CBP/TRS- 263/02
EPA- 903-R-02-005
July 2002
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay:
Year 9-An Assessment of
the Chester and Rappahannock Rivers
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
-------
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay: Year 9
An Assessment of the Chester and Rappahannock Rivers
Prepared by:
Lenwood W. Hall, Jr. & Ronald D. Anderson
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Alan Messing, Joe Winfield, A. Keith Jenkins & Irene J. Weber
Old Dominion University
College of Sciences
Applied Marine Research Laboratory
Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0456
Raymond W. Alden III
University of Nevada Las Vegas
College if Sciences
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
David Goshorn, Margaret McGinty
Maryland department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed t^trtncrship
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed for the Chesapeake Bay Program by the Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper 30% Postconsumer
11
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using
a battery of water column and sediment toxicity tests in concert with both fish and benthic community
assessments. A team of scientists from two Chesapeake Bay research laboratories, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources and Versar Inc. worked jointly to complete this goal. Water column toxicity studies
and overall project management were directed by Lenwood W. Hall, Jr. of the University of Maryland's
Wye Research and Education Center. Sediment toxicity tests and water/sediment chemical analysis were
managed by Joe Winfield of Old Dominion Universities' Applied Marine Research Laboratory. Margaret
McGinty of Maryland Department of Natural Resources was responsible for the fish community
assessments and Roberto Llanso of Versar Inc. conducted the benthic community assessments. Raymond
Alden was responsible for the water and sediment index calculations. This report summarizes data from
the ninthy ear of a nine-year ambient toxicity testing program. TheU. S. EnvironmentalProtecti on Agencies
Chesapeake Bay Program Office supported this study.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes data collected during the ninth year of a research program designed to
assess ambient toxicity of living resource habitats in Chesapeake Bay. The goals of this study were to
identify toxic ambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of standardized water
column and sediment toxicity tests concurrently with fish and benthic community assessments (index of
biotic integrity approaches). The toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment was evaluated during
the late summer/early fall of 1999 at ten stations in the Rappahannock River and ten stations in the Chester
River. The toxicity of ambient estuarine water was assessed at all stations by using the 8-d larval
sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, survival and growth test and three 4 8 -h coot clam, Mulinia
lateralis embryo/larval tests. Toxicity of ambient estuarine sediment was determined by using the 20-d
survival, growth and reburial test with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus and 20-d survival and
growth test with the polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti. Both inorganic and organic contaminants
were assessed in ambient sediment and inorganic contaminants were measured in ambient water
concurrently with toxicity testing to assess "possible" causes of toxicity. Fish and benthic communities were
also assessed at the 20 stations. An index of biotic integrity (IBI) was determined for each trophic group.
Bothunivariate and multivariate (using all endpoints) statistical techniques were used to analyze the
water column and sediment toxicity data. Results from univariate analysis of water column data showed
that survival of sheepshead minnows was not significantly reduced at any site when compared with the
controls. However, significant effects on growth were reported for this species at two Chester River sites.
Percent normal shell development with the coot clam from test 1 was significantly different than the controls
for four sites in each river. Effects were reported at the three downstream sites and the most upstream site
in the Chester River. For the Rappahannock River, effects from coot clam test 1 did not follow any type
of spatial pattern. Results from coot clam tests 2 and 3 generally did not show any significant biological
effects (except the upstream Rappahannock River site). The combined test results from coot clam tests 1-3
did not show significant effects at any of the 20 sites. Results from multivariate of water column data only
showed significant effects at one of the Chester River sites. Metals concentrations from the 20 stations in
both the Chester and Rappahannock Rivers showed that chronic water quality criteria were exceeded at
two Chester River sites and one Rappahannock River site for copper, at two Chester River sites and one
Rappahannock River site for lead, at two Rappahannock River sites for nickel, and at one Rappahannock
River site for zinc. However, only one site in each river showed any degree of positive correlation between
metals concentrations exceeding criteria and biological effects (coot clam test 1). The site with highest
number of metals exceedances (copper, lead and zinc) in the Rappahannock River showed no significant
effects from either of the tests species.
Univariate results from the 20 day sediment amphipod (Leptocheirus plumulosus) test showed
that survival was significantly different from the reference site (Carters Creek, Virginia) at one site in the
Rappahannock river and three sites in the Chester River. Survival results from sediment toxicity tests with
the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti showed that this species was more sensitive than the
amphipod. Six sites in the Chester River and four sites in the Rappahannock River were significantly
different from the reference site based on the polychaete worm survival. Growth of the amphipod,
expressed as a change of length, was significantly different from the reference site at two Chester River sites
and one Rappahannock River site. The polychaete worm toxicity test showed that two sites in the Chester
River were significantly different for increase in length over the initial size. There was no significant
IV
-------
differences in change of weight for either test species when comparing test sites and the reference sites.
Results from the multivariate analysis showed significant effects at eight Chester River sites and five
Rappahannock River sites. At the methods detect on limit used in this study, no pesticides, PAHs, orPCBs
were detected in sediment from any site including the reference and control sites. Nickel was found
throughout the Rappahannock River (8 of 10 sites) at concentrations above the NOAA benchmark for
Effects Range-Low (ERL) but no other metals exceeded the respective ERLs or the Effects Range-
Median (ERM) benchmarks in this river. The ERL predicts a low probability of toxicity due to nickel when
ambient concentrations are below that value and the ERM predicts a high probability of effects to benthic
populations when exceeded. In the case of nickel, the reliability of the ERM is suspect and the probability
of effects at values greater than the ERL and less than the ERM are difficult to predict. The sites sampled
in the Chester River had similar instances where nickel was greater than the ERL (7 of 10 sites), but there
were 4 sites where nickel, lead and zinc concurrently exceeded the ERL. Zinc exceeded the ERL at one
Chester River site in addition to nickel. The analysis for simultaneously extractable metals (SEM) and acid
volatile sulfides (AVS) SEM/AVS is considered a reliable approach for determining the bioavailability of
metals to benthic organisms. The AVS/SEM results generally suggest that metals are unlikely responsible
for sediment toxicity at any of the sites.
Results from the Fish IBI assessments showed that most of the stations (8 out of 10) in the Chester
River had degraded fish communities based on either seining or trawling methods. In contrast , fish
communities at all Rappahannock River sites appeared relatively healthy. The Benthic Index of Biotic
Integrity ( B-ffil) scores for the Chester River River showed that seven sites met the benthic restoration
goal, one site was marginal, one site was degraded and one site was highly degraded. The degraded and
severely degraded sites were upstream. For the Rappahannock River, three sites met the restoration goal,
one site was marginal, three sites were degraded and three sites were severely degraded. All three sites
that met the goal were barely above the cut off between meeting the goal and degraded. The B-ffil results
were more variable in the Rappahannock River when compared to the Chester River. Although there was
no clear spatial trend, the benthic communities in the Rappahannock River generally appeared more
impaired than in the Chester River.
In summary, sediment toxicity data and impaired fish communities suggested some degree of stress
at most of the Chester River stations. In contrast, water column toxicity and benlhic community impairment
were generally not reported at the various sites in this eastern shore river. At three sites, either toxicity or
biological community impairment were reported from three of the four measures; three of the four measures
failed to report either toxicity or biological impairment at two of the sites. The other five sites provided
mixed results as two measures showed effects and two measures showed no effects.
A final analysis of water column toxicity data, sediment toxicity data, fish community data and
benthic community data for the Rappahannock River demonstrated effects from two of the four measures
at four of the sites. Effects were reported for only one measure at four of the sites and no effects were
reported for any of the measures at two sites. A lower degree of toxicity and biological impairment was
reported in the Rappahannock River than in the Chester River.
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office
for supporting this study. We would like to acknowledge various individuals from the University of
Maryland and Old Dominion University for technical assistance and the U. S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office and Maryland Department of the Environment for their comments on the study design.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xiii
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Objectives 2-1
3. Methods 3-1
3.1 Study Areas 3-1
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests 3-1
3.2.1 Test Species 3-1
3.2.2 Test Procedures 3-2
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis 3-2
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-2
3.2.5 Quality Assurance 3-3
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations 3-3
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests 3-4
3.3.1 Test Species 3-4
3.3.2 Test Procedures 3-4
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data 3-4
3.3.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-5
3.3.5 Quality Assurance 3-5
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations 3-5
3.4 Analysis of Ten Year Data Base 3-6
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 3-8
3.5.1 Data Collection 3-8
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity Calculations 3-9
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions 3-9
3.5.4 Trawl Index 3-9
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS -CONTINUED
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 3-9
3.6.1 Sample Collection 3-9
3.6.2 Benthic Samples 3-10
3.6.3 Laboratory Processing 3-10
3.6.4 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations 3-10
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests 4-1
4.1.1 Toxicity Data 4-1
4.1.2 Contaminants Data 4-1
4.1.3 Water Quality Data 4-1
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-1
4.2 Sediment Tests 4-2
4.2.1 Toxicity Data 4-2
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data 4-2
4.2.2.1 Organic Contaminants 4-2
4.2.2.2 PAHs in Bulk Sediment 4-2
4.2.2.3 Pesticides in Bulk Sediment 4-3
4.2.2.4 PCBs in Bulk Sediment 4-3
4.2.2.5 Metals in Bulk Sediment 4-4
4.2.2.6 SEM:AVS 4-5
4.2.2.7 Pore Water Characteristics 4-5
4.2.2.8 TOC in Sediment 4-5
4.2.2.9 Particle Size Characteristics of Sediment 4-5
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data 4-6
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 4-6
4.3.1 Fish Community 4-6
4.3.2 Water Quality 4-7
4.4 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 4-7
5. Discussion 5-1
5.1 Chester River 5-1
5.2 Rappahannock River 5-2
6. Analysis of Nine Year Data Base 6-1
6.1 Water Column Toxicity 6-1
6.2 Sediment Toxicity 6-4
VI11
-------
7. References 7-1
8. List of Tables and Figures 8-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
Appendices
Appendix A - Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during all water column tests.
Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv) andMulinia later alls (Ml)
Appendix B - Summary of fish species by station and gear type. Total abundance for each species
at all stations is also presented.
Appendix C - Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species
biomass and B-ffil metric values and scores for each site.
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The
following abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption -
Inductively Coupled Plasma), AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride),
AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-DA (Atomic Absorption -
Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption - Cold Vapor) 8-1
Table 3.2 Analytical methods for inorganic analysis of sediment samples 8-2
Table 3.2 Trophic classification, family, spawning location, and residency offish
captured at the ten sampling locations 8-3
Table 4.1 Survival and growth data for sheepshead minnow larvae after 8 day toxicity
tests conducted from 9/28/99 to 10/6/99 8-6
Table 4.2 Percent normal shell development from 48 hour coot clam embryo/larval
toxicity tests conducted from 9/28/99 to 10/6/99 8-7
Table 4.3 Inorganic contaminants data from the 20 stations sampled in the Chester
and Rappahannock Rivers during the fall of 1999 8-8
Table 4.4 Water quality parameters from field collections in the Chester and
Rappahannock Rivers in the fall of 1999 8-9
Table 4.5 Toxicity data (48h LCSOs or ECSOs) from 1999 reference toxicant tests
conducted with cadimum chloride for the two test species 8-13
Table 4.6 Survival of the amphipod Leptocheimsplumulosus in sediment bioassays 8-14
Table 4.7 Survival of the poly chaete Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays 8-15
Table 4.8 Growth of the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in sediment bioassays 8-16
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.9 Growth of the poly chaete Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays 8-17
Table 4.10 Results of analysis of composite sediment samples for PAHs for sites
in the Rappahannock River, Virginia 8-18
Table 4.11 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for PAHs for
sites in the Chester River, Maryland 8-19
Table 4.12 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for PAHs for sites
in the Rappahannock River, Virginia. The values reported are the method
detection limits reported as ug/g organic carbon normalized concentrations 8-20
Table 4.13 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for PAHs for sites
in the Chester River, Maryland. The values reported are the method
detection limits reported as ug/g organic carbon normalized concentrations 8-21
Table 4.14 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA
draft sediment quality criterion for the PAH acenaphthene 8-22
Table 4.15 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA
draft sediment quality criterion for the PAH fluoranthene 8-23
Table 4.16 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA
draft sediment quality criterion for the PAH phenanthrene 8-24
Table 4.17 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for pesticides for
sites in the Rappahannock River, Virginia 8-25
Table 4.18 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for pesticides
for sites in the Chester River, Maryland 8-26
Table 4.19 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for PCBs as Aroclor
(ppb dry weight) for sites in the Rappahannock River, Virginia and
Chester River, Maryland 8-27
Table 4.20 Inorganic contaminants in sediment from 10 sites in the Rappahannock
River, Virginia as well as control (Ware River) and reference
(Carters Creek) sites 8-28
Table 4.21 Inorganic contaminants in sediment from 10 sites in the Chester River,
Maryland as well as control (Ware River) and reference
XI
-------
(Carter Creek) sites 8-29
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.22 Concentrations of inorganic contaminants in sediment expressed as toxic
units (TU) relative to the Effects Range Low (ERL) benchmarks
defined by Long et al. 1995
.8-30
Table 4.23 The concentration of simultaneously extracted metals obtained following
the determination of acid volatile sulfides in bulk sediment samples
from 10 sites in both the Chester and Rappahannock Rivers, as well
as the control (Ware River) and reference (Carters Creek) sites 8-31
Table 4.24 Comparison of simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) to the acid volatile
sulfides (AVS) available to potentially bind with the divalent metals
such that they are no longer bioavailable 8-32
Table 4.25 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for organic carbon
(% total carbon or TOC) and pore water extracted from the same sample
that was analyzed for nitrite, ammonia and sulfide 8-33
Table 4.26 Sediment particle size characteristics from the 20 sites 8-34
Table 4.27 Sediment bioassay reference toxicant data 8-38
Table 4.28 Individual fish metric values for each station on the Chester River 8-39
Table 4.29 Individual fish metric values for each station on the Rappahannock River 8-40
Table 4.30 Fish IBI scores for stations sampled in 1999 8-41
Table 4.31 Trawl index scores and rating for each station sampled in the Chester
and Rappahannock Rivers in 1999 8-42
Table 4.32 Surface and bottom dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations for study sites 8-43
Table 4.33 Secchi depth by station 8-44
Table 4.34 B-ffil values and benthic community condition for the Chester and
Rappahannock River sites sampled in 1999 8-45
XII
-------
Table 5.1 Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity
tests (multiariate analysis), along with fish and benthic ffil data for ambient
stations tested in 1999. A yes (Y) means some significant level of
toxicity or impaired biological response was reported. A no (N) means
it was not 8-46
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for references
and test sites presented in Figures 6.1-6.9. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overalp are indicated by "O", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X", while "-"
indicates no data taken for the period 8-47
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for references
and test sites presented in Figures 6.11-6.19. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overalp are indicated by "O", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X", while "-"
indicates no data taken for the period 8-50
XI11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 Rappahannock River sites from 1999 Ambient Toxicity study 8-53
Figure 3.2 Chester River sites from 1999 Ambient Toxicity study 8-54
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-55
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-56
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-57
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-58
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-59
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-60
Figure 6.6 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-61
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-62
Figure 6.8a Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-63
xiv
-------
Figure 6.8b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-64
Figure 6.9a Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Chester
River (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-65
Figure 6.9b Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Chester
River (continued) 8-66
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.9c Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the
Rappahannock River (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description) 8-67
Figure 6.9d Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the
Rappahannock River (continued) 8-68
Figure 6. lOa Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999. The
sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the least toxic third of the sites in the data set (see
Figures 6.1 Ob and c for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.1 8-69
Figure 6.10b Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999 (continued).
The results are for the middle third of the sites in the data set 8-70
Figure 6. lOc Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999 (continued).
The results are for the most toxic third of the sites in the data set 8-71
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-72
Figure 6.12 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-73
Figure 6.13 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 sediment data. (See Section
xv
-------
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-74
Figure 6.14a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-75
Figure 6.14b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from Baltimore Harbor sites
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-76
Figure 6.15 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-77
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.16 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-78
Figure 6.17 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-79
Figure 6.18a Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-80
Figure 6.18b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-81
Figure 6.19a Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Chester River
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-82
Figure 6.19b Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Chester River
(Continued) 8-83
Figure 6.19c Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Rappahannock
River (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation) 8-84
Figure 6.19d Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Rappahannock
River (Continued) 8-85
Figure 6.20a Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999. The sites
are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the least toxic third of the sites in the data set (see
Figures 6.20b and c for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.2 8-86
Figure 6.20b Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999 (continued).
The results are for the middle third of the sites in the data set 8-87
Figure 6.20c Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1999 (continued).
The results are for the most toxic third of the sites in the data set 8-88
xvn
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The potential relationship between contaminants and adverse effects on Chesapeake Bay living
resources is of concern due to increasing population growth and associated anthropogenic activities in the
watershed. Traditional approaches such as calculation of loading rates of toxic chemicals and/or chemical
monitoring studies provide useful data for exposure characterizations but these approaches are not totally
adequate for assessing the ecological effects resulting from numerous sources such as multiple point source
effluents, nonpoint source runoff from agriculture, silviculture and urban sites, atmospheric deposition,
groundwater contamination, and release oftoxic chemicals from sediments. The direct measure ofbiological
responses in the ambient environment is the most realistic and ecologically relevant approach for evaluating
the adverse effects oftoxic conditions on living resources. For the purposes of this report, the ambient
environment is defined as aquatic areas located outside of mixing zones of point source discharges in the
Chesapeake Bay.
In recent years various studies have been conducted to address the link between contaminants and
adverse effects on living aquatic resources in the ambient environment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
These ambient toxicity tests are designed to detect toxic conditions on a much broader scale than traditional
effluent toxicity tests. These tests are considered a first tier type approach used as a screening tool to
identify areas where ambient toxicity exists and future assessment efforts are warranted. Biological
responses such as survival, growth, and reproduction of resident species are used to identify stressful
conditions in the ambient environment resulting from point and non-point sources.
The ambient toxicity testing approach is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy which has a commitment to develop and implement a plan for Baywide assessment and
monitoring of the effects of toxic substances, within natural habitats, on selected commercially,
recreationally and ecologically important species of living resources (CEC, 1989). This commitment is also
consistent with the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Living Resource Monitoring Plan (CEC,
1988).
Previous ambient toxicity assessments in the Chesapeake Bay (1990-1998) have been completed
and reports have been published (Hall et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1992; Hall et al, 1994; Hall et al., 1996;
Hall et al. 1997; Hall et al., 1998; Hall et al., 2000a; Hall et al. 2000b). General conclusions to date have
shown that 62% of the time water column tests conducted at 64 stations (19 rivers and harbors with
multiple years oftesting at some sites) have suggested some degree of toxicity. The most toxic sites were
located in urbanized areas such as the Anacostia, Elizabeth and Middle Rivers. Water quality criteria for
copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at various sites in these rivers. Water column
toxicity was also reported in localized areas of the South and Chester Rivers. Some degree of sediment
toxicity was reported from 58% of the ambient tests at 64 stations conducted during the nine year period
(1990 -1998). The Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas
based on sediment results. Sediment toxicity guidelines (Long and Morgan, 1990; Long etal., 1995) were
exceeded for one or more of the following metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc. At the Elizabeth River station tested in 1990, nine of sixteen semi-volatile
organics and two of seven pesticides measured exceeded the Effects Range - Median as defined by Long
et al., 1995 (ER-M values). Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of
Baltimore Harbor sites; pyrene and dibenzo (a, h) anthracene were particularly high at one of the stations
1-1
-------
(Northwest Harbor). Sediment toxicity was also reported from localized areas in the Chester, Magothy,
and Potomac Rivers.
The goals of this study were to conduct a suite of water column and sediment toxicity tests in
concert with fish and benthic community assessments (IBI type approach) at ten stations in the
Rappahannock River and ten stations in the Chester River. The fish and benthic community assessments
were new components added to the ambient toxicity testing program in 1996 and continued annually
through 1999 to provide field data for assessing the status of biological communities at the study sites. In
order to provide limited exposure data for correlation with the toxicity data and biological assessments,
inorganic contaminants were evaluated in water and both organic and inorganic contaminants were
evaluated in sediment during these experiments.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
This ambient toxicity study was a continuation of an assessment effort previously conducted from
1990-1998 in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The major goal of this program was to assess the toxicity
of ambient water and sediment in selected areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of
standardized water column and sediment toxicity tests in concert with limited chemical characterizations.
Biological communities (fish and benthos) were also evaluated at the study sites.
The specific objectives of the nineth year of this study were to:
! assess the toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment during the late summer/early fall of
1999 at the ten stations in the Rappahannock River and ten stations in the Chester River;
! determine the toxicity of ambient estuarine water described in the first objective by using the
following estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus survival and
growth test and 48-h coot clam, Mulinia lateralis embryo-larval tests;
! evaluate the toxicity of ambient sediment described in the first objective by using the following
estuarine tests: 20-d amphipod Leptocheirusplumulosus survival, growth and reburialtest and
20-d polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth test;
! measure inorganic contaminants in ambient water and organic and inorganic contaminants in
sediment concurrently with toxicity tests to determine "possible" causes of toxicity;
! determine the relative sensitivity of test species for each type of test and compare between test
methods to identify regions where ambient toxicity exists;
! assess the status offish and benthic communities at the ten stations in each river using an Index of
Biotic Integrity approach; and
! summarize water column and sediment toxicity data from 1990 to 1999 using a composite index
approach for each site
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 Study Areas
The rationale for selecting study sites in the Rappahannockand Chester Rivers is presented below.
The Rappahannock River was selected for ambient toxicity testing because it is an ecologically important
western shore river in Virginia that has not been tested previously in the ambient toxicity program (Figure
3.1). Historical contaminants data and aquatic toxicity data are limited for this river. Coordinates for the
ten Rappahannock River stations were as follows:
RP1 -374734x763840
RP2 - 37 47 59 x 76 42 24
RP3 - 37 48 24 x 76 40 52
RP4-374833x7641 33
RP5 . 37 49 54 x 75 44 57
RP6 - 37 50 57 x 76 44 39
RP7 - 37 54 08 x 76 47 30
RP8 - 37 54 58 x 76 49 25
RP9-375755x7651 58
RP10-375900x7654 17
The Chester River was selected for ambient toxicity testing because previous ambient toxicity data
collected from this river at a limited number of stations in 1996 suggested potential toxicity (Hall et al.,
1998). Ambient toxicity testing was therefore conducted on a broader spatial scale to assess potential
toxicity in 1999 (Figure 3.2). Coordinates for the ten Chester River sites were as follows:
CHI -3900 18x76 1027
CH2 - 39 04 47 x 76 11 33
CH3 - 39 06 20 x 76 08 20
CH4-390935x7603 05
CHS-39 1041x760240
CH6-39 11 52x7603 56
CH7-39 1304x760231
CHS - 39 14 14 x 76 00 50
CH9 - 39 14 44 x 75 55 03
CH10-39 1443x755526
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The objectives of the water column toxicity tests were to determine the toxicity of ambient water
at the 20 stations described above. The following tests were conducted at these stations during the late
summer/early fall of 1999: 8 - d larval sheepshead minnow C. variegatus survival and growth test and 4 8 -h
coot clamM lateralis embryo/larval tests. Water from all sites was adjusted to a salinity of 15 ppt to
provide data comparable to the 1990 through 1998 ambient toxicity data sets. A suite of metals was
measured in ambient water used for these tests.
3-1
-------
3.2.1 Test species
Larval sheepshead minnows, a previously used species for the past eight years of ambient toxi city
testing, was used for the 1999 testing. This test species were selected because it meets the following
criteria: (1) resident Chesapeake Bay species, (2) sensitive to contaminants in short time period (less than
10 d) and (3) standard test organism that does not require additional research. Larval sheepshead minnows
are highly abundant, resident Chesapeake Bay organisms used extensively in standard tests. Sheepshead
minnows have demonstrated moderate sensitivity in subchronic tests and are commonly used in EPA's and
MDE's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program.
The coot clam, M. lateralis, was added to the suite of test organisms during the third year of
ambient toxicity testing. This clam is a small (< 2 cm length) euryhaline bivalve. It is a numerically dominant
species in the mesohaline areas of the Chesapeake Bay as well as numerous tributaries (Shaughnessy et
al., 1990). Embryo/larval development occurs in the water column in approximately 6-8 days. This clam
is suitable for water column testing because the sensitive life stage occurs in the water column. The coot
clam is not a standard test organism, however, the U. S. EPA has written a draft test method for estimating
toxicity ofeffluents usingMulinia (Morrison and Petrocelli, 1990a; 1990b). We also developed a Standard
Operating Procedure for testing Mulinia (Hall and Ziegenfuss, 1993).
3.2.2 Test Procedures
Test procedures and culture methods have been previously described in the year 1 ambient toxicity
report for the 8-d larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test (Hall et al., 1991). The test
procedures for the coot clam described in the year 3 report were used for these experiments (Hall et al.
1994). The sources for the species were as follows: sheepshead minnows, Aquatic Biosystems, Denver,
Colorado and and coot clams (U. S. EPA Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island).
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Univariate statistical tests described in Fisher et al. (1988) were used for each test species when
appropriate. The goal of this study was not to generate typical LC50 data with various dilutions of ambient
water. For each test species response, control and test conditions (100 percent ambient water) were
compared using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANO VA). A statistical difference between the response
of a species exposed to a control condition and an ambient condition was used to determine toxicity.
Dunnett's (parametric) or Dunn's (non-parametric) mean testing procedures were used in cases where
comparisons of a species response on a spatial scale was necessary.
3.2.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the previous studies were implemented
(Hall et al., 1991). Ambient water was collected from all study areas and taken to our toxicity testing
facility at the Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, Maryland for testing.
Grab samples were used because they are easier to collect, require minimum equipment (no
composite samplers), instantaneous toxicity is evaluated, and toxicity spikes are not masked by dilution.
Grab samples collected from each station represented a composite of the water column (top, mid-depth
and bottom). A metering pump with teflon line was used to collect samples in 13.25 L glass containers.
The time lapsed from the collection of a grab sample and the initiation of the test or renewal did not
exceed 72 hours. Water column samples were collected on days 0, 3 and 6 during the 8 day tests. All
3-2
-------
samples were chilled after collection and maintained at 4C until used. Water from each ambient site and
control was renewed in test containers every 24 hours. The temperature of the ambient water used for
testing was 25C. Salinity adjustments (increase) were performed on samples collected from less saline sites
to obtain a standard test salinity of approximately 15 ppt.
3.2.5 Quality Assurance
A copy of our general Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual (including the sheepshead
minnow SOP) was submitted and approved by the sponsor prior to the study (Fisher et al., 1988).
Standard Quality Assurance (QA) procedures used in our laboratory for The State of Maryland's Whole
Effluent Toxicity Testing Program were followed (Fisher et al., 1988). These QA procedures were also
used during the previous eight years of ambient toxicity testing study. A specific SOP forM lateralis was
followed (Hall and Ziegenfuss, 1993). The control water used for these experiments was obtained from
a pristine area of the Choptank River. The water was autoclaved and filtered with a 1 urn filter. Hawaiian
(HW) Marine sea salts were used to salinity adjust samples to 15 ppt. The pH was also adjusted to 7.5
to 8.0 after salinity adjustment.
Acute reference toxicant tests with cadmium chloride were conducted with the same stocks of
species used for ambient toxicity tests. Cadmium chloride was selected as the reference toxicant because
there is an established data base with this chemical for all of the proposed tests. Reference toxicity tests
were used to establish the validity of ambient toxicity data generated from toxicity tests by ensuring that the
test species showed the expected toxic response to cadmium chloride (Fisher et al., 1988). The reference
toxicant tests were conducted on each saltwater test species and source (of species) once during this study
using procedures described in Hall et al. (1991).
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
The contaminant analyses used for these studies provided limited information on selected
contaminants that may be present in the study areas. It was not our intention to suggest that the proposed
analysis for inorganic contaminants would provide an absolute "cause and effect relationship" between
contaminants and biological effects if effects were reported. Information on suspected contaminants in the
study areas may, however, provide valuable insights if high potentially toxic concentrations of inorganic
contaminants were reported in conjunction with biological effects.
Aqueous samples for analysis of inorganic contaminants listed in Table 3.1 were collected during
the ambient toxicity tests. These contaminants and methods for their measurement have been used in our
previous ambient toxicity testing study (Hall etal., 1991). Analytical procedures and references for analysis
of these samples are presented in Table 3.1. Total inorganic contaminant analysis (dissolved metals) were
conducted on filtered samples using 0.40 urn polycarbonate membranes. All samples were preserved with
ultrex grade nitric acid. The Applied Marine Research Laboratory of Old Dominion University conducted
the inorganic analysis.
Standard water quality conditions of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity
were evaluated at each site after sample collection. These conditions were evaluated every 24 hours at all
test conditions during the tests.
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests
3-3
-------
All tests and analyses were conducted according to the SOPs and QA plans previously submitted
to the sponsor. All sediment toxicity tests were conducted by the Applied Marine Research Laboratory
(AMRL). The toxicity tests were performed in compliance with the AMRL Quality Assurance Proj ect Plan
(QAPjP) 1999 used for characterizing ambient toxicity in Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay
Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved the protocols contained within
the QAPjP for conducting the 20 day amphipod (Leptocheirusplumulosus) survival and growth bioassay
and the 20 day polychaete worm (Streblospio benedicti) survival and growth bioassay (Messing et al.,
1999). The details of the test methods were provided in the QAPjP and summarized below.
3.3.1 Test Species
Two native benthic organisms were used to assess the potential toxicity of estuarine sediments: the
estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus and the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti.
3.3.2 Test Procedures
All tests were conducted for 20 days at 25± 1 °C and monitored daily. Monitoring of test conditions
included measurement of water quality parameters (Hall etal., 1991). The monitoring continued daily until
the test was terminated. On day 10 of the tests, all replicate vessels were sieved to remove test animals
from the sediment. Surviving animals were counted, returned to the original test containers, and monitored
for an additional 10 days. Due to the potential for damaging S. benedicti and miscounting of both species
at this stage in the bioassays, the sieving after 10 days of exposure was not applied as aggressively as
required to develop reliable counts of survivors. These data were not used in the statistical assessment of
potential biological effects. At day 20, all site replicates were sieved once more to obtain final counts of
surviving animals. Survivors were preserved to facilitate collection of length and weight measurements.
