EPA903-R-00-012
CBP/TRS 243-00
Julv 2000
Ambient Toxicity Testing in
Chesapeake Bay
Year 8 Report
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Primed for the Chesapeake Bay Program by ihe Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks an Recycled Paper 30% Poslconsitmer
-------
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay
Year 8 Report
July 2000
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
FOREWORD
This study was designed to evaluate ambient toxicity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
using a battery of water column and sediment toxicity tests in concert with both fish and benthic
community assessments. A team of scientists from two Chesapeake Bay research laboratories,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Versar Inc worked jointly to complete this goal.
Water column toxicity studies and overall project management were directed by Lenwood W. Hall,
Jr. of the University of Maryland's Agricultural Experiment Station. Sediment toxicity tests and
water/sediment chemical analysis were managed by Alan Messing of Old Dominion Universities'
Applied Marine Research Laboratory. Margaret McGinty of Maryland Department of Natural
Resources was responsible for the fish community assessments and Ananda Ranasinghe of Versar
Inc. conducted the benthic community assessments. Raymond Alden was responsible for the water
and sediment index calculations. This report summarizes data from the eighth year of an eight-year
ambient toxicity testing program. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office supported this study.
PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
Year 8 Final Report
July 2000
Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay: Year 8
Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Ronald D. Anderson
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Alan Messing
Joe Winfield
A. Keith Jenkins
Irene J. Weber
Old Dominion University
College of Sciences
Applied Marine Research Laboratory
Norfolk, Virginia 23529-0456
Raymond W. Alden III
University of Nevada Las Vegas
College of Sciences
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
and
David Goshorn
Margaret McGinty
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
-------
ABSTRACT
Data presented in this report were collected during the eighth year of a research program
designed to assess ambient toxicity of living resource habitats in Chesapeake Bay. The goals of this
study were to identify toxic ambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a battery of
standardized water column and sediment toxicity tests concurrently with fish and benthic community
assessments (index of biotic integrity approaches). The toxicity of ambient estuarine water and
sediment was evaluated during the late summer/early fall of 1998 at ten stations in the following
areas: Choptank River (four stations-CR59, CR61, CR62 and CR63) and Anacostia River (six
stations- AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 and AR6). The toxicity of ambient estuarine water was
assessed at all stations by using the following estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus, survival and growth test; 8-d Eurytemora affinis (copepod) life cycle test
and a 48-h coot clam, Mulinia lateralis embryo/larval test. Seven-day toxicity tests with
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas were also conducted at freshwater sites in the
Anacostia River. Toxicity -of ambient estuarine sediment was determined by using the following
tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 20-d survival, growth and reburial test with the
amphipods Leptocheirus plumulosus, Lepidactylus dytiscus and Hyallella azteca and 20-d
polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth test. Both inorganic and organic
contaminants were assessed in ambient sediment and inorganic contaminants were measured in
ambient water concurrently with toxicity testing to assess "possible" causes of toxicity. Both fish
and benthic communities were also assessed at the ten stations. An index of biotic integrity was
determined for each trophic group.
Both univariate and multivariate (using all endpoints) statistical techniques were used to
analyze the water column and sediment toxicity data. Results from univariate analysis of water
column data with Eurytemora affinis showed that survival was significantly reduced at all four
stations in the Choptank River. Sheepshead minnow survival and growth and coot clam development
were not signficantly reduced at the any of the Choptank River sites. Results from multivariate
analysis of water column data showed some degree of effect at four of the stations in the Choptank
River. All metal concentrations were below U. S. EPA marine water quality criteria. Other potential
contaminants such as pesticides or other organic contaminants can not be eliminated as potential
stressors since they were not measured in the water column during these tests.
Water column toxicity was reported at five of the six sites in the Anacostia River with the
coot clam embryo/larval test. However, there was no water column toxicity reported at any of the
Anacostia River sites based on Eurytemora survival or reproduction, sheepshead minnow survival
or growth, Ceriodaphnia dubia survival or reproduction and Pimephales promelas survival or
growth. Results from multivariate analysis showed some degree of effect at four of the six
Anacostia River stations. Cadmium exceeded the chronic freshwater water quality criterion at five
of the six Anacostia River sites; no other metals exceeded the criteria. Other potential contaminants
such as pesticides or other organic contaminants can not be eliminated as potential stressors since
they were not measured during the water column tests.
Sediment toxicity tests at six sites in the Anacostia River and four sites in the Choptank
River showed some degree of toxicity at nearly all sites based on univariate analysis. Toxicity from
two or more of the test species was reported from most of the Anacostia River sites. Toxicity was
generally lower for the Choptank River sites as effects were reported for at least one test species at
the four sites. Results from multivariate analysis showed effects at five of six Anacostia River sites;
ii
-------
no significant effects were reported from multivariate analysis at the Choptank River sites. Toxicity
results were generally consistent with data obtained from chemical analyses, which revealed higher
concentrations of both organic and inorganic contaminants in the Anacostia River stations. All
Anacostia River sites had concentrations of at least one metal in excess of the Effects Range-Low
(ER-L) and AR4 had lead and zinc in excess of the ER-M value. Organic analyses detected five or
more pesticides at all stations, with endrin aldehyde and total DDT detected in all test sites. All test
and control sites with the exception of CR59 in the Choptank River exceeded ER-Ls for total DDT
(ODD, DDE, and DDT). Additionally, AR3 and AR4 had 4,4'-DDE concentrations in excess of the
ER-M limits. Five to twelve PAHs (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) were detected at all
Anacostia River sites; seven ER-L values were exceeded in AR1, AR2, AR3, and AR4. Two PAHs
were detected at Choptank River stations CR62 and CR63 and the control Lynnhaven River Mud
site. These PAH values were all below ER-L limits.
Results from the fish IBI analysis from seining at the four Choptank River sites showed that
only one site (CR62) met the reference condition. Trawl index scores for the Choptank River were
poor at three sites and rated fair at one site. The Anacostia River sites could not be sampled by
seining due to soft sediment. Trawl index scores for the Anacostia River were good at sites AR1,
AR2, AR3 and AR6; fair scores were reported at AR4 and AR5. The benthic index of biotic integrity
scores (B-IBI) showed the following in the Choptank River: two sites met the goal; one site was
degraded and one site was severely degraded. For the Anacostia River, two sites met the goal and
four sites were severely degraded.
In summary, water column toxicity data, fish IBI data and benthic community data suggested
that Choptank River sites CR59 and CR61 may be impaired due to contaminants or other stressors.
Two of the four lines of evidence (water column toxicity and fish IBI scores) also suggested some
degree of impairment at CR63. Water column toxicity was reported at CR62 but sediment toxicity,
fish communities and benthic communities did not suggest stress.
A final analysis of toxicity and biological community metric data for the Anacostia River
demonstrated that all four lines of evidence showed effects at AR4 and AR5. Three of the four lines
of evidence showed effects at AR3. For the three other Anacostia River sites conflicting lines of
evidence were reported. Water column and sediment toxicity tests showed effects at AR1 but fish
and benthic communities were not impaired. At AR6, impairment was reported from benthic
community assessments but water column/sediment toxicity and fish community impairment was
not reported. Sediment toxicity was reported at AR2 but the other three measures did not suggest
effects.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office for supporting this study. We would like to acknowledge various individuals from the
University of Maryland and Old Dominion University for technical assistance and the U. S. EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program Office and Maryland Department of the Environment for their comments
on the study design.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgments iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures xii
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Objectives 2-1
3. Methods 3-1
3.1 Study Areas 3-1
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests 3-1
3.2.1 Test Species 3-1
3.2.2 Test Procedures 3-2
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis 3-2
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-2
3.2.5 Quality Assurance 3-2
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations 3-3
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests 3-4
3.3.1 Test Species 3-4
3.3.2 Test Procedures 3-4
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data 3-4
3.3.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage 3-5
3.3.5 Quality Assurance 3-5
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations 3-5
3.4 Analysis of 8 Year Data Base 3-6
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 3-8
3.5.1 Data Collection 3-8
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity Calculations 3-9
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions 3-9
3.5.4 Trawl Index 3-9
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS -CONTINUED
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 3-9
3.6.1 Data Collection 3-9
3.6.2 Laboratory Processing 3-9
3.6.3 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations 3-10
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests 4-1
4.1.1 Toxicity Data 4-1
4.1.2 Contaminants Data 4-1
4.1.3 Water Quality Data 4-1
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data 4-1
4.2 Sediment Tests 4-2
4.2.1 Toxicity Data 4-2
4.2.1.1 Lynnhaven River 4-2
4.2.1.2 Choptank River 4-2
4.2.1.3 Anacostia River 4-3
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data 4-3
4.2.2.1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 4-3
4.2.2.2 Organic Compounds 4-4
4.2.2.3 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 4-4
4.2.2.4 Metals 4-4
4.2.2.5 SEM:AVS Ratios 4-4
4.2.2.6 Particle Size Characteristics 4-5
4.2.2.7 Pore Water Characteristics 4-5
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data 4-5
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 4-5
4.3.1 Fish Community 4-5
4.3.2 Water Quality 4-6
4.4 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity 4-6
5. Discussion 5-1
5.1 Choptank River 5-1
5.2 Anacostia River 5-1
6. Analysis of Eight Year Data Base 6-1
6.1 Water Column Toxicity 6-1
6.2 Sediment Toxicity 6-4
7. References 7-1
8. List of Tables and Figures 8-1
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
Appendices
Appendix A - Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during all water column tests.
Test species were Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv), Eurytemora affinis (Ea) andMulinia
lateralis (Ml)
Appendix B - Summary offish species by station and gear type. Total abundance for each species
at all stations is also presented.
Appendix C - Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species
biomass and B-IBI metric values and scores for each site.
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The
following abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption -
Inductively Coupled Plasma), AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride),
AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-DA (Atomic Absorption -
Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption - Cold Vapor) 8-1
Table 3.2 Trophic classification, family, spawning location, and residency offish
captured at the ten sampling locations 8-2
Table 4.1 Survival data from Ewytemora qffinis and sheepshead minnow larvae
at 8d from 9/29/98 to 10/07/98 8-4
Table 4.2 Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 9/29/98 to
10/7/98 experiments 8-5
Table 4.3 Percent normal shell development from two 48 h coot clam embryo/
larval tests conducted from 9/28/98 to 10/07/98 8-6
Table 4.4 Survival, reproduction and maturation data for Eurytemora after 8 d tests from
9/29/98 to 10/07/98 8-7
Table 4.5 Survival and reproduction data from 7-day Ceriodaphia dubia six
Anacostia River sites 8-8
Table 4.6 Survival and growth data from 7-day Pimephales promelas tests at
six Anacostia River sites 8-9
Table 4.7 Inorganic contaminants data from the 10 stations sampled during the
fall of 1998 (9/29/98 - 10/07/98). Marine and freshwater U.S. EPA
chronic water quality criteria (WQC) are listed beside each metal.
The marine criteria are appropriate for the Choptank River sites;
freshwater criteria apply to the Anacostia sites. Metals exceeding
the appropriate criteria are underlined 8-10
Table 4.8 Water quality parameters reported in the field during water sample
collection in the fall of 1998 8-11
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.9 Toxitity data (48h LCSOs or EC50s mg/L) from 1998 reference
toxicant tests conducted with cadmium chloride for the three test
species. Previous values from years 1 thru 7 are reported 8-13
Table 4.10 Survival of sheepshead minnows in sediment bioassays 8-14
Table 4.11 Survival of Lepidactylus dytiscus in sediment bioassays 8-15
Table 4.12 Survival of Leptocheirus plumulosus in sediment bioassays 8-16
Table 4.13 Survival of Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays 8-17
Table 4.14 Survival ofHyallela azteca in sediment bioassays 8-18
Table 4.15 Growth data (dry weight and length) for L. dytiscus after 20-day
exposure to sediments .8-19
Table 4.16 Growth data (dry weight and length) for L. plumulosus after 20-day
exposure to sediments 8-20
Table 4.17 Growth data (dry weight and length) for S. benedicti after 20-day
exposure to sediments 8-21
Table 4.18 Growth data (dry weight and length) for H. azteca after 20-day
exposure to sediments 8-22
Table 4.19 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment samples from the ten sites
and reference and control sites 8-23
Table 4.20 Pesticide concentrations for sediment samples from the ten stations
reference and the controls, in Long et al, 1995) 8-24
Table 4.21 Percent total organic carbon in sediment from the study area as well as
reference and control sediments 8-25
Table 4.22 Inorganic contaminants for sediment samples from the ten sites and the
reference and control sediment 8-26
Table 4.23 Total SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment samples
tested in 1998 8-27
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES - CONTINUED
Table 4.24 Results of the analysis of sediment for simultaneously extractable
metals (SEM) 8-28
Table 4.25 Sediment particle size characteristics 8-29
Table 4.26 Chemical data for pore water extracted from test and control composite
samples 8-31
Table 4.27 Sediment bioassay reference toxicant data 8-32
Table 4.28 Individual metric values for each station 8-33
Table 4.29 Fish IBI scores for Choptank River stations, 1998 8-34
Table 4.30 Trawl index score and rating for Choptank and Anacostia River sites 8-35
Table 4.31 Dissolved oxygen concentrations above and below the pycnocline for
study sites 8-36
Table 4.32 Secchi depth by station. The habitat requirement for one meter
restoration of SAV in the Chesapeake Bay for mesohaline habitat is 0.97
meters and 0.75 for oligohaline and tidal fresh habitats 8-37
Table 4.33 B-IBI values and benthic community condition at the 1998 ambient
toxicity sites 8-38
Table 5.1 Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity
tests (multiariate analysis), along with fish and benthic IBI data for ambient
stations tested in 1998. A yes (Y) means some significant level of
toxicity or impaired biological response was reported. A no (N) means
it was not 8-39
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisions of water column RTRM indices for references
and test sites presented in Figures 6.1-6.8. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overalp are indicated by "O", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X", while "-"
indicates no data taken for the period 8-40
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisions of sediment RTRM indices for references
and test sites presented in Figures 6.11-6.18. Comparisons for which
confidence limits overalp are indicated by "O", those for which the
confidence limits do not overlap are indicated by "X", while "-"
indicates no data taken for the period 8-43
x
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 Choptank River sites from 1998 Ambient Toxicity study 8-46
Figure 3.2 Anacostia River sites from 1998 Ambient Toxicity study 8-47
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-48
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-49
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-50
Figure 6.4a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-51
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the Baltimore
Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)... 8-52
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-53
Figure 6.6 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-54
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-55
Figure 6.8a Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-56
Figure 6.8b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-57
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.9 Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The
sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the least toxic half of the sites in the data set (see
Figure 6.10 for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.1 8-58
Figure 6.10 Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The
sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set (see
Figure 6.9 for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.1 8-59
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-60
Figure 6.12 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-61
Figure 6.13 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 sediment data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-62
Figure 6.14a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from the Severn,
Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.) 8-63
Figure 6.14b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data from Baltimore Harbor sites
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.) 8-64
Figure 6.15 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-65
XII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES - CONTINUED
Figure 6.16 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-66
Figure 6.17 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-67
Figure 6.18a Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-68
Figure 6.18b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.) 8-69
Figure 6.19 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The sites
are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the least toxic half of the sites in the data set (see
Figure 6.20 for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.2 8-70
Figure 6.20 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The sites
are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed circles).
The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set (see
Figure 6.19 for remainder of ranked data). Also shown are the 95%
confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the
percentage of endpoints displaying significant differences from the
references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum
upper confidence limit observed for any reference during the study and
is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers
are provided in Table 6.2 8-71
Xlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Population growth and associated anthropogenic activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
have prompted concerns about the relationship between contaminants and biological effects on
resident aquatic organisms. Although useful for exposure characterization, information derived from
the loading of toxic chemicals and/or chemical monitoring studies are not totally adequate for
assessing the ecological effects resulting from numerous sources such as multiple point source
effluents, nonpoint source runoff from agriculture, silviculture and urban sites, atmospheric
deposition, groundwater contamination, and release of toxic chemicals from sediments. The most
realistic and ecologically relevant approach for evaluating the adverse effects of toxic conditions
on living resources is by direct measurement of biological responses in the ambient environment.
For the purposes of this report, the ambient environment is defined as aquatic areas located outside
of mixing zones of point source discharges in the Chesapeake Bay.
Previous studies have been conducted to address the link between contaminants and adverse
effects on living aquatic resources in the ambient environment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
These ambient toxicity tests are designed to detect toxic conditions on a much broader scale than
traditional effluent toxicity tests. These tests are considered a first tier type approach used as a
screening tool to identify areas where ambient toxicity exists and future assessment efforts are
warranted. Biological responses such as survival, growth, and reproduction of resident species are
used to identify stressful conditions in the ambient environment resulting from point and non-point
sources.
The ambient toxicity testing approach is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy which has a commitment to develop and implement a plan for Baywide
assessment and monitoring of the effects of toxic substances, within natural habitats, on selected
commercially, recreationally and ecologically important species of living resources (CEC, 1989).
This commitment is also consistent with the recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Living
Resource Monitoring Plan (CEC, 1988).
Previous ambient toxicity assessments in the Chesapeake Bay (1990-1997) have been
completed and reports have been published (Hall etal., 1991; Hall etal., 1992; Hall etal., 1994; Hall
et al., 1996; Hall et al. 1997; Hall et al., 1998; Hall et al., 1999). General conclusions to date have
shown that more than half of the time water column tests conducted at 49 stations (17 rivers and
harbors with multiple years of testing at some sites) have suggested some degree of toxicity. The
most toxic sites were located in urbanized areas such as the Elizabeth River and Middle River.
Water quality criteria for copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of
these sites. Water column toxicity was also reported in localized areas of the South and Chester
Rivers. Some degree of sediment toxicity was reported from more than half of the ambient tests at
49 stations conducted during the eight year period (1990 -1997). The Elizabeth River and Baltimore
Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas based on sediment results. Sediment toxicity
guidelines (Long and Morgan, 1990; Long et al., 1995) were exceeded for one or more of the
following metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
At the Elizabeth River station tested in 1990, nine of sixteen semi-volatile organics and two of seven
pesticides measured exceeded the Effects Range - Median as defined by Long et al., 1995 (ER-M
values). Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor
sites; pyrene and dibenzo (a, h) anthracene were particularly high at one of the stations (Northwest
1-1
-------
Harbor). Sediment toxicity was also reported from localized areas in the James, Chester, Magothy,
and Potomac Rivers.
The goals of this study were to conduct a suite of water column and sediment toxicity tests
in concert with fish and benthic community assessments (IBI type approach) at four stations in the
Choptank River and six stations in the Anacostia River. The fish and benthic community
assessments were new components added to the ambient toxicity testing program in 1996 and
continued in 1997 and 1998 to provide field data for assessing the status of biological communities
at the study sites. In order to provide limited exposure data for correlation with the toxicity data and
biological assessments, inorganic contaminants were evaluated in water and both organic and
inorganic contaminants were evaluated in sediment during these experiments.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
This ambient toxicity study was a continuation of an assessment effort previously conducted
from 1990-1997 in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The major goal of this program was to assess
the toxicity of ambient water and sediment in selected areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
using a battery of standardized water column and sediment toxicity tests in concert with limited
chemical characterizations. Biological communities (fish and benthos) were also evaluated at the
study sites.
The specific objectives of the eighth year of this study were to:
assess the toxicity of ambient estuarine water and sediment during the late summer/early fall
of 1998 at the four stations in the Choptank River and six stations in the Anacostia River;
determine the toxicity of ambient estuarine water described in the first objective by using
the following estuarine tests: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus survival
and growth test; 8-d Eurytemora affinis (copepod) life cycle test and 48-h coot clam,
Mulinia lateralis embryo-larval test;
evaluate the toxicity of Anacostia River freshwater sites using a 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia
survival and reproduction toxicity test and a 7-day Pimephalespromelas survival and growth
toxicity test;
evaluate the toxicity of ambient sediment described in the first objective by using the
following estuarine tests: 10-d sheepshead minnow embryo-larval test; 20-d amphipod,
Lepidactylus dytiscus, Leptocheirus plumulosus and Hyallela azteca survival, growth and
reburial test and 20-d polychaete worm, Streblospio benedicti survival and growth test;
measure inorganic contaminants in ambient water and organic and inorganic contaminants
in sediment concurrently with toxicity tests to determine "possible" causes of toxicity;
determine the relative sensitivity of test species for each type of test and compare between
test methods to identify regions where ambient toxicity exists;
summarize water column and sediment toxicity data from 1990 to 1998 using a composite
index approach for each site; and
assess the status offish and benthic communities at the ten stations using an Index of Biotic
Integrity approach
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS
3.1 Study Areas
The rationale for selecting study sites in the Choptank River and Anacostia Rivers is
presented below (Figures 3.1 and 3.2 ). The Choptank River was selected for ambient toxicity
testing because it is an ecologically important eastern shore river that has not been tested previously
in the ambient toxicity program. Sites selected for testing were located in areas that were also tested
by NOAA in their Ambient monitoring program in Chesapeake Bay in 1998. Coordinates for the
four Choptank River stations were as follows: CR59 (38 43.879 x 76 15.050), CR61(38 41.262 x
76 16.713), CR62 (38 39.785 x 76 13.845) and CR63 (38 35.889 x 76 07.515) (Figure 3.1).
The Anacostia River was selected for ambient toxicity testing because this is the only
"Region of Concern" identified by the Chesapeake Bay's Toxic Subcommittee where ambient
toxicity data collected from the Ambient Toxicity Testing Program are lacking. Coordinates for the
six Anacostia River stations were as follows: AR1 (38 55.159 x 76 56.460), AR2 (38 54.856 x 76
57.213), AR3 (38 52.478 x 76 58.999), AR4 (38 52.263 x 77 00.353), AR5 (38 51.775 x 77 00.458)
and AR6 (38 51.402 x 77 01.276) (Figure 3.2).
3.2 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The objectives of the water column toxicity tests were to determine the toxicity of ambient
water at the ten stations described above. The following tests were conducted at these stations
during the late summer/early fall of 1998: 8-d larval sheepshead minnow C. variegatus survival and
growth test; 8-d E. afflnis life cycle test and 48-h coot clam M. lateralis embryo/larval test. For all
saltwater toxicity tests conducted in the Anacostia River (freshwater) salinity adjusted water (15 ppt)
was used to provide data comparable to the 1990 through 1997 ambient toxicity data sets. Standard
7-day Ceriodaphia dubia survival and reproduction tests and 7-day Pimephales promelas survival
and growth toxicity tests were also conducted at all six freshwater sites in the Anacostia River. A
suite of metals was measured in ambient water used for these tests.
3.2.1 Test species
Larval sheepshead minnows and the copepod E. affinis, previously used species for the past
seven years of ambient toxicity testing, were used for the 1998 testing. These test species were
selected because they meet most of the following criteria: (1) resident Chesapeake Bay species, (2)
sensitive to contaminants in short time period (less than 10 d) and (3) standard test organism that
does not require additional research. Larval sheepshead minnows are highly abundant, resident
Chesapeake Bay organisms used extensively in standard tests. Sheepshead minnows have
demonstrated moderate sensitivity in subchronic tests and are commonly used in EPA's and MDE's
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program. E. affinis is an extremely abundant, resident Chesapeake
Bay zooplankton species that is sensitive to contaminants. We previously developed a Standard
Operating Procedure for this species that was used for these tests (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994).
The coot clam, M. lateralis, was a new species added to the suite of test organisms during
the third year of ambient toxicity testing. This clam is a small (< 2 cm length) euryhaline bivalve.
