80'
08.853 W
4.6
25* 45.645 N
80*
11.163 W
2.40
25# 46.235 N
80°
10.990 W
6.00
25° 45749 N
80°
11.222 W
2.00
25° 46.180 N
80°
10.780 W
2.50
25* 46.010 N
80°
10.643 W
2.25
25° 46.168 N
80°
10.433 W
2.25
25" 45.307 N
80°
10.268 W
3,00
25" 45.814 N
80°
09.963 W
2.50
25° 45.908 N
80°
10.046 W
3.00
25° 45.184 N
80®
11.400 W
2.80
25° 44.957 N
80°
11.826 W
5.00
25° 45.045 N
80°
11.313 W
2.40
25* 44.654 N
80°
10.005 W
2.80
25° 45.010 N
80°
10.643 W
3.00
25* 45.117 N
B0"
10.506 W
3.30
25° 46.489 N
80"
12.144 W
5.20
25° 46.268 N
80"
11.976 W
3.70
25° 46.219 N
80°
11.507 W
5.30
25° 46.267 N
80°
12.249 W
4.00
25° 46.801 N
80"
12.644 W
4.00
25° 46.938 N
80°
12.848 W
4.50
25° 47.048 N
80°
13.144 W
3.00
25" 47.229 N
80°
13.687 W
3.50
25* 47.419 N
80°
14.164 W
2.25
25° 47.727 N
80°
14.690 W
5.25
25° 47.938 N
80°
14.917 W
4,75
25° 48.084 N
80°
15.106 W
4.50
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No. Location
6
17
58
1.1
Miami River
6
17
59
2,1
Miami River
6
17
60
3,1
Miami River
6
18
61
1.1
Seybold Canal
6
18
62
2.1
Seybold Canal
6
18
63
3,1
Seybold Canal
6
19
64
1.1
Tamiani Canal
6
19
65
2,1
Tamiani Canal
6
19
66
3,1
Tamiani Canal
8
1
67
1.1
South Bay
8
1
68
2,1
South Bay
8
1
69
3.2
South Bay
8
2
70
1.1
South Bay
8
2
71
2.1
South Bay
8
2
72
3,1
South Bay
8
3
73
1.1
South Bay
8
3
74
2.1
South Bay
8
3
75
3,1
South Bay
8
4
76
1.1
South Bay
8
4
77
2,1
South Bay
8
4
78
3,1
South Bay
8
5
79
1.1
South Bay
8
5
80
2,1
South Bay
8
5
81
3.1
South Bay
8
6
82
1.1
South Bay
8
6
83
2,1
South Bay
8
6
84
3,1
South Bay
8
7
85
1.1
South Bay
8
7
86
2,1
South Bay
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
25°
48.324 N
80° 15.437 W
3.50
25°
48.130 N
80° 15.182 W
4.00
25°
48.334 N
80° 15.490 W
4.50
25°
47,036 N
80° 12.571 W
2.25
25°
46.919 N
80° 12.476 W
2.00
25°
46.769 N
80° 12.420 W
1.90
25°
47.703 N
800 14.754 W
2.50
25°
47.669 N
80° 15.253 W
6.00
25°
47.633 N
80® 15.678 W
2.50
25° 32.587 N
80° 12.719 W
3.0
25" 32.472 N
80° 16.026 W
2.5
25• 31.629 N
80° 12.118 W
2.5
25" 32.047 N
80° 18.192 W
1.4
25° 31.817 N
80° 17.787 W
2.0
25° 31.401 N
80° 19.149 W
1.0
25' 30.955 N
80" 17.690 W
2.0
25° 30.183 N
80* 17.659 W
1.5
25° 30.944 N
80° 18.599 W
1.5
25° 28.886 N
80° 19.707 W
1.5
25° 28.871 N
80° 18.190 W
1.6
25° 28.885 N
80° 17.331 W
2.3
25° 27.719 N
80° 19.389 W
2.0
25° 28.255 N
80° 18.724 W
1.8
25° 28,568 N
80° 18.386 W
2.0
25° 27.275 N
80° 17.901 W
2.0
25° 26.772 N
80° 18.132 W
1.7
25° 27.144 N
80° 19.035 W
1.5
25° 26.006 N
80° 18.753 W
1.5
25° 25.346 N
80° 17.534 W
1.6
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No. Location
8
7
87
3,1
South Bay
8
8
88
1.1
South Bay
8
8
89
2,1
South Bay
8
8
90
3.1
South Bay
8
9
91
1.1
South Bay
8
14
92
1.1
South Bay
8
9
93
3,1
South Bay
8
10
94
1.1
South Bay
8
10
95
2,1
South Bay
8
10
96
3,1
South Bay
8
11
97
1.1
South Bay
8
11
98
2,1
South Bay
8
11
99
3,1
South Bay
8
10
100
3,1
South Bay
8
12
101
2,1
South Bay
8
12
102
3,1
South Bay
8
13
103
1.1
South Bay
8
13
104
2,1
South Bay
8
13
105
3.1
South Bay
Latitude	Longitude	Depth (m)
25° 26.086 N	80° 18.184 W	1.6
25° 28.844 N	80° 12.426 W	3.3
25° 28.399 N	80° 14.890 W	2.6
25° 25.974 N	80° 16.857 W	2.35
25° 31.154 N	80° 19.121 W	1.1
25° 32.229 N	80° 19.860 W	2.0
25° 31.148 N	80° 19.146 W	0.9
25° 31.155 N	80° 20.134 W	2.5
25° 31.150 N	80° 20.530 W	4.3
25° 31.165 N	80° 20.668 W	3.9
25° 31.785 N	80° 18.813 W
25° 31.846 N	80° 18.958 W	3.6
25° 31.754 N	80° 18.717 W
25° 31.949 N	80° 19.193 W	3.0
25° 32.054 N	80° 19.441 W	3.4
25° 32.025 N	80° 19.392 W	4.0
25° 32.112 N	80° 19.498 W	4.0
25° 32.279 N	80° 19.611 W	4.5
25° 32.412 N	80° 19.724 W	4.0
-------
Table 2. Station locations - 1996.
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
Zone 8
Zone 1
Zone 3
1
106
1,2
South Bay
8
107
1,2
South Bay
1
108
1,1
Dumtoundling Bay
1
109
2,1
Dumfoundling Bay
1
110
3,1
Dumfoundling Bay
2
111
1,1
Maule Lake
2
112
2,1
Maule Lake
2
113
3.2
Maule Lake
3
114
1.1
Oleta River
3
115
2,1
Oleta River
3
116
3,4
Oleta River
4
117
1,1
Sunny Isles
4
118
2.1
Sunny Isles
4
119
3.1
Sunny Isles
1
120
1,1
North Bay
1
121
2,1
North Bay
1
122
1,1
North Bay
2
123
1,1
North Bay
2
124
2,1
North Bay
2
125
3.1
North Bay
3
126
1,1
North Bay
3
127
2,1
North Bay
3
128
3.1
North Bay
4
129
1,1
North Bay
4
130
2,1
North Bay
Latitude Longitude Depth (m)
25° 33.065 N
25° 26.699 N
25° 56.624 N
25° 57.020 N
25° 56.702 N
25° 55.167 N
25° 56.280 N
25° 55.667 N
25° 55.710 N
25° 55.660 N
25° 55.760 N
25° 55.530 N
25° 55.670 N
25° 55.486 N
25° 52.488 N
25° 52.644 N
25° 52.790 N
25° 52.039 N
25° 52.281 N
25° 52.205 N
25° 51.619 N
25° 51.642 N
25° 50.999 N
25° 52.322 N
25° 52.274 N
GO
o
o
11.947 W
1.98
00
o
o
13.570 W
2.75
80°
07.905 W
1.40
80°
07.904 W
8.00
80°
07.595 W
1.83
80°
08.591 W
5.94
80°
08.605 W
5.64
80°
08.649 W
3.35
80°
07.900 W
2.20
80°
08.050 W
1.20
80°
08.940 W
2.20
80°
07.270 W
6.10
80°
07.510 W
2.50
80°
07.737 W
1.60
0
O
CO
09.510 W
2.50
CO
o
a
09.604 W
7.00
0
O
00
08.964 W
2.50
0
O
00
09.533 W
7.50
o
o
CO
09.198 W
7.50
0
O
00
08.696 W
3.00
CD
O
0
09.818 W
1.90
80°
08.991 W
7.50
80°
10.262 W
3.50
80°
10.091 W
4.50
o
o
00
10.153 W
5.60
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
Zone 4
Zone $
1
131
1,1
North Bay
1
132
2,1
North Bay
1
133
3,1
North Bay
2
134
1,1
North Bay
2
135
2,1
North Bay
2
136
3.1
North Bay
3
137
1,1
North Bay
3
138
2,1
North Bay
3
139
3.1
North Bay
4
140
1,1
North Bay
4
141
2,1
North Bay
4
142
3.1
North Bay
5
143
1.1
North Bay
5
144
2,1
North Bay
5
145
3.1
North Bay
6
146
1.4
North Bay
6
147
2.1
North Bay
6
148
3.1
North Bay
7
149
1,1
North Bay
7
150
2.1
North Bay
1
151
1.1
Venetian Isles
1
152
2,1
Venetian Isles
1
153
3.1
Venetian Isles
5
154
1.2
Venetian Isfes
2
155
2.2
Venetian Isles
2
156
3.1
Venetian Isles
3
157
1.1
Venetian Isles
3
158
2.1
Venetian Isles
Latitude Longitude
Depth (m)
25° 50.612 N	80° 09.706 W	2.44
25° 50.357 N	80° 10.269 W	0.91
25° 50.399 N	80° 09.930 W	2.44
25° 50.502 N	80° 08.083 W	3.05
25° 50.140 N	80° 08.652 W	0.75
25° 50.815 N	80° 08.588 W	9.50
25° 48.751 N	80° 11.031 W	3.66
25° 49.077 N	80° 10.028 W	1.22
25° 48.941 N	80° 09.824 W	1.52
25° 49.497 N	80° 08.119 W	9.00
25° 49.237 N	80° 08.784 W	0.75
25° 49.153 N	80° 08.941 W	1.00
25° 51.111 N	80° 07.843 W	3.75
25° 50.384 N	80° 07.377 W	3.96
25° 51.038 N	80° 07.648 W	3.50
25° 49.537 N	80° 07.360 W	3.35
25° 48.826 N	80° 07.462 W	4.11
25° 49.125 N	80° 07.432 W	2.74
25° 50.786 N	80° 11.037 W	3.40
25° 50.705 N	80° 10.423 W	2.50
25° 48.503 N	80° 10.333 W	2.40
25° 47.996 N	80° 10.670 W	1.22
25° 48.277 N	80° 10.309 W	1.80
25° 48.289 N	80° 09.343 W	1.22
25° 47.932 N	80° 10.000 W	2.50
25° 48.505 N	80" 09.833 W	1.83
25® 48.254 N	800 08.478 W	2.50
25° 48.543 N	80" 08.499 W	1.70
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
Zone 5
Zone 7
3	159	1,1	Venetian Isles
4	160	1,1	Venetian Isles
4	161	2,1	Venetian Isles
4	162	3,2	Venetian Isles
5	163	1,1	Venetian Isles
5	164	2,1	Venetian Isles
5	165	3,4	Venetian Isles
6	166	1,2	Venetian Isles
6	167	2,1	Venetian Isles
6	168	3,1	Venetian Isles
7	169	1,1	Venetian Isles
7	170	2,2	Venetian Isles
7	171	3,1	Venetian Isles
8	172	1,1	Venetian Isles
8	173	2,1	Venetian Isles
8	174	3,1	Venetian Isles
9	175	1,1	Venetian Isles
9	176	3,1	Venetian Isles
9	177	2,1	Venetian Isles
10	178	1,1	Venetian Isles
1	179	1,1	Central Biscayne Bay
1	180	2,3	Central Biscayne Bay
1	181	3,1	Central Biscayne Bay
2	182	1,1	Central Biscayne Bay
2	183	2,1	Central Biscayne Bay
2	184	3,1	Central Biscayne Bay
3	185	1,1	Central Biscayne Bay
3	186	2,1	Central Biscayne Bay
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
25° 48.486 N	80°
25° 47.545 N	80°
25° 47.503 N	80°
25° 47.551 N	80°
25° 47.790 N	80°
25° 47.730 N	80°
25° 47.611 N	80°
25° 47.049 N	80°
25° 47.565 N	80°
25° 46.888 N	80°
25° 46.872 N	80°
25° 47.170 N	80°
25° 47.322 N	80°
25° 47.028 N	80°
25° 46.687 N	80°
25° 46.896 N	80°
25° 47.143 N	80°
25° 46.713 N	80°
25° 46.824 N	80°
25° 46.962 N	80°
25° 42.890 N	80°
25° 43.610 N	80°
25° 42.661 N	80°
25° 42.568 N	80°
25° 41.835 N	80°
25° 42.221 N	80°
25° 41.292 N	80°
25° 41.444 N	80°
08.380 W	2.29
10.033 W	2.59
10.258 W	2.90
10.799 W	4.57
09.713 W	2.50
09.651 W	2.59
09.108 W	3.50
10.721 W	10.72
11.080 W	2.25
10.923 W	2.10
10.257 W	2.40
10.156 W	2.60
09.623 W	3.00
09.291 W	3.20
09.242 W	2.74
09.199	W	3.00
08.816 W	4.00
08.788 W	3.70
08.642 W	3.50
11.260 W	7.30
12.200	W	2.00
12.200 W	2.70
12.829 W	2.75
11.672 W	3.50
11.919 W	3.50
11.366 W	3.70
14.267 W	2.29
14.818 W	2.29
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
Zone 7
3
187
3,1
Central Biscayne Bay
4
188
1.1
Central Biscayne Bay
4
189
3,1
Central Biscayne Bay
4
190
2,1
Central Biscayne Bay
5
191
1,1
Central Biscayne Bay
5
191
2,1
Central Biscayne Bay
5
193
3,1
Central Biscayne Bay
6
194
1,3
Central Biscayne Bay
6
195
2,1
Central Biscayne Bay
5
196
3,1
Central Biscayne Bay
7
197
1,1
Central Biscayne Bay
7
198
2,1
Central Biscayne Bay
7
199
3.1
Central Biscayne Bay
8
200
1,1
Coral Gables Canal
8
201
2.1
Coral Gables Canal
8
202
3,3
Coral Gables Canal
9
203
1,1
Snapper Creek Canal
9
204
2.1
Snapper Creek Canal
9
205
3,1
Snapper Creek Canal
15
206
1.1
Military Canal
15
207
2,1
Military Canal
15
208
3,1
Military Canal
16
209
1,1
Mowry Canal
16
210
2,1
Mowry Canal
16
211
3,1
Mowry Canal
17
212
1,1
North Canal
17
213
2,1
North Canal
17
214
3,1
North Canal
Latitude Longitude Depth (m)
° 40.878 N	80°
25° 36.359 N	80°
25° 38.858 N	80°
25° 38.523 N	80°
25° 41.042 N	80°
25° 40.945 N	80°
25° 40.890 N	80°
25° 37.396 N	80°
25° 36.686 N	80°
25° 37.720 N	80°
25° 38.190 N	80°
25° 36.729 N	80°
25° 37.350 N	80°
25° 42.293 N	80°
25° 43.252 N	80°
25° 44.132 N	80°
25° 40.093 N	80°
25° 39.651 N	80°
25° 39.746 N	80°
25° 29.374 N	80°
25° 29.370 N	80°
25° 29.370 N	80°
25° 28.226 N	80°
25° 28.217 N	80°
25° 28.217 N	80°
25° 27.786 N	80°
25° 27.769 N	80°
25° 27.793 N	80°
14.463 W
2.13
13.491 W
2.74
15.218 W

13.625 W
3.20
12.360 W
3.05
12.181 W
3.20
13.157 W
3.60
15.709 W

15.663 W
2.50
16.222 W
2.00
14.268 W
2.50
13.540 W
2.44
13.417 W
2.90
15.069 W
2.10
16.002 W
2.25
16.507 W
0.95
16.959 W
4.25
16.343 W
3.40
16.468 W
3.75
20.501 W
2.74
20.596 W
2.74
20.742 W
2.29
20.313 W
3.66
20.639 W
4.57
20.569 W
4.27
20.069 W
3.10
20.385 W
3.00
20.038 W
2.25
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Zone No. Strata No. Sample No. Station No.	Location
Zone 9
1
215
1.1
South Bay
1
216
2,1
South Bay
1
217
3,3
South Bay
2
218
1,1
Card Sound
2
219
2,1
Card Sound
2
220
3,1
Card Sound
3
221
1,1
Card Sound
3
222
2,1
Card Sound
3
223
3,1
Card Sound
4
224
1,1
Little Card Sound
4
225
2,2
Little Card Sound
4
226
3,3
Little Card Sound
Latitude Longitude Depth (m)
25° 24.038 N
25° 24.222 N
25° 24.607 N
25° 20.527 N
25° 21.071 N
25° 22.146 N
25° 19.120 N
25° 18.022 N
25° 19.449 N
25° 18.074 N
25° 18.614 N
25° 17.437 N
o
O
00
15.896 W
2.40
o
o
CO
16.111 W
1.52
o
o
00
15.341 W
5.00
o
o
00
17.990 W
2.44
0
o
00
19.135 W
2.44
o
o
00
18.397 W
1.37
o
o
00
19.216 W
9.50
o
o
00
19.860 W
2.74
o
o
00
17.995 W
2.74
o
o
00
22.548 W
1.22
00
o
0
21.511 W
1.83
o
o
00
22.186 W
1.68
-------
be non-toxic (amphipod survival has exceeded 90% in 85% of the tests) and
un-contaminated. Sub-samples of the CLIS sediments were tested along with
each series of samples from Biscayne Bay.
In the 1996 tests, test animals were purchased by TRAC Labs, from Brezina
and Associates of Dillon Beach, California. They were collected by Brezina in
ft°in rm ^an '=ranc'sco Bay. Amphipods were packed in native sediment with
o-10 liters of seawater in doubled plastic bags. Oxygen was injected into the
bags and shipped via overnight courier to the testing lab at Pensacola. Upon
arnvai, amphipods were acclimated and maintained at 20°C for one day prior to
the initiation 0f the test. Control sediments for the 1996 testing were collected
Dy TRAC Labs at their site "C-17" in Perdido Bay near Pensacola. These
sediments had been tested repeatedly by TRAC Labs in previous research and
ound to be consistently non-toxic in amphipod tests and uncontaminated.
^R^'Pod testing performed by both laboratories followed the procedures
To t j[^e Standard Guide for conducting 10 day Static Sediment Toxicity
ests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods (ASTM, 1992). Briefly, amphipods
_ exP°sed to test and negative control sediments for 10 days with 5
Alirii ~8S20 an'ma,s each under static conditions using filtered seawater.
on« i t t ^ *es*or cor,trol sediments were placed in the bottom of the
s ®r test chambers, and covered with approximately 600 mL of filtered
dfiiiuT /I - ° ppt)- For both sets of tests, air was provided by air pumps and
c ®ri®a JPt0 the water column through a pipette to ensure acceptable oxygen
not. V!a!l0ns> but suspended in a manner to ensure that the sediments would
tfimnfrfl ed- Temperature was maintained at ~20°C by either
cnntim aiure'co.ntro,led room (TRAC) or by water bath (SAIC). Lighting was
of the 'unI?® the 10 day exPosure period to inhibit the swimming behavior
sedimont «l,p01u ^on?tant light inhibits emergence of the organisms from the
Inform*^,! * maximizing the amphipod's exposure to the test sediments,
chsmhoro ,.°n temPerature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and ammonia in test
was obtained during tests of each batch of samples.
activ® anima|s were placed into each test chamber, and
were rAniar*«,?nSUIe1.! y burrowed into sediments. Non-burrowing animals
keDt for riaa? L ¦ ! test in't>ated. The jars were checked daily, and records
sediment ei.rf,fni and anima,s the water surface, emerged on the
aentlv freed	,n !!?e water column- Those on the water surface were
amphipod^ were	Wm to enable ,hem to burrow'
wereS stevsd thivinntfa rt6n days' Contents of each of the test chambers
materiatreteinorf n!) th ™n mesh scr6en- The animals and any other
the presence of arr?nh?e f8?1 wera examined under a stereomicroscope for
test replicate P P Total amPhipod mortality was recorded for each
of each^at^n?Lit9^eren^e toxicant) test was used to document the sensitivity
or each batch of test organisms. The positive control consisted of 96 hr water-
15
-------
only exposures to sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) during both years. LC50
values were calculated for each test run. Control charts provided by both SAIC
and TRAC Labs, showed consistent results in tests of both the positive and
negative controls.
Sea urchin fertilization and embrvoloaical development tests. Tests of
sea urchin fertilization and embryo development have been used in
assessments of ambient water and effluents and in previous NS&T Program
surveys of sediment toxicity (Long et al., 1996). Test results have shown wide
ranges in responses among test samples, excellent within-sample
homogeneity, and strong associations with the concentrations of toxicants in the
sediments. The tests, performed with the early life stages of sea urchins
(gametes and embryos), have demonstrated high sensitivity. These tests
combined the features of testing sediment pore waters, the phase of sediments
in which dissolved toxicants are highly bioavailable, and exposures to early life
stages of invertebrates which often are more sensitive than adult forms.
Tests of sediment pore waters were conducted with the sea urchin Arbacia
punctulata. This species is indigenous to the southeast coast, including
southern Florida. These tests were performed during both years by the U.S.
Geological Survey laboratory in Corpus Christi. Sea urchins used in this study
were obtained from Gulf Specimen Company, Inc. (Panacea, Florida) and were
acclimated to Port Aransas, TX, laboratory seawater before gametes were
collected for testing.
Pore water was extracted from sediments with a pressurized squeeze extraction
device (Carr and Chapman, 1992). Sediment samples were held refrigerated
(at 4° C) until pore water was extracted. Pore water was extracted as soon as
possible after receipt of the samples, but in no event were sediments held
longer than 7 days from the time of collection before they were processed. After
extraction, pore water samples were centrifuged in polycarbonate bottles (at
4200 g for 15 minutes in year one, and in year two using a new centrifuge -
1200 g for 15 minutes was adequate) to remove any particulate matter, and
were then frozen. Two days before the start of a toxicity test, samples were
moved from a freezer to a refrigerator at 4° C, and one day prior to testing,
thawed in a tepid water bath. Experiments performed by USGS have
demonstrated no effects upon toxicity attributable to freezing of the pore water
samples.
Sample temperatures were maintained at 20±10 C. Sample salinity was
measured and adjusted to 30±1 ppt, if necessary, using ultrapure sterile water
or concentrated brine. Other water quality measurements were made for
dissolved oxygen, pH, sulfide and total ammonia. Temperature and dissolved
oxygen were measured with YSI meters; salinity was measured with Reichert or
American Optical refractometers; pH, sulfide and total ammonia (expressed as
total ammonia nitrogen, TAN) were measured with Orion meters and their
respective probes. The concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (UAN) were
calculated using respective TAN, salinity, temperature, and pH values.
16
-------
Each of the pore water samples was tested in a dilution series of 100%, 50%,
and 25% of the water quality adjusted sample with 5 replicates per treatment.
Dilutions were made with clean, filtered (0.45 am), Port Aransas laboratory
seawater, which has been shown in many previous trials to be non-toxic.
Tests followed the methods of Carr and Chapman (1992). Pore water from a
reference area in Redfish Bay, Texas, an area located near the testing facility
and in which sediment pore waters have been determined to be non-toxic in
this test, was included with each toxicity test as a negative (non-toxic) control.
Adult male and female urchins were stimulated to spawn with a mild electric
shock, and gametes collected separately.
For the sea urchin fertilization test, 50 uL of appropriately diluted sperm were
added to each vial, and incubated at 20±2°C for 30 minutes. One ml of a well
mixed dilute egg suspension was added to each vial, and incubated an
additional 30 minutes at 20± 2°C. Two mis of a 10% solution of buffered
formalin solution was added to stop the test. Fertilization membranes were
counted, and fertilization percentages calculated for each replicate test.
For the sea urchin embryological development test, a well mixed dilute egg
solution was added to each vial. Then, 50 uL of appropriately diluted sperm
were added to each vial, and vials were incubated at 20±1 °C for 48 hours. At
the end of 48 hours, 2 mis of 10% buffered formalin were added to each vial to
stop the test. One hundred embryos were counted, and recorded as normal, or
as unfertilized, embryological development arrested or otherwise abnormal.
The percent of the embryos that were normal was reported for each replicate
test.
Microbial biolurpjnescence {Microtox™) tests. This is a test of the relative
toxicity of extracts of the sediments prepared with an organic solvent, and,
therefore, it is immune to the effects of nuisance environmental factors, such as
grain size, ammonia and organic carbon. Organic toxicants, and to a lesser
degree trace metals, that may or may not be readily bioavailable are extracted
with the organic solvent. This test can be considered as a test of potential
toxicity. In previous NS&T Program surveys, the results of Microtox tests have
shown extremely high correlations with the concentrations of mixtures of
organic compounds. Microtox tests were run by the National Marine Fisheries
Service laboratory in Charleston, SC.
The Microtox® assay was performed with dichloromethane (DCM) extracts of
sediments following the basic procedures used in testing Puget Sound
sediments (U.S. EPA, 1986,1990,1994) and San Fransisco Bay sediments
(Long and Markel, 1992). All sediment samples were stored in the dark at 4°C
tor 5-10 days before processing was initiated. A 3-4 g sediment sample from
each station was weighed, recorded, and placed into a DCM rinsed 50 mL
centrifuge tube. A 15 g portion of sodium sulfate was added to each sample
and mixed. Pesticide grade DCM (30 mL) was added and mixed. The mixture
was shaken for 10 seconds, vented and tumbled overnight.
17
-------
Sediment samples were allowed to warm to room temperature and the
overlying water discarded. Samples were then homogenized with a stainless
steel spatula, and 15-25 g of sediment were transferred to a centrifuge tube.
The tubes were spun at 1000 g for 5 min. and the pore water was removed
using a Pasteur pipette. Three replicate 3-4 g sediment subsamples from each
station were placed in mortars containing a 15 g portion of sodium sulfate and
mixed. After 30 min. subsamples were ground with a pestle until dry.
Subsamples were added to 50 mL centrifuge tubes. Then, 30 mL of DCM were
added to each tube and shaken to dislodge sediments. Tubes were then
shaken overnight on an orbital shaker at a moderate speed. Next, the ubes
were centrifuged at 500 g for 5 min and the sediment extracts transferred to
Turbovap,m tubes. Then, 20 mL of DCM was added to sediment, shaken by
hand for 10 sec and spun at 500 g for 5 min. The previous step was repeated
once more and all three extracts were combined in the Turbovap,m tube.
Sample extracts were then placed in the Turbovaptm and reduced to a volume of
0.5 mL. The sides of the Turbovap™ tubes were then rinsed down with
methylene chloride and again reduced to 0.5 mL. Then, 2.5 mL of
dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) were added to the tubes which were returned to the
Turbovap,m for an additional 15 min. Sample extracts were then placed in
clean vials and 2.5 mL of DMSO were added to obtain a final volume of 5 mL
DMSO.
A suspension of luminescent bacteria, Vibrio fischeri, (Azur Environmental, Inc.)
was thawed and hydrated with toxicant-free distilled water, covered and stored
in a 4°C well on the Microtox analyzer. To determine toxicity, each sample was
diluted into four test concentrations. Percent decrease in luminescence of each
cuvette relative to the reagent blank was calculated after 15 min. exposures.
Based upon these data, the sediment concentrations that caused a 50%
decrease in light production (EC50's) were reported.
A negative control (extraction blank ) was prepared using DMSO, the test carrier
solvent. A phenol standard (45 mg/L phenol) was run after re-constitution of
each vial of freeze-dried V. fischeri. In addition, a reference sediment was
tested from North Inlet - an area shown to be non-toxic in sensitive laboratory
tests in previous studies.
Copepod reproduction tests. Fourteen-day, chronic tests of reproductive
success of the meiobenthic copepod Amphiascus tenuiremis were performed
on 15 of the 105 samples collected during 1995. The 15 samples were selected
to represent a presumed pollution gradient within Biscayne Bay during the 1995
operations. Analyses followed the standard protocols of Chandler (1990),
Chandler and Scott (1991) and Strawbridge et al. (1992). Samples were press-
seived (0.125 mm) to remove meiofauna and large particles; 12 gram sieved
aliquots were extruded into triplicate beakers filled with clean sterile-filtered
artificial seawater. Then, 35 barren females and 15 males were removed from
stock cultures and added to each beaker. Flow-through exposures were
conducted for 14 days. Test animals were fed phytoplankton (Isochrysis
galbana and Dunaliella tertiolecta) on days 3, 6, 9, and 12. Barriers consisting
of 0.045 mm mesh screens prevented animal losses. After 14 days all males,
18
-------
females, clutch sizes and offspring were counted and compared with North Inlet
(S.C.) negative controls.
Tests were run control by the University of Caralirj in ^reej fourj two,
four consecutive batches consisting in	. , encj.Doints included
and six samples each plus the control. Toxicolog . /n0 nauplia per
survival of adults at the end of 14 days, na"Pl,®r p sample), clutch size (no.
sample), copepodite production (no. copepodites P P 'j n0 naUp|ji +
eggs per gravid female per sample), and tota produ^n ^ nana h
copepodites per sample). Results were initially a^y	. /p o -
and benzo[a[pyrene) were tested with each batch of samples.
Fold induction of the standards and samples was calculated (normalized) by
dividing the mean relative light units (RLU) by the mean RLJU pr educed I&y me
solvent blank. The running average fold induction for 10 nM (3.5 n9/'T,w
dioxin (TCDD) is approximately 140 and that from 1 ug/mL of benzo(a)pyrene
(B[a]P) was 60 fold. The RGS data were converted to ug of B[a]P equivalents
(B[a]pEq) by multiplying the fold induction response to 10 uL of the extract by a
factor of 200 to represent the total of inducing substances in the 2 mL extract,
and then dividing by 60 and the dry weight of the samples.
19
-------
Chemical analyses - metals. Chemical analyses were performed by the
analytical laboratory at Texas A&M University/Geochemical and Environmental
Research Group (TAMU/GERG) in College Station, Texas on all 226 samples.
All analytical methods conformed with performance-based analytical protocols
and employed quality-assurance steps of the NS&T Program (Lauenstein and
Cantillo, 1993; 1998).
Chemical analyses were performed according to the quality control/quality
assurance procedures of the NS&T Program, including instrument calibration,
use of internal standards, replication of some analyses, percent recoveries of
spiked blanks, and analyses of standard reference materials.
Grain size was determined by the standard pipette method following sieving for
the sand and gravel fractions. TOC was determined using a Leco Carbon
analyzer. Sediment samples were digested for final analysis by procedures
specific to the instrument method used. Various concentrating and trapping
techniques were used for selected analytes. The analysis for mercury was
performed by cold vapor atomic absorption. Analyses for tin, arsenic, selenium,
silver, and cadmium were performed by graphite furnace atomic absorption
spectroscopy. All other metals concentrations were determined by flame atomic
absorption spectroscopy and reported on a dry weight basis. Method detection
limits (MDLs) attained in the analyses are listed in Table 3. SEM/AVS analyses
were not performed.
20
-------
Table 3. Trace metals measured in Biscayne Bay sediments and method
detection limits (MDLs).
Parameter
Method Detection Limit
(DDm. based on drv weight)
Analytical Method *
Aluminum
440
FAA
Iron
40
FAA
Manganese
5.0
FAA
Arsenic
0.3
GFAAS
Cadmium
0.008
GFAAS
Chromium
0.1
GFAAS
Copper
0.44
GFAAS
Lead
0.35
GFAAS
Mercury
0.007
CVAA
Nickel
0.7
GFAAS
Selenium
0.2
GFAAS
Silver
0.03
GFAAS
Tin
0.1
GFAAS
Zinc
2.2
FAA
* FAA = Flame atomic absorbtion spectroscopy;
GFAAS = Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy
CVAA = Cold vapor atomic absorption.
Chemical analyse - organic compounds. The analytes determined in the
Mnf n'° ana'yses are listed in Table 4, along with some of their representative
MDLs. Sediment samples for organic analysis were prepared by NaS04
afY'ng, methylene chloride extraction, purified by silica gel/alumina
chromatography and concentration. Quantification was performed using the
internal standards method. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
analyzed by gas chromatography with a mass selective detector in the selective
ion mode. Sediment samples analyzed for butyltins were dried with NaS04 and
extracted with methylene chloride containing 2% tropolone, hexylated, purified
oy silica gel chromatography, and concentrated. Butyltins were analyzed by
gas chromatography with a tin selective flame photometric detector,
roiychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides were determined by gas
chromatography/electron capture detection. Concentrations of sediment
organic compounds are reported on a dry weight basis.
21
-------
Table 4. Organic compounds measured in Biscayne Bay sediments and
method detection limits (MDLs).
Parameter
MDL
Parameter
MDL

(ng/g dry)

(ng/g dry)
2,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Ethylene (O.P'DDE)
0.28
Naphthalene
0.5
4,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Ethylene (P.P'DDE)
0.85
C1-Naphthalenes

2,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Dichloroethylene (O.P'DDD)
0.13
C2-Naphthalenes

4,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Dichloroethylene (P.P'DDD)
0.51
C3-Naphthalenes

2,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethylene (O.P'DDT)
0.25
C4-Naphthalenes

4,4'Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethylene (P.P'DDT)
0.24
1- Methylnaphthalene
0.8
Aldrin
0.25
2- Methylnaphthalene
0.8
Cis-Chlordane
0.66
2,6-Dimethyfnaphthaiene
2.4
Oxychlordane

2,3,5- Trimethynaphthalene
2.4
Alpha-Chlordane
0.23
Acenaphthalene
3.7
Trans-Nonachlor
0.1
Acenaphthylene
4.5
Cis-Nonachlor

Fluorene
2.5
Dieldrin
0.16
C1 -Fluorenes

Heptachlor
0.2
C2-Fluorenes

Heptachloro-Epoxide
0.16
C3-Fluorenes

Hexachlorobenzene
0.37
Phenanthrenes
0.5
Alpha-Benzene Hexachloride (HCH)

C1-Phenanthrenes

Beta-Benzene Hexachloride (HCH)

C2-Phenanthrenes

Lindane (Gamma-Benzene Hexachloride-HCH)
0.22
C3-Phenanthrenes

Delta-Benzene Hexachloride (HCH)
0.17
C4-Phenanthrenes

Endrin

1- Methylphenanthrene
0.6
Mirex
0.08
Anthracene
4.1
Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Fluoranthene
0.4
PCB#8 (CL2)
0.08
Pyrene
3.1
PCB#18 (CL3)
0.25
lndeno-1,2,3-c,d-Pyrene
1.6
PCB#28 (CL3)
0.09
Dibenzothiophene

PCB#44 (CL4)
0.09
C1 -Dibenzothiophenes

PCB#52 (CL4)
0.09
C2-Dibenzothiophenes

PCB#66 (CL4)
0.14
C3-Dibenzothiophenes

PCB#101 (CL5)
0.13
C1- Fluoranthene Pyrene

PCB#105 (CL5)
0.1
Benzo-a-Anthracene
1.4
PCB#110/77 (CL5/4)
•
Chrysene
0.5
PCB#118/108/149 (CL5/5/6)
0.12
C1-Chrysenes

PCB#128 (CL6)
0.13
C2-Chrysenes

PCB#138 (CL6)
0.18
C3-Chrysenes

PCB#126 (CL6)
*
C4-Chrysenes

PCB#153 (CL6)
0.12
Benzo-b-Fluoranthene
1.8
PCB#170 (CL7)
0.81
Benzo-k-Fluoranthene
1.9
PCB#180 (CL7)
0.16
Benzo-a-Pyrene
1.2
PCB#187/182/159 (CL7/7/6)
0.14
Benzo-e-Pyrene
2.4
PCB#195 (CL8)
0.25
Perylene
3.3
PCB#206 (CL9)
0.09
Benzo-g,h,j-Perylene
0.3
PCB#209 (CL10)
0.78
Dibenzo-a, h-Anthracene
2.6
BiDhenyl
2.4


Chemistry QA/QC. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures
included analyses of duplicates, standard reference materials, and spiked
internal standards. In the organic analyses, internal standards were added at
the start of the procedure and carried through the extraction, cleanup, and
instrumental analysis steps and used to determine the concentrations of
analytes. The following specific quality assurance steps were used to insure
measurement accuracy and precision:
22
-------
1.	Trace and major metals, including SEM- Two	rx^more than 30
standard reference materials were run with each set of no more in
samples.
2.	Physical/chemical measurements: Grain size duplicates were ran every 20
samples. For TOC, one method blank, one duplicate, and one starra
reference material were run every 20 samples.
3.	AVS: One sample duplicate and one procedural blank were run with each
set of ten samples.
4.	Pesticides, PCBs and PAHs: One procedural blaink,one matrix
duplicate spike and one standard reference material w	tracked
of no more than 20 samples. Internal standard recoveries were tracked.
Statistical methods-	. ...	norrent survival was
Amphipod test. Data from each station in which mean pe nne_wav un-
less than that of the control were compared to the control1us g central
paired t-test (alpha = 0.05) assuming unequal variance. Da omDarjsons jn
Long Island Sound (CLIS) control site were used as |bas'fJ° ®'^n tests
1995, whereas data from site "C-ir in Perdido Bay, FL were> ^*
performed in 1996. Data were not transformed since examinationofdatatrom
previous tests have shown that A. abdila percentage survival data met the
requirement for normality.
Significant toxicity for A. abdita was defined here as survival
than that in the performance control (alpha = 0.05). In addltl°"' Rn0/pof contro|
which survival was significantly less than controls and less than 80 o
values were regarded as "highly toxic". The 80% criterion was j? P . .
statistical power curves created from SAIC's extensive testing datab
abdita (Thursby et al., 1997) that show that the power to detect a
difference from the control is 90%. There was considerably more statistical
assurance that the differences between test samples and controls are
meaningful when mean survival was less than 80% of that in the controls.
Microtox test. Microtox data were analyzed using the computer software
package developed by Microbics Corporation to determine concentrations o
the extract that inhibit luminescence by 50% (EC50). This value was then
converted to mg dry wt. using the calculated dry weight of sediment present in
the original extract. To determine significant differences of samples from each
station, pair-wise comparisons were made between contaminated samples ana
results from control sediments using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
Concentrations tested were expressed as mg dry wt based on the percentage
extract in the 1 ml exposure volume and the calculated dry wt of the extracted
sediment. Both the concentration and response data were log-transformed
before the analysis. ANCOVA was used first to determine if two lines had equal
slopes (alpha = 0.05). If the slopes were equal, ANCOVA then determined the
quality of the Y-intercepts (alpha = 0.05). A one-sample t-test was used to
23
-------
compare data from each sampling block within each of the bays with the mean
of the duplicate performance control data.
Microtox data were analyzed using the computer software package developed
by the manufacturer to determine concentrations of the extract that inhibited
luminescence by 50% (EC50). This value was then converted to mg dry wt. of
sediment/mL of extract (where dry wt. was calculated as the weight of sediment
after removal of porewater). To determine significant differences of samples
from each station, pair-wise comparisons were made between contaminated
samples and results from control sediments (North Inlet) using three different
analyses. Following an ANOVA test, a sequence of three increasingly
conservative statistical tests were performed to determine significant differences
from controls: Mann-Whitney, Dunnett's, and distribution-free. Dunnett's
analyses were performed with log-transformed data. These statistical analyses
are increasingly conservative when used in sequence; therefore, samples not
showing differences from controls in the Mann-Whitney tests were considered
non-toxic, those showing differences in only the Mann-Whitney tests were
considered slightly toxic; those showing differences in both Mann-Whitney and
Dunnett's were considered moderately toxic, and those showing significant
differences in all three analyses were considered as highly toxic.
Sea urchin fertilization and morphological development tests. For both the sea
urchin fertilization and morphological development tests, statistical comparisons
among treatments were made using ANOVA and Dunnett's one-tailed f-test
(which controls the experiment-wise error rate) on the arcsine square root
transformed data with the aid of SAS (SAS, 1989). The trimmed Spearman-
Karber method (Hamilton et al., 1977) with Abbott's correction (Morgan, 1992)
was used to calculate EC50 (50% effective concentration) values for dilution
series tests. Prior to statistical analyses, the transformed data sets were
screened for outliers (Moser and Stevens, 1992). Outliers were detected by
comparing the studentized residuals to a critical value from a t-distribution
chosen using a Bonferroni-type adjustment. The adjustment is based on the
number of observations (n) so that the overall probability of a type 1 error is at
most 5%. The critical value (CV) is given by the following equation: cv=
t(dfError. 05/(2 x n)). After omitting outliers but prior to further analyses, the
transformed data sets were tested for normality and for homogeneity of variance
using SAS/LAB Software (SAS, 1992). Statistical comparisons were made with
mean results from the Redfish Bay controls.
Cytochrome P-450 RGS. These tests were performed only on the samples
collected during 1996. Procedures to determine the statistical significance of
test results are not available thus far. However, based upon analyses of the
distributions of the data gathered thus far by NOAA in many regional surveys,
two critical values were calculated for the RGS data. The first value, 37.1 ug/g
benzo(a)pyrene equivalents, represented the upper 90% prediction limit (UPL)
of the entire data set gathered thus far in all NOAA studies (n=530). This value
agrees well with 32 ug/g, the RGS induction level equivalent to the ERL value
(Long et al., 1995) for high molecular weight PAHs determined in regression
analyses of the existing data for this test. Therefore,this value (37.1 ug/g) is
24
-------
viewed as a concentration above which toxicologically significant effects may
begin in sediments. The second value, 11.1 ug/g, was the 80% UPL °f data
distribution following elimination of the data above the 90th percentile of the
entire data base. This value (11.1 ug/g) is viewed as the upper limit of
background RGS responses.
Spatial patterns and extent of toxicity Spatial patterns in toxicity were
estimated by plotting data on base maps of each sampling zone. To minimize
the number of figures, data were reduced to symbols for each of the four tests
reported, and illustrated together on each of the sampling zone base maps.
Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity were determined with cumulative
distribution functions (CDF) in which the toxicity results from each station were
weighted to the dimensions (km2) of the sampling stratum in which the samples
were collected (followed procedures of Schimmel et al., 1994 and Long et al.,
1996). The size of each stratum (km2) was determined by use of a planimeter
applied to navigation charts, upon which the boundaries of each stratum were
outlined.
In the CDF calculations, a critical value of less than 80% of control response
was used in the calculations of the spatial extent of toxicity for the amphipod,
urchin and Microtox tests as in Long et al., 1996. These critical values were
selected following power curve analyses of the data compiled from these tests
(as in Thursby et al., 1997 for the amphipod tests) to eliminate inclusion of
"slightly toxic" responses in the totals. The totals, however, may ignore some
samples in which there were significant differences between results in test
samples and controls, but in which mean test results were greater than 80% of
the controls. For the RGS data, the two values (37.1 and 11.1 ug/g) described
above were used as the critical values.
Chemistry datfl Similarly, chemical data from the sample analyses were plotted
on base maps to identify spatial patterns, if any, in concentrations. Trace metal
concentrations were plotted against aluminum concentrations and compared to
expected ratios for uncontaminated sediments developed by Schropp et alM
1988. The spatial extent of contamination was determined with CDF
calculations in which numerical guidelines (Effects Range-Median, ERM,
values from Long et al., 1995) were used as critical values. The sizes of strata
in which samples exceeded ERM concentrations were summed.
Chemistrv/toxicitv relationships Chemistry/toxicity relationships were
determined in a multi-step sequence used in previous sediment quality surveys.
First, simple Spearman-rank correlations were determined for each toxicity test
and each physical/chemical variable. The correlation coefficients and their
statistical significance were recorded and compared among chemicals.
Second, for those chemicals in which a significant correlation was observed, the
data were examined in scatterplots to determine if there was a reasonable
pattern of increasing toxicity with increasing chemical concentration and if any
chemical in the toxic samples equalled or exceeded published numerical
guidelines.
25
-------
Chemical concentrations expressed in dry wt. were compared with the ERL and
ERM values of Long et al. (1995) developed for NOAA and the Threshold
Effects Level (TEL) and Probable Effects Level (PEL) values of MacDonald et al
(1996) developed for the state of Florida. The concentrations of un-ionized
ammonia were compared to Lowest Observable Effects Concentrations (LOEC)
determined for the sea urchin tests by Carr et al. (1995) and No Observable
Effects Concentrations (NOEC) determined for amphipod survival tests
published by Kohn et al. (1994).
Third, the numbers of samples (from a total of 226) in which either ERL7ERM or
TEL/PEL values were exceeded were determined. The results of these steps
were compiled to determine which chemical(s), if any, may have contributed to
the observed toxicity and which probably had a minor or no role in toxicity.
Correlations were determined for all the substances that were quantified,
including total (bulk) trace metals, metalloids, un-ionized ammonia (UAN),
percent fines, total organic carbon (TOC), chlorinated organic hydrocarbons
(COHs), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition, a
chemical index calculated as the sums of quotients formed by dividing the
chemical concentrations in the samples by their respective ERM values (from
Long et al., 1995) are shown. Those substances that showed significant
correlations were indicated with asterisks. In correlation analyses involving a
large number of variables, some correlations could appear to be significant by
random chance alone. Adjustments (e.g., a Bonferroni correction) often are
needed to account for this possibility. Note that in the results tables only those
correlations shown with four asterisks would remain significant if the number of
variables were taken into account in these analyses.
Availability of Data. Data for all toxicity tests and all chemical analytes from all
226 samples are available from NOAA (301) 713-3034 or on the
NOAA/NOS/ORCA web site.
Results
Amphipod survival tests. Amphipod tests were performed in 12 batches in
1995 and 7 batches in 1996 as samples were collected (Table 5). Mean
survival (n=5 laboratory replicates) ranged from 85% to 100% in the negative
controls from either central Long Island Sound (1995) or Perdido Bay (1996).
LC50 values calculated from tests of the positive (reference toxicant) controls
ranged from 3.67 mg SDS/L to 8.29 mg SDS/L. Except for the seventh test
series in 1996, there were no remarkable differences in either amphipod
survival in negative controls or the LC50's determined for SDS between the two
years (Table 5). The performances of both laboratories with regard to both
positive and negative controls were within acceptable ranges.
In the amphipod tests performed, survival relative to the controls ranged from
2% in a sample from the lower Miami River to over 100% in many samples
(Table 6). Mean survival was less than 10% in five samples. Samples in which
26
-------
Table 5. Summary of amphipod toxicity test conditions for 1995
and 1996 samples.
Test	Sample storage	Mean survival	Reference toxicant
Series	time (days)	in controls (%) (SDS) LC 50 (mg/L)
1995



401
4 to 6
97
8.19
405
4 to 6
98
5.07
408
6 to 8
95
5.28
415
8
94
5.73
418
9 to 10
99
6.57
428
25*
95
4.76
436
5 to 7
93
4.60
501
8 to 10
95
4.30
506
7 to 9
88
4.74
508
6 to 11
95
6.73
513
9 to 10
99
7.51
517
26 to 29*
98
8.29
3996




7 to 8
97 & 99
6.21
2
7 to 9
94 & 100 & 96
6.21
3
8 to 10
100 & 99 & 98
4.06
4
9 to 11
85 & 100 & 98
4.06
5
8 to 11
99 & 99 & 95
5.17
6
7 to 10
100 & 98 & 100
5.17
7
4 to 7
100 & 99 & 100
3.67
* tests repeated for three samples
-------
Table 6. Results of amphipod (A. abdita) toxicity tests, expressed as
means of five replicates and as percent of controls.
Amphipod
Zone Strata Station Sample Mean amphipod survival as Statistical
No. No. No.	No.	survival (%) % of controls significance
Zone 1
1
1.1
108
94
95
ns
1
2.1
109
99
100
ns
1
3.1
110
95
96
ns
2
1.1
111
92
93
ns
2
2.1
112
98
99
ns
2
3.2
113
81
82
ns
3
1.1
114
92
94
ns
3
2.1
115
91
93
ns
3
3.4
116
93
95
ns
4
1.1
117
96
96
ns
4
2.1
118
93
93
ns
4
3.1
119
95
95
ns
Zone 2
1
1.1
1
84
87
ns
1
2.1
2
93
98
ns
1
3.3
3
91
96
ns
2
1.1
4
93
98
ns
2
2.1
5
93
98
•
2
3.1
6
86
91
ns
3
1,1
7
85
89
ns
3
2,1
8
91
96
*
3
3.1
9
94
99
ns
1
1.1
120
98
98
ns
1
2.1
121
99
99
ns
1
1.1
122
97
97
ns
2
1.1
123
100
100
ns
2
2,1
124
99
99
ns
2
3,1
125
100
100
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
No.
Zone 4
Z&Q£_§
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Mean amphipod
survival (%)
survival as
% of controls
Statistical
significance
3
1.1
126
97
98
ns
3
2,1
127
95
99
ns
3
3,1
128
98
99
ns
4
1.1
129
89
93
ns
4
2,1
130
96
100
ns
1
1.1
131
94
98
ns
1
2,1
132
86
91
ns
1
3,1
133
98
102
ns
2
1.1
134
89
89
ns
2
2,1
135
93
93
ns
2
3,1
136
96
100
ns
3
1.1
137
95
101
ns
3
2,1
138
60
64
* *
3
3,1
139
82
87
ns
4
1.1
140
88
88
ns
4
2,1
141
93
93
ns
4
3,1
142
96
96
ns
5
1.1
143
98
101
ns
5
2,1
144
99
102
ns
5
3,1
145
98
101
ns
6
1.4
146
100
101
ns
6
2,1
147
100
101
ns
6
3,1
148
98
99
ns
7
1.1
149
98
101
ns
7
2,1
150
97
100
ns
1
1.1
151
99
100
ns
1
2,1
152
93
94
ns
1
3.1
153
99
101
ns
2
1.2
154
89
105
ns
2
2,2
155
95
112
ns
2
3,1
156
91
107
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
Mean amphipod
survival as
Statistical
No.
No.
No.
No.
survival (%)
% of controls
significance

3
1.1
157
96
97
ns

3
2,1
158
94
95
ns

3
1,1
159
98
99
ns

4
1,1
160
87
87
ns

4
2,1
161
90
90
ns

4
3,2
162
94
94
ns

5
1.1
163
87
89
ns

5
2,1
164
90
92
ns

5
3,4
165
79
81
ns

6
1.2
166
70
82
ns

6
2,1
167
96
113
ns

6
3,1
168
98
115
ns

7
1.1
169
82
82
ns

7
2,2
170
81
81
ns

7
3,1
171
78
78
ns

8
1.1
172
95
97
ns

8
2,1
173
99
101
ns

8
3,1
174
97
99
ns

9
1.1
175
88
89
ns

9
3,1
176
100
102
ns

9
2,1
177
100
102
ns

1 0
1.1
178
100
102
ns
ie_S







1
1.1
10
88
91
•

1
2,1
1 1
95
98
ns

1
3,1
12
88
91
•

2
1,3
13
96
103
ns

2
2,1
14
94
101
ns

2
3.1
15
96
103
ns

3
1.1
16
96
103
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
Mean amphipod
survival as
Statistical
No.
No.
No.
No.
survival (%)
% of controls
significance

20
1.2
17
91
96
ns

20
2,1
18
95
100
ns

4
1.2
19
88
94
*

4
2,1
20
72
77
* *

4
3,3
21
89
90
*
5
5
5
R6
R6
R6
7
7
7
8
8
8
1.1
2,4
3.2
1.3
1,8
3,12
1,1
2,1
3,1
1,1
2,1
3,1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
99
93
99
96
89
94
90
95
93
94
94
89
104
100
106
103
96
99
97
102
100
99
99
94
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
9
9
9
10
10
10
1,1
2,1
3,1
1.1
2.2
3,1
34
35
36
37
38
39
94
93
88
96
93
89
99
98
93
98
95
91
ns
ns
ns
11
11
11
1,1
2,1
3,1
40
41
42
96
99
90
98
101
92
ns
ns
ns
12
12
12
1,1
2,1
3,1
43
44
45
96
80
87
98
82
89
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
Mean amphipod
survival as
Statistical
No.
No.
No.
No.
survival (%)
% of controls
significance

13
1.1
46
40
41
* *

13
2.1
47
38
39
* *

13
3,1
48
89'
94
ns
Zone 7
14	1,1	49	50	51
14	2,1	50	66	67
14	3,1	51	9	9
15	1,1	52	31	31
15	2,1	53	35	35
15	3,1	54	39	39
16	1,1	55	16	16
16	2,2	56	2	2
16	3,1	57	41	41
17	1,1	58	32	32
17	2,1	59	41	41
17	3,1	60	19	19
18	1,1	61	9	9
18	2,1	62	5	5
18	3,1	63	8	8
19	1,1	64	94	95
19	2,1	65	10	10
19	3,1	66	93	94
1	1,1	179	93	93	ns
1	2,3	180	96	96	ns
1	3,1	181	97	98	ns
2	1,1	182	99	100	ns
2	2,1	183	100	101 ns
2	3,1	184	100	100	ns
3	1,1	185	83	84	ns
3	2,1	186	89	94 ns
3	3,1	187	93	98 ns
* *
* *
* «
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* #
* *
* *
*
* *
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
Mean amphipod
survival as
Statistical
No.
No.
No.
No.
survival (%)
% of controls
significance

4
1,1
188
100
105
ns

4
3,1
189
98
103
ns

4
2,1
190
92
97
ns

5
1,1
191
90
91
ns

5
2,1
192
91
92
ns

5
3,1
193
82
83
ns

6
1,3
194
92
92
ns

6
2,1
195
99
99
ns

6
3,1
196
92
92
ns

7
1,1
197
95
97


7
2,1
198
78
80
(*i>^

7
3,1
199
93
95
ns

8
1,1
200
88
88
ns

8
2,1
201
96
96
ns

8
3,3
202
90
90
ns

9
1,1
203
95
96
ns

9
2,1
204
93
94
ns

9
3,1
205
97
98
ns
lone 8







1
1,2
106
89
110
ns

1
1,1
67
92*
94
•

1
2,1
68
9 0
102
ns

1
3,2
69
39
44
• *

2
1,1
70
82
93
ns

2
2,1
71
92
105
ns

2
3,1
72
84
95
ns

3
1,1
73
91
103
ns

3
2,1
74
86
98
ns

3
3,1
75
90
102
ns

4
1,1
76
CO
o
¦
92
ns

4
2,1
77
92
105
ns

4
3,1
78
84
95
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Amphipod
Zone
No.
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Mean amphipod
survival (%)
survival as
% of controls
Statistical
significance

5
1,1
79
79
83
*

5
2,1
80
77
81
•

5
3,1
81
85
89
*

6
1.1
82
78
82
*

6
2,1
83
77
81
*

6
3.1
84
89
94
ns

7
1.1
85
88
93
*

7
2.1
86
91
96
ns

7
3,1
87
62
65
* *

8
1,1
88
87
88
*

8
2,1
89
78
82
*

8
3,1
90
56
57
»*

8
1,2
107
91
99
ns

9
1,1
91
95
96
ns

9
3,1
93
95
96
ns

10
1,1
94
95
96
ns

10
2,1
95
98
99
ns

10
3,1
96
96
97
ns

1 1
1,1
97
90
95
ns

1 1
2,1
98
91
96
ns

1 1
3,1
99
86
91
•

12
3,1
100
88
93
*

12
2,1
101
95
100
ns

12
3,1
102
89
101
ns

13
1.1
103
91
103
ns

13
2,1
104
90
102
ns

13
3,1
105
85
97
ns

14
1.1
92
68
69
• *

15
1.1
206
90
90
ns

15
2,1
207
79
79
ns

15
3,1
208
98
98
ns
-------
Table 6. (continued)
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
No.
No.
No.
No.

16
1.1
209

16
2,1
210

16
3.1
211

17
1.1
212

17
2.1
213

17
3.1
214
Zen? 9




1
1.1
215

1
2.1
216

1
3.3
217

2
1.1
218

2
2.1
219

2
3.1
220

3
1.1
221

3
2.1
222

3
3.1
223

4
1.1
224

4
2,2
225

4
3.3
226
Mean amphipod
survival (%)
95
100
too
95
99
90
94
89
91
74
96
95
86
94
94
93
93
83
Amphipod
survival as
% of controls
95
100
100
95
99
90
96
89
91
74
96
95
87
99
99
98
94
87
Statistical
significance
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns = not significant (p>0.05)
* significant (p<0.05, response >80% of control)
" highly significant (p<0.05, response <80% of control)
"results of repeated tests shown
-------
mean survival was not significantly different from controls (i.e., p>0.05) are
shown as "ns" (i.e., not significantly toxic); those in which mean survival was
significantly different from controls (p<0.05), but, exceeded 80% of controls are
shown as (i.e., marginally toxic); and those which were significantly different
from controls and mean survival was <80% of controls are shown as "**" (i.e.,
highly toxic). There is considerably more statistical assurance that the
differences between test samples and controls are meaningful when mean
survival is less than 80% of that in the controls.
None of the results from samples collected in zone 1 were statistically
significant (Table 6). Similarly, none of the samples from zones 3, 5, and 9
were toxic in these tests. Two samples from zone 2 were marginally toxic and
one sample each from zones 4 and 7 was highly toxic. Many of the samples
from zone 6 were toxic in these tests; 28 were at least marginally toxic, and 19
were highly toxic. Samples from strata 13-19 within zone 6 (i.e., the Miami
River/Tamiami Canal/Seybold Canal region) were the most toxic. Mean
survival ranged from 5% to 9% in the three samples from stratum 18 in zone 6
(Seybold Canal); the most toxic of all strata.
Sea urchin fertilization tests. Sea urchin sperm were exposed to100%, 50%,
and 25% porewater concentrations after pore waters were adjusted to
acceptable salinities for the tests. Similar to the amphipod test results, results
are expressed as percentages of the results in the controls. Samples were
classified as not toxic (ns), marginally toxic (*), and highly toxic (**) as in the
amphipod tests.
In tests of 100% pore water, mean percent fertilization ranged from 0% in five
samples from widely scattered stations to 100% or more in many samples
(Table 7). Fertilization success was less than 10% of controls in 25 samples
tested with 100% pore waters. None of the samples from zone 2 were toxic in
these tests. Toxic samples were scattered among all other zones. In zone 1
five samples were highly toxic in 100% pore water, only one remained toxic in
50% porewater, and none was toxic in 25% pore water. A similar pattern was
evident in all zones; the percentages of samples indicated as toxic in tests of
100% pore water was approximately halved in tests of 50% pore water, and
decreased considerably again in tests of 25% pore water.
None of the samples from zones 1, 2, 3, and 7 were toxic in tests of 25% pore
water and only one from zone 9 was toxic (Table 7). In contrast, fertilization
success in 25% pore water was lowest (<10%) in samples 135 and 138 in zone
4, sample 156 in zone 5, and samples 67 and 69 in zone 8; indicating these
were the most toxic samples in these particular tests. Curiously, the samples
that were most toxic in the amphipod tests were not among those that were most
toxic in the sea urchin fertilization tests.
Sea urchin embrvoloaical development tests. Tests of sea urchin embryo
morhological development also were performed with 100%, 50%, and 25%
pore water concentrations after pore waters were adjusted to acceptable
salinities for the tests. Results are expressed as percentages of the results in
27
-------
Table 7. Summary of sea urchin (A. punctulata) fertilization toxicity tests. Results expressed as
means of five replicates normalized to controls for each of three water-quality adjusted
porewater (WQAP) concentrations.
Percent Fertilization	
Zone Strata Station Sample t00% WQAP Stat. 50% WQAP Stat. 25% WQAP Stat.
No. No. No. No. % of controls signif % of controls signif % of controls signif
ZfiDS-1
t
1.1
108
50
* *
90
ns
105
ns
1
2,1
109
10
* *
33
* *
91
ns
1
3,1
110
78
* »
99
ns
104
ns
2
1.1
111
53
* *
95
ns
99
ns
2
2.1
112
47
» •
96
ns
103
ns
2
3.2
113
98
ns
98
ns
100
ns
3
1.1
114
93
ns
103
ns
103
ns
3
2.1
115
94
ns
103
ns
104
ns
3
3,4
116
97
ns
102
ns
102
ns
4
1.1
117
97
ns
99
ns
100
ns
4
2.1
118
100
ns
98
ns
98
ns
4
3,1
119
96
ns
100
ns
98
ns
1
1.1
1
100
ns
104
ns
107
ns
1
2,1
2
101
ns
91
ns
89
ns
t
3,3
3
98
ns
100
ns
102
ns
2
1,1
4
101
ns
105
ns
108
ns
2
2.1
5
97
ns
104
ns
102
ns
2
3,1
6
95
ns
102
ns
100
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No.
No.
No.
% of controls
3
1,1
7
94
3
2,1
8
92
3
3.1
9
97
Zone 3
1
1,1
120
22
1
2,1
121
2
1
1,1
122
91
2
1,1
123
55
2
2,1
124
92
2
3,1
125
86
3
1,1
126
76
3
2,1
127
92
3
3,1
128
2
4
1,1
129
97
4
2,1
130
91
1
1,1
131
100
1
2,1
132
84
1
3,1
133
82
2
1,1
134
99
2
2,1
135
0
2
3,1
136
96
Stat.
signif
ns
ns
ns
50% WQAP
% of controls
101
91
100
Stat.
signif
ns
ns
ns
25% WQAP
% of controls
93
101
98
Stat.
signif
ns
ns
ns
* *
* *
ns
90
27
94
ns
* *
ns
99
100
105
ns
ns
ns
ns
89
93
96
ns
ns
ns
102
104
103
ns
ns
ns
ns
93
100
63
ns
ns
103
102
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
96
99
ns
ns
103
104
ns
ns
ns
98
99
100
ns
ns
ns
100
98
103
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
ns
99
0
101
ns
• *
ns
103
0
97
ns
* *
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No.
No.
No.
No.
% of controls

3
1.1
137
99

3
2,1
138
2

3
3.1
139
1
4
1.1
140
95
4
2,1
141
9
4
3,1
142
95
5
1,1
143
54
5
2,1
144
6
5
3,1
145
101
6
1,4
146
86
6
2,1
147
88
6
3,1
148
71
7
1,1
149
52
2,1
150
92
Zone 5
1	1,1 151	94
1	2,1	152	44
1	3,1	153	47
2
1,2
154
7
2
2,2
155
97
2
3,1
156
1
3
1,1
157
74
Stat. 50% WQAP	Stat.	25% WQAP	Stat.
signif % of controls	signif	% of controls	signif
ns 100	ns	93	ns
*• 2	**	10	**
*• 43	**	90	ns
ns 101	ns	105	ns
61	**	82
98	ns	100	ns
* •
ns
• *
• *
ns
* •
84	*	94	ns
64	**	86
98	ns	94	ns
*	96	ns	100	ns
ns	99	ns	99	ns
94	ns	100	ns
**	99	ns	100	ns
ns	100	ns	101	ns
ns
* •
99
79
76
ns
* *
* *
102
88
95
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
7
98
3
ns
* *
15
99
4
ns
* *
ns
90
ns
96
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
3
2,1
158
66
3
1.1
159
63
4
1,1
160
100
4
2,1
161
59
4
3,2
162
98
5
1.1
163
70
5
2,1
164
100
5
3,4
165
67
6
1.2
166
71
6
2,1
167
60
6
3,1
168
103
7
1,1
169
79
7
2.2
170
94
7
3,1
171
69
8
1,1
172
101
8
2,1
173
90
8
3,1
174
56
9
1,1
175
103
9
3,1
176
82
9
2,1
177
104
10
1,1
178
101
Stat.
signif
* *
* *
50% WQAP	Stat.
% of controls	signif
89 ns
81
25% WQAP	Stat.
% of controls	signif
96	ns
96	ns
ns
* *
ns
99
83
101
ns
ns
92
101
101
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
96
101
88
ns
ns
ns
102
101
101
ns
ns
ns
* *
• *
ns
94
87
100
ns
ns
ns
97
98
98
ns
ns
ns
ns
94
98
87
ns
ns
99
95
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
99
96
96
ns
ns
ns
101
97
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
ns
102
98
101
ns
ns
ns
103
102
101
ns
ns
ns
ns
97
ns
94
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
Zone 6
1
1.1
10
83
1
2,1
11
91
1
3,1
12
72
2
1,3
13
75
2
2,1
14
47
2
3,1
15
86
3
1,1
16
86
20
1,2
17
78
20
2,1
18
91
4
1,2
19
95
4
2,1
20
91
4
3,3
21
81
5
1,1
22
67
5
2,4
23
91
5
3,2
24
94
R6
1,3
25
89
R6
1,8
26
91
R6
3,12
27
97
7
1,1
28
97
7
2,1
29
96
7
3,1
30
83
Stat. 50% WQAP Stat. 25% WQAP Stat.
signif % of controls signif % of controls signif
ns
• *
• •
• *
*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
95	ns	91	ns
97	ns	96	ns
88	*	95	ns
89	ns	92	ns
95	ns	91	ns
87	ns	88	ns
85	*	95	ns
87	ns	76
92	ns	98	ns
98	ns	96	ns
98	ns	99	ns
94	ns	101	ns
92	ns	89	ns
100	ns	91	ns
93	ns	101	ns
99	ns	102	ns
102	ns	107	ns
100	ns	102	ns
105	ns	101	ns
105	ns	105	ns
102	ns	100	ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
100% WQAP
No.
No.
No.
No.
% of controls