Treatment sediments were collected from ten sites in the Rappahannock River, Virginia (RP1
through RP10) and from ten sites in the Chester River, Maryland (CHI through CH10). The exact
locations of all sites were previously presented in Section 3.1. Reference sediments were chosen as the
basis for assessing differences in survival of the test species against survival in sediment from the study area
and the response of the test organisms in control sediments was used as a measure of acceptable
performance of the bioassays. Control sediment was collected from a location within the Ware River,
Virginia and reference sediment was collected from within a 100m x 100m area inside Carter Creek,
Virginia. Particle size analyses were performed on each of the five field replicates from all test sites and
sediment from the reference and control sites to determine similarities in sand, silt, and clay content.
Culture, maintenance, and test procedures used for S. benedicti and L. plumulosus are described
in Hall et al. (1991) and Hall et al. (1993), respectively.
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data
The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential toxicity of ambient sediments by comparing
all test endpoints of each species to the endpoints observed in reference sediments. Survival and weight
data were tested for assumptions of normality and equality of variances using Shapiro-Wilk' s and Bartlett' s
tests, respectively. Parameters violating these assumptions were transformed to arc-sine values, ranks and
normalized rankits and then retested for these assumptions. If the original or transformed data met the
assumptions, an ANOVA was used to test for significant differences in mean survival and weight between
stations. A posteriori pairwise comparisons of survival and weights between the test and reference sites
3-4
-------
were made using Fisher's LSD test. A posteriori pairwise comparisons of length data were conducted
using the Bonferroni T-test for unequal sample sizes. If transformed data did not meet the assumptions of
the parametric tests, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for significant differences in median ranks
between stations and a posteriori pairwise comparisons between the test and reference sites were made
using Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum test.
Length was expressed as change in size from the mean initial length and weight was evaluated as
the mean individual weight gain for each site. In order to eliminate any potential bias due to differential
survival, only those test sites not exhibiting significantly lower survival at the end of the 20 day tests were
analyzed for sublethal effects. Toxicity was inferred in test sediments with endpoints that were significantly
lower than those observed for the test-specific reference sediments.
3.3.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
Sediment collection, preservation, storage and preparation procedures for this study are described
in Hall et al. (1991). Samples were collected at each site by The University of Maryland and the Applied
Marine Research Laboratory (AMRL) personnel and returned to the laboratory for testing. Sediments
were collected using a petite ponar grab at sites in the Rappahannock River from September 22-23,1999
and in the Chester River on September 20, 1999 . True field replicates were maintained separately and
transported to the laboratory. Sediment was collected at each station by first randomly identifying 5 grab
sample locations within a 100 meter square grid. At each location a discrete field replicate was collected
for bioassays and stored on ice, while a separate subset from the same ponar grab was placed into a
handling container. Sub samples from all 5 random grab locations within the station were placed into the
handling container, homogenized, and distributed into sample containers designated for chemical analyses.
All samples were transported on ice in coolers, out of direct sunlight. Bioassay samples were held in
refrigerators at 4°C until initiation of the toxicity tests. Samples for chemical analysis were stored as
required for all analyses.
3.3.5 Quality Assurance
All quality assurance procedures were submitted previously to the sponsoring agency and were
implemented during sediment collection and analysis. Toxicity test control and reference sediments were
used as described in Section 3.3.2. Laboratory quality assurance procedures for organic and inorganic
chemical analyses, and for sediment pore water analyses, followed the AMRL QAPjP.
Static acute non-renewal, water-only reference toxicant tests were performed for each species
used for sediment toxicity testing. Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant because there is an
established data base for this chemical for both species used. Reference toxicant information was used to
verify the health and sensitivity of the test animals.
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations
Sediment bioassays were performed on each replicate sample (n=5) from a study site, but
contaminants were analyzed in composite samples of sediment from each site. It is assumed that if the
contaminants were present in sufficiently high concentration to cause significant effects in the sediment
bioassays, the contaminants would be present in detectable concentrations in the composite samples.
Sediment sample collection was described in Section 3.3.4. Inorganic contaminant analytical
methods are provided in Table 3.2. Poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were extracted and
3-5
-------
analyzed in accordance with SW-846 Methods 3550, 3640, and 8270 (USEPA, 1994). Pesticides and
Aroclors were extracted and analyzed in accordance with SW-846 Methods 3350, 3640, and 8081
(USEPA, 1994).
Whole or bulk sediment was analyzed for acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and total organic carbon
(TOC). Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS using USEPA (1991) draft methods. Details of the
analytical procedures forbothAVS and TOC are described in Hall et al. (1991). Sediment pore water was
analyzed for ammonia, nitrite, and sulfides. Samples analyzed for TOC were frozen until analysis, at which
time they were thawed, then homogenized by gently stirring. Pore water samples were extracted from
sediment using a nitrogen press. All pore water samples were filtered and frozen until analyses were
conducted. Details of the methods are described in Hall et al. (1991).
Sediments were also analyzed for Simultaneously Extractable Metals (SEM). The sample for the
SEM analysis was obtained from the AVS procedure mentioned above. The SEM sample was the
sediment suspension remaining in the generation flask after the cold acid extraction had been completed.
The sediment suspension was filtered through a 0.2 micron membrane filter into a 250 ml volumetric flask,
and was then diluted to volume with deionized water. The concentrations of the SEMs were determined
by the same analytical methods as bulk metals. The concentrations were then converted to micromoles per
gram (• M/g) dry sediment and summed to yield total SEM. SEM results were used in conjunction with
the AVS data to estimate the potential toxicity of the sediment due to metals.
3.4 Analysis of Ten Year Data Base
A series of summary multivariate statistical analyses were conducted in order to provide
environmental managers with summary information concerning the relative toxicity of water and sediments
from the collection areas (see Section 6). These analyses also provide quantitative indicators of the degree
of confidence which may be given to differences between responses observed for "clean" ("reference")
conditions and those seen for test media (water or sediments) of unknown quality. These analyses are
based upon the summary composite indices first developed for the toxicity axis of the "sediment quality
triad" (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman, 1986; Chapman et al. 1987 and Chapman 1990). This
approach has been modified to provide confidence limits on composite indices designated as "ratio-to-
reference mean" (RTRM) indices (Alden, 1992). Details of the calculation of the RTRM indices for the
Ambient Toxicity Program are presented in the Year 3 report (Hall et al., 1994).
In order to make the RTRM indices more meaningful to managers, a method was developed to
scale the values, so that they range between a "best case" (uncontaminated) condition, represented by a
score of 0 and a "worst case" (highly contaminated and toxic) condition, represented by a score of 100.
A value of 0 would represent the median response of a reference test of uncontaminated water or sediment,
while a value of 100 would represent a condition producing the maximum detrimental responses in all of
the endpoints (e.g. no growth, reproduction, or survival of all test populations). Not only does this sort of
scaling provide a "frame of reference" to address the question of "howbad is this site?", but it allows scores
of RTRM indices from different years (whichmay have had different numbers of endpoints) to be evaluated
on the same scale. This well-defined scaling system is much more readily interpreted than the sediment
quality triad RTR values or the RTRM indices, which have a reference value of 1, but have an open-ended
scale for toxic conditions, the maximum value of which depends upon the number of endpoints, the
magnitude of the test responses, and the reference response values used in the calculations.
The scaled RTRM index, hereafter designated as "toxicity index" or TOX-INDEX, was calculated
3-6
-------
as follows. The RTRM values and confidence limits were calculated as in previous years (Hall et al,
1994). The reference median for any given site was subtracted from all reference and test values (medians,
lower and upper confidence limits). This step scales the reference median to 0. The values are then
divided by a "worst case" constant for each test data set. This "worst case" constant is calculated by taking
the test data set and setting the values to the maximum detrimental responses for each endpoint (e.g., no
survival, growth, reproduction, hatching of eggs, etc.), calculating the RTRM values for these "worst case"
conditions by dividing by the appropriate reference means (i.e., for the sediment data set, each sample was
matched to the reference data set that most closely matched the sediment characteristics) and calculating
the "worst case" constant as the mean of RTRM values for all endpoints. The division by the "worst case"
constant makes all values (medians and confidence limits) a fraction of the "worst case" condition. The
TOX-INDEX values are converted to a percentage scale by multiplying by 100. The TOX-INDEX
medians and confidence limits for test and reference conditions of each site are plotted on maps of the Bay
to indicate the relative toxicity of various geographic locations. For graphical purposes, the lower
confidence limits of the reference data are not shown, unless the test confidence limits overlap those of the
reference conditions (i.e. a portion of the confidence limits for both the test and reference conditions are
less than zero).
In order to provide more informationto the TOX-INDEX maps, pie charts are included to indicate
the relative percentage of endpoints that were shown to be different between the test and reference data
sets in the RTRM simulations. Therefore, a highly toxic site would not only be shown to have high TOX-
INDEX values which display a low degree of uncertainty (i.e., to have narrow confidence bands that are
well separated from reference conditions), but it would also be shown to have a high percentage of
endpoints that were adversely affected by the toxic conditions.
This type of presentation should provide managers with a tool to evaluate the relative ecological
risk of the sites in comparison to each other and aid in targeting mitigation efforts on a spatial scale. A site
with TOX-INDEX confidence limits that overlap those of a reference site, and which displays few
statistically significant endpoints, would be expected to pose little ecological risk with respect to ambient
toxicity. On the other hand, a site displaying a large TOX-INDEX value, with confidence limits that are
well separated for the reference condition and with many significantly impacted endpoints would be
expected to pose a much greater ecological risk. The ecological significance of toxicity at sites with
intermediate TOX-INDEX scores would have to be interpreted through the best professional judgement
of scientists and managers, although the relative magnitude of the values does provide information on the
relative degree of toxicity with respect to other sites. Although absolute ecological risk assessments would
require much more intensive biological evaluations of long-term population and community level effects,
TOX-INDEX provides a screening system that indicates the relative ranking by which regions can be
prioritized for management actions related to toxicity. Thus, the maps provide quantitative indications of
the magnitude, certainty and consistency of toxic effects.
The site location symbols in the TOX-INDEX maps indicate the degree to which water or sediment
benchmarks (water quality criteria or ER-M values, respectively) were exceeded. Thus, the maps also
display the qualitative degree of chemical contamination.
During the 1998 studies, the water column toxicity data sets were re-scaled (Hall et al., 2000b).
The re-scaling effort was designed to make the scaled water column data sets more comparable to the
scaled sediment toxicity data sets. The issue to be resolved was the definition of the "worst case" for
growth endpoints (e.g., growth of sheepshead minnows, and inthe earlier years of the study, grass shrimp).
3-7
-------
Traditionally, the growth endpoints for the water column tests were measured as the absolute weight of the
larval organisms at the end of the test compared to the weight of controls. Conversely, the sediment tests
measure growth as the relative change in size of organisms as a percentage of the starting size (i.e., growth
rates) in test treatments compared to controls. Either of these approaches provides a valid test of sublethal
effects on growth. However, a "worst case" for the former case is zero weight, while it is a zero growth
rate for the latter. Our consensus was that the zero growth rate represented a more realistic "worst case"
scaling factor, so the water column growth data from 1990 to 1999 were converted to growth rates and
re-scaled.
Since the "worst cases" for the growth endpoints were more in line with what could possibly be
achieved in the tests, the re-scaled Toxicity Index values tended to be greater by a factor of approximately
2. However, the re-scaling process did not scale equally across all sites for all years. The performance
of controls, the number of endpoints, and the number of replicates all influence the scaling factor produced
for each data set. In addition, RTRM values had to be calculated for growth rates instead of absolute
growth. Thus, the relative toxicity rankings of sites changed somewhat during the re-scaling process.
However, the major patterns of toxicity among sites remained (i.e. toxic sites remained toxic) and made
environmental sense from a "best professional judgement" perspective. The re-scaled water column
Toxicity Index values and rankings are discussed in
Section 6.
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
3.5.1 Data Collection
All sites were sampled monthly for fish assemblages during the summer index period (July, August,
and September, 1999). This period reflects the time of greatest fish species diversity and abundance in the
Chesapeake Bay due to the function of the estuary as a spawning and nursery habitat for anadromous,
marine, and estuarine resident species.
Sites in both rivers were sampled inshore using a 30.5 mX 1.2 mbeach seine with6.4 mm mesh.
The seine was pulled with the tide employing the quarter sweep method. Two seine hauls were conducted
per site with a 30 minute interval between eachhaul to allowfor repopulation of the seine area. Fish from
the first seine haul were held and released after completion of the second seine haul.
In the channel adj acent to the seining area, fish were sampled using a 3.1 m otter or box trawl with
12.8 mm stretch mesh and 50.8 cm by 25.4 cm doors. All sites inboth rivers were sampled with a single
trawl tow pulled with the tide at two knots for five minutes.
All fish captured in the seine and trawl were identified to species, counted, and minimum and
maximum length recorded for each species. Age of game and commercial species was also recorded.
Scales were collected for fish when age determination could not be made in the field. When field
identification was not possible, specimens were retained for later laboratory evaluation.
Water quality parameters were sampled using a Hydrolab. Water temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, conductivity, and salinity were measured at bottom, mid-water and surface depth profiles near
the trawl area for each site. Water clarity was measured witha Secchi disc. Detailed sampling methods are
described in Carmichael et al., 1992a.
Fish catch data and water quality data were recorded in the field on standardized data sheets. All
data sheets were verified prior to leaving the sampling site. Data sheets were again proofed in the
3-!
-------
laboratory for errors and omissions. Data were keypunched into ASCII files, then compared to the original
field sheets to locate any data entry errors. Corrected data files were then converted to PC-S AS data sets.
Data were proofed again using a computerized quality control program designed for the proj ect. Finalized
data sets were created for analysis and computation of IBI metrics.
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity Calculations
Data for each site were summed for the entire summer season. Data were prepared using a
program which assigns spawning location, feeding strategy, and area of residence (freshwater, estuarine
or marine species) for each species (Table 3.3). These assignments were made based on the adult life
stages of each species.
Nine metrics were used to calculate the provisional IBI score by site. The metrics were divided into
three categories '.Richness Measures - total number of species, number of species caught in bottom trawl,
and number of species comprising 90% of the catch; Abundance Measures - number of anadromous fish,
number of estuarine fish, and total number of fish with menhaden removed; Trophic Measures - proportion
of planktivores, proportion of carnivores, and proportion of benthivores. Abundance and proportion
metrics were then normally transformed and ranked into thirds and assigned a value of 5, 3, or 1. All
metrics in the upper third were given a five; middle third a three; and lower third a 1. Planktivores were
ranked in reverse because increasing trends in abundance are quantitatively associated with increases in
pollutant loadings (Vaas and Jordan, 1990). The individualranks were then summed to give a total for each
site. This total represents the provisional IBI score. A more detailed description is presented in Carmichael
et al, 1992b.
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions
Reference IBI conditions were established based on examining numerous years of existing data for
the Wicomico River. The 95% confidence intervals about the mean IBI score for the Wicomico River were
calculated. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (IBI score of 31) was identified as the cut off
point for reference systems (any value below this is not meeting the reference standard).
3.5.4 Trawl Index
A trawl index was calculated for each station. The index was derived by calculating the mean rank
of the monthly bottom trawl richness measures for each station. The mean ranks were then assigned a
narrative rating of good (mean rank greater than 1.33), fair (mean rank between 0.67 and 1.33), and poor
(mean rank less than 0.67).
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
3.6.1 Sample Collection
Benlhic samples for the Ambient Toxicity study were collected at the twenty sites described in
Section 3.1 during the summer of 1999. The ten sites in the Chester River were sampled between
September 7 and September 15, while the ten sites in the Rappahannock River were sampled between
August 10 and 11. A Global Positioning System (GPS) with differential correction was used to locate
study sites. All sites were sampled in the summer window for application of the Benthic Index of Biotic
Integrity (Weisberg et al. 1997). Bottom water temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen
3-9
-------
concentration (DO), and pH were measured at each site.
3.6.2 Benthic Samples
In the Rappahannock River, three replicate samples were collected at each site. Due to funding
limitations, one sample was collected at each site in the Chester River. Benthic samples were collected at
each site using a Young Grab which samples an area of 440 cm2 to a depth of 10 cm. The samples were
seived through a 0.5 mm screen using an elutriative process. Organisms retained on the screen were
transferred to labeled jars and preserved in 10% buffered formalin stained with rose bengal (a vital stain
used to aid separation of organisms from sediment and detritus). An additional grab sample was collected
from each site for sediment silt/clay analysis. Samples were frozen until processed in the laboratory.
3.6.3 Laboratory Processing
Organisms were sorted from detritus under dissecting microscopes, identified to the lowest practical
taxonomic level, and counted. Oligochaetes and chironomids were mounted on slides, examined under a
compound microscope, and identified to genus and species. Ash-free dry weight biomass was measured
for each species by drying the organisms to a constant weight at 60C followed by ashing in a muffle furnace
at 500C for four hours.
Silt-clay composition was determined by wet-sieving through a 63 ji stainless steel sieve and
weighed using the procedures described by Plumb (1981) and Buchanan (1984).
3.6.4 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations
Analyses were performed in the context of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benthic Community
Restoration Goals which use the Benlhic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) to measure goal attainment. The
newly developed Tidal Freshwater Benlhic Community Restoration Goals were applied to one oligohaline
site in the Chester River (Alden et al, 2000).
The B-IBI is a multiple-attribute index developed to identify the degree to which a benthic
assemblage meets the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benlhic Community Restoration Goals (Ranasinghe et
al., 1994, updated by Weisberg et al., 1997). The B-IBI provides a means for comparing the relative
condition of benthic invertebrate assemblages across different habitats. It also provides a validated
mechanism for integrating several benthic community attributes indicative of "health" into a single number
that measures overall benthic community condition.
The B-IBI is scaled from 1 to 5, and sites with values of 3 or more are considered to meet the
Restoration Goals. The index is calculated by scoring each of several attributes as either 5, 3, or 1
depending on whether the value of the attribute approximates, deviates slightly from, or deviates strongly
from values at the best reference sites in similar habitats, and then averaging these scores across attributes.
The criteria for assigning these scores are numeric and habitat-dependent.
Benlhic community condition was classified into three levels based on the B-IBI. Values less than
or equal to 2 were classified as severely degraded; values from 2 to less than 3.0 were classified as
degraded; and values of 3.0 or more were classified as meeting the goal. A marginal category of values
between 2.6 and 3.0 was also applied to this study.
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The following results from water toxicity column tests are presented below: toxicity data,
contaminants data, water quality data and toxicity data from reference toxicant tests.
4.1.1 Toxicity Data
Survival, growth, and percent normal shell development from the two estuarine tests conducted
from 9/28/99 to 10/6/99 are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Based on univariate analysis, survival of
sheepshead minnows was not significantly reduced at any of the 20 sites when compared with the controls
(Table 4.1). However, significant effects on growth were reported for this fish species at two sites in the
Chester River (CH2 and CHS). Percent normal shell development with the coot clam from test 1 was
significantly different than the controls for four sites in each river (Table 4.2). Specifically, effects were
reported at the three downstream sites in the Chester River (CHI, CH2 and CHS) and the most upstream
site (CH10). For the Rappahannock River, effects from clam test 1 did not follow any type of spatial
pattern (RP1, RP5, RP6 and RP8). Results from coot clam tests 2 and 3 generally did not show any
significant biological effects (except RP10). The combined test results from coot clam tests 1-3 did not
show significant effects at any of the 20 sites.
4.1.2 Contaminants Data
Inorganic contaminant concentrations from the 20 stations in both the Chester and Rappahannock
Rivers showed that chronic water quality criteria were exceeded for copper (CH7, CHI 0 and RP3), lead
(CHS, CHI 0 and RP3) nickel(RP6 and RP7), and zinc (RP3) (Table 4.3). However, only CHI 0 and RP6
showed any degree of positive correlationbetween metals concentrations exceeding criteria and biological
effects (coot clam test 1). The site with highest number of metals exceedances (copper, lead and zinc for
RP3) showed no significant effects from either of the tests species.
4.1.3 Water Quality Data
Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected three times at all stations are
presented in Table 4.4. Most of these ambient water quality conditions appeared adequate for survival of
test species except occasional dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5.0 mg/L at three sites in the Chester
River. Water quality conditions reported in test containers during testing are reported in Appendix A. All
of these parameters appeared adequate for survival of test species.
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data
Forty-eight hour LC or EC50 values for the two test species exposed to cadmium chloride during
reference toxicant tests are presented in Table 4.5. These toxicity values were compared with the values
from the previous eight years for all species except the coot clam, where six years of data were available.
4-1
-------
The sheepshead minnow LC50 of 11.0 mg/L is similar to the value of 10.4 mg/L reported in year 8 but
both of these values are higher than reported during the first seven years of the study (0.51 to 2.3 mg/L).
The EC50 for the coot clam (0.094 mg/L) is similar to the value of 0.082 mg/L reported the year 7 study.
The reference toxicant data in Table 4.5 demonstrates that the test species from the various sources are
healthy and the ambient toxicity data were valid.
4.2 Sediment Tests
4.2.1 Toxicity Data
The results of the 20 day exposure of the amphipods (Leptocheirus plumulosus) to sediments
showed that survival was significantly different from the reference site (Carters Creek, Virginia) at several
sites in the Rappahannock and Chester Rivers (Table 4.6). One site in the Rappahannock River (RP-10)
and three sites in the Chester River (CHS, CH7 and CHS) were significantly different from the reference
site. Results from sediment toxicity tests with the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti in Table 4.7
showed that this species was more sensitive than the amphipod. The sites in the Chester River that were
significantly different from the reference site based on the polychaete worm bioassay included: CH4; CHS;
CH6; CHS; CH9; and CH10. The sites in the Rappahannock River that were significantly different from
the reference site were: RP1; RP5; RP9; andRPlO. The agreement between the two toxicity tests for the
reduced survival endpoint at CH
5, CHS, and RP10 indicates an increased probability of an adverse impact to benthic resources at these
sites.
Growth of the amphipod, expressed as a change of length, was significantly different from the
reference site at CHS and CH10 in the Chester River, and RP5 in the Rappahannock River (Table 4.8).
The polychaete worm toxicity test (Table 4.9) revealed that two sites in the Chester River (CH2 and CHS)
were significantly different for increase in length over the initial size. There was no significant differences
in change of weight for either test species when comparing test sites and the reference sites (Tables 4.8 and
4.9). The basis for statistically analyzing only growth results from sites not already shown to be significantly
different from the reference site for survival was that if the sediment was acutely toxic, it would most
certainly be significantly different for the sub-acute measurements (e.g., length and weight measurements).
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data
4.2.2.1 Organic Contaminants
At the method detection limit for the analytical methods used in this study, no pesticides, PAHs,
or PCBs were detected in sediment from any site including the reference and control sites. This would
initially appear to be an indication that these classes of compounds are not present in the study area. If the
detection limit was below benchmark concentrations traditionally associated with rarely observing adverse
effects to benthic populations or communities(e.g., effects range-low values, Long, etal, 1995), then there
is a high degree of confidence that no impairment was occurring at the study sites. If the detection limit for
a compound was higher than the benchmark value associated with frequently observing adverse effects
(e.g., effects range-median value, Long, et al., 1995), then there is a low degree of confidence that the
condition at the site could be characterized. Although the detection limit is a statistically driven estimate of
the sensitivity of the measurement process, guidance exists for substituting the detection limit or one-half
4-2
-------
the detection limit into the exposure assessment (USEPA, 1992) when compounds are not detected in
environmental media. Advantages and limitations to this approach and other means of assigning values to
contaminants at concentrations below the detection limits have been discussed by Newman (1994). The
assumption of compounds being present at one-half the detection limit was used in the following discussion
in cases where the detection limit was greater than the effects range-low (ERL) benchmark values.
4.2.2.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs^ in Bulk Sediment
Since no PAHs were detected in the sediments from the Rappahannock or Chester Rivers, Tables
4.10 and 4.11 (respectively) show only the detection limits unique to each compound for each site
concurrent with the ERL and ERM benchmarks. At the reported detection limit, dibenz(a,h)anthracene is
the only PAH than cannot consistently be declared less than the ERM. If it is assumed that this PAH is
present at one-half the detection limit, then no site in either river has an individual PAH in excess of the
ERM benchmark for that PAH. That is, there is no strong evidence for impairment to the benthos due to
the presence of individual PAHs in either river. However, it is impossible to declare any site free of the
potential for impairment since the majority of the detection limits are greater than the ERL, even when the
assumption of one-half the detection limit is employed. The same conclusions can be drawn when
comparing the ERL and ERM for low molecular weight PAHs, but all sites can be assessed as unlikely to
be impaired based on high molecular weight PAHs and total PAHs with the assumption of one-half the
detection limit.
Although the assessment remains essentially the same as above, the PAHs detection limits for the
Rappahannock and Chester Rivers sediment samples and the ERL and ERM (assuming 1% TOC) have
been converted in Tables 4.12 and 4.13, respectively, to organic carbon normalized concentrations. The
only important change is that when evaluating the data in this fashion, the organic carbon normalized
detect on limits are less than the organic carbon normalized ERL. Additionally, when compared to the draft
sediment quality criteria (USEPA, 1993 a-c) for acenanthrene (Table 4.14), fluoranlhene (Table 4.15), and
phenanthrene (Table 4.16), there appears to be no site with site-specific organic carbon normalized
detection limits that are greater than the draft criteria.
4.2.2.3 Pesticides in Bulk Sediment
The analysis of sediments for pesticides revealed no detectable concentrations in any of the study
sites. The sample-specific method detection limits are provided in Table 4.17 for the Rappahannock River
and in Table 4.18 for the Chester River. For the limited compounds with effects-based benchmark values,
the detection limits were less than the ERM in all cases, but greater than the ERL in all cases. Thus, it can
be said that there is no evidence for the potential for adverse impacts to the benthos for dieldrin, DDD,
DDE and DDT, but these pesticides cannot be eliminated as potential toxicants in the rivers since it cannot
be shown that they are not present above the ERL benchmark value.
Previous pesticide measurements conducted by Hall et al. (1998) in the Chester River in 1996 at
four sites in the same study area used in 1999 showed the following ranges of pesticide concentrations:
Dieldrin- 1.5 to 3.4 ug/kg; DDT - 4.3 to 63 ug/kg; DDD - BDLto 6.8 ug/kgandDDE- 1.4 to 5.1 ug/kg.
Our 1999 results with higher detection limits for these four pesticides ( or pesticide breakdown products)
showed that all concentrations were less than 7.6 ug/kg. For Dieldrin, DDD and DDE, the evaluated
detect on limits used for the 1999 study preclude exact comparisons since all the 1996 concentrations were
less than 7.6 ug/kg. However, two DDT concentrations (8.4 and 63 ug/kg) reported at two different
4-3
-------
stations in the Chester River in 1996 were not confirmed withthe more recent measurements of < 7.6 ug/kg
conducted in 1999. These limited data suggest that DDT concentrations may have declined in sediment
from 1996 to 1999.
4.2.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs^ in Bulk Sediment
The absence of polychlorinated biphenyls measured as Aroclors cannot be assumed tobe evidence
that sites sampled in this study are free of PCBs at the stated detection limits (Table 4.19). It is possible
that the mixture of congeners, in the concentrations required to meet the characterization requirements of
the specific Aroclors was not sufficient for the analyst to confirm the presence at the stated detect on limits.
Because individual congeners degrade differentially under physical and biogeochemical processes based
on chemical structure, it is possible, and even likely, that identification and quantification of Aroclors can
be missed even in the presence of high concentrations of PCB congeners (USEPA, 1996). Thus, since
the differential degradation of congeners is a plausible explanation for the absence of PCBs as Aroclors,
it cannot be assumed that PCB congeners are absent from these rivers.
4.2.2.5 Metals in Bulk Sediment
Nickel was found throughout the Rappahannock River (8 of 10 sites) (Table 4.20) in
concentrations above the NOAA benchmark for Effects Range-Low (Long et al., 1995), but no other
metals exceeded the respective ERLs or the Effects Range-Median benchmarks. The ERL predicts a low
probability of toxicity due to nickel when ambient concentrations are below that value and the ERM
predicts a high probability of effects to benthic populations when exceeded. In the case of nickel, the
reliability of the ERM is suspect and the probability of effects at values greater than the ERL and less than
the ERM are difficult to predict. The sites sampled in the Chester River (Table 4.21) had similar instances
where nickel was greater than the ERL (7 of 10 sites), but there were 4 sites where nickel, lead and zinc
exceeded the ERL (CH4, CHS, CH6 and CH7). Zinc exceeded the ERL at CH2 in addition to nickel.
For most metals with ERL and ERM values, when an ambient concentration falls between the two
benchmarks, it is expected that toxicity due to the metal(s) is "occasionally" observed. Based on bulk metal
concentrations, there are at least 4 and possibly 5 sites in the Chester River with the potential for toxicity
due to zinc and lead, but there is no substantial evidence for metals toxicity at the Rappahannock River
sites.
Another method of evaluating the metals residues is to consider the contribution each metal may
have to any observed toxicity assuming that the toxicity of the individual metals is additive. If the ambient
concentration is divided by the ERL benchmark value, the quotient or toxicity unit (TU) may express the
relative contribution of the individual metal to the overall potential toxicity of the sediment. In Table 4.22,
the concentrations of the metals are expressed as toxic units (TU) relative to the respective ERL
benchmarks defined by Long et al., 1995. The TU is defined as the observed concentration divided by
the ERL such that TU values less than "1" express a low probability that the specific metal is likely to be
responsible for any observed toxicity. TUs greater than "1" for ERL benchmark values indicates when
toxicity is "occasionally" observed. If the toxicity of metals can be assumed to be additive in nature, when
the total of all TU ERLs for a given site (SUM TU ERL) is less than one, toxicity is not expected to be due
to the metals. The SUM TU ERL for the study sites does not allow for ruling out metals as potentially
responsible for any observed sediment toxicity.
4-4
-------
4.2.2.6 Simultaneously Extracted Metals and Acid Volatile Sulfides (SEM/AVS^)
The results of the SEM analysis for the 6 divalent metals is presented in Table 4.23. At all sites
in the Rappahannock and Chester Rivers neither cadmium or mercury were detected and nickel was not
detected anywhere in the Rappahannock River as a simultaneously extracted metal. Copper, lead and zinc
appeared to be similar throughout both study areas, the reference area and the control sites.