It is a numerically dominant species in the mesohaline areas of the Chesapeake Bay as well as
numerous tributaries (Shaughnessy et al., 1990). Embryo/larval development occurs in the water
column in approximately 6-8 days. It is, therefore, suitable for water column testing because the
3-1
-------
sensitive life stage occurs in the water column. The coot clam adds another dimension to the suite
of test organisms because it represents a type of species (bivalves) not represented during the first
two years of testing. This clam is not a standard test organism, however, the U.S. EPA has written
a draft test method for estimating toxicity of effluents using Mulinia (Morrison and Petrocelli,
1990a; 1990b). We also developed a Standard Operating Procedure for testing Mulinia (Hall and
Ziegenfuss, 1993).
To provide additional data from the freshwater sites in the Anacostia River, standard 7-day
freshwater toxicity tests were conducted with Ceriodaphnia dubia (survival and reproduction) and
Pimephales promelas (survival and growth) using procedures described in detail in Fisher et al.
1988.
3.2.2 Test Procedures
Test procedures and culture methods have been previously described in the year 1 ambient
toxicity report for the 8-d larval sheepshead minnow survival and growth test and 8-d E. affinis life
cycle test (Hall et al., 1991). The test procedures for the coot clam described in the year 3 report
were used for these experiments (Hall et al. 1994). The sources for the species were as follows:
sheepshead minnows, Aquatic Biosystems, Denver, Colorado; E. affinis, in-house cultures
(orginally from University of Maryland - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory) and coot clams (U.
S. EPA Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island). Test procedures for the 7-d Ceriodaphnia dubia
survival and reproduction test and 7-day Pimephales promelas survival and growth test used for this
study are described in Fisher et al. (1988). Both freshwater species are cultured in our laboratory
at the University of Maryland's Wye Research and Education Center (WREC).
3.2.3 Statistical Analysis
Univariate statistical tests described in Fisher et al. (1988) were used for each test species
when appropriate. The goal of this study was not to generate typical LC50 data with various
dilutions of ambient water. For each test species response, control and test conditions (100 percent
ambient water) were compared using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). A statistical
difference between the response of a species exposed to a control condition and an ambient
condition was used to determine toxicity. Dunnett's (parametric) or Dunn's (non-parametric) mean
testing procedures were used in cases where comparisons of a species response on a spatial scale
was necessary.
3.2.4 Sample Collection, Handling and Storage
Sample collection, handling and storage procedures used in the previous studies were
implemented (Hall et al., 1991). Ambient water was collected from all study areas and taken to our
toxicity testing facility at the Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, Maryland for
testing.
Grab samples were used because they are easier to collect, require minimum equipment (no
composite samplers), instantaneous toxicity is evaluated, and toxicity spikes are not masked by
dilution. Grab samples collected from each station represented a composite of the water column
(top, mid-depth and bottom). A metering pump with teflon line was used to collect samples in 13.25
L glass containers.
The time lapsed from the collection of a grab sample and the initiation of the test or renewal
did not exceed 72 hours. Water column samples were collected on days 0, 3 and 6 during the 8 day
3-2
-------
tests. All samples were chilled after collection and maintained at 4C until used. Water from each
ambient site and control was renewed in test containers every 24 hours. The temperature of the
ambient water used for testing was 25C. Salinity adjustments (increase) were performed on samples
collected from less saline sites to obtain a standard test salinity of approximately 15 ppt. The
freshwater test species (C. dubia and P. promelas) described above were also tested in ambient
freshwater from all six sites in the Anacostia River.
3.2.5 Quality Assurance
A copy of our general Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual (including the
sheepshead minnow SOP) was submitted and approved by the sponsor prior to the study (Fisher et
al., 1988). Standard Quality Assurance (QA) procedures used in our laboratory for The State of
Maryland's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program were followed (Fisher et al., 1988). These
QA procedures were also used during the previous seven years of ambient toxicity testing study.
Specific SOPs for E. affinis (Ziegenfuss and Hall, 1994) and M. lateralis (Hall and Ziegenfuss,
1993) were followed. The control water used for these experiments was obtained from a pristine area
of the Choptank River. The water was autoclaved and filtered with a 1 um filter. Hawaiian (HW)
Marine sea salts were used to salinity adjust samples to 15 ppt. The pH was also adjusted to 7.5 to
8.0 after salinity adjustment. The control water used for the freshwater tests was 20% Perrier bottled
water and 80% reconstituted water from the WREC laboratory.
Acute reference toxicant tests with cadmium chloride were conducted with the same stocks
of species used for ambient toxicity tests. Cadmium chloride was selected as the reference toxicant
because there is an established data base with this chemical for all of the proposed tests. Reference
toxicity tests were used to establish the validity of ambient toxicity data generated from toxicity tests
by ensuring that the test species showed the expected toxic response to cadmium chloride (Fisher
et al., 1988). The reference toxicant tests were conducted on each saltwater test species and source
(of species) once during this study using procedures described in Hall et al. (1991).
3.2.6 Contaminant Analysis and Water Quality Evaluations
The contaminant analyses used for these studies provided limited information on selected
contaminants that may be present in the study areas. It was not our intention to suggest that the
proposed analysis for inorganic contaminants would provide an absolute "cause and effect
relationship" between contaminants and biological effects if effects were reported. Information on
suspected contaminants in the study areas may, however, provide valuable insights if high
potentially toxic concentrations of inorganic contaminants were reported in conjunction with
biological effects.
Aqueous samples for analysis of inorganic contaminants listed in Table 3.1 were collected
during the ambient toxicity tests. These contaminants and methods for their measurement have been
used in our previous ambient toxicity testing study (Hall et al., 1991). Analytical procedures and
references for analysis of these samples are presented in Table 3.1. Total inorganic contaminant
analysis (dissolved metals) were conducted on filtered samples using 0.40 um polycarbonate
membranes. All samples were preserved with ultrex grade nitric acid. The Applied Marine Research
Laboratory of Old Dominion University conducted the inorganic analysis.
Standard water quality conditions of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and
conductivity were evaluated at each site after sample collection. These conditions were evaluated
every 24 hours at all test conditions during the tests.
3-3
-------
3.3 Sediment Toxicity Tests
All tests and analyses were conducted according to the SOPs and QA plans previously
submitted to the sponsor. The methods described in this report are general summaries of those
protocols.
3.3.1 Test Species
Five species were used in laboratory sediment toxicity tests to assess ambient toxicity in
estuarine sediments: fertilized eggs of the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus); two
estuarine amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus andLeptocheirus plumulosus); a freshwater amphipod
(Hyallela azteca); and a polychaete worm (Streblospio benedicti).
3.3.2 Test Procedures
All tests, with the exception of the C. variegatus egg test, were conducted for 20 days at
25ħ1°C and monitored daily. Daily monitoring of the sheepshead minnow egg test included an
assessment of egg and larval mortality, hatching success, and water quality parameters (Hall et al.,
1991). The monitoring continued until the test was terminated, at either two days following
hatching of all control eggs or at 10 days, whichever occurred first. On day 10 of the S. benedicti,
L. dytiscus, L. plumulosus and Hyallela azteca tests, all replicate vessels were sieved to remove test
animals from the sediment. Surviving animals were counted, returned to the original test containers,
and monitored for an additional 10 days. At day 20, all site replicates were sieved once more to
obtain counts of surviving animals. Survivors were preserved to facilitate collection of length and
weight measurements.
Test sediment samples were collected from six sites in the Anacostia River, Washington
D.C. (AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5, and AR6), and four sites in the Choptank River, Maryland
(CR59, CR61, CR62, and CR63). The control sediments for all bioassay species except the
amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus was sand from the Lynnhaven River, Virginia. Mud (-82% fines)
from the Lynnhaven River was chosen as the control sediment for L. dytiscus. This mud was chosen
as the reference sediment for all sediment bioassay species except for the L. dytiscus, in which case,
the Lynnhaven River sand was the reference sediment. The alternating use of control and reference
sediments was due to the tolerance, if not preference, for sandy sediment by L. dytiscus, but
necessary for evaluating potential contaminant effects in high sand content sediments.
Reference sediments were chosen as the basis for assessing differences in survival of the test
species against survival in sediment from the study area. Because of the large range in particle size
distributions observed both within and between test sites in past studies, two reference sediments
were used in this study as mentioned above. Particle size analyses were performed on each of the
five field replicates from all test, reference and control sites to determine similarities in sand, silt,
and clay content.
Culture, maintenance, and test procedures used for S. benedicti and L. dytiscus are described
in Hall et al. (1991); H. azteca are described in Hall et al. (1992); Cyprinodon variegatus eggs and
L. plumulosus are described in Hall et al. (1993).
3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Data
The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential toxicity of ambient sediments by
comparing all test endpoints of each species to the endpoints observed in reference sediments.
Survival and weight data were tested for assumptions of normality and equality of variances using
3-4
-------
Shapiro-Wilk's and Bartlett's tests, respectively. Parameters violating these assumptions were
transformed to arc-sine values, ranks and normalized rankits and then retested for these assumptions.
If the original or transformed data met the assumptions, an ANOVA was used to test for significant
differences in mean survival and weight between stations. A posteriori pairwise comparisons of
survival and growth (length and weight) data between the test and reference sites were made using
Fisher's LSD test and the Bonferroni T-test for unequal sample sizes, respectively. If transformed
data did not meet the assumptions of the parametric tests, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for
significant differences in median ranks between stations and a posteriori pairwise comparisons
between the test and reference sites were made using Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum test.
Length, expressed as percentage of change from the mean initial length and weight, was
evaluated as the mean individual weight gain for each site. In order to eliminate any potential bias
due to differential survival, only those test sites not exhibiting significantly lower survival at the end
of the 20 day tests were analyzed for sublethal effects. Toxicity was inferred in test sediments with
endpoints that were significantly lower than those observed for the test-specific reference sediments.
3.3.4 Sample Collection. Handling and Storage
General sediment collection, handling, and storage procedures described in Hall et al. (1991)
were used in this study. Samples were collected at each site by Applied Marine Research
Laboratory (AMRL) personnel on September 23-24, 1998 using a petite ponar grab. True field
replicates were maintained separately and transported to the laboratory. Sediment was collected at
each station by first randomly identifying 5 grab sample locations within a 100 meter square grid.
At each location a discrete field replicate was collected for bioassays and stored on ice, while a
separate subset from the same ponar grab was placed into a handling container. Subsamples from
all 5 random grab locations within the station were placed into a handling container, homogenized,
and distributed into sample containers designated for chemical analyses. All samples were
transported on ice in coolers, out of direct sunlight. Bioassay samples were held in refrigerators at
4°C until initiation of the toxicity tests. Samples for chemical analysis were stored as required for
all analyses.
3.3.5 Quality Assurance
All quality assurance procedures were submitted previously to the sponsoring agency, and
were implemented during sediment collection and analysis. Toxicity test control and reference
sediments were used as described in Section 3.3.2. Laboratory quality assurance procedures for
organic and inorganic chemical analyses, and for sediment pore water analyses, followed USEPA
Standard Quality Assurance Guidelines.
Static acute non-renewal, water-only reference toxicant tests were performed for each species
used for sediment toxicity testing. Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant because there
is an established data base for this chemical for nearly all species used. Reference toxicant
information was used to verify the health and sensitivity of the test animals.
3.3.6 Contaminant and Sediment Quality Evaluations
Contaminants were evaluated in composites of sediment from each site that were used as
field replicates in the toxicity tests. Quantification of suspected contaminants provides valuable
insights if relatively high concentrations of potentially toxic contaminants are observed in
3-5
-------
conjunction with biological effects.
Sediment sample collection for organic and inorganic contaminants analysis is described in
Section 3.3.4. Organic and inorganic contaminant analytical and quality control results were
reported in electronic database form to USEPA. PAHs were extracted and analyzed in accordance
with SW-846 Methods 3550, 3640, and 8270 (USEPA, 1994). Pesticides and Aroclors were
extracted and analyzed in accordance with SW-846 Methods 3350,3640, and 8081 (USEPA, 1994).
Sediment samples were also analyzed for acid volatile sulfides (AVS), total organic carbon
(TOC), ammonia, nitrite, and sulfides occurring in sediment pore water. Samples analyzed for TOC
were frozen until analysis, at which time they were thawed, then homogenized by gentle stirring.
Sediment samples were analyzed for AVS using the Draft Analytical Method for Determination of
Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment (USEPA 821/R-91-100). Details of the analytical procedures for
both AVS and TOC are described in Hall et al. (1991). Pore water samples were extracted from
sediment using a nitrogen press. All pore water samples were filtered and frozen until analyses were
conducted. Details of the methods are described in Hall et al. (1991).
The composite samples from each site were also analyzed for metals in bulk sediment.
Sediments were digested according to Method 3050, USEPA SW-846. Mercury was digested and
analyzed according to Method 245.1 and tin was analyzed according to Method 282.2 in Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA-600/4-79-020). Arsenic and selenium were
analyzed in accordance with APHA (1995), using a modification of Method 3114B. Aluminum,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were analyzed according to USEPA SW-846.
Sediments were also analyzed for simultaneously extractable metals (SEM). The sample for the
SEM analysis was obtained from the AVS procedure mentioned above. The SEM sample was the
sediment suspension remaining in the generation flask after the cold acid extraction had been
completed. The sediment suspension was filtered through a 0.2 micron membrane filter into a 250
ml volumetric flask, and was then diluted to volume with deionized water. The concentrations of
the SEMs were determined by the same analytical methods as bulk metals. The concentrations were
then converted to micromoles per gram of dry sediment and summed to yield total SEM. SEM
results were used in conjunction with the AVS data to estimate the potential toxicity of the sediment
due to the presence of the selected divalent metals in excess of volatile sulfides.
3.4 Analysis of Eight Year Data Base
A series of summary multivariate statistical analyses were conducted in order to provide
environmental managers with summary information concerning the relative toxicity of water and
sediments from the collection areas (see Section 6). These analyses also provide quantitative
indicators of the degree of confidence which may be given to differences between responses
observed for "clean" ("reference") conditions and those seen for test media (water or sediments) of
unknown quality. These analyses are based upon the summary composite indices first developed
for the toxicity axis of the "sediment quality triad" (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman, 1986;
Chapman et al. 1987 and Chapman 1990). This approach has been modified to provide confidence
limits on composite indices designated as "ratio-to-reference mean" (RTRM) indices (Alden, 1992).
Details of the calculation of the RTRM indices for the Ambient Toxicity Program are presented in
the Year 3 report (Hall et al., 1994).
In order to make the RTRM indices more meaningful to managers, a method was developed
to scale the values, so that they range between a "best case" (uncontaminated) condition, represented
by a score of 0 and a "worst case" (highly contaminated and toxic) condition, represented by a score
3-6
-------
of 100. A value of 0 would represent the median response of a reference test of uncontaminated
water or sediment, while a value of 100 would represent a condition producing the maximum
detrimental responses in all of the endpoints (e.g. no growth, reproduction, or survival of all test
populations). Not only does this sort of scaling provide a "frame of reference" to address the
question of "how bad is this site?", but it allows scores of RTRM indices from different years (which
may have had different numbers of endpoints) to be evaluated on the same scale. This well-defined
scaling system is much more readily interpreted than the sediment quality triad RTR values or the
RTRM indices, which have a reference value of 1, but have an open-ended scale for toxic
conditions, the maximum value of which depends upon the number of endpoints, the magnitude of
the test responses, and the reference response values used in the calculations.
The scaled RTRM index, hereafter designated as "toxicity index" or TOX-INDEX, was
calculated as follows. The RTRM values and confidence limits were calculated as in previous years
(Hall et al., 1994). The reference median for any given site was subtracted from all reference and
test values (medians, lower and upper confidence limits). This step scales the reference median to
0. The values are then divided by a "worst case" constant for each test data set. This "worst case"
constant is calculated by taking the test data set and setting the values to the maximum detrimental
responses for each endpoint (e.g., no survival, growth, reproduction, hatching of eggs, etc.),
calculating the RTRM values for these "worst case" conditions by dividing by the appropriate
reference means (i.e., for the sediment data set, each sample was matched to the reference data set
that most closely matched the sediment characteristics) and calculating the "worst case" constant
as the mean of RTRM values for all endpoints. The division by the "worst case" constant makes
all values (medians and confidence limits) a fraction of the "worst case" condition. The TOX-
INDEX values are converted to a percentage scale by multiplying by 100. The TOX-INDEX
medians and confidence limits for test and reference conditions of each site are plotted on maps of
the Bay to indicate the relative toxicity of various geographic locations. For graphical purposes, the
lower confidence limits of the reference data are not shown, unless the test confidence limits overlap
those of the reference conditions (i.e. a portion of the confidence limits for both the test and
reference conditions are less than zero).
In order to provide more information to the TOX-INDEX maps, pie charts are included to
indicate the relative percentage of endpoints that were shown to be different between the test and
reference data sets in the RTRM simulations. Therefore, a highly toxic site would not only be
shown to have high TOX-INDEX values which display a low degree of uncertainty (i.e., to have
narrow confidence bands that are well separated from reference conditions), but it would also be
shown to have a high percentage of endpoints that were adversely affected by the toxic conditions.
This type of presentation should provide managers with a tool to evaluate the relative
ecological risk of the sites in comparison to each other and aid in targeting mitigation efforts on a
spatial scale. A site with TOX-INDEX confidence limits that overlap those of a reference site, and
which displays few statistically significant endpoints, would be expected to pose little ecological
risk with respect to ambient toxicity. On the other hand, a site displaying a large TOX-INDEX
value, with confidence limits that are well separated for the reference condition and with many
significantly impacted endpoints would be expected to pose a much greater ecological risk. The
ecological significance of toxicity at sites with intermediate TOX-INDEX scores would have to be
interpreted through the best professional judgement of scientists and managers, although the relative
magnitude of the values does provide information on the relative degree of toxicity with respect to
other sites. Although absolute ecological risk assessments would require much more intensive
3-7
-------
biological evaluations of long-term population and community level effects, TOX-INDEX provides
a screening system that indicates the relative ranking by which regions can be prioritized for
management actions related to toxicity. Thus, the maps provide quantitative indications of the
magnitude, certainty and consistency of toxic effects.
The site location symbols in the TOX-INDEX maps indicate the degree to which water or
sediment benchmarks (water quality criteria or ER-M values, respectively) were exceeded. Thus,
the maps also display the qualitative degree of chemical contamination.
During the 1998 studies, the water column toxicity data sets were re-scaled. The re-scaling
effort was designed to make the scaled water column data sets more comparable to the scaled
sediment toxicity data sets. The issue to be resolved was the definition of the "worst case" for
growth endpoints (e.g., growth of sheepshead minnows, and in the earlier years of the study, grass
shrimp). Traditionally, the growth endpoints for the water column tests were measured as the
absolute weight of the larval organisms at the end of the test compared to the weight of controls.
Conversely, the sediment tests measure growth as the relative change in size of organisms as a
percentage of the starting size (i.e., growth rates) in test treatments compared to controls. Either of
these approaches provides a valid test of sublethal effects on growth. However, a "worst case" for
the former case is zero weight, while it is a zero growth rate for the latter. Our consensus was that
the zero growth rate represented a more realistic "worst case" scaling factor, so the water column
growth data from 1990 to 1998 were converted to growth rates and re-scaled.
Since the "worst cases" for the growth endpoints were more in line with what could possibly
be achieved in the tests, the re-scaled Toxicity Index values tended to be greater by a factor of
approximately 2. However, the re-scaling process did not scale equally across all sites for all years.
The performance of controls, the number of endpoints, and the number of replicates all influence
the scaling factor produced for each data set. In addition, RTRM values had to be calculated for
growth rates instead of absolute growth. Thus, the relative toxicity rankings of sites changed
somewhat during the re-scaling process. However, the major patterns of toxicity among sites
remained (i.e. toxic sites remained toxic) and made environmental sense from a "best professional
judgement" perspective. The re-scaled water column Toxicity Index values and rankings are
discussed in Section 6.
3.5 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
3.5.1 Data Collection
All sites were sampled monthly for fish assemblages during the summer index period (July,
August, and September, 1998). This period reflects the time of greatest fish species diversity and
abundance in the Chesapeake Bay due to the function of the estuary as a spawning and nursery
habitat for anadromous, marine, and estuarine resident species.
Sites on the Choptank River were sampled inshore using a 30.5 m X 1.2m beach seine with
6.4 mm mesh. The seine was pulled with the tide employing the quarter sweep method. Two seine
hauls were conducted per site with a 30 minute interval between each haul to allow for repopulation
of the seine area. Fish from the first seine haul were held and released after completion of the second
seine haul.
Seine data were not collected from the Anacostia River. There were no sites that met seining
criteria. Seine sampling was attempted at one site, however, the effort was abandoned because the
sediment was too soft, and the seine could not be operated efficiently.
In the channel at each site in both river systems, fish were sampled using a 3.1 m otter or box
3-8
-------
trawl with 12.8 mm stretch mesh and 50.8 cm by 25.4 cm doors. All sites on both systems were
sampled with a single trawl tow pulled with the tide at two knots for five minutes.
All fish captured in the seine and trawl were identified to species, counted, and minimum
and maximum length recorded for each species. Age of game and commercial species was also
recorded. Scales were collected for fish when age determination could not be made in the field.
When field identification was not possible, specimens were retained for later laboratory evaluation.
Water quality parameters were sampled using a Hydrolab. Water temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, conductivity, and salinity were measured at bottom, mid-water and surface depth profiles
near the trawl area for each site. Water clarity was measured with a Secchi disc. Detailed sampling
methods are described in Carmichael et al., 1992a.
Fish catch data and water quality data were recorded in the field on standardized data sheets.
All data sheets were verified prior to leaving the sampling site. Data sheets were again proofed in
the laboratory for errors and omissions. Data were keypunched into ASCII files, then compared to
the original field sheets to locate any data entry errors. Corrected data files were then converted to
PC-SAS data sets. Data were proofed again using a computerized quality control program designed
for the project. Finalized data sets were created for analysis and computation of IB I metrics.
3.5.2 Index of Biotic Integrity Calculations
Data for each site were summed for the entire summer season. Data were prepared using a
program which assigns spawning location, feeding strategy, and area of residence (freshwater,
estuarine or marine species) for each species (Table 3.2). These assignments were made based on
the adult life stages of each species.
Nine metrics were used to calculate the provisional IBI score by site. The metrics were
divided into three categories: Richness Measures - total number of species, number of species caught
in bottom trawl, number of species comprising 90% of the catch; Abundance Measures - number
of anadromous fish, number of estuarine fish, total number offish with menhaden removed; Trophic
Measures - proportion of planktivores, proportion of carnivores, proportion of benthivores.
Abundance and proportion metrics were then normally transformed and ranked into thirds and
assigned a value of 5, 3, or 1. All metrics in the upper third were given a five; middle third a three;
and lower third a 1. Planktivores were ranked in reverse because increasing trends in abundance are
quantitatively associated with increases in pollutant loadings (Vaas and Jordan, 1990). The
individual ranks were then summed to give a total for each site. This total represents the provisional
IBI score. A more detailed description is presented in Carmichael et al., 1992b.
3.5.3 Establishing Reference Conditions
Reference IBI conditions were established based on examining numerous years of existing
data for the Wicomico River. The 95% confidence intervals about the mean IBI score for the
Wicomico River were calculated. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (IBI score of 31)
was identified as the cut off point for reference systems (any value below this is not meeting the
reference standard).
3.5.4 Trawl Index
A trawl index was calculated for each station. The index was derived by calculating the mean
rank of the monthly bottom trawl richness measures for each station. The mean ranks were then
assigned a narrative rating of good (mean rank greater than 1.33), fair (mean rank between 0.67 and
1.33 ), and poor (mean rank less than 0.67).
3-9
-------
3.6 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
3.6.1 Data Collection
Benthic samples for the Ambient Toxicity study were collected at the ten sites described in
Section 3.1 during the late summer/early fall of 1998 ( between August 26th - October 30th). A
Global Positioning System (GPS) with differential correction was used to locate study sites. Surface
and bottom water temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), and pH
were measured at each site. Biological samples were collected at each site using a Young Grab
which samples an area of 440 cm2 to a depth of 10 cm. The samples were seived through a 0.5 mm
screen using an elutriative process. Organisms retained on the screen were transferred to labeled jars
and preserved in 10% buffered formalin stained with rose bengal (a vital stain used to aid separation
of organisms from sediment and detritus).