8
1.1
31
95

8
2,1
32
96

8
3,1
33
94

9
1.1
34
80.4

9
2,1
35
68

9
3,1
36
82

10
1,1
37
97

10
2,2
38
99

10
3,1
39
96

11
1,1
40
67

11
2,1
41
2

11
3,1
42
66

12
1.1
43
62

12
2,1
44
99

12
3,1
45
95

13
1.1
46
93

13
2,1
47
71

13
3,1
48
95

14
1,1
49
48

14
2,1
50
93

14
3,1
51
98

15
1,1
52
91
Stat.	50% WQAP	Stat.
signif	% of controls	signif
ns	98	ns
ns	102	ns
ns	99	ns
25% WQAP	Stat.
% of controls	signif
101 ns
103	ns
104	ns
* *
*
92
91
100
ns
ns
ns
107
99
105
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
103
103
104
ns
ns
ns
107
104
108
ns
ns
ns
• •
* *
* *
99
65
95
ns
* *
ns
101
101
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
96
98
101
ns
ns
ns
104
106
103
ns
ns
ns
ns
• *
ns
91
86
98
ns
ns
86
87
86
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
79.9
90
99
ns
ns
81
91
95
ns
ns
ns
96
ns
93
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
15
2,1
53
102
15
3,1
54
100
16
1,1
55
80.4
16
2.2
56
98
16
3,1
57
99
17
1,1
58
95
17
2,1
59
92
17
3,1
60
104
18
1,1
61
88
18
2.1
62
96
18
3,1
63
14
19
1.1
64
98
19
2.1
65
36
19
3.1
66
99
1
1,1
179
84
1
2.3
180
74
1
3.1
181
85
2
1.1
182
32
2
2.1
183
9
2
3.1
184
11
3
1.1
185
57
Stat.	50% WQAP Stat. 25% WQAP Stat.
signif % of controls signif % of controls signif
ns	100	ns	88	ns
ns	104	ns	100	ns
*	93	ns	100	ns
ns	98	ns	97	ns
ns	100	ns	105	ns
ns	101	ns	102	ns
ns	99	ns	102	ns
ns	106	ns	107	ns
ns	96	ns	106	ns
ns	103	ns	106	ns
52	**	92	ns
ns	98	ns	100	ns
* *
87	ns	91	ns
ns	103	ns	101	ns
* •
*
95
92
97
ns
ns
ns
104
102
109
ns
ns
ns
• •
* •
* *
85
68
69
*
* *
* *
96
104
99
ns
ns
ns
103
ns
104
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
3
2,1
186
69
3
3,1
187
88
4
1,1
188
84
4
3,1
189
16
4
2,1
190
99
5
1.1
191
89
5
2,1
192
0
5
3,1
193
95
6
1,3
194
55
6
2,1
195
9
6
3,1
196
87
7
1,1
197
100
7
2,1
198
95
7
3,1
199
101
8
1,1
200
87
8
2,1
201
95
8
3,3
202
98
9
1,1
203
95
9
2,1
204
101
9
3,1
205
98
Stat. 50% WQAP	Stat.	25% WQAP	Stat.
signif % of controls	signif	% of controls	signif
102 ns	108	ns
ns 99 ns	106	ns
99 ns	103	ns
86 *	100	ns
ns 97 ns	108	ns
ns 99 ns	107	ns
37 **	94	ns
ns 103 ns	106	ns
* *
93	ns	102	ns
49	**	93	ns
ns	94	ns	103	ns
ns	95	ns	102	ns
ns	91	ns	99	ns
ns	97	ns	104	ns
ns	98	ns	107	ns
ns	99	ns	100	ns
ns	96	ns	101	ns
ns	96	ns	105	ns
ns	99	ns	106	ns
ns	100	ns	102	ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
Zone 9
1
1,2
106
103
1
1,1
67
1
1
2,1
68
117
1
3,2
69
0
2
1,1
70
1
2
2,1
71
69
2
3,1
72
0
3
1.1
73
112
3
2,1
74
111
3
3,1
75
108
4
1,1
76
108
4
2,1
77
114
4
3,1
78
117
5
1.1
79
115
5
2,1
80
115
5
3,1
81
114
6
1,1
82
114
6
2,1
83
110
6
3,1
84
114
7
1,1
85
110
7
2,1
86
106
7
3,1
87
110
Stat. 50% WQAP Stat.
signif % of controls signif
25% WQAP Stat.
% of controls signif
ns
* *
ns
* *
102
0
111
0
ns
* *
ns
* *
111
1
109
1
ns
* *
ns
* *
* *
* *
* *
6
94
0
ns
10
101
26
ns
#ti-
ns
ns
ns
104
107
95
ns
ns
ns
103
104
93
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
99
110
111
ns
ns
ns
104
108
104
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
109
109
106
ns
ns
ns
104
109
104
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
102
109
104
ns
ns
ns
104
101
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
110
103
103
ns
ns
ns
107
99
103
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No.
No.
No.
% of controls
8
1.1
88
105
8
2,1
89
59
8
3,1
90
34
8
1,2
107
106
9
1,1
91
109
9
3,1
93
114
10
1,1
94
80.05
10
2,1
95
97
10
3,1
96
113
11
1,1
97
88
11
2,1
98
112
11
3,1
99
2
12
3,1
100
92
12
2,1
101
67
12
3,1
102
112
13
1,1
103
7
13
2,1
104
19
13
3,1
105
62
14
1,1
92
37
15
15
15
1,1
2,1
3,1
206
207
208
63
70
58
Stat.
signif
ns
• *
* *
ns
50% WQAP
% of controls
93
102
100
102
Stat.
signif
ns
ns
ns
ns
25% WQAP
% of controls
101
99
105
109
Stat.
signif
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
107
108
ns
ns
105
110
ns
ns
ns
ns
105
96
107
ns
ns
ns
106
94
107
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
103
104
79.4
ns
ns
102
104
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
ns
104
81
106
ns
ns
99
98
109
ns
ns
ns
• *
* *
* •
59
4
106
* *
* *
ns
102
12
104
ns
* *
ns
106
ns
105
ns
* *
* *
* *
93
94
78
ns
ns
* *
101
105
100
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 7 (continued)
Zone Strata Station Sample 100% WQAP
No. No. No. No. % of controls
16
1,1
209
7
16
2,1
210
13
16
3,1
211
8
17
1,1
212
96
17
2,1
213
53
17
3,1
214
67
1
1,1
215
67
1
2,1
216
82
1
3,3
217
104
2
1,1
218
96
2
2,1
219
93
2
3,1
220
11
3
1,1
221
93
3
2,1
222
6
3
3,1
223
0
4
1,1
224
100
4
2,2
225
3
4
3,3
226
7
ns - not significant (p>0.05)
* significant (p<0.05)
" significant (p<0.05, mean <80% of controls)
Stat.
signif
* *
* *
50% WQAP
% of controls
12
47
43
Stat.
signif
• *
* *
* •
25% WQAP	Stat.
% of controls	signif
52
92	ns
90	ns
ns
* *
95
86
91
ns
*
ns
100
86
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
98
98
102
ns
ns
ns
104
105
105
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
* *
98
104
87
ns
ns
ns
107
110
101
ns
ns
ns
ns
• •
* *
95
79.9
46
ns
* *
104
102
93
ns
ns
ns
ns
* •
104
32
90
ns
* •
ns
108
76
106
ns
* *
ns
-------
Table 8. Summary of sea urchin (A. punctulata) embryological development toxicity tests. Data expressed
as means of five replicates normalized to controls for each of three water-quality adjusted
porewater (WQAP) concentrations.
Percent Normal Urchin Development
No.
Strata
Station
Sample
100% WQAP
Stat
50% WQAP
Stat
25% WQAP
Stat
No.
No.
Id. No.
% of controls
slgnlf
% of controls
slgnlf
% of controls
slgnlf
1
1,1
108
0
*•
1
**
100
ns
1
2,1
109
0
**
31
**
101
ns
1
3,1
110
0
+*
16
**
100
ns
2
1,1
111
0

51
H
101
ns
2
2,1
112
0
*#
85
ns
101
ns
2
3,2
113
45
*•
101
ns
101
ns
3
1,1
114
0
•*
39
»»
101
ns
3
2,1
115
0
**
44
**
102
ns
3
3,4
116
7
#•
102
ns
101
nd
4
1,1
117
0
**
98
ns
99
ns
4
2,1
118
2
**
101
ns
101
ns
4
3,1
119
0
**
55
H
100
ns
1
1,1
1
94
ns
94
ns
92
ns
1
2,1
2
93.9
ns
89.2
ns
92
ns
1
3,3
3
99
ns
97
ns
81
*
2
1,1
4
1
••
106
ns
101
ns
2
2,1
5
102
ns
102
ns
91
ns
2
3,1
6
102
ns
103
ns
98
ns
3
1,1
7
94
ns
102
ns
98
ns
3
2,1
8
100
ns
98
ns
98
ns
3
3,1
9
102
ns
105
ns
101
ns
ZPfWt
Zone 2
-------
Table 8 (continued)
Zone 3
1
1,1
120
0
1
2,1
121
0
1
1,1
122
0
2
1,1
123
0
2
2,1
124
0
2
3,1
125
58
3
1.1
126
0
3
2,1
127
18
3
3,1
128
0
4
1,1
129
0
4
2,1
130
0
1
1,1
131
3
1
2,1
132
0
1
3,1
133
0
2
1.1
134
0
2
2.1
135
0
2
3,1
136
3
3
1,1
137
0
3
2,1
138
0
3
3,1
139
0
4
1.1
140
0
4
2,1
141
0
4
3,1
142
101
5
1,1
143
1
5
2,1
144
0
5
3,1
145
5
39	**	98	ns
92	ns	100	ns
tOO	ns	101	ns
22	100	ns
102	ns	102	ns
101	ns	101	ns
**5	"97	ns
**98	ns	96	ns
0	**96	ns
1	99	ns
"7	"97	ns
** 99	ns	98	ns
0	**98	ns
101	ns	100	ns
101	ns	100	ns
3	**	45	**
** 100	ns	101	ns
100	ns	100	ns
**6	44
** 79	ns	98	ns
10	**	100	ns
85	*	100	ns
ns 101	ns	99	ns
100	ns	100	ns
0	**	100	ns
** 101	ns	101	ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
6	1,4	146	0
6	2,1	147	1
6	3,1	148	0
Zone S
7	1,1	149	0
7	2,1	150	0
1	1,1	151	0
1	2,1	152	0
1	3,1	153	0
2	1,2	154	44
2	2,2	155	18
2	3,1	156	0
3	1,1	157	83
3	2,1	158	5
3	1,1	159	14
4	1,1	160	102
4	2,1	161	0
4	3,2	162	0
5	1,1	163	0
5	2,1	164	0
5	3,4	165	0
6	1,2	166	0
6	2,1	167	0
6	3,1	168	26
7	1,1	169	81
7	2,2	170	101
7	3,1	171	1
24
100
25
ns
100
101
98.6
ns
ns
ns
0
79
97
99
ns
ns
36
93
99
ns
ns
98
98
ns
ns
ns
52
101
51
ns
54
100
41
ns
99
100
101
ns
ns
ns
94
99
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
101
89
77
ns
ns
98
99
98
ns
ns
ns
96
96
ns
ns
ns
96
97
100
ns
ns
ns
98
75
95
ns
ns
96
98
ns
ns
ns
ns
99
99
98
ns
ns
ns
98
97
99
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
Zones
8
1.1
172
1
8
2,1
173
12
8
3,1
174
1
9
1,1
175
0
9
3.1
176
0
9
2,1
177
0
10
1,1
178
3
1
1,1
10
102
1
2,1
11
97
1
3,1
12
91
2
1.3
13
1
2
2,1
14
0
2
3,1
15
18
3
1.1
16
12
20
1.2
17
103
20
2,1
18
100
4
1.2
19
0
4
2,1
20
1
4
3.3
21
56
5
1.1
22
0
5
2,4
23
99
5
3,2
24
90
R6
1.3
25
0
R6
1,8
26
100
R6
3,12
27
98
7
1.1
28
102
7
2,1
29
1
7
3.1
30
96
97
100
97
ns
ns
ns
97
98
ns
ns
ns
92
21
1
ns
97
101
97
ns
ns
ns
98
ns
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
102
103
109
ns
ns
ns
97
95
107
ns
ns
ns
92
89
104
ns
ns
ns
102
99
98
ns
ns
ns
108
ns
101
ns
ns
ns
105
110
ns
ns
98
103
ns
ns
100
101
98
ns
ns
ns
103
100
92
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
45
103
91
ns
ns
102
96
98
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
1
106
102
ns
ns
102
101
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
105
106
103
ns
ns
ns
103
104
94
ns
ns
ns
-------
Tabid 8 (continued)
8	1,1	31	10A
8	2,1	32	99
8	3,1	33	95
8	1,1	34	89
9	2,1	35	82
9	3,1	36	95
10	1,1	37	0
10	2,2	38	89
10	3.1	39	96
11	1,1	40	0
11	2,1	41	0
11	3,1	42	0
12	1,1	43	86
12	2,1	44	1
12	3,1	45	97
13	1,1	46	101
13	2,1	47	0
13	3,1	48	94
14	1,1	49	3
14	2,1	50	2
14	3,1	51	78
15	1,1	52	96
15	2,1	53	96
15	3,1	54	79.8
16	1,1	55	97
16	2,2	56	97
16	3,1	57	97
ns 104	ns	98	ns
ns 102	ns	99	ns
ns 105	ns	100	ns
ns 100	ns	92	ns
* 100	ns	87	ns
ns 104	ns	97	ns
108	ns	98	ns
ns 103	ns	100	ns
ns 105	ns	95	ns
** 106	ns	97	ns
" 0	94	ns
**2	**101	ns
ns 98	ns	98	ns
81.4	*	106	ns
ns 103	ns	102	ns
ns 101	ns	97	ns
** 101	ns	98	ns
ns 102	ns	96	ns
51	**	103	ns
** 74	**	105	ns
** 102	ns	104	ns
ns 99	ns	97	ns
ns 99	ns	99	ns
104	ns	99	ns
ns 97	ns	99	ns
ns 99	ns	97	ns
ns 97	ns	91	ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
Zone 7
17
1,1
58
0
17
2.1
59
1
17
3,1
60
13
18
1,1
61
3
18
2,1
62
0
18
3,1
63
0
19
1,1
64
75
19
2,1
65
74
19
3,1
66
103
1
1,1
179
86
1
2,3
180
98
1
3,1
181
0
2
1,1
182
93
2
2,1
183
82
2
3,1
184
46
3
1,1
185
0
3
2,1
186
91
3
3,1
187
95
4
1,1
188
47
4
3,1
189
0
4
2,1
190
84
5
1,1
191
0
5
2,1
192
59
5
3,1
193
0
6
1,3
194
0
6
2,1
195
0
6
3,1
196
0
88
92
100
ns
ns
ns
95
97
99
ns
ns
ns
95
98
78.8
ns
ns
102
103
96
ns
ns
ns
ns
98
100
100
ns
ns
ns
97
99
102
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
99
20
ns
ns
98
98
100
ns
ns
ns
ns
98
99
97
ns
ns
ns
98
100
98
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
99
98
98
ns
ns
ns
100
96
97
ns
ns
ns
99
97
98
ns
ns
ns
99
99
101
ns
ns
ns
99
99
99
ns
ns
ns
101
98
99
ns
ns
ns
0
13
86
ns
96
98
98
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
Zone 8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1,1	197	0
2,1	198	0
3,1	199	4
1,1	200	0
2,1	201	0
3,3	202	100
1,1	203	99
2,1	204	0
3,1	205	.0
1,1	67	0
2.1	68	0
3.2	69	0
1,2	106	1
1,1	70	2
2,1	71	0
3,1	72	0
1,1	73	0
2,1	74	0
3,1	75	0
1,1	76	0
2,1	77	0
3,1	78	2
1,1	79	0
2,1	80	45
3,1	81	0
1,1	82	0
2,1	83	3
3,1	84	0
ns
ns
94
6
98
0
76
97
97
98
99
0
0
0
99
0
65
56
3
37
0
101
48
99
42
100
100
98
101
97
ns
4+
ns
**
**
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
•*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
97
101
97
100
99
98
99
45
9
17
101
70
101
73
98
98
98
97
98
100
96
97
99
96
98
99
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
1,1
85
53
2,1
86
1
3,1
87
0
1,1
88
105
2,1
89
64
3,1
90
13
1,2
107
0
1,1
91
100
3,1
93
62
1,1
94
85
2,1
95
104
3,1
96
63
1,1
97
0
2,1
98
10
3,1
99
0
3,1
100
0
2,1
101
0
3,1
102
0
1,1
103
0
2,1
104
0
3,1
105
0
1,1
92
0
1,1
206
0
2,1
207
0
3,1
208
0
1,1
209
0
2,1
210
88
3,1
211
3
"	102	ns	97	ns
**	92	ns	99	ns
*»	99	ns	96	ns
ns	102	ns	97	ns
"	103	ns	98	ns
"	101	ns	98	ns
"	101	ns	101	ns
ns	104	ns	101	ns
"	101	ns	99	ns
•»	102	ns	98	ns
ns	103	ns	99	ns
"	103	ns	99	ns
0	"99	ns
**	103	ns	97	ns
0	**	0
••	27	"	98	ns
0	"14
96	ns	96	ns
"	86	ns	99	ns
0	"	46
0	**	25
0	"	78
99	ns	98	ns
«0	"99	ns
0	101	ns
"	89	ns	100	ns
ns	99	ns	98	ns
"	99	ns	98	ns
-------
Table 8 (continued)
17
17
17
Zone 9
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1.1
212
0
2,1
213
0
3,1
214
0
1,1
215
0
2,1
216
0
3,3
217
0
1,1
218
0
2,1
219
0
3.1
220
0
1,1
221
0
2,1
222
3
3.1
223
0
1.1
224
88
2,2
225
0
3.3
226
0
ns - not significantly different from controls (p<0.05)
* significantly different from controls (p<0.05), but msd
11
0
66
100
101
99
ns
ns
ns
100
1
97
ns
ns
101
101
98
ns
ns
ns
97
6
99
ns
ns
101
100
99
ns
ns
ns
96
99
94
ns
ns
ns
100
97
101
ns
ns
ns
ns
96
98
99
ns
ns
ns
96
95
98
ns
ns
ns
-------
the controls. Samples were classified as not toxic (ns), marginally toxic (*), and
highly toxic (**) as in the amphipod tests.
The urchin embryological development test was clearly the most sensitive of
those performed on all samples. More samples showed significant differences
from controls in these tests than in all others. In tests of 100% pore waters, 103
samples showed zero percent normal development of the embryos (Table 8).
Responses ranged from 0.0% to 105% of negative controls.
Many samples from zones 2 and 6, and samples from several strata in zone 7
were nontoxic in these tests. In contrast, all of the samples from zones 1 and 3,
all except one sample each from zones 4 and 9, all except two samples from
zone 5, and all except four samples from zone 8 were highly toxic in tests of
100% pore waters. The incidence of toxicity diminished markedly in tests of
50% pore waters and, again, in tests of 25% pore waters. Some samples from
zone 8 remained toxic in tests of all pore water concentrations.
In contrast to the results of the amphipod survival tests, samples from the lower
Miami River (zone 6, stations 46-66) were not unusually toxic in this test. Many,
in fact, were not toxic in all pore water concentrations.
Microbial bioluminescence tests. Expressed as percentages of the response
to the North Inlet, SC, reference samples, Microtox results in the 226 samples
ranged from 1.1% in sample 100 from zone 8 to many samples with responses
greater than 100% (Table 9). In this test low EC50 values signify that a small
amount of sample was required to induce at least a 50% reduction in the light
production of the microorganisms. It is not unusual to encounter samples that
are considerably less toxic than the reference samples. However, statistical
analyses are performed only with one-way tests to identify only those samples
that are significantly more toxic than reference material. Three statistical
analyses were performed with these data to iteratively rank the relative toxicity
of samples. Mean results not significantly different from reference in the least
conservative test (Mann-Whitney) are shown as "ns", not significantly toxic;
those that were significantly different were shown as a single asterisk. Results
that were significant in both Mann-Whitney and one-way Dunnetts are shown
with double asterisks and those that were significant in those two tests plus the
most conservative test, the Distribution-free test, were shown with triple
asterisks.
Only three samples from zone 1 were significantly different from North Inlet
reference results, whereas all except one sample from the adjacent zone 2
were toxic (Table 9). Toxic samples were scattered throughout zones 3, 4, and
5. All except three of the samples from zone 6 were toxic, most of them showing
significance in the Distribution-free analysis. In zone 7, results for three tests
were significant in Mann-Whitney and another three were significant in
Dunnett's. Many of the samples, especially those from strata 9-14 in zone 8
were highly toxic, whereas only one from zone 9 was toxic. Mean EC50's were
less than 10% of controls in 55 of the 226 samples.
28
-------
Sheet 1
Table 9. Summary of 15-minute Microtox test results. Data are
expressed as mean EC50's and percentages of North Inlet controls.
Zone Strata Station Sample Microtox EC50 Microtox EC50 Stat.
No. No. No. No. EC50 (mg/ml) % of No. Inlet ref. signif
Zone 1
1
1,1
108
0.2490
81.2
ns
1
2,1
109
0.0781
25.5
• *
1
3,1
110
0.4366
142.4
ns
2
1.1
111
0.1089
35.5
* *
2
2,1
112
0.0937
30.6
* *
2
3,2
113
0.1674
54.6
ns
3
1,1
114
0.7137
232.7
ns
3
2,1
115
0.9255
301.8
ns
3
3,4
116
0.4572
149.1
ns
4
1,1
117
2.8735
937.0
ns
4
2,1
118
0.1786
58.2
ns
4
3,1
119
0.2641
86.1
ns
1
1,1
1
0.2560
8.8
***
1
2,1
2
0.3188
10.8
•**
1
3,3
3
0.2512
8.4
*#•
2
1,1
4
0.7819
25.7
* *
2
2,1
5
0.9053
30.3
* *
2
3.1
6
1.1337
37.3
ns
3
1.1
7
0.3055
10.4
**•
3
2,1
8
0.3599
12.1
* *
3
3,1
9
1.1294
38.1
*
Zone 3
1
1.1
120
0.0679
22.2
• •
1
2,1
121
0.2011
65.6
ns
1
1.1
122
0.2720
88.7
ns
2
1.1
123
0.1331
43.4
•
2
2.1
124
0.3787
123.5
ns
2
3,1
125
2.0272
661.0
ns
3
1.1
126
0.1562
50.9
•
3
2.1
127
0.5024
163.8
ns
3
3,1
128
0.0681
22.2
* •
Page 1
-------
Sheet 1
Table 9 (continued)
Zone
No.
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Microtox EC50 Microtox EC50
Stat.
Zone 4
Zone 5
4
1,1
129
0.0807
26.3
* *
4
2,1
130
0.0817
26.7
* •
1
1.1
131
0.2857
93.2
ns
1
2,1
132
0.2397
78.2
ns
1
3,1
133
0.0574
18.7
• *
2
1.1
134
0.7108
231.8
ns
2
2,1
135
0.0667
21.8
• *
2
3.1
136
0.7465
243.4
ns
3
1,1
137
0.1840
60.0
ns
3
2,1
138
0.2419
78.9
ns
3
3,1
139
0.0626
20.4
* *
4
1,1
140
2.6289
857.3
ns
4
2,1
141
0.1505
49.1
•
4
3,1
142
0.2238
73.0
ns
5
1,1
143
0.1426
46.5
*
5
2,1
144
0.0491
16.0
• *
5
3,1
145
0.4640
151.3
ns
6
1,4
146
0.5635
183.8
ns
6
2,1
147
0.0536
17.5
* *
6
3,1
148
1.0746
350.4
ns
7
1.1
149
0.0334
10.9
• *
7
2,1
150
0.1123
36.6
* *
1
1.1
151
3.8522
1256.2
ns
1
2,1
152
0.1634
53.3
•
1
3,1
153
0.2043
66.6
ns
2
1,2
154
0.3167
103.3
ns
2
2
2,2
3,1
155
156
0.6005
0.0991
195.8
32.3
ns
• *
3
1,1
157
0.1170
38.2
* *
3
2,1
158
0.1316
42.9
*
3
1,1
159
0.2207
72.0
ns
Page 2
-------
Sheetl
Zone
No.
Zones
>nt!nued)




Strata
Station
Sample
Microtox EC50
Microtox EC50
Stat.
No.
No.
No.
EC50 (mg/ml)
% of No. Inlet ref.
signif
4
1.1
160
0.2186
71.3
ns
4
2.1
161
0.3213
104.8
ns
4
3.2
162
3.5094
1144.4
ns
5
1,1
163
0.7574
247.0
ns
5
2,1
164
3.9304
1281.7
ns
5
3,4
165
0.2160
70.4
ns
6
1,2
166
0.1409
46.0
*
6
2,1
167
0.1138
37.1
* *
6
3,1
168
0.5973
194.8
ns
7
1.1
169
0.2046
66.7
ns
7
2,2
170
0.2304
75.1
ns
7
3,1
171
1.8793
612.8
ns
8
1,1
172
0.5113
166.7
ns
8
2.1
173
0.2234
72.8
ns
8
3,1
174
0.1626
53.0
*
9
1.1
175
1.1168
364.2
ns
9
3,1
176
0.2716
88.6
ns
9
2,1
177
0.6782
221.1
ns
10
1.1
178
0.1211
39.5
*
1
1.1
10
0.0701
2.4
* * *
1
2,1
1 1
0.2588
8.5
* * *
1
3,1
12
0.8262
27.5
* *
2
1,3
13
0.4237
5.5
* *
2
2,1
14
0.2591
3.3
***
2
3,1
15
0.4519
5.8
• *
3
1,1
16
0.6874
8.9
* *
20
1,2
17
0.2119
2.8
*«*
20
2.1
18
0.9758
12.9
* *
Page 3
-------
Sheetl
Table 9 (continued)
Zone
No.
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Microtox EC50
Microtox EC50
% of No. Inlet ref.
Stat.
4
1,2
19
0.9574
32.6
* *
4
2,1
20
1.3239
43.9
*
4
3,3
21
7.7330
255.6
ns
5
1,1
22
0.1135
1.4
* * *
5
2,4
23
0.6815
8.5
* *
5
3,2
24
0.1751
2.3
«**
R6
1,3
25
0.2712
3.6
* * *
R6
1,8
26
0.2122
2.8
* * *
R6
3,12
27
0.2398
3.2
***
7
1.1
28
2.3432
30.3
• *
7
2,1
29
1.1532
14.6
* *
7
3,1
30
0.2963
3.8
* * *
8
1,1
31
0.1258
4.2
* * *
8
2,1
32
0.6571
22.1
* *
8
3,1
33
0.8354
28
* *
9
1,1
34
0.6202
20.6
* *
9
2,1
35
0.7529
25
• *
9
3,1
36
0.8300
27.3
* *
10
1,1
37
0.5293
17.8
* *
10
2,2
38
0.4369
14.6
* *
10
3,1
39
0.7005
23.1
* *
1 1
1,1
40
0.0984
3.3
* * *
11
2,1
41
0.2243
7.7
•* *
11
3,1
42
0.1251
4.2
* • *
12
1.1
43
1.3429
44.2
•
12
2,1
44
5.0850
170.4
ns
12
3,1
45
5.9180
203.8
ns
13
1,1
46
0.5388
17.9
* *
13
2,1
47
0.7440
24.6
* *
13
3,1
48
0.4978
17.1
* •
Page 4
-------
Sheetl
Table 9 (continued)
Zone
No.
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Microtox EC50 Microtox EC50
Stat.
ZODS-1
14
1,1
49
0.4015
19.2
* *
14
2,1
50
0.8238
28.3
* *
14
3,1
51
0.9557
31.9
* *
15
1,1
52
0.7493
25.7
* *
15
2,1
53
0.8418
27.1
* *
15
3,1
54
0.2143
7.1
***
16
1,1
55
0.2163
7.3
***
16
2,2
56
0.3831
12.6
* *
16
3,1
57
0.1199
4
* * *
17
1,1
58
0.3395
11.1
***
17
2,1
59
0.5762
19.2
* *
17
3,1
60
0.2532
8.5
* * *
18
1.1
61
0.0509
1.7
* * *
18
2,1
62
0.0610
2.1
* * *
18
3,1
63
0.0469
1.6
***
19
1,1
64
5.9503
199.4
ns
19
2,1
65
0.1640
6.4
***
19
3,1
66
0.1923
6.5
«* *
1
1.1
179
0.9613
313.5
ns
1
2,3
180
0.1303
42.5
*
1
3,1
181
0.7694
250.9
ns
2
1,1
182
3.8352
1250.6
ns
2
2,1
183
1.8811
613.4
ns
2
3,1
184
2.8953
944.1
ns
3
1.1
185
2.6778
873.2
ns
3
2,1
186
0.1233
40.2
•
3
3,1
187
1.7045
555.8
ns
4
1.1
188
3.9346
1283.0
ns
4
3,1
189
0.7457
243.2
ns
2,1
190
3.8080
1241.8
ns
Page 5
-------
Sheetl
Table 9 (continued)
Zone
No.
Strata
No.
Station
No.
Sample
No.
Microtox EC50 Microtox EC50
Stat.
signif
Zone 8
5
1.1
191
0.7268
237.0
ns
5
2,1
192
0.3382
110.3
ns
5
3,1
193
1.8029
587.9
ns
6
1,3
194
1.6208
528.5
ns
6
2,1
195
3.7332
1217.4
ns
6
3.1
196
1.1980
390.7
ns
7
1,1
197
3.8590
1258.4
ns
7
2,1
198
3.8964
1270.6
ns
7
3,1
199
3.8012
1239.5
ns
8
1.1
200
0.1124
36.7
* *
8
2,1
201
0.1426
46.5
*
8
3,3
202
0.6345
206.9
ns
9
1,1
203
0.1864
60.8
ns
9
2,1
204
0.0468
15.3
* *
9
3,1
205
0.0705
23.0
* *
1
1.1
67
3.6044
47.8
ns
1
2,1
68
0.6124
8.1
* *
1
3,2
69
0.4983
6.5
* *
1
1,2
106
3.7944
1237.3
ns
2
1.1
70
0.1256
1.6
* * •
2
2.1
71
0.2941
3.8
* * •
2
3.1
72
0.2144
2.8
* * *
3
1.1
73
0.3172
4.2
* *
3
2,1
74
7.4467
100
ns
3
3,1
75
0.4512
5.9
• *
4
1.1
76
1.8518
24.4
• *
4
2,1
77
2.9294
38.8
*
4
3,1
78
5.2947
71.2
ns
5
1,1
79
1.1436
15.2
• *
5
2.1
80
7.6067
100
ns
5
3.1
81
3.4723
45.7
•
Page 6
-------
Sheetl
Table 9 (continued)




Zone Strata
Station
Sample
Microtox EC50
Microtox EC50
Stat.
No. No.
No.
No.
EC50 (mg/ml)
% of No. Inlet ref.
signif
6
1.1
82
0.7189
9.6
* *
6
2,1
83
0.4385
5.8
* *
6
3,1
84
6.6099
85.9
ns
7
1,1
85
0.3397
4.4
* *
7
2,1
86
3.4256
45
ns
7
3,1
87
0.3194
4.1
* *
8
1.1
88
5.5370
75.5
ns
8
2,1
89
4.2418
55
*
8
3.1
90
1.5886
21.1
* *
8
1.2
107
3.8290
1248.6
ns
9
1.1
91
0.4884
6.3
* *
9
3,1
93
0.2607
3.5
* * *
10
1.1
94
0.1542
2
* * *
10
2,1
95
0.4099
5.5
* *
10
3,1
96
0.2657
3.5
* * *
1 1
1.1
97
0.1219
1.6
* • •
1 1
2,1
98
0.4276
5.5
• *
1 1
3,1
99
0.1217
1.6
* * *
12
3,1
100
0.0869
1.1
***
12
2,1
101
0.1798
2.3
***
12
3,1
102
0.2146
2.8
***
13
1.1
103
0.2296
3
***
13
2.1
104
0.1030
1.4
***
13
3,1
105
0.2662
3.6
***
14
1.1
92
1.1651
3.5
***
15
1.1
206
0.0837
27.3
• *
15
2,1
207
0.2871
93.6
ns
15
3.1
208
0.1928
62.9
ns
16
1.1
209
0.1005
32.8
* *
16
2.1
210
1.2232
398.9
ns
16
3,1
211
0.3334
108.7
ns
Page 7
-------
Sheetl
Table 9 (continued)
Zone
Strata
Station
Sample
Microtox EC50
Microtox EC50
Stat.
No.
No.
No.
No.
EC50 (mg/ml)
% of No. Inlet ref.
signif

17
1.1
212
0.1528
49.8
*

17
2,1
213
0.2842
92.7
ns

17
3.1
214
0.1172
38.2
•
Zone 9







1
1.1
215
1.4671
478.4
ns

1
2,1
216
1.5465
504.3
ns

1
3.3
217
2.8125
917.1
ns

2
1.1
218
1.7216
561.4
ns

2
2.1
219
0.4620
150.6
ns

2
3.1
220
0.9611
313.4
ns

3
1.1
221
1.3359
435.6
ns

3
2,1
222
0.1931
63.0
ns

3
3.1
223
3.3584
1095.1
ns

4
1.1
224
2.7190
886.6
ns

4
2.2
225
0.3612
117.8
ns

4
3.3
226
0.1507
49.1
»
NIOL ref.
Leg 1
1996

0.4069


NIOL ref.
Leg 1
1996

0.2064


NIOL ref.
Leg 2
1996

0.3067


NIOL ref.
Leg 1
1995

2.0386


NIOL ref.
Leg 1
1995

4.1346


NIOL ref.
Leg 2
1995

7.4466


ns - not significantly different from combined controls (p<0.05)

* significantly different from combined controls (p<0.05) with Mann-Whitney

** significantly different from combined controls with MW and one-way Dunnett's (p<0.05)
"* significantly different from combined controls with MW & Dunnett's &
and Distribution-free (p<0.05)
Page 8
-------
Reaion-wide summary of toxicity. Data from each of the four tests performed
on all 226 samples are summarized in Table 10. All numerical data are listed
as percentages of controls. Statistical significance is shown for each test in
each sample with symbols used in previous tables for individual tests. In
addition, an overall index of toxicity - the "toxicity tally" - is shown for each
sample. This index is a sum of the asterisks attributed to each toxicity test
endpoint and is based upon the assumption that the least toxic samples would
not show significant results in any of the tests and the most toxic samples would
be toxic in the majority of tests. Based upon the data from the four tests
performed on all 226 samples, the toxicity tally has a possible range in scores
from 0 (least toxic) to 17 (most toxic); actual values ranged from 0 to 15.
In zone 1, four stations (113, 116-118) had toxicity tallies of 2 (indicating
significant results in only one bioassay); these were among the least toxic
samples (Table 10). The sample from station 109 had a score of 10; it was
toxic in the Microtox and both urchin tests in two porewater concentrations. In
zone 2, toxicity tallies ranged from 0 to 4; thus, indicating none of the samples
were highly toxic.
Toxicity in samples from zone 3, on average, exceeded that observed in zone 2;
many samples had toxicity tallies of 6 to 10 (Table 10). Station 128 located
near the 76th Street Causeway was the most toxic. Toxicity tally scores ranged
from 0 to 14 among the samples from zone 4. The most toxic samples came
from stations 135 and 138 located in different strata of the zone. Toxicity was
relatively high also in station 144 in the Indian Creek channel.
In zone 5, there were many samples with toxicity tally scores of 0 to 4, indicating
relatively low toxicity. Two samples (from stations 154 and 156) were highly
toxic - both from the same stratum. Station 138 in zone 4 and station 156 in
zone 5 were located near each other, but separated by the Julia Tuttle
Causeway.
Zone 6 samples collected outside the Miami River ranged in toxicity tallies from
2 to 11 (Table 10). The sample from station 41 collected near the western
shoreline was highly toxic in the Microtox tests and both urchin tests in two
porewater concentrations. Samples from stations 13-16 located in the Port of
Miami channel were intermediate in toxicity (tallies ranging from 6 to 7).
Sediment from station 45 was not toxic in any of the tests. In the lower Miami
River, toxicity tallies ranged from 4 to 13. Stations 49 downstream of the
confluence with Seybold Canal and 63 in lower Seybold Canal were the most
toxic. Relatively high degrees of toxicity were also apparent in samples from
stations 65, 47, 50, 58, 60-62.
Most samples from zone 7 had toxicity tally scores of 0 to 4 (Table 10); only the
sample from station 195 was highly toxic (score of 10). The uppermost stations
in Coral Gables and Snapper Creek canals were nontoxic in all tests.
29
-------
Table 10. Summary of toxicity test results and overall toxicity tally for each sample.

Amph-
Stat-

Stat-
Urchin
Stat-
Urchin
Stat-
Urchin
Sam-
ipod
istical
Micro-
istical
fert'n
istical
fert'n
istical
fert'n
ple
surv-
signif-
tox
signif-
100%
signif-
50%
signif-
25%
No.
ival
icance
EC 50
icance
WQAP"
icance
WQAP
icance
WQAP
108
95
ns
81.2
ns
50
»#
90
ns
105
109
100
ns
25.5
• *
10
* *
33
* •
91
110
96
ns
142.4
ns
78
• *
99
ns
104
111
93
ns
35.5
• *
53
* *
95
ns
99
112
99
ns
30.6
•«
47
* *
96
ns
103
113
82
ns
54.6
ns
98
ns
98
ns
100
114
94
ns
232.7
ns
93
ns
103
ns
103
115
93
ns
301.8
ns
94
ns
103
ns
104
116
95
ns
149.1
ns
97
ns
102
ns
102
117
96
ns
937.0
ns
97
ns
99
ns
100
118
93
ns
58.2
ns
100
ns
98
ns
98
119
95
ns
86.1
ns
96
ns
100
ns
98
1
87
ns
8.8
**•
100
ns
104
ns
107
2
98
ns
10.8
•••
101
ns
91
ns
89
3
96
ns
8.4
***
98
ns
100
ns
102
4
98
ns
25.7
* *
101
ns
105
ns
108
5
98
•
30.3
* *
97
ns
104
ns
102
6
91
ns
37.3
ns
95
ns
102
ns
100
7
89
ns
10.4

94
ns
101
ns
93
8
96
•
12.1
* *
92
ns
91
ns
101
Stat- Urchin Stat- Urchin Stat- Urchin Stat-
istical devt istical devt istical devt istical Toxi-
signif- 100% signif- 50% signif- 25% signif- city
Icance WQAP icance WQAP icance WQAP icance tally*
ns
0
ft ft
1
* *
100
ns
6
ns
0
ft ft
31
* *
101
ns
10
ns
0
ft ft
16
• •
100
ns
6
ns
0
ft ft
51
* *
101
ns
8
ns
0
ft ft
85
ns
101
ns
6
ns
45
ft ft
101
ns
101
ns
2
ns
0
ft ft
39
* *
101
ns
4
ns
0
ft ft
44
* *
102
ns
4
ns
7
ft ft
102
ns
101
ns
2
ns
0
ft ft
98
ns
99
ns
2
ns
2
ft ft
101
ns
101
ns
2
ns
0
ft ft
55
* *
100
ns
4
ns
94
ns
94
ns
92
ns
3
ns
93.9
ns
89.2
ns
92
ns
3
ns
99
ns
97
ns
81

4
ns
1
ft ft
106
ns
101
ns
4
ns
102
ns
102
ns
91
ns
3
ns
102
ns
103
ns
98
ns
0
ns
94
ns
102
ns
98
ns
3
ns
100
ns
98
ns
98
ns
3
-------
9
99
ns
38.1
*
97
ns
100
ns
120
98
ns
22.2
* *
22
*«
90
ns
121
99
ns
65.6
ns
2
* *
27
* *
122
97
ns
88.7
ns
91
ns
94
ns
123
100
ns
43.4
*
55
* •
89
ns
124
99
ns
123.5
ns
92
ns
93
ns
125
100
ns
661.0
ns
86
*
96
ns
126
98
ns
50.9
*
76
* *
93
ns
127
99
ns
163.8
ns
92
ns
100
ns
128
99
ns
22.2
* *
2
* *
63
* «
129
93
ns
26.3
• *
97
ns
96
ns
130
100
ns
26.7
*»
91
ns
99
ns
131
98
ns
93.2
ns
100
ns
98
ns
132
91
ns
78.2
ns
84
*
99
ns
133
102
ns
18.7
* *
82
*
100
ns
134
89
ns
231.8
ns
99
ns
99
ns
135
93
ns
21.8
* *
0
* *
0
• •
136
100
ns
243.4
ns
96
ns
101
ns
137
101
ns
60.0
ns
99
ns
100
ns
138
64
* *
78.9
ns
2
• *
2
* *
139
87
ns
20.4
»*
1
* •
43
• *
140
88
ns
857.3
ns
95
ns
101
ns
141
93
ns
49.1
*
9
* *
61
* *
142
96
ns
73.0
ns
95
ns
98
ns
98
ns
102 ns 105
ns
101
ns
1
99
ns
0
39
* *
98
ns
8
100
ns
0
92
ns
100
ns
6
105
ns
0
100
ns
101
ns
2
102
ns
0
22
* *
100
ns
7
104
ns
0
102
ns
102
ns
2
103
ns
58
101
ns
101
ns
3
103
ns
0
5
* *
97
ns
7
102
ns
18
98
ns
96
ns
2
100
ns
0
0
* *
96
ns
10
103
ns
0
1
* *
99
ns
6
104
ns
0
7
* *
97
ns
6
100
ns
3
99
ns
98
ns
2
98
ns
0
0
* *
98
ns
5
103
ns
0
101
ns
100
ns
5
103
ns
0
101
ns
100
ns
2
0
* *
0
3
* #
45
* *
14
97
ns
3
100
ns,
101
ns
2
93
ns
0
100
ns
100
ns
2
10
* *
0
6
* *
44
• *
14
90
ns
0
79
ns
98
ns
8
105
ns
0
10
* *
100
ns
4
82
*
0
85
*
100
ns
9
100
ns
101 ns 101
ns
99
ns
0
-------
143
101
ns
46.5
*
54
* *
84
•
144
102
ns
16.0
* *
6
• *
64
* *
145
101
ns
151.3
ns
101
ns
98
ns
146
101
ns
183.8
ns
86
•
96
ns
147
101
ns
17.5
* *
88
ns
99
ns
148
99
ns
350.4
ns
71
* *
94
ns
149
101
ns
10.9
* *
52
* *
99
ns
150
100
ns
36.6
* *
92
ns
100
ns
151
100
ns
1256.2
ns
94
ns
99
ns
152
94
ns
53.3
*
44
•«
79
* •
153
101
ns
66.6
ns
47
* •
76
* ft
154
105
ns
103.3
ns
7
* •
7
ft *
155
112
ns
195.8
ns
97
ns
98
ns
156
107
ns
32.3
* *
1
• #
3
* ft
157
97
ns
38.2
* *
74
ns
90
ns
158
95
ns
42.9
*
66
* *
89
ns
159
99
ns
72.0
ns
63
*«
81
ft
160
87
ns
71.3
ns
100
ns
99
ns
161
90
ns
104.8
ns
59
* *
83
#
162
94
ns
1144.4
ns
98
ns
101
ns
163
89
ns
247.0
ns
70
* «
96
ns
164
92
ns
1281.7
ns
100
ns
101
ns
165
81
ns
70.4
ns
67
* •
88
ns
166
82
ns
46.0
•
71
* *
94
ns
167
113
ns
37.1
« *
60
* *
87
ns
94
ns
1
• ft
100
ns
100
ns
6
86
*
0
• *
0
ft *
100
ns
11
94
ns
5
* *
101
ns
101
ns
2
100
ns
0
* ft
24
ft *
100
ns
5
99
ns
1
ft ft
100
ns
101
ns
4
100
ns
0
ft ft
25
ft ft
98.6
ns
6
100
ns
0
ft ft
0
ft ft
97
ns
8
101
ns
0
ft ft
79
ft *
99
ns
6
102
ns
0
ft ft
36
* ft
98
ns
4
88
ns
0
ft ft
93
ns
98
ns
7
95
ns
0
ft ft
99
ns
98
ns
6
15
* *
44
ft ft
52
ft ft
54
* •
12
99
ns
18
ft ft
101
ns
100
ns
2
4
* *
0
ft ft
51
* *
41
* *
14
96
ns
83
ft
99
ns
94
ns
3
96
ns
5
ft ft
100
ns
99
ns
5
96
ns
14
ft ft
101
ns
100
ns
5
92
ns
102
ns
101
ns
98
ns
0
101
ns
0
* *
89
ns
99
ns
5
101
ns
0
*«
77
• *
98
ns
4
102
ns
0
*«
96
ns
96
ns
4
101
ns
0
* ~
96
ns
97
ns
2
101
ns
0
* *
98
ns
100
ns
4
97
ns
0
•«
98
ns
96
ns
5
98
ns
0
* *
75
* *
98
ns
8
-------
168
115
PS
194.8
ns
103
ns
100
ns
169
82
ns
66.7
ns
79
* *
94
ns
170
81
ns
75.1
ns
94
ns
98
ns
171
78
ns
612.8
ns
69
* *
87
*
172
97
ns
166.7
ns
101
ns
99
ns
173
101
ns
72.8
ns
90
ns
96
ns
174
99
ns
53.0
*
56
* *
96
ns
175
89
ns
364.2
ns
103
ns
102
ns
176
102
ns
88.6
ns
82
• *
98
ns
177
102
ns
221.1
ns
104
ns
101
ns
178
102
ns
39.5
*
101
ns
97
ns
10
91
•
2.4
*• *
83
*
95
ns
11
98
ns
8.5
• # *
91
ns
97
ns
12
91
*
27.5
• *
72
* *
88
*
13
103
ns
5.5
• *
75
* *
89
ns
14
101
ns
3.3
• # *
47
* *
95
ns
15
103
ns
5.8
• *
86
*
87
ns
16
103
ns
8.9
• *
86
*
85
*
17
96
ns
2.8
** •
78
* *
87
ns
18
100
ns
12.9
• •
91
ns
92
ns
19
94
•
32.6
• *
95
ns
98
ns
20
77
* *
43.9
*
91
ns
98
ns
21
90
*
255.6
ns
81
*
94
ns
98
ns
26
* *
95
ns
98
ns
2
99
ns
81
* *
99
ns
98
ns
4
95
ns
101
ns
99
ns
97
ns
0
100
ns
1
* *
98
ns
99
ns
5
101
ns
1
* •
97
ns
97
ns
2
97
ns
12
* *
100
ns
98
ns
2
100
ns
1
* *
97
ns
98
ns
5
103
ns
0
* •
92
ns
97
ns
2
102
ns
0
* *
21
* •
101
ns
6
101
ns
0
* *
1
* *
97
ns
4
94
ns
3
* *
98
ns
99
ns
3
91
ns
102
ns
102
ns
97
ns
5
96
ns
97
ns
103
ns
95
ns
3
95
ns
91
ns
109
ns
107
ns
6
92
ns
1
* *
92
ns
102
ns
6
91
ns
0
* *
89
ns
99
ns
7
88
ns
18
* *
104
ns
98
ns
5
95
ns
12
* *
108
ns
101
ns
6
76
* *
103
ns
105
ns
98
ns
7
98
ns
100
ns
110
ns
103
ns
2
96
ns
0
* •
100
ns
103
ns
5
99
ns
1
* *
101
ns
100
ns
5
101
ns
56
* *
98
ns
92
ns
4
-------
22
104
ns
1.4
«* *
67
• *
92
ns
23
100
ns
8.5
* *
91
ns
100
ns
24
106
ns
2.3
* * *
94
ns
93
ns
25
103
ns
3.6
* * #
89
ns
99
ns
26
96
ns
2.8
** *
91
ns
102
ns
27
99
ns
3.2
* * *
97
ns
100
ns
28
97
ns
30.3
• *
97
ns
105
ns
29
102
ns
14.6
* *
96
ns
105
ns
30
100
ns
3.8

83
*
102
ns
31
99
ns
4.2
• * •
95
ns
98
ns
32
99
ns
22.1
* *
96
ns
102
ns
33
94
ns
28
• *
94
ns
99
ns
34
99
ns
20.6
* *
80.4
*
92
ns
35
98
ns
25
* •
68
* •
91
ns
36
93
•
27.3
# *
82
*
100
ns
37
98
ns
17.8
~ *
97
ns
103
ns
38
95
•
14.6
* #
99
ns
103
ns
39
91
•
23.1
• •
96
ns
104
ns
40
98
ns
3.3
« • *
67
* *
99
ns
41
101
ns
7.7
* * *
2
* *
65
* *
42
92
ns
4.2
* • *
66
*«
95
ns
43
98
ns
44.2
*
62
* *
96
ns
44
82
ns
170.4
ns
99
ns
98
ns
45
89
ns
203.8
ns
95
ns
101
ns
46
41
* *
17.9
* *
93
ns
91
ns
89
ns
0
* *
45
* *
102
ns
9
91
ns
99
ns
103
ns
96
ns
2
101
ns
90
ns
91
ns
98
ns
3
102
ns
0
* *
1
* *
102
ns
7
107
ns
100
ns
106
ns
101
ns
3
102
ns
98
ns
102
ns
99
ns
3
101
ns
102
ns
105
ns
103
ns
2
105
ns
1
* *
106
ns
104
ns
4
100
ns
96
ns
103
ns
94
ns
4
101
ns
101
ns
104
ns
98
ns
3
103
ns
99
ns
102
ns
99
ns
2
104
ns
95
ns
105
ns
100
ns
2
107
ns
89
ns
100
ns
92
ns
3
99
ns
82
*
100
ns
87
ns
5
105
ns
95
ns
104
ns
97
ns
4
107
ns
0
* *
108
ns
98
ns
4
104
ns
89
ns
103
ns
100
ns
3
108
ns
96
ns
105
ns
95
ns
3
101
ns
0
* *
106
ns
97
ns
7
101
ns
0
*«
0
# #
94
ns
11
100
ns
0
* *
2
• «
101
ns
9
104
ns
86
ns
98
ns
98
ns
3
106
ns
1
* *
81.4
*
106
ns
3
103
ns
97
ns
103
ns
102
ns
0
86
ns
101
ns
101
ns
97
ns
4
-------
47
39
* *
24.6
• *
71
• •
86
*
48
94
ns
17.1
* *
95
ns
98
ns
49
51
« *
19.2
* *
48
*«
79.9
«*
50
67
*•
28.3
* *
93
ns
90
ns
51
9
• *
31.9
* *
98
ns
99
ns
52
31
* *
25.7
* •
91
ns
96
ns
53
35
* *
27.1
* *
102
ns
100
ns
54
39
* *
7.1
* * *
100
ns
104
ns
55
16
» *
7.3
* * *
80.4
*
93
ns
56
2
* *
12.6
• •
98
ns
98
ns
57
41
* *
4
*#*
99
ns
100
ns
58
32
* *
11.1
* * *
95
ns
101
ns
59
41
* *
19.2
* *
92
ns
99
ns
60
19
• *
8.5
* * *
104
ns
106
ns
61
9
* *
1.7
***
88
ns
96
ns
62
5
* *
2.1
* * *
96
ns
103
ns
63
8
* *
1.6
* * *
14
* *
52
* *
64
95
*
199.4
ns
98
ns
98
ns
65
10
* *
6.4
* * *
36
* *
87
ns
66
94
«
6.5
* * •
99
ns
103
ns
179
93
ns
313.5
ns
84
*
95
ns
180
96
ns
42.5
*
74
* *
92
ns
181
98
ns
250.9
ns
85
*
97
ns
182
100
ns
1250.6
ns
32
* *
85
*
183
101
ns
613.4
ns
9
* *
68
* *
87
ns
0
* *
101
ns
98
ns
9
86
ns
94
ns
102
ns
96
ns
2
81
*
3
* *
51
* *
103
ns
13
91
ns
2
«*
74
« *
105
ns
8
95
ns
78
* *
102
ns
104
ns
6
93
ns
96
ns
99
ns
97
ns
4
88
ns
96
ns
99
ns
99
ns
4
100
ns
79.8
*
104
ns
99
ns
6
100
ns
97
ns
97
ns
99
ns
6
97
ns
97
ns
99
ns
97
ns
4
105
ns
97
ns
97
ns
91
ns
5
102
ns
0
* *
88
ns
95
ns
7
10'2
ns
1
* *
92
ns
97
ns
6
107
ns
13
* *
100
ns
99
ns
7
106
ns
3
* *
95
ns
102
ns
7
106
ns
0
* *
98
ns
103
ns
7
92
ns
0
* *
78.8
* *
96
ns
1 3
100
ns
75
* t
98
ns
97
ns
3
91
ns
74
* *
100
ns
99
ns
9
101
ns
103
ns
100
ns
102
ns
4
104
ns
86
ns
98
ns
98
ns
1
102
ns
98
ns
99
ns
98
ns
3
109
ns
0
* *
20
¦* *
100
ns
5
96
ns
93
ns
98
ns
98
ns
3
104
ns
82
* *
99
ns
100
ns
6
-------
184
100
ns
944.1
ns
11
* *
69
* ft
185
84
ns
873.2
ns
57
* *
103
ns
186
94
ns
40.2
*
69
• 1
102
ns
187
98
ns
555.8
ns
88
ns
99
ns
188
105
ns
1283.0
ns
84
•
99
ns
189
103
ns
243.2
ns
16
* *
86
*
190
97
ns
1241.8
ns
99
ns
97
ns
191
91
ns
237.0
ns
89
ns
99
ns
192
92
ns
110.3
ns
0
* •
37
* *
193
83
ns
587.9
ns
95
ns
103
ns
194
92
ns
528.5
ns
55
* *
93
ns
195
99
ns
1217.4
ns
9
* •
49
* *
196
92
ns
390.7
ns
87
ns
94
ns
197
97
ns
1258.4
ns
100
ns
95
ns
198
80
»*
1270.6
ns
95
ns
91
ns
199
95
ns
1239.5
ns
101
ns
97
ns
200
88
ns
36.7
• *
87
ns
98
ns
201
96
ns
46.5
•
95
ns
99
ns
202
90
ns
206.9
ns
98
ns
96
ns
203
96
ns
60.8
ns
95
ns
96
ns
204
94
ns
15.3
* *
101
ns
99
ns
205
98
ns
23.0
* *
98
ns
100
ns
106
110
ns
47.8
ns
103
ns
102
ns
67
94
*
8.1
* •
1
* *
0
* •
68
102
ns
6.5
* ~
117
ns
111
ns
99
ns
46
• *
97
ns
98
ns
6
104
ns
0
• *
99
ns
100
ns
4
108
ns
91
ns
98
ns
96
ns
3
106
ns
95
ns
98
ns
97
ns
0
103
ns
47
* *
99
ns
99
ns
3
100
ns
0
* *
97
ns
99
ns
5
108
ns
84

98
ns
101
ns
1
107
ns
0
* *
99
ns
101
ns
2
94
ns
59
• *
99
ns
98
ns
6
106
ns
0
* *
99
ns
99
ns
2
102
ns
0
* *
0
* *
96
ns
6
93
ns
0
* *
13
• ft
98
ns
10
103
ns
0
* *
86
ns
98
ns
2
102
ns
0
* *
94
ns
97
ns
2
99
ns
0
* *
6
*«
101
ns
6
104
ns
4
• *
98
ns
98
ns
2
107
ns
0
* *
0
* *
98
ns
6
100
ns
0
* *
76
• *
97
ns
5
101
ns
100
ns
97
ns
100
ns
0
105
ns
99
ns
97
ns
99
ns
0
106
ns
0
* •
98
ns
98
ns
4
102
ns
0
* *
99
ns
99
ns
4
111
ns
0
• #
0
* •
45
* ft
6
1

0
* *
0
*«
9
* *
15
109
ns
0
«•
0
* *
17
* ft
8
-------
69
44
* «
1237.3
ns
0
* *
0
* *
70
93
ns
1.6
* * *
1
* *
6
* *
71
105
ns
3.8
***
69
• *
94
ns
72
95
ns
2.8
**•
0
* •
0
* *
73
103
ns
4.2
* *
112
ns
104
ns
74
98
ns
100
ns
111
ns
107
ns
75
102
ns
5.9
* *
108
ns
95
ns
76
92
ns
24.4
~ *
108
ns
99
ns
77
105
ns
38.8
*
114
ns
110
ns
78
95
ns
71.2
ns
117
ns
111
ns
79
83
*
15.2
* *
115
ns
109
ns
80
81
*
100
ns
115
ns
109
ns
81
89
•
45.7
*
114
ns
106
ns
82
82
•
9.6
* *
114
ns
102
ns
83
81
•
5.8
* *
110
ns
109
ns
84
94
ns
85.9
ns
114
ns
104
ns
85
93
*
4.4
* •
110
ns
110
ns
86
96
ns
45
ns
106
ns
103
ns
87
65
* *
4.1
• *
110
ns
103
ns
88
88
«
75.5
ns
105
ns
93
ns
89
82
*
55
*
59
* *
102
ns
90
57
* *
21.1
* *
34
* *
100
ns
107
99
ns
1248.6
ns
106
ns
102
ns
91
96
ns
6.3
* *
109
ns
107
ns
93
96
ns
3.5
* * *
114
ns
108
ns
1
* *
1
* *
99
ns
101
ns
10
10
* *
2
* *
0
• *
70
* *
1 5
101
ns
0
* *
65
* *
101
ns
9
26
* *
0
* *
56
* *
73
• *
15
103
ns
0
« *
3
* *
98
ns
6
104
ns
0
* *
37
* *
98
ns
4
93
ns
0
* *
0
• •
98
ns
6
104
ns
0
* *
101
ns
97
ns
4
108
ns
0
* *
48
* *
98
ns
5
104
ns
2
* *
99
ns
100
ns
2
104
ns
0
* *
42
* *
96
ns
7
109
ns
45
* •
100
ns
97
ns
3
104
ns
0
* *
100
ns
99
ns
4
104
ns
0
* *
98
ns
96
ns
5
101
ns
3
* *
101
ns
98
ns
5
99
ns
0
• *
97
ns
99
ns
2
107
ns
53
* *
102
ns
97
ns
5
99
ns
1
* *
92
ns
99
ns
2
103
ns
0
* *
99
ns
96
ns
6
101
ns
105
ns
102
ns
97
ns
1
99
ns
64
# *
103
ns
98
ns
6
105
ns
13
* *
101
ns
98
ns
8
109
ns
0
* *
101
ns
101
ns
2
105
ns
100
ns
104
ns
101
ns
2
110
ns
62
* *
101
ns
99
ns
5
-------
94
96
ns
2
* • *
80.05
•
105
ns
95
99
ns
5.5
* *
97
ns
96
ns
96
97
ns
3.5
* * *
113
ns
107
ns
97
95
ns
1.6

88
ns
103
ns
98
96
ns
5.5
* *
112
ns
104
ns
99
91
•
1.6
** *
2
* *
79.4
• *
100
93
•
1.1
* * *
92
ns
104
ns
101
100
ns
2.3
<>•
67
* *
81
*
102
101
ns
2.8
* * *
112
ns
106
ns
103
103
ns
3
* * *
7
• *
59
* #
104
102
ns
1.4
*• *
19
+ *
4
* *
105
97
ns
3.6
** •
62
• *
106
ns
92
69
* *
3.5
** *
37
• *
106
ns
206
90
ns
27.3
« »
63
* *
93
ns
207
79
ns
93.6
ns
70
• *
94
ns
208
98
ns
62.9
ns
58
* *
78
* *
209
95
ns
32.8
*«
7
* •
12
* *
210
100
ns
398.9
ns
13
* *
47
* *
211
100
ns
108.7
ns
8
* *
43
* *
212
95
ns
49.8
*
96
ns
95
ns
213
99
ns
92.7
ns
53
* *
86
*
214
90
ns
38.2
*
67
* •
91
ns
215
96
ns
478.4
ns
67
• *
98
ns
216
89
ns
504.3
ns
82
ns
98
ns
106
ns
85
102
ns
98
ns
6
94
ns
104
103
ns
99
ns
2
107
ns
63
103
ns
99
ns
5
102
ns
0
0
* *
99
ns
7
104
ns
10
103
ns
97
ns
4
99
ns
0
0
* •
0
* *
14
99
ns
0
27
# *
98
ns
8
98
ns
0
0
* *
14
* *
12
109
ns
0
96
ns
96
ns
5
102
ns
0
86
ns
99
ns
9
12
* *
0
0
* *
46
* *
15
104
ns
0
0
* •
25
* *
1 1
105
ns
0
0
* *
78
* *
13
101
ns
0
99
ns
98
ns
6
105
ns
0
0
* *
99
ns
6
100
ns
0
0
• •
101
ns
8
52
* *
0
89
ns
100
ns
10
92
ns
88
99
ns
98
ns
4
90
ns
3
99
ns
98
ns
6
100
ns
0
1 1
• •
100
ns
5
86
*
0
0
* •
101
ns
7
99
ns
0
66
* *
99
ns
7
104
ns
0
100
ns
101
ns
4
105
ns
0
1
* *
101
ns
4
-------
217
91
ns
917.1
ns
104
ns
102
ns
105
ns
0
* *
97
ns
98
ns
2
218
74
ns
561.4
ns
96
ns
98
ns
107
ns
0
• *
97
ns
101
ns
2
219
96
ns
150.6
ns
93
ns
104
ns
110
ns
0
* *
6
* *
100
ns
4
220
95
ns
313.4
ns
11
* *
87
ns
101
ns
0
• *
99
ns
99
ns
4
221
87
ns
435.6
ns
93
ns
95
ns
104
ns
0
* *
96
ns
100
ns
2
222
99
ns
63.0
ns
6
* •
79.9
• *
102
ns
3
* *
99
ns
97
ns
6
223
99
ns
1095.1
ns
0
* *
46
* *
93
ns
0
« *
94
ns
101
ns
6
224
98
ns
686.6
ns
100
ns
104
ns
108
ns
88
ns
96
ns
96
ns
0
225
94
ns
117.8
ns
3
»*
32
* *
76
* ~
0
• *
98
ns
95
ns
8
226
87
ns
491
•
7
* *
90
ns
106
ns
0
* *
99
ns
98
ns
5
ns = not significant (p>0.05)
*	significant (p<0.05, response >80% of control)
" highly significant (p<0.05, response <80% of control)
*** very highly significant in Microtox tests
*	Toxicity tally calculated as the sum of the asterisks for each of the individual tests.
b Water quality-adjusted porewater concentrations.
-------
Toxicity was highly variable in zone 8; toxicity tallies ranging from 0 to 15
(Table 10). Five samples had toxicity tallies of 14 or 15: station 67 in the
northeastern corner of the zone; stations 70 and 72 along the western
shoreline; station 99 in the entrance channel to Black Creek Canal; and station
104 in Black Creek Canal. The sample from station 67 was especially curious,
given the distance from possible mainland sources, and the fact that it showed
significant toxicity in all tests. Toxicity was relatively high in other stations
located far from the mainland, including 68, 69, 89, and 90. However, stations
92, 97-105 in Black Creek/Gould's canals and 206-214 in Military, Mowry, and
North canals were among the most toxic in this region.
Except for station 225, none of the stations in zone 9 was highly toxic (Table
10). The sample from station 225 was toxic in both of the urchin tests. Toxicity
tallies in all other stations ranged from 0 to 6, indicating non-toxic to slightly
toxic conditions.
Copepod reproduction tests. Ten toxicological end-points were recorded in
the copepod tests of reproductive success (Table 11). Significant differences
between sample means and negative control means are shown with asterisks.
The numbers of non-gravid females surviving the exposures to solid-phase
sediments were higher relative to controls in samples from stations 11 and 58
and, correspondingly, the numbers of gravid females were significantly lower in
those samples. There no significant reductions in numbers of adult males that
survived the exposures.
The average numbers of eggs produced (clutch size) were significantly reduced
relative to controls in all except two samples (numbers 31, 101). Also, the total
numbers of individuals that survived to the naupliar and copepodite stages
were significantly reduced in all except two samples (numbers 14, 23).
Normalized to the numbers of surviving females, the numbers of total offspring
ranged from 0.4 to 12.7, corresponding to 3% to 75% of the mean control
responses.
The sum of all eggs (assuming all hatch and survive) + all nauplii + all
copepodites divided by the numbers of surviving females represents total
potential production from the adults in these tests (Table 11). Expressed as
percentages of respective controls, results ranged from 3.3 (8.6% of control 2) in
sample 58 to 25.8 (86.6% of control 4) in sample 101. Total potential
production was significantly reduced in 11 of the 15 samples. Samples from
stations 48 (lower Miami River) and 58 (upper Miami River) were the most toxic.
Samples from stations 95 (Princeton canal) and 101 (lower Gould's/Black
Creek canal) were the least toxic. Also, samples from stations 14 (north of
Dodge Island) and 23 (south of Dodge Island) were non-toxic.
Cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassavs. This test was performed on all of the
samples collected during 1996. Data, which express the fold induction
attributable to substances such as benzo[a]pyrne and dioxins which attach to
30
-------
Table 11. Summary of results ol multiple assays of the reproductive success of meiobenthic copepods
(A. tenuiremis) in controls and15 selected samples from Biscayne Bay (means ± std. devs. of 4 replicates).









