CBP/TRS— 264/02
EPA 903-R-02-006
July 2002
Chemical and Toxicological Characterization
of Tidal Freshwater Areas in the James
River, Virginia from Jamestown Island to
Jordan Point
\
\
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
-------
Chemical and Toxicological Characterization of Tidal Freshwater Areas in the
James River, Virginia from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point
Prepared by:
Morris H. Roberts, Jr.
Mary Ann Vogelbein
College of William and Mary
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
POBox, 1342
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
Mark A. Richards
Lou Seivard
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
and
Contractor # WM C395
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
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
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed to characterize the tidal freshwater portion of the James River, Virginia,
continuing a long series of studies by various organizations aimed at toxicological and chemical
characterization of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, all prepared under the auspices of the
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. It represents the coordinated effort of a team of scientists from
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science of the College of William and Mary, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services,
Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., and Old Dominion University. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office of
the U.S. EPA provided the basic funding for the project with substantial matching funds coming
from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
-------
ABSTRACT
This study consisted of three separate activities. First, there was a substantial effort to
characterize the tidal freshwater portion of the James River using chemical, toxicological and
benthic community measures. Second, there was a study of the effect of salinity change on
measurement of toxicity, questioning the common practice of adjusting salinity of samples
before measuring toxicity. Third, the use of in situ deployments of animals was used in an
attempt to evaluate the effect of stormwater on biota.
The intent was to characterize the river from the limit of saltwater intrusion (approximately
Jamestown Island) to the fall line (at Richmond). However, no random stations were identified in
the reach upriver from Jordan Point (at Hopewell). At this point, the river narrows dramatically,
so the area represented is greatly lessened.
Within the Jamestown Island to Jordan Point reach, ambient conditions were characterized at 20
stations during October 2000. Ambient water was examined for total and dissolved metals and
for toxicity to freshwater crustaceans and fish. At the most downstream stations, there was salt
water intrusion that required use of estuarine crustacean species. There were no exceedances of
Virginia water quality standards for any metal nor was there any measurable toxicity in terms of
acute lethal or sublethal effects.
In addition, sediment was examined at 19 stations within the reach. The concentrations of
various organic materials (SVOCs, organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides, PCBs, and
herbicides) were below the Effects Range Median, though there were some exceedances of the
Effects Range Low. Kepone, released into the James River at Hopewell during the early and mid
1970s, was below the detection limit at all except one station about 10 miles downstream of the
release site. No toxic effects were observed at any station in a battery of sediment toxicity tests.
A subset of 12 stations was sampled for analysis of the benthic community. Communities at 11
stations had a Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI) of 3 or better, indicating that cleanup
goals were achieved. At the twelfth station, the B-IBI was 2.7, which indicates marginal
degradation. This station was located near the mouth of the Chickahominy.
In summary, there was no evidence of degradation of the water or sediment in this reach of the
James River. The area most vulnerable to industrial impacts, located just downstream of
Hopewell, a major industrial area, seemed no more impacted by the measures used than the more
rural downstream area.
The study of effects of salinity adjustment on toxic responses was determined in a protocol using
two known doses of a mixture of metals that were each added to two sediments differing in
texture (one sandy and one silty). After an acclimation period, the sediments were subjected to
salinity changes of pore water (without physical mixing). Two amphipod species were used for
-------
these tests: Hyalella azteca (a freshwater species with substantial salinity tolerance) and
Leptocheirusplumulosus (an estuarine species tolerant of near fresh water to polyhaline
salinities). Metal content had a major effect on amphipod responses, but there was a clear metal x
salinity interaction effect as well as a salinity main effect. Effects of changes in ammonia
concentration and other possible factors were minimal.
There were three in situ tests involving the amphipod Hyalella azteca deployed in four sets of
twenty at each of the stations. The first test involved four stations in the Richmond area during
late September 2000. During this test there were several substantial rainfalls. Rainfall varied
substantially over the study area. Nevertheless, no effect of rainfall was observed at any location
during the 14-day deployment.
The second test involved four stations in the Hopewell area lasting 28 days during October 2000.
No rainfall was observed during this study. A mass mortality at one station was apparently
related to an unspecified industrial impact from one of 4 or more operations impinging on the
location. A replacement station was established for the second half of this deployment (since the
intent was not to detect the effect of industrial activity). No other mass mortalities were
observed.
The third test involved the four stations at Hopewell for 14 days during May 2001. Only traces of
rainfall were observed during this test. Survival rates were high at all locations. Substantial
reduced oxygen concentrations were observed at two stations (both in Bailey Creek) but no
impacts were observed on the survival of the amphipods at any station.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As with any project of this complexity, we are indebted to a number of people and organizations
for help. If we fail to mention anyone, we apologize in advance.
The project was funded by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Office as
part of the Toxics Subcommittee effort to accumulate information to permit a characterization of
the "health" of various strata in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality provided substantial matching support allowing significant expansion of
the basic project. To both organizations we are most grateful.
Within EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, we thank Gary Shenk and Mike Fritz for their
efforts as Science Officers for the project. Most especially we thank Kelly Eisenman for her role
as liaison with the Toxics Subcommittee under whose auspices this project was carried out.
Kelly's timely action on requests for input is greatly appreciated.
Colleagues at VIMS who contributed to the project include Kate Staron who was laboratory/field
technician for the in situ tests. She was uncomplaining over early departure times in all kinds of
weather and a reliable performer of all tasks in laboratory and field. Several individuals served as
vessel captains during the in situ tests: Sharon Miller and Charles Machen of Vessel Operations,
George Vadas of the Department of Environmental Sciences, and Steve Snyder, Robert
Gammish, Sam Wilson, and Wayne Reisner of the Department of Physical Sciences. It was a
pleasure to work with all these individuals who made strong personal commitments to the
success of this portion of the project. The last four are especially commended for their effort that
involved transporting two boats, one for use in navigating up Bailey Creek with its many fallen
trees to the mouth of Bear Creek. And lastly, Dr. Michael Unger and his staff analyzed sediment
samples for Kepone as part of the Chemical Characterization portion of the study.
Technical support for the ambient toxicity tests of water and sediment and the experimental work
to evaluate effects of salinity change in sediment pore water on animal responses was provided
by Giorgi Briggs, Mike Harrison, Susanna Drumheller and Stephanie Day.
Mark Ailing of DEQ provided advice on locations for the in situ tests and supported the
sampling of water and sediment for the chemical and toxicological characterization. Rick
Hoffman, Cindy Johnson, and Gary Du of DEQ helped one or more times with water and
sediment collection for the EPA stations. Dr. Don Smith provided the DEQ Station Designations
for each sampling point.
Joe Winfield, formerly of AMRL at ODU and now with the DEQ, provided advice on laying out
grids for sediment sampling. Joe has on many occasions shared his insights regarding ambient
toxicity testing.
-------
The benthic community samples were collected by Bud Rodi of ODU and analyzed by Dr Dan
Dauer, also of ODU. Bud and several assistants are to be especially commended for their
commitment, hard work and long hours collecting sediment for chemical and toxicological
analysis for the DEQ stations.
The Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services performed the chemical samples of water and
sediment. We especially appreciate the effort of Ed Shaw and David Clark to reanalyze sediment
samples for SVOCs and various pesticides when the first analyses were found unacceptable.
Lastly, we thank Charles McFadden, Librarian at VIMS, for kindly scanning the many pages of
bench sheets, chain of custody forms, and statistical analyses for inclusion in the appendices.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
TABLE OF TABLES xi
TABLE OF FIGURES xv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Need for Regional Characterization 1
1.2 Concern about Salinity Adjustments Used in Many Protocols 2
1.3 Application of in situ Testing to Evaluate Effects of Rain Events 2
1.4 Objectives 3
2.0 METHODS 4
2.1 Ambient Water and Sediment Characterization 4
2.1.1 Study Areas 4
2.1.2 Navigation and Sampling 4
2.1.3 Ambient Water Column Toxicity Tests 5
2.1.3.1 Design 5
2.1.3.2 Test Organisms 6
2.1.3.3 Sample Preparation and Characterization 6
2.1.3.4 Toxicity Tests 7
2.1.3.5 Data Analysis 7
2.1.3.6 Quality Control 8
2.1.4 Ambient Water Contaminant Analysis 8
2.1.5 Ambient Sediment Toxicity Tests 8
2.1.5.1 Test Organisms 8
2.1.5.2 Sediment Preparation and Characterization 9
2.1.5.3 Toxicity Tests 9
2.1.5.4 Data Analysis 10
2.1.5.5 Quality Control 11
2.1.6 Ambient Sediment Contaminant Measurements 11
2.1.7 Benthic Index of Biological Integrity 12
2.1.7.1 Sample Collection 12
2.1.7.2 Laboratory Processing 13
2.1.7.3 Identification and Enumeration 13
2.1.7.4 Index of Biological Integrity Calculations 13
-------
2.1.8 Characterization of Water and Sediment Quality 13
2.1.8.1 Water Characterization 13
2.1.8.2 Sediment Triad Analysis 14
2.2 Evaluation of Salinity Adjustment for Sediment Toxicity Tests 14
2.2.1 Design 14
2.2.2 Sediment Collection, Characterization and Storage 15
2.2.3 Methods Development 16
2.2.3.1 Sediment Spiking - Preliminary Tests 16
2.2.3.2 Sediment Spiking - Definitive Tests 17
2.2.3.3 Salinity Adjustment - Preliminary Tests 17
2.2.3.4 Salinity Adjustment - Definitive Tests 18
2.2.4 Definitive Toxicity Tests 19
2.2.5 Data Analysis 20
2.2.6 Quality Control 20
2.3 in situ Test Methods 21
2.3.1 Site Selection and Description of Upland Areas 21
2.3.1.1 Richmond Reach 21
2.3.1.1.1 Gillie Creek 21
2.3.1.1.2 Almond Creek 22
2.3.1.1.3 Falling Creek 22
2.3.1.1.4 Cornelius Creek 23
2.3.1.2 Hopewell Reach 23
2.3.1.2.1 Bailey Creek 23
2.3.1.2.2 Gravelly Run / Bear Creek 24
2.3.1.2.3 Cabin Creek 25
2.3.1.2.4 Eppes Creek 25
2.3.2 Equipment and Procedures 25
2.3.3 Data Collection 26
2.3.3.1 Biological 26
2.3.3.2 Water Quality 27
2.3.3.3 Rainfall 27
3.0 RESULTS 49
3.1 Characterization of Ambient Water 49
3.1.1 Ambient Water Quality of Sampling Stations 49
3.1.2 Water Column Sample Tests 49
3.1.2.1 Toxicity Data 49
3.1.2.2 Toxicity Test QA/QC 50
3.1.2.3 Water Quality Data during Toxicity Tests 51
3.1.3 Ambient Water Contaminants 51
3.2 Characterization of Ambient Sediment 52
3.2.1 Sediment Texture 52
-------
3.2.2 Sediment Sample Tests 53
3.2.2.1 Toxicity Data 53
3.2.2.1.1 DEQ Stations 53
3.2.2.1.2 EPA Stations 54
3.2.2.2 Reference Chemical Test Results 56
3.2.3 Sediment Contaminants 56
3.2.4 Benthic Community Description 57
3.2.5 Characterization 58
3.2.5.1 Water 58
3.2.5.2 Sediment 58
3.2.5.2.1 Sediment Quality Triad 58
3.3 Salinity Effects Experiment 59
3.3.1 Sediment Texture 59
3.3.2 ToxicityData 59
3.3.2.1 Leptocheirus plumulosus 59
3.3.2.2 Hyalella azteca 60
3.3.3 Quality Control, Reference Toxicant Data 60
3.3.4 Sediment Texture and Quality 61
3.3.5 Contaminants Data 61
3.4 in situ Tests 63
3.4.1 Richmond Study 63
3.4.1.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions 63
3.4.1.2 Rainfall Data 63
3.4.1.3 Survival and Weight Data 63
3.4.2 Hopewell Study 64
3.4.2.1 Fall 2000 Deployment 64
3.4.2.1.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions 64
3.4.2.1.2 Rainfall Data 64
3.4.2.1.3 Survival and Weight Data 64
3.4.2.2 Spring 2001 Deployment 65
3.4.2.2.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions 65
3.4.2.2.2 Rainfall Data 65
3.4.2.2.3 Survival and Weight Data 65
4.0 DISCUSSION 115
4.1 Ambient Toxicity in Tidal Freshwater James River 115
4.1.1 Ambient Aqueous Toxicity and Water Quality 115
4.1.2 Sediment Quality Triad Evaluation for Region 115
4.2 Effect of Salinity Adjustment on Apparent Toxicity of Sediment 116
4.2.1 Evaluation of Protocols Used 116
4.2.2 Implications of Toxicity Characterization for Sediment 116
-------
4.3 Effect of Rainfall on Water Quality from Tributary Urbanized Creeks 118
4.3.1 Conceptual Comparison of Alternative Test Methods 120
4.3.2 Comparative Utility of Ambient Toxicity Tests Versus in situ Tests 120
4.4 Future Research Needs 122
4.4.1 Characterization of the Hopewell to Richmond Reach 122
4.4.2 Alternative Test Species for Toxicity Tests of Water in the Oligohaline Regions 122
4.4.3 Improvement to in situ Testing Methods 122
5.0 REFERENCES 124
Appendix A James River Sediment Toxicity Survey. Stations 12.12, 44.08, 46.73, 50.55,
52.52, 56.12, 66.35, 67.56, 68.49, 73.63 and 74.25. 8/22/00 to 8/24/00
Sampling Period. Final report from Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., Gloucester, VA
23061 Al
Appendix B James River Sediment and Water Column Toxicity Survey. Sediment
Stations: JMS040.03, JMS042.46, JMS047.33, JMS065.81, JMS068.68 and
JMS074.29. Water Column Stations: JMS040.03, JMS042.46, JMS047.33,
JMS065.81, JMS068.68, JMS072.08 and JMS074.29. 10/17/00 to 10/25/00
Sampling Period. Final report from Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., Gloucester, VA
23061 Bl
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Quality Control/Quality Assurance Data for Chemical Analyses
Cl
Benthic Community Analysis of the Upper and Middle James River in
Support of Ambient Toxicity Characterizations. Final report from Department
of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
23529 Dl
Evaluation of Salinity Adjustment for Sediment Toxicity Tests. Final report
from Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., Gloucester, VA 23061 El
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Station locations for water and sediment sampling for ambient toxicity tests. 28
2.2 Control waters used for ambient water toxicity tests. (MHSFW = moderately hard
synthetic freshwater, SW = artificial seawater, salinity indicated in g/kg). 29
2.3 Required conditions for 8-day ambient water toxicity test with
a Pimephales promelas 30
b Ceriodaphia dubia 31
c Cyprinodon variegatus 32
d Mysidopsis bahia. 33
2.4 Control water characteristics (Mean and (Std. Dev.)) during tests. 34
2.5 Required conditions for 10-day sediment toxicity tests with
a Pimephales promelas embryos 35
b Hyallela azteca. 36
2.6 Analyte lists for classes of organic chemicals sought in sediment samples 37
2.7 Required conditions for salinity experiment protocol for
a Leptocheirus plumulosus 41
b Hyallela azteca. 42
2.8 Design for salinity adjustment experiments. 43
2.9 Metals toxicity data for H. azteca taken from literature. 43
2.10 Results of range-finding tests. 43
2.11 Spiking regime for definitive experiment (volume per liter sediment). 44
2.12 Station locations for in situ tests. 44
3.1 Water quality at each sampling site measured at the time of collection (except as noted).
All stations are in the James River except 2-CFIK012.12, located in the Chickahominy
River. 66
3.2 Ambient water test results with freshwater species. 67
3.3 Ambient water test results with estuarine species. 68
3.4 Reference toxicant test results for freshwater and estuarine species (Reference Toxicant:
KC1, Sigma "Ultra"; values in mg/1). 68
-------
3.5 Surface water sample characteristics on arrival at testing laboratory and during test
exposure for freshwater and estuarine species (Mean and (Std. Dev.)). 69
3.6 Total metals in ambient water samples collected from 8 stations in the lower tidal
freshwater reach from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point. 70
3.7 Dissolved metals in ambient water samples collected from 8 stations in the lower tidal
freshwater reach from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point. 71
3.8 Total and dissolved trace elements (in jig/1) in water samples from James River
stations. 72
3.9 Nutrient concentrations (mg/1) in ambient water samples from James River stations. 72
3.10 Sediment characteristics at each station from samples collected in August and October
2000. Each river mile station is represented by 3 replicates selected randomly from within
a grid centered on the station coordinates. No samples were analyzed from Station 2-
JMS072.08 because most attempts to collect a sample failed because of a high sand
content. 73
3.11 Survival and final weight oiHyallela azteca exposed to sediment from DEQ stations. 75
3.12 Percent hatch, percent post hatch survival and percent total survival for Pimephales
promelas exposed to sediment from DEQ stations. 76
3.13 Survival and final weight oiHyallela azteca exposed to sediment from EPA stations. 77
3.14 Percent hatch, percent post hatch survival and percent total survival for Pimephales
promelas exposed to sediment from EPA stations. 78
3.15 Reference toxicant test results in aqueous media for species used in sediment toxicity
tests (Reference toxicant: KC1, Sigma "Ultra" lot #29H00321; values in mg/1). 78
3.16 Bulk metal concentrations (|ig/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in
2000. 79
3.17 Sediment acid volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals (|imole/g wet weight)
for sediments collected from the James River during late summer and fall of 2000. 80
3.18 SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in
2000. 81
3.19 Organophosphate pesticides in sediment samples collected from the James River in
2000. 87
-------
3.20 Organochlorine pesticides in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.90
3.21 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners (ng/g, dry weight basis) in sediment samples
collected from the James River in 2000. The presence of each congener was confirmed
using GC/MS Selective Ion Monitoring. 92
3.22 Herbicide concentrations in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000. 95
3.23 Descriptive parameters for the benthic community in the lower tidal freshwater James
River, August 2000. 97
3.24 Survival, final weight, and number emergent for Leptocheirusplumulosus exposed to
sediments spiked with heavy metals at 8 or 15 g/kg pore water salinity. 97
3.25 ANOVA for survival, final weight and emergence of Leptocheirus plumulosus exposed to
metal contaminated sediment after salinity adjustment (p-values in bold significant at
0.05 level). 98
3.26 Survival, final weight, and number emergent for Hyalella azteca exposed to sediments
spiked with heavy metals at 8 or 15 g/kg pore water salinity. 98
3.27 ANOVA for survival, final weight and emergence of Hyalella azteca exposed to metal
contaminated sediment after salinity adjustment (p-values in bold significant at 0.05
level). 99
3.28 Reference toxicant test results in aqueous media for species used in sediment toxicity
tests (Reference Toxicant: KC1, Sigma "Ultra" Lot #129H00079; values in mg/1). 99
3.29 Sediment texture measured on experimental control (blank). 99
3.30 Sediment quality data. 100
3.31 Measured stock solution composition. 100
3.32 Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for cadmium. 101
3.33 Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for copper. 101
3.34 Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for nickel. 102
3.35 Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for zinc. 102
3.36 Comparison of spiking concentrations, SEM and SEM/AVS for total metals. 103
3.37 Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Richmond deployment, September
2000. 104
-------
3.38 Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Richmond stations.
a Gillie Creek 105
b Almond Creek 105
c Falling Creek 105
d Cornelius Creek 105
3.39 Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Hopewell deployment, October 2000.107
3.40 Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell stations, October 2000
a Bailey Creek 109
b Gravelly Run (relocated to Bear Creek) 110
c Cabin Creek 110
d Eppes Creek. Ill
3.41 Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Hopewell deployment, May 2001. 112
3.42 Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell stations, May 2001
a Bailey Creek 113
b Bear Creek 113
c Cabin Creek 113
d Eppes Creek. 114
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 James River from Jamestown Island upstream to Jordan Point (Benjamin Harrison
Bridge). DEQ stations are black circles labeled in white on black rectangles. EPA stations
are white triangles labeled in black on white rectangles. Areas with >75% sand are
shaded. 46
2.1 Field stations for the in situ study in the vicinity of Richmond, VA 47
2.3 Field stations for the in situ study in the vicinity of Hopewell, VA 48
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Need for Regional Characterization
For over a decade, the Chesapeake Bay Program, through its Toxics Subcommittee, has
supported a series of studies designed to characterize sections of the Bay from both a chemical
and toxicological perspective. Beginning with the pilot studies of Hall etal. (1991, 1992, 1994
and 1997) and continuing through the ambient toxicity reports of 2000 (Hall etal. 1998a, 1998b,
2000a, 2000b, Roberts etal. 2000, McGee etal. 2001), much of the Bay system has been
characterized from the mouth to the tidal limits. In a characterization report for the Chesapeake
Bay (U.S. EPA, 1999), some significant areas were identified as lacking sufficient data to be
characterized. Included among these areas in Virginia were the tidal freshwater portions of the
James River upstream of Jamestown Island, and the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers that form
the York River at West Point. McGee et al (2001) occupied some stations in this region, but the
amount of data was limited and the area of the tidal freshwater James River covered by the study
was very limited. In addition, there were areas identified in Maryland that also remained
incompletely characterized.
For many studies of ambient toxi city in the Bay (Hall et al. 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1998a,
1998b, 2000a, 2000b, Roberts etal. 2000, McGee etal. 2001) and elsewhere, salinity was
adjusted to a fixed level before performing toxicity tests. The intent was to evaluate the toxicity
under standardized conditions and with a consistent set of test species to avoid concerns about
salinity tolerances and differing sensitivities to toxic chemicals among test species. Even for
nearly freshwater systems under these protocols, salinity of both ambient water and sediment
samples was adjusted to 15 g/kg, and samples were then tested with the same estuarine species as
used for naturally saline stations. For strictly freshwater systems, freshwater species were used
for water samples, but saline species were used for freshwater sediments after salinity adjustment
(Halloa/. 1991).
Studies by other organizations also pertain to the Bay and yield data that can be used for
characterization. NOAA has for several years been conducting assessments of the benthos of the
Bay. In their studies, three sections of the Bay were subdivided into a series of strata based on
sediment particle size, depth distribution, erosional/depositional characteristics and other
geochemical factors that play a major role in defining benthic communities. Sediment samples
were collected from a series of randomly selected stations within each stratum and analyzed for
anthropogenic chemicals. Subsamples were subjected to a battery of toxicity tests. All toxicity
tests were performed under a standard set of conditions with standard species. In these studies,
the salinity of all sediments was adjusted to 25 g/kg and tested with a high salinity species
(Ampelisca abdita). Additionally, benthic community analyses were performed on subsamples
from each station.
-------
A final major source of information is work by the MAIA program (U.S. EPA, 1997). Like the
NOAA characterization, the MAIA effort involves chemical and toxicity characterization of
sediment, and benthic community analysis. This program used much the same protocols as those
used for the NOAA studies. These protocols have been widely used by these agencies in
estuaries across the United States. As in the Chesapeake Bay Program effort, there has been a
strong and commendable commitment to using consistent protocols over all studies despite
criticisms related to the effects of salinity.
1.2 Concern about Salinity Adjustments Used in Many Protocols
The salinity gradient within estuaries such as Chesapeake Bay ranges from fresh (0 g/kg) to
nearly oceanic (>30 g/kg). Depending on estuary morphology and other factors, the salinity of
overlying water may change greatly over the course of a tidal cycle but pore water of underlying
sediments will exhibit lesser temporal changes in salinity. In a recent review of sediment
contamination in estuaries, Chapman and Wang (2001) emphasized the controlling role of
salinity and acknowledged that the importance of salinity is often ignored in sediment toxicity
testing surveys. The use of standardized test conditions often takes precedence over concerns
regarding organism salinity tolerance and effects of salinity adjustment on bioavailability of
toxicants. These authors were unable to identify studies in which the effects of salinity
adjustment on bioavailability or toxicity had been directly assessed.
The effects of salinity on toxicity test results and interpretation involve issues of bioavailability
and species sensitivity at differing salinities. Salinity effects on toxicity of various metals as well
as a number of organic chemicals on water column animals are well documented (Sunda, 1978;
Coglianese, 1982; Bryant etal, 1984a,b; DeLisle, 1989; De Lisle and Roberts, 1988; Mayer et
a/., 1989; DeLisle and Roberts, 1993; Breken-Folse etal., 1993). If salinity adjustment produces
pH changes in pore water analogous to those reported by Borgman (1994) for increased
hardness, there might also be pH-induced changes in concentration of toxic ammonia species
resulting in adverse effects. Embedded in any evaluation of the effect of salinity change on
sediment toxicity are the effects of sulfide levels that also affect bioavailability of metals
(DiToro et al. 1990, 1992). The differences in bioavailability of metals and other chemicals
result from speciation effects, differences in bonding, and routes of uptake.
A direct comparison of the toxic effects of salinity adjusted sediment with that of virgin sediment
using Leptocheirus in the first case and Hyalella in the second case were included in this study.
Since the native sediment may lack those compounds most likely to be changed in bioavailability
and hence adverse effects, a metals mixture was used to spike native sediments differing in grain
size and total organic carbon before salinity adjustment.
1.3 Application of in situ Testing to Evaluate Effects of Rain Events
Agricultural and sylvan shorelines border much of the James River upstream of Jamestown
Island. However, there are two major urban areas, the cities of Richmond and Hopewell. Water
column toxicity in both agricultural and urban areas may be closely related to rain events
resulting in short term pulses of acute toxicity. Such events can easily be overlooked during
ambient toxicity studies using a design that involves a limited number of fixed sampling times.
-------
Costs associated with the logistics of discrete sampling of post-rain event periods or the use of
automatic composite sampling devices designed to be triggered by rainfall exceeding some
specified amount make such approaches to deal with this problem rather unattractive and cost
prohibitive.
In situ tests such as those described by Scott etal. (1990) from studies in coastal South Carolina
and used by Luckenbach et al. (1996; Roberts et a/., 2000) on the Eastern Shore of Virginia are
an alternative to specialized sampling approaches. These studies involved individually caged
adult grass shrimp, Palaemonetespugio, as the test animal. While extremely salinity tolerant,
this species is not suited to most locations in the tidal freshwater James River. The related
freshwater species of the same genus, P. kadiakemis and P. paludosus, are not known to be
locally collectable in sufficient numbers for in situ tests. Other invertebrates that have been used
for in situ tests include Chironomus riparius (midge) (Crane et al. 2000), or daphnids such as
Ceriodaphnia dubia as the test animal (Sasson-Brickson and Burton, 1991). In situ tests with
Chironomus and Ceriodaphnia were designed to evaluate effects of contaminated sediment
rather than water.
Past experience indicates that the effect of rain events in agricultural areas is rapid (within 24
hours) and brief (typically no further mortality is evident after 48 hours). In an urban setting,
effects from rain events can be detected, though the time to and duration of effect are less
defined (Geoff Scott, personal communication).
1.4 Objectives
• Characterize ambient water and sediment toxicity in the tidal freshwater portion of the
James River from Jamestown Island upstream to Richmond
• Determine the effect of salinity adjustment for sediment samples on measured toxicity
• Measure in situ toxicity in mouths of selected urban creeks as a function of rain events
• Characterize ambient toxicity by the sediment triad approach
-------
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Ambient Water and Sediment Characterization
2.1.1 Study Areas
A total of 20 stations (19 in the James River proper and 1 in the Chickahominy River) were
identified for this study of the tidal freshwater James River (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1). Eight stations
(hereafter called the EPA stations and represented as triangles in Figure 1) were selected from a
set of 16 random sites identified by the EPA MAIA Workgroup (Kevin Summers). Versar
Corporation selected twelve more random stations (represented as squares in Figure 1) for the
benthic-monitoring program of the Chesapeake Bay Program (hereafter called the DEQ
Stations). Each station was labeled with a DEQ designation consisting of the river (or water
body) abbreviation (e.g. James River is designated JMS) followed by the miles from the mouth
of the river to the nearest hundredth. Each station is also identified by a unique latitude longitude
(NAD83).
The tidal freshwater region of the James River stretches from Hogg Island and Jamestown Island
to Richmond. The station array in this study covered only the portion from Jamestown Island to
Jordan Point just east of Hopewell, a 35-mile reach of the river. At Hopewell, the river narrows
resulting in a lower area per unit length than east of Hopewell, which presumably explains why
no random stations were identified from Hopewell west.
The EPA stations were sampled for chemical and toxicological characterization of water and
sediment. The DEQ stations were sampled for chemical, toxicological and benthic community
characterization of sediment. Two stations in each random set were in close proximity to stations
in the other set (JMS068.49 - JMS068.68 and JMS074.25 - JMS074.29). These near coincident
locations provide some opportunity for direct comparison of chemical and toxicological results,
although the stations differed in depth and sediment type. Together, the twenty stations provide a
reasonably comprehensive snapshot of the river segment from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point.
2.1.2 Navigation and Sampling
To locate stations in the field, hand-held GPS units were used. All water and sediment samples
from the EPA stations were collected from a DEQ vessel with DEQ personnel and all sediment
and benthic community samples from the DEQ stations were collected from an ODU vessel with
ODU personnel. In both cases, the vessel was anchored to hold position while sampling was
accomplished.
Composite ambient water samples were collected on October 18, 21 and 24 from all EPA
stations. Equal amounts of water from 0.5 m below the surface, 0.5 m above the bottom, and
midway between were obtained with a pump, composited in a high-density polyethylene (HOPE)
-------
carboy with spigot, and dispensed into cubitainers for ambient water toxicity tests. In addition,
samples for metals analysis were collected using the clean metal technique as implemented by
DEQ. At the time of sampling, surface water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, and pH were measured with a Hydrolab Datasonde.
All samples were immediately placed in cooler chests with ice. At the debarkation point, custody
of all samples for toxicity tests was transferred to a representative from VIMS who then
transported them to the testing laboratory. All samples for chemical analysis were transported to
Richmond by DEQ staff and delivered to the analytical laboratory. Since samples could not be
delivered after hours on the day of collection, they were maintained on ice until the following
morning for delivery to the testing laboratories.
Ambient sediment samples were collected on separate dates, with 2 or more stations being
sampled on a given day. Sediment samples from the DEQ stations were collected between 22
August and 24 August 2000 by the ODU team who also collected sediment samples at these 12
stations on 1 August and 7 August 2000 for a benthic community analysis. Sediment samples
from the EPA stations were collected between 19 October and 25 October 2000 by a DEQ team.
The samples from all 20 stations were collected from randomly chosen points within a 100 by
100 m grid centered on the station coordinate. The upper 2 cm of sediment were retained for
toxicological tests. Multiple grabs were made at each point with a Ponar grab until sufficient
sediment had been collected. Sediment was then homogenized and distributed among the sample
containers. At each station, 3 separate sediment samples were collected for toxicity studies in
order to evaluate field variability. Samples for particle size and TOC from each sampling site
were stored and analyzed separately. AVS/SEM samples were collected and stored separately,
but composited under nitrogen before analysis.
Sediment samples for chemical analysis were stored in accordance with the project QA/QC plan.
Sediment samples for the toxicity tests were stored at 4°C until ready to prepare for the test.
Samples from both sets of stations were tested for toxicity within the 14-day holding time
specified for the project.
An excess of sediment from two EPA stations (2-JMS065.81 and 2-JMS040.03) was collected
on 26 and 27 October 2000 for use in the salinity effect experiments (Task 2) and stored at 4°C
until ready to perform the experiment. These stations were selected for sampling based on grain
size and TOC during a June 2000 reconnaisance trip. The holding time requirement was not
adhered to in this case, but all sediments used were of the same age at the time of each
preliminary or final test (discussed in detail later).
2.1.3 Ambient Water Column Toxicity Tests
2.1.3.1 Design: Salinity within the study area was expected to be zero within this freshwater
stratum of the river, so only freshwater species were initially selected for these tests. Pimephales
promelas was selected as the fish species and Ceriodaphnia dubia as a sensitive invertebrate.
Tests with both species were initiated with <24 h old animals. These species, widely used for
-------
toxicity tests of fresh water and known to be sensitive to a variety of contaminants, were selected
to avoid concerns about salinity adjustment.
The salinity of samples from stations 2-JMS040.03, 2-JMS042.46, 2-JMS047.33 and 2-
JMS047.81 required a modification of the original test design. The modification described below
was discussed with and approved by the Toxics Subcommittee. A major principle underlying the
design was meeting the requirement that sample salinity not be altered.
The objective of the modified design was to provide both a vertebrate and an invertebrate test
species with a salinity tolerance appropriate for each sample. Because the sample salinities at
four stations were rather low (1.2 to 4.8) for most standard estuarine test species, but high for
freshwater species, it was recognized that salinity stress might interfere with interpretation of
toxicity test results. Because Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow) is tolerant of
freshwater whereas the salinity (as NaCl) tolerance of P. promelas is limited (7-d NOEC 1-2 g/1
NaCl, LOEC 2-4 g/1; U.S. EPA 1991), C. variegatus was selected as the vertebrate species for
the saline samples. Based on a 144-h TL50 value of 4.9 g/kg salinity for Mysidopsis bahia (De
Lisle and Roberts, 1986), it was anticipated that the mysid might tolerate the salinities of samples
from 2-JMS040.03 and 2-JMS042.46 but not 2-JMS047.33 and 2-JMS047.81. Conversely, the
chronic salinity (as NaCl) tolerance data for C. dubia (NOEC 1 g/1, LOEC 2 g/1; U.S. EPA 1991)
suggested that this species might tolerate the salinity range of samples from 2-JMS047.33 and 2-
JMS047.81 but not 2-JMS040.03 and 2-JMS042.46. Based on this information, samples were
tested with an appropriate species for the sample salinity. Each species was also tested in a
control with a salinity based on the upper or lower salinity of the initial sample (Table 2.2).
Individual controls for each sample were not tested for the sake of economy.
2.1.3.2 Test Organisms: Fathead minnows (Pimephalespromelas, <24 h old) were obtained
from Chesapeake Cultures, Hayes, VA and were hand delivered to the testing laboratory. Mysids
{Mysidopsis bahia, 1 d old), sheepshead minnows {Cyprinodon variegatus, <24 h old) and
Ceriodaphnia dubia (<24 h old) were obtained from in-house cultures of Coastal Bioanalysts,
Inc. Fish embryos were obtained by natural spawning of cultured stock. Animals were fed
Artemia nauplii (mysids and fish) or \C1ISelenastrum capricornutum (C. dubia) during the
holding period prior to tests.
2.1.3.3 Sample Preparation and Characterization: Sample arrival temperature, conductivity
or salinity, hardness, alkalinity, pH and ammonia-nitrogen were measured on each new water
sample received in the laboratory from 18 to 24 October 2000. In preparation for testing, an
aliquot of each sample was filtered (60 jim mesh) to remove any predators or interfering
organisms, warmed to test temperature and aerated as necessary to reduce the oxygen
concentration to saturation. Since water at 4°C holds more oxygen at saturation than water at the
test temperature, newly warmed water is supersaturated with oxygen. Exposure of animals to
supersaturated water causes air embolisms in the blood offish and invertebrates leading to death.
Minimal aeration after warming water returns the water to oxygen saturation. There is a risk that
volatile toxic chemicals will be removed from water samples in this process. The remainder of
the sample was stored at 2-4°C until used in renewal of toxicity tests. Water to be used for media
replacement was raised to the test temperature and degassed to remove excess oxygen before
exposing animals.
-------
2.1.3.4 Toxicity Tests: Toxicity tests were conducted in accordance with the outlines of the test
methods provided in Tables 2.3a-d. Copies of test bench sheets and chain-of-custody / sample
collection forms are provided in Appendix A. Water and animals were added to exposure
chambers on 18 October 2000. Solutions did not require aeration to maintain adequate oxygen
concentrations. A laboratory control water of appropriate salinity was included in each 8-day
test.
The age of the test animals at the start of the test was <24 hr for all species except M bahia.
Seven-day-old mysids, rather than neonate animals, were used so that sufficient maturation could
occur within the test period to allow measurement of a reproduction end point (i.e. egg
production) as well as growth and survival end points to estimate chronic toxicity. These "short-
term chronic" methods were developed by EPA in the late 1980s (e.g. Lussier et al., 1987).
There is no evidence that starting with younger animals would significantly increase the
sensitivity of the test. For these reasons, initiating tests with 7-day oldM bahia has become the
standard for this species.
P. promelas larval and C. dubia tests were conducted as daily renewal tests. This deviation from
the protocols provided in Tables 3a and 3b was decided upon because of the need to clean the
test chambers with fish larvae to avoid fungal infestations and chambers with daphnids to
remove neonates for counting. Tests with M. bahia and C. variegatus were renewed with each
new sample as per the protocols. Each day the number of live fish or offspring (C. dubia} was
tallied. All test chambers were fed Artemia nauplii or YCT/ Selenastrum capricornutum at the
rate specified. Tests were terminated by counting the final number of surviving animals in each
chamber, microscopically evaluating animals for sexual development (mysids) and sacrificing
animals for dry weight measurement (fish and mysids) on test day 8. Dry weights were measured
after drying animals 24 h at 100°C; weights were measured to the nearest 0.01 mg.
Laboratory control waters consisted of: 1) moderately hard synthetic freshwater (SFW) prepared
using ACS reagent-grade chemicals and ASTM Type I deionized water for freshwater controls,
2) SFW plus artificial sea salts (hw Marine Mix) for low salinity control water and 3) artificial
sea salts reconstituted in ASTM Type I water for 20 g/kg control water. Water quality parameters
for control waters are summarized in Table 2.4.
2.1.3.5 Data Analysis: Test data were analyzed using the Minitab (1995; version lOXtra)
statistical software package. Proportionate data (e.g. survival) were transformed as the arcsine of
the square root of the proportion to attain a more normal distribution. Growth data were
transformed using the logo transformation as necessary in order to normalize data. Data were
tested for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Ryan-Joiner (similar to Shapiro-
Wilk) and Bartlett's tests (p = 0.01), respectively, prior to hypothesis testing to determine if the
assumptions of the test method were met. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO (#1): Toxicity of Laboratory Control < Toxicity of Field Sample
HO (#2): All Stations and Laboratory Replicates have Equal Toxicity
-------
HO (#1) was tested using Dunnett's test (p = 0.05) where all samples were compared against the
primary control water (SFW or 20 g/kg salinity artificial seawater) and, with non-applicable data
excluded, against the control water appropriate for the sample set (i.e. 1.2, 1.6 or 4.3 g/kg salinity
seawater).
HO (#2) was tested using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p = 0.05) to identify significant
pairs. In the case of station comparisons in which only two groups were assessed (e.g. mysid
tests) a two-sample t-test was used. For both hypotheses, non-parametric data sets were tested
using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Endpoints were total proportion surviving (number survivors/number exposed in replicate) for all
species, dry weight (pooled replicate dry weight/number survivors in replicate) for fish and
mysids, number of offspring produced per female for Ceriodaphnia and proportion females with
eggs in the marsupium or oviducts for mysids.
2.1.3.6 Quality Control: A reference toxicant test was conducted concurrently with each
toxicity test using the same lot of organisms to assess organism sensitivity. Potassium chloride
was used as the reference toxicant. Tests were static and 48 h in duration. LC50 values of the
concurrent reference toxicant tests were compared with the mean value and 95% confidence
limits of reference toxicant tests conducted previously in the testing lab using the same species
and exposure duration. The reference toxicant tests were independent of the characterization tests
that included a negative control to access animal health and to demonstrate capability of
conducting the test (i.e. laboratory dilution water controls).
2.1.4 Ambient Water Contaminant Analysis
Total and dissolved metals were determined on water samples collected from each EPA station.
Water samples were collected using a "clean metals" technique. An aliquot of each sample was
filtered to 0.45 jim in the field. The remainder of the sample was submitted for total metals
analysis. In the laboratory, each filtered sample was acidified and analyzed using ICP-MS. Total
metal samples were acidified and digested in the sample bottle.
Samples were analyzed for Al, Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Th, and Zn.
Samples with concentrations ranging from 0. 1 to 10.0 ug/1 were determined utilizing an
ultrasonic nebulizer in conjunction with the ICP-MS. Samples analyzed for As, Se, and Sb were
first hydridized. Mercury was measured by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectroscopy.
QA/QC data is provided in Appendix B.
2.1.5 Ambient Sediment Toxicity Tests
2.1.5.1 Test Organisms: Fathead minnows (Pimephalespromelas) and amphipods (Hyalella
aztecd) were obtained from Chesapeake Cultures, Inc. (Hayes, VA). Both species were hand
delivered to the testing laboratory. Fish embryos were obtained by natural spawning of cultured
stock. Spawning tiles were collected in the afternoon of 25 October 2000 to insure that fish
embryos less than 48-h old were used to initiate tests on 27 October 2000. Amphipods in the 7-
-------
14 day-old age range were collected using stacked 710 jim and 500 jim mesh stainless steel
sieves. The animals retained on the 500-|im screen, 2-3 mm in length, correspond to this age
class (U.S. EPA, 1994). Amphipods were fed maple leaves, rabbit pellets and YCT ad libitum
during the holding period prior to use in tests.
2.1.5.2 Sediment Preparation and Characterization: DEQ Station samples (collected in the
last week of August) were tested in September, EPA Station samples in October. Laboratory
control sediment was collected twice, once in September and again in October. The control
sediment was obtained from the freshwater/non-tidal portion of an unnamed tributary of the
Severn River (Featherbed Lane (Rt. 614) 0.25 mile east of U.S. Rt. 17, White Marsh, VA
37°20'36.7"N, 76°29'38.8"W). These sediments were analyzed for TOC, grain size, percent
water, pore water pH and ammonia nitrogen, and ability to support the test animal (the minimum
characterization requirements defined by EPA (EPA, 1999a, sect. 8.4). The quality of the control
sediment is performance based (EPA, 1999a, sect. 9.14.2).
For each set of stations, sediment samples were homogenized upon receipt, large debris (e.g.
sticks and shell) removed and aliquots of sample were collected for measurement of total organic
carbon and grain size distribution (analysis by VIMS), pore water pH and ammonia nitrogen, and
percent water (analysis by CBI). An aliquot (ca 250 ml) was also examined for the presence of
indigenous organisms that might interfere with the test. This aliquot was wet sieved using
stacked 1000, 500 and 250 jim mesh sieves. The remainder of the sediment sample was stored at
2-4°C until used in toxicity tests.
On the day prior to beginning tests (test day -1), sediments were removed from cold storage,
warmed to test temperature and homogenized. Sediments from DEQ stations 2-JMS044.08, 2-
JMS068.49 and 2-JMS068.64 were press sieved through a 500 jim mesh sieve prior to use to
remove indigenous Cyathurapolita, a potential predator of amphipods found during the sieving
process described above. Similarly, sediments from EPA stations 2-JMS065.81 and 2-
JMS068.68 were press sieved to remove indigenous Cyathurapolita. Approximately 200 ml of
sediment was placed into each 1-1 glass test chamber. The sediment surface was then smoothed
by gently tapping the chamber prior to addition of approximately 750 ml of dilution water.
2.1.5.3 Toxicity Tests: Toxicity tests were conducted as summarized in Tables 2.5a-b. After
adding sediment and water to test chambers, aeration was initiated in each chamber at a rate of
ca. 100 bubbles/min using Pasteur pipets with tips positioned at approximately mid-depth in the
water column. Aeration was necessary because sediment removes oxygen from the overlying
water, creating conditions unsuitable for the test animals. It is generally desirable in toxicity tests
to maintain oxygen levels above 40% of saturation to minimize stress. In sediment tests, strict
adherence to providing this level of oxygen saturation cannot be achieved without risking the
rejection of an otherwise acceptable test. Increased aeration rates would increase the likelihood
that volatile toxic materials would be removed. The 40% of saturation specification was selected
as a reasonable balance between the risk for rejecting a test inappropriately and stressing the
animals by oxygen depression.
All tests were started by the random addition of test organisms to exposure chambers. The fish
test is started with embryos in conformity with the original test design of Hall et al. (1991, 1992,
-------
1994; Hall and Alden, 1997. Embryos up to 48 hr post fertilization are used to allow time for
shipment from a hatchery and to allow an assessment of percent fertilization based on visual
evidence of a developing embryo. The Hyalella test was initiated with 7-14 day old animals as
stipulated in ASTM (1999, Designation E1706). Use of 7-14 day old animals allows pretest
evaluation of survival. The range in initial ages allowed reflects uncertainties about neonate age
based on the method used to obtain neonates and the method used to isolate test animals after a 7
day culture period.
Fathead minnow embryo tests were conducted with daily renewal of overlying water. Embryos
were exposed in egg baskets consisting of 3" diameter PVC pipe with 200 jim Nitex solvent-
welded to one end to allow contact with sediments. The embryo baskets were gently placed,
screen side down, on the sediment surface. Each day, until all eggs had hatched and prior to 50%
renewal of the overlying water, the baskets were removed from the exposure chamber and placed
in a dish of clean dilution water to observe egg viability and to rinse eggs of any debris. The
baskets were returned to the test chambers immediately after solution renewal. After all eggs had
hatched and daily cleaning of eggs was no longer necessary, baskets were left in the chambers
during renewal of the test solution. The old test media was siphoned from outside the baskets to
avoid loss offish. Each day the number of viable eggs and fish were tallied. Fish in all test
chambers were fed Anemia nauplii at a rate of 0.1 g/chamber on test days 1 -6 and a rate of 0.15
g/chamber on test days 7-9. On day 10, the final number of surviving fish in each chamber was
determined.
Amphipod tests were conducted as static tests. Amphipods were impartially distributed to
portion cups containing ca. 20 ml of dilution water until each cup contained twenty animals. To
start the test, amphipods in one cup were poured into each test chamber. Initial amphipod
weights were obtained for three groups of twenty animals each selected from the beginning,
middle and end of the portion cup array. Amphipods were fed 0.5 ml 0.5 ml YCT/chamber/day
in the August tests. This ration was increased to 0.75 ml YCT/chamber/day for the October tests
to provide for greater growth of organisms during the test. Each day the number of emergent or
dead amphipods on the sediment surface were noted. The test was terminated by wet sieving the
entire contents of each chamber using a 410-|im mesh sieve. Live amphipods were counted and
transferred to plastic portion cups containing a small amount of dilution water. Animals were
sacrificed by the addition of several drops of 6 N HC1 to each cup and immediately transferred to
pre-weighed aluminum foil pans (6-8 mg). After drying for 24 h at 100°C, dry weights were
measured to the nearest 0.01 mg.
Laboratory control water consisted of moderately hard synthetic freshwater prepared using ACS
reagent-grade chemicals and ASTM Type I deionized water. Ranges of water quality parameters
for batches of water used for setup and renewals were: Hardness: 92-100 mg/1 as CaCOs,
Alkalinity: 57-58 mg/1 as CaCO3, Conductivity: 274-285 |iMHOS, pH: 7.92-8.12 S.U.
2.1.5.4 Data Analysis: Test data were analyzed using the Minitab (1995; version lOXtra)
statistical software package. Proportionate data (e.g. survival) were transformed as the arcsine of
the square root of the proportion to attain a more normal distribution. Amphipod growth data,
which did not exhibit a normal distribution in the untransformed state, were transformed using
the base 10 logarithm. Amphipod data were analyzed both with and without values for
-------
treatments in which survival was likely affected by the presence of indigenous predators (2-
JMS040.031 -replicate 1, 2-JMS042.461 -replicates 1 & 2, 2-JMS042.462-replicates 1 & 2).
Data were tested for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Ryan-Joiner (similar to
Shapiro-Wilk) and Bartlett's tests (p = 0.01), respectively, prior to hypothesis testing to
determine if the assumptions of the test method were met. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO (#1): Toxicity of Laboratory Control < Toxicity of Field Sample
HO (#2): All Stations and Laboratory Replicates have Equal Toxicity
HO (#1) was tested using Dunnett's test (p = 0.05) in which all samples were compared against
the laboratory control sediment (in the case of non-parametric data, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test
was used). HO (#2) was tested using a nested one-way ANOVA (field replicates within stations)
and Tukey's test to identify significant pairs in cases where ANOVA indicated significance (p <
0.05) at the station level. Parametric data sets with unbalanced designs resulting from the
exclusion of treatments because of the presence of indigenous predators, which preclude a nested
ANOVA, were tested using a simple one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. Non-parametric data
sets were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Printouts of statistics are included in Appendices
AandB
Endpoints were total proportion surviving (number survivors/number exposed in replicate) for
both species, dry weight (pooled replicate dry weight/number survivors in replicate) and total
number observed emergent animals (a measure of sediment avoidance) for amphipods, and
proportion hatching (cumulative number hatched/initial number exposed in replicate) and
hatched (post hatch) proportion surviving (number survivors/number eggs hatched in replicate)
for fish. Proportion hatching was examined on test days 2 through 6. While no eggs hatched on
test day 1, by test day 6 hatching was complete.
2.1.5.5 Quality Control: A reference toxicant test was conducted concurrently with each
sediment toxicity test using the same lot of organisms. Potassium chloride was used as the
reference toxicant. Reference tests were static aqueous exposures lasting 48 h (P. promelas) or
96 h (H. azteca). LC50 values for the concurrent reference toxicant tests were compared with the
mean value and 95% confidence limits of reference toxicant tests conducted previously in the
CBI lab using the same species and exposure duration.
2.1.6 Ambient Sediment Contaminant Measurements
Sediment samples were oven dried, weighed, and digested in nitric and hydrochloric acids by
microwave technology. After cooling, the samples were brought up to 50 ml volume, mixed and
allowed to settle overnight prior to analysis. From the digested sample, metals are analyzed by
ICPMS. The following elements are analyzed by this method: Al, Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Co,
Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Th, and Zn. In addition, acid volatile sulfides and simultaneously
extractable metals (AVS/SEM) were determined on sediment samples using the methods of
Leonard et al. (1996).
-------
Various organic chemicals in sediments were determined including semi volatile organic
compounds (SVOC), organophosphate pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB as congeners), and herbicides (Table 2.6). For SVOCs, sediment samples were
ground with anhydrous sodium sulfate and Soxhlet extracted with methylene chloride for 18 to
24 hours. The extracts were concentrated and the sulfur content reduced using high performance
GPC on porous styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer gel. The extracts were then concentrated and
fractionated on a semipreparative aminosilane HPLC using step gradients; this resulted in three
fractions containing broad compound classes ranging from aliphatic to polar. The fractionated
extracts were then analyzed by capillary gas chromatography / mass spectrometry.
Organic compounds were isolated for analysis by mixing sediment samples with a drying agent
and Soxhlet extraction. The extracts were subjected to gel permeation chromatography to remove
extraneous materials. The extracts were then concentrated to volume and analyzed by gas
chromatography. A flame photometric detector (FPD) operating in the phosphorous mode was
used to identify and quantitate organophosphates. A halogen specific detector (XSD) was used to
measure organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Portions of the extracts
were subjected to water/ methylene chloride partitioning to remove residual acid and water-
soluble interferences. The extracts are then methylated, concentrated to volume, and analyzed by
gas chromatography utilizing a halogen specific detector (XSD) to identify and quantitate
herbicides. The laboratory methods used to measure organic compounds were based on the
guidelines in SW846 (US EPA).
For Kepone analyses, dried sediment samples were extracted using Soxhlet apparatus. The
extracts were cleaned up with Florisil chromatography prior to gas chromatographic analysis.
This method is based on Moseman et al. (1997).
QA/QC data for all sediment contaminant analyses are provided in Appendix C.
2.1.7 Benthic Index of Biological Integrity
2.1.7.1 Sample Collection
Sediment samples for the benthic index of biological integrity (B-IBI) were collected on 1
August and 7 August, 2-3 weeks in advance of the sediment collections for chemical and
toxicological characterization. The sediment samples for B-IBI were collected with a Young
grab from the grid center for benthic community analysis. Bottom temperature, salinity, and
dissolved oxygen were measured at the time of sampling.
Benthic samples were transferred to a 0.5 mm sieve bucket. The bottom of the sieve bucket was
immersed in a 30-gallon trashcan filled with ambient water, and shaken and swirled to suspend
the larger material, allowing fine sands, silts and clays to pass through the sieve screen. The
residual material on the sieve screen was washed into labeled cloth bags. After sieving, any
organisms found on the sieve were removed with dissecting forceps and placed into the
appropriate cloth bag. Dilute isopropyl alcohol was added to relax the animals before fixation in
a 10% buffered ambient water-formalin solution (with 1% Rose Bengal stain).
-------
2.1.7.2 Laboratory Processing
Each sample bag was placed on a 0.5 mm screen and rinsed with fresh water to remove the
formalin. The bag was then emptied onto the sieve and rinsed to remove any remaining fine
material. The formalin-free residue was then emptied into a white enamel pan.
Sandy sediments were placed into white enamel pans and washed with a stream of water to
remove and concentrate small organisms from the sediment and captured on a 0.5 mm screen.
This process was continued for approximately five minutes, after which both elutriate and coarse
fractions were examined. Usually only large bivalves and gastropods remain in the coarse
fraction. For silty sediments, sediment washing was not required.
All macrobenthic specimens including broken parts were removed and placed into pre-labeled
vials containing 70% isopropyl alcohol. Binocular dissecting microscopes were used in this
sorting process.
2.1.7.3 Identification and Enumeration
All specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. Juvenile specimens are
often difficult to identify to the specific level because they have not developed all of the
characteristics used to identify adults. This was most often a problem with bivalves and
oligochaetes (for which reproductive organs are the primary specific characters). In tidal
freshwater areas, insect larvae (e.g. Chironomidae) are often poorly known and therefore
identification is to the generic level.
Parts of individuals are identified, when possible, which allowed inclusion in subsamples for
biomass analysis. Broken tail ends of annelids and dropped appendages of crustaceans can often
be identified as belonging to a dominant species. All species counts were recorded separately for
each sample.
2.1.7.4 Index of Biological Integrity Calculations
For each station, the Index of Biological Integrity (Weisberg et al. 1997) was calculated. To
characterize the section of the river as a whole, the mean and variance of the B-IBIs were
estimated and the confidence intervals for estimates of percent area exceeding the Benthic
Restoration Goals were derived from the binomial distribution using the formula of Hollander
and Wolfe (1973).
2.1.8 Characterization of Water and Sediment Quality
2.1.8.1 Water Characterization
The metals data were examined for exceedances of Water Quality Criteria. The toxicity data
were examined to determine whether there exist correlations between mortality, growth, or
reproductive endpoints and observed exceedances. It is recognized that such correlations do not
-------
reflect cause and effect relationships, and that further study targeted at identifying specific causes
of toxicity at stations that have been identified as impaired would be required.
Based on exceedances of water quality criteria and the occurrence of adverse effects at any
stations, a determination was made of the character of ambient water at stations within the
stratum of the river under study, namely the reach from Jamestown Island to the Benjamin
Harrison Bridge at Jordan Point just downstream of Hopewell, VA.
2.1.8.2 Sediment Triad Analysis
For the twelve stations at which chemical, lexicological, and benthic community
characterizations were done, each parameter was examined independently. Chemical results for
each analyte were compared to the ER-M if one existed (Long et al. 1998) and any exceedances
were noted. As a further estimate of potential biological effect based on chemical
characterization, the concentration for each analyte for which there exists an ER-M was divided
by the ER-M, and the mean ER-M-quotient (MERM-Q) was calculated (McGee et al. 1999).
The toxicological data were examined for values significantly different from the reference data
for each endpoint used for each species. The stations at which toxicity was determined by
lethality or sublethal endpoints were identified and compared to those stations identified as likely
to exhibit toxicity based on MERM.
Lastly, the B-IBI values were examined to identify those stations at which the benthic
community was degraded and these were compared to the MERM and toxicity data. Concurrence
of these three measures is circumstantial evidence of a toxicity related effect, but neither
identifies a particular toxicant responsible for the response nor rules out the possibility that the
effects result from stressors other than toxic substances.
2.2 Evaluation of Salinity Adjustment for Sediment Toxicity Tests
2.2.1 Design
The purpose of this portion of the study was to examine the effects of salinity adjustment on the
toxicity of metals-contaminated sediments. To examine the effect of salinity adjustment on
metals-contaminated sediment, a saline-tolerant freshwater species and a reduced-salinity
tolerant estuarine species were used as test organisms. Differences in toxicity observed by
exposing these two species to salinity-adjusted sediments with known contaminants reflect
effects of salinity on bioavailability of metals in the sediments independent of osmotic/ionic
stress on the test organisms.
The estuarine species used was Leptocheirusplumulosus and the freshwater species was Hyalella
azteca. L. plumulosus inhabits oligohaline, mesohaline and polyhaline portions of Chesapeake
Bay (Feeley and Wass, 1971; Jordan and Sutton, 1984). Laboratory tests with L. plumulosus
have demonstrated no significant differences in survival following 10-d static exposures to
salinities ranging from 1.5 to 32 g/kg (Schlekat et al. 1992). In addition, L. plumulosus tolerates
a wide variety of sediments from >90% silt-clay to >95% sand-gravel (Pinkney et al. 1991;
-------
Schlekat et al. 1992). Similarly, the freshwater test organism selected, Hyalella azteca, is
relatively tolerant of brackish water and a wide range of grain sizes; H. azteca has been used
successfully at salinities as high as 15 g/kg (Nebeker and Miller, 1988; U.S. EPA, 2000). Details
of the animal procedures are provided in Table 7a-b.
Two sediments were used to characterize the effects of salinity adjustment over the range of
sediment types frequently encountered in ambient testing: sandy sediment low in total organic
carbon (TOC) and relatively fine sediment high in TOC. To insure that toxic effects were
registered, and to better understand potential mechanisms, natural sediments known to be non-
toxic were spiked in the laboratory with a mixture of metals. Two concentrations with equitoxic
unit proportions of nickel, cadmium, zinc, copper and selenium were added to the sediments one
week prior to salinity adjustment and the start of 10-d toxicity tests. Equivalent toxic units (TU =
metal concentration/LC50) were determined based on data available in the literature for H.
azteca. Although lead was initially chosen to be one of the five metals, it was excluded because
of the high LC50 for this metal (i.e. > 5400 ug/1; Schubauer-Berigan et al., 1993) and selenium
was used instead. Toxic units were benchmarked against H. azteca rather than L. plumulosus
because of the greater amount of toxicity data available. Since reference toxicant tests with
cadmium indicate similar sensitivities for the two amphipods (Schlekat et al. 1992), the chosen
benchmark is reasonable. The basic experimental design is described in Table 2.8.
Because sediment characteristics such as particle size, TOC, sulfides, etc. may greatly affect
metal toxicity, it is not possible to predict with certainty, based on literature information, spiking
levels that will elicit an appropriate response. Ideally "partial kills" (e.g. 20 to 80% mortality) are
desired to better measure degree of response, especially in factorial designs where adding test
concentrations results in geometric increases in the number of treatments to be tested.
Preliminary studies were therefore conducted to establish suitable spiking levels and salinity
adjustment procedures.
2.2.2 Sediment Collection, Characterization and Storage
Sediments for the salinity adjustment study were collected immediately after samples for
ambient sediment toxicity tests (26 and 27 October 2000). Sediments from 2-JMS065.81 and 2-
JMS040.03 were selected to provide a high organic carbon, fine grain sediment and a low
organic carbon, sandy sediment respectively. Sediment grain size and total organic carbon
content were confirmed by analysis of aliquots from homogenized sediment prior to testing.
Separate freshwater and estuarine laboratory control sediments were used for H. azteca and L.
plumulosus respectively. These sediments were not part of the experimental design per se (i.e.
un-spiked sediments from the two stations served as the experimental controls) but were
incorporated to evaluate the health of the test organisms. Both sediments have been used in
previous studies and are known to support survival and growth of the test species; the estuarine
sediment is also routinely used for laboratory culture of L. plumulosus. Freshwater laboratory
control sediment was collected from the freshwater/non-tidal portion of an unnamed tributary of
the Severn River-Chesapeake Bay (off Featherbed Lane (Rt. 614), 0.25 mile east of U.S. Rt. 17,
White Marsh, VA, 37°20'36.7"N, 76°29'38.8"W). Estuarine laboratory control sediment was
-------
collected from Oldhouse Creek (37°21'23.9"N, 76°26'52.1"), a tributary of Ware River-
Chesapeake Bay.
Sediments were stored in the dark at 2-4° C. Prior to use, all sediments were homogenized,
picked free of large debris (e.g. sticks and shell) and pressed through a 500 |j,m mesh sieve to
remove indigenous Cyathurapolita (observed in other samples from these stations) and other
potential predators of amphipods. Because of anticipated changes during storage and
spiking/salinity adjustments, pore water pH, salinity and ammonia nitrogen were measured on
the day of test initiation; percent total solids was measured immediately prior to spiking to
determine the volume of stock solution to add to achieve the desired TU metals in the pore water.
2.2.3 Methods Development
2.2.3.1 Sediment Spiking - Preliminary Tests
The objective of preliminary range-finding tests was to determine two test concentrations for use
in the definitive study: one that would provide low mortality (e.g. 30%) to gauge increased
bioavailability resulting from salinity adjustment and one that would produce high mortality (e.g.
80%) to gauge decreased bioavailability. Sediment from 2-JMS065.81 was used for preliminary
tests. The TOC and grain-size characteristics of this sediment were predicted to result in less
bioavailability of metals compared to station 2-JMS040.03 sediment. Preliminary range-finding
toxicity tests were performed using reduced replication, animal number and sediment/water
volume to conserve resources. However, all factors were scaled down proportionately so that
sediment:water volumes and surface areas, animal loading and feeding would be similar to that
of the definitive test method
Toxicity data were selected from the literature to determine equivalent toxic units. Data for
water-only exposures of//, azteca were examined and selected on the basis of exposure
conditions comparable to that of sediment pore water conditions (i.e. for sediment 2-JMS065.81
hardness 396 mg/1 as CaCCb, pH 7.1). Based on the data obtained from the literature (Table 2.9),
a 1000 TU mixture of the five metals (i.e. 200 TU of each metal) was prepared using ASTM
Type I deionized water and ACS reagent grade salts of the metals. Metal salts used were ZnCb,
Na2SeC>3, Na2SeC>4, CuSO/j, CdCk and NiCk'6H2O. Selenate and selenite were added on an
equimolar basis, the presumed basis of the mixture used by Halter and coworkers (1980). The
stock was acidified to pH ~2 with trace-metal grade HNCb to minimize losses due to sorption or
precipitation.
Sediments were spiked using volumes from 138 jil to 11.98 ml stock per 200 ml of sediment to
yield doses 1, 10, 20, 40 and 80 TU. These stock additions resulted in corresponding increases in
pore water volume of 0.1% to 8.7%. Sediments were stirred daily with a plastic spoon and stored
in the dark at 2-4° C until used in tests.
The preliminary toxicity test was started a week after sediment spiking using two replicates per
concentration each consisting of 100 ml of sediment, 400 ml of water and 10 amphipods.
Dissolved oxygen and pH range were recorded at the beginning and end of the test. Each day
chambers were checked for emergent and dead amphipods and fed (YCT, 375 jil/beaker). Tests
-------
were ended on day 10 by wet sieving sediments (410 jim mesh) and counting the number of live
amphipods.
Based on the results of the first preliminary experiment, which exhibited only 25% mortality at
even the highest dose (Table 2.10), a second range-finding test was applied to better identify
appropriate doses. A new stock solution consisting of 4000 TU (i.e. 800 TU/metal) was prepared
to spike sediments at higher concentrations without increasing pore water amounts. Sediments
were spiked to provide test concentrations of 40, 80, 160 and 320 TU. Stock additions ranged
from 695 jil to 6 ml per 100 ml of sediment resulting in pore water volume increases of 1.0% to
8.7%. Toxicity tests were started using two replicates of 50 ml sediment, 200 ml water and 7
amphipods in 300 ml tall-form beakers. Each day test chambers were checked for dead
amphipods and fed at a rate of 250 jil YC^eaker/d.
Data from the second range-finding test (Table 2.10) were used to determine doses for the
definitive toxicity tests. Proportion mortality was regressed on logic TU to provide the predictive
equation:
Y =-1.9916 + 1.12342X r2 = 0.844
where Y is proportion dead
X is logic TU
Data for 40 TU, which were essentially identical to those for 80 TU, were not used in the
regression to provide the best linear fit of the data in the region of response. Solving for Y = 0.8
(80% mortality) and 0.3 (30% mortality) yields doses of 305 TU and 110 TU respectively.
2.2.3.2 Sediment Spiking - Definitive Tests
Based on pore water compositions of 64.8% for sediment 2-JMS065.81) and 55.1% for sediment
2-JMS040.03, sediments were spiked with 4000 TU stock solution or deionized water (controls)
as described in Table 2.10. Stock solution metals concentrations were confirmed (by Universal
Laboratories, Hampton, VA) by flame or (for Se) graphite furnace atomic absorption
spectrometry. These doses for both sediments resulted in a 2.8% increase in pore water volume
for the low dose and an 8.3% increase in pore water volume for the high dose and control.
Sediments were spiked using calibrated 10 ml and 1 ml adjustable pipets. After spiking,
sediments were stored in the dark at 2-4°C and stirred daily with a nylon spatula. Sediment-metal
mixtures were allowed to equilibrate for one week before adjusting salinity and using in toxicity
tests.
2.2.3.3 Salinity Adjustment - Preliminary Tests
Salinity adjustment procedures were evaluated to accomplish two objectives. First, sediment
collected from station 2-JMS040.03 was found to have a pore water salinity of 5-6 g/kg. This
pore water salinity needed to be adjusted to < 0.5 g/kg prior to spiking with metals. Second, a
method providing consistent, predictable adjustment of pore water salinity, with minimal
-------
addition of water to sediments, was needed for the experiment examining the effect of salinity
adjustment on toxicity.
Lowering of pore water salinity for station 2-JMS040.03 sediment was accomplished by placing
2 liter of sediment in an 1 1 -liter plastic bin (26 cm x 40 cm) and carefully overlaying 8 liter of
moderately-hard standard synthetic freshwater. In a preliminary test the water was renewed after
7 d when the conductivity of the overlying water reached 1709 |j,S/cm (initial conductivity was
288 |j,S/cm); after another 10 d the overlying water (conductivity 885 |j,S/cm) was decanted off,
the sediment was homogenized and the pore water salinity measured. Because the pore water
salinity (1 g/kg) was still above the target value of < 0.5 g/kg this method was modified slightly
to adjust sediment salinity prior to use in the definitive tests. Sediment was placed in several bins
with overlying synthetic freshwater as in the preliminary test but water changes were performed
more frequently to maximize the osmotic gradient between the overlying water and sediment
pore water. Three water changes over a 14-d period resulted in final conductivity values of 379-
454 |j,S/cm in the overlying water and 860 |j,S/cm (i.e. < 0.5 g/kg salinity) in pore water from the
homogenized composite sediment in the bins. As a result of this adjustment the pore water
salinities of the two sediments prior to spiking with metals were similar (860 |j,S/cm for 2-
JMS040.03 and 780 nS/cm for 2-JMS065.81).
A preliminary test of the method used to adjust pore water salinity upward for metal-spiked
sediments consisted of adding brine to a volume of sediment, mixing, placing in a beaker with
overlying water of corresponding salinity and measuring pore water and overlying water salinity
the following day. Brine solutions were prepared using hw Marinemix sea salts (Hawaiian
Marine Imports, Houston, TX) and ASTM Type I deionized water. Two brine solutions were
prepared so that the same volume would be added for each desired salinity: a 100-g/kg solution
for adjustment to 8 g/kg and 200 g/kg for adjustment to 15 g/kg. Because the 200-g/kg brine
exceeded the solubility of the sea salts, a slurry was prepared by applying a conversion factor to
account for hydration of the sea salts. The conversion factor (0.85) was obtained from the
measured volume of water and mass of salts necessary to prepare the 100-g/kg brine. The 200
g/kg slurry was thus prepared by adding 235 g/1 salt and was kept in suspension during use by a
magnetic stir bar and stirrer. Aliquots of sediment from station 2-JMS040.03 (adjusted to < 0.5
g/kg salinity; see above) received 10.5 ml of brine/200 ml of sediment. Both pore water and
overlying water salinity were found to be at target values after 24 h of equilibration, indicating
the procedure was successful.
2.2.3.4 Salinity Adjustment - Definitive Tests
Salinity adjustment for definitive toxicity tests was performed by adding 52.4 ml of deionized
water, 100 g/kg brine or 200 g/kg brine per liter of sediment for station 2-JMS065.81 and 44.7
ml of deionized water or brine per liter of sediment for 2-JMS040.03. These additions resulted in
an 8.1% increase in pore water for all treatments. All sediments had been spiked with metals or
deionized water a week earlier. Prior to both spiking and brine addition, sediment from station 2-
JMS040.03 was adjusted to a pore water salinity of <0.5 g/kg (i.e. 860 |j,S/cm) as described
above. After addition of brine or deionized water, samples were stirred with a nylon spatula prior
to addition of sediments to test chambers.
-------
2.2.4 Definitive Toxicity Tests
The metal spiking regime is outlined in Table 2.11. Sediment and water were added to exposure
chambers on day -1. All tests were started by the addition of 20 randomly selected test organisms
to each exposure chamber on day 0.
Juvenile amphipods were collected using stacked stainless steel sieves to obtain animals in the 3-
5 mm length range (L. plumulosus) or 2-3 mm length range (H. aztecd). Amphipods were fed
maple leaves, rabbit pellets and YCT ad libitum (H. azteca) or Tetramin slurry (L. plumulosus)
during the holding period preceding the tests. Amphipods were divided into two (L. plumulosus)
or three (H. azteca) groups 3 d prior to the tests and acclimated to test salinities in a step-wise
fashion. The maximum change in salinity was 3-4 g/kg per 12 h period and test organisms were
held at the test salinity for at least 24 h prior to the tests. Initial salinity changes were performed
in the culture facility (Chesapeake Cultures, Inc., Hayes, VA). No significant mortality was
observed in cultures during the period of salinity acclimation prior to testing.
Amphipod tests were conducted as static tests. Amphipods were impartially distributed to
portion cups containing ca. 20 ml of dilution water until each cup contained twenty animals. To
initiate the test, the contents of one randomly chosen cup was poured into each test chamber
containing approximately 200 ml of sediment and 750 ml of water. Initial amphipod weights
were obtained for three groups of twenty animals each selected from the beginning, middle and
end of the portion cup array. Aeration was provided to each chamber throughout the test at a rate
of about 100 bubbles/min using Pasteur pipets with tips positioned at approximately mid-depth
in the water column. Amphipods were fed 0.75 ml YCT/chamber/d. Each day the number of
emergent or dead amphipods on the sediment surface was noted. The test was terminated by wet
sieving the entire contents of each chamber using a 410-|im mesh sieve. Live amphipods were
counted and transferred to plastic portion cups containing a small amount of dilution water.
Animals were sacrificed by the addition of several drops of 6 N HC1 to each cup and were
immediately transferred to pre-weighed aluminum foil pans (6-8 mg). After drying for 24 h at
100°C, dry weights were measured to the nearest 0.01 mg.
Laboratory control water consisted of moderately hard synthetic freshwater prepared using ACS
reagent-grade chemicals and ASTM Type I deionized water or artificial seawater prepared with
hw Marinemix sea salts (Hawaiian Marine Imports, Houston, TX) and ASTM Type I deionized
water. For saline test treatments, water column pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen and temperature
were measured daily and ammonia-nitrogen was measured at the beginning and end of the test.
pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature were measured daily for non-saline
treatments; hardness, alkalinity and ammonia-nitrogen were measured at the beginning and end
of the test.
Dissolved oxygen was measured using a YSI Model 5 IB meter (Yellow Springs Instrument Co.,
Yellow Springs, OH) calibrated against air. pH was measured using a CP DigiSense pH meter
(Cole Farmer, Chicago, IL) calibrated with NIST-traceable pH 7.00 and 10.00 buffers. Salinity
measurements were performed using an AquaFauna Model ABMTC temperature compensated
refractometer (AquaFauna BioMarine, Hawthorne, CA) calibrated with deionized water.
Conductivity was measured with a Horiba Model ES-12 conductivity meter with a platinum
-------
electrode (Horiba, Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) calibrated with NIST-traceable conductivity standards.
Hardness and alkalinity were measured by EDTA and H2SO4 titration respectively. Ammonia
nitrogen was measured using a Fisher Accumet ion-selective electrode (Fisher Scientific,
Suwannee, GA) and a Beckman Model 390 pH/ISE meter (Beckman Coulter, Inc., Fullerton,
CA).
Sediment samples for SEM/AVS analysis were collected at the same time sediments were added
to test chambers. Two 30-ml aliquots of homogenized sediment were placed into plastic
scintillation vials and stored at 4°C until delivery to DEQ/Richmond. Samples were placed in the
vials and gently tapped to remove all bubbles, topped off and capped to minimize headspace
during storage. The Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services (Richmond, VA) performed
the SEM/AVS analyses.
2.2.5 Data Analysis
Test data were analyzed using the Minitab (1995; version lOXtra) statistical software package.
Endpoints were total proportion surviving (number survivors/number exposed in replicate), dry
weight (pooled replicate dry weight/number survivors in replicate) and total number observed
emergent animals (a measure of sediment avoidance). Proportionate data (e.g. survival) were
transformed as the arcsine of the square root of the proportion to attain a more normal
distribution. Amphipod growth or emergence data, which did not exhibit a normal distribution in
the untransformed state, were transformed using the base 10 logarithm or square root
transformation respectively.