Two sub-samples containing approximately 120 ml of surface-sediment were collected for
grain-size analysis from an additional grab sample at each site. They were frozen until processed
in the laboratory.
3.6.2 Laboratory Processing
Organisms were sorted from detritus under dissecting microscopes, identified to the lowest
practical taxonomic level, and counted. Oligochaetes and chironomids were mounted on slides,
examined under a compound microscope, and identified to genus and species. Ash-free dry weight
biomass was measured for each species by drying the organisms to a constant weight at 60C
followed by ashing in a muffle furnace at 500C for four hours.
Silt-clay composition was determined for one of the two sediment sub-samples collected at
each sampling site. The other sample was archived for quality assurance purposes (Scott et al.
1988). Sand and silt-clay particles were separated by wet-sieving through a 63^ stainless steel sieve
and weighed using the procedures described by Plumb (1981) and Buchanan (1984).
3.6.3 Data Analysis and Benthic IBI Calculations
Analyses were performed in the context of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benthic
Community Restoration Goals which use the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) to measure
goal attainment. The newly developed Tidal Freshwater Benthic Community Restoration Goals were
applied to the freshwater sites in the Anacostia River. The B-IBI and the Chesapeake Bay Benthic
Community Restoration Goals are described below.
The B-IBI is a multiple-attribute index developed to identify the degree to which a benthic
assemblage meets the Chesapeake Bay Program's Benthic Community Restoration Goals
(Ranasinghe et al., 1994, updated by Weisberg et al., 1997). The B-IBI provides a means for
comparing the relative condition of benthic invertebrate assemblages across different habitats. It
also provides a validated mechanism for integrating several benthic community attributes indicative
of "health" into a single number that measures overall benthic community condition.
The B-IBI is scaled from 1 to 5, and sites with values of 3 or more are considered to meet
the Restoration Goals. The index is calculated by scoring each of several attributes as either 5, 3,
or 1 depending on whether the value of the attribute approximates, deviates slightly from, or
deviates strongly from values at the best reference sites in similar habitats, and then averaging these
scores across attributes. The criteria for assigning these scores are numeric and habitat-dependent.
Benthic community condition was classified into three levels based on the B-IBI. Values
less than or equal to 2 were classified as severely degraded; values from 2 to less than 3.0 were
classified as degraded; and values of 3.0 or more were classified as meeting the goal.
3-10
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
4.1 Water Column Toxicity Tests
The following results from water column tests are presented below: toxicity data,
contaminants data, water quality data and toxicity data from reference toxicant tests.
4.1.1 ToxicirvData
Survival, growth, reproduction and percent normal shell development from the three
estuarine tests conducted from 9/29/98 to 10/07/98 are presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Based on
univariate analysis, survival of Eurytemora was significantly reduced at all four of the Choptank
River sites but no significant effects were reported with E. affinis for the six Anacostia River sites
(Table 4.1). The percent normal development for the coot clam was reduced at five of the six
Anacostia River sites but no effects were reported with the clam test for any of the Choptank River
sites (Table 4.3). Significant biological effects from saltwater tests were not reported at any of the
10 stations for reproduction and maturation of Eurytemora or survival and growth of sheepshead
minnows (Table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4). In addition, Ceriodaphnia survival and reproduction and P.
promelas survival and growth was not significantly affected at any of the six Anacostia River
stations (Tables 4.5 and 4.6).
4.1.2 Contaminants Data
Inorganic contaminant concentrations from the four stations in the Choptank River
presented in Table 4.7 are all below the U. S. Environmental Protection Agencies' (U. S. EPA)
chronic marine water quality criteria. For the freshwater sites in the Anacostia River, cadmium
concentrations at five of the six sites exceeded the U. S. EPA chronic freshwater criteria for this
metal. None of the other metals exceeded the U. S. EPA freshwater criteria at the Anacostia River
sites.
4.1.3 Water Quality Data
Water quality parameters reported from grab samples collected three times at all stations are
presented in Table 4.8. Most of these ambient water quality conditions appeared adequate for
survival of test species except occassional low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Anacostia
River. The three upstream sites had dissolved oxygen concentration below 3.3 mg/L on 9/24/98.
Water quality conditions reported in test containers during testing are reported in Appendix A. All
of these parameters appeared adequate for survival of test species.
4.1.4 Reference Toxicant Data
Forty-eight hour LC or EC50 values for the three test species exposed to cadmium chloride
during reference toxicant tests are presented in Table 4.9. These toxicity values were compared with
the values from the previous seven years for all species except the coot clam, where five years of
data were available. The sheepshead minnow LC50 of 10.4 mg/L is higher that values reported
during the first seven years (0.51 to 2.3 mg/L). These data suggested that this stock of fish is
somewhat more tolerant than previous stocks tested. The LC50 for Eurytemora (0.172 mg/L) is
within the range reported during the previous seven years of testing (0.021 to 0.261 mg/L). The
EC50 for the coot clam (0.049 mg/L) is within the range reported from the last five years of testing
(0.005 to 0.082 mg/L). The reference toxicant data in Table 4.9 demonstrates that the test species
from the various sources are healthy and the ambient toxicity data were valid.
4-1
-------
4.2 Sediment Tests
The following results are presented below: sediment toxiciry data, sediment chemistry data
and reference toxicant data.
4.2.1 ToxicitvData
Toxicity data for all endpoints for the five test species are presented in Tables 4.10 - 4.18.
These data are presented below for the Lynnhaven River, Choptank River and Anacostia River.
4.2.1.1 Lynnhaven River
The Lynnhaven River was chosen for the collection of reference and control sediment.
Material (100% sand) from this area was suitable as reference sediment for the amphipod
Lepidactylus dytiscus with survival at 98% for day 10 and 96% for day 20 (Table 4.11). Fine
sediment (-82% silt and clay) as control sediment did not support the habitat requirements for
survival with this amphipod and provided a clear indication that any comparison of the results of
bioassays with this organism should be made for sites in the study area with high sand content
(Table 4.11). The sandy sediment was marginally acceptable as control sediment for the polychaete
worm (S. benedicti) with 92% survival at day 10 and 78% survival at day 20, but the fine sediment
proved to be an acceptable reference sediment with better than 90% survival at the test termination
(Table 4.13). Similar results with the control sediments were observed for the freshwater amphipod
(H. aztecd) with 86% survival at day 10 and day 20, however, the fine sediment was not an
acceptable reference sediment for this species (Table 4.14). Differences in survival between the
sand control and mud reference for H. azteca may have been caused by differences in pore water
salinity of the two sediments. Because of the high porosity of the sand, salinity of the pore water
within the control sediments may have reached equilibrium with the overlying water more quickly
than the mud reference sediment. As a result, the amphipods in the mud reference sediment may
have been exposed to additional stress caused by increasing salinity of the overlying water. Sand
and fine sediments from this area were suitable control and reference sediments, respectively, for
the sheepshead minnow (C. variegatus) with survival of 90% at day 9 in both treatments (Table
4.10). The amphipod L. plumulosus had poor survival in the control sediment (100% sand), but
acceptable survival in the fine sediment at the end of the 20 day exposure period (Table 4.12).
Growth in length of L. dytiscus appeared to be greater than the initial size of the test
organisms, but there was a decrease in weight of the amphipods for all sites except AR6 (Table
4.15). There is no satisfactory explanation for this occurrence and these data were not be used in
the assessment of the river sites. There was no significant difference between increases in length
and weight for L. plumulosus in sand or mud (Table 4.16). S. benedicti length and weight increased
in Lynnhaven River mud and sand, indicating growth in mud was better than in sand (Table 4.17).
The reference sediment selected for the H. azteca bioassays was Lynnhaven River sand, but the
increase in length and weight was significantly less in the sand than in the mud from the same region
selected as the control for the bioassay (Table 4.18). The possible cause for this problem as it relates
to the salinity tolerance of this freshwater species was discussed earlier in this section.
4.2.1.2 Choptank River
Sheepshead minnow (C. variegatus) survival (Table 4.10) in sediment from sites CR62
(Choptank Lumps) and CR63 (Horn Point) was significantly different from the reference site after
nine days of exposure. The sediment bioassays with L. dytiscus, applicable only to sandy sites, was
significantly different from the reference site (sand) after 20 days of exposure to these sandy
sediments. All sites including the controls (mud) were significantly different at the end of the test
4-2
-------
(Table 4.11), but the results indicated the poor tolerance of fine particle size sediments rather than
toxic sediments. Site CR59 (Broad Creek) was significantly different from the reference site based
on sediment bioassays with L. plumulosus (Table 4.12) for survival at the end of the 20 day tests.
The polychaete worm bioassay did not show any significant effects for survival at any of the
Choptank River sites (Table 4.13). The freshwater amphipod H. azteca toxicity test was not
performed on sediments from this river (Table 4.14).
Growth data for L. dytiscus are presented in Table 4.15. Differences in growth between test
and reference sites was not evaluated for this species because of the potential bias associated with
significant mortalities at a test sites in this river. Length and weight for site CR63 (Horn Point) were
significantly less than the reference site for L. plumulosus (Table 4.16) and change in length of S.
benedicti (Table 4.17) was significantly higher at CR62 (Choptank Lumps) than the reference
sediment. These results suggest some evidence that sublethal effects may be occurring in sediments
at CR63.
4.2.1.3 Anacostia River
Survival of sheepshead minnow was not affected by sediment from the Anacostia River
(Table 4.10). In contrast, survival for L. plumulosus was significantly different from the reference
site at day 10 of the bioassays for all sites but AR6 (Potomac Confluence) and was significantly
different for all sites at day 20 (Table 4.12). The polychaete worm (S. benedicti) survival was
significantly different from the reference at site AR4 (Navy Yard) after 10 days of exposure and
at AR2 (Kenilworth Gardens), AR4 (Navy Yard) and AR5 (Power Plant) at test termination (Table
4.13). Survival of the freshwater amphipod (H. azteca) was significantly different at the 10 day test
breakdown for AR2 (Kenilworth Gardens) and at test termination for AR1 (Maryland Line) and
AR2 (Kenilworth Gardens) (Table 4.14).
Growth data for L. dytiscus and L. plumulosus are presented in Table 4.15 and Table 4.16,
respectively. Differences in growth between test and reference sites could not be evaluated for these
two species because the potential bias associated with significant mortality at all test sites in this
river. The polychaete worm (Table 4.17) did show significant increases in length at sites AR1
(Maryland Line), AR3 (Field House), and AR6 (Potomac Confluence). Although H. azteca showed
increases in length and weight over the initial sizes for all sites in the Anacostia River, no site was
significantly different from the reference (Table 4.18). It should be noted, however, that the sand
control for this bioassay had significantly better increases in length and weight than the reference
site.
4.2.2 Sediment Chemistry Data
4.2.2.1 Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Two PAHs were detected in the sediment from the Choptank River at low concentrations at
sites CR62 and CR63 (Table 4.19). PAHs were widespread in the Anacostia River and, based on
total PAHs, appeared to increase in concentration from the Maryland/District of Columbia boundary
line (AR1) to the mid-reach of the study area (AR3-AR4) and decrease toward the confluence with
the Potomac River (AR6). At the four upstream sites (AR1-AR4) there were seven or more PAHs
in sediments excess of the ERL benchmark value and total PAHs at these same sites was greater
than the ERL. The values in excess of the ERL suggest instances where PAHs may "occassionally"
be responsible for observed sediment toxicity. In this case, PAHs may be contributing to any
observed toxicity in the Anacostia River sediments, but are unlikely to be a cause for impairment
in the Choptank River.
4-3
-------
4.2.2.2 Organic Compounds
There were very few pesticides detected in the Choptank River sediments (Table 4.20).
Aldrin, endrin aldehyde, alpha- and delta-BHC were detected at nearly all four sites and total DDT
was observed at concentrations exceeding the ERL at 3 sites (CR61, CR62 and CR63). At least six
compounds (heptachlor, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endrin aldehyde, and endosulfan II) were detected
at the six Anacostia River sites with all showing peak concentrations downstream of the headwater
site (AR1). However, but the limited spatial resolution in this study does not allow for any
inferences about potential within study area sources. Total DDT was found at all sites in composite
sediment samples at concentrations in excess of the ERL benchmark values and 4,4'-DDE was
detected at one site in excess of the ERL (AR6: Potomac Confluence) and at two sites in excess of
the ERM benchmark value (AR3: Field House and AR4: Navy Yard). Based on DDE
concentrations, there appears to be some reason to expect impairment to benthic communities at
sites AR3 and AR4 (see Section 4.4). PCBs and chlordane concentrations were measured but not
detected in any of the sites. These data are contradictory to historical data collected in the sediment
from the Anacostia River (Pickney et al., 2000; Wade et al., 1994; EA Engineering Science and
Technology, 2000). Due to unresolved quality assurance/quality control issues with the
measurement of PCBs and chlordane, these data will not be used.
4.2.2.3 Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Organic carbon in the Choptank River was lower than the study sites in the Anacostia River
and comparable to the muddy sediment from the Lynnhaven River (Table 4.21). TOC in the
Choptank River ranged from 0.3 to 1.5% TOC sediment dry weight, while the sites within the
Anacostia River ranged from 2.7 to 3.5% TOC. As expected, the sand from the Lynnhaven River
had very little organic carbon (0.07% TOC) and the fine grained sediment had 1.3% TOC. Although
it is desirable to have reference sediment with all characteristics similar to the study sediment
(except for contaminant residues), the single muddy sediment from the Lynnhaven River was
slightly different from the Anacostia River sediments based on organic carbon content.
4.2.2.4 Metals
Copper, nickel, and zinc were found in sediment at concentrations exceeding the ERL at all
sites in the Anacostia River (Table 4.22). Lead (sites AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5), cadmium (AR3
and AR4), and mercury (AR4, AR5, and AR6) were in excess of the ERL for these metals at several
other sites in the river. Only lead and zinc were found in Anacostia River sediment at AR4 above
the ERM. The only concern for bulk metals in sediment in the Choptank River occurred at CR59
where arsenic and nickel were in excess of the ERL benchmarks.
4.2.2.5 SEM:AVS Ratios
Sediments from the study area were analyzed for the amount of acid volatile sulfides (AVS)
and for the amount of freely available divalent metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and
mercury) as simultaneously extractable metals (SEM). It is assumed that sulfides bind with the
metals on a 1:1, molar basis (DiToro, et al., 1990 and 1992) and that by dividing SEM by the
amount of AVS would suggest that these metals were bioavailable when the ratio was greater than
1. However, there are other substances that can be found in the sediments that can bind with, and
effectively prevent these and other metals from being toxic to the benthic test organisms used in
sediment bioassays (e.g., organic carbon). Thus, it is proposed that when the ratio is less than one,
no toxicity due to the SEM metals is likely. And, when the ratio is greater than one, potential
4-4
-------
toxicity due to the SEM metals cannot be eliminated. It is only when the ratio is much greater than
one that toxicity due to any one of these metals becomes more likely.
Following the assumptions stated above, no sites in the Choptank River have SEM:AVS
ratios greater than 1 and toxicity due to the SEM metals listed is unlikely (Table 4.23). In the
Anacostia River only sites AR5 and AR6 can be eliminated from concern for metals toxicity. The
ratios for the other sites are greater than 1, thus toxicity due to these metals cannot be ruled out
without additional information. Zinc contributed the greatest amount to each of the ratios for all
sites throughout the two study areas; contributions from the other metals were mixed and dependent
upon the river sampled (Table 4.24).
4.2.2.6 Particle Size Characteristics
Field surveys were performed in advance of the sediment sampling events in an effort to
select areas with sediment deposition greater than erosion. The majority of the sites were on the
average primarily silt and clay (7 out of 10 sites >~80% fines) with one site (CR61) approximately
84% sand. Sediment from sites ARland AR2 were approximately 70% fines on the average. Since
each replicate was analyzed for particle size, it was possible to estimate the uniformity of the sites
(Table 4.25). The greatest uniformity of particle size within a site occurred at sites CR59 and AR5
(and possibly CR62) with all replicates being classified as mud (>90% fines with approximately
equal amounts of silt and clay). Site CR61 appeared to have the largest proportion of sand in each
replicate of all sites with the exception of one replicate at AR2 (R5). The lack of uniformity in
particle size distributions within a site confounds attempts to compare the results of bioassays
performed on randomly collected samples within a site to the results of contaminant analyses of
composites of these samples.
4.2.2.7 Pore Water Characteristics
Sediment pore water was analyzed for naturally occurring toxicants (i.e., sulfide, ammonia,
and nitrite) for all stations and the controls (Table 4.26). Ranges for the various parameters were
ammonia (8.5 to 25.7 mg/L), nitrite (0.0007 to 0.0027 mg/L), and sulfide (0.0054 to 0.2235 mg/L).
The highest ammonia and nitrite concentrations were reported in the Anacostia River; highest
sulfide concentrations were reported in the Lynnhaven River.
4.2.3 Reference Toxicant Data
The relative sensitivities of each set of test organisms was evaluated by reference toxicant
tests with cadmium chloride (CdCl2). The results of each test are shown in Table 4.27. The
reference toxicant test for Lepidactylus dyticus was judged to be invalid because control survival
greatly exceeded 10%. There was no historic reference toxicant data available forHyallela azteca.
The general conclusion from these reference toxicant tests is that these test species were healthy and
the toxicity data are valid.
4.3 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity
4.3.1 Fish Community
A total of 4,587 individuals representing 15 fish species were captured using either a seine
or trawl on the Choptank River (Appendix B). Ninety-six % of the total catch was reported by the
seining method. The remaining 4% of the catch was captured by trawl. Two species (Bay Anchovy
and Spotted seatrout) were captured by trawl but not by seine. In the Choptank River, Atlantic
silversides dominated the catch accounting for 77%. Other prevalent species included, white perch,
4-5
-------
Bay anchovy and striped bass.
As previously discussed in Section 3.5, seining could not conducted in the Anacostia River.
Trawling efforts on the Anacostia River yielded 998 individuals representing 17 species. Blueback
herring dominated the catch with 622 individuals or 62% of the total catch. Spottail shiner and
bay anchovy (respectively) were the next most abundant species.
Individual metric values for the Choptank River seining stations are presented in Table 4.28.
These values tend to show an increase in catch toward the upstream site. The lowest total abundance
and number of anadromous fish were observed at station CR-59; the highest for these categories
occurred at station CR-63. Species richness was greatest at station CR-62. Station CR-59 had the
greatest proportion of planktivores.
Provisional fish IBI scores for the Choptank River were 29 for stations CR-59 and CR-63
and 31 for station CR-62 (Table 4.29). Compared to the reference conditions, site CR-62 is the only
site to meet the reference standard of 31 or better.
The trawl index scores for the Choptank River reflect generally poor conditions for three of
the sites (Table 4.30). Station CR-61 had a fair score. The Anacostia River scores ranged from 1.67
(fair) to 2.00 (good). AR-1, AR-2, AR-3 And AR-6 had good scores; AR-4 and AR-5 were rated as
fair.
4.3.2 Water Quality
Summer mean dissolved oxygen concentraions at all stations sampled met the requirements
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Mean dissolved oxygen values were greater than 5.0 mg/L above the pycnocline and greater than
3.0 mg/L below the pycnocline (Table 4.31). Summer mean Secchi depth measurements for the
Choptank river were above the habitat requirements at all stations except Station CR-63. All sites
on the Anacostia River, except for Stations AR-5 and AR-6 failed to meet the criteria established
by the Chesapeake Bay Program for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation recovery at one meter depth
(Table 4.32).
4.4 Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species biomass
and benthic IBI scores for each site are presented in Appendix C. The number of benthic taxa in the
Choptank River (13 to 16) was generally higher than reported in tidal freshwater areas of the
Anacostia River (2 to 11). Abundance measurements ranged from 1,318 to 6,386 per sq. meter in
the Choptank River. In the Anacostia River, abundance measurements were more variable as they
ranged from 45 to 18,273 per sq. meter.
The B-IBI scores for the Choptank River in Table 4.33 were as follows: severely degraded
at CR61 (2.00); degraded at CR59 (2.33) and met the restoration goal at CR62 (3.0) and CR63 (3.0).
For the Anacostia River, the four downstream sites were severely degraded and the two upstream
sites met the restoration goal (Table 4.33). Degradation appeared to increase as you move
downriver.
4-6
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Choptank River
The water column/sediment toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data and the
biological community metric data for fish and benthos presented in this report allows a cumulative
"weight of evidence approach" for assessing the condition of each respective river (Table 5.1). The
water column toxicity data from the Choptank River showed toxicity from both univariate and
multivarite analysis (see Section 6). The high mortality from one test species (E. qffinis) was
responsible for this effect; significant effects were not reported with any of the other endpoints for
the other test species. The link between inorganic contaminants and biological effects is generally
weak because concentrations of metals in the water column at all four Choptank River sites is low
and other contaminants such as pesticides or other organics were not measured. Sediment toxicity
data based on univarite analysis showed some effects at CR63 but the multivariate analysis generally
showed no significant effects at any of the sites. With the exception of DDT, all pesticide, PAHs
and metals (AVS/SEM ratios < 1) concentrations were generally low and non-toxic in sediments.
The Choptank River fish data show signs of disturbance at several of the sites. Station CR-62
was the only station that showed an IBI score that met the reference criteria. It was also the station
where the secchi depth and species richness was greatest. Based on the four stations sampled in the
Choptank in 1999, Station CR-62 appears to have the most acceptable habitat for fish.
The benthic IBI data showed that one site was degraded (CR59) and one site was severely
degraded (CR61). Sites CR62 and CR63 met the restoration goal. The benthic and fish data agree
at CR59 (some impairment), CR61 (some impairment) and CR62 (not impaired). The general
agreement for both benthic and fish indices is not always the case as reported for CR63. Lack of
agreement has been reported in previous Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity studies (Hall et al., 1999)
and other studies (Yoder and Rankin, 1994).
A final analysis of toxicity and biological community metric data shows effects for three of
the measures at CR59 and CR61, lack of effects for three of the measures at CR62 and conflicting
lines of evidence at CR63 (two measures showed effects and two did not) (Table 5.1). The limited
water column contaminants data (only metals) and low concentrations for various inorganics and
organics in sediment do not provide strong support for contaminant related effects at the Choptank
River stations.
5.2 Anacostia River
A discussion of the Anacostia River "weight of evidence" for assessing water
column/sediment toxicity data, water column/sediment contaminants data, and community metric
data for fish and benthos is presented below (see Table 5.1). Results from water column toxicity
tests in the Anacostia River showed reduced clam development at five of the six sites. Multivariate
analysis also demonstrated effects at four of the six sites. Cadmium concentrations exceeding
chronic freshwater water quality criteria (WQC) were reported at five of the six sites.
Sediment toxicity data for the Anacostia River showed effects at five of six sites based on
multivariate analysis. Both organic and inorganic contaminants were reported at all sites. Eight to
ten pesticides were reported at all sites; total DDT concentrations exceeding ER-M values were
reported at AR3 and AR4. PAH contamination was also widespread at all Anacostia River sites.
ER-L values for total PAHs were exceeded at AR1, AR2, AR3 and AR4. Lead and zinc exceeded
ER-M values at station AR4. Copper, nickel, and zinc were above ER-L values at all stations and
lead exceeded ER-L values at all stations but AR6. Four of the Anacostia River stations had
5-1
-------
SEM/AVS ratios greater that 1 (AR1, AR2, AR3 and AR4) thus suggesting that toxicity due to
metals is possible. The general conclusion from the contaminant exposure data is that both metals
and various organics could be responsible for the reported sediment toxicity.