Ratio of


Surviving
Surviving
Surviving
No. eggs
Total eggs
Juvenile

Total
offspring
Total
Station
non-gravid
gravid
adult
per
produced by
copepodites
Nauplii
nauplii +
to surviving
potential
No.
females
females
males
female
all females
produced
produced
copepodites
females
production
Control 1
2.8*2.2
18.815.0
19.513.1
11.611.3
214.5162.2
40.0120.9
296.81160.2
336.81181.1
14.516.6
24.417.1
1
11.315.4
11.016.2
16.519.7
6.110.8*
67.0141.0*
1.010.8*
80.8112.9*
81.8113.4*
3.710.9*
6.712.0*
11
14.517.0*
7.2±6.6*
21.012.0
8.512.2*
61.5174.6*
3.014.8*
102.0158.5
105.0161.9*
4.913.0*
7.816.4*
48
12.011.4
8.0±1.4
20.014.1
6.411.1*
51.019.9*
0.811.0*
8.516.6*
9.317.4*
0.410.4*
3.010.5*
Control 2
1.0±1.0
21.7±2.1
20.012.0
14.011.8
304.0165.1
9.016.6
558.31192.0
567.31185.7
25.018.3
38.4110.1
4
1.3±1.2
22.012.0
20.013.6
11.710.9*
258.0139.0
10.016.0
228.7128.6*
238.7128.4*
10.311.6*
21.312.5*
8
1.7±0.6
22.714.5
18.313.5
11.611.8*
262.7190.8
1.311.5
244.7176.3*
246.0174.8*
10.011.7*
20.513.6*
31
5.7±4.7
18.715.9
21.013.0
12.711.4
•236.7195.5
2.012.0
215.7134.8*
217.7136.3*
8.911.4*
18.614.3*
58
12.3±2.5*
6.013.6*
20.314.0
5.310.6*
32.0115.7*
0.710.6
28.3118.2*
29.0117.6*
1.611.0*
3.310.4*
Control 3
3.8±1.7
21.312.5
22.211.7
11.213.8
237.2116.3
30.5119.5
251.5186.3
282.01102.7
11.815.3
21.416.3
14
9.0±2.2
13.014.6
23.215.2
8.512.8*
110.2148.4
7.814.3
180.0153.2
187.8157.0
8.512.6
13.413.2
23
4.8±3.9
14.515.5
22.512.6
8.912.9*
129.8150.3
7.514.2
160.3138.2
167.8140.2
8.811.8
15.514.0
Control 4
1.310.6
21.710.6
23.012.7
13.613.1
295.0121.7
29.7117.9
360.3127.9
390.0113.2
17.010.5
29.810.3
67
4.0±3.6
17.016.1
20.711.2
10.613.0*
181.0163.3
3.313.2
108.7113.3*
112.0111.8*
5.410.3*
13.8H.7*
73
5.0±3.0
17.014.6
23.712.5
11.213.2*
189.7159.7
2.011.0
155.7140.1*
157.7141.1*
7.111.4*
15.712.6*
91
11.3±8.1
13.718.1
22.715.0
9.313.2*
127.3199.8
3.313.1
214.3112.5*
217.7110.7*
8.710.4*
13.813.6*
95
3.712.1
18.310.6
25.010.0
12.112.6*
222.3168
1.711.2
252.3163.3
254.0162.2*
11.9±4.0
22.115.4
101
1.3±1.2
20.013.5
25.713.2
14.113.4
281.7179
18.7122.0
247.7161.0*
266.3182.9*
12.714.7
25.812.8
105
5.0±3.0
14.313.2
23.313.2
10.513.5*
150.7137.6
1.310.6
76.7120.8*
78.0121.2*
4.010.9*
11.811.8*
* Significantly different from batch controls (Tukey's studentized range test, p<0.05)
-------
the Ah-recepter, were normalized to the degree of induction attributable to
exposures to benzo(a)pyrene (Table 12). High induction may be caused by the
presence of any number of mixed-function oxidase inducing compounds, most
notably dioxins, furans, co-planar PCBs, and several high molecular weight
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). There are no statistical tools
available thus far for assigning significance to the results of these tests.
Therefore, data are presented on a relative scale by comparing results among
each sampling station. However, based upon a review of existing data from
many surveys, results greater than 11.1 and 37.1 ug B[a]P equivalents/g
represent moderate and very high levels of induction, respectively.
The mean response in the P-450 RGS assays among all 121 samples was 8.2
ug B[a]P equivalents/g with a standard deviation of 8.5 and a 99% confidence
interval of 2.0. There were 36 samples in which results exceeded 11.1 ug B[a]P
equivalents/g and none in which results exceeded 37.1 ug B[a]P equivalents/g.
Results ranged from 1 ug B[a]P equivalents/g in many samples collected
throughout the bay to 37 ug B[a]P equivalents/g in samples from stations 147
(Indian Creek) and 201 (Coral Gables Canal), both located in peripheral canals
(Table 12). Other samples which showed relatively high responses included
those from stations 213 (North Canal), 150 (mouth of Little River), and 166 (west
of Watson Park and near a marina).
Incidental* of toxicity. The percentages of samples that were "toxic", i.e.,
significantly different from responses in respective control or reference materials
in the least conservative statistical test (i.e., assigned at least single asterisks),
are listed and compared among toxicity tests in Table 13. Data from the
samples collected in the1995 and1996 field operations are shown along with
the overall totals. Because different regions of the study area were sampled
each year, no temporal trends are explicit or implied in these data.
In the amphipod tests, 49 of 226 samples (21.7%) were significantly different
from controls (Table 13). Based upon the relatively low incidence of toxicity,
this was clearly the least sensitive of the bioassays. All except two of the toxic
samples were collected in 1995, reflecting the influence of the samples from
zone 6 which included the lower Miami River. The distribution of survival
results among the 226 samples from Biscayne Bay paralleled that of the
combined database from previous NOAA and EMAP studies (n=2630, Table
14). That is, the percentages of samples within each each response category
were within a few percentage points of each other, suggesting the data from
Biscayne Bay followed the pattern elsewhere in U.S. estuaries.
In the sea urchin fertilization tests, 44% of the samples were toxic in 100% pore
water, 20% were toxic when samples were diluted by 50%, and only 6% were
toxic in tests pf 25% pore water. A slightly higher percentage of the 1996
samples was toxic than the 1995 samples, reflecting the influence mainly of
samples from zone 8. In the most sensitive bioassay, 77% of samples were
toxic in the urchin embryological development tests performed with 100% pore
water.
31
-------
Table 12. Summary of results of cytochrome P-450 RGS assays of sediment extracts from Biscayne Bay
(as benzo(a)pyrene equivalents, ug/g). These tests were performed only with the 1996 samples.
Station
number
B(a)p equiv.
(ug/g )
Station
number
B(a)p equiv.
(ug/g )
Station
number
B(a)p equiv.
(ug/g )
Station
number
B(a)p equiv.
(ug/g )
Station
number
B(a)p equiv.
(ug/g )
106
1.91
131
12.76
156
1.95
181
0.71
206
23.63
107
0.75
132
1.26
157
11.11
182
1.45
207
20.47
108
1.45
133
11.04
158
12.09
183
1.65
208
19.10
109
2.68
134
7.66
159
11.90
184
3.00
209
8.86
110
3.77
135
3.52
160
12.12
185
0.41
210
6.66
111
11.54
136
4.10
161
9.08
186
1.47
211
8.61
112
12.54
137
8.88
162
6.23
187
0.48
212
8.51
113
11.01
138
4.74
163
5.77
188
0.54
213
35.07
114
13.60
139
3.08
164
3.62
189
0.59
214
9.29
115
7.91
140
8.53
165
13.10
190
0.55
215
0.59
116
15.60
141
1.33
166
29.57
191
0.87
216
0.74
117
15.52
142
0.78
167
17.20
192
0.81
217
2.42
118
7.90
143
12.41
168
6.22
193
0.71
218
1.90
119
6.70
144
28.71
169
18.58
194
1.18
219
2.87
120
2.56
145
14.81
170
16.79
195
0.98
220
1.34
121
5.03
146
25.41
171
13.55
196
2.63
221
0.64
122
4.19
147
36.85
172
10.34
197
0.87
222
0.90
123
3.20
148
14.29
173
15.37
198
0.75
223
1.50
124
2.02
149
4.16
174
11.27
199
1.11
224
1.33
125
2.86
150
29.66
175
4.77
200
10.73
225
1.10
126
2.62
151
0.49
176
4.31
201
37.03
226
1.34
127
0.74
152
3.24
177
16.42
202
8.40


128
16.78
153
2.13
178
25.37
203
8.00


129
21.42
154
4.28
179
1.42
204
18.61


130
21.86
155
4.25
180
4.56
205
8.25


-------
Table 13. Incidence of significant* sediment toxicity in Biscayne Bay in 1995 and 1996 samples.
Toxicity test/end point
1995
toxic/total
1995
1996
toxic/total
1996
Total
toxic/total
Total
Amphipod survival
47/105
38.8
2/121
1.7
49/226
21.7
Urchin fertilization






100% porewater
36/105
34.3
64/121
52.9
100/226
44.2
50% porewater
14/105
13.3
30/121
24.8
44/226
19.5
25% porewater
6/105
5.7
8/121
6.6
14/226
6.2
Urchin development






100% porewater
66/105
62.9
108/121
89.3
174/226
77.0
50% porewater
26/105
24.8
43/121
35.5
69/226
30.5
25% porewater
10/105
9.5
4/121
3.3
14/226
6.2
Microtox
94/105
89.5
37/121
30.6
131/226
58.0
* p<0.05, paired tests relative to controls
-------
Table 14. Comparison of the distribution of results in the amphipod
survival tests between Biscayne Bay and those from the combined
database from NOAA and EMAP studies nationwide.
Percent control-adjusted
Total
(n=2S3Q)
Biscavne Bav (n=226)
amphipod survival
number
percent
number
percent
> 100
734
27.9
54
23.9
90-99.9
1237
47.0
116
51.3
80-89.9
330
12.5
29
12.8
70-79.9
112
4.3
4
1.8
60-69.9
55
2.1
4
1.8
50-59.9
30
1.1
2
0.9
40-49.9
24
0.9
4
1.8
30-39.9
27
1.0
5
2.2
20-29.9
19
0.7
0
0.0
10-19.9
25
1.0
3
1.3
0.0-9.9
35
1.3
5
2.2
-------
In the Microtox tests, 58% of samples were toxic. The majority of the toxic
samples were collected in 1995, again, reflecting the influence of the Miami
River samples on the results.
The copepod tests were performed on selected samples collected during 1995
and P-450 RGS tests were run on samples collected only in 1996. Therefore,
these data were not equivalent to those from tests conducted on all 226
samples. Nevertheless, total potential production of copepod offspring was
significantly reduced in 11 (73%) of the 15 samples tested. P-450 RGS assay
results exceeded 11.1 ug B[a}P equivalents/g in 36 (30%) of the 121 samples
tested; however, none exceeded 37.1 ug B[a}P equivalents/g.
Spatial extent of toxicity. Tabulations of the incidence of toxic samples can
be highly influenced by the density of sampling effort in polluted regions. To
add perspective to the toxicity data, results were weighted to the sizes of the
strata within which samples were collected. The weighted sizes of the strata in
which "toxic" responses were observed (i.e., responses less than 80% of
controls) were summed to provide an estimate of the spatial (or surficial) extent
of toxicity in each test. Samples that were toxic from relatively small strata
nearest sources, therefore, had a minimal influence on the sum; whereas
samples that were toxic in relatively large strata farth from sources where non-
toxic conditions were expected made a much larger contribution to the total.
In the amphipod tests, the surficial extent of toxicity was 13%; equivalent to 62
km2 out of a total of 484 km2 (Table 15). The spatial extent of toxicity in the sea
urchin fertilization tests and embryo development tests of 100% pore water
were 47% and 84%, respectively. For the Microtox bioluminescence tests, the
total for Biscayne Bay was 51%. In the P-450 RGS assays, the samples in
which fold induction exceeded 11.1 ug/g B[a]PEq represented about 3.3% of
the area tested in 1996; none of the assay responses exceeded 37.1 ug/g.
Concordance among toxicity tests. Tests in this survey were selected to
provide complimentary, but not duplicative, information on the toxicity of the
sediments. Each test had different degrees of sensitivity to toxicants in the
sediments and each was, therefore, expected to show somewhat different
regional patterns in toxicity.
The correlations between results of each test are shown in Table 16. For all
tests, except the cytochrome P-450 test, a positive correlation coefficient
indicates the results were in agreement, e. g., amphipod survival decreased as
urchin fertilization or microbial bioluminescence decreased. With the
cytochrome P-450 data, fold induction would be expected to increase as
numerical results of the other tests decreased; therefore, negative correlations
would be expected if there was concordance.
32
-------
Table 15. Spatial extent8 of sediment toxicity6
in each test performed during 1995 and 1996.

1995
1995
1996
1996
Total
Total
Toxicity test/end point
Km2
% of total
Km2
% of total
Km2
% of total
Amphipod survival
52.9
24.8
9.4
3.45
62.3
12.9
Urchin fertilization






100% porewater
109.7
51.5
119.8
44.2
229.5
47.4
50% porewater
54.0
25.4
50.2
21.4
104.2
21.5
25% porewater
54.1
25.4
5.1
1.9
59.2
12.2
Urchin development






100% porewater
176.8
83.1
231.2
85.2
408.0
84.3
50% porewater
95.5
44.9
75.4
27.8
170.9
35.3
25% porewater
77.3
36.3
5.2
1.9
82.5
17.0
Microtox EC50
203.8
95.8
44.6
16.4
248.4
51.3
Cytochrome P-450 RGS






>11.1 ug BaP/g 0
no data

8.8
3.3
8.8
3.3
>37.1 ug BaP/gc
no data

0
0
0
0
a area sampled: in 1995 = 212.8 km2, in 1996 = 271.4 km2 for a total of 484.2km2
b critical value: <80% of controls
c critical values of 11.1 and 37.1 ug/g determined from data distribution within national database
-------
Table 16. Spearman-rank correlations (rho) among results of different
toxicity tests.
1995
Amphipod	Urchin	Urchin
survival fertilization development
Urchin fertilization	-0.030 ns
Urchin development -0.064 ns +0.112 ns
Microtox	-0.216 *	+0.309 *	+0.204
	1326	
Amphipod Urchin	Urchin
survival fertilization development Microtox
Urchin fertilization	-0.078 ns
Urchin development	+0.164 ns	+0.158	ns
Microtox	-0.079 ns	+0.308	**	+0.134 ns
Cytochrome P-450	+0.052 ns	+0.111	ns	-0.028 ns	^Q.521'
ns = p>0.05 *p<0.05 **p<0.001 *"p<0.0001
In the samples tested during 1995, the results of both the sea urchin tests and
the Microtox tests were correlated, indicating they showed similar regional
patterns in toxicity. Amphipod survival showed a significant correlation with the
Microtox results. In the samples tested during 1996, sea urchin fertilization
<100% pore water concentrations), but not embryo development (100% pore
water concentrations), was significantly correlated with Microtox results.
Microtox and amphipod survival were not correlated. Cytochrome P-450 and
Microtox results, both performed on organic solvent extracts of the samples,
were highly correlated, indicating fold induction increased as microbial
bioluminescent activity decreased.
Spatial patterns in toxicity. Data from each of the tests were plotted on base
maps to identify patterns and gradients, if any, in toxicity within the bay and
within individual sampling regions. Because of the size and complexity of the
study area, data from each of the four tests performed in both years are
illustrated as symbols in square 'pie' diagrams on each map. Data from the
copepod reproduction tests and cytochrome P-450 tests are shown separately.
The legend for the toxicity classifications (Figure 15) indicates that white (open)
symbols symbolize non-toxic conditions (i.e., not significant relative to controls)
in each test. Shaded symbols depict slightly toxic results in the sea urchin and
Microtox tests. Black symbols illustrate moderately toxic conditions and black
symbols with white triangle indicate highly toxic conditions. The specific criteria
for these four classifications are shown in Figure 15 for each of the four tests
that were performed on all 226 samples.
Because the lowest incidence of toxicity was apparent in the amphipod tests,
this, was, therefore, the least sensitive test. Consequently, highly toxic results in
these tests were regarded as most significant and the classifications of stations
were based disproportionately upon results of those tests. However, all four
tests plus the cytochrome P-450 and copepod reproduction tests were
33
-------
performed independently and the results of each were taken into consideration
in the identification of spatial gradients of toxicity. As indicated in the correlation
analyses (Table 16), the results of these tests did not parallel or duplicate each
other, so perfect agreement or consensus on the least and most toxic stations
was neither expected, nor observed. However, some degree of overlap in
results was expected in the most contaminated and least contaminated stations.
Several bay-wide and numerous smaller-scale gradients in toxicity were
apparent in the results of these tests. First, sediments collected within the lower
Miami River were clearly the most toxic among the 226 samples that were
tested. Amphipod survival was significantly reduced in all except one of the
samples; results were highly toxic in most of the samples; and average
amphipod survival was the lowest among all regions. Also, highly significant
results were observed in tests of copepod reproductive success and microbial
bioluminescence in samples from the Miami River. Toxicity diminished rapidly
beyond the mouth of the river. Second, many of the samples from the Black
Creek/Gould's canal were moderately to highly toxic in many of the tests.
Toxicity generally diminished eastward beyond the entrance channel to this
canal. Third, samples collected in an area of the south bay off Turkey Point and
in another area off Ragged Keys were surprisingly toxic for areas that were
relatively distant from obvious sources and in which concentrations of
measured chemicals were uniformly very low.
In the northernmost region of the study area (zone 1, Figure 16), 12 samples
were collected in Dumbfoundling Bay, Maule Lake, Oleta River, and the
Intracoastal Waterway. None of the samples was highly toxic in any of the tests.
None of the samples was toxic in the amphipod survival tests. Only four
showed significant results in the Microtox tests. Despite the proximity to
potential toxicant sources in Maule Lake and Oleta River, there were no clear
patterns or gradients in toxicity. Surprisingly, because of the very high
concentrations of PAHs in the sample, sediments collected near the mouth of
the Royal Glade Canal (station 106) were not highly toxic. Among the 12
samples, those from stations 109, 111, and 112 showed the highest toxicity in
the sea urchin and Microtox tests.
In zone 2, nine samples were collected near Bal Harbor, Munisport landfill, and
north of the Broad Causeway (Figure 17). In contrast to zone 1, highly
significant results were observed in the Microtox tests in sediments from four of
the stations, and moderately toxic results were observed in three other samples.
The samples from stations 5 and 8 were moderately toxic in the amphipod test;
however, mean survival was relatively high (93% and 91% of controls,
respectively) in both samples. Only one significant result (station 4) was
apparent in both sea urchin tests; none were moderately or highly toxic.
Samples from stations 1-3 were the most toxic in the Microtox tests; otherwise,
there were no clear gradients in toxicity within this region.
In zone 3 and 4 in the north-central region of the study area, 31 samples were
collected between North Miami and Miami Beach, including strata that
encompassed Biscayne Canal, Little River, and Indian Creek (Figure 18). This
34
-------
area was bounded by the Broad Causeway and Julia Tuttle Causeway.
Sediments in this area were not remarkably different from those in zone 2. Only
one sample (from station 138) was highly toxic in the amphipod tests (mean
survival = 64% of controls). None were highly toxic in the Microtox tests;
however, many samples were slightly or moderately toxic. All except one
sample was at least slightly toxic in at least one of the two urchin tests. The
sample from station 138 was noticeably more toxic than the others in three of
the four tests. Also, sediments from station 135 were moderately or highly toxic
in three tests. Surprisingly, because of their proximity to potential sources,
samples from the three peripheral canals were not noticeably more toxic than
those from the bay. There were no clear patterns or gradients in toxicity within
this region.
In zone 5, bounded on the north by Julia Tuttle Causeway and on the south by
the Port of Miami channel, 28 samples were collected (Figure 19). As
observed in zones 3 and 4, most of these samples were not highly toxic. None
of the results in the amphipod tests were significant. None was highly toxic and
only three were moderately toxic in the Microtox tests. Results were highly
significant in urchin tests in only two samples (from stations 154 and 156).
Curiously, stations 154 and 156 were located near station 138 which was the
most toxic station in zone 4; however, these locations were separated by the
Julia Tuttle Causeway. Other than the relatively high toxicity in stations 138,
154 and 156; there were no strong toxicity gradients in this region.
In zone 6, samples were collected between the Port of Miami and the
Rickenbacker Causeway (35 stations). Twenty-one samples were collected in
the lower Miami River, providing information from the railroad east to the
Brickell Point (Figures 20, 21). Sediments could not be collected in the eastern
reaches of the Port of Miami channel - only limestone rocks were found in many
repeated deployments of the sampler. Therefore, after the sample was
collected at station 16, no others were obtained. Stations 17 and 18, originally
intended for that stratum, were moved to another stratum within zone 6.
Among the 35 samples collected in the open water of zone 6, two (stations 10
and 12) collected in the northeastern corner indicated moderate toxicity in the
amphipod survival tests. An additional three samples (stations 19-21) collected
in the eastern end of the Port of Miami entrance channel indicated at least
moderate toxicity; the sample from station 20 was highly toxic (mean survival
was 77% of that in controls). Many of the samples were moderately or highly
toxic in the Microtox tests. Samples collected from stations both north and south
of the Dodge Island/Lummus Island complex, in the Intracoastal Waterway, and
along the shoreline south of the Miami River were relatively toxic in the Microtox
tests. Toxicity generally decreased in this test toward the southeast section of
the area. In contrast, samples from this region were not highly toxic in either of
the sea urchin tests. In the sea urchin tests, toxicity was most apparent among
samples collected within the Port of Miami channel, Intracoastal Waterway, and
along the southwestern shoreline. The sample from station 41, which was'
highly toxic in Microtox tests, was moderately toxic in both sea urchin tests.
35
-------
Among all 226 samples collected, those from sections of the lower Miami River
were the most toxic in the amphipod tests (Figure 21, Table 6). All except one
of the 21 samples was toxic and all except three was highly toxic. In sediments
from stations 61-63 (Seybold Canal), mean survival was 9%, 5%, and 8% of
controls, respectively. Only 2% of the animals survived in the sample from
station 56. In samples from stations 51 and 65, 9% and 10%, respectively, of
animals survived. Toxicity diminished abruptly in the most downstream station
(station 48) near the mouth of the canal.
Results of the Microtox tests in the Miami River showed a pattern similar to that
of the amphipod tests (Figure 21, Table 9). All except one of the 21 samples
was either moderately or highly toxic. Results were 1.7%, 2.1% and 1.6% of
control responses with samples from stations 61-63 (Seybold Canal) - the most
toxic samples. Other highly toxic samples included those from stations 54
(7.1% of control response), 57 (4% of controls), 60 (8.5%), and 65-66 (6.4%,
6.5%, respectively). Toxicity generally was highest upstream of the intersection
with South Fork and generally diminished somewhat downstream toward the
mouth of the river.
In sharp contrast to results of the amphipod and Microtox tests, both tests
performed with the sea urchins did not show remarkably high toxicity in the
Miami River (Figure 21, Tables 7 and 8). In the urchin fertilization tests,
toxicity was most apparent in samples from stations 63 and 49 located at and
below the mouth of Seybold Canal. All other samples were either non-toxic or
only slightly toxic. In the embryo development tests, samples from adjacent
stations 50, 63, and 49 were either moderately to highly toxic. Several samples
from the upper reaches of the river (stations 58-60), Tamiami Canal (stations
64-65), and upper Seybold Canal (stations 61-62) were slightly toxic.
In zone 7 south of Rickenbacker Causeway, a total of 27 samples was
collected, including three each in two tributary canals (Figure 22). None of
these samples was highly toxic in any of the four tests. The sample from station
198 was moderately toxic (80% survival relative to controls) in the amphipod
tests. Two samples from the Snapper Creek Canal and one sample from the
Coral Gables Canal were moderately toxic in the Microtox tests and two
additional samples were slightly toxic. Nine of the samples collected in the
open waters of the bay were moderately toxic in at least one of the urchin tests
and most were at least slightly toxic. Moderately toxic conditions in the Microtox
tests observed in the lower reaches of the Snapper Creek Canal diminished
abruptly beyond the mouth of the canal. Otherwise, there were no clear
gradients or patterns in toxicity in this region.
Toxicity tests were performed on 51 samples from zone 8, including 22 samples
from six tributary canals (Figure 23). Several patterns in toxicity were apparent
in this region. First, Microtox tests, and to a lesser extent, amphipod and sea
urchin tests, showed relatively high toxicity in the Black Creek/Gould's Canal.
Several samples (i.e., stations 70-72) collected beyond the mouth of this canal
also were toxic; thereafter, toxicity generally diminished southeastward into the
bay. Second, many samples collected in an area off the mouths of North and
36
-------
Mowry canals and off Turkey Point were relatively toxic in amphipod and
Microtox tests, and to a lesser extent, in the urchin tests. Third, and perhaps
most curious, samples from stations 67 and 69 which were located far from
obvious sources were toxic in the amphipod and both urchin tests. Samples
from stations 106, 88, and 107 to the north and south of stations 67 and 69 were
considerably less toxic.
Twleve samples were collected in zone 9, the southernmost region of the study
area (Figure 24). None of these samples was toxic in the amphipod tests and
only one was slightly toxic in Microtox tests. Several samples were either
slightly or moderately toxic in either of the urchin tests and one (station 225)
was highly toxic in the embryological development test. There were no clear
patterns or gradients in toxicity.
In the copepod reproduction tests, samples were collected from 15 stations that
were presumed to represent pollution gradients. Station 1 near the Munisport
landfill, stations 48 and 58 in the lower Miami River, station 105 in the Black
Creek Canal, and station 95 in Princeton Canal were expected to most severely
affect reproductive success in these tests. All copepod tests were performed
only during 1995. Results of three cumulative endpoints (total numbers of
nauplii and copepodites produced, the ratio of total offspring to the numbers of
surviving females, and total potential production) as listed in Table 10 are
illustrated in Figure 25. All data are compared as percentages of batch
controls.
In the copepod tests, effects were most severe in the samples from stations 48
and 58 in the lower Miami River (Figure 25). Results at these two stations
ranged from 2.7% to 12.3% of controls for the three endpoints. Reproductive
success improved in the samples from stations 11, 14, and 23, which were
increasingly distant from the mouth of the Miami River. The samples from
stations 1 and 105 also were among the most toxic in these tests; results ranged
from 20% to 38% of controls. Effects diminished with increasing distance from
both stations. Surprisingly, given the distance from known sources of toxicants,
the sample from station 67 in the southern bay was highly toxic in the copepod
tests; coinciding with results of the other tests performed on that sample.
Bioassays with the reporter gene system were performed on samples collected
during 1996 to detect the presence of substances in organic solvent extracts of
the sediments that can induce cytochrome P-450 activity. Results ranged from
<1.0 ug benzo[a]pyrne equivalents/g (B[a]pEq) to over 37 ug B[a]pEq/g (Table
11). Spatial patterns in these results are illustrated in Figures 26-31 for six
regions of the survey area. As described in Methods, values greater than 11.1
ug/g and 37.1 ug/g represent responses that are moderate and high,
respectively.
In sampling zone 1, bioassay results ranged from 1.5 ug/g in the sample from
station 108 to 15.6 ug/g in station 116 (Figure 26). In general, P-450 induction
was highest in samples collected in the Oleta River, Maule Lake, and one reach
37
-------
of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, relative to samples collected elsewhere
in the survey, those from zone 1 were only slightly contaminated.
In sampling zones 3 and 4, results ranged from <1.0 ug/g in samples from
stations 127 and 142 to over 36 ug/g in sample 147 from Indian Creek (Figure
27). In general, samples from the three peripheral tributaries to this region of
the bay were most contaminated with substances that induce cytochrome P-450
actitivity. There were only 12 of the 121 samples tested that resulted in
responses greater than 20 ug/g; six of which were collected in zones 3 and 4.
Furthermore, the sample from station 147 was one of only three that resulted in
a response greater than 30 ug/g. Responses exceeded 20 ug/g in samples
from the Little River, Biscayne Canal, and Indian Creek and generally
diminished steadily with distance from these tributaries.
Results in zone 5 ranged from 0.5 ug/g in the sample from station 151 to 25.4
ug/g and 29.6 ug/g in the samples from stations 178 and 166, respectively
(Figure 28). Station 178 was located in the Bicentennial Park basin and station
166 was located near a marine fuel dock. Most of the samples collected south
of the Venetian Isles were more contaminated that those collected farther north.
The majority of samples from sampling zone 7 showed very low contamination;
indicating responses of <1.0 to 3.0 in most samples (Figure 29). An exception,
the sample from station 201 collected in the Coral Gables Canal, indicated
relatively high contamination. The response of 37.0 ug/g in sample 201 was
the highest observed among the 121 samples. Other samples from the Coral
Gables Canal as well as the Snapper Creek Canal indicated moderate levels of
induction. All of the samples from the open waters of the bay showed very low
induction.
Similar to results from Coral Gables and Snapper Creek canals, samples from
Military, Mowry, and North canals also indicated moderate induction activities
(Figure 30). The sample from station 213 located near a large marina provided
the third highest induction rate among all 121 samples that were tested. The
three samples collected in Military Canal (stations 206-208) provided
responses of 19.1 ug/g to 23.6 ug/g, much higher on average than induction
activities in samples from the other nearby canals.
Bioassay results in all 12 samples collected in sampling zone 9 indicated these
samples were not contaminated (Figure 31). Induction activity ranged from 0.6
ug/g to 2.9 ug/g.
Spatial patterns in chemical contamination. Because of the size and
complexity of the study area and the large number of chemical analytes, data for
all substances are not plotted in this report. Instead, the concentrations of four
substances - lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs - are shown to illustrate the
spatial gradients and patterns in contamination. These four substances were
selected for several reasons. In numerous surveys performed elsewhere in US
estuaries, these four substances have been reliable indicators of inputs of
anthropogenic toxicants and showed high concordance with measures of
38
-------
toxicity. They showed relatively high correlations with toxicity in Biscayne Bay.
Most toxic substances co-varied with each other to a high degree in Biscayne
Bay, suggesting that the data for these four substances would be representative
of the spatial patterns for most other chemicals.
Concentrations are shown as histograms on a sequence of base maps
(Figures 32-40). Bars representing the concentrations of lead, zinc, the total of
13 PAHs, total PCBs (sum of 20 congeners times 2.0) are shown from left to
right for each sampling station. The legend accompanying each illustration
includes the respective ERL and ERM (where appropriate) values from Long et
al. (1995). Note that the scales are different among the different maps.
In zone 1, chemical conentrations were highest in samples collected in Maule
Lake and lowest in the samples from the lower Oleta River and parts of the
Intracoastal Waterway (Figure 32). Concentrations of lead in stations 111-113
exceeded the ERL value of 46.7 ppm. Concentrations of total PCBs exceeded
the ERL value of 22.7 ppb in seven of the stations. The concentration of total
PAHs at station 116 near the mouth of Royal Glades Canal was extremely high,
exceeding the ERM value of 44,792 ppb.
Chemical concentrations were considerably lower in zone 2 (Figure 33). None
of the lead, zinc or PAH concentrations equalled or exceeded their respective
ERL values. However, the concentrations of PCBs exceeded the ERL in most
samples. PCB concentrations were highest in stations 7 and 8 and lowest in
station 4.
In zones 3 and 4 chemical data showed a very clear pattern: concentrations
were highest in samples from peripheral tributaries to the bay and lowest
towards the middle of the bay (Figure 34). In this area samples from Biscayne
Canal, Little River and Indian Creek had the highest concentrations of the four
representative substances. Concentrations in samples from stations 129, 130,
149, and 147 often exceeded their respective ERL values. Concentrations of
lead, zinc, and total PCBs in these samples also exceeded the ERM values.
Beyond the mouths of these tributaries, chemical concentrations diminished
sharply to levels below the ERLs. The sample from station 137 taken near the
Julia Tuttle Causeway had intermediate concentrations.
In zone 5, concentrations of lead, zinc, and total PAHs were below the ERL
values in most samples; however, the concentrations of PCBs were above the
ERL and below the ERM (Figure 35). Relative to the other stations within this
zone, samples from station 157-159 near Sunset Island and station 178 in a
small basin near downtown Miami were the most contaminated. However,
these concentrations were considerably lower than those in the Miami River
(below). As observed in zones 3 and 4 concentrations often were lowest
towards the middle of the bay. Surprisingly, the sample taken at station 166,
which was near a fuel dock, did not have an unusually high concentration of
PAHs.
39
-------
All 21 samples from the lower Miami River stations had relatively high
concentrations of many chemical substances, including lead, zinc, tPAHs, and
tPCBs (Figure 36). Concentrations often exceeded respective ERL values and
frequently exceeded the ERMs. All of the highest concentrations encountered
in the 226 samples analyzed in the study were observed in these samples.
Samples in which concentrations were extremely high included those from
stations 61-63 (Seybold Canal) and 65 (Tamiami Canal). In the mainstem of
the Miami Canal, there was no clear gradient in contamination. All stations from
the farthest upstream to the farthest downstream had elevated concentrations.
PCB concentrations were slightly higher below the confluence with Seybold
Canal than above it, suggesting Seybold Canal may be a source of PCBs to the
river. PAH concentrations in sample 65 - collected near a commerical boat yard
- were extremely high, exceeding the ERM value. The high lead concentrations
in these samples, especially those from Seybold Canal, suggest stormwater as
a potential source of contamination to this region.
Seaward of the mouth of the Miami River, chemical concentrations diminished
sharply and continued to gradually decrease eastward toward the ocean
(Figures 36, 37). None of the samples had zinc or PAH concentrations above
the ERL; only one sample (station 10) exceeded the ERL for lead; and most
samples from the middle of the bay had relatively low PCB concentrations.
Samples from stations 24, 33 and 34 suggested an influence from the Miami
River; however, the sample from station 32 had very low chemical levels,
suggesting no such influence. Stations 13-16 in the Port of Miami channel had
relatively high PCB concentrations; these concentrations diminished sharply
near the entrance in stations 19-21. Concentrations also were relatively high in
station 10, which was located within the boat basin at a shopping center.
Stations 28-30, located nearest the ocean, were clearly the least contaminated,
and the most distant from the mainland in this region.
South of the Rickenbacker Causeway (Figure 38), chemical concentrations in
the many samples collected in the open waters of Biscayne Bay were very low.
In contrast, samples 200-202 from Coral Gables Canal and 203-205 from
Snapper Creek Canal had relatively high concentrations. Among these six
samples, those from stations 201 and 204 appeared to be the most
contaminated. Samples from stations 180, 186, and 200 appeared to show
some influence from mainland sources, including Coral Gables Canal. There
was a slight pattern of decreasing concentrations of all four substances from
northern stations (182-184, 191-192) to southern stations (190, 194-199).
Five tributary canals were sampled in zone 8 to provide information on possible
sources of contamination to southern Biscayne Bay (Figure 39). The canals
included Black Creek/Gould's Canal, Princeton Canal, Military Canal, Mowry
Canal, and North Canal. Chemical concentrations often were considerably
higher in sediments from these canals than in adjoining regions of the bay.
Among the five canals, contamination was most apparent in Black Creek,
Military, and North canals; however, this pattern was inconsistent and variable.
Although PCB concentrations often exceeded ERL values, concentrations of the
other three substances never exceeded their respective ERL values. PAH
40
-------
concentrations were relatively low. Samples taken from strata in the entrance
channel to Black Creek Canal clearly showed the influence of the canal.
However, beyond the entrances to all canals, chemical concentrations
diminished sharply, suggesting that contaminants entering the bay from these
canals do not accumulate in bay sediments near the canals.
Thirteen stations (67, 69, 79-83, 85-90) in zone 8 which were moderately to
highly toxic in one or more of the bioassays, had very low concentrations of
lead, zinc, tPAHs, and tPCBs (Figure 39). Data for all metals and organics in
these 13 samples were below or near the detection limits for all substances.
Concentrations of individual PAHs generally ranged from 1 to 5 ppb and
concentrations of all pesticides and PCB congeners were <1ppb. These
sediments were sandy (4-17% fines) and had low organic carbon (0.5 to 1.5%
TOC). AVS concentrations were relatively low (10-30 ppm). Concentrations of
un-ionized ammonia were below the toxicological threshold (LOEC = 800 ug/L)
for urchin fertilization; ranging from 32 to 172 ug/L in the porewater test
chambers. However, un-ionized ammonia concentrations exceeded the LOEC
(90 ug/L) for the embryo development test in some samples, but not by large
amounts. In the amphipod test chambers, un-ionized ammonia concentrations
ranged from 50 to 380 ug/L in all except one sample (1030 ug/L in station 87);
four samples exceeded the NOEC (236 ug/L for A. abdita; Kohn et al., 1994)
and one (station 87) exceeded the LOEC (446 ug/L; Kohn et al., 1994).
Microtox tests, which were highly significant in many of these samples, were not
exposed to ammonia in the organic solvent extracts. Collectively, none of these
chemical data alone or in combination provide a possible explanation for the
unusual degree of toxicity observed in these 13 samples from the south bay
Concentrations of lead, zinc, tPAHs, and tPCBs were very low in all 12 samples
from zone 9 (Figure 40). Concentrations in the sample from station 226 were
slightly higher than those from the other 11 stations; however, all concentrations
were well below ERL levels.
Regions of concern. To provide large-scale patterns or trends in relative
sediment quality, regions of the study area were compared with each other
based upon summary statistics for both the toxicity tests performed on all 226
samples and the summarized chemical data (Table 17). Average toxicity tallies
from Table 10 were calculated for stations located in the open-water basins of
each zone, the peripheral canals and tributaries of each zone, and for all
stations within all strata of each zone. Highest tallies indicated the highest
toxicity responses on the four tests that were performed on all 226 samples.
Chemical data were compared as averages of the mean ERM quotients for
each station and region. Mean ERM quotients were calculated as mean of the
quotients derived by normalizing (dividing) the chemical concentrations for 25
substances by their respective ERM values. The average of the quotients was
calculated for each of the regions. Mean ERM quotients of 1.0 or greater signify
that the average chemical mixture in the samples is equal to or greater than
unity in terms of the ERM values. Data from many previous surveys have
41
-------
Table 17. Average toxicity tally scores* based upon results of four toxicity tests
and average of mean ERM quotients for stations located within open basins,
peripheral canals/tributaries, and all strata of each sampling zone.
Average toxicity tally scores	Average of mean ERM quotients
Zone
basin
peripheral
all stations
basin
peripheral
all statio
1
5.00
4.33
4.67
0.054
0.382
0.218
2
2.67
na
2.67
0.036
na
0.036
3,4
5.43
6.00
5.61
0.049
0.242
0.111
5
4.54
4.00
4.46
0.056
0.134
0.061
6
4.44
6.38
5.16
0.036
0.764
0.304
7
3.71
3.17
3.59
0.010
0.222
0.057
Coral Gables Canal
3.66


0.341

Snapper Creek Canal
2.66


0.103

8
6.00
7.73
6.76
0.008
0.068
0.034
Black Creek Canal
9.44


0.055

Princeton Canal
4.33


0.025

Military Canal

6.66


0.168

Mowry Canal

6.66


0.035

North Canal

6.33


0.074

9
3.92
na
3.92
0.010
na
0.010
toxicity tally scores from Table 10
-------
indicated that toxicity frequently occurs in samples with mean ERM quotients of
1.0 or greater (Long et al., 1998).
On average, based upon the results of the toxicity tests, the samples from the
peripheral canals (especially Black Creek) of zone 8 were the most toxic
(average score of 7.73), followed by the Miami River in zone 6 (score of 6.38)
and the canals of zones 3 and 4 (score of 6.0). Toxicity in these three zones
was higher in the stations located in canals than in stations located offshore in
the open waters of the bay. However, in zones 1, 5, and 7 toxicity, on average,
was slightly higher in the basins than in the peripheral areas. The least toxic
areas, on average, were the strata within zones 2, 7, and 9.
The data from the chemical index calculated as the mean ERM quotients
showed a wider range in response than the toxicity tallies (Table 17). The area
with the highest chemical contamination - the lower Miami River in zone 6 - had
an average quotient of 0.764, 21 times higher than the average for the open
water stations within zone 6 and 76 times higher than the average for the basins
of zones 7, 8, and 9. Chemical concentrations were frequently higher in the
peripheral areas of each zone than in the basins. Other canals with high
chemical concentrations included Maule Lake/Oleta River in zone 1, Coral
Gables, Indian Creek/Biscayne Canal/Little River in zones 3 and 4, and Military
Canal in zone 8.
These data indicate a clear difference in chemical concentrations north and
south of the Rickenbacker Causeway (Table 17). South of the causeway, the
mean ERM quotients averaged 0.010, 0.008, and 0.010 in the basins of zones
7, 8, and 9, respectively. North of the causeway (zones 1-6), the averages of
the mean ERM quotients in stations sampled in the basins ranged from 0.036 to
0.056 - about 3 to 5 times higher.
Together, the chemical and toxicity data indicated that sediments from the lower
Miami River ranked among the most degraded within the study area. Also, the
chemical and toxicity data, together, indicated that sediments from the basins of
zones 2, 7, and 9 were the least degraded. However, zone 8 peripheral
stations, on average, ranked highest in toxicity, but only sixth highest in
chemical contamination. In zone 7 peripheral stations, the opposite pattern was
apparent: high chemistry, low toxicity. Remarkably, the basin stations in zone 8
ranked highest among the basins (driven by data from 13 stations in south bay),
but lowest in chemical concentrations among the basins. The lack of
correspondence between the overall indices of chemical contamination and
toxicity in the southern portion of zone 8 suggests that results of toxicity tests
were probably not driven by the chemicals that were measured.
Chemicals exceeding numerical guidelines. The causes of toxicity
observed in the sediment samples could not be determined with the study
design used in this survey; nor was this an objective of the survey. Other types
of laboratory and field studies would be needed to identify which substances
caused toxicity. However, a number of data analyses can be conducted to
identify those chemicals that may have contributed to toxicity.
42
-------
The concentrations of chemicals in the sediments were compared to applicable
sediment quality guidelines to provide perspective to the data and to identify
which of the substances were most frequently elevated in concentration. TEL
and PEL values from MacDonald et al. (1996) and ERL and ERM values from
Long et al. (1995) were used as a basis for comparison (Table 18). PEL and
ERM values generally were about 10 times higher than respective TEL and
ERL values, therefore, more samples would be expected to exceed the latter
values than the former. During the derivations of the guidelines, concentrations
below the TELs and ERLs were rarely associated with measures of effects,
whereas concentrations that exceeded the PELs and ERMs were frequently
associated with toxicity and other measures of adverse biological effects.
Arsenic concentrations exceeded the TEL and ERL in 90 and 70 samples,
respectively; however, none of the concentrations exceeded either the PEL or
ERM (Table 18). Among the nine trace metals, copper, lead and mercury
concentrations most frequently exceeded both the TEL/ERL values and the
PEL/ERM values; thus, suggesting that these elements could have contributed
to toxicity most widely throughout the study area. Concentrations of silver and
zinc also were elevated in many samples. In contrast, the concentrations of
chromium and nickel were not particularly high relative to the guidelines.
Samples in which trace metals concentrations exceeded guidelines by the
greatest amount included those from stations 61-63, 65, 147, 149, 111-113, and
206-208 - scattered among Tamiami Canal, Seybold Canal, Indian Creek, Little
River, Maule Lake, and Military Canal, respectively. All of these stations were
located in peripheral tributaries to the bay.
PAH concentrations were compared with the guidelines for the sums of 7 low
molecular weight compounds (LPAH), 6 high molecular weight compounds
(HPAH), and all 13 compounds (total PAH). The high molecular weight
compounds exceeded the guideline concentrations more frequently than the
low molecular weight compounds (Table 18). The sum of total PAHs exceeded
the TEL value in 33 samples and the ERL in 19 samples. These concentrations
also exceeded the PEL and ERM in four samples and one sample, respectively.
Concentrations were extremely high in the sample from station 116 (Oleta
River). The samples from stations 61 and 63 (Seybold Canal) and station 65
(Seybold Canal) also had very high concentrations of PAHs.
Total PCB concentrations (sums of 20 congeners multiplied by a factor of 2.0)
were elevated above the TEL and ERL values in 106 of the 226 samples and
above the PEL and ERM values in 30 samples and 31 samples, respectively
(Table 18). The concentrations of PCBs were highest in samples from stations
61-63 and 65. Concentrations of total DDT and individual isomers were
elevated in many samples, especially those from stations 61-63.
To provide perspective as to the spatial scales of contamination with these
substances, cumulative distribution functions were prepared with methods
similar to those used to calculate estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity.
Using the ERM concentrations as critical values, the surficial areas (km and
43
-------
Table 18. Numbers of samples among the 226 analyzed in which sediment
quality guideline* concentrations were exceeded for each substance and the
surficial area (km2 and percent of total area) represented by the samples in
which the ERMs were exceeded.

TEL
ERL
PEL
ERM
ERM
ERM
Chemical
exceeded
exceeded
exceeded
exceeded
km2
% of area
arsenic
90
70
0
0
0.00
0.00
cadmium
27
18
3
1
0.03
0.01
chromium
8
4
0
0
0.00
0.00
copper
75
44
18
8
0.08
0.02
lead
52
37
27
19
2.06
0.43
mercury
71
62
15
15
2.12
0.44
nickel
4
1
0
0
0.00
0.00
silver
30
23
10
0
0.00
0.00
zinc
29
24
12
8
0.21
0.04
sum of LPAH
25
19
6
2
0.06
0.01
sum of HPAH
51
30
7
6
0.15
0.03
sum of tPAH
33
19
4
1
0.06
0.01
total chlordane
7
nd
3
nd
nd
nd
dieldrin
19
nd
2
nd
nd
nd
4,4'-DDD
34
nd
17
nd
nd
nd
4,4-DDE
63
60
0
15
2.03
0.42
4,4'-DDT
32
nd
9
nd
nd
nd
total DDTs
68
99
14
19
2.23
0.46
total PCBs
106
106
30
31
6.37
1.32
* TEL and PEL values from MacDonald et al. (1996) and ERL and ERM values
from Long et al. (1995).
nd a no guideline available
-------
percentage of total area) in which concentrations exceeded the ERMs were
determined (Table 18). These data indicated that although the ERM
concentrations were exceeded in several to many samples, the spatial scales of
contamination were relatively small. For example, the ERM concentration for
total PCBs was exceeded in 31 samples. However, because many of the
samples were collected in relatively small strata in canals, these samples only
represented about 6 km2 or 1.3% of the total. Among all other chemicals, the
spatial extent of toxicity ranged from 0% to 0.5% of the total. If the ERLs or
TELs, which were not intended to be highly predictive of toxicity, had been used
as critical values; the spatial scales of contamination, of course, would be much
larger.
Metals occur naturally in sediments, and concentrations of metals vary with
sediment type and grain size. The State of Florida established guidance on
normalization of metals concentrations to a reference element (Aluminum) to
distinguish between anthropogenic and natural levels of metals in estuarine
sediments (Schropp et. al, 1990). Trace metal concentrations in samples from
clean reference areas were plotted against the concentrations of aluminum in
the same samples, and the resulting regression and confidence intervals
were plotted. The resulting graph represents the ranges of concentrations that
expected as background levels of metals. This tool was developed such that
hen new data are collected, they could be plotted on this graph to determine
whether the concentration of metals in the new sample falls within the expected
range, or if it exceeds that range (exceeds the 95% C.I.)- Concentrations above
the upper C.I. are considered to be "enriched", and therefore likely to have been
influenced by anthropogenic sources.
The metal-to-aluminum relationships from 226 sediments from Biscayne Bay
are compared to the ratios observed by Schropp et al. (1990) in Figures 41-46.
The upper and lower 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) from Schropp et al. (1990)
are shown in each scattergram. Cadmium concentrations in 19 samples from
Biscayne Bay exceeded the upper 95% C.I. expected in non-polluted sediments
(Figure 41). These data suggest that cadmium concentrations in most samples
were well within the expected range; whereas, those in 19 samples were
elevated presumably because of anthropogenic (human) inputs. In contrast,
chromium and nickel concentrations were elevated above expected levels in
only 6 and 4 samples, respectively (Figure 42). Copper, lead, and zinc
concentrations were very high in many samples relative to expected levels
(Figures 43, 44, 46). Concentrations of all three metals were nearly three
orders of magnitude above predicted background levels in some samples.
Collectively, these data indicated that the concentrations of cadmium, copper,
lead, and zinc in many samples were relatively high because of long-term,
human inputs to Biscayne Bay.
Overall, these data suggest that concentrations of many substances occurred at
or above background levels and concentrations previously associated with
toxicity and other adverse biological effects in many of the samples.
Furthermore, the data suggest that no single chemical was elevated in
concentration; rather, mixtures of many different substances occurred in
44
-------
relatively high concentrations in the samples. Among all substances for which
sediment guidelines are available, copper, lead, mercury, DDT isomers, and
PCBs appear to be the contaminants of most concern in Biscayne Bay. PAHs
also occurred in elevated concentrations in several samples. It is important to
recognize, however, that the spatial scales of elevated contamination are
relatively small, reflecting the fact that contaminant concentrations were highest
among the small strata sampled in peripheral canals and tributaries to the bay.
ChemistryAloxicity correlations: baywide. To determine which, if any, of
the chemical substances in the samples were associated with measures of
toxicity, a series of correlation analyses were performed. All correlations were
performed with non-parametric, Spearman-rank analyses as in previous
surveys of this kind. Correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) were
determined with Statview software and reported along with probability (p)
values. In these analyses, correlations that were statistically significant could
occur as a result of random chance alone, because many independent
variables were considered. In the data from Biscayne Bay, correlations were
determined for 54 individual chemicals and classes of chemicals. Probability
(p) values of less than 0.0001 would not remain significant if the number of
variables were taken into account. Therefore, in the accompanying tables,
coefficients assigned less than four asterisks would not remain significant.
Correlative relationships must not be confused with causality. That is, although
there appear to be many interesting associations between measures of toxicity
and chemical concentrations, these associations do not describe causative
relationships. Other chemicals not measured could have contributed to or been
solely responsible for the toxicity. Substances co-varying with each other in
mixtures probably were responsible for the toxicity, but the absolute nature of
these mixtures is unknown. Causality must be determine in laboratory tests
such as toxixity identification evaluations and spiked sediment bioassays.
Correlation coefficients should have negative signs to indicate that the
endpoints (e.g., survival) measured in these tests decreased as chemical
concentrations increased. Correlations with positive signs indicate spurious,
meaningless relationships. Correlations are shown for the following
substances: un-ionized form of ammonia in either the porewaters of amphipod
test chambers or urchin test chambers; 17 metals and metalloids; percentages
of the sediments composed of different grain sizes; total organic carbon (TOC);
acid-volatile sulfides (AVS); seven low molecular weight PAH (LPAHs) for which
ERM values were derived; all parent and substituted LPAHs; six high molecular
weight PAHs (HPAHs) for which ERMs were derived; all parent and substituted
HPAHs; all thirteen PAHs for which ERMs exist; all parent and substituted
PAHs; many different chlorinated organic hydrocarbons (COHs), including
hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs); six isomers of DDT; total DDTs; five
representative PCB congeners; total of 20 PCB congeners times a factor of 2.0;
and sums of quotients calculated by normalizing chemical concentrations by
their respective ERM values.
45
-------
Correlations were initially performed with all data from the 226 stations sampled
during both years (Table 19). In the amphipod survival tests, correlations were
most significant for helptachlor, aldrin, trans-nonachlor, oxychlordane, and PCB
congener 209. These correlations would remain significant if the number of
variables were taken into account. Other less significant correlations were
apparent for the concentrations of cadmium, percent clay, and o, p' - DDD.
Weaker correlations were apparent for nickel, tin, zinc, sum of all LPAHs, and
many different kinds of COHs. Overall, these data suggest relative strong
relationships between amphipod survival and complex mixtures of chlorinated
hydrocarbons and either weak or no significant relationships with trace metals,
PAHs, ammonia or grain size. However, none of the ERM-normalized indices
of contamination showed significant correlations with amphipod survival in the
bay-wide data set.
In contrast to the amphipod survival tests, results of the sea urchin fertilization
tests (done with results from the tests of 100% pore waters) showed no
significant correlations with the same classes of chlorinated organics (Table
19). In this test correlations were most significant for selenium, percent clay,
percent fines (clay + silt), AVS, and the sum of HCHs. Less significant were
correlations with ammonia, aluminum, nickel, percent silt, and percent TOC.
The correlations with several trace metals were relatively weak. Overall, these
data suggest that urchin fertilization was depressed in samples with high
percent fines, TOC, aluminum, and AVS concentrations - all of which would be
expected to co-occur with each other. Among potential toxicants, the
correlations suggested a strong relationship with both selenium and total HCHs.
In the urchin embryological development tests with 100% pore waters,
correlations were very strong with the concentrations of ammonia, and to a
lesser extent, total HCHs, and AVS (Table 19). The correlation with ammonia
(rho = -0.573, p<0.0001) was the most significant observed among all variables.
Microbial bioluminescence activity, as measured in the Microtox tests, was
highly correlated with numerous toxicants, including nearly all metals, all
classes of PAHs, and many classes and compounds of chlorinated organics
(Table 19). The strong statistical correlations with the three classes of ERM-
normalized chemicals further substantiates the associations with mixtures of
substances. As in the urchin fertilization test, the positive correlation with
percent sand and the negative correlations with percent fines, percent TOC,
and AVS content, suggests that toxicity was most severe in fine-grained,
organically-enriched sediments. Correlation coefficients were among the
highest for cadmium, chromium, and nickel. This test, because it is conducted
with an organic solvent extract of the sediments, is intended to identify samples
in which organic substances pose a potential toxicological threat. Therefore, it
is likely that trace metals co-varied in concentrations with organic compounds
eluted with the solvents.
The cytochrome P-450 assays have been shown in laboratory tests of clean
materials spiked with known substances to be responsive to the presence of
dioxins, furans, PAHs, and likely to some co-planar PCBs (ASTM, 1996).
46
-------
Table 19. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected forties) and probable
significance levels for results of four toxicity tests and chemical concentrations in 226
sediment samples from Biscayne Bay.

Amphipod

Urchin

Urchin

Microbial

Chemical
survival

fertilization

development

bioluminescence

Un-ionized ammonia
-0.129
ns
-0.195
**
-0.573

na

aluminum
-0.075
ns
-0.189
**
0.024
ns
-0.368
**#*
antimony
-0.118
ns
-0.077
ns
-0.095
ns
-0.082
ns
arsenic
0.025
ns
-0.033
ns
-0.043
ns
-0.159
*
cadmium
-0.191
**
-0.096
ns
0.093
ns
-0.460

chromium
-0.048
ns
-0.169
*
0.129
ns
-0.415
****
copper
-0.124
ns
-0.161
*
0.083
ns
-0.391
****
iron
-0.111
ns
-0.046
ns
0.063
ns
-0.337
****
lead
-0.095
ns
-0.132
*
0.049
ns
-0.329

manganese
-0.023
ns
-0.108
ns
-0.123
ns
-0.304
****
mercury
-0.108
ns
-0.083
ns
0.080
ns
-0.191
**
nickel
-0.131
*
-0.179
**
0.087
ns
0.438
****
selenium
0.028
ns
-0.260

-0.048
ns
-0.333

silver
-0.079
ns
-0.104
ns
0.102
ns
-0.339
****
thallium
tin
-0.059
ns
0.078
ns
0.068
ns
-0.172
*
-0.149
*
-0.165
*
0.001
ns
-0.235
***
zinc
-0.132
*
-0.135
*
0.038
ns
-0.362
****
percent sand
-0.098
ns
0.265
****
-0.001
ns
0.226
•**
percent silt
0.061
ns
-0.250
***
0.053
ns
-0.276
****
percent clay
0.196
**
-0.277
****
-0.108
ns
-0.065
ns
percent fines
0.098
ns
-0.267
**•*
0.001
ns
-0.229
***
percent TOC
AVS
-0.048
ns
-0.232
***
-0.001
ns
-0.306

-0.035
ns
-0.371

-0.138
•
-0.458

sum 7 LPAHs
-0.093
ns
-0.102
ns
0.019
ns
-0.255

sum all LPAHs
-0.142
*
-0.093
ns
0.024
ns
-0.331
***+
sum 6 HPAHs
-0.088
ns
-0.078
ns
0.091
ns
-0.296
**+*
sum all HPAHs
0.086
ns
-0.083
ns
0.082
ns
-0.292
****
sum 13 PAHs
-0.079
ns
-0.092
ns
0.075
ns
-0.291

sum all PAHs
hexachlorobenzene
-0.105
-0.158
ns
*
-0.088
0.093
ns
ns
0.056
0.010
ns
ns
-0.315
-0.123
****
ns
ns
*
*
sum of HCHs
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
-0.115
-0.298
-0.187
ns
****
*
-0.259
0.033
0.015
****
ns
ns
-0.244
0.217
0.033
***
ns
ns
0.147
-0.148
-0.149
-0.293
****
0.078
ns
0.129
ns
-0.245
***
total chlordanes
-0.155
*
-0.128
ns
0.051
ns
-0.277
****
trans-nonachlor
-0.257
****
-0.023
ns
-0.051
ns
-0.154
*
cis-nonachlor
dieldrin
-0.180
•
-0.061
ns
0.069
ns
-0.281

-0.139
*
-0.040
ns
0.120
ns
-0.298
**»*
o, p'-DDE
P. P'-DDE
-0.188
*
-0.114
ns
-0.018
ns
-0.189
*
-0.119
ns
•0.096
ns
0.097
ns
-0.367
**%*
o. P'-DDD
-0.234
***
-0.039
ns
0.001
ns
-0.235
**«
o, p'-DDT
-0.055
ns
-0.027
ns
0.115
ns
-0.124
ns
P. P'-DDT
-0.186
*
0.001
ns
0.148
ns
-0.311
total DDTs
-0.135
*
-0.097
ns
0.082
ns
-0.281
*+**
-------
Table 19 (continued)
Chemical
mirex
oxychlordane
endosuKan
endrin
PCBs 5 + 8
PCB 105
PCBs 153 + 132
PCB 206
PCB 209
total PCBs
•	9 metals
•	13 PAHs
•	3 COHs
•	25 chemicals
Amphipod
survival

Urchin
fertilization

Urchin
development

Microbial
bioluminescence

-0.153
*
-0.049
ns
0.001
ns
-0.104
ns
-0.281
****
-0.001
ns
0.021
ns
-0.109
ns
-0.194
*
-0.012
ns
0.132
ns
-0.081
ns
0.055
ns
-0.069
ns
-0.037
ns
-0.066
ns
-0.201
*
0.042
ns
-0.049
ns
0.048
ns
-0.114
ns
-0.022
ns
0.125
ns
-0.264
****
-0.117
ns
-0.038
ns
0.157
ns
-0.274
****
-0.156
*
0.001
ns
0.043
ns
-0.220
**
-0.363
****
0.135
ns
0.114
ns
-0.147
*
-0.127
ns
-0.070
ns
0.136
ns
-0.247
***
I guQtisols





-0.319

-0.119
ns
-0.114
ns
0.058
ns

-0.080
ns
-0.097
ns
0.060
ns
-0.280
#***
-0.133
ns
-0.084
ns
0.080
ns
-0.312
****
-0.110
ns
-0.084
ns
-0.080
ns
-0.313
****
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
*** p < 0.001
"** p < 0.0001
-------
Analyses were performed on the 1996 samples for some of the parent PAH
compounds for which there are toxicity data from spiked tests. However, no
analyses were performed for the dioxins, furans, or co-planar PCBs.
Correlation coefficients for the individual PAHs, classes of PAHs, and total
PCBs ranged from 0.772 (p<0.0001) for total PCBs to 0.852 (p<0.0001) for the
sum of all PAHs. The correlation with the mean ERM quotients was highly
significant (rho = +0.837, p<0.0001). These data indicate that this test was
highly responsive - as expected - to the PAHs, and, possibly, additively to the
PCBs in the sediments.
The three diagrams in Figure 47 display the patterns in response in the P-450
RGS assays with the concentrations of total 13 PAHs, total PCBs, and the mean
ERM quotients. In all cases, there were many samples with the lowest chemical
concentrations in which the P-450 induction responses were lowest. As
chemical concentrations increased, there was a general but variable pattern of
increasing P-450 induction responses, and a few samples in which chemical
concentrations and P-450 responses were among the highest. One sample in
which PAH concentrations were very high did not cause a large P-450
response, probably because of heterogeneity within the sample.
Chemistryrtoxicitv correlations: zone 6. Toxicity in different regions of the
bay could have been caused by different substances. Also, because of their
differential sensitivities to toxicants, each of the tests may have been affected by
different substances in the sediments. Acute mortality to the amphipods, for
example, may have been caused by one mixture of chemicals in the Miami
River and another mixture in the canals of south bay. In previous surveys of this
type, correlations have often improved when performed with a subset of the
data focused upon the most toxic and contaminated regions. Because many of
the samples from the lower Miami River were highly contaminated with many
substances and highly toxic in the amphipod tests, chemistry/toxicity
correlations were calculated for the samples from only zone 6 to clarify these
associations (Table 20).
In the amphipod tests, many of the correlations that were not significant or
indicated weak associations in the entire, baywide data set were highly
significant in the samples from zone 6. These correlations would remain
significant if the numbers of variables were taken into account. Amphipod
survival was highly correlated with nearly all of the trace metals, PAHs, and
chlorinated organics; many coefficients ranged from rho = -0.500 to rho = -
0.759. Many of the chlorinated substances (aldrin, chlordanes, PCBs) showed
the highest correlations with toxicity observed in this study.
In contrast, most of the highly significant correlations observed baywide in the
sea urchin fertilization tests disappeared in the analysis of data from zone 6
(Table 20). Only the measures of grain size showed weak correlations with
urchin fertilization success. Results of the sea urchin development tests were
highly correlated with the concentrations of the un-ionized form of ammonia in
the zone 6 samples; the correlation coefficient increased considerably over that
for the entire data set.
47
-------
Table 20. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and probable
significance levels for results of four toxicity tests and chemical concentrations in 57
sediment samples from zone 6.
Chemical
Un-ionized ammonia
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
iron
lead
manganese
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
tin
zinc
percent sand
percent silt
percent clay
percent fines
percent TOC
sum 7 LPAHs
sum 6 HPAHs
sum 13 PAHs
hexachlorobenzene
sum of HCHs
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
total chlordanes
trans-nonachlor
cis-nonachlor
dieldrin
o, p'-DDE
p, p'-DDE
o, p'-DDD
p, p'-DDD
o, p'-DDT
p, p'-DDT
total DDTs
Amphipod
survival

Urchin
fertilization

Urchin
development

Microbial
bioluminescence

-0.055
ns
-0.140
ns
-0.690
****
na

-0.471
***
-0.088
ns
-0.174
ns
-0.273
*
-0.561
****
0.163
ns
-0.197
ns
-0.045
ns
-0.240
ns
-0.139
ns
-0.260
ns
.-193
ns
-0.646
*«**
0.061
ns
-0.166
ns
-0.172
ns
-0.496
***
-0.074
ns
-0.189
ns
-0.276
*
-0.559
****
-0.049
ns
-0.122
ns
-0.244
ns
-0.526
****
0.014
ns
-0.124
ns
-0.241
ns
-0.585
****
-0.001
ns
-0.189
ns
-0.215
ns
-0.548
****
0.010
ns
-0.144
ns
-0.166
ns
-0.564
****
0.023
ns
-0.044
ns
-0.114
ns
-0.535
****
-0.013
ns
-0.142
ns
-0.298
*
-0.206
ns
-0.200
ns
-0.186
ns
-0.408
*#
-0.479
***
-0.063
ns
-0.088
ns
-0.231
ns
-0.323
*
0.013
ns
-0.059
ns
0.001
ns
-0.600
****
0.022
ns
-0.133
ns
-0.130
ns
-0.600
****
0.002
ns
-0.147
ns
.-229
ns
0.098
ns
0.270
*
0.198
ns
0.384
*»
-0.154
ns
-0.233
ns
-0.191
ns
-0.396
**
0.144
ns
-0.297
*
-0.134
ns
-0.319
*
-0.098
ns
-0.270
*
-0.198
ns
-0.384
**
-0.429
*+
-0.061
ns
-0.163
ns
-0.362
Aft
-0.518
****
0.025
ns
-0.107
ns
-0.241
ns
-0.538
****
0.007
ns
-0.133
ns
-0.247
ns
-0.538
**~+
0.004
ns
-0.128
ns
-0.247
ns
-0.458
***
-0.061
ns
-0.166
ns
-0.244
ns
-0.331
*
0.191
ns
0.011
ns
-0.235
ns
-0.537
****
0.264
ns
0.045
ns
-0.025
ns
-0.441
***
0.060
ns
-0.093
ns
0.177
ns
-0.728
****
0.246
ns
0.095
ns
0.036
ns
-0.578
****
0.019
ns
-0.112
ns
-0.241
ns
-0.696
****
0.142
ns
-0.001
ns
-0.031
ns
-0.600
+*«*
0.083
ns
-0.180
ns
-0.141
ns
-0.426
***
-0.078
ns
-0.076
ns
-0.203
ns
-0.525
**•*
0.158
ns
-0.100
ns
-0.059
ns
-0.599
****
0.044
ns
-0.119
ns
-0.215
ns
-0.603
****
0.076
ns
-0.151
ns
-0.108
ns
-0.587
****
-0.003
ns
-0.158
ns
-0.210
ns
-0.497
***
0.104
ns
-0.157
ns
-0.122
ns
-0.515
#***
0.037
ns
-0.062
ns
-0.106
ns
-0.555
****
-0.005
ns
-0.113
ns
-0.239
ns
-------
Table 20 (continued)
Chemical
Amphipod
survival

Urchin
fertilization

Urchin
development

Microbial
bioluminescence

mi rex
-0.513
****
0.251
ns
-0.024
ns
0.138
ns
oxychlordane
-0.759
****
0.129
ns
0.001
ns
0.001
ns
endosulfan
-0.489
***
0.094
ns
-0.088
ns
-0.191
ns
endrin
0.001
ns
0.003
ns
-0.130
ns
-0.207
ns
PCBs 5 + 8
-0.602
****
0.306
ns
-0.020
ns
0.035
ns
PCB 105
-0.596
****
0.078
ns
-0.195
ns
-0.099
ns
PCBs 153+ 132
-0.566
****
0.026
ns
-0.152
ns
-0.200
ns
PCB 206
-0.613
•***
0.018
ns
-0.116
ns
-0.129
ns
PCB 209
-0.748
****
0.051
ns
-0.162
ns
-0.170
ns
total PCBs
-0.607
****
0.051
ns
-0.162
ns
-0.170
ns
Sums Of chemical FRM quotients







• 9 metals
-0.575
****
0.005
ns
-0.132
ns
-0.200
ns
• 13 PAHs
-0.535
****
0.004
ns
-0.129
ns
-0.249
ns
• 3 COHs
-0.592
****
0.047
ns
-0.149
ns
-0.196
ns
• 25 chemicals
-0.561
****
0.030
ns
-0.125
ns
-0.233
ns
* p < 0.05
" p < 0.01
"* p< 0.001
*"* p < 0.0001
-------
As with the urchin fertilization tests, the correlations between microbial
bioluminescence and chemical concentrations observed baywide nearly
disappeared with the data for only zone 6 (Table 20). Only a few trace metals
and several measures of sediment grain size were correlated with these test
results in zone 6.
To further examine the relationships between measures of toxicity and chemical
concentrations, scatterplots were prepared for substances that showed the
strongest correlations with toxicity. These scatterplots were intended to further
verify the pattern in co-variance suggested by the correlations and to determine
if the samples that were most toxic also had the highest chemical
concentrations. Again, as with the correlation coefficients, the scatterplots do
not provide information on causality; they simply offer further evidence that
some chemicals were strongly associated with measures of toxicity.
In Figure 48 percent amphipod survival was plotted against the mean ERM
quotient indices. The mean ERM quotients are indicative of the presence of
elevated concentrations of mixtures of 25 substances. A value of 1.0 is
equivalent to unity, or an average ERM value. Toxicity has been shown to
occur frequently in samples with mean ERM quotients of 1.0 or greater (Long et
al., 1998). The scatterplot indicates that the correlation between amphipod
survival and the mean ERM quotients was highly significant. All except one of
the samples with mean ERM quotients less than 0.1 were nontoxic (i.e., survival
>80%). Among the 18 samples with mean ERM quotients of 0.1 to 1.0, 15
(83%) were toxic. All four of the samples with mean ERM quotients >1.0 were
highly toxic (i.e., amphipod survival was <10%). The station numbers of those
samples with the highest chemical concentrations are shown on the scatterplot.
Stations 61-63 and 65 were clearly the most contaminated and most toxic.
As indicated on Table 20, numerous substances were highly correlated with
amphipod survival in zone 6. In many cases the concentrations in the most
toxic samples exceeded applicable numerical guidelines. In the following
scatterplots, examples of these patterns are shown for lead, PAHs, PCBs,
chiordane, and ammonia.
Amphipod survival exceeded 80% (indicating nontoxicity) in all except one of
the samples in which lead concentrations were less than the PEL value of 112
ppm (Figure 49). Generally, as lead concentrations increased above the PEL
and ERM concentrations, amphipod survival decreased sharply. All except two
of the samples with lead concentrations above the PEL value were toxic (i.e.,
survival <80%). Sediments from stations 52, 62, 63, and 65 had the highest
concentrations and were among the most toxic in this test.
The concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs exceeded the PEL value in
eight samples and the ERM value in four samples; all except two of which were
toxic in the amphipod tests (Figure 50). Generally, amphipod survival
decreased with increasing concentrations of these substances. Amphipod
survival was very low (<10%) in samples from stations 61-63, and 65 in which
48
-------
HPAH concentrations were elevated above the ERM value. An outlier, the
sample from station 66, had a high concentration of HPAHs, but was not toxic.
The sample from station 66 had very high sand content (96.7%), which was
unusual for the Miami River and unexpectedly had a TOC content of 3.7%.
While not unusual, TOC content of 3.7% is very high for a sample made up
primarily of sand. However, it is possible that the relatively high PAH
concentrations were not readily bioavailable because of the high organic
content in this sample. Alternatively, the portion of the sample analyzed for
PAHs may have had a tar ball within it that was not included in the portion
tested for toxicity.
Amphipod survival showed a very strong association with the concentrations of
PCBs (Figure 51). Most samples with low PCB concentrations were not toxic
and as these concentrations increased, amphipod survival sharply decreased.
Sixteen of the nineteen samples (84%) with PCB concentrations above the PEL
and ERM values were highly toxic in the amphipod tests. Samples with the
highest concentrations came from stations 61-63 and 65.
Another class of substances that showed a strong correlation with toxicity was
the chlordanes (total of the alpha and gamma isomers) (Figure 52). As with
the concentrations of lead, PAHs, and PCBs, amphipod survival diminished
markedly as chlordane concentrations increased above the PEL and ERM
levels. Samples from stations 55, and 61-63 with the highest chlordane
concentrations were highly toxic (survival <20%).
None of the concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in the porewaters from either
the amphipod test chambers or the urchin tests exceeded toxicity thresholds for
Ampelisca abdita survival or Arbacia punctulata fertilization success and the
correlations were either non-significant or weak. However, results of the urchin
embryological tests showed a strong correlation with ammonia (Table 20,
Figure 53). Many of the samples with relatively low ammonia concentrations
were not toxic, while those with concentrations that exceeded the lowest
observable effects concentration (LOEC = 90 ug/L) were highly toxic. These
data suggest that this test was primarily responsive to the presence of high
ammonia concentrations in the porewaters.
Chemistryftoxicitv correlations: zone 8. Relative to the sediments from the
lower Miami River, those from the zone 8 canals were less contaminated and
less toxic in the amphipod tests. Therefore, the correlations between amphipod
survival and chemical concentrations were not significant in zone 8 for all
except one compound - PCB congener 209 (Table 21). These data suggest
that chemical concentrations generally were not sufficient to cause highly toxic
conditions to this, the least sensitive bioassay performed.
In contrast to the amphipod tests, the two urchin tests and the Microtox tests
indicated that many samples in zone 8 were toxic (Table 21). Sea urchin
fertilization success was not significantly correlated with the concentrations of
ammonia in the porewaters, but was highly correlated with the presence of fine-
grained, organically-enriched sediments indicative of depositional areas.
49
-------
Table 21. Spearman-rank correlation coefficients (rho, corrected for ties) and probable
significance levels for results of four toxicity tests and chemical concentrations in 50
sediment samples from zone 8.
Chemical
Amphipod
survival