Data were tested for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Ryan-Joiner (similar to
Shapiro-Wilk) and Levene's tests (p = 0.01), respectively, prior to hypothesis testing to
determine if the assumptions of the test method were met. Levene's test was used because it is
more robust than Bartlett's test in the case of small sample sizes. Differences between 0 TU test
sediments ("blanks" in printouts) and laboratory control sediments were tested using
ANOVA/Dunnett's test or, in the case of non-parametric data, tested using the Kruskal-Wallis
rank test (p = 0.05). Interactive effects of sediment and salinity were examined using a balanced
3-way ANOVA. In the case of weight data for L plumulosus, where empty cells (due to 100%
mortality) precluded use of a balanced ANOVA, a regression-based approach, using the
ANOVA general linear model, was used to examine interactive effects.
2.2.6 Quality Control
A reference toxicant test was conducted concurrently with each sediment toxicity test using the
same lot of organisms. Potassium chloride (Sigma "Ultra" grade, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis,
MO) was used as the reference toxicant. Tests were static water-only exposures and 96 h in
duration. LC50 values of the concurrent reference toxicant tests were compared with the mean
value and 95% confidence limits of reference toxicant tests conducted previously in this lab
using the same species and exposure duration.
-------
2.3 in situ Test Methods
2.3.1 Site Selection and Description of Upland Areas
2.3.1.1 Richmond Reach
The James River below Richmond in the 8 miles between the most upstream and downstream
study sites is a narrow, relatively deep river passing between beautiful wooded banks. Just
upland from the shoreline, there is intense industrial activity involving petroleum transfer and
storage, sand and gravel transport, a commercial seaport, rail yards, and major chemical
manufacturing sites. A more obvious indication of intense human activity in the region is the
amount of garbage floating down the river. The contrast between the peacefulness of the wooded
banks, the floating debris, the occasional glimpse of tall buildings and construction cranes, and
the odors (tobacco, sewage, etc.) in some areas is dramatic.
Four creeks located in this reach ranging from just below the city locks to a point about 8 miles
downstream were selected for study. These creeks differ greatly in length and type of land use in
the watershed. Gillie Creek was selected because it receives combined stormwater runoff.
Almond and Falling Creeks were selected because they drain industrial or residential/commercial
areas of the city. Cornelius Creek was selected as a reference site. It passes through mixed
wooded and agricultural lands with few residences and no known industry. Tests at these stations
occurred between 13 and 27 September.
2.3.1.1.1 Gillie Creek
Gillie Creek arises ENE of southern East Richmond from a pond near Oakleys Center Industrial
Park in Henrico County. It flows WSW roughly parallel to I 64 through residential areas until it
passes under 164 as the highway turns NW. From 164 to Government Road (US60) within the
city, the creek passes through an undeveloped area. Just before entering the city limits, Stony
Run joins the creek from the north. Stony Run is about 23 miles long, arising from a small pond
and passing through low-density residential and undeveloped land. Gillie Creek is channelized
after it passes under Stony Run Road. From this point to the mouth there is little water in Gillie
Creek except during and after significant rain events.
Within the city, the channelized creek passes between low density residential and wooded or
park lands, where it receives combined stormwater sewage inflows from urban areas before
crossing the highly industrialized (though rundown) area extending about 3 mile inland from the
shore of the James. In that last quarter mile, the creek passes under the railroad line to
Williamsburg - Newport News near a major freight yard. As it enters the James River on the
north shore, and within sight of the canal locks, it passes under Route 5, a spur rail line, and
between the abandoned city pier and warehouse and an active Lehigh Cement facility. The total
creek length is slightly over 5 miles.
At its mouth, water flows over remnants of cofferdams. The experiment was deployed in about
0.45 m (1.5 ft) of water (MLW) just in front of the mouth of the creek (Table 2.12, Fig 2.2).
Tidal amplitude at this point is about 1.2m (4 ft). The river bottom was loose gravel and sand.
-------
Fragments of Apotomogeton sp. and Vallisneria sp. were frequently observed, but there were no
major submerged aquatic plant beds visible near the study site. The station, though located as
close to the creek mouth as possible, was strongly influenced by the main river flow.
2.3.1.1.2 Almond Creek
Almond Creek enters the James about 1 mile downstream of Gillie Creek on the north shore.
Arising near Darbytown Readjust south of the railroad, it flows WNW in a wooded ravine that
parallels the railroad to New Osborne Turnpike. It turns west to Old Osborne Turnpike (Route
5). As it passes under Route 5, there is industrial activity on the north bank. The creek then turns
SW to the James. The south shore appears to be well wooded from Route 5 to the James.
The mouth of the creek is today quite shallow and sanded in. However, a tug boat captain, who
pushes sand and gravel barges in this reach of the river, reported that he formerly pushed one
barge a week to a manufacturing site about 3 mile upstream in Almond Creek. It was not clear
how long ago that was, but it does indicate that the creek shoreline has long been industrialized.
Changing patterns of transportation have made use of the creek for commercial transport
obsolete, and the creek channel has shoaled. At its mouth, there is a sand and gravel terminal to
the north and a wooded shoreline to the south. The creek receives drainage from the rail yard to
the north along much of its 22 mile length.
The Almond Creek study site was located in about 0.39 m (1.3 ft) of water (MLW) just off the
mouth of the creek (Table 2.12, Figure 2.2). A short stone jetty juts from the shore on the south
side of the creek mouth. Barges were often grounded immediately to the north of the creek
mouth throughout the study period. The jetty and barges in some sense extended the creek
mouth, but the station was still strongly influenced by the main river flow.
2.3.1.3 Falling Creek
Falling Creek enters the James on the south bank about 5 miles downstream of Almond Creek.
The intervening wooded banks of the river are interspersed with sand and gravel operations and
petroleum transfer sites, the Port of Richmond wharf, and Spruance Dupont Industrial Park.
Falling Creek is dammed in its upper reaches to form Falling Creek Reservoir that is located on
the boundary between South Richmond and Chesterfield County. The creek meanders
approximately 22 miles SW to Chippenham Parkway and another a mile to just west of
US1/301 where it turns east and continues about another mile before entering the James about C
mile east of 195. Over much of its length, the creek passes through low to moderate density
residential land. The Chesterfield County Falling Creek WWTP discharges into Falling Creek
about 3 miles upstream of the mouth. A new bridge spanning the James River for Rte 1895 is
under construction about 2 miles upstream. One interconnection with Rte 195 will cross Falling
Creek immediately adjacent to the Rte 195 Bridge. On the south bank of the creek at its mouth is
a derelict vessel adjacent to a small barging operation. The land on the north bank is wooded
with a small park just upstream. A derelict wooden barge is recognizable only from a few
remaining wooden timbers.
-------
The Falling Creek study site was located on the north bank across from the derelict ship and
adjacent to the derelict wooden barge (Table 2.12, Figure 2.2). The site was about 0.45 m (12
ft) deep at low tide, and slightly overhung by trees. This was the only station in the Richmond
reach actually located within the creek mouth.
2.3.1.4 Cornelius Creek
Cornelius Creek enters the James on the north bank about 12 miles downstream of Falling
Creek. As one progresses downstream from Falling Creek, the banks gradually change to
wooded backed by corn/soybean/wheat fields rather than industrial/commercial land uses.
The creek arises about 4 : miles north of the James, passes south under New Market Road
(Route 5) and then parallels Route 5 to the new Rte 1895 (under construction), then parallels the
new highway to Eaves Lake where it turns directly south to the James, joining with Coles Run
along the way. The area has little residential development and is wooded agricultural in use,
although residential development is beginning.
The mouth of the creek is extremely shallow and partially blocked by large fallen tree trunks.
The study site was therefore located slightly more channel-ward than desired in about 0.38 m
(13 ft) of water (MLW) adjacent to large fallen trees (Table 2.12, Figure 2.2).
2.3.1.2 Hopewell Reach
Hopewell, VA is located at the confluence of the Appomatox and James Rivers, which form two
boundaries of the city. Four creeks were selected in this area, three draining the city (Bailey
Creek, Gravelly Run, and Cabin Creek), and one draining a portion of Shirley Plantation on the
north shore of the river across from the southern edge of Hopewell (Eppes Creek). The city
waterfront facing the James River is highly industrialized with chemical manufacturers, a paper
mill, and a fuel tank field. The shoreline is extensively hardened from north of Gravelly Run to
Poithress Creek near City Point. Several piers allow large ships to moor. In contrast, the city
waterfront facing the Appomatox is wooded with large residential homes on the bluff. Two
marinas are located along this shore. A railroad bridge crosses the Appomatox east of the
western city limit. These creeks were occupied during the periods 3 through 31 October 2000,
and 2 through 16 May 2001.
2.3.1.2.1 Bailey Creek
Bailey Creek forms the southern city border with Prince George County. Though seemingly
undisturbed with wooded bog on both shores, major chemical industries are located only yards
from the creek on the city side. On the opposite shore, the upland is wooded and agricultural
with minimal residential development. Arising on the Ft Lee Army Base, the creek meanders
through largely wooded shores to the James, passing under a series of roads, some urbanized on
the Hopewell side.
This creek is guarded by a sand bar off the mouth, but deepens upstream toward the Route 10
Bridge. The bridge crosses the creek about 0.8 miles from its confluence with the James River.
For the next 2 miles upstream, the creek passes through a wooded bog with numerous tree falls.
-------
About 2.5 miles upstream at the confluence with Cattail Creek, Bailey Creek is still 20-30 ft
wide and 4-6 ft deep at high tide. Cattail Creek originates in a commercial/industrial district of
Hopewell. It receives street and parking lot runoff before passing adjacent to the Hercules
property near its confluence with Bailey Creek. On the Hercules property, there are industrial
lagoons that one might expect to discharge from time to time into Cattail Creek or the smaller
Bear Creek about /^ mile downstream.
The station in Bailey Creek was established about 0.9 miles from the creek mouth (about 500
yards upstream from the Rte 10 Bridge) on the south shore (Table 2.12, Fig. 2.3). Water depth at
this site is estimated to be 0.2 m (0.6 ft) at MLW. This site could only be accessed readily at
times near high tide because of the shallow creek entrance. This site is well within the creek
proper, but elevated temperature at this station indicates some influence from Gravelly Run that
serves as the discharge canal for a heated effluent from the Hopewell Plastics plant. The site was
occupied for 28 days in Fall 2000 and 14 days in Spring 2001.
2.3.1.2.2 Gravelly Run /Bear Creek
Gravelly Run is a small creek draining the eastern industrialized portion of the city of Hopewell.
At its headwaters it receives cooling water from the Hopewell Plastics Plant. The creek passes
eastward parallel to Rte 10 adjacent to the Honeywell and Stone Container properties. On the
northern shore at the mouth, Stone Container has a large retention pond. On the southern shore
just upstream from the mouth, the Hopewell Regional Water Treatment Plant discharges into the
creek. Wooded along much of its length, the creek mouth is choked with fallen trees.
The Gravelly Run station was established at the confluence with the James River in a location
subject to wave action when the wind was from the northeast (Table 2.12, Fig. 2.3). Unseen
when first deployed, the station was within a tangle of tree falls that made access to the station
difficult. For reasons discussed in the results section, this station was abandoned after 14 days
deployment in Fall 2000 and replaced by a station at the mouth of Bear Creek.
During the second half of the deployment period for the Fall 2000 study, a station was
established in the mouth of Bear Creek as a replacement for the station at the mouth of Gravelly
Run. Bear Creek is located about 1 mile upstream from the Bailey Creek station (about 2 miles
upstream of the Bailey Creek mouth (Table 2.12, Fig 2.3). The intent was to set the station in the
mouth of Cattail Creek, but we lacked an adequate map and geographic coordinates at the time
of station placement.
The station was located about 75 ft upstream in one of the deltaic exits into Bailey Creek in
about 0.9 m (3 ft) of water (when occupied). The tidal amplitude at the James River tide stations
located at Jordan Point and at City Point is about 3-4 ft suggesting that the gear might be
grounded on low tide. However, there was no evidence of the deployed equipment contacting the
substrate in the creek. Presumably, the tidal amplitude in Bailey and Bear Creeks is substantially
reduced as compared to the tide stations. The station was occupied for the second 14-day period
in Fall 2000 and 14 days in Spring 2001.
-------
2.3.1.2.3 Cabin Creek
Cabin Creek drains the residential area on the west side of the city. Bordered along much of its
length by wooded areas and a wooded and grassy park, it passes under several major and minor
thoroughfares before dipping to the Appomatox shore, passing through a swampy area adjacent
to a CSX railroad line. Just east of the creek mouth, the railroad crosses the Appomatox.
The Cabin Creek station was established about 1000 ft upstream of the creek mouth (Table 2.12,
Figure 2.3). On the north shore there is a large residence on a well-wooded lot, the only
residence between the railroad line and the creek. Water depth at the fall 2000 study site was
0.33m (1.1 ft) at MLW; the depth at the spring 2001 study site was 0.45m (1.5 ft). The site is
within a freshwater marsh between steep wooded banks on both sides. The site was occupied for
28 days in Fall 2000 and 14 days in Spring 2001.
2.3.1.2.4 Eppes Creek
This creek forms one side of so-called Eppes Island (though the land is not fully surrounded by
water). The shoreline on both sides is densely wooded, with upland developed for agriculture to
the north. The creek enters the James along the northern shore just west of the Benjamin
Harrison Bridge. Large residences have been developed along the nearby James River shore in
the last decade or so. As a result, many trees have been removed, and grass extends to the edge
of the bluff.
The Eppes Creek station was established about 0.25 miles upstream of the creek mouth along the
southern shore (Table 2.12, Figure 2.3). The water depth at the fall 2000 study site was 0.8 m
(2.7 ft) at MLW; the depth at the spring 2001 study site was 0.48m (1.6 ft). The site is well
removed from the residences at the mouth of the creek. The site was occupied for 28 days in Fall
2000 and 14 days in Spring 2001.
2.3.2 Equipment and Procedures
The Richmond stations were occupied for two weeks from 13-27 September 2000. The stations
were visited every other day throughout the period. The Hopewell stations were occupied for
four weeks from 3-31 October 2000, and again for two weeks from 2-16 May 2001. In both these
deployments, the stations were visited every other day.
At each location, two bamboo canes were pushed into the substrate about 10-15 ft apart (In the
spring deployment, 1 inch PVC pipe was used instead of bamboo canes). The position of each
study site was determined with a hand-held GPS (Garmin Model 48). The latitude and longitude
were measured on the day of deployment and confirmed on the next visit. A PVC ring float, 21
by 11 inches ID, was moored between the canes with nylon rope and allowed to float up and
down with the tide. The test chamber holders consisted of two pieces of 2 by 4 notched to
partially wrap each of four replicate chambers, and hinged on one end. On the other end, a hasp
was attached with a quick snap to secure the holder. A wooden test chamber holder hung about
-------
12 inches below the ring float. Each test chamber held 20 test animals, Hyalella azteca. On one
pole, a garden type rain gauge was attached to allow measurement of the amount of rain falling
over consecutive 48-hour periods.
The exposure chambers were made of 2 Va inch PVC pipe with a 200 jim mesh screen
permanently solvent welded to one end and a similar screen temporarily held on the other end
with a PVC ring cut from PVC couplers. The volume of each chamber was about 300 ml,
comparable to the water volume often used in laboratory tests with the test species. Neonates of
Hyalella were shown in preliminary tests to be fully retained by this mesh, and no immigration
of amphipods into the chambers observed.
Amphipods for the tests were produced in laboratory cultures at VIMS similar to those used to
produce the test animals for the ambient toxicity tests at CBI. One or more cultures were passed
through a screen series. Those animals passing all screens (neonates) were returned to the
cultures. Animals used to initiate in situ tests were retained on a 500-jim mesh but passed
through a 1000 jim mesh screen. In the laboratory, sixteen groups of 20 juveniles were counted
out randomly into specimen cups, held overnight, and transported in coolers to the study sites. At
the study site, the amphipods in a specimen cup were rinsed into each test chamber. Four
chambers were placed in a holder and the holder attached to the ring float. Thus a total of 80
amphipods were placed at each station. Four additional groups of 20 amphipods each were set
aside to make initial weight measurements as an estimate of initial amphipod size at the time of
deployment.
Four sets of 20 replacement animals were taken on each trip along with replacement chambers
and a spare holder so that if a chamber was damaged or lost, it could be immediately replaced.
Only one spare set of twenty animals was used during the Richmond study. In that case, the
screen mesh of one chamber was torn, allowing the animals to escape. Another set was used
during the spring 2001 set in the Hopewell study for the same reason.
Animals were never deployed for more than 14 days. In the 28-day fall study at Hopewell, a
complete new set of amphipods was placed in the chambers after 14 days, and the survivors were
returned to the laboratory for measurement of final weight.
2.3.3 Data Collection
2.3.3.1 Biological
Every other day, the test chambers were removed from the holder and placed in a shallow pan of
water from the study site. Each chamber was rinsed clean of silt and debris. Indigenous
amphipods were rinsed from the outside of the chambers and discarded. Once cleaned, each
chamber was opened and the study amphipods rinsed into a 4-inch finger bowl. The amphipods
were then counted as they were pipetted back into the exposure chamber. The number of
survivors was noted on the field log sheets along with the numbers observed dead or missing and
the number of neonates if any. Few dead were ever observed, presumably because any animal
that died decayed too rapidly to be observed during the visits.
-------
As noted above, those animals surviving a two-week deployment were counted into plastic
specimen cups and returned to the laboratory for weight measurement. In the laboratory, the
amphipods were counted into tared aluminum weigh pans, dried at 102°C for 48 hr, cooled, and
weighed on a semi-analytical balance. The mean weight per amphipod was calculated from the
number of amphipods per sample and total weight.
2.3.3.2 Water quality
During each visit, the water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and pH
were measured. Temperature was measured with a stem thermometer. Conductivity was
measured with an YSI Model 51 environmental meter. An YSI Model 57 was used to measure
dissolved oxygen. pH was measured during the first few visits to the Richmond sites using an
Orion Model 290A pH meter. That meter failed on the fourth visit, preventing further pH
measurements during this deployment. Attempts to borrow a field meter were unsuccessful
because of the field schedules of others. A new Model IQ150 (I.Q. Scientific Instruments, Inc.)
pH meter was used at the start of the fall 2000 Hopewell deployment and thereafter.
2.3.3.3 Rainfall
When each station was visited, the amount of water in the rain gauge was recorded to the nearest
0.1 cm. These measurements provide point estimates of the amount of rain falling at each station
in each 48-hour period, but do not provide an estimate of the rainfall in the headwaters of each
creek.
The rainfall recorded at the Richmond International Airport was obtained for Fall 2000 as an
indication of the rainfall in the region. Additional data from Hopewell, VA weather station was
obtained for Fall 2000 and Spring 2001. These data do not, however, provide an accurate picture
of rainfall in each creek watershed as witnessed by the differences in rainfall amount at each
study site.
-------
Table 2.1. Station locations for water and sediment sampling for ambient toxicity tests.
Station
Study Designation
DEQ Richmond
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS044.08
2-JMS046.73
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS073.63
2-JMS074.25
EPA CBP
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS074.29
Latitude
37°21'37.3"
37°13'17.9"
37°13'38.1"
37°13'11.2"
37°14'31.1"
37°16'41.3"
37°18'35.5"
37°18'29.1"
37°18'27.2"
37°18'02.6"
37°19'23.3"
37°19'11.1"
37°11'01.3"
37°12'09.7"
37°13'02.6"
37°13'33.1"
37°18'07.0"
37°18'01.4"
37°18'28.0"
37°19'00.0"
Longitude
76°54'6.8"
76°48'34.4"
76°51'22.6"
76°55'26.4"
76°56'59.3"
76°59'08.6"
77°04'44.5"
77°06'23.8"
77°07'25.6"
77°07'20.8"
77°12'30.5"
77°13'15.4"
76°45'15.6"
76°47'31.2"
76°51'55.3"
76°52'28.0"
77°04'55.0"
77°07'23.9"
77°11'02.2"
77°13'18.0"
Major Landmarks
Between Big Marsh Point &
Old Neck on north shore
Buoy R60 east of EPA CBP
Station 47. 81
South of Barrets Point
East of Buoy G69
Sandy Point Wharf
Trees Point
South of Queens Creek along
row of stakes
East of Buoy G89
Southeast of Buckets Point
(West of Windmill Point)
East of G91 (West of
Windmill Point)
North bank west of Charles
Lake Dam
North channel edge east of
Benjamin Harrison Bridge
South of Lower Point between
R54 & R52
East of Swarms Point
South of channel between
G61 and G63
Northwest of R64
South of G81 (east of
Windmill Point)
EastofG91 (west of
Windmill Point)
West of G97 along channel
South channel edge east of
Benjamin Harrison Bridge
Depth at
MLW (ft)
1.7
22.9
9.8
22.5
2.2
2.3
3.7
27.0
10.0
19.9
3.0
5.0
16.8
6.9
26.4
8.9
27.8
30.7
21.0
29.7
-------
Table 2.2. Control waters used for ambient water toxicity tests. (MHSFW = moderately hard
synthetic freshwater, SW = artificial seawater, salinity indicated in g/kg)
Species
40.03 42.46
Station (1s sample salinity, g/kg)
47.33 47.81 65.81 68.68 72.08 74.29
(1.6) (1.2) (0) (0) (0) (0)
-------
Table 2.3a. Required conditions for 8-day ambient water toxicity test with Pimephalespromelas
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
TEST SOLUTIONS:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
TEST VOLUME:
TEMPERATURE:
CONTROL WATER:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
AGE:
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
CLEANING:
Static renewal
With each new sample, 3 samples total for initiation & renewal
100% ambient sample plus control
4 with 10 animals each (i.e. 40 animals/sample tested)
Test chambers oriented in randomized block (by replicate) design
1000 ml beakers, borosilicate glass
500ml
25±1°C (23.5-26.4°C)
Synthetic freshwater, moderately hard
16 h light/8 h darkness
10-20 nE/rrP/s (50-100 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
< 24 h old !
>4.0 mg/1, otherwise aerate all chambers, 100 small bubbles/min.
Newly hatched (<24 \\)Artemia nauplii; 0.15 g/replicate before renewal
and at end of work day
Siphon excess food and other debris daily and during renewal
WATER QUALITY MEASURMENTS: Temperature, conductivity, pH, D.O. daily in one replicate and in one
replicate of both "old" and "new" solution on renewal days
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
EFFECTS MEASURED:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
8 days
Tally survival, dry 60°C for 24 h.
Survival, growth
Control survival and growth: 80% and 0.25 mg dry wt. avg.
36 h before first use
A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
-------
Table 2.3b. Required conditions for 8-day ambient water toxicity test with Ceriodaphnia dubia
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
TEST SOLUTIONS:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
TEST VOLUME:
TEMPERATURE:
CONTROL WATER:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
AGE:
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
CLEANING:
Static renewal
With each new sample, 3 samples total for initiation & renewal
100% ambient sample plus control
10 with 1 animal each (i.e. 10 animals/sample tested)
Test chambers oriented in randomized block (by replicate/parentage)
design
30 ml, boro silicate glass
15ml
25+TC (23.5-26.4°C)
Synthetic fresh water
16 h light/8 h darkness
10-20 nE/rrP/s (50-100 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
< 24 h (+ 4 h) !
Never aerated to avoid entrapping animals on the water surface.
Adverse effects of low oxygen concentration are never observed.
0.1 ml YCT + 0.1 ml Selenastrum (@ ca. 3.5E7 cells/ml) per 15 ml/day
N/A (animals transferred to new chamber w/ fresh solution during
renewal)
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS: Temperature, conductivity, pH, D.O. of both "old" and "new" solution
on renewal days
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
EFFECTS MEASURED:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
8 days
Tally survival, number of offspring, note presence of any males
Survival, reproduction
Control survival >80%, > 60% controls 3 or more broods, > 15
offspring/surviving control female
36 h before first use
A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
-------
Table 2.3c. Required conditions for 8-day ambient water toxicity test with Cyprinodon
variegatus
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
TEST SOLUTIONS:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
TEST VOLUME:
TEMPERATURE:
CONTROL WATER:
SALINITY:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
AGE:
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
CLEANING:
Static renewal
With each of 3 new samples: initiation & 2 renewals
100% ambient sample plus control
5 with 10 animals each (i.e. 50 animals/sample tested)
Test chambers in randomized block (by replicate) design
1000 ml beakers, borosilicate glass
750ml
25+TC (23.5-26.4°C)
Artificial sea water
Ambient for samples, controls + 3 g/kg of sample salinity ^
16 h light/8 h darkness
10-20 (lE/rrP/s (50-100 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
< 24 h old 2
>4.0 mg/1, otherwise aerate all chambers, 100 small bubbles/min.
Newly hatched (<24 h)Artemia nauplii; 0.1 g/replicate days 0-2; 0.15
g/replicate days 3-7
Siphon excess food and other debris daily and during renewal
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS: Temperature, salinity, pH, D.O. daily in one replicate; in one replicate
of both "old" and "new" solution on renewal days
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
EFFECTS MEASURED:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
8 days
Tally survival, dry 60°C for 24 h.
Survival, growth
Control survival and growth: 80% and 0.60 mg dry wt. Avg.
36 h before first use
Samples should range in salinity by no more than 10 g/kg; test organisms will be acclimated to one or two intermediate salinities so that no more
than a 3-g/kg difference between acclimation and test salinity exists.
r\
A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
-------
Table 2.3d. Required conditions for 8-day ambient water toxicity test with Mysidopsis bahia
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
TEST SOLUTIONS:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
TEST VOLUME:
TEMPERATURE:
CONTROL WATER:
SALINITY:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
AGE:
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
CLEANING:
Static renewal
With each of 3 new samples: initiation & 2 renewals
100% ambient sample plus control
5 with 10 animals each (i.e. 50 animals/sample tested)
Test chambers in randomized block (by replicate) design
1000 ml beakers
500ml
25+TC (23.5-26.4°C)
Artificial sea water
Ambient for samples, controls + 3 g/kg of sample salinity 1
16 h light/8 h darkness
10-20 ^E/rrP/s (50-100 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
r\
1 days old^
>4.0 mg/1, otherwise aerate all chambers, 100 small bubbles/min.
Newly hatched (<24 h~)Artemia nauplii; 150/mysid; 1/2 twice/day
Siphon excess food and other debris daily and during renewal
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS: Temperature, salinity, pH, D.O. daily in one replicate and in one
replicate of "old" and "new" solution on renewal days
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
EFFECTS MEASURED:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
Samples should range in salinity by no more than 10 g/kg; test organisms will be acclimated to one or two intermediate salinities so that no more
than a 3-g/kg difference between acclimation and test salinity exists.
A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
8 days
Tally survival, examine individuals microscopically, and dry 60°C for
24 h.
Survival, growth, % females with eggs in oviduct or marsupium
Control survival and growth: 80% and 0.25 mg dry wt. Avg.
36 h before first use
-------
Table 2.4. Control water characteristics (Mean and (Std. Dev.)) during tests
Parameter
Temperature (° C)
Conductivity (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
PH (S.U.)
D.O. (mg/1)
Hardness (mg/1 CaCO3)
Alkalinity (mg/1 CaCO3)
Freshwater S
Synthetic
Freshwater
24.3
(0.2)
277.4
(4.0)
N.D.
8.0
(0.1)
8.2
(0.0)
98.4
(1.6)
60.4
(2.6)
jecies Tests
1.6 g/kg
Artificial
Seawater
24.8
(0.4)
2735.0
(76.3)
1.6
(0.0)
7.9
(0.1)
8.1
(0.0)
459.1
(13.6)
58.1
(1.4)
Estuarine Species Tests
4.3 g/kg
Artificial
Seawater
25.4
(0.3)
N.D.
4.5
(0.2)
7.8
(0.1)
8.1
(0.0)
N.D.
N.D.
1.2 g/kg
Artificial
Seawater
25.5
(0.2)
N.D.
1.2
(0.0)
7.9
(0.1)
8.1
(0.0)
N.D.
N.D.
20 g/kg
Artificial
Seawater
25.6
(0.1)
N.D.
20.0
(0.0)
7.7
(0.0)
7.4
(0.0)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D. = not determined (Data was not collected for some parameters in fresh or salt water as inappropriate to the
medium.)
-------
Table 2.5a. Required conditions for 10-day sediment toxicity test with Pimephalespromelas
embryos.
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
SEDIMENT VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER:
TEMPERATURE:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
AGE:
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
AERATION:
CLEANING:
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS:
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
ENDPOINTS:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
TEST TREATMENTS:
Static renewal, whole sediment
Daily renew 50% of overlying water
3 with 10 animals each (i.e. 30 animals/sample tested)
Test chambers arranged in randomized block (by replicate) design
1000 ml beakers, borosilicate glass & PVC-Nitex egg baskets
200 ml sediment
750ml
Synthetic freshwater, moderately hard
25+ 1°C (23.5-26.4°C)
16 h light/8 h darkness
10-20 ^E/nr/s (50-100 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
< 48 h post-fertilization1
Aerate all chambers at a rate of 100 small bubbles/min.
Newly hatched (<24 h)Artemia nauplii; 0.1 g/replicate days 3-6
(earlier if hatching occurs); 0.15 g/replicate days 7-9
Overnight before start of test, and throughout test; trickle-flow aeration
maintains >40% saturation of dissolved oxygen
Siphon excess food and other debris daily and during renewal
Temperature, conductivity, pH, D.O. daily in one replicate of both
"old" and "new" solution
10 days
Tally survival
Embryo and fry survival, egg hatching
Control survival 80%
2 weeks
Site, control, and reference sediment
'A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
-------
Table 2.5b. Required conditions for 10-day sediment toxicity test with Hyallela azteca.
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
REPLICATES:
RANDOMIZATION:
TEST CHAMBERS:
SEDIMENT VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER:
TEMPERATURE:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
Whole sediment toxicity test
None for sediment or overlying water
3 with 20 animals each
Test chambers arranged in randomized block (by replicate) design
1000 ml glass beakers
200ml
750ml
Synthetic freshwater, moderately hard
23 + l°C
16 h light: 8 h darkness
10-20 nE/nf/s (500-1000 ft-c) (ambient laboratory illumination)
SIZE AND LIFE STAGE OF AMPHIPODS: 3-5 mm, no mature males or females
DISSOLVED OXYGEN:
FEEDING:
AERATION:
CLEANING:
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS:
TEST DURATION:
TEST TERMINATION:
ENDPOINTS:
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
TEST TREATMENTS:
Aerate all chambers at a rate of 100 small bubbles/min
0.5 ml YCT/chamber/day (August tests), 0.75 ml (October tests)
Overnight before start of test, and throughout test; trickle-flow
aeration maintains >40% saturation of dissolved oxygen
concentration
None
Total water quality (hardness, alkalinity, ammonia, pH,
conductivity, D.O., temperature) days 0 and 9 or 10 each
treatment; temperature and D.O. daily on one replicate/treatment.
10 days
Tally survival, pool animals for each replicate, dry and weigh
Survival, growth (dry weight)
Control survival 80%
2 weeks
Site, control, and reference sediment
'A concurrent acute reference test using the same batch of animals is performed using KC1 as the reference toxicant.
-------
Table 2.6. Analyte lists for classes of organic chemicals sought in sediment samples.
Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Organophosphate Pesticides
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Dibenzofuran
Bis [2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Di ethyl phthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Benzo [a] anthracene
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
Benzo [e] pyrene
Benzo [a] pyrene
Benzo [g,h,I] perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene
Perylene
Pyrene
Dichlorvos
Mevinphos
TEPP
Thionazion
Demeton
Ethoprop
Tributylphosphate SS
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Monocrotophos
Dimethoate
Terbufos
Monophos
-------
Table 2.6 (cont). Analyte lists for classes of organic chemicals sought in sediment samples.
Organochlorine Pesticides
Diazinon
Di sulfoton+Phosphami don +Di chl orofenthi on
Chlorpyrifos(methyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Fenitrothion
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Trichlornate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
Tetrachlorvinphos
Tokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Famfur
Triphenylphosphate SS
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthion(methyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
HCCP
a-BHC & HCB & Diallate
b-BHC & g-BHC
d-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Isodrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
g-Chlordane
Endosulfan I & a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDE
-------
Table 2.6 (cont). Analyte lists for classes of organic chemicals sought in sediment samples.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Herbicides
Endrin & Endosulfan II
Chlorbenzylate
ODD
Endrin Aldehyde & Kepone
Endosulfan Sulfate
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Methoxychlor
Kepone
PCB-001
PCB-005+008
PCB-018
PCB-028+031
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-81+77
PCB-110
PCB-87
PCB-151
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-141
PCB-126
PCB-138
PCB-187
PCB-183
PCB-128
PCB-156
PCB- 169
PCB-180
PCB- 170
PCB-195
PCB-206
3,5-DBCA
Dicamba
MCPA
-------
Table 2.6 (cont). Analyte lists for classes of organic chemicals sought in sediment samples.
MCPP
Dichlorprop
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Pentachl oroani sol e
2,4,5-TP
Chloramben
2,4,5-T
Bentazon
Picloram
DCPA
Acifluorfen
-------
Table 2.7a. Required conditions for salinity
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
REPLICATES:
TEST CHAMBERS:
SEDIMENT VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER:
TEMPERATURE:
SALINITY:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS:
SIZE AND LIFE STAGE OF AMPHIPODS:
FEEDING:
AERATION:
TEST DURATION:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
TEST TREATMENTS:
ENDPOINTS:
experiment protocol for L. plumulosus
Whole sediment
None for sediment or overlying water
3 with 20 animals each
1000 ml glass beakers
200 ml (2 cm)
750ml
Clean seawater, synthetic
25+l°C
7.5-15 g/kg
16hrlight: Shrdark
10-20 ^E/m 2/s (500-1000 ft-c) (ambient laboratory
illumination
Measure total water quality (ammonia, pH, salinity, D.O.,
temperature) days 0 and 9 or 10 each treatment; temperature,
D.O. pH, salinity daily on one replicate/treatment.
3-5 mm, no mature males or females
YCT 0.75 ml/beaker/day
Overnight before start of test, and throughout test; trickle-flow
aeration that maintains >90% saturation of dissolved oxygen
concentration
10 days
Samples held in excess of 2 weeks because of nature of test
Experimental and control sediment
Survival and growth (dry weight)
-------
Table 2.7b. Required conditions for salinity
TEST TYPE:
RENEWAL FREQUENCY:
REPLICATES:
TEST CHAMBERS:
SEDIMENT VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER VOLUME:
OVERLYING WATER:
TEMPERATURE:
PHOTOPERIOD:
LIGHT INTENSITY:
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS:
SIZE AND LIFE STAGE OF AMPHIPODS:
FEEDING:
AERATION:
TEST DURATION:
SAMPLE HOLDING TIME:
TEST TREATMENTS:
ENDPOINTS:
experiment protocol for H. azteca
Whole sediment toxicity test
None for sediment or overlying water
3 with 20 animals each
1000 ml glass beakers
200 ml (2 cm)
750ml
Clean seawater, synthetic
23 + l°C
16hrlight: Shrdark
10-20 \\Elm 2/s (500-1000 ft-c) (ambient laboratory
illumination
Measure total water quality (ammonia, pH, salinity, D.O.,
temperature) days 0 and 9 or 10 each treatment; temperature,
D.O. pH, salinity daily on one replicate/treatment.
3-5 mm, no mature males or females
YCT 0.75 ml/beaker/day
Overnight before start of test, and throughout test; trickle-flow
aeration that maintains >90% saturation of dissolved oxygen
concentration
10 days
Samples held in excess of 2 weeks because of nature of test
Experimental and control sediment
Survival and growth (dry weight)
-------
Table 2.8. Design for salinity adjustment experiment
H. azteca
| L. plumulosus
Salinity (g/kg):
Low TOC, Sandy Sediment
High TOC, Fine-grain Sediment
0
Control
Low !
High1
Control
Low
High
7.5
Control
Low
High
Control
Low
High
15
Control
Low
High
Control
Low
High
7.5
Control
Low
High
Control
Low
High
15
Control
Low
High
Control
Low
High
Low and High refer to metals concentrations
Table 2.9. Metals toxicity data for H. azteca taken from literature
Metal
Cd
Cu
Ni
Se
Zn
96-h LC50
(ug/1)
<25*
24
1900
340
1500
Hardness
(mg/1 as CaCO3)
275-300
275-300
275-300
329
275-300
pH
(S.U.)
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
7.3
7.0-7.5
Reference
Schubauer-Berigan etal, 1993
Schubauer-Berigan etal, 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al, 1993
Halter etal, 1980
Schubauer-Berigan et al., 1993
25-ug/l value used as 1.0 TU because value obtained at pH 7-7.5 was bracketed by LC50 values of 5 ug/1 at pH 8-
8.5 and 230 ug/1 at pH 6-6.5.
Table 2.10. Results of range-finding tests.
Dose
(TU)
0 (Control)
1
10
20
40
80
160
320
% Survival
(Test 1)
95
95
100
100
80
75
% Survival
(Test 2)
93
93
86
71
7
-------
Table 2.11. Spiking regime for definitive experiment (volume per liter sediment).
Treatment
Control
110TU
305 TU
Sediment 2-JMS065.81
53.5 ml deionized water
18.3 ml stock
53.5 ml stock
Sediment 2-JMS040.03
45.5 ml deionized water
15.6 ml stock
45.5 ml stock
Table 2.12. Station locations for in situ tests
Richmond, Fall 2000
Creek
Gillie
Creek
Almond
Creek
Falling
Creek
Cornelius
Creek
Classification
Stormwater, sewage
inflow, urban
drainage
Industrial drainage
Industrial drainage
Reference creek,
wooded/agricultural
drainage
Station
Designation
2-JMS109.50
2-JMS108.50
2-JMS103.il
2-JMS101.41
Latitude
37°31'19.7"
37°30'11.2"
37°26'12.1"
37°25'28.3"
Longitude
77°25'03.7"
77°25'06.6"
77°25'39.5"
77°24'34.7"
Major
Landmarks
Old Richmond
Pier and Railroad
Sand/Gravel
transfer mooring
Wooden barge
wreck across
from derelict
vessel
Off wooded
mouth of creek
near submerged
logs
Depth at
MLW (ft)
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
Hopewell, Fall 2000
Creek
Bailey
Creek
Gravelly
Run
Creek
Bear
Creek
Cabin
Creek
Eppes
Creek
Classification
Industrial drainage
to west, agricultural
drainage to east
Industrial drainage
Commercial and
Industrial drainage
Urban (residential
and commercial)
drainage
Reference creek,
wooded/agricultural
drainage
Station
Designation
2-BLY000.90
(2-JMS074.50)
2-xxxOOO.OO
(2-JMS075.00)
2-BRCOOO.OO
(2-BLY002.00)
2-CBC000.20
(2-APP002.10)
2-EPP000.25
(2-JMS073.15)
Latitude
37°17'14.8"
37°17'50.0"
37°16'49.5"
37°18'23.8"
37°19'40.1"
Longitude
77°15'39.4"
77°15'21.6"
77°16'17.9"
77°19'21.3"
77°14'06.7"
Major Landmarks
Upstream of Rt 10
Bridge
Across creek
mouth from Stone
Container pond
Mouth of creek
about 50 ft from
Bailey Creek
At first bend in
creek upstream of
mouth
Island side of
creek about 0.25
mi from mouth
Depth at
MLW (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.1
2.7
-------
Table 2.12. (con't.) Station locations for in situ tests
Hopewell, Spring 2001
Creek
Bailey
Creek
Bear
Creek
Cabin
Creek
Eppes
Creek
Classification
Industrial drainage to
west, agricultural
drainage to east
Commercial and
Industrial drainage
Urban (residential
and commercial)
drainage
Reference creek,
wooded/agricultural
drainage
Station
Designation
2-BLY000.90
(2-JMS074.50)
2-BRCOOO.OO
(2-BLY002.00)
2-CBC000.20
(2-APP002.10)
2-EPP000.25
(2-JMS073.15)
Latitude
37°17'14.8"
37°16'49.5"
37°18'23.8"
37°19'40.1"
Longitude
77°15'39.4"
77°16'17.9"
77°19'21.3"
77°14'06.7"
Major Landmarks
Upstream of Rt 10
Bridge
Mouth of creek
about 50 ft from
Bailey Creek
At first bend in
creek upstream of
mouth
Island side of
creek about 0.25
mi from mouth
Depth at
MLW (ft)
0.6
-0.7
1.5
1.6
-------
Figure 2.1. James River from Jamestown Island upstream to Jordan Point (Benjamin Harrison
Bridge). DEQ stations are black circles labeled in white on black rectangles. EPA
stations are white triangles labeled in black on white rectangles. Areas with >75%
sand are shaded.
-------
Figure 2.2 Field stations for the in situ study in the vicinity of Richmond, VA
-------
Figure 2.3. Field stations for the in situ study in the vicinity of Hopewell, VA
-------
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Characterization of Ambient Water
3.1.1 Ambient Water Quality at Sampling Stations
Bottom water temperatures in August were about 10°C higher than the depth average
temperature in mid to late October (Table 3.1). In both time periods, the measured temperatures
were typical of the season. In August, all stations upstream of station 2-JMS056.12 had salinity
at or below 0.1 g/kg, whereas in October, all stations upstream of station 2-JMS047.81 had
salinity at or below 0.1 g/kg. At comparable distances upstream, average bottom salinity was
higher in October than bottom salinity in August. In October, the difference between surface and
bottom salinity was approximately 0.5 g/kg.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were always above 7 mg/1 except at the Chickahominy station
and station 2-JMS050.55 in both August and October. Dissolved oxygen concentration was
generally higher in October than August, consistent with the lower water temperature. pH,
measured only in October, ranged from 6.9 to 8.7, with most measurements between 7.5 and 8.7.
3.1.2 Water Column Sample Tests
3.1.2.1 ToxicityData
The water samples from all 8 stations were non-toxic (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). Fathead minnows,
which were tested only with the non-saline samples from stations 2-JMS074.29, 2-JMS072.08,
2-JMS068.68 and 2-JMS065.81, exhibited nearly perfect survival with a slight growth
enhancement compared to the control animals. The growth enhancement was greater at the
upstream stations near Jordan Point than at the downstream stations near Windmill Point. The
growth enhancement may be a result of indigenous food. The growth effect was statistically
significant for the sample from station 2-JMS072.08.
Ceriodaphnia were tested at the four strictly freshwater stations and at two slightly saline
stations near the mouth of the Chickahominy River. Survival was 100% in samples from all 6
stations. Except for station 2-JMS047.33, the mean number of offspring was not significantly
different in station comparisons with either controls or among stations. Suppression of
reproduction in water from station 2-JMS047.33 may have resulted from salinity stress. The
second and third samples used for this exposure had higher salinities than the first sample (i.e.
2.0 and 5.3 g/kg versus 1.6 g/kg). Because it is not possible to predict salinity of future samples
at the start of the test and a singular control water was used to evaluate more than one sample,
the extent of salinity stress cannot be determined. Reproduction of animals exposed to water
from station 47.33 for 6 days (i.e. prior to renewal with the 5.3 g/kg salinity sample) was
significantly less than that of the 1.6-g/kg salinity controls (t-test, p = 0.02). However, the
-------
salinity of the second sample, used for test days 3-5, was 2.0 g/kg, equivalent to the LOEC for
NaCl (EPA, 1991).
Cyprinodon survival and growth did not differ significantly in waters from the two most saline
stations and the 20, 4.3 or 1.2 g/kg salinity controls (Table 3.3). Survival was slightly
suppressed in water from stations 2-JMS047.81 and 2-JMS047.33 (Table 3.3). In both groups
this was the result of a single replicate with 90% mortality (compared to 90-100% survival in the
other replicates of the same treatment). Although there is no other supporting evidence, such
replicate-specific mortality in surface water and effluent toxicity tests is often associated with the
presence a fish pathogen in the sample.
Exposure of mysids to the low salinity (1.2 g/kg) control water and corresponding station 47.81
and station 2-JMS047.33 waters (1.2-1.6 g/kg salinity) resulted in 100% mortality within 24 h,
indicating toxicity was the result of hypo osmotic stress. Similarly survival in the 4.3 g/kg
salinity control was poor (Table 3.3). Survival on test day 6 (42%, 144 h) agrees well with 144-h
value of 4.9 g/kg reported elsewhere (De Lisle and Roberts, 1986).
Mortality in water from Station 2-JMS042.46 occurred primarily during the first 24 h of
exposure; 96% of the 47 animals that died in this treatment died in the first 24 h. The salinity of
the first water sample for station 2-JMS042.46 (3.1 g/kg) was intermediate to the 1.2 g/kg and
4.3 g/kg salinity controls, which suggests mortality was salinity related. The higher salinity of
the second and third water samples for this station (7.0 and 4.1 g/kg respectively) may have been
tolerable for the few animals able to survive the initial osmotic shock. From previous work with
this species, we know that mortality from salinity stress plateaus quickly and a few survivors
may live for extended periods (144 h) even at salinities as low as 2 g/kg (De Lisle and Roberts,
1986). Survivorship in water from Station 2-JMS040.03 was significantly greater than that of
the corresponding 4.3 g/kg control group but less than that of the 20-g'kg salinity control (Table
3.2). The slightly higher salinity of water samples from station 2-JMS040.30 (7.3 g/kg) may
explain the difference between this treatment and the 4.3-g/kg controls. A salinity effect on
survival in low salinity control treatments precludes analysis of growth and egg production in the
ambient water samples from these stations.
In summary, the effects observed on reproduction in C. dubia exposed to water from station 2-
JMS047.33 and survival inM bahia exposed to water from Stations 2-JMS042.46, 2-
JMS040.03, 2-JMS047.81 and 2-JMS047.33 are likely the results of salinity stress. Performance
of animals in these samples was predictable based on performance in control waters of similar
composition in these tests as well as published tolerance data. While fish species are available
that are both tolerant of low salinity water and widely used in toxicity testing (e.g. C. variegatus,
Menidia spp.), there is no obvious non-benthic invertebrate species that meets both criteria.
Identification of an appropriate oligohaline invertebrate species and validation of use as a
"standard" test organism would aid in the monitoring of oligohaline waters.
3.1.2.2 Toxicity Test QA/QC
LC50 values for reference toxicant tests with these species fell within the 95% confidence limits
of values for tests previously conducted in the testing laboratory (Table 3.4). Survival, growth
-------
and reproduction (as appropriate) for the several test species met the QA requirements specified
in the test protocols.
3.1.2.3 Water Quality Data during Toxicity Tests
Water quality data for test samples, control waters and test chamber solutions are provided in
Tables 3.5, 3.2, and 3.3 and Appendix B. Except for salinity, values for all parameters were
within the expected tolerance limits of the test organisms. Salinity during the tests was consistent
with salinity measured in the field at the time of sampling (Table 3.1).
3.1.3 Ambient Water Contaminants
The principle contaminants of concern in water samples are heavy metals, all of which are highly
soluble. Organic chemicals are either of low solubility (PAH, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs)
or are unlikely to be present in the fall of the year (organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroids, etc.).
The primary agricultural crops are corn, soybeans and wheat in rotation. In this part of Virginia,
pesticides are applied to crops predominantly in the spring and early summer. Pesticides
therefore might be found in water samples collected in the spring and early to mid summer, but
are unlikely to be present in water during the mid fall. Therefore no investment was made in
measuring analytes other than metals. In total metal analyses, aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver thallium and
zinc were detected (Table 3.6). The same metals were detected in the dissolved metal fraction
(Table 3.7). The only metal analyte not found in any sample was beryllium. No dissolved metal
was present in an amount approaching the acute water quality criteria as appropriate for fresh- or
saltwater samples.
Both dissolved and total trace elements were measured on all samples (Table 3.8). All these
parameters were within normal ranges. For calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium, the
dissolved fraction approximated the total fraction, whereas for iron, the dissolved fraction was at
or below detection, and most iron was present in particulate form. Calcium and magnesium were
more abundant in saline than strictly fresh waters.
Throughout the Bay and its tributaries, nutrients (orthophosphate, total phosphate, ammonia,
nitrite-nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen) are often in excess of acceptable levels. The nutrient
parameters, measured on samples collected for this study, were within acceptable levels (Table
3.9). In no case were the ammonia or nitrite+nitrate concentrations lexicologically significant.
-------
3.2 Characterization of Ambient Sediment
3.2.1 Sediment Texture
Twenty stations were selected for study but one of these could not be sampled because the
sediment was compacted sand. While the center point of the grid at Station 2-JMS072.08 had a
testable mixture of sand and silt-clay, randomly selected points in the grid had compacted sand
only, and therefore no samples were collected for toxicity tests or chemical analysis of sediment.
The grain size characteristic (Table 3.10) was measured separately on each replicate point in the
sampling grid at each station. During August (but not October), samples were also taken at the
grid center for benthic community analysis, resulting in 4 measurements of grain size per station.
For October samples, only 3 measurements were made at the EPA stations for which no benthic
community analysis was done. Percent total organic carbon (TOC) and pore water ammonia
were measured on each replicate used for toxicity tests for both sampling periods, whereas
sulfide and percent moisture were measured on equivolume composites of the three replicates.
The station with the highest measured sand content was 2-JMS042.46 with a mean sand content
of 76.9%. Eight stations had a sand content <10%: 2-JMS044.08, 2-JMS046.73, 2-JMS047.33,
2-JMS047.81, 2-JMS050.55, 2-JMS065.81, 2-JMS066.35, and 2-JMS068.68. Some of the ODU
stations had significantly higher or lower sand content at the center point than in the random
replicates used for toxicity tests (2-JMS044.08, 2-JMS056.12, and 2-JMS067.56). However, the
variation among the random replicates suggests that these apparent differences actually
emphasize the heterogeneity of sediment conditions at these stations and the importance of
evaluating the toxicity of field replicates.
The surface textures observed during this study are generally consistent with the description of
Nichols etal. (1991) for the James River. The region covered in this study is the upper half of
the Estuary Funnel as defined by Nichols etal. (1991). They described this region as having
margins with a high sand content (>75%), and channels with a high clay content (>50%) with a
clay:silt ratio of ca. 2:1. Of the 10 stations outside the channel (less than 3.5 m depth), only one
had a sand content >75%. However, only that station fell within the sandy margin of Nichols (see
Fig. 4b of Nichols et al., 1991). Seven stations had sand content between 10 and 50%, and two
stations had sand content <10%. Some channel margin stations had 20% sand and one station (2-
JMS072.08) was never successfully sampled because most of the 20 random points preselected
in the station grid had compacted sand impenetrable with a Ponar grab. That particular station
appears to fall within a sand area as plotted by Nichols et al. (1991). The deepest stations had
minimal sand (<7%). Clay content at most stations exceeded 40% but the clay:silt ratio was in
only one instance 2:1, contrary to the finding of Nichols et al. (1991).
The absence of stations with >75% sand in the present study reflects in part rejection of some
sites (all margin locations) based on the criterion of too much sand. The difference also reflects
variability of sediment texture in very shallow margin areas that Nichols et al. (1991) described
as having a high sand content (see Fig. 4b of Nichols, et al., 1991).
-------
TOC content of the sediments ranged from 0.63 to 3.1% and was consistently below 2.5% except
at 2-CHK012.12 with ca. 3.0% TOC. Given the limited range in TOC values, it is not surprising
that there was no correlation between TOC and percent sand. Moisture content was consistently
between 43.5 and 69%. Sulfide concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 7.6 |imoles/g. Sulfide
content exceeded 2 |imoles/g at three stations only: 2-JMS044.08, 2-JMS052.52, and 2-
JMS066.35. There was no obvious relationship between sulfide content and percent sand or
percent TOC. Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in pore water varied from 0.1 to 32.4 |ig/l, with
most values between 1 and 10 jig/1. There was no clear correlation between pore water ammonia
and grain size or TOC.
3.2.2 Sediment Sample Tests
3.2.2.1 ToxicityData
Of the twenty stations selected for this study, sediment samples from 19 (12 collected in August
and 7 in October) were evaluated for toxicity. The toxicity tests were performed on each group
of sediment samples at different times. Results are reported by sediment sample group (DEQ and
EPA samples) to account for use of different control groups and other variations that may relate
to the sample group rather than the specific sampling locations. There was no evidence of acute
or chronic effects on the test species.
3.2.2.1.1 DEQ Stations
Sediments from stations 2-JMS044.08, 2-JMS068.49 and 2-JMS068.64 contained large numbers
of the isopod Cyathurapolita (identified by R. Diaz, VIMS). Consequently these sediments
were press sieved through a 500-|im mesh sieve prior to use. No other potential predators or
species similar to the test species were found in any samples; therefore the remaining samples
were tested without sieving. Sediment pore water pH and ammonia values (Table 3.10) and
water column pH, ammonia and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Appendix A) were within the
expected tolerance limits of the test organisms.
Survival of//, azteca ranged from 90 to 100% for all sediments tested (Table 3.11). Control
survival for this sample set was 97%. Emergence rate was low, ranging from 0 to 5 animals.
Mean growth ranged from 0.068 to 0.115 mg/animal; control sediment was 0.096 mg/animal.
There were no statistically significant differences in amphipod survival, emergence or weight
between control sediments and test sediments. Comparison among stations indicated significant
differences for amphipod weight but not survival or emergence. However, pair-wise
comparisons of weight using Tukey's test were not significant. Mean amphipod weights ranged
from 0.077 mg for Station 2-JMSO 68.64 to 0.106 mg for Station 2-JMS067.56.
Although no minimum growth requirement is specified in any available standard method for 10-
day Hyalella tests, comparison of animal final weights with initial weights (0.112-0.113 mg;
determined from three groups of 20 animals at the beginning of the test) indicates the animals did
not grow during the exposure period. The feeding level for these tests (0.5 ml YCT/chamber/day)
was based on a compromise between the 1.5 ml/chamber/day recommended for flow-through
testing (e.g. ASTM 1999, EPA 1994) and the need to prevent bacterial/fungal fouling of
-------
sediment surfaces in static tests in which none of the YCT is flushed from the chamber. Higher
feeding levels or the use of foods not prone to fouling (e.g. pulverized maple leaves) might have
produced better growth.
For Pimephales promelas, percent hatch ranged from 90 to 100% with 100% hatch of control
embryos (Table 3.12). Despite variability in the time to first hatch, the rate of successful hatch on
day 4 was equal in all groups including the controls. Post hatch survival for embryos exposed to
sediment from 2-JMS044.08 replicate 3 (78.7%) and 2-JMS068.49 replicate 2 (80.0%) was
significantly less than controls even though post-hatch survival exceeded or equaled total
survival for both of these samples. Hatch rates for all exposure periods, post-hatch survival and
total survival among stations were statistically equivalent although significant within-station (i.e.
among field replicates) variation in post-hatch survival occurred.
A few fish embryos hatched on test days 1 and 2, corresponding to an incubation time of 72 to 96
h. The majority of the fish embryos hatched on test days 3 and 4; this incubation time (5-6 days)
is typical for fathead minnows at 25°C. No obvious fungal or bacterial growth was noted on any
of the eggs or sediment surfaces.
Examination offish hatch and survival presents several problems: 1) although total (i.e. embryo
and fry stages) exposure time is the same for all fish, exposure times for fish fry vary depending
upon the time of hatch of individual eggs, and 2) it is not possible to discriminate with certainty
whether dead fish occurring in the chambers since the previous 24-h check are the result of an
unsuccessful hatch or are post-hatch fish which subsequently died. Because of this it is not
possible to compare the time of exposure with mortality for fish and cumulative hatch rate must
be expressed as the maximum number of live fish observed over the test period within each
chamber.
Test acceptability criteria were met for both species in all tests. Control group survival well
exceeded minimum acceptability requirements.
3.2.2.1.2 EPA Stations
There was no evidence of toxicity for either test species exposed to sediments from these
stations. Differences in survival were attributable to the presence of predators, notably Cyathura
polita. Growth and reproduction were similar at all stations.
Sediments from all field replicates of stations 2-JMS065.81 and 2-JMS068.68 had large numbers
of the isopod Cyathura polita when examined prior to testing. Consequently these sediments
were press sieved through a 500-|im mesh sieve prior to use. No other potential predators or
species similar to the test species were found in any of the other sample aliquots, which were
examined before testing. Sediment pore water pH and ammonia values (Table 3.10) and water
column pH, ammonia and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Appendix B) were within the
expected tolerance limits of the test organisms.
-------
Survival ofH. azteca ranged from 53 to 100% for sediments tested from EPA Stations (Table
3.13). Control survival for this sample set was 95%. Low mean survival rates were observed in
field replicates 2-JMS040.03 replicate 1, 2-JMS042.46 replicate 2 and 2-JMS042.46 replicate 3.
Since no C. polita or other predator was detected in the preliminary examination in all cases,
these samples were not sieved. At the end of the test, however, C. polita was found in all three,
and a small Callinectes sapidus was found in sediment from Station 2-JMS042.46 replicate 2. In
the laboratory replicates that did not have a predator, survival was high and consistent with all
other treatments and replicates.
Amphipod data analyzed with all replicates including those with predators present showed a
significant reduction in survival, but not weight or emergence, when compared to controls or
between stations. However, when these replicates were excluded from analysis, there were no
statistically significant differences in amphipod survival, weight or emergence between control
sediments and test sediments or among stations.
Emergence rate for amphipods was low, ranging from 0 to 5 animals. Mean size in each field
replicate ranged from 0.077 to 0.136 mg/animal; mean size in control sediment was 0.103
mg/animal. There were no statistically significant differences in amphipod emergence or weight
between control sediments and test sediments.
Although no minimum growth requirement is specified in any available standard method for 10-
day Hyalella tests, comparison of mean control animal weight (0.103 mg/ animal) with mean
initial weight (0.084 mg/animal) indicates a weight gain of approximately 23% over the course
of the test. The feeding level for these tests (0.75 ml YCT/chamber/day) was increased above
that used for the DEQ samples but still based on a compromise between the 1.5 ml/chamber/day
recommended for flow-through testing (e.g. ASTM 1999, EPA 1994) and the need to prevent
bacterial/fungal fouling of sediment surfaces in static tests in which none of the YCT is flushed
from the chamber. Previous testing using a feeding rate of 0.5 ml/chamber/day did not result in a
measurable increase in growth over the 10-day test. The difference in observed growth rate is
believed to result strictly from the difference in feeding rate.
Percent hatch of P. promelas ranged from 60 to 100% with 96.7% hatch of control embryos
(Table 3.14). A few fish embryos hatched on test day 2, corresponding to an incubation time of
96 h. The majority of the fish embryos hatched on test days 3 and 4; this incubation time (5-6
days) is typical for fathead minnows at 25°C. No invertebrate predators were observed in any of
the fish exposure baskets. No obvious fungal or bacterial growth was noted on any of the eggs or
sediment surfaces.
Test acceptability criteria were met for both species in all tests. Control group survival well
exceeded minimum acceptability requirements.
As with the DEQ sediment samples, examination offish hatch and survival presents several
problems: 1) although total (i.e. embryo and fry stages) exposure time is the same for all fish,
exposure times for fish fry vary depending upon the time of hatch of individual eggs, and 2) it is
not possible to discriminate with certainty whether dead fish occurring in the chambers since the
previous 24-h check are the result of an unsuccessful hatch or are post-hatch fish which
-------
subsequently died. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the time of exposure with mortality
for fish and cumulative hatch rate must be expressed as the maximum number of live fish
observed over the test period within each chamber.
For all test days during which most hatching occurred the rate of successful hatch in all groups
equaled that of controls. Post hatch survival and total survival also did not differ significantly
from controls. Hatch rates for all exposure periods, post-hatch survival and total survival among
stations were statistically equivalent.
3.2.2.2 Reference Chemical Test Results
LC50 values for concurrent reference toxicant tests performed in parallel to both sample groups
for amphipods and fish fell within the 95% confidence limits of values for tests previously
conducted in this laboratory with these species (Table 3.15).
3.2.3 Sediment Contaminants
Bulk metal concentrations for Al, Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Th, and
Zn were measured in sediment from 19 of the 20 James River stations (as noted previously, one
station (2-JMS072.08) was too sandy to sample effectively with a petit Ponar grab). These data
are compiled in Table 3.16 along with sediment effect concentrations (SEC) from Long etal.
(1995), Ingersoll et al. (1996), and MacDonald et al. (2000). Of the metals for which there are
SECs, the detection limit equaled or exceeded the ER-L or TEC for Cd, and Ag, and was only
slightly lower than the ER-L and TEC for Hg.
The ER-M was exceeded only for Mn (as noted in Table 3.16). Slight exceedances of the ER-M
were observed for Mn at three stations, all in the James River, and the ER-L was exceeded at 17
of 19 stations. The ER-L was exceeded slightly for As (1 station), Cr (6), Cu (9), Pb (7), Hg (3),
Ni (14), and Zn (14). These exceedances of the ER-L were minimal and did not approach the
ER-M. Since the detection limits for Ag exceeded the ER-L and in some cases the ER-M, no
statements can be made about exceedances for Ag.
One frequently used way to evaluate the bioavailability of metals is to compare the concentration
of acid volatile sulfides (AVS) with the concentrations of simultaneously extracted metals
(SEM). For sediments at the stations in the James River, AVS ranged from 0.0005 to 7.5862
|imoles/g wet weight (Table 3.17). The sum SEM (Cd, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn) ranged from
0.4693 to 1.2966 |imoles/g wet weight. If one subtracts the SEM from AVS, a negative number
implies an excess of SEM that may be considered bioavailable, and a positive number implies an
excess of AVS that may be considered available to bind additional metals. In the present case,
the SEM exceeded the AVS at seven stations with a maximum excess SEM of 1.1 |imole/g at
station 2-JMS042.46. Stations with substantial apparent ability to bind additional SEM were 2-
JMS044.08 (5.0 |imole/g), 2-JMS052.52 (4.9 |imole/g) and 2-JMS066.35 (6.2 |imole/g).
The SVOC analyses (Table 3.18) revealed small amounts of phthalates above the quantitation
limit. These were uniformly distributed in sediment over the region, and may be a laboratory
artifact. In any case, these are likely of no toxicological significance. Other SVOCs included low
-------
molecular weight PAHs and high molecular weight PAHs. None of these materials occurred at
concentrations approaching or above the ERM, although there were a few exceedances of the
ERL. In general, the concentration of total PAH increased from downstream to upstream, which
is consistent with the industrial nature of the City of Hopewell, just upstream of the study area.
The organophosphate (Table 3.19) and organochlorine (Table 3.20) pesticides, PCB (Table 3.21)
and acidic herbicides (Table 3.22) all occurred at concentrations below the quantitation limit
with the exception of PCBs and Kepone at station 2-JMS068.49. At this station, a few PCB
congeners reached 12 ng/g. Since most values at this and other stations were below the detection
limit, no PCB total was calculated. Kepone at this station was found to be 60 ng/g, a
concentration believed to be below toxicological significance. This pesticide, released into the
river at Hopewell, VA in the early to mid 1970's has gradually declined in tissues offish in the
river and is generally not observed in environmental samples at this time.
3.2.4 Benthic Community Description
The total number of species at each station ranged from 5 to 14 (Table 3.23). The lowest species
numbers were observed at Station 2-CHK012.12 (muddy sand flat), 2-JMS052.52 (sandy mud)
and 2-JMS056.12 (muddy). The highest species number was observed at Station 2-JMS066.35
(sandy mud).
The individuals/m2 ranged from 1542.2 to 11340.0. There was no relationship between total
species and individuals/m2 or with sediment texture. High total biomass/m2 was largely due to
the presence of bivalves, and independent of sediment texture. Biomass without bivalves was
more uniform, ranging from 0.249 to 1.746 g/m2.
The B-IBI was above 3.0 at all but one station. Station 2-JMS044.08 had a B-IBI of 2.7, slightly
below 3.0, the generally accepted lower criterion for a good assemblage rating.
Species lists are included in Appendix C, Table 5. A few points are noteworthy. These
communities were all dominated by a few opportunistic species. This is typical of oligohaline
and freshwater communities. One of the test species, the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus.,
was one of the dominant species at the three most downstream (oligohaline) stations, but
curiously was also present in the Chickahominy and just downstream of Windmill Point (strictly
freshwater). Lastly, the carnivorous isopod, Cyathurapolita that was problematic in the toxicity
tests occurred at 7 of the 12 stations and was among the dominant species at stations 2-
JMS068.49 and 2-JMS068.64. This species, often thought to be oligohaline, is known to
establish resident populations in tidal freshwater regions of various estuaries well upstream of
saltwater influence (Simpson, et a/., 1985).
3.2.5 Characterization
3.2.5.1 Water
-------
The dissolved concentration for each metal was below the acute and chronic Virginia Water
Quality Criteria for that metal. As a result, no toxicity was expected based on survival, growth or
reproductive endpoints. This was true for those stations at which the salinity was strictly 0 g/kg
and those stations at which the salinity was above 1 g/kg.
For the four stations at which the salinity was zero (and therefore testable with P. promelas) and
the six stations at which the salinity was below three (and therefore testable with C. dubia), there
was no significant mortality response. For C. dubia, there was a decrease in mean number of
offspring compared to the appropriate control only for station 2-JMS047.33, and this
reproductive deficiency was clearly a salinity effect.
For the four saline stations tested with C. variegates and M. bahia, there were effects on
mortality and reproduction (M bahia only). These effects, both survival and egg production,
were likely an effect of the reduced salinity that was at or below the tolerance limit for the
species. There were no effects that appear to reflect the presence of a toxic material.
3.2.5.2 Sediment
3.2.5.2.1 Sediment Quality Triad
To synthesize the characterization of sediment based on the chemical, lexicological, and benthic
community, the analytical data were examined to identify those chemicals that exhibited an
exceedance of the relevant ER-M. In addition, the quotient of the observed concentration and the
ER-M was determined. From these values, the mean ER-M quotient (MERM-Q) was calculated.
This calculation involved all organic chemicals and dissolved metals for which an ER-M exists.
At every station, the MERM-Q was less than 0.3, indicating that there was little likelihood of an
acute toxic effect. Survival of//, azteca exceeded 80% in all replicates at all stations, and
generally exceeded 90%. Similarly for P. promelas embryos, embryo survival through hatch
exceeded 90% in all but 2 replicates at 2-JMS044.08 and 1 replicate at 2-JMS046.73 and at 2-
JMS050.55. There were no significant differences among the replicates at each station to indicate
acute mortality. This is consistent with the chemical characterization for all stations.
The benthic community exhibited B-IBI values of 3.0 or above at all stations except 2-
JMS044.08 where the B-IBI was 2.7. Values of 3.0 and above meet the quality criterion goal. A
value of 2.7 is considered marginal. Again, this is consistent with the chemical characterization
for each station.
-------
3.3 Salinity Effects Experiment
3.3.1 Sediment Texture
Two types of sediments were selected for the experiment, one with high-TOC, high clay-silt and
one with low-TOC, low clay-silt. The high-TOC high clay-silt sediment was collected from
station 2-JMS065.81 and the low-TOC, high sand sediment was collected from station 2-
JMS040.03. The texture of these sediments will be described in more detail below.
3.3.2 Toxicity Data
3.3.2.1 Leptocheirus plumulosus
Survival, emergence, and final weight of animals exposed to un-spiked test sediments (i.e.
experimental controls) did not differ significantly from those of animals exposed to laboratory
control sediment. Survival and emergence in control treatments was essentially the same for both
salinity regimes (Table 3.24). Final weight was consistently higher in the 15 g/kg salinity
treatments than the 8 g/kg treatments within all spiking doses and sediments.
Survival was only slightly lower in 110 TU treatments than controls but decreased to < 23% in
305 TU treatments. Survival was greatest in the 305 TU exposures at 8 g/kg salinity in both
sediments, suggesting an interactive effect of salinity on metal toxicity. Because overall survival
data departed significantly from a normal distribution (a requirement for analysis of interactive
terms by ANOVA), individual components of the model (sediment, TU) were analyzed for
normality in an attempt to identify sources of non-normality. Elimination of the experimental
control group (0 TU spike) produced a near-normal distribution amenable to analysis by
ANOVA. The resulting analysis of survival data for spiked-only treatments indicated significant
terms for simple metals effects as well as salinity x metal and sediment x metal interactive
effects (Table 3.25). Re-analysis with the experimental controls included (assuming model
robustness was adequate) indicated significant effects of metal (p = 0.000) and salinity x metal (p
= 0.002) but not sediment x metal (p = 0.113) interaction terms, supporting the general findings
of the reduced-treatment ANOVA.
Although metal toxicity (in terms of survival) decreased with decreasing salinity, growth data
suggest animals may have been stressed in the lower test salinity. Growth data exhibited a
significant salinity effect (p = 0.000) but were unaffected by metal exposure or sediment type
(Table 3.25). Comparison of initial weights (mean 0.136 mg) with final weights in each of the
four experimental control groups (8 g/kg and 15 g/kg salinity x two sediments) indicated that
there was a significant increase in weight only in the 15 g/kg salinity controls (ANOVA /
Dunnett'stest, p < 0.05).
Transformation of emergence data was not successful in producing a normal distribution but the
logic transformation produced skewness and kurtosis values closest to zero. Because the data
were homoscedastic a tentative analysis with ANOVA was performed in addition to analysis for
independent metal and sediment effects using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Although
ANOVA indicated a significant effect of sediment and sediment x metal on emergence these
results may be spurious due to departure of data from a normal distribution. Analysis by the
-------
non-parametric method found no significant independent effect of sediment (p = 0.080) but a
highly significant effect of metal exposure (p = 0.000).
3.3.2.2 Hyalellaazteca
Survival and emergence of animals exposed to experimental control sediments (all salinities) did
not differ from those exposed to laboratory control sediment. However, growth of animals
exposed to experimental control sediment (all salinities) was significantly less than that of
animals exposed to laboratory control sediment (ANOVA / Dunnett's test, p < 0.05). When only
freshwater control animals are compared, final weight of animals in un-spiked sediment from
station 2-JMS065.81, but not station 2-JMS040.03, was equal to that of animals exposed to
laboratory control sediment. The difference in final weight may be due to the lower TOC
content of sediment from station 2-JMS040.06 (see description of sediment texture below).
Survival and weight appeared to decrease with increasing salinity in both the un-spiked and
spiked sediments (Table 3.26). Although survival decreased with salinity addition to 15 g/kg in
un-spiked sediment (ANOVA/Dunnett's test, p < 0.05), the lowest survival rate (75%) was near
the recommended test acceptability criterion of 80% for laboratory control sediments (EPA,
2000). Emergence exhibited a similar salinity response and generally increased with increasing
salinity. The effect of spiking was only apparent in the 305 TU treatments.
Survival was reduced significantly by the simple effects of sediment type (p = 0.003), salinity (p
= 0.000) and metal (p = 0.001) as well as by the interaction of all three components, sediment x
salinity x metal (p = 0.043, Table 3.27). The simple effect of sediment type is not apparent when
only the freshwater, un-spiked sediment results are examined but when survival is compared
between each corresponding salinity-metal combination of the two sediments a general negative
difference is seen for sediment from station 2-JMS040.03. Both salinity (p = 0.000) and metal
exposure (p = 0.001) exerted a simple negative effect on growth. Although emergence was not
affected by any factor (p > 0.140) there appeared to be a qualitative, but inconsistent, increase
with increasing salinity. Because data for emergence could not be normalized by transformation
the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the independent effects of salinity
and metal exposure; the results of this test confirmed that there was no significant effect of either
salinity (p = 0.120) or metal exposure (p = 0.906) on emergence.
3.3.3 Quality Control, Reference Toxicant Data
Test acceptability criteria were met for all tests and LC50 values for concurrent reference
toxicant tests fell within the 95% confidence limits of values for tests previously conducted in
this laboratory with these species (Table 3.28). Control group survival well exceeded minimum
acceptability requirements. Although no minimum growth requirement is specified in any
available standard method for 10-d Hyalella tests, comparison of mean laboratory control animal
weight (0.110 mg) with mean initial weight (0.075) indicates a weight gain of approximately
47% over the course of the test. Similarly the L. plumulosus laboratory control animals
increased in weight from 0.136 mg to 0.246 mg (81%) over the course of the test. Water column
pH, ammonia and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Appendix D) were within the expected
tolerance limits of the test organisms.
-------
3.3.4 Sediment Texture and Quality
Experimental sediments were of two types, one with high-TOC, high clay-silt and one with low-
TOC, low clay-silt (Table 3.29). It was anticipated that the high-TOC, silty sediment (2-
JMS065.81) would provide a high AVS-binding sediment and the low-TOC, sandy sediment (2-
JMS040.03) would provide a low AVS-binding test sediment
Pore water salinity values agreed well with nominal values (Table 3.30). Pore water pH was
only slightly higher in sediment from station 2-JMS065.81 and was consistent among both
salinity and spiking treatments within sediments. Pore water ammonia appeared to increase with
increasing salinity. Mean pore water ammonia nitrogen in sediment from station 2-JMS040.03
increased 60% from 19.1 mg NHt-N/1 at 0 g/kg salinity to 30.4 mg NELj-N /I at 15 g/kg salinity.