Fish data for the Anacostia River showed that habitat conditions in the channel area are
acceptable at four of the six stations. Based on the trawl index information, the upper three and
lower station were rated good. The middle stations, which are located just down stream from the
Washington Navy Yard, scored lower, suggesting that the habitat condition may be depressed
compared to the other stations sampled. The water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen were met
at all stations on the Anacostia River. Secchi criteria were only met downstream. However, Secchi
depth does not appear to be limiting fish distribution and abundance, considering that the upstream
habitats, despite the low Secchi depth, support a fairly diverse community.
The benthic IBI data showed that the two upstream sites met the restoration goal but the four
downstream sites were severely degraded. Both the benthic and fish community data suggest no
impairment at the two upstream sites. These two indices also agreed at stations AR4 and AR5 where
impairment was suggested. Disagreement was reported between the indices for AR3 and AR6. The
predatory actions of fish on benthic communities at these sites two sites may be influencing the
stressed benthic communities. As discussed above in Section 5.1 for the Choptank River, the lack
of agreement between the benthic and fish IBI data does not detract from the value of these data in
measuring the status of biological communities.
In summary, the water column toxicity data, sediment toxicity data, fish community data and
the benthic community data suggest impairment at AR4 and AR5 (Table 5.1). All measures except
the fish community data also suggest impairment at AR3. The upstream site (AR1) showed some
degree of stress based on water column and sediment toxicity tests but neither biological assemblage
showed significant effects. The downstream site (AR6) showed impaired benthic communities;
effects were not reported from water column or sediment toxicity tests or fish community
assessments. The sediment toxicity tests were the only measure to show effects at AR2.
5-2
-------
SECTION 6
ANALYSIS OF EIGHT YEAR DATA BASE
6.1 Water Column Toxicity
The results of Toxicity Index calculations for water column toxicity for the 1990, 1991,
1992-93, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 experiments are summarized in Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,
6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8, respectively. The species tested and the number of endpoints used varied
slightly from year to year. Therefore, comparisons of index values within the figures for the same
year are more comparable to each other than to those of different years. The Toxicity Index
calculations generated for each station and year from concurrent reference (control value) and test
conditions, therefore, provide interpretation on the relative magnitude of the toxic response of the
various sites. This analysis also provided a degree of confidence that could be given to differences
between reference and test values. A summary of comparison of Toxicity Index values for reference
(control) and test sites is presented in Table 6.1.
The Toxicity Index analysis for the 1990 data in Figure 6.1 showed that the Elizabeth River
was clearly the most toxic site tested. The confidence limits for the reference and test condition did
not overlap at this location. Nearly half of the endpoints displayed significant differences between
the reference and test conditions. The results from the Elizabeth River are not surprising since
significant mortality was observed in two of the three tests that were conducted. The Patapsco River
displayed significant toxicity in one of three tests. However, the confidence interval was fairly wide
(indicating variability) for this station and there was no difference in the median values for the
reference and test site. Morgantown and Dalhgren stations on the Potomac River displayed
significantly elevated toxicity values, largely driven by significant mortality from the sheepshead
minnow test. However, the results from the Indian Head, Freestone Point, and Possum Point sites
were not significantly different from the controls. In addition, the Wye River site did not produce
significant water column toxicity.
The Toxicity Index calculations for the 1991 experiments are presented in Figure 6.2. Four
water column tests with two endpoints for each test were used to determine the final values for two
testing periods (summer and fall). The Wye River site showed the most significant effects as
significant mortality was reported for two different test species during different testing periods.
Although the median values from the reference and test sites were different, there was overlap of
confidence limits with these two conditions. A comparison of reference and test index values for
the Patapsco River, Morgantown and Dahlgren sites showed no significant differences. However,
reduced growth of the sheepshead minnow was reported at both the Morgantown and Dahlgren sites
during the summer experiments.
The results from the 1992-93 experiments presented in Figure 6.3 include experiments
conducted during the fall (1992) and spring (1993) at each of the 6 sites (2 sites per river). The most
toxic sites were reported at both Middle River stations (Wilson Point and Frog Mortar Creek).
Results from the coot clam toxicity tests (2 tests per experiment conducted in the fall and spring)
showed consistent toxicity at both sites. Median toxicity values were similar for these two Middle
River sites, both falling within the top quartile of all sites tested. Water quality criteria for various
metals were exceeded at both sites. The results from Toxicity Index analysis at the other four sites
showed no difference between the reference and the test condition. The only other biological effect
reported at any of these four sites was significant mortality of E. affinis at the Quarter Creek site
during the spring experiments.
The results of the 1994 experiments are presented in Figure 6.4a and 6.4b. Except for the
South Ferry site, which displayed no toxicity, all sites sampled in the Severn, Magothy and Sassafras
6-1
-------
Rivers displayed moderately low, but significant toxicity (Figure 6.4a). Conversely, Sparrows Point
in Baltimore Harbor displayed significant toxicity, with Toxicity Index values falling within the top
quartile of those observed from all sites tested (Figure 6.4b). The Bear Creek site in Baltimore
Harbor displayed significant but low toxicity. The other Baltimore Harbor sites displayed no
statistically significant toxicity.
The results of the 1995 studies are presented in Figure 6.5. The Toxicity Index values for
the Lynnhaven River were not significantly different from the reference. In the James River basin,
the James River "Above" and the Willoughby Bay sites displayed Toxicity Index values that were
statistically significant. However, the James River "Below" did not display significant toxicity. The
York River sites also displayed insignificant to moderate water column toxicity: the Pamunkey
"Above" and York River "Below" sites had Toxicity Index values that were not significantly
different from the references; the York River "Above" had only a very slight elevation of toxicity
above controls; and the Pamunkey "Below" displayed a moderate level of toxicity.
Figure 6.6 presents the results of the 1996 studies on the Chester and Patuxent Rivers. The
water from all of the sites except Jack Bay in the Patuxent River exhibited significant differences
in Toxicity Index values compared to the reference conditions. The CH5 site and the CH6 site in
the Chester River had the highest values. The values from the remaining sites were indicative of low
to moderate toxicity.
The results of the 1997 studies in the South and Elizabeth Rivers are presented in Figure 6.7.
The water from all of the sites displayed significant differences in Toxicity Index values compared
to the reference conditions. Three of the sites on the South River (SRI, SR3 and SR4) exhibited a
moderately high degree of toxicity, with Toxicity Index values ranking in the top 10% of all values
observed to date. Eurytemora qffinis survival was significantly affected at all three of these sites.
Site SR2 was somewhat lower in toxicity. The Toxicity Index values from the sites in the Elizabeth
River were quite high, ranking in the top quartile of the data sets evaluated to date. However, the
relative toxicities of the sites in 1997 were lower than the level observed at the Elizabeth River site
in 1990 (see discussion of sediment data below).
The results of the 1998 studies in the Anacostia and Choptank Rivers are presented in
Figures 6.8a and 6.8b. Water column toxicities in the Anacostia River (Figure 6.8a) were quite
heterogeneous: running from nonsignificant at Sites AR2 and AR6; through significant but relatively
low at Site AR4; to moderately toxic at Site AR1; to relatively toxic at Sites AR3 and AR5. In fact,
the toxicities at the latter two sites were the greatest (AR3) and the third greatest (AR5) observed
during the entire eight years of ambient toxicity studies (see below). Coot clam larval survival was
the most impacted endpoint, with significant effects observed at Sites AR1, AR3, AR4, and AR5.
Sheepshead minnow growth was significantly affected at Sites AR1, AR4, and AR5, while
Eurytemora qffinis reproduction was impacted at AR3. In contrast to the heterogeneity in toxicity
observed for the Anacostia River, the water column toxicity was very homogeneous among the
Choptank River sites. All four sites displayed significant, moderate toxicities. For these sites,
Eurytemora affinis survival was reduced compared to the controls.
A summary of the 1990-1998 water column data base using the Toxicity Index analysis
(Figures 6.9 and 6.10) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest water
column toxicity (15% to >30%) were as follows:
Anacostia River: Site AR3 and Site AR5 (1998)
Elizabeth River: Elizabeth River Site (1990); Southern Branch, Site SB
6-2
-------
(1997); Main Stem, Site EL (1997); Western Branch, Site WB (1997); &
Eastern Branch, Site EB (1997)
South River: Site SRI, Site SR3 & Site SR4 (1997)
Middle River: Wilson Point Site & Frog Mortar Creek Site (1994)
Chester River: Site CH6, Scotts Point; & Site CHS, Skillet Point (1996)
the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree of water
column toxicity (5% to 14%) were:
South River, Site SR2 (1997)
Baltimore Harbor: Sparrows Point Site (1994) &
Patapsco River Site(1990)
Potomac River: Morgantown and Dahlgren Sites (1990)
Wye River, Manor House Site (1991)
Anacostia River, Site AR1 (1998)
Choptank River: Sites CR59, CR61, CR62 & CR63
(1998)
Chester River, Site CH4 (1996)
Pamunkey River, site below West Point in the York River basin (1995)
James River, site above Newport News (1995)
Severn River sites at Annapolis and Junction with Route 50 (1994)
Patuxent River: Broomes Island & Chalk Point Sites (1996)
Chester River, Site CH2 (1996)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed water column toxicity that was low in magnitude (<5%), but significantly
different from reference (control) responses were:
Sassafras River: Betterton and Turner Creek Sites
(1994)
Baltimore Harbor, Bear Creek Site (1994)
Magothy River, Gibson Island site (1994)
Anacostia River, Site AR4 (1998)
Patuxent River, Buzzard Island Site(1996)
York River, site above Cheatham Annex (1995)
James River Basin: Willoughby Bay Site (1995)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed no significant water column toxicity were:
Baltimore Harbor: Patapsco River Site (1991); Curtis Bay, Middle Branch,
Northwest Harbor and Outer Harbor Sites (1994)
Magothy River, South Ferry Site (1994)
Wye River: Manor House Site (1990, 1992-3); &
Quarter Creek Site (1992-3)
Anacostia River, Sites AR2 and AR6 (1998)
Patuxent River, Jack Bay Site (1996)
6-3
-------
Nanticoke River: Bivalve Site & Sandy Hill Beach Site (1992-3)
Potomac River: Dahlgren (1991), Freestone Point (1990), Indian Head
(1990), Morgantown (1991), and Possum Point (1990) Sites
Pamunkey River, site above West Point in the York River basin (1995)
York River, site below Cheatham Annex, (1995)
James River, site below Newport News (1995)
Lynnhaven River Site (1995)
6.2 Sediment Toxicity
The results of the Toxicity Index calculations for sediment toxicity for the 1990,1991,1992-
93, 1994, 1995, 1996,1997, and 1998 studies are summarized in Figures 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15
6.16, 6.17 and 6.18, respectively. It should be noted that the species and the number of endpoints
tested varied slightly from year to year, so index values within the figures (within the same year)
are more comparable than are those between figures. Nonetheless, the comparisons of concurrent
reference and test conditions provide insight into the relative magnitude of the toxic responses of
the various sites. Table 6.2 summarizes the comparisons presented in Figures 6.11 - 6.18.
During the 1990 study, the Elizabeth River was clearly the most toxic of the sites, since all
species displayed nearly complete mortality during the first 10 days of the experiment (i.e., the
median for the index for the test data was greatly separated from the median for the reference data
with little variation; Figure 6.11). The Elizabeth River provides an example of the worst case
Toxicity Index values. The confidence limits of the test data index values were well separated from
those of the corresponding reference sites for a number of other sites: Patapsco River; Wye River;
and the Freestone Point, Possum Point and Dahlgren sites on the Potomac River (although the latter
two sites displayed a considerable degree of- variation in index values). The Indian Head and
Morgantown sites on the Potomac River displayed only slight separation between the median index
values for the test and reference conditions. Thus, the magnitude of potential toxicity appears to be
less for the Indian Head and Morgantown sites than for the others. It should be noted, however, that
all sites selected for the first year of the study were those considered "suspect" due to the results of
previous studies, so it is not surprising that most displayed significant deviations from the reference
conditions.
The 1991 study involved an assessment of the effects of short-term temporal variability (a
summer versus a fall collection) on the apparent toxicity of sediments from four sites. The
separation between test and reference treatments was greatest for the Patapsco River site, with less
separation reported for Dahlgren, Morgantown, and the Wye (Figure 6.12). The results of the
Patapsco River index comparison were remarkably similar to those observed for the 1990 study.
The Dahlgren site index values, which were quite variable in the 1990 study, were still separated
from the reference values in the 1991 study. The small degree of separation observed between the
Morgantown index limits and reference limits in 1990 was also observed for 1991. The Wye River
index limits were only slightly separated from the reference limits due to the fact that only one of
the two sets of experiments displayed significant differences between test and control treatments.
This slight variability in responses could be due to temporal variation in toxicity, but is more likely
due to small scale spatial heterogeneity (i.e., sediments were taken from the same general station,
but there may have been patchiness in sediment quality in the grabs composited for the two sets of
tests). Overall, the degree of variability observed in the Toxicity Index limits for the combination
of the two sampling events was quite small for all four sites. The patterns were remarkably
consistent with those observed at these same sites during the previous year.
The 1992-93 study also involved two sampling periods during the Fall and Spring. The test
6-4
-------
and reference Toxicity Index limits overlapped for all of the sites selected for testing (Figure 6.13).
Thus, the sites in the Middle River (Frog Mortar and Wilson Point), the Wye River (Quarter Creek
and Manor House), and the Nanticoke River (Sandy Hill Beach and Bivalve) appeared to contain
sediment displaying little or no overall toxicity compared to reference conditions. It should be noted,
however, that the Frog Mortar sediments were quite heterogeneous in character and they displayed
somewhat elevated metals in the composite samples (see Hall et al., 1993). Therefore, there may
be patches of contaminated sediments at this site, which may have produced responses in a few of
the field replicates. The purpose of taking true field replicates at two different times during the 1992-
93 study was to produce confidence limits to indicate the probability of observing the same sort of
response if the site were sampled again, so the observed variability provides insight into the
variation in sediment quality expected for this site.
The results of the 1992-3 studies on the two Wye River sites (Quarter Creek and Manor
House) displayed little difference from the reference conditions, which is in contrast to the apparent
toxicity observed in 1990 and one of the sampling period of the 1991 study. The Wye River Manor
House Site was sampled during the 1990-93 time period.
The 1994 studies were conducted in the Sassafras River, Severn River, Magothy River and
the Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco River (Figure 6.14a and 6.14b). The Sassafras River sites displayed
no sediment toxicity (Figure 6.14a). The Magothy River sites exhibited slight to moderate toxicity,
particularly the South Ferry site, which was highly variable (Figure 6.14a). The Annapolis site on
the Severn River also displayed significant but moderately low toxicity. However, the Toxicity
Index limits from the Severn River site at the Route 50 bridge overlapped those of the reference site.
The Baltimore Harbor sites showed various degrees of toxicity from slight (Outer Harbor) to quite
high (Bear Creek and Northwest Harbor), with most displaying moderate toxicity (Sparrow Point,
Middle Branch and Curtis Bay; Figure 6.14b). All Baltimore Harbor sites contained sediments that
exceeded ER-M values for 3 or more contaminants.
The 1995 studies included sites in the James River and York River basins and a site in the
Lynnhaven River (Figure 6.15). The Toxicity Index was elevated for the Willoughby Bay site,
which is located near the mouth of the James River and in the vicinity of heavy military, residential,
and marina activities. The James River site below Newport News displayed Toxicity Index values
that were also significantly elevated relative to the reference, but the degree of toxicity was lower
than for the Willoughby site. None of the other sites displayed overall significance in the Toxicity
Index comparisons to references, although the Lynnhaven site was the only one to display no
significant endpoints in the univariate comparison of confidence limits.
The 1996 studies focused on the Chester and the Patuxent Rivers (Figure 6.16). All sites in
the Chester River displayed some degree of toxicity. The CH2 and CH4 sites in the Chester River
had sediments that produced a low to moderate level of toxicity, while sediments from the CHS and
CH6 sites were associated with a higher degree of toxicity. The magnitude of toxicity displayed by
sediments from the latter two sites was of the same overall magnitude as that observed during earlier
studies for the South Ferry site in the Magothy River and two of the sites (Possum Point and
Dahlgren) in the Potomac River (see below). In contrast, sediments from the Patuxent River were,
for the most part, non toxic. While the median toxicity index values (5-10 on the toxicity index
scale) for the Patuxent River sites were somewhat higher than for the reference condition, variation
in results made these differences non significant except for the Buzzard Island site. The Buzzard
Island site displayed a moderately low level of toxicity that was statistically greater than the
reference condition.
The 1997 studies were conducted at four sites in the South River and four sites in the
Elizabeth River (Figure 6.17). While there was significant sediment toxicity detected at six of the
6-5
-------
eight sites, the degree of toxicity was moderately low. South River Sites 1 and 2 displayed the
highest level of toxicity, but Toxicity Index values only ranged between 7% and 12%. Streblospio
benedicti survival and growth, Leptocheirus plumulosus growth, and fish egg hatching success were
the endpoints that were the most affected in the experiments for these sites. Conversely, Sites SR3
and SR4 displayed no significant toxicity. The sediments from all the Elizabeth River sites displayed
significant but low levels of toxicity. As expected, the toxicity of the Elizabeth River sediments
studied during 1997 was considerably less than the degree of toxicity detected in 1990. The toxicity
of the sediments has decreased during the intervening seven years and/or the toxicity of the
sediments is highly patchy. There has been a considerable degree of management efforts focused
on the Elizabeth River during the 1990s (e.g. the Elizabeth River Project; pollution control actions
of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; activities associated with the Region of
Concern status of the River in the Chesapeake Bay Program), so it is entirely possible that the degree
of contamination/toxicity has significantly decreased. However, it should be noted that the Elizabeth
River site studied in 1990 was selected to be extremely contaminated to serve as a sort of "positive
control" during the development phase of the ambient toxicity tests. The 1990 samples were taken
in proximity to a Superfund site that was highly contaminated with creosote (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons). The 1997 samples were taken to be more representative of the Elizabeth River main
stem and its three major branches. Thus, the apparent decrease of toxicity may have been due to site
selection in a patchy system. Nonetheless, the more representative 1997 samples indicate that the
overall toxicity of the sediments is relatively modest.
The 1998 studies were conducted in the Anacostia and Choptank Rivers (Figure 6.18 a and
b). Except for AR6, all of the Anacostia River sites displayed significant toxicity, ranging from low
(5% for AR1) to moderate (13% for AR4). While a number of endpoints were impacted,
Leptocheirus plumulosus survival was the most significantly affected for all of these sites. In
contrast, none of the sites from the Choptank River displayed significant toxicity (Figure 6.18b).
A summary of the 1990-1998 sediment data base using the Toxicity Index analysis (Figure
6.19 and Figure 6.20) indicated the following ranking of toxicity for the various sites:
the sites (and dates tested) displaying the greatest
sediment toxicity (15% to 100%) were as follows:
Elizabeth River Site (1990)
Baltimore Harbor: Northwest Harbor, Bear Creek, Sparrows Point, Curtis
Bay, and Middle Branch Sites (1994)
James River basin: Willoughby Bay Site( 1995)
Chester River: Sites CHS and CH6 (1996)
Magothy River, South Ferry Site (1994)
Potomac River: Possum Point Site; and Dahlgren
Site (1990)
the sites that displayed a low to moderate degree (5% to
14%) of sediment toxicity were:
Patapsco River Site (1990,1991)
Potomac River: Freestone Point Site (1990) and Dahlgren Site( 1991)
Chester River, Site CH2 (1996)
South River, Site SRI (1997)
6-6
-------
Severn River, Annapolis site (1994)
Anacostia River: Sites AR4, AR3, AR2, AR5 & AR1
(1998)
Wye River, Manor House Site (1991)
Chester River, Site CH4 (1996)
James River, site below Newport News (1995)
Patuxent River, Buzzard Island Site (1996)
Baltimore Harbor, Outer Harbor Site (1994)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed sediment toxicity that was low in magnitude (<5%), but significantly different
from reference responses were:
Magothy River, Gibson Island Site (1994)
Wye River, Manor House Site (1990)
South River, Site SR2 (1997)
Potomac River: Morgantown Site (1990, 1991) and
Indian Head Site( 1990)
Elizabeth River: Main stem, Site EL; Western
Branch, Site WB; Eastern Branch, Site EB; and Southern Branch, Site SB
(1997)
the sites (listed geographically, from north to south) that
displayed no significant sediment toxicity were:
Middle River: Frog Mortar Site & Wilson Point Site
(1992-3)
Sassafras River: Betterton Site & Turner Creek Site
(1994)
Wye River: Quarter Creek Site & Manor House Site
(1992-3)
South River: Site SR3 and Site SR4 (1997)
Anacostia River, Site AR6 (1998)
Choptank River: Sites CR59, CR61 ,CR62, CR3 (1998)
Patuxent River: Broomes Island Site, Jack Bay Site, and Chalk Point
Site(1996)
Nanticoke River: Bivalve Site & Sandy Hill Beach Site (1992-3)
Pamunkey and York River sites (all 4 sites) (1995)
James River, site above Newport News (1995)
Lynnhaven River Site (1995)
6-7
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
Alden, R. W. 1992. Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments: Confidence limits for the triad.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 645-651.
Allen, H.E., G. Fu, W.S. Boothman, D.M. Ditoro and J.D. Mahoney (1991). Analytical method for
determination of acid volatile sulfide and selected simultaneously extractable metals in
sediment. EPA 821/12-91/100, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition.
American Public Health Association, Washington D.C.
ASTM, 1990. Standard Guide for Conducting 10 day Static Sediment Toxicity Tests with Marine
and Estuarine Amphipods. ASTM E 1367-90. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
Buchanan, J. B. 1984. Sediment analysis. Pages 41-65. In: Holme, N. A. and A. D. Mclntyre (eds)
Methods for study of marine benthos. IBP Handbook No. 16 2nd Edition. Blackwell Sci.
Publ. Oxford, England.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, M. Roberts, and S. Jordan. 1992a. Fish Sampling in Eight
Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final Report CBRM-HI-92-2. Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division. Annapolis, MD.
Carmichael, J., B. Richardson, and S. Jordan. 1992b. Development and Testing of Measures of
Ecological Integrity and Habitat Quality for Chesapeake Bay Tributaries. Final report to
Maryland Coastal and Watershed Resources Division. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division.
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1988. Chesapeake Bay living resource monitoring plan.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
Annapolis, MD.
CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1989. Chesapeake Bay basinwide reduction strategy.
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
An napolis, MD.
Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality Triad -an example.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5: 957-964.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The sediment quality Triad approach to determining pollution-induced
degradation. Sci. Tot. Envrion. 97-8: 815-825.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination,
toxicity and infaunal community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco
Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 75-96.
Cline, Joel D. 1969. Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide in Natural Waters. Limnology and
Oceanography, 14, PP. 454-458.
DiToro, D. M., J. D. Mahoney, D. J. Hansen, K. J. Scott, A. R. Carlson, and G. T. Ankley. 1992.
Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments.
Environmental Science and Technology. 26: 96-101.
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, MB Hicks, S.M. Mayrand and M . S .
Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediment; the role of acid volatile sulfide.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
7-1
-------
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 2000. Data Report: Kingman Lake Wetland
Restoration Project, Washington, DC. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 15
Loveton Circle, Sparks, Maryland.
Fisher, D.J., D.T. Burton, L.W. Hall Jr., R.L. Paulson and C.M. Hersh. 1988.Standard operating
procedures for short-term chronic effluent toxicity tests with freshwater and saltwater
organisms. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology
Section, Shady Side, MD.
Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company. Austin, Texas.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden and P. Adolphson. 1997. Ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 5 Report. U. S Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W. Jr., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden III, A. Messing, T. Turner, D. Goshorn and M.
McGinty. 1998. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 6 Report. EPA
903/R/98/017 CBP/TRS 210/98. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., R. D. Anderson, W. D. Killen, M. C. Scott, J. V. Kilian, R. M. Alden, III and P.