The sum of the SEM, the acid volatile sulfides and the ratio (SEM/AVS) for the study sites are
presented in Table 4.24. The largest ratio of 1.4 occurred at RP8 in the Rappahannock River.
The largest ratio (1.7)forthe Chester River was reported in sediments from CHS. The value of these ratios
are not sufficiently large to warrant concern for any toxicity being due to the presence of these 6 metals.
The amount of AVS was much more variable than the SEM, not between Rivers but between sites in each
waterbody. In the Rappahannock River, the highest AVS was at RP 10(15.2 uM/g) with the next highest
concentration at RP3 (7.9 uM/g). At three sites in the Chester River ( CHS, CHS and CH7) the
concentration of AVS was elevated as well (21.8 uM/g, 18.9 uM/g, and 10.7 uM/g, respectively). The
Chester River appears to have a greater overall concentration of SEM (mean =1.4 uM/g) but an even
greater amount of AVS (mean = 6.6 uM/g) than the Rappahannock River (mean SEM =1.1 uM/g and
mean AVS = 5.5 uM/g). With respect to these metals in sediment, the amount of AVS in the Chester River
has a slightly greater capacity for binding with the metals than the sites sampled in the Rappahannock River.
4.2.2.7 Pore Water Characteristics
Sediment pore water was analyzed for several naturally occurring substances (i.e., nitrate,
ammonia, and sulfide) that can affect survival and growth of the test organisms (Table 4.25). Nitrate
concentrations ranged from 0.0001 to 0.0018 mg/L in the Rappahannock River; the range in the Chester
River was 0.0006 to 0.0025 mg/L. Ammonia concentrations ranged from 4.9 to 11.9 mg/L in the
Rappahannock River while these values ranged from 2.6 to 10.6 mg/L in the Chester River. Sulfide
concentrations ranged from < 0.005 to 0.015 mg/L in the Rappahannock River; the range of this
porewater parameter in the Chester River was < 0.005 to 0.011 mg/L.
4.2.2.8 Total Organic Carbon in Sediments
The results of the analysis of sediment for organic carbon content is provided in Table 4.25.
Organic carbon (expressed as percent TOC dry weight basis) in the Rappahannock River ranged from
0.82% to 2.44% with a mean value of 1.87%. There were 5 sites in this River with organic carbon greater
than 2% (RP2, RP5, RP7, RP9 and RP10). The Chester River sites were more enriched with organic
carbon than the Rappahannock River. In the Chester River there was one site with more than 5% TOC
(CH9), 5 sites with more than 3% TOC (CH4, CH6, CH7, CHS and CH10) and 2 sites with more than
2 % TOC (CH2 and CHS). The minimum organic carbon concentration in the Chester River was 0.64
% (CHI), a value similar to the lowest value from the Rappahannock River (0.82% at RP6). The mean
organic carbon content in the Chester River was 2.88% as compared to the Rappahannock River at
1.88%. The organic carbon content in sediment from the reference site in Carters Creek (4.91%) was
similar to the mean TOC for the Chester River sites and the control site in the Ware River (2.53%) was
similar to the mean TOC for the Rappahannock River sites.
Organic matter, including organic carbon, in and on the sediment is used by the test organisms as
a source of food. Concurrently, organic carbon may bind with organic compounds and render them non-
bioavailable which reduces toxicity to benthic organisms exposed to interstitial or pore water in the
4-5
-------
sediment. The organic carbon data are used elsewhere in this report to normalize PAH and pesticide
residues for comparison against sediment quality benchmarks and guidelines. It should be noted however
that if there were similar concentrations in both Rivers, the amount of organic carbon throughout the
Chester River would produce lower organic carbon normalized organic contaminant concentrations than
the Rappahannock River.
4.2.2.9 Particle Size Characteristics of Sediments
Field surveys were performed in advance of the sediment sampling events in an effort to select
areas with sediment deposition greater than erosion. The results of characterization for particle size is
presented in Table 4.26. The reference and control sites for this study were composed of sediment that
was more than 90% fines (silt plus clay) and sediment from 12 of the 20 sites were similar in particle size
characteristics. Sediment from several sites was more than 80% fines, and only 4 sites had sediment with
more sand than either silt or clay. Only three of the sites that had markedly different sediment types among
the randomly located samples within the 100 x 100 m grid (RP8, CH9 and CH10).
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data
The relative sensitivities of each set of test organisms were evaluated by reference toxicant tests.
The results of each test are shown in Table 4.27. All animals were tested using cadmium chloride (CdCy.
The response of the amphipod to the reference toxicant fell within the expected range for this toxicant,
however, the polychaete worm response fell outside of the expected range.
These data suggest that both species are healthy but the polychaetes used for these tests may be more
tolerant than polychaetes used in previous experiments. Despite the increased tolerance of this species, it
was still more sensitive thanthe amphipods when detecting toxicity at the various sites (Tables 4.6 and 4.7).
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
4.3.1 Fish Community
A summary of the fish data for all sites on the Chester River showed that 6,144 individuals
representing 32 species were captured (Appendix B). White perch were the most dominant species,
followed by Atlantic silverside and bay anchovy. These three species combined composed 73% of the
overall catch. Rappahannock River data showed that 4,606 individual were captured representing 39
species. Bay anchovy, white perch and Atlantic silversides were the most dominant species, representing
78% of the catch.
Individual metrics for each station in the Chester River are presented in Table 4.28. Station CH-3
showed the highest overall abundance and station CH-9, the lowest. Total estuarine individuals declined
steadily from station CH-1 (mouth of the river) where the count was highest at 415 individuals to Station
CH-10 (most upstream site) where the count was a low 26 individuals. Anadromous fish abundance varied
among the stations, with station CH-3 representing the largest total catchforthe season of 565 individuals.
Both stations CH-5 and CH-9 showed low anadromous counts of 192 and 159, respectively. In the
Chester River, carnivores comprised the largest proportion of the catch at station CH-8. Planktivorous
fish dominated the catch at station CH-1. Benthic feeders were observed in low numbers, however, the
largest proportion of benthivores was observed at station CH-10. Station CH-10 had the highest species
4-6
-------
richness with 23 species observed in total. This station also had the largest number of species observed in
the trawl, and showed the greatest richness, with nine species representing 90% of the overall catch.
Stations CH-4 and CH-5 showed the poorest measures of richness and diversity.
Table 4.29 shows the individual metrics for each of the Rappahannock River stations. The largest
catch was recorded at stationRP-4, with 1011 individuals and the lowest at sationRP-7 showing only 127
individuals. Estuarine fish abundance seemed to follow this trend with the largest anadromous catch found
at station RP-4 and the lowest at station RP-7. Anadromous fish were observed at all stations; however,
stationRP-1 had only one individual recorded. The greatest anadromous fish count was observed at station
RP-10 (the most upstream station). The largest proportion of carnivorous fish was observed at stationRP-
10, and the lowest at station RP-4 where planktivores dominated. The largest proportion ofbenthic feeders
was observed at station RP-7. The total number of species ranged from a low of 12, recorded at station
RP-3, to a high of 20 which was observed at three stations, RP-8, RP-9, and RP-10. Stations RP-8 and
RP-10, both yielded 10 species in the bottom trawl. Station RP-4 showed the lowest value for species
richness with only 2 individuals representing 90% of the catch.
IBI scores for the Chester River ranged from a low of 21 at station CH-4 and CH-5 to a high of
35 at station CH-7 (Table 4.30). Only three stations, CH-1, CH-7 and CH-10 scored at or above the
reference criteria of 31. Scores for the Rappahannock River ranged from 31 to 35; all stations met or
exceeded the reference criteria of 31.
The trawl index for the Chester River (Table 4.31) showed a poor ratings for all lower river stations
(CH-1 to CH-6). Station CH-7 and CH-10 rated good and CH-8 and CH-9 were rated fair. For the
Rappahannock River, the trawl index rated good at all stations except RP-6 and RP-7 where a fair rating
was reported (Table 4.31).
4.3.2 Water Quality
Summer mean dissolved oxygen levels at all stations on both river systems met the requirements
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Mean
dissolved oxygen values were greater than 5.0 mg/L at the surface and greater than 3. Omg/L at the bottom
at all stations (Table 4.32). Summer mean Secchi depth measurements were below the criteria for SAV
recovery (0.97m) at all sites in the Rappahannock River. Secchi depth measurements failed to meet criteria
at all Chester River stations except for CH-5 and CH-3 (Table 4.33).
4.4 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species biomass and
benthic IBI scores for each site are presented in Appendix C. The number ofbenthic taxa in the Chester
River (6-15) was generally more variable by site than in the Rappahannock River (9-14).
Abundance measurements ranged from 1,068 to 4,545 per sq. meter in the Chester River. In the
Rappahannock River, abundance measurements were more variable as they ranged from 879 to 20,917
per sq. meter.
The B-ffil scores for the Chester River River in Table 4.34 showed that seven sites met the benthic
restoration goal, one site was marginal, one site was degraded and one site was severely degraded. The
degraded (CH10) and severely degraded (CH9) sites were upstream. The benthic communities at these
sites had low diversity, low biomass and a high number of pollution-indicative species. For the
4-7
-------
Rappahannock River, three sites met the restoration goal, one site was marginal, three sites were degraded
and three sites were severely degraded (Table 4.34). All three sites that met the goal (RP3, RP7, and
RP10) did so barely with a B-ffil of 3.0 which is at the cut off between meeting the goal and degraded.
Three of the sites that failed to meet the goal (RP6, RP8 and RP9) had low diversity and were dominated
by the oligochaete Tubificoides heterochaetus. This oligochaete is often an indicator of eutrophic
conditions. The B-IBI results were more variable in the Rappahannock River when compared to the
Chester River. Although there was no clear spatial trend, the benthic communities in the Rappahannock
River were generally more impaired than in the Chester River.
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Chester River
The water column/sediment toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data and the
biological community metric data for fish and benthos presented in this report allows a cumulative "weight
of evidence approach" for assessing the condition of each respective river (Table 5.1). Univariate analysis
of water column toxicity data from the Chester River showed sporadic toxicity at a few sites based on
sheepshead minnow growth and normal shell development in the coot clam (from only one of three tests).
Four of the Chester River stations (CH2, CH4, CHS and CH6) tested for water column toxicity in 1999
were also tested in 1996 (Hall et al., 1998). The 1996 results from both the sheepshead minnow (growth
endpoint) and coot clam development (two tests) showed toxicity at three of the four sites for sheepshead
growth and toxicity at all sites for clam development. Multivariate analysis showed water column toxicity
at all four sites tested in 1996. The 1999 results showed much less toxicity in the water column as significant
effects were only reported at CH4 based on multivariate analysis (Table 6.1). The association between
inorganic contaminants in the water column and biological effects at station CH4 is weak because
concentrations of metals in the water column are below established biological thresholds. In general metals
in the water column at all 10 Chester River sites are generally low (except for lead at two sites) and other
contaminants such as pesticides or other organics were not measured.
Sediment toxicity data based on univariate analysis of survival and growth of the amphipod and
polychaete showed significant effects from two of the four endpoints at four of the Chester River sites.
Sediment toxicity was reported from at least one endpoint at nine of the ten sites. Multivariate analysis
showed significant effects at eight of the ten sites (Table 6.2). In contrast to the water column data
discussed above, sediment toxicity from four sites tested inboth 1999 and 1996 was reasonably consistent
(Hall et al., 1998). In 1996, sediment toxicity based on multivariate analysis was reported at CH2, CH4,
CHS and CH6; toxicity was reported at all sites except CH2 in 1999. Linkage of biological effects in
sediment and contaminants was weak as organics were not reported above detect on limits and all metals
concentrations were below ERL values except lead, nickel and zinc at various sites. The generally low
SEM/AVS ratios suggested that toxicity due to metals was unlikely.
Fish community data suggested disturbance at eight of the ten stations. These data were consistent
with the fish community assessments conducted at CH2, CH4, CHS and CH6 in 1996 as impairment was
also previously reported for fish communities at these sites (Hall et al., 1998). In contrast to the fish
community data, the benlhic community data showed no significant effects at seven of the ten sites. These
results are in agreement with benthic assessments conducted in 1996 at four sites also sampled in 1999
(Hall et al., 1998). The consistent lack of agreement for fish and benthic assemblage status is not surprising
and has been reported in previous Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity studies (Hall et al., 1999) and other
studies (Yoder and Rankin, 1994). Testing both biological assemblages increases the discriminatory of
detecting impairment and reduces the possibility of reporting "false negatives".
In summary, sediment toxicity data and impaired fish communities suggested some degree of stress
at most of the Chester River stations. In contrast, water column toxicity and benlhic community impairment
were generally not reported at the various Chester River sites. At three sites, either toxicity or biological
community impairment were reported from three oflhe four measures; three of the four measures also failed
to report either toxicity or biological impairment at two of the sites. The other five sites provided mixed
5-1
-------
results as two measures showed effects and two measures showed no effects. These data suggested that
the contaminants measured in the water column and sediment during this study are unlikely responsible for
the toxicity or biological impairment reported at the Chester River sites.
5.2 Rappahannock River
A discussion of the Rappahannock River "weight of evidence" for assessing water column/sediment
toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data, and community metric data for fish and benthos
is presented below (see Table 5.1). Results from water column toxicity tests in the Rappahannock River
showed no effects at any of the 10 sites from sheepshead minnow toxicity tests using survival and growth
endpoints. Coot clam development was reduced at four of the sites during the first 48 h test but on effects
were reported at any of the sites during two other tests. Multivariate results presented in Table 6.1 showed
no significant effects based on water column tests at any of the ten sites. With the exception of lead and zinc
at station RP3, metals concentrations were generally low in this river.
Sediment toxicity data for the Rappahannock River showed effects at five often sites based on
multivariate analysis presented in Table 6.2. A higher degree of toxicity was reported at the upstream
stations (RP10) and mid-stream station (RP5). The association between toxicity and presence of
contaminants in sediment is weak since toxic metals were unlikely bioavailable due to low SEM/AVS
ratios and organic contaminants were not detected at the reported detection limits.
Fish communities at the 10 Rappahannock River sites appeared to be reasonably healthy. In
contrast, the benlhic communities were somewhat impaired at seven of the ten sites. As discussed above,
it is not surprising that the fish and benthic community data provide contrasting results (Hall et al., 2000b;
Yoder and Rankin, 1994). These data support the need to evaluate both biological assemblages for a
complete ecological assessment in lotic systems.
A final analysis of water column toxicity data, sediment toxicity data, fish community data and
benthic community data for the Rappahannock River demonstrated effects from two of the four measures
at four of the sites (Table 5.1). The contaminants measured during this study were unlikely responsible for
the reported toxicity or biological impairment. Effects were reported for only one measure at four of the
sites and no effects were reported for any of the measures at two sites. A lower degree of toxicity and
biological impairment was reported in the Rappahannock River than in the Chester River.
5-2
-------
SECTION 6
ANALYSIS OF TEN YEAR DATA BASE
6.1 Water Column Toxicity
The results of Toxicity Index calculations for water column toxicity for the 1990, 1991, 1992-93,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 experiments are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5,
6.6, 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 respectively. The species tested and the number of endpoints used varied slightly
from year to year. Therefore, comparisons of index values within the figures for the same year are more
comparable to each other than to those of different years. The Toxicity Index calculations generated for
each station and year from concurrent reference (control value) and test conditions, therefore, provide
interpretation on the relative magnitude of the toxic response of the various sites. This analysis also
provided a degree of confidence that could be given to differences between reference and test values. A
summary of comparison of Toxicity Index values for reference (control) and test sites is presented in Table
6.1.
The Toxicity Index analysis for the 1990 data in Figure 6.1 showed that the Elizabeth River was
clearly the most toxic site tested. The confidence limits for the reference and test condition did not overlap
at this location. Nearly half of the endpoints displayed significant differences between the reference and test
conditions. The results from the Elizabeth River are not surprising since significant mortality was observed
in two of the three tests that were conducted. The Patapsco River displayed significant mortality in one out
of three tests. However, the confidence interval was fairly wide (indicating variability) for this station and
there was no difference in the median values for the reference and test site. Morgantown and Dahlgren
stations on the Potomac River displayed significantly elevated Toxicity Index values, largely driven by
significant mortality with the sheepshead minnow test. However, the results from the Indian Head,
Freestone Point and Possum Point sites were not significantly different from the reference conditions. The
Wye River site did not produce significant water column toxicity.
The Toxicity Index calculations forthe 1991 experiments are presented inFigure 6.2. Fourwater
column tests with two endpoints for each test were used to determine the final values for two testing periods
(summer and fall). The Wye River site showed the most significant effects as significant mortality was
reported for two different test species during different testing periods. Although the median values from
the reference and test sites were different, there was overlap of confidence limits with these two conditions.
A comparison of reference and test index values for the Patapsco River, Morgantown and Dahlgren sites
showed no significant differences. However, reduced growth of the sheepshead minnow was reported at
both the Morgantown and Dahlgren sites during the summer experiments.
The results from the 1992-93 experiments presented inFigure 6.3 include experiments conducted
during the fall (1992) and spring (1993) at each oflhe 6 sites (2 sites per river). The most toxic sites were
reported at both Middle River stations (WilsonPoint and FrogMortar Creek). Results from the coot clam
toxicity tests (2 tests per experiment conducted in the fall and spring) showed consistent toxicity at both
sites. Median toxicity values were similar for these two Middle River sites, both falling within the top
quartile of all sites tested. Water quality criteria for selected metals were exceeded at both sites. The results
from Toxicity Index analysis at the other 4 sites showed no difference between the reference and the test
condition. The only other biological effect reported at any of these 4 sites was significant mortality of E.
affmis at the Quarter Creek site during the spring experiments.
6-1
-------
The results of the 1994 experiments are presented inFigure 6.4a and 6.4b. Except for the South
Ferry site, which was shown to be non-toxic, all sites sampled in the Severn, Magothyand Sassafras Rivers
displayed moderately low, but significant toxicity (Figure 6.4a). On the other hand, Sparrow Point in
Baltimore Harbor displayed significant toxicity, with Toxicity Index values falling within the top quartile of
those observed from all sites tested (Figure 6.4b). The Bear Creek site in Baltimore Harbor displayed
significant but low toxicity. The other Baltimore Harbor sites displayed no statistically significant toxicity.
The results of the 1995 studies are presented in Figure 6.5. The Toxicity Index values for the
Lynnhaven River were not significantly different from the reference. In the James River basin, the James
River "Above" and the Willoughby Bay sites displayed Toxicity Index values that were statistically
significant. In contrast, the James River "Below" did not display significant toxicity. The York River sites
also displayed insignificant to moderate water column toxicity: the Pamunkey "Above" and York River
"Below" sites had Toxicity Index values that were not significantly different from the references; the York
River "Above" had only a very slight elevation of toxicity above controls; and the Pamunkey "Below"
displayed a moderate level of toxicity.
Figure 6.6 presents the results of the 1996 studies on the Chester and the Patuxent Rivers. The
water from all of the sites except Jack Bay in the Patuxent River exhibited significant differences in Toxicity
Index values compared to the reference conditions. The CHS and CH6 sites in the Chester River had
the highest values. The values from the remaining sites were indicative of low to moderate toxicity.
The results of the 1997 studies in the South River and the ElizabethRiver are presented in Figure
6.7. The water from all of the sites displayed significant differences in Toxicity Index values compared to
the reference conditions. Three of the sites on the South River (SRI, SR3 and SR4) exhibited a moderately
high degree of toxicity, with Toxicity Index values ranking in the top 10% of all values through 1997.
Eurytemora affmis survival and reproduction were significantly affected at all three ofthese sites. Site SR2
was somewhat lower in toxicity. The Toxicity Index values from the sites in the ElizabethRiver were quite
high, ranking in the top quartile of the data sets evaluated to date. However, the relative toxicities of the
sites in 1997 were lower than the level observed at the Elizabeth River site in 1990 (see discussion of
sediment data below).
The results of the 1998 studies in the Choptank and Anacostia Rivers are presented in Figures
6.8a and 6.8b, respectively. Water column toxicities in the Anacostia River were quite heterogeneous:
running from nonsignificant at Sites AR2 and AR6; through significant but relatively low at Site AR4; to
moderately toxic at Site AR1; and to quite toxic at Sites AR3 and AR5. In fact, the toxicities at the latter
two sites were the highest (AR3) and the third highest (AR5) observed during the first eight years of
AMTOX studies (see below). Coot clam larval survival was the most impacted endpoint, with significant
effects observed at Sites AR1, AR3, AR4, and AR5. Sheepshead minnow growth was significantly
affected at Sites AR1, AR4, and AR5, while Eurytemora q^w/'sreproductionwas impacted at AR3. In
contrast to the heterogeneity in toxicity observed for the Anacostia River, the water column toxicity was
very homogeneous among the Choptank River sites. All four sites displayed significant, moderate toxicities.
For these sites, Eurytemora affmis survival and reproduction were the endpoints that were impacted.
The results of the 1999 studies in the Chester and Rappahannock Rivers are presented in Figures
6.9a- 6.9d. Four of the sites in the Chester River had been previously sampled in 1996: CH2; CH4;CH5;
and CH6. The degree of toxicity observed for the water column samples taken from both rivers was
minimal. While the bootstrap evaluations indicated that sheepshead minnow growth was depressed for
6-2
-------
some of the sites in both rivers, the effect was slight and the Toxicity Index was not significantly different
for 19 of the 20 sites. Chester River siteCH4 was the only site for which the Toxicity Index was statistically
significant and this difference was negligible.
A summary of the ten year water column data base using the Toxicity Index analysis (Figures 6.10
a-c) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
! the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest water
column toxicity (15% to >30%) were as follows:
# Anacostia River: Site AR3 and Site AR5 (1998)
# Elizabeth River: Elizabeth River Site (1990); Southern Branch, Site SB (1997);
Main Stem, Site EL (1997); Western Branch, Site WB (1997); & EasternBranch,
Site EB (1997)
# South River: Site SRI, Site SR3 & Site SR4 (1997)
# Middle River: Wilson Point Site & Frog Mortar Creek Site (1994)
# Chester River: Site CH6 and CHS (1996)
! the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of water
column toxicity (5% to 14%) were:
# South River, Site S2 (1997)
# Baltimore Harbor: Sparrows Point Site (1994) &
Patapsco River Site(1990)
# Potomac River: Morgantown and Dahlgren Sites (1990)
# Wye River, Manor House Site (1991)
# Anacostia River, Site AR1 (1998)
# Choptank River: Sites CR59, CR61, CR62 & CR63
(1998)
# Chester River, Site CH4 (1996 & 1999)
# Pamunkey River, site below West Point in the York River basin (1995)
# James River, site above Newport News (1995)
# Severn River sites at Annapolis and Junction with Route 50 (1994)
# Patuxent River: Broomes Island & Chalk Point Sites (1996)
# Chester River, Site CH2 (1996)
! the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed water column toxicity that was low in magnitude (<5%), but significantly different
from reference (control) responses were:
# Sassafras River: Betterton and Turner Creek Sites
(1994)
# Baltimore Harbor, Bear Creek Site (1994)
# Magothy River, Gibson Island site (1994)
6-3
-------
# Anacostia River, Site AR4 (1998)
# Patuxent River, Buzzard Island Site( 1996)
# York River, site above Cheatham Annex (1995)
# James River Basin: Willoughby Bay Site (1995)
! the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed no significant water column toxicity were:
# Baltimore Harbor: Patapsco River Site (1991); Curtis Bay, Middle Branch,
Northwest Harbor and Outer Harbor Sites (1994)
# Chester River: Site CHI, CH2, CHS, CHS, CH6, CH7,
CHS, CH9, CH10 (1999)
# Magothy River, South Ferry Site (1994)
# Wye River: Manor House Site (1990, 1992-3); &
Quarter Creek Site (1992-3)
# Anacostia River, Sites AR2 and AR6 (1998)
# Patuxent River, Jack Bay Site (1996)
# Nanticoke River: Bivalve Site & Sandy Hill Beach Site (1992-3)
# Potomac River: Dahlgren (1991), Freestone Point (1990), Indian Head (1990),
Morgantown (1991), and Possum Point (1990) Sites
# Rappahannock River: Sites RP1, RP2, RP3, RP4, RP5,
RP6, RP7, RP8, RP9, RP10 (1999)
# Pamunkey River, site above West Point in the York River basin (1995)
# York River, site below Cheatham Annex, (1995)
# James River, site below Newport News (1995)
# Lynnhaven River Site(1995)
6.2 Sediment Toxicity
The results of the Toxicity Index calculations for sediment toxicity for the 1990, 1991, 1992-93,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 studies are summarized in Figures 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15
6.16,6.17, 6.18, and 6.19, respectively. It should be noted that the species and the number of endpoints
tested varied slightly from year to year, so index values within the figures (within the same year) are more
comparable than are those between figures. Nonetheless, the comparisons of concurrent reference and
test experiments provide insight into the relative magnitude of the toxic responses of the various sites. Table
6.2 summarizes the comparisons presented in Figures 6.11 - 6.19.
During the 1990 study, the Elizabeth River was clearly the most toxic of the sites, since all species
displayed nearly complete mortality during the first 10 days of the experiment (i.e., the median for the index
for the test data was greatly separated from the median for the reference data with little variation; Figure
6.11). The Elizabeth River provides an example of the worst case Toxicity Index values. The confidence
limits of the test data index values were well separated from those of the corresponding reference sites for
a number of other sites: Patapsco River; Wye River; and the Freestone Point, Possum Point and Dahlgren
sites on the Potomac River (although the latter two sites displayed a considerable degree of variation in
index values). The Indian Head and Morgantown sites on the Potomac River displayed only slight
6-4
-------
separation between the median index values for the test and reference conditions. Thus, the magnitude of
potential toxicity appears to be less for the IndianHead and Morgantown sites than for the others. It should
be noted, however, that all sites selected for the first year of the study were those considered potentially
toxic due to the results of previous studies, so it is not surprising that most displayed significant deviations
from the reference conditions.
The 1991 study involved an assessment of the effects of short-term temporal variability (a summer
versus a fall collection) on the apparent toxicity of sediments from four sites. The separation between test
and reference treatments was greatest for the Patapsco River site, withless separation being displayed for
Dahlgren, Morgantown, and the Wye (Figure 6.12). The results of the Patapsco River index comparison
were remarkably similar to those observed for the 1990 study. The Dahlgren site index values, which were
quite variable in the 1990 study, were still separated from the reference values in the 1991 study. The small
degree of separation observed between the Morgantown index limits and reference limits in 1990 was also
observed for 1991. The Wye River index limits were only slightly separated from the reference limits due
to the fact that only one of the two sets of experiments displayed significant differences between test and
control treatments. This slight variability in responses could be due to temporal variation in toxicity, but is
more likely due to small scale spatial heterogeneity (i.e., sediments were taken from the same general
station, but there may have been patchiness in sediment quality in the grabs composited for the two sets
of tests). Overall, the degree of variability observed in the Toxicity Index limits for the combination of the
two sampling events was quite small for all four sites. The patterns were remarkably consistent with those
observed at these same sites during the previous year.
The 1992-93 study also involved two sampling periods during the Fall and Spring. The test and
reference Toxicity Index limits overlapped for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.13). Thus, the
sites in the Middle River (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point), the Wye River (Quarter Creek and Manor
House), and the Nanticoke River (Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve) appeared to contain sediment displaying
little or no overall toxicity compared to reference conditions. It should be noted, however, that the Frog
Mortar sediments were quite heterogeneous in character and they displayed somewhat elevated metals in
the composite samples (see Hall et al., 1993). Therefore, there may be patches of contaminated sediments
at this site, which may have produced responses in a few of the field replicates. The purpose of taking true
field replicates at two different times during the 1992-93 study was to produce confidence limits to indicate
the probability of observing the same sort of response if the site were sampled again, so the observed
variability provides insight into the variation in sediment quality expected for this site.
The results of the 1992-3 studies on the two Wye River sites (Quarter Creek and Manor House)
displayed little difference from the reference conditions, which is in contrast to the apparent toxicity
observed in 1990 and one of the sampling period of the 1991 study. The Wye River Manor House Site
was sampled three times during the first four years of testing.
The 1994 studies focused on the Sassafras River, the Severn River, and the Baltimore
Harbor/Patapsco River (Figures 6.14a and 6.14b). The Sassafras River sites displayed no sediment
toxicity (Figure 6.14a). The Magothy River sites exhibited slight to moderate toxicity, particularly the South
Ferry site, which was highly variable (Figure 6.14a). The Annapolis site on the Severn River also displayed
significant but moderately low toxicity. In contrast, the Toxicity Index limits from the Severn River site at
the Route 50 bridge overlapped those of the reference site. The Baltimore Harbor sites showed various
degrees of toxicity from slight (Outer Harbor) to quite high (Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor), withmost
6-5
-------
displaying moderate toxicity (Sparrow Point, Middle Branch and Curtis Bay; Figure 6.14b). All Baltimore
Harbor sites contained sediments that exceeded ER-M values for 3 or more contaminants.
The 1995 studies involved sites in the James and York River basins and a site in the Lynnhaven
River (Figure 6.15). The Toxicity Index was elevated for the Willoughby Bay site, which is located near
the mouth of the James River and in the vicinity of heavy military, residential, and marina activities. The
James River sitebelowNewportNews displayed Toxicity Index values that were also significantly elevated
relative to the reference, but the degree of toxicity was lower than for the Willoughby site. None of the
other sites displayed overall significance in the Toxicity Index comparisons to references, although the
Lynnhaven site was the only one to display no significant endpoints in the univariate comparison of
confidence limits.
The 1996 studies focused on the Chester and the Patuxent Rivers (Figure 6.16). All sites in the
Chester River displayed some degree of toxicity. The CH2 and CH4 sites in the Chester River had
sediments that produced a low to moderate level of toxicity, while sediments from sites CHS and CH6
were associated with a higher degree of toxicity. The magnitude of toxicity displayed by sediments from
the latter two sites was of the same overall magnitude as that observed during earlier studies for the South
Ferry site in the Magothy River and two of the sites (Possum Point and Dahlgren) in the Potomac River
(see below). In contrast, sediments from the Patuxent River were, for the most part, not significantly toxic.