Similarly, mean pore water ammonia in sediment from station 2-JMS065.81 increased 120%
from 2.5 mg NtLj-N /I at 0 g/kg salinity to 5.5 mg NELj-N /I at 15 g/kg salinity. In the case of
sediment 2-JMS065.81, this increase might be due to displacement of sorbed ammonium ions by
sodium and other seawater cations. The initial saline nature of sediment from station JMS040.03
would seem to lessen any effects of salt addition on ammonia liberation but ammonia produced
by biological activity after salinity adjustment of this sediment to 0 g/kg and subsequently
adsorbed to sediment particles might have been exchanged with seawater cations.
3.3.5 Contaminants Data
Measured concentrations of metals in the stock solutions ranged from 76 to 110% of nominal
values (Table 3.31). Differences between measured and nominal values were likely due in part
to errors associated with multiple dilutions performed by the toxicology lab (the stock sample
sent to the analytical lab consisted of a 10X dilution with deionized water) and the analytical lab
(to obtain concentrations within instrument calibration range).
Although all metals were spiked in equivalent toxic units, the mass of metals added varied by
nearly two orders of magnitude because of the difference in toxicity of the least toxic metal (Ni)
and most toxic metal (Cd). Therefore, when one compares the spiked metal concentrations of
each metal to the corresponding SEM concentrations for that metal, there were two relationships
observed. For those metals with low spike concentrations, there was no apparent relationship
between the spike concentration and the SEM concentration. In contrast, for those metals with
high spike concentrations, there was a monotonically increasing slope of SEM concentration
against spike concentration.
Though no cadmium SEM (Table 3.32) was detected, the spike added ranged from less than the
analytical detection limit to approximately twice the detection limit. Consequently if half of the
Cd added were not extractable as SEM (e.g. see below) then the remaining half would be at or
below the detection limit.
In the case of copper (Table 3.33), sufficient background metal existed in the sediments to be
measurable as SEM even though the spike was equal to or less than the SEM detection limit.
When background copper (i.e. the reported SEM value in 0 TU sediment) is subtracted from the
reported SEM for each treatment, the differences between the corrected SEM and the copper
-------
spike concentration range from +225% to -38%. These apparent differences may reflect in part
increased analytical variance at concentrations near the detection limit. If the detection limit
reported for the freshwater laboratory control (0.0441 (jM/g) is typical, then all spikes were
below the detection limit and the highest measured concentration is only four times the detection
limit.
In the case of nickel and zinc, which were spiked at much higher concentrations, a more
consistent relationship is noted (Tables 3.34 and 3.35). The difference between the metal spike
and measured SEM (adjusted for background in the case of Zn but not for Ni because the
background was less than the detection limit) is relatively constant with mean values of-51% for
Ni and -45.6% for Zn. Samples collected from these two sites concurrent with the ambient
monitoring portion of the study had total metal concentrations of 0.4052 (re-expressed in
|j,moles/g) Ni (station 2-JMS065.81), 0.3728 (re-expressed in |j,moles/g) Ni (station 2-
JMS040.03), 2.3558 (re-expressed in nmoles/g) Zn (station 2-JMS065.81) and 1.9122 (re-
expressed in |j,moles/g) Zn (station 2-JMS040.03) suggesting that most of the sediment-
associated metal is not available as SEM. Similarly, although total copper concentrations (Table
28) were 0.5770 (re-expressed in |j,moles/g) for station 2-JMS040.03 and 0.4343 (re-expressed in
|j,moles/g) for station 2-JMS065.81, Cu SEM was 0.0555 (re-expressed in |j,moles/g) and 0.0376
(re-expressed in |j,moles/g) for station 2-JMS040.03, approximately one tenth of the total.
Comparison of total spiked metals (less Se which was not analyzed in the SEM method) with
measured SEM for spiked metals only, or with total measured SEM (i.e. including the analyzed
metals Pb and Hg which were not part of the spiking mixture), yields results similar to that
observed for Zn and Ni (Table 3.36). This is because the spiking concentrations of these two
metals were much greater than all the other metals combined (spiked and background).
Quantitative recovery of spiked metals may not have occurred for a variety of reasons. Some
metals (Ni, Cu) form sulfides that are not very soluble under SEM/AVS methods (e.g. Allen et
al, 1993; Leonard et al, 1999). Also, adding one metal to a sediment when the AVS capacity
has been exhausted may displace other metals (Simpson et al., 2000). As discussed above the
total metal concentration of the sediments exceeds the SEM/AVS component.
In general, the toxicity data agreed with the notion that toxicity should not occur when
SEM/AVS is less than 1.0 (i.e. AVS-SEM <0) (e.g. Di Toro etal, 1992; Ankley etal, 1996;
Berry et al., 1996). Although the SEM/AVS criterion is primarily a "no effect value" (i.e. values
< 1.0 predict no toxicity but toxicity may or may not be present if SEM/AVS is > 1.0) one might
expect similar SEM/AVS ratios for the same sediment to yield similar degrees of toxicity.
However, the relationship between SEM/AVS and observed toxicity was not consistent within
the same sediment. For example, similar SEM/AVS ratios within sediment from 2-JMS040.03
yielded different degrees of toxicity and as SEM/AVS decreased between 8 g/kg salinity and 15
g/kg salinity in sediment from 2-JMS065.81, toxicity increased. SEM/AVS ratios varied within
sediment primarily due to changes in AVS rather than SEM. There was no apparent relationship
between salinity or metal spiking and measured AVS values. Surprisingly, AVS was higher, by
nearly an order of magnitude, in the low-TOC, sandy sediment from 2-JMS040.03 than in the
high-TOC, silty sediment from 2-JMS065.81. The low AVS reported for the saltwater
laboratory control sediment resulted in a high SEM/AVS ratio in spite of relatively low SEM.
-------
3.4 in situ Tests
3.4.1 Richmond Study
3.4.1.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions
The temperature during the study period declined from 26.5-28°C to 18.5-19.5°C, a normal
seasonal decline (Table 3.37). The dissolved oxygen concentration increased somewhat at Gillie
and Almond creeks, but remained relatively constant at the other creeks. The pH was almost
neutral for the period for which data was collected.
The air temperature declined from 25.0-27.0°C to 14.0-17.0°C during the study period.
Throughout the period, the weather was generally cloudy with minimal wind speed (<5 over half
the time). These conditions are typical of the fall season in this area.
3.4.1.2 Rainfall Data
During the study period, there was little rainfall at Gillie Creek, the site where the greatest
impact was expected (Table 3.37). The highest rainfall was during the 48 hour period ending 27
September (2.4 cm). Similarly, the amount of rainfall at Almond Creek was modest, with the
highest rainfall occurring during the periods ending 25 September and 27 September (1.3 and 1.8
cm respectively). Heavier rainfall occurred at both Falling Creek and Cornelius Creek during the
first and last periods of the study with 3.5 to 5.0 cm at each site during both periods.
3.4.1.3 Survival and Weight Data
The before and after counts for each two-day period were generally consistent, with the same or
fewer animals observed at the end of the period than at the beginning of the period (Table 3.38).
In those cases in which this was not true, there is no evidence that the apparent increase in
number resulted from immigration of indigenous amphipods. At all study sites, the indigenous
species was Gammarusfasciatus, a species readily distinguished macroscopically in shape and
size from Hyalella azteca. The chambers were constructed in such a manner during the
Richmond (and the fall Hopewell) study that small amphipods could move into pockets in the
glue surface where they could not be seen and from which they were not always flushed during
the counting procedure. Therefore, when a day with a low count was followed by a day with a
high count, the high count was assumed to be correct for the preceding day. The difference in
count was generally only 1 animal (5%),
The survival rate over each two-day period ranged from 88.8% to 100% at all four Richmond
study sites (excluding the 70% estimate on day 6 at the Gillie Creek site resulting from the loss
of all animals in one replicate due to tearing of the screen) (Table 3.38). The cumulative survival
at the end of the deployment was 68.8% at Gillie Creek, 71.3% at Almond Creek, and 72.5% at
Falling Creek compared to 81.3% at Cornelius Creek. There was no significant difference in
cumulative survival rate over the study period though survival at Cornelius Creek was higher
than at any other site over the 14- day study period.
-------
There was no significant relationship between survival and rainfall at any of the study sites. The
apparent low survival after the 6th day of exposure corresponds with the total loss of amphipods
in one replicate as a result of a tear in the screen mesh of the exposure chamber. A much larger
rainfall (2.4 cm) during the final 48 hours than during the 48 hours ending on day 6 (0.4 cm)
produced no effect on survival. At the remaining sites, there was no correlation between rainfall
and amphipod survival.
3.4.2 Hopewell Study
3.4.2.1 Fall 2000 Deployment
3.4.2.1.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions
The water temperature during the study period declined from ca. 20°C at the beginning of the
month to 12-13°C at the end in Bear, Cabin and Eppes Creek (Table 3.39). Bailey Creek was
consistently warm, varying between 17 and 24.5°C during the month. This can be explained by
the elevated temperature water entering from the nearby Gravelly Run where temperatures
ranged from 29-32°C during the first two weeks of the month. The dissolved oxygen
concentration was highly variable in Bailey Creek, ranging from 3.8 to 9.4 mg/1. In Gravelly Run
and Bear Creek, the dissolved oxygen was more consistent, ranging between 4.6 and 6.2 mg/1
and 3.5 and 5.9 mg/1 respectively. In Cabin and Eppes Creeks, the dissolved oxygen
concentration was nearly double and more nearly 100% of saturation. The pH ranged from 6.5 to
7.8 in Bailey Creek, 7.0-7.1 in Gravelly Run, and 5.5 to 7.2 in Bear Creek, whereas pH was 7.0
to 9.3 in Cabin and Eppes Creeks.
The air temperature declined from 18-20°C at the beginning of October to 7-9°C at the end of the
month. The exception to this was Cattail Creek, where elevated air temperatures were observed
throughout the month except on October 23, the coldest day on all creeks except Bailey. During
the study period, the days were usually clear to cloudy, and wind velocities were low.
3.4.2.1.2 Rainfall Data
During the entire 4 weeks in October, there was no rainfall at any site in Hopewell. Therefore
any changes in biological parameters cannot be attributed to rainfall events.
3.4.2.1.3 Survival and Weight Data
Survival at the Bailey, Cabin, and Eppes Creek sites was uniformly high throughout the four
week study period, with 2-day survival exceeding 92.5% most of the time (Table 3.40). The
only exception was in Bailey Creek after the first 48 hours when survival was only 87.5%.
Cumulative survival for each 14 day observation period ranged from 81.2 (period 1) in Bailey
Creek to 90% (period 2) in Cabin Creek.
During the first two weeks of the study period, survival was markedly lower at the Gravelly Run
station than elsewhere. Survival after the first 48 hours was only 77.5%. For the next three
-------
observation periods, survival exceeded 93 percent, but then dropped to 62.5-74.1 per 2-days.
Cumulative survival was only 20% on the final observation day.
The Gravelly Run station was terminated at the end of the first study period, and replaced by a
station at the mouth of Bear Creek. Survival at the new site was consistently greater than 93%
over each 2-day period with a cumulative survival rate of 82.5%, all within the range of
responses at the Bailey, Cabin and Eppes Creek sites.
3.4.2.2 Spring 2001 Deployment
3.4.2.2.1 Water Quality and Weather Conditions
The water temperature during the May 2001 study period decreased from the mid 20s to just
below 20°C (Table 3.41). While the temperature was nearly identical during the first few days
(24±1°C), the temperature on the final day was slightly lower in Bear and Eppes Creeks (17 and
19.5°C) than Bailey and Cabin Creeks (20.5 and 22.0°C). The dissolved oxygen concentration
was generally high (7.0-11.0 mg/1), though there was a decline after the first week to as low as
2.7 mg/1 in Bailey and Bear creeks. The pH was between 6.3 and 7.8 at all four study sites. The
air temperature was above 20°C for the first 10 days of the period, declining to 12°C and rising
to 19°C over the last 4 days. During the study period, the days were clear to cloudy and wind
speeds were generally low.
3.4.2.2.2 Rainfall Data
During the 2 weeks in early May, there was again no significant rainfall at any site in Hopewell.
Traces of rainfall were observed twice within the period, but were insufficient to attribute any
mortality to stormwater runoff. No rainfall was recorded at the Hopewell weather station.
3.4.2.2.3 Survival and Weight Data
Survival over each 2-day period during the 14-day study period ranged from 91.5 to 100%,
comparable to both previous exposure periods (Table 3.42). The overall survival for the 14-day
period ranged from 80 to 82.5%, further indicating the lack of response to local conditions.
Mean weight was higher for the amphipods held in Bailey Creek than for those held at other
stations. The Bailey Creek site is influenced by water from Gravelly Run as evidenced by higher
temperatures than elsewhere, especially during the fall deployment. The thermal difference in the
spring does not seem sufficient to explain the weight difference. However, there may have been
a greater abundance of food in the water in Bailey Creek.
Mean percent gravid was highest for amphipods in Bailey Creek and lowest for those in Eppes
Creek. This is not inconsistent with the speculation that the may have been a greater abundance
of food in the water in Bailey Creek. However, the differences in percent gravid are small and
probably not significant.
-------
Table 3.1. Water quality at each sampling site at the time of collection (except as noted). All
stations are in the James River except 2-CHK012.12, located in the Chickahominy
River.
Sampling
Date
8/1/00*
8/7/00*
1 0/1 7/00
10/19/00
Station
66.35
67.56
68.49
68.64
73.63
74.25
12.12
44.08
46.73
50.55
52.52
56.12
40 03
47 Af.
47 33
47 81
65 81
68 68
77 08
74 99
40.03
42.46
42.46
47.33
47.81
65.81
68.68
72.08
74.29
Temp.
(°C)
28.0
27.7
27.4
27.8
28.2
27.6
27.7
27.7
28.5
27.7
29.7
28.7
18.8
18.6
17.1
18.9
18.8
19.0
19.2
19.7
19.8
Conductivity
((omhos/cm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
** 7840
** 5080
** 3700
** 9390
** 900
** 107
** 905
** 771
8297
6220
5090
2290
1965
216
229
249
250
Salinity
(g/kg)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
** 4 T.
** 7 7
** i 7
** i 7
** 0 1
** 0 1
** 0 1
** 0 1
4.6
3.3
2.7
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
DO
(mg/L)
8.3
8.0
7.5
7.4
9.8
9.0
5.9
7.1
8.4
6.2
8.4
7.4
8.9
6.2
9.2
9.7
6.2
10.3
10.6
11.1
11.0
pH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
** 7 <;
** 7 7
** f. 0
** 8 5
** f. 0
** e 7
** e 7
** 8 0
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.0
8.1
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.7
Depth
(meters)
1
5
3
7
1
2
1
7
3
7
1
1
5.3
2.6
2.8
8
2.9
7.9
8
5
8.8
Weather Condition
Clondv
Sunny; mid 50's
Sunny, low 70's
Sunny; low 70's
Sunny, low 70's
Sunny, low 70's
Sunny; low 70's
Sunny, low 70's
Sunny, Low 70's
-------
Table 3.1 (cont). Water quality at each sampling site at the time of collection (except as noted).
All stations are in the James River except 2-CHK012.12, located in the
Chickahominy River.
Sampling
Date
10/23/00
10/25/00
Station
40.03
42.46
47.33
47.81
65.81
68.68
72.08
74.29
65.81
68.68
74.29
Temp.
(°C)
18.9
18.6
18.7
18.9
18.8
19.0
19.1
19.5
18.5
18.6
18.9
Conductivity
((jmhos/cm)
10053
7005
6170
2320
226
238
257
270
254
238
275
Salinity
(R/kg)
5.6
3.8
3.3
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
DO (mg/L)
8.5
5.9
8.8
6.2
9.4
10.0
10.0
10.6
8.3
8.6
9.6
PH
7.6
7.8
7.7
8.1
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.7
7.6
7.8
8.1
Depth
(meters)
5.5
2.8
8.8
2.5
8.3
7.4
6.6
8.5
7
6
8
Weather Condition
Sunny, N/NW breeze,
low 40's
Sunny; low 50's
Sunny, N/NW wind; 50's
Sunny, N/NW wind 50's
Sunny; N/NW Breeze
Sunny; N/NW wind
Sunny; N/NW wind
Sunny; N/NW wind
Sunny, calm
Sunny; high 60's
Overcast, 50's, calm
* Sampling dates 8/1/00 and 8/7/00 - Data collected concurrently with benthic community samples. Sediment samples for chemistry and toxicity
characterizations were collected on 8/22, 8/23, and 8/24. Water quality parameters were not measured on these dates.
** For sampling date 10/17/00, data were determined in the laboratory
ND = no data collected
Table 3.2. Ambient water test results with freshwater species
Station
Freshwater
Control
74.29
72.08
68.68
65.81
Seawater Control
47.81
47.33
Salinity
(g/kg)
0
0
0
0
1.6
1.8
3.0
P. promelas
% Survival
98
98
100
98
100
N.T.1
N.T.
N.T.
Mean Dry Wt. (mg)
0.688
0.803
0.863
0.755
0.755
N.T.
N.T.
N.T.
C. dubia
% Survival
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Mean # Offspring
41.9
42.2
45.6
43.9
39.4
36.0
37.8
23.9
'Not Tested
-------
Table 3.3. Ambient water test results with estuarine species.
Station
Seawater
Seawater
Seawater
47.81
47.33
42.46
40.03
Salinity
20 g/kg
1.2 g/kg
4.3 g/kg
1.3g/kg
3.0 g/kg
4.7 g/kg
7.3 g/kg
C. variegatus
%
Survival
100
100
100
82
78
98
96
Mean Dry Wt.
(mg)
1.310
1.184
1.216
1.164
1.088
1.220
1.122
M. bahia
%
Survival
100
0
38
0
0
6
84
Mean Dry Wt.
(mg)
0.304
—
0.194
___
___
0.273
0.278
%Females with
Eggs
72.7
—
0.0
—
—
o.o1
77.8
No females among survivors
Table 3.4. Reference toxicant test results for freshwater and estuarine species (Reference
Toxicant: KC1, Sigma "Ultra"; values in mg/1).
Freshwater species
Ref Test Dates
48-h LC50
(95% C.L.)
Control Chart LC50
(95% C.L.)
C. dubia
10/1 8/00 to 10/20/00
513.0
(478.6-549.9)
557.0
(496.7-617.3)
P. promelas
10/19/00 to 10/21/00
854.6
(763.8-956.1)
812.3
(625.0-999.7)
Estuarine Species
Ref. Test Dates
48-h LC50
(95% C.L.)
Control Chart LC50
(95% C.L.)
M. bahia
10/1 8/00 to 10/20/00
555.2
(497.2-619.8)
590.0
(518.9-661.0)
C. variegatus
10/23/00 to 10/25/00
1200.0
(1041.4-1382.7)
1071.3
(930.5-1212.1)
-------
Table 3.5. Surface water sample characteristics on arrival at testing laboratory and during test
exposure for freshwater and estuarine species (Mean and (Std. Dev.)).
Parameter
Arrival Temp. (°C)
Conductivity (^MHOS)
Salinity1 (g/kg)
Arrival pH (S.U.)
Arrival D.O. (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hardness (mg/1 CaCO,)
Alkalinity (mg/1 CaCQ,)
Test Temp. (°C)
Test D.O. (mg/1)
Test pH (S.U.)
Station
74.29
3.0
(1.7)
277.0
(17.3)
N.D.
8.5
(0.1)
12.1
(0.5)
<1.0
(0.0)
99.0
(10.7)
61.0
(2.7)
25.2
(0.6)
8.2
(0.0)
8.0
(0.2)
72.08
2.8
(1.0)
246.7
(14.9)
N.D.
8.5
(0.3)
12.0
(0.1)
<1.0
(0.0)
109.0
(0.7)
61.3
(2.4)
25.0
(0.5)
8.2
(0.0)
8.1
(0.2)
68.68
3.5
(1.8)
238.3
(13.8)
N.D.
8.2
(0.5)
12.4
(0.4)
<1.0
(0.0)
91.7
(9.6)
58.7
(6.2)
25.1
(0.5)
8.2
(0.0)
8.1
(0.1)
65.81
4.5
(3.0)
226.3
(8.9)
N.D.
8.0
(0.4)
12.4
(0.3)
2.1
(1.0)
98.3
(6.4)
56.3
(2.4)
25.0
(0.5)
8.2
(0.0)
7.9
(0.2)
47.81
2.9
(0.8)
2740.0
(646.7)
1.8
(0.9)
7.9
(0.3)
12.3
(0.2)
<1.0
(0.0)
468.0
(109.3)
56.7
(7.6)
25.2
(0.3)
8.2
(0.0)
7.8
(0.1)
47.33
2.4
(0.6)
3840.0
(1306.7)
3.0
(1.6)
8.0
(0.2)
12.0
(0.3)
<1.0
(0.0)
547.3
(110.2)
60.0
(6.0)
25.0
(0.4)
8.2
(0.0)
7.8
(0.0)
42.46
1.8
(0.2)
N.D.
4.7
(1.5)
7.6
(0.2)
12.3
(0.3)
<1.0
(0.0)
966.3
(189.1)
57.7
(5.8)
25.8
(0.2)
8.1
(0.0)
7.7
(0.1)
40.03
2.4
(0.5)
N.D.
7.3
(1.7)
7.7
(0.2)
12.0
(0.2)
2.1
(2.1)
1083.3
(304.4)
63.3
(6.2)
25.9
(0.1)
8.1
(0.0)
7.7
(0.2)
Salinity not determined based on conductivity value.
N.D. = not determined
-------
Table 3.6. Total metals in ambient water samples collected from 8 stations in the lower tidal
freshwater reach from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point.
Station
40.03
42.46
47.33
47.81
65.81
68.68
72.08
72.08 D
74.29
Al
^g/1
1230
950
880
1350
2026
660
650
950
690
Sb
Fig/1
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.5
0.61
0.58
0.58
0.5
As
^g/1
1.1
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1
1.28
1.22
1.2
0.8
Be
Fig/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cd
Fig/1
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Cr
Fig/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.2
1.21
1.39
1.71
2.6
Cu
Fig/1
2.2
2
2.1
1.9
5.1
2.57
2.5
2.97
2.7
Pb
Fig/1
1.4
1.1
1
1.1
3.6
0.94
0.92
1.39
1.4
Mn
Fig/1
85
65
110
130
174
94.6
92.6
110
96.7
Hg
US/1
0.00688
0.0065
< 0.0015
0.0055
0.0139
0.00476
0.00449
0.00471
0.00396
Ni
Fig/1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
4
1.82
1.9
2
2.1
Se
Fig/1
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.6
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.6
Ag
Fig/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
Th
Fig/1
NA
<10
NA
NA
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Zinc
US/1
5.3
3.8
5.5
3.9
16.2
3.62
4.71
6.5
3.6
NA = Not Analyzed
D = Duplicate
-------
Table 3.7. Dissolved metals in ambient water samples collected from 8 stations in the lower tidal
freshwater reach from Jamestown Island to Jordan Point.
Mean
Salinity
g/kg
Al
Ug/1
Sb
Ug/1
As
Ug/1
Be
ug/i
Cd
Ug/1
Cr
Ug/1
Cu
Ug/1
Pb
Ug/1
Mn
Ug/1
Hg
ug/i
N
Ug/1
Se
Ug/1
Ag
Ug/1
Th
Ug/1
Zn
ug/i
Station
40.03
42.46
47.33
47.81
65.81
68.68
72.08
72.08 D
74.29
4.4
3.14
2.05
1.07
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.075
8.1
7.7
4.1
6.6
9.3
12.9
9.0
10.2
12.4
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.4
0.52
0.56
0.54
0.4
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.6
1.35
1.32
1.36
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
2.3
1.1
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.29
1.38
1.38
1.4
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
6.4
1.6
28
<0.8
0.7
0.77
0.69
<0.7
1.6
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
<0.0015
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
< 0.0015
<0.8
<0.7
<0.8
<0.7
0.8
0.77
0.81
0.82
0.7
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
1.1
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.08
<1.0
<1.0
Freshwater WQC
Acute
US/1
Chronic
ug/i
--
--
--
--
360
190
--
--
2.3
0.78
16
11
11
7.9
65
7.4
--
--
2.4
0.012
122
14
20
5
1.8
--
--
--
78
71
Saltwater WQC
Acute
Ug/1
Chronic
Ug/l
--
--
--
--
69
36
--
--
43
9.3
1100
50
5.9
3.8
240
9.3
--
--
2.1
0.025
75
8.3
300
71
2.3
--
--
--
95
86
Hardness dependant FW WQC based on hardness of 62 mg/1 CaC03
By definition SW WQC only apply to River Mile Stations 40.03 - 47.81
NA = Not Analyzed
D = Duplicate
-------
Table 3.8. Total and dissolved trace elements (|ig/l) in water samples from James River
stations.
Station
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS072.08D
2-JMS074.29
Diss
Ca
65
45
30
25
15.5
22.2
21.8
21.8
17.9
Total
Ca
70
45
30
27
18.4
22.2
25
24
20
Diss
Fe
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Total
Fe
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,950
950
990
1,430
940
Diss
MR
180
115
65
50
3.2
4.5
4.32
4.31
3.4
Total
Mg
200
115
60
50
4.4
4.62
5.11
4.91
4.4
Diss
K
60
40
20
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total
K
65
40
20
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diss
Na
1,500
920
450
350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total
Na
1600
870
480
360
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = not analyzed
D = Duplicate
Table 3.9. Nutrient concentrations (mg/1) in ambient water from James JAiver stations.
Station
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS068.68 FD
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS074.29
SamplinR
Date
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/20/00
10/20/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
OrthoP
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
Tot. P
0.1
0.08
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.19
0.11
TKN
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1
0.8
NH3
<0.04
<0.04
0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
NO2 + NO3
0.1
0.07
0.04
<0.04
0.07
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.1
FD = Field Duplicate
-------
Table 3.10. Sediment characteristics at each station from samples collected in August and
October 2000. Each station is represented by 3 replicates selected randomly from
within a grid centered on the station coordinates. No samples were analyzed from
Station 2-JMS072.08 because most attempts to collect a sample failed because of a
high sand content.
Stationer
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS044.08
2-JMS046.73
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS065.81
Field
Replicate
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A(FD)
B
B(FD)
C
C(FD)
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Percent
TOC
3.22
3.21
2.87
1.70
1.83
1.76
0.67
0.53
0.70
2.19
2.22
1.73
2.34
2.17
2.39
2.39
2.21
2.29
2.28
2.42
2.18
2.04
2.17
2.05
2.34
2.28
2.21
1.59
1.87
1.44
1.12
1.96
1.76
1.27
1.56
2.13
Pore
Water
NH3-N
(Ug/l)
7.20
5.90
8.00
7.0
8.7
4.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
6.20
4.80
3.80
18.00
9.20
9.70
7.9
--
6.9
--
6.2
3.2
9.6
1.2
15.00
8.00
8.00
3.10
3.20
2.40
0.80
2.80
2.80
4.0
5.1
24.3
Acid Volatile
Sulfide
(composited)
(umoles/kg)
NA
0.002
0.010
5.855
0.420
--
--
0.023
0.020
0.005
NA
5.530
1.651
0.825
Percent
Moisture
65.99
57.14
36.74
60.62
69.16
63.74
62.57
64.20
66.32
53.72
57.28
48.67
Percent
Sand
21.06
19.85
43.58
20.81
20.43
20.80
75.80
81.97
73.03
2.99
5.32
14.38
10.85
13.28
7.67
1.74
1.45
1.70
1.99
1.00
3.31
8.85
1.00
3.40
4.96
5.78
6.44
10.81
31.35
44.47
57.75
17.57
35.27
2.24
3.32
6.66
Percent Silt
34.88
33.81
18.95
28.42
29.86
19
7.97
5.87
8.56
42.14
41.47
44.79
34.35
32.46
31.67
39.00
35.17
38.63
39.87
39.06
39.52
34.46
40.09
39.70
39.52
37.45
40.04
40.2
29.76
22.89
16.8
32.55
23.77
44.24
46.32
43.67
Percent
Clay
44.06
46.35
37.47
50.78
49.71
60.2
16.22
12.16
18.41
54.87
53.21
40.83
54.79
54.26
60.65
59.25
63.38
59.66
58.14
60.52
57.17
56.69
58.99
56.91
55.52
56.77
53.53
48.99
38.89
32.64
25.45
49.88
40.51
53.52
50.36
49.67
ODU
Percent
Sand
36.87
46.41
2.57
2.94
25.51
5.03
ODU
Percent
Silt-Clay
63.13
53.59
97.43
97.06
74.49
94.97
FD = Field Duplicate
Table 3.10 (cont). Sediment characteristics at each station from samples collected in August and
October 2000. Each station is represented by 3 replicates selected randomly
from within a grid centered on the station coordinates. No samples were
-------
analyzed from Station 2-JMS072.08 because most attempts to collect a
sample failed because of a high sand content.
Station
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS073.63
2-JMS074.25
2-JMS074.29
Field
Replicate
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A(FD)
B
B(FD)
C
C(FD)
A
B
C
A
B
C
Percent
TOC
2.12
2.09
2.24
2.71
3.55
2.52
1.61
2.01
1.61
1.65
2.21
2.25
2.41
1.30
1.47
NS
1.75
1.79
1.79
1.76
1.62
1.69
2.17
1.97
1.69
2.46
0.74
2.35
Pore
Water
NH3-N
(Ug/l)
4.60
6.70
6.80
13.00
24.00
19.00
5.30
5.70
5.10
3.60
5.50
2.30
4.9
0.1
1.9
NS
4.80
--
4.00
--
4.00
5.00
4.00
2.80
25.3
8.4
32.4
Acid Volatile
Sulfide
(composited)
(umoles/kg)
7.586
0.808
NA
0.730
0.528
NS
--
--
1.778
1.887
1.145
--
0.576
Percent
Moisture
61.19
62.52
43.51
51.69
49.35
NS
51.40
50.65
48.77
55.43
Percent
Sand
5.09
5.59
3.99
20.40
14.99
24.64
43.22
19.24
47.57
8.05
26.96
11.35
8.76
1.78
2.99
NS
NS
NS
14.89
14.83
20.42
21.33
21.89
19.45
23.84
25.17
29.18
4.63
52.37
6.13
Percent Silt
45.66
37.48
45.47
38.03
38.65
35.24
32.95
45.19
27.64
38.06
43.67
51.92
46.05
38.05
38.65
NS
NS
NS
55.43
57.67
49.97
50.63
50.31
51.32
48.17
42.64
23.16
44.50
23.90
43.86
Percent
Clay
49.25
56.94
50.54
41.56
46.36
40.12
23.83
35.56
24.79
57.9
29.37
36.73
45.19
60.17
58.36
NS
NS
NS
29.68
27.5
29.61
28.04
27.8
29.24
27.99
32.19
47.66
50.87
23.73
50.01
ODU
Percent
Sand
15.33
7.50
48.12
10.97
22.08
30.51
ODU
Percent
Silt-Clay
84.67
92.50
51.88
89.03
77.92
69.49
NA - Not analyzed
NS = No sample (see text for explanation)
Table 3.11. Survival and final weight ofHyalella azteca exposed to sediment from DEQ
stations.
Station
Control
Survival (%)
Mean
97
S.D.
4.4
Dry Wt. (mg)
Mean
0.096
S.D.
0.002
Total No.
Emergent
3
-------
12.12A
12.12B
12.12C
44.08A
44.08B
44.08C
46.73A
46.73B
46.73C
50.55A
50.55B
50.55C
52.52A
52.52B
52.52C
56.12A
56.12B
56.12C
66.35A
66.35B
66.35C
67.56A
67.56B
67.56C
68.49A
68.49B
68.49C
68.64A
68.64B
68.64C
73.63A
73.63B
73.63C
74.25A
74.25B
74.25C
95
95
97
95
97
98
95
95
90
97
90
92
97
98
95
100
100
93
97
90
90
92
98
93
95
95
83
90
97
92
100
93
93
97
97
97
3.3
6.7
2.2
3.3
2 2
2 2
0.0
3.3
6.7
2 2
10.0
5.6
4.4
2 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 2
4.4
3.3
o o
J.J
5.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
o o
3. 3
12.2
6.7
2 2
5.6
0.0
2.2
8.9
4.4
2.2
4.4
0.079
0.084
0.094
0.085
0.078
0.100
0.095
0.103
0.096
0.104
0.099
0.110
0.089
0.083
0.081
0.101
0.096
0.103
0.081
0.083
0.087
0.110
0.115
0.097
0.068
0.087
0.087
0.071
0.074
0.093
0.090
0.102
0.078
0.085
0.075
0.083
0.029
0.016
0.011
0.011
0.004
0.024
0.002
0.012
0.020
0.010
0.015
0.023
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.009
0.010
0.026
0.005
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.018
0.011
0.013
0.008
0.012
0.005
0.013
0.023
0.017
0.033
0.006
0.011
0.004
0.012
1
1
3
0
2
5
4
2
3
0
1
3
0
1
1
0
1
3
1
2
1
4
3
1
1
0
5
3
0
2
1
4
2
0
2
2
-------
Table 3.12. Percent hatch, percent post hatch survival, and percent total survival for Pimephales
promelas exposed to sediment from DEQ stations.
Station
0.000
12.12A
12.12B
12.12C
44.08A
44.08B
44.08C
46.73A
46.73B
46.73C
50.55A
50.55B
50.55C
52.52A
52.52B
52.52C
56.12A
56.12B
56.12C
66.35A
66.35B
66.35C
67.56A
67.56B
67.56C
68.49A
68.49B
68.49C
68.64A
68.64B
68.64C
73.63A
73.63B
73.63C
74.25A
74.25B
74.25C
Day 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Day 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
o o
5. 5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
o o
J.J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o o
J.J
0.0
16.7
o o
5. 5
0.0
0.0
6.7
10.0
13.3
0.0
o o
J. J
3.3
6.7
0.0
0.0
o o
J.J
0.0
Cumulativ
Day 3
73.3
16.7
53.3
46.7
60.0
50.0
23.3
33.3
66.7
40.0
56.7
63.3
33.3
46.7
50.0
80.0
50.0
50.0
40.0
40.0
63.3
40.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
60.0
36.7
56.7
63.3
10.0
50.0
33.3
40.0
83.3
46.7
43.3
50.0
e % Hatch
Day 4
100.0
73.3
90.0
83.3
70.0
96.7
80.0
80.0
96.7
100.0
90.0
100.0
76.7
90.0
93.3
90.0
93.3
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
96.7
86.7
90.0
90.0
96.7
100.0
100.0
93.3
83.3
86.7
100.0
96.7
100.0
80.0
93.3
96.7
Day 5
100.0
90.0
90.0
93.3
76.7
96.7
86.7
83.3
96.7
100.0
90.0
100.0
76.7
100.0
93.3
96.7
93.3
93.3
96.7
96.7
100.0
100.0
93.7
90.0
93.3
96.7
100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
83.3
93.3
96.7
Day 6
100.0
96.7
90.0
93.3
76.7
96.7
86.7
83.3
96.7
100.0
90.0
100.0
76.7
100.0
93.3
96.7
93.3
93.3
96.7
96.7
100.0
100.0
93.7
96.7
93.3
96.7
100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
93.3
96.7
% Sun
Post Hatch
100.0
96.3
100.0
90.0
93.0
100.0
78.7
100.0
93.3
93.3
95.8
90.0
100.0
96.7
100.0
96.3
92.5
96.3
100.0
96.3
100.0
93.3
96.0
89.6
100.0
96.3
80.0
96.7
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
96.7
100.0
95.8
92.5
96.3
/ival
Total
100.0
93.3
90.0
83.3
70.0
96.7
70.0
83.3
90.0
93.3
86.7
90.0
76.7
96.7
93.3
93.3
86.7
90.0
96.7
93.3
100.0
93.3
90.0
86.7
93.3
93.3
80.0
96.7
93.3
90.0
90.0
100.0
96.7
100.0
86.7
86.7
93.3
Table 3.13. Survival and final weight ofHyalella azteca exposed to sediment from EPA
stations.
-------
Station
Control
40.03A
40.03B
40.03C
42.46A
42.46B
42.46C
47.33A
47.33B
47.33C
47.81A
47.81B
47.81C
65.81A
65.81B
65.81C
68.68A
68.68B
68.68C
74.29A
74.29B
74.29C
Survival (%)
Mean
95
601
92
92
532
473
92
90
97
97
93
100
90
95
97
78
98
98
100
98
95
98
S.D.
3.3
36.7
11.1
2.2
35.6
28.9
4.4
10.0
4.4
2.2
5.6
0.0
0.0
3.3
4.4
5.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.2
Dry Wt. (mg)
Mean
0.103
0.136
0.100
0.094
0.087
0.123
0.083
0.106
0.100
0.088
0.082
0.099
0.090
0.084
0.077
0.098
0.078
0.086
0.082
0.106
0.147
0.094
S.D.
0.006
0.069
0.023
0.011
0.001
0.024
0.004
0.015
0.021
0.002
0.014
0.016
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.019
0.006
0.012
0.015
0.016
0.004
0.006
Total No.
Emergent
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
Live C. polita were found in laboratory replicate 1; survival in this replicate was 5%. Mean survival in the other two laboratory replicates was
88%.
A single live, juvenile Callinectes sapidus was found in laboratory replicate 2 and live C. polita were found in laboratory replicate 3; survival in
these two laboratory replicates was 0 and 60% respectively. Survival in laboratory replicate 1 was 100%.
3Live C. polita were found in laboratory replicates 1 & 2; survival in these two replicates was 20-30%. Survival in laboratory replicate 3 was
90%.
-------
Table 3.14. Percent hatch, percent post hatch survival, and percent total survival for
Pimephalespromelas exposed to sediment from EPA stations.
Station
Control
40.03A
40.03B
40.03C
42.46A
42.46B
42.46C
47.33A
47.33B
47.33C
47.81A
47.81B
47.81C
65.81A
65.81B
65.81C
68.68A
68.68B
68.68C
74.29A
74.29B
74.29C
Cumulative % Hatch
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
o o
5. 5
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
o o
J.J
0.0
6.7
o o
5. 5
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o o
J.J
0.0
3.3
33.3
36.7
43.3
83.3
56.7
53.3
50.0
43.3
56.7
43.3
40.0
36.7
36.7
83.3
50.0
36.7
56.7
43.3
70.0
66.7
63.3
40.0
96.7 96.7
83.3 90.0
76.7 76.7
93.3 100.0
86.7 93.3
63.3 76.7
100.0 100.0
80.0 93.3
90.0 90.0
70.0 80.0
86.7 86.7
66.7 76.7
66.7 70.0
100.0 100.0
90.0 90.0
60.0 60.0
86.7 100.0
90.0 90.0
86.7 86.7
96.7 96.7
96.7 96.7
73.3 73.3
96.7
93.3
76.7
100.0
93.3
76.7
100.0
93.3
90.0
80.0
86.7
80.0
70.0
100.0
90.0
60.0
100.0
90.0
90.0
96.7
96.7
73.3
% Survival
Post Hatch Total
89.6
95.8
96.7
96.7
93.0
96.3
96.7
96.7
93.0
96.7
100.0
95.2
100.0
93.3
96.7
95.8
96.7
96.7
92.6
93.3
86.3
96.3
86.7
90.0
73.3
96.7
86.7
73.3
96.7
90.0
83.3
76.7
86.7
76.7
70.0
93.3
86.7
56.7
96.7
86.7
83.3
90.0
83.3
70.0
Table 3.15. Reference toxicant test results in aqueous media for species used in sediment
toxicity tests (Reference toxicant: KC1, Sigma "Ultra" Lot #29H00321; values in mg/1).
DEQ Samples:
Ref. Test Dates
48-h LC50
(95% C.L.)
Control Chart LC50
(95% C.L.)
H. azteca
9/1/00 to 9/5/00
499.0
(463.2-538.0)
457.0
(382.7-531.3)
P. promelas
9/5/00 to 9/7/00
992.9
(907.7-1085.7)
815.6
(627.9-1003.3)
EPA Samples:
Ref. Test Dates
LC50
(95% C.L.)
Control Chart LC50
(95% C.L.)
H. azteca
10/30/00 to 11/4/00
478.7
(450.3-508.9)
462.2
(387.4-537.1)
P. promelas
10/30/00 to 11/2/00
981.3
(887.0-1085.7)
815.1
(627.5-1002.8)
-------
Table 3.16. Bulk metal concentrations (|ig/g) in sediment samples collected from the James
River in 2000.
Station
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS044.08
2-JMS046.73
2-JMS047.33
9_
JMS047.33D
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS073.63
2-
JMS073.63D
2-JMS074.25
2-JMS074.29
D cts cti on
Limit
ER-L"
ER-M"
ER-L"
ER-M*1
TECC
PECC
Al
21,800
24,300
8,090
28,400
41,500
34,200
23,200
26,400
29,000
20,400
25,500
26,700
35,900
30,100
19,300
28,900
34,000
nd
21,700
26,400
31,200
23,000
5
14,000
58,000
Sb
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
nd
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
5.0
As
5.2
6.8
5.0
6.9
7.6
7.4
6.9
7.2
6.5
<5.0
<5.0
10.5
5.3
5.8
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
nd
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
5.0
8.2
70.0
13
50
9.79
33
Be
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
nd
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
5.0
Cd
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
nd
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.2
9.6
0.70
3.9
0.99
4.98
Cr
31.1
33.0
13.9
39.4
46.7
44.8
36.4
39.0
40.5
29.5
33.7
35.6
45.7
38.5
33.5
32.9
37.5
nd
29.4
32.7
34.3
30.8
5.0
81
370
39
270
43.4
111
Cu
16.1
27.6
9.2
32.7
34.4
38.7
36.2
37.4
36.7
26.5
30.3
36.7
43.0
35.5
38.9
16.6
28.8
nd
29.1
29.5
26.8
31.3
5.0
34
270
41
190
31.6
149
Fe
32,700
35,600
13,100
42,500
47,500
46,700
45,500
47,000
46,400
29,200
35,400
46,800
43,500
40,700
31,200
32,800
46,600
nd
35,500
37,000
40,000
34,700
5
200,000
280,000
Pb
21.0
32.3
12.3
37.5
40.2
39.7
37.6
39.5
39.8
30.0
34.9
52.4
42.1
33.6
36.3
16.0
21.4
nd
29.6
28.6
28.4
26.8
5.0
46.7
218
55
99
35.8
128
Mn
952
1,070
297
1,550
1.840
1,440
1,440
1.720
1,530
628
776
1,320
983
1,480
915
1,230
2.060
nd
775
778
858
1,250
5
730
1700
Hg
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.16
0.11
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.12
<0.10
<0.10
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.19
<0.10
<0.10
nd
0.13
0.13
0.12
<0.10
0.10
0.15
0.71
0.18
1.06
Ni
18.1
21.9
7.6
27.5
31.0
30.3
24.7
26.0
27.8
20.0
22.7
23.8
29.9
25.9
17.8
25.0
26.0
nd
21.0
23.3
22.9
21.4
5.0
20.9
51.6
24
45
22.7
48.6
Se
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
nd
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
Ag
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
nd
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0
3.7
Th
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
nd
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
5.0
Zn
94
125
43
154
164
169
154
166
165
118
136
154
213
152
171
82
93
nd
132
135
123
123
5
150
410
110
550
121
459
nd = no data. Station was excessively sandy, so Ponar grab was ineffective for sampling.
D = Duplicate
z Long, E.R. et al. 1995.
"Ingersoll, C.G., et al. 1996.
c MacDonald, DD, CG Ingersoll and TA Berger. 2000.
Underlined values exceed the relevant ER-M.
-------
Table 3.17. Sediment acid volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals (|imole/g wet
weight) for sediments collected from the James River during late summer and fall
of 2000.
Station
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS044.08
2-JMS046.73
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS047.33 D
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS072.08
2-JMS073.63
2-JMS073.63 D
2-JMS074.25
2-JMS074.29
Acid
Volatile Cadmium
Sulfide
NA
0.0021 <
0.0103 <
5.8549 <
0.4204 <
0.0234 <
0.0201 <
0.0005 <
NA
5.5303 <
1.651 <
0.825 <
7.5862 <
0.8075 <
NA
0.7296 <
0.5279 <
NS
1.7779 <
1.8865 <
1.1452 <
0.5755 <
D = Duplicate
1 < values (i.e. below detection
NA
0.0136
0.0274
0.0179
0.0125
0.0138
0.0136
0.0136
NA
0.0134
0.016
0.0140
0.012
0.0132
NA
0.0177
0.0175
NS
0.0161
0.0154
0.0166
0.0133
Copper
NA
0.1442
0.1936
0.0948
0.0994
0.1345
0.1266
0.132
NA
0.0949
0.127
0.1987
0.1376
0.1288
NA
0.1251
0.139
NS
0.19999
0.1222
0.1757
0.1289
limit) are not included
Mercury
NA
< 0.000038
< 0.000077
< 0.000099
< 0.000034
< 0.000039
< 0.000040
< 0.000038
NA
< 0.000038
< 0.000045
< 0.000039
< 0.000051
< 0.000037
NA
< 0.000050
< 0.000049
NS
< 0.000045
< 0.000043
< 0.000046
< 0.000037
in sum SEM .
Nickel
NA
< 0.2403
< 0.4840
< 0.3162
< 0.2209
< 0.2466
< 0.2533
< 0.2400
NA
< 0.2372
< 0.2823
< 0.2484
< 0.21 17
< 0.2341
NA
< 0.3128
< 0.309
NS
< 0.2856
< 0.2716
< 0.2929
< 0.2344
Lead
NA
0.0737
< 0.1484
< 0.0969
0.0677
< 0.0776
< 0.0776
< 0.0736
NA
< 0.0727
< 0.0865
0.1257
0.0941
< 0.0918
NA
< 0.0959
< 0.0947
NS
< 0.0875
< 0.0832
< 0.0898
< 0.0719
Zinc
NA
0.6657
0.9173
0.7836
0.6977
0.6419
0.6646
0.6416
NA
0.5301
0.7271
0.8932
1.173
0.6599
NA
0.4256
0.3303
NS
1.0966
0.6731
0.9109
0.5469
Sum SEM '
NA
0.8836
1.1109
0.8784
0.8648
0.7764
0.7912
0.7736
NA
0.625
0.8541
1.2176
1.4047
0.7887
NA
0.5507
0.4693
NS
1.29659
0.7953
1.0866
0.6758
AVS-SEM
-0.8815
-1.1006
4.9765
-0.4444
-0.7530
-0.7711
-0.7731
4.9053
0.7969
-0.3926
6.1815
0.0188
0.1789
0.0586
0.4813
1.0912
0.0586
-0.1003
-------
Table 3.18. SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Dibenzofuran
Bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-N-octylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
Diethyl phthalate
ER-L
ER-M
TEC
PEC
2-CHK012.12
<10
20
<10
170
45
<10
<10
150
<10
2-JMS040.03
10
15
<10
180
140
15
<10
110
10
2-JMS042.46
<10
<10
<10
290
85
20
<10
310
60
2-JMS044.08
<10
<10
<10
180
30
35
<10
140
40
2-JMS046.73
<10
30
<10
290
30
20
<10
170
40
2-JMS047.33
<10
25
<10
430
50
50
<10
270
45
2-JMS047.33
Field Dup.
15
15
<10
210
45
30
<10
180
20
2-JMS047.81
<10
30
<10
110
15
NA
<10
100
25
2-JMS050.55
<10
25
<10
260
<10
10
<10
110
20
-------
Table 3.18 (cont). SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
Low Molecular PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total LM PAHs
High Molecular PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Perylene
Pyrene
Total HM PAHs
Total PAHs
ER-L
70
44
16
85.3
19
160
240
552
261
430
384
600
63.4
665
1700
4022
ER-M
670
160
500
1100
540
2100
1500
3160
1600
1600
2800
5100
260
2600
9600
44792
TEC
57.2
77.4
176
204
108
150
166
33
423
195
NA
1610
PEC
845
536
561
1170
1050
1450
1290
NA
2230
1520
NA
22800
2-CHK012.12
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
30
<10
30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
110
25
135
165
2-JMS040.03
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
45
20
65
20
30
20
20
20
15
25
<10
30
15
60
30
285
350
2-JMS042.46
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
20
30
20
20
20
15
25
<10
50
15
120
45
380
380
2-JMS044.08
15
<10
<10
<10
<10
40
30
85
20
30
15
15
20
15
25
<10
45
15
190
55
445
530
2-JMS046.73
<10
<10
<10
<10
15
50
<10
65
30
45
35
30
35
25
55
<10
55
20
170
60
560
625
2-JMS047.33
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
50
50
100
55
85
50
20
60
60
75
<10
110
45
120
120
800
900
2-JMS047.33
Field Dup.
15
<10
<10
10
<10
60
40
125
35
45
40
30
40
30
41
<10
65
25
160
80
591
716
2-JMS047.81
10
<10
<10
15
<10
50
40
115
55
70
40
45
60
25
80
<10
70
20
220
85
770
885
2-JMS050.55
15
<10
<10
<10
<10
35
30
80
30
35
35
25
35
25
40
<10
50
20
170
60
525
605
-------
Table 3.18 (cont). SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
[sophorone
Dibenzofuran
Bi s [2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-N-octylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
Diethyl phthalate
ER-L
ER-M
TEC
PEC
2-JMS052.52
<10
25
<10
260
<10
10
<10
110
20
2-JMS056.12
<10
15
<10
170
20
15
<10
120
10
2-JMS065.81
10
30
<10
290
30
15
<10
180
60
2-JMS066.35
<10
25
15
150
15
NA
<10
120
25
2-JMS067.56
<10
30
<10
190
30
NA
<10
140
30
2-JMS068.49
30
35
35
300
35
NA
<10
160
30
2-JMS068.64
<10
30
<10
100
<10
NA
<10
340
25
2-JMS068.68
<10
20
<10
80
<10
NA
<10
170
25
-------
Table 3.18 (cont). SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
Low Molecular PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Maphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total LM PAHs
High Molecular PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Perylene
Pyrene
Total HM PAHs
Total PAHs
ER-L
70
44
16
85.3
19
160
240
552
261
430
384
600
63.4
665
1700
4022
ER-M
670
160
500
1100
540
2100
1500
3160
1600
1600
2800
5100
260
2600
9600
44792
TEC
57.2
77.4
176
204
108
150
166
33
423
195
NA
1610
PEC
845
536
561
1170
1050
1450
1290
NA
2230
1520
NA
22800
2-JMS052.52
15
15
<10
20
10
20
95
175
60
80
50
55
60
50
80
10
140
45
320
220
1170
1345
2-JMS056.12
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
40
40
90
40
60
40
35
50
35
50
<10
65
30
220
65
690
780
2-JMS065.81
<10
10
<10
15
<10
25
40
90
95
120
90
90
140
100
110
20
160
80
280
170
1455
1545
2-JMS066.35
60
45
20
80
25
90
180
500
200
230
110
140
190
70
170
20
250
70
630
400
2480
2980
2-JMS067.56
30
25
<10
35
15
65
90
235
160
200
90
130
170
65
140
15
150
60
370
190
1740
1975
2-JMS068.49
140
75
40
140
55
190
460
1100
280
290
130
190
240
120
310
30
380
100
1100
640
3810
4910
2-JMS068.64
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
40
10
50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
15
<10
15
<10
620
15
665
715
2-JMS068.68
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
40
<10
40
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
450
<10
450
490
-------
Table 3.18 (cont). SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
[sophorone
Dibenzofuran
Bi s [2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-N-octylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
Diethyl phthalate
ER-L
ER-M
TEC
PEC
2-JMS073.63
<10
15
<10
410
45
70
<10
240
25
2-JMS073.63
Field Dup.
10
15
25
180
<10
<10
<10
140
<10
2-JMS074.25
20
15
35
280
50
35
<10
140
15
2-JMS074.29
<10
25
<10
230
<10
NA
<10
140
<10
-------
Table 3.18 (cont). SVOC concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
Low Molecular PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Maphthalene
Phenanthrene
Total LM PAHs
High Molecular PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Perylene
Pyrene
Total HM PAHs
Total PAHs
ER-L
70
44
16
85.3
19
160
240
552
261
430
384
600
63.4
665
1700
4022
ER-M
670
160
500
1100
540
2100
1500
3160
1600
1600
2800
5100
260
2600
9600
44792
TEC
57.2
77.4
176
204
108
150
166
33
423
195
NA
1610
PEC
845
536
561
1170
1050
1450
1290
NA
2230
1520
NA
22800
2-JMS073.63
20
<10
<10
45
10
40
60
175
230
300
190
180
290
210
240
40
350
160
810
470
3470
3645
2-JMS073.63
Field Dup.
80
15
25
110
<10
380
230
840
160
190
140
120
200
150
160
25
230
110
460
320
2265
3105
2-JMS074.25
110
65
30
160
50
210
270
895
450
520
330
320
520
300
420
80
510
320
820
610
5200
6095
2-JMS074.29
20
20
<10
20
<10
60
70
190
170
210
75
90
150
55
130
<10
160
50
90
190
1370
1560
-------
Table 3.19 Organophosphate pesticides (ng/g dry weight) in sediment samples collected from
the James River in 2000.
Compound
Dichlorvos
Vlevinphos
TEPP
Ihionazion
Demeton
Ethoprop
Iributylphosphate SS
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
VIonocrotophos
Dimethoate
lerbufos
VIonophos
Diazinon
Disulfoton+Phosphamidon
^Dichlorofenthion
Chlorpyrifos(methyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Fenitrothion
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Irichlornate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
letrachlorvinphos
lokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Famfar
Iriphenylphosphate SS
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthion(methyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
2-CHK012.12
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS040.03
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS042.46
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS044.08
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS046.73
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS047.33
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS047.81
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
-------
Table 3.19 (cont.) Organophosphate pesticides (ng/g dry weight) in sediment samples collected
from the James River in 2000.
Compound
Dichlorvos
Vlevinphos
TEPP
Ihionazion
Demeton
Ethoprop
Iributylphosphate SS
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
VIonocrotophos
Dimethoate
lerbufos
Monophos
Diazinon
Disulfoton+Phosphamidon
^Dichlorofenthion
Chlorpyrifos(methyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Fenitrothion
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Irichlornate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
letrachlorvinphos
lokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Famfar
Iriphenylphosphate SS
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthion(methyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
2-JMS050.55
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS052.52
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS056.12
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS065.81
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS066.35
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS067.56
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS068.49
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
-------
Table 3.19 (cont.) Organophosphate pesticides (ng/g dry weight) in sediment samples collected
from the James River in 2000.
Compound
Dichlorvos
Vlevinphos
TEPP
Ihionazion
Demeton
Ethoprop
Iributylphosphate SS
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Vlonocrotophos
Dimethoate
lerbufos
Vlonophos
Diazinon
Disulfoton+Phosphamidon
^Dichlorofenthion
Chlorpyrifos(methyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Fenitrothion
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Irichlornate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
letrachlorvinphos
lokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Famfar
Iriphenylphosphate SS
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthion(methyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
2-JMS068.64
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS068.68
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS073.63
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS074.25
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
2-JMS074.29
<6.0
<6.0
<15.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<9.0
<9.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
All results are reported in ng/g; Quantitation Level < 6 ng/g (dry weight)
TEPP =15 ng/g (dry weight); Dimethoate = 9 ng/g (dry weight);
Chlorfenvinphos = 9 ng/g (dry weight); Bolstar and Famfur = 9 ng/g (dry weight)
-------
Table 3.20. Organochlorine pesticides (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
HCCP
a-BHC & HCB & Diallate
b-BHC & g-BHC
d-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
[sodrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
g-Chlordane
Endosulfan I & a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDE
Endrin & Endosulfan II
Chlorbenzylate
ODD
Endrin Aldehyde & Kepone
Endosulfan Sulfate
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Methoxychlor
Kepone
2-CHK012.12
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-CHK012.12D
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS040.03
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS042.46
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS042.46D
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS044.08
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS046.73
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS047.33
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS047.81
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS050.55
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS052.52
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
-------
Table 3.20 (cont). Organochlorine pesticides (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Analyte
HCCP
a-BHC & HCB & Diallate
b-BHC & g-BHC
d-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
[sodrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
g-Chlordane
Endosulfan I & a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDE
Endrin & Endosulfan II
Chlorbenzylate
ODD
Endrin Aldehyde & Kepone
Endosulfan Sulfate
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Methoxychlor
Kepone
2-JMS056.12
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS065.81
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS066.35
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS067.56
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS068.49
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
60
2-JMS068.64
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS068.68
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS073.63
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS074.25
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS074.25D
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
2-JMS074.29
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<6.0
<10.0
BQL< 6.0 ng/g
DL Kepone < 10 ng/g
-------
Table 3.21. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener concentrations (ng/g, dry weight basis)
in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000. The presence of
each congener was confirmed using GC/MS Selective Ion Monitoring.
Compound
PCB-001
PCB-005+008
PCB-018
PCB-028+031
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-81+77
PCB-110
PCB-87
PCB-151
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-141
PCB- 126
PCB-138
PCB- 187
PCB- 183
PCB- 128
PCB-156
PCB- 169
PCB- 180
PCB- 170
PCB- 195
PCB-206
2-CHK12.12
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
NC
2-JMS040.03
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS042.46
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS044.08
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
NC
2-JMS046.73
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS047.33
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JSM047.33
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
NC
-------
Table 3.21 (cont).
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener concentrations (ng/g, dry
weight basis) in sediment samples from the James River collected in 2000.
The presence of each congener was confirmed using GC/MS Selective Ion
Monitoring.
Compound
PCB-001
PCB-005+008
PCB-018
PCB-028+031
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-81+77
PCB-110
PCB-87
PCB-151
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-141
PCB- 126
PCB-138
PCB- 187
PCB- 183
PCB- 128
PCB-156
PCB- 169
PCB- 180
PCB- 170
PCB- 195
PCB-206
2-JMS047.81
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
NC
2-JMS050.55
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS052.52
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
NC
2-JMS056.12
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS065.81
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS066.35
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS067.56
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS068.49
<3
<3
<3
9
12
9
9
6
<3
<3
12
<3
12
<3
12
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
-------
Table 3.21 (cont).
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener concentrations (ng/g, dry weight
basis) in sediment samples from the James River collected in 2000. The
presence of each congener was confirmed using GC/MS Selective Ion
Monitoring.
Compound
PCB-001
PCB-005+008
PCB-018
PCB-028+031
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-81+77
PCB-110
PCB-87
PCB-151
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-141
PCB- 126
PCB-138
PCB- 187
PCB- 183
PCB- 128
PCB-156
PCB- 169
PCB- 180
PCB- 170
PCB- 195
PCB-206
2-JMS068.64
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS068.68
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS073.63
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS074.25
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
2-JMS074.29
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
NC
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC
<3
<3
<3
<3
NC = Detected but not confirmed
Quantitation Limit (XSD detector) < 3 ng/g, dry weight basis
Results are reported in ng/g.
NOTES:
1. SAMPLE 2-JMS068.49 contains PCB's confirmed by GC/MS (SIM). Analysis is indicative of a sample containing additional PCB's,
either Below Quantitation and/or at the Detection Limit, or PCB's not Included on the list of calibrated analytes.
-------
Table 3.22. Herbicide concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Compound
3,5-DBCA
Dicamba
MCPA
MCPP
Dichlorprop
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Pentachloroanisole
2,4,5-TP
Chloramben
2,4,5-T
Bentazon
Picloram
DCPA
Acifluorfen
2-CHK012.12
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS040.03
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS042.46
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS044.08
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS046.73
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS047.33
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS047.81
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS050.55
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS052.52
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS056.12
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS065.81
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS066.35
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
-------
Table 3.22 (Cont). Herbicide concentrations (ng/g) in sediment samples collected from the James River in 2000.
Compound
3,5-DBCA
Dicamba
MCPA
MCPP
Dichlorprop
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Pentachloroanisole
2,4,5-TP
Chloramben
2,4,5-T
Bentazon
Picloram
DCPA
Acifluorfen
2-JMS067.56
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS068.49
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS068.64
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
C2-JMS068.68
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS073.63
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS073.63
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS074.25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
2-JMS074.29
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Quantitation Level < 10 ng/g
-------
Table 3.23. Descriptive parameters for the benthic community in the lower tidal freshwater
James River, August 2000.
Station
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS044.08
2-JMS046.73
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS073.63
2-JMS074.25
Total
Species
6
10
10
10
7
12
13
5
11
10
9
14
Individuals
per m
2268.0
2472.1
2336.0
2540.2
1542.2
1859.8
3696.8
3379.3
4581.4
11340.0
3107.2
7008.1
Ash-free E
Total biomass
(g/m2)
29.597
6.645
0.295
9.571
55.929
47.991
0.816
0.748
0.499
50.340
0.386
0.885
)ry Weight
Biomass w/o
bivalves
(g/ m2)
0.454
0.726
0.249
0.363
0.476
0.363
0.816
0.748
0.499
1.746
0.386
0.885
B-IBI
3.500
2.667
5.000
5.000
4.000
4.000
4.500
3.000
3.500
5.000
4.000
3.000
Assemblage
Condition
Meets Goal
Marginal
Exceeds Goal
Exceeds Goal
Exceeds Goal
Exceeds Goal
Exceeds Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Exceeds Goal
Exceeds Goal
Meets Goal
Table 3.24. Survival, final weight and number emergent for Leptocheirusplumulosus exposed to
sediments spiked with heavy metals at 8 or 15 g/kg pore water salinity.
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
T.U.
Metals
0
110
305
0
110
305
Salinity
(g/kg/)
8
15
8
15
8
15
8
15
8
15
8
15
Survival
(%)
95
98
88
92
22
7
98
98
95
98
23
2
Mean final weight
(mg dry wt/amph)
0.141
0.225
0.139
0.191
0.103
0.145
0.149
0.223
0.159
0.167
0.092
0.230
Total Number
Emergent
2
0
1
0
17
51
0
0
0
0
15
6
Lab Control
15
100
0.243
-------
Table 3.25. ANOVA for survival, final weight, and emergence of Leptocheirus. plumulosus
exposed to metal contaminated sediment after salinity adjustment (p-values in
bold significant at 0.05 level).
Source of variance !
Sediment
Salinity
Metals
Sediment x Salinity
Salinity x Metal
Sediment x Metal
Sediment x Salinity x Metal
Survival
0.472
0.079
0.000
0.384
0.002
0.043
0.384
Final Weight
0.426
0.000
0.118
0.655
0.246
0.581
0.216
Emergence
0.003*
0.552
0.000
0.164
0.749
0.019*
0.006*
* See explanation in text.
1 Data for controls excluded in these analyses. See explanation in text.
Table 3.26. Survival, final weight, and number emergent for Hyallela azteca exposed to
sediments spiked with heavy metals at 8 or 15 g/kg pore water salinity.
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
Lab Control
T.U.
Metals
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
Salinity
(g/kg/)
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
Survival
(%)
97
90
85
98
85
80
98
85
68
100
83
75
80
92
77
68
77
45
93
Mean final weight
(mg dry wt/amph)
0.095
0.062
0.067
0.077
0.068
0.054
0.065
0.059
0.056
0.076
0.067
0.062
0.076
0.052
0.052
0.063
0.061
0.056
0.110
Total Number
Emergent
4
8
14
4
9
8
8
13
22
10
3
12
1
15
16
2
6
12
8
-------
Table 3.27. ANOVA for survival, final weight, and emergence of Hyallela azteca exposed to
metal contaminated sediment after salinity adjustment (p-values in bold significant at 0.05 level).
| Source of variance
| Survival | Final Weight | Emergence |
Sediment
Salinity
Metals
Sediment x Salinity
Salinity x Metal
Sediment x Metal
Sediment x Salinity x Metal
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.115
0.362
0.065
0.043
0.096
0.000
0.001
0.840
0.172
0.448
0.119
0.585
0.140
0.940
0.923
0.591
0.325
0.609
Table 3.28. Reference toxicant test results in aqueous media for species used in sediment
toxicity tests (Reference Toxicant: KC1, Sigma "Ultra" Lot#129H00079; values in
mg/1).
Ref Test Dates
LC50
(95% C.L.)
Control Chart LC50
(95% C.L.)
H. azteca
1/26/01 to 1/30/01
451.0
(423.8-480.0)
464.1
(392.7-535.4)
L. plumulosm
1/26/01 to 1/30/01
989.5
(700-1400)
1025.5
(925.1-1125.9)
Table 3.29. Sediment texture measured on experiment control (blank).
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
TOC
(mg/kg)
2.421
0.854
Gravel
(percent)
0.00
0.00
Sand
(percent)
7.26
68.56
Silt
(percent)
46.37
12.61
Clay
(percent)
46.37
18.83
-------
Table 3.30. Sediment quality data.
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
Fresh water
control
Salt Water
Control
Salinity
(g/kg)
0
8
15
0
8
15
0
15
T.U.
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
110
305
0
0
Pore Water
PH
(S.U.)
7.31
7.17
6.99
7.09
7.30
7.02
6.96
7.10
7.13
7.30
7.15
6.84
7.35
6.98
6.80
6.81
6.88
6.85
7.10
7.52
Pore Water
Ammonia
(mg NH4-M)
20.3
20.5
16.4
32.2
24.0
19.7
36.2
33.1
22.0
3.1
2.3
2.2
3.8
3.6
5.0
4.6
5.8
6.0
8.0
10.0
Pore Water
Salinity
(g/kg)
0
0
0
8
8
7
15
15
15
0
0
0
8
8
8
15
15
15
0
20
Table 3.31. Measured stock solution composition.
Metal
Copper
Cadmium
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Nominal Cone.
(mg/1)
19.2
20.0
1520
272
1200
Measured Cone.
(mg/1)
15.74
15.2
1596
230.24
1324.4
-------
Table 3.32. Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for cadmium.
Station
2-JMS065.18
2-JMS040.03
FWC*
SWC
Salinity
(R/kg)
0
0
0
8
15
0
0
0
8
15
0
20
TU
0
110
305
305
305
0
110
305
305
305
0
0
Cd Spike
(jimoles/g)
0.0000
0.0090
0.0250
0.0250
0.0250
0.0000
0.0060
0.0167
0.0167
0.0167
0.0000
0.0000
CdSEM
(|jmoles/g)
0.0105
0.0092
0.0112
O.0119
0.0124
0.0085
O.0103
O.0089
0.0087
O.0113
O.0098
0.0105
FWC = Freshwater laboratory control sediment
SWC = Saltwater laboratory control sediment
Table 3.33.
Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for copper.
Sediment
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
FWC
SWC
Salinity
(R/kg)
0
0
0
8
15
0
0
0
8
15
0
20
TU
0
110
305
305
305
0
110
305
305
305
0
0
Cu Spike
(nmole/g)
0.0000
0.0153
0.0424
0.0424
0.0424
0.0000
0.0102
0.0283
0.0283
0.0283
0.0000
0.0000
CuSEM
(nmole/g)
0.0555
0.1053
0.1287
0.1571
0.1750
0.0376
0.0546
0.0552
0.0616
0.0797
O.0441
0.0924
Simple*
Difference
n/a
588
204
270
312
n/a
435
95.0
118
181
n/a
n/a
Adjusted**
Difference
n/a
225
72.6
140
182
n/a
67.6
-37.8
-15.2
48.8
n/a
n/a
* Difference between spike and SEM as percent of spike
** Difference between spike and SEM adjusted for background (0 TU) SEM
-------
Table 3.34. Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for nickel.
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
FWC
SWC
Salinity
0
0
0
8
15
0
0
0
8
15
0
20
TU
0
110
305
305
305
0
110
305
305
305
0
0
Ni Spike
(|j,moles/g)
0.0000
1.3100
3.6323
3.6323
3.6323
0.0000
0.8733
2.4213
2.4213
2.4213
0.0000
0.0000
NiSEM
(|j,moles/g)
<0.1850
0.4997
1.4787
1.5982
1.7515
<0.1503
0.4531
1.3819
1.1085
1.5850
O.1741
0.1849
Simple
Difference
n/a
-61.8
-59.2
-56.0
-51.8
n/a
-48.1
-42.9
-54.2
-34.5
n/a
n/a
Table 3.35. Comparison of spiking concentrations and SEM concentrations for zinc.
Station
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS040.03
FWC
SWC
Salinity
0
0
0
8
15
0
0
0
8
15
0
20
TU
0
110
305
305
305
0
110
305
305
305
0
0
Zn Spike
(|j,moles/g)
0.0000
0.9293
2.5768
2.5768
2.5768
0.0000
0.6195
1.7177
1.7177
1.7177
0.0000
0.0000
ZnSEM
(|j,moles/g)
0.6473
0.9684
1.7611
1.9750
2.1576
0.3872
0.7873
1.3636
1.2127
1.7237
0.2369
0.5929
Simple
Difference
n/a
4.24
-31.6
-23.3
-16.2
n/a
27.0
-20.6
-29.3
0.35
n/a
n/a
Adjusted
Difference
n/a
-65.4
-56.8
-48.5
-41.4
n/a
-35.4
-43.2
-51.9
-22.2
n/a
n/a
-------
Table 3.36. Comparison of spiking concentrations, SEM and SEM/AVS for total metals.
Sediment
2-JMS065.81
2-JMA040.03
FWC
SWC
Salinity
0
0
0
8
15
0
0
0
8
15
0
20
TU
0
110
305
305
305
0
110
305
305
305
0
0
Spike
(less Se)
(|j,moles/g)
0.0000
2.2636
6.2765
6.2765
6.2765
0.0000
1.5090
4.1840
4.1840
4.1840
0.0000
0.0000
SEM
Spiked
Metals
(|j,moles/g)
0.7028
1.5734
3.3685
3.7303
4.0841
0.4248
1.2950
2.8007
2.3828
3.3884
0.2369
0.8702
Total SEM
(Spike + Pb
andHg)
(|j,moles/g)
0.7624
1.6628
3.4778
3.8684
4.2216
0.4594
1.3397
2.8490
2.3828
3.3884
0.2369
0.9354
AVS
(|j,moles/g)
1.6407
0.1050
0.0783
0.0236
0.0652
0.4225
0.2382
0.5601
0.4997
0.6169
0.3250
0.0967
SEM/AVS
(Total
SEM)
0.464680
15.83619
44.41635
163.9153
64.74847
1.087337
5.624265
5.086592
4.768461
5.492624
0.728923
9.673216
-------
Table 3.37. Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Richmond deployment,
September 2000.
Creek
Gillie
Almond
Falling
Cornelius
Date
9/13/00
9/15/00
9/17/00
9/19/00
9/21/00
9/23/00
9/25/00
9/27/00
9/13/00
9/15/00
9/17/00
9/19/00
9/21/00
9/23/00
9/25/00
9/27/00
9/13/00
9/15/00
9/17/00
9/19/00
9/21/00
9/23/00
9/25/00
9/27/00
9/13/00
9/15/00
9/17/00
9/19/00
9/21/00
9/23/00
9/25/00
9/27/00
Water
Conduct.
280
175
200
160
160
190
220
210
185
170
150
140
170
175
210
205
115
92
150
150
180
195
195
110
180
160
180
160
175
200
225
205
Temp.
26.5
26.0
23.0
22.3
23.5
23.0
23.0
18.5
26.5
26.5
23.5
22.0
24.0
22.5
23.0
18.5
27.0
24.0
25.0
23.0
23.5
23.0
22.0
18.5
28.0
25.0
26.5
24.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
19.5
Dissolved
Oxygen
8.0
7.6
7.4
6.7
6.4
7.6
8.5
8.7
7.6
6.3
6.9
6.7
7.4
7.2
8.4
8.3
6.9
7.8
6.7
7.2
7.3
7.8
7.6
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.6
8.0
7.6
7.6
8.1
7.6
PH
6.87
7.38
6.97
*
*
*
*
*
6.80
7.28
7.47
*
*
*
*
*
7.16
7.24
7.55
*
*
*
*
*
6.91
7.32
7.22
*
*
*
*
*
Atmospheric
Temp.
26.0
20.5
18.5
21.5
19.0
20.0
17.0
17.0
25.0
24.0
16.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
17.0
14.0
26.0
26.0
17.5
20.0
21.0
20.5
17.0
15.5
27.0
23.0
18.0
20.0
21.0
20.5
17.0
15.0
Cloud Cover
Sun
Partly Cloud
Sun
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Sun
Sun
Partly Sun
Sun
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Sun
Sun
Cloud
Sun
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Cloud
Sun
Partly cloud
Partly cloud
Sun
Cloud
Partly sun
Cloud
Cloud
Sun
Rain
(cm)
0.0
0.6
0
0.4
0.0
<0.1
1.0
2.4
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
<0.1
1.3
1.8
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.6
3.7
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.5
4.0
Wind
Speed
0
<5
<2
5-10
5-10
<2
5
<2
<5
<5
5
10-15
0
0
5
7.2
0
<5
<5
5-10
<1
<1
<1
<2
0
5
5-10
5
<2
0
5
<2
Wind
Direction
NW
SW
NW
W
N
N
N
N
NW
N
NW
N
N
N
var
NW
S
N
SE
var
SW
S
N
N
-------
Table 3.38. Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Richmond stations.
a. Gillie Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
18
16
18
18
70
87.5
0.6
4
19
14
17
17
67
95.7
0.0
6
17
0/20
15
15
47
87.0
0.4
8
16
18
15
14
63
94.0
0.0
10
16
18
14
13
61
96.8
0.1
12
15
15
14
13
57
93.4
1.0
14
15
14
14
12
55
96.5
2.4
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.280
0.221
0.371
0.442
0.329
No.