Adolphson. 1996 . Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 4 Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L. W, Jr., R. D. Anderson, A. Messing, T. Turner, R. W. Alden III, D. Goshorn and M.
McGinty. 1999. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 7 Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr. and M.C. Ziegenfuss. 1993. Standard operating procedures for conducting embyro-
larval toxicity tests with the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis: Effluent, ambient water, single-
multiple chemical or porewater toxicity tests. Report. University of Maryland, Wye
Research and Education, Center, Queenstown, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III and P. Adolphson.
1994. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 3 Report.
CBP/TRS 116/94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, III, E. Deaver, J. Gooch andN. Debert-
Hastings. 1991. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Volume 1-
Year 1 Report CBP/TRS 64/91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, III, E.
Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Shaw. 1992. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in
Chesapeake Bay - Year 2 report. CBP/TRS 82/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 16: 105-115.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the national status and trends program. National Technical
Memorandum Nos. OMA 52. Seattle, WA.
Long, E. R., D. D. McDonald, S. L. Smith, and R. D. Cable. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
Manag. 19: 81-97.
Messing, A.W. 1998. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Chemical Analysis and Aquatic Toxicity
7-2
-------
Testing of Samples from the Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program (Year
8). AMRL Technical Report.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990a. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents and receiving waters to marine and esruarine organisms: supplement: Test method
for the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis, embryo/larval test. Draft report. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, R.I.
Morrison, G. and E. Petrocelli. 1990b. Mulinia lateralis - Microscale marine toxicity test.
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI.
Pinkney, A.E., J.C. Harshbarger, E.B. May, and M.J. Melancon. 2000. Tumor Prevalence and
Biomarkers of Exposure and Response in Brown Bullheads (Ameiurus nebulosus) from the
Tidal Potomac River Watershed. CBFO-C99-04. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake
Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD.
Plumb, R. H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples.
Technical Rep. EPA/CE-81-1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers
Technical Committee of Criteria for Dredge and Fill Material, U. S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Ranasinghe, J. A., S. B. Weisberg, J. Gerritsen and D. M. Dauer. 1994. Assessment of Chesapeake
Bay benthic macroinvertebrate resource condition in relation to water quality and watershe
stressors. Final report CBRM-GRF-94-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Scott, L. C., A. F. Holland, A. T. Shaughnessy, V. Dickens, and J. A. Ranasinghe. 1988. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay: Data
summary and progress report. PPRP-LTB/EST-88-2. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, MD.
Shaughnessy, T.J., L.C. Scott, J. A. Ranasinghe, A.F. Holland and T.A. Tornatore. 1990. Long-term
benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay:
Data summary and progress report (July 1984-August 1990). Report Volume 1. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division,
Annapolis, MD.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1979. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste - Laboratory Manual Physical/Chemical Methods. U.S. EPA SW-846.
Washington, DC. (As updated at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm)
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Draft Analytical Method for
Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment. EPA821/R-91-100. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Health and Ecological Criteria Div., Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Assessing the
Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Esruarine and Marine Amphipods
EPA/600/R-94/025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Test methods for evaluating
solid waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 Third Edition. U. S. EPA Cincinnati,
OH.
Vass, P. A. and S. J. Jordan. 1991. Long term trends in abundance indices for 19 species of
Chesapeake Bay fishes: Reflections in trends in the Bay ecosystem. In: J. A. Mihursky and
7-3
-------
A. Chancy (eds). New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management
Partnership. Proceedings of a Conference. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No.
137. Solomons, MD, p. 539-546.
Wade, T. L., D. J. Velinisky, E. Reinharz, and C. E. Schekat. 1994. Tidal river sediments in
Washington, D. C. area II. Distribution and sources of organic compounds. Estuaries 17:
321-333.
Weisburg, S. B., J. A. Ranasinghe, L. C. Schaffner and J. B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine index of
biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20: 149-158.
Yoder, C. O. and E. T. Rankin. 1994. Biological criteria program development and implementation
in Ohio. In: W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp 109- 144.
Ziegenfuss, M.C. and L.W. Hall, Jr. 1994. Standard operating procedures for conducting acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity tests with Eurytemora affinis, a calanoid copepod. Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
7-4
-------
SECTION 8
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
-------
Table 3.1 Analytical methods used for inorganic analysis in water samples. The following
abbreviations are used: AE-ICP (Atomic Absorption - Inductively Coupled Plasma),
AA-H (Atomic Absorption - Hydride), AA-F (Atomic Absorption - Furnace), AA-
DA (Atomic Absorption - Direct Aspiration) and AA-CV (Atomic Absorption -
Cold Vapor).
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Method
AA-H
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-F
AA-CV
AA-F
AA-H
AA-DA
Method #
206.3
213.2
218.2
220.2
239.2
245.1
249.2
270.3
200.7
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1979
8-1
-------
Table 3.2 Trophic classification, spawning location and residency offish captured at the ten sampling
locations.
SPECIES NAME
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura marina
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Banded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
Black crappie
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Blueback herring
Alosa aestivalis
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Brown bullhead
Ameiurus nebulosus
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
Golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Skillet fish
Gobiesox strumosus
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spottail shiner
Notropis hudsonius
TROPHIC
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Planktivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Planktivore
J&WfcqLY j
Clupeidae
Sciaenidae
Clupeidae
Belonidae
Atherinidae
Cyprinodontidae
Centrarchidae
Clupeidae
Centrarchidae
Ictaluridae
Ictaluridae
Clupeidae
Cyprinidae
Solidae
Cyprinodontidae
Centrarchidae
Gobiesocidae
Sciaenidae
Cyprinidae
SPAWN 1X1CATION
Freshwater
Anadromous
Marine
Marine
Marine
Estuarine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Anadromous
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Estuarine
Estuarine
Freshwater
estuarine
Marine
Freshwater
SES1BEKCY
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
8-2
-------
$PEC3E$NAME
Spotted sea trout
Cynoscion nebulosus
Striped anchovy
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
Striped killifish
Fundulus majalis
Tessellated darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
White sucker
Catostomus commersoni
White perch
Morone americana
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
tR0JPiĞC
IXVJ&
Carnivore
Planktivore
Carnivore
Planktivore
Benthic
Benthic
Carnivore
Carnivore
rwУX |
Sciaenidae
Engraulidae
Moronidae
Cyprinodontidae
Percidae
Catostomidae
Moronidae
Percidae
$PAWiSJJiQCA'il0S
Marine
Marine
Freshwater
Anadromous
Estuarine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Anadromous
Freshwater
Anadromous
RE^IBEKCY
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Non-resident
Resident
8-3
-------
Table 4.1. Survival data from Eurytemora affinis and Sheepshead minnow larvae after 8d tests
conducted from 9/29/98 to 10/07/98.
Species Station
Eurytemora Control
affinis
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
Sheepshead Control
minnow AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
1
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cumulative Percent Survival Per Day
234567
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
97.7
100
100
100
97.6
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
97.7
100
100
100
97.6
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
95.3
100
100
100
97.6
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
95.3
100
97.6
100
97.6
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
100
95.3
100
97.6
100
97.6
100
100
8
71.0
69.4
74.0
80.8
64.7
88.1
78.8
3.3*
5.5*
26.3*
12.7*
100
100
97.5
100
95.3
100
95.1
100
97.6
100
100
indicates significant difference from control value (PO.05).
8-4
-------
Table 4.2. Growth data from sheepshead minnow larvae from the 9/29/98 to 10/07/98
experiments.
Sheepshead larvae dry weight (initial weight at day 0=0.17 mg).
Station natd8 (mgatd=8) ħS.E.
CONTROL 40 1.12 0.04
AR-1 40 0.45 0.03
AR-2 39 0.91 0.03
AR-3 40 0.94 0.12
AR-4 41 0.75 0.06
AR-5 44 0.93 0.06
AR-6 39 0.82 0.21
CR-59 41 1.51 0.04
CR-61 41 1.31 0.02
CR-62 42 1.31 0.02
CR-63 41 1.44 0.05
8-5
-------
Table 4.3. Percent normal shell development from 48h coot clam embryo/larval test conducted
from 9/29/98 to 10/07/98.
Station
Control
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
Percent Normal
98.1
79.6*
84.9*
6.0*
87.8*
25.4*
94.2
96.9
99.1
96.1
98.0
ħS.E.
1.02
5.02
3.20
1.78
4.36
4.13
0.92
0.41
0.29
1.00
1.02
indicates significant difference from control value ( P<0.05).
8-6
-------
Table 4.4. Survival, reproduction and maturation data for Eurytemora after 8d tests from
9/29/98 to 10/07/98.
Sation Mean Percent
Survival
CONTROL
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
71.0
69.4
74.0
80.8
64.7
88.1
78.8
3.3*
5.5*
26.3*
12.7*
Mean Percent
ħS.E. Gravid Female ħS.E.
1.9
4.8
12.9
1.0
9.6
5.4
9.6
3.3
3.5
9.4
2.0
7.4
16.7
13.7
11.2
10.8
16.5
22.6
12.5
0.0
8.4
12.5
3.7
16.7
10.1
2.1
5.8
3.5
12.4
12.5
0.0
8.4
12.5
Mean Percent
Immature ħS.E.
30.6
25.0
30.9
13.8
39.6
35.3
13.6
0.0
12.5
8.4
0.0
4.3
25.0
1.4
4.7
12.4
4.5
2.9
0.0
12.5
8.4
0.0
indicates significant difference from control value (P<0.05).
8-7
-------
Table 4.5. Survival and reproduction data from 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia tests conducted at six
Anacostia River sites.
Treatment
#Live
Adults
Survival (S)
Average Number of
Young Produced
per Adult (R)
Most Young
By Any One
Adult
Significant3
Difference From
Control (Y)es or (N)o
Control
10
100
23.5
25
AR1
10
100
23.4
26
N
AR2
9
90
25.6
31
N
AR3
10
100
22.2
26
N
AR4
10
100
23.4
28
N
AR5
10
100
23.7
27
N
AR6
10
100
25.3
28
N
aNo stations showed a significant reduction from the control for C. dubia survival or
reproduction (alpha = 0.05).
8-8
-------
Table 4.6. Survival and growth data from 7-day Pimephales promelas tests at six Anacostia
River sites.
Treatment
#Live
Larvae
Survival (S)
(%)
Mean Dry Wt.
Biomass (B)*
Larvae (mg) ħ S.D.
Mean Dry Wt.
Surviving fish
Larvae (mg) ħ S.D.
Significant3
Difference From
Control (Y)es or (N)o
Control
38
95
0.36
ħ0.038
0.38
ħ0.045
AR1
39
97.5
0.38
ħ0.015
0.39
ħ0.027
N
AR2
38
95
0.35
ħ0.027
0.37
ħ0.021
N
AR3
36
90
0.36
ħ0.020
0.40
ħ0.031
N
AR4
40
100
0.36
ħ0.048
0.36
ħ0.048
N
AR5
39
97.5
0.37
0.020
0.38
ħ0.038
N
AR6
36
90
0.36
0.027
0.41
ħ0.017
N
a No stations showed a significant reduction from the control for fish survival or growth (alpha =
0.05).
8-9
-------
00
Table 4.7. Inorganic contaminants data from the 10 stations sampled during the fall of 1998 (9/29/98 - 10/07/98). Marine and
freshwater U.S. EPA chronic water quality criteria (WQC) are listed beside each metal. The marine criteria are appropriate for the
Choptank River sites; freshwater criteria apply to the Anacostia sites. Metals exceeding the appropriate criteria are underlined.
Metal
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Zn
Marine
WQC
(Hg/L)
(-)
(9.3)
(50)
(2.9)
(8.5)
(0.025)
(8.3)
(71)
(86)
Fresh-
water
WQC
(Ğg/L)
(-)
(1.1)
(11)
(12)
(3.2)
(0.012)
(160)
(5)
(110)
Stations
AR1
0.77
1.423
<1.00
2.44
1.13
<0.25
4.12
O.25
<10
AR2
1.15
1.322
<1.00
1.69
1.42
0.25
4.94
0.32
14
AR3
0.84
1.388
<1.00
1.63
1.67
0.25
4.04
0.50
<10
AR4
0.90
1.106
<1.00
1.66
1.51
O.25
3.36
0.50
<10
AR5
0.77
0.998
<1.00
2.66
<1.00
0.25
2.57
0.44
<10
AR6
1.09
3.803
<1.00
2.85
2.02
0.25
2.40
O.25
<10
CR59
1.34
1.013
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
O.25
<2.00
O.25
<10
CR61
0.96
0.987
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
O.25
2.61
O.25
<10
CR62
1.22
0.853
<1.00
<1.00
1.54
O.25
2.88
0.38
<10
CR63
1.22
0.870
2.27
<1.00
1.09
O.25
3.29
0.38
<10
-------
Table 4.8. Water quality parameters reported in the field during water sample collection in the
fall of 1998.
Date
9-23-98
9-24-98
9-29-98
10-2-98
Station
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
AR- 1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
Temp.
(C)
24.4
23.8
24.3
24.4
21.5
22.0
24.6
24.9
24.9
25.0
22.8
22.4
22.5
24.4
22.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
21.6
20.3
21.6
21.2
Salinity
(PPt)
11.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
13.2
14.0
14.0
11.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.3
13.5
14.2
13.0
Cond.
(umhos/cm)
19400
21000
21900
20000
175
185
320
360
370
375
20000
20800
20800
20000
200
200
210
250
250
300
19200
19500
20200
18900
DO
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.0
2.6
2.1
3.3
7.0
6.8
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.7
7.0
4.4
4.6
5.8
5.6
6.0
6.2
7.7
7.4
7.1
6.8
pH
7.75
7.94
7.98
7.79
6.87
6.89
7.28
7.74
7.68
7.82
7.85
7.92
7.85
7.79
6.85
6.75
6.73
6.95
7.02
7.08
7.80
7.88
7.55
7.52
8-11
-------
Date Station
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
10-5-98 CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
Temp.
(C)
20.0
20.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
19.0
19.0
19.7
19.6
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
Salinity
(PPt)
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.2
14.0
14.5
13.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cond.
(umhos/cm)
210
220
250
280
300
350
19000
19900
20500
18200
230
230
250
300
300
330
DO
5.8
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.8
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.2
5.6
5.9
6.2
6.6
6.8
6.8
pH
7.10
7.10
7.21
7.18
7.12
7.32
7.70
7.83
7.85
7.72
7.05
7.10
7.07
7.21
7.18
7.28
8-12
-------
Table 4.9. Toxicity data (48h LC50s or EC50s mg/L) from 1998 reference toxicant tests conducted with cadmium
chloride for the three test species. Previous values from years 1 thru 7 are reported.
Date
10/15/97
1 1/05/97
in/1 ^/Q7
1U/ 1 J; y 1
Species
Sheepshead minnow
E. affinis
Previous 48h LC50 value
48h
LC50 Yrl Yr2 Yr3 Yr4
10.4 0.51 1.54 1.18 0.71
.172 .021 0.095 .120 .143
s
Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7
1.03 2.30 1.34
.192 .126 .261
Value is and EC50 (percent normal shell development is the endpoint).
GO
M
10
-------
Table 4.10. Survival of sheepshead minnow eggs (Cyprinodon variegatus} in sediment
bioassays. The study was terminated at day 9, two days after 90% or more eggs in the control
(Lynnhaven Sand) and reference sediments (Lynnhaven Mud) had hatched. An asterisk marks
the sites with mean normalized rankits of survival significantly different from the test organism
response to reference site sediment. The means are the average response of sediment bioassays
using fertilized eggs (n=10) exposed to five randomly located grab samples from each site.
MEAN
MEAN MEAN PERCENT
SITE NAME
PERCENT PERCENT
SITE SURVIVAL HATCHED
DEAD
FISH
MEAN
PERCENT
DEAD
EGGS
Broad Creek
Airplane Wreck
Choptank Lumps
Horn Point
Maryland Line
Kenilworth Gardens
Field House
Navy Yard
Power Plant
CHOPTANK RIVER
CR59 90 90
CR61 94 94
CR62 52* 52*
CR63 64* 64*
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
Potomac Confluence AR6
ANACOSTIA RIVER
84 84
98 98
76 78
80 80
92 92
88 88
Reference
Control
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
MUD 90 90
SAND 90 90
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
30
10
2
.0
18
18
4
12
10
8
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
NOTE:
Percent Survival = [!-(# dead fish + # dead eggs)/(# eggs exposed)] * 100
Percent Dead Fish = [(# dead fish)/(# hatched)] * 100
Percent Dead Eggs = [(# dead eggs)/(# eggs exposed)] * 100
Percent Hatched = [(# eggs hatched)/(# eggs exposed)] * 100
8-14
-------
Table 4.11. Survival of the amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus in sediment bioassays. The survivors
were scored on day 10 and day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. Since this amphipod has a low
tolerance for fine grained sediment, the reference site chosen was primarily sand (Lynnhaven
Sand). The response of L. dytiscus to the control sediment (Lynnhaven Mud) demonstrated that
it may not be a suitable test species for muddy sediment. An asterisk marks site results
significantly different from the test organism response to reference site sediment. The day 10
mean survival data were arc sine transformed and the day 20 data were untransformed. Site
CR61 is the only sandy site (more than 80% sand) and may be the only site that can be
characterized by these results. The means and standard errors (SE) are based on sediment
bioassays using amphipods (n = 20) exposed to five randomly located grab samples from each
site.
PERCENT SURVIVAL
DAY 10 DAY 20
SITE NAME SITE MEAN SE MEAN SE
CHOPTANK RIVER
Broad Creek
Airplane Wreck
Choptank Lumps
Horn Point
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
58*
97
64*
50*
7.5
1.2
4.6
9.1
9*
65*
15*
5*
3.3
10.8
5.7
2.2
ANACOSTIA RIVER
Maryland Line AR1 67 7.7 30* 8.9
Kenilworth Gardens AR2 75 12.9 30* 7.1
Field House AR3 59* 16.2 23* 10.4
Navy Yard AR4 75 5.7 14* 4.6
Power Plant AR5 62* 6.6 15* 4.2
Potomac Confluence AR6 69 5.1 23* 6.8
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
Control
Reference
MUD
SAND
58*
98
8.6
1.2
12*
96
4.1
2.9
Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
8-15
-------
Table 4.12. Survival of the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in sediment bioassays. The
survivors were scored on day 10 and day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. The reference site
chosen for this amphipod was mostly silt and clay (Lynnhaven Mud). The poor survival of L.
plumulosus in the control sediment (Lynnhaven Sand) treatments suggests that clean beach sand
may not be the appropriate control sediment for this species. An asterisk marks site results
significantly different from the test organism response to reference site sediment. The day 10
mean survival data were transformed to ranks and the day 20 data were untransformed for the
statistical analysis. The means and standard errors (SE) are based on sediment bioassays using
amphipods (n = 15) exposed to five randomly located grab samples from each site.
PERCENT SURVIVAL
DAY 10 DAY 20
SITE NAME SITE MEAN SE MEAN SE
CHOPTANK RIVER
Broad Creek
Airplane Wreck
Choptank Lumps
Horn Point
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
91
91
92
89
4.0
3.4
1.3
3.4
76*
81
79
83
3.4
1.3
3.3
4.5
ANACOSTIA RIVER
Maryland Line AR1 67* 7.0 45* 5.3
Kenilworth Gardens AR2 56* 6.9 39* 6.8
Field House AR3 57* 15.0 20* 8.9
Navy Yard AR4 32* 5.3 8* 3.3
Power Plant AR5 68* 7.7 39* 7.1
Potomac Confluence AR6 83 2.7 67* 7.6
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
Reference
Control
MUD
SAND
91
64*
4.0
4.5
93
56*
3.0
7.8
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
8-16
-------
Table 4.13. Survival of the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti in sediment bioassays. The
survivors were scored on day 10 and day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. The reference site
chosen for the polychaete worm bioassay was mostly fines (Lynnhaven Mud). Survival of S.
benedicti was relatively high in the sandy sediment from the control site (Lynnhaven Sand).
An asterisk marks site results significantly different from the test organism response to reference
site sediment. The day 10 mean survival data were arc-sine transformed and the day 20 mean
survival data were rank transformed for the statistical analysis. The means and standard errors
(SE) are based on sediment bioassays using the polychaete worm (n = 20) exposed to five
randomly located grab samples from each site.
PERCENT SURVIVAL
DAY 10 DAY 20
SITE NAME SITE MEAN SE MEAN SE
CHOPTANK RIVER
Broad Creek
Airplane Wreck
Choptank Lumps
Horn Point
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
90
83
93
80
1.6
7.5
2.0
5.2
83
84
91
85
2.5
3.7
2.9
2.2
ANACOSTIA RIVER
Maryland Line AR1 93 1.2 77 7.2
Kenilworth Gardens AR2 81 2.9 65* 17.0
Field House AR3 92 4.6 90 5.2
Navy Yard AR4 69* 4.8 62* 6.4
Power Plant AR5 88 4.1 66* 6.2
Potomac Confluence AR6 89 3.7 83 4.6
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
Reference
Control
MUD
SAND
93
92
2.5
2.0
90
78
4.2
5.8
Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
8-17
-------
Table 4.14. Survival of the amphipod Hyallela azteca in sediment bioassays. The survivors were
scored on day 10 and day 20 (termination) of the bioassay. The reference site chosen for this
amphipod was mostly fines (Lynnhaven Mud). Survival of//, azteca was significantly better in
the sandy sediment from the control site (Lynnhaven Sand) than in the reference sediment. An
asterisk marks site results significantly different from the test organism response to reference site
sediment based on untransformed mean percent survival. The means and standard errors (SE)
are based on sediment bioassays using H. azteca (n = 20) exposed to five randomly located grab
samples from each site.
PERCENT SURVIVAL
DAY 10 DAY 20
SITE NAME SITE MEAN SE MEAN SE
ANACOSTIA RIVER
Maryland Line AR1 14 4.3 12* 3.7
Kenilworth Gardens AR2 7* 2.5 9* 4.3
Field House AR3 41 10.5 32 9.8
Navy Yard AR4 39 7.0 45 1.6
Power Plant AR5 41 12.3 23 9.0
Potomac Confluence AR6 53 5.8 69 6.6
L YNNHA YEN RIVER
Reference LM 41 4.3 42 9.3
Control LS 86 5.1 86* 0.0
* Significantly different from the reference sediment (p<0.05).
8-18
-------
Table 4.15. Growth data (dry weight and length) for the amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus after
20-day exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean and SE of 5
replicates of 20 animals each at initiation of the test. Weight and length for each site are the
mean of the surviving animals for each replicate. Lynnhaven Sand (R) is the reference sediment
for this species and Lynnhaven Mud (C) is the control sediment. "N" is the number of locations
within a site that had survivors in the sediment bioassay at the end of 20 days. All final weights
for this species were less than the initial weights except for site AR6. No statistical analysis was
performed on these results.
SITE
Initial Size
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND (R)
MUD (C)
N
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
4
WEIGHT
(ms) SE
0.322 0.015
CHOPTANK RIVER
0.269 0.042
0.257 0.024
0.279 0.023
0.315 0.100
ANACOSTIA RIVER
0.270 0.016
0.230 0.032
0.252 0.022
0.195 0.051
0.280 0.030
0.368 0.013
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.298 0.028
0.213 0.019
LENGTH
(mm)
4.761
5.462
5.045
5.192
5.692
5.656
5.563
5.466
5.267
5.655
5.603
5.213
5.192
SE
0.0465
0.477
0.112
0.138
0.329
0.130
0.221
0.421
0.362
0.217
0.362
0.115
0.269
8-19
-------
Table 4.16. Growth data (dry weight and length) for the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus after
20-day exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean and SE of 5
replicates of 15 animals each at initiation of the test. Weight and length for each site are the
mean of the surviving animals for each replicate. An asterisk marks site results significantly
different from the test organism response to reference site sediment based on arc-sine
transformations of mean weight and mean rankits transformation of length data for sites not
already determined to be significantly based on percent survival. Lynnhaven Mud (R) is the
reference sediment for this species and Lynnhaven Sand (C) is the control sediment. "N" is the
number of locations within a site that had survivors in the sediment bioassay at the end of 20
days.