Urchin
fertilization

Urchin
development

Microbial
bioluminescence

-0.255
ns
-0.260
ns
-0.681
****
na

0.072
ns
-0.258
ns
-0.087
ns
-0.319
*
0.209
ns
-0.371
**
-0.224
ns
-0.012
ns
0.107
ns
0.246
ns
-0.474
***
-0.063
ns
0.103
ns
-0.447
**
-0.210
ns
-0.338
*
0.243
ns
-0.250
ns
-0.157
ns
-0.206
ns
0.108
ns
-0.455
**
-0.199
ns
-0.325
*
0.121
ns
0.017
ns
-0.263
ns
-0.301
*
0.147
ns
-0.348
*
-0.325
*
-0.330
*
0.160
ns
-0.159
ns
-0.169
ns
-0.369
**
0.056
ns
-0.313
*
-0.397
**
-0.120
ns
0.022
ns
-0.381
**
-0.150
ns
-0.259
ns
0.157
ns
-0.389
*
-0.343
*
-0.262
ns
0.039
ns
-0.332
*
-0.452
**
-0.253
ns
0.001
ns
0.165
ns
-0.324
*
0.137
ns
0.053
ns
-0.461
**
-0.373
**
-0.071
ns
0.101
ns
-0.367
*
-0.273
ns
-0.377
**
-0.161
ns
0.503
***
0.297
*
0.091
ns
0.114
ns
-0.506
***
-0.233
ns
-0.136
ns
0.239
ns
-0.481
***
-0.380
**
0.022
ns
0.161
ns
-0.503
***
-0.297
*
-0.091
ns
0.195
ns
-0.546
****
-0.163
ns
-0.195
ns
0.170
ns
-0.469
***
-0.282
*
-0.572
****
0.189
ns
-0.515
***
-0.332
~
-0.249
ns
0.148
ns
-0.448
**
-0.280
*
-0.341
*
0.217
ns
-0.477
***
-0.313
*
-0.319
*
-0.250
ns
-0.066
ns
-0.358
*
-0.140
ns
-0.018
ns
-0.556
****
-0.325
*
-0.048
ns
0.147
ns
-0.253
ns
-0.064
ns
0.383
ns
0.069
ns
-0.094
ns
-0.104
ns
-0.114
ns
0.092
ns
-0.169
ns
-0.089
ns
0.065
ns
0.117
ns
-0.334
*
-0.253
ns
-0.211
ns
0.196
ns
-0.430
**
-0.271
ns
0.063
ns
0.047
ns
-0.455
**
-0.233
ns
-0.246
ns
-0.098
ns
-0.186
ns
-0.082
ns
0.128
ns
-0.042
ns
-0.364
*
-0.179
ns
-0.039
ns
0.082
ns
-0.423
**
-0.138
ns
-0.135
ns
0.042
ns
-0.478
***
-0.251
ns
0.060
ns
0.071
ns
-0.437
**
-0.220
ns
-0.044
ns
0.405
ns
-0.181
ns
-0.130
ns
-0.123
ns
-0.069
ns
-0.232
ns
0.001
ns
-0.078
ns
0.041
ns
-0.278
#
-0.161
ns
-0.070
ns
Un-ionized ammonia
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
iron
lead
manganese
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
tin
zinc
percent sand
percent'silt
percent clay
percent fines
percent TOC
AVS
sum 7 LPAHs
sum 6 HPAHs
sum 13 PAHs
hexachlorobenzene
sum of HCHs
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
total chlordanes
trans-nonachlor
cis-nonachlor
dieldrin
o, p'-DDE
p, p'-DDE
o, p'-DDD
p, p'-DDD
o, p'-DDT
p, p'-DDT
total DDTs
-------
Table 21 (continued)
Chemical
Amphipod
survival

Urchin
fertilization

Urchin
development

Microbial
bioluminescence

mirex
0.062
ns
-0.309
*
-0.256
ns
0.100
ns
oxychlordane
0.154
ns
-0.174
ns
-0.056
ns
-0.352
*
endosuifan
-0.001
ns
-0.204
ns
-0.072
ns
0.206
ns
endrin
0.212
ns
-0.097
ns
-0.001
ns
-0.171
ns
PCBs 5 + 8
-0.049
ns
-0.111
ns
-0.275
ns
0.114
ns
PCB 105
0.048
ns
-0.285
*
-0.348
ns
-0.428
**
PCBs 153 + 132
0.041
ns
-0.415
**
-0.284
*
-0.177
ns
PCB 206
0.113
ns
-0.088
ns
-0.021
ns
-0.096
ns
PCB 209
-0.283
*
0.256
ns
0.033
ns
-0.141
ns
total PCBs
0.092
ns
-0.360
*
-0.294
*
-0.224
ns
Sums of chemical:ERM Quotients







• 9 metals
0.078
ns
-0.268
ns
-0.299
*
-0.185
ns
• 13 PAHs
0.233
ns
-0.495
***
-0.309
*
-0.290
*
• 3 COHs
0.074
ns
-0.331
*
-0.232
ns
-0.111
ns
• 25 chemicals
0.091
ns
-0.311
*
-0.269
ns
-0.200
ns
* p < 0.05
*• P < 0.01
*" p< 0.001
*"* p < 0.0001
-------
Urchin fertilization success was significantly correlated in zone 8 with the
concentrations of many trace metals, PAHs, and chlorinated organics. These
associations were strongest (rho > -0.5, p<0.001) for classes of PAHs and
HCHs in the samples. Slightly less significant correlations were apparent for
concentrations of antimony, cadmium, copper, nickel, tin, several isomers of
chlordane, and several isomers of DDT. A significant correlation was apparent
for the presence of 25 substances normalized to their respective ERM values,
suggesting that mixtures of different substances may have contributed to
diminished fertilization success.
As in the baywide data set and the data from zone 6, urchin development was
significantly correlated with ammonia concentrations in zone 8 (Table 21). This
was the highest correlation coefficient (rho = -0.681, p<0.0001) encountered in
the zone 8 data set. However, urchin development also was significantly
correlated with the concentrations of arsenic, mercury, silver, tin, percent clay,
and to a lesser degree, with many other anthropogenic substances (including
classes of PAHs and chlorinated organics).
Surprisingly, results of the Microtox tests were not highly correlated (p<0.001)
with any anthropogenic substances in zone 8 - only the concentrations of AVS
(Table 21). Relatively weak, but statistically significant, correlations were
apparent for many trace metals, two classes of PAHs, and several chlorinated
organics.
Scatterplots were prepared to illustrate and clarify some of the more interesting
correlations in zone 8. The correlation between urchin fertilization and the
mean ERM quotients was significant (rho = -0.311, p<0.05). The scatterplot
(Figure 54) indicates very high fertilization success in most samples with very
low chemical concentrations as indicated with mean ERM quotients of less than
0.025. Fertilization success generally diminished as the quotients increased
from 0.025 to 0.1. All four samples with quotients greater than 0.1 were
significantly toxic (percent fertilization < 70%). These four samples with the
highest concentrations of chemical mixtures were collected from station 105 in
Black Creek Canal and stations 206-208 in Military Canal. However, it is
curious that fertilization success was less than 20% in many samples with lower
contaminant levels, indicating that non-measured substances played a major
role in contributing to toxicity in these samples.
The PAHs (sum of 13 parent compounds) were among the classes of chemicals
that showed significant correlations with fertilization success. Percent
fertilization was highest among samples with the lowest total PAH
concentrations (Figure 55). In many samples with total PAH concentrations of
200 ppb to 600 ppb, fertilization success was 50% to 70%; however, percent
fertilization was much higher among samples with lower concentrations. None
of the concentrations equalled or exceeded the TEL or ERL values for total
PAHs. These data suggest that, although the correlations indicated a statistical
association between fertilization success and total PAHs, these chemicals
probably had a minor role in contributing to toxicity in this test.
50
-------
PCB concentrations in most samples from zone 8 were very low (Figure 56),
and the association with percent fertilization was relatively weak. Furthermore,
PCB concentrations in some of the samples that were most toxic (fertilization <
20%) were not elevated (< 20 ppb). However, in contrast to the PAHs, the
concentrations of total PCBs in many samples that were toxic (fertilization <
80%) exceeded both the TEL and ERL values.
The correlation between percent normal embryological development and the
mean ERM quotients was not significant (rho = -0.269, p=0.06, n=50). Many
samples were highly toxic that had very low chemical concentrations.
However, there were some samples also with low chemical concentrations that
were non-toxic and the scatterplot shows that all samples with mean ERM
quotients > 0.05 were highly toxic (0.0% percent normal development) (Figure
57). The three samples from Military Canal and one from Black Creek Canal
that were most contaminated were also highly toxic in this test.
The correlation between percent normal development and ammonia
concentration was highly significant and the scatterplot verifies this strong
association (Figure 58). All samples with concentrations of un-ionized
ammonia above 70 ug/L or the LOEC value of 90 ug/L were highly toxic. Based
upon the correlations calculated for zone 8 (Table 21), it was also apparent that
substances in addition to ammonia may have contributed to toxicity. For
example, the concentrations of arsenic and silver in the sediments were
significantly correlated with percent normal development and the scatterplots
indicated that samples in which these elements exceeded the TEL and ERL
values were highly toxic (Figures 59, 60). The concentrations of silver were
especially high (but did not exceed the ERM value of 3.7 ppm) in the samples
from stations 105 (Black Creek canal), and 206-208 (Military canal).
Cytochrome P-450 RGS assays were performed on 11 of the samples from
zone 8 during 1996. This test indicated relatively high induction rates among
some of the samples from the zone 8 canals; thus providing a relatively large
gradient in response with which to compare the chemical data. Correlations
between induction (as ug/g, benzo[a]pyrene equivalents) and concentrations of
PAHs and PCBs were extremely high (Figure 61). Correlation coefficients and
p values were: total PCBs (rho = +0.800, p=0.011); seven parent LPAHs (rho =
+0.900, p=0.004); six parent HPAHs (rho = +0.918, p=0.004); sum of 13 parent
PAHs (rho = +0.918, p=0.004); all quantified parent and substituted PAHs (rtio =
+0.909, p=0.004); and mean ERM quotients for 25 substances (rho = +0.845,
p=0.008).
The patterns in response in the P-450 RGS assays with the concentrations of
total 13 PAHs, total PCBs, and mean ERM quotients are displayed in Figure
61. These scatterplots demonstrate a very strong association between the
concentrations of these substances and the P-450 induction response. The
regression of RGS response against total PAHs is nearly linear. These data
suggest that the physiological response to toxicants measured with the RGS
assays most likely responded to a mixture of PAH, co-planar PCBs, and,
perhaps, other substances in the samples.
51
-------
Overall, the data from zone 8 indicated several interesting patterns in which
sublethal measures of toxicity co-varied with the concentrations of many
different potentially toxic substances. Sediments from the zone 8 canals, in
which chemical concentrations were much higher than in the adjoining open-
water basin of south bay, were clearly less contaminated than those from the
lower Miami River in zone 6. As a consequence, the correlations between
amphipod survival and chemical concentrations were not very significant.
However, it appears that these concentrations were sufficiently high to
contribute to toxicity in the other, sublethal - and more sensitive - tests with
urchins and P-450 RGS. Induction of the cytochrome P-450 RGS assay was
highly correlated with the presence of PAHs and PCBs are known to induce a
response in this test. As observed in zone 6 and throughout the entire survey
area, mixtures of ammonia, trace metals, PAHs, and chlorinated organics were
sufficiently elevated in many samples and they probably contributed to or were
responsible for the toxicity observed in the sublethal tests.
In the southern reaches of zone 8, there were 13 samples that formed a ribbon
or band of toxicity from the shoreline across the bay to the ocean. These
samples were highly toxic in one or more tests, often including the amphipod
survival test. Samples collected to the north and south of this band were not
toxic in the amphipod test. The data from the chemical analyses indicated
these samples were not highly contaminated. Except for a few samples with
slightly elevated ammonia levels, concentrations of chemicals for which
analyses were performed were below or near the detection limits. The lack of
correspondence between measures of toxicity and chemical concentrations in
the 13 samples suggests that other substances for which analyses were not
performed were present at toxicologically significant concentrations.
52
-------
DISCUSSION
The survey of sediment toxicity in Biscayne Bay was similar in intent and design
to those performed elsewhere by NOAA in many different bays and estuaries
using comparable methods. Data have been generated for areas along the
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts to determine the presence, severity,
regional patterns and spatial scales of toxicity (Long et al., 1996). Spatial extent
of toxicity in other regions ranged from 0.0% of the area to 100% of the area,
depending upon the toxicity test.
The intent of this survey of Biscayne Bay was to provide information on toxicity
throughout all regions of the Biscayne Bay system, including a number of
tributary streams and canals. The survey area, therefore, was veiy large and
complex. This survey was not intended to focus upon any potential discharger
or other source of toxicants. The survey was not designed to provide evidence
to be used to identify or regulate any source of pollution. Temporal trends in
chemical contamination and/or toxicity were not determined. Bioaccumulation
of toxicants in tissues was not determined.
Rather, the data from the laboratory bioassays were intended to represent the
toxicological condition of the survey area, using a battery of complimentary
tests, as a measure of the potential biological effects of toxicants. The primary
objectives were to estimate the severity, spatial patterns, and spatial extent of
toxicity and chemical contamination. A stratified-random design was followed to
ensure that unbiased sampling was conducted and, therefore, the data could be
attributed to the strata within which samples were collected.
Amphipod survival tests. This test was performed with relatively unaltered,
bulk sediments and with an adult crustacean exposed to the sediments for 10
days. The endpoint was survival. Amphipod survival tests are the most
commonly applied bioassays in dredging and hazardous waste site
assessments in North America. Standardized protocols are widely used in
many regions of the U.S. Data from several field surveys conducted along
portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts have shown that
significantly diminished survival of these animals often is coincident with
decreases in total abundance of benthos, abundance of crustaceans including
amphipods, total species richness, and other metrics of benthic community
structure (Long et at., 1996).
The amphipod tests proved to be the least sensitive of the tests performed
baywide. Of the 226 samples tested, survival was significantly different from
controls in 49 (22%). With the results of the amphipod tests weighted to the
sizes of the sampling strata within which samples were collected, the spatial
scales of toxicity could be estimated. The strata within which decreased
amphipod survival was highly significant (i.e., <80% of controls) totalled about
62km2 or 13% of the total survey area. The estimate for the spatial extent of
toxicity in the amphipod tests was similar to the "national average" (11%; Long
et al., 1996) compiled for the other regions sampled by NOAA (Table 22).
53
-------
Table 22. Spatial extent of toxicity (km* and percentages of total area) in amphipod
survival tests performed with solid-phase sediments from 24 U.S. bays and
estuaries.
Survey Areas
Newark Bay
Year
sampled
93
No. of
samples
57
San Diego Bay	93	117
California coastal lagoons	94	30
Tijuana River	93	6
Long Island Sound	91	60
Hudson-Raritan Estuary	91	117
San Pedro Bay	92	105
Biscayne Bay	95/96	226
National average: 1995	1274
Boston Harbor	93	55
National average: 1996	1470
Savannah River	94	60
St. Simons Sound	94	20
Tampa Bay	92/93	165
Galveston Bay	96	75
northern Puget Sound	97	100
Pensacola Bay	93	40
Choctawhatchee Bay	94	37
Sabine Lake	95	66
Apalachicola Bay	94	9
St. Andrew Bay	93	31
Charleston Harbor	93	63
Winyah Bay	93	9
Mission Bay	93	11
Leadenwah Creek	93	9
San Diego River	93	2
Total
area
JKm^
13
40.2
5
0.3
71.86
350
53.8
484.2
2532.6
56.1
4158.1
13.12
24.6
550
1351.1
773.9
273
254.47
245.9
187.58
127.2
41.1
7.3
6.1
1.69
0.5
—Amphiood survival
toxic area (percent of
(km2) mm_total£rea^_
10.8
26.3
2.9
0.18
36.3
133.3
7.8
62.3
277.00
5.7
286.40
0.16
0.10
0.5
0.0
0.00
0.04
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
85.0%
65.8%
57.9%
56.2%
50.5%
38.1%
14.5%
12.9%
10.9%
10.0%
6.9%
1.2%
0.4%
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%
-------
The observation that survival was significantly reduced in 22% of samples and
that the strata in which toxicity was apparent represented only 13% of the total
area highlights the importance of normalizing the toxicity data to the sizes of the
strata. Most of the samples in which amphipod survival was reduced were
collected in relatively small strata such as those in the Miami River and Black
Creek. Fewer samples that were toxic were collected in the relatively large
strata of zones 6 and 8, etc.
In surveys of 24 U. S. regions, estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity ranged
from 0.0% in many areas to 85% in Newark Bay, NJ (Table 22). Biscayne Bay
ranked towards the middle of this range, slightly above the "national average"
calculated with data collected nationwide through 1995 (11%). Toxicity was not
observed in many other bays of the southeastern U.S., particularly along the
South Carolina/Georgia coastline and the western Florida panhandle. Regions
in which toxicity was most pervasive were mainly in the northeastern U. S. and
Southern California. The data from the samples collected in Biscayne Bay and
Galveston Bay in 1996 had the affect of lowering the "national average" from
11% to about 7%.
Sea urchin tests. In the tests performed with sea urchin sperm to determine
fertilization success, early life stages (the gametes) of the animals were used in
the exposures. Early life stages of invertebrates often are more sensitive to
toxicants than adult forms. Fewer defense mechanisms are developed in the
gametes than in the adults. The endpoint of the tests was fertilization success
and normal morphological development of the embryos, sublethal endpoints
expected to be more sensitive than mortality. The gametes were exposed to the
pore waters extracted from the samples; the phase in which toxicants are
expected to be highly bioavailable. This test was adapted from bioassays
originally performed to test wastewater effluents and has had wide application
throughout North America in tests of both effluents and sediment porewaters.
The combined effects of these features was to develop a relatively sensitive test
- much more sensitive than that performed with the adult amphipods.
In Biscayne Bay 44% of the samples were significantly toxic in the fertilization
tests relative to controls in tests of 100% (undiluted) pore waters; about twice
the number of samples identified as toxic in the amphipod tests. In tests of 50%
and 25% porewater concentrations, the frequency of toxicity decreased to 19%
and 6% of the samples, respectively. The strata in which toxicity was highly
significant (i.e., <80% of controls) totalled about 47%, 22%, and 12% of the
survey area in tests with 100%, 50%, and 25% porewater concentrations,
respectively.
NOAA has estimated the spatial extent of toxicity in urchin fertilization or
equivalent bioassays in many other regions of the U. S. (Long et al., 1996).
These estimates ranged from 98% in San Pedro Bay, CA, to 0.0% in
Leadenwah Creek, SC (Table 23). As in the amphipod tests, Biscayne Bay
ranked near the middle of this range, slightly above the "national average"
calculated with data collected through 1995. Many areas in Southern California
were highly toxic in these tests, whereas Boston Harbor, Sabine Lake, northern
54
-------
Table 23. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in sea
urchin fertilization tests performed with 100% sediment pore waters from 23 U. S.
bays and estuaries.
Total
Urchin fertilization @ 100%
Survey areas
San Pedro Bay
Tampa Bay
San Diego Bay
Mission Bay
Tijuana River
San Diego River
Biscayne Bay
Choctawhatchee Bay
California coastal lagoons
National average: 1995
Winyah Bay
National average: 1996
Apalachicola Bay
Galveston Bay
Charleston Harbor
Savannah River
Boston Harbor
Sabine Lake
Pensacola Bay
northern Puget Sound
St. Simons Sound
St. Andrew Bay
Leadenwah Creek
Year
sampled
No. of
samples
area
(Km2)
toxic area
(km2)
percent of
total area)
92
105
53.8
52.6
97.7%
92/93
165
550
463.6
84.3%
93
117
40.2
25.6
76.0%
93
11
6.1
4.0
65.9%
93
6
0.3
0.18
56.2%
93
2
0.5
0.26
52.0%
95/96
226
484.2
229.5
47.4%
94
37
254.47
113.14
44.4%
94
30
5
2.1
42.7%
93
940
2082.6
886.3
42.6%
9
7.3
3.1
42.2%
94
1136
3723.26
1439.73
36.7%
9
187.58
63.6
33.9%
96
75
1351.1
432.0
32.0%
93
63
41.1
12.5
30.4%
94
60
13.12
2.42
18.4%
93
55
56.1
3.8
6.6%
95
66
245.9
14.0
5.7%
93
40
273
14.4
5.3%
97
100
773.9
40.6
5.2%
94
20
24.6
0.65
2.6%
93
31
127.2
2.28
1.8%
93
9
1.69
0
0.0%
-------
Table 24. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and percentages of total area) in urchin
embryo development tests performed with 100% pore water of sediments from 7
U. S. bays and estuaries.
Total	Urchin development

Year
No. of
area
Toxic area
(percent of

sampled
samples
(Km2)
(km2)
total area)
Boston Harbor
93
55
56.1
56.8
100.0%
Biscayne Bay
95/96
226
484.2
408
84.3%
Apalachicola Bay
94
9
187.58
157.5
84.0%
Choctawhatchee Bay
94
37
254.47
116.1
45.4%
National average

473
2734
1066
39.0%
Galveston Bay
96
75
1351.1
314.8
23.3%
St. Andrew Bay
93
31
127.2
7.2
5.6%
Pensacola Bay
93
40
273
5.4
2.0%
-------
Puget Sound, and several estuaries of the southeastern U. S. were not toxic in
most samples.
The urchin embryological development test was developed by the USGS
laboratory as a companion to the fertilization test. This is an exposure of the
fertilized embryos to the pore waters and the percent of the embryos that
develop a "normal" morphology are counted as the toxicity endpoint. This test
has proven in previous surveys to be highly sensitive to the presence of
ammonia in the pore waters. The toxicity threshold to ammonia is about an
order of magnitude lower than that for fertilization success. It has also shown
strong statistical associations with the presence of anthropogenic toxicants in
samples from some areas such as Boston Harbor.
Among the four tests performed with all 226 samples in the Biscayne Bay
survey, the embryo development test was the most sensitive test performed,
indicating 77%, 31%, and 6% of samples were toxic in tests of 100%, 50%, and
25% porewater concentrations, respectively. Highly significant results (i.e.,
<80% normal development) in the samples represented about 84%, 35%, and
17% of the survey area, respectively, in the three porewater concentrations.
Comparable data available from other regions illustrate the pervasiveness of
toxicity in this test in Biscayne Bay (Table 24). Biscayne Bay ranked nearly
highest and well above the "national average" among seven bays for which
comparable data are available.
Microbial frioluminescence tests. The Microtox tests were performed with
an organic solvent extract intended to elute all potentially toxic organic
substances from the sediments regardless of their bioavailability. The tests,
therefore, provide an estimate of the potential for toxicity attributable to complex
mixtures of toxicants associated with the sediment particles, and, not normally
available to benthic infauna. The test endpoint is a measure of metabolic
activity of a cultured bacteria, not acute mortality. These features combined to
provide a relatively sensitive test - usually the most sensitive test performed
nationwide in the NOAA surveys (Long et al., 1996).
In Biscayne Bay 58% of the samples were significantly toxic, representing about
51% of the total area. Comparable data are available from 16 other regions in
the U. S. (Table 25). Spatial extent of toxicity in these regions ranged from
0.1% in Tampa Bay to 100% in two bays of the western Florida panhandle. As
observed in the amphipod and urchin fertilization tests, the estimate for
Biscayne Bay ranked towards the middle of the range, slightly below the
"national averages" calculated for data collected through 1995 and 1996.
Cytochrome P-450 RGS assays: These tests have been performed for NOAA
thus far in: Charleston Harbor (SC) and vicinity; San Diego Bay (CA); coastal
California estuaries; Sabine Lake (TX); Galveston Bay (TX); Biscayne Bay; and
northern Puget Sound (WA). The overall running mean of responses among
528 samples is 17.4 ug B[a]P equivalents/g with an upper 99% confidence limit
of 23 ug B[a]P equivalents/g. There were 15 samples (12%) among the 121
from Biscayne Bay that were tested in which the response exceeded 17.4 ug
55
-------
Table 25. Spatial extent of toxicity (km2 and oercent
bioluminescence tests performed with solvent extmrtc*t°f t?al area) ln microbial
bays and estuaries.	acts °' sediments from 17 U. S
Choctawhatchee Bay
St. Andrew Bay
Apalachicola Bay
northern Puget Sound
Pensacola Bay
Galveston Bay
Sabine Lake
Winyah Bay
Long Island Sound
National average: 1996
National average: 1995
Savannah River
Biscayne Bay
St. Simons Sound
Boston Harbor
Charleston Harbor
Hudson-Raritan Estuary
Leadenwah Creek
Tampa Bay
Year
sampled
94
93
94
97
93
96
95
93
91
94
95/96
94
93
93
91
93
92/93
No. of
samples
37
31
9
100
40
75
66
9
60
1042
846
60
226
20
55
63
117
9
165
Total
area
(Km2v
254.47
127.2
167.58
773.9
273
1351.1
245.9
7.3
71.86
4039.22
2416.2
13.12
484.2
24.6
56.1
41.1
350
1.69
550
Microbial bioluminescence
Toxic area (percent of
(km2
254.47
127
186.84
761.9
262.8
1143.7
194.2
5.13
48.8
2670.69
1482.3
7.49
248.4
11.42
25.8
17.6
136.1
0.34
0.6
total area)
100.0%
100.0%
99.6%
98.4%
96.4%
84.6%
79.0%
70.0%
67.9%
66.1%
61.3%
57.1%
51.3%
46.4%
44.9%
42.9%
38.9%
20.1%
0.1%
-------
BfaJP equivalents/g and 9 in which the response exceeded 23 ua BMP
equivalents/g	u U9
Using the two critical values developed as a part of the Biscavne Rav anri
northern Puget Sound studies, the spatial extent of .oxlc e^onses can ^
compr^ between these two areas. In northern Puget Sound ttie Mmotesin
which RGS assay responses exceeded 11.1 ug B[a]P eauivalentJo^nrt ?71
ug BMP equivalents/g represented about 2.5% and 0.03% of the audS a?ea
respectively. These results, therefore, were similar to those for ttel996
Biscayne Bay samples (i.e., 3.3% and 0.0%, respectively) The e^im^L are*
sampled in 1996 in which the P-450 RGS respo^Sded l n ua ^lP
equivalents/g and the area sampled during both years in which at leait inf
ERM value was exceeded (see text below) KhnJoH	?
(3.3% vs. 0.7%, respectively) in BiSa^ Bay """¦"¦a* agreement
In analyses of 30 samples from Charleston Harbor and vicinitv results ranaed
from 1.8 ug B[a P equivatents/g to 86.3 ug B[a]P equivalems/g ' InTel 21
samples from Biscayne Bay, results ranged tan 0 4 to 3?Tg B[a]P
equrvalents/g. In Charleston Haitor, nine samples produced resutts greater
than 30 ug/g and three gave results greater than 70 ug BfalP eSenWa
whereas in Biscayne Bay only three samples product results areater San 30
ug B[a]P equivalents/g and none exceeded 70 ug BTalP equiVatente/o On
ug B[a]P equivalents/g - comparble to results for Bisca^ Bay. Induction
responses n 30 samples from San Diego Bay were considerably higher than
those from the other three areas. Assay results In San Diego Bay skmptes
ranged from 5 ug B[a]P equivalents/g to 110 ug BTalP equiSalente/o and resute
from 19samplesexceededSOugB[a]Pequivalents/g. ReS?inIht
samples exceeded 80 ug B[a]P equivalents/g.
These data suggest that CYP1A inducing substances in the 1996 Biscayne Bav
samples occurred at concentrations similar to those observed in northernmost
Sound and Charleston Harbor. However, the levels of respond were well
below those encountered in San Diego Bay.
Crowd reproduction twtt, The tests of reproductive success amona
copepods were not conduced on all samples because of the lack of funding
^fK«0^ii^JaRj(h2e?L0,,,0f'ty in 1,19 ,ests of "Productive successcould
notbeestimated. Rather, the tests were run to provide an opportunity for a field
on	"0re i,mpor,ant- tea was performed
on selectedsamples to determine if a toxicological response that is highly
relevant to the abundance of resident sensitive taxa, i.e, the ability of progeny to
survive, was significantly diminished in samples that may have proved to be not
toxic in acute tests of survival.
56
-------
The University of South Carolina conducted assays similar to those performed
in Biscayne Bay in a survey of Charleston Harbor and vicinity for NOAA.
Results in both areas were overlapping; total naupliar + copepodite production
ranged from 9.3 to 567 in Biscayne Bay and from 95 to 494 in Charleston
Harbor. In the majority of samples from both areas, total production ranged from
200 to 300 offspring. However, the statistical significance of the results was
quite different between the two areas. None of the sample means for total
production in Charleston Harbor were significantly different from controls,
whereas 13 of 15 were significant in Biscayne Bay. Also, total production was
below 100 in only one of the samples from Charleston Harbor; whereas it was
below 100 in three Biscayne Bay samples, ranging as low as 29 and 9 in
samples from stations 58 and 48, respectively.
These data suggest that indicators of sublethal reproductive success were
triggered to a much greater degree in Biscayne Bay samples than in those from
Charleston Harbor. If these bioassays are reliable indicators of the toxicological
significance of sediment-associated contaminants to the reproductive success
of infaunal invertebrates in Biscayne Bay, the data would suggest that
populations of these biota could experience declines in abundance.
Levels of chemical contamination. In Biscayne Bay, 6 of 226 samples
(2.7%) had mean ERM quotients exceeding 1.0; whereas in a database
compiled from samples taken nationwide in many bays and estuaries (Long et
al., 1998), 51 of 1068 samples (4.8%) had equivalent chemical concentrations.
Similarly, 45 of 226 Biscayne Bay samples (20%) had mean ERM quotients of
0.11 or greater, whereas, 415 of the 1068 national database samples (39%)
had equivalent concentrations.
Of the 226 samples analyzed, 33 (14.6%) had chemical concentrations that
exceeded one or more ERM values by any amount. In comparison, 27% of the
1068 samples compiled in the NOAA national database had chemical
concentrations that exceeded at least one ERM value (Long et al., 1998). Also,
26% of samples from over 21,000 locations sampled nationwide had at least
one chemical concentration that exceeded an ERM, or PEL, or apparent effects
threshold (AET) value (U. S. EPA, 1996).
The 33 samples from Biscayne Bay in which at least one ERM was exceeded
represented stations that totalled an area of about 3.5 km2 or 0.7% of the total
survey area of 484.2 km2. This estimate is considerably lower than the surficial
area (16%) in the Carolinian province in which at least one chemical
concentration exceeded an ERM or PEL or in which at least three substances
exceeded the ERL or TEL values (Hyland et al., 1996).
These comparisons between the chemical concentrations observed in
Biscayne Bay and those reported for other areas indicate that, on average,
contaminant levels in the bay were relatively low throughout much of the area.
The incidence and spatial extent of contaminated conditions, as compared to
the ERM and PEL values as benchmarks, were relatively low. The regions of
the bay in which chemical concentrations were highest and exceeded
57
-------
numerical guidelines were mostly the peripheral tributaries and canals on the
mainland, and, thus, were relatively small in size. Contaminant levels often
wore much lower in the open basin south of the Rickenbacker Causewav
through Little Card Sound than in areas farther north.
However, it is important to note the percentages of samples in which ERL and
Tto/	™ ®d, i" Bis?aVne Bay. Among all 226 samples analyzed,
47 /o, 44 /o, 27 /o, and 8/{> of them had concentrations of total PCBs total DDTs
mercury, and total PAHs, respectively, that exceeded the ERL values. These '
data suggest that, although relatively small percentages of samples had hiqh
chemical concentrations, many of them had intermediate concentrations.
Determinations of temporal trends in contaminant concentrations and toxicitv
were not a part of this study. Furthermore, data from previous studies of
chemical contamination (e.g., Corcoran, 1983) were generated with different
sampling and analytical methods and, therefore, probably are not comparable
with the data from this survey. However, the general patterns reported bv
Corcoran (1983) and others in chemical concentrations (highest in the Miami
River and other tributary canals, lowest in the open waters of south bav) were
also observed in the present survey.
58
-------
CONCLUSIONS
•	A total of 226 sediment samples were collected, tested for toxicity testing and
analyzed for chemical contaminants during 1995 and 1996. Samples were
collected all majors regions of Biscayne Bay. All sampling locations were
chosen with a stratified-random sampling design.
•	A battery of toxicity tests were performed to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the toxicological condition of the sediments. Chemical analyses
were performed for a wide variety of trace metals, aromatic hydrocarbons,
chlorinated organic hydrocarbons, and other ancillary measures.
•	The different tests indicated overlapping patterns or gradients in toxicity. The
least sensitive test Indicated severe toxicity (high mortality) in tests of sediments
from the lower Miami River. Results from four different tests, overall, indicated
highest toxicity in samples from the lower Miami River, Black Creek Canal, other
canals adjoining the south bay, and canals and tributaries adjoining the bay
near Miami and Miami Beach. Samples that were least toxic were collected
from the far north and far south ends of the study area.
•	Tests performed in 1995 on the reproductive success of a meiobenthic
copepod showed significant results in all samples. Impaired reproductive
success was most severe in tests of samples from the lower Miami River.
•	P-450 RGS tests of the induction of CYP1A1 activity in 1996 indicated a clear
pattern in which highest chemical concentrations occurred in sediments from
peripheral tributaries and canals and background levels were observed
elsewhere in the open basins of the bay. Induction was highly correlated with
the presence of mixtures of organic substances, especially the PAHs and PCBs.
•	Chemical analyses indicated the presence of complex mixtures of chemical
substances in the most toxic samples. Overall, contamination was highest by a
considerable amount in the lower Miami River, intermediate in Military Canal
and several other tributaries and canals, and lowest in the open basin south of
Rickenbacker Causeway.
•	The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated by weighting the results of each
test to the sizes of the sampling strata. The area in which highly significant
toxicity occurred totalled 13% of the total area in the amphipod survival test - the
least sensitive test; 47% of the area in urchin fertilization tests; 84% of the area
in urchin embryo development tests; and 51% of the area in microbial
bioluminescence tests
•	The estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity measured in four tests in
Biscayne Bay were similar to the "national average" estimates compiled from
many other surveys previously conducted by NOAA, suggesting that Biscayne
Bay sediments are not unusually toxic relative to sediments from other areas.
These data also agreed well with observations made by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the surficial extent of toxicity in large
59
-------
IpTeTtfmated"^	Virginian, and Carolinian provinces,
were toxic in tests of	^
•	The surficial area in which fhomin«i
guidelines was very small; ranaina from^no/" ra,!lons exceeded numerical
to 1.3% for total PCBs. Of the 226 lalil! , area for several substances
one chemical concentration that exceowLw _ana'y2ed' 33 (14.6%) had at least
These 33 samples represented about q ^ ™ n?\numerical Sideline.
percentages of samples that exceedlrt ^7, % °1the tota')- Both the
extent of contamination as compared to thlTnni? r9 Hnes and the surficia'
observed elsewhere in comparable stud ^ *1W6re l0W6r than
4->ai dL>ie studies performed nationwide.
•	Statistical analyses of the data indicated that	
were associated with and possibly contribut«ri t J? ?X .m.lxtures of substances
tests. These mixtures consisted^	V""®* observed in the
and other chlorinated substances. The chemicai^Sf, ar"["on'®' PAHs< PCBs>
among regions of the study area. PCBs DDT	. 1 m,xtures differed
were most often elevated in concentration SLSm°rc,ury' and 2inc
other classes of substances (notably the hexaehinro^ gu eS- Severa'
which there are no widely-applicabte numlriSl S?Hrl0h8Xanes ¦" HCHs)for
associated with some measures of toxicity Severa trir« mWf? s,9nificamly
concentrations in excess of those e'xpSd WES^
. The causes of toxicity could not be determined in this study and
determinates of causalrty were not among the objectives However the
weight of evidence strong^ suggests that in the lower Miami River tox cftv as
measured in the amphipod survival tests could have been caused »m1«, S?
part, by mixtures of PAHs, PCBs, chlordane pesticides lead a^dHCHs tho
canals of the south bay, both toxicity and conteminafon weVlet ^vlre anS
the .dentines of chemicals that most probably contributed to toxIXy^ereiess
clear Concentrations of PAHs, PCBs, and several trace metals howlver mav
have been sufficient to contribute to toxicity in the sensitive subl'ethaTurchin
tests. Throughout the entire area, ammonia appeared to be a maior contributor
o°he*tests° ed ,h8 Ur°hin embry°l03ical development tests! but not to the
•	A section of the southern Biscayne Bay showed remarkably high toxicity that
could not be explained with the chemical data. Results of many of the toxicity
tests were highly significant in the samples from this section of the bay vet thev
were surrounded by many stations in which there was little or no toxicity.
Concentrations of chemicals for which analyses were performed were uniformly
low, usually near or below detection limits. Therefore, the data suggest that
chemical substances other than those for which analyses were performed likely
caused or contributed to the toxic conditions in these samples.
•	In previous studies performed elsewhere in the U. S., significant toxicity
observed in laboratory tests has been associated with and statistically linked to
measures of degraded resident benthic communities. Often high percent
60
-------
mortalities in acute tests are accompanied by loss of sensitive species in the
resident infauna. The ecological significance of the toxicity observed in the
Biscayne Bay survey will be estimated after the benthic community analyses are
completed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The hard work, dedication, persistence, and cooperation of many people were
necessary to complete this large survey. Many people worked long hours in the
field and laboratories to ensure completion of the work. Thank you very much.
Scientists who assisted in the collection of samples included: Michelle Harmon,
Scott Frew, Heather Boswell, and Donna Turgeon (all NOAA); Richard Moravic
and David Meyer (Florida DEP); and Ramesh Peter Buch (Dade County
DERM). Many people at the University of Miami RSMAS made it possible for us
to use their boat dock, laboratory facilities, and shipping and receiving office
(Michael Schmale, Captain Larry, Rick Gomez, Carlos and Ralph). Ken Hadad,
Director of the Florida Marine Research Institute, provided the research vessel
Lafitte. Fred Calder and Tom Seal, Florida DEP, helped in the planning
phases.
The National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory in Charleston, SC performed
the Microtox tests on all samples (Dr. Geoffrey Scott, P.I.). The U. S. Geological
Survey laboratory in Corpus Christi, TX performed the sea urchin tests (Dr. R.
Scott Carr, P.I.). The Geochemical and Environmental Research Group
(GERG) of the University of Texas A & M conducted the chemical analyses
(Drs. Terry Wade and Bobby Presley, P.l.'s). Science Applications International
Corporation in Narragansett, Rl (Dr. K. John Scott, P.I.) and TRAC Laboratories,
Inc. in Pensacola, FL (Ms. Geri Brecken-Fols, P.I.) completed the amphipod
survival tests. Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. in Carlsbad, CA. performed
the cytochrome P-450 RGS assays (Dr. Jack Anderson, P.I.). The University of
South Carolina conducted the copepod life cycle tests (Dr. G. Thomas
Chandler, P.I.).
EVS Environment Consultants, LTD. in Seattle, WA provided assistance in data
base management and graphics (Ms. Corinne Severn, P.I.). Mari Nord (NOAA)
reviewed a draft version of this report and provided helpful comments and Kevin
McMahan (NOAA) formatted and prepared the final camera-ready version of the
manuscript.
61
-------
REFERENCES
ASTM. 1992. Standard Guide for Condiir*tin
Marine and Estuarine Amphipods. DesianativJ c	To*'city Test with
Standards. 11.04. American Society fo?Te«Shnw J/92, Annual Book of
PA.	y Test,n9 and Materials. Philadelphia,
ASTM. 1996. Standard guide for mea«surinrt *k
compounds which induce CYP1A usinn rorJ?i presence of planar organic
96. American Society,or Testing
ASTM. 1997. E 1853 standard guide for mea^i •
organic compunds which induce CYP1A rennrw!?9 Presence of planar
American Society for Testing and Materials PhtladlJhirPA^in"18' V°'' 1,05
Anderson, J. W., S. S. Rossi, R. H. Tukey TVuanni o ^
biomarker, 450 RGS, for assessing the potential toyliK,^ 0chi- 1995- A
in environmental samples. Envir. Toxicol. & Chem 14(7° mg™ i mpounds
Anderson, J. W., K. Bothner, T. Vu, and R H
(P450 RGS) test method on environmental samptes'	S a biomarker
in: Techniques in Aquatic Toxicology. Editor - G K nU'r^ J ?' 9haPter
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.	' anc!er. Lewis
^7<^pp ^24-25 *\rv. St^^rdl^eth^s^or^e^^mlnat^on0^?Wate "T"
& Sdi,i0n SUPPtemem-
Carr, R.S. and D.C Chapman. 1992 Comparison of solid-phase and rare
Chem.1or7 19-Mr 888688,09 'he qua,i,y °'marine and
Chandler, Q. T. 1990. Effects of sediment-bound residues of the pvrethroid
SSa~. RT29a65-76SUrV,Val "" ™p,0duc8on °< -eiobenthK^ods.
Chandler, G. T and G. I Scott. 1991. Effects of sediment-bound endosulfan on
survival reproduction and larval settlement on meiobenthic polychaeterand
copepods. Environ. Toxicol, and Chem. 10: 375-382.	' an0
C°™ran, E. F., M. S. Brown, F. R. Baddour, S. A. Chasens, and A. D. Frev
1983. Biscayne Bay Hydrocarbon Study. Final Report to Florida Department of
Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, FL. University of Miami. Miami, FL. 327 pp
Corcoran, E. F. 1983. Report on the analyses of five Biscayne Bav sediment*
University of Miami, RSMAS. Miami, FL.	sediments.
-------
Corcoran, E. F., M. S. Brown, and A. D. Freay. 1984. The study of chlorinated
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and phthalic acid esters in sediment of
Biscayne Bay. University of Miami, RSMAS. Prepared for Metro-Dade County.
Miami, FL.
Hyland, J. T. Herrlinger, T. Snoots, A. Ringwood, B. VanDolah, C Hackney, G.
Nelson, J. Rosen, and S. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental quality of estuaries
of the Carolinian Province: 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum 97. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Charleston, SC. 102 pp.
Kohn, N. P., J.Q. Word, D. K. Niyogi. 1994. Acute Toxicity of ammonia to four
species of marine amphipod. Mar. Env. Res. 38 (1994) 1-15.
Lauenstein, G. G. and A. Y. Cantillo, editors. 1993. Sampling and analytical
methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic
Surveillance and Mussel Watch projects. 1984-1992. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS
ORCA71. National Oceanic and Atmopheric Administration. Silver Spring,
MD.
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of
adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine
and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.
Long, E. R., A. Robertson, D. A. Wolfe, J. Hameedi, and G. M. Sloane. 1996.
Estimates of the spatial extent of sediment toxicity in major U. S. estuaries.
Environmental Science & Technology 30(12): 3585-3592.
Long, E. R., L J. Field, and D. D. MacDonald. 1998. Predicting toxicity in
marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Toxicol.
& Chem. 17(4): 000-000.
MacDonald, D. D., R. S. Carr, F. D. Calder, E. R. Long, and C. G. Ingersoll.
1996. Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida
coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5: 253-278.
Miles, C. J. and R. J. Pfeuffer. 1997. Pesticides in canals of South Florida.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32: 337-345.
Morgan, B.J.T. 1992. Analysis of quantal response data. Chapman and Hall.
London, UK.
Moser, B. K. and G. R. Stevens. 1992. Homogeneity of variance in the two-
sample means tests. American Statistician 46:19-21.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1992. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Editiion,
vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 846 pg.
-------
Schimmel, S. C., B. D. Melzian, D. E. Campbell, C. J. Strobel S J Benvi i q
Rosen, and H. W. Buffum. 1994. Statistical summan/ fmap !=«.~,',« ^%'/• ¦ •
Province - 1991 EPA/620/R/q4/nn*? n o rr	^MAP-Estuaries Virginian
Narragansett Ri. ™0/R/94/005- U- S- Env.ronmental Protection Agency,
Schmalle, M. C. 1991. Effects of historicsl onntgminan>» l- . ...
Bay, Florida 1991-93. University ofMSSS™Sh6
Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL
Schropp, S. J., F. G. Lewis, H. L. Windom, J. D. Ryan, R D Calder and l r
Burney. 1990 Interpretation of metal concentrations in Wiuaii^dta^S" <*
Florida using aluminum as a reference element. Estuarie 13(3): 227-235
South Florida Water Management District. 1994. An update of the surface
Palml3eaXFLen mana9ement P'an for Bisca^y. SFWMD West
Strawbridge.S., B. C. Coull, and G. T. Chandler. 1992. Reproductive outout m
a meiobenthic copepod exposed to sediment-associated federate ArS>
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23:295-300.	vaiera rch'
U.S. EPA 1986. Recommended protocols for conducting laboratory bioassai«
on Puget Sound sediments. 52 pp. Prepared for U.S. EnvronS
Agency, Region 10, Puget Sound Estuary Program, Seattle WA
u s- EPA 1990 Recommended protocols for conducting laboratory bioassavs
on Puget Sound sediments. Final Report. 79 pp. Prepared for U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Puget Sound Estuary'Program,
o6£ml6, WA.
U.S. EPA 1994 Recommended guidelines for conducting laboratory bioassavs
on Puget Sound sediments. 81 pp. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Puget Sound Estuary Program, Seattle, WA.
U. S. EPA. 1996. The National Sediment Quality Survey: A report to Congress
on the extent and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the
United States. Draft EPA-823-D-96-002. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D. C.
Waite, T. D. 1976. Man's impact on the chemistry of Biscayne Bay. pp. 279-
286. In: Biscayne Bay: Past/present/future. University of Miami Sea Grant
Special Report no. 5. A. Thorhaug, editor. University of Miami. Miami, FL.
-------
Zone
<7 £
-y
Figure 1. Study area and geographic sampling zones for Biscayne Bay.
-------
\
N
\Roval Glades
Canal
1116
North
Miami Beach
112 o
Maule
Lake
113
<5r
>IV,
er
Sunny
Isles
118
114
115
119


Figure 2. Sampling stations and strata boundaries in zone 1 of Biscayne Bay.
-------
Figure 3. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zone 2
-------
ormandy
Isle
76th Street Cau
Indian
Creek
Julia Tuttle Canspu/a
J
road Causewa
North Miami
Biscayne
Canal
O 122
0120
124 O 0125
Zone 3
0123
Little River
Zone 4
Miami
Shores
Figure 4. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zones 3 and 4.
-------
Figure 5. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zone 5.
-------
Figure 6. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zone 6.
-------
i
Seybold
-laughtori
Island
Figure 7. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for the Miami River (zone 6).

-------
Figure 8. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zone 7.
-------
Coconut
Grove
Miami
Biltmore
Golf Course
Gables
University
of Miami
Alhambra Cfcle
Figure 9. Sampling stations and stratum boundary Coral Gables Canal (zone 7).
-------
Figure 10. Sampling stations and stratum boundary for Snapper Creek Canal (zone 7).
-------
Figure 11. Sampling stations and strata boundaries in zone 8.
-------
Biscayne Bay
Figure 12. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for Gould's and
Princeton canals (zone 8).
-------
Figure 13. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for Military, Mowry, and North
canals (zone 8).
-------
Biscayne
O Bay
0216
Mangrove
Point
Dade
County
Card
Sound
Little
Card
Sound
Key Largo
Figure 14. Sampling stations and strata boundaries for zone 9.
-------


Pocf



\o*



\ycc

non-toxic
~
slightly toxic
Amphipod
survival
p>0.05
na
Urohin
de\/{
eloPrn
ent
Urchin	Urchin
fertilization development
p>0.05
@100%*
p<0.05
@ 100%*
p>0.05
@100%*
Microtox
p>0.05 with
Mann-Whitney
p<0.05	p<0.05 with
@ 100%* Mann-Whitney
moderately toxic
highly toxic
p<0.05, and
mean > 80%
of control
p<0.05, and
mean < 80%
of control
p<0.05
@50%*
p<0.05
@25%*
p<0.05
@50%*
p<0.05
@25%*
p<0.05 with
Dunnett's
p<0.05 with
distribution-free
Figure 15. Legend used to illustrate spatial patterns in toxicity with results from each of the
four toxicity tests ("indicates porewater concentrations).
-------
non-toxic
0 slightly toxic
0 moderately toxic
£3 highly toxic
O station location
-------
Bakers HauloveAlnlet
Figure 17. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four
sediment tests performed with samples from within three strata in
zone 2.
-------
Figure 18. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four
sediment tests performed with samples from within 10 strata in
zones 3 and 4.
-------
Figure 19. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four sediment tests
performed with samples from within ten strata in zone 5.
-------
Figure 20. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four
sediment tests performed with samples collected within 13 strata in
zone 6.
-------
~	non-toxic
~	slightly toxic
¦	moderately toxic
~	highly toxic
O station location
Figure 21. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four sediment tests performed with samples
collected within seven strata in zone 6 (Miami River).

-------
Figure 22. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four
sediment tests performed with samples collected within nine strata in
zone 7.
-------
#c<°
non-toxic
~ slightly toxic
¦ moderately toxic
E3 highly toxic
O station location
67 mU
O
Figure 23. Classifications of the relative degree of toxicity in four sediment tests
performed with samples from within seven strata in zone 8.
-------
~	non-toxic
~	slightly toxic
¦ moderately toxic
highly toxic
O station location
Dade
County
d
l
,224 LMe A %
Card 4*
Biscayne
O Bay
Mangrove
Point
^220
2
-------
North
Miami
Miami
.*
Turkey Point
* results significant
(p<0.05)
o O *
\ \ %
\ ^ %
% \
% %
°o "o
\ * O
C>
<5_ ^r. X-
\ *o
-------
40

35
¦ Benzo(a)
30
pyrene
equivalents
25
. (ug/g)
20

15

10

5

0

112
Maule
Lake
N
Sunny
Isles
118
115
119
%
North
Miami Beach
ftiver
Figure 26. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed as benzo [a]
pyrene equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of sediment samples from zone 1.
-------
r
Benzo(a)
pyrene
equivalents
(ug/g)
		71
North Miami ^dcww,/
Biscayne
Canal
149
Miami
Shores
Little River
Zone 4
Figure 27. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed as benzo [a]
pyrene equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of sediment samples from zones 3
and 4.
-------
40
-
35
-
30
25
20
_ Benzo(a)
pyrene
- equivalents
(ug/g)
15
-
10
-
5
-
0
-





		
Figure 28. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed as benzo [a]
pyrene equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of sediment samples from zone 5.
-------
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Benzo (a)
pyrene
equivalents
(ug/g)
202
Miami
l Gables
'anal
200
Snapper Creek
Canal
Rickenbacker
Causeway
180
2
¦
179
183
¦
182 1
¦
181
¦
^ 184

203
205
204
Coconut /189
Grove * ¦ 190
193
191
¦ 192
I
Cutler
196
194
195
i 197
199
198 ¦
&
ff
v:
W
•
8
*3
CD
/
C>
o
Lo
;s-
s*
Figure 29. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed
as benzo [a] pyrene equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of
sediment samples from zone 7.
-------
I

Military Canal
Floodgate ¦
40
P

35
-

30
. Benzo(a)

pyrene

25
- equivalents

20
(u&9)


15
-

10


5

•
0L



Mowry Canal
Floodgate i
North Canal n
N
208 207 206
15
Biscayne
Bay
209
Floodgate
Convoy Point
213
17
212
0
214
Figure 30. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed as benzo [a] pyrene
equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of sediment samples from zone 8 canals.
-------
40 r
35 ¦
30 -
25
20
15
10
5
0
Benzo (a)
pyrene
equivalents
(ug/g)
Dade
County
225 ¦)
224 Little
Card
Sound
Biscayne
O Bay
217
1216
Mangrove
Point
mm 220
219
Card ¦ 218
Sound
— 223
221
222
Key Largo
-21S /
t
N
Figure 31. Results of cytochrome P-450 RGS bioassays (expressed as benzo [a] pyrene
equivalents) on organic solvent extracts of sediment samples from zone 9.
-------
Figure 32. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs in sediments
from zone 1.
-------
Figure 33. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs
in sediments from zone 2.
-------
in sediments from zones 3 and 4.
-------
Figure 35. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs in sediments
from zone 5.
-------
Mia*,.-
Figure 36. <*-»•».
'48
<3?
r^> ft,
ton
and total PCBsfn^^
'rem the lower Miami River.
-------
Figure 37. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total
PCBs in sediments from zone 6.
-------
Figure 38. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs
in sediments from zone 7.
-------
Figure 39. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBS in sediments
from zone 8.
-------
Figure 40. Concentrations of lead, zinc, total PAHs, and total PCBs in sediments from
zone 9.
-------
100
i
E
3
E
O 1
1E-2 -3
1E-3 J.
10
100
1000
Aluminum, ppm
10000
100000
Figure 41. Relationship between concentrations of cadmium and
aliminum in sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper and
lower 95% confidence limits of cadmium:aluminum ratios in
sediments from reference areas (Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
Aluminum, ppm
Figure 42. Relationship between the concentrations of chromium
and aluminum in sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper
and lower 95% confidence limits of chromlum:aluminum ratios in
sediments from reference areas (from Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
1000 •>
.1 ¦	I		—•	I«I		I	I I I I I IIII			
10	100	1000	10000	100000
Aluminum, ppm
Figure 43. Relationship between concentrations of copper and
aluminum in sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper and
lower 95% confidence limits of copper:alumlnum ratios In
sediments from reference areas (from Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
1000
'¦ I I
¦ I I I I 111.
100
E
&
10
10
I I I I I I I 11	I
100
1000
Aluminum, ppm
I' I I I |	I "*" *TIMII"1 I 'TT'I I j
10000	100000
Figure 44. Relationship between concentrations of lead and
aluminum In sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper and
lower 95% confidence limits of lead:aluminum ratios in sediments
from reference areas (from Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
1000
100
1000
Aluminum, ppm
I I I I I I I |
100000
Figure 45. Relationship between concentrations of nickel and
aluminum in sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper and
lower 95% confidence limits of nickel:aluminum ratios in
sediments from reference areas (from Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
Aluminum, ppm
Figure 46. Relationship between concentrations of zinc and
aluminum in sediments from Biscayne Bay relative to upper and
lower 95% confidence limits of zinc:aluminum ratios in
from reference areas (from Schropp et al., 1990).
-------
-§¦§
yf 5
o ST
in it,
T 2.
a. cd
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 "
15
10
5 "
0 J
1996
I	L_
I I I
rho = +0.851,
p<0.0001, n=121
C
o
1996
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I ¦ ' ' ¦ l 1 ¦ ' ¦ I ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I ¦
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Sum 13 PAH, ppb
	
I I | I I I I | I
6000 7000
8000
70000
rho = +0.772,
p<0.0001, n=121
| I I I
500
1996
1000	1500	2000
Total PCBs, ppb
2500
3000
-*¦ ¦ * 1 * ¦ * 1 * * ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ * 1 ¦ • • 1 ¦ • • ' • • • 1 * • ¦ 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ' ¦ *
rho = +0.837,
p<0.0001, n=121
I 1 1 ' l »» ¦ l i i < l i i i I i
•8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mean ERM quotients
T—I—I—I-
1.8
Figure 47. Relationships between results of P-450 RGS assays and the concentra-
tions of sum 13 PAHs, total PCBs, and mean ERM quotients in Biscayne Bay.
-------
zone 6
100
o
o
60
£ 80
g
&
to
CO
1
t
3
40
I
o.
E
<
i
0 "i-r-
43
O O
.25
48
49
54
52
08
46
47
56
T
.5
.75
rho =-0.561,
p<0.0001, n=57
61 «
62 °
O
1	1.25 1.5
Mean ERM quotient
63
1.75
65
2.25
Figure 48. Relationship between amphipod survival and mean ERM quotients in
57 sediment samples from zone 6.
-------
zone 6
120
100
[O O
0 o
rho = -0.585,
p<0.0001, n=57
ERM =
218
PEL>
112
O O
52
O O
65
63
62
100
200
300
Lead, ppm
400
500
600
Figure 49. Relationship between amphipod survival and concentrations of lead
in 57 sediment samples from zone 6.
-------
zone 6
c
8
120
100
80
60
~ PEL =
P 6676
«
(B
1
* 40
3
<0
I
a
E
<
o o o
o
o o
o d
0 T I I I I I '¦
0	5000
ERM =
9600
63	61 _
62Q	O 0
rho =-0.538,
pcO.0001, n=57
' ¦ ' i I ¦ ' ¦ ¦ I ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I i
10000 15000 20000 25000
Sum of HPAH, ppb
65
30000 35000 40000 45000
Figure 50. Relationship between amphipod survival and concentrations of
high molecular weight PAHs in 57 sediment samples from zone 6.
-------
zone 6
120
100
c
o
o
c
§
&
«
a
1
1
3
<0
I
£
a
E
<
rho = -0. 607,
p<0.0001, n=57
1500	2000
Total PCBs, ppb
3000
Figure 51. Relationship between amphipod survival and concentrations of
total PCBs in 57 sediment samples from zone 6.
-------
zone 6
120 ¦<
100 "
80 ¦
60 "
¦& 40 ¦
20 "
0 1
Oo O
ERM =
6.0
PEL =
4.79 o
OO
6>
¦ ... 1
rho = -0.578,
p<0.0001, n-57
55
61 O
62 °
O
63
.'l 0 0 10
30
50	70	90
Total chlordane, ppb
110
130
150
Fiaure 52. Relationship between amphipod survival and concentrations of
total chlordane (alpha + gamma) in 57 sediment samples from zone 6.
-------
zone 6
120 i ' *
e
©
E
Q.
0
0>
1
TJ
i*
c ~
100
80
| 60
£
§.
40
Eg 20
© £
H c
a
a
-20
o° o8
QCP°0
CP
^ O
o cfo
		I	 I
50
LOEC =
90 ug/L
0£Rdoq—e£	©-
rho = -0.690,
p<0.0001, n=57
100	150	200
Un-ionized ammonia, ug/L
250
300
Figure 53. Relationship between normal sea urchin embryological development
and concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in pore waters from 57 sediment
samples from zone 6.
-------
120
zones
III!
	¦ - ¦ ¦ -
¦ - - ¦

0 O Oo
100
fb
rho =-0.311,
p<0.05, n=50
le
t £
® 1
c e
1 a
li
80 1
60 TO
40 1
O O
206 105
O o
208
O
207
20 1
M-
o
Q> o
o	
.23
X
2.5E-2
.05 7.5E-2 .1	.12 .15
Mean ERM quotient
.17
.2
.25
Figure 54. Relationship between urchin fertilization success and mean ERM
quotients for 50 sediment samples from zone 8.
-------
zone 8
0
1
1
&
c
"E
3
120
100
80
a>
**
2
I 60
5
6
*
I 40
c

20
0

rho = -0.477,

s
p<0.001, n=50


Oo



o



o



o


<
w
o
o
o



o o
ERL =

<
> o
4022


A
TEL =


V
1684


o


<
>



o



o



%o



¦*o


¦
¦100 400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900
Sum of 13 PAHs, ppb
3400
3900
4400
Figure 55. Relationship between urchin fertilization success and concentrations
of total PAHs (13 parent compounds) in 50 sediment samples from zone 8.
-------
zones
120 Ht ' I ¦ ' *
c
o
is
•i
li
P
s r
S c
a
100
80
60
O
O
t£L
--10
OO
"T
10
I I
8
TEL s 21.6
ERL a 22.7
30
50	70
Total PCBs, ppb
rho = -0.360,
p<0.05, n=50
90
i I i >-
105
110
Figure 56. Relationship between urchin fertilization success and concentrations
to total PCBs in 50 sediment samples from zone 8.
-------
zone 8
120
100 H
O o
o
rho = -0.269,
p>0.05, n=50
c
Q>
E
%
®
0
T1 k
I I
f 9
I	*
II
o
a.
80
60 i
40 i
20 i
o
o o9boo
206
oo ooo
105
208
207
-20 I ¦ ' ¦ ¦ i ¦ ' ¦ ' i ' * ¦ ¦ i i i i » i ¦ i i i | i i i i | i i i i i1
2.5E-2 .05 7.5E-2
.1	.12 .15 .17
Mean ERM quotient
.2
.23
.25
Figure 57. Relationship between percent normal embryological development in
100% pore water and mean ERM quotients in 50 sediment samples from zone 8.
-------
zone 8
I
Q.
0
1
0
z	s
§	I
_	o
18	O.
120
100
60
60
40
2 8
Z*- 20
S £
v
a.
<§>
o
o o o
<9
LOEC = 90 ug/L
>o o qpo op
-e&-
itio =-0.681,
p<0.0001, n=50

-8-e-
-20
50	100	150	200	250
Porewater UAN, ug/L
300
350
Figure 58. Relationship between percent normal embryological development in
100% pore water and concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in pore water of 50
sediment samples from zone 8.
-------
zone 8
120
100
c
0>
E
o.
0
1
0
TJ
Si
a
«
80 1
te 60
40
S
o>
a
¦= 20
-20


rho = -0.474,
O o
o

p<0.001, n=50
0 o


-------
zone 8
120
100
80
60 "
a>
E
a.
o
•o fc
£ S
g | 40 1
§i ..1
c t-
"SS C
§
a>
a.