Gravid
5
2
2
3
12
3.0
Percent
Gravid
33.3
14.3
14.3
25.0
21.8
b. Almond Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
18
19
19
19
75
93.8
1.0
4
15
18
17
19
69
92
0.0
6
13
15
17
18
63
91.3
0.4
8
13
[14]
17
17
62
98.4
0.0
10
13
[14]
17
16
61
98.4
0.1
12
12
[13]
17
15
59
96.7
1.3
14
12
15
17
13
57
96.6
1.8
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.433
0.367
0.359
0.369
0.382
No.
Gravid
3
4
3
4
14
3.5
Percent
Gravid
25.0
26.7
17.6
30.8
24.6
c. Falling Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
20
19
16
19
74
92.5
4.0
4
19
[18]
15
15
68
91.9
0.0
6
19
[18]
14
14
66
97.1
0.4
8
18
[18]
13
[13]
64
97
0.0
10
16
[18]
13
14
61
95.3
0.1
12
[15]
[18]
12
14
61
100
0.6
14
16
19*
10
14
59
96.7
3.7
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.431
0.390
0.430
0.414
0.416
No.
Gravid
7
8
5
6
26
6.5
Percent
Gravid
43.8
42.1
50.0
42.9
44.1
* Laboratory count on day 14 was 20
-------
Table 3.38 (cont). Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Richmond stations.
d. Cornelius Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
18
18
20
19
75
93.8
3.5
4
18
18
17
19
72
96
0.0
6
18
17
17
19
71
97.3
0.4
8
18
17
17
18
70
97.2
0.0
10
18
17
17
18
70
100
0.1
12
16
[15]
16
18
66
97.1
0.5
14
16
16
16
17
65
98.5
4.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.425
0.400
0.450
0.441
0.429
No.
Gravid
5
5
6
7
23
5.8
Percent
Gravid
31.3
31.3
37.5
41.2
35.4
-------
Table 3.39. Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Hopewell deployment, October
2000.
Creek
Bailey
Gravelly
Run
Bear
Date
10/3/00
10/5/00
10/7/00
10/9/00
10/11/00
10/13/00
10/15/00
10/17/00
10/19/00
10/21/00
10/23/00
10/25/00
10/27/00
10/29/00
10/31/00
10/3/00
10/5/00
10/7/00
10/9/00
10/11/00
10/13/00
10/15/00
10/17/00
10/17/00
10/19/00
10/21/00
10/23/00
10/25/00
10/27/00
10/29/00
10/31/00
Water
Conduct.
285
280
290
450
480
475
490
480
420
nd
600
450
550
550
550
410
435
420
550
700
680
650
900
325
370
nd
430
325
400
355
280
Temp.
21.0
23.0
22.5
18.0
18.0
18.0
24.5
23.0
21.0
18.5
21.0
19.0
23.5
21.0
17.0
30.0
32.0
32.0
29.5
29.0
29.5
31.0
31.0
19.0
17.0
15.0
16.0
16.5
18.0
15.5
12.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
5.8
5.3
6.0
7.5
7.3
9.4
7.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.6
4.9
5.7
5.5
4.7
5.9
5.2
5.5
6.2
5.0
6.2
4.7
4.6
3.8
3.5
5.4
5.2
5.6
5.9
5.4
4.7
PH
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.2
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.1
5.5
6.9
7.0
6.6
7.2
Atmospheric
Temp.
22
18
13
9
14
22
23
19.5
11
14
14.5
17
21
10
9
18
18.5
17
11
18
22
20.5
19
18
20
13
7
14
20
17
18
Cloud Cover
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Sunny
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
(cm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wind Speed
0
0
5-10
10-15
5
0
0
0
0
0
10-15
0
<5
15
<5
0
0
10-15
10-15
0
0
0
<5
0
0
5
10-15
0
<5
<5
<5
Wind
Direction
NNE
NNW
E
NE
NE
W
var
NNE
NNW
E
NE
N
NW
SW
var
NE
-------
Table 3.39 (cont). Water quality and atmospheric conditions during Hopewell deployment,
October 2000.
Creek
Cabin
Eppes
Date
10/3/00
10/5/00
10/7/00
10/9/00
10/11/00
10/13/00
10/15/00
10/17/00
10/19/00
10/21/00
10/23/00
10/25/00
10/27/00
10/29/00
10/31/00
10/3/00
10/5/00
10/7/00
10/9/00
10/11/00
10/13/00
10/15/00
10/17/00
10/19/00
10/21/00
10/23/00
10/25/00
10/27/00
10/29/00
10/31/00
Water
Conduct.
95
120
180
180
nd
300
250
260
310
nd
395
340
395
320
225
165
200
200
245
255
325
330
295
350
nd
400
355
380
330
270
Temp.
19.5
21.5
21.5
18.5
17.0
18.5
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
18.0
19.5
17.0
13.5
20.0
23.0
22.0
17.0
15.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
18.0
18.5
18.5
18.5
19.0
17.0
13.0
Dissolved
Oxygen
7.1
8.5
8.9
9.5
8.9
10.6
10.4
8.4
10.4
9.4
9.8
11.0
11.0
9.5
9.3
8.4
9.0
11.5
9.8
10.4
13.6
12.9
9.2
8.3
9.2
9.1
10.2
10.6
9.5
7.8
PH
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.4
8.4
7.3
7.6
7.8
8.7
8.4
8.4
8.6
7.6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.3
9.0
8.4
7.0
8.7
8.9
8.7
8.6
8.4
7.7
Atmospheric
Temp.
20
18
14
9
13.5
18
21
18
15
17
15
19
20
10
8
18
20
13
7
14
20
17
18
15
17
19
18
19
11
7
Cloud Cover
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Sunny
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Partly Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
Hazy
Partly Sunny
Clear
Clear
Rain
(cm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wind
Speed
0
0
<5
10-15
<5
<5
<5
<5
0
0
5
0
5
<
5-10
0
0
2
10-15
0
5
<5
<5
<5
0
5
5
<5
<5
<5
Wind
Direction
N
NW
N
SW
var
NE
NE
SW
W
N
N
NW
SW
var
NE
SE
SE
W
SE
W
NW
-------
Table 3.40. Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell deployment,
October 2000.
a. Bailey Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Weeks 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
17
18
18
17
70
87.5
0.0
4
17
16
18
15
66
94.3
0.0
6
16
[15]
[14]
15
65
98.5
0.0
8
16
16
18
12
65
100.0
0.0
10
16
[15]
18
12
65
100.0
0.0
12
16
16
18
12
65
100.0
0.0
14
16
16
18
12
65
100.0
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.431
0.462
0.461
0.458
0.453
No. Gravid
5
4
5
6
20
5.0
Percent
Gravid
31.3
25.0
27.8
50.0
30.8
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day Weeks 3-4
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
[19]
[17]
[17]
20
79
98.8
0.0
4
20
[17]
20
18
77
97.5
0.0
6
[17]
18
19
18
74
96.1
0.0
8
19
18
19
18
74
100.0
0.0
10
19
17
19
17
72
97.3
0.0
12
19
16
[20]
17
71
98.6
0.0
14
19
16
19
16
70
98.6
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.384
0.306
0.379
0.306
0.344
No.
Gravid
4
6
5
1
16
4.0
Percent
Gravid
21.1
37.5
26.3
6.3
22 9
-------
Table 3.40 (cont).
bl. Gravelly Run
Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell
stations, October 2000.
Replicate
1
2
o
J
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
[15]
13
17
16
62
77.5
0.0
4
16
12
15
16
59
95.2
0.0
6
15
[9]
[7]
[11]
55
93.2
0.0
8
15
11
13
15
54
98.2
0.0
10
14
10
11
15
40
74.1
0.0
12
14
3
6
2
25
62.5
0.0
14
11
2
3
0
16
64
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.527
0.750
0.500
0.592
No.
Gravid
8
1
2
11
3.7
Percent
Gravid
72.7
50.0
66.7
68.8
b2. Bear Creek
Replicate
1
2
o
J
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 3-4
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
[17]
20
[18]
19
79
98.8
0.0
4
20
[17]
20
18
77
97.5
0.0
6
20
19
19
18
76
98.7
0.0
8
19
18
[17]
[19]
73
96.1
0.0
10
19
17
18
18
72
98.6
0.0
12
[14]
16
[13]
16
67
93.1
0.0
14
17
16
17
16
66
98.5
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.247
0.262
0.282
0.269
0.271
No.
Gravid
1
3
1
0
5
9
2.3
Percent
Gravid
5.9
18.8
5.9
0.0
9.1
c. Cabin Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
19
19
19
18
75
93.8
0.0
4
19
19
19
16
73
97.3
0.0
6
19
19
19
16
73
100
0.0
8
19
19
18
16
72
98.6
0.0
10
19
19
18
16
72
100
0.0
12
19
19
16
16
70
97.2
0.0
14
13
19
14
15
67
95.7
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.377
0.374
0.371
0.387
0.377
No.
Gravid
1
4
4
5
14
3.5
Percent
Gravid
7.7
21.1
28.6
33.3
20.9
-------
Table 3.40 (cont). Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell stations,
October 2000.
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 3-4
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
19
19
20
20
78
97.5
0.0
4
19
19
20
18
76
97.4
0.0
6
19
19
20
[17]
76
100
0.0
8
19
19
20
18
76
100
0.0
10
[17]
19
[19]
[17]
75
98.7
0.0
12
18
18
20
18
74
98.7
0.0
14
18
18
19
17
72
97.3
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.350
0.317
0.316
0.318
0.325
No.
Gravid
2
o
5
2
1
8
2.0
Percent
Gravid
11.1
16.7
10.5
5.9
11.1
d. Eppes Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
18
19
17
20
74
92.5
0.0
4
18
19
17
20
74
100
0.0
6
18
19
17
[18]
73
98.6
0.0
8
18
19
17
19
73
100
0.0
10
18
18
17
19
72
98.6
0.0
12
18
17
17
17
69
95.8
0.0
14
17
17
17
17
68
98.6
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.429
0.412
0.241
0.371
0.363
No.
Gravid
o
J
6
2
3
14
3.5
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Percent
Rainfall (cm)
Percent
Gravid
17.6
35.3
11.8
17.6
20.6
Exposure Day, Week 3-4
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
[17]
20
20
[19]
79
98.8
0.0
4
18
20
20
20
78
98.7
0.0
6
18
20
20
19
77
98.7
0.0
8
[17]
20
[19]
18
76
98.7
0.0
10
18
19
[19]
17
74
97.4
0.0
12
16
19
20
17
72
97.3
0.0
14
16
19
18
16
69
95.8
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.344
0.353
0.411
0.325
0.358
No.
Gravid
0
1
3
2
6
1.5
Percent
Gravid
0.0
5.3
16.7
12.5
8.7
-------
Table 3.41. Water quality and atmospheric conditions during the Hopewell deployment, May
2001.
Creek
Bailey
Bear
Cabin
Eppes
Date
5/2/01
5/4/01
5/6/01
5/8/01
5/10/01
5/12/01
5/14/01
5/16/01
5/2/01
5/4/01
5/6/01
5/8/01
5/10/01
5/12/01
5/14/01
5/16/01
5/2/01
5/4/01
5/6/01
5/8/01
5/10/01
5/12/01
5/14/01
5/16/01
5/2/01
5/4/01
5/6/01
5/8/01
5/10/01
5/12/01
5/14/01
5/16/01
Water
Conduct.
430
390
390
440
470
430
500
400
160
160
315
270
195
205
152
165
92
122
120
95
100
110
135
140
190
175
170
180
180
195
180
180
Temp.
24.0
25.5
25.0
22.0
31.0
26.0
23.0
20.5
23.0
25.0
22.5
22.0
25.0
24.0
18.5
17.0
25.0
25.5
23.0
22.5
27.0
23.0
22.0
22.0
24.5
24.0
23.0
22.5
25.0
25.0
21.5
19.5
Dissolved
Oxygen
7.0
8.5
10.2
10.0
6.5
3.2
4.3
5.4
7.2
6.0
7.2
7.8
5.5
2.7
7.0
5.5
9.7
11.0
8.8
9.4
10.0
8.6
9.3
8.2
6.5
7.5
7.3
6.7
5.3
4.9
5.8
7.4
pH
6.8
6.9
7.5
6.3
6.7
6.9
5.7
6.9
7.0
6.7
7.1
5.7
6.8
6.9
5.4
9.0
7.3
7.8
7.2
6.6
7.1
6.9
5.8
7.5
7.5
6.4
6.8
6.5
6.8
7.2
5.8
6.7
Atmospheric
Temp.
21.5
29.5
22.0
24.5
30.5
21.5
12.0
15.0
28.0
29.0
21.5
25.0
28.0
22.0
13.0
15.5
31.0
31.0
23.0
25.5
30.0
22.0
14.0
17.5
28.0
23.0
18.0
24.0
30.0
23.5
16.0
19.0
Cloud Cover
clear
clear
cloudy
scattered
scattered
clear
clear
cloudy
clear
clear
cloudy
scattered
scattered
clear
clear
cloudy
scattered
clear
overcast
scattered
scattered
scattered
clear
overcast
partly cloudy
clear
cloudy
scattered
scattered
scattered
clear
overcast
Rain
(cm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tr
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
tr
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
Wind
Speed
<5
<5
<15
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5-10
calm
<15
<5
<5
<5
calm
calm
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<15
<5
light
light
<10
10-15
Wind
Direction
SW
variable
NE
SE
variable
SW
NW
variable
SW
n/a
NE
SE
variable
SW
n/a
n/a
S
variable
NE
SE
variable
SW
NW
SW
SE
SE
NE
SE
variable
SW
NW
SW
-------
Table 3.42. Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell stations, May
2001.
a. Bailey Creek
Replicate
1
2
o
J
4
Total
Survival
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Weeks 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
19
18
19
20
76
95.0
0.0
4
19
18
19
20
76
100.0
0.0
6
18
18
19
20
75
98.7
0.0
8
17
17
19
20
73
97.3
0.0
10
17
17
17
[18]
70
95.9
0.0
12
15
[12]
17
[181
68
97.1
0.0
14
14
17
16
19
66
97.1
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.700
0.724
0.776
0.769
0.742
No.
Gravid
6
8
5
8
27
6.8
Percent
Gravid
42.9
47.1
31.3
42.1
40.9
b. Bear Creek
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Survival
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Weeks 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
[18]
20
20
20
80
100
0.0
4
20
20
[191
20
80
100
0.0
6
19
20
[19]
20
79
98.8
0.0
8
18
18
20
19
75
94.9
0.0
10
15
18
20
18
71
94.7
0.0
12
[13]
17
18
16
65
91.5
0.0
14
14
17
17
16
64
97.5
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.593
0.575
0.575
0.489
0.546
No.
Gravid
5
3
6
3
17
7.3
Percent
Gravid
35.7
17.6
35.3
18.8
29.7
c. Cabin Creek
Replicate
1
2
o
J
4
Total
Survival
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
20
20
20
15
75
100*
0.0
4
20
18
[19]
11/20
69/78
96.7
0.0
6
19
18
20
20
77
98.7
0.0
8
16
17
19
18
70
97.2
0.0
10
16
17
18
[17]
69
98.6
0.0
12
15
16
17
18
66
95.7
0.0
14
15
16
16
18
65
98.5
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.457
0.465
0.444
0.458
0.456
No.
Gravid
5
2
4
9
20
5.0
Percent
Gravid
33.3
12.5
25.0
50.0
30.8
Table 3.42 (cont). Amphipod survival and size during the in situ test at the Hopewell stations,
May 2001.
d. Eppes Creek
-------
Replicate
1
2
3
4
Total
Survival
Rainfall (cm)
Exposure Day, Week 1-2
0
20
20
20
20
80
100
2
19
20
19
20
78
97.5
0.0
4
19
20
18
19
76
97.4
0.0
6
[18]
20
15
19
75
96.1
0.0
8
[17]
20
15
15
69
94.5
0.0
10
[17]
19
15
15
68
98.6
0.0
12
[171
19
14
15
67
98.5
0.0
14
19
19
14
14
66
98.5
0.0
Mean
Weight
(mg/amph)
0.668
0.589
0.564
0.564
0.597
No.
Gravid
2
5
5
5
17
4.3
Percent
Gravid
10.5
26.3
35.7
35.7
25.8
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Ambient Toxicity in Tidal Freshwater James River
4.1.1 Ambient Aqueous Toxicity and Water Quality
This reach of the river lacked any evidence of toxicity with any endpoint (mortality, growth, or
reproduction). This is consistent with the absence of exceedances of regulatory levels for any
metal. There is some possibility that organic chemicals could be present in the water, but the low
solubility of most and a sampling period outside the normal times for pesticide usage for the
corn-soybean-wheat rotation made analysis for such chemicals difficult to justify since toxic
concentrations of chemicals are unlikely to occur in the fall. In this reach of the river there are no
major chemical industries, supporting a low likelihood of concentrations of toxic materials
reaching lexicologically significant levels.
4.1.2 Sediment Quality Triad Evaluation for the Region
In the sediment triad evaluation, there was no evidence from the chemical characterization that
there would be any measurable toxicity. There was an increase in the concentration of some
chemicals, notably PAHs, with distance upstream. This observation can be attributed to the
presence of Hopewell, a highly industrialized community, just upstream of the study region.
PAH concentrations did not reach levels that would be major concern. PCB did not show a
similar trend. Kepone, a pesticide released into the river at Hopewell in the 1970's, is still
measurable in finfish from the river. Kepone was observed at a low concentration at one station
near Windmill Point. Kepone concentrations were well below those producing measurable acute
toxicity to freshwater fish in laboratory tests (Roberts and Bendl, 1982). No data has been
identified to suggest that amphipods or chironomids would be any more sensitive to Kepone than
fish.
The analytical results from the DEQ and EPA station pairs were in close agreement. This is
supported by the toxicological observations and community analyses.
No toxicological events involving any endpoint tested were detected at any station in this region.
This observation is consistent with the chemical characterization of the region as relatively clean.
No differences existed in toxicological responses to distinguish the paired DEQ and EPA
sampling stations.
The benthic community analysis was limited to the 12 DEQ stations. The B-IBI was 3 or above
at all stations except one, indicating good to exceptional community development. The one
exception was at Station 2-JMS044.08 with a marginal B-IBI of 2.67. Communities in this
freshwater to oligohaline region were characteristically small and dominated by opportunistic
species. Nothing about these communities suggested any adverse effect. McGee et al. (2000)
who occupied 5 stations around the mouth of the Chickahominy River in the downstream portion
-------
of the study area reported two stations as degraded and one as marginal. The degraded stations
were located in the mouth of Grays Creek and just east of Dancing Point. The location with a
marginal B-IBI was located directly south of the mouth of the Chickahominy near our Station 2-
JMS047.81. This portion of the river was fresh water during the McGee et al. (2000) study, and
oligohaline during this study. The B-IBI is not at present suited to distinguishing between
toxicological effects and other water quality effects. Suffice it to say, there is limited evidence of
benthic community degradation in this part of the river taking both studies together.
4.2 Effect of Salinity Adjustment on Apparent Toxicity of Sediment
4.2.1 Evaluation of Protocols Used
The protocols used for this experimental portion of the study were planned to allow stabilization
of the metals with the sediment for a short period following spiking. On the positive side, the
metal spike remained in the sediment through all the various salinity adjustments and preparatory
steps leading to the exposure of test animals. AVS/SEM analyses indicated all metals present,
and when at concentrations above the detection limit, the concentrations seemed appropriate
considering the dose as was discussed previously. The salinity adjustment protocols used during
the test preparation worked effectively to produce a pore water without significant salt or with
the desired salinity depending on the circumstance in the preparation. The salinity was achieved
reasonably quickly without mechanical stirring of the sediment and without having an effect on
salinity of the overlying water during the test exposure.
On the negative side, these normally rather anaerobic sediments were oxidized repeatedly during
the preparation for the experiment, thus at least conceptually promoting a variety of geochemical
changes in the sediment of unknown biological or toxicological consequence. Despite these
geochemical changes, theoretical or actual, the sediments once overlain with water quickly
stratified into a deep anaerobic layer and a shallow aerobic layer before addition of test animals.
The animals initially responded to the sediment in essentially the same manner whether spiked
with metals or not. For these reasons, the protocols are believed to have been appropriate for the
experimental purpose.
4.2.2 Implications on Toxicity Characterization for Sediment
Salinity had an overall effect of increasing the apparent toxicity of spiked sediment. However,
there were species-specific differences in the cause of this effect. In the case of the estuarine
species, higher toxicity at the elevated salinity may have reflected primarily changes in chemical
speciation and/or availability of metals. For the freshwater species, salinity tolerance may have
been the reason for decreased survival though chemical speciation and changes in bioavailability
may still have played a role.
The contrasting effect of salinity alone on growth of L. plumulosus compared with the interactive
effect of salinity x metal on survival suggest that while animals are less stressed at the higher
salinity, metals are more bioavailable. L. plumulosus is a euryhaline species and although it is
most frequently found in low salinity regions of Chesapeake Bay, it most likely occurs in these
areas as a fugitive species (Feeley and Wass, 1971; Jordan and Sutton, 1984). The notion that
these low salinity areas offer refuge from predators or access to resources rather than optimal
-------
physiological salinity is supported by the negative effect of reduced salinity on growth observed
in this study. Schlekat and coworkers (1992) observed a significant increase in the number of
offspring produced by L. plumulosus cultured for 20 days at 25 g/kg as opposed to 5 g/kg and 15
g/kg. Though the differences were not statistically significant, there was still an apparent
increase in offspring production in the higher salinity cultures after 28 days.
In contrast, increased pore water salinity alone had a negative effect on both growth and survival
of//, azteca. The effect in un-spiked sediment at 15 g/kg was highly significant. Salinity still
had an effect on metal toxicity but sediment was part of the interactive term. Possibly the higher
TOC in sediment from station 2-JMS065.81 contributed to the slightly lower toxicity observed
within salinity-metal treatments for this sediment compared to that observed for sediment from
station 2-JMS040.03.
One possible explanation for the independent effect of salinity is that acclimation of H. azteca
was inadequate. While this species has been recommended for use in testing at salinities as high
as 15 g/kg, no recommended salinity acclimation procedures are provided (ASTM, 1999; EPA,
2000). In the current study, animals were acclimated by changing the holding water salinity by
no more than 3-4 g/kg/12-h period during a 48-hr to 72-hr period prior to testing (i.e. they were
held at the test salinity at least 24 h prior to use). Ingersoll et al. (1992) cultured H. azteca in
freshwater and artificial seawater at 10-g/kg salinity for use in testing brackish irrigation water.
In 96-h water-only tests animals from both culture groups faired equally well (90% and 80%
survival) in brackish samples (19 g/kg). However, the exposure period was less than that of the
current study and the ionic composition of the brine was different than that of seawater of
equivalent salinity (e.g. higher in calcium and lower in sodium and magnesium). Another group
investigating the salinity tolerance of H. azteca reported 10-d salinity LCSOs of 20.4 g/kg for
mature adults and 24.2 g/kg for young adults in water-only exposures; 73% of the animals
survived at 15 g/kg and produced a total of 27 offspring compared with 100% survival and 96
offspring in the freshwater control group (Nebeker and Miller, 1988). Although the animals
were directly transferred to test solutions from freshwater cultures (i.e. no acclimation), survival
was good (93%) at 96 h; much of the mortality that occurred in the treatments > 15 g/kg salinity
occurred between 96 h and 10 d. Animals exposed to sediments with pore water salinities as high
as 27.5 g/kg salinity using a fresh (200 mg/1 CaCCb hardness) dilution water (4:1 v:v
water:sediment) exhibited good survival but pore water salinity was probably greatly lowered by
the overlying freshwater. In summary, H. azteca may be stressed if used for testing samples with
salinity of 15 g/kg or higher unless complete acclimation to the test salinity can be achieved.
Appropriate acclimation procedures need to be developed. Until then, use of this species at
elevated salinities should be restricted to test organisms cultured at the test salinity.
Ammonia increased slightly in sediments following salt addition but the measured
concentrations were still well below most toxic values reported in the literature. Ammonia
toxicity studies conducted using spiked sediments yielded a 96-h LC50 for H. azteca of 117-126
mg NHt-N/1 at pH 6.6-7.4 (Besser etal, 1998) and a 10-d LC50 of 98.8 mg NHt-N /I forZ.
plumulosus (Moore et al., 1997). In contrast to the results reported by Besser and coworkers,
Borgmann (1994) reported a 7-day LC50 of 23 mg NHj-N /I in water-only exposures. Toxicity
values expressed in terms of unionized ammonia were similarly distant between the two studies
suggesting that factors other than pH (e.g. water vs. sediment exposure, exposure duration) may
be responsible for the disparity.
-------
Ammonia values for the treatments in the present study that exhibited significant toxicity (i.e.
305 TU) ranged from 2.2 to 22.0 mg NFL.-N /I and were generally lower or similar in ammonia
concentration to the corresponding un-spiked control. Also, survival of control animals for both
species in sediment from station 2-JMS065.81 (15 g/kg salinity) controls (36.2 mg NFLt-N /I
ammonia) was equal to or greater than those in sediment from station 2-JMS040.03 (15g/kg
salinity) controls (4.6 mg NFL.-N /I ammonia). Mobilization of ammonia by salt addition does
not explain the effect of salinity on toxicity.
Increased availability of sediment-sorbed metal with increasing salinity may result from
increasing chloride complexation of sorbable metal ions and/or competition for sediment binding
sites by seawater cations (Chapman and Wang, 2001). Salinity-induced changes in sediment-
metal adsorption are usually reversible and may affect different bound phases of the metals (e.g.
Comans and van Dik, 1988; Turner and Millward, 1994). Methods proposed to measure
available metal (e.g. SEM/AVS) may be insensitive to these effects of salinity. For example,
Turner and Millward (1994) found for sediment-bound Cd and Zn that "exchangeable" metal
(defined as extractable in 1 M ammonium acetate) increased with increasing salinity, "teachable"
metal (defined as metal extracted in 1 M HC1 after extraction in 1 M ammonium acetate)
decreased with increasing salinity and the sum of the two (equivalent to SEM) remained
relatively constant.
In addition to changes in adsorption of metals to sediments, salinity may also affect the
speciation, and hence toxicity, of pore water metals. Salinity effects on toxicity of metals have
been demonstrated for a variety of species and have been shown to be primarily related to the
differing bioavailability of various forms of the metals such as Me2+, MeCf, MeCV, etc. (e.g.
Sunda et al, 1978; Sunda et al, 1987; De Lisle and Roberts, 1988; Nugegoda and Rainbow,
1988; De Lisle and Roberts, 1993; Wildgust and Jones, 1998; Roast etal, 2001). However,
"residual" salinity effects, presumably of a physiological nature, often exist even after
accounting for speciation (Wright, 1995). Net effects of salinity on toxicity of sediment-
associated metals are likely dependent on the effects of salinity on both sediment sorption and
dissolved phase speciation of the metals as well as organism physiology.
4.3 Effect of Rainfall on Water Quality from Tributary Urbanized Creeks
During the fall of 2000, there were small intense rain events during September. These events
were highly localized, as can be seen by the range in rainfall during any 2-day period across the
study area. For example, 0.4 to 0.6 cm was collected at Gillie and Almond Creek, and nearly ten
times this amount (3.5 to 4.0 cm) at Falling and Cornelius Creeks on 15 September. This
compares to 0.43 cm (0.17 in) at the nearby Richmond International Airport (RIC). On the final
study date, 27 September, the range in rain amount was less extreme, ranging from 1.8 to 4.0 cm.
This compares to 4.0 cm (1.62 in) at RIC during the period. Though the rain events were
significant and in excess of 1 cm, there were no mortality events correlated with these rain
events.
In a previous study of rain events falling on agricultural land, and specifically tomato fields
covered with plastic, rain events such as the heavier events observed in Richmond caused major,
-------
sometimes total, mortality (Luckenbach et al. 1996). Scott et al. (1987, 1990) reported similar
results from agricultural areas in South Carolina.
In the Richmond setting, however, no correlation was observed between survival and rain events.
The lack of effect may result from the hardened surfaces having already been washed clean by
earlier rain events. If one examines rainfall records from the Richmond International Airport,
rainfalls >1 cm occurred on August 1,4, 11, 18, 24, and 27 and September 3. During the 10 days
before deployment, there was no rainfall recorded at RIC.
An alternative explanation for lack of mortality response may be the placement of the stations
close to but not within the mouths of the study creeks. Dilution of a concentrated effluent from
the creeks may have been significant, reducing the effect of the events below a detectable
amount.
As noted in the description of the study sites, it was not practical to enter into the mouths of three
creeks. Only in Falling Creek was the study site within the creek mouth, and even here, the creek
penetration was minimal. The fundamental impediments to penetrating the creeks were the
shallow depth and fallen trees.
During the fall deployment in Hopewell, there was no rainfall for the entire 28 days. This
observation was confirmed with data from RIC and from the Hopewell weather site (37°18'N,
77°17'W). The sole mass mortality observed during the in situ tests occurred at Gravelly Run,
and presumably was related to industrial practices upstream rather than rain induced runoff. An
excessive thermal increase is one possible explanation, but pH events are also known to occur in
this creek (Robert Seidel, personal communication). Reduced oxygen concentration might also
occur following an excessive release of organic material.
Again during the spring 2001 deployment in Hopewell, there was virtually no rainfall during a
14-day period. No mass mortalities were observed despite reduced oxygen at the Bailey Creek
and Bear Creek sites during a portion of the period. Two-day survival during this deployment
was nearly identical to that during the fall deployment. This speaks to the reliability of the
deployment methodology, but offers no information concerning the effect of rain events.
The singular mass mortality event during the fall 2000 in situ study points out in a very poignant
way a major limitation of the present widely used approach to characterize conditions in
extensive waterways. This mortality event occurred within one 48-hr period (i.e. in less than 48
hr). Grab water sampling on the three-day schedule used for the characterization portion of this
study would likely not have detected such a short-term pulsed event. Therefore to demonstrate a
lack of toxicity in such tests does not mean that there was not a short period of high toxicity
during the test period. Conversely, detection of toxicity in one of three sampling events does not
mean that the region should be characterized as severely contaminated. The characterization
methodology serves well only to demonstrate effects of relatively continuous infusion of toxic
materials leading to persistently elevated concentrations of one or more toxic materials in the
receiving water.
The use of three samples over the course of the aqueous toxicity tests is certainly better than the
single sample approach used in a previous study (Roberts et al. 2000) and in the extensive
-------
monitoring studies of Californian rivers (de Vlaming et al, 2000). The reason for such
abbreviated sampling was related in both cases to logistical problems in collecting and
transporting samples at multiple times. Ultimately that translates to a high cost for transportation
and personnel. De Vlaming et al. (2000) also pointed to the problems of performing a TIE for
any location found to be toxic in a preliminary test of one or more samples over a 10-12 day
period, an important component of the California monitoring program.
A clear limitation of the present in situ study was the lack of a continuous record of water quality
conditions at the study site. The objective in the present instance was to demonstrate the presence
or absence of an ephemeral biological effect associated with rain events. If a continuous record
of general water quality data had been available, it might have been possible to place a better
interpretation on the mortality event observed at Gravelly Run in Hopewell. Among the possible
explanations excluding a toxic material release are 1) a brief thermal excursion above the already
extreme levels, 2) a pH excursion, or 3) a reduced oxygen concentration. These explanations
cannot be excluded, and therefore there is no basis for assuming the release of a toxic material.
4.3.1 Conceptual Comparison of Alternative Test Methods
The approach used for this study involved a passive devise deployed in the field. The nature of
the device placed limitations on where it can be successfully deployed. There must be a
minimum of 12-15 inches of water at the lowest ebb tide lest the test chambers be grounded or
beached. There must also be ready access to the site for monitoring survival.
An alternative approach would be deployment of a test chamber into which water is periodically
pumped. Katznelson et al. (1999) and Katznelson (2000) described one such device. As noted
therein, power is generally not available at locations slightly upstream within these urbanized
streams. Modern battery technology and judicious design that minimizes the need for power can,
however, allow design and deployment of test chambers of this type.
Conceptually, two technologies could be combined to insure that water quality parameters are
monitored more continuously and to provide a flow of water through the test chambers. The
VIMS Physical Sciences Department has designed and deployed devices to monitor dissolved
oxygen and other water quality parameters at frequent predetermined intervals by pumping water
from defined depths through measurement cells. Since the analyses do not involve the addition
of chemicals, one could pass the return flow through animal exposure chambers at no further
energy cost. The major challenges with deploying such devices are access to appropriate study
sites, provision of sufficient power, secure placement to prevent removal by water flow or wave
action, and protection from vandalism, especially in such urbanized locations as Gillie Creek in
Richmond. Using such an approach, there is no risk of beaching. In addition a control treatment
could be deployed at each site.
4.3.2 Comparative Utility of Ambient Toxicity Tests Versus in situ Tests
The advantage of in situ tests, if the technical difficulties with such protocols can be overcome, is
the improved likelihood of sampling during a critical period to observe toxicity. Ambient water
toxicity is measured with a variety of test animals with approximate exposure durations of 8 to
10 days involving endpoints usually reserved for chronic toxicity tests, namely growth and
-------
reproduction. For tests of ambient water, three sampling events have been used in most work in
the Chesapeake Bay (Hall etal, 1991; 1992; 1994; 1997; 1998a; 1998b; 2000a; 2000b; Roberts
& De Lisle, 1988). That approach, minimalistic though it is, has been violated on occasion when
time, distance, and economics precluded even three sampling events (Roberts et al, 2000; de
Vlaming et al, 2000). In situations with substantial ambient toxicity, single sampling studies
have provided much useful information, but clearly such protocols are particularly inadequate to
detect ephemeral events.
The traditional ambient toxicity tests do have value when point source discharges produce
consistent and sufficient concentrations of toxic materials to result in mortality, reduced growth
or reproductive failure. Such point source discharges are likely to be more continuous in nature
rather than episodic, though certainly industrial practices may also result in pulsed discharges as
may perhaps explain the in situ mass mortality at Gravelly Run during this study. In the
California setting, widespread residential and agricultural application of pesticides also produced
reasonably continuous pesticide concentrations that could be detected using the traditional
approach (summarized in de Vlaming etal., 2000). In contrast, in situ studies in agricultural
areas of South Carolina and Virginia have demonstrated the ephemeral nature of pesticide
releases in association with rain events, leading to toxicity that would not have been reliably
detected using the traditional ambient toxicity protocol.
Further development of protocols and devices for in situ studies will allow assessment of pulsed
or ephemeral events. Such tools may also have application in assessment of ambient toxicity.
The collection of water samples for testing at three or even eight points in time does not
adequately evaluate the potential of toxicity in ambient water. Increasing the frequency of
sampling and animal transfers would greatly increase the cost of the present ambient toxicity
tests. We need to develop protocols that combine these technologies to gain better understanding
the toxicity in natural waters, an understanding that will allow better characterizations of
conditions in natural waters and better risk assessments.
-------
4.4 Future Research Needs
4.4.1 Characterization of the Hopewell to Richmond Reach
At the end of this study, there remains a need to characterize the remainder of the tidal
freshwater portion of the James River from Hopewell to Richmond. Such a further effort should
concentrate on characterizing the condition of the sediment rather than water. Though heavily
industrialized, the potential point sources are known to have minimal inputs. A substantial
expenditure of money to analyze for chemicals or to determine toxicity in the water column is
unlikely to result in determinations of toxicity at this time.
Sediment tests in this reach may show effects of historic as well as current industry. It should be
noted, however, that the sediment texture is predominantly sand in this reach though there are
likely to be pockets of fine sediment texture. One would predict no toxicity in sandy substrates.
Certainly one would expect sediment in the Bailey Bay area on the south end of Hopewell to be
fine texture, and this is an area where one would predict the presence of toxic chemicals based on
the long period of industrial activity along the shoreline of the city.
Such a study was undertaken by VIMS and DEQ during the summer of 2001. A report should be
available in the summer of 2002.
4.4.2 Alternative Test Species for Toxicity Tests of Water in the Oligohaline Regions
A major deficiency of the present study was the adequacy of test species for toxicity
measurements for water from the oligohaline stations. This issue has remained unresolved for
years. Species lists for the water column of oligohaline regions need to be carefully examined to
identify candidate species for testing followed by protocol development and evaluation if it is
essential to perform toxicity tests in oligohaline waters. Alternatively, one could adopt the use of
a species such as Hyalella azteca, a benthic invertebrate that performs well in water column tests
and tolerates salinities up to and including 15 g/kg. Ironically, the benthic carnivorous isopod,
Cyathurapolita, which interfered with sediment tests, might also be a candidate species because
of its ability to exist in both freshwater and oligohaline environments.
For sediment, the species used in the present study are quite suited to oligohaline conditions. No
additional benthic species are therefore needed.
4.4.3 Improvement to in situ Testing Methods
Three issues need to be addressed. First, the use of chambers with controlled flow of ambient
water through them rather than chambers with passive flow exchange would be appropriate. A
suitable design could include multiple measurements of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
pH, and possibly other water quality parameters by pumping water past appropriate electrodes
before passing the water into the test chamber.
Second, another test species would be desirable. In the present study we elected not to use a
species such as Ceriodaphnia because of its small size and anticipated difficulties in making
-------
counts under field conditions. The greater sensitivity of the daphnid species over the amphipod
and its more appropriate habitat characteristic suggest that effort should be devoted to resolving
the potential methodological impediments to its use.
Lastly, a protocol for chemical characterization of water near in situ tests needs to be developed.
The protocol should allow for focusing on analytes likely to be present during wet weather
events and on sample timing to correspond to rain event inflows. One possible approach would
be to composite a subsample of water pumped into the test chambers over appropriate short
intervals, and then selecting those for analysis that would characterize the pre-rain event
condition and those that would document changes during rain events. Clearly one must control
cost in this endeavor, but at the same time, one must have some clear understanding of the
chemical environment within which the test is performed while focusing on the issue under
study, in this case the effect of rain events in urban areas.
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Allen, HE, G Fu and B Deng. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously
extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in aquatic sediments.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12: 1441-1453.
Ankley, G T, DT Di Toro, DJ Hansen and WJ Berry. 1996. Technical basis and proposal for
deriving sediment quality criteria for metals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 2056-2066.
ASTM 1999. Designation E 1706-95. Test Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of
Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. In Annual Book
of Standards, Vol. 11.05
ASTM. 1999. Designation E729 - 96. Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians. In Annual Book of
Standards. Vol. 11.05.
Berry, WJ; DJ Hansen, JD Mahoney, DL Robson, DM Di Toro, BP Shipley, B Rogers, JM
Corbin and WS Boothman. 1996. Predicting the toxicity of metal-spiked laboratory
sediments using acid-volatile sulfide and interstitial water normalizations. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 15: 2067-2079.
Besser, JM, CG Ingersoll, EN Leonard and DR Mount. 1998. Effect of zeolite on toxicity of
ammonia in freshwater sediments: Implications for toxicity identification evaluation
procedures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 2310-2317.
Borgmann, U. 1994. Chronic toxicity of ammonia to the amphipod Hyalella azteca: Importance
of ammonium ion and water hardness. Environ. Pollut. 86: 329-335.
Boyle, EA and JM Edmond. 1975. Determination of Trace Metals in Aqueous Solution by
APDC Chelate Co-Precipitation. Chapter 6, pp. 44-55. In Gibb, TRP, ed. Analytical
Methods in Oceanography: Advances in Chemistry, Series 147. American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
Brecken-Folse, JA, FL Mayer, LE Pedigos and LL Marking. 1993. Acute toxicity of 4-
nitrophenol, 2,4-dinitrophenol, terbufos and trichlorfon to grass shrimp (Paleamonetes
spp.) and sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) as affected by salinity and
temperature. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13: 61-11.
Brower, H and TP Murphy, 1994. Diffusion method for the determination of acid-volatile
sulfides (AVS) in sediment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13: 1273-1275.
-------
Bryant, V, DM Newbery DS McLusky, and R Campbell. 1984a. Effect of temperature and
salinity on the toxicity of arsenic to three estuarine invertebrates (Corophium volutator,
Macoma balthica, Nereis diversicolof) Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 20: 129-137.
Bryant, V, DS McLusky, K Roddie and DM Newbery. 1984b. Effect of temperature and salinity
on the toxicity of chromium to three estuarine invertebrates (Corophium volutator,
Macoma balthica, Nereis diver sicolof) Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 20: 137-149.
Chapman, PM and F. Wang. 2001: Assessing sediment contamination in estuaries. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 20: 3-22.
Coglianese, MP 1982. The effects of salinity on copper and silver toxicity to embryos of the
Pacific oyster. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11: 297-303
Comans, RNJ, and CPJ van Dijk. 1988. Role of complexation processes in cadmium
mobilization during estuarine mixing. Nature 336: 151-154.
Crane, M, M Higman, T Olsen, P Simpson, A Callaghan, T Fisher, and R Kheir. 2000. An in
situ system for exposing aquatic invertebrates to contaminated sediments. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 19:2715-2719.
DeLisle, PF 1988. The effects of salinity on cadmium toxicity to the bay mysid, Mysidopsis
bahia Molenock. PhD dissertation, College of William and Mary, 120 pp.
De Lisle, P.F. and M.H. Roberts, Jr. 1986. The effect of acclimation on salinity tolerance of the
mysid, Mysidopsis bahia Molenock. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 85A: 383-387.
De Lisle, PF and MH Roberts, Jr. 1988. The effect of salinity on cadmium toxicity to the
estuarine mysid, Mysidopsis bahia: Role of chemical speciation. Aquat. Toxicol. 12: 357-
370.
De Lisle, PF and MH Roberts, Jr. 1993. The effect of salinity on cadmium toxicity to the
estuarine mysid, Mysidopsis bahia: Roles of osmoregulation and calcium. Mar. Environ.
Res. 37: 47-62.
de Vlaming, V, V Connor, C DeGiorgio, HC Bailey, LA Deanovic, and DE Hinton. 2000.
Application of whole effluent toxicity test procedures to ambient water quality
assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19: 42-62.
DiToro, DM, JD Mahony, DJ Hansen, KJ Scott, MB Hicks, SM Mays, and MS Redmond. 1990.
Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile sulfides. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 9: 1489-1504.
DiToro, DM, JD Mahony, DJ Hansen, KJ Scott, AR Carlson, and GT Ankley. 1992. Acid
volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments. Environ.
Sci. Technol.26: 96-101.
-------
Feeley, JB and ML Wass. 1971. The distribution and ecology of the Gammaridea (Crustacea:
Amphipoda) of the lower Chesapeake Estuaries. Special Paper in Marine Science No. 2,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA
Hall, LW and RW Alden III, 1997. A review of concurrent ambient water column and sediment
toxicity testing in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: 1990-1994. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
16:1607-1617.
Hall, LW, MC Ziegenfuss, SA Fischer, RW Alden III, 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD
Hall, LW, MC Ziegenfuss, SA Fischer, RD Anderson, WD Killen, RW 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD
Hall, LW, MC Ziegenfuss, RD Anderson, WD Killen, RW Alden III. 1994. A Pilot Study for
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year 3 Report. CBP/TRS 116/94.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD
Hall, LW, RD Anderson, WD Killen, MC Scott, JV Kilian, RW Alden III, RA Eskin. 1997. A
Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year 4 Report. CBP\TRS
172/97 (EPA 903-R-97-011). Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD
Hall, L.W., Anderson, R.D., Alden III, R.W. 1998a. Ambient Toxicity Testing Chesapeake Bay -
Year 5 Report, EPA 903-R-98-008, Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, 68 pp + Appendices.
Hall, L.W., Anderson, R.D., Alden III, R.W., Messing, A., Turner, T., Goshorn, D., McGinty, M.
1998b. Ambient Toxicity Testing Chesapeake Bay - Year 6 Report, EPA 903-R-98-017,
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD, 79
pp + Appendices.
Hall, L.W., Anderson, R.D., Messing, A., Turner, T., Alden III, R.W., Goshorn, D., McGinty, M.
2000a. Ambient Toxicity Testing Chesapeake Bay - Year 7 Report, EPA 903-R-00-006,
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD, 88
pp + Appendices.
Hall, L.W., Anderson, R.D., Messing, A., Winfield, J., Jenkins, A.K., Weber, I.J., Alden III,
R.W., Goshorn, D., McGinty, M. 2000b. Ambient Toxicity Testing Chesapeake Bay-
Year 8 Report, EPA 903-R-00-012, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, 103 pp + Appendices.
-------
Halter, MT, WJ Adams, and HE Johnson. 1980. Selenium toxicity to Daphnia magna, Hyalella
azteca and the fathead minnow in hard water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24: 102-
107.
Hollander, M. and D.A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Hsieh, YP and CH Yang. 1989. Diffusion methods for the determination of reduced inorganic
sulfur species in sediment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34: 1126-1130.
Ingersoll, CG, FJ Dwyer, SA Burch, MK Nelson, DR Buckler and JB Hunn. 1992. The use of
freshwater and saltwater animals to distinguish between the toxic effects of salinity and
contaminants in irrigation drain water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 503-511.
Ingersoll, CG, PS Haverland, EL Brunson, TS Canfield, FJ Dryer, CE Hence, and NE Kembla.
1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipod
Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius. J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 602-623.
Jordan, RA and CE Sutton. 1984. Oligohaline benthic invertebrate communities at two
Chesapeake Bay power plants. Estuaries 7: 192-212.
Katznelson, R, E. daCosta, and A. Feng. 1999. Use of Creekside Flowthrough System for
Assessment of Toxicity at Realistic Exposure Scenarios. Interim Report to Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Alameda Countywide Clean
Water program. 15 pp.
Katznelson, R. 2000. Flow through system and method for toxicity testing. US Patent No.
6093566. June 25,2000.
Klaus, KJ and GE Moore. 1953. Anion Exchange Studies. VI. The Divalent Transition Elements
Manganese to Zinc in Hydrochloric Acid. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 75: 1460 et seq.
Leonard, EN, VR Mattson, and GT Ankley. 1996. Modified diffusion method for analysis of
acid volatile sulfides and simultaneously extracted metals in freshwater sediment.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 1479-1481.
Leonard, EN, DR Mount and GT Ankley. 1999. Modification of metal partitioning by
supplementing acid volatile sulfide in freshwater sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:
858-864.
Long, ER and PM Chapman. 1985. A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Poll.
5M//.10:405-415.
Long, ER, LJ Field, and DD MacDonald. 1998. Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with
numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7: 714-727.
-------
Long, ER, DD MacDonald, SL Smith, and FD Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.
Environ. Manag. 19: 81-97.
Long, ER, DD MacDonald, JC Cubbage, and CG Ingersoll. 1998. Predicting the toxicity of
sediment-associated trace metals with simultaneously extracted trace metal:acid-volatile
sulfide concentrations and dry weight-normalized concentrations: A critical comparison.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 972-974
Luckenbach, MW, MH Roberts Jr., and K Boyd. 1996. Preliminary Evaluation of Water Quality
in Tidal Creeks of Virginia's Eastern Shore in Relation to Vegetable Cultivation. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Specific Report No. 133, 37 pp.
Lussier, SM, A Kuhn and J Sewall. 1987. Guidance manual for conducting a seven-day mysid
survival/growth/reproduction study using the estuarine mysid, Mysidopsis bahia.
Contribution X106. U.S. E.P.A, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI
Mayer, FI, LL Marking, LE Pedigo, and JA Brecken. 1989. Physicochemical factors affecting toxicity: pH, salinity,
and temperature. Part 1. Literature Review. EPA 600/X-89-033, U.S. EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL.
McGee, BL, DJ Fisher, LT Yonkos, GP Ziegler and S Turley. 1999. Assessment of sediment
contamination, acute toxicity, and population viability of the estuarine amphipod
Leptocheirusplumulosus in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
18:2151-2160.
McGee, BL, DJ Fisher, J Ashley and D Velinsky. 2001. Using the Sediment Quality Triad to
characterize toxic conditions in the Chesapeake Bay (1999): An assessment of tidal river
segments in the Bohemia, Magothy, Patuxent, James, and York Rivers. EPA 903-R-01-
008, CBP/TRS 257/01, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, MD, 35 pp + Appendices.
Minitab 1995. Minitab Reference Manual, Release lOXtra. Minitab Inc., State College, PA.
Moseman, RF, HL Crest, TR Edgerton and MK Ward. 1977. Electron capture gas
chromatophraphic determination of Kepone residues in environmental samples. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6: 1-12.
Moore, DW, TS Bridges, BR Gray and BM Duke. 1997. Risk of ammonia toxicity during
sediment bioassays with the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 16: 1020-1027.
Nebeker, AV, and CE Miller. 1988. Use of the amphipod crustacean Hyalella azteca in
freshwater and estuarine sediment toxicity tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7: 1027-1033.
Nichols, MM, GH Johnson and PC Peebles. 1991. Modern sediments and facies model for a
microtidal coastal plain estuary, the James estuary, Virginia. J. Sed. Petrol. 61:883-899.
-------
Nugegoda, D and PS Rainbow. 1988. Effect of chelating agent (EDTA) on zinc uptake and
regulation by Palaemon elegans (Crustacea: Decapoda). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 68:
25-40.
Pinkney, AE, S Gowda and E Rzemien. 1991. Sediment toxicity testing of the Baltimore
Harbor and C&D Canal approach channels with the amphipod Leptocheirusplumulosus.
Final report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, VERSAR Inc., Columbia,
MD.
Roast, SD, J Widdows and MB Jones. 2001. Effects of salinity and chemical speciation on
cadmium accumulation and toxicity to two mysid species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.20:
1078-1084.
Roberts, MH, Jr and RE Bendl. 1982. Acute toxicity of Kepone to selected freshwater fishes.
Estuaries 5:158-164.
Roberts, MH Jr. and PF De Lisle. 1988. Natural Water Toxicity Characterization with Coupled
Bivalve Embryo Test and Fractionation. Presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC,
Arlington, VA, 13-17 November 1988.
Roberts, MH, Jr, MW Luckenbach, and ME Unger. 2000. Ambient Toxicity and Chemical
Characterization of Four Bayside Creeks of the Eastern Shore. CBP/TRS 250/01, 54 pp
+ Appendices.
Sasson-Brickson, G and GA Burton, Jr. 1991. In situ and laboratory sediment toxicity testing
with Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 201-207.
Schlekat, CE, BL McGee and E Reinharz 1992. Testing sediment toxicity in Chesapeake Bay
with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus: An evaluation. Environ. Toxicol Chem. 11:
225-236.
Schubauer-Berigan, MK., JR Dierkes, PD Monson and GT Ankley 1993. pH-dependent toxicity
of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephalespromelas, Hyalella azteca
and Lumbriculus variegatus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12: 1261-1266.
Scott, GI, DS Baughman, AH Trim and J Dee. 1987. Lethal and sublethal effects of insecticides
commonly found in non-point source agricultural runoff to estuarine fish and shellfish.
In: WB Vernberg, F Thurberg, A Calabrese and F Vernberg (eds.), Physiology and
Pollution Effects on Marine Organisms. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia,
SC, pp. 251-273.
Scott, GI, MH Fulton, DW Moore, GT Chandler, TF Bidleman, PB Key, TW Hampton, JM
Marcus, KL Jackson, DS Baughman, AH Trio, L Williams, CJ Louden, and ER
Patterson. 1990. Agricultural insecticide runoff effects on estuarine organisms:
Correlating laboratory and field toxicity testing with ecological biomonitoring. Final
Project Report, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
-------
Simpson, KW, JP Fagnani, DM DeNicola, and RW Bode. 1985. Widespread distribution of
some estuarine crustaceans (Cyathurapolita, Chiridotea almyra, Almyracuma
proximoculi) in the limnetic zone of the lower Hudson River, New York. Estuaries
8:373-380.
Simpson, SL, J Rosner and J Ellis. 2000. Competitive displacement reactions of cadmium,
copper, and zinc added to a polluted sulfidic estuarine sediment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
19: 1992-1999.
Sokal, RR and FJ Rohlf, 1969. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological
research. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.776 pp.
Sunda, WG, DW Engel and RM Thuotte. 1978. Effect of chemical speciation on toxicity of
cadmium to grass shrimp, Palaemonetespugio: Importance of free cadmium ion.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 12: 409-413.
Sunda, WG, PA Tester and SA Huntsman. 1987. Effects of cupric and zinc ion activities on the
survival and reproduction of marine copepods. Mar. Biol. 94: 203-210.
Turner, A, and GE Millward. 1994. Partitioning of trace metals in a macrotidal estuary:
Implications for contaminant transport models. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 39: 45-58.
Unger, MA, WG Maclntyre, J Greaves, RJ Huggett. 1986. GC Determination of butyltins in
natural waters by flame photometric detection of hexyl derivatives with mass
spectrometric confirmation. Chemosphere, 15: 461-470.
Unger, MA 1996. A Manual for the Analysis of Butyltins in Environmental Samples. Prepared
for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. VIMS Special Report in Applied
Marine Science and Ocean Engineering #338. 59 pp.
US EPA. 1987. Water Quality Criteria Summary. US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC
US EPA. 1991. Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of Chronically Toxic
Effluents, Phase 1. EPA/600/6-91/005F. Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC.
US EPA 1994. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. EPA/600/R-94/024. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
US EPA. 1999a. Method for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation. Of Sediment-
associated Contaminants with Freshwater Inverts, 2nd Ed. EPA/600/R-99/064. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
US EPA. 1999b. Targeting Toxics: A Characterization Report. A Tool for Directing
Management and Monitoring Actions in the Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers. CPB/TRS
222/103, US EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
-------
U.S. EPA 2000. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-
associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Td Ed. EPA/600/R-9/064.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Virginia Administrative Code. 1999. Criteria for surface water. 9 VAC 25-260-140. pp. 8-12.
Weisberg, SB, JA Ranasinghe, DM Dauer, LC Schaffner, RJ Diaz and JB Frithsen. 1997. An
estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20:
149-158.
Wildgust, MA, and MB Jones. 1998. Salinity change and the toxicity of the free cadmium ion
[Cd2+] to Neomysis integer (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Aquat. Toxicol. 41: 187-192.
Wright, DA. 1995. Trace metal and major ion interactions in aquatic animals. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 31: 8-18.
-------
Appendix A
Data Tables from
James River Sediment Toxicity Survey.
Stations 12.12, 44.08, 46.73, 50.55, 52.52, 56.12,
66.35, 67.56, 68.49, 73.63 and 74.25.
8/22/00 to 8/24/00 Sampling Period.
Final report from Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., Gloucester, VA 23061
To Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062
-------
Table Al. Summary Water Quality - Hyalella azteca Test
Station
Control
12.121
12.122
12.123
44.081
44.082
44.083
46.731
46.732
46.733
50.551
50.552
50.553
52.521
52.522
52.523
56.121
56.122
56.123
66.351
66.352
66.353
Temperature
(C)
Mean S.D.
23.4
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.4
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.3
23.3
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.4
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
Diss. Oxygen
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
PH
(S.U.)
Mean S..D.
7.68
7.60
7.62
7.59
7.78
7.79
7.80
8.01
8.08
8.01
7.93
7.88
7.83
8.01
7.90
7.97
7.82
7.94
7.94
7.70
7.75
7.75
0.23
0.04
0.12
0.15
0.11
0.02
0.04
0.18
0.07
0.21
0.15
0.08
0.23
0.37
0.33
0.33
0.16
0.40
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.00
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Mean S.D.
401
341
306
305
875
1085
839
645
662
660
510
489
455
394
378
374
324
356
339
277
280
277
99.0
16.5
12.0
9.0
202.0
240.0
193.0
84.0
102.0
217.5
71.0
58.0
92.5
54.0
42.5
42.5
21.5
43.5
43.0
8.5
2.0
1.0
Hardness
(mg/l as CaCO3)
Mean S.D.
127.0
89.0
108.0
94.0
115.0
151.0
134.0
89.0
161.0
145.0
130.0
109.0
111.0
117.0
101.0
104.0
115.0
122.0
105.0
90.0
96.0
107.0
9.0
7.0
0.0
8.0
11.0
19.0
2.0
33.0
3.0
3.0
12.0
17.0
21.0
11.0
1.0
8.0
7.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
17.0
Alkalinity
(mg/l as CaCO3)
Mean S.D.
59.0
33.0
33.5
34.0
40.0
40.0
33.0
81.5
78.0
80.5
68.5
58.5
57.0
53.0
48.5
49.0
61.5
55.5
52.0
36.5
42.0
36.5
7.0
14.0
13.5
19.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
1.5
7.0
24.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
0.0
4.5
2.0
4.5
6.5
2.0
11.5
7.0
8.5
NH3-N
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
9.8
0.7
1.1
1.2
3.8
1.6
0.7
2.6
3.2
1.2
2.5
2.2
1.6
3.0
1.9
2.2
1.1
1.3
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.4
5.4
0.3
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.3
1.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.7
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.7
1.1
p
-------
Table Al (continued). Summary Water Quality - Hyalella azteca Test
Station
67.561
67.562
67.563
68.491
68.492
68.493
68.641
68.642
68.643
73.631
73.632
74.251
74.252
74.253
76.633
Temperature
(C)
Mean S.D.
23.4
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.2
23.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
Diss. Oxygen
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
PH
(S.U.)
Mean S..D.
7.99
7.97
8.12
3.90
7.80
7.76
7.48
7.58
7.49
7.95
7.85
7.84
7.81
7.87
7.94
0.08
0.21
0.13
5.41
0.04
0.11
0.04
0.22
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.16
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Mean S.D.
344
341
397
273
299
273
277
262
270
304
323
284
285
284
304
2.5
18.0
15.0
2.0
13.5
5.0
0.5
12.5
2.0
0.0
29.0
7.0
0.5
7.0
1.0
Hardness
(mg/l as CaCO3)
Mean S.D.
133.0
126.0
152.0
96.0
112.0
129.0
94.0
74.0
106.0
116.0
111.0
131.0
101.0
94.0
94.0
13.0
16.0
26.0
10.0
0.0
13.0
4.0
10.0
18.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
Alkalinity
(mg/l as CaCOS)
Mean S.D.
79.0
84.5
114.0
51.5
37.0
43.5
44.0
33.5
31.0
54.0
49.5
46.0
48.5
50.0
60.0
5.0
13.5
4.0
18.5
7.0
0.5
0.0
14.5
10.0
8.0
3.5
5.0
4.5
7.0
7.0
NH3-N
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
1.5
2.2
4.2
1.3
1.2
2.1
1.0
0.4
1.2
2.0
0.8
5.0
6.4
2.6
2.5
1.2
1.8
3.0
0.3
0.9
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.5
4.6
1.2
2.2
1.2
I
01
-------
Table A2. Summary Water Quality - Pimephales promelas Test
Station
Control
12.121
12.122
12.123
44.081
44.082
44.083
46.731
46.732
46.733
50.551
50.552
50.553
52.521
52.522
52.523
56.121
56.122
56.123
66.351
66.352
66.353
Temperature
(C)
Mean S.D.
24.5
24.5
24.6
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
Diss. Oxygen
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
pH
(S.U.)
Mean S.D.
7.84
7.71
7.76
7.73
7.79
7.87
7.82
7.91
7.98
7.86
7.90
7.89
7.78
7.84
7.81
7.83
7.86
7.84
7.79
7.86
7.81
111
0.13
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.06
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Mean S.D.
308
311
292
296
570
608
516
441
452
443
380
375
359
312
309
313
296
307
296
281
282
276
12.6
12.4
9.1
3.6
66.6
82.0
75.1
50.0
49.8
33.4
26.9
42.2
23.0
12.1
6.4
9.1
8.0
7.5
8.4
3.1
4.6
7.9
NH3-N
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
4.8
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.3
1.7
1.5
0.6
8.2
2.4
0.9
1.0
2.3
0.6
0.6
3.9
0.8
1.0
3.5
1.1
2.8
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.5
1.2
0.3
5.0
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.3
3.4
0.5
0.7
2.5
0.8
-------
Table A2 (continued). Summary Water Quality - Pimephales promelas Test
Station
67.561
67.562
67.563
68.491
68.492
68.493
68.641
68.642
68.643
73.631
73.632
73.633
74.251
74,252
74.253
Temperature
(C)
Mean S.D.
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Oiss. Oxygen
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
PH
(S.U.)
Mean S.D.
7.85
7.90
8.05
7.75
7.78
7.76
7.79
7.73
7.71
7.83
7.87
7.89
7.82
7.90
7.84
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.10
0.16
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.04
0.10
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Mean S.D.
306
328
342
281
286
284
274
272
275
287
288
290
283
282
290
10.5
11.5
24.0
6.2
9.9
4.3
6.3
5.0
3.7
6.0
4.4
4.3
6.9
6.6
5.6
NH3-N
(mg/l)
Mean S.D.
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
0.9
0.8
2.9
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.9
3.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
Average: 1.39425
StdDev: 0.156980
N of data: 111
1.0
1.1
1.2 1.3
ASINSURV
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9904
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
_ — — »
_ »
0.000
12.121
12il23
44083
46.731
46.732
46.733
50.551
50.552
50.553
52.521
52.522
52.523
56.121
56.122
56.123
66.351
66.352
66.353
67.561
67.562
67.563
68.491
68.492
68.493
68.641
68.642
68.643
73.631
73.632
73.633
74.251
74.252
74.253
—I 1 "
0 5 10
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -55.602
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.431
p value : 0.997
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > Oneway 'ASINSURV 'TEST ID';
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on ASINSURV
Source DF SS MS
TEST ID 36 0.8933 0.0248
Error 74 1.8174 0.0246
Total 110 2.7107
Level N Mean StDev
1 3 1.4162 0.2677
2 3 1.3211 0.2626
3 3 1.4205 0.1302
4 3 1.2659 0.1375
5 3 1.2558 0.0863
6 3 1.4956 0.1302
7 3 1.3453 0.0000
8 3 1.3453 0.0000
9 3 1.4635 0.1858
10 3 1.5708 0.0000
11 3 1.3884 0.1651
12 3 1.4635 0.1858
13 3 1.4205 0.1302
14 3 1.3453 0.0000
15 3 1.4205 0.1302
16 3 1.3132 0.0556
17 3 1.4635 0.1858
18 3 1.3884 0.1651
19 3 1.4635 0.1858
20 3 1.3310 0.2111
21 3 1.3132 0.0556
22 3 1.4956 0.1302
23 3 1.3884 0.1651
24 3 1.5708 0.0000
25 3 1.5708 0.0000
26 3 1.4635 0.1858
27 3 1.4956 0.1302
28 3 1.4205 0.1302
29 3 1.2659 0.1375
30 3 1.4205 0.1302
31 3 1.3310 0.2111
32 3 1.2558 0.0863
33 3 1.3310 0.2111
34 3 1.3884 0.1651
35 3 1.4382 0.2296
36 3 1.3132 0.0556
37 3 1.2272 0.3200
Pooled StDev = 0.1567
F
1.01
P
0.472
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(.—
1.20
1.40
+—
1.60
Dunnett 's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TEST ID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
•0.4491
•0.5442
•0.4449
•0.5994
•0.6095
•0.3697
•0.5200
•0.5200
•0.4018
•0.2945
•0.4770
•0.4018
•0.4449
•0.5200
•0.4449
•0.5521
0.4018
0.4770
0.5343
0.5521
0.3697
•0.4770
0.2945
0.2945
0.4018
0.3697
0.4449
0.5994
0.4449
0.5343
0.6095
0.5343
0.4770
0.4271
0.5521
0.6381
Center
-0.0473
-0.1425
-0.0431
-0.1976
-0.2077
0.0321
-0.1183
-0.1183
-0.0000
0.1073
-0.0752
-0.0000
-0.0431
-0.1183
-0.0431
-0.1503
-0.0000
-0.0752
-0.1326
-0.1503
0.0321
-0.0752
0.1073
0.1073
-0.0000
0.0321
-0.0431
-0.1976
-0.0431
-0.1326
-0.2077
-0.1326
-0.0752
-0.0253
-0.1503
-0.2363
upper
0.3545
0.2593
0.3587
0.2041
0.1940
0.4339
0.2835
0.2835
0.4018
0.5090
0.3266
0.4018
0.3587
0.2835
0.3587
0.2514
0.4018
0.3266
0.2692
0.2514
0.4339
0.3266
0.5090
0.5090
0.4018
0.4339
0.3587
0.2041
0.3587
0.2692
0.1940
0.2692
0.3266
0.3765
0.2514
0.1654
—+_.
-0.60
-0.30
0.00
+—
0.30
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (SAMPLES)
0.05
0.10
DRYWT
Average: 0.0904595
Std Dev: 0.0200942
N of data: 111
0.15
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9828
p value (approx):< 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHTS (LOG10) (SAMPLES)
.001 -
-1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1-0
LOG10WT
-0.9
-0.8
Average:-1.05383
Std Dev: 0.0946711
N of data: 111
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9969
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (LOG10) (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•— *
_ ___
•-•
«
*
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
u
13
14
15
16
K
19
20
21
24
27
30
32
33
36
37
-T~ i i i I I
01 2345678
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 39.714
p value : 0.308
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.542
p value : 0.977
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > Oneway 'LOG10WT' 'TEST ID1;
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis
Source
TEST ID
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
of Variance on LOG10WT
DF
36
74
110
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SS
0.33027
0.65562
0.98589
Mean
-1.1077
-1.0084
-0.9858
-1.1499
-1.0926
-1.0845
-1.1784
-1.0209
-1.0926
-0.9965
-0.9890
-1.0847
-1.1066
-1.0895
-1.1256
-1.0196
-1.0539
-1.0712
-1.0148
-0.9606
-1.0159
-1.0168
-1.1356
-1.0505
-1.0210
-1.0746
-0.9435
-1.1377
-1.0303
-1.0299
-1.0500
-1.0650
-0.9732
-1.0612
-1.0854
-1.0062
-1.0620
MS
0.00917
0.00886
StDev
0.0452
0.0834
0.0615
0.0390
0.1355
0.0479
0.1213
0.0114
0.0382
0.0537
0.0642
0.0842
0.0261
0.0454
0.0302
0.0660
0.0656
0.0734
0.0093
0.0514
0.1746
0.1554
0.1963
0.1002
0.0653
0.0720
0.0831
0.0935
0.1185
0.0617
0.1392
0.0775
0.1350
0.0564
0.1242
0.1647
0.0808
Pooled StDev = 0.0941
F
1.04
P
0.439
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( * )
( * )
)
)
)
(-
( * )
( *'
(
(
•)
( * )
( * >
( * >
( * >
._* )
( * )
( * )
* )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( *- -)_
( * )
)
(
-)
-1.20
-1.05
-0.90
-0.75
Dunnett 's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TEST ID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.33418
-0.23492
-0.21238
-0.37642
-0.31910
-0.31099
-0.40496
-0.24739
-0.31914
-0.22300
-0.21551
-0.31127
-0.33310
-0.31608
-0.35217
-0.24615
-0.28039
-0.29773
-0.18717
-0.24247
-0.24334
-0.36215
-0.27708
-0.24748
-0.30115
-0.17005
-0.36421
-0.25682
-0.25640
-0.27649
-0.29154
-0.19970
-0.28774
-0.31192
-0.23273
-0.28851
Center
-0.09286
0.00640
0.02894
-0.13510
-0.07778
-0.06967
-0.16364
-0.00607
-0.07782
0.01832
0.02581
-0.06995
-0.09178
-0.07476
-0.11085
-0.00483
-0.03907
-0.05641
0.05415
-0.00115
-0.00202
-0.12083
-0.03576
-0.00616
-0.05983
0.07127
-0.12289
-0.01550
-0.01508
-0.03517
-0.05022
0.04162
-0.04642
-0.07060
0.00859
-0.04719
Upper -+ + + + •"•
0.14846 ( * )
0.24772 ( * )
0 .27026 ( * )
0 . 10622 ( * )
0.16354 ( * )
0.17165 ( * )
0.07768 ( * )
0.23525 ( * )
0.16350 ( * )
0 . 2 5964 ( * )
0.26713 ( * )
0. 17137 ( * )
0. 14954 ( * )
0.16656 ( * )
0.13047 ( * )
0.23649 ( * )
0.20225 { * )
0.18491 ( * )
0.29547 ( * )
0.24017 ( * )
0.23930 ( * )
0. 12049 ( * )
0.20556 ( * )
0.23516 ( * )
0.18149 ( * )
0.31259 ( * )
0 . 11843 ( * )
0.22582 ( * )
0.22624 ( * )
0.20615 ( * )
0.19110 ( * >
0.28294 ( * )
0 . 19490 ( * )
0 . 17072 ( * )
0 . 24991 ( * )
0. 19413 ( * )
-0.40 -0.20 -0.00 0.20 0.40
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (SAMPLES)
EMERGENT
Average: 0.612613
StdDev: 0.865198
N of data: 111
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9861
p value (approx): 0.0319
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
*
^
— +
0.000
12.121
1Z1 23
44.081
44.082
44.083
46.731
46.732
46.733
50.551
SOiSSS
52.521
52.522
52.523
56.121
56.122
56.123
66.351
66.352
66.353
67.561
67.562
67.563
68.491
68.492
68.493
68.641
68.642
68.643
73.631
73.632
74i252
74.253
"1 II 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -4.660
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.669
p value : 0.908
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HA.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > Oneway 'EMERGENT' 'TEST ID1;
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TEST ID 36 25.009
Error 74 57.333
Total 110 82.342
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
EMERGENT
MS
0.695
0.775
0.
1.
Mean
0.6667
0.3333
0.0000
1.0000
0.6667
0.3333
,3333
.3333
0.3333
0.0000
0.6667
0.6667
0.6667
0.3333
0.6667
0.3333
0.0000
0.0000
.0000
.3333
.3333
.6667
.3333
0.3333
0.3333
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
Pooled StDev =
.0000
.0000
.6667
.3333
.0000
0.0000
0.3333
1.0000
1.6667
0.8802
F
0.90
P
0.634
Individual 95% CIs For
Based on Pooled StDev
StDev -+ + •••
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.0000 ( * )
1.0000 ( *-
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
1.5275 (
0.5774 { *
0.0000 ( * )
1.1547 ( *
0.5774 ( *
1.1547 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.0000 ( * )
0.0000 ( * )
0.0000 ( *-
2.3094 (
1.5275 (
1.5275 (~ -
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
0.0000 ( * )
1.0000 ( *-
0.0000 ( * )
1.0000 ( *-
1.0000 ( *-
0.5774 ( *
0.5774 ( *
1.0000 ( *-
0.0000 ( * )
0.5774 ( *
1.0000 ( *-
1.5275 (
-1.0 0.0 1.0
Mean
%
— )
)
)
— )
— )
"-)
)
)
)
— )
)
— )
)
— )
•-)
•~)
)
)
____ \
)
~)
)
•-)
2.0
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TEST ID
-------
Level
1
2
3
-4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-2.5900
-2.9234
-3.2567
-2.2567
-2.5900
-2.9234
-2.9234
-1.9234
-2.9234
-3.2567
-2.5900
-2.5900
-2.5900
-2.9234
-2.5900
-2.9234
-3.2567
-3.2567
-1.9234
-1.9234
-1.5900
-2.9234
-2.9234
-2.9234
-3.2567
-2.2567
-3.2567
-2.2567
-2.2567
-2.5900
-2.9234
-2.2567
-3.2567
-2.9234
-2.2567
-1.5900
Center
-0.3333
-0.6667
-1.0000
0.0000
-0.3333
-0.6667
-0.6667
0.3333
-0.6667
-1.0000
-0.3333
-0.3333
-0.3333
-0.6667
-0.3333
-0.6667
-1.0000
-1.0000
0.3333
0.3333
0.6667
-0.6667
-0.6667
-0.6667
-1.0000
0.0000
-1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.3333
-0.6667
0.0000
-1.0000
-0.6667
0.0000
0.6667
Upper —
1.9234
1.5900
1.2567 (-
2.2567
1.9234
1.5900
1.5900
2.5900
1.5900
1.2567 (-
1.9234
1.9234
1.9234
1.5900
1.9234
1.5900
1.2567 (-
1.2567 (-
2.5900
2.5900
2.9234
1.5900
1.5900
1.5900
1.2567 (-
2.2567
1.2567 (-
2.2567
2.2567
1.9234
1.5900
2.2567
1.2567 (-
1.5900
2.2567
2.9234
-3.
{ * )
( * )
* )
\ '
^ * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
/ * )
( * )
* )
( * )
( * )
( — '
( * )
( * )
{ * )
* )
j * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
* )
( * )
( ~ * '
0 -1.5 0.0 1.5
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
Average: 1.39233
StdDev: 0.156685
N of data: 108
1.0
1.1
1.2 1.3
ASINSURV
1.4
1.5
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9906
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
-
1 1
1 2
1 3
2 1
3 1
3 2
3 3
4 1
4 2
4 3
5 1
I ?
6 2
6 3
? 2
7 3
8 1
8 2
8 3
9 ^
10 1
1° 2
w ?
II i
12 1
12 2
12 3
~r i i
0 5 10
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -55.771
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.451
p value : 0.994
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'ASINSURV = C6 C7(C6).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for ASINSURV
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.31557
0.56295
1.74834
2.62686
MS
0.02869
0.02346
0.02428
F
1.18
0.97
P
0.315
0.519
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (STATIONS)
0.05
0.10
DRYWT
Average: 0.090287
Std Dev: 0.0203447
N of data: 108
0.15
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9819
p value (approx):< 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (LOG10) (STATIONS)
-1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0
LOG10WT
-0.9
-0.8
Average:-1.05491
StdDev: 0.0957516
N of data: 108
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9969
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (LOG10) (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•— •
^
_ — •
1 1
1 2
\ I
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
4 1
\ I
i 2
5 3
6 1
I I
I ?