SITE
Initial Size
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND (C)
MUD (R)
N
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
WEIGHT
(mg) SE
0.105 0.004
CHOPTANK RIVER
0.242 0.012
0.393 0.116
0.251 0.022
0.193* 0.018
ANACOSTIA RIVER
0.262 0.031
0.278 0.039
0.315 0.030
0.232 0.055
0.232 0.026
0.307 0.045
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.275 0.021
0.271 0.019
LENGTH
(mm)
5.092
5.968
6.305
5.969
5.835*
6.447
6.727
6.766
6.313
6.371
6.325
6.272
6.387
SE
0.117
0.116
0.129
0.079
0.104
0.190
0.267
0.255
0.242
0.314
0.093
0.113
0.098
* Significantly less than reference sediment (p < 0.05).
8-20
-------
Table 4.17. Growth data (dry weight and length) for the polychaete worm Streblospio benedicti
after 20-day exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean and SE of 5
replicates of 20 animals each at initiation of the test. Weight and length for each site are the
mean of the surviving animals for each replicate. An asterisk marks site results significantly
different from the test organism response to reference site sediment based on untransformed
mean weights and mean ranks of length data for sites not already determined to be significantly
based on percent survival. All sites significantly different had increases in length better than the
reference site. Lynnhaven Mud (R) is the reference sediment for this species and Lynnhaven
Sand (C) is the control sediment. "N" is the number of locations within a site that had survivors
in the sediment bioassay at the end of 20 days.
SITE
Initial Size
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND (C)
MUD (R)
N
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
WEIGHT
(me) SE
0.064 0.004
CHOPTANK RIVER
0.129 0.013
0.123 0.023
0.159 0.025
0.116 0.020
ANACOSTIA RIVER
0.163 0.007
0.178 0.017
0.191 0.021
0.154 0.017
0.162 0.019
0.138 0.007
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.100 0.009
0.135 0.009
LENGTH
(mm)
6.330
8.013
7.894
8.674*
7.838
9.160*
9.103
9.365*
8.488
8.770
8.704*
7.254
7.771
SE
0.074
0.224
0.081
0.239
0.185
0.172
0.290
0.217
0.434
0.211
0.255
0.136
0.085
Significantly better than reference sediment (p < 0.05).
8-21
-------
Table 4.18. Growth data (dry weight and length) for the amphipod Hyallela azteca after 20-day
exposure to sediments. Initial weight and length represent the mean and SE of 5 replicates of 20
animals each at initiation of the test. Weight and length for each site are the mean of the
surviving animals for each replicate. An asterisk marks site results significantly different from
the test organism response to reference site sediment based on untransformed mean weights and
mean ranks of length data for sites not already determined to be significantly based on percent
survival. Lynnhaven Mud (R) is the reference sediment for this species and Lynnhaven Sand (C)
is the control sediment. "N" is the number of locations within a site that had survivors in the
sediment bioassay at the end of 20 days.
SITE
Initial Size
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND (C)
MUD (R)
N
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
WEIGHT
(mg) SE
0.016 0.001
ANACOSTIA RIVER
0.087 0.018
0.108 0.043
0.099 0.009
0.076 0.007
0.106 0.009
0.101 0.007
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.269* 0.020
0.115 0.030
LENGTH
(mm)
2.242
3.189
4.926
4.228
4.109
4.524
4.927
5.685*
4.571
SE
0.084
0.193
0.763
0.173
0.193
0.108
0.095
0.069
0.279
Significantly better than the reference sediment (p < 0.05).
8-22
-------
00
S3
U!
Table 4.19. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment samples from the ten sites and reference and control sites. The single
underlined values represent concentrations exceeding Effects Range-Low (ERL) and double underlined values represent
concentrations exceeding Effects Range-Median (ERM) values defined in Long et al., 1995. NL = Not Listed; - = Below detection
limit; DL = detection limits. All values in Hg/kg dry wt.
Compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Total PAHs
DL
4.6
5.9
9.9
9.9
9.2
9.9
10.6
10.6
17.8
14.5
13.9
13.9
15.2
16.5
17.8
16.5
NL
ERL
160
44
16
19
240
85.3
600
665
261
384
NL
NL
430
NL
63.4
NL
4022
CHOPTANK RIVER
ERM CR59 CR61 CR62 CR63
2100 - ...
640
500
540
1500 - ...
1100 -
5100 - - 36.5 30.2
2600 - - 36.2 26.6
1600 - ...
2800 -
NL
NL
1600 - ...
NL
260
NL
44792 - - 72.7 56.8
ANACOSTIA
AR1 AR2 AR3
-
57.2 20.3 58.4
81.8 18.7 57.4
81.8 24.3
1061.1 408.8 1101.3
145.5 68.7 202.3
3349.2 1396.4 3897.2
680.3 1675.9
464.9
718.4 1311.8
_
2454.9 1159.1 3393.5
912.6 481.5 1144.9
927.0
_
855.5 452.0
9926.6 5893.4 12842.7
RIVER
AR4 AR5 AR6
-
47.1
66.1 15.1
79.7 19.1
1046.6 251.1 141.6
197.4 43.8 25.3
- 383.3
1438.9 - 244.0
-
1150.9
.
2874.5 840.3 362.9
117.9
.
.
655.0
7556.2 1169.41275.0
Lynnhaven R.
Sand Mud
-
_
.
_ _
.
29.0
55.5
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
84.5
-------
Table 4.20. Pesticide concentrations for sediment samples from the ten study sites and the reference and control sites. The single
underlined values are greater than the Effects Range-Low (ERL) and double underlined values are greater than the Effects Range-Median
(ERM) values defined by Long et al., 1995. NL = Not Listed; - = Below detection limit. All values in |J,g/kg dry wt.
Compound
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Chlordane"
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Endrin Aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin Ketone
Toxaphene
4,4'-DDE
Total DDT
Total PCBsa
DL
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.9
5
0.9
1.2
0.7
2.4
5
1.5
NL
NL
0.5
b
16.6
ERL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
2.2
1.58
22.7
ERM
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
27
46.1
180
CHOPTANK RIVER (CR)
CR59 CR61 CR62 CR63
0.9 5.1 1.1
-
.
0.9 1.9 5.4
.
1.3 1.5 2.8 4.6
11.2
.
a a a a
-
-
-
3.8 2.0 4.0 4.4
17.4 9.7
28.4 14.3
0.4 -
-
_
1.4 5.6 11.7 16.9
ANACOSTIA
AR1
-
-
-
7.9
4.8
-
0.6
_
a
2.7
40.7
3.4
48.9
22.9
-
6.8
-
_
14.9
AR2
1.2
-
0.7
6.3
-
-
-
-
a
4.3
25.6
2.8
56.1
13.6
-
3.5
-
_
11.2
AR3
-
-
1.8
11.4
-
-
0.8
_
a
2.6
30.4
12.3
33.8
-
-
-
-
33.6
33.6
RIVER
AR4
-
-
1.4
11.1
-
-
1.3
_
a
-
29.3
2.8
34.3
-
-
-
-
34.0
34.0
(AR)
AR5 AR6
-
-
0.3
1.3
2.0
7.5 4.5
-
-
a a
0.9
33.4 15.5
0.4 6.1
21.1 11.9
4.1 1.7
-
1.3
-
12.0
10.0 26.8
Lynnhaven R.
Sand Mud
5.1
-
1.4
0.8 0.3
2.8
1.4 2.4
-
_
a a
-
0.6 1.4
-
1.8 3.1
23.0
38.7
0.0
-
1.2 0.3
6.7 9.1
"Values were not used due to unresolved analytical issues.
bDetection limit of Total DDT not available. Site concentration calculated as sum of 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDT concentrations,
with individual detection limits of 5.6, 2.8, 4.7 ug/kg dry wt., respectively.
-------
Table 4.21. Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in sediment from the study area as well as
reference and control sediments. All data are based on sediment dry weight.
SITE TOC (%)
CHOPTANK RIVER
CR59 1.476
CR61 0.327
CR62 1.290
CR63 1.269
ANACOSTIA RIVER
AR1 3.016
AR2 2.681
AR3 3.215
AR4 3.471
AR5 2.958
AR6 3.242
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
SAND 0.068
MUD 1.304
8-25
-------
Si
ON
Table 4.22. Inorganic contaminants for sediment samples from the ten sites and the reference and control sediment. The single
underlined values exceed the Effects Range-Low (ERL) and double underlined values exceed the Effects Range-Median (ERM)
values defined in Long et al, 1995. NA = not available; = not listed; < = values were less than those listed.
Contaminant (ug/g)
Site
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
He
Ni
Se
Sn
Zn
CHOPTANK RIVER
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
24760
22123
18128
21320
9.249
< 0.010
1.732
5.821
0.195
0.11
0.285
0.225
37.9
6.4
35.1
33.5
16.6
1.95
15.1
11.4
17.1
1.2
13.9
12.2
0.039
0.013
0.059
0.058
22.1
3.98
19.5
15.2
0.617
0.117
0.64
0.639
< 0.365
< 0.201
< 0.360
0.319
94.3
20.8
90.4
70.5
ANACOSTIA RIVER
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
20126
12662
19016
23193
31294
24983
3.323
1.4
3.109
6.988
7.262
6.556
0.888
1.132
1.224
1.473
1.04
0.533
60.8
41.5
58.9
75
69.4
45.2
48.5
36.9
58.8
105
71.2
46.4
66.9
60.3
143
286
79.2
41.9
0.089
0.07
0.135
0.405
0.178
0.179
40
24
43.2
50
49.4
37.2
0.743
0.526
0.715
0.608
1.057
0.649
0.534
0.429
0.831
1.25
0.708
0.794
246
212
319
417
303
205
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
SAND
MUD
Detection Limit
ERL
ERM
517
9776
56
< 0.010
1.859
0.014
8.2
70
0.01
0.323
0.007
1.2
9.6
<4.03
22.6
5.6
81
370
<0.40
10.5
0.6
34
270
<4.03
8.05
5.6
46.7
218
< 0.018
0.031
0.016
0.15
0.71
<2.02
7.72
2.8
20.9
51.6
< 0.010
0.296
0.014
< 0.202
< 0.265
0.278
1.9
70
0.6
150
410
-------
Table 4.23. Total SEM and AVS values and the SEM:AVS ratio for sediment samples tested in
1998.
SITE
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND
MUD
Total SEM Total AVS
(jimol/e) (umol/g)
CHOPTANK RIVER
1.224 5.661
0.590 1.223
1.204 4.705
0.919 1.785
ANACOSTIA RIVER
4.048 2.982
3.490 1.495
5.528 2.762
7.814 4.701
4.369 8.345
2.916 6.393
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.180 1.758
1.095 2.909
RATIO
0.216
0.483
0.256
0.515
1.357
2.335
2.001
1.662
0.524
0.456
0.103
0.376
8-27
-------
Table 4.24. Results of the analysis of sediment for simultaneously extractable metals (SEM).
Concentrations for each metal are expressed in umol per gram of sediment dry weight. DL =
detection limits.
CHOPTANK RIVER
SITE
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
Cadmium
0.008
0.015
0.000
0.000
Copper
0.143
0.035
0.087
0.089
Lead
0.115
0.038
0.054
0.061
Nickel
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Zinc
0.958
0.501
1.063
0.769
Mercury
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sum
1.224
0.590
1.204
0.919
ANACOSTIA RIVER
SITE
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
Cadmium
0.008
0.014
0.012
0.015
0.000
0.012
Copper
0.482
0.429
0.562
1.066
0.622
0.412
Lead
0.270
0.221
0.554
0.856
0.349
0.192
Nickel
0.213
0.203
0.264
0.265
0.235
0.159
Zinc
3.074
2.623
4.137
5.613
3.164
2.141
Mercury
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sum
4.048
3.490
5.528
7.814
4.369
2.916
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
SITE
SAND
MUD
DL
Cadmium
0.000
0.006
0.0042
Copper
0.100
0.231
0.0370
Lead
0.031
0.042
0.0230
Nickel
0.000
0.000
0.0800
Zinc
0.049
0.817
0.0072
Mercury
0.000
0.000
0.00006
Sum
0.180
1.095
8-28
-------
Table 4.25. Sediment particle size characteristics. Results of particle size analysis for grab
samples that were collected from 5 randomly located positions at each site. The percentage
reported for sand, silt, and clay is the percent of the whole sediment sample. The assignment of
a TYPE to each replicate follows the physical/geological characterization described in Folk
(1980) and is used to evaluate the similarity of sediment characteristics within a site. These type
classifications may or may not suggest ecological implications or the potential for accumulating
particle reactive contaminants.
CHOPTANK RIVER SITES
SAND SILT CLAY
SITE NAME SITE R (%) (%) (%)
Broad Creek CR59
CR59
CR59
CR59
CR59
Airplane Wreck CR61
CR61
CR61
CR61
CR61
Choptank Lumps CR62
CR62
CR62
CR62
CR62
Horn Point CR63
CR63
CR63
CR63
CR63
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4.7
3.7
4.2
2.6
5.2
69.5
84.8
81.1
92.9
92.2
3.0
3.8
4.4
9.6
10.2
10.9
11.6
11.9
2.9
REFERENCE AND
SITE NAME SITE
SAND
(%)
46.3
60.0
47.2
46.4
53.8
17.5
8.5
9.7
2.7
3.9
52.5
56.5
56.3
44.4
47.5
51.3
44.6
47.9
53.7
CONTROL
49.0
36.3
48.6
51.1
41.0
13.1
6.8
9.1
4.4
3.9
44.5
39.7
39.3
46.0
42.3
37.8
43.8
40.1
43.4
TYPE
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
muddy sand
muddy sand
muddy sand
sand
sand
mud
mud
mud
missing
mud
mud
mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
mud
FINES
95.3
96.3
95.8
97.4
94.8
30.5
15.2
18.9
7.1
7.8
97.0
96.2
95.6
90.4
89.8
89.1
88.4
88.1
97.1
SITES
SILT CLAY
(%)
(%)
TYPE
FINES
(%)
Lynnhaven Mud MUD
Lynnhaven Sand SAND
18.2 48.2 33.6 sandy mud 81.8
100.0 0.0 0.0 sand 0.0
8-29
-------
Table 4.25. Continued
ANACOSTIA RIVER SITES
SAND SILT CLAY
SITE NAME SITE R (%) (%) (%)
Maryland Line AR1
AR1
AR1
AR1
AR1
Kenilworth Gardens AR2
AR2
AR2
AR2
AR2
Field House AR3
AR3
AR3
AR3
AR3
Navy Yard AR4
AR4
AR4
AR4
AR4
Power Plant AR5
AR5
AR5
AR5
AR5
Potomac Confluence AR6
AR6
AR6
AR6
AR6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
54.5
25.5
11.3
37.8
13.6
42.5
22.5
4.9
9.9
76.9
27.5
26.8
33.6
15.7
3.6
31.7
3.2
4.8
1.3
42.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
4.5
14.7
9.8
4.8
2.2
30.5
43.6
49.2
37.5
47.2
26.9
29.5
37.1
41.1
10.4
42.8
46.5
34.4
49.7
54.5
24.2
38.6
55.7
40.0
23.4
56.9
55.8
55.5
52.8
57.8
55.7
57.5
57.1
39.0
56.3
15.0
30.9
39.5
24.7
39.3
30.5
48.0
58.1
48.9
12.8
29.7
26.7
32.1
34.6
41.9
44.1
58.2
39.4
58.6
34.6
42.5
43.9
44.2
46.8
41.6
39.9
27.7
33.1
56.3
41.5
TYPE
sandy silt
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
mud
mud
muddy sand
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
sandy mud
mud
sandy mud
mud
mud
mud
sandy mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
mud
sandy silt
mud
mud
mud
FINES
(%)
45.5
74.5
88.7
62.2
86.4
57.5
77.5
95.1
90.1
23.1
72.5
73.2
66.4
84.3
96.4
68.3
96.8
95.2
98.7
57.9
99.3
99.7
99.7
99.6
99.4
95.5
85.3
90.2
95.2
97.8
8-30
-------
Table 4.26. Chemical data for pore water extracted from test and control composite samples.
SITE
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
SAND
MUD
AMMONIA
(mg/L)
10.481
18.343
10.899
7.869
8.705
14.597
13.033
25.677
10.311
14.796
8.571
20.319
NITRITE
(mg/L)
CHOPTANK RIVER
0.0012
0.0019
0.0008
0.0012
ANACOSTIA RIVER
0.0011
0.0012
0.0027
0.0010
0.0011
0.0012
L YNNHA VEN RIVER
0.0013
0.0007
SULFIDE
(mg/L)
0.0125
0.0240
0.0197
0.0054
0.0226
0.0427
0.0183
0.0211
0.0240
0.0269
0.2235
0.2235
8-31
-------
Table 4.27. Sediment bioassay reference toxicant data. The reference toxicant bioassays were
water-only exposures. Test duration was 96 hours for all organisms except that the exposure
period for sheepshead minnows was 10 days. Cadmium chloride (CdCl2) was the reference
toxicant used for all organisms.
Species
Sheepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus)
Amphipod
(Lepidactylus dytiscus)
Polychaete worm
(Streblospio benedicti)
Amphipod
(Leptocheirus plumulosus)
Amphipod
(Hyallela aztecd)
Toxicant
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl2
CdCl2
LC50
(mg/L)
1.34
**
1.89
1.88
0.021
95% CIs
(mg/L)
1.00-1.69
**
1.34-2.55
1.36-3.30
0.015-0.026
Historic Mean
LC50(mg/L)
0.856
2.975
1.892
0.971
**
** Indicates no data available.
8-32
-------
Table 4.28. Individual metric values for each station.
Choptank River Stations
Metric
Total abundance
with menhaden
removed
Abundance
estuarine individuals
Abundance
anadromous
individuals
Proportion of
carnivores
Proportion of
planktivores
Proportion of
benthivores
Total number of
species
Number of species
captured in bottom
trawl
Number of species
comprising 90% of
catch
OR-sa
904
819
63
0.07
0.91
0.01
9
0
2
Cft^1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CR>$2 |
1359
977
317
0.24
0.72
0.03
13
0
4
CRğ63
2091
1752
324
0.15
0.84
0.01
9
0
2
N/A = Not available - trawl only conducted. Stations on the Anacostia
were not sampled using a beach seine, and therefore metrics
were not calculated for these stations.
8-33
-------
Table 4.29. Fish IBI scores for Choptank River stations, 1998.
Station IBI Score
CR-59 29
CR-61 N/A
CR-62 31
CR-63 29
8-34
-------
Table 4.30. Trawl index score and rating for Choptank and Anacostia River sites..
River
Station
Trawl Index Score
Rating
Choptank
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
0.33
0.67
0.33
0.33
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Anacostia
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
2.00
1.67
2.00
1.33
1.33
2.00
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
8-35
-------
Table 4.31. Dissolved oxygen concentrations above and below the pycnocline for study sites.
River Station Above Pycnocline DO (mg/L) Below Pycnocline DO (mg/L)
Anacostia AR-1 6.61 5.36
AR-2 7.44 6.43
AR-3 8.20 6.94
AR-4 8.44 6.68
AR-5 7.78 7.25
AR-6 7.52 7.12
Choptank CR-59 7.65 4.77
CR-61 8.37 6.03
CR-62 8.66 5.84
CR-63 10.07 5.90
8-36
-------
Table 4.32. Secchi depth by station. The habitat requirement for one meter restoration of SAV in the
Chesapeake Bay for mesohaline habitat is 0.97 meters and 0.75 for oligohaline and tidal fresh
habitats.
River
Station
Mean Secchi Depth (m)
Anacostia
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
0.54
0.47
0.53
0.64
0.78
0.89
Choptank
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
1.11
1.05
1.31
0.80
8-37
-------
Table 4.33. B-IBI values and benthic community condition at the 1998 ambient toxicity sites.
River
Choptank
Anacostia
Station
Station 59 (CR59)
Station 61 (CR61)
Station 62 (CR62)
Station 63 (CR63)
Station 1 (AR1)
Station 2 (AR2)
Station 3 (AR3)
Station 4 (AR4)
Station 5 (AR5)
Station 6 (AR6)
B-IBI Value
2.33
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.20
1.00
2.00
1.67
Benthic Community Condition
Degraded
Severely Degraded
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Meets Goal
Severely Degraded
Severely Degraded
Severely Degraded
Severely Degraded
8-38
-------
Table 5.1. Comparison of toxicity results from water column and sediment toxicity tests
(multiariate analysis), along with fish and benthic IBI data for ambient stations tested in 1998. A
yes (Y) means some significant level of toxicity or impaired biological response was reported. A
no (N) means it was not.
Station
CR59
CR61
CR62
CR63
AR1
AR2
AR3
AR4
AR5
AR6
Water
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Sediment
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Fish"
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Benthos
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
'If either the fish seining or trawling suggested impairment "yes" was included.
8-39
-------
Table 6.1 Summary of comparisons of water column RTKM indices for references and test sites presented in Figure 6.1-6.8.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not
overlap are indicated by "X", while "--" indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN(15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN(18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER CREEK (21)
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
0
O
X
0
-
-
-
-
O
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
O
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
0
1994
X
O
0
O
0
-
X
-
X
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
8-40
-------
Table6.1(cont.)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RTVERCH2 (34)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (4 1 )
SOUTH RTVER-1 (42)
SOUTH RTVER-2 (43)
SOUTH RTVER-3 (44)
SOUTH RIVERA (45)
ELIZABETH RIVER-EL (46)
ELIZABETH RTVER-EB (47)
ELIZABETH RIVER-WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER-SB (49)
1995
O
X
X
0
X
O
X
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-41
-------
Table 6.1 (cont.)
STATION
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR1 (50)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR2 (5 1 )
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR3 (52)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR4 (53)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR5 (54)
ANACOSTIA RIVER - AR6 (55)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR59 (56)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR61 (57)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR62 (58)
CHOPTANK RIVER - CR63 (59)
1998
X
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
8-42
-------
Table 6.2 Summary of comparisons of sediment RTRM indices for reference and test sites presented in Figures 6.11- 6.18.
Comparisons for which confidence limits overlap are indicated by "O", those for which the confidence limits do not
overlap are indicated by "X", while "--" indicates no data taken for the period.
STATION
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BEAR CREEK (1)
CURTIS BAY (2)
MIDDLE BRANCH (3)
NORTHWEST HARBOR (4)
OUTER HARBOR (5)
PATAPSCO RIVER (6a, b)
SPARROWS POINT (7)
ELIZABETH RIVER (8)
MAGOTHY
GIBSON ISLAND (9)
SOUTH FERRY (10)
MIDDLE RIVER
FROG MORTAR (11)
WILSON POINT (12)
NANTICOKE RIVER
BIVALVE (13)
SANDY HILL BEACH (14)
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN(15a, b)
FREESTONE POINT (16)
INDIAN HEAD (17)
MORGANTOWN(18a, b)
POSSUM POINT (19)
SASSAFRAS
BETTERTON (20)
TURNER CREEK (21)
ANNAPOLIS (22)
JUNCTION ROUTE 50 (23)
WYE RIVER
MANOR HOUSE (24a, b, c)
QUARTER CREEK (25)
1990
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
1991
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
1992-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
O
O
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
O
1994
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
O
X
O
-
-
8-43
-------
Table 6.2 (cont)
STATION
PAMUNKEY RIVER
PAMUNKEY RIVER ABOVE WEST POINT (26)
PAMUNKEY RIVER BELOW WEST POINT (27)
YORK RIVER
YORK RIVER ABOVE CHEATHAM ANNEX (28)
YORK RIVER BELOW CHEATHAM ANNEX (29)
JAMES RIVER
JAMES RIVER ABOVE NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (30)
JAMES RIVER BELOW NEWPORT NEW SHIPBUILDING (31)
WILLOUGHBY BAY (32)
LYNNHAVEN RIVER (33)
CHESTER RIVER CH2 (34)
CHESTER RIVER CH4 (35)
CHESTER RIVER CHS (36)
CHESTER RIVER CH6 (37)
PATUXENT RIVER BROOMES ISLAND (38)
PATUXENT RIVER JACK BAY (39)
PATUXENT RIVER BUZZARD ISLAND (40)
PATUXENT RIVER CHALK POINT (4 1 )
SOUTH RIVER-1(42)
SOUTH RIVER-2 (43)
SOUTH RTVER-3 (44)
SOUTH RIVERA (45)
ELIZABETH RIVER-EL (46)
ELIZABETH RTVER-EB (47)
ELIZABETH RTVER-WB (48)
ELIZABETH RIVER-SB (49)
1995
0
O
o
O
o
X
X
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1996
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
0
o
X
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1997
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
o
o
X
X
X
X
8-44
-------
Table 6.2 (cont.)