While the median toxicity indexvalues (5-10 on the toxicity index scale) for the Patuxent River sites were
somewhat higher than for the reference condition, variationinresults made these differences not statistically
significant except for the Buzzard Island site. The Buzzard Island site displayed a moderately low level of
toxicity that was statistically greater than the reference condition.
The 1997 studies involved four sites in the South River and four sites in the Elizabeth River (Figure
6.17). While there was significant sediment toxicity detected at six of the eight sites, the degree of toxicity
was moderately low. South River Sites 1 and 2 displayed the highest level of toxicity, but Toxicity Index
values only ranged between 7% and 12%. Streblospio benedicti survival and growth, Leptocheirus
plumulosus growth, and fish egg hatching success were the endpoints that were the most affected in the
experiments for these sites. In contrast, Sites SR3 and SR4 displayed no significant toxicity. The sediments
from all the Elizabeth River sites displayed significant but low levels of toxicity. Obviously, the toxicity of
the Elizabeth River sediments studied during 1997 was considerably less than the degree of toxicity
detected in 1990. Possible explanations were that the toxicity of the sediments has decreased during the
intervening seven years and/or the toxicity of the sediments is highly patchy. There has been a considerable
degree of management efforts focused on the Elizabeth River during the 1990s (e.g. the Elizabeth River
Proj ect; pollution control actions of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; activities associated
with the Region of Concern status of the River in the Chesapeake Bay Program), so it is entirely possible
that the degree of contamination/toxicity has significantly decreased. However, it should be noted that the
Elizabeth River site studied in 1990 was selected to be extremely contaminated to serve as a sort of
"positive control" duringlhe development phase oflhe ambient toxicity tests. The 1990 samples were taken
in proximity to a Superfund site that was highly contaminated with creosote (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons). The 1997 samples were taken to be more representative of the ElizabethRiver main stem
and its three major branches. Thus, the apparent decrease of toxicity may have been due to site selection
in a patchy system. Nonetheless, the more representative 1997 samples indicate that the overall toxicity
of the sediments is relatively modest.
6-6
-------
The 1998 studies focused on sediments collected from the Anacostia and Choptank Rivers (Figures
6.18a and b). Except for AR6, all of the Anacostia River sites displayed significant toxicity, ranging from
low (5% for AR1) to moderate (13% for AR4). While a number of endpoints were impacted,
Leptocheirusplumulosus survival was the most significantly affected for all of these sites. In contrast, none
of the sites from the Choptank River displayed significant toxicity.
The 1999 studies involved studies taken from the Chester and RappahannockRivers (Figures 6.19
a-d). As previously indicated, four of the sites in the Chester River had been previously sampled in 1996:
CH2; CH4; CHS; and CH6. While the lower reaches of the Chester River (sites CHI and CH2) had
sediments that produced Toxicity Index values that were not significantly different from those of the
reference, the remaining sites (CHS to CH10) had toxic sediments. Toxicity for these sites tended to
increase to a maximum at CHS, where the Toxicity Index was approximately 40% of the worst case value.
This site was upstream from Chestertown (CH6) that had a median Toxcity Index of 31%. Sediment
toxicity in the Rappahannock River was somewhat more variable; significant Toxicity Index values were
observed at sites RP1, RP4, RP5, RP9 and RP10. Maximum toxicity (27%) was observed at RP10.
Variable toxicities were observed at RP9, where the Toxicity Index was significant, and atRP6 and RP3,
where they the Toxicity Index values were not significant. Moderately high sediment toxicity (21%) was
also observed for RP1 near the mouth of the Rappahannock River.
A summary of the ten year sediment database using the Toxicity Index analysis inFigures 6.20 a-c
indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
! the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest
sediment toxicity (15% to 100%) were as follows:
# Elizabeth River Site (1990)
# Baltimore Harbor: Northwest Harbor, Bear Creek, Sparrows Point, Curtis Bay,
and Middle Branch Sites (1994)
# Chester River: Site CHS (1996); and
Site CH6 (1996); Sites CH4, CHS, CH6, CH7, CHS, CH9, and CH10 (1999)
# James River basin: Willoughby Bay Site(1995)
# Magothy River, South Ferry Site (1994)
# Rappahannock River: Sites RP1, RP9, RP10 (1999)
# Potomac River: Possum Point Site; and Dahlgren
Site (1990)
! the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree (5% to
14%) of sediment toxicity were:
# Patapsco River Site (1990, 1991)
# Potomac River: Freestone Point Site (1990) and Dahlgren Site(1991)
# Chester River, Site CH2, Tarns Point (1996)
# South River, Site SI (1997)
# Severn River, Annapolis site (1994)
# Anacostia River: Sites AR4, AR3, AR2, AR5 & AR1
6-7
-------
(1998)
# Wye River, Manor House Site (1991)
# Chester River, Site CH4 (1996); Site
CHS (1999)
# James River, site below Newport News (1995)
# Rappahannock River: Site RP4 and RP5 (1999)
# Patuxent River, Buzzard Island Site (1996)
# Baltimore Harbor, Outer Harbor Site (1994)
! the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed sediment toxicity that was low in magnitude (<5%), but significantly different from
reference responses were:
# Magothy River, Gibson Island Site (1994)
# Wye River, Manor House Site (1990)
# South River, Site SR2 (1997)
# Potomac River: Morgantown Site (1990, 1991) and
Indian Head Site( 1990)
# Elizabeth River: Main stem, Site EL; Western
Branch, Site WB; Eastern Branch, SiteEB; and Southern Branch, Site SB (1997)
! the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed no significant sediment toxicity were:
# Middle River: Frog Mortar Site & Wilson Point Site
(1992-3)
# Sassafras River: Betterton Site & Turner Creek Site
(1994)
# Chester River: Sites CHI and CH2 (1999)
# Wye River: Quarter Creek Site & Manor House Site
(1992-3)
# South River: Site SR3 and Site SR4 (1997)
# Anacostia River, Site AR6 (1998)
# Choptank River: Sites CR59, CR61, CR62, CR63 (1998)
# Patuxent River: Broomes Island Site, Jack Bay Site, and Chalk Point Site(1996)
# Nanticoke River: Bivalve Site & Sandy Hill Beach Site (1992-3)
# Rappahannock River: Sites RP2, RP3, RP6, RP7, and RP8 (1999)
# Pamunkey and York River sites (all sites) (1995)
# James River, site above Newport News (1995)
# Lynnhaven River Site (1995)
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
Alden, R. W. 1992. Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments: Confidence limits for the triad.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 645-651.
Alden, R W. Ill, J. A. Ranasinghe, L C. Scott, R. J. Llanso and D. M. Dauer. 2000. B-IBI Phase 3:
Optimization of the benthic index of biotic integrity. Prepared for the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources by Versar, Inc. Columbia, MD.
Buchanan, J. B. 1984. Sediment analysis. Pages 41-65. In: Holme, N. A. and A. D. Mclntyre (eds)
Methods for study of marine benthos. IBP Handbook No. 16 2nd Edition. Blackwell Sci. Publ.
Oxford, England.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, M. Roberts, and S. Jordan. 1992a. Fish Sampling in Eight
Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final Report CBRM-HI-92-2. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division.
Annapolis, MD.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, and S. Jordan. 1992b. Development and Testing of Measures of
Ecological Integrity and Habitat Quality for Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final report to
Maryland Coastal and Watershed Resources Division. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division.
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1988. Chesapeake Bay living resource monitoring plan.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, AmapoSs,
MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1989. Chesapeake Bay basinwide reduction strategy.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, An napolis, MD.
Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality Triad -an example. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 5: 957-964.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality Triad approach to determining pollution-induced
degradation. Sci. Tot. Envrion. 97-8: 815-825.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination,
toxicity and infaunal community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco
Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 75-96.
7-1
-------
Fisher, D.J., D.T. Burton, L.W. Hall Jr., R.L. Paulson and C.M. Hersh. 1988.Standard operating
procedures for short-term chronic effluent toxicity tests with freshwater and saltwater agarisms
Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology Section, Shady Side,
MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden and P. Adolphson. 1997. Ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 5 Report. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden HI, A. Messing, T. Turner, D. Goshorn and M. McOnty.
1998. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 6 Report. EPA 903/R/98/017 CBP/TRS
210/98. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., R D. Anderson, W. D. Killen, M. C. Scott, J. V. Kilian, R. M. Alden, HI and P.
Adolphson. 1996 . Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 4 Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W, Jr., R. D. Anderson, A. Messing, T. Turner, R. W. Alden IE, D. Goshorn and M. McOnfy.
2000a. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 7 Report. EPA 903/R/00/006
CBP/TRS 230/00. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, A. Messing, J. Winfield, A. K. Jenkins, I. J. Weber, R. W. Alden IE,
D. Goshorn and M. McGinty. 2000b. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 8
Report. EPA 903-R-00-012 CBP/TRS 243-00. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr. and M.C. Ziegenfuss. 1993. Standard operating procedures for conducting embyro-
larval toxicity tests with the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis: Effluent, ambient water, single-multiple
chemical or porewater toxicity tests. Report. University of Maryland, Wye Research and
Education, Center, Queenstown, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, RD. Anderson, W.D. Killen, RW. Alden, III and P. Adolphson.
1994. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 3 Report. CBRTRS
116/94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, IE, E Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Debert-
Hastings. 1991. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Volume 1 -
Year 1 Report CBP/TRS 64/91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III, E.
Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Shaw. 1992. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 2 report. CBP/TRS 82/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 16: 105-115.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the national status and trends program. National Technical Memorandum Nos.
OMA52. Seattle, WA.
7-2
-------
Long, E. R., D. D. McDonald, S. L. Smith, and R. D. Cable. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
Manag. 19: 81-97.
Messing, A. W. 1999. Quality Assurance Proj ect Plan for Chemical Analysis and Aquatic Toxicity Testing
of Samples from the Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program (Year 9). AMRL
Technical Report.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990a. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine organisms: supplement: Test method
for the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis, embryo/larval test. Draft report. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, R.I.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990b. Mulinia lateralis - Microscale marine toxicity test. Report.
U.S.
Environ
mental
Protect
o n
Agency
?
Narrag
ansett,
RI.
Newman, M. C. 1994. Quantitative Methods in Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Advances in Trace Substances
Research. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, FL.
Plumb, R. H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples.
Technical Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers
Technical Committee of Criteria for Dredge and Fill Material, U. S. Army Waterways Expamert
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Ranasinghe, J. A., S. B. Weisberg, J. Gerritsenand D. M. Dauer. 1994. Assessment of Chesapeake
Bay benthic macroinvertebrate resource condition in relation to water quality and watershe
stressors. Final report CBRM-GRF-94-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Shaughnessy, T.J., L.C. Scott, J.A. Ranasinghe, A.F. Holland and T.A. Tornatore. 1990. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay:
Data summary and progress report (July 1984-August 1990). Report Volume 1. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division,
Annapolis, MD.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1979. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Draft Analytical Method for
Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment. EPA821/R-91-100. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological
Criteria Div., Washington D.C.
7-3
-------
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 1992. Guidelines for exposure assessment.
EPA/600Z-92/001. Federal Register 57: 22888-22938. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D. C.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 1993a. Proposed sediment quality criteria
for the protect on of benthic organisms: Acenapthene. EPA 822/R93-013. Office of Science and
Technology, Health and Ecological Division, Washington, D. C.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 1993b. Proposed sediment quality criteria
for the protect on of benthic organisms: Fluoranthene. EPA 822/R93-016. Office of Science and
Technology, Health and Ecological Division, Washington, D. C.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 1993c. Proposed sediment quality criteria
for the protection of benthic organisms: Phenanthrene.. EPA 822/R93 -012. Office of Science and
Technology, Health and Ecological Division, Washington, D. C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Test methods for evaluating solid
waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 Third Edition. U. S. EPA Cincinnati, OH.
U. S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. PCBs: Cancers dose-response
assessment and application to environmental mixtures. EPA/600/P-96/001F. National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C.
Vass, P. A. and S. J. Jordan. 1991. Long term trends in abundance indices for 19 species of
Chesapeake Bay fishes: Reflections in trends in the Bay ecosystem. In: J. A. Mihursky and A.
Chaney (eds). New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management
Partnership. Proceedings of a Conference. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No.
137. Solomons, MD, p. 539-546.
Weisburg, S. B., J. A. Ranasinghe, L. C. Schaffner and J. B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine index of
biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20: 149-158.
Yoder, C. O. and E. T. Rankin. 1994. Biological criteria program development and implementation
in Ohio. In: W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp 109- 144.
7-4
-------
SECTION 8
TABLES AND FIGURES
-------
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The following abbreviations
are used: AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride), AA-F (Atomic Absorption-Furnace), AA-DA
(Atomic Absorption - Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption-Cold Vapor).
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method #
206.3
213.2
218.2
220.2
239.2
245.1
249.2
270.3
200.7
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
U. S. EPA, 1979
-------
Table 3.2 Analytical methods for inorganic analysis of sediment samples. The detection limits (DL) for
the target analytes vary with the amount of sample digested and are typically lower than shown.
ELEMENT METHOD
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Tin
Zinc
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Sn
Zn
7020
3114B
7131 A
7190
7210
7420
7470A
7520
3114B
282.2
7950
REF
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
DATE
Sep-86
1995
Sep-94
Sep-86
Sep-86
Sep-86
Sep-94
Sep-86
1995
Mar-83
Sep-86
INSTRUMENT
FAA
AA/Hydride
GFAA
FAA
FAA
FAA
CVAA
FAA
AA/Hydride
GFAA
FAA
DL(ug/g)
100
0.025
0.01
1.00
5.00
10
0.025
5.00
0.025
0.50
1.00
NOTE:
1 - Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods (EPA SW-846)
2 - Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Ed., 1995
3 - Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA-600/4-79-020)
Digestion Method is Method 3050B from SW-846 (December 1996)
AA/Hydride = Atomic Absorption - Hydride
CVAA = Atomic Absorption - Cold Vapor
FAA = Atomic Absorption - Flame
GFAA = Atomic Absorption - Graphite Furnace
i-2
-------
Table 3.3 Trophic classification, spawning location and residency offish captured at the twenty
sampling locations.
SPECIES NAME
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura marina
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic stingray
Dasyatis sabina
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchelli
Blackcheek tonugefish
Symphurus plagiusa
Blue catfish
Ictaluris furcatus
Blueback herring
Alosa aestivalis
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
BluegiU
Lepomis macrochirus
Brown bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
Golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
TROPHIC
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
FAMILY
Clupeidae
Anguillidae
Sciaenidae
Clupeidae
Belonidae
Atherinidae
Dasyatidae
Cyprinodontidae
Engraulidae
Soleidae
Ictaluridae
Clupeidae
Pamatomidae
Centrarchidae
Ictaluridae
Ictaluridae
Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
SPAWN LOCATION
Freshwater
Anadromous
Marine
Catadromous
Marine
Marine
Marine
Estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Estuarine
Freshwater
Anadromous
Marine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
RESIDENCY
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
i-3
-------
SPECIES NAME
Harvestfish
Peprilus alepidotus
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatis
Horse-eye jack
Caranx lotus
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
Inshore lizardfish
Synodus foetens
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
Naked goby
Gobiosoma bosc
Northern kingfish
Menticirrhus saxatilis
Northern pipefish
Syngnathus fuscus
Pigfish
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Rough silverside
Membras martinica
Sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
Eastern silvery minnow
Hybognathus regius
Skillet fish
Gobiesox strumosus
Spanish mackerel
Scomberomorus maculatus
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
TROPHIC
Carnivore
Benthic
Carnivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktiovre
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Benthic
Carnivore
Benthic
FAMILY
Stromateidae
S oleidae
Carangidae
Atherinidae
Synodontidae
Cyprinodontidae
Gobiidae
Sciaenidae
Syngnathidae
Haemulidae
Centrarchidae
Atherinidae
Cyprinodontidae
Sciaenidae
Cyprinidae
Gobiesocidae
Scombridae
Sciaenidae
SPAWN LOCATION
Marine
Estuarine
Marine
Estuarine
Marine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Marine
Estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
Estuarine
Estuarine
Estuarine
Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
Marine
RESIDENCY
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
i-4
-------
SPECIES NAME
Spottail shiner
Notropis hudsonius
Spotted sea trout
Cynoscion nebulosus
Striped anchovy
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped bass
Morons saxatilis
Striped killifish
Fundulus majalis
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
Tessellated darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
Unidentified scianidae
Cynoscion sp.
Weakfish
Cynoscion regalis
White catfish
Ameiurus catus
White perch
Morone americana
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
TROPHIC
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Carnivore
Carnivore
Benthic
Carnivore
Carnivore
FAMILY
Cyprinidae
Sciaenidae
Engraulidae
Moronidae
Cyprinodontidae
Bothidae
Percidae
Sciaenidae
Sciaenidae
Ictaluridae
Moronidae
Percidae
SPAWN LOCATION
Freshwater
Marine
Marine
Freshwater
Anadromous
Estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
Marine
Marine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Anadromous
Freshwater
Anadromous
RESIDENCY
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
i-5
-------
Table 4.1. Survival and growth data for sheepshead minnow larvae after 8 day toxicity tests conducted
from 9/28/99 to 10/6/99.
Station
Control
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
Cumulative %
Survival
95.8
100
95.8
100
79.2
93.8
97.9
97.7
97.5
100
97.9
97.7
95.7
100
95.2
97.9
95.8
97.9
95.5
95.8
97.5
Survival
±S.E.
4.17
0.0
4.17
0.0
9.46
4.00
2.08
2.28
2.50
0.0
2.08
2.28
2.52
0.0
2.76
2.08
4.17
2.08
2.63
4.17
2.50
n (day 8)
42
45
44
46
34
45
42
44
41
44
43
45
43
46
42
44
41
42
42
45
42
Dry Weight Per
Weight (mg)
1.31
1.39
0.96*
1.12
1.26
0.84*
1.54
1.09
1.53
1.23
1.12
1.28
1.34
1.37
1.01
1.36
1.31
1.27
1.37
1.06
1.16
Individual3
±S.E.
0.069
0.025
0.134
0.090
0.071
0.106
0.044
0.074
0.059
0.132
0.113
0.074
0.029
0.043
0.088
0.058
0.103
0.111
0.134
0.077
0.158
a Initial weight per individual (day 0) 0.22 mg.
* Indicates significant difference from control value ( P<0.05).
i-6
-------
Table 4.2. Percent normal shell development from 48 hour coot clam embryo/larval toxicity tests
conducted from 9/28/99 to 10/6/99.
Station
Control
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
Test
Percent
Normal
96.5
84.0*
79 3**
83.6*
95.0
89.8
95.4
93.7
96.5
95.3
84.7*
86.7*
88.8
92.2
91.7
82.5*
86.1*
89.1
83.7*
88.4
90.1
#1
±S.E.
0.76
4.83
4.70
1.10
1.72
2.87
0.73
1.92
0.60
1.56
2.90
1.01
1.95
3.45
2.20
4.19
3.24
1.82
3.09
3.76
2.88
Test
Percent
Normal
97.9
96.9
97.0
96.6
98.5
97.7
97.5
98.4
99.2
98.6
97.8
98.4
95.7
99.1
95.3
98.0
98.5
96.3
97.2
95.3
91.6*
#2
±S.E.
0.63
1.40
1.79
0.88
0.78
0.67
0.47
0.78
0.10
0.95
0.80
0.29
0.79
0.47
1.79
0.55
0.47
1.02
1.16
2.54
1.20
Test
Percent
Normal
99.2
96.5
97.4
96.9
97.5
98.4
97.9
98.5
98.7
99.0
98.9
98.8
99.1
99.1
98.8
99.0
97.0
96.8
97.8
98.7
95.9
#3
±S.E.
0.80
0.97
0.36
1.10
0.96
0.55
0.75
0.12
0.15
0.46
0.47
0.91
0.28
0.21
0.17
0.08
0.58
0.85
0.98
0.44
1.99
Combined
Tests
Percent
Normal
97.9
92.5
91.2
92.4
97.0
95.3
96.9
96.9
98.1
97.6
93.8
94.6
94.6
96.8
95.2
93.2
93.9
94.0
92.9
94.1
92.5
Results
1-3
±S.E.
0.53
2.58
3.32
2.25
0.80
1.63
0.50
0.98
0.45
0.79
2.45
2.03
1.63
1.53
1.31
2.94
2.18
1.41
2.51
2.01
1.38
* Indicates significant difference from control value ( P<0.05).
** Indicates significant difference from control value ( P<0.01).
i-7
-------
Table 4.3. Inorganic contaminants data from the 20 stations sampled in the Chester and
Rappahannock rivers during the fall of 1999 (9/28 - 10/06/99). Marine U.S. EPA chronic water
quality criteria (WQC) are listed below each metal. Metals exceeding the criteria are underlined.
Metal Concentration
(WQC • g/L)
Stations
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
As
(-)
<0.25
0.566
0.467
0.665
0.517
0.616
0.418
0.270
0.220
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
0.122
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
Cd
(9.3)
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
<0.125
0.082
0.347
<0.125
0.424
<0.125
0.243
<0.125
<0.125
0.128
<0.125
<0.125
Cr
(50)
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
20.3
1.01
<1.00
2.97
<1.00
4.75
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Cu
(2.9)
1.63
1.36
1.60
1.65
1.98
1.87
3.62
2.68
2.37
6A
1.16
1.68
3_61
<1.00
<1.00
1.04
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Pb
(8.5)
<1.00
<1.00
6.20
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
3.07
20.5
<1.00
12.5
<1.00
<1.00
1^5
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
Hg
(.025)
<0.50
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
Ni
(8.3)
2.550
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
3.83
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
112
32J.
<2.00
<2.00
<2.00
Se
(71)
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
Zn
(86)
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
144
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
-------
Table 4.4. Water quality parameters from field collections in the Chester and Rappahannock rivers in
the fall of 1999.
Date Station
9/20/99 CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
9/22/99 RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
9/27/99 RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
Temp
(C)
21.5
21.2
21.7
22.7
21.6
20.8
20.3
19.6
19.3
18.9
20.0
20.1
19.6
19.6
20.0
18.2
18.7
19.9
19.5
19.5
21.4
21.2
21.4
21.2
Salinity
(PPt)
8.5
6.0
3.3
2.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.2
13.0
12.7
12.0
11.7
9.5
8.5
7.0
5.5
4.0
13.5
12.0
13.5
13.0
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
14000
10000
5000
4500
4500
2600
300
130
125
110
21500
20000
19000
19000
18000
14200
13000
10000
8000
6800
21000
20000
21000
21000
DO
(mg/L)
8.5
8.1
7.4
5.4
5.2
4.5
4.4
4.4
5.2
6.1
8.4
8.4
8.7
8.5
8.8
8.4
8.1
9.0
8.1
8.0
8.4
8.2
8.2
8.4
pH
7.98
7.73
7.20
6.69
6.65
6.45
6.30
6.23
6.19
6.16
7.93
7.96
7.86
7.82
8.02
7.74
7.73
8.09
7.53
7.55
8.26
8.16
8.10
8.10
i-9
-------
Date Station
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
9/28/99 CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
10/1/99 RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
Temp
(C)
21.3
21.0
20.9
21.5
21.0
21.2
20.2
20.7
20.6
21.0
21.1
21.2
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.3
20.0
20.0
20.6
20.4
19.9
20.3
20.3
19.3
20.2
Salinity
(PPt)
11.5
11.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.5
10.4
8.0
9.0
7.5
6.7
4.0
3.0
1.2
0.6
0.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
13.0
11.0
10.0
8.2
6.0
4.5
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
18000
18000
14000
12500
11000
9000
17500
14000
15000
12000
10500
6500
4600
2500
1450
315
21500
17500
21500
19500
16500
15000
13000
9500
7000
DO
(mg/L)
8.7
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.2
8.2
7.6
7.6
6.6
5.0
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.2
5.2
8.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
PH
8.18
8.09
8.00
7.85
7.84
7.82
7.97
7.80
7.53
6.99
7.09
6.97
6.91
6.77
6.72
7.15
8.18
8.18
7.70
8.18
8.05
8.05
7.98
7.81
7.76
5-10
-------
Date Station
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
10/3/99 RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/4/99 CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
Temp
(C)
20.0
19.4
20.1
20.5
20.3
20.1
20.6
20.4
20.3
20.3
19.2
20.6
20.2
20.4
20.5
20.3
20.5
20.6
20.7
20.9
20.9
19.9
20.6
20.5
20.8
Salinity
(PPt)
3.5
11.0
9.6
9.0
5.5
4.3
2.7
1.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
9.5
10.5
10.5
8.0
8.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
11.8
9.7
9.2
6.7
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
5000
14000
14000
13500
8000
6500
4000
3500
1500
700
275
20000
15000
15500
17000
12500
13000
9000
4700
2650
1900
18000
15000
14000
10000
DO
(mg/L)
--
7.4
7.4
7.0
6.8
6.0
6.4
6.0
6.2
7.0
8.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
8.4
8.7
8.2
6.6
PH
8.01
8.04
7.92
7.74
7.42
7.39
7.33
7.23
7.24
7.48
8.09
7.74
7.87
7.97
7.80
7.70
7.85
7.53
7.87
7.79
7.87
8.26
8.43
7.62
7.18
5-11
-------
Date Station
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
Temp
(C)
20.8
20.7
20.8
20.7
20.6
20.1
Salinity
(PPt)
5.7
3.6
2.7
1.7
1.0
0.0
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
9000
5050
4000
2000
1100
260
DO
(mg/L)
6.7
6.2
6.6
7.0
9.2
9.8
PH
6.98
6.98
6.90
6.87
7.06
7.78
5-12
-------
5-13
-------
Table 4.5. Toxicity data (48h LCSOs or ECSOs) from 1999 reference toxicant tests conducted with cadmium chloride for the two test species.
Previous values from years 1 thru 8 are reported.
Date
11/3/99
1 0/96/QQ
Species
Sheepshead
minnow
LC50
(mg/L) Yr 1
11.0 0.51
OQ4a
Previous 48h LC50 values (mg/L)
Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr7 Yr 8
1.54 1.18 0.71 1.03 2.30 1.34 10.4
f)f)Sa 008a OfiQa 040a 089a f)4Qa
' Value is an EC50 (percent normal shell development is the endpoint).
5-13
-------
Table 4.6 Survival of the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in sediment bioassays. The survivors
were scored on day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. The reference site chosen for this amphipod was
mostly silt and clay (Carters Creek). An asterisk marks site results significantly different from the test
organism response to reference site sediment. The means and standard errors (SE) are based on
sediment bioassays using amphipods (n = 20) exposed to five randomly located grab samples from
each site.
MEAN %
SITE NAME SITE SURVIVAL
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek RP-1 81
Wildwood Beach RP-2 89
Farnham Creek RP-3 77
Sharps RP-4 61
Bowlers Wharf RP-5 80
Neals Point RP-6 76
Lowery Point RP-7 62
Jones Point RP-8 69
Mallorys Point RP-9 66
Mulberry Point RP- 1 0 5 3 *
Chester River, Maryland
QACC CH-1 73
Grays Inn Creek CH-2 74
Cliffs Wharf CH-3 81
Southeast Creek CH-4 76
Duck Blind CH-5 44*
Chestertown CH-6 76
Peach Tree Point CH-7 57*
Buckingham Wharf CH-8 59*
Cow Pasture CH-9 62
Crumpton CH-10 61
Control and Reference Sites
Ware River Mud WRM 77
Carters Creek Mud CCM 78
SE
5.3
3.7
6.0
8.0
3.5
3.7
8.0
3.7
4.3
6.0
11
3.3
4.0
4.3
9.9
4.3
9.4
6.2
4.6
9.5
6.4
2.0
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
5-15
-------
5-16
-------
Table 4.7 Survival of the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays. The survivors
were scored on day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. The reference site chosen for the polychaete
worm was mostly silt and clay (Carters Creek). An asterisk marks site results significantly different
from the test organism response to reference site sediment. The means and standard errors (SE) are
based on sediment bioassays using S. benedicti (n = 12) exposed to five randomly located grab
samples from each site.
MEAN %
SITE NAME SITE SURVIVAL
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek RP-1 72*
Wildwood Beach RP-2 90
Farnham Creek RP-3 80
Sharps RP-4 87
Bowlers Wharf RP-5 82*
Neals Point RP-6 75
Lowery Point RP-7 88
Jones Point RP-8 92
Mallorys Point RP-9 70*
Mulberry Point RP- 1 0 72 *
Chester River, Maryland
QACC CH-1 87
Grays Inn Creek CH-2 87
Cliffs Wharf CH-3 83
Southeast Creek CH-4 75*
Duck Blind CH-5 77*
Chestertown CH-6 62*
Peach Tree Point CH-7 80
Buckingham Wharf CH-8 55*
Cow Pasture CH-9 80*
Crumpton CH-10 67*
Control and Reference Sites
Ware River Mud WRM 98
Carters Creek Mud CCM 97
SE
2.0
3.1
18.7
4.2
4.9
20.2
3.3
2.6
16.2
5.7
5.0
7.7
5.3
3.7
7.6
10.1
8.6
8.2
2.0
16.9
5.5
3.3
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
5-17
-------
5-1!
-------
Table 4.8 Growth of the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in sediment bioassays. Length (mm) and
weight (mg) increase over the initial size and standard error (SE) of 5 replicates of the mean of the
surviving animals for each replicate. An asterisk marks site results significantly different from the test
organism response to reference site sediment for sites not already determined to be significantly based
on percent survival. "Nl" is the number of survivors that remained intact after the 20 day breakdown
of the test. "N2" is the number of locations within a site that had survivors in the sediment bioassay at
the end of 20 days.
SITE NAME
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Ware River Mud
Carters Creek Mud
SITE
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-
10
WRM
CCM
Nl
MEAN
LENGTH
SE
Rappahannock River,
79 1.574 10
88
76
60
74
75
60
65
66
52
1
1
1
0.
1
1
0
1
0
.275
.379
.031
883*
.321
.303
.967
.113
.377
Chester River,
73 1.502
72
79
76
43
72
57
58
57
59
1
0.
1
1
1
1
0
0
0.
.006
670*
.305
.673
.090
.164
.835
.998
790*
9.
11
11
10
10
11
11
10
10
Virginia
.38
83
.17
.51
.52
.37
.48
.18
.33
.43
Maryland
9.08
9.
8.
10
16
10
10
9.
11
12
34
51
.71
.75
.71
.29
71
.33
.40
Control and Reference Sites
76 1.630 10.56
78
1
.404
9.