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
9 3
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
11 2
11 3
12 1
12 2
12 3
I I I I I I I
012345678
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 33.477
p value : 0.542
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.504
p value : 0.986
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'LOG10WT' = C6 C7(C6).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP ( STATION )
Type
fixed
fixed
Levels Values
Analysis of Variance for
Source
STATION
FLDREP (STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
0
0
0
0
12
3
LOG10WT
SS
.215184
.110387
.655445
.981016
1
9
1
0.
0.
0.
2
10
2
MS
019562
004599
009103
3
11
3
4
12
F
2.15
0.51
P
0.027
0.969
MTB >
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > Oneway 'LOG10WT' 'STATION';
SUBO Tukey 5.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on LOG10WT
Source
STATION
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DF
11
96
107
N
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SS
.21518
,76583
.98102
-1
-1
-1
-0
-1
-1
-1
Mean
.0836
.0649
.0134
.9891
.0760
.0079
.0834
-0.9746
-1
-1
-1
-1
,1005
,1125
,0580
,0950
MS
0.01956
0.00798
StDev
0.1286
0.0953
0.0702
0.0865
0.0494
0.0932
,0815
.0683
0.0976
0.0982
0.1107
0.
0.
0.0620
Pooled StDev = 0.0893
F
2.45
P
0.010
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(
—
{
( I
(
>
-1.120 -1.050
-0.980
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00115
Critical value =4.74
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row
level mean)
4 5
2 -0.15989
0.12235
3 -0.21137 -0.19260
0.07087 0.08964
4 -0.23561 -0.21684 -0.16536
0.04663 0.06540 0.11688
5 -0.14879 -0.13003 -0.07854 -0.05430
0.13345 0.15221 0.20370 0.22794
6 -0 21687 -0.19810 -0.14662 -0.12238 -0.20920
0.06537 0.08414 0.13562 0.15986 0.07304
7 -0.14135 -0.12258 -0.07110 -0.04686 -0.13368
0.14089 0.15966 0.21114 0.23538 0.14856
8 -0.25015 -0.23139 -0.17990 -0.15566 -0.24248
0.03209 0.05085 0.10234 0.12658 0.03976
9 -0.12421 -0.10544 -0.05396 -0.02972 -0.11653
0.15803 0.17680 0.22828 0.25252 0.16571
-0.06560
0.21664
-0.17440
0.10784
-0.04845
0.23379
-0.24992
0.03232
-0.12398
0.15826
-------
10 -
11 -
12 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
•0
0
•0
0
•0
0
•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.11223
.17001
.16670
.11554
.12974
.15249
8
.01517
.26707
.00320
.27904
.05767
.22457
.02071
.26153
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
.09347
.18877
.14793
.13431
.11098
.17126
9
.12915
.15309
.18361
.09863
.14666
.13558
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
.04198
.24025
.09645
.18579
.05950
.22274
10
.19559
.08665
.15863
.12361
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
01775
26449
07221
21003
03526
24698
11
10417
17807
-0.10456 -0.03648 -0.11200
0.17768 0.24576 0.17024
-0.15903 -0.09095 -0.16647
0.12321 0.19129 0.11577
-0.12207 -0.05399 -0.12952
0.16017 0.22825 0.15272
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (STATIONS)
EMERGENT
Average: 0.601852
Std Dev: 0.874774
N of data: 108
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9859
p value (approx): 0.0330
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•
*
1 1
I I
I 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
* I
4 3
5 1
5 2
I I
\ I
I ?
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
9 3
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
1"1 2
11 3
12 1
12 2
12 3
-i — r i i i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -1.233
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.638
p value : 0.927
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'EMERGENT1 = C6 C7(C6).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for EMERGENT
Source DF SS MS F P
STATION 11 4.9907 0.4537 0.57 0.847
FLDREP(STATION) 24 19.5556 0.8148 1.02 0.450
Error 72 57.3333 0.7963
Total 107 81.8796
MTB >
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (SAMPLES)
o.o
0.5 1.0
D3HATCH
Average: 0.774849
StdDev: 0.326017
N of data: 111
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9926
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
t
*
_ •
*
1
4
7
10
u
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
30
£
33
34
35
36
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 33.625
p value : 0.582
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.379
p value : 0.999
10
20
30
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'D3HATCH1 'TESTID';
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis
Source
TESTID
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
of Variance on D3HATCH
DF
36
74
110
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SS
4.014
7.678
11.692
Mean
1.2230
1.0122
0.8540
0.9277
0.9313
0.7854
0.9612
0.5973
0.6781
0.7854
0.9561
0.7854
0.8028
1.1158
0.7132
0.8926
0.7518
0.8327
1.1143
0.6781
0.6781
0.4163
0.4163
0.6147
0.7854
0.7467
0.7854
0.2618
0.6644
0.7504
0.8714
0.6781
0.6096
0.6308
0.8255
0.6781
0.8576
MS F p
0.111 1.07 0.389
0.104
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
StDev + •! — ~ H +
0.3067 ( * ~ )
0.5075 ( * )
0.1188 ( * )
0.2183 { * )
0.3046 ( * )
0.3218 ( * )
0.6251 ( * )
0.2439 ( * )
0.2772 ( * )
0.3218 ( * )
0.0607 ( * )
0.3218 ( * )
0.3865 ( * )
0.1292 ( * )
0.2649 ( * }
0.1858 { * )
0.2138 ( * )
0.7211 ( * )
0.3953 ( - - * )
0.2772 ( * )
0.3715 ( * )
0.3948 ( * )
0.0819 ( * )
0.0607 ( * )
0.2058 ( * )
0.2659 ( * }
0.1007 ( * )
0.2376 ( * )
0.3010 ( * )
0.1562 ( * )
0.6085 ( * )
0.2113 ( * )
0.1629 ( * )
0.3376 ( * )
0.2439 ( * )
0.3715 ( * )
0.2649 ( * )
Pooled StDev
0.3221
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value = 3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.7171
-0.9280
-1.0862
-1.0125
-1.0088
-1.1548
-0.9789
.3429
.2620
.1548
-0.9840
-1.1548
-1.1374
-0.8244
-1.2270
-1.0475
-1.1883
-1,
-1,
-1.
-1.1075
2620
2620
5238
5238
3255
1548
1.1934
1.1548
1.6784
1.2757
1898
0688
2620
3306
1.3093
•1.1146
1.2620
•1.0825
Center
0.1087
•0.1021
0.2603
•0.1866
•0.1830
•0.3289
•0.1531
•0.5170
0.4362
0.3289
0.1582
0.3289
0.3115
0.0015
0.4011
0.2217
0.3625
0.2816
0.4362
0.4362
0.6980
0.6980
0.4997
0.3289
0.3676
0.3289
0.8525
0.4499
0.3639
0.2430
0.4362
0.5048
•0.4835
0.2888
•0.4362
•0.2567
Upper + + + +—
0.9346 ( * )
0.7237 ( * )
0.5655 ( * )
0.6392 ( * )
0.6428 ( * >
0.4969 ( * )
0.6728 ( * )
0.3088 ( * )
0 . 3897 ( * )
0.4969 ( * )
0.6676 ( * >
0.4969 ( * )
0.5143 ( * )
0.8273 ( * )
0.4247 ( * )
0.6042 ( * >
0.4634 ( * )
0.5442 ( * )
0.3897 ( * )
0.3897 ( * )
0.1279 ( * )
0.1279 ( * )
0.3262 { * )
0.4969 ( * )
0 . 4583 ( * )
0.4969 ( * )
-0.0267 ( * )
0.3759 ( * )
0.4619 ( * )
0.5829 ( * )
0.3897 ( * )
0.3211 ( * )
0.3424 ( * )
0.5370 ( * )
0.3897 ( * >
0.5691 ( * )
-1.40 -0.70 -0.00 0.70
MTB >
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (SAMPLES)
.999 -
.99 -
.g\95 -
1-80
O.50 -
°-.20 -
.05 -
.01 -
.001 -
Average: 1.38322
StdDev: 0.271002
N of data: 111
0.5
1.0
D4HATCH
1.5
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9962
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
*
*
1 1 1 1 1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-53.167
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.469
p value : 0.993
0
10 15 20 25
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'D4HATCH1 'TESTID1;
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TESTID 36 2.2250
Error 74 5.8537
Total 110 8.0787
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
5708
5708
3090
4162
5708
1.4162
1.4635
1.1158
1.3776
1.4162
1.4635
1.4635
1.4635
1.3776
1.4162
1.3090
1.3776
1.0945
1.5708
1.2017
1.4635
1.1158
1.2017
.5708
.3090
.1880
1.3776
1.3090
1.5708
1.3090
1.2703
1.4635
1.1682
1.5708
1.3776
1.3776
1.5708
D4HATCH
MS
0.0618
0.0791
StDev
0.0000
0.0000
0.2376
0.2677
0.0000
0.2677
0.1858
0.1292
0.3347
0.2677
0.1858
0.1858
0.1858
0.3347
0.2677
0.2376
0.3347
0.5695
0.0000
0.0819
0.1858
0.1292
0.6392
0.0000
0.2376
0.3494
0.3347
0.4534
0.0000
0.4534
0.2904
0.1858
0.4485
0.0000
0.3347
0.3347
0.0000
F p
0.78 0.791
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( *
( — '
( * )
(- * — )
( — — '
( '
— _*_ )
( — * ;
( )
( i
( ~ )
/ __* — — \
( - - — * - )
( ~~ * i
( — — ——it — — f
( — - * — )
( -* )
_ —
— - -* )
( >
( '
( )
— _
( )
( * i
(---*- )
( * '
(" ~ >
( - )
- ~
( ~ — i
( >
1.05 1.40 1.75
Pooled StDev = 0.2813
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value = 3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.7211
-0.7211
-0.9829
-0.8756
-0.7211
-0.8756
-0.8283
-1.1761
-0.9143
-0.8756
-0.8283
-0.8283
-0.8283
-0.9143
-0.8756
-0.9829
-0.9143
-1.1974
-1.0901
-0.8283
-1.1761
-1.0901
-0.7211
-0.9829
-1.1039
-0.9143
-0.9829
-0.7211
-0.9829
-1.0215
-0.8283
-1.1237
-0.7211
-0.9143
-0.9143
-0.7211
Center
0.0000
0.0000
•0.2618
•0.1545
0.0000
•0.1545
•0.1073
•0.4550
•0.1932
•0.1545
•0.1073
•0.1073
•0.1073
•0.1932
•0.1545
•0.2618
•0.1932
•0.4763
•0.3690
•0.1073
•0.4550
•0.3690
0.0000
•0.2618
•0.3828
•0.1932
0.2618
0.0000
0.2618
0.3005
0.1073
0.4026
0.0000
0.1932
•0.1932
0.0000
Upper + + 1- T
0.7211 ( * )
0.7211 ( * )
0 . 4593 ( * )
0.5665 ( * )
0.7211 ( * )
0.5665 ( * )
0.6138 ( * )
0.2661 { * )
0.5279 ( * )
0 . 5665 ( * )
0.6138 ( * )
0 . 6138 ( * )
0.6138 ( * )
0.5279 ( * )
0.5665 ( * )
0 . 4593 ( * )
0.5279 ( * )
0 . 2448 ( * )
0 .3520 ( * )
0 . 6138 ( * >
0.2661 ( * )
0.3520 ( * )
0.7211 ( * >
0.4593 ( * )
0.3383 ( * )
0.5279 ( * )
0 . 4593 ( * )
0.7211 ( * >
0.4593 ( * )
0.4206 ( * )
0.6138 ( * )
0.3185 ( * )
0. 7211 ( * . )
0.5279 ( * )
0.5279 ( * )
0.7211 ( * >
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50
MTB >
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (SAMPLES)
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2
D5HATCH
Average: 1.43373
StdDev: 0.219482
N of data: 111
1.6
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9640
p value (approx):< 0.0100
-------
DAYS HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
-9
+
•
•• *
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
g
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
33
36
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-113.096
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.581
p value : 0.962
10
15
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'D5HATCH1 'TESTID'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
OVERALL
H = 22.97
H = 33.45
NOBS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
111
d.f.
d.f.
MEDIAN
1.571
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.571
1.249
1.107
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
= 36 p
= 36 p
AVE. RANK
73.0
73.0
37.5
53.0
73.0
53.0
57.5
19.5
57.5
53.0
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
53.0
53.0
73.0
33.7
73.0
54.7
73.0
35.0
50.5
73.0
42.0
30.5
50.5
73.0
73.0
53.0
37.5
73.0
33.7
73.0
50.5
57.5
73.0
56.0
= 0.953
Z VALUE
0.93
0.93
-1.01
-0.16
0.93
-0.16
0.08
-1.99
0.08
-0.16
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
-0.16
-0.16
0.93
-1.22
0.93
-0.07
0.93
-1.15
-0.30
0.93
-0.76
-1.39
-0.30
0.93
0.93
-0.16
-1.01
0.93
-1.22
0.93
-0.30
0.08
0.93
= 0.590 (adjusted for ties)
* NOTE * One or more small samples
MTB >
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'D5HATCH' 'TESTID1;
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis
Source
TESTID
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
of Variance on D5HATCH
DF
36
74
110
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SS
1.7143
3.5846
5.2989
Mean
1.5708
1.5708
1.3090
1.4162
1.5708
1.4162
1.4635
1.1631
1.4635
1.4162
1.4635
1.4635
1.4635
1.4635
1.4162
1.4162
1.5708
1.1682
1.5708
1.3563
1.5708
1.2703
1.3776
1.5708
1.3563
1.2230
1.3776
1.5708
1.5708
1.4162
1.3090
1.5708
1.1682
1.5708
1.3776
1.4635
1.5708
MS
0.0476
0.0484
StDev
0.0000
0.0000
0.2376
0.2677
0.0000
0.2677
0.1858
0.1489
0.1858
0.2677
0.1858
0.1858
0.1858
0.1858
0.2677
0.2677
0.0000
0.4485
0.0000
0.1858
0.0000
0.2904
0.3347
0.0000
0.1858
0.3067
0.3347
0.0000
0.0000
0.2677
0.2376
0.0000
0.4485
0.0000
0.3347
0.1858
0.0000
Pooled StDev
0.2201
F
0.98
P
0.510
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( * )
( * )
<
>
— \
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.5643
-0.5643
-0.8261
-0.7188
-0.5643
-0.7188
-0.6715
-0.9720
-0.6715
-0.7188
-0.6715
-0.6715
-0.6715
-0.6715
-0.7188
-0.7188
-0.5643
-0.9669
-0.7788
-0.5643
-0.8647
-0.7575
-0.5643
-0.7788
-0.9120
-0.7575
-0.5643
-0.5643
-0.7188
-0.8261
-0.5643
-0.9669
-0.5643
-0.7575
-0.6715
-0.5643
Center
0.0000
0.0000
-0.2618
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.4077
-0.1073
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1545
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.4026
-0.2145
0.0000
-0.3005
-0.1932
0.0000
-0.2145
-0.3478
-0.1932
0.0000
0.0000
-0.1545
-0.2618
0.0000
-0.4026
0.0000
-0.1932
-0.1073
0.0000
Upper
0.5643
0.5643
0.3025
0.4097
0.5643
0.4097
0.4570
0.1566
0.4570
0.4097
0.4570
0.4570
0.4570
0.4570
0.4097
0.4097
0.5643
0.1617
0.3498
0.5643
0.2638
3711
5643
3498
2165
3711
5643
5643
0.4097
0.3025
5643
1617
5643
0.3711
0.4570
0.5643
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(
( — —
(- —
{"
}
\
-0.80
(
-0.40
"~
-0.00
0.40
I
MTB >
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (SAMPLES)
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2
D6HATCH
Average: 1.4407
Std Dev: 0.209073
N of data: 111
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9952
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
__^
•
— — *
•
_ . — •
f>
•
— — •
M *
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
VB
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-116.544
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.614
p value : 0.946
10
15
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'D6HATCH' 'TESTID';
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis
Source
TESTID
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
of Variance on D6HATCH
DF
36
74
110
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SS
1.6088
3.1994
4.8083
Mean
1.5708
1.5708
1.3090
1.4162
1.5708
1.4162
1.4635
1.1631
1.4635
1.4162
1.4635
1.4635
1.4635
1.4635
1.4162
1.4162
1.5708
1.1682
1.5708
1.3563
1.5708
1.2703
1.4635
1.5708
1.3563
1.3090
1.4635
1.5708
1.5708
1.4162
1.3090
1.5708
1.1682
1.5708
1.3776
1.4635
1.5708
MS
0.0447
0.0432
StDev
0.0000
0.0000
0.2376
0.2677
0.0000
0.2677
0.1858
0.1489
0.1858
0.2677
0.1858
0.1858
0.1858
0.1858
0.2677
0.2677
0.0000
0.4485
0.0000
0.1858
0.0000
0.2904
0.1858
0.0000
0.1858
0.2376
0.1858
0.0000
0.0000
0.2677
0.2376
0.0000
0.4485
0.0000
0.3347
0.1858
0.0000
Pooled StDev
0.2079
F
1.03
P
0.441
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( *
(-
(
•)
(
{
- •
(
—
(_ _ —
{ — —
1
" 1
X_ - )
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.5331
-0.5331
-0.7949
-0.6876
-0.5331
-0.6876
-0.6403
-0.9408
-0.6403
-0.6876
-0.6403
-0.6403
-0.6403
-0.6403
-0.6876
-0.6876
-0.5331
-0.9357
-0.7476
-0.5331
-0.8336
-0.6403
-0.5331
-0.7476
-0.7949
-0.6403
-0.5331
-0.5331
-0.6876
-0.7949
-0.5331
-0.9357
-0.5331
-0.7263
-0.6403
-0.5331
Center
0.0000
0.0000
-0.2618
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.4077
-0.1073
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1073
-0.1545
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.4026
-0.2145
0.0000
-0.3005
-0.1073
0.0000
-0.2145
-0.2618
-0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
-0.1545
-0.2618
0.0000
-0.4026
0.0000
-0.1932
-0.1073
0.0000
Upper -
0.5331
0.5331
0.2713
0.3785
0.5331
0.3785
0.4258
0.1254 (
0.4258
0.3785
0.4258
0.4258
0.4258
0.4258
0.3785
0.3785
0.5331
0.1305
0.3186
0.5331
0.2326
0.4258
0.5331
0.3186
0.2713
0.4258
0.5331
0.5331
0.3785
0.2713
0.5331
0.1305
0.5331
0.3399
0.4258
0.5331
(•
(-
(
( —
(
( - —
(
( — - —
( — —
-0.80
(
-0.40
-0.00
,
0.40
MTB >
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
Average: 1.44607
StdDev:0.182110
N of data: 111
0.9 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
HTCHSURV
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9851
p value (approx): 0.0239
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
~~r
5
4
5
6
8
g
10
M
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
24
27
30
31
32
33
34
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-170.607
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.508
p value : 0.986
10
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'HTCHSURV 'TESTID';
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on HTCHSURV
Source DF SS MS
TESTID 36 1.6827 0.0467
Error 74 1.9654 0.0266
Total 110 3.6481
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
1.5708
1.3776
1.4503
1.5708
1.5708
1.5708
1.4576
1.5708
1,4576
1.3431
3563
4576
5708
4576
1.3431
1.5708
1.4635
1.3503
1.5708
1.4242
1.4635
1.1123
1.4576
1.5708
1.4576
1.4503
1.3030
1.2490
1.3563
1.3090
1.5708
1.4162
1.5708
1.1071
.5708
.5708
1.4635
Pooled StDev = 0.1630
StDev
0.0000
0.3347
0.2086
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1961
0.0000
0.1961
0.1982
0.1858
0.1961
0.0000
0.1961
0.1982
0.0000
0.1858
0.1911
0.0000
0.1745
0.1858
0.2216
0.1961
0.0000
0.1961
0.2.086
0.2400
0.0000
0.1858
0.2,376
0.0000
0.2677
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1858
F
1.76
P
0.020
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( *
( * )
— i
_
—
i
-\
(-
" )
( * — )
)
( )
j
)
(- )
(--—•*""~")
1.00 1.25 1.50
1.75
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
-0.4178
-0.6110
-0.5383
-0.4178
-0.4178
-0.4178
-0.5310
-0.4178
-0.5310
-0.6455
-0.6323
-0.5310
-0.4178
-0.5310
-0.6455
-0.4178
-0.5251
-0.6383
-0.5644
-0.5251
-0.8763
-0.5310
-0.4178
-0.5310
-0.5383
-0.6856
-0.7396
-0.6323
-0.6796
-0.4178
-0.5724
-0.4178
-0.8815
-0.4178
-0.4178
-0.5251
Center
0.0000
0.1932
0.1205
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1132
0.0000
0.1132
0.2277
0.2145
0.1132
0.0000
0.1132
0.2277
0.0000
0.1073
0.2205
0.1466
0.1073
0.4585
0.1132
0.0000
0.1132
0.1205
0.2678
0.3218
0.2145
0.2618
0.0000
0.1545
0.0000
0.4636
0.0000
0.0000
0.1073
Upper
0.4178
0.2246
0.2974
0.4178
0.4178
0.4178
0.3046
0.4178
0.3046
0.1901
0.2033
0.3046
0.4178
0.3046
0.1901
0.4178
0.3106
0.1974
0.2712
0.3106
-0.0407 (-
0.3046
0.4178
0.3046
0.2974
0.1501
0.0961
0.2033
0.1560
0.4178
0.2633
0.4178
-0.0458 (-
0.4178
0.4178
0.3106
^ — _ - — *- - )
( * )
( * )
( * )
(- — *- - )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
{ * )
( * )
{ * )
/ * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
j * )
( * )
* )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
* )
( * )
+ + + +
0.70 -0.35 -0.00 0.35
MTB >
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
.001 -1
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
TOILS URV
Average: 1.34721
Std Dev: 0.240537
N of data: 111
1.6
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9927
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
*
•
— »
•
*
'"Till
0 5 10 15
1
3
4
5
6
7
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -61.295
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.390
p value : 0.999
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Oneway 'TOTLSURV 'TESTID';
SUBO Dunnett 5 19.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Source DF
TESTID 36
Error 74
Total 110
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.nee on
SS
2.2510
4.1133
6.3644
Mean
1.5708
1.3776
1.2703
1.4162
1.5708
1.4162
1.4162
1.1631
1.4162
1.2703
1.2490
1.4162
1.4635
1.4162
1.2703
1.4162
1.4635
1.0136
1.5708
1.3090
1.4635
1.0136
1.4162
1.5708
1.3090
1.2703
1.2617
1.2490
1.3563
1.1544
1.3090
1.4162
1.1682
1.1071
1.3776
1.4635
1.4635
TOTLSURV
MS
0.0625
0.0556
StDev
0.0000
0.3347
0.2904
0.2677
0.0000
0.2677
0.2677
0.1489
0.2677
0.2904
0.0000
0.2677
0.1858
0.2677
0.2904
0.2677
0.1858
0.2936
0.0000
0.2376
0.1858
0.2936
0.2677
0.0000
0.2376
0.2904
0.2677
0.0000
0.1858
0.0819
0.2376
0.2677
0.4485
0.0000
0.3347
0.1858
0.1858
F p
1.12 0.329
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
*
( ~ '
(- i
( I
(- ~ >
( — * )
(- '
( '
( — '
( — -* )
—
( — ~ '
(- — '
{" ~ >
—
( '
\
( — — '
( — — i
( — ~ '
*-
/ * — — — \
( — * ;
( — " )
( )
( * — )
( — '
(- '
(- )
( — '
( — '
/ * ___ — — — \
( *
( — )
("
0.90 1.20 1.50
h
. \
I
. \
1
. \
1
1.80
Pooled StDev = 0.2358
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00239
Critical value =3.14
Control = level 19 of TESTID
-------
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Lower
•0.6045
•0.7977
•0.9049
•0.7590
•0.6045
•0.7590
•0.7590
•1.0122
•0.7590
•0.9049
•0.9262
•0.7590
•0.7117
•0.7590
•0.9049
•0.7590
•0.7117
•1.1616
•0.8663
•0.7117
•1.1616
•0.7590
•0.6045
•0.8663
0.9049
0.9136
0.9262
0.8190
1.0208
0.8663
•0.7590
1.0071
1.0681
•0.7977
•0.7117
•0.7117
Center
0.0000
-0.1932
-0.3005
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.1545
-0.1545
-0.4077
-0.1545
-0.3005
-0.3218
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.1545
-0.3005
-0.1545
-0.1073
-0.5572
-0.2618
-0.1073
-0.5572
-0.1545
0.0000
-0.2618
-0.3005
-0.3091
-0.3218
-0.2145
-0.4163
-0.2618
-0.1545
-0.4026
-0.4636
-0.1932
-0.1073
-0.1073
Upper + + + +
0.6045 ( * )
0.4112 ( * )
0.3040 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.6045 { * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.1967 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.3040 ( * )
0.2827 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.4972 ( * )
0.4499 { * )
0.3040 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.4972 ( * )
0.0473 ( * )
0.3427 ( * )
0.4972 ( * )
0.0473 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.6045 ( * )
0.3427 ( * )
0.3040 ( * )
0.2954 ( * )
0.2827 ( * )
0.3900 ( * )
0.1881 ( * )
0.3427 ( * )
0.4499 ( * )
0.2018 ( * )
0.1408 ( * )
0.4112 { * )
0.4972 ( * )
0.4972 ( * )
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50
MTB >
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (STATIONS)
.999
.99 -
£\95
I'80
"0.50
^.20
.05
.01
.001
0.0
0.5 1.0
D3HATCH
Average: 0.765419
Std Dev: 0.320975
N of data: 108
1.5
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9932
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAYS
95% Confidence Intervals for Sig?
£
• *
"I I '
0 10 20
HATCH (STATIONS)
mas Factor Levels
— •
1 1
1 3
2 1
2 2
i ?
3 1
3 2
I ?
4 2
4 3
5 1
5 2
5 3
6 1
6 2
6 3
7 1
i
8 1
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
9 3
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
11 2
11 3
12 1
12 2
12 3
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 33.450
p value : 0.543
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.401
p value : 0.998
30
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VM02PP.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/12/2000
MTB > Save 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW';
SUBO Replace.
Saving worksheet in file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
MTB > ANOVA 'D3HATCH' = Cll C12(C11).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for D3HATCH
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.4535
3.2047
7.3655
11.0237
MS
0.0412
0.1335
0.1023
F P
0.40 0.950
1.31 0.193
MTB >
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (STATIONS)
Average: 1.37801
Std Dev: 0.272924
N of data: 108
0.5
1.0
D4HATCH
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9963
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
+
_*»
— »
-ft
tr
^ — i — i — i
1 1
1 3
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
3 2
3 3
4 1
4 2
4 3
5 1
5 2
5 3
6 1
6 3
7 1
7 2
7 3
8 1
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
9 3
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
11 2
11 3
12 1
12 3
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -43.902
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.445
p value : 0.995
0 5 10 15 20 25
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'D4HATCH' = Cll C12(C11).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1
fixed
9
3 1
2
10
2
3
11
3
4
12
Analysis of Variance for D4HATCH
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.88723
1.22924
5.85370
7.97017
MS
0.08066
0.05122
0.08130
F
0.99
0.63
P
0.462
0.897
MTB >
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (STATIONS)
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2
D5HATCH
Average: 1.42992
StdDev:0.221317
N of data: 108
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9642
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
*
— •
— *
*
— •
f
+
— ff
— *
'— i r i
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
g
7
8
5
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
§
1
3
1
3
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-102.462
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.557
p value : 0.970
10
15
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'D5HATCH' 'STATION'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
OVERALL
H = 8.
H = 12.
NOBS
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
108
96 d.f
83 d.f
RANK
50.3
41.4
49.2
47.2
60.0
50.0
66.5
51.7
66.5
53.5
71.5
46.2
54.5
Z VALUE
-0.42
-1.31
-0.53
-0.73
0.55
-0.45
1.20
-0.28
1.20
-0.10
1.70
-0.83
MEDIAN AVE.
1.571
1.249
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
11 p = 0.626
11 p = 0.307 (adjusted for ties)
MTB >
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW'.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'D5HATCH1 = Cll C12(Cll).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor Type Levels Values
STATION fixed 12 1 2 3 ^4
FLDREP(STATION) fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for D5HATCH
Source DF SS MS F P
STATION 11 0.69207 0.06292 1.26 0.263
FLDREP(STATION) 24 0.96432 0.04018 0.81 0.716
Error 72 3.58463 0.04979
Total 107 5.24101
MTB >
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (STATIONS)
.001 -
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2 1-3
D6HATCH
Average: 1.43709
StdDev: 0.21083
N of data: 108
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9952
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (STATIONS)"
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
*
•
+
*
--•
*
— •
— - •
— •
'— i i i
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
11
\\
12
12
12
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
§
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
§
1
3
1
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-105.619
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.589
p value : 0.956
10
15
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'D6HATCH1 = Cll C12(C11).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for D6HATCH
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.63220
0.92445
3.19942
4.75607
MS
0.05747
0.03852
0.04444
F
1.29
0.87
P
0.246
0.643
MTB >
-------
]HATCHED~FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
.999
Average: 1.44261
Std Dev: 0.183428
N of data: 108
0.9 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.3
HTCHSURV
1.6
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9844
p value (approx): 0.0215
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
95%. Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
*
«
•
—0
•
«• •
— *
— *
" *
•
-*
*
•
I 2
2 ?
2 2
§ ?
i i
4 1
4 2
4 3
5 1
5 2
'
? f
I f
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
9 3
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
H i
12 1
L i
0 5 10
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -158.357
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.489
p value : 0.989
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'HTCHSURV = Cll C12(C11).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for HTCHSURV
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.31362
1.32110
1.96538
3.60010
MS
0.02851
0.05505
0.02730
F
1.04
2.02
P
0.418
0.012
MTB >
-------
TOT>^ITTSlTSURViVAL (STATIONS)
.001 -
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
TOTLSURV
Average: 1.34100
Std Dev: 0.240914
N of data: 108
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9921
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•
• *
— *
— -*
•
*
^ A
*
_ -»
•
*
• *
-*
1 1
1 2
1 3
2 1
2 2
2 3
3 1
4 ?
4 2
4 3
5 ^
6 ?
6 2
? ?
? i
8 1
8 2
8 3
9 1
9 2
10 1
10 2
10 3
11 1
11 2
U ?
12 2
12 3
— 1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -51. 157
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.358
p value : 0.999
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: C:\MTBWIN\DATA\VMO2PPNC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 10/13/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'TOTLSURV = Cll C12(Cll).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Type Levels Values
fixed 12 1 2 3
9 10 11
fixed 3123
4
12
Analysis of Variance for TOTLSURV
Source
STATION
FLDREP(STATION)
Error
Total
DF
11
24
72
107
SS
0.96421
1.13269
4.11334
6.21023
MS
0.08766
0.04720
0.05713
F
1.53
0.83
P
0.138
0.693
MTB >
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS BASELINE TEST INFO - 10-DAY FW SEDIMENT TESTS
Soecies' fl • A *
Acclimation Water Type: -J ^
Notes: t^M C> <*i*TS .'
/
f^ f ( / 1 A
Chamber Size' 300 ml 1 000 ml
Date/Time Sediment & Water Added:
Set-up By (Initials)' $3 | \*\*
Stem Thennometer No. ^ 1
_/>rt DO Meter* 1 (SNE8014475
Y9 00 Meter #2 (SN91A02632S
TEST ORGANISMS
t^t^C^ Source: C-^-'
JU- O'/f J /V3-W- M^A- n^i /«*
i
\O Hardness- ^ 1 Acclimation Temperature: ^2 J'lZj Acclimation Photooeriod '».* {f
''''*" £",« Z"V^ O't^ / '
TEST DESIGN
'/37000 ml Other Sedimant Volume (ml) ^>° Water Volume (ml) fl^^
'ZQ No Raulicates: J> Photoperiod /-t L: ^ D Randomization Temulate No. (^<^ .
TEST SET UP
Vf/T-!ff**-» l'Ld'*i--'l«
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: V; *y<-
MA
Para.
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAYS
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
.\
93. la
J
A
3). 3
33 .Jl
2-3
3-3
T
313^
23
23.3
13 1
X3.1
33.%
033
13 .)
5-3
, t
93.5-
. J
93, /
'1
03
o
23,
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
H
55. <
v.y
AA
1
7.3
-. 3
T.V
f.y
if
(3
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
3
Cr/5
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
nco'L.
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAYS
DAY?
DAYS
DAYS
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
. y
J3.L
2sLl
lo
.f
3-5
23JL
0-33
0
II
«/
13.3
53
£3 0
25.
It
3-3.*
3-3. X
QJ.3
0-3.5"
13.1
(U
3-3. <(
. D
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/r)
V.M
IV
(D
V.3
v.f
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
Cn
0
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File.STF007A CBI TEST ID: (/, ^<
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
n
2x3,3.
A3.
A3.
2,3
a 3
V*
13,1
23.
3-34
3-3.iv
23. D
a
LA-
13
233
53
VJ
OS.
23.
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
*x
V '
*,3
M
LL
iv
V
LI
r.3
if_
REPL.NO:
INITIALS
3
X
ft
0
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
pool
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAYS
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
.R
E
(C)
a- 3
VI
. >
J3.1
3. 0
3-3. V
fc
3.3 -r
13 X
^3,3
r,
IV
3=3
.0
M
1
S
s
0
X
Y
G
E
H
(mg/l)
H
Vfc
?
M_
Ifi
JLl
3)
f.3
Jf.3
REPL.NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
a
a
fr
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
ara-
meter
reat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
35
33.5"
03-7-
is.1;
i a.
2,3. »
d-3.f
2-3, S
V
D
1
S
s
0
X
Y
G
E
N
r.v
U
1,1
?.*-
I
X
\
V
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CBI TEST ID: \l (/*\<
Treat-
ment
It
ir
'1
Repl.
No.
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
0
o
D
0
O
c/
0
Day 2
O
0
a
0
0
o
0
0
o
CJ
1 6
Day 3
G
0
D
D
0
D
0
o
CJ
Day 4
O
D
0
6
D
DayS
_Q_
0
T?
SL
QUO
0
0
0
0
Day6
JL
D
0
D
D
D
A
O
Day?
0
tek
_Q_
o
C?
c?
0
o
JL
0
^
DayS
0
^
Ci
6
6
0
D
DayS
D
0
0
O
0 t£/J
0
0
0
0.,
n.
0
/;
IU3&
DaylO
LIVE
n
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CBI TEST ID: (/(/V\£ OOP"*- \A f\
Treat-
ment
n
n
w
1*
U
£/j^
'^t'X
i
C/>
Day 2
O
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
D
f>
0
o
/J-^D
(^
Day 4
Ci
c^
G
0
6
C^
n
t>
D
0
D
fi>
0
0
0
D
/Vob
^
DayS
O
^
to
t?
Ofeft
T7
O
n
0
0
(7
D
n
t>
Ofcft
o
\LW
fP
Day 6
P
0
D
D
A
0
0
D
6
P
0
d>
^
^
D
D
c^i>6
t>^3
Day?
D
V
T>
-o
t)
t>
0
0
0 .
-O
0
o
O(fev\
n
0
0
lo*--
Pf
DayS
0
G
bf*
5
A
A
^
A
A
6
5
b
0
0
G,
69S-D
L/)
Day 9
0
0
o
o
o
0
O
0
o.
0
6t£,)
(9
0
0
'O
0
iu^
(^
DaylO
LIVE
2.0
'?
0-0
do
(^
11
3
£0
ao
^D
^o
16
.a
X^
;^
/^
pa^«M
O^-tfto
N
0
T
E
S
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and moltt in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
Treat-
ment
17
•9
Repl.
No.
S2.
IT
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
Dayl
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
Day 2
O
V
0
JL
o
0
0
o
Day 3
6
D
6
0
O
0
0
0
Day 4
0
j^
Ci
0
0
D
0
0
DayS
'0
-o
0
D
0
0
40-
Day 6
0
0
0
D
0
6
D
D
0
0
D
6
Day?
"D
O
0
0
o
0
0
fp
Day 8
^^
-6
o
b
V/b
Day9
0
o
O
o
0
O
0
0
o
0
o
SO
DaylO
UVE
iLo
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and f live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
Treat-
ment
O.
K
h
14
K
V(
Mr
i-3
IT)
Repl.
No.
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
0
D
0
0
D
0
p
-£-
D
Day 2
0
O
0
a
0
D
0
o
0
0
Day 3
O
0
0
(D
_d
D
0
Day 4
c,
C)
D
0
5
C>
DayS
JL
O
0
A
D
D
0
0
fP
Day 6
jQ.
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
(3
0
Day?
JZ
o
fo
DayS
6
6
Day 9
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
Jl
0
DaylO
LIVE
ia.
JL?_
/if
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
reat-
ment
SL
33
3v
3?
3
Repl.
No.
3>
V
©
"
TIME
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
o
b
0
d
0
D
0
o
0
Day 2
LJ
0
0
0
e>
D
D
0
D
0
Day 3
Ci
0
0
D
P
O
D
D
D
0
Day 4
Cb
D
0
0
D
e>
DayS
D
D
D
r>
D
-Q-
(D
-e-
0
Day6
0
0
0
ci
0
A
0
0
6
Day?
O
o
-o
0
t?
0
D
0
0
^000
Ss.
Day 8
6
D
Cs
6
Cb
O
o
Day 9
h
o
0
O
£L
o
DaylO
LIVE
n
in
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
Treat-
ment
7
11
11
l-l
Repl.
No.
V
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
b
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
D
0
Day 2
D
0
P
0
o
0
D
0
o
o
p
p
0
D
Day 3
O
O
0
0
0
Q
0
0
h
D
0
0
t^-oo
Day 4
Cl
6
6
ft
-O.
(S
0
6
DayS
0
SI
0
0
0
0
JX
D
O
0
c
0
0
Ikoo
Day 6
0
0
A
D
D
0
6
fll
Cto
Day?
o
o
_Q^L)
0
0
O
fl)
DayS
O
H.
o
6
DayS
o
0
_Q.
b
to
o
0
0
0
0
DaylO
LIVE
il
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and * live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
reat-
ment
13
Vi
I?
it*
79
Repl.
\L.
TIME:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
O
0
D
O
0
Day 2
0
D
0
O
c?
O
O
O
Day 3
D
0
0
O.
6
6
0
Day 4
O
t)
b
C)
0
C3
D
DayS
0
0
0
0
D
-0-
_a
g
_U2L
Day 6
6
Day?
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
DayS
o
o
Ci
Cb
o
DayS
o
O
0
o
u
0
O
0
0
DaylO
LIVE
£°_
2.0
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in paranthesei (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STF008B CBI TEST ID:
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
•Sec :
CO
3
in
&
3
•7.11
li
d
02,
M
t
h
I*
n
M
10,
/V
2*
:Z
•3
-7.31.
rt
.a
i
ly
s/
IV
TARE WT.: DATE
INITIALS: AQ
TOTAL WT.: DATE 3 /
INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG): /* 0J
_ CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):_f
N
0
T
E
S
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STF008B CBI TEST ID: v
QAO;k
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Ci?
(I-
15
11
30
^L
37
n.
©
3*
n
2-7
HI
9.00
10
11
S,ZS
\\
V
«,
(f
8.71
TAREWT.:DATE
TOTAL WT.: DATE
Vo INITIALS:_
00 INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
0
T
E
S
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST File:STF008B CB1 TEST ID: ({ , ^ q fc ;? 3
31
3/
3>
39
I
I*
1
1
*
fc
No.
t~^
9
/
g?
U
Pan No.
^
<*(,
(,1
u
M
?o
•7,
7t
73
9^
?r
7j,
7T
It
W
fa
Total Wt.
^JO
8.13
8.75
8.11.
0.03
7.7Z
&.70
8.27
4.21
-7.3?
9.27
8.87
939
7.75
9.7ft
TareWt.
&.*?
6.?^
9.H
7. a
^.n
*.?»
V^7
fc.40
9.5i
^.^x
7^
9/y
-7./V
i^^
* T T ^l
7 O
Net To^al
I
•
/
•
MeanWt.
TAREWT.: DATE ^l^b* INITIALS: C& CAI
TOTAL WT.: DATE °lMl 60 INITIALS: tfl& C
N
0
T
E
S
Treat-
ment
9
*
<|
/o
/I
/t
/}
I1/
/j-
/
Total Wt.
f./y
£&.
f.OZ
9. to
%3
?.7£>
9 7-V
/^/2
Xfi?. 3/
/O. 7C
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST File:STF008B CB1 TEST ID:
, IA
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Z.3
V
1.11
9.0/
/PI
;/,/*
9-
/0.2-2.
TV*
V
Ho
9.7 e.
HI
TAREWT.:DATE_
TOTAL WT.: DATE
INITIALS:
INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):^
_ CALIB. (CLASS S10 MG):
N
0
T
E
S
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-fiepl. No.
PH
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot.NH34f-
<"•«
Hardnessjf-
hna/U
Alkalinity f-
(mo/l)
363
•5-3
W
Vr
vv
V1
_L
3.^0
0
5^3
JL
1L
II
6.
in
11
Vf
a
-5-3
JLl
Test Day_Q
TEST ID
Date
Initials
600
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-Repl. No.
pH
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot. NHS
Hardness
(mo/I)
Alkalinity
m
3.33
\
LA
vv
X
\
\
y
Test Day
•*
{ )
*^
Date
Initials
TEST ID
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-Repl. No.
pH
Conductivity
(uS/cml
Tot.NH3
'"""»
Hardness
Alkalinity
(mo/1)
3
srCa
3.5-9,
a??
33
10
"
l.ro
H
Ma.
/ra.
$-3
If
s-3
'39,
I?
Test Day \®
Date
Initials
TEST ID
HA-
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-flepl. No.
pH
Conductivity
"fift")
Tot. NH3
'"«*>
Hardness
Alkalinity
(mpyi)
1-.
UV
3,
Hi
3 /
/
TV?
X
1
V3
Test Day
Date_9/SriJXl_ Initials
TEST ID
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS BASELINE TEST INFO - 10-DAY FW SEDIMENT TESTS
> PA>rVV6
TEST ORGANISMS
Source:
fading:
A,
Acclimation Water Type:_
Notes:
Hardness:
: 9 7 Acclimation Temperature: J ,5 ^ Acclimation Photoperiod Kg'
^370
Chamber Size: 300 ml 1000 ml * 37000 ml Other.
Initial No. Organisms per Beolicate: 1 *^ No. Replicates:
TEST DESIGN
SeJmenl Volume (ml) 2-03 Water Volume (ml)
Photoperiod (<• L: Y D Randomization Template No.
Date^ime Sedrmnt «.W..erAAfeA
SatmnBv (Initials!: 'Pti (irfi Notes:
TEST SET UP
Date/Time Animals Adtfe(t_
aemTterm,meterNo.
£1i
Meter* 1 (SNE8014475
YSIDOMeter#2(SN91A026329)
INSTRUMENTATION
SPPorta^ Meter (852360)
Coming 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
p Digisense pH Meter (D9500563)
C^rtorius
riusR160P Balance (40020093)
YS SCT 33 Meter (H801 6792)
Spartan ATC Refractometer (A366)
NOTES:
As Oiality Assurance Officer for this test I certify that no significant deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections (unless otherwise noted below) and
that the date accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
/07/
i£_
Signature
Date
File: STF006A
CBI TEST ID:
Cff
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBITEST1D: \/i ftvS fc-xi't-
ara-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(ma/1)
reat-
ment
'L
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
DAY1
a
DAY 2
DAY 3
a-v.t
AV.fn
DAY 4
a
DAYS
It
fo
DAY 6
DAY 7
jr.
fo
DAYS
51 7,
U>L
(r/5
DAY 9
av.t.
DAY 10
*•)
0
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \J((*\^
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
.R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0.
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
reat-
ment
h
(V
H
(f
If
h
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
C ff>
DAY1
C-9
DAY 2
•8"-)
VA\
DAYS
DAY 4
0-V.3
DAYS
£L
DAYS
DAY 7
. !f
ff.o
(n
DAYS
V
JL
DAY 9
DAY 10
0
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \/\/W
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \] yfrv^
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAYS
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
H
17.1
zxJ.
a v. v
JA
V
^ Y,
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
11
n
iv
t.
*,&
t.)
1--V
7,0
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
3-
3.
3
(So
fo
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \J \ /y\<
o
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: \j\fV\<
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
ment
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
MA
V/3
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
™
£21
DAY 6
DAY 7
MO
DAYB
9-£M
ML
DAYS
3i
M
DAY 10
o Vi
o (O
3/
6^5
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST Fite:STF007B CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/c
real-
ment
(o
d
a
H
1*
IV
(3
IS
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
£75
DAY 2
DAY 3
7-
DAY 4
4%
Co^
DAYS
7%
DAY 6
Vlfe
fl.ro-
DAY 7
l
7^3
/K
DAYS
DAY 9
3
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: V\(Y\£
ara-
meter
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
ment
n
to
i\
n
LI
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
pie.
DAY1
. fa
DAY 2
DAYS
-.? 3-
DAY 4
DAYS
fcoo
7-K
7-tf
3*1
3.V
A?
DAY 6
DAY 7
22L
to
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
39
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STF007B CBI TEST ID: VlfY\C QPP
Para-
meter
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/crn
real-
ment
lib
V)
31
REPL NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
*.??
DAY 2
DAY 3
7.7s-
DAY 4
331
S
DAYS
14 1
Z,'??
DAY 6
DAY 7
9.JJ.
?LO
z1?4
DAYS
DAY 9
3
DAY 10
3/s
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID:
^
t!
Para-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
= C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
merit
Y)
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
DAY1
3/a
A
DAY 2
7- ,
3.6V
DAY 3
DAY 4
X
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY?
m
7
Tiu
ML
to
DAY 8
301
t/)
DAY 9
u
DAY 10
330
/
0
T
E
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \/(ff\< DDcq
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(fflg/l)
1,
i.
H
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
2-Y.3
fa
t>.9-
DAY1
*•!
DAY 2
DAY 3
, 3
DAY 4
DAYS
8-
DAY 6
ILL
DAY 7
ILL
ft
DAYS
DAY 9
3-V.L
DAY 10
0
T
E
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
l/|fl\C
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/1)
reat-
ment
M
I*
H
fo
I
N
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
DAYO
-D.I
DAY1
ay. 3
DAY 2
, 3
3^,3
DAY 3
ay.v
a
c/?
DAY 4
, v
ifi
DAYS
8:2,
DAY 6
9-V.V
3L
DAY?
n
fc
DAY 8
DAYS
f .
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \j\ (A< frr»n i, *-ff
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(ma/1)
'real-
ment
n
to
rl\
0
"\
vv
13
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
0-V.6
^
-A
DAY1
ay./
DAY 2
TJ
DAY 3
9.V.T
a/u
DAY 4
DAYS
ZV.7
,7
y^L
0
DAY 6
av.
l_i
DAY?
LL
ft)
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
o
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \/\jy\< Pool,
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
£
N
(mg/l)
3°
•tO
3|
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
3-V.
t>o.
S3-
*•?-
.SL
V3-
3
DAY1
DAY 2
1V..3
T.;
DAY 3
a LI .
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
Zw.f
IH.I
DAY 7
JLJL
*J
-1
«,l
DAYS
^L
S-.JL
DAY 9
JL
Ji.
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: Vt/\< bJoi_
'ara-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
s
0
*x
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l
reat-
ment
31
Y)
REPL NO:
INITIALS
DAYO
i S.'X
V>
DAY1
w.t
\
T.
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
3
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
Zm
, 1
DAYS
\
DAYS
?-
i b
\
A
, a
DAY 10
o
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: \ft~m$
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY?
DAYB
DAYS
DAY 10
").-? 5
P
H
(S.U.)
•9.7
7.70
ia
2-Zl
1A.
743
Hi.
7^3
?-*/
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
I
V
T
Y
(uS/cm)
V
TO
93*
•30 r
3QJL
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
(Wb
ftp
ft
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File.STFOOTB CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAYB
DAY 9
DAY 10
/b
(I
/a
(S.U.)
22JL
7-^5
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
to
/V
SO*
"3 a
Hlv
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
fr
3
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: \KfM DPPV
ara-
meter
real-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAY 8
DAY 9
DAY 10
(
P
H
(S.U.)
i\
"7-93
•7^3
7. 50
•7.7^
79l
770
7.75'
9-LC
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
\
T
Y
(uS/cm
n
to
i\
3^5
3
Jot
30-L
30o
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
3
t-
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CB1 TEST ID:_
ara-
meter
real-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
P
H
(S.U.)
y\
1 <
79?
^49
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
11
311
WO
>-
111
1,83
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
a.
C-/3
v/*
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: \) WC
'ara-
meter
'reat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
-7-1*3
-76-?
ILL,
P
H
(S.U.)
$.
9-l/C
o
\
\
\
A
\
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
31
Z%2-
\
\
\
\
s
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
-la-
(r/l
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CB1 TEST ID: \A
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CBI TEST ID: V\yyv<
reat-
ment
n
i\
u
3*
31
Repl.
No.
(P
TIME
INITIALS
Dayl
Ifa
De
/tH-
/(K
P*
Day 2
in
f-v
O-JD
Day3
(On,
Day 4
t&f
ibf
M.
/of
CAf
IfCiCi
DayS
/o
lo
/D
io
°\
10 tr
flu*
fp
Day 6
/o
io
lo
to
(v
Day?
I*
6
IV?
DayB
tb
(Cs
DayS
16
'b
16
DaylO
LIVE
9-
O
ro
o
10
0
T
E
S
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CB1 TEST ID:
\I\K\<
31
reat-
ment
y
y?
Repl.
No.
^
TIME
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
4^
l&
n±
ja.
H,
0
Day 2
/re
10*
Day3
StSf
Day 4
(Of
DayS
/o
lo.
/o
/o
/o
/o
JZ.
/o
Day 6
/O
fo
Day?
IV
(o
1*
lo
7
fP
DayS
' b
/O
/o
Day9
10.
o
ft)
DaylO
LIVE
liL
/o
1 6
•9
/o
C/3
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-8 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CBI TEST ID: \]
Treat-
ment
li-
IH
0
l\
V-
Repl.
No.
ft
TIME:
INITIALS:
0
T
E
S
Day1
/C
(On
1*
10*
Day 2
? IM,
Day3
Day 4
6/3
DayS
/=>
to
Pdt -
Day 6
l*-
IP
fo
fo
Day?
(o
/P
r
/too
DayS
Id
ICL
/P
D
0*?
Day 9
f 0
D
DaylO
LIVE
'0
ȣ)
0
0
ff
Ifl
XV
_L
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID. \j ^4 pyjo'V
rsat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
DayB
Day 9
Day 10
LIVE
0*
1SL
1
to
to
(o
A
3°
/O
12.
1 D.J»
Jfi-
p
16
&
fD
f/O
1*
0
/D
_Lk.
/CX
lo
/6
(0
lo
(Ci
/o
1C
lo
ro
/o
lo
\ /
r
r
£
TIME
INITIALS
6-/J
0
T
E
S
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-8 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CB1 TEST ID:
boo!
reat-
ment
n
11
IV-
n
U
ji
vo
ii
Repl.
No.
TIME;
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
ftlf
Day 4
1±L
DayS
lo
/o
/=?
/o
/o.
h
lo
Day 6
T
/Ci
1&.
I£L
Day?
/o
(0
10
JO
/wo
DayB
1±
(0
/o
16
)6
1
Day 9
\0
10
/o
ID
1.
DaylO
LIVE
'0
9
/-o
(0
1 1 00
Note: Numbers indicate # obierved dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL- 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID: V (
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
DayS
Day 9
DaylO
UVE
15
IP*.
(04.
\o
'0
fo
to*
/ tl
16 <
(0
Jfc
'b
(P-
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-fiepl. No.
PH
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot. NH3
'""^'
Hardness
'"i^l
Alkalinity
mg/l)
V.oo
t.fb
/.<*?
D.5HD.
n
Jd.
41
3-.VO
^l
^^
K
Test Day_
TESTED
Date
Initials
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-flepl. No.
PH
Conductivity
Tot. NH3
Hardness
Alkalinity
36
Test Day Q Date_
Initials
TEST ID
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-flepl. No.
PH
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot. NH3
fag/"
Hsrdness
ft*«
Alkalinity
(mo/l)
M.
Ai&-
J&
flfr
J
/o
. TO
41
o.vo
to
*&_
^(
11
Test DayJ_0_
Date
Initials
TEST ID
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-fiepl. No.
pH
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot. NH3
h"""'
Hanlness
Ml
Alkalinity
'in
3L
3JL
36
Test Day_
Date
Initials
TEST ID
<4t-
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. 96-H ACUTE STATIC REF TEST
(Form STF003A 3/1/97)
treatment
Control
3*
*9t
V«0
itnc
l
10
10
(0
3-
o>
6^
^au
Day 2
ft>
/I)
to
(o
Id
(o
/o
k
£7
3
^>
yfcx*
Day 3
#Live
(ft
(0
lf\
10
16
ifl
fO
1^
7J^**
o>
0
1
Cs90/j>
Day 4
(0
/O
/o
1
• 1°
^
Q
1
0
c?
?j>
IW 1
i.-/^ /*/) Source: 0- C
Final
%Lrve
/0»
•)<-
^<
4°
r*
*
Hatch dih/timfl' ^— '« •>> Arriwl date (non-CBI) ^^ft- %L\'Z-MO'0
Acclimation wate
Acclimation temp
Feeding prior to t
Feeding during t«
Chamber size:
Test volume: 2
Initial no. organs
Photoper»± 16L
SETUP: Date *
Time Animals Add
INSTRUMENTAL
Stem Thermometi
rtypr ^XL t Salinitv lo/ko.) rv/A Hardness (mg/l) t£±
erature |
Bt: IrV
ranae) i3 . 1 to 2-3 . 5
^. /I l*t.^CI.^LLSt ^\.l\\^il \(ft
rt ^ /T^JL vyr> /*v, krJLa
300 ml]
JOmlC
ms per n
80 vX
3 500 ml D 10°0 ml D
} 250 ml n 500 ml D
Other ml
Other: ml
olicate: / O No. replicates: ^L,
' other Randomization Template Number: t
[ f f / fV^ Time Water Added f 'i f^ D
I.H 1 1 C.O Set UB Bv C^ 0
ON USED:
ir Number KV>\ D SP PortapHZ Meter (852360)
> -l,a
LJ Sartorrus 1
11 BOP Balance (40021
SN91A026329) Spartan ATC Refractometer
r (SN5268) ' Q YSI SCT 33 Meter (H801 6792)
TESTI.D.:
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. 96-H ACUTE STATIC REFTEST
(Foim STF003A 3/1/97)
T
E
M
P
0.0.
(L
£s
o
A
Replicate*
above noes.
Initials:
OavO
A3.P.
as,
AS.
M.
Z.13
T4
a
Oayl
Oay3
0>y4
g. it
t/l
j&
IfJ J.
V
rv
7V-
UL
±
A/
13.3
l.tt
S.M
NOTES
to
Quality Assurance:
As Quality Assunnci officer for this teat I certify that no significant
deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections
(unless otherwise noted below) and that the data accurately reflect the
test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments
Signature
Oile
TEST I.D.
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
HAART
Cone.
307.0000
384.0000
480.0000
600.0000
750.0000
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
Number
Resp.
1
1
8
16
20
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.0500
0.0500
0.4000
0.8000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0500
0.0500
0.4000
0.8000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
4.370
7.815
HAART
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
306.377
498.995
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
240.226
463.167
349.927
538.011
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. NPDF.S ACUTE REFERENCE//>;me/>W*.y promelas (Form PPART)
OayO
Diyl
Day 2
Img/l)
Control
515
735
1050
1500
2143
I.D.
C-1
C-2
1-1
1?
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
Observer
Time:
uay i
«Live
to
'A
i(\
10
( b
fO
to
f i)
^
^L
0
0
G/b
1 «f Y£>
U«T'
#Live
\U
/D
i n
10
i [)
o
5
"2..
£t^
^1
C
^)
v-^
'*T~t5/j
Survival
,00
/ 00
<)5
4o
o
6
PimeDhales promelas Source: £-£•
Acclimation water: SF
Acclimation Temp, (range
Feeding prior to test >
Feeding during test Not f
Chamber size: 500 ml
Test Volume: 250ml
Initial no. animals per rep
Photoperiod: 16L8D f
SET UP. Date
Timi
INSTRUMENTAT
Stem Therrnometi
D YSI D.O. Met
UfCP Digisense
n Sartorius R1
D YSI SCT 33 1
Other
1-4
Animal
ON USE
a Numbi
CT#1(S
pH Meti
SOPBala
dieter (HI
\fl if nther:
/^.•7 n a^-i
Srt»n;» i^)X ^ °*":
td E3 Other:
D 1000ml 5
S
3 500 ml [3
icate /A N
2 Other F
8000ml D
4000ml D
>. replicates eX
Othnr ml
Other ml
andomiution template no.: ^
AfT / 66 Time Water Added / 3*£ ^
Added /tf> 3 Set Up By f/?
D:
,r /^/
NE8014475)
r(D9500563)
nee (40020093)
!016792|
E^YSI D.O. Meter * 2 (SN91 A026329)
D Coming 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
D.9P PortapH2 Meter (852360)
Bfl Noriba Conductivity Meter (51 1001)
T
E
M
P
pH
D.O.
(mg/l)
C
0
N
D
(«S)
Replk
above
Ini
NOTES
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
^
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
ate*
neas.
tials:
ao &
2o 1
IzO
(°iA
,4 \
T/((
TJ.^
T.l
T-t
^ •?
v.fQ^"~^'
SFW
_
ma/1
ma/I
TEST I.D.:
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
PPART
Cone.
515.0000
735.0000
1050.0000
1500.0000
2143.0000
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
Number
Resp.
0
1
12
20
20
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.0000
0.0500
0.6000
1.0000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0000
0.0500
0.6000
1.0000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
0.288
7.815
PPART
Point
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
LC/EC 1.00
LG/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
666.085
992.891
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
482.374
907.651
765.292
1085.664
-------
FORMRWF001A
10/09/99
YEAR:
SYNTHETIC FRESHWATER (SFW) PREP LOG
TEST DILUTION WATER VATS
VAT NO.-
PREP. DATE
HARDNESS
(mg/1)
ALKALINITY
(mg/1)
CONDUCTIVIT
(uMHOS)
PH
(S.U.)
INITIALS
-sr//?
a
^ 7
t>(l(
w
L
/o
7
6k-
--
flftp
yi
aw
NOTE: VERIFY HARDNESS 80-100 mg/1, ALKALINITY 57-65 mg/1 AND pH 7.6-8.0 BEFORE USE
-------
FORMRWF001A
10/09/99
YEAR:
SYNTHETIC FRESHWATER (SFW) PREP LOG
TEST DILUTION WATER VATS
NOTE: VERIFY HARDNESS 80-100 mg/1, ALKALINITY 57-65 mg/1 AND pH 7.6-8.0 BEFORE USE
-------
(File STF013A) CBI TEST ID_
SEDIMENT-TREATMENT I.D. ASSIGNMENT:
SEDIMENT I.D. TREATMENT ID.
73,13 * 3> (
fo.
. 55-
#\
V6/73 ^
ASSIGNED BY: DATE:
1
-------
(File STF013A) CBI TEST IP \J(f- <
SEDIMENT-TREATMENT I.D. ASSIGNMENT:
SFPTMENTLD. TREATMENT IP.
(/>.?>!
iL
ASSIGNED BY: fp DATE:
-------
SEDIMENT % WATER WORKSHEET
(File:STF016A)
Sample I.D.
Total Wet Wt
Total Dry Wt
to)
TareWt.
Net Wet Wt
Net Dry Wt
fa)
%H20
lid.
M
A
0.5
30,0
3-
3-
0-5
*-£>
33.
0-5
A
5_£_
5^A
•30?!
q.S
0.5
06
2iA
S-A
5\. 0
£zA
39-3
l^i
IlA
0-5
3-5:3
0-5
//-^
//.o
05
i^A
I/. O
37. /
>* -6
0-5
Tare Wt:
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Date
OL
;[/fuo
Class S Calib Wt_
Class S Calib Wt IO.Q
Class S Calib Wt .o
Initials_
Initials_
Initials
CBI TEST ID Vh^f Dr>n
-------
SEDIMENT % WATER WORKSHEET
(File:STF016A)
Sample I.D.
Total Wet Wt
Total Dry Wt
""
TareWt.
Net Wet Wt
(a)
Net Dry Wt
%H20
373,
0.5
/?-
O.y
/y-/?
, V
65
^7.7
0
0,5
15-
3^:0
47-7
70 -o
f y.?
O.S
±.
n-t>
33.9
0-4
3 £3-7
'Co, D
0.5
- A
SL In
0-5
u.r
0-S
^A
TareWt:
Wet Wt:
DryWt:
Date_
Date_
Date
Class S Calib Wt L
Class S Calib Wt 11
Class S Calib Wt f fa. Q
Initials.
Initials.
Initials
CBI TEST ID
U
-------
SEDIMENT % WATER WORKSHEET
(File:STF016A)
Sample I.D.
Total Wet Wt
Total Dry Wt
TareWt
Net Wet Wt
(a)
Net Dry Wt
%H20
Jii
O.H
0-*)
t7
06
37-
0-5
- £>
35.
0-5
- f\
31.0
38/7
0.5
^
31
Co 5
o.M
lA
13
3/-
O.H
%-A
03
^-/?
ILS.
35. 1
. S
,/?,
3V-
35-
3V
0-4
>r.i
TareWt:
Wet Wt:
Dry Wt:
Date
Class S Calib Wt
Class S Calib Wt
Date_Vfllfii>
CBI TEST ID___V\J^l
Class S Calib Wt I a.
Initials_
Initials
Initials
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(rev. 8/1/00)
TESTl.D.
ediment I.D.
Arrival
Sediment
Indigenous Organisms
(note type if present)
I mm sieve
0,5 mm sieve
0.2S mm sieve
Pore ,
water
Pore
Pore
water
Salinity
Date/Initials: ••'.,'
or
I-H
lo
*"* graln"ZC anal-vses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indigenous
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (cstuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should.be checked on arrival.
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(rev. 8/1/00) " *
TE&t.D.
Sediment I.B.
Arrival
Sediment
I mm sieve
Indigenous Organisms - - ,., '
(note tyjpe if present)
0.5 mm sieve ; 0,25 mrn sieve
Pore
water
Pore
vater
Salini^
"
7,1-
'V
MA
9 l
Date/Initials:
Note: See separate work sheet for percent water. TOC and grainsizc analyses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indieenou
organisms)
X'
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (cstuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should.be checked on arrival.
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(rev. 8/1/00)
TEST ID.
y
Sediment 1.1).;
Arrival
- Ajppearance
I mm sieve
Indigenous Organisms -, ,'
(note typ if present) ;
0,3 mm sieve " : Ot2S mm sieve
Pore
"par
Pore
water,
Pore
Salinity
r
IV- (
HV
ft
n
Co.?
Datc/lBitlal$i
m
Note: See separate work sheet for percent water. TOC and grainsizc analyses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indigci
organisms) 6
nous
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (cstuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should .be checked on arrival.
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
TEST I.D.
X"
•i
i
k
\_
(rev. 8/1/00)
Sediment t.D;
a.^sont.1*1
VL
*S
~ ^ *i
in
^
^3l»« rostw?
ff-v
*4
•^(fip
Date/Initials: - -'-,
Arnval
Teittp.
*>
fc-«
51
5--H
t.r
y.j^
40
ir.n
r,-j
l?|fi
< Sediment .. ; •:
Appearance ;'.
^^,A
•-
i ,
KV^
-
-
As-» J
*,
^ /
*;'
/
ifinr '• ^"^
,,r7"'- - .^.
Indigenous Organisms
(note type if present) ; ,
1 mm sieve 0.5 mm sieve 0.25 mm sieve
c Ao__^
t.
^
C/^k
7iof«,ji ^>rP
-&//V.U , (.^<
II
-
- ,'
i^.^
-.
^
,— -
'"^/»ay
;^ ^
//a U^
>k
'^
' ;
^
•.
n
^,
>-
^~,
-
^_
' ,;,
Pore
vrater
pH
7^1
1".
•3?
£,^0
4 4<^
9, TV
7.1*
^
Pore ;
water
i
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ID NO. (PC/NPDES)
PROJECT/ CASE NAME
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
STA. NO.
DATE
TIM'E
DEQ REGION
OWNER ADDRESS
SITE LOCATiON (Let. & Long, optional)
STATION LOCATION
LJJ
Z
I
o
o
u.
q
o
Q
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
VIZ-
Relinquished by: (signature)
Received by. (Signature)
eceived by: (Signature)
l^elinqiii^Ked by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: {signature)
Lab Remarks:
In Laboratory by: (Signature) | Date/ Time |Seals In place?
Preservation OK?
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler, Copy to Transporter
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ID NO. (PC/NPDES)
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Lat. & Long, optional)
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
STATION LOCATION
STA. NO. DATE
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by: (Signature)
Received by. (Signature)
Received by: (Signature)
•y^"""™""""^^^^""™-
gelinquisheaby: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by: (Sjanatuce)
Lab Remarks:
Received In Laboratory by: (signature) m Date/ Time BSeals In place?
Relinquished by: (Signature) I Dale/ Time
reservation OK?
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler; Copy to Transporter
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT ^f^J
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PROG. CODE STATION ID DATE COLLECTED
[_ J2/O^3/;=^ &-J^
-? $-& z.
I
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
fj~ t
T'O ML '
/lo
Y Y M M D D
CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
190-' '"^"dX
£_J2R
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER */iFRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCffl DEPTH (m) FIELD ,H
•"
JL
i
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN 3OFAL1QUOTS AIR TTME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
50060 00061
Q SWL SPWL
1
i
T TISfNUM) SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO.
D
I
74995 74990
S
S IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES)
I)
E 81614 84014 00024
1
i
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
31
1
T1S (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
«n,™ ^ r^<— /^—,
/ — D- -^
("0' fNTY
TOMMENTS
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
s^* '
(/
„
l/^LASC^-/
TEMP" c
00010
t^I
J/(
^7 /v^6
^-•'L-'^ -
COND. Ui MHOS/CM)
00094
A)i i^fd-vA^
' / -c^'^Q ^SL
'^^ o^7
X^ -z
SALlNITi' (ppt)
00096
/
"^7 7^0
/ /
1/60
f
i:sl/CL: 7/947/95(deqform)
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT ^-:f<-
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY -r\ '
PROG. CODE
A
STATION ID ^
1
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
:_ i—i^-^M
r ^3 DATE COLLECTED
-T' 3 3~ M S O7_3-' ^£
CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
9 0 •
P
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB
' J^?
> •«
o & 3*~2
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
t\ / '
7 £\
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
*y ' "vj f^
^
WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCffl DEPTH (m) FIELD f
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
1
50060
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
00061
SWL
1
1
•
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIR TIME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
1
i
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
1
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74995 74990 84007 84005
IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
81614 84014
00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
OTHER '
^^
COU
COiV
vrv
MENTS
1
/ax/*v~^-^9*wp^^gj___
^^^f-^JL^^
3--J
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
'7^-^U^? ^
v
j£s/lS0tt
r^
TEMP" C
00010
^fo'f "
^ id&(
' .
COND. (^ MHOS/CM)
00094
/v? ^^e^-j
oXi* gly/
-^zffdfc/^^f
^ C-^ IS is
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
/ ;
s?"/ 1 ^ //Vi
(l/ f^~~J / l-AS
f /
00
usI/CL: 7/947/95(deqfonn)
-------
• ^J* VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
A
f 2. 0" M6 0 7 1 * 2-5
D
00^3. 3-
/ O 3
w— . . ^"7
2, A< / . /
Y Y M M D D
CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE
1
9 o \^S^T\ p 7"$ A
•* 1
COLLECTOR
J^TA
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER '/iFRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCffl DEPTH (m)
1
FIELD41
1
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIRTIME.fC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1 1
1
1
50060 00061 00020 00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
F,
SWL SPWL HOURS YIELD
1
It
1
1
TIS(NUM) SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
D
74995 74990 84007 84005
IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
81614 84014 00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
DTHEB
cou
COiV
NT\'
MENTS /OX fe^-^T £>*->»-£>*£. 02*
- /
/ /
order
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/I)
00299
fa i/H
. . /
T^owSO^Ji
'
flt^s ^A 6.
TEMP" C
00010
IvwO
J2.3~^-
^y / y
) ofi\
^
^
COND. (^ MHOS/CM)
00094
y'WC^^-t/
3 Of 3~ . 12. —
Y) j£f-^i£&
o &
-------
37
I
J
2
3
• — 320
r- 262
~ 411
383
118
362
196
338
200
153
431
27
162
390
88
155
440
268
82
380
SSSSjj^SBJJiliir'Sof:
••••k'Mbiiuuinii
37 19.2097
37 19.2015
37 19.2207
37 19.2179
37 19.1795
37 19.2152
37 19.1905
37 19.2097
37 19.1932
37 19.1850
37 19.2234
37 19.1685
37 19.1877
37 19.2179
37 19.1767
37 19.1850
37 19.2262
37 19.2015
37 19.1767
37 19.2179
im
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
< i«ks HWs,r,yswi3~3
i^toftfeiass
13.2773
13.2705
13.2401
13.2671
13.2165
13.2705
13.2232
13.2165
13.2773
13.2334
13.2401
13.2536
13.2705
13.2435
13.2503
13.2266
13.2773
13.2503
13.2705
13.2773
-------
Le-»jfa-s 3 "7 iff. 5 fry2-
77
; y-,^efp *?
ietyiiti
-• 363
— 19
_, 107
256
203
326
341
52
428
121
360
160
13
84
11
154
260
57
36
437
37 19.4202
37 19.3707
37 19.3844
37 19.4037
37 19.3982
37 19.4147
37 19.4174
37 19.3762
37 19.4284
37 19.3872
37 19.4202
37 19.3927
37 19.3707
37 19.3817
37 19.3707
37 19.3899
37 19.4064
37 19.3762
37 19.3735
37 19.4284
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
12.5144
12.4603
12.5009
12.4705
12.5144
12.5043
12.5211
12.4840
12.4975
12.5211.
12.5245
12.5245
12.4806
12.5110
12.4874
12.4772
12.5245
12.4671
12.4705
12.4671
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PROG. CODE STATION ID {*^\
£r ^:s/n^
CATALOG NUMBER
1 9 0 - J O
*b
«
;
4
7
GROUP CODE
X
/
1
• r
e
5
1-
^
a
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
jATE^LLfefrfb TIME COLLECTED M/F
SURVEY DEPTH
•4 - 51
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
U h 0 G
. GkAy
' " ('
*A
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
•/.FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERTTY SECCffl DEPTH (m)
FIELD 3
1
00041 00067 01351 00078
COLLECTION SPAN TOFALIQUOTS AIRTIME.tC0)
1
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
U
E
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND«AMPLE
81614
SPWL
1
SPECIES (NUM)
D
SEX
74990
84014
JL
HOURS
SAMPLE NO.
1
YIELD
1
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00024
00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
£3.3
COUNTY
COMMENTS
usl/CL: 7/947/9S(deqfocm)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
1$
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP"" C
00010
COND. (n MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PROG. CODE STATION
5-
1
4
} -
"V
ID
^
CATALOG NUMBER
1
9
0
m
Tc
>y
Ll 1
P
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
/
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
1 - i~^— i^^^»«^»»^^j»»»»»»»j»i^^»
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ,' M/F SURVEY DEPTH
Q
L
L,'
5
S"
GROUP CODE
r
e
•/.FRB
S
t-
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0101 Hz
an
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
V.FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHJ DEPTH (m)
FIELD ,H
1
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIRTIMEXC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
V
E
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
T1S (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO. '' TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTmiDE
I
LONGITUDE
OTHER
COUNTY _
COMMENTS
ysl/CL: 7/947/95(deqfonn)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
S
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP" c
00010
COND. (ft MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
M/F
SURVEY DEPTH
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER *
UNIT CODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
±-^s r^
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
%FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCffi DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
1
1
00041 00067 01351 00078
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIRTIME.(C°)
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1 1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\V
T
I
S
S
u
E
SWL
TIS (NUM)
SPWL
I
SPECIES (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
D
SEX
u,
74990
84014
1_
HOURS
SAMPLE NO.