STATION
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ANACOSTIA RIVER
CHOPTANK RIVER
CHOPTANK RIVER-
CHOPTANK RIVER -
CHOPTANK RIVER -
-AR1(50)
-AR2(51)
-AR3(52)
- AR4 (53)
- AR5 (54)
- AR6 (55)
- CR59 (56)
CR61 (57)
CR62 (58)
CR63 (59)
1998
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
O
8-45
-------
Figure 3.1. Choptank River sites from 1998 Ambient Toxicity study.
Chesapeake
Bay
8-46
-------
Figure 3.2. Anacostia River sites from 1998 Ambient Toxicity study.
(/) O
so
8-47
-------
Figure 6.1 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 water column data. (See Section
3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Indian Head
5 40-I
| 30 J
j. 20-!
I10'
0'
Reference Test
Freestone Point
50
;340l
| 30
| 10
0
Reference Test
Possum Point
£30J
§ 10
0
Reference Test
Dahlgren
.20!
)
0
Reference Test
Patapsco River
Reference Test
Wye River
I 1
Reference Test
Morgantown
Reference Test
Elizabeth River
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 C 1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-48
-------
Figure 6.2 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
| 30
o 2°
I 10
0
Patapsco River
Reference Test
50
£ 40
1 30
^20
Dahlgren
T
Reference Test
Wye River
>,
o
o
F
1)
1
50
40
30
20
10
n-
..
*
B
, ,
Reference Test
Morgantown
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-49
-------
Figure 6.3 Toxicity Index results for the 1992-1993 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Wilson Point
g 30 \
5 20
I 10
0
Reference Test
Frog Mortar
>- 40
I 3°
^ 20
-40
'§30
u. 20
u
I 10
0
Reference Test
50
£-40
I 30.
S20
I 10
0
Bivalve
Reference Test
Sandy Hill Beach
50 y
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 1-2 -03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-50
-------
Figure 6.4a
Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for the
Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers. (See Section 3.4 for a
detailed description of presentation.)
50
£-40
O
| 30
S20
I 10
0
South Ferry
Betterton
Reference Test
50
Junction Route 50
30
u. 20 ^
1>
| 10
0
Reference Test
50
|40
S20
Annapolis
Reference Test
110
0
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WQC
O 0 C 1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-51
-------
Figure 6.4b Toxicity Index results for the 1994 water column data for
Baltimore Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for a detailed
description of presentation.)
.Northwest Harbor
2- 40
'I 30
w 20
' -
-------
Figure 6.5 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Pamunkey Below
York River Above
20
10
*
B
Reference Test
Pamunkey Above
I ği
Reference Test
James River Above
50
$ 40
*
Ed
Reference Test
James River Below
SOT
Reference Test
Reference Test
York River Below
Reference Test
Willoughbv Bav
Reference Test
Lynnhaven River
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C 1-2 03+
Reference Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-53
-------
Figure 6.6 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
£40
'o
'isoj
.20
IlO
0
Chalk Point
Reference Test
50
£40
3= 10
Buzzard Island
Reference Test
Jack Bay
50
£ 40
30
10
0
Reference Test
Broomes Island
50
'§30
u.20
4)
IlO-
0
Reference Test
CH6
'§30
U
IlO
0
Reference Test
CHS
50
.-40
|30
S20
IlO
A
a
*
Reference Test
50
£40
'G
^30
S20
§ 10
0
CH4
Reference Test
CH2
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 O 1-2 03+
50
2-40
O
'§30
.20
lio-
'3
*
Ed
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-54
-------
Figure 6.7 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
South River-1
Elizabeth River-EL
50
£> 40
u
'I 30
S 20
C3
^ 10
0
*
B
Reference Test
South River-2
50
>,40
| 30
S 20
0 Reference Test
South River-3
| 30
a 20
s:
10
0
B
Reference Test
South River-4
>. 40
I 30
I 20
^ 10
0
Elizabeth River-SB
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding WCQ
O 0 f)1-2 3+
bU
I ^^
>. 40! : ^B
I30 .'
a 20-|
*,,.
Reference
*
B
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-55
-------
Figure 6.8a
Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
WASHINGTON
Anacostia River-1
50
$40
| 30
!2(H
$ 10
o-
Reference Test
Anacostia River-3
3U
$40
,§30
r~
I 10
I
*
Anacostia River-5
50|
I
>>40J
'S 301
*"" S
CJ '
^3 '
510|
I
*
Q
0"
Reference Test
Anacostia River-2
Reference Test
Anacostia River-4
0 Reference Test
Anacostia River-6
n;
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-56
-------
Figure 6.8b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 water column data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Choptank River-59
Choptank River-62
£40
I 30
10
0
Reference Test
Choptank River-61
£40
'§ 30
"a
£ 10"
o
Reference Test
Reference Test
Choptank
\ o
40
20
10
1
*
River-63
*
Reference Test
Lynnhiven
ORFOLK'.J
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-57
-------
Figure 6.9 Summary of water column Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values
(closed circles). The results are for the least toxic half of the sites in the data set (see Figure 6.10 for remainder of ranked data). Also
shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit
observed for any reference during the study and is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided
in Table 6.1.
100
o
Q.
-a
c
UJ
*-ğ
c
ro
o
V-
'c
en
>D
O^
00 ğ_
00 X
0)
TJ
C
o
'x
o
H-
§
i_
0)
D.
80
60
40
D
D
D
DD
-D----D-
D
D
D
20
Ref.UCL
16 17 19 3 31 10 33 13 24a 29 18b 5 39
4 15b 24c 2
Sites
51 20 6b 1 25 53 32 28 55 21
9 14 34 26
-------
Mgure o.iu summary or waier cuiumn
(closed circles). The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set (see Figure 6~.9 for remainder of'ranked data).' Also
shown are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying
significant differences from the references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit
observed for any reference during the study and is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided
in Table 6.1.
100
C
'5 80
Q.
C
ra
o
o>
60
o>
-a
c 40
a
a
D
a
an a
a a
a n a a n a a
DD
n
U-l LJ L_J r|
n an
,.
n ° PillU+M
^++rT
41 23 38 15a 6a 22 30 27 35 59 57 56 58 50 24b 18a 7 43 36 47 37 48 46 11 49 12 45 44 42 54 8 52
Sites
-------
Figure 6.11 Toxicity Index results for the 1990 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Indian Head
Patapsco River
£
^40-
fso.
§20-
I10
(3
*
Freestone Point
Reference
Test
Possum Point
50
040
f3°
§20
Reference
Test
Dahlgren
50
140
§20
£
o40 .
^30.
§20 -
i10 '
n -
(3
*
~~~~
Reference Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 1-2 0
Reference
Test
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-60
-------
Figure 6.12 Toxicity Index results for the 1991 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 1-2 0
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-61
-------
Figure 6.13
Toxicity Index results for 1992-1993 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Wilson Point
Frog Mortar
-10
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C 1-2 3+
:Test is significantly separated from reference
8-62
-------
Figure 6.14a Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data
from the Severn, Magothy and Sassafras Rivers.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation.)
South Ferry
Reference
Junction Route 50
Betterton
Test
Turner Creek
Reference
Test
Gibson Island
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 1-2 3+
Reference
Test
*Test is significantly separated from reference
8-63
-------
Figure 6.14b
Toxicity Index results for the 1994 sediment data
from Baltimore Harbor sites. (See Section 3.4 for
a detailed description of presentation.)
Northwest
100
Bear Creek
Reference
Test
Reference
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
0-0 -1-2 -3+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-64
-------
Figure 6.15 Toxicity Index results for the 1995 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of
presentation.)
Pamunkey Below
York River Above
Reference
Test
Pamunkey Above
"c
o 20
"i 10 1
0
Reference
Test
James River Above
3O -
2O -
1O -
O
-10
Reference
Test
James River Below
SO T
20-
1O -
O
York River Below
Reference
Test
Location Symbol Key
o
-10
Reference
Test
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 1-2 03+
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-65
-------
Figure 6.16 Toxicity Index results for the 1996 sediment data.
(See Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Chalk Point
CH6
Reference
Test Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 1-2 03+
Reference
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-66
-------
Figure 6.17 Toxicity Index results for the 1997 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
South River-1
Elizabeth River-El
50
I 10-
Reference
Location Symbol Key
Test ~ -7 "~7 Reference
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 Cl-2 03 +
Test
* Test is significantly separated from reference
8-67
-------
Figure 6.18a
Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
Anacostia River-1
50
30-
§20-
llO
CO
0
Reference Test
Anacostia River-3
5 40
laol
1 20
3 10
on
Reference Test
Anacostia River-5
50
>,
:s40
x
t230
I20
llO
Lfl
0
Reference Test
WASHINGTON
Anacostia River-2
Reference Test
Anacostia River-4
Reference Test
Anacostia River-6
T
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 C1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-68
-------
Figure 6.18b Toxicity Index results for the 1998 sediment data. (See
Section 3.4 for a detailed description of presentation.)
50
>^
:! 40
§ 20
1 10-
Cfl
Choptank River-59
Choptank River-62
Reference Test
Choptank River-61
50
Reference Test
Reference Test
Choptank River-63
Reference Test
Location Symbol Key
Concentrations Exceeding ER-M
O 0 f)1-2 03+
Test is significantly separated from reference
8-69
-------
Figure 6.19 Summary of sediment Toxicity Index results for 1990-1998. The sites are ranked according to median Toxicity Index values (closed
circles). The results are for the least toxic half of the sites in the data set (see Figure 6.20 for remainder of ranked data). Also shown
are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying significant
differences from the references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit observed for any
reference during the study and is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided in Table 6.2.
100
oo
80
60
40
o
Q.
~a
c.
LU
*-ğ
C
TO
O
4
'c
D)
X
Q)
TJ
C
x
o
C
0)
o
CD
Q.
^^yftEttiAiifcigiakiiiki^ 41
SPPl^W HBT^KJ ^
33 12 45 13 30 14 21 24c 25 44 56 58 59 29 57 55 11 28 47 27 18a 49 24a 50 26 20 9 46 17 41 23 54
Sites
a
-------
00
circles). The results are for the most toxic half of the sites in the data set (see Figure 6.19~for remainder of ranked data) Also shown
are the 95% confidence limits for the Toxicity Index values (vertical bars) and the percentage of endpoints displaying significant
differences from the references (open squares). The dashed horizontal line is the maximum upper confidence limit observed for any
reference during the study and is included as a general benchmark. The identities of the site numbers are provided in Table 6 2
100
c
'o
Q.
TJ
C
111
-f-*
C
ro
o
D)
X
0)
TJ
C
O
'x
o
H-
c
CD
O
CD
Q.
80
60
40
20
Ref.UCL
38 6a 48 43 51 18b 5 52 40 39 31 35 24b 15b 53 42 34 22 16 6b 15a 3 19 10 36 37 2 7 32 1
Sites
-------
APPENDIX A
Water quality conditions reported in test chambers during all water column tests. Test species
were Cyprinodon variegatus (Cv), Eurytemora affinis (Ea) and Mulinia lateralis (Ml).
-------
Date Test Station
Species
9/29/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
9/29/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
9/30/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
DO
(mg/L)
7.2
6.0
5.0
5.6
5.5
5.9
6.6
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.2
6.0
5.0
5.6
5.5
5.9
6.6
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.1
5.9
6.2
6.3
6.3
Sal(ppt)
16
15
15
15
17
15
16
15
14
14
15
16
15
15
15
17
15
16
15
14
14
15
15
15
15
14
pH
7.82
7.80
7.92
7.97
7.92
7.89
7.97
7.80
7.95
7.86
7.88
7.82
7.80
7.92
7.97
7.92
7.89
7.97
7.80
7.95
7.86
7.88
7.62
7.90
7.91
7.98
T(C)
23.7
25.0
26.6
26.2
27.0
25.1
26.3
25.2
24.7
24.8
25.6
23.7
25.0
26.6
26.2
27.0
25.1
26.3
25.2
24.7
24.8
25.6
26.0
25.4
25.5
25.6
A-l
-------
Date Test Station
Species
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
9/30/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/1/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
DO
(mg/L)
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
7.1
9.6
9.2
10.0
9.4
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.1
9.0
8.8
6.2
7.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.0
6.8
Sal(ppt)
17
14
15
15
14
14
15
16
15
15
14
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
14
13
17
15
14
14
pH
7.97
7.95
8.03
7.79
7.82
7.88
7.92
8.46
8.40
8.53
8.38
8.46
8.40
8.55
8.58
8.47
8.48
8.42
7.55
7.87
7.77
7.83
7.88
7.86
7.93
7.73
T(C)
25.6
25.9
26.2
26.2
25.6
25.4
26.2
26.3
26.3
26.0
26.3
25.9
26.0
26.3
24.9
25.7
26.0
26.2
25.7
25.4
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.9
25.4
25.6
A-2
-------
Date Test Station
Species
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/1/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/2/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/2/98 Ea Control
DO
(mg/L)
7.0
6.9
7.3
9.0
10.9
11.3
11.5
11.2
10.8
11.1
9.5
9.7
9.3
9.1
5.9
5.9
5.4
4.9
4.8
5.0
7.2
5.9
6.4
6.6
7.1
8.3
Sal (ppt)
14
14
14
16
14
15
14
17
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
17
14
16
15
14
14
15
15
pH
7.71
7.74
7.84
8.50
8.64
8.72
8.76
8.62
8.58
8.65
8.53
8.58
8.50
8.55
7.44
7.74
7.69
7.66
7.73
7.71
7.98
7.54
7.59
7.70
7.79
8.34
T(C)
25.4
25.3
25.5
25.6
26.3
25.4
26.0
25.4
25.5
25.1
25.4
25.3
25.4
25.7
24.9
24.8
25.0
24.6
25.0
24.7
24.8
24.9
24.6
24.8
24.9
24.8
A-3
-------
Date Test Station
Species
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/2/98 Ml Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/3/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
DO
(mg/L)
11.5
11.9
12
12.6
12.2
11.6
10.0
9.6
9.8
9.0
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.4
6.3
6.2
5.9
6.1
5.6
Sal (ppt)
14
15
14
17
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
14
16
15
14
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
PH
8.85
8.89
8.99
8.83
8.77
8.69
8.67
8.57
8.61
8.59
7.95
7.91
7.94
7.91
7.94
8.07
7.99
7.94
7.72
7.88
7.78
7.47
7.65
7.65
7.69
7.68
T(C)
25.2
24.9
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.0
25.2
24.9
25.2
25.7
25.4
25.4
25.5
25.4
25.9
25.4
25.6
25.4
25.3
25.5
25.0
25.0
25.1
25.0
24.8
A-4
-------
Date Test Station
Species
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/3/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/4/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
DO
(mg/L)
5.9
6.8
6.1
5.8
6.3
6.3
7.4
9.2
9.4
10.4
8.7
10.0
9.3
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.3
5.7
5.7
5.6
6.2
5.2
5.2
7.5
5.9
6.3
Sal(ppt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
14
pH
7.82
7.97
7.52
7.42
7.55
7.54
8.18
8.77
8.77
8.87
8.70
8.74
8.68
8.48
8.36
8.44
8.47
7.43
7.76
7.67
7.78
7.72
7.80
8.11
7.50
7.56
T(C)
25.0
25.1
25.2
24.8
24.9
25.2
25.4
25.6
25.4
25.8
25.3
25.4
25.6
25.3
25.1
25.4
25.8
25.4
24.7
25.1
24.9
24.9
25.1
25.2
25.0
24.6
A-5
-------
Date Test Station
Species
CR-62
CR-63
10/4/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/4/98 Ml Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/5/98 Cv Control
AR-1
DO
(mg/L)
6.3
6.9
7.1
9.4
9.8
8.9
10.4
9.5
-
8.3
8.8
7.6
8.5
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.8
7.1
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.0
5.8
5.5
Sal (ppt)
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
16
-
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
14
14
15
14
pH
7.62
7.66
8.01
8.64
8.71
8.73
8.69
8.68
-
8.37
8.37
8.29
8.41
7.77
7.87
7.87
7.85
7.91
8.02
7.97
7.80
7.70
7.76
7.63
7.46
7.65
T(C)
24.9
25.2
25.7
26.0
25.4
26.2
25.7
25.6
-
25.4
25.6
25.6
26.0
25.3
25.1
25.4
25.4
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.4
25.3
25.2
25.7
25.2
A-6
-------
Date Test Station
Species
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/5/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/6/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
DO
(mg/L)
5.8
6.7
5.0
6.3
6.3
6.2
5.9
6.6
8.1
7.1
10.8
11.5
10.5
11.1
11.9
11.5
8.00
8.6
8.1
8.8
6.3
5.6
6.5
6.1
5.4
5.5
Sal(ppt)
14
14
14
16
15
15
14
15
15
15
14
15
14
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
pH
7.64
7.71
7.62
7.85
7.90
7.57
7.29
7.56
7.98
8.00
8.80
8.87
8.88
8.77
8.87
8.90
8.28
8.46
8.26
8.48
7.61
7.80
7.79
7.82
7.73
7.93
T(C)
25.4
25.2
25.3
25.3
25.6
25.6
25.4
25.5
25.8
25.4
26.4
25.4
26.4
25.7
25.5
26.4
25.5
25.6
25.7
26.1
25.4
25.3
25.5
25.2
25.2
25.2
A-7
-------
Date Test Station
Species
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/6/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
10/7/98 Cv Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
DO
(mg/L)
6.8
6.0
4.9
6.4
7.2
6.5
10.0
9.9
10.0
8.9
9.5
11.0
8.2
8.1
9.1
8.4
5.7
6.0
5.4
5.6
4.1
6.1
6.8
7.5
6.1
7.5
Sal(ppt)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
PH
7.99
7.44
7.45
7.64
7.97
7.86
8.57
8.54
8.52
8.49
8.46
8.67
8.34
8.29
8.07
8.33
7.69
7.87
7.75
7.77
7.64
7.88
8.02
7.88
7.61
8.02
T(C)
25.4
25.4
24.8
25.2
25.3
25.5
25.5
25.6
25.4
25.3
24.9
25.6
25.4
25.1
25.4
25.2
25.8
25.5
25.1
25.2
25.3
25.2
25.4
25.2
25.3
25.3
A-8
-------
Date Test Station
Species
CR-63
10/7/98 Ea Control
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR-59
CR-61
CR-62
CR-63
DO
(mg/L)
8.4
6.4
10.0
8.5
9.5
8.3
9.0
10.9
8.6
9.0
8.2
8.4
Sal (ppt)
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
pH
8.41
7.96
8.78
8.48
8.51
8.34
8.58
8.93
8.43
8.37
8.18
8.53
T(C)
25.6
26.2
26.3
25.9
26.3
25.7
25.9
26.3
25.8
26.2
24.6
26.1
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of fish species by station and gear type. Total abundance for each species at all stations
is also presented.
-------
STfAltOtf
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
mwm
Alewife
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Golden shiner
Pumpkinseed
Spottail shiner
Striped Bass
Tessellated darter
White perch
White sucker
Yellow perch
Alewife
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Golden shiner
Spottail shiner
White perch
Alewife
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Brown bullhead
warn CATCH
m&mcA?cH I
6
54
9
7
1
4
127
1
1
6
1
1
2
2
1
156
7
13
1
18
7
7
34
354
1
B-l
-------
STATION
AR-4
AR-5
AR-6
CR59
&$£&
Channel catfish
Hogchoker
Pumpkinseed
Spottail shiner
Tesselated darter
White perch
Alewife
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Gizzard shad
Spottail shiner
White perch
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
White perch
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Channel catfish
Spottail shiner
Tessellated darter
White perch
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Mummichog
Spot
Striped anchovy
£U1$1 CATCH
787
2
6
12
1
mAWL CATCH I
2
1
4
64
1
5
1
56
1
1
1
2
6
2
3
13
2
3
3
1
5
17
B-2
-------
STATION
CR61
CR62
CR63
$P$H&
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Bay anchovy
Spotted seatrout
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic silverside
Banded killifish
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Mummichog
Skillet fish
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
White perch
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Mummichog
Skilletfish
Spot
Striped bass
White perch
£M& CATCH
49
24
14
1
9
7
780
3
1
109
2
40
50
86
1738
75
1738
1
12
1
10
38
286
tium CATCH 1
148
1
1
151
1
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Water quality measurements, sediment composition, species abundances, species biomass and B-
IBI metric values and scores for each site.
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
I
| Watershed: Anacostia River
| Gear: Young Grab
Station: AR1
Habitat: Tidal Freshwater
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: September 16, 1998
Time: 8:30
I
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 2.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1):
5.9
Salinity (ppt): 0.20
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 66.42
Temperature (C): 25.20
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
n
| B-IBI Score: 3.00
Condition: Meets Goal
# Attributes Scored: 6
| Value Score
| Shannon-Weiner Index 2.76 Pollution Indicative Species
| Abundance (#/m2) 3477 5 Pollution Indicative Species
| Biomass (g/m2) 0.51 3 Pollution Sensitive Species
| Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%) 22.88 Pollution Sensitive Species
| Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%) 77.12 3 Freshwater Tolerance Score
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
Value
98.69
5.75
0.00
0.00
8.94
37.91
Score |
1 I
I
I
I
3 I
3 I
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
I
| Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete
| Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete
| Coelotanypus spp.
| Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
| Dero spp.
| Procladius spp.
| Ilyodrilus templetoni
| Limnodrilus cervix (typ)
| Aulodrilus pigueti
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev Min
955
818
568
409
227
182
136
91
45
954.5
818.2
568.2
409.1
227.3
181.8
136.4
90.9
45.5
955
818
568
409
227
182
136
91
45
Max
955
818
568
409
227
182
136
91
45
Cum % |
27.3 |
50.6 |
66.9 |
78.6 |
85.1 |
90.3 |
94.2 |
96.8 |
98.1 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: AR1 Contd.)
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd. |
I
| Tanypus spp.
| Hirudinea
| Total Abundance
| Number of Taxa
I
V !