-20
-.5
i i
a
TEL= 0.73
O
o o o
'. ¦ ¦ ¦
ERL= 1.0
105/206
rho = -0.452,
p<0.01, n=50
208
.5
1	1.5	2
Silver, ppm
207
2.5
Figure 60. Relationship between normal embryological development in tests
of 100% pore waters and concentrations of silver in 50 sediment samples
from zone 8.
-------
zone 8
40
35

<0
I 25-
0)
20 H
m
w 15
CD
cc
o 10
in
"f
5
¦ 1 ¦ ¦		 i I
* ' '
rtio =+0.918,
p = 0.004, n=11
oo
0
zone 8
100
1 I i—1—1 ' I 1 '—¦ • I ¦
200	300	400
Sum 13 PAH, ppb
I I
500
600
40
35 ¦
»	30
c
1	25
!	20
"0.
5 15
m
$ 10
cc
<2 5
¦ '
i i l
rho = +0.800,
p = 0.011, n=11
o o
las-
10
I T I
20
zone 8
I I ¦ | I I 1 I | '"
30	40
Total PCBs, ppb
^ i I i i i
50
60
40
35 H
iS
® 30 -
.1
I 25
I 20
CD
W 15"
O
o 10
S
Q. 5
_L
-L
-L.
rho = +0.845,
p = 0.008, n=11

o
S
.2
1
0 2.5E-2 .05 7.5E-2 .1 .12
Mean ERM quotients
Figure 61. Relationship between results of P-450 RGS assays and the
concentrations of total PAHs, total PCBs, and mean ERM quotients in zone 8
25
-------
Appendix A. 1995 field notes.
Zone
Strata
Sample
Station
Station Location
Date
Time
Latitude
Longitude
#
#
#
#







2
1
1
1.1
North Miami Bay
3/29/95
12:50
25°
54.820 N
80°
08.069 W
2
1
2
2,1
North Miami Bay
4/4/95
9:40
25°
54.593 N
80°
08.162 W
2
1
3
3,3
North Miami Bay
4/4/95
10:45
25°
54.411 N
80°
08.062 W
2
2
4
1,1
North Miami Bay
4/4/95
11:25
25°
55.231 N
80°
07.617 W
2
2
5
2,1
North Miami Bay
4/4/95
12:05
25°
54.245 N
80°
07.564 W
2
2
6
3,1
North Miami Bay
4/4/95
13:12
25°
54.398 N
80°
07.593 W
2
3
7
1,1

4/4/95
14:55
25°
53.443 N
80°
08.871 W
2
3
8
2,1

4/4/95
14:15
25°
54.144 N
80°
08.272 W
2
3
9
3,1

4/4/95
13:45
25°
54.189 N
80°
07.938 W
6
1
10
1,1
Inside of Bayside-behind Hard Rock Cafe
3/31/95
9:45
25°
46.760 N
80°
11.110 W
6
1
11
2,1
Inside Channel
3/31/95
10:25
25°
46.407 N
80°
10.914 W
6
1
12
3,1
West of Dodge Island
3/31/95
11:30
25°
46.472 N
80°
10.936 W
6
4
19
1.2

4/6/95
9:25
25°
46.064 N
80°
08.336 W
6
4
20
2,1

4/6/95
9:55
25°
46.316 N
80°
08.572 W
6
4
21
3,3
Just off Coast Guard Station
4/8/95
10:05
25°
46.179 N
80°
08.588 W
6
8
31
1.1

4/5/95
9:15
25°
45.645 N
80°
11.163 W
6
8
32
2,1

4/5/95
10:15
25°
46.235 N
80°
10.990 W
6
8
33
3,1

4/5/95
9:45
25°
45.749 N
80°
11.222 W
6
9
34
1.1

4/5/95
11:00
25°
46.180 N
80°
10.780 W
6
9
35
2.1

4/5/95
12:05
25°
46.010 N
80°
10.643 W
6
9
36
3,1

4/5/95
11:35
25°
46.166 N
80°
10.433 W
6
10
37
1.1
North of Virginia Key
4/3/95
9:45
25°
45.307 N
80°
10.268 W
6
10
38
2,2
South of Dodge Island
4/3/95
10:55
25°
45.814 N
80°
09.963 W
6
10
39
3,1
South of Dodge Island
4/3/95
11:20
25°
45.908 N
80°
10.046 W
6
11
40
1.1
North of Rickenbacker Causeway
4/1/95
9:20
25°
45.184 N
80°
11.400 W
6
11
41
2,1
North of Rickenbacker Causeway
4/1/95
9:45
25°
44.957 N
80°
11.826 W
6
11
42
3,1
North of Rickenbacker Causeway
4/1/95
10:30
25°
45.045 N
80°
11.313 W
6
12
43
1.1
East of Intercoastal Waterway;in front of stadi
4/1/95
11:30
25°
44.654 N
o
O
CO
10.005 W
6
12
44
2,1
North of Rickenbacker Causeway
4/3/95
9:06
25°
45.010 N
0
o
CO
10.643 W
-------
#
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
IB
18
19
19
19
Sample
ji
Station
M
Station Location
Date
Time
Latitude
#
45
W
3,1
East of Intercoastaf Waterway
4/1/95
12:00
25° 45.117 N
46
1,1
Miami River
3/30/95
11:55
25° 46.489 N
47
2,1
Miami River
3/30/95
11:00
25° 46.268 N
48
3,1
Miami River
3/30/95
9:35
25° 46.219 N
49
1,1
Miami River
4/3/95
12:20
25" 46.267 N
50
2,1
Miami River
4/3/95
13:05
25° 46.801 N
51
3,1
Miami River
4/3/95
13:30
25° 46.938 N
52
1,1
Miami River
4/9/95
15:25
25° 47.048 N
53
2,1
Miami River
4/9/95
2:40
25° 47.229 N
54
3,1
Miami River; outside of Florida Yacht Club
4/8/95
17:50
25° 47.419 N
55
1,1
Miami River
4/8/95
17:05
25° 47.727 N
56
2,2
Miami River
4/8/95
16:30
25° 47.938 N
57
3,1
Miami River
4/8/95
15:40
25° 48.084 N
58
1,1
Miami River by Railroad tracks
4/8/95
12:20
25° 48.324 N
59
2,1
Miami River
4/8/95
14:10
25° 48.130 N
60
3,1
Miami River by Railroad tracks
4/8/95
13:25
25° 48.334 N
61
1,1

4/9/95
16:00
25° 47.036 N
62
2,1

4/9/95
16:25
25° 46.919 N
63
3,1

4f9f95
16:50
25° 46.769 N
64
1,1
Tamiani Canal
4/9/95
12:50
25° 47.703 N
65
2,1
Tamiani Canal
4/9/95
12:10
25° 47.669 N
66
3,1
Tamiani Canal
4/9/95
11:30
25° 47.633 N
-------



Surface
Bottom
Depth
Surface
Btm Temp.
Salinity
Salinity
meters
Temp. °C
¦c
PPt
PPt
4.30
26.15
24.8
36.8
37.8
5.50
25.0
25.0
29.0
31.0
5.50
25.0
24.0
30.0
30.5
2.50
25.0
25.0
29.0
30.0
4.00
25.0
25.0
31.0
31.0
3.75
25.0
25.0
30.5
31.0
2.50
25.0
25.0
29.9
30.5
5.00
25.0
25.0
30.5
31.0
4.00
25.0
25.0
30.0
31.0
4.50
26.5
26.0
32.0
33.5
4.00
26.5
26.0
31.5
33.0
1.20
26.5
26.5
31.0
31.5
3.50
25.0
25.0
33.0
33.0
4.50
25.0
25.0
33.0
33.0
4.50
25.0
25.0
31.50
33.00
2.40
24.0
24.5
32.0
32.2
6.00
25.0
24.5
31.2
32.0
2.00
24.5
24.5
32.0
31.8
2.50
25.9
24.0
32.0
31.9
2.25
24.5
25.0
33.0
32.5
2.25
25.0
24.0
32.0
32.0
3.00
24.0
24.0
31.0
29.5
2.50
25.0
24.0
31.0
31.0
3.00
24.9
25.0
31.5
31.5
2.80
26.5
26.5
31.5
31.5
5.00
27.0
26.5
31.5
32.0
2.40
27.0
27.0
31.0
31.0
2.80
27.0
27.0
32.1
32.2
3.00
24.0
24.0
31.0
31.0


Surface
Bottom
Face D.O.
Btm. D.O.
Conductivity
Conductivity
mg/L
mg/L
micro moles
micro moles
6.02
5.67
55,600
56,600
6.20
5.10
49,000
50000+ (off scale)
6.10
5.90
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
5.80
5.70
49,000
50000+ (off scale)
5.80
5.80
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
5.50
5.50
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
5.50
5.60
49,500
50000+ (off scale)
5.40
5.50
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
5.40
5.30
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
5.20
5.50
49,900
50000+ (off scale)
5.70
5.60
49,200
50000+ (off scale)
5.50
5.50
48,700
49,100
5.60
5.40
49,900
49,900
5.90
5.70
49,900
50,000
6.00
5.80
49,000
50000+ (off scale)
7.10
6.60
48,300
48,300
6.30
6.10
47,900
48,500
7.20
6.80
48,100
48,100
6.00
5.70
49,000
49,000
6.30
6.00
49,900
49,900
6.60
5.90
49,000
49,000
7.20
7.20
49,050
49,050
7.35
7.50
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
6.30
6.30
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
5.60
5.60
49,000
49,200
5.10
5.30
49,100
49,800
5.70
5.70
49,500
49,400
5.20
5.00
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
7.30
7.20
49,000
49,000
-------



Surface
Bottom
Depth
Surface
Btm Temp.
Salinity
Salinity
meters
Temp. "C
-------
Field notes from Leg 1 - Biscayne Bay
Biscayne Bay
Sample Zone Strata Station Sediment Description
#
#
#
#

1
2
1
1,1
Lt. Brwn silt • large, invert tubes; slight sulfurous odor pine needles; population of diatoms; baby fish
2
2
1
2.1
Lt. brwn soft silty clay; no noticeable sulfites
3
2
1
3,3
Flecks on top of It. brwn and gold soft silty clay, no sand; organic matter; clam tubes and clam holes
4
2
2
1,1
Drk. brwn muddy sand w/shell hash, algae on top - lots of algae; a live Gastropod!!!
5
2
2
2,1
Muddy It. brwn sand with darker sand below; clam tubes
6
2
2
3,1
Lt. brwn sandy mud over gray sandy mud w/black shell hash; a little crab; polychaete
7
2
3
1,1
Drk. brwn sandy clay over gray sandy clay; sea grass; shell debris; plant and animal organisms
6
2
3
2,1
Lt. brwn silty clay w/ tiny amounts of sand; algae on surface; soft clam tubes
9
2
3
3,1
Lt. tan fine sandy mud; polychaete; G-3 Soft sand w/some It. bm mud; G-4 grass on surface of grab
10
6
1
1,1
Lt. brwn on top with dark grey-black below; silty clay; gooey and sticky; very consistent
11
6
1
2,1
Lt. brwn soft silty clay w/small amount of sand; diatoms on top; a fish, shrimp and other crustaceans
12
6
1
3,1
Top 1cm It. bm. w/lt. gray below; fine sandy mud, shell hash, algae, sea grass, manatee grass, mysids,




and thallasia; G-3 Sandy no grass, huge shrimp
19
6
4
1,2
Top 1cm It. brown with It. gray below; some muddy, fine sand with shell hash, polychaetes, diatoms, mysids,
21
6
4
3,3
shrimp, sea grass, and baby fish
20
6
4
2,1
Top 1cm It. bm then gray; slightly muddy sand; shell debris, diatom scum.polycheate, sea grass,amphipod, clan
21
2
1
1,3
Top 2cm brown sand then gray silty/clay sand; shell hash, amphipods, worm tubes; G-3 All brown sand no clay
31
6
8
1,1
Top 1cm drk. brown then dark gray below; sandy mud, shell debris, green plants, sponges
32
6
8
2,1
Lt. brwn w/ It. gray below; mix of mud, sand, gravel, shell debris; chunky; amphipods
33
6
8
3,1
Top 1cm drk. bm w/drk gray below; sandy mud, leafy gr. plants, fine shell debris; polychaetes, It. blue sponge
34
6
9
1,1
Top 1cm It. brown over gray; muddy, silty, sand; clam tubes, amphipods, blue sponge, polychaete, gastropod
35
6
9
2,1
Lt. brown over It. gray muddy sand, fine shell hash: G-3 Jelly fish
36
6
9
3,1
2 cm of light brown sandy mud over light gray sandy mud; phalaciea, sea grass and other plants, shell hash
37
6
10
1,1
Soft fine light brown muddy sand, algae on surface, sea grass, shell hash, live shell, polychaete and hydroids
38
6
10
2,2
Light brown, soft, fine, muddy sand, shell hash, dead gastropod shell
39
6
10
3,1
Top 1cm It. brn over It. gray, fine to coarse, muddy sand, shell debris, shrimp, fish, sea grass, G-4 was sandier
40
6
11
1,1
Top 1cm It. bm over It. gray, slight sandy mud some clay, It. shell debris, sea grass, amphipods, soupy sea grass plates
41
6
11
2,1
Top 0.5cm It. brwn over It. gray, runny silty clay, strong sulfur smell, one fish
42
6
11
3,1
Lt. bm sandy silt w/lighter brown-gray below, fine shell hash, diatoms on surface, living sponge, red algae, flat worm
-------
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
6
0
G
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Strata	Station Sediment Description
#	#
12	1,1	Carbonate, no RPD, no layering, It. brown, consistent in color, slight fine sandy clay, runny-gooey, sea grasses
12	8,1	U brown sandy s/lty muddy shell hash, sea grasses
12	3,1	Lt. brwn sand, a tot of shell hash, G-3 Top 1 to 2cm Lt brwn over H gray, muddy fine, med, & coarse sand, a worm tube
13	1,1	Bmn-gray slight sandy clay, gooey, blue paint chips, paper, slight oil sheen, G-2 it. brwn sandy mud
13	2,1	Brown sitty, petro sheen, tar ball, larval fish, crab, rock, sulfur smel!, G-8 was sandier
13	3,1	Lt. brn-gray sandy mud/clay; no odor; G-2 petro sheen; a lot of debris; G-3 sandy shefi hash; 1cm of
It.brwn w/black below; sulfur and petro smell; G-4 gooey cfay; veiy patchy area
14	1,1	Dark brown soft sandy silt, worm tubes, petro sheen, plant debris, rocks
14	2,1	Top 1 cm chocolate brown over dark gray, sandy clay, shrimp, mysids, petroleum sheen
14	3,1	Dark brown over dark gray, dead plant debris, tar ball, petroleum sheen, petroleum odor after homogenized
15	1,1	Top 1 cm light brown over dark pray, sandy sift, oil sheen, tar ball
15	2,1	Dark chocolate brown over black, sandy clay, petroleum odor, bivalves, petroleum sheen, shed debris
15	3,1	Olivine green over gray, slimy, oil blobs, worm or )eech?, rocks, organic debris throughout
16	1,1	Light brown on top of dark gray, petroleum sheen
16	2,2	Thin layer of It brn fine sand over drk gray sandy clay, sticky, creosote odor, limestone, shell hash, petro odor
16	3,1	Dark brown, sandy mud same clay, stick oily sheen, slight petroleum odor
17	1,1	Dark chocolate brown sandy silt, organic debris, petroleum sheen, sticks-twigs
17	2,1	Lt bm muddy fine sand,-G-3 Drk brn muddy Urn sand, petro sheen/bfobs;G-7 drk choc, brn mud w/ft tan sand, petro odor
17	3,1	Top 2cm drk bm over gravel and rocks,sandy ,peaty day,petro sheen and smel), lots of organics, some sheH hash, rocks
18	1,1	Black runny mayo-like, organic matter, hydrogen sulfide odor, algae, polychaete
18	2,1	Black funny sitty goo, sulfurous smell, black glop of petroleum, petroleum sheen, organic matter
18	3,1	Runny black mayo, sulfur smell, organic matter, garbage;G-3 some clay, A LOT of oil, black muddy, gooey sticky mass
19	1,1	Drk brn,muddy,sandy,silty,shell debris;G-2 Drk bm muddy sand tin© 8t coarse,algae mat on surface of grab;Q-5 sm. fish
19	2,1	100% blk plant debris,ceosote odor; G-2 sandier, drk bm sift, creosote, plant debris, soft runny; G--4 $ilty, petro sheen
19	3,1	Dark gray sandy mud, organic matter, aquatic plants; G-4 petroleum sheen; 6-5 med-coarse brown sand with
shell debris, alga© mat on top of sediment in grab
-------
Field notes from Leg 2 - Biscayne Bay
Biscayne Bay
mple
#
Zone
#
Strata
#
Station
#
Station Location
Date
Time
Latitude
Longitude
13
6
2
1,3
West of Port of Miami
4/21/95
11:30
25°
46.928 N
80°
10.668 W
14
6
2
2,1
West of Port of Miami
4/21/95
12:45
25°
46.696 N
80°
10.218 W
15
6
2
3,1
West of Port of Miami
4/21/95
13:30
25°
46.629 N
80°
09.973 W
16
6
3
1.1
South of Mc Arthur Causeway
4/23/95
11:30
25°
46.445 N
80°
09.435 W
17
6
20
1,2
South East of Claughton Island
4/24/95
11:10
25°
45.712 N
80°
10.558 W
18
6
20
2,1
North of Rickenbacker Causeway
4/24/95
11:45
25°
45.201 N
80°
10.270 W
22
6
5
1,1
South of Port of Miami
4/22/95
15:25
25°
46.159 N
O
o
00
10.077 W
23
6
5
2,4

4/22/95
16:50
25°
45.959 N
80°
09.931 W
24
6
5
3,2
East side of Dodge Island
4/23/95
10:25
25°
46.353 N
80°
10.745 W
25
6
R6
1,3

4/23/95
14:30
25°
45.813 N
80°
09.537 W
26
6
R6
1,8

4/23/95
15:55
25°
45.403 N
80°
09.376 W
27
6
R6
3,12
South of Port of Miami, North of Marine Stadium
4/24/95
13:10
25°
45.166 N
80°
10.086 W
28
6
7
1,1
East side of Norris Cut
4/22/95
11:40
25°
45.110 N
80°
08.690 W
29
6
7
2,1
Norris Cut
4/22/95
12:10
25°
45.450 N
80°
08.710 W
30
6
7
3,1
East side of Norris Cut
4/22/95
13:35
ro
<2
45.536 N
O
o
00
08.853 W
67
8
1
1,1
Mid/South Biscayne Bay
4/26/95
11:10
25°
32.587 N
80°
12.719 W
68
8
1
2,1
East of Black Point
4/26/95
12:50
25°
32.472 N
O
o
00
16.026 W
69
8
1
3,2
West of Bocco Chica Key
4/23/95
14:55
25°
31.629 N
80°
12.118 W
70
8
2
1,1
East of Black Point, North of Goulds Canal
4/26/95
16:15
25°
32.047 N
o
o
00
18.192 W
71
8
2
2,1
East of Black Point, North of Goulds Canal
4/27/95
9:45
25°
31.817 N
80°
17.787 W
72
8
2
3,1
South of Goulds Canal and Black Point
4/27/95
11:37
25°
31.401 N
80°
19.149 W
73
8
3
1,1
South of Black Point
4/27/95
12:00
25°
30.955 N
00
o
o
17.690 W
74
8
3
2,1
East of Fender Point
4/27/95
13:12
25°
30.183 N
80°
17.659 W
75
8
3
3,1
North East of Fender Point, South of Goulds Canal
4/27/95
14:00
25°
30.944 N
CO
o
o
18.599 W
76
8
4
1,1
South of Fender Point
4/29/95
9:40
25°
28.886 N
o
o
00
19.707 W
77
8
4
2,1

4/27/95
15:10
25°
28.871 N
80°
18.190 W
78
8
4
3,1
Between Black Point and Turkey Point
4/29/95
10:25
25°
28.885 N
o
o
00
17.331 W
79
8
5
1,1
Entrance from bay to North Canal
4/29/95
11:10
25°
27.719 N
80°
19.389 W
80
8
5
2,1
North East of Convoy Point
4/29/95
11:55
25°
28.255 N
o
o
CO
18.724 W
-------
Sample
Zone
Strata
Station
#
#
#
#
81
8
5
3,1
82
8
6
1,1
83
8
6
2,1
84
8
6
3,1
85
8
7
1,1
86
8
7
2,1
87
8
7
3,1
88
8
8
1,1
89
8
8
2,1
90
8
8
3,1
91
8
9
1,1
92
8
14
1,1
93
8
9
3,1
94
8
10
1,1
95
8
10
2,1
96
8
10
3,1
97
8
11
1,1
98
8
11
2,1
99
8
1 1
3,1
100
8
10
3,1
101
8
12
2,1
102
8
12
3,1
103
8
13
1,1
104
8
13
2,1
105
8
13
3,1
Station Location
North East of Convoy Point
South of channel entrance to Turkey Point
South of channel entrance to Turkey Point
South East of Turkey Point
South East of Turkey Point
East of Turkey Point
Southern Biscayne Bay
West of Elliot Key, Mid/South Bay
Between Turkey Point and Elliot Key
East of entrance to Princeton Canal
Goulds Canal
Off mouth of Princeton Canal
Princeton Canal
Princeton Canal
Princeton Canal, East of flood control gate
Goulds canal entrance
In channel to Goulds canal
Goulds canal entrance
South side of entrance to Goulds canal
Goulds canal entrance
Goulds canal entrance
Black Creek Canal
Black Creek Canal
Black Creek Canal
Date
Time
Latitude
Longitude
4/29/95
12:50
25°
28.568 N
00
o
o
18.386 W
4/29/95
13:26
ro
cn
o
27.275 N
o
o
CO
17.901 W
4/29/95
14:00
25°
26.772 N
80°
18.132 W
4/29/95
14:35
25°
27.144 N
0
O
CO
19.035 W
4/30/95
15:35
o
in
CM
26.006 N
o
o
CO
18.753 W
4/29/95
15:30
ro
cn
0
25.346 N
o
o
00
17.534 W
4/29/95
16:00
ro
CJI
0
26.086 N
CO
o
o
18.184 W
5/2/95
13:15
25°
28.844 N
o
o
CO
12.426 W
4/30/95
16:45
0
in
CM
28.399 N
o
o
00
14.890 W
5/2/95
12:15
ro
CJI
0
25.974 N
o
o
00
16.857 W
5/2/95
11:20
25°
31.154 N
o
©
CO
19.121 W
5/2/95
10:25
N>
cn
o
32.229 N
o
o
CO
19.860 W
5/1/95
16:40
25°
31.148 N
0
o
00
19.146 W
5/1/95
14:40
o
in
CM
31.155 N
0
o
CO
20.134 W
5/1/95
13:20
25°
31.150 N
80°
20.530 W
5/1/95
11:30
o
in
CM
31.165 N
CO
o
0
20.668 W
4/30/95
13:50
0
in
CM
31.785 N
o
o
CO
18.813 W
4/30/95
12:20
0
in
CM
31.846 N
0
o
00
18.958 W
4/30/95
14:30
25°
31.754 N
00
o
0
18.717 W
4/30/95
11:20
0
in
CM
31.949 N
0
o
00
19.193 W
4/30/95
10:35
25°
32.054 N
00
o
o
19.441 W
4/28/95
12:27
25°
32.025 N
o
o
CO
19.392 W
4/28/95
11:45
25°
32.112 N
o
o
00
19.498 W
4/28/95
11:10
25°
32.279 N
o
o
00
19.611 W
4/28/95
10:10
25°
32.412 N
o
o
00
19.724 W
-------

Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Depth
Temp.
Temperature
Salinity
Salinity
meters
-------

Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Depth
Temp.
Temperature
Salinity
Salinity
meters
¦c
-------
Field notes from Leg 1 - Biscayne Bay
Biscayne Bay
Sample Zone Strata Station Sediment Description
#
#
#
#

13
6
2
1,3
Top 2 cm. sticky, light brown, sandy clay over gray sandy clay; diatom scum on top, very consistent sediment
14
6
2
2,1
Top 2 cm. light brown fine sandy clay over light gray; sulfur odor, amphipod tubes
15
6
2
3,1
Top 3 cm. light brown, fine, sandy clay over dark gray sandy clay; G-2: rocks, gravel, sandy clay
16
6
3
1,1
Light brown coarse sandy mud, sponges, shrimp, limestone rocks, baby fish, amphipod tubes
17
6
20
1,2
Top 2 cm. light brown sandy, silty, clay over dark gray; sea grasses, shrimp, polychaete
18
6
20
2,1
Top 1 cm. light brown sandy mud over light gray, diatom scum, sea grasses G-5: slightly muddy sand
22
6
5
1,1
Top 1 cm. light brown soft sticky silty clay over dark gray; sulfur odor, amphipods
23
6
5
2,4
Light brown muddy sand, shell debris, gravel rocks
24
6
5
3,2
Lt. brown sandy, sticky, clay with limestone rocks, gravel, shrimp;G-3: sticky mud, brown clay, sulfur odor
25
6
R6
1,3
Light brown, muddy coarse sand, gravel, epifauna, shell hash, hard shell, gravel, crab
26
6
R6
1.8
Light brown slightly fine sandy silty clay, sea grasses, hydro sulfide smell
27
6
R6
3,12
Light brown sticky sandy clay, shell hash, tube worms, amphipods, baby fish
28
6
7
1,1
Salt and pepper sand with a little mud, shell debris, gastropods
29
6
7
2,1
Black and white coarse sand, sea grass shell debris, amphipods, crabs, hermit crabs
30
6
7
3,1
Top 2 cm. light brown soft, sticky sandy clay over light gray; shell debris, mollusk shells, shrimp, turtle grass
67
8
1
1.1
Light cream colored soft sandy silt; shell hash, mollusk shells, sponges, vascular plants
68
8
1
2,1
Top 5 cm. It. brown sand and shell debris over grey muddy fine sand; epifauna, algae vascular plants, bivalves
69
8
1
3,2
Light brown silty, fine to coarse sand, algae, sea grass, sponges, shell debris
70
8
2
1,1
Gray, sticky sandy clay, mollusk shells, sea grasses
71
8
2
2,1
Coarse black and gray sand with a bit of silt, infauna and epifauna, ASV
72
8
2
3,1
Brown to black, silty fine sand with shell hash, sea grass, acetabularia, bristle brush plants, lots of baby fish




more algae than vascular plants, blue crabs
73
8
3
1,1
Light brown, silty fine to coarse sand, grass beds, crab burrows, algae, sponges
74
8
3
2,1
Black and tan slightly silty coarse sand, sponges, gorgonians, saw a lobster
75
8
3
3,1
Light brown layer of coarse sand and shell hash over slightly silty medium to coarse dark gray sand
76
8
4
1,1
Top 1cm It bm coarse sand & shell hash over drk brn-gray muddy sand, amphipods, baby fish & crab,gastrpods,bivalves
77
8
4
2,1
Lt. brown layer of coarse sand & shell hash over slightly silty med to coarse dark gray sand, sponges, sea grass
78
8
4
3,1
Dark gray to black coarse sand, some silt, brown shelf hash on top; worm holes, sponges, soft corals, sea grass
79
8
5
1,1
Shell hash with light brown silt, sea grass, sponges, rocks
-------
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Strata
Station
#
#
5
2,1
5
3,1
6
1,1
6
2,1
6
3,1
7
1,1
7
2,1
7
3,1
8
1.1
8
2,1
8
3,1
9
1,1
14
1,1
9
3,1
10
1,1
10
2,1
10
3,1
11
1,1
11
2,1
1 1
3,1
10
3,1
12
2,1
12
3,1
13
1,1
13
2,1
13
3,1
Sediment Description
Thin light brown surface over dark gray, slightly silty coarse sand and shell hash
Thin fight brown surface over dark gray, slightly silty coarse sand and shell hash
Thin light brown surface over drk gray, slightly silty coarse sand and shell hash, sponges, soft corals, sea grass
Thin light brown surface over drk gray, slightly silty coarse sand and shell hash, sponges, soft corals, sea grass
Thin light brown surface over drk gray, slightly silty coarse sand and shell hash, sponges, soft corals, sea grass
Top 2 cm. silty sand over rock; sponge, algae, tubillarid worms, blue crabs
Soft silty sand with some shell hash, tube worms, bivalves, plants, soft corals
Soft silty sand with some shell hash, tube worms, bivalves, plants, soft corals
White top layer w/gray below, soft fine sand, It. gray, w/coarse sand & shell hash, SAV, plants, inverts, soft corals
Top 0.5 cm. carbonate, fine silty sand over fine, light gray, silty sand, shell hash
Very thin light brown carbonate silty sand layer over gray coarse to medium sand, shell hash
Fine to coarse brown silty sand, shell hash; blue crab, gastropods, red algae, SAV
Soft runny, olivine chocolate clayey silt, shell debris, sand, plant debris, oil sheen, hydrogen sulfide odor, oyster shells
Light gray coarse silty sand, shell hash, infaunal, epifauna
Top 1cm choc, brn fine silt on tan clay, thin veneer of brn silt over coarse limestone gravel, silt in pocket between rocks
Top 2-3cm choc, brn silty sand w/limestone gravel, shell debris, plant matter, hydrogen sulfide odor over, It. brn clay
Light brown, silty, sandy, clay with gravel, faint sulfur odor
Soft silty olivine brown clay, plant debris, shell debris, strong sulfur odor
Sticky sandy light brown clay, under layer of shell hash; oyster shells, gastropods, hermit crabs, sulfur odor
G-1 gray, silty coarse sand, shell debris, plants;G-2 soft, silty mud wfehell hash, plants;G-3 silty fine It brn
sand, fine shell hash, dead sea grass blades; G-4 silty runny mud, plant debris; all have sulfur odor.
Olivine sandy silty clay organic debris; G-2 no sand, mat of vegetative debris on top, red algae, petro sheen,
sulfur and petroleum hydrocarbons smell
G-2:Silty sand, gravel, shell hash, petro odor, amphipod, oyster shell; G-6: Olivine silty, fine, runny, clay, oil sheen
strong sulfur odor, G-7: Brown diatom scum on surface
Muddy, coarse sand, gravel, lots of shell debris, rag, pipe
Dark brown, fine, sandy, silty mud, slight shell and plant debris, sulfur odor
Top 2-3 cm. olivine, soft runny silty clay, over sand, sulfur odor, petroleum sheen
Top 1-2 cm. dark brown, soft, olivine, silty clay over firm clay, sulfurous odor; G-3 muddy sand
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
Appendix B. Field notes from 1996 stations.
Zone Strata Sample Station Station Location Date Time Latitude
#
#
#
#




8
1
106
1.2
NW of Ragged Keys
6/26/96
11:05
25° 33.065 N
8
8
107
1.2
W of Elliot Key
6/26/96
9:47
25° 26.699 N
1
1
108
1.1
NE of Maule Lake
6/21196
10:05
250 56.624 N
1
1
109
2,1
NE of Maule Lake
6/21/96
11:30
25° 57.020 N
1
1
110
3,1
E lobe of basin N Dade County
6/21/96
12:30
25° 56.702 N
1
2
111
1,1
NE corner Maule lake
6/21/96
13:42
25° 55.167 N
1
2
112
2,1
Maule lake
6/21/96
14:45
25° 56.280 N
1
2
113
3,2
Maule lake
6/21/96
15:32
25° 55.667 N
1
3
114
1,1
Oleta river
6/9/96
10:20
25° 55.710 N
1
3
115
2,1
Oleta river
6/9/96
12:40
25° 55.660 N
1
3
116
3,4
Upper Oleta River
6/9/96
13:50
25° 55.760 N
1
4
117
1,1
N of sunny isles bridge
6/28/96
10:15
25° 55.530 N
1
4
118
2,1
S of sunny isles bridge
6/28/96
10:55
25° 55.670 N
1
4
119
3,1
In ICW
6/28/96
11:25
25° 55.486 N
3
1
120
1.1

6/4/96
9:45
25° 52.488 N
3
1
121
2,1

6/4/96
10:05
25° 52.644 N
3
1
122
1,1

6/4/96
9:00
25° 52.790 N
3
2
123
1.1
Spoil Isles
6/4/96
11:05
25° 52.039 N
3
2
124
2,1
N of Spoil isles
6/4/96
12:05
25° 52.281 N
3
2
125
3,1

6/4/96
12:43
25° 52.205 N
3
3
126
1.1
Btwn Miami shores & beach
05/31/96
13:50
25° 51.619 N
3
3
127
2,1
W of Normandy Isle
6/2/96
2:40
25° 51.642 N
3
3
128
3,1
East of Miami shores
05/31/96
13:00
25° 50.999 N
3
4
129
1,1
Biscayne canal- E station
6/3/96
9:50
25° 52.322 N
3
4
130
2,1
Biscayne canal - mid channel
6/3/96
9:15
25° 52.274 N
4
1
131
1,1
Btwn North Bay & Treasure Isle
6/1/96
9:31
25° 50.612 N
4
1
132
2,1

6/1/96
10:40
25° 50.357 N
4
1
133
3,1
E of Bird island
6/1/96
10:00
25° 50.399 N
4
2
134
1.1
N of Miami city
6/2/96
10:25
25° 50.502 N
4
2
135
2,1
W of Miami beach
6/2/96
11:00
25° 50.140 N
4
2
136
3,1

6/2/96
9:30
25° 50.815 N
4
3
137
1,1
N of W sea wall of Julia Tuttle
6/1/96
2:25
25° 48.751 N
4
3
138
2,1
E of Spoil Isle
6/1/96
12:25
25Q 49.077 N
4
3
139
3,1

6/1/96
1:30
25° 48.941 N
4
4
140
1,1
S of Surprise lake
6/2/96
12:05
25° 49.497 N
4
4
141
2,1

6/2/96
1:00
25° 49.237 N
4
4
142
3,1
W of Mt. Siria Medical Center
6/2/96
1:50
25° 49.153 N
4
5
143
1.1
Btwn Normandy & La Garce lsl<
05/31/96
9:44
25° 51.111 N
4
5
144
2,1
East Bank
05/30/96
2:15
25° 50.384 N
4
5
145
3,1
North Miami
05/31/96
9:15
25° 51.038 N
4
6
146
1,4
Indian Creek
05/30/96
1:20
25° 49.537 N
4
6
147
2,1
Indian Creek
05/30/96
12:10
25° 48.826 N
4
6
148
3,1
Inidian Creek
05/30/96
10:55
25° 49.125 N
4
7
149
1.1
Little river
05/31/96
10:40
25° 50.786 N
4
7
150
2,1
Little river
05/31/96
11:56
25° 50.705 N
5
1
151
1.1
NW of Julia Tuttle Causewy
6/4/96
1:45
25° 48.503 N
5
1
152
2,1

6/4/96
2:25
25° 47.996 N
5
1
153
3,1
E of Channel & Spoil islands
6/6/96
9:25
25° 48.277 N
5
5
154
1.2

6/7/96
12:55
25° 48.289 N
Page 1
-------
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
5
7
7
7
8
8
6
9
9
9
15
15
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
155
2,2

156
3,1
S of Julia Turtle Causeway
157
1,1

158
2,1
Embayment of Canal system
159
1,1
Near Sunset Isle
160
1,1
Nea E Venetian Bridge
161
2,1
W top of San Marco Isle
162
3,2
N of Venetian Causeway w brid
163
1,1

164
2,1

165
3,4
N of E Venetian bridge
166
1,2

167
2,1

168
3,1
N of Port of Miami bridge
169
1,1
N of MacArthur Causeway
170
2,2
Btwn MacArthur & Venetian cai
171
3,1
Btwn San Marino & Dilido Isles
172
1,1
NE of Hibiscus Isle
173
2,1

174
3,1
W of Star Island
175
1,1

176
3,1
Mid basin
177
2,1
Channel entrance
178
1,1

179
1,1
Central Biscayne bay
180
2,3
Central Biscayne bay
181
3,1
Central Biscayne bay
182
1,1
Central Biscayne bay
183
2,1
Central Biscayne bay
184
3,1
W coast of Key Biscayne
185
1,1
S Biscayne bay
186
2,1
SE of Tahiti Beach
187
3,1
E of Tahiti Beach
188
1,1
E of Coral Bay
189
3,1
NE of Snapper Creek
190
2,1
NE of Shoal Pt.
191
1,1
S Biscayne bay
191
2,1
S Biscayne bay
193
3,1
S Biscayne bay
194
1,3
Biscayne Bay NE
195
2,1
S Biscayne bay
196
3,1
S Biscayne bay
197
1,1
S Biscayne bay
198
2,1
S Biscayne bay
199
3,1
S Biscayne bay
200
1,1
Coral gables canal
201
2,1
Coral gables canal
202
3,3
Coral gables canal
203
1,1
Snapper Creek Canal
204
2,1
Snapper Creek Canal
205
3,1
Snapper Creek Canal
206
1,1
Military Canal
207
2,1
Military Canal
6/7/96
6/7/96
6/5/96
6/5/96
6/5/96
6/7/96
6/7/96
6/7/96
6/8/96
6/8/96
6/8/96
6/7/96
6/7/96
6/7/96
6/8/96
6/8/96
6/8/96
6/5/96
6/5/96
6/6/96
6/5/96
6/5/96
6/5/96
6/6/96
6/27/96
6/27/96
6/29/96
6/29/96
6/29/96
6/29/96
6/22/96
6/24/96
6/24/96
6/24/96
6/24/96
6/24/96
6/22/96
6/22/96
6/22/96
6/30/96
6/29/96
6/29/96
6/26/96
6/26/96
6/26/96
6/28/96
6/28/96
6/28/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
7/1/96
6/30/96
6/30/96
12:20 25° 47.932 N
10:50 25° 48,505 N
9:26 25° 48.254 N
10:25 25° 48.543 N
10:00 25° 48.486 N
1:35 25° 47.545 N
2:00 25° 47.503 N
2:46 25° 47 551 N
12:00 25° 47.790 N
1;05 25° 47.730 N
1:47 25° 47.611N
8:37 25° 47.049 N
8:45 25° 47.565 N
9:10 25° 46.888 N
9:47 25° 46.872 N
10:30 25° 47.170 N
11:02 25° 47.322 N
1:30 25° 47.028 N
2:00 25° 46.687 N
8:34 25° 46.896 N
11:15 25° 47.143 N
13:05 25° 46.713 N
12:30 25° 46.824 N
10:30 25° 46.962 N
11:46 25° 42.890 N
12:55 25° 43.610 N
11:04 25° 42.661 N
12:23 25° 42.568 N
12:58 25° 41.835 N
14:00 25° 42.221 N
13:48 25° 41.292 N
9:10 25° 41.444 N
8:23 25° 40.878 N
10:04 25° 36.359 N
12:16 25° 38.858 N
11:13 25° 38.523 N
10:48 25° 41.042 N
11:30 25° 40.945 N
12:35 25° 40.890 N
16:33 25° 37.396 N
15:45 25° 36.686 N
17:15 25° 37.720 N
14:25 25° 38.190 N
12.20 25° 36.729 N
13:31 25° 37.350 N
16:18 25° 42.293 N
15:34 25° 43.252 N
14:25 25° 44.132 N
13:38 25° 40.093 N
15:31 25° 39.651 N
14:43 25° 39.746 N
14:55 25° 29.374 N
14:30 25° 29.370 N
Page 2
-------
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Appendix B. FietdNotes96
15
208
3,1
16
209
1,1
16
210
2,1
16
211
3,1
17
212
1,1
17
213
2,1
17
214
3,1
1
215
1,1
1
216
2,1
1
217
3,3
2
218
1,1
2
219
2,1
2
220
3,1
3
221
1,1
3
222
2,1
3
223
3,1
4
224
1,1
4
225
2,2
4
226
3,3
Military Canal
Mowy Canat
N of Convoy point
Mowry Canal
North Canal
North Canal
North Canai
SE Biscayne Bay
E of W Arsenicker
NE©1W MserVvcte*
N Centra) Card Sound
Western Card Sound
NW Card Sound
Lower Central Card Sound
Littte Card Sound
East Central Card Sound
Little Card Sound
Little Card Sound
Little Card Sound
6/30/96
13:33
6/30/96
12:35
6/30/96
10:35
6/30/96
11:12
7/1/96
10:30
7/1/96
10:00
7/1/96
11:04
6/25/96
16:07
6/25/96
15:10
mem
14.34
6/25/96
10:55
6/25/96
11:58
6/25/96
13:17
6/23/96
14:17
6/23/96
13.42
6/23/96
15:00
6/23/96
11:42
6/23/96
12:45
6/23/96
10:55
25° 29.370 N
25° 28.226 N
25° 28.217 N
25° 28.217 N
25° 27.786 N
25° 27.769 N
25° 27.793 N
25° 24.038 N
25° 24.222 N
25° 24.607 N
25° 20.527 N
25° 21.071 N
25° 22.146 N
25° 19120 N
25° 18.022 N
25° 19 449 N
25° 18.074 N
25° 18.614 N
25° 17.437 N
Page 3
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
Surface Bottom
Longitude
Depth
Surface
Btm. Temp.
Salinity
Salinity
Surface D.O
Btm D.O

meters
Temp. °C
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
80° 10.000 W
2.50
28.0
28.5
30.0
31.0
5.6
5.6
80° 09.833 W
1.83
28.5
28.0
30.0
31.0
6.0
4.9
80° 08.478 W
2.50
27.5
27.0
31.0
31.0
5.0
4.7
80° 08.499 W
1.70
28.0
28.0
30.0
30.5
5.1
4.9
80° 08.380 W
2.29
27.0
27.0
31.0
31.1
4.5
4.6
80° 10.033 W
2.59
29.0
28.0
30.0
30.5
5.6
6.0
80° 10.258 W
2.90
28.9
28.0
30.0
30.0
5.7
5.7
80° 10.799 W
4.57
28.0
28.0
32.0
34.0
5.4
5.0
80° 09.713 W
2.50
29.0
29.0
30.0
29.9
5.3
5.4
80° 09.651 W
2.59
29.0
29.0
30.5
30.5
5.7
5.5
80° 09.108 W
3.50
29.0
29.0
31.0
31.0
5.4
5.9
80° 10.721 W
10.72
27.0
27.0
27.0
31.5
5.1
5.1
80° 11.080 W
2.25
29.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
5.1
5.1
80° 10.923 W
2.10
28.0
28.0
29.0
30.5
5.1
5.2
80° 10.257 W
2.40
28.5
28.5
30.5
30.4
5.8
5.5
80° 10.156 W
2.60
29.0
29.0
30.0
29.9
5.6
5.6
80° 09.623 W
3.00
29.0
29.0
29.5
29.5
5.4
5.4
80° 09.291 W
3.20
28.0
27.5
30.0
33.0
5.6
5.7
80° 09.242 W
2.74
28.0
28.0
31.5
33.0
5.7
6.0
80° 09.199 W
3.00
28.0
29.0
29.6
32.0
6.7
6.5
80° 08.816 W
4.00
27.0
26.5
32.0
33.0
5.6
5.9
80° 08.788 W
3.70
28.0
27.5
33.2
33.5
6.1
6.3
80° 08.642 W
3.50
28.0
27.0
33.0
34.0
5.8
6.1
80° 11.260 W
7.30
28.5
28.0
29.0
31.0
4.1
3.2
80° 12.200 W
2.00
30.0
29.5
27.5
28.8
6.4
6.4
80° 12.200 W
2.70
30.0
29.5
28.5
29.0
6.9
6.5
80° 12.829 W
2.75
30.0
29.0
27.0
28.0
5.7
6.5
80° 11.672 W
3.50
30.5
30.0
28.5
29.5
6.3
6.8
80° 11.919 W
3.50
30.0
30.0
28.0
29.0
5.9
6.7
80° 11.366 W
3.70
30.0
30.0
28.2
29.5
6.5
6.7
80° 14.267 W
2.29
32.0
31.0
24.5
25.5
5.4
6.1
80° 14.818 W
2.29
29.0
28.9
24.9
26.0
5.6
4.5
80° 14.463 W
2.13
29.0
28.9
25.8
26.2
5.5
5.8
80° 13.491 W
2.74
30.0
30.0
24.9
27.0
5.7
6.0
80° 15.218 W

31.0
30.8
24.0
25.0
7.1
7.0
80° 13.625 W
3.20
30.5
30.0
23.9
26.5
6.0
6.4
80° 12.360 W
3.05
29.5
29.5
25.0
28.0
6.0
6.2
80° 12.181 W
3.20
30.0
31.0
25.5
27.5
6.0
6.1
80° 13.157 W
3.60
31.0
30.5
24.5
26.3
7.8
6.6
80° 15.709 W


27.5

23.8


80° 15.663 W
2.50
30.0
30.0
25.0
25.0
7.5
7.5
80° 16.222 W
2.00
29.0
31.0
23.0
23.0
9.0
9.0
80° 14.268 W
2.50
30.0
30.0
27.0
28.5
6.6
8.7
80° 13.540 W
2.44
30.0
29.8
29.0
29.0
6.5
7.6
80° 13.417 W
2.90
30.1
29.9
27.9
29.3
6.8
7.8
80° 15.069 W
2.10
30.5
31.0
15.0
25.0
4.9
4.7
80° 16.002 W
2.25
29.0
31.0
5.9
20.0
4.1
3.5
80° 16.507 W
0.95
29.5
29.5
0.5
0.7
5.8
5.6
80° 16.959 W
4.25
28.0
28.0
0.2
18.0
1.8
1.9
80° 16.343 W
3.40
28.0
28.5
1.5
21.5
2.3
2.9
80° 16.468 W
3.75
28.0
26.5
1.5
21.7
2.1
0.1
80° 20.501 W
2.74

26.5

14.5


80° 20.596 W
2.74

27.0

11.0


Page 5
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
80° 20.742 W
2.29

27.0

12.1


80° 20.313 W
3.66

27.0

15.0


80° 20.639 W
4.57

27.0

15.8


80° 20.569 W
4.27

26.5

8.0


80° 20.069 W
3.10
27.0
29.0
11.8
20.5
5.8
1.4
80° 20.385 W
3.00
27.0
29.0
13.0
21.0
5.9
0.5
80° 20.038 W
2.25
28.0
29.5
11.0
19.5
5.9
2.3
80° 15.896 W
2.40
32.1
32.0
28.2
28.1
7.1
7.1
80° 16.111 W
1.52
32.0
28.0
32.0
28.0
7.1
7.1
80° 15.341 W
5.00
32.0
32.0
28.4
28.6
6.7
6.7
80° 17.990 W
2.44
31.0
31.0
26.9
28.5
6.2
5.4
80° 19.135 W
2.44
31.5
31.0
24.9
27.0
6.0
6.3
80° 18.397 W
1.37
31.8
31.8
26.4
26.2
6.9
6.9
80° 19.216 W
9.50
30.0
31.0
25.5
28.0
6.3
6.4
80° 19.860 W
2.74
30.0
30.5
24.5
27.0
6.4
6.3
80° 17.995 W
2.74
30.0
30.0
25.5
27.5
6.2
7.2
80° 22.548 W
1.22
30.0
30.0
24.0
24.0
6.6
6.4
80° 21.511 W
1.83
30.0
30.0
23.0
26.0
6.2
6.8
80° 22.186 W
1.68
29.0
29.0
19.5
23.0
5.1
5.8
Page 6
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
Surface
Conductivity Conductivity	Sediment Description
micro moies micro moles 	
50000+	50000+ (off scale) Lt. brwn to tan, silty fine to coarse sand, shell hash, no o<
50000+	50000+ (off scale) Lt brwn to It gry fine to coarse, sand w/ shell hash
14,100	15,300 Upper cm dk brwn, dk brwn below, lots of shell debris (sa
15,100	50,000 1,2, & 3rd grbs- dk gry, soft runny, silty clay oliven no vis
149,000	33,800 1st & 2nd grb-gry,some blk, sandy mix, SAV, red algae, t
5,100	45,000 all 3 grbs - soft silty caly, oozy, runny, shiny, silty; top 2r
5,500	45,000 Soft, runny, silty clay, dk. brwn-black, 1 mm black flock la
6,000	36,000 all 3 grbs - soft, olivein, greenish-brwn, clay-silt; snails, p
27,000	41,000 Lt brwn & dk gray silty sand, some dk brwn, shell hash, d
27,000	28,000 Dk brwn, sandy silty, soft, some shell hash; SAV, green al
16,000	16,000 Dk. brwn, green on surface, darker below, silty sand w/d'
10,000	48,200 Dk. chocolate brwn, sandy-silt, some clay; plant debris, sp
25,000	47,800 Dk. brwn, slightly sandy silty clay, flock layer over dk brov
27,500	39,000 all 3 grabs - dk. choc, brwn, sandy clay-silt, soft; 2nd grb
47,500	47,500 Lt. brwn floe over dk.- med. grey clay; sandy silty clay; o
47,000	47,000 Brwn layer over med. gry; silty sand; grn algae had odor; i
46,200	50,000 Brwn, coarse shell hash; 3rd grb brwn floe, silty; last grb-
4,700	48,500 Lt. brwn, shell hash @ surface, dk. gry, silt below; lots of
48,000	48,200 Lt. brwn above, gray below; silty fine to med. sand, shell f
49,200	50,500 Lt. brwn , gray below; firm silty sand; SAV
47,800	500000+ (off scale It. brwn surface - abundant benth., dk brwn; silty fine mec
48,000	48,500 Lt. brwn over gry; mostly clay w/sand; polychaetes, no S.
47,800	500000+ (off scale Lt. oliveen-gry over med/dk. gry; sticky silty clay; diaton t
3,500	48,000 Dk. gry; soft organic enriched silt/clay; leaves & other pla
2,410	48,100 Dk. gry; soft and smooth silt; sulfur; fecial castings
43,500	46,000 Md. brwn floe layer, md gry soft silt; vegetation
42,000	45,000 Gray; silty sand, shell hash; Syrigodium, hydroids
41,500	46,000 Lt. brwn over It gry with nephords; silt w/fine sand; plant
48,000	48,500 Firm, It. brwn, dkr material 1 cm down; silty sand w/ shell
46,000	46,000 Md. brwn to It. brwn, slighty sandy silt; It sulfur; Haodul, 1
46,500	47,000 Lt. brwn, firm black sand throughout; silty clay sand, fine •.
47,000	47,500 Lt. brwn; silt/clay
48,000	48,000 Dk. brwn; fine silty; sulfur; coraline algae - tons
480,000	48,000 Dk. brwn floe to It. brwn or It gry; silty w/ fine shell hash,
49,500	49,500 Lt. brwn; shell hash, sand; Epiphytic growth
4,850	48,000 Lt. gry, lots of floe; soft silt, some shell; Gyrium godium, h
47,500	47,500 Dk. brwn; shell hash, fine sandy silt; Halodule grassbed, c<
48,500	500000+ (off scale Fine grain sandy silty clay; med brwn; Polychaete tubes, 1
39,000	500000+ (off scale Dk. gry silty clay, 2nd - fine shell hash, coarse sand; stror
48,000	500000+ (off scale Sft. It. brwn-gry silty clay some sand; It brwn layer over g
500000+	500000+ (off scale Lt. brwn; fine shell hash to coarse sand, 3rd-fine to silty J
49,500	500000+ (off scale Dk.gry, olive silty clay; sulfur; diatoms
500000+	500000+ (Off scale Lt. Tan coarse sandy w/ shell hash over; med. to It. brwn
17,000	48,000 Dk. brwn sandy silt, thin It. brwn; gravel shell debris; petn
23,100	48,900 Brwn sandy over md. brwn sandy silty clay, som gravel, ro
48,200	47,000 Tan w/ orange & white shell hash; sand w/shell hash; cruj
47,700	47,300 Brwn above, gry below; soft silty sand; slight sulfur odor;
47,000	47,000 Lt brwn silty sand - 2mm, over dk. gry sandy silt; sulfur o
48,000	50,000 Dk. gry, fine sandy silt; sulfur odor; calcareous algae, sea
Page 7
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
49,200
49,000
49,500
49,000
49,500
50,000
29,000
50,000
50,000
50000+
50000+
47,000
48,500
46,000
49,900
49,900
50,000
49,200
50000+
48,500
51,000
50000+
52,000
47,100
48,100
48,300
47,000
49,000
48,000
48,400
44,100
42,200
43,900
42,800
43,600
43,500
43,000
44,000
43,500
43,000
39,000
46,000
49,600
47,900
27,500
11,000
1,190
6,000
2,550
2,510
50,000
50,000
50,000
49,500
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
50,000
50,000
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
51,000
48,000
49,200
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
50,000
50000+ (off scale)
50000+ (off scale)
51,500
52,000
50000+ (off scale)
52,000
50000+ (off scale)
48,300
48,900
47,500
50000+ (off scale)
49,600
50000+ (off scale)
45,000
43,600
44,800
46,400
4,400
45,000
48,000
47,500
46,200
39,100
43,000
39,000
48,000
49,900
50,000
44,900
36,200
1,200
31,000
31,800
35,000
24,700
19,100
Brwn, sticky sandy silty clay; shell debris, small algae (brc
Dk. brwn silt wI calcareous inclusions - algae abundant 1s
Lt. brwn, soft gooey silty clay; no odor; green plants, SA^
Lt. brwn over dk. gry over blk sandy clay; soft silt - 2mm
Lt. brwn; soft silty clay, no odor; worm tubes, SAV
Lt. brwn 1st cm, grey below, soft silt; moluscs, diatoms
Dk. brwn; clay sity sand, mainly coarse sand; abundant an
Lt brwn upper 1cm; gray below; silty sandy fine and med
Lt. brwn upper 1-2 cm, dk gry below, lots of shell hash, s
Lt brwn, silty sand w/lots of shell hash; polychaete tubes,
Lt brwn, It gray below; sandy silty clay upper cm, same rr
Lt. brwn, slighty sandy w/ soft clay over 2cm of It gry; cr
Lt brwn upper 2 cm over gry sand below; soft sandy silty
Lt. brwn over It gry, silty sand firm; algae, diatom scum,
Med. brwn soft silty sand w/ some shell hash, floe surface
Med. brwn color over med. gry, soft clayey silt, mollusk h<
Med. brwn silty sand w/ shell hash & fine & med. sand ov
Tan, It brwn silty sand over gry silty sand; worm tubes, p
Lt. brwn over It gry, soft, sticky silt over fine sandy silt; i
Lt. brwn soft sticky silty clay - 1 cm over gry soft sticky
Lt. brwn; fairly firm silty sand; variety of inverts - SAV
Lt. thin brwn over grey, firm fine silty sandy; dense Halod
Lt. brwn silty sand over gry silty sand; some worm tubes,
Brwn soft silt w/ floe surface, some blk silty streaks & gr>
Thin (2mm) layer of dk. brwn sandy silt over dk. black silt
Dk. brwn slightly sandy silty clay, sticky; no odor; green al
Lt. brwn, It gry; silty sand; seagrass, thalassia, Halodule, !
Lt. tan, cream color, silty-clay; polychaetes, diatoms, mol
Lt. brwn, tan over It gry, silty-ciay, some sand, soft; Syret
Lt. brwn tan over It. gry, slightly sandy silty-clay; conch, I
Dk gry, silty sand, fine to coarse sand; sponges, grazed si
Soft, dk brwn over dk gry, slightly sandy, clayey silt; sligh
Grey silty sand with shell hash, scattered Thalassia beds
Lt. gry, shell fragments; sandy silt w/ shell hash; It tan to
Tan to It brwn silty sand w/ shell hash; numerous SAV, Th
Tan to It brwn over It gry, silty sand w/ shell debris; nume
1st - soft, white, sitty fine sand; 2nd - diatom scum, tan o
tan to It gry, silty sandy clay, then veneer (2 mm) of brov
Lt. tan soft silty sand, carbonate over grey soft silty carbc
Gry, sandy wI shell hash; bivalves, seagrass, Terrebellid w
Lt. brwn to tan over It gry, silty sand; sulfur odor; comple
Dk. brwn silty sand; abundant grasses, gastropods, fish, g
Lt. tan/gry, silty sand, shell hash; dense SAV, Thallassia, i
Lt tan thin surface over gry silty sand fine shell hash; den
Lt tan over dk gry, silty sand, shell hash; Thallasia beds tt
Dk. brwn, soft sandy silt, 2nd - gravel, Ig oyster shells, he
Lt. brwn, soft, runny silt; no visible life; 2nd grab - mudfis
Dk. brwn-blk & greenish, silty-sand; gastropods, organic d
Dk. brwn over white clay, sandy clayey silt w/ rocks and t
Dk. brwn - blk, soft runny mayo, rocks, sticks, petroleum
Blk mayonnaise over silty sand over dk. gry-blk; 2nd - bit
Dk. brwn sandy silt w/ some clay; sulfur odor; organic de
Dk. brwn sandy clayey silt; sulfur odor; abundant plant del
Page 8
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
21,100	Dk. brwn w/ flocky surface, shell hash, soft, oozy slightly
20,000	Dk. brwn, thin brwn flocky surface layer; soft, slightly san
28,500	Lt. brwn, med.brwn flock surface, clay, solid, dk. brwn bel
13,900	Dk. brwn, med. brwn, silty sandy-clay, lots of limerock; sti
19,900 35,900	Dk. brwn, soft, slightly sandy, clay-silt, rocks & gravel, gre
22,000 35,900	Ochre, olivene surface over dk. brwn silty clay over clay;
19,500 35,000	Slimy green layer (1-2mm); sulfur odor, dk brwn & olivem
50,000 50,000	Lt. brwn 2mm thick over It gry, silty sand; worms, snails,
50,000 50,000	Lt. brwn over dk.gry silty gry silty san floe 2mm thick on
50000+ 50000+ (Off scale) 1st & 2nd -thin tan 2mm surface over md. gry soft silty s.-
46,500 49,000	Lt gry & tan silty fine sand, soft w/ shell hash; Thalassia b
44,000 47,000	Lt. brwn layer of sand 2mm thick over dk. gry silty sand;
47,100 47,100	Lt. tan shell/sand layer over dk. gry, silty sand w/ shell h,
44,800 47,500	Lt brwn silty sand over dk grey silty sand; Inverts and plai
42,900 46,000	Lt. brwn, soft sandy silty clay over It gry soft silty clay; si
44,800 47,200	Lt. brwn & gry fine sandy silt, abundant shell debris, live h
42,000 42,000	Lt. brwn, sandy-silt, layer of peat 2-3cm below surface, st
41,000 45,000	Dk. brwn, sandy-silt, soft, shell debris; sulfur odor; Thalas:
35,500 40,000	all 5 grbs -dk. brwn silty-mud, soft, runny, slightly sandy;
Page 9
-------
Appendix 8. FieldNotes96
dor, Thallassia nearly covering substrate
ime material all 4 grabs); no odor; SAV, polychaetes tubes
Jible benth orgs., eel grass degree, strong sulfur
bivalves; 3rd -It. brwn over It gray. silty sand, bivalves; 4th -It brwn over It W. sna.ls
nm - blk, then oliven© soft brwn clay, some decaying vegetation
iyer on surface, slight sulfur odor; no visible signs of life
>olychaetes, lots of org matter
letritus, firm; SAV, snails, clams, hermit crab
gae, amphipods
etritus & shell hash; tannic brown odor; no benthic orgs.
)onges, polychaete tubes, some shell hash
vn; no visible life, plant debris, some shell debris
> - silty, coarse sand; 1st -plants; 2nd -gastopods, green plants
•rganic odor; variety of inverts - brittlestar, algae - green, brwn
inverts., algae, med. shell hash, SAV
floe It. brwn & gry clay- silty less shell; polychaetes
benth. - single-celled algae, crab, jellyfish, Halodule, mysids
lash in 2nd grb; algae fans, sea grass, syridlum
i. sand; SAV, syrigodium, polychaete tubes, seahorse
AV
scum It. filamentons.red algae, clam holes
int debris some shell; sulfur; oyster shells
debris, green coralline algae
hash; polychaetes, blue sponge, some SAV
rhalassia, lots of benth, gelatenous eggs
shell hash; polychaetes, crab, small SAV
some sand; diatom scum, some SAV, gastropod
luge grass beds covering sm. areas
orailine aigae, gastropods
1
ig sulfur; 3rd jur. fish
jry layer; bivalves
sand; amphipods, worm tube
silty clay; 2nd grab- anoxic
oleum odor; hydrilla, floating sav.
>cks, coral; SAV, sponges, sea grasses
sty algae
mostly Syringodium, crustacea, hydroid
¦dor; In grass bed; polychaetes, amphipods, syringodium
grasses
Page 10
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
own)
st core; strong sulfur odor; Syringodium dense, grass beds fish
V, polychaete tubes
surface; 2nd grb- sandy clay; Syringodium, SAV, mysids
limals and plants
grain sands; sponge and invertebrates
slightly silty coarse to fine sand; sponges, polychaetes
SAV, brown algae
laterial below; polychaetes, SAV
-ab, few worm tubes, clam
sand, SAV, plants, polychaete tubes
worm tubes
,, diatom scum; mollusk hole, worm tubes on surface; SAV, halophite crass
oles, polych. worm tubes, no sand
481¦,h,n bnm 2mm — ™ «* *¦»
oolychaetes, amphipods
silty clay; severaf Inverts - "feather* SAV, diatomes, small shells
iule, gastropods, mysids, harpactacoids
, diatom scum, marine spider
, below; odor ?, no benthic, fish - 2nd grab
y sand; sulfur odor; polychaete tubes, fishes, am. brwn algae, numerous benth. orgs
Igae, seagrass	a
SAV, sponges, gastropods, green algae, polychaete tubes
lluscs
ngodium, seagrass, diatoms, polychaete tubes, algae
Halophila, diatom layer; 3rd grb - distinct algal layer
eagrass, small fish
it sutfur odor; polychaete tubes, green algae, grabs 1,2,3 same
It gry, no odorous sheen, moHusks, algae, SAV
-lalassia, soft corals, bivalves, snails, worms, sponges
irous animal & plants - worms, SAV, Thallassia, soft corals, etc.
,n surface; 3rd - silty sandy clay, tan, thin veneer of gry, 4th -same as 2 & 3; Lots of benth orgs- marine algae etc
v over gry; polychaete tubes; soft sticky calcar. algae scum on surface; 3rd -live shaving brush aloae
ynate sand; Thalassla seagrass bed
forms, Gorgonians, various sponges
jx community of SAV, soft corals, sponges, terebeliids
ireen & brwn algae
and algae, many inverts.
ise Thallassia, gastropods, cacareous epiphytes
hick, sone crabs, sponges, barracuda, terribellid worms, Lima, fecal casts
-------
Appendix B. FieldNotes96
sandy silt; sulfur odor; lots of org mat., shell hash, Hydrilla, green algae
dy-silt, gravel, rocks, sulfur odor; plant debris; 3rd -gravel, shell hash
low; 2nd,3rd grbs - sulfur odor; org mat mixed, worm tubes, pine needles, fish
rong sulfur odor; green algae
sen slime layer; sulfur odor; plant debris, oyster shells, mangrove leaves
2nd - thin dk. green mat of slime, strong sulfur odor
s silty sand; some rock, mangrove, plant debris
clams
surf very floe shell hash; light sulfur odor; Thalassia with epifatics, hermit crabs, tube worms
and, shell hash, slight sulfur odor, polychaetes, mollusks, Thalassia blades, gastropods, hermit crabs
>eds & halameda; no odor; mollusks, shallow grabs
slight sulfur odor; numerous plants & animals- hydroids, etc.
ash; comm'y of worms, sponges, etc.
nts abundant - shellfish, green algae, hydroids, amphipods, sea spider
hells, no visible life
talodule grass, halameda calc. algae, shrimp; sulfur odor when homogenizing,
nell hash; wide variety of plants $& animals, notably Haiamedea
sia abundant
SAV, plants, polychaetes, dead thalassia blades, brittle star
Page 12
-------
Appendix F
Mote Marine Report
-------
Analysis of Sediment Samples
for USEPA Region IV:
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Homestead Military Canal Project
Submitted To:	Mr. Philip Murphy
USEPA Region IV
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
(706) 355-8711
Submitted By:	Ms. L. Kellie Dixon
Mote Marine Laboratory
1600 Ken Thompson Parkway
Sarasota, FL 34236
(941) 388-4441
February 3, 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 560
This document is printed on recycled paper.
-------


Appendix C. Volume percent distributions of the less than 2 mm size fraction of raw
sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead, Florida.
if#-
Appendix D. Volume percent distributions of the less than 2 mm inorganic size fraction
of sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead, Florida.
Appendix E. Tabular data, sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead,
Florida.
ii
-------
Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV, Science and
Ecosystem Support Division, collected samples in the Military Canal area of Homestead,
Florida, in November of 1997. The collection was part of an effort to identify the
presence and degree of any chemical contamination in the area. Sample identifications
and collection dates and times appear in Table 1. For interpretation of sediment chemical
data, normalizing parameters are generally required to account for the heterogeneous
nature of many sediment deposits. Accordingly, the USEPA requested Mote Marine
Laboratory (MML) to perform determinations of percent moisture and percent organics
(by combustion). Additionally, sediment grain size distributions (as % volume) were
to be measured by optical methods on both the raw sample and on a fraction from which
organic matter had been removed, with the size distribution of organic material computed
by difference. Samples were transferred, frozen, to MML by USEPA personnel (Chain
of Custody Records, Appendix A). Analyses were conducted under MML's
Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan (CompQAP), approved by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (#870216).
Summary of Analyses
Analyses requested, methodology references, holding times, and method detection limits
(MDL) appear in Table 2, while project data quality objectives are summarized in
Table 3. No project specific audit requirements are in place for this project as analyses
are being conducted under MML's CompQAP.
Frequency of acceptable results on QC samples was met or exceeded for all parameters
(Table 4). Additional QC samples were run, as the instrumental techniques were being
demonstrated to EPA personnel. Four samples, however, had results which partially
exceeded QC criteria for grain size, which are evaluated on percent sand, percent silt,
percent clay, mean, median, and mode for each sample. In all but one instance, the
disagreement was produced by varying amounts of both inorganic and organic particles
greater than 2 mm in diameter. Many samples, as can been seen in Appendix B, are
very non-homogeneous, and the difficulties of subsampling a finite volume of sediment
and obtaining consistent amounts of either woody debris or coarse shell fragments are
manifested in the results of QC samples. In these cases, however, examination of sample
statistics calculated on the <2 mm fraction alone (Appendices C and D) produce
acceptable QC results. For sample G-98-0105 (SD-211), the fine grained nature of the
sample and its duplicate (mean grain size 16.12 and 11.91 /im, respectively) produce a
relatively high %RSD (%relative standard deviation) with a very small difference in
absolute size (a difference of 4.21 /xm). Exceedance of the QC limits for this sample is
attributed to a lack of initiating QA data for extemely fine grained samples.
Tabular data for all parameters appear in Appendix E.
1
-------
Table 1. Sample identification numbers, sampling date, time, USEPA Custody Tag
number, and MML sample number for sediments from the Military Canal
area, Homestead, Florida.
l Station #
Date
Time
Ta? No.
MML Sample#
SD-101
19971113
1335
4A-66013
G-98-0096
SD-104
19971113
1530
4A-66087
G-98-0095
SD-107
19971114
1625
4A-66106
G-98-0110
SD-110
19971115
0800
4A-66190
G-98-0114
SD-113
19971115
0935
4A-66235
G-98-0109
SD-116
19971115
1000
4A-66247
G-98-0108
SD-119
19971115
1545
4A-66332
G-98-0103
SD-122
19971115
1600
4A-66344
G-98-0102
SD-125
19971115
1525
4A-66416
G-98-0112
SD-128
19971116
0910
4A-66580
G-98-0098
SD-202
19971114
1130
4A-66150
G-98-0113
SD-205
19971114
1620
4A-66127
G-98-0097
SD-208
19971115
1515
4A-66320
G-98-0107
SD-211
19971115
1332
4A-66468
G-98-0105
SD-214
19971115
1345
4A-66357
G-98-0101
SD-217
19971115
1519
4A-66395
G-98-0099
SD-220
19971115
1645
4A-66507
G-98-0104
SD-301
19971116
1050
4A-66567
G-98-0106
SD-304
19971116
1220
4A-66633
G-98-0100
SD-401
19971116
1255
4A-66645
G-98-0111
SD-404
19971116
1500
4A-66681
G-98-0120
SD-407
19971118
0900
4A-66713
G-98-0127
SD-410
19971118
1020
4A-66797
G-98-0121
SD-413
19971118
1145
4A-66837
G-98-0128
SD-416
19971118
1320
4A-66898
G-98-0117
SD-419
19971118
1427
4A-66963
G-98-0123
SD-422
19971118
1547
4A-66995
G-98-0130
SD-425
19971119
0925
4A-67047
G-98-0118
SD-503A
19971119
1115
4A-67103
G-98-0119
SD-503B
19971119
1115
4A-67116
G-98-0116
SD-601
19971118
0845
4A-66737
G-98-0129
SD-604
19971118
0955
4A-66784
G-98-0125
SD-607
19971118
1302
4A-66858
G-98-0124
SD-610
19971118
1500
4A-66953
G-98-0126
SD-702
19971119
1622
4A-67197
G-98-0115
SD-802
19971119
1445
4A-67174
G-98-0122
2
-------
Table 2. Analyses, methodology, holding times, method detection limits (MDL),
and units of reporting for sediment samples. Practical quantitation limits
(PQL) are defined as four (4) times the MDL.
Analyses


Holding


Method
Ref
Time
MDL
Units
Total Solids
2540G
SM-18
3 mo
0.5
%
Total Volatile Solids
2540G
SM-18
3 mo
0.5
%
Percent Moisture
2540G
SM-18
3 mo
0.5
%
Grain Size