31
N
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
MEAN
WEIGHT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
110
104
098
088
076
106
114
076
124
066
148
078
066
148
132
074
126
072
100
096
128
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SE
.011
.008
.019
.021
.008
.020
.022
.013
.018
.013
.017
.020
.016
.017
.028
.011
.016
.020
.038
.020
.025
.015
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
5-19
-------
3-20
-------
Table 4.9 Growth of the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays. Length (mm)
and weight (mg) increase over the initial size and standard error (SE) of 5 replicates of the mean of the
surviving animals for each replicate. An asterisk marks site results significantly different from the test
organism response to reference site sediment for sites not already determined to be significantly based
on percent survival. "Nl" is the number of survivors that remained intact after the 20 day breakdown
of the test. "N2" is the number of locations within a site that had survivors in the sediment bioassay at
the end of 20 days.
SITE NAME
SITE
N
MEAN
LENGTH
SE
Rappahannock River,
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
43
48
46
48
46
45
46
50
42
38
1
.849
2.397
2
.406
2.371
2
1
1
1
.093
.828
.463
.849
2.009
1
.540
Chester River,
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
44
49
48
40
39
36
46
33
47
34
1
1.
0.
1
0
1
1
1
.920
107*
555*
.774
.947
.395
.738
.357
2.075
1
Control
Ware River Mud
Carters Creek Mud
WRM
CCM
49
54
1
2
.849
22.
17.
14.
21.
18.
20.
17.
19.
25.
17.
Virginia
.20
.51
.77
.22
.62
.38
.73
.29
.38
.59
N
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
MEAN
WEIGHT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.028
.036
.074
.084
.032
.044
.040
.036
.044
.032
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
SE
007
007
035
026
020
004
009
008
008
009
Maryland
18.
19.
16.
21.
22.
21.
13.
22.
16.
28.
.84
.54
.18
.25
.55
.89
.21
.52
.31
.09
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.052
.042
.010
.016
.028
.016
.048
.038
.038
.044
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
006
006
015
016
014
012
013
007
006
009
and Reference Sites
.708
.265
18.
17.
.51
.84
5
5
0.
0.
.038
.040
0.
0.
010
006
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
5-21
-------
Table 4.10 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for sites in the Rappahannock
River, Virginia. The values reported are the method detection limits (as ppb dry weight) since no compounds were observed above the
detection limits.
5-1!
Compound
CASRN
ERL ERM RP-1
Method Detection Limit (ng/g or ug/kg or ppb sediment dry weight)
RP-2 RP-3 RP-4 RP-5 RP-6 RP-7 RP-8 RP-9 RP-10 WRM CCM
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Anthracene 120-12-7
Fluorene 86-73-7
Naphthalene 91-20-3
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
2-Methylnaphthalene*
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Compound CASRN
Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9
Chrysene 218-01-9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Pyrene 129-00-0
16
44
85.3
19
160
240
70
552
ERL
261
430
384
63.4
600
665
500
640
1100
540
2100
1500
670
3160
ERM
1600
1600
2800
260
5100
2600
260
260
260
260
260
260
NA
1560
RP-1
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
280
280
280
280
280
280
NA
1680
RP-2
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
250
250
250
250
250
250
NA
1500
RP-3
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
260
260
260
260
260
260
NA
1560
RP-4
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
300
300
300
300
300
300
NA
1800
RP-5
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
150
150
150
150
150
150
NA
900
RP-6
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
240
240
240
240
240
240
NA
1440
RP-7
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
190
190
190
190
190
190
NA
1140
RP-8
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
300
300
300
300
300
300
NA
1800
RP-9
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
290
290
290
290
290
290
NA
1740
RP-10
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
1200
WRM
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
1200
CCM
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
High Molecular Weight PAHs
1700 9600 1560 1680 1500 1560 1800
1440 1140 1800 1740 1200 1200
Total PAHs
4022 44792 3120 3360 3000 3120 3600 1800 2880 2280 3600 3480 2400 2400
-------
Table 4.11 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for sites in the Chester River,
Maryland. The values reported are the method detection limits (as ppb dry weight) since no compounds were observed above the detection
limits.
Compound
Method Detection Limit (ng/g or ug/kg or ppb sediment dry weight)
CASRN ERL ERM CH-1 CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6 CH-7 CH-8 CH-9 CH-10 WRM
CCM
5-19
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Anthracene 120-12-7
Fluorene 86-73-7
Naphthalene 91-20-3
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
2-Methylnaphthalene*
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Compound CASRN
Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9
Chrysene 218-01-9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Pyrene 129-00-0
16
44
85.3
19
160
240
70
552
ERL
261
430
384
63.4
600
665
500
640
1100
540
2100
1500
670
3160
ERM
1600
1600
2800
260
5100
2600
130
130
130
130
130
130
NA
780
CH-1
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
240
240
240
240
240
240
NA
1440
CH-2
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
210
210
210
210
210
210
NA
1260
CH-3
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
300
300
300
300
300
300
NA
1800
CH-4
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
290
290
290
290
290
290
NA
1740
CH-5
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
NA
1740
CH-6
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
300
300
300
300
300
300
NA
1800
CH-7
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
290
290
290
290
290
290
NA
1740
CH-8
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
1200
CH-9
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
190
190
190
190
190
190
NA
1140
CH-10
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
1200
WRM
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
NA
1200
CCM
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
High Molecular Weight PAHs
1700 9600 780 1440 1260 1800 1740 1740 1800 1740 1200 1140 1200 1200
Total PAHs
4022 44792 1560 2880 2520 3600 3480 3480 3600 3480 2400 2280 2400 2400
-------
Table 4.12 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for sites in the Rappahannock
River, Virginia. The values reported are the method detection limits reported as ug/g organic carbon normalized concentrations (note: no
compounds were observed above the detection limits). Benchmark values (ERL and ERM) have been converted to the same units.
Compound
CASRN ERL ERM
Method Detection Limit (expressed as ug/g oc normalized concentrations)
RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-4 RP-5 RP-6 RP-7 RP-8 RP-9 RP-10 WRM
CCM
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
2 50
4 64
9 110
2 54
16 210
24 150
14.2 12.5
14.2 12.5
14.2 12.5
14.2 12.5
14.2 12.5
14.2 12.5
12.7 15.
12.7 15.
12.7 15.
12.7 15.
12.7 15.
12.7 15.
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.2 11.
18.2 11.
18.2 11.
18.2 11.
18.2 11.
18.2 11.
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
57 638 85.0 75.1 75.9 90.5 89.9 109.5 66.9 79.4 73.7 84.0 24.5 47.4
3-20
Compound
CASRN ERL ERM RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-4 RP-5 RP-6 RP-7 RP-8 RP-9 RP-10 WRM CCM
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo (k)fluor anthene *
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Pyrene
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
193-39-5
129-00-0
26
43
32
28
38
60
66
160
160
188
162
280
510
260
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
18.2 11.1
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
High Molecular Weight PAHs
293 1720 99.1 87.7
105.6 104.8 127.7 78.0 92.7 86.0 98.0 28.5 55.3
Total PAHs
350 2358 184.1 162.8 164.6 196.1 194.7 237.2 144.8 172.1 159.6 181.9 53.0 102.7
-------
Table 4.13 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for sites in the Chester River,
Maryland. The values reported are the method detection limits reported as ug/g organic carbon normalized concentrations (note: no
compounds were observed above the detection limits). Benchmark values (ERL and ERM) have been converted to the same units.
5-21
Compound
CASRN
Method Detection Limit (expressed as ug/g oc normalized concentrations)
ERL ERM CH-1 CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6 CH-7 CH-8 CH-9 CH-10 WRM
CCM
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Anthracene 120-12-7
Fluorene 86-73-7
Naphthalene 91-20-3
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Compound CASRN
Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 205-99-2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene* 207-08-9
Chrysene 218-01-9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Pyrene 129-00-0
2
4
9
2
16
24
57
ERL
26
43
32
28
38
60
66
50
64
110
54
210
150
638
ERM
160
160
188
162
280
510
260
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
122.4
CH-1
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
71.9
CH-2
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
79.4
CH-3
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
59.0
CH-4
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
64.7
CH-5
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
51.6
CH-6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
59.4
CH-7
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
49.2
CH-8
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
22.6
CH-9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
32.3
CH-10
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
24.5
WRM
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
47.4
CCM
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
High Molecular Weight PAHs
293 1720 142.9
92.6 68.8 75.5 60.2 69.3 57.4 26.4 37.7 28.5 55.3
Total PAHs
350 2358 265.3 155.7 172.0 127.8 140.2 111.8 128.6 106.6 48.9 70.0 53.0 102.7
-------
Table 4.14 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA (draft) sediment
quality criterion for the PAH acenaphthene. MDL is the weight adjusted method detection limit for
each sediment sample, PAHb is the concentration of acenaphthene detected (all below the detection
limit or BDL), the fraction of organic carbon (foe), and the Effective PAHb concentration is the
minimum concentration that could be detected at the MDL expressed as ug/g oc. "RP" sites are from
locations in the Rappahannock River, Virginia, "CH" sites are from the Chester River, Maryland,
"WRM" is the control site in the Ware River, Virginia and "CCM' is the reference site in Carters
Creek, Virginia.
SITE
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
WRM
CCM
MDL
ug/kg
dry wt
260
280
250
260
300
150
240
190
300
290
130
240
210
300
290
290
300
290
200
190
990
870
PAHb
ug/kg
dry wt
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
foc =
%oc
dry wt
1.836
2.236
1.975
1.724
2.003
0.822
2.154
1.435
2.443
2.072
0.637
2.004
1.587
3.051
2.689
3.373
3.032
3.535
5.313
3.529
4.905
2.531
Effective
PAHb
ug/goc
14
13
13
15
15
18
11
13
12
14
20
12
13
10
11
9
10
8
4
5
20
34
ACENAPHTHENE
USEPA SQC DRAFT
95% CL 95% CL
Lower SQC Upper
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
3-26
-------
Table 4.15 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA (draft) sediment
quality criterion for the PAH fluoranthene. MDL is the weight adjusted method detection limit for each
sediment sample, PAHb is the concentration of fluoranthene detected (all below the detection limit or
BDL), the fraction of organic carbon (foe), and the Effective PAHb concentration is the minimum
concentration that could be detected at the MDL expressed as ug/g oc. "RP" sites are from locations
in the Rappahannock River, Virginia, "CH" sites are from the Chester River, Maryland, "WRM" is the
control site in the Ware River, Virginia and "CCM' is the reference site in Carters Creek, Virginia.
SITE
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
WRM
CCM
MDL
ug/kg
drywt
260
280
250
260
300
150
240
190
300
290
130
240
210
300
290
290
300
290
200
190
200
200
PAHb
ug/kg
drywt
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
foc =
%oc
drywt
1.836
2.236
1.975
1.724
2.003
0.822
2.154
1.435
2.443
2.072
0.637
2.004
1.587
3.051
2.689
3.373
3.032
3.535
5.313
3.529
4.905
2.531
Effective
PAHb
ug/goc
14
13
13
15
15
18
11
13
12
14
20
12
13
10
11
9
10
8
4
5
4
8
FLUORANTHENE
USEPA SQC DRAFT
95% CL 95% CL
Lower SQC Upper
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
3-27
-------
Table 4.16 An evaluation of the method detection limit as compared to the USEPA (draft) sediment
quality criterion for the PAH phenanthrene. MDL is the weight adjusted method detection limit for
each sediment sample, PAHb is the concentration of phenanthrene detected (all below the detection
limit or BDL), the fraction of organic carbon (foe), and the Effective PAHb concentration is the
minimum concentration that could be detected at the MDL expressed as ug/g oc. "RP" sites are from
locations in the Rappahannock River, Virginia, "CH" sites are from the Chester River, Maryland,
"WRM" is the control site in the Ware River, Virginia and "CCM' is the reference site in Carters
Creek, Virginia.
SITE
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
WRM
CCM
MDL
ug/kg
dry wt
260
280
250
260
300
150
240
190
300
290
130
240
210
300
290
290
300
290
200
190
200
200
PAHb
ug/kg
dry wt
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
foe =
%oc
dry wt
1.836
2.236
1.975
1.724
2.003
0.822
2.154
1.435
2.443
2.072
0.637
2.004
1.587
3.051
2.689
3.373
3.032
3.535
5.313
3.529
4.905
2.531
Effective
PAHb
ug/goc
14
13
13
15
15
18
11
13
12
14
20
12
13
10
11
9
10
8
4
5
4
8
PHENANTHRENE
USEPA SQC DRAFT
95% CL 95% CL
Lower SQC Upper
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
5-2!
-------
Table 4.17 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for pesticides for sites in the Rappahannock River, Virginia. The values
reported are the method detection limits (as ppb dry weight) since no compounds were observed above the detection limits.
3-25
Compound
CAS
Method Detection Limits as ug/kg or
ERL ERM RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-4 RP-5 RP-6 RP-7
ng/g or ppb dry weight
RP-8 RP-9 R P - WRMCCM
10
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
DDT Total
309-00-2
60-57-1 0.02 8
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
53494.70-5
76-44-8
1024-57-3
72-43-5
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
72-54-8 2 20
72-55-9 2.2 27
50-29-3 1 7
1.58 46.1
3.3
6.6
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.6
13
13
3.3
3.3
33
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.6
3.5
7
3.5
7
7
7
14
14
3.5
3.5
35
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
7
7
7
3.3
6.6
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.6
13
13
3.3
3.3
33
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.6
3.4
6.8
3.4
6.8
6.8
6.8
14
14
3.4
3.4
34
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.8
6.8
6.8
3.8
7.6
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
15
15
3.8
3.8
38
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
1.9
3.8
1.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.6
1.9
1.9
19
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.1
6.2
3.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
12
12
3.1
3.1
31
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
2.4
4.8
2.4
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
2.4
2.4
24
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.8
4.8
4.8
3.9
7.8
3.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
16
16
3.9
3.9
39
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
3.7
7.4
3.7
7.4
7.4
7.4
15
15
3.7
3.7
37
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
7.4
7.4
7.4
2.9
5.8
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
12
12
2.9
2.9
29
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
2.8
5.6
2.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
11
11
2.8
2.8
28
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
-------
Table 4.18 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for pesticides for sites in the Chester River, Maryland. The values reported
are the method detection limits (as ppb dry weight) since no compounds were observed above the detection limits.
3-26
Compound
Method Detection Limits as ug/kg or ng/g
CAS ERL ERM CH- CH-2 CH-3 CH-4 CH-5 CH-6 CH-7 CH-8
1
or ppb dry weight
CH-9CH-10WRM CCM
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4»-DDT
DDT Total
309-00-2
60-57-1 0.02
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
53494.70-5
76-44-8
1024-57-3
72-43-5
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
72-54-8 2
72-55-9 2.2
50-29-3 1
1.58
1.7
8 3.3
1.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.6
6.6
1.7
1.7
17
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
20 3.3
27 3.3
7 3.3
46.1
2.9
5.8
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
12
12
2.9
2.9
29
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
2.6
5.2
2.6
5.2
5.2
5.2
10
10
2.6
2.6
26
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
5.2
5.2
5.2
3.8
7.6
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
15
15
3.8
3.8
38
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
3.6
7.2
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
14
14
3.6
3.6
36
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
3.6
7.2
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
14
14
3.6
3.6
36
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
3.8
7.6
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
15
15
3.8
3.8
38
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
3.6
7.2
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
14
14
3.6
3.6
36
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
2.5
5
2.5
5
5
5
10
10
2.5
2.5
25
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5
5
5
2.4
4.8
2.4
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
2.4
2.4
24
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.8
4.8
4.8
2.9
5.8
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
12
12
2.9
2.9
29
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
2.8
5.6
2.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
11
11
2.8
2.8
28
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
-------
Table 4.19 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as Aroclor (ppb dry weight) for sites in
the Rappahannock River, Virginia and Chester River, Maryland. The values reported are the method detection limits (as ppb dry weight) since
no compounds were observed above the detection limits.
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Compound
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
PCBs
CAS
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Method Detection Limits as ug/kg or ng/g or ppb dry weight
ER ER RP-RP-RP-RP-RP-RP-RP-RP-RP- R P -WRMC C
L M 12
66 70
66 70
66 70
66 70
66 70
66 70
66 70
22.7 180
345
66 68
66 68
66 68
66 68
66 68
66 68
66 68
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
6
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
7
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
8 9
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
10
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
M
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Chester River, Maryland
Method Detection
Compound
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
PCBs
CAS
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
ER ER CH- C H -
L M 12
33 58
33 58
33 58
33 58
33 58
33 58
33 58
22.7 180
CH- CH-C
345
52 76
52 76
52 76
52 76
52 76
52 76
52 76
Limits as
H-
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
CH
6
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
ug/kg
- CH
7
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
or ng/g
-CH-
8
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
or ppb dry
CH
9
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
-C H
10
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
weight
-WRMC C
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
M
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
-------
Table 4.20 Inorganic contaminants in sediment from 10 sites in the Rapphannock River, Virginia (RP) as well as control (Ware River) and
reference (Carters Creek) sites. Single underlined values indicate when concentrations of specific metals exceed the Effects Range Low
benchmarks defined by Long et al., 1995. There were no instances where the Effects Range Median benchmarks were exceeded.
SITE NAME
SITE
TOTAL METAL IN BULK SEDIMENT (ug/g dry weight)
Al As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg
Ni
Se
Sn
Zn
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
33762
51670
52490
41140
45990
10092
47100
37992
43780
63101
6.16
7.58
5.63
4.48
4.27
3.09
3.78
2.45
6.70
4.39
0.505
0.604
0.475
0.411
0.566
0.213
0.483
0.426
0.750
0.523
Control (WRM)
Carters Creek Mud
Ware River Mud
CCM
WRM
21820
25156
6.30
5.69
Sediment
Effects Range Low
Effects Range Median
ERL
ERM
8.2
70
0.204
0.475
46.5 24.1
53.6 27.7
49.5 25.3
52.7 23.7
46.5 25.5
16.4 7.4
58.8 21.0
34.0 18.6
53.1 30.6
52.2 33.3
27.9
27.9
26.3
27.4
26.7
11.8
22.0
20.6
29.1
35.8
0.060
0.071
0.071
0.056
0.064
0.026
0.030
0.035
0.063
0.066
22.2
26.3
24.3
24.6
24.1
8.0
26.2
17.4
26.9
29.5
0.537
0.665
0.569
0.539
0.576
0.177
0.503
0.366
0.650
0.752
0.677
0.606
0.499
0.926
0.815
1.360
0.358
0.679
1.870
0.953
119.0
124.0
119.0
107.0
113.0
27.7
91.0
79.7
129.0
118.0
and Reference (CCM)Sites
49.1 18.6
37.4 18.6
Quality Benchmarks (Long
1.2
9.6
81 34
370 270
27.2
37.1
0.055
0.077
18.8
19.2
0.509
0.696
0.284
0.545
132.0
127.0
et al, 1995)
46.7
218
0.15
0.71
20.9
51.6
150
410
Method Detection Limit MDL
122 0.012 0.006 2.44 1.22 4.88 0.027 2.44 0.012
0.20 0.488
-------
Table 4.21 Inorganic contaminants in sediment from 10 sites in the Chester River, Maryland (CH) as well as control (Ware River) and
reference (Carters Creek) sites. Single underlined values indicate when concentrations of specific metals exceed the Effects Range Low
benchmarks defined by Long et al., 1995. There were no instances where the Effects Range Median benchmarks were exceeded.
SITE NAME
3-29
SITE
TOTAL METAL IN BULK SEDIMENT (ug/g dry weight)
Al As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg
Ni
Se
Sn
Zn
Chester River, Maryland
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Carters Creek Mud
Ware River Mud
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
CCM
WRM
5792
22181
17931
31670
36752
32850
31304
33272
15582
13160
21820
25156
1.76 0.380
7.95 0.908
7.10 0.979
6.10 0.987
7.65 0.941
3.88 0.920
6.44 0.992
4.70 1.034
3.22 0.576
2.34 0.007
Control (WRM)
6.30 0.204
5.69 0.475
13.1
38.1
44.0
53.8
64.6
51.9
55.0
58.3
29.8
31.8
7.8
24.4
18.5
23.3
24.3
22.2
21.4
20.9
9.2
7.2
19.5
42.3
37.0
48.6
49.5
46.7
49.7
46.2
27.4
25.8
0.019
0.060
0.068
0.068
0.090
0.086
0.087
0.080
0.029
0.027
11.0
33.9
28.5
32.5
34.4
28.2
27.6
28.1
11.8
12.7
0.255
0.864
0.646
0.787
0.778
0.773
0.766
0.719
0.395
0.221
0.551
0.472
0.472
0.755
1.050
1.230
0.899
0.434
0.744
0.514
55.5
159.0
137.0
151.0
174.0
155.0
155.0
144.0
54.8
59.3
and Reference (CCM)Sites
49.1
37.4
Sediment Quality Benchmarks
Effects Range Low
Effects Range Median
ERL
ERM
8.2 1.2
70 9.6
81
370
18.6
18.6
(Long
34
270
27.2
37.1
0.055
0.077
18.8
19.2
0.509
0.696
0.284
0.545
132.0
127.0
et al, 1995)
46.7
218
0.15
0.71
20.9
51.6
150
410
Method Detection Limit MDL
122 0.012 0.006
2.44
1.22 4.88 0.027 2.44 0.012 0.20 0.488
-------
Table 4.22 Concentrations of inorganic contaminants in sediment expressed as toxic units (TU) relative
to the Effects Range Low (ERL) benchmarks defined by Long et al, 1995. TU is defined as the
observed concentration divided by the ERL value such that TU values less than "1" express a low
probability that the specific metal is likely to be responsible for any observed toxicity. TU greater than
"1" indicate when toxicity is occasionally seen when the metal concentration is greater than the ERL. If
the toxicity of metals can be assumed to be additive in nature, when the total of all TU ERLs for a given
site (SUM TU ERL) is less than one, toxicity is not expected to be due to the metals.
TOTAL
SITE NAME
METAL
SITE
IN BULK SEDIMENT (ug/g dry weight) as TU ERL
As Cd Cr Cu Pb He Ni
SUM
Zn TUERL
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
0.75
0.92
0.69
0.55
0.52
0.38
0.46
0.30
0.82
0.54
0.42
0.50
0.40
0.34
0.47
0.18
0.40
0.36
0.63
0.44
0.57
0.66
0.61
0.65
0.57
0.20
0.73
0.42
0.66
0.64
Chester River,
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Carters Creek Mud
Ware River Mud
CHI
CH2
CH3
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CH8
CH9
CH10
CCM
WRM
0.21
0.97
0.87
0.74
0.93
0.47
0.79
0.57
0.39
0.29
Control
0.77
0.69
0.32
0.76
0.82
0.82
0.78
0.77
0.83
0.86
0.48
0.01
(WRM)
0.17
0.40
0.16
0.47
0.54
0.66
0.80
0.64
0.68
0.72
0.37
0.39
0.71
0.81
0.74
0.70
0.75
0.22
0.62
0.55
0.90
0.98
0.60
0.60
0.56
0.59
0.57
0.25
0.47
0.44
0.62
0.77
0.40
0.47
0.47
0.37
0.43
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.42
0.44
1.06
1.26
1.16
1.18
1.15
0.38
1.25
0.83
1.29
1.41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.79
.83
.79
.71
.75
.18
.61
.53
.86
.79
5.3
6.1
5.4
5.1
5.2
2.0
4.7
3.7
6.2
6.0
Maryland
0.23
0.72
0.54
0.69
0.71
0.65
0.63
0.61
0.27
0.21
and Reference
0.61
0.46
0.55
0.55
0.42
0.91
0.79
1.04
1.06
1.00
1.06
0.99
0.59
0.55
0.13
0.40
0.45
0.45
0.60
0.57
0.58
0.53
0.19
0.18
0.53
1.62
1.36
1.56
1.65
1.35
1.32
1.34
0.56
0.61
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
.37
.06
.91
.01
.16
.03
.03
.96
.37
.40
2.4
6.9
6.3
7.0
7.7
6.5
6.9
6.6
3.2
2.6
(CCM)Sites
0.58
0.79
0.37
0.51
0.90
0.92
0
0
.88
.85
4.8
5.2
3-34
-------
Table 4.23 The concentration of simultaneously extracted metals obtained following the determination
of acid volatile sulfides in bulk sediment samples from 10 sites in the Chester River, Maryland (CH) and
10 sites in the Rapphannock River, Virginia (RP) as well as control (Ware River) and reference
(Carters Creek) sites. The results are expressed as umoles per gram dry weight sediment.
SEM (uM/g dry weight)
SITE NAME
SITE
Cd
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.109
0.126
0.120
0.130
0.139
0.041
0.086
0.096
0.159
0.089
Chester River,
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Carters Creek Mud
Ware River Mud
CHI
cm
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
CCM
WRM
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Control (WRM)
0.002
0.000
0.051
0.151
0.128
0.134
0.088
0.093
0.060
0.039
0.017
0.018
0.083
0.094
0.091
0.079
0.099
0.015
0.057
0.061
0.094
0.118
Maryland
0.044
0.171
0.130
0.146
0.156
0.157
0.146
0.125
0.052
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.213
0.170
0.134
0.126
0.118
0.076
0.078
0.035
0.037
1.094
0.947
0.857
1.062
0.885
0.311
0.733
0.547
1.231
0.924
0.549
1.273
1.195
1.844
1.584
1.478
1.386
1.167
0.597
0.482
and Reference (CCM)Sites
0.127
0.088
0.106
0.137
0.000
0.000
0.099
0.100
1.013
0.793
3-35
-------
Table 4.24 Comparison of simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) to the acid volatile sulfides (AVS)
available to potentially bind with the divalent metals such that they are no longer bioavailable. A ratio
of less than "1" suggests that toxicity due to the divalent metals is unlikely.
RATIO OF SEM TO AVS
SITE NAME
SITE
SEM
(llM/2)
AVS SEM/AVS
fuM/2) RATIO
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Carters Creek
Ware River
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
Control (WRM)
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
Control (WRM)
CC
WR
1.285
1.167
1.068
1.272
1.124
0.366
0.876
0.704
1.485
1.131
and Reference (CCM)Sites
0.696
1.809
1.622
2.258
1.954
1.847
1.667
1.409
0.701
0.575
and Reference (CCM)Sites
1.347
1.117
7.106
5.439
7.908
6.005
3.450
0.304
6.068
0.496
1.556
15.205
0.745
4.215
0.929
4.036
18.864
7.621
10.702
21.750
3.917
1.369
1.392
3.956
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
1.2
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.9
0.4
1.7
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.3
3-36
-------
Table 4.25 Results of the analysis of composite sediment samples for organic carbon (% total organic
carbon or TOC) and pore water extracted from the same samples that was analyzed for nitrite (NO2
mg/L), ammonia (NHg) and sulfide (mg/L).
SITE NAME
SITE
TD
SAMPLE NO2
DATE % TOC me/L
NH3
me/L
Sulfide
me/L
Rappahannock River, Virginia
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
09/23/1999 1.836 0.0006
09/23/1999 2.236 0.0005
09/23/1999 1.975 0.0009
09/23/1999 1.724 0.0006
09/23/1999 2.003 0.0008
09/23/1999 0.822 0.0006
09/23/1999 2.154 0.0004
09/22/1999 1.435 0.0009
09/22/1999 2.443 0.0018
09/22/1999 2.072 0.0001
Chester River, Maryland
09/20/1999 0.637 0.0025
09/20/1999 2.004 0.0010
09/20/1999 1.587 0.0015
09/20/1999 3.051 0.0009
09/20/1999 2.689 0.0006
09/20/1999 3.373 0.0015
09/20/1999 3.032 0.0009
09/20/1999 3.535 0.0011
09/20/1999 5.313 0.0014
09/20/1999 3.529 0.0010
6.649
9.919
8.481
5.313
11.089
7.260
5.637
5.396
11.894
4.864
5.396
4.758
2.645
4.994
5.336
6.460
4.777
5.683
5.567
10.603
<005
<005
<005
<005
<005
0.005
<005
0.006
0.005
0.015
<005
<005
<005
<005
<005
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.011
0.008
Control (WRM) and Reference (CCMtSites
Ware River Mud
Carters Creek Mud
WRM
CCM
10/13/1999 4.905 0.0007
10/13/1999 2.531 0.0005
14.049
10.474
0.010
0.006
3-37
-------
Table 4.26 Sediment particle size characteristics from the 20 sites. Results of particle size analysis
for grab samples that were collected from 5 randomly located positions (REP 1-5) at each SITE in the
Rappahannock River, Virginia (RP) and Chester River, Maryland (CH). The particle size description
for percent (%) gravel is the total weight of particles greater than 2.0mm (usually shell hash and debris,
rarely "gravel"). The percentage reported for sand, silt, and clay is the percent of the whole sediment
sample minus the gravel fraction. The assignment of a TYPE to each replicate follows the
physical/geological characterization described in Folk (1980) and is used to evaluate the similarity of
sediment characteristics within a SITE.