SJ
| Oligochaeta
| Coelotanypus spp.
| Chironomidae larvae
| Hirudinea
| Total Biomass
| Rep 1
| 45
| 23
| 3500
I 9
BENTHIC BIOMASS
| Rep 1
| 0.4795
| 0.0295
| 0 . 0045
| 0.0011
| 0.5148
| Mean Std.Dev
| 45.5
| 22.7
| 3500.0
| 9.0
(Grams per sq. meter)
| Mean Std.Dev
| 0 . 4795
| 0.0295
| 0.0045
| 0.0011
| 0.5148
Min
45
23
3500
9
Min
0 . 4795
0.0295
0.0045
0.0011
0.5148
Max
45
23
3500
9
Max
0.4795
0.0295
0.0045
0.0011
0.5148
Cum %
99.4
100.0
11
Cum %
93.2
98.9
99.8
100.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
1
| Watershed: Anacostia River
| Gear: Young Grab
Station: AR2
Habitat: Tidal Freshwater
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: September
Time: 9:10
I
16, 1998 |
I
| BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT |
| Depth (m): 5.0
| Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 5.8
Salinity (ppt): 0.20
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) : 90.83
Temperature (C)
: 25.31 |
I
| BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY |
| B-IBI Score: 3.00
1
| Shannon-Weiner Index
| Abundance (#/m2)
| Biomass (g/m2)
| Carnivore -Omnivore Abundance (%)
| Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
1
Value
3.06
1705
0.73
26.67
62.67
Condition: Meets Goal
Score
Pollution Indicative
5 Pollution Indicative
3 Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Sensitive
5 Freshwater Tolerance
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Score
Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
1
| Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete
| Coelotanypus spp.
| Branchiura sowerbyi
| Limnodrilus udekemianus
| Corbicula fluminea
| Limnodrilus cervix (typ)
| Procladius spp.
| Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
| Ilyodrilus templetoni
| Rep 1
| 318
| 295
| 250
| 227
| 182
| 136
| 136
I 91
| 45
| Mean
| 318.2
| 295.5
| 250.0
| 227.3
| 181.8
| 136.4
| 136.4
| 90.9
| 45.5
Std.Dev Min
318
295
250
227
182
136
136
91
45
Value Score |
89.33 1 |
52.40 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.52 3 |
45.33 1 |
I
Max Cum % |
318 18.7 |
295 36.0 |
250 50.7 |
227 64.0 |
182 74.7 |
136 82.7 |
136 90.7 |
91 96.0 |
45 98.7 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: AR2 Contd.)
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cryptochironomus spp.
Total Abundance
Number of Taxa
Branchiura sowerbyi
Oligochaeta
Coelotanypus spp.
Corbicula fluminea
Chironomidae larvae
Total Biomass
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 23
| 1705
I 9
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 0.3500
| 0.3273
| 0.0341
| 0.0205
| 0.0011
| 0.7330
ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd. |
| Mean
| 22.7
| 1704.5
| 9.0
BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Mean
| 0.3500
| 0.3273
| 0.0341
| 0.0205
| 0.0011
| 0.7330
Std.Dev Min
23
1705
9
Std.Dev Min
0.3500
0.3273
0.0341
0.0205
0.0011
0.7330
Max
23
1705
9
Max
0.3500
0.3273
0.0341
0.0205
0.0011
0.7330
Cum %
100.0
10
Cum %
47.8
92.4
97.1
99.8
100.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
Watershed: Anacostia River
Gear: Young Grab
Station: AR3
Habitat: Tidal Freshwater
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
Date: October 30, 1998
Time: 10:10
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Depth (m): 1.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1):
9.5
Salinity (ppt): 0.20
Sediment Silt-Clay (%): 35.09
Temperature (C): 15.08
BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
a
vl,
B-IBI Score: 1.33
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Severely Degraded
Value
1.95
18273
7.29
18.78
81.09
Score
1
3
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
Freshwater Tolerance Score
Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
# Attributes Scored: 6
Value Score
99.88 1
16.84
0.00
0.00
9.75 1
68.66 1
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
I
| Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete
| Chironomus spp.
| Dero spp.
| Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
| Branchiura sowerbyi
| Limnodrilus cervix (typ)
| Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete
| Limnodrilus udekemianus
| Quistadrilus multisetosus
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
10818
3341
1364
1091
455
455
364
182
91
10818.1
3340.9
1363.6
1090.9
454.5
454.5
363.6
181.8
90.9
Min
10818
3341
1364
1091
455
455
364
182
91
Max
10818
3341
1364
1091
455
455
364
182
91
Cum % |
59.2 |
77.5 |
85.0 |
90.9 |
93.4 |
95.9 |
97.9 |
98.9 |
99.4 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: AR3 Contd.)
n
1
1
| Polypedilum halterale
| Chaoborus punctipennis
| Corbicula fluminea
| Total Abundance
| Number of Taxa
1
1
| Corbicula fluminea
| Oligochaeta
| Branchiura sowerbyi
| Chironomidae larvae
| Chaoborus punctipennis
| Total Biomass
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 68
| 23
| 23
| 18273
I H
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 4.0704
| 1.6409
| 1 . 2273
| 0.3460
| 0.0023
| 7.2869
ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd. |
| Mean
| 68.2
| 22.7
| 22.7
| 18272.7
| 11.0
BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Mean
4 . 0704
1 . 6409
1 . 2273
0.3460
0.0023
| 7.2869
Std.Dev Min
68
23
23
18273
11
Std.Dev Min
4 . 0704
1.6409
1.2273
0.3460
0.0023
7.2869
Max
68
23
23
18273
11
Max
4.0704
1 . 6409
1 . 2273
0 . 3460
0 . 0023
7.2869
Cum %
99.8
99.9
100.0
12
Cum %
55.9
78.4
95.2
100.0
100.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Watershed: Anacostia River
Gear: Young Grab
Depth (m): 2.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 7.4
B-IBI Score: 1.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete
Procladius spp.
Total Abundance
Number of Taxa
Station: AR4
Habitat: Tidal Freshwater Date: August 26, 1998
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m Time: 11:57
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Salinity (ppt): 0.20 Temperature (C) : 27.60
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) : 92.22
BENTHIC
INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Condition: Severely Degraded # Attributes Scored: 6 |
Value
1.00
45
0.00
50.00
50.00
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 23
| 23
| 45
I 2
Score
Pollution Indicative Species Abundance (%)
1 Pollution Indicative Species Biomass (%)
1 Pollution Sensitive Species Abundance (%)
Pollution Sensitive Species Biomass (%)
1 Freshwater Tolerance Score
Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Mean Std.Dev Min
| 22.7 23
| 22.7 23
| 45.5 45
| 2.0 2
Value
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.55
50.00
Max
23
23
45
2
Score |
1 I
I
I
I
1 I
1 I
I
Cum % |
50.0 |
100.0 |
I
2 I
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES (Station: AR4 Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev Min Max Cum %
Chironomidae larvae | 0.0011 | 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 50.0
Oligochaeta | 0.0011 | 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 100.0
Total Biomass I 0.0023 I 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023
n
oo
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
| Station: AR5 |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
Watershed: Anacostia River
Gear: Young Grab
Depth (m): 3.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 9.0
B-IBI Score: 2.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Habitat:
Tidal Freshwater
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM
Salinity
Sediment
BENTHIC INDEX
Condition
Value Score
2.05
1636 5
10.83 1
5.56
93 . 06 1
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt): 0.20
Silt-Clay (%) : 98.20
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
: Severely Degraded
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
Freshwater Tolerance Score
Date: October 30
Time: 10:38
Temperature (C) :
,1998 |
I
I
15.53 |
I
I
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
Value Score |
90.28 1 |
6.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.98 3 |
63.89 1 |
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete
Aulodrilus pigueti
Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete
Branchiura sowerbyi
Coelotanypus spp.
Dero spp.
Limnodrilus udekemianus
Quistadrilus multisetosus
| Rep 1
| 1000
| 136
| 136
| 114
I 91
| 45
| 45
| 45
| Mean Std.Dev Min
| 1000.0
| 136.4
| 136.4
| 113.6
| 90.9
| 45.5
| 45.5
| 45.5
1000
136
136
114
91
45
45
45
Max Cum % |
1000 61.1 |
136 69.4 |
136 77.8 |
114 84.7 |
91 90.3 |
45 93 . 1 |
45 95 . 8 |
45 98.6 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: AR5 Contd.)
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd. |
I I
| Corbicula fluminea |
| Total Abundance |
| Number of Taxa |
I
I I
| Corbicula fluminea |
| Branchiura sowerbyi |
| Oligochaeta |
| Coelotanypus spp. |
| Total Biomass |
Rep 1
23
1636
9
BENTHIC BIOMASS
Rep 1
9.8227
0.6159
0.3591
0.0341
10.8318
| Mean Std.Dev
| 22.7
| 1636.4
| 9.0
(Grams per sq. meter)
| Mean Std.Dev
| 9.8227
| 0.6159
| 0.3591
| 0.0341
| 10.8318
Min
23
1636
9
Min
9.8227
0.6159
0.3591
0.0341
10.8318
Max
23
1636
9
Max
9.8227
0.6159
0.3591
0.0341
10.8318
Cum %
100.0
9
Cum %
90.7
96.4
99.7
100.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Watershed: Anacostia River
Gear: Young Grab
Depth (m): 3.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 6.6
B-IBI Score: 1.67
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Station: AR6
Habitat: Tidal Freshwater
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM
Salinity
Sediment
BENTHIC INDEX
Condition
Value Score
1.70
2091 5
0.28 1
5.43
94.57 1
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt): 0.20
Silt-Clay (%) : 95.34
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
: Severely Degraded
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Indicative Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
Pollution Sensitive Species
Freshwater Tolerance Score
Date: August 26
Time: 11:32
Temperature (C)
, 1998
: 27.45
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
Abundance (%)
Biomass (%)
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
Value
100.00
9.64
0.00
0.00
9.62
84.78
Score |
1 I
I
I
I
1 I
1 I
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Imm, Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete |
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri |
Branchiura sowerbyi |
Imm. Tubificid w/ Cap. Chaete |
Coelotanypus spp. |
Limnodrilus udekemianus |
Polypedilum halterale |
Rep 1
1364
364
114
91
45
45
45
| Mean Std.Dev Min
| 1 363 . 6
| 363.6
| 113.6
| 90.9
| 45.5
| 45.5
| 45.5
1364
364
114
91
45
45
45
Max
1364
364
114
91
45
45
45
Cum % |
65.2 |
82.6 |
88.0 |
92.4 |
94.6 |
96.7 |
98.9 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: AR6 Contd.)
1
1
| Procladius spp.
| Total Abundance
| Number of Taxa
1
1
| Oligochaeta
| Branchiura sowerbyi
| Coelotanypus spp.
| Chironomidae larvae
| Total Biomass
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 23
| 2091
I 7
BENTHIC
| Rep 1
| 0 . 2545
| 0.0250
| 0.0023
| 0.0011
| 0.2830
ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
| Mean Std.Dev
| 22.7
| 2090.9
| 7.0
BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Mean Std.Dev
| 0.2545
| 0.0250
| 0.0023
| 0.0011
| 0.2830
Min
23
2091
7
Min
0.2545
0.0250
0 . 0023
0.0011
0.2830
Max
23
2091
7
Max
0.2545
0.0250
0.0023
0.0011
0.2830
Cum %
100.0
8
Cum %
90.0
98.8
99.6
100.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
I Station: CR59 |
| Watershed: Choptank River
| Gear: Young Grab
1
| Depth (m): 6.6
| Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 7.4
1
| B-IBI Score: 2.33
|
| Shannon-Weiner Index
| Abundance (#/m2)
| Biomass (g/m2)
| Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
| Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Habitat:
High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM
Salinity
Sediment
BENTHIC INDEX
Condition
Value Score
1 .74 1
6341 1
1.00 3
4.66 1
11.11
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt): 12.00
Silt -Clay (%) : 92.25
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
: Degraded
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Sensitive
Freshwater Tolerance
Date: September
Time: 16:13
Temperature (C)
10, 1998 |
I
I
: 22.77 |
I
I
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Score
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
Value Score |
10.75 |
2.27 5 |
2.87 |
34.28 3 |
9.80 |
2.87 |
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
1 1
| Leptocheirus plumulosus |
| Streblospio benedicti |
| Tubificoides spp. |
| Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete |
| Macoma mitchelli |
| Heteromastus filiformis |
| Carinoma tremaphoros |
| Mulinia lateralis |
| Cyathura polita |
Rep 1
4568
409
386
182
182
136
114
91
68
| Mean
| 4568.2
| 409.1
| 386.4
| 181.8
| 181.8
| 1 36 . 4
| 113.6
| 90.9
| 68.2
Std.Dev Min
4568
409
386
182
182
136
114
91
68
Max Cum % |
4568 71.5 |
409 77.9 |
386 84.0 |
182 86.8 |
182 89.7 |
136 91.8 |
114 93 . 6 |
91 95.0 |
68 96.1 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR59 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum % |
Macoma balthica
Neanthes succinea
68
45
68.2
45.5
Sayella chesapeakea | 45 | 45.5
Glycinde solitaria | 23
22.7
Marenzelleria viridis | 23 | 22.7
Micrura leidyi | 23 | 22.7
Parahesione luteola
Total Abundance
23
22.7
6386 | 6386.3
Number of Taxa | 16 | 16.0
68
45
45
23
23
23
23
6386
16
68
45
45
23
23
23
23
6386
16
97.2
97.9
98.6
98.9
99.3
99.6
100.0
16
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma balthica
Cyathura polita
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma mitchelli
Micrura leidyi
Heteromastus filiformis
Carinoma tremaphoros
Mulinia lateralis
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Glycinde solitaria
Oligochaeta
Tubificoides spp.
0.4750
0.1568
0.0932
0.0864
0.0545
0.0295
0.0250
0.0250
0.0136
0.0136
0.0091
0.0068
0.0057
0.0045
0.4750
0.1568
0.0932
0.0864
0.0545
0 . 0295
0.0250
0.0250
0.0136
0.0136
0.0091
0.0068
0.0057
0.0045
Min
0.4750
0.1568
0.0932
0 . 0864
0.0545
0.0295
0.0250
0.0250
0.0136
0.0136
0.0091
0.0068
0.0057
0 . 0045
Max
0.4750
0.1568
0.0932
0 . 0864
0.0545
0.0295
0.0250
0.0250
0.0136
0.0136
0.0091
0.0068
0.0057
0.0045
Cum %
47.4
63.0
72.3
81 .0
86.4
89.3
91.8
94.3
95.7
97.1
98.0
98.6
99.2
99.7
I
H-"
*ğ
-------
n
i>
Ul
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR59 Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum % |
| Parahesione luteola
| Sayella chesapeakea
0.0023
0.0011
0.0023
0.0011
0.0023 0.0023 99.9 |
0.0011 0.0011 100.0 |
Total Biomass
1.0023
1.0023
1.0023
1.0023
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
n
I
| Watershed: Choptank River
| Gear: Young Grab
I
| Depth (m): 3.9
| Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 8.6
Station: CR61
Habitat: High Mesohaline Sand
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Salinity (ppt): 12.30
Sediment Silt-Clay (%) : 7.87
Date: September
Time: 15:51
Temperature (C):
I
10, 1998 |
I
I
22.03 |
I
| BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY |
| B-IBI Score: 2.00
1
| Shannon-Weiner Index
| Abundance (#/m2)
| Biomass (g/m2)
| Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
| Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Severely Degraded
Value Score
2.76 3 Pollution Indicative
2114 5 Pollution Indicative
0.49 1 Pollution Sensitive
13.98 1 Pollution Sensitive
15.05 Freshwater Tolerance
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Score
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
1
1
| Macoma mitchelli
| Streblospio benedicti
| Heteromastus filiformis
| Glycinde solitaria
| Mulinia lateralis
| Carinoma tremaphoros
| Leptocheirus plumulosus
| Hypereteone heteropoda
| Marenzelleria viridis
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter)
| Rep 1 | Mean
| 750 750.0
| 523 522.7
| 273 272.7
| 114 113.6
| 91 90.9
| 68 68.2
| 68 68.2
| 45 45.5
| 45 45.5
Std.Dev Min
750
523
273
114
91
68
68
45
45
Value Score |
32.26 1 |
47.36 |
7.53 1 |
1 7 . 93 |
9.80 |
1.08 |
I
Max Cum % |
750 35.1 |
523 59.6 |
273 72.3 |
114 77.7 |
91 81.9 |
68 85.1 |
68 88.3 |
45 90.4 |
45 92.6 |
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR61 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum %
Neanthes succinea | 45
Gemma gemma | 23
Imm. Tubificid w/o Cap. Chaete | 23
45.5
22.7
22.7
Micrura leidyi | 23 | 22.7
Sayella chesapeakea | 23
22.7
Tubificoides spp. | 23 | 22.7
Total Abundance | 2136
Number of Taxa | 15
2136.4
15.0
45
23
23
23
23
23
2136
15
45
23
23
23
23
23
2136
15
94.7
95.7
96.8
97.9
98.9
100.0
15
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
Mulinia lateralis
Heteromastus filiformis
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma mitchelli
Micrura leidyi
Glycinde solitaria
Streblospio benedicti
Hypereteone heteropoda
Neanthes succinea
Oligochaeta
Carinoma tremaphoros
Gemma gemma
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Sayella chesapeakea
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
0.2250
0.0909
0.0591
0.0364
0.0341
0.0295
0.0068
0 . 0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.2250
0.0909
0.0591
0.0364
0.0341
0.0295
0.0068
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Min
0.2250
0.0909
0.0591
0.0364
0.0341
0.0295
0.0068
0 . 0023
0 . 0023
0 . 0023
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Max
0.2250
0.0909
0.0591
0.0364
0.0341
0 . 0295
0.0068
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Cum %
45.4
63.8
75.7
83.0
89.9
95.9
97.2
97.7
98.2
98.6
99.1
99.3
99.5
99.8
Continued .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR61 Contd.)
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
0.0011 | 0.0011
0.4955 | 0.4955
Min Max Cum % |
0.0011 0.0011 100.0 |
0.4955 0.4955 |
Tubificoides spp.
Total Biomass
00
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
I
| Watershed: Choptank River
| Gear: Young Grab
I
| Depth (m): 8.9
| Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 7.8
Station: CR62
Habitat: High Mesohaline Mud
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT
Salinity (ppt): 12.00
Sediment Silt -Clay (%) : 90.41
Date: September
Time: 16:35
Temperature (C)
I
10, 1998 |
I
I
: 21.92 |
I
| BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY |
| B-IBI Score: 3.00
0 1
H- | Shannon-Weiner Index
| Abundance (#/m2)
| Biomass (g/m2)
| Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance (%)
| Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance (%)
Condition: Meets Goal
Value Score
3.05 5 Pollution Indicative
1273 3 Pollution Indicative
0.34 1 Pollution Sensitive
39.29 5 Pollution Sensitive
19.64 Freshwater Tolerance
# Attributes Scored: 6 |
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Score
| Limnodrilus spp. Abundance (%)
Value Score |
25.00 |
6 . 76 3 |
5.36 |
9.46 1 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
| BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
1
| Neanthes succinea
| Tubificoides spp.
| Streblospio benedicti
| Macoma mitchelli
| Carinoma tremaphoros
| Leptocheirus plumulosus
| Mulinia lateralis
| Glycinde solitaria
| Hypereteone heteropoda
| Rep 1 | Mean
| 273 272.7
| 250 250.0
| 205 204.5
| 159 159.1
| 114 113.6
| 68 68.2
| 68 68.2
| 45 45 . 5
| 45 45.5
Std.Dev Min
273
250
205
159
114
68
68
45
45
Max Cum % |
273 20.7 |
250 39.7 |
205 55.2 |
159 67.2 |
114 75.9 |
68 81.0 |
68 86.2 |
45 89.7 |
45 93 . 1 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR62 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum %
Americamysis almyra
23
Apocorophium lacustre | 23
Macoma balthica
23
Parahesione luteola | 23
Total Abundance | 1318
Number of Taxa | 13
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
1318.2
13.0
23
23
23
23
1318
13
23
23
23
23
1318
13
94.8
96.6
98.3
100.0
13
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Rep 1
Neanthes succinea
Macoma mitchelli
Carinoma tremaphoros
Macoma balthica
Mulinia lateralis
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides spp.
Americamysis almyra
Glycinde solitaria
Hypereteone heteropoda
Parahesione luteola
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Apocorophium lacustre
0.1386
0.0773
0.0568
0.0295
0.0136
0.0068
0.0045
0 . 0045
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
Mean Std.Dev
0.1386
0 . 0773
0.0568
0.0295
0.0136
0.0068
0.0045
0.0045
0 . 0023
0 . 0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
Min
0.1386
0.0773
0.0568
0.0295
0.0136
0.0068
0.0045
0.0045
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
Max
0.1386
0.0773
0.0568
0.0295
0.0136
0.0068
0.0045
0.0045
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0011
Cum %
40.5
63.1
79.7
88.4
92.4
94.4
95.7
97.0
97.7
98.3
99.0
99.7
100.0
o
SJ
O
Total Biomass
0.3420
0.3420
0.3420
0.3420
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
n
1
1
1
I
1
1
Station: CR63 |
Watershed: Choptank River
Gear: Young Grab
Depth (m): 7.4
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1): 8.1
Habitat:
Low Mesohaline
Sampled Area: 0.044 sq.m
BOTTOM
Salinity
Sediment
| BENTHIC INDEX
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B-IBI Score: 3.00
Shannon-Weiner Index
Abundance (#/m2)
Biomass (g/m2)
Carnivore-Omnivore Abundance
Deep Deposit Feeder Abundance
Value
1.91
2955
0.44
(%) 11.54
(%) 13.85
Condition
Score
3
3
1
ENVIRONMENT
(ppt): 11.60
Silt -Clay (%) :
77.91
Date: September
Time: 17:01
Temperature (C) :
10, 1998 |
I
I
22.94 |
I
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY |
: Meets Goal
# Attributes Scored: 5 |
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Indicative
Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Sensitive
Freshwater Tolerance
Limnodrilus
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Species Abundance (%)
Species Biomass (%)
Score
spp. Abundance (%)
Value Score |
4.62 5 |
0.78 |
6.92 |
56.66 3 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) |
1 | Rep 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Tubificoides spp.
Neanthes succinea
Heteromastus filiformis
Cyathura polita
Macoma balthica
Streblospio benedicti
Carinoma tremaphoros
Hypereteone heteropoda
| 2000
| 295
| 136
| 114
I 91
| 68
| 68
| 45
| 45
Mean
2000.0
295.5
136.4
113.6
90.9
68.2
68.2
45.5
45.5
Std.Dev Min
2000
295
136
114
91
68
68
45
45
Max Cum % |
2000 67.2 |
295 77.1 |
136 81.7 |
114 85.5 |
91 88.5 |
68 90.8 |
68 93.1 |
45 94.7 |
45 96.2 |
Continued . . .
-------
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENT AND BENTHOS, SUMMER 1998 (CRUISE 1:1998/99)
AMBIENT TOXICITY SITES
(Station: CR63 Contd.)
BENTHIC ABUNDANCE (per sq. meter) - Contd.
Rep 1
Mean Std.Dev
Min
Max Cum %
Americamysis almyra
23 | 22.7
Glycinde solitaria | 23 | 22.7
Macoma mitchelli | 23 | 22.7
Marenzelleria viridis
Mulinia lateralis
23
22.7
23 | 22.7
Total Abundance | 2977 | 2977.3
Number of Taxa
14 | 14.0
23
23
23
23
23
2977
14
23
23
23
23
23
2977
14
96.9
97.7
98.5
99.2
100.0
14
BENTHIC BIOMASS (Grams per sq. meter)
| Rep 1 | Mean Std.Dev
Macoma balthica
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Cyathura polita
Neanthes succinea
Marenzelleria viridis
Heteromastus filiformis
Americamysis almyra
Carinoma tremaphoros
Glycinde solitaria
Hypereteone heteropoda
Macoma mitchelli
Mulinia lateralis
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides spp.
0.1864
0.1659
0.0477
0.0136
0.0114
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.1864
0.1659
0.0477
0.0136
0.0114
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Min
0.1864
0.1659
0.0477
0.0136
0.0114
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Max
0.1864
0.1659
0.0477
0.0136
0.0114
0.0023
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
0.0011
Cum %
42.7
80.7
91.7
94.8
97.4
97.9
98.2
98.4
98.7
99.0
99.2
99.5
99.7
100.0
ss
S3
Total Biomass
0.4364
0.4364
0.4364
0.4364
------- |