12 mo


Percent Sand

Folk 1974

0.5
%
Percent Silt

Folk 1974

0.5
%
Percent Clay

Folk 1974 |

0.5
%
Whole Sample Statistics

Coulter 1994



Median



0.5
M
Mean



0.5
m
Mode



0.5

Standard Deviation



0.01
m
Skewness



NA

Kurtosis



NA
m
Volume Percent



0.2
M





m





%
Table 3. Data quality objectives for sediment analyses.
QC Sample
Frequency
Data Quality Objectives
Solids
Laboratory Duplicates
1 per 20 samples
<20% RSD
Grain Size
Laboratory Duplicates
1 per 20 samples
<20% RSD
Continuing Calibration
Verification (CCV)
every 20 samples
90-110% recovery of certified
value
3
-------
Table 4. Results of quality control analyses.
FIELD ID
SD-205~
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-205
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-220
SD-2W
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-2II
SD-211
SD-2U
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-211
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-HV7
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-107
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
SD-202
EPA ID MOTE ID
4A-66127 0097D*
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097 D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66I27 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66127 0097D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4 A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66507 0104D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0105D
4A-66468 0I05D
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 0110D
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66I06 OIIOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-66106 OUOD
4A-661Q6 OUOD
4A-66150 0113D
4A-66150 Oil 3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-Q6150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66M 01130
4A-66150 0U3D
4A-66150 0U3D
BATCH_IO	MATRIX ANAL MET
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SMI 7 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk J 994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Folk 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
«	Sediment Coulter 1994
Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM]7 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SM17 2540G
9800005	Sediment SMI7 2540G
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005	Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005 Sediment Coulter 1994
9800005 Sediment Coulter 1994
UNIT	PARAMETER
% of dry volume PERCENT SAND
% RSD	PERCENT SAND
*	of dry volume PERCENT SILT
% RSD	PERCENT SILT
S of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
*	RSD	PERCENT CLAY
urn MEAN
*	RSD	MEAN
um MEDIAN
*	RSD	MEDIAN
um MODE
*	RSD	MODE
% of dry volume PERCENT SAND
*	RSD	PERCENT SAND
% of dry volume PERCENT SILT
56 RSD PERCENT SILT
% of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
ANAL
% RSD	PERCENT CLAY
um	MEAN
*	RSD	MEAN
um MEDIAN
% USD MttrtAN
um MODE
% RSD MODE
*	of wet weight TOTAL SOLIDS
% RSD	TOTAL SOLIDS
% of dry weight TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
% RSD	TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
% of wet weight PERCENT MOISTURE
*	RSD	PERCENT MOISTURE
*	of dry volume PERCENT SAND
% RSD	PERCENT SAND
% of dry volume PERCENT SILT
*	RSD	PERCENT SILT
*	of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
% RSD		
um
*	RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
*	RSD
um
*	RSD
% of dry volume
% RSD
PERCENT CLAY
MEAN
MEAN
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
MODE
MODE
INORG MEAN
INORG MEAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MODE
INORG MODE
PERCENT SAND
PERCENT SAND
% of dry volume PERCENT SILT
*	RSD	PERCENT SILT
*	of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
% RSD
um
*	RSD
um
% RSD
um
*	RSD
% of wet weight
% RSD
% of dry weight
*	RSD
*	of wet weight
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
PERCENT CLAY
MEAN
MEAN
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
MODE
MODE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
PERCENT MOISTURE
PERCENT MOISTURE
INORG MEAN
INORG MEAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MODE
INORG MODE
DATE VALUE QUALIFIER
1/19/98	64.0
1/19/98	2.6
1/19/98	31.4
1/19/98	4.4
1/19/98	4.7
1/19/98	11.4
1/19/98	91 3
1/19/98	8.9
1/19/98	114
1/19/98	6.3
1/19/98	185
1/19/98	1210	J3
1/19/98	50.1
1/19/98	4.1
1/19/98	38 3
1/19/98	3 4
1/19/98	11.5
1/19/98	5.3
1/19/98	65.3
1/19/98	12.2
1/19/98	63.1
1/19/98	12.6
1/19/98	2380
1/19/98	0.0
1/19/98	17.9
1/19/98	1.2
1/19/98	17.8
1/19/98	4.1
1/19/98	82.1
1/19/98	0.3
1/21/98	63.8
1/21/98	0.3
1/21/98	32.5
1/21/98	0.4
1/21/98	3.7
1/21/98	1.9
1/21/98	100
1/21/98	0.1
1/21/98	113
1/21/98	0.8
1/21/98	2380
1/21/98	125.7	J3
1/28/98	12
1/28/98	21.2	J3
1/28/98	9
1/28/98	23.1	13
1/28/98	7
1/28/98	13.2
1/21/98	39.1
1/21/98	3.4
1/21/98	50.7
1/21/98	1.7
1/21/98	10.2
1/21/98	5.0
1/21/98	36.5
1/21/98	2.0
1/21/98	37.5
1/21/98	7.2
1/21/98	60.5
1/21/98	6.6
1/19/98	49.5
1/19/98	0.6
1/19/98	6.0
1/19/98	12
1/19/98	50.5
1/19/98	0.6
1/28/98	18
1/28/98	9.8
1/28/98	16
1/28/98	12.4
1/28/98	2380
1/28/98	0.0
4
-------
Table 4. Continued.
fieldjd epajd
50.110 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-HO 4A-66190
SD-HO 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-UO 4A-66190
SD-110 4A-66I90
SD-110 4A-66190
SD-HO 4A-66190
S0-M3B 4A-67U6
SD-503B 4A-67I16
SD-503B 4A-67116
50-5O3B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67U6
SD-503B 4A-67116
SP-503B 4 A-67116
5D-503B 4A-67116
S0-5O3B 4A-67156
SD-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67116
5P-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67U6
SD-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67116
SO-503B 4A-67I16
SD-503B 4A-671I6
SD-503B 4A-671I6
SD-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-67116
S0-S03B 4A-67U6
SD-503B 4A-67116
SD-503B 4A-671I6
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
50-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-425 4A-67047
SD-601 4A-66737
SD-601 4A-66737
SD-601 4A-66737
SD-601 4A^66737
SD-601 4A-66737
SD-601 4A-66737
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-6699J
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
SD-422 4A-66995
MOTE
0114D
0114D
0114D
0114D
01I4D
0114D
0114D
0114D
0114D
0114D
0114D
0114D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0M6D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0U6D
01I6D
0I16D
0116D
0U6D
0U6D
0116D
0116D
01I6D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0116D
0116D
01160
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0118D
0U8D
0118D
0I18D
0118D
0118D
0U8D
0129D
0129D
0129D
0129D
0129D
0129D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
0130D
'CH
JD BA
9800005"
980000:
9800005
980000:
9&0000
980000
980000
980000:
9800005
980000;
980000:
980000:
980000
980000
9800007
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000'
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000:
980000'
980000
980000'
980000
980000'
980000'
980000
980000
9800007
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000'
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000'
9800007
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000'
980000
980000
980000
9800007
9800007
ID MATRIX
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sedtoew
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
ANAL MET
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
SMI7Z540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
Coulter 1994
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SM17 2540G
SMI7 2540G
SM17 2540G
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
Folk 1994
UNIT	PARAMETER
% of dry volume PERCENT SAND
% RSD	PERCENTSAND
*	of dry volume PERCENT SILT
*	RSD	PERCENT SILT
% of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
	 PERCENT CLAY
MEAN
MEAN
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
MODE
MODE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOUDS
PERCENT MOISTURE
PERCENT MOISTURE
96 of dry volume PERCENTSAND
% RSD	PERCENT SAND
*	of dry volume PERCENT SILT
*	RSD	PERCENT SILT
% of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
	 PERCENT CLAY
MEAN
MEAN
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
MODE
MODE
INORG MEAN
INORG MEAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MODE
INORG MODE
* of dry volume PERCENTSAND
% RSD	PERCENT SAND
% of dry volume PERCENT SILT
% RSD	PERCENT SILT
% of dry volume PERCENT CLAY
PERCENT CLAY
MEAN
MEAN
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
MODE
MODE
INORG MEAN
INORG MEAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MODE
INORG MODE
INORG MEAN
INORG MEAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MEDIAN
INORG MODE
INORG MODE
% of wet weight TOTAL SOLIDS
*	RSD	TOTAL SOLIDS
*	of dry weight TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
% RSD	TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
*	of wet weight PERCENT MOISTURE
% RSD	PERCENT MOISTURE
*	of dry volume PERCENT SAND
*	RSD	PERCENTSAND
» of dry volume PERCENT SILT
*	RSD	PERCENT SILT
» ofdty volume PERCENT CLAY
*	RSD	PERCENT CLAY
% RSD
um
*	RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
*	of wet weight
% RSD
% of diy weight
% RSD
% of wet weight
% RSD
% RSD
um
*	RSD
um
*	RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
van
% RSD
um
*	RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
% RSD
um
*	RSD
ANAL DATE
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/19/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/28/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/2.0/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/30/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
1/20/98
VALUE QUALIFIER
29.1
3.6
53.1
1.8
17.9
1.2
21.5
6.3
22.0
3.7
19.8
0.0
55.8
0.1
4.3
1.7
44.2
0.2
14.2
4.1
56.5
0.1
29.3
2.1
10.0
3.8
9.6
2.9
8.5
0.0
6
0.7
7
1.6
9
0.0
54.1
8.2
32.2
10.6
13.8
12.9
71.2
31.8	13
77.9
29.9	J3
2380
0.0
47
27.8	J3
47
24.4	J3
2380
0.0
11
9.7
12
7.6
61
6.6
49.5
2.1
4.0
3.6
50.5
2.1
41.8
2.2
36.6
2.4
15.6
1.4
5
-------
Table 4. Continued.
FIELD
ID EPA ID
MOTE ID
BATCH ID MATRIX
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D*
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-6699S
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-4S699S
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-6699J
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007 .
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0I30D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
SD-422
4A-66995
0130D
9800007
Sediment
NA
CCV10119
V10119

Sediment
NA
CCV10120
V10120

Sediment
NA
CCV10121
V10121

Sediment
NA
CCV10128
V10128

Sediment
NA
CCV10130
V10130

Sediment
NA
CCV20119
V20119

Sediment
NA
CCV20120
V20120

Sediment
NA
CCV20121
V20121

Sediment
NA
CCV20128
V20128

Sediment
NA
CCV20130
V20130

Sediment
NA
CCV30120
V30120

Sediment
NA
CCV30121
V30121

Sediment
NA
CCV30128
V30128

Sediment
NA
CCV30130
V30130

Sediment
NA
CCV40121
V40121

Sediment
ANALMET
UNIT
PARAMETER
ANAL DATE VALUE
Coulter 1994
um
MEAN
1/20/98
50.1
Coulter 1994
% RSD
MEAN
1/20/98
7.1
Coulter 1994
um
MEDIAN
1/20/98
54.2
Coulter 1994
% RSD
MEDIAN
1/20/98
6.9
Coulter 1994
um
MODE
1/20/98
2380
Coulter 1994
% RSD
MODE
1/20/98
0.0
Coulter 1994
um
INORG MEAN
1/30/98
16
Coulter 1994
% RSD
INORG MEAN
1/30/98
21.6
Coulter 1994
um
INORG MEDIAN
1/30/98
13
Coulter 1994
% RSD
INORG MEDIAN
1/30/98
9.9
Coulter 1994
um
INORG MODE
1/30/98
2380
Coulter 1994
% RSD
INORG MODE
1/30/98
0.0
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/19/98
98.4
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/20/98
97.6
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/21/98
97.7
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/28/98
97.9
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/30/98
98.4
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/19/98
97.6
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/20/98
98.0
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/21/98
97.9
Coulter 1994
* Recovery
MEAN
1/28/98
96.6
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/30/98
98.3
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/20/98
98.2
Coulter 1994
* Recovery
MEAN
1/21/98
97.9
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/28/98
97.9
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/30/98
97.2
Coulter 1994
% Recovery
MEAN
1/21/98
97.7
6
-------
Analyses and Methodology
Total Solids (Percent Solids) and Percent Moisture
Analysis of samples for total solids (percent solids) and percent moisture followed 2540G
of Standard Methods, I8I1 Edition (APHA etal., 1992). Aliquots of homogenized
sample were apportioned into predried, tared crucibles, dried at 103-105°C to a constant
weight.
Total Volatile Solids (Percent Organics)
Analysis of samples for total volatile solids (percent organics) also followed 2540G of
Standard Methods, 18'h Edition (APHA, 1992). Dried sediments from the total solids
determinations were ashed for 1 hour at 500°C ± 50°C.
Grain Size Distributions, Raw Sample
Grain size distributions of field moist sediment were determined using a laser diffraction
instrument (Coulter LS-200), capable of measurement between 0.4 and 2,000 /xm
equivalent spherical diameters. In this instrument, the angle and intensity of laser light
scattered by a solution of sediment sample are selectively measured and converted to
volume distributions based on a Fraunhofer optical model. Similar to other methods of
particle sizing (pipette or hydrometer analyses), the optical model is based on
assumptions of partial sphericity.
During operation, filtered tap water is used for background determinations and sample
resuspensions. Samples are homogenized and representative portions introduced to the
sample chamber. Samples are recirculated for 60 seconds, and then analyzed for 60
seconds. Repetitive analyses of selected sample aliquots confirmed that a 60 second
analysis time was sufficient for reproducible data. The recirculation time was determined
by reanalysis to be sufficient for samples distributions to stabilize (destruction of loose
agglomerates). Surfactants have previously been demonstrated not to affect distributions
and so were not employed. Sonication, on the other hand, produces extensive changes
in sample size distribution, with larger particles continuing to decrease and smaller ones
continuing to increase as continued sonication disrupts more and more of the fragments
within the sediment. Extensively sonicated sediments were not considered to be
representative of the in situ material collected and so no sonication was employed.
Duplicate evaluations are a separate aliquot from a sample jar introduced into the
instrument. As sample aliquots are comparatively small (1-2 g wet weight), low or non-
representative concentrations of coarser fragments which are not readily homogenized
will produce variations which are more extensive than from a more uniform sediment.
Continuing calibrations are performed with against glass beads of known mean grain size.
Results are presented in 93 logarithmically distributed size channels as the volume
percent of the entire sample within that spherical size range. Within rounding error, the
7
-------
sum of volume percents from all size ranges will total 100%. For purposes of clarity,
the 93 channels have been combined into 26 intervals (Table 5), still totaling 100%,
which represent the classical half-phi distribution (Folk, 1974), in which.
 and -1.5 (2,000-2,830 m), and
proportionally incorporated into the results of the diffraction analysis, for presentation
of die results on the entire sample.
Total percent sand, silt and clay are calculated as the sum of volume percent between
2830 and 62.5 jim, 62.5 and 3.91 /zm, and 3.91 to 0.04 /im, respectively, using the
Wenworth size scales and a 8.0 value as the clay-silt boundary. San , si t, an c ay
percentages are provided only for the raw sample. Geometric distri utiona s is ics ar
computed from the logarithmic center of each size grouping as sediment istri utions are
typically more log-normal than normal. Statistics provided include mean, me lan,
modal grain sizes and are in units of fim. The standard deviation is a so in nm an is
a measure of the spread of the sediment distribution,
Skewness, a unitless coefficient, is a measure of the distortion from a symmetrical
distribution, with a skewness of zero (where mean, median, and mo e comci e) ei g
perfectly symmetrical. Samples with an excess of material in the finer sizes (left-han
skewed) will have negative skewness coefficients, while samples with an excess o
coarser material (right-hand skewed) will have skewness values greater than zero.
Kurtosis is also unitless and is a measure of the peakedness of a distribution, with
kurtosis values of zero representing a normal distribution (mesokurtic), values greater
than zero (leptokurtic) indicating a higher sharper peak, and values less than zero
(platykurtic) indicating a comparatively broad distribution.
Grain Size Distributions, Inorganic Fraction
In order to differentiate between the inorganic and organic sediments and their relative
distributions, the organic fraction of an aliquot of field moist sediment was digested with
hydrogen peroxide (H202, 30%), and gentle heating (<70°C), following
recommendations of Klute (1986) and Kunze and Dixon (1986). Conditions are
maintained near neutral pH to prevent the digestion of carbonate sediments or shell
fragments. The digested samples are subsequently processed with the laser diffraction
instruments, with any inorganic material greater than 2,000 /zm similarly included in final
8
-------
sample distributions and statistics. Statistics presented for the inorganic fraction
(inorganic mean, median, mode, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) refer to the
distribution of the inorganic materials only.
Individual volume percents of the various inorganic size classes, have been uniformly
adjusted downward such that the sum of all inorganic volume percents is equal to the
inorganic volume percent contained in the original raw sample (computed from total
sample percent organics, and the specific gravity of dry wood, 0.42 g cm"1 [Faherty and
Williamson, 1989]). This permits the total sample distribution and the inorganic
distribution to be superimposed on one another, in essence obtaining the organic sediment
size distribution in the original sample by difference. In some instances, however,
typically in the finer particle sizes, the adjusted inorganic fractions will have a slightly
larger volume percent than was percent in the original raw sample. The effect is not
very sensitive to the inherent assumptions of the calculations (specific gravity of organic
and inorganic fractions) or other contained measurements (percent solids, percent
moisture, specific gravity of organic or inorganic fractions) and is attributed to the
digestion process removing organic binding materials, thereby releasing smaller inorganic
fragments. The effect is unavoidable regardless of digestion method employed, but is
small, typically less than 2% volume.
9
-------
Table 5. Listing of half-phi intervals and equivalent /zm sizes.
 Si2e
/im
11.0
0.49
10.5
0.69
10.0
0.98
9.5
1.38
9.0
1.95
8.5
2.76
8.0
3.91
7.5
5.52
7.0
7.81
6.5
11.0
6.0
15.6
5.5
22.1
5.0
31.0
4.5
44.0
4.0
62.5
3.5
88.0
3.0
125
2.5
177
2.0
250
1.5
350
1.0
500
0.5
710
0.0
1,000
-0.5
1,410
-1.0
2,000
-1.5
2,830
10
-------
Literature Cited
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water
Pollution Control Federation. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition. Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. SW-846. Washington, DC.
Faherty, K.F. and T.G. Williamson. 1989. Wood engineering and construction
handbook. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. New York, NY.
Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company.
Austin, TX.
Klute, A. (ed). 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical
Methods. Second Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil
Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
Kunze, G.W. and J.B. Dixon. 1986. Pretreatment for Mineralogical Analysis. Chapter
5. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods.
Second Edition. A. Klute (ed), American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil
Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
11
-------
Appendix A
Custody Records
-------
&EPA
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
REGION 4
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COLLEGE STATION ROAD
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30613-7799
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LEADER
REMARKS Kit It {w '
Paqe. 1 ^,3 w-«rot
PROJECT NAME/LOCATION
~t: omesrccLcL/rn
il'it/vM Carnal
ESO SAMPLE TYPES
1. SURFACE WMtR (TNSOH./SEDIMOU
Z GROUNO WATER SLUDGt
3.	potable WATER e. WASTE
4.	WASTEWATER 0. AIR
5.	IXACHATE 10. FISH
11 OTHFR
SAMPLER
S ^SIGN)
TOTAL CONTAINERS |
circle/ado I ANALYSES^I^?)
Ust no. ot /
containers / ssytfK /

STATION NO.
UJ
£
a.
31
s
1^7
DATE
TIME
a. a
2
O
o
a
t
TAG NO./REMARKS
LAB
USE
ONLY
5 STATION LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
3D-1 o 1
6
U-13
1355

t
1









4A- (o(po 13
a
«5D-/o4-
2>- /b1
£
>/-/f
/4.2S

/
.







~

4/9- C.L IOC,
olid
3i>-//0
c>
li'lS
6%oo

/'
1







~


oni
SD-/L3

ins
CR3S

*•
1







~

*fA - (ok 2.35
Olo^
Sb-i\L>
(p
U-iS
loot


1







~

4n-LL2Jtf
dtor
SD-/;9
(r
//-/5
iS

~202.
(e
//-/V
USo

/
J







~

l-Pi'LUISo
ouh.
(:£r_2&£_
(.
thii
1/tTo

+•
I









M-C,UZ1
kcftl


II-IS
ISiS

/
1







t/

¥4 - 6.U32&
olol

<;
Ibis
/2.n

/
I







w
1/
*fA' (oU
0(0^
Sfc-2/4
4.
II-IS
l3$S

/¦
/







s/


OlOl
SJ>-2)7
£
ll-IS


/¦
J,









1-A-&LZ4S
009?
I r»)w Mono# t
DAT^TjME
RECEIVED BY: < . /v. ^ . J
(PRINT) L-tC.
RELINQUISHED BY:
(PRINT)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)
I (m&Lt,

- u' /h-~—	
(SIGN)

(SIGN)
I RELINQUISHED BY:
1 (PRINT)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)
RELINQUISHED BY:
(PRINT)
oate/time
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)
l(*N>.

(SIGN)
(SIGN)

(SIGN)
DISTRIBUTION: White and Pink copies accompany sample shipment ta laboratory; Pink copy retained by laboratory;
Wilte copy Is returned to samplers; Yellow copy retained by samplers.
•U.S. GPOi 1989-732-186
4-22599
(10/89)
-------
®EPA
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
REGION 4
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COLLEGE STATION ROAD
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30613-7799
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LEADER
PROJECT NAME/LOCATION	,
—hrAftseSrtead/ /DtltTztrq
ESD SAMPLE TYP£S	SAMPLES (SIGN)
1.	SURFACE WATER
2.	GROUND WATER
3.	POTABLE WATER
4.	WASTEWATER
5.	LEACHATE
11. OTHER 	
TYPE?!
Os
5H/SEDIMENT
"SLUDGE
a. WASTE
9. AIR
10. FISH
STATION NO.
\tt>6
3b-364-
LlLIk
1220
4A - (oU33
O/cd
,5b-4a I L
Sb-W
11-It,
IZSS
~
II-It,
I$06
4A-LLL4.5
~
44- (rUtXt
ml
ofZo
Sb-4t>7
II-IS
09od
i/
~
4f)-U,7/3
:3b-4! t>
II-IS
I42&

oill
QUI
Sb-4!3
U-/S
II4S

£>£>$3.7
Cd2$l
Zb-4li>
11-1%
1320
~
4Q-LL%qv
ol/7
Sb-Ufi
It-It
l4*L
iS
44 - (oLlLZ

Sb-422
II-/S
&L
4A - Lcrns
ShrJl2£
11-14
IA2S
y
fA-(.7047
0/5b
oil&
¦Q
• I
a-
^0
Sb-St&J.
U-19
/lis


41 - IS? 103
OltNh\Ve ond PVnV cop\es accompany somp\e shipment \o \oboroVory, P\nk copy retained by laboratory,
teV.viT*\ed V.Q	""feWo1* co^ TfcVa\i\e
-------
&EPA
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
REGION 4
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
college station road
ATHENS. GEORGIA 30613-7799

DATC/TWE

REUNQUISHED BY:
(PRINT)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)


(SIGN}
(SON)
REUNQUISHED BY:
(PRINT)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)
RELINQUISHED BY:
(PRINT)
DATE/TIME
RECEIVED BY:
(PRINT)


(SON) _ __
(SIGN}
(SIGN)
(SIGN)
DISTRIBUTION:
Wilte and Pink cople9 aecompony sample shipment to laboratory, Pink copy retained by laboratory;
White copy Is returned to samplers; Yellow copy retolned by somplers.
•U.S. GPOi 1989-732-186
4-22601
(10/89)
-------
Appendix B
Volume percent distributions of the total, inorganic, and organic fractions
(by difference) of sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead,
Florida; individual and combined plots.
-------
£ 33.0
13
+->
H 22.0
Sample SD-101 Volume Percent (%)
i	r
y	^ y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
55.0
44.0
o 33.0

GO
o 22.0
c
- 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 :



-

f
—

i
-

1:
-

r
_

1 :
-

_J :
: 1
L L_ 1	!— l_
1 1
v_
\
1
1
J
1
J
1
J
1
0.0
X y y y	y J* y y y
Particle Size (mm)

55.0

44.0
nO
a
33.0
E?
22.0
u

11.0

o.o E


i	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
J	L

J	J_L
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-101 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-104 Volume Percent (%)
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
0s
o
£?
o
c
20.0
15.0 -
10.0 -
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
0>^ Q-	0- O- 0- 0- fc-	0- v T-
Particle Size (mm)
20.0
N°
O
ff
O
y y y y y y y y y y ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-104 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-107 Volume Percent (%)

10.0.

8.0
\?
0s
6.0
a
4—»

H
4.0

2.0

0.0


y y y ^ y y ^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
V©
o\
o 4.0
G
y y ^ ^ J? y y y
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
sO

0s
o
6.0
HP
4.0
o

2.0

0.0


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-107 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
-	TOTAL
-	INORGANIC
-	- ORGANIC
^ ^ ^ y	^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
sample SD-110 Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
£
6.0


O
H
4.0

2.0

0.0 ^

c/1.
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0s-
o
6.0
GO

O
4.0
c
HH


2.0

0.0 E

0^
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0s
o
6.0
ff
4.0
O

2.0

0.0

0^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-110 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
L>ULU^/1V	X A	V IS1UUL11< X	\ /iJJ

10.0

8.0
nO
6.0
"S
4mJ

O
H
4.0

2.0

0.0 l

y

10.0

8.0
vO
o\

o
6.0
59

In
o
4.0



2.0

0.0

y1
Particle Size (mm)
y- y ^ ^ y y	^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-113 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
75.0
sample M>116 Volume Percent (%)
^ ^ y y y y	y> y ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
75.0
^ 50.0
o
£>
M 25.0
0.0
1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
III.
—


i
I
r
i-
L
1	
1 1	 1—
1
J
1
J
1
J
1
J
1
1-
i :
i i—i—i'
y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
s y
s> ^ ^ s ^	^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-116 Volume Percent (%)
75.0
^ 50.0
S3
>
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample JSD-119 Volume Percent (%)
10.01	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1—

8.0
£
6.0


©
H
4.0

2.0

0.0 E


J	I I
J	L

Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
oN
6.0
60

O
4.0
c




2.0

0.0


^ y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0s
O
6.0
s?
4.0
o

2.0

0.0
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-119 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
ocunp.it olj- ijz.4 v uiurnc rcicciii ^vo)
£
o
H
15.0
10.0 -
y- y ^ ^ ^ ^	^ y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
i	r
i—i—i	1	r
i	r
^ 10.0
o
£ 5.0
0.0' —1	1	1	L	1	L
~ y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ jp if ^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
vo 10.0
O
£P
° 5.0 -
\J.\J 	 '	
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-122 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
£ 10.0-
5.0 -
0.0
TOTAL
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
# ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
O-	C5- Q- Q>- Q- q" Q- Q-	O- \- V3
Particle Size (mm)
-------
sample SD-125 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
10.0 r	1	j	1	j	1	1	J	1	1	1	1 | :
8.0 r	-i
6.0 -	-
I
4.0 r	\ "i
2.0-	-i
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD- 125 V olume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
oaixipiw jiy-iz,o v uxujuuc rciccui ^"/oj
y y y y y y y y y y> y y y
Particle Size (mm)
NO
O
£P
o
c
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
i—r
i	1	r
I
tj
I
ij
I
i i —-i—i—i
—I	1	h~ I	L
y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
20.0
15.0
0s
O
"i loo
£P
o
5.0
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-128 Volume Percent (%)
20.0
15.0

|
£ 10.0
u
o
>
5.0-
0.0
i—r
TOTAL
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
1—I—I—r
^ y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y
Particle Size (mm)
-------

10.0

8.0
xO
0s
6.0
73



H
4.0

2.0

0.0

y
sample 5D-2U2 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
NO
ON
o
6.0
W)

o
4.0
G




2.0

0.0

0^
10.0
8.0
i r
Particle Size (mm)
i—i—r
i—i—r
xO
O 6.0
S 40
2.0
0.0 ^
_L^
J	--J-
J	L
> y y y y y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-202 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
aampie su-zud v oiume rercent (Vo)
£
3
o
H
15.0
10.0
^ y y y y y y	y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
y y y y y y 
-------
Sample SD-205 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
£ 10.0
£ 5.0
0.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Qfo1> ^	^ ^ ^
Q-	Q- <&¦ fc>> 0^ O" Q-	<5-	Ok \- V>
Particle Size (mm)
-------

10.0

8.0
£
6.0
1

0
H
4.0

2.0

0.0


oarnpic ou-sLUd v oiume rerceni ^70j

10.0

8.0
N<->
O
6.0


O
4.0
c




2.0

0.0 E



10.0

8.0
sO
ox
0
6.0
»
4.0
u

2.0

0.0 E


Particle Size (mm)
1	1	1	T
1	1 r

Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-208 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
c 6.0
a>
p
4.0
2.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
- - - - ORGANIC
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
q" ON OjV QX	\V V3
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-211 Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
£
6.0


Q
H
4.0

2.0

o.o E


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
o- o- o- o- o	o-3 v^ a-
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
vO
0s

o
6.0
£9

o
4.0
c
t—1


2.0

o.o E

~
0s
O
00
y y ^ 0^° ^ ^ ^ 
-------
Sample SD-211 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------

10.0

8.0

6.0
(0

O
H
4.0

2.0

0.0

~

10.Or

8.0 ;
n®
0s
o
6.0 :
i?
-
O
4.0 -
C
1—<
-

2.0 j

0.0 ^



10.0 r

8.0 7
N®
0s-
o
6.0 r
£P
40 -
o


2.0 r

0.0 E-

~
oaaipic ois-^ li v oiume rerceni tyo)
Particle Size (mm)
i—r
i—i—r

i i i i
X N
I I ~"~l	K
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-211 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
ts 6.0
u
o
4.0
2.0
i—r
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
0- Q- 0- O- QN	Q- Q-	O- Q- \- V5
Particle Size (mm)
-------
uuuipw	x t v muiut 1 wi	v./0/
^ 6.0 -
3

£
4.0

2.0

0.0



10.0

8.0
£
o
6.0
5P

w*
o
4.0
e
~—1


2.0

0.0

0^
s- s- o-	Q-'
Particle Size (mm)
\- v
J* J* 4? ^ ^ 4? y	¦/*
Particle Size (mm)
o
oo
w
o
y y ^ ^ ^ S ^ J
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-214 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
"g 6.0
o
p
4.0
2.0
0.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
^ y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-217 Volume Percent (%)

25.0

20.0
£
15.0
3

H
10.0

5.0 :

0.0 E


Particle Size (mm)

25.0

20.0
O^
o
15.0
60

O
10.0
G




5.0

0.0

y
y- y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)

25.0
; i i I I l 1 l I I l i i ;

20.0
— ~
0s-
O
15.0
— ~t
EP
o
10.0


5.0
— ' ~

0.0
y
: , , 1 i i i i i 1 -I	1	:

y y J ^ ^ ^ S
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-217 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-220 Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
N?
0s
6.0


©
H
4.0

2.0

0.0 l

~
Particle Size (mm)
NO
0s
o
£?
o
c
^ y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0s-
o
6.0
£?
o
4.0

2.0
y y y y* y y y y y y S ^ S
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-220 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
c 6.0
P
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
	 T0TAL
i i i i i .
	INORGANIC
—
	 ORGANIC

/ /
1 /
\ /
\
\
\
h i ii 1 i i
\ li
/ \ / f
: r / >
r
- //
—\ >/,—
\ •• / * • l_
-A;1:
i i i i i J
- i i i i /i i i
^ ^ ^ &<> ^ ^ ^
qS> ^	Q)S>	qV Cb-1, o-3 \- V3
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-301 Volume Percent (%)

25.0

20.0
£
15.0
3

O
H
10.0

5.0

0.0


Particle Size (mm)
y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
y y y y y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -f
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-301 Volume Percent (%)
-------
Sample SD-304 Volume Percent (%)
NO
0s-
*3
o
H
15.0
10.0 -
y* y ^ ^ ^ y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
^ y y y y y y y y 
-------
Sample SD-304 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-401 Volume Percent (%)
^ ^ y jp y y y y	y y
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0s-
o
6.0
£9

tx
o
4.0
C

•—<


2.0

0.0


\C
_o
i>
jp J*	^ y ^ <** yf ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-401 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
¦£ 6.0
u
o
4.0
2.0
	 TOTAL
	inoRganIC
	 ORGANIC
0.0
^ ^	^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-404 Volume Percent (%)

10.0
; 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¦! 1 1 1 1 1 -

8.0
— —
o
6.0
— —
b£>
o
js
4.0
— —


~ y ~~~ v _

2.0
^ —
r / -

0.0
y
: — -t— i i i i i i i i i i—

^ y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-404 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0 -
6.0
4.0
2.0 -
0.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
^ ^ ^ C#	^	^	^C^	^ ^
Q- o- Q- Q-	q" q" q- o>	o-5 \- v3
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-407 Volume Percent (%)
vO
0s
3
o
H
15.0
10.0 -
y1 y y y y y ^ ^ y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
~ y y5 y y y y y y 
-------
Sample SD-407 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
^ 10.0
5.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
- - - - ORGANIC
0.0
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Q- 	\- V5
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-410 Volume Percent (%)
\=>
£
15.0
10.0
^	^	y5 y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
^ y y ^ y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -f
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
$ 10.0-
©'
o
ff
O
.> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J? sf ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-410 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-413 Volume Percent (%)
£
"3
o
H
15.Or
10.0
^ y y y y y y	y y y> y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
j* ^ ^ ^ ^ S S y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
10.0
o
2>
o
5.0
0.0
i r
i r
j	L
j	lj:
y y y y y y y y* y° ^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-413 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-416 Volume Percent (%)
y y y
Particle Size (mm)

25.0

20.0
vy
Ox
O
15.0
59

<-i
o
10.0
c
t—1


5.0 =

o.o E

~
Particle Size (mm)
so
0s
o
5 100
s> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-416 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-419 Volume Percent (%)
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
25.0
0.0 L
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
25.0
y y y y y y y y S y S S J
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-419 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-422 Volume Percent (%)
0s-
15
¦4-1
O
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
^ y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
£ 10.0
o
§
y y y y ^ s* ^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-422 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
£ 10.0
5.0 -
i—i—r
TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
0.01
C>-	<&• fcV	<&>	Q>" \>^ V3
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-422 Volume Percent (%)
<§& ^ ^	®\*	^ sjP
	C>~ \™ T,-
Particle Size (mm)
^ ^ 0<#> ^ y Bs^ JS* ^ J? y y y
Particle Size (mm)
.<* y y ^ ^ 
-------
Sample SD-422 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-425 Volume Percent (%)

25.0

20.0
vO
15.0
3

o
H
10.0

5.0

0.0 c


^ y y y ^ ^ y ^ ^ y ^ y
Particle Size (mm)
n«
o
S>
o
a
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
- 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I -
[
1
-
t
-
jE
-
r-
-
i-
.r-%— ——'
	/:
^T" 1 1 1
/
1
1
1
1
i j
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)

25.0

20.0
xO
oN
_o
15.0
fip
O
10.0

5.0

0.0

cj#


C$° o£#
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-425 Volume Percent (%)
25.0
20.0

la 15.0
0
2
«

1	10.0
o
>
5.0
0.0
i—i—r
TOTAL
INORGANIC
ORGANIC

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
0- O- Q-	S-
Particle Size (mm)
v
-------
Sample SD-425 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
1	1	r
i	1	r
^ 10.0
o
£P
o
£ 5.0
0.0

\
JL

I
t
/-
r.
i
J1
~ y ^ ^ J? ^ ^ J? ^ J? ^
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
> ^ ^ ^ S y y v*
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-425 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
10.0
£ 5.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
0.0
^	^ ^	^ ^	^ df* <# #
qS^	o™ O™ O™ 0>* O- O^3 0>> O- 0^ 0~ \- T-
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-503A Volume Percent (%)
£
3
o
H
15.0
10.0
a?	^	j	jp
Particle Size (mm)

SP
o
c
15.0
10.0 -
y ^ ^ ^ y ^ ^ > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-503A Volume Percent (%)
15.0
i—r
T
£ 10.0-
5.0-
TOTAL
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
0.0
^ ^ ^	^ ^	^	^	o
qv qn	qn qV	Q- Cb- Q- c> q" \" V
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-503B Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
£
6.0


w
H
4.0 ;

2.0 ;

o.o E


Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0


o
6.0


»¦*
o
4,0 -
c




2.0:

o.o E


Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
xO
6.0
£P
o
4.o;

2.0 ;

o.o E
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-503B Volume Percent (%)
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
10.0
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-503B Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0

6.0


w
H
4.0 ;

2.0 :

0.0 E

&
Particle Size (mm)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
-------
Sample SD-503B Volume Percent (%)
10.0
^ ^ ^ ^ ^	^ ^ 
-------
Sample SD-601 Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
nO
0s
6.0
3

©
H
4.0

2.0

0.0

~
T,-
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
ox

o
6.0
go

ti
o
4.0
c




2.0 =

o.o E


Particle Size (mm)
NO
0s-
.O
GO
^ ^ ^	S ^ -f
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-601 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0-
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGAN!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
fc- Q-	Q- O- Q- O- 0- <5-	\- T,-
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-604 Volume Percent (%)

10.0

8.0
£
6.0
•3

0
H
4.0;

2.0

0.0 E

y1
Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
0
6.0
so

I*
0
4.0
c




2.0

J-U
0
0



Particle Size (mm)

10.0

8.0
nP
0s-
.0
6.0
§
4.0

2.0;

0.0 ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-604 Volume Percent (%)
10.0
8.0
1a 6.0
a>
p
-------
Sample SD-607 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
$
1
£
o!# y y y y y y y y y y y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
i—r
£ 10.0
o
£
£ 5.0 f-

\

0.0
1
I 1 I
\
\
j	r^j
0^ ^ ^ y b»n* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
10.0
o
fip
o
5.0
0.0
:—r
1
1
J 1 1
i i i
i
1
1 1
1 1
i.--T i
• •
7\-
I •
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-607 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
uuua|/iv	XV/ * UiUUiW A WiWVUk V /Uy
o
H
15.0
10.0 -
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ «#" ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
£ 10.0
ff
o
~S 5.0 -
y ^ 0^° ^ ^ ^ ^ ^	y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
»	y y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S ^
^ ^ ^ <£>' «?v o?
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-610 Volume Percent (%)
15.0
£ 10.0
£ 5.0
	 TOTAL
	INORGANIC
	 ORGANIC
0.0
Particle Size (mm)
-------
sample aiv- / uz v uiumc rerceni ^yo)
15.0
N®
0s
13
+*
o
H
^	^	^ 0<^ ,** ^	^ ^ J?
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
t—i—i—r
i	1	r
£ 10.0
o
00
Uh
o
£ 5.0
-t—r"
J	L
0.0
J* S ^	^ ^ ^ ^ s y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
£ 10.0-
o-
o

y y y y y y y y J ^ ^ ^
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-702 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
sample su-nuz volume percent (%)
£
3
o
H
15.0
10.0
y y y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
^ y ^%o ^ y x y ^ ^ ^ ^ y y
Particle Size (mm)
15.0
i—i—r
i—r
* io.o
o
£
° 5.0
0.0
I i I
- • 'I I
J	I	L
> ^ y ^ ^ ^	^ ^ y
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Sample SD-802 Volume Percent (%)
Particle Size (mm)
-------
Appendix C
Volume percent distributions of the less than 2 mm size fraction of raw
sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead, Florida.
-------

30 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0096.$01
0096
jsp
2MM-SHELLS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
. Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-101
Run number 9
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	g_0096.$01
Calculations from 0.375 um to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	249.7 pm
S.D.:	6.22
Sian.	479*2 um	Skewness: -0.716 Left skewed
EST	Kurtosis:	^,.507 Platykurtc
g 0096.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,841
1,511
1,257
479.2
56.84
31.69
9.226
-------
var.
COULT
27 Jan 19!
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0095.$01
0095
JSP
2MM ORGANICS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-104
Run number. 7
is
Differential Volume
6 8 ¦io io 40 fc)
Particle Diameter (pm)
400600
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
164.1 pm
179.3 pm
1909 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0095.$01
5.63
-0.466 Left skewed
-0.475 Platykurtic
g_0095.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,681
1,142
809.4
179.3
47.63
26.64
8.213
-------
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model".
LS 200
g_0110.$01
0110
BQUINN
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-107
Run number 5
Differential Volume
40 &>
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
100.0%
37.56 pm
41.54 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
66.44 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0110.$01
5.33
-0.267 Left skewed
-0.396 Platykurtic
g_0110.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
514.5
206.4
131.4
41.54
11.82
6.870
1.871
-------
\£10„
COULTER.
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g 0110d.$01
0?10D
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
—.Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-107
Run number 6
2.2.
2.
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1-
0.8
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
Differential Volume
a>
E
3
O
>
•f
6.4
6.6
T
4 6 6 -Jo	io	40 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
200
400600
1000
hJ
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
34.61 pm
36.38 pm
60.52 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0110d.$01
5.53
-0.137 Left skewed
-0.382 Platykurtic
g_0110d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
586.1
193.0
119.4
36.38
10.60
6.246
1.708
-------
COULTEF*
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0114.$01
0114
JSP
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-110
Run number. 5
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
5s

a>
1-
fc
s

0
>
0.6-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
V i i ]o ho 40 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
400600
1000
6.6
00
200
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
g_0114.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm


Volume
100.0%


Mean:
22.79 pm
S.D.:
6.42
Median:
22.76 pm
Skewness:
0.0107 Right skewed
Mode:
19.76 pm
Kurtosis:
-0.497 Platykurtic
g_0114.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
503.7
154.2
83.50
22.76
6.503
3.347
0.889
-------
COULTER.
File name:	g_0114d.$01
Sample ID:	0114D
Operator.	JSP
Comments:
Optical model:	Fraunhofer
LS 200	Fluid Module
27 Jan 1 g
i Mote Marin® Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-110
Run number. 6
)6
2.2-
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1-
0.8
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
Differential Volume
04 06
i h b \o io
40
60
00
200
400 600 1000 2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
21.47 pm
21.95 pm
19.76 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0114d.$01
6.04
-0.0671 Left skewed
-0.573 Platykurtic
g_0114d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
400.2
140.9
78.24
21.95
6.378
3.306
0.892
-------
^227.
COULT6FI
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g 0109.S01
0109
JSP/ BQ
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
Marine laboratory ~
Group ID: SD-113
Run number 23
Differential Volume
llA 06
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
40.88 pm
42.97 pm
55.14 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0109.$01
7.66
-0.116 Left skewed
-0.639 Platykurtic
g_0109.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,198
16.00	370.1
25.00	170.4
50.00	42.97
75.00	10.06
84.00	5.077
95.00	1-040
-------
\W5#'
COULT
27 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0108.$01
0108
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-116
Run number 12
2.2 H
2
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2
1-
0.8-
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Differential Volume
0.4 6.6
4 b ilo	io	40 &0
Particle Diameter (prn)
00
200
400600
1000
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
62.05 pm
71.16 pm
80.08 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0108.$01
7.02
-0.356 Left skewed
-0.467 Platykurtic
g_0108.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,184
16.00	534.8
25.00	262.5
50.00	71.16
75.00	17.39
84.00	8.216
95.00	1-532
-------
vsa*.
27 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_103.S01
0103
JSP
2MM ORGANIC SHELL
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
f*Tf~ Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-119
Run number 11
Differential Volume
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
g_103.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
100.0%
Mean:
70.53 pm
Median:
82.72 pm
Mode:
153.8 pm
g_103.$01

Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
829.0
16.00
305.7
25.00
209.3
50.00
82.72
75.00
25.96
84.00
14.76
95.00
4.474
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
4.76
-0.437 Left skewed
0.0897 Leptokurtic
-------
COULTSF*
27 Jan
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0102.$01
0102
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-122
Run number 7
Differential Volume
4 6 8 k	io	40 
753.1
303.0
206.2
95.84
35.85
20.68
6.247
-------
\2»:
COULTER
File name:	g_0112.$01
Sample ID:	0112
Operator.	BQUINN
Comments:	2MM
Optical model:	Fraunhofer
LS 200	Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
—Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-125
Run number: 13
Differential Volume

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
sS

E>
1_
h

3

O
>
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
rffl ,
0.4 0.6 1
\ & L \o	io	40 to
Particle Diameter (pm)
LL
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
37.91 pm
40.94 pm
87.90 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0112.$01
6.19
-0.122 Left skewed
-0.692 Platykurtic
g_0l 12.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	742.5
16.00	271.7
25.00	150.0
50.00	40.94
75.00	9.535
84.00	5.862
95.00	1-692
-------
¦tgsr.
COUL
27
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0098.$01
0098
JSP
2MM SHELLS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
• i i - Mote Marine Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-128
Run number. 8
Differential Volume
"$0 5o 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
i00 ioo 600 b00 200
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
264.8 pm
464.0 pm
1909 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0098.$01
5.91
-0.921 Left skewed
0.0474 Leptokurtic
g_0098.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,827
1,457
1,173
464.0
75.57
35.85
8.697
-------
w.
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0113.$01
0113
jsp
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
to rarucie oize nnaiyzer
30 Jan 1998
Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-202
Run number 6
Differential Volume
1.8-T
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
S? H
o
E
3 0.8H
o
>
0.6
0.4 -{
0.2
0
tk
400 600 (ooo 5ooo
6.4 0.6 T
iriioic	40 &0
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
loo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
100.0%
25.34 pm
27.73 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
19.76 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0113.$01
6.41
-0.196 Left skewed
-0.72 Platykurtic
g_0113.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
450.1
177.3
108.9
27.73
6.813
3.461
0.898
-------
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0097d.$01
0097D
JSP
2MM SHELLS&WOOD
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-205
Run number. 10
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
86.33 pm
110.4 pm
185.3 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0097d.$01
5.19
-0.519 Left skewed
0.181 Leptokurtic
g_0097d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,275
353.7
247.0
110.4
32.01
16.30
4.148
-------
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0107.$01
0107
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
•—Mota Marine Laboratory mm
Group ID: SD-208
Run number 11
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
.I^^tttttPTTTTTJTTTTTI^
20 Jo &T 100
Particle Diameter (pm)
000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
100.0%
Mean:
86.10 pm
Median:
104.2 pm
Mode:
168.8 pm
g_0107.$01

Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
955.6
16.00
407.0
25.00
265.3
50.00
104.2
75.00
32.26
84.00
17.46
95.00
4.605
g_0107.$01
4.93
-0.57 Left skewed
0.123 Leptokurtic
-------
VSr:
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0105.$01
0105
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-211
Run number 15
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
Particle Diameter (pm)
000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
95.37 pm
110.5 pm
140.1 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0105.$01
4.86
-0.565 Left skewed
0.0985 Leptokurtic
g_0105.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
979.3
485.8
308.3
110.5
35.62
19.85
5.523
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0105d.$01
0105D
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-211
Run number: 16
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
2-5-!
2-
1.5-
a>
E
3
O
>
1-
0.5-
0-^rr^nrnjlTTl 11 JpTH—r
IL.
i b	io 4o 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
100
200
400
liOOIOOO
Soo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 |jm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
88.28 pm
104.1 pm
153.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0105d.$01
4.71
-0.603 Left skewed
0.16 Leptokurtic
g_0105d.$01
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
843.9
16.00
425.6
25.00
279.4
50.00
104.1
75.00
33.89
84.00
18.97
95.00
5.278
-------
VSiPl
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0101.$01
0101
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mota Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-214
Run number: 8
27 Jan
V8
Differential Volume

2.4-

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
0s

©
F
1.2 -
3

a
1 -

0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
t
i i sio io
.6
40
60
100
200
400600
1000
20OO
Particle Diameter ((jm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
80.65 pm
99.81 pm
153.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0101.$01
6.15
-0.448 Left skewed
-0.319 Platykurtic
g_0101.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
I,211
552.2
300.6
99.81
23.63
II.93
2.933
-------
\2a*:
27 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0099.$01
0099
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine laboratory —
Group ID: SD-217
Run numben 14
2.5-
2-
ss
I 1.5-
3
"5
>
1-
0.5-
Differential Volume

ioo 600
1000

i h -io io 3o" io
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
ioo
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
138.7 Mm
165.3 pm
1091 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0099.$01
6.5
-0.522 Left skewed
-0.539 Platykurtic
g_0099.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16-00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,553
1,059
770.8
165.3
35.85
18.68
4.964
-------

27 Jan
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0104.$01
0104
JSP
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-220
Run number 3
Differential Volume
iM 06
4 6 6 ¦io io 40 6o
Particle Diameter (pm)
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
g_0104.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
100.0%
Mean:
39.90 pm
Median:
40.73 pm
Mode:
80.08 pm
g_0104.$01

Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
1,128
16.00
370.4
25.00
178.7
50.00
40.73
75.00
9.093
84.00
4.907
95.00
1.115
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
7.67
-0.0789 Left skewed
-0.739 Platykurtic
-------
\s*.
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0104d.$01
0104D
JSP
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
—•Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-220
Run number 4
Differential Volume
tA 51
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
45.75 pm
46.78 pm
80.08 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0104d.$01
8.04
-0.099 Left skewed
-0.794 Platykurtic
g_0104d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,262
504.8
218.4
46.78
9.894
5.301
1.189
-------

COULTER
30 Jan
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0106.$01
0106
jsp
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
— Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-301
Run number: 8

Differentia! Volume
±0	40 ho
Particle Diameter (pm)
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
161.4 pm
217.8 pm
1909 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0106.$01
6.01
-0.774 Left skewed
0.0631 Leptokurtic
g_0106.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,651
1,022
688.1
217.8
54.82
23.90
5.203
-------
COULTEFR
»_o r ai ui»ic ou r\J idiy^ei
30 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0100.$02
0100
jsp
2MM DETRITUS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-304
Run number 7
Differential Volume
4-
3.5-
3
2.5—j

o
> 1.5-
1-
0.5-
0
Ta
J f
10
lo
40
To
100
200
400600
1000
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
193.7 pm
256.0 pm
1909 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0100.$02
6.26
-0.663 Left skewed
-0.346 Platykurtic
g_0100.$02
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,763
1,313
1,013
256.0
52.84
27.01
6.811
-------
COULTER.
WW • QIUW«C WM-O ruiOI/<
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0111 .$01
0111
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
• Mote Marine Laboratory.
27 Jan lQ5g
Group ID: SD-401
Run number 4
2.5
Differential Volume
2-
1.5-
a
E
3
O
>
1-
0.5
^r-rftjT
200
400
y
2000
0.6
T
6 810
To
40
60
00
600
1000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 ym
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
67.02 pm
87.11 pm
153.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0111.$01
6.12
-0.489 Left skewed
-0.333 Platykurtic
g_0111.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
|jm >
986.8
419.4
248.0
87.11
19.77
9.717
2.225
-------
¦™«S-
COULTER
27 Jan 1998
> Mote Marine Laboratory •
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0120.$01
0120
JSP
Group ID: SD-404
Run number 3
2MM DETRITUS, SHELL PARTS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
3-J
2.5-
2-4
| 1.5-
3
$
1-1
Differential Volume
0.5-
.1 ^mYTTTTrijnTmyffl[
XS
5
40
&
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
200
400 600 4000 2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
154.1 pm
182.9 pm
223.4 pm
S.D.:
Skewrtess:
Kurtosis:
g_0120.$01
4.75
-0.735 Left skewed
0.47 Leptokurtic
g_0120.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,404
770.4
483.4
182.9
64.06
34.60
8.218
-------
27 Jan 19
—•Mote Marine Laboratory	—¦—	——	r
Group ID: SD-407
Run number 3
Differential Volume
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	g_0127.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	148.3 pm S.D.:	5.14
Median:	213.2 pm Skewness: -0.886 Left skewed
Mode:	429.2 pm Kurtosis:	0.311 Leptokurtic
g_0127.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,167
16.00	707.0
25.00	513.3
50.00	213.2
75.00	57.67
84.00	26.43
95.00	5.831
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0127.$01
0127
BQUINN
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
-------
^san
COULT
• Mote Marine Laboratory'
27 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0121.$01
0121
JSP
2MM-DDETRITUS, SHEELS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Group ID: SD-410
Run number: 12
Differential Volume
20 Jo So"
Particle Diameter ftim)
400 600 b00
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
122.6 pm
147.5 pm
168.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0121.$01
5.39
-0.603 Left skewed
0.147 Leptokurtic
g_0121.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1.476
750.5
388.9
147.5
46.14
22.56
5.386
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer

COULTER
27 Jan 1598
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0128.$01
0128
JSP
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
1 Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group JD: SD-413
Run number 11
3-|
2.5-
2-
| 1-5-
3
"5
>
0.5-
Differential Volume
•i 6 i \o io io ^0
Particle Diameter (pm)
£
>.6
00
ioo
400 600 1000
20OO
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
183.5 pm
204.8 pm
168.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0128.$01
4.73
-0.731 Left skewed
0.468 Leptokurtic
g_0128.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,567
994.0
640.5
204.8
76.64
42.87
9.989
-------

27 Jan 1998
Pile name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g 0117.$01
0117
JSP / BQ
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—. .I Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-416
Run number 20
3-I
2.5-
2-
| 1.5-
a
1
0.5-
Z
Differential Volume
5.6
1
4 6 Ho
IT	To 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
200
400
600
¦tooo
iooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
151.0 pm
193.7 pm
295.5 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0117.$01
4.78
-0.828 Left skewed
0.427 Leptokurtic
g_0117.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,214
726.6
485.0
193.7
63.04
31.81
7.107
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0123.$01
0123
JSP
2MM-DETRITUS, SHELLS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-419
Run number. 13
27 Jan 199j

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
m

F-
1-
3
•P


0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume
rfi-rrrn
0.4 0.6
T i * 4 4 lo $o . o &o
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 ym to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
75.37 pm
87.18 pm
153.8 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0123.$01
6.1
-0.394 Left skewed
-0.328 Platykurtic
200
400 600
10 00
2000
g_0123.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,163
16.00	528.2
25.00	283.4
50.00	87.18
75.00	22.44
84.00	11.87
95.00	2.836
-------
<8R
ug rdiuuo %su.g ruidiy^ei
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0130.$01
0130
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-422
Run number 7
1.8-
1.6-
1.4
1.2
£ 1
o
E
3 0.8 A
£
0.6
0.4-
0.2-
0
Differential Volume
T,
6.6
rrio
20
40
60
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
200
400 600
1000
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
35.02 pm
41.24 pm
127.6 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0130.$01
8.09
-0.165 Left skewed
-0.816 Platykurtic
g_0130.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,001
306.4
166.0
41.24
7.421
3.504
0.881
-------
COULTER.
27 Jan 199
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0130d.$01
0130D
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-422
Run number 8
Differential Volume
ioo 400 600 Vooo
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
34.65 pm
40.34 pm
116.3 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0130d.$01
8.04
-0.147 Left skewed
-0.793 Platykurtic
g_0130d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
969.0
296.5
163.2
40.34
7.387
3.514
0.889
-------
vsa?:
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g 0118.$01
0118
JSP/ BQ
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-425
Run number 18
Differential Volume
2.2
2
1.8-j
1.6
1.4-
£ 1.2-
a>
E
1-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
ifl
04 8i
5	i i k \o iO 40 60 loo
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
49.91 pm
63.63 pm
87.90 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0118.$01
8.44
-0.322 Left skewed
-0.761 Platykurtic
g_0118.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,162
564.2
254.5
63.63
10.84
4.595
0.967
-------
vgat:
27 Jan 19
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g 0118d.$01
0T18D
JSP / BQ
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-425
Run number. 19
Differential Volume

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
£
1.2-
©



3
1 J
O

>
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Vooo io
6.4 i.6 1 1	i	1 S j io io io ' 6o 'ioo
Particle Diameter (|jm)
200
400
600
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
41.28 pm
53.69 pm
87.90 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0118d.$01
8.1
-0.281 Left skewed
-0.752 Platykurtic
g_0118d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,053
394.4
185.8
53.69
9.131
3.956
0.903
-------
vssp:
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
gs980019.$01
0119
JSP / BQ
13%
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—.Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-503A
Run number 16
27 Jan 1998
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1 1-J
3
§ 0.8
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
Differential Volume
£46^6
rTTio
W
40
?0
00
ioo
400Soo
•I 000
tL
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	46.07 pm
Median:	58.97 pm
Mode:	223.4 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
gs980019.$01
8.4
-0.298 Left skewed
-0.874 Platykurtic
gs980019.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,066
16.00	450.0
25.00	248.7
50.00	58.97
75.00	9.146
84.00	4.376
95.00	0.969
-------

^ . i | OIUWI&	rvioijitoi
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0116d.$01
0116D
JSP / BQ
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1
.Mote Marine Laboratory.

Group ID: SD-503B
Run number 22
Differential Volume

2.4-

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
s?

ffi
F
1.2-
3

O
1-
>


0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

o-l
04 0.6
T
i	V k i io ' £o	io 60 ' •ioo
Particle Diameter (|jm)
ioo
400
600
lOOo"
Tooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
10.01 pm
9.593 pm
8.536 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0116d.$01
5.33
0.251 Right skewed
-0.379 Platykurtic
g_0116d.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
189.3
54.67
30.51
9.593
3.044
1.535
0.701
-------
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0116r2.$01
0116
jsp
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
3 Feb 1998
Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-503B
Run number. 4
Differential Volume

2.4-

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
jS
a>
F
1.2-
3

O
1-
>

0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
4.4 0.6
T
1.1 I I I,l I IJ I 1.1 I I I I I I.I I I I 	I 	
4 6 8 10	20	40 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
1ST
400600
Ittbj—
j00 1000
iooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
9.487 pm
9.198 pm
8.536 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0116r2.$01
5.21
0.225 Right skewed
-0.444 Platykurtic
gj>116r2.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
170.6
51.51
28.74
9.198
2.891
1.460
0.689
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0129.$01
0129
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-601
Run number: 9
Differential Volume
e
E

2.2-
2-
1.8-
1.6
1.4-
1.2-
1-
0.8
0.6
0.4-
0.2-
0
t
6.6
V 4 A b io
40
60
00
Particle Diameter (Mm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	11.09 pm	S.D.:
Median:	12.47 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	19.76 pm	Kurtosis:
g_0129.$01
5.46
-0.0841 Left skewed
-0.894 Platykurtic
g_0129.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	154.4
16.00	66.79
25.00	41.98
50.00	12.47
75.00	2.962
84.00	1.396
95.00	0.672
-------
COULT
wo r 01 umo OU.O ruiaijfiici
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0125.$01
0125
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
27 Jan 1998
.Mote Marine Laboratory.
Group ID: SD-604
Run number 6
Differential Volume

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-


©
1_
1-

n

o
>
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
0.4 0.6
I.I I I l .1 l i,) l 1.1 i i i i i 			 iiiij.i..,.
4 6 6 to	20	40 60
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
ioo
400 600
tk.
boo 2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm

Volume
100.0%

Mean:
23.88 pm
S.D.:
Median:
27.17 pm
Skewness:
Mode:
21.69 pm
Kurtosis:
g_0125.501
6.57
-0.205 Left skewed
-0.715 Platykurtic
g_0125.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	413.7
16.00	169.6
25.00	102.1
50.00	27.17
75.00	6.404
84.00	2.939
95.00	0.822
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULTSiH
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0124.$01
0124
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
_^Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-607
Run number 4
2.5
2-
1.5-
o
>
1-
0.5-

Differential Volume
.6 1
810
io
40
bO
00
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
34.02 pm
50.70 pm
116.3 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0124.$01
6.18
'0.556 Left skewed
-0.384 Platykurtic
g_0124.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
385.3
179.9
128.6
50.70
10.81
4.428
0.913
-------

LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULTER
27 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0126.$01
0126
JSP
DETRITUS
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—* Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-610
Run number 5
3.5
3-
2.5-
S? 2"i
©
£
1 1.5.
u
0.5-
Differential Volume

h k i0
lo
40
To
100
rfl
200
400600

Tooo5ooo
Particle Diameter (nm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
g_0126.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
67.41 pm
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
91.15 pm
185.3 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
4.58
-0.8 Left skewed
0.513 Leptokurtic
g_0126.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
509.9
260.0
198.7
91.15
27.86
15.06
3.428
-------
»»»»
LS Particle Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0115.$01
0115
JSP / BQ
2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-702
Run number. 17
27 Jan 1998
3.5 —j	-——	Differential Volume
3-
2.5.
| 1-5-J
1-1
0.5-J
4.4 U TT
-I I 11 LI'.
am
Pi
lo
1111 11 11
40 6o
Particle Diameter (|tm)
100
T5T
400 600
i.i i i
1000
iooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	148.3 pm
Median:	162.5 pm
168.8 pm
Mode:
9_0115.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0115.501
4.36
-0.662 Left skewed
0.712 Leptokurtic
Particle
Diameter
pm>
1,370
720.3
385.6
162.5
67.46
39.23
10.01
-------
~~~»
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0122.$01
0122
JSP
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Partide Size Analyzer
—— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-802
Run number 10
27 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
3.5
3
2.5-
2-|

1-
0.5-
4.4 6.6
1 r
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
io
Partide Diameter (pm)
100
200
400
600
Tooo
2000
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
100.0%
Mean:
225.9 pm
Median:
265.9 pm
Mode:
295.5 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
g_0122.$01
3.88
-0.877 Left skewed
1.12 Leptokurtic
g_0122.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,510
888.2
607.5
265.9
105.1
63.60
19.04
-------
Appendix D.
Volume percent distributions of the less than 2 mm inorganic size fraction of
sediments from the Military Canal area of Homestead, Florida.
-------
~~~»
COULTER.
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-101.$01
0096
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
—Mote Marine Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-101
Run number 15
30 Jan 1998
5.5-
5-
4.5-
4-
3.5-
* 3-
i
q
1.5-
1-
0.5-
0
Differential Volume


1 I
Jo io Jo So
Particle Diameter (jim)
00
200
400 600
Vooo
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 |jm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
289.5 pm
732.9 pm
1443 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-101.$01
7.94
-1.3 Left skewed
0.459 Leptokurtic
Sd-I01 .$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,819
1,487
1,263
732.9
130.0
20.55
3.176
-------
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-104.$01
0095
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
—Mot* Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-104
Run number. 11
30 Jan 1998
2.2-
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
* 1.2-
e
K
0.6-
0.4-
0.2
0
Differential Volume
dD
0.6
4 1 lo	io
40
io
100
loo
400
600
1000	in,
Particle Diameter (pm)
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
29.37 pm
20.60 pm
6.452 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-104.$01
8.61
0.216 Right skewed
-1 Platykurtic
sd-104.$01
Volume
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,151
396.0
172.2
20.60
5.421
3.446
1.123
-------
»~~~
COULTEF*
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-107.$01
0110
JSP
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
—— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-107
Run number 13
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
£o 40 6o ioo
Particle Diameter (pm)
sd-107.$01
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
14.42 pm
11.16 pm
7.776 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
6.48
0.431 Right skewed
-0.395 Platykurtic
sd-107.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
541.8
107.4
51.03
11.16
3.812
2.231
0.849
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-110.$01
0114
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-110
Run number 22
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
0.5-

0.6
T
T
TT
lo
io
40 So
100
ioo
Particle Diameter (pm)
Tirti
400 600 1000
~5ooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
12.73 pm
11.82 pm
9.371 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-110.$01
5.04
0.343 Right skewed
0.0477 Leptokurtic
sd-110.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
243.5
58.66
34.61
11.82
4.355
2.593
0.897
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample 10:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-113.$01
0109
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
30 Jan 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-113
Run number 19
Differential Volume
Tu £6

io
e0
00
200
400
Ik
.So iooo 5ooo
Paitide Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	14.18 pm	S.D.:
Median:	12.91 pm	Skewness:
Mode-	8.536 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-113.$01
5.57
0.323 Right skewed
-0.187 Platykurtic
sd-113.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
334.9
74.04
43.33
12.91
4.289
2.544
0.889
-------
»»»»
COULTEF*
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-116.$0l
0108
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-116
Run number 28
30 Jan 1998

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
*
1-
e

E

3
O
08-
>


0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume
$
0.6
10
20
40 60
Particle Diameter (fjm)
100
400 600
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
sd-l 16.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
100.0%
37.91 pm
31.55 pm
1315 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-116.$01
9.24
0.147 Right skewed
-0.954 Platykurtic
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,471
757.5
193.7
31.55
6.745
3.846
1.129
-------
I*.
LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULTER
30 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-H9.$01
0103
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
¦ Mota Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-119
Run number. 10
Differential Volume
2.5-
%
>
1.5-
0.5-
~5o 4o So
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	13.09 pm	S.D.:
Median:	10.47 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	7.083 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-119.$01
5.35
0.487 Right skewed
-0.00565 Platykurtic
sd-119.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
297.3
72.94
37.28
10.47
4.231
2.736
0.958
-------
»»»>
ir-
LS Particle Size Analyzer
30 Jan 1998
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-122.$01
0102
JSP
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—> Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-122
Run number 7
2.5—I
2-
1.5-
E
3
I U
0.5-
Diff«nntia) Volume
cd
6.4 0.6 {
tL
n
1o
40
io
00
ioo
400 600 4 000
Tooo
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
14.91 pm
12.11 pm
7.083 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-122.$01
5.6
0.402 Right skewed
-0.263 Platykurtic
sd-122.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	391.4
16.00	88.45
25.00	46.28
50.00	12.11
75.00	4.464
84.00	2.863
95.00	1.019
-------
»~~~
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator-
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-125.$01
0112
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-125
Run number: 27
30 Jan 1998
3-I
2.5-
Dfflemntial Volume
| 1.5-
3
£
1-
0.5-

io
6.4
& r
n iio
40
00
200
400 600
1000
2000
Particle Diameter (ym)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
20.52 pm
12.31 pm
8.536 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-125.$01
7.65
0.638 Right skewed
-0.342 Platykurtic
sd-125.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,262
259.9
62.46
12.31
5.385
3.541
1.086
-------
COULTEFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-128.$01
0098
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
30 Jan 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-128
Run number. 8
16-r
14-
12-
10-
*
1 8-|
3
O
> 6~1
4-
2-
0-
Differential Volume
6.4 6.6 1
T
mm
n n it
HX
-rrm
¦flTTrTTrnniTII
ioo 400 MO 1000
io 40 6o
Parbd« Diameter (pm)
100
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2830 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
270.6 pm
678.5
2379 |jm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-128.501
9.42
-1.09 Left skewed
-0.0424 Platykurtic
sd-128.$01
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
2,550
16.00
1,893
25.00
1,411
50.00
678.5
75.00
86.48
84.00
13.02
95.00
2.676
-------
»»»»
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-202.$01
0113
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
¦ Mota Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-202
Run number 16
30 Jan 1998

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
*
1.2-
§
%
1-
>
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume

6.6
20
So
00
Particle Diameter (pm)
200
M Ih-
4oo Sooiooo 5ooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	13.86 pm	S.D.:
Median:	12.38 pm	Skewness:
Mode;	7.083 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-202.$01
5.55
0.245 Right skewed
-0.449 Platykurtic
sd-202.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
257.3
86.10
46.39
12.38
4.050
2.413
0.884
-------
»frfrfr
COUL7
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-202.$02
0113D
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
IS Particle Size Analyzer
¦-Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-202
Run number 17
30 Jan 1998

2-

18-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
if!

i
1-,
2
08-

0.S-

04-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume
id
0.6
T

20	40
Particle Diameter (ym)
00
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 \im to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
16.00 pm
14.72 pm
7.776 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-202.$02
5.92
0.222 Right skewed
-0.471 Platykurtic
ioo
Aoo >oo
1
1000 5ooo
sd-202.$02
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
Mm >
5.000	346.9
16.00	102.2
25.00	56.01
50.00	14.72
75.00	4.393
84.00	2.553
95.00	0.907
-------
»»»»
LS Particle Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-205.$01
0097
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-205
Run number 14
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
2.5-
2-
1.5-
5
1i
0.5-
dill
bA 06
Jt
10
20
10 60
100
ioo
ioo
600
mo
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	18.29 pm	S.D.:
Median:	12.76 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	7.776 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-205.$01
7.03
0.579 Right skewed
-0.231 Platykurtic
sd-205.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,053
140.5
56.27
12.76
4.811
3.082
1.020
-------
»»»»
LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULT
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-208.$01
0107
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-208
Run number. 20
30 Jan 1998

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
*
1 ?-
o

p

3
1-
s
0.8-


0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume
I
0.6
r~7
o 20
40
60
00
200
400 600
Particle Diameter (pm)
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
27.68 Mm
17.11 pm
6.452 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-208.$01
9.67
0.305 Right skewed
-1.01 Platykurtic
sd-208.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,386
524.8
165.3
17.11
4.723
2.880
1.000
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-211.$01
0105
JSP
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-211
Run number. 5
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
3-|
2.5-
2-
1.5-
1-
0.5-
J
£4
rr
io
40
Particle Diameter ftim)
00
M0
Hd
tk.
oo boo loooiooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
sd-211.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	16.12 pm	S.D.:
Median:	13.13 pm	Skewness:
Mode-	8-536 pm	Kurtosis:
5.38
0.353 Right skewed
-0.244 Platykurtic
sd-211.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	363.4
16.00	97.22
25.00	47.82
50.00	13.13
75.00	5.162
84.00	3.335
95.00	1.096
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-211.$02
0105D
JSP
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-211
Run number 6
30 Jan 1998
3-I
Differential Volume
2.5-
2-
JS
| 1.5-1
$
1-1
0.5-