SITE NAME SITE REP GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
TYPE
Lancaster Creek
Lancaster Creek
Lancaster Creek
Lancaster Creek
Lancaster Creek
Wildwood Beach
Wildwood Beach
Wildwood Beach
Wildwood Beach
Wildwood Beach
Farnham Creek
Farnham Creek
Farnham Creek
Farnham Creek
Farnham Creek
Sharps
Sharps
Sharps
Sharps
Sharps
Bowlers Wharf
Bowlers Wharf
Bowlers Wharf
Bowlers Wharf
Bowlers Wharf
RP-1
RP-1
RP-1
RP-1
RP-1
RP-2
RP-2
RP-2
RP-2
RP-2
RP-3
RP-3
RP-3
RP-3
RP-3
RP-4
RP-4
RP-4
RP-4
RP-4
RP-5
RP-5
RP-5
RP-5
RP-5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
4.5
2.0
0.4
15.2
14.3
11.8
13.9
13.0
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.9
4.5
5.0
3.8
4.6
4.6
8.6
8.5
8.7
9.0
8.3
6.3
7.0
8.8
7.2
6.9
29.1
29.5
32.5
30.6
29.8
31.3
35.9
37.6
32.9
32.4
33.0
33.0
34.3
32.3
31.5
32.7
31.8
32.1
31.2
32.8
29.3
29.4
28.7
29.9
31.3
55.8
56.2
55.7
55.5
57.2
66.4
62.6
60.9
65.9
65.7
62.5
62.0
61.9
63.0
63.9
58.7
59.7
59.2
59.8
58.9
64.4
63.6
62.5
62.9
61.7
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
clay
mud
mud
clay
clay
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
3-38
-------
Table 4.26 - continued
SITE NAME SITE REP GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
TYPE
Neals Point
Neals Point
Neals Point
Neals Point
Neals Point
Lowery Point
Lowery Point
Lowery Point
Lowery Point
Lowery Point
Jones Point
Jones Point
Jones Point
Jones Point
Jones Point
Mallorys Point
Mallorys Point
Mallorys Point
Mallorys Point
Mallorys Point
Mulberry Point
Mulberry Point
Mulberry Point
Mulberry Point
Mulberry Point
QACC
QACC
QACC
QACC
QACC
Grays Inn Creek
Grays Inn Creek
Grays Inn Creek
Grays Inn Creek
Grays Inn Creek
RP-6
RP-6
RP-6
RP-6
RP-6
RP-7
RP-7
RP-7
RP-7
RP-7
RP-8
RP-8
RP-8
RP-8
RP-8
RP-9
RP-9
RP-9
RP-9
RP-9
RP-10
RP-10
RP-10
RP-10
RP-10
CH-1
CH-1
CH-1
CH-1
CH-1
CH-2
CH-2
CH-2
CH-2
CH-2
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
68.7
15.6
81.8
83.7
89.6
3.8
1.7
4.1
6.5
7.1
40.6
1.4
34.2
46.2
45.7
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.2
62.9
62.3
51.8
53.1
63.2
10.0
13.3
12.9
12.1
13.3
12.5
31.4
6.4
5.6
3.7
41.6
29.1
35.9
30.5
34.8
19.5
30.2
20.4
17.8
17.0
33.6
29.8
33.8
30.9
31.5
25.3
25.8
27.3
26.2
26.7
27.7
27.7
34.1
33.9
26.2
44.2
44.1
42.1
43.6
44.1
18.8
53.0
11.8
10.7
6.7
54.6
69.2
60.0
63.0
58.1
39.9
68.4
45.4
36.0
37.3
66.1
69.3
66.1
68.8
68.1
73.4
72.7
71.1
72.4
71.1
9.4
10.0
14.1
13.0
10.6
45.8
42.6
45.0
44.3
42.6
muddy sand
sandy mud
muddy sand
clayey sand
sand
mud
clay
mud
clay
mud
sandy clay
clay
sandy clay
sandy clay
sandy clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
silty sand
silty sand
silty sand
silty sand
silty sand
mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
3-39
-------
Table 4.26 - continued
SITE NAME SITE REP GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
TYPE
Cliffs Wharf
Cliffs Wharf
Cliffs Wharf
Cliffs Wharf
Cliffs Wharf
Southeast Creek
Southeast Creek
Southeast Creek
Southeast Creek
Southeast Creek
Duck Blind
Duck Blind
Duck Blind
Duck Blind
Duck Blind
Chestertown
Chestertown
Chestertown
Chestertown
Chestertown
Peach Tree Point
Peach Tree Point
Peach Tree Point
Peach Tree Point
Peach Tree Point
Buckingham Wharf
Buckingham Wharf
Buckingham Wharf
Buckingham Wharf
Buckingham Wharf
CH-3
CH-3
CH-3
CH-3
CH-3
CH-4
CH-4
CH-4
CH-4
CH-4
CH-5
CH-5
CH-5
CH-5
CH-5
CH-6
CH-6
CH-6
CH-6
CH-6
CH-7
CH-7
CH-7
CH-7
CH-7
CH-8
CH-8
CH-8
CH-8
CH-8
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
13.4
0.0
29.7
9.8
3.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
18.7
0.3
28.9
37.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.7
51.4
1.5
55.2
29.3
33.6
29.9
21.5
28.1
6.1
9.3
3.9
2.8
4.6
1.6
4.0
5.5
4.2
4.0
1.5
1.8
2.7
1.9
1.1
2.9
5.6
3.0
2.5
2.6
3.5
10.4
6.2
4.5
11.6
28.3
28.4
29.7
27.8
30.2
26.7
40.2
26.5
29.2
26.7
26.8
29.0
28.7
29.0
43.5
27.6
35.5
33.5
32.3
34.5
27.5
34.7
26.0
29.0
31.7
32.7
33.2
32.1
32.8
32.1
42.4
38.0
40.4
50.7
41.6
67.2
50.5
69.6
68.0
68.7
71.6
67.0
65.8
66.8
52.5
70.9
62.7
63.8
65.8
64.4
69.6
59.6
71.0
68.5
65.7
63.8
56.4
61.7
62.7
56.3
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
clay
mud
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
mud
clay
mud
mud
mud
mud
clay
mud
clay
clay
clay
clay
mud
mud
mud
mud
3-40
-------
Table 4.26 - continued
SITE NAME SITE REP GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
TYPE
Cow Pasture
Cow Pasture
Cow Pasture
Cow Pasture
Cow Pasture
Crumpton
Crumpton
Crumpton
Crumpton
Crumpton
Ware River Mud
Carters Creek Mud
CH-9
CH-9
CH-9
CH-9
CH-9
CH-10
CH-10
CH-10
CH-10
CH-10
WRM
CCM
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.5
6.8
1.6
1.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.4
38.6
38.3
36.0
80.3
73.8
90.6
4.3
83.5
2.1
4.0
2.5
17.2
24.0
25.0
25.5
7.9
12.9
5.6
44.5
8.0
44.1
40.9
53.8
37.4
37.4
36.7
38.5
11.8
13.3
3.8
51.2
8.6
53.8
55.1
43.7
sandy clay
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
muddy sand
muddy sand
sand
mud
muddy sand
mud
mud
mud
5-41
-------
Table 4.27 Sediment bioassay reference toxicant data. The reference toxicant bioassays were water-
only exposures. Test duration was for 96 hours. The LC50 for the polychaete worm falls outside of the
95% confidence limits for the historical response of this species to
LC50 95% CL (mg/L) Historic Mean
Species Toxicant (mg/L) LC50(mg/L)
Polychaete worm CdCl2 3.23 1.34-2.55 1.892
(Streblospio benedicti)
Amphipod CdCl2 1.98 1.36-3.30 0.971
(Leptocheirus plumulosus)
3-42
-------
Table 4.28. Individual fish metric values for each station on the Chester River.
Metric
Total abundance
with menhaden
removed
Abundance
estuarine individuals
Abundance
anadromous
individuals
Proportion of
carnivores
Proportion of
planktivores
Proportion of
benthivores
Total number of
species
Number of species
captured in bottom
trawl
Number of species
comprising 90% of
catch
Chester River Stations
1
785
415
239
0.22
0.77
0.01
17
1
7
2
698
371
296
0.38
0.62
0.00
16
2
5
3
893
289
565
0.62
0.36
0.02
15
2
4
4
705
330
359
0.50
0.50
0.00
12
0
4
5
508
302
192
0.38
0.62
0.00
10
2
4
6
558
167
223
0.42
0.56
0.03
15
3
5
7
530
92
371
0.64
0.34
0.02
17
6
5
8
473
64
316
0.67
0.31
0.02
13
4
4
9
267
30
159
0.60
0.33
0.07
13
4
7
10
500
26
321
0.65
0.26
0.09
23
8
9
3-43
-------
Table 4.29. Individual fish metric values for each station on the Rappahanock River.
Metric
Total abundance
with menhaden
removed
Abundance
estuarine individuals
Abundance
anadromous
individuals
Proportion of
carnivores
Proportion of
planktivores
Proportion of
benthivores
Total number of
species
Number of species
captured in bottom
trawl
Number of species
comprising 90% of
catch
Rappahannock River Stations
1
422
388
1
0.03
0.92
0.05
16
6
3
2
382
241
52
0.19
0.59
0.21
18
5
8
3
150
89
30
0.23
0.57
0.21
12
5
5
4
1011
959
4
0.01
0.95
0.04
15
5
2
5
198
136
35
0.20
0.61
0.19
15
7
6
6
348
284
12
0.06
0.83
0.11
17
4
4
7
127
45
26
0.26
0.39
0.35
17
6
8
8
473
383
15
0.06
0.83
0.11
20
10
5
9
993
683
139
0.13
0.78
0.09
20
6
6
10
493
272
145
0.32
0.45
0.23
20
10
8
3-44
-------
Table 4.30. Fish IBI scores for stations sampled in 1999.
River Station
Chester CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
Rappahannock RP - 1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
IBI Score
31
29
27
21
21
25
35
23
27
33
31
33
31
33
33
33
33
31
35
35
3-45
-------
Table 4.31. Trawl Index score and rating for each station sampled in the Chester and Rappahannock
Rivers 1999.
River Station
CH-1
Chester
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
Rappahannock RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
Trawl Index Score
0.00
0.33
0.67
0.00
0.67
0.00
1.33
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.33
1.33
1.67
1.33
1.67
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.33
Rating
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
3-46
-------
Table 4.32. Surface and bottom dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations for study sites.
River Station
Chester CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
Rappahannock RP - 1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
Surface DO (mg/L)
6.73
7.19
6.82
6.58
5.88
6.03
6.23
5.69
5.04
6.37
6.65
7.56
7.37
7.23
7.95
7.83
7.27
7.28
7.29
7.38
Bottom DO (mg/L)
5.18
5.11
5.84
5.36
5.44
5.84
6.16
5.62
5.02
6.26
7.09
6.71
6.92
6.47
7.45
6.83
7.33
6.96
7.24
7.10
3-47
-------
Table 4.33. Secchi depth by station. The habitat requirement for one meter restoration of SAV in the
Chesapeake Bay for mesohaline habitat is 0.97m; 0.75m is used for oligohaline and tidal fresh habitats.
River Station
Chester CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
Rappahannock RP - 1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
Mean Secchi Depth (m)
0.89
0.96
0.98
0.90
1.12
0.94
0.64
0.61
0.44
0.34
0.82
0.74
0.84
0.71
0.78
0.83
0.71
0.66
0.60
0.53
5-4!
-------
Table 4.34. B-ffil values and benthic community condition for the Chester (CH) and Rappahannock
River (RP) sites sampled in 1999.
Station
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
B-IBI Value
3.7
2.7
5.0
3.8
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.0
1.8
2.6
2.7
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.3
1.7
3.0
1.7
2.2
3.0
Benthic Community Condition
Meets Goal
Marginal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Severely Degraded
Degraded
Marginal
Degraded
Meets Goal
Severely Degraded
Degraded
Severely Degraded
Meets Goal
Severely Degraded
Degraded
Meets Goal
3-49
-------
Table 5.1 Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity tests (multivariate
analysis), along with fish and benthic IBI data for ambient stations tested in 1999. A yes (Y) means
some significant level of toxicity or impaired biological response was reported. A no (N) means it was
not.
Station
CHI
CH2
CHS
CH4
CHS
CH6
CH7
CHS
CH9
CH10
RP1
RP2
RP3
RP4
RP5
RP6
RP7
RP8
RP9
RP10
Water
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Sediment
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Fish3
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Benthos
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
a If either fish seining or trawling suggested impairment "yes" was included.
3-50
-------
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTRM indices for references and test sites presented in Figure 6.1-6.9.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not overlap are
indicated by "X", while "—" indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR
(4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN(15a,b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER CREEK (21)
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50
(23)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
O
O
X
0
-
-
-
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
O
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1994
X
O
0
O
0
-
X
-
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
5-51
-------
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b,
c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
O
-
X
-
O
0
-
Table6.1(cont.)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING
(31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RIVER CHI (60)
CHESTER RIVER CH2 (34a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (61)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CH7 (62)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (63)
CHESTER RIVER CH9 (64)
CHESTER RIVER CH10 (65)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (41 )
1995
O
X
X
0
X
0
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
0
X
X
1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1998
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1999
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
O
O
X
0
0
0
0
O
O
-
-
-
-
3-52
-------
SOUTH RIVER- 1 (42)
SOUTH RIVER-2 (43)
SOUTH RIVER-3 (44)
SOUTH RIVER-4 (45)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table6.1(cont.)
STATION
SOUTH RIVER-1 (42)
SOUTH RIVER-2 (43)
SOUTH RIVER-3 (44)
SOUTH RIVER-4 (45)
ELIZABETH RIVER-EL (46)
ELIZABETH RIVER-EB (47)
ELIZABETH RIVER- WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER-SB (49)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR1 (50)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR2 (5 1 )
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR3 (52)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR4 (53)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR5 (54)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR6 (55)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR59 (56)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR61 (57)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR62 (58)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR63 (59)
1995
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1998
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
o
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
1999
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3-53
-------
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP1 (66)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP2 (67)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP3 (68)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP4 (69)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP5 (70)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP6 (71)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP7 (72)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP8 (73)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP9 (74)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP10 (75)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
3-54
-------
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.11- 6.19.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not overlap are
indicated by "X", while "—" indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN (15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HE AD (17)
MORGANTOWN (18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER CREEK (21)
SEVERN
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
O
O
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
1994
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
X
0
-
-
3-55
-------
Table6.2(cont.)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
-T\TT II A T^ /~\T 1-n-n- -m .- . T, TT, , , , . r /'N n\
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING
(31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RIVER CHI (60)
CHESTER RIVER CH2 (34a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CH3 (61)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37a,b)
CHESTER RIVER CH7 (62)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (63)
CHESTER RIVER CH9 (64)
CHESTER RIVER CH10 (65)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (41 )
1995
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
O
0
X
0
1997
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1998
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1999
_
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
3-56
-------
SOUTH RIVER-1(42)
SOUTH RIVER-2 (43)
SOUTH RIVER-3 (44)
SOUTH RIVER-4 (45)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
o
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3-57
-------
Table6.2(cont.)
STATION
ELIZABETH RIVER-EL (46)
ELIZABETH RIVER-EB (47)
ELIZABETH RIVER- WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER-SB (49)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR1 (50)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR2 (5 1 )
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR3 (52)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR4 (53)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR5 (54)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR6 (55)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR59 (56)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR61 (57)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR62 (58)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR63 (59)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP1 (66)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP2 (67)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP3 (68)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP4 (69)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP5 (70)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP6 (71)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP7 (72)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP8 (73)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP9 (74)
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER - RP10 (75)
1995
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
O
o
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1998
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1999
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
O
0
X
X
o
o
0
X
X
3-58
-------
Figure 3.1. Kappihannock River sanple siaikus from the 1999 Ambient Toxicity Study.
'41' RP-10
. . , .
\. . f.-<.>.fi,^ .^=-",_.._" , ,'.'-
<.' * i
/ RP-9
J-53
. .....
' 'i J ••l*:~ •'•'•'-,••
!••;> • , •; *??•• !•"••- ••
J ', y- . '- ,/—f ' •.. -'?,>.;
RP-6
RP-4-
RP-2
RP-3
*
RP-1
-------
Figure 3-2, Chester River sample stations from the 1999 Anihient'] bxicity Study,
y
'N1-'"'
v"- . f
'
jCH^O
J-54
;;r-".;>"v:-NO^._
•. /'• *
•i .\/. _ .
'•-:"••
'-• "J\ •• ,..,. ': ';-\-S~.S '• f-' ":' /
<- • --': ( -^ , ;.• " / .'f-
*
Ctt-2
CH-1
* i
-------
Figwe 6-1 Toidc-ity Index results tor the 1990 water column daci. (Sec Section 3.4 tor a
detailed description of presentation).
50
Indian
River
i"H ._
nJ—J
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 O 1-2 * 3+
Test is significantly separated from reference
5-61
-------
Figure 6.2 Toxlcity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See Section,.3.4 for.
detailed description of presentation).
50
Patapsco River
Wve River
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 01-2 • 3+
Test is significantly separated from reference
3-62
-------
Figure 6,3 Toxicity Index resulis for the 1992-3 water column data, (See Section 3,4 for a
detailed description of presentation).
Wilson Point
1'Vog Mortar
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 C 1-2 • 3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
3-63
-------
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Tinder results for the L994 water column data for thy Severn, Mayo thy
and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3,4 for a detailed dcscriptiott of presentation).
Re;erwn:e Test
J>l.t
iMQ
'1 30
f-
•..2(1
£ 10
rt
f%
'" :'
*
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 O 1-2 • 3+
Test is significant y separated from reference
"fet
3-64
-------
Figure 6,4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data ibr Bal Lmiore Harbor sites.
(Sec Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation).
, Northwest Harbor
|1C '.
1 31}-
j. 20
I 10 j
04
RelkreiKB T«l
Curtis Bav
5Q.~— —
-=40- •
U v
'§30 •
Sll)
0 !•
Rlj fcctll £3; TiSt
Middle [1-ancK
| 30
20 -
Tail
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 1.- 1-2 • 3+
Test is signficantly separated from reference
Test
J-65
-------
Figure 6.> Tux icily Index results for the. 1995 water column data,(See Section 3.4 for a
detailed description
Pamirakev Below
River Above
Kelci
Tasi
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 C 1-2 • 3+
Rewi;nct Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
3-66
-------
Figure 6.6 Toxicity Index results for The 1996 water column data,(See Section 3,4 for a
detailed description of pressntadon).
CH6
Rcfcrcp.;e Teal
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 O 1-2 03+
fSlC":
u"H
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
3-67
-------
Figure 6,7 Tyxicity Index results for the ;997 water column data,(See Section 1.4 for a
detailed description of presentation).
5c4rti River-]
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WCQ
O 0 CM-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
3-68
-------
Figure 6.Sa ToxieiLy Index results for the L998 water column data from the Choptank.
River.(See Section 3,4 for a (kinilvd description of presentation),
CbDptnnfc
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 C 1-2 • 3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
3-69
-------
igure 6,Sb '1'oxicity index iesiilrs for ihe 1998 walcr column data from the Anacostiu
River. (Set; Sec Lion 3.4 for a detailed desuriplitHi of presentation).
i? 4fj
"
55-
43
JO-
id
IQ
'.!
#
(E3
K i
Ar.ntix-sHa RivLr-5
a
is lu"
"Test
56-
Jj-ifl-
Aji8«:5;ia Hi^cr-2
;*> !
3 ! •- -• '
|3ft
520'
»
f
10-
0
— — -— - -J— J~
B'fEwpvC T?sl
Ans.-aMda Rivei-4
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 i> 1-2 • 3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
3-70
-------
Figure 6.9a Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Chester River (see Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation).
Cfffs Wharf (CH3)
Duck Bind
-------
Figure 6.9b Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Chester River (continued).
ing an Wharf (CHfl)
CrumpU>n
-------
Figure 6.9c Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Rappahannock River (see
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation).
Bow|ars Whaf(RPS)
Sharps (HP*)
Reference Test
Reference T«st
3-73
-------
Figure 6.9d Toxicity Index results for the 1999 water column data from the Rappahannock River
(continued).
MuEerry Point {RP1Q)
La/vary Pant (RP7)
Rrference Tesl
T-^st
J-74
-------
b'.lOa Summary of wal.T co]ui?ni> Tumidly Index remits for 199(1-1 999. The sites arc ranked iicconding lo median Toxic.!ly Ind** vfjhies
(choral circles). The re,Hi:ltR are for the least toxic third of the sites in Ihc (Ma sul Cwn Figure 6,lPb and 6,10c ibf fftroainderof
racked dau). Also shoH-n itrc (he f}5a/s wjtdi(1w)L-.r! iumi* fur line TcuiuiLy Index values (vertical haj->) and the percentage of
i«ndpoinla displaying sipiillcaixt Differences jC'Om tte relerences {dpeu squares). The dashed horizontal line is the avcraK1-' vpp-'f
C limil obscsrvmi .for raferciicscoirditions during i(\estudy and is tududcsl us a gtaicral benchmark... The idcnilihisi of iJjip
arc provided ill J'abte 6-5-
3-69
100
Q.
•c
UJ
**
II
o
c
en
o
X
c
£
y
'x
c
-------
Figure ft. I Ob Summary of water column I'osicity Index results for 19W-1999 (e«n(.mucdj. Itiu ix-sulls arc: for the, middle Hiinrl of the
Kite?; iii tlic data set. i'he identities of the site numbers are provided in Table 6.1,
3-70
100.0
• «
+J
c
o eo.o
CL
tJ •
C
UJ
"c
ffl
o
X
x
o
<1>
cu
40.0 -
20.0
Ret UCL -
o.o
D ODD
n
a
n
r-i...
a a
u
a
.n
n
a
a a
60 2 36b 7? 71 fti 20 73 6b 1 34b 75 25 S3 32 2B SS 21 49. i 14 34a 20 41 123 30 15a 6a
. Sites
-------
Figure 6. lOc Summary of waler t^ohuTin Toxifity Index results for (990-1999 I'cnniirmsti). The rcnukN aru Ibr Lhu rmiMl Irmc rtiirsl nf
Lli€ silcs in ihc daLa scl. The identities of Lin; site numbers arc provided in Table'6,1.
tn
o flO
Q.
"O
s a
n
e fn • • - ' n
CD
5-71 « , . n
s£ i -1
5 n a n"-
* - • a a a D n n a n
n tj n
w rj • ' -i
x n A
CL
Rrf.ua.-Ht \-
0
32 30 aSb 27 35a Bf 57 56 SB 5D 24b 1Ba 7 43 3fia 47 37a 48 4fi It 49 12' 45 44 42 54 8 52
Sites
-------
b'i u;urc 6.11 Toxicily Index results for the 1990 sedimeni data. (See Suction 3-4 for a. detailed
description of presentation).
Indian Head
Patapsco Rivef
RsfBSRf>t» Test
Location Symbol Key °
Concentrations Exceeding ER-IYI
O 0 € 1-2 • 3+
*Tes! Is significantly separated from reference
J-7!
-------
Figure 6.12 Toxicity Index jresul.es for 1he 1991 sediment data, (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation).
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 €l-2 * 3+
Test is significantly separated from reference
3-79
-------
Figure 6.1 3 Tenderly Index results for the 1992-3 sediment datii- (Sc^ Section 3,4 for a
detailed description of presentation).
Wilson Point
50
Frog Mortar
Sandy Hilt Beach
Reference
Tost
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 O 1-2 • 3+
*Test is significantly separated from reference
-------
Figuie 6,l4a Toxicity Index rgsuiLs for the 1994 sediment data from Lhe Severn, Magolhy and
Sassafras Rivets. (See Section 3.4 for a. detailed description of presenuUion).
South Ferry
50
feference
Junction Route 50
60
* /-"k
&4Q- i ^
101
Reference Test
Annapolis
i
501
- 30
in
10
lelterfon
Reference Test
Turner Creek
Reference Test'
Sbscm Island
Reference Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 € 1-2 * 3+
Test
*Test is significantly separated from reference
5-81
-------
Figurs 6,1.4b Tm'icky Index results for the 1994 sediment data firom Baltimore Harbor sites.
(See Section 3,4 for a detailed description of presentation).
Northwest Harbor
Bear Creek
100
D --
HofCfBTO?
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
0-0
€-1-2
-3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
-------
Figure 6,15 Toxicity Index I'esults for ihv 1995 sedinwril Uala, (See SetUOri 3.4 for n detailed
description of presentation),
Pomunkey Below
York River Above
York Rjver Below
Pamunkey Above
Wiiloughby Bay
James River Above
James River Below
Lynnhaven River
RDCorenes
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 • €) 1-2 • 3+
Tesr
•* Test is significantly separated from reference
-------
Figure 6.US T
-------
Figure 6-17 Toxicity Index resuits for the 1997 sediment data, {Sue Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation).
Suulh Siver-l
EllKJiDSlh Hvar-FL
-TO
fest
Reference
Location Symbol Key *' °
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 f)l-2 • 34-
* Test is significantly separated from reference
-------
figure 6.1 Sa Toxicity Index results for the 19?S sediment daca from the
Section 3,4 for a detailed description of presentation).
River. (See
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C.1-2 • 3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
-------
Figure 6.1 Sb Toxieity Index results for iho 1993 ac-di merit data from the Anseosiia Ri^cr. (See
Sec don 3,4 for a detailed description
SO
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ERnM
O 0 C1-2 03+
* Test is significantly separated from . reference
-------
Figure 6.19a Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Chester River (see Section 3.4
for a detailed description of presentation).
60-
CjffeWhaf(CH3)
Duck BF-id (CH5)
-------
Figure 6.19b Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Chester River (continued).
Buckhrfiam Whaf (CHS)
Crumpton (CH1Q)
Reference Test
Reach Tree Roiit (CH7)
-------
Figure 6.19c Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Rappahannock River (see
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation).
Bwfcfs Wharf (RP5)
Share (RP+)
Reference
Test
Reference
Test
J-90
-------
Figure 6.19d Toxicity Index results for the 1999 sediment data from the Rappahannock River
(continued).
Mu|ienryPant(PP1D)
Paint (RP7)
Test
5-91
-------
pin; d.20:i S'.imuwy
3-86
i merit 'J oxfcity indcrt results for 199049!)!). The sites nre ranked according tc median To* idly Index
it circles). The results aic for the least toxfc fliinj of the sites in tic dwla set (sec FiRuve 6.20b ariJ fi.20c foi"
ranked data 'I. Also sbov-Ti arc the V5% confident*: limits I'm die J'oxicih' Jsidox values (VcrLk-slbar^ and
the percentage
53
13
.£ 40
58 24 5?- 55 11 21 47 27 1te 49 i*B 67 5u 26 2D
m, mi
33 12 45 13
-------
3-87
Figure 6 20b
100 -
(A
C SO
'5
a.
c
UJ
s
imsnt Tovicity Jnriex refills fbr 1990- 1 999 (continued). The results am Jbr toe middle UiiKl ofilie sites
data set. .Hie klfijif Sties nf t.-be site ijiimhcrs arc pvnvided in Table (J.2-.
40 17 41 23 73 54 3fl &» 48 43 5t 18b 5 ' UO S2' 40 39 72
31 Mb 35a 24b 15b 53 42 34e 22
-------
J;i|j.iiie h.'Uh;
3-87
too
bjnruniaiv
-------
APPENDIX A
Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during all water column tests. Test species were
Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv) andMulinia later alls (M).
-------
Date Test
Species Station
9/28/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
9/29/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
DO
(mg/L)
8.1
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.4
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.2
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.8
A-l
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
pH
7.90
7.94
8.00
7.80
7.84
7.87
7.82
7.95
7.96
7.80
7.89
8.00
8.00
7.94
7.99
7.98
7.96
7.88
7.99
7.98
7.93
7.90
7.98
7.71
7.99
7.59
Temp.
(C)
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
TI Q
2.3 . O
TI Q
2.3 .O
Ti Q
Zj .0
Ti Q
Zj .0
Ti Q
Zj .0
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
TI Q
Zj .0
Ti Q
Zj .0
23.8
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.2
24.5
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
9/29/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
DO
(mg/L)
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.7
A- 2
Salinity
(PPt)
15
14
15
15
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
pH
7.99
7.67
7.57
7.58
7.60
7.84
7.87
8.00
8.02
7.80
8.02
7.97
7.84
7.74
7.83
8.01
7.98
7.99
7.85
7.84
7.85
7.85
7.86
7.85
7.82
7.82
Temp.
(C)
23.7
24.6
24.4
24.1
24.1
24.3
24.4
24.2
24.4
24.4
24.3
24.4
24.4
24.2
24.1
24.4
24.7
24.1
24.0
23.8
23.8
23.7
23.9
23.8
24.1
23.9
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
9/30/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
DO
(mg/L)
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.1
6.8
6.8
7.1
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.1
7.5
7.6
A- 3
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
pH
7.90
7.90
7.93
7.94
7.95
7.92
7.91
7.93
7.85
7.83
7.85
7.71
7.71
7.65
7.59
7.55
7.63
7.78
7.57
7.59
7.64
7.89
7.89
7.88
7.87
7.85
Temp.
(C)
23.9
24.4
24.2
24.5
23.8
24.1
24.3
24.0
24.7
24.5
24.2
24.2
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.6
24.3
24.6
24.8
24.6
24.8
24.4
24.6
24.4
24.7
24.3
-------
Date Test
Species Station
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/1/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
DO
(mg/L)
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.5
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.7
A- 4
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
16
pH
7.83
7.82
7.81
7.85
7.74
7.79
7.80
7.87
7.72
7.70
7.66
7.67
7.67
7.75
7.82
7.84
8.13
8.04
8.02
7.97
7.97
8.02
8.06
8.02
8.06
7.92
Temp.
(C)
24.6
24.6
24.4
24.0
24.3
24.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Date Test
Species Station
RP-10
10/1/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/2/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
DO
(mg/L)
7.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.9
6.5
6.9
A- 5
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
pH
8.04
7.89
7.79
7.77
7.76
7.79
7.73
7.74
7.76
7.77
7.81
7.78
7.90
7.95
7.97
8.08
7.93
7.90
7.94
7.90
7.86
7.83
7.70
7.74
7.57
7.61
Temp.
(C)
-
24.9
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.6
24.7
24.3
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.7
24.8
24.7
25.0
24.5
24.5
24.5
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/2/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
DO
(mg/L)
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.9
7.2
7.6
8.4
7.0
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.6
A- 6
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
16
15
15
14
15
15
15
16
pH
7.66
7.72
7.58
7.63
7.75
7.75
7.97
7.77
7.84
7.77
7.74
7.88
7.84
7.83
7.89
7.74
7.84
7.81
7.91
7.88
7.80
7.89
7.85
7.86
7.84
7.91
Temp.
(C)
24.5
24.0
25.0
24.5
24.2
25.0
24.9
24.8
25.0
24.5
24.5
25.0
24.7
25.0
24.5
24.2
25.0
22.2
22.8
22.6
22.3
22.7
22.4
22.3
22.5
22.1
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/3/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
DO
(mg/L)
7.0
7.2
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.5
6.6
7.3
7.1
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.9
7.7
9.7
9.6
9.3
7.4
7.2
7.5
A- 7
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
16
14
16
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
14
16
16
pH
7.79
7.86
7.92
7.93
7.85
7.87
7.83
7.91
7.95
7.92
7.86
7.83
7.66
7.90
7.67
7.57
7.53
7.66
7.60
7.78
8.30
8.37
8.36
7.78
7.90
7.89
Temp.