1
YIELD
1
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
00024
00023
84005
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY _
COMMENTS
i:sl/CL: 7/947/95(deqfonn)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
2j
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP"" C
00010
COND. (p MHOS/CM)
00094
\
•"•:
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PROG. CODE
!\~~
STATION ID
Z <
- n j
CATALOG NUMBER
1 9 0
-T
D\
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
^01
1 - |i
GROUP CODE
p Tl«b r-
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
/ DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F
-'' COD
22-v iff / i- £•
SURVEY DEPTH
_L
\c
}
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
C=, uo C,
%FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHJ DEPTH (m)
1
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AZRTIME.(C°)
1
.... -1 1
&-§-
V
h
FIELD ,H
1
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
50060
'00061
00020
00025
w
T
I
S
S
u
E
SWL
1
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
•, D
74995 7499
IND/SAMPLE SEX
81614 84014
0
1
JL
HOURS
I
YIELD
1
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00024
00023 84008
LATTITUDE
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
p
ROG. CODE
7f
-t
7
STATION ID
^/
^
r-i
CATALOG NUMBER
1
9
0
-Tlo
-S o^y ^ ,
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
O. £ nd
d9-z
Y Y M M D
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
v/l P Tt<> ^
>l p 1 1C, J
T-i 1 Tl
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
M/F
SURVEY DEPTH
c
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER H UNIT CODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECOffl DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
00116
00002 00041 00067
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN
1
01351
1
00078
1
00400
flOFALIQUOTS AIRTME-CC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
TIS (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
ill
COUNTY _
COMMENTS
: 7/947/95(deqfom)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
. 7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. (VL MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
F
ROC. CODE
/u<
A \
' 1,
STATION ID
A /K\
CATALOG NUMBER
1 9
0 •
r
|s
>
(
iSQiS!
\
DCLS LAB USE ONLY ^^
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F
L *LL
GROUP CODE
' 'T
~e & Tl ^>
0
o
o ;
K L 4 6 '
>, YIELD
1
.J!^.
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) g, jjjg.-. SPECIES (ALPHA)
IK. -'
LENGTH (INCHES)
•-
•M.
7
84007 fig 84005
WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00024
00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
:•
1
OTHER
courm'* _
COMMENTS
: 7/947/95(deqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
f»
\
TEMP" C
00010
.,
^
k
COND. (M MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
p
ROC. CODE
7f
r T^
STATION ID
" H^ 0 >!
'* i ' ' * ~
CATALOG NUMBER
1
9
0 - "]~
° )L p j
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
rz
, sT
'.L
GROUP CODE
~'£ 4
,r
^
^
0
o
5 2,7 /. / > ^ 1 1C
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
\ k 6 £> ^ £-2L^
V
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
V.FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCffl DEPTH (m)
FIELD ,H
1
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
00002
FLOW RATE
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIRTIME.fC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
I
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
s
u
E
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
TIS (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
/
^\
*"-• l
COUNTV
COMMENTS
usl/CL: 7/947/95(dcqfom)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
It
13
IS
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. (jji MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
BSJ
o
o
I 2.12i si
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINERS UNIT CODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
r
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
%FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
1
1
00041 00067 01351
COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS
00078
1
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1 1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
F,
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
SPWL
I
SPECIES (NUM)
D
SEX
74990
84014
JL
HOURS
SAMPLE NO.
1
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
YIELD
1
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
00024 .
00023
84005
LOH
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
i)
COUNTY
COMMENTS
usl/CL: 7/947/95(deqfom)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP" c
00010
COND. (n MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE
INFORMATION/CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SAMPLE MATRLX/TYPE: SEDIMENT^! SOIL SURFACE WATER GROUND WATER—OTHER.
Coastal 8iocunalyfo, Inc.
PROJECT ID
SAMPLE I.D.
COLLECTION DATE/TIME:
075V
SAMPLING LOCATION/SITE: /g-T (><1 /" '/y
**
-A
SAMPLING FQTTTPMF.NT/METHQDS: PL**m<- ^>^tn-
SAMPLE CONTAINER: CLASS J^ HOPE PTFE OTHER (SPECIFY):.
METHOD OF SHIPMENT: /J/ttJQ
IS SAMPLE CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICAB1.E FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR
LOCAL LAWS?* YES NO <~^ - - "
I certify that the above information is correct:
(SAMPLER SIGNATURE)
•UNLESS PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED, SAMPLES DETERMINED TO BE HAZARDOUS WILL BE RETURNED AND SHIPMENT CHARGED AT
COST PLUS 25%; OR COASTAL BIOANALYSTS ™™™ .
1. Relinquished by:
2. Relinquished by:
Received by:
3. Relinquished by:
Received by:
4. Relinquished by:
Received by:
FORM QSF602A
-------
Appendix B
Data Tables from:
James River Sediment and Water Column Toxicity Survey.
Sediment Stations: JMS040.03, JMS042.46, JMS047.33, JMS065.81,
JMS068.68 and JMS074.29.
Water Column Stations: JMS040.03, JMS042.46, JMS047.33, JMS065.81,
JMS068.68, JMS072.08 and JMS074.29.
10/17/00 to 10/25/00 Sampling Period.
Final report from Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc., Gloucester, VA 23061
To Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062
-------
Table Al. Summary Water Quality - Hyalella azteca Sediment Test
r,/,r ''"?' '
T-''- '
$\mm
Control
40.031
40.032
40.033
42.461
42.462
42.463
47.331
47.332
47.333
47.811
47.812
47.813
65.811
65.812
65.813
68.681
68.682
68.683
74.291
74.292
74.293
T3fft0feti
'3I&
$£&K :-
23.2
23.2
23.2
23.2
22.9
23.2
23.1
23.0
23.1
23.2
23.1
23.3
23.2
23.1
23.2
23.1
23.2
23.0
23.1
23.2
23.2
23.0
ilUSfe
^r?"\ ,
% St Ox
C*»#
S|*aB
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
ygsn;
1} -? -
*&
0.1
0.1
0,2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
vx &
^Z'Wl
?' flfffi^fl
8.01
8.02
7.88
7.82
8.01
8.00
8.04
8.05
8.01
7.96
7.95
7.97
7.96
7.72
7.91
7.94
7.36
7.73
7.71
8.12
8.13
8.17
'-/, •/
•• f ff f f f
$''%
;SUS. '
0.25
0.08
0.21
0.13
0.01
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.21
0.01
0.12
0.13
0.25
0.07
0.06
0.12
0.02
&$&&
""''"'','4fi&&
f f f ff f f f<\M^Fr
' 'w& -
333
1309
1261
1222
718
956
812
720
800
841
609
570
579
276
283
332
258
265
264
390
355
409
dW*;;:
®$fe? *
*'f$£ -
31.0
431.0
412.0
352.0
111.0
275.5
137.5
149.0
192.5
235.5
142.0
80.5
81.0
4.5
0.0
6.0
11.0
1.5
24.5
27.5
36.0
42.5
wiiM"*
$:mt* ^
152.0
177.5
195.0
194.0
153.0
158.0
160.5
167.0
168.0
165.0
122.0
136.0
153.0
90.0
105.0
133.5
82.0
114.0
123.0
187.5
142.0
174.0
MWD»ci
***»-
S,D.
12.0
16.5
17.0
16.0
9.0
22.0
19.5
11.0
36.0
17.0
16.0
2.0
7.0
6.0
21.0
10.5
14.0
4.0
7.0
34.5
20.0
22.0
> mm
(mpasc
Mean
82.5
71.0
69.0
49.0
64.0
69.0
64.0
80.0
55.5
64.5
53.0
68.0
69.5
40.5
48.5
76.5
35.0
34.0
38.5
123.0
99.0
118.0
*r,;:
sa&Q$
; &&->'
26.5
8.0
6.0
6.0
11.0
1.0
7.0
9.0
0.5
6.5
4.0
1.0
3.5
4.5
7.5
7.5
11.0
10.0
7.5
20.0
17.0
10.0
' 'ffi&
- ilw
•'^m** a
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.6
0.6
2.3
4*h ,V>
IK :; -:
* *™ ~, ^
>^, ^
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
1.3
02
0.3
0.2
1.5
0.5
2.2
-------
Table A2. Summary Water Quality - Pimephales promelas Sediment Test
vK'
staiiort
Control
40.031
40.032
40.033
42.461
42.462
42.463
47.331
47.332
47.333
47.811
47.812
47.813
65.811
65.812
65.813
68.681
68.682
68.683
74.291
74.292
74.293
; ,,T$ifc
> jp
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.3
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.3
24.4
£l£»£t jf3& •• "" f'
:f At*. *
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
r -',»*,«
>,-,; ,%iti
TllfA^W *^
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
tyNfMI ;
jflj?! - f-~-
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
ffffff f f%&s
-1%&£;>Z
7.62
7.67
7.74
7.71
7.71
7.75
7.71
7.72
7.58
7.61
7.62
7.64
7.65
7.60
7.53
7.70
7.55
7.56
7.57
7.88
7.70
7.79
]££'','/, J,"iij
0.16
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.19
0.08
Q.11
0.06
0.16
0.12
0.16
COridu
> $&
311
565
500
580
440
450
465
442
427
428
378
382
371
274
284
320
273
280
285
332
308
335
wm:r
%*»*-
"" •. •. 3W*I6**
20.4
212.2
191.5
257.3
125.3
129.1
153.3
126.6
111.0
97.1
67.9
76.0
74.6
9.0
9.9
25.6
8.8
in A
i w.-r
8.2
23.9
16.6
33.0
few
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.8
2.5
0.4
n A
w.vs
0.6
2.5
0.9
3.5
J-ftt
m
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.7
0.4
1.9
-------
(W/OC POLITA)(SAMPLES)
.001
0.98
1.08
1.18
1.28
Survival
1.38
1.48
1.58
Average: 1.39322
Std Dev: 0.172438
N of data: 59
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9957
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
T~
0
Factor Levels
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-40.142
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.505
p value : 0.944
50
100
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
Test ID 19 0.8364
Error 39 0.8882
Total 58 1.7246
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
.3453
.3631
.2879
.0905
.2262
.4956
1.3211
.4956
.3884
.4956
.4635
.3884
.4205
.4956
.2490
.2811
.5708
.4635
.5708
1.3963
Survival
MS
0.0440
0.0228
StDev
0.0000
0.1994
0.0994
0.0921
0.1684
0.1302
0.2626
0.1302
0.1651
0.1302
0.1858
0.1651
0.1302
0.1302
0.0000
0.0556
0.0000
0.1858
0.0000
0.3023
F
1.93
P
0.040
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(
)
( ------ * ------ >
>
( ------ * ------ )
* ------ )
( ------ * ------
>
Pooled StDev = 0.1509
_
1.00 1-25 1.50
+-
1.75
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00413
Critical value = 3.05
Control = level 14 of Test ID
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.4189
-0.4011
-0.4763
-0.6737
-0.5823
-0.2686
-0.4431
-0.2686
-0.3758
-0.2686
-0.3006
-0.3437
-0.2686
-0.5151
-0.4831
-0.1934
-0.3006
-0.1934
-0.3679
Center
-0.0431
-0.0253
-0.1005
-0.2979
-0.1622
0.1073
-0.0673
0.1073
0.0000
0.1073
0.0752
0.0321
0.1073
-0.1393
-0.1073
0.1824
0.0752
0.1824
0.0079
Upper + +
0.3327 (
0.3505 (
0.2753 (
0.0779 ( *
0.2580 { *•
0.4831 (
0.3085 (
0.4831 (
0.3758 (
0.4831 (
0.4510 (
0.4079 (
0.4831 (
0.2365 { *'
0.2686 ( '
0.5582 ( '
0.4510 (— —
0.5582 (—
0.3837 (
-0.60 -0.30
.__* )
* )
-* )
)
)
* )
— * )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
)
* )
* )
0.00 0.30
M
-------
M/IPHIPOD^VEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES)
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
DryWt
Average: 0.0943898
StdDev: 0.0202417
N of data: 59
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9480
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPODWEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES)
-1.22
-1.12 -1.02
Log Dry Wt
-0.92
-0.82
Average:-1.03400
Std Dev: 0.0870126
N of data: 59
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9752
p value (approx): 0.0304
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•«
• — •
a
• — •
••
•-•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
"I 1 1 1
0 5 10 15
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 22.495
p value : 0.260
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.4 14
p value : 0.979
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on LogDryWt
Source DF SS MS
Test ID 19 0.22907 0.01206
Error 39 0.21006 0.00539
Total 58 0.43913
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
-0.8319
.0904
.0852
.0170
.0735
.0295
-0.9791
1060
0752
-0.9821
-1.0083
-0.9853
.0540
.0671
.0467
.0324
.0099
.1157
.0919
-1.0119
StDev
0.0164
0.1001
0.0321
0.1018
0.0255
0.0380
0.0881
0.0484
0.0394
0.0903
0.1106
0.0358
0.0113
0.0822
0.0354
0.0720
0.0834
0.0184
0.1127
0.1222
F
2.24
p
0.016
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
_+ + + H
( * )
(
{•
( * )
{ * )
( * )
(•
•)
Pooled StDev = 0.0734
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
( * )
—I. + +—
-1.20 -1.05 -0.90
1—
-0.75
-------
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00413
Critical value = 3.05
Control = level 14 of Test ID
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.02933
-0.28781
-0.28263
-0.21447
-0.29251
-0.22694
-0.17656
-0.30340
-0.27263
-0.17948
-0.20571
-0.25140
-0.26457
-0.24413
-0.22982
-0.20730
-0.31308
-0.28931
-0.20934
Center
0.15344
-0.10504
-0.09987
-0.03170
-0.08817
-0.04417
0.00620
-0.12063
-0.08986
0.00328
-0.02294
-0.06863
-0.08181
-0.06137
-0.04706
-0.02454
-0.13031
-0.10654
-0.02657
Upper + -+ _I _ .
0.33620 (
0.07772 ( * >
0 . 08290 ( * >
0.15106 ( * >
0.11616 ( * >
0.13860 ( * ~)
0.18897 ( * '
0 . 06214 ( * )
0.09291 ( * )
0.18605 ( * ~)
0.15982 ( * "'
0.11413 ( * >
0.10096 ( * )
0.12140 ( * )
0.13571 ( * )
0.15823 ( * '
0.05246 ( * )
0.07623 ( * >
0.15619 { * )
-0.16 -0.00 0.16
+_
0.32
MTB >
-------
EMERGENCE (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES)"
.999 -
.99
"0.50
.05
.01 -
.001 -
Emergent
Average: 0.322034
Std Dev: 0.654972
N of data: 59
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9825
p value (approx): 0.0889
-------
p
MPHIPOD EMERGENCE (W/O C POLITA)(SAMPLES
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•
•
•
»
*•
•
•
•
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-1 1 I i 1
0 10 20 30 40
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -23.368
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.601
p value : 0.882
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Emergent
Source DF SS MS
Test ID 19 8.215 0.432
Error 39 16.667 0.427
Total 58 24.881
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0,
0.
0.
1.
Mean
0.0000
0.3333
0.0000
0.3333
0.0000
.3333
.3333
.3333
.6667
0.3333
0.0000
0.3333
0.3333
0.6667
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3333
0.3333
0.6667
StDev
0.0000
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
0.5774
1.5275
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
1.1547
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
1.1547
F
1.01
P
0.470
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Pooled StDev = 0.6537
+.
0.0
1.0
+-
2.0
-------
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00413
Critical value = 3.05
Control = level 14 of Test ID
Level
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
•1.9613
•1.6280
•1.9613
•1.6280
•2.1535
•1.6280
•1.6280
•1.6280
•0.2946
•1.6280
•1.9613
•1.6280
•1.2946
•1.9613
•1.9613
•1.9613
•1.6280
•1.6280
•1.2946
Center
-0.3333
-0.0000
-0.3333
-0.0000
-0.3333
-0.0000
-0.0000
-0.0000
1.3333
-0.0000
-0.3333
-0.0000
0.3333
-0.3333
-0.3333
-0.3333
-0.0000
-0.0000
0.3333
upper +
1.2946 (
1.6280 (
1.2946 (
1.6280 (
1.4868 (
1.6280 (
1.6280 (
1.6280 (
2.9613
1.6280 (
1.2946 (
1.6280 (
1.9613 ( —
1.2946 {
1.2946 (
1.2946 (
1.6280 (
1.6280 (
1.9613 (--•
-1.5
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
( * )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
0.0 1.5 3.0
MTB >
-------
AMPHlPODSURVJVAlT^MPLES)
Survival
Average: 1.32083
Std Dev: 0.316688
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9210
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AM PHI POD SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals forSigmas
Factor Levels
*
— •
•
•
0 10 20
0.000
40.031
40.032
40.033
42461
42.462
42.463
47.331
47.332
47.333
47.811
47.812
47.813
65.811
65.812
65.813
68.681
68.682
68.683
74.291
74.292
74.293
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -7.306
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.206
p value : 0.293
-------
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'Survival' 'Test ID'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
OVERALL
NOBS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
66
MEDIAN
0.8861
1.3453
1.3453
1.3453
1.1071
1.1071
1.5708
1.3453
1.5708
0.5796
1.3453
1.5708
1.5708
1.3453
1.3453
1.5708
1.2490
1.2490
1.5708
1.5708
1.5708
1.5708
AVE. RANK
19.8
32.0
32.5
25.3
9.2
14.5
46.3
31.0
46.3
8.5
34.7
46.3
41.8
34.7
39.2
46.3
18.5
23.0
53.5
41.8
53.5
38.2
33.5
Z VALUE
-1.26
-0.14
-0.09
-0.75
-2.25
-1.75
1.19
-0.23
1.19
-2.31
0.11
1.19
0.77
0.11
0.52
1.19
-1.39
-0.97
1.85
0.77
1.85
0.43
H = 31.19 d.f. = 21 p = 0.074
H = 33.96 d.f. =21 p = 0.039 (adjusted for ties)
* NOTE * One or more small samples
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (SAMPLES)
0.06
0.11
0.16
DryWt
Average: 0.0976923
StdDev: 0.0276151
N of data: 65
0.21
W-test for Normality
R: 0.8718
p value (approx): < 0.01 00
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (LOG10)(SAMPLES)
.999
.99 -
.95 -
1" .80
JD
.05
.01 -1
.001
-s*
• - -
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0 -0.9 -0.8
LOGDRYWT
-0.7
-0.6
Average: -1.02336
StdDev: 0.102506
N of data: 65
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9477
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHTS (LOG10) (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
_ -— •
•-0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
n r i i i i i i i
012345678
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 35.707
p value : 0.024
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.533
p value : 0.939
i
-------
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'LogDryWt' 'Test ID'
Kruskal-Wallis Test
65 cases were used
1 cases contained missing values
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
OVERALL
H = 26.
H = 26.
NOBS
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
65
36 d.f.
39 d.f.
MEDIAN
-1.0630
-0.8239
-1.0969
-1.0809
-1.0706
-1.0555
-1.0223
-0.9586
-1.0862
-0.8761
-1.0862
-0.9355
-1.0506
-0.9830
-1.0605
-1.0315
-1.0362
-1.0362
-1.0555
-1.1079
-1.0315
-1.0605
= 21 p
= 21 p
AVE. RANK
28.0
62.7
20.7
19.3
33.3
37.0
37.8
42.5
14.5
49.7
21.3
41.2
35.5
48.0
30.7
29.8
33.0
32.7
38.5
7.5
28.0
32.7
33.0
= 0.197
Z VALUE
-0.38
2.78
-1.16
-1.28
0.03
0.38
0.45
0.89
-1.74
1.56
-1.09
0.77
0.23
1.41
-0.22
-0.30
0.00
-0.03
0.52
-2.39
-0.47
-0.03
= 0.195 (adjusted for ties)
* NOTE * One or more small samples
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (SAMPLES)
o
1 2
Emergent
Average: 0.318182
Std Dev: 0.636314
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9833
p value (approx): 0.0784
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
_ •
-, 1 1 1 — H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -25.1 19
p value : 1 .000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.573
p value : 0.91 5
10 20 30 40 50
-------
MTB > Oneway 'Emergent'
SUBO Dunnett 5 14.
'Test ID1
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
Test ID 21 8.318
Error 44 18.000
Total 65 26.318
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.
0.
Mean
0.3333
0.0000
0.3333
0.0000
0.3333
0.0000
.3333
.3333
0.3333
0.3333
1.6667
0.3333
0.0000
0.3333
0.3333
0.6667
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.3333
.3333
0.
0.
0.6667
Emergent
MS
0.396
0.409
StDev
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
0.5774
0.5774
1.5275
0.5774
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
1.1547
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5774
0.5774
1.1547
F
0.97 0.51
Individual 95%
Based on Pooled
—
— *
_ — *_
_
* —
— *
—
— _*
_
—
— *
P
6
CIs For Mean
StDev
J
\
)
J
\
;
J
< — - -*- >
\
>
i
)
\
i
\
i
i
— + +
Pooled StDev = 0.6396
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of Tesst ID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-1.5980
-1.9314
-1.5980
-1.9314
-1.5980
-1.9314
.5980
.5980
.5980
.5980
-0.2647
-1.5980
-1.9314
5980
1.2647
1.9314
9314
-1.9314
-1.5980
-1.5980
-1.2647
-1
-1
Center
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
1
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
.0000
.3333
.0000
.3333
.0000
.3333
.0000
,0000
,0000
.0000
,3333
,0000
,3333
,0000
,3333
,3333
.3333
.3333
,0000
,0000
0.3333
Upper +
1.5980 (
1.2647 (
1.5980 {
1.2647 (
1.5980 (
1.2647 (
1.5980 (
1.5980 (
1.5980 (
1.5980 (
2.9314
1.5980 (
1.2647 (
1.5980 (
1.9314 (
1.2647 (
1.2647 (
1.2647 (
1.5980 (
1.5980 (
1.9314 (
-1.2
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
( — — I
* )
___* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
* )
0.0 1.2 2.4
MT
-------
^AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)
.999
.99
£-.95 -
"0.50
.05 -
.01 -
.001
0.98
1.08 1.18 1-28 1.38
Survival
1.48
1.58
Average: 1.39348
StdDev: 0.174252
N of data: 56
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9963
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (W/O C. POLITA)(STATION
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
, 1 1 r~
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 6.699
p value : 0.349
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.356
p value : 0.251
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'A:\V3HANC-R.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from files A:\V3HANC-R.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 12/18/2000
MTB > %NormPlot 'Survival';
^TJRO SWTsSt *
SUBO Title -AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)'.
Executing from file: C:\MTBWIN\MACROS\NormPlot.MAC
Macro is running ... please wait
MTB > Oneway 'Survival1 'STANCODE';
SUBO Tukey 5.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
STANCODE
Error
Total
DF
6
49
55
SS
0.3157
1.3543
1.6700
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N
8
3
9
9
9
9
9
Mean
.3106
.2879
.4017
.3943
.3141
.5207
.4455
MS
0.0526
0.0276
StDev
0.1913
0.0994
0.1847
0.1729
0.2163
0.0994
0.1189
F
1.90
P
0.099
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
+ + +-
( * )
, * )
(-
Pooled StDev = 0.1662
1.20
( - —
"
1.35 1.50
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00343
Critical value =4.35
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
-0.3235
0.3689
-0.3396
0.1574
-0.3322
0.1648
-0.2520
0.2449
-0.4586
0.0384
-0.3834
0.1135
-0.4547
0.2271
-0.4473
0.2345
-0.3672
0.3147
-0.5737
0.1081
-0.4985
0.1833
-0.2337
0.2485
-0.1535
0.3286
-0.3600
0.1221
-0.2849
0.1972
-0.1609
0.3212
-0.3674
0.1147
-0.2923
0.1899
-0.4476
0.0345
-0.3724
0.1097
-0.1659
0.3162
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)
.999 -
.99
^.95
"p.50 -
^O -
.05 -
.01 -
.001
: :
I j .y
\^^\
1 • I !
- — •- -, - - -.
,iX^
f>^ :
\ \
\ \
i i
— i 1 —
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
DryWt
Average: 0.0938929
Std Dev: 0.0206033
N of data: 56
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9390
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
"AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)
.999 -
.99 -
.\95 -
"0.50 -
.05 -
.01 -
.001 -
-1.22
Average: -1.03660
Std Dev: 0.0883261
N of data: 56
1.12 -1.02
LogDryWt
-0.92
-0.82
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9683
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
1 1 1 1 1 r~
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 3.249
p value : 0.777
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.713
p value : 0.641
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'A:\V3HANC-R.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: A:\V3HANC-R.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 12/18/2000
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'LogDryWt' 'STANCODE'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OVERALL
H = 12.
H = 12.
NOBS
8
3
9
9
9
9
9
56
35 d.f.
36 d.f.
MEDIAN AVE.
,0580
,0809
,0506
,0555
,0862
,0706
,9355
RANK
27.9
18.5
33.3
28.4
19.7
22.6
42.4
28.5
Z VALUE
-0.12
-1.09
0.97
-0.02
-1.77
-1.19
2.80
=6 p = 0.056
=6 p = 0.055 (adjusted for ties)
* NOTE * One or more small samples
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (W/O C POLITA)(STATIONS)
.999 -
.99 -
^.95 -
•g-80 -
-° rn
O.50 -
£ on
.20 -
.05 -
.01 -
.001 -
: • ; :
I _ i_ ^^r^TT ^
' *^^^^^^^^ ' '
! ^-^^ \ I
r^" : i I
1 ' ' 1
! ' 1 !
. 1 — — 1
Average: 0.321429
Std Dev: 0.663521
N of data: 56
Emergent
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9819
p value (approx): 0.0923
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (W/O C POLITA)(STATN[
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
T~
0
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 9.149
p value : 0.103
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.127
p value : 0.361
-------
MTB > Oneway 'Emergent' 'STANCODE';
SUBO Tukey 5.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Emergent
Source
STANCODE
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DF
6
49
55
N
8
3
9
9
9
9
9
SS
2.937
21.278
24.214
Mean
2500
0.0000
0.2222
1111
7778
0.4444
0.2222
0
0.
0.
MS
0.489
0.434
StDev
0.7071
0.0000
0.4410
0.3333
1.0929
0.7265
0.4410
Pooled StDev = 0.6590
F
1.13
P
0.361
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
+__
-0.60 0.00 0.60 1.20
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00343
Critical value = 4.35
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
1234
-1.1222
1.6222
-0.9571
1.0127
-0.8460
1.1238
-1.5127
0.4571
-1.1794
0.7905
-0.9571
1.0127
,5735
,1291
,4624
,2402
-2.1291
0.5735
-1.7957
0.9068
-1.5735
1.1291
-0.8444
1.0666
-1.5111
0.3999
-1.1777
0.7333
-0.9555
0.9555
-1.6222
0.2888
-1.2888
0.6222
-1.0666
0.8444
-0.6222
1.2888
-0.3999
1.5111
-0.7333
1.1777
MTB
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
Average: 1.31762
Std Dev: 0.322542
N of data: 63
Survival
1.5
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9230
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL (STATIOI
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 32.981
p value : 0.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 2.678
p value : 0.023
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
-------
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'Survival1 'STANCODE'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OVERALL
H = 15.
H = 16.
NOBS
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
63
58 d.f.
96 d.f.
MEDIAN
1.249
1.173
1.345
1.345
1.249
1.571
1.345
= 6 p =
= 6 p =
AVE. RANK
24.2
17.2
35.7
33.4
27.4
46.4
39.6
32.0
0.017
Z VALUE
-1.37
-2.61
0.65
0.25
-0.81
2.55
1.35
0.010 (adjusted for ties)
M
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (STATIONS)
0.06
0.11
0.16
DryWt
Average: 0.0974032
StdDev: 0.0282114
N of data: 62
0.21
W-test for Normality
R: 0.8661
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT (STATIONS)
.999
.99 4
£".95
1.804
•8.50
.05 -
.01 -
.001
^
• - -
.s
-------
AMPHIPOD WEIGHT^(STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 8.703
p value : 0.191
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.542
p value : 0.774
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'A:\VM3HANC.MTW1.
Retrieving worksheet from file: A:\VM3HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 12/18/2000
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'LogDryWf 'STANCODE1.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
62 cases were used
1 cases contained missing values
AVE.
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OVERALL
NOBS
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
62
MEDIAN
-1.0555
-1.0580
-1.0506
-1.0555
-1.0862
-1.0706
-0.9355
RANK
33.2
32.1
35.3
30.2
20.4
23.9
45.4
Z VALUE
0.31
0.10
0.69
-0.24
-2 . 00
-1.36
2.50
H
H
10.87
10.89
31.5
d.f. =6 p = 0.094
d.f. =6 p = 0.093 (adjusted for ties)
MTB >
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (STATIONS)
.999 -
.99 -
^.95 -
-8-8U J
-° en
O.50 -
£ on
.20 -
.05 -
.01 -
.001 -
i ! ^_^_^<~r7\ 9 —
! I ^^-- — ~f^ ...;
: •^^*-^^^ : ;
! ^^^ \ \
*^ i !
; ; ; ;
; : ;
| i • ;
; ; 1 1
0
1 2
Emergent
Average: 0.317460
StdDev: 0.643213
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9828
p value (approx): 0.0795
-------
AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 — 1 i i
0123
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 16.185
p value : 0.013
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.126
p value : 0.359
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'A:\VM3HANC.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: A:\VM3HANC.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 12/18/2000
MTB > ANOVA 'Emergent' = C7 C9(C7).
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FIELDREP(STANCODE)
Tvp« Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for Emergent
Source DF SS MS F P
STANCODE 6 2.7619 0.4603 1.12 0.370
FIELDREP(STANCODE) 14 5.5556 0.3968 0.96 0.506
Error 42 17.3333 0.4127
Total 62 25.6508
MTB >
-------
DAY 2 HATCH (SAMPLES)
.999
.99
.g\95
I-80
"0.50
Q_
.20
.05
.01
.001
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3
HATCH-D2
Average: 0.0628
StdDev:0.136149
N of data: 66
0.4
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9985
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 2 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
•
•
•
•
•
*
- — *
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
L- 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-144.242
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.584
p value : 0.908
012345678
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on HATCH-D2
Source DF SS MS
TestID 21 0.3661 0.0174
Error 44 0.8388 0.0191
Total 65 1.2049
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
0.1073
0.0000
0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
0.1545
0.1073
0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
0.2145
0.0000
0.1545
0.1073
0.0000
0.2145
0.0000
0.0000
F
0.91
p
0.575
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Pooled StDev = 0.1381
StDev -+
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.0000 (
0.0000 (
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.0000 (
0.2677
0.1858
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.0000 (
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.2677
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.1858
0.0000 (
0.0000 (
-0.15
( * )
* — )
( * )
* )
* )
* )
( )
* )
* )
^ * )
( )
( * )
* )
* )
* )
( * )
( * )
* )
* )
* )
0.00 0.15 0.30
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-0
Lower
•0.2377
•0.3450
•0.2377
•0.3450
•0.3450
•0.3450
•0.2377
•0.3450
•0.3450
•0.1904
•0.2377
•0.2377
•0.3450
1305
•0.3450
•0.1904
•0.2377
•0.3450
•0.1305
•0.3450
•0.3450
Center
0.1073
0.0000
0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1073
0.0000
0.0000
0.1545
0.1073
0.1073
0.0000
0.2145
0.0000
0.1545
0.1073
0.0000
0.2145
0.0000
0.0000
Upper + + + "*•"
0.4522 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.4522 { * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.4522 { * >
0.3450 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.4995 ( * )
0.4522 ( * )
0.4522 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.5595 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.4995 ( * )
0.4522 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.5595 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
0.3450 ( * )
+ + + +--
-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50
MTB >
-------
DAY 3 HATCH~(SAMPLES)
Average: 0.8143
Std Dev: 0.325861
N of data: 66
0.5
1.0
HATCH-D3
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9827
p value (approx): 0.0688
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
Ml • • +
M *
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 1
0 10 20
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 2.285
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.360
p value : 0.993
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TestID 21 2.306
Error 44 4.597
Total 65 6.902
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pooled StDev =
Mean
0.9262
0.9399
0.6781
0.7854
0.6431
0.6431
0.6781
0.6994
0.8540
0.8378
1.3090
0.9750
0.9451
0.5973
0.7168
0.6980
0.6446
1.2230
0.6395
0.7854
0.9912
0.7045
0.3232
HATCH-D3
MS
0.110
0.104
StDev
0.6255
0.2860
0.2113
0.1007
0.2183
0.2183
0.1858
0.3429
0.3430
0.3600
0.4534
0.2825
0.5445
0.2439
0.2376
0.3258
0.1646
0.3067
0.3046
0.3218
0.0000
0.3931
F
1.05
P
0.430
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
I
(
{
0.40
-" ;
0.80 1.20
1.60
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Center
0.3289
0.3427
0.0809
0.18B1
0.0458
0.0458
0.0809
0.1021
0.2567
0.2405
0.7117
0.3777
0.3478
0.1195
0.1007
0.0473
0.6257
0.0422
0.1881
0.3939
0.1073
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.4786
-0.4649
-0.7267
-0.6194
-0.7617
-0.7617
-0.7267
-0.7054
-0.5508
-0.5670
-0.0958
-0.4299
-0.4598
-0.6880
-0.7069
-0.7602
-0.1818
-0.7653
-0.6194
-0.4137
-0.7003
Upper -
1.1365
1.1502
0.8884
0.9957
0.8534 (
0.8534 (
0.8884
0.9097
1.0642
1.0481
1.5192
,1852
,1553
0.9271
0.9082
0.8548 (
1.4333
0.8497 (
0.9957
1.2014
0.9148
1.
1.
( -
-0.60
0.00
0.60
;
1.20
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (SAMPLES)
.001
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D4
Average: 1.26365
Std Dev: 0.320204
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9973
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
•
*
M •
•
» •
• *
+
— . 1 ~ 1 ~ !
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -5.064
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.351
p value : 0.994
0
10
15
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TestID 21 2.6495
Error 44 4.0150
Total 65 6.6645
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
.2703
.4635
.2703
.5708
0.8926
1.
1.
1,
1,
1.
3090
1332
2017
3426
0.9399
.5708
.4635
.3090
.4635
.0085
1.3776
0.9561
1.4162
0.9612
1.3776
1.2617
1.2404
HATCH-D4
MS
0.1262
0.0912
StDev
0.2904
0.1858
0.2904
0.0000
0.2113
0.4534
0.5056
0.3948
0.3953
0.2860
0.0000
0.1858
0.2376
0.1858
0.2323
0.3347
0.0607
0.2677
0.1629
0.3347
0.2677
0.5722
F
1.38
P
0.180
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Pooled StDev = 0.3021
(
(
„ f
-
— — — J* — J
0.80 1-20 1.60
'
'
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.9479
-0.7547
-0.9479
-0.6475
-1.3256
-0.9093
-1.0851
-1.0165
-0.8757
-1.2783
-0.6475
-0.7547
-0.9093
-1.2097
-0.8407
-1.2621
-0.8020
-1.2570
-0.8407
-0.9566
-0.9779
Center
-0.1932
-0.0000
-0.1932
0.1073
-0.5709
-0.1545
-0.3304
-0.2618
-0.1210
-0.5236
0.1073
-0.0000
-0.1545
-0.4550
-0.0860
-0.5074
-0.0473
-0.5023
-0.0860
-0.2018
-0.2231
Upper
0.5615
0.7547
0.5615
0.8620
0.1838
0.6002
0.4243
0.4929
0.6337
0.2311
0.8620
0.7547
0.6002
0.2997
0.6688
0.2473
0.7074
0.2524
0.6688
0.5529
0.5316
-1.20
(
-0.60
0.00
,
0.60
MT
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (SAMPLES)
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D5
Average: 1.31885
Std Dev: 0.291451
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9976
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
** -*
1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -34.920
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.532
p value : 0.940
10
15
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on HATCH-OS
Source
TestID
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DF
21
44
65
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
SS
2.4295
3.0919
5.5214
Mean
,3563
.4635
,2703
,5708
,8926
,3776
,1332
,4162
.5708
.0808
.5708
.4635
.3090
.4635
.1880
.3776
0.9912
5708
0685
3776
2617
2404
MS
0.1157
0.0703
StDev
0.1858
0.1858
0.2904
0.0000
0.2113
3347
5056
2677
0000
1829
0000
1858
2376
1858
0.3494
0.3347
0.0000
0.0000
0.0670
3347
0
0.2677
0.5722
F
1.65
P
0.081
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(
Pooled StDev = 0.2651
/ ^f \
0.80 1.20 1-60
— I
+
2.00
-------
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.7696
-0.6623
-0.8555
-0.5551
-1.2332
-0.7483
-0.9927
-0.7096
-0.5551
-1.0451
-0.5551
-0.6623
-0.8169
-0.9378
-0.7483
-1.1347
-0.5551
-1.0574
-0.7483
-0.8642
-0.8854
Center
-0.1073
-0.0000
-0.1932
0.1073
-0.5709
-0.0860
-0.3304
-0.0473
0.1073
-0.3828
0.1073
-0.0000
-0.1545
-0.2755
-0.0860
-0.4724
0.1073
-0.3951
-0.0860
-0.2018
-0.2231
Upper + —
0.5551
0.6623
0.4691
0.7696
0.0914 (
0.5763
0.3319 ( —
0.6150
0.7696
0.2795 (
0.7696
0.6623
0.5078
0.3868 (-
0.5763
0.1899 (
0.7696
0.2672 (
0.5763
0.4605
0.4392 (
-1.00
( * )
( * )
/ * )
* )
( * )
* )
( : --,_
(- ~ ;
* )
( ~ , '
( * )
( * )
* )
( * )
* )
{ )
* )
( * )
( * )
* )
-0.50 0.00 0.50
MTB >
-------
DAY 6 HATCH"(SAMPLES)
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D6
Average: 1.32491
Std Dev: 0.287602
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9984
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
•
— *
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-37.173
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.545
p value : 0.933
10
15
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TestID 21 2.3713
Error 44 3.0052
Total 65 5.3765
Level N
1 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 3
6 3
7 3
8 3
9 3
10 3
11 3
12 3
13 3
14 3
15 3
16 3
17 3
18 3
19 3
20 3
21 3
22 3
Pooled StDev =
HATCH-D6
MS
0.1129
0.0683
Mean
3563
4635
2703
5708
0.8926
1.4162
1.1332
1.4162
1.5708
1.0808
1.5708
1.4635
1.3090
1.4635
1.1880
1.3776
0.9912
5708
1158
3776
3090
1.2404
0.2613
F
1.65
P
0.080
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
StDev
0.1858
0.1858
0.2904
0.0000
. 2113
0.2677
0.5056
0.2677
0.0000
0. 1829
0.0000
0.1858
0.2376
0.1858
0. 3494
0.3347
0.0000
0.0000
0. 1292
0.3347
0.2376
0. 5722
+ + + T
( '
*
(~ ~ )
_ * J
( '
_
_
1 _ *— — — — \
( 1
( >
( /
/ _ *__ „ X
< (' _* _
/ _ __* — — — \
(~ /
(- -* ;
0.70 1.05 1.40 1.75
-------
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.7602
-0.6530
-0.8462
-0.5457
-1.2239
-0.7003
-0.9833
-0.7003
-0.5457
-1.0357
-0.5457
-0.6530
-0.8075
-0.9285
-0.7389
-1.1253
-0.5457
-1.0007
-0.7389
-0.8075
-0.8761
Center
-0.1073
-0.0000
-0.1932
0.1073
-0.5709
-0.0473
-0.3304
-0.0473
0.1073
-0.3828
0.1073
-0.0000
-0.1545
-0.2755
-0.0860
-0.4724
0.1073
-0.3478
-0.0860
-0.1545
-0.2231
Upper +
0.5457
0.6530
0.4597 {-
0.7602
0.0821 (
0.6057
0.3226 (
0.6057
0.7602
0.2702 (
0.7602
0.6530
0.4984 (
0.3774 ( —
0.5670
0.1806 (
0. 7602
0.3052 (
0.5670
0.4984 I
0.4298 { —
/ * )
* )
( * )
* )
* )
( * )
[ * )
* )
* )
( * )
t '
+ + +
-1.00 -0.50
MTB >
-------
HATCHEED FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
.999
.99
^.95
I'80
"8.50
.20 -
.05
.01
.001
0.98
1.08 1.18 1.28 1.38
HATCHSRV
1.48
1.58
Average: 1.43433
StdDev: 0.180746
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9766
p value (approx): 0.0261
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
_ n
•
•
-•
•*
•
— . •
L-| i ii i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-19.688
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.151
p value : 1.000
0123456789
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TestID 21 0.3393
Error 44 1.7841
Total 65 2.1235
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
.3503
.2644
.5708
.4635
.4503
.4503
.4576
.4635
.4635
.4576
.4162
.3563
.3503
.3030
.4635
.4635
.5708
.4635
.4415
.4635
1.4073
1.4635
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1,
1.
1,
1,
1,
1.
1,
1,
1.
1.
1,
1,
1,
HATCHSRV
MS
0.0162
0.0405
StDev
0.1911
0.2912
0.0000
0.1858
0.2086
0.2086
0.1961
0.1858
0.1858
0.1961
0.2677
0.1858
0.1911
0.2400
,1858
,1858
0.0000
0.1858
.2239
,1858
0.2833
0.1858
0.
0.
0.
0.
F
0.40
p
0.987
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
•)
v
{
(
(
(
( —
(
l4*
;
_ X
1
\
Pooled StDev = 0.2014
(
(
{
(
{ - -
( — -
{ — -
( —
1.25
— j
1.50
V
/
1
\
1
\
1
1
1.75
-------
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.4558
-0.5418
-0.2353
-0.3426
-0.3558
-0.3558
-0.3486
-0.3426
-0.3426
-0.3486
-0.3899
-0.4498
-0.4558
-0.3426
-0.3426
-0.2353
-0.3426
-0.3646
-0.3426
-0.3989
-0.3426
Centtjr
0.0473
-0.0387
0.2678
0.1605
0.1473
0.1473
0.1545
0.1605
0.1605
0.1545
0.1132
0.0533
0.0473
0.1605
0.1605
0.2678
0.1605
0.1385
0.1605
0.1042
0.1605
Upper + + + T
0.5504 ( * )
0.4644 ( * )
0 . 7709 ( * )
0.6636 ( * )
0 . 6504 ( * )
0 . 6504 ( * )
0.6577 ( * )
0. 6636 ( * )
0. 6636 ( * )
0.6577 ( * )
0 . 6163 ( * )
0. 5564 ( * )
0. 5504 { * )
0.6636 ( * )
0.6636 ( * >
0.7709 ( * )
0.6636 { * )
0.6416 ( * )
0.6636 ( * )
0.6073 ( * )
0.6636 ( * )
-0.35 -0.00 0.35 0.70
MTB
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
.001 -
0.6
1.1
TOTSURV
Average: 1.22166
Std Dev: 0.266200
N of data: 66
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9899
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (SAMPLES)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Ml *
*
^r i i
0 5 10 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -5.326
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.579
p value : 0.911
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on
Source DF SS
TestID 21 1.6483
Error 44 2.9578
Total 65 4.6061
Level N
1 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 3
6 3
7 3
8 3
9 3
10 3
11 3
12 3
13 3
14 3
15 3
16 3
17 3
18 3
19 3
20 3
21 3
22 3
Pooled StDev =
Mean
1.2017
1.2230
1.2703
1.4635
0.8540
1.3776
1.0859
1.3090
1.4635
.0335
.4162
.2490
.1544
1.2617
1.0808
1.2703
0.9912
1.4635
1.0808
1.2703
1.2230
1.1332
0.2593
0.
0.
TOTSURV
MS
0.0785
0.0672
StDev
0.0819
0.3067
0.2904
.1858
.1557
0.3347
0.4959
0.2376
0.1858
0.1276
0.2677
0.0000
0.0819
0.2677
0.1829
0.2904
0.0000
0.1858
0.1829
0.2904
0.3067
0.5056
F
1.17
p
0.324
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
+ + +—
i —__*
-•i—
(•
I
;
(
/
;
_* j
)
Vf
0.70
(- - - 1
( f
1.05 1.40
1.75
-------
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00381
Critical value = 3.06
Control = level 14 of TestID
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lower
-0.7077
-0.6865
-0.6392
-0.4459
-1.0555
-0.5319
-0.8236
-0.6005
-0.4459
-0.8760
-0.4932
-0.6604
-0.7550
-0.8287
-0.6392
-0.9183
-0.4459
-0.8287
-0.6392
-0.6865
-0.7763
Center
-0.0600
-0.0387
0.0086
0.2018
-0.4077
0.1159
-0.1758
0.0473
0.2018
-0.2282
0.1545
-0.0127
-0.1073
-0.1809
0.0086
-0.2705
0.2018
-0.1809
0.0086
-0.0387
-0.1285
Upper — + + +
0.5878 ( *
0.6091 ( *
0.6564 ( *
0.8496 ( * •
0.2401 ( * >
0.7637 ( *
0.4720 ( *
0.6951 ( *
0.8496 ( *—
0.4195 ( *
0.8023 ( *
0.6351 < *
0.5405 ( *
0.4668 ( *
0.6564 ( *
0.3772 ( *
0.8496 ( *"
0.4668 ( *
0.6564 ( *
0.6091 ( *
0.5193 ( *
-1.00 -0.50 0.00
+
)
)
)
)
)
)
")
)
)
)
)
)
--)
)
)
)
)
)
0.50
MT
-------
DAY 2 HATCH (STATIONS)
.001 -
0.0
0.1
0.2 0.3
HATCH-D2
Average: 0.0657905
StdDev: 0.138685
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9983
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 2 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
i 1 1 1 i r
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-39.131
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.595
p value : 0.733
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCH-D2
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.07144
0.28230
0.83875
1.19248
MS
0.01191
0.02016
0.01997
F
0.60
1.01
P
0.732
0.462
M
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (STATIONS)
Average: 0.824634
StdDev: 0.327135
N of data: 63
0.5
1.0
HATCH-D3
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9824
p value (approx): 0.0742
-------
DAY 3 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals; for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 5.880
p value : 0.437
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.625
p value : 0.709
0.0
0.5
1.0
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCH-D3
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.3781
1.7794
4.4776
6.6351
MS
0.0630
0.1271
0.1066
F
0.59
1.19
P
0.736
0.316
MTB >
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (STATIONS)
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D4
Average: 1.25413
Std Dev: 0.323037
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9965
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 4 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 2.692
p value : 0.846
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.257
p value : 0.954
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCH-D4
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.57410
1.94981
3.94597
6.46989
MS
0.09568
0.13927
0.09395
F
1.02
1.48
P
0.427
0.160
MT
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (STATIONS)
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D5
Average: 1.31196
Std Dev: 0.294754
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9971
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 5 HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
1
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i i r
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
6
Bartletf s Test
Test Statistic: 4.525
p value : 0.606
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.362
p value : 0.900
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCH-D5
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.53643
1.82726
3.02285
5.38654
MS
0.08940
0.13052
0.07197
F
1.24
1.81
P
0.305
0.069
M
-------
DAY 6 HATCH (STATIONS)
-g.804
•§.50 -
0.6
1.1
HATCH-D6
Average: 1.31831
Std Dev: 0.290912
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9983
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
DAY 6~HATCH (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
i—i—i—i—i—i—i i i r
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 4.318
p value : 0.634
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.369
p value : 0.896
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCH-D6
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.52804
1.78288
2.93614
5.24705
MS
0.08801
0.12735
0.06991
F
1.26
1.82
P
0.297
0.067
M
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
0.98
1.08 1.18 1.28 1.38
HATCHSRV
1.48
1.58
Average: 1.44058
StdDev: 0.177531
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9768
p value (approx): 0.0318
-------
HATCHED FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 2.240
p value : 0.896
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.526
p value : 0.786
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for HATCHSRV
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.13544
0.14971
1.66891
1.95407
MS
0.02257
0.01069
0.03974
F
0.57
0.27
P
0.753
0.995
MT
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
0.6
1.1
TOTSURV
Average: 1.21976
StdDev: 0.268139
N of data: 63
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9913
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
TOTAL FISH SURVIVAL (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels;
i r
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 5.172
p value : 0.522
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.593
p value : 0.735
-------
Analysis of Variance (Balanced Designs)
Factor
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Type Levels Values
fixed 7123
fixed 3123
Analysis of Variance for TOTSURV
Source
STANCODE
FieldRep(STANCODE)
Error
Total
DF
6
14
42
62
SS
0.32749
1.31575
2.81448
4.45772
MS
0.05458
0.09398
0.06701
F
0.81
1.40
P
0.565
0.195
MTB >
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS BASELINE TEST INFO - 10-DAY FW SEDIMENT TESTS
Species:_
M.
TEST ORGANISMS
Source: C IL~
AgeAife stage
Acclimation Water Type:_
Cwy. -o i ,
Hardness: -jg / OO Acclimation Temperature:_£i3 _ Acclimation Ptiotoperiod /-4 ,'
7
9 9
Chamber Size: 300 nH _ 1000ml 1X37000 ml _ Othar
TEST DESIGN
Sediment Volume (ml)
Water Volume (ml)
Initial No. Onjanisms per Replicate: 7D No. Reoliates: 3 Photoperiocl J±_L_S_° Randomaation Template No.
Dat^ime Sedment & Water AHH.* IO>(^f./ftO
Sct-un Bv Mnilialsl: fi> / (H? / f^ »1 Nntes:
TEST SET UP
.^ Oat^ime Animals Added:
Stem Thermometer No._6l___
DO Meter* 1ISNE8014475
YSI DO Meter # 2 (SN91 A026329)
INSTRUMENTATION
SP PortapH2 Meter (852360)
Coming 240 pH Meter (SN526B)
Llr^Diqisensa pH Meter (D9500563)
Sirtonus R1 BOP Balance (40020093)
Y3I SCT 33 Mater (H801 6792)
S|Brtan ATC Ref ractometer |A366)
NOTES:
A
As Quality Assurance Officer for this test I certify that no significant derations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspietions (unless otherwise noted below) and
that the data accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
Signature
File: STF006A
CBI TEST ID: I/ ( /M
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STT007A CBI TEST ID: \] v
-J1/4
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
OAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY?
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
22k
. 9
i^A
3-3
03. /
93.?
93.0,
33.
2-3.2
03. y
-7
070
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
MA
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
as./
ZL1
- A
9-5.3
a
13 M
3-3- C,
»3
13-1
13 h
11.}
ii.l
H
93
3-
3J.3
35,
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
7.3
9.3
P
u
?
i\
-ar.y
IV
-6 U
T.3
"Jr.,
SLo.
13
*"
)5
IV
T.3
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
Po
po
3
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \fi/w^Qoc;5
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
DAYO
DAY'I
DAY 2
DAYS
DAY 4
DAYS
DAY 6
DAY 7
DAYS
DAY 9
DAY 10
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
93
vs
IP
V
, a
93.2
to/
93.
8.M
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
n
(mg/l)
U
P.?
r./
SC-T
*,
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
ntoQ-3 J//X
rest-
ment
M
n/
0
Repl.
No.
TIME
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
O
0
n
o
0
D
fr
Day 2
0
D
0
D
0
0
D
Day 3
Cs
0
D
0
A
0
•0
0
D
ci
6
t/9
Day 4
Ci
r,
c
0
DayS
Ci
o
Ci
Day 6
Ci
0
D
0
D
D
0
Day?
6
6
6
Ci
6
Cj
0
DayS
O
0
o
H.
O
o
o_
D
Mo
Day9
0
o
O
D
D
o
o_
_Q_
0
•o
SMD
2 l.v
DaylO
LIVE
0-0
i?
n
I
JLto
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and < live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID: (A,v4
M A
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
Day 8
DayS
DaylO
LIVE
n
©
V
D
0
O
ft
9
u
0
0
6
0
to.
0
o
D
0
to
0
0
0
e?
0
O
b
D
0
fl
n-
£3
0
CD
D
6
O
0
6
0
0
0
0
/,
o
0
ft
D
o
o
0
.6
O
0
e?
6
D
f
D
d
b
0,
0
D
0
0
Ci
0
0
o
A.
O
D
0
O
O
O
tf
0
D
Q
b
o
0
0
0
D
0
D
D
0
TIME
INITIALS
o
T
E
S
pp
c-/
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day3
Day 4
DayS
DayG
Day?
DayS
Day 9
Day 10
LIVE
tl
6
0
O
O
0
D
Ci
Ci
a
Q
O
0
A
o
n
K
fc
0
0
o
OpC
D
D
0
n
V
0
f\
6
J^.
o
o
D
G
o
Jlo
o
0
u
ft
0
0
O-o
V
o
0
a
0
D
0
C?
O
Q.f
D
0
o
0
0
0
0
G
D
0
D
0
\
0
0
D
C)
0
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
I C.
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1 -9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STFO()2C CBI TEST ID: U(,ye>3
reat-
ment
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
DayB
DayS
DaylO
LIVE
0
0
.&.
6
O
Ci
.Q.
Us.
1
0
0
Ci
6
0
o
0
Ci
0
o
o
0
0
Cs
0
0
Ci
0
O
0
0
O
6
D
0
0
lo
13
0
6
0
O
O
0
2.0
D
0
Q
0
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
DO
lA l>
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
DayB
DayS
DaylO
UVE
O
0
0
C7
O
0
O
5L"
D
0
C?
0
O
TIME
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
fo
Note: Numbers indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST File:STFO()8B CBI TEST ID:
Qvo3>
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
CP
3.
CP
n
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST File:STF008B CB1 TEST ID: V) (
Treat-
merit
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
Mean Wt.
l\
33
S.ZO
0-6^2.
r
iv
3V
3?
X/l.
4.7?
I.We
57
m
3*
4.
/0
52
O,\T-S
15
37
$3
29
n
3?
lo
n
n
S7
O-o
77
9-yu
YV
//
7O-
£L
Jl
A03
62
O.
t
V
1.4&
0-023
TAREWT.: DATE
INITIALS:
TOTAL WT.: DATE »V<\(c>j INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
I?P CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
0
T
E
S
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) SEDIMENT TEST File:STF008B CBI TEST ID: U I <** OOc?3 M(V
real-
merit
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
(*<>
7.52
\
i/
7.3V
S.-73
\
\
\
X
\
\
TAREWT.:DATE_
TOTAL WT.: DATE
INITIALS:
INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):_
_ CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
N
0
T
E
S
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Test Day O Date
TEST D) Ulf^f
Initials
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-Repl. No.
pH
Conductivity
!"»"•'
Tot. NH3
'"""I
Hardness
(narl)
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
ff.d /
/(•a
to.
r
ny
f
JLS-
n
V/7-
/V3
J±L
7-5-5-
5.63
11
v/
H
Test DZLV /O Date 1 1 /(a
TEST ID V;
Initials
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS BASELINE TEST INFO - 10-DAY FW SEDIMENT TESTS
TEST ORGANISMS
Source:
Feeding:
Acclimation Water Type:_
Notes:
Hardness:
Acclimation Temperature: tf*>5 ^Acclimation Photoperiod_
Water Volume Ml
TEST DESIGN
Chanter Size: 300 ml 1000 ml tX37000 ml Other Sediment Volume (ml)_
Initial No. Organisms par Radicate: /O No. Replicates: 3 Phot0pBriodj4_L:^_D Randomization Template No,
°
TEST SET UP
.»Kul ova ID* -^0* Dat^ime Animals Adds*
Set^in Bvllnitialsl: Po((Y
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File.STF007A CBI TEST ID:
0^3
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(ma/I
reat-
ment
v|
REPL.NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
*,
Po
DAY 2
DAY 3
2.43
240
24-3
24-0
24£.
Sr-o
DAY 4
T 6
•7-7
7.6
1-4
DAYS
Ho
. A
1.7
fc.8
1-b
-7.5
DAY 6
H5
3A.
Jjfl_
TflT
4
DAY?
M-o
24.3
2.4-6
n.t,
1-1
DAYS
l.t
1.
1.5
1.5"
9-0
1.7
DAY 9
&A.
244
246
243
DAY 10
2M-
Z4-4
24-7
2ik
'-L.L.
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \lttt*
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
( {,
W
^
IX*
n 3
M.S'
^ .7
H>3
2T>
fr.(
*,^
^(^
fr.t
jr>
ir.i
4— t-
y.x
^
fl>
DAY 2
^M.H
a.'T.b
^V.i
^V,Y
a-v.r
ar.^
av.s^
ay.^r
*.i
^.^
1r-|
v.^
T.A
rj
T.^
*i
/
Cr/^
DAY 3
2<\>\
24 3
V40
24-o
2.H.3
^4-0
24,.'
^-0
f.D
«.|
«.o
«,0
-7.4
f.o
I*
S.o
i
Mti
DAY 4
242
?m
24^
24.4
2A.4
Ml
24-7
2.4. -7
"7-5
7.g
Tfe
1.5
7 to
-7-2_
7-5
^4
a
^
DAYS
245
24-4
Ho
24- s
2H-^
24- s
^1
24^
1-U
7-7
7-2
"J.s
IP.U
7-2
•U
")«
3
MV|
DAYS
24-3
24-1
244
745
24,5
24.T
24-5
244
T1
^,6
18
1.^
1?
n^
1-8
7- b
?
u^
DAY?
243
2i5
24-4
243
24.3
24-^
•He?
*U
7.3
T-?
1:5
1-5
•7.5
7-9
7 ^
7-1
1
N^
DAYS
a^. (0
JM.7
<^M,3
AH. 7
^H.7
24. S
^•S
^4.(^
^>
«.(7
I q
re.
v,,H
1.7
1. «,
-7-7
5
S1^
DAYS
24r<4
2<5
24-5
24-4
2i|
24-6
24.3
24.4
S.o
?-0
^^
7-^
1- y
i-?
~L°i
i-A
z
M//
DAY 10
M~Z
Mt
24, I
Z<3
24- Z
24 -a
24-3
24-2
7.r
T.S
~ln
~L?
1,7
7-9
^
1-1
\
wri
N
0
T
E
S
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: \J\t»<
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
D
I
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(rng/l)
Treat-
ment
1/0
I/I
n
v\
in/
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
•by.Y
DAY 2
DAYS
!.*»
ff.o
T.5
MM
DAY 4
Hi
T-5
7-b
DAYS
1-6
(lA.
M*
DAY 6
tMr
DAY 7
24-0
245
243
1,3
1-3
MiV
DAYS
5
DAY 9
24-6
24.3
24-5
24 i
DAY 10
24^s
24.6
- Z
~?j?
MR
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID:
/*
ara-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
ment
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
2/21
DAY 2
?.tl
DAY 3
1.11
7-
543
3io
-4M
72o
30
DAY 4
-7.9-0
1.92
-7-S3
Tfro
S.Ofc.
30?
430
313
OZ1
-Mo
DAYS
713
l.frtf
304
MM
DAY 6
-t-«l
7-To
323
M-tf
DAY?
-Mi
7.71
1-8-2
3? 3
326
DAYS
T7O
357
40*8
33*5
DAY 9
7-78
•7-7*1
7-74
343
3\°\
303
344
DAY 10
7.33
in*
325
42.
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID: (Jtmf
ara-
meter
P
H
JS.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/c
reat-
ment
(\
h
ll
IV
13
m
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
7-7-1
7.11
ML
2/U
DAY 2
DAYS
7.U3
1-US
. OK
-M4
2(03
342
4-75
DAY 4
"I.fl
-7-73
•7A\
32o
2*71
DAYS
1.11.
283
2-70
DAY 6
T-frl
1V7
211
3ocl
36 u,
DAY?
-7 HO
1-1 »
l-S-3
l.lt
1-T2
327
33°l
DAYS
.1 a
350
SMO
DAYS
7-4*
2*1
2-7 2.
331
551
DAY 10
7-1-2
213-
3V7
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CB1 TEST ID. l/)/K/ QPC»3
ara-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
ment
H
li
u
IV
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
DAY1
7.
fP
DAY 2
1.1*3
DAYS
Lib
I- S3
£.02
442
552
Mtt
DAY 4
1-8S
3T5
21 1
DAYS
7-08
35
2*4
Mfr
DAY 6
321
21&
DAY?
Tfr!
DAY 8
SMp
DAYS
7-57
3U
3So
DAY 10
7.^7
164
17Z
3 KB
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
Qt>03
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
img/ij
reat-
ment
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
24. t,
746
24-7
241
8,2
ff.Z
DAY1
if.
M.fc
71
DAY 2
T-D
T.
DAYS
24.0
. \
1 -t>
7-9
DAY 4
•24.3
-7
(AvX
DAYS
is
DAY 6
24 D
24-1
24-D
T-l
1-2
DAY 7
24.1
24.6
<>
"J-b
7.5
DAYS
1.6
1.7
DAYS
ZM.
24,
24.6
1-7
TL4
2
7-C,
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID:
Para.
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
{C!
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/ii
Treat-
ment
P
M
(v
{3
K
Ib
REPL.NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
245
24
24 b
S-2
ff.z
3.2
DAY1
7-K
DAY 2
. T
Y./
DAY 3
2*1.0
241
.1
24.0
24-0
*•/
*.»
vvtf
DAY 4
24^3
- >,
DAYS
24.2
T-T
MVV
DAYS
M-I?
247?
24-0
24-1
T2.
TD
"7-Z.
.7-0
DAY 7
M-Z-
24-0
24 U
21 o
24-1
1-3
7-7
DAYS
DAY 9
24-
24-b
lA
TZ
1-5
TJC,
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007A CBI TEST ID: yj\v*&3
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CB1 TEST ID:
QC>OJ>
ara-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
I
V
T
Y
(uS/cm
reat-
ment
1
V
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
5it>
742
342
to
DAY1
-7.6?
DAY 2
DAY 3
TIT)
Z3.5
Sol
3oi
DAY 4
T-ll
2^2,
DAYS
-7.66
-7^-7
29?
DAY 6
-757
iii
TSfe
5fa
7 -38*
531
35 \
3o$_
DAY 7
7 1*1
7-53
-7 -.41
1-47
-7-S7
33Z
38-1
DAYS
1. Hi
337
3H
DAY 9
7-57
7-
-7-SS
1-3Z
2^1
DAY 10
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST File:STF007B CBI TEST ID:
OD6j>
ara-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
M
T
Y
[uS/cm
reat-
ment
IV
lb
K
13
K
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
"7-83
1.S1
241
•ZSO
1*2-1
245
Viift
DAY1
1*1,
I HI
DAY 2
0
DAY 3
3SI
2.13
DAY 4
1.1 A
-1.1 U
•7.6,0
7.6,7.
348-
Z7I
MJf
DAYS
1^4*7
1-T2-
1-Sb
7.43
Z7D
Mtf
DAY 6
1-35
1-65
1-Z3
7 52
3 it
JZL
MH
DAY 7
7,45
7-46
1AL
7-4-2-
373
3o5
DAYS
SH3
3H5
A
DAY 9
DAY 10
7.3?
7.4o
7-Z/7
341
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY FW SEDIMENT TEST Filc:STF007B CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
P
H
(S.U.)
C
0
N
D
U
C
T
I
V
T
Y
(uS/cm)
reat-
ment
n
it
u
n
IP
v\
IV
REPL. NO
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
DAYO
•7.14
"7.72
7.7^
5o7
2.74
DAY1
-?*
in*
ro
DAY 2
a
IP
DAYS
1 65
7.55
270
IA.V-V
DAY 4
-757
1.91
7-7^
335
275
Mr*
DAY 5
Tfcl
- "7
340
•2*1
/via
DAY 6
1--5I
7-35
7-5 i
2ft
^34?
NlH
DAY?
7-43
333
Vlt
DAYS
an
30.
Sco
DAYS
-*•&.
1-34
zn
DAY 10
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID: v /
reat-
ment
(6
n
•
lu
Repl.
No.
INITIALS
N
0*
T
E
S
Day1
JL£.
(0
/oe
40<
lofc
fo
Day 2
fp/
be
(DA
t/1
Day 3
(Of
lot
lof
|»00
Day 4
/Of
/of
le
/Of
/Of
/of
DayS
le V
Jd£
/or
-SL
/ol
/Of
Day 6
/of
/Of
left
sot-
/of
/of-
/of
/of
rtti
Day?
1-f
Sf
/of
Day 8
HP
df
3f
10?
S/HO
DayS
/of
If
/of
/ot
/of
DaylO
LIVE
9-P
SP
1-f
74:
/of
<=)£
/££_
^Mi/g
/ /
ftrffl (J^iCc
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molt* in parantheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID: V / rvx < OSQj
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
DayS
Day 9
Day 10
LIVE
a
fog
Ve
If
1-P
7P
TT
10
lOf
lOf
sot
/OP
I
if
n
Sf
•mar
It
1C
/of
/of
/of
/of
/of
H
/of
/of
/of
/of
5-e.V-A
5,
H-F
i*-
/of
8-F
lot
/of
/ot
• 'TIME
INITIALS
\toc
0
T
E
S
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID:
reat-
ment
II
IV
0
TAJ
M
LV
Repl.
No.
f-
TIME:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
lo
Itofr
fo &
10
/O
tofe
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
ib-t-
wo
DayS
4flL
10?
JLaL
Day 6 Day 7 Day 8
.Z&L
10L
/Of
M£-
10$
/Of
1103
7-P
Uutf
J0f_
_/2£_
/of
/asc
iof
DayS
_2£_
UP
JO£.
DaylO
UVE
2£-
1-p
JcL
/of
l&L
Note: Numberi indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and # live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in paranthese* (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C
CBI TEST ID: \Ji/v><
reat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6 Day? DayS DayS
DaylO
LIVE
be
(0 £
/Of
^Lrl
loL
teL
It
fe
lof_
/Of
/of
1&L
Jet.
n
te-t-
/of
M>L
Ib?
/of
lof_
it
to
It,
leW
M
(ofc
lo
rpA
tot
10?
n
It
/of
U2L_
lot
j£L
V
<
\0
le.
If
JLL
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
/i 00
\\,Qc
uoo
Note: Humbert indicate # observed dead days 1-9 and f live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
SURVIVAL - 10-DAY SEDIMENT TEST File:STF002C CBI TEST ID: 0\f\<
reat-
ment
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day?
DayS
DayS
DaylO
LIVE
IP
\l
[oL
X
•S
TIME:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
fiOO
/UK
SMO
Note: Numbers indicate* observed dead days 1-9 and# live retrieved day 10. Note emmergent amphipods and molts in parentheses (e.g. E2 or M4)
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Treatment I.D.-Repl. No.
PH
m
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Tot. NH3
(mg/l)
Hardness
mo/I
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
i
/.V
it
f .0
Test Day O Date (of^/QJ Initials Cj/>
TEST ID ^
-------
"TOTAL WATER QUALITY" - FW (DAY I/DAY 10)
(File:STF014A)
Test Day ] .
TEST ]P
Date ul W
frcol>
Initials C'fc
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. 96-H ACUTE STATIC REFTEST
(Form STF003A 3/1/97)
jlTJTki
Control
*»1
3£H
MV
6ff=»
7P
I.O.
C-1
C-2
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
Observer
Time:
Dayl
#|jve
(0
i £
( D
,6
10
^
/O
iC<
tt>
/ D
3
o
C.F>
131) p
Day 2
#Live
10
(0
tt>
10
l<9
10
/P
1
>
1
JL
0
£./3
fia £
Day 3
#Live
10
16
i 0
m
,0
/D
V
v
f
3
O
6
t/B
/3/0
Day 4
tfLrve
»0
to
|0
/o
f/;
/u
^
~G
,OD
35
10
-6
Species:_
Acclimation water tv»: I/ : C
Source:
Arriwl *"" (non-CBI)
Acclimation temperature Iranqel *2- -S
Feeding prior to t«t;
Feeding during test:
Salinity IflTkg)
to
Hardness |mg^)
Other:.
Chamber size: 300 ml ^| 500 ml Q 1000 ml Q Other:
Test volume: 200 ml ^ 250 ml Q 500ml
Initial no. organisms per replicate: I O _ No. replicates:
Photoperiod: 16L8D\^X Other
SETUP: Date
Randomization Template Number:
Time Animals Added //3O
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
Time Water Added |?
Set Up By
ml
ml
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
Stem Thermometer Number: ^ \ D SP PortapH2 Meter (852360) D Sartorius R160P Balance (40020093
D YSI D 0 Meter # 1 (SNE8014475) Q YSI D.O. Meter # 2 (SN91 A026329) U Spartan ATC Refractometer (A366)
Q CP Digisense PH Meter (D9500563) D Corning 240 PH Meter (SN5268) D YSI SCT 33 Meter (H8016792)
n»i»r
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. 96-H ACUTE STATIC REF TEST
(Form STF003A 3/1/97)
T
E
M
P
DayO
D 3
Dayl
DayZ
Day 3
Day 4
23. sr
D3
}.?s-
D.O.
(moyi)
Replicate*
above meas.
Initials:
Uz.
f,U
:Lk
ik
S.lo
IS-*?
il
y.s-
f -V
S'.V
NOTES
Quality Assurance:
As Quality Assurance officer for this test I certify that no significant
deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections
(unless otherwise noted below) and that the data accurately reflect the
test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments
Signitfre
TESTI.D.
-------
EPA PROSIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
HAART
Cone.
307.0000
384.0000
480.0000
600.0000
750.0000
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
Number
Resp.
0
0
13
18
20
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.0000
0.0000
0.6500
0.9000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0000
0.0000
0.6500
0.9000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
3.974
7.815
HAART
Point
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
349.953
478.728
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
285.376
450.344
386.359
508.904
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. NPDES ACUTE KEFERENCWPimephales promelas (Form PPART)
DavO
Dayl Day 2
(mg/1) to
Control
515
735
1050
1500
2143
I.D.
C-1
C-2
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
Observer
Time:
Soecies:
Hatch date/time:
#Live
/0
/
/O
/O
9
9
/o
' 8
$
0
0
1305
M*
*Live
I 0
/C
f0
1 6
^
cf
^f
3
f
O
6
£
i3>'s~r
t/»i
Survival
i '-^
,00
(7o
35
r,
0
Pimeohales promelas Source: C C
/of 3 £?l bo /hbb to H~O.J /WrJSK /K
|
W. Acclimation water SFJ
Acclimation Temp, (range):
Feeding prior to test A
Feeding during test Not fe
Chamber size: 500 ml
Test Volume: 250ml C
Initial no. animals per replii
Photoperiod: 16L8D Kj
r
SETUP' Date \(j)^
Time Animals
V Other
O. C5" to 3 Ca
rtemii t^^\ /(l oth'r
d 0 Other
D 1000ml P3
1 500 ml (3
ate /A No.
Other Ri
8000ml D Other ml
4000 ml D Other. ml
replicates &(
ndomization template no.: \o
r> o Time Water Added Wl 0
MA,d UlOO SetlloBv Wu\
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
Stem Thermometer Number. f\-\
D YSI D.O. Meter* 1 (SNE8014475) S YSI 0.0. Meter* 2 (SN91A026329)
E3 CP Digbense pH Meter (09500563) D Coding 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
D Sartorius R160P Balance (40020093) D SP PortapHZ Meter (8523601
D YSI SCT 33 Meter (H8016792) I^Horiba Conductivity Meter (51 1001)
kther
1
T
E
M
P
PH
D.O.
(ng/l)
C
0
N
D
Replic
above n
Init
NOTES:
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
ate*
lals:
24 6
24 2
2^1 "2^
24 t
. ^
1 "7*J
-I frl
' - ° ' —
.,
"7 *"?
ft 7
° • f-
^.-z
% . 2-
£.2
2-70
llSfc,
1553
.2(00
^s-^o
3^40
,
(WH
143
^4 o
^4 0
24 o
£4.c?
l *4
-J 25
^A -• ^
* 0 '
"^ ^i*'*l
T «?
§• o
1 «*
1.^
n.*>
1.1
f/A
v
?,7,5G
Z
rAvV
.^y t
^5 iy o
3. Y.3^
7 5-3
?.3£
^ ^
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
PPART
Cone.
515.0000
735.0000
1050.0000
1500.0000
2143.0000
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
Number
Resp.
0
2
13
19
20
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.0000
0.1000
0.6500
0.9500
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0000
0.1000
0.6500
0.9500
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
0.329
7.815
PPART
Point
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
570.223
981.273
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
408.766
887.016
673.432
1035.654
-------
(File STFO 13A)
CBI TEST ID Viry\$ OQQ3
SEDIMENT-TREATMENT I.D. ASSIGNMENT:
SEDIMENT I.D. TREATMENT I.D.
\/
7V.
Ln. 33
41- ^3
a b rWro I
^/ 7-
-7.3 13
3
-
2.
"S
<7
ASSIGNED BY:
DATE:
-------
(FileSTF013A)
CBI TEST ID \J (
SEDIMENT-TREATMENT LD. ASSIGNMENT:
SEDIMENT I D.
TREATMENT ID
ASSIGNED BY:
DATE:
DO
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(rev. 8/1/00)
TEST
Sediment LD.
2
^irrival"
Sediment
IndigenoHS Organisms
I mm sieve
0,5 mm sieve
ft.25 mm sieve
Pore
Pore
water
'
Fbre
Salinity
U
f
u
£v
r
Q
S^L
/I
1
* f^'i, (4jJ\,
It*
2.'
**>
i.r
I-L
1
Bate/Initials: ,"
Note: See separate work sheet for percent water. TOC and grainsizc analyses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indigenous
organisms)
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (cstuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should be checked on arrival.
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
(rev. 8/1/00)
TEST I.D. \J( /Y\<
Sediment L1K
Arrival
--.;, Sediment
Indigenous Organisms ' ^ /-'
, (note type if present),,, , ' ., '
1 mm sieve £: ^-0.5 ana .sieve '...'.' O.lSmni sieve
Pore
Pore
water -
Pore
W*ter
Salinitj
u
H
•2.
*/
l.u
Ix PZ-
•z
•r
^L
\
Date/Initials:
Note: See separate work sheet for percent water. TOC and grainsizc analyses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indigenous
organisms)
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (cstuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should be checked on arrival.