6.4 6.6 1
io io 6o
Particle Diameter (pm)
100
1ST
jTUrmTTT^
400 too ^000

5.000	277.4
16.00	78.50
25.00	33.59
50.00	9.444
75.00	3.755
84.00	2.351
95.00	0.899
-------
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-214.$01
0101
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
— Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-214
Run number 25
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
*
1.2-1
I
3
1-
¦5

>
0.6-

06-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
dD
i.4 i.6 i
4 TTTo 5o FTJ
Partide Diameter (pm)
00
ioo
400
600
1000
tk.
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
23.99 pm
18.26 pm
7.776 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-214.$01
7.06
0.182 Right skewed
-0.863 Platykurtic
sd-214.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
697.4
227.0
117.7
18.26
5.480
3.383
1.120
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-217.$01
0099
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-217
Run number 10
Differential Volume
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 |jm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
38.37 pm
28.54 pm
8.536 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-217.$01
7.7
0.144 Right skewed
-0.927 Platykurtic
Sd-217.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,184
16.00	436.1
25.00	203.9
50.00	28.54
75.00	7.853
84.00	5.111
95.00	1.696
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-220.$01
0104
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-220
Run number 21
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-


i
1 -
1
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
d
tA
i 4 41o
io
40
too
ioo
400 600
looo
L
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	sd-220.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	17.07 pm	S.D.:
Median:	11.79 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	5.878 pm	Kurtosis:
8.45
0.405 Right skewed
-0.795 Platykurtic
sd-220.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	949.8
16.00	205.0
25.00	79.37
50.00	1179
75.00	3.310
84.00	1.903
95.00	0.791
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-301.$01
0106
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
——Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-301
Run number 9
30 Jan 1998
2.2-
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
I ,
*
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
Differential Volume

0.6

o io
40
60
100
200
400 too
1000
LL
Particle Diameter (pm)
~5ooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
J^an:	23.66 pm	S.D •
Median:	Skewness:
7.083 pm	Kurtosis:
Mode:
sd-301.$01
7.39
0.163 Right skewed
-0.924 Platykurtic
sd-301 .$01
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
761.0
16.00
229.0
25.00
125.6
50.00
18.27
75.00
5.069
84.00
3.084
95.00
1.033
-------
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-304.$01
0100
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
30 Jan 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-304
Run number. 12

2.4-

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
as
i
1.2-
•5
1-
>


o.sJ

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

o-l
Differential Volume

11.6 \
h io
20
40 tO
00
ioo
400ioo
1000
Ik.
2000
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pro to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	32.19 pm	S.D..
Median:	26.54 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	10.29 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-304.$01
6.11
0.0358 Right skewed
-0.748 Platykurtic
Sd-304.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	651.4
16.00	251.4
25.00	144.2
50.00	26.54
75.00	8.482
84.00	5.518
95.00	1.715
-------
\v*2#
COULT
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-401.$01
0111
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marina Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-401
Run number. 26
30 Jan 1998
2.5-r
2-
1.5-
9
E
3
£ H
0.5-
Differential Volume

4 0.6
6 10 io 40 &>
Parbcte Diameter (pm)
00
Ik.
ioo 4oo hoo Vooo Tooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	sd-401 .$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	14.40 pm S.D.:	5.77
Median:	11.36 pm Skewness: 0.374 Right skewed
Mode:	7.083 pm Kurtosis: -0.389 Platykurtic
sd-401 .$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	360.8
16.00	95.29
25.00	48.63
50.00	11.36
75.00	4.206
84.00	2.652
95.00	0.937
-------
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-404.$01
0120
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mota Marino Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-404
Run number 11
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
25-
0.5-
1.5-
0A 06
Parbde Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
19.51 Mm
14.90 pm
9.371 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-404.$01
6.01
0.403 Right skewed
-0.368 Platykurtic
Sd-404.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
626.5
146.3
60.69
14.90
5.716
3.714
1.211
-------
r
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-407.$01
0127
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-407
Run number 23
30 Jan 19s f
2.5-1
2-
OifFerentiat Volume
1.5-
3!
e
E
3
5
1-
0.5-
A-
6.4 0.6

io
-1060
00
200
400loo
1000
Particle Diameter (pm)
*ooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
23.51 pm
18.49 pm
9.371 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-407.$01
6.1
0.273 Right skewed
-0.486 Platykurtic
sd-407.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
621.1
179.3
82.92
18.49
6.666
4.261
1.326
-------
COULTSFl
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-410.$01
0121
JSP
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-410
Run number 24
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
*
1.2-
i
1-|
75

>
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

oJ
r£—r—
6.4 0.6
7
IL.
io

5.000	590.8
16.00	144.2
25.00	62.80
50.00	13.23
75.00	4.374
84.00	2.668
95.00	0.953
-------
va*.
Fiie name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-413.$01
0128
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
——Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-413
Run number. 15
30 Jan 199&
Differential Volume

2.4-

2.2-

2-

18-

1.6-
£
1.4-
p
1.2-
3

O
1_l
>


0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
6.4
Xi
6.6
T
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
io 5o io ho
Partide Diameter (pm)
0.121% @ 0.474 pm
sd-413.$01
oo
ioo
400 600
1000
2000
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
61.96 pm
51.19 pm
1198 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
9.59
-0.0496 Left skewed
-1.21 Platykurtic
sd-413.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	1,603
16.00	1,008
25.00	592.9
50.00	51.19
75.00	9.457
84.00	5.594
95.00	1.816
-------
COULTER
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator:
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-416.$01
0117
jsp
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mota Marina Laboratory —
Group ID: SD-416
Run number 12
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume

2.4-

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
*


1.2-
il
1-
>


0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

o-J
dill
bA ^6
6 6k io io io W ioo
Particle Diameter (pm)
400 600
1000
thJ
iooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	30.13 pm	S.D.:
Median:	24.87 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	21.69 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-416.$01
5.96
0.188 Right skewed
-0.54 Platykurtic
Sd-416.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	727.3
16.00	239.4
25.00	107.5
50.00	24.87
75.00	8.526
84.00	5.407
95.00	1.828
-------
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS200
sd-419.$01
0123
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
—Mote Maliflo Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-419
Run number. 13
30 Jan 199&

2.2-

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-
a*
1.2-
B

E

¦?>

>
0.8-


0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-J
Deferential Volume
04 &6
r~rro	s w
Partid* Diameter (pm)
00
loo
wo 6oo
1000
Ik
~5ooo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
13.55 pm
10.88 pm
7.083 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
scM19.$01
6.26
0.324 Right skewed
-0.614 Platykurtic
sd-419.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
355.3
107.1
51.00
10.88
3.519
2.036
0.821
-------
COULTEr*
File name:
Sample ID;
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd~422.$01
0130
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
— Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-422
Run number 19
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	sd-422.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	13.99 pm	S.D.:	6.93
Median:	11.72 pm	Skewness:	0.33 Right skewed
Mode:	7.083 pm	Kurtosis:	-0.596 Platykurtic
sd-422.$01
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
571.5
101.1
54.34
11.72
3.280
1.749
0.745
-------
War
COULTER
i UV4W wifcw rwiaijfcv<
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-422.$02
0130D
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD^22
Run number 20
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1
> 0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2
0
Differential Volume
04 06
^	4 & ^0	io	40 io
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
200
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
14.26 pm
12.38 pm
7.776 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-422.$02
7.01
0.282 Right skewed
-0.631 Platykurtic
sd-422.$02
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
588.2
100.3
58.82
12.38
3.233
1.672
0.732
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0118.$01
0118
jsp
digest 2mm
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mole Marine Laboratory _
Group ID: SD-425
Run number. 4
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
2.2
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
* 1.2-
i 1"
> 0.8-
0.6-
0.4
0.2-
0
d
V 4 4 to £o io io
Parbde Diameter (pm)
ioo
Ta 5^6
00
400 600
Tooo
2000
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean;	25.59 pm	S.D.:
Median:	29.08 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	72-95 pm	Kurtosis:
g_0118.$01
8.58
0.0627 Right skewed
-0.816 Platykurtic
g_0118.501
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
1,147
16.00
218.6
25.00
108.6
50.00
29.08
75.00
4.686
84.00
2.242
95.00
0.795
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
g_0118d.$02
0118d
jsp
digest 2mm
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
' Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-425
Run number 5
30 Jan

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
*

•
E
1-
2
o
00
1

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

oJ
Differential Volume
0.6
2	4 6 8 io	io	4 o io
Particle Diameter (pm)
00
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
100.0%
24.77 pm	S.D.:
26.66 pm	Skewness:
80.08 pm	Kurtosis:
Volume
Mean:
Median;
Mode:
g_0118d.$02
8.33
0.0283 Right skewed
-0.893 Platykurtic
ioo
400 600 1000
iooo
9_0l18d.$02
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	959.2
16.00	223.9
25.00	114.1
50.00	26.66
75.00	4.629
84.00	2.258
95.00	0.797
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-503a.$01
0119
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
30 Jan 1998
Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-503A
Run number 15
Differential Volume
bA 5*
0 60
Particle Diameter ftjm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
16.36 pm
11.82 pm
5.878 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-503a.$01
7.87
0.329 Right skewed
-0.844 Platykurtic
sd-503a.$01
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
707.3
16.00
197.8
25.00
80.79
50.00
11.82
75.00
3.407
84.00
1.920
95.00
0.773
-------

64.51
26.59
16.64
6.399
1.992
1.198
0.655
-------
COULTER
Lb Karooa Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-503b.$02
0116D
JSP
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marine Laboratory—.
Group ID: SD-503B
Run number. 30
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
XI 5^6
20	40
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	6.202 pm	S.D.:
Median:	6.547 pm	Skewness:
Mode:	8.536 pm	Kurtosis:
sd-503b.$02
4.09
0.0944 Right skewed
-0.689 Platykurtic
sd-503b.$02
Volume
Particle
%
Diameter

pm >
5.000
63.80
16.00
26.74
25.00
16.82
50.00
6.547
75.00
2.018
84.00
1.204
95.00
0.657
-------
W:
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-601.$01
0129
jsp
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
¦ Mots Marine Laborattxy.
30 Jan 1998
Group ID: SD-601
Run number 18
Differential Volume
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1-
§ 0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
0.6
4 6 4 to io lo to loo
Parbde Diameter (pm)
1 MTTrnrnTTTnn
200 400 600 ^000
2OO0
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
9.896 pm
10.55 pm
66.44 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-601 .$01
5.42
0.0207 Right skewed
-0.891 Platykurtic
sd-601 .$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	119.4
16.00	62.93
25.00	39.52
50.00	10.55
75.00	2.432
84.00	1.341
95.00	0.680
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-601.$02
0129D
jsp
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
Mote Marin* Laboratory mm
Group ID: SD-601
Run number. 21
30 Jan 1998
Differential Volume
T4
Particle Diameter (ym)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
100.0%
11.36 pm
11.75 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
60.52 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-601 .$02
6.06
0.205 Right skewed
-0.517 Platykurtic
sd-601.$02
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	175.8
16.00	70.30
25.00	44-63
50.00	11.75
75.00	2.634
84.00	1 429
95.00	0.697
-------
»»»»
LS Partide Size Analyzer
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator.
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-604.$01
0125
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
Mote Marina Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-604
Run number. 14
30 Jan
Differential Volume
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
100.0%
10.32 pm
11.12 pm
55.14 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-604.$01
4.79
-0.0721 Left skewed
-0.765 Platykurtic
sd-604.$01
Volume Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	101.9
16.00 55.42
25-00	36.36
50.00	11.12
7500	3.132
1.684
95.00	0.744
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-607.$01
0124
jsp
DIGEST
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
• Mote Mama Laboratory*
Group ID: SD-607
Run number 16
Differential Volume
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4
1.2
*
j 0.8-
0.6
0.4
0.2-|
0
6A 5^6
20
40
io
00
Particle Diameter (pm)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
Mean:	12.44 pm
Median:
Mode:
12.81 pm
66.44 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
sd-607.$01
5.22
-0.0651 Left skewed
-0.942 Platykurtic
sd-607.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	157.3
16.00	76.53
25.00	49.65
50.00	12.81
75.00	3.420
84.00	1 973
95.00	0.797
-------

File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
Optical model:
LS 200
sd-610.$01
0126
jsp
DIGEST 2MM
Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
LS Particle Size Analyzer
¦ Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-610
Run number 17

Differential Volume

2-

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
*

p
1-,
3

2
0.8-

0.6-

0.4-

r*
©

0-

V,
0.6
4 S to io 40 io 100 ioo
Particle Diameter (pm)
Ik
oo 4oo Vooo ^5?
t>Oo
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
100.0%
22.42 pm	S.D.:
22.11 pm	Skewness:
66.44 pm	Kurtosis:
Volume
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
sd-610.$01
5.83
0.00217 Right skewed
-0.605 Platykurtic
Sd-610.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	398.3
16.00	138.9
25.00	83.47
50.00	22.11
75.00	6.159
84.00	3.650
95.00	1.111
-------
vsbp:
pile name:
Samp'e
Operator:
Comments*
Optical
LS 200
g_0115.$01
0115
jsp
digest
model: Fraunhofer
Fluid Module
• Mote Marina Laboratory!
Group ID: SD-702
Run number 3
30 Jan 1998

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2-
*
1-
i
0.8-



0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-

.4 0.6
Differential Volume
10
20
40
60
100
ioo
400 600
Vooo
2000
Particle Diameter ft/m)
Volume Statistics (Geometric)	g_0115.$01
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
w ...me	100.0%
YMot^	41.67 pm	S.D.:	9.36
iHian*	38.54 pm	Skewness:	-0.0421 Left skewed
e 070 iiwi	l^a irfneifi'	.1 01 DI^4v#Im ir+irt
Mode:
5.878 pm	Kurtosis:	-1.21 Platykurtic
g__0115-501
Volume
%
5.000
16.00
25.00
50.00
75.00
84.00
95.00
Particle
Diameter
pm >
1,184
564.8
306.5
38.54
6.186
3.690
1.219
-------
LS Particle Size Analyzer
COULT
File name:
Sample ID:
Operator
Comments:
sd-802.$01
0122
jsp
DIGEST
¦ Mote Marine Laboratory—
Group ID: SD-802
Run number 16
30 Jan 1998
Optical model: Fraunhofer
LS 200	Fluid Module

2.2-

2-

1.6-

1.6-

1.4-
*
1.2-
F
1-
a
£
0.8-


0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0-
Differential Volume
rfflT
6.6
Volume Statistics (Geometric)
Calculations from 0.375 pm to 2000 pm
Volume	100.0%
44.37 pm
io *0 bo
Particle Diameter (pm)
0.323% @ 0.910 pm
sd-802.$01
oo
200
400 600
1000
2000
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
44.30 pm
55.14 pm
S.D.:
Skewness:
Kurtosis:
6.32
-0.044 Left skewed
-0.659 Platykurtic
sd-802.$01
Volume	Particle
%	Diameter
pm >
5.000	934.4
16.00	362.3
25.00	184.4
50.00	44.30
75.00	10.83
84.00	6.890
95.00	2.298
-------
Appendix E
Tabular data for sediments from the Military Canal area
of Homestead, Florida.
-------
STATION
DATE
TIME
OTHER
BATNUM
CONTN
SOLDDDATE
PERSOLID
PERMOIS
PERORG500
SEDDATE
PERSAND
PERSILT
PERCLAY
MEAN
MEDIAN
MODE
STDDEV
SKEWNESS
KURTOSIS
IP0_0
IP0_49
IP0_69
IP0_98
IPI_38
IP1 95
IP2~76
IP3_91
IP5_52
IP7_81
IP11_0
IP15_6
IP22_1
EP31J)
EP44_0
IP62_S
IP88_0
IP125
IP177
IP250
IP350
IP500
IP710
IP 1000
IP1410
IP2000
YYYYMMDD
HHMM
%
%
%
YYYYMMDD
%
%
%
MICRONS
MICRONS
MICRONS
MICRONS
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
°/o
%
°/o
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
STATION IDENTIFIER, EPA
COLLECTION DATE
COLLECTION TIME
EPA CUSTODY TAG NUMBER
MML SAMPLE BATCH NUMBER
MML SAMPLE CONTAINER NUMBER
DATE %MOISTURE AND %ORGANICS INITIATED
PERCENT SOLIDS
PERCENT MOISTURE
PERCENT ORGANICS (COMBUSTION 500DEG)
DATE OF SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
PERCENT SAND FRACTION, TOTAL SAMPLE, > 62.5 U
PERCENT SILT FRACTION, TOTAL SAMPLE, 3.91-62.5 U
PERCENT CLAY FRACTION, TOTAL SAMPLE, < 3.91 U
MEAN GRAIN SIZE, TOTAL SAMPLE
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE, TOTAL SAMPLE
MODAL GRAIN SIZE, TOTAL SAMPLE
STANDARD DEVIATION, TOTAL SAMPLE
SKEWNESS, TOTAL SAMPLE
KURTOSIS, TOTAL SAMPLE
INDIV VOLUME % 0.0 (0.4) - 0.49 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 0.49 - 0.69 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 0.69 - 0.98 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 0.98 - 1.38 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 1.38 - 1.95 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 1.95 - 2.76 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 2.76 - 3.91 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 3.91 - 5.52 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 5.52 - 7.81 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 7.81 - 11.0 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 11.0 - 15.6 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 15.6 - 22.1 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 22.1 - 31.0 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 31.0- 44.0 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 44.0 - 62.5 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 62.5 - 88.0 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 88.0 - 125 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 125 - 177 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 177 - 250 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 250 - 350 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 350 - 500 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 500 - 710 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 710 - 1000 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 1000 - 1410 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % 1410 - 2000 MICRONS
INDIV VOLUME % GREATER THAN 2000 MICRONS
-------
ISEDDATE
YYYYMMDD
IMEAN
MICRONS
IMEDIAN
MICRONS
IMODE
MICRONS
ISTDDEV
MICRONS
ISKEWNESS
-
KURTOSIS
-
npoo
%
HP0_49
%
HP0_69
%
nP0~98
%
hp i_3 8
%
npi_95
%
HP2_76
%
DP3_91
%
IIP5_52
%
DP781
%
npn_o
%
npi5j3
%
hp22_i
%
HP 3 Co
%
HP44_0
%
HP62_5
%
HP88_0
%
DP125
%
HP177
%
KP250
%
IIP350
%
np5oo
%
HP710
%
IIP 1000
%
npi4io
%
IEP2000
%
DATE OF INORGANIC GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
MEAN GRAIN SIZE, INORGANIC FRACTION
MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE, INORGANIC FRACTION
MODAL GRAIN SIZE, INORGANIC FRACTION
STANDARD DEVIATION, INORGANIC FRACTION
SKEWNESS, INORGANIC FRACTION
KURTOSIS, INORGANIC FRACTION
INORGANIC VOLUME % 0 (0.4>0.49 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 0.49 - 0.69 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 0.69 - 0.98 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 0.98 - 1.38 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 1.38- 1.95 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 1.95 - 2.76 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 2.76 - 3.91 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 3.91 - 5.52 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 5.52 - 7.81 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 7.81 - 11.0 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 11.0 - 15.6 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 15.6-22.1 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 22.1 - 31.0 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 31.0 - 44.0 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 44.0 - 62.5 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 62.5 - 88.0 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 88.0 -125 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 125 - 177 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 177 - 250 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 250 - 350 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 350 - 500 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 500 - 710 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 710 -1000 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 1000 - 1410 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % 1410 - 2000 MICRONS
INORGANIC VOLUME % GREATER THAN 2000 MICRONS
-------
STATION
0AT6
TIME
OTHER
BATNUM
COUTH
SOUDOATE
SCM01
11/1W
1335
*A-88013
8000005
0980090
1/19(96
SO-104
11/13(97
1530
4A-66067
9600005
G980095
1/1O90
SO-107
11/13(97
1625
4A-001O0
9600005
G900110
1/19/96
S0-107
11/13*7
1625
4A-60100
9600005
09001100

SD-110
11/13(97
0600
4A-661S0
9600005
G990114
1/19/96
SO-110
11/13(97
0600
4A-00190
9000005
39001140

SO-113
1VI319?
0935
4A-08235
•600005
0900109
1/19(96
SD-110
11/13(97
1000
4A40247
9000005
GO0O1O0
1/19(96
SO-118
11/13(97
1545
4A-00332
9600005
G900103
1/19(96
SD-122
11/13/97
1600
4A-00344
9600005
G90O1O2
1/19(96
SO-129
11/13/97
1525
4A-06416
9600005
G900112
1/19(98
SD-128
11/13/97
0910
4A-0050O
9600005
Q96OO90
1/19(96
SO-202
11/13»7
1130
4A-66150
9800005
G980113
1/19/96
SD-202
11/13/97
1130
4A-66150
9600005
69601130
1(19(98
SO-J05
11/13/97
1620
4A-06127
9600006
0960007
1/19(96
80405
11/13(97
1620
4A-00127
9600005
G960097D

SO-206
11/13(97
1515
4A-06320
9000005
G000107
1/19/96
SD-211
11/13®?
1332
4A-60408
9800005
G90O1O5
1/19(96
SD-211
11/13/97
1332
4A-66466
9800005
09001050
1/19(96
SD-214
11/13(97
1345
4A-00357
9600005
G960101
1/1W90
SD-J17
11/13(97
1519
4M839S
9600005
0900090
1/19(90
SO-220
11/13®7
1645
4A-0O5O/
9600005
0900104
1/19(90
SD-220
11/13(97
1645
4A46507
9600005
O90O1O4D

SD-301
11/13(97
1060
4A40507
9600005
0900106
1/19(90
SO304
11/1*97
1220
4A-00033
9000005
0900100
1/19K90
SO401
11(13(97
125S
4A-00045
9600006
G900111
1/19(90
SO-404
11/19/97
1500
4A-66661
(000007
C9OO120
1/20(90
SO-407
11/16(97
0900
4A46713
9600007
O90O127
1/20(90
SCM10
11/16(97
1020
4A-00797
9600007
0900121
1/20(90
SD413
11/18(97
1145
4A-06837
9600007
0900126
1/20(90
scMie
11/19(97
1320
4A-00008
9600007
090011/
1/20196
SD-419
11/18(97
1427
4A-60963
9000007
G90O123
1/20(90
SO-422
11/18(97
1547
4A46W
9000007
G900130
1/20(96
SD-422
11/18(97
1547
4A46995
9000007
09001300
1/20(96
SD-425
11/18(97
0925
4A-07O47
9600007
G960116
1/20(96
SD-425
11/16(97
0925
4A-07O47
9600007
09001180

SO-503A
11/18/97
1115
4A-87103
9600007
0980119
1/20(98
SO-SC30
11/16X97
1115
4A-67118
0800007
G96O110
1/20(96
SD-5CM
11(18/97
111S
4A-67116
9000007
G90O11OO
1(20(96
SD0O1
11/18(97
0045
4A-0C737
9600007
0900129
1/20(96
SO-601
11/16/97
0645
4A-66737
9000007
09601290

son*
11/18/97
0055
4A-00784
9000007
O960126
1/20(96
SD407
11(18(97
1302
4A-68658
9000007
G960124
1/20(98
SCMitO
»»/r#»7
1X0
4A-099S3
9000007
G98O120
1/20*96
SO-702
11/18(97
1622
4A-87197
9600007
G980115
1(20(98
SD402
11/18(97
1445
4A-87174
9800007
G980122
1/30(96
PERSOLID
permois
PERORGS00
SEDOATE
PERSAND
PERSILT
PERCLAY
559
44.1
3.7
1(30(96
860
12.2
1.0PQL
16.6
81.2
32.8
1/21/98
75.2
23.0
1.6PQL
353
64.7
105
1(21/98
41.0
49.5
95



N2NB0
391
50.7
102
45.5
54.5
7.9
1/19(96
306
51.6
176



1/19)96
29,1
53.1
17.9
48.7
51.3
5.7
1/20(98
42.7
43.9
13.5
69.1
30.9
1.9PQL
1/21/96
86.6
105
2.7
24.7
753
15.4
1(19(98
56.2
37.6
43
18.0
820
20.5
1(21(96
629
34.0
31
34.4
8S.0
14.0
1/21(98
420
46.7
105
336
602
19.0
1/19(96
704
194
22
49.1
50.9
8.1
1/30/98
37.0
48.1
169
49.5
50.5
6.0




252
748
14.9
1/19(96
00.4
29.5
40



1(19(96
64.0
31.4
47
23.2
76.8
13.8
1/21/96
62.2
335
43
17.6
62.4
16.8
1/21(98
64.1
323
36
17.9
821
17.8
1/21(98
636
32.5
37
296
702
157
1/21/96
60.3
33.5
62
24.6
75.4
236
1/21(96
73.3
230
31
43.0
57.0
6.7
1/1M0
47.3
40.2
12.4



1/1W96
50.1
36.3
115
389
03.1
10.6
1/30190
70.9
16.0
31
20.0
00.0
35.0
1/30(98
75.7
21.7
26
32.6
87.2
13.0
1/21/96
57.6
340
76
193
80.7
25.0
1/20(96
766
209
24
176
822
290
1/21/96
74.3
223
33
255
74.5
188
1/20(96
73.6
23.1
3.3
223
77.7
206
1(20/96
61.8
104
1.6POL
161
639
357
1/20(96
802
17.0
22
31 3
68.7
10.6
1/20(96
657
292
51
51.0
49.0
36
1(20(96
*9.3
354
153
49.5
505
40
1(20(98
47.6
30.0
156
48.1
S1.9
4.6
1(20(98
00.8
277
115



1/20/96
541
322
138
48.7
51 3
4.1
1/20(98
491
36.0
14 9
55.7
44.3
42
1/20(96
13.4
564
302
558
442
43
1/20(96
14.2
565
293
63.3
36.7
23
1(20/96
17.2
536
290
462
51 6
40
1/20(96
34.0
472
188
482
53.8
39
1/20(96
451
400
150
34.5
655
64
1/20196
59.5
350
55
163
837
234
1/20(96
766
195
20
1*3
66.T
225
V30I96
643
14.6
1.1PQL
-------
STATION
MEAN
MEDIAN
SD-101
778
3010
SO-104
360
331
SO-107
37.6
41.5
SD-107
365
37.5
SO-110
23.5
231
SO-110
21.5
220
SO-113
40.9
430
SD-116
860
3350
SO-119
78.1
87.7
SO-122
64.8
97.6
SO-125
39.4
42.1
SO-128
293
523
SD-2OT
38.5
29.0
SO-202


SO-205
104
125
SO 205
01.3
114
SO-208
66.1
104
SO-211
100
114
SD-211
100
113
SO-214
85.9
104
SO-217
258
420
SO-220
55.0
52.8
SO-220
65.3
63.1
SO-301
285
391
SD-304
283
426
SO-401
72.2
91.3
SD-404
170
203
SO-407
156
223
SO-410
176
186
SO-413
268
283
SO-416
284
307
SO-419
152
155
SO-422
55.4
59.7
SO-422
50.1
54.3
SO-425
113
120
SO-42S
71.2
77.9
SD-503A
46.1
59.0
SD-S03B
9.5
9.2
SO-5030
100
9.6
S0-601
11.1
125
SD-601


SO-604
239
27.2
SD-607
340
50.7
SD-610
87.4
01.2
SO-702
189
167
SO-602
226
266
STDOEV SKEWNESS KURTOSIS
554
-1.56
1.44
6.48
-0 56
-057
5.33
-0.27
-0.40
563
-0.04
-030
6.61
006
-044
604
•007
-0.57
7.66
-0.12
-0.64
601
-1.86
244
5.10
-0.26
0.06
4.29
-0.46
051
6.41
-0.07
•065
602
-094
0.06
7.18
•002
-0.53
545
•0.37
0.23
541
-0.44
0.14
4.93
¦0.57
0.12
5.04
-049
0.08
5.19
-0.41
0.09
6.40
•0.40
-0.34
7.61
-067
-0 52
9.43
•001
-0.63
9.65
-0.07
•091
6.92
•0.62
0.02
6.72
¦0.73
•0.32
6.45
-0.41
¦0.33
5.14
-0.62
0.20
5.29
-063
028
6.37
-0.49
•0.16
547
-0.65
012
5.95
¦067
0.02
8.42
-035
-069
10.7
-0.08
-000
102
•005
-0.65
11.8
•0.36
-090
109
•020
•0.87
6.40
•030
¦0.67
521
023
-0.44
533
0.25
•0.36
5.46
-006
-0.89
6.57
•0.20
•0.71
6.18
-0.56
-0 38
4.58
•080
051
5.00
¦0.47
029
3.88
-088
1 12
MOOE
3380
2380
66.4
60S
196
18.6
551
3380
2380
140
87.0
1910
3380
2380
18S
169
140
2380
154
2380
2380
3380
2380
2380
154
2380
429
2380
2380
2380
2380
2380
2380
2380
2380
223
8.5
8.5
19.6
21.7
116
185
2380
298
-------
STATION
IPO 0
IPO 48
IP0.68
SO-101
0.20
0.20
0.20
SO-104
0.2U
0.20
020
SO-107
O.SPOL
0.8
1.3
SO-107
0.3PQL
0.0
1.4
SO-110
0.7PQL
2.2
3.0
SO-110
0.7PO.
2.2
3.0
SO-113
0.5PQL
1.7
2.4
SO-116
0.2U
O.SPOL
04PQL
SO-118
0.20
O.SPQL
OSPQL
SO-122
020
0.2PQL
0.3POL
SO-125
0.3PQL
0.8
1.4
SO-126
0.20
020
0.2PQL
SO-202
0.8PQL
2.1
28
SO- 202


O.SfHX
SD-206
0.20
0.3PQL
SO-20S
0.2U
0.4PQL
0.6PQL
SO-208
020
O.SPQL
0.5POL
SO-211
0.20
0.3PQL
0.4PQL
SO-211
0.20
0.3POL
0.4POL
SO-214
0.20
0.5POL
0.6
SO-217
0.20
0.20
O.SPQL
IPO 88
0.20
0.2PQL
1.4
1.4
2.8
2.9
2.2
OSPQL
O.0POL
0.4PQL
1.5
O.SPOL
2.8
IP1 38
0.20
0.3PQL
1.4
1.5
2.8
2.7
2.0
0.4PQL
Q7PQL
O.SPQL
1.5
0.4POL
2.5
IP1.05
0.2PQL
0.4PQL
1.6
1.0
2.6
2.8
2.0
0.4PQL
0.8
O.SPQL
20
0.SPQL
2.7
IP2_78
0.3PQL
0.8PQL
2.5
2.8
3.6
3.7
26
0.6POL
1.2
0.9
3.0
0.7PQL
3.4
IPS 81
05PCK.
08
3.8
30
46
4.8
35
0.7PQL
1.7
1.3
4.4
0.8
4.4
1.4
1.3
0.2U 0.2POL
0.3U 0.2U
SO-220 0.4PQL
SO-220 0.4PQL
SO-301
SO-304
SfMOl 0.2PQL 0.7PQL
8CM04
SO407
50-410
SCM13
SCM16
0.3U
020
0.2U
0.20
SO-418
020
SO-422
0.8PQL
SO-422
0.6PQL
SD-425
O.SPQL
SO-425
0.6PQL
SO-503A
0.6PQL
SIV503B
12
SO-503B
1.1
SO401
1.3
SO401

SO-604
0.8
SO-607
06PQL
SO-810
02U
SO-702
020
SD-602
020
0.20
0.2U 0.2PQL
020 020
0.20
IPQL
20
20
15
1.8
1.8
36
3.7
4.1
2.5
2.1
0.5PQL
020
02O
20
1.6
0.4POL
03POL
1.1
0.3POL
0.3POL
0.4PQL
02O
0.2U
0.7POL
27
2.7
2.1
2.5
26
5.3
5.1
5.5
35
28
08
0.2PQL
020
IP5_52
0.6PQL
1.3
48
5.2
58
6.0
4.4
0.8
2.5
1.8
60
1.2
53
IP7 81 IP11_0 IP15_6
"b.8 12 1.6
1.6
58
61
6.5
67
5.0
11
34
26
6.7
1.6
5.7
0.6PQL
0.7PQL
0.6
1.1
1.5
2.1
2.6
0.7PQL
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.7
23
2.8
O.SPOL
07POL
0.8
1.1
1.8
22
2.8
O.SPQL
0.6PQL
07PQL
08
1.3
18
26
05PQL
O.SPQL
0 7PQL
10
1.4
18
26
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.1
28
35
0.4PQL
OSPQL
0.7PQL
0.8
1.2
17
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.8
3.7
47
52
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.6
35
4.4
48
0.5PQL
OSPQL
0.6PQL
0.8
1.1
1.4
18
0.4PQL
O.SPQL
O.SPQL
0.6
1.0
1.4
18
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.8
2.5
32
38
O.SPOL
0.4PQL
0.5PQL
0.7PQL
08
12
18
0.4PQL
O.SPQL
0.8
1.0
1.3
17
21
O.SPQL
06PQL
0.TPQL
0.8
1.2
16
2.1
0.2PQL
O.SPQL
0.4PQL
0.5PQL
0.7PQL
0.8
1.2
0.3PQL
0.4PQL
0.5PQL
0.7PQL
08
1.2
15
08
08
1.0
1.2
1.7
23
2.8
2.5
22
23
2.8
36
4.1
43
28
23
24
30
37
42
4.4
18
1.7
1.6
21
25
28
SO
23
20
2.1
25
30
33
35
24
22
23
28
37
44
4.6
48
44
4.7
58
7.3
85
67
4.6
4.3
46
58
72
64
86
4.8
41
4.1
48
5.7
63
6.8
32
27
28
34
42
48
5.4
26
22
2.1
25
30
34
38
00
08
10
12
1.7
23
30
O.SPQL
0.4PQL
0.4PQL
O.SPQL
0.7PQL
1.0
13
0.2U
02PQL
0.3PQL
03PQL
04PQL
OSPQL
01
2.4
65
06
71
7.3
5.6
12
44
35
66
21
6.1
33
36
37
3.4
35
42
27
55
53
22
23
4.3
21
25
26
16
1.8
36
4.5
4.6
3.2
37
47
6.3
8.2
7.0
60
45
40
18
12
32
88
71
7.4
7.5
60
1.4
5.3
4.5
56
2.7
8.4
40
4.2
46
44
44
47
3.3
5.8
5.3
25
3.0
47
2.7
30
3.1
2.0
23
4.1
4 7
4.6
3.5
40
4.7
7.4
75
7.5
67
53
48
24
17
IP22 1
IP31 0
IP44 0
IP62 5
IP88_0
IP125
IP177
IP250
20
25
28
26
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.7
38
4.6
52
5.4
5.6
5.5
50
46
68
73
77
7.6
7.4
7.2
5.8
44
68
7.3
7.5
72
6.8
85
52
37
68
8.6
67
60
5.3
4.6
38
3.0
7.0
70
68
8.1
54
4.7
4.0
30
60
65
68
65
62
5.5
4.4
35
1.5
1.7
20
22
2.2
1.8
1.4
12
58
88
7.7
83
8.1
8.3
6.7
67
5.4
6.7
63
8.7
11 3
11.6
83
6.6
5.1
5.6
65
68
6.8
61
5.0
44
31
37
4.1
4.1
38
3.7
4.1
52
6.1
6.1
63
62
6.4
8.2
5.3
3.6
4.4
5.3
64
7.4
8.2
108
11.5
88
4.7
55
65
75
8.1
106
10.8
63
52
82
7.3
6.0
68
0.6
82
7.7
5.1
62
7.3
7.8
8.8
8.8
8.1
7.3
51
83
7.4
78
65
68
62
72
47
53
81
67
78
85
7.6
56
3.7
42
48
46
45
4.2
3.8
38
5.1
51
54
55
55
53
43
35
4.8
48
52
5.3
53
51
43
3.4
2.6
30
35
40
46
58
62
61
34
4 1
47
5.0
52
40
43
40
4.7
53
62
7.0
62
87
76
60
3.1
40
52
64
7.8
6.8
82
65
33
38
4.6
5.2
64
7.5
82
82
35
4.1
5.1
6.1
7.4
6.8
86
68
25
32
43
55
72
63
82
72
2.6
32
4.1
48
6.2
71
7.4
7.6
43
46
54
57
61
6.3
55
44
45
4 7
52
5.5
5.8
56
4.6
34
48
48
5.3
56
61
57
48
35
38
4 1
50
57
58
47
37
3.1
4 1
47
58
65
66
53
4.0
33
44
48
51
54
5.6
63
68
5.7
6.1
55
48
38
28
1.8
16
1.1
62
55
50
40
28
18
16
1.1
7.0
70
68
5.8
45
27
1.8
1.2
85
67
66
8.3
6.3
61
52
37
56
64
60
80
102
85
66
40
54
83
75
85
10.1
11 8
118
82
30
40
5.4
70
82
107
102
61
23
32
44
5 7
74
89
103
110
IP350
IPSOO
IP710
IP1000
IP1410
IP2000
23
30
46
7.2
87
50.3
47
4.5
65
8.1
63
17.2
33
21
21
1.0
020
020
26
17
1.8
1.7
0.4PQL
1.3
23
1.5
1.3
11
1.1
06PQL
2.4
14
1.3
08
0.20
020
32
2.7
35
40
32
0.20
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.4
08
721
4.4
26
2.4
ZO
15
Z8
4.8
3.1
26
2.1
0.7PQL
1.2
4.0
33
33
2.0
020
08
8.5
7.4
85
127
166
4.7
24
18
1.7
0.6PQL
0.20
2.8
45
1.8
2.1
2.3
21
58
4.4
21
2.4
30
40
1.7
60
43
4.1
33
10
020
87
55
52
3.7
00
1.5
68
5.4
43
25
O.SPQL
38
51
44
48
47
30
18
45
51
7.1
81
56
218
33
2.0
35
34
26
7.8
32
27
42
44
33
80
61
58
62
62
66
21 1
44
52
63
10.6
11.7
122
46
40
48
40
0.7PQL
21
7.4
04
64
56
47
55
106
87
7.8
54
23
18
52
36
45
5.1
51
121
60
50
63
72
03
146
7.4
62
81
50
2.1
203
38
36
40
35
22
20.4
26
26
32
30
15
108
28
26
28
18
24
87
31
34
43
46
15
21 1
32
31
36
42
08
135
43
35
52
53
08
020
10
06
0.4PQL
020
020
020
1.0
08
0.8PQL
020
020
020
08
020
0.20
020
020
0.20
24
15
14
08
020
020
21
08
14
13
0.20
020
30
16
16
14
02U
0.20
58
42
52
55
41
87
10 8
88
78
70
63
020
-------
STATION ISE0OATC MEAN (MEDIAN MODE I5TD0EV ISXEWNESS IKURTOStS
SD-101
1/28/98
975
2110
2380
5.49
-240
500
S&104
M28/08
32
22
a
8.20
023
.100
SD-107
\i2tm
15
11
6
068
0.48
-034
so-ior







SD-110
1/2am
13
12
9
5.16
041
020
so-iio







SO-113
ira/se
14
13
ft
557
032
-019
so-iia
1/28/08
1000
2310
2380
715
•219
3.48
SD-110
loans
16
11
2380
0.95
0.76
032
SO-122
1/26/08
16
13
7
828
058
001
S&125
1QKM
21
12
•
7.81
064
•0.38
St>128
1/28/98
597
1560
2380
7.94
•1.68
1.06
SO-W2
¦vnaraa
¦»
«
xseo
M5

UOl
SO-202
1/28/98
1«
16
2380
0.98
043
¦0.17
SO-205
1/28/96
29
16
2380
105
0.55
-0.71
SD-205







SD-209
1/20/96
35
21
2380
11.3
0.27
-1.11
SO-211
1/26/96
16
13
9
5.30
0.35
-0.24
SO-211
1/28/96
12
9
7
5.44
040
¦0.19
SO-214
tnarn
25
19
6
7.3®
0.22
¦080
SO-217
1/3096
55
41
2380
9.87
014
-1.05
SD-220
1/26/96
25
15
2300
11.4
0.42
-0.01
SO-220







SD-301
mam
100
106
2380
15.0
-010
-139
SD-304
1/26/96
43
33
2300
7.75
022
-0.67
SD-401
1/26/96
16
12
7
6.54
054
-000
SO-404
1/3006
20
15
9
6.26
045
-029
$0-407
1/28/96
27
20
2300
7.00
040
¦0.36
SD-410
1/28/96
20
14
2300
774
049
-0.42
SO-413
iraose
87
$7
1200
9.95
•0.00
-1.22
SD-41#
1/30196
33
»
22
652
028
-0.48
SCM19
1/30/96
16
12
2300
7.72
054
¦0.27
SCM22
1/30/96
22
15
2380
10.7
OSO
-082
SO-422
iom

«
1383
«A*
OAt
¦OM
SO-425
1/30/96
71
66
2300
145
-000
-1.21
StM25
1/30/96
47
47
2380
125
000
-1.06
SO-503A
1/30/96
31
19
2380
12.9
034
-1.05
SO-5038
1/26/96
6
6
9
411
012
¦0.87
SD-5038
1/26/96
6
7
9
4.09
0.00
-000
S0-601
toom
10
11
«e
542
ota
-OB»
SO-601
1/30/96
11
12
01
808
021
-0.52
SD-604
1/30IB6
10
11
S5
479
•007
¦0.T8
SD-807
1/30/98
12
13
08
522
¦0.07
•0 94
SD-810
1/30/98
22
22
86
563
000
¦060
50-702
1/3003
43
41
«
859
¦0.04
¦1.20
SO-802
1/30/96
44
44
55
032
¦004
-0.86
-------
STATION
»PO_0
KPO 40
HP0J50
MPO_08
DPI 38
HP1 05
DPI 78
IIP3 01
HPS 52
DP7 81
SO-101
o.su
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.SU
O.OPOL
0.7PQL
O.flPQL
0 7PQt_
SD-104
O.SU
OSU
OSPQL
OSPQL
0.7PQL
O.SPQL
1.4PQL
1.8PQL
2.0
1.8PQL
SO-107
o.su
1.4PQL
2.0
22
24
2.0
3.7
4.4
4.9
4.8
SO-107










SO-110
0.5U
1.4P0L
20
2.1
2.3
20
3.0
4.8
5.7
8.0
SO-IIO










SO-113
O.SU
1.8PC*.
23
24
28
3.3
4.4
S3
5.9
5.0
so-ua
O.SU
OSU
OSU
OSU
0.5U
08PQL
O.SPQL
I.OPOL
1.1PQL
1.1PQL
SO-110
o.su
O.OPOL
1.2PQL
1.3P0L
1.5P0L
2.2
3.2
4.1
48
43
SO-123
0.5U
0.7PQL
I.OPOL
1.1PQL
1.3PQL
1.8PQL
2.5
32
3.5
3.3
SD-12S
O.SU
O.SPQL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
12PQL
1.7PQL
2.7
40
5.2
54
SO-128
0.5U
OSU
O.SU
OSU
OSU
0.5U
OSPQL
0.7PQL
0.7PQL
0.7PQL
80-302
0.5U
I.SPQL
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.4
4.4
52
5.8
5.4
SO-202
0.5U
1.SPQL
21
. 23
28
3.2
4.0
4.7
5.1
5.1
SO-20S
O.SU
08PQL
1.1PQL
1.1PQL
1.JPQL
I.OPOL
27
3.5
4.1
30
SO-205










SO-208
0.5U
OSPQL
1.2P0L
i.4Pa
1.8PQL
21
28
3.4
3.7
3.3
80-211
0.5U
07PQL
1.0PQL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
1.7PQL
28
3.5
4.2
43
SO-211
O.SU
O.OPQL
1.3PQL
1.SPQL
I.SPQL
2.3
32
30
43
4.1
SO-214
0.5U
0.7PQL
1.0PQL
1.1PQL
1.3P0L
1.8PQL
2.5
32
3.8
35
SO-217
O.SU
OSU
OSU
0.5U
OSU
0.7PQL
1.2PQL
1.8PQL
24
2.5
SO-220
0.5PQL
IJPQL
2.0
2.7
3.0
3.5
4.1
4.4
4.8
4.3
60-220










SO-301
O.SU
0.7PQL
10POL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
1.8PQL
2.2
2.7
3.0
2.8
80-304
0.5U
OSU
OSU
0.5U
05U
O.SU
0.7PQL
1.1PQL
1.SPQL
1.7PQL
SCM01
O.SU
10PQL
1.SP0L
I.OPOL
I.SPQL
2.5
35
4.3
47
4.4
80-404
0.5U
OSU
O.OPOL
0.7PQL
O.SPQL
1.1PQL
1.7P0L
23
20
30
80-40/
osu
O.SU
O.SU
OSPQL
0.8PQL
O.SPQL
12PQL
1.7PQL
22
24
80-410
O.SU
O.SPQL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
1.4PQL
I.OPQL
2.5
3.0
33
3.2
80413
0.5U
O.SU
OSU
O.SPQL
O.SPQL
O.OPQL
1.3P0L
1.8PQL
2.2
2.3
80410
OSU
OSU
OSU
O.SU
0.5U
OSPQL
O.SPQL
1.2PQL
1.SPQL
1.7PQL
SD-41B
osu
1.4PQL
2.1
23
2.8
30
3.8
4.2
4.5
4.3
S0422 O TPOL
2.3
3.3
3.3
32
38
42
4.0
5.3
5.1
SO-422 O SPQL
2a
38
38
3.4
38
42
4.8
53
52
SO-425
osu
I.OPOL
2.3
22
2.1
23
2 a
28
30
20
SO-425 0 5PQL
1.8P0L
2S
24
23
25
20
32
34
33
SD503A 0.8PQL
2.0
28
28
3.0
3.5
4.4
40
5.0
40
SO-5038 1.1PQL
36
51
SO
48
SO
58
85
73
75
SD-SOX t.fPOL
3.S
5.0
5.0
4.7
48
55
84
73
75
SO401 MPOL
35
50
40
4.a
48
40
5.1
5.4
55
SOOOI 11 POL
3.7
53
S3
5.1
5.2
54
58
50
8.1
SO404 08POL
2.5
s.a
37
37
4.0
48
52
5.7
50
SO407 0.7PQL
2.2
31
3.3
38
43
5.1
54
54
51
SO-810
0.5U 1.1PQL
I.OPOL
1.8POL
1.8PQL
2.4
3.3
42
48
4.8
SO-702
osu
OSU I
D.7PQL
0.7PQL
O.OPOL
1 3P0L
1.7PQL
21
22
20
SO-802
OSU
O.SU
OSU
O.SU
OSU
O.SU
O.0PQL
1.5PQL
22
25
DP11 0
IIPIS.O
IIP22 1
IIP31 0
IIP44 0
HP82 5
KP88_0
DPI 25
IIP 177
»P250
HP350
HPSOO
IIP710
ttPIOOO
#P1410
DP2000
0.7PQL
O.OPQL
0.5PQL
0.5PQL
O.SPQL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
08PQL
I.OPQL
1.3PQL
20
3.2
4.0
8.2
OS
48.0
1.4PQL
1.2PQL
1.0PQL
1.0PQL
I.OPQL
1.0PQL
1.1PQL
1.0PQL
O.OPQL
O.OPQL
1.0PQL
OSPQL
O.OPQL
1.1PQL
O.OPQL
OSPQL
4.4
37
2.0
2.7
2.7
24
2.3
2.0
1.5PQL
I.OPQL
O.SPQL
O.SPQL
1.1PQL
1.3PQL
O.SU
O.SU
80
57
4.7
4.2
37
2 8
I.SPQL
1.1PQL
1.0PQL
O.SPQL
0 7PQL
O.SPQL
O.OPQL
O.OPQL
OSU
OSU
5.8
5.7
5.0
4.8
4.5
3.8
2.5
1.8PQL
1.4PQL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
O.OPQL
1.1PQL
O.OPQL
O.SU
OSU
1.1PQL
1.1P0L
I.OPQL
1.0PQL
1.1PQL
I.OPOL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
OSU
0.5U
OSU
O.SU
OOPOL
1.2P0L
1.1PQL
70.8
3.7
33
27
2.3
2.2
1.0PQL
1.6PQL
1.2P0L
O.OPQL
O.aPQL
OSU
O.SU
OSU
0.7PQL
O.SU
10PQL
3.0
2.8
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8PQL
1.4PQL
1.1PQL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
O.OPQL
OSPQL
O.SU
OSU
OSU
0.7PQL
4.7
3.3
2.3
20
I.OPQL
18PQL
1.1P0L
0.7PQL
1.0PQL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
1.1PQL
1.2PQL
1.7PQL
I.OPQL
O.SU
O.SPQL
OSU
O.SU
O.SU
0.5U
0.5U
OSPQL
0.7PQL
O.SPQL
1.2PQL
1.8PQL
20
27
38
27
10.0
5.3
5.1
4.4
40
38
33
3.0
24
I.OPQL
12PQL
OOPOL
0.5U
OSU
0.7PQL
OSU
21
5.1
5.1
4.8
42
40
3.0
3.3
2.8
20
1.2PQL
10PQL
0.5PQL
O.OPQL
1.1PQL
OSU
2.1
34
3.0
2.5
22
2.0
1.8PQL
1.4PQL
1.1PQL
I.OPQL
0.7PQL
0.8PQL
OSPQL
1.0PQL
1.4PQL
I.OPQL
48
28
2.3
1.8PQL
1.0PQL
1.7PQL
1.8PQL
2.0
1.8PQL
1.SPQL
1.2PQL
1.1P0L
1.3PQL
I.OPQL
25
23
2.7
30
3.5
2.0
2.5
2.1
I.OPQL
I.OPQL
1.5PQL
1.1PQL
O.OPQL
O.SPQL
0.5POL
0.5U
0.5U
O.SU
OSU
3.7
30
20
1.8P0L
i.ePQL
1.0PQL
1.7PQL
1.3PQL
1.0PQL
0.7PQL
0.8PQL
0.5U
O.SU
OSU
OSU
OSU
3.2
28
2.3
20
2.0
20
2.3
23
20
1.7PQL
1.8PQL
1.4PQL
1.2PQL
O.OPQL
osu
OSPOL
2.3
I.OPQL
1.8PQL
1.5PQL
1.4PQL
1.3PQL
1.3PQL
1.5PQL
1.4PQL
1.2PQL
1.3PQC
1.1PQL
1.3PQL
1.3PQL
I.OPQL
30
3.0
34
2.8
2.8
28
2.5
24
1.0PQL
1.7PQL
1.3PQL
1.3P0L
1.5PQL
20
28
0.5U
5.3
2.5
2.2
1.8PQL
18PQL
1.7PQL
1.7PQL
I.OPQL
21
20
1.5PQL
12PQL
1.0PQL
1.2PQL
O.OPQL
O.SU
183
1.8PQL
1.8PQL
1.3PQL
1.2PQL
1.1PQL
1.0PQL
I.OPQL
1.2P0L
1.2PQL
10PQL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
08PQL
05U
O.SU
1.5P0L
3.0
34
28
2.5
2.5
23
2.2
1.7PQL
I.SPQL
I.OPOL
0.8PQL
O.OPQL
OSPQL
OSU
OSU
1.1PQL
20
28
2.1
1.7PQL
1.4PQL
1.2PQL
1.1PQL
1.1PQL
1.0PQL
O.SPQL
0.8PQL
0.7PQL
OSPQL
08PQL
osu
OSU
2.3
21
1.7PQL
1.8PQL
1.5PQL
1.2PQL
1.1PQL
1.1PQL
1.0PQL
O.OPQL
O.SPQL
OSPOL
OSU
OSU
O.SU
0.8PQL
20
27
2.2
20
I.SPQL
1.QPQL
1.5P0L
1.4PQL
13PQL
I.OPOL
O.OPQL
0.7PQL
08PQL
0.7PQL
osu
13PQL
2.3
2.1
1.8PQL
I.ePQL
1.4PQL
1.3PQL
1.3PQL
1.4PQL
1.4PQL
1.3PQL
1.4PQL
1.5PQL
2.5
3.1
3.0
O.SPQL
1.8PQL
I.OPQL
1.8PQL
I.OPQL
1.4PQL
1.0PQL
O.OPQL
O.OPQL
O.OPQL
OSPCK.
OOPOL
OSPQL
08POL
0.5U
osu
OSU
3.0
35
20
28
25
23
22
21
1.0PQL
1.2PQL
O.OPQL
O.SPQL
07PQL
O.SU
O.SU
2.1
47
45
30
38
30
37
3.0
I.OPQL
1.5PQL
I.OPOL
1.3PQL
1.7PQL
1 aPQL
O.OPQL
osu
74
48
45
4.1
4.0
45
4 a
3.8
22
1.5PQL
1.1PQL
1.1P0L
1.4PQL
10PQL
1.2P0L
¦ 0.5U
2.3
27
28
27
32
42
48
4.0
28
I.SPQL
1.3PQL
I.SPQL
1.4PQL
1.4POL
1.5PQL
21
17.4
32
32
31
38
4 1
44
43
33
23
1.7PQL
I.OPQL
1.8PQL
18PQL
22
08PQL
110
4.2
38
3.1
28
28
2.4
2.2
25
31
24
I.SPQL
1.3P0L
18PQL
1 OPQL
0.5U
10.S
80
57
4.4
38
30
20
11 POL
05U
05U
OSU
OSU
05U
OSU
OSU
05U
OSU
7.0
58
44
37
30
21
I.OPOL
0.5U
0.5PQL
0.5U
0.5U
OSU
0.5U
0.5U
0.5U
0.5U
58
80
5.5
58
00
50
42
1.7PQL
O.SPQL
05U
0.5U
05U
OSU
OSU
OSU
OSU
8.5
88
83
8.4
80
e.e
4.7
2.0
1.0PQL
O.epQL
OSU
OSU
1.3PQL
V3PQL
O.SU
OSU
80
81
5.8
58
82
51
28
1.1PQL
08PQL
OSU
OSU
05U
OSU
0.5U
0.5U
0.5U
51
5.3
40
5.1
57
58
4.5
3.0
1.7PQL
OOPCX.
O.SU
0.5U
05U
OSU
0.5U
O.SU
48
48
4.4
4.4
40
40
4.5
37
27
10PQL
I.SPQL
O.SPQL
OOPOL
OSPQL
0.5U
OSU
1.7PQL
1.8PQL
1.3PQL
12PQL
1.2PQL
1.1P0L
1 3P0L
1.0PQL
20
I.OPQL
I.SPQL
I.OPQL
1 8PQL
1 4PQL
1 1P0L
05U
2.5
22
21
23
28
24
1.0PQL
1.8PQL
1.7PQL
1 8PQL
I.SPQL
14PQL
1.2PQL
1.1P0L
0.5PQL
osu
-------
Appendix G
Probable Sources for Military Canal Sediment Contaminants
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4, SCIENCE and ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT DIVISION
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605-2720
4SES-EI
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Probable Sources for Military Canal Sediment
Contaminants. Military Canal Special Study,
Homestead Air Force Base, Florida.
SESD Project No.: 99-0032
Fred Sloan
Hazardous Waste Section
Archie Lee, Chief
Hazardous Waste Section
Doyle Brittain, RPM
DOD Section
Federal Facilities Branch
Waste Management Division
I have evaluated the Draft Final Operable Unit 11 Sewage
Treatment Plant Sludge/Incinerator Ash Disposal Area and Outfall
Canal Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment Report
dated September 1998 and the Industrial Waste Survey, Dade County
Florida dated September 1971, in conjunction with the dataset
produced from SESD's Military Canal Special Study (in
preparation) to determine what contaminant migration pathways to
Military Can4l exist (or existed) . In addition, 5 sediment
samples were collected from the ditch surrounding the former
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and incinerator landfill.
Field Activities
A limited reconnaissance of the former sewage treatment
plant and incinerator landfill site was performed in conjunction
with SESDs sampling activities of this unit. The "As-Built
Drawing of Sewage Treatment Plant and Incinerator" (Figure 1-5 of
the September 1998 report submitted by the Air Force) appears to
be an accurate representation of this site. This drawing
depicts the site as being surrounded by a dike ranging in
elevation from 7 to 9 feet (no reference elevation), which was
confirmed. A drainage ditch surrounding the site is shown inside
the dike, terminating in a culvert in the northwest corner of the
site apparently designed to convey surface water to the
reservoir. The presence of this ditch and culvert were also
confirmed. No other surface water drainage pathways were
observed, although the Air Force documented an uncovered manhole
during their investigation.
FROM :
THRU:
TO:
-------
2
All sampling stations were positively located using
standard GPS techniques (1 meter accuracy with real-time
correction). This surveying information was then used to geo-
reference the Air Force as-built drawing (Figure 1) . Photographs
taken during the investigation are included as Photograph 1
through 24.
Five sediment samples were collected and analyzed for
metals, VOCs, cyanide, pesticides, herbicides, organotins, and
extractable organic compounds (including alkyl-substituted PAHs).
The analytical results are presented in Tables 1 through 6.
Values in italics indicate that the estimated detection limit
exceeds the RAGS Effects Screening value. Values reported in
bold indicate that the reported analyte concentration exceeds the
RAGS Effects Screening value.
It should be noted that while the OU-11 and Military Canal
Special Study were performed by different organizations with
differing objectives, and even on separate sites and media, the
Air Force investigation used the same field QA protocols and
laboratory methods as the SESD study. The 1971 study was
performed using the standard field and analytical methods of that
time. The sediment sampling and analyses performed by SESD at
the former sewage treatment plant and incinerator landfill
followed the same field and analytical protocols used in the
Special Study, although it should be noted that these samples
were collected with hand augers.
Sources of Contaminants
A letter to US-EPA dated October 23, l975-	the^"*
Blonshine, the Base Environmental Coordinator,	G^w-,ae,
following activities as discharges to the sani a y
treatment plant:
•	Potable and Industrial Water Treatment Facilities
•	Cooling Systems, except for buildings 360 and
•	Boilers
•	Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Facilities
•	Painting and Corrosion Control Facilities
•	Petroleum Storage and Handling Areas - the letter notes
that some of this material is disposed of by
contracting agencies.
•	Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Facilities, except
for building 793.
•	Battery Rework Facilities
•	Photographic Laboratories
-------
3
With the exception of herbicides and pesticides, the above
listed facilities could easily be sources for the various
contaminants found in Military Canal sediments.
In addition, sampling data for the fighter washrack from a
1971 study by US-EPA has been located. In 1971 there were 6
operational washracks for vehicles and aircraft at the Base, all
discharging (either directly or indirectly) to the Boundary
Canal. The analytical results of the washrack effluent indicated
the presence of copper, zinc, chromium, lead, cadmium, cyanide,
oil and grease. All of these contaminants have been documented
to be present in Boundary Canal, the reservoir, the former WWTP,
and Military Canal.
The washracks used by the Air Base were sources of
contaminants to both Boundary Canal and the former WWTP. US-
EPA ' s 1971 study characterized the effluent of one of these units
and documented its discharge to "tributary canals to Military
Canal". By December, 1975, all of the washracks on the Base had
been connected to the sanitary sewer (letter from Captain
Blonshine to US-EPA).
Comparison of Results
A comparison of the analytical results from the Air Force
investigation of the former WWTP and incinerator landfill, SESD's
special study of the sediments of Military Canal, and the
washrack discharge is presented below. The datasets are very
similar (the washrack dataset is limited in scope). With minor
exceptions, the contaminants detected at the former WWTP and
incinerator landfill are very similar in type and concentration
to those detected in Military Canal sediments. Figures 2 through
X compare concentrations of various contaminants between the
reservoir and the ditches surrounding the former WWTP and
incinerator landfill. Analytes not listed in the Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) document are not included in this
comparison.
Extractable Organic Compounds
There are 62 analytes on SESD's standard scan for B/N/A
extractable organic compounds. SESD's data set detected 17 of
these in samples from Military Canal sediments (Table 8) . All 17
of these were reported by the Air Force in samples collected from
the former WWTP and incinerator landfill. With the exception of
4 phthalate compounds, phenol, carbazole, and N-
nitrosodiphenylamine, the list of compounds is identical. As
shown in Table 8, 11 of these 17 PAHs were also detected in the
sediments of the ditches that drain the former WWTP and
incinerator landfill.
-------
4
Herbicides and Pesticides/PCBs
The Air Force investigation of the former WWTP and
incinerator landfill did not include analyses for herbicides.
However, Silvex was detected by SESD in the ditches surrounding
the former WWTP and incinerator landfill. Silvex was also
reported in samples collected from the reservoir and Military
Canal, but not Boundary Canal (Table 9).
Of the 19 analytes listed on SESDs standard TCL/TAL scan for
pesticides, 8 were reported in SESD samples from Military canal
sediments (Table 9). The Air Force detected 7 of these in
samples collected from the former WWTP and incinerator landfill.
As shown in Table 9, the Air Force detected 4 pesticides in
samples from the former WWTP and incinerator landfill that were
not detected by SESD in the Boundary Canal, reservoir, or
Military Canal sediments. In addition, SESD detected PCB-1254 in
sediment samples, while the Air Force reported PCB-1260 in the
former WWTP and incinerator landfill samples.
Metals
The following metals were not included in Table 10 -
aluminum, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
selenium, sodium, thallium, and vanadium. They were present in
samples from all media being compared here (sludge drying bed,
incinerator ash, and canal sediment), but were not analyzed for
in the waste survey. The twelve metals that were selected for
comparison (see Table 10) were also present in all three
locations (sludge drying beds, incinerator area, canal sediment).
Effect of Former WWTP Discharge
h t-j- Dur^-n9 US-EPA special study, it was noted that open
and ?v!	ke observed in portions of the stormwater reservoir,
thnnrrhf 4-u nt ?rowth while present, was not overwhelming. It is
oceratinn <"v!iS mi9ht be due to the current induced by
Militarv r the stormwater pumps and the resultant scouring,
bot-t-om cL,,3? ' ¦ contrast, had no observed open bottom and the
bottom was heavily covered with dense vegetation.
CaptainCBloi=^to our file materials (letter to US-EPA from
This amount- of e^.' the WWTP discharged 4 MGD when in operation,
in the canal water would have resulted in near-continuous flow
when movina ^t-^™°P?°Sed to its 3uiescent condition today (except
Given this °r being used to lower the water table) •
possiblv <=h^,	likely that bottom conditions of the canal (and
less denselv	tfJreservoir also) were much more open and
WWTP. This comhi	during the operational history of the
continuous) f?™anST £f *eavier- continuous (or near
have facilitated i-v»e	of vegetation (organic matter)
movement of contaminants downstream
would
-------
5
Data Gaps
Ongoing releases of contaminants to the Biscayne National
Park (BNP) have not been quantified. To determine what
contaminant releases are ongoing, a bed-load sampler could be
installed at the mouth of the canal. This would enable a very-
quantitative assessment of the ongoing releases to the BNP. This
information would perhaps be useful in a risk assessment, but is
not needed to determine sources of contaminants.
Pathways
The uncovered manhole documented by the Air Force report was
not sought, but it should be noted that intense, heavy, rainfall
is common in this area. Given that the culvert which provides
the only other surface water drainage is nearly silted in, the
open manhole documented by the Air Force could be easily
overtopped, providing surface water drainage during storm events.
Contaminants detected by the Air Force in the sludge drying
beds are reflective only of that portion of the contaminant load
to the former WWTP that is both resistant to biological treatment
and was successfully retained within the solids (sludge).
Finding these same contaminants in the sediments of the receiving
water body is expected, as no WWTP can retain 100% of its solids.
Contaminants found in the ash from the former incinerator by
the Air Force are reflective only of that portion of the
contaminant load to the incinerator that was not successfully
combusted and was retained within the ash. Contaminants in the
ash could have reached the reservoir and Military Canal as
follows: fallout during combustion, surface runoff via the
culvert, and surface runoff via the open manhole (Military Canal
only). There is not sufficient data to determine which of these
pathways was most significant, but it appears that one or more
were completed because of the similarities in the contaminants in
the ash and the canal sediments. In any event, no engineering
controls are (or were) in place to prevent the completion of any
of these pathways.
The ditch surrounding the former WWTP and incinerator
landfill has no engineering controls in place to prevent the
discharge of contaminants to the reservoir (and subsequently
Military Canal) during storm events. The contaminants in the
ditch can be traced to dryfall from the former incinerator (not
documented), surface water runoff, and overflows/spills from the
former WWTP during its operations.
Conclusions
Two other samples collected by the Air Force should be
discussed. LF19-SD-0001 was a sediment sample collected from the
open manhole and WP23-SD-0001 was a sediment sample collected
from the discharge point of the former WWTP, down gradient of the
manhole. Table 11 shows the analytes detected in these samples.
-------
6
While these samples do not contain all of the contaminants
reported for this site or Military Canal, they do contain several
of the same contaminants. It is apparent that contaminants can
migrate to Military Canal via this uncovered manhole. It is also
apparent that contaminants can be carried off-site via the ditch
that empties into the reservoir. A third completed pathway is
through the former discharge of treated wastes from the WWTP.
The Air Force finding of these contaminants in the soils around
the old units (coupled with the Air Force letter to US-EPA cited
above, and the data from the washrack) show that these
contaminants were discharged to the former WWTP. The presence of
these contaminants in the former sludge drying beds demonstrates
their presence in the solids, which were subsequently discharged.
It is not possible now to measure the deposition of dryfall from
the former incinerator, which would have constituted a fourth
pathway to Military Canal.
Contaminants detected in the sediment sample collected from
the open manhole are indicative only of ongoing releases from
this site via the former discharge line.
While these data definitively show the Air Base to be a
source for these contaminants, other sources have also been
established. The canal maintenance practices of the SFWMD
document the use of Silvex, diesel, and inverted oil (an
oil/water emulsion) in Military Canal. Asphalt shingles appear
to be the only source for some PAHs, and contribute other PAHs to
the loading to Military Canal. The organotins found in Military
Canal do not appear to be linked to the Air Base. Given their
proximity to the 107th St. bridge their presence may be related
to routine bridge maintenance or illegal disposal, but this is
speculation. The concentrations of several metals peak at or
near this bridge. This may be due to illegal disposal in this
area. But it must also be noted that SESD documented a "salt
wedge" in Military Canal that ended at the bridge, and this may
be responsible for flocculation and settling of contaminants in
this area. In any case, these metals can be positively linked to
the Air Base.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at
(706) 355-8617.
Attachments
cc. Lee, HWS, w/attachments
Johnston, FFB, w/attachments
Bozeman, FFB, w/attachments
-------
Table 1
Sediment Analytical Results - Metals
WWTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
% MOISTURE
%
ALUMINUM
MG/KG
ANTIMONY
MG/KG
ARSENIC
MG/KG
BARIUM
MG/KG
BERYLLIUM
MG/KG
BORON
MG/KG
CADMIUM
MG/KG
CALCIUM
MG/KG
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
COBALT
MG/KG
COPPER
MG/KG
IRON
MG/KG
LEAD
MG/KG
MAGNESIUM
MG/KG
MANGANESE
MG/KG
MOLYBDENUM
MG/KG
NICKEL
MG/KG
POTASSIUM
MG/KG
SELENIUM
MG/KG
SILVER
MG/KG
SODIUM
MG/KG
STRONTIUM
MG/KG
TELLURIUM
MG/KG
THALLIUM
MG/KG
TIN
MG/KG
TITANIUM
MG/KG
TOTAL MERCURY
MG/KG
VANADIUM
MG/KG
YTTRIUM
MG/KG
ZINC
MG/KG
ZIRCONIUM
MG/KG
RAGS
Effects
Value
2
7.24
0.676
52.3
18.7
30.2
15.9
0.733
0.13
124
SD00100
10/15/98
10:20
65
6000
0.72
14
30
0.32
2.5
280000
27
NA
NA
97
4800
35
1200
51
1.3
5.4
160
1.9
25
460
2100
0.5
0.2 I
30
120
1.48
20
4.8
530
NA
SD00200
10/15/98
11:10
66
4100
0.26
3.6
18
0.14
NA
0.16
330000
14
NA
19
2500
8.3
1100
38
0.5
2.1
120
0.5
0.32
340
1900
0.5 1
0.2 I
5 \
51
0.096
8.4
3.6
15
NA
SD00300
10/15/98
11:55
64
2500
0.38
3.3
0.1
0.74
320000
11
20
1600
15
980
16
0.5 U
1.4
110
0.5 U
1.4
430
2300
0.5 U
0.2 U
7 U
31
0.42
6.2
2.8
49
NA
V
NA
NA
SD00400
10/15/98
14:30
78
7200
1.2
3.1
110
0.21
7
190000
31
NA
NA
100
3500
66
1200
49
2.2
8.2
300
1.4
8.8
380
1600
0.5
0.2 i
26
73
1.4
30
4.5
210
SD00500
10/15/98
15:15
47
6100
0.2
2.9
33
0,22
NA
0.47
290000
18
NA
23
3500
13
1400
60
0.5
3
140
0.5
1.6
320
1700
0.5
0.2 I
5 \
97
0.18
17
4.7
47
U
U
NA
Data Qualifiers
NA
NA-Not analyzed.
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit
-------
Table 2
Sediment Analytical Results - Volatiles
WVVTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
SD00I000
10/15/98
10:20
SD002000
10/15/98
11:10
SD003000
10/15/98
11:55
SD004000
10/15/98
14:30
SD005000
10/15/98
15:15
% MOrSTLTRE
(M- AND/OR P-)XYLENE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1.1.2-TRiCHLORO	ETHANE
1.1-D1CHLOROETHANE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHENE (1,1 -D1CHLOROETHYLENE)
1.1	-DICHLOROPROPENE
1, 2,3 -TRiC H LO RO BEN ZEN E
1.2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1.2.4-TRiCHLOROBEN	ZENE
1.2.4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1.2-D5BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE	(DBCP)
1,2-D IBROMOETHANE (EDB)
\ ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.2	-D1CHLOROPROPANE
1.3.5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.3	-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,4-DlCHLOROBEN ZENE
2,2-DlCHLOROPROPANE
ACETONE
BENZENE
BROMOBENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1,2-DlCHLOROETHENE
CIS-1,3-DlCHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIMETHYLOCTENE
ETHYL BENZENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
MENTHENE
METHYL BUTYL KETONE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
%
70.8