(C)
22.6
22.3
22.6
22.3
23.2
22.6
22.0
22.2
22.4
22.7
22.8
22.8
25.3
25.2
25.8
25.0
25.4
25.3
25.4
25.0
25.2
25.6
25.2
25.0
25.3
25.0
-------
Date Test
Species Station
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/4/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
DO
(mg/L)
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.6
8.5
7.6
7.6
6.2
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.2
7.3
-
7.4
8.0
8.6
8.6
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
A- 8
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
14
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
15
15
17
pH
7.81
7.87
7.86
7.95
8.12
7.84
7.92
7.45
7.87
7.67
7.54
7.72
7.64
-
7.95
8.30
8.54
8.47
7.81
7.75
7.81
7.73
7.80
7.87
7.90
8.14
Temp.
(C)
-
25.4
25.0
25.7
25.2
25.1
25.3
25.0
25.0
25.2
25.0
25.1
25.5
-
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.1
25.0
25.2
25.0
25.2
25.0
25.1
-------
Date Test
Species Station
RP-9
RP-10
10/4/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/5/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
DO
(mg/L)
7.6
7.7
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
6.3
5.2
5.2
A- 9
Salinity
(PPt)
14
16
14
15
14
15
14
14
14
14
16
15
15
14
15
14
14
14
15
15
14
14
16
15
15
15
pH
7.87
7.93
7.84
7.95
7.81
7.80
7.90
7.75
7.81
7.80
7.83
7.96
8.14
8.00
7.95
7.90
8.02
7.88
8.02
8.02
8.06
7.91
8.05
7.63
7.59
7.49
Temp.
(C)
25.0
25.5
24.4
24.3
24.3
24.5
24.3
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.3
24.4
24.3
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.1
24.4
24.5
24.2
25.7
25.5
25.0
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/5/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
DO
(mg/L)
6.1
7.4
5.0
6.8
8.03
10.5
10.2
9.6
6.1
6.5
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.4
6.2
7.1
6.7
6.7
8.2
7.7
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.2
7.3
7.7
A- 10
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
pH
7.53
7.76
7.42
7.75
8.04
8.48
8.58
8.49
7.83
7.72
7.66
7.57
7.73
7.78
7.79
7.86
7.63
7.85
7.92
7.78
7.83
7.78
7.90
7.82
7.83
7.74
Temp.
(C)
24.5
25.3
25.0
25.1
25.0
25.1
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.3
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.6
25.0
25.0
25.0
26.5
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
-------
Date Test
Species Station
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/6/99 Cv Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
DO
(mg/L)
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.2
7.9
7.9
7.8
6.4
7.1
7.7
6.8
8.4
6.4
7.6
7.9
8.8
8.5
8.5
6.7
6.6
A- 11
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
pH
7.85
7.89
7.83
7.94
7.94
7.88
7.86
7.92
7.89
7.90
7.91
7.79
7.79
7.57
7.57
7.65
7.67
8.18
7.57
7.86
7.94
8.45
8.35
8.38
7.01
7.66
Temp.
(C)
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.0
24.8
24.9
24.3
24.9
25.0
24.5
25.0
24.0
24.9
24.5
25.0
25.0
-------
Date Test
Species Station
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
RP-10
10/7/99 Ml Control
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
RP-1
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
RP-7
DO
(mg/L)
6.6
7.0
6.8
6.6
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
A- 12
Salinity
(PPt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
pH
7.63
7.73
7.71
7.70
7.79
7.77
7.75
7.94
8.02
7.78
7.78
7.83
7.80
7.86
7.95
7.77
7.89
7.97
8.35
8.02
7.95
7.97
7.96
7.83
8.01
7.86
Temp.
(C)
25.0
25.2
24.5
24.9
24.5
25.0
25.1
24.9
24.0
24.1
24.5
23.8
24.0
24.0
24.6
24.2
24.9
24.9
24.0
24.0
23.9
23.8
24.1
24.3
23.8
24.2
-------
Date Test DO Salinity Temp.
Species Station (mg/L) (ppt) pH (C)
RP-8 7.1 14 8.02 23.9
RP-9 7.4 15 7.94 24.1
RP-10 7.2 14 7.93 23.8
A-13
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary offish species by station and gear type.
Total abundance for each species at all stations is also presented.
-------
STATION
CH-1
CH-2
SPECIES
Alewife
American eel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Gizzard shad
Mummichog
Northern pipefish
Pumpkinseed
Skillet fish
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Gizzard shad
Hickory shad
Inland silverside
Mummichog
SEINE CATCH
47
1
108
215
108
O
3
3
9
2
4
5
5
7
56
91
136
52
171
13
4
4
1
16
TRAWL CATCH
90
172
14
B-l
-------
STATION
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
SPECIES
Pumpkinseed
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Gizzard shad
Inland silverside
Mummichog
Pumpkinseed
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Inland silverside
SEINE CATCH
1
1
9
17
8
264
2
16
158
7
1
10
2
67
1
14
2
22
5
542
2
237
1
10
1
TRAWL CATCH
59
1
B-2
-------
STATION
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
SPECIES
Mummichog
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Mummichog
Sheepshead minnow
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Channel catfish
Hogchoker
Inland silverside
Mummichog
SEINE CATCH
6
2
O
5
45
86
304
5
106
11
1
1
12
1
1
57
182
130
7
8
12
3
2
2
1
133
TRAWL CATCH
1
5
4
2
B-3
-------
STATION
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
SPECIES
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Tessellated darter
White perch
Yellow perch
Alewife
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Hogchoker
Mummichog
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped bass
Tessellated darter
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
SEINE CATCH
2
133
7
7
10
212
12
1
42
2
11
1
6
6
1
17
1
40
3
2
323
4
12
13
TRAWL CATCH
1
1
67
2
4
1
37
B-4
-------
STATION
CH-8
CH-9
CH-10
SPECIES
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Channel catfish
Hogchoker
Mummichog
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped bass
Tessellated darter
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Mummichog
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Tessellated darter
White perch
Alewife
American eel
SEINE CATCH
1
1
1
O
15
4
70
1
279
2
6
14
2
1
4
9
2
35
3
14
17
138
1
4
TRAWL CATCH
33
1
2
35
13
1
1
7
4
B-5
-------
STATION
CH-10
RP-1
SPECIES
Atlantic menhaden
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Golden shiner
Hickory shad
Hogchoker
Mummichog
Naked goby
Pumpkinseed
Spot
Spottail shiner
Striped bass
Tessellated darter
White catfish
White perch
Yellow perch
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Gizzard shad
Harvestfish
SEINE CATCH
9
O
4
10
5
1
1
10
1
1
2
9
10
63
1
1
273
20
1
99
15
2
TRAWL CATCH
16
19
3
1
1
1
24
270
1
B-6
-------
STATION
RP-2
SPECIES
Hogchoker
Inshore lizardfish
Mummichog
Northern kingfish
Silver perch
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Gizzard shad
Hogchoker
Inshore lizardfish
Mummichog
Northern kingfish
Silver perch
Skillerfish
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
SEINE CATCH
5
1
1
15
5
1
2
1
8
8
O
15
10
4
1
1
45
2
6
11
4
TRAWL CATCH
1
O
1
2
3
6
184
7
1
B-7
-------
STATION
RP-2
RP-3
RP-4
SPECIES
Striped killifish
Weakfish
White perch
American eel
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Inshore lizardfish
Pigfish
Silver perch
Skillet fish
Spot
Striped anchovy
Weakfish
White perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Gizzard shad
Harvestfish
Hogchoker
Inshore lizardfish
Mummichog
Spot
Spotted seatrout
SEINE CATCH
41
76
1
6
1
1
1
2
2
19
2
30
1
4
70
11
4
1
2
12
34
1
TRAWL CATCH
10
76
4
1
1
O
854
1
3
B(
— (
-------
STATION
RP-4
RP-5
RP-6
SPECIES
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
American eel
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Gizzard shad
Hickory shad
Hogchoker
Naked goby
Mummichog
Skillet fish
Spot
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic stingray
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
SEINE CATCH
1
1
8
4
4
16
38
1
1
3
1
4
1
10
30
13
21
1
124
2
TRAWL CATCH
1
4
58
18
1
4
O
2
3
133
B-9
-------
STATION
Ch-6
Ch-7
SPECIES
Hogchoker
Gizzard shad
Mummichog
Rough silverside
Spanish mackerel
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Summer flounder
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blackcheek tonguefish
Gizzard shad
Harvestfish
Hogchoker
Inshore lizardfish
Rough silverside
Skillet fish
Spanish mackerel
Spot
Striped anchovy
SEINE CATCH
1
2
O
1
25
3
2
1
3
2
10
10
4
8
16
2
1
1
2
1
31
O
TRAWL CATCH
1
17
1
1
1
1
B-10
-------
STATION
RP-7
RP-8
RP-9
SPECIES
Striped bass
Summer flounder
White perch
Alewife
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blue catfish
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Harvestfish
Hickory shad
Horse-eye jack
Mummichog
Rough silverside
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
American eel
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
SEINE CATCH
15
1
10
7
1
25
23
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
33
1
5
13
1
1
2
17
97
TRAWL CATCH
1
1
2
1
326
3
2
2
2
6
1
B-ll
-------
STATION
RP-9
RP-10
SPECIES
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blue catfish
Blueback herring
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Harvestfish
Hickory shad
Hogchoker
Mummichog
Silver perch
Spot
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blue catfish
Channel catfish
Gizzard shad
Hogchoker
Naked goby
SEINE CATCH
31
21
23
12
4
5
2
1
1
5
4
30
2
24
O
100
7
6
34
12
16
5
7
1
TRAWL CATCH
598
4
2
2
2
4
140
6
63
1
B-12
-------
STATION
RP-10
SPECIES
Pumpkinseed
Silver perch
Silvery minnow
Spot
Spottail shiner
Spotted seatrout
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Unidentified Sciaenidae
Weakfish
White perch
SEINE CATCH
1
O
1
5
12
1
2
2
3
100
TRAWL CATCH
2
6
10
1
43
B-13
-------
APPENDIX C
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species biomass, and B-ffil
metric values and scores for each site.
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CHOI
Habitat: High Mesohaline Sand Date: September
7, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 15:13
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 5.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.35
Salinity (ppt) : 15.28
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
25.47
23.66
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.67
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
# Attributes Scored: 6
2.42 1 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
3409 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
3.47 5 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
37.33 5 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
50.67
Value
6.00
0.73
18.67
23.20
Score
5
3
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Heteromastus filiformis |
Neanthes succinea |
Glycinde solitaria |
Carinoma tremaphoros |
Macoma mitchelli |
Mulinia lateral is |
Macoma balthica |
Cyathura polita |
I mm. Tub i fie id w/o Cap. Chaete |
Mysidae (Epi) |
Rep 1
1659
614
477
114
114
114
91
45
45
45
Mean Std.Dev Min
1659.1 1659
613.6 614
477.3 477
113.6 114
113.6 114
113.6 114
90.9 91
45.5 45
45.5 45
45.5 45
Max
1659
614
477
114
114
114
91
45
45
45
Cum %
48.0
65.8
79.6
82.9
86.2
89.5
92. 1
93.4
94.7
96.1
Continued .
c-i
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CHOI Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Streblospio benedicti
Gemma gemma
Marenzelleria viridis
Parahesione luteola
Tub ifico ides spp.
1
1
1
1
1
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
45
23
23
23
23
3455
3409
15
14
Mean
45.5
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
3454.5
3409. 1
15.0
14.0
Std.Dev
Min
45
23
23
23
23
3455
3409
15
14
Max
45
23
23
23
23
3455
3409
15
14
Cum
97
98
98
99
100
%
4
0
7
3
0
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Carinoma tremaphoros
Neanthes succinea
Marenzelleria viridis
Glycinde solitaria
Macoma balthica
Mysidae (Epi)
Cyathura polita
Mulinia lateral is
Heteromastus filiformis
Parahesione luteola
Macoma mitchelli
Streblospio benedicti |
Gemma gemma
01 igochaeta
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0023
0
0
4007
2236
4945
1311
1035
0874
0759
0230
0092
0046
0023
0012
0012
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0023
0
0
Mean
4007
2236
4945
1311
1035
0871
0759
0230
0092
0046
0023
0012
0012
Std.Dev
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0023
0
0
Min
4007
2236
4945
1311
1035
0874
0759
0230
0092
0046
0023
0.0023
0012
0012
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
.4007
.2236
.4945
. 1311
. 1035
.0874
.0759
.0230
.0092
.0046
.0023
99.8
.0012
.0012
Cum
39
73
87
91
94
96
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
%
3
7
6
2
2
6
7
4
6
7
8
9
9
Continued
C-2
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CHOI Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter) - Contd.
Tub ifico ides spp.
| Rep 1
| 0.0012
Mean Std.Dev
0.0012
Min
0.0012
Max Cum %
0.0012 100.0
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna | 3.5616
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna | 3.4742
3.5616
3.4742
3.5616
3.4742
3.5616
3.4742
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-3
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CH02
Habitat: High Mesohaline Sand Date: September
7, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 15:36
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 5.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 6.59
Salinity (ppt) : 13.53
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
32.60
24.02
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 2.67
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Degraded
Value Score
# Attributes Scored: 6
3.17 3 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
1068 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
0.70 1 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
40.43 5 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
29.79
Value
27.66
5.53
23.40
61 . 14
Score
1
3
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Tub ifico ides spp. |
Cyathura polita |
Streblospio benedicti |
Carinoma tremaphoros |
Glycinde solitaria |
Macoma mitchelli |
Heteromastus filiformis |
I mm. Tub i fie id w/o Cap. Chaete |
Mulinia lateral is |
Amphiporus bioculatus |
Rep 1
227
182
182
114
68
68
45
45
45
23
Mean Std.Dev Min
227.3 227
181.8 182
181.8 182
113.6 114
68.2 68
68.2 68
45.5 45
45.5 45
45.5 45
22.7 23
Max
227
182
182
114
68
68
45
45
45
23
Cum %
21 .3
38.3
55.3
66.0
72.3
78.7
83.0
87.2
91 .5
93.6
Continued .
C-4
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH02 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Neanthes succinea
Parahesione luteola
Paraprionospio pinnata
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
23
23
1068
1068
13
13
Mean Std.
22.7
22.7
22.7
1068.2
1068.2
13.0
13.0
Dev
Min
23
23
23
1068
1068
13
13
Max
23
23
23
Cum
95
97
100
%
7
9
0
1068
1068
13
13
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Cyathura polita
Carinoma tremaphoros
Neanthes succinea
Macoma mitchelli
Heteromastus filiformis
Paraprionospio pinnata
Glycinde solitaria
Streblospio benedicti
Mulinia lateral is
Tub ifico ides spp.
Parahesione luteola
Amphiporus bioculatus
01 igochaeta
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4136
0818
0545
0500
0250
0182
0136
0114
0091
0091
0068
0045
0011
6989
6989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean Std.
4136
0818
0545
0500
0250
0182
0136
0114
0091
0091
0068
0045
0011
6989
6989
Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
4136
0818
0545
0500
0250
0182
0136
0114
0091
0091
0068
0045
0011
6989
6989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
4136
0818
0545
0500
0250
0182
0136
0114
0091
0091
0068
0045
0011
6989
6989
Cum
59
70
78
85
89
92
94
95
96
98
99
99
100
%
2
9
7
9
4
0
0
6
9
2
2
8
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-5
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: CH03
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: September 7, 1999
Time: 16:09
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 4.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 7.41
Salinity (ppt): 13.32
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 87.04
Temperature (C): 24.78
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 5.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition
Value
3.26
2023
7.96
40.45
14.61
Score
5
5
5
5
Meets Goal # Attributes Scored: 6
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
Value
24.72
0.40
16.85
89. 18
Score
5
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Neanthes succinea
Macoma mitchelli
Streblospio benedicti
Tub ifico ides spp.
Mulinia lateral is
Cyathura polita
Carinoma tremaphoros
Edotea triloba (Epi)
Heteromastus filiformis
Macoma balthica
| 455
| 295
| 250
| 205
| 182
| 159
| 136
1 91
1 91
1 91
Mean Std.Dev Min
454
295
250
204
181
159
136
90
90
90
5
5
0
5
8
1
4
9
9
9
455
295
250
205
182
159
136
91
91
91
Max
455
295
250
205
182
159
136
91
91
91
Cum
21
35
47
57
65
73
79
83
88
92
%
5
5
3
0
6
1
6
9
2
5
Continued .
C-6
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH03 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Hypereteone heteropoda
Marenzelleria viridis
Rang i a cuneata
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
68
68
23
2114
2023
13
12
Mean Std.
68.2
68.2
22.7
2113.6
2022.7
13.0
12.0
Dev
Min
68
68
23
2114
2023
13
12
Max
68
68
23
Cum
95
98
100
%
7
9
0
2114
2023
13
12
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Macoma balthica
Neanthes succinea
Cyathura polita
Marenzelleria viridis
Heteromastus filiformis
Macoma mitchelli
Carinoma tremaphoros
Mulinia lateral is
Streblospio benedicti
Edotea triloba (Epi)
Tub ifico ides spp.
Hypereteone heteropoda
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
2204
4477
6636
3000
1341
0614
0568
0432
0159
0114
0091
0045
0045
9727
9636
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
Mean Std.
2204
4477
6636
3000
1341
0614
0568
0432
0159
0114
0091
0045
0045
9727
9636
Dev
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
Min
2204
4477
6636
3000
1341
0614
0568
0432
0159
0114
0091
0045
0045
9727
9636
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
Max
2204
4477
6636
3000
1341
0614
0568
0432
0159
0114
0091
0045
0045
9727
9636
Cum
65
83
92
95
97
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
100
%
5
6
0
7
4
2
9
4
6
8
9
9
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-7
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: CH04
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: September 15, 1999
Time: 9:48
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 3.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 5.74
Salinity (ppt): 11.09
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 70.22
Temperature (C): 25.19
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.80
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition
Value
2.38
1864
7.26
21 .95
31.71
Score
3
5
5
Meets Goal # Attributes Scored: 5
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
Value
25.61
0.53
8.54
98.53
Score
1
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
Tub ifico ides spp.
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Streblospio benedicti
Coelotanypus spp.
Cyathura polita
Edotea triloba (Epi)
Neanthes succinea
Macoma balthica
Melita nitida (Epi)
| Rep 1
| 591
| 568
| 250
| 227
| 114
1 91
| 68
| 23
| 23
Mean Std.Dev
590.9
568.2
250.0
227.3
113.6
90.9
68.2
22.7
22.7
Min
591
568
250
227
114
91
68
23
23
Max
591
568
250
227
114
91
68
23
23
Cum %
29.9
58.6
71.3
82.8
88.5
93.1
96.6
97.7
98.9
Continued . .
C<
— (
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH04 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
Rang i a cuneata
Total
Total
Number
Number
Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Abundance w/o Epi fauna
of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
Rep 1 |
| 23
| 1977
| 1864
1 10
1 8
Mean Std.Dev Min
22.7 23
1977.3 1977
1863.6 1864
10.0 10
8.0 8
Max Cum %
23 100.0
1977
1864
10
8
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
Rang i a cuneata
Cyathura polita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma balthica
Coelotanypus spp.
Streblospio benedicti
Edotea triloba (Epi)
Neanthes succinea
Tub ifico ides spp.
Melita nitida (Epi)
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
Rep 1
6.9273
0.1818
0.0591
0.0432
0.0273
0.0114
0.0045
0.0045
0.0045
0.0011
7.2647
7.2591
Mean Std.Dev
6.9273
0.1818
0.0591
0.0432
0.0273
0.0114
0.0045
0.0045
0.0045
0.0011
7.2647
7.2591
Min
6.9273
0.1818
0.0591
0.0432
0.0273
0.0114
0.0045
0.0045
0.0045
0.0011
7.2647
7.2591
Max Cum %
6.9273 95.4
0.1818 97.9
0.0591 98.7
0.0432 99.3
0.0273 99.6
0.0114 99.8
0.0045 99.9
0.0045 99.9
0.0045 100.0
0.0011 100.0
7.2647
7.2591
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-9
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: CH05
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: September 15, 1999
Time: 10:00
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 2.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 5.73
Salinity (ppt): 10.60
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 95.66
Temperature (C): 25.37
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition
Value
2.63
1250
33.70
23.64
21.82
Score
5
3
1
Meets Goal # Attributes Scored: 5
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
Value
21 .82
0.00
41 .82
99.91
Score
1
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Streblospio
Tub if ico ides
Cyathura pol
benedicti
spp.
ita
Neanthes succinea
Amerocu lodes
Amphiporus b
Leptocheirus
species complex
ioculatus
plumulosus
| 318
| 273
| 273
| 182
1 91
| 45
| 23
| 23
Mean Std.Dev
318
272
272
181
90
45
22
22
2
7
7
8
9
5
7
7
Min
318
273
273
182
91
45
23
23
Max
318
273
273
182
91
45
23
23
Cum
25
47
69
83
90
94
96
98
%
5
3
1
6
9
5
4
2
Continued
c-io
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH05 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Marenzelleria viridis
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
23
1250
1250
9
9
Mean Std
22.7
1250.0
1250.0
9.0
9.0
Dev
Min
23
1250
1250
9
9
Max
23
Cum
100
%
0
1250
1250
9
9
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Marenzelleria viridis
Neanthes succinea
Ameroculodes species complex
Amphiporus bioculatus
Cyathura polita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Streblospio benedicti
Tub ifico ides spp.
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
5044
1659
0250
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
7022
7022
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
Mean Std
5044
1659
0250
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
7022
7022
Dev
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
Min
5044
1659
0250
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
7022
7022
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
Max
5044
1659
0250
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
7022
7022
Cum
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
%
4
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-ll
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CH06
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Date: September
15, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 10:13
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 2.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.35
Salinity (ppt) : 8.90
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
92.95
25.55
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.40
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
# Attributes Scored: 5
2.07 3 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
2500 5 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
62.54 1 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
25.45 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
3.64
Value
17.27
0.03
64.55
99.91
Score
3
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Rang i a cuneata |
Coelotanypus spp. |
Carinoma tremaphoros |
Streblospio benedicti |
Edotea triloba (Epi) |
Neanthes succinea |
Tub ifico ides spp. |
Cyathura polita |
Ameroculodes species complex |
Chiridotea almyra |
Rep 1
1545
273
182
159
114
91
91
45
23
23
Mean Std.Dev Min
1545.4 1545
272.7 273
181.8 182
159.1 159
113.6 114
90.9 91
90.9 91
45.5 45
22.7 23
22.7 23
Max
1545
273
182
159
114
91
91
45
23
23
Cum %
59. 1
69.6
76.5
82.6
87.0
90.4
93.9
95.7
96.5
97.4
Continued .
C-12
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH06 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Laeonereis culver i
Marenzelleria viridis
Polydora cornuta
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
23
23
2614
2500
13
12
Mean Std
22.7
22.7
22.7
2613.6
2500.0
13.0
12.0
Dev
Min
23
23
23
2614
2500
13
12
Max
23
23
23
Cum
98
99
100
%
3
1
0
2614
2500
13
12
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Carinoma tremaphoros
Coelotanypus spp.
Polydora cornuta
Ameroculodes species complex
Chiridotea almyra
Cyathura polita
Edotea triloba (Epi)
Laeonereis culver i
Marenzelleria viridis
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Tub ifico ides spp.
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
62
4816
0227
0205
0068
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
5418
5407
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
62
Mean Std
4816
0227
0205
0068
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
5418
5407
Dev
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
62
Min
4816
0227
0205
0068
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
5418
5407
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
62
Max
4816
0227
0205
0068
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
0011
5418
5407
Cum
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
%
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-13
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CH07
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Date: September
15, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 10:30
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 2.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.75
Salinity (ppt) : 7.67
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
92.68
25.37
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.40
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
# Attributes Scored: 5
2.73 5 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
1295 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
12.90 3 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
12.28 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
21.05
Value
24.56
0.07
8.77
99. 17
Score
1
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Leptocheirus plumulosus |
Streblospio benedicti |
Tub ifico ides spp. |
Carinoma tremaphoros |
Polydora cornuta |
Cyathura polita |
Hobsonia florida |
Chiridotea almyra |
Gammarus daiberi (Epi) |
Macoma balthica |
Rep 1
364
318
273
91
68
45
45
23
23
23
Mean Std.Dev Min
363.6 364
318.2 318
272.7 273
90.9 91
68.2 68
45.5 45
45.5 45
22.7 23
22.7 23
22.7 23
Max
364
318
273
91
68
45
45
23
23
23
Cum %
27.6
51 .7
72.4
79.3
84.5
87.9
91 .4
93.1
94.8
96.6
Continued .
C-14
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH07 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Marenzelleria viridis
Rang i a cuneata
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
23
1318
1295
12
11
Mean Std
22.7
22.7
1318.2
1295.5
12.0
11.0
Dev
Min
23
23
1318
1295
12
11
Max
23
23
Cum
98
100
%
3
0
1318
1295
12
11
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Macoma balthica
Marenzelleria viridis
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Carinoma tremaphoros
Cyathura polita
Hobsonia florida
Streblospio benedicti
Tub ifico ides spp.
Gammarus spp. (Epi)
Chiridotea almyra
Polydora cornuta
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
6091
0864
0705
0409
0364
0250
0091
0091
0068
0045
0023
0023
9022
8977
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
Mean Std
6091
0864
0705
0409
0364
0250
0091
0091
0068
0045
0023
0023
9022
8977
Dev
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
Min
6091
0864
0705
0409
0364
0250
0091
0091
0068
0045
0023
0023
9022
8977
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
Max
6091
0864
0705
0409
0364
0250
0091
0091
0068
0045
0023
0023
9022
8977
Cum
97
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
%
7
4
9
3
5
7
8
9
9
0
0
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-15
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershec
: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CH08
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Date: September
15, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 10:43
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m)
Dissolvec
: 2.6
Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.42
Salinity (ppt) : 6.57
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
95.28
25.26
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance
(#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore
-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
# Attributes Scored: 5
1.92 3 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
3773 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
19.85 3 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
2.41 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
38.55
Value
44.58
0.22
2.41
99.30
Score
1
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
Streblosp
1
io benedicti |
Tub ifico ides spp. |
Leptocheirus plumulosus |
Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete |
Rang i a cuneata |
Coelotanypus spp. |
Carinoma
Cyathura
tremaphoros |
polita |
Rep 1
1545
1364
591
91
68
45
23
23
Mean Std.Dev Min
1545.4 1545
1363.6 1364
590.9 591
90.9 91
68.2 68
45.5 45
22.7 23
22.7 23
Max
1545
1364
591
91
68
45
23
23
Cum %
41 .0
77. 1
92.8
95.2
97.0
98.2
98.8
99.4
Continued
C-16
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH08 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1
Polydora cornuta
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
23
3773
3773
9
9
Mean Std
22.7
3772.7
3772.7
9.0
9.0
Dev
Min
23
3773
3773
9
9
Max
23
Cum
100
%
0
3773
3773
9
9
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Streblospio benedicti
Tub ifico ides spp.
Coelotanypus spp.
Cyathura polita
Carinoma tremaphoros
01 igochaeta
Polydora cornuta
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
7068
0750
0341
0114
0091
0091
0068
0011
0011
8545
8545
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
Mean Std
7068
0750
0341
0114
0091
0091
0068
0011
0011
8545
8545
Dev
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
Min
7068
0750
0341
0114
0091
0091
0068
0011
0011
8545
8545
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
Max
7068
0750
0341
0114
0091
0091
0068
0011
0011
8545
8545
Cum
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
%
3
6
8
9
9
0
0
0
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-17
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Station: CH09
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Depth (m) : 2.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.07
B-IBI Score: 1.80
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Habitat:
Sampled
BOTTOM
Sal inity
Sediment
BENTHIC INDEX
Low Mesohaline
Area: 0.044 sq.m
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt) : 5.85
Silt-Clay (%) : 95.76
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
Condition: Severely Degraded
Value Score
0.97 1
2409 5
0.13 1
0.94
9.43
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Sensitive
Date: September
Time: 11:51
Temperature (C)
15, 1999
25.11
# Attributes Scored: 5
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Value
89.62
70.80
0.00
0.00
Score
1
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Streblospio benedicti |
Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete |
Leptocheirus plumulosus |
Tub ifico ides spp. |
Carinoma tremaphoros |
Gammarus daiberi (Epi) |
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
Rep 1
1977
182
182
45
23
23
2432
2409
6
5
Mean
1977.3
181 .8
181.8
45.5
22.7
22.7
2431.8
2409. 1
6.0
5.0
Std.Dev Min
1977
182
182
45
23
23
2432
2409
6
5
Max
1977
182
182
45
23
23
2432
2409
6
5
Cum %
81 .3
88.8
96.3
98. 1
99. 1
100.0
C-l!
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CH09 Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Streblospio benedict
i
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Carinoma tremaphoros
Gammarus daiberi
01 igochaeta
Tub ifico ides spp.
Total Biomass w/
Total Biomass w/o
(Epi)
Ep i fauna
Ep i fauna
1 o
1 o
1 o
1 o
1 o
1 o
1 o
1 o
0909
0341
0011
0011
0011
0011
1295
1284
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean Std.
0909
0341
0011
0011
0011
0011
1295
1284
Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0909
0341
0011
0011
0011
0011
1295
1284
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
0909
0341
0011
0011
0011
0011
1295
1284
Cum
70
96
97
98
99
100
%
2
5
4
2
1
0
Indicates species is skipped in species counts
C-19
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (CRUISE 1: 1999/2000)
FIXED SITES
Watershed: Chester River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: CH10
Habitat: Oligohaline
Date: September
15, 1999
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 11:28
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 3.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 6.46
Salinity (ppt) : 4.07
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
Temperature (C)
85.83
24.41
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 2.60
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Condition: Degraded
Value Score
0.45 Oligohaline
# Attributes Scored: 5
Pollution Indicative Spp . Abund.
4386 Tolerance Score
1 .04 01 igohal ine
Pollution Sensitive Spp. Abund.