-------
FORM STF009B SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
TEST I.D. U I
(rev. 8/1/00)
,, Sediment tH. /;;
U\6 C ft^UL
Date/Initials:/
Ar rival'
m
y$£i
f^J
/A^,*^*^
-
$;;Y#/i,y/W
- _ / ^; ' 1
^ ' ^ ' it •: ^^^^^-1 '
',' , ''
[ndigenoBS Organisms
(note type if present)
-, 0.5 mm sieve -
^
'• ' , '.
0,25 mm sieve
_ _ _ _
v y
Pore
^.^
, - , -"
Pore
<,s-
, ''''-
Pore
water
Salinity
o
'
Note: See separate work sheet for percent water. TOC and grainsizc analyses are subcontracted (collect sub-sample when inspecting for indigenous
organisms)
Pore water pH, ammonia and salinity (estuarinc sediments only) are determined on test day -1 or 0. Other parameters should be checked on arrival.
-------
SEDIMENT % WATER WORKSHEET
(File:STF016A)
Sample I.D.
/ 40 -P3 i
2 "
.3 40 -O5 Z
*-l ''
* 40 f> •! j*
fc
2
/i "
n 47 53 $
M 47 & > '
,,
2l 4? t / 2
21
23 47 8/ 3
2*1 fl
25 /s?& fdWTiiiOt.
Total Wet Wt
(a)
13-7
^i
^3.4
HV.7
t/jr 0
Yfc.i
t/a<)
Ht/
3.1
3«.f
35/0
tft-,1
3M
3^^
33-7
3^.S
3-7. L
3i^
A5. ^>
33 ^
4(.^
Total Dry Wt
(a)
/*.*
/S.*
IS*
/7V
28.«/
25.4
24-1
2,j
22. V
7U
8/J
//.^
W
/5.^
//,J
//. 7
'2.7
//, 5
//9
/o.s
1.1
/S 8
Tare Wt.
(a)
1.7
13
1-3
M
/.I
/.-3
/3
i.3
»-3
/,3
/.3
'.3
'•3
».\
/•*»
/•3
/-i
1.3
/•3
M
M
/J
A3
A3
Net Wet Wt
(9)
t^>/. 6
•^^? ^7
*&./
*JT ^' /
^r 3' *9
£/£{. 7
VV.y
.f?.*
46.1
37.2
377
3f.fe
25.
?7.S
23.1
2O.5
*/.£>
6.6
76
SO.J
/*/
//. 9
f2.o
SO.*/
//.v
/o.z
fO-t,
9.*
?.6
x^s
%H20
65
6-y
66
6d,
t**>
^
4o
*Jo
3%
3%
^
VA
7V
54
6S>
6X
JoS
63-
t,*
&>8
72.
-7^
73
7J
£-/
TareWt Date to(j ^/^ Class S Calib Wt ( v. ^- Initials /*-0 "^_
WetWt: Date |vn/w Class S Calib Wt /oo.? Initials po -"'
DrvWt: Date ^/»y>*>6^ Class S Calib Wt joo- Initials ^,^
CBITESTID ,^^.* x**9.3
-------
SEDIMENT % WATER WORKSHEET
(File:STF016A)
Sample I.D.
24 /Ml IKM/ZMK
2? AS. */ /
Z9 x,
29 ,65 #/ i
3c- "
"3i 6>5 5V 3
32. //
3^ 6,*.t,8 /
3$ /aft &>% 2
Jfc "
37 &S- £,83
3?
31 ~7*i . 19 t
do "
V/ -7V ^9 2
f*
K -,J,<> 1
M
\^
^^~— -^
^.
^^~
Total Wet Wt
(a)
3X4
V/.7
373
3&.S
37.
32.2
jib/ 9
•yo
V/.y
-/* *
-A*
?2.t
J3. 7
32.7
^t
"^
-^^
Total Dry Wt
(a)
/ J V
21. 4
253
J7-t?
/<>•>
S0.S
/3,7
19. g
/S.7
20. f,
2 '6. f,
^.7
,44
KM
M
//./
/^.^
^
^-
TareWt.
(a)
f-?
^ 1
',3
1 1 5
'.1
'•*
jj
/•3
f-1
f.3
/.?
/.?
/ 3
M
/.^
n
/»3
^-^_
Net Wet Wt
(a)
35. i
31. t
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Lat. & Long, optional)
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
Received bv
_ Relinquished by: (Signature) Date/Time,.
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Ime Received by. (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Date/ Time SealE ilnplacev
DaleVime I Received boratoiy by:
Relinquished by:
Preservation OK?
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler, Copy to Transporter
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Quality \
\ DCLS LAB USE ONLY
HPROG. CODE
T
STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
I 2- J M S 0 U 0 •
o3>
0010
J-± J.
1 *f f M
•n/"
||^^ Y Y M M D D
|| CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER » UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
1
|l
9
0 - S E O
T O
X 7
6
606
MAR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
I
IT
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN » OF ALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
w
I
T
_L
50060 0006 1 00020 00025
7
-7
OTHER
&
SWL SPWL HOURS YIELD
JL
I J
IT
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
D
74995 74990 34007 84005
IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 840V. 00024 00023 B4008
LATTITUDE
11 0 tl$
LONGITUDE
I* 1 s\(*
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION B
•
1--3-
"T5~
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
(
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgil)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. (d MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Quality \
||PROG. CODE
L
T
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
2- J M S 0 CJ£) .
03
0 0 1
0
IV Y Y M M
|| CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
1
9
0 - S E D
T O
X 7
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER TIDE
/<7 f
<1_L( ^ M
S\°
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
I I
I
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN « OF ALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C>) BAROMETER PRESSURE
G
W
T
S
S
u
E
H
I
50060 00061
SWL SPWL
T
J_
I
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
L
I
TIS(NUM) SPEC'ES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
D
74995 74990 84007 84005
IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 840*4 00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
IT
-7
OTHER
C,
II 0I\3
LONGITUDE
L(5 / 5\
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Quality \
UPROG. CODE
-
T
2-
j
M
S
STATION ID
0
f
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
II
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
1
S
o
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
•
03
, 001
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E
D
T O
X 7
%FHB
WEATHER TIDE
1 1 \l
( ( * M
£k
D 0
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1
IT
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN KOFALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
50060
00061
SWL
I
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO
IT
IT
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
J
J_
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990 114007 84005
IX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
84014 00024 00023 84008
_ LATTITUDE
fi
7
f
I
0
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
6?
COMMENTS
H
5-
(
<|i
S\
-------
Virsinia Denartment \
of Environmental Oualitv 1
[|PROG. CODE
T
I
2-
J
M
S
STATION ID
0
1
r
I CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
I
S
2
•
n
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
(0
0 0 1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E
D
T
%FRB
O
X 7
WEATHER TIDE
111 \l
f±0 O M
Ik
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00002
FLOW RATE
50060
SWL
I
I
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFA.IOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
00061
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
to
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
:x
7.S990
I
I
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
.L
J_
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
84014
LATTITUDE
/
2_
6
1 7"
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
a
COMMENTS
*f
7
5
/U
SUBSTATION A
A
*7
<
^ 3-l
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
m)
3
5
7
g
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. (>J MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virsinia Devartment \
of Environmental Quality \
UPROG. CODE
¥
T
I
2-
j
M
STATION ID
S
0
*/
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
•
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
I
S
X
.
M
(c
GHOUP CODE
E
D
T
%FRB
o
X
0
Y
Pf
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ^ M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
WEATHER
00002
FLOW HATE
50060
SWL
00041
7
TIDE
( 1 '
LI H? „
3\°
D D
CONTAINER « UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
I I
J_
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN # OF ALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C'J BAROMETER PRESSURE
OOOB1
3_
J_
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPECIES (NUM)
•x
74990
J
HOURS YIELD
|_
3_
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
84014
^^ LATTITUDE
•~
7
1
Z
O
1 >
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
6
COMMENTS
q
•7
^
( 2.
SUBSTATION B
•
1
3.
,]
l
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
i
't
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. O/ MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia DeDartment 1
of Environmental Quality \
UPROG. CODE
*
T
I
2-
J
M
STATION ID
S
0
4
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
1
S
s
u
E
I
s
2.
•
*[
b
0
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0
1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E
D
T
%FRB
O
X
WEATHER
00002
FLOW RATE
50060
SWL
00041
7
TIDE
/ 9 I
515 M
ik
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
I
J_
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN KOFALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C«) BAROMETER PRESSURE
00061
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
|
I
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
J
I
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74SI90
:x
{14007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
84014
^~ lArrminF
*
7
/
2.
D
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Oualitv \
UPROG. CODE
§
I T
\
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 L\ -O_ •
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
3
PF —
CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
9
0
-
S E D
T
0
X
0
Y
Pf
o
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
I
50060
00061
SWL
m
00041
7
TIDE
1-*)
7_ Y O M
fig
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1
J_
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN *OFAI.IOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C?) BAROMETER PRESSURE
J_
JL
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
JL
HOURS YIELD
J_
J_
SAMPLE NO. TIK (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 84014
^^ LATTITUDE
r
7
(
3
O 2-1 (p
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
G>
5
i
5- $\3
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION A
r
t
~U^>
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
e
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mo/1)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (n MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Quality \
||PROG. CODE
I T
I
2-
J
M
S
STATION ID
0
^(
P
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
P
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
S
S
u
E
1
S
J
•
^
DATE COLLECTED
S
0 0 1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E;
D
T
%FRB
O
X 7
*L
*7
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
I
D D
CONTAINER 0
WEATHER TIDE
00002
FLOW RATE
50060
SWL
6
^} I D M
rb
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
1
IT
01351 00078 00400
* OF ALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C1) BAROMETER PRESSURE
000151
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPWL
SPECIsS(NUM)
7-1990
X
84014
LATTITUDE
t
7
I
^
O
We>
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
6?
COMMENTS
S
I
^
A^
SUBSTATION B
r
^
.*>
SAMPLE NO
T
T
00020 00025
HOURS YliELD
L
J_
TU3 (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALP HA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 B4008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
I
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgfl)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (p MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia DeDartment \
of Environmental Quality \
UPROG. CODE
•
T
2-
J
M
s
STATION ID
0
^7
|| CATALOG-NUMBER
1
I
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
S
S
u
E
\
s
•
3
5
GROUP CODE
E
D
T
%FHB
o
X
0
Y
PF
DATE COLLECTED
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
WEATHER
00002
FLOW RATE
50060
SWL
00041
TIDE
1_
^
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEV DEPTH
V
D D
CONTAINER #
6
^ £ 0 M
°l\d
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606
[MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
1
. 1C
01351 00078 00400
» OF ALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C5) BAROM ETER PRESSURE
00061
SPWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPECIES (NUM)
J
SAMPLE NO.
I
74990
:x
T:
_E
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
J
|
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84014
LATTITUDE
*
7
\
3
0
2.I&
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
&
COMMENTS
5
/
5
s\$
SUBSTATION C
•
^
^
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgrt)
00299
TEMP ' C
00010
COND. (11 MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment
of Environmental Oualitv
UPROG. CODE
L
T
\
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 tJ "0-
•
$
1 DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0010
2=5- '
5 \ 5 M
m
V^F Y Y M M D D
|| CATALOG-NUMBER GF1OUPCODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER » UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
1
I
9
0
-
S E
D
T
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB
o
X 7
6
606
MAR
WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERrTY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
1
S
S
U
E
I
50060
00061
SWL
|
I
I
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFAUQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C8) BAROMETER PRESSURE
IT
J_
00020 00025
SPWL HOURS YIELD
X X
X
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
81614 84014
._. LATTITUDE
E
7
I
*2>
3 3>l/
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
&
COMMENTS
S
2-
2_ #|0
SUBSTATION A
•-
M-l
SAMPLE NO. Tlii (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
H
y
I
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (u MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment
of Environmental Quality
|[PROG. CODE
f
T
\
2-
J
M
s
STATION ID
0
f
|| CATALOG-NUMBER
1
|l
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
S
S
u
E
I
S
?
.
-5
| DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0010
2^ I
£_ C.. /s i - - K ji
^> < y^
*fa
Y Y M M D D
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
E
D
T
%FRB
o
X 7
6
606
MAR
WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00002
FLOW HATE
50060
SWL
TIS (NUM)
00061
I
I
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN « OF AUQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
IT
IT
00020 00025
SPWL HOURS YIELD
IT r
I
SPECIES (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
D
SE
X
74990
84014
^^ LATTITUDE
r
7
^>
3
$\
1
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
&
COMMENTS
5
*2.
^
&\£>
SUBSTATION B
r
L
\
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
m)
3
1
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgfl)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (p MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Oualitv \
HPROG. CODE
L
T
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 t~ -J. .
f>
DATE COLLECTED
/
CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
II
g
0
-
S E D
T
o
X
0
Y
P
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITYCODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
I
50060
OOOfil
SWL
DC
00041
7
TIDE
1,
3
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
\
S Q D
CONTAINER »
B
£" £d M
^>\°
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
I
IE
01351 00078 00400
# OF ALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
J
SAMPLE NO.
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
IE
IE
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
L
IE
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
81614 84014
.^ LATTITUDE
ft
7
(
^
3 $\l
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
U
5
2-
-2 -s\D
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION C
•-
H-l
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE
INFORMATION/CHAIN OF CUSTODY
SAMPLE MATRIX/TYPE: SED]MENT_^Om__ SURFACE WATER__ GROUND WATER_ OTHER,
PROJECT ID l/l/K-C O
SAMPLE ID ^
COLLECTION DATE/TIME:
CO _ O rf }-f
SAMPLING T nr ATTON/SITE:
T><
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT/METHODS:.
SAMPLE CONTAINER: GLASS HOPE C^^PTFE OTHER (SPECIFY):.
METHOD OF SHIPMENT: Mj
(S'AMPLER SIGNATURE)
IS SAMPLE CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR
LOCAL LAWS?* YES NO_±±T~
I certify that the above information is correct:___^^^T^^' ^GL^'C^ '
ffWNTNAME) : (AFFILIATION) T~ ' PATE)
'UNLESS PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED, SAMPLES DETERMINED TO BE HAZARDOUS WILL BE RETURNED AND SHIPMENT CHARGED AT
COST PLUS 25%; OR COASTAL BIOANALYSTS WILL DISPOSE OF THE SAMPLES AT COST PLUS 25%. „ +
##i|c*J|ii|i*************************************************:t:*
Print & Sign Names
1. Relinquished by: . Date/time:
Received by: - Date/time:
2. Relinquished by:_ Date/time: _
Received by: Date/time:
3. Relinquished by: Date/time:
Received by: Date/time:
4. Relinquished by: Date/time:
Received by: : Date/time:
FORM QSF602A
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (signature)
Relinquished by:
Date/ Time tlReceived by. (Signature)
Date/Time Received by. (Signature)
by. (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Date/ Time,.
IQlLtt^ Qfto
Date/ Time
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Let. & Long, optional)
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
Dale/ Time Received In Laboratory by: (Signature) Date/ Time ISeals in place?
i/e^Tby: (Signature)
••••^•••^
Lab Remarks:
'reservation OK?.
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler; Copy to Transporter
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Quality I
UPROG. CODE
»
T
I
2-
j
M
STATION ID
S
0
7
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
I!
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Q
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
1
s
^
•
£
°\
0
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
0
1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E
D
T
%FRB
O
X
WEATHER
00002
FLOW RATE
50060
SWL
00041
7
TIDE
2^" /
O O T" M
/ H0
D D
CONTAINER » UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1
I
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
00061
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SE
81614
SPWL
SPECIE S(NUM)
:x
74990
SAMPLE NO
_L
IT
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
J
T
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
1)4007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
84014
^^ LATTITUDE
3
7
/
&
O
ow
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
7
COMMENTS
4
3
t
sl
9
SUBSTATION A
\_\
+
00024 00023 84008
E
P
T
H
m)
3
5
>
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgrt)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. Cu MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
•
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Oualitv \
UPROG. CODE
i
T
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 "7 ^ .
7-
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
°\
r
II CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
9
0
-
S E D
T
0
X
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
1
50060
00061
SWL
1C
00041
7
TIDE
_!£ L
o 2. & M
' 1
D D
CONTAINER)* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1
I
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN » OF ALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C'J BAROMETER PRESSURE
_L
J_
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
J
HOURS YIELD
J
I
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
1)4007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 84014
_^^_ LATTITUDE
L?
~7\
/
<3
o clO
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
7
f
3
t^\9
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION B
I \
•
00024 00023 84008
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
c
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgrt)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. Ifi MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Oualitv \
UPROG. CODE
P
T
2-
J
M
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
|l
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
1
50060
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
STATION ID
s o 7
J
$_
S|0
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION C
Ul
*
|
SAMPLE NO.
T
1C
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
J
_L
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(ml
3
1
7
g
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mort)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. (11 MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment 1
of Environmental Qualitv 1
IIPROG. CODE
ft
w ,
T
I
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 & % .
&
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
<%
CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
9
0
-
S E D
T
O
X
0
Y
Pf
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
I
50060
00061
SWL
m
00041
7
TIDE
^^" L
3k 3' M
( o\d
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1
I
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN # OF ALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C") BAROMETER PRESSURE
IT
I
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIL-S (NUM)
D
I
SAMPLE NO
HOURS YIELD
_l_
I
TIE (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74995 7*990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
B4007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 84014
^^k LATTITUDE
ft
7|
/
3
o iVf
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
7
0
7
^3\?
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION C
3~/
•-
00024 00023 84008
~5
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
c
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mo/1)
00299
TEMP « C
00010
COND. (u MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment
of Environmental Quality
HPROG. CODE
T
2-
j
M
S
STATION ID
0
£>
F
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
II
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
I
s
) BAROMETER PRESSURE
T"
00020 00025
SPWL HOURS YIELD
j_ r
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
X
84014
^^ LATTITUDE
6
7
/
*
O
l\Q
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
7
COMMENTS
O
7
2.
39
SUBSTATION B
•-
J2
^l
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LOH
00024 00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
i
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgfl)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. di MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment I
of Environmental Quality \
UPROG. CODE
fe 1 T
I 2"
STATION ID
J MS 0 fa M
i 1 b
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
G
W
T
S
S
u
E
&
I
50060
00061
SWL
m
I I
|
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN KOFALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C>) BAROMETER PRESSURE
J_
J_
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
D
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
81614 84014
7
-7
OTHER
^
LATTITUDE
uL3
o /|V
LONGITUDE
<>7
2.3h
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION A
•
^ \
SAMPLE NO
HOURS YIELD
]_
J_
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LftH
00024 00023 84008
b
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. fai MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
r
-------
Virginia Department \
of Environmental Oualitv 1
UPROG. CODE
L
T
\
2-
STATION ID
J M S 0 fo£ .
g
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
/
II CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1
I
9
0
-
S E D
T
0
X
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
HORITYCODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW HATE
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
1
50060
00031
SWL
IE
00041
7
TIDE
if /
*i 10 M
( °V&
D D
CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
1 1
J_
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN #OFALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C") BAROMETER PRESSURE
_L
J_
00020 00025
SPWL
TIS(NUM) SPEC:ES(NUM)
D
j
HOURS . YIELD
[2
|
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74995 74990
IND/SAMPLE SEX
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614 84014
LATTITUDE
t
7
r
^
o ^\o
LONGITUDE
•7
OTHER
*?
o
L\
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Quality \
||PROG. CODE
L
T
2-
j
M
s
STATION ID
0
&
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
|l
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
1
S
<£
•
s,
DATE COLLECTED
/
0 0 1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE
E
D
T
%FRB
O
X 7
1
<
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
/
D D
CONTAINER *
WEATHER TIDE
00002
FLOW HATE
50060
SWL
6
*/ L{ <* M
( c/l05
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
1 1
J_
01351 00078 00400
• OF AIJQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
00061
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
SEX
81614
ME
84014
LATTITUDE
/
•8
O
?d
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
COUNTY
7
COMMENTS
O
n
£T
5|O
SUBSTATION B
r
t
H-
,^
SAMPLE NO
A:
T
00020 00025
HOURS YIELD
L
IT
Tl!5 (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. tu MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment \
of Environmental Oualitv \
\ DCLS LAB USE ONLY
UPROG. CODE
I T
2-
j
M
STATION ID
S 0
(t
v
|| CATALOG-NUMBER
1
|l
9
0
•
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
G
W
^
i
s
s
u
E
I
S
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
5T •
* /
0010
2Lf (
5 f o M
/ °\°
Y Y M M D D
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER » UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
E D
T O
X 7
6
606
MAR
%FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
I I
IE
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN # OF ALIOUOTS AIR TEMP. (C>) BAROMETER PRESSURE
50060
SWL
_L
IE
00061 00020 00025
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SPWL HOURS YIELD
IE E
IE
SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990 84007 84005
SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
81614
84014 00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
E
7
/
%
0
n
o
LONGITUDE
-7
OTHER
~J-
O
1 G-3\0
COUNTY
COMMENTS
SUBSTATION C
r
n
^^
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mgrt)
00299
TEMP « C
00010
COND.
-------
Table El. Summary Water Quality - Water Column Tests (Freshwater Species)
f " (•
Species
P. promales
C. dubia
Treatment
Control
JMS074.29
JMS072.08
JMS068.68
JMS065.81
Control
JMS074.29
JMS072.08
JMS068.68
JMS065.81
1.6pptHWM
JMS047.81
JMS047.33
* V
Temp.
Mean
24.6
24.7
24.7
24.7
24.7
24.5
24.5
24.6
24.5
24.6
24.5
24.5
24.6
rc*
S.D.
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
Cond
(u5
Mean
280
267
256
241
231
275
263
252
236
226
2712
2718
3586
uctivity
/cm)
' S.D.
4.9
11.7
20.0
15.9
11.9
3.8
9.8
17.3
12.8
9.1
88.6
559.7
1138.4
pH(S
Mean
7.64
7.71
7.74
7.75
7.68
7.87
7.90
7.98
7.92
7.87
7.84
7.81
7.79
U.)
L S.D.
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.06
Dfss.Oz
Mean
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
(mg/l>
S.D.
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-------
Table E2. Summary Water Quality - Water Column Tests (Estuarine Species)
Species
C. variegatus
M. bahia
Treatment
20 ppt Control
1 .2 ppt Control
4.3 ppt Control
JMSG42.46
JMS040.03
JMS047.81
JMS047.33
20 ppt Control
1.2 ppt Control
4.3 ppt Control
JMS042.46
JMS040.03
JMS047.81
JMS047.33
Temp.("C>
Mean S.D.
24.6
24.7
24.7
24.7
24.8
24.8
24.8
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
Salinity (g/kg)
Mean S.D.
20.0
1.5
4.5
5.0
6.1
2.3
2.7
20.0
1.2
4.7
5.6
6.6
1.5
2.2
0.0
0.4
0.5
1.4
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.1
pH(S.ir.)i;, ;;..,*.
Mean S.D
7.50
7.60
7.54
7.53
7.56
7.58
7.58
7.50
7.79
7.65
7.61
7.55
7.67
7.68
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.06
0.07
DiM.-CV(mgA)
^ : M«»ttA%v-&br--';;
6.8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
6.8
8.1
7.5
7.5
7.4
8.0
8.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8
Average: 38.8375
Std Dev: 10.2444
N of data: 80
10
20
30 40
No.Young
50
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9855
p value (approx): 0.0714
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
T
0
10
20
30
Factor Levels
6
7
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 6.958
p value : 0.433
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.138
p value : 0.350
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on No.Young
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DF
7
72
79
N
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pooled StDev =
ss
3246.2
5044.7
8290.9
Mean
41.900
42.200
45.600
43.900
39.400
36.000
37.800
23.900
8.371
MS
463.7
70.1
StDev
6.045
12.035
8.771
9.195
8.669
6.848
5.978
7.738
F
6.62
P
0.000
Individual 95% CIs For
Based on Pooled StDev
( *-
( *
/ —__*.._
Mean
-)
* )
)
*-
)
)
—)
20
30
40
50
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00917
Critical value =2.68
Control = level 0 of TrtCode
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lower
-9.732
-6.332
-8.032
-12.532
-15.932
-14.132
Center
0.300
3.700
2.000
Upper
10.332
13.732
12.032
-2.500
-5.900
-4.100
7.
4.
532
132
-28.032 -18.000
5.932
-7.968
( *
( *
( *
( * )
( * )
( * )
1 —
-20
,
-10
0
10
NOTE: LEVEL 7=JMS047.33
M
-------
&ERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8 (SALINE ONLY)
Average: 32.5667
StdDev:9.14513
N of data: 30
No.Young
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9726
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8 (SALINE)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
10
15
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 0.566
p value : 0.753
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.234
p value : 0.793
-------
Worksheet size: 100000 cells
MTB > Retrieve 'A:\VM3CDH2O.MTW.
Retrieving worksheet from file: A:\VM3CDH2O.MTW
Worksheet was saved on 12/17/2000
MTB > Oneway 'No.Young' "TrtCode';
SUBO Dunnett 5 5.
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Ho.Young
Grm^fO DF SS MS F P
?rtcode 2 1142.9 571.4 12.03 0.000
Error 27 1282.5 47.5
Total 29 2425.4 Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev + + ~.~~"tl~'l'l'l~}~+
5 10 36.000 6.848 ( )
6 10 37.800 5.978 ( >
7 10 23.900 7.738 (—--*------) +^_
Pooled StDev = 6.892 JITo 28.0 35.0 42.0
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0273
Critical value = 2.33
Control = level 5 of TrtCode
Level Lower Center Upper + +-- +~- ~*"7
6 -5.382 1.800 8.982 ( >
7 -19.282 -12.100 -4.918 ( """*""! * + +—
-14.0 -7.0 -0.0 7.0
NOTE: LEVEL 5 (CONTROL) = 1.6 PPT ASW; LEVEL 7=JMS047.33
MTB >
-------
CJERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8 (STATIONS)
Average: 38.8
StdDev: 11.1732
N of data: 60
10
20 30 40
No.Young
50
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9878
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
^ERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 8(STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
10
20
30
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 4.416
p value : 0.491
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.037
p value : 0.406
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
DF
5
54
59
SS
3071.8
4293.8
7365.6
MS
614.4
79.5
H
F
7.73
.
P
0.000
n oca. r«
Based on Pooled StDev
Level
1
2
3
4
6
7
N
10
10
10
10
10
10
Mean
42.200
45.600
43.900
39.400
37.800
23.900
StDev — +
12.035
8.771
9.195
8.669
5.978
.738 ( - * —
1 ___-
{ -" 1
( — * 1
(-• )
-* — ~)
'. + _ +
Pooled StDev =
8.917
20
30
40
50
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.00462
Critical value =4.18
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
1. 2 3 4
2
3
4
-15.19
8.39
-13.49
10.09
-8.99
14.59
-7.39
16.19
6.51
30.09
-10.09
13.49
-5.59
17.99
-3.99
19.59
9.91
33.49
-7.29
16.29
-5.69
17.89
8.21
31.79
-10.19
13.39
3.71
27.29
2.11
25.69
MTB >
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 6
Average: 19.95
Std Dev: 5.21612
N of data: 20
15
DGYoung
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9653
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION DAY 6
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
5
7
n — i i i i i i i i i
23456789 10 11
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 1.787
p value : 0.181
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.493
p value : 0.492
-------
Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval
Twosample T for D6Young
TrtCode N Mean StDev SE Mean
5 10 22.60 3.44 1.1
7 10 17.30 5.48 1.7
95% C.I. for mu 5 - mu 7: ( 0.9, 9.7)
T-Test mu 5 = mu 7 (vs not =): T= 2.59 P=0.020 DF= 15
MTB >
-------
FATHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8
1.25
1.35
1.45
Survival
Average: 1.52253
StdDev: 0.117873
N of data: 20
1.55
W-test for Normality
R: 1.0000
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
FATHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
1 ' 1 T-
0.0 0.5 1.0
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-34.616
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.500
p value : 0.736
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
Trt
Error
Total
Level
0
1
2
3
4
DF
4
15
19
N
4
4
4
4
4
SS
0.0311
0.2329
0.2640
MS
0.0078
0.0155
F
0.50
P
0.736
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Mean
.4904
.4904
.5708
.4904
.5708
StDev
0.1609
,1609
.0000
,1609
.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
+ —
(
(
(
(
(
1.40
1.50 1.60 1.70
Pooled StDev = 0.1246
Dunnetfs intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate
Individual error rate
Critical value = 2.73
Control = level 0 of Trt
0.0500
0.0156
Level
1
2
3
4
Lower
-0.2406
-0.1601
-0.2406
-0.1601
Center
-0.0000
0.0804
-0.0000
0.0804
Upper
0.2406
0.3210
0.2406
0.3210
+
(
(
(
(
-0.15
0.00 0.15 0.30
MTB >
-------
FATHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (STATIONS)
1.25
1.35
1.45
Survival
Average: 1.53058
StdDev: 0.109899
N of data: 16
1.55
W-test for Normality
R: 1.0000
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
FATHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
T—I T
0.00.1 0.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -34.292
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.667
p value : 0.588
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
Trt
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
DF
3
12
15
N
4
4
4
4
ss
0.0259
0.1553
0.1812
Mean
1.4904
1.5708
1.4904
1.5708
MS
0.0086
0.0129
F
0.67
P
0.588
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
StDev
0. 1609
0.0000
0. 1609
0.0000
+ +
(
(
( —
— — -t- — —
1.40 1-50
— — -i
,___— \
— j
1.60
.
'
\
I
— — — H
1.70
StDev = 0.1138
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0117
Critical value = 4.20
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
123
2
3
4
0.3193
0.1585
0.2389
0.2389
0.3193
0.1585
0.1585
0.3193
0.2389
0.2389
-0.3193
0.1585
MTB
-------
FATHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8
0.55
0.65 0.75
Mean Wt
0.85 0.95
Average: 0.7725
Std Dev: 0.0959098
N of data: 20
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9810
p value (approx):> 0.1000
-------
FATHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 3.920
p value : 0.417
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.880
p value : 0.499
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Mean Wt
Source
Trt
Error
Total
Level
0
1
2
3
4
DF
4
15
19
N
4
4
4
4
4
SS
,06735
,10742
,17477
Mean
.68750
.80250
.86250
0.75500
0.75500
0.
0.
0.
MS F p
0.01684 2.35 0.101
0.00716
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
. 11117 ( - —
0.03775
0. 11177
0.08103
0.05447
0.60
—
0.70
j
0.80 0.90
Pooled StDev = 0.08463
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0156
Critical value =2.73
Control = level 0 of Trt
Level
1
2
3
4
-U.
0.
-U.
-0.
Lower
04836
01164
09586
09586
U
U
0
U
C
•
•
•
•
lenter
11500
17500
06750
06750
0.
0.
0.
0.
Upper
27836
33836
23086 { —
/ _.*..___ — \
(— )
0.00 0.12 0.24
0
.36
NOTE: LEVEL 2 = JMS072.08
MTB >
-------
FAfHEADWEIGHTDAYSTSTATIONS)
0.68
0.78
Mean Wt
Average: 0.79375
Std Dev: 0.0822901
N of data: 16
0.88 0.98
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9836
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
FATHEAD WEIGHT" DAY ^STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
T——| 1 1 1 1 i r
.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 3.228
p value : 0.358
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.813
p value : 0.198
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Wt
Source
Trt
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
4
Pooled Si
DF
3
12
15
N
4
4
4
4
:Dev =
SS
0.03123
0.07035
0.10158
Mean
0.80250
0.86250
0.75500
0.75500
0.07657
MS
0.01041
0.00586
StDev
0.03775
0.11177
0.08103
0.05447
F
1.78
Individual
P
0.205
95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(
(
(
0.720
0.800 0.880
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0117
Critical value = 4.20
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
1 2 3
2 -
3 -
4 -
0.22079
0.10079
0.11329
0.20829
0.11329
0.20829
-0.05329
0.26829
-0.05329
0.26829
-0.16079
0.16079
MTB
-------
MYS1D SURVIVAL DAY 8
Survival
Average: 0.896113
Std Dev: 0.547027
N of data: 20
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9937
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
MYSID SURVIVAL DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-19.218
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 2.006
p value : 0.154
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
0
1
2
3
Pooled St
DF
3
16
19
N
5
5
5
5
Dev =
5
0
5
1
0
0
1
0
ss
.3926
.2929
.6855
Mean
.5708
.6567
.1931
.1639
.1353
1
0
MS
.7975
.0183
F
98.20
P
0.000
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
0
0
0
0
StDev
.0000
.1901
.1762
.0777
Based on
(--*-)
0.
Pooled StDev
(-*— )
(-*--)
(-*--)
50 1.00 1.50
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0196
Critical value = 2.59
Control = level 0 of TrtCode
Level
1
2
3
Lower
-1.1357
-1.5994
-0.6285
Center
-0.9141
-1.3777
-0.4069
Upper +
-0.6925
. Ibbl (— — — "~
-0.1853
-1.40
(- - -*- )
-1.05 -0.70 -0.35
NOTE: LEVEL 1 = 4.3 PPT CONTROL, 2 = 42.46, 3 = 40.03
M
-------
MYSID SURVIVAL (4.3 PPT)
o.o
0.5
Survival
Average: 0.671219
Std Dev: 0.435142
N of data: 15
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9858
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
MYSID SURVIVAL (4.3 PPT)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
. 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 2.748
p value : 0.253
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.756
p value : 0.491
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
Pnni e>d St
DF
2
12
14
N
5
5
S
Dev =
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
ss
.3580
.2929
.6509
Mean
.6567
.1931
.1639
.1562
1
0
MS
.1790
.0244
F
48.30
Individual
0
0
0
StDev
. 1901
.1762
.0777
Based on
0.
P
0.000
95% CIs
For Mean
Pooled StDev
)
35
0
* — — — \
'
" *
.70 1.05
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0278
Critical value =2.50
Control = level 1 of TrtCode
Level
2
3
Lower
-0.7107
0.2602
Center
-0. 4636
0.5072
Upper
. 2166
0.7542
-C
_+
3.70
+ +
-0.35 -0.00
-(-— — r
( '
0.35 0.70
NOTE: 2=42.46, 3 = 40.03
MTB >
-------
MYSID SURVIVAL DAY 8 (STATIONS)
o.o
0.5
Survival
Average: 0.678479
Std Dev: 0.527552
N of data: 10
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9519
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
c
MYSID SURVIVAL DAY 8 (J
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levr
• •
2
3
1 1
).0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 2.156
p value : 0.142
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.698
p value : 0.428
-------
Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval
Twosample T for Survival
TrtCode N Mean StDev SE Mean
2 5 0.193 0.176 0.079
3 5 1.1639 0.0777 0.035
95% C.I. for mu 2 - mu 3: ( -1.192, -0.749)
T-Test mu 2 = mu 3 (vs not =): T= -11.27 P=0.0001 DF== 5
MTB >
-------
MYSID WEIGHT (4.3 PPT)
.999 -
.99
.95
"0.50 -
^ 20 -
.05 -
.01 -
.001
,
• - - —
^
r^-
0.16
0.21 0.26
Mean Wt
Average: 0.244615
Std Dev: 0.0475422
N of data: 13
0.31
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9786
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
MYSID WEIGHT (4.3 PPT)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 0.862
p value : 0.650
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.598
p value : 0.568
0.0
0.1
0.2
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
miu^jr « •»• **
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
1
2
3
Ponied St
DF
2
10
12
N
5
3
5
Dev =
SS
0.020856
0.006267
0.027123
Mean
0.19400
0.27333
0.27800
0.02503
MS
0.010428
0.000627
StDev
0 . 01949
0.02082
0.03114
F p
16.64 0.001
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
( * /
(
*
0.200 0.240 0.280
. \
)
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0274
Critical value =2.58
Control = level 1 of TrtCode
Level
2
3
Lower
0.03217
0.04315
Center
0.07933
0.08400
Upper
0.12650 ( —
0.12485
(
0.050
0.075
0.100
\
0.125
MTB >
-------
MYSIDWEIGHT DAY 8 (STATIONS)
0.23 0.24 0.25
0.26 0.27 0.28
Mean Wt
Average: 0.27625
StdDev: 0.0261520
N of data: 8
0.29 0.30 0.31
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9831
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
MYSID WEIGHT DAY 8 (STATIONS)
c
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
___ •
2
3
1 1 1
).0 0.1 0.2
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 0.325
p value : 0.569
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.434
p value : 0.534
-------
Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval
Twosample T for Mean Wt
TrtCode N Mean StDev SE Mean
2 3 0.2733 0.0208 0.012
3 5 0.2780 0.0311 0.014
95% C.I. for mu 2 - mu 3: ( -0.052, 0.043)
T-Test mu 2 = mu 3 (vs not =): T= -0.25 P=0.81 DF=
MT
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8
.001 -
Average: 1.45346
Std Dev: 0.304668
N of data: 35
0.5
1.0
Survival
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9037
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -34.827
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.150
p value : 0.361
-------
MTB > Kruskal-Wallis 'Survival' 'TrtCode'.
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
OVERALL
NOBS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
35
MEDIAN
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.571
1.249
AVE. RANK
21.5
21.5
21.5
18.2
14.9
17.5
10.9
18.0
Z VALUE
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.05
-0.73
-0.12
-1.67
H = 4.62 d.f.
H = 9.52 d.f.
M
6 p = 0.593
6 p = 0.147 (adjusted for ties)
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (4.3
1.25
1.35 1.45
Survival
Average: 1.50645
StdDev: 0.133217
N of data: 15
1.55
W-test for Normality
R: 1.0000
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (4.3 PPT)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
-i 1 1 1 1 1 i r
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic:-21.401
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.200
p value : 0.335
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
2
3
4
Pooled St
DF
2
12
14
N
5
5
5
Dev =
SS
0.0414
0.2070
0.2485
Mean
1.5708
1.5064
1.4421
0.1314
MS
0.0207
0.0173
StDev
0.0000
0. 1439
0. 1762
F
1.20
Individual
Based on P
( —
(
1.32 1
P
0.335
95% CIs For Mean
ooled StDev
.44 1.56
'
+
1.68
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0278
Critical value =2.50
Control = level 2 of TrtCode
Level
3
4
Lower
-0.2720
-0.3364
Center
-0.0644
-0.1287
Upper
0.1433
0.0790 ( —
(
-0.24
-0.12 0.00
0.12
MTB
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (1.2 PPT)
.001
Average: 1.36136
Std Dev: 0.436652
N of data: 15
0.5
1.0
Survival
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9361
p value (approx): 0.0469
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (1 .2 PPT)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
•
A *
• "*
1
5
6
-I I i
0 1 2
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: -10.970
p value : 1.000
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.907
p value : 0.430
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Survival
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
1
• 5
6
nn**t"l j"kj>4 C+-
DF
2
12
14
N
5
5
5
T^ a«r =
ss
0.370
2.299
2.669
Mean
1.5708
1.3210
1.1923
n.4377
MS
0.185
0.192
StDev
0.0000
0.5586
0. 5125
F
0.97
Individual
P
0.408
95% CIs For
Based on Pooled StDev
t
{
1.05
1.40
Mean
1.75
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0278
Critical value =2.50
Control = level 1 of TrtCode
Level
5
6
Lower
-0.9419
-1.0706
Center
-0.2498
-0.3785
Upper —
0.4422
0.3135 (-
+
("
-0.80
-0.40 -0.00
' +
0.40
MTB >
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (STATIONS)
Average: 1.36545
Std Dev: 0.383511
N of data: 20
0.5
1.0
Survival
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9200
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
SHEEPSHEAD SURVIVAL DAY 8 (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 8.821
p value : 0.032
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.507
p value : 0.683
-------
Kruskal-Wallis Test
LEVEL
3
4
5
6
NOBS
OVERALL
H =
H =
1
2
.52
.14
d
d
5
5
5
5
20
.f .
.f.
MEDIAN
= 3
= 3
1
1
1
1
.571
.571
.571
.249
P =
P =
AVE.
0.677
0.543
RANK Z
12.2
10.4
11.5
7.9
10.5
(adjusted
VALUE
0.74
-0.04
0.44
-1.13
for
ties)
MT
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT^DAY 8
Average: 1.18629
StdDev:0.2118
N of data: 35
0.8
1.3
Mean Wt
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9730
p value (approx): 0.0912
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 13.369
p value : 0.037
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.961
p value : 0.469
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on Mean Wt
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
DF
6
28
34
N
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SS
1581
3671
5252
Mean
1.3100
1.1840
1.2160
1.2200
1.1220
1.1640
1.0880
MS
0.0263
0.0488
StDev
0.1042
0.2284
0.2209
0.1145
0.1525
0.4272
0.1052
F
0.54
P
0.773
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
H H H
( ~ '
/ __* — — — — \
( 1
i * «_«_ \
( ~"~ J
{- '
1.00 1.20 1.40
1.60
Pooled StDev = 0.2210
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0108
Critical value =2.73
Control = level 0 of TrtCode
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Lower
0.5075
0.4755
0.4715
5695
.5275
0.
0.
-0.6035
Center
-C.1260
-C.0940
-C.0900
-C.1880
-C.1460
-C.2220
Upper
0.2555
2875
2915
1935
2355
0.1595
(
{
-0
_+ + +
_
—
— — *_
—
.50 -0.25 0.00
___ — _\
i
___ _ \
>
\
1
— \
I
0.25
MTB
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8 (4.3 PPT)
-0.02
0.08
LogWt.
Average: 0.0702436
Std Dev: 0.059913
N of data: 15
0.18
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9917
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8 (4.3 PPT)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
Factor Levels
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 1.489
p value : 0.475
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.997
p value : 0.398
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F p
TrtCode 2 0.00425 0.00213 0.55 0.588
Error 12 0.04600 0.00383
Total 14 0.05025 mdividual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev — +-
2 5 0.07923 0.07859 (-
3 5 0.08485 0.04043 1
4 5 0.04666 0.06075 ( - — —
Pooled StDev = 0.06192 0.000
^
0.050
0.100
-— — i
I
0.150
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0278
Critical value =2.50
Control = level 2 of TrtCode
Level Lower Center Upper — +
3 -0.09228 0.00562 0.10352 (
4 -0.13047 -0.03257 0.06533 (
-0.120 -0.060 -0.000 0.060
MTB >
-------
"SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8 (1.2 PPT)
i§-8°-
0.50 -
.001
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
LogWt.
0.15 0.25
Average: 0.0488296
Std Dev: 0.0953472
N of data: 15
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9655
p value (approx): > 0.1000
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8 (1.2 PPT)
95% Confidence Intesrvals for Sigmas
1 1 1 1 1 — I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Factor Levels
6
Bartlett's Test
Test Statistic: 4.909
p value : 0.086
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 0.949
p value : 0.414
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Analysis of Variance on LogWt.
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
1
5
6
PnnlBd St
DF
2
12
14
N
5
5
5
Dev =
SS
0.0027
0.1246
0.1273
Mean
0.0669
0.0447
0.0350
0.1019
MS
0.0013
0.0104
StDev
0.0840
0.1492
0.0427
F p
0.13 0.880
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
(
< „! , '
( __ _ __ — )
0.000 0.. 070 0.140
Dunnett's intervals for treatment mean minus control mean
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0278
Critical value =2.50
Control = level 1 of TrtCode
Level Lower Center Upper + - -+
5 -0.1833 -0.0222 0.1389 {
6 -0.1930 -0.0319 0.1292 ( —
-0.160 -0.080
0.000 0.080
M
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8 (STATIONS)
Average: 1.1485
Std Dev: 0.225768
N of data: 20
0.8
1.3
Mean Wt
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9186
p value (approx): < 0.0100
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT DAY 8"(STATIONS)
-0.15
Average: 0.0527807
StdDev: 0.0810883
N of data: 20
-0.05
0.05
LogWt
0.15 0.25
W-test for Normality
R: 0.9502
p value (approx): 0.0498
-------
SHEEPSHEAD WEIGHT~DAY 8 (STATIONS)
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
. 1 1 1 1 1 r~
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Factor Levels
Bartletf s Test
Test Statistic: 8.988
p value : 0.029
Levene's Test
Test Statistic: 1.225
p value : 0.333
-------
One-Way Analysis of Variance
Source
TrtCode
Error
Total
Level
3
4
5
6
DF
3
16
19
N
5
5
5
5
SS
0.00725
0.11769
0.12493
Mean
0.08485
0.04666
0.04465
0.03497
MS
0.00242
0.00736
StDev
0.04043
0.06075
0. 14925
0.04269
F
0.33 0.80
Individual 95%
Based on Pooled
(
(
(
P
5
CIs For Mean
StDev
+ __ _+ __
Pooled StDev = 0.08576 0.000 0.060 0.120
Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.0500
Individual error rate = 0.0113
Critical value =4.05
intervals for (column, level mean) - (row level mean)
-0.11715
0.19353
-0.11514 -0.15333
0.19553 0.15734
-0.10546 -0.14365 -0.14565
0.20521 0.16702 0.16502
MTB >
-------
CBI BASELINE INFO -FRESHWATERCHRONIC TESTS FORM STF211 -AMB
TEST ORGANISMS
/toll*-\o«. Ik* to
Arrival Datelnon-CBI source):
Arriim.tinn Water: Type
Hardness
I _ Temperature Range (C). 3. 5" -
Feeding Prior to Test: Artemia_A£__/Bay Not fed _ Other
_7_
Chamber tee: 1000rrt__ 300rrf _ Otha
TEST DESIGN
TestVolume: 750ml - ZOOrrt - Other
Initial No. Organisms per Replicate:_LQ__ No. Replicates: M Photoperiod:J]jL.L_^10
Feeding During Test: Anemia ^-X flay Other:_
TEST SET UP
1C? I ty V ^ *• Time Water Added I !N "JO Time Animals Added f[>&&
Randomization Template No.
Set^p By (Initials) ftlH /
StmTna™neterNo.
y
_ YSI
JXYSI
DO Meter * 1 (SNE8014475
YSIDOMeter«2(SN91A02S329)
INSTRUMENTATION
SP PortapHZ Meter (B52360)
Corning 240pH Meter (SN5268)
CP Pgisaise pH Meter (D9500563)
Wl SCT 33 Meter (H8016792]
Horiba Conductivity Meter
NOTES:
U -t.
/
3-7,
...
As ttialitv Assurance Officer for this test I certify tha» no significant deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections (unless otherwise noted below) and
that the data accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
Signature
CBI TEST ID: VJr^"SflOOJ
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:V/>Y>5Ak.3>
N
0
T
E
S
'Renewal days: First column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
Day:
Day:
Day:^
Day:^,
Day:^
Day:
Bay:
Day:
Day:
Day:
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
li
R
E
(C)
24-b
24/7
245
245
24$
.24.5
24 •"
24.1
24-8
24.
24.1
\
\
c
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
1
T
Y
(uS/ctn
21$
1 to
281
2*2
254
V
2 It
\
\
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
3
0
T
E
S
Renewal daya: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data (or measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc.ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:V.56
ara-
meter
real-
ment
Day:
Day:
ay: ,
Day:
Day:^
Day:?
Day:^
Day:
Day:
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETFOn-AMB
CB1 TEST ID:
ara-
meter
reat-
ment
Day:^.
Day:^.
Day:^
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
•7.63
7-tl
\
i.m
TS1
\
\
V"
\
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mj/1)
•1.5
S-,1
V
14
B.i
\
X
\
\
RCPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
\
wiH
Mft
* "Renewal days: First column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column - data for measurement! after renewal.
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETF002-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
DayS
Day 6
Day?
Day8
Avg. % Live
1
2
3
16
/O
/c
J-0L-
J«-
/O
/o
'0
(0
JO
/O
lo
fO
SO
/O
If;
/o
ID
'0
to
lo
M
0
/O
/O
/o
to
-LSL
/t?
to
fo
iO
10
10
to
JL±.
10
N
0
T
E
S
to
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY
AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETFO()2-AMB
Day3
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) Fi1e:ESTF008-AMB CBI TEST ID:
'real-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
1
1
'3.3LS-
5.20
n
, 3
O.STV
l?
yg «f
j. S7
7.67
* TQ
4-0
^99
21
(?-*
S.S/
6.18
&..Z5
6,03
/z
'3
-77
NOTES:
TAREWT.: DATE <0/2$/cc
TOTAL WT.:
N
0
T
E
S
INITIALS:_
INITIALS:
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG): *?.
CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG):
-------
CBI BASELINE INFO -FRESHWATERCHRONIC TESTS FORM STF211 -AMB
TEST ORGANISMS
:: P . AJ>'A SoUrCe:—
Arrival Dale (non-CBI source):
Acclimation Water: Tvoe 5^ >Q Hardness_f3 Temperature Range |C)_£_f)(L
Feeding Prior to Test: ftrtBnB IK Joay Not fed Other. . .
TEST DESIGN
Chamba-Sfce: lOOOrrt 300ml Oth, 3d * -L TestVolume: 750ml 200rrJ Other / ^V ^.
initial No. f>g,nismspffReplirate_J No.Repfa.es: l& Fnotoperiod:J(lLL:_i^ Randomization Template No.JBl_
Feeding During Test: Memt ) f. Hay Other:^ _
TEST SET UP
Time Animals Added / VfS" Set-up By (lnitials)_
INSTRUMENTATION
Stem Thermometer No._
SP PortapH2 Meter (852360) Sartorius R160P Balance (40020093)
YS,OOMetef»1(SNE8014475 Corning 240 pH Met. (SN5268) YSISCT 33 Meter (HBO, 6792)
~fsiDOMeter»2(SN9,A026329) _J=xC? Digiseflse pH Meter (09500563) ^^/Horib., Conductivity Meter
NOTES:
/?/ / i i t i t . LA f\ *• * .1^ -K\i-.
-1.3-)-
As Quality Assurance Officer for this test I certify that no significant deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections (unless otherwise noted below] and
that the data accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
//"?/to
Signature [tote
CBI TEST ID:
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
c
0
N
D
U
C
T
1
V
1
T
Y
[uS/cm
Treat-
ment
REPL NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
\
\
Day:^
Day:
Day:;)
a/,3
Day:^.
Day: 3
ft)
Day:
Day:^
Day: O
5 to
av.o
PV
X
3
\
••Renewal days: First column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CB1 TEST ID:
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
Day:(p
Day:G,
Day:
Day-.^L
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
\
\
ay
&£>'.
\
\
I
\
c
0
N
D
U
C
T
V
1
T
Y
(uS/cm
\
\
\
\
\
\
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
3
\ 0
10
Oi
\
"Renewal days: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:y J
0 O
meter
reat-
ment
Day:Q
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:?
Day:
Day:
Day: 5-
:MZ
•773
K
V
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/Q
*./
f.l*
T.J
u
f.D
\
X
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
T
fo
f»
••Renewal diyi: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETF013-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
C C*~>
Para-
meter
reat-
ment
REPL NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
\
\
\
X
S'-
IT
Day:
?-
CJ
Day:
Day:^
flr.P
\
X
Day:
\
Day:
Day:
Y
\
Day:
Day:
lay:
\
\
•Renewal dayt: First column • data for measurements before renewal: Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION (FORM ETF060-AMB)
Treatment
ID,
Hep.
#
Day*
Day *
Day 3
4.
JtojLl
Bay?
Day 8
C Wr0 J
1
_£i.
_£L
0
JL
0
10
Ja-
/u
_£_
4
51
O
S'
Ci
IS
J_
D
-
'V
ft
o
L>
0
A
10
Q
/V
i£J_
(4
A.
0
/a.
xa.
o
1-6
0
b
10
0
Q
£L
X^L
ffc
Ji.
k
H.
±a
O
k
^i.
G
Ci
-^
-Ua-
If"
1±
/a
IX
A
3-/
cu
d.
10
51
(0,
O
C»
A.
O
/a
ft
li.
CL
A
O
O
cr
/v
/A
(b
SL
A
10
&.
1&.
J£L
O
6
It,
JQ_
0
O
CJ
fD
/s-
o
(-3
n
6
0
C)
Initials:
GO
Time:
yao
Note: D = dead;
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
Day:
Day: |
Day:^
DayQ
Day:
Day:^
Day:
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF012-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
Day: 6)
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
(C)
o-y.s
asr.o
av,
\
\
V
\
V
\
c
0
H
D
U
C
T
1
V
T
Y
[uS/cm
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
'b
3
•Renewal days: Firtt column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column - data for measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETF013-AMB
CBI TEST ID: Vj(vx Sa t> 6 1
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
D«v:(
Day: ,
Day:
Day: 3
Day:^
Day:
•? -4 to
in
22L
\
X
V
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
fr./
LU-
r/o
LL
T.JI
f.
T.
7
FIEPL NO:
INITIALS:
\
\
\
0
T
E
S
'Renewal days: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETF013-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
I. (*'',.
CCO
meter
reat-
ment
Day: (4
Day:
Day:^,
Day:^
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day:
lay:
Day:
N
\
I
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
t.}
\
\
REPL NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
f
IS)
••Renewal days: First column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
-------
CERIODAPHNIA REPRODUCTION (FORM ETF060-AMB)
Treatment;
ID.
Rep,
10
D
a
o
O
O
^
Jt
0
DayiS
3
/ V
/a
/M
re
Day?
/a
to
DayS
C
o
/I
/J
A
6
f-3
fi
10
A.
10
o
o
o
a
A
Jk.
O
s-
ct
/(n
Q
_2_
/r
J
D
.A.
0
£L
J±
c
c>
ifi
/a
0
o
r
A
0
0
0
0
o
0
A
u
10
X
x
x
.X
X
X
10
Initials:
Time:
VJfi
Note: D = dead;
-------
CBI BASELINE INFO- SALTWATER CHRONIC TESTS FORM STF210-AMB
Somes.
. C ,
TEST ORGANISMS
Source:
Hatctvfldease Datefs) 8, Timefel: lO/>«/OD
to / O/t"J»t)
Acclimation Water: Type U. Vo C<^
Feeding Prior to Test: Artemia <^( Aiay Not fed
Salinity,
Other
| Arrival Oate (non-CBI source): A/ft
Temperature Ramie (Cl 9-> "
Chamber Size: 1000ml \J 300ml Other
Initial No. Organisms per Replicate: ( £) No. Replicates: 5~ Photoperiod: (fc L:
TEST DESIGN
Test Volume: 750ml V/ 200 rrf
l V/
Other_
Randomization Template No.
Feeding During Test: Arlemia !^/( /day Other:
Set-un Date: /£>/ i 77 t^ D Time Waler Added
TEST SET UP
Time Animals Added
Set-up By (Initials)
Stem Thermometer No.
. £-)
YSI DO Meter f 1 (SNE801 4475
YSIDOMeter»2[SN9IA026329)
INSTRUMENTATION
SP PortapH2 Meter (B52360)
Corning 240 pH Meter (SN526B)
.^-"'CP Digisense pH Meter ID9500563)
v^^'Sartorius R1 BOP Balance [400200931
_ .YSI SCT 33 Meter (H801 6792]
partan ATC Refractometer (A366)
NOTES:
As Ojjafity Assurance Officer for this test I certify that no significant deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections (unless otherwise noted below) and
that the data accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
Signature
CBI TEST ID: V,l/V\5& O
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File:ETF013-AMB
N
0
T
E
S
Renewal days: First column - data for measurements before renewal; Second column - data for measurements after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETF013-AMB
CB1 TEST ID: W>T/\fls6Q0S C c.
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
Day:
Day: \
Day: 3L
Day:
Day: 3
Day:
Day:
Day:
Day: J~
7.30
7 2.7
7-44.
7.37
±AL
7.43
7.76
7.44
•776-
7.7?
1.11
7.47
737
7.32.
7.
7.41
-771T
-7:50
^.H(
7.34
T77_
7.V?
735
775
7.7^
^JaL
7.1 Z
7.4^
7.7 i.
D
1
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(mg/l)
- 3
7.1
7-1-
4.7
va
1-H
7-1
9-.I
Y.O
1-f
J3-L
(,.<*
2.0
7.C
rx
1-f
7.o
Td.
to
If
7.0
7,0
_2,5_
REPL. NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
i
CIS
AM
"Renewal days: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
ii
t.t.
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETF002-AMB CBI TEST ID:\rf <"5
Treat-
ment
*$*,
frVjr
/o
l°Al
\lff»
NUt-
Day 2
10
SO
io
io
10
10
10
lo
10
/O
10
/o
lo
10
t*
;o|zo
15^6
M
Day 3
/O
/"
10
ID
10
/O
10
JO
Jo
fO
/Q
10
10
to
l°(ll
\*\
^
Day 4
<&
( f)
(b
'6
<&
<£
IK
/A
^6
10
'a
/G
^
/O
^0
/o/ad^
Day 7
O
lo
10
to
it>
fo
fo
/o
/o
/o
to
fo
(Q
to
'o
10/ZS
ll
-------
iUKV
Treat-
ment
ft\
3-3
m
•H
•)]
JVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETF002-AMB CB1 TEST ID: Vl?T C^ C C- V
Repl.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
DATE:
TIME:
INITIALS:
Dayl
/£>
/#
/
/*
Io
lo/A
12,45
MfJ
Day 2
/O
/o
10
10
10
10
/Q
/o
/C
/O
/O
/o
/C
Io
Io
JO/10
1545
t4
Day 3
to
to
to
ft)
10
to
to
10
10
Iti
/o
/o
q
/O
/b
U>fXv
nt«
/.H
Day 4
r6
ifc
(A
'Ci
^
/A
,'A
ff,
fD
'^
'6
/6
C)
f6
^0
tft/w
/Ta£
(^^
DayS
/O
/t?
to
/C
f*
fO
/ c<
JO
/o
10
/o
/o
1
10
^0
IDl2.2>
i(?oc
fv/\ \\
Day 6
*\\0
/o
/o
/C
to
i'O
9 \S
to
10
°l
/o
/o
1
/*
io
V°/ZA
.o}?
^
Day?
/O
.
ID
10
\o
/O
fO
Io
IG
°l
/O
fo
t
fO
/o
ic/tf
^A^
*t
Day8
/6
f^
f£
\t)
1
10
/c)
v-
13-**
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Fi1c:ETF002-AMB CB1 TEST 1D:V l>f\*t>t>&^
N
0
T
E
S
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) File:ESTF008-AMB CBI TEST
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
Treat-
ment
Repl.
No.
Pan No.
Total Wt.
TareWt.
Net Total
MeanWt.
1
Z*
2'}
3o
1
AL
5". 50
to. 22.
5.4,3
(3. /
&.50
45
\ .
3i
32
33
35
£>.
IS'. I/
4H7
L^L
LIT.
'3.3V
0.93
37
3?
6.36
55
4t,Q
6.52.
f/.S'*?
Ass.
NOTES:
TARE WT.: DATE lQ/25/es INITIALS:
TOTAL WT.: DATE f O/3 (3 /O& INITIALS
CALIB. {CLASS S
CALIB. {CLASS S 10 MG|:
N
0
T
E
S
-------
ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT (mg) File:ESTF008-AMB CBI TEST ID: V.MS
ccv
Treat-
ment
A -6)
V
Repl.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
V
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Pan No.
frU
51
St
&\
(00
\
^
Total Wt.
^,-77
f3"(): (£>.of;
TareWt.
\
\
Net Total
\
MeanWt.
-------
CBI BASELINE INFO - SALTWATER CHRONIC TESTS FORM STF210-AMB
HA.
TEST ORGANISMS
Source: - C&J.
Hatch/ReleaseOateis)&Timeto \O\ Vtj »JO
Acdimation Water: Type KwirA
Arrival Date(non-CBI source):
Salinity
Tmma-alure Range (Cl
Feeding Prior to Test: Arlenia .1^ flay Not fed _ Other
Ch.mb«Si«: 1000ml_^l 300rrt _ Other
Initial No. Organisms per Ralieate: \& No. Reptotes: 5'
TEST DESIGN
TatVolume: 750 mir?^ 200ml - Other
Photoperiod: Jfe_L J[
Randomizetion Tanplate No.
Feeding During Test: Anemia 3.A- /day Other:
TEST SET UP
TiineWatg Added /O I ° Time Animals Added tj I 5~
SeHip By (Initials)
St^Th^mometerNo.
YSI DO Meter * I (SNEB01 4475
_
•^IDOMeter«2(SN91A026329)
INSTRUMENTATION
SP PortapHZ Meter (8523BO)
Corning 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
-^CPOigisansepH Meter (D9500563)
IartoriusRIBOP Balance (40020093)
>S SCT 33 Meter (H801 6792)
_s.X>partan ATC Refractometer (A366)
NOTES:
As Ouslity Assurance Officer for tfiis test I certify that no significant deviations from accepted protocol occurred during routine inspections (unless otherwise noted below) and
that the data accurately reflect the test as it was performed by CBI.
Comments:
Signature
Date
CBI TEST ID:
fl r>oJ
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY File.ETF013-AMB
CBI TEST ID: \xTcfN S
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
Day:O
Day:)
Day: 3
Day:3
Day:
Day:
Day:?
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
25.
25 q
. 0
2S.1c
25.0
25.
25. \
25
263
25.
25*0
25 2
25.
zs.s
252
25 3
25.1
25 I
25 -t,
25 c
s
A
L
1
H
1
T
Y
(g/kg)
2-0
ZO
2o
20
t.2.
12.
4.3
V-.?
So
TO
S3
So
i.
9.0
6.2
/ f
2-2
REPL NO:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
6/5
Mil
"Renewal dayt: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurement* after renewal
-------
DAILY WATER QUALITY Filc:ETF013-AMB
CBI TEST ID:
Para-
meter
Treat-
ment
Day:Q
Day:)
Day:^
D.y:3
Day:
Day:
Day:
1. -7*
1.45
7-St)
?,
7- -71
-7-10
-J.53
LSI
-7.41
T-8S
-7.Z6
-7.13
-7.^(0
7,66
S
S
0
X
Y
G
E
N
(ma/I)
S-,2
S.
*•;
SM
^4
(,.2
(p/fr
•7.2.
L-L
fr.O
7-4
•_JL
0.)
s.o
ifi_
REPL. NO:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
a
•Renewal days: First column • data for measurements before renewal; Second column • data for measurements after renewal.
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETF002-AMB
CBI TEST ID.
Treat-
ment
No.
Dayl
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day5
Day 6
Day?
DayS
Avg. % Live
/£>
JO
SO
/O
SO
/O
/b
/o
/b
!0
/O
10
<£>
/O
to
to
(0
/O
fO
lo
to
/O
/O
ID
iO
ro
Iv
/O
•to
Jo
10
to
a
0
O
7
B
s-
fc
fc
DATE:
TIME:
INITIALS
N
0
T
E
S
(400
-------
SURVIVAL
8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETF002-AMB
Dayl
-------
SURVIVAL - 8-DAY AMBIENT TEST Filc:ETFO()2-AMB CBI TEST \D\fZ Kx5 Q &P3 C Y* (*)
Treat-
ment
£
\
Kepi.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
\
4
5
3
4
5
DATE:
TIME:
INITIALS:
N
0
T
E
S
Dayl
0
0
0
o
0
k
V
\
\
Day 2
V_
^.
"^^-^
Day 3
"\
/
/
^
Day 4
"^-^
_^— —
/^
/
/
DayS
^^-
• ^^
Day 6
---— ^^
^•— -
\
\
\
\
Day?
^-_
.
^~—
\
\^
Day8
/
y
/
/
/
J
Avg. % Live
«
'
/
-------
MYSID FECUNDITY AND DRY WEIGHT (mg)
FORMETF211-AMB
Treatment
c
1
1.2%,
Sample I.D.
4.3%. i
Sample I.D>
Sample I.D.
4
3-2
Sample I.D.
b
Sample I.D.
6
Sample I.D.
7
Sample I.D.
8
Sample I.D.
NOTES:
Rep
1
?
4
1
7
4
"i
1
3
4
1
3
4
5
1
7
3
4
1
7
3
4
B
1
2
3
4
5
1
7
3
4
5
1
3
4
R
? w/eggs
till
IU
1 "
ill
_LLJ
nil
u
^^— — —
ni
• i'
n
1
? no eggs
11
I)
1
•—--^
" '
I
\
U
1
\
1
Males
mm
\\\\
inn
m\\
i \\V\\
*^— ^.
_ • —
^
u
i
i
i
i
1
j
])\\\
\\\\
nil
IIU\\
Immatures
1
\
^=
III
in
in
i
1
Pan No.
L,l
i*1
i^
1*S>
—
-
^ ""
-
LL,
taS
(al
10
•71
72
—
73
7*\
-rS
7L
77
7?
„
_
—
—
Total Wt.
# 3f2
«§• 3?
7 f>4
?, 3CJ
S-.S:^
4 TO
J\ >Q x*
6 yt>
5 ^^
5.53
4,-rt
f ^^
_*£• °^
7.. 3o
tf 7t.
» 41
7 7i
v*.. ^^
TareWt.
S.bl
5 s4
4 7 A
4.47
3". /S
— • — • —
— _
•4^2*?
^ 6,4
4.84
5. '2O
4. 31
J AL,
—
jf] *j /
4-~lh
5 9«?
&> 31
6.8&
Net Total
/3.2.I
2.1&
l.lpA
2.42
1 7^1
— "
1 .
£>.«U
0.32
/.02
0.79
y, -?2
Q.2%
0 .25
0.2.V
2.&A
2.77
2A\^
/.fit,
2* 3fc
Mean Wt.
0.32
0.2%
0.24,
0,2^
d,3T
==^-
1^BM_M_«*^—
n./&
n.zo
0.20
n.Z£>
0.2B
0.2S
a. z<3
C. 2V
<5.3l
(0.27
0.23
0.30
SEXED BY- M t TARE WT-: DATE: "V25 INITIALS: MvJ CALIB> (CLASS S 1 ° MG): ^
TOTAL WT: DATE: <-/2-} INITIALS: MIL CALIB. (CLASS S 10 MG): i0 .n\
/-PT TPQT rn-
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. NPDES ACUTE REFERENCE TEST'Cehodaphnia dubia (Form CDART)
Cone.
(mo/I)
Control
274
392
I.D.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-1
2-2
2-3
?-4
Observer
Time:
Dayl
#Live
T
SJ
r
S"
<"
<*
6"
<
'<
<
<*>
T
CO
HjiV
Day 2
8 Live
"r
i
"
t
^
C
1
A
6
O
4
0
&
/
Day 2
#Live
£
\
6
9-
G
<^
^
o
o
o
a
6
Final %
Survival
ir
0
0
s
to l*ht/»>
Species: Ceripoaphnia dubia
Harvest dale/time f V/1/0^ <
Acclimation water SFW Othen_
Acclimation Temp, (range): Z- ". 7
Feeding prior to test: YCT/Selenastrum / V /d Other
Feeding during test: Not fed D YCT/Selenastnjm_j2 hr- P™
Chambers^: 30ml ^ 100ml D Ottar ml
Test volume: 15 ml (9 25 ml D Other ml
Initial no. organisms ner replicate: S No. replicates: ^T
Phatoperiod: 16L:8D E3 Other Randomization template no._^i
~
H«i/
SET UP: Date
tp
Time Animals Added
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
Stem Thermometer Number_
D»SI D.O. Meter* 1 (SNE80144%75)
0CP Digisense pH Meter (D9500563)
D SartoriusRieOP Balance (40020093)
DVSISCT 33 Meter (H8016792)
Other
Tim Water Added
Set Up By
/
GfYS D.O. Meter * 2 (SN9 1 A026329)
D Coming 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
Qs=> PortapH2 Meter (852360)
M Horiba Conductivity Meter (51 1 001 )
T
E
M
P
pH
D.O.
(mgrl)
C
0
N
D
(uS)
Replic
above n
Init
NOTES
OayO Dayl Day 2
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
cfr
i
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
ate*
leas.
ials:
2.Y/3
2Y.Y
-z-^.y
IH. "r
•*yj
•z-y.f
7&C,
'1 \^
ML
1~%1
1 Kl
If^til-
-------
TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. VERSION 1.5
DATE: 10/18/00
TOXICANT : KCL
SPECIES: C DUBIA
RAW DATA: Concentration
(PPM)
.00
274.00
392.00
560.00
800.00
1143.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
TEST NUMBER: CDART
DURATION:
48 H
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
20
.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
Mortalities
1
0
0
15
20
20
513.00
478.58
549.90
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION,
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. NPDES ACUTE REFERENCE/W/iKp/w/M promelas (Form PPART)
1 1
f Cone.
(mg/l)
Control
515
735
1050
1500
2143
I.D.
C-1
C-2
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
Observer:
Time:
Dayl
#Live
(0
\0
f\
,0
i£J
q.
5-
•r
o
0
a
0
Cff)
1 T* V"/V
Day 2
*Live
JO
ID
°\
10
15
3
3
—
*"•
—
-
s^o
1500
Final %
Survival
/Oft
16
70
^
6
6
Species- Pimephales promelas
Hatch ihitf/t'1"*1 / ° 1 1 S"( C°
Source: ^C
t ^ / ^.'} \ *\
(7 Ont. ( 5^
Acclimation wnter SFW Other:
/•) C ]
Fuding prior to test Artemia ^J )f
Feeding during test: Not fed ^ Other
Chamber size: 500 ml D 1000ml
Test Volume: 250ml D 500 ml 0
Initial no. animals per replicate / A
Photoperiod:1BL8D Q Other
srr IIP- n«t« | o/\ ^JO n
Time Animals Added /jfQO
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
^t.m Thannnmetxr Number
D YSI D.O. Meter # 1 (SNE8014475)
^ CPDigisense pH Meter (D9500563)
D Sartorius H160P Balance (40020093)
D YSI SCT 33 Meter (H801 6792)
| Other
t. :' fc D
/d Other:
53 8000ml n Other ml
3 4000ml D Otl»r_ ml
No. replicates eX
Randomization template no.:/ —^ | ^
Tim. WaUr Added (.3^5
SetUnBv Ml4
El YSI D.O. Meter #2 (SN91A026329)
D Coming 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
DsPPortapH2 Meter (852360)
H Horiba Conductivity Meter (5 11 001)
T
E
M
P
pH
D.O.
(mg/l)
C
0
N
D
luS)
Replic
above r
Ini
NOTES
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
ate*
neas.
lials:
'25.0
?5.o
-2^,6
•24.1*
24.t*
•2*1.7
7.76
7.11
7,-?^
-],~l°\
-7.71
•8.2
G,?
&1
8.1
^^
275
f090
ISfL
/wz
24^0
WbO
1
(Vlrl
av./
O'O
3. /.
^.i
?./
^.fl
2.1
\>/7
^V5 0
'b??^
5t
w
P4.^
cJH. ^
^.H.\
^4. \
—
—
1. "J^
7.7T
7. 77
1.1^
—
—
^.0
n: 1 00 mg class
Swt= /af).l
mg/l
95%CL 1^)^- ^^b-1 "9/1
TEST I.D. : PffafZT
-------
TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. VERSION 1.5
DATE: 10/19/00
TOXICANT : KCL
SPECIES: P PROMELAS
RAW DATA: Concentration
(PPM)
.00
515.00
735.00
1050.00
1500.00
2143.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
TEST NUMBER: PPARTCC
DURATION:
48 H
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
20
5.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
Mortalities
0
1
6
15
20
20
854.57
763.81
956.11
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS, INC. NPDES ACUTE REFERENCE - Mysidopsis bahia
(Form MBART)
DayO
Dayl
Day 2
(mgfll
Control
343
490
700
1000
1429
I.D.
C-1
C-2
1-1
1-?
2-1
2-?
3-1
3-?
4-1
4-?
5-1
5-?
Observer
Time:
uay i
#Live
/D
(O
1°
10
to
B'Nhe
IS
Anemia 2X/d •/
d O Anemia
^ 500 ml E
] 250ml BJ
,licate: / O
? Ot
lifa
Artec!
:
: A
wr
r Salinitv: rQ
to 2-itf
Other
IX^ri ^Other.
':000ml D Other ml
SOOml C3 Other: ml
No. replicates: r^
Rambmization temnlate no. \f
^0 Time Water Added /? «?=•
^^0
IIEB014475)
(D950D563)
ce (40020093)
016792)
SetUoBv -tO
IS'YSI D.O. Meter* 2 (SN91A026329)
d] Coming 240 pH Meter (SN526B)
D ^P PortapH2 Meter (852360)
GET Spartan ATC Refractometer (A366)
T
E
M
P
pH
D.O.
(ma/I)
S
A
L
1
N
(gfks)
Replic
above n
In!
NOTES
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
ate*
neas.
ials:
2-^T'
,,^-/
is/"/
,ZY-t
i/V
IT.1'
v?
^.^
7.0
7-1
TL
7--V
-^->
'to
^0
^c»
lo
10
/V>
A4.7
2f.7
2-4 1,
2^7
. — .
7.77
7.74
174-
—
7.1
7.1
7.0
. ,
^
i»
ic
i-c
2.0
— .
—
f
e\. ft
mo/1
in method ( ^ |/
TESTI.D.: nf3flJlT
-------
TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. VERSION 1.5
DATE: 101800
TOXICANT : KCL
SPECIES: M BAHIA
RAW DATA: Concentration
(PPM)
.00
343.00
490.00
700.00
1000.00
1429.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
TEST NUMBER: MBART
DURATION:
48 H
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
20
.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
Mortalities
0
0
10
13
20
20
555.15
497.21
619.84
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS. INC. NPDES ACUTE REFERENCE - Cyprinodon vanegatus
I Form CVART)
Cone.
(mg/l)
Control
432
720
1200
2000
3333
I.D.
C-l
C-2
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
Observer
Time:
Day!