58.8

64.5

SO. 5

48.4

UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
U
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
U
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
V
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
53
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5 3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
53
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
390
u
85
J
130
u
610
UJ
110
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
4.1
J
5.3
u
24
UJ
1.5
J
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
15
J
6.7
j
13
u
61
UJ
H
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
V
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KC
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
37
J
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KC
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG

NR
70
JN

NR

NR

NR
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
53
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG

NR
100
JN
NR

NR

NR
UG/KG
39
u
16
u
13
u
61
UJ
U
UJ
UG/KG
UG/KG
390
u
160
u
130
u
610
UJ
110
UJ
39
u
16
u
13
u
61
UJ
11
UJ
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
Sediment Analytical Results - Volatiles
WWTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N-BUTYLBENZENE
N-PROPYLBENZENE
O-CHLOROTOLUENE
O-XYLENE
P-CHLOROTOLUENE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE
PINENE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHENE (TR1CHLOROETHYLENE)
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
UG/KG
78
U
31
U
27
u
120
UJ
23
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
27

1000
J
5.3
u
7.6
J
4.5
UJ
UG/KG

NR

NR

NR
700
JN

NR
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
U
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.4

5.3
U
24
UJ
2.3
J
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
U
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
UG/KG
16
u
6.2
u
5.3
u
24
UJ
4.5
UJ
Data Qualifiers
J-Esti mated value.
NR-Not Requested
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected.
The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-------
Table 3
Sediment Analytical Results - Cyanide
WWTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
SD00100
10/15/98
10:20
SD00200
10/15/98
11:10
SD00300
10/15/98
11:55
SD00400
10/15/98
14:30
SD00500
10/15/98
15:15
CYANIDE MG/KG
1.4 UJ
1.4 UJ
1.4 UJ
2.3 UJ
0.94 UJ
Note: QC limits exceeded, results estimated for all samples
Data Qualifiers
J-Estimated value.
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-------
Table 4
Sediment Analytical Results - Pesticides/PCBs
WWTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
% MOISTURE
4,4-DDD (P,P'-DDD)
4,4-DDE (P,P'-DDE)
4,4'-DDT (P.P'-DDT)
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2
ALPHA-CHLORDENE /2
BETA-BHC
BETA-CHLORDENE /2
CHLORDENE /2
CIS-NONACHLOR /2
DELTA-BHC
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I (ALPHA)
ENDOSULFAN II (BETA)
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
endrin ketone
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA-CHLORDANE n
gamma-chlordene a
heptachlor
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
methoxychlor
OXYCHLORDANE (OCTACHLOREPOXIDE)
PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)
PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221)
PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232)
PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
pCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)
TOXAPHENE
TRANS-NONACHLOR /2
%
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
12 UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
RAGS
SD00100

SD00200

SD00300

SD00400

SD00500

Effects
10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98

Value
10:20

11:10

11:55

14:30

15:15


71

59

65

80

48

1.22
11
U
7.1
U
8.5

3.6
J
6.5
U
2.07
120

11

22

41

6.3

1.19
11
U
7.1
U
11
U
17
U
6.5
U

4.7
U
2.8
u
3.4
U
7.5
U
2.6
U

4.4
U
2.8
u
3.4
U
6.8
u
2.6
U

7.6
U
2.8
u
3.4
U
16

3.8


1.2
J
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
U

4.4
U
3.9
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u

4.4
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u

13

2.6
J
0.76
JN
2.5
JN
2.6
u

3.5
N
0.82
J
5.5
U
12

2.8


10
u
3.9
u
12
U
6.8
u
3.1
u
0.02
10
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2 6
u
4.4
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u

11
u
7.1
u
8.4
u
17
u
6.5
u

16
u
9.2
u
10
u
25
u
7.8
u
0.02
11
u
7.1
u
8.4
u
17
V
6.5
V
11
u
7.1
u
8.6
u
18
u
6.5
u
0.32
4.4
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u
10
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
15
N
2.6
N

4.7
u
4
u
4.7
u
6.8
U
2.6
u

4.4
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u

4.7
u
2.8
u
3.4
u
6.8
u
2.6
u

22
u
14
u
17
u
34
u
13
u

4.7
u
4.1
u
5.1
u
10
u
4
u

55
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u

55
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u

55
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u

55
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u

55
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u
21.6
92
J
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u
90
u
35
u
44
u
96
u
33
u

510
u
280
u
340
u
720
u
260
u

4.4
u
0.85
J
0.75
JN
30

8.8

^ata Qualifiers
¦'"Estimated value.
^"Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
^•Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limn.
•When no value is reported, see chlordane constituents.
) ^	r
* • « 11	
• T*ucn no vaiue is rcponco, see ciuoioanw —
^¦Constituents or metabolites of technical chlordane.
-------
Table 5
Sediment Analytical Results - Herbicides
WWTP Sediment
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998


SD00100

SD00200

SD00300

SD00400

SD00500



10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98

10/15/98



10:20

11:10

11:55

14:30

15:15

% MOISTURE
%
71

59

65

80

48

2,4,5-T
UG/KG
8
U
5.9
u
8.6
U
12
U
5.1
U
2,4-D
UG/KG
12
U
18
U
12
U
18
U
7.7
U
DICAMBA
UG/KG
6
u
4.1
U
6
U
8.8
U
3.8
u
SILVEX (2,4,5-TP)
UG/KG
11

8.6

3.2
J
6.7
J
4.6
u
Data Qualifiers
J-Estimated value.
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-------
DIBUTYL TIN	UG/KG
MONOBUTYL TIN	UG/KG
TETRABUTYL TIN	UG/KG
TRIBUTYL TIN	UG/KG
Data Qualifiers
SD00100
10/15/98
10:20
62	U
62	U
62	U
62	U
Table 6
Sediment Analytical Results - Organotins
WWTP Ditches
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
SD00200
10/15/98
11:10
43	U
43	U
43	U
43	U
SD00300
10/15/98
11:55
SD00400
10/15/98
14:30
55	U
55	U
55	U
55	U
89	U
89	U
89	U
89	U
SD00500
10/15/98
15:15
37 U
37 U
37 U
37 U
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the m.mmum quantitation limit
-------
Table 7
Sediment Analytical Results - Extractables
WWTP Ditches
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
RAGS >D-001-000
Effects
Value
10/15/98
1020
SD-002-000
10/15/98
1110
SD-003-000
10/15/98
1155
SD-004-000
10/15/98
1430
SD-005-000
10/15/98
1515
% MOISTURE
%

70.8

58.8

64.5

80.5

48.4

(3-AND/OR 4-)METHYLPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
1,2,4-TRJCHLOROBENZENE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,4,6-TRJCHLOROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,4-DlMETHYLPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,4-DlNlTROPHENOL
UG/KG

420
UJ
290
UJ
370
UJ
660
UJ
230
UJ
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-CHLOROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
UG/KG

420
UJ
290
UJ
370
UJ
660
UJ
230
UJ
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
UG/KG
20.23
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-METHYLPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-NITROAN1LINE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
2-NITROPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
3-NITROANILINE
UG/KG

210
u;
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-CHLOROANILINE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-NITROANILINE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
4-NITROPHENOL
UG/KG

420
UJ
290
UJ
370
UJ
660
UJ
230
UJ
ACENAPHTHENE
UG/KG
6.71
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
ACENAPHTHYLENE
UG/KG
5.87
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
ANTHRACENE
UG/KG
46.9
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
UG/KG
74.8
24
J
8
J
180
UJ
40
J
11
J
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
UG/KG

48
J
15
J
180
UJ
96
J
29
J
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE
UG/KG

49
J
150
UJ
180
UJ
55
J
71
J
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
UG/KG

34
J
10
J
180
UJ
78
J
18
J
BENZO-A-PYRENE
UG/KG
88.8
70
J
12
J
180
UJ
190
J
58
J
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
BIS(2-CHLOR01SOPROPYL) ETHER
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
UG/KG
182
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG
108
50
J
13
J
180
UJ
84
J
20
J
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
UG/KG
UG/KG
6.22
210
19
UJ
J
150
150
UJ
UJ
180
180
UJ
UJ
330
40
UJ
J
120
20
UJ
J
DIBENZOFURAN
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG

210
210
210
32
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
113
UJ
UJ
J
150
150
14
UJ
UJ
J
180
180
180
UJ
UJ
UJ
330
330
51
UJ
UJ
J
120
120
13
UJ
UJ
J
-------
Table 7 (Continued)
Sediment Analytical Results - Extractables
WWTP Ditches
Military Canal Source Investigation
Homestead Air Force Base
October, 1998
RAGS 5D-001-000
Effects 10/15/98
Value
1020
SD-002-000
10/15/98
1110
SD-003-000
10/15/98
1155
SD-004-000
10/15/98
1430
SD-005-000
10/15/98
1515
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB)
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (HCCP)
HEXACHLOROETHANE
INDENO (1,2,3-CD) PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE/DIPHENYLAMINE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
CI NAPHTHALENES
C2 NAPHTHALENES
C3 NAPHTHALENES
C4 NAPHTHALENES
Cl FLUORENES
CI PHENANTHRENES/ANTHRACENES
C2 PHENANTHRENES/ANTHRACENES
C3 PHENANTHRENES/ANTHRACENES
C4 PHENANTHRENES/ANTHRACENES
Cl FLUORANTHENES/PYRENES
Cl CHRYSENES/BENZANTHRACENES
C2 CHRYSENES/BENZANTHRACENES
C3 CHRYSENES/BENZANTHRACENES
C4 CHRYSENES/BENZANTHRACENES
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
HEXADECANOIC ACID
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
UG/KG
21.2
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

34
J
150
UJ
180
UJ
50
J
18
J
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG
34.6
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

420
UJ
290
UJ
370
UJ
660
UJ
230
UJ
UG/KG
86.7
210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
25
J
14
J
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG
153
78
J
22
J
180
UJ
120
J
40
J
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
190
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
190
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
190
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

210
UJ
150
UJ
180
UJ
330
UJ
120
UJ
UG/KG

6000
J

NR

NR

NR

NR
UG/KG


NR
4000
J

NR

NR
900
NR
UG/KG


NR

NR

NR

NR
JN
N
UG/KG


N

NR

NR

N

Data Qualifiers
^-Estimated value.
^-Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
NR-Not Reported
U-Material was analyzed for but not detected. The number is the minimum quantitation limit.
-------
Table 8
Comparison of Extractable Organic Compounds
Analyte
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Incinerator
Landfill
Ditches
Washrack
Reservoir/Military
Canal Sediment
Phenol
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Naphthalene
X
X
ND
NA
X
2-methylnaphthalene
X
X
ND
NA
X
Acenaphthylene
X
X
ND
NA
X
Acenaphthene
X
X
ND
NA
X
Fluorene
X
X
ND
NA
X
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
ND
X
ND
NA
ND
Phenanthrene
X
X
X
NA
X
Anthracene
X
X
ND
NA
X
Carbazole
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Di-n-butyl phthalate
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Fluoranthene
X
X
X
NA
X
Pyrene
X
X
X
NA
X
Benzyl butyl phthalate
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Benzo(a)anthracene
X
X
X
NA
X
Chrysene
X
X
X
NA
X
bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
X
X
ND
NA
ND
di-n-octyl phthalate
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
X
X
X
NA
X
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
X
X
X
NA
X
Benzo(a)pyrene
X
X
X
NA
X
Indeno( 1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
X
X
X
NA
X
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

X
X
NA
X
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
X
X
X
NA
X
-------
Table 9
Comparison of Pesticides and PCBs
Analyte
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Incinerator
Landfill
Ditches
Washrack
Canal Sediment
Gamma -BHC (lindane)
NA
NA
ND
NA
X
Heptachlor
X
X
ND
NA
X
Heptachlor epoxide
X
X
ND
NA
X
Dieldrin
X
X
ND
NA
ND
p,p'-DDE
X
X
X
NA
X
p,p'-DDD
X
X
X
NA
X
p,p'-DDT
X
X
ND
NA
X
Methoxychlor
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Endrin ketone
X
X
ND
NA
ND
Endrin aldehyde
X
X
NA
NA
ND
Chlordane Constituents
X
X
X
NA
X
Toxaphene
ND
X
ND
NA
X
PCB (1260 or 1254)
X
X
X
NA
X
-------
Table 10
Comparison of Metals

Analyte
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Incinerator
Landfill
Ditches
Washrack
Canal Sediment
Antimony
X
X
X
NA
X
Arsenic
X
X
X
NA
X
Barium
X
X
X
NA
X
Beryllium
X
X
X
NA
X
Cadmium
X
X
X
X
X
Chromium
X
X
X
X
X
Copper
X
X
X
X
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
X
Mercury
X
X
X
X
X
Nickel
X
X
X
ND
X
Silver
X
X
X
NA
X
Zinc
X
x
X
X
X
ND - Non Detect NA - Not Analyzed
-------
Table 11
Analytes Detected in Manhole and at Discharge Point
Analyte
LF19-SD-0001
WP23-SD-0001
Fluoranthene
X
X
Phenanthrene
ND
X
Pyrene
X
X
Chlordane
X
ND
4,4'-DDE
X
X
4,4'-DDT
X
X
Arsenic
X
X
Chromium
X
X
Copper
X
X
Lead
X
X
Nickel
X
X
Zinc
X
X
-------
Appendix H
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS)
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
< HTML document prepared by Joseph Allen Johnson,USEPA, May 09, 1996 UPDATE June 18,
1997>Office of Technical Services Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Region 4 Bulletins (October, 1996)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Waste Management Division
61 Forsyth St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-9714
Fax: 404-562-8628
For best quality hard-copy save and print this document as a PostScript file.
Click on any HYPERTEXT link in this color to move around the document.
Index
Ecological
Region 4's Ecological Bulletins are undergoing revision. Please contact OTS personnel
1.	Ecological Introduction
2.	Preliminary Risk Evaluation
3.	Ecological Screening Values
•	Table 1 Freshwater Surface Water Screening Values
•	Table 2 Saltwater Screening Values
•	Table 3 Sediment Screening Values
•	Endpoint Selection
•	Natural Resource Trustees
Index
Human Health
1 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.h*n
1.	Human Health Introduction
2.	Data collection and Evaluation
3.	Toxicity
4.	Exposure Assessment
5.	Risk Characterization
6.	Development of Risk-Based Remedial Options
DRAFT
Ecological Risk Assessment
BULLETINS
1. ECOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION
The role of a Superfund Ecological Risk Assessment is to: (1) determine whether
unacceptable risks are posed to ecological receptors from chemical stressors, (2) derive
contaminant levels which would not pose unacceptable risks, and (3) provide the
information necessary to make a risk management decision concerning the practical need
and extent of remedial action.1
Ecological Risk Assessment is in a beginning phase of development and therefore exists in
a very dynamic state. Agency guidance is limited and there is uncertainty concerning the
roles and processes of Ecological Risk Assessment in the different programs within the
Agency. The Office of Technical Services (OTS) should be contacted prior to applying
other programmatic guidance, policies, or practices to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Ecological Risk Assessments in
Region 4.
The intention of this series of ecological bulletins is to provide regional direction for
implementation of the Agency's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(referred to as the Process Document).^ This guidance supersedes the previous Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume II, which still may be used as a
primer on the basic elements of a CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessment.3 The Risk
Assessment Forum's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (referred to as the
Framework document) provides the basic approach for conducting Ecological Risk
Assessments used by all programs within the Agency.4 Specific program guidance
presented in these Region 4 Bulletins, as well as the Process document, may appear in rare
cases to be at odds with the Framework document. Region 4 views these documents as
being complementary with their focus directed at different organizational levels.
7 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AW
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
The CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessment process as outlined in the Process document
consists of eight steps and five scientific/management decision points. These steps are: (1)
Preliminary Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation, (2) Preliminary
Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation, (3) Problem Formulation: Assessment Endpoint
Selection and Formulation of Testable Hypothesis, (4) Conceptual Model Development:
Conceptual Model Measurement Endpoint Selection and Study Design, (5) Site
Assessment to Confirm Ecological Sampling and Analysis Plan, (6) Site Field
Investigation, (7) Risk Characterization, and (8) Risk Management. The decision points
follow steps 2-5, and 8.
Additional resources may be found in the Bibliography of the Process Document. Included
in this list are the ECO Update bulletin series issued by the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.5 These bulletins are focused discussions of elements and topics
related to CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessments. The guidance and direction contained in
these bulletins is still somewhat broad, therefore approval of the proposed approach in
CERCLA Ecological Risk Assessments should be obtained from OTS.
These regional guidance bulletins will be dynamic documents. Bulletins will be updated
and new ones added as questions are posed and regional practices are developed.
This guidance does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to
create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any other person. Region 4 reserves
the right to take action that is at variance with this guidance. The intent of this guidance is
to aid in the development of high-quality, single draft risk assessments consistent with the
criteria of the OTS in its oversight role.
References
1.	Role of the Ecological Risk Assessment in the Baseline Risk Assessment, OSWER
Directive Number 9285.7-17, August 12, 1994, Laws, EP.
2.	Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Review Draft, September 1994.
3.	Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II-Environmental Evaluation
Manual, Interim Final, March 1989, EPA/540/1-89/001.
4.	Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, February 1992, EPA 630/F-92/001.
5.	ECO Update, Intermittent Bulletin, Volumes 1 and 2, Publication 9345.0-051.
Volume 1 :
•	Number 1 - The Role of BTAGs in Ecological Assessment, September 1991.
•	Number 2 - Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview, December
1991.
•	Number 3 - The Role of Natural Resource Trustees in The Superfund Process, March
3 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid. htm
1992.
•	Number 4 - Developing a Work Scope for Ecological Assessments, May 1992.
•	Number 5 - Briefing the BTAG: Initial Description of Setting, History, and Ecology
of a Site, August 1992.
Volume 2:
•	Number 1 - Using Toxicity Tests in Ecological Assessments, September 1994.
•	Number 2 - Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment,
September 1994.
•	Number 3 - Field Studies for Ecological Risk Assessment, September 1994.
•	Number 4 - Selecting and Using Reference Information in Superfund Ecological Risk
Assessments, September 1994.
1.	Ecological Introduction
2.	Preliminary Risk Evaluation
3.	Ecological Screening Values
•	Table 1 Freshwater Surface Water Screening Values
•	Table 2 Saltwater Screening Values
•	Table 3 Sediment Screeninp Values
•	Endpoint Selection
•	Natural Resource Trustees
Human Health Introduction
2. PRELIMINARY RISK EVALUATION
The Preliminary Risk Evaluation (PRE) is the initial ecological risk screening assessment
at a hazardous waste site. It should be conducted in advance of Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work plan development so the results can be used
in determining appropriate media and site- specific sampling to adequately characterize
ecological impacts at a site. This bulletin provides an overview of the PRE, which is
discussed in detail in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Process Document1.
The primary purpose of the PRE is to compare concentrations of site related contaminants
with Region 4 ecological screening values. It is also used to develop a conservative
4 of 61
2/4/99 9:19aM
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
exposure scenario and risk characterization for a model ecological receptor based on
contaminants which exceed screening values. The PRE consists of five steps:
•	Ecological Screening Value Comparison
•	Preliminary Problem Formulation
•	Preliminary Ecological Effects Evaluation
•	Preliminary Exposure Estimate
•	Preliminary Risk Calculation
The last four steps are conducted only if comparisons of site analytical data with EPA
Region 4 ecological screening values indicate a need for further ecological risk evaluation.
See Bulletin 2 for a discussion of Region 4 ecological risk screening values.
Preliminary Problem Formulation
The focus of the preliminary problem formulation step is to identify categories of potential
ecological receptors that may exist in the site area, to identify contaminants which may
pose unacceptable risks to those receptors, and to determine contaminant fate/transport and
toxicity mechanisms.
Selection of appropriate ecological receptors for the PRE is critical. A literature search
should be conducted for the contaminants which exceeded Region 4 ecological screening
values to determine whether ecological impacts are at lower trophic levels, or through food
web contamination at higher trophic levels. The environmental fate, transport and toxicity
mechanisms of the contaminants being addressed as well as the environmental setting of
the site should be considered when selecting an ecological receptor group.
To illustrate, chlorinated pesticides and PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment,
tend to biomagnify in the food chain, and have been shown to exhibit ecological impacts '
such as egg shell thinning in birds (DDT) and reduction of steroid hormones necessary for
successful reproduction in mammals (PCBs). Most inorganics do not tend to biomagnify
up the food chain, with mercury being a notable exception; however, when present at high
levels in sediments, soil or surface water, some metals can be toxic to plants and animals
via direct contact, uptake and/or ingestion.
Potential ecological receptors should be generic. At a site where contaminated lake
sediments have resulted in fish tissue contamination, the selected ecological receptor may
be a piscivorous bird or mammal, depending on the site environmental setting.
Once the ecological receptor group has been chosen, a surrogate species should be
identified to represent the broader receptor group. The kingfisher is an example of a
surrogate species of piscivorous birds, and a river otter may be an appropriate surrogate
species of piscivorous mammals.
5 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///q/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsgu id. h txi
Care should be taken in selecting surrogate species to ensure that the various life history
and behavior parameters will result in a conservative estimate of risk. The habitat on or
around the site should be capable of supporting the animal, although it is not necessary to
document the species' occurrence. A biologist or ecologist familiar with the site area
should be consulted to assist in selecting an appropriate surrogate ecological receptor
species.
The chosen species' home range should be relatively small, and exposure parameters such
as body weight and food and water ingestion rates should be available in the literature. The
Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook contains this type of information for a variety of
birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, as well as an extensive reference list of
additional resources2.
Preliminary Ecological Effects Evaluation
The preliminary ecological effects evaluation focuses on developing toxicity profiles and
toxicity reference values (TRV) for contaminants of concern at the site, as well
determining the complete exposure pathways that exist at the site. Potential exposure
pathways are direct contact, inhalation/respiration, water ingestion and food ingestion for
animals, and direct contact and root absorption for plants. When conducting a PRE,
emphasis is usually placed on direct contact and ingestion pathways since there is
generally more species-specific TRV information available for these pathways.
Toxicity profiles and TRVs should be obtained from literature sources. Toxicity profiles
describe the toxic mechanism or action of the contaminant and the dose or environmental
concentration which causes a specified adverse effect for the exposure route being
evaluated. TRVs are species-specific effect levels which have been derived from
laboratory studies. The Process Document refers to TRVs as screening level ecotoxicity
values.
The No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) is a TRV which expresses the highest
exposure level at which no adverse effects have been demonstrated. The Lowest Observed
Adverse Effects Level (LOAEL) is a TRV which expresses the lowest exposure level or
dose shown to produce adverse effects such as reduced growth, impaired reproduction or
increased mortality.
For the ingestion exposure pathway, NOAELs and LOAELs are most often expressed in
units of: grams of contaminant/kilogram body weight/day (g/kg/d). A TRV should be the
most conservative available from the literature for the chemical and surrogate species
under consideration. If the LOAEL is the only TRV available for a contaminant, then the
NOAEL should be estimated by dividing the LOAEL by 10.
For some surrogate ecological receptor species, TRV literature values will be unavailable.
Alternate values for a species in the same or closely related ecological receptor group that
6 of 61
2/4/99 9:IS ^
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
the site habitat could support may be used. For example, if the kingfisher is being used as a
surrogate species for the broader ecological receptor group of piscivorous birds, but there
are no literature TRVs for the kingfisher, available NOAELs or LOAELs for a similar
sized fish eating bird could be used. This is acceptable at the preliminary evaluation point
in the process, but increases the level of uncertainty in the results of the PRE.
An exposure pathway which is also commonly encountered in ecological risk assessments
is direct contact with contaminated environmental media. This is particularly the case for
exposure of aquatic receptors to contaminated surface water and/or sediments. TRVs for
this pathway are usually developed by conducting toxicity bioassays with the contaminated
medium using standard test organisms. Resultant TRVs are expressed as the contaminant
concentration which causes adverse effects to a certain percentage of the test organisms. A
TRV commonly derived from toxicity bioassays is the LC50, which is the contaminant
concentration that is lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published Contaminant Hazard Reviews for more
than 20 organic and inorganic contaminants commonly encountered at hazardous waste
sites. These reviews provide a summary of available literature on ecological and
toxicological effects and TRVs of contaminants in the environment with special reference
to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain copies of the Contaminant Hazard Reviews,
contact the Publications Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail
Stop 130, Webb Building, Washington, D.C. 20240. (703) 358-1711.
Preliminary Exposure Estimate
The preliminary exposure estimate involves the selection of exposure parameters for use in
calculating a daily exposure dose for the selected receptor species. In the absence of
adequate site-specific information or literature values, conservative assumptions are to be
used in the preliminary exposure estimate.
Exposure parameters include bioavailability of contaminants, bioaccumulation factors
(BAF) and surrogate species body weight, food and water ingestion rate, and area-use
factor.
For the PRE, area use factor is assumed to be 100 percent, i.e., the surrogate species' home
range is considered to be encompassed entirely by the highly contaminated areas of the
site. It is therefore important to select a surrogate species with a small home range to
represent the ecological receptors of concern.
The bioavailability of contaminants at the site is also assumed to be 100 percent because
few chemicals have been tested for bioavailability, and because later steps in the ecological
risk assessment process provide an opportunity for this issue to be specifically addressed.
Values for surrogate species body weight and food and water ingestion rates should be the
7 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.hti*
most conservative available from the literature in order to maximize exposure.
Food web modeling is often necessary to predict concentrations of contaminants which
would be available in food items of ecological receptors at higher trophic levels.
Conservative literature values for contaminant BAFs should be used to avoid understating
ecological risk in the PRE.
The preliminary exposure evaluation coupled with site specific analytical data and food
web modeling will result in a daily exposure dose received by the receptor species via
consumption of contaminated food and/or water. Table A, following this bulletin, gives an
example of daily exposure dose calculation based on site conditions at a Surerfund site in
Region 4. In this example, the surrogate receptor species is the green heron, the
contaminants are chlorinated pesticides, and the contaminated media are surface water and
sediment in a small stream adjacent to the site.
Preliminary Risk Calculation
The preliminary risk calculation uses the hazard quotient (HQ) method as an indicator of
the risks posed to the surrogate ecological receptor from exposure to site-related
contaminants.
The HQ method compares the estimated exposure level or daily dose to literature derived
TRVs for each contaminant under consideration. Once again, in order to produce the most
conservative estimate of risk at the screening stage, the NOAEL (or LOAEL/IO) for the
contaminant and species of concern should be used as the HQ denominator.
When more than one contaminant is involved in the risk calculation, it is appropriate to
sum the HQs if the compounds exhibit consistent modes of toxicity and effect endpoints.
The sum of two or more HQs is referred to as a hazard index (HI).
Section 2.3 of the Process Document explains the HQ method and several points to keep in
mind when interpreting the results of this calculation. A NOAEL-based HQ or HI of
greater than one indicates an exposure level at which adverse ecological effects may occur.
There is no implied linear relationship, however, between the magnitude of the HQ or HI
and the likelihood or magnitude of adverse ecological impacts. The results of the risk
calculation should only be used to aid in determining a further course of action for the
ecological risk assessment.
A NOAEL-based HQ or HI of less than one indicates an exposure level at which adverse
ecological effects are unlikely to occur, due to the conservative assumptions which were
made throughout the PRE. If a LOAEL/IO is the only TRV available for the risk
calculation, a resultant HQ or HI near to but less than 1.0 may be indicative of potential
ecological impacts to the receptor species. In this case, further refinement of the
assumptions used in the effects and exposure analyses would be required to determine
8 of 61
2M/99 9:19 an
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
fiIe:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
whether to continue the ecological risk assessment.
References
1.	Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Review Draft, Sept. 1994.
2.	Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I and II, Dec. 1993,
EPA/600/R-93/187a.
Table A:Daily Exposure Dose Calculations for Green Heron Based on Surface Water and
Sediment Contaminated with Chlorinated Pesticides
! COC
Max SC
mg/g)
BAFinv
MAX IC
(mg/g)
r n
BAFfishj
MAX FC
(mg/g)
|lR(g/d)
IFI mg/d)
Max WC
(mg/L)
1RW
(L/day)
iw
(mg/day)
l	
« a
Max D
(mg/kg/d)
;alpha-BHC
O.OOE+OO






6.50E-05
0.023
1.50E-06 | 1
0.25 j
5.98E-06
| beta-BHC
2.20E-05
12.9
2.84E-04
18.9 |
4.16E-04
1 48
2.00E-02
1.40E-04
0.023
3.22E-06 j 1
0.25 !
7.98E-02
jdelta-BHC
OO.E+OO






8.30E-05
0.023
1.91E-06 ( 1
0.25 !
7.64E-01
j 4,4-DDD
210E-04
12.9
2.71 E-03
18.9 |
3.97E-03
1 48
1.91 E-03
0.00E+00
0.023
O.OOE+OO | 1
0.25 ;
7.62E-0!
{ Ditldrin
0.00E+00






1.10E-04
0.023
2.53E-06 j 1
0.25 i
1.01E-05
| Endrin
0.00E+00






1.10E-04
0.023
2.53E-06 ! 1
0.25 j
1.01E-05
1.	Ecological Introduction
2.	Preliminary Risk Evaluation
3.	Ecological Screening Values
•	Table 1 Freshwater Surface Water Screening Values
•	Table 2 Saltwater Screening Values
•	Table 3 Sediment Screening Values
•	Endpoint Selection
•	Natural Resource Trustees
tinman Health Introduction
3. ECOLOGICAL SCREENING VALUES
Ecological screening values are based on contaminant levels associated with a low
probability of unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. The Office of Technical Services
(OTS) has developed the attached tables for use at Region 4 hazardous waste sites. Since
these numbers are based on conservative endpoints and sensitive ecological effects data,
they represent a preliminary screening of site contaminant levels to determine if there is a
need to conduct further investigations at the site. Ecological screening values should not be
used as remediation levels.
9 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.hl#
Preliminary screening values for contaminants which lack Region 4 Waste Management
Division Ecological Screening Values should be proposed and submitted to the OTS for
approval. If at all possible these screening values should be based on ecotoxicological
information from sources such as scientific literature, computer databases, etc. As
information is submitted to this office for review or as new information becomes available,
these Region 4 screening values may be modified and additional screening values added.
Exceedences of the ecological screening values may indicate the need for further
evaluation of the potential ecological risks posed by the site. The decision concerning the
necessity for evaluation requires the weighing of such factors as the frequency, magnitude,
and pattern of these exceedences. The basis of the screening values should also be
considered when making the decision for the collection of additional data. An exceedence
may result in the retention of that contaminant for further evaluation even though its
frequency of detection may be low. The sampling may indicate a "hot spot" which would
be addressed by future investigations.
Surface Water Screening Values
The surface water screening values (which exist for both Freshwater [Table 1] and
Saltwater[Table 21 surface waters) were derived from the Screening Worksheet prepared
by the Region 4 Water Management Division. 1 These values were obtained from Water
Quality Criteria documents and represent the chronic ambient water quality criteria values
for the protection of aquatic life. If there was insufficient information available to derive a
criterion, the lowest reported effect level was used with the application of a safety factor of
ten to protect for a more sensitive species. A safety factor of ten was also used to derive a
chronic value if only acute information was available.
The ambient surface water quality criteria are intended to protect 95% of the species, 95%
of the time. If there is reason to believe that a more sensitive species is present at the site,
such that surface water contaminant levels below the chronic ambient water quality values
may pose unacceptable risks, more protective site-specific surface water screening values
may be developed.
Sediment Screening Values
Sediment screening values (Table 3) are derived from statistical interpretation of effects
databases obtained from the literature as reported in publications from the State of Florida,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a joint publication by Long et
al.2,3,4 These values are generally based on observations of direct toxicity. When the
Contract Laboratory Program's (CLP) practical quantification limit (PQL) is above the
effect level the screening value defaults to the PQL. For those contaminants whose
10 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 Aj
-------
Region 4—Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents
pr
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
screening values are based on the PQL, data reported below the required quantification
limn (e.g., .[-flagged data) should be compared to the Effects Level number. Although the
segment screening values have been developed from a database containing information
from studies conducted predominantly in marine environments, personal communication
with the authors of the studies indicate that copending values being developed from a
freshwater database are withm a factor of three of the marine based numbers. The existing
values will be used for freshwater sites until a separate freshwater screening value table is
developed.
Soil Screening Values
Terrestrial assessments are one of the least developed aspects of Ecological Risk
Assessment and screening values for this component have not been drafted bv EPA
Site-specific soil screening values may be submitted based on infomiation concerning
potential effects for contaminants whose mode of toxicity is through direct exposure (e g
soil invertebrates such as earthworms). For those contaminants which biomaznifv
screening values may be back-calculated from acceptable tissue levels in prey items
through two trophic transfers from the abiotic medium. Screening values should be based
on contaminant levels associated with ecological effects, instead of area or regional
background levels.	6
Wildlife Screening Values
Wildlife screening values may serve to indicate if tissue residues pose potential risks to
predatory ecological receptors (e.g., Toxicity Reference Values, TRVs). The contaminant
exposure is generally expressed as a daily dietaiy exposure with the units of mg of
contaminant, per kilogram body weight of the receptor per day (mg/kg/day) Currently
there is limited information concerning tissue contaminant levels which would pose
potential risks to predatory ecological receptors. Site-specific wildlife screening values
may be submitted based on ecotoxicological information from sources such as scientific
literature, computer databases, etc. These values may be refined, if necessary in the
Ecological Risk Assessment. The use of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Action
Levels may be used to suggest risks to ecological receptors if tissue residues exceed these
values, but FDA Action Levels should not be considered protective of ecological receptors
FDA levels are derived using human health exposure assumptions from ingesting
contaminated food items obtained from commercial sources (e.g., fish markets). Ecological
receptors may show adverse effects at contaminant concentrations below the FDA level
due to greater exposures, important factors include their: lower body weight, exposure to
11 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htt
higher dose levels by more frequent ingestion of contaminated prey, and innate greater
sensitivity to the contaminants.
Ground Water Screening Values
The potential impacts of contaminated ground water on ecological receptors, either directly
(e.g., cave-dwelling ecological receptors) or indirectly through existing or potential
discharge to sediments, seeps, and surface water must be considered.
The maximum ground water contaminant concentrations should be compared to the
surface water screening values as a conservative scenario (e.g., no attenuation, dilution,
etc.).
1.	304 (a) Screening Values and Related Information, Screening List, October 1991,
USEPA Region 4 - Water Management Division.
2.	MacDonald Environmental Sciences, Ltd. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment
Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
November 1994.
3.	Long, ER, and LG Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of
Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
4.	Long, ER, DD MacDonald, SL Smith, and FD Calder. 1995. "Incidence of Adverse
Biological Effects with Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments." Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.
Table 1 Table 2ITable 3ITOPI
Table 1. Region 4 Waste Management Division Freshwater Surface Water Screening
Values for Hazardous Waste Sites[l]
References
Priority Pollutants
Compound
| Acute Screening
| Values (ug/L)
Chronic Screening
Values (ug/L)
| Antimony
11300 (2s)
1 * '1 (2s)
r
Arsenic III
1360*
Beryllium
116 (6s)
JO.53 (Is)
12 of 61
2/4/99 9'19^'
-------
EPA Region 4--Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents	file:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
|Cadmium2	j 1.79*	10.66*	J
! Chromium (111)2
1984.32*
j 117.32*
Chromium (VI)
16*
11*
Copper2
19.22*
6.54*
Lead2
33.78*
! 1.32*
Mercury
2.40*
0.012*3
Nickel2
789.00*
87.71*
j
Selenium
'20.00*
5.00*
¦ Silver2
1.23*
|0.012(ls)
Thallium
! 140.00(3s)
4.00 (2s)
j Zinc2
65.04*
58.91*
! Cyanide
22*
5.2*
j 2,3,7,8-TCDD-Dioxin
01
0.00001 [3
Acrolein
6.8(3s)
2.1 (Is)
I Acrylonitrile
755 (4s)
75.5
j Benzene
530 (7s)
53
Bromoform
2930 (2s)
293
Carbon Tetrachloride
3520 (3s)
352
Chlorobenzene
i 1950 (5s)
195
2-Chloroethylvinyl Etheru
35400 (Is)
3540
Chloroform
: 2890 (3s) 1289
1,2-Dichloroethane
: 11800 (3s) 2000 (Is)
11,1-Dichloroethylene
; 3030 (3s)
303
1,2-Dichloropropane
; 5250 (3s)
525
1,3-Dichloropropylene (cis and trans)
606 (2s) 124.4 (Is)
Ethylbenzene
4530 (5s)
453
" 1
Methyl Bromide
1100 (Is) j
110
Methyl Chloride
55000 (Is)
5500
Methylene Chloride
19300 (3s)
1930
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
932 (3s)
240 (Is)
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.h«'
Tetrachloroethylene
528 (5s)
84 (Is)
Toluene
11750 (5s)
175
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
13500 (Is)
1350
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
; 5280 (2s)
528
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
3600(3s)
940(ls)
2-Chlorophenol
438 (5s)
43.8
2,4-Dichlorophenol
202 (3s)
36.5 (Is)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
•212 (3s)
21.2
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol (4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol)
;23 (4s)
2.3
2,4-Dinitrophenol
62 (3s)
6.2
2-Nitrophenol
-
3500
4-Nitrophenol
S28 (3s)
82.8
3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol(P-Chloro-M-Cersol)
3 (Is)
0.3
Pentachlorophenol4 (pH 7.8)
>20*
13*
Phenol
; 1020(16s)
256 (Is)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
32 (3s)
3.2
Acenaphthene
170 (2s)
17
Benzidine
250 (4s)
25
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
23800 (Is)
2380
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
1110 (2s)
<0.3 (2s)
4-BromophenylPhenyl Phthalate
36(2s)
12.2 (Is)
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
330(4s)
22 (2s)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
158(4s)
15.8 (3s)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
502(3s)
50.2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
112(5s)
11.2
Diethyl Phthalate
5210(2s)
521
Dimethyl Phthalate
13300(2s)
330
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
94(6s)
9.4
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
3100(2s)
310
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
i 27(2s)
2.7
Fluoranthene
i 398(2s)
39.8
14 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 Al
-------
pA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htrr
Hexachlorobutadiene
¦9(5s) |
0.93(ls)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
C/5
o :
0.07
Hexachloroethane
98(5s)
9.8
Isophorone
11700(2s)
1170
Naphthalene
230(4s) I
62(ls)

Nitrobenzene
2700(2s) ! 270

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
585(2s)
58.5

\ 2,4-Trichlorobenzene
150(4s) 44.9 (Is)

Aldrin
3* |
0.3

a-BHC
'
5005

b-BHC
;
50005

g-BHC (Lindane)
2* 0.08*

Chlordane
2.4*
0.0043*3
4,4'-DDT
;1.1*
0.001*

4,4'-DDE
105(ls) 110.5

14,4-DDD
0.064(8s)
0.0064

Dieldrin
2.5*
0.0019*3

I a-Endosulfan
1
0.22*
0.056*

b-Endosulfan
;0.22*
0.056*

i
Endrin
i 0.18*
0.0023*3
Heptachlor
0.52*
0.0038*3
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.52*
i
0.0038*3

PCB-1242
0.2(7s)
0.014*
PCB-1254
:0.2(7s)
0.014*
|PCB-1221
0.2(7s)
0.014*

jpCB-1232
0.2(7s)
0.014*
PCB-1248
lo.2(7s)
0.014*
jPCB-1260
0.2(7s)
0.014*
PCB-1016
0.2(7s)
j 0.014*

jToxaphene
0.73*
jo.0002*3

15 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htJ
J
Non-Priority Pollutants
$
Compound
Acute Screening Values (ug/L)
Chronic Screening Values (ug/L) j
Aluminum (pH 6.5 -9.0)
750*
87* j
Boron
1750 *6 j
Chloride
860,000* 1230,000* \
1 i
Chlorine (TRC)
* ! *
19 111 |
Chloropyrifos
0.083*
0.041*
Demeton
.
0.1*
Guthion
io.oi* j
2 I
Iron

1000*
Malathion
-
0.1*
Methoxychlor
-
0.03*
Mirex
-
0.001*
Oil and Grease
.
jo.01*Low LC50
Parathion
0.065*
0.013*
Pentachlorobenzene
250
50
pH
-
6.5 -9.0*
I Sulfide (S,-, HS-)
i
-
2*
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
250
50
Tributyltin
-
0.026
16 of 61
2/4/99

-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:/// C| AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
[1] Based on Region 4 Water Management Division, Water Quality Standards Unit's Screening List.
Hardness (mg/L as CaC03): 50.0
pH: 6
*: Criteria
s: Number of Species
[2] Hardness Dependent Based on the following equations:
Compound Acute Screening Value Chronic Screening Value
Cadmium	e(l-l28(lnH)-3.828)
Chromium III e(0.8l9(lnH)+3.688)
Copper	e(0.9422(lnH>-1.464)
Lead	e(U73(lnH)-1.46)
Nickel	e(0.846(lnH)+3.3612
Silver	e(l-72(lnH)-6.52)
Zinc	e(0.8473(lnH)+0.8604)
e(0.7825(InH)-3.4 9)
e(0.819(lnH)+1.561)
e(0.8545(lnH)-1.465)
e(1.273(lnH)-4.705)
e(0.846(lnH)+1.1645)
~(0.8473(lnH)+0.7614)
[3]	Based on the marketability of fish. The use of other values which may have greater ecological
significance may be considered.
[4]	pH Dependent. Based on the following equation:
Compound Acute Screening Value Chronic Screening Value
Pentachlorophenol e(i.005pH-4.83)	e(i.005pH-5.29)
[5]	Lowest plant value reported
[6]	For long term irrigation of sensitive crops (minimum standard)
Table 1 [Table 2|Table 3|TOP|
Table 2. Region 4 Waste Management Division Saltwater Surface Water Screening Values for
Hazardous Waste Sites[l]
|?0f6i	2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.ht*-
Priority Pollutants
Compound
Acute Screening
Values (ug/L)
Chronic Screening
Values (ug/L)
Antimony
-
Arsenic III
69*
36*
Beryllium
Cadmium
43*
9.3*
Chromium(III)
1030(2s)
103
Chromium(VI)
1100*
50*
Copper
*
2.9
2.9*
Lead
220*
8.5*
Mercury
2.1*
0.025*2
Nickel
75*
! 8.3*
Selenium
300*
71*
Silver
2.3*
0.23(ls)
Thallium
213(3s)
21.3
Zinc
95*
;86*
Cyanide
1*
r
2,3,7,8-TCDD-Dioxin
0.000012
Acrolein
5.5(ls)
0.55
Acrylonitrile j.
Benzene
1090(6s)
109
Bromoform
1790(2s)
;640(ls)
Carbon Tetrachloride
15000(1 s)
1500
Chlorobenzene
1050(2s)
105
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether j. ;.
Chloroform
8l50(ls)
815
18 of6l
2/4/99 9:19 AU
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
11,2-Dichloroethane
! 11300(1 s)
1130
!l, 1 -Dichloroethylene
22400(3s)
2240
1,2-Dichloropropane
i 24000(1 s)
2400
) l,3-Dichloropropylene(cis and trans)
79(2s)
7.9
| Ethylbenzene
43(5s)
4.3
j Methyl Bromide
1200( 1 s)
120
Methyl Chloride
27000(1 s) 2700
Methylene Chloride
25600(2s)
2560
j 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
;902(2s)
90.2
i Tetrachloroethylene
1020( 1 s)
45(1 s)
Toluene
370(5s) 137
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene - j-
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
3120(2s)
312
1,1,2-TrichIoroethane
! 2-Chlorophenol
12,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol(4,6-Dinitro-0-Cresol) i -
j 2,4-Dinitrophenol
i 485(3s)
! 2-Nitrophenol
i 48.5
4-Nitrophenol
! 717(2s)
13-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol(P-Chloro-M-Cresol)
Pentachlorophenol"
13'
j phenol
1580(4s)
12,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Acenaphthene
97(2s)
Benzidine
Bis(2-ChloroethyI) Ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
4-BromophenylPhenylEther
| Butylbenzyl Phthalate
1294.4(2s)
71.7
17.9
158
i 9.7
129.4
19 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents	file:///C|/WrNDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.hd
1,2-Dichlorobenzene |
197(3s)
19.7
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
285(2s)
28.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
199(2s)
19.9
Diethyl Phthalate i
759(2s)
75.9
Dimethyl Phthalate
5800(2s)
580
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
-
3-4[4]
2,4-Dinitrotoluene - 1 -
j
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine i - i -
Fluoranthene
i
4(2s) i
1.6(ls)
Hexachlorobutadiene j
1
3.2(4s)
0.32
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.7(6s)
0.07
Hexachloroethane
94(2s) |
9.4
Isophorone 1290(ls)
129
Naphthalene i
235(3s)
23.5
i
Nitrobenzene
668(2s)
66.8
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine !
330000(ls)
33000
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene !45(2s)
4.5
Aldrin
!
1.3*
0.13
a-BHC i-
1
14004
b-BHC r 1-
g-BHC(Lindane)
0.16*
0.016
Chlordane
0.09*
0.004* 2
4,4'-DDT
0.13*
0.001*
, 4,4'-DDE
1.4(ls)
0.14
4,4'-DDD
0.25(3s)
10.025
I
Dieldrin
0.71*
0.0019*2
i
a-Endosulfan
¦¦
0.034*
i 0.0087*
I
b-Endosulfan
0.034*
1
! 0.0087*
Endrin
0.037*
0.0023*2
!
Heptachlor
0.053*
10.0036*2
| Heptachlor Epoxide	! 0.053*	j0.0036*2
20 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM.
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
|PCB-1242
i
j 1.05(3s)
0.03*
PCB-1254
j 1.05(3s)
0.03*
PCB-1221
! 1.05(3s)
0.03*
jPCB-1232
1.05(3s)
0.03*
PCB-1248
1.05(3s)
*
0.03
PCB-1260
1.05(3s) 0.03*
PCB-1016
1.05(3s)
0.03*
Toxaphene
0.21* I
1
0.0002*2
21 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.tf
Non-Priority Pollutants
Compound
| Acute Screening Values (ug/L)
Chronic Screening Values (ug/L)
| Aluminum(pH 6.5 - 9.0) j - j -
Ammonia
5
5
I
! Boron j- -
; Chloride j - ; -
i Chlorine(TRC)
*
i13
| "7.5*
Chloropyrifos
0.011*
j 0.0056*
Demeton
-
1
:ai*
Guthion

0
0
»—*
*
Iron j-
Malathion
"
io.i*
Methoxychlor

i 0.03*
j Mirex
1

10.001*
1
j N-nitrosopyrrolidene
3300000 -
1
I Oil and Grease
1

|0.1*Low LC50
1 Parathion
[
1.78(2s)
10.178
j Pentachlorobenzene
160
j 129
! Phosphorus(elemental)
_
io.r
1
pll
06
1
1
i Sulfide(S2-, HS-)
I
12
1
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ' ' '
160
129
j Tributyltin( Advisory)
jo.oi
22 of 61
2/4/99 9:'^
-------
Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
j-1 jBased on Region IV Water Management Division, Water Quality Standards Unit's Screening List.
* : Criteria
s : Number of Species
[2]	Based on the marketability of fish. The use of other values which may have greater ecological significance may be
considered.
[3]	pH Dependent. Based on the following equation:
Compound	Acute Screening Value Chronic Screening Value
Pentachlorophenol e(1.005pH-4.83) e(1.005pH-5.29)
[4]	Lowest Plant Value Reported
[5]	See table-Ambient WQCrit.-Ainmonia(Salt H20)440/5-88-004
Table UTable 2[Table 3ITOP|
Table 3. Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites.
Metals (ppm)
Chemical Analyte j Effects Value i CLP PQL1 Screening Value
| Antimony
|22
; 12
112
Arsenic
7.243
1
\2
7.24
Cadmium
0.6763
|l
1
| Chromium
52.33
2
52.3
Copper
18.73
5
18.7
Lead
30.23
0.6
30.2
Mercury
0.133
0.02
0.13
r - 	
Nickel
15.94
8 !
1
15.9
Silver
0.7333
2
2
Zinc
1243
4 i
1
124

of6]
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WrNDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htnj I
Organics
Chemical Analyte
Effects Value
CLP PQL1
Screening Value
p,p'- DDD
1.223
3.3 i 3.3
i
DDD
22
3.3
3.3
p,p'- DDE
2.073
.
3.3
3.3
DDE
22
3.3 j 3.3
p,p'-DDT
a 1 1
1.19 13.3
I . ]
3.3
DDT
i2
3.3 13.3
. . i
Total DDT
1.584
3.3
3.3
Chlordane
..
0.52
1.7
1.7
Dieldrin
0.022
3.3
3.3
Endrin
0.022
3.3
3.3
Lindane(gamma- BHC)
0.323
3.3
3.3
Total PCBs
21.63
33(67for Aroclorl221) j 33(67for Aroclorl221)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1823
3.6
182
Acenaphthene
6.713
330
330
Acenaphthylene
5.873
330
330
Anthracene
46.93
330
330
Fluorene
21.23
330
330
2- Methyl Naphthalene
20.23
330
330
Naphthalene
34.63
330
330
Phenanthrene
86.73
330
330
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
3123
330
330
Benzo(a)anthracene
j 74.83
330
330
J Benzo(a)pyrene
88.83
330
330
J Chrysene
1083
330
330
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
[6.223
330
330
24 of61	2/4/99 9:'^||
-------
EPA Reglon 4""Waste U& Division- OTS Guidance Documents	file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
Fluoranthene
1133
330
|330
Pyrene
1533
330
330
High Molecular Weight PAHs
6553
330
1655
1
Total PAHs
16843
330
1684
1.	Contract Laboratory Program Practical Quantification Limit
2.	Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of
Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52
3.	MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
4.	Long, Edward R., Donald D. MacDonald, Sherri L. Smith, and Fred D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of
Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81-97.
1.	Ecological Introduction
2.	Preliminary Risk Evaluation
3.	Ecological Screening Values
•	Table 1 Freshwater Surface Water Screening Values
•	Table 2 Saltwater Screening Values
•	Table 3 Sediment Screening Values
•	Endpoint Selection
•	Natural Resource Trustees
Human Health Introduction
An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) should be conducted at a hazardous waste site if
the result of the Preliminary Risk Evaluation (PRE, see Ecological Risk Assessment 1)
indicates that there is a likelihood of impacts to ecological receptors from exposure to site
related contaminants. The first and most important step in the ERA is the selection of
appropriate assessment and measurement endpoints. Assessment and measurement
endpoint selection is discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Process Document,
along with other components of the ERA planning process such as defining testable
hypotheses, formulating the site conceptual model and designing the field study. 1
The following definitions of assessment and measurement endpoints are contained in Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual,
Interim Final2. An assessment endpoint is the explicit expression of an environmental
value that is to be protected. A measurement endpoint is a measurable ecological
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htn!
characteristic that is related to the environmental value chosen as the assessment endpoint.
An easy way to envision the difference between assessment and	is
to consider the decline in numbers of some species of piscivorous birds such as the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentals) and osprey
(Pandion haliaetus) which was well documented 20 years ago^ This phenomenon, was
caused at least in part by decreased reproduction due to egg shell thinning ind y
dietary exposure to DDT in forage fish.
If one were conducting an ERA at a hazardous waste site where DDT has migrated into a
surface water body, an assessment endpoint could be the maintenance of reproducwe
success in a population of piscivorous birds which uti izes t e con am™a „nI,rf.ritrations
system as a foraging area. The measurement endpoint m this case wouldbexoncenhMora
of DDT in forage fish tissue consumed by piscivorous birds. Measured (not mo ,
the PRE) concentrations of DDT residues in forage fish tissue from the contamma
could be converted to a daily dose using life history and ingestion ra e paramee
piscivorous bird being considered. This exposure level * en e compar' ... .
literature derived Toxicity Reference Value (TRV) for DDT re ate o eggs . «
the ecological receptor species. Resultant hazard quotients (HQ, see co °g^a
Assessment 1) would indicate the magnitude of potential risks to receptors om
consumption of contaminated fi! sh.
One problem with using fish tissue residues as a measurement endpoint is that fish are
mobile and many species are migratory. Tissue residue levels cou e ue	. .
contamination, area-wide (background) contamination, or anot er source. 1	ran'Be
therefore, to obtain tissue samples from non-migratory fish which have a small hom ge
relative to the contaminated area.
The results of the PRE should aid in the selection of assessment and measurement
endpoints, however, for the ERA, additional literature review is usually require
define stressor characteristics (e.g., fate and transport), receptor specific effec s,
and the most appropriate endpoints to be evaluated.
Following assessment and measurement endpoint selection and development of a testable
hypothesis and site conceptual model, a study plan is designed to ensure that adequa e a a
are collected to support the ecological component of the Baseline Risk Assessment an
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). There are a limited number o
fundamental approaches for conducting site specific investigations on ecological impacts
of hazardous substances. Tissue residue studies, population or community evaluations an
toxicity testing are the three methodologies most commonly used. The appropriate
methodology will depend on the assessment and measurement endpoints selected in t e
previous steps. However, none of the methods can be successful without a full
understanding of the ecotoxicological properties of the contaminants, their migration
pathways, and complete exposure routes at the site.
26 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
Region 4-Waste Mgt Division- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htnf"
Tissue residue studies are most useful for predicting ecological risk from contaminants
which bioaccumulate or biomagnify in the food web, resulting in impacts to upper trophic
level receptors via the ingestion pathway. In the DDT example above, whole body residue
analysis of forage fish likely to be consumed by piscivorous birds would be the most
appropriate methodology to assess the measurement endpoint.
Toxicity testing is most commonly employed to determine potential risk via direct contact
with contaminated surface water, soil or sediment. Toxicity testing must be carefully
designed to ensure that the proper test species are used for the environmental medium
being evaluated. For example, a benthic macroinvertebrate such as Hyalella should be used
as a test subject in freshwater sediment toxicity tests rather than a free-swimming
organisms such as Ceriodaphnia.
Community or population evaluations involve floral or faunal field surveys and the
computation of species diversity and richness indices. Results of these studies should not
be used as measurement endpoints for a hazardous waste site ERA because the various
diversity and richness indices were not developed to measure ecological impacts of
hazardous materials in the environment. Natural variability in population and community
structure, lack of sensitivity of some species to some contaminants and impacts to
population/community structure from non-chemical stressors make the interpretation of
these studies difficult in the context of assessing ecological impacts of hazardous waste
sites.
Conducting an ERA as presented in the Process Document involves a focus of time and
work in the planning phase and the selection of assessment and measurement endpoints.
This is necessary in order to design an ERA which will allow an adequate understanding of
potential risks at the site and provide enough information to establish site clean up goals
for protection of ecological resources.
References
1.	Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Review Draft. September 1994.
2.	Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II. Environmental Evaluation
Manual. Interim Final. March 1989, EPA/540/1-89/001.
1.	Ecological Introduction
2.	Preliminary Risk Evaluation
3.	Ecological Screening Values
• Table 1 Freshwater Surface Water Screening Values
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4--Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESK.TOP/otsguid.ht
•	Table 2 Saltwater Screening Values
•	Table 3 Sediment Screening Values
•	Endpoint Selection
•	Natural Resource Trustees
Human Health Introduction
5. NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
The participation of the natural resource trustees (state, federal, including federal
departments managing resources potentially impacted by NPL sites such as the
departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, or Agriculture, or other entities, e.g. Native
American tribes) in the CERCLA process is not only encouraged but required. Early
notification of natural resource trustees by the site managers (e.g. RPMs, OSCs) should
produce more efficient investigations of NPL sites and result in more timely decisions. In
addition, early notification will provide the initial information to assist the natural resource
trustees in completing their mandates and responsibilities in determining impacts to their
trust resources.
FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
Department of the Interior
The Office of Environmental Compliance and Planning (OEPC) is the natural resource
trustee contact for the Department of Interior (DOI). The Regional Environmental Officer
in DOI'S Region 4 is located in Atlanta and is the individual who should be contacted. The
Department of Interior agencies include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the
United States Geological Survey, the National Park Service, the Minerals Management
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The DOI agency which is most often involved with ecological impacts of
hazardous waste sites is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
regional USFWS for the Region 4 states is also located in Atlanta. A listing of the regional
and field office contaminant specialist contacts is included.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations
The Secretary of the Department of Commerce has delegated the natural resource trustee
onsibilities to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). NOAA is represented in the EPA Region 4 office by the Coastal Resource
Coordinator.
Other Federal Agencies
28 of 61
2/4/99 19 a!
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
Federal agencies which own or manage land or resources potentially impacted by the
release of contaminants will also have a natural resource trustee role. Examples include the
Department of Defense, which is a trustee for all military installations; the Department of
Energy, which is a trustee for their facilities; the Department of Agriculture, which is a
trustee for sites which would impact land they manage, such as national forests or their
laboratories; and the Department of Interior, National Park Service, which is a trustee for
land that they manage (e.g. national parks and monuments).
The State Governor designates certain state officials as trustees for those natural resources
belonging to, or controlled by the State. The state natural resource trustee responsibilities
may be divided among the state regulatory agency, the state wildlife and fisheries agency,
and the office of the Governor. A list of the trustees for the states in Region 4 is attached.
OTHER TRUSTEES
Other entities which may serve a trustee function include American Indian tribes whose
property may be impacted by an NPL site.
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
If there has been injury or lost use of natural resources due to an NPL site, the natural
resource trustees may sue for damages to restore resources. Ideally the remedy selected for
an operable unit at a site will reduce the risks posed to ecological receptors to acceptable
levels, including those trust resources under the jurisdiction of the natural resource
trustees. However, EPA and the natural resource trustees may disagree on the
protectiveness of the selected remedy. This disagreement may be due to a difference of
opinion concerning contaminant levels which are protective of ecological receptors, or
pertaining to the balancing of the beneficial aspects of the remedy in reducing contaminant
levels to acceptable risk levels versus its detrimental aspects such as habitat destruction.
This balance may result in remedial goals which exceed the contaminant concentrations
posing risks to the receptor in terms of contaminant exposure exclusively, injury due to
these residual levels of contamination.
The natural resource damage assessment process is the responsibility of the natural
resource trustees and does not involve EPA. The data and information collected in the
Ecological Risk Assessment process which may be useful to the natural resource trustees
are available. However, elements which are strictly supportive of the natural resource
damage assessment process will not be approved as part of the Ecological Risk Assessment
or Remedial Investigation Work Plan. Any work elements strictly supporting the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment should be segregated into a separate document, or at least in
an appendix, and their purpose should be clearly stated.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
29 of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4~Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WrNDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.hifl
The Endangered Species Act is a potential ARAR (applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements) for all NPL sites. The party conducting the Remedial Investigation should
contact all appropriate state and Federal natural resource trustees, and their representatives
(such as USFWS), to determine the potential presence of threatened and endangered
species or their critical habitat.If the trustee agency or their representative determines a
threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat is present or potentially present, a
survey of the appropriate area should be conducted. The appropriate area may extend past
the "boundaries" of the site (e.g., to account for the utilization of the site from an off-site
nesting location). The qualifications of the party conducting the survey should be
presented to the trustee agency or their representative for approval. The results of the
survey should be presented to the trustee agency, or their representative, for their
concurrence. This interaction is among the various components of an informal Section 7
consultation.. If it is determined that a threatened or endangered species is utilizing the
site, or may utilize it in the future, a finding concerning the likelihood of effects due to
site-related contaminants or activities should be presented to the trustee agency, or their
representative.
The informal Section 7 consultation allows a time period for the trustee, or their
representative, to determine if a formal Section 7 consultation will be required. A "may
effect" finding in the informal Section 7 consultation will trigger a formal Section 7
consultation. Information contained in the Ecological Risk Assessment may be used in No
ristics, susceptibility, or exposure to the site-related contaminants making them
representative of an appropriate endpoint for the Ecological Risk Assessment.
Federal Natural Resource Trustees
Department of Commence
Coastal Resource Coordinator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
c/o USEPA Region 4, 4WD-OTS
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Telephone: 404/347-5231
FAX: 404/347-0076
Current Contact - Denise Klimas, Coastal Resource Coordinator
Melissa Waters, Assistant Coastal Resource Coordinator
Department of Interior
Office of Environmental Compliance and Planning
Regional Environmental Officer
United States Department of Interior
Office of Environmental Compliance and Planning
30 of 61
2/4/99 9:i9 Jlji
-------
£PA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
75 Spring Street, SW
Suite 306
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: 331-4524
FAX: 331-1736
Current Contact - Jim Lee, Regional Environmental Officer
Greg Hogue, Assistant Regional Environmental Officer
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Contaminant Specialist Coordinator
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30345
Telephone: 404/679-7081
FAX: 404/679-7081
Current Contact - Jerry O'Neal, Contaminant Specialist Coordinator
Richard Dawson, Damage Assessment Coordinator
USFWS Field Offices - Contaminant Specialists
Alabama
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
2001-A Highway 98
P.O. Drawer 1190
Daphne, AL 36526
Telephone: 334/441-5181
Current Contact - Sharon Delchamps
Florida - Panhandle
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
1612 June Avenue
Panama City, FL 32405-3721
Telephone: 904/769-0552
t}\ of 61
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division- OTS Guidance Documents
fiie:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.hd»|
Current Contact - Mike Brim
Florida
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 2676
Vero Beach, FL 32961
Telephone: 407/562-3909
Current Contact - Vacant
Georgia
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
4270 Norwich Street
Brunswick, GA 31520
Telephone: 912/265-9336
Current Contact - Dr. Greg Masson
Federal Natural Resource Trustees (cont.)
USFWS Field Offices - Contaminant Specialists
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Northern Alabama
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
446 Neal Street
Cookeville, TN 38501
Telephone: 615/528-6481
Current Contact - Dr. Allen Robinson
Mississippi
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Thomas Building, Room 235
900 Clay Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Telephone:601/638-1891
32 of 61
2/4/99 9:19^
-------
EPa Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
Current Contact - Roy Inman
North Carolina
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: 919/856-4520
Current Contact - Tom Augspurger
South Carolina
Contaminant Specialist
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 12559
217 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: 803/724-4707
Current Contact: Diane Duncan
State Trustee Designations to Section 107 ofCERCLA
January 30, 1995
Alabama
Trustees:
Mr. James D. Martin, Commissioner
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
64 N. Union St.
Montgomery, AL 36130
Telephone: 205/242-3486
,1,	2/4/99 9:19 AM
9 A" 61
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
flle:///C| AVINDO WS/DE SK TOP/otsgu id. hi EP
Mr. Leigh Pegues, Director
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W.L. Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
Telephone: 205/271-7700
Dr. Ernest Mancini, State Geologist
Oil and Gas Board
P.O. Drawer O
Tuscalossa, AL 35486
Telephone: 205/349-2852
Florida
Trustee:
Ms. Virginia Wetherell, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Maijorie Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 10
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Telephone: 904/488-1554
Georgia
Trustee:
Harold F. Reheis, Director
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Tower East, Suite 1154
205 Butler Street
Atlanta, GA 30334
Telephone: 404/656-7802
Kentucky
Trustee:
34 of 61
2/4/99 9:1^ stf<
-------
lid.WEPA Region 4-Waste Mgt Division-- OTS Guidance Documents
flle:///C|AVINDOWS/DESKTOP/otsguid.htm
William C. Eddins, Commissioner
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
Department for Environmental Protection
Frankfort Office Park
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Telephone: 502/564-3035
Mississippi
Trustee:
Mr. Jimmy Palmer, Executive Director
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 20305
Jackson, MS 39209
Telephone: 601/961-5000
North Carolina
Trustee:
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
512 N. Salisbury
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Telephone: 513/733-4984
(Note: Richard Whisnant, General Counsel, is contact)
South Carolina
Trustees:
Mr. Ron Kinney, Director
Waste Assessment and Emergency Response
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
2/4/99 9:19 AM
-------
EPA Region 4—Waste Mgt Division— OTS Guidance Documents
file:///C| AVINDO WS/DESKTOP/otsg« id.
Telephone: 803/896-4000
Mr. J. Keith Lindler, Director
Division of Site Assessment and Remediation
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: 803/896-4000
Ms. Beth Partlow
Office of the Governor
1205 Pendleton St., Suite 333
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: 803/734-0543
South Carolina (cont.)
Mr. Ed Duncan
Marine Resources Center
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
Telephone: 803/762-5014
Tennessee
Trustee:
Mr. Don Dills, Commissioner
Department of Environment and Conservation
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37243-0435
Telephone: 615/742-6747
-------