0.00 1 Tanypodinae/Chironomidae Abundance Ratio
Value
95.85
9.40
1 .55
0.00
Score
1
3
3
5
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Streblospio benedicti |
Apocorophium lacustre (Epi) |
Hobsonia florida |
Marenzelleria viridis |
Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete |
Polydora cornuta |
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
Rep 1
4114
159
114
68
45
45
4545
4386
6
5
Mean Std.Dev Min
4113.6 4114
159.1 159
113.6 114
68.2 68
45.5 45
45.5 45
4545.4 4545
4386.3 4386
6.0 6
5.0 5
Max C
4114
159
114
68
45
urn %
90.5
94.0
96.5
98.0
99.0
45 100.0
4545
4386
6
5
C-20
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (CRUISE 1: 1999/2000)
FIXED SITES
(Station: CH10 Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
1
Streblospio benedicti |
Marenzelleria viridis |
Hobsonia florida |
Apocorophium lacustre (Epi) |
Oligochaeta |
Polydora cornuta |
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna |
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna |
Re
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3p 1
1591
1409
0023
0011
0011
0011
3057
3045
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean Std.
1591
1409
0023
0011
0011
0011
3057
3045
Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
1591
1409
0023
0011
0011
0011
3057
3045
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
1591
1409
0023
0011
0011
0011
3057
3045
Cum
52
98
98
99
99
100
%
0
1
9
3
6
0
C-21
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: RA01
Habitat: High Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Mud
Date
Time
: August 11, 1999
: 14:42
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 2.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 6.4
Salinity (ppt) : 16.9
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) : 92.4
Temperature (C) : 30.4
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 2.67
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Degraded # Attributes Scored: 6
Value Score Value
2.88 3 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%) 40.55
1159 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%) 43.33
0.52 3 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%) 8.07
35.56 5 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%) 8.77
17.41
Score
1
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
Mulinia lateral is
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Paraprionospio pinnata
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Leucon americanus
Neanthes succinea
Glycinde solitaria
Acteocina canal iculata
Streblospio benedicti
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Leitoscoloplos spp .
Macoma mitchelli
| Rep 1
364
386
159
250
91
45
23
68
45
Rep 2
68
23
182
159
45
114
68
23
23
23
Rep 3
295
295
250
136
68
45
68
45
45
23
23
Mean
242
234
197
181
68
68
53
37
37
15
7
7
4
8
0
8
2
2
0
9
9
2
6
6
Std.Dev
154
189
47
60
22
39
26
34
13
13
13
13
70
24
31
13
73
36
24
72
12
12
12
12
Min
68
23
159
136
45
45
23
0
23
0
0
0
Max
364
386
250
250
91
114
68
68
45
23
23
23
Cum
20
41
58
73
79
85
90
93
96
98
98
99
%
9
2
2
9
7
6
2
5
7
0
7
3
C-22
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA01 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (Grams per sq .
1
Rep 1 Rep 2
| Parahesione luteola
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
1432
1432
9
9
750
750
11
11
BENTHIC BIOMASS
1
Neanthes succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Mulinia lateral is
Glycinde solitaria
Leucon americanus
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Macoma mitchelli
Acteocina canal iculata
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Leitoscoloplos spp .
Parahesione luteola
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
Rep 1 Rep 2
0.1136 0.2727
0.0909 0.0909
0.1591 0.0227
0.0227 0.0455
0.0227 0.0227
0.0227 0.0227
0.0227 0.0227
0.0227 0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
Rep 3
(Grams
23
1295
1295
11
11
meter)
Mean
1159. 1
1159. 1
10.3
10.3
- Contd.
Std.Dev
1
360.78
360.78
1 . 15
1.15
7.6
Min
13
750
750
9
9
Max
12
1432
1432
11
11
Cum %
0
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0227
2045
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0682
0227
0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5000 0.5909
0.5000 0.5909
0
0
4773
4773
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
1364
1288
0682
0303
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0076
0076
5227
5227
Std.Dev
0. 1265
0.0656
0.0787
0.0131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0394
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0601
0.0601
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0227
0909
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
4773
4773
Max
0.2727
0.2045
0. 1591
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0682
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5909
0.5909
Cum %
26. 1
50.7
63.8
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.6
87.0
91.3
94.2
97. 1
98.6
100.0
C-23
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA02
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August 11, 1999
Time: 12:18
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.3
Salinity (ppt): 16.9
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 96.8
Temperature (C): 29.0
BENTHIC INDEX
B-IBI Score: 2.33
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Value
2.14
2545
0.45
11.22
62.21
Condition
Score
3
3
1
3
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
: Degraded
# Attributes
Scored
: 6
Value
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
Indicative
Indicative
Sensitive
Sensitive
Species
Species
Species
Species
Abundance (%
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
20.
21 .
2.
5.
20
55
25
57
Score
3
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Streblospio benedicti
Neanthes succinea
Leucon americanus
Mulinia lateral is
Paraprionospio pinnata
Heteromastus filiformis
Glycinde solitaria
Nemertinea
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Tubificoides spp.
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Leitoscoloplos spp.
773
205
68
114
68
91
45
23
45
23
Rep 2
1795
295
205
182
91
45
114
45
23
Rep 3
2023
477
182
136
136
68
68
68
68
23
68
45
Mean
1530
325
151
143
98
68
60
53
30
30
22
15
7
3
8
5
9
5
2
6
0
3
3
7
2
6
Std.
665
138
73
34
34
22
57
13
34
13
39
26
13
Dev
.85
.87
.06
.72
.72
.73
.20
. 12
.72
. 12
.36
.24
. 12
Min
773
205
68
114
68
45
0
45
0
23
0
0
0
Max
2023
477
205
182
136
91
114
68
68
45
68
45
23
Cum
60
72
78
84
88
91
93
95
96
97
98
99
99
%
1
9
9
5
4
1
5
5
7
9
8
4
7
Continued .
C-24
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA02 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Macoma mitchelli
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1455
1455
10
10
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Neanthes succinea
Mulinia lateral is
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Macoma mitchelli
Glycinde solitaria
Leucon americanus
Paraprionospio pinnata
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Streblospio benedicti
Heteromastus filiformis
Nemertinea
Leitoscoloplos spp .
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Tubificoides spp.
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0909
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
2955
2955
ABUNDANCE (per
Rep 2
23
2818
2818
10
10
sq . meter) - Contd.
Rep 3
BIOMASS (Grams
Rep 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2955
0455
0682
1136
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
6591
6591
3364
3364
12
12
Mean
7.6
2545.5
2545.5
10.7
10.7
Std.Dev
13. 12
983 . 33
983 . 33
1 . 15
1 . 15
Min
0
1455
1455
10
10
Max
23
Cum %
100.0
3364
3364
12
12
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0909
0682
0
0
0455 0
0
0227 0
0227
0
0227 0
0227
0227
0
0
0227 0
0227 0
0
0227
0
0227 0
4091
0
4091 0
Mean
1591
0455
0455
0379
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0076
0076
0076
4545
4545
Std.Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1181
0227
0227
0656
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0131
0131
0131
0131
0131
1860
1860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0909
0227
0227
0000
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2955
2955
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
2955
0682
0682
1136
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
6591
6591
Cum %
35.0
45.0
55.0
63.3
68.3
73.3
78.3
83.3
88.3
91.7
95.0
96.7
98.3
100.0
C-25
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Station: RA03
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear : Young Grab
Depth (m) : 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 6.3
B-IBI Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Habitat:
Sampled
BOTTOM
Sal inity
Sediment
BENTHIC INDEX
High Mesohaline Mud
Area: 0.044 sq.m
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt): 16.8
Silt-Clay (%) :
Date: A
ugust
11, 1999
Time: 13:46
Temperature
93.3
(C) : 30.1
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
3.04 5
1121 3
0.53 3
20.40 3
34.80
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
# Attributes
Abundan
Biomass
ce (%
(%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass
(%)
Scored: 6
Value
) 40.44
27.50
4.36
5.83
Score
3
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Mulinia lateral is
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Neanthes succinea
Tubificoides spp.
Heteromastus filiformis
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Glycinde solitaria
Leucon americanus
Macoma mitchelli
Rep 1 Rep
341
136
182
68
114
136
114
114
68
45
2 Rep 3
227 159
318 136
159 68
136 91
68 91
45 23
45 45
205
23
45
Mean Std.Dev
242.4 91.
197.0 104.
136.4 60.
98.5 34.
90.9 22.
68.2 60.
68.2 39.
68.2 118.
45.5 60.
37.9 34.
15.2 26.
85
97
13
72
73
13
36
09
13
72
24
Min
159
136
68
68
68
23
45
0
0
0
0
Max
341
318
182
136
114
136
114
205
114
68
45
Cum
21 .
39.
51 .
60.
68.
74.
80.
86.
90.
93.
95.
%
6
2
4
1
2
3
4
5
5
9
3
C-26
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA03 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Nemertinea
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Acteocina canal iculata
Leitoscoloplos spp .
Loimia medusa
1
1
1
1
1
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
23
45
23
1409
1409
13
13
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Neanthes succinea
Mulinia lateral is
Heteromastus filiformis
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tub ifico ides spp.
Glycinde solitaria
Leitoscoloplos spp.
Leucon americanus
Loimia medusa
Macoma mitchelli
Nemertinea
Acteocina canal iculata
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 o
4545
0909
0682
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0455
0455
0227
0227
9091
ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter) - Contd.
Rep 2
23
23
23
1341
1341
13
13
Rep 3
Mean
15.2
15.2
7.6
7.6
7.6
614 1121.2
614 1121.2
7 11.0
7 11.0
Std.Dev
13. 12
26.24
13. 12
13.12
13. 12
440 . 89
440 . 89
3.46
3.46
Min
0
0
0
0
0
614
614
7
7
Max
23
45
23
23
23
Cum %
96.6
98.0
98.6
99.3
100.0
1409
1409
13
13
BIOMASS (Grams per sq . meter)
Rep 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0682
0909
0227
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
4545
Rep 3
0.0909 0
0.0227 0
0.0227 0
0.0227 0
0.0227 0
0.0227 0
0.0227 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2273 0
Mean
2045
0682
0379
0379
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0152
0152
0152
0152
0076
0076
0076
5303
Std.Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2168
0394
0262
0131
0000
0000
0000
0131
0262
0131
0262
0262
0131
0131
0131
0131
3472
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0682
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2273
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
4545
0909
0682
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0455
0227
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
9091
Cum %
38.6
51 .4
58.6
65.7
70.0
74.3
78.6
81 .4
84.3
87. 1
90.0
92.9
95.7
97. 1
98.6
100.0
C-27
-------
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0.9091
0.4545
0.2273
0.5303
0.3472
0.2273
0.9091
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA04
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August 11, 1999
Time: 13:02
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 4.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.1
Salinity (ppt): 16.7
Sediment Silt-Clay (
-------
Leucon americanus
Nemertinea
Eteone heteropoda
Macoma mitchelli
Tub ifico ides spp.
| 45 91
| 45
| 23
| 23
| 23
45.5
15.2
7.6
7.6
7.6
45.45
26.24
13.12
13. 12
13. 12
0
0
0
0
0
91
45
23
23
23
97.4
98.4
99.0
99.5
100.0
C-29
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA04 Contd.)
Total Abundance w/ Epifauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epifauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epifauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epifauna |
1636
1636
11
11
1136
1136
8
8
1591
1591
9
9
1454.5
1454.5
9.3
9.3
276.49
276.49
1.53
1 .53
1136
1136
8
8
1636
1636
11
11
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
Neanthes succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Heteromastus filiformis
Mulinia lateral is
Glycinde solitaria
Streblospio benedicti
Leucon americanus
Nemertinea
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Eteone heteropoda
Macoma mitchelli
Tubificoides spp.
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
Rs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
;p 1
0682
0682
0455
1136
0227
0227
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
4773
4773
Re
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3p 2
2273
1364
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
5000
5000
Rep 3
0. 1591
0.0682
0. 1136
0.0227
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5000
0.5000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
1515
0909
0606
0530
0303
0227
0152
0152
0152
0152
0076
0076
0076
4924
4924
Std.Dev
0.0798
0.0394
0.0473
0.0525
0.0131
0.0000
0.0131
0.0262
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
Min
0.0682
0.0682
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4773
0.4773
Max
0.2273
0. 1364
0. 1136
0.1136
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5000
0.5000
Cum %
30.8
49.2
61 .5
72.3
78.5
83. 1
86.2
89.2
92.3
95.4
96.9
98.5
100.0
C-30
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA05
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Date: August 11, 1999
Time: 10:05
Depth (m): 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.0
Salinity (ppt): 15.4
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 91.7
Temperature (C): 26.9
BENTHIC INDEX
B-IBI Score: 2.33
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Value
2.12
2871
0.36
18.42
61 .66
Condition
Score
3
3
1
3
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
: Degraded
# Attributes
Scored
: 6
Value
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
Indicative
Indicative
Sensitive
Sensitive
Species
Species
Species
Species
Abundance (%
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
13.
17.
4.
8.
29
17
67
59
Score
3
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Neanthes succinea
Mulinia lateral is
Leucon americanus
Streblospio benedicti
Glycinde solitaria
Nemertinea
Heteromastus filiformis
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Tubificoides spp.
Leitoscoloplos spp.
Macoma mitchelli
Paraprionospio pinnata
Cyathura polita
3477
136
205
250
250
136
23
68
68
91
23
23
23
Rep 2
886
205
136
91
136
91
114
23
23
Rep 3
1136
318
182
136
91
114
23
23
23
23
23
Mean
1833
219
174
159
159
113
53
30
30
30
15
15
15
7
3
7
2
1
1
6
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
Std.
1429
91
34
81
81
22
52
34
34
52
13
13
13
13
Dev
.17
.85
.72
.94
.94
.73
.49
.72
.72
.49
. 12
.12
. 12
. 12
Min
886
136
136
91
91
91
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
3477
318
205
250
250
136
114
68
68
91
23
23
23
23
Cum
63
71
77
83
88
92
94
95
96
97
98
98
99
99
%
9
5
6
1
7
6
5
5
6
6
2
7
2
5
Continued
C-31
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA05 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Parahesione luteola
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
4795
4795
14
14
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Macoma mitchelli
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Neanthes succinea
Nemertinea
Glycinde solitaria
Leucon americanus
Mulinia lateral is
Streblospio benedicti
Heteromastus filiformis
Leitoscoloplos spp .
Paraprionospio pinnata
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Cyathura polita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Parahesione luteola
Tubificoides spp.
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0909
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
4091
4091
ABUNDANCE (per
Rep 2
23
1727
1727
10
10
sq . meter) - Contd.
Rep 3
BIOMASS (Grams
Rep 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0227
0227
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
2500
2500
2091
2091
11
11
per sc
Mean
7.6
7.6
2871 .2
2871 .2
11.7
11 .7
Std.Dev
13. 12
13.12
1676.33
1676.33
2.08
2.08
Min
0
0
1727
1727
10
10
Max
23
23
Cum %
99.7
100.0
4795
4795
14
14
. meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1364
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
4091
4091
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
0758
0379
0303
0303
0227
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0152
0152
0076
0076
0076
0076
3561
3561
Std.Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0694
0131
0131
0131
0000
0000
0000
0000
0131
0131
0131
0131
0131
0131
0131
0131
0919
0919
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0000
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2500
2500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
1364
0455
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
4091
4091
Cum %
21.3
31 .9
40.4
48.9
55.3
61 .7
68. 1
74.5
78.7
83.0
87.2
91.5
93.6
95.7
97.9
100.0
C-32
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: RA06
Habitat: High Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Mud
Date: August
Time: 9:09
11, 1999
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 6.0
Salinity (ppt) : 15 .3
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
87.9
Temperature (C) : 26.5
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 1.67
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%
Condition: Severely Degraded # Attributes
Value Score
1.41 1 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
5674 1 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
0.52 3 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
7.38 1 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
76.69
Scored: 6
Value
11 .77
16.16
2.48
8.79
Score
3
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Mulinia lateral is
Leucon americanus
Neanthes succinea
Glycinde solitaria
Streblospio benedicti
Paraprionospio pinnata
Nemertinea
Macoma mitchelli
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Clinotanypus pinguis
Heteromastus filiformis
Eteone heteropoda
| Rep 1
8455
364
205
68
68
91
45
91
45
Rep 2
4000
273
159
136
114
91
114
23
68
23
23
Rep 3
1523
409
114
114
114
45
45
23
45
45
23
23
23
Mean
4659
348
159
106
98
75
68
45
37
30
15
15
7
1
5
1
1
5
8
2
5
9
3
2
2
6
Std.Dev
3512
69
45
34
26
26
39
39
34
26
13
13
13
60
43
45
72
24
24
36
36
72
24
12
12
12
Min
1523
273
114
68
68
45
45
23
0
0
0
0
0
Max
8455
409
205
136
114
91
114
91
68
45
23
23
23
Cum
82
88
91
92
94
96
97
98
98
99
99
99
99
%
1
3
1
9
7
0
2
0
7
2
5
7
9
Continued
C-33
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA06 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
1
1
1
1
1
9432
9432
9
9
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Macoma mitchelli
Neanthes succinea
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Glycinde solitaria
Mulinia lateral is
Heteromastus filiformis
Leucon americanus
Nemertinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Clinotanypus pinguis
Rictaxis punctostriatus
Eteone heteropoda
Leptocheirus plumulosus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0909
1136
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
ABUNDANCE (per
Rep 2
23
5045
5045
12
12
sq . meter) - Contd.
Rep 3
BIOMASS (Grams
Rep 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0909
1136
0682
0909
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
2545
2545
13
13
Mean
7.6
5674.2
5674.2
11 .3
11 .3
Std.Dev
13. 12
3485.98
3485.98
2.08
2.08
Min
0
2545
2545
9
9
Max
23
Cum %
100.0
9432
9432
13
13
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2727
0909
0227
0227
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
1212
0985
0682
0455
0303
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0076
0076
Std.Dev
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1389
0131
0455
0394
0131
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0131
0131
0131
0131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min
0000
0909
0227
0227
0227
0000
0227
0227
0227
0227
0000
0000
0000
0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
2727
1136
1136
0909
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
Cum %
23.2
42.0
55.1
63.8
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.6
87.0
91 .3
94.2
97. 1
98.6
100.0
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
0.3636
0.5455
0.6591
0.5227
0.1490
0.3636
0.6591
C-34
-------
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0.3636
0.5455
0.6591
0.5227
0.1490
0.3636
0.6591
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA07
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August 10, 1999
Time: 18:53
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.5
Salinity (ppt): 13.4
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 92.3
Temperature (C): 27.5
B-IBI
Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep
Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
1
BENTHIC
INDEX OF
BIOTIC INTEGRITY
Condition: Meets Goal
Value
2.83
871
0.52
38.70
9.06
BENTHIC
Rep 1
Score
3
1
3
5
ABUNDANCE
Rep 2
# Attributes
Scored
: 6
Value
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
Pol lution
(per sq.
Rep 3
Indicative
Indicative
Sensitive
Sensitive
Species
Species
Species
Species
Abundance (%
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
21.
10.
36.
47.
06
47
91
45
Score
3
3
meter)
Mean
Std.Dev Min
Max
Cum %
C-35
-------
Cyathura polita
Leucon americanus
Mulinia lateral is
Streblospio benedicti
Glycinde solitaria
Macoma mitchelli
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Marenzelleria viridis
Neanthes succinea
Nemertinea
Macoma balthica
Melita nitida (Epi)
182
159
45
68
45
68
23
45
23
159
23
159
227
159
114
182
23
23
23
23
273
136
91
68
91
91
91
23
204.5
106. 1
98.5
98.5
90.9
90.9
90.9
37.9
15.2
15.2
15.2
7.6
7.6
60. 13
73.06
57.20
116.63
60. 13
22.73
90.91
47.31
13. 12
26.24
13. 12
13.12
13. 12
159
23
45
0
45
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
273
159
159
227
159
114
182
91
23
45
23
23
23
23.3
35.3
46.6
57.8
68. 1
78.4
88.8
93. 1
94.8
96.6
98.3
99.1
100.0
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA07 Contd.)
Total
Total
Number
Number
Cyathura
Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
1
polita |
Macoma mitchelli |
Mulinia lateral is |
Glycinde
solitaria |
659
659
9
9
BENTHIC
Rep 1
0. 1591
0.0909
0.0682
0.0227
1114
1091
11
10
BIOMASS
Rep 2
0
0
0
0
1591
1364
0227
0455
(Grams
864
864
8
8
878.8
871.2
9.3
9.0
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
2045
1818
0227
0227
Mean
0. 1742
0.1364
0.0379
0.0303
227.65
216.01
1 .53
1 .00
Std.Dev
0.0262
0.0455
0.0262
0.0131
659
659
8
8
Min
0. 1591
0.0909
0.0227
0.0227
1114
1091
11
10
Max
0.2045
0.1818
0.0682
0.0455
Cum %
32.9
58.6
65.7
71.4
C-36
-------
Leucon americanus
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma balthica
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Neanthes succinea
Nemertinea
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Melita nitida (Epi)
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0227
0227
0455
0227
0227
4773
4773
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0227
0455
0682
0227
0227
0227
0227
5909
5682
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5227
0.5227
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0152
0152
0152
0076
5303
5227
0.0000
0.0227
0.0394
0.0131
0.0262
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0572
0.0455
0.0227
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4773
0.4773
0.0227
0.0455
0.0682
0.0227
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.5909
0.5682
75.7
80.0
84.3
87. 1
90.0
92.9
95.7
98.6
100.0
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA08
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August 10, 1999
Time: 19:29
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 1.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.2
Salinity (ppt): 13.0
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 68.3
Temperature (C): 27.4
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
C-37
-------
3-IBI Score: 1.67
Condition: Severely Degraded
# Attributes Scored: 6
Value
Shannon-Weiner Index 1.43
Abundance (#/m2) 13106
Biomass (g/m2) 0.93
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%) 3.39
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%) 74.63
BENTHIC
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Leucon americanus
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Streblospio benedicti
Neanthes succinea
Melita nitida (Epi)
Macoma mitchelli
Nemertinea
Heteromastus filiformis
Clinotanypus pinguis
Cyathura polita
Rang i a cuneata
Eteone heteropoda
Rep 1
8432
2045
955
455
205
273
68
45
91
91
45
23
23
Score
1
1
3
1
ABUNDANCE
Rep 2
10227
455
636
636
182
227
91
91
23
45
23
23
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Sensitive
(per sq . meter)
Rep 3
10432
1864
409
727
227
23
182
114
114
68
68
68
23
Mean
9697.
1454.
666.
606.
204.
174.
113.
83.
75.
53.
53.
37.
22.
0
5
7
1
5
2
6
3
8
0
0
9
7
Species
Species
Species
Species
Abundan
Biomass
ce (%)
(%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass
Std.Dev
1100.
870.
273.
138.
22.
133.
60.
34.
47.
47.
13.
26.
0.
(%)
Min
42 8432
78
99
87
73
17
13
72
31
31
12
24
00
455
409
455
182
23
68
45
23
0
45
23
23
Value
4.78
5.81
0.90
11.44
Max
10432
2045
955
727
227
273
182
114
114
91
68
68
23
Score
Cum
73
83
88
93
95
96
97
97
98
98
99
99
99
3
1
%
.0
.9
.9
.5
.0
.4
.2
.8
.4
.8
.2
.5
.7
Continued .
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA08 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
| Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 | Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum
C-38
-------
Glycinde solitaria |
Ceratopogonidae |
Macoma balthica |
Turbellaria (Epi) |
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna |
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna |
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna |
23
23
12795
12500
15
13
23
12682
12455
13
12
45
23
14386
14364
15
14
22
7
7
7
13287
13106
14
13
7
6
6
6
9
1
3
0
22
13
13
13
953
1089
1
1
73
12
12
12
01
33
15
00
0
0
0
0
12682
12455
13
12
45
23
23
23
14386
14364
15
14
99
99
99
100
8
9
9
0
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
Macoma mitchelli
Neanthes succinea
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Cyathura polita
Leucon americanus
Heteromastus filiformis
Macoma balthica
Rang i a cuneata
Streblospio benedicti
Eteone heteropoda
Melita nitida (Epi)
Nemertinea
Clinotanypus pinguis
Glycinde solitaria
Ceratopogonidae
Turbellaria (Epi)
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
Rs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
;p 1
2045
0909
1136
0455
0227
0455
0455
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
7500
7045
Re
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5p 2
2045
1364
1136
1591
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
8182
7955
Rep 3
0.5000
0.1364
0.0909
0. 1136
0.0909
0.0682
0.0227
0.0909
0.0455
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
1.3182
1.2955
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
3030
1212
1061
1061
0455
0455
0303
0303
0303
0303
0227
0227
0227
0152
0152
0076
0076
9621
9318
Std.Dev
0. 1706
0.0262
0.0131
0.0572
0.0394
0.0227
0.0131
0.0525
0.0131
0.0131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.3102
0.3182
Min
0.2045
0.0909
0.0909
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0000
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7500
0.7045
Max
0.5000
0.1364
0. 1136
0. 1591
0.0909
0.0682
0.0455
0.0909
0.0455
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
1.3182
1.2955
Cum %
31 .5
44.1
55. 1
66. 1
70.9
75.6
78.7
81 .9
85.0
88.2
90.6
92.9
95.3
96.9
98.4
99.2
100.0
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
C-39
-------
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: RA09
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August 10, 1999
Time: 16:41
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 2.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.5
Salinity (ppt): 11.8
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 97.1
Temperature (C): 27.6
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 2.20
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition
Value
1.08
20788
1 .38
0.51
70.41
Score
1
1
3
Degraded # Attributes Scored: 5
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
Value
0.29
2. 15
0. 15
1 .68
Score
5
1
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Leucon americanus
Melita nitida (Epi)
Macoma mitchelli
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Rang i a cuneata
Heteromastus filiformis
Clinotanypus pinguis
Eteone heteropoda
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
17568
5205
114
91
136
91
68
23
45
23
23364
23273
10
9
Rep 2
12818
5545
341
68
114
114
45
45
19091
19023
8
7
Rep 3
13682
5614
568
227
45
68
45
23
23
20295
20068
9
8
Mean
14689
5454
340
128
98
90
53
30
15
7
7
20916
20787
9
8
4
5
9
8
5
9
0
3
2
6
6
7
9
0
0
Std.
2530
219
227
86
47
22
13
13
26
13
13
2203
2214
1
1
Dev
.22
.17
.27
.04
.31
.73
. 12
. 12
.24
. 12
.12
.06
.52
.00
.00
Min
12818
5205
114
68
45
68
45
23
0
0
0
19091
19023
8
7
Max
17568
5614
568
227
136
114
68
45
45
23
23
23364
23273
10
9
Cum
70
96
97
98
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
%
2
3
9
6
0
5
7
9
9
0
0
C-40
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA09 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma mitchelli
Tubif icoides heterochaetus
Neanthes succinea
Leucon americanus
Melita nitida (Epi)
Rang i a cuneata
Streblospio benedicti
Clinotanypus pinguis
Eteone heteropoda
Heteromastus filiformis
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
.6136
.5227
.3182
.0455
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.6364
.6136
BIOMASS
Rep 2
0.5682
0.2727
0. 1818
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
1 . 1591
1 . 1364
(Grams
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
6364
3636
2727
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
4091
3864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Mean
6061
3864
2576
0379
0227
0227
0227
0227
0076
0076
0076
4015
3788
Std.Dev
0.0347
0.1265
0.0694
0.0131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
0.2387
0.2387
Min
0.5682
0.2727
0. 1818
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.1591
1 . 1364
Max
0.6364
0.5227
0.3182
0.0455
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
1.6364
1.6136
Cum %
43.2
70.8
89.2
91.9
93.5
95.1
96.8
98.4
98.9
99.5
100.0
C-41
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Rappahannock River
Gear : Young Grab
Station: RA10
Habitat: Low Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: August
Time: 15:36
10, 1999
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m) : 3.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5.9
Salinity (ppt) : 10.6
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) :
95.6
Temperature (C) : 29.3
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
B-IBI Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal # Attributes
Value Score
1.72 3 Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
3530 3 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
39.63 1 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
5.90 Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
8.41
Scored: 5
Value Score
0.00 5
0.00
9.44
79.25 3
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq . meter)
1
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Leucon americanus
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Melita nitida (Epi)
Marenzelleria viridis
Rang i a cuneata
Clinotanypus pinguis
Cyathura polita
Boccardiella ligerica
Macoma mitchelli
Limnodrilus spp .
Neanthes succinea
Total Abundance w/ Epi fauna
Total Abundance w/o Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/ Epi fauna
Number of Taxa w/o Epi fauna
Rep 1
3045
591
773
227
205
91
68
68
23
23
23
5136
4909
11
10
Rep 2
2159
341
114
91
91
68
114
159
136
3273
3182
9
8
Rep 3
1795
159
136
114
68
159
91
45
23
23
2614
2500
10
9
Mean
2333
363
340
143
121
106
90
90
53
15
7
7
3674
3530
10
9
3
6
9
9
2
1
9
9
0
2
6
6
2
3
0
0
Std.Dev
642
216
374
73
73
47
22
60
73
13
13
13
1308
1241
1
1
96
80
14
06
06
31
73
13
06
12
12
12
41
78
00
00
Min
1795
159
114
91
68
68
68
45
0
0
0
0
2614
2500
9
8
Max
3045
591
773
227
205
159
114
159
136
23
23
23
5136
4909
11
10
Cum
63
73
82
86
89
92
95
97
99
99
99
100
%
5
4
7
6
9
8
3
7
2
6
8
0
C-42
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1999 (1999/2000)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: RA10 Contd.)
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
Rang i a cuneata
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma mitchelli
Cyathura polita
Clinotanypus pinguis
Leucon americanus
Melita nitida (Epi)
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Boccardiella ligerica
Limnodrilus spp .
Neanthes succinea
Total Biomass w/ Epifauna
Total Biomass w/o Epifauna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0227
.3636
.1591
.0455
. 1591
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.0227
.8864
.8636
BIOMASS
Rep 2
41 .0909
0.3182
0.1591
0.0909
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
41.7727
41 .7500
(Grams
per sq . meter)
Rep 3
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
76
6364
2045
0455
2727
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
0227
2955
2727
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
39
Mean
9167
2955
1212
1061
0909
0227
0227
0227
0227
0152
0076
0076
6515
6288
Std.Dev
37.8537
0.0819
0.0656
0. 1461
0.0682
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0131
0.0131
0.0131
37.7493
37.7493
Min
0.0227
0.2045
0.0455
0.0000
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8864
0.8636
Max
75.6364
0.3636
0.1591
0.2727
0. 1591
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
0.0227
76.2955
76.2727
Cum %
98. 1
98.9
99.2
99.5
99.7
99.8
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
C-43
------- |