ILive
la
l«
li
X
i
O
o
M
fa
Day 2
#l.ive
10
lo
lo
10
lo
1
(,
3
I
1
o
0
f>h
,,-i^
Final %
Survival
/ J->
1 v» .-j
<\<
^
1*
0
Soecies: Cvprinodon varieqatus
Hatch Date/Time: loljf/oo I?C>
Acclimation water HWMASW IS
Arrlimation Temp, (ranqe): **^
Feeding prior to test: Artemia &t,X,
Feeding during test: Not fed f$ An
Chamber size: 300ml Q SOO^
Test volume: 200 ml D 25° "^
Initial no. organisms per replicate: 1 C
Photoperiod 16L8D Q Hthpr
SETUP: Date |«? {A^jtott
Time Animals Added )}»<
INSTRUMENTATION USED:
Stem Thermometer Number A |
B'YSI 0.0. Meter* 1 (SNE8014475)
[SfcP Digisense pH Meter (D9500563)
D Sartorius R160P Balance (40020093)
QYSISCT 33 Meter (H801 6792)
Other
Source: Lfi \
o i«|iff/ou rHn>
Other Salinity: 1.°
to 1J-
/d Other
errna /d Other
D 1000ml H Other ml
31 500ml ]3 Other ml
1 No. replicates: r~J
Randomization template no. «•
Time Water Added (?»«
•> SetUpBv fO/WH
EH YSID.O. Meter#2(SN91A026329)
•Booming 240 pH Meter (SN5268)
D SPPbrtapH2 Meter (852360)
Q'spartan ATC Hefractometer (A366)
T
E
M
P
pH
D.O.
(mg/l)
S
A
L
I
N
(n/kq)
Replic
above n
Init
NOTES:
DiiyO Oayl Day 2
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
its*
als:
a.s\i
4*,
AI-.I
Iv i.
1tA
ijr.,
7.81
-7.JK
-7.VK
7.K
-7.1
9.1
7?
75
9},
7?
2^,
/1/Q
li-
Xo<
ax
j
r»Mi|
^ ^J j
&9 fM
l^.t
2
2-M.I
tH(
IvW '^*
y»L M (
i^.\
—
T /L
7-jkY
•7-^7
0-/1
Q.JL--
.^~
^.^
I-/
n
''•f
9.7-
—
t-e?
1-<7
1-x>
1^>
2,!^
—
^
ft
Toxicant stock: KCI Siama 'Ultra'
Prep, of highest con
Balance Calibration:
I'
48-h LC50: U-C
95% C.L.
c: 100/3LHWM
1 00 rnj class S \
loo
Mt= mg
mgyi
mg/l
Calculation method
TEST I.D.:
T
-------
TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. VERSION 1.5
DATE: 102300
TOXICANT : KCL
SPECIES: C VARIEGATUS
RAW DATA: Concentration
(PPM)
.00
432.00
720.00
1200.00
2000.00
3333.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
TEST NUMBER: CVART
DURATION:
48 H
Number
Exposed
20
20
20
20
20
20
.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
Mortalities
0
0
1
11
18
20
1199.99
1041.41
1382.73
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Fonn ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
c*> 1 afr y>
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
Diss. Oxygen(mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaC03)
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date
llUliai3/i-'aiv i i~.x f »/> n I • /"" I ^ i i - 1^-1 _—. —• — —
C-Clear O-Opaque Y-Yellow B-Brown A-Biack G-Green T-Turbid SI -Solids (S-Slight M-Moderate V-Very Much)
SAMPLE ADJUSTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS?
Sample Date I/ft/?fl f» I f/It0f?-O0 I lolQco
Temp.(°C)
Salinity (g/kg)
D.O. (mg/1)
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min) \ ( , [}
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
pH
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
Initials/Date
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Temp.(°C)
Salinity (g/kg)
pH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaC03)
Alkln (rng^ CaC03)
Initials/Date
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLE ID:
TEST ID:
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Fom, ETF202B-AMB)
TNTTTAI, (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
lOfCfofr (0 zo o*
/.
^/ o c/ ^)
^^V /o^
s"S^ &i
CY CM
Initials/Date |(5-/) fp/iff"! f/> join*
\
M.^ 1 \
\, /o
^/ 0
NO
(o S"x
r v/
t-^) fD/^tJ
X
C Cl-Ink* \A \At
\
X
X
%rJorot^ \/_\//»n.
\
Mnrhl
SAMPLE ADJUSTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
Sample Date l/kf7fr|>
ACUTE'
I02.30C,
Temp. (°C) | a Vt
-. t/
lav.5?
Salinity (g/kg)
Ajfi
D.O. (mg/1)
I/Q.V
io.2
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min) | /, p
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1) | y.^.
la-
/.ft
f.
?.f
PH
JiL
S.24
II ^.
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
C?
Nlft
NP
Initials/Date
MA
(0/23
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS: SFW; ^/ HWM;
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Temp-(°C)
TS
Salinity (g/kg)
A/ft-
pH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
. A.
Hard (mg^ CaC03)
PO
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
3
5^
Initials/Date
SAMPLE ID: 3,
S 6
5^
AT
TEST ID:
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Form ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date ||0ftaC>
Temp. (°C)
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
PH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaC03)
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date
\3
£22
A^
2,9/
t^.l
IV?
<-(>&
21
rv
cy
(d tOOo
£-1
25^
A//4
71 2.
/l.C
Vo
M.£
/0^3o6<
^f
a3V
,tw(S
7-fS-
rr.fr
/\/r7
^,A
IOL i^o
rv
^
M\t>w\ Pr> /ota>
loV
C V
£-*? (O/^t
\
\
\
K
\
\
V
X
\
X
\
\
SAMPLE ADJUSTMENT/POST-APJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS;
ACtrTE
SampleDate
Temp.(°C)
1 1X^.3 I 2^-3 25 S
Salinity (g/kg)
/\jA
A/ft
D.O. (mg/1)
.A.I
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min) | ;_ 5-
~ I ' -S
I-9
Adjust. D.O. (mg/l)
pH
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
Initials/Date
V(?|LI
II AJP
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS; SFW:V
HWM:
ACOTE
Temp.(°C)
bv.J
Conduct. (uMHOS)
^r>
Salinity (g/kg)
A/A
A/-A
A/A II A/fl
pH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
I Vi If.3
Hard (mg/1 CaCOS)
f fl
Alkln (mg/1 CaCOS)
Initials/Date I G /*
1 W rt 1 C 4
Pt) /b
SAMPLE ID:
TEST ID: V
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Form ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date l/fc/T-oD
Temp. (°C)
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
PH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaCOS)
Alkln (mg/1 CaCOS)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date
3-^3
A/ft
/*. r\ 2 f /
f U-^ <>-J ^ ^
a.O)
Aa"?
JVV/J
7-^^-
n^
A/^
3>M
/65r-
(j ^)
C^
\
\
\l
l\
t.0/^«l
\
X
\
\
1
\
\
SA1MPT * AnniSTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
Sample Date
lOZooo I loZ3oo
Temp. (°C)
15
215
Salinity (g/kg)
AJfl
MA
D.0.(mg/l)
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min)
2-0
1.5
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
pH
7.75
S.35
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
MD
II A/0
Initials/Date 1 C-/!) i w fir
jojwj
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
SFW^X HWM:
TemP.(°C)
Conduct.(uMHOS)
9.00
II 3 6 f
Salinity (g/kg)
(yp
/Vfl
pH
Piss. Oxygen (mg^)
fr.l
?.Ji
Hard (mg^ CaCOS) | ^3 _ I | Q £> I I & (1 I /•*•
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
Initials/Date
Pa
SAMPLE ID:
TEST
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Form ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date I(bf3-Cs,|j
Temp. (°C)
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
l.V
^ys-0
i,$-
pH 1?. bV
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3)
Alkln (mg/1 CaCOS)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date
fo i*cx> I/033D b \
.?J
'icK.o
M
ff.2°
O.A l/t^
K^C>
^f.O
/i//).
u,D
r y & \ ?w
S'^
CY
Y*
C^f
(^6/a/tfl fl)
\
v
i r\
t/ o i
5-l.A
c>^
CTf
^^)>D^li
^ fl" U.* Ik if X jf ^
\
M
\
\
\
X/,,^K\
SAMPLE ADJUSTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
5*1.5
Salinity (g/kg)
AJC?
I f^O I N//7
D.O. (mg/1)
1,1
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min) \ f ^
1.5-
o.s-
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
f-l
PH
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
Initials/Date
Gfl /dy f«
Temp.(°C)
^ I
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
joO.
pH
ACU'rii*
AJP
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
-Sf./
Hard (mg/1 CaCOS)
n^a
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
r9-
Initials/Date
SAMPLE ID:
- I
TEST ID: V J"
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Form ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
SampleDate \fbt~l-Qb \vte
Temp. (°C)
l> 3.L
Conduct. (uMHOS) | 3, '} £ 0 LY
Salinity (g/kg)
PH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaC03)
Alkln (mg/1 CaCO3)
Color/ Appearance1
Initials/Date
• iX»
/
n>MbC>
^.^
oo \sr¥&»
>?-iTv» 2>o
£33 £^Y
,1 ^ ,t/k
*v^p wO,
^/ o t-l 6
(^y^ 3^-Z-
5-tf f?
LV ( M
(~6 t&tl^l PK
»\»
^,3
^.^j.
/S-,3
(VO'
(j &£)
Of
V
\
\
\
\
\
M
\
\
\
\
\
An.IIISTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
ACUTE
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
as'.j
ar.
Salinity (g/kg)
WO
fslP
D.O. (mg/1)
Aeration Rate
A/Utf)
Aeration Time (min)
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
PH
Ik
II A 6
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
A//0
Ik/o
Initials/Date
Conduct. (uMHOS)
DILUTION WATER CHARACT1ERISTICS:
HWM:
Temp. (°C)
^ Q^S
Salinity (g/kg)
A/O
pH
LL1L
2 r/
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3) | V t// |
V^O lt/7-Q
II ^(^
IL
I .MO
Alkln (mg/1 CaCOS)
bQ
51
5"^-
Initials/Date
fl *l I
SAMPLE ID:
TEST ID: V f rft *5 D D
-------
COASTA—ALYSTSINC.
[Conduct. (uMHOS)_
Salinity (g/kg) 13 ,
Ipiss. Oxygen (mg/l)_
JTot. Chlorine (m§/\)
NH3-N (mg/1)
bard (mg/1 CaC03)
-nlor/Appearance
1 b '"'^n^^ Much)
ACUTE
^
Sample Date^
JTemp. (°c7 b^
Salinity (g/kg)
P.O. (mg/D~ l^'.Co.
Aeration
Aeration
Rate
—-
Time (min)
li»\!
^.
H,|
9-
[Adjust.
~
P.O.
•s-LL
Tot Chlorine (mg/l)Jjoj2.
Initials/Date
ACUTE
(Conduct. (uMHOJ[
Salinity (g/kg)
pH
|Sss"o^en_(mg/l)_
_——•
Initials/Date
SAMPLE !D.
N&
•« -
^ 1 MA.
lo/tv I ^ |dk
c^uTiwi.
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (F«m ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date
\
Temp. (°C)
'3.1,
\
Conduct. (uMHOS)
A.
\
Salinity (g/kg)
X
pH
X
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
i/D.
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaC03)
6
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
\
Color/Appearance1 | C
C
Initials/Date
/o/
1 C-Clear O-Opaque Y-Yellow B-Brown Bl-Black G-Green T-Turbid SI -Solids (S-Slight M-Moderate V-Ver>- Much)
S AMP* -w An niSlTMENT/POST- ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
ACUTE
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
l
Salinity (g/kg)
D.O. (mg/1)
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min)
X
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
V.I
PH
X
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
A/0
Initials/Date
^ i6(d_
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
HWM
ACUTE
Temp. (°C)
25. W
25.
25, -5
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Mti,
Salinity (g/kg)
20
AS
2.0
4.5
l
pH
K
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
fj
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3) | ^
MA
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
jv/A.
Uft
klfc
Initials/Date
tw ff
SAMPLE ID:
TEST ID: W/v\SQC/43
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Form ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Salinity (g/kg)
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
r
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3)
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date
C-Clear 0-Opaque Y-Yellow B-Brown Bl-Black G-Green T-Turbid SI -Solids (S-Slight M-Moderate V-Very Much)
SAMPTF An niSTMENT/POST-ADJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS: ACUTE
Sample Date IffciJofc
Temp. (°C)
Salinity (g/kg)
D.O. (mg/1)
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min)
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
/ ^.
f V
•r^odl
•Jr- Ci
0 -4
pH 13.^1
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
Initials/Date
/uo
/tf iu0t>
(QSlfib
246 \$£.
/•/
IT-.frO-
NO
AJ r?
K
1
\
^r
\
II
II
II
il
II
II
K II
X II
X
II \
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS:
SFW:
ACUTE
Temp.(°C)
25. s
25.6
l\
Conduct. (uMHOS)
\ il
Salinity (g/kg)
70
1,3
M
pH
1 J.lii M
H.15
K
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
l_a_i
\
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3) | ^p [ {SJQ.
rift
\
Alkln (mg/1 CaC03) | jyft ^{X
A/fr
\
Initials/Date
Witt
N
SAMPLE ED: ^
TEST ID:
-------
COASTAL BIOANALYSTS INC. AMBIENT SAMPLE/DILUTION WATER DATA (Fom, ETF202B-AMB)
INITIAL (ARRIVAL) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Conduct. (uMHOS)
Sample Date
Temp. (°C)
Salinity (g/kg)
pH
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1)
Tot. Chlorine (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3)
Alkln (mg/1 CaCO3)
Color/Appearance1
Initials/Date | J \ ——-
1 C-Clear O-Opaque Y-Yellow B-Erown Bl-Black G-Green T-Tuibid SI -Solids (S-Slight M-Moderate V-Very Much)
SAMPLE ADJUSTMENT/POST-APJUSTMENT MEASUREMENTS:
ACUTE
SampleDate
IX
Temp. (°C)
Salinity (g/kg)
V3
D.O.
Aeration Rate
Aeration Time (min) | Q. 5^ I i*o
Adjust. D.O. (mg/1)
17.61 I -1*0
Tot Chlorine (mg/1)
KiD I/VO
Initials/Date
ifi l\
DILUTION WATER CHARACTERISTICS: SFW: HWM
Conduct. (uMHOS)
TemP: (°c)
Salinity (g/kg)
pH
,_7g
Diss. Oxygen (mg/1) I >'.3 | ?•/
Hard (mg/1 CaCO3)
™™~"™^^
Alkln (mg/lCaC03)
XT
X
X
X
ACUTE
26.2.
l\
/.3
1 \
1.1,4 I 7-9S
5i
8V
JL
\
MA
\
Initials/Date
»*
SAMPLE ID:
TEST ID:
-------
Station Mislabelling
Subject: Station Mislabelling
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:17:26 -0400
From: "Morris H. Roberts, Jr."
To: "De Lisle, Peter"
CC: "Richards, Mark A."
There were two types of station labeling error, one related to station
mile and the other an inversion of station label.
As noted in the attached table, Station 1_1, located just downstream of
the Benjamin Harrison Bridge, was correctly labeled as 11 on 10/17, but
incorrectly labeled as 1_B on 10/20. The correct river mile for this
station is 74.29.
The station in Tar Bay was correctly labeled as 1_B on 10/17 but
incorrectly labeled as 1_1 on 10/20. The correct river mile for this
station is 72.08 (not 74.08 as written on the labels).
Call me using my beeper number (804-6452-8014) if you have any
Questions. I have a cell phone available both in my car and in the
boat so I should be able to call back tomorrow within an hour if the
need'arises (worst case is that I'm on my way to the Cattail Creek site,
and because of tides, I cannot go back to the "Mother Ship"). If I
remember to bring my car cell phone, there should be no significant
delay.
mory
I Name: Stationl_l vs Stationl_B.xls
[tatinnl 1 vs Station 1 B.xlsj Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet (application/x-msexcel)[
i Encoding: base64
10/21/009:21 AM
1 of 1
-------
Correct Station
Station Label Collection River
^cation Date Ubgl Used Time Miles
Benjamin Harrison Bridge 10/17/00 CjJI TT> 1700 74.29
10/20/00 1_1 1_B 1800 74.29
Tar Bay 10/17/00 <5lf 1JB^ 1625 72.08
10/20/00 1_B 1_1 1700 72.08
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ID NO. (PC/NPDES)
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Lai & Long, optional)
.^SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
IM+Jt \
STATION LOCATION
&!&> \ ?»,
Relinquished by:
Lab Remarks:
Dale/ Time Received In Laboratory by: (Signature) Date/ Time
Relinquished by:
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler; Copy to Transporter
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Oualitv
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE
I A 1 T
STATION ID
2-
J
M
S
0
4
7
.
3
3
DATE COLLECTED
m '
[^^ CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
1 1
9
0
-
T
O
X
H
2
O
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
I
50060
G
W
T
I
S
s
u
E
%FRB
WEATHER
0
Y
PF
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
00061
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
LATTITUDE
3
7
0[7
1
3
0
LONGITUDE
5
1
5
. .
D
SI
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
TIDE
1
7
TIME COLLECTED
/
D D
CONTAINER »
1
FLOW SEVERITY
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
_£j
O
5
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
FIELD DATA
0.0. PROBE (ms/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND.
-------
Virginia Department
Ul iiiiUJii i/ft/fte/n»i*fc vyi*U'C/i/i/y i
IPROG CODE STATION ID
A 1 T 1 2-JMS074.
2
DATE COLLECTED
9
0010
1
7
TIME cq
I
^^B Y Y M M D D
]^^ CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER*
I 1 9 0 - T O X
H
2
O 7
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER TIDE
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW HATE
I
50060 00061
G SWL
X
T TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
I D
S 74995 74990
S IND/SAMPLE SEX
U
E 81614 84014
LATTITUDE
3 7 1 9 0 0 I 0
^^™ LONGITUDE
^ | 7 | 1 3 1 8 | 0
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxicity Sample
1 1
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
SPWL
X
SAMPLE NO.
1
>-
at
6
FLOW SEVERITY
01351
• OFALIOUO
HOURS
I
TIS (ALP1
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
B400/
VI
D
E
P
T
H
m)
„
c
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
LLECTED
O
O
II T CODE
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
/ d\v
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
rs
MAR
FIELD pH
I
00078
AIR TEMP
(C»)
I
E
00020
HA)
_L
00400
JAROMETER PRESSURE
X
00025
YIELD
_L
SPECIES (ALPHA)
EIGHT (LBS.)
84
00023
X)5
LC/H
84008
FIELD DATA
COND.
(II MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
1
IPROG CODE STATION ID
^ 1 T 1 2-JMS074.
2
DATE COLLECTED
9
0010
1 7
TIME CC
/
^tt Y Y M M D D
^^ CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER*
190- T 0 X
H
2
0 7
1
>
Ul
6
RPFniAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
I
G " SWL
X
T TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
i D
S 74995 74990
S IND/SAMPLE SEX
U
E 81614 84014
LATTITUDE
3(7(1 9 0 D| 0
^^P LONGITUDE
-7(7(1 3 1 8 | 0
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxicity Sample
1 1
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
01351
» OF ALIQUO
SPWL
1C
SAMPLE NO.
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
HOURS
I
TIS (ALP
8400^
W
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
LLECTED
o
6
IT CODE
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
/ o\d
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
TS
MAR
FIELD pH
\
00078
AIR TEMP
(C»)
I
E
00020
KA)
J_
00400
5AROMETER PRESSURE
1C
00025
YIELD
_c
SPECIES (ALPHA)
EIGHT (LBS.)
84
00023
DOS
LC/H
84008
FIELD DATA
COND.
(ll MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE STATION ID
^ | T | 2-JMS074.
0
DATE COLLECTED
8
0010
1 7
TIME COLLECTED
/
^H Y Y M M D D
^^
| CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER*
190- T 0 X
H
I
2
O 7
1
G
<%
£
UNIT CODE
6
0
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATK
I
50060 00061
G SWL
X
T TIS(NUM) SPECIES (MUM)
I D
S 74995 74990
S IND/SAMPLE SEX
U
E 81614 64014
LATTITUDE
3 I 7 I 1 8 2 B\ 0
BB LONGITUDE
-7 | 7 | 1 1 0 2 | 2
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxlcity Sample
1 BASE
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
(c\5
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
» OF ALIOUOTS
MAR
FIELD pH
I
00078
AIR TEMP
F?
I
00020
SPWL
X
SAMPLE NO.
LENdTH (INCHES)
00024
HOURS
|
TIS (ALPHA)
X
00400
3AROMETEH PRESSURE
X
00025
YIELD
X
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
W=IGHT(LBS.)
84
00023
005
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
,
t
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
HELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. (11 MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
U|T
STATION ID DATE COLLECTED
2-
J
M
S
0
r '
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
50060
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
7
4
.
0
8
GROUP CODE
T
0
X
H
2
0
%FRB
WEATHER
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
1
7
TIME CO-LECTED
/
D 0
CONTAINER #
I
0
%_
<
UNIT CODE
6
0
6
TIDE FLOW SEVERITY
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
00061
SWL
I
TIS (NUM)
74995
INO/SAMPLE
81614
LATTITUDE
»N
T^
t'
8
2
8 j 0
LONGITUDE
1
1
0
2 | 2
D
SE
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
REGION CODE
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
* OF AUQUCTS
I
00076
AIR TEMP
(C»)
I
E
00020
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
EX
84014
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
I
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
00023
JAROU
&\^
COLLECTOR
MAR
FIELD pH
X
00400
.1ETER PRESSURE
X
00025
YIELD
|
SPECIES (ALPHA)
B4(
X>5
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
m)
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. (/i MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxicity Sample
1 BASE
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
,
t
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. (/i MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE
W 1 T
STATION ID
2-
J
M
S
0
F '
CATALOG-NUMBER
1 1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
I
50060
G
W
T
I
S
s
u
E
4
7
3
3
GROUP CODE
T
0
X
H
2
%FHB
0
DATE COLLECTED
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
1
7
D D
CONTAINER #
\
TIME COLLECTED
f
o
0
^
UNIT CODE
6
0
6
WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
00061
SWL
I
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
D
SE
SPECIES INUM)
74990
:x
84014
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
SPWL
M/F SURVEY DEPTH
M
5
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS WATER TOX SAMPLE
4_3
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND. (p MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE
!-&. | T
STATION ID
2-
J
M
S
0
4
r
CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
|
C
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
^1 7
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
3 2
£060
T
0
.
0
DATE COLLECTED
3
0010
1
TIME COLLECTED
7
/
Y Y M M 0 D
GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER It
0
X
%FHB
H
2
0 7
WEATHER TIDE
00002
FLOW RATE
00041 00067
COLLECTION SPAN
1
3
/
r
UNIT CODE
6
0
FLOW SEVERITY
6
M/h
M
?P
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
« OF ALIQUOTS
MAR
FIELD pH
I
00078
AIR TEMP. (C»)
00061
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
SPWL
JL
SPECIES (NUM)
D
S!
•X
74990
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
I
E
00020
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84014
LATTITUDE
1
0
'I
LONGITUDE
5
1
•I
3
•
WATER TOX SAMPLE
D
E
P
T
H
00024
m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
J_
00400
AROMETER PRESSURE
X
00025
YIELD
JL
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
84(
00023
)05
LC/H
84008
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND.
(V MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
2-
J
M
S
0
4
0
•
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
7
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D 0
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER #
TIME COLLECTED
UNIT CODE
SURVEY DEPTH
M
TV
REGION CODE
COLLECTOR
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
T
O
X
H
2
%FRB
O
WEATHER
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
SWL
I
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
00061
D
s
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
=X
64014
7
TIDE
1
6
0
6
FLOW SEVERITY
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
M
A R
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
* OF ALIQUOT S
1
00078
AIR TEMP. (C')
1
E
00020
SPWL
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
I
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
00023
MROA
FIELD pH
1
00400
4ETER PRESSURE
1
00025
YIELD
I
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84
)05
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS WATER TOX SAMPLE
3 2
0
E
P
T
H
(m)
_
c
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP ' C
00010
COND. iil MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Devartment
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
ilpROG. CODE
W 1 T
STATION ID DATE COLLECTED
2-
J
M
S
0
r '
CATALOG-NUMBER
1 1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
I
4
7
•
8
1
GROUP CODE
T
O
X
H
2
O
%FRB
WEATHER
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
1
7
D D
CONTAINER »
1
TIME COLLECTED
I
(
/
<
UNIT CODE
6
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
30
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
MAR
TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) HELD pH
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
50060 00061
G
W
T
1
s
s
u
E
SWL
I
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
LATTITUDE
^
-7 8
:1
3
3
"
LONGITUDE
5
2
2
8 j 0
D
SE
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
01351 00078
* OF ALIQUO~S AIR TEMP
1C")
I
E
00020
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
EX
84014
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
I
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
00023
00400
JAROMETER PRESSURE
I
00025
YIELD
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84(
W5
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (jl MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS WATER TOX SAMPLE
4 1
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
i
i
't
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
'
COND. (jl MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
JPROG. CODE
CATALC
1
9 0
2-
X3-NL
J
M
MBER
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
I
50060
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
E
STATION ID
S
0
4
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED
7
.
8 1 0
0
1
0
Y Y M M
GROUP' CODE PRIORITY CODE
T
O
X
H 2 O
%FRB
WEATHER
7
TIDE
1
7
TIME COLLECTED
(
D D
CONTAINER »
i
(
i
^
UNIT CODE
6
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
3I&
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
00002 00041 00067
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
61614
LATTITUDE
H
jh.
3
3
'1
LONGITUDE
els
2
2
00061
SPWL
01351
« OF ALIOUOTS
MAR
FIELD pH
i
00078
AIR TEMP. (C»)
1
E
00020
SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO.
'
.|.
D
SE
HOURS
1
TIS (ALPHA)
74990
IX LENGTH (INCHES)
84014
00024
J_
00400
JAROMETER PRESSURE
_L
00025
YIELD
J_
SPECIES (ALPHA)
B4007
WI-IGHT (LBS.)
00023
64
»5
LC/H
B400B
D
E
P
T D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
H
m) 00299
FIELD DATA
TEMP « C
00010
COND. dl MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS WATER TOX SAMPLE
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
,
c
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP « C
00010
COND. dl MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virsinia Denartment
of Environmental Quality
IPROG. CODE STATION ID
U^l T 1
CATALC
K_
9 0
2-
X3-NU
J
M S 0 6 5 .
8
1
MBER GROUP CODE
T O X
H
2
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED
0
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FHB WEATHER
00116 00002 00041
RFSIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
I
500BO 00061
G
W
T
1
S
s
u
E
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
TIDE
1 7 L
s
/
s
D D
CONTAINER * UNIT CODE
1
FLOW SEVERITY
6
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
REGION CODE
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
00067 01351
COLLECTION SPAN » OF ALIOUOTS
I
00078
AIR TEMP. (C>)
I
E
00020
SWL SPWL
X
TIS(NUM) SPECIES (MUM)
D
74995 7499C
IND/SAMPLE SEX
81614 84014
LATTITUDE
7 1 1
8
0
TT7
LONGITUDE
4
5
5 1 0
HOURS
X
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA)
iAROf
/ tf|0
COLLECTOR
MAR
FIELD pH
X
00400
DIETER PRESSURE
X
00025
YIELD
X
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.)
84
00024 00023
»5
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. O/ MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
COUNTY
COMMENTS
2_2
WATER TOX SAMPLE
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP » C
00010
COND. O/ MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
Virginia Deoartment
of Environmental Oualitv
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE STATION ID
Itt 1 T 1
2-
J
M
s
0
6
5
•
8
1
DATE COLLECTED
0
0
1
0
1
7
TIME COLLECTED
)
)
I
00020
E
AROT
M
A R
FIELD pH
I
00400
DIETER PRESSURE
I
00025
YIELD
I
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS.)
00024 00023
84(
>05
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
70
LONGITUDE
5 I 0
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
2 2
WATER TOX SAMPLE
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
r
I
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
CONO. (V MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IpROG. CODE STATION ID
J4^ |T| 2-JMS068.
6
DATE COLLECTED
8
| CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
I 1 9 0 - T 0 X
H
|
2
o
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
HORITY CODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FR8 WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
I
50060 00061
G SWL
HI
T TIS(NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
i D
S 74995 74990
S INO/SAMPLE SEX
U
E 81614 84014
LATTITUDE
3|7|1 8 0 ^4
^^P LONGITUDE
-7 | 7 | 0 7 2 3 J 9
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxiclty Sample
2 1
00041
7
TIDE
1 7
TIMECO-LECTED M/F SURVEY DEPTH
/
D D
CONTAINER S
1
fep^ M
Ik
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606
MAR
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD pH
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
I
J_
01351 00078 00400
» OF ALIOUOVS AIR TEMP. (C») BAROMETER PRESSURE
J_
_L
00020 00025
SPWL
I
HOURS YIELD
J_
_L
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS.) LC/H
00023 84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
3
5
7
c
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (II MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Oualitv
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IpROG CODE STATION ID
1 A 1 T 1 2-JMS068.
6
DATE COLLECTED
8
^^ CATALOG-NUMBER GROUP CODE
I 1 9 0 - T O X
H
2
O
0
Y
PF
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER %FRB WEATHER
00116 00002
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE
1
G SWL
in
T TIS(NUM) SPECIES (NUM)
1 D
S 74995 74990
S INCVSAMPLE SEX
U
E 81614 84014
LATTITUDE
3 7 1 8 0 1 j 4
^•^•^ LONGITUDE
^7 | 7JO 7 2 3 J 9
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
Water Toxlcity Sample
2 1
00041
7
TIDE
1 7
TIME COLLECTED
/
D D
CONTAINER *
«
%
O
^
UNIT CODE
6
0
FLOW SEVERITY
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
'^k
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
» OF ALIOUOTS
MAR
FIELD pH
I
00078
AIR TEMP. (C')
I
E
00020
SPWL
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
_L
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
J_
00400
SAROMETER PRESSURE
in
00025
YIELD
J_
SPECIES (ALPHA)
B4007
WIEIGHT (LBS.)
00024
84
00023
305
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
_
.
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP»C
00010
COND.
(li MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
OCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE
I* h
1^^
STATION ID
2-
J
M
S
0
m '
\^^ CATALOG-NUMBER
1 1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
G
w
T
1
S
S
u
E
4
2
.
4
6
GROUP CODE
T
O
X
H
2
%FRB
O
DATE COLLECTED
0
Y
PF
WEATHER
00002 00041
FLOW RATE:
00061
SWL
1
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
D
SI
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
•X
84014
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
TIDE
1
7
TIME COLLECTED
/
D D
CONTAINER *
1
z
O
S
UNIT CODE
6
0
6
FLOW SEVERITY
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
SPWL
M/F SURVEY DEPTH
M
REGION CODE
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
I
01351 00078
* OF ALIQUOTS AIR TEMP. (C»)
SAMPLE NO.
I
E
AFO
3*|c5
COLLECTOR
M
A R
FIELD pH
I
00400
BETTER PRESSURE
I
00020 00025
HOURS
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
00023
YIELD
1
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84C
105
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
3
7
1
2
0
9J 6
LONGITUDE
1 2
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
3 1
WATER TOX SAMPLE
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
,
c
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP'C
00010
COND. (II MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppl)
00096
-------
Virginia Department
of Environmental Oualitv
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
IPROG. CODE
1 A I T
STATION ID
2-
J
M
S
0
^^ CATALOG-NUMBER
1
9
0
-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
50060
G
W
T
1
S
S
u
E
4
2
.
4
6
GROUP CODE
T
0
%FHB
X
H
2
DATE COLLECTED
o
WEATHER
0
Y
PF
00002 00041
FLOW RATE;
00061
SWL
1
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
LATTITUDE
3
7
r^F
1
2
0
916
LONGITUDE
7
3
i|.
D
s
0
1
0
Y M M
1IORITY CODE
7
TIDE
1
7
TIME COLLECTED
/
D D
CONTAINER »
{
z.
6
r
UNIT CODE
6
FLOW SEVERITY
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
0
6
M/F
M
SURVEY DEPTH
REGION CODE
SECCHI DEPTH (m)
01351
» OF ALIOUOTS
I
00078
AIR TEMP. (C1
!
E
00020
SPWL
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
EX
84014
SAMPLE NO.
HOURS
I
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
00024
84007
WEIGHT (LBS.)
00023
AROr
3\p
COLLECTOR
MAR
FIELD pH
1C
00400
rtETEH PRESSURE
HI
00025
YIELD
J_
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84
105
LC/H
84008
D
E
P
T
H
(m)
HELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP • C
00010
COND.
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ID NO. (PC/NPDES)
Observations
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Lat. & Long, optional)
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
STATION LOCATION
Relinquished by: (Signature) Date/ Time
Received by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
elinquished by: (Signature)
Received In Laboratory "by: (signature) I Date/ Time ISealsIn place?
Relinquished by: (signature) \ Date/ Time
Preservatlon OK?
Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler; Copy to Transporter
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID 2.
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH
a k>M sla
P
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
VoFRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
FIELD ,H
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
00067 01351
1
00078
1
00400
COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS AZRTtME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
~1
|
1
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
I
SWL
T1S (MUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
SPWL
r
SPECIES (NUM)
D
SEX
74990
84014
J_
HOUR:;
_L
YIELD
SAMPLE NO.
TIS fALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
00024
00023
84005
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
•jsl/CL: 7/947/95(deqfomn)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP" c
00010
COND. Ui MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
[ PROG. CODE STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ^VF SURVEY DEPTH
^M M 1 >0 P^- 5 (-s / f *>*~ \
f)
O r °3L®
\ T" 0
0
^fcj
^^ Y Y M M D D
| CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
-so- fi-ZO TO X
6
0 CD
fa /I £_
1
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER V.FRB WEATHER TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD ,H
1
1
1
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN tfOFALIQUOTS AIRTTME^C0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
1
50060 00061 00020 00025
G SWL SPWL HOURS YIELD
1
\
1
T TIS (NUM) SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
° ..
74995 74990 84007 84005
3
S IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
81614 84014 00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
//„ ft TDX/rr/i/
-- 1
f ^
f| \P^
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
II
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. 0* MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY' (ppt)
00096
iisl/CL: 7/947/95(dsqrorm)
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
PROG. CODE STATION ID
utrl ^^ ^ c GH
CATALOG NUMBER
190- f|/ ^
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ®lf
? «
6
$
GROUP CODE
1 o
;r
o
X
2.
O
f
0%.® \ 5\L?
SURVEY DEPTH
45 \O
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINERS UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6 0
G
M ft £_
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCffi DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
1
00116
1
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078
1
00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUQTS AIRTtME-CC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\V
T
I
S
s
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
TIS (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
/L
fs\/CL: 7/9J7/95(deqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. (n MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
1
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH
f
/ 5
g|q
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER *
UNIT CODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
0
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
MFRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECOfl DEPTH (m)
00116
1
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078
i
00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS ARTIME.fC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
r
T
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\V
T
I
S
S
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
TIS (MUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
/L
csl/CL: 7/947/95(deqlbtm)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. (^ MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH
"00
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER *'
UNIT CODE
\6\Q
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
V.FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
1
00041 00067 01351 ^ 00078
ITS,"
COLLECTION SPAN *OF ALIQUOT!, ^«R TTME.(C°)
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
1 1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\V
T
I
S
s
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
TIS (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SANIPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
ijsl.'CL: 7/947/95(dcqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/I)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. (n MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
•
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY "
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED &TF SURVEY DEPTH
Ulrl "3 v^ $ c*ij-* ?>
3
9
CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE
1 9 0 - $ 2. O 7~
o
X
7)
O
r
O££ / ^ 2.0 J^|<3
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
k& 0 & M /? £_
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCM DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
|
1
00116 00002 00041 00067 01351 00078
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTJ
1
|
1
00400
AIR nME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
\
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\V
T
I
SWL
SPWL
HOUR'S
YIELD
TIS (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
1
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
/Lft
T
: 7/947/95(deqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
S
7
9
II
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/I)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. Oi MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH,
T>o\
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER *
UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
•/.FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCM DEPTH (m)
FELD,H
1
1
00041 00067 01351 00078
COLLECTION SPAN #OF ALIQUOT!! AIRTIME.fC0)
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
1
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
s
1
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
SPWL
1
SPECIES (NUM)
D
SEX
74990
84014
J_
HOURS
SAIVfPLE NO.
1
TIS (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
YIELD
SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
00024
00023
84005
LC/H
84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTS' _
COMMENTS
7DXV
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER*
UNIT CODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOWSEVERJTY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
50060
G
W
T
1
S
S
»
00002 00041
FLOW RATE
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
00061
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
D
SEX
SPWL
1
SPECIES (NUM)
74990
81614
84014
1 1
01351 00078 00400
*OF ALIQUOTJ, AIR TTME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1 1
00020 00025
HOUR;; YIELD
II 1
SAMPLE NO. TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS) LOH
00024 00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTS'
COMMENTS
usI/CL: 7/947/95(dcqfonn)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
i
7
9
11
13
15
I-
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. (jt MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
•
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
629 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ID NO. (PC/NPDES)
Observations,
Field Tests,
Remarks
Made in
Field
SITE LOCATION (Lat. & Long, optional)
SAMPLERS: (Signatures)
Date/Time J Received by. (Signature)1 1 . Relinquished by: (Signature) Date/Time,
Relinquised by: (ignature)
Rgceiye# ty. (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by: (signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (suture) Dale/ Time I Received In Laboratory by:
. Original to Accompany Shipment; copy to Sampler, Copy to Transporter
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
ROC. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED <£VF SURVEY DEPTH
5 C
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
190
#a<9 r
iPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCffl DEPTH (m)
|
00116
00002 00041
1
1
00067 01351 00078
1
00400
RESIDUAL CHLORINE FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS AIRTIME-fC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
1
•
50060
00061
00020
00025
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
JL1
usl/CL: 7/9-»7/95(dcqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
11
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP"0 C
00010
COND. On MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
1
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
ROC. CODE STATION ID
Afrl -3//W5G
CATALOG NUMBER
,90- ft
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED <£VF
7
2.
f
D
fj
GROUP CODE
a
o
r
o
X
2.
(9
f
OS'Xj \ T ^ O
SURVEY DEPTH
?|0
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNICODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR.
fo 0
6
M /f £_
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
V.FRB
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECOfl DEPTH (m)
FIELDS
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
1
00002
00041
FLOW RATE
00067
COLLECTION SPAN
01351
#OF ALIQUOTS
]
1
00078
1
00400
AIR TIME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
_J
50060
00061
00020
00025
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
JL
-sl/CL: 7/9J7/95(deqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. tu MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
*
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROC. CODE STATION
AJT-I
1
\ M
^
£
ID
CATALOG NUMBER
1 <
0
.
f
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
|
50060
G
W
T
1
S
•
(a
%
«.
6?
&
GROUP CODE
n
o
%FRB
7"
o
^
«
WEATHER
00002
FLOW RATE
00061
SWL
i
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
L_
81614
[
00041
SPECIES (NUM)
D
SE
X
74990
84014
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
|
1
|
1
D
E
P
T
H(
PCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ®/f SURVEY DEPTH
VC
> f
o2|? \3-2-° . . 7F
Y Y M M D D
PR1ORTTYCODE CONTAINERS UNTTCODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
606 M R £.
TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD ,H
\ \
00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN *OF ALIQUOTS ADmME.(C°) BAROMETER PRESSURE
1 l__
00020 00025
SpWL • HOURS YIELD
1
1 1
SAMPLE NO. T1S (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
84007 84005
LENGTH (INCHES) WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00024 00023 84008
n)
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l) TEMP"" C COND. IK MHOS/CM) SALINITY (ppt)
00299 00010 00094 °0096
OTHER
COUNTY _
COMMENTS
•jsl/CL: 7/947/95(deqfom)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
1
7
9
1!
13
15
n
19
11
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/1)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. (>i MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
1
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
ROC. CODE STATION ID DATE COL
JjTl ^
JM. 6 C
CATALOG NUMBER
190-
l
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
(e
5
o
'8
1
GROUP CODE.
fu
<9
r
0
V.FRB
^
<
2.
0
f
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
LECTED TIME COLLECTED ^JVF
dji'Z J_ 7*- 0 u
SURVEY DEPTH
•7fc?
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
6 0 G
M /I &_
WEATHER
TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
1
FIELDS
1
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN *OF AL1QUOTS AIR TIME.
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
ROC. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
SURVEY DEPTH
f
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE;
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNTICODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
9 0
N/q Td
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
%FRB WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
FIELD ,H
1
1
00116
3£SIDUAL CHLORINE
00002
FLOW RATE
00041 00067 01351 00073
COLLECTION SPAN *OFALIQUOTS AIRTTME-tC0)
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
u
SWL
SPWL
HOURS
YIELD
T1S (NUM)
SPECIES (NUM)
SAMPLE NO.
T1S (ALPHA)
SPECIES (ALPHA)
74990
SEX
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LC/H
81614
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
U
M-l
•jsl.'CL: 7W7/95(deqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
1!
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/l)
00299
TEMP" c
00010
COND. C« MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
1
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DCLS LAB USE ONLY
PROG.CODE STATION ID DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED <5VF
U trl "3 ^ $ Cj^_^- ' "53 T) O f
0&2 i^^o
SURVEY DEPTH
Tl<^
™ Y Y M M D D
CATALOG NUMBER GROUP CODE PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
i 9 o - ^] #2. o T o X
6 0 & \
faW £-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
%FRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m)
FIELD &
\
\
00041 00067 01351
COLLECTION SPAN *OF ALIQUOTS
00078
00400
BAROMETER PRESSURE
1
1
I
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
\v
T
I
S
•
SWL
TIS (NUM)
74995
IND/SAMPLE
81614
SPWL
1
SPECSES (NUM)
D
SEX
74990
84014
JL
HOUR!!
_L
YIELD
1
SAMPLE NO.
TIS (ALPHA) SPECIES (ALPHA)
LENGTH (INCHES)
84007 84005
WEIGHT (LBS) LC/H
00024
00023 84008
LATTITUDE
1
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTY
COMMENTS
: 7/947/95(deqrorm)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
2!
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mg/I)
00299
TEMP" C
00010
COND. (p MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
••
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
HCLS LAB USE ONLY
ROC. CODE
STATION ID
DATE COLLECTED
TIME COLLECTED
<£VF
SURVEY DEPTH
c
HO r
CATALOG NUMBER
GROUP CODE
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINER* UNirCODE
REGION CODE COLLECTOR
BaH/TolX!
JPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
•/iFRB
00002
FLOW RATE
WEATHER
TIDE
FLOW SEVERITY SECCH3 DEPTH (m)
00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS AIRTIME.tC0) BAROMETER PRESSURE
50060
00061
00020
00025
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
I
OTHER
COUNTY _
COMMENTS
7OX{Crfu_
/
-sl/CL: 7W7/95(dsqform)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
II
13
13
17
19
11
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (ms/l)
00299
TEMP" C
000 10
COND. lu MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
'
-------
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY '
ROC. CODE STATION ID
Ah"! ^ j^ 5 C t
CATALOG NUMBER
190-
SPECIAL STUDY NUMBER
-1 °
6
D
3
GROUP CODE
f/-^|<9
r
o|^
V.FRB
HCLS LAB USE ONLY
DATE COLLECTED TIME COLLECTED ®tF SURVEY DEPTH
•c
2.
0
r
O2.3 I ( ^>5 (?¥$
Y Y M M D D
PRIORITY CODE CONTAINERS UNIT CODE REGION CODE COLLECTOR
& 0 G fa ft £.
WEATHER
TIDE FLOW SEVERITY SECCHI DEPTH (m) FIELD ,H
1 1
00116
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
00002 00041 00067 01351 00078 00400
FLOW RATE COLLECTION SPAN SOFALIQUOTS AIRTIME-tC") BAROMETER PRESSURE
50060
00061
00020
00025
G
W
T
I
S
S
T!
S\VL SPWL HOURS
1 | . _l_
TISO^M) SPECIES (NUM) SAMPLE NO. TIS (AI
D
74995 74990 8
IND/SAMPLE SEX LENGTH (INCHES) ^
SPECIES (ALPHA)
"007
WEIGHT (LBS)
84005
LOH
84014
00024
00023
84008
LATTITUDE
LONGITUDE
1
OTHER
COUNTH'
COMMENTS
/L
-sl/CL: 7/9-n/93(deqfomi)
D
E
P
T
H(m)
3
5
7
9
II
13
13
17
19
21
23
25
27
FIELD DATA
D.O. PROBE (mj/I)
00299
TEMP-" C
00010
COND. (M MHOS/CM)
00094
SALINITY (ppt)
00096
1
-------
Appendix C
Quality Control/Quality Assurance Data for Chemical Analyses
Provided by the Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratories
-------
April 26, 2001
LCS
+/- 30%
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Ag
Cd
% Recovery
Not Certified
114
105
103
101
103
102
Not Certified
Not Certified
107
112
103
99
96
104
*
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY : SEDIMENT
Limits :
April 26, 2001
Pre-digestion Spikes:
Post-digestion Spikes:
AT Sediment
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al *
Mn *
Zn *
620214
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
98
75
90
93
92
88
93
78
99
9
101
94
70-130%
75-125%
Post-digestion
% Recovery
96
92
97
94
98
96
92
97
97
106
101
99
Spike concentration less than 30 % of native concentration of
analyte: spike recovery calculation not possible.
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
100
93
98
95
100
98
91
102
97
108
101
98
-------
644704
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
101
125
112
110
124
96
91
94
100
12
102
108
Post-digestion
% Recovery
101
103
105
101
99
98
99
101
99
111
105
105
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
99
104
106
104
114
100
93
101
100
111
103
103
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY : SEDIMENT
Limits :
April 26, 2001
Pre-digestion Spikes:
Post-digestion Spikes:
644709
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
102
107
106
102
90
90
88
94
101
57
106
98
Duplicate
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
102
94
100
101
97
90
90
94
101
56
106
100
70-130 %
75-125 %
Post-digestion
% Recovery
99
108
107
101
100
100
97
91
99
109
105
100
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
99
100
102
99
86
99
98
101
101
112
105
102
644721
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
102
103
104
108
128
91
86
96
101
52
103
106
Post-digestion
% Recovery
97
92
99
95
87
99
94
85
100
106
103
94
-------
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
101
91
100
94
76
97
89
99
100
106
103
94
-------
Nov. 01,2000
Acceptable Range : 85 - 115 %
LFB
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Fe
Mn
% Recovery
98
105
103
103
98
98
109
100
104
103
102
101
106
99
101
804458
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Mn
Zn
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY : SEDIMENT
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
98
79
84
94
89
93
106
99
40
98
96
94
91
Duplicate
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
87
75
87
97
86
84
102
99
23
96
92
90
90
Post -digestion
% Recovery
94
95
99
99
96
94
98
95
96
98
97
102
91
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
96
102
100
97
96
100
99
97
100
99
97
114
93
-------
805123
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Mn
Zn
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
89
90
98
97
90
82
98
94
67
96
96
86
92
Duplicate
Pre-digestion
% Recovery
93
97
100
100
92
78
99
94
8
102
98
85
96
Post -digestion
% Recovery
102
100
101
101
100
84
100
98
100
104
104
100
94
Duplicate
Post-digestion
% Recovery
98
102
101
100
98
89
101
101
102
104
104
102
95
-------
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY - SEDIMENT
Nov. 06, 2000
Nov. 06, 2000
ICV
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Hg
1
109
104
105
105
104
104
101
98
102
99
104
104
106
96
% Recovery
2
108
107
108
110
110
107
110
106
104
108
108
3
98
97
100
97
99
+/- 30%
LCS
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Hg
% Recovery
Not Certified
111
107
105
101
104
108
100
107
Not Certified
Not Certified
103
117
108
109
106
Duplicate
Not Certified
105
109
107
104
106
111
110
109
Not Certified
Not Certified
110
101
109
111
109
-------
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY - SEDIMENT
Sept. 01, 2000
+/- 30% % Recovery
LCS(NIST2711)
Sept. 01, 2000
Duplicate
Be
Cr
Nl
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Ag
Cd
Hg
Not Certified
108
104
103
97
98
95
Not Certified
Not Certified
103
105
103
106
94
97
101
Not Certified
106
107
113
105
104
96
Not Certified
Not Certified
110
103
102
112
112
104
93
ICV
Be
Cr
Nl
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Ag
Cd
Hg
1
106
95
99
99
108
103
99
93
96
93
95
104
107
2
100
98
100
97
100
98
93
101
99
96
% Recovery
3 1 dup
102
91
97
94
102 109
103
97 100
92
97
95
102
93
102
2 dup
96
102
101
99
105
99
100
105
102
100
3 dup
102
97
102
93
102
-------
AMBIENT TOXICITY STUDY - SEDIMENT
Sept. 21,2000
ICV
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Ag
Cd
Hg
1
93
99
99
99
100
100
104
100
101
100
100
101
102
% Recovery
2 3
101
103 108
91
96
101
96
99
Sept. 21,2000
+/- 30% % Recovery
LCS(NIST2711)
Duplicate
Be
Cr
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sb
Tl
Pb
Al
Fe
Mn
Ag
Cd
Hg
Not Certified
102
101
103
102
103
109
Not Certified
Not Certified
100
86
95
106
101
101
95
Not Certified
121
107
108
107
105
115
Not Certified
Not Certified
105
101
104
115
102
102
97
-------
DEQ CLEAN METALS SPIKE RECOVERIES 7/19/00 -10/25/00
Ambient Toxicity Project
DCMET/TCMET QC Data for Samples Reported Out DEC2000
QCS Spikes - alternate source standard
Analysis
LIMS # Date
Element Cr Mn Ni Cu Zn As Se Ag Cd Sb Tl Pb Al
640881 Oct17 136 103 91 108 131 102 104 104 100 100 101 100 95
642556 Oct25 104 122 115 123 126 109 98 104 106 108 110
642568 96 89 99 93 92 94 98 97 94
-------
DEQ CLEAN METALS
SPIKE RECOVERIES
07/19/00-10/25/00
LIMS#
Analysis
Date
Ambient Toxicity Project
DCMET/TCMET QC Data for Samples Reported Out DEC2000
Spike Recovery Data
Element
640881 Oct18
640883
640893
640894
642556 Oct 25
642557
642567
642568
642571
Cr
99
107
105
100
102
100
106
102
Mn
99
101
120
116
108
Ni
75
90
99
103
116
92
107
88
Cu
100
110
102
104
122
90
109
113
Zn
105
83
137
100
81
104
117
As
101
95
103
104
112
109
106
102
Se
96
106
98
94
99
100
101
93
Ag
96
97
100
93
98
100
101
95
Cd
101
100
99
99
102
104
107
102
Sb
100
94
100
102
105
112
101
101
Tl
102
102
101
100
109
Pb
102
97
99
73
107
105
114
99
Al
95
100
92
Be
94
104
105
99
-------
DEQ CLEAN METALS
QC DATA
LIMS#
James
640797
640871
Sample
ID
River
Total
Diss
RDL
STD
QC
bottle*
Salt
2418
Spk
%Rec
2439
Spk
%Rec
Ambient Toxicity Project
DCMETS/TCMETS QC Data for Samples Reported Out JAN2001
Results in ppb
1.20
4.42
4.77
Al
Water
880
8.10
11.80
74
0.78
4.68
4.67
Mn
110
6.40
10.04
71
0.75
4.43
4.65
Ni
0.69
4.72
4.78
Cu
Received
1.17
0.59
4.56
80
2.11
1.12
4.88
75
3.00
4.10
4.35
Zn
1.00
5.03
1.21
As
10/18/00
5.47
1.10
5.20
80
0.74
0.57
1.00
5.40
0.97
Se
0.40
0.31
0.72
4.58
4.82
Cd
0.00
0.00
5.01
100
1.00
4.82
0.81
Sb
0.07
0.10
0.81
4.58
4.50
Pb
0.98
0.00
4.77
95
1000
0.99
10.10
Ca
30
65
1000
1.10
10.01
Mg
60
180
1000
1.00
10.00
Na
480
1500
1000
0.97
10.00
K
20
60
0.2
5.1
4.8
Hg
0.4
4.98
90
0.5
-------
Analytical Results
15-Aug-Ol
Results are reported to two significant figures, rounded to the nearest 5 ng/g
All results are reported in ng/g.
Blank
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-N-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
B enzo [a] anthracene
Chrysene
Bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
Di-N-octylphthalate
B enzo [b ]fluoranthene
B enzo[k] fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Perylene
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Dib enz [a,h] anthracene
Benzo{g,h,i]perylene
Reporting Limits = 25 ng/g (part per billion)
Compounds reported 10-25 ppb are estimated concentrations
BQL = <10ppb
618780 618780Dup 618781 620225 620227 620228 642274 643031
BQL
60
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
15
40
20
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
10
25
60
45
240
350
470
45
230
240
410
70
300
190
180
290
810
160
40
210
BQL
10
60
20
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
15
BQL
160
45
160
290
390
55
230
230
310
45
290
210
190
280
790
170
40
180
10
15
380
80
15
BQL
25
25
BQL
BQL
230
110
140
230
320
BQL
160
160
180
BQL
190
140
120
200
460
110
25
150
BQL
25
35
15
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
20
30
BQL
110
50
60
BQL
30
40
260
10
35
35
25
35
170
20
BQL
25
BQL
30
50
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
15
40
BQL
BQL
170
55
60
30
30
55
290
20
45
35
30
35
170
20
BQL
25
BQL
20
30
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
150
BQL
25
45
BQL
BQL
170
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
110
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
60
BQL
BQL
310
50
45
85
20
25
290
20
30
20
20
20
120
15
BQL
15
BQL
25
50
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
45
50
BQL
270
110
120
50
55
75
430
50
85
50
20
60
120
45
BQL
60
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Soxhlet Duplicate Sample #618780
8/15/01
Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
Results are reported to two significant figures
All results are reported in ng/g.
DATE RECEIVED: 08/24/2000 DATE EXTRACTED: 08/07/2001
COMPOUND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-N-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo [a] anthracene
Chrysene
Bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo [bjfluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo [ajpyrene
Perylene
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo { g,h,i]pery lene
618780
618780dup
difference
BQL
15
40
20
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
10
25
60
45
240
350
470
45
230
240
410
70
300
190
180
290
810
160
40
210
BQL
10
60
20
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
15
BQL
160
45
160
290
390
55
230
230
310
45
290
210
190
280
790
170
40
180
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
0
80
60
80
10
0
10
100
25
10
NA
10
10
20
10
NA
30
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED:08/23/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Laboratory Control Soxhlet
Sand
8/15/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
Compound Name
DATE RECEIVED: 8/24/2000 DATE EXTRACTED: 08/07/2001
% Recovery Pass/Fail Control Limits
2-Chlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pentachloroanisole
Lindane
Aldrin
Fluoranthene
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Gamma Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
DDT
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
35
66
81
74
57
81
73
88
93
88
96
87
89
68
97
89
106
9-57
2-105
21-105
31-104
20-84
47-104
45-102
41-107
38-124
39-124
32-125
54-109
39-133
37-115
31-134
41-126
38-150
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED: 08/23/2001
-------
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Matrix Spike Soxhlet
Sample #618780
8/15/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
Compound Name
DATE RECEIVED: 8/24/2000 DATE EXTRACTED: 08/07/2001
% Recovery Pass/Fail Control Limits
2-Chlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pentachloroanisole
Lindane
Aldrin
Fluoranthene
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Gamma Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
DDT
Hexachlorobiphenyl
Methoxychlor
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
21
31
81
48
71
64
105
61
92
57
125
103
96
52
73
104
118
9-57
2-105
21-105
31-104
20-84
47-104
45-102
41-107
38-124
39-124
32-125
54-109
39-133
37-115
31-134
41-126
38-150
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED: 08/23/2001
-------
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Surrogate Percent Recovery Report
8/15/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
SOXHLET EXTRAC DATE EXTRACTED: 08/07/2001
Sample #
Trifluorocresol Bromononane Octanophenone Dibromobiphenyl Isodrin
Blank
618780
6 18780 duplicate
618781
620225
620227
620228
642274
643031
Lab Control
Matrix Spike
37
47
43
44
85
48
37
38
92
52
68
59
61
71
57
69
41
30
27
91
27
78
109
63
100
101
76
72
111
85
62
83
82
77
82
85
78
79
57
65
64
125
83
82
75
65
74
61
71
62
105
90
101
77
72
Control Limits
14-85
34-95
46-103
51-110
50-107
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED: 08/23/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Soxhlet Duplicate Sample #618779
8/16/01
Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
Results are reported to two significant figures
All results are reported in ng/g.
DATE RECEIVED: 08/24/2000 DATE EXTRACTED: 08/09/2001
COMPOUND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-N-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo [a] anthracene
Chrysene
Bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo [bjfluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo [ajpyrene
Perylene
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo { g,h,i]pery lene
618779
618779dup
difference
20
15
210
110
65
BQL
30
35
50
15
270
160
140
510
610
50
450
420
280
35
520
330
320
520
820
320
80
300
25
20
250
140
80
BQL
60
55
75
10
600
320
20
780
970
45
490
420
240
30
560
220
320
510
780
300
75
330
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
160
120
270
360
5
40
0
40
5
40
110
0
10
40
20
5
30
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED:08/23/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Surrogate Percent Recovery Report
8/16/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
SOXHLET EXTRAC DATE EXTRACTED: 08/09/2001
Sample #
Trifluorocresol Bromononane Octanophenone Dibromobiphenyl Isodrin
Blank
618779
6 18779 duplicate
620223
620224
620226
642261
643035
644722
Lab Control
Matrix Spike
NA
58
66
63
67
81
71
83
76
66
86
74
66
68
60
55
73
83
61
70
68
69
109
87
71
92
77
68
105
80
81
71
85
70
80
80
71
75
78
79
80
89
80
88
79
71
79
84
90
90
82
69
75
79
84
Control Limits
14-85
34-95
46-103
51-110
50-107
ANALYST:GJOHNSON
DATE COMPLETED: 08/23/2001
-------
Spreadsheet for All Three Data Sets - Organochlorine - Ambient Toxicity Project
Date Acquired
Date Data Entered
Analysts
Compound Class
September?, 2001
September 13, 2001
Gail Johnson and D. Scott Winters
Organochlorine
618779 618779D 618780 618781 619615 619616 619617 619618
Blank 2 620223 620224 620225 620226 620227 620228 620228D 642261
Blank 3 642274 642274D 643031 643035 643067 644705 644710 644722
HCCP
a-BHC & HCB & Diallate
b-BHC&g-BHC
d-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Isodrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
g-Chlordane
Endosulfan I & a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDE
Endrin & Endosulfan II
Chlorbenzylate
ODD
Endrin Aldehyde & Kepone
Endosulfan Sulfate
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Methoxychlor
3
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
5
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
All results are reported in ng/g.
Reporting Limits = 2.0 ng/g (part per billion)(wet weight basis)
Reporting Limits = 6.0 ng/g (part per billion)(dry weight basis)
BQL = <2.0ppb wet weight basis
BQL = < 6.0 ppb dry weight basis
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Soxhlet Duplicate: #1-618779D; #2 - 620228D; #3 - 642274D
9/14/01
Department of Environmental Quality
COMPOUND
HCCP
a-BHC & HCB & Diallate
b-BHC & g-BHC
d-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Isodrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
g-Chlordane
Endosulfan I & a-Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDE
Endrin & Endosulfan II
Chlorbenzylate
ODD
Endrin Aldehyde & Kepone
Endosulfan Sulfate
DDT
Endrin Ketone
Methoxychlor
All results are reported in ng/g.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and
DSWinters
Set#l
618779 618779D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #2
620228 620228D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #3
642274 642274D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
DATE COMPLETED: 09/14/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Laboratory Control Soxhlet
Spike #1, #2, and #3: Sand
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE ANALYZED: 09/07/2001
Set#l
Set #2
Set #3
Compound Name Spike Level Spike #1 % Recovery Spike #2 % Recovery Spike #3 % Reco
(pg/uL)
a-BHC 1000
b-BHC & g-BHC 1000
d-BHC 1000
Heptachlor 1000
Aldrin 1000
Heptachlor Epoxide 1000
EndosulfanI 1000
Dieldrin 1000
DDE 1000
Endrin 1000
ODD 1000
Endosulfan Sulfate & DDT 1000
Endrin Ketone 1000
Methoxychlor 1000
382
1169
745
882
812
1130
861
1181
1608
1402
957
948
672
2687
38
117
75
88
81
113
86
118
161
140
96
95
67
269
430
1143
884
792
733
653
844
1023
999
1706
1228
482
86
2764
43
114
88
79
73
65
84
102
100
171
123
48
9
276
498
2266
769
914
1097
1061
996
1484
1783
2427
1866
543
85
2592
50
227
77
91
110
106
100
148
178
243
187
54
9
259
"Tnsufficient historical data to determine control limits.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Matrix Spike Soxhlet
Spike #1 - 618779; Spike #2 - 620228; Spike #3 - 644724
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE ANALYZED: 09/07/2001
Set#l
Set #2
"Tnsufficient historical data to determine control limits.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
Set #3
Compound Name Spike Level Spike #1 % Recovery Spike #2 % Recovery Spike #3 % Reco
(pg/uL) 618779 620228 644724
a-BHC 1000
b-BHC & g-BHC 1000
d-BHC 1000
Heptachlor 1000
Aldrin 1000
Heptachlor Epoxide 1000
EndosulfanI 1000
Dieldrin 1000
DDE 1000
Endrin 1000
ODD 1000
Endosulfan Sulfate & DDT 1000
Endrin Ketone 1000
Methoxychlor 1000
327
526
571
487
683
734
284
811
1270
1079
1031
345
299
2116
33
53
57
49
68
73
28
81
127
108
103
35
30
212
421
1822
834
387
813
897
900
1182
1416
1371
1066
730
104
2500
42
182
83
39
81
90
90
118
142
137
107
73
10
250
444
1943
684
582
746
939
952
1134
906
1554
1048
392
96
2608
44
194
68
58
75
94
95
113
91
155
105
39
10
261
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Surrogate Percent Recovery Report
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Sample # Tetrachlorometaxylene
GPC 100
Blank 1 98
618779 147
618779D 126
618780 82
618781 121
619615 113
619616 58
619617 82
619618 74
618779SPK 60
Spike 1 40
Blank 2 50
620223 59
620224 75
620225 69
620226 91
620227 57
620228 72
620228D 65
642261 53
620228SPK 53
Spike 2 98
Blank3 117
642274 103
642274D 64
643031 74
643035 104
643067 113
644705 96
644710 93
644722 103
644724SPK 93
Spike 3 115
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Soxhlet Duplicate: #1-618779D; #2 - 620228D; #3 - 642274D
Department of Environmental Quality
COMPOUND
PCB-001
PCB-005+008
PCB-018
PCB-028+031
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-81+77
PCB-110
PCB-87
PCB-151
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-141
PCB-126
PCB-138
PCB-187
PCB-183
PCB-128
PCB-156
PCB-169
PCB-180
PCB-170
PCB-195
PCB-206
All results are reported in ng/g.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and
DSWinters
Set#l
618779 618779D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
2.0
BQL
BQL
2.0
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
5.0
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
7.0
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #2
620228 620228D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
5.0
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.2
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
3.4
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #3
642274 642274D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
3.8
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
2.4
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Laboratory Control Soxhlet
Spike #1, #2, and #3: Sand
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE ANALYZED: 09/07/2001
Compound Name
PCB-52
PCB-44
PCB-101
PCB-66
PCB-87
PCB-118
PCB-105
PCB-153
PCB-138
PCB-187
PCB-183
PCB-180
Spike Level
(pg/uL)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Set#l
Spike #1 % Recovery
Set #2
Spike #2 % Recovery
Set #3
Spike #3 % Recovery
876
710
901
1001
707
1726
700
830
1089
787
838
832
88
71
90
100
71
173
70
83
109
79
84
83
809
581
851
1403
632
1923
820
951
1308
1259
1268
823
81
58
85
140
63
192
82
95
131
126
127
82
941
417
1302
1642
683
2032
590
929
803
1020
918
938
94
42
130
164
68
203
59
93
80
102
92
94
"Tnsufficient historical data to determine control limits.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Surrogate Percent Recovery Report
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Sample # Tetrachlorometaxylene
GPC 100
Blank 1 98
618779 147
618779D 126
618780 82
618781 121
619615 113
619616 58
619617 82
619618 74
618779SPK 60
Spike 1 40
Blank 2 50
620223 59
620224 75
620225 69
620226 91
620227 57
620228 72
620228D 65
642261 53
620228SPK 53
Spike 2 98
Blank3 117
642274 103
642274D 64
643031 74
643035 104
643067 113
644705 96
644710 93
644722 103
644724SPK 93
Spike 3 115
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
-------
Spreadsheet for All Three Data Sets - Organophosphate - Ambient Toxicity Project
Date Acquired
Date Data Enten
Analysts
Compound Class
September 7, 2001
September 13, 2001
Gail Johnson and D. Scott Winters
Organophosphate
618779 618779D 618780 618781 619615 619616 619617 619618
Mevinphos
TEPP
Demeton
Ethoprop
Tributylphosphate SS
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Monocrotophos
Terbufos
Disulfoton+Phosphamidon+Dichlorofenthio
Chlorpyrifos(m ethyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Trichlomate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
Tetrachlorvinphos
Tokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Triphenylphosphate SS
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthionfmethyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Blank 2
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620223
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620224
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620225
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620226
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620227
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620228
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
620228D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
642261
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Blanks 642274 642274D 643031 643035 643067 644705 644710 644722
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
All results are reported in ng/g.
Reporting Limits = 2.0 ng/g (part per billion)(wet weight basis) unless otherwise noted
Reporting Limits = 6.0 ng/g (part per billion)(dry weight basis) unless otherwise noted
TEPP = 5.0 ng/g (wet weight), 15 ng/g (dry weight)
Dimethoate = 3.0 ng/g (wet weight), 9 ng/g (dry weight)
Chlorfenvinphos = 3.0 ng/g (wet weight), 9 ng/g (dry weight)
Bolstar & Famfur = 3.0 ng/g (wet weight), 9 ng/g (dry weight)
BQL = < 2.0 ng/g (wet weight), < 6 ng/g (dry weight)
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Soxhlet Duplicate: #1-618779D; #2 - 620228D; #3 - 642274D
9/13/01
Department of Environmental Quality
Set#l
COMPOUND 618779 618779D
Dichlorvos
Mevinphos
TEPP
Thionazion
Demeton
Ethoprop
Naled
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Monocrotophos
Dimethoate
Terbufos
Monophos
Diazinon
Disulfoton+Phosphamidon+Dichlorofenthion
Chlorpyrifos(methyl)
Parathion(methyl)
Ronnel
Fenitrothion
Malithion
Chlorpyrifos+Aspon
Fenthion
Parathion
Trichlornate
Chlorfenvinphos
Crotoxyphos
Tetrachlorvinphos
Tokuthion
Folex
Fensulfothion
Ethion
Carbophenothion
Bolstar
Famfur
Phosmet
EPN
Leptophos
Guthion(methyl)
Guthion
Coumaphos
Dioxathion
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #2
620228 620228D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Set #3
642274 642274D
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
Results are reported to two significant figures
All results are reported in ng/g.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and
DSWinters
DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Laboratory Control Soxhlet
Spike #1, #2, and #3: Sand
9/13/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
DATE RECEIVED: 8/24/2000
DATE ANALYZED: 09/07/2001
Compound Name
TEPP
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Monocrotophos
Malithion
Parathion
EPN
Spike Level
(pg/uL)
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Set#l
Spike #1 % Recovery
Set #2
Spike #2 % Recovery
Set #3
Spike #3 % Recovery
396
1859
2090
2239
2213
2167
2219
20
93
105
112
111
108
111
"Tnsufficient historical data to determine control limits.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
278
1465
1437
1327
1632
1612
1533
14
73
72
66
82
81
77
187
1365
721
1233
1487
1437
1367
9
68
36
62
74
72
68
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Percent Recovery Report
Matrix Spike Soxhlet
Spike #1 - 618779; Spike #2 - 620228; Spike #3 - 644724
9/13/01
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/2000
DATE RECEIVED: 8/24/2000
DATE ANALYZED: 09/07/2001
Compound Name
TEPP
Dicrotophos
Sulfotep + Phorate
Monocrotophos
Malithion
Parathion
EPN
Spike Level
(pg/uL)
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Set#l
Spike #1 % Recovery
618779
369
1748
1556
1652
1895
1850
1862
18
87
78
83
95
93
93
"Tnsufficient historical data to determine control limits.
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
DSWinters
Set #2
Spike #2 % Recovery
620228
371
1032
1384
1612
1400
1352
1221
19
52
69
81
70
68
61
Set #3
Spike #3 % Recovery
644724
356
1872
1231
1889
2037
1979
1925
18
94
62
94
102
99
96
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Department of General Services
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED SERVICES
Surrogate Percent Recovery Report
Date: 9/13/2001
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
SOXHLET EXTRACTION
DATE EXTRACTED: 08/09/2001
Sample #
GPC
Blank 1
618779
618779D
618780
618781
619615
619616
619617
619618
618779SPK
Spike 1
Blank 2
620223
620224
620225
620226
620227
620228
620228D
642261
620228SPK
Spike 2
Blank3
642274
642274D
643031
643035
643067
644705
6447'10
644722
644724SPK
Spike 3
ANALYSTS: GLJohnson and
DSWinters
Tributylphosphate Triphenylphosphate
99
71
76
74
70
70
88
63
72
60
75
89
49
80
70
74
98
68
66
81
79
68
81
78
86
49
83
92
74
100
54
85
93
68
113
70
190
71
69
79
87
59
67
58
69
92
62
86
80
83
105
73
71
98
82
113
86
79
83
62
74
86
72
137
77
81
92
71
DATE COMPLETED: 09/13/2001
-------
Sample Id
2-JMS042.46
2-JMS040.03
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS050.55
2-JMS068.68
2-JMS047.33
2-JMS052.52
2-JMS073.63
2-JMS068.64
2-JMS047.81
2-JMS074.25
2-JMS056.12
2-JMS066.35
2-JMS065.81
2-JMS044.08
2-CHK012.12
2-JMS068.64d
2-JMS074.29
2-JMS047.33d
2-JMS068.68d
2-JMS067.56
2-JMS073.63d
2-JMS046.73
Date
Analyzed
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/6/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
12/7/00
Kepone
Dry Wgt
Concentration
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Date
Collected
10/19/00
10/19/00
8/23/00
8/24/00
10/25/00
10/23/00
8/24/00
8/22/00
8/23/00
10/23/00
8/22/00
8/24/00
8/23/00
10/25/00
8/24/00
8/1/00
8/23/00
10/25/00
10/23/00
10/25/00
8/23/00
8/22/00
8/24/00
Time
Collected
1515
1200
1640
1305
1330
1330
1200
1550
1110
1530
1330
1045
1800
1500
1440
1940
1110
1030
1330
1330
1330
1550
1725
Sample
Depth
(m)
3.0
5.0
3.3
7.5
11.0
9.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
3.0
1.8
1.2
1.5
10.0
7.5
1.0
7.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
1.0
3.5
Latitude
Deg_min
37 12.097
37 11.013
37 18.272
37 13.112
37 18.014
37 13.026
37 14.311
37 19.233
37 18.026
37 13.331
37 19.111
37 16.413
37 18.355
37 18.070
37 13.179
37 21.373
37 18.026
37 19.000
37 13.026
37 18.014
37 18.291
37 19.233
37 13.381
Longitude
Deg_min
76 47.312
76 45.156
77 07.256
76 55.264
77 07.239
76 51.553
76 56.592
77 12.305
77 07.208
76 52.280
77 13.154
76 59.086
77 04.445
77 04.550
76 48.344
76 54.068
77 07.208
77 13.180
76 51.553
77 07.239
77 06.238
77 12.305
76 51.221
-------
Table 2. Kepone Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples
Kepone
QA/QC Dry Wgt
Sample Identification Date Concentration
Analyzed (ppm)
Blank Samples
Lab Blk 12/4/00
Lab Blk 12/5/00
Lab Blk 12/6/00
Lab Blk 12/7/00
Equip Blk 10/25/00
Replicate Analysis
2-JMS068.49
2-JMS068.49a
2-JMS068.49b
12/5/00
12/6/00
12/7/00
12/8/00
12/7/00
Date
Analyzed
12/5/00
12/8/00
12/8/00
Mean Concentration
Matrix Spike Duplicates
Carter Cr sed@0.1 05ppm
Carter Cr sed@0.1 05ppm
Carter Cr sed@0.1 05ppm
Date
Analyzed
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
Mean Concentration
Linearity spiked samples
Carter Cr sed Matrix bkgrd
Carter Cr sed@0.01 05ppm
Carter Cr sed@0.1 05ppm
Carter Cr sed@1 .05ppm
Date
Analyzed
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
12/5/00
R Squared
X Coefficient(s)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cone, (ppm)
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.0533
Cone, (ppm)
0.0954
0.0881
0.0886
0.0907
Measured
<0.01
0.0109
0.0954
0.931
0.99998722
0.88689852
RPD
12.6
6.2
6.2
RPD Recovery%
5.2 90.9
2.9 83.8
2.3 84.4
86.4
Expected Recovery%
0 na
0.0105 103.8
0.105 90.8
1.05 88.7
-------
